Attacking With 1.d4 (Angus Dunnington, 2001) PDF

elntate).ale i with 1a4First published in 2001 by Everyman Publishers ple, formerly Cadogan Books ple, Gloucester Mansions, 140A Shaftesbury Avenue, London WC2H 811D Reprinted 2002 Copyright © 2001 Angus Dunnington ‘The right of Angus Dunnington to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988, All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN 1 85744 258 X Distributed in North America by The Globe Pequot Press, P.O Box 480, 246 Goose Lane, Guilford, CT 06437-0480. All other sales enquiries should be directed to Everyman Chess, Gloucester Man- sions, 140A Shaftesbury Avenue, London WC2H 8HD tel: 020 7539 7600 fax: 020 7379 4060 44.18 email: chess@everymanbooks.com website: www.everymanbooks.com EVERYMAN CHESS SERIES (formerly Cadogan Chess) Chief advisor: Garry Kasparov Commissioning editor: Byron Jacobs ‘Typeset and edited by First Rank Publishing, Brighton. Production by Book Production Services. Printed and bound in Great Britain by The Cromwell Press Ltd., Trowbridge, Wiltshire.CNN pu Ne CONTENTS Bibliography Preface Queen's Gambit Accepted with 3 ef Queen’s Gambit Declined and Slav Defences 1 d4 d5 2 4: Black’s Second Move Alternatives King’s Indian and Benoni: The Four Pawns Attack Griinfeld Defence with 4 sf4 Nimzo-Indian Defence with 4 {3 Dutch Defence Other Defences Index of Complete Games 41 67 80 101 i13 130 139 160 http://www.geocities.com/chess_sharewith_usBIBLIOGRAPHY Books. The Modern Benoni, Kinsman (Everyman 2000) The Queen’s Gambit Accepted, Ward (Batsford 1999) Beating the King’s Indian and Benoni, Vaiser (Batsford 1997) Queen's Gambit Declined, Sadler (Everyman 2000) Modern Defence, Spelman and McDonald (Everyman 2000) English Defence, King (Everyman 1999) Periodicals Informator ChessBase Magazine The Week in Chess Chess * British Chess MagazinePREFACE Ie is significant that a definition of ‘attack’ is as follows: ‘to take the initiative in agame’. 1 had this in mind when selecting the opening systems recommended in these pages, because the very nature of 1 d4 openings is such that the kingside is by no means the only sector of the board in which either side is able to engineer attacking prospects. It is a commos misconception - usually with young players — that to attack isto pressure only the opponent’s king (or the king’s defences), but a weakness is a weakness, and by concentrating on this or that vulnerable square or pawn inthe enemy camp it is possible to win a game. Nevertheless, you will notice anyway that throughout the book the lines tend to be quite aggressive, mostly with an emphasis on space, fluid development, inducing weaknesses in the enemy camp, generating an initiative ete. Above all, however, it is important that a system is sound and that specific plans and features are relatively easy to un- derstand. In order to facilixate familiarisation with major charact (eructures, areas of atiack etc.) several of the systems involve similar plans from White, and have deliber ately chesen variations that require certain moves (and move orders) 10 be employed, Additionally, for the sake of convenience, and to avoid confusion, I have altered the move orders of several games. I must stress that this snor intended to be a watertight repertotre book, rather a tool with which to help the reader open 1d with confidence. For their thoughts and advice I would like to thank fellow Yorkshiceman Richard Pal- liser and IM Andrew Kinsman (anhonorary Yorkshireman since winnin Rose Masters in 2000). IM Angus Dunnington, Castleford, June 2001CHAPTER ONE Queen‘s Gambit Accepted with 3 e4 1d4d5 2.c4 dxc4 304 Natural and popular, the QGA can be a very solid system to face. Black simply accepts the e-+pawn and reacts accordingly to White's chosen set up in the centre. Rather than allow Black restriction tactics after 3 l3 Df6 4 €3 5, for example, when White can easily seehis attacking chances fade away only to be left with an isolated d-pawn, we will concentrate exclusively on the no- nonsense 3 ¢4. This immediately erects a potentially troublesome pawn centre that Black must contest early or drift into passiv- ity. Games 1-2 see Black use knights to challenge d4 and e4 respectively, while Games 3- 4 feature two contrasting approaches beginning with 3...c3. In Games 5-6 Black adopts the traditional 3...e5. Game 1 Van Wely-V. Milov French League 1999 14d d5 2 c& dxo4 3 04 S36 ‘Obstructing the c-pawn can be justified here because White no longer has ¢2-¢3 to protect the dé-pawn. The immediate pressure is designed to induce a concession from White, while a further challenge in the centre with ...c7-¢5 is planned 428 The knee-jerk 4-d5 is also possible, when 4.2255 DH Deb 6 Bg3 057 Rxct Dio 8 Dcd 4.69 Sb5+48 is not unlike the main game. 4 Re3 is natural, when 4... 265 [3 e5 65 Dds? 7 Qxd4 exd4 8 Wxd4 69 D3 exd5 10 0-0-0 Rb4 11 Bxct Rxc3 12 bxc3 0-0 has been assessed as unclear. The variation 5 2\c3 e5 6 d5 a5 7 DES 46! 8 Wate Ad? 9 Wixa5 a6 pays very close attention to ‘White’s queen. Illescas-Sadler, Linares Z 1995 did much for the popularity of 3...De6 when Black won after 10 Mb1? Zxe4 11 ‘di c31, preventing the queen's escape. In- stead of 10 Ab1 White has 10 Dat Dxet 11 Lixe4 b5 with chances for both sides. With 4 483 White avoids these complications in 7| attacking with 1 44 i | favour of simple development, hoping to be the one who benefits most from Black’s plan. 4.6.94 5 45 i This forcing advance seems to hold more promise of an advantage than the alternative 5 Saxcd. 5..De5 6 afd Again White selects the most direct continuation. 6 Wd4 @xf3+7 gxf3 Rxf3 8 fixed 51 is another line that typifies the attraction to 3...Ac6. 6 De3 tends to transpose to the main line after 6...Af6, but it also invites Black to challenge the d5-pawn. Alier 6...e6 White can escape the pin and create one of his own with 7 Wat+Ad7 8 De5, while Kas- parov-Deep ‘I’hought, New York 1989 went 6...06 7 Sfs Age 8 he} cxd5 9 exdd De5 (9...a6 has been suggested) 10 Wd4! Dxi3+ 11 gxf3 Sxf3 12 2xc4 with the threat of S2b5+. Now 12...2\f6and 12.,.a6 make sense, rather than Deep Thoughts 12...¥id6, which met with 13 Abs Wie 14 Wes Bibs 15 Wad 6 16Dc7Htetc, * 6...Ag6 ‘The most sensible move, putting the ques tion to the bishop, 6...2d3+ 7 Lxd3 cxd3 8 Wrxd3 and 6...2ixf3+ 7 gxf3 2d7 8 Bxcd hite should avoid 7 Wat+? b5! 8 Wxb5+ c6 9 Wat Bxed with advantage to Black and instead follow the course of ZNarga-Fochtler, Agria 1992, where White was happy to trade: 7 gxf3 2d3+8 Bxd3 cxd3 9 Wxd3 c6 10 Zic3 D6 11 0-0-0 cxd5 12 W541? Wd7 13 Dxd5! Dxd5 (13...Hic8+ 14 De7+ Exe7+ 15 &xc7 Wxbs? 16 Bas mate, or 13...Hxb5? 1427 mate) 14 Wxd7+ xd? 15 Bxd5+ with aclear lead. 7 Ses Also seen is 7 &g3, after which Black can push his e-pawn either one or two squares: a) 7.26 8 Zc} e6 9 Sxc4 exd5 was the course of Xu Jun-N.Nikolic, Belgrade 1988. After 10 Sxd5!? 6 (10..Axd5 11 Zixd5 retains White's pull) 11 Wad .xf3 12 gxf3 Se7 13 &b3 0-0 14 «5 Dd7 15 Bdi Wes up White's development. After - White essayed 16 Saxi7+. ‘The game continued 16...xf7 17 6 xi3 18 exd7 WS 19 Wb3+ Wi7 20 0-0 and Black had to worry about the d7-pawn, although this does seem preferable to the bizarre 16...82x17 17 e6+ dexeb 18 Wet (18 Wyte {7 19 Bxd7 slightly favours White) 18...8f6 19 Det+ G5 20 Ddor Qxdé 21 Zixd6, e.g. 21.26 22 h4. b)7...c5 is amore natural approach, hoping to leave the g3-bishop closed out of the game. 8 Sixc4 and now: b1) 8...a6 defends the often useful (for White) b5-square but presents White with the opportunity to activate his other bishop with 9 d6¥?, e.g, 9.ucxd6 (to defend the b7- pawn next move) 10 Wb3 We? (or 10..\Wd7 11 Ags Dho 12 £3 Kh5 13 c3 with good play for the pawn) 11 3. 62) 8...2d6 keeps the position closed. 9 Sib5+ Rd? (Costa suggests preserving the light-squared bishop with 9..c{80) 10 Sxd74 Wxd7 11 Dc3 Alo 120-0 was played in Timman-Lautier, Wijk aan Zee 1994. Now the aggressive 12...h5 can be comfortably handled with 13 h4, so.the game continued 12.00 13 Hel b5 14 We2 Bibs 15 Adi! b+ 16 De? WhS 17 Bcd with an advantage to White. With 7 £3 White is able to monitor the f4-square as well as the queenside, and the bishop is free to change location. 7.05 &Queen’s Gambit Accepted with 3 ed Alter 7...2f6 8 Dc3 6 9 Kxet exd5 10 exd5 Sd6 11 2b5+ £d7 Black is doing fine. Instead 9 Wat+ Wd7 10 Wxd7+ offers White good chances: a) 10...A\xd7 takes Black's eye off 4 and 5. 11 Dd4 exd5 12 h3 5 13 Ddbs dé 14 ‘hxg4 0-0-0 has been ewaluated as unclear but the simple 14 Bc7+ looks good for White. ‘Smyslov-Fontaine, Cannes 1996 went 11 Aixcd exdd 12 Dxd5 Ld6 13 Dds 06 14 Byc3 DdeS 15 HF Ld7 16 h3 {6 17 0-0-0 Sic5 and White was ready to get his kingside pawns rolling, leaving him considerably better afer 18 f4 27 19 g3 h5 20 Fa4 26 21 £5 Dged 22 Deb Be7 23 Bacd Sixes 24 xe6 b6 25 Se2 Hh7 26 a3 h4 27 gt c5 28 5 s b) 10...82xd7 aims to connect the rooks quickly. Now 11 &xc4 exd5 120-0.00 xf3 13 gxf3 eS 14 Axd5! Dxed 15 Abs+ e6 16 xc gives White a clear advamage, but 12.88 13 exd5 Qd6 limits White to an edge. Note that recapturing with the king leaves the {7-pawn unprotected, which is why Karpov-Lautier, Melody Amber (rapid) 1997 went 11 Qg5 exd5 12 @)xf7 Bgs 13 {3 Keb 14 DgS c6 15 0.00 with pressure against d5 and on the light squares in general. 8 xed Van Wely deliberately holds back his knight rather than play the automatic 8 c3 Dio 9 Axc4, when 9...26 10 Be? Bd6 11 2d2 offers an exchange of Black's more mobile bishop. Play might continue 1L...fexe2"12 Wxe2 0.0 13 0.0 Wd? 14 13 Bic8 15 Bidt De 16 2b3 h6 17 Lact wh7 18 He2 Eeb8 19 Adel b5 as in Azmai- parashvili-Piket, Wijk aan Zee 1993. Then 20 a5 eyes the cb-square, securing White a slight advantage. 8...d6 Some players prefer to keep White out of b5 with &,..a6 here, Since the kings have yet to castle White now has a couple of plans available. a) In Aherman-N.Nikolic, Zagreb Z 1993, White decided the enemy minor pieces on the kingside made for attractive targets: 9h} d7 10 h4!? &d6 11 hd Doe? 12 h6 gxh6 and it was time for the kings to head to the queenside after 13 Dc3 Ago 14 Wd? We? 15 0-0-0 0-0-0. It is true that the pawn sacrifice has damaged Black’s structure, but Black's influence on the dark squares is significant. Consequently White turned his attention to the other wing: 16 &b1 26 17 We2 (now 17 &xh6 is okay) 17...dg8 18 Q\d?2 Aes 19 Bxa6Y bxab 20 Waab+ Sd 21 Wake ck 22 Get xed 23 fxe3 Wd7 with an odd situation in that, forthe moment, Black can do little with his extra piece. The game was eventually drawn after White was able to make inroads down the c-file, but it is interesting that the combination of the closed centre (instigated by Black) and White's space advantage afford the first player such flexibility. b) The more circumspect 90.0 will appeal to most players. Then 9...2\f6 10 te? do 11 23éd? leads to similar play to that in the note to White's 8th move should Black trade bishops, Instead Karpov-V,.Miloy, Switzer- land 1997, continued 1L...d7 12 Bc3 0-0 13 Sct We7 14 a3 b5 15 Db3 Black’s queenside expansion has left both 5 and c6 potentially weak but there is the usual dark-square grip in compensation. At tempting to alleviate the pressure with 15..c6 looks sensible but is, in fact, what White is 9Attacking with 1 d4 Attacking hoping for in this type of position, since after 16 dxe6 &xc6 17 Da5! Black learns that opening the position can leave him too vulnerable on the light squares, ¢.g. 17...S2xe4 18 Dxet Dxet 19 263 {5 20 Wd5+ Shs 21 xed fxe4, and now 22 Efd1 poses serious probleras. No doubt aware “fsuch an even- tuality Black stuck with the strategy of con: centrating on the dark squares, exploiting the closed centre to Jaunch a kingside offensive with 15...2f4 16 2 £3 dh8 (16...¢5!9) 17 @a2 5 ‘This no-nonsense thrust is consistent with the genéral plan but creates another light square weakness on {5. White, meanwhile, has yetto make a concession on the kingside, permitting him to further remind his opponent of the holes on the other flank: 18 Dc5 Mp (18...g4 19 fe2) 19 Abs Heo 20 Wer g421 Re? Bags 22 Mf (22 Dbxa6 cB 23 Db+ Doh5 24 g3) 22... D6h5 23 g3 LB 24 2yc6! (there is no need to give Black. what he wants with 24 gxf4? g3 25 hxg3 Dxg3 26 fxg3 Bxg3+) 24...We5 25 @f1 Bho 26 Wes! Die 27 @d3! (again 27 gxf42! Wh4 28 2g? exf4 29 Qd4 £3 helps only Black) 27...Wh5 28 hd! gxh3 29 Ddxe5 Hye7 30 Rxf4 Dres 31 We3 Wis 32 &xho h2+33 dxh2 Daxf2 34 xg7+ Waxy? 35 Hd4 1.0. An excellent instructive display from Karpov, highlighting the power of the traditionally under-rated queenside attack. White’s knights on c5 and 6 certainly make theic presence felt! 9 2b5+ In Smyslov-Semkov, Rome 1999, the for- mer world champion was in fighting mood. After 9 h3 247 10:4 hé 11 h5 DES 12 Dh4 De7 13 gt White was in danger of clamping down on both sides of the board. Conse- quently Black hit out with 13..b5 14.263 c6 15 @c3 b4 but 16 dxc6 Sixc6 17 Dd5 Deo 18 Hcl Bxd5 19 exd5 D820 Lat+ Ad? 21 Hec6! highlighted yet again how Black needs to be careful on the light squares. The text leads cither to an exchange of light-squared bishops that is favourable to White or a misplacement of Black’s king. 9...8f8 By now we are aware of the problems Black can face on the light squares and, with the centre closed and a number of black pieces posted on the kingside, tucking the king away on {8 is not too inconvenient. 10 0-0 Sensibly opting for quick and easy development. With Black’s rooks still waiting to get acquainted the queenside will not be easy to defend, However, White successfully left his king in the centre in readiness for the ending in LNikolaidis-Wallcesalmi, Moscow Olympiad 1994, at the same time addressing the possibility of any future counterplay on the kcingside: 10 2e2 Afe 11 Dfd2 Rd7 12 g3h5 13 h4 Des 14 Axgdl? Sxe4 15 Wh3 b6 16 Ac3 a6 17 (3 Bd7 18 Det We7 19 Dxd6 Wxd6 20 a4! gS 21 Wad Bhs 22 Wrxdb cxd6 23 we? f6 24 Bhel Bf7 25 b+ She8 26 b5 a5, and now 27 di! followed by sending the knight to c4 to attack both bé and dé kept Black busy, giving White time to switch to the kingside. 10...2f6 11 Abd2 like this idea of keeping the knight on b1 for a while. If White does not intend to offer an exchange of bishops with 2e2 and &\f3- d2, then posting the queen’s knight on d? supports the f3-knight while still protecting ed, thus freeing White’s queen. If Black retreats his bishop after an inevitable h2-h3 the 10Queen's Gambit Accepted with 3 e¢ knight already has access to c4 while, in the event of ..bZ-b5, there is Bd2-b3-a5-c6 etc. 17...45, A logical follow-up to the play thus far, the closed centre setting the scene for flank attacks, However, White need not worry about the coming offensive si enough pieces either on or near "The same cannot be said of Black’s defensive resources on the other wing. 12 We2 a6 13 Ad3 ha 14 h3 dxt3 15 @xi3 QhS 16 Hict! Agia 17 11 ‘Thisis why White sent his king’s rook to the e-file, vacating fi for the bishop in order to provide the g2-pawn with necessary extra protection. There is atemptation in this kind of situation to leave a rook near the king for defensive purposes, but here the 2-pawn is not a target. 17...5h6 18 Wib3 b6 19 Sc6 wg8 20 Bact We7 21 a4 a5 22 whi! A prophylactic measure worth remember- ing. An unwelcome major piece is sure to come to the gfile soon, when the h3-pawn will come under attack, so White takes time ‘out to unpin his g-pawn in advance, Over on the queenside Black is powerless on the light squares and, as we will soon see, rather pre- cariously placed on the dark squares. 22.96 23 Did2 Wh7 24 Ded With his kingside quite safe White has been able to conduct his queenside assault with little difficulty, culminating in considerable pressure against 66, c7 and dé. I is interesting that White's rooks, queen, knight and dark-squared bishop combine to attacks these weaknesses, while the remaining bishop plays an equally vital role in defending the kingside. 24...b4 25 dB! Ironically it is the blockade of this pawn upon which Black's strategy is based in this line. Now the c7-b6-a5 pawn chain is about to be seriously undermined, and the opening of the 22-28 diagonal for the white queen causes Black further trouble. 25...cxd6 lack’s queenside also falls apart after ixd6 26 Dxd6 exd6 27 Lxbb. 26 Dxb6 Sd8 27 Sc7 Wes 28 Wxes?! ‘There is no doubt that White stands very well after the queen exchange, but 28 Sct looks much stronger, eg. 28...d5 29 Zixd5 Gixg? 30 Aft. Nevertheless with an attack no longer a realistic prospect Black’s pieces - particularly his rook ~ look out of place on the kingside. 28...fxe6 29 L704 29 Dd? followed by Ba7 and £.b6 is not easy to meet, but White has another plan in ‘The rook rushes to re-enter the game 30 Sxb4! Despite this exchange sacrifice working ‘out well for White it would have been sim- 1Neen aaa Attacking with 1 64 plerto try and exploit the existing advantage, 30...axb4 31 a5 a. Each one of White’s pieces points to the queenside, while three of Black’s - two of them notoriously slow knights - are far away. 31...d5 32 a6 Bf7 33 Zal Ba7 34 Sxd5 Bxa6 35 Exa6 exdE 36 exd5 Sxd5 36...2ixd5 37 gs. 37 Lc4 241+ 38 Gh2 The smoke has cleared and White’s bishops sagh to give him a potentially decisive lead. 38...246 39 HaS DQg6 40 Sb5 e4 41 Exb4 De5 42 263 2d843.ig57! | White should be winning without looking for asecond pawn. A mote incisive way to use the bishops and passed pawn is 43 dt eB 44 Bb7 dogé 45 Bat Heo (45...8.a8 46 ic?) 46 bd etc. 96 44 Axh4 Bd2 45 Bb5 Dd3 46 eG Dxt2 47 215+ &h6 48 EbB g6 49 &b6 49 S.xg6 parts with the other bishop and locks preferable, e.g. 49... D6g4++ 50 hxgt wexgé 51 Bos dg7 52 digs 3 53 213 Aidt 54 bd and Whire has passed pawns on both flanks. 49...£h5 50 Zxf6 Sxh4 51 Zxg6 3 52 gd?! Tris time for 52 b4 since the e-pawn is going no further after 52...e2 53 Be6. 52...2d3 53 Eh6+ sig5 54 Beé wid 65 Ef6+ Se5 56 £18 De1 57 Hess wid 58 Ef8+ de5 59 Ef5+ wed 6 | Exg2+ 61 bhi Sxg4! 62 hxad D3 63 Cg2 e2 64 hi e1W 65 Bxel+ Axei+ 66 wg? A Game 2 Miton-Sadvakasov ‘Continental Open 2000 14 d5 2.64 dxc4 3 e4 DIG ‘This time Black hits the ef-pawn, practically forcing its advance as 4 443 e5 prom- ises White little, 405 Dd5 5 xed AbE ‘The most obvious and the most popular, putting the question to the bishop. It is also possible to insert 5...c6 6 c3 and now: a) 6...d0e6 has the nasty threat of 7...Axc3, 8 bye3 Sixc4, Hauchard Collas, Cappelle la Grande 1997 continued 7 S2b3 2)xc3 8 bxc3 &d5 when, instead of the natural 9 D3 Jhite tried the provocative 9 De2 with a view to an early eviction of Black's bishop. After 9...dixg2 10 gi Sid5 11.c4 e612 d5 Dx 13 deb DG+ 14 bit Wade 15 xd Oxgl 16 Lady c6 17 xgi fxeb White had two good pieces for a rook but was running short of pawns. Obviously such, lines require careful handling from both. sides, although I'm not convinced 6....2.e6 is worth the trouble in any case, b) 6...Ab6 7 b5 2d7 8 263 with a further branch: 12Queen's Gambit Accepted with 9 of bl) 8.06 9 2d3 Le4 10 Le 06 and Black: had developed his light-squared bishop outside his pawn centre in ‘Glek-Kozlov. Frunze 1988. However, White’s bishop stands very well on e4, monitoring squares its counterpart can no longer defend. fter 110-0 Re7 12 Re3 &Kh5 White's control of the centre gave him an edge, which remained in place after 13 d5 xe5 14 dxe6 Wadi 15 Hfxdi Zixf3+ 16 gxf3 fxe6 17 &xb7 Eb8 18 206+ Hf7 19 b3 thanks to his more active pieces and superior pawn structure. b2) 8...c6 9 0-0 Abs (9...De7 10 &d3 Sic 11 Dgs h6 12 Wh5 g6 13 Ages! Bo7 14 We4 gave White something to aim at in Beliavsky-Portisch, Thessaloniki 1984) 10 Bed Reb 113 B4d5 12 Bes There is no denying Black hasa firm grip on the d5-square! How useful this will prove is another matter, particularly if White is able to lessen the influence of acentral knight by playing ‘around’ it and exploiting his extra territory. Korneev-Arakelian, Kstovo 1994 coutinued 12..,Wd7 13 Dc5 Rxc5 14 deed Dat 15 We2 0.0.0 16 £e3!? White wants to prove that the knight on the rim is indeed ‘dim) 16...Axe3 17 fxe3 Wd5 18 Baci Wet 19 Weed Qxe4 20 b3 Ab2 21 Dd4 with a clear advantage to White. More testing is 12...40f4 13 &xf4 Qxc4, removing White's annoying knight. After 14 @g5 &c6!? 15 Bh5! g6 16 L63 Lxf3 17 Wxls Re7 18 Ded, or 16../Ad5 17 K.d2 Be7 18 Ded, the holes in Black's kingside will be a constant worry. This leaves the alternative retreat 14.296 15 23, when 15..0d5 16 Ld? Re7 17 Des 0-0 18 Wh3 Ebs 19 Bact isa shade better for White according to Huzman, while Korchnoi-Sadler, Arnhem 1999, went 15...2b8 16 Wel Le7 (16...c6!? limits White to the usual space advantage) 17 Lexb7l. Now 17...Exb7 18 Wc6+ 2d7 19 Wab7 Bxg5 20 SxpS Wxgd 21 Wa? Red 2263 is poor for Black after either 22....£d523 Wine? or 22..0d3 23 Zici We3+ 24 Phi 00 25 Byxc7 etc. Instead the game went 17...00 18 c6 Wxd4 19 243 and White stood better 6 2d3 I prefer this to the alternative 6 Sb} because without the {S-square available Black. must still solve the problem of where to develop his light-squared bishop. Nonetheless dropping buck to) is a viable option. Alice 6...Ac6 play might developas follows:7 Se} £15 8 Bc} e6 (8...Ddb4 9 WIS! Ad3+ 10 Sef rebounds on Black according to Atalik) 9 @ge2 and now: 2) 9...fe7 100-0 Wd7 11 Bg3 Bp6 12 f Gornally-ia«, British League 1997. Launching the f-pawn looks like an effective plan in this line, reminding Black who has more space and endeavouring to open the position for the light-squared bishop with d4-d5 or f4-5. Consequently Black chose to remove this bishop ~ 12...2a5 13 d5 @xb3 f 13Attacking with 1 d4 14 Wxb3! 2d3 (taking on d5 invites f4-f5, trapping the bishop) 15 Bfd1 ict 16 dxe6 Wee6 17 We2 0-0 18 Wes! and White is doing well. b) Black immediately went forthe bishop in Giorgadze-Narciso Dublan, Linares 1999. After 9...2)a5 10 Bc2 Sexe? 11 Wxe2 Re7 120-000 13 Radi Be8 White again pushed his fpawn: 14 f4 d5 15 Dxd5 Wxd5 16 D3 Web 17 £5 De4 18 Aci exis 19 Weis Web 20 H83 c6 21 Des with a slight pull. If these lines are to your liking it is worth talking a closer look at 6 Sb3, but make sure Black's control of the d5-square does not become atong-term plus. To be avoided is 6 06? Dyed 7 Wad+ Deb 8 exi7+ doxf7 9 Wixc++ Se6 etc. Returning to the popular 6 2d3, Black's task of achieving smooth development is more problematic. 6.,.406 Don’t expect too many opponemts to oblige with 6...Wixd422 7 2b5+ and the queen is lost, 7 d03 It is alittle unusual to see bishops finding posts before knights, but here the idea is to deny the c8-bishop an outing. The helpful 7 ed, for example, permits 7...dg4, whereas now both £5 and g4 remain unavailable, hence the suggestion in the note to Black's next move. 7...2.b4 This natural move is seen the most often. Black aimsto punish White’s uncompromising bishop. Two other strategies have also been tried: a) 7...8.¢6 rather stubbornly addresses the problem of the queen's bishop. After 8 2c} Black has played a number of moves: al) 8.87 9 O13 2e4 10 h3 Sxf3 11 Waf3 <6 12 Bdt 0-0-0 13 0-0 Db4 14 Ret was clearly better for White in Korchnoi- Hilbner, Tilburg 1987, Later, in Karpov- Ivanchuk, Reggio Emilia 1991, Black im- proved with 9...0-0-0 10 h3 Gb4 11 e2 £5 Ma 12 0-0 h6 13 a3 A4d5, and now 14 Del (heading for c5) gave White an edge. a2) &.Abt 9 Ret D4d5 10 Age? £5 11 exfo exfo 12 “f4 was seen in Shaked- Ibragimov, Berlin 1997. White has an isolated d-pawn that does seem well blockaded but 10...f5 has led toa positional concession involving a weakening of the light squares in Black’s camp. After 12..2xf4 13 Sixf Black’s attempt to reduce his opponent's piece activity with 13...d6 14 2xd6 Wixd6 15 &xb7 Bd8 met with 16 Whit S717 Wh5+ 2d7 18 We2+ and White was a safe pawn up. a3) 8..Dct 9 Ret Rc8 is the odd course chosen by Black in Furman-Noskov, Mos- cow 1991. White is happy to allow the capture on ¢3 in these positions because fxe3 both supports the d4-pawn and opens the & file, so Black has achieved less than nothing. In fact White struck immediately with 106, which looks like a nice alternative to the comfortable advantage that results from simple development (c.g. 10 Dge?). a4) 8.405 is a consistent follow-up to 7...Se6. Then 9 2:63 e6 10 0-6 slighdy favoured White in Salov-Hiibner, European Team Ch. 1989. Again White can ‘ignore’ the central bishop until such time that an exchange on d5 can be carried out in favourable circumstances. With Black so involved. with the d5-square he has less influence in other areas and less room in which.to manoeuvre. b) With 7...96 Black waits to determine the future of his queen’s bishop. However, I don't believe the fianchetto is appropriate here. After 8\c3 297 (8...2\b49 Ret 25 10 &xf5 gxf> is an interesting way to use 7.86, although I doubt the damage to Black” kingside structure is worth the d5- square) 9 Bige? 0-0 White has two avenues to explore. bi) 10 h4 is a blunt yet effective means with which to demonstrate that ...g7-6 is simply too risky. Faced with h4-h5 BlackQueen's Gambit Accepted with 3 e4 must seek counterplay in the centre: 10...b4 11 Ret when PortischSpraggett, Wijk aan ‘Zee 1985 continued 11...24d5? 12 h5 Kes (12...Axe3 13 fxe3 serves only to strengthen White's centre, while 12...05 13 hxg6 hxgé 14 Sh6! Sxh6 15 Hxh6 7 16 Bh2 maintains White's initiative) 13 Wel Ded (13...05 4 hxgé fxg6 15 Sh6 is dangerous) 14 Wxe3 (14 fxe382) 14.5 (14.245 15 Bxd5 Si xd5 16 hxg6 bxg6 17 fA e6 is uncomfortable for Black but at least avoids the following) 15 ds! for White, b2) 10 Bed expresses an interest in the centre rather than a kingside attack. In 'Tim- man-Korchnoi, European Team Ch. 1997, 10...\b4 11 Wb3 a5 12 f4! placed a fourth white piece within range of the crucial d5- square and consequently left Black struggling. After 12...e6 13.3 M4d5 (13...De6 14 Bd1is very pleasant tor White) 14 Afxd5 exd5 15 Sixd5 (15 Dxd5?? Se6) 15...a4 16 a2 Bas (16...Axd5 17 Wxd5) 17 Bc4 Axct 18 Wes Black did not have enough for a pawn. 8 ied 15 Now 15....2xd5:runs into 16 hxgé hxg6 17 Wh3 Bes 18 Ards Dxd5 19 e6!, eg. 19.246 20 ext7+ dexf7 21 Bxgé+! dexg6 22 @f4+, or the lesser evil 19...Wid6 20 dl free 2A dexg6, Instead the game went 15..Dixd5 16 Qxd5 Rxd5 17 000 e6 18 Als Bes (18... Wic7 19 hxgo hyg6 20 Dexd5 exdd 21 4xd5.and White dominates) and now 19 hé! SHB 20 Afxd5 exd5 21 Bxd5 We7 22 [4 would have given White a clear lead, e.g. 22...£6 23 £51 ere. Returning to Black's 11th move, 11...c3 has been suggested as an improvement. After 12 d5 £5 Black seems to be doing fine, so best is 12 dxc5. Then 12...Bixdi+ 13 @xdt Des 14 f B15 15 QxfS gxf 16 2 Add 17 13 favours White, so this leaves 12... Det 13 Wh3 Axed 14 Hxbs a5 when. both 15 Wd4 QS 16 Wxd8 Bxd8 17 Ads, (eg, 17...xe5 18 gf) and 15 Wat Dpd 16 Sixb7 Sxb7 17 Wags 2.xe5 look promising This is the thrust upon which Black’s opening strategy is based in this particular line. Black will not allow the bishop to remain in such acommanding position in the middle of the board and, in order to fight for this outpost, White must give up his ad- vanced e5-pawn. 8..\4d5 9 Aic3 c6 10 WASP provides White with a menacing set up, while after 8...c6 the game Sadler Shaw, Isle of Man 1994, continued 9 Dd2? £6 10 Defs Wa7 11 Db3 Lxb3 12 Wxb3 €6 13 0.0 Me7 14 Bfdt D4d5 15 fd? a5 16 a3 and Black was missing his bishop. 9 exté Of course White refuses to give way, and taking the pawn retains the advantage of the move. 9...exf6 10 a3 ‘The beginning of a complex and practically forced sequence that Miton treats with 15Attacking with 1 d4 some skill. The chief alternative is 10c3 {5 when the second pawn to land on f5 puts the question to the bishop. a) Karpov-Short, Linares match (3) 1992, went 11 52f3 (keeping an eye on d5 and tying the bishop down to the b7-pawn) 11.2445 12 Ad? Reb 13 Age? Wa? 14 0-0 0-0-0 15 Eel with an edge for White. Surprisingly Black’s blockade on d5 is not as secure as it first appears, as the logical 15...2ig8 16 gS He 17 Als Axf4 18 Qxl4 95 19 Re5 Le7 mecis with Curt Hansen's 20 S.xg7 Wxg7 21 d5 and White stands better. The solid 11...c6 merits attention. In Zaja-Ganguly, Istanbul Olympiad 2000 White managed to remove his opponent’s light-squared bishop after 12 Dh3 Le6 13 0.0 Ldé 14 Bet 00 15 Ags ed 16 b3 KI7 17 Dxf7 Bxf7, but then 18 a3 D4d5 19 Zxd5 Dxd5 20 Sxd5 cxd5 21 ‘W3 Wh4 was fine for Black. b) Dropping back to bi is more popular. Infact 11 &b1 only temporarily ignores the d5-square, as a later a2-a3 will offer the a2- square as an active long-range post for the bishop. After 11...24d5 12 Df3 iris Black's turn to: decide where is best for his king's bishop. ‘i bl) Timman-Salov, FIDE Candidates match, Sanghi Nagar 1994, continued 12..fd6 13 gs Wd7 14 Wer+ Wee 15 4e5, highlighting one of the potential prob- Jems for Black caused by an early push of the fpawn(s) — the weakness of the e5-square. After 15...0-0 160-0 Qixc3 17 bxc3 Sixe 18 dxe5 We6 19 2.43 Leb Black could do with a bit of help on the dark squares but must only be a shade worse. 2) 12.,.Rb413 2d? she? 1s designed to reduce White's support of the d4-pawn and is better than 13...0-0 14 @xd5 Sxd2+ Wad2 @xd5 16 0.0 when the hole on 5 is significant. The we have 140-0 0-0 15 Hel Sif6 16 a3! Wh8 17 203 f4 18 “eS Hiibner- Sulskis, European Team Ch, Pula 1997. Black’s occupation of d5 is looking less secure and the e5-square isa genuine problem. Consequently he now sought to generate complications with a further advance: 18...{3, the point being that 19 @xf3 Sug4 20 Det Sexf3 21 Weld Bxd4 22 Web 266 is about even, Instead the game went 19 @ixd5 @xd5 20 Qi Bxf7 21 Bixd5 BES 22 Bx Bxd4 (22..Wxd4 23 Gb c5 24 Bxd4 Axd4 25 Sic3 and 7 beckons) 23 she3! dxch 24 ‘Wxd8 Exd8 25 bxc3 Eb8 26 Re7 and White's lead was still intact. Incidentally the immediate 12...Se7 was agreed drawn in Hebden-Drasko, Vrnjacka, Banja 1991. Of course there is stil everything to play for. Note that with the bishop still on cBivistempting to hit it wit 4 at some point, but then White’s other bishop comes to life on the bI-h7 diagonal. 10...15 Another one! In fact Black's uncompromising response is called for as 10...4)4d52! 11 WhS+ g6 12 Qxg6+ hxge 13 Wxh8 ners White too much material for insufficient compensation, while 11...8¢7 is hardly an attractive move. 11 axb4 11 fred Huzman gives this move a T’ and it does look better than the tempting {1..d.xb4+12 Ac3 feet 15 Wh5+ when Black can spend so. much time checking out 13...6 14 We5+ that he overlooks 14 Wb5+ picking up the bishop. After 13..,5818 14 Dge2 Black tends to bring his queen to €8 soon. 16Queen's Gambit Accepted with 9 ——— a) 14.,.d0e6 15 0-0 and now: al) 15.y@g8 16 Qxed Wes 17 Wrest! Bxe8 18 Bfct (18 Bxa7 fact 19 A4g3 Las looks risky but might be good for White) 18...a5 19 Exc? @d5 20 ect! leaves White with an extra pawn, e.g, 20...2{5 21 243 High 22 h3 Bxes 23 Dee? Axed 24 fred Rd? (24.. xed? 25 Bc8+ £18 26 Bfl) 25 Bc? Sexe3+ 26 Wl b6 27 Bb7. Dreev- Svidler, Elista 1997, went instead 18..f04 19 B2e3 KS (19,..a5 20 De5 Sd5 21 24 and Black's queenside is still under pressure) 20 Ad2 Si permits 7 &x(7+, and blocking the dfile with €...£d6 runs into? c5l, e.g. 7..Sxe528 Lxf7+ enc. 5...exd5 6 Dxd5 Maintaining a piece on d5 is a key part of ‘our strategy here, for the square ceasesto be a weakness for Black once White captures with his pawn (unless this gives him a powerful passed pawn, of course). 6.007 Black does best to avoid 6...\f6 7 Bxct Xc6 8 Ws. 7 Rxch Qxd8 8 Ld 8...de7 sy far the most popular response to White’s threatened 9 Q&x{7+. Petrosian- Radulov, Plovdiv 1983 went 8...d6 9 Wh Wie 10 @i3 We6 and the exchange of queens did nothing to diminish White’s presence in the centre. After 8...c6 9 Sxc6+ bxc6 Black’s poor queenside pawns are worth parting with the bishop. 9213 Ic isa matter of choice whether White se~ fects f3 of 2 for his knight. The difference between Atalik’s choice and 9 Me? is that the latter seeks to maintain maximum control over the d5-square. Using ¢2 also rules outa pin after ...2¢4 since now White has {2-f3. Let us look at a few examples of how play can go after 9 Ae2. a) 9... Dd7 10 00 Db6 11 Dc3 0.0 12 Sl| re cking with 1 ¢4 This is typical. White is ready to meet the challenge to his bishop with the supporting knight. Black has tried anumber of moves in the diagram position. al) 12...2.g5 harasses the other bishop but presents white with the cheeky response 13 426, the point being that the bishop is sale in view of 13..48xd6? 14 &xf7+ etc. How- ever, Black can persevere with 13...e7 when White has 14 e5! with the prospect of having at least one rather large bishop right in the heart of Black’s position. After 14....xd6 15 exd6 the new passed pawn can prove equally unwelcome, the bishop over- sees both halves of the board and 15...4:xd5 16 Wxd5 merely adds to Black's problems. a2) 12...¢2h8 rules out any funny business with xt7+ and frees the Fpawn in case Black elects to challenge the remaining centre pawn. Ilike 13 W£3 here, intending to meet 13...xd5 with 14 Had! to stay in charge of the d5-square. Comas Fabrego-Cifuentes Parada, Platja d’Aro Barcino 1994, went 13 Whs @xd5 14 @xd5 Ld6 15 e5 Kb8 16 adi and Black was being pushed back. Af- ter 16...Be8 17 Bht Web 18 Bfei Me8 19 h3 Rd7 White struck with 20 Af6!? gxfé 21 Bxd7 Qxe5 (21..Wad7 22 Wxfo+ Gg8 23 RKh6) 22 xed fxe5 23 Red1, but atter 23..WES 24 Exb7 Bye walked into 25 Bc7?? ‘WIS! This isa pity because with by far the better pawn structure White is clearly better, e.g. 25 Bdd7 Bg? 26 Bxa7 Bag8 27 23. 3B) 12.Skf6 13 Ldo Se7 14 €5 transposes to ‘al’, while White also has 13 52. Then 13...@xd5 14 xcs fags (14... c6!) 15 Sixgs Wixg5 16 fal is precisely what White is looking for. In Khalifman-Vulfson, St Petersburg 1995, Black retreated: 13...dce7 14 Led! Wxdi 15 Bfxdl and White's author ity in the centre was still present after the exchange of queens. After 15...g5 (undermin- ing the support of the e5-pawn) 16 e3 Eb8 (16...Be4? 17 Dd3) 17 b3 Leo 18 Abs. Black’s queenside was starting to creek. a4) 12...Axd5 13 Axd5 Ld6 14 05 Sc? 15 Bel bo 16 WS sue6 17 Bidi Sixd5 was agreed drawn in RausisLev, Eupen 1997. White went for more in Kacheishvili- Spangenberg, World U26 ‘Team Ch., Roque Saenz Pena 1997, finding himself on the way toa moles: material lead after 15 e6!? Bxf4 167 Bxh2+ 17 teh 1 Wd6 18 exit + SxfB 19 g3. There followed 19...Wh6 20 Wet! Web 21 We5 fe6 22 Hadi hé 23 Wes Rds 24 Gxh? Hxd5 25 Hxd5 Wxd5 26 Wbse ‘Se7 27 Wxa7 hfe 28 Whe tg6, and now 29 Hcl would have caused Black the most problems. b) 9...0-0 and now: bi) 10 0.0 Dd7 11 Ac A 12 fed Sxcd 13 bxc3 We7 14 4 Bl6 Zontalh-Mirkovic, Novak Nikolic Mem. 1998. White’s bishop is too strong to be al- lowed to survive in this kind of position, but after 15 Wd2 Axd5 16 cxd5 &d7 17 Qf Wd8 18 Hfel He8 19 Bact He8 20 Bc3 White was ready to swing his rook over to the kingside, leaving Black with the standard dilemma of being unable to contest the dark squares. b2j 10 Bes Hib6 110-0 Bco 12 Wz SLe6 13 Ald DeS 14 b4l Wrbd (14..Ded 15 Rxct xct 16 Hfcl) 15 Wxb4+ cxbt 16 Bxeb fxeb 17 Sxeb+ dh8 18 4 Bd3 19 Hadi Had8 20 5 and the bishop pair {a voured White in Granda Zunigz-Gendler, ‘Yerevan Olympiad 1996. ¢) 9 /@ia6 10 0-0 Ao7 11 Dc3 0-0 12 LE 20siieiiaentcnccmail Queen's Gambit Accepted with & and now 12...@xd5 13 @\xd5 transposes to ‘a4i,while in Eiertneck-Kallai, European Cup, Strasbourg 1994, the knight travelled further with 12.,.2e6. Then 13 23 Eb8 144.26 15 a5 b5 16 axb6 Wxb6 17 b4! We7 18 bxcd ‘xe5 19 Wd2 was enough to provide White with something to build on in the form of his supremacy in the centre. For the moment the xpawn is irrelevant, while White’s grip on d5 and his kingside pawn majority are relevant indeed. Incidentally 9 Wh5 looks ambitious but soon peters out to equality. WardJ.Howell, British League 1996, continued 9...0-0 10 DES Ad7 11 Ags Sxgs 12 LxgS Als 13 Sixfé (Ward gives 13 Wh4 Was+! 14 2d? Wed) 13...8xf6 140-0, and now instead of 14...Bixb2 15 Hab] Wh 16 Eft Black chose the safer 14...2b8! 15 Bact b6. With 9 Qf White intends to let the d5- square look after itself, in some cases drop ping the bishop back to c4 or b3, or trading one6 after ...£¢6. Meanwhile White's knight protects d4, monitors e5 and is ready to transfer to c4 (viad2 o e5) should an oppos- ing piece need to be removed (or attacked) or the d-pawn - after a recapture on d5 - ad- vanced. 9...0-0 10 0-0 10...Da6 Occasionally starting on the edge of the board can be the most flexible way to develop a piece, and here the knight is able to drop back to 7 to contest the d5-square oF coutinue to ¢6 (ds), or advance to b4, OF course the b4-square can be reached via eb, but in ‘a’, below, White puts a stop to this after 10.206, Here arc examples of alterne tives to Gyimesi’s speciality. a} 10...\c6 looks fine until one considers that White might well pert with his excellent bishop if it means causing serious and per manent damage to Black’s queenside pawns. Romero Holmes-Estremera Panos, Sala ‘manca 1998, is typical of how White should patiently go about addressing his opponent's new weaknesses after 11 S&xc6 bre. The game continued 12 £e3 Seb 13 We? Was 14 Bfcl Bfd8 and now White avoided 18 Rxc5? Bxc5 16 Wxc5? Bd1+ and exploited the position of his knight with 15 Mest Notice that since doubling Black’s pawns White has directed his forces against c4, 5 and, now, c6!. Additionally White is also ready to mobilise his kingside pawn majority with £2-f4, b) 10...2d7 11 We2 We? met with 12 ¢5! in Beim-Wagman, Aosta 1990. With his Knight oa 3 this centre/kingside expansion is available to White. After 12...b6 13 Led Keb (13...f.g4 14 Qxh7+dexh7 15 Wet) 14 Het Black might consider placing his rookss ond® and e8, although White’s pieces point to the kingside and the e-pawn provides White with much room for manoeuvre, Black played 14..Hae8 15 Dg5 Sxg5 16 7 27Attacking with 1 d4 Rxg5 £5 in order to further alleviate his defensive task with another trade of minor pieces. White’s response. nowever, serves to remind us how a space advantage can soon grow to decisive proportions after ostensibly logical moves from the defender: 17 &xh7+! cbxh7 18 Wh5+ dg8 19 2 £6! ae ee “es 8 8 tas, MS A fitting culmination of White's strategy ~ Black has taken over the d5-square but g7 is the new focus of attention. After 19...gx46 20 Wet Weh7 21 exf6 ho 22 4 Black will soon be mated. ¢) 10..Wb6 11 Be3! We have already seen that Black’s queen can be embarrassed when it shares the a7-g1 diagonal with White’s bishop. Here the b2- pawn is safe because 11...1Wxb2 12 Hb1 and 13 &xb7 opens the queenside in White's favour. Now Yusupov-Ehlvest, Belfort 1988 saw the automatic 11...2e6? allow White’s intended 12 b4! with a clear advantage to White, since 12... Wxb4 13 Bb1 is even worse for Black than before. Meanwhile the <5- pawn is pinned, and White threatens to open the b-file anyway. Black came up with aper- fectly sound continuation in Ibragimov- Estrada Nieto, Ubeda 1997: 11...2\06 12 Bel gt 13 h3 Le6 14 Rxc6 fxe6 15 We2 and now Chris Ward justifiably recommends 15...2b4, when Black must be only slightly worse, Instead there followed 15...Wa6? 16 LxcS Bxc5 17 Wicd Wxa2 18 WhS5! and White threatened both 19 Hal and 19 Wxb7. In fact the game was over after only ten more moves: 18,..a6 19 Wxb7 “a5 20 We7 HI? 21 We5 Ab7 22 Ags He? 23 MeF Hxc7 24 Wxc7 Wxb2 25 05 Wb3 26 WI7+ Wh 27 Dxe6 Hgs 28 Dd8! 1-0, Finally if Black maintains the pin with 13...2h5 White has 14 g4! g6 15 Dd2, heading for the attractive 4-square and toy- ing with the idea of trapping Black’s bishop with (2-f415 etc. Again this is.a key difference between posting the knight on {3 and 2. 11 &b3i7 As if expecting a future ...2\c7/b4 to be too inconvenient White elects to retreat his bishop anyway. Otherwise why not just get on with normal development? After 11.24 ‘Wh6, 12 2e5 again hopes to justify 93 by teaming up with the queen's bishop to cover the d6square after landing on ct. Now 12...Wxb2? 13 £xf7+1 is final, e.g. 13...Exf7 (or 13...2h8 14 Wh5 exc.) 14 Wd5, Alterna- tively 12...e6 13 Ded WdB 14 Sxe6 leaves White with both superior pieces and pawn structure. ‘The logical continuation is 11.27 seta" eae a a RZ osha He From ¢7 the knight hits d5 and supports ...&e6 without voluntarily accepting an isolated pawn on e6 after the bishop trade we just considered. Now 12 2xc7 Wxc7 13 h3 Who 14 Wc2 Reb 15 Hadl Bad8 16 b3 xd5 17 exd5 8{6 is approximately equal as it is not clear how White can successfully 22infiltrate with his knight. However, in ZNarga-Avek, Budapest 1991, White pro- vided us with an interesting plan which involves a ‘positive’ retreat, namely 12 Lot Se6 13 Se2!?. The idea is to eventually exploit White's kingside pawn majority and extra space to generate play in the centre and on the kingside, Should Black sec’ to avoid an unpleasant offensive with 13...Wixd1 14 fxdi, White will already have the d-file and Black's knight will be misplaced on c?. The game went 13...@e8 14 We2 h6 15 Hidt Whe 16 De5! Dd6 17 se3 Hac8 18 {4 with the by now familiar plan of AB-e5 and 2- f4, White's bishops perform a dual-purpose task in that they support the thematic advance of the kingside pawns while simulta: neously monitoring the queenside in orderto slow down Black’s counterplay. Itis surpris- ing how quickly White’s kingside pawns can trouble Black’s minor pieces and kingside in general, and awareness of this fact makes White’s game so much easier to play. Here the tempo of the game soon changed: 18... WF 19 BE2 g6 20 gl? Rf 21 Dxgo! fxg6 225 and Black’s third rank was beginning to look a little suspect. 11.867 Keeping an eye on d5 and preparing to challenge the bishop anyway by bringing his own to e6. Against 11...ib4 ithas been suggested that White follow up 12 Waxd8 Eixd3 with 13. g52, which looks enough foratiny Queen’s Gambit Accepted with 2 e4 pull. Black experiences some discomfort but swith queens off he has reasonable chances to secure a level game. 11...8b6 again meets with 12 De5 when, as well as the usual outpost on c4, White has the {7-pawn in his sights. After 12...2{6 13 Bet We7 14 WIS the prospect of the tempo-gaining 4 aug- ments White’s lead. White should respond to 12...2e6 with 13 Dd7 Lxd7 14 Wed7, eg. 14.5216 15 WIS g6 16 WES Re7 when both 17 Bdi Bad8 18 95 and 17 2g5!? favour White thanks mainly to the poor knight. 12 Wxa8 A queen trade does not necessarily mean an end to uncompromising or aggressive play. In this case White judges that his development advantage is sufficiently significant topermit him to keep the momentum going, and there is an important factor to consider here in that the ‘natural’ recapture on d8 is the inferior choice. Moreover White’s kingside pawn majority is no less mobile without aqueen on the board, and while other pieces remain the plan of a kingside offensive will be effective. 12...2xd8 Gyimesi proposes the ostensibly less active 12,...xd8 as an improvement. The reasoning behind this is that in the game Black's knight proves awkwardly placed on ¢6, whereas on c7 at least the d5-square is protected. Therefore by recapturing with the bishop Black defends the knight and earns time to get his queenside in order, no longer having to worry about 13 f+. Consequently 13 @e3 b6 14 Hadl B16 15 05 Be7 16 429512 has been suggested as White's best ry, and itis true that the onusis still on Black to keep his opponent's advantage to a minimum. However, this looks preferable to the greedy 14...2b7 15 Me5 fixed 16 Bd7 &e6 17 Gxg6 hxg6 18 Bidi, eg. 18..Ae6 19 ed5, or 18...c8 19 Sxf74 etc. Perhaps Black might consider 14...£e6 15 Sixe6 @xe6 with the intention of evicting White's rook after 16 Hd? He8 17 Hfdi Ate. 23Attacking with 1 d4 TT TTT— 13 ata Now White is happy tolurethe knight to 6, where it will be atarget- eventually - for the fpawn. Forcing it from c7 also hands the d5-square back to White. 13.06 Note thar 13... £46? walks into a pin after 14 Bad1, when both 14...2)b5 15 “Dg5 (exploiting another pin) and 14...e8 15 Sg5 Ed7 16 Sad practically win for White. 14 Sg3! White has a development lead, the better pieces and the d5-square holds more promise than does the d-square for Black. Add to this his potentially more dangerous pawn majority, and the exchange of queens becomes irrelevant. 14.161? Black provokes the eS-pawn, Others: 14..id7 15 Bd5 &c6 16 Badi Bfo 17 Rxcb bxcb 18 Be5 Axe5 19 Axes Add 20 £3 Hab8 (20...f6 21 Des) 21 b3 is typical, with Black’s qucenside weaknesses coo big a price to pay for the outpost on d4. The immediate 14...2d4 15 Dxd4 favours White after both 15...8xd4 16 £d5 and 15...cxd4 16 25. Finally the attempt to pretend normal development is enough with 14...b62! 15 Kfdl! &b7 invites White to cement his grip on d5 with 16 2d5!, when the bishop is wonder- fully positioned on g3 to facilitate the advance of the d-pawa in the event of an ex: change on d3, Worse for Black is 15...5a62 16 Ded i617 Ld. 15 He5! HB At first glance an odd looking move, but now Black can land his knight on d4 without &xi7 being check, After the hasty 15...Ad4?, for example, White has 16 S.xf74+ 22f8 17 Sd5 and now 17...%2+ 18 tht Dxg3+ 19 fxg3 pins the bishop! 15...21d2!? needs to be investigated. 16 Zict 16...He2 17 ¢5 Re7 18 idl Bed 19 dé leaves the rook punching air, and 16 Zabl!? also looks good for White. First 16...23d42! 17 dxcf7+ dfs 18 5.d5 De2+ 19 dh 1 Gixg3+20 fxg’ again baclefires, while Lbsudied 17 Sixes Qd4 18 Add reminds Black that half of his queenside is still ar home. 16 fa! After seeing the black king move away from the a2-g8 diagonal and on to the file White is more than willing to permit the doubling of his pawns if this means clearing the way for his rook. 42?! et this act of aggression White's pawns dominate. Black should try testing his opponent’s plan regardless of the subsequent attention to his fpawn: 16...2xe5 17 fxe5 Bd? (I7.8hd4 18 5) 18 BAS! Dg (18...0xb2 19 Hafl Dg5 20 Exi7+ Axi7 21 e6) 19 Exf7+! Axi7 20 RAL If White can keep Black under pressure after taking on {7 the sacrifice will have been 24Queen's Gambit Accepted with worthwhile, After 20...de8 21 Saxf7+ (21 Bix{72 b5!) 21... bd8 22 Bh4+ c7 23 VASP Bxb2 24 Hf7+ @b6 25 e6 Black’s rook and bishop are still shut out of the game, White’s pawn is close to glory and Black’s kingside pawns are doomed. Black does have the c- pawn, but it lacks support. The other try is 20,..b5 21 &xf7, when 21...Bd1 22 Hxdi Sxf7 23 Hd5 is good for White, as is 21...Eb8 22 O41? dxi7 (22...He2 23 e6 Bb6 24 £h5; 22..Exb2 23 6 Bb6 24 £g5) 23 Sixd2+ heb (23...2e7 24 Be3) 24 BIB, eg. 24,..Ha8 (24..dexe5 25 Sf4+) 25 He8+ G7 26 Bd8 deeG 27 £4 c4 28 def2 b4 29 shed €3 30 bxc3 bxc3 31 Gd4 &b7 (31...c2 32 Hd6+ de7 33 Hc6) 32 Mdo+ te? 33 Lg5+ Be8 34 Beot G8 35 Ke7 Hd8+ 36 xed xed 37 Bxa7 etc. 17 D3! Better than 17 “ct Rci4+ 18 deh He? 19 Adi Exet 20 Rf Exf4 21 Bxf4 Dxla which might give White an edge. 17...xb2 18 e5 id8 19 15 Dg5 19.24 20 Axd4 cxd4 21 06 fxe6 22 fxe6+ 2f6 23 Rd6+ Le8 24 Harel and White brings his final piece into play. 20 e6 20...Dxf3 + Or 20...De4 21 Le5 Be2 22 Hael! Bxet 23 Exel D6 24 exf7 &e7 25 gt bd (25....Rd7 26 Ap5; 25...Axgt 26 2 dé!) 2625 C4 (26.67 27 gxf6 gxf6 28 Sf4 c4 29 di!) 27 c2!, and now 27...Dg4 28 Bxg7+ ‘Wxf7 29 g6-+ hxg6 30 fxgo+ Cexg7 31 Bixete Gf (B1..g8 32 Ret Hs 33 Ld54) Bi7+ theo 33 BiB and 27...2b7 8 d5 29 96 hxge 30 fxg6 S2c5 31 Weft win for White. 21 Exf3 Zd2 22 2f4 Bd4 23 2e5 216 Black’s rook is in danger of running out of steam, e.g, 23...—d2 24 Sc3 Be? 25 Edi. 24 Sixf6 axfé 25 Hel fxe6 Not 25...c4? 26 e7+ eB 27 Rat+ Ad7 28 Hg3 Shxad 29 Bg8+ bd7 30 Bxa8 etc, 26 fxe6 eT ‘The king is not an ideal blockades 27 Bg3!? 27 Eh3 is more logical, e.g. 27...€2d6 (27...c4 28 Hxh7+ dado 29 Eh8 cxb3 30 e7) 28 Bxh7 c4 29 Bh8! Be7 30 Lc2. 27...b5 28 Hig7+ ded6 29 Bg8 we? White wins after both 29...c4 30 e7 and 29...80b7 30 Bxa8 £xaB 31 «7 S.c6 32 Bebt, 30 Gc2! Bd5 31 3g7+?? Whoops. White can get another passed pawn rolling after 31 &xh7 He5 32 Hxe5 fxe5 33 Bed Bb8 34 h4, c.g, 34...4 35 h5 b4 36 ho b3 37 axb3 cxb3 38 h7, or 34...2xe6 35 h5 dif? 36 Ld5+ te7 37 h6. 31..8d6 32 e7 Be6 33 ed He8! 34 Sixd5 ixd5 35 Ze2? ‘Again White ignores the h7-pawn: 35 Exh7! Sxa2 36 Bdi+ Seo 37 Belt! draws, Now Black is in the driving sect... 36...04 36 Bxh7 ¢3! 37 &f2 ba? Another in a series of mistakes that fea- 25Attacking with 1 d4 ture in the rest of the game - understandable: in such a complex ending. Correct is 37...Qc4ll 38 He3 b4 39 Bh6 c2 40 Bxio+ shd7 41 Bel 2xa2 42 Ba6 b3 43 Bxa7+ deco 44 Bel bdé, 38 we3! Excellent. White faces facts and is prepared to part with his once mighty epawn. 38...he5?! 38,.8xe7+ 39 Exe7 dexe7 40 dts bde 41 b4 a5 42 h5 @xaP! 43 Bxad b3 44 dexc3 bxa2 45 Gib2 We? 46 g4 Wi7 47 Gxad Sg 48 &b3 Bho 49 dat (5 with a draw. 39 Bf2 ixa2! A good try. Instead 39...a5 40 Hxf & xa? 41 Bf8 wins for White. 40 Bxa2 b3 41 5h5+? Wrong rook! 41 Ba5+ wins: 41..ed6 (1. Séb4 42 Bxa7 c2 43 ed? Bc8 44 Bb7+ sha3 45 Yel; 41.26 42 Bad b2 43 Bb3+ wad 44 Wd; 41..dec6 42 Bad 2 43 ded2; 41...Sc4 42 Hh4 mate) 42 Habe ded7 43 Bxa7+ de6 44 Hb7 b2 45 dd3 Mc8 46 co +!, 41...d6 42 Sa6+? 42 Boil bh? 43 Hdl Bxe7 44 Hed Sis 45 bit Sb8 46 Bbt Bb3 47 hed Ba3 48 wbed3. 42...iixe7 43 Bh7+ &f8+7? The final blunder. White still has work to do after 43...dd8+! 44 ded3 c2 since here alter 45 Saxa7 Black can queen his pawn. I have a feeling that White should have a win somewhere, but there is always the simplifying 45 Bd6+ Sc8 46 Bc6+ Wb8 47 Bcc? Het! 48 Bb7+ dec8 49 Bxa7 deb8 50 Bab7+ L851 Exb3 c1W 52 Hc34 Wxc3453 dexc3. 44 &d3 c2 45 Kaxa7 1-0 After 45...0298 46 Hag7+ {8 47 467 sg8 48 Khe7 and 45...Be7 46 Ha8+ Bek 47 Bxe+ dxe8 48 c7 (or 48 ded2) are fairly simple, while the other try 45...2id8+ is met by 46 ded He8+ (46...dag8 47 Hag7+ dels 48 Hb7 ge 49 Bhc7) 47 def5 He7 48 Base Hek 49 stexfél dp8 50 Byp7+ dele 51 Bi7+ mates. Game 4 Sakaev-lbragimov Russian Ch. 1999 1 d4 d5 2 c4 dxe4 3 e4 c5 4.d5 DIG 5 28 D5 Bizarre but entirely logical! Black protects his extra pawn and threatens to undermine the defence of White's e4-pawn by attacking the knight with ...b5-b4. Of course the b5- pawn itself is not defended, but White should refrain from taking it, e.g. 6 @xb5?! Wa5+7 Dc3 Dxet 8 Hd2 Dxd2 9 Wad2 a6 10 NB Ad7 11 Be2 g6 and Black was berter, Korchnoi-Lindinger, Wichern 1997. 6 Qt4 665 has the right look but is less effective than Sakaev’s choice. After 6...b47 exf6 bxc3 8 byc3 Black should play 8...0d7! when 9 Wat 9 fxe7 2xe7 10 Qxc4 Abb 11 Qb5+ td7 is fine for Black) 9...exf6 10 &f4 Wo 11 &xc4 2dé is equal, Instead 8...exf6?! 9 Rxot Ad6 10 We2+ invites Black into an ending in which White's superior pawn structure counts for something, while Bacrot- Peric, Corsica (rapid) 1997, continued 8... Wa5 9 We? ext 10 Sxc4 Dd7 11 DB Db6 12 Le2 c4 130-0 Rb7 14 Edi Bd8 15 Wf with a development lead for, White worth a pawn (or two). Black chose 15...@)xd5? rather than the better 15...S-xd5, and soon paid the price: 16 Wxe4 @xc3 17 26Queen’s Gambit Accepted with 3 e4 Bxd8+ Gxd8 18 Ql &xf3 19 &d2! We7 20 Wd3+ Das 21 Bel Whé 22 Hbi!? We? 23 EebS He8 24 Bixd5 Sixd5 25 Wxd5. With 6 2 £4 White simply brings.apieceto agood square and prepares to add weight to Hb5 in the event of ...b5-b+ by hitting the c7-square. Consequently Black has three ways of defending 55 before attacking the knight. a6 Asia may well be the best square for the bishop - especially as from here the e4-pawn is given added protection as well as the bS- pawn - this relatively recent idea isa promising alternative to the outwardly more aggre . sive pin (ee below). Others: a) 6... a5 is popular. al) 7 a4 is better than its reputation, although after 7...@xe# White should ignore 8 axb5 Dxc3 9 Hxa5 Dxd1 10 dxdt Ad7 11 xc Db6 12 b3 &b7 13 AG Lxd5 in favour of 8 Age? Bde 9 axb5 Who 10 Dxd6, eg, 10...exd6 11 Dgs Qe7 12 Lxc4 0-0 130-0 {6 14 Wc2, Beliavsky-Kamsky, Linares 1993, or 10..,lixd6 11 2g3 g6 12 xc £97 13.0-00-0 14 Aged, with a slight edge for White in both cases despite the absence of his dark-squared bishop. a2) Again 7 ¢5 cries out to be played but should be avoided. After 7...Me4 8 Dge2 Dab 9 £3 DbAt 10 fret Dd3+ 11 Fed? galt Black was having all the fun in Gelfand- Anand, Linares 1993. ‘see following diagram ‘There followed 12 b3 £7 13 bxc4 Axf4 14 Dxfs MxeS 15 Dfed b4 16 Wate (16 Dat Md7) 16..Mixat 17 Dxad Brad 18 Dxe5 0.0 and by now Black was winning. Later, in Beliavsky-Comp Fritz 4, Slovenia (rapid) 1996, White tried 12 e6 Af2 13 Wet @®xh1 14 af fxe6 15 axb5 Wb4 16 el. This does look like an improvement andis worth further investigation, but White has to be at least as careful as Black in this line, so it makes more sense to settle for ‘33° or ‘af both of which seem superior anyway. a3) 7 3 sensibly bolsters the centre and denies Black use of the g4-square. Now 7.952! has been seen occasionally but the pawn is too much to pay for Black’s subsequent Benko-style activity after 8 2xg5. Over on the queenside 7...b4is well met by & ‘Wad+. The main line is7...@ih5 8 id? Dd7 of Vyzmanavin-Azmaiparashvili, Burgas 1994. After the forced 9...g6 (9...2)h{6? 10 5) Vyzmanavin proposes 10 ¢5 ich6 11 ge2 with the threat of snaring a piece by launching the g-pawn. Black’s best is the obvious 11...b4, e.g, 12 Ge4?! Rb7, so Ward suggests 12 Wat with an evaluation of unclear. Instead the game went 10 Se2 27 (10...b4 11 Wad! isa reply given by Feacnik) 11 e5 b4 2and now White preferred the thematic 12 ‘Wat wo 12 Det Vb7 13 Axct Abo 14 Bhd in view of 14..2d8. Then the retreat 12...M#'b6 works out well for White after 13 Det Bab? 14 eb! fxeb 15 dxeb Wxeb 16 \xc5, or the lesser evil 13...S2b7 14 S&xc4. However, Black might consider 12...Wd8 13 2\c4 0-0 when the consistent 14 g# means parting with a couple of pawns for the piece alter either 14..Axf4! 15 &xf4 Abo or 15...2xe5. Nevertheless in these complex positions the extra piece tends to be more useful than pawns. If this is not to Black’s liking Ward's clever 12...Wa6!? isa realistic possibility, forcing the exchange of queens on Black’s terms. The game itself continued 12...Wxat 13 Dxat Bad 14 g4 Oxfd 15 Sixt £b5 16 b3 Rxad (16...Axe5) 17 bxat ixe5 18 0-0-0 c3 19 &b5+ df8 20 h3 Bds 21 Bh2 and both sides trad chances of making something of their respective material ‘gain’. ad) 7 Sid2 is most successful in the line 7..b4 8&5 bxc3 9 Rxc3, e.g. 9...Wiia6 10 exfé exf6 113 Se7 12 Bxct Wide 13 De2 0-0 1400 with a pleasant position for White in Shirov-Kramnik, Linares 1993, However, 8..,2g4!? 9 e6 M6 is stronger for Black than it first appears and will be just as inconven- jent to White as e5-e6 has been for Black. Another possibility 10 consider is 7.405 8 [4 Dbd7 9 AGS. 2d6 with a view to establishing agrip.on the dark squares, Allin allI prefer 7 £3, b) 6..a6 guards b5 with a lowly pawn rather than bringing outa piece. After 75. = b4 8 exf6 bxe3 9 bxc3 Black has tried three » moves: b1) 9...Wa5 10 Het pxf6 11 Bxc4 h5 12 @f3 &ad7 13.0.0 Db6 14 Re7 Legky-Peric, Martinez. 2000. The diagram. position is hardly any better for Perie than his game against Bacrot, above. The fact that an IM can find himself in trouble so early illustrates how Black’s game-plan can so easily fall apart in the 5...b5 variation. In fact after 14...Ba7 15 d6 exd6 16 Rel+ Seb 17 Gixb6 Wxb6 18 Hbi Was 19 Lxe6 fxe6 20 Bxc6+ G7 21 Wd5 &g7 22 Dh4 Black's situation was embarrassing enough to resign atonce, b2) 9..2d7 10 Wat Whe 11 fxe7 Bxe7 12 Bxc4 Wb2 13 Hel fd6 14 2e3 Bhs 15 3 0.0 16 2d3 £5 17 0-0.and Black — faced with the prospect of @f3-d2-c4 — was much worse in Markeluk-Juarez, Buenos Aires 1989. b3) ‘The same players reached the same position in a tournament in Acasusso 1991. ‘Then Black tried 9...gxf6 10 S&xct Qd7 11 ‘Wat 297 and White endeavoured to justify his early queen sortie with 12 Wc6!? Ba7 13 *Bb1 0-0 14 dé! exd6 15 Qxd6 De 16 Sixe5 He8 17 De2 fxe5, White's light-squcre control is enough to leave him comfortably better after 180-0, buthe decided to take the 28Queen’s Gambit Accepted with 3 @ strategy further by sacrificing the exchange - and bagging a couple of pawns in the process! S after 18 Wxe5 Bc7 19 Wd5 We7 20 Wet Hd8 21 0.0 Qb7 22 Bxb7 Hxb7 23 Sxab Ba7 24 ct Wd7 25 ADg3. 705 With the e4-square not available to Black this thrust makes more sense. Now Black must decide whether to retreat or make a counter. 7...b4 The alternative is 7...fd7!? and now: a) 8 e6 Abb (8...Dl6 9 Bxc4! bxc4 10 Wats Did? 11 Lxb8) 9 exi7+ kxl7 10 WE is complex indeed. White should complete his development as quickly as possible. b) 8a4 b4 9 AbS &xb5 10 axb5 A\b6 11 eG)? £6 12 S2g3 96 13 Re2 a5 14.263 Bay Chess should be fun, and both sides can claim to bg having a good time in this strange position. c) 8 Df3. This looks a bit too sensible compared with ‘a’ and °b" After 8...b49 Bet Db6 10 dé A8d7 11 We? followed by castling queenside White has compensation for the pawn, 8 eG!? s certainly have a lot to do in this ! Amazingly White doesn’t bother capturing the knight on {6 and — despite his own knight coming under fire - instead elects to play his positional card by disrupting Black’s kingside development. Before invet- tigating the implications of this thrust let us consider what happens after 8 ex{6 bxc3 9 bxc3. Instead of 9...exfé 10 dé Black’s best is 9...gxf6 10 Bib1. Then 10...2d7 11 Was Wes 12 Bxct Bxct 13 Wxet Abé 14 Wes Wd? 15 Bd Bd8 16 AG gives White a slight pull asthe d5-pawn is (for the moment) safe, e.g. 16...Dxd5 (16...f5 17 Wed Dxd5? 18 Bed) 17 c4 4c3 18 Bxd7 “Axes 19 Hxa7. Khalif- man-Ponomariov, European Cup 2000, saw a more interesting course; 10...2g7 11 We4 (11 Bxe4 Rxc4 12 Was+ Dd7 13 Weed be) 11..Wxd5 12 &c2 Wet 13 Exbie ExbS 14 Sxbs Whit 15 Ldi 00 16 A Ec8 17 Wis, and now alter 17...Wb7 (17...05 18 Wad2 Bxc7?? 19 Was+) 18 $25 Wbs 19 Lc7 Wb2! 20 Ae? 05 21 Led fred 22 Wes HB 23 0.0 {5 and White was in a degree of trouble. 8...fxe6?! 8... Wa5!? carries on as normal and forces the exchange of queens with 9 Wat+ as 9 exl7+ Sxi7 10 Det Axes 11 WL Dio 12 do €3 is good for Black, e.g. 13 bxc3 b3, or 13 Wra8 cxb2 14 Edi b3+ 15 Qd2 bxa2 16 SixaS alll 17 Wxbs Wrad+ 18 Bd2 Sxfi, After 9 Wa4+) 9..Wxad 10 Qixad Dxd5 White should leave his pawn one6, 11Dh3 3 12 bxc? xf 13 Bxfi bxc3 14 Dxc5 offering compensation for the pawa in the form of Black’s problems with development. A typical continuation might be 14...fxe6 15 Dxeb Dd7 16 0.0.0 A7l6 17 Led. 29Attacking with 1 d4 a “\ ~ wi coe wy “Ss 8 Black still needs to sort out his kingside but White is running out of pieces to make his bind pay, and this general factor makes $,..$ifa5 Black’s most attractive option aslong as he can hold his position together. 8...bxc3 on the other hand, cannot be recommended, as 9 Watt Dbd7 10 Wxa6 Dxd5 (10...cxb2 11 Hb fxe6 12 dxe6) 11 exd7+ Wxd7 12 0-0-0 is decisive, e.g. 12...cxb2+ 13 Bxb2 c+ 14 det c2 15 Bxd5! (15 652? cxdiW'+ 16 Wxdl De3+) 15... Wxd5 16 25+. 9 Waa+ Wd7? A mistake is understandable in such a complex situation (and so early in the game). After 9...@bd7? 10 dxe6 bxe3 11 Wxa6 cxb2 12 Adi Black isin trouble, while 9...2fd? 10 dxe6 bxc3 11 bxe3 Wb6 12 xed Qxet 13 exd7+ Dxd7 14 Wxct gives White a definite advantage thanks to the fewer pawn islands and more secure king position (after 0-0). Instead of blocking the cheek Black’s Lest is 9...217! 10 dxe6+ dogs (10...s8exe6? 11 SAxb8) 11 Db5 We8 12 xed Rb7 with a very messy position indeed, In the main game Black has nothing to show for the unwelcome visitor on ¢6. 10 dxe6 Wyad 11 Axad Black cannot hang on to the extra pawn and, unlike the variation with 9...def7! in the previous note, his pieces lack harmony. 11 AbS I suspect that Black's best chance lies in returning the pawn as follows: 11..c3 12 byc3 Qxfl 13 dexfl Ad5. The sequence 11..Det 12 (3 V5 13 fxet Qxat 14 Lxct ®cb works out very well for White, who can maintain the queenside pressure with 15 b3! Da5 16 &d5 &c6 17 Bel. 12 Axed Acé Unfortunately for Black the attempt to relieve some of the pressure with 12.. 2d5 13 Bg3 Dab fails to 14 Db3!, with the nasty threat of Ad4. After the text Black must lose the second c-pawn. 43 Sct Dd5 14 2xc! Oxcd 15 Bxct Dyxt4 16 Sxta : ‘The diagram position is a good advert for the disruptive plan with e5-e6, regardless of Black's possible improvements earlier. White hhas a poimts lead to add to the e6-pawn, and both sides need to get their kingside pieces into the game, 16...g5 17 2c4 ig7 18 DFS 18h4!? ¢4 19 De2 is another way to keep White well in control, although with such a good position it is difficult to avoid a very good ending. 18...2e5 18...g4 fails to avoid a clearly worse position after either 19 Zao gxf3 20 Bxc6 fxg? 21 gt 2d 22 Bxg? &xb2 23 Dxb4 or 19 Bxg4 Sexb2 20 we?, while 18...2xb2?! 19 Dad! De5 20 Dxb2 Axc4 21 Dxct gives ‘White two great knights for a rook. 19 Dxe5 &xe5 20 Dds &d6 21 hd! A nice way of connecting the rooks.21...9xh4 22 Hexh4 ‘The h7-pawn makes afar more attractive trophy than the one on b4. 22...a5 23 Exh? Sg8 24 g3 0-0-0 25 ke2 &b7 26 E7h4 Bg6 27 Bed Bq5 28 94 Hd5 29 Ed1 &b6 30 b3 Bc8 31 Bd2 wbS 32 Db2 Exd2+ 33 thxd? Ach 34 @d3 Ad6 35 f4 a4 36 g5 a3 37 15 Ofe 38 £6 1-0 Game 5 Sakaev-Rublevsky Yugoslav Team Ch. 1999 1 dA d5 2.c4 dxcd 3 ed 05 4 213 exda ‘The immediate check has had less success than the main game. White's easiest route to advantage is as follows: 4..2b4+ 5 @d2 xd2+ 6 Wxd2 exd4 7 Axd4 when White intends to win back the (c#) pawn with more space. After 7...0f6 8 Qc3 We7 9 £3 Reb 10 Axes Web 11 Wds Deb 12 Wet ‘White has the added bonus of a potentially useful bishop. Instead Black usually plays 7...We7 8 3 Df6 9 Rxc4 0-0 10 Dc3. White isslightly better thanks to his secure e¢-pawn- which affords him more room for manoeuvre and keeps Black on his toes with the constant menace of an advance - and centrally located pieces. Groszpeter-Zsu. Polgar, Hungarian Ch. 1991, went 10..bd7 0-0 (11 Df5 Wic5 12 We5? g6 is fine for Black) 11...2d8 and now inscead of 12 We3?! Queen’s Gambit Accepted with 3 e4 Dbo6 13 Lb3 5! 14 Ade2 ct when White loses his grip on d5, best is 12 Re2! Be5 13 We3 and White maintains the lead. With 10...c5 Black acidresses the centre on his own terms, concentrating on d4. In. Andersson-Seirawan, Tilburg 1990, Black came up with an interesting way of defending d5: after 11 Dde2 Hd8 12 We3 Leb 13 Sixe6 fre6 14 0-0 Ac6 15 Kadi b6 Black had pawns covering both d4 and d5. In fact ‘White resorted to the same method to maintain a slight lead, replying with 16 5 2d5 17 Bes WI7 18 f4 Dxc3 19 bxc3!, when the d6- square became more significant now that d5 could be protected with the move c3-c4 if necessary. 5 fixed Rb4+ 6 Abd2 Dc6 The stubborn 6...c5 spends valuable time protecting the d4-pawn and also cuts off the bishop on b4. SulypaHollerbuhl, Berlin 1998 continued 7 De5 Dh6 0-00-09 Ab3 Wis 10 Wh5 He8 11 £4 Le6 12 a3 Bet 13 Dros b5 14 5 Wes 15 Dd6 S83 16 WE and White was winning. ’'m sure there are improvements but this is not the way for Black to play. 70-0 246 a) 7...We7 is one of two tries with the queen. After 8 Db3 gt 9 Abxd4 Ae5 White is given the opportunity for a nice - albeit temporary — queen sacrifice: 10 4\xe5! Bexdl 11 Qxi7+ Tukmakov-Avner, World U26 Team Ch. 37Attacking with 1 dt 1966, Now 11...92d8 12 HxxdI will soon see Black down on points, so Ayner played 11.448 12 De6+ Web 13 Qxeb6 Le2, but 44 DIF Sexfl 15 Sexft Bee? 16 Lb3 Alo 17 @®xh8 Bxh8 18 8 left White with an extra pawn and the bishop pair. bj 7... Wie borrows an idea from another position (after 6 Sid? 2xd2+ 7 Abxd2 4.c6 8 0-0) but looks too risky here. As Ward points out White can already secure a sale lead by stecring the gameto.an ending with 8 4\b3 gd 9 Abxdd ixd4 10 Wadd x63 11 Wale Gxf6 12 pxi3 cic. However, 8 3 is crying out to be played, e.g. 8...Wg69 Zihs Wes 10 Fidf3 Be6 11 h3 Wes 12 Add 13 igs. & ixe5!? 14 Qhf3 Wds 15 het a bxe6 17 Axe6 fxeb 18 Aixd4 0-0-0 19 Wad!? Wad+ 20 S¢3 was compli- cated in bonsch-Chekhov, Halle 1987, while 18 Wxd4 leaves White with much the health- ier pawn structure that outweighs the pawn deficit. From the diagram position Timman- ‘Tal, Candidates playoff 1985, went 13...d0e7 14 Red Wa? 15 Dxe6 Wixe6 16 Lxc6+ bxeb 17 Wxd4 Sd8 18 Wat @c5 19 We? and now 19..,2b6 20 gS De7 21 BQxe7 dre? 22 ©\5+d7 looks fun only from White's side of the board. Tal tried 19...#d5 20 ba! 2d4 21 AfS Bxe5 22 Eel (threatening 23 )yxg7+) 22...82f8 23 &b2 WxfS 24 Waid Bh24 25 Gch? BxfS 26 Badd dS 27 Bxd5 exd5 28 Ect and Black's yet to be developed pieces were the decisive factor. Incidentally 20,..d2b6 21 4f5 go 22 £95! highlights Black's problem, e.g. 22...Bixg5 (22...h6 23 6 fxe6 24 Dd6+~ Timman) 23 Wxc6+Bd7 24 6 (MTrauth) 24.06 25 Had! Wxi5 (25...2MM6 26 Bxetse tad 27 Bxd7+2xd7 28 Balt) 26 Wxd7+ (26 Bxd7 Zie7) 26.18 27 a4la5 28 bxad Sixa5 (28...La7 29 Wd8+ hi7 30 Wixc7+) 29 Wds+ hf7 30 Rd7+ dege 31 ga WeS 32 We8+ dvh6 33 ht etc. ©) No better is 7...9hG 8 Ab3 Let 9 Bd5, eg. 9.205 10 Wadd! x34 11 gxl3 xf 12 dixh6 W713 We5+ 1-0 Korchnoi- Mestrovic, Sarajevo 1969. d) 7...4xd2 voluntarily surrenders the bishop and facilitates White’s development. 8 Sixd? Aige7 9 Dg5 Ae5 10 &b3 h6 11 4 hgs 12 fxe5 0-0 13 Qxgs hes 14 Lxeb fre6 15 Exf8+ Wxl8 16 Wes Wir 17 Eft ‘Weg6 18 h4 is not untypical, ¢.g. 18...2cb 19 h5 Axes 20 Wes Wexhs 21 Wxes and Black soon resigned in Xu Jun-Ardiansyah, Jakana 1987. ¢) The main alternative to Rublevsky’s choice is 7.506 8 S.xe6 fxe6 when 9 Mb3 has been seen a number of times and leads to a better game for White but prefer the thematic 9 Wb3 with pressure against ¢6 and b7. ‘Then Touzane-Pinkus, Geneva 199% should serve as a warning to Black of the danger of hanging on to pawns at the cost of development: 9....xd22! 10 @xd? ¢5? 11 Bacl Bb8 12 4\g5 Wd? 13 Bxcé! Wed 14 Wi7+ eds 15 Debs cB 16 Ect 1-0. Returning to 9 Wb3, Black quickly sent his king to the queenside in Amado-H Garcia, Zarare 1972: 9...d7 10 Det 00-0 11 Kgs HY8 12 A\feS! DxeS 13 Wxbs (hitting £8) 13..Dg6 14 Bacl. With most of his pieces over on the kingside Black has obvious defensive problems. The game continued 14...4¢b8 (hoping to improve on 14...c6 15 De5! Wes 16 Dxgé hxg6 17 Wxd4, Florian- Sliwa, Gyula 1965) 15 2)a5 We8 16 Rc5 a8 17 Hfct c6 18 Wxd4 c5 19 Wat A\f4 20 Sixl4 exft 21 Dxc6! bxe6 22 Exco Wd7 3222... b7 23 Ec? Who 24 Bc8+ Bxc8 25 Hxc8+Geb7 26 Wd7+ a6 27 Hc6) 23 Was bs 24 Wh5+ (24 Hc7 Waxc7 25 Exc? doxc7 26 Wxa7+ ted8 27 Wxg? favours the queen) 24...Wb7? 25 We5+ a8 26 Ec7 Wbé 27 c8+ Bxc8 28 Rxc8+ 1-0. With 7,..2f6 Biacks anticipates the aggressive advance of the enemy e-pawn, after which the d5-square becomes available. White, for his part, finds himself with the e+ 10 Dxi7 Sbxf7 11 Wh54) 10 Dxe6 Web 11 Db3 and now L1...2b6 12 Axd4 2xd4 13 Wxd4 gave White a pull (bishops v. knights) in Piket- Anand, Wijk aan Zee 1999, while 11...Wd6 12 Sfa! Wixf4 13 @xc5 has been evaluated as slightly better for White. Then the kingside offers Black’s king the better protection as 13...0-0-0 14 Wb3 favours White, so 13...0-0 14 Hel is normal when, in return for the pawn, White has a pull on the queenside and the makings of an assault with his kingside pawn majority. 9 051? Consistent with Whiie’s game-plan. A natural reaction to the qucen’s arrival on 6 is 9 Dict Bxct 10 Lxct Age? 11 Bel with the idea of softening Black up on the light squares by pushing the e-pawn. in Tunik- Nachev, Aratovsky Memorial 1999, Black addressed this possibility by anyway com- promising his light squares with 11...{6, only to see White carry out the advance regardless. After 12 e519 Dxe5 (12...fxe5 13 g5 leaves a8Queen's Gambit Accepted with 3 e4 White ewo pawns down but with obvious compensationgn the light squares) 13 £4 0.0.0 (13...A\7g6 14 Dxe5 fxe5 mans into 15 Sexe5 DxeS 16 Wh5x) 14 Axed fxe5 15 Weyt+ bs 16 dxc5 Wes 17 Wxg6 Aixg6 18 « Gx97 Bhe8 19 g3 White had won back his gambit pawn() with interest thanks to his potentially powerful bishop pair. With the text White decides to actually use his e- pawn onthe board - rather than saerifice it immediately ~in order to create a space advartage and control two key squares in Black’s half of the board. 9...Wd5 10 DoS! Homing in on Black’s ‘good’ bishop, which surveys both halves of the board from. 6. 10...0-0-0 Black’s king comes under fire on the queenside but, with his kingside still lagging behind, the centre is hardly an ideal place in which to remain for 100 longy’eg, 10...28d8 11 Qc4 when 11...Wxe5 12 Dxeb fxeo 13 el is typical of the kind of breakthrough White is looking for. The more circumspect 11..d7 12 Zxe6 fxeo 13 et improves but the problem remains of what todo with the king, as castling short is out of the question now that White looks so menacing on this side of the board. 11 kc4 Wd7 12 Dxe6 fxe6 13 b4t Openings involving a gambit - usually a pawn -tendito require futher offersin order toexert maximum pressure on the opponent. Apart from affording the aggressor the lux- ury of remaining in the driving seat itis also important, froma psychological perspective, not toallow the opponent to feel he has successfully weathered the storm. Black hopes to bolster the king’s defences with his bishop on b6. Taking the second pawn with the bishop looks less desirable after 13...dxb4 14 Wb3 Bes 15 Bb1 etc, 13...2b6 gives the game adifferent feel after 14 W3 We7! 15 2xe6+ Lbs 16 Ais Hixd4 17 Wxb4 Dxb4 18 £5. 14 Wb3 Ads 15 Ded ibs After 15..We6 16 Bb1 Db6 17 Rxeb+ Sb3 18 Axc5 Wxc5 19 Kel! White’s long- range pieces are well worth the invested pawn, whether Black seeks to relieve some of the pressure with 19...We3 20 dg5 Beg 21 £217 or retreats - 19,..We7 20 a4 ete. 16a If White is to make a breakthrough it is imperative that he forces astructural concession from Black. 16.05 16...a6 17 a5 LaF 18 &~5 Hie 19 Bic puts Black under considerable pressure on both the b- and c-files. 17 2.d6+! Now we see the main point behind White's previous move - thec7-pawn is now the sole defender of the bishop, permitting White cu land his knight on d6. 17.08 17...cxd6 18 S.xd5 exd5 19 Wxb6 dxe5 20 4id2 transposes to the main game after 20..déb8, while 20...2e7 21 Wa7! ich 22 Bfcl is unclear. Anand prefers to keep the enemy queen out of a7. 18 xd5 exd5 19 td? ‘Threatening 20 Sxa5 etc. 19...ced6 20 Wxb6 dxe5 Black's collection of extra pawas has now grown to three, and if he can survive the attack on his king there will be no stopping 39eee Attacking with 1 d4 the cluster in the centre. 214 Another thematic attempt to make the most of both White's development advantage and his potentially decisive command of the dark squares. As well as holding the centre pawns together the e5-pawn preventsthe bishop from coming to the sensitive h2-b8 digoral. Kasparov offers an alternative means to deal with the e5-pawn in the equally direct 21 fel, which has the bonus of simultaneously threatening to bring the rook into the game with the capture of the pawn. Then 21...Be8 fails to 22 Bxe5! Sxe5 23 uf4 etc. Sending over the cavalry with 21..£.e7 22 Bxed £icé is sensible, when 23 LLf4! a8 24 Bb1 She8!? 25 Bxd5 Bel+ 26 Exe! #xd5 still leaves Black defending but at least a pair of rooks has left the arena. 24.516 Active defence. 21...e4? closes out the bishop only temporarily, since 22 {5 e3 23 ket succeeds in getting the bishop to the appropriate diagonal anyway. 21...2\e7 22 fke5 cb 23 e6 (23 Babi and 23 Sxa5 can be considered) 23...lWixe6 24 Bab1 £47 25 3.144 28 26 207 tooks piacrically winning for White at first glance, but after 26,,2d8 27 Wxad+ Wa6 or 27 Bud Weds Black is holding on. 22 txe5 Sled 23 xa 23 Ltt W6! 24 e6+ Wa8 25 Wrad+ Bab is equal. 23...d3 24 e6?! Kasparov offers 24 Wb4! as the best winning try, with the following position: Here he gives the following variation: 24,,.Bde8 (24...Bc8 25 Bb6) 25 2b6 d2 26 a5! We7 (26,..Hxe5 27 26 We7 28 S274!) 27 Wh3 WxcS 28 a6 Re7 29 axb7, when 29.,.JOxb7 30 EAS! Eif8 31 Bade! dxa8 32 Wa3+ kbs 33 Waxl8+ is a good advert for chess. 24.,,Wd6 25 Wxd6+ Exd6 26 e7 Ef6 27 Ead6 Dxi6 28 Hd1 BeB 29 faba %- After 29...Dg8 30 Exd3 ec? 31 Bxd5 @\xe7 32 Bh5 hé 33 c3 White has an edge. Conclusion Holding back the queen’s knight isa flexible way to answer the provocative 3...Ac6 (Game 1), bur in general it is important to remember that White's kingside is quite solid in this line, providing sufficient confidence to enable White to get to work on the queenside. The light squares in particular can be a problem for Black. In Game 2 young Miton’s experimental treatment of 3.26 looks promising since White’s king is equally comfortable on the queenside in the trendy, fore- ing sequence that might well leave Black simply a pawn down, Game 3 serves to demonstrate that the d5-square and White’s kingside pawn majority continue to be key contributors to White's desired initiative even when the queens have left the board, while the complexities of 5...b5 in Game 4 will be better understood with time - and a few dozen blitz games. What is evident from Game 4 is the crippling effect of White's e6- pawn. White’s kingside pawn majority also plays a vital role in Game 5, this time the dark squares offering White something to bite on after the trade of the relevant bishops. Finally I prefer Kasparov's energetic play in Game 6 to 7 Stxe6as the latter aption involves a certain amount of containment before White is able to exploit Black’s more static pawn structure. 40CHAPTER TWO Queen’s Gambit Declined and Slav Defences 1d4-d5 2¢4 ‘Whether Black supports the d5-pawn with 2...e6 or 2...c6, I am recommending that White continues consistently with 3 ®c3. The Queen's Gambit Declined can be a tough nut to crack and Black has anumber of versatile systems designed to steer the game to an old-style equality. In recent years the Exchange Variation has become an attack oriented weapon, particularly the more versatile version characterised by White's holding back the g1-knight. Consequently 3 c3 fits in well here, and Game 7 illustrates how both the use of the e2-square for the knight and the £3-square for the pawn combine to pose Black more problems than the automatic @f3. The Tarrasch Defence, fea- tured in Game 8, requires White to adopt a kingside fianchetto in the quest for an advantage, after which Black's isolated d5-pawn becomes the focus of attention. Black’s best results in the incompromising Marshall Gambit (Game 9) tend to come against the less well prepared, and with uninhibited play White has no shortage of activity for his pieces. Finally, for the super-solid Slav (Game 10) it is worth delving into the past for a line that is sound and offers White chances to reach positions in which Black is not without certain problems. Lautier-Oll Tallinn/Parnu 1998 1d4.d52c4e6 3 Dc3 AIS An alternative here is 3...2¢7. Easwovae af 8222 e ae oh This was reasonably popular for a while. Clearly Black wants to prevent 5, but the fA-square is also fine for the bishop. 4 cxdS exd5 5 Sift and now Black’s options involve the c pawn. a) 5. DG 63 al) 6.265 7 Dge2 00 8 Agi Leb (8...d0g6 9 h4 h6 10S Qh7 11 &d3 dxd3 12 Wad3 <5 13 00-0 with an edge for White in Chekhov-Zaitsev, Protvino 1988) 9 2d3 esa 4Attacking with 1 d4 5 10 dxc5 Qxc5 110-0 Ac6 12 Hel d4 13 Abd Kb6 14 e4 was ashade better for White in Lautier-Marciano, French League 1999. 22) 6...0-0 7 £d3 5 8 DES Acb 9 0-0 a21) 9.,.dtg4 10 dxc5 Stxc5 11 h3 and now two games of V.Milov show how to handle the white pieces. 11...8xf3 12 Wxf3 dt 13 Bed Be7 14 Hidi Whé6 15 De Bfes 16 QS dxe3 17 Sxe3 Bc5? 18 Axg7! Axe} (18...982xg7 19 Sh6+) 19 Weis He5 20 As Bxf2+ 21 deh Bxf5 22 Wels Qd4 23 Sia WeF 24 Wrxh7+ GIS 25 Rct Dds 10, V.Milov-Toth, Liechtenstein 1996. In V.Miloy-Knoppert, Tilburg 1994, Black instead played 11...h52!, butafter 12 g4! 2 96 13 Stxg6 hxg6 14 g5 d4 White could have played 15 Dad! for a safe win of the d+ pawn, a2) 9...04 10 &c2 94 (10...Dh5 11 Res fo 12 Ags! g6 13 Dxh7 fxe5 14 DxlB Axi8 15 dxe5 BeS 16 Qxp6 Ae? 17 f4 with 5-0 kingside pawn majority, H.Olafsson- Einarsson, Reykjavik 1988) 11h3.2&h5 12 g4 Rg6 13 De5 looked nice for White in Vyz- manavin-G. Timoshenko, Irkutsk 1986. b) 5...c66 3 2f5 7 g4. Here we see atypi- cal battle of wills, as Black is ready for the advance of White’s pawn(s) yet White is ea- ger to push, io0. Theory prefers White, as the following examples suggest. bl) 7...8g6 8 ha! bil) 8..2xh42 allows 9 Wb3 b6 10 Exh! Weh4 11 Dxd5, e.g. 11...2a6 12 Wat. b12) 8..h5 9 g5 &d6 10 Dge2 Ma6 11 S2xd6 Wixd6 soon cleared off into an ending in Karpov-Portisch, Linares 1989: 12 f+ Dc 13 Le2 Ws 14 Wd2 De7 15 RB Deb 16 Deed Daft 17 Dxft Wad2+ 18 dexd2 Get 19 Sixes dee4 20 Hack 0.0.0 21 Hest @d5 22 Dxd5 Hxd5 23 Hhel Bhds 24 b+ Be7 25 Bed! a6 26 £3 exl3+ 27 Hexf3 and White had an edge which was eventually converted. b13) 8...h6 9 D3 Dd7 10 d3 Sexd3 11 Wxd3 Deo 12 Hgi WaS was played in Knaak-Raicevic, Athens 1992. After shadow- boxing with 13 Ad2 Af8 14 3 Ae6 15 Re5 WB 16 Hht dé White finally castled: 17 0-0-0 Sxe5 18 des Dd7 19 f4 Ade 20 Wc2 with an interesting game in prospect. b2) 7...e6 8 h4!? b21) 8...2xh4 9 Wb3 b6 O...g5 10 Rh2t xed? 11 Wxb7 We7 12 Wxa8 Wxe3+ 13 Se2 Wxf2+ 14 ded? and Black soon ran out of steam in Vaiser-Diaz, Havana 1985) 10 DEF Re7 11 Ded DE (11...Ad6P 12 Vdd De? with a pawn to compensate for Black's passive position) 12 g5 Dfd7 13 g6Dxe5 14 Rxe5 Ril (14...fxg6 15 Bxg7 Bes 16 xh) 15 Xxh7 0-0! We are following Gulko-Lputian, Glen- dale 1994, Ivis not often that we see castling when an enemy piece is so close to 8! 16 2g3 fxg (after 16...215 17 0-0-0 Qxge 18 Bh2 White is ready to double on the h-file) 17 Bh2 #47! 18 0-0-0, andnow 18...Dd7! 19 = 42 #Queen's Gambit Declined and Slav Defences e+ Re7 would have left Black only slightly worse. Instead 18.,.h82! 19 xh Wixh8 20 el was clearly better for White. 622) 8...2d6. White has gained a tempo here compared with the Exchange Variation in which the bishop arrives on [4 via g5. 9 Dh3 De7 10 Kd3 ho 11 WI? Dg 12 Sixd6 Wad6 13 DUP Deft 14 exft f6 15 0-0-0 was a demonstration of direct, aggressive play from White in Yakovich-Arlandi, Valle d’Aosta 2000. 623) 8...c5 is a thematic central strike to counter the flank attack. Then Dautov- Lputian, Istanbul Olympiad 2000, saw anew idea from White: 9 2e5!? 2f6 10 &xbs BxbS 11 g5 @e7 12 2g? h6 13 Age? hxgs 14hxg5 Hixhi+ 15 Qxhi fxg5 16 Wa4+ and. ‘White emerged from the experiment with the superior position. 4 cxd5 exdd 4... Dyxd5 leads to the Semi-Tarrasch after 5 ef Dxc3 6 bxc3 c5 7 4/3, Black has two moves after 7...cxd4 8 cxd4 a) 8...2\c6 9 Bet and now 9...b5 (hoping for 10 S.xb52? WaS+; 9...Scb4+ leads ro ‘b’, below) 10 le? Sib4+ 11 Ad? leaves the b5- pawn looking oddly placed. Bacrot- Korchnoi, Albert (match) 1997, is a good illustration of how White should use the d- pawn: 11...Rxd2+ 12 Wxd2 bs 13 d5!exd5 14 exd5 De7 (14...A)a5 15 We3+ We7 16 We3 Wo 17 RxbS+) 15 de Als 16 Edi. Now 16...0d7 17 gi! piles on the pressure, ie with 17..2h4 18 We3+ winning for White after either 18...2e6 19 47+ 48 (19...Wsxd7 20 Dxh4) 20 WicS+ dogs 21 Wixa7 (threatening 22 WxbS!), or 18.0018 19 We7+, when White picks up the knight. The alternative 17...Ah6 leaves Black’s forces embarrassingly situated after 18 We3+ 8 19 h3 etc. Korchnoitried 16...0-0, when 17d?! 2b7 (17...d2a6 18 0-0) 18 0-0 Wi6 19 Wis a6 20 gt! prepared to take the game into the next phase with a crippling exchange on £6. b) 8..Rb4+ 9 Rd? Bxd2+ (...WaS 10 Uibi Sxd2+ 11 Wxd2 Wxd2+ 12 fxd? helps White) 10 Wxd2 0-0 11 Bct Acé 12 00 swith a couple of sample lines: bi) 12...b6 13 Hadi £b7 14 Bfel Bc8 15 d5 @a5 16 243 exd5 17 &5! White has good attacking prospects. 17.834 18 Wi+ Bb2? fails to 19 Sxh7+! xh? 20 Ags+ deg6 (20..dg8 21 Wh Bes 22 Wh7+ $8 23 e6 is final) 21 h4 He4 22 h5+ doxh5 23 gt Hh6 24 h2+ 19 Aveul Donk, Lost Boys 1998, or 21... xdl 22 h5+ Phe 23 Heb+ Hh? 24 Dxds Sexd8 25 Exdi Hde8 26 Wi5+ tgs 27 Wa? a8 28 f4 Mads 29 Wraz d4 30 Wado d3 31 We 1.0 D.GurevichMassana, New York 1985. In KhenkinStraeter, Recklinghausen 1996, White set his kingside pawns rolling after 17,..c6 18 Dd-4 Hh6, when 19 f4 Ac6 20 M5 Heb 21 Ddo Hxd6 22 exdo Wxd6 23 thi Bd8 24 We3 go 25 (51? dag7 26 Bf kept up the pressure. 43eee Attacking with 1 d4 b2) 12...e5 13 d5 a5 alters the pawn structure. Then 14 Dxe5 Hes 15 Bd4 Bxed. 16 Wrxe5 Dxc4 17 Wad b5!? 18 a4 Dd6 is far from clear. I prefer 14 Bact (6 15 Wht bo 16 Be2 Db7 17 Ad? cS 18 Db3 a5 19 Bet a6 20 We2 (White’s queen is busy but it is the d5-pawn that counts here) 20...Axb3 21 axb3 Hc8 22 Wd2 Sxe? 23 Wee? with an advantage to White according to Alterman. 5 sig5 c6 S.ndtb4 6 €3 h6 7 Rh4 0-0 8 Ld3 «59 Dge? highlights an advantage of keeping the kknight on g1, as now its partner is offered useful support. The same can be said after the insistent 7...25 8 Sig} Ded, e.g. 9 Dge2 Acé 10 a3 Mxc3+ 11 Axc3 Axc3 12 bxcd 265 13 h4 g4 14 c4 Wd7 15 Be? h5 16 0-0, Mirzoev-Bayramov, Baku Cup 1999. 6 We2 Preventing ...2.f5. 6...e7 Also seen are the following: a) 6...g6 7 ¢3 215 8 W3 b6 9 13 Be7 10 gt Reb 11 Bho 28 12 Axis exi8 13 Dee? Wide 14 At4 Dbd7 15 0-00, Alter- man-Parker, London Lloyds Bank 1994, is exactly what White is looking for. b) 6..Da6 7 ad Bc? 8 3 Deb 9 Vh4 Re7 10 £43 g6 11 Dge2 Dg7 12 3! 0-0 13 0-0 with the usual pull for White in view of the constant threat of e3-e4, Krupp Faibisovich, Chigorin Memorial 1999. 7 ©3 Dbd7 8 2d3 0-0 Black has also traded bishops here: 8...Dh5 9 Bxe7 Wxe7 10 Age? g6 1100.0 Db6 12 Dg3 Dg7!. Kasparov-Andersson, Reykjavik 1988, continued 13 debt £47 14 Hcl 0-0-0 15 Dat Axat 16 Wxat bs 17 %c3 b6 13 £.a6, while Timman-Shor, FID] Candidates (match) 1993. saw 18 Ha3, an interesting struggle ahead in both cases. 9 Dge2 Ee8 100-0 Natural and the most popular, butnotthe only choice. a) Even if castling short is the plan it is possible to keep Black guessing here with 10 6B. ai) With 16...05 Black immediately chal- lenges the centre now that e3 is less secure, although the advance of the c-pawn does leave d5 weaker. After 11 0-0 Black can either take on d4 or maintain the tension. I1.cxd4 12 Dxd4 AEB 13 Hadi h6 14 &h4 a6 15 ht gave White a pleasant edge in P.Varga-Remling, Budapest 1994. The isolated d-pawn and White’s more harmonious development more than make up for the ¢3- pawn. Reinderman-V an der Sterren, Dutch Ch. 1998, continued 11..b6 12 Had! @b7 and now White elected to play against the hanging pawns after 13 dxc bxc3 14 2b5 White's bishops attack the defending knights and therefore exert considerable pressure on Black's centre pawns. Black traded in one target for another: 14...h5 15 Sixe7 Wixe7 16 Dxd5 Sixd5 17 Kxds Wxe3+ 18 Hf2 hf, and now 19 Exd7 Z\xd7 20 Axd7 Bed8 21 stat Bd? 22 Wed Wxes 25 fxet Bxb2 24 Bcd Babs 25 2b3 Hxf2 26 Gxf2 cA 27 Rdi Hb24 28 G3 offers the better chances to the two pieces, Instead White played 19 Hd3! Wes (19.7 20 2g3) 20 Zg3 Habs 21 Lxd7! Dxd7 22 Be? Weco 23 A5!, when after 23.,.2xe2 24 Wxe2 Wh5 25 Wa2! Al6 (25.08 26 Ae7+ ehs 27 Bd8 c4 28 DcBl) 26 Wes (26 Nb3 Wes 27 Dxg7! Gxg7 28 We5+ Lg 29 Wred+ bg8 30 Wp5+ Gis 31 Hxbs Wxbs 32 Wxfo is 44strong) 26...e8 27 Bb3 We2 White should have gecured a near decisive lead with 28 Dhé+ Bh8 (28...0218 29 Wexc5+) 29 Bal 7+ cg 30 Wes! etc. Returning to the diagram position Black might try 14...06 15 Bad ESP, withdrawing. the rook from the e-file - and in doing so taking his eye off the }-pawa - in order 10 unpin the d7-knight. The point of attacking White's bishop first is to hit it again after 16 A+ Dbo. However, 17 Lxis 2xf6 18 ADfed5! Qxd5 (18...Dxd5 19 Gixd5 SxS 20 Wxc5) 19 Zixdd Grad 20 Wrat Rxb2 21 Wo? is clearly better for White. a2) 10...b5 convinces White that queenside castling involves some risk, but of course this is not a problem, and Black's rigid pawn, structure is a ready-made target. Cruz Lopez Garcia Gomez, Spanish Ch, 1994 is typical, 11.0.0 Wb6 12 h3 a6 13 a4 b4 14 a5 Wd8 15 a4 resulting in weaknesses for Black on b6, cb andc5. 23) 10...Wa5 110-0 h6 12 &h4 c3 looked rather loose in Urday-Suarez, Merida 1997. After 13 Had! exd4 14 Axd4 £.e5 15 &xf6l Bxi6 16 ib} Ws 17 BbS the d-pawn was about to drop. a4) 10...2)68 transposes to the main game after 11 0-0, but White can also play 11 Sh4. ‘Then: a41) 11..Ah5 12.22 @h4 13 ¢3 Be7 14 4 Dio 15 g5 Ded7 16 h4 gives the game a slightly different flavour to 10 09. Byshkovsky-Murugan, Gausdal 1991, saw Black get to work on the queenside, 16...b5 17 Bg3 Abo 18 LP Qdb 19 D5 OQ xf5 20 Sxf5 Dc4 21 He! producing a situation in which both sides have chances. Note that White's king is not poorly placed, with g2.a decent square. Meanwhile Black, despite the fact that his king is faced with two advancing enemy pawns, still has a pretty solid position and prospects of counterplay on the queenside. 242) In. P.Varga-Gogniat, Ambassador 1998, White did soon castle, following up ¢ and Slaw with an instructive deployment: squared bishop: 11...Dg6 12 SUf2 0-0 a6 14 Hadi We7 15 hil (15...2xh2 16 g3) 16 21 Itis tempting, albeit occasionally unwise, to spend time sending a piece to an uncon: ventional square. However, in this case gl is quite useful - and safe! ~ because h2 is protected and, as we shall see, the extra cover offered to the d+-pawn affords White the thematically desirable plan of central expansion, There followed 16...Bad8 17 ed! ded 18 fxed and here the hanging pawns are @% tremely well supported and consequently troublesome for Black, who is denied the use of the squares 5, d5, ¢5 and f5. b) White can also play 100.00 ‘The minoi problem here is that Black is not slow in generating an attack, so White tends to switch to positional play on the 46Attacking with 1 44 queenside! After 10...Wa5 11 Sbi bd 12 @g3 Black quickly goes on the offensive but the price is the hole on <3. bl) 12..b8 13 Qce2! (the beginning of an important knight manoeuvre) 13...b6 14 Act Bab 15 AfS 218 16 gil. Now 16... Axg4 17 Bhgi prtsBlackin trouble. For example 17...2xh2 runs into 18 Dh6+ gxh6 (18...22h8 19 Byxf7+ dig 20.2 ch7+ dext7 21 ‘We6 mate) 19 Ld8+, as does 17... Agi - 18 Dhot hs 19 Ax!74 dogs 20 Lxfo Dx 21 \g5. Finally 17...Adf6 18 h3 hé 19 Sts g5 20 ig} leaves the knight stranded on gt. Consequently Ward-Fant, Gausdal 1993, continued 16...c5 17 Sxf6! gxf6 18 dxc5 Dxe5 19 Dd4 Dxd3 20 Wxd3 b4 21 Shgi Lb7 22 Wh5! WixbS 23 2xb5 Hes 24 Ada %b6 25 Hd3 and Black was severely ham- pered by the four pawn islands. b2) 12...h6 13 &xf6 Dxf6 14 Ace? 2d7 15 Del Back 16 Db3 Whe 17 Bel Keo 18 \c5 favoured White in Ward-Parker, Guild- ford 1991, After 18...2d7 19 Dxe6 fxe6 20 ‘We2 fo 21 Abs b+ 22 h4 c5 23 Axfor Mxfo 24 94 ct 25 26 Bed8 26 25 White's attack had gained che most momentum. b3) 12....8 talces Black's eye off the c5- square. Shirov-Wedberg, Stockholm 1990, witnessed a wonderful knight manoeuvre: 13 ce2! Whe 14 Bel Qd7 15 Dts 2d8 (15...Rxf5 16 Rx g6 17 Bh3 Det 18 Rxe7 Exe? 19 Als is good for White) 16 Degs a5 17 Lxfo Axfo 18 Dhs Was (18..dRxf5 19 Dror gxto 20 dxf Bab 21 4) 19 Dd6! Heb 20 Db7 We7 21 Ac5 (very nice) 21...Bd6 22 Axi6+ Bxf6 23 (3 Se8 24 e4 and White, having assumed control of the queenside, pressed forward in the centre. 10...218 Black adopts the standard set up with the knight dropping back to defend the h7-pawn. Now White can play on the queenside with 12 abl (preparing b2-b4), for example, but We are going to-concentrate on the theme of expansion in the centre (threatened or exe- cuted) involving an early (2-(3, the possibility 46 that is akey difference when developing the knight on e2 instead of {3. 10,,.h6 removes the pawn from the firing line of the queen and bishop but restricts Black slightly in that the g6-square is no longer available after 11 &4 @\f8. White can continue as per plan with 12 (3, whea 12.,.2ie6 13 She5 c5? is an attempt to justify Black’s play that is best replaced with the more solid 13....2.d6. S.Ivanov-lguatiev, Chi- gorin Memorial 1997, continued 14 Sad1. Then 14..b6 15 xf! Bxi6 16 dxc5 Axes 17 Sh7+ Gh8 18 b4 Da6 19 Dxd5 is good for White, e.g. 19...2620 Sixg6 fxg6.21 Weg Sig7 (21.95 22 Ac7) 22 Axbol etc. In- stead Black played 14.04 15 RfS Dig?! (15...a6 16 e4 dxe4 17 fxe4 b5 had to be played, although with 18 @g3 White assumes a menacing stance) 16 Zif4 e6 17 Dxe6 fxe6 18 2h3 ADe6d7 (18...Wb6 19 ef Dgd7 20 Ags Mb4 21 exdd Rxc3 22 bxcd exd5 23 Hfel and White's raking bishops dominate), and now 19 2¢3 Wad 20 ¢4 would have left White clearly betcer. 1113 11.406 One of several possibilities, a) After 11..Dh5 12 2xe7 Wre7 13 et dxet 14 fet gt 15 5! Bad8 (15.05? 16 Dd5) 16 Des White had the advantage in Ivanchuk-Y usupov, Candidates match, Brus- sels 1991. IF 16...2e6 White has 17 Ad6, c.g. 17...Bxd6 (17...Rxe2 18 Bxh74) 18 exd6Queen’s Gambit Declined and Slav Defences Wxd6 19 Sxh7+. Instead the game went 16..Dg6 17 Hadi! Hf (17...Sixe2 18 Bxe? Dhis 19 ct) 18 h3 xe? 19 Lxe? Dhfs 20 dhe, and now Black should have played 20..Ad5, 14...2e6 is an improvement — Barcev-Ahlander, Naestved 1988 gave chances to both sides after 15 Bf2 Af (15...c5 16 @d5 Sexd5 17 exd5 cxd4 18 Dxd4) 16 h3 Had 17 Ball Age! b) LL..g6 12 Hh1 Deb 13 Lh4 bs is berter than 13..2g7?! 14 Sf2 c5? 15 dxc5 Sxc5 16 S&h4! when Yakovich-Baburin, Voronezh 1988 ended i6...%xe3 17 Sxf6 Wxl6 18 Dxd5 Wes 19 De7 Lh3 20 Dc3 1-0. Sa kaev-Nikitin, Smolensk 2000 continued (13...b6) 14 Sadi 2b7 15 Well, the point being that apart from defending the e3-pawn White also protects the e3-square, in anticipation of e3-e4 dxed, [xed Ag4. Then, with the queen on cl instead of c2, White will not have to worry about the knight fork on ¢3. ‘There followed 15...Nh5 16 Bxe7 Wxe7 17 et dxet 18 fret Sad8 19 Sct with a clear advantage to White according to Baburin. ‘The plan is e+e5 followed by sending a knight to dé. 6) 11...Wa5 just loses time, e.g. 12 a3 h6 (12..Dea? 13 b4 Wd8 14 Rxe7 Wxe7 15 fxg4) 13 b4 Wb6 14 Dat We7 15 BFA Bdé 16 Sixd6 Wixd6 17 e4 dxed 18 fxe4 and again ‘White has succeeded in launching the e- pawn. d) 11.,..c5 is premature, 12 S.xf6 xf 13 dxc5 Bxe3 14 Hadi 206 15 Bed d4 16 Db5 B17 Bxd3 We? 18 Dd6 b6 19 cbt, Mozetic-Abramovic, Yugoslav Ch. 1995 is one example of how White can exploit the weakened d5-pawn, 12 &b5 Sd7 13 Sxd7 Wrd7 14 Had ef 15 Rxfol xl 16 04 det 17 @xe4, Vaiser-C.Flear, French Team Ch. 1998, is another. ¢) 11...Q)g6 12 Kad and now the following are possible: el) 12..h6 13 Rxf6 Qxf6 14 Lxg6 fxg6 15 ef g5 16 c5 Re7 17 [4 gxfs 18 Dxf4 Bis 19 Bg6 Bxfl+ 20 Uxfl Leb 21 De2 Kasparov-Barua, Kasparov Grand Prix 2000, Black has the bishops but White has a knight firmly ensconced in enemy territory, another ready to support it and the File. After 21.7 22 h4 Be8 23 g3 Baburin recommends 23....2d8 in case this bishop comes in handy. Barua played 23...279 24 Dxe7+ Rxe7 when 25 DS Bes 26 Ado Sigé 27 We3 Bxd6 28 exd6 Wxd6 29 Wad Wb8 30 We7 was very good for White. 2) 12..Dh5 13 Bxe7 Wxe7 14 e4 dxet 15 fxe# Re6 16 e5 brings about another situation in which White threatens to use d6 asa juicy outpost fora knight. In ¥akovich- Ablander, Stockhoim 1999 Black tried to undermine this plan with 16...c52!, but 17 d5! Sgt 18 e6! was strong, eg. 18...fxe6 19 Sixg6 hxg6 20 Wxg6 Wh4 (20....2xe2 21 dé) 21 Wi74 Wh8 22 dé. After 18...Af6 19 Aes BiB (19...fxe6 20 dot Wi7 21 Des Wd7 22 ro the simplest route is 20 ext7+8xf7 21 cS 22 Dxlor Hxfo 23 Brfo Wale 24 es ete. 12 Zad1 Ee8 13 ¢h1 hé The idea behind White’s previous move can be seen after 13...c5 14 dxc5. First 14,..xc5% no longer pins the e-pawn, so White is able to play 15 e4-dxe4 16 fixed with advantage. This leaves 14...xc5 when both 15 &bS Adz (15...28d7 16 Dd4) 16 Sexd7 DBxd7 (16...WWxd7 17 e4) 17 Wb3 (followed by DA) and 15 Wat a6 16 Sbi favour White. Best seems Lautie:’s own suggestion, 47ne ani Auacking with 1 4 namely 13...Qg6. Then 14 e4 dxe4 15 fxe4 Dg4 16 Sci cS! is a thematic strike at ‘White’s centre that seems to secure Black a decent game, e.g. 17 &b5 We7 18 Af cxd4 19 Sixe8 dye} 20 2b5 exb2 21 Wxb2 xfs 22 Sixi4 Wee? 23 Wxc2 Hxc2 24 Hd2 Exd2 25 S&xd2 2e5, which was nice for Black in Gulko-Sturua, Elista Olympiad 1998, or 17 5 cxd4 18 Axd4 Waxd4 19 Sxg6 Wxe5 20 i f4 Wicd 21 Sxh7+ Gh8 22 Let Bcd8 23 Bet Sdé 24 Wd? Sxf4 25 Wels Wes with equality in Sadter-Asrian, Las Vegas 1999. Finally 17 d5 gives away the e5-square. 14 ih4 a6 Black wants to rule out 2b5 before pushing his c- pawn, 15 fa Note that the arrival of the pawn oma6 introduces the possibility of 15 Bxf6!? &xf6 16 e4 because 16...dxe4 17 fxe4 &xd4 can be met with 18 &xa6 bxaé 19 A\xd4, when 19...Wa5 20 2xe6 gives White an edge after 20...2xe6 21 Ef5 or 20...2\xe6 21 Hd?. Ifthe manoeuvring in the main game is not to your liking then this forcing line is promising. 15.07 Now 16...g5 is a genuine threat. After 15...c5 16dxc5 EixeS 17 Wb1 Black will have problems with the newly isolated d-pawn. 16 if2 Remember that the gl-a7 diagonal is a useful home for this bishop in the f3- variation. From {2, for example, the bishop supports the dé-pawn (after e3-c4) and is also safe from harassment, whereas 16 £g3 Deb 17 Axe6 Lxe6 18 e4 Dh5 either gives Black time, in the case of 19 £2 @f4, or gives him counterplay on the dark squares after 19 €5 @xg3+ 20 hxg’ cS etc. 16...Ld6 26 17 Dxe6 Lxe6 18 c4 is standard, White threatens to march on with e4-e5 and 3-4-5 etc. Consequently Black has two ways of addressing matters in the centre: a) 18...dxe# 19 fxe4 Bg 20 45” cxd5 {20...Dxf24? 21 Weel hits (7, while 20..2d7 21 digl is ashade better for White) 21 exd5 d7 22 BL7+ Bh8 23 Kd4 isan interesting transformation, the position now having a much more open nature. Then the cralty 23..We7 runs into 24 Qxg7+! sexg7 25 Bxf74! BhS 26 dé! Oxdé 27 Wes Le5 28 gS etc. b) 18...c5 19 dxc5 &xc5 (19...d4 20 e5) 20 5 2d7 21 {4 and White's mobile majority is under way. 17 Wa2 ing the knight. 17...Mc7 Doubling the guard on f4, 17...f2xf 18 ext does not damage White’s pawns, rather increases their attacking potential, since 4-65 followed by supporting and advancing the g- pawn could soon unsettle Black's king. Note that in the meantime the f3-pawn covers e4. 48Queen's Gambit Declined and Slav Defence 18 Sgt! ‘This time White takes time out to protect h? in order to free the {4-knight. 18...b5?! Itis significant that White’s calm manoeuvring has induced a dubious reaction from Black. This queenside expansion is designed to provide Black with some activity when White finally gets round to pushing his pawn, but the creation of a fresh weakness on ¢5 means that White can now change plans. Others: a) Again 18...S2xf491 19 exfd is incorrect, eg. 19...De6 20 £5 Df4 21 Sub1 and £3 is coming. b) 18... Deb 19 Axes Lxe6 20 et is also what White is waiting for, e.g. 20...Jft 21 Wed (21 WIR) 21...dxe4 22 fxet Bet 23 Bdel etc. <) After 18..Ee7 19 Dfe2 White is ready to execute the desired push: ci) 19...b5 is slightly different to the main game in that White has already dropped his knight back to €2. Moreover 20 ef b4 21 5 Sxe5 22 dxe5 bxc3 23 Axc3 demonstrates that ...e7 does not mix well with advancing the b-pawu, as both 23...xe5 24 Bd4 Se6 25 Qxab and 23...WxeS 24 &c5 Hee8 25 Sxa6 see the rook moving again. €2) 19.dEhce8 is consistent with the previous move. Then 20 e4 dxe4 21 fxe4 Dxe4 22 Axes Uxet 23 Lxet Hxed is an interesting exchange sacrifice that should be dealt with energetically by White - 24 ds! &g4 25Dc} %e7 26 Hel concentrating an open lines to give White an edge. 3) 19...c5#! does not hold White back: 20 ef! and now 20...cxd4 21 Sxd4 8h7 22 exd5 wins a pawn as 22....:xh2? loses, e.g. 23 Bxh7+ Gxh7 (23...Dxh7 24 f4) 24 Lxf6 gxf6 25 d6, Then we have 20..dxe+ 21 fxet cxdd 22 Bxd4, e.g, 22.05 23 Bxfé! pxlé 24 Dd5 Wa8 25 Axe7+ Wre7 26 Wah6 etc. 19 @b1! Highlighting the flexibility of the system Black has had to watch out for e3-e4 for much of the game but his latest attempt to undermine White's control of the e4-square presents White with a second option. Conse- quently the text frees the d3-square for the knight in order to closely monitor Black's weakness on ¢5. Meanwhile the f3-pawn, ostensibly there to add weight to an eventital e9-e4, provides valuable protection to e4 = particularly useful now in the event of ...b5- ba. 19,..Bods Lautier suggests 19../Ae6 20 Ad3 Dg5, pointing out that with 20 Dixe6 White retains aslight edge. 20 Ect! Remember that 18...5 neglected the cb- pawn as well as the c5-square, so White im proves a rook before relocating his knight, 20 Bd} walks into 20...2f5. 20...b8 ,..Wibé keeps an eye on the c-pawn but places the queen on a more vulnerable square, e.g. 21 e4!? b4 22 Das Wb5 23 5 Wxa4 24 exfé and our attention is brought to Black's kingside. 21 Dee2 Again White is in no rush, the text keeping an eye on c6. Instead 21 2432! 25! makes life a little easier for Black. 21 ab4 Part of the plan, perhaps, but Lautier's 21..e7 is preferable. 22 Dd3 Aes 4gAttacking with 1 d4 Sensibly contributing to the struggle for os. 23 Lf2! Excellent play from White, Having served its purpose on gl the bishop is ready to challenge its opposite number in White’s quest 0 take control of the key c5-square, after which thoughts can return to more aggressive matters. 23,,.05 ‘The only logical way to avoid the coming trade of dark-squared bishops isto vacate the h2-b8 diagonal: 23..Wb6 21 2g3 2/8 ond Black continues to hold 5. However, the backward c6-pawn and the hole in front of it are long-term weaknesses and, in evading capture, Black’s bishop +has had to retreat, whereas White's now enjoys more freedom. 23,.dixh22t is too desperate, White stands much better after either 24 Axb4 Was 25 Dxab or 24 f+ Des 2! 5. 24 Ag3 EcB 25 “\c51? White has anice ideain mind. 25 65! is another wise suggestion of Lautier. ‘The plan isto transfer the knight from e2 to f5. After 25,..ddxe$ 26 dxeS! Gh? 27 f4 White does, finally, manage to release the kingside pawns. Black's best is then 27...2h{8 28 Ad4 when White has the makings of an initiative. An example of how quickly things can go wrong, for Black is 27,..Wb6 28 £5 Begs 29 Dc5 Bedi 30 @\ed? Mad? 31 h4, 26.,.Qx08 20 Zxob 60 oe Bo +g a 6 el 2 Ve, @ ero ware White is able to keep a piece oncS rather than apawn thanks to the pin’ on the h?-b8 diagonal. It is true that he has given up the flexible knight in the process, but in doing so a key defender has also been eliminated. As long as White makes sure to have more pieces controlling c5 it is necessary to face facts and be willing to part with one or two hitherto loyal servants. 26...2e7 Ignoring the attack on the a5-pawn in order to apply pressure to White's usual weakness ia the £3-sys:em, the c3-pawn. 27 Sxd6 27 Bxa5? Hce8 and then 28 £2? with- draws from the h2-b8 diagonal to permit 28...Wb6 29 Ha4 c5 etc. 27...Wxd6 28 Dg3 So far so good for White, who has succeeded in winning the c5-square. Black’s only coumterplay lies in hitting the e3-pawn, 28...5ce8 29 Ze1 With an undisputed advantage on the queenside White need not be obsessed with achieving ¢3-e4, Lautier gives 29 et dxe+ 30 fxet Axed 31 Axed Hxe4 32 xed Bxed as steering the game to equality. Thisexchange sacrifice should be borne in mind when en- gineering the central push. 29... 814? Black initiates complications that are clearly to White's advantage. Once again Black appears to lose patience, overestimat- ibaQueen’s Gambit Declined and Slav Defences ing his chances in the complications. More circumspect is 29...Wc7 which keeps White’s lead to a minimum. 30 Hea! Whites happy to go along for the ride, 30 2)i1! (Lauter) is also good, e.g. 30...1We7 31 Beci h5 32 &c2! h4 32 Lat Beb 34 We2 Hic8 35 Wal. 30...Dxe4 30,..Wh4 is clearly better for White after 31 Drxfor (31 Dd6) 31...Oxf6 32 Bad when 32...WE4 33 Ba8! introduces a new and important pin. 31 fxe4 Wd6 32 Exa5 Not 32 e5? Rxe5, but 32 exd5! exd5 33 xa5 is adecent option (again 33... f+ runs into 34 Zag). 32...dxe4 33 Sc5 Returning to the strongpoint to cut the communication between Black’s queen and the b-pawn. 33..0e5 After the sensible 33,..8b8 White improves his bishop with 34 2c? followed by 35 &b3, 34 Bect! 34 Wxb4? lifts the pin on the d-file only to walk into a new one on the a3-{8 diagonal, thus leaving Black free to play 34...2h5!, The b4-pawn isnot going anywhere so if White is to convert the hard-earned positional advantage he must make the most of the c5-square while keeping an eye on the kingside. 34...Sxe5 35 Sxe5 £5 Notice that Black concentrates on the kingside, the area in which White is more vulnerable. 36 93 Again 36 Wisb4 is somewhat careless, as then 36..f4 gives Blacks chances of at least making his presence felt near White's king, eg. 37 Wes £3. 36...95? Too ambitious, although indicative of Black’s game-plan since surrendering the c5- square. 36...2b8 37 Sic? 2e6 38 2b3 Lxb3 39 axb3 HbS! is the most uncompromising, continuation, fighting for the square that Black neglected more thaa twenty moves earlier! Incidentally after 36...£4?! 37 gxf4 Sig4 the calm 38 el! leaves Black with little to show for the pawn, and there is still the matter of the weak bpawa. 37 Bixb4 Le6 Now 37...£4?? loses to 38 Hxg5+. 38 kez ‘Lidy play. The tricky 38 @xe42! works if Black falls for 38..fxe¢ 39 Bxg5+, but 38.27! 39 Oxf Bxe3 offers Black unnecessary counterplay. 38...2d5 39 Lb3 #4 40 Woe Threatening 41 Hxd5. 40...ixb3 41 Sxc6! WB Or 41...Wd5 42 Hy6+ bef8 43 axb3 fxe3 44 Exh etc, 42 Wxb3+ Lh8 43 Wh6 1-0Attacking with 1 d4 43..0h7 44 Bc? Be7 45 Ws, or 44.8 45 Wee. Game 8 Pelletier-Chandler Mermaid Beach Club 1999 1d4.d5 2c4 e6 3 Sc3c5 4 cxd5 exd5 Before continuing with the main line iris worth investigating the tricky 4...cxd4. In this system Black sacrifices a pawn for rapid development and the prospect of an attack against White’s king, since the main line sees the kings settling on opposite sides of the board. The following sequence is practically: forced: 5 Wxd4 cb 6 Wdl exd5 7 Bxdd Ad7 8 3 Afé 9 Wal! (placing the queen where it is least exposed) 9..8c5 10 2 We7 11 £020.00 126.0 g5! 13 ba! Taving already sacrificed a pawn Black has wasted no time with 12...25. With this in, mind White replies in kind, distracting Black, opening the b-file and making way for the bishop to come to the al-h8 diagonal, 13..dexb4 14 2b? g4 (14.d2b8 15 Dd5 @xd5 16 Stxh8 @xe3 17 fxe3 Bxh8 18 wWd3 docs not give Black enough for the exchange) 15 @d4. Black has three moves in this position, a) 15...2)xd4? 16 Wxd4 helps White, e.g. 16...50c5 (16...2b5? 17 Wra7t Bxc3 18 Aixb5 sixb? 19 Hicl+ S&xci 20 Axcl+ mates, while 16...b8 17 Adi se4 18 WeS+ nets White material) 17 Dd5!Zixd5 18 Eifel! swith the following lines: a) 18.66 19 Wrd5 Bb5 20 Rxett Hs 21 Re5+ Sido 22 Bc8+! Bxc8 23 &xdor. a2) 18. Dc7 19 Bred (19 xed Wree5 20 Bxc5 Bhg8 21 &d3) 19...2e6 20 Wes Bhes 21 Bxc7+ Wxe7 22 Eel, 23) Best is 18... Shg8 19 Exc5+ Seb 20 Sixgt+ Web 21 Wed4 Bes (21..deas? 22 Exd5) 22 Sixe5+ Ga8 (22..Bc7 23 Bxc6 bxc6 24 Hib1+ dea8 25 S2xc7) 23 ief3, when ‘White has an extra pawn and the bishop pair. b) 15..8b8 16 Dcbs a6 (16.25? 17 ‘Wh3 Ghg8 18 Babl Bc8 19 Bixa7! Des 20 Ddoo+ 1-0 Illescas-Rodriguez. Vargas, Cata- lunya 1996) 17 Axc6+ Sxcb 18 Did4 d5 19 Std3 Khg8 20 Wat Ded 21 DS Wes 22 “Wrxb4 Wixf5 and now in Viasin-Cech, Czech League 1992, White could have safely played 23 Bxab. ¢) 15..h5 and now: cl) 16 DcbS dbs 17 Was a6 18 Axco+ Rxcb 19 23f6 Well! is very dangerous for White, c.g, 20 £3 Wxe3+ 21 Shi Wxez 22 Web gxf3 23 Wits das 24 Bic7+ Wea? 25 gxf3, when Krush-Kapnisis, World U18 Ch. ‘Oropesa del Mar 1999, went 25...Bhg8 26 igs Bd3 27 Babi Exf3 28 Wdt+ debs 29 Bxb7+ Sxb7 30 Eb1+ Hb3+ 0-1. 26 Ad4+ does not help in view of 26...b6 27 Bi2 Bxd¢ 28 Db5+ wea8, 2) 16 Bb1! looks to be the best move for 62Queen‘s Gambit Declined ar? Siav Det ‘White if there are no decent improvements in ‘cl’. For example 16...A\xd4 17 Wxd4 §.{5? rebounds on Black after 18 Wo4+ Wc5 (18...8°b8?? 19 Wit+) 19 Waxcd+ Bxc5 20 bel, as now both 20...d7 21 Bfdi+ de7 (21...See6 22 Sc4+) 22 @d5+! Bxd5 23 Bxd5 Dxd5 24 Qxh8 and 20...seb8 21 Abs Le7 22 Le5+win for White, while 20...Hd2 meets with 21 a4. Meanwhile the standard 16...8b8 17 Ach is ‘b’, above, with White having &b1 and Black ...h7-A5. 5 O13 Acé 6 g3 Thanks to the fianchetto White is able to exert constant pressure on the d5-pawn, whether or not the d4-square becomes available. 6.16 ‘The main line. Black can also close the centre with 6...c4 when White should play the thematic 7 &g2 2b4 8 0-0 Dge7 9 ed. Reintroducing tension in the centre puts Black on the defensive. In fact there is a good chance that the centre will soon open up, leaving the g2-bishop very powerful on the long diagonal Whereas in the main game White blockades the d5-pawn with a knight on d4, here it is Black who tends to blocked White's (passed) d4-pawn. a) 9...dxet 10 Axe 0-0 (10...g4 11 ad Qa5 12 Bf4 0-0 13 Dd6 Bc? 14 Dxb7 Whs was played in Semkov-Nogueiras, Varna 1982, White gaining clear advantage with 15 d5 Wxb7 16 dxcé Wxc6 17 De5 Wxg?+ 18 sbxg? Sxdi 19 Bind Bfcs 20 nay) 1 Wert. al) 11..Sg4 12 Wxot Sxf 13 Bxfh Dxd4 (13...Wad4 14 Wh3) 14 S92 is very good for White due to the light-squared bishop. Gual Pascual-Moskalenko, Paretana 2C00 saw an instructive mistake from Black: 14...Hie8? 15 Wxb4 Dc2 16 DICH exfe 17 ‘Wott Deo 18 Hb1 and the bishop pair alone is decisive, a2) 11..Axd4 12 Axd4 Wxd4 13 Bd ‘WeS 14 Wixcd gives White a pull. a3) {1.015 12 Dh4! avtacks one light. squared bishop and unleashes another. a31) 12...Wixd4?! 13 xfs Dxf5 14 Bd WeS 15 Bas! Web 16 LE4 is clearly better for White. 232) 12...Sxe4 13 Sexe4 Wad4 (13...26 14 Ghé Be8 15 Wxcd) 14 Edi and White is active. 433) The fun soon peters out for Black after 12...Adxd4 13 Wxc4 Seb 14 Wxb4 Bed 15 Wat Dxal 16 £¢5 £6 (16..b5 17 Lxe7 Wre7 18 Wai) 17 &e3 b5 18 Hast Rc8 19 ‘Wxb5 etc. 234) 12..2g4 13 Des Dgs (13...26 14 “Wret Wadt 15 Wxd4 Dxd4 16 Lxb7) 14 d5! Bce5 15 h3! Ld7 16 Dxg6 hxgd 17 Wea! MoskalenkoSemenov, Alushta 1994, White threatens 18 Wh4. There followed 17...f6 18 4e6 Wic8! and now 19 @xi8 Saf5 has been assessed as unclear but looks good 53Attacking with 1 d4 E for White after 20 Wd4, while 19 2c3 Hes 20 Hadi! would have led to a clear advantage. a3) After 12...Bc8 13 AfeH! exfé the best. Black can expect is to be considerably worse following 14 Dxf5 Dxd4 15 Dxd+ Wxd4 16 Qxb7 Bb8 17 Hdl as 14...2xf5? loses, e.g. 15 WxfS Dxd4 (15... Wxd4 16 Les) 16 Wests @h3 17 Bdl sec5 18 See3, Therefore 13...@0h8 is forced, after which 14 Axf5 Dxf5 15 WxlS Wxi 16 Wxf gxf6 17 Le3 Bfd8! 18 Kfdi! is very good for White. b) With 9...00 10 exd5 Axd5 Black hopes to maintain a hold on the d5-square. Then, instead of the automatic 11 @xd5 White has 11 SS Wa5 (11...£621 12 Dxd5 Wxd5 13 De5 Whs 14.24 Wa 15 Axcé bxcb 16 Rd? was unpleasant for Black in Treguboy- Moskalenko, Alushta 1994) and only then 12 S)xd5 Wed5 13 23 25 14 De5 Wb5 15 a4 Was 16 Dxc6 bxc6, when Timoshchenko- ‘Tseitlin, Palma de Majorea 1989 saw White turn his superior forces into something more tangible after 17 We2!? ste6 18 Bicl Babs 19 QF Wh6 20 Bxct Wxd4 21 2xeb Bxb2 22 Med Bxc2 23 Qxd4 Excl+ 24 Exel fixes 25 Bxc6 etc. 7 ug? e7 8 0-00-09 S95 Concentrating on the d5-pawn by monitoring a key defender. 9...cxd4- Alternatives are inferior. 9...c4 10 @e5 Seo 11 Dxcé bucé 12 b3 Was 13 Dad Bids 14 e3 cS 15 dxc5 Bxc5 16 Lxl6 ext 17 Pxc5 Wxcd 18 WhS gives White a clear ad vantage according to NCO, In reply to 9...Le6 White instigates a forcing line that leads to a superior ending: 10 dxc5 &xc5 11 Sxfo Wixfé 12 Dxd5 Wxb2 13 Dc7 Bads 14 Wel! Black has no time to prevent Dxeé, after which the weaknesses on the light squares give White something to aim at: 14...¥xcl 15 Eaxcl Se7 (defending the gi-square) 16 Dxeb fxe6 17 Ect with a difficult defensive task ahead for Black. 10 Dxd4 h6 "Taking the pressure off the fé-knight and lifting the ‘pin’ in anticipation of ...2{8 to clear the efile for the rook. Also seen is 10...e8 when 11 Wa4 2d7 12 Badi requires careful play from Black. 12...a5? 13 ‘We? Wc8 14 Wd? Bh3 15 AdbS Sxg? 16 Gxg2 Ded 17 Dxed dees 18 Rxe7 Exe? 19 ‘WE led to the kind of advantage White en- joysin the Catalan in A.Shneider-Leski, Cor- sica (rapidplay) 1997. Flear-] Cooper, British Ch. 1988 was also poor for Black after 12...h6 13 Rf4 Bc5 14 Dxc6 bxc6?! 15 el, but the lesser evil 14...2xc6 would have reduced White to a slight but enduring edge. 11 &e3 At first f4 might seem like amore suitable square, but White needs to pay attention to d4 in order to exert maximum pressure on the isolated pawn, 54Queen's Gambit Declined and Slav Defences 1 heB Preparing to drop the bishop back to {8, when the rook is well placed on the e-file. Of course 11...digt is almost identical to the main game, but after 12 Wad! White has a little more flexibility in that he has not yet committed his rook(). Then: 2) 12...8d7 and now 13 &xd5!? has been questioned for giving up the traditionally important bishop, but in this case 13..@xd5, 14 Axd5 Rds (14... WadS 15 Axcé Wxc6 16 Wrxgd) 15 Dxc6 bxc6 16 Dc3 Sb6 17 Sidi ‘We8 18 &xb6 axbb 19 WE just seemed like a free pawn in A.Lastin-Potkin, Moscow 1999, by) 12...a5 13 Bad! Be8 14 4)xd5 Axd5 15 BES Bet Tal-Zhidkov, USSR Ch. 1972. Another skirmish surrounding the d5.pawn. In fact it is not untypical of the Tarrasch to see White win (or Black lose/sacrifice) the d5-pawn at the cost of the light-squared bishop or a pe- riod of inconvenience. While itis necessary to properly analyse these sequences over the board itis useful to remember where certain pieces are at their most vulnerable (here the ‘dim’ a5-knight and the g4-bishop). Tal continued 16 Wb5 Sxl 17 Bxd5 a6 18 Wxas ‘Wexa5 19 Bxa5 dic and then tidied up nicely with 2005 heb 21 Md? 2b422 Mddl Be2 23 a3 Be7 24 Sed4 bS 25 3 05 26 Be etc. 12 Ect Rooks belong on open files 12...R06 ‘Highlighting a fundamental problem with Black’s d-pawn in that this form of protec tion both obstructs the rook and leaves Black open toa well timed xe. in turn introduc. ing fresh problems on the light squares. However, as we have already seen, failing to provide d5 with sufficient support can easily lead to the pawn falling. Nevertheless I prefer the consistent 12...40{8, when Karpov's 13 a3 isa sensible move that is the first step of a reliable route to a plus for White. Play might continue 13..gt 14 h3 @e6 15 2)xcb! bxc6 16 dd We are following KarpovIllescas, Leon 1993. The capture on 6 leaves Black with a backward pawn and a-weak c5-square and is therefore another common feature of the main line Tarrasch. Karpov's latest is directed against 16...c5 (ee below) but in any case the bishop stands well on dé and now the & pawn is free. In fact Black can try 16... because 17 Sxi6 Wrxio 18 Axd5 Wxb2 drops the b-pawn, but then 19 ec? Had 20 Wet He7 21 WaS! has been evaluated as giving White a clear lead. Anand considers 16...d7 17 b4 to be excellent for White, and 16..et 17 Dyes dred 18 Be RxcS 19 Exc 2d5 20 b4 clamps down on the c5- square. This leaves 16...2d7 17 Wd3 Db7 18 2e3! (shadowing the knight rather than getting careless with 18 e4? c8), when 18...€3g5 19 Gaxg5 bxg5 (19..Wxg5 20 ef! Wg6 21 55Attacking with 1 d4 Eidi) 20 Hfdi (not 20 et dxed 21 Axed Xrh3!) 20...0b8 21 Bc? gives White along- term structural lead. Instead Illescas stood worse after 18.,.,.d62 19 Hf She6 20 b4!. One to remembers 19...We7 204 xd5! exd5 21 Wad5, as is 19..D{8 20 Dxd5! exd5 21 Waxd5 eS 22 Wad Wrxa8 23 x28 xf 24 fid4 fxd’ 25 Exd4 @xh3 26 gt h5 27 gxh5, when White has good rooks and too many pawns. 13 Wea Wa7 14 Bfd1 Both sides have completed development and the game continues to revolve around the d5-pawn and surrounding squares, We have another example here of how attacking play is not exclusive to crushing sacrificial mating combinations or kingside pawn storms, A look atthe diagram position shows that the squares ¢5,c6 and d5 are covered by every single one of White's pieces except the king! It is this form of attacking chess that tends to be overlooked and, consequently, underestimated at club level. From a thea- retical viewpoint Black is only slightly worse but practically itis another matter, particularly at club level. Black's next tucksthe king away in case White takes on e6 and seeks 10 open up the light squares. 14..¢h8 15 Qb3 ZadB : Black has d5 well protected now, but the same cannot be said of the neighbouring square. 16 Dc Axc5 17 Axc5 ig4 18 2d2 Earlier in Sadler-Chandler, British League 1997, White decidedit was time to clear away afew pieces: 18 dixdS £ixe2 19 Sexe6 Sexd) 20 Stxd7 Hel+ 21 tg? Sixat 22 Hxel Sxd7 23 Rxa7 Rcb+ 24 Wel Bd2 25 Be2 Ed3 26 Be3 Ed2 27 He2 Rds 28 Be} Des 29 Axet Quod 30 Hd? Bxd? 31 Sxd2 and Sadler went on to convert the ending, although at this point White's leadis not great. It is understandable that Pelletier prefers to avoid wholesale exchanges until the time is right. Thus far White has been increasing the pressure on Black’s centre and, during the last few moves, on the dark squares, so there is no reason to betieve that White cannot try for more than an edge in the ending. 18...0f5 In-view of what happens next this must be wrong. Black could try his luck defending a typically unpleasant Tarrasch ending after 18...b6 19 Re} eS 20 Wxd7 Exd7 21 @®xd5 Oxd5 22 Hxd5 Hxd5 23 Lxd5 Bxe2, but 24 8c7 looks strong. Perhaps, now that circumstances have changed slightly, Black should simply put the king back on g8, At jeast this adds protection te the {7-pawn for later possibilities such as the one mentioned above. 19 1317 ‘A move for which Black is prepared, of course, but White calculates that the ensuing complications are in his favour. 56Queen's Gambit Declined and Slav Defences —— 19...d4 20 Axd4 Dxd4 21 Sxd4 Wes ‘This is the point of Black’s play. For the price of a pawn Black has eliminated a powerful bishop in the hope of exploiting White's newly vulnerable dark squares, and the remaining bishop is locked out of the game on g2. Unfortunately for Black White is otherwise free of structural wezlnecses and inevitable exchanges reduce Black’s attacking potential. 22 Scd1 b& ‘Throwing more fuel on the fire since both a? and g4 were attacked as well as the rook. 23 Wxa7 We3+ 24 &h1 b4 Refusing to back down. White needs only to weather the storm to emerge with adeci- sive advantage. 25 Db5 a8 26 Wxt7 ‘yin, Bi ‘ a Here is another reason why the king could have come back to g8. Again Black can now bounce off the queen, but the pawns aff adding up and White’s forces are hardly pay sive. 26.806 After 26...2h5 27 Wic4 Wxe2 28 a3! bxad 29 Wxe2 Bxe2 30 bxa3 the dust settles to reveal a safe two pawn lead for White, eg, 30,...e8 31 De3 Be2 32 Db] ere. 27 Wg6 Hxa2 28 2f1 Exb2 29 Aci! Eg8 30 Dxe6 Wxe6 31 Zb1 31 d6 looks good, e.g, 31.,.We532 Bho, 31...8xbt 31...¥4b3 puts up more resistance. 32 Wxb1 Dd5 33 Wb3 Eds 33...Ac7 34 Bxb+t does not alter the re sult. 34 e4 Wb6 35 ExdS Ee8 36 Wd3 WZ 37 €5 b3 1-0 38 Sd8+ Buds 39 Wads+ h7 40 Add+ g6 41 We7+ g8 42 Bct+ is coming. Game 9 Wells-Korneev Ubeda 1996 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Dc3 c6 4 o4 dxed § Dxed Gb4+ 6 id2 Wxd4 7 ixb4 Uxed+ 8B De2 Less common than $ 2c? but equally playable, the text is also not as generous because White gets to keep the g-pawn. In fact in this line it is the g7-pawn that tends to drop, after whicl. White aims to male his presence felt on the dark squares. Meanwhile Black’s queen can be difficult to evict and White's kingside difficult to develop. After 8 e2 Black has a number of moves. 8...2d7 Others. a) 8...c5 parts with a pawn in crder to provide Black with some breathing space and facilitate the development of the queenside. After 9 &xc5 Ac6 10 Bde Dge7 11 WiH!? Wxl4 12 Dxf4 b6 13 Lad e5 14 Dds White’s bishop pair guarantees an advantage. The untouchable dark-squared bishop is a 57Attacking with 1 d4 strong piece, b) 8...05 9 Wd2 Dab 10 2f8! ‘This move-which is by no means rare in the Marshall ~ highlights Black’s vulnerabil- ity on the dark squares. The bishop is safe as 10.,.92x{8?? allows mate on d8. Already a pawn up, mobilisation with 10...e7 is pref erable to material as 10...Wig6 is passive and gives White time to mobilise. The position after 11 Rxg7 Hg8 12 216 Le6 has been assessed as giving Black counterplay. It is true that the second player enjoys a development advantage but he is still susceptible on the dark squares, and with 13 Wd6! 25. (13...Dg6? 14 Bd 1) 14 Wxes Wxe5 15 Rxed Lxct 16 Dg3 White enters the next phase of the game with the superior prospects thanks to his majestic bishop and Black's weak kingside pawns. 0) 8...De7 9 Wa2! and now: cl) 9...c5 10 0-0-0! 0-0 11 2xc5 worked out well for White in Georgadze-Cruz Lo- pez, San Sebastian 1991. If now 11...Wxc4+ 12 We3 Wxc3+ 13 Dxc3 DAbeo White wins material in view of 14 Rb5! He8 15 Bxe7 etc. Instead Black tried 11...Abe6 12 @d4 @yxd4 13 Lxe7 5 14 Sxi8 exis 15 (3 Woo 16 &d3 Leb but after 7 Lb1 White was an exchange up for no compensation. 2) 9.4d7 10 (3 Wht+ tt g3 Wie 12 De3 5 13 Det Wxf3 14 2p2, Lputian- Pavasovic, Cannes 1996 gives White a clear advantage according to NCO, d) 8.226 is the most popular move. Then 9 &c3 De7 10 2xg7 presents Black with the choice of saving his rook or threatening,to win the one in the opposite corner. dt) 10...Db4 ‘This is certainly in the spirit of this line. ‘Thanks to White's backwardly developed kingside Black can entertain the possibility of checking on d3 instead of c2 and, consequently, White might have to suffer some discomfort in order to hang on to any booty. Ironically the situation soon became rather peaceful in Hauchard-Neves, World U26 Team Ch. 1993 - 11 Wd6 Dd3+ 12 daz 2Nf5 13 Wadd Wad3+ 14 dexcl3 Dxg7 leaving White with the more active king to go with his better pawns. I would seriously consider calling Black’s bluff with 11.xh8 whenthe recommended 11.,.e3 closes the bishop out of the game and renews the threatened check(). Two moves spring to mind for White. The direct 12 &xe5 (intending 12... d3+ 13 ed? Dxf2 14 Wb3 Dxh1 15 hf GES [15...d0e4 16 2.07] 16 Wxb7 Bd8+ 17 el) is thought to favour Black after 12...£15!, one line offered being 13 2c3 c2+ 14 Wxc2 Wxc2, with Black’s activity tipping the balance in his tavour, albeit temporarily if White can wake the remaining pieces, However White seems to be able to throw a small but annoying spanner in the works by ruling out ...2d8(+), namely 13 te7. For example 13...2c2+ (13..Dd3+ 14 68Queen’s Gambit Declined and Slav Detences ed2 Dxf2 15 Wh3) 14 Hd2 Dxal 15 Wal sees White maintain a decisive material lead and - more importantly - Black's forces drastically reduced. An improvement is 14... Wd3+ 15 Wel Dxal 16 Wxd3 xd3 17 Dc3 Age 18 fe, but then White has an extra pawn plus the better position. Some- times an opponent's sacrifice puts us under so much pressure that we forget how much can be returned int order to successfully weather the storm and stay ahead on ‘points, and here is a good example of how a whole rook ean be too much a price to pay. 12 Wid6 is best according to Chekhov, although 12...2\c2+ 13 dd2 8f5 1+ 2d] Bas 15 Wxd8+ Saxd8 16 Gel+ (16 Dgs WH 17 Bic34 Bd54h 16... Adsl? 17 Dxdd Whi+ 18 Ga? Wrb2+ 19 het We+ 20 Be? Wxct+ 21 el ends in a draw, as does 14 Dgs Whe 15 decd Dd54! 16 cxd5 Wd4+ 17 b3 BDxal+ 18 Gad De2+ 19 bb3 Balt 4-% Gomez Estebanillescas, Lisbon Zonal 1993. 2) 10... 28 is normal, when 11 Wd4 leads to a very slight edge for White in the ending, eg. 11..Wixd4 12 Redd c5 13 Bed @bt 14 dxbt cxbt 15 g3 Ad7 16 Bg? Gch 1700 0.00 18 Kid! Bxp? 19 doxg? @®cb 20 {4 and White’s more compact pawns gave him some chances in Reinder- man-Kharlov, Leeuwarden 1994. Wells- Knaak, Bundesliga 1996, saw the Marshall expert try 11 c3. There followed 11.05 12 Wide &f5 13 Rdi? Dgo 14 Wi Hes 15 63 Wht: 16 Waht Dxhs 17 Des (6 18 Li E719 Det Bads 20 Bxd8 Axd8 21 Le2 5 22 f4, It is important to remember that the absence of Black’s dark-squared bishop affords White promising longterm pros. pects, and the position is a good illustration ofhow-a well timed thematic strike can open the game for the ‘extra’ bishop. There is more to attacking chess than going for mate ordecisive material gain ~here White simply. concentrates on a colour complex with which his opponent will have problems defending, and the subsequent advantage gradually talces on decisive proportions. The game continued 22....2f5 23 2g3 ext4 24 Dh 1 25 gxf3 Hd 26 Bdi! Bxdt 27 aixdl £e6 28 Sxt6 DIS 29 Rc3 Bxct 30 Bcd Ad4 31 Qxh7 Bxa2 22 He} AbS 33 ei Dbs 34 Dt Dcé 35 Lyo+ we7 36 sig?! R17 37 Bed Dbd4 38 h4 Deo 39 Dxeb Sxeb 40 {4 a5 41 (5+ Gd7 42 265 Dez 43 weft 1-0, The power of the dark- squared bishop in this example is not untypical of endings in the Marshall. 9 Wu6 a5 Not surprisingly Black wants to know where the bishop will reside. 9..c5 10 £c3 and Black’s next move determines the placement of the king. a) 10...De7 11 0-0-0 DiS 12 Wd2 0-0 13 g3 with another branch: al) 13..Wh4 14 Qxi5 exf 15 g3 Wet (15...We7) 16 h3 Wego (16...WE3 17 Bg) 17 g4 and White had succeeded in opening lines for his pieces in Grigore-Danilov, Bucharest 1998. a2) 13...Wcb 14 DxfS exi5 15 Re2 Die 16 Wigs De8 17 Bas fo 18 Wd2 (18 Wes We7? 19 Bxe8) 18...Wxg? 19 Bel? Flear-Bryson, Hastings 1993/94. Black’s sole developed piece isthe queen and there is an unwelcome visitor on Black's back rank. In these situations the fact that White trails by two pawns has litle relevance because this is more than compensated for by other fac- 59} | | i i | Attacking with 1 d# tors, Note also that White’s play thus far is based on finding optimum posts for his pieces, in so doing - hopefully - restricting Biack’s forces. After 19...b5 (19...1We6 20 ‘Weal! and £13 is coming) 20 &f1 Wb7 21 Hexe8 Hxe8 22 Hxe8t Si7 23 Wd8 Whi White finished off nicely with 24 Be7+%g6 25 Eixg7+! 1-0. Again Black came unstuck on the dark squares, b) 10...Agfe 11 0-0-0 Wes 12 Wg3 Bes 13 #e7 is another try, the reasoning being that the lking might be as safe on e7 asitison ¢8. Giorgadze-Matlak, Naleczow 1989 saw the usual patient build up from White: 14 fs b6 15 Dd3 Rab 16 Des Dxes 17 Lxes Ead8 18 fe? and Black had problems guarding dé and g7. After 18...Wa4 White could have played 19 Hxd8 Exd8 20 Wxg7 De8 (20.07 21 Wes+ des 22 Bdt) 21 Waxh7 Wrxa2 22 dec? Wat+ 23 b3 Wa2+ 24 4b? with a near winning position. 10 £23 Wes ‘Consistent with the plan of dealing with the mighty bishop. Instead the greedy 10...,Wxc4 grabs second pawn at the cost of more time after 11 2ic3 Wha 12 Re2/d3 followed by 0-0, Hadi etc. Alternatively 11 ‘Wg3 practically forces 11...g6, when Black's dark squares could hardly be any uglier. 11 Wa2 White has obvious compensation for the pawn in the event of 11 0-0-0 Wxd6 12 Rxdé6 Agl6 13 2c3, but it seems more logical to leave the queens in play since Black is the one who is looking to relieve the pressure. Moreover there is still time to be gained by hitting Black's exposed queen. 11,..65, Closing the door for now, but White's ambitious bishop will have its day 11. Def6 meets wish the same response, 12 f4 Wed 13 0-0-0 Dgis Again Black is not tempted into doubling‘ his spoils. This time 13...{Wxc4+runs into 14 D3 Widd 15 Wexd4 cxd4 16 Abs ded8 17 Bxd4, when £8 is threatened and the coming Dd6 is strong, 14. De We8 15 £2 0.0 Black can finally feel a bit more relaxed. now that his king has found a safe haven, which would not be the case were the queen to return to enemy territory with 15..Wxg2, when 16 Bhgi Wxh2 17 Bxg7 softens Black up on the dark squares and leaves Black's king in the centre. 16 23 Wb6 17 94 Obs With liteein the way oflegal moves Blacle offers the c5-pawn in return for some freedom of movement. However, White prefers to continue turning the screw in order to cep Black in a defensive, negative mode. 18 Dad Wc7 19 Was 19 Sixc5 £d7 20 Abo Wxc5 21 Dxad is also good for White. 19... Wxd6 20 Bxdé ‘fd7 20...De8 21 Hd? Dd7 22 Axed is decie sive. 21 Ehd1 Now it is White's turn to refuse a pawn, albeit for different reasons! 21 @xc5 @xcS 22 Bixc5 restores material equilibrium but otherwise White stands much better. 21...a6 22 Dxc5 Finally. 22..2xd6 23 Exd6 SixcS 24 ixc5 Ee8 25 Ab6 a4 26 a2 White dominates. 26.16 Or 26...d7 27 Se3 and Sxb7 is in the 60Queen's Gambit Declined and Slav Defences air. 27 Sc3 WAT 28 h4 Ge7 29 ac5 Dd7? Avmistake ina poor position. Imperative is 29...8ef7, although Black can do little but wait for matters to get worse. 30 Exe6+! eds 30...S2xe6 31 2d5 mate. 31 Exe8+ wxeS 32 ida Abs 33 95 fxg5 34 fxg5 g6 35 &d5 Aicé 36 216 ‘Bd7 37 298 g4 38 Ld5 38 Bxh7 B{7 39 b4. 38.47 39 Led We6 40 fc2 23 41 ba De5 42 c5 AB 43 Be4 Axh4 44 Lxb7 hS 45 bS &d7 45.26 46 2c8+ Bd5 47 &b4. 46 ScG+ wc8 47 bs DFS 47...243 48 b7+ Sec7 49 Be5+. 48 Re7 1-0 Game 10 B.Vladimirov-Fuchs Sochi 1966 1d4.d5 20463 Ac3 The solid Slav Defence, like almost all openings, features both interesting and dull variations. The problem for White in choos- ing how to meet the Slav is the incredibly lengthy process of getting acquainted with the tactical, positional and structural intrica- cies of the main lines. Then there is the matter of transposing to other openings such as the Semi-Slav (e.g. 3 ALS Afo 4 2c3 e6), when we find ourselves back to the drawing board. I recommend bypassing the ridiculous amount of theory required to learn just one line in favour of (3 2ic3 Asfe) 4 295. This is one of those perfectly natural moves that one is surprised not to see more often. Despite being used from time to time by strong players, 4 &g5 lacks the historical clout and theo- retical clout to find a place in a super-GM’s repertoire, but for mere mortals - particularly club players - it has a number of attractions. 3... D6 3...06 4 e4 enters the Marshall Gambit (Game 9). Black also has other alternatives: a) With 3...e5 Black takes the opportunity to strike at d4. Best is +dxe5 d45 Det WaSe 6 Ld? Wxe5 7 Ag3. Beginners are urged to avoid exposing the queen to attack so early in the game, so what is Black aiining to achieve here? To learn this we need only look at the dé-pawn, which is waiting for ¢2-€3, after which Black will clear the centre of pawns and exploit the open position with easy development. Note that White, too, is losing time with the queen’s knight. Now 7...c5 8 DE We7 9 3 dxe3 10 xe3 fo 11 Rd} Re7 12 0-0 0-0 left Black in the unenviable situation of being a couple of moves behind in an open, symmetrical position in Sturua Minasian, Panormo 1998, Black hung on to d4 in Agrest-Hector, Malmo 1993: 9...Mcb 10 exd4 exd4 (10...Axd4 11 Axdé cxd4 12 &d3) 11 &d3 61Attacking with i a+ Black must already be careful. For example 11..Ab4 12 Sxb+ Mxb++ 13 El and White threatens 14 Wat+ and 14 Oxd4 (13...2c5 14 bl), while 11...2\f6 120.0 Be7 13 Dg5! 0-07! (13...h6 14 D5e4 0-0 15 Dxtor Sx{6 16 Dh5 followed by launching the f- pawn is good for White) 14 @h5! g6 (14...h6? 15 Dxfo+ &xf6 16 Dh7) 15 Axfo+ Rxle 16 f4 is awkward for Black to deal with. Instead the game went 11...2d6 12 0-0 @ge7 13 We2 Ket 14 Dgs! ho 15 ADset Abs (15...0-02 16 Rsxhél, or 15...0f4 16 h3! 2d7 17 Dh5! Kxd2 18 Wad? 0-07 19 DelG+!) 16 h3 (16 c5!?) 16...$d7 17 c5! and Black’s king was a problem in view of 17...0-0 18 &xh6! £5 (18...gxh6 19 Dfe+ h8 20 Wel Dgs 21 Dxg8 Lxg8 22 Wh (5 23 Beds) 19 Ddé gxh6 20 a3 ete. ‘The most reliable continuation for Black is 7.66 8 DEB Wd6 9 We2, when 9...c5 10 &3 @c6 11 0-0-0 should be avoided, eg. Lnnddgd 12 dd Sxf3 (12..0-0-0 13 265+ Qxf5 14 Dxf5 Wa7 15 exd4 was aclear lead for White in Herraiz-Rios, Spain 1995) 13 gxf3 0-0-0 14 Ded with a grip on the light squares, or 11....8e6 12 exd4 Axd4 13 Dxd4 exd4 14 Re3 Was 15 c5 Wxa2 16 &b5+ Bd? 17 Bxd4 000 18 b4, P.Varge- Kovacova, Balatonbereny 1993, Theory favours 9,,,S0e7, and now I believe the sensible 10 D5 &xf5 11 Wet will grow in popularity, particularly since the main line, 100-0-0 0.0 11 3 dxe3 12 fxe3 We7 13 &c3, has not been doing badly for Black after 13...c5. In Schandorff-Mah, Politiken Cup 1999 Black simply missed his light-squared bishop: 11...2ha6 12 g3 g6 13 Wc? Dc5 14 Lf4 Wds 15 0-0-0 Be6 16 Le5 Was 17 bi cS 18 3 dxe3 19 fxe3 0-0 20 @h3 Had8 21 &c3 We7 22 @e5 and White had the initiative. b) 3...dxc4 also secks to profit from the fact that White has brought the queen’s knight out first, the point being that in certain lines Black can win a tempo after ...b7- b5-b4. White’s most aggressive response is 4 e¢ when the game can take one of two paths, bi) 4..b5 5 a4 bd G..Wa5 6 Bd? b4 7 Da2 6 8 Sxct Di6 9 We2 Dbd7 10 cl! a6 11 Db3 with an edge for White, Len- gyelRukavina, Sombor 1974) is quite common, when 6 Da? D6 7 5 Dds 8 Lixct tends to lead to a balanced position after 8...069 D3 Be7 100-0257 11 Md? aS ere. However, a relatively recent fashion is the more attack minded 6 Zce2i? 6 7 Df3 Ai6 8 Dg} a6 9 Sg5!? Ie is true that White is yet to win back the gambit pawn, but by transferring the knight over to g3 immediately White has been able to establish amen- acing space advantage on the kingside and a decent centre. bil) 9...8e7 10 5 Dd5 11 Bxe7 Wxe7 12 Ded 0.0 13 Dc5 c3 14 Axaé cxb2 15 ‘Hb1 has been evaluated as clearly better for White, e.g. 15...2c3 16 We2 Axb1 17 Wxb1 Dxab 18 Bxab, Also good for White was 10 Rxf6!? Rxf6 11 Hcl in Halkizs-Groffen, Viissingen 2000: 11...c3 12 bxc3 2xf1 13 xfl cS 14 DhS 0-071 15 Dxfor Waifs 16 dxc5 bxc3 17 05 Wit 18 xc} Dc6 19 g3 Wh4 20 We? Bids 21 dg2. b12) 9...Wa5 is more double-edged. After 10 Le2 Abd7 (10...b3+ 11 2d2 &b4 120-0 0.0 13 Hcl is interesting, while Hiibner proposes 10...c3) 110-0 c3 12 Sxa6 cxb2 13 2b7! bxalW 14 Wxal Bde 15 2xc6 ho 16 Qxl6 gxfo 17 d5 White seems to have enough for the exchange, and 11...2e7 12 Bel 5? (Hiibner’s 12...Ab6 13 De5 He8 is unclear) 13 d5 exd5 14 e5 went wrong for Black in Ovscjevitch-P. Varga, Hungary 1999, Gelfand-Huzman, Ramat Aviv 2000 saw the difference between the two pawn structures grow after 11...h6!? 12 Sxl gxfo (12...2xf6 13 Hel clearly favours White according to Gelfand) 13 Wel Qb6 14 Md2, when 14...0-0-0 (14...Bd8 15 Bxc4 Axc4 16 Dxct We7 17 Hdl h5 [Hiibner] improves for Black) 15 Sxc4! Dxct 16 Dxct We7 17 Bd1 was complex. Black’s bishops should compensate for the structural shortcomings on both sides of the board. * 62uueen 8 vamoit Leciined and Slav Defences 'b2) 4.05 leads to a queenless middlegame that benefits White thanks to the extra pres ence in the, centre resulting from the sequence 5 @i3 exd4 6 Wixds Weds 7 Dxds and now: b2i) 7...b5 Saf b4 9 Ddi Af 10 £3 ab 11 £14 &c5 12D 0-0 White has more than enough pieces to attack the c4-pawn so Black will be left with a potential weakness in the shape of the remaining c-pawn. Two recent examples are 13 Hel g6 14 Dg3 c3 15 bxc3 Afd7 16 exb4 Sxbt 17 Rd2 Saxft 18 Dxfi a5 19 Dfe3 Db6 20 Db2 5 21 Dect, Gomez Esteban- Granados Gomez, Barcelona 2000, and 13, Bd6 Bxd6 14 Dxd6 c3 15 bcd Axl 16 Exfl Dab 17 cxb4 Dxbt 18 De3 BfdB 19 det d7 20 the2, Bernal Moro-Avila Jimenez, Barcelona 2000, with an enduring pull for White in both cases. This kind of advantage requires patience from White and confidence in technique from Black. 22) 7..Re5 is played with a view to completing development rather than hanging onto the pawn. Portisch Saidy, San Antonio 1972 istypical, with White having the more active pieces to accompany the extra space that the ed-pawn provides: 8 2e3 Afe 9 £3 Dbd7 10 Axc4 0-0 11 Wi2 Abe 12 Rb3 Be8 13 Hhdi Qd7 14 Bact ere. Now itis time to turn to 3...2f6. 4 Rg5I? A glance at the diagram position reveal a completely normal et up from White,-+2¢5 introducing the possibility of doubling Black’s pawns and occupying the same diagonal as the black queen while ignoring the stand-off in the centre in good old Queen’s Gambit style. One of the most important factors in chess is thwarting the opponent’s plans, and White's choice here has the psychological plus of ruling out Black’s main lines as early as the fourth move. 4...De4 It is interesting that the majority of club players I tested with 4.25 also proposed this ‘knee-jerk’ reaction to the bishop's arrival, yet theory's albeit half-hearted recom- mendation is 4...dxc4 Perhaps the logic behind 4..2e4 is based on the belief that White’s sudden change of direction requires the same ‘flexibility’ from Black, while the fact that Qg5 is an active move could be sufficient to distract slack from the game plan on the queenside. After 4..dxe4 5 a4 Black has a number of choices. a) After 5....2(5 the Trompovsky treatment with 6 S.xf6 exf6 7 e4 looks okay for ‘White, but 6 £31? has a lot going for it. Bor- rowing an ids from one of the main lines, White prepares to erect a solid pawn centre and subsequently exploit aspace advantage. After 6...05 7 dxeS Wixdl+ 8 Bxdl @fd7 9 ¢4 eb 10 F4 White is considerably better, while 6...067 4 2.96 8 Sxc4 followed by 9 Dge2 63 iAttacking with 1 a4 and 1000s passive for Black. A key difler- ence between this specific move order and the main line with 4 @B is that chere is no need to lose time vacating the f3-square since here the knight is still on g1. b) 5.066 4 h67 Sxf6 Wel 8 013 bs 9 dixch 0.0 1000 P.Cramling-Ekstrom, Katrineholm 1995, White has more space, more fluid development and the superior centre. Black has the bishop pair but is slightly cramped. Passive play by Black will see White advance et-e5 and then use the e4-square for general pur poses and the bI-h7 diagonal to threaten mate. Consequently the game continued 10...c5 11 e5 Ws 12 ds (12 a2?) 1: 13 Rxd5 (13 Dxd5 Be6 14 Het Deb gives White an advantage akin to the QGA) 6 14h3 with chances for both sides. must decide what to do with the b+ bishop, which atthe moment plays little part in the game other than to threaten ...2xc3. ¢)5...\l/a5 is the ‘book’ move, threatening the bishop and pinning the knight. cl) 6 23. C11) 6.265 7 Qd2! Seo 8 Rh4 Who > 3 was played in Fyllingen-Gausel, Oslo 2000. After 9...Waxb2 10 Bet Wb! 11 We2 Dbd7 12 Bb1 Was 13 Axed Lxcd 14 Dc Wa6 15 Hb3 Dbo 16 Axo axb6 17 Wxbs Wxb6 18 Exb6 Ha7 19 &xf6 exié 20 de? d7 21 Bhb1 We7 Black had returned the pawn() but now stood slightly worsein view of White's more mobile kingside pawns, 12) 6..2)e4! does appear to be Black’s safest treatment of 4 £85, as long as 7 2d? is not answered by 7...ixc3?! 8 Sxc3 Wids, when Vanheste-Dekker, Dieren 1990 continued 9 Md2 b5 (9... £5 1013) 10 b3!? cxb3 il ed and Black was walking on very thin ice in terms of the light squares and was lagging behind in development. The accurate 7...Dxd2.8 Dxd2 produces a balanced game after &...e519 Dxe4 Wh4 10 Axe5 Wxb2 11 Hcl b4 12 Wd2 Wxd2+ 13 xd? 0-0 14 €3, when White (who eventually ground out a win) had good pawns, a well placed king andacentral presence, and Black the bishop pair. Since 8...e5 is not exactly obvious Black has also tried 8... d7 9 Dxc# We5, but then 10 g3 e6 11 Rg? bd 120000 13 Wh3 We7 14 a5 gave White a pleasant position that has numerous similarities with the Cata- lan in Tran-Dippel, Nuremberg 1999. 2) 6 £d2 C21) 6...05 7 Det!? Lbs BAdor de7 9 dxe5 Sxd2+ 10 Wad? Wxd2+ 11 dexd2 2g 12 @f3 Bd7 13 e3 Hs 14 Wet DdxeS was agreed drawn in ViadimirovSasikiran, Good- ticke 2000. Otherwise White has the sober 7 AB exdt 8 Axd4 Wes 9 3 Lc5 10 AL3 We7 11 xc 0.0 with an even game, ‘Christiansen-Donaldson, Philadelphia 1987, 22) 6...Wb6 7 3 (7 B13 B15 8 ed Web2 9 Sxct Lc2 10 Wel Wxcl+ 11 Excl &g6 left White with less than a pawn’s worth of compensation in Taimanov-Sveshnikov, 41st USSR Ch. 1973) 7...Wixb2 8 Eb1 Wa3 9 Sixct 06 10 04 Wd6 11 213 We7 120-0 and Black had invested a lot of time for the pawn in Hall-Erast, Swedish Ch, 1998. 5 Dxet Introducing an imbalance in the pawn structure. 5...dxe4 6 Wd2 And absolutely not 6 €32? WaS+ when the bishop is about to drop. 6.5 64Others. a) 6...Dd7 7 ¢3 h5!? 1s typical ‘make it up as you go’ chess ~ an approach with which we have all been too well acquainted at one time or another! To be fair Black does threaten to trap the bishop with 8...{6etc. 8 Ghd 969 Fl? cS 10 De? Le7 11d5 Abs 12 &c3 15, Tosic-Misailovic, Kladovo 1994, Both players, in fact, have coped well with this line, as can be seen from the strategic look of the respective pawn structures. The game continued 13 Se? Ac8! 143 Ads (just in time) 15 def2 Wa5 16 Bacl a6 17 ‘Wc2 and the prospect of Black either losing couch with the e¢-pawn or having to part with his dark-squared bishop is enough to keep White on top. Notice that the f4-pawn fits in well in this example. b) 6...26 7 £31? Re7 8 Hdl 265 9 03 0.0 10 Ae2 c5 11 fxet xed 12 cd 215 was approximately even in Ramon-Sieiro Gon- zalez, Garcia Memorial 1998. Instead of 8 di White can consider 8 0-0-0 (or 7 0-0-0) followed by marching the kingside pawns. 763 ‘White optsto simply sendthe knight 103 to keep an eye on the potentially weak e+ pawn. The alternatives are certainly food for thought. a) 7 0-0-0)? is interesting, e.g. 7... Ad7 8 3 {69 &h4 5 1013 Neéi-Mnatsakanian, Yerevan 1965. White is not worried about opening the bI-h7 diago- Queen’s Gambit Declined and Siav Defence nal for Black’s bishop because this piece ean be comfortably dealt with, after which Black's king should come under pressure. 10...exf3 11 gxf3 exd4 12 exd4 e713 LI! and the e6-square was a cause for concerti to Black. b) 7 f4!? is ostensibly illogical but in actual fact positionally desirable, this Bonsch spec) ality is designed to surround the e4-pawel atid clamp down on the eS-square. The (§ bishop, too, plays a part in the justification of f2-f4, a a future retreat to g6 might allay [4 is b1) Bonsch-Kuczynski, Rubinstein Me morial 1987 saw the centre pawns coming into contact: 7...f6 $ &h4 e6 9 ¢3 c5 10 dS Dab 11 De2 De7 12 Dg Mp6 13 0-0-0 (1) dxe6é Wxd2+ 14 xd? (5) 13..Wd6 and White hada pull. Another plan for White is 12 23 followed by Se2 aud the threat of goed. 2) In Bonsch-J. Horvath, Budapest 1987, Black sensed that stereotyped play would lead to a disadvantage and hit out with 7.27 8 3 6 9 h4 95?! 10 fxg5 5, but after 11 @De2 hxgs 12 g3 Bg7 13 00.0 .g4 White could have punished this with 1 Wc. 7...Dd7 & De2 8 {3 Wc7 9 De2 h6 10 Sh4 exf3 11 pet had the desired effect in Vanheste-Finegold, Dieren 1990, After 11...c52! (11...0-0-0) det Rg6 13 0-0-0 {6 14 2h3! White was well ahead. 8...n6 9 ha gS This is a popular move because with the pawn on 36 the f5-bishap (which protects 4) lacks retreat square, and White's bishop on the h4-d8 diagonal restricts Black's development. The downside to ...g7-p5 is that it presents White with a target, making a well timed .2-b4 a problem for Black. 10 ig3 itg7 11 c3 0-0 11..,¢5 can lead to similar play to the main game but StanecLungu, Moscow Olympiad 1994 took a different course when White 65Attacking with 1 d4 pushed: 12 d5 0-0 13 ha! Wi6 14 hxgs hxgs 15 0-0-0 Bfd8, and now White forced a near decisive queen trade with 16 dxc6 bxc6 17 Wed! when Black’s weak pawns were his downfall, 12 Le 05 13 Bd1 exd4 14 exd4 c5 15 d5 De5 16 0-0 HeB 17 d6! Now Black is too busy weighing up the inuplications of well protected passed pawn right in the heart of his position to consider anything else. Addto this the new potential base on d5, and White is back in charge. 17...Wd7 18 ha In is always worth keeping an eye on all sectors of the board as it is often easier to make progress in qne area by temporarily ‘opening anew front of attack in another. In this case White retyens to Black’s 9th move for a fresh target. Also possible is 18 Wd5 b6 19 DS, e.g. 19...Le6 20 Wxet QE5 21 Weds hob 22 We2 Axct 23 Lxct Rxct 24 Dc? Aixfl 25 Eixfl and the d6-pawn is no less of a problem. 18...94 19 Efe1 Gh7 Note that 19...2)d3 20 &xd3 exd3 21 2d5 creates a second protected passed d- pawn but favours White because Black’s {5-" bishop is unable to help in the defence of the dark squares. 20 We3! b6 21 Axed 21...296 21 Dxct 22 Rxct Bret 23 Wh3 clears the e-file for White's gain, eg. 23...2Lxel+ (or 23.u8Kf8 24 LDS) 24 Bxel Ryo 25 Re7, 22 243 Bx0d 22...De5 does not help: 23 Rxe5 Lxe5 (23...8xe5 24 Wi4) 24 Dg3! ete, 23 axed 15 24 Axa! Bxe3 25 xed ada 25...f4 26 xf4 Dxft 27 Be7 Ws 28 Set+ dg8 29 d7! is winning for White. 26 hS! 2xe3 27 hxg6+ chxg6 28 fxed 1-0 Conclusion The Exchange Variation of the QGD (Game 7) is auseful system that is also easy to play. With pieces posted on - and pointing at - the kingside, White's set up with [2-5 keeps Black busy by introducing the possibility of central expansion with e3-e4-e5 etc. The f3- pawn alco rules out the simplifying ..e4 and defends the g4-square, too. As for the weakened ¢3-pawn, White can drop the bishop back to £2 where, while defending (on g1 if appropriate), it contributes to thee}-e4 push by offering additional protection to the d+-pawn. White’s attacking play against the ‘Tarrasch (Game 8) may not be directed at the king, but the pressure against the d5- pawn and Black's queenside im general is such that White has a fluid game from the moment the target is created after 4cxd5. In Game 9, as long as White does not worry about the odd pawn or two there is much fun to be had in the Marshall Gambit, thanks in no small part to the early absence of Black’s much missed dark-squared bishop. Rapid development is paramount, and it is not unusual to see White’s grip on the dark squares turn into along-term positional bind as the game progresses. The anti-Slav 4 2g5 outlined in Game 10 is primarily aimed at steering the game into little chartered territory in order to present Black with practical problems from the word go. [doubt that the popular 4...@e4 is Black’s most precise answer, but the system itself is perfectly playable however Black reacts. 66\ CHAPTER THREE | 1 d4 d5 2 c4: Black’s Second Move Alternatives 1d4d52c4 “This chapter deals with the ess popular alternatives to 2.6 and 2.06, While not en- joying the same kind of reputation, these defences can, however, be difficult to cope with for the unwary. In Game {1 we see a recipe against the Albin Counter-Gambit (1 4 d5 2 o4e5) that offers an imeresting alternative to the automatic carly kingside fi anchetto, while Game 12 features a simple and effective idea that somehow managed to go decades without being discovered. Finally in Game 13 we come to 2...4t65, with which Black hopesto either confuse White or emter a QGD without the traditional problem piece on cB. Game 11 Goldin-Mengarini New York 1991 14 d5 2 c4e5 ‘The problem with the Albin Counter- Gambit is that accurate play gives White a good game however he reacts. 3 dxe5 d4 4 O13 De6 5 Nbd2 Iprefer this to the traditional 5 g3, which is.also good for White. With the flexible text White refrains from making the fianchewto in ease an alternativ: development of the bishop becomes more appropriate or, alternatively, it might be possible to post the bishop on the ht-a8 diagonal with the more aggressive g2-g4. Another interesting option is 5 23 which tends to transpose to the main game but can also have independent signifi- cance. Apart from defending b+ White toys with the simple idea of expanding with b2-b4 in anticipation of Black castling queenside. a) 5...a5 seems rather automatic. Now three moves have been tried. al) 63 stakes an immediate claim for the centre, e.g, 6...S¢47 Re? d3 8 Wixd3 Wxd3 9 Bxd3 00-0 10 he? Bxf3 11 gxfd Axed 12 Kd? Ac6 13 &c3 left Blacka pawndown for nothing in Polak-Galeev, Vienna 1995. 22) 6 Ags Se7 7 ha? was seen im Kar- povStoma, Koszalin (simul) 1997. White should not be able to get away with such moves as h2sh4 after accepting a gambit pawn in the opening, but this illustrates the general nature of the game in the Albin Counter-Gambit, aamely that White suffers insufficient inconvenience for his booty. After 7..dig4 8 Dbd2 h6 9 B14 Wd7 103 cdxe3 11 fxe3 the usually desirable option to castle queenside is no longer arealistic possi bility with the pawn onaS since White would then be able to open lines for attack with b2- b4. This is one of the reasons behind 5 a3. 67| | | ! i | i Attacking with 1 04 Consequently Black played 11...5d8 12 Wb3 b6 and now White castled long: 13 0-0-0 {6 14 exf6 Dxf6 15 c5!? Reb 16 Lc4 fixed 17 Axc4 and White was closé to winning. 23) 6 Dbd?2 Sed (note thar this position can arise in the main game after 6...08). Pachman-Plachetka, Luhacovice 1968 continued 7h3 Be6 8 g3 Wd7 9 £52 A510 Dg5! Dge7 110-0 00 12 wh? Hads 13 f4 Gf 14 Ddes LaF White has good prospects even without the extra pawn, his kingside being excellent. After 15 g4 Db4 (15...Ae3 16 Lxe3 dxe3 17 ‘We2 and Black has similar problems with h7 and the light squares in general) 16 d3! the deadly threat of 17 @f6+ forced a further concession from Black, and the sequence 16...f5 17 2xe6 fxe4 (17... Wxe6 18 Dg5 and 19 Bd5+) 18 Dxf8 exd3 19 Axd7 dxe? 20 Si.d5+ Gh 21 Hel resulted in a decisive advantage for White, the game ending ?1...d3 22 eb Q£2 23 Bd? Dds 24 De5 Fes 25 Axd3 &xel 26 Lxet 1-0. b) 5...L.e6 6 @bd? (again this position can be reached via the main game after $ Abd? £66 a3) and Black must decide whether or not to allow b2-b4: bi) 6...a5 7 b3 Bd7 8 fb? 0.00 9 bal (Karr Jossien, Bethune 1999). White's thrust isan important idea to remember. By exert ing more pressure on the d4-pawn with the queenside fianchetto White induced ...0-0-0 from Black, facilitating the creation of a queenside attack with what is essentially an obvious pawn break. There followed 9...arh4 10 g3 (10 axb4 is more to the point) 10...2h3 11 axb4 Mxfl 12 Hass Dbs 13 Wall? (the simple 13 Exfl is enough to keep White firmly in the driving seat) 13...c6 and now White got a bit excited and pushed with 14 5 Bg? 15 Dot Web (15... Wes 16 Dbo+ Se7 17 Wa5 Sxh1 18 Qd54 Gd7 19 Bxbs! Bxb& 20 We7+ de8 21 Wrb8+ ed7 22 Dbo+ tee? 23 @xd4) 16 Wa7 Hc7 (16...82d7 17 @xd4) 17 Ba5 ded7 18 Bxb7 Bc 19 HxbS Axh1 20 Dd6+ Hc7 21 Was Wer 22 ‘He8 1-0. I am sure there is room for improvement from both sides in this game, but it does demonstrate that White's attacking chances are as good as Black’s in this opening. 'b2) 6...d7 accepts the inevitable. After 7 b4 2)ge7 we have a further branch: &b5 a5 9 Wad bo 10 £12 a6 11 Axd4 axb5 12 cxb5 D®gé 13 4\xe6 Web 14 €3 was already winning for White in 1.Farago-Bercay, Budapest 1968 (Black resigned after 14...2xe5% 15 Wed). More recently White played 8 \b3 in Volzhin-Rewitz, Skolernes 1997. After 8...Dg6 9 Dbxd4 Sxc4 10 Axcé Wrxc6 Black had insufficient compensation for the pawn, 5... gd ‘The most aggressive move. Others: a) 5...Le6 is the major alternative. Then 6 23 tansposes to ‘b’ in the note to White's fifth move. Instead White can elect to sort out matters in the centre with 6@b3 Sxc47 @Dbxd4. White still has a material lead and the d4-pawn has been eliminated. Here are two sample continuations: al) 7...ixd4 & Wadd fxd 9 Dxd4 Hs 10 Bc2 Be7 11 e3 Luft 12 Blt Deo 13 4 and White followed up with @e2, £d2<3 and then contested the e-file to the ending with a valuable extra pawn in Gui- mard-Piazzini, Argentina 1938. a2) 7...8c5 8 e3 Qxf1 9 Bxfl Wd7 10 Axcé Wxc6 11 Rd2 Lb6 12 Hci Wee 13 681d4d6 2 c4: Black's Second Move Alternatives We2! Dzevlan-Furhoff, Rilton Cup 1992. Now 13...Wxg? 14 Wade 2f8 (14...06 15 Bxc6) ‘15 Wet Eds 16 &b4+ Be7 17 Hel Wh3 18 Ags Wh5 19 6 was winning for White. b) 5...f6 is the kind of gambit inspired move you are sure to come up against in this type of opening, After 6 ext6 Black can recapture with either piece. b1) 6...Wxf6 prepares to castle queenside. 7 93 Sigs 8 g2 0.009 h3 215 10 0-0 is Teichmann-Mieses, Berlin 1910, but the course of the game is still relevant today. The queen is no better on {6 than d7 or e7. Moreover Black must also take into account the possibility of 2g5 in these positions. In the game Black threw his kingside pawns forward, but to no avail, 10..g5 11 Wat h5 12 Det! successfully side-stepping ...g5-g4.as well as unleashing the g?-bishop. After 12..Dee7 13 Add gf (13...Wes 14 Ded! Sixet 15 Dc5) 14 h4 &xd3 15 exd3 WHS 16 Det Sb8 White's undisputed advantage had little to do with his extra pawn. b2) 6...Ax16 7 a3 a5 8 Ab3!. Yet again we see this idea of homing inon the d4-pawn, a theme that is responsible for the recent popularity of 5 Abd2. Burmakin-Halser, Graz 1997 went 8...2c6 9 Wd3 2{7 10 Dbxdt DAxd4 11 Dxd4 Lc5 12 Db3! Lbs 13 e3 0.0 14 Wxd8 Baxd8 15 J2xb6 cxb6 16 3, and White’s points lead had doubled to two pawns. c) 5...2.£5 6 Ab3 (6 g3? Dbd) 6...kb4+7 42.d2 and Black has the familiar problem of the insecure d4-pawn. d)5...2b4 6a3 $xd2+7 Qxd? helps only White, eg. 7..g4 8 Wb3P? Bb8 9 &g5 Dee7 10 0-0-0 Marshall-Showalter, USA Ch. 1909. A number of players are yet to learn this lesson nearly a century later. 6 a3 By now we are well aware that nudging the a-pawn forward comes in very handy for later. 6...We7 Putting the e5-pawn in Black's sights and clearing the way for the king to castle, When White has not deployed his bishop on g2 Black’s queen does not have to reside on the h3-c8 diagonal. 7h Without the traditional threat of (after g2- g3 and 2g?) et. ..Wd7 and ..0h3 Black’s bishop struggles for a worthy role. White already knows that his opponent's queenside provides him with a target in the shape of the b7-pawn (not forgetting more serious attacking options should Black castle queenside), so delaving the commitment of the king's bishop with the useful 5 Abd? and 623 is quite logical. 7.2.35 7..50xf3 8 @xi3 0-0-0 has also been played, after which White is guaranteed an advantage with 9 Wd3 (9...2)xe5 10 WS), 9 Qf4 and 9 Sg5, eg. 9...£6 10 exf6 gxf6 11 SLf4 Wes 12 Wd2 d3 13 He3 Wixct 14 exdd WIT 15 Be? Age? 160-0 etc. 8 Wad Threatening 9 Axd4. 8.,.0-0-0 9 b4 Ironically Black has sacrificed a pawn to then find himself coming under attack, and herein lies the problem. Itis true that White is yetto get his kingside in order but, forthe moment, his king is safer than Black’s. 9...2b8 Defending the a7-pawn before b4-b5 69

Attacking With 1.d4 (Angus Dunnington, 2001) PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Attacking With 1.d4 (Angus Dunnington, 2001) PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Attacking With 1.d4 (Angus Dunnington, 2001) PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like