(David Cummings) Symmetrical English

a, symmetrical n> a\e||-aa —< x symmetrical english ™ Full details of all the latest theory @ Thorough investigation of important concepts and variations ™ Written by a prominent openings expert The Symmetrical Variation is one of Black’s most fecol el Ua lale co) Maal tarece Mel Maal (laren gtd English Opening. It is a highly flexible system which can lead to a wide variety of middlegame positions. The early ...d5 systems can be highly tactical, while the Hedgehog variations rely on a solid strategic understanding. In this book International Master David Cummings examines the various strategies for both white and black players and presents an up-to-date account of the latest theory. David Cummings is an experienced International Master, who represented Canada in the 2000 Chess Olympiad in Istanbul. Cummings is a skilléd and knowledgeable chess writer who has a background in chess publishing. This is his first book for 1 aaa-la wwweveryman.uk.com Published in the UK by Everyman Publishers ple DR aC ea reed £14.99 $19.95symmetrical english by David Cummings EVERYMAN CHESS ished by Everyman Publishers plc, London PubliFirst published in 2001 by Everyman Publishers ple, formerly Cadogan Books ple, Gloucester Mansions, 140A Shaftesbury Avenue, London WC2H 8HD Copyright © 2001 David Cummings The right of David Cummings 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 292 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 Mansions, 140A Shaftesbury Avenue, London WC2H 8HD tel: 020 7539 7600 fax: 020 7379 4060 email: dan@everyman.uk.com website: www.everyman.uk.com To Marguerite ‘The Everyman Chess Opening Guides were designed and developed by First Rank Publishing. 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.1c4c5 Bibliography Introduction ‘The Hedgehog The Double Fianchetto Defence White plays an early d2-d4 Black plays an early ...d7-d5 Ene Symmetrical English with g2-g3 Naw Breaking the Symmetry Index of Complete Games Symmetrical English Main Line with 5 AB Af6 28 39 69 99 124 141 19BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings vol. A, (Chess Informant 1996 and 2001) Nunn’s Chess Openings, (Everyman 1999) English Opening A33, Gyula Sax (Chess Informant 1994) English Opening A34, Beliavsky and Mikhalchishin (Chess Informant 1994) English Opening: Symmetrical, Vladimir Bagirov (Everyman 1995) The Symmetrical English, Carsten Hansen (Gambit 2000) Symmetrical English 1... ¢5, John Watson (Batsford 1988) Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy, John Watson (Gambit 1998) Positional Play, Dvoretsky and Yusupov (Batsford 1996) Dynamic Chess Strategy, Mihai Suba (Pergamon 1991) The Hedgehog, Mihai Suba (Batsford 2000) The Dynamic English, Tony Kosten (Gambit 1999) Flank Openings, 3rd edition, Raymond Keene (British Chess Magazine 1979) Periodicals Chess Informant 1-80 New in Chess Yearbook 1-58 New in Chess Magazine Databases and websites ChessBase Mega Database 2001 The Week in ChessINTRODUCTION The Symmetrical English (1 4 c5) is an important part of chess theory, and is played at every level of the game from ‘World Championship to club chess. Soon after starting work on this book, I began to appreciate the wide spread of material cate- gorised under 1c4c5. While 1 c4 and 1 Df3 are less popular than 1 e4 and 1 dé, any tournament player who neglects to prepare a response to them as Black, does so at his peril. I have tried to be as objective as possible and cover both Black’s and White's ideas and interests on an equal footing. Thad the following goals in mind for this book: 1) Give a ‘feel’ for the opening through games that illustrate recurring themes, some of which often occur deep into the middlegame. 2) Cover the most critical lines and present theory that is up to date at the time of writing, together with suggested improvements over published works. Inevitably, given the huge volume of games available, something had to give, so I compromised on the depth of coverage of non-critical material. For example, if in a certain line there are four different lines that all equalise for Black, I did not try to cover them all in- depth. 3) Give an insight into the move order issues and transpositions (into and out of the Symmetrical English), which are such an important facet of this opening. The fact is that many of the main lines in the Symmet- rical English can be reached by almost any permutation of the first 7 or 8 moves! There are also a number of tricks along the way to throw the unwary off their preferred path. At one point I wondered whether to ‘sani- tise’ the move order in the main games to conform to standard categorisations such as the ECO system, I decided against this, since the variety of actual move orders prac- tised by top players is very instructive, even though it makes the subject-matter initially somewhat harder to grasp. However, I have wherever possible explained the ‘official’ move orders and how the practical material relates to these. I believe the ‘complete games’ approach is well suited to this subject matter. There seems little point in presenting the latest 1 45 theory in encyclopaedic fashion without explaining some thematic examples of, for example, how and when to go for a .d7-d5 break in the Hedgehog, or what the key plans are in a‘quiet’ symmetrical line. At the same time, it is naive, especially the higher you go, to expect to avoid concreteSymmetrical English knowledge in any modern opening, Many lines are as sharp as main-line 1 e4 or 1 d4 openings. Some chapters have a longer introduction, covering typical ideas, than others, This is no accident. Some lines have positional ideas or common tactics that crop up in a large number of games and across several sub-variations, while others are less systematic, While there are some general principles that can be abstracted, almost every line has its own character and concrete nature. Who should read this book, and how should the material be tackled? As a broad generalisation, I have ob- served two types of player who take up the English as White. 1) The ‘system’ player. Playing a certain set-up against a wide range of responses has the advantage that you can become finely attuned to the subtleties of the structure, while your opponent will most likely beon less familiar ground. One example would be playing as White, in one order or another, c2-c4, Dbi-c3, g2-g3, Mfl-g2 and then either the Botvinnik set-up with e2-e4 and Dgi-e2 or the regular Dgi-f3. Life is somewhat more straightforward here; you can choose the approach you like from the Symmetrical English chapters. You will aso need something against the 3...d5 line and the Hedgehog. 2) The ‘flexible d4 player’. This is some- one who takes up the English move order as a way of picking and choosing which Indian defences (or Queen’s Gambit lines) they want to entertain, eg, for the days when you realise you don’t have an opening against the Griinfeld, Such players will be concerned with the nuances of move order and transposition, and commonly start 1 BB (avoiding 1 c4 €5 but allowing 1 Af3 d5) as often as 1 c4, These players will benefit from studying the full range of material. For Black, the Symmetrical English is a mainstream and reliable response to 1 c4. If you don’t like 1 c4e5 or have been thwarted from playing your favourite Benoni or Benko by 1 d4 fo 2 ¢4c5 3 Af3, then the Symmetrical English is ideal. One approach is to choose your main or target system as Black (e.g. Hedgehog, Double Fianchetto or an early ...d5 with the Rubinstein set-up), and then study the other games that branch from your preferred move order. Ifyou are looking fora role model, then on the White side, the games of Korchnoi and Kramnik will repay close study. For Black, both Kasparov and Adams have used various lines of the Symmetrical English as mainstays of their repertoire over the years. Karpov, and to some extent Anand, show up on both sides of the board. David Cummings, Toronto, July 2001CHAPTER ONE The Hedgehog ‘The term ‘Hedgehog’ is used both to refer to a generic development scheme (based on...b7-b6, ...S2b7, ...e7-€6, ...d7-d6, ...Le7) that occurs in several openings (and other variations within the Symmetrical English), and a specific variation which is the subject of this chapter. It is a flexible and resilient defence with a strong counter-punch. 1 c4 cB 2 DF3 D6 3 De3 e6 4 g3 ‘The system presented in this chapter de- pends on White playing g2-g3. If instead he goes for an early d2-d4 (see Chapter 3), then if Black wants a Hedgehog set-up, he has to resort to lines like 3 d4 cxd4 4 Dxd4 b6 (Game 16). If Black plays 3...b6 (instead of 3...e6) then White has 4 e4 or 4 d4, which are covered int Games 16 and 63. The Hedgehog is also often reached from a Queen’s Indian style move order such as 1 Af3 Df 2 c4 b6 3 g3 Rb7 4 Lg? €6 50-0 Le7 6 Ac3c5. 4...b6 5 Sig2 &b7 6 0-0 2e7 Black has an important decision to make on move 6. The most popular move is 6...2e7, but 6...a6 has its supporters, including the Rumanian GMs Suba and Marin. 6...d6 will transpose into one or the other, but is somewhat less flexible. One advantage of 6....2e7 is that it gives Black more options in response to the dangerous 7 Eel, such as 7...d5 or 7...2e4 (Games 7-8; these would make less sense with 6...a6 in place of 6...e7). On the other hand, 6...a6 enables Black to avoid the line 6....fe7 7 d4 cxd4 8 Wd4 d6 9 g5 a6 10 &xf6 (see Game 5). White has several approaches to the opening: a) Develop the pieces and build up for an attack later (see Game 2). b) Try and strike early against the d6- weakness, with a view to extracting a positional concession. White can try some combination of Efl-di with &cl-g5 or Df3-g5, or b2-b3 and Xcl-a3. One advantage of these plans is that White can always revert to plan A (slow build up). Black needs to be vigilant against these ‘sneaky’ move orders, 7Symmetrical English which are covered in Games 3-4. ¢) Direct and aggressive play with 7 Rel and the ‘Open Sicilian style’ continuation (Games 6-7). White aims to achieve something concrete early on, before Black’s solid build-up is complete. 7 Hel d6 8 e4 a6 9 d4 cxd4 10 Dxd4 We7 Black always needs to be wary of tactics along the h1-a8 diagonal, especially when his b7-bishop is undefended. For example 10...0-0 would fall for 11 e5 - atypical trick. 11 &e3 0-0 12 Ze1 Dbd7 NA DG Ler’s look at this position to discuss some of the key ideas. The character of the Hedgehog is such that, even during protracted periods of manoeuvring, both sides need to be constantly calculating the tactics of the important pawn breaks. Knowing the typical motifs helps you to know what to look for and can save time (but keep an open mind!). White's Ideas White has a number of aggressive ideas to make progress: 1) f4-£5 (see Game 7), hitting the potential weakness on ¢6, or provoking ...e6-e5, which leaves the d5-square in White’s hands. 2) g3-g4-85 to cause havoc with Black’s minor pieces, and attempt a kingside attack. 3) ete5 (supported by {2-f4) often threatening to win a piece. 4) The thematic Ac3-d5 sacrifice. 5) The queenside clamp, for example with a2-a3, b2-b4. This is more appropriate in the long manoeuvring style game. White needs to ensure he has the c+-pawn well defended before playing b2-b4. ‘A number of these goals are harder to achieve, the later in the opening we go. For example, once Black has played, ...Eba8-c8 and ...W7-b8, the Bd5 sac loses its point, or once Black has played ...Bf8-e8 and vw S2e7-48, the f4-£5 thrust has less bite. So good advice for White is to maintain con- centration during the early stages, and not just aim to get the pieces out. Black's Ideas The following are the ideas that Black should keep in mind: 1) A lot of the potential energy in Black’s game comes from his harmonious piece formation, particularly the knights on f6and d7. Most modern Hedgehog players prefer this to the ...’c6 set-up, though this is appropriate in several situations. Rooks are usually best placed on e8 and 8, while the dark-squared bishop can be routed via ww SLe7 48-97 or ...SLe7-d8-c7. 2) Black’s ‘classic’ break is ..d6-d5 (an instructive example of this can be studied in Yermolinsky-Salov below). 3) The advance ...b6-b5 is more double- edged than many people think, Sometimes Black can achieve his ‘goal’ only to find his bS-pawn is a target (after c4xb5, ...a6xb5, b2-b4 etc,) 4) A well timed ...e6-e5 is also an important weapon - controlling the central dark squares. 5) Occasionally, Black can even fight fire with fire on the kingside, for example an- swering f2-f4 and g2-g4 with ...h7-h6 and 187-85, attempting to grab the dark- squares. (see Karpov-Csom, Game 3) It is noticeable that quite a few playersThe Hedgehog play the Hedgehog as both Black and White, perhaps on the principle that ‘poachers make the best gamekeepers’. Or put another way, Tlike to play it from both sides; as White you must always introduce some new tricks because over the years the Hedgehog has proved to be rock-solid. Playing it gives more satisfaction when you are Black ~ it’s like defending truth, justice and the poor simultaneously’~ Mihai Suba in Dynamic Chess Strategy. Game 1 Yermolinsky-Salov Wijk aan Zee 1997 1 Df3 D6 2 c4 c5 3 DAc3 e6 4 g3 bE S Sig2 2b7 6 0-0 £e7 7 d4 cxd4 8 Wxd4 0-0 8...D)c6 9 Wid 0-0 will transpose. 9 Bd1 Acé Nowadays in the Hedgehog, Black usually develops his queen’s knight with ...d6 and ...b8-d7. The line with ...Ab8-c6 was the traditional approach, dating back to the 1950s and 60s, before the Hedgehog proper was ‘discovered’ in the early 70s. However, ...®b8-c6 still crops up from time to time, and in this game Salov manages to pull off a nice thematic win. 10 Wa ‘The best,spot for the queen, eyeing dé and making way for the rook on di. 10...Wb8 Offering the trade of queens is the old main line. Alternatively, Black can put up the barricades with 10...d6 and arrange his pieces behind them. This was shunned in the ‘old days’, perhaps because people were afraid of defending the cramped Hedgehog set-up which we now take for granted. Some of the more recent games with this approach indicate that it is playable for Black, so ...2\c6 may, after all, provide a respectable alternative to the heavily analysed Hedgehog lines (with ...dé and ... Db8- d7) to be found elsewhere in this chapter. One example: 10...d6 11 b3 (11 e4 Wb8 transposes to the main game) 11...Wb8 12 &b2 Bd8 13 Hd2 (13 Bact a6 14 We3 b5) 13...a6 14 Hadi b5! 15 Det Axed 16 Wxed DeS 17 We3 Dxf3+ 18 &xf3 bxcd 19 bcd &xf3 20 Wxf3 We7 %-%4 Van der Sterren-Van Wely, Rotterdam 1998. 1104 a) 11 b3 is also popular. A recent high level game (and a fairly typical example) is 11,..Bd8 12 &b2 hol? 13 Bd2 Wxf4 14 exf4 Da5 15 Hadi d5 16 cxd5 Dxd5 17 Dxd5 Axd5 18 DeS Lxg? 19 dxg? Bxd2 20 Exd2 &f8 21 Hc2 ke8 Kramnik-Leko, Linares 1999, and Black should hold this ending, b) Many games have been played in the endgame that arises from 11 Wxb8 Zaxb8 12 £4 Zbc8 and now White can play the forcing 13 Ae5 (13 &d6 leads to an equal position after 13...2xd6 14 Exd6 De7 15 b3 DFS 16 Hd? d5) 13...d6 14 Axc6 xb 15 Axd6 &xd6 16 Hxd6 xg? 17 dex? Exc4. In this position White has tried: bt) 18 Bad1 g5!. White would like to advance his pawns to drive away the knight, which is in a key defensive post on 6. Black’s plan pre-empts this. 19 h3 and now: b11) Black should play 19...h5 20 3 g4 according to Gipslis, when he should have no trouble equalising.Symmetrical English b12) 19... fc8 20 £3 deg7 21 4?! (21 Hf2 is slightly better for White) 21...b5! with equality, Krogius-Giorgadze, Riga 1975. b2) 18 {3 may be an improvement, for example 18,..Bfc8 19 Bad1 &f8 (19...g5 20 h3 h5 21 g4 nips Black’s plan in the bud) 20 e4 €5?! (creating weaknesses on d5 and e5, but after 20...@e8 21 Héd3 White is still slightly better) 21 gf2 B4c5 22 g4 de8 23 Be3 B5c6 24 Héd2 and White is much better, Saidy-Andersson, Las Palmas 1973. c) 11 Dg5!? Da5 12 b3 Bxg? 13 Wxbs Baxb8 14 dxg2 Hfd8 15 &f4 Bbc8 16 Hacl Acé 17 Ages Axes 18 Axed d5 19 cxd5 exd5 20 Ac3 a3 21 Bb d4 22 Abs &c5 with a level endgame, Savchenko- Sulskis, Lubniewice 1998. 11...d6 A fighting move. Instead 11...Wxf4 12 Sixf4 Bfd8 13 e5! De8 14 DAd4 Dad 15 b3 Sixg2 16 dxg? dé 17 exd6 Bxd6 18 Rxd6 @xd6 19 Bd2 and White is a touch better, Karpov-Petrosian, Milan 1975. 12 b3 Des Another approach is 12...d7!? 13 We3 Be 14 2b2 a6 15 We2 &F8 with a tough battle in prospect, Korchnoi-Skembris, Beersheba 1993. Alternatively 12...a6 13 &b2 We7 14 h3 Bac8 15 We3 De5 16 Ad4 h6 17 Hd2 Hfes 18 &hi Ded7 19 £4 &f8 20 Bil Wbs 21 gt ®D)h7 with a tense position was Kramnik- Leko, Budapest 2001. Leko later achieved the rare feat of provoking to Kramnik to overreach himself, and won. 13 We3 13 &xe5? dxe5 is rarely a good idea for White as it gives Black control of d4; 13 223 probing the d6-pawn, is more critical, e.g. 13...2g6 (this will be necessary sooner or later, but gé is not the ideal square for this knight) 14 We3 He8 15 2b2 28 16h3 a6 17 Wxb6 Axes 18 Dxed Lxe4 19 Wxbs Haxb8 20 Ad4 &xg? 21 gxg? (Huzman- Yudasin, Haifa 1996) and White is slightly better. 13...Ded7 ..Deb-e5-d7 is a common regrouping idea. 7 14 We2 White gives the impression of drifting. Yudasin suggests 14 &b2, with h2-h3, Bd1- d2 and Kal-d1 to follow. At least that would keep more firepower on the d5- square. 14...a6 15 Dd4 We7 Making room for the a8-rook to come to 8, and also incidentally threatening ...b7-5, since the c3-knight is undefended. 16 ad2 White wants his bishop on e3, but because of the tactic 16 £2e3? b5! he has to take two moves to achieve it. 16 £b2 is more to the point, e.g. 16...2ffe8 17 acl Bac8 18 g4!?. 16...2fe8 17 act Hac8 18 £03 Ws Black now has the Hedgehog ‘Plan A’ piece formation. The queen gets out of the line of fire of the White rook, which helps facilitate a future ...d6-d5 or ...b6-b5. The queen also sometimes moves across to a8 to add pressure against the e4-pawn. 1913 Another rather pointless move, which reduces White's control of the d5-square. White can try 19 £4, 19...d5! All the pre-requisites for a successful .d6-d5 break are in place: the e8-rook is 10The Hedgehog vis-a-vis the White queen on ¢3, Black's queen is tucked away on b8, White’s f2-13 has blocked his g2-bishop’s control of d5 and loosened the defence of €3, creating potential tactics on the a7-g1 diagonal. But above all the tactics have to work! These factors just serve as a clue that the break is worth seriously analysing, or as a guide if you can’t reach a concrete assessment and have to play intuitively. 20 cxd5 exd5 21 exd5? The only problem with an early ...d6-d5 is that even after White has made aseries of mistakes, he can sometimes still recover and equalise. So here White should play 21 4! according to Salov, when 21....d6 22 &xd6 Wxd6 23 WE2! Wa3 (23...dxe4 24 Ddb5) 24 exd5 Dxd5 25 Ade2! is about equal. After 21 Axd5 Axd5 22 exdd Lcd 23 Wf2 Wes Black retains the initiative 21...2a3! Pinning the e3-bishop to the queen, with gain of time. 22 EBe2 Exe3! 23 Exc3 Dxd5 24 Scd3 Ac5 25 14! The best chance. Otherwise, 25 Ac6 xc 26 Exd5 &xd5 27 Exd5 &ct! wins for Black, while 25 Wf2 Dxd3 26 Bxd3 Dxe3 27 Exe3 Hxe3 28 Wxe3 2c5 also wins, 25...Dxd3 26 Exd3 &c5 27 Sxd5 ixd5 28 D5 If 28 WF2 then 28...Wc8!, threatening to invade on the light squares. 28...8e4 29 2xc5 ixd3 30 Wxd3 bxc5 31 Wc3! 16 32 Wed+ Gh8 33 WIT Eg8 34 ha! We8 35 Wd5 We1+ 36 wg2 We2+ 37 &h3 hS Salov analyses 37... Wf1+! 38 dg4 h5+! 39 xh5 We2+ 40 bg6 Weds 41 Hi7 Wh5+ 42 cheb We2+! 43 ed7 Wess 44 edo Wd84! 45, co Wa8+ 46 dexcd Hc8+ 47 ed4 Rds 48 Dd Wa7+ 49 &d3 Wa7 as winning for Black. 38 Dd6 Wg4+ 39 wg2 Sf8 40 sF2! &h7 41 Wxc5 Ed8! 42 We2+ 96 43 Wea 43 Ded! was a tougher defence. 43...Wd7 44 De4 We7 45 We3 S97 jot 45... Wxed?? 46 Wic74. 46 &13 Ee8 47 Wd3 Wb7! 0-1 Black wins after 48 Wd4 dg8! 49 Wo4+ $h7 50 Wd4 Be7!, followed by ...f6-£5 (but not 50...f5 51 Wd7+! Wxd7 52 Dfé+). Game 2 UhImann-Priehoda Wattens 1995 1 04 Af6 2 Dc3 e6 3 AF3 c5 4 g3b65 Sig2 2b7 6 d4 cxd4 7 Wxd4 d6 8 0-0 a6 9e4 White dispenses with the tricky &ct-g5 or b2-b3 and &c-a3 ideas (which are covered in Games 3-5), and settles for straightforward development along Open Sicilian lines. For 9 Ed1 &e7 10 b3 Abd7 11 e4¢ (which can sometimes transpose) see Game 4. 9...Dbd7 10 We3 &e7 11 DAd4 We7 12 b3 0-0 13 &b2 This was the traditional main line (in the 19705) of the Hedgehog, but in fact has become almost the personal property of GM Wolfgang Uhlmann, who played it for over two decades. 13...5fe8 11Symmetrical English 14 Sfet The modern treatment of this line is to keep Black’s pawn breaks under close scru- tiny, while engaging in intricate manoeuvring. One of White’s key ideas is to be ready to answer ...d7-d5 with e4-e5. Alterna- tively: a) 14 Bacl was well met by 14...Bad8 15 Biel Wb8 16 He2 £8 17 h3 g6 18 Heel 2g7 19 Wd2 Dc5 20 We2 Wa8 21 a4 He8 22 Df3 Hed8 23 Dd2 d5 in Karpov-Adams, Wijk aan Zee 1998, and Black is at least equal. b) In the early days of the variation, White would often throw caution to the winds, sometimes winning with acrushing kingside attack, but other times being stung by the Hedgehog counter-attack. For example Uhlmann-Suba, Bucharest 1979 continued 14 @h1 Of8 15 f4 g6 16 Hael 297 17 h3 Had8 18 g4 e5 19 fxe5 Bxe5 20 Ade? Ede8 21 Dg3 h6 22 Wd2 B5e7 and White has only succeeded in burdening himself with a weak e-pawn and loose kingside. 14...2f8 15 Wd2 Alternatively: a) 15 h3 was the move used by Uhlmann and others, before the German GM refined his plan and did without this move. A modern example: 15..ac8 16 He? Wb8 17 Bael g6 18 Wd2 297 19 dh? Ac5 20 Hdl ‘Wa8 21 Wel Hed8 with a typical war of attrition in prospect, Kasimdzhanov- Bunzmann, Yerevan 1999. b) 15 He2 Had8 (Uhlmann points out that 15...d5 16 e5 Dgd 17 Wit Dgxes 18 cxd5 is better for White, which means that h2-h3 is not an essential precaution) 16 ‘Wd2 Wbs8 17 di and now: bi) 17...Wa8 18 Wel Wa7 19 #h1 2a8 20 £3 We7 (20...h5!2) 21 g4 h6 22 Wg3 g5, Uhlmann-Schneider, Debrecen 1988, and here Uhlmann suggests 23 Hed? planning @d4-e2 and £3-f4. b2) 17...g6 18 Wel e5!? (18.027) 19 De2 b5 20 cxb5 axb5 21 Ab4 Ac5 22 Qct &g7 23 Qg5 Ra8 24 Dcd5, Uhlmann Fracnik, Debrecen 1989, and White is on top. b3) 17.,.Sa8 18 Wel g6 19 £3 2g7 20 ht Dc5 (20...h5!2) is equal according to ECO, though Uhlmann-Zsinka, Frankfurt 1990 continued 21 &c1 Acd7 22 g4 Kc8 23 Ga3 d5? 24 exd5 exd5 25 g5, winning the d5-pawn. 15...2ac8 This is the more natural square for the queen’s rook in most lines of the Hedgehog, though in this position ...Had8 has been played more often. 16 e2 Wb8 17 Edt q, whe ald Li a A 17...96 Or 17...Dc5 18 Bal Wa8 19 £3 (this ren- ders Black’s last two moves rather ineffectual) 19...Bed8 20 #h1 g6 21 We3 2g7 22 Hed2 He8 23 Wf2 and White has a firm 12The Hedgehog clamp on the centre, Uhlmann-Griinberg, Dresden 1985. 18 Wet Was Or 18...Bed8 19 {3 hS 20 @h1 La8 21 h3 &g7 22 Hed2 Bh6 23 He2 &g7 24 Hed? 2h6 %4-% Novikov-Brodsky, Koszalin 1999. 1913 One of the advantages of omitting an early h2-h3 (as seen in several Uhlmann games) is that White can bolster his centre with £2-£3, with a later g3-g4 in mind. In this game, however, Black comes up with a good reply which Uhlmann’s earlier oppo- nents had not tried. 19...h5! 20 &h1 Wbs 21 h3 So White is prompted into h2-h3 after all, but now his kingside looks decidedly loose. 21...897 22 De2 LaB 23 Ab4 Acs 24 Hed2 Hed8 25 Dc2 Sicé 26 De3 White can no longer prevent ...b7-b5 unless he repeats moves with 26 Abs. 26...b5 27 b4 Acd7 28 a3 Db6 29 exb5 axb5 Black’s bé-knight is eyeing c4 and a4, which in turn keeps the White knights tied down. 30 We2 7-b5 and ...d7-d5 breaks are like buses, you wait for hours and then two of them come along in quick succes- sion! 31 e5 Des Of course not 31...Wxe5 32 Dcxd5. 32 £4 De7 33 94 Stopping any ideas of ...£7-f6. 33...hxg4 34 Wxg4 De8 35 De2 Dc4 This isa vital resource, otherwise White would get a firm blockade with De2-d4, 36 Dxc4 dxc4 37 &xc6 Exd2 38 Exd2 Exc6 39 De3 Ec8 40 Wat 40 Ded can be answered by 40...Bd8. 40...Wb7+ 41 @h2 &h6 42 Eda Dg7 43 ct Of5 44 Baa+ White has enough to counter the threats to his weak kingside pawns. 44...Bxd8 45 Wixd8+ %g7 46 Wd1 Dna 47 We2 D13+ Settling for the draw by repetition. It is very risky to go for 47...WE3 48 Wxf3 Dxf3+ 49 g3 Axe5 50 Dxb5. 48 93 Dd4 49 Wd1 Df5+ 50 Hh2 Dh4 51 We2 D3+ 52 og3 %-% Game 3 Karpov-Csom Bad Lauterberg 1977 1 4 DFE 2 Ac3 c5 3 DAf3 e6 4 g3 b6 5 ig2 &b7 6 0-0 d6 7 b3 A sneaky move order. White waits to see what Black does next, before committing to whether he will recapture on d4 with the queen or knight. 7...deT 7...Abd7 is an inferior move order. 8 &b2 Be7 9 d4 and here: a) 9...cxd4 10 Axd4 &xg? 11 exg2 We7 12 e3 a6 13 f4 is an important idea to know, if you have not seen it before: al) 13...0-0 14 Wf3 (the immediate 14 £51? was suggested by Yudasin) 14...Hac8 15 ge4 Dc5 16 g5 Dfd7 17 Hadi Bes 18 h4 and White is slightly better due to his huge space advantage, Andersson-I Sokolov, Bilbao 1987. a2) 13...g6, slowing White’s kingside ad- 13Symmetrical English vance and providing an outpost on h5 for the f6-knight, is perhaps Black’s best try: 14 Wf3 Hc8 15 g4 (perhaps 15 Hadi; or 15 e4 0-0 16 Baet) 15...0-0 16 g5 Dh5 17 Hadi Dc5 18 Des Wh7 with equal chances, So- rokin-Yudasin, USSR Championship 1991. b) 9...0-0 10 d5 exd5 11 Dh4 gb 12 cxd5 De8 13 £4 Dc72! (White has compensation for the pawn after 13...2xh4 14 gxh4 Wxh4 15 e4, according to Kramnik) 14 e4 b5 15. €5 £5 16 a4 b4 17 Db5 Dxb5 18 axbS Whe 19 Bel Wxb5 20 &f1 Whe 21 &c4 and White has a dominating centre, Kramnik- Topalov, Amsterdam 1996. 8 d4 cxd4 9 Wxd4 After 9 Dxd4 &xg2 10 dxg2 Black has not yet committed his b8-knight, so the c6- square is not as weak as in the line covered in the previous note. 9...a6 Once again 9... Abd7 is too committal: 10 Hd1 a6 11 Dgs Kxg? 12 xg? We7 13 Ages Dxes 14 Dxes 0-0 15 Rad Wee 16 £3 Dc5 17 &b2 f6 18 Af2 and Black came to regret his additional weakness on e6, Andersson-Szmetan, Pinamar 2001. A quite different idea is 9...0-0 10 £a3 Dab 11 Bfd1 Acs, when White can initiate a forcing sequence with 12 b4 Ace4 13 Dxet Lxes 145 We8 15 Rxd6 Bd8 16 c5 bxc5 17 WeS Qxd6 18 Bxd6 Wb7! 19 a4 c4 20 Hcl Ad5 21 Del Bxd6 22 Wxde Whe! 23 Wxb6 axb6 24 Hxc4 with a level ending, Yermolinsky-Adams, Elista Olympiad 1998. 10 &a3 This is the only way to try and take specific advantage of this move order. 10...0-0 Or 10...Acé (this is probably the best, rather than sticking to the ...@b8-d7 devel- ‘opment scheme at all costs) and here: a) 11 Wd2 We7 12 Bacl Aa7 13 Bfdi Ed8 14 We3 0.0 15 2b2 Efes 16 h3 hé 17 g4 Dc8 18 Shi WS (perhaps 18...28 and, in some circumstances, Black can re-route his knight via ...c8-e7-g6 (or -f5), depending on White’s actions) 19 Ad4 &xg2+ 20 sbxg2 We7 21 £4 Wh7+ 22 WI3 Wxt3+ 23 xf3 (Petursson-S.Hansen, Copenhagen 1997) and White has a slight edge, though nothing that Black should not be able to handle. b) 11 Wf4 with the split: bi) 11...d5 12 Bxe7 Dxe7 13 De5 0-0 14 Bfdi Wb8 15 cxd5 Aexd5 16 Dxd5 exd5 17 Dd3 Be8 18 e3 and White has a sizeable advantage thanks to play against the isolated queen’s pawn (IQP), Salov-M.Gurevich, Biel 1993. b2) 11..Wc7 12 Bfdi Bd8 13 Bact (13 We3 transposes to Petursson-S.Hansen above) 13...2a7 14 Ags &xg2 15 dxg? 0-0 16 Ages De8 17 £3 Ws 18 Lb2 Wh7 19 ®f2 b5 and Black is doing fine, Szuhanek- Marin, Romanian Team Championship 1995. 11 Efd1 De8 12 @b2 Marin suggests 12 Ae4!? to force further concessions from Black, such as 12...0c6 13 We3. 12...Dd7 13 e4 Dc5 14 We3 Wb8 14...We7 is the more modern queen placement. 15 Dd4 Df6 16 h3 Nc8 17 o4 ECO assesses this position as much better for White, but although Black’s major piece arrangement is somewhat eccentric, this looks like a fairly normal Hedgehog position for Black. 14The Hedgehog 17...h6 18 4 Dh7 It is vital that Black takes measures to avoid being overrun by the white kingside pawns. His idea is to set up a dark-square blockade. 19 Wi2 Ba7 Black’s rook plays an important defensive role on the 2nd rank. 20 Hd2 2a8 21 Bet 216 22 h4 g5 Implementing the idea started on move 17 and 18. 23 hxg5 hxg5 24 fxg5?! 24 £5 gives a big advantage to White according to Marin, However Black seems fine, e.g. 24...Be7 25 b4 Dd7. 24...axg5 25 Bdd1 Ad7 26 Ed3 Ded 27 Eh3 He8 28 Ace2 Ec7 29 a4 Was This kind of chaotic position often results from the Hedgehog when White attempts a kingside assault. After some quiet manoeuvring the position explodes, and then anything can happen! 30 Wg3 Ag6 31 Wh2 6 32 Ed1 Zg7 Black has the kingside solidly defended, so White turns his attentions to the d6- pawn. However, his own central pawn falls in the process, and soon the white king becomes exposed. 33 Df3 Axed 34 Exd6 We7 35 &a3 fie3+ 36 f1 2c5 37 Axc5 Wxc5 38 Ed4 Gxf3 39 Exf3 De5 40 Bh3 Dxg4 41 Wd6 Wf5+ 42 Hf Wb1+ 43 2d1 Wea Things have gone badly awry for White. In those days, the reigning World Cham- pion was almost invincible with the White pieces; this game was almost a huge upset. 44 Eg3 De3+ 45 &g1 Axg2 46 Xxg7+ &xg7 47 Dg3 Wa8 48 We7+ Ghs 48...€g6 is also winning for Black. 49 £7 49... D187? 49...2)g5 leaves White with nowhere to go. 50 Df5! 1-0 Tragic. Black cannot defend against both We7-h2+ and Bd7-h7+. Game 4 Zifroni-Kaspi Tel Agiv 1998 1 Df3 D6 2 4 b6 3 g3 &b7 4 &g2 cd 5 0-0 e6 6 Dc3 e7 7 d4 cxd4 8 Wxd4 d6 9 b3 Another anti-Hedgehog try is 9 Bd1 26 10 Dg5 Lxg? 11 xg? 0-0 (11...c6 is also adequate) 12 Ace4 a7, for example: a) 13 Axf6+ Sxfo 14 Wed e7 (14..8d7 is preferable and should equalise) 15 h4 2d7 16 b3 Dfe 17 WES with an edge for White, Adorjan-Lau, Plovdiv 1983. b) 13 Wd3 Axes 14 Axed Bd7 and now: bi) 15 Dc3 We8 16 Bd2 Dc6 17 Wes De5 18 b3 He8 19 Bact (51? 20 Wb1 Wb7+ 21 &g1 26 and Black later launched his g- 15Symmetrical English and h-pawns forward to attack the white king, Agdestein-Adams, Slough 1997. b2) 15 2f4 We8 16 Bact Bfds 17 WES Wb7 18 2d2 c6, and Black has everything covered, Csom-Ermenkov, Plovdiv 1983. 9...Dbd7 10 Ed1 a6 11 e4 White’s idea is to strike early, putting pressure on the d6-pawn with &cl-a3, and often playing e4-e5, usually with a queen exchange to follow. In the resulting ending, White hopes that his small lead in development, and Black’s vulnerable queenside pawns, will enable him to establish a more tangible endgame edge. 11,,.We7 Or: a) Black needs to avoid 11...0-0, which. gives White a superior endgame after 12 Ba3 Dc 13 €5 dxeS 14 Wrd8 Bfxd8 15 Dxed Bxg? 16 dxg? AEB (16...Hdce8 17 Dad!) 17 Axcd Kxc5 18 Dad Hdbs 19 Aco Bb7 20 Axc5 bxc5 21 Hd3 g5 22 &f3 Ab6 23 De5 - White has a nagging advantage, Llvanov-M.Gurevich, Philadelphia 1989. Because of this, Black realised he should move his queen off the d-file and to defend the b7-bishop. 11...Wc7 is the most natural move, as played in the main game. b) After Black experienced some awkward moments with 11...Wc7, 11...Wb8 was tried. Although this has scored somewhat better in practice, the nature of the game is similar: Black should equalise, but is in danger of slipping into a slightly worse endgame if he does not play accurately: 11...Wb8 12 &a3 Ac5 13 €5 dxe5 14 Wres Dcd7 (if Black is determined to keep the queens on, then 14...Wa7 is playable) 15 Wxb8+ Exb8 16 &cl (16 &xe7 Sxe7 re- lieves the pressure) 16...&c8 17 &b2 and now: bi) 17...—c7 18 Dd4 &xg? 19 dxg? Dc5 20 Hact 0-0 21 DfS Ded7 22 Aer Hfc8 23 DeS is slightly better for White, Nogueiras-Browne, Taxco 1985. 2) 17...ig8 18 @e2 (I don’t find this example, quoted by ECO, entirely convincing; maybe 18 h4!?) 18...g5 19 DeS &xg2 20 xg? Axed 21 Qxe5 Dd? 22 Qb2 Dc5 with equality, Pelts-Browne, New York 1986. ¢) 11...'Wc8 is the move to play if Black wants to maintain a complex middlegame position and play for a win. This move was invented by a process of elimination! A fairly normal Hedgehog position is reached, White has an extratempo, but otherwise his set-up is rather innocuous: 12 b2 (the justification for 11..Wc8 is that White cannot go for 12 @a3 Dc5 13 e5 because of 13...Sxf3 14 Qxf3 dxeS 15 Wed - 15 Weed Dcd7 - 15...Hb8 etc.) 12..10-0 13 We3 Hes 14 Dd4 28 15 h3 We7 16 Hel (note that we have now transposed into the Uhlmann variation {see Game 2} with both sides having lost atempo, ie. ...Wc8-c7 and Ef1- di-e1). 16...g6 17 Had1 Sad8 18 Wd2 &g7 19 Dc2 Dc5 20 Kal h5 21 Db4s We8 22 Wis Was 23 Dds Dfd7 24 Dxcd 4% Kramnik-Shirov, Dos Hermanas 1997. 12 2a3 Dc5 13 e5 dxeS 14 Wxe5 Bc8 x 1. 15 Sct This is a refinement over the earlier move 15 Wxc7 Exc7 16 &cl Dfed 17 Qf4 Hc8 18 Axed 2xe4, when White has tried: a) 19 Bd2 26 20 Badi f6 21 2e3 {7 22 Del Bhe8 23 Rxc6 Excb 24 £3 Hec8 25 £1 Ge8 with equality, Nogueiras-Short, Montpelier 1985. 16The Hedgehog b) 19 &d6 2f6 20 De and here: bl) 20...&xg2 21 dexg? AxeS 22 Axes {6 23 &d6 gave White unpleasant pressure, Ribli-Ambroz, Baile Herculane 1982. 2) 20...Nb7! 21 £4 Dxd6 (21...xg2 22 shxg2 g5) 22 Bxd6 Se7 (Black steers a course to equality with precise moves exploiting the tactical features of the position) 23 Hdd Sxg2 24 dxg? fo 25 D3 &c5 26 Bd} Bd8 27 Badl %-% Andersson- Browne, Naestved 1985. 15...Wxe5 16 Dxe5 &xg2 17 sxg2 Dfear! a) 17...Dcd7 18 @xd7 @xd7 is equal according to Cvetkovic. After Bagirov’s 19 Ded Heb 20 A4 f6, Black is not out of the woods yet. I believe White is slightly better. b) 17...0-0 is recommended by Stohl: 18 Re3 Bids 19 Bxd8+ &xd8 20 Bdi Bc7, Schirm-Bethe, Bargteheide 1988, and now 21 £4 would maintain the bind. 18 Dxed Dxed 19 Le3 19.05 19....{6 is answered by 20 f4. 20 act £6 21 Dd3 wt7 22 Axes bxc5 22...Rxc5 23 Bd7+ Gg 24 Rxc5 Bxc5 25 Hd6 wins a pawn. 23 Ba7 This is the problem with this whole line (with 11...We7 or 11...9b8) - without doing anything spectacular, White often gets a nagging endgame edge which he can try and exploit with little risk of losing. 23...Bhd8 24 Ha7 Ec6 25 Ee2 e5 26 Ed2 Trading Black’s only active piece. 26...5xd2 27 Sxd2 we6 28 £4 exf4 29 Axf4 h5 30 &f2 g6 31 we2 Sas 32 Hd3 95 33 Le3 207 34 a3 wf5 35 ba exb4 36 axb4 &g4 37 Ad4 205 38 c5 Gh3 39 Axe5 fxe5 40 ded Sxh2 41 Sd5 Ec8 42 Exaé Bd8+ 43 Ed6 Hes 44 wea? 44 c6! is clear cut, e.g. 44...e4 45 c7 Hc8 46 dco xg 47 b5 €3 48 b6 e2 49 Heb winning. 44,..2b8 45 Zb6 cB! 46 Bh6 h4 47 gxh4 g4 48 &xe5 Eb8 49 c6 Exb4 50 07 Hc4 51 dd6 g3 52 Bg6 g2 53 hS Ec3 54 h6 Ed3+ 55 wc6 He3+ 56 wd6 Ed3+ 57 wo6 Nc3+58 &b6?? 58 dd6 or 58 &b7 would still win. Now Black queens with check. 58...2g3! 59 Exg3 txg3 60 coW g1W+ 61 Wc5 Wb1+ 62 Wbs Wg6+ 63 We6 Wb1+ 64 wa7 Wh7+ 65 Sa6 wo4 koh Game 5 Tal-Short Naestved 1985 1 D3 DIG 2 c4 b6 3 g3 c5 4 B92 &b7 5 0-0 e6 6 Ac3 a6 7 d4 cxd4 8 Wxd4 d6 9 S95 “a J), ; “9. ‘g This is a dangerous line, for which Black 17Symmetrical English needs to be well prepared. 9...e7 The advantage of the 6...a6 move order is that Black can now choose 9...bd7. a) 10 Dd2 xg? 11 hxg? Le7 (a big improvement over 11....c8?! 12 Dce4 He6 13 b4! b5 14 a4 e5 15 &xf6 gxfo 16 Wd5 @b8 17 axb5 axbS 18 a7 and Black is being crushed, Pogorelov-Suba, Las Palmas 1994) 12 Ddes We7 13 Bfdi 0-0 (the point = Black does not need to worry about 14 @xd6, as after 14...Bad8 the white queen is embarrassed) 14 Hacl Bfd8 15 dgi h6 16 Dxfo+ Dxf6 17 Be} Habs 18 b3 4-4 Illescas-Suba, Cordoba 1995. b) 10 Bfd1 2e7 and now: b1) An important alternative is 11 Wd2 which has some sting, though Black should be okay if he is careful: 11...0-0 (11...Wc7?! 12 Qf4 forces 12...e5, when after 13 Qg5 White has control of d5) 12 2f4 De8 13 Bact We7 with a further split: b11) 14 e4 Bd8 15 We2 Defo 16 Dd2 EfeS 17 h3 Wb8 18 b4 Wa8 19 Db3 d5! (Bénsch-Fracnik, Trnava 1988) with complications in which Black should be no worse. b12) 14 b3 Bd and now: bi21) 15 hal? was tried in Gritsak- Fracnik, Kozalin 1999: 15...De5 16 We2 Dxf3+ 17 Qxf3 Qxf3 18 exf3 h6 19 Bd3 @f6 20 Bcd! b5 and Black was able to hold the balance. b122) After 15 Del Rxg? 16 Dxg? Wh7 17 a4 De5 18 We2 a5 19 Red £5 20 Bxc5 bxc5 21 e4 &g5 22 bi £4 Black has the initiative, while his d-pawnis in no danger, Fracnik-Adianto, San Francisco 1991. b2) 11 Dd2 Bxg? 12 dxg? 0-0 13 Ades Wc7 transposes to line ‘a’. b3) 11 &xf6 Dxfe 12 Dad Bbs 13 c5 initiates complications, but Black should be fine if he keeps a clear head: 13...dxc5 14 We5 &d5 15 e4 Dxes 16 Wxg7 2f6 17 Who We7 (or 17...b5 18 Del Axf2 - Ca.Hansen) 18 Bact c4! 19 We3, Hergot- Suba, Sitges 1993, and now Black should play 19...2c5 (or 19...b5 20 Ab6 Wes). 10 2x6 This move disrupts the co-ordination between Black’s pieces and together with further upcoming simplifications, deprives the Hedgehog of much of its dynamism. Black is theoretically okay, but this kind of position is not why many people play this line as Black. In my opinion, this isa strong argu- ment in favour of the 6...6 move order. 10...2xf6 11 Was 11 Wf is an alternative, when: a) 11..Qxf3 12 exf3!? (instead of the regular 12 Wxf3 Ha7 13 Bfdi 0-0 14 Bacl @Qd7 with a balanced position) 12...8a7 13 HfdI e7 (Stohl suggests 13...2d7 14 We3 0-0) 14 Wd4 0-0 15 f4 g6 16 h4 (the ‘crab formation’ - compare with Karpov- Topalov, Game 23) 16...Ad7 17 Bact Wb8 18 De4 Hd8 19 h5 and White has a strong attack, Fominyh-Csom, Rimavska Sobota 191. b) 11..0-0 12 Bfd1 &e7 13 Aes &xe4 14 Wxe4 Ha7 15 Dds Bc7 16 Bact We8 is another line which is theoretically equal, but easier to play for White, and White scores well in practice: 17 Sc2 2f6 (Black cannot play 17....8xc4 because of 18 f5) 18 b3 Hd8 19 Edel Hc5 20 €3, Savchenko- Plachetka, Cappelle la Grande 1999. White has good chances of getting a queenside 18The Hedgehog pawn roller going, while Black is rather passively placed. 11...2a7 a) 11...0-02! is answered by 12 Dgs Sixes 13 &xb7 when White has the preferable set of minor pieces. b) 11...We7 is safest, e.g. 12 Had1 Re7 13 Dd4 Kxg2 14 dxg? Dcé 15 [4 0-0 16 213 (attempting to save a tempo over 16 Dxc6 Wxc6+ 17 Bf, which allows 17...b5) 16...Dxd4 17 Wxd4 2 £6! 18 Wxd6 Wxc4 19 b3 We8 20 Aes Bd8 21 Axfo+ gxfo 22 ‘Wxd8+ Wxd8 23 Bxd8+ Bxd8 with a level rook endgame, Hergott-Browne, Linares 1994, 12 Had1 &e7 13 Dd4 Sxg2 14 wxg2 We8 15 14 96 Or 15...Acé6 (15...0d7 is similar) and then: a) 16 £5 De5 17 Wed 0-0 18 fxe6 fxe6 19 Sxf8+ Axf8 20 DB Dxc4 21 b3 De5 22 Dxe5 dxe5 23 Wxe5 was slightly better for White, Dorfman-Psakhis, Lvov 1984. b) 16 Hf3 (again this time saving idea) 16...0-0 17 Axco Wxc6 18 {5 Bc7 19 b3 Eb7 20 a4 Hbb8 21 We3 and White has uncomfortable pressure, Suba-Nicholson, Malaga 2001. 4) em eg, APR behit ae K ws wns is s 16 f5!? A true ‘Tallike sacrifice’ from the man himself! 16 b3 is a more ‘normal’ move: 16...0-0 17 h4 5 (White is only slightly better after 17...B.c7) 18 cxb5 Hc7 19 Bf3 e5 20 @d5 Wb7 21 b6 and White is close to having a winning position, Greenfeld-Pasman, Beersheba 1984. 16...9xf5 17 64 White is trying to blast open as many lines as possible before Black gets organ- ised. 17...fxe4 18 Dxed £51? Short suggests 18...%c7 19 Bde1 Wb7 20 $h3 and assesses this wild position as slightly better for Black. On the other hand, 18...0-0 19 Dfo+ &xf6 20 Exfé is very dangerous. 19 Dg5 In an earlier game, Tal had tried 19 Dc3 Deb 20 We2 Axd4 21 Wh5+ Ld7 22 Bxdd We5 23 Hfdi Hc7 and a draw was agreed here in Tal-Gavrikov, Tallinn 1985. It’s not clear whether or not White has sufficient compensation, but sitting opposite Tal with your king in the middle of the board must have been an unnerving experience! Other lines don’t work for White, for example 19 We2 fxe4 20 Wh5+ dd7 21 Dxe6 Weed; 19 Dxf5 exfS 20 BxfS We6 21 WIS HEB; 19 Bxf5 exf5 20 Axis Web. 19...8xg5 20 Dxe6 Wxes Black needs to trade in his queen for as- sorted material, as after 20...Se7 21 Wxf5 Black’s king is in big trouble. 21 Ede1 Wxet 22 Exe1+ He7 23 Wad! 23 Hixe7+ Gxe7 24 Wxfd R16 25 Wet+ S25 doesn’t lead anywhere. 23...298! The best way of safeguarding the h8- rook. Alternatives are: a) 23...0-0 24 Bxe7 Sxe7 25 Wxb6 Dd7 26 Wb7 Ed8 27 b4 is good for White according to Short. b) Not 23.28 24 Hxe7+ and if 24...92xe7 25 We7+ wins the bishop. 24 Bxe7+ wxe7 25 Wxb6 Dd7! 26 Wxa6 Eb 27 b3 2e3 Black manages to hold the White pawns in check by piece power. 28 We6 19Symmetrical English 28 Wa5 is answered by 28...De5. 28...De5 29 We7+ White has to be careful not to try too hard, e.g. Short gives 29 Wd5 £c5 30 Wd2 Des 31 Wh2 wi7 32 a3 DeI+ 33 Hh3 Bes, with mating threats such as ...E1g8-g6-h6. 29...2d7 30 We6 De5 %-% Iv’s a draw by repetition. Game 6 Krivoshey-Shipov Yalta 1996 1 Df3 DE 2 4 c5 3 DAc3 e6 4 g3 bE S ig2 &b7 6 0-0 &e7 7 Hel This is the precursor to the modern main line of the Hedgehog, Play is similar in style to an Open Sicilian, and becomes very sharp and concrete. 7...d6 8 e4 a6 9 d4 cxd4 10 Axd4 ae oad 10...We7 Black needs to take some precautions to avoid the simple trap 10...0-0? 11 e5!, Note that this tactical possibility (which sometimes occurs in more sophisticated forms!) is made more potent by the rook moving from fl to el, so that ...Lb7xg2 does not attack anything, 11 &e3 Or 11 b3 0-0 12 &b2 and now: a) 12...He8 13 Hel Abd7 14 Dds! is a good version of the thematic sacrifice, e.g. 14...exd5 15 cxd5 Wd8 16 Dc Lxc6 17 dxc6 Dc5 18 c7 We8 19 e5 dxe5 20 Qxa8 Wrxa8 21 Qxe5 Hc8 (Eingorn-Hobuss, Travemunde 1996), and now Eingorn gives 22 Qxf6 &xi6 23 Wd6 as very good for White. b) 12...Abd7 13 Hcl Bac8 14 h3 Hfes 15 h2 Wh8 16 f4 BEB 17 Dc? g6 18 We2 h5 19 Bedi Hed8 20 WE2 &g7 with balanced chances, Stefansson-Hjartarson, Icelandic Team Championship 1997. 11...0-0 Or 11...Dbd7 12 f4 Be8 13 Bel 0-0 14 £5 (14 g4 is also playable) 14...e5 15 Db3 Wad8 16 We2 h5 17 Dd5 Dxd5 18 cxd5 h4 19 Bxc8 Bxc8 20 Dd2 hxg3 21 hxg3 and 2g5 22 &xgs Wxe5 23 We3 gave White a big plus in Akopian-Shirov, Madrid 1997. b) Black should play 21...f6 with an unclear outcome, according to Shirov. 12 Het Dbd7 13 £4 Now Black has to choose how to arrange his rooks. There are three main options: 13...2fe8 Alternatively: a) 13..ac8 transposes to Akopian- Shirov from above. b) 13...22fc8 is an unfortunate choice, as. it allows another classic @d5 sacrifice: 14 g4 DB 15 g5 Dod7 16 Dd! exdS 17 Df5! He8 (17..Wd8 18 exd5) 18 cxd5 Wb8? (18...Wd8 19 e5 is still strong for White according to Zhu Chen) 19 &d4 6 20 We4 De5 21 fue5 fxe5 22 Le} Wd 23 Bfl LB 24 Wh5 1-0 Zhu Chen-Bischoff, Pulver- muehle 2000. c) 13...h5!? is an intriguing possibility. In order to achieve g3-g4, White must now play h2-h3 and exchange a pair of pawns. This leaves his kingside exposed as well as Black’s: 14 h3 Hfe8 15 g4 hxg4 16 hxg4 Dc5 17 Kf2 d5! 18 e5 Afes 19 2e3 duct 20 Dxet Axes 21 We2 Dcd 22 Wxc4, M.Gurevich-Hoffmann, Dutch League 2000, and now 22...fac8 23 We2 Wa7 is 20The Hedgehog equal according to Gurevich. En eet G3 Z 14.94 a) 14 Dd5 exd5 15 cxd5 Wb8 (other possibilities are 15...c5 16 b4 Wd7; or 15,..Wd8) 16 Dcé Sxc6 17 dxc6 Ac5 18 c7 Wec7 19 €5 dxe5 20 &xa8 Bxa8 21 b4 exf4 22 &xf4 was Fracnik-Browne, San Fran- cisco 1991, and now Ftacnik gives 22...Wb7 23 bxc5 Lxc5+ 24 Le} Bb4 25 He2 b5 26 ‘Wd with an approximately equal position. b) 14 5 can be answered by 14...S2d8!, e.g. 15 fxe6 fxe6 16 &h3 Df8 17 B£2 Dod7 18 Wh5?! g6 19 We2 De5, Arsovic-Genov, Belgrade 1994, and Black is in great shape. o) 14 2£2 £8 (14...h6 is also playable) 15 We2 h5!? 16 h3 g6 17 e5 Rxg? 18 dexg? ®h7 19 Df3 Bac8 20 b3 dxe5 21 txe5 Hed8 with good play for Black, Gelfand- Ljubojevic, Belgrade 1997. 14...Dc5 This is currently looking better than the alternatives: a) 14...h6 15 g5 hxg5 16 fxg5 Dh7 17 g6 Dhf¥ 18 gxi7+ Sxt7 19 Dds! (that move again!) 19...exd5 20 cxd5 Wd8 21 De6 and White has a huge attack, Pogorelov- Rodriguez Lopez, Mondariz Balneario 1999. b) 14...g6 15 g5 DhS 16 5 exfS 17 Dxs5 28 18 Dds Wd8 19 Bc3 Acs 20 2d2 Deb 21 Wet and White is in command, Damljanovic-Annageldyev, Istanbul Olym- piad 2000. 15 2f2 96 15...€5 is, for some reason, given by ECO as leading to equality. After 16 Df5 Wd8 17 Dxe7+ Wxe7 18 (5 (Yermolinsky-Frias, London 1994) White is slightly better - he has control of d5, and play on both wings. 16 b4 Zad8 17 Ws! This is an improvement over 17 We2 Ded7 18 23, Sarno-Shipov, Cappelle la Grande 1995, and now Shipov recommends 18...Bc8 19 g5 Dh5 20 &xh5 gxh5 with an unclear position. 17 g5 Dh5 18 We3 is also possible. 17...Dexed On 17...2cd7 Shipov gives 18 dS exd5 19 cxd5 W8 20 Aco Wa8 21 g5 DhS 22 Dxd8 Qxd8 23 Lh3 Dl8 24 Les Dg7 25 a4 as being in White’s favour. All four of Black's minor pieces are boxed in. 18 Axed Dxed 19 Lxed Axed 20 Wxed d5 21 Dxe6? White would have been better after 21 Wel Wxf4 22 Dc Bg5 23 Bc2 Bd6 24 cxd5 Wxg4 25 h3, according to Shipov. 21...We8 Black simply wins a piece, leaving him the exchange up for a pawn. 22 Wel Wxe6 23 Wxe6 fxe6 24 2xb6 Bb8 25 c5 Ad 26 axd8 Zexd8 27 a3 a5 Black is clearly better; a technical task lies ahead. 28 c6 Sdc8 29 bxa5 Zb5 30 a6 Za5 31 f1 G7 32 Bb1 Exc6 33 Eb7+ wf6 34 Exh7 Zxa3 35 a7 Bet 36 &f2 Bc2+ 37 g1 Bca2 38 &h3 g5 39 Zh6+ ee7 40 fxg5 Bxa7 41 Bh7+ &f8 42 g6 Zxh7 43 axh7 %&g7 44 g5 Za6 45 2f1 Bad 46 &h3 e5 47 Be6 dxh7 48 axd5 gs Black has one pawn left, which is good enough. 49 bf2 xg5 50 we3 Bh4 51 Ac6 Exh2 52 &b7 &f6 53 dc6 Eh3+ 54 whe4 Bb3 55 2d7 we7 56 2f5 wd6 57 ig6 Hg3 58 2f7 Xg7 59 2h5 Bgi 60 Af7 Ze1+ 61 &d3 we7 62 wd2 Bhi 63 Sd5 Hh3 0-1 21Symmetrical English Game7 Komarov-Del Rio Angelis Italy 1999 1 Df e6 2 c4 Df6 3 Dc3 c5 4 g3 bE S Ag2 2b7 6 0-0 dé 7 Hei a6 8 e4 Se7 9 d4 cxd4 10 Dxd4 Wc7 11 2e3 0-0 12 Be1 Hes In the previous game, which featured 12...Dbd7, we saw that Black often got into some trouble when his f6-knight was threatened, for example by g3-g4-g5 or {2- f4 and e4-e5. Black's pieces are somewhat congested so these early pawn thrusts are awkward to meet. In addition, the @c3-d5 sacrifice is a constant possibility. This sac often works because after the standard forced sequence ...c6xd5, c4xd5, ...Wc7-b8, Dd4-c6, ....Lb7xc6, d5xc6, the knight on d7 is attacked, which keeps White’s initiative going. Because of all this, Marin and others developed the lines examined in this game, where Black makes a number of other developing moves before committing the b8- knight. 1314 ‘This is the usual reaction. Also possible is 13 g4 B£8 14 g5 Dfd7 15 b3 Dcé 16 Dcb5! Wh8 17 Axc6 Rxc6 18 Ad4 Lb7 19 h4 g6 20 Wd2 DeS 21 We2 (M.Gurevich- Cummings, British League 1998), and now Black should play 21...Wc7 22 Hed1 Zac8, followed by ...Wce7-b8 and possibly ...Wa8. 13...218 14 15 Striking at the potentially weak e6-point. Other moves: a) 14 g4 deserves more attention: 14...2fd7 (Black vacates the kingside and avoids creating any weaknesses) 15 g5 Dc and now: al) 16 Dxc6? Lxc6 17 b4 Bac8 18 We2 Ws 19 WE2 @a8 20 De2 b5 21 c5 dxc5 22 bxc5 Hc7 leaves Black with the advantage, Schwartzman-Marin, Bucharest 1994. a2) 16 Ade? (this is an improvement over the previous line) 16...Bac8 17 Dg3 Ws 18 h4 La8 19 RF Da7 20 We2 d5? (despite White’s build up, Black should continue manoeuvring) 21 cxd5 exd5 22 Wed and White is much better, Davies-Sowray, British League 2000. b) 14.22 and now Black can finally play 14... Dbd7, which transposes into note ‘c’ to White’s 14th move in Game 6. 14...h6! Black has struggled with the alternatives: a) 14..Dbd7 15 fxe6 fxe6 16 Bh3 Acs 17 b4 €5 18 bxc5 exd4 19 cxb6 Wxbé 20 Sxd4 Wd8 21 Dd5 Axes 22 25 turned into a rout: 22...2g5 23 Exes Wes 24 Wet &xd5 25 cxd5 Wa4 26 Le6+ 1-0 Gawehns- Wojtkiewicz, Bonn 1994. b) 14...exf52! 15 Dd5 &xd5 16 cxd5 Wb7 17 exf5 and White is much better, Va- ganian-Bischoff, Walldorf 1998. c) 14..We7 15 fxe6 fxe6 16 2h3 Wi7 was Marin’s original suggestion, but the further analysis 17 Df3 We7 18 Dgs Kc8 19 Wb3 gives White the advantage according to Poluljahov. 15 g4 Dbd7 16 g5 16 fxe6 fxe6 17 g5 hxg5 18 Rxg5 Ded with counterplay - Komarov. 16...hxg5 17 &xg5 Dh7 Black could try 17...e5!2. 18 &h4 De5 19 fxe6 fxe6 20 Hf1 cB 21 &h3 g6! An improvement over 21...Wxe4 22 Dds 22The Hedgehog exd5? (22...Wd3 23 Wxd3 Dxd3 24 Bxc8 and White is still on top) 23 Hxc4 &xh3 24 Bc7 Axfl 25 dxf dxed 26 AfS and White is winning, Poluljahov-Ulibin, St Petersburg 1998, 22 b3 Wg7 Black has all the kingside squares ade- quately covered, and can use the second rank as a conduit for his major pieces. 23 Wd2 Wh6 24 Wxh6 2xh6 25 Zed1 Both sides have chances here. 25...95 26 293 g4 27 fg2 Dg5 28 Dde2 Dgt3+? Overenthusiastic. Black should keep his dé-pawn defended with 28....22f8, when Komarov gives the interesting exchange sacrifice 29 Hxf8+ (29 Df4) 29...Hxf8 30 Bxd6 Dgf3+ 31 Shi. 29 &h1 £8 30 Dg1 This simplification makes Black’s kingside easier to get at. 30...Dxg1 31 Exg1 &b7 32 Axe5 dxe5 33 @h3 Had8?! 34 Bxg4+ 2g7 34...G217 35 Hfl+ de7 was a tougher defence. 35 Hdg1 Ee7 36 S96 Zd6 37 Dds! White gets his Ad5 move in after all! 37...exd5 38 Exd6 dxc4 39 2f5 3 40 Bd8+ @f7 41 Bet Be? 42 £d3 1-0 Game 8 Akopian-Gulko Yerevan Olympiad 1996 1 Of3 D6 2 g3 b6 3 fig2 2b7 40.0 e6 5 c4 &e7 6 Ac3 0-0 7 Hel dd 8 oxd5 Dxd5 8...exd5 9 d4 transposes to a line of the Queen’s Indian. One example: 9...2a6 10 Rf4 c5 11 dxc5 Axc5 (11...bxc5 12 Des Ac? 13 Dc4 Deb 14 Le5) 12 Bel a6 13 a3 Bes 14 Dd4 Qd6 15 Qxd6 Wxde 16 Wd2 Had8 17 Bed! g6 18 Wf4 Waf4 19 gxf4 and White is slightly better, Gelfand-Karpov, Vienna 1996. 9 e4 Dxe3 10 bxe3 c5 Via the English move order this position would arise after 1 c4 c5 2 Df3 Df 3 Ac3 6 4 g3 b6 5 Bg? Bb7 60-0 Be7 7 Bel d5 8 cxd5 Axd5 9 e4 Axc3 10 bxc3 0-0. 11:44 ‘An important decision point for Black. 11,,.247 Or: a) 11...Dc6 12 d5 Da5 13 BFF exdd 14 exd5 and now: al) 14...2f6 15 De5 Bxe5 16 Rxe5 Wd7 17 Whs f6 18 &f4 g6 19 Who Bfe8 20 h4 Des 21 Heo! We7 22 Wxg7+ dexg7, Chu- chelov-Lopez Martinez, Berlin 1998, and here 23 Bd1 £7 24 Bxe8 txe8 25 Sf 1 ab 26 Hel+ ded7 27 Kes is very strong for White according to Chuchelov. a2) 14...2d6 15 Rxd6 Wad6 16 Dd2! 4 (Tukmakov gives 16...Bad8 17 c4 b5, when White is still somewhat better) 17 f1 We 18 Wd2 Bad8 19 Ladi g6 20 Ae3 h5 21 dé Sxg2 22 xg? deg7 23 d7, when White is much better - the passed d-pawn drives a wedge into Black’s position, Tukmakov- Gheorghiu, Zurich 2000. b) 11...cxd4 12 exd4 Acé 13 Lb2 (13 h4!? and if 13...2f6 14 €5 is Langeweg’s suggestion; this is similar to Akopian’s plan in the main game) 13...2f6 14 Bb1 c8 15 d5 exd5 16 exdd DaS 17 Sxfo Wxio 18 De5 Bid8 19 Hb4 Wd6 20 Bh4 ho, Frac- nik-Yudasin, Biel 1993, and here Yudasin suggests 21 Dg4 followed by De3-f5. 12 hal? This initiates a clear-cut plan of kingside attack. Kramnik’s approach isa little more sophisticated, but somewhat harder for White to play as it relies on 100% accurate calculation: 12 Sf4 cxd4 13 cxd4 Afe 14 De5 Bb4?! (14...) 15 Hed Hc8 16 d5! (a classic central break) 16...exd5 17 exd5 2d6 18 Deb Lxc6 19 Bxd6 Bad and now in Kramnik-Anand, Las Palmas 1996, White chose the queen sacrifice 20 &xf8!? 2xd1 21 Be7 We7 22 Exd1 Dd7 23 Bh3 h6 24 25 b5? (24...Wb7) 25 &b4 with a winning 23Symmetrical English position - the d-pawn eventually queened. 12...D46 13 Wd With tactical ideas of Df3-g5, followed by e4-e5, with a triple attack on h7, {6 and b7. 13...h6 14 e5 Dds?! This allows the white queen to ‘zigzag’ its way over to the kingside. After the improvement 14...d7 Akopian analyses the possibility 15 Dgs (15 a4 is the steady move, when White has a slight advantage) 15..hxg5 16 &xb7 Hb8 17 Lg? gxh4 18 gxh4 &xh4 19 Wh3 with attacking chances in return for the pawn. 15 Wea Threatening 16 c4. b8 16 Wot t is surprising how strong this kind of kingside configuration (which can occur in several openings) can be for White. 16...8h7 17 Zd2 cxd4 18 Dxd4 15 Otherwise White’s attack becomes too strong, e.g. 18...Wc7 19 Bed+deh8 20 2xh6 gxh6 21 Wh5 2g7 22 Dxe6+ fxe6 23 Wer. 19 exf6 Dxf6 20 Wxe6 Sxg2 21 wxg2 oe if a om 21...Wd5+? 21...8c5 should be tried, though White has an extra pawn and a big plus after 22 Rf. 22 Wxd5 Dxd5 23 HeS Efd8 24 Acé 216 25 Heet White wins the exchange, giving him a technically winning ending. 25...Axc3 26 Dxd8 Exd8 27 &xc3 ixc3 28 Had1 Ba 29 e3! 29 He7 b5 gives Black some chances. 29,,.b4 30 Hd7 a5 31 Ee6 Hb8 32 Hc6 £18 33 Ede7 &c5 34 Ec8 Exc8 35 Exc8 &g6 36 a4 h5 37 Bhs £04 38 f4 fe3 39 S13 Sagi 40 15+ xfs 41 ExhS+ G16 42 94 g6 43 Ed5 wee 44 wed £12 45 hS gxh5 46 He5+ wd6 47 gxh5 1-0 Game 9 Tukmakov-Gheorghiu Crans Montana 2000 1 Df3 c5 2 c4 Dt 3 Dc3 e6 4 g3 bE 5 Sig2 Sb7 6 0-0 ie7 7 Ee1 Dea One of the main ways in which Black can avoid the ‘Open’ Hedgehog with e2-e4 and d2-d4. The other is 7...d5, which was covered in the previous game. 8d4 ‘The most complex and aggressive choice. Alternatively: a) 8 Dxet &xe4 9 d3 Wb7 10 e4 leads to fairly level positions, for example: al) 10...0-0 11 d4 cxd4 12 Axd4 Dcé 13 b3 (13 Rf4 &c5 14 DAxcé Lxc6 is similar) 13...Dxd4 14 Wxd4 &c5 15 We3 4-4 Akopian-Adams, Dortmund 2000. a2) 10...2c6 11 d4 Dxd4 12 Dxd4 cxd4 13 Wxd4 0-0 14 Edi dé (14...2c6 is probably better asit frees the dark-squared bishop 24The Hedgehog from defensive duties) 15 We3 We7 16 b3 We5 17 We2 Rf6 18 Le} We7 19 Qd4 Be7 20. &b2 and White is just slightly better due to his space advantage, Tukmakov- Gheorghiu, Crans Montana 2000. b) 8 Wc2 is less popular, but on current evidence White is slightly better: 8...xc3 9 dxc3 (9 Wxc3 is harmless: 9...216 10 We2 cb 11 a3 0-0 12 Hb1 a5 13 d3 d5 Lobron- Adams, Brussels 1992) White's short-term plan isto put one or both rooks on the d-file and the bishop on f4. The danger for Black is that he will be tied to the defence of his d-pawn, with few active prospects. White can make progress by preparing the eventual advance of his kingside pawns. In the few games played so far (a number with Adams playing the Black side), Black has not demonstrated a clear route to equality. b1) 9...d6 10 Edi (10 22f4 followed by Bal-di transposes) 10...Wc7 11 f+ Dcb 12 Hd2 h6 13 Bad1 Hd8 14 g4 0-0 15 &g3 a6 16 h4 keeps the pressure on Black, Kura- jica-Kutuzovic, Pula 1999. b2) 9...Dc6 10 RF4 0-0 11 Had! is preferable for White according to Ftacnik. b3) 9...We7 10 Bf4 d6 11 Badi Acé and now: b31) 12 Bd2 h6 (12...8d8 13 Hedi 0-0 14 DgS Axgs 15 Rxg5 f6 16 Qf4 e5 17 Re3 Da5 18 Lxb7 Dxb7 19 Ad5 Ades 20 WES We8 21 Wxc8 Bxc8 22 g4 and Black is passively placed, Vaganian-Adams, Oviedo {rapidplay} 1992) 13 Hed1 transposes to note ‘bl’ above. b32) 12 DgS Axgs 13 Bxgs h6 and now: b321) 14 f4 Hd8 15 h4 e5 16 2cl 0-0 17 e4 De7 18 g4 (Akopian-Adams, Leon 1995) was still a little better for White. b322) 14 @cl 0-0 (Adams suggests 14...0-0-0, which would change the nature of the game - it is not easy so for White to attack on the queenside ) 15 e4 Had8 16 f4 with a kingside pawn storm in mind, and White is clearly better, Vaganian-Adams, Yerevan Olympiad 1996. 8...Dxc3 8...0-0 is a provocative alternative: 9 d5 Dxc3 10 bxc3 &F6 and now: a) 11 We2 exd5 12 cxd5 &xd5 13 e4 Qc6 14 Qf4 Dab 15 Badi Hc8 16 h4, Zon- takh-Vuckovic, Belgrade 2000, gives White some attacking chances in return for the pawn. b) 11 Wd3 exd5 12 cxd5 4 13 Wd2 (Tukmakov suggests the pawn sac 13 We2!? &xd5 14 e4 - the difference from ‘a’ is that Black’s pawn is on cé instead of c5, which gives White use of the d4 square - 14...¢6 15 &f4 Dab 16 Ad4 with compensation) 13...Da6 14 Ba3 Me8 15 Ads Dc5 16 Rxc5 bxc5 17 DFS db 18 e4 g6 19 De3 a6 20 Bact Bb8 with sufficient counterplay for Black, Sakaev-M.Gurevich, Neum 2000. 9 bxc3 ed 9...0-0 allows a structure which is a kind of Nimzo-Indian/Czech Benoni hybrid: 10 d5 d6 and now: a) 11 dxe6 fxe6 12 &h3 e5 13 Re6+ Wh8 with a roughly even position, Van Wely- Yermolinsky, Merrillville 1997. b) 11 e4 e5 12 a4 (12 Dd2 Dd7 {12...g51} 13 Dl is slightly better for White) 12 a4 Dd7 13 We2 a5 14 Ad? Lab 15 Wd3 Qg5 16 Dfl Rxct 17 exci Dfe 18 2h3 g6 19 Bcb1 Hb8 20 Hb2 Dh5 21 De3 £5 22 exf5 Bc8 23.24 won apawn in Malaniuk-Gipslis, Koszalin 1998, but 21...He8 should be fine for Black. 10 an White needs to find a way of dislodging the bishop from e4 without allowing the exchange of his own light-squared bishop. The alternative is 10 &h3 Sxf3 11 ext cxd4 12 exd4 0-0 13 f4 Dc 14 Le3 Dad 15 Bel Hc8 16 Wad g6 17 Bg2 We7 18 c5 d5 19 cxd6 Wxd6 with equal chances, Petursson-Akesson, Munkebo 1998, 10...xf3 11 exf3 Dcé 25Symmetrical English Or 11...cxd4 12 exd4 with the following: a) The immediate 12...2c6 is not so accurate, After 13 d5 Qa5 14 Bd? 0-0 (or 14...Hc8 15 Wa4 0-0 16 Babi) 15 Hb White has not spent a tempo on an {3-f4, when compared to note ‘b’. b) 12...0-0 b1) 13 £4 Ac6 14 d5 Aad5 15 Bd2 Bc8 16 &xa5 bxa5 17 Bi &c5 18 Wd3 4-4 Savchenko-V.Gurevich, Ubeda 1998. b2) After 13 d5 V.Gurevich gives 13...2a6 ‘with the idea of ...2a6-c5’. How- ever it strikes me that, although the knight is well placed on c5, it has no way of improv- ing its position. White can continue in pro- phylactic style with 14 Bb1 Ac5 15 d6 Bf6 16 He3 (16 f4 c3 17 He3 Wo lets Black in). If White is careful to cut off any entry squares for the Black pieces, it is hard to see how Black will develop further. Meanwhile White can play on both wings, with, for example f3-f4 and h2-h4-h5, and also &c1- a3, Bb1-b5 etc., with the idea of trading on c5 and then playing Wd1-a4. 12. d5 a5 13 £4 0-0 14 ha! 18442 tates a aie The quickest way of getting the kingside moving. 14 WE3 26 15 &d2 Ebs 16 g4 96 17 h4!? 97 (it’s not clear why Black did not try 17...xh4 18 g5 {6) 18 h5 Db7 19 hxg6 hxg6 20 Wg3 favoured White in Osto- jie-Colovic, Stara Pazova 2001. 14...R16 15 2d2 15 He is also possible. 15...exd5 16 cxd5 c4 17 292 b5 After 17...b7 Tukmakov gives 18 d6 Hb8 19 &xb7 Exb7 20 g4 Wh8 (20...2xh4 21 g5 f6 22 Be3) 21 g5 &d8 22 Be3 b5 23 Wd5 and White has a huge space advantage. 18 Hb1 a6 19 We2 Eb8 20 fed h6 21 &g2 Db7?! 21...He8 was a better defence. 22 94! Sxha Otherwise Black will be overrun. 23 g5 (5 Or 23...hxg5 24 &h7+ @h8 25 Bhi and Black is on the precipice. 24 &xf5 Dd6 25 &h7+ wh 26 ht hxg5 27 296 Wie Perhaps Black should try 27...28g8. 28 &e3 &g8 29 &h7+ Sf7 30 fxg Sxg5 31 f4! ‘Opening lines that lead to the Black king! 31...8x14 31...2h6 would be answered by 32 2d4. 32 Sxfa Wxt4 33 Ehf1 de7 34 We2+ $d8 35 Exia Ext 36 WeS Bf6 37 Bf &c7 Black’s only hope lies in setting up afor- tress on the queenside. 38 Exfé gxfé 39 Wxfé Bb6 40 Wa4 Db7 41 wef2 Eh 42 Wi4+ Bd6 43 e3 Dc5 44 215 Dad 45 dda Dbo 46 ecb Dad+ 47 db4 Db6 48 Led 1-0 48 Bed Dat 49 &c2 Abb 50 Se5 AcB 51 We5 and Black is in zugzwang. 26The Hedgehog Summary The Hedgehog continues to thrive, but is coming under more pressure these days as players of the White side have continually refined their attacking ideas, Black is doing fine after 7 d4, though he needs to know his way round White’s various plans. 7 Hel is currently the critical line, when 7...d5 and 7.,.e4 are not quite living up to expectations. This leaves the sharp main line. Marin’s 12...2e8 and 13...42(8 stands up, but these lines are very sharp and no doubt further improvements are possible for both sides. 1 c4 cB 2 Df3 Df6 3 Dc3 e6 4 g3 b6 5 Ag2 2b7 60-0 6...2e7 (D) 7 Bet 7 b3 - Game 3 7 d4 cxd4 8 Wxd4 (D) 8...d6 9 e4 a6 10 We3 - Game 2; 9 2g5 - Game 5; 9 b3 - Game 4 8...Dc6 - Game 1 7...d6 7...De4 - Game 9; 7...d5 - Game 8 8 e4 a6 9:d4 cxd4 10 Dxd4 We7 (D) 11 2e3 0-0 12 Het Dbd7 12...He8 13 f4 28 14 £5 - Game 7 13 {4 HfeB 14 g4 Dc - Game 6 27CHAPTER TWO The Double Fianchetto Defence 104 c5 2 O13 Af6 3 g3 Here 3 d4 avoids the Double Fianchetto, and is covered in Chapter 3. 3...b6 4 Sig2 2b7 5 0-0 g6 7 ‘The Double Fianchetto Variation has been popular at ahigh level for many years, and indeed has featured in several World Championship matches, an accolade that the Hedgehog, for example, has yet to achieve. Some writers have suggested that it is hard for Black to win in this line, but I don’t believe this is truer than of many other openings. It is true that there are spoilsports who will play 6 b3 (see Game 14 for the details) and dig in as White, but many openings feature drawing lines for White. 6 Dc3 Ag7 7 d4 7 Bel (Game 13) is less effective here than in the previous chapter, so usually White goes for 7 d4. 7...0xd4 8 Wd 8 @xd4 is covered in Game 12. 8...d6 For 8...2c6 see Game 11. 921 This is the main line, covered in Game 10. White's Ideas ‘These consist of the following: 1) White often swings his queen across to ha, This can be the prelude to kingside aggression or a more positional plan of first exchanging the dark-squared bishops with 28The Double Fianchetto Defence ho and then returning the queen to the centre 2) White tries to put a ‘bind’ in place, based on control of the d5-square. It is hard for Black to contest this with ...e7-e6 as this leaves the d6-pawn very weak. If the light- squared bishops are exchanged, White's kking’s knight can manoeuvre, e.g. Df3-e1- g2-f4. With d5 under control, he can ex- pand on the queenside, or move his forces over for a kingside attack. 3) Building a pawn centre with e2-e4 and pushing the kingside pawns is much less common than in the Hedgehog. Black's Ideas Black’s ideas include: 1) The presence of the bishop on g7 introduces tactical possibilities along the al- h8 diagonal. Examples are seen in Game 12 and Hartoch-Genius in the notes to Black’s 8th move in Game 14. 2) The advance ...b6-b5 is Black’s key break, and if Black can achieve it, will often undermine White's control of d5. 3) The move ...@fé-e4 is an important simplifying idea in some positions. 4) Black’s queen’s rook usually moves to 8 to put pressure on the c4-pawn. Activat- ing this rook on the Sth rank is a key idea. The rook harasses the white queen and can sometimes induce other weaknesses in White’s position. Black implements this by wa8lc8-Hc5 and then the rook sometimes moves to {5 or h5 (see note ‘a’ to White's 10th move in Game 10). Game 10 Kramnik-Karpov Dos Hermanas 1999 1 Df3 Df6 2 c4 b6 3 g3 c5 4 fig2 2b7 5 0-0 g6 6 Dc3 fig? 7 d4 cxd4 8 Wadd a6 This is currently Black’s main choice. 8...2c6 and 8...0-0 are covered in the next game. 9 d1 Another plan is to fold the queen in on 2, behind the bishop on €3, e.g. 9 2e3 @®bd7 10 Hact Hc8 11 b3 0-0 12 Wd2 and now: a) 12...06 13 Bh3 He7 14 Dd4 Des 15 Dxet Qxet 16 {3 Rb7 17 Bfdi, Rogoz- enko-Ionescu, Bucharest 1999, and here Rogozenko recommends 17 Dc? b5 18 ®a3 bxc4 19 Axc4 with an edge for White. b) 12...e4 13 Axes xed is the most straightforward, e.g. 14. &2h3 We7 15 Dd4 a6 16 £3 &b7 17 Dc? Ecd8 18 &xd7 Bxd7 19 Wht b5! 20 Ads (20 cxb5 &b2) 20...c5. 4% Akopian-Lalic, Lucerne 197. 9...Dbd7 10 23 White waits for Black to castle before playing Wd4-h4. Another approach is the queenside fianchetto, e.g. 10 b3 0-0 11 &b2 Ec8 (11...Ded is also playable) and here: a) 12 We3 He8 13 Bact a6 14 Sal Med 15 a4 Wa8 16 Det HES (this game is an instructive example of the active 5th rank rook; Black’s threat of ...Af6-g4 causes some disruption in the White set-up) 17 Rxb7 Wxb7 18 £3 h5 19 Dg? Be5 20 Bb2 Hcc8 (mission accomplished, the rook re- turns home) 21 &a3 Ac5 22 Eb1 Deo with a balanced position, Karpov-Kasparov, London/Leningrad (match game 23) 1986. 29Symmetrical English b) 12 Hact a6 13 Wd2 Bc7 14 Bel and now: bi) 14...2xg2? (Black hastens the e1- knight to where it wants to go - De1-g2-e3- d5; this would be less important if Black were ready for ...b7-b5, but White can clamp down on that intention as well) 15 Dxg? Wa8 16 De3 (White has a firm grip on d5) 16...e8 17 Dcd5 cb 18 a4 Wh7 19 Rd4 Hec8 20 Axf6+ Rxf6? (20...Dxf6 is better; in order to play De3-d5, White would then need to allow the exchange of both pairs of minor pieces - which in this specific position would lead to a drawish ending - or play 2d4xf6, which leaves Black with the bishop as a long-term trump) 21. Dd5 &xd4 22 Wxd4 and White is much better, Kramnik-J.Polgar, Dos Hermanas 1999. These positions are often good for White if several minor pieces have been traded, since he can use his space advantage to swing his heavy pieces into action. Meanwhile the tension has gone out of Black’s ‘coiled spring’. b2) Instead 14...Wa8 15 Dd5 (15 &xb7 Wxb7 16 Qg2 and Black is ready for 16...b5) 15...Axd5 16 cxd5 Hfc8 gives equal chances according to Kramnik. 10...0-0 11 Wh4 Ec8 12 Hact White needs to bolster the c4-pawn before taking action such as e3-hé or &g?- h3. The reason for this can be seen from the blunder 12 &h3?? &xf3 13 exf3 Des 14 g2 Exc4, Topalov-Kasparov, Wijk aan Zee (rapid) 1999. 12...a6 13 b3 In the 14th game of the 2000 World Championship match, Kramnik, who only needed to draw out the match to beat Kas- parov, chose the more cautious 13 Del. The game continued 13...2xg2 14 Axg? Bes 15 b3 We7 16 S2g5 (16 Bhé6 should be preferred according to Kramnik’s second Illescas) 16...Wb7 17 De3 b5 18 Ded5? (White should settle for equality with 18 cd5 intending to recapture on c4 with the cl-rook) 18...bxc4 19 bxc4 (when White picks up an isolated c-pawn ~ in either the Double Fiancherto or Hedgehog - itis usually a sign that something has gone wrong) 19...h5 20 Wis Wc6 and Black is slightly better, although of course Kramnik saved the game with resourceful play. 13...207 An alternative is the constructive waiting move 13...Be8, which defends e7. 14 g4!? (White can of course continue with the normal 14 Det, when 14...xg2 15 Dxg2 We7 transposes into Kramnik-Kasparov above, while 14 2h3 Hc7 transposes to 13...Hc7 14 &h3 Be8 discussed in note ‘cl’ to White’s next move) 14...b5! 15 cxb5 Axed! 16 Sd4 Dgf 17 a4 Ac5 18 bxab Axa6 19 Dd? Ae6 20 Le3 h5 21 h3 d5 with good play for Black, Filippov-Nikolic, Neum 2000. 14 g4!? White has several important alternatives: a) 14 Del &xg2 (The c7-rook provides a tempo-winning target for a later Dd; perhaps 14...Wa8 or 14...Wb8 is better) 15 xg? He8 (Illescas questions this move, and instead suggests 15...Wb8; however, Black is faced with a similar outcome after 16 Af4 since 16...b5 is answered by 17 Ded5) 16 Df Wh8 17 Dfds Heck 18 Les Wb7 and Black is two tempi behind the Kramnik-Kasparov game above, as Illescas points out in his notes to the 2000 World 30The Double Fianchetto Defence Championship match. At this point (White pieces in the same places), Kasparov had played ...b6-b5 and ...b5xc4. A big difference! Illescas Cordoba-Gelfand, Pamplona 1999 continued 19 a4 #h8 20 g4 Axd5 21 Dxd5 6 22 Df Dxfo 23 Bxf6 d5 and now 24 g5 would have kept White's initiative going. b) 14 &h6 Wa8 15 &xg7 Sxg7 16 Wd4 bg8 (16...b5! 17 cxb5 axb5 18 Zxb5 Excl 19 Bxct Wrxa2 with equal chances according to Yermolinsky and Atalik) 17 We3 Be8 18 &h3 Bc5 19 Ad4 Bh5 20 ga! He5 21 We2 e6 (21...Dc5 22 3) 22 £3 and White's structure is somewhat bizarre but nevertheless effective. 22...2c5 23 Dc2 De5 24 Det Bd8 25 g5 De8 26 a4 was better for White in Yermolinsky-Ehlvest, Stratton Mountain 2000. c) 14 &h3 and now: cl) 14...Be8 15 Bh6 Bic5 (the active rook again!) 16 Ags b5 17 Ads Rxd5 18 cxd5 Excl 19 Excl Rxh6 20 Wxho Df 21 b4 Who 22 Bdi a5 4-4 Wojtkiewicz-Stohl, Suwalki 1999. 2) The previous line is better than 14...Wb8 15 &h6 when Black is beginning to feel the heat: 15...2xf3 (15...8c5 is not possible because of 16 &xg7 Sxg7 17 Sxd7 Dxd7 18 Wxe7) 16 Lxg7 dxg7 17 ext De5 18 Xg2 b5 19 cxb5 axb5 20 Wh4+ and White is a bit better, Topalov-Psakhis, FIDE World Championship, Las Vegas 199. 14...h6! Or perhaps 14...b5 (compare with Filip- pov-Nikolic, in the note to Black’s 13th move above). 15 h3 g5 16 Wg3 b5 17 h4!? 17 cxb5?? allows 17...Bxc3 18 Bxc3 Det winning, while 17 Dd4 Sxg2 18 Wxg2 bxc4 19 @c6 We8 20 bxc4 offers chances for both sides. 17...bxe4 17...gxh4 18 Dxh4 &xg? 19 xg? bxct 20 Df5 gives White good attacking chances on the kingside according to Kramnik. 18 hxg5 hxg5 19 b4 19 @xg5 can be answered by 19...cxb3 20 axb3 Sxg2 21 Wxg2 Was. 19...Wa8 20 &xg5 Ee8 21 &e3 As 22 a4 Ded 23 Axed Axed 24 2d4 Axf3 Kramnik gives 24...e5 25 &c3 d5 26 e3 (or 26 b5) as unclear. 25 2xf3 Wb8 26 2d5 Wxb4 27 2xg7 ‘&xg7 28 Wt4 e6 At first sight, Black’s king’s position looks totally open, but this is classic Karpov defence. The {8-knight provides all the coverage he needs. In fact it is White who has to tread very carefully to avoid being worse. 29 Bed c3 30 Wxd6 Ec4 31 £3 Wxdé 32 Exd6 a5 33 2d3 %-% Game 11 Makarov-Mikhailov Kemerovo 1995 1 O13 D6 2 4 c5 3 Dc3 b6 4 g3 &b7 5 &g2 g6 6 0-0 S97 7 d4 cxd4 8 Wadd Dcéb This move is less popular than the current main line 8..d6 (see the previous game), but can lead to double-edged positions based on Black making a quick grab for the c4-pawn. 8...0-0 can be answered by 9 Wh4 and here: 2) 9...d6 and now White can play 10 2h6 37Symmetrical English without wasting a tempo on &cl-e3 first (which happens in Game 10 for example): 10...Abd7 11 b3 Bc8 12 &xg7 dxg7 13 Wd4 dg 14 Bact Hc5 15 b4 Hc8 16 a3, Kramnik-Adams, Biel 1993, is the kind of position White is hoping for in this line. The dark squared bishops are off, Black has no dangerous pawn breaks, and White can gradually increase the pressure using his space advantage. b) 9...h5!? is a speciality of Bacrot, which has the benefit of stopping Sc1-h6. Black bargains on the fact that White will not be able to exploit his unconventional kingside pawn structure. The evidence so far is: bi) 10 Bg5 dé 11 e4 Dcé 12 Ads Bes 13 Badi Dh7 14 Sct e6 15 Wxd8 Baxds 16 Dc7 He7 17 DbS Hed7 18 Aids Dxd4 19 Oxd4 d5 ¥2-% Hiibner-Bacrot, Berlin 1998, b2) 10 Bd1 Da6 11 4 Hc8 12 e5 Dg4 13 Rs Exc4 14 Dd? Bc7 15 Abs Lxg? 16 Dxc7 Wxc7 17 dxg2 WeS with fair compensation for the exchange, Summerscale- Bacrot, France 1998. 9 wta 9 Wh4 is met by 9...h6 10 Dd4 g5 11 @xc6 dxc6, when White is reduced to 12 Wh3. 9.208 Or 9...0-0 10 Wh4 (White doesn’t mind losing a tempo to achieve the desirable Act-h6; 10 Bd1 Hc8 11 b1 transposes to the next note) and here: a) 10...Bc8 11 &h6 Dbs! 12 b3 do 13 adi Hc5 (again activating the rook on the sth rank via ...1a8-c8-c5 is a typical theme in the Double Fianchetto) 14 2xg7 &xg7 15 Wd4 Dbd7 16 e4 a6 17 Hfet Wa8 18 Das Had 19 Dxb6 Dxbs 20 Wxbé Speel- man-Greenfeld, Beersheba 1987, and now 20...28c5 21 Wh4 &xe4 is unclear according to Speelman b) After 10...Qa5 NCO suggests 11 Bh6!? (11 Bg5 Bc8 12 b3 Hc5 is about equal) but doesn’t analyse 11...Sxh6 12 Waxh6 Dxc4 and Black gets a pawn for free. If he gets worried about 2f3-g5, he can always chop the knight with ...S2b7xf3. An extreme example would be 13 Hadi @xb2 14 Hd4 Bc8 15 Dgs xg? 16 Kh4 Bed, 10 3d1 10 Bb1 pre-empts the idea used by Black in the main game: 10...0-0 (10...h5 11 We3 4)b4 does not threaten to win the exchange by ... Ab4-c2, so White can now play simply 12 a3) 11 Kd1 We8!? 12 Det Dds 13 &xb7 @xb7 14b3 Ac5 15 2b2, Drasko-Pavlovic, Subotica 2000, and here Drasko suggests 15 Wha with a slight edge for White. 10...0h5 11 We3 Tite a2 aa bie nie ve 11 Wd2 allows 11...2a5 12 b3 b5. 11...ab4 12 3b1 Excd ‘A combative but risky idea. 13 Ded Axed The forcing sequence 13...c2 14 Wd3 Hd4 15 Wxc2 Exdi+ 16 Wxd1 2xg? 17 Dxi7 Sxi7 18 Wh3+ 6 19 Sxg2 turns our to be favourable for White according to Makarov. 14 Wxe5 f6 15 Wb5 a6 16 Wad Wc8 17 Wb3 Dg7 18 Dd5 Dcé6 If 18..Axd5 19 Bxd5 Be2 20 Lh6, followed later by Eb1-cl, gives White good attacking chances. 19 Wa3! ‘An improvement (whether prepared or not) over the much earlier game Panno- Ljubojevic, Petropolis 1973, which contin- 32The Double Fianchetto Defence ued 19 e4 (this doesn’t achieve much, and White can use the tempo for something more critical) 19...De6 20 Se3 7, and now 20...2c5! is best according to Panno. 19...De6 20 fe3 &f7 Tf 20...Bc2 then 21 Bdc1 is hard to meet. 21 Bd2 White is weaving a net around the black rook. 21...4b7 22 b3 Be5 23 b4 White could also just take the exchange immediately with 23 &xc5 bxc5 24 b4. 23...Eb5 Not 23.,.Bic4? because of 24 b5 winning apiece due to the threat of mate in two with Wa3xe7+. 24 Wd3 Exd5 25 Wxd5 Wa8 26 Wb3 DeS 27 Axb7 Wxb7 28 &f4 Ec8 29 Axed fxeS 30 Zbd1 dé 31 Ec2 Exc2 32 Wxe2 White has managed to effect multiple exchanges, leaving himself the technical task of exploiting his material advantage in the ending. 32...0d4 33 We4+ Hf6 34 13 b5 35 Wd3 Wd5 36 a3 Wa2?! Keeping the queen centralised with 36...Wc6 would put up more resistance. 37 Sf2 a6 38 £4 Once the black king is exposed, it’s all over. 38...Wf7 39 fxe5+ wxe5+ 40 we DIS 41 We3+ he4 42 Wi3+ Se5 43 94 1-0 Game 12 Karpov-Kasparov Moscow (13th match game) 1984 1 Df3 DIG 2 cf b6 3 g3.c5 4 Ag2 2b7 5 0-0 g6 6 Dc3 Ag? 7 d4 cxd4 The alternative 7...2e4 went out of fashion after Black suffered a number of re- verses, After 8 Dxet Sxe4 9 d5 Black can choose between: a) 9...b5 by analogy with Summerscale- ‘Adams (Game 13), may be better than its reputation, e.g. 10 Ad? &xg2 11 dexg?2 and now: al) 11..Wb6 12 e4 0-0 13 h4 Dab 14 We2 Dc7 15 h5 is great for White, W.Schmidt-Ornstein, Yerevan 1976. a2) But 11...bxc4 (11...d6!2) 12 Dxc4 do 13 We2 0-0 14 2d2 Ad7 is fairly comfortable for Black, Vovsha-Tsesarsky, Petah Tiqwa 1996, b) 9...0-0 10 &h3 Lxf3 11 exf3 and here: bi) 11.05 12 f4 exf4 13 &xf4 Sxb2 14 Bb1 2f6 15 Wad do 16 &b3 h5 17 Hel and Black has difficulties developing his queenside, Karpov-Timman, Amsterdam 1981. b2) 11...06 12 Bel &d4 13 Bho He8 14 Wat a6 15 £4 Ba7 (Simic suggests 15...b5 but it doesn’t change that much) 16 Hadi b5 17 cxb5 Wh6 18 dxe6 dxe6 19 bxa6 Hd8 20 f5 with a strong attack, Korchnoi-Panno, Lucerne 1985. c) 9.05 10 Wb3 0-0 11 @h3 &xf3 12 Wexf3 (5 13 e4 f4 14 Wid1 do 15 2d? a5 16 ‘Wad and White is better due to his domina- tion of the light squares, Karpov-Timman, Brussels 1988. 8 Dxd4 &xg2 9 txg2 0-0 The original method of handling the 8 ®xd4 line for Black was 9...Wc8 (9...We7 usually comes to the same thing) 10 b3 Wb7+ 11 £3.d5 (or 11...Dc6 12 &b20-0 13 e4 a6 14 Bel Axd4 15 Wxd4 do 16 Dds Eab8 with an unclear position according to Kochiev, though White looks to be alittle 33Symmetrical English better after 17 Hfdi) but White gets a slightly better game after 12 cxd5 Axd5 13 Dxd5 Wxd5 14 Le3 Dc 15 Dxcé Wxc6 16 Hel We6 17 Wd3 0-0 18 Bfdt, as in Polugaevsky-Smyslov, Soviet Championship 1976. 10 e4 We7 10...Dc6 11 Dc? is pleasant for White. 11 b3 White can avoid the forcing continuation that follows by 11 We2, eg. 11...Dc6 12 De2 a6 13 Kgs e6 14 Bac Bfc8 15 b3 De8 16 2d2 Wh7 17 £3 b5 18 De3 51? 19 exfS gxf5 with chances for both sides, Vukic-Psakhis, Bor 1985. 11...2xe4 Exploiting the ‘long diagonal tactics’ to free the Black position. Suba calls this a “beautiful but not very effective combination’. However the evidence suggests that Black is fine after this continuation. Alterna- tively 11..Da6 12 £3 Wb7 13 Be3 Dc5 14 Hcl Hac8 15 Ad5 Hfe8, Morovic Fernan- dez-Psakhis, Novi Sad Olympiad 1990, and here Psakhis gives 16 b4 as slightly better for White. 12 Dxe4 Wed 13 Wt3 Wxd4 14 2a3 14 Hb1 is more critical as it practically forces Black to give up the exchange in order to free his queen. After 14...We5 15 SLf4 (here a draw was agreed, just when it was getting interesting, in Kasparov- Karpov, {match game 20} Moscow 1984). In this position we have: a) 15... Wa5 16 Dfo+ Qxf6 17 Wrxa8 Dc6 18 Wb7 Wi5 19 Ebd1 Sd4 20 Bfet 5 21 Re3 Qc3 22 He2 WhS 23 Hxd7 Wre2 24 Wxe6 was good for White in Karoli- T.Horvath, Hungarian Championship 1985. b) After 15...We6 16 Dfo+ Qxfo 17 Wrxa8 Dcb 18 Wh7, Informator 38 quotes a prior game Shabalov-Kengis, USSR 1983, with an unclear position. Two more practical examples continued 18...g5 19 Ebel ‘WS 20 2e3 Hb8 21 Wa6 and here: bi) 21..e5!? 22 £4? (22 Wxa7) 22... We4+ 23 gl Df3+ 24 Bxf3 Wxf3 25 Wra7 Ha8 26 Wxb6 Bxa2 27 B£2 gxf4 28 gxf4 Wxf4 0-1 was Hernando Garcia- Estremera Panos, Zaragoza 1998. b2) 21...c3 22 Wb5 De5 23 Rd? Wh3+ 24 Bgl a6 25 Wxab Web 26 Hxe5 Bxe5 27 a4 Ea8 28 Wb5 Wxb5 29 cxbs f6 with an unclear ending, Vadasz-David, Zalaegerszeg 1992. 14...Dc6 15 Zad1 We5 16 Exd7 Wad Black also held the draw after 16...Had8 17 Bfdi Exd7 18 Hxd7 Ec8 19 Wd3 h6 20 Wd5 Hc7 21 Wxe5 Sxe5 22 Hxc7 Axc7 etc., Gritsak-Epishin, Koszalin 1999. 17 Bxe7 De5 18 Wd1 Now it is White’s turn to offer the exchange. Instead 18 Bd5 Axf3 19 Hxa5 Bfes 20 Hd5 (20 dexf32! bxaS 21 Sg5 £5 was better for Black in the game Loginov- Allvanov, Borzomi 1984) 20...@xh2 21 xh? Bxe7 with an equal endgame according to Taimanov. 18...Dxd7 19 Wxd7 Wxa2 Returning the material to try and clarify the position. Taimanov gives 19...24fb8 20 ADfo+ (20 aft?) 20...A.xf6 21 Lxf6 and the dark-squared bishop is not inferior to the rook. 20 &xf8 Bxf8 21 Bet Trying to drum up an attack. Instead 21 Wd3 is an attempt to ‘grind’ the ending. White has a slight initiative, but Black should hold reasonably comfortably with 34The Double Fianchetto Defence careful play. a) Suba quotes the game Panchenko- Srokovsky from 1987, which continued 21...Wa5 22 Hdi Wb4 23 h4 We7 24 Wd5 Bhs 25 Web £5 26 Ags We2 27 Ad7 and White is breaking through. b) 21...a5 and here: b1) 22 Bel a4 23 bxad Wxa4 24 Wd5 Wad 25 Hb1 Wxd5 26 cxd5 £5 27 Dgs Bbs with equality, Brunner-Marinkovic, German Bundesliga 1991. b2) 22 Bd1 Wa3 23 h4 h5 24 Bd? Bes 25 He2 Wi8 26 WE3 He5 27 Dc3 Bxe2 28 Dxe2 We8 29 Df4 a4 30 bxad Wrad 4-4 Olafsson-Sigurjonsson, Reykjavik 1985. b3) Suba proposes 22 h4 a4 23 bxad Wxa4 24 Hb1, though Black should hold after 24...Wic6, 21...Wixb3 22 Dd6 We3 23 He7 Wie White has no way through. 24 Dea Wid 25 Wxd4 Sxd4 26 Bd7 ig7 27 Exa7 h6 28 3b7 2d4 29 Bd7 ig7 30 h4 #5 31 Dd2 Bf6 32 Bc7 Heb 33 D3 216 %-% Game 13 Summerscale-Adams British Championship 1997 1 Df3 Dt 2 c4 bE 3 g3 c5 4 Ag2 Ab7 5 0-0 g6 6 Ac3 &g7 7 Zet Since this move has become one of the main lines against the Hedgehog set-up, it has also been tried in the Double Fianchetto position. 7..De4 Or 7...d6 8 e4 and now: al) After 8...e5 White can play 9 dd! re- gardless, since 9...cxd4 (9...exd4 10 e5) 10 Dxd4 exd4 11 e5 exploits the old ‘&g2 v &2b7’ tactic in explosive fashion. a2) 8...2c6 is reasonable for Black: 9 d4 cxd4 10 Dxd4 Dxd4 11 Wxd4 0-0 12 Wd2 2d7, and now instead of 13 5? &xg2 14 exd6 eS, as in Malinin-Yevseev, Gatchina 2000, 13 b3 is given as equal by Yevseev, though I think it looks fairly pleasant for White. 23) 8...Dbd7 is also playable, e.g. 9 d4 cxd4 10 Dxd4 Hb8 11 b3 0-0 12 2b2 a6 13 We2 e6 with chances for both sides, Rot- stein-Grooten, Wijk aan Zee 1993. b) 7...0-0 8 4 Bc6 is best answered by 9 el. ©) 7...d5 8 d4 leads to an early clash in the centre: 8...dxc49 Wa4+ Dbd7 10 dxc5 Wic8 11 Wxe4 Wxc5 12 Wh4 0-0 13 e4 Hac8 14 &e3 Wh5 was played in Van der Sterren- Stohl, Prague 1992, and here Stohl prefers 14..WaS. when Black should be able to equalise. 8 Axed 8 We2 has been tried a few times but Black is well placed because of his more flexible pawn-structure, e.g. 8...2xc3 9 dxc3 do 10 &g5 Dd7 11 Hadi We7 12 e4 ho 13 Sct g5! with ...0-0-0 to follow, Cummings- Speelman, British League 1998. 8...2xe4 9 d4 0-0! An improvement over the automatic recapture 9...cxd4, after which White gains an edge with the trick 10 &h6! &xh6 11 Wxd4 0-0 12 Wxe4 Dcé 13 Hadi Bc8 14 h4 (this is not strictly necessary; 14 a3 followed by b2-b4 is possible, while Romanishin suggests 14 €3) 14...c7 (better is 14...e6 15 e3 We7 16 He2 Hid 17 Hed2 2g7 18 Wi4 hé when Black should be okay, Romanishin- Psakhis, Jurmala 1987) 15 h5 e6 16 hxg6 hxg6 17 3 Wo 18 He2 Hd8 19 Hed2 and White has an edge, Romanishin-Lau, Dres- den 1998, 10 d5 10 &e3 d6 and Black completes his development while White can't yet play d4-d5. 10...b5 This Benko-style pawn sacrifice is Black’s best approach. In Simple Chess, Michael Stean put forward the interesting idea that Benoni/Benko type positions are more comfortable for Black with one or two mi- nor pieces exchanged. In addition, the ac- 35Symmetrical English tive bishop on e4 takes a lot of the dynamism out of White’s game. 11 exb5 If 11 Dd2 Lxg? 12 doxg? do. 11...a6 12 bxa6 Or 12 Sf1 do 13 Dh4 Was 14 Ld2 WexbS 15 &c3 Wb7 16 &g2 4-% Roman- ishin-Conquest, Saint Vincent 2000. 12...Bxa6 13 Dd2 Axg2 14 wxg2 do 15 De4 Dd7 16 e4 Wa8 17 a3 Zad 17...Db6 is another way to dislodge (or exchange) the well placed knight on c4. 18 We2 Wa6 19 De3 DeS 20 Zd1 Baa 21 Ba2 Bhs Black loses his momentum after this move. Instead Black can press his initiative with 21...f5! 22 exf5, when Adams gives 22...gxf5 23 f4 Dd3 24 b3 Axct 25 Wxcl Hed with ...&g7-d4 and ...Wa6-b7 in mind. 22 ba! Exd1 23 Dxd1 Ee8 24 bxcd Exc5 25 Wb1 Dd3 26 @e3 38 It was time to considering baling out for a draw with 26...De1+ 27 Sg1 D+. 27 £3 h5 28 a4 Ab2? 28...Wic4 should be played. 29 Exb2 Not 29 Axb2 We2+ 30 2£2 Hc231 Wit dd. 29...8xb2 2 ‘A draw was agreed here, even though White has a material advantage, with no risk, after 30 Wxb2 Wxa4 31 D2; or 30...Wd3 31 Wd4! We2+ 32 Df2. Game 14 Andersson-J.Polgar Malmo 2000 1 Df3 D6 2 c4 c5 3 g3 b6 4 2g2 &b7 5 0-0 g6 6 b3 2g7 7 &b2 Bagirov called this the ‘Four Bishops Opening’. If Black is careful, he should equalise. However there are almost no winning chances for Black against a reasonable opponent. This is one of the downsides of, the Double Fianchetto. While an easy draw with Black is great for the world elite, it does not suit many Swiss warriors. On the other hand, if your opponent is playing for a win as well, you will likely get one of the more interesting lines (e.g. see Game 10) which gives chances for both sides. This was discovered in the late 70s as the ‘antidote’ to this line. The idea is that Black can answer d2-d4 with an immediate ...d7- d5, since the a6-knight is handily placed to recapture on c5. The main thing to avoid as Black is a passive Maroczy Bind when White keeps a small but enduring edge. Ac- tually, Black has a smorgasbord of equalising opportunities: 2) 8...2\c6 is also perfectly playable. After 9 d4 we have: al) 9...cxd4 10 Dxd4 Wb8 11 De? Hds 12 e4 a6 13 AdS Axd5 14 Kxg7 De3 15 Dxe3 Sxg7 16 Wd2 b5 17 Bact f6 18 h4 De5 19 £4 Dl7 20 c5 with an unclear position, Damljanovic-L.Hansen, Bled 1991. a2) 9..Dxd4 10 Dxd4 Sxg2 11 dexg2 cxd4 12 Wxd4 and now: a2t) 12..We7 13 Dds Wh7 14 e4 do, Ribli- Dvoirys, Bayern 1992, when 15 Bfdi Eac8 16 a4 gives White a small advantage - this is the kind of thing to avoid as mentioned above. a2) The ‘computer move’ 12...d5 simply equalises after 13 cxd5 (13 Dxd5 De8 14 36The Double Fianchetto Defence Wd2 e6 is better for Black) 13...e6 (a draw was agreed here in Chernin-Psakhis, Kazan ~ played later in 1997) 14 Bad1 Axd5 15 Wd2 Dxc3 16 Sxc3 Wad? 17 Rxd2 Bfcs 18 Be3 Bc2 19 Rd2 Hxd2 20 Sxd2 Bc8 21 Bel Bxct 22 &xcl, Hartoch-Genins, The Hague 1997. Hey - that WAS a computer playing Black! Some other ways to equalise: b) 8...d6 9 d4 cxd4 10 Dxd4 Sxg? 11 sbxg2 d5. ©) 8.06 9 d4 cxd4 10 Dxd4 Bxg2 11 sbxg2 d5. d) Just about the only line where Black needs to worry is 8...d5 9 Dxd5 Dxd5 10 Sixg7 Sxg7 11 cxd5 Wxd5 12 d4 cxd4 (12...Da6 is more interesting, e.g. 13 e4 Wd6) 13 Wxd4+ Wxd4 14 Dxd4 Sxg? 15 shxg2 and White has a very slight edge in this endgame. It is somewhat unpleasant to defend this as Black, e.g. 15...a6 16 Bact Ha7 17 Hc? Bd8 18 €3 5 19 Df f6 20 gt Bd6 21 Bfct Dd7 22 Heb Bxc6 23 Bxc6 {7 24 d2 and Black is very passive, Andersson-Robatsch, Munich 1979. oda 9 Bel e6 10 d4 d5 11 e3 We7 12 Wer dxc4 13 bxct Ded 14 Hfd1 Hfd8 15 Det Dxc3 16 Bxc3 cxd4 17 exd4 (Andersson- Timman, Malmo 2000) is okay for Black. 9...d5 a a Dy Ta ise WN 10 dxc5 Alternatively: a) 10 Axd5 Axd5 11 cxd5 Lxd5 12 €3 We7 13 We2 Wb7 14 Bfdi Bad8 15 Bd2 cxd4 16 Sxd4 e5 17 Rb2 Les 18 Hadi Bxd2 19 Rxd2 with equal chances, Gausel- Wojtkiewicz, Manila Olympiad 1992. b) 10 De5 e6 11 dxc5 with a choice: bi) 11...Axc5 (experience in this variation has shown the isolated d-pawn set-up to be more manageable for Black than the hanging pawn structure which occursin ‘2° below) 12 cxd5 exd5 13 Df3 Wd7 14 Hel Hfe8 15 Hc2 Bad8 16 b4 (here White should play 16 Ad4 fed 17 Het h5 18 £3 2d6 19 €3 with equality according to Ftac- nik) 16...d4 17 bxc5 dxc3 18 Wxd7 Dxd7 19 &xc3, Ftacnik-Speelman, Thessaloniki 1984, and here Black could have seized the advantage with 19....xc3 20 Bxc3 Dxc5 21 €3 Qxf3 22 Axf3 Md2 23 a3 Beds. 2) Not so goodis 11...bxc5, for example 12 cxd5 exd5 13 Dd3 We7 14 Da4 Back 15 Hct Hfd8 16 £23 Ded 17 Wel d4 18 Ddxc5 Daxc5 19 Dxc5 Ld5 20 Dxes and White is a pawn up and much better, Andersson-Miles, La Valetta 1980. 10...0xc5 11 Dxd5 Dxd5 12 Axg7 xg7 13 cxd5 Wxd5 14 Ect Bids 15 Wxd5 Sxd5 16 Zfd1 wf6 17 Daa 17 Bd2 Bxg? 18 xg? Back 19 fs e6 20 de3 {6 was also equal in Po- lugaevsky-Gipslis, Riga 1975. 17..,xg2 18 Sxg2 Hac8 19 Abs Exd1 20 Exd1 Dea! Using tactics to simplify the task of securing the draw. 21 Dxa7 Bc2 22 a4 Dd6 23 Bd4 Bc? 24 DbS AxbS 25 axbS Hc5 26 b4 26 Hb4 would leave the rook about as passive as it is possible to be! 26...2xb5 27 e4 &e5 28 Hc4 5 29 13 95 30 h3 h5 Black soon demonstrates that the position is a dead draw. 31 Wf2 fxed 32 fxed bd6 33 de3 Hed 34 Gd4 Eb5 35 h4 gxh4 36 gxh4 wes 37 be3 we5 4-% 37Symmetrical English Summary The Double Fianchetto has proved difficult to beat at the Super-GM level. Early deviations, such as 6 b3 or 7 Hel seem to offer little, so White should go for the main line with 8 Wxd4. 1c4.c5 2 Df3 D6 3 g3 b6 4 &g2 2b7 5 0-0 g6 6 Ac3 (D) 6 b3 - Game 14 6...897 7 da 7 Hel - Game 13 7...0xd4 8 Wxd4 8 Dxd4 (D) - Game 12 8...d6 8...Dc6 - Game 11 9 Bat (D) - Game 10 38CHAPTER THREE White Plays an Early d2-d4 1 c4 c5 2 Df3 D6 3 d4 cxd4 4 DAxd4 This position is often reached from the move order 1 d4 @f6 2 c4 c5 3 DES (1 d4 fo 2 c4 e6 3 D3 c5 4 Ac3 leads into the same line), so the variation has often been called the Anti-Benoni. Certainly Benoni and Benko players need to havea reply prepared for this, even if they play something different against 1 c4. I would recommend such players look into 4...e6 or 4...e5. The main moves given here lead to the old ‘long’ main line, but there are significant alternatives available on almost every haif move, as noted below. I will cover the move order issues by illustrating the various branching points from the main line. Ihave not tried to hide the complexity of this, but have pointed out short-cuts for pragmatists that want to limit the scope of their opponent’s options. There are also numerous transpositions possible out of the English and into, for example, the Nimzo-Indian or the Catalan. 4...06 4...6 was played by Kramnik against Kasparov, as a way of transposing to 5 @\c3 6 6 g3 We7 (Game 18). 4...96 is of course possible, when White has the option of an Accelerated Dragon after 5 Dc3 &g7 6 e4, or can play 5 g3, with a likely transposition into Chapter 6. 4...b6 is for Hedgehog die-hards, and is dealt with in Game 16. 4...65 is an aggressive response favoured by some Benoni players (see Game 15). 4...2\c6 usually transposes to the main line after 5 @c3 e6 (Game 22). If White wants to avoid any of these, and indeed the options for Black on move 5 below, he can play 3 Dc3, and if 3...0c6 + d4, though this of course gives Black the option of 3...d5, so you need a line against that also. This is the important kind of repertoire decision which you need to make. 5 Ac3 White can also try 5 g3, when Black’s main replies are 5...d5 which is a Catalan, 39Symmetrical English 5...Stb4+ (Game 17) and 5...We7 (Game 18). White’s only weakness in this position is his c4-pawn, and in several lines Black tries to exploit this. There are several gambit lines where Black can grab the pawn, e.g. 5 3 We7 6 Bc3 a6 7 Mg? Wre4 (Game 18). 5...D06 Or5...a6, when 6 e transposes to aKan Sicilian, while 6 g3 Wc7 is Game 18. 5...dtb4 is covered in Game 19, with the exception that 6 g3 would then lead to a Nimzo-Indian with g3, which is outside the scope of this book. 6 93 White can also try to exploit the dark squares with 6 Dbd5 (see Games 21 and 22), or Speelman’s line 6 a3 (see Game 20). 6...Wb6 If there is a theme that runs through these lines with ...e6, it is that Black develops his pieces very actively to avoid a positionally inferior outcome. His c8-bishop is potentially a problem piece, given that it cannot easily take up a post on b7 and is blocked by the d7- and e6-pawns, Routine development by Black would often lead to a “bad Hedgehog’ or, if he tries a belated ...d7- d5 thrust, to a ‘bad IQP’ position. 6...d2¢5 (Game 23) and 6...S¢b4 (note to Black’s sixth move in Game 23) are alternatives. 7 Abs 7 @bd5 is also possible (Game 24). 7...De5 Continuing the active approach, Black’s play is somewhat reminiscent of the Tai- manov Sicilian. White has to develop somewhat unnaturally to cope with the pressure on the c4-pawn. 8 e4 2b4 9 We2 dé Now the traditional main line starts with 10 &e3 &xc3+ (Game 25) when the dou- bled c-pawns compensate for White’s space and development advantage. White can choose a gung-ho kingside attack, or liquidate the forward pawn with c4-c5, 10 2 is an interesting alternative - see Game 26. Game 15 Mikhalchishin-Kasparov Soviet Championship 1981 1:4 D6 2 c4c5 3 DB ‘The ‘English’ move order to reach this position would be 1 c4.c5 2 Df3 Af6 3 d4. 3...0xd4 4 Dxd4 e5 This line should be of great interest to Benoni and Benko players, and in fact is reached in the vast majority of cases by the move order 1 d4 Af 2 c4 c5 3 Af3. It gives Black a chance to mix it in the combative spirit of those openings. 5 Abs 5 Dc? is an alternative. Although it would perhaps be unfair to label 3 O63 asa 40White Plays an Early d2-d4 bit wimpish, this is taking things too far. Black can choose between: a) A dull but equal position with 5...d5 6 exd5 Wxd5 7 Wxd5 Dxd5 8 e¢ Db4 etc. b) Or the adventurous 5...b5!2, e.g. 6 cxb5 £b7 7 €3 d5 8 &e2 Bdé6 9 0-0 0-0 10 ®c3 Dbd7 11 b3 Bc8 12 Lb2 We7 13 Bet ‘Bfd8 (Terzic-Bareev, Bihac 1999) with solid compensation for the pawn. 5...d5 ‘This pawn sacrifice is the main line here. Black can also try 5...2c5, when: a) In practice, 6 @d6+ is usually played, when after 6...8e7 7 Axc8+ Wxc8 8 Dc3 Black should play 8...d6. Konstantinopol- sky-Taimanov, Soviet Championship 1948, continued 9 €3 (not 9 Sg5? &xf2+ 10 dxf2 Wi5+) 9...Bd8 10 Re2 Dco 11 0-0 Sf8 12 33 a6 13 We2 De7 14 &d2 Web with equality. b) 6 Be3 Bxe3 7 Dd6+ Wf8 8 fxe3 and now 8...Dc6 9 Ac3 transposes to the position analysed in Game 22, notes to White’s 8th move. Since that analysis indicates improvements over published theory that give Black fair chances, perhaps 5...S2c5 should be reconsidered. 6 cxd5 £c5 7 ASc3 0-0 Ease ai. me . Y Bes 8 h3 is a speciality of Raetsky, when Black has ventured: a) 8...e4 9 g4 He8 10 Bg? h6 11 Dd? e3 12 fxe3 &xe3 13 Act &c5 14 Bf4 and: al) 14...Dh5 and now 15 Wd2 Wh4+ 16 bedi Axf4 17 Wxf4 Dab would lead to an unclear position according to Raetsky and Sotnikov. a2) 14...a6 15 a4 Dbd7, Raetsky-Miezis, Bern 1995, and here 16 Wid3 is alittle better for White. b) 8...£5 and now: bi) 9 e3 Rg6 10 g4 ef 11 Bg? Dab 12 g5 Db4! 13 gxfor (13 0-0) 13...Ad3+ 14 Ged2 Wxfo 15 Bf1 Bfe8 16 a3 b5 17 Ba2h5 with a big attack for Black, Aseev-Smirin, USSR 1988. 2) The natural follow-up 9 g4 is taboo because of 9...Se4 10 £3 (the alternative 10 h2 is a bit sad) 10...2xd5! and Black gets a big attack in return for the piece. Raetsky and Sotnikov give the following lines: b21) 11 fxet Wh4+ 12 dd2 De3 13 Wh3 Hd8+ 14 Dd5 Aco. b22) 11 Dxet Wh4+ 12 ed2 Bd8 13 Dxc5 De3+ 14 Dd3 Dxd1 15 Lxdi Deo. b3) 9 a3 Dbd7 10 e3 e4 11 b4 Bd6 12 Sb2 DeS 13 DAd2 Hc8 14 Le2 Dd3+ 15 Axd3 exd3, Raetsky-Tyomkin, Biel 1999, and here Tyomkin recommends 16 Wf3 (instead of 16 2icl Se5 as played, and Black wins the d5-pawn back) e.g. 16...e5 17 Wrf5 Qxc3 18 Bxc3 Bxc3 19 e4 Be2 20 Bd1 We7 21 0-0 Wc3 with compensation. 8.04 The starting point for a popular varia tion. In return for the pawn, Black has a lead in development and a space advantage. Although White is not in immediate danger, unravelling his pieces without allowing a trivial recapture of the d5-pawn is not so easy, and castling too early can be dangerous. Overall, Black’s results have been good, and White has struggled somewhat in anumber of high-level games. Nevertheless, if White is well-prepared, he has chances of emerging with a slight plus. Black can also play 8...We7 but will usually follow up with .€5-e4 in any case, 9 e2 41Symmetrical English Delaying &f1-e2 is another idea, e.g. 9 @d2 and now: a) 9..2e8 10 a3 (10 2e2 transposes to the note to Black’s 9th move below) 10...a5 11 Be? Dab 12 b3 Dc7 13 &Kb2 Dexd5 with equality, Lesiege-Bellon Lopez, Cien- fuegos 1997. b) 9...We7 10 a3 a5 and here: bi) 11 dé &xd6 12 Adxet Axes 13 Dxes Hd8 14 Dxd6 Hxd6 15 We2 Ac was Palatnik-Kasparov, Moscow 1982. After 16 Se2 We5 17 g3 Bh3 Black has compensation for the pawn deficit. b2) 11 b3 @f5 12 &b2 Bd8 13 Act Dbd7? (either 13...2e6 or 13..Dc6 was essential; both look okay for Black) 14 d6 WAS 15 Ab5 and White is well on top, Le- siege-Gomez, Havana 1999. 9...We7 Or 9...2e8 10 Ad? and now: a) 10...2bd7 11 We2 We7 12 0-0 a6 13 a4 b6 14 Act &b7 15 Bdi Had8 16 b3 and White is better, Lautier-Adams, Las Palmas 1994. b) Both ECO and NCO give 10....&b4 as leading to equality on the basis of the reference 11 Wb3 &xc3 12 bxc3 Wxd5 13 Wxd5 Dxd5 14 Bb2 Acé Perkovic-Barczay, Subotica 1981. However, the position looks slightly preferable for White after 15 Hd1. Some sample lines: b1) 15...b6 16 c4 frees the b2-bishop. b2) 15...0£5 16 g4 Rg6 17 h4 ho 18 Bgl Had8 19 h5 Sh7 20 g5 hxg5 21 Hxgs f6 22 Hxd5 Exd5 23 &c4 Hee5 (or 23...Hed8 24 Afi De7 25 2a3) 24 Df3 winning material. b3) 15...Af6 16 Act &g4 17 Dd Be7 18 c4 Axe? 19 Yxe2 with good centralisa- tion. 10 Dd2 White decides to return the pawn. Alter- natively, 10 a3 Hd8 and now: a) Normally White avoids castling ‘into it” but 11 0-0 is certainly playable, e.g. 11...a5 12 Dd2 Qf5 13 Wb3 h5 14 Dc4 Bae 15 Hd1 (15 Dad maybe slightly better for White) 15...Dg4 16 h3 Dxf2 17 &xf2 Rxh3 18 Qf Wh4+ 19 dgi Bio 20 We2 Red 21 xe4 Ef4 with a wild position, Shabalov- D.Gurevich, New York 1998. b) 11 b4 &d6 12 &b2 and: bl) 12...2e5 13 Wb3 Abd7 14 Dd2 @Dbo 15 Bdi £5 16 Det Axc4 17 Wxcd Eac8 18 Wb3 a6 (18...Dg4!?) 19 Dat Axb2 20 Wxb2 Hxd5 21 Exd5 Axd5 22 0-0 Wis with equality, Lautier-Ilescas Cordoba, Linares 1995. b2) 12...a5 13 bxa5 Led 14 Wad? (Topa- lov’s suggested improvements are 14 Wc2 Bxa5 15 Dd2 and 14 Dd2 xc3 15 Rxc3 \xd5 though Black should be no worse in either case) 14...Ala6 15 Ad2 Ac5 16 Wb4 2g4, Timman-Topalov, Wijk aan Zee 1996, and Black is better. 10...2d8 11 a3 +7 = tae oa 11...Dxd5 If Black does not take the pawn immediately, he will probably live to regret it, e.g. 11...2f5 12 b4 (12 g4l2) 12...2d6 13 Det Re5 14 Dxed Wxe5 15 2b2 Abd7 16 W3 &g6 17 h4 and White retains the extra pawn with an initiative to boot, Lesiege- Goldenberg, Montreal 1998. 12 Oxd5 12 Bexe4 didn’t work out well after 12...2b6 (12...2)xe3 is a more speculative piece sacrifice) 13 Ac3 Dxe3 14 fxe3 Wxe3 15 Bfl Aco 16 Wat Aes 17 edi Leb 18 Hel Hd4 19 2£3 WF4 20 We2 Dxf3 21 Bes 42White Plays an Early d2-d4 Wo 22 Bxe6 fxe6 23 gxf3 Wxf3+ 24 wel Wf2+ 0-1 Postny-Smirin, Israel 1999. 12...Exd5 13 We2 Two subsequent games showed new ideas for White, but were not picked up by any theory books. Both involve delayed castling for White, in order to annoy the Black pieces and retain the option of launching a kingside attack. It is true that it was not Kasparov sitting behind the Black pieces in either case, but there is certainly scope here for White to play for a win. a) 13 Wad B15 14 b4 Abo 15 W3 Edo 16 Dc4 Bg6 17 Axbé axbo 18 Wd5 cB 19 &b2 Deb 20 Hd1 Bxg? 21 b5 Wh4 22 Ef eb 23 Wd6 Da5 24 Wxbs with chances for both sides, Vakhidov-Nesterov, Bishkek 1993. b) 13 b4 Rb6 14 Bb2 ADcé 15 Wh3 Hes 16 We2 £5 when compared to Mikhal- chishin- Kasparov, Black’s rook is on g5 instead of d5, and White now tries to exploit this awkward placement: 17 4 &xg+ 18 h4 &xe2 19 hxgS Rd3 20 Wc3 Wxg5 21 DEB! exfs 22 Wxd3 h5 23 0-00 De5 24 Was Bc8+ 25 &b1 and with White's king safe, he has a large plus, Panno-Glavina Rossi, Argentina 1989. 13...2f5 14 b4 &b6 15 &b2 Dcé 16 0-0 Wo5 If Black plays routinely, he can easily end up worse, e.g. 16...Had8 17 Dc4 Wg5 18 Efdi and if now 18...2g4? 19 Bxd5 Bxd5 20 Wxe4. 17 &hi! 17 Act Led 18 Lxgs Wxg4 gives Black a significant presence on the kingside. 17...8d6 Kasparov highlights the possible improvement 17...2c8 18 Bacl Bdd8 with unclear play. Indeed this looks awkward for White; it is not easy to suggest a constructive way forward. 18 Dxe4 Sxe4 19 Wxe4 Ed2 20 b5? After this the tide definitely turns in Black's favour. Instead Kasparov gives the imaginative 20 a6! which gives White a slight edge after 20...bxa6 21 Wxc6 Had8 22 Sid4 &xd4 23 exd4 Wie. 20...Exe2 20...2a5 is less clear because of 21 &c3 Exe2 22 Wad. 21 bxc6 Exb2 22 cxb7 Hf8 23 Hac White was pinning his hopes on the b- pawn, but now we are treated to adisplay of precision calculation from Kasparov. 23...2a5! 24 Bc8 Wb5! 25 Efc1 Wxb7 26 We8 Wxc8! 27 Wxc8 &d2! A brilliant sequence of moves. Now White has to create a bolt-hole for his king, which gives Black a favourable two rooks v queen situation. 28 h3 h6 29 We4 2xc1 30 Wxcl Exf2 31 Wc7 a6 32 Wa7 Bf6 White essentially has no answer to the strategic threat of a double attack on the g2- pawn, followed by an exchange leading to a winning pawn ending. 33 a4 Hd8 34 a5 Hd1+ 35 @h2 Ed2 36 Wb8+ Gh7 37 Wh4 Eff2 38 We4+ f5 0-1 Game 16 lonov-Yudasin Vilnius 1997 104 05 2 O13 Df6 3 Des ‘Another move order leading to the same thing is 3 d4 cxd4 4 Dxd4 b6 5 Dc3 &b7. 43Symmetrical English This move order will suit dedicated Hedgehog fans, who want to play their set- up no matter what. 4e4 4d4cxd4 5 Axd4 2b7 6 Rg5 (6 £3. d67 4 transposes to the main line) is another approach. Although ECO gives White an edge in this line, in practice Black has a healthy plus score. After 6 £25, Black has: a) 6...d6 7 &xf6 gxf6 8 e3 e6 9 WhS We7 10 Be2 Dc6 11 VFS Axd4 12 exd4 Qxf3 13 Wxf3 Bc8 14 0-0 £7 15 b3 f5 16 Radi 0-0 17 Bfel and White is slightly better, Agzamov-Bonsch, Sochi 1984. b) 6...a6 with the choice of: bi) 7 e4!? is a rarely seen pawn sacrifice: 7...Dxe4 8 Axes Rxe4 9 We2 Reo 1094 f6 11 Sg? Ha7 12 Bd? e6 13 Bdl (13 0-0 is also answered by 13....2c5 followed by castling) 13...2c5 14 &c3 We7 15 0-0 0-0 16 hi Wf4 and Black is better, Lerner- Psakhis, Frunze 1979. b2) The tricky 7 Df5 should be answered by 7...Wc7 8 Wd4 Dc6 9 Dds Dxd5 10 Dxg7+ Sixg7 11 Wxg7 Wes 12 Wxe5 DxeS 13 cxd5 &xd5 with equality, Rashkovsky- Psakhis, Beltsy 1979. b3) 7 Saxf6 gxfé with a further branch: b31) 8 DFS We7 9 Wd4 (Watson gives 9 Dd5 Lxd5 10 Wxd5 Dc6 11 Bdi e6 12 Dd6+ &xd6 as slightly better for Black) and here Black should try 9...—1g8 followed by 7-26, instead of the 9...06 10 Wxfé gs 11 Bc3 Bcb6 12 Wh4 of Enneper-Zierke, Germany 1995, which was good for White. 32) 8 ¢3 e6 9 Wh5 We7 (note how the inclusion of 6...a6 instead of 6...46 gives Black much more flexibility, for example his 8-bishop is not blocked in, and his queen can in some situations jump into e5) 10 Df3 Wes 11 Wh4 (5 12 Be2 Ly7 13.0-0Aeb 14 Eacl DeS 15 Wg3 Deo 16 Hfdi Hc8 17 a3 We7 18 Wxc7 Bxc7 19 Dd4 (19 g3) 19...f4 and Black is at least equal, Lerner-Psakhis, Riga 1985. 4...d6 5 d4 cxd4 6 Dxd4 2b7 7 £3 With this move order White can also play 7 We2 or 7 243 (see Game 63). 7...e6 8 Re3 Re7 9 Be2 0-0 Black has to be very careful not to fall into a positional trap in this line. If Black plays... b8-d7 too early, White can go for a quick a4-a5, which breaks the harmony of Black’s set-up and gives White a lot of potential play on the queenside. After 9...a6 10 0.0 Abd7 11 a4 0-0 12 a5 bxaS 13 Db3 White is slightly better. One example: 13..Bb8 14 DxaS a8 15 Wd2 We7 16 Eicl Dc5 17 Dat Mc 18 b4 Sxad 19 Bxad @fd7 20 Saal when White has aclear plus due to his powerful queenside pawns, Ivanchuk-Adams, Dortmund 1992. 10 0-0 a6 Norte that Black is delaying ...b8-47 until he has played his other preparatory moves ...0-0 and ...a7-a6. 11 Wd2 With the knight still on b8, 11 a4.can be answered by 11..c6 12 Dxc6 Lxc6 13 Wh3 Hbs 14 Edi We7 15 Hact 228 16 Hd2 Hfds 17 Wdi Dd7 with an equal game, Z.Polgar-Kudrin, Salamanca 1989. 11...Dbd7 This position is the starting point for a complex Hedgehog-based system with’ many positional nuances. The move order here is extremely subject to transpositions and permutations. My intention with the 44White Plays an Early d2-d4 various game references is to give anumber of instructive examples, so I suggest you approach the notes from the viewpoint of grasping the ideas and typical ‘mini-plans’, not in order to memorise all the possible sequences. Some of Black’s important ideas are: 1) The classic pawn breaks ...d6-d5 and -b7-b5, though the latter occurs less often in this line. 2) Re-routing the dark-squared bishop via ....Le7-d8-c7 to potentially target White's kingside after ...d6-d5. 3) The ambitious ‘Fischer plan’ ...deg8- AB, ..f8-g8, ...g7-g5, with a view to aking- side attack. If you are not familiar with this idea, it is well worth studying the following game where Fischer (with reverse colours) introduced this new concept. Fischer- Andersson, Siegen Olympiad 1970 went 1 b3 e5 2 Lb? Deb 3 c4 D6 4 3 Le7 5 a3 0-0 6 We2 He 7 d3 £8 8 ADl3 a5 9 Ler d5 10 cxd5 Dxd5 11 Abd? £6 12 0-0 Reb 13 Whi Wd7 14 Bgi Hads 15 Des Wi7 16 g4 g6 17 Be3 Sg7 18 Hagi Dbo 19 cd cB 20 Dh4 Dd7 21 Des Df8 22 DLS Seb 23 Dc5 De7 24 Dxg7 Hxg7 25 g5 DES 26 Hf3 b6 27 gxfo+ Bh8 28 Axed Bxe6 29 d4 exd4 30 &c4d3 31 Xxd3 Bxd3 32 Wxd3 Edo 33 Wed Deb 34 Le5 Hd8 35 h4 Dd6 36 Wet DEB 37 h5 De8 38 e4 Hd2 39 Bh3 dg8 40 hxge Dxgo 41 £4 Seis 42 We5 Dd6 43 Bxd6+ 1-0 Meanwhile the key ideas for White are: 1) Achieving a queenside clamp with b2- b4. 2) Restraining the breaks. 3) Generating a kingside pawn-storm, though this happens less often than you would think. 4) Combating the ...2e7-d8-c7 manoeuvre. If White has played b2-b4 and can answer ...£e7-d8 with d4-b3 followed by 2c3-f4 he is usually better, since the sequence ...Ad7-e5 Lf4xe5 gives White a better structure, with Black’s bishop boxed in onc7. If Black has already played ...fte7- 8 then a subsequent b2-b4 can often be answered by ...\d7-e5 and ...d5. All the above points are illustrated by the numerous examples that follow. 12 Bfd1 Black is better prepared than in the note to Black’s 9th above for 12 a4 Bc8 (or 12.,.He8 13 a5 d5!2) 13 a5 De5 14 axb6 Dxc4 15 &xc4 Exc4 16 Db3 Bb4 17 Dad a8 18 Dat Bb5 19 Dc3 Bb4 20 Dad BbS 21 Dc3 ¥4-% Adams-Van Wely, Tilburg 1997. 12...He8 Black’s next three moves will typically be -Wid8-c7, ...a8-c8 and ...Bf8-e8, the sequence being somewhat arbitrary. After 12..,We7 13 Bact Hac8 White can continue to smooth out his piece placement, with for example, £e2-f1, Sgi-h1 and Wd2-f2 (see the main game) or can go for an earlier queenside clamp, e.g. 14.3 Wb8 15 b4 and now: a) 15..Bfe8 16 Sf1 (Perhaps more promising is 16 ®b3 with the follow-up a3- a4-a5 in mind; 16... 8.d8?! is answered by 17 SEA) 16...0d8 17 Bc2 Des 18 Dad d5! 19 exd5 exd5 20 c5 b5 21 Db6 Lxb6 22 cxb6 Exc? 23 Dxc2 Dc4 24 xc4 decd 25 Wd6 ‘Wxd6?! (25...Wa8 with the idea of ...Ad5 and ...Be6) 26 Exd6 He6 27 Bd8+ Be8 28 Exe8+ Dxe8 29 cS (Seirawan-Kudrin, d7-d5 and .. 7-b5 45Symmetrical English Chandler 1997) and White has a slightly better ending. b) 15...d8 16 Db3 transposes to Leko- Zapata, Yopal 1997, which continued 16...Rc7 17 Rf4 Ded 18 Lxe5 dxe5 19 hi Bids 20 We3 Bxdi+ 21 Bxd1 Bd8 22 Bxd8+ Wxd8 23 c5 Dd7 24 c6, when White gets a better ending due to his queenside majority. 13 Bact Ee8 14 ft 14 a3 We7 15 b4 Wb8 16 Db3! is (by transposition) the plan mentioned in the previous note. 14...We7 15 &h1 a) In the event of 15 b+ Yusupov gives 15..d5 16 cxd5 &xb4. Notice that this works for Black when his queen is still on c7 attacking the knight on c3. b) 15 Wf2 Wb8 16 a3 2f8 17 b4 and now: b1) 17...d5%! is premature. Beliavsky- A Sokolov, Igalo 1994 continued 18 cxd5 exd5 19 Dxd5 DxdS 20 exd5 Excl 21 Sxct b5 22 Bb2 Af6 23 Acé Wde 24 ‘Wh6, which is very good for White. b2) 17...De5 18 Dad Dfd7 19 h3 La8 20 @®b3 Bcé with play for both sides, Seira- wan-Ljubojevic, Mar del Plata 1981. c) 15 a3!? is Yusupov’s suggestion 15...Wb8 16 Wt2 a) If White tries 16 b4 then: al) Black should not play 16...S2d82!, which allows the standard manoeuvre 17 Db3 Lc? (17...De5 18 Dat d5 19 Dxb6 Axb6 20 Sxb6 dxe4 21 f4 is given by NCO as slightly better for White) 18 2f4De5 19 Sixe5 dxe5 20 c5 b5 21 a4 and White is much better, Stohl-Ward, Isle of Man 1994. a2) 16...De5 17 Dat Dfd7 is okay for Black, and is similar to Seirawan-Ljubojevic in the previous note, and the two Tseshkovsky games below. b) 16 Sgt bl) 16..e5 17 Dad Dfd7 18 b4 h6 19 a3 Ra8 20 Hc2 Md8 21 Bdet Bc7 with chances for both sides, Sveshnikov- Tseshkovsky, Yerevan 1982. b2) 16....2£8 17 b4 De5 18 Dat Dfd7 19 a3 &a8 20 Db3 b5?! (20...Dxe4 21 Lxc4 b5 with an unclear position) 21 cxb5 axb5 22 Dc3 Dc4 23 Wa2. White, who threatens ADc3xb5, is clearly better, Yusupov- Tseshkovsky, Frunze 1981. 16...208 This is the correct timing for the ...,2e7- d8 manoeuvre. Since Wd2-f2 has taken pressure off the d6-pawn and he has not yet advanced his pawn to b4, White is not ready for the Ad4-b3 and 2e3-f4 plan, which we have seen to be so effective against ...£e7- ds. 17 b3 a) The passive move 17 b3 was played in Taimanov-Yusupov, USSR 1982, and allowed Black to implement the Fischer plan ina pure form. 17....c7 18 Wgl Bhs 19 Bc2 Bg8 20 Bcd2 g5 21 Ld4 Heo 22 Del BegS 23 Dd3 WS 24 Bel g4 with strong kingside pressure. b) The kingside pawn-storm with 17 Dc2 c7 18 g4 h6 19 h4 d5 20 g5 Kgs 21 Wer dxe4, as played in Ki.Georgiev-Rajkovic, Vrsac 1987, led to a wild position. o) After 17 b4 Yusupov gives 17...De5 18 @a4 d5, which is okay for Black. 17...De5 Tonov suggests 17....2¢7, after which he was planning 18 g4 with a complex fight. 46White Plays an Early d2-d4 18 Wd2 2c7 19 2g1 19 b4 is also possible. 19...eh8 20 W2 Bg8 21 Ade2 g5 The Fischer plan. 22 Dg Ag6 23 Dad Dtd7 24 Wh2 Ac6 25 De3 Eeg8 26 b4 Compared to the Taimanov-Yusupov game above, Black has played a similar build-up, but White is much better placed than in the other game. His kingside is better defended with the knight on g3 instead of b3; he has gained space on the queenside and maintained piece co-ordination. 26...%a8 27 Dce2 Bh6 28 Dd4 Zg7 29 Db3 Dg6 30 Ad4 £6 31 dg1 31 &xf6 Axi 32 Wxf6 d5 is the kind of thing Black is hoping for. 31...Ade5 32 2e3 2b7 33 Ddd 2cB 34 Wd2 2d7 35 Bc3 De7 36 Bdc1 Wes 37 2f2 15 As happens in many Hedgehog games, a protracted series of manoeuvres is eventually broken by a pawn thrust and sharp play. 38 exf5 exf5 39 Hel f4 40 Dea Whs In the case of 40...d5, Ionov gives 41 exd5 Dxd5 42 ALS Dxc3 43 Axh6 Axes 44 Hxe4 with an ongoing initiative for White. 41 h3 g4 42 fxg4 Exg4 Better was 42...Dxg4 43 Wxf4 Dgo. 43 D6 Bxf6 43...2ixg2+ was a better try, though White is still clearly on top after 44 2xg? Hxf6 45 Wer. 44 hxg4 &xg4 45 Re2 £3 46 Dxf3 Zhe 47 Dh4 D5 48 Bh3 Exploiting the pin on the g4-bishop, this removes any threats along the h-file. 48...2f6 49 DxfS WxfS 50 axg4 Wxg4 51 We2 We6 52 Wed Eg6 53 Zg3 1-0 Game 17 Beliavsky-Adams Dortmund 1998 1 d4 Df6 2 c4 e6 3 g3 cB 4 DIB cxd4 5 @xd4 104 c5 2 Df3 Dfo 3 d4 cxd4 4 Axd4 e6 5 g3 is the standard English Opening order to reach this position. 5...ab4+ 5...Wc7 6 c3 a6 is covered in Game 18. 6 ad2 6 @c3 transposes to the Nimzo-Indian. 6...Wb6 Black also has: a) 6...e7 7 Bg? Aco 8 RE4 0-09 Dc3 a6 10 0-0 @xd4 11 Wxd4 d6 12 Wd3 We7 13 Hfdi Hd8 14 Bacl Dh5 15 Rd2 Bbs 16 Ded Df 17 Axfo+ Qxf6 18 Rf4 e5 19 Se3 £e6 20 b3, when White has aslightly better game, Topalov-Kramnik, FIDE World Championship, Las Vegas 1999. b) Alternatively, Black can adopt policy of simplification with 6...S2xd2+ and now: bi) 7 Wxd2 Des 8 We3 Was+ 9 Ad2 47Symmetrical English Wxd2+ 10 Wxd2 @xd2 11 dxd2 de7 12 2g? Acé 13 €3, which may be a fraction better for White. b2) 7 Dxd2 Who 8 D2b3 Wh4+ 9 Wd2 Wxd2+ 10 dxd2 Dc6 11 &g? Axd4 12 Axd4 d6 13 Bact he7 14 Hhdi &d7 15 el (Taimanov-Bronstein, Tbilisi 1959) and White can claim to be slightly better, but only slightly 7 axb4 Other options at this point: a) 7 e3 looks tame against Timman’s approach: 7...Ac6 8 2g? 0-09 0-0 Eds (Pre- viously 9...d5 10 cxd5 Axd4 11 &xb4 Wxb4 12 Wxd4 had worked out to bea little better for White) 10 &xb4 Wxb4 11 &xc6 (11 Wb3 is equal according to Timman) 11...bxc6 12 Axc6 Wxb2 13 Axd8 Wxal 14 Wd6 h6! 15 a3 Wxa2 16 We7 Ba6 17 @xf7 Bf8 and White is scrambling to stay in the game, Adianto-Timman, Bali 2000. b) After the sharp 7 £g? &c5 White gives up two pawns, and the position can be dangerous for Black if he is not careful. White gets some compensation for the material, but ultimately this should not be worth more than equality against accurate play. After 8 €3 (not 8 &c3 e5) 8...Rxd49 exd4 Wxd4 10 0-0 Black has: bl) 10...Wxe4 11 Bad (11 Rf4!?) 11..Wd3 12 @b4 Wadi 13 Bixdi d5 14 Dos kd7 15 Dd6o Dc 16 Lad BEB (the danger inherent in the position for Black is illustrated by 16...Ad8 17 Hacl Des 18 &xd5! Faibisovich-Vaganian, Voronezh 1969, and suddenly Black is in trouble) 17 Bact Hb8 18 &h3 a5 19 Ded de8 and here White should repeat moves with 20 Dd6+. Instead after 20 &xf8 dxf8 21 Acs de7 Black has consolidated and has two strong central pawns, which are more than enough for the exchange. b2) Alternatively, Black can settle for one pawn instead of two, which seems to prom- ise an equal game, e.g. 10...2c6 11 Da3 0-0 12 Bc3 We5 13 Wd2 We7 14 Abs d5 15 Lxi6 Wxfe 16 cxd5 Bd8 17 Wc3 Wxc3 18 Dxc3 exd5 19 Dxd5 f8 20 Bfcl &d7 21 Dc7 %-¥2 Stean-Adorjan, Vienna 1980. 7...Wxb4+ 8 De3 0-0 This is a natural move, especially as grabbing one of the pawns on offer seems too dangerous. However Black hasa range of alternatives: a) The capture 8...lixe4 cannot be recommended - White quickly gets an initiative: 9 e4 Wc5 10 Db3 We7 11 5 Dds 12 Dxd5 exd5 13 Wxd5 Dc6 14 0-0-0 0-0 15 £4 with a big space advantage; Black will have trouble developing his c8-bishop, Zil- berstein-Alburt, Odessa 1972. b) 8...Wxb2 is more double-edged, e.g. 9 Dadb5 Wh4 10 Ac7+ ded8 11 Wd? Des 12 Dxeb+ fxe6 13 Axed Wxd2+ and in this ending White has tried: bl) 14 Sxd2 b6 15 2g? &b7 16 Bhdi Dab 17 de3 (the pin on the h1-a8 diagonal means that White has to spend time unravelling) 17...8e7 18 &f3 Sxe4 19 xed Hab8 (Petursson-Forintos, Ljubljana 1981) and given the weak c4-pawn, Black is at least equal. b2) 14 Axd2 is more accurate since White gets control of the long diagonal: 14.827 15 Bg? Dcb 16 0-0 b6 17 Det Rab 18 Bact Baf8 19 Hfdi Bf5 20 Bd2 Ha5 21 c5, when White liquidates her only weakness and meanwhile has a fair initiative going, Alexandria-Litinskaya, Vilnius 1980. ©) 8...6 9 a3!? (9 Wb3 is also possible) 9...Mixc4 (9...We7 10 2g? gives White a slightly preferable position, since Black cannot easily develop his queenside without getting a ‘bad IQP’ or ‘bad Hedgehog’ position) 10 Eci 0-0 11 g2 Ac6 12 Axcé dxc6 13 Das We4 14 Dbo Ha7 15 Wd6 and Black is under a lot of pressure, Zilberstein- Mochalov, USSR 1974. d) 8...2\c6 may well be Black’s best, e.g. 9 @db5 0-0 10 e3 d5 11 a3 WaS 12 b4 Wd8 13 cxd5 exd5 14 Bg? Rg4 15 Wd2 De5 16 Dd4 Hc8 17 0-0 Wd7 and the position is 48equal, although Black’s position is now somewhat easier to play, Hausner-Pinter, Skara 1980. 9 Wb 9...We5 9...liixb3 10 axb3 Ac6 11 €3 is slightly better for White according to Beliavsky. White gets the h1-a8 diagonal and open a- file, while Black has a cramped set-up. 10 Hd1 a6 Adams gives 10...2c6 11 Wb5 We7 12 2g2 as better for White. 11 &g2 Dc6 12 Axc6 dxc6 After 12...bxc6 13 0-0 d5 14 Da4 Was 15 We2 Ha7 163 White has good play against Black’s pawn structure and weakened dark- squares, Rashkovsky-Mikhalchishin, Cheli- abinsk 1975. 13 0-0 e5 14 Dad We7 15 Wh6 The natural 15 Db6 Hb8 16 Axc8 Bfxc8 17 Hd2 is also quite good for White. 15...2e6 16 b3 Had8 17 h3 Adams prefers 17 We3. 17...h5! 18 We3 18 Wa7 is also possible. 18...2f5 19 Dc5 aS 20 Dad! We7 To prevent We3-b6. 21 Dbe White has in mind c4-c5 and ®c4-d6, as well as Wc5. 21...Bfe8 22 05 The immediate 22 Wc5 allows the simplifying 22...Dd7 23 Dxd7 Bxd7 24 Bxd7 White Plays an Early d2-d4 Wad7 hitting the h3-pawn. 22...%e6 23 Wg5 2d5 24 Hfet Axg2 25 &xg2 We7 26 Exd8 Exd8 27 Het dq?! ‘Adams claims equality after 27...We6. 28 DcB We6 29 Dd6 g6 30 Zc4 Here 30 @xb7 can be answered by 30...h4 with some kingside play. However, the line 30 Hc3! e4 31 He4 Bxc4 32 bxc4 b6 33 Db7 bxc5 34 Dxas Dd7 35 Wd8+ &g7 36 Wc8 leaves White on topin the endgame (Shirov). 30...b5 31 Exd4 exd4 32 Wia Dd5 33 Wxd4 Wxe2 34 a4 bxad 35 bxad £5 Black tries a kingside rush, presumably in White's time trouble. 35...Wel is the stead- ier move. 36 Dc4 h4 37 Wxh4?? 37 @xa5 Wa6 (37...hxg3 is unsound because of 38 Dxc6 gxf2 39 Wxd5+ 7 40 We5+) 38 Db3 and White is a pawn up. 37.44! Out of the blue, White’s knight is attacked, while Black also threatens ...f4-f3 with a quick mate to follow. 38 Wa8+ 38 Wg4 is answered by 38...f3+. 38...2h7 39 Wd7+ Bh6 40 gxf4 0-1 In this hopeless position, White lost on time. Game 18 Dyachkov-Aseev Russian Championship 1996 1 d4 Df6 2 c4 eG 3 g3 c5 4 Df3 cxd4 5 Dxd4a 1c4.c5 2 Df3 Alo 3 d4 cxd4 4 Axd4 e6 5 g3 is the standard move order. 5...We7 Instead 5...Wb6 is perhaps an underesti- mated choice. After 6 Sg? &c5 7 3 Dcé there is: a) 8 Db3 Bb4+ 9 Bd? Des 10 We2 ds 11 cxd5 and now: al) 11..Dxd5 12 0.0 &d7 13 Dc3 Ate 49Symmetrical English 14 Det Hc8 15 Wd Axes 16 Rxe4 Rxd2 17 Wxd2 Act 18 Wd4 Wxd4 19 Dxd4 is equal, Ellers-Suba, Bern 1995. a2) 11..Wa6 12 Qxb4 (12 21 D+ 13 di Wb6 and White's displaced king compensates Black for his sacrificed pawn) 12... Dd3+ 13 #2 Dxb4 14 We3 Dbxd5 15 Wd3 Wxd3+ 16 xd3 b6 17 Ac3 Kab+and Black is on the attack, Sosonko-Suba, Tunis 1985. b) White can try a pawn sacrifice with 8 0-0 Axd4 9 exd4 2xd4 10 Ac3 e5 11 AbS 0-0 12 Axd4 exd4 13 b3 d5 14 a3 He8 15 5 WaS 16 &b2 Wxc5 17 Rxd4 Wo 18 Sxf6 Wxi6 19 Wxd5 with equality, Haba- Sax, German Bundesliga 1993. 6 Ac3 6 Ad? is also possible. Given the theoretical status of the gambit played in the main game, this is perhaps White’s best try at this juncture, Although it looks somewhat insipid at first sight, White has a fair chance of gaining a small edge from the opening. a) 6...a6 7 &g2 Acé and now: al) 8 Dxc6 dxc6 9 0-0 Le7 10 We2 0-0 11 b3 e5 12 Bb2 Reb 13 a3 a5 14 c5 Dd7 15 b4 £6 16 Dc4 axb4 17 axb4, as in Stean- Cebalo, Smederevska Palanka 1980, gives White a typical, small but nagging edge. a2) 8 D2b3 dé 9 0-0 Rd7 10 e4 Be7 11 Re3 Axd4 12 Wxd4 0-0 13 h3 e5 14 Wd3 bS 15 Bfct bxc4 16 Hxc4 Ws 17 Wd? a5 18 Bacl &d8 19 Dai Ha6 20 b3 ho 4-4 Gelfand-Leko, Istanbul Olympiad 2000. b) 6...Dc6 7 DbS Wh8 8 Rg? a6 9 Dc3 b5 10 0-0 Re7 11 a3 0-0 12 b4 Bb7 13 exb5 axb5 14 Db3 De5 15 &xb7 Wxb7 16 Da5 Wab 17 &f4 and White has a slight advantage, Gaprindashvili-Alexandria, Tbi- lisi 1979. c) 6...b6 looks like the pick of Black’s alternatives, e.g. 7 &g2 &b7 8 Ab5 We8 and now: cl) 9 &xb7 Wxb7 10 DM Ded 110-0 26 12 Bc3 Dxc3 13 bxc3 cS 14 Wd3 0-0 15 Be3 Qxe3 16 Wxe3 %4-% Nogueiras-Van der Wiel, Reggio Emilia 1986. €2) 9 e4 a6 10 Dc3 d6 11 0-0 Dbd7 12 b3 Be7 13 Bb2 0-0 14 Hct Bes 15 We?2, Cifuentes Parada-Van der Wiel, Wijk aan Zee 1997, and now 15...Wc7 followed by ..da8-c8 and ...Wc7-b8 is a normal looking Hedgehog, naturally with chances for both sides. 6...a6 7 &g2 Alternatively: a) 7 Wd3 is fairly innocuous: 7... cb 8 Dxc6 dxc6 9 Bg? e5 100-0 Leb 11 Dat Y%-4 Kasparov-Kramnik, London (7th match game) 2000. Note the move order used by Kramnik in this game was 1 c4 c5 2 Df3 Afo 3 d4 cxd4 4 Dxd4 a6!? 5 Dc3 6 6 g3 We7. This is a clever move order which might find some followers. White could try 5 Dc3 e6 6 Bg5 which is similar to the line 1 c4 5 2 DF3 D6 3 Dc3 Deb 4 d4 cxd4 5 Dxd4 e6 6 &g5 (covered in the notes to Game 20) except that Black has committed himself to an early ...a7-a6. Having said that, Black has scored reasonably well from here Alternatively, if 5 g3, then Black can try 5..d5 6 2g? and then either 6...dxc4!? or 6...e5!? with a theoretical position from the Catalan, where Black has the extra move 1-87-26 (cf. 1 d4 Df6 2 c4 c5 3 DB cxd4 4 ADxd4 e6 5 g3 d5 6 Kg? €5). Obviously 7 ®b5 is prevented, but still, if White retreats with 7 De2 (or 7 D3 or 7 Db3), it is not entirely clear how much the move ...a7-a6 helps. b) After the alternative 7 2g5 Black may as well grab the pawn, since this seems to leave him clearly better: 7...Wxet 8 Bet c6 and here: bt) 9 @b3 Ded was very good for Black after 10 2g? (10 Dxet Wred 11 £3 Wes) 10...2xg5 11 h4 Wet 12 hxgs Wxg5 in Komarov-Aseev, St Petersburg 1997. b2) 9 Ach Wh4+ 10 &d2 axb5 11 Bxb4 Sxb4+ 12 Hc3 Bxa2 13 Wb1 and Black is somewhat better according to Aseev - he 50White Plays an Early d2-d4 has a decent amount of material in return for the queen. 7... Wxe4 Again, Black should probably take the pawn, unless he wants to avoid the drawish lines discussed later in this game. However, routine development will leave White with a nice position. 80-0 The alternative is to rush the al-rook to the c-file 8 &f4 Acé 9 Axc6 bxc6 10 Bel Wh4 11 a3 and now: a) 11...Wb7 12 2d6 2xd6 13 Wxd6 with a further split: al) 13...WWb8 14 Wc5 Wa7 15 Wde Wbs, repeating moves (%4-% Sosonko-Kavalek, Wijk aan Zee 1978). a2) 13...Wxb2 14 0-0 Wb8 15 Wcs Wc7 16 Hb1 Xb8 17 Bxb8 Wxb8 (Ca.Hansen) and now White should play actively with 18 efeg.: a21) 18...e5 (or 18...Dg4 19 £4) 19 f4 exf4 20 e5 fxg3 21 exf6 gxh2+ 22 Hh gxfo 23 Belt dd8 24 We7+ &c7 25 Dd5+ winning. 222) 18...d6 19 Wxc6+ Bd7 20 Wxa6 0-0 is away to return the material and equalise. b) 11...Wexb2 (suggested by Ca. Hansen) can be met with 12 Da4 Wxa3 13 0-0 when despite Black’s 3-pawn advantage, he is struggling. White’s immediate threat is Dat b6, so Black needs to kick the f4-bishop: 13...Dh5 (or 13...4a7 14 Abo Lb7 15 28 Ha8 16 Dxa8 Sxa8 17 Bal WS 18 Whi and the days of the bishop on a8 are num- bered) 14 Se5 f6 15 Abo fxe5 16 Axa8 Se7 17 Dbo and White will win back a couple of pawns, leaving him with a material edge. 8...Dc6 8...Wc7 continues the fight, e.g. 9 Sg5 Be7 10 Ect Dcé 11 €4 0-0 12 Be3 Was 13 ‘We2 and White has central pressure in return for the pawn, Flear-Renet, Paris 1986. 9 Dxc6 bxc6 10 &F4 Wha Instead after 10...d5: a) 11 e4 Le7 12 a3 a5 13 Bet Wa6 14 exd5 exd5 (Ostojic-Petronic, Banja Vrucica 1991) leaves Black better - he has good chances to consolidate his pawn gain. b) 11 Ect Wh4 12 a3 Wa5 13 04 Re7 14 exd5 exd5 15 Dad Wb5 16 Wicd Leb 17 Hfel 0-0 18 &f1 Wad 19 b4 Wd8 20 Wxco and White is on top, Wolf-Lau, German Bundesliga 1985. 11 e4 Be7 12 a3 Wh7 Now both sides have to acquiesce to ba- sically the same draw by repetition that we saw in Kavalek-Sosonko above. 13 2d6 2xd6 14 Wxd6 Wb8 15 Wc5 Wa7 16 Wd6 Wb8 17 Wc5 Wa7 18 Wd6 ate Game 19 Vaganian-Planinc Hastings 1974/5 1 d4 D6 2 64 c5 3 AFB cxdd 4 Anda ‘Once again we've arrived at the normal position via an anti-Benoni move order. 4...06 5 De3 Sib4 6 DAdbs 6 Std2 is not an awe-inspiring move, but is perfectly playable: a) 6.6 7 a3 Re7 8 Led h6 9 Rh4 W6 10 €3 0-0 11 b4 a5 12 c5?! (Instead Murey gives 12 b5 De5 13 Dat Wa8 14 c5 d6 with an unclear position) 12...Wd8 13 Eb1 axb4 14 axb4 b6 and White’s pawn structure is collapsing, Cu. Hansen-Kinder- mann, Dortmund 1988, 51Symmetrical English b) 6...0-0 7 a3 &c5 8 Db3 Le7 9 g3 d5 10 cxd5 exd5 11 Le3 Deo 12 Vg? Leo 13 0-0 Hc8 14 AbS Des with a reasonable IQP position for Black, Salov-Lautier, Dos Hermanas 1995. 6 g3 transposes to the g3 variation of the Nimzo-Indian, which lies outside the scope of this book. 6...0-0 Alternatively 6...d5 7 exd5 exd5 8 2g5 0.09 3 a6 10.3 Be7 11 Ad4 Acé 12 Le2 ho 13 Qh4 Whe 14 W3 Wxb3 15 Dxb3 Reb 16 0-0 g5 17 Bg3 Des 18 Bact Af6 with equal chances, Murey-Brodsky, Hel- sinki 1992. 6...A\c6 transposes to Game 22, note to Black’s 6th move. 7 a3 &xc3+ 8 Dxc3 d5 ‘And now White can grab the pawn, otherwise Black should get easy equality. 9 295 h6 10 Sxf6 Wxf6 11 cxd5 exd5 12 Wrxd5 Or 12 e3 and now: a) 12...Hd8 13 Wd4 Wxd4 14 exd4 Acé, which Gipslis gives as slightly better for White, in fact looks okay for Black after 15 0-0-0 £f5 16 b4. b) 12...Dc6 13 Wxd5 Bd8 14 WE Wee 15 Bi is the move order quoted by ECO to reach Kaminsky-Kapengut (see note to Black’s 13th), but this is bogus as here Black would have 15...S.g4 (instead of 15...xd14) and if 16 Bxd8+ Exd8 17 Wg3 Wbi+ 18 xb1 di mate. White needs to play something like 15 Eel, which in fact looks good for White. 12.208 13 WF Or 13 Wb3 Aco 14 3 with an unclear position, 13...Wb6 Better than 13...Wg6, as played in Kaminsky-Kapengut, Orel 1974, even though after 14 Ed Axdi+ 15 Axd1 Dcé Black still has compensation for the pawn. 14 Bd1 Exd1+ 15 Dxd1 Dc6 16 Wes? White must play 16 e3. Black now won in spectacular fashion. - 16...2d4 17 We8+ &h7 18 3 Dc2+ 19 a2 BA US, At 7) mya 6 OE a0 ea at ate a Detas 19...2f5!! 20 Wxa8 Wd6+ 21 G1 Dat 22 Wxb7 We7+!! 0-1 A dream finish - after 23 Wxc7 Db3 is mate. sd Game 20 Korchnoi-Ponomariov Donetsk (8th match game) 2001 1 c4 c5 2 Df3 DT 3 Ac3 DAc6 4 d4 cxd4 5 Axd4 e6 6 a3 ‘An idea championed by Jonathan Speel- man and also frequently adopted by» Korchnoi. White aims to control the centre, usually with e2-e4, by first preventing the annoying ...S2f8-b4. Although perhaps initially adopted as a way of avoiding the 52highly theoretical 6 g3, rather ironically there is now a significant body of theory on the Speelman Variation. 6 Sg5 is another attempt to avoid the main lines. After 6...Se7 7 e3 0-08 2e2 b6 (or 8...Wa5 9 S&h4 Hd8 10 0-0 d5 11 cxd5 @xd4 12 Wxd4 Dxd5 13 Sxe7 Dxe7 14b4 We7 15 Dbs Wd7 16 Wb2 Acé 17 Efdi and White is a little better, Gelfand- Kramnik, Amsterdam 1996) 9 Ddb5 d5 Black is in reasonable shape, e.g. 10 &xf6 Bxf6 11 cxd5 exd5 12 Wxd5 Wxd5 13 @xd5 Axb2 14 Hb1 Led 15 Hel Dad 16 f4 &2b2 17 He2 Rf6 18 2F3 BFS 19 Hc7 Hac8 20 Dxa7 Bxc7 21 Axc7 Hd8 with good play for the pawn, Stangl-Alterman, Beijing 1995. 6...2e7 Black has a number of alternative moves at this point, but his most common two plans are: 1) to play a quick ...d7-d5 or 2) aslower build up using the Hedgehog structure with ...b7-b6 and ...d7-d6. The c8- bishop can be developed on either b7 or a6, while the c6-knight is typically relocated via wDeb-e5-d7. a) 6...8205 7 Db3 Le7 8 e4 0-09 Le2 b6 10 0-0 &a6 (10...Sb7 11 Be3 dé 12 f4 Bc8 13 £3 We7 is also playable) 11 £4 Hic8 12 &e3 dé and now: al) 13 &f2 We7 14 Hct Wb8 15 Ad2 b7 16 b4 Wa8 17 Bet Dbs 18 2d3 @Dbd7 19 Be3 Bfd8 with an unclear position, as in the game J. Horvath-Hracek, Bu- dapest 2000. a2) 13 Bol Db 14 Ad2 Lb7 15 23 Dbd7 16 We2 a6 17 &f2 We7 18 Bfet Hfd8 with chances for both sides, Agde- stein-Emms, Cappelle la Grande 1993. b) Instead, a more ambitious idea is 6...We7 7 Ddb5 Wb8 8 g3 a6 9 Dd4 Axd4 10 Wxd4 b5 11 e4 e5 12 We3 We7 13 cxbS cS 14 WE Qd4 15 Bg5 Lxc3+ 16 bxc3 @xe4 17 Wxe4 2b7 with complications which proved favourable for White in White Plays an Early d2-d4 Timman-J.Polgar, Hoogeveen 1999. ©) 6...d5 was played in some early Speel- man games in this line, but has fallen out of favour. Still it is given as equal in ECO on the basis of 7 cxd5 exd5 8 Sg5 £e7 9 e3 0-0 10 &b5 AeS 11 0-0 h6 and now: cl) 12 &xf6 Lxf6 13 Wb3 a6 14 Ber Dcb 15 Had! Bxd4 16 exd4 Reb 17 2F3 Dad 18 Wa2 Ac4 with equality, L-Hansen- Petran, Budapest 1989. c2) However, White can keep the tension with 12 &h4 (or 12 LF4!2) since 12...De4? 13 &xe7 Dxc3? (13...Wxe7 14 Dxd5) 14 &xd8 Axd1 15 &c7 wins for White. d) 6..Axd4 7 Wxd4 bo 8 Wha 2b7 (8...2c5 9 4 d6 10 Se3 e5 11 We3 0-0 12 Sxc5 buc5 13 Wd3 Bb8 14 0-0-0 is an unclear alternative given by Korchnoi) 9 e4 dé 10 &d3 Se7 11 Wg3 0-0 (11...Bc8 12 Wxg7 Bg8 13 Wh6 Hc5 with compensation according to Korchnoi) 12 &h6 De8 13 2d2 and White is better, Korchnoi-Sax, Wijk aan Zee 1991 7Te4 Alternatively 7 g3 Wb6 or 7 £41? d5 (7...0-0!2) 8 cxd5 Dxd5 9 Dxc6 bxc6 10 Rd2 2f6 11 We2 Hb8 12 €3 0-0 13 2d3 ho 14 0-0, which is slightly preferable for White, Speelman-Lutz, Munich 1992. 7...0-0 5 8 cxd5 exd5 9 BS is good for White, but after castling, Black is now ready for ...d7-d5. 53Symmetrical English 8 O13 a) 8 Re2 allows easy equality after 8...d5, for example 9 exd5 exd5 10 0-0 Dxd4 11 Wxd4 Be6 12 cxd5 Axd5 13 Axd5 &xd5 %-% Korchnoi-Kasparov, Horgen 1994. b) After 8 2b3?! the knight is more awkwardly placed on b3 than f3 - it blocks the b-pawn and is further away from the kingside (see Korchnoi-Greenfeld below). Nevertheless, Korchnoi notes that no-one else has adopted his pet move 8 @f3, but that probably means that the majority is wrong! 8...b6 9 2e2 and now: bi) 9...Rb7 10 LF4 dé 11 0-0 Bc8 12 ig3!? De5 13 Dd? g5!. An instructive idea. Black later built up kingside pressure with wu D05-B6, ...82 98-87, ...LLf8-h8 and ...h7-h5- h4 in Korchnoi-Greenfeld, Beersheba 1992. b2) 9...a6 10 Be3 Hc8 11 f4 do 12 2d3? (12 H!?; 12 0-0 Dbs 13 Dd2 d5 14 cxd5 exd5 15 exd5 Dxd5 16 Dxd5 Wxd5 17 Bxa6 Dxas 18 Df Wed is equal - analysis by Sax) 12...d7! 13 82? (13 0-0 Dc5 14 Dxc5 bxcd is unclear) 13...0c5 14 Dd2 Bh4+! 15 g3 Lf 16 Hel Ad4 17 fi €5 18 b4 Ace6 19 £5 S&g5! and Black is more than OK!, Xu Jun-Adorjan, Shenzhen 1992. 8...Wc7 ‘This was an improvement over an earlier game in the same match, which Korchnoi credits to Ponomariov’s trainers (Kuzmin and Schneider). However, 8...We7 is on record as a recommendation from the early 90s, by... Korchnoi! In the earlier game, the young GM had a bad Hedgehog day after 8...d6 9 Le2 b6 100-0 2b7 11 Sf4 Bc8 12 Hel a6 13 fl We7 14 b4 Bfd8 15 Bel De5 16 DAd2 Wh8 17 h3 Lc6 18 We2 Ags 19 &g3 Wb7 20 Ab3 hé 21 Bbi As 22 £3 Hes 23 2f2 Wb8 24 We Dd7 25 Hedi Lb7 26 Dat Ages 27 Dxb6 Dxb6 28 Waxb6 Dxct 29 Kxct Bxc4 30 Dad He7 31 b5. A model queenside attack by the master anti-Hedgehog protagonist. White is much better, though he faltered and took 117 moves to win, Korchnoi-Ponomariov, Do- netsk (2nd match game) 2001. 9 &g5 b6 10 &d3 10 Sth4 with the idea of quickly targeting dé is a possible improvement. 10...h6 Or 10...,b7 with regular Hedgehog play. 11 &h4 11...h5 An interesting and original treatment. 12 2xe7 Dxe7 13 0-0 Sa6 14 Hei Ata 15 Db5 &xbS 16 cxb5 Wd 17 Ob1 Wxd1 18 Hexd1 d5 19 e5 g5! Making it harder for White to defend his e5-pawn. Objectively, Black is doing fine, although Korchnoi is later able to make his greater endgame experience pay. 20 Hfe1 Hac8 21 h4 g4 22 Dh2 hs 23 £3 93 23...gxf3 24 Dxf3 Hed leaves White with nothing special according to Korchnoi. 24 Df Deg6 25 Bd4 Be4 26 Excd dxc4 27 &xg6 fxg6 28 Dxg3 28 He4 gives White better chances. 28...2d3 29 He2 Hd8 30 De4 Axes 31 Dg5 Ed5 32 a4 &g7 33 Dxe6+ H16 34 Dg5 Sf5 35 De4 Bd3 36 Ac3 Bd4 37 De4 Bd3 38 wh2 Zb3 39 Dd6+ #f6 40 DeB+ LIS 41 DAdé+ G6 42 og ba 43 Hed we6 44 DcB S16 45 Dxa7 Exad 46 Dc6 Dd3 47 De7 Axb2 48 Dds+et7 54White Plays an Early d2-d4 Korchnoi claims that this is the losing move. He gives 48...2f5 49 Axb6 Hb4 (but White wins after the alternative quoted: 49...c3 50 Dxa4 c2 51 Bf4+ Bed 52 Axb?2). Now after 50 Ac8 gf6 (Not 50...c3 51 De7+ Sf6 52 Dd5+) 51 Ad6 Hb3 Black may be holding on. By winning this final game, the veteran tied the match. 49 Ee7+ &f8 50 Eb7 Ad1 51 Exb6 c3 52 Hc6 HaS 53 b6 Zb5 54 Hc7 Exd5 55 b7 Eb5 56 Ec8+ w17 57 b8W Exbs 58 Exb8 c2 59 Kc8 De3 60 wt2 DFS 61 g3 Dd4 62 94 de6 63 we3 Hd5 64 Ec3 g5 65 hxg5 hxg4 66 fxg4 1-0 Game 21 Ki.Georgiev-Topalov Sarajevo 2000 1d4 Df6 2 c4 e6 3 Ac3 c5 4 AF3 cxda 5 Dxd4 Ac6 6 AdbdS 6...d5 For 6...2c5 and 6...Sb4 see Game 22. 7 ata 7 cxd5 is sometimes tried, and at least has the benefit of creating more unbalanced play than the main line with 7 &f4, e.g. 7...@xd5 and now: a) 8 Axd5 exdS 9 Wxd5 Vb4+ 10 2d2 We7 11 a3 Bxd2+ 12 Wxd2 0-0 13 Wi (If 13 Wd6 Portisch gives 13...léig5 with compensation) 13...2d8 14 e3 a6 15 Ac3 Bd4 16 e4 f5 with play for the pawn, Burmakin- Naumann, Budapest 1992. b) 8 e4 Dxc3 9 Wad8+ dexd8 10 Axc3 is pretty much equal, e.g. 10...£c5 11 2g5+f6 12 0-0-0+ £d7 13 Bh4 a6 14 deb1 g5 15 ig3 de7 16 h4 h6 17 Bel &d4 18 Dat De5 19 Dc5 4-4 A.Petrosian-Sivokho, St Petersburg 1993. 7..05 8 cxd5 exf4 9 dxc6 bxc6 10 Wxd8+ sxdB ‘As happens in several lines of the Sym- metrical English, an early clash in the centre quickly transposes to a queenless middlegame. This particular line was most popular in the early 1980s, and still occasionally pops up at GM level, but over the years, White has not been able to prove any path to an advantage. Black’s two bishops and open lines for the rooks (the b- and e-files) compensate for his inferior pawn structure. 41 dts Alternatively: a) 11 Dd4 Sb7 (or 11...Rd7 12 g3 fxg3 13 hxg3 Lb4 14 2g? Qxc3+ 15 bxc3 dec7 16 Hb1 Bab8 17 0-0 Bb6 18 Bb4 Hc8 with an equal ending, Oll-Emms, Copenhagen 1993) 12 g3 c5 13 Af3 Bd6 14 2g? Bbs 15, 0-0-0 He? 16 Dh4 Lxg? 17 Dxg? fxg 18 hxg3 Se5 19 De3 e6 and Black is not worse in this endgame, Salov-Karpov, Dos Hermanas 1997. b) 110-0-0+ doesn’t seem to gain White anything over 11 Bdl+, eg.: 11...Rd7 12 Ddo &xd6 13 Hxd6 Dgs 14 £3 De3 15 Hd4 g5 16 Det ho 17 Dc5 Dds 18 g3 £5 19 e4 4-4 Wojtkiewicz-Mulyar, San Fran- cisco 2001. 11...2d7 12 Dd6 2xd6 12...98c7 is also possible, sacrificing the £7-pawn (usually only temporarily) in order to keep the dark-squared bishop: 13 Dxf7 Bg8 14 Ded Bb8 15 Dxd7 Dxd7 16 g3 Bxb2 17 &h3 Dc5 (or 17...Df6 ) 18 0-0 Bc2 19 Met Bxcl 20 Hxci fxg3 21 hxg3 Qe7 22 &g2 Hb8 with a level position, Korchnoi-Portisch, (5th match game) Bad Kissingen 1983. 55Symmetrical English 13 Exd6 Eb8 14 b3 14 Rd2 Be8 15 g3 £3 16 dedi fxe2+ 17 Sexe? Bc7 18 Lcd He7 19 cl LF5 20 b3 Bbe8 (Stohl-Xu Jun, Beijing 1996) and once again, Black is fine. 14...Eb4 15 g3 we7 Or 15...8c7 16 Bd2 Bf5 17 &g2 Des 18 Dxet Sxe4 19 0-0 Sxg? 20 dxg? Hds 21 Bixd8 %-¥ Hellers-Ernst, Sweden 1998. 16 Ed2 h5 An improvement over 16...c5, Korchnoi- Portisch, (7th match game) Bad Kissingen 1983, after which White should try 17 gxf4 Bxf4 18 Bgi g6 19 Bg5 when the weakened light squares gives White some faint hope of maybe getting an edge. 17 S92 h4 Black’s energetic play aimsto give White a weak pawn to counter-balance the isolated cpawn. 18 0-0 hxg3 19 fxg3 fxg3 20 hxg3 Bh5! 21 Sf3 Be5 22 Ad1 cS 23 e3 Exe3 24 Dxe3 se6 25 &f2 ab Now Black sets about a similar approach on the queenside! 26 Dd5+ Dxd5 27 Axd5 g6 28 Sixes Sxe6 The position is dead level. 29 e3 a4 30 Bd3 5 31 wf2 bes 32 Ee3+ &d5 33 Ed3+ Sc6 34 wet axb3 35 axb3 Eg4 36 &d2 %b5 37 BI3 Ed4+ 38 2d3 Hed 39 Zd8 Ng4 40 Hd3 wb4 41 Bf3 Hd4+ 42 Sc2 Hed 43 EF4 Exta hh Game 22 Sorokin-Rodriguez Villa Gesell 1998 1 c4 c5 2 D3 Dc6 3 dé cxd4 4 Dxad DHE 5 Dc3 More recently white players have started to experiment with the immediate 5 g3: a) 5...Wa5+!? 6 Dc3 Ded 7 DdbS a6 8 Dc7 + Wxc7 9 Dxed 4-2 Nogueiras-Miles, Havana 1999, although of course there is still much to play for! b) 5.n€6 6 Sg2!? (6 Bc3 reaches the main lines) 6...#b6 7 Ab3 (7 Dc2 d5 8 cxd5 exd5 9 0-0 Le6 10 De3 Rds 11 2g5 &Re7 was equal in Bischoff-Ftacnik, Hast- ings 2000/1) 7...e5 8 Wc2 Wa6 9 5 d5 10 cxd6 &xd6 110-0 &d7 12 De3 Be8 is unclear, Gelfand-Ivanchuk, Lviv 2000. 5...e6 6 AdbS cB Given the highly drawish nature of the _ main line 6...45 (covered in the previous “\ game), players trying to win with Black are in need of an alternative line. Well, here is 2 your dynamic but risky option. It has also been played relatively infrequently, so there, is more scope for original analysis. Alternatively: 4) 6...d0b4 is also playable, e.g. al) 7 a3 &xc3+ 8 Dxc3 d5 9 €3 (9 cxd5 exd5 10 &g5 0-0 11 e3 Se6 is also equal) 9...0-0 10 cxd5 exd5 11 Le? 2£5 120-0 d4 13 exd4 Dxd4 14 Qd3 Qxd3 15 Wxd3 @b3 and Black is at least equal, Z.Polgar- Agdestein, Groningen 1993. a2) 7 S.f4 0-0 and now 221) 8 &d6 Axd6 9 Dxd6 Whe 10 Wd2 Dd4 11 3 De2+ 12 Wxc2 Wado 13 Le? a6 14 0-0 b6 15 Bfdi We7 16 Rd2 2b7 17 Badi Bid’ %-% Rustemov-Dvoirys, Skelleftea 2001. 222) 8 Bc7 We7 9 Ad6 Bxd6 10 Wxd6 Wd8 11 €3 (11 0-0-0! DeB 12 Wg3 a6 13 Dd6 Dxd6 14 Rxd6 b5 with decent play for Black) and here: a221) 11...Wa5 12 Wd2 d5 13 cxd5 Dxd5 14 Dxd5 Wrxd2+ 15 dxd2 exdS 16 243 &e6 17 Hhei Bad8 and Black is close to equalising, though White retains a small initiative, Gulko-Kaidanov, Denver 1998. a222) 11...a6 12 Dd4 De8 avoids too much simplification, e.g. 13 We5 d6 14 Dxc6 We7 15 De7+ Wre7 16 Wd4 247 17 Se2 &c6 and Black has a reasonable position, McCambridge-De Firmian, USA 1989. b) 6...d6 7 Rf4 e5 8 Re5 269 Lxfo gxf6 10 a3 Leb 11 e3 £5 12 Wd2 Hc8 13 Be2 56White Plays an Early d2-d4 g7 140-0 e4 15 Bact h5 16 Ads h4 17 f4 exf3. 18 gxf3 and White is slightly better, Adamski-De Firmian, Roskilde 1998. 7 ata 7 Adé6+ should not worry Black, e.g. 7...ae7 8 Dxc8+ Bxc8 9 €3 d5 10 cxd5 @xd5 11 DAxd5S+ Wxd5 12 Wxd5 exd5 13 2d3 De5 14 He2 Dxd3 15 Hxd3 Ad6 16 Rd2 Les 17 Bact deb with equality, Ti- mochenko-Zagorskis, Pula 1997. 7.851? After 7...0-0 8 &d6 (8 &c7 We7 9 &d6) Black has the additional option of 8...Wb6 (8...Rxd6) 9 Sxc5 Wxc5 10 e3 d5 with equal chances. 8 ag5 8 Le3 is the ‘official’ refutation, but read on, 8...2xe3 9 Dd6+ Gf8 10 fxe3 Ags 11 Wd2 and now: a) 11...h5 12 g3 Wg5 13 e4 (13 Adi is similar to the analysis below) 13... Wxd2+14 hxd2 h4 15 Bg2h3 16 Bf Dfo 17 €3 b6 18 Ehd1 a5 and Black has nothing to worry about, Anikaev-Yurtaev, Frunze 1979. b) 11...Wg5 and now: bl) 12 e4 Wf6 13 ¢3 Axe3 14 Wxe3 (14 Dxc8? Ad4 15 Ad3 Wh4+ 16 Wi2 Dxg2+ 17 $f1 Wh3 wins for Black, Palatnik-Sideif Sade, Uzhgorod 1988, while 14 Dxf7 is a suggestion of Rogul)) 14...Wxd6 15 &d3 hS 16 Ad5 b6 17 Hl DAb4 18 Wi Dxd3+ 19 Wxd3 &b7 20 0.0.0 Hc8 with an unclear position, Vadasz-Rogulj, Karlovac 1979. b2) 12 Dd1 is given as better for White in ECO and in acouple of monographs, on the basis of the obscure game Weise-T'rapl, Oberhausen 1961, which continued 12...¢6? 13 g3 @g7 14h4 We7 15 2h3 Dho 16 Ac3 £5 17 0-0-0 b6 18 Bg? Lab 19 b4, with a crushing position for White. However, this position definitely deserves further analysis. Not only is Black’s play in this game very weak, but 12 Ad1 and indeed 8 2e3 was rejected by several strong players. The Yurtaev game above should also not be ignored. There is nothing inherently better about White's set-up, and as always concrete factors come to the fore: b21) 12...Axh2!? is worth a look, but falls short, e.g. 13 Wd5 Ads 14 Aet Who 15 Ddf2. 22) 12...Wg6 is possible, when Black threatens ...Ag4xh2, e.g. 13 g3 (13 Axc8 Bxc8 14 Wxd7 is not possible because of 14...8d8 15 Wxb7 We2) 13...2d4!? (Black needs to act before White completes his development with &f1-g2 and 0-0) 14 exd4 Wxd6 15 &h3 Dfo with an unclear position. b23) 12...h5 to pre-empt g2-g3, and allow the rook lift ...2Lh8-h6, is perhaps best of all. Black seems to have decent chances here. 8...Wb6 Black also has: a) 8...h6 9 Bxfo Wao 10 e3 0-0 11 Le2 We6 120-0 d6 13 Qh5 WIS 14 AFF Bd8 15 a3 Reb 16 Ret Wg5 17 Bd5, Sorokin- Braga, Pico City 1996, White is slightly better because of his light-squared control. b) 8...Sxf24! 9 dexf2 Dg4+ 10 del Wes 11 Dc7+ Gd8 12 Dxa8 WE4! and here: bl) 13 Dds Wi2+ 14 dd2 Wd4+ 15 Set Wf2+ %-% Grinshpun-Shabtai, Tel Aviv 1995. b2) 13 Wd6o Wf2+ 14 ded2 and here: b21) 14...We3+ 15 Wal (or 15 Bel Wi2+ with a draw) 15...f2+ but here 16 c2 (not 57Symmetrical English 16 Se1 Db4 as given by Bagirov) 16...\d4+ 17 &b1 is good for White after all! b22) 14...Wf44! (found by John Emms) 15 Bc2 (15 Bdi De3+ 16 el Ac2+ or 15 bet Wi2+ draw, while 15 sed3? e4+ 16 @xe4 Df2+ wins for Black) 15...Dd4+ 16 b1 Wd2 and White cannot avoid a draw. b3) White can play on with 13 Wd2 but it might be asking for trouble: 13...Wf2+ 14 Bd1 De3+ 15 kel Dxfl with a wild position. Okay, well Black only draws in this line too, but at least (compared to the previous game) you didn’t have to suffer in a tedious ending! If the line given in the next note is indeed strong for White, then Black should probably bale with this draw. 963 Bagirov gives the surprising 9 &xf6! Bxf2+ (9...gxf6 10 €3 a6 11 Dd5 Wa5+ 12 @bc3 is good for White) 10 gd2 when Black is struggling to find a decent follow- up: a) Bagirov suggests that Black’s best may be 10...gxf6 11 Ad5 WaS+ 12 dcl 0-0 13 3, even though this still favours White. b) 10...e3+ 11 dc2 DAb+ 12 &b3 is good for White. ©) 10... b4 is answered by 11 Wb3. d) 10...We3+ 11 Sc2 gxfo (11...0-0 12 Dd5 Wed+ 13 &c3 a6 14 Abc7 Bb8 15 Se7 Ld4+ 16 ded? wins) and now: dt) 12 Dds West 13 Wd3 is given by Bagirov, but maybe here 13...Wxd3+ gives a playable position for Black. d2) However, 12 Dc7+ 8 13 Wael is decisive. As mentioned above, Black should probably play 8...S.xf2+ to avoid all this. 9...a6 10 Dad 10 &xfé is still critical. After 10...axb5 11 Sxg7 Bg 12 Lf6 bxct 13 Lxct Bxg??? (13...Wxb2 is unclear) met a swift end: 14 Wd5 Ad8 15 Wxg? Wxfo 16 We8+ 218 17 0-0-0 b5 18 Det WHS 19 Add 1-0 Berebora-Rade, Solin 1994. 10.,.Wa5+ 11 Dbe3 11 Wd2? loses to 11...8b4 12 Dbc3 De. 11...De4 12 Dxe5 Dxc3 Not 12...Dxg5 13 Wd6, preventing Black from castling. 13 Wd2 Wxc5 14 Wxc3 16 15 2h4 d5 ‘The dust has settled, and Black is fine. In return for the bishop pair, he has a lead in development and the h4-bishop is boxed in by Black’s pawns. 16 cxd5 Wxd5 17 £3 Le6 17...e4 could also be tried. 18 &d3 Db4 19 2e4 WbS Black is slightly better according to Ribli, but he is unable to turn his initiative into anything substantive. 20 a4 Wb6 21 0-0 Bc8 22 Wd2 0-0 23 a5 Wb5 24 Sel &c4 25 Bf2 Dd3 26 ixd3 ixd3 27 Wb4 Efd8 %-% Game 23 Karpov-Topalov Linares 1994 1 d4 Df6 2 c4 cB 3 Df3 cxd4 4 Dxd4 26 5 g3 Ac6 6 Sg2 Or 6 Dc3 Se5 which usually comes to the same thing. 6...265 6...b4+ is less flexible, e.g, 7 23 0-08 0-0 We7 9 Da4 when White is able to complete his development unhindered and keep 58White Plays an Early d2-d4 Black under some pressure (compare this to the line 6...1#b6 7 Db3 Des 8 e4 Ab4 9 We2 - Games 25-26 - when White has to go through some contortions before cas- ting). Now after 9...d5 10 cxd5 exd5 11 Bg5 h6 12 Axfo Wxfo 13 Dc? Rds 14 Dxb4 Dxb4 15 Wd2 Dc6 16 Bact and here: a) 16...Rg4 and now instead of 17 h3 {5 18 Bfdl e4 with counterplay for Black (Akesson-Alterman, London 1994), Zviaginsev gives 17 Bfel!, so that if 17... We72! White can win material with 18 Sxd5 Abs 19 &xf7+ Wef7 (19...s2h8 20 Wes or 19...dexf7 20 WE4+) 20 Wxbe etc. b) 16...S25 17 Bfd1 &e4 18 2h3! da! 19 Dc5 Ld5 20 Dxb7, Ivanchuk - Zviaginsev, Elista Olympiad 1998, and now 20...2e5 21 Sg2 Qxg? 22 dexg? Bd5 would have minimised White’s advantage according to Zviaginsev. 7 Db3 7...e7 If Black plays 7...Sb4+ then 8 Zc3 d59 cxd5 Axd5 10 0-0 is a promising pawn sacrifice: 10...Axc3 (10...Rxc3 11 bxc3 Dxc3 12 Wxd8+ followed by &c1-b2 gives White good play for the material) and now White needs to decide whether the queen trade happens on di or d8: a) 11 Wxd8+ dxd8 12 bxc3 &xc3 13 Bb1 a5 14 Be3 Rb4 15 Bfcl He7 16 Ad4 with good play for the pawn, Lautier-Leko, Cap d’Agde 1994. b) 11 bxc3 Wadi 12 Bxdt £xc3 13 Bb1 0-0 14 Dc5 and now: bl) 14...54d8 (14...Ad4!? is Christiansen’s suggestion) 15 Bxd8+ (15 Sb2!? can be answered by 15...2a5) Dxd8 16 Dxb7 Dxb7 17 &xb7 Hb8 18 Bb3 Bxb7 19 Bxc3 &d7 %-% Ftacnik-Smejkal, Marianske Lazne 1978. 2) Black went quickly downhill after 14...05 15 £a3 LE5 16 Rxb7 Da5 17 Hc7 Hac8 18 Dab Bfd8 19 Hxd8+ Bxd8 20 Bxc3 1-0 Razuvaev-Polugaevsky, Moscow 1985. 8 Dc3 1 cA c5 2 Df3 Do 3 dd cxd4 4 Dxd4 6 5 Dc3 Acb 6 g3 Bc57 DAb3 Le7 8 Lg? is another typical English move order to reach this position. 8...0-0 A more active alternative is 8...b69 £f4 0-0 100-0 Sa6l? 11 AbS d5 12 Ac7 Lxc4 and now White can play either: a) 13 Dxa8 Wxa8 14 Bel e5 15 Bes Eds 16 Bet h6 17 Sxfo Axfo 18 We2 Ws 19 Ad2 Ad4 20 Wd1 S26 and Black has some compensation for the exchange, Korchnoi- Ftacnik, Ceska Trebova 1997. b) 13 Ad? is less critical, e.g. 13...Bc8 14 Dyxc4 g5 15 Lxgs Wxc7 16 Dd2 We5 17 Sxi6 &xfo 18 Bb1 Bids 4-4 Van Wely- Hracek, Batumi 1999. 90-0 d6 10 &f4 DhS Black needs to oust the bishop before it becomes a pain. Instead 10...a6 11 Bicl Ags 12 Dad Bbs 13 h3 b5? 14 cxb5 axb5 15 Hxc6 bxat 16 Bxd6! &xd6 17 Wxd6 e5 18 Wxbs exf4 19 Dcs Wd4 20 Ad3 gave White a decisive advantage, Vladimirov- Kunte, Kelamabakkam 2000. 1163 This is aclear-cut and instructive idea. 11 {Re3 is also playable, and after 11....d7 12 Dd4 Wh8 13 Bet Dfo 14h3 Md8 15 Wd2 De5 16 b3 a6 17 Bid White is slightly better, though Black’s shell is hard to crack, 59Symmetrical English Spraggett-Llvanov, New York 1983. 11...2Dxf4 If 11...g6 12 2h6. 12 exf4 12.807 Other moves that have been tried: a) 12...2a5 and now: al) 13 Wd3 Dxb3 14 axb3 Wh6 15 We3 Wxe3 16 fxe3 a6 17 Hfdi Hb8 with balanced chances, Pelletier-Larsen, Zurich 1998. a2) 13 2d2 gives White a big plus according to Pelletier, e.g. 13..0d7 14 b4 Deb 15 Hb1 with a big space advantage. b) 12...a6 13 Hcl and here: bi) 13..Bb8 14 We2 Wh6, P.Nikolic- Feletar, Neum 1999, and now 15.5 dxc5 16 Dat Whs 17 WxbS axb5 18 Daxcd is strong for White according to Feletar. b2) 13...2a5 14 Dxa5 Wxad is unclear according to Feletar, but White can just play 14 2d2 with advantage as in ‘a2’ above. 13 Wd2 Wb8 14 Bfe1 With f4-f5 in mind. 14...96 14...d8 allows White to carry out his plan and weaken Black’s structure, e.g. 15 £5 De5 16 fxe6 Rxe6 17 Dd5 Vxd5 18 Rxd5 We7 19 Bact &f6 20 Dd4 Wa7 21 bg? Bac8 22 b3 and White is in control thanks to his light-squared dominance, Teplitsky- G.Shahade, Bermuda 2001. 15 h4 a6 16 hS White's ‘crab’ formation edges forward to nibble at Black’s kingside. 16...b5 16...2a7 17 h6 b5 18 Dd4 with abig plus for White according to Karpov. Black could keep his disadvantage to a minimum by 16...8d8 17 Bad1 eB but, quite typically, Topalov prefers active counterplay. 17 hxg6 ‘One of the key ideas for the side with a kingside majority in such positions is to exchange off a pair of pawns and thereby loosen the opponent’s defences. In this game, this pays off in spectacular fashion. 17...hxg6 18 Dc5! dxc5 19 Wxd7 Ec8 we 20 &xcé Ba7 21 Wd3 Hxc6 22 cxb5 axb5 23 Axb5 c4 is not so clear. 20...2a7 If Black accepts the sacrifice immediately then 20...fxe6 21 Wxe6+ deg7 22 &xcb Ba7 23 Bet Rf6 24 We4 wins for White. 21 Exg6+! fxa6 IfBlack plays 21...<8f8 then 22 Wh3 fxg6 23 Wh8+ &f7 24 2d5 mate, while if 21...@h7 22 Wh3+ dxg6 23 Let+ £5 24 Waxf5+ g7 25 Wh7+ Lf8 26 Wh6+ de8 27 SAxc6+ is one way to win. 22 We6+ &g7 23 Axcé Zd8 24 cxbS One of the nice things about this game is that White first sacrifices material with great * drama (18 Ac5!, 20 Bxe6!!, 21 Bxg6+!), but then appears to play in slow motion, Black * 60White Plays an Early d2-d4 is so tied up that White can just take the queenside pawns. 24...216 25 Dea ada If 25...&xb2 26 Bb1 Rd4 27 b6. 26 bxa6 Karpov points out two alternative winning lines: 26 Wg4 axb5 27 £5 and 26 f5 gxf5 27 Wxf5. 26...Wb6 27 Bd1 Wxa6 28 Exd4 A 3rd rook sacrifice! 28...xd4 29 Wi6+ wg8 30 Wxg6+ ots 31 We8+ g7 32 We5+ Or 32 Axc5. 32...g98 33 Di6+ St7 34 Le8+ HB 35 Wxc5+ Wd6 36 Wxa7 Wxfé Black could try for stalemate with 36...Bd1+ 37 &g2 Bgl+ but White escapes with 38 #h3 (38 dexgi Wdi+ 39 dg? Whit 40 dexh1 is a draw) 38..,We6+ 39 Dg4 winning. 37 Bh5 Ed2 38 b3 b2 39 wg2 1-0 This game was awarded the prize for the Best Game of Informator 60. Game 24 Timman-Alterman European Team Ch., Pula 1997 1 04 c5 2 D3 Ac6 3 Ac3 AE 4 da cxd4 5 Axd4 e6 6 g3 Wb6 7 DAdbS In order to avoid the extensive theory of the main line with 7 ®b3 (covered in the next two games), White can try this move, which probes at the dark squares c7 and dé. 7...De5 This move is best, as it is against 7 Mb3. Not only is c4 under attack, but ...Wb6-c6 becomes possible in some positions, plus Black can sometimes attack f2 with ...f6(or e5)-g4. Both sides needs to be alert to unusual tactics over the next few moves, before the game settles into a regular pattern. Alternatively: a) After 7...S.c5 White should continue with the bold 8 &g?! since Black does not appear to have a dangerous follow-up. Against non-forcing moves, White will simply castle, leaving Black with a silly piece formation - he would have to lose a lot of tempi just to develop his c8-bishop. Black has tried: al) 8...a6 9 Ad6+ Be7 10 Ades Axes 11 Axes Bb4+ 12 SEI! (This is better than the automatic 12 2d2 since it leaves the bishop hanging in the air on b4) 12...d6 13 2e3 Wa8 14 We2 WaS 15 a3 £5 16 Edi fxes 17 axb4 Wxb4 18 &xe4 and White has an overwhelming advantage, Marin-Sion Cas- tro, Benasque 1999. a2) 8...2xf2+ 9 Sf1 Dgs 10 Wde dds 11 Bg5+ {6 12 Dat Wa6 13 h3 Wad 14 hxgt Sb6 (a better try is 14...2xg3 15 AUxf6+ gxf6 16 Wxg3 and White still has a large advantage according to Yemelin) 15 Exh7 He8, Greenfeld-Yemelin, Beersheba 1998, and now 16 &h4 g5 17 Bdi Ae7 18 b3 Wa6 19 b4 wins according to Yemelin. b) 7...d5 8 2g? d49 Das Wa5+ 10 2d2 Rb4 11 Dc5 0-0 12 Ad3 Axd2+ 13 Wxd2 Wexd2+ 14 dxd2 Bd8 15 c5 Dek 16 Da3 £6 17 £4 &d7, Kasparov-Vaganian, Skelleftea 1989; now 18 bé is best and, according to Kasparov, White stands slightly better. 8 &g2 Instead after 8 £4 Afg4 9 e3: a) 9...Wic6 does not work out because of 10 h3 @f3+ 11 he2 Dges 12 b3 g5 13 Ber gxf4 14 exf4 and White wins his piece back but retains a strong grip on the position: 61Symmetrical English 14...a6 15 fxe5 axb5 16 &xf3 We5 17 AxbS Wrxe5+ 18 G1 2g7 19 a4! Greenfeld-Liss, Rishon Le Zion 199%. b) 9...a6 and then: b1) 10 Dc7+2 Wxc7 11 Wxg4 Wc 12 Wd1 Wc6 13 e4 Ags 14 Bd2 b5 15 Bg? &b7 (De la Villa Garcia-Rojo Huerta, Cala Galdana 1999) and White is fighting for equality. b2) 10 h3 axbS 11 hxg4 Axc4 12 W3 d5 13 Bxcd dxct 14 Wxb5+ Wxb5 15 DxbS Qb4+ 16 de? and after a flurry of ex: changes we have a fairly level position, for example: b21) 16...0-0 (16...e7!2) 17 Bde &xd6 18 Dxdé e5 19 g5 Reb 20 Eh4 4-% Lalic- Emms, London 1997. b22) 16...Ba5 17 a4 &d7 18 Rd6 Rxd6 19 Axd6+ de7 20 Dxc4 (White actually got into some trouble with 20 @xb7 Bd5 21 b4 cxb3 22 Hhb1 Hc8 due to his errant knight, Delchev-Sax, Medulin 1997) 20...Bxa4 21 Bxat &xa4 22 e4 Hc8 23 d3 AbS 4-4 L.Hansen-Cu.Hansen, Aalborg 2000. 8...a6 9 Wad 2b8 Other tries for Black: a) 9...Deg4 10 0-0 Bb8 11 b4!? axb5 12 ®xb5 d5 (surprisingly, this is the only move, e.g. if 12...e7 13 c5 Wd8 14 Wa) 13 Ddo+ de7 14 c5 Wa 15 We2 De8 16 b5 Wa8 17 £4 Dxdo? (17...f5 - Seirawan) 18 Rxd6+ He8 19 Rxb8 WxbS 20 a4 with a huge queenside pawn-roller, Kramnik- Anand, Monaco (rapid) 1994. b) 9...Dfg4 10 0-0 Bb8 11 a3 h5!? 12 Wh3 We7 13 QF4 Be7 14 Ded bo 15 We3 £6 16 h3 Dh6 17 b4 Dhi7, Delchev-Hulak, Radenci 1998. Black has an unusual set-up but is doing okay. 10 Be3 &c5 11 Axc5 Wxe5 12 Wa3 bé This is more popular than the original try 12...Wxa3, though Ponomariov used this move recently. 13 xa3 and now: a) 13... hy | Ww’ \ ss \\ S . awn (U2 WV’ 20 &d6?! 20 He5 Qxb5 21 Rxd5 Rxd3+ 22 Wxd3 exd5 23 Wb3 e4 24 Wxd5 keeps White’s advantage. 20...2¢37! Tempting, but Black should have attacked the b4-pawn with 20...We7! 21 Dc Hb8, which would have given White some problems. 21 Hat We7 22 De4 &b5 23 Axc3 dxc3 24 Exc3 e4 25 fixed White can return the exchange and still keep an edge due to the passed b-pawn. 25...f5?! 25...Wd7 26 Bact &xc3 27 Hxc3 Hd8 28 Sg1 Wd4 limits Black’s disadvantage. 26 Gf3! £4 27 94 Wa7 27...d0xd3+ 28 Hxd3 &xal 29 b5 and the b-pawn gives White a winning position. 28 &g2!? Rather than try and defend the extra pawn, say by Hal-di, White switches to attack. 28...axc3 29 Wxc3 Wxd3 30 We5 Wea 31 Het Bes 31..,Sc6 32 Wxeb+ Wxeb 33 Bxe6 Rxf3+ 34 sexf3 is a winning rook ending. 32 Wd6! &g7 33 g5 h6 34 h4 Gh7 35 Re4 {3+ 36 &g3 Wo3 37 He3 Wet 37...Wal 38 Rxg6+ txg6 39 Bxe6+ Bxe6 40 Wxe6+ dg7 41 gxh6+ @h7 (41...2h8 42 We8+ Bh7 43 Wh7+) 42 Wi5+ Sxh6 43 112Symmetrical English with 92-93 Wxb5 wins. at il mB 38 Sxg6+! White calculates that he can clean up the kingside pawns, and eventually win the b5- bishop by checking the black king. 38...2xg6 39 Hxe6+ Exe6 40 Wxe6+ $97 41 Wxh6+ &g8 Or 41.27 42 g6+. 42 Wg6+ @hs Tf 42...22f8 43 Wi5+. 43 Wi6+ &g8 44 We6+ g7 45 We5+ $96 46 Wxb5 Wg1+ 47 &xf3 Whi+ 48 $e3 Welt 49 bed Whi+ 50 de5 We1+ 51 &d6 1-0 Game 45 Aleksandrov-Krasenkow New York 1997 1 c4 cB 2 De3 Ac6 3 g3 g6 4 Ag2 Ag7 5 d3 e6 6 e4 Dge7 7 h4 In this game we examine attempts by White to create kingside play with an early h2-h4. Also possible is 7 Dge? 0-0 Black can try 7...b6, delaying castling until White de- clares his hand) and now: a) 8 a3 dé 9 Hb1 b6 10 h4 2b7 11 h5 ADd4 12 Af4 Dec6 13 hxgs fxgs 14 Le3 Wie 15 Dh3 Des 16 £4 D7 17 0-0 We7 18 b4 Hab8 19 Ae2 2a8 20 Dxd4 cxd4 21 Rd? Bfe8 22 Hf2 Lc6 23 b5 Ld7 24 Lb4 cB 25 05 We7 26 Dgs BEB 27 Bc6 Bd7 28 Bed Dxgs 29 fxg5 dxeS 30 WES winning, Miezis-Mikanovic, North Bay 1999. b) 8h4 h6 9 h5 g5 10 f4 g4 11 Re3 Dds 12 22 (a typical manoeuvre to enable White to play Ae2xd4) 12...Aec6 13 Axd4 @xd4 14 &xd4. In this position White doesn’t mind exchanging the bishop, as with both Black knights off, he can com- bine kingside pressure with the threat of dropping his own knight into dé. 14...cxd4 15 Db5 Whe 16 €5 £6 17 0-0 fxe5 18 Wxgt 4 (18...a6 19 fxe5) 19 £5 with a strong attack, Jirovsky-Shulman, Pardubice 1999. The game continued 19...exf5 20 Bxf5 Ze8 21 Wi4 d5 22 Exd5 exd3 23 Bd6 We5 24 d5+h7 25 Wi7 and White was winning. 7...n6 8 2e3 Dd4 9 Dge2 Dec6 10 a3 Perhaps White should try 10 h5 g5 11 f4, though this is obviously less effective when. Black has not castled kingside: 11...gxf4 12 gxf4 followed by ste3-f2. 10...d6 11 Sb1 a5 12 D4?! It is not clear what White’s set-up has achieved. 12...Bb8 13 0-0 0-0 14 a4 Dba 15 Dbs b6 16 Wd2 &h7 Black is already slightly better. White should normally avoid capturing on d4 with the bishop as he now has potential dark square weaknesses, on e3 and c5 for example. The way Krasenkow exploits this is instructive. 17...cxd4 18 De2 e5 19 #4 h5 20 Bf2 113Symmetrical English &h6 21 Ebf1 94 Black has a tangible advantage, with pressure against White’s centre pawns. 22 Gf3 Qxf3 23 Bxf3 £5 24 Act Zb7 25 Wg2 Ebf7 26 Db3 We7 Threatening ..e5xf4, winning the epawn 27 Bet fxe4 28 Bxea Wd7 29 Dd2 exfa? Black begins to lose the thread of the game. Krasenkow gives 29...Dc6 30 fxe5 DxeS 31 Bxf7+ Bxf7 32 Axd4 Dxd3 as winning for Black. 30 Dxd4 d5? 30...fxg3 31 Deb He8 32 Dgs+ Qxgs 33 hxg5 Hef and Black is still better. 31 cxd5 Wxd5 32 De6 HeB 33 Axta Axia 34 Efxf4 Bo1+ 35 Df1 Dxd3 36 Exf7+ Wxf7 37 We2 Dc5 38 Eta Wd7 39 947 A time trouble blunder. White should just play 39 WF2. 39...2d3! White is not able to keep the g4-pawn sufficiently defended. 40 Hea Het 41 Wg2 Exea 42 Wxea Dc5 43 Wes The a4-pawn drops off after 43 Wed Wxgtt 44 Wxg4 hxgd. 43...Wxg4+ 44 Dg3 Wxh4 45 We7+ he 46 DtB+ Or 46 Wes Was. 46...9xf5 47 Wxb6+ wg5 48 Wxc5 Wel+ 49 S92 h4 50 Wa7 Wea+ 51 St2 We2+ 52 He3 f4+ 53 Sf3 Wd3+ 54 ®f2 We3+ 55 Wxe3 fxe3+ 56 dxe3 S94 57 Sf2 h3 0-1 58 sgl dg3 59 b3 h2+ 60 @hi and White is forced to give up his b-pawn, when Black will queen first - with mate. Game 46 S.Williams-Emms British Championship 2000 1 64 c5 2 Dc3 g6 3 g3 Ag7 4 Ag2 Acé 543 If the move order permits it, the knight tour ...2\f6-e8-c7-e6-d4, which is a typical idea in this set-up, is good for an equal position, e.g. 5 e4 Ato 6 Dge? 0-0 7 0-0 De8 8 d3 Ac7 9 Be3 Aes 10 Wd2 dé 11 Bho Ded4 etc. 5... 16 6 e4 0-0 7 Dge2 dé The inclusion of an early d2-d3 by White means that it is harder for Black to complete the knight tour ...Af6-e8-c7-e6-d4, for example 7...De8 8 Le3 Dd4 9 Dd5!? (an original idea - White loses time in order for Black to block the e6-square with a pawn) 9...06 (if 9...Nc7 Gurevich gives 10 2g5 @xd5 11 exd5 with pressure on e7) 10 @de3 Dc? 11 0-0 Bb8, M.Gurevich- Rashkovsky, USSR 1981, and now Gurevich suggests 12 a4 a6 13 a5 with aslight advantage for White. 8 0-0 a6 Black initiates queenside play while keeping ...Df6-e8-c7 in reserve, There is a little cat-and-mouse that goes on here. White's natural plan is Sct-e3 and d3-d4. However, if Black’s knight remains on f6, White will have to play h2-h3 if he wants to avoid the sequence &cl-e3 ... Mfé-g4. Black reckons that ...a7-a6 is a more useful move than h2- 3, and as we shall see, there is a tactical element that comes into play as well. a) 8...De8 9 £3 and now: al) Of course a key plan is for Black to answer &cl-e3 with ...Ac6-d4: 9...Ad4 10 114Symmetrical English with 92-93 Ebi a5 (10...Dc7 11 b4 bo 12 Wd2 2b7 13 a4 Hb8 14 Db5 Dcxb5 15 axb5 is a bit better for White according to Ribli) and now White has tried: all) 11h3 Sd7 12 f4 Bb8 13 a4 f5 14 Db5 e5 15 Wd2 fxet 16 dxe4 Leb 4-4 Ribli-Hug Altensteig 1994. al2) 11 Wd2 Dc7 12 Rh6 €5 13 Rxg7 hxg7 14 £4 f6 15 a4 Bed 16 Dxd4 cxd4 17 ®b5 Dab with equal chances, Sunye- Casafus, Buenos Aires 1994. a3) 11 a3. White is now poised to play b2-b4 and get pressure down the b-file, so Black gives up the d4-square: 11...Dxe2+ 12 ®xed a4 13 d4 cxd4 14 Bxd4 Res (14...Rd7 15 Dc3 Bc8 may be better) and now 15 Bel We7 16 Bcl &h6 17 Hc2 Dg7 18 £3 Re6 19 Dc3 Bfc8 20 Dds Kxd5 21 exd5 e5 22 dxe6 Dxeb 23 L£2 left White better, Votova-Rogers, German Bundesliga 1996. 22) 9...Dc7 10 d4 (if Black allows this, it is not the end of the world, but White does seem to have good chances of an edge) 10...cxd4 11 Dxd4 De6 12 Dde2 2d7 Oa Y ie \Y \ mie NY \N N \ Oe \Y WN ioe WS \ - J WY Re KG Hol and now White has done well with either: a21) 13 Bel a6 14.4 Dc5 15 b3 Bc8 16 h3 Wa5 17 Dds Hh8 18 Bb1 Wds (Black’s play is very passive) 19 b4 eb 20 f4 We8 21 Bb6 £5 22 Wd3 Ded8 23 b5 (Leitao- Nijboer, Wijk aan Zee 1999), and Black is in danger of being pushed off the edge of the board. 22) 13 f4 a6 14 a4 Bb8 15 Hb1 Dad 16 b3 b5 17 £5 Ac7 18 c5 dxc5 19 Bxc5 Dc 20 axb5 axb5 21 Dd5 Axd5 22 exd5 Des 23 fxg6 hxg6 24 Dd4 Hc8 25 b4 and White is pressing, Schlosser-Movsesian, Tegernsee 1999. b) 8...2d7 is similar to 8...a6, though 8...a6 seems slightly more constructive. c) 8...He8 The last two editions of ECO quote the game Temirbaev-Lanka, Moscow Olympiad 1994, which supposedly contin ued 9 Le3 Dd4 10 Wd? a6 11 Lhé6 etc. But Isuspect Black 8th move was a misprint (or database error) for 8...e8, since in the line quoted White could simply take the pawn on d4 with 10 Dxd4 cxd4 11 Sxd4. 9h3 Of course White can play other moves, but then he has abandoned his key idea of fighting for the d4-square. For example 9 a3 Eb8 10 Hb1 b5 11 cxb5 axb5 12 b4 cxb4 13 axb4 Reo 14 h3 Wd7 15 Af4 Bfc8 16 Dxeb Wxeb 17 De2 Ha8 18 Re3 Bat 19 Wd2 Ha2 20 Af4 Bxd2 21 Axes Ee2 with a complex ending, Salov-Shirov, Moscow 1992. 9...Bb8 10 a4 DeB 11 Be3 &d7 A natural developing move, but one which contains a well-disguised trap. In- stead 11...d4 is also a sound equalising move. After 12 Hb1 2d7 13 b4 Axe2+ 14 Dxe2 cxb4 15 Bxb4 b5 16 cxb5 axb5 17 axb5 Wa5 18 Wb3 Bxb5 19 Hb1 Bxb4 20 Wxb4 Wxb4 21 Exb4 Dfo 22 Bb7 White has only a token initiative, Williams-Bekker Jensen, Witley 1999. 12 dal? 12 bi Ac7 13 dé is safer. Then if Black wants to keep it simple, he can play 13...cxd4 14 Dxd4 @xd4 15 Rxd4 Pxd4 16 Wxd4 b5 (16..We8 17 Gh2 Deb 18 Wd3 Dc5 19 We? b5 keeps slightly more play in the position, and Black even won - eventually - in Jacoby-Hebden, Copenhagen 1985) 17 cxb5 axb5 18 axb5 @xb5 and a draw was agreed here in M.Gurevich-El Taher, Tanta 115Symmetrical English 1997. 12...exd4 13 Dxd4 Wes! This is the point! Black hits both the h3- pawn and, indirectly, the c4-pawn. I found 11 games in the database (including an earlier game of Williams) where White had allowed this position, but Black had missed 13...Wc8. Having said that, White does get compensation for the pawn, so objectively 12 d4 is probably not a dubious move. 14 Dd5 Or 14 #h2 Dxd4 15 Rxd+ Wrct 16 Sixg7 Dxg7 (16...kexg7!?) 17 Dd5 Bfes 18 Wd2 Deb 19 Kfct Wd4 20 Wxd4 Dxd4 White won the pawn back after 21 Xc7 £e6 (21...8c6 22 Dxe7+ Bxe7 23 Hxe7 df8) 22 Dxe7+ W823 Bdi Bxe7 24 Hxe7 dxe7 25 Exd4 a5 26 b4 b6, but Black retains a small edge in the ending, Kanellopoulos- Mastrovasilis, Patras 1999. 14...8xd4 15 &xd4 &xh3 16 23 16 Black is asolid pawn up, and constructsa pawn barricade on the 3rd rank to limit ‘White’s attacking potential. Perhaps Black should, however, take a more active approach with, for example, 16...Rxg2 17 ‘xg? Web (17...f512) 18 Bh1 {6 when White needs to attend to the e4-pawn. 17 4 &xg2 18 &xg2 e6 19 De3 De7 20 Wg4 g7 21 Baet We6 22 Hh2 Williams has made it difficult for Black to consolidate, and maintains annoying threats against the Black pawns. White now threatens Wg4-h4 and De3-g4. 22.05 If 22...Wxa4 then 23 Wh4 De8 24 Dg. 23 Wh4 Gh8 24 fxe5 dxeS 25 &b4 g5 26 Wig4 Zf7 27 Ed1 Hes 28 2d6 White would actually be somewhat better after 28 b3! 28...Wxaa Grabbing a second pawn and hoping to weather White's initiative. 29 &c3 Dg8 30 Zfd1 Zefs 31 Wh3 31 Bd7 is answered by 31...h5. 31...b5 32 Ed7 b4 33 Exf7 Exf7 34 We8 bxc3 After this move, White can force a draw. The winning attempt 34...2e7 is, however, risky, e.g. 35 Bd8 He8 36 Bxe8 Dxe8 37 2d2 when although Black has atwo-pawn advantage, his pieces very awkwardly placed, while White has a dangerous cpawn and powerful outposts for the knight on f5 and d5. Nevertheless, there is nothing clear for White after 37...a5, e.g. 38 c5 (38 Df5 We2 39 Wxe8 Wxd2+ 40 gi Wels) 38...Wb5 39 c6 We2+ 40 Dg? Ade 41 Wd8 Wxd2 42 7 Wdé etc. 35 Ed8 De8 36 Exe8 Zg7 37 Web! cxb2 38 Exg8+ Exg8 39 Wxf6+ Bg7 40 Wr8+ Zg8 41 Wet %-% Game 47 Csom-Adorjan Hungarian Championship 1993 1c4.c5 2.93 g6 3 Sg2 Ag7 4 Ac3 Acé 5 DIB e6 6 0-0 If White wants to spice up the position, he can try the 6 d4 sacrifice (covered in. Game 48) or alternatively there is 6 a3 Dge7 7 b4l2. Black now has several valid replies: a) 7..cxb4 8 axb4 Axb4 9 La3 Decs (9..Dbe6 10 DbS 0-0 and now Watson recommends 11 £d6 - instead 11 dé a6 120.0 b5 Cavili-Wohl, Gold Coast 2000, is good for Black) 10 Wad a5 11 bi Hb8 12 0-0 0-0 13 Ba2 d5 14 Dxb4 axb4 15 Lxb4 116Symmetrical English with 92-93 Dxb4 16 Wxb4 dxct 17 Wxet Bd7 4-4 J.Watson-Antunac, New York 1981. b) 7...Axb4 8 axb4 cxb4 9 Ded Qxal and here: b1) 10 Wad Bg7 11 Ddo+ eB 12 Wxb4 bg8 (12...h6 leaves White struggling for compensation - 13 2a3 dg8) 13 Dgs Dcb 14 xc6 Wxg5 15 B£3 h5 16 h4 Wd8 17 c5 a5 18 Wad Bb8? (18...Wi6 is still very good for Black) 19 Axf7 &xf7 20 Wi4+ Wee 21 WxbS WeS 22 Wre5 Bxe5 23 3 Mc7 24 2b? and White is slightly better, Pavlovic- Fominyh, Stary Smokovec 1990. b2) Watson’s suggestion 10 d4 still awaits practical tests. Watson analyses 10...c3+11 SFL 0-0 12 Bgs £5 13 Dd6 a5 14 Wad but here 14...4g7 (instead of Watson’s 14...b3) allows Black to start unravelling his pieces. The threat is ...h7-h6 and if 15 Ae5 &xd4 16 &h6+ dg8 17 Rxf8 xed etc. b3) 10 a3 (an original tactic) 10...S2g7 (10...bxa3 11 Wxal) 11 Dd6+ def8 12 &xb4 ho 13 0-0 dogs 14 Wa4 AES 15 Hb1 a5 16 £a3 Axd6 17 &xd6 Hab 18 c5 b6 19 d4 bxc5 20 dxc5 #h7 21 Dd2, Marin-Kolev, Ubeda 1996. White has managed to get some play, but the whole line feels very speculative, as if White is just trying to hold on. ©) 7...b6 (7...d6 8 Eb1 b6 is also playable) 8 Bb1 0-09 bxc5 (9 Dat cxb4 10 axb4 d5 11 b5 Dad 12 cxd5 Dxd5 13 e4 Dc7 14 d4 &b7 15 Dc3 a6 16 bxa6 looks quite nice for Black, though a draw was agreed here in Huzman-Zagorskis, European Team Championship, Pula 1997) 9...bxc5 10 De4 d6 11 &b2 £5 12 Qc3 HbS 13 We? ab 14 0.0 Dds, Van Wely-Leko, Wijk aan Zee 1996, and White has achieved nothing from the opening. 6...Dge7 7 d3 0-0 8 Eb1 a)8 Sg5 h6 9 £d2 bb 10 Ebi, which is similar to the main game. b) 8.4 d5 (also possible is 8...e5 with a likely transposition to Game 49) 9 Bb1 b6 10 Wet &a6 11 Bdl d4 12 Db5 e5 13 Lhe Wd7 14 Sxe7 dxg7 15 3 dxe3 16 fxe3 Had8 17 a3 Df5, Enigl-Leko, Germany 1998, and here 18 b4!? would have led to an unclear outcome. 8...b6 9 2d2 2b7 10 a3 d5 re re poles \ Sek Par WS Wi N tN SS re > 11...Dxds is also perfectly reliable, e.g. 12 Dxd5 Wxd5 13 23 (13 b4 exb4 14 axb4 dé is equal) 13..Ad4 14 Del Wd7 15 Sixb7 Wxb7 16 ¢3 Db5S 17 Lxg7 Sxg7 18 a4 Dd6 19 b4 Bac8 20 b5 Bids 21 Ws Bc7, Wohl-Emms, England 2000, with equality. 12 b4 exb4 12...c4 is overambitious. After 13 b5 Da5 14 Dad Hc8 15 d4 Db3 16 Kb4 He8 17 e3 a6 18 bxaé Sxa6 19 Dd2, Speelman- Chandler, Hastings 1989/90, leaves White a bit better due to pressure on Black’s weak pawns on bé and d5. 13 axb4 d4 14 Da4 Dd5 15 Wh3 117Symmetrical English Or 15 b5 Dce7 16 Wb3 Wd7 17 Bfct Bfe8 18 Dgs Had’ 19 Lh3 DFS 20 Det h6, Cuellar-Bilek, Sousse 1967, with balanced chances. 15...0e8 16 Dg5 Des Instead after 16...@ce7 Adorjan gives 17 e4! dxe3 18 fxe3 HIS 19 e4 Qd4+ (19...Df6 20 Sc3) 20 dh1 Afo 21 c3 with a big plus for White. 17 b5 Wd7 18 Des Threatening 19 Dac5. 18...Had8 19 &g5 Bc8 20 Bfct &hs 21 ad2 21 Dec5 bxc5 22 Axc5 Hxc5 23 ExcS c3 is good for Black. 21...8a8 Black avoids the AcS tactics once and for all. 22 Dgs h6 23 DB Dxf3+ 24 Axt3 b7 25 Hc4 bg8 Black is preparing his ...2d5-c3 ‘shot’, and so improves his piece placement to make the tactics work for him. The light- squared bishop is needed on b7 to defend the c8-rook, while the king is better placed on g8, both defending the {7-pawn, and avoiding any intermediate Sxg7 (this is relevant on the note to White's 27th). 26 Ebc1 If 26 g2, trying to avoid the Black knight coming to e2 with check, Black has the spectacular 26,..8xe2! 27 Hxc8+ Wxc8 28 Mixe2 De3+ 29 bei Wh3. 26...2e3 27 Dxc3? White should go for 27 &xc3 &xf3 28 Sixd4, e.g. 28...2d5 29 S2xg7 2xc4 30Wb2 Sixb5 31 Rxh6 £5 32 Dc3 Sc6 when Black is only slightly better, since his own king is exposed, 27...2xf3 28 Exc8 Tf 28 exf3 dxc3 29 &xc3 Wxd3. 28...Exc8 29 Ded Excl+ 30 &xct Bxe2 31 &xh6? Wh3 0-1 Game 48 Nogueiras-Alvarez Santa Clara 1999 1 c4 cS 2 g3 g6 3 Ag2 Ag7 4 Dc3 Acé 5 O13 e6 6 d4 ES t a Vd, ORE This sharp gambit has revitalised White's play in this line. The alternative, of quiet development, is simply not challenging enough. In practice, Black has had excellent results with the simple plan of ...Dg8-e7, .-b7-b6, ...8c8-b7 and ...d7-d5 (see Game 47). 6 0-0 Dge7 7 dé is also possible, though less critical than 6 dé. 6...0xd4 Black immediately has a key decision to make - how to capture on dé. 6...Dxd4 7 Dxd4 cxd4 and now: a) 8 Abs Whe 9 Wat (9 e3 De7 10 Dxd4 - 10 b3!? - 10...0-0 110-0.d5 12 cxd5 @xd5 and Black has equalised, Bunzmann- Sutovsky, Polanica Zdroj 1999) 9...a6 10 e3 118Symmetrical English with 92-93 d3 110-0 De7 12 Bdi axb5! 13 Wxa8 bxct 14 Bb1 0-0 15 &d2 d5 16 Bde We7, Markowski-Macieja, Warsaw 1998, and Black is better with a huge pawn mass in return for the exchange. b) 8 Det bl) 8...d6 9 Wade de7 10 2d? a5 11 Wa3 {5 12 Rg5+ Dfe 13 Axior Axfo 14 ®xf6 Lxf6 15 0-0 gives White some compensation for the pawn because of Black’s displaced king and lag in development. In this game Black never solved the problem of developing his c8-bishop: 15...Wb6 16 Badi Hd8 17 ¢3 dxe3 18 fxe3 Wh4 19 Wd3 We5 20 Pht Wes 21 e4 Seg? 22 exf5 gxfS 23 g4 £4 24 Wd2 We3 25 Hxf4 winning the pawn back with a better ending in prospect, Schwartzman-Fedder, Copenhagen 1990. b2) 8...d5 9 cxd5 exd5 10 Wad+ df8 and now: b21) 11 Wa3+ We7 12 Ad6 d3 13 0-0 Re5 (13...dxe2 14 Bel) 14 DS Wxa3 15 Dxa3 Gg7 16 exd3 Dl6 17 DbS a6 18 d4 Rb8 19 Dc3 4-4 Chernin-Macieja, Buda- pest 2000. b22) Here 11 Ac5!? is a possible improvement, for example: 221) 11...2g4 12 0-01? (12 Ad3 De7 13 h3 S£5 14 0-0 Red) 12...Qxe2 13 Hel d3 14 Dxd3 Axd3 15 Wa3+ De7 16 Wxd3. White will follow up with 2e3-c5 or-d4 (or &d2-b4 or -c3). He is likely to win back the d-pawn and can try and exploit his bishop v knight advantage: 16...Wd7 17 gs f6 (17...He8 18 He2) 18 2d? Ac6 and now 19 Sxd5 or 19 Le3. 6222) 11...We7 12 Ad3 Lg4 13 0-0; it will be hard for Black to retain both d- pawns, and he has to spend time getting his king safe. 7 Dbs d5 A rare alternative is 7...05, e.g. 8 €3 (8 Dd6+ he7) 8...d6 9 exd4 a6 10 Ac3 exd4 11 Dd5 Age? 12 0-0 Dxd5 13 cxd5 Des 14 Dxd4 Wb6 15 b3 Kgs 16 Wd2 h5 17 Rb2 h4 18 £4 h3, A.Ledger-Gufeld, Hast- ings 1992, with unclear complications. 8 cxdd Wa5+ 9 Wa2z 9 @d2 (this is a major alternative) 9..Wxb5 10 dxc6 De? 11 a4 Wbé6 12 cxb7 Rxb7 13 Act Wh4+ 14 2d2 Wed 15 &xb7 Bbs 16 b3 and now: a) 16...We7 17 &g2 0-0 18 0-0 Bfd8 19 Ect Wd6 20 £a5 Hdc8 21 Wd3 h5 22 b4 Dd5 23 bS We 24 Axd5 Wxd5 25 Hc2 Bxc2 26 Wxe2 e5 27 Bel e4 28 We7 Hes 29 We Wxc6 30 bxcé and White's c-pawn proved to be more dangerous than Black’s central pawns, Markowski-Sriram, Calcutta 2001. b) 16...We5 17 Hct (better than 17 &g2 Dd5 18 Bel Dc3 19 0-0 Whé and Black has the advantage, Markowski-Bologan, Koszalin 1999) and now: b1) 17... Wb6 18 Se4 0-0 19 b4 Hfd8 20 0-0 Ad5 21 Sxd5 Bxd5 22 b5 h5 23 Beco Wd8 24 We2 Be5 25 Hcl, Sulava- Hauchard, Gonfreville 1999, and White is much better ~ he dominates the c-file, and Black’s e-and d-pawns have not got moving yet. b2) On b6 the queen is a target for White’s queenside expansion. Instead Bolo- gan analyses 17...Wd6, where the queen stays in touch with the d5-square, so that Black can play ...Ne7-d5 quickly: 18 &g2 Dd5 19 0-0 0-0 20 &xd5 Wxd5 and Black’s queens ideally posted here, e.g. 21 b4 Bfc8 119Symmetrical English with equality. 9...Wxb5 10 dxc6 Wxc6 The counter-sacrifice 10...2\e7 is perhaps where Black should look for an improvement: 11 Axd4 (following 11 cxb7 Ribli gives 11...&xb7 12 Axd4 Wh6 13 &xb7 Wxb7 14 Df3 0-0 15 0.0 Hfd8 with compensation for the pawn) 11...Wb6 12 ¢3 bxc6. Now both Jansa and Gonzalez recommend 13 0-0 (instead of 13 b3 &a6 14 a3 Hc8! 15 Hdl c5 16 De2 0-0 17 0-0 Bfd8 18 Wc2 Ad5 19 Bxd5 exd5 20 Bfel d4, Fishbein-Jansa, Herning 1991, which is very good for Black) 1 a6 14 di Ed8 15 Wce2 0-0 16 b4!?, with the idea of 16...Wxb4 17 a4, But here 16...5 looks good, and if 17 Ab3 Wxb4 18 a4 Wed. 11 0-0 Wb6 11...Wd6 is often recommended but White got a slightly better ending after 12 b3 Ae7 13 Qb2 0-0 (if 13...e5 14 €3) 14 Sixdd Qxd4 15 Wxd4 Wxd4 16 Axd4 Hd8 17 Bfdi Hb8 18 Haci in Vaulin-Shabtai, Ajka 1992. 12 b3 Df6 13 Des! This is an improvement over 13 2a3 Des 14 We4 Dc3 15 Bfel and now both 15...)d5 (Abramovic-Matulovic, Yugoslavia 1992) and 15...Ab5 (L-Almasi-T.Horvath, ‘Austrian League 1997) give Black good play. 13...De4 Or 13.,.0-0 14 Ba3 He8 (14...2d82! 15 WF4!) 15 Hact, followed by &a3-c5 when White is much better. 14 Gxed Sxe5 15 dad 15...15 Nogueiras suggests 15....d6, when 16 Qxd6 (16 2b2 e5) 16...Wxd6 17 Hadi e5 18 f4 looks a little better for White. 16 Sig2 &d7 17 Bact Planning £a3-c5 followed by the capture of the d4-pawn. White’s goal is to win his pawn back and retain an advantage due to his control of the h1-a8 diagonal and Black’s lack of development. 17...2c8 18 Exc8+ &xc8 19 Ect wf7 20 Sc5 Wa6 21 f4! The immediate 21 Sxd4 is met by 21...8d8. {6 22 &xd4 Wd6 Hd8? 23 Hc7+ Sg8 24 Exc8 and White wins material. 23 3 Sxda 23...H1d8 is answered by 24 Hc4. 24 Wxd4 Wxd4 25 exd4 White’s advantage in this ending lies in the relative activity of his pieces compared to Black’s. His g2-bishop dominates its opposite number, while the white rook will reach the 7th rank. 25...2d8 If 25...8e7 26 &xb7 &xb7 27 Hc7+. 26 Hc7+ &f6 27 &f2! a5 28 te3 b6 29 Exh7 With an extra pawn in the bag, the ending is technically winning. Nogueiras concludes matters smoothly. 29...Bd7 If 29...8d7 then White plays 30 h3, threatening g3-g4-g5 mate! 30 Exd7 Sixd7 31 £f3 &e7 32 d5 ede 33 wd4 &c8 34 dxe6 Lxe6 35 Le2 Gd5 36 &c4 213 37 a3 Ad1 38 b4 axb4 39 axb4 213 40 Se3 2h5 41 h3 &c6 If Black avoids the bishop exchange, then White finally gets his kingside majority moving: 41..&d1 42 @e2 &b3 43 dd4 followed by g3-g4. 42 Re2 2xe2 43 dxe2 Sb5 44 94 fxg 45 hxg4 &c4 1-0 Game 49 Oll-P.Cramling Dos Hermanas 1992 1 04 cB 2 Df3 Ac6 3 Dc3 &5 4 g3 g6 5 ig2 ag7 This line often results from the move order 1c4.c5 2 Dc3 Deb 3 g3 g64 Re? Be7 5 Df ed. 60-0 / 120Symmetrical English with 92-93 6 a3 a5 7 d4!? is another unclear pawn sacrifice. Delchev-Lazarev, Italy 2000 continued 7...cxd4 8 DbS d6 9 e3 Reb 10 b3 fo 11 exd4 e4 12 Dgs Sg 13 We2 215 14 0-0 0-0 15 Axed Axes 16 Lxet Axd4 17 Dxd4 Qxd4 18 Eb1 Lxe4 19 Wed Whe 20 2hé Hfes 21 Wd3, and now 21...Ee6 gives Black reasonable play. 6...d6 7 3b1 Many ideas are of course, the same as in this line with colours reversed (Game 46). White's other main plan is to complete the knight-tour Df3-e1-c2-e3 as quickly as possible, before Black can prepare ...d6-d5: 7 Det Dge7 & Ac2 0-09 De3 Leb 10 d3 Wd7. Black has a straightforward equalising plan - swap the light-squared bishops and then any knights that land on d5! For e: ample 11 Aed5 &h3 12 S&h6 (this ‘trick’ doesn’t achieve anything but the fact that White has no advantage has been proven in many other games) 12...2xg2 13 dxg2 ADxd5 14 Dxd5 De7 15 Dxe7+ 4-% Khari- tonov-Belov, Moscow 1989. The accelerated queenside expansion 7 a3 Dge7 8 b4 can be met by 8...e4!2, for example 9 Dg5 f5 10 &b2 0-0 11 d3 hé 12 @Dh3 exd3 13 exd3 g5, with chances for both sides, Leski-de Firmian, Las Vegas 1996. 7...Dge7 8 a3 a5 9 d3 0-0 Pat On a aint os) FS oh i 10 Det Alternatively: a) 10 S&g5 h62 is a positional error (10...f6 usually transposes to the lines examined below with 11 &g5, as Whites next move is usually Df3-e1), After 11 xe7 @xe7 12 b4 White has very good play on the light squares, while Black’s kingside pawn-storm isa long way from having any bite. b) With 10 £242, White hopes that Black will waste a tempo on ...h6 in order to prepare ...e6 without allowing f3-g5. How- ever, after 10.,.Eb8 11 Det Leb 12 Dc? d5 13 cxd5 @xd5 Black equalises comfortably, and in fact Black has scored well from this position, for example 14 Axd5 &xd5 15 Sixd5 Wxd5 16 b4 axb4 17 axb4 cxb4 18 @xb4 Dxb4 19 Exb4 Bfc8 20 Wb3 Wxb3 21 Bxb3 Bc2 4-4 Ivkov-Brodsky, Wijk aan Zee, 2001. For this reason, the insertion of &g5-d2 and ...{7-{6 is an attempt for White to squeeze something out of the position. 10...0e6 11 295 White provokes the slightly weakening ..<7-£6, which introduces a few tactical resources, Leaving the bishop at home is also possible: 11 Dc2 d5 12 cxd5 Axd5 and here: a) 13 De3 Dde7 14 Ac4 Bb8 15 &g5 fo 16 &e3 b6 17 Wat We7 18 Bict Ph8 19 Wadi Wds %-% Ruck-Huzman, Istanbul Olympiad 2000. b) 13 Det bo 14 Ags Vc8 15 De3 Dxe3 16 &xe3 &d7 17 b4!? cxb4 18 axb4 axb4 19 Wd2 Hc8 20 Bfct Ad4 21 Bxc8 Wxc8 22 Sxd4 exd4 23 Wxb4 We2 with counterplay, Lesiege-Moldobaey, Istanbul Olympiad 2000. 11 Dd5 Hb8 12 Ac? b5 is fine for Black. 11...f6 12 2€3 The aim of this move is to prevent the immediate ...d6-d5. Instead 12 £d2 is more common. Now Black has a choice: a) The idea of leaving the rook on a8, to support the a-pawn, is interesting: 12...@h8 13 Ad5 &xd5 14 cxd5 Db8 15 b4 (maybe 121Symmetrical English White should play on the kingside instead) 15...cxb4 16 axb4 ad 17 b5 Ad7 18 &b4 De5 19 De2 £5 20 Dad DcB 21 Acs Abs 22 @a5 Bxa5 23 Dxa5 Wa8 (Van der Ster- ren-Gdanski, Novi Sad Olympiad 1990), when Black’s a-pawn ‘runner’ compensates for the exchange. b) The main point of provoking ...f7-£6 is supposed to be that 12...45? is met by 13 cxd5 xd5 14 Wb3 with a big advantage according to several books. As no analysisis given, the implication is that White is winning the b-pawn (for example). However it is not so clear after: bi) 14. Dd4 15 &xd5 Dxb3 16 Qxe6+ $h8 17 Qxb3 with three pieces for the queen, or, more to the point: b2) 14...Wb6 15 We2 (15 Wxb6 Dxbs with ...c5-c4 to follow) 15...Ade7 16 Dat Wbs with no particular problems for Black, because of the threat of ...Ac6-d4. ¢) 12...2b8 13 Ac2 d5 14 cxd5 Dxd5 15 b4 axb4 16 Dxd5 Bxd5 17 Qxd5+Wxd5 18 axb4 cxb4 19 Dxb4 Axb4 20 Hxb4 b5 (but even here 20...Hfc8 would render the queen exchange moot because of 21 Wb3 {21 Whil?} 21...Wexb3 22 Bxb3 Hc2) 21 Wb3 (the fact that White can exchange queens gives him a slight edge in the ending - compare this to note ‘b’ to White’s 10th move) 21...Wxb3 22 Bxb3 Bfc8 23 Hb2 £8 24 Efb1 Bb7 25 Sf Bcb8 26 Qb4 xb4 27 Exb4 Bb6 28 Hcl B8b7 29 Bc5 Speelman-De Firmian, New York 1995. White’s active rooks give him an edge, which he later exploited to win. 12...Wd7 Or 12...b6 13 Dd5 Bb8 14 Dxe7+ Dxe7 15 b4 axb4 16 axb4 Wd7 17 Ac2 f5 18 &g5 Deb 19 Bd? cxb4 20 Axb4 Dxb4 21 Axb4 d5 22 cxd5 Axd5 23 &xd5+ Wxd5 24 Wb3 Wexb3 25 Exb3 Bfc8 with a level ending, Pigusov-Mochalov, Katowice 1991. 13 De2 &h3 This is an improvement over the earlier 13...a4 14 b3 axb3 15 Bxb3, which was abit better for White in Andersson-Seirawan, Linares 1983. This game is actually a great example of how to exploit the open lines on the queenside and the light-squared weaknesses in Black’s position, and is well worth playing over in full: 15...2fb8 16 Wb1 a6 17 Eb6 Wc? 18 Bb2 bo 19 &d2 Wa8 20 a4 £5 21 De3 Db4 22 Exb4 (the classic positional exchange sacrifice) 22...cxb4 23 Wxb4 Wed7 24 Bb1 Bds 25 Wb3 Bhs 26 Dc? h6 27 Db4 Ba5 28 ha f4 29 @h2 Sh7 30 Dbd5 Dxd5 31 cxd5 £5 32 Wxb6 Hc5 33 a5 Hdc8 34 Hb3 fxg3+ 35 fxg e4 36 Dxet Hc 37 We3 Wat 38 Hb7 H8c7 39 Bxc7 Bxc7 40 Dxd6 Be2 41 Dxf5 1-0 14 &xh3 14 b4 &xg? 15 Gxg? cxb4 16 axb4 d5 looks good for Black. 14...Wxh3 15 Dea Wd7 16 f4 £5 17 Dg5 h6 18 Dh3 b6 The artificial placements of White's mi- nor pieces make Black at least equal here. 19 b4 axb4 20 axb4 &h7 21 Dt2 Dgs 22 bxc5 bxc5 23 fxeS DxeS 24 24 Dc6 25 e4 g5 26 Act Dge7 27 De3 f4 This pawn proves to be a thorn in White's kingside. 28 gxf4 gxf4 29 Dds £3 30 wh1 Dxds 31 cxd5 Ad4 32 2e3 De2 33 Wh3 Zt7 34 e5 &xe5 35 Wed Za4 36 Bb7 Wxb7 37 Wxa4 Wxd5 38 Wh4 214 39 Oxta Exf4 40 We7+ Wi7 41 Wxt7+ Bxf7 42 Ded d5 43 Dxc5 Bg7 0-1 122Symmetrical English with g2-93 Summary Black should be able to equalise after 5 a3 a6. 53 has the (perhaps deserved) reputation as being the most sedate line. After 5 f3 Black is well advised to play either ...e7-¢6 or ..e7-25 and not allow the lines in the next Chapter where White gets in d2-d4 after ..g8-6. 5 OB 5 is very popular and is perhaps even more solid than 5...e6. White can try and extract a small edge with the &c1-g5 idea, but right now he is looking for inspiration. After 5 Df3 e6 the 6 d4 sacrifice scores well for White, while if White plays the routine (but extremely common) 6 0-0 Age7 Black has nothing to worry about. 1 c4 cB 2 Dc3 Dc6 3 g3 g6 4 Ag2 X97 (D) 5 ALS 523 5...a6 - Game 40; 5...e6 - Game 39 563 5...e5 - Game 43 5...06 6 Age? Dge7 7 Dfa - Game 42 7 d4- Game 41 ..Df6 (D) - Game 46 6 6 Dge? Age? 7 a3 - Game 44; 7 h4 - Game 45 5...e6 5...e5 - Game 49 6 0-0 - Game 47 6 d4 (D) - Game 48 EuawoyaL Pr rtret 123CHAPTER SIX Symmetrical English Main Line with 5 Af3 ATE 1 c4 ¢5 2 Dc3 Ac6 3 g3 g6 3... Df6 4 2g? g6 5 Df3 d5 is another move order to reach the lines covered in Games 53-55. 4 fg2 297 5 Df3 Df6 6 0-0 0-0 6...d5 is covered in Games 53-55. 74 7 d3 d5 is the move order given in ECO. to reach the lines with ...d7-d5 and ...g7-6 covered in this chapter. In practice, Black usually plays ...d7-d5 on an earlier move. 7 b3 can be found in the notes to Game 51. 7...0xd4 8 Dxda Axdd ‘At this point Black has a couple ways of avoiding the main line: 8...2)g4, which is dealt with in Game 52. For 8...d6 offering a pawn see the notes in Game 51. 9 Wxd4 dé 10 Wd3 This position is the starting point for the + (traditional) main line. Left to his own devices, White will complete his development and then start to turn his space advantage into more tangible pressure. If Black plays t00 passively or casually, he can easily find himself badly clamped down in a nagging ‘bind’, So Black needs to play actively, and in fact he has a number of typical ideas: 1) His key pawn break is ..b7-b5, which is prepared by ...a7-a6 and usually supported by ...2a8-b8. 2) Black’s knight can hassle White’s queen with ...2\f6-d7-c5 (or -e5) or sometimes ... Df6-g4-e5. 3) His light-squared bishop is usually developed (after securing the b7-pawn, or sacrificing it) by ...&c8-e6 or ...£.c8-f5 to‘ provoke e2-e4 which in turn blocks the g2- bishop's attack on the b7-pawn. 4) The queen can come into play by .~lWd8-a5 and sometimes across to h5 or back to a6 (see Game 51). Alternatively, ..Wd8-c8 is possible to support a later + Re6-Lh3. This all sounds pretty dynamic and 124Symmetrical English Main Line with 5 Af3 Af6 promising, so why does White generally do well in this line? White’s initial task is to contain Black’s short-term activity. It turns out that it is somewhat easier to play the White side, since he is usually playing fairly natural moves, while Black has to be pretty resourceful even to come close to equality. One very important point is that, even if Black achieves his ..b7-b5 break, it does not mean he can breathe easily. White can often get play on the newly opened cle (after c4xb5) or generate a passed queenside pawn, later on. All is not lost, however. If Black is prepared and plays accurately, there are several lines that are okay for him. Iwould recommend trying to pick up the ‘feel’ of the opening by playing through the examples given in the notes to Games 50 and 51. Other specific devices which White has at his disposal are: 1) A well-timed c3-d5 is a key move in this position, hitting a number of potentially vulnerable points (¢7, f6, b6, c7). If Black exchanges the knight, White can often get control of the c-file or e-file depending on how he recaptures (c4xd5 or e4xd5). 2) White often adopts a ‘scorched earth’ policy on the al-h8 diagonal, moving his al- rook and playing b2-b3 so that Black’s g7- bishop has nothing to bite on. White's g2- bishop, meanwhile, isa powerful piece, and not so easily neutralised. 3) The c4-c5 thrust is an important factor in many lines. This can be supported by b2- b4 or played to exploit a pin on the d-ile, while it is also sometimes played as a temporary sacrifice. Game 50 Gulko-Khalifman Yerevan 1996 1 c4 cB 2 D3 DE 3 Dc3 Acé 4 g3 g6 5 da There are some advantages to playing d2- d4 sooner rather than later. Apart from the obvious point of getting this in before Black plays ...d7-d5, a delayed d2-d4 does give Black a few more options. For example after 5 &g2 2g7 60-00-07 d4 Black could choose either 7...d6 leading to a line of the Fianchetto King’s Indian, or 7...d5 which is aGriinfeld. But note that Gulko prefers to wait until Black has at least committed himself to ...g7-g6. That way he avoids the anti- Benoni lines after say 3 d4 cxd4 4 Dxd4 e5 or 4 d4 cxd4 5 Axd4 e6. Of course whether all of this is considered good or bad is a matter of personal taste, but I want to show how a knowledge of the move order nuances, especially when combined with knowledge of your opponent's preferences, can be a useful tool in the opening battle. 5...cxd4 6 Dxd4 2g7 7 S92 0-0 8 0-0 @xd4 9 Wxd4 dé 10 Wd The queen gets out of the line of fire of the g7-bishop, and prepares to quarterback the play from her central location. This move has been the main line for many years, and it has proved particularly hard for Black to find any clear path to equality. 10 gS Be 11 Ws Wad 12 Bact Habs 13b3 Bfc8 14 Wd2 a6 is the famous game Fischer-Spassky, Reykjavik (8th match game) 1972, where Black soon lost material with a couple of howlers, but in this position he has equality. 125Symmetrical English 10...a6 Black has a number of alternatives at this point: a) 10...Wa5 and b) 10...2.e6 are covered in the next game. 6) 10...,65 is a typical device in this line ~ Black provokes e2-e4. Although this is not a bad move for White (it often forms part of his longer-term plan in any case), this does blunt the pressure on the h1-a8 diagonal and enables Black to develop his c8-bishop without first defending the b7- pawn: 11 e4 £e6 12 b3 and now: cl) 12...a6 13 &d2 Dd7 14 Bact bs 15 exb5 axb5 16 Wxb5 S2xc3 17 Exc3 Hxa2 18 Sho Ws 19 Wd3 Hc8 20 Hxc8+ Wxc8 21 Bcl Wb8 22 b4 Ha7 23 b5 f6 24 Be3 and White retains an edge, Ivanchuk-Andersson, Reykjavik 1991. 2) 12...Ad7 13 Be3 a6 14 Bact Was 15 Wa2 Bfe8 16 Dds Wxd2 17 &xd2 Back 18 Df4 Dc5 19 Dxeb fxe6 20 Le3 b5 21 cxbS axb5 22 Bfdi and White is better thanks to the two bishops and better pawn structure, Bacrot-Kempinski, Yerevan Olympiad 1996. ane Vay, fe yyy J BR Vor, 411 242 Others: a) Watson’s recommendation was 11 Ed and now: al) After 11...2f5, 12 Wf3 is better than the reflex 12 e4, which has also been played several times. ‘Is it the refutation of 10...a6?” ~ Watson. White threatens both c4-c5 and to simply take the b7-pawn: 12...Bc8 (12...8b8 13 c5) 13 Wxb7 Exc4 14 Wxa6 Eb4 15 Wa7 (but not 15 a4 Wb8 when White’s queen is in a tight spot - 16 €3 2e6 17 Bd5 Dxd5 %-% D.Anderton-Twyble, British League 1998) 15...e6 16 a3 Hc4 17 Wa6 and White is winning, Preiss-Schuh, Buehl 1992. a2) The oldest recipe may be the best: 11... Wa5 (instead of 11...2f5) 12 h3 £5 13 e4 Be6 14 Bd2 WhS 15 g4 (15 Wf?) 15...WeS 16 b3 Bab8 17 Haci Bfc8 18 Dat (18 &e3 Wa3) 18...Wa3 19 Abo Heb 20 &e3 d7, Averbakh-Forintos, Budapest 1970, and Black held the balance. b) 11 e3 is also an important try: bi) 11...0f5 12 Wd2 with the further branch: b11) 12...Bb8 13 a4 2e6 14 b3 WaS 15 Bact Bfc8 16 Bid! Dd7 17 &a7 Dc5 18 We2 Ba8 19 &xc5 Bxc5 20 &xb7 Bbs 21 Rd5 E522 Res Rxc3 23 Qxf5 BxfS 24 Wxc3 W6 25 Wel h5 26 Hc3 was played in Pigusov-Vasiukov, Russian Championship 1996, and White eventually managed to consolidate his extra pawn. b12) 12...Wd7 13 Bd4 Bh3 14 Qxf6 &xfo 15 2xh3 Wxh3 16 Dds Wis 17 Wd3 Wxd3 18 Dxfo+ &g7 19 DhS+ who 20 exd3 &xh5 21 fel and the ending is a touch better for White, Bareev-Smirin, So- viet Championship 1990. 126Symmetrical English Main Line with § ®f3 Of6 b2) 11..Dg4 12 Ad4 Des 13 Wd1 Bbs and: b21) 14 Bel Le6 15 AdS &xd5 (15...b5 16 c5 &xd5 17 &xd5 6 transposes to Ki- rov-Schinzel below) 16 &xd5 Wd7 17 2b6 and the bé-bishop sticks in Black’s throat, leaving White slightly better, Wojtkiewicz- Adamson, Philadelphia 1995. 22) 14 Dds b5 15 c5 Bb7 16 Bet Axd5 17 &xd5 6 18 &g? d5 19 £4 Dcb 20 xg? sbxg7 21 e4 dxe4 22 Axed Hc8 23 Wxd8 Efxd8 24 Bfd1 Bxdi+ 25 Bxdi a5 was Kirov-Schinzel, Polanica Zdroj 1977. The ending looks pleasant for White, though probably Black has sufficient resources to hold on (the game itself was drawn), e.g. 26 Hd6 Db8 27 Eb6 Dd7 28 Exb5 Exc. 11...0b8 The most direct plan, aiming for a quick sub7-b5 before White is fully developed. Other lines tend to allow White to consolidate and achieve a small but persistent advantage. It has a similar feel to some lines of the King’s Indian Defence, Fianchetto Variation, where after containing Black’s temporary initiative, White is often able to get a lasting grip on the game. 11...2f5 12 e4 26 13 b3 Ad7 transposes to Ivanchuk- ‘Andersson, given in the notes to Black’s 10th move. 12 Bact 12 c5!? is an interesting try, e.g. a) 12...dxc5 13 Wxd8 Exd8 14 2f4 Bas 15 Bfd1 He8 16 Bact e5 17 Be3 and White wins the pawn back with interest, Jirovsky- Piesnack, Berlin 1997. b) 12...2f5 13 e4 and Black can choose between: b1) 13...e6!? 14 cxd6 De8 15 Dds (maybe White can try to improve here with 15 &g5 Dxd6 16 Bfdi but then 16...Ac4 is unclear) 15...Axd6 16 2f4 Qxd5 17 Wxd5 &xb2 with balanced chances, Tal-Neverov, Moscow 1990. b2) 13...dxc5 14 Wxd8 Bbxd8 15 2g5 Rc8 16 €5 Dg4 17 Rxe7 Lxe5 (17...Axe5) 18h3 Dh6 19 Axd8 Hxd8 20 Hadi Hf 21 Dad b5 22 Hd5 leaves White better, Va- ganian-Heinemann, German Bundesliga 2000. 12...b5 ‘Alternatively: a) 12...e6 13 b3 Dd7 14 e4 Dcd 15 We2 Wd7 16 Dd5 b5 17 b4 Dad 18 cxbS Sxd5 19 exd5 axb5 20 Hcé gives White a nice position ~ he has pressure on both the cfile and along the efile, Markowski- Gdanski, Polish Championship 1996. b) 12...8d7 13 c5 with: bi) 13...De8 14 Lg5 hb 15 Re} Reb 16 ba! when White is better, Ye Rongguang- Gelfand, Novi Sad Olympiad 1990. b2) 13...Rf5 %-% Drasko-Ye Rong- guang, Belgrade 1988, but White can continue with good chances, e.g. 14 e4 dxc5 15 Wrxd8 Eixd8 16 &g5 Be6 17 e5 Dd7 18 Rxe7. ¢) 12...d7 13 b3 Dc5 14 We3 bS and now: cl) 15 Dd5 Be6 16 Bid Axd5 17 cxd5 ba! 18 &h3 a5 19 Ect BbS is okay for Black ~ his c5-knight is impossible to dislodge, Ki.Georgiev-Gdanski, Budapest 1993. £2) 15 cxb5 axb5 16 Dds Le6 17 Abs Wd7 18 &c3 Qxc3 19 Bxc3 Ebc8 20 Bfct Hc7 21 Wd4 Bfc8 22 hd and White is a bit better, Kantsler-Blees, Tel Aviv 1999. 127Symmetrical English 13 cxb5!? 13 b3 £5 14 e4 Qd7 15 h3 bxct 16 Wxc4 and now: a) 16...Wb6! 17 Wd3 Hfc8 18 Efel &c6 19 2g5 Wa5 is equal according to Shneider. b) 16... Wa5el 17 Wd3 Wa3 18 Bc2! &b5 19 Axb5 axb5 20 Bc7 e6 21 Le3 Bbc8?! 22 Ba7 Wb4 23 Hdi was very good for White in Shneider-Kasparov, Lyon 1994, which led to a rare loss for the World Champion against anon ‘top-10’ player. Perhaps this is, an indication of how tricky this whole line is to play for Black. 13...axb5 14 Dxb5 £5 14....2.a6 15 a4 Wh6 (15....Dd7 16 b3) 16 S23 is equal according to Curt Hansen, but the ending (if Black takes on b5) has some resemblance to that in the main game - see the position after move 20 in Gulko- Khalifman. 16 b4!? &xb5 17 axb5 Wxb5 18 Wxb5 Exb5 19 e4 is also very similar. 15 ed ms a a ele 15...8d7 The alternative, recommended in several reference books, is the forcing 15...Axe4 16 xed Qxe4 17 Wxe4 Exb5 18 b4 d5 (the pawns roll forward quickly after either 18...Wa8 19 Wxa8! Bxa8 20 a4! Bbb8 21 a5 or 18.,.Wd72! 19 a4 Bh5 20 b5) and now: a) 19 We2 may save a tempo later when the black pawns advance, e.g. 19...{b7 20 a4 €5 21 b5 Wd7 22 Bc6 e4 23 Bfcl Be8 24 a5, d4 25 b6 €3 26 fxe3. b) 19 Wd3 and here: bi) 19...Wd7 20 a4 Hbb8 21 b5 5 22 Bcé was the continuation played in Ki.Georgiev-Gufeld, Calcutta 1992. White soon got an unstoppable pawn roller after 22...e4 23 We2 Bfe8 24 Qf4 Bas 25 b6 d4 26 Bc7 Wi5 27 b7 etc. b2) 19...b7!? with a further choice: b21) 20 Bc5 Hd7 is given as unclear by Gufeld but I feel that White must still be a bit better. He can hold up the black central pawns while gradually advancing his unop- posed a- and b-pawns. 22) Perhaps more accurate is 20 b5 e5 21 a4 e4 22 We2 He8 23 a5 d4 24 bé6 €3 (24...d3 25 Wd1 2d4 26 Wb3 We7 27 Bea or 24...Wd5 25 &b4) 25 fxe3 dxe3 26 Lb4, which is better for White, despite the double-edged position. The significance of this sub-variation (which is the mainstay of the assessment of ‘unclear’ for 10...a6 in ECO and elsewhere), together with the main game Gulko- Khalifman, is that if White can prove an advantage in these forcing lines (where Black plays an early ...b7-b5 sacrifice), then Black has to revert to the quieter approaches. However, a review of the notesto the earlier moves in the main game reveal slim pickings for Black, who usually ends up slightly worse out of the opening. 16 ad! 16 Dc3 Exb2 17 Bb1 Bxb1 18 Exbi {2c6 is equal according to Gulko: 16...Wb6 16...Dg4 17 b4 Wb6 was worth trying, eg. 18 Dc3 Wxb4 19 Ads Wadd 20 Dxe7+ $h8 with an unclear position. 17 h3!? White stops any counterplay based on ..Df6-g4 and aims for an ending with level material where he still holds some trumps. 17...Sxb5 18 axb5 18 Wxb5!? would practically force the exchange on b5, since 18...Wd4 runs into 19 Rc3. 128Symmetrical English Main Line with 5 Af3 Af6 18...Wxb5 Dolmatov gives 18...d7!? 19 b4 De5 20 We2 Wxb5 21 Wxb5 Hxb5 22 Bc7 e6 with some counterplay. 19 Wxb5 Exb5 20 b4 d5 Pethaps this should be prefaced by 20...c6!2. 21 exd5 Dxd5 22 Be5! Bxc5 23 bxcS White’s passed c-pawn and two bishops give him good winning chances, despite the reduced material. 23...e6 24 Ec1 Ec8 25 c6 &b2 26 Ec2 eS 27 &f1 De7?! Black should instead try 27...f5!?. After 27...28, Gulko’s analysis runs: 28 &xd5! exd5 29 Rb4+ deg7 30 f4 Bal 31 de2 blo 32 ded3 eb 33 He2+ defo 34 Le7+ hfs 35 C7 Exc? 36 g4+ dexf4 37 2d6+ winning the rook. 28 g4? 28 Ba5! Qc7 29 &c3 leaves White clearly better. 28...2d5 29 Sxd5! exdS 30 we2 30...f5 31 gxf5 gxf5 32 d3 Sf7 33 c3! 2x03? 33....2f4! put up stiffer resistance. 34 Exc3 de6 35 &d4 Sd6 36 c7! £4 37 Ec5 Exc7 38 Exc7 &xc7 39 Sxd5 &d7 40 wed Se6 41 wxt4 St6 42 h4 Ses 43 gS Ht7 44 StS we7 45 wed wt7 46 h5! &e7 47 14 &f7 48 edo! &t6 48...h6 49 eS de7 50 £5 def7 51 f6 Sef8 52 det He8 53 b4 F854 de5 wins. 49 he Sf7 49...8296 50 deb dxh6 51 £5 deg7 52 Se7 wins. 50 &d7 1-0 A sample line is 50 ded7 df6 51 de8 tS 52 S17 dxf 53 deg7 iS 54 dexh7 hfe 55 dogs. Game 51 Lagunow-Léffler Berlin 1994 1 c4 c5 2 D3 DE 3 Dc3 g6 4 g3 Sg7 5 &g2 Dcé 6 da If White prefers a quieter and somewhat more offbeat life, he can try the ‘g3-b3” combo with 60-0 0-07 b3, when Black has: a) 7...d5 8 cxd5 Dxd5 9 &b2 Dxc3 10 Rxc3 e511 Bel Be6 12 d3 b6 13 Wd2 Bc8 14 Dg5 27 15 £4 Ad4 is given as equal in ECO, though Black faltered in the next few moves: 16 e3 Af5 17 Ded exf4 18 Bxf4 S062! 19 Sxg7 xg7 20 Bh3 and White was better, Smyslov-Ivkov, Havana 1962. b) 7...b6 is a Double Fianchetto - see Chapter 2. ©) 7...d6 8 &b2 €5 9 d3 and now: cl) 9...De8 10 e3 Ac7 11 Det Le6 12 Dd5 &xd5 13 cxd5 De7 14 e4 DbS 15 Dc2 Wd7 16 De3 Ada with equal chances, Spraggett-Becerra Rivero, Cienfuegos 1997. 2) 9...h6 10 Dd2 Le6 11 Ad5 with a further split: 21) 11...&xd5 can be answered by 12 exd5 Abs 13 a3 Dbxd5 14 b4. 22) 11..Bb8 12 a3 a5 13 3 Dh7 14 We2 £5 15 £4 Wd7 16 &c3 B{7 17 Bael Ebe8 18 b4 was a bit better for White in Hickl-Lutz, Nussloch 1996. The attempt to slow down the queenside expansion with ...a7-a5 has in fact given White more to ‘bite on’. 23) 11...Dh7 12 a3 £5 13 b4 Bc8 14 bS De7 15 f4 g5 16 €3 Hi7 17 Ba2 Rxd5 18 exd5 exf4 19 exf4 &xb2 20 Bxb2 gxf4 with an unclear position, Carlier-Glek, Schaan 1998. 6...cxd4 7 Dxd4 0-0 8 0-0 Axd4a After the gambit continuation 8...d6, White can play the fairly harmless 9 Ac? or take the pawn with 9 @xcé6 bxc6 10 &xc6 Hb8 11 &g2 Wad 12 We2 which should give him the edge, e.g, 12...22f5 (or 12...8e6 13 &d2) 13 e4 Reb 14 b3 Axes 15 Axes Sxal 16 &g5 and here instead of 16...{6 17 &e3 trapping the bishop on al (Wojt- kiewicz-Wahls, Geneva 1995), Black should play 16...S2f6 17 Dxf6+ exf6 18 Rxfe WES 19 Wxf5 &xf5 20 Be7 Bfe8 21 &xd6 Bbds 129Symmetrical English when White is somewhat better. 9 Wxd4 dé 10 Wd3 Was After the alternative 10...2e6, White has: a) 11 Bd2 () Dd7 12 b3 Hbs 13 Bact a6 14 e4 transposes to Markowski-Gdanski quoted in the previous game (note ‘a’ to Black's 12th) 14...b5 15 cxb5 axb5 16 @d5 DBe5 17 We2 Wd7 18 b4 Rxd5 19 exd5 Dad 20 Kc6 with an edge for White. b) 11 &xb7 gives Black more scope, e.g. 11...Bb8 12 &g2 WaS 13 b3 Hxb3 14 axb3 Wxal and now: bi) 15 &d2 Wa6 16 Abs Hbs 17 &c3 d5 18 Dc7 Wa3 19 Axe6 Bxb3 20 Bxd5 Bxc3 21 Wd4 4-% Lagunow-Teske, Binz 1995. b2) 15 DbS Wa2 16 Dd4 Rd7 17 Rd2 Wa6 18 b4 Ag4 and Black has reasonable play, Filippov-Nay Oo Kyaw Tun, Shanghai 2000. 11h3 11 DbS 2f5 and 11 &d2 WhS are both okay for Black. 11...206 12 2d2 Wa6 In a bid to avoid the normal white build- up, Black has a quick ...d6-5 in mind. An alternative way of continuing the ‘direct’ approach is 12...Wh5 13 g4 We5 and now: a) The opening worked out well for Black after 14 Bact Dd7 15 b3 Ac5 16 ‘We2 £5 17 f4 Wd4+ 18 e3 Wd3 19 2f3 Wexc2 20 Hxc2 {7 21 b4 Axc3 22 Bxc3 Det 23 Rd4 2- % WSchmidt-Dvoirys, Dortmund 1991. b) 14 b3 is more challenging: bl) 14...Hab8 15 Haci a6 16 Dat Des 17 €3 b5 18 £4 Wi6 19 g5 was a disaster for Black in Ricardi-Scarella, Argentinean Championship 1994, b2) 14...2d7 is better when: b21) 15 e4 h5 16 £4 Ac5 gives Black counterplay, Gottschlich-Mattick, Seefeld 1996. 22) 15 Bxb7 Ac5 16 WES Dxb7 17 ‘Wxb7 £5 is unclear. b33) 15 £4 We5+ 16 Whi £51? may give Black sufficient counterplay, e.g. 17 S.xb7 Babs 18 2d5 Bxd5+ 19 Wxd5+ Wad5+ 20 cxd5 Db6. 13 b3 Zad8 Black’s play is direct and has a slightly crude feel to it. However, given that ‘pretty’ play in the main lines give White an edge both theoretically and statistically, it may be worth atry. 13...Efd8 is the older move, but because of some nuances highlighted below, may offer Black better chances than 13...Bad8. After 13...Bfd8: a) 14 Hadi Bac8 (14...d5 15 &g5) 15 e3 was played in Gheorghiu-Sahovic, Mendrisio 1987, but now Black could play 15...d5 and here: al) 16 cxd5? Wxd3 17 Hxd3 £5 wins material. a2) 16 Dxd5 Dxd5 17 cxd5 Wxd3 18 Hxd3 &f5 19 Hd2 &c3 20 Hddi Sc2 21 Bel Bb2 22 Bxa7 Rxcl 23 Excl and White has two pawns for the exchange, but the position is roughly equal. a3) 16 Wd2 d4 17 &xd4 Exd4 18 Wxd4 Dd5 19 Dxdd Vxd4 20 Dxe7+ g7! 21 @xc8 &c5 and White needs to spend time extricating his knight, which gives Black reasonable play, e.g. 22 Bd8 Wxa2 23 Ado (23 &xb7 Wxb3 24 &f3 Wb8 wins for Black) 23...&xd6 24 Exd6 Wxb3 with approximately equal chances. b) 14 e4 d5 15 exd5 Sxd5 16 Bxd5 06 130Symmetrical English Main Line with 5 Af3 Af6 17 Bg5 exd5 18 Hadi dé and: bi) If now 19 Dd5 Dxd5!? 20 Oxd8 Bc3 21 Hel Dxa2 22 Hal Exd8 23 Wd2 Web 24 Exa2 a6 25 &h2 d3 should be sufficient for Black. If White’s queen moves, Black may be able to play ...d3-d2 and defend the pawn with the bishop, when he should not lose. b2) 19 Bfel and here: b21) Black should play 19...8e8 when White is no more than a shade better after 20 Sixfo Wxfo 21 Dds. b22) Instead 19...h6 20 Rxfo Wxfe 21 Dds Wd6 22 He7 as in Castro Rojas- Garcia, Winnipeg 1974, gives White a dominant rook . 1404 14 Bad1!? is interesting. 14...d5 15 exd5 &xd5 15..Dxd5 16 Bxd5 Rxd5 17 Dxd5 6 and here 18 De7+ (instead of the tame 18 Ead1 Bxd5_ 4-4 Franco Ocampos- Hernandez, Havana 1998) 18.8 19 We3 is strong according to Lagunow, eg. 19..d8fe8 20 Dxg6+ hxgo 21 £3. 16 Aixd5 e6 Ki Y Jia, fi U, Y 17 &xb7?! The critical line is 17 2.g5 exd5 18 Hadi d4. A draw was agreed here in Arsovic- Vratonjic, Nis 1996. White should definitely play on with 19 Ad5 (19 &xf6 &xf6 20 Ads is also possible) and now: a) 19...8d7 20 &xfo &xf6 21 Bfel. This suggestion of Carsten Hansen indeed seems to give the more comfortable game. If Black can achieve ...b7-b5 he can probably equalise, but it seems he will have to defend a tricky position (the line given by Lagunow is 21 WE3 2g7 22 a4 claiming a slight edge for White, though after 22...We6 23 wh? He8 Black is okay). 21...2g7 22 Be2 b6 23 a4 (Not 23 Ede1?? Bxd5) 23...Wb7 24 Edel a6 25 He7 Exe7 26 Bxe7 We6 27 Ha7 is very strong for White. b) 19...2)xd5!? is an exchange sacrifice worth looking at, since Black wins a pawn in return, though it seems to fall short of full compensation: 20 &xd8 “c3 21 Le7 (but note this move has no point if the rook is on a8 - asa result of an earlier 13...Bfd8 instead of 13...Had8 - so perhaps 13...2fd8 is better after all! Instead 21 Bc @xa2 22 Bal Bxd8 23 Wd2 We6 24 Bxa2 a6 25 @h2 3 is as above) 21...Be8 (or 21...hc8 22 Hal Web 23 Hfel Wxh3 24 Bb4 h5 25 He7) 22 Edel Wxa2 23 b4 and Black does not have quite enough play to compensate for his material deficit. 17...Wixb7 17...Bxd3 18 &xa6 Bxd2 19 Bfdi Efds 20 Bxd2 Bxd2 21 Bcl leaves White with a winning endgame. 18 We2 Dd7! Black now has an initiative to compensate for the sacrificed pawn. 19 Zad1 19 Deal?, 19...De5 20 Wea Lagunow gives 20 f4 Bd3 21 De (21 fxe5 Exg3+ 22 dh2 &xe5 wins) 21...f5 22 fxe5 fxe4 (22...Wxed!?) 23 Exf8+ &xf8 24 e3 Wd7 with play for the pawn. 20...Wxe4 21 Axed Edd! 22 Abs Otherwise Black has ...®e5-f3+. 22...Bxe4 23 Sxf8 AxfB 24 og2 iba 25 Ld8+ 97 26 Hcl He2 27 c5 White’s passed pawn gives him compensation for the material. 27...Bxa2 131Symmetrical English 27...5a3 28 Hc} (28 c6 backfires: 28...Rxc1 29 c7 Ke3 30 BW Bxi2+31Gh1 Hfi+ 32 g2 Bgl+ 33 @h2 DL mate) 28...b4 29 Hcl repeats moves (now 29 c6 fails to &xc3 30 c7 Ad4 31 Bxd4 Hc2 32 Hed Axed 33 cBW Ded4). 28 c6 Dxc6 29 Zxc6 el 30 d7! Exf2+ 31 Sg1 Bf6 32 94 g5 33 Ect Af2+ 34 Sg2 Ab6 35 Ef1 The dust has settled, and the ending is level. 35...Exf1 36 Sxl Sg6 37 Sg2 &c5 38 Sf3 S16 39 be4 Ab6 40 &d3 Lf2 41 bes 4-% Game 52 Mikhalchishin- Sale Nova Gorica 1999 1 DF3 5 2 04 Dc6 3 da cxd4 4 Axda DG 5 Dc3 g6 6 g3 A977 2920-08 0-0 Dg4 After the frustration of defending the main line (8...xd4 9 Wxd4 dé 10 Wd3 - see Games 50 and 51), players of the Black side developed this line, which aims for more active counterplay against White’s centre. After a subsequent €2-e3, ...DAc6xd4, Black typically routes his knight with -Dg4-h6-f5 to put pressure on dé. If White then pushes d4-d5, he will block his g2- bishop and create some holes on the dark squares. sa lad be Y Y yj Y \ \ oe ww \ ee & re x 'N \ 9 e3 d6 9...Dxd4 10 exd4 Dh6 is an inaccurate move order (10...d6!? is possible, when 11 b3 Dh6 transposes to the main game), since White can play 11 &xh6 &xh6 12 c5 do 13 b4 when White has got his queenside moving without wasting a tempo on b2-b3. AF ter 13...2g7 14 Bcl Bb8 15 Wad a6 (15...Sxd4 16 Wxa7 &d7 17 De2 dxc5 18 Dxd4 cxd4 19 Wxd4 &b5 20 Bid1 Wxd4 21 Exd4 gives White a slightly better endgame) 16 d5 White hada large advantage in Bakic-Petronic, Budva 1996. 10 b3 There are several alternatives: a) White can ensure that he is able to recapture on d4 with a piece with 10 Ace2 but then Black can switch plans with 10...2xd4 (! according to Delchev) 11 ®Dxd4 (perhaps White should try 11 exd4 after all) 11...Qe5 12 Wc2 Wh6 13 2d2 &d7 14 Bacl Efc8 and Black is fine, Diz- darevic-Delchev, Kastel Stari 1997. b) Similarly, 10 Ade2 Wa5 (threatening -Wa5-b4) 11 Dd5 (11 &d2 Wh5) 11...8b8 (11...06 12 &d2 Wd8 13 Ddc3 Bbs 14 Bet a6 15 b3 is alittle better for White, though Black can try and stir things up with 15...Dce5 16 Dd4 Dd3"2) 12 Bd2 Ws 13 h3 Aged 14 b3 e6 15 Dde3 d5!? 16 cxd5 and a draw was agreed in Stohl-Delchev, Croatian Team Championship 1997. Black has sufficient counterplay, e.g. 16...exd5 17 Rel L518 223 (18 Wxd5 Wad5 19 Dxd5 2d3) 18...Be8 19 Wxd5 Wc8 20 Bd6 Bd8 21 We5 b6 22 Wa3 Bb7. Grabbing the pawn is not particularly promising ©) 10 Axc6 bxc6 11 &xc6 Bbs (Saadi- Fischer, Mar del Plata 1960) or d) 10 &xc6 bxc6 11 Axcé Wd7 12 Ad4 2b7 both give Black some compensation for the pawn. e) Kicking the knight with 10 h3 is possible and now: 132Symmetrical English Main Line with 5 Of3 a6 el) 10...Age5 11 b3 and White already has a pleasant position, B.Lalic-Krasenkow, Neum 2000. €2) 10...Axd4 11 exd4 Dh6 12 g4 is very good for White according to Lalic. €3) Mikhalchishin suggests 10...h6 11 g4 £5 12 g5 Af7 13 £4 with an unclear position. 10...xd4 ‘An important alternative is 10...a6 when: a) Delchev recommends 11 ®de2 ‘which makes 8...\g4a shot in the dark’ (certainly 11...Wa5 has less point than in the line 10 ®de2 WaS analysed above, because of 12 &b2 or 12 Wd2). White was better after 11...Bb8 12 h3 DgeS 13 Rd2 AAS 14 ef Qc8 15 Be3 Was 16 Ld2 Wd8 17 £4 Dd7 18 @e3 Dc5 19 Wd2 Was 20 Babi, WojtkiewiczJung, Wuerzburg 1996. b) The standard 11 &b2 Axd4 12 exd4 Bb8 13 Hel was played in Timman- Khalifman, Amsterdam 1995, when Topa- lov gives 13...b5!? 14 c5 dxc5 15 dxc5 Wd! with counterplay. 6) Also possible is the untested 11 ce2, intending 11...2\xd4 12 exd4. 11 exd4 Dh6 12 &xh6! ‘An unstereotyped move, giving up the two bishops. White removes Black’s most active piece, in order to build on his space advantage without interference from the pesky horse. Other approaches have presented Black with few problems. a) 12 &d2 Hb8 13 Het a6 14 Des gt 15 23 Bxf3 16 Wxf3 d5 17 cxd5 DES and Black is fine, Dizdarevic-Leko, Moscow Olympiad 1994. b) 12 &b2 Dfs 13 Dds Bd7 14 Des Dxe3 15 fxe3 c6 with equality, Khurt- sidze-Delchev, Linares 1997. 12.,.axh6 13 We2 13 Bel is less accurate, as after 13...2g7 White’s queen is employed in defensive duties, looking after the d4-pawn: 14 Hcl Hb8 15 b4 2e6 16 d5 (White’s pawn structure loses its flexibility) 16...£5 17 Wd2 a5 18 a3 axb4 19 axb4 Wb6 20 Det Was 21 Wxd4 &xd4 %-% Akopian-Kramnik, Ka- zan 1997. 13...a.97 13...Rb8 14 Bfdi Wa5 15 b4! Wad (15..Wxb4 16 @d5) 16 Babi! feo (16...Wxc3 17 Rb3 &g4 18 £3 Be3+ 19 dh1 wins) 17 Bb3 Wa6 18 &d5 £5, Mikhal- chishin-Krivoshey, Bled 1999, and now Mikhalchishin gives 19 a4 as much better for White. 14 Bfd1 Or 14 Hadi Eb8 15 fet Be8 16 h4 - Mikhalchishin. 14...Be8 After 14...Bb8: a) Cosma-Moraru, Romania 1998, continued 15 Bact We8?! (15...e6 is better) 16 b4 65 17 dxe5 dxe5 18.c5 2d7 19 Bd6 Le6 20 Hedi We8 21 &d5 Hes? (21...f5) 22 Wet Bxd5 23 Wxd5 He7 24 Des WES 25 eg2 h6 26 Hd3! Bf8 27 g4! winning. b) 15 b4 He8 16 Bacl e6 17 We2 a6 18 Wb3 2d7 19 d5 exd5 20 Dxd5 He2 21 Bc2 Hxc2 22 Wxc2 &c6 23 Hel &xd5 24 Qxd5 Wd7 25 He3 %-% Cvitan-Delchev, Kastel Stari 1997. Delchev points out that White is still slightly better, e.g. 25....8.16 26 13 dog7 27 Wed bo 28 Wis We7. 15 act Bb8 16 c5! White's trump in this position is his queenside majority, and he intends to use it! 133Symmetrical English YS ng eZ Vy A 7 16...2d7 If 16...e6 17 DbS and the knight pene- trates. 17 b4 dxc5 Carsten Hansen suggests 17...a5 18.a3 5 19 d5 e4 as an improvement, but Mikhal- chishin dismisses this idea with 17...e5 (the insertion of 17...a5 18 a3 seems to make litele difference) 18 dxe5 &xe5 19 We4 with a big plus for White. 18 dxc5 18 bxc5!? was also possible. 18...Wc8 19 Dd5 2g4 White’s pieces are very well co-ordinated. Tf 19...2e6 20 c6! bxc6 21 Exc. 20 Dxe7+ Sf8 21 AxcB Rxe2 22 Dd xd] 23 Dxe8 Exe8 24 Exd1 White has a sound extra pawn, The opposite coloured bishops should be no ob- stacle to White (but of course he must keep the rooks on). 24...203 25 b5 He5 26 2d5 2b4 27 c6 bxc6 28 bxc6 2a5 29 Sf1 Ab6 30 Sd3 h6 31 g4 Ee7 32 Eb3 Se5? A blunder, but Black’s position is looking sad in any case. 33 Exb6 1-0 Game 53 Andersson-Timman Ubeda 1997 1 D3 Typical English move orders to reach the 1ud5 lines are 14.05 2 Dc3 Deb (or 2...Df6 3 Df d5 4 cxd5 Dxd5 5 g3 Dcé 6 Lg? g6) 3.g3 g64 Rg? &e75 DE Df 60-0 (6 da!) 6..d5 (or 6...0-0 7 d3 d5) 7 cxd5 Dxd5 8 xd5 Wxd5. Black seems fine in this main line with ...d5. So it’s surprising that Black does not choose this line more often, especially given that when White plays d4, he has a heavy plus score in practice. In turn, White should try for dé early (e.g. before castling) if the move order allows it. Going back to that last line, by analogy with Tal’s 1 c4 c5 2 D3 Dfe 3 De3 Aco + g3d5 5 dé (Games 34-35) and Kramnik’s 1 c4 c5 2 Df3 Dfo 3 g3 d5 4 d4 (Game 36), perhaps 7 d4!? (instead of 7 cxd5) deserves more tests. Play will often transpose to a line of the Fianchetto Griinfeld. An example is 7...dxc4 8 Wa4 cxd4 9 Dxd4 Wxd4 10 Rxc6+ 2d7 11 Bdl Axc6 12 Wxc6+ bxc6 13 Rxd4 Dd5 14 Bxc4 &xc3 15 bxc3 &d7 16 a3 Bhc8 17 &c5 Se8 18 Bbi 1-0 Karlsson-Degerman, Borlange 1992. 1...O'6 2 4 g6 3 g3 2g7 4 2920.05 0-0 d5 6 cxd5 Axd5 7 Ac3 c5 8 Dxd5 8 d3 Dc 9 &d2 is possible, but tame. 8...Wxd5 9 d3 Dc6 10 &e3 2d7 For 10....&xb2 see the next game. ameter oo 7s oe DOVE 11 ada Other moves have not yielded White an advantage: a) 11 Wd2 Wde 12 Efcl b6 13 Bho 134Symmetrical English Main Line with 5 @f3 At6 Bac8 14 Qxg7 Sxg7 15 a3 Kids 16 Babi a5 17 c4 h6 with equal chances, Gausel- Ribli, Slough 1997. b) 11 d4 cxd4 12 Dxd4 Wed 13 Dxc6 Lxc6 14 &xc6 bxc6 15 b3 Wa6 16 Ect Wxa2 17 Bxc6 Hfd8 18 We2 Wxc2 19 Exc? Hdb8 20 Bfcl &e5 21 Bc5 %4-% Kache- ishvili-Smejkal, Mlada Boleslav 1993. 11,..Wd6 12 Dxc6 Axc6 13 Lxc6 Wxc6 14 Ecol We6 15 Excd Wxa2 16 EbS This position is objectively quite equal, and Black should be able to hold a draw without difficulty, provided he navigates the next few moves carefully. 16...Wa6 Alternatives seem to be equally valid: a) 16...b6 and now: al) 17 Wal with a further split: all) 17...Wxal 18 Bxal Hfb8 19 Ba6 8 20 Rb4 &e5 21 Bba4 leaves White with a small but nagging edge, Karpov- Ribli, Amsterdam 1980. a2) 17...We6! 18 Wa6 Wd7 19 Bal with the choice: al21) 19...h5 20 Bb4 Bfc8 21 Wad, and here Ivanov gives 21...Wxa4 22 Ebxa4 c2 as equal. Instead, after 21...Wb7 22 h4 &e5 23 W3 Bc6 24 d4 White was beginning to get an edge in LIvanov-Timman, Lucerne Olympiad 1982. 122) 19...Wg4 20 Het Wd7 21 Bal Wigs 22 Hel %4-% Fracnik-Langeweg, Dortmund 1981, though White does not need to repeat. 22) 17 Wb3 and again Black needs to be careful not to trade queens as 17...Wxb3 (17... Wa6! transposes to the main game) 18 Exb3 Afc8 19 Bal is awkward for Black, e.g. 19...c2 20 Bxbé Bxe2 21 Hxa7 He8 22 b4 with an extra, passed pawn, Vaganian- Mikhalchishin, Tallinn 1988. b) 16...a6 17 Hb6 Hac8 18 Hxb7 Hbs 19 Exe7 Bxb2 20 2f4 a5 and now: bl) 21 d4 &f6 %-% Damljanovic- Winants, Wijk aan Zee 1990. b2) 21 Ba7 Be8 22 e3 Bd2 23 Wel Bxd3 24 Web Bf8 25 Wae Bd5 26 Ad6 He8 27 Ab4 is analysis by Ostojic. White wins the a-pawn and so retains some slim winning chances. 17 Wb3 b6 18 Eb4 White needs to generate some threats down the a- and b-files or Black will develop his rooks and avoid any pins. After 18 &g5 (Hansen and Watson), Black can simply (apart from anything else such as 18...e6) play 18...ac8 with ...2c8-c7 to follow, and if 19 &xe7 Bfe8 followed by ...Re8xe2, is quite good for Black, e.g. 20 &a3 Bxe2 21 ds Wb7. 18...0fb8 Or 18...Bfc8 19 Bad Wb7 20 Bfal h5 21 h4 6 22 Bab Hc6 23 Wa2 Bc2 24 Bxb6 Wc8 25 SFI a5 26 d4 a4 27 Wa3 Was 28 BbS Qxd4 29 Qxd4 Wxd4 4-2 Anders- son-Cu.Hansen, Helsingor 1999. 19 Bed Or 19 Had Wb7 20 Bfal a6 21 Wa2 a5 22 Bel Be5 23 Hes 4-4 Ribli-Timman, Tilburg 1980. 19...b5 19... Wb7 20 Bfcl Bc8 21 h4 h5 22 Ws Exc4 23 Exc4 a6 4-% Andersson-Smejkal, Moscow 1981. One gets the picture! 20 3c7 06 21 Efct h5 22 Wb4 Wad 23 We7 Ef8 24 b4 24 Bxa7 Bxa7 25 Wxa7 &xb2 is similar to the game. 24...a5 25 bxaS Wxa5 26 Zb7 Wa2 27 ExbS 27 $f1 WS! is annoying for White. 27...Wxe2 28 Eb3 Had8 29 Wb7 Exd3 Black scores a moral victory by winning a pawn, though he only has very slim winning chances, particularly against an endgame maestro such as Andersson. 30 Hxd3 Wxd3 31 h3 WS 32 &g2 Wd5+ 33 Wxd5 exd5 34 Bc7 216 35 Ed7 Ed8 36 Exd8+ axd8 37 &f3 of8 38 g4 we7 39 Ada we6 40 we3 ate hte 135Symmetrical English Game 54 Marin-Kempinski Krynica 1998 1 c4 DTG 2 DEB g6 3 93 Ag7 4 ag2 d5 5 cxd5 Dxd5 6 0-0 c5 7 Dc3 Acé6 B Dxd5 Wxd5 9 d3 0-0 10 £e3 dxb2 Or 10...Wh5 11 Bel Dd4 12 b4 Df5 and now: a) 13 Exc5 @xe3 14 fxe3 Who 15 Wd2 leaves Black a pawn down for nothing. b) 13 &d2 cxb4 14 Qxb4 e6, Gor- mally-Afek, Oakham 2000, and Black is fine. 11 Bb1 Instead, 11 Dd4 Wd6 12 Axc6 Rxal 13 Wxal bxc6 14 Qh6 fo 15 Qxf8 &xf8 16 Bel Bbs 17 Wc3 g4 18 V1 Abs 19 Was Wh8 leaves Black a bit better, Reich- Mikhalchishin, Kecskemet 1991. 11...516 11....g7 is also common, and leads to similar play, but experience has shown that it is beneficial to Black to defend the e- pawn in a number of lines. fee a \e Es 1 B7 Ee Pie Mt] t Vi, ANU, i, Yb, 6 o 12 Waa After 12 Dd4 Black should carry on grabbing pawns with 12... Wxa2 and then: a) In Norris-Gormally, Oakham 2000, White tried to repeat moves with 13 Bal?! Wh2 14 Bb1 Wa3 15 Bal Wb4 16 Ebi but was hit with 16...2xd4! 17 Exb4 cxb4 and Black was on top. b) 13 Dxc6 bxc6 and now: b1) 14 Sct is Bagirov’s untried suggestion (also quoted by ECO and NCO). One idea is that 14....g4 can be answered by 15 c2. However it’s not clear what the intention was after 14....d4, for example: b11) 15 &xd4 cxd4 16 Bxcé should not worry Black - after all he is still a pawn up, and his formation has been straightened out. b12) 15 Bho Hd8 16 3 Rf 17 Rxc6 Bb8 18 Exc5 Ba6 looks good for Black. b2) 14 Axcd &g4 15 f3 Re6 and Black was fine in Jirovsky-Babula, Czech Champi- onship 1994, b3) After 14 &xc6 &h3 15 Axa8 Bxa8 16 Bel &c3 Black has no problems. 12...Wa6 Or: a) 12..Wd7 13 &xc5 bé! (13...Ad4? 14 Wal Axf3+ 15 Qxf3 bs 16 Qxa7 with a big plus for White, Tal-Pribyl, Tallinn 1973) 14 &xb6 Ad4 is unclear according to Gip- slis. b) 12...Db4 13 a3 Da2 14 Dgs Dc3 15 xd5 Dxad 16 Det Db6 17 Axf6+ exfo 18 2£3 looks like a good ending for White. 13 Bfct U3 + a Ye a GE Given that Black has a likely improvement on the next move, White should try to improve here with 13 d2 @d4 (13...d4!?), when 14 &xd4 &xd4 15 2xb7 136Symmetrical English Main Line with 5 Of3 D6 is critical - Watson. 13.04 Instead: 13...b6 is dismissed by Marin on the basis of ‘a’, but things are not so clear: a) After 14 d4 Dxd4 15 Dxd4 cxd4 16 Bh6 (16 24 is equal according to Carsten Hansen) 16...&d7 White is best advised to bale out with a repetition of moves with 17 Wa6 &c8 etc. b) 14 Eixb6 axb6 15 Wxa8 h3 16 Wa6 is Ribli’s recommendation, but it also seems ineffectual: 16....xg2 17 Sxg? Db4. ©) 14 Dd2 is answered by 14...Sd7 15 Det Web 16 Axcd Ded 17 Dxfo+ exto (17...Wxf6 18 Wi4) 18 Wb3 bxc5 19 &xa8 Bxa8 20 Hxc5 etc, when Black should be fine. 14 Oxd4 cxd4 15 &h6 Eds Or 15...2g7 16 &xg7 Sxg7 17 Bxb7 &xb7 18 Hxb7 is better for White. 16 &xb7 &xb7 17 Bxb7 a6 18 Bc WeS 19 Exa6 Zack After 19...Bxa6 20 Wxa6 Wxe2 21 Wb6 Black cannot defend against the back-rank threats; Hb7-b8 will follow. 20 Bc6 Wxe2 21 Hxc8 Exc8 22 Wd7 We6 23 a4 Wxd7 After 23...8g7 White can retain his advantage with 24 Wixe6 fxe6 25 2d?! according to Marin. 24 Exd7 Sg7 25 Ad2 &t8 Perhaps 25...e5 was better. 26 a5? Dissipating most of White’s advantage. Instead, White can improve the position of his bishop before pushing his a-pawn: 26 Rb4 Bf6 27 Ma7 Hb8 28 Bcd Mc8 29 &b6. Here Marin gives the following line: 29...€5 30 &c7 e4 31 dxe4 d3 32 Hf1 2d8 33 Rf4 He8 34 a5 Hc2 35 Le3 a2 36 a6 Suf6 37 Ba8+ d7 38 a7 winning. 26...%e8 27 Hb7 Hc6 28 295 af6 29 ixf6 Bxfé 30 Eb4 The rook ending gives far fewer winning chances (‘all rook endings are drawn’). 30,..Ha6 31 Ha4 e5 32 £4 exf4 33 gxfa Se7 34 Sf2 Le6 35 S3 £5 Creating unnecessary play for White; more accurate was 35...8f5 followed by wof7-£6 and ...g7-g5. 36 h4 hé 37 &g3 f6 38 Ba2 17 39 Bal G16 40 Ha2 Gf7 41 G12 of6 42 Sel Sf7 43 Sd1 Sf6 44 Bat g5 45 hxg5+ hxg5 46 fxg5+ dxg5 47 de2 S94 48 Sf2 f4 49 Egi+ Sf5 50 Bhi 295 %-% Game 55 Lputian-Timman Wijk aan Zee 2000 1 Df3 DFG 2 c4 cB 3 Dc3 dB 4 oxdd Dxd5 5 g3 Ac6 6 &g2 g6 7 Wad 7 0.0 &g7 8 Dxd5 Wxd5 9 dB is the main line (see Games 53-54). Since the lines given in the last two games have proven rock solid for Black, White has explored ways of changing the character of the position with an early Wd1- a4. After the move order 7 0-0 &g7 8 Wad Xt ae At ane ara LAA a Ce _ Ba DE Black can choose: a) 8...0-091 9 Wet ADxc3 10 dxc3 Wh6 (10...b6 11 Dgs We7 12 Wh4 he 13 DF g5 14 &xg5 {14 Wh5 followed by h2-h4 is good for White according to Beliavsky and Mikhalchishin} 14...hxg5 15 Dxg5 2f5 16 e4 2g6 17 f4 f6 18 Deb Wa7 is unclear, 137Symmetrical English Hertneck-Miles, Dortmund 1986) 11 Wh4 He8 12 Bb1 Ded 13 Dxed Lxe5 14 b4 cxb4 15 Re3 Wa6 16 Wxb4 gives White a small advantage according to Uhlmann. b) 8...D)b6 is given as equal by ECO, but with no analysis. The theoretical significance of the Kasparov-Kramnik game given below was perhaps overshadowed by the impression that Kasparov had yielded another soft draw with White (after making no progress against the Berlin defence in the other games). However, Kramnik’s notes in Informator indicate that White has good chances of extracting an advantage from this line. b1) 9 Wb5 and now: b11) 9...Ad7 10 d3 0-0 11 2e3 Ad4 (or 11...Wb6 when White is slightly better after 12 Wxb6 - or 12 a4 - 12...axb6) 12 &xd4 exd4 13 Des Wh6 14 ad! a6 15 Wxb6 Dxb6 16 a5 (16 Bfcl!?) 16..Dd5 17 Dc5 Bd8 18 Dd2 Bb8?! (18...c6 19 Dc4 Hb8 is stronger) 19 Bcd (19 Ha3 followed by Ha3-b3 gives White a big plus according to Shipov) 19...e6 20 Bfcl &h6 21 Hcb1 2f8 22 Ab3 2g7 23 Bxd5 Bxd5 24 Abd? e5 (24...Eb5! is equal - Kramnik) %-%4 Kasparov- Kramnik, London (5th match game) 2000. In the final position White is still better according to Kramnik, e.g. 25 Ded 265 (or 25...f5 26 Db6 Hd8 27 Ac5 and Black is tied down, or 25...e6 26 b4) 26 b4 Rxe4 27 dxe4 Edd8, which keeps White’s advantage to a minimum. b12) 9...c4 had been played before; perhaps Kasparov had an improvement ready... 10 De5 Axe5 11 Rxc6+ bxc6 12 Wxed f6 13 Wes Wd6 14 Edi 25 15 WE Web 16 Bel Sf7 17 b3 Bhd8 18 We3 cxb3 19 axb3 Wxb3 20 223 Web 21 Wxeb+ xe6 22 d3 a5 23 &c5 Dd7 24 Le3 Bdbs 4-4 Lobe- jko-W Schmidt, Koszalin 1998. b2) Alternatively White can try 9 Wh4 and then: b21) 9...0-0 10 d3 f6 11 Bho e5 12 Des We7 13 Bact Dd7 14 a3 Hb8 15 3 Axh6 16 Wxho £5 17 Degs Ase 18 h3, Krasenkow-Brynell, Malmo 1995, with chances for both sides. 22) 9...h6 may be more awkward for White: 10 Det Dd4 11 d3 £5 12 £4 0-0 13 €3 Deb 14 W£3 Web 15 Wh3 Wd7 16 We2 Hac8 17 &d2 Efd8 as in Znamenacek- Szymezak, Warsaw 1987, and Black is abit better. 7...897 8 DgS e6 9 Dged Db 10 Wbs an a} a7 a 10...0-0! ‘An enterprising pawn sacrifice, which Timman had prepared as an improvement over earlier games, where White had managed to get a small edge. 10...c4 and now: a) Going after the c-pawn is not very fruitful, e.g. 11 Dad 0-0 12 Axb6 axb6 13 Wxc4 5 14 d3 Be6 15 Bg5 Whe 16 Wel Dd4 17 Dc3 He8 18 Wh 1 b5 with sufficient play for the pawn, A.Petrosian-Piesina, USSR 1979. b) 11b3 0-0 12 bxc4 Ad4 13 Wb1 Axct with: b1) 14 d3 Ade 15 Dxd6 Wxd6 16 0-0 44-4 A Petrosian-Jelen, Bled 1999. b2) 14 0-0 £5 15 Dc5 Wb6 16 Db3 and now: b21) 16...Dc6 17 Wd3 D4e5 18 Whs Bd8 19 Hb1 Wc7 20 Wad a6 21 Bb2 Ha7 with a complex position, A.Petrosian-Lau, Lippstadt 1993. 622) 16...b5 17 Dxb5 Wxb5 (17...2xal 18 Dxal) 18 d3 Db6 19 Rb2 Lxb2 20 138Symmetrical English Main Line with 5 Af3 Dt6 Wrxb2 2d7 21 Wad Das 22 Hab1 Wee (22...2c3) 23 Dd4 and White is better, Lpu- tian-Krasenkow, European Team Champi- onship, Batumi 1999. 11 Dxc5 DAd4 12 Wd3 We7 13 Ab3 eS 140-0 &e6 15 Wb1 Hic8 16 d3 16 Hdi!?. 16...xc3! 17 bxc3 Dxe2+ 18 &h1 Oxc3 19 We2 Zc8 Black has a pawn for the exchange and active pieces, so is already slightly better. 20 Wd2 Artificial. White should try 20 £3. 20...e4 21 d4 DbS 22 Wg5 Wes 23 Se3 15 24 Wha 2d5 25 g4 Dude 26 Wg3 Dbe4 27 214 We7 28 Zact Zf8 29 Hfe1 g5 30 &xd6 Dxd6 31 gxfS Bxt5 Timman gives 31...Dxf5 32 Wg4 Dd6 followed by ...if8-f4, gaining a tempo against White’s queen. 32 He2 Bf4 33 Bec hé 34 Wc3 White now has counterplay on the queenside. 34...D04 35 Ad2 bS 36 Axc4 &xc4 37 a4 a6 38 axb5 axb5 39 We3 Wde 40 Hd2 2f6 41 Hat £d8 42 Ha7 &c7 43 Wh3 E17 44 Edi &g7 45 d5 203 46 Wg3? White should play 46 Ec &c4 47 Hdl. 46...db6 47 We3 b4 48 Wxb6 2xb6 49 Exf7+ Sxf7 50 &f1 &c2 51 Bd2 b3 52 fica e3 Avoiding the trick 52...b253 &a2 b1W+ 54 &xb1 &xb1 55 Hb2. La ao 53 d6+ G16 54 fxe3 @ed+ 55 Hg? b2 56 a2 Sixe3 57 h4 g4 58 d7 e7 59 Gh2 Afa+ 60 &g1 Axg2 61 xg2 hs 0-1 139Symmetrical English Summary White continues to score well in the main line with 7 d4, though Game 51 contains some resources for Black which are worth considering. It is surprising that more people do not opt for 6...d5 as Black (since this does so well in practice), and that White, in turn does not make sure of getting in an early d2-d4l, After the early ... d7-d5, the main line, covered in Game 53, is bone dry, but there are some new ideas in the notes to Game 55 (and the notes at the start of Game 53) which may give White improved prospects. 1 c4 c5 2 Dc3 Acé 3 Af3 AE 4 g3 g6 5 &g2 &g7 (D) 5...d5 6 cxd5 Dud5 7 Wad - Game 55 6 0-0 0-0 6...d5 7 cxd5 Axd5 8 DxdS Wxd5 9 d3 0-0 10 &e3 (D) 10...Sd7 — Game 53; 10...xb2 - Game 54 7 d4 cxd4 8 Dxd4 (D) Dxd4 8...Dg4 - Game 52 9 Wxd4 d6 10 Wd3 a6 - Game 50 10...WaS - Game 51 140CHAPTER SEVEN Breaking the Symmetry This chapter covers several systems in which the symmetry is broken in the first few moves, but without an immediate d2-d4 or ...d7-d5. 1c4 The lines in this chapter often crop up viaa 123 move order, for example 1 Df3 5.2 c4 Acb 3 Dc3. 1...05 2 D3 2 Dc3 Aco Af3 transposes, while 3 g3 of course is Chapters 5-6. 2...Dc6 2... Df6 3 Ac3 bo is covered in Game 63. White could now choose 3 d4 if he doesn’t fancy some of the lines in this chapter (e.g. 3 Dc3 Dd4 or 3...e5). After 3...cxd4 4xd4, Black can go for the lines in Chap- ter 3 with (e.g,) 4...Df6 5 Dc3 €6, though the inclusion of an early ...2cé restricts his options somewhat. Black can also choose 4...g6, and if White is not ready for the Ac- celerated Dragon after 5 e4 he has to go for something like 5 Ac3 Sg7 6 @c2 (which is covered in the notes to Game 27) or 5 g3 &g7 6 Dc2 which should present Black with few difficulties. 3 Dc3 Now we cover four different lines, each of which is quite distinct, though ‘c’ and ‘d’ sometimes come to the same thing, with uv i - ©) 3...6 ~ Games 60-61 d) 3...e5 - Game 62 Van der Sterren-Timman Rotterdam 1998 1 Df3 c5 2 c4 Ac6 3 Dc3 Ada “A provocative move but not easy to re- fute’ according to Anand. 493 Other moves will be discussed in Game 57. 4... Dxf3+ 141Symmetrical English Black may as well disrupt White’s structure while he has the chance. 4...g6 5 2g2 27 leads to a fairly normal position. 5 exf3 D6 6 d4 cxd4 Instead 6...06 7 Sg? d5 8 cxd5 Axd5 and here: a) 9 Dxd5 and Black can play either: al) 9...exd5 10 0-0 4 11 4 (Kramnik- Anand, Frankfurt 1998) and now (instead of 11...2e7? 12 WES 0-0 13 Wxd5 as played) Seirawan suggests 11...2e6 followed by 87-96. a2) 9...Wxd5 10 Se3 cxd4 11 Wxd4 Wxd4 12 Qxd4 Bb4+ 13 He2 b6!? 14 f4 (14 Sxg7 Rab+ 15 He3 Lc5+ 16 Rd4 is the critical test; it remains to be proven if Black has enough for the pawn) 14...Ra6+ 15 @e3 Hd8 16 Hhd1 0-0 with an equal ending, Vaganian-Gulko, Novgorod 1995. b) 90-0 Axc3 10 bxc3 and now: bi) 10..Ad6 11 f4 0-0 12 c4 Wo 13 Be3 Bb8 14 dxcS Bxc5 15 Bb1 We7 16 Sxc5 Wxe5 17 Wad a6 18 Bfdi with an edge for White, Ribli-Wells, Austrian League 1998, b2) 10...cxd4 11 cxd4 &d6 12 Wb3 0-0 13 f4 Bb8 14 2b2 Whe and Black is close to equalising, Ribli-Emms, German Bundesliga 1996. 7 Wxd4 g6 7...66 has also been tried, e.g. 8 &g2 &b7 9 0-0 e6 10 Det Axed 11 fxe4 f6 12 Wd1 2c5 13 Wh5+ g6 14 Wh6 and here: a) 14..98f7 15 Bd1 &c6 16 b3 WES 17 Wd2 We7 18 5 fxe5 19 2b2 Had8 20 We2 xg? 21 Wxe5 and White dominates the al-h8 diagonal, Ribli-Ivanisevic, Szeged, 1997. b) 14...2£8 15 Wd2 297 16 Edi £c6 17 b3 0-0 18 &b2 We7 19 Bet Wh7 20 be is also slightly better for White, Gulko- Krasenkow, Polanica Zdroj 1996. 8 g2 Possibly a more promising approach is the double fianchetto with 8 b3 279 2b2 bé6 (9...d6 looks like a better development scheme) 10 £2 &b7 11 0-00-0 12 Wd2 d6 13 Bfel He8 14 Hadi a6 15 Dd5 Dxd5 16 Sixg7 Sexg7 17 cxd5 Bc8 18 f4 a5 19 £5 (Vaganian-Izoria, Yerevan 2000) and White is better. He has kingside attacking prospects while Black’s pieces are very cramped. 8...g7 9 0-0 0-0 10 14 10 Bg5 dé 11 Bacl Le6 12 Wa3 a6 13 £4 Bb8 14 b4 b5 15 cxb5 axb5 16 Bfel Qc4 was fine for Black, Akopian-Qin Kanying, Calcutta 2000. 10...d6 11 2d2 a6 Also reasonable is 11...2f5 12 We3 Wd7 13 Bfel Efe 14 Wf3 Hab8 15 Hacl a6 16 b3 e5 17 fxe5 dxe5 18 295 Web 4-44 Niel- sen-Schandorff, Roskilde 1998. 12 Bact 2b8 13 a4 13 Wd3 is better, with an equal position according to Timman. If White could move his f4-pawn back to e2, he would have the pleasant position analysed in Game 50, but as it stands he has fewer dynamic prospects. 13...2e6 14 Wd3 Dd7 ‘With the awkward threat of 15...Dc5 16 We2 &f5. Black already has a slight plus. 15 b4 a5 Creating weaknesses in White’s pawn front. 16 AbS axb4 17 Axb4 Acé 18 Wad Dab 19 ad2 Timman suggests 19 Efd1. 19...Wd7 20 Bfe1 Sfc8 21 &d5 142Breaking the Symmetry In order to defend his weak c-pawn, White has to trade his strong bishop, and he is still left with an isolated pawn on d5. 21...8xd5 22 cxd5 Excl 23 &xe1 Dc5 24 2e3 Bc8 25 Da7 Bas Black avoids the repetition with 25...21c7 26 Db5 at the cost of a temporary pawn sacrifice. 26 &xc5 dxc5 27 Wxc5 28 Black could try to win the knight with 27...b6, but Timman gives the riposte 28 Bxe7 Wxat 29 We6! Bxa7 30 Bxa7 Wxa7 31 We8+ £8 32 d6 and surprisingly, Black has no way of stopping the d-pawn. 28 a5? Now the knight really does get stuck on a7. Instead after 28 AbS Hxa4 Black has a slight edge, due to his passed b-pawn and bishop v knight. 28...e6 29 dxe6 Wxe6 30 Wc3 Wd7 31 We3 297 32 Wc5 32 Hb1 was a better defence according to Timman, e.g. 32...&d4 33 Wd2 Bxa7 34 Edi Qxi2+ 35 Gxf2 Wxd2+ 36 Bxd2 Bxad 37 Hb? b5 with excellent winning chances in the rook ending. 32...d4 33 Wb White can wriggle, but there is no es- cape... 33,..Wd8 34 &g2 fxa7 35 Wxb7 ac5 36 a6 Ha7 37 Wc6 Wd6 38 Wc8+ Sg7 39 He8 Wd5+ 40 &g1 Wd1+ 41 wg2 Wad5+ 42 &g1 Bd7 0-1 Game 57 Karpov-Anand Linares 1991 1 Df3 cB 2 c4 Deb 3 Dc3 Dd4 4 e3 If White gets frustrated by the lines that follow, he can always try: a) 4 Dgl when: al) 4...2\c6 starts the game again, maybe this time White can try 5 g3. a2) Or 4...e6 when White can continue with 5 g3 or 5 e3 Dcb6 6 Af. a3) 4...g6 5 e3 Dcé 6 Df3 transposes to Games 58-59. b) After 4 Des: 1) Black can continue the dance with 4..Dc6 5 Dxc6 dxcb 6 g3 57 Lg? Afo 8 d3 £6 (8...h6 should be solid enough) 9 Wb3 Wd7 10 2g5 Be7 11 Wa3 Bh3 12 Sxh3 Woch3 13 2xf6 gxfo 14.0-0-0 Wd7 15 f4 and White has generated play against Black’s inferior pawn structure, Boissonet- Milos, Buenos Aires 1991. b2) 4...g6 5 ¢3 2g7 (5...Acé 6 AF again transposes to Game 58-59) 6 exd4 cxd4 7 Dxf7 Bxf7 8 Det Df 9 2d3 RE8 10 0-0 Hb8 11 Axfo &xfo 12 Led bS 13 Wh3 &g7 14 cxb5 a6 with an unusual and double-edged position, Ki.Georgiev-Miles, Komotini 1992. 4... Dxf3+ 5 Wxi3 g6 6 b3 White also has: a) 6 d4 and after 6...2g7: al) White usually plays 7 Wl, e.g. 7...46 8 Re2 cxd4 9 exd4 Dh 10 0-0 AfS 11 d5 0-0 12 F4 e5 13 dxe6 &xe6 14 Bel Ad4+ 15 £43 d5 with an equal game, Panchenko- Balashov, Moscow 1991. 22) But Benjamin’s move 7 dxc5 deserves further investigation. After 7....xc3+ (7...Wa5 has been suggested as an improvement, though I’m not sure it makes that much difference after 8 e4) 8 bxc3, of course White’s pawn structure looks hor- 143Symmetrical English rendous, but the specific line up of minor pieces remaining does not make it easy for Black to exploit this. Benjamin-Wolff, New York 1992 continued 8...Wa5 9 e4 Wxc5 10 Rd3 dé 11 Be3 Was 12 0.0 Dfe 13 d+ and White is a little better, though Black drew the ending that arose after 13...0-0 14 ixfo exf6 15 Waxfo We5 16 Wxe5 des 17 Hfb1 Hd8 18 Sf 1 be etc. b) 6 g3 &g7 7 &g2 dé 8 0-0 Bbs and now: b1) 9 Wd1 (the loss of time inherent in this somewhat inevitable regrouping is one of the reasons that White finds it hard to extract an advantage from this variation) 9...a6 10 d4 cxd4 11 exd4 Af6 (11...Dh6!2) 12 h3 0-0 13 a4 Bd7 14 We2 Be8 15 2e3 6 16 Hfct 26 17 d5 exd5 18 cxd5 2d7 and Black can maintain the balance, San Segundo-Emms, Escaldes 1998. b2) 9 d3 a6 10 a4 Dho 11 Wal AEs 12 fd? 0-0 13 a5 Qd7 14 Ha2 e6 15 Dat Rxad 16 Wat b5 17 axb6 Wxb6 18 Wxa6 Wrxa6 19 Hxaé Exb2 with a level ending, Makarov-Zviaginsev, Elista 1998. 6...8.97 7 &b2 dé 8 g3 ‘An interesting recent development is 8 g4!? when Black has tried: a)8...Kb8 9 &g2 Rd7 10 We2 a6?! (this justifies White’s g-pawn thrust; instead 10...Df6 11 g5 Dh5 is unclear according to Krasenkow) 11 g5! b5 12 d3 Wa5 13 Bci h6 14 h4 and Black’s g8-knight is boxed in, leaving White better, Krasenkow-Macieja, Plock 2000. b) 8...Af6 9 g5 Dd7 10 h4 DeS 11 Wg2 Sg4 12 Be2 Qxe2 13 Gxe2 Ac6 14 Babi h5 15 Ad5 0-0 16 f4 &xb2 17 Bxb2 e6 18 Dfo+ g7 19 a3 Hb8 20 b4, and White has astrong initiative, Van Wely-Akopian, En- ghien-les-Bains 2001. 8...2b8 9 2g2 D6 ‘The most precise move order according to Anand. Instead, Black has tried: a) 9...2d7 10 0-0 &c6 11 We2 &xg2 12 &xg2 Dfo 13 Ded and White is slightly better as he can damage Black’s pawn structure, Andersson-Ljubojevic, Brussels 1988. b) 9...Dh6 10 Wat a6 11 0-0 0-0 12 d3 b5 13 Wd2 Bb7 14 &xb7 Bxb7 15 Dds &xb2 16 Wxb2 Dg4 is okay for Black, Ftacnik-Miles, Manila 1990. 10 h3 Or 10 Wai 0-0 (10...2g4!?) 11 d4 Bet 12 Wd2 We8 130-0 Rh3 14 Hfet 2xg? 15 bxg? a6 16 a4 Bd8 17 e4 cxd4 18 Wxd4 06 19 Hacl %4-% Ribli-Miles, Wijk aan Zee 1989. 10...0-0 10...b5 11 Dxb5! &b7 12 Wxb7 Hxb7 13 2xb7 0-0 14 £9? is a good queen ‘sacrifice’ according to Karpov. 11 0-0 a6 12 We2 b5! 13 d3 b4 14 Dd1 14 Qb1 is worth considering. 14...a5 15 a4 e5 16 e4 16 d4 should be answered by 16...e4 which emphasises the immobility of the knight on dl. 16...h5 17 h4 Des Here Anand gives 17...2h6 18 Ae3 Eb7 as equal. 18 De3 Ac7 Again 18,...2h6 should be tried. 19 Sh2 De6 20 &h3 Lh6? Now this is inaccurate, since White has arranged his pieces to prepare for 2-4. 21 Dg2 2g7 This retreat is essential, to oppose bishops on the al-h8 diagonal. 144Breaking the Symmetry 22 Bae1 The immediate 22 f4 can be met by 22...exf4 23 gxf4 &xb2 24 Wxb2 Ad4. 22...Hb7 23 Gxe6! &xe6 24 14 294 25 Wa2 He7 26 De3 Black can hang on after 26 {5 gxf5 27 exfS {6 28 De3 &h6 29 WE2 Lxe3 30 Wxe3 Hh7 (Ribli), when White has no way of breaking through. 26...15 27 exfS gxf5 28 Dd5 Bes 28...ee8 is preferable. 29 Wi2 According to Anand, White should have played 29 dé! e4 (29...cxd4 30 &xd4) 30 We3 with the plan of Hf2-d2, W2 and ®e3, which leaves White much better. The bishop on g4 is just a spectator. 29...Bfe8 30 ict? And here 30 fxe5 &xe5 31 &xe5 Hxe5 32 Exed Bxe5 33 Wi4 7 34 Hf2 is still good for White. 30...e4 31 dxe4 Exe4 32 Exe4 Bxe4 33 Be1?? Trading the rooks is a big misjudgement. 33 Be3 is equal. 33...Bxe1 34 Wxe1 17 35 Wd2 213 36 De3 Led 37 Ab2 Axb2 38 Wxb2 We This is an exception to the ‘rule’ that queen and knight are better than queen and bishop, in fact Black is winning because of White's weak queenside pawns on light squares. 39 Wxfe+ Or 39 We2 &g6 40 Wd2 Wd4, when White must agree to the queen trade or he will lose his queenside pawns in any case, eg. 41 We2 We3. 39...@xf6 40 gi &b1 41 DF1 c2 42 Dd2 Seb 43 12 d5 44 cxd5+ Sxd5 45 $e3 Adi! 46 Sd3 Axb3 0-1 Game 58 Lechtynsky-Sherbakov Pardubice 1999 1 Df3 cB 2 c4 Ac6 3 Ac3 g6 4 e3 To paraphrase an apocryphal chess say- ing ‘Every Russian schoolboy (or at least, the positional players among them) knows that 3...g6 is bad because of 4 €3.’ Since Black cannot oppose d2-d4, his knight will often be embarrassed by d4-d5. Indeed, in the more than 660 games in my database starting from this position, White has scored close to 70%, while almost all the lines in ECO (for example) end in a white advantage. Given the verdict of both theory and practice, the reader may be surprised that GMs such as Bologan and Sherbakov have, in fairly recent times, defended the Black side. Indeed the game below ends in 0-1, so the line should not be underesti- mated, Alternatively, White can try 4 d4 cxd45 Axd4 Bg7 6 Dc2 &xc3+ 7 bxc3 Was 8 S.d2 Df6 9 £3 d6 10 e4 which transposes to Game 27 with colours reversed. This is not a great winning attempt for White. ee Vo, Pin: 4...d6 4...2f6 is covered in the next game, while Black often plays the move order 4...8g7 5 d4 d6 when White can try: a) 6 d5 is a natural move, but justifies Black’s set-up somewhat. al) 6...De5 7 DxeS Lxe5 8 Ad3 Bg79 e4 (9 0-0 Df6 10 e4 e5!? should transpose, unless White tries 11 dxe6 &xe6 12 2g5) 9...e5! 10 f4 (Bologan suggests 10 0-0) was Akopian-Bologan, Elista 1998, and here 145Symmetrical English 10...exf4 11 Rxf4 Df 12 0-0 Age is good for Black in view of the juicy e5-square. 22) 6...2a5 and here: a2l) 7 2d3 Bxc3+!? (7... Df6 8 0-00-09 e4a6 10 Hel is a little better for White due to the offside knight on a5) 8 bxc3 e5 9 e4 h6 10 0-0 De7 11 Det g5 12 De2 Dg 13 g3 Rd7 14 De3 Wie 15 Df5 0-0-0 16 Lez ®e7 with roughly balanced chances, Pota- pov-Timofeev, Russian Championship 2001. a22) 7 &d2 Df 8 a3 b6 9 b4 Db7 10 2.d3 0-0 110-0 €6 12 e4 exd5 13 cxd5 a5 14 Bibi axb4 15 axb4 7 16 h3 Had 17 We2 Wc8 18 Bfcl, M.Gurevich-Bologan, Belfort 1998, and here Black should try 18...xh3 19 gxh3 Wxh3 20 Wdl We4+ 21 ft Wh3+ 22 Sel He8 with an attack against White's king. b) 6 Re2 with a split: bi) 6...2f6 (6...cxd4 7 exd4 Sg4 transposes to the main game) 7 0-00-08 d5 a5 9 e4 leads to a King’s Indian which should yield White a slight edge (despite the tempo lost in playing €2-e3-e4) because of the offside a5-knight, e.g. 9...e5 10 2g5h6 11 2d2 b6 12 g3 @h3 13 Hel #h7 14 Dh4 Des 15 243 with good play for White, Stohl- Tolnai, Austrian League 1993. b2) 6...Rg4 (...&c8-g4 works best when prefaced by ...c5xd4, as in the main game, as this gives Black better counterchances against the white centre) 7 d5 &xf38 Qxf3 De5 9 Le2 Db 10 0-0 0-0 11 e4 a6 12 gd bs 13 f4 Ded7 14 a4 We7 15 Wd3 Hbe8 16 Hadi and Black is tied down, Popov-Sivokho, St Petersburg 2000. 5d4 5h3 is perhaps White’s best try, to rule ut ...Sc8-g4. After 5...2g7 6 d4 Black can. play ...cxd4 or avoid the exchange on d4 and play a Kings-Indian style set-up. a) 6...cxd4 7 exd4 Df6 (Black has mixed his plans) 8 d5 Db8 9 Le2 0-0 10 0-0 Dab 11 Re3 Bd7 12 Dd4 Dc7 13 Wd? a6 14 a4 a5 15 f4 Dab 16 £5 Dc5 17 We2 Wb6 18 ‘Bf3 Hae8 19 Dcb5 Wd8 20 Hafl and White has a powerful build-up in place, Goldin- Macieja, Krynica 1997. b) Kratochwil-Sturua, Baden-Baden 1993 saw an interesting plan for Black: 6...Sd77 Re2 cxd4 8 exd4 Hc8 9 0-0 Dh6 10 &g5 (maybe the immediate 10 d5 is better) 10...Df5 11 d5 De5 12 DxeS dxe5 13 Det 0-0 14 Hel h6 15 2d2 Ad4 16 2c3 e6 and Black is doing fine. ©) 6..Df6 7 d5 Da5 8 Ld3 0-0 9 e4 €5 10 gé! (a neat idea, justifying h2-h3) 10...h5 11 Dh? hxg4 12 hxg4 Dh7 13 Be3 a6 14 Wa2 b5 15 0-0-0 Axc4 16 Lxc4 bxc4 17 £3 £5 18 gxf5 gxf5 19 exf5 &xf5 20 Kdgl with good kingside attacking chances for White, Kustar-Vaulin, Zalakaros 1999. 4) Another set-up is 6...067 Re2 Dge7 8 0-0 0-0 9 Hel b6 10 d5 Dad 11 e4 a6 12 &d2 Bb8 13 a4 e5 14 Dh2 f5 with reasonable play for Black, as White has weakened his kingside somewhat, Chloupek-Cvek, Czech Republic, 1997. 5...0xd4 5...2g7 transposes into lines covered in the note to Black’s fourth move. 6 exd4 ig4 7 de2 297 wo >A ae 7a at 80-0 8 h3 &xf3 9 xf} Dh6!? 10 g4 0-0 11 Re3 Hh8 12 Wd2 Dg’ 13 0-0 4-44 Pigu- sov-Sherbakov, Koszalin 1999. A draw was agreed here, though anything could happen after 13...f5. 146Breaking the Symmetry 8..DN6 9 dS Axf3 10 xf3 DeS 11 he2 White has two issues to deal with - the threat to the c4-pawn (after Black has castled) and the activity of the Black knights, which can control a lot of squares from f5 and e5. To that end, White has tried several alternatives: a) 11b3 0-0 (11...2f5 is better, with similar play to the main game) 12 Sd? a6 13 Se2 D5 14 Bel Wh8 15 Hel with an edge for White, Smejkal-Zinn, Lugano 1968. b) 11 Bed and now: bl) 11...0-0 12 b3 £5 13 £5 (the fact that the al-h8 diagonal was opened by b2-b3 makes things more awkward for White than in the Speelman game below - 13 Sc? f4 14 De2 £3 15 Dd4 fxg? 16 kexg2 Who gives Black counterplay) 13...f4 14 Bb1 Df5 and White has an uncomfortable position, Tri- funovic-Portisch, Oberhausen 1961. b2) This is more accurate than 11...f5 12 Lic2 0-0 13 De2! Axc4 14 Dd4 when the weak e6-square and uncoordinated pieces hurt Black more than the loss of the c-pawn hurts White, Speelman-Xu Jun, World Team Championship, Lucerne 1989. 11,..Df5 12 &d2 BB After 12...0-0 13 Hcl a6 (13...2c8) 14 b4 Black is a bit short of good ideas. The following kingside sortie with the queen was no exception: 14...e6 15 a3 Wh4 16 g3 Wh3 17 Det Dd4 18 f4 Dxe2+ 19 Wxe2 Aga 20 Dg5 1-0 Vaganian-Handke, Porz 2001 13 b3 h5!? This adds another dimension to the position. The immediate 13...Wb6 is also possible. 14 Dea One of the ideas behind 13...h5 is 14 f4 Ded 15 Bxgs Bd4+ 16 Ph I (16 BA2 Qxf2+ 17 Sexf2 Wbo+ 18 Sf hxgd) 16...Dg3+ 17 hxg3 hxg4 mate. Instead, Sherbakov gives 14 Wb1, presumably to support the plan of @\c3-e4 and &d2-c3 without allowing the tactic that occurs on move 15. This seems a bit long- winded, however, as Black can initiate counter-play with, for example, 14...a6 15 Bes b5. 14...Wb6 15 c3 If 15 &g5 then simply 15...0-0 or 15... Wid4, or if White tries 15 @h1 then 15...h4 16 f4 Bd7. 15...De3! 16 244 The point is 16 fxe3? Wxe3+ 17 @h1 Wxe4. 16...Dxd1 17 Sxb6 axb6 18 Eaxd1 Dd7 19 £4 Dc5 20 213 ZaB After Black’s simplifying combination, he is the one trying to extract something from an almost even position. 21 Bf2 21 Dxc5 bxc5 22 ad is slightly better for Black according to Sherbakov, but this would bea much tougher nut to crack. As it stands, Black gets the a-file to play with. 21...2a3 22 Be2 d7 23 gS Bha8! 24 Ede1 Sherbakov analyses 24 @xf7 Bxa2 25 b4 Fxe2 26 Sixe2? De 27 Rd3 Qd4+ 28 fl DF2 29 QF5+ gxf5 30 Bxd4 Ded and Black retains the initiative. 24...26 25 Dh7 Ad4+ 26 Sf1 e5 27 dxe6+ fxe6 28 Hd1 2c3 29 He3 &ba!? 29...8.87 is more conventional. 30 Det wc7 31 Ded Exa2 32 Axd6 Hd8 33 DbS+ wc8 34 Zxd8+ oxd8 35 147Symmetrical English 93? Instead White can try 35 &d1; or 35 Be2 Hal+ 36 @f2 and Black has not proved anything yet. 35...xh2 36 2g2 h4 37 g4 Ad2 38 Ef3 h3 39 @xh3 Oxt4 40 b4 Dd7 Black has freed his rook and has good winning chances with the extra pawn. 41 g5 Sxg5 42 &xe6 De5 43 a3 Zb2 44 Dc3 He7 45 Rd5 DgA! Going for the king! 46 Sxb7 De3+ 47 ogi Dxc4 48 DdS+ He6 49 Eg3 Ded 50 Axb6 &h4 51 Sd5+ S15 52 Hg2 Bb1+ 53 &h2 Dga+ 54 Exg4 Otherwise it is mate. 54...oxg4 55 Ded £14 56 17 Sxb4 57 g2 g5 58 2d5 g4 59 Sf1 16 60 Sg2 2d4 0-1 Game 59 Riumin-Kan Moscow 1932 1 e4 c6 2 dé d5 3 exd5 cxd5 4 c4 Dt6 5 Dc3 Acé 6 At3 g6 The English Opening move order to reach this position is 1 4 c5 2 Ac3 Acé6 3 DB g6 4 e3 Df 5 d4 cxd4 6 exd4 d5. 7 295 This moves casts doubt over the 4...f6 line. 7 cxd5 is a popular alternative, but gives Black better chances of equalising. For example 7... Axd5 8 Wb3 Axc3 9 c4 e6 (9...Dd5 10 &xd5 e6 11 &xc6+bxcb 120-0 is quite good for White) 10 bxc3 and now 10...Sd6 (an improvement over the earlier tries 10...&g7 and 10...2d7) 11 &h6 2£8 12 Qxf8 (12 Bg5 Le7 13 Bho repeats moves) 12..,42xf8 13 0-0 (Van der Sterren suggests 13 Re2 DaS 14 Wh2) 13...Da5 14 Wo++ dg7 15 Re? bo 16 Bfd1 2b7 with a balanced position, Van der Sterren-Agdes- tein, German Bundesliga 1998 7.004 Black has a few alternatives: a) 7...e6 is perhaps Black’s best chance to revive this line, e.g. 8 &xf6 exf6 and now: al) 9 e2 Rg7 10 0-0 0-0 11 Wa? (11 512) 11...dxe4 12 d5 De5 13 Dxed fxe5 14 Sxc4 with a double-edged position, Speel- man-Korchnoi, Reykjavik 1988. 22) 9.c5 a6 (otherwise &f1-b5 is good for White) 10 h3 &g7 11 Re? g5!? and a draw was agreed here in Sermek-Dizdarevic, Ljubljana 1997. Black needs to play ener- getically to avoid being overrun on the queenside, e.g. 12 Wa4 h5 13 b4 247. 23) 9 cxd5 Bxd5 10 Rb5 Rb4 110.0 and now: 331) 11...0-0 12 DxdS Wxd5 13 Was Sd6 14 Bact De7 15 Bel a6 16 2c4 WhS 17 Wd7 and White is in control, Ehlvest- Lyly, Jyvaskyla 1991. 232) Van der Sterren’s suggestion 11.,,2xc3! 12 bxc3 0-0 followed by ...Ac6- a5 is a better attempt, and if 13 Ad2 &xg2 14 doxg? Wa5+. b) According to Van der Sterren, 7....2g7 8 Rxf6 2xf6 9 cxd5 ‘looks absurd when compared to similar pawn sacrifices in the Griinfeld or Caro-Kann’ while c) 7...dxc4 8 &xc4 Bg7 9 d5 is also stro! Db8 100-00-0 11 Hel Abd? 12 Wad2 with a very good position for White, Pachman-Uhlmann, Sarajevo 1963. 8 cxd5 2xc3 9 bxc3 Wxd5 10 Wb3! This is more clear-cut than the common 148Breaking the Symmetry alternative 10 c4 Wd6 11 Wd2 2g7 12 2F4 €5 13 dxe5 Wxd2+ 14 Axd2 Dxes 15 0-0-0 0-0 and Black is at least equal, Beim-Afek, Herzliya 1993. os ri mai ‘a ra nee 10...WE5?! Alternatively: a) 10...Wxb3 is Black’s best, though the ending is unpleasant for him, e.g. 11 axb3 &g7 and here: al) 12 b4 b6 13 &b5 Bd7 14 Bab Bc8 15 0-0 Axa6 16 Hxa6 e6 17 Ad? 0-0 18 Bfat Bac8 19 Det h6 20 &f4 5 gave Black counterplay, Makarov-Kozloy, St Peters- burg 2000. a2) 12 &b5 0-0 13 0-0 hé 14 Re3 Hd8 15 &xcé bxcé 16 Bad Bb8 17 b4 a6 when White has a terrific grip on the position, Dautov-I Horvath, Halle 1987. b) 10... We4+ 11 S23 (threatening Wxi7+) 11.,.Re6 12 c4 Sg7? (12...,Rc8 was essential) 13 &d3 Wg4 14 Wxb7 Bc8 15 0-0 @xd4 16 Qxd4 Qxd4 17 Bael 1-0 Ma gomedov-Kotsur, Kurgan 1993. White threatens He1-e4 and if 17...&g7 18h3 WhS 19 Bxe6, 11 d5 DeS 12 2b5+ 2d7 12...2d8 13 DxeS Wxe5+ 14 Le3 Lh6 15 0-0 leaves White better because of Black’s permanently displaced king. 13 Sxd7+ Also strong is 13 Dxe5 Wxe5+ 14 Le3, e.g. 14...0-0-0 15 Be2. 13...Dxd7 14 0-0 h6 15 &h4 &g7 16 Dd4 WhS 17 &xe7! Le5 17...Gexe7 18 Wb4+ &d8 19 Wxb7 wins for White. 18 D3 dxe7 19 Dxe5 DxeS 20 Wh4+ A good old-fashioned slugfest! 20...2d8 21 Wxb7 38 22 Wxa7 With three pawns for the piece, and Black’s king not getting any safer. 22...2d7 23 Sfe1 Wxd5 24 Had1 Has 25 We3 Wc6 26 Wes Hg8 27 Hd6 Wc7 28 Hed1 &c8 29 Wed Wb7 30 We4+ &b8 31 Bxd7 Whe 32 Wxt7 cB 33 Wid+ Be7 34 Bxc7 1-0 34...Wxc7 is answered by 35 Bd8+. Game 60 Rublevsky-Sax Neum 2000 1 4 05 2 Df3 e6 3.4 Dcé 4 Ac3 e5 1 c4.c5 2 Ac3 Acé 3 Df e6 4 e4 e5 is an English move order to reach this position.. Black locks the pawn structure, reckon- ing that the loss of tempo (in playing ...e7- e6-e5) is less important in this kind of position, Practically unknown before the 1990s, this line has grown in popularity, with a number of GM games in the last few years. More often than not, this position is reached via the 1 e4 c5 move order used in this game. However, the play has a definite ‘English’ flavour. 149Symmetrical English Alternatively, 4...2f6 would transpose to Game 61, while 4...g5!? is an off-beat try, e.g. 5d3 h6 6 Be3 d67 h3 €5 8 Dds 2979 a3 Dge7 10 b4 b6 11 Be2 Dxd5 12 cxd5 Dd4 13 bxc5 bxc5 14 Dd2 and White has good play on the light squares, Rublevsky- Mochalov, Kurgan 1994, 5 a3 The first decision point. Other important choices are: a) 5 d3 g6 6 Dds &g7 7 gs f6 8 Red Dge7 9 a3 d6 10 b4 b6 11 bxc5 dxc5 12 Re2 0-0 13 0-0 f5 14 a4 Ad4?! (14..h6 would be equal according to Rublevsky) 15 Sxd4 exd4 16 Dxe7+ Wxe7 17 DAd2 Lhe 18 exfS &xf5 19 &f3 and White is a bit better due to his light square control, Rublevsky-Solak, Herzeg Novi 1999. Note that Black cannot play 19...2xd3 because of 20 &xa8 Bxa8 21 WES. b) 5 Dds dé 6 d3 and now: bl) 6...2e7 7 g3 and here: b11) 7...2f6 8 Dxe7 Wxe7 9 2g? h6 10 0-0 g5 11 Del Hg8 12 Dc2 Vga 1313 Vd7 14 b4 h5 15 bxc5 dxc5 16 Hb b6 17 Aes and White is a little better, Zviaginsev- Gdanski, Kazan 1997. b12) 7...f5!2 8 &h3 fxe4 9 Rxc8 Bxc8 10 dxes Dfo 11 Dxi6+ Rxf6 12 0-0 Wd7 13 Be3 Dd4 14 b3 b5 15 cxb5 WxbS 16 Dd2 0-0 17 Dc4 Web 18 &xd4 exd4 19 Wd3 d5 and Black’s energetic play has prevented White from exploiting his superior structure, Nevednichy-Shchekachev, Creon 2000. b2) 6...g6 7 b4!? cxb4 (but not 7...Age7?? 8 Af6 mate) 8 a3 bxa3 9 Bxa3 Lg7 10 Le3 @d4 11 Dxd4 exd4 12 Wal! 2e6 13 Rxd4 Sixd4 14 Wad4 f6 15 Bxa7 and White is on top, Maljutin-Magerramov, Moscow 1992. b3) Blatny suggests 6...@ge7 as an improvement. 5...d6 6 d3 Instead: a) 6 Bb1 a5 7 d3 £5 (7...g6 8 Dds 249 Wh3 Eb8 10 Re2 Kho 11 Le3 Qxf3 12 Qxf3 Qxe3 13 fxe3 when White is slightly better, S.Marjanovic-Pavlovic, Subotica 2000) 8 g3 Afo 9 Lh3 (9 &g5!2) 9...fxe4 10 xc8 Wxc8 11 dxe4 Le7 12 0-0 0-0 13 gd De8 14 Dds Ad8 15 Lxd8 Wad 16 &g2 Dc7 17 b4 axb4 18 axb4 4-14 Ivan- chuk-Lautier, Belgrade 1997. b) 6 g3 Dge7 7 Rg? g6 8 0-0 2979 b4 exb4 10 axb4 Axb4 11 2a3 Decé 12 dal exd4 13 Ad5 Dab 14 5 dxeS 15 DxeS @xe5 16 Hel Le6 17 f4 and White has a strong attack in return for the piece, G.Mohr-Maksimenko, Graz 1998. 6...96 7 b4! The thematic Benko-style gambit which we saw in some examples above. 7...297 Black declines and tries to keep a solid position. 8 Eb1 Zige7 9 g3 0-0 10 ag2 ae ane aA ee ae L yp # Vie WwW; 10.15 Ina later game between the same oppo- nents, Black improved by not allowing the exchange of bishop for his e7-knight. After 10...b8 11 0-0 hé 12 &d2 Sd7 13 Dd5 bo 14 b5 Ada 15 Dxd4 exd4 16 Dxe7+ Wxe7 17 a4 {5 18 f4 @h7 19 Bel W7 20 a5, Rublevsky-Sax, Istanbul Olympiad 2000, White still got a slight pull, though Black managed to hold a draw this time. 11 0-0 Eb8 12 2g Swapping the dark-squared bishop for a black knight is athematic way of increasing 150Breaking the Symmetry the pressure on the light squares. For a similar idea, see the &g5 lines in Game 49. 12...h6 After 12...S2f6 Rublevsky gives the fore ing line 13 &xf6 Bxf6 14 bxc5 dxc5 15 exf5 Axf5 16 Dh! Qxd3 17 Dds Axfi 18 Dxfor bg7 19 Dd7 Le2 20 Wide Dc8 21 Web &xc4 22 Wed with a strong attack for White. 13 &xe7 Dxe7 14 exfS Dxt5 14..gxf5 is better, though White is slightly better after 15 Dd2. 15 Dd2 b6 16 Wad 2b7? After this, White really starts to domi- nate. Instead Black should play 16...We7 17 Db5 a6 18 Dc3, when White is better due to his control of the light squares and Black’s weak pawns on bé and a6. 17 Wxa7 &xg2 18 &xg2 Ha8 19 Wb7 Exa3 20 Dded This game is a model example of light- squared play in the English. The g7-bishop isn’t going anywhere, anytime soon. 20...547 21 Wd5 Wd7 22 Dbs Ba2 23 g1 After avoiding ...2e3+, White concludes matters efficiently. 23...De7 24 Wxd6 Wh3 25 Hat Bxat 26 Exa1 cxb4 27 Wxb6 Wd7 28 Dbdé Ef8 29 Wxb4 Of5 30 Wb7 We6 31 Za7 1-0 Game 61 Zviaginsev-Ulibin Russian Championship 1996 1 Df3 D6 2 c4 c5 3 De3 e6 4 e4 This is an independent line which avoids both the Hedgehog with 4 g3 b6, and 4 g3 d5 (the Keres-Parma/Semi-Tarrasch - Games 32-33), as well as the Tarrasch or Catalan for that matter. So obviously if you use this move order as Black to get to any of those openings, you need to have an answer to 4 e4. 4...De6 5 Re2 5...d5 This is not mandatory, of course. A vi- able alternative is 5...b6, when White has gone for: a) 60-0 Rb7 7 d4 cxd4 8 Dxd4 Wb8 9 De2 Abs 10 B£3 Dxc2 11 Wxc2 Ldo 12 g3 Re5 13 2d? 0.0 14 Bact a6 15 a4 We7 16 b3 Hac8 17 Bfel Bfe8 18 Wb1 d6 19 ‘2g2 Dd7 with a level position, White has a slightly passive version of a standard Hedgehog, Bareev-Adams, Sarajevo 2000. b) 6 d4 cxd4 7 Dxd4 &b7 8 Bf4 and here: bi) 8...Axd4 9 Wad4 Bc5 10 Wd3 do 11 0.0 0-0 12 Bad1 We7?? (12...e5 is okay for Black) 13 &xd6 &xd6 14 Wxd6 Wxd6 15 Bxd6 Dxet 16 Dxet Axed 17 £3 Bb7 18 b4 Bfc8 and Black held this ending, Zviaginsev-Leitao, Poikovsky 2001. b2) 8...2b4 9 Ddb5 Axes 10 We2 Dxc3 11 bxc3 0-0 (Zviaginsev gives 11...Wf6! 12 Wel £05 13 &g5 Wes 14 Lf4 with a repetition of moves) 12 cxb4 Wf6 13 Wel Dxb4 140-0 Weg6 15 £3 e5 16 Rxe5 Bfe8 17 We3 1-O.was the rapid denouement in Onischuk- Leitao, Poikovsky 2001. 6 cxd5 65 isan alternative move order that introduces some differences: a) 6...De4 7 0-0 (an interesting try for White, as the c8-bishop has not been freed by 6 cxd5 exd5) 7...2e7 8 2d3 (8 We? is answered by 8...2\g5) 8...xc3 9 dxc3 dxc4 151Symmetrical English 10 Axed Wxd1 11 Bxd1 b6 12 243 2b7 13 Led Hd8 14 &g5 with a slight pull for White, Glek-Van der Sterren, Breda 1999 b) 6...Dg4 7 cxd5 exd5 (7...Acxe5 8 Dxe5 Dxe5 9 d4) 8 Lb5 transposes to the main game. ¢) 6...2d7 is best, when White has nothing better than 7 cxd5 exd5 transposing to the note ‘b’ to Black’s next move. 6...exd5 7 e5 Aga In the light of White’s play in this game, Black should select one of the alternatives: a) 7...De4 8 0-0 &e7 is equal according to Zviaginsev. b) 7...Dd7 8 &b5 Le7 9 0-00-0 10 Het Dbo 11 d4 c4 12 Bxcb bxeb 13 h3 Bbs 14 Qf4 Da8 15 b3 Leb 16 bxcd dxc4 17 Det @©bé and Black has a decent position, with a firm grip on d5, Nogueiras-Delgado, Santa Clara 1999. 8 ab5d4 Since White has taken two moves to get his bishop to b5 (S2f1-e2-b5), the position has now transposed into a variation which is even more important with colours reversed = 1c4c5 2 Df3 ADcé 3 Ac3 e5 4 e3 Afo 5 d4 cxd4 6 exd4 e4 7 Ags (for 7 Ded see Game 62) &b4 8 d5. This is a popular line which has been played many times. Here Gelfand-Kasparov, Dos Hermanas 1996, continued 8...0e5 9 Wb3 etc. However, Zviaginsev’s next move is a novelty which dramatically changes the assessment both of the line he played, and the line with colours reversed! So in Gelfand-Kasparov, for example, Black should play 8....2xc34! 9 bxc3 a5 etc. Since important games have been played with both colour orientations, it can be somewhat mind-boggling to try and fig- ure out the theory, so I have also included the key analysis (albeit in less depth) from this game in Game 62 also. 9 axc6+! 9 Det had been played before. 9...bxc6 10 Dad! Black now has a weak c5-pawn to contend with, and his knight is poorly placed on g4. After a later d2-d3, h2-h3 and... Ag4- h6, White can shatter Black’s kingside structure with &cixh6. 10...sa6 Alternatively, Black can try: a) 10...Wd5 110-0 2e7 12 Bel and now: al) 12...h6 with the further choice: all) 13 d3 &g4 14 Be4 Qf5 15 &xh6 gxh6 16 Bf4 Bg6 17 Dh4 0.0 18 b3 is Gausel-Rytshagov, Asker 1997 (in reverse!) which continued 18...c4 (but why not just 18...Wxe5?) 19 bxct Wxe5 with approxi- mate equality. a2) 13 h3 (to prevent ...2c8-g4) is better, and then 13...d3 14 b3 c4 is a radical attempt to gum up White’s development and also liquidate the weak c5-pawn. Probably White can just continue 15 Db2 or 15 bxc4 Wxcd 16 2b2. a2) 12...0.0 13 h3 (13 dB is also possible as 13...f6 14 exfo &xf6 15 Wb3 is excellent for White) 13...Dh6 14 d3 Be8 (14...D5 avoids &xh6, though after 15 b3 White has abig advantage according to Khalifman) 15 b3 Lab 16 Rxh6 gxh6 17 Wd2 28 and Black has a gruesome position, though he eventually drew the game, Holst-Larsen, Taastrup 1998. b) 10...c4 11 0-0 2f5 12 b3 Wd5 13 2b2 cxb3 14 Dxd4 Be6 15 axb3 Wxes 16 f4 Wh5 17 h3 Dfo 18 Wel 4ed7 19 Abort axb 20 Bxa8 2d5 21 WeS 1-0 Adorjan- 152Breaking the Symmetry Menyhart, Hungary 1997. 11:43 Wa5+ Black goes after the d3 pawn. He must try something active, or else he will be left with a positionally hopeless set-up. Zviagin- sev branded 11...Wa5+ as dubious, but 11...c4 fared no better when a (poorly prepared?) opponent tried it against him the following year: a) After 11...c4 12 0-0 (12 h3 comes un- stuck after 12..Dxe5 13 DxeS Wa5S+) 12...cxd3 13 e6! and now: al) 13...f5 14 2g5 (White is already much better) 14...e7 15 Dc5 Bcd 16 Bel Was 17 xe7 d2 18 Wxd2 Kxfl 19 Wg5 g6 20 Exfl Hg8 21 h3 Bg7 22 hxg4 Bxe7 23 Wie 1-0 Zviaginsev-Filippov, Elista 1997. a2) 13...Re7 14 h3 Afo (14...d2 is nor mentioned by other annotators, and could be an improvement, e.g. 15 &xd2 2xf1 16 Wxfl Dfe 17 Dgs Wd5 18 exf7+ Sf8 and Black may be just about okay) 15 Ags Wd5 16 exf7+ @d7 17 Hel with a big plus for White according to Zviaginsev. a3) 13...fxe6 14 Dgs Df6 15 Dxe6 leaves Black’s king completely in the open. b) White also retains a strong initiative after 11..Wd5 12 0-0 c4 13 dxc4 Bxcd 14 Bei Hd8 15 &g5. 12 &d2 Wb5 13 0-0 Not 13 h3 Wxd3 followed by... Wd3-e4+. 13...Wxd3 14 Be1 0-0-0 Black’s king needs to get out of the way of e5-e6, but there is no hiding place. 15 h3 Dh6 16 e6 White crashes through with powerful play. 16...fxe6 If 16...2d6 17 Ae5 continues the on- slaughe. 17 Des Ws After this, White wins the exchange, but if instead 17...Wf5 18 g4 Wo 19 g5 Black surrenders a piece for insufficient compensation, “ 18 &xh6 gxh6 19 Af7 Zg8 20 Dxd8 &xd8 21 WF3! White has a winning attack. 21...2e7 or 21...Wexa4 22 WI7 Bh8 23 Bxe6. 22 Exe6 08 22..iixa4 23 Bxe7 dxe7 24 Bel+ wins. 23 Exe7! bxe7 24 Be1+ e6 25 WIS Ug6 26 Axc5 Wc4 27 b3 1-0 White gets a winning pawn ending after 27..NUd5 28 Wxd5 cxd5 29 &f1 &d6 30 Dxeb Bxe6 31 Bxeb+ Hxe6 32 He2. Game 62 Marin-Movsesian Neum 2000 1c4 cB 2 Df3 Ac6 3 e3 Or 3 Dc3 5 when 4 e3 transposes to the game. Another common continuation here is 4 g3, which after 4...g65 2g? &g7 transposes into lines considered in Game 49 (Oll-Cramling). 3...05 4 De3 D6 4...{5 is perhaps too loosening. 5 d4 and now: a) 5...e4 6 d5 exf3 7 dxc6 fxg? 8 cxd7+ Wxd7 9 &xg? Wxdi+ 10 dexd1 Df6 11 b3 £412 12 Ad5 &d6, Marin-Ardeleanu, Iasi 1999, and now 13 Axf6+ gxf6 14 &b2 fxe3 15 fxe3 is slightly better for White - he con- trols both long diagonals. b) 5...cxd4 6 exd4 e4 7 Des (7 d5!2) 7.26 8 Re? &b4 9 0-0 0-0 10 c5 d5 11 Qf4 Qa5 12 Bel Se6 13 Wad (Khari- tonov-lljushin, Novgorod 1999) and White is well placed. 5 da a) 5 a3 is interesting, provided White follows up with an early d2-d4 given the chance. al) 5...Re7 6 d4 exd4 7 exd4 cxd4 8 Axd4 0-09 Ac? b6 10 Rf4 £a6 11 b4 &b7 12 Le2 dé 13 0-0 when Black is hin- dered by his weak d-pawn, Benjamin- Kramnik, Groningen 1993. a2) 5..d6 6 Be? g6 7 d4 exd4 8 exd4 153Symmetrical English 2g7 9 Bf4 0.0 10 0.0 2f5 11 d5 Dez, Kramnik-Kamsky, New York (match game 4) 1994, and now 12 Wd2 gives White a slight advantage according to Kramnik. a3) Black has had better results with 5...d5 which leads to a kind of reversed Taimanov Sicilian, e.g. 6 cxd5 Dxd5 7 £b5 ADxc3 8 bxc3 Ad6 9 0-0 0-0 10 e4 DaS, and compared to the line in reverse (1 e4 c5 2 DEB 06 3 d4 cxd4 4 Dxdd Deb 5 c4 Df6 6 Dc} Lbs 7 Ld3 0-0 8 0-0 e5 etc), White’s a-pawn may be better off on its original square. Dorfman-Yudasin, Nikolaev 1983 continued 11 d4 exd4 12 cxd4 &g4 13 €5 S2c7 with an unclear position. b) 5 b3 is playable but is no way for White to gain any opening advantage, e.g. 5...96 6 &b2 2977 Ad5 do 8 Dxio+ Axi6 9 d3 0.0 10 Be? g7 11 We2 d5 12 cxd5 Wxd5 13 0-0 b6 14 a3 2b7 which is obviously fine for Black, C.Horvath-Z.Almasi, Hungarian Championship 1999. 5...0xd4 5.04 6 DeS (6 d5!2) transposes to the game. 6 exd4 e4 ..cxd4 7 exd4 7 Des The alternatives do not look that great for White: 2) 7 Dgs Bb4 8 d5 and now: al) 8...xc3+ is Zviaginsev's idea from Game 61 with colours reversed. For more details, see that game, but I have summa- rised the main lines and conclusions below. After 9 bxc3 Da5: all) 10 223 d6 11 Wate (or 1150-0 12 cxd6 e3 13 f4 2g4 with a big plus for Black) 11...2d7 12 Wb4 0-0 13 Wxd6 He8 14 0-0-0 h6 15 4h3 3 and Black is breaking through. a2) 10 Wd4 0-0 11 Be2 He8 12 0-0 (12 ®h3 h6) 12...h6 13 Dh3 do 14 Bel b6 and Black is somewhat better. a2) 8...Qe5 9 Wb3 a5 10 &d2 0-0 11 0-0-0 dé 12 Agxe4 Axed 13 Axed AI5 14 g3 Bd7 15 b1 We8 (Gelfand-Kasparov, Dos Hermanas 1996) and here Gelfand gives 15...2g4 16 WES We 17 2d3 Wxf2 18 Det Wxf3 19 gxf3 £5 20 fxgd fxed 21 Sxe4 Bxgd 22 Hdgi with an equal position, b) 7 Ad2 &b4 8 Adb1?! d5 9 a3 Rxc3+ 10 bxc3 &e6 11 cxd5 Wxd5 and White has yet to develop any pieces, Speelman- Ivanchuk, Linares 1992. 7nSab4 Alternatively 7...2.d6!? 8 f4.0-09 2e2 b6 10 S&e3 (Not 10 0-0 Axd4 11 Wxd4 &c5) 10...Be7 11 0-0 (Avrukh gives 11 g4 &b4 12 Wb3 &xc3+ 13 Wxc3 dé 14 g5 De8 15 Dg4 as unclear) 11..Df5 12 B12 Bb4 13 Bel 2b7 14 a3 &xc3 15 Bxc3, Mikhal- chishin-Avrukh, European Team Champi- onship, Batumi 1999, and here 15...d6 16 Des Dxgd 17 Bxg4 Wee is equal according to Avrukh. 8 &e2 Wad 9 Axc6 dxcé 10 Sd2 White can also offer a pawn sacrifice with 10 0-0 &xc3 (10...0-0 transposes to the main game after 11 &d2 Be8) 11 bxc3 ‘Wxc3 12 Bb1 0-0 13 Hb3 Wad 14 Hp with compensation for the pawn, Bertholee- J Polgar, Amsterdam 1990. 10...0-0 11 0-0 Ee8 12 a3 &xc3 13 &xc3 Wg5 14 Wc Wg6 15 Wha White can also try 15 Bel or 15 We3. 15...h5 16 Efe1 S94 17 2117! White plans to try and oust the g+bishop with Hel-e3 and h2-h3, followed by Bal- 154Breaking the Symmetry di. However he does not get time for this unravelling exercise. Marin gives 17 d5 as an improvement, assessing the position as equal 17...h4 18 h3 Marin gives 18 d5 Dh5 19 We7 cxd5 20 cxd5 Bac8 21 Wxb7 Df4 when Black has attacking chances in return for the pawn. Now Black can answer 18 He3 with 18...Dh5. Black already has a promising position. 18...2xh3 19 Wxh4 &g4 20 He3 Ans 21 Baet £5 22 d5 c5! Not 22...f4 23 Bxe4 Hxe4 24 Hxe4 Wxe4 25 Wxg4, which is good for White. 23 g3 &f7 White’s queen is stranded, and can only spectate while the black artillery is moved across to the h-file. 24 2g2 Bhs 25 axed White’s counterplay comes a move too late. 25.016 In response to 25...fxe4 Marin gives 26 Bxet D6 27 xfo (27 Bxgt Dxgd) 27...8kxh4 28 &xh4 but isn’t Black winning in any case? 26 2xf5 Qxf5 27 Le7+ og8 28 2xf6 Or 28 Wa Whs. 28...9xf6 Or 28...Exh4. 29 Wi4 WhS 30 dg2 2h3+ 31 &g1 94 32 Wea ofa! ‘A precise move to finish things off . 33 Be3 £13 0-1 34 Bxf3 Whimate or 34 Waxf3 Wexf3 35 Exf3 dxe7. Game 63 Kramnik-Adams Tilburg 1997 1 Df3 D6 2 c4 b6 2..c5 3 Ac3 e6 is a more flexible ‘Hedgehog-friendly’ move order, although of course Black still has to contend with 4 dé or 4e4, 3 Dc3 5 This move order is often chosen by players that like the Hedgehog set-up as Black. However the option of 4 e4 gives White some aggressive options not normally available in the Hedgehog-proper. 4e4 4 d4 cxd4 5 Axd4 27 is a closely re- lated line, which is covered in Game 16. 4.3 should be fairly harmless, e.g. 4...96 5 d4 27 6 d5 0.07 Bd3 e6 8 0-0 d6 9 e4 exd5 10 exdS &g4 11 h3 Oxf} 12 Wef3 Dbd7 13 Wdt De with equality, P.Nielsen-S.Hansen, Taastrup 1998. Instead 4 g3 2b75 2g? e6 will lead toa Hedgehog (see Chapter 1). 4...d68 The immediate 4...S2b7 does not enjoy a great reputation. After 5 e5 Black has: a) 5...\g8 gives White a bit too much leeway: 6 d4 Sxf3 7 Wxf3 Acé 8 d5! Axes 9 We? d6 10 f4 Dd7 11 g4 g6 12 h4 h6 13, Sh3 27 (instead 13...Agl6 14 2d2 followed by 0-0-0 is slightly better for White according to Djuric) 14 g5! and the g8- knight is completely stymied, Djuric- Marinkovic, Svetozarevo 1990. b) 5...2g4 6 h3 Dhé 7 d4 and now: bi) After 7...cxd4 White can try 8 AbS (instead of the regular 8 Dxd4) 8...D06 9 Dbxdt Dxd4 10 Dxd4 g6 11 RE4 Wes 12 Wa2 with a very pleasant position for White, B.Lalic-Samovojska, Makarska Tucepi 1995. b2) 7...Rxf3 8 Wrf3 Dc6 9 dxc5 (Mestel suggests 9 d5!? and indeed it looks quite promising after 9...Dxe5 {or 9...Ad4 10 Wed} 10 Wed dé 11 24) 9...Wb8 10 cxb6 axb6 11 Wed e6 12 2e2 Wxe5 13 Wrxe5 Dxe5 14 Le3 &c5 15 Bxc5 bxc5 16 Det and White is a little better in the endgame, Mestel-Ftacnik, Hastings 1983/4. 5 d4 cxd4 6 Dxd4 &b7 7 We2 This tends to be regarded as the main line, but 7 2d3 might be even more direct, 155Symmetrical English and has enjoyed strong success in practical play. Black has: a) 7...06 8 0-0 Be7 9 b3 0-0 10 Bb2 Dbd7 11 Wa2 Be8 12 Hfel Lf8 13 Be3 g6 14 Bh3 Dc5 15 Hel Dxd3 16 Rxd3 Dd7 17 f4, when White is well placed for central and kingside action, Suba-Yudasin, Cala Galdana 1994. b) 7...g6 8 0-0 279 &g5 Dbd7 10 We2 0-0 11 Had1 and it is difficult for Black to undertake anything active: 11...a6 12 2b1 ‘Wh8 (here Tal suggests 12...e6 13 4 We7 14 23 when White is only slightly better) 13 Bd2 Ba7 14 Dd5 Be8 15 &c2 e6 16 Dxfo+ Axf6 17 Hfd1 and White has strong pressure on the d-file, Tal-Shvidler, Berlin 1986. Meanwhile 7 £3 would transpose to Game 16. 7..D06 Alternatively: a) 7...96 8 g3 and now: al) 8...2g7 9 2g2 0-0 100-0 Acé (this is anecessary expedient in a number of these positions ~ 10...@bd7 is a bit too passive) 11 Axc6 &xc6 12 Bdi Dd7 13 Ads, Gulko-D.Gurevich, US Championship 1994, and here Gulko gives 13...e6 14 Dc3 We7 15 Bf4 De5 with equality. a2) 8..Dbd7 9 &g2 Bc8 10 0-0 a6 (very provocative; Black should complete his development) 11 Hd1 Wc7 12 b3 e6 (otherwise Dc3-d5 is strong) 13 Ba3 Dc5 14 acl Be7 15 b4 Dcd7 16 Ad5! (a classic Dd5 sacrifice) 16...exd5 17 cxd5 Wb8 18 Dco Axc6 19 dxc6 DeS 20 f4 b5 (20...Dxc6 21 e5 gives White a strong initiative) 21 fxe5 dxe5 22 &b2 is Salov-Yudasin, St Petersburg 1997. White has regained his piece and emerged with a better position due to the passed c-pawn and two bishops. b) 7...6 and now: bi) 8 g4hé (8...2e7 9 g5 Dfd7 10 h4 a6 11 Be3 Deb 12 Kg? He 13 Hel 0-0 14 0.0 Dxd4 15 &xd4, Cu-Hansen-Borge, Aarhus 1999, with a fairly promising attacking position for White) 9 &g2 2e7 10 f4 Dbd7 11 0-0 We8 12 Be3 g6 13 Bact h5 14 gxh5 Exh5 15 @d5 (unlike Salov- Yudasin in ‘a2’ above, this Dd5 sacrifice is less well timed) 15...exd5 16 cxd5 Dc 17 b4 a6 and White’s aggression has back- fired, Poluljahov-Simantsev, St Petersburg 2000. b2) 8 g3 a6 9 2g? We7 10 0-0 Be7 11 &e3 with a further choice: b21) 11...Dbd7 12 Bact Hc8 13 b3 Ws 14 d2 0-0 15 g4 (this game can be compared to those in the Hedgehog chapter) 15...96 (15...h6!? could be better) 16 g5 De8 17 &h3 Dg7 18 f4 and White is better since he has disrupted Black co-ordination, Korchnoi-Csom, Rome 1981. 22) 11...2c6 (once again this move can be used to relieve some of the pressure; although Hedgehog purists generally prefer to play ...\b8-d7 to retain more dynamic potential, White’s set-up here is fairly dangerous, so pragmatism is called for) 12 acl Axd4 13 Bxd4 0-0 14 5 dxeS 15 Rxe5 Wc8 16 Det Dues 17 Rxed Lxet 18 Wret Ed8 19 Rfdi Ha7 20 Bxd8+ Wxd8 21 Wet 28 22 Bd1 4-4 Wirthensohn-Mascarinas, Switzerland 1990. 8 Axc6 Axcé 9 Ag5 Ad7 Or 9...e6 10 0-0-0 We8 11 &xf6 (this isa bit hasty; White can continue the build-up with 11 f4) 11..gxf6 12 db1 &b7 13 £4 WS 14 DdS a6 15 Dd4 Bc8 and Black is fine. White’s queen is awkwardly placed 156Breaking the Symmetry blocking the bishop and defending the c- pawn, Gasanov-Nedobora, Kharkov 1999. 10 0-0-0 hé Or 10...We8 11 deb1 Dc5 12 £3 a5 13 h4 Wb7 (Gheorghiu suggests 13...h6 though White is still slightly better) 14 h5 h6 15 Sh4 e6 16 Wd2 We7 17 Dd5 Korchnoi- Gheorghiu, London 1980, and White has the initiative. 11 Ge3 e6 12 2d4 e5 Otherwise the threat to the g7-pawn makes it hard for Black to complete his development. 13 Be3 &e7 14 &b1 0-0 15 £3 a6 Kramnik suggests 15...0c5!?. 16 Dd5 2xd5 17 Sxd5 White has a solid grip on the light squares. 17...We7 18 g3 D6 19 Bd2 bs Black has to generate some counterplay before White completes his development and swings the h1-rook into the centre. 20 &h3?! 20 cxb5 axb5 21 Wl is better according to Kramnik - White retains a clear edge. 20...bxe4 21 Ket d5! Freeing his e7-bishop. White cannot hold onto the extra pawn. 22 exds Efd 23 dé 23 Wxe4 Wxct 24 Exc4 should give White a small edge in the endgame. 23...Exd6 24 Wxe4 Wxe4 25 Exc4 Dd5 26 at2 26 &c5 can be answered by 26...Dbél. 26...e3+ 27 Se2 Exd2+ 28 sxd2 Dxa2 29 Be8+ ExcB White’s two bishops give him the edge, despite his pawn deficit, however Black has good drawing chances. 30 &xcB Db4 31 wo3 a5 32 Ab7 2d 33 Red g6 34 94 S18 35 dca weB 36 h4 &d7 37 h5S gxh5 38 215+ &c7 39 Qxh5 295 40 kbs Dcé 41 &b6+ ede 42 Gc5+ &c7 43 &b6+ dé 44 Sead Dd4+ 45 bxad Winning the pawn at last, but meanwhile Black’s pieces are actively placed and he can quickly get a passed pawn. 45...f5 46 2a8 203 47 wad ef 48 fxed hh Black draws after 48 fxe4 f4 49 b4 Dc6.Symmetrical English ‘Summary 3...Dd4 continues to do well without quite becoming mainstream. 3...g6 4 €3 still should give White an edge, though don’t underestimate Black's game. 3...¢5 has its own nuances but is fairly promising for Black. 104 c5 2Dc3 Dcé 2... Df6 3 DL3 b6 - Game 63 3 D3 Ada (D) 3...96 43 4...d6 - Game 58; 4...2f6 - Game 59 3...05 4 3 Dfo 5 d4 cxd4 6 exd4 e4 (D) 7 De5 - Game 62; 7 Dgs - Game 61 (reversed colours) 3...06 4 4 4.05 - Game 60; 4...f6 - Game 61 4e3 4 g3 - Game 56 4...Dxf3+ 5 Wxt3 (D) - Game 57 158INDEX OF COMPLETE GAMES Akopian-Gulko, Yerevan Ohmpiad 1996... Aleksandrov-Krasenkow, New York 1997. Anand-Adams, FIDE World Ch., Groningen 1997. Andersson-Polgar.J, Malo 2000. Andersson-Timman, Ubedz 1997. Beliavsky-Adams, Doryrumd 1998 Csom-Adorjan, Hungarian Championship 1993. Dyachkov-Aseev, Russian Championship 1996 Ftacnik-Pinter, Prague 1985. Georgiev.Ki-Topalov, Sarajevo 2000. Gulko-Khalifman, Yerewn 1996.. Gurevich.M-Filippov, Bugojno 1999 Hansen.Cu-Schandorff, Stockholn 1996. Hauchard-Kinsman, French League 1998 Hiartarson-Arnason, Reykjavik 1995 Jonov-Yudasin, Vilnius 1997... Istratescu-Fominyh, Elista Ohmpiad 1998... Ivanchuk-Khalifman, Elista (3rd match game) 199 Karpov-Anand, Linares 1991. Karpov-Csom, Bad Lauterberg 197; Karpov-Kasparov, Moscow (13th match game) 1984. Karpov-Topalov, Linares 1994.. Kasparov-Kramnik, New York (rapid) 1995. Komarov-Del Rio Angelis, /taly 1999 Korchnoi-Brunner, Bern 19% Korchnoi-Grosar, Ptuj 199Symmetrical English Korchnoi-Ponomariov, Donetsk (8th match game) 2001. 52 Kramnik-Adams, Tilbury 1997.. Kramnik-Karpov, Dos Hermanas 1999. Kramnik-Kasparov, Linares 2000...... Kramnik-Timman, Wijk aan Zee 1999 Kramnik-Topalov, Linares 1999.. Krasenkow-Brynell, Copenhagen 199 Krivoshey-Shipov, Yalta 199 Lagunow-Léffler, Berlin 1994. Lautier-Kasparov, Tilburg 1997. Lechtynsky-Sherbakov, Pardubice 1999. Lputian-Leko, Wijk aan Zee 2000... Lputian-Timman, Wyk aan Zee 2000. Makarov-Mikhailov, Kenerovo 1995. Marin-Kempinski, Krnica 1998 Marin-Movsesian, Newn 200 Mednis-Ernst, Gausdal 1990. Mikhalchishin- Sale, Now Gorica 1999. Mikhalchishin-Kasparov, Soviet Championship 1981. Nogueiras-Alvarez, Santa Clara 1999. Oll-Cramling.P, Dos Hermanas 1992. Piket-Kasparov, Intemet 2000... Riumin-Kan, Moscow 1932. Rublevsky-Sax, Newn 2000 Sorokin-Rodriguez, Villa Gesell 1998... Spraggett-Ivanisevic, Istanbul Ohmpiad 2000. Summerscale-Adams, British Championship 199. Tal-Short, Naestved 1983... Timman-Alterman, European Team Ch., Pula 1997. Tukmakov-Gheorghiu, Crans Montana 2000 Uhlmann-Priehoda, Wattens 1995... Vaganian-Planinc, Hastings 1974/5.... Van der Sterren-Timman, Rotterdon 1998 Williams.S-Emmas, British Championship 2000. Yermolinsky-Salov, Wijk aan Zee 1997. Zifroni-Kaspi, Tel Aviv 1998. Zviaginsev-Ulibin, Russian Championship 1996 160

(David Cummings) Symmetrical English

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

(David Cummings) Symmetrical English

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like