c

SOS - Secrets of Opening Surprises 12

e 20 I0 New In Chess
Published by New In Chess, Alkmaar, The Netherlands
www.newinchess.com

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a

retrieval system or transmined in any form or by any means, electronic.
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written
permission from the publisher.

Cover design: Steven Boland

Drawing on frontcover: Zander Dekker
Translation: Ken Neat (Chapters 6 and 7), Jeroen Bosch (Chapter 5)
Production: Joop de Groot
Proofreading: Rene Olthof

Printed in the Netherlands

ISBN: 978-90-5691-298-7
 SECRETS OF
OPENING
SURPRISES
12
Edited by
JEROEN BOSCH

Contributing authors
Dimitri Reinderman
Alexander Finkel
Sebastian Siebrecht
Nikita Vitiugov
Adrian Mikhalchishin
Willy Hendriks
Dorian Rogozenco
Glenn Flear
Arthur Kogan
Igor Glek
Sipke Ernst
Jerocn Bosch

2010 New In Chess - The Netherlands

 Contents

Jeroen Bosch The SOS Files 8

2 Dimitri Reinderman Trompowsky: the Cinema Variation 20

3 Jeroen Bosch Alekhine: Hector's Way 27

4 Alexander Finkel The French a la Hector 34

5 Sebastian Siebrecht Anti-Grtinfeld with 5.h4 41

6 Nikita Vitiugov English: Shirov's Pet Line 48

7 Adrian Mikhalchishin Bayonet Attack in the Grtinfeld 56

8 Willy Hendriks Taking the Lion by its Throat 62

9 Jeroen Bosch The Centre Game: A Romantic Weapon 70

10 Dimitri Reinderman Check Like a Patzer in the Scandinavian 77

II Dorian Rogozenco King's Indian: A Dutch-KID? 84

12 Alexander Finkel Pirc for Endgame Lovers 88

13 GlennAear The Bird's Defence According to Bird 95

14 Arthur Kogan The Mouse Sleep Slav Gambit 105

15 Jeroen Bosch Dutch: Preparing the Staunton Gambit 113

16 Igor Glek Sicilian: the Intrepid 5 ...e5 122

l7 Sipke Ernst Moscow Variation: A German Speciality 133

 CHAPTER 1 - page 8
Jeroen Bosch
The SOS Flies

Van Kampen-Plukkel after 12 ..ixb5!

CHAPTER 2 - page 20 CHAPTER 3 - page 27

Dimitri Reinderman Jeroen Bosch
Trompowsky: the Cinema Variation Alekhlne: Hector's Way

'tW
Alit:,. t:,.fjt:,.{:, 1:!,~t:,.§.7/jt:,.8
ntD 'iVq;~~n 1;1 :Y~~ltj]%

1.d4 tDf6 2.SLg5 liJe4 3.SLf4 lLlc6 let's play 7:.f3!?

CHAPTER 4 - page 34 CHAPTER 5 - page 41

Alexander Finkel Sebastian Siebrecht
The French iii la Hector Antl-Gti.infefd with S.h4

8 ~
• ~j.

At!. CiJ~
It .l'tWwi.
Winawer: 4.lDe2 dxe4 5.a3 SLe7 6.g4!? 1.o!tJf3ltJf62.c4 g6 3.0.c3 dS 4.cxdSlLlxdS 5.h4
 CHAPTER 6 - page 48 CHAPTER 7 - page 56
Nikit« V,tiugov Adrian Mikhalchishin & Jeroen Bosch
English: Shirov's Pet Line Bayonet Attack In the Griinfeld

f!,8 8f!,j3f!,8
l:t . '§~~t(Ht
1.c4 e5 2.lQc3 .Q.b43.lDd5 i.e7

CHAPTER 8 - page 62 CHAPTER 9 - page 70

Willy Hendriks Jeroen Bosch
Taking the Lion by its Throat The Centre Game: A Romantic Weapon

1.e4 d6 2.d4 tOf6 3.lDc3ltJbd7 4.g4 h6 5.f3 Lashing out against c2 with ...t!:Jb4

CHAPTER 10 - page 77 CHAPTER 11 - page 84

Dimitri Reinderman Dorian Rogozenoo
Check Like 8 Patzer in the Scandinavian King's Indian: A Dutch-KID?

K4..t *.t.a :I;\,.t'i!.fi.

1.1.1. 1.1.1.1. 1.1.1. AA.tA
• • +'+!v. •
• A IA
A8A8
o •/j.f!,f:, f!,8
f!,-8.
'08
f!,A~8
1::1 ~.1t~~~: :t2J~if :c;t7
Let's play 3..:"e5+ (or 3 ...ti'e6+) The knight jump 6 ...ttJe4
 CHAPTER 12 - page 88 CHAPTER 13 - page 95
Alexander Finkel Glenn Flear

.~.
Pirc for Endgame Lovers TheBlrd's DefenceAccordingto Bird

.~.t.~. i
••••• .t.

• •
~
8 ~
A8A A~ ~~~A ~A~
U a~~~~: :~AW~ :
1.e4 d6 2.d4lOf6 3.tOc3 g6 4.14 ~g7 5.e5!? Bird with 5.~c4 h5 and 5.0-0 h5

CHAPTER 14 • page 105 CHAPTER 15 - page 113

Arthur Kogan Jeroen Bosch
The Mouse Sleep Slav Gambit Dutch: Preparing the Staunton Gambit

The 'crazy' 5...e5!? 1.d4f5 2.f3!?

CHAPTER 16 - page 122 CHAPTER 17 - page 133

Igor Glek Sipke Ernst
Sicilian: the Intrepid S.•.eS MoscowVariation:A GennanSpeciality

.~.t.r+!'.A g
•• • •••
't~

ill
.el~•
~8~ 8t:,8
J:l ·.W~ 1:[
Is 6.i.bS+ ~d7 really that bad? The immediate 7.e4!?
 CHAPTER 1
Jeroen Bosch
The SOS Files

Read SOS and Go for Mate
SOS-8, Chapter 2, p.l 7
A regular contributor to the SOS-series is
Dimitri Reinderman. That the Dutch GM
also takes a keen interest in what his fel-
low-authors write is obvious from the next
game. Ruben Felgaer wrote on Short's
2.0e2 versus the Caro-Kann. Enjoy the
commentary by Reinderrnan, and can you
spot the lovely combination at the end?
o Dimitri Reindennan
• Sybolt Strafing
Hilversum 2009
1.e4 ee 2.tUe2 d5 3.e5 ~f5 More com-
mon is 3 ...c5 because of the game continu-
ation. 4.tDg3 ~g6 It is hard to believe in
the artificial 4...~d7 and 4...~e6 which are
also mentioned by Felgaer, 5.h4 h6 The
SOS Files of Volume 10 mentions 5 ... hS as
tlJe4?! The knight has to return soon.
Black should have castled. 1S.a3 'iVa5
16.~e3 a6 Both here and subsequently
Black could have defended better. How-
ever, then the lovely mate would never
have occurred. 17.b4 tt'd8 18..-b1 tLJf6
19.1t.xh7 l:xh7 20.'iVg6+ Wd7 21.0.a4
b6 22J::I:c1 J:th8 23.15 Rybka indicates
23.tlJgI! as winning, but the text suffices.
23...exf5 23 ...~c7 24.ll'lf4 wb7 25.tf',xe6
tie8 was the toughest defence. 24.ld4 e6
25:~f7+ '*e7 26.'t:Ixb6+ ~6
.I .t. !
'ii''iY.t.
.t.4J~~.t.~
.t. .t.
~ fj ~
8 ~

an improvement. 6.h5 ..Q.h7 7.e6 The

point of White's set-up. White is locking in
Black's bishop. 7... fxe6 Black does not
have to accept the pawn. Playable is White to play and win.
7...Wd6. 8.d4 .-d6 Black can return the 27.tZ)g6!1 The newspapers wrote that
pawn with 8...e5 9.dxe5 e6, although it White could have won here with
isn't pretty. 9.f4 With a clear advantage 27.'fWxe7+i.xc7 28.tlJxa8 nxa8 29.ttJxe6,
according to Felgaer. I am less sure about but things are not so clear after 29 ... ~xe6
the objective value, but in a practical game 30.J:r.xc6+ ~d7. 27 ... 'iVxf7 28.~f4+ e5
I was quite happy to reach this position! 29.~xe5+ At first, I calculated 29.dxeS+,
9...lDf6 1O.~d3 c5 11.c3 cxd4 when Black has 29 .. .'~c7 with advantage.
12.cxd4 lDc6 13.t:~c3 Wb4 14.tlJe2 Then I spotted the text. 29 ...tUxe5 My op-

8

ponent wanted to resign here, but I asked
him to continue. He kindly acquiesced.
30.dxe5+ ~6 31.~c6+ ~d6 So the
bishop finally made a move in this game.
32.~xd6 mate!
Turgenev or Ragozln - amateur vs
professional
SOS·I1, Chapter 16. p.125
We receive many interesting letters from
readers all over the world. Thus Aaro Jalas
from Finland found Nikita Vitiugov's sug-
gestions in the Accelerated Ragozin quite
instructive, hut he felt that more alternatives
on move 4 could have been included. (He
particularly mentions 4..id2 and even 4.e4.)
Indeed, he goes on [0 raise the important
general point that opening manuals often do
not discuss 'second-rate' alternatives. con-
centrating as they do on the variations cho-
sen by GMs and IMs. He ends his argument
with a request that we will take to heart:
'Please. write practical books for us low-
level club players - books, where "amateur
variations" are seriously considered!'
For historical interest. but also to illustrate
his point, Mr JaIas kindly sent us a game by
Russian writer Ivan Turgcnev as cited in the
Estonian book Caissa R iik ja ruutlid (1984).
The SOS Files
We can understand why Mr Jalai s enjoyed
this particular game where the strong ama-
teur player Turgenev gave the Polish profes-
sional player Matsuski (or Maczuski, as his
name is given elsewhere) a good drubbing in
the Cafe de In Regence.
o Ladislas Maczuski
• Ivan Turgenev
Paris 1861
1.d4 es 2.c4 e6 3.lDC3~b4 'Is this the
first Accelerated Ragozin?' asks Mr Jalas,
played as it is before the birth of both
Nimzowitsch and Ragozin? 4.13 A serious
reply. Vitiugov discusses 4.a3. 4 ... c5 S.a3
.ixc3+ 6.bxc3 "as Here 6...lilf6 trans-
poses to the 4.1'3 Nimzo-Indian. 7.~d2
ti'rf6 8.1lfc2 ~d7?! 9.e4! dxe4 10.fxe4
cxd4?! 11.cxd4 ~hS 12.liJ13 ~g6
13.i.d3!? 'fi'xg2 14.~f1 tbc6 15.0-0-0
lUg4 16.l:tde1 h6 17.d5?! ttJce5
18.lDxeS 4\xe5 19.1:tg1 'iif3 20.l:te3
'iff6 White has enough for the pawn, but
not more. 21.~c3 lDxd3+?! 2l...1!ff4
22.'fkxd31We7?! 23.~xg7 Now Black is
in trouble. 23...l:tg8 24.l:teg3 O-G-O
25.'tWe3b6 26."xh6?! "cS
27 ..td4? A flashy but faulty combination.
but the precautionary 27.fJ.;>b2
is not the type
Jeroen Bosch

of move you would associate with the Cafe 6.h3 ~h5 7.g4 ~g6 8~g2 tObd7 9.g5
de la Regence. 27 ...• xc4+ 27 .. :~!hd4 tLld5 10.i:Uxe4 e5 11.h4 f6?1 12.gxf6
28.l::txg8 ttxc4+ 29.'~b2 tt'd4+ should end gxf613.hSlifS 14.c4!? lQf4? 15.lQxf4
in a perpetual. 28.tlc3 llxg1+ 29.,.pd2 exf4 16.1Ife2 ~f7 17.~h3 17.0·0·0
'iWxc3+ 30.Q;lxc3 tlg4 31.iYh5 1:It4 17...~xe4 18.... xe4 tLlc5 19."'f5
32.... e5 .1:I.f3+33.'iPb2 Ilg8! Now the
rooks are much stronger than the queen.
Turgcnev does not let his opponent escape: .t B
34.£l.c3 £l.a4 35. 'it'd 4 1:g2+ 36.i.d2 ~ i
~d7! 37.M J:[ff2 38.'iPc3 tlxd2 i
39."h8+ coPb740.h5 exd5 41.exd5
llxd5 42.h6 ~f5 43. itf6 llc2+ 44. ~b4 'if ~
85+ 45.~84 llc7 46.~b3 llb5+ i
47.~a4 ~d7! And While resigned. .i
This was Turgenev's only victory in a 6-game ~ s
match against Matsuski, according to The W l:t
Even More Complete Chess Addict (993).
19..:~e7+
Black cannot win the bishop: 19...lfJd3+
French or Car~Kann: Why Worry? 20.~e2 (20.'iPf) tLlxb2?? 21.'S'e6+ ~g7
SOS·9, Chapter 13, p.J02 22.h6+ 'it;lxh6 23.~f5+ also mates)
20...tDxb2?? (correct is 20 ...'ifd6 21.~xf6
Reti's line against the French l.e4 e6 2.b3 d5 1Wxf6 22.';Pxd3 and White is a pawn up)
3..tb2 was covered by Alexander Finkel in 21.,*,e6+ ~g7 22.h6+ Wxh6 23.~f5+ ~g7
SOS-9. Clyde Nakamura from Honolulu, 24.:agl mate!
Hawaii, directed our attention to a similar 20.'iPd1 nee 21.f3 ~6 22.Q;lc2 ~gS
line against the Caro-Kann. Vasiukov em- 23.l:tae1 White is completely winning by
ployed l.e4c62.b3d53 ..tb2inthe 1961 So- now. 23 ..:it'd6 24.11xe8 e;fo?xe8
viet Championship to beat none other than 2S:ir'c8+ Or 25.d4. 25 ...'i!fd8 26.l:le1+
David Bronstein. r found the following game Wf7 27..... 5 Black resigned.
also quite entertaining.

Bashing the Grunfeld

o Dragutin Sahovic SOS·3, Chapter 3, p.28
• Patrick Daumin SOS·6, Chapter 2, p.16
Orange open 1990
Volume 12 of the SOS·:,'Cries continues
1.M c6 2.b3 d5 3.~b2 dxe4 4.tt.lc3 where the others have left off. Adrian
tLlf6 5.tLlge2 ~g4 Mikhalchishin and Jeroen Bosch analyse
Instead. 5...~f5 6.~g3 e6 7.... e2 lLlbd7 4.g4 against the Griinfeld proper (see Chapter
"as
8.tLlclI.e4 .ixe4 9.lf'.xe4 1O.~c3 'ihJ6
I LtLlxf6+ tDxf6 was about equal in
7), while Sebastian Siebrecht favours 5.h4 via
an English move order (see Chapter 5).
Vasiukov-Bronstein, URS-ch Baku 1961. First a note of warning:

10
 The SOS Files

o Miso Cebale 9.tDc3 W'xf6 lO.a3 ~a5 II.b4dxc3 12.bxa5

• Alexander Riazantsev ~f5 and White is in trouble (Boel, Year-
Biel2009 book 93).
- 7.<!Dd6+.i.xd6 8.cxd6 W'xd6 9.e3 is Flear's
1.d4 lLlf6 2.c4 96 3.0..c3d5 4.h4 Fol- attempt to equalize with white, Boel gives
lowing SOS-3 this line was enthusiastically 9 ttJc6 J 0.exd4 tDxd4 as better for Black.
taken up by GM Cebalo who later wrote a 7 .txCS Or 7 . ..ti'lc6 8.exd4 tiJxd4, Cebalo-
Survey for the New In Chess Yearbook. Sibenik. Pula 2004. 8.exd4 exd4 9,liJf3
4... cS This must be the critical move.
5.dxc5
5.cxdS iOxd5 6.'fi'b3!? is a suggestion of
Yearbook editor Peter Boel. He continues
with 6."lLl)tc3 7.bxc3 cxd4 8.cxd4 0.c6
9.ttJf3 ~g7 10.e3 0-0 II.hS. See the Forum
section of Yearbook 93 (p. 22).
Rather than 9 ..~g7 Black has 9 ...~e6

Now Black is very OK after 9 ... 0-01

10.i.e2 No improvement is lO.tbbxd4
't!fa5+ 11.$.d2 1fb6 l2.~e3lljg4, Flear. Or
12... "xb2. 1 0 ... lLlc6 11.i.f4 .ifS!
12.~d3 .ixd3 13.'ihd3 a6 14.ltJc7?1
14.lt:la3 l:te8+ is no fun either. 14 .. J:%c8
15.83 l:txc7 16.~xc7 16'xc7 17.b4
l:re8+ 18.qp>f1 ~f8 19.1:td1 as 20.b5
Now after 10.W'xb7 ~d5 II.e3 Black has tDeS 21.lt:lxe5 Or 21 .....xd4 llJeg4.
both 1l....I:1b& 12.W'a6 eS. and II...~xd4 21 ... 1t'xe5 22.l:th3 .ixa3!· 23.1i'xd4
12Ji'b2 tDxf3+ 13.gxf3 a6!? (13 ...f6 14.e4) 'iWe2+ 24.cot>g1 .teS! White resigned.
14.'.xh8 (l4.e4 JIg8) 14...~xf3 15.~b2
~xhl 16.11dl W'aS+ 17.~c3 'ifc5 18.~g7 In an entertaining article called 'Triple Trou-
'iWb4+ 19.11d2 e6 2O.~xa6 ~c6 which is ble for the Grunfeld', Ian Rogers offers three
about equal. Obviously [here is room for cre- wonderful suggestions in the 4 ..i.g5 line.
ativity in these suggested lines. A game from the 20 10 World Team Champi-
5 ... d4 6.tDbS e5 7.e3 onship between Turkey and Russia:
Other moves do not improve:
- 7.4)f3 ~",c5! (not 7 ...~c6 8.~g5! ~e7
9.~xf6 ~xf6 10.tDd6+±) 8.tDxe5 a69.'6'a4 o Mohamed Ezat
0-0 lO.lillI3 which is unclear according to • Dmitry Yakovenko
Thomas Neuerin the Forum of Yearbook 89. Bursa 2010
- 7.~g5 .i.xc5 8.~xf6 ~b4+ was given by
Glenn Flear on www.chesspublishing.corn, 1.d4 tLlf6 2.c4 g6 3.tDc3 d5 4.i.g5

11
Jeroen Bosch
~e4 5.cxd5!? Rogers also covers
5.'it'c1!? and S.h4!? 5.•.tLJxg5 L<1\xc3
6.hxc3 1i'xdS 7.tDf3 and White possibly
saves a tempo on the main line that starts
with 5.~h4. 6.h4 Already played by Euwe
in 1923, against Van Hoorn.
6 •.. iUe4 Sec SOS-6 for the alternatives
6...e6, 6...c6, and 6...tik6. 7.tZ:lxe4 ~xd5
8.~d3 A new attempt. 8.13 ~g7 9.e3
'iWaS+ 1O.~t2 ~c6 was Goldsmith-Kagan,
Melbourne 1993. The sound option. ac-
cording to Rogers. is the ending that 1M
Voloshin has successfully played: 8.t1)c3
1!t'aS 9.tlJf3 ~g7 1O.'\!fa4+ 'iWxa4 II..!Dxa4.
8...~g7 9.tbf3 tLJc6 lo.tbc3 "a511.e3
O~O 12.~b51 'W'b4 l2 ...... xb5 13.~xb5
.Q.d7?! (13 ...tDb4 14.0-0·0 .Q.e6) l4.tLld5!'
13.'it'xb4 l3.h5!? 13...tDxb4 14.0-0-0
c6 15.h5 a5 16.a3 ttJa6 17.l2Ja4?! b5
18.tDb6 1:I.b8 19.tOxc8 1:I.fxc8 20.c;t>bl
a4 21.hxg6 hxg6 22...Iie2 c5 with
equality (Black won after a long game).
50S vs the Grunfeld on Top-level
SOS·10, Chapter 9, p.65
In the World Cup 2009 in Khanty-Mansiysk
Tomi Nyback managed to upset the experi-
enced Peter Svidler with a SOS line versus
12
the Griinfe\d. This line (the Kruppa Varia-
tion) has been steadily gaining in popularity,
which is why its theoretical workload is in-
creasing. Let's take a look!
o Tomi Nyback
• Peter Svidler
Khanty-Mansiysk World Cup 2009
1.d4 tLJf6 2.c4 g6 3.tLlc3 d5 4.cxd5
tDxd5 5.e4ltJxc3 6.bxc3 ~g7 7...Iig5
This characterizes the so-called Kruppa
Variation. SOS-author Igor Lysyj was ex-
tremely positive about White's chances in
his article for SOS-\ O.
7 .•.c5 8.~c1 0-0
8...'it'a.'i is the big alternative to 8...0-0. After
9. 'iWd2
the lines fork:
- 9 ...tDd7 was played by Grunfeld expert
Ftacnik: 10.0.f3 e5 Il.dxe5 (much stronger
looks Il.tOxe5! ~xe5 12.dxe5. as
12....be5?! is met by 13.~b5+ and the
bishop cannot he taken because of male on
dB!) 11 ...0-0 12.~c4 tLlxe5 13.~xe5 .txeS
14.f4 (14.0-0 ~e6 15..i.d5) 14...~g7 15.0-0
~e6 16..be6 fxe6 17.e5 1:I.nand Black was
OK in Polak-Ftacnik, Prievidza 2009.
- 9 ...h6 1O..Q.e3 cxd4 II.cxd4 "'xd2+
12.Q;>xd20-0 I3.lDB tOC6 14.d5 ~d8 l5.~el
llJa5 16..i.f4 and the ending is very pleasant
for White, Erdos-Agopov, Berlin 2009.

- 9...• a41O.h2!?(IO.lDOtlJc6 IJ.d5lDe5
J2.~e2 't!txe4 is the move order in SOS-IO)
1O...tDc6 lJ.dS tOe5 lUDO f6 (12...'it'xe4
13.0-0 0-0 14.llfel is analysed by Lysyj in
some detail) 13.~e3 (I Hjxe5?! fxg5)
13...liJc4 14.... d3 liJd6 (14 ...liJxe3 J5 .• xe3
0-0 16.0-0~) 15..bcS 1he4 16.0-0~fS
17.... d2 and White had an obvious edge in
Nyback-Negi, Wijk aan Zee 2010.
- 9 ...0-0 IO.tOO (IO.~xe7? lle8 J l.~xcS
Ihe4+ 12.~e2 tOa6 favours Black)
1O...cxd4 II.cxd4 1Wxd2+ 12.~xd2
13.~bS! a6 (13 ... tDc6 also fails to equalize,
see SOS-lO) 14..i.a4 bS IS..i.b3 .i.b7
(1S ...aS is met by 16.1:I.c5! as indicated by
Lysyj) 16.dS exdS 17.exdS a5 18.llc7 a4
19J:txb7 axb3 20.axb3 with an extra pawn in
Vovk-Bezemer, Dieren 2009.
9.tUf3 cxd4
Black is not obliged to take on d4. Instead,
he can try 9 ....i.g4 Indeed, this was Svidler's
choice in a rapid tie-break game (yes he won
the second game in the match!) versus
Nyback in Khanty-Mansiysk. After 1O.d5
Black has:
- 1O...fS, which was called critical by Lysyj
in 505-10. See the 50S Files of volume II
for the SOS Prize winning game Sadorra-
Kazbgaleev, Subic Bay 2009.
- to...llkt7 n.aez rs is answered by 12.d6,
when after 12..if6 13.~xf6 exf6 14.0-0!
lle8 IS.hJ ~XO 16..1xf3 fxe4 J7.~xe4
White won with straightforward play.
Prohaszka-Shankland, Budapest 2009.
- 1O.... d6 was Svidler's choice. I J . .ie2
(White was better after II. 'tIVb3 b6 -
l1...~xf3!? - 12.liJd2 ~c8 13.~e2 .ta6
14..ba6 lOxa6 IS.O·O Ci:Jc7 16.~c4 "d7
17.~f4 ~fe8 18.tDeS .d6 19.tDxg6 'tWx.g6
20 ..ixc7 .xe4 21.04, Noiroux-Konguvel,
La Fere 20(9) ll...tQd7 12.h3 (12.0-0)
12....i.xf3 13.i.xf3 b5 14.c4 b4 15.0-0 as
and Black had equalized in Nyback-Svidler,
Khanty-Mansiysk rapid 2009.
The SOS Files
1O.cxd4 ~g4 11.d5 lLld7 12.~e2 lUf6
12.. .fS I3.d6! "as+ 14.Wd2 Wxd2+
15.~xd2 ~xe2 16.dxe7±. 13.h3 i.d7
14.~d3
e6
14 ..."a5+
Svidler is the first to vary and with reason:
14...h6 IS ..if4 e6 16.~c7 .e8 17.d6 ~c6
18.1jj"e2 tUh5 was Ponomariov-Svidler,
Moscow 2006. Pono now kept a slight edge
with 19.93, but Lysyj opines that White's ad-
vantage is quite substantial after 19.• e3!.
15.'iltd2 'ti'a4!? IS ...... xd2+ 16.wxd2 is a
familiar pleasant ending. 16.Ac4 ....a3
17.0-0 llacB
Keeping a pair of rooks on with 17... J1bS
does not really help: 18.11c3 .as J9 ..i.xf6
~xf6 20.e5 ~g7 21 ..i.xb5 "'xb5 22.1:I.c7
ttad8 23.lld I still favours White. for exam-
ple 23 ...lld7 24.d6.
18.Afc1 Axc4 19.Axc4 ~bS 19...11c8
20Jlxc8+ ~J(c8 21.• c2 is no picnic either.
20 ..ac3 _as 21_~ Forced, in view of
the threats on the rook. 21...~ 22.e5
.i.g7 23 ..txbS 'tj'xb5 24.Ac7 Despite the
exchanges Nyback has kept the advantage.
Svidler is forced to keep the d-pawn at bay.
In return White obtains chances along the
seventh rank. 24 l:ld8 25.l1xe7 .t.8 The
only move. 25 xd5?? loses to 26.1:I.e8+,
and 25 ...11xd5? to 26 .• f4. 26.llc7 llxd5
It was safer to give up a pawn to defend ac-
13
Jeroen Bosch

tively in the ending after 26 ...'i!fxd5 4O.,*g4+ ~c4 41.fxg5+ Wf4+ 42.'i!fxf4+
27.'i!fxd5 Ihd5 28.J:lxb7 J:laS. 27."f4 wxf443.gxf6+-. 4O.J:ld5+ ..t>xf4 41.'Wg6
l:ld1+ 28.r.t>h2l:td7 29.l:tc81l:le7 Black resigned.

A Kortchnol Favourite
50S-I. Chapter 4, p.40

The Spanish Four Knights is well-countered

30.e6!? Perhaps not the best move, but a
good practical shot. 3O... l:txe6 It is not so
easy to find the right defence: 30 ...'W'f5! is
what the engines like. 31.lLlg5 Now
White's attack is decisive. 31 .•.l:te7 Or
3l...fid7 32.J:ld8! winning. 3Vuxh7!
..t>xh7 33.lbfS ~g7
by 4 ....i.d6 as we know from the very first
volume of the SOS-series. This is actually a
Konchnoi favourite; out-of-the-box think-
ing is of course a trademark of the great
fighter.
The present game was played in one of the
lower leagues of the Dutch team cornpeti-
tion (Kortchnoi's team is aiming to go up
into the highest division) and will not find its
way into the database by its own accord. So
as a special treat here it is.
o Richard Hendriks
• Viktor Kortchnoi
Netherlands tt 200911 0

1.e4 e5 2.lDf3 lDc6 3.llJc3 tiJf6 4..i.bS

Material is equal. but White has a winning at-
tack. Well-calculated by Nyback! 34.'tWh41
g5 34...¢>xfS?? 35."ifh8 mate! 35.....h8+
<;t>g6 36.'41 Wf5 36...gxf4? 37.J:lg8+ Qn"S
38.1fhS++-. 37.J:ldB 16 38.J:ld6 'tWb2
38 ...J:lt7 39.1ihl "a.e7 40.1fh6 'i'b2 41."i!ffS
J:lc7 42.1Id5++-. 39.'tWh5 'We2 39 J:le2
4O."g4+ ~g6 41."i!fxgS++-; 39 1'2
~d6 S.d3
Natural. but it offers White nothing special.
- S.a3 This useful waiting move is covered
in the SOS Files of volumes 2 and S. 5 ...0-0
6.d3 ltJe7?! (6 ..Jle8) 7.~gS tLJg6 8.h4!? c6
9.~c4 ~e7? 1O.h5! 0h8? 11.h6! (not
II.ltJxeS dS! with good counterplay) 11... g6
12.d4exd413 .... xd4d614.0·0-O.i.e6IS.e5
and Black resigned in Roy Chowdhury-
Laxman, New Delhi 2010.
- 5.0-0 0-0 6.d3 l!Je7?! (6...lle8; 6 ... h6)
7.tiJxe5 .i.xe5 8.d4 d6 (8...~xh2+ 9.<.Pxh2;t)
9.dxe5 dxe5 and White was slightly better
due to his pair of bishops in Michiels-
Stefanova, Antwerp 2009.
- S.a4 0-0 6.d3 lle8 7.~c4 h6 8.g4 .i.b4!
9.g5 dS! was the energetic course of Boh-

14

nisch-Kortchnoi, Dresden 2006. See the
SOS Files of Volume 5.
- 5.g4 a6 6ic4 ~c5 7.ltJg5 d5! was
Samrnalvuo-Gausel, Turin Olympiad 2006.
See the SOS Files of Volume 7.
5.•.hS Or 5...0-0. S.h3 a6 7.jt,xc6 dxcS
8..te3
After the game the players concluded that 8.
d4 was stronger. For example 8.d4 exd4
9."xd4 c5?! (with the help of his engine
Hendriks later found the improvement
9...'tte7!, when Black is a tadbetter) JO .... d3
and Kortchnoi's verdict was that White is
better, The problem is that Black cannot pre-
vent e5 all that easily.
B...c5 9:6'd2 b610.tDe2 ..tb71l.b3?
A very bad move according to both players.
Still, it takes someone of the level of
Kortchnoi 10 demonstrate why weakening
the a l-h8 diagonal is so bad.
11...tDh5! 12.c4 15! Where did he find
the recipe for eternal youth? With dynamic
play Kortchnoi has grabbed a considerable
edge. l3.exfS? Hendriks indicates
13.'ttc2 as the only move. 13..:"'16
14.lOc3 .ixf3 15.gxf3 W'xf5 16.0-0-0
"xf3 and Black is a pawn up, and won
easily after 17.lOe40-0-0 18.~b1 .te7
19.'ifc2 tDf6r ze.cea g5 21.lOa4?1 e4
22.dxe4 tOxe4 23 ..cthe1 .tf6 24.b4 A
desperate attempt. 24 ....ctxd1+ 2S.l:txd1
The SOS Files
b5 26.cxb5 axb5 27..td2 bxa4
28.'iWxa4 'iWd3+ 29.c;t;>c1 W'c4+
30.<itb1~b7 White resigned.
One Step Beyond in the Modern
SOS-I. Chapter 13. p.I06
In SOS-I I investigated l.e4 g6 2.d4 ~g7
3.~c3 d5!?, with the idea to regain the pawn
after 4.exd5 ltJf6. obtaining a structure that
resembles certain lines from the Alekhine or
the Scandinavian. Here is a contribution
from Or Cohen (who wrote on the Petroff
with 3 ... ~xe4 in SOS-IO) who argues that
Black can go one step beyond and actually
gambit the pawn after 4.exdS with 4 ...c6.
1.e4 g6 2.d4 .tg7 3.lDc3 dS 4.exd5
4.tDxd5?! offers limited chances for an ad-
vantage after 4 ...c6 and Black retrieves the
pawn. 4 ... cS!1
S.dxc6
5.~c4!? transposes to a theoretical continu-
ation (1.e4 g6 2.d4 fig? 3.ltJc3 c6 4 ..ic4 d5
5.exd5). While has chances for an advantage
here. However. it seems strange not to accept
the gambit.
5..if4!? could be the choice of some practi-
cal players. wishing to avoid all prepara-
15
Jeroen Bosch
(ion. This is a viable option. This position
could arise after l.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3':c.c3 g6
4.~f4 lLg7 5.exd5. Even so, as Mikhail
Botvinnik demonstrated in 1959 - Black's
prospects after 5 ...cxdS are fine:
- 6.lt)f3 (other attempts are quite harmless)
6 ...a6!? (an important prophylactic move)
7.h3!? (7.... d2 ct.Jc6 8.0-0-0 'Llf6 and White
is looking for trouble, as his pieces are far
from ideally deployed) 7.JiJc6 8.il.e2 tt:lf6
9.0-00-0 io.ees JJ..fSwith equal chances.
- 6.lLlbS (this is the justification of S.~f4)
6...~a6 7 .... e2 (this is White's trick in this
position) 7 ...lof6 8.~ld6+ ~f8 (Black should
not be 100 disturbed by the fact that he is de-
nied from castling) 9.texc8 (9.tLlbS .i.d7)
9 ~xc8 lO.c3 and now a sample line runs:
10 tec7 l1.tl}f3 ~e6 12.JJ..e3 'iVb6 13.g3
tDe4 14.JJ..g2 ~f6!? 15.0-0 rJ;g7.
5...tbxc6 White can now only keep the
pawn by pushing it forward.
6.dSlLlb4
7.a31?
This is the critical continuation as men-
tioned by Khalifman. White forces Black to
give up his important dark-squared bishop.
Let us look at some alternauves:
- 7.ttJf3 lLf5!? S.JJ..b5+ ~f8 9..b4 .Q.xc3+
1O.bxc3 ~xd5 11.'itd4 tegf6 12.0-0 <;Pg7
l3.jj_b3 .c.c8 with some counterplay,
- 7 ..Q.c4 JJ..fs (worse is 7 ...'i'c7?! S..tb3
16
.Q.xc3+ 9.bxc3 'ii'xc3+ 10~d2 'i'e5+ -
10...WcS? 11 ..Q.e3 'tWc3+ 12.<;Pf1!± Black is
in a terrible state - II.tDe2 tDxd5 12.c4 tt:ldf6
13.0-0.tg4 14.f3 0-0-0 15.'fWeI with a slight
edge) 8..tb3 lLlf6 9.1~)f3 "'a5 10.0-0 ~d8
and Black has some compensation for the
pawn.
- 7..Q.b5+.tci7 8.~c4 (an inferior version of
7 ..i.c4 - 8 ..ixd7+ "'"d7=) 8 ...'fWc7 9 ..Q.b3
.Q.xc3+ JO.b"c3 "'xc3+ II..id2 "'(;5
l2.lef3 (I2.JJ..e3 ttc3+ 13.~fl?! .tbS+ il-
lustrates the difference between 7 ..Q.b5+ and
7.lLc4. A perpetual is more or less forced:
14.tlJe2 tDf6 15..td4 .be2+ 16.~xe2
tt2bxd5 17..bd5 tiJxd5 IS.i."hS ~f4+
19.<.!o>n "*,c4+ 20.<J.>gl 0e2+ 21.~fl
ltlf4+=) 12... ~"d5 and Black has a pawn for
which White has some compensation.
7....ixc3+ 8.bxc3 tiJxd5 9.i.b5+! The
point! Black must lose the right to castle.
9, •• <ot>fB 10.c4
10...ttJgf61
Black's surprising reply that justifies the
existence of Ihis line.
11,tZ'le2Not I Lcxd5'? 'th5+. 11...'~g7
Here Khalifman claims that 12.'ttd2 prom-
ises White a big plus. However, 1 don't
think that matters are that simple.
12.1Wd2 ttJb6! Khalifman only mentions
12...~c7 13.tth6+ ~g8 14.0-0 tUxb5
15.cxb5.i.f5 16 ..i.b2±. 13."h6+ ~g8

And suddenly the bishop on b5 is awk-
wardly placed, Black plans ...a6.
14.0-0 Play is unclear after 14.~b2 ~g4
15.f3 ~e6 16.0-0 .be4 17.11fd1 We7.
14 ... a61S.cS ~d7!? 16.~d3 tba4
This position requires practical tests. Black
will win the c5 pawn, but White surely has
compensation. Who is willing to try this'?
50S Prize for Shlroy's Une
SOS-7, Chapter 5, p. 50
An important new idea in Shirov's Philidor
(5.g4!) was demonstrated by Dutch talent
Robin van Kampen in the 2010 Corus C
tournament. It is this volume's well-deserv-
ing winner. Enjoy the tactics below!
o Robin van Kampen
• Sjoerd Plukkel
Wijk aall Zee 2010
1.e4 d6 2.d4 tiJf6 3.tLlc3 liJbd7
3...e5 4.ffi ~bd7 is another way to reach
the Philidor under investigation here. In this
move order 4.g4. almost forcing 4 ...h6, is a
very interesting option. See Chapter 8 by
Willy Hendriks in this book!
4.tlJf3 e5 5.g4
The SOS Files
Shirov's astonishing idea as first played by
him against Azmaiparashvili in 2003. Friso
Nijboer reported on this line for SOS in the
7th volume.
5 .. .ti.Jxg4
The only way to refute a gambit is to accept
it. however, it seems that this is also the way
to lose quickly. For the alternatives to the
pawn snatch see SOS· 7 .
6.11g1 tbgf6 7.~e31?
This is fairly new. On the highest level we
could mention a rapid game by Mame-
dyarov from 2008. Of course Shirov always
plays 1.~c4 and this has almost exclusively
been played so far.
7...c68:.d2
White insists on postponing the develop-
ment of the king's bishop. and he does so for
a reason (or more than one actually).
Firstly, the bishop cannot be attacked by
...b5 or ... t.i"b6.
Secondly, the bishop might go to h3.
Thirdly, White wi 11castle one move sooner-
which may be useful for all sorts of tricks on
the d-file. And finally, White might save a
tempo: see the game!
8..J!fc7
8 ...b5 9.a3 .ib7 (9 ...a6 as played in Teran
Alvarez-Strikovic, Seville 2009, spends a
tempo on preventing any funny business on
b5) 10.0-0-0 and now:
17
Jeroen Bosch

- 1O...g6 11..~.h31i.e7 12.~6 a5 l3.dxe5

dxe5 14.~g7 ~gS 15.... h6 "'c7 16.ltxd7?!
(correct was the prosaic 16.~xd7+ llJxd7
l7.1hh7 0-0-0 lS ..i.h6) 16... llJxd7
17.... xh7 ltxg7 IS."'xg7 .i.f6 19.... h7
(White had presumably overlooked
19.~xd7+ We7!, when Black is OK. Al-
though this would still have been the lesser
evil) 19...lOffl was slightly better for Black in
Priyadharshan-Al Sayed, Subic Bay 2009.
- 1O...... a5 II.Wbl b4 12.axb4 "tWxb4
13.dxe5 tbxe5 (13...dxe5 l4.~h3 fle7
15.~g5 with very strong pressure) l4.lDxe5 White again has a spectacular rook sacrifice on
dxe5 15.~h3 (lS.f4!?) 15...~e7? (IS...... e7) g7: 13.lIxg7! (J3.ttJd6+-? .hd6 14.'ihd6
l6.~d7+ tbxd7 l7 .... xd7+ WfS "xd6 ) 5.ltxd6 was slightly better for Black in
Fernandez Andrade- Baltar Iglesias, Ourense
2007) 13...~xg7 (13 ...Wc6 14.tbxe5 'ii'xe4
15.lIg5!+-) 14.ttJd6+- Wf8 15."'115+- and
White just wins. Apparently, J:lxg7is a stan-
dard sac in this line. Or is it the only logical
consequence of 5.g4 tbxg4 6Jlgl?
11.lZlxe5 dxe5

Until so far the rapid game Mamedyarov-

Agrest, Ajaccio 2008. Mamedyarov won
fairly quickly after the sober 18.Wc7.He could
have won forcefully with the lovely:
18.l:txg7!! ltdS (18...Wxg7 19.1Ig1++-)
19.~6!! IIxd720.lIg8+~xg82I.ltgl+~g5
22.:lxg5 male!
9.0-0-0 b5?
Very logical, but wrong, as Van Kampen
convincingly demonstrates.
10.dxe5!
The right moment to open the position.
10 •.•tLlxe5
After IO...dxe5 11.~xb5! ttJxe4? (ll...cxb5
12.tbxb5 .c4 13.• a5 favours White)
12.tDxe4cxb5
12.~xb5!
Right, so White has saved a tempo: the
bishop is 'developed' to b5 in one go!
12..•.i.e6
Black cannot accept this very Greek gift:
12...cx.b513.ttJxb5justwins: 13.... e7l4 .• c3.
13,~a4
Now 14.ttJd5 is an unpleasant threat, so
Black pins the knight, but this means allow-
ing ~xg7 (this time not even a sac!).

18
 The SOS Files

13 ~b4 go of c6. 19 ... l:lbS Or J9...~e6 20.~c5

J3 liJd7 was probably best, but material is winning.
equal again and White has everything devel-
oped. It's not difficult to decide on which
side you should put your money.
14.:xg7lDxe4
The point, Black at least inflicts some dam-
age on White's queens ide structure. Van
Kampen has accurately calculated that his
king is safe enough though.
15.Wd3li)xc316.bxc3 ~f8
16....i.a3+ 17.~1 and White always has
~b3, which suffices.
17.:xh7! Simple but effective. 17...:xh7
18.1!bh7 ha2? 18...:d8 was best, but
White is a passed pawn ahead. 20.~xc6+ <liJe7 Nothing is changed by
19.1!i'h8 Now it's allover as Black cannot 20..... xc6 2J."xe5+ .i.e6 22."xb8+.
defend against .i.c5 or .i.h6 without letting 21.~9S+ We6 22 .... 16 checkmate!

19
 CHAPTER 2
Dimitri Reinderman
Trompowsky: the Cinema Variation

1.d4 tbf6 2 ...ig5 ttJe4 3.~f4 tbc6

I often go to the cinema. One time, not too variations with 8...l2\c4 9.• (4 f6, which
long ago, the movie hadn't started yet and looked a bit suspicious, but then I found
they showed some trailers. Now I do like to 8....ih6 and this looked fine. By this time the
see trailers, but not when I've seen them ten movie started, but T remembered the varia-
times already (the disadvantage of going to tion. so, when Icame home, I started check-
the cinema too oftenl), so my mind started ing whether my fantasy could survive the
wandering. calculating strange variations hard reality of Rybka. And to my surprise it
from the starting position. This is something did! And what is more, there were many
I do more often when I am bored. Now. you more interesting variations, like 4.f3 e5!?
dear reader might think that I am some kind My database only gives 48 games with
of Ivanchuk, not quite in touch with the real- 3...tDc6, including a lot of games by
ity of the world. And, well, maybe you're unrateds, lowly rateds, and games where
right! Black plays secondary continuations. So in
Anyway. I calculated l.d4 ~f6 2.~g5 lLle4 writing this article, I mainly had to trust on
3 ..if4 tUc6 4.ltld2 gS 5.i.e5 lDxe5 6.<'Dxe4 my own (computer checked) analysis. As
ti:'c4 7.t.i"xg5 lOxb2 H.Wel and then first the above fantasy variation illustrates. one of
 Trompowsky: the Cinema Variation

the ideas of 3...~ is to play ...gS. After 5.'i!hd2 d5 6.e3 ~f5 7.lLlf3 e6 8.~b5 ~d6
3 ...gS White might play 4.~eS, but he proba- 9.ti)eS ~xeS 1O.~xe5 0-0 II.~xc6 bxc6
bly won't do this when knight takes bishop is 12.0-0 and now you will be happy not to play
possible. Another idea is the move ...eS, as a under the Sofia Rules ...
(probably temporary) sacrifice in the style of After 4...gS, White immediately has some
the Budapest Gambit (or simply as a good problems to solve. So many possibilities,
answer to 4.dS). And Black develops, so it's what to choose?
not out of the question to continue with
moves like ...dS and continue in Chi gorin
Defence style.
I will show you examples of how to continue
after 4.lLld2, 4.0 and other moves, like 4.e3
and 4.lLlf3, but first a warning. Often with an
SOS you not only have the advantage of sur-
prise, but also of knowledge. You play your
(SOS) book moves, while your opponent has
to think on his/her own. But if you intend to
play 3 ...tLlc6, you have to realize that you
will probably be out of book fairly quickly
too. The variations that Iwill give are plausi-
ble continuations, but there are many alter- 5.~e5
natives that 1don't cover. It is also important • S.tL'lxe4 gxf4 6.~d2 (after most other
to realize that variations like 3 ...tDc6 4.tDd2 moves Black will also play 6 ...d5. For 6.d5
gS will give unusual positions, which means tlJeS see S.d5) 6 ... d5 7.liJc3 ~6 (the only
that both players will have to make concrete good move to defend the pawn, but defend-
decisions early on (instead of just develop- ing it is not essential! For example 7 ...hS!?
ing their pieces and/or rely on their opening 8.~xf4!? ~h6 9.'i!fg3lLlxd41O .... e5 ~xc2+
knowledge), and so that time-trouble will be ll ...t.?dltlJxa I 12.... xh8+ ~f8 is a very inter-
very likely. If your clock handling is bad, esting position. Difficult to evaluate also, but
this is not a good variation for you. The re- probably having an unsafe king is worse
verse holds as well: if your opponent's clock than having a knight in the comer) 8.g3
handling is bad, 3...0c6 will bring him very (again the most forcing move)
near to the abyss.

VarIation I - 4.ti)d2

1.d4 ttJf6 2.~g5 0e4 3.~f4 tt.'lc6

4.ltid2 9511
According to my database, this move has
never been played. While I don't think that
this move is better than the normaI4 ...ti)xd2,
it's certainly more entertaining, and a good
choice if you want to avoid a draw. If you
take on d2 that is not so easy, for example

21
Dimitri Reinderman
8...~f5!? (8 ...~g7) 9.gxf4 (9.tt:.f3 ~e4!?
iO ..i.g2 e6 I Lgxf4 llg8 lZ-lbxe4 dxe4
13.tLlg5 .i.x.gS t4.fxg5 f5 15M 1txd4 is
equal, but what happens when White is rna-
terialisuc") 9...e5! 10.dxe5 d4 11.tLla4
(11..i.g2 is an interesting counter-sacrifice)
1l....Q.e4 (or Il...Wh4, if you prefer to win
back your pawns quickly) 12.tt:.f3 1te7
13.b3 (13 ...b5 was a threat) 13... 0-0-0
14.lLlb2 lLlxe5. and Black will win an ex-
change. Okay. this variation probably won't
happen in a real game, but one can dream!
• S.d5 gxf4 6.lOxe4 lOe5 7.g3 (with this
move White hopes that a more compact
pawn structure will compensate for Black's
pair of bishops)
7...c6!? (7 ...fxg3 S.hxg3 c6 is fine, but sacri-
ficing pawns is fun!) 8.gxf4 tLJg6 9.e3 "Wb6
(9 ... i!h5+ is also good) I O.llb I (a
Trompowsky player is used to sacrifice b2,
but in this position Black would really enjoy
eating this pawn) IO...• b4+ II.tt:lc3 Si..g7
12.0-f3 (12.~2 tLlh4! J3 ..Q.h3 d6 14..Q.xc8
:txcS with compensation) 12 ... .ixc3+
13.bxc3 1txc3+ 14.'ttd2 'ttxd2+ 15.'..txd2
cxd5. Suddenly Black is a pawn up! And
now White is the one with compensation.
• 5..Q.xc7 liJxf2 6.hd8 lOxdl 7.11xctl
~xd8. This endgame is about equal, but not
drawish: both sides have their advantages.
• 5.Si..e3 lDxd2 6.'i!t'xd2 .ig7 7.c3 h6
22
8.0-0-0 ..'Da5!? 9.b3 d5, with again an origi-
nal and about equal position .
• 5..bg5!? (yes, this is possiblel)
5...~xg5 6.d5 h5 (6 ...liJbS 7.h4 and White
wins back the piece) 7.h4liJh7 8.dxc6 bxc6,
and with two bishops and a lot of central
pawns Black can be happy .
• 5 ..tg3?! lDxg3 6.hxg3 lUxd4 wins a
pawn, when White doesn't have enough
compensation.
S.•.tLlxe5 6.tLlxe4
After 6.dxe5 lDc5 a possible continuation is
7.e3 .tg7 S.'i'h5 ~xe5 9.0-0-0 e6 1O.M d5
11.hxg5 Si..g7,with again an interesting posi-
tion. where chances are about equal.
6 ... tLlc4
Here the computer comes with the unbeliev-
able 6 ...~c6. Can't White just take the
pawn? But it thinks the position is equal after
7.lDxg5 e5 S.tLl5f3 ex.d4 9.tt:.xd4 .i.g7
10.0.xc6 bxc6 lI.c3 J:tbS 12.'ttc2 -.f6.
White looks solid here, but it's not so easy to
develop, so perhaps Black does have full
compensation for the pawn. The same goes
for 7.d5 tOe5 8.tDxg5 c6 9.dxc6 bxc6.
Anyway, 6 ...liJc4 is the main line of my
Cinema Variation.
7.tLJxgS
Can White claim to be better after 7 .e3 tbxb2
8.-.bl llJc4!? 9 ..i.xc4 d5 1O.~d3 dxe4
11.~xe4 c6? The g5 pawn looks out of

place, but every disadvantage has an advan-
tage. and perhaps Blacle can continue as if
...g5ispartofaplan: 12.tt~e2hS!? I3.0-0h4.
7•..lbxb2
There are other options here. but this must be
the best move.
8.1Wc1
White has a trick here: 8.... d2 h6 9.tDxf7!?
<i;xn 10.'irb4, but after 1O... c5! ll:ttxb2
"'a5+ 12.<i;dl c",d4 Black has two bishops,
the centre. open files. a safer king; in short,
everything he dreams of!
8 ... t£Jc4
As said in the introduction, 8...~h6 is fine
for Black. but 8...lLlc4 actually works!
9 .• '411
9.e4 d5 1O.~xc4 dxc4 is better. and then for
example 1l.lDe2 i.h6 12.1ff4 f6 13.• 0,
hoping for 13 ...~xg5 14.h4, though a brave
black soul plays this anyway, otherwise
13...0-0 14.ttJh3 eS is fine. Some weak-
nesses, but two bishops can do a lot.
9 ...lbd6!
Here Black is already better, according to the
computer, but it's not so easy to explain why.
Well. I can make an educated guess: White's
dark. squares are weak, especially since there
is no bishop to cover them. and .35(+) and
~6 are potentially annoying moves.
Let's try both a forcing, and a quiet, variation
for White:
Trompowsky: the Cinema Variation
- 1O.e4 c6 11.e51fa5+ J2.~1 h6 13.li.)5f3
lLlbS 14.hb5 'ii'xb5 sees Black undeveloped,
but his bishops will be strong in the future.
- lO.c3 c6 11.~e4 lLlxe4 12.'ihe4 'tf35
13.... c2 c5 14.e3 b6 15.~2 cxd4 16.exd4
~b7 17..if3 ~d5 and White still has some
problems to solve.
Okay computer. I might be wrong, but I be-
lieve you. It really seems that the Cinema
Variation is good for Black!
Variation II - 4.f3
o Wolfgang Gerstner
• Stephan Giemsa
Germany Bundesliga 1989190
1.d4llJf6 2.~g5 ttJe4 3.~f4 tt)cS 4.f3
4...eS!?
Sharp but risky. The alternative is 4...~f6
5.e4 d6 6.~b5 (6..ic4 e5 7.dxe5 tDh5 8.~e3
~Ke5 or 6..ie3 g6 should sui! KlJPirc play-
ers) 6... a6 7.~xc6+ bxc6 8.lDe211b8 9.b3 e6
1O.0-0.ie7 11.c4lbd7 12.~bc3 c5 13.d5 eS
14.~e3 ~g5 15.... d2 h6 and a draw was
agreed in Brurnen-Zaja, Zagreb 2007.
Not good is 4 ...g.5 5 ..icl, since Black. will
lose pawn gS.
5.dxe5
The only good move; White should try to
keep his dark-squared bishop.
23
Dimitri Reinderman
5...g5
Black chases the bishop to a square where it
doesn't defend e5 and gains the possibility
of fianchettoing with tempo.
There is a disadvantage too, of course: 5...g5
gives White an object to attack with h4.
6.~e3
While will want to keep his bishop, but then
he either has to block his e-pawn, or
undevelop with 6.~cl. After 6...tDc5 7.e4
there are two different set-ups for Black:
- 7....ig7 8..ie3lOe6 9.lbc3 .be5 10.tDge2
d6 11.1!t'd2 ~d7 12.0-0-0 .f6 is Offinger-
Hartig, Germany 2006/07, but now 13.M! is
strong.
- But 8 Jack can consider neglecting his de-
velopment and leave the bishop on f8 to de-
fend d6: 7 ...fue5 8.tDc3 d6 9.~e3 lDe6
1O.1!t'd2 c6 11.0-0-0 b5 !?, with counter-
chances, but it's very provocative!
6...t;~c5
7.tt'd2
This is (in the few games with this position)
the most popular move.
Hodgson, in Secrets of the Trompowsky,
gives as the main line:
- 7.1!t'cl (so as not to be bothered by ...ttlc4)
7...CtJe6 8M lLlxeS 9.hxg5 d5 1O.~f2 .ig7
Il.cHte7 12.'Ii'd2c613.tCa3 ttlxgSI4.i.h4
f6 15.0-0-0 iLf5 16.e4 dxe4 17.f4 with advan-
tage for White in Helbig-Seyb, Germany
24
1993194. However, chances were about equal
till Black slipped up with 15 iLf5.
- 7.h4 is a forcing move: 7 g4 (7 ...gxh4
It.![jc3 ttlxe5 9.iLd4 f6 JO.f4 tDf7 11.'it'd2 is
good for White) 8..'i.\c3 ttJxe5 9 .... d4 (9.~d4
f6 10.f4 is less convincing now, since after
1O... liJc6 lI.e3 White doesn't threaten
'i'h5+)9 ... f610.0-0-0c611.f4liJf7, and it's
difficult to label positions like this, but there
is no obvious advantage for one side (though
perhaps there is an obvious disadvantage for
both sides ...).
- 7.'''d5 must be mentioned, because it
hangs on to the pawn. But it doesn't worry
Black: 7 ...'f!Ie7 8.h4 (otherwise Black will
just take on e5) 8 ...liJb4 9."xc5 (9. 'i'd2
'i'xe5 attacks b2 and e3!) 9.... xc5 IO.iLxc5
~xc5 1l.wd2 d6 with good compensation
fur the pawn.
7...ttJe6 8. .af2
I
1
8...~g7
Putting the bishop here can't be tOO bad, but
there is an alternative: 8 ...lf:IxeS 9.li)c3 c6
lO.e4 b5!? Who needs development when
you can attack?
9.lt:lc3 ~xe5
9 ...liJxe5 10.e4 d6 11.0-0-0 hS 12.h4 g4
13.~e3 was played in Multhauf-Schirmer,
e-mail 2001, but it's not easy to find a safe
place for the black king here.
10.e4 d6 11.~c4 ~d7 1Vuge2

White's position is easier to play here, espe-
cially since Black has difficulties with his
king. With the pawn on g6 short castling
would be fine, but now it would be asking for
'it' (which in this case is a white attack). The
upside of the pawn on g5 is heightened con-
trol of the dark squares. It's a bit similar to
the variation of the Advanced Dragon where
Black plays ...g5 ... .h5-h4 and keeps the king
in the middle. hoping to get a nice blockade.
But here White can try (0 prepare g3 and f4.
Still, Black has a very playable position.
However, he shouldn't play
12...:b8?
Black hopes to gel b5 in, but gives up on cas-
tling queenside. A normal move here would
be 12 ...• f6. and after 13.0-0-0 0-0-0
14.Wbl ~g7 15.g3 wb8 16.f4 ~f6 there is
no dark square blockade anymore, but the
battery on the long diagonal is nice.
13.~e3
After 13.h4 h6 14.0-0-0 fif6 IS.i.e3 the
main difference with the variation above is
that the king is stuck in the middle (and the
black rooks are not connected). This means
White is clearly better.
13...ng814.tlb1
Planning 15.~g I perhaps? Anyway, there
was no reason to be afraid of a black. attack:
14.0-0-0 a6 15M h6 16.hxg511Xg5 17.Cild5
h5 18.i.d3l£Je7 19.93 and White will be the
one attacking.
Trompowsky: the Cinema Variation
14...a6 15.tLld5 b5 16.~b3 0.e7 17.e3
ltJg6 18.g3 c6 19.1bb4
19...l:Ia8
In chess, as in life, one must not be afraid to
admit one's mistakes, But in this case there
was no concrete need, since after 19...c5
White won't take on a6.
20JUl llJef4?
It's true that White was threatening to win a
piece, and Black gets some countcrchances
after giving up a piece voluntarily. But Black
can get the same counterchances while
keeping his piece: 20 ...c5 21.~ 9..g7 22.f4
gxf4 23.gxf4 c4 24.~c2 tL:.c5, and while
While is better, with both kings feeling inse-
cure anything can happen.
21.gxf4 gxf4 22.~f2 0.h4 23.lbgl llg2
24.tL.d3 I:Ixh2 25.tLlxe5 dxe5' 26_'iWd6
0,g2+ 26...• e7 is best, but not enough.
2Ht'e2 f6 28.11fdl liJe3 29.~e6 Win-
ning more material. 29...0.xd1 3O.11xd1
:87 31.~xd7+ I:Ixd7 32.'iWe6+ "fie7
33.'ttg8+ Black resigned.
Variation III - 4.e3 and others
o AlefBoer
• Rob Bertholee
Groningen 2000
1.d4 tbf6 2.~g5 tLle4 3.~f4 lUe6 4.e3
25
Dimitri Reinderman
Hodgson writes: 'I quite like the look of the
solid 4.e3 followed by 5.~d3, but then I am
getting rather old!'
- 4.llJfJ is also a normal move, and there
have been some grandmaster games with it:
4...e6 5.lLlbd2d5 6.tL)xe4(6.c3 .id6 7.e3 0-0
8..i.d3 f5= Kovacevic-Planinec, Zagreb
1975) 6...dxe4 ?lveS 0e7 (7...~d6 8.e3 0-0
9.~g3 ~xe5 10.dxe5 "'g5 11.... d2 lLlxe5
12.0-0-0 lLlc6 13.'tIfc3 e5= Hort-Planinec,
Ljubljana 1975) 8.e3 f6 9.~c4 tUd5 1O..tg3
.id7 II.li.XI2 f5 12.c4 (i)f6 13.~e2
14.dxc5 ~xc5, with an equal position
Jakab-Beliavsky, Hungary 2003.
- As explained before, Black is fine after
4.d5 e5.
4...es
Of course 4 ...<15 is also possible, as is the
wild 4...g5!? 5ig3 h5.
5.~d3 e5 6.i.xe4 exf4 7•.txc6+ bxc6
8.exf4
We have a familiar theme: Black has two
bishops, but for a price, in this case II pawn.
8....ia6 9.'it'f3 d5 10.lL\e2 :b8 11.b3
.idS 12.0-00-0
The bishops are clearly more active than
White's knights, so Black's compensation is
enough.
13.l:te1 ne8 14.ttJd2 'it'e7 l5.<ot>f1?!
26
'iff6 16.c4 ~b4 Winning back a pawn.
17.l:ed1 i.xd2 18.l:txd2 dxc4 19.~g1
cxb3
cS
in
20.tLlc3? b2
Now Black even is a pawn up.
21.J:tb1 llb4 22.h3 %leb8 23."'e3 g6
24.0d1 c5? 25.dxc5 h5 2S.'~e5 'fWxf4
27.'it'xf4 l:lxf4 28.l:lbxb2 J:[xb2
29)uxb2l:le4
Black lost the pawn, but is still a bit better.
30.~h2 J:[e5 3l.nd8+ .,pg7 32.rla8
~xc5 33.l:lxa7 ~e2 34.84 l:lc2 3S.:b7
~a6 3SJ:a7 ~e2 37.J:lb7 <;t>f6 38.a5
h4 39.tDa4 rLc4 4O.lL!b2 l:lc2 41.ttJa4
~a6 42.:tb4 ~e5 43.rLxM c5 44.:h7
~b5 45.<iJxc5 J:[xc5 46.:xf7 ~c4
This ending should be a draw, but eventually
White lost rook-bishop against rook.
47.:a7 ~d5 48.'1Pg3 J:[c3+ 49.f3 %lc2
SO.l:tg7 Wf5 51.a6 l:ta2 52.a7 ~c4
53.~h4 Q;>f654.l:td7 ~e6 55.J:[c7 ~d5
56.11d7 95+ 57.~g3 .ic4 58.h4 .tfl
59.hx95+ <o1i;>xg5 60.l:ld5+ <;i;>fS
61.l:ld2
J:xa7 62.'1t>f2.i.c4 63.g4 ~e6 64J1d3
Q;>e5 65.Q;>g3 !:tal 66J;[e3+ ~f6
67.nc3 .idS se.aes ~5 69.f4+ We4
70.15 ng1+ 71.~h3 ¢>f3 72.l:lc3+ ~f4
73.~h4 Jbg4+ 74.'it'h5 Wxf5 rs.nes
White resigned.
 CHAPTER 3
Jeroen Bosch
Alekhine: Hector's Way
Let's play 7.'iYf3!?
In my opinion. 10 achieve a theoretical ope-
ning advantage against the Alekhine the cor-
rect way (0 proceed is 2.eS li:ld5 3.d4 d6
4.~f3. the so-called Modem Variation.
However. if the Vienna or the Four Knights
Opening (remember the Gunsberg Variation
4.a3?) is on your repertoire in the Open
Games. then 2.lL\c3 is an excellent choice
against the Alekhine. Apart from 2...e5
Black may also play 2...d6 to enter the Pirc
(while 3.f4 c5 is a Sicilian Grand Prix At-
tack), but Alekhine players will usually opt
for 2...dS to try and direct the course of play.
Here you can surprise your opponent with
Jonny Hector's favourite weapon.
1.e4ttJf6 2.lbc3 d5 3.e5 d4
Theoretical works on the Alekhine often ar-
gue that this leads 10 an equal ending, but this
SOS will prove them wrong! Here 3...0fd7
might lead to a French Defence - certainly
not your opponent's cup of tea or he would
have gone for I e6 in the first place. More
distinctive is 3 ~c4. but this is fairly dubi-
ous after 4.~ce2!. After the text both sides
grab some material with
4.e06 dxc3 5.fxg7cxd2+ 6.~xd2
Combined with White's next move this is the
SOS way to combat this line. The equal end-
ing that I was referring to above arises after
6.ihd2 it'xd2+ 7 ..bd2.txg7 8.0-0-0tt.Jc6.
6...hg77."13I?
Attaboy! This is the way to play: White pre-
27
Jeroen Bosch

pares to castle queenside. He is willing to ex-
change the dark-squared bishops via square
e3. Black's queen might get into trouble fol-
lowing a vis-a-vis with the rook along the
d-file. And last but not least, Black's king is
a little vulnerable - he usually castles
kingside, but with the g-pawn missing this is
not entirely safe. All this sounds almost too
good to be true. Well, ifI would have to men-
tion a downside: it is that White has kept
pawn b2 hanging. However, we all know
about grabbing on b2, don't we? Let's look
at some illustrative games.
o Jonny Hector
• Matej Grujic
limhamn 1998
1.e4 lDf6 2_~ d5 3.e5 d4 4.exf6
dxc3 5.fxg7 cxd2+ 6.~xd2 ~xg7
7J!V13 'it'd6
(l l. ... g3) l1...e5 l2 .... h4 0-0, Hector went
all-out with l3J:ld3!? ~f5 14.1:[g3 ~g6
15.f4. Now 15...exf4 16."xf4 "'e5 would
have been better than the game continuation
IS .. J5? 16.lLlf3 with advantage.
8.0-0-0
Also worthy of attention is 8 ..ic3 .ixc3+
9 .... xc3 1:[g8 IO.~d3!? .c6!? J 1.... d2!
"'xg2 12.0-0-0 lLlc6 (12 xh I??
13..b4+-) l3.ttle2 "fi'g5 (13 'fixf2
14.1:[hgl!?) 14.f4 "'c5 15.1:[hg1 and White
has a dangerous attack for only one pawn.
After 8.~c3 e5 White has 9.1:[dl! "'f6
10 .... xf6 .axf6 11.1tJf3 lDc6 12~b5 with a
slight edge.
8 <tlc6
8 f6 is an important move. but White has
several ways to claim an edge.
The ending after 9.'iWxf6 .i.xf6 1O.~f4 is
slightly better for White. White can also
avoid the exchange of queens for the mo-
ment with 9"~a3 ~d6 IO.~b5+!,! ~d7
(lO ...c6?! II. ... xd6 exd6 12..2.d3) 11.~3
.txb5 12.... xb5+ "c613.'iie2!? 'iWb6 14.c3
~d7 15.0.h3 with an edge, Hector-Cadet,
Geneva 1990.
9.~c3 ~h6+ 10.c.t>bl0-0
There is something to be said for 1O...~d7 in
order to castle queenside.

R
,1.1.1.,1.1.1.
* g

Black is preparing ...... f6. The fact that

Black is taking so much trouble to exchange
queens should strengthen us in the idea that
7.'t!tf3 is correct - why ease Black's task
~-~-.--.-
'" ~

with 6.... xd2?

I like the text better than 7 ...'fid4, when Hec-
tor-Blees, Kecskemet 1987, went 8 ..ic3
"g4 9..hg7 'fixg7 10.0-0-0 when White is At first sight it looks as if White can strike
slightly better. After IO...lt'iC6 11.'iif4 immediately with 11.1:[xd7.
 Alekhine: Hector's Way

However, after 11...~xc3 (not I I ... <;t,?xd7?

12.• g4+) White has nothing better but to re-
turn to d l, since I 2 Jhc7 ikd2! draws. And
12.l:tdl iJ..g7 13.iLb5 0-0 was OK for Black
in Kl.utz-Diaz. Germany 1989.
After II.~c4 l:tfS (I J...O-O-O! is correct) is
worse because of 12.J:lxd7! i.xc3
(I2 ...~xd7 13.'I'g4+ ~e8 14.~xg7)
13.l:txc7 'ird6 14.J:lxc6 'irxc6 15.~xc3
'l'xg2 16.iLb5+ Wd8 J7.'fi'h3! with a win-
ning position.
11 .... g3 11.~b5!? is probably more accu-
rate. 11 ... ii.f5 12.~b5 l:tad8 12..... g6 Hector sure likes to dance around with his
13.• xg6 hxg6 14.iLxg7 <.Pxg7 15..hc6 knight. After a few inaccuracies Black's
bxc6 16.lDe2 is quite similar to the game. position has become very unpleasant.
13.tDe2 tt'g6 White won on move 61.

o Jonny Hector
• [(ivins Kengis
Haninge 1992

1.e4 tDf6 VlJc3 d5 3.e5 d4 4.exf6

dxc3 5.fxg7 cxd2+ 6.Axd2 Axg7
7.'$'13 tLlc6 8.~b5
Equally good is !'-O-O-O 'i!id6 9.Ac3 ~h6+
1O.~bl which has occurred a few times in
practice and is pleasant for White. The same
holds fOT 8...~d7 9.i.c3.
8...'it'd6
The best move, but Hector now goes for a Kengis also puts the queen on d6. Other op·
slightly beuer ending which is unpleasant tions include:
to defend. 14.11fxg6 hxg6 15.~xg7 • 8...0-0 9.~xc6 bxc6 JO.~c3
~xg7 16.iLxc6 bxc6 1ViJd4 A knight
is strong versus a fractured pawn structure
such as Black has here on the queenside.
17 ..Jld6 18.~c1 18.~xf5+ gxf5 is noth-
ing special. 18...~t6 19.J:lhe1 e5
20.ttJb3! AdS 21.c4 l:ld6 This loses
Iime. Correct was 21.. .lhd 1+ 22Jtxd I
J:lh8 23.h3 l:tb4 24.~a5 J::e4 with enough
activity for the structural weaknesses on
the queenside. 2ViJa5 Ah8 23.h3 AM
24.b3 ~d7?! 25.<2lb7! l:!.dd4 26.tDc5
.te6 27.tUd3l:th5 28.lCb4

29
Jeroen Bosch

White is playing for a positional advantage. ~h8 16.'iWc3+f6 l7.b3!, and with neat geo-
For example: 1O... ~xc3+ I U!hc3 'ikd5 metrical play White will win material (either
12.l:rdI! 'iVe4+ (12...1!hg2 13.1:1d3!is the the queen or the bishop on a6).
point. White is much better after 13...~g4 15.fxe3 ~fd8 16.~xd8+ Keeping it very
l4.l:rg3 'W'e4+l5.'~fl rs 16.f3) 13.tLJe2it.a6 simple. Black has counterplay after l6.'~>f2
14.l:rd2 l:rOO8 15.f3 "'e6 16.'~f2 Hec- l:rdS. 16...l:txd817.l:tf1
ror-Daillet, Cannes 1989. White's main ad-
vantage lies in the fact that he has two pawn
groups. while Black has four. Hector won
fairly effortlessly .
• 8... it.d7 9..1c3 (9.0-0-0) 9... tUd4
10..bd4! Axd4 II.Axd7+ "'xd7 Brohl-
Klotz. Porz 1994/95. Now White should
have played 12.0-0-0, with an edge .
• If Black did not take on b2 on the previ-
ous move then it is hard to believe that he
will do so now: 8...Axb2 9.1:1bl~f6lO.lLle2
"'d6 11.0-0 provides sufficient compensa-
tion, as does 9.l:rdl 'iWd6IO.ttJe2.
9.~c3 0-0 10.he6 I am not going to make a detailed analysis
Again Hector is playing for knight versus of this ending. Hector makes the technical
bishop and fractured pawn structure. Black phase look easy. and please don't forget
can only survive such positions if he man- that his opponent in this game is a strong
ages to create dynamic counterplay. grandmaster. 17...e5 l8.nfS l:le8 Now
10...~xc3+ 11:it'xc3 bxc6 12.0.e2 note the next rook manoeuvre to the
h6 13.~d1 "'eS queenslde: 19.1:tg5+ Gaining a tempo.
19...~f8 20Jlh5 ~g7 21.~h41 ~b8
22.b3 .1c8 With such a queenside the
rook ending after 22 ...Le2 23.Wxe2 is
also unattractive. In a way this was prefer-
able, though, as the knight is superior to
the bishop. 23.l:ta4a6

14."e3!
This more or less forces the queens off.
when despite the isolated pawn on e3
White keeps his endgame edge.
14.•.'iS'xe3
The tactical point was 14..... xa2? 15.'i'g3+!

30

The lime has come for the knight to seek
greener pastures: 24.lbc1 f6 25Jbd3
:b5 26.l:I.c4l:1.b627.lDc5..w7
And the first pawn drops off: 28.ttJa4!
J:tb7 29.l:lxc6 l:ta7 30.lec5 Domination.
Kengis resigned on move 49.
o Yury Balashov
• Georgy TUD()Shenko
Moscow 1989
1.e4 lDf6 2.0.c3 d5 3.e5 d4 4.exf6
dxc3 5.fxg7 cxd2+ 6.~xd2 .i.xg7
7.1IIf3 ~xb2
This is the acid test. White has left pawn b2
hanging in his desire to keep the queens on.
Not only does Black actuaJl y win a pawn, he
also destroys White's hopes of castling
queenside. Yet, 7 .. Jh.b2 is nat too popular
Alekhine: Hector's Way
in practice and this is not only because of the
proverbial misdemeanour of grabbing b2.
White gains time to develop a serious initia-
tive and, while his own king can still castle
kingside, his opponent's king will be stuck
in the middle for some time to come.
8J:rd1
Clearly the most popular move. Of course
the rook has to be placed on d I and not on b l.
Yet, curiously White is not obliged to move
the rook, but he can interpolate 8.~c4 with
the threat of mate. This is actually a serious
option which you might well find worth in-
vestigating.
8..:.-d6
However, as we are accustomed to by now,
there are two queen moves to investigate.
Fifteen years earlier Balasbov had encoun-
tered 8...'tWd4 versus Alburt, and we have [0
study this into some detail. 9.ttJe2:
- 9 ...1!ff6?! 10.'i'b3 ..Q.eSIl.f4! i.d6 12.~c3
e5 13.~d5! 1!fh4+?' (lL"ifh6) 14.g3 "fIIe7
15.fxc5 ~cS and White won in E.Heine-
mann-Engel, Schoppenstedt 1993, following
16.l2)[4. Immediately decisive would have
been 16.1!t'b5+' <1:\d7 l7.e6! fxe6 18.l:hcS.
- 9 ...'ii'c4?! IO.~f4 1i'xa2?? is too greedy.
White wins after u.eas ~e5 12.~c3 tOc6
13.~xe5 tDxeS 14.tOxc7HPf8 15."'c3 1-0,
Hennings-Birnbaum, Gennany 1995.
- 9 ...1!t'g4 (there is no rea) substitute for this
forcing sequence) iO.'in>3
31
Jeroen Bosch
So far so good. White is better developed.
but Black still bas his pawn. He now has to
make up his mind where to move the bishop
to: e5. f6. or g7?
First let's move it to e5: 10...~e5 can be met
by 11.~c3 when 11... ~xc3+ (you should
study the consequences of 11...'i'e6 and
11..:l'g7) l2.'i'xc3 0-0
suddenly loses after 13.J:d3!.
Secondly, there is 10•••~g7.
Now 11.~c3? 0.c6 12.J:ld3 .bc3+ J3:ifxc3
'iWb4+ is an old analysis by Bronstein and
Lepeshkin. However, in practice White has
fared better with 11.ltJf4.
Finally, there is Alburt's choice of 10 .••~f6
Il.tDf4:
- 11. .. J:lg8 12.~e2 'tIH5 13.0-0 ~e5
14.... d5?! (14.~d3) 14...i.xf4 l5.~b5+
32
(l5.~xf4) 15...Wf8 16:W'xfS ~xfS 17.~xf4
tLlc6 18.c3 was about equal in Van
Haastert-Kuiper, Netherlands n 1994195.
- ll...ltJc6 12..ie2 'tIrf5 13.LDd5 ~e5
14.i.c3 J:lg8 15.f4!? (15 ..be5 'tIrxeS 16.f4)
15...e6 (1S...~d6 16.0-0 ~d7) 16.0-0! exd5
17Jxe5 Balashov-Alburt, Leningrad
ch-URS 1974. White is much better now. al-
though Albun managed to escape quite mi-
raculously with a draw.
9..Q.c4Again this move. which shows how
serious we should take it on the previous
move as well.
9...~f6
This looks like die best move.
After 9 ..:fig6 IO.ttJe2 0.c6 II.'ilb3 ~e5
12.0-0 ~d7 13.tlJf4 White has compensa-
tion. Nozdrachev-Ivanov, Tula 2004.
After 9...ttf6 lO.ttb3 ~e6'! (10...~e5
II/iJf3) White should play II. ... xb7 0-0
12 .... xa8 ~xc4 13.... e4±. rather (han
11.ttJe2 ~xc4 12.'''hc4 'tic6!. De Sio-Fucito.
Napoli 1994.
10.liJe2 tiJc6 11.i.c3?! bc3+ 12.'ilfxc3
'i'b4
Timoshenko manages to trade queens while
keeping the pawn. Curiously. White still has
some compensation. His edge in develop-
ment remains unpleasant.
12...'itc5 was also playable.
13.~b5!? the3+ 14.tlJxc3 ~d7

So as not to allow ~",c6. but this is passive.
Perhaps just 14...~e6 and Black is OK.
15.lDd5 l:tea
Not 15...0-0-0? 16.~xc6 .i.xc6 17.l1:1",~7+
q"b8 18.tOxc6+ bxc6 19..I:I.xd8+ lhd8
20.q"e2 and White is a pawn up on the
kingside.
16.0-0 ~b8
This is (00 passive. 16...a6 was correct,
when Black is slightly better.
17.l:tfel! e6
Probably Timoshenko had missed 17...~",b5
18.~",e7 and wins.
18.lbf6+ We719.llJxd7
White wins a piece. but there are consider-
able technical difficulties ahead.
19..•c6 20.ttJxb8 cxb5 21.llJd7
21 ...f61
Trapping the knight, but in the end the beast
cannot be won. Stronger was 2 I ...J:[hd8
22.llJe5 .l:l.xdl 23Jlxdl %hc224Jlal±.
Alekhine: Hector's Way
22.l:te3 %:thg8
Or 22 ....I:I.xc2 23.l:tg3 Wt7 (23 .. Jha2
24 ..I:I.g7++-; 23 ...e5) 24.rlf3!'
23.l:th3! l:tg7 24.l:t83 86
The point of Balashov's rook manoeuvre
was 24 ...1:c7 25.1:xa7 lhd7? 26.J:[xd7+
'Itlxd727.rlxb7+.
25.l:td2 Now Balashov has more or less
consolidated his position. whne won after
25.•.l:tc7 26.ttad3 l:t95 27.a3 hS 28.93
h4 29.Wg2 hxg3 30.hxg3 J:[h531.l:td4
%:tg532.Wn
The start of a plan 10 defend pawn c2 (his
weakness) with the king, to fret: the rook.
32 ...l:thS 33.<t;e2 l:tgS 34.<t;dl l:th5
35.~cl J:lgS 36.~b2 J:lh5 37.lf.Jb6!
llhc5 38.l:.h4 ~f7 39.~7 J:lSc6
40JU4
And now the knight finally escapes from
its cage. Black resigned.
33
 CHAPTER 4
Alexander Finkel
The French
Winawer: 4.ttJe2 dxe4 S.a3 ~e7 6.g4!?
The Winawer Variation is steadily gaining
back the popularity it enjoyed some ten yean;
ago. so we thought that offering you some
sort of a getaway line might be quite handy.
It would be 100 pretentious to claim that our
topic is equally dangerous for Black as the
main line (4.e5c5 5.a3 ~xc3+ 6.bxc3). and I
certainly do not purport to do so. However,
considering the effort required to master this
SOS line as White (little effort is required).
the character of the emerging position, and
the possible benefit of its future employment
you will find studying this favourite of Hec-
tor's (in my sincere opinion) a very good
time investment.
Of course things are not that simple. After
34
a la Hector
5.a3 another option for Black is capturing on
c3. followed by 6 ...lDc6. However. since it is
hardly possible to present both of these sub-
jects seriously within the limits of a single
article we shall cover it in the next issue of
SOS.
As to the original idea to push g4 in this kind
of positions, it belongs to no one else but the
great Alexander Alekhine, who used it in a
World Championship's match versus Euwe
more than 70(!) years ago (the 7th match
game of J 935, even though he played it after
6.lDxe4 tLlc6). Swedish GM Jonny Hector
later took it up and employed it very success-
fully on numerous occasions. It is interesting
to mention that Hector had shaped this line

almost exclusively, so all we need to do is to
properly study some of his games.
Basically, the idea behind 6.g4 is to disrupt
the regular development of Black's
kingside. In the event that Black meets 6.g4
with 6 ...eS, the space gained on the kingside,
and the restraining of Black's light-squared
bishop promise White excellent chances in
the endgames typically arising after 7.h3
exd4 S.Wxd4. The drawback of 6.g4 is also
quite clear, as Black may either push ...hS
immediately, or do so after the preliminary
6...e5 7.h3, getting a fair amount of
counterplay in both cases. On the other
hand, if Black refrains from pushing ...h5
White gets very comfortable play by simply
developing his pieces.
o Jonny Hector
• Marlin Voigt
Germany Sunctesliga 2001/02
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.tDc3 ~b4 4.<7Je2
dxe4 5.a3 soa
6.g4!?
Earlier Hector's approach had been more
modest: 6.g3 ~d7 7.lDxe4 ~c6 S.D rs
9.~d2 ~f6 W.c3 e5 Il.dxeS j(xeS l2.~g2
1!t'd3 13.0-0 tl)d7 14.a4 ~e7 IS.llJb3;!;, Hec-
tor-Vallejo Pons. Aceirnar 1995.
6...e5!?
The French a la Hector
This natual move immediately anacking the
pawn on g4 is Black's most popular reply to
6.g4, however both 6...h5 (which is explored
in more detail in the game Heeter-Karlsson
below) and 6 ...j(d7 are hardly any worse
(6 ...j(d7!? 7.tl)g3 j_c6 S.j_g2 e3 9.j_xc6+
ttJxc6 1O.j_xe3 ttJf6 l1.h3 "'d7 12.... d3
0-0-0 13.0-0-0 hS l4.gS ttJd5 IS.lt:lge4 g6
was about equal in Turova-Matveeva, Istan-
buI2003).
7.h3 exd4?1
I believe this move is an inaccuracy. after
which White gets excellent chances in the
forthcoming play.
Apparently Black should respond 7 ...hS!·\
practically forcing White to sacrifice a pawn
on g5: 8.g5 ~xgS 9.~xg5 fixg5 1O..J:tgl
'tth4 1I.'i'd2! (1 \.tlJdS "'d8 l2.dxe5 tlJc6
IHlfd2 j_e6l')
It seems that White should have sufficient
compensation to keep the balance, but I
doubt he's got more than that: 1l...~e7
12.0-0-00-0 13.dxeS tlJbc614.tDdS?? (miss-
ing Black's defence, correct was 14.• g5
with unclear play) 14...lOxdS 15.... h6 ~g4!
0-1, Libiszewski-Krivosney, Salou 2008.
S.Wxd4 tt'xd4 9.lDxd4
Despite its seeming simplicity, the arising
position is not so easy for Black. White is
better developed and this turns out to be a
very important factor.
35
Alexander Finkel

After this careless move Black finds himself

under severe pressure. It was necessary to
trade a couple of minor pieces on e4, which
would've allowed Black to build a solid de-
fensive set-up.
12...b6!? 13..tg2.tb7l4J:lhel 0-0 15.lDxe4
.txe4 16..txe4li.'!xe4 17J:lxe4 4Jc6;t;.
13.ctJaS!b5?!
13...b6 l4.11Jc4 (tJbd7 l5.lbd6+ .txd6
16.i.xd6 b6 17.i.g2±.
14.~g2lDbd715.tDxe4ttJxe416.~xe4

9 a6
9 ~f6?! lO.ltJdbS .Q.xc3+ Il.lLlxc3 liJf6
12.gS lLlfd7 I3.~S ~8 l4.11f4±.
9...c6 was tested more often. but in all of the
games Black experienced considerable dif-
ficulties:
- \O.~e3 iCf6 (lO ...hS II.g5 g6? IVt:lxe4
liJd713.0-0-0tOCS-13 ...liJb6-14,tDbS!+-
cxb5 15.lL)xc5 a6 16..ig2. Hector-Hultin,
Gothenburg2004) 11.0-0-00-0 12.11g2tDa6
13.tDxe4 ltJd5 14.~d2 fS IS.gxf5 .bfS
16.li'ixf5 lhfS 17.b4!. Hector-Larsson,
Sweden 2005/06. Despite {he material balance Black's posi-
- JO.~g211Jf6II.g5 <'tJdSl2.tLixc40-0 13.c4 tion is nearly lost, mainly because of the
liJc7 14.0-0~6 15.~e3 l1e8 16.b4!, Hec- huge difference in the strength of minor
tor-Djurhuus, Sweden 2005/06. pieces.
10..Qf4c5 11.lDb3 tDf6 12.0-0-0 16...l:r.d817.ttJb71lle8 18.lDd6+~xd6
White's idea isjust to play ~g2 and take on e4. 19.~xd6
Or 19.11xd6!? I guess it's just a matter of
taste!
~ B 19...ctJb8 20.~b7 tld8 21.~xc5 Ild7
Aiii 22.~e4 ~d8 23.f4
~ ktl). • Black could've resigned at this stage, but
he tries to escape an inevitable fiasco.
23 ...<ltc8 24.f5 :xd1+ 25.Uxd1 ~d7
iA~ 26.~d4 f6 27.g5!
~ Creating another weakness.
27.•.:e8 28.gxf6 gxfS 28...llxe4
29.t7+-. 29.~d3 :f8 30.~g1 lbe6
31.i.f2 tDe5 32.~e4 <i;c733.~c5 ~e8
34.j£_f2tDc4 35.ng4 .I:1e736.b3 tiJd6?!
12...~e6?! 36...ttJeS. 37..ig3 j£_c6 38.~d3 .td5

36
 The French a la Hector
39.c4 bxc4 4O.bxc4 ~e3 41.~xd6+ 11.95 tDge7 12.ltJg3?!
¢'xd6 42J:ld4 It was better to suspend the capture on e4 in
Black resigned. order to put a knight on f4: 12.0-0-0 IUg6
13..i.e3 !:Dce7 14.tDxe4 tLlf5 1S.~d2 0-0
o Igor-Atexandre Natar 16.0.f4;t.
• Sergey Sbipov 12...lDg6 13.~e3 lDce7 14.lDgxe4 0-0
Montreal 2005 15.0-0-0 ll\f5

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.lDc3 .tb4 4.tbe2

dxe4 5.a3 1..e7 6.g4 e5 7.h3 exd4
8."ibd4 lDc6!?
In case White chooses to trade the queens on
d8 Black is the one to benefit comparing to
the immediate capture on d4, since White
fails to find a good square for the knight on e2.
9.1!fxd8+?!
I believe White has more chances to fight for
an advantage after 9.... xe4!?: 9... lUf6
(9 ...fS!?) IO.twg20-0 II.~d2$.e612.0-0-0
1I'c8 13.lt:!f4!, Hector-Heika, Hamburg
2005.
9...~xd8 10..tf4
10...h5!?
A useful move securing square f5 for one of
Black's knights. However, Black may try to
take over the initiative by means of the ener-
getic 10...g5! II.~e3 hS 12.lllxe4 (l2.glthS
f5+ is hardly an option on White's part)
12...hxg4 13.0-0-U gxh3 I 4.l(jxgS ~xg5
15..ixg5 .i.g4:j:, Hector-Sjodahl, Sweden
2004.
Black's knights are perfectly placed on the
kingside, completely neutralizing White's
minimal development advantage.
16.~c5
16.~d2!?
16..•ne817.~c4 i.e6
17...c6!? I8 Jthe I jLe6 19.jLxe6 :lxe6
20.jLxa7 tDf4 21.jLe3lLlxh3 22 ..id2 ~c7:j:.
18.~xe6 l:lxe6 19.1Id5 lDfe7 20Jld2
c61 21.l:ld7
This move is more accurate than 21.:hd I
(2l...0.d5 22.0.xd5 :lxe4 23.lbc3 :le8
24.~e3 ~a5:j:). but maybe 21.f3 deserved
attention, intending to retreat with the
bishop to 12.
21...b6 22.l:lhd1 lDd5 23.0xd5 lbe4
24.l:txd8+ l:[xd8 25.'O16+!
Much worse is 2S.iOe7+ IUxe7 26.:xd8+
'>i>h727.j_xe7 :xe7 28.:ld6 :le2 29.f4 :f2
30.lhc6 lhf4 31.%le7 Wg6+ and Black is
better prepared for the pawn race.
25.•.gxf6 26.':'xd8+ 'it'h7 27.~e3 txg5
28.~xg5 lDf4 29.13?!
White should not have too many difficulties

37
Alexander Finkel

to hold the endgame arising after 29.~xf4
lhf4 30.l:Id7 I:lxf2 31.l:Ixa7.
29...J:d4!:r:
Stronger looks 7.dxc5 "'xdl+ 8.~xdl .i..d7
9.b4 tDf6 lO.gS tDg411.lL;xe4 ~c6 l2.liJ2g3
and White is slightly better, Vavra-Nguyen
Chi Minh, Prague 2()()9.
7.h3 exd4 8."'xd4 If.2c6

30.Ua8?
Missing an opportunity to keep the balance:
30Jk8! ltWJ3 31.~e3 ~d6 32.tl:c7 lU6 9.1!be4!
33.1.Ixa7 b5 34.~d2 Uxf3 35.b3. White's plan isjust to play .i..d2, 0-0-0, "-g2,
Not 30 ..axd4? lQe2+ 31.~d2 ItJxd4 32.f4 ~f4 and ~d3, followed by the advance of
~g6 and wins. the g-pawn.
30 ... lillc:h3 31.~e3 J:d7 9...tlJf6
Now Black is just a pawn up, so the rest is a Black's main problem after this move is the
matter of technique. development of the light-squared bishop. As
32.Uc8 f6! a result Black fails to get sufficient coun-
32 ...cS 33.ltc6. terplay against White's actions on the
33.Uxc6 ~6 34.:c4 0.g5 35.1:14 kingside.
Better is 3S.lIh4. Black is also in trouble after 9 .. .f57!
35...l:th7 36.~d4 15 37.~e3 h4 38 ..l:!.c4 1O.1i'c4! ~f6 Il.g5!? .bg5 12.~xg5 'ifxg5
h3 39 ..c.c6+ <oti>h5 13.~b5. Perhaps 9 ...hS!?
White resigned. 10." g2 0-0
10...lL;e5 11.f4 ~c4 l2.log3 ~d6 J3.~e3;!;.
11.i.d2 i.e612.O-0-O .c8?!
o Jonny Hector It was absolutely necessary to take the
• Martin Heika chance to trade the bishop, even though after
Hamburg 2005 12...~c4!? 13.tiJgJ .ixfl 14.l:thxfl ne8
IS.g5 tiJd7 16.tLlfS White is well in control.
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.~c3 i.b4 4.ttJe2 13.0.'4 nd8 14.g5 tOe8 15.tt).cd51
dxe4 6.83~e7 6.g4 e5 White is not satisfied with 15.ttJxe6 "'xe6
Interesting is 6 ...cS!? Now play is unclear l6.i.b5 ~c5 17.l:thcl Wf5 l8.L.c6 bxc6
after 7.li.Jxe4 lQf6 (7 ...cxd4 8 .... xd4 "'xd4 19.... xc6±.
9.lDxd4 a6 1O.~f4 f6 I I."-e3;!;) 8.lDxf6+ 15,..~d6 16.lDxe6 .xe6 17.~c4 .f5
~xf6 9.dxc5 ~7 1O.~g2 0-0 . 18.~d3

.,0
 The French a la Hector
31J:lb3! b6 sa.aea l:tf7 33.l:ld1
l:lxd1 + 34.~xdl While is just winning.
34 ... t;Jb8 34...li)a5 35 ..ig4 c5 36.b4 liJb7
37.:td3+-. 35..ie5 llJd7 36..ixc7 lDe8
37.~g3 ces 38.l:tc4 rUl 39.b4 tLla4
40.~e5 b5 41.:tc8 Wf7 42.~a8 l:le1
43.l:lxa7+ ~g8 44.l:l87 Wf8 45.l:lxe6
'iPf7 46.:tc6 l:lxe4 47.~h8 'ittg8
47...:txh4 48.c4+-. 48 •.ial l:le3
49.~d4 l:txa3 50..ie2
Black resigned.

18 ...• d7 Or 18.... e6 19.f4.irs 20.c4±.

19.We4?! A minor inaccuracy. allowing o Jenny Hector
Black to put up rather tough resistance. • Lars Karlsson
Better was 19.~c3!tie7 (I9 ...~e5 20.~xe5 LinkOping ch-SWE 2001
llJxeS 21.llJf6+ gxf6 22.gxf6+ ~h8
23.:thg 1 +-) 20.lbxe7+ .xe7 21.h4 c6 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.llJc3 .ab4 4.tUe2
22.1:r.hel 'it'c7 23.'t!i'e4 g6 24.~bl±. dxe4 5.a3 Ae7 6.g411 hS!?
19 •.. g6 20.~c3 'iWe6 21. 'iYxe6 The most straightforward attempt to deal
21.llJf6+ tLlxf6 22.~xf6 l:le8 23.l:thel ±. with 6.g4!,?
21..•fxe6 22.tDe3 7.gxh5
The endgame is also dearly better for White, Black is better after 7.g5?! Axg5 8..lii.xg5
but Black's defensive task would have defi- 1hg5 9.~gl 'tiM lO'llJxe4 iLd7.
nitely been more difficult had the queens 7 .. JbhS Dubious is 7 ...fS?! 8.tOf4 tLlf6
stayed on the board. 22.llJf6+ llJxf6 23.i.x.f6 9.:1g1 :th7 1O.~c4. but 7 ...lt:lf6!? 8.t~g3 cS
.ie7 24 ..be7liJxe7 2S.:thel ~f7t. is an alternative.
22 ...i.f4 22 ...~eS!'? 23.~d2 tDd6 24.tDg4 8.lLlxe4
~g7. 23.h4 lCeS 24 ..ie2 ttJd6 25J:td4!
be3+ 26.fxe3 ttJc6 27.1:lg4 ltJf5
28.~f6 l:td6 29.e4 ltJg7 29...liJfd4
30 ..td I e5 3I.h5+-. 30.1:193 rlfe

8...l:lh41?
Putting some pressure on the d4 pawn.
9.'iWd3
Nothing is promised by 9 ..ig2 .id7 lO.llJc5?!

39
Alexander Finkel
~c6 Il.llJxb7 "c8 12.~xc6+ Cbxc6 i3.lt:.c5
ttlxd4 14.tL!xd4hc5:f.
9...!Df6 10.!D4c3 !DdS?!
Passing the initiative into White's hands.
Better looks 10...~d7!?
11.l:lg1 lOxc3 12.ti:\xc3 Wf8
White has good compensation after l2 ...g6
13.~e3 1:lxh2 14.0-0-0 l!.)d7 is.as.
13."g3
13...g6 14.xf4 ..id6 14...... xd4 J5.~e5
i.d6 (15..... b6 16.0-0-0 "ba6 17.~xa6
"xa6 18hc7~) 16..2.xd6+ cxd6 17.Ildl
'ii'f4 18.l:rxd6 tbc6 19.~g2. 15.~xd6+
cxd6 16.~d31! White has an edge after
16.0-0-0. 16•.•e51? 17.0-0-0 exd4 Very
bad is 17...%lg4? 18.... e3 exd4 19.~h6+
<ot>g820k\e4, and White has an extremely
dangerous auack. l8.l/ldS llic6 19...t>b1
Wrong is 19.~xg6? l:Ig4 20.'f!if3 ~g5+
21.t;ijeJ 4::oe5!22.llxg4 ~xg4-+.
40
19../i:Je5!? 20.14 l:lh3 21."f2 l;jxd3
22.cxd3 ~e6:f 23."xd4 ~xd5?! Los-
ing his advantage again, correct was
23..J~c8'f. 24.'tWxd5.16 Play is equal af-
ter 24 ...I:txh2 25.l:lhl a..x.hl 26.11xhl 'iWf6
27.~xb7. 25.f5!1 1b15 26.• xd6+ ~g8
27.~a1!1 The position is absolutely equal.
but White keeps on playing for a win.
27.l:.gfl l:.f3 28.a.xf3 'ii'xf3 29.Ilcl lle8=.
27 l:t'3 28.h4 l:tf2 29.h5 'tWxh5
29 f6? 30...wb4.30.11h1 "13 31.l:tb1
"'16 3l...l:.e8=i=. 32.'Wd7 l:td8 33.'ith3
l:tf3 33...l:.fS 34....h7+ WfS'f. 34.Wh7+
~f8 35.l:tbe1 Ilfxd3 35 .. J:rdxd3?
36.'lWh6+ 'ii'g7 37.l:le8++-. 36.l:r.hf1"g7
37.l:txf7+!
A lucky escape!
37 ...'\!fxf7 38.'iVh8+ 'fig8 39.iV16+
~f7 40.1!i'h8+ 'Wg8
Draw.
 CHAPTER 5
Sebastian Siebrecht
Anti-GrOnfeld with 5.h4
1.t2Jf3 t2Jf6 2.c4 96 3.tDc3 d5 4.cxd5 tDxd5 5.h4
The Grunfeld Indian is often played by those
who know their theory inside out, and are ca-
pable of reproducing long lines down to an
equal ending. During a tournament in 2009
in Reykjavik I was following the games of
my Bundesleague team via the Internet. In
front of my enchanted eyes I saw a surpris-
ing opening idea as played by my friend and
teammate Stelios Halkias, Thus, the idea for
tomorrow's game was born!
I have done some further research for this SOS
article, and I must say that I like the idea even
better. According to the database this line was
First played in 1952 by Jozsef Szily. In 1979 it
was none other than super OM Bent Larsen
who adopted it in Buenos Aires. At the start of
the 19KOs grandmaster Ribli played it, as well
as some of the top Czechoslovakian players
Stohl, Ftacnik, Plachetka and Pekarek. In 2(XXl
Jeroen Piker's win over Peter Svidler during
the Kasparov Chess Grand Prix caught the at·
tention of the chess world. After that game
other grandmasters followed suit: Peter Wells,
Pavel Eljanov, Alexander Morozevich and
Levon Aronian.
An interesting feature ofS.h4 is that White's
sword is not at all that double-edged as it
looks. In fact, White often has a choice be-
tween a slightly better ending (by taking
back on c3 with the d-pawn), or a more ad-
venturous path (by taking with the b-pawn).
S.h4 is a great weapon that will surely sur-
41
Sebastian Siebrecht
prise your opponent. Naturally, having
thought for 10-30 minutes, he decides upon
his next move, only to lose without a chance,
Hm, all right I will be more serious, Still, the
march of the h-pawn is extremely annoying
for someone who wants to develop his
bishop on g7. Grtinfeld players, in contrast
to Pirc, KI, or Modem players, are often not
adapted to such a direct confrontation with-
out sufficient theoretical knowledge to back
them up. See for yourself how you like the
following illustrative games.
How should Black reply to White's cheecky
move? We will investigate the main replies:
5 ...h6, 5 ...hS, 5...i.g7 and 5 ...tDf6. Clearly,
nothing has been researched here into a
drawn ending: let the games begin!
o Sebastian Siebrecht
• UriZak
Reykjavik 2009
1_lbf3 tC.f6 2.c4 96 a.eea d5 4_cxd5
tLlxd5 S.h4!? h6
To stop the march of the opponent's h-pawn,
for, if 6.hS, then 6...g5 is strong. The idea of
5 ...hS is similar.
An earlier high-level game in Moscow had
seen: 5 ...h5 (blocking the intrepid White
h-pawn, However, it weakens the dark
squares surrounding Black's king, and
square g5 may be used to good effect by the
white pieces. Moreover, the h5-pawn creates
a target. Let's look at a game by that creative
genius, Alexander Morozevich.) 6.e4 ~xc3
7.bxe3 (7.dxc3 'i'xdl+ 8.~xdl is always a
pleasant alternative for White) 7 ...Si..g78.d4
(or S.i.c4 0-0 9.tDg5 I?, with pressure. White
can always play "'b3 followed by castling
kings ide and f4, f5) 8...c5 9,~e3 0.e6
10.... d2 ~g4 J l.d5 "'a5! (a useful interpo-
lation. characteristic of the Grunfeld)
12.l:lc1 J:[d8 l3.tLlg5! (occupying the strong
square g5) 13...0-0 14.f3 ..tc8
42
15 .i.c4,!! (1 would prefer 15.~e2, after the text
Black can free his game. The bishop on c4
only looks good) 15...e6! (I5...iOe5 16..i.e2)
l6.Si..b3exdSI7.hd5c4! IR.O-Oli\e7!(witha
lovely manoeuvre Black has obtained a satis-
factory game) I9.J:l.fdI lllxdS 2O.exdS .i.f5
21.ttJe4 J:l.fe8 (21...~xe4 22.fxe4 llfe8
23.~c2 f5! 24.Si..gS J:[xe4 25 ..bd8 "xd8
26.g3 ~g4! -this is difficulttofind, but it looks
as if Black has a decisive attack here. Probably
Black had too much respect for the dangerous
d-pawn) 22.Si..g5~7 23.tL;f6+ hf6 24.Si..xf6.
In the subsequent course of the game White
had an attack on the kingside in return for los-
ing the passed d-pawn. The game eventually
ended in a draw. Morozevich-Mamedyarov,
Moscow blitz 2007.
6.e4lDxc3
Black .can also avoid the exchange:
• 6 ...lt:.b6 7.d4 Si..g78.Si..e3 ~g4 9.'ir'd2 and
now:
- 9 ~c6 10,d5 is very pleasant for While.
- 9 c6 10.Ae2l2J8d7, and White can even
contemplate to castle queens ide.
- Or see how simple chess can be: 9 ...Si..xf3
10.gxf3 e6 11.0-0-0 liX:6 12,~b5 'ttf6
13 .... e2 a6 14..be6+ bxc6 IS.h5 g5
l6.J:l.hgl 0-0 17,J:[g3 J:l.ad8 18.J:[dgl ~h8
19.f4 gxf4 20.e5 "'f5 21 Jbg7 fxe3
22.'i'xe3 'ft'xh5 23.'fi'g3 1-0, Larsen-Franco
Ocarnpos, Buenos Aires 1979 .
• 6 ...~f6 7.~c4 ~c6 8.d4 (While may also
 Anti-Grunfeld with 5.h4

try the forceful 8.eS, and now 8 ...1t1g4 9.d4
~g7 LO.h5 g5 L1.0-0) S....tg7 9.0-0 0-0
1O..tf4 ~g4 II.d5liJaS 12.~e2 c6 13.:cl
(l3.b4?! lDh5 14..id2 ~xf3 15.gxf3 e6!
16.bxa5 "'xh4+) 13 ... cxd5 14.exd5
(l4.ltjxd5) 14 .. .l:k8 15.• d2 ~xf3 16..bf3
ltjc4 17.'4i'e2 'iraS with an unclear game.
1.bxc3
ALternatively, if this suits your style or mood,
White can also opt for a pleasant ending, e.g.:
7.dxc3 '4i'xdl+ 8.~xdl ~g4 9.o;t>c2 ltld7
10.~e3 .bf3 Il.gxf3 eS 12.~3 ~d6 l3.hS
g5 14.tladl o;t>e7IS.:d2 :hdS 16.:hdlltlf6
17..tg4 b6 18.a4 .tcS 19..ixc5+ bxc5
20.rl.xd8 :xdS 2 I.rl.xd 8 <;t>xd822.~d3 ted7
23.a5 c624 ..txd7 and White won the pawn
ending in Eljanov-Sutovsky, Netanya 2009.
7...~g7 8.d4 c5 9.a.b1
Just like the 8.:bJ variation, but interpolat-
ing h4-h6 favours White.
- 1O.h3 tDc6 L1.... d2 cxd4 12.cxd4 ~g4
l3.ttJh2! (l3.rl.xb7 .txf3 14.gx(3 ttJxd4:f)
13....icS 14.d5lDe5 I S.f4ll)d7 16.ll)f3, with
a nice space advantage and an easy game for
White. With ideas like h5. or simpLy ~e2
and castles .
• 9...cxd4 to.cxd4 0-0 II.h2 "'a5+
12..id2 'i'xa2l3.0-0ll)c614.d5li:\aS lS ..ib4
.id7 16.'4i'd2 1hd2 17.ll)xd2 b6 18.~xe7
l:rfe8 19.~b4 tiJb7 20.11fc I with a clear edge
in Halkias-Gaugfitz, Bundesliga 2008109.
10.d5!~e5
Or 1O... .txc3+ 11..id2 .ixd2+ 12.'tWxd2
~d4 (12 ...lL'Ib8 13.~bS+ ~d7 14.~e2 .c7
15.'i'b2±) 13.tDxd4 cxd4 and now L4.h5 g5
IS.~bS+ .td7 16.~xd7+ 'tWxd7 I7.Wxd4
0-0 18.0-0 with a slight advantage.
11.AbS+
Or 11.t"2.xe5 ~xeS IH:i'd2 ~g7 13.~e2 hS
14.c4 e5 15J~b3 "'d6 16.~b2 b6 17.f4 0-0
18.f5 gxf5 L9.rl.g3 f4 20.'iWxf4 and White
won in Pekarek-Jasnikowski, Polanica
Zdroj 1986.
11....id712.~xe5 .ixe513.'i!fd3as
Castling is obviously wrong because pawn
h6 is hanging.
14.Axd7+ .xd71S.f4

9...0c6
• If Black castles, then White has a choice,
9...0-0:
- 1O. .ie2 llJd7 11.0-0 e5!? 12.h5 (I2.d5
tiJf6) 12...exd4 13.hxg6 fxg6 14.cxd4 cxd4
15.tLlxd4 tDc5. and White had a slight edge
in Ribli-Srnejkal. Novi Sad 1982. after
16 ..te3. Stronger was 16 ..tc4+ <;ph8 15...c41
17..id5 tUxe4 lS ..txe4 ~xd4 19..txh6 Overlooking White's next move. If 15....ig7
:xf2 20.:xfl .ixfl+ 21.'it»xf2 'tWh4+ then 16.c4 followed by 17..ie3, and subse-
22.c,t>gl ... xh623 .... d8+Wh724.'*e7+ 'tWg7 quently White will castle with a space ad-
25 .• d6±. vantage and the better game.

43
Sebastian Siebrecht
16.'~+'h3!
The game is already over. Black loses a
pawn while White's initiative continues un-
abated.
16..•~g7 16..:tfxh3 17Jhh3 1Lg7 J8Jhb7
winning. 17 .... xd7+ <;1ixd7 18.l:lxb7+
<;Pc8 19J:l:xe7 be3+- 20.i.d2 ~d4
2Upe2 q;,dB 22.:xf7 :lc8 23.J:tb1 c3
24.~c1 nee 2S.~d3.ic5 26.l:lbb7 l:le7
27.l:lf8+ne8 28Jbe8+ <;1;>xe8
29.e5
Black resigned.
o Jeroen Pikel
• Peter Svidler
KasparovChess GP g/60 Internet 2000
1.0f3 lDt6 2.c4 g6 3.tDC3 d5 4.cxd5
tLlxd5 S.h4f? ttJf6
Black wants to stop the h-pawn without
weakening his own structure. It costs a
tempo, but it isn't stupid. It took Svidler IS
minutes (from a total of 60) during the game
to find this idea.
6.d4
Of course White should now occupy the cen-
tre, for. otherwise Black would love to play
c5 and 1Dc6.
6...~g7 7.e4 0-0 8.1Le2 cS 9.dS
Since White wants to attack on the kingside,
he should try to keep the centre closed!
44
9 e6
9 b5 is stronger, as Rybka also indicates.
Black plays it like a Benoni to undermine
pawn e4: 10.e5 (1O.1Lxb5 tDxe4 Il.tDxe4
ii'a5+ 12.tDc3 ~xc3+ 13.bxc3 'ihbS is
surely OK for Black) IO... tDg4 11.~xb5 (the
alternative is II.h5 tDxe5 12.hxg6 hxg6
13.exe5 ~xe5 14.~xb5to play for a differ-
ent structure) 11...tDd7! (Black goes for de-
velopment) 12.e6 fxe6 13.dxe6 ~de5
14.thd8 Ilxd8 15.tDxe5 lL:xe5 16.0-0 a6
17.~e2 ~xe6 18.nel ~f7 19.~f4 tDc6
20.1Lf3 llacS 21 ..ig4 nag 22.~f3 llacS
23.1Lg4.ln this exciting position the players
agreed a draw. As compensation for his
weaknesses Black has an active game along
the d-file. Zviagintsev-Najer, Moscow 2003.
10.hS
Attaboy!' Let's go for the king!
10 ...tUxhS
11.g41!
Energetic. but White had the even more
powerful II. li)g5! when he obtains strong
pressure against h7! For example: II ...exd5
(Il...tDf6 12.e5 lbxd5 13.~xd5 "'xd5
14.lbxh7) 12.~xh5 gxh5 13.'ihh5 h6
14.4:lf3 and Black's kingside falls apart:
14..J~e8 15.1Lxh6 .bc3+ 16.bxc3 Ihe4+
17 .1Le3! and even if Black will get some
counterplay with 17...1!ff6 White ought to
win.
1L.tL;f6 12..ag5 'tWb61!
 Anti-Gn1nfeld with S.h4

Clearly stronger was 12.....WaS!: 13...Q.xf6 20.bxc3 .a5 21.llxh7! (21.<it;>b2 eS 22.ttM
.bf6 14.eS~g7 15.d6lld8. tDf8!) 21...tt'xc3+ 22.wbl 1i'b4+ 23.~c2
13.~xf6 ~xf6 14.'ii'd2 ~g7 15.0-0-0 *a4+ 24.'.ttd2! (White must not be fright-
llJd7 16.g5 c4? ened here) 24 ..:t!i'a5+! (24 ...tha2+
Again 16..:.a5 planning ...~xc3 was cor- 25.'~el!! ~xh7 26.• xf7+ 'Oth8 27.~f1!
rect. 1lf8 2S.'~xg6 llxf3 - 28 ..... b2 29 .• h6+
17.l:r.h2 r1e818.d6 ~g8 30.'ihe6+ llf7 31..bc4 'fig7 32.g6+-
- 29.~xf3 .b2 30.'W'h6+ 'OtgS 31.'W'xe6+
-:j;g7 32 .• h6+ 'if;>gS33.eS!+-)

White closes the centre and starts a direct

attack on the kingside. 25.~e3! and the king goes walkabout:
18..J:%d819.~f4 - 25 ...'~a3+ 26 ...Q.d3! 'W'cS+ 27.'it>e2!
Now White threatens to take on h7. As after (27.tt:\d4'! ~xd4+! 28.wxd4 eS+ 29.'fheS
the subsequent Will Black cannot prevent a ~xe5 30.lldh 1 tDf3+ 31. ~e3 ~h3!!)
deadly check from hI. 27 ...cxd3+ 28.~f1 llf8 (28 ... ~xh7?
19 ... '6!ta5? 29 .• xf7+ q"h8 30.<;t;>g2) 29.'4i'h4 ~c3
Too late. Black should have got rid of his 30.e5+-.
bishop by taking on c3. - 25 ...'Wc5+ 26.tLid4 f5 27.'iWh2 "'a3+
19...~xc3!.ln this way Svidler could at least 28.~d3 f4+ 29.'it'xf4llf8 30.*h2+-.
have posed Piker some complex questions. - 2s .. :itc3+! 26 ...Q.d3! f5! (26 ... llf8
Let's see: 27.'iIrM cxd3 28.llhl! d2+ 29.<;t>f4+-)
27.gxf6 'ihf6 (27 ...~xf6,? 2S.11h6!;
27 ...<;t>xh7?2S.1!t'h6+!~xh6 29.l:lhl mate)
28.lldh I!? "':<£4+ 29.~xf4 tDf8 30.llh8+
rtJg7 31..bc4 llxd6 32.e5 and the attack
goes on.
20.l:lxh7!
Now it's all over!
20...f5 20 ...llfS 21.lldh 1 .i.xc3 22.eS!
~xb2+ 23.~bl! .i.xe5 24.'W'xe5! and mate
in seven. 20 ...~xh7 2l.'ttx.f7.
21.gxf6ltlxf6
21...<:bxh7 22.l:lhl+ ~g8 23.fxg7+-;

45
Sebastian Siebrecht

21. ..~xf622.1hd7 ttf8 2Hi'h6!? ~xd7 tacking game in the Melody Amber Tourna-
24.'ihg6+ ~g7 2S.ttgl ttf7 26.tLlg5+-. ment in Monaco! 6 ...tec6 7.g3 ~g4 8.h6
22.:xg7+! ~xg7 .bc3 (giving up on both his bishops. See for
yourself how you feel about this. The alter-
native is !L~f6) 9.bxc3 .bf3 10.exf3 .d6
II.~e20-0-0 12.Wb3 f5 13.a4 (a strange po-
sition. But isn't that exactly what we love!)
13...e5 14.a5 e4 15.f4 ~f6 16.0-0 'Llg4
17.~a3 "xd2 (losing immediately. Better
was the Jess impulsive 17..... d7) 18.a6! 'Lla5
19.axb7+ <;Pb8 20 .• b5 e3 2L~cS exf2+
22.J:lxf2 and Black is going to pieces. 1-0,
Piket-Shirov, Monaco 1998.
• 6 ...0-0 this helps White: 7.hxg6 hxg6
8.'~a4 (the start of a nice manoeuvre towards
23.e5 the kingside) 8...eS 9.ttJxdS 'tWxdS1O.'ifil4 (as
Lovely. 11 all fits together perfectly! Black is planned. Alright it's not mate yet, but see how
either mated or he loses the house. it continues) lOoo.J:le8 Il.e4 "d8 12."h7+
Black resigned. <M8 13.~c4 it.e6 14.d3 hc4 15.dxc4 "d3
(does this mean that Black has counterplay?
Oh no! Black is already dead and gone!)
o Pavel Eljanov 16.~6Wxe4+ 17.Ml.im6J8.'i6'xh6+We7
• Maxim Turov 19.1L!xeS!-8d7 20 .• g5+ We(, 2l.ttel "xe5
Kharkov 2001 22.J:lxe5+ (tjxe5 23.J:lh3 f6 24.1i'f4 J:lh8
25."e4 :xh3 26.gxh3 ~6 2HWd5+ 1-0,
1.lDf3 lLlf6 2.c4 g6 3.tL,c3 d5 4.cxd5 Sumets-Moldovanenko, Odessa 2001. So
lLlxdS S.h4 ~g7 6.hS simple is playing chess with S.h4!
Marching on! And why not indeed, if Black 7.bxc3
does not prevent h4-h5. Go for it! 7.dxc3 is of course less strong here than in
the other lines. However, it is still playable
even here.
7...0.d7
- 7 ...c5 looks more to the point: 8.Wa4+
1r'd7 9 .... h4 (I would prefer 9."c4 b6
1O.l.lJg5) 9 ...~f6 10.'irf4 "f5 II.g3 g5
12.'it'e3 ~c6 13.~g2 ~d7 14.h61k8 with a
completely unclear game. Aronian-Kamsky,
Nice (blindfold) 2009.
- 7 ...eS? is no good, as the following game
demonstrates: 8.e4 ~g4 9.~3!± ~xf3
10."xb7 .bg2 11.i.xg2 ~7 l2 ..i.a.3 IIb8
13."d5 tLlb6 14."c6+ 1!t'd7 IS.Wc5 IId8
6...tbxc3 16.hxg6 fxg6 17.lIdl with a clear edge in
• Again it wa s Piker who won a quick at- Wells-Salimbeni, Torquay ch-GBR 2009.

46
 Anti-Grunteld with S.h4

19.•.'it'e6 20.c4! 0-0 21 J:le1 f6

K .t1i'0 g
~~~~~~1.~ g0
~ 1. ~
t::, ~~~8
~'-'~~-

8.e4 e5 9.~a3 LOb6 1O.~e2 ~g4

11.h6 ~f6 12.0-0 ~e7 13.kc1 Af6 22.a4!
14.~a3 _~e7 15..~.b2!? ..Q.xf316...Q.xf3 Not only
....d3
It was on this move that Black had counted.
He aims for play on the d-file. Blocking on
d3 should stop White from using his bishop
pair to good effect.
17...Q.e2!'tIVxe418.~f3 'i'c4
Black probably did not like the position after
18..:ii'd3!'! 19.~xb7 l:d8 20.i.c6+
(20J:tel !'?) 20 ...wfS. This does not look so
bad to me.
19.d31
Great! White does not want to win back the
pawn. He wants to use his bishops.
a pair of raking bishops, the knight
on b6 becomes a problem piece as well.
22...c6 23.85 liJd7 24.86!
Loosening Black's position.
24 ...b6 2S.d4!
Excellent! Great piece cooperation.
2S .. .lUd8
25...'i'xc426.:cl 'i'xa6 (26 ...'i'a2 27.l:e2
and the black queen is in big trouble)
27.'i!t'b3+ 'it'h8 28:fi'e6. And White is on his
way to the pub.
26.d5 'tIfd6 27.dxc6 tOeS 28.~d5+
'it'h8 29.1i'f3 J:[f830.11e2'(We731. 'li'g3
~d6 32.l::tae1 nae8 33.f4
White is obviously winning by now.
33 •..tDe6 34.~h1 1If7 3S.fxeS ~eS
36.l::td1 .5 37.l:!ed2 ~g8 38.... h4 ~e7
39 .... g3 ..Q.b440.l:tt2 fle7 41.l::tf3 ~c5
42.~c1 ..t.>f8 43.l::tdf1 'i¥c7 44.~g5
tDxg5 45.ij'xg5 J:[xe5 46.~xf7 ~xf7
46 ....tc7 also loses: 47 .Wg3~xn 48.1hfS+
gx.f5 49.:xf5+ <;i,>e6 (49 ...:xf5 SO".-xc7
:h5+ 51.~g I +-) SO.lhe5+ .xeS
51.'\!t"xe5+wxe5 52.c7 and White wins.
47.nxfS+
And now we see how useful a pawn on h6
can be!

47
 CHAPTER 6
Nikita Vitiugov
English: Shirov's Pet Line
.I~j_~~
iiii1.iii
1.c4 e5 2.tt:Jc3ik.b4 3.tt:Jd5~e7
Many times I have heard the following opinion
expressed by strong grandmasters: if you have
White and don't feel in your best form, play
the English Opening and you are guaranteed a
quiet. comfortable game. Is this really so? In
chess there are no universal prescriptions.
But if you are in the mood for initiating com-
plicated and lively play from the very first
moves in this opening as Black, I can recom-
mend this anicle to you.
So, J.c4 e5 2.l;k3 ~l>4!'!. Black's plan is
simple - 10 double the white c-pawns and
demonstrate their weakness in the subse-
quent manoeuvring baltic. In the given in-
stance this familiar motif may take on rather
a new aspect:
48
~.1
o Bu Xiangzhi
• Vadim Zviagintsev
Ergun China-Russia 2006
1.c4 e5 V2Jc3 ~b4 3.g3 ~xc3 4.bxc3
f5
An interesting moment. White has allowed
the capture on c3. Since the knight has not
yet come out to f6. Black can advance his
f-pawn, after which the position acquires
certain specific features.
S.~g2 ~f6 6.~b1 tDc6 7.tCt3 0-0 8.0-0
'ire8 s.es b6 1O.~a3 bxc5 11.~xc5
d6 12.!j_a3 e4 13.tLJd4 q~xd4 14.cxd4
..ae6
And the players agreed a draw.
 English: Shirov's Pet line

Not surprisingly, the main way of fighting 15.d4 exd4 16.~xd4 "a5+ 17.~f2
for an advantage is considered to be the natu- ttJe8 18.g41
raI3.lbd5, after which Black has a choice of
as many as five continuations. However,
most of these are of an experimental nature,
for example:

o Joel Laurier
• Vasilios Kotronias
Halkidiki 1992

1.c4 e5 Uvc3 ~b4 3.tt::ld5~a5?1

A sharp continuation, which, however, leads
to a stable advantage for White.
4.b4 c6 5.bxa5 cxd5 6.cxd5 'it"xa5 And subsequently White convened his ad-
vantage into a win.

o Valery Salov
• Vladimir Kramnik
Linares 1993

1.c4 eS VLlc3 ..tb4 3.lL.dS~d6?!

A very artificial move, which White exploits
by active play.

7.e4
Not so clear is H!fb3 lDf6 8.lDf3 d69 ..ia3
llle4! lO.e3 lLld7 I I.nc I 0-0, Kramnik-
Kharlov, Kherson 1991.
7...tDf6 8.~d3
Probably the most forceful. 8.f3 0-0 9.ltle2
46 10.a4 l1.Ja6 II.li)c3 lDc.:5 12..ia3 ttJh5
13.Sl.c4 .td7 14.'i'bl f5 was unclear in
Illescas-Psakhis, Novi Sad Olympiad 1990.
8...ltJa6 9.13 d6 10.~b2! li.)cS 11.~c2
.id712.a4 4.d4! cti
The structure of the position has clarified. 4 ...ltlc6?! is altogether too novel: S.LQf3 e4
Black is held in a positional vice, from 6.<tJg5 f5 7.c5! and Black's position is criti-
which it will be not at all easy to escape. cal.
12...0-0 13.li.::le2l:lac8 14.zea "a6 5.dxe5 ~xe5 6.ltJt3 d6 7.li.)xes

49
Nikita Vitiugov
The alternative is 7.lDc3!?
7... dxe5 8.1Dc3 ttxdl + 9.tLlxdl
In the resulting endgame White hils a stable,
although not very big advantage.
9....te6 10.b3 a5 11..tb2 f6 12.lbc3
liJa613.0-O-O liJh614.h3 CiJfl15.e3
On White's side is a long-leon factor in the
form of the two bishops, and so he unhur-
riedly strengthens his position.
15 ... 0-0 16~e2liJb417.f4 b5!?
In the given instance passive defence is not
good, and so Black initiates counterplay,
However, with accurate play White extin-
guishes the opponent's activity.
18.g4 ex14 19.ex'4 bxc4 20.bxc4 15
23.J:[hgl
21.a3 llJa6 22.lt2.a4! :tab8
lxg4 24.hxg41::ae8 25J%d2 tDd8 26.15
White has a big advantage.
50
Thus by trial and error Black arrived at the
present-day main reply 3...sa. whieh is the
real subject of this article. Here White still
has to demonstrate a clear-cut way to gain an
advantage.
Initially a popular plan involved attempts to
demonstrate the power of White's
dark-squared bishop, which has been left
without an opponent, but it lost its dangers
for Black, thanks to the efforts of Alexey
Shirov.
o Yasser Seirawan
• Alexey Shirov
Biellnterzooal1993
1.c4 e5 2.tDc3 i.b4 3.tlJd5 fl.e7 4.tbf3
Here the move order does rot play any par-
ticular role - White can begin with either
4.lDf3, or 4.d4.
4••.d65.d4
5 ...e41
The critical and correct approach. Since
White himself does not want to occupy the
centre, why shouldn't Black exploit this?
White obtained somewhat the better game
after 5...~\c6 6.e3 e4 7.lL:lgl~g5 8.M i.e7
9.tLle2 f5 IO.4Jef4 lDf6 Il.lDxf6+ i.xf6
12.t2::d5 0-0 13..ild2 l/::,c7 14.tUx.f6+Ilxf6
15.d5 in Gelfand-Shirov, Moscow 1992.

6.0d2 '5 7.e3
7.f3 c6 8.lill.e7 'fIxe7 and Black is alright.
7...0168.lDxe711t'xe7
9.d5
This structurally correct decision proves in
the given instance to be very risky - the
black knights obtain the e5-point, which
plays a key role in the subsequent play. How-
ever, 9.~e2 can be met by 9 ...c5!?, while in
the event of 9.b3 another central set-up is
possible: 9...0-0 IO.~b2 c6 Il.i.e2 d5 with
counterplay.
9 ...0-0 10.~e2 l[lbd7 11.0-0 tL\e5
1VDb3
With a heavy tread the knight heads for d4.
White could have had the advantage, were it
not for dynamic factors in the form of
Black's better development.
12...j(d7 13.lUd4
English: Shirov's Pet Line
13... lLlfg41?
Exploiting the fixing of the centre. Black
sets his sights on the white king.
14.h3l:U6!
Alexey Shirov remains true to himself. even
when playing such an outwardly tedious and
prosaic opening as the English.
15.g3
It looks extremely risky to play 15 .hxg4 fxg4
16.g3 J:lafS, with a deadly initiative.
15 ...l1h6
Not a single step back. Possibly 15...tDh6
would have been positionally more correct.
16.~g2 :xh3
The rook's fate was decided on the previous
move, since after 16...ttJf6 17.:lhl;! White
comfortably defends his weaknesses.
17.'>t>xh314
And in the subsequent mind-boggling strug-
gle Black went on to win.
o Joel Laurier
• Alexey Shirov
Tilburg 1996
1.c4 e5 Vtlc3 ~b4 3.ll:idS ~e7 4.d4
d6 5.lUf3 e4 6.0d2 15
7.lbbl
Joe! Lautier chooses a different approal:h -
at the cost of a couple of tempi White pre-
51
Niki1a Vi1iugov

fers to develop his bishop outside the pawn
chain.
7...tDf6 8.lLIxe7 tt'xe7 s.eea 0-0
1O..tg5 ~e6 11.e3 lLIbd7
IS dxc4?' was weak: 16.... xd6! lUc8
(16 J:lac8 17.tt:lxa7!?±) 17.tt:ld4 ttJc5
18J:tac I. with strong compensation for the
pawn.
16.lLlxd6
Play is equal after 16.~xf6?! "'xf6 lVLlc7
llac8 18.tiJlld5"'n.
16..... g6
And here in the game there followed:

12.~e2
As was also the case earlier, 12.d5 is not alto-
gether in the spirit of the position: 12...~t7
13.tt:lb5 h6 14.~4 g5 15..ig3 lbeS and
thanks to his piece grouping in the centre,
Black is alright. 17.~xf6
12...0613.0-0 'ikf714.d5 Meanwhile, there was an interesting reo
After his restrained play in the opening, source available to White: 17.~4! t2)xc4
White suddenly launches himself at the op- 18.tt:lxb7!tDxb2 19.1i'd4 ta:4 20.<'L,c5~.
ponent.14.b3!?d5l5.c5wasaworthyaher- 17..JbfS 18.cxd5 ~d7 19.tiJc4 ttJxc4
native, with a different type of game. 20.~xc4f4
14...cxd5 15..ti)b5 and after an outburst of complications the
game came 10 a peaceful end.
K :i~ In the end. White has had to adopt a more
11 ~ ~1 1 ambitious set-up. involving the complete oc-
1.t.6) cupation of the centre. But the price for (his-
his lag in development - forces him to act
ttJ 1 l£i. with extreme care and accuracy.
t::. 1
8 o Curt Hansen
t::.8 i.8t::.8 • Ivan Sokolov
1:[ if %:[~ Groningen 1995

15...tDe5! 1.C4 e5 2.tLlc3 ~b4 3.tDd5 iLe7 4.d4

Naturally. Black answers in kind. The inert d6 5.e4

52
 English: Shirov's Pet Line

.i~.t1W~ ~:i
l' .t'l'
1
tt:J,
~8~
~8 8~8
1:[ ~~~.t~~
When you first look at this position, you may 11...tDe5
dUnk that White has made incredible progress Black's slow handling of the game gradually
over the firsl five moves - he has occupied the places him on the verge of defeat 11...tt:lh5!"
centre, he has established his knight at d5, and was an interesting attempt, with the idea after
he is not behind in development. However, it 12.g4 of sacrificing a piece by 12...~xg4
transpires that Black too has his trumps. 13.fxg4 ~f6 14.l:lg1 lDxe4 IS .• a3, and in
5...tDf6 6.lOxe7 'W'xe7 this position Black has a wide choice of con-
tinuations. For example, 15...lDe5 16.0-0-0
lDxc4 17.'irb3 ~c3! 18.'ihc3lDxe3 19J1d2
1We6 with sharp play. 1l...a5!? was another
critical continuation.
12.lDf4 lDg6 13.CH)-0lilltf4 14.~xf4
White has a stable advantage, and Black has
no way of opposing his initiative on the
kingside.
14•.•86 1S.h4 ~e6 16.g4 liJd7 17.95
bS 18.h5 "'f8 19.h6 96

7.'3
It appears that the transformation of the situ-
ation has merely consolidated White's posi-
tion. But in the immediate future his
fine-looking pawn centre may become a
good target.
7...exd4 8.'fhd4 tDc6 9.'iVc3 0-0
10.j(,e3
White is hardly promised any advantage by
1O.~g5 lieS 11.~xf6 "xf6 12."xf6 gxf6,
and on the next move Black gets rid of his 20Jbd6! The game is decided. 20 ... b4
weakness on f6. 21.'W'd4 l:Iad8
10 ... l:le811.tDe2 And here White suddenly deviated from the

53
Nikita Vitiugov
correct course and gave away the greater
part of his advantage.
22.l:txd7? There was a straightforward win
by 22J:txa6 ~5 23."f6 tiJd7 24.'ifg7+! -
perhaps White missed this subtlety?
22 ... ~xdl And the battle flared up with reo
newed strength.
In this, seemingly a sideline of the English
Opening, the theoretical disputes are contin-
uing to this day. One of the main drivers of
theory in this variation for Black, Alexey
Shirov, is still prepared at a convenient mo-
ment to again resort to his old and well-
tested counter to the English Opening.
o Levon Aronian
• Alexey Shirov
MorelialLinares 2008
---_._---
1.c4 eS VDc3 ~b4 3,tud5 ~e7 4.d4
d6 5.e4lLlf6 6.~xe7 .xe7 7.f3lUh5!?
A move which Shirov had already employed
earlier in a game against Laurier,
8.~e3
8...f5
And here is an important novelty. Earlier
Alexey played 8...0-0, after which in his
comments he himself indicated the way to
gain an advantage: 9.d51 (not so clear is
9.tbe2 f5 10.exf5 exd4 1Ulhd4 tbc6
54
12.-.d2 ~)(f5, Lautier-Shirov, Las Palrnas
1994) 9 .. .f5 lO.exf5 tDf4 (10 ...~xf5 I1.g4
.bg4 12.fxg4 .h4+ IHt~d2 tiJg3 14.hxg3
"'xhl l5.i.h3!± intending g5) Il.g4~, and
if II...b5 12.cxb5 ~b7 13..i.c4! lLlg2+
14.'iPf2 tt.:lxe3 l5.'iPxe3 (Shirov),
9.exfS (iJf6
This quiet retreat is the point of Black's nov-
elty. 9 ...exd4 10.'tIfxd4 tOc6 11.... d2 ~xf5
12.g4 0-0-0 is ex.cessively sharp. since
White has the strong resource 13.0-0-0! d5
14.~g5 tt:lf6 15.gxf5 dxc4 16.t1el, when he
remains a piece up.
10.~e2
By responding in this way. White can possi-
bly hope for some pressure from the ope-
ning, but not an advantage.
Of course. lO.g4!? was more reckless and
critical, after which the play can develop
roughly along the following lines: 1O... h5
Il.g5 .!Dh7 12.dxe5 "xe5 13."d2 ~xf5
14.0-0-00-0 with chances for both sides. This
continuation still has to be tested in practice.
1O.•.exd4 11.~xd4 .i.xf5 12. 'it d2 ttJc6
13.0-0..0 0-0-0
13...0-0'/! is risky in view of 14.~c3, when
White's potential pawn storm on the
kings ide may be very dangerous.
14.g4
Probably the only possibility of selling
Black problems from the opening was
14.~c3. trying to retain the bishop pair.
 English: Shirov's Pet Line

However, here too Black would have had 15.'Llf4

adequate counter-chances. Now 15.~c3? runs into the highly unpleas-
14...~g6 ant 15 ... lDe4!
15...tDxd4 16.'iWxd4 ~b8 17.h4 §l..f7
18.~d3
And peace was concluded on White's pro-
posal.

To sum up. I can say that in the as yet insuffi-

ciently explored expanses of the English
Opening. the variation with an early fLb4 ap-
pears to be an interesting way of quickly tak-
ing the play along lines familiar to you. Here
you are guaranteed interesting play with a
wealth of possibilities.

55
 CHAPTER 7
Adrian Mikhalchishin
Bayonet Attack in the Grunteld
1.d4 ttJf6 2.c4 96 3.tLlc3 d5 4.g4!?
The Grunfcld is a dynamic, hypcnnodem
opening that makes for attractive chess. Un-
fortunately, the theoretical workload is also
of the highest order. II is perhaps for this rea-
son that an unusual high number of SOS-ar-
iicles have already appeared on Gtiinfeld
byways. Is it the nature of the Gtiinfeld that
invites creati v.eand earl y deviations from the
main lines'? Perhaps many white players ex-
pect that it will payoff to surprise an oppo-
nent who is obviously not averse to spending
huge amounts of his ti me on opening study?
Do we see so many sidelines because the
main lines don't promise White much?
Whatever the reason, the present subject
clearly falls into the SOS category: an early
56
& Jeroen Bosch
deviation. little theory, a lot of fun, and. in
this case a quite eccentric starting move.
Avid SOS-readers will perhaps be reminded
of our coverage of 4.h4 in 50S-3 (Chapter 3,
p.28). Paradoxically, it turned out thai 4.h4-
although a flank action - was in fact moti-
vated by a wish to dominate in the centre.
This is most obvious from the continuation
4 ...~g7 S.h5 tiJxhS 6.cxd5 and White has the
bener chances. With 4.g4 White also aims to
gain influence in the centre (obviously 5.g5
and 6.cxd5 is a threat). This may be illustrated
by 4...tL:.xg4?!5.cxdS and 4....bg4 5.~3 in-
tending 6.cxd5 after 5 ...~c8. This should be
sufficient philosophical background for us to
embark on our 4.g4 adventure.

Let us start with an appetizer: the game
Pantaleev-Radev, Bulgaria 1979 (all is new
that is long forgotten!).
o Dimitar Pantaleev
• Nikolai Radev
Bulgaria 1979
1.d4 tL)f6 2.c4 96 3.~c3 d5 4.94!1
PantaJeev was not Ihe first 10 play this auda-
cious move. Already in 1975 this idea had
sprung from the fertile mind ofYacov Murey
(Murey-Napolov, Cheliabinsk 1975, is the
earliest game we could find featuring 4.g4).
4 dxc4
4 tL1xg4 5.cxdS is a fairly obvious point. In
the same year Pantaleev also faced 4....Jhg4
when his game against Grancharov went
5.'i'b3 ~c8 6.cxd5 fLg7 7.e4 c6 8 ..ig2 0-0
9.tLJgeZ.
5.h3
See Variation In B for the alternative 5.gS.
5 ~g7
S ~dS 6.e4 tLib6! is what Jonathan Rowson
recommends in his Understanding the
Grunfeld. In Informant 29 (which featured
Pantaleev's game) Minev only mentions
6...~xc3 1.bxc3 ~g7 8.~xc4 c5 9.tj~le2
which he calls unclear - a fair enough ver-
dict given thai White's space advantage on
the kingside cuts both ways.
6.e4 0-0 7.t4!1
Bayonet Attack in the GrOnfeld
7.~xc4 c5 is simply good for Black, as the
only suitable positional reply 8.d5 fails to
S...b5 9.fLxb5lLlxe4 lO.lLlxe4 'i'a5+ II.llJc3
fLxc3+ 12.bxc3 'W'xb5 and Black's chances
are preferable.
7...c6
I don't like this passive move - although, ad-
minedly, Radev is playing with a natural
idea in mind. Why not the typical Griinfeld
lever 7...c5.
8.e5
Obviously not 8 ..ixc4 because of 8...b5
9.fLb3 b4 and pawn e4 falls. This is the point
of Radev's 7 ...c6.
8...ttJd59.~xc4 ~e6 10.~b3 tDd7
1O...~xc3 II.bxc3 ~d5 12.<!)f3 b5 was
given by Minev, but White can be happy
with his space advantage after 13.0-0.
11.0,ge2 tiJ7b6 12.ltJe4
This avoids the exchange of pieces, thus em-
phasizing Black's lack of space. Without the
Grunfeld lever ...c5 Black is suffering.
12....ii'c8 13.tiJ2g3 (,::.c714~c2
Again avoiding the exchange of pieces. The
bishop will be very useful in the coming
kings ide attack.
14_..tld8 15.b3 lLlb5 16.~b2 lQd5
17_~d2 ~h6
Finally, Black is doing something positive:
attacking a pawn and provoking the 'ugly'
18.g5. However, as it tums out Black lack.s
57
Adrian Mikhalchishin & Jeroen Bosch

the means to take advantage of this advance bining attack and defence with 30JthgJ
- he cannot really control square f5. Minev ~h8 31.11g3.
analysed 17..~xg4 to see if Black could get 30.'tIfh6 Ug8 31.h4 tLlcd5 32.~b1
out of his cramped position with brute force. To defend against an annoying check on
His line continues 18.h,,;g4 'l'xg4 19.'i'e2 a2, but 32.hS was also strong as 32 ...tLla2+
(19.ttJe2 is safe - Black has no real compen- is met by 33.'~b 1 tiJac3+ 34 ..txc3 <tJxc3+
sation) 19... 1hf4 20 ..tcl and wins. How- 35.~c2lLlxe4 36.hxg6 and wins.
ever, this is wrong because Black can 32...c533.11df1 .f71 34.h5
continue with 20 ...loxd4! 21.~xf4 t!Jxe2 Crashing through the defences.
22.lDxe2 lLlxf4 23.lDxf4 i.xe5 when he is 34 .•. g5 35.~g6 "c7
winning back material with the better
prospects.
18.g5 ~g7 19.1cc5 Gaining control over
f5. 19 .•. a5 J9 ...i.xh3 is met by the crush-
ing 20.f5 ~g4 2J.'tfh2 as Minev correctly
pointed out.
20.lbxe6 'ttxe6 21.f5 W'd7 22.a4
lbbc7 23.0-0-0

36.~d2!
Black is still alive after 36.f7 cxd4+
37.~bl l:xg6! 38.f8'1'+ :g8.
36 .•. cxd4 37.llc1 <tJc3 38.f7 Itxg6
38 ...l:lg7 39.tthfl llf8 40.~xh7 is the 'pro-
saic' finish. 39.hxg6 ~ 40.c;t>e2 d3+
41.~f3 0.d2+ 42.'it>g4

Pantaleev finally castles - but on the

queens ide not a common sight in the
Grunfeldl He has an overwhelming position.
23...86 24.fxg6 Correctly opening the posi-
tion. 24...fxg6 25.tL\e4 b5 26.ti:lf6+ .i.xf6
27.gxf6 bxa4 28.bxa4 lUb4 29..h4
Pantaleev needs this bishop for the attack.
The position is messy. but White should get
there first. 29...'it>h81
29 ...J:lab8 was much stronger to gain
counterplay. Black plans ... <tJcd5, ..,<tJa2+
and an eventual, ..'it'b7. White needs to
take more care than in the game by com- Black resigned.

58
 Bayonet Attack in the Grunfeld

Hopefully this game has wheued your appe- Variation II

tite to take a look at the variations below. 4..•..txg4 S:tlfb3
Or 5 ..ig2!? when White also play for the
1.d4 tDf6 2.c4 g6 3.tlJc3 dS 4.g4!1 pawn.
The gambit of a great eccentric, grandmaster
Yacov Murey. Black has many different Subvarlatlon A
strategies. involving both accepting the sac- 5...dxc4 6_'tWxb7lDbd7
rifice and refraining from pawn-grabbing.

Variation I
4 .•.tLlxg4
There are other moves that deserve more
tests than they have received in tournament
practice: 4 ...c5. 4 ...c6 and perhaps even
4 ...h6 (although 5.cxdSlt)xd5 6.e4 feels nat-
ural).
S.cxdS
Clearly worse is 5.lt:!xdS c6 6.liJc3 e5! 7.d5
Wh4 8.liJe4 .i.b4+ 9.~d2 tt:le3, Niemela-
Sidorkov, Jyvaskyla 1991.
S...c6 6.e4 e5 7.tLlb5
Not 6 cxd5 7.~b5+. 7..i.g2!? is interesting when Duckworth-
7.h3 h4 8.• f3! tt:lh6 9.dxe5 ~g7 Burg, Los Angeles 1991, favoured While af-
10.~f4 tOd711."e3 ter 7 ...~b6 8.tDb5 lIc8 9..i.c6+ ~d7
Or I I..ig3 We7 12.d6 which is also good. 1O.liJxa7 llb8 11.~xd7+ llJfxd7 12.Wf3.
1 L.tOxeS 12~xeS be5 13.tLlf3 7 ...l:lcB 8.f3 Dangerous is 8..i.f4 e5!'!
~xc3+ 14.bxc3 tiM 9.dxe5 ~b4+ JO.tt:lc3. 8...b6 9.e4 c6
10.0.a3 0.b6 11...~.e3 l:lc7 12."a6
..tg7 13.0.e2 0-0 14.~g2 White has the
advantage. Cairou-Rodier, France 2002103.

This is Cziszar-Szekeres, Gyongos 2003,
and here, instead of the game continuation
15..ig2. White had a couple of interesting
possibilities: 15..ie2 and 15.11dl.
Subvarlatlon B
S....1ic8 6.cxd5 ~g7
If 6 ... c6 7.SLg2 'Wb6 8.~f4 "xb3 9.axb3
cxd5 10.0.b5 ttJa6 Il.nxa6 bxa6 12.0.c7+
Iir'd8 13.~xa8 ~b7 14.0.c7 e6 15.e3 with a
big advantage, Taffijn-Van Belle. cr. 2002.
7.e4
A fairly high-level game (Plaskett-
Fedorowicz, London 1987) saw 7 .~g2 0-0
8.ttJf3 c6 9.e4 cxd5 W.eS t.t:le4 Il.Wxd5
lLlxc3 12.thd8 llxd8 13.bxc3 SLe6 14.0.g5
~d5 and Black was OK in the ending.
7...c6 8.i.g2 0-0 9_tDge2
Adrian Mikhalchishin & Jeroen Bosch
As mentioned in our appetizer above.
9 ... 'W'a5
And now 10.0-0 cxdS II.e5 leads to an ad-
vantage for White.
Variation III
4...dxc4
Here White has a choice.
After the excessively gambit-like 5 .e4 ~xg4
6.f3 ~c8 7.hc4 ~g7 8.e5 lDfd7 9.lDge2
(stronger is 9.f4. which needs testing in
practice) 9...c5!? IO.e6 fxe6 l1.tLlf4 lDb6
12.~xe6 "1!t'xd4White has no compensation
for the two pawns, Pietrasanta-Rfsagirov,
Le Touquet 1998.
Subvarlatlon A
5.h3 is more positional.
5...lbd5 For 5...~g7 see our appetizer.
60
6.~g2
6.e4 tLlxc3 7.bxc3 is worth considering. as
here the compensation is very decent. How-
ever, as we noted above Rowson has argued
that 6 ...ttJb6 is stronger.
Black has a good game after 6.... a4+ .td7
7.• xc4 ~c6 8.0.f3 .tg7 9.~g2 0-0 10.0-0
ttlxc3 Il.bxc3 lild7 L2.'tWd3 e5!. Send-
Albrent, Dortmund 1999.
6...lbb6 7.0.f3 ~g7 8.~f4 lbc6 9.W'd2
h51 10.0.b5 0.d5 11.e4 0.xf4 12.... xf4
e5! 13.dxe5 ~e6 14.l:ld1 "e7 15.0-0
hxg4 16.hxg4 a6 17.lbc3 'W'c5
18.llJd5 0-0-0 with an excellent game for
Black. Gervasio-Djuric, Cannes 1999.
Subvarlatlon 8
5.g5 is the logical continuation:
5...~d56.~g2
Weaker is 6.e4 tL\b6 7.~e3 h6~ 8.f4 hxg5
9.fxg5 Sit.g7 1O."fid2 tC.c6 II.lDge2
~g4,
Moravcik-Pribyl, Sala 1995.
6...lbb6 7.~f4 -"'97 8.~f3 lbe6
9.dS
The quiet 9.e3 is also possible.
9...llJb4
It is clear that Black should have seriously
considered 9... ~xc3+ 10.bx.e3 .xd5
11.~xc7 .tg4, with an excellent game.
10.lbe5 O,() 11.a3 tOa612 .... d4 So as
not to allow ttla6-c5-b3.

12...tlJd7 13.~d1 W'e8 14.h4 b5
15.'it'e3 wich a complicated game,
Murey-Napolov, Cheliabinsk 1975.
Variation IV
4....ig75.g5
Here S.h3 and then 6.~g2 is possible and not
at all bad, playing a kind of extended
fianchetto.
5•••li:le4 6.li:lxd5 c6
Or 6 ...e6 7 .tDc3lDxc3 8.bxc3 c5 9.tDf3l!Jc6
IO.e3 eS!?
11.d5 e4 12.<tJd2.~xc3 13.:tb\ 0eS 14.'ii'c2
Bayonet Attack in the GrOnfeld
~f3+ 15.~dl ~xd2 16:i!he4+ "'e7
17.'iVxe7+ Wxe7 18.i.xd2 lCxg5 19.~g2
with advantage to White, Krausser-Jergler,
Austria 1999/2000.
7.tLlc3 ti.Jxc38.bxc3 "'a5 9_~d2
Black has sacrificed a pawn and he now tries
to attack White's centre.
9...c5 10.W'b3!?
lO.e3 cxd4 II.exd4 0-0 is dangerous, as the
white king is too exposed.
10 ... lDd7 11.e4 cxd4 12.cxd4 "b6
13.'ifxb6 tLlxb6 14.~e3 with a sound
pawn up in Maatoug-Ris, Sf. Lorrain 2001.
61
 CHAPTER 8
Willy Hendriks
Taking the Lion by its Throat
1.e4 d6 2.d4 tiJf6 3_tLJc3 tiJbd7 4.94 h6 5.f3
In this article r will have a look at a set-up
with g4 and 11 (in that order!) againsr an ope-
ning that in my homeland is known as 'the
Lion' ('de Leeuw'). In other countries this
opening (l.e4 d6 2.d4 tl)f6 3.tLlc3 lDbd7) is
known as ... Well, , actually don't know,
does this opening have a name?
So let's stick to this name. After all, the pub-
lisher of the SOS-series has also released a
book called 'The Black Lion: the Chess
Predator's Choice Against Both l.e4 and
l.d4'.
To give some history on this name: two
Dutch chess amateurs, Jerry van Rekom and
Leo Jansen, did a lot of work on this system
and published their findings in 1997 in a
Dutch language edition. They called their
system 'the Lion'. This 1997 Dutch edition
was later expanded and translated, resulting
in the publication mentioned above.
For their work the authors were both praised
and criticized. Some stronger players looked
upon them as dilettanti, and claimed that
players of club level are not able to write a
decent opening book.
Be that as it may, the book was quite suc-
cessful and it added to the popularity of this
opening. So every l.e4 player will meet the
Lion now and then, maybe more often at
club level than at top level (and probably
more often in the Netherlands than in the rest
of the world).
 Taking the Lion by its Throat

After 1.04 d62.d4tt:1f6 3.tDc3lbbd7 the most

popular choice is 4.~f3. when play can trans-
pose into a 'normal' Philidor (the so-called
Hanham Variation). Second choice is 4.f4.
From the alternatives the move 4.g4 has be-
come quite popular in recent years and it is
scoring very well. After 4 ...h6 White usually
continues with S.h3, followed by moves like
~g2. tOge2, and (most often) castling short.
In this article I propose the move S.B, with
the set-up .ie3, tbge2-g3, "'d2 and castling
long in mind. Transposition via 4.~e3 is of
course possible, but I will explain below Now compare the above diagram with this
why 4.g4 and S.f3 is more accurate. position.

Is this set-up a surprise?

I have to admit, a set-up with f3, ~e3, ii'd2
and 0-0-0 cannot be called highly original.
However, in the position after 4 ...h6, in the
116 games in my database the move 5.f3 was
only played five times (scoring 100% by the
way). Two more games reached this set-up
viaS.~3.
We actually do get some more games via the
move-order4.h3 eS S.f3, if Black responds
to a subsequent g4 by White with the move
...h6. But that is by no means a forced reac-
tion, whereas the direct 4.g4 almost always Here. with 'De2 and ...h6 included. 9 ...0-0
is answered by 4 ...h6. would of course be suicide! Not only be-
cause White can open files with gS. but also
Is this set-up a weapon? because of the .ix.h6 sacrifice.
Yes it is! So for those players who simply want to fol-
LeI'S illustrate a vital point of this move-or- low their course with ... 0-0, you have some-
der. After 4.g4 Black is almost forced to play thing in store.
4 ...h6. But if you start with 4.f3 and only
later on play g4, then Black will not always Dealing with the LIon on autopilot
be so kind to play h6. Our set-up is also a weapon against the play-
For example in the position after 4 ..ie3 e5 ers of what might be called 'the Lion on auto-
S.f3 .ie7 6."d2 c6 7.0-0-0 0-0 8.g4 (see the pilot' .
first diagram in the next column). If you look at the website of the authors of
Black doesn't play the silly 8 ...h6, but con- The Black Lion (www.vanrekom.nllthelion).
tinues his own play with 8 ...b5. In case of you will see the main plan of their system vi-
9.g5, Black has good squares for his knight sualized. On a board with only black pieces,
on h5 and e8. the moves d6, t;~f6,'Dbd7, eS, h6, c6, ~e7.

63
Willy Hendriks
'llic7, tDf8, g5. tDg6, tDf4, l:Ig8 are played
(over and over again). As an advantage of
playing the Lion. this website states that:
'You play your own game. Your play doesn't
depend on the moves your opponent does.'
(Sic!)
In their book the authors give the line 4.i.e3
e5 5.0 i.e7 6.• £12c6 7.0-0-0 and then they
advise the move 7 ...• c7. 'mainly to keep
playing according to the standard plan'.
I think. this whole attitude is ill-advised.
Playing a good opening depends on having a
multitude of strategical and tactical ideas,
not on repeating a standard scheme regard-
less of what the opponent does 1
If you meet an opponent who blindly follows
this advice, the idea presented in this article
wi \I be very effective. Continuing the line af-
ter 7..."fllc7 with 8.g4 h6 (now we are in our
set-up by transposition) 9.tDge2 tDf8 (looks
dubious to me) lO.~g3 g5 (given a !? by the
authors) you reach the following position:
Here you can start to think about ways to de-
molish Black's position: II.h4 is a nice start,
but first II.dxe5 dxe5 and then 12.M might
be even stronger.
Van Rekom and Jansen give the above posi-
tion as the result of a main line for B lack. But
it is easy to see that Black is in a terrible
state, so their handling of this line gives
some ammunition to those who claim that
the average club player should not write an
opening book.
Serlo~sopposition
Let's move on to some serious opposition by
Black. After all, we cannot expect all our op-
ponents to simply castle into our attack or to
play like an automaton that only knows one
tune.
[ divide the material in two parts: the main
line with 4.g4 h6 5.0 e5. and set-ups without
a quick ...e5.
In the main line Black should start his
queenside play with ...c6 and ._.b5 as soon as
possible. A move like c7 is not neces-
sary, and even the move i.e7 can be de-
layed.
Black must always keep his eye open for a
counterblow in the centre, for example, after
lLlc3 has been driven away by ...b5-b4,
...d6-<15 can be very effective.
A more quiet approach for Black is the idea
_..lLlh7 followed by ...~e7-g5.
Oiher set-ups include playing ._.c6 and ...b5
without first ...e5 (Game 4). and trying to
transpose into Sicilian-type positions with
...c5 (Game 5).
Move orders
Black and White can play their standard
moves in different orders, and thai gives
room for subtleties in play.
White, for example. can start with 'ifd2 and
0-0-0 (Game 1) and then decide on how to
continue, but starting with liJgl-e2-g3
(Games 2 and 3) is also an attractive idea.
White then immediately brings liJf5 in the
position, posing Black some problems to
solve.
Black can also be subtle with his move order.
For example. directly starting queenside
play leads to the following important posi-
tion: after 5_.. c5 6.1Lc3 c6 7.ltige2 and now
7 ...b5.

, ,...
K .t'i¥~.t
..," , :I
~t3, t3,
~ ~t3,
t3,~A ttJ 8 tion. White is muybe a bit better.
~ 'iY~~ It
A difficult question for White is how to deal
with Black's 'threat' of playing ...b4.
Simply continuing 'normal play' with 8.fkd2
is no good: after8 ...b4 9.it)dl <.l'i! Black is do-
ing fine. White can play R.QJg3to make room
for the other knight on e2. but even then Black
may consider 8...04 9.-0ce2 dS!?
With 8.a3 White stops ...04 for the time be-
ing, but this might make it less attractive to
castle long in the future. A final interesting
alternative is S.dS. White must always con-
sider this push carefully, because it can eas-
ily lead to a strategically inferior position.
Don't fear the LIon
In conclusion. I think that with 4.g4 and 5.D
White can fight for an advantage on rela-
tively unexplored grounds.
The illustrative games cover the most important
lines and ideas. The first three games cover the
main line, the last two Black's sidelines.
Incidentally, all five games are crushing vic-
tories for the white player. For this lion, a
fearful attitude is nOI advised.
o Marc Dutreeuw
• Thierry Manouck
Paris 2006 (9)
1.e4 d6 2.d4 ti'lf6 3.CiJc3tDbd7 4.~e3
e5 5.f3 c6 6.Wd2 bS 7.g4 h6
Taking the Lion by its Throat
By transposition we have reached our main
line. Now White faces an important choice .
8.0-0-0
On R.tDge2 Black can play 8 ...M 9.~d IdS,
with a good position. Interesting is 8.dS cxd5
(the pawn sacrifice 8 ...b4 9.dxc6 bxc3
IO.cxd7+ .txd7 I l.'itxc3 gives some
chances) 9.~xd5 tiJxd5 1O.1h:d5 :b8
11.0-0-0 a6, and in this Sicilian-like posi-
8...b4
Continue development with 8 ...fLe7 is a good
possibility, because ...b4 is even more annoy-
ing if White would play 9.tiJge2. After 9.d5
(9.h4!?) Black can again go for the messy
compensation after the pawn sacrifice 9 ...b4
IO.dxc6 bxc3 1l.cxd7+ fhd7 12.1t'xc3.
9.lUce2 "as
The immediate 9 ...d5 led to a great success
for Black after IO.exd5?! /Qxd5 11.f4?! 'il¥a5
12.o;t>bl exf4 13..hf4 tiJ7f6 14.lbcl ~e6
15.tLlh3 'iVb6 16.~d3 as.and Black later won
in Abrahamyan-Akobian, Los Angeles 2003.
However, IO.dxe5 ~xe5 I I.~4 is a better try.
10.<;t(b1 dS
11,t;Jg3 dxe4 12 ..ic4! ttJb6
Better was 12...~e7. because then. after
l3.dxe5. Black simply plays 13...tDxeS, an
option he misses after the game continuation.
13.~b3 fie7 14.dxe5 'it'xes lS...Q.d4
"'d6 16.fxe4?!
With 16 .... e2!? White keeps the attack, not
65
Willy Hendriks

giving Black the opportunity to try to force More modest is 7.3 ..e7. Then 8 .... d2 is of
the exchange of queens, as with his next course possible. After 8 ..."'c7 (8 ...bS! '!)
move in the game. 9.0-0-0 bS lO.lle I (this looks a bit strange.
16 ... c5! 17.1iJf3! there is no obvious drawback to IO.tiJg3)
17.fLxf6 'itxd2 18.llxd2 ..bf6 promises IO ... b4 Il.tLld I c5 12.d5 as a complex strug-
White nothing. gle developed in Hamdouchi-Campora,
17....~xg4? Santo Antonio 1999.
After 17...lDxg4! White should fish in More enterprising is 8.l{~g3, which forces
muddy waters with 18.e5, for. after 18.fLxg7 Black to start thinking about the threat ~f5. If
1!rxd2 19.1Oxd2l:lg8 Black is doing fine. 8 ...g6 then 9.'i'd2 poses new problems for
18.e5 Black.

Now White has a very strong attack. ·8.li)g3

18...fid7?! IIL'ili'c6 19.exf6 gxf6 I discussed this position in the introduction.
20.fLxc5 fLxc5 2l.ndcl+ ~f8 2Vbh4 and White has a difficult decision to make.
White's attack is very powerful. 19.exf6 As mentioned, 8.Wd2 is not so good, be-
~xf3 The ugly 19...gxf6 was Black's last cause of 8 ...b4 9.tDd I d5.
chance, but after 20 .... f4 fLxf3 21.~xf3 Interesting is 8.a3. just to 'buy' some time.
cxd4 22.lDfS White must be winning. S.dS leads again to complex positions. re-
20.:hel gxf6 21.~xf6 0-0 22.ftxh6 sembling those you nowadays often see in
"'xd1 + 23.11xd1 ~xf6 24. 'iVxf6 the Sicilian Najdorf. After 8...~b7 (8...b4 is
Black resigned. hardly playable with the knight on e2, after
9.dxc6 bxc3 IO.(;xd7+ ~xd7 II.tL'xc3
White has simply won a pawn) 9.dxc6 .i.xc6
o Vitezslav Rasik 1O.tDg3 b4 (I O...e.b6!?) I iees Ld5
• Kieran Smallbone 12.exd51i'a5 13..ic4 ttlb6 14...ixb6 "'xb6
Talranske Zruby 2002 15.'itd3 White is a bit better.
8...b4 9.tLlce2d5!
1.e4 d6 2.d4 tCf6 3.lDc3 c6 4.f3 lDbd7 This standard break in the centre gives Black
5.94 h6 6..lDge2 e5 7.~e3 b5 nice play.
As in our first game (with 'i'd2 instead of 10.95 hxg5 11..¥i.xg5 dxe4 12.fxe4
tLige2) Black immediately lashes out with ii'a5 13.~d2 $.a6 14.lDcl ~xf1
his queenside attack. 1S.tlJb3!? tLixe4!?
 Taking the Lion by its Thr.oat

IO._xe3 White is better, on JO.•. 'W'g5 White

avoids the endgame with 11.f4.
9.tDg3

Things are getting very complicated now.

15...1i'a6 16.lhfl 0-0-0 was a decent alter-
native.
16.tLlxe4 'it'd5 17.0-0-0 ~c4 18..l:the1
f6 19.dxeS1t.xb3?!
Best probably was 19...1i'xd2+ 20.0bxd2
fxg5 21.~xc4, although White is clearly
better. After 19...fxg5 20.~g2! White reo
tains a strong attack.
20.exf6 'Wxd2+ 21•.l:txd2
Even stronger was 21.0xd2+ ti't7 22.fxg7
iixg7 2Hle7+ t;>g6 24.~';xb3 /t';e5 25.Af4.
21 ....1e6?
With 21 ...tbxf6 (indeed, not a pleasant move
to make) 22.tDXf6+ ~f7 23.axb3 gxf6 Black
could continue the fight.
22.fxg7
1-0. After 22 ...~xg7 23.tDd6+ '.t>f8 24..l:lxe6
White has a pawn and the attack.
9... hS?
This is nonsense. For a very small position a1
gain (exchanging his h-pawn for White's
g-pawn), Black wastes a Jot of time. With the
knight on g3 it makes more sense to play
9...~g5. After 10.0-0-0 he3 Il.'\i'xe31i'g5
12.ffxg5 hxg5 White is only slightly better.
10.gxhS 0.hf611.0-O-O l!lxhS12.1uxh5
.l:txh5 13.'~b1 Wf814.f4 .if6?! 14...exf4
15.~xf4 ~g5 offers Black some hope to
survive. 15.dxeS dxe516.~e2

o Willy Hendriks
• Ojurre den Heeren
Dieren 2009

1.e4 d6 2.d4 lLlf6 3.tLic3 lLlbd7 4.g4

h6 5.13e5 6.~e3 ~e7 7.ltjge2lLlh7
Black wants to play ....i.g5 (or ....ih4 first)
hut this plan is a bit time-consuming; 7 ...c6 16..,J:[h4 17.fxe5 .ixe5 18.~g5 xfS
is the normal move. 19.~xh4 ~xh4 20.~g4 weB 21.~g2
8:"d2~h4+ 'tIYg522. -.wh3
After 8...~g5 9.0-0·0 (9.f4!'?) 9....ixe3 Black resigned.

R7
Willy Hendriks

o Zaven Andriasian 12...a6 13.dxc6 ~xc6 14.84 bxa4

• Georgies Dalaklis 15.~xa6+ ~b8 16.b5 lLlc5 17.bxc6
Kalamaria 2008 lUxa6 18.l:lb1+~c8 19.~b5
Black resigned.
1.e4 d6 2.d4 ttJf6 3.tbc3 liJbd7 4.g4 h6
White is doing well after 4 ...e5 5.gS.
5.13 c6 6.~e3 b5 o Robert Ris
• Djurre den Heeten
Wijk aan Zee 2007

l.e4 d6 2.d4 tDf6 3.lLic3 lCbd7 4.g4

h6 5.13 c5!?
A radical departure from the set-ups with
...eS.
6.dxc5
Transposing into a Sicilian structure. Play-
ing in Benoni style with 6.d5 was also possi-
ble, as weIl as 6.~e3 and 6.tDge2, keeping
the tension.
6...tI.lxc5 7.~e3 ~a5 8.'iWd2 ~d7
A sound idea. starting queenside play first 9.a3!
and keeping the option of ...e5.
7.~d2 'WaS8.h4 ~b7?!
In conjunction with the next move a wrong
plan. Transposing to the main set-up with
8... e5 was the alternative.
9.tDh3 0-0-0 10.a3!
White changes plans and goes for an attack
un the black king.
10...e511.b4! ~C712.d51

1. g
..
~g
~.i.'i¥~ .I.~
.I.~ This game shows a clash between two differ-
.I. ~.I. ent strategies: White goes all out, pushes all
8 ~ t::,8 his pawns forward and hopes to strangle his
opponent. Black has a solid position and
8 ltJ ~t::, tLJ hopes to show that White hac;overextended
~1lH by breaking through at some moment. The
ld: ~~ l:I white strategy prevails in this game!
9...tLJe6 10.b4 l!fd8 11.tDd5 /?;c7
Black has no counterplay, while his king will 12.c4 e6 13.tbc3 ssr 14.lUge2 Wf8?!
be exposed very soon. 15.tLJd4tDfe8

68
 Taking the Lion by. its Throat

Black starts 10 lose his coordination.

16.~e2 ~h4+ 17...t?f1 ~f6 18'<;Qg2 ~ 'if'" K
nc8 19.1:tac1 a6 20.lDb3 tLJa8 l~.t~ll
21.nhd1 ~g5 1 1 1

26.ttJxb7!?
White correctly goes for the brilliancy prize,
although 'normal' moves would also have
sufficed.
26 ...l:txb7 27.'it'c5+ ..we 2B.e5+ Wg6
22.c5! 29.~d3+ 15 30.gxf5+ exf5 31.e6 ~g5+
All the white pieces are perfectly placed to 32.Wh1 .CI.c733.~xf5+1 ~xf5 34..I:I.g1+
stan the action. ~f6 35.Q)d5+ wxe6 36....e7+ ~xd5
22 ..•~xe3 23.l!¥xe3 dxcS 24.lDxc5 37.l:tgd1+ ~d3 38.J:!.xd3
nc7 25.~d4 ~7 Mate. A fine game by White!

69
 CHAPTER 9
Jeroen Bosch
The Centre Game: A Romantic Weapon
Lashing out against c2 with ... ttJb4
In this chapter we will enjoy a 'romantic'
surprise weapon against the Centre Game.
Now you may wonder whether we need a
SOS against the Centre Game. 'Can't I just
play 3...tU:6 (gaining a tempo) and take it
from there?' is a reasonable question. My
answer would be: 'Perhaps in the past you
could. However. I am afraid that these days,
almost anything ends up in the theoretical
realm, and this has certainly happpened to
the Centre Game.' Let it be a warning: a size-
able chunk (IOO pages') of Dangerous
Weapons: J .e4 e5 (Everyman. 2008) is taken
up by Andrew Greet's expose on this early
queen outing.
In Dismantling the Sicilian: A Complete Rep-
70
enoire for White (New in Chess. 2009), Jesus
de la Villa proposes an interesting philosophy
for his suggested repertoire: 'Against main
lines, play main lines; against secondary
lines, play secondary lines; against unsound
lines, play the refutation.' In his view it will be
difficult to reach something against a second-
ary line by employing a main line, simply be-
cause your opponent will almost always have
spent more time on it (at home and in the tour-
nament hall).
For all non-professionals this is sound ad-
vice and I intend to follow it with regard to
the Centre Game, which falls in de la Villa's
second category I would say (after all the
Scandinavian is almost respectable these

days as wei!). Actually the best is still to
come. The secondary line I propose against
the Centre Game is delightfully direct. After
3 ...tDc6 White plays 4.'iVe3 and now either
the immediate 4...lLlb4!'? which would be
my personal preference, or 4...ttJf6 5.tiJc3
lLlb4!?
Rather crude. you say?
Well perhaps, but just look at the featured
games: what wouldn't you give for playing
such a game in the true style of Morphy and
Anderssen! Sitting behind the black pieces
are Mark Hebden and Rashit Ziatdinov.
o Throstur Thorhallsson
• Mark Hebden
Cappelle ta Grande 2005
-------_._ _-_
...._ .. ..
1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.'it'xd4
4.'it'e3 ~b4
Moving twice with the same piece in the
opening. A well-known 'sin'. However, in
this case it falls under the category 'an eye
for an eye'. White after all has committed
(the cardinal?) sin of moving twice with her
majesty in the opening. The point of the
knight move is not just the threatened fork.
but rather the tact that White now has to
make an uncomfortable defensive move.
S.t7\a3
White develops and defends against the
fork. Still, the knight is awkwardly placed on
a3.
While 5.SLd3 also protects c2 and develops,
it is completely innocuous. Black can take
on d3 or postpone this. One example: 5...b6
6.~d2 ~c5 7.... g3 tbxd3+ 8.'tixd3 (8.cxd3
CiJe7when Whitecannottake-9.1hg7?-as
9...l:tg8 10.~xh7 ~d4! 11.~c3 l:thS traps
the queen! - 12."xh8+ .ixh8 13.~xh8 tLJg6
followed by l4...tUf4) 8 ..... f6 9.tbf3 ~xb2
and Black won in Van de Lindc-Rincrnbcrg,
Buenos Aires 2001.
The Centre Game: A Romantic Weapon
Best is 5. 'W'e2! according to Andrew Greet
(his exclam). He suggests that this will trans-
pose to 4...lLlf6 5.tcc3 tLtb4 6.'iVe2. How-
ever, it seems to me thai Black can do better
than play 5...ttJf6 and should try either
5 ~c5 (which Greet gives in a note) or
5 b6. It is for this reason that I would rec-
ommend 4 ...lLlb4 rather than 4 ...lLlf6 5.~c3
~b4 when 6.'iVe2 gains in strength.
Thus, 5 .... e2 and now:
- 5 ...~c5 6.lf.lc3 ~d4!? 7.t~b5 (perhaps
7.Ci:Jf3 ~xc3+ 8.bxc3 tOC6 9.e5 or 9.~a3)
7...~b6 8.c3 lLlc6 9.lLltJ 0,ge7 lO.~g5 was
Lirz-Buchmann, cr 2003. and now Greet
gives iO d6 rather than the game continua-
tion (I 0 f6?!) 11.0-0-0 as marginally pref-
erable for White. which is probably a matter
of taste. Black also has fair chances after
II 0-0 in the upcoming struggle.
(bc6 - 5 b6 6.lDc3 (6.tUf3 b6 7.c4 LUc6 and
having provoked c4 B lack will gain some in-
fluence over the dark squares) 6...~a6
7.'@'dl ~xfl 8.'it>xfi ~5 with interesting
play.
5...lt)f6
The most natural move, and considering the
previous moves that is perhaps surprising in
itself! Grandmaster Jozsef Pinter has es-
sayed both S... b6 and S... 'iVe7. Both look
eminently playable:
- S...b6 6 ..1d2 .1b7 7.~c4 'ii'e7 8.0-0-0
0-0·0 9.0 d5!? to.~xb4 'ft'xb4 II.~xd5
~xd5 12.l:txd5 l:txd5 l3.exd5lDf6 14.~c2
~c5 15._£13 'iVa5 l6.lLlc3?! .ba3 l7.bxa3
_xa3+ 18.Wbl l:td8 19.'iVc4. The game
Papp-Pinter, Balaronlelle 2006. is about
equal at this stage. Pinter won after a long
tight.
- 5...'it'e7!? 6.c3 tDc6 7.lUb5 d6 8.~d3 g6
9.f4 ~g7 1O.~f3 ~f6 1l.h3 0-0 12.0-0 lleS
13J~el ..-£18 l4.1Wf2 b6 15.c4?! ~b7
l6.~d2 a6 and Black was very harmoni-
ously placed in Ivic-Pinter, Sibenik 2007.
6.e5 tDfd5 7.'it'e4 d6!
71
Jeroen Bosch
8.c3
Instead 8.exd6+ ~e6 9.dxc7 'tWxc7 1O.tt.)f3
0-0-0 provides excellent compensation, as
Andrew Greet also notes in Dangerous
Weapons: l.e4 e5. White must have counted
on the text: he 'wins' a piece, but Hebden has
accurately seen that after
8...dxe5! 9.cxb4 .txb4+ he has more
than enough for the piece. Black has two
pawns already. while White's king is un-
safe. Not a bad deal! 10.Jld2 10...t>e2 0-0
is terrible too. 10 ... .txd2+ 11.~xd2 o-O!
Black is clearly on top. Iam not going to ana-
lyse the remainder too deeply. Suffice to say
that while play was certainly not faultless
the final result is a fair reflection of how we
shuuld evaluate the diagrammed position.
White should definitely avoid this!
12.~e1 c6 13.~e2 "*f6 14.tLic4 ~e8
72
15.lLle3 ~e6 16.lLlf3 "ad8 Hebden just
manoeuvres patiently as if material is of no
concern. It is true that the mere fact that
White has lost his right to C41st1eis a long
term disadvantage here. 17:ihe5 ~g6
18.~1 18.'tWg5. 18...~f5 19.~g3
20J~el 20.~';xf5 .xf5 and ...... c2 and
"'f6
...~f4 are hard to meet. For example:
2l.ttJd4 (2UIcI lbf4-+; 21...ic4 .(;2
22.lbe5 tL!f4 23 ..t.d7+? 'Oth8-+) 21....e4
22.l:dl li)f4-+. 20 ...~xe3+ 21.fxe3
'i'xb2 Ironically disaster now strikes from
the other side. 22.1Wf4~g6 23.<.t>f2lle4
24."i'c7?! 24.1Wg5 l:ld5"! 25.11bI!.
24 ...~de8 25.~g3 1Wb426.~d1 h6
27.~b3 as 28.11e2 a4 29.1t.c2 llg4+
30.<Ji>f2 it'c4 31.~xg6?!
31...l:txg2+! 32.Wxg2 ~xe2+ 33.~g3
fxg6 The pawns are worth more than the
knight. Note that Black's king is entirely
safe. 34.~e1 'it'xa2 35.l:Id1 "e6
36. "xb7 'itf6 37.l:lc1 rlxe3
38.'ihc6? 3SJWb8+ ;;>h7 39.'Wf4.
38...~xf3+! 39.... xI3 "95+ 40.'I'g4
'fi"xc1 The queen ending is wmning.
41..-xa4 '*g1+ 42.<~h3~h7 43.'fi"d7
h5 44.'it'e6 .fl+ 45.<Gg3 g5 46.it'e7
iVg1+ 47.~f3 1Wg4+ 48.Wf2 .'4+
49_<bg294 SO.... e8 tff3+ 51.wg1 g3
52.hxg3 'it'xg3+ White could have
safely resigned here. 53.Wh1 ~f3+

54.~g1 "15 55•..t>h2 "g6 S6•• dB
~h6 57.'ii'd2+ _g5 58.'it'd6+ 'li'f6
59.~b8 g5 60.~g2 h4 61.'ite8 'itb2+
62.~g1 'W'd4+63.~h1 ti'd5+ 64.~g1
~g7 65.'i'e7+ ,.pg6 66.'W'e8+
67.'itc8+ ..t>f468.,.ph2 ti'e5 69.Wg2
~'5
-.e2+ 70...t>h1 g4 71.'i'c1+ Wg3
72.'I'e3+ A final stalemate trick.
72...'it"3+ White resigned.
o Rudolf Meessen
• Rashit Ziatdinov
Moscow 2009
1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3."W'xd4 !be6
4."e3 !bf6 5.lbc3 tlJb4
This is clearly related to 4 .. .ti)b4 and there-
fore deserves to be incorporated, Note that
S...~b4 6.~d2 0-07.0-0-0 is the main line.
Black is theoretically OK, but he must be
well-prepared to prove it. The problem in
meeting such lines usually is that your oppo-
nent will have a lot of over the board experi-
ence (and more theoretical knowledge) to
find his way in (he complications that will
certainly follow. Thus one of the main lines
continues: 7... ne8 8."ifg3 Ihe4! 9.a3! -
don't try this at the board without having
done so at home!
6.1!fe2
For 6..Q.d3 see the next game.
The Centre Game: A Romantic Weapon
6...b6
This is more logical than (he passive 6 ...d6
7.~f4 ~e7 8.0-0-00-0
g .tit' g~
iii 1.iii
6)
~~
when 9.e5 gives just the type of positi on that
those playing 3.'it'xd4 aim for.
- 9 ...lDe8 lO.a3 ttJc6 Il.liJf3 jL_g4 12.h3
jl,xf3 13.• )(f3 ~g5 l4.exd6~xd6 favoured
White slightly in A.Smith-Gormally, Eng-
land It 2003/04. However, Andrew Greet
correctly points out that lO."ife4! as 1I.n3
tLjc6 l2.'N3 .i.e6 13M!? 'with decent at-
tacking chances' is even stronger.
- 9 ...~d7 10.exd6 ~xd6 I L~xd6 cxd6
l2Jlxd6 rIelS offers Black some compensa-
lion. For example: J3.1i'd2 waS I
14.';.l;>b
(I4.~c4) 14... ~xa2! 15.lt:lxa2,!! l:tel+
16.tDcl ~xd2 17..c.xd2 llxfl. However.
12.a3! is awkward to meet. 12...l:le8 13.• d2
~\c6 14.• xd6 and now 14...1ffb6? just loses
after 15.tDd5 ..-xr2 16.lL)h3 .-h4 17.tDc7.
7.ifd1
• 7.j_g5 ~a6 8:tWd2 i.xfI 9.<;Pxfl ~e7
lO.a3 (lO.tiJf3 0·0: but 10.e5 tCg4 1 J..be7
~xe7 12.a3 <1)c6 l3.tO<J5 ..-d8 14.lDf3 0·0
15."'f4 must be somewhat better for White)
IO tDc6 IUldl (1I.eS!? tCxe5 12.J:el)
11 d6 1Vilge2 0-0 is about equal, Sena-
Lewis, New York 1999.
On move I} Black can improve with 9 ...h6!?
1O.jL_xf6 1W.do I La3 ~c6 l2.lod5 (other-
wise Black has no problems whatsoever)
73
Jeroen Bosch
12...'fhb2 13.0xc7+ ~d8 l4.lldl ~xc7
l5.1ltxd7+ ~b8
l6.1hc6 (16."'1:8+ <;Pb7 17.... d7+ repeats,
while l7 ..a.d7+'it»a618.'I'xa8..wcl+ 19.'it»e2
11rxc2+ wins for Black) 16...,tc5!? and
Black appears to be alright in this position.
He is regaining his pawn on c2. And while
his king may be anything but safe, White's
kingside is completely undeveloped:
- 17.l:ld7? 'ii'cl+ 18.~e2 'ii'xc2+ forces a
shameful retreat 19J1d2.
- J7:i'd5 "'xc2 18.tDeHle8.
- l7 .... a4.a.c8orI7 ...b5.
• 7.eS!? is Andrew Greet's recommenda-
tion for White.
7...tDfd5 (7 ....ia6 HWdl! hfl 9.<;Pxfl tLJg8
1O.~D 'with some initiative' (Greet) looks
like the lesser evil) 8.lfJe4! ~a6 (!L ..tb7 9.a~)
9.c4 'leading to a most peculiar position.
somewhat reminiscent of a Scotch. I think I
74
would prefer Whites chances as Black's
knights are rather clumsily placed and are
likely (0 be driven backwards in the near fu-
ture: tDangerous Weapons: l.e4 c5, p.324).
Indeed, I agree with Greet's assessment, be-
cause although after 9...ta:6 the hasty
IO.0.d6+ leads to equality after 1O... cxd6
I l.exd6+i.e7, White can improve with lO.a3!
t;'lde7 11.lt)f3 cr I.lUf6+ gxf6 12.exf6 d5)
II...~g6 (I L..tiJf5 l2.li~f6+ gxf6 13.exf6+)
12.tL.f6+ (l2.t/Jd6+ .txd6 13.exd6+ <;Pffi
14..ig5 f6 IS.i.e3 lC.cc5 16.tDxe5 tUxeS)
12...gxf6 13.exf6+ with superior chances. Let
me reiterate that? .e5 is the reason why I would
prefer 4 ...'~\b4 to 4 ...li.jf6 5.li\c3lVb4.
7.._~c5 8.a3 lUe6 9..ig5?! If 9.tlJf3?
then llJg4. or 9 ..id3 0-0. 9 __.h6 10.~h4
0-0
Black is very comfortable. He is consider-
ably ahead in development. Not surprising
considering the fact that the white queen
went from d I to d4-e3-e2 back to d I !
11.tDf3 ]:tee 12.~c4 g5 More or less forc-
ing White to sac a piece. but risky. 13.tDxg5
13..ig3 ~xe4 14.~xf7+ ~f7 15.'itd5+
:;t>g6 16.4~xe4 ..we? 13 ..• hxg514,Axg5
14 .•.tLlxe4!? Played in great style!
1S..Q.xf7+! <bg7 16.~xd8 SLxf2+!?
Ziatdinov did not intend 10 go down in a
worse ending after 16...tOx.c3+ 17..txe8
tDxdl IlU:xdl ti.2xd8 19..bd7. 17_~f1
jLa6+

18.lUe2
The crazy computer reply l8.tQb5! objectively
refutes Black's romantic 14th move. But we
don't go scrutinizing Morphy's games with
computer engines either or do we? J 8 ...£xb5+
(1!LI.1.axd8 19~5 ~xb5+ 20.(4) 19.c4+-.
18...:'axd819.~xe8 tDd4! 20 ...ih5
Considering his opponent's inspired efforts
so far, the forcing 20 .... d3!? .ixd3 21.cxd3
:c:rxe8 22.dxe4 lhe4 23.lL:.g3 .hg3 24.hxg3
was advisable and White can at least not lose
(he is better but not winning).
20...lbf5 21.'iWc1 lIh8! Black has knight
and bishop for queen, rook and pawn, but
he insists on the initiative. 21. ..ttJe3+?!
2HWxe3 he3 23.$el. 22.g4 llJe3+
23.'iWxe3 .axe3 24.Wg2 ttJf2?!
24 ....ib7!. 2S.Wf3? 25.~hfl 1. 2S ... .tc5
Black is better now. He still has a slight
material disadvantage but his pieces coop-
The Centre Game: A Roman~c Weapon
erate in a marvellous way. 26.l%he1 l:rf8+
27.~g3? 27.~f4 lLlh3+. 27 ...ttJe4+
28.<.t>g2I.1.f2+ 29.~h3 .txe2 And White
resigned. He is powerless against Black's
numerous attacking ideas.
DAlbert Sanfeliu Fabregas
• Mark Hebden
La Pobla de Liller 2005
1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.• xd4 tile6
4.'i¥e3 tlJf6 5.tt.:lc3liJb4 6..td3
6 .ie7
6 tLxd3+ is playable but not too ambitious.
However, 6...d5 is also strong. after 7.~xd5
(7.exd5+ 'fie7 8.~ge2 'Wixe3 9.~xe3 tDfxd5
lO.tDxd5 ~xd5 11...id2 lLb4 was equal in
Ashby-Tebb, Hastings 1995. Also good was
7 ...~7)7 ... tDfxd5 8.exd5+ tle7 (!L~e79.c4
0-0 10.lt:le2 ~c5! 11.W'g3 ~d6 12.~f4 ~xf4
13.li.Jxf4 :te8+ 14.tik2 ~g4! - 14...'~t'e7! -
15..bh7+ Q;xh7 16.'i!Vxg4 ttJc2+ 17.Wd2
tt)xal and Black won in R.Schmidt-Karim.
Malaga 2009) 9.~e4 f5 10.013'it'xe4 (lO ...fxe4
11.ax.b4"xb4+ 12.~d2 'i'xb2 13.• xc4+ is
also fairly equal) Il.axb4 hb4+ 12.c3 ~.c5
l3.'i!hc4+ fxe4 14..te3 ~xe3 15.fxc3 (}-O
with even chances. Barrionuevo-L.Bronstcin.
Tees de Febrero ch-ARO 2003.
7.e5 White lakes up the gauntlet. 7...0.g4
8:~te4d5!
75
Jeroen Bosch

Black has superior chances in this ending

(queentess middlegame) owing 10 his pair of
bishops. One would now expect the grand-
master to grind away and slowly overcome
his opponent. However. that's not how Mark
Hebden plays such a position:
16... rlfe8 17.ttJdS?! Erroneously ignor-
ing his undeveloped kings ide. 17.t21f3.
17 ... ttJe41 18.tiJxc7 lOxg3 19.fxg3
.Q.e3+ 20.~bl rlac8! 20...11ec8 2l.11d5!
.ie4 22.l:te5. 21.rltl i.g6?!
21 ...11e5!-+. 22.lbxe8 Axc2 23.~al
9.exd6 ....xd6 Black is slightly better at ~d4 24.Abl ? 24.a4
this stage. 10.~f4?! 'iWc5 11.~g3
tLlxd3+ 12.1bd3 0-0 13."tt'b5 .it5
14.h3 ttJf6 15."xc5 .Q.xc516.0-0-0

24 ... ~xb2+ and mate follows. White reo

signed.

76
 CHAPTER 10
Dimitri Reinderman
Check Like a Patzer in the Scandinavian
Let's play 3..:~e5+ (or 3...1i'e6+)
One time, when I was stil I a boy. I was watch-
ing a game between two players in a bar. The
player with black played the Scandinavian
Defence and immediately gave a check on his
third move. r told him that this was not such a
good move, but he clearly had his own ideas.
AI the time I didn't appreciate that in a
'coffeehouse game' people care not only
about the result, and that he probably just en-
joyed giving a check. But I did understand
that making many moves with your queen is
not a good idea in the opening, so I was right
in condemning 3...'it'e5+. Or was I?
There arc actually arguments in favour of
this patzer movc. It is true that the queen on
e5 will have to move again, so Black must
lose another tempo. However, from a5
(3 .. .'iVa5 is the traditional main line) the
queen normally also has to move again, he-
cause of a threat by ~d2. Currently the most
popular move is 3 .. .'fid6 (as reported by
Tiviakov in SOS-6) but there the queen is
vulnerable to an attack too, for example by
Ci:;c4 or .1Lf4. And while after Kogan's fa-
vourite retreat 3 ..... d8 (see 50S-4) the
queen is rather safe, she is also standing on a
square where a rook wants to go. In general.
a good place to 'hide' your queen in the
Scandinavian is c7, and Black can go there
just as fast from e5 as from as, d6 or d8. In
fact, there is an advantage in going to c7 via
e5: this forces White to put a piece on e2,
77
Dimi1ri Reinderman
which interferes with White's normal plan
of liJf3 and Qc4 (or ~d3).
Of course 3...• eS+ is not the panacea which
guarantees you a good position with black.
Statistics suggest the opposite - White is
scoring very well after this move. Yet, the
first game of this article, McShane-Becker.
will demonstrate that the check docs deserve
some respect: the lop-OM quickly found
himself in a worse position after playing
some natural moves with white.
Now if you really like the obscure of the ob-
scure, the secret surprise of SOS. the move
that even Basman, Bucker and Welling
never tried, go to the second game of this ar-
ticle, Cernousek-Popchev, and meet
3 ...We6+. I didn't expect this move to be
more than just a legal move allowed by the
FIDE rules of chess, but to my surprise I dis-
covered that it has its hidden points.
o Luke McShane
• Marc Becker
France n 2005
1.e4 d5 2.exdS 'tIfxd5 3.tt:lc3 'tife5+
4..te2
The best move. Other possibilities:
- 4.tOce2. Equality on move 4 with black,
yeah!
78
- 4.Wc2 '*fxe2+ (Black can also try
4 ....... a5. since the white queen is not better
placed on e2tban it was Of) dl) 5.~xe2 ~f6
6.tDf3, and now most accurate might be
6...a6 since it's useful to prevent tDb5 (or
~b5), though 6...g6 and 6 ...~f5 are also
fine. White still has a slight lead in develop-
ment in this endgame, but it will be difficult
10 transform it into anything tangible.
- 4.tOge2. After this move Isuggest to playa
Scandinavian with ...... as, giving White tOge2
as an extra move. That could be useful for
White after a quick ...Qf5, since he has 0g3
and f4lhen, a well-known plan in this opening.
So Black should refrain from ....ifS as long as
White can play ttJg3. With the bishop on c8,
tOg3 is not so dangerous (Black can continue
with ...g6 .... .ig7, ...0-0, ...l:ld8 etc.), so White
will probably play g3, a') he did in Rasmus-
sen-Madsen, Obro 2006: 4 ...tOf6 5.d4 .a..'i
6.g3 c6 (here 6 ...~f5 7 .~g2 tDc6 is an interest-
ing plan. and even 6 ...h5 might be good) 7..ig2
Af5 8.~d2 e6 (8 ..:"a6 is safer) 9.dS 'It'b6
lO.dxe6 fxe6 11.0-0 lDbd7 12.~ and now,
instead of 12....ic5'? 13.lba4±. 12...'ita6
would not have been so bad for Black.
4...c6
Black players have sometimes played
4 ...~g4 5 .d4 ~xe2 6.tDgxe2. but this doesn't
really help in the tempo department,
5.d4 iVc7
6..ig5
 Check Like a Patzer in the Scandinavian

Played, either with very aggressive inten-
tions, or to discourage Black from develop-
ing his bishop 10 g4. The 'main line' (if there
is one) goes 6.lOf3 ~f5 7.lDe5 (here 7.0-0e6
8.i.e3li)d7 9.W"d2 tOgf6 I0.h3 .td6 Il.liJh4
.tg6 12.lilxg6 hxg6 gave Black a solid posi-
tion in Cheparinov-Garcia Ortega., Andorra
2002. while 7.d5 tOf6 8.l~)d4 .id7 9.0-0 a6
to.i.f3 cxd5 IUlel tOc6 12.i.g5 0-0-0
13.i.xf6eAf6 14.tOxd5 wasc1early better for
White in Fedorchuk-Oussama, Villeneuve
Tolosane 2006 - this is the most dangerous
variation for Black - 11.. ..ic6 is a clear im-
provement, but so is 11.i.g5) 7. Ji:1d7 (7 ...e6
8.g4 i.g6 9.h4 is clearly good for White)
8..i.f4lDxe5 9.~xe5. and now:
0-0-0 12.0-0 e5 l3.dxe6 "xe6 14.i.d3 i.xd3
15.cxd3 i.d6 16.:eJ "'d7 17..ixd6 'tt'xd6,
when While has attacking chances but Black
has a structural advantage.
6 ..if5 7."d2 86
7 ltJf6 8.tt:Jf3 e6 9.Axf6 gd6 JO.tOh4 i.g6
1l.f4f512.0-0tOd713.a3.ig714.l:tadlO-0
15.<iPh I llad8 gave an equal position in Con-
quest-Spain. New Zealand 1999.
8.tLlf3 h6 9..ih4 tDd7

10.tLle5
This doesn't give an advantage, but other-
wise Black just develops with ....id6,
...ltJgf6 and castles.
10...lt:lxe5 11.dxe5 fie7 12.~g3
This looks logical. since 12.i.xe7 helps
- 9..:.b6 IO.ll:la4 "'a5+ I l.e3 f6 12M Black develop, but it is wrong for concrete
Wd5 13.itg3 0-0-0 (13...e5 14.dxe5.xg2 reasons.
15.itf3 'irh3 16.W"e2 r:bf7 17.0-0-0 is a bit 12..J~d8 13.... 3
messy but still good for White, for example
17 a5 l8.l:td4! threatening 19.1:th4;
13 xg2 14.i.f3 "'h3 15.ttJe5 e5 16.tijxb7
e4 17.i.e2) 14.0-0 e5 15.dxe5 fxe5 16.""3
bS? 17.tOCS AxeS 18.bxcS tOf6? 19.c4 and
White won in Shaw-Zeidler, Plovdiv 2003.
- 9...1h5 10.0-0 e6 l1.a3 a6 12.b4 1IM8
13.ttJa4lilf6 14.tOc5 was good for White in
Baklan-Ermenkov, Balaguer 2005.
- I think that the untried 9 ...... d7 is best here,
for example 1O.d5 (10 .... d2 f6 Il.itg3 e6-
1l...h5 !? - 12.0-0-0 O-O-O~) 1O...f6 1 Litg3

79
Dimitri Reinderman

13...1!t'b6!14.'i6'xb6 33.g3 ~d8 34.llae1 ~c7 35.1:Ig1

After 14."Wcl ~g5 15.f4 ~e7 16.~f2 ..Q.c5
White also has some problems to solve.
14...axb61S.:cl ~b416.0-0 0,e7
Black's pieces are more active. so White has
to fight for equality here.
17.ttJb1 b5 18.c3 ~c5 19J%.fdl 0-0
20.a3 tiJdS
l:tad836.g4
36 ...e51 was the threat. White could have
prevented this with 36.11g2, when there is
still a lot of work for Black to do.
36 ...~d5 37.~e2 fic4 38.dt13 c5!
39.$.xc5 lld2+ 40.c;tJg3ll8d3 41.lle3
.l::txe342.~xe3 ~xe5+ 43.~f4 fixf4+
44.<;;>xf4llxb2 Now it should be easy.
45.11d1 g5+ 46.~5 <;ftg7 47.~xb7
llxh2 48.lla1 ah3 49.~e4 ii.e2
SO.~d4 fixg4 51.c4 bxc4 52.a4 c3
53.a5 ~f3 54.i.d3 it.d5 55.~c2 l:I.h4+
se.exea l:I.c4+57.Wd3

21.tL42?
A blunder. After 2 I .c4 bxc4 22.l:rxc4 .lta7
23.l:1cc I White's position is still defensible.
21...tiJe3! 22.fxe3 ~xe3+ 23.~f2 ~xd2
Black is a pawn up. with active pieces. so he
should win now.
57 ....l::txc2
A totally unnecessary sacrifice. Probably
Becker missed that White can escape to a

--,~,.
queen ending.
58.~xc2 h5 59.llg1 ~6 6O.11d1h4
61.llxd5 exd5 62.a6 h3 63.a7 h2
64.a8'" hl'iV Fortunately for Black he is
still winning.65.1IYg8+~ 66.'iVd8+
'iiPf5 67.1Wc8+ C;Pf4 68.1Wc7+ ~g4
69.1!t'xf7'it'e4+ 70.~b2 1!t'eS+71.Wa3
'iVe3+ 72.~a2 d4 73•• d7+ Wg3
74.~d6+ .,4 75.'ii'g6 g4 76.• c21!t'f2
24.11a1 .ic2 25.:f1 lld5 26..td4 ~b3 n.'lt>a1 "W'f1+78.Wa2 d3 79.~c3 ~g2
26 ...1:lxd4! 27.cxd4 ~e3+ 28.<t>hl .ixd4 is 80.<,t?a3tt"e2 81.1tc4 1!t'f382.~a4 d2
easily winning fur Black. 83."c2 "e2 84.,*c6+ C;Pgl85.~b6+
27..if3 lld7 28.~f2 ~g5 29.~g3 soa 'M1 86.~f6+ '*f3 87."a6+ ~g2
30.~e4 ,ga8 31.~f2 1:a4 32.~f3 l:!.a8 White resigned.

80

o Lukas Cernousek
• Milko Popchev
Brno 2006
1.e4 d5 2.exd5 "xd5 3.lUc3 "e6+
Both Emms and Plaskett mention 3 ...... e5+
in their books about the Scandinavian. and
analyse it seriously (as opposed to most
other books about the opening). but even for
them 3 .... e6+ is a bridge too far, or at least
they ignore the move, like all authors do. I
can't blame them-e6 is a stupid square for a
queen, especially with the pawn still on e7.
However, again there is a point to the patzer
check: Black will attack the pawn at g2, and
defending it will cause some slight inconve-
nience for White.
4.~e2
4.1re2 'i'xe2+ is the same as after 3...:i'e5,
though in this l.'aSe 4 ...l[)f6 looks fine too.
4.4')ge2 has not been played in any rated
game. Now. leaving the queen on e6 for a
while is not so stupid: a sensible continua-
tion is 4...0f6 5.04 g6 6.g3 ~g7 7.~g2 0-0
8.0-0 l:ld8 and Black can be happy with his
position.
4..."g65.lUf3
In Pessoa-Laurent, email 2005, White was a
little better after 5.~f3 t/:'If66.d4 c6 7.Ci.·,ge2
~g4 8.~xg4 'fixg4 9.0-0.
K~.t ~.t"E
iii
••
.. iiii
__ .-
'iN
5.......xg2
Check Like a Patzer in the Scandinavian
This looks a bit like the Poisoned Pawn Vari-
ation of the Najdorf, Just like there White
obviously has good compensation, but he
still has to prove it.
Of course there is a difference 100, say a hun-
dred pages of theory in Nunn's Najdorf vol-
ume on 6.~g5.
6.%:lg1.h3 7.~c4
Threatening to take on n. In Lupulescu-
Andonov, Vmjacka Banja 2004, an interest-
ing position arose after 7.d4 "'d7 8.tLieS
"d8. Probably Steinitz, who believed in the
strength of the starting position. would have
liked to be Black here. He had a point. but
there are limits. and even though the game
ended in a draw in 22 moves, instead of re-
peating this I recommend the solid 7 ...c6.
7 86
7 h6 8_d4 c6 is more careful, preventing a
lot of knight moves.
8.d4
8...ttJf6? !
Now Black's queen will be in an awkward
position. This also holds true for 8 ...c6 9 .~f1
'i'hS IOJlgS 'i'h6 11.l'lf5! .g6 12.li.:,h4
'i'gl 13.l:lxf7! ~xf7 14.lOf3 'i'hl 15.0e4
tL\d7 16.0.g3+-, which leaves 8 ...h6, when
9.0.b5 lLIa6 IO.~f4 "'f5 Il.liJxc7+ 0xc7
12.~xc7 ~d7 is only a lillie better for
White.
9.~g3 'li'h5 10Jlg5 ....h3 11.1Lf11Wh6
81
Dimitri Reinderman

The forcing vanauon 21.:xg6 't!t'xg6

22:"xd7+ "",xd7 23.tl1e5+ <:be7 24.ltJxg6+
hxg6 25 ..txc6 bxc6 26.c3 gives White a nice
endgame.
21...'it'h6 22. 'it'f3 0-0-0

12.dS?!
Cernousek could have taken a draw by repe-
tition here. but he rightly wanted more. One
option would be to win back the pawn with
l2.ttcS "fkg6 13.llxc7 tebd7. but this is not
so bad for Black.
White has something stronger: 12.l:e5 'if g6 23.ti:Jf7?
13..tg5!. when 14..td3 will be hard to meet. Now Black's pieces become very much
12.dS opens the position. but loses some alive. White had to swap the rooks, with an
time. which Black uses to catch up in devel- equal positon.
opment. 23...llxg8! 24.lDXh6 :g1 + 2S..tf1
12...~d6 13.~b5+ ~d7 14.dxe6 fxe6 ~d4 26.'ffd3
15.1:tg4'it'h5 16.l:txg7

26 ....txh6?
White has won back the pawn. but lost the Probably played without much thinking,
initiative. otherwise Black might have gone for
16...lLlc6 17.~g5 :f8 18..txf6 J:txf6 26 ... ~4! 27.b3 .tb5 28.c4 ~b4+ 29.ltJd2
19.1lJe4:g61! ~e8! and there is no defence anymore.
Instead 19...11f7 is equal. 27.l:td1?
20.J:tg8+ ~f8 21.tnfg5 Here 27.4:Jd6+! cxd6 28.'t!rxd4 holds.

82

27...e5 28.c3 ~g4 29.cxd4 l:[xd4
30.ihd4 exd4 31.~xd4 ~g7
This endgame with two strong black bishops
and the annoying pin on fI is very hard to de-
fend for White.
Check Like a Patzer in the Scandinavian
32.l:td2 ~e5 33.tt2g3 ~t3 34.l:td3 ~g2
35...t;>e2~xt1 + 36.tDxt1 ~xb2 37.l:th3
J:[g7 38.f4 J:[f739.<it>e3?~c1+
White resigned.
In conclusion, while 3 ...1i'e5+ is a patzer
move, it is certainly playable. and in our
main game it posed problems to a strong
grandmaster. The best try for White to get
more than a slight advantage seems to be the
variation with 7.dS.
The check on e6looks even more peculiar,
but might be preferable. You have to be
willing to defend the position after
5...... xg2, but if you're careful you might
remain with a safe extra pawn or obtain a
counterattack. Now, isn't that a real Viking
raid?
83
 CHAPTER 11
Doria" Rogozenco
King's Indian: A Dutch-KID?
The knight jump 6 ... tLJe4
In a recent tournament after the moves l.d4
ttJf6 2.c4 g6 3.ti:;f3 ~g7 4.g3 0-0 5.~g2 d6]
wanted to continue automatically with the
standard short castle (6.0-0, which is by far
the most popular continuation), but sud-
denly a strange thought crossed my mind:
what if my opponent will play 6...tbe4?
(Isn't this a clear influence of the SOS-sc-
ries") Having failed to find a quick refuta-
lion of the knight jump, I started to get a bit
nervous. Actually the whole situation of
thinking too long at such an early stage was
somewhat annoying. 1 certainly knew that
the position after 6.0-0 was played thou-
sands of limes, but] didn 'I recall ever seeing
the answer 6 ...~'e4. JUSI in case, I decided to
84
prevent 6 ...tLie4 by playing 6.lt2C3, although
J was conscious that 6.tDcJ can limit While's
choice in some variations.
At home I discovered that the move 6 ...0e4
had indeed been played a few times in prac-
tice. More importantly, I discovered that
6 ... tL:e4 is by no means a had move, espe-
cially considering its surprise value! I am
now ready to share my findings with you.
In a way 6 ...~e4 is designed to 'punish'
White for not developing his knight to c3. Of
course, White may later exchange the oppo-
nent's knight (by playing at some moment
tile3, t~bd2 or ~fd2), but generally the ex-
change of a pair of knights should be favour-
able for Black. For instance, in the King's
 King's Indian: A Dutch-KID?

Indian there are variations where Black an interesting course: 8 ....Q.g4 9.h3 kxf3
plays ...~fS in order to prepare the exchange lO.exf3 lbc5
of knights with It)f6-e4.
Another idea of 6...tbe4 is the preparation of
e7-e5. After all, the knight jump to e4 has
opened the long diagonal and Black doesn't
need the usual preparatory moves (...lZlbd7
or ...t~c6) in order to advance the e-pawn to
eS.
Finally, after 7.... c2 Black must support its
centralized knight with the f-pawn. In that
case we have a Dutch Leningrad-like pawn
structure, yet. there are no direct transposi-
tions to any major variation from the Dutch
Defence - mainly because in the Dutch
Black is rarely allowed to play tDf6-e4 so II.tDa3 d5!? 12.r:tblliJd7 13.f4 tDf6 l4.tec2
quickly. e6 l5.'.-e2 (jJe7 16.g4 neB 17..t:.fdl c6
7.1Wc2 18.lDel a5 19.cS tiJd7 20.tiJd3 a4 21.~c3
A logical answer - White is trying to use the axb3 22.axb3 0.c8 23.'t!fd2 CtJa7 24.i.a5
instability oftbe knight on e4. Other moves: 'ite7 25.tDe5 lbb5 26.b4 0xe5 27.fxe5 f6
• 7.liJc3 lbxc3 8.bxc3 c5 is certainly not 28J:tel fxe5 29.dxe5 ttf8 and it turned out
problematic for Black. that strategically Black had completely out-
• 7.lilbd2 ~xd2 8~xd2 e5 (a reasonable al- played his opponent, Zaid-Petrushin,
ternative is 8...c5) 9..ac3 .e7 lO.e4 .tg4 Cheliabinsk \975.
Il.d5 and a draw was agreed in Paunovic- - A much more recent example saw 8...f5
Peev, Pancevo 1989. 9.lL'lbd2 tLixd2 IO.'ifxd2 e5 lI.d5 lbbR
12.:acl 't!re7l3.~a3(jJa614.b4f415.e4g5
16.t.i'lel ~d717.f3h518.liJd3~619.c5g4

Black can either continue with 11...f5, or

with I 1...a5; in both cases he has a normal
KID-like position . 20.c6 (Black is also better after 20.fxg4
• 7.b3 t/}c6 8..Q.b2, and now: hxg4 21.c6 bxc6 22.dxc6 .ie6 23.b5 '*f6!
- A game between two Soviet masters took 24.bxa6 f3) 20 ...bxc6 21.dxc6 gxf3 22 ..ixf3

85
Dorian Rogozenco

~3 23.~g2 .bg2 24.'i!t'xg2 13 25.llxf3 e4 at such an early stage makes the position
~xcl 26.~xcl 'lte6 27.b5 l'ilc5 28.l'ilxc5 unique in a way.
dxc5 29.lld3 lladS 30.1i'd2? (a blunder in a S.d5
difficult position) 30 .. .'.f6 and White re- White can try several other moves:
signed in Bartel-lakubiec, Ustron 2007. - S.b3 0.c6 9 ..tb2 e5 is equal.
• 7 .l'ilfd2lWxd2 S.'i!txd2tt:lc6 9.e3 e5 lO.d5 - 8.ndl t(Jd7 9.lLlel e5!? lO.dxe5 liJxe5
0.e7 11.l'tlc3f5 11..txe4 fxe4 12.... xe4 .f6 with compen-
sation for the pawn.
- 8.l'ilc3 l'ilxc3 9.bxc3 (strangely enough,
this recapture is considered by my computer
as the best option, and it was also played by a
GM. On the other hand, with the white pieces
I would be rather skeptical about damaging
my pawn structure like this. 9."'xc3 eS leads
to approximate equality, since lO.dxe5 dxe5
II.tLlxe5 l'ild7 12.f4 'fie7 favours Black)
9 ...e5 lO.dxe5 dxeS 11.L3 %leg 12.e4
(White's initiative is short-termed) 12...lLlc6
13.%labl "'f6 14.... e2 and the draw was
agreed in Neelotpal-Smgh, Mumbai 2009.
The position should be about equal. Now the Black is better after 14...f4.
game Kamilov-Makarov, Moscow 2006. - 8.tLJbd2 l!:.xd2 9.~xd2 eS 10.dxeS dxe5
continued 12.f4 e4 13.04 a6 14.b3 h6 11..ib4 (safer is 1 Ubd I "'e7 l2.~g5 ~f6
15.~b2 fie& 16.b4~d7 17JUdl g5 18.hxg5 13.~xf6 ti'xf6 14.'fic3, and a draw was
hxg5 19.~ ~g6 2O.%lhl ~f7 21.ltJe2 llh8 agreed in Salo-Vakeva, Espoo 1998,
22.~xg7 't!hg7 23.l:lac1 %lag8 24.:xh8 l4...~c6=) 1l...ne8 l2.nadl 'ii'f6 l3.e4 f4
%lxh825.0.g 1 gxf4 26.exf4 ~g8 27 J%c3l'ilf6
and Black's attack soon decided the issue.
14.gxf4 .-xf4 15.... a4 tDc6 16.~d2
17..Q.g5 h618.~h4
"'f8
.Q.g4 19.:td3 gS 20 ..tg3
7...f5 :LadS 21.l:tb3

This position belongs to the Dutch Defence

(Leningrad Variation) rather than to the Here in the game Gabriel-Pfeifer, Stuttgart
King's Indian Defence, although a knight on 1993, Black unnecessarily sacrificed the b7

86

pawn. After the simple 21 .. ,~c8 Black's po-
sition would have been preferable,
B...e5
The alternatives 8...lDa6 and 8 ...tDd7 look
perfectly playable too.
9.lDe1
Aiming for a closed position. White can also
take. After 9.dxe6lOC6 IO.li2bd2lLlc5 11.ttJb3
ttJxe6 12.~d2 (or 12.e3 a5 with counterplay)
we reach the diagrammed position.
Now the best way for Black to continue is
12... a5 13.~c3 a4 14.lDbd2 .e7 15.e3 ~d7
with a complicated, double-edged position.
9...lDf6
Deserving of attention is 9 ...tDc5 1O.b4
ttJcd7 I L~b2 a5 12.a3 e4, and, although it
may look like Black lost some time with the
knight, in fact White's knight on el is also
misplaced, while the early advance of
King's Indian: A Dutch-KID?
White's queenside pawns may offer Black
targets for an attack.
10.ti:lc3 lDbd7 11.liJd3 e4 12.liJf4 cue5
13.1Wb3
If 13.b3 Black simply answers 13.. :~e7.
After the queen move let's continue our
analysis with a few more plausible moves:
13...c5!? 14.f3 exf3 15.exf3 l:e8
16..id2I1b817.l:ae1 a618.84 .id7
Such a position is difficult to evaluate with-
out practical material. It is clear that both
sides have their chances. Due to the fact that
White's position contains sufficient weak-
nesses. I believe that Black should always be
able to find some counterplay in any kind of
complications. Notice that after 19.!ue6
~xe6 20.dxe6 Black can take the pawn with
20 ...l:txe6. since, after21.f4. he has 21 ...tUc6
22.11xe6 tLJd4.
87
 CHAPTER 12
Alexander Finkel
Pirc for Endgame Lovers
ttJ
~~~
:a: ]i'llU&t~ttJ:a:
1.e4 d6 2.d4lLJf6 3.tDc3 g6 4.f4 .tg7 5.e5!?
Usually when White adopts the Austrian At-
tack versus the Pirc he is in for a sharp game
(see for example our SOS line with 5.a3 in
SOS·l, Chapter 2, r.22). In this article I will
concentrate on a different approach, for after
5.c5 dxe5 6.dxe5 ~xdl+ 7.~xdl '!£::'g4we
seem to skip the middlegame and enter right
from the opening into a (slightly favour-
able?!) ending.
At first sight, White's attitude appears to be
quite odd: not only does he initiate an early
trade of queens, but he is also willing to give
up the right to castle and waste an additional
tempo on 8 ,We Ito deal with the ... ti',f2 threat.
However, White's strategy is built on solid
positional ground: Black's knight usually
88
~fj
ends up on h6, restricted by White's pawns
on h3 and g4; the dark-squared bishop is
(temporarily) rather passive on g7; and the
same applies to the other bishop on c8. At
the same lime all White's minor pieces are
destined to he developed on active and com-
fortable positions, while his king finds a safe
haven on f2. Sounds like a paradise for end-
game lovers. doesn't it?
By the way. it is remarkable that this line has
been played by such attackers as David
Bronstein. Dragoljub Velimirovic and Jenny
Hector.
Unfortunately, Black abo has some trumps up
his sleeve: after S .e5 he may just calmly retreat
with the knight to d7. and White probably has

nothing better than to switch to a hyper-ag-
gressive mode with 6.ti:f3 0-0 7.h4. This is a
highly interesting line which Ihope to cover in
one of the next issues of SOS, but is not our cup
of tea within the framework of this article.
o Aleksei Holmsten
• Marat Dzhumaev
Ubeda 2000
1.e4 g6 2.d4 ~g7 3.tDc3 d6 4.'4 ~'6
5.e5!?
Despite the fact that. objectively, this line
promises White no opening advantage,
White's results in it are quite impressive. So,
we may conclude that Black's task to reach
equality is much more difficult than it ap-
pears at first sight.
5...dxeS 6.dxe5
Avoiding the ending with 6.fxeS '!! is dubious.
In Dolzhikova-Borzov, Alushta 2006, Black
was slightly better after 6 ...t1',d5 7.~c4 ~e6
8.'1'0 c6 9.tDge2 0-0 lO.~xdS i.xd5
Il.i.xd5 'fi'xd5 12.0-0 'lWxf3 l3 ..Ilxf3 c5.
6.,:~txdl+ 7.<Io>xdlitJg4
An active knight move, rather than the pas-
sive 7... l;Vd7?1 8.4:'f3 c69.~e3 li"lb6 1O.~d3
0-0 Il.We2 f6 12.exfn ~xf6 13.g3 ~e6
14.tUe4 ~8d7 IS.~xf6+ exf6 In.nhel,
Gagunashvili-Spasov, Izmir 2002.
8.~e1
Pirc for Endgame Lovers
8.•.c6!?
Covering the squares bS and dS. For 8 ...tOc6
see the next game.
Another reasonable option is to push 8 .. .f6
right away, intending to put the knight on c6:
9.h3 tOM IO.exf6 exf6, and now:
- II.g4 .ie6 12.tOf3 tDc6 13.~b5 0-0-0
14. .ixc6 bxc6 15.'iPf2t, Velimirovic-
Rukavina, Bela Crkva 1983.
-11.~f2f512.~d2~f713.tDb5~814.~c4
~d6 15.tLlxd6 cxd6 16.ffi tOc6 17.c3;!;,
Ivanovic-Popchcv, Stara Pazova 1988.
9.h3
Another move order is possible too: 9.8f3
0-0 IO.h3 li_\h6 Il.g4 f6 12.~c4+ ~"n
13.exf6 exf6 t4.wf2 lbd7 15 ..ie3 .CI.e8
16.l:the I with a slight edge for White in S .H.
Nielsen-Hoi, Copenhagen 1995.
9...lDh6 10.94
The advance of the g-pawn is an integral part
of White's plan, so there is no real point to
postpone g4.
Yet, 1O.t;>f2 f6 II.exf6 exf6 12..i.c4 ~d8
13.g4 :re8 14.lDf3 ttJd7 15.lId 1 b5 16.Ji.b3
rJ;;c7 17.i.e3 was also slightly better for
White in Filipovic-Shvartz, Bratislava 1993.
10...f6 11.exf6 exf6 12.11c4 15
It makes perfect sense to open up the long
diagonal for the bishop.
Black obtained counterplay in Konjevic-
Govedarica, Yugoslavia tt-2 1994, after
J2 ...tt)d7 13.]:[b2 ~d8 14.~e3 bS IS.~fl
l:teK 16.<J;>d2~b7.
13.g5 ~t7 14.tDf3 0-0
The move 14... tbd6?! feels dubious after
15..ab3 ~d7 (15 ... lDa6 16..Q.e3 .bc3+
l7.bxc3 c5 IS.l:tdl ~e7 19.1ije5;t) J6.h4
~c7 17.h5 gxh5 18.lIxhS lLle4 19.tlJxe4
fxe4 20.tL\e5 .tf5 with quite unclear play in
the game Bronstein-Tseshkovsky, Moscow
1981.
15,~e3 l:te816.Wf2 lOB6?!
The drawbacks of this move are far more ob-
vious than its advantages, so it made more
89
Alexander Finkel

sense to trade the light-squared bishops o Andrey Lukin

rather than allow White to trade his bishop • Mark Tseitlin
for the black knight.
Still, White has a slight edge after 16....ie6
Leningrad ch 1972
--------_.-. -_._-_ ....
17 ..iJ(e61he6 18..id4 l:i.Jd719..ixg7 ..t;;>xg7 1.e4 d6 2.d4 tef6 3.lLlc3 g6 4.f4 ~g7
20.l:radl. 5.e5 dxe5 6.dxe5 'W'xd1+ 7.<iPxd1
17_!lhel lLlg48.<iPel tLlc6!?
Or already here 17 .i.xa6!? This move is far less popular than the more
17...~e6? solid 8 c6, but things are not entirely clear
Not surprisingly the position after J8 ..ixa6! after 8 tbc6 either.
is rather unpleasant for Black, so I7...tDc7
was called for.
18..ixa6! ~xc3 19.bxc3 bxa6

9.h3!?
Compared to the game Gavrilakis-Arduman
below White gains the important option to
20.Jic5! move the king to f2 after ...~xc2+. which
A huge difference in the strength of the re- makes quite a difference.
spective knights makes Black's defensive Thus, 9.tDd5 ttJd4 1O.~xc7+ ~d8 Il.tDJ(a8
task very challenging. tLlxc2+ 12.'-i>e2liJxal 13.h3 ~h6 14.g4liJc2
20...~d5 21.a311 ~e4 IS.\t,;ldl tL:b4 l6.l:rh2 ~e6 17.~e3 b6
White wins after 21...l:[ad8 22.l:[xe8+ l:rxe8 18.:%d2+ \tc8 was better for Black in
23.l:[b I ttJd8 24.nb8 i.xf3 25.'~xf3 ~f7 Gavrilakis-Arduman, Athens 1989.
26.l:ra8 ~\e6 27.l:[xa7+. 9...lLIh6?
22.l:tabl! !lad8 The following forced sequence of moves ap-
After 22 ...~xc2 23Jbe8+ nJ(e8 24.J:lb7 pears 10 be quite crucial for the evaluation of
tDd8 25.J:lb8 Black is completely tied up. the entire line with 8 ...0<:6:
23.rlb7 l:td5 24..id41± l:ted8 9...tDb4! lO.hxg4 (I0 ..i.b5+ ~d7 II..ixd7+
Or 24 ...lOd6 2S.ng7+ wf8 26.1b:h7±. wxd7 l2.hxg4 lLlxc2+ I3.Wdl lLlxal
25.~f6 l:t8d?? 26.rlb8+ lbd8 27.c4 14 ..ie3 is unclear) 1O... lLlxc2+ 1 J.Wd 1
White is winning. lLlxal 12..ie2. and here Black has quite a
27...l:tSd6 28.lLle5 lld2+ 29.lIe2 !l.b7 few options at his disposal, however, in all of
30.IIxd 2 them White seems 10 gel grip on Black's
Black resigned. knight on a!.

90
 Pirc for Endgame lovers

The big question is whether it will promise 15.tLlf3 .xeS

him any opening advantage .. ,

White to play and win:

- After lL~e6 13.~e3 f6 14.exf6 ..\txf6 16 . ..Q.b5! lLlf5 17..Q.xa7 17.lId1+ lLld6
J5.<oi>c1.ba216.lDxa2 ~d417 ...hd4lLlb3+ l8.fxeS .Q.d7 19.exd6 hb5 20..Q.g5+-.
l8.Wbl tDxd4 19.~dl White is indeed 17....i.d7 18 ..ixd7 ~xd7 19.tOb6+
slightly better. ~c6 20.:'xa1 exf4 21.:'c1+ 'it'b5
- Stronger is 12... 0-0 13.i.e3 f6 14,~cl 22.tOd5 ~a6 23.~c5 e524.tOc7+ Wa5
fxe5 15.fx.e5 ~e5 16.'Jibl .i.xg4 17.IDf3 25.ltJd2 iLle3 26.tDb3+ 26.Ac4 ends in
~f4 l8.~f2 %lad8, and it seems that Black mate. 26 ... ~a4 27.~xe3 fxe3+ 28.~e2
gets a very comfortable position by rather b5 Black resigned.
straightforward play.
- 12" .h5!? is another interesting possibility.
10.tDdS o Jonny Hector
Not the only way to gain an advantage here: • Ilia Smirin
lO.g4 .i.c6 1 LiM 0-0-0 12.~xc6 bxc6 Oslo 1994
13.~e3 f6 14.exf6 exf6 15}l)ge2i,
Vasiukov-Kuzmin, Moscow 1981. 1.e4 d6 2.d4 lDf6 3.tOc3 96 4.f4 i.g7
10 ... tLld4?! 5.e5 dxe5 6.dxe5 1i'xd1+ 7.q;,xd1
Accepting the challenge. It should be men- tLlg48.lLld5
tioned that after I 0... Wd8 11.~e3 tDf5 The idea behind this move is to force Black
12.~f2 h5 13.J:dt ~d7 14.<t:lf3 White en- to give up on castling. however it's hardly
joys a comfortable edge. sufficient to pose Black any problems.
11.lLlxc7+ ¢>d8 12.lLlxa8 iLlxc2+ So. 8.,.;>e I from the two previous games is
13.<;Pf2iLlxal 14 ..ie3 my personal preference.
In many lines Black king gets slaughtered 8.•.~d8 9.~e1 ~e6
under a direct attack of White's pieces. After 9...e6 1O.lt:lc3 (nothing is promised by
14 •.•f6 IO.tLle3 f6 11.tLlf3 fxe5 12.lt:lxg4 .bg4
The following line may serve as a good illus- I3.lDxe5 .i.e6 14..Q.e3 tLld7 15.J:d 1 ~xe5
tration of the previous thesis: 14...b6 16.fxe5 J:f8 17.g3 <be7 18.~g2 tLlb6.
15.tLlxb6! axb6 16.~xb6+ 'Jie8 l7.1Df3lUc2 Bosboorn-Clausen, Copenhagen 1985)
18.~b5+ .Q.d7 19.lId 1 ! and wins. 1O...f6 Il.h3 lLlh6 12.tLlf3 <iJd7 13.~c4 J:f8

91
Alexander Finkel

(intending 14...tD(7) 14.exf6 exf6 15.'ot;>f2 X

White keeps a small plus, Chernov-Marin,
Rumania tt 1999.

14...~f5 15.exf6 exf6 16.lDd4 .id7

17.a3.axa418.tDxa4
Equality is the outcome after 18.tDe6+ ~e7
19.axb4 q;.,'\e6 20.tlJx.a4 ~f8 21.~d2 ~d6
10.t2Je3 22.~f2l:lad8.
Weaker is 1O.lt)b4'?! f6 II.h3 tDh6 IUN3 c5 18... l:I.e8+ 19.'if;lf2 lLla6 20.~e3 f5
13.~3 b6 14.g4 .id5 15.~g2 tUc6 16.~d2 21.:l.ad1 We8 2VDb5t
..t;>cTf, Cueto-Belli, Lima 2002.
10...lDc611.lDf3 f6
After 11...lt)b4 l2.lbd4 Af5 13.h3 tLlh6
)4.g4 c5 15fuxf5 gxf5 White should con-
tinue with 16.l:lh2!~ rather than with 16.g5,?
tLixc2+ I HPdl tDxal 18.gxh6 .hh6+.
Iskov -Lekander, Eksjo 1I 1982.
12.h3 ~\h6 13.i(.b5!
Indirectly protecting the pawn on e5.
13.~e3? tM5 (correct is 13...fxe5 14.fxe5
lDt7'F) 14.exf6 exf6 15.lldl+ ..t;>e8 16.iH2
q;.f7 17.tLhl J:[ac8 18.g4 t;:;fe7 19.~e2 a6
20.tLlc3t.Vozniak-Halamay, Rodatychi 2006.
13.•.ttJb4 White has emerged Out of the opening with a
Not 13...fxe5?! 14.fxe5 tuf7 15..bc6 bxc6 certain advantage due to the rather passive
16.~f4 ~d5 17.tuxd5 cxdS 18.e6 ~x.b2 position of Black's knights on a6 and h6.
19.1:ld I;!;, Melnikov-Zakharchenko, St.Pe- 22 ...b6 23.c4 :l.e7 24.e5?!
tersburg 2006. The start of a wrong plan, which eventually
14..i.a4! leads to an advantage for Black.
This move is more precise than the imrnedi- After the correct 24.llhel ~b7 (24...l!Jg8
ate 14.tDd4 iLd7 (I4 ...~f5 15.exf6 .ixf6- 25.~d4 .bd4+ 26.l0;(d4 'itb7 27.llxe7
15...exf6 - 16.lOxf5 tbxfS 17..ia4 unclear) ti::.xe728.~e6±) 25.tDac3 J:[ae8 26.g3 White
15.~xd7 Wxd7 16.e6+ ..t;>c817.tcce2l:ld8, would keep all the benefits of his position.
and the white pawn on e6 is more of a weak- 24 ...<it>b725.l:ld3?!
ness than a strength. And here 25.b4' was stronger.

92
 Pirc for Endgame Lovers

2S...lDf7 26.%tc1c6 6.tiJe4?!

All of a sudden White's queenside pawns are This move may not be especially recom-
very vulnerable. To be more specific. in mended for While, although he can retain
many lines White is having problems to pro- equal chances after the text. Iguess there is
tect the pawn on cS. no choice but to play 6.~f3, when 6 0-0
27.liJd6+ 27J:[cdl cxbS 28..I:ld7+ llxd7 7.h4 cS 8.hS cxd4 9.hxg6 (9.1hd4) 9 dxc3
29.l:.xd7+ <;Pc6 30Jbf7 .illS 31.lLlc3 10.gxf7+ l:.xf7 11 ..ic4 and so on, is an ex-
lLlxc5+. 27••.liJxd6 28.:xd6 b5 29.tLlc3 tremely sharp line normally arising after the
:ae8 3O.lId3? The decisive mistake, move order 5.lLlf3 0-0 6.e5 lOfd7.
which is being immediately exploited by No better is 6.~c4?! c5 7.exd6 0-0 8.dxc5
Black. 30.b4! had to be played. llJxc5 9.dxe7 '~he7+ 1O:W'e2 ne8 II.'ihe7
30..J1xe3! 31.%td7+ Wb8 32.%txg7 llxe7+ 12,,""f2 ~xc3 13.bxc3 ~e4+ 14.~f3
lLlxcS 33.<.ti>g1lOd3 34.%td1 34.11c2. liJxc3:f, Voitsekhovsky-Gipslis, Pardubice
34 ...:1e1+ 35.:xe1 :1xe1+ 36.Wh2 1994.
tLlxb2-+ 37.:1xh7 l:1e3 38.ttJa2 as! 6...c5 7.c3 0-0
White resigned. Black equalizes after 7 ...cxd4 8.cxd4 'ti'a5+
9.'.·d2 ti'xd2+ lO.~xd2 .!Dc6 11.<'Df3lLib6
The following game is by no means an exam- 12.AbS ~fSIH"jf20-0 l4.l:.clllac815.0-0
ple of how White should be handling this po- ~e6, Carretero-Fluvia, Sevilla 2004.
sition in case Black refrains from entering an B.tLlf3
endgame. I just wanted to demonstrate that Borgo- Vancini, Chianciano ch-ITA 1989,
avoiding well-known theoretical lines may was equal after 8.~e3 cxd4 9.cxd4 <'Db6
also backfire if such a deviation is not based lO.lLlf3 tL,d5 Il ..id2 tLoc6 12.loc3 dxe5
on solid positional and tactical grounds. 13.dxe5 ~f5 14.lDxd5 ""d5 lS~e2 lDd4
16.~xd4 '~t'xd4.
8...cxd4 9.cxd4 0c6
o Sahbaz Nurkic Black also has sufficient counterchanccs af-
• Federico Manca ter 9...<'Llb6 1O.~e2 <'Llc6 11.0-0 i.fS 12.luc3
Mafostica 1993 neg 13.d5 lDb4 14.a3 lOC2 lS.g4 ~xg4
16.'''xc2 tt:lxd5 17."e4tLixc3 18.bxc3 l:.xc3
1.e4 d6 2.d4 tOf6 3.tDc3 g6 4.f4 ~g7 19.~d4 aes, Bronstein-Ermenkov, Wijk
5.e5ttJfd7 aan Zee II 1992.

93
Alexander Finkel
10.liIc3
White held an edge after IO.~e3 tLlb6 Il.li:.c3
i.g4? 12.h3 i.xf3 i3.'W'xf3 lle8 14.lldl! d5
15.h4. Moen-Eikselh, Norway tt 1994. Cor-
rect was l l ...liJb4 with unclear play.
10...lDb6
11.d5?!
This move is the source of White's future
problems. However, also after the correct
II...ie3 lDb4 12.~e2 ..if5 IHlcl tC.4d5
14...id2 Black has a very comfortable posi-
tion. Both sides have equal chances after
II...ic2dxe5 J2.dxe5 ~xdl+ 13 ..hdl ~e6.
11..,lbb8 12.h3
White would have to capture on d6 sooner or
later as the pawn on e5 cannot be protected.
12...ie2 iLg4!? (I2 ...dxe5 13.fxe5 iLg4
14.i.f4 llJ8d7 15.~g5 ..ixe2 16.the2
.cn) 13.0-0 (13.e6 fxe6 14.tLlg5 ~xe2
15.'ihe2 fic8 16.'lixe6+ ~xe6+ 17.tLlxe6
..ixc3+ 18.bxc3 lIc8+) 13...~xf3 l4 ..bf3
dxe5 15.t!t'e2l!18d7+.
12...llJ8d713.exd6 exd614.1iW2?!
94
TIle lesser evil was 14...ie211e8 15.0-0 ltJc5
16.lIel ~f5'f
14 ...llJc5 15.~g1 1:[88
Black's pieces are excellently placed, while
the white ones lack coordination.
16.~h2 ~d717.~d2llJca4
Going after pawn d5.
18. 'fi'b3 lbxc3 19.bxc3
Black wins after 19.i.xc3 hc3 20.bxc3
llcg 21. 'fib4 (21.c4 "f6-+ ) 2 1....f6.
19...~f5 20.i.b5?
After this move White may not play c4 in the
future as the bishop gets trapped on b5.
Stronger was 20. lIe 1 l:!xe I 2 LiLxe 1 nc8
22.c4 .e7 23 ...if2f.
20 ...l:[e7 21.llae1 ~e4 22.l:txe4
Equivalent to resignation. II was still possi-
ble to put up some resistance with 22.<'LlgS
.bd5 23.c4 ~c6 24.~c3 d5 25 ..bg7 c;t>xg7
26.~xc6 bxc6 27.nxe7 fixe7 28."c3+
c;t>g829.lIel d4+.
22 ...l:txe4 23.i.d3 lle8 24.c4 llJd7
White resigned.
 CHAPTER 13
Glenn Flear
The Bird's Defence According to Bird
Bird with 5.~c4 h5 and 5.0-0 h5
Bird's Defence is in itself slightly offbeat, but
when Black follows up with an early ...hS the
game takes on a distinctly eccentric look.
1.84 e5 Vet3 ttJc6 3 •.liLb5 tDd4
4.lDxd4 exd4 5.~c4
and now: 5 •.•h5! deserves a diagram.
What can Black be doing? After the initial
shock, your opponent will perhaps under-
stand that with the centre fairly closed and
him having spent a tempo on moving an al-
ready developed piece, Black can start to
pump up his potential on the kingside.
Where did this idea come from?
It seems that pushing the h-pawn early is an
idea as old as the ark. Here's one of the earli-
est examples against Noa ...
o JosefNoa
• Henry Bird
Vienna 1882
1.e4 e5 2.l!Jf3 tDc6 3.~b5 tbd4 4.ti.Jxd4
exd4 5.c3 ses 6.i.c4 h5 7.d3 c6
8.itc2?! b5 9..tb3 ~b6 10.'iIt'e2d6
11.h3 ~f6 12 ..id2 Ct}e7 13.lL\a3 ltJg6
14.().().() a5
with a queenside initiative for Black..
A Iiule history never did anyone any harm.
In my database, the first Bird's Defence
game I have is from 1856 (Staunton). Henry
Bird first played the Bird's in 1866, but it
was only twelve years later that he intro-
95
Glenn Flear

duced the idea of playing 5 ...h5 in (he fol- Three years later Henry Bird refined his
lowing encounter ... move order: 6..,~c5 7,0-0 c6 IL~a4 d6
9.'ilie 1 'Wf6 iO,~h I tDh6 11.f3 h4 12,~c2
~d7 13.cxd4 ~x.d4 14,0.c3 0-0-0. Black-
o Simon Winawer burne-Bird, Belfast 1892, with reasonable
• Henry Bird play for Black.
Paris 1878 Bird beat his distinguished opponent in this
game. and in later years Blackbume himself
1.e4 e5 2.lt:Jf3 o£le6 3.~b5 tZld4 played the Bird's, thaI is. with ...h5 of
4.tbxd4 exd4 5.0-0 hS The first game in course!
my database with 5 ...h5, this time against 7 .~c4 .Q.c58.'iff3
5.0-0. 6.d3 .i.c5 7.h3 c6 8.i.c4 d5
9.exd5 cxd5 1O.~b5+ Wf8 11.i.a4

8.. :ii'e7
Evgeny Najer can be attributed with starting
11...g51! Slightly wild. The more restrained the modem day mini-revival. He varied with
11..,4'te7 12.~el 'iWb6 13.~,b3 transposes 10 the offer of the exchange of queens in
Ringoir-Flear, played 130 years later! Zagrebelny-Najer, Moscow 1995, and soon
12.l%e1 ~e6 13.f4 b5? Very wild! fully equalized: 8, ..'liff6 9.tDd2 d6 10,0-0
14.bb5 "as 15.'o'c6 nea 16.tlxe6! ~g4 I 1.1»'xf6 tLlxf6 12.rIel 0-0 13,h3 ~e6
16.f5 was also possible, 16 ...fxe6 17.~d7 14.Jhe6 fxe6 15,cxd4 ~x.d4 16.0f3 i.b6
l:td8 18.~xe6 ne8
19.f5 and White went 17.e5dxe5 l8.l:he5 :tad8,
on to win, 9.0-0 d610.h3 ~e6 11.o£ld2g5
Optimistic! However Bird seemed to like
Here 's another example of our hero in ac- playing on the flanks!
lion, 12..txe6 fxe6 13.lDb3 94 14."'g3
gxh3 15.....xh3 dxc3 16.bxc3 ~b6
o Max Judd Here While should perhaps have played
• Henry Bird 17.a4, with a slight advantage.
New York 1889

finally to round off developments in the

1.e4 e5 2.~f3 tbc6 3..ib5 (i:d4 19th century. we note that Bird tried out his
4.tDxd4 exd4 S.d3 h5 6.c3 e6 idea in a famous tournament.

96

o Georg Marco
• HenryBird
Hastings 1895
1.e4 e5 Vof3 ltJc6 3.~b5 tLld4
4.lLIxd4 exd4 5.~c4 h5 6.d3 ~c5
7.0"()
7...d6
Losing a tempo as things turned out!
8.f4 c6 9.ts d5 10.exd5 cxd5 11.~b3
f6 12.'i!ff3li'.e7 13.h3 a5 14.a4 'it'f8
15.g4 hxg4 16.hxg4 na617.~f4 g6
and Black had equalized.
In these four game referencesHenry Edward
Bird's opponents tried four different fifth
moves and yet an early ...hS seemed to be a
valid try in each case.
Indeed, although r was originally going to
write about the diagram position above (af-
ter S.~c4 h5), there doesn't seem to be (hat
much difference with 5.0-0 h5 and it almost
invariably transposes.
The timing of ...h5 in the Bird's is a matter of
taste, but the SOS approach is definitely 10
play it on move five and then win plenty of
time on your clock as your opponent won-
ders if you just touched the h-pawn by acci-
dent or noll
The Bird's Defence According to Bird
Here is a game by yours truly to show that
...hS can be quite effective even if in this par-
ticular game I didn't play this flank thrust
quite that early.
o Tanguy Ringoir
• Glenn Flear
chameueree 2008
1.e4 e5 2.tt:lf3 It)c6 3.~b5 tbd4
4.tt:lxd4exd4 5.0-0 ~c5
Bird, Blackburne, Najer and Morozevich
have played 5 ...h5 here. Can you be per-
suaded to add your name to the list?
6.d3 c6 7.~c4 d5 8.exd5 cxd5 9.i.b5+
";"8 10.~e1 tCe7 11.h4
11...'ifb6!?
More to the point could be II. ..h5 immedi-
ately:
- 12.~g5 f6 13.~d2 ~g4 14."cl ncR
15.a3 Wb6 16.~b3 a6 17.~f4 g5 18.~d2
.i.e6, Kosteniuk-Najer, Moscow 1996, and
White was very restricted.
- 12.h3 a5 \3 ..i.f4 J:la6 l4.tt.\d2 llg6
IS.Whl .Q.d6 16.~xd6 'ihd6 17.l2Jfl "'f6.
Nikhilesh-Jirka, Goa 2002, and Black was
fine.
12.i.b3 h5
Belter late than never!
13.h3 a514.a4 "g615.1!ff3 ~g4!
97
Glenn Flear

Even better was 19...~d6 2O.'it'xd5 "hi +

21.We2 ~g3+! 22.Wdl Wxel+! forcing
mate.
20.l:lxe3 dxe3 21.'W'xh5lbh5
So White survives to playa few more moves
even if they are not particularly joyful ones!
22.~xe3 d4 23•.if4 :h1+ 24.h2
:e8+ 25'<i&"d2 :he1 26..te3 dxe3+
27.fxe3 :exe3 28.Wc3 J:l3e2 29.~c4
.tb4
White resigned.

I couldn't resist! So let's look at some of White's attempts

16.hxg4 hxg417.'ti'g3 against 5...h5.
The best chance is l7.Wf4! .td6 18.1Wxd4,
but even here after 18...t;'h5 19.WfJ J:le8
Black has plenty of compensation for his o Evgeny Romanov
piece as While's king will be in for a rough • Pavel Potapov
ride. Moscow 2007
Incidentally, 18.• xd4 is better than ---_ ... ----------
18.• g5 ..... 7 19.f4 gxf3 20.~f2 'i'h2 as 1.84 85 2.lbf3 lbc6 Ub5 lbd4
Black then seems to be winning e.g. 4.lZJxd4 exd4 5.~c4 h5 6.0-0 ~cS
21.~d2 fxg2 22.J:lgl .tf4 23.~f3 .txg5 7.b4!?
24.01xh2 .txc I etc. Feeding a pawn to the Bird's?!
17...lDfS 18.'ti'e5
18.'itc7 is downed by 18...1Wh5!19.1Wxc5+
Wg820.'oPfl 'tfhl+ 21.'iPe2 J:le8+ 22..te3
1hg2 23.¢>dl LDxe3+ 24.fxe3 .f3+
25.Wcl J:lhl and so on.
18...... h519.~1

7...~b6
Declining, in order to avoid White obtaining
a gambit initiative.
However the principled move must be
7....txb4! e.g. 8.c3 .ic5 9..i.b2 "f6 IO.e5
.b6 (lO...1H4 11.g3 favours White)
II.'iWb3 (if II..i.b3, Black should get on
19...lbe3+ with his development: Il...LDe7 12.• f3 0-0
 The Bird's Defence According to Bird

13.... xh5 d3 14.'ti'f3 d6 with a reasonable Best practical try. If White captures the
game) 11...'ii'xb3 12.axb3 and even after the h-pawn then Black's rooks may really come
exchange of queens White probably has into their own.
enough compensation e.g, 12 ... dxc3 18 ..lV..xh4 .lV..c5 19.~g3 .cS!
13.li.Jxc3 &De? with a solid but slightly pas- With some chances of landing a combina-
sive position. (13...~d4?! 14.tLJd5! ~xb2 tion against White's king.
15.~xc7+'lPd816.li.Jxa8~xal17Jbal and 20.c3dxc3
the knight will soon hop to b6. In any case Going all in with 20 ...~xh3 21.glth3 "'xh3
Black's .. ,h5 is virtually useless in this par- 22.li.Jh2 dxc3. looks a little optimistic after
ticular line.) 14.tt:lb5 ~b6 15.d4 a6! and the calm 23,'t!H4!.
Black is fine. 21.'it'xc3lLlg5 2V!)xg5 nxg5 23.d4
8.84 a5 9.bxa5 Blocking the a7-g1 diagonal.
Here 9.b5 has it" points: While gains space 23...h7 24.'4!1
and can develop his bishop with £a3. I prefer 24 .... f3 as the threat against the fl
9...l:txa5 10.d3 d6 11.tl:ld2 ~d7 pawn obliges Black to make some sort of
12.tl:lf3h4t? concession.
Here chasing a pawn isn't quite satisfactory: 24... .txd4+ 25. 'i!i'xd4 lbg3 26.'5
12 ... 1:I:x.a4 13Jha4 ~xa4 14.~b2 c5 Best could be 26.l:tb3! .Ilhxll3 (if 26 ...l:tg6,
15.'ii'b I £c6 16.c3 and again White obtains then 27.f5 .Ilf6 28. "'a7) 2Hlxg3 lhg3
long-term pressure for his investment. 28. 'ti'xd6 which favours the first player.
13.h3 c6 14..i.d2 Black's king is vulnerable and Black's lone
14..ab2 'i'f6 I5.lIb I! looks quite promising rook isn't dangerous.
for White c.g. 15... li.Je7 16.~al lUcS 26.... c727.'1ttf2
17 J:txb6! with excellent play for White. Instead after 27.1:I:fdl Black can save him-
14...l:lshsr? self with 27 ...1:I:h428 .... xd61hd6 29Jhd6
1:I:xe430.1:I:xb7 1:I:xc431.1:I:dxd7 llc2.
27...:g5 28."'e3 1629_:fd1

An original manoeuvre.
15.:b1 li)f6 16.~g5 *'c7
Does White really want to open the g-file? White has consolidated and has the more ac-
17."c1 tive outfit.
Black's position doesn't inspire confidence 29...~d81? 30.~gl l:th4 31.85 d5!
at this point. Not the sort of move you want to face when
17...tl:lh7! short of time!

99
Glenn Flear
32.~xd5?
A crazy move. The natural 32.jj_d3 was
forced e.g. 32...:ag3! 33.'ih7! (33.'iff2
tthxh3 34.exd5 :axg2+! is dangerous for
White) 33...tthxh3 34.~f1 :ag5 35.:axb7
'iWh2+36.~f2 "f4+ 37.'oPgl with a draw.
32 .•.cxd5 33.1:1bc 1 '*e5 34. -.b6+
we8 35.1:Ie11:Ixe4
White has nothing for his piece. White re-
signed.
o Amador Rodriguez
• Walter Arencibia
Cienfuegos 1996
1.e4 e5 Vbf3 lOe6 3.~b5 tDd4
4.lbxd4 exd4 5.~c4 h5 6.d3
Delaying this move is possible: 6.c3 .tc5
7 .cxd4 2.xd4 8.lZlc3c6 9.0.e2 .tb6 IO.'i!Vb3 These endgames aren't really a problem for
fie7 (White has avoided d2-d3 but this
'gain of time' doesn't lead anywhere)
I 1.0-041f6 12.'i!Vg3?(more sensible here is 15,b4 Axb4 16.1:Ibl a5 17.a3
12.e5! '6'xe5 l3 ..bf7+ <,;!;{f8
14.~g6 d5=;
but note that 12.ttJc3'!! could be met by
12 lOg4! with chances for an attack)
l2 h4 13."g5 (if 13.'ifxg7 then 13...l:[g8 20.Ab2 tLlf5 21.1:Ihcl
14Ji'h6 h3! with a strong attack) 13...h3
and Black was clearly on top already,
Shmuter-Najer, St Petersburg 1993.
6 ...~c5 7.ltJd2 e6 8.tDf3 d5 9.exdS
cxd510.~b3
100
The alternative IO..tb5+? Wf8 leaves the
white bishop in danger.
10 .... e7+
Black was also perfectly fine after 10...~e7
11.0·00-0 12.:ae I a5 13.a4 tta6 14.:ae5 g6
IS.h3 f6 16.:aeI tLlf5 in Fogarasi-Potapov,
Budapest 2006.
11.'I'e2 Wxe2+ 12.<;t>xe2 Ci)e7
13.~a4+
Nor does 13Jlel f6 14.wfl wf7 15.c3 dxc3
16.bxc3 ~f5 give White anything.
13...~d7
In middlegames moving the king is often the
right idea keeping the tension. It's then that
White's light-squared bishop often proves to
be the inferior piece to its hlack counterpart:
l3.....tf8!? 14.h3 (14.lZleS?! i.d6!) 14...f6
15.~d2'iPf7 I6..t[heI wouldn't be that clear.
14.~xd7+ ~xd1
Black as his centra) pawns can't be easiIy at-
tacked.
Rodriguez later preferred 17.~b2 ttJc6
18.tDxd4 llhe8+ 19.Wdl with equality.
17...~c5 18.1:Ixb7+ ..t>c6 19.rIb1 f6
Intending c2-c3 competing for space.
21 ...rrhe8+
Perhaps Black can keep some chances of
an edge with 2l...mtb8 22.c3 dxc3
 The Bird's Defence According to Bird

23Jhc3 Wd6 24.llccl a4! fixing the pawn I prefer White after 18.gxh5! as regaining
on a dark square. 22.~f1 r;1o?d623.a4 the pawn is no trivial matter.
Draw. 18 .... d719.i.d2 J:[d8 20.l:tfel
White has a pull due to the fact that Black's
rook on h8 isn't participating, so exchanging
o Art yom Timofeev queens (followed by ...g6 to link rooks)
• Jin Jirka looks normal.
Goa 2002 20 •..'I'g4 21.'tt'xg4 hxg4 22.c411 tt)e7
23.b4 8xb3 24 ..ixb3
1.e4 e5 2.COf3 t[Jc6 3.i.b5 COd4
4.lLlxd4 exd4 5.i.c4 h5 6.d3 .icS
7.tZ:ld2 c6 8.• e2

8...d6?!
Again, just as we saw in Marco-Bird, this
move can lose time as Black's best counter
is often ... d5.1irka decided to play ...<17-d5
in one go a year later: S...lLie7 9.e5 (9.<11f3
d5 gives Black a tempo more than in the
main game) 9 ...d5 IO.exd6 ~xd6 II.tUe4
.ig4 12.f3 .ifS 13..id2 0-0 l4.g4 ~g6,
Stehno-lirka, Luhacovice 2003, with un-
clear play.
9.~f3 CiJe7 10.0-0 d5 11.~b3
Keeping the tension seems a good idea.
11...a5 12.c3 ~g4 13.a3 84 14 ..ia2
<;;>18!?
What else to do with the king?
15.h3 dxe4
IS ... ~Jl.f3 16.... xJ3 "'d6 17..id2 would al-
low White a comfortable edge due to his
bishop pair.
16.hxg4!? exf317.'fi'xf3l1.ld5 18.g5
24 ... g3?1
Despite the damage to White's structure ... a
pawn is a pawn. Instead, Black should be
fine after 24 ...ltJg6 25.i.b4 ~e7, or even
24 ...g6 aiming to link rooks.
2S.fxg3 .id6 26.~t4
White'S pawns are tripled but are there on
the board, and as you'll see Black doesn't
seem to be able to break up the kingside grip.
26 ... c5 27 ..id1 !DIS 28.llb1
Ensuring an advantage.
28 g6 29.J:[xb7 Wg7
29 tLlxg3 is the lesser evil but White is still
better following 30.i.xd6+ llxd6 31.llb8+
<j;g7 3U[xh8 r,pxh8 33.~g4.
30 ..if3 .Q.xf4
It's too late for 30 ...tLlxg3 due to 31..txd6
:xd6 32.llee7 J:[f8 33.~d5 etc.
31.gxf4 tLle3 32.l:tb5 lle8 33.84 l:th4
34.85 lLlc2 35.nebl lC.b4 36.':1 xb4
exb4 37.86 l:txf4 38.a7 nxf3 39.l:tb8
':xb8 40.axb8ti' llxd3 41.'fi'xb4
Black resigned.

101
Glenn Flear

o Alexander Morozevich Here 12...h4 could be thrown in, especiall y if

• Evgeny Najer White has nothing better than l3.h3.
Moscow 1992 13.exd5 cxd514.~b5+ ~f8
Black's slower development and misplaced
One of Najer's earlier efforts. king don't seem to lead to any serious prob-
1.&4 e5 Vof3 lUe6 3.~bS ti.Jd4 lems. In these cases you need to persuade
4.ltJxd4 exd4 5..ie4 yourself that once one has played ...h5, the
Spending a tempo to place the bishop on a rook is already semi -developed on the h-file!
more active square. 15.'fWd2 Wb6 16.:'4 ~e6 17.~a4
5...h5 tUg418.rLel g5
Gaining space on the kingside! Why not, if Played in the spirit of Henry Bird!
White is playing so slowly! Morozevich was 19.1:ld4 -.wd620.g3 h4!
obviously convinced enough to play this Now the point behind 5...h5 becomes clear!
move himself as Black against 2700 opposi- 21.~dl lUeS 22."12
tion - see the next game. Or 22.g4'? closing the wing. and then
Black really has to avoid 5...~c5? 6..ixf7+ 22 ...lZlc6 23.l:ra4 and, although Black's ar-
~xf7 7 .... h5+. tack. is stymied, the resulting position is sti II
6.0-0 ~e5 7.e3 c6 8.cxd4 ~xd4 hard to judge.
9.tDc3 d6?! 22...hxg3 23:'-xg3 :h3
Now the rook is fully developed.
24."g2 g4!?

Not best in my opinion. Morozevich, play-

ing Black a decade later, decided on 9...li::'f6!
against Leko. 25.tue4?
10.d3?! Maybe 25 ..bg4!'? .bg4 26.1:lxg4 l:hh2!
White later improved with 1O.t2:le2! ~b6 2Ht.>xh2! ~xg4+ 28.~gl when White
ll.~b3 "ike7 12.d4 (taking the centre) shouldn't be worse.
12....ig4 (12 ...h4 13.h3 Wxe4 14.•bt7+ 25.... e7 26.tLJg3 nc8 27.bg4?
~f8 I5.~c4 is messy but probably favours Similar to the previous note but in the mean
White) 13.~e3 lDf6 14.lLlc3 0-0 IS.nael, time things have deteriorated for White. The
and White consolidates his central advan- superior 27.l:Ul would keep White in the
tage, Aitbayev-Potapov, Vung Tau 2008. game.
1O...~f6 11..ie3 ~xe3 12.fxe3 d51? 27 ... ~xg4 28.a.xg4 rLxh2 29.rLg8+

102
 The Bird's Defence According to Bird

Alternatives just lose: 29.'ihh2
29.'.tiIxh2lDxg4+ 30.'iPgI l:kl '.
29.Atxg8 30.Wxh2 'li'h4+
30 ...'ti'g5! might be even stronger.
31.'~g1 ltJg4 3Vt:Jf1 llc&
tlixg3+ 34.lDxg3 l:rc2
Black has a clear advantage.
35.d4 llxb2 36.e4 dxe4 37Jlxe4 tLlf6
38.J:te1 ~8 39.1%c7lUdS 40.l:Id7 ltJe3
41.1tJe4 15 4ViJc5 l:Ixa2 43.J:rxb7 a5
44.l:ra7 <it>e845.lDe6 84 46.lL\f4 83
47.d5 tLic4 48.lDg2 lld2 49.d6 82
50.d7+ <:i;e7
White resigned,
tLlf3+; or centre with Black having played the outra-
geous wing thrust ...h5!
After 7.d3 c6 8.iLc4 d5 9.exd5 cxd.S
IO.iLb5+ c;t;>f8 J I.'t!rel. as in Saltaev-Najer.
33. "'g3 Moscow 1995. I like ll...liJe7! when
12.cxd4 .txd4 13.'ti'b4 ~f6(=) 14.~f4 a6
J5..ia4 h4 16.h3 offers Black several play-
able possibilities such as 16...g5. 16...g6,
and 16...b5 17..l1Lc2.te6.
7•..~xd4 8.lLlc3 c6 9.Ac4 tLif6!
1O.lL\e2~b6 11.e5 d5!

o PeterLeko
• Alexander Merozevich
Moscow 2002
... _.- ._._._--
1.e4 e5 2.lbf3 lLlc6 3.~b5 tLid4
4.lbxd4 exd4 5.0'()
Castling into irl?
5...h5
Hexing his muscles, If Black can indeed 12..ib3
play like this it's because his d-pawn cramps The alternative 12.exf6 dxc4 l3.fxg7 ~gR
White's development. so Leko decides to 14Pl4 ~g4 15.... el+ "'e7 16.'fhe7+
eliminate that pawn. <:J:;Jxe717.h3 srs
Ul.tDxh5~d4 should give
6_c3~c5 enough pressure even with a two pawn defi-
cit.
12 ...<1.)98
I think that Black could have reacted more
actively here: 12...LLle4! 13.d4 (after 13.d3
Black competes for space with 13...tLic5
14..tc2 d4) 13... h4! and it's more difficulr
than in the game for White to maintain con-
trol.
13.d4 Ag4 14.'3 ~e6 15.~c2
ECO judges White to be slightly better. Cer-
tainly he has more space and White's
right-side majority could prove to be a hand-
ful, but the game continuation wasn't that
7.cxd4 convincing.
It seems natural for White to play for an open 1S.•.lLle7 16.~gS ~d7 17.be7

103
Glenn Flear
Not wishing the knight to install itself on f5.
17..:ifxe7 18.1rd2 0-0-0 19.~h1 ~b8
20.'4 ~g4 21.lbg1 f6 22.l:tae1
Khalifrnan prefers White here, but again I'm
not buying it. Was he influenced by the result
or the fundamentals of the position?
22...txeS 23.dxe5
Otherwise 23.fxe5?! tldf8 would instead
suit Black. The d-pawn is then likely to re-
main a long-term weakness.
23..Jlt'cS 24.a3 "it'd4 25.'ii'c1l:tde8
Or here 25...c5!?26.f5 c4 would be unclear.
26..ig6 l:te6 27.~f7 l:te7 28.e6 'ttf6
29.'5 ~c7
Why not 29 ...ild4! 30.b4 ~c3, which again
looks highly unclear. Black's minor pieces
being more influential than White's.
30...wc3 l:I.h631.~g6 "xc3 32.bxc3
32...h4?!
Better is 32...h5! 33.rle3 (or 33Jk I .l:hg6!
34.fxg6 ~xe6 with enough for the ex-
104
change) 33 ...~b6 34J:td3 (34.l:le5 ~c7
3S.rleel ~a5=) 34 ...~c5 35.h3 ~xf5
36 ..bf5 g6.
33.c4! h3?!
Only around here does White finally obtain
the advantage.
With 33 ...dxc4! 34.rle4 ~h5 35JXxh4 (nor
does 35..bh5 rlxh5 36.l1xc4 .i.d6 37.a4
rt;c7 look that clear) 35 ...~}lg6 36.:xh6
gxh6 37.fxg6 ~e5 38.:f7l:lxe6 39.g7 ~xg7
40.rlxg7 rle3, Black has a likely draw.
34.g3 .i.d6 35.cxd5 cxd5 36.lUf3
~xf3+
Now 36 ...l:h.g6 37.fxg6 rlxe6 38.:xe6
~xe6 39.4~d4 would be strongly favourable
for White; and for that matter 36...~xa3
37.lUe5 .i.h5 38 ...txh5 l:l.xh539 ..Eldl offers
White a clear advantage.
37.l:txf3 rlh8 38.g4 l:[c7 39.g5! l:lc2
4O.l:tg3~xg3 41.hxg3
The central pawns are impossible to stop.
41 ...l:tc3 42.f6 gxf6 43.gxf6 .Elxg3
44.e7 rlxg6 45.f7 ~gg8 46.e8~+
l:txe8 47.l:txe8+ 1-0
Conclusion: I don't see anything dramatic
for White after either 5.0-0 h5 or S.~c4 hS.
Indeed against the latter of these (5.~c4)
there is a possibility (hat 5...h5 is Black's
best move. Two other points come (0 mind:
my computer is clueless about judging the
resuuing positions and 19th century think-
ing can at times be relevant today.
 CHAPTER 14
Arthur Kogan
The Mouse Sleep Slav Gambit
The 'crazy' 5 ...e5!?
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.tDc3 01.'0f6 4.t?if3 dxc4
5.a4 e5!?
The diagrammed position features the
Mouse Sleep Slav gambit! I played this a
few months ago in an online ICC blitz game.
From time to time I play 2 or 3 games before
going to sleep. To be honest I was planning
to try the fairly popular (and solid) line start-
ing with S e6, but being a bit sleepy I had a
mouse slip or as I usually call it: a mouse
sleep! ©
Surprisingly, the game went quite well for
me, and I managed to obtain a nice attack. So
I was curious to see if this gambit had been
played before in a normal game. Interest-
ingly, I found that Morozevich had already
tried it against Bacrot in a rapid game in
Cannes 200 I. I also discovered that the orig-
inal Canadian (ex-Russian) master Khassa-
nov plays this gambit quite regularly. As it is
played mainly by Russians, maybe this gam-
bit has a name in Russia. Do mail us if you
know!
Anyway, since 1saw that Moro lost his game
in a convincing way. I was not sure whether
5 ...e5 is playable. That is until recently,
when I saw an attractive game between two
strong Russian women players (no 'chess
macho' views here! As an experienced
women trainer I know that women often play
much more aggressively and more cre-
atively than men).
105
Arthur Kogan
o Alina Kasblinskaya
• Valentina Solovjova
St Petersburg 2009
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.~c3 ~f6 4.tt.:Jf3
dxc4 5.84 eSt?
And here we go! A real 50S style idea that
will surely surprise your opponent! In fact
Black follows my Olalachess principle of
Anti-Gambit play: rather than defending your
extra pawn and suffer for it, it is better to return
it to quickly finish development. Make your
pieces smile and be first to get the initiative!
6.tDxe5
Other moves will not concern Black, for ex-
ample:
- 6.dxe5 ~xdl+ 7.~xdl tbg4 8.~ell2:\a6!
and knight will come to b4 with very annoy-
ing pressure: 9.~f4 (9.h3? lbb4!-+)
9...ttJb4IOJlcl f6! and Black is at least OK!
- 6.e3 exd4 7.lQxd4 (7.exd4 ~e6) 7 ....i.d6
8.~x.c4 ..-c7! with an initiative for Black,
for example: 9.h3 0-0 10.0-0 :d8.
6 :ib4
6 ~e6 is worse because of 7.e4!.
7.lbxC4
A natural move. but it gives Black a serious
advantage in development for the pawn.
- 7.f3 is a typical idea 10 prepare e4, but is
also risky. since Black is better developed. J
would suggest 7...lQdS! (7 ...0-0 8.e4 tDbd7
9.~xc4 tbxc4) 8.Wd2 Already the only
106
move! (8 ..id2? .'h4+ 9.g3 .xd4=t; 8 .... c2?
.h4+ 9.g3 'ir'xd4-+) 8 ...b5 (8...fS!?) 9.e4
li::,c7 1O.~e2 0-0 (lO ...f6 II.~g4 ~e6 12.d5
lLlc5 13.dxc6 .ixg4 14.1!hd8+ ~xd8
15.axb5 ttJb3 16.l1a4! seems too dangerous
for Black) with a very sharp position and mu-
tual chances, for example: 11.0-0 f6 I Vl'lg4
.bg4 13.fxg4 ~e6! 14.axb5 cxb5 IS.:dl
~616."e3 tl)c617.~5 ~7 18.... f2 as.
- 7.~g5 .ie6 8.e4 lObd7 9.liJxc4 h6!
10 ..txf6 (lO ..ih4 g5 11.~g3 ~xe4=t)
10 ...0.xf6 11.f3 'W'e7! followed by castling
queens ide or ...:d8 and White is in big dan-
ger on the dark squares: e.g. 12.i.e20-0-0t
l3.0-0? I1xd4-+.
For the main line 7 .e3 see the next two games.
7...~e6
Here 7 ...0-0 8.e3 c5! is also possible.
8.e3 cSI
9..ie2
Other tries also offer Black compensation:
- 9.dxc5 'it'xdl+ 10.Wxdl 0-0 l1.tbd6?!
~xc5 IVl'lxb7 i.b4 and White's knight on
b7 is in trouble.
- 9.tQe5 0-0 1O.i.e2 cxd4 Il.exd4 lLlc6
12.q;,xc6 bxc6 13.0-0 i.d6 or 13.. J~b8 pro-
vides very decent compensation for a small
(well-controlled) pawn.
9 ...ttJc6 10.dxc5
In principle. being a pawn up. White is try-
ing to exchange queens. However, Black
 The Mouse Sleep Slav Gambit

keeps a very active position! After W.O-O'!! and more smiling pieces; that's worth at
cxd4 II.exd4 lDxd4 it is White who has to least a pawn!
think about equalizing. 14.~b2lVb4
1O...1i'xd1 + 11. <itt>xd1~xc5 Not 14...0-0 15.f3!.
Maybe even more accurate is 11...0-0-0+ 15.~d2?!
12.'~c2 (I2.<itt>el ~xc4 13.~xc4 tbe4+) If is not easy to defend well, when you have
12...~fS+ (12 ...~xc5 13.b3 tt)b4+ '4.~b2 been surprised as of move 5! ©
tbd3+ 15.~xd31Ixd3) 13.Wb3 ~xc5 14.f3 The best defence was 15.f3! .Q.d3!
~e6 when White is in danger. (15 ... lDd3+? 16 ..ixd3 ~xd3 17.e4±)
12.b3 16.:dl! 0-0 (l6 ...Wc7 l7.iLxd3! ttJlld3+
125~el with the idea of f3 and ~f2 is a ll:!.o:i>blwith .ia3, and White will finish her
better try, but Black still keeps good com- development) 17 ..ixd3 (17.e4 ~xe2
pensation after 12...0-0-0 (J 2...tDb4 13.<tPfj) l8.llxd8 :xd8 19.1Dxe2 lC.d3+ 20.~bl -
13.f3 tDb4 14.Wf2 tLld3+ 15..bd3 llxd3 20.~a2 ~b4+ repeals - 20 ... ttJel!)
16.tt:le5lldd8 (but not 16...lld6l7.b4! .txb4 l7...ttJxd3+ 18.~bl (I8.c.t)c2tLlb4+ 19.~bl
18.tDb5±). :;r;dl 20.tDxdl :d8) l8...lDf2 19..l:l.xd8
:xd8 20 ..ia3! and eliminating Black's
threats White's extra pawn provides a tangi-
ble advantage.
15....id3!

12 ... lld8+!?
Another surprise! It seems that this was
Black's main strategy in this game!
My olala choice (the basis of Olalachess is
Harmony - make all your pieces smile!) Being surprised on almost every move.
would be 12...0-0-0+1. So now llh8 will also White has spent a lot of time on the dock.
smile soon: 13.~c2 (13.i.d2'? .tb4+) and finally she lost control...
13... lDb4+ 14.~b2 <iJg4 (l4 ... ti)d3+ 16.rtad1??
15..i.xd3 llxd3 16.liJe5 :d6) l5.tDe4 16..ie I was the best chance: 16... 0-0 when
(lS ..txg4 .txg4 l6.lDe5 ~h5) l5 ...~e7 Black has nice compensation, but we arc still
16.f3 (16.h3 f5) 16.. .f5!. a long way from a win.
13.Wc2 ~f5+?1 16 ... ~xe2 17.tUxe2 tOd3+ 18.~c2
Stronger is 13 ... 0.b4+ 14.<;f<b2 0.g4 tLlxf2-+ 19J1hf1 tUxd1 20.J:lxd1 tDe4
(I4 ...tLld3+ 15..bd3llxd3) 15..bg4 .lhg4 21.lDc3 lLixd2 22.tUxd2 ~xe3
16.0 ~e6 and Black has better development White resigned.

107
Arthur Kogan

o Jean Hebert this rare kind of fork! Something that often

• Marat Khassanov happens when you are confronted with a
Montreal 2004 SOS. Luckily for White. the position is still
unclear!
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.liJc3 lbf6 4.lbf3 10.'itb3!
dxc4 5.84 eSI? 6.ti)xe5 ~b4 7.e3 Another critical test for the gambit!
White intends to win the pawn without ne- lO.lile5 .xg2 11..f3 .xf3 12.ci.!xf3 0-0
glecting his development. 13.~d2 a5 (I would suggest the improvement
13... tt::la6!?to obtain a harmonious game with
...nc8 .... J:ld8 and the ...c5 break! After
14.tLle5 l:lfe8 with ...~d6, ...cS and ...~b4
ideas the position favours Black) 14.lile5
lilbd7 15.tDd3 tDb6! and Black was prefera-
ble in Grerneda-Chavez, Elista Olympiad
1998. According to the MegaBase this is the
first game in history with 5oo.e5. However. I
thought that calling it the Chavez Variation
might be too controversial! ©
10...... xg2
There is no alternative but to plunge in. Not
7...~e6! lOoo.a5? 11.0-0+-, nor IO... ~xc3+?
This is correct, after the natural 700.c5?!. ILbxc3'tWxg212.tGd6+!+-.
8.~xc4 0-0 9.0-0 leaves White a pawn up 11."a'xb4!
with pressure on n to boot. Wow, a surprising counterattack! Maybe
8.~xc4 hc4 9.iOxc4 'tlVd51 Hebert didn't miss 9oo.~d5 after all?'
11 •••'fYxh1 + 12. '<t>e2

So Black will win back a nice. tasty pawn on 12•..c5?!

g2! If you see how natural White's moves Not the best move in my opinion. Also unsat-
were after Soo.eSthan perhaps it does not sur- isfactory is 12...b6?! 13.~d6+<;t;>f8 14.a5!.
prise you to hear that this occurred in more I would suggest 12oo.~bd7! 13.~d6+
than one game! I suspect that in this game (J3.'i!t'xb7? 0-0+) 13...<ot.>f8!(not 13...'iPc7
White. who is a strong 1M, simply missed 14.~xb7+).

108
 The Mouse Sleep Slav Gambit

.xeS 16.dxc5 IUB 17.1ae5+ <3;>e6

1S.ttJd3lt:\c619.b4 :ad8 2O.~b2

The only problem fur big fighters is that White

can probably force a draw with 14.ltb3. After
14...~7! IS.li)f5+ with a repetition (but nOI
15.lbd7? .cJ.hf8+).1ncase Black wants to play And in this ending White has the slightly
he can try the risky 14...lC.d5. However, after better chances. In the end a draw was agreed.
15.'i'xb7 (l5.e4 'i'xh2! 16.... x.b7 WhS+) 20 ...:f7 21.lt:\bS lUeS 22.lt:\d4+ lOxd4+
15..Jtd8 ] 6.e4! 'ft'xh2! 17.exd5 '*'
18.dxc6 .xd4 19.cxd7 .cJ.xd720...-c8+ .:Id8
"d6 23.~xd4 95 24.b5 Cf::,c725.l:tc1 ~f5
26.l:tc4 l:te7 27 .~c3 l:te4 28..ctxe4
21.1tc7 %l.d722~c8+the players still have to ~xe4 29.b6 axb6 30.cxb6 tOe6 31.f3+
repeat moves. ~d5 32.~d2 wc4 33.lDe5+ WdS
Some alternatives for 14.... b3: 34.lDd3 ~c4 3S.11Je5+~d5 Draw.
- 14.lDxb7+? ~g8=t and on h7 Black's king
is much safer than White's, and his h8-rook
will smile too! o Viktor Kortchnoi
- 14.... xb? l:tb8 15.W'xa7 ,*,x.h2 attacks the • Marat Khassanov
knight. As Black is ready (0 go to h5 with Montreal 2004
check if necessary this favours Black who
has at least a draw in his pocket. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.lDc3 <1.;'6 4.tDf3
- 14.e4!? ,*,xh2 IS.'iWxb7 .:Ib8 16.'iWxc6 dxc4 5.a4 eSt? 6.lt:\xeS ~b4 7.e3
"h5+ 17.'Jild3 (17.f3 'W'h2+ 18.wd3 'ifh3 ~e6!
19.~e2 'itg2+ 20.9;e3 ffgl+ repeats)
17...'itf3+ (17 ...wg8!? with the idea of ...h6
and ...Wh7) 18..i.e3 hS! and the position will
be very complicated. Both sides have their
chances. White surely has some nice com-
pensation for the exchange, but with your su-
perior SOS preparation your opponent will
probably be out of time by now, right? ©
13JWxc5
13.tDd6+! wd7 (l3 ...wf8 14.• c4+-)
14.dxc5± is more dangerous for Black.
13..:tlt'c6 14)bd6+ ~d7 15.lbxf7

109
Arthur Kogan

8.~e2! White was better in Bacrot-Morozevich,

This is not so natural. but I consider it the Cannes rapid 200 I.
best option to fight for an advantage, al- 9.0-0
though I am sure that not many of your oppo- Black is OK following 9.i.f3!? cxd4!
nents will find it. 1O.exd4 (lO .... xd4 'W'e7! with nice compen-
Instead 8.lOxc4 c5! will transpose to our sation; 1O.i.xb7? .c7! II..~xaR dxc3
game Kashlinskaya-Solovjova from above. 12.0-0.xe5+) lO...lOd5 11.0-00-0.
Worse is 8 ...lDe41! 9.i.d2 (9.... c2!?±)
9...~xd2 10.lOxd2 0-0 I J.i.e2 c5 12.d)(c5
~d7 l3.tbde4 rs 14.... d4!as 15.~c4! and
White was better in Voskanyan-Khassanov,
Montreal 2004. Our gambit lover still man-
aged to draw though.
Against other moves Black should use simi-
lar ideas as in the game, trying to open the
centre with ...c5 to use his activity and devel-
opment advantage. For example 8..id2!?
0-0 9.0xc4 (9..bc4 .bc4 lO.tDxc4~xc3=
Il..bc3 "dS!) 9...c5! lO.dxc5 We7!
11.~e2 .tl:d8!.
8...c5! 9...tt:lc61 10.~xc4 hc4 11.li)xc4
Black has to play dynamically [0 compen- cxd412.exd40-0
sate for the pawn! Here we have arrived at a critical position.
8 .....'Lle4?!was Moro's logical choice. but I White has managed to finish his develop-
consider it dubious: 9..id2 (9 .... c2 is also ment and to keep the pawn. However, Black
good for White) 9 ...tDd6 (or 9 ....bc3 remains acti ve and remember that the extra
IO..bc3 tM6 Il.O-O±) pawn is a weakness on d4 especially if it
gets blocked. Black has very good practical
compensation, and if (at least for the mo-
ment!) this is the worst you can get from our
Mouse Sleep Slav Gambit - then why not
give it a try?

1O...'Lle4! lVxe4 Il..bb4 c5 12.~c3 tDc6

13.tOxc6 bxc6 14.i.f3 .id5 15.i.xe4 .be4
16.... g4 "'d5 17.dxc5 h5 18.... xg7 0·0·0
19.• d4 .ixg2 20.'i!rxdS .ixdS 21..tl:gl and

110
 The Mouse Sleep Slav Gambit

13.d5!?
l3.~e3 was tried by two strong GMs in S1.
Petersburg 2004:
Now l3...llJa5!? l4.lDxa5 .xa5 l5.i!H3
l:lfd8 16.1hb7 l:lab8 17 .• f3 .bc3 18.bxc3
.xc3 19.1:lfcIwould still keep decent win-
ning chances for White. Interesting are
13...l:le8!? and 13...lod5!?
In practice Black has only tried 13...:c8
14.• b3

- 17.f4? tzla5! (I7 ...tzle7 18.b3) I8.h3

(18.1i')(a5 1i'xa5 J9.llJxa5 lOxe3+)
18...lOxe3 19.1Oxe31i'xc3 2O.bxc31bc3':f.
- 17.lOe5 tlJclle5 18.Wxc7 Ilxc7 19.dxe5
tzlxe3 20.fxe3 lle8 with equal chances.
- 17.g3 t1:Je718.b3 1i'c6!? and Black has
good counterchances on the light squares. In
fact 18..JUd8 and 18...tbf6!?aredecenttoo.
13•.•tLla5!
Correct, as l3 ...tlJe7 is bad in view of 14.d6
- 14...~xc3 is not enough if White plays ac- lOf5 15.~f4±.
curately: 15.bxc3 1i'd5 16.:fcl tDg4 14.tlJe3
17.1i'b5 tDe7 18.lDd2 'tfe6 (18.... d6 could The only way for White to try to keep his
be an improvement: 19.tUf3 tUxe3 20.fxe3 extra pawn.
tDd5 21.1i'xb7 l:lb8 - 21.....We6- 22.• xa7 After 14.tUxa5 Wxa5 followed by ...lld8,
....g6! with ...l:lb2 coming! Black seems 10 Black will easily win back the pawn with
have decent chances) 19.1tJfl f5 20.'ihb7 possibilities to fight for more than a draw.
lDd5 21.~2 llbS 22.llel 'ifd6 23."xa7 14...ltc8 15.11d2
llfc8 24.c4 llxc4 25.lle6! .d8 26.~g5!+-,
Riazantsev-Solovjov, St Petersburg 2004.
- 14...ltJg4!? 15.l:ladl .bc3 16."!hc3. Now
the game went 16...'''d5 17.b3 llcd8 l8.f3
tzlf6 19.~f2 't!t'g5 20.'t!t'd2 -..h5 21.llfel
tzld.522.li::le5tDcb4 (it is hard to improve
White's position. since his extra pawn
moves nowhere) 23.l:le4 1I'f5 24.ltJc4 lOc6
25.~g3 h6 26.~f21i'g6 27.llg41i'f5 28J~e4
.g6 29.lldel .g5 And probably tired of
trying. White agreed to a draw after 30.lldl
1i'g6 draw. Alekseev- Yevseev,St Petersburg
2004. Instead Black has 16.... c7 as another
good option 15..... d7

111
Arthur Kogan

I would suggest 15... Wb6, when Black eas- (24.trxh7 nb8) 24 ...tt'xb5 25.axb5 lUd4.
ily mobilizes his pieces, with nice play for 24.~f4 ti:lc6 25.1fc3
the pawn. It is hard for White to keep his
pawn and coordinate his misplaced pieces.
15...tteS followed by .. .'~j'd7 is also worth
considering. After the text there is a concrete
opportunity.
16.:'c1
After 16.li)e4! .i.xd2 (I6 ... :t:lxd5?
17..ixb4+-) 17.lt.)xf6+ gxf618.Wxd2lUb3
19.... b4 0)(al 20.tt"a I White has nice com-
pensation for the exchange.
16..JUd8 17.ttJe4 lDxd5 18.tlJxd5
ttxc1 19.~xc1 1!hd5 20.lDf6+ gxf6
21 .... g4+ 'li>h8 22 .... xb4
After a forcing sequence Kortchnoi has in- 25 ... lL!e5
t1icted some structural damage. Khassanov With 2S .. .tDd4! Black could have reaped the
still has active piece play though. efforts of his courageous opening play. After
22..Jlg8 26.l:!el q)f3+ 27.WfllDxh2+ 28.'iPgI ~f3+
Black also has counrerplay after 22 ...lUc4 Black has a draw, but probably not more.
23.b3 (23.'a'e7Wg7) 23 ...l:!g8 24.0 li)e5 26.iLxe5 fxeS 27.J::!.c1
25.11c3 h5. In this ending with only heavy pieces While
23.g3 is slightly better. Kortchnoi won on move 56.
23.f3.
23..J~b8 I hope you enjoyed this article, and that you
Equality arises after 23 .../tJc6! 24.1i'b5 will find the courage to try this SOS weapon!

112
 CHAPTER 15
Jeroen Bosch
Dutch: Preparing the Staunton Gambit
1.d4 f5 2.f3!?
o Pascal Vandevoort
• Marco Santo Roman
Paris 2003
1.d4 15 2.13!1
In the King' sPawn Openings the Sicilian De-
fence boasts an excellent reputation. Indeed.
the Sicilian is solely responsible for the statis-
tical superiority of l.d4 over I,c4, and the no-
menclature is particularly inaccurate here:
surely the Sicilian is a Counter-Attack and
not a Defence? Its logical counterpart in the
Queen's Pawn Openings is the Dutch De-
fence. Curiously, the reputation of the Dutch
cannot hold a candle to the Sicilian. while its
strategical objective (controlling the central
square next to the pawn that has just been ad-
vanced) is essentially the same. This may
seem unreasonable. but of course a case can
be made for arguing that f7 is a critical weak-
ness in the initial position and that therefore
fI- f5 in the opening can never be correct - es-
pecially not when played on the first move.
However that may be, the consequence is that
lOISof people go berserk when faced with the
Dutch. Thus, lines like 2.g4. 2.h3, 2.e4 are not
really frowned upon, while such moves as
2 ..Q.g5 (developing a bishop into space at-
tacking nothing) and 2.tcc3 (in front of the
c-pawn) are completely respectable. I love
playing the Dutch as Black (perhaps partly
for the same reason as Dimitri Reinderman -
113
Jeroen Bosch
see SOS- 11) and yet, I had never seen (let
alone taken seriously) the move that is the
subject of this article: 2.1'3.
Now Iam sure that most readers will forgive me
this lack of erudition, and some will undoubt-
edly feel that it is even laudatory. And, yet, if
you think about it briefly is 2.f3 really that stu-
pid? Yes, it lakes away the square of the knight,
but with J .. .f5 Black has indicated that square
e4 is central to his whole opening strategy.
Moreover, by analogy to the Sicilian 2.1'3 is
what Alapin's 2.c3 is against the Sicilian, isn't
it? Coming back to the Dutch Defence and the
ways in which it is met: 2.e4 - the Staunton
Gambit - is perhaps theoretically not the most
dangerous line for Black, but it is popular on an
amateur level, and it is always given a fair
amount of space in all repertoire books on the
Dutch. One of the main lines in the Staunton
Gambit runs 2 ...fxe4 3.0.c3 lLlf64.f3
So, why not 2.1'3to prepare a kind of Staun-
ton Gambit?
I own quite a few books on the Dutch, and
yer J never saw the move 2.1'3 mentioned-
until quite recently that is. In Gambit's 2009
publication Win with the Stonewall Dutch by
Sverre Johnsen and Ivar Bern (and a contri-
bution by Simen Agdestein) the authors
mention 2.0 as an alternative move order
weapon to reach the Staunton Gambit, add-
ing that it contains some independent points
as well. Now, these authors deserve credit
114
for having the guts to mention such an ugly
move, and they deserve praise for making
these points (l think for the first time). In this
article 1 will augment their argument and in-
deed extend it - the Norwegian authors were
of course unable to devote a 101 of space on
2.1'3 in a full-bodied work on the Stonewall.
2..,lbf6
The most natural reply and perhaps the move
you will most often encounter in practice
when you decide to take up this SOS. In-
deed, now 3.e4 fxe4 4.ttic3 is an immediate
transposition to the Staunton Gambit - and
going back to standard theory will certainly
appeal to your SOS-shocked opponent. Es-
pecially, since the Staunton is no longer the
frightful weapon it was in the 19th and early
20th century. However, as we will see White
has anomer, far stronger, option.
Of course there are plenty of other moves
that we should investigate after 2.1'3. Some
of them will lead to superior versions of the
Staunton Gambit - for White that is, others
will lead to obscure and little-investigated
positions. All of them fun to play:
• 2...c6 does nothing to prevent White's
plan, or does it? After 3.e4 fxe4 White can-
not take back on e4 because of the check on
h4. So, there is a point behind 2...e6, but we
can be more clever still by turning 3.e4 into a
real sacrifice.
Let us first consider 4.tlJc3
 Dutch: Preparing the Staunton Gambit

In most lines White is now much better off this is the real point of 2 ... e6. I am not sure
than in a regular Staunton Gambit. A few ex- that White has sufficient compensation here.
amples:
After 4: ..exf3 5.lDxf3 White obtains danger-
ous compensation:
- 5...~b4 6.~d3liJf6 7.~g5 0-08.0-0 .bc3
9.bxc3 "'e8 1O.... d2!? b6?! II.ttJe5 d6
12.~xf6 gxf6 (12 ...ttxf6 13..1:lxf6 gxf6
14.ttfl) 13.'iWh6! We7 14.11f3 dxe5
15.11g3+ and Black resigned, as l5...'tt>h8
16..ixh7 is fatal, in Rivera-Esposito, Fuerte-
ventura 1992.
- s...tDf6 6.~d3 liJc6 7.0-0 ~d6 (7...~e7)
!\.~g5 0-0 9.1tel h6?! JO..ixf6 Ihf6
II.~e4 gave White superior chances in
Schmitt-Kuhn, Giessen 1991. This example So, if White wants to avoid 4.lOC3 .i.b4 he
illustrates the type of chances that White has may consider 4_lDd2!?
when Black accepts the pawn.
Returning the pawn with 4...e3 also docs
not solve Black's problems. 5 ..txe3 and
now:
- 5...d5 6..td3 (6.f4!? is also good) 6 ...c5
7.dxc5 ~7 8 ..ib5 tiJe7 9.~g5 (9.f4! rufS
JO.~f2 is clearly better for White) 9...h6
iO..ie3 tUc6 ll.f4 "'f6 12..id3 lUxc5
l3.1!rh5+ 'iPd8. While White has missed
some opportunities to keep it simple, he
could now still have played 14.0-0-0 with
a dangerous attack. Instead he went
l4 ..ixc5? .tll.c515.lDge2.id716.0-0-0llc8
1Ht.>bl tjje7 l8.tthfl 'iPc7 19..tb5 Now, White will obtain good compensation
(19.tDe4! dxe4 20.1hc5+ <.to>d8 21.~a5+ b6 for the pawn after 4...ellf3 5.lDgxf3 Qjf6
22.1!ha7 exd3 23.llxd3 with compensation) 6 ..id3 §J_e7 (old practice saw 6...c5 7.0-0
19....bb5 20.li)xb5+ «PbS and the famous cxd4 8.lDg5!? d5 9..i.xh7 which favoured
author on pawn structures won in Vilardebo White in Denker-Dake, Syracuse 1934)
Picurena-Krnoch, Prague 1931. 7.0-0. While 4...tDf6 5.fxe4 is just better for
- 5 ...tDf6 6 ..i.d3 .i.e7 (6 ...liJc6; 6 ....tb4; White. Of course Black can try returning the
6...d5?! 7.f4) 7:.d2 b6 8.c1)h3 .i.a6 9.0-0-0 pawn with 4...e3 when 5.liJc4 tDf6 6 ..he3
.ixd3 10.lWxd3 tDc6 Il.tDf4 tDb4 12."e2 ~c6 leads to interesting play .
0-0 l3.~bl .c8 14.a3 liJbd5 IS.tDcxd5 4 ...tjjc6!? is perhaps the critical reply. When
exd5 16.g4 and White obtained a strong at- rather than 5.li)xe4 tDf6 I would prefer 5.c3
tack in Kotov-Poliak, Moscow vs Ukraine exf3 6.c!tlgxf3 lDf6 7 ..id3 i.e7 8.0-0 0-0,
1937. now 9.~1e4 tt:lxe4 lO.he4 d5 II..ic2 e5
Best after 4.lDc3 is 4 .._.i.b4! and if you like equalizes, but any reasonable queen move

115
Jeroen Bosch
(9.ti'c2, 9.• e2, 9.'ife I) provides compensa-
tion for the pawn.
• With 2 ...d6 Black makes no effort to pre-
vent e4. so While should just go ahead and
play it: 3.e4
g • .t~~.t~R
11 1 11
While has achieved his aim, and Black is
suffering:
- 3...tUf6 4.W (4-'DC3) 4...fxe4 5.fxe4
.i.g4 (after 5...e5 White may consider the
pawn sacrifice 6.lDf3 exd4 7.0-0!? ~',c6
8.c3) 6.~e2! ~xe2 7.ti'xe2 tDc6 8.tDf3 e5
9.d5 lDd4 (otherwise White is simply much
better) IO.lDxd4 exd4 K.Miiller-Hjonh, Bad
Zwesten 1999. And now 11."b5+ looks
good;
- 3 ...fxe4 4.fxe4 eS S.lt:Jf3 exd4 6.'ii'xd4
(6 ..i.c4!?) 6 ...lt:Jc6 7 ..i.b5 ~d7 8 ...Ift.xc6.hc6
9.tZlc3 tDf6 IO.~g5 ~e7 11.0-0-00-0 12.e5
and White's chances are to be preferred.
Toth-Dovzik, Sarospatak 2000;
- 3...e5 4.tDc3 (the easiest way to achieve
an advantage is 4.dxe5 fxe4 5.lDc3!. while
5.~e3 exf3 6.ll)xf3 llIc6 7 .~c4 was also
good for White in Larsen-Christiansen, Co-
penhagen 2007) 4 ...c6 5 ..tc4 b5 6.~b3 b4
7.tDce2 ~f6 8.h3 ~e7 9.'ii'd2 as IO.exf5
~xf5 II.lDg3 "'d7 12.dxe5 dxe5 13.tDxf5
"'xf5 14.lDe2 with an obvious advantage in
Gromovs-Corvi, Campobasso 2006.
• 2 ...c5 3.d511Jf6 4.tOc3
Now we have transposed into the so-called
116
Dutch Benoni, or the Clarendon Court De-
fence as it was dubbed by English GM J ona-
than Levitt. According to Jaan Ehl vest l.d4
cS 2.d5 f5 may certainly be met by 3.tOc3
ti.:Jf6 4.f3!? as in Izoria-Eblvest, Batumi
2002. Ehlvest wrote an article on l.d4 c5
2.d5 f5 in SOS Volume 4 (pp. 41-48).
In the afore-mentioned game Izoria-Ehlvest
White had a huge positional advantage after
4 ...g6?! 5.e4 d6?! (5 ...fxe4 6.fxe4 d6 was
better. In the game White is allowed to take
on f5) 6.~b5+ ~d7 7.exf5 gxf5 8.tOh3 and
Black is clearly suffering positionally.
Instead. 4 ...e5 5.e4 fxe4 (5 .. .f4 6.g3± or
6.lLlh3 ti.:Jh5 7.d6 .h4+ 8.ti.:Jf2 tOc6 9.g3!
"f6 IO.g4.Ehlvest-J.WilIiams. Las Vegas
2003) 6.fxe4 a6 7.ti.:Jf3 d6 8.a4 and with
square e6 still weak Ehlvest prefers White.
Ehlvest felt that Black ought to try 4 ...e6
5.dxe6 d5!? True, after 4 ... e6, 5 ..i.g5 can be
met by 5 ...h6, but 5.e4 looks natural and
good. Now 5 ...~d6?! 6.lfJb5 ~c7 7.tOxc7+
thc7 8.d61tb6 9.e5 ct:ld5 JO.c4lOb4 I l.f4
was much better for White in Kaputtze-
WindPower, Internet 2006.
• 2 ...d5 is logical - Black increases his
control over e4 - and endorsed by Bern and
Johnsen in their Stonewall book. Mind you,
players of the lIyin-Zhenevsky or the lenin-
grad will not be so eager to create a big hole
on c5.

Now it is important to realize that 3.e4 fxe4
4.fxe4 dxe4 5.~3 (5.~c4llJf6 6.c3'!! takes
'advantage' of our 2.f3 move order, but
Black has the better game after 6...e5!
7.'ii'b3 ~d6 Meessen-Froeyman. Antwerp
2000) S...llJf6 merely transposes 10 the
Staunton Gambit.
I don't want to keep the following spectacu-
lar grandmaster draw from you: 6.~g5 ~fS
7 ..tc4ltJc6 8.liJge2 e6 9.0-0 llJa5 10.i.d5!?
'fi'd7 II.l:txf5! cxf5 12..txf6 gxf6 I 3.<7.lf4h5
14.i.e6'tWd6 l5.g3l:ld8 l6.~cd5 c6
17.'ihh5+! lhh5 18.~xf6+ rj;e7 19.1iJg8+
\12-\12, Predojevic-Sedlak.
Nova Gorica 2008.
Bern and Johnsen point out that While might
like to try 3.c4!?
Now this is completely untested. and there-
fore ideal to wrong-foot your opponent
With no practical material available 1 will
Dutch: Preparing the Staunton Gambit
hint at few possible directions. Clearly, you
don't need chess 960 to avoid the well-trod-
den paths. Do try this at home, at your local
club, on the internet and in the tournament
hall!
- 3 ...e6 4.tDc3 lDf6 (4 ...dxc4 5.e4; 4 ...c6
5.cxd5!?- 5.e3 wiil transpose to normal the-
oretical schemes where White develops with
'tWc2. ~d3 and ttJge2 - 5...exd5 6..tf4 and
play is about equal) 5 ..tf4 (5.e3; 5.cxdS
lLlxd5! rather than 5 ...exd5 6.~f4) 5 ...dxc4!?
(other possibilities include 5 ...~d6 and
5 ...i.e7 6.e3 0-0) 6.e4 fxe4 (or 6 ...tDc6
7 ..txc4 tDxd4 8.llJge2 with compensation
for the pawn) 7.fxe4 ~ 8.~xc4 0-0
(8...lOlle4 9.tDge2!? is interesting while
9."h5+ g6 1O.'tWe5 llJf6 11.'tWxc7 '~hc7
J 2 ..ixc7 llJd.5 13.~xdS elldS is equal)
9.11Jge2 ttlxe4 10.0-0
and White has compensation because of his
lead in development and the weak pawn on
e6.
- 3 ...e5!? (very exciting') 4.dxe5 .tb4+
(4 ...d4isa weird Albin Counter Gambit with
pawns on f3 and f5; 4 ..._h4+ 5.g3 _xc4 and
now the quiet 6.e3 promises White a plus.
while 6.e4 .b4+ 7.lDc3 dxe4 8.a3 .cS
9.fxe4 is sharper and more enterprising)
5 ..td2 .h4+ 6.g3 'tWxc4 7.e3 (7.e4'tWd4')
7 ...• c5 8.lllC3 leads to an obscure position
where Black has a healthy pawn structure.
117
Jeroen Bosch
However, White's edge in development and
his passed pawn on e5 should give him a de-
cent plus.
- 3 ...c6 4.cx.d5 (4.e3 e6 5.<'Dc3lUf6 6."ifc2)
4 ...<'Df6!? (4 ...cxd5 5.<'Dc3 lC.f6 6.~f4;!;)
5.tDc3 (5.d)l.c61C.xc6 6.e3 e5, with compen-
sation) 5 ...lDxd5 6.e4 lUxc3 7.bxc3 e5 is an-
other position that deserves practical tests.
After 2...d5 the natural3.~4 is quite playable
of course, although 1don't think that White has
an edge. Stonewall-players are usually not that
worried about the hole on e5, but not all lovers
of the Dutch will be happy here. A normal con-
tinuation would be: 3...<'Df64.e3 e6
and now White will soon have to make up
his mind about his c-pawn. Will it move to
c4 or c3?
3.e4
Preparing e4 is of course the main idea be-
118
hind 2.f3 and nothing could be more logical
than playing it immediately. Yet, some play-
ers have preferred not to sacrifice a pawn
here by starting with 3.~g5!?
- 3...d6 4.<'Dc3 tDc6 5.e4 a6 6.lDge2 g6
7.• d2 h6 8.~3 e5 9.0-0-0 fle7? io.eas
with a substantial edge in De Santis-Zacco,
Milano 2007;
- 3... g6 4.c4 (4.tDc3!?) 4 ..ig7 5.tDc3 0-0
6.iVd2 is tine for Black, but White soon ob-
tained a superior position in Belaya-
Kharashkina, St.Petersburg 2001: 6...c5
7.dS 'i!Vb6?!8.0-0-0 e5 9.e4 d6 10.~d3 fx.e4
I Uhe4 a6 12.h4 .a5 13.~xf6!? ~xf6
14M g5 15.h6 fic?? (15 ...b5!) 16.g4±;
- 3 ...e6 4.e4 has not occurred in practice yet;
- Critical is 3...h6 4.hf6 exf6 5.e4. and
now 5...d5!?;
- 3 ...d5 would lead to familiar positions af-
ter 4.lDc3 (2.<'Dc3 lLIf6 3.~g5 d5 4.f3 has
been played by strong GMs - according to
Kinderrnann Black is well-advised to play
4 ...~c6 now to prevent e4) bue White is by
no means obliged to place his knight in front
of the c-pawn,
3•..fxe4
Black must be ready to accept the pawn after
2 ...<'Df6.Here 3...d6 transposes to 2 ...d6 3.e4
lLIf6above.
4.fxe4ltJXe4
The only other move that comes into consid-
 Dutch: Preparing the Staunton Gambit

eration is 4 ...e5. However after 5.dxe5 ~xe4

White has 6.• d5 (6.lDf3 d5 is OK for Black.
but not 6... .i.c5? 7 .• d5+-) 6...lDc5
(6...• ~4+ 7.g3) 7.lDc3 when he appears 10
have an edge.
5.~d3

- White has two raking bishops after

1O....i.xf3 11.~xf3 'W"d6 (I I...e4 12..i.g4)
12 ..ig4, or l2.:bl 0-0-0 13.J:lb5 e4
14..ig4+ ~b8 15..i.f4, and
- 1O...e4 II.lLlg5 ..be2 12.'fi'xe2 1id7
l3.lLlf7 J:lg8 14.J:lbl really looks very suspi-
cious for the second player.
5.•.dS Therefore the immediate 8 ...e5!? is stronger.
Black preserves his knight in the centre at Now 9.lLlxe4 dxe4 1O.it.m4 lLlxd4 (not
the cost of weakening square e5. Retreating IO ... cxd4? 11..i.xc6+ bxc6 12Jlel+ .ie7
the knight with 5...tCf6 6.ltJf3 e6 7.0-0 is 13.~g5 winning) leads to the next diagram.
similar to positions investigated above after
2 ...e6. White has obvious compensation for
the pawn.
6.ttJf3lt)c6 7_0-0
This must be a good move. Although the al-
ternative 7.lDbd2 is suggested by Bern and
Johnsen in Win with the Stonewall Dutch. as
fairly promising for White.
7._.~g4
Santo Roman is developing his queenside in
order to be able to castle. The kingside cer-
tainly doesn't look like a safe hiding spot for
the k.ing. The pin on the knight also increases
Black's control over square e5. - Here 11..ixb7 :tb8 12.lt:lxd4!? is spectac-
8.c3 ular but it does not lead to an advantage after,
A 'solid' move. Pawn d4 is protected and if say 12...hdl (I2 .. ,J:lxb7 13.'Wxg41hd4+
Black castles queens ide he must fear b4-bS. 14.ihd4 exd4) 13.~c6+ <lo>e714..ig5+
White can try to use his edge in development ~d6 15 ..i.xd8 exd4;
with 8.1Dc3!? after 8...lQxc3 9.bxc3 e5!? - Better is 11..ie3 lOxf3+ (1l...~c5
1O.~e2! (the problem was lO.dxe5?! ~c5+ 12.';1i>hI) 12.gxf3 'i'xdl 13.:axd 1 .i.d7.
ll.<lo>hl 0-0 and Black is better) Black has managed to exchange queens and

119
Jeroen Bosch
knights, while White is still a pawn down. In
view of White's pressure a draw is the most
likely result.
8.....-d7 9.tLlbd2 <oxd2 10.i..xd2 0-0-0
Black has managed to get his king into rela-
tive safety, and he has an extra pawn. White
is the first to start the middlegame though.
After Vandevoort's next I would definitely
feel more comfortable silting behind the
white pieces.
11.b4bf3
II...e5 does not really work after 12.b5
tDxd4 13.cxd4e4 14.'*a4!.
12.l:lxf3 J:te8 So that the knight can rc-
treat to d8 if necessary.
13.a4 13.b5!? lbd8 14.'It"a4Wb8.
13 ... e6 14.85 i..d615.a6
White has got there first.
120
15 ... ~b8 l5 ...b6 16.i..b5 is a very annoy-
ing pin.
16.axb7+~xb7 17.b5 J:thf818."a4!?
This is very powerful. White does not need
to fear the weakening of his kingside (he is
already too far ahead on the queenside).
However, missing some immediate wins
further on, it is precisely because of his
weak kingside that the game will end in a
draw. J 8.%:txf8 %:txf8 19.• a4 was also
good, and the safe way to win was 18.c4.
18...J:txf319.1ha7+ ~c8 20.gxf3e5?!
Objectively Black is now completely lost
after White's next, but since Santo Roman
manages to save half a point it is hard to
criticize the practical value of this move. It
is likely that both players were under time
pressure here.
21.b6! c6 22 .... a8! e4 23.l:I.a7 'iWf5
24.~a6+?
In time trouble it is easy to think that this
wins a tempo by giving a free check with a
piece that is under attack. However, it was
more important 10 combine queen and rook
into a joint attack. Leaving the king on c8
enables White to check on b7 with the
queen. Thus, winning are 24.l:lxg7! since
24 ...exd3? will lead to mate after 25.b7+
Wd8 26.'1'a5+. and 24 .• b7+ ~d8 25.• xg7
was also game over.
24...~d8 25Jlb7 e3
 Dutch: Preparing the Staunton Gambit

Here 25 exf3 26Jbb8+ Q.xb8 27.'ifxb8+ tlxe3 2Hhb8+ .bb8 28.'it'xbS+ ~e7
~e7 28 c7+ ..t>f629.~f2 wins for White. 29.b7 'i*'xf3 30.'i*'c7+ ~f6 31."e5+! llxe5
32.dxeS+ o;f;>g533.b8" "e3+ with perpet-
ual check. White was still winning with
26.:rxb8+! Q.xb8 27.thb8+ ~e7 28.'i'c7+
'iPf8 29.Q.eI.
26..... g5+ 27.~h1
Unclear is 27.q"f1 "f4 28.We2 "xh2+
29.'~dl. After 27.~g3 ~xg3 28.hxg3
.xg3+ Black must take the perpetual.
27..:it'f4 28..i.g3 Wxf3+ 29.Wg1
.ixg3 30.hxg3 'itxg3+ 31.~h1
And the game ends in perpetual check.
And what a game it was!
31..:tWh3+ 32.'iPg1 "g3+ 33.~h1
26.~e1? 'ii'e1+ 34...th2 -..12+35.~h1 '~U3+
This throws away the win. as does 26 ..txe3? Draw.

121
 CHAPTER 16
Igor Glek
Sicilian: the Intrepid 5 ...e5
E ~ _Q)ii1~ 1.. E
i' ii'
Is 6 ..tb5+ i.d7 really that bad?
"1.e4 c5 2.lDf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4k,xd4
tDf6 5.lUc3 e5!?
An audacious move: Black immediately
plays e7·e5, without any preparation! Now
the advance of the e-pawn is well-known in
the Sicilian but usually only after the prepa-
ratory 5...a6 (many lines in the Najdorf) or
5 tLlc6 (as in the Boleslavsky system after
5 tlJc6 6.~e2 e5). Of course the positions
that we obtain may also have some similari-
ties with the Sveshnikov (or Cheliabinsk)
Variation.
After the immediate 5 ...e5 it does not make
much sense to play natural moves like 6. tbb3
or 6.lCf3 because Black will obtain a posi-
tion typical of the Najdorf Variation. where
122
~
he may justifiably hope to find a more useful
move than ... a6.
Therefore theory universally acknowledges
6.1I.b5+ to be the principal move. The ex-
change of the bishops of the light squares
(for my intention is 6...~d7) is generally
thought to be good for White. but. in my
opinion, Black. will get compensation.
First of all. he gains time (Black can occupy
the all-important Sicilian c-file more
quickly).
Moreover. the exchange of a set of pieces
normally does not hurt the second player in
the opening.
6.i.b5+ i.d7
Actually 6 ... <tJbd7 (7.lllf5!) is far more com-

mono It has often been played by Viktor
Kupreichik and some other GMs. But it's
just another story.
I first started to play 6...~d7 as a young mas-
ter candidate in the I970s - it was still in So-
viet times.
7.~xd7+
It is important to note that 7.liJf5?! doesn't
work here (as it does after 6... tLlb(7):
7 ~xb5 8.liJxb5 'tta5+1 (but not 8...ttJxe4?
9 dS "'d7 lO.~e3lLJf6 11.lLJbxd6+ .bd6
12.tLlxd6+ ~ 13.• xb7 "'xb7 14.lDxb7
ttJbd7 15.0-0-0+-, Petrick-Strydorn, Cape
Town 2002) 9.liJc3 lDxe4. Now Black is
more than fine after 10.~d2 liJxc3 II ..txc3
tltc7 12.W'f1lC.c6 13.0-0-00-0-0 14.lDe3 g6
Vu T Minh-Nguyen Hong Minh, Ho Chi
Minh City 2001, the subsequent 15.g4?1
.ru.6 16.~bl .ixe3 17.\1iVxe3dS gave Black
had an obvious edge.
More interesting is 1O.... f3'?, and now:
- After 10...d5 II.O-O! lDxc3 12..td2!
White has great compensation for the pawn.
- However, Black has a 'simple' solution in
the form of 1O... liJxc3! II. ... xh7 "'a6
12."f3 'irc6=i=.
7...'it'xd7
This is the crucial position that 1 want to in-
vestigate in this article. The knight can jump
to five possible squares: 8.tiX5, 8.lDdb5,
8.tt::.b3, 8.tDf1. 8.<1}de2. Which is better?
Let's see.
Sicilian: the Intrepid 5...e5
I 8.tDf5 (8.liJdb5)
II 8.tDb3
III 8.tLlf3
IV 8.lDde2
Superficially 8.lDf5 followed by .tg5 looks
very strong so we will start to show that
Black has no problems here.
VarIation I
8.tt::lf5
This move is 'too active'. The same goes for
8.tLldb5. It seems that neither move brings
White anything, although, obviously, Black
has to respond accurately.
In comparison to the Sveshnikov Variation
8.tDdb5?! here does not make so much
sense .
• Black can take the pawn 8... tLlxe4!?, and
now:
- 9.lLlxe4 equalizes at best after 9 ...'ihb5
IO.tLlxd6+ (not 1O xd6?! liJc6 l1.lLlc3
'6'a612.1It'd5 l:ld8) 1O ~xd6 II..xd6 tC.c6
12.a411t'c4 13.h3 nd8 14.... c5.
- More interesting is the reply 9.liJdS!?, af-
ter9 ... ~a61O.c4lDf611.ltJxf6+ gxf612.0-0
tLlc7 13.tLlxc7+ .xc7 White has obvious
compensation after both 14.b3and 14 d3.
• Therefore it is simpler to play 8 a6. for
after 9.tLla3 'ttc6 lO.• d3 ({)bd7 11.~e3 l:lc8
the knight on a3 is out of play. In case of
123
Igor Glek
12.lLld5 1!t'a4 13.c4 tDxd5 14.exd5, Black
should not continue with 14.. :~b4+?!
15.~d2 Wxh2 16.llbl 'ifxa2 17.()..0 as in
Pinkas-Ostermeyer, Goch 1991, but with
14...~e7 15.0-00-016.1'3 f5 17:.b31!t'xb3
18.axb3lLlc5 with a slight edge for Black.
8 ... lLlxe4
This is the correct response. Black does not
fear the coming complications.
• 8 lLlc6 9.lLle3 (9.f3) is pleasant for While.
• 8 dS is an option:
- 9.0-0 is answered by 9 d4.
- 9.~g5 can be met by 9 lLlxe4 1O.tL:.xe4
dxe4 11."iWg4 f6 12.lld I 1!t'c6 13 ..ie3 g6
14.ttJd6+ ~xd6 15.llxd6 1!t'xd6 16.1!t'c8+
"ii'd8 17.... e6+ 'fIe7 18.... c8+ "ii'd8 with a
draw.
- The problem in my opinion is 9.CiJxd5
~xe4 10.0-0 ~6 I 1.c4!? which favours
White.
• Black is a lot worse after !L.'lWc6 9.~f3
tbbd7 1O.~g5 h6 I Li.xf6 tC.xf6 12.0-0-0
0-0-0 13.1:1<13,Scarpa-Rosso. Buenos Aires
1998.
9.lLlxg7+
The only try for an advantage, but maybe
While is beuer off with acknowledging that
he has nothing by playing 9.tDxe4 't!VxfS
IO.li)xd6+ ~xd6 I 1. "ii'xd6. After I J...tLlc6
I 2.~e3 1:Id8 13:~c5 Black can play
13 ...lte6 14.0-0 b6 15.,*a3 'i'd6 with equal
chances as in loseliani-Mai, Germany Bun-
124
desliga 1998/98. Or also l3 ...f6 14.0-0 'i!t'e6
15.f4 l:ldS 16.'W'c4 0-0 17.1:Iadl 1:IfdS
18.11xd5 'fIxd5 19.... xd5+ l:lxd5 20.fxeS
Y2-~, Tonsingh-Shabsh Abdulatif, Lucerne
011982.
9 ... ~xg710.tt::lxe4 d511.Ah6
White uses tactics to develop. After II.lLlg3
0-0 (not ll...d4?! 12.0-0 ltJc6 13:tIt'f3 0-0-0
14.~g5;!;) l2.lLlh5 f5 (12...lLlc6?! 13..ih6)
l3.ll:lxg7 ~xg7 14.f4 e4 15 ..ie3ltJc6 16.c3
d4 Black is slightly better in view of 17.cxd4
lDb4 or 17...llad8.
Worse is II.ttJc5 'i'c6 12.'i'g4 0..0 13.0-0 f5
14.'t!Vb4 b6 IS.tUb3 35+. Instefjord-
Agustsson, Norway 2002103.
11...0-0 12.~xg7 ~xg7
13.~h5!
White already has to take care. Thus,
13.tUg3?! lDc6 14.0-0 f5 15.f4 e4 16.'i'hS d4
gave Black a great position in Janosevic-
Bertok, Ljubljana ch- YUG 1960.
Please note that 13...f5? 14.f4! exf4 (14 ...e4
15Ji'd4+ ~g8 16.0-0-0) 15.... d4+ <;f;lg8
16.'W'xf4"'e6+ 17.~d2 Wf618.lthfl favours
White, Panbukchian-Kovacevic, Pula 1990.
With the text White sacrifices a piece to gain
a draw by perpetual.
13 ... f5!?
Black plays for the win! Of course 13...dxe4
leads to perpetual check: 14."g5+ ~h8
I5:itf6+ ~g8 Y2-'h. Muratov-Zilber,
Novgorod 1961.

14.0"()"()!?
A creative reply! Not 14.... g5+*h8 15."it'h6
lLlc6 (15...... g7 16.1hg7+ ~xg7 l7.lLld6
tiJc6 18.0-0-0 d4 19.tiJxb7 tiJb4 20.a3)
16.tiJg5 .l~ae8+. After castling Black is not
forced to take the piece, but he can play
14•..tDc6
After 14...fxe4 15.• xe5+ White has a
strong attack:
- 15 ~ 16.~xd5 ..te7 17.Wg3 or
17 h5+ ~g7 18.llhdl *h8 19.~bl.
- Instead 15...l:tf6 16.~xd5 .e6 17.• g3+
.f6 21.• c8 .c6
~g6 l8 .• c3+ .f6 19.• c8 .c6 ZO.• d8
22.• d8 .f6 2HWc8 was
agreed drawn in Kotter-Ostermeyer, Ger-
many Bundesliga B 1991192.
By not taking the knight Black preserves a
small edge because of his centre which more
than outweighs the slight weak.ness of his
kingside,
So, neither 8.~f5 nor 8.ti.Jdb5 promise
White anything (in fact Black may hope for
mure than equality).
Variation II
o Wladimir Schilow
• IgorGlek.
Germany Bundesliga 2008109
1.e4 c5 2.0.f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.tUxd4
tDf6 5.0.c3 e5 6.ft.b5+ .id7 7.Axd7+
Sicilian: the Intrepid S...e5
7...'ihd78.tUb3
This move is less popular than 8.tDde2 or
8.lDf3. However, in my opinion, it is nOI
weaker to say the least. Play now resembles
the Najdorfline with 6.~e3 e5 7.~b3, espe-
cially when White is going to castle
queenside. The exchange of the light-
squared bishops favours White, although, as
usual Black has gained time to start operat-
ing along the c-filc, First, it is essential for
Black to prevent ~g5.
8...h6
White's game is preferable after 8...~e7
9.~g5 and 8 ...0.c6 9.~g5.
In case of 8 ...• c6 9.1!t"d3.White preserves a
pleasant edge after 9...~bd7 1O.~g5 and
now:
- 1O...~e7 II.0.a5 "6'c7 12.~xf6 tLlxf6
13.1tb5+ Wd7 14.f3 lk8 15.0-0-0 b6
16.... xd7+ ~xd7 17.li:lb3. or Il ..bf6 ~xf6
12.<t:Ja5'i!fc5 13.tDc4.
- 1O...a6 11.0-0-0 l:k8 12.'iPbl ~e7 13.h4
1>514.0.
Stronger is 9 ...h6 to rrevenlIO.~g5 after all.
Now after 10.0-0 tObd7 11.1Oa5 (1 J.:dJ
:e8 l2.~e3 a6) 11...... c7 12.tOc4 ~c8
IHJe3 tDc5 l4.~5+ "c6 15.f3 "'xb5
16.llJxb5 a6 17.tDc3 tDe6 Black has enough
counterplay to compensate for the weakness
of square d5.
9.Ae3!?
125
Igor Glek
White plays by analogy to the Najdorf line
6.~e3 e5 7.tLlb3.
• 9.f3 iOc6 (9 ...h7 is possible but Black
plays for ...dS) 1O.~e3 :d8 Il.tLld5 tLlxd5
12 .... xd5 tLlb4 13.'iWd2 d5 14.a3 tLlc6
15.1fxd5 1WxdS 16.elld5 ':xd5 and mission
accomplished. Black has equalized.
• 9:"d3 0c6 10.a3 ':d8 (1O...0-0-0!?
11.~e3 d5) II.tLld5 ~xd5 12.exd5 ~e7
13.0-0 and now both 13.. .f5and 13...1Wf5are
stronger than 13...g5?! 14.~e3 b615.a4asin
Nguyen Van Huy-Pham, Phu Quoc 2007.
• 9.0-0 h7 and now after 1O.f4 0-0 Il.h3
Black should play II ...exf4 I 2.~xf4 ~c6 or
1l...1Wc6.
Fleuren-Ostermeyer, Goch 1992, was
quickly drawn after 1O.'tM3 0-0 II.~e3 a6
12.a4 'tic7 13.aS tDbd7 14.f3 ':ac8 15.':f2.
9•.•ltJc6
I was planning to play ...d5 as quickly as pos-
sible, but maybe it was more exact to play
9... ~e7.
• After 10.1Wd3 tOa6!? 11.0-0-0
- 11...0-0 12.f3111b4 13.... d2 b5 14.g4 a5
J5.WbI a4 16.lOC5 .c6 both sides have
chances.
- Equally complicated is 11...111c7 12.f3 b5
(12 ...0-0 13.g41:1fd8 14.h4 d5 15.g5), for ex-
ample: 13.a3 a5 14.~b6 b4 15.~xc7 bxc3
16.~xd6cxb2+ 17.~xb2a418 ..be7<;t>xe7
19 .... c3 ... b720 .... xe5+~f821 .... d6+<,tg8
If 22.e5, then 22 ...axb3 (not 22 ...li'\h5
126
23 .... b4 "'xb4 24.axb4 axb3 25.<ifo>xb3 tDf4
26.g3 tLle6 27.':d6 ~h7 28.c4;!;) 23.exf6
bxc2+ 24.Wxc2 ~1t7.
Play is equal after 22.'it'h4 "'c7 23 .... c5
"'b724.'tib4 .
• 1O.... e2
- Obviously this is another complicated po-
sition that deserves further practical tests. A
long line to illustrate the character of the
play: 1O... tLla6 11.0-0-0 tDc7 12.f4 1tg4
13.'i'f2 0-0 14.h3 "e6 15.g4 b5 16.g5 exf4
17..hf4 lug5 18.~xg5 b4 19.111d4 "'e5
20.~f4 .c5 (20 ..... 85 21.tDc6) 21.lOa4
lOxe4 22 . ..wf3 'itd5 23Jthel f5 24.tLlxf5
'thf5 2S.'ihe4 :ae8=.
- Also not bad is 1O...d5!? 11.lOxd5 texd5
12.0-0-0 ~c3 13.bxc3 'Wc6 with compensa-
tion .
• In case of 10.f3 White is going castle
qucenside, when again we reach such typical
Sicilian positions with castling on opposite
sides. Black should play IO .••lOa6 with the
idea of tLla6-c7, and d6-d5.
10.'ft'e2~e7
.-~-
And now instead of
11.13
which allows Black to solve his problems,
White should have played 11.0-0-0!: an-
swering 11...0-0-0 (or 1l...:c8 12.f3 0-0
13.g4) with 12.... c4! .e6 13.tLla5 'l'xc4
14.tlJxc4 <;;>b8 (l4 ...lOg4 15.tLlb5 lOxe3
 Sicilian: the Intrepid 5 ... e5

16.fxe3 f6 17.tDbxd6+ .bd6 18.lLlxd6+ 9.'ife2

<t;c7 19.1L"lf7J:lxdl + 20.J:lxdl J:lf8 21.tLld6 h5 9.0-0!1 lLlxe4!? (safer is 9...lDbd7 or 9 ...h6)
22.c4±) 15.f3 lLle8 (l5 ...J:ld7 16.J:ld2 J:lhd8 lO.lLlxe4 "-xe4 11.~g5 (I1.:el is another
17.J:lhdl lLle8 18.a4 .ig5 19..ixg5 hxg5 idea) II... .. c6 12.f4 h6 13."h5 g6 14.... h3
20.tLlb5) 16.'J;)bl with a slight advantage. ~g7:
In the game Black could execute his
strategical idea and equalize.
11...d5!? 12.exd5
Black has compensation after 12.l2Jxd5l?
tLlxd5 13.:dl (13.0-0-0 tLlc3 14.bxc3 "'c7)
13 lLlc3 14.bxc3 "'c7.
12 ltJxd5 13.t1Jxd5 "xd5 14.0-0 0-0
15.c4 'W'e616.t1Jc5bcS17.bc5
Draw.

Variation In

o Marie Sebag
• IgorGlek • Now 15.lLle6canbemetby 15...i.f6!?or
Metz 2009 15.. .fxe6!? 16.'t!rxe6+ <t;d8.
• 15.lLlxf7 ~xf7 is very sharp:
1.e4 es 2.llJf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.tLlxd4 - Black defends after 16.fxe5+ ~g8
lLlf6 5.tbc3 e5 6•.i.b5+ i.d7 7.~xd7+ 17.exd6 'ifxd6 (17 ... 'itb6+ 18.~hl <t;h7
1i'xd7 8.lbf3 19 ..ixh6+- ) 18. Wb3+ <t;h7 19 .~xh6
'ifb6+.
- 16.f5 was played in Schonthier-Oster-
meyer, Germany Bundesliga 1990/91. Now
according to my analysis Black can survive
the attack with 16...g5 17.f6 i..xf6 18..bg5
(Ud7 19..i.xf6 lLlxf6 20.'ifh4 d5 21.l:lxf6+
'thf6 22JH1 "'xfl+ 23.~xfl .!lac8
24.it'h5+ ~f6 25 .... h4+ ~e6 26 .... g4+ ~f6
27 .... d7 nhd8=. Of course this has LO be
checked carefully.
Please note that White is just clearly worse
after 9..tg5? lLlx.e4 1O.lL"lx.e5(JO.lLld5 tLld7)
IO...lLlxc3 1 LlL"lx.c6lL"lxdI 12.t1JxbR lLlxb2
Now White will try to manoeuvre his king's 13.:bl :xb8 14.:xb2.
knight to d5 - via It:lf3-d2-c4(fl )-e3 or 9 h6
lLlf3-h4-f5(g3.lLlg2)-e3. But it Sure will lake 9 lLlbd7 is also possible - White can ex-
time. change his dark-squared bishop but Black's
8..Jlt'c6 position is quite safe: IO..Q.g5 h6 11..~xf6
Again not 8..~e7 9.i.g5t. but 8...h6 is pos- lDxf6 12.0-0 .Q.e7 13.lL"lh4 1h-~. Klavins-
sible and may transpose. Petersons, Palanga 1961.

127
Igor Glel<
10.0-0
A plan with castling on opposite wings is
possible but should not be very dangerous
for B lack: I0.~d2 tDbd7 11.0-0-0
11...a6 12.9o>blneg 13.~c1 ~e7 14.tLih4 g6
15.g3 b5 (lS ...wf8 16.f4 ';;g7(0) 16.tDg2
';;f8 (l6 ...tDb6! Bosch; 16.JlJc5?! 17.~d5
'Dxd5 18.exd.5 'it'b7 19J4±; J6 ...'Wb7
17.tDd5! l2)xdS 18.exd5!) J7.f3?! (I7.f4
Wg7) 17..:ti'b7! 18.lOd5 (l8.ttJe3 l:Ixc3
19.bxc3~) 18...tDxd5 19.1:txd5 Wg7 20.~e3
tDf6 2Uld3 J:tc5 22.J:thdl %lhc8 and Black
was doing fine in One-Bosch, Dieren 2009.
10...ti:)bd7
Also possible is 10...~e7 11.'Dh4 g6 12.f4
ttJbd7 13.tLlf3 %lc8 14.a4';;f8 J5.~e3 <J;;g7
J 6.Wh I a6 as in Gufeld-Romanishin, Tbilisi
1979.
11J:1e1
128
Black had an easy game in Souleidis-
Ostermeyer, Porz 1991. after 11.~d2 %lc8
15.lL\e4 f5 16.tDc3 .cA
12.f3 d5 13.exd5 tDxd5 14.~.xd5 .xd5
17.• xe4 lhc4
J8..i.e3 ~c5 19..bc5 D.xe5 20.D.adl We7.
Interesting is Il.ltJh4!'!.
11...8612.a4
After 12.<'t:ld2ll.c8 13:.f3 i.e7 14.ltJfI un-
clear play results from 14....id8!? 15.liJg3
.ia5 16..i.d2 h5 or 16...g6 17.J:tadl ¢>f8
) S.tt:Jd5i.xd2 19.D.xd2 ~xd5 20.exd5 'fIIc7.
Also good is 14...li:lc5 15.<'t:lg3g6 16..ie3 wf8
(l6 ...h5!?) 17.J:tadlliJa4 (lLWg7) 18.lt)xa4
'iVxa4 19Jhd6 Cit>g7as in Barczay-Malich,
Pees 1964. In the game White only won after a
blunder by Black on move 27.
12...ll.c8 13.a5 ~87 14.h3
14..... c4
More roads lead to Rome here. True after
14...0·0 White has 15.~h2!? But Black can
more or less force a draw with 14...tDc5
15.%la3 (I5 ..i.d2ltJe6 16.ltJh4 <'t:ld417:ilt'd3
"-c4 18.J:ta4 'fIIxd3 19.cxd3 <'t:ld7zo.crs
lDxf5 2 Lexf5 lL\c522.J:tc4 J:tc6 23.d4 tDd3)
l5...~e6 I6.J:td 1 06.'flld3 tOeS 17.'it'e2
lL\e6=) 16...lL\c5 17.J:tel.
15.Wd1
Play is also equal after 15.'thc4 J:txc4 16.liJd2
~c5 17.:a4 0-0 18.tDc4 lUcS 19.tLle3 .i.d8
20.lN5 d5 21.exd5 tDxd5 22.~.
The same verdict holds for 15.J:ta4 'it'xe2
16.D.xe2 tDc5 )7.J:tc4 lIc6.
 Sicilian: the Intrepid 5...e5

15...tDc5 16.tDd2
Black has decent counterplay in case of
16.tDh4 g6 17.... f3 ~e6 18.:a4 "'c6
19 dl wf8 20.~e3 <j;g7 21.lDf3 ~d8.
16 e6 17.... 13 (H)

21.tDc4 tOc6 22.':.4 tOxb4!?

18.b3
In this middlegame position both sides have
their pluses and minuses. Black aims for
counterplay along the c-file, White will try
to use square d5. I believe that such positions
are quite playable for Black.
l8.b4lllcd7 19.• d3 is mel by 19...l::tc7.
18.•.tDcd7
White would be slightly better after
l8 ...lllh7 19.1OC4 (l9JDdS ~gS) 19...f5
20.exf5 l::txf521.'iltd5liJf6 22.ihe6+ lllxe6
23.llle2.
19..ia3
19.1llc4 allows us to illustrate the character-
istic Sicilian exchange sacrifice:
- 19 ... l::txc4 20.bxc4 'iltxc4 (20 ... l::tc8
2l.llldS ~d8) 2U!t'g3 <;Ph722.'t!t'd3 l::tc8.
- 19...l:tc7 20.h3 l::tfe8 21.l::tedl ':xc4
22.bxc4 "'xc4 23.Ud3liJeS 24 ..txe5 "xe5.
As usual in such positions Black's compen-
sation for the exchange is sufficient,
19...i.d8 20.~b4tOb81
This is an important manoeuvre - the knight
is going to c6 from where it could jump to d4
or b4. Such an idea we may see, for example,
in the games of David Bronstein.
A very concrete decision. Now Black's
counterplay gives White no time to bring his
second knight to the k.ey square d5.
23.Uxb4 "'e7! Threatening 24...dS.
24.Jla4 ':c5 Black combines his
counterplay along the c-file with an attack
on the as pawn. 25....d3 "c7 26.:e3
Wc6 27.:a1 .ic7 28.Ad1
Maybe 28.l::tf3!? was the best chance - now
after 28 ...d5 29.:xf6! "W'xf630.tDxd5 'fIt'e6
31.b4 l:c6 32.liJce3 not, as in a game, Black
will sacrifice the exchange. but White! And it
looks that White's compensation is enough.
28.•.ba5! 29.l2la4 1lxc41
Black is playing to win! Playable was also
29 ...lIb5, but in this case many exchanges
are coming and it is hard to believe that any
result other than a draw will be possible.
30.... xc4 "'xc4 31.bxc4 tLc8 32.tDb2

129
Igor Glek
.c.c6 33.tldd3 0.d7
It is clear by now that Black wi II get danger-
ous pawns for the exchange. and White
should fight very hard for the draw. Since
this is a book on openings Igive the remain-
ing moves without comments.
34.l:dS 1J...c7 3S.tOa4 l:xc4 36 ..1:1.03
l:txc3 37.tiJxc3 ttJf6 38.l:d3 ~ 39.f3
.ia5 4O.~a4 rJi;e7 41.c4 Ci.:J.cf1
4Viii)f1
~b4 43.tlb3 as44. ¢'e2 ~d8 45.l:d3
<i;c7 46.tld5 Wc6 47J1b5 Ci.:J.f84B.l:td5
tOe6 49.93 tDd4+ 5O.<i»f2 b6 51.f4 16
S2.We3 ~c5 53.tOc3 h5 54.lOe2 a4
55.tOe3 a3 56.fxe5 fxe5 S7.~d3 ttJe6
58.~c2 ~d4 59.lLlbS a2 6O.nxd6+ ~5
61.:d5+ ~ 6ViJxd4 a1"iW63.tUxe6
<;t>xc4 64.tDxg7 ft"c3+ 65.'it>d1 ~f3+
66.~2 "12+ 67.Wd1 wc3
White resigned.
Variation IV
8.1L1de2
Theory recommends this move. The knight
will defend pawn c4 from g3. does not gel in
the way of the f-pawn (f2.f4). and is ready to
jump 10 f5. or via the squares fl and e3 to d5.
A possible drawback is that Black can some-
times embarrass the knight on g3 by pushing
his h-pawn - the march h7(h6)-h5-h4-h3 is
certainly not imaginary.
8...tte6
130
Attacking pawn e4 and going for Najdorf-
like piece coordination (the b8 knight is de-
veloped to d7).
• In the old game Fuderer-Jacob, Munich
1954. White obtained a pleasant edge after
8...~e79.~g5'i'c610.~xf6.hf61 UWd2.
• Playable is 8 ...h6 which may transpose to
the main line. After 9.tOg3, Black may de-
cide to play for a quick ... dS with 9 ...tDc6 as
in Calota-Andreescu, Baile Tusnad 1997.
After 1O.~e3 l:td8 11.'i'd2 d5 l2.exd5 tDxd5
13/2Jxd5 ~xd5 14.'i'xd5 tlxd515.~e2 ~c5
Black had achieved his aim.
After 9.0-0 we reach the diagrammed posi-
tion.
- Now I am not a great fan of9 ... 1Oc6. Thus
JO.~e3 d5 Il.tDxd5 tDxe4 12.c4 as in
Pahrz-Petrenko, Plovdiv Ech-tt 2003. was
just better for White.
IO.tLg3 should favour White 1.00. In that
case. best for Black is 10....I:Id8 to play for
...d5 again as in the old game Radovici-Zinn,
East Berlin 1968.
- More flexible is 9... soa when for in-
stance 1O..te3 'i'c6 1I .• d3lf.)bd7 12..I:Iad1
a6 13.tbg3 g6 14.h3 l:tc8 15.:fel ~f8
16.tDfi ~g7 as in Gawehns-Ostermeyer,
Germany Bundesliga B 1990/91, is strategi-
cally healthy.
• I don't trust the alternatives to B ... h6 or
8... 'lWc6.lndeed, 8...lOC6 9..tg5 is just a very
unpleasant position for Black. It is this sort

of position that makes theory frown upon the
whole 5 ...e5 6..§Lb5+~d7 line .
• If you are really inclined to take such
chances than at least you should do it with
the dubious (but surprising) 8...... g4!?
- Now, thepassive9.lbg3 .xdl+ IO.Wxdl
is not such a big problem for Black after
10...tt)c6 11.f3 h6. For example, l2.ltJb5?!
0-0-0 13.c4 d5! 14.cxd5 lbxd5 15.~xa7+
lbxa7 l6.exd5 l:1xd5+ 17.~e2 ~c5 18.11dl
fb.dl 19.Wxdl lOC6 gave Black the initia-
tive in Martinet-Perez Rodriguez., Santiago
de Cuba 2009. Stronger was l2.lbf5 0-0-0
13.lbe3 &7 14.tocd5 ti2fxd5 15.0.xd5
tLlxd5 16.exd5 ~e7 with equality.
However, White has three 'gambit' moves
which all deserve attention:
- 9.tt:JdS!? 0xd5 (9...~)a6 10.0-0 'ii'xe4
II.tt:Jec3 'ft'c4 12.tDxf6+ gxf6 13.1i'f3)
1O.1hdS ta6 ! I.lDg3 'ife6 12.'iIi'd3 0-0-0
13.c4 is at least slightly better for White.
- 9.0-0'? lL;xe4 1O.~d5 .d7 I L~e3 lbc6
12.c4 gives White good compensation.
- 9.'ifd3!? and now Black should grab some
pawns with 9...'ihg21O.11g1 'ifxh2 II.~g5.
This is very dangerous for Black of course.
Still some brief analysis for the really adven-
turous spirits among you.
Simply bad for Black is 11...~e7 12.ltJb5
0-0 13.ltJc7 lbc6 14.tLlxa!SII:xa8 15.0-0-0.
11...tljc612.~xf6gxf6IHJd5 0-0-0 14.... f3
'fih6 15.11hl "g5, and now 16.J:l.g\ is equal.
However, White may prefer 16.J:l.h5 "g6
(16 ...liJd4 17:W'c3+) 17.0-0-0 ~h6+ I 8.'iPb 1
~g5 19.c3 ~8 20.liJg3 with compensation.
11... ~lbd7 12.~xf6 (this is simpler than
12.0-0-0 'it'xfl 13.~e3 "f3 14.l1g3 "'h5
IS.lbbS which occurred in J.willemze-
S.Ernst, Vienna 2(03) l2...cexf6 13."bS+
liJd7l4.ti:Xl5I1b8IS.lbc7+~d8 J6.lDd5g6
17.... a5+ ~ 18."xa7 ~h6 (l8...~e7
19.0-0-0) 19.'it'a3. In all objectivity, I be-
lieve that 8 ...'iIi'g4 is 100 dangerous.
9.lDg3
Sicilian: the Intrepid 5 ... e~
9 ...h6
Once again it is important to prevent ~gS.
While is just better after 9...g6 10.0-0 ~g7
II..ig5 lL'Ibd7 12.... d3 b6 13..hf6 tOxf6
14JUdi lld8 15.tef1 0-0 16.lUe3 Shmits-
Zilber, Novgorod 1961.
Too early is 9 ...h5. after 1O.1i'f3 tLlbd7
II..tg5 h4 12.0.f5 h3 13.g3 ti2b6 14.tt)xg7+
i.xg7 15.~xf6 ~xf6 16.'itxf6 White had a
won position in Kritz-Mikavica, Lausanne
2003.
In a few high-level games 9 ... tiJbd7 was
tried. White is still better. though. after
10.~g5 and now:
- lO ...llc8 11.0-0 g6 12.• f3 .ig7 l3JUdl
0-0 14.tDfI h6 15.~J(f6 LDxf6 16.Ciie3
Nicevski- Ljubojevic, Novi Travnik 1969.
- 10... g6 II.'itd2 h6 12.jhf6 lLixf6
13.0-0-0 h5 14.• d3 0-0-0 15.... f3 ~e7
16.ttJd5 0"d5 17 .1lxd5 Estrin- Vasiukov,
Moscow 1961. Black's disadvantage is per-
haps not disastrous, but such positions hold
few attractions for the second player. Indeed,
they are certainly not the reason why I play
this line!
10.~O
Practice has also seen 1O.... f3 It:lbd7 11.~e3
b5 12.a3 a6. Just to give an example of this
type of Sicilian let's follow the game Duane
Barahona-Dominguez Aguilar, Aguasca-
lienres 2007: 13.0-0 g6 14.II:fdl ~e7 15.h3
~f8 16.tDfI wg7 Black. is castling by hand, a
131
Igor Glek

returning theme in this line. 17.~h2 AacS

Black has a perfectly playable 'Najdorf",
18.Aacl ~719.W Ac420.Ael a521..e2
h4 22.~ ~xd5 23Jhd51fc7 24.Axa5

13...0-0-0!
A clear improvement over 13 ... llJc5?
14.f!l.eS! dxe5 15..ltg5!±. Timmermans-
Bosch, Vlissingen 2009. Now 15...llJcxe4
fails to 16.llJxe4 "'xe4 17.lbel! and White
Now the game went 24...lhe4 25.cuh4 has a winning advantage. 13... g6 14.tbe3 fa-
:x.h4 26.Aa7 Ab7 27.:ctxb7 "'xb7 28.c3 vours White, but 13...h3!? is also interesting.
1fb3 29.f4 Ab8 3O.fxe5 dxeS 31.'tlPd2 with a 14.a4
draw. Black could have preserved a slight 14.W'f2llJxe4 15.• xa7 is met by the imme-
edge with 24 ... :x.c2 25 .• d3 "xa5 diate 15...h3, or by 15... ltJ~c3 16.bxc3 h3
26.'thc2 bxa3 27.~d2 "a6 28.bxa3 llJcS 17.gxh3 :ctxh318.lIbl (lg.~e3g619."'a8+
29.~b4 (29.llJg4 "'xa3) 29 ...llJd3 30J:ldl <ttc7 20 .• a5+ b6 21."a7+ 1fb7 22 .• xb7+
llJxb4 31.axb4 1:lb8. ~xb7 23.'~g2 Ah8 24.llJg3 f5 25.a4)
10...ltJbd711.f4 18...... c5+ 19.... xc5+ ti:lxc5 (or 19...dxc5).
The most direct attempt to refute Black's Note that White caJUlOtplay 14.h3? because
play. of 14...g6. After the text a sample line runs:
14...<it.>b815.h3 96 16.lbe3 exf4
17J!fxf4 ~h6 18."13 IIhe8 19.1bed5
~xc1 20.Uaxc1 ~xe4 21.... xf7 ~e5
22.....4 .c5+ 23.~h2 ~g3 24J:lfd1
llf8 25. tfe3 95 and this favours Black.

So. we have seen that 5 ...e5 6.~b5+ ~d7

leads to a complicated game. At the moment
1don't see how White obtains an advantage.
Both active moves 8.lOf5 and 8./tJdb5 are not
dangerous for Black. White has to make a
choice between S.lOn, 8.tede2 and 8.lOb3. I
suppose that 8.ltJb3, as 1M Shilow played
11 h5!? ll...g6!? was another option. against me, promises White some hope for
12 13 h4 And here 12...0-0-0 could also an advantage, but obviously this continua-
be investigated. 13.lbfS tion requires further practical tests.

132
 CHAPTER 17
Sipke Emst
Moscow Variation: A German Speciality
The immediate 7.e4!?
This ancient line of the Moscow Variation has
not been very popular with strong players
lately, although it is fully playable. Don't let
the bad placement of the white king put you
off! I recommend 7.e4 for several reasons:
I) Play is original and very interesting.
2) the move 7.e4 is completely forgotten. so
your opponents won't be well prepared, and
3) the shock value of 9. <;Pe2!.
This early king-move has been known for a
long time and had its peak in the 19805,
when especially East-German GMs like
Uhlmann and Teske were playing this move
on a regular basis. Since 2000. however.
I can only find 11 games in my database. I
think it's time for a revival!
o SipkeEmst
• Thomas Fiebig
Ne1tler1ands 2009/1 0
1.lLlf3d5 2.d4 tilf6 3.c4 c6 4.lLlc3 e6
5.llg5 h6 6..bt6
Presently. Black is holding his own in the
lines starting with 6..iM. so top players are
also looking at the alternative 6 ..ixf6. This
used to be the main line, but at some point it
was agreed that Black has enough compen-
sation for his deficit in space and central in-
fluence, owing to his pair of bishops.
6.•.Wxffi 7.84!1
This was first played in a game between
Jasnogrodsky and Baird, New York 1894!
133
Sipke Ernst
Nowadays, 7.e3 is the absolute main line.
Apart from 7.e3, 7.'ffb3, 7.g3 and 7.'ii'c2 are
also more popular than 7.e4.
7...dxe4 8.liJxe4 ~b4+
9/oite21?
A cool looking move, guaranteeing a lot of
disapproving faces when played in a team
match. Definitely worth a try!
In the stem game, Jasnogrodsky continued
9/ik3 lLId7 10.a3?! .bc3+ I l.bxc3 cS
12.~e2 eS 13.0-0 cxd4 14.cxd4 exd4
15.tDxd4 0-0, and the game ended in a draw.
Actually, 9...c5 is even better. An example is
the game Adianto-Bareev, Cap d' Agde 2002:
lO.ncl cxd4 (IO ...O-O!? might even be stron-
ger) II.'i!fxd4 'ifxd4 12.lDxd40-O 13.31 i.e7!
(there is no need for giving up the two bishops,
although 13...~xc3+ 14..tlxc3 is also not bad)
14.g3? (this appears to be too weakening; it
was safer to play 14.~e2) 14....tld8 l5.'Db3
ltJc6 16.~g2(this move involves a pawn sacri-
fice, but I don't see any compensation for
White, l6.~2 was still preferable) 16...lLleS
17.0-0 lllxc4, Black was simply a pawn up for
nothing and went on to win the game.
Apart from 9.lOc3 there is a second alterna-
tive, 9.llled2. This move has done reason-
ably well in practice, but I don't think that
such a passive knight retreat can assure
White something interesting: 9 ...121d7lO.a3
.txd2+ II.'ihd2 0-0 l2.i.d3 e5 13.dxe5
134
lllxe5 14.~xe5 'ttxeS+, with equality,
Eklund-Nordstrom, Linkoping 1996.
Instead l2 .... e3 momentarily prevents me
...e5 break, but Black gets easy play after
12...cS 13. .td3 (13.0-0-0!? leads 10 interest-
ing play, but seems to me to be too dangerous
for White) l3 ...cxd4 (13 ...b6? 14.... e4)
14.'ii'xd4 1i'xd4 15.lihd4 ~S.
9...~f4
All possible queen moves have been tried, ex-
cept for 9 ...... f5. Still, this move is not entirely
stupid. The queen supports Black's
pawnbreaks ...c6-c5 and ... e6-eS. Also, White
won't be able to gain a tempo on me queen
with g2-g3. Meanwhile it is not entirely clear
what the drawbacks of this move are.
For 9...'~id8,see the third game.
After 9 .....!U5 the main try is 1O.'tt'd3 0-0 (or
1O...ttJd7 II.g4 - after II.c5 0-0 12.g4 Black
can play 12...'~hg4! 13Jlgl "f4 and White
has not enough compensation for the pawn-
II...'f¥xg4 l2 ..ctgl 'it'f4 13J:lJtg7, with un-
clear play) l1.g4!? (this move is double-
edged. It might be the start of a dangerous at-
tacking plan involving g4-g5 at some point,
but it also weakens the black squares very
much ...) 11...'*[4 (ll...'ifxg4? lVL'lf6+
gxf6 13.11g1 wins the queen) 12.... e3 'ttc7
(after 12...'ihe3+ 13.fxe3 the best assess-
ment is probably unclear, though I would
prefer White because of me easy develop-
ment and the space advantage) B.g5

J3 ... hS? (l3 ...hxgS is better: 14Jbexg5 - to
14.tVxgS Black probably does best to react
with 14.. .f5!) 14.lDf6+! <;Ph8 04 ... gx1'6
15.gxf6 and mate in a couple of moves)
1S.tL\xh5, and White is much better.
Instead of 1Q:.d3 J also analysed:
- 1O.tL\g3 ifa5 (or 10...... f4 and now
11.tL\hSis a nice double auack, but it will fail
to impress your opponent as there is
11...... e4 mate!) II.cS "d8 12.a3 ~a5, and
here my computer program advises the very
artificial 13.<;i;>d3?!0-0 14.~c2 followed by
.id3 or .ic4. Still. Black's chances are pref-
erable, as the white king is not so safe on the
queenside.
- lO.~e3'?! (if this move is really the stron-
gest, then Isuspect everybody will switch to
9 ...... f5 - the king makes room for the
bishop) 1O...h7 (10 ...0-0 I J.cS ~a5 l2.g4
"'d5 13.lOd6) Il.llJe5?! lUd7 12.g4 .ig5+
13.tL:xgS 'li'xg5+ 14.f4 .e7 and Black is
better. In chess, king safety is important and
I feel that all this space grabbing by White
will backfire later on.
On move I 1 White should just play 11..id3
1Wa5 12.11e1 0-0 and now the king has to rush
back, since e3 is no square for a king when the
board is full of pieces and the centre is open.
Unfortunately, White'S little experiment
doesn't yield him any advantage after 13.~e2
lbd7 14.'~fI e5 and at least White's king is
safe, but Black is okay anyway.
Apart from 9 .... f5, another possible move is
9 ..:~ g6. Now the correspondence game
Schrancz-Persits, Simagin Memorial 1985,
continued IO.<;Pe3!?f5 (after 1O...lDd7 Black
surprisingly runs into trouble thanks to
II.lZlh4! 'tWh7 12.c5 0-0 13..i.d3 and both the
bishop on b4 and the queen are badly mis-
placed) Il.lDe5 f4+ (J 1..:i'h7 IHIiIP+)
12.~d3 ~f5 l3.g4 fxg3 (13 ..... h7 14.Wf3
0-0 15.<;Pc2and White is better) 14.hxg3 ~d7
15.it'h5+ .xh5 16.lhh5 lbxe5+ 17.11xe5
and White was much better.
Moscow Variation: A German Speciality
10.1Wc2
White has an important choice to make:
where to put the queen?
1O.... d3 will be analysed in the next game,
Vokac-Dreev, Ohrid 2009.
10 ..•f5!1
An understandable decision. Black takes
immediate action, as the white king is badly
placed for the moment.
Things can easily go wrong for Black after
the superficial 1O...liJd1 Il.g3 1I'c7?
(i l...'ii'g4 is better) 12.c5!. threatening both
13.a3 and 13.lLld6+. After l2 .... d8 (to
make room fOT the bishop) 13.tDd6+ ~f8
14.a3 ~a5 15.CDeSlOxe5 16.dxe5 White has
a great position!
11.tLled2
II.LDc3 has been played before, but I am not
convinced of White's chances after I 1... eS
(or even the simple II...lLld7 12.g3 .g4
J3.~g2 O-Il - 13...eS!? - 14.11hel e5!
is.en e416.lbd2~f6,andBlackisatleasl
equal) 12.dxe5 thc4+ 13.'~el "fl.Nor-
mally this position would be quite good for
White, but now that the right of castling has
been forfeited I think White has problems
finishing his development!
11_.•tLld7
Black hurries with ...e6-e5.
12.g3 'W'C7
During the game I was mostly worried about
12 ...'tIt'g4. I considered l3.h3 Whs 14..ig2 e5
135
Sipke Ernst

15.g4 (after 15.'~f1 the rook on hI is out of 18...cxd4 19.h4 C;Ph720.l:Ihe1!

play) 15...fxg4 16.hxg4 "'xg4 17.J:lagl and
here White has enough compensation for the
pawn thanks to his well-placed pieces.
13.c5 b6 13...0-0 14.~4 and !he bishop
is in trouble. 14.83bd215.~xd21
Making room for the bishop. The king will
find a safe spot on the queenside.
1S...bxcS16.J:le1 0-0
Now all of White's pieces are playing!
Interesting is 20.h4 ltJf6 21.liJg5+ hxg5?
22.hxg5+ q.,g6 23.J:lxf6+ gxf6 24. "'e2! fxg5
25.... el, and mate is unavoidable, but Black
can simply reply 2l...~h8!, after which
there is no easy way for White to continue
the attack.

20...~a6?
17.~c11 After this move Black is lost. Also bad was
A nice prophylactic move. While waits to 20 ... ltJf6?, in view of 2t.Ale5 "'d8
see how Black arranges his pieces in orderto 22.1!t'xf5+~h8 23.llJh4!.
react to Black's play. The only way to continue the fight was
17.J:lxe6 is better for Black after 17 ...ltJf6 20 ...'~c5. though after 21.J:l6e5 d3 22.~xd3
18.Ael cxd4 19.~cl J:ld8. tt:'lxd3+ 2Hi'xd3 White is better.
17...•• 51 21..ba6 "'u6 22.lLlXd4
Later in the game the queen will often be ex- White has a winning position. Unfortunatel y
posed to attacks, so Black should probably I was running out of time and squandered my
keep the queen on c7 for now. advantage.
The alternatives are: 22..."a5 23.~7 Af7
- 17...cxd4 l8.ltJxd4 ~b6 19.1iJxe6 i.xe6
20.lhe6 which is slightly 'better for White.
- Also possible is 17...liJf6 - the following
line is more or less forced: 18.i.c4 liJe4
(18 ...~d5 19.dxc5) 19.dxc5 liJxcS 20.ltJd4
wh8 21.~xe6 "d6 22 ..ixc8 "'xd4 23.J:ldl
"'f6 24 .... xc5 J:lb8! 25.Ad2 l:lfxc8 and if
26.1ha7 then 26 ... c5! followed by
...c5-c4-c3, with serious counterplay, so
White probably should settle for the better
double rook ending with 25:.d4.
18.J:lxeS Or 18.~c4!?

136

24.g4
I missed a nice tactic here: 24.~xf5! ..t.>h8
(both 24 ..... xf5 25.~xf7 and 24...~xf5.25.g4
give White a decisive material advantage)
25.lhf7 'ifxel+ 26.'tt'dl "xdl+ 27 ...t.>xdl,
and Black is hopeless in the ending.
24...1181825.LOxf5
Also 25.gd5 is not so bad, but I wanted (0
keep my pawn structure intact!
25...g6 26.Wc4?
This move throws away a great deal of
White's advantage. I was reluctant to play
26 .... b3!, because of 26.....t.>h827.lDxh6?!
Ihf2 and things seemed not entirely dear to
me. However, I missed 27 ..l:l1e3!, winning
immediately.
26 .. :tIi'c5! 27."xc5 lbxc5 28.lbd6
J:txe7 29.J:txe7+ ~g8 3O.b4 0d3+
31.~c2llJx12
It's safe to say that Ididn't get themostoul
my middlegame advantage.
of
32.g5 hxg5 33.l:xa7 lbg4 34.lbe4
lLlxh2 3S.liJxg5 lbg4 36.84? After
36Jk7 Black still has problems 10 solve.
36..Jlb8
And here my opponent offered a draw,
which I happily accepted, as I had less than
30 seconds on the clock. Despite the errors I
think il was an interesting game.
o Marek Vokac
• Alexey Dreey
Ohrid2009
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.013 lbf6 4.LOc3e6
5.~g5 h6 6..txf6 "xf6 7.M dxe4
8.LOxe4~b4 ...9.~e2 "14 10."d31?
II is hard 10 say which move is better,
1O.... d3 or 1O.• c2. On d3 the queen can be
exposed to an attack by a black rook on d8,
but for the moment the queen is more ac-
tively placed than on c2. Also, this move
gives White the option of "e3.
Moscow Variation: A German Speciality
10...~e7
Black has an important alternative here, the
sharp 1O...f5!. After the normal 1 J.ttJc3
(l1.~ed2!'?) the lines fork.
- I L.lt)d7 12.g3 ..-d6 (or 12..... g4 13.h3
.f7
'ir'h5 and here a young Boris Spassky played
14. .tg20-O 15.g4 16.gxf5 exf5 17.a3
:'e8+ t 8. ~d2 ~d6 )9 .:ae 1 It)f6 with unclear
play, Spassky-Reicher, Bucharest 1953. It
seems to me that the light-squared bishop is
better off on d3 or e2, so I recommend
14...t.>d2!?) l3.~g2 0-0 and now the best is
14.c5!(14.:hdl e5!?-14 ...• c715 .• e3pre-
vents Black's desired ...e6-e5 break - 15.dxe5
"'e6 16.'.t>fl liJlle5 l7.ttJxe5 'W'xe5,
Miedema-Savchenko, Bethune 2006 - now it
is White who is looking for a way to equalize)
l4 ...• c7 (14 ...• e7 is worse because of
15.l:lhel b6 l6.wfl bxcS 17.d5! and after
17... ~xc3 -the 'clever' 17...c4 looks danger-
ous because of l8 .... c2 .txc3 19.1:lxe6 tif7
20."'xc3 cxd5 21.l:lael and White has a
strong initiative -18.d6 'fff619.'ffxc3 "xc3
20.bxc3 White has an advantage) 15.l:lhe I b6
(15 ...e5?? l6."c4+) l6.~1 bxc5 17.~gl!,
and with this calm prophylactic move White
ensures some advantage. Black is one pawn
up for the moment, but there are a lot of weak-
nesses in his camp.
- I L.O-O 12.g3 "c7 13.a3 .i.d6 (or
13....te7 14..tg20d7 l5.tie3!'? - after the
137
Sipke Ernst

natural J5.l:rtJel e5! 16.dxe5 ttJxe5 l7.tiJxe5
'it'xe5+ 18.';Pfl 'iff6 Black has a comfort-
able position - 15...lLlf6 16.l:I.hel c5 and
chances are about equal) 14.Ag2 lLld7
15.l:rhdl e5 J6.dxe5 Axe5 IHi;>f) f4, and
Black equalized in Gorelcv-Filipenko. Mos-
cow 1986. It seems that Black. is doing okay
here, so White needs an improvement in the
lines following IO .. J5, or he should prefer
1O.• c2.
11.g3 'ite7 12..i.g2 tLld7 13.l:thel e5
14.dxe5?
After the text-move Black has no problems
neutralizing White's initiative. The rest of
the game is a good example of what can hap-
pen if White doesn't play dynamically
enough. After Black completes his develop-
ment it is very hard for White to fight the two
bishops.
White should play sharply in order to get
something out of his development advan-
tage. Therefore, 14.'~t;>f1!?, a move that in-
volves a piece sacrifice, is necessary. Now
14...f5 is critical, although Black does have
some other options.
has some problems finishing his develop-
ment. Especially the h8-rook won't be able to
enter the game for some time to come.
The following lines are exemplary:
- 19...i.e6 20.d5l cxd5 21.clld5 Ag8
22.fkf5! Afl (22 ....th7 loses by force:
23.'iVe6 ~d6 24.1:I.acl tie7 25.1:Ic8+ l:I.xc8
26.'t!txc8+ 't!tc8 27.lLlg6+ hg6 28.1:I.xe8+
.txe8 29. 'i'xb7) 23.ltJxt7 will 24.'''e6+
c.t>f8 25.~acl 'ird8 26.1:I.e3 with more than
enough compensation.
- 19... ~h4 20.l:I.e2 Ae6 21.c5! .tfl22. Wc2
iLa5 (22 ... 't!td8? 23.ttlxfl ~xfl
24. 'iWb3++-) 23.a3 "'d8 24.b4 iLc7
25.:ael iLhS 26.lLlg6+ .ixg6 27.'t!txg6
looks extremely dangerous for Black.
- Also J9....td6 20.c5 iLxe5 21.dxeS li)d5
(21 ...tZlg8? 22.l:I.e4 and 23.1:I.f4)22.e6looks
very unpleasant for Black .
• 14...ex.d4?!

• 14...f5 15.lLlc3e4 (there is no backing out

now ) 16.loxe4! fxe4 17.... xe4 lLlf6
18 g6+ ~f8 19.1QeS!' This move prevents
Black's defensive idea ....lig4 followed by
...ill5. White has two pawns and active play
for the sacrificed material. Meanwhile, Black

138

- 15.• a3!. and now Black is mated after
l5 ...~xaJ?? l6.ltid6+, while 15 ...c5? is also
bad, in view of t 6.tlJxd4 0-0 (I6 ...cxd4
17.t;jd6+ <ja>f8 18.l:lxe7 wins) 17,l1Jb5 and
White has a lot of positional pluses.
This makes 15...lC.e5! effectively the only
move. After 16.c5 0-0 (16 ... tbxf3'!!
17.~d6+) 17.tbxd4 b6 (17 ...l:ld8 l8.nadl
tLlg4 - 18 ...~g4 19.0 ~d7 20.ltJd6 with an
advantage. The central control of the white
pieces outweigh Black's bishop pair - 19.h3
lDf6 20.lC.d6 .i.xd6 2l.cxd6 ~xd6
2l...l:lxd6? 22.1tjb5 - 22.1tJe6 'i'xdl
23.11Jldll:lxdl+24.<;Pe2~Jle625.~xdl and
although Black has very good drawing
chances, White is slightly better) 18.'@'c3
White has an edge. Black can easily slip with
the active looking l8 ....ta6+?! 19.1ito>gl
lUd3? which loses immediately because of
20.lDf5! f6 21.cxb6 axb6 22 .... xc6.
- Other lines offer White nothing: 15.tL'lxd4
is the most logical continuation, and although
this move is not without poison Ithink Black
equalizes with correct play: 15...0-0 16.tbf5
(l6.11ad I tC.c5 is equal) I 6...~b4! 17.tL'led6
looks interesting, as it is dangerous to take the
exchange ... 17...~xel (unfortunately Black
doesn 't have to take the bait and can equalize
with 17...lDe5! 18.l:lxe5 ~xf5 19:ihf5
~xd6) l8.ll:le7+ <;Ph8 19.1:lxe) tDf6
20.tLlexc8 llaxc8 21.lUxc8 l:lxc8 22.,*a3!
and White has an edge.
- In the only game featuring 14."""fl,
Kishnev-Gorelov, Moscow 1984, the play-
ers agreed to a draw after .J5.Wxd4 0-0
l6.l:ladl.
• 14...0-0 looks safer, hut White can try to
make something of his lead in development by
15.tL'lc3~f6 16.d5 (the only move to try for an
advantage; 16.l1ad I exd4 17.lDxd4lC.c5 is fine
for Black and 16.lUe4 h7 repeats moves)
16...~c5 17."c2 .ig4 18.dxc6 bxc6 19.1Oe4
tLlxe4 2o.1he4 .id7! (20 ....ixf3 21.~xf3
with a small advantage) 21.0.xc5l:lae8! 22.f4
Moscow Variation: A German Speciality
(also after 22.lOxd7 l:lxe4 23.lDxf6+ gxf6
24.11xe4 White cannot count on an advantage)
22...~xe5 23.fxe5 f624.<lo>gl I1xe5 25.'fVd4
and Black is very close to equalizing.
14 •.•lt:.xe5 15.tLJxe5 Whe5 16;Wfl 0-0
17.lfb3 'it'c7
-
Black is already slightly better. The knight
on e4 looks pretty but the black bishops are
very strong.
18. 'ft'e3 .i.e6 19.b3 IUe8 20.'W'f3 Not
20.tDc5? ~f6!' 20 •..'C!t'aS21.94?
Not the kind of move grandmasters are
happy to play. Probably Vokac felt desperate
here already.
21...~Bd8 22.Wgl ~d4 23.h3 ~ed8
Black has a close to winning advantage, and
eventually won the game.
In the next game, played more than 50 years
ago (!), we will deal with the solid 9 ...,*d8.
Though this move looks kind of timid, it
should not be underestimated, as it has some
advantages over 9 ...... f4. Most obviously,
the move g2-g3 won't gain a tempo, and if
White decides to play g2-g3 anyway, Black
can decide if he wants to play ... VJlJc7 or not.
A drawback is that the ...e6-e5 break is not
supported for the moment, though, as we
will see, Black often achieves this break
nonetheless. This game also features the
biggest expert on the 7.e4 line in the Mos-
cow Variation. Wolfgang Uhlmann played
139
Sipke Ernst
this line five times according to my data-
base. scoring two wins and three draws.
o Wolfgang Uhlmann
• Ludek. Pachman
Moscow 1956
1.c4 ttJf6 2.tLlc3 e6 3.lLlf3d5 4.d4 c6
5..ig5 h6 6..i.xf6 "xf6 7.e4 dxe4
8.ttlxe4 .ib4+ 9.~e2 "d8!?
This solid move should not be underesti-
mated. Black has collected the bishop pair
and the white king is badly placed on e2, so it
is all on White to prove that his strategy is
correct.
10.g3
In the game Teske-Neverov, Pardubice
1999, 1O.1ib3 was tried. Black gradually
equalized after IO ... ~e7 11.lldl (it appears
that the d l-square should be preserved for
the king's rook. Also. this move doesn't pre-
vent the ...e6-eS break. anyway) 1l...ttld7
12.g3 (}.O 13..tg2 cS! 14.:he) (l4.dxeS
"'c7) 14...cxd4 15.lOxd4a6 16.~f1 "c7.
10...0-0 11..tg2
The immediate 11.1ib3 is also possible,
though it gives Black an additional option
which is quite interesting: 11....te7 12.~g2.
and now:
- 12...bS!? l3.cS e5 14.lOxe5! (in the game
140
Uhlmann-Tischbierek, Cottbus ch-DDR
1983. there followed 14.d.xeS~e6 15.• c3
.tc4+ 16.We3 and I'm not sure whether
Black actually has enough compensation for
the pawn) 14...1t'xd4 15.f4 ~xc5 (or
15...~e6 16.:hdl hb3 17.lIxd4 .idS
18J:txd5! cxd5 19.1Od6"bd6 20.cxd6 and
the powerful passed pawn is wonh more
than the exchange) 16.:hdl W'b4 17.... xb4
~xb4 18..1%ac 1 and White has a lot of pres-
sure for the sacrificed pawn.
- 12...ttld7 13.:hdl "a5 was seen in
Cebalo-Sveshnikov, Leningrad 1984.
(13 ..... b6 14.W'c2 lOf6 15.fuf6+ ~xf6
16.~f1 c5 - t6 ...J:d817.cS! and Black has a
cramped position - 17.dxc5 .xe5 18.lOd2
with a small advantage) 14.• c3!? (l4.Wfl
b6 15.'ifo>giis interesting; the pawn sacrifice
14.cS?! b6 IS.Wn bxcS 16.¢lgl is not con-
vincing, e.g. 16...lIb8 17."c2 ~6 18.b3
cxd4 19.tLlxd4ttle5 and White's compensa-
tion is not sufficient) 14... .tb4 (14 ..... f5
IS.tlJeS! is the main idea) 15:tlk2 f5
16.lL'led2e5 17.tDb3"c7
and here 18.cS! is strong (Cebalo played
18.dx.e5ttlx.eS19.tLlxe5"'xeS+ 20.~f1 1Itc7
and Black was doing fine). as Black's
dark-squared bishop is in trouble. Black's
best chance is probably 18...e4 19.• c4+
J:r.t7 20.1rxb4 exf3+ 21.hf3lOf6 and Black
is not without counterplay (Black will play
 Moscow Variation: A German Speciality

...f5-f4 soon, activating Black's pieces) but The superficial 14.Aacl runs into 14...e5
still the pawn should count for something. 15.d5 f5!.
- Finally, 12.... b613.llhdl "xb3 14.axb3 14...Ad8
is slightly better for White. Now, 14... e5 is answered by 15.d5.
11.•.liJd7 15.'~f1lDf6
Also interesting is 15 ...b6!? 16.Aacl ~b7
followed by ...c6-c5.
16.:ac1 Not 16.c5? ~xc5, but 16."e3!?
is interesting. 16...86

12:.d3?!
This time. the queen is not so well placed
here. as it quickly can become a target for
Black's e-pawn,
In a later game against Sveshnikov in 17.b3?!
Sarajevo 1983 Uhlmann tried 12.lIfc2, but This inaccuracy offers Black the chance to
Black easily equalized after 12.. .f5 13.ltJc3 equalize immediately.
'i'f614.'tfb3 ~aSI5.llhel e5 16.dxe5 tUxe5 Black would still have some small problems
17.tOxe5 .xe5+ 18.'~fl .f6 and in fact it is to solve after 17.• e3, as after the logical
White who should watch out or he will end 17...c5 18.dxc5 Axdl+ J9.Axdl ~xc5
up in a worse position. 20.'6'e5! the ending after 20 ..: *xe5
12.• b3, however. is an improvement. After 21.ltd8+ <;t>h722. ttJxe5 is very bad, so Black
the obvious l2 ...~e7 I3.llhdl the game should go for 20 ...• e7. though then too
transposes to the lines following 11.~3. White keeps some pressure after 21.tUe4.
12...~e7 Possibly 17.'6'e2!? is even stronger, as here
Black has a much stronger plan: 12.. .f5! the queen is not exposed to any attacks.
13.tUc3 e5! 14.dxe5 (it is also dangerous to 17... c5!
take with the knight: 14.ltJxe5 tUxeS 15.dxe5 Now the game quickly peters out to a draw.
"as 16.(4 Ad8 17."c2 ~e6) 14..... e7
15.l:1hel ltJc5 16 e3 (also 16.... c2 f4 is
18.d5 exd5 19.tiJxd5 fi)xd5 20.cxd5
~d7 21.tiJd2
very dangerous) 16 ~e617.b3 f4! 18.gxf4 Of course not 21.d6?? ~xd6 22. "'xd6 ~b5+
~g4 19.wfI iOe6 Ibis is the kind of stuff and Black wins.
White should avoid. Black is probably win- 21...~d6 22.lDc4 b5 23.lLlxd6'it"xd6
ning already! 24.11d2 Uac8 25.Wg1
13.Uhd1 'fIc714.lDc3 Draw.

141
 -------_ ..-.--_. __ .-

The SOS Competition

~@ lfBIJiJU@If@ @If(IJJ@Jw
@~@01lB01l@ If[}u@@~
w@ooo @[}U@W W@(IJJ

If[}u@ []iJi)@01l@WQ
...... r._ __

With 50S not only will you score some unexpected

victories, you also have a chance to win a nice amount
of money! Every six months, 1M Jeroen Bosch, the
editor of 50S, gives away a cool f 250 ($350) for the
best games played with an 50S variation.

• Every SOS reader can participate by

submitting a game
• Submitted games should start with an SOS
variation
• The SOS variation may originate from any
SOS volume published so far
• Always include information about when
and where the game was played
• The First Prize is €150 ($180); the winning
game will be published in SOS
• There are two Second Prizes of €50 ($60)
each

Baffle your opponent, improve your bottom line!

Games should be submitted to: New In Chess, P.O. Box 1093, 1810 KB
Alkrnaar, The Netherlands, or email to:editors@newinchess.com
(:1 u- "" (1l'I'IIilig
1':"_",'111 i;d" I

DISMANTLINGI
THE SICILIAN

Revolutionize
Your Chess
 Distrlbuzlone
LE DUE TORRI
www.chess.it
Tel.051 522433