SOS - Secrets of Opening Surprises 2

SECRETS OF
OPENING
SURPRISES
2
Edited by
JEROEN BOSCH

2004 New In Chess - The Netherlands

© 2004 New In Chess
Published by New In Chess, Alkrnaar, The Netherlands
www.newinchess.com
Appears twice a year

Previous versions of Chapters 5, 8. I I and 13 have appeared

in New In Chess Magazine.

All rights reserved. No pan of this book may be reproduced, stored in a rc-
trieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means. electronic, me-
chanical. photocopying. recording or otherwise. without the prior written
permission from the publisher.

Cover design and lay-out: Steven Boland

Drawing on frontcovcr: lander Dekker
Printing; A-D Druk BY, Zcist, The Netherlands
Production: Joop de Groot
Proofreading: Rene Olthof

Printed in the Netherlands

ISBN 90-5691-132-5
 Contents

Jeroen Bosch The SOS Files 9

2 Ian Rogers Refining Fischer's Plan 17

3 Alexander Beliavsky Destroying the Benoni Wall 23

4 Maxim Notkin When I was Young 28

5 Jeroen Bosch Morozevich's Pet Line in the Albin 38

6 Michal Krasenkow The Dutch in the English? 45

7 Dorian Rogozenko Follow the Experts 52

8 Jeroen Bosch Let's wait and see: 3...h6 in the French 63

9 Sergei Movscsian Play like a Beginner 72

10 Dimitri Reinderman The Haberditz Variation 78

II Jeroen Bosch Get the Edge on the Budapest 83

12 Igor Glek Gambit Lines in the Glek Variation 91

13 Jeroen Bosch Beating the Van Geet 102

14 Dorian Rogozenko A Latvian Speciality vs the Dragon 108

15 Mihai Grunberg It is Better Playing White 116

16 Glenn Flear The Solid but Tricky Fianchetto Spanish 121

17 Jonathan Rowson The Improved Nadanian 133

 CHAPTER 1 - page 9
Jeroen Bosch
The 50S Files

Winning the SOS Competition

CHAPTER 2 - page 17 CHAPTER 3 - page 23

Ian Rogers Alexander Beliavsky
Refining Fischer's Plan Destroying the Benoni Wall

K~j_'i¥~j. .. g
" ,~
""

Caro-Kann Exchange with 4.q~e5 Alekhine's 5.f4

CHAPTER 4 - page 28 CHAPTER 5 - page 38

Maxim Notkin Jeraen Bo.sch
When I was Young Morozevich's Pet Line in the Albin

i i.!¥ .t &
'"• ~'"

3 ... h5 against the Vienna The Sideline 5._.4Uge7

 CHAPTER 6 - page 45 CHAPTER 7 - page 52
MiL'hal Krasenkow Dorian Rogozenko
The Dutch In the English? Follow the Experts

Combining ... c5 and .. .15 4.'lJfd3 in the Richter-Veresov

CHAPTER 8 - page 63 CHAPTER 9 - page 72

Jeroen Bosch Sergei Movsesian
Let's walt and see: 3...h6 in the French Play like a Beginner

ii~.t.'tW~.t..g
III i.
1
1
8[:,
1
11
.1
x .t.'if*..t g
1111

l()[:,
4-

tD t:,
[:,[:,[:, l!,[:,t:!:, [:,t!:,fj, [:,[:,
11 .~.'~WW .il{J tt !l .i'iYw~ tt
3 ...h6 - sur place! 6.h3 against the Classical Sicilian

CHAPTER 10 - page 78 CHAPTER 11 - page 83

Dimitri Relnderman Jeroen Bosch
The Haberditz Variation Get the Edge on the Budapest

Play 6 ... h6 in the 'Sveshnikov'

 CHAPTER 12 - page 91 CHAPTER 13 - page 102
Igor Glek Jeroen Bosch
Gambit lines in the Glek Variation Beating the Van Geet

tl)

At!:.A8 8t!:.8
l;'t ~'iY~~~J:[
Is this the Belgrade Gambit? 1.0"';c3 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.0<e4 ~c6

CHAPTER 14 - page 108 CHAPTER 15 - page 116

Dorian Rogozenko Mihai GriinberK
A latvian Speciality vs the Dragon It is Better Playing While

li_.i.'iK.A.i.
III llll

~
tl)~ l
ll)
~8~ ~t:,~
~ 'ifw~ n
Bishop Aggression 6.~g5 and 7.~b5 1.tL:f3 d5 2.c4 d4 3.c5!?
~-----------------------+---------------
CHAPTER 16 - page 121 CHAPTER 17 - page 133
Glenn Flear Jonathan R(lW$(1n
, The Solid but Tricky Fianchetto Spanish The Improved Nadanian

1.e4 e5 2.tDf3 q-,c6 3.~.b5 g6!? 6.l"i;a4 in the Griinfeld

 CHAPTER 1
Jeroen Bosch
The 80S Files
Grandmaster Draw in the Gunsberg
(51051-1, Chapter 1, p.IO)
From this book onwards, we shall keep you
informed on previous SOS ideas - making
sure that you keep up with important SOS
victories, and the occasional mishap!
Let's start with a grandmaster draw in the
Gunsberg Variation.
o Stefan Kindermann
• Zoltan Gyimesi
Austria 112003/{)4
1.e4 e5 2.lbf3 tlJc6 3.lcc3 tUf6 4.a3 d5
Please note that 4 ...g6 5.cLxe5~? corre-
sponds rather nicely with our appetizer in
Chapter 12.ln Nevanlinna-Nyysti, Finland
It 2003104, Black returned the piece after
5...tLxe5 6.d4 0.c6 7.dS fLg7 8.dxc6 bxco
9.~d3 with even chances. Interestingly.
Nyysti had previously lost a game with
7 ... li..';b8 8.e5 tL;g8 9.d6. This was against
Magnus Carlsen. Yes. the Norwegian hoy
wonder sure knows his SOS!
White was better in Kuzmicz-Ncmcth, Bala-
tonlelle 2004, after 4 ...d6 5.d4 gg4 6.d5
li\d4 7 .~e3 l1:xf3+ 8.gxf3 .td7 9.'i'd2 c6
I 0.~c4 1:[c8 l1.dxc6 bxc6 12.f4 exf4
13..lhf4.
S..ib5 ttJxe4 6.ife2
The principal move is 6.tbxeS when Skov-
guard-Jaeger, Copenhagen 2004. turned out
badly for Black after 6...fi'f6 7.tL::d3N
(7.~f3) 7 ...axc3 8.dxc3 ~e6 9.~f4 1:k8
10..-d2 a6 11.~xc6+ bxc6 lVt':b4 .ibM
13.axb40-0 14.0-0±.
Instead of 6 ....W'f6. the move 6 ...1tg5 may
lead to wild complications: 7.lLlxc6 "'xg2
8JUI tbxc3 (I am rather looking forward to a
future contribution following 8...a6 9.t(jxd5
axb5 lO.<Dxc7+ 'it>d7 Il.tDxa8 'it>xc6 and in
this theoretical position (with reversed co-
lours) the question is how useful the additio-
nal move a3 is) 9.dxc3 a6 10.~e2+ fi'e4
II.'i!fxe4+ dxe-l 12.ta:l4+!? (I2.i.a4 ~d7)
12...axb5 13.lL:xb5 ~d7 14~f4 ~6 15.c4
and White had the slightly better chances in
Morgan-Schroeder. cr 2003104. This was a
reader submission for our SOS contest.
6...tlJxc3 7.1!fxe5+ 1!fe7!
This equalizing move was already given in
SOS-I. Our present grandmaster 'duel' con-
firms this verdict. Instead 7 ...~e7 8.'ihc3
0-0 9 ..Q.xc6 bxc6 lO.... xc6 was better for
White in Kristjansson-Azarov, Goa 2002.
B.dxc3 ~d7 9.iWxe7+ ~xe7 10.~f4
0-0-0 11.0-0-0 ~g4 12J~de1 ~xf3
13.~xc6 ~d6
A nice intermediate move that makes for ,10
esthetic diagram.
9
Jeroen Bosch

14.~xd6 hg2 15.l:Ihg1 .c:xd6 11.~g5 rUB 12.lDd5 tLlcxe5

16.rtxg2 bxc6 17.rtxg7 rtf6 l8 ..I:I.e7 Here 12...lUgxe5 was stronger with the tacti-
.1:1..8= 19 ..I:I:xh7 .l:l:xf2 20.~dl 1f.t-1h cal point I3.lDxc7 (13.0-0-0seemsto preser-
ve an edge) 13...t;\xf3+ 14.gd3 ~xb2.
13.lbxc7 tlbS
An SOS is Stronger Than You Think Of course, now 13.. .loxf3+ 14.gxf3 leaves
(o5OS·/, Chapter 2. p.22) the g4-knight en prise.
It is with great pleasure that I present the fol- 14..te7 Winning the exchange. 14...ltJc6
lowing three games. correcting erroneous 15. .txfB .Q.xb2! The best chance.
judgments from SOS-I. In all cases our SOS 1S.tlb1 .tc3+ 17.¢le2 IiPxf8 18.~d5
Iine turns out to contain even more bite than I Giving back the exchange for a superior
thought. ending. 18...tDd4+ 19.~3! tDf2+
20.~xc3 tlJxf3 21.gxf3lOxhl 22.'lt'd4!
o John Bartholomew lbf2 23.h4 lDh3 24.c4 hS 25.84 g5
• Gennady Zaichik 26.~xh31 .ixh3 27.hxg5 .Q.d7
Philadelphia 2004 27 ...hxg5 2S.1:hl Acs 29.~8+ rJ;;g7
30.::ldS wins a piece. 28_gxh6 .ixa4
1.e4 96 2.d4 ~g7 3.tDC3 d6 4.f4 ttJf6 29 ..1:1:91f6 30. .I:I:g7 .te8 31.lbxf6 .a.dB+
5.83 0-0 6.'Uf3 tljc6 7.£.e3 32.,.pc3 ~f7 33.liJh7+ 1-0
I incorrectly gave this a dubious mark in
SOS·I, preferring instead 7 ..te2 or 7.eS.
7 .•.e5 8.dxe5 dxe5 9.6'xd8! More 83 Fun
Going for this ending is much better than (SOS-J, Chapter 3, p.29)
9.f xe5 tGg4 1O.~c5 li'.cxe5! from the game The following game sees White effortlessly
Sepp-Fridman, Riga 1995 (via transpositi- outplaying a OM in a vintage a3-50S.
on). This was the game upon which I had ba-
sed my previous judgement. o Davor Rogie
9....c:xd8 10.fxe5 lL:g4 • Drazen Sermek
Croatia It 2004

K1.& - ~ 1.e4 c5 2.liJf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.0.xd4

1"_
1 1 ~---'p11.1_ tt2f6 5.ltjc3 ltjc6 6.a3
~ J1l Well, here's that funny move again. In
1- , ~r
8 SOS-I we argued that given tile right oppo-
nent this could be an apt move order weapon
8 ~ to outfox the chap on the other side of the
£::. ltJ ~ttJ board. Sermek decides upon one of the more
principal approaches. questioning the use-
£::.8 ~8 fulness of 6.a3.
: ~~ ~ 6...d57.exd5
My main line in SOS-I was 7 .~b5 ~d7
Structurally there is nothing wrong with 8.exdS exd5 9.0·0 jj_e7 lO.h30-O 11.0..f3, as
Black, but White has some annoying time- played by Nigel Short.
gaining moves at his disposal. 7...exd5 8.~e2 .te7 9.0-00-0

10
 The SOS Files

i.
I considered this position to be equal (and
therefore recommended 7 .~b5). However, 't!HR~
it seems that I underesti mated (he strength of i Ai
this particular SOS - in the game Rogic de-
monstrates that White's position is a lot ea-
A
sier to handle than Black's. ~~
10.~f4 a6?!
To avoid a knight jump to b5.
11.~f3 tL\xd4?!12:.-xd4
8 l2J ~ 8
88 88
White has pressure against the
and is better.
isolated pawn
1:[: W
12...~e6 13.1:[ad1 l:te8 14J:1fe1 'i'd7
1S.h3 1:['dS 16..i.e5! 25."1Ikg3?
Again White is increasing the pressure. With White misses a good chance: 25.:hdS! i.,u.l5
rather simple means Rogie has obtained su- (25 .. Jhd)! 26.t2Jxd5 .ixd5 27 .srs l:I:e4
perior chances. 2g.~xe4 ~xe4 29..l:l:xe4 .xc2 30..lhe7+
16...1:[c417.'ii'd2 "c8 1S:-.wgS! ~f8±) 26 ..:c.xd5~xd5 27.~f6+-.
Directing her majesty towards the enemy 2S ... l:I:h6? 26.~g8+?
zonc. This move underlines the coordination Again a sac on d5 was possible: 26.tL:.xd5!
of White's forces. Because of the tactical l:I:xd5 27.l:I:xd5 and now 27 .. ~xd5 28.~f6
problems on square g7, the isolated pawn is wins material in all Ii nes: 2S ...l:I:xf6(28 ...~e6
now difficult to defend. 29.W'g8+ <;i;>d7 (29 ...~f8 3O.1tg7) 30.~xc8+
18...h619_~g3 Wf8 <;!;oxcS 31..he7) 29.'lWg8+ <JJd7 30.~xc7+.
26 •.•'Et>d727.~g7
Hen: 27 .~xd5 ~xg8 28.lZ.lb6+~c6 29.4:)xc8
~xc8 favours Black.
27 ...~f8 28:tlYg3 We8 29.t[je4 1:[g6
30.~'3 i.Yxe2 31.l:tc1
and possibly in time trouble the players
agreed to a most illogical result: draw.

A Simple SOS Win

(50S-I, Chapter 12. p.98)
It is hard to face the Sveshnikov. The next
game is a major confidence booster for our
20..ixdS! li)xd5 SOS recipe.
20 ... i.xdS 21.lZ;;xd5 loses on the spot.
2U!t'xg7+ 'it>e8 22.1!fh8+ rticfl23.'i'xh6 o Ioannts Papadopoulos
With three pawns and an attack for the • Robert Ris
piece. Aghia Pelagia 2004
23 ..•l:I:h4
23 ...• c6 is more stubborn. 1.e4 cS Vt~f3 tbc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.ttJxd4
24. 'i'e3 We8 ttJf6 S.tbc3 e5 6_li:}dbS d6 7.tlJd5

11
Jeroen Bosch
~xd5 8.exd5 ~b8 9.'it'13 a6 10."a3
~e711.jLd2 11.~g5!? 11...0-0 12.~b4
axb5 12...~g4!? 13Jha8lba6 14.~d2
Wb615.~e31VaS+ 16.c3 b4
All this can be found on page 102 of SOS·I.
where I now stated that White should force
the draw with 17.ne I since Black has excel-
lent compensation after 17.~d2 bxc3
18.~xc3 f!t'xd5. After 1Htc 1. Paragua-
Poliakov, Goa 2002, was drawn after
17.: tha2 18.cxb4 ~xb2 19.nxc8 ~xb4+
20 ..i.d2 'iWb1+ 21.~c I ~b4+ 22 ..2.d2.
In our present game Mr Papadopoulos play-
ed the much simpler and much stronger
17.Qxa6!N
which wins almost outright!
17 ...bxc3
Here 17... bxa6 18."iYc6just wins.
18.0·0
Castling into safety. White remains an ex-
change up.
lB...bxa6 18...cxb2 19.':abl bxa6
20.:txb2±. 19.bxc3 ~f5 20.~b7 ~f6
21 Jirb3 hS 22.l'lfdl "fIc7 23.l'lac1
nb8 24:"a4 h4 2S.h3 _dB 26:~xa6
~g5 27.We2 11.a8 28.nd2 1:[a4
29 ..ixg5 29.c4. 29 .. :'hg5 30.We31U4
31.<~h2 Here White could have won with
31.a4! ~e4 32.f3 .axD 33 ..l::tel~. However,
not 33.a5? ~xg2 34.:xg2? lin + and it is
Black who wins. 31....Q.e4 32.]::191'fi'f5
12
33.a4 ~c2! 34.a5 1:[e4 Black has strong
countcrplay 35:~'f3 1:[f4 36.ite2 l:le4
37:~ff3 Or 37Jhc2 lhe2 3R.l:txe2 'iWf4+
39.Whl 'ifa4. 37 ...1:['4 38,"iWe3rle4
39.a6 l:txe3 40.fxe3 'fYd7? A mistake
in timetrouble, correct was 40 ...'ffc8!.
41.1:[a1! 1-0
White wins after 4 I ...~a4 42.~b2.
The ... ~d6 Saga Continues
(SOS-I, Chapter 4, pAO)
I recommended 4 ..._ad6 as a means to play
for a win as Black against the Spanish Four
Knights. 1 soon experienced the truth of that
remark myself, see below.
o Saidali Yuldashev
• Sergey Kayumov
Abu Dhabi 2004
1.e4 e5 VL,f3 tDc6 3.lt'.c3 tLl'6 4 ..tb5
Qd6 S.d3
Jan Pinski has suggested the creative 5.g4 in
his book The Four Knights (2003). He diffu-
sed his own bomb though. by remarking that
Black is OK after 5...~c5!.
More normal is 5.0-00-0 and now:
• 6.d4 (this pseudo-active move gives
Black all the chances) 6 ...0xd4 7.tL:xd4
exd4 8.'iWxd4 ~e8! (preparing 9 ....ae5)

9.h3?! ke5 10.Wd3 c6! (I0 ....ixc3 also
wins a safe pawn, but the text is even more
ambitious) 11.~a4 as (threatening to win
the bishop) 12.~h3 h5 l3.a4 h4 14.0e2
~xe4 (now Black has won the pawn under
even more favourable circumstances)
15.... f3 d5 16.tbg3 tDc5 17.Ae3 ~xb3
18.cxb3 i.xb2 and White resigned in Wil-
lernze-Bosch, Dieren 2003. as he remains
two pawns down for nothing. Playing an
SOS is even better than writing about one!
• 6.d3 h6 (avoiding 7 .~g5 with an unplea-
sant pin) 7.a3 l:e8 S.h3 AfB 9.::teJ d6
1O..Q.e3 a6 11..~.c4 ~e6 12..i.xe6 lhe6
13.tDdS Y2-¥Z Ghaern Maghami-Hari-
krishna. Abu Dhabi 2004.
5...0·0
Not having castled yet, Black might like to
play 5...h6, and now:
• 6.~e2 0-0 7.c3 ne8 8.0-0 a6 9.ii.a4 bS
1O.Ac2 ~f8 I Ubg3 dS 12.h3 g6 13.a4 .i.b7
14..l:e1 i.g7 with a superior Ruy Lopez. for
Black in Slapikas-Asauskas, Vilnius 2004.
• 6..Q.e3 a6 7 ..aa4 0-0 8.h3 b5 9 ..ab3
Ab4!? (preparing to strike in the centre with
...dS) 10.0-0 ~xc3 l1.bxc3 dS 12.exdS
lDxd5 13.i.d2 ne8 with approximate equal-
ity in Schurude-Gustafsson, Hockendorf
2004.
6.a3
White prepares a retreat square for his king's
bishop, and prevents a possible ...~b4. What
is more. he cleverly postpones castling.
6...::te8
The danger of combining castling with play-
ing 6...h6'!' was demonstrated in Srnccts-Pa-
vasovic, Wijk aan Zee C 2004. Indeed. that's
what White was wailing for! He needed no
further provocation to launch a kingside at-
tack with 7.g4! ~e7 (7 ...~xg4 8J~gl is too
dangerous) 8..be6! dxc6 9.h3 "d610.~h4
~dS! 1L~f5 .idS 12.gxfS tt1xc3 B.b»c3
bS?! (I3 ...11fd8! was the correct way to pro-
ceed according to Srneets, Black plans to
The SOS Files
evacuate his king to the queenside, while
holding the kingside with ...i.f6) 14.~e3 a5
and now according to Smeets IS.ngl! a4
16.'li'h5 ~h7 17_~e2 preparing to double
the rooks on the g-file would have given
White a decisive attack.
7.~c4
Eying the n square. Black did not fear
7 ..Q.g5 because of 7 ... 4'.d41 !tloxd4?! exd4
planning 9.tbdS? c6 I O.lLlxf6+ gxf6 11.~h6
fS 12.~c4 'l\I'h4.
7...zes 8.tUgS::tf89.ltJd5 h6 10.h4!?
10...d6
Of course Black does not take on gS. Now it
appears though that White has sinned
against one of Steinitz's rules - attacking
while he did not have an advantage.
11.c3 q,.xd5 12.exd5 C,}e7 13.'tlfh5
~f5 14.t:~e4~xe4 15.dxe4 f5 Not rt,
but f2 is a weak square! 16.13 fxe4
17.fxe4 ~f2+ lB.We2 1i'd7 19.~d2
J:tf7 20.Wd3 I:sf8 21.1:[af1 i.g3
22.l:txf7 lbf7 23.l:th3 ~f4 24.~e1 g6
25.'f.Ve2h5 26.l:hl Wg7 27.1:[f1tDg8
28.93 $.h6 29.l:txf7+ .xf7 30..... 21
30.Wc2 30...lL}f6 31.a4?! a6 32.• '3
'tWd7! 33.~b3 'ii'h3 34.i.dl lUg4
35.i.e2 'irh2 36.b4? "gl Black has
cunningly infiltrated and is totally win-
ning. 37."f1 fi'e3+ 38.c;t>c2 '*cl+
39.wd3 And White resigned as 39 ...'t!t'b1+
40:;i;>c4 ~~e3 mates.
13
Jeroen Bosch
SOS Wamlng
(50S-I, Chapter J I. p.94)
A note of warning for readers eager to play
Kortchnoi's 7:ti'f3 in the Alckhine. Black's
play in the following game deserves to be
subjected to careful scrutiny.
o Vladimir Kovalenko
• Vfadimlr Sergeev
Kiev 2004
1.e4 lOf62.e5 ~dS 3.d4 d6 4.c4 ~b6
5.exdS exd6 S.lt)c3 Ae7 7.~f3 0-0
8.~e3 c6 9.~d3 ~a6
I .t'iV K.
~~ .t1~1
~~~ 1,__.....
_._
Su far Black had mainly tried 9 ...d5 whcn
SOS-1 gives 10.c5 ~6d7 II.lUge2 b6 with a
tiny edge for White (p.95). I like Sergeev's
move. Black simply develops, aiming for
either ...tL:.b4or simply .Jc,c7 - the central
push d6-d5 can wait.
10.a3
1O.~ge2'? tt:1b4+ illustrates a main point of
9 ~a6.
10 t;Jc7 1 Ubge2 d5 Only now. 12.c5
tiJc4 13.~e1 ~f6 14.b3 14.0-0
14...tbaS 15.~c2 IS.l:lbl removes the
rook from the a l·hS diagonal. 15...bS
16.0-0 bxc5 17.dxc5 ~a6 Now Black is
just better. 18.~b2 lle8 19.1:!.fe1 llb8!
20.b4 l;\C4 21~c1 tL:e6 22.~f4? l:tb7
23.~d3 llbe7 With his wonderful piece
14
coordination Black is ready to strike.
24..Q.xc4? il.xc4 24...~d4 also wins.
25.~d6 ti\d4 0-1
Kuprelchik Reigns Supreme
Both grandmasters Sedlak and Krum Geor-
giev have been rather Successful with the
Kupreichik Variation. Some fragments to
convince you of its viability.
1.e4 c5 VDt3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.ti)xd4
lUf6 5.c:c.c3~d7
• 6.~e2 t;:;c67.Qe3 e6 8.ttxtb5 't!i'b8
9.0-0 ll.e7 10.'4 0-0 11..~f3 zea
12.'iI'e2 a6 13.tiJd4 b5 14.a3 '*c7
lSJUd1 llabS With a very pleasant
Scheveningen-like position. While missed
an intermediate move when he embarked
upon. 16.eS?! dxeS 1Vl:jxc6 17..bc6
exd4! (17 ... ~xc6 1!!.tt2xc6 1lt'xc6 !9.fxe5=
was White's idea) 18.~xd7 dxc3! !9.~xc8
cxb2 2()Jlnb I rtxc8 and Black is better.
17...~xc6 18.~xc6 exf4! with advan-
tage fur Black in Kakkanas-Kr.Georgiev,
Thessaloniki 2003.
• 6.~c4 e6 7..Qe3 Q;c6 8..ib3 a6
9.'.-e2 ne8 10.0-0-0 0.a5 11.g4 l:lxe3!
A typical Sicilian exchange sacrifice.
12.bxc3 ~xe4 13.~d2 d5 14.f3 4Jxd2

15.~xd2 ~a3+ 16.Wb1 0-0 and Black
was better, S.llic.Kr.Georgiev, Thessaloniki
2003.
• 6.f3 ~b6 7.g4 h6 7."::i::.c6. B.h4 e6
9.lDb3 a6 10.• e2 'i'c7 11.l:tgl g6
12...te3 b5 13.a3 ttJe6 14.0-0-0 $..e7
15.gS hxg5 16.hxgS tDhS 17.f4 b4
18.axb4 lDxb4 19.15exfS 20.l:[d4 with
this intermediate move White aims to gain
control over square dS unclear, Kiril
Georgiev-Sedlak. Topola 2004.
• 6.f4 ll:.e6 7.to13 g6!1 7...e6 8.~d3
.ig7 9.0-0 ~g4! 10.~e1 ~xf3
11.lbf3 lbd4 12.l:tfl CDd7 13. 'iff2 0-0
14.~e3 ljjc6 15.Wh1 'ifa5 16 ..id2
'WbS and now White should not be over-
optimistic about his chances with 17."ifS'h4
~xb2 1B.J:1ab1 'i!i'a3 19.eS1 19.:b3
-..a5 20.l'lb5 .-d8 21..1bb7 t_;.',c5 22.:bbl
e6. 19...dxe5 20.f5 li)f6 21.l:[f3 l:tfd8
22.fxgS hxg6 23.l:th3 l:td4 24.tUe4
l!Vxa2 25.l:tf1 l1xe4! 2S.Q.xe4 ~c4
27 .~d3 ~xh4 28.1:txh4 r!dB and Black
won in Fedorchak-Sedlak. Esbjerg 2004.
• 6.~e3 l[~g4 7.~gS h6 8.~h4 g5
9.~g3 ~g7 10.0.f51! IO...Q.e2: IO.~d2:
lO.h3. 10 ... ~xf5 11.exfS .ixc3+
12.bxe3 1i'a5! 13.l:tbl tlJf6 14.~b5+
<£le6 15.0-0 0-0 16.l'lel .l:taeB White
may have the bishop pair. but Black has a
better pawn structure. 17.h4 'i'xc3
lB.hxg5 hxg5 19."'c1 liJh7 20.l:te4
.'6 21.~d1 "xfS
23.l:te3 16 24.i.c4+?
22.~d3 'ild7
24..1g6! .tId!!
(24 ...'~g7 25.'tt'h5 nhS 26..be8 IXxeB
27 .Axd6!) 2S.~h2 enables the rook to join
the attack along the third rank. 24 ... '.t>g7
25.~e6 'ite7 26."g4 tL;d8 27 ..tb3 f5
28.'ifh5 e5 29Jld1 tOrT 30.'ft'f3 14 with
a superior position, Nevednichy-Sedlak,
Petrovac 2004.
The SOS Files
And the WInner Is ...
(50S-I. Chapter 16. p.127)
AI the end of SOS- I readers were called
upon to send in their games with any of the
SOS ideas mentioned in the book. We recei-
ved some entertaining entries. However.
months before the final dale of submission it
became clear that we had a winner! Magnus
Carlsen conjured up a powerful novelty to
blow former World Charnpionshi p Candida-
te Sergey Dolmatov off the board in a mere
19 moves. Such is theSOS power of Youth.
We hereby proudly present the winner of the
lst Prize:
o Magnus Carlsen
• Sergey Dolmatov
Moscow 2004
1.4.Jf3f5 2.d3
I dubbed this the Improved Lisitsin Gambit
in SOS- I. Magnus must have prepared it
specifically for Dolmatov, who is known to
be a great connoisseur of the Dutch.
2...d6 3.e4 eS 4.li\c3 lile6 S.exf5 ~xf5
6.d4 tL:xd4
The main game in SOS-I went 6... tbb4
7.~b5+ c6 8.~a4 e4 9.tbg5 dS and now
IO.D! was shown to favour White in Krasen-
kow-Kindermann, Panonno 200 I.
7.tt:Jxd4 exd4 8. 'tfxd4 ~f6
15
Jeroen Bosch

The main alternative is 8 ...c6 when 9.St.f4!,! Rornanishin-Malaniuk, Tallinn 1987, which
is strong: went: 9.1Ld3 St.xd) 1 0.'ihd3 c6 ! !.0-0 ~e7
• 9...~xc2 invites some rather direct play with equal play.
by White: JO.<;W2~ .tg6 I Utel+ ~d7 9...c6 10.~g5 b5
(l1...<.tt7 t2.~c4+d5 13.0xdS+-) 12.g3!? The more natural IO ... d5 fails to 11.0-0-0
1ifb6 13..i.h3+ <t>d8 (IL'it;>c7 14.~x.d6+! i.e 7 12.'iWeS!, followed by l3.l:thc I.with a
~xd6 15.1ifxg7+ ~b8 16.~cl! 'ifxf2 crushing attack.
17.~e4 wins) 14.St.gS+ <:/;c7 IS.tZJdS+ 1-0 11.~b3 $..e7 12.0-0-0 'l!i'd7 13J~he1
Seel-Horstrnann, Bad Wiessee 2003 . ~d8
• 9..".b6 10....d2 d5 11.0-0-0 0-0-0 After 13... 0-0-0 14.''-W it is hard to prevent
12..id3 i.xd3 13.1!fxd3 .!Oh6? (Black wants 15Jhe 7 as 14...:lhe8 is met by 15 .i.t7. Also
to prevent the queen check on f5, but creates strong is 14.g4 ~xg4 15.l:lxe7.
an even more devastating possibility. Still
13...~f6 14."f5+ :t.d7 IS.St.e5 S't.e7
16.~d4, followed by 17.!:the I. gives White a
nice edge too) 14.1!fh3+ l:td7

14.l:rxe7!
A devastating sacrifice that decides the
game.
14 ...1lVxe7
!5.tLixdS! 'ii'd8 (15 ...cxdS 16.lhd5 'iVc6 Taking with the king is equally bad after
17.lthd I is the simple point of White's sacri- !4 ...Wxe7 15.~xf6+ gxf6 16.l:el+ and a
fice) 16.~xh6 cxd5 (I6 ...gxh6 17.~f6+-) subsequent Wxf6 decides.
17Jhd5 <i;;c7 18.~f4+ 1-0, Sandner-Rechel, 15."f4 ~d716.~e4! d5
Germany Bundesliga 2003/04. White seems 16... l:tfR 17.tt.::xd6 winning.
to be having all the fun in these lines. 17.~xf6 h618.~h4 95 19.iWd4! 1-0
9.~c4! Dolrnatov threw in the towel in view of
Sacrificing thec2-pawn and improving upon 19...gxh420.ti:;xd5!.
 CHAPTER 2
Ian Rogers
Refining Fischer's Plan
~~~~
:t2JiiI~~~
Caro-Kann Exchange with 4.lDe5
At first sight, l.e4 c6 2.lL:f3 d5 3.exdS cxdS
4.lue5 !?, the subject of this SOS article, docs
not look like a very sophisticated positional
system,
In fact, when first faced by this plan, in the
2004 Bangkok Open in a game which de-
cided first place, I could not take the system
seriously and soon found myself suffering
without a pair of bishops and without
counterplay. Yet the 4.tOe5 system is just a
refinement of the old l.e4 c6 2 .d4 d5 3.exd5
cxdS 4.~d3 t;~c6 S.c3 plan, which was used
with such success by Fischer in the 1970
USSR versus Rest of the World match. In the
old 4,,lid3 system, White usually makes
great efforts to avoid playing t;';f3, because
~~~
: NIC KEY CK 1.4
then Black's ...~g4 will set up an annoying
pin. Yet e5 is the best square for White's
knight. so what better way to avoid the pin
than to send the knight there immediately?
Of course moving one's only developed
piece twice in the opening is not quite ac-
cording to orthodox theories. However, if
you have read this far in an SOS chapter.
such niceties are unlikely to prove too great
an obstacle to trying out an original and
sometimes dangerous plan. Apart from
Internet games. where 4.~e5 hac; been quite
popular, there have been only a few dozen
tournament games with 4.tlJeS, with the
Czech player Cemousek being the line's
main advocate. However in 2004, 4.ttJe5 has
17
Ian Rogers
been adopted by a number of other strong
players, with the high point being Marie
Sebag's inspiring victory over WOM Xu
Yuanyuan (see below).
1.e4 c6 2.liJf3 d5 3.exd5 cxd5
4.t;je5!?
4.d4 .tg4 would be exactly the type of posi-
tion White is trying to avoid.
After 4.Q)e5!? a knight-move is called for.
However, 4 ... lD<l7 looks awkward. After
5.d4 e6 White should probably choose either
6.i.d3 or 6.f4, even though 6.i.b5 tDf67.0-0
i.e7 8.'i'e2 0-0 9.tOd2 ~xe5 iO.dxe50d7
11.lLlb3 f6 l2.exf6 l:rxf6 l3.~g5 l:rg6
I4.i.xe7 li'xe7 15.f4 was also a little better
for White in Labib-Ezat, Tanta City Open
2001.
Therefore Black should play either:
A) 4 lDf6
B) 4 lDc6
Variation A
4 ...ltjf6 S.d4
It is probably too early to play 5.i.b5+!?, af-
ter S... .id7 6.~xd7 lDbxd7 7.d4 (7.0-0 is
well met by 7 ...a6) the game Tworuszka-
Steczek, Poland u 2003, went 7...e6?!, and
afler8.0-0~e79.c30-0 1O.0d2l:rc8 I l.l:1el
a6 12.~d3l:e8 13.tDf3White built upa typi-
cal 4.~e5 attack. The game continued:
13...b5 14.'i'e2 ltJb6 lS.ltJe5 i.f8 16:iH3
:c717.1i'h3q.~c4Ig.~g5h6 19.<1.:g4_Q,e7 bishop will now have little or no influence on
18
20.lDxh6+! gxh6 21.~xh6.i.f8 22.b31 ~xh6
23.'fhh6ltjd6 24.:e3 tlJfe4 25.~xe4 tiJxe4
26.:h3 f5 and now White took a perpetual
check with 27 .... h8+ and 28.nh7+ when
27.f3! would have capped off the attack -
White reaches at least a rook endgame with
an extra pawn.
Instead of 7...e6 (after 7.d4) Black should
play 7...... a5+! 8.~3 e6 9.0-0 ~b4 when he
has no problems.
AI) S... e6
A2) 5...~f5
A3) 5...g6
Variation Ai
5...e6
This is just what White is hoping for; the c8
the game. While can continue
6.c3
Here 6.tbd2 has also been popular, e.g.
6...i.d6 (6....ic7 7.c3 0-0 !t~d3 ~bd7 9.f4
tbe8 lO.tfc2 f5 11.~~df3± Capece-Nathans,
Ybbs 1968) 7.f4 ta6 8.c3 'itb6 9..i.d3 or
9.tDdf3 tL\e4 1O.i.d3 f6, Cherad-El Imam.
Algiers 2000, and now 11.~c4! would have
been good for White.
6....ie7 7.~d3 0bd7 8.f4 'lWc79.0-0
tDb6 10.Qjd2~d711.'lWe2 a61VLldf3
h6 And now White could just build up the
 Refining Fischer's Plan

pressure but chose to crash through
13.f51 ext5 14.~f4 ~d8 15.~xd7
"tWxd7 16.We5 g6 17.l:tae1 Wf8
1S:it'e3 lDg4 19."c1 Jt.d6 20.h3 .2..xf4
21.thf4 tbf6 22.llie5 "tWd8 23.~xf5
<,1;1g724:.g3lLlh5
with 10...g6! 11.~xf6 axb512JWM ~b4!?
Now White can grab the rook on h8, but not
recapture on c3. However. Black will then
have fair compensation for the exchange. so
13.0-0
Maybe the most sober idea, with attacking
chances even after the removal of the f6
bishop.

Variation A3
5...g6 6.j_b5+
Rather innocuous looks 6.~d3 as it is hitting
the g6 pawn. Play may continue 6 ...Jl.g7
7.tt::.d2 0-0 (7...Cf::.c6 8.lDdf3 0-0 9.c3 tDd7
1O.Cf::.xd7Si.xd7 11.i.f4 i.g4 12.0-0 f6! gave
Black serious counterplay in Sebag-Vogel,
European Women's Championship,
Dresden 2004) 8.0-0 i1';c6 9.t(;df3 ItJg4
1O.tL;xc6 bxc6 11.I:f.el l:I.e8 12.h3 tDf6 13.d
2S.~eS!! 1WeS 26.1Wg4 'ilS'xeS ~b6 14.'i1l'e2 a5 IS.tl:.e5 .Q.a6 16..ha6
27J:l:xf7+ itxf7 28.lc.xf7+- Shevelev- 'iti'xa6 and Black had equalised in Hakki-
Roumegous, Paris 2000. Magerrarnov, Damascus (Arab Clubs) 2003.
6...~d7 7/uxd7 tDbxd7 8.0-0 Sig7
Variation A2 9.Ue1 0-0 10.c3 lDe4 11.ttJd2 lC.d6
5...~f5 12.~d3 e6 13.tt'if3
The bishop move looks extremely danger-
ous in view of
S.i.b5+ li~bd7 7.'&'f3 e6 8.~g5 ~a5+
9.tL!c3 a6

And here a draw was agreed in Antonio-

10.• h5!!
although matters are not entirely clear after
Rogers. Bangkok Open 2004.
White has all the chances. with h4-h5 in the
air. but was half a point ahead in the tourna-
ment with only two rounds to play. There-
fore he went for the safe result.
Ian Rogers
Variation B
4...tDc6
The most logical move.
5.d4
Black has tried a lot of ideas here. although
never 5 ...fo'!? 6.~hS+, nor, curiously,
S...tL;xe5!? 6.dxe5 when the e5 pawn should
not be too difficult for White to maintain.
5.•.tLif6
The alternatives are:
• 5 •.JI¥c7?! The early queen-move was
used in one of the original 4.ci;eS games.
but the attempt to grab a pawn after 6.~f4
o. .ib5!? a6 1..i.xc6+ bxc6 S.O-O!.
6..JWb6 came badly unstuck after 7.tLic3!
tL::f6 8.tt:.b5 Here Black was lucky to find
a way (0 hang on with 8... a6! 9.tL::xc6!
Capturing the queen with 9.tt:"xfl wxfl
I0.~c7 ~xbS 11.~xbS axb5 is far from
clearly good for White. 9 ... axb5 Still
White maintained an edge and went on to
win after 10.~5 b4 11.~d3 e6 12.0-0
~e7 13..Ile1 0-0 14.l:le3± 'iVdB
15..Ilh3 g6 16.~h6 l:te8 17....'3 l:ta5
18.g4 ~d6 19.~g5 ~e7 20.':xh7! :af8
21.l:th4 lbd7 22.'tWh3 ~xg5 23.:hB+
~g7 24.'tWh7+ ~ 2S.tUxf7!+- Sinu-
lingga-Bordonada, Nice Olympiad 1974.
• 5...e6?! Shutting in the bishop is again
dubious. 6.c3 i.d6 7.f4!?
20
Here 7.$.bS·)! 0.e7 8.f4 0-0 9.~d3 '*fc7 is
far less convincing, e.g. 10."c2 (I0.~h5
g6 II.~h4 walks into 11...tt'ixd4' and
10.0-0 f6 is similar to the game) IO...h6
11.0-0 f6 12.~.h7+ ~h8 13.tL:go+ 0xg6
14.i.xg6 ~d7 and Black was ready to
break in the centre in Shevelev-Erenburg.
Israel tt 2002. 7... '~f6 8.Qd3 tj'je4! -
8...0-0 9.~d2 is very comfortable for
White. 9.0-0 0-0 10.lC.d2 f5 11.tDdf3
And, despite the knight on e4. White
should later be able to play for g4 while
Black is struggling for a plan.
• 5...'*¥b6!? 6.c3 0.xe5 7.dxe5 e6
B. .i.d3 This leads to a French-style posi-
tion where White should be able to keep a
slight edge, e.g. 8...~d7 9.W'c2 a6 1O.~e3
~c5 I l.:hc5 fj'xc5 I Vi,)d2 tt'.e7 13.tUb3
~b6 14.0-0 (I4.~g4 .ib5! IS ..hb5+
axb5 l6.W'xg7 :gR 17.Wxh7 tlxg2 gave
Black excellent counterplay in Cernousek-
Medvegy, Budapest Elckcs Memorial
2004) 14...~b5 lS ..txb5+ "W'xbS
16.~xb5+ axb5 17.fat4 with an endgame
where Black will have to work very hard to
earn a draw.
Our main game continued:
6.~b5!
This pin is White's most aggressive option,
enabling her to exert a pressing initiative.

6.c3 is less incisive. although after 6 ...g6
7 ..id3 again looks innocuous, e.g 7 ... ~g7
8.0-0 0-0:
- 9.f4 is well met by 9 .....Q.f5! (9 ...iI'b6
iO.~h Ilbe4 11.'fj'e2f5 12.tDd2 as 13.lDdf3
a4 14.a3 fi'c7 IS.~e3 worked out well for
White in Muniz-Escofet, Uruguay Champi-
onship, Montevideo 2004. However
9 ...<iJe8!? is interesting, e.g. JO..!Dd2 li.::;d6
Il.g4?! f6 l2.lac6 bxc6 13.f5 e5 l4.fxe6ep
.ixe6 and Black generated good counterplay
against the white king in Zarnicki-Belov,
ACP Internet Blitz Tournament 20(4)
1O..:hfS gxfS with casy equality,
- 9.l:tel and now Black choose the moment
to play: 9 ...tOxe5! (9 ...<!t::d710.<1.·:xd7'ifxd7
II.~d2 e5 12.dxe5 q,xeS 13.tL\h3 Ci,xd3
14.l!i'xd3 "'f5 IS.ndl 'i.hd3 Iti.l:lxd3Ied to
an ending eventually won by White in
Labib-Molina, Bled Olympiad 20(2)
lO.dxe5liJg4 11.~f4 'ifb6 12.... d2 (12. -.e2
is even worse after 12...f6 13.exf6 .l:[xf6!
14...i.g3? ne6) 12...f6 13.exf6 'i.Vxf6 14.~g3
.ih6 l5.iI'e2 ~f4! with a nasty attack, e.g.
16.f3 .bg3 l7.hxg3 'tIib6+ l!t<it>hl ~f2+
19.~h2 l:H6!.
However. instead of 7.~d3. the pin with
7.~b5 is still annoying: 7 ...~d7 S.tLlxd7
'i'xd7 9.0-0 and the game is likely to trans-
pose to the Antonio-Rogers game men-
tioned earlier.
6...'ffb6?!
Refining Fischer's Plan
Amazingly, after this move Black seems al-
ready to be in serious trouble.
6 ... Qd7 is far more natural, although after
7.~xd7 'tYxd7 8.c3 e6 9.0-0 ~d6 1O.0d2
0-0 (l0 ...a6 11..id3 0-0 12.l:lel b5 13.a3
.l:[ab8 14.ct:_1f3h6 15.tt':eS White had an edge
in Cernousek-Matras, Frydek Mistek 2004.
II should be noted that the minority attack
rarely seems to be a serious problem for
White in these types of position. whereas
White's kingside attack can flare up quite
quickly - the reverse of the situation in most
Exchange Queen's Gambit variations)
11.~e) 'ii'c7 12.tDf3 White has the typically
comfortable set-up he is aiming for in the
4.~e5Iine.
l2 ...h6 (Black is trying to negate a possible
kd3 followed by .igS but in doing so makes
other options such as ii.d3-c2and "'d3 more
attractive later) 1J.~d3 (13.l!i'e2 looks
better. hoping to PUI another knight on e5)
13...nfe8 l4.h3 nabR 15.'i'e2 ti!d7 is.
.Q.d2
a6 l7.a4!,! ~e7! (Black has defended well
and is now thinking about doubling on the e
file and playing ...eS. Instead of calmly wait-
ing for ...e5 and making the most of the
resulant isolated d-pawn, White now
panicks) 18.c4?! when after 18...dxc4
19.~xc4 tLJf6 20. ~c3 'i'b6 2l.lDeS i.xe5
22.dxeS tlJd5 the position was dead equal in
Cernousek-Poiak, Bmo 2004.
21
Ian Rogers
7.c4! dxc4 S.tOe3e6
8...~d7 9.~e3 is also very awkward for
Black, although perhaps better than the
game.
9.~a4! .id7 10.tiJxd7 0xd7 11.~e3!
l'ldS
This looks and is ugly, but the obvious alter-
native ILifc7 walks into 12.d5 {~ce5
13.0-0-0 (13.dxe6!?) ILl.Lid3+ (l3 ...a6
l4.dxe6 fxe6 15.~f4! is also very strong for
White) 145.pbl when the fall of the c pawn
will leave the d3 knight stranded - and
Black's king is still a long way from leaving
the centre of the board.
12.d5 ~d4 13.dxe6 fxe6
13 ... 'IW xe6 14.0-0-0 tDxb5 15.tDxb5 .followed
by 16.lIhe I, is also hopeless for Black.
14.0-0-0 ses
15.~xd7+! l:txd7 16.'a'xC4
Suddenly Black has no defence against the
threat of 17.tUa4. Yuanyuan tries a tricky de-
fence but with the king still on c8, all the tac-
tics are bound to favour White.
16...~c7 17..Q.xd4 ltf4+ 18.~b1
~xd419JWxe6+ l:te7 20.'1Wxe7+! 1-0
This was the game Sebag-Xu Yuanyuan,
Cannes 2004 from the match France-China.
A tine win by Sebag and a great advertise-
ment for the SOS counter to the Caro- Kann-
4.t;':e5
'
 CHAPTER 3
Alexander Beliavsky
Destroying the Benoni Wall
t2J
888 88
1:I ~iY~~t2J1:I
Alekhine's 5.f4
1.d4 c5 2.d5 e5 3.e4 d6 4.<1.\c3~e7
5.f4
The Benoni Wall is usually applied by play-
ers who want to avoid open positions and
well-developed theoretical lines. Incidental-
ly,l don't understand why this system is cal-
led by the old Hebrew name 'Benoni' which
means 'son of sorrow'. Nobody knows who
gave the system ito; name. Perhaps it is really
such a sad position? Common sense in chess
says that usually it is sensible to play
'contra-lines': meaning that if your oppo-
nent wants to open the position, yuu better
try to close it and visa versa. Su White's best
strategy against the Benoni Wall is to open
the position. For this purpose the system
NICKEY 019.14
with 5.f4' is eminently suitable and indeed
the most direct approach to tear down the
Benoni Wall. There is nothing surprising in
the fact that this variation was introduced
into modern practice by the great Alexander
Alekhine.
r Editoriul note: It was Alekhine who played
the correct move order (4.tiX3 and 5.f4) in a
simultaneous exhibition in 1935. However,
Bogoljubow had played 4.f4 against
Alekhinc one year earlier in their World
Championship rnatch.]
Positive clements of an early f4 plan are a
dear advantage in development, ami the
opening of the centre as part of a counter
strategy. There is only one negative aspect to
23
Alexander Beliavsky
5.f4: the weakening of the e5 square, which
may become a stronghold for a black knight.
However, Black hac;a huge disadvantage in
space, and, as we know from similar posi-
tions in the closed Ruy Lopez. it is not nearly
enough for him to just control the e5 square.
What is more White will often create threats
on the f-file. In addition, White's advantage
in development means that he can someti-
mes realize the central break e4-e5. Natural-
ly, White could have implemented his plan
on the fourth move as well (4.f4). However,
please note that in that case Black will find a
much better way of developing his kingside
by means of the manoeuvre tDg8-e7-ge con-
trolling e5. After 4.tDc3 Black has nothing
better than 4...~f6 or4 ...~e7. We will exa-
mine the merits of this system by means of
two games.
o Alexander Beliavsky
• Mark Dvoretsky
Vilnius 1975
1_d4 es 2.d5 e5 3.e4 d6 4,tiJc3 ge7
By developing the bishop Black keeps more
options open. Note thai 4 ...tbf6 5.f4 will
usually transpose to lines with .!Litomentio-
ned below.
5.f4
5...exf4
24
I can't say that this move is forced. However,
the alternatives to keep the e5 stronghold
(and not assisting White in developing his
bishop for free -6.~xf4~) were not very suc-
cessful in practice.
- 5...lL:.d76.tN3 a6 7.fxe5 'Dxc5 8..!Lixe5
dxe5 9.J..e2 tDf6 10.0-00-0 I l.a4 b6 IHf'e I
1jj'd6 (the typical plan of transferring the
knight to the blockading square does not
work here: 12...~e8 13.i.e3 ~6 14.a5±)
13.'iWg3 ~d7 14.~e3 ~h8 15.h3 0e8
16.i.g4! .i.xg4 17.'~ xg4 c4 IUlab P with a
serious advantage for While in P. Nikolic-
Ivanovic, Borovo 1981.
- 5...~f6 6.~f3 ~g4 7 .~b5+
A) 7 ...~d7 8.0-0 a6 9._bd7+ ~xd7
JO.fxe5 ~.xf3 1i.exf6!+-.
B) 7 ...~f8 8.0-0 dtxf3 9.llill 'i'e7
lO.g4~a6 II.g5 axb5 12.gxfo .!Lixf613.fxe5
dxef 14..G..g5!(White is wasting no time to
recapture a pawn) 14...b4 15.tee2 1:1a6
16.~g3 with a strong initiative in
Maksirnovic-Djuric, Bjelovar 1979.
- 5...a6 6.fxe5 dxe5 7.a4 0f6 8.~f3 ..Q.g4
9.~e2 ~xf3 IO..hf3 0-0 I 1.0-0 ~e8
12.~e3 ~\d7 13..ig4! tt;df6 14.a5 lWd6
15.11a4! b5 J6.axb6ep 'iWxb6 l7.b3 with
strong positional pressure in Lobron-Ivano.
vic. Reggio Emilia 1984/85.
6.gxf4~f6
Here 6...~g5 looks like a serious option.
White keeps his advantage however after
 Destroying the Benoni Wall

'*'
7. d2 (nothing serious is gained by 7 .~xgS ces. For 7.i.e2, see the next game.
'i'xgS 8.lDO ~e3+ 9.~e2 ~xe2+ 1O.~xe2
lLId7 II..~bS f6! 12.0-0 r.3;c7 13.a4 0.h6
14.lLId 1 0,f7 15.&3 0,de5 with equality,
Zilberstein-Dolmatov, Daugavpils 1978)
7 ...i.xf48.'ihf4

A) after 8...~f6 9.~xf6 tDxf6 io.ces
'1i;>d7 11.~0 Cill.c4 12.i1.d3 a6 (l2...tDf6
13.0-0-0) I3.~xe4 axbS 14.0-0 While has a
huge development advantage.
B) 8...a6 9.eS! 'iVe7 10.li'iD <1\d7 11.0-0-0
dxeS (after ) l...~xeS 12.~g3! tLlf6 13.tDxeS
dxe5 14.d6 ~e6 IS.~xg7 JIgS 16.~h6
Black has big problems) 12.~g3 'iWf6 J3.d6
"g6 14.lZ;d5 ....xg3 IS.hxg3 ~f8 16.{~g5 h6
17.tL~c7Jlb8 18.~c4 with very unpleasant
threats in Shariyazdanov-Malakhov, Ekaterin-
burg 1996.
Black can switch to completely wild posi-
tions with 6 ...gS?! 7.~g3 hS 8.h3 h4 9 .i1.h2 a6
10 ...-d2 (interesting is I O.eS !?) IO.Ji\d7
11.tDO f6 12.e5!? (not bad is 12.~d3 t;~h6
13.0-UlLIn 14.a4 0-0 IS.tbd I! aiming forthe
fS square) 12...~xe5 l3.~xeS fxeS 14.~d3
~h6 IS.i.g6+ ¢>d7 16.tije4 Wc7 17.0-0-0
l:tg8 18.~x.e5! with huge complications,
N. Nikolic-Ivanovic. Herceg Novi 2000.
7.~b5+
This idea is typical for other Benoni posi-
tions, but here it is not the best option.
Black's main problem is space - especially
square d7 for which there are too many pie-
7 ...t2Jbd7
After 7 ...~d7 8.~x.d7+ (illogical is 8.eS
dxe5 9.~x.eS i.xb5 1O.~xbS 'iWa5+ 11.lUc3
~bd7 12.li"D 0-0 13.0-0 c4! 14.'~hl ~b4!
and Black turned the tables in Kaidanov-
Dobson, Buenos Aires 2(03) 8 ...tZlbxd7
9.00,00-0 10.0-0 tDg4 ) I.h3lQgeS 12.ttJxeS
dxe5 13.~g3 ~f6 14.d6 and White has the
initiative, Volzhin-Tsebekov, Krasnodar 1997.
a.liA3
A serious option is 8.a4 preventing Black's
play on the queenside.
8...0-09.0-0
Now I would prefer 9.<14 a6 1O..id3 0g4
II. 'iV d2 l:te8 12.h3 tDge5 13.llJxe5 lUxeS
14.~xe5 dxeS 15.0-0 b616.l:tf3l:f8 17.'i'e2
with a slight advantage.
9... as 1O•.Qxd7 Qxd7 11.e5!
11...dxe5

25
Alexander Beliavsky
Haba preferred II ...ltJe8 against Kistner,
Crailsheim 1995. After l2.llJe4 i.b5 IHlf2
dxe5 14.ll}xe5lLld6 15.l2Jxd6 .axd6 16.c4 f6
17.tt:\g6 hxg6 18.cxb5 axb5 he had the ad-
vantage. However, after 12.~d2! he would
have experienced major problems.
12.ltJxeS?!
Stronger is 12..ixe5, trying to play d5-d6.
12 ... ~d6 13 .• f3
Ihad overlooked the simple tactic 13.tDxf7
:'xf7 14.~xd6 Ag4! winning a piece.
13 .. :it'c7 14.tlJxd7 '*'xd7 15.J:[ad1
J:[ae8 16.h3 b5 17.b3 i.e5
Black now has a very pleasant position.
1B.d6 ~d4+ 19.~hl jJ_xc3 20 .... xc3
ttJe4 21.'i!i'aS f5 22.'l!i'xa6
And here I disliked my position after
22 ...~a8 and offered a draw, which my op-
ponent accepted
o Alexander Beliavsky
• Bozidar Ivaoovic
Yugoslavia tt 1995
1.d4 c5 2.d5 e5 3.e4 d6 4.ttJc3 fie7
5.f4exf46.bf4 tlJf6 7.~e2
7...0-0
This is the normal move, but for Ivanovic it
is too timid. Against Kornarov (Budva 1996)
he played 7 ...Wa5?' 8.'*d2 0-0 9.tL;f3 ~g4
10.0-0 .ixf3 ) l..ixf3 tDbd7 12.• f2 t;:'e5
13..b.e5~ dxe5 14.... g3 ~d6 15.i.g4! \ot>h8
26
(I5 ..J!i'd8 to bolster the defence was the
only move)
16J:txf6! gxf6 17.• h4 with a raging attack.
8.tDf3 tDh5!?
Once more Ivanovic is trying to pI ay unusual
chess. After the normal 8 ...~g4 White can
obtain a small advantage with 9_(t~d2! (also
possible is 9.0-0 lilbd7 IO.'*d2 l:e8
ll.~ael a6 l2.eS! dxeS l3.lDxe5 .txe2
l4JIxc2 .i.d6 l5.~3 ~c7 16.lUel, with
the better position in Giorgadze-Patino Ro-
mans, La Coruna 1996) 9... llJh5 1O.~e3
~xe2 II. ~xe2 g6 12.0-0 ~d7 13.~c4 tOb6
14..lth6 CUg7 15.0e3 ~g5! 16..bg51ixg5
17.l:1f3 t'i;d7 18.tlafl iDe5 19.tlg3 tie7
20.a4 tlabR 21.lbcd 1!. Butnorius- Yermo-
linsky, Krasnodar 1980.
Simple development with 8...0bd7Ieads to
White's advantage after 9.0-0 l%e8 10.eS!
dxe5 Il.tbxe5 0b6 12..Q.b5! ~d7 l3.d6.if8
14.tL:xd7 l7:fxd7 15.tOO5 tLlxd5 16:'!hd5,
Duo Thien Hai-Malakhov, Menorca 1996.
It is also dangerous to employ a plan from
the modern Benoni: !L.tZla6 9.0-0 c!:'c7
lO.a4 b6 II.h3 a6 l2 .• d2.ib 7 13..I1abI! b5
l4.axbS axb5 15.M!. Tibensky-Manik, Slo-
vakia 1997/98, with a clear advantage.
9_~e3 f5 10.extS
Naturally, it would be a bad positional mista-
ke to allow f5-f4.
10 ...~xf5 11.0-0 .ig6
There is no other way as I J .. .t1Jf6 I V2Jh4
 Destroying the Benoni Wall

~d7 13.lDf5 is very pleasant for White. 18.~e2!

12.11Je5! White transfers his king to the other flank.
Thus, White obtains good attacking chances
on the kings ide.
18....ihS+ 19.'~d2 lOt8 20.J:hl .£g6
21.~xg6 tLlxg6 22.liJe4 "dB
After 22 ...... e7 White has a decisive blow:
2Hlxh7! «Pxh7 24 ..!L;g5+ <&>h6 (24 .. 5~g8
25.'i"xg6) 25.tffS.
23.~Cl b6

Fritz does not consider such moves =chess is

still alive I
12•..l:!.xfl+ 13.~xf1 0g3+
13 .....lkf8+ 14.\t?gl lL;f4 15 ..!L;xg6 tUxe2+
16.'¥1txe2hxg6 17 .l:tfl and White is virtually
winning.
14.hxg3 dxe515.~f3
This threatens dS-<16, and therefore forces
Black to block White's d-pawn.
15....id616.~e4! 24.1hh7!
This is a very important move in White's po- The most energetic way. hut possibly White
sitional concept. The exchange of the has a simpler win available in the form of
light-squared bishops will emphasize the 24.tbg5!.
weakness of the squares e4 and e6. 24 c4
16...lDd717.iYd3 24 «Pxh7 25.~g5+ ~g8 26.,*xg6 is an
Worse is I7.fLxg6,!! ~f6+ J !t..t>gl 'lli'xg6. easy win.
17 ..... 16+ 25.'ilVe2
Forcing Black to take the rook.
2S...Wxh7 26.'irhS+ ~g8 27.1Wxg6
.tc5
Or 27 ...i.e7 28.d6 ~f6 29.fLgS! winning.
28.~g5!
Preparing ~e4-f6.
28...ge7 29.d6 "iWf8 30."e6+1 Wh7
3U!fh3+ Wg6 32.~xe7 "'t5
33. 'lWxf5+~xf5 34.~gS
Black resigned.

27
 CHAPTER 4
Maxim Notkin
When I was Young
Cjj
~~~~
~ ~~~~Cjjld
3 ...h5 against the Vienna
1.e4 e5 2.lt1c3 t.!jc63,93 h5
When Iwas young ... Well this sounds like a
guod way to start my memoirs, but is surely
irrelevant for a theoretical article. How-
ever... when I was young attending a Mos-
cow chess school our entire group was
studying a universal upening method that
had been shown to uur trainer by one of his
former pupi Is. The set of openings for White
included the Vienna Game with 3.g3 and the
Closed Sicilian. All you had [0 do in the
opening was to make the moves e4, tLlc3, g3,
~g2, ~ge2, d3, 0-0, h3, ~h2 - almost inde-
pendently of what your opponent was play-
ing. Next, you launched a kingside attack by
pushing the I-pawn. To complete the picture
28
b
b b
NIC KEY VG 4.6
I'd like to mentiun that against the French
Defence and the Caro-Kann my friends ap-
plied the scheme e4, d3, ~d2. ~gf3. g3.
kg2. 0-0, and so on: while in the Pirc the
fianchetto with It:d, Cilge2. h3 and .ie3
worked well. White's ideas wcre extremely
plain. but to tight them wasn't an easy task.
It's II common thing: when someone plays a
secondary 1ine knowing it inside out he often
has the advantage in the middlegame, For, to
find an antidote you have 10 dedicate several
hours to this set-up during your home prepa-
ration. However, as a rule you don't want to
waste your precious time on such silly
things. After all. you still have 10 learn by
heart five main lines in the Najdorf, and to

explore three dangerous variations of Ruy
Lopez. Idid not wane 10 submit to my mates'
influence and continued to play the classical
openings with While. Yet, in our friendly
blitz games when Iwas Black they often heat
me using their boring lines. This made me
angry, of course. To my regret at that time
Alexander Khalifman had not yet demon-
strated to poor people like me the way to
solve this particular problem in the open
games. The following game was played in
the final round of the USSR Youth Champi-
onship. The win allowed Khalifman to be-
come junior champion for the second time.
Before him only Petrosian and Kasparov
had achieved the same feat. To my surprise J
did not find this historic game in the
ChessBase Megabase, and I hope it will be
interesting for the readers to look at the
Battle of the Giants as Young Men.
D Alexey Dreev
• Alexander Kbalifman
Kirovabad 1984
1.e4 eS 2.tDc3 llJc6 3.g3 hS!? 4.tDf3
h4
That's the point!.
S.tDxh4 l:[xh4 6_gxh4 ,*xh4
The exchange sacrifice gives Black a fast
and harmonious development and a possi-
When I was Young
bility to create threats at rather an early
stage.
7_~g2 ~c5 B.O-O ttJf6 9.iWf3 d6
10_~g3 "i'h7!? 11.d3 LtJd4 12.~e3
~d7
Black plays as if he hasn't sacrificed any-
thing, and, indeed, White's material advan-
tage is hardly noticeable.
Bad is l2.Jaxe2"? 13.~xc5 tt:;xnl 14.lhal
dxc5 L5.lOb5+-.
13.b4?
Correct is 13..ixd4 ~xd4 14..oe2 ~b6
I5.a4 a5, when Black has sufficient compen-
sation.
13._..i.b6!
Apparently, Dreev counted on l3 ...i.x.b4?
14.~xd4exd4 15.tL'.e2, taking the initiative.
14J:tac1 tDh5 15JWh4 c6! 16.f3
It's too late for l6.hd4 as Black replies
16 ... ~d8! trapping the queen! White's major
piece is in deep trouble, since moves like
I6.a4 cannot save her majesty on account of
16 ~d8 17.i.g5 f6 18.i.e3 gS.
16 tdS! 17.exfS be3+ 18.Wh1
i..xc1 19.1:txc1 .Qxf5 20.l:te1 Wd7
And Black converted his extra pawn.
In general play in the 3 ...h5 variation can be
divided into several classes.
1. White accepts the exchange sacrifice -
{he statistics here are awful for him.
2. White allows the opponent to advance
hS-h4 and then to take on g3 or to play h4-h3.
3. White takes on h4 with the pawn.
4. White is trying to prevent h5-h4, or to di-
minish its effect. This division is handy, as
our line does not require precise
'move-by-move' knowledge. Moreover,
Black sometimes inserts 3 ...~c5 4.~g2, and
sometimes plays 3 ...hS straightaway. There-
fore, the positions may differ, while the
ideas remain the same. Let's study some
more examples of Black's victorious play
when he is the exchange down.
29
Maxim Notkin

o Nigel Short One of the earliest games in which the ex-

• Lubosh Kavalek change sacrifice was played - Hanston-
Prague 1990 Mariotti. Skopje Olympiad 1972 - went
8 ...i.xd4 9.'fi'e2 (the d4 square is occupied
1.e4 e5 2.lbc3 li)c6 3.g3 ~c5 by the bishop so the knight is unable 10 dis-
I've had a lot offun analyzing the encounter turb the white queen. but other problems ap-
Balster-Halasz, Dortmund 1991: 3 ...h5 pear) 9...~xc3+! (nipping in the bud the idea
4.llJf3 h4 5.ti)xh4 %bh4 6.gxh4 it'xh4 of <i::d5) IO.bxc3 d6 11.0-0 (l1.'i'e3)
7J1gl!'? ~c5 (7 ... Wxh2 S.llg2 1Wh7) Il...g5! 12."e3 f6 13.*&3 _h7 14.i.f3
8.~g3 (it appears that both opponents do ~ge7 15.llet tbg6 16. .ae3 tJ;;e7 17.c4 b6.
not value the h2 pawn - 8.:g2!? deserved We see that Black's play is very simple,
attention) S...I1:f6 9.d3 d6 IO.~g5 'ihb2 while for White it's much more difficult to
come up with something substantial.
9.tL.d5 d6!

A) now 11.l:tg2! was strong with the idea of

II..:i'hl 12..ixf6 ~h3 (I2 ...gxfti"?
13.l:tg8+ <Ji>d7 14.ft'g4+ We7 15.tt2d5+
mate) J3Jbg7 'iixfl+ 14.<;L>d2'fi'xf2+
15.<J.>c1±.
B) II."d2 liJhS 12.:g2 "hi 13.0-0-0
~d4 \4.l'Dd5 tOf3? IS .• e2? (15:.a5!+-)
15... ~d4 16.ltd2 ~b6 17.c3 Ah3! IS.W
and here Black committed his cavalry -
l8...tlJf3! 19.'W'e2 ~xg2 20.~xg2 12'.gl!
21.... f1? (21..g4! _b2 22.fxeS dxe5
23.'~bl with a clear advantage to White)
21..._h2 22.loxb6 lLlg3! 23.'*1'2 axb6
24.<bb I lZ)h3! (asronishingt) 25."f3 tbxf4
26 ..bf4 exf4 27.e5 *hS! 2S."xh5 ttlxh5
29.llh1 g6 30..ixb7 :a7 and Black soon
won the ending.
4.~g2 h5 5.li)f3 h4 6.lbxh4 rlxh4
7.gxh4 'it'xh4 8.d4 lbxd4
The computer does not see this move, or to
pUl it more precisely, does not appreciate its
true value.
Another attempt to leave the c7 pawn unpro-
tected was made in G.Mohr-Leventic. Pula
1997. After 9 ...~f6. instead of the correct
IO.ct::xc7+. White opted for IO.lDxf6+ gxf6
11.0-0 d6 J 2.',ph I ~e7 and lost in 20 moves.
Meanwhile the capture on c7 was a right de-
cision. In the event of IO...'.vd8 11.lt:lxa8
Black has no resources left for a successful
attack c.g. IJ. ..tiJb3 (I1...tLlg4 12.1::tf1)
12.0-0 tbg4 (12 ...0xal 13.i.e3) 13.'i'xg4!
ttxg4 14.axb3+-.
10.tLie3?!
Correct was IO.i.e) with unclear play. And
1O.~xc7+ won't do in view of 1O... 'ito>f8!
(10 ...';t>d8?! Il.tDxaS Ag4 12.'fi'd2 threaten-

30

ing 13.'i:WgS+}1l.liJxaS ~g4 12.i.gS!?
(12.1!t'd3tDf3+ IHWI tDel+!-+; 12.~d2
~f3) 12...... xgS 13.Wd2 Wh4 14.c3 ~f3!
and Black's minor pieces are stronger than
White's rooks.
10 lDf611.c3 ~g41VDxg4?
l2 d3 tL;f3+ 13.'~e2!!00 - hats off to Mr
Fritz!
12...~xg413J:tfl ttJe6?
GM Plachetka gave a winning line
13 lLlxf2! 14.lhf2 tUb3 IS.Wf3 'i'xf2+
16 xf2 j.xf2+ I7.Wxf2 texal IS.b3 a5
19..tb2 llJc2 20.~f1 ~~h4! 21.cxb4
axb4-+.
14.'ti'e2 lDxh2 1SJ:lhl We7 16.Wd1
l:lh8 17.f3 "93 18.ltd2 .if2! 19.~f1
l:[h4 20."tt'd3 tDc5 21.VWe2 lbxf3
22.l:lxh4 li)xh4 23.Wc2 li.::.f3 24.l:Idl
tLlxd2 25.%1xd2 ~e3+
A draw was agreed here, even though Black
could still play for win.
The first ever registered game in the 3...h5
variation took place in the 4th match game
Mieses-Marshall.
o Jacques Mieses
• Frank Marshall
Berlin 1908
1.e4 e5 Vbc3 ~c5 3.g3 lbc6 4.~g2
h5 S,d3
There have been several games where Black
voluntarily stopped pushing his h-pawn.
Maybe such a strategy lacks logic, or consis-
tency, but it does nor necessarily lead to a
bad result.
- 5.~f3 d6 6.~a4 0,ge7 7.d3 f6 8.0-0 a6
9.lt)xc5 dxcf 1O.~e3 b6 11.a3 g5 12.tecl
lLIg613.b4cxb414.axb4h4{after 14...texb4
15.d4 (or 15.c3lt:ic6 16.d4) White takes the
initiative, although the position is far from
clear) 15.b5 tl:.d4 16.bxa6, Turov-Acs, Bu-
dapest 1997, 16...~xa6°o.
When I was Young
- S.h3 d6 6.d3 tege7 7.lLlge2 ~e6 8.<1)a4
(my school friends' idee fixe 8.0-0 'i!ld7
9.~h2 comes into serious consideration.
True, in case of 9...0-0-0 10.f4 (6 the
kingside offensive is not that dangerous)
8...itd7 9.~xc5 dxc5 10.~e3 b6 11.f4 f6
12.~d2 0-0-0 13.0-0-0?! (13.a3; 13.f5 ~f7
14.0-0) l3 ...~xa2!? 14.b3 tCb4 15.~b2
Axb3! 16.cxb3 (perhaps better is l6.Wxb3
'fYe6+ 17.Wc3! - but not 17.c4 J:lxd3+
18.'iWxd3~xd319Jbd3tC.c6~) 16....!Uxd3+
17 .<t>b I 'irb5 IS .• a2? (IS. 'tf'c2 iDb4
19."c4 ·'lhc4 20.bxc4 lLIec6GG)18...c4
19.1i'a4 ~xb3+ 20.'iWxb3cxb3 21.J:ld2 c5
and the avalanche swept White away,
Popchev-Mitkov, Skopje 1991.
5.•.d6 6)t)a4 ~g4 7.f3 ~e6
8.ci!e2
More natural is 8.~xc5 dxc5 9.f4. and if
9 ...~g4, then the odd-looking 10.'iIt'd2 -
compare this to Morozevich's move Wd7 in
the Albin Counter-Gambit (see Chapter 5:
Morozevich's Pet Line in the Albin).
8...h4 9.tiJxc5 dxc5 10.~e3 h3 " ..tfl
The penetration at h3 is not always an
achievement. True. it leads to the bishop's
humiliating withdrawal to it" initial posi-
tion, but later on the pawn may become a
weakness as happens in some lines of the
Modem Benoni.
11...We712.g40-0-O
31
Maxim Notkin

Stronger was 12...c4!. 9.i.f1 .ig4 1O.~e2 CtJge7 11..ixc5 dxc5

13.b3 g6 12.'.-d2 (in this position l2,loxeS? is a bad
Here 13 ... llJd4 suggested itself. Probably idea - 12...~xe2 13.lOxc6 ~xdl 14.lOxd8
Marshall disliked (his move in view of an- ~f3-+) 12...'ilkd7 13.0-0-0 i.xf3 14.i.xB
other humble retreat: 14.tOg I! and the h3 tOd4 IS.~e2 b5 (15 ...0-0-0) 16.'.ti>bI? (a re-
pawn i~doomed. treat for the knight should have been pre-
14.... d2 pared with 16.rtdfl b4 17.0...d1) 16...b4
14.tDgl f5 IS ..ixh3 fxo4 16.fxe4 'i'd7. 17.tDdSli::;xd5 18.exd5 ~xd5 and Black was
14...1S 15.gxfS gxfS 16.exf5 ~d5 simply a pawn up.
17.~g5 tt)f6 18 e3 'iWd6 6...d6 7.c3 a6 8.tUf3
The immediate l8 tDd4 was simpler and In Dominiguez-Isaev, Moscow Olympiad
better. 1994. White transposed the game into an-
19.0-0-0 tDd4 20.lbxd4 cxd4 21.'li'f2 other subdivision of our classification by
..-a3+ playing 8.g4. Black. however. obviously
The whole idea of the queenside offensive is thought he was still in the 'White allows the
dubious. opponent to play h4-h3' type of positions.
By sticking to his central strategy - (That at least is my subjective explanation.)
2l...J:l.df8! - Black could have maintained a This misunderstanding led to the venturous
good position. 8...h3?! (8...lDge7=) 9..hh3 (9.lOxh3 was
22.<~b1 .lIdS 23.~c1 'i'a5 24.l::!.g1.!:ra6 good as well) 9.. .t4'-.ce7 10.~3 d5 Il..tg2
2S.a3 ~c6 26 .... e1! 'iYcs 27.'i'b4! d4 IVL.f5 dxc3 13.lL:xg7+ <.W8 14.tDf5
~xb4? cxb2?! 15..hb2 tLlg6 16.lOf3 tDf4'!
Bener was 27 ...'ffd.<i. (I6 i.xf5 17.gxf5 tUf4) 17..ixe5! lDxd3+
28.axb4 ..bt3 29..!:re1± (l7 li.jxg2+ 18.Wfl f619 ..tg3+-) l8.'.r.'e2
The weakness of Black's pawns secures ~xf5 19.1ffxd3! ~d7 and here White could
White a clear edge in the ending. have terminated the game by 20J:tad I! (in
29 e4?! the game 20.a4 f6 was played. and Black
29 <tjd530.i.d2. even won) 20 ...~b5 21.'fixb5! winning.
30.dxe4 ~xe4 31.~xa6 bxa6 32.~g5 8...h3 9.~f1 .ig4
tLJd533.c;Pb2~g2 34..lIeS The alternative 9 ...~ge7 is more flexible.
And White won. 10.~e3 tbge7 11.~e2 ~d7 1Vexe7
~xe713.0-0

o Sandor Rosta
• Tamas Halasz
Hungary h 1992

1.e4 eS 2.ttJc3 .icS 3.g3 tUc6 4..ig2

hS S.d3 h4
I believe this should be considered main
continuation.
6.tlJdS
The game Suarez-Fucek, Buenos Aires
1993. saw 6.tim d6 7.~g5 f6 8.i.e3 h3

32
 When I was Young

13...~xf3?! 16..bf4! t;~d4? 17.li.\xd4! .be2 l8.tL:cxe2

A positional mistake. Without the ~xd4 19.tLJxd4 exd4 20.nxg7 with a deci-
light-squared bishop the drawbacks of the sive attack.
having the pawn on h3 become evident. Af- 4.tLJf3h4 S.gxh4lDd4!?
ter 13...~xc3 14.fxe3 .td7 the position
would have been equal.
14.~xf3 .ixe3 15.txe3 'i'g5 16.'tlYe2;t
White doubles the rooks along the f-file, puts
the bishop on g4 and stands better. In conclu-
sion. Black should be careful before advanc-
ing his h-pawn to h3. Indeed. sometimes it's
more favourable to keep the pressure on the
kingside and to be able to exchange on g3.

White seldom takes on h4 with the pawn. but

it happened once in one of my own games.
Naturally I'm unable to pass it over in silence. 6.d3
The line 6.~xe5 Wf6! (6 ...d6 7...'Df3 ~g4
o Sergey Pestov 8..:te2 tL:xe29.'1!I'xe2 .!:xh410.11gl!) 7.0g4
• Maxim Notkin tLif3+ 8.'.t>c2 '1!I'f4is too crazy.
Moscow 1994 6...c6 7.te.xd4 exd4 8.0.e2 .ic5 9.c3
White unblocks his opponent's dark-
1.e4 e5 2.tLJc3tLic6 3.g3 h5 squared bishop intending to set a new barrier
The game Voromikov-Hennings. Leipzig immediately.
1979. saw 3...~cS 4.kg2 hS 5.ciJ[3 h4 Nonetheless 9.J:tg 1 !? was stronger trying to
6.gxh4 d6 7.h3 tt1ge7 S.d3 CL:g6 9.~g5 f6 seize the initiative on the kingside,
to.i.e3 .be3 II.fxc3 tLixh4 IVz:.xh4 .!:xh4 9... dxc3 10.bxc3 tfxh4 11.093 cc,e7
l3.d4 when the position is roughly equal. 12.d4 ~b613.~a3?!
Black has a beuer pawn formation but the Retter is 13.eS. The text move allows Black
opponent's spatial advantage hampers the 10 solve his last problem - the light-squared
manoeuvres of his pieces. After 13...'UVe7 bishop's development,
14:t!i'd2tfflIS.dSlD<:i816.fif2Blackmade 13...es 14.e5 llJfS 15.'6'd3 ~a5!
an inaccurate move 16...g5?! weakening the
squares f6 and f5 which allowed White to get
a slight edge by 17.0·0-0 a6 1R.li\e2;J;.
Note thai after 6.. .lhh4 White will not gain
material. He continues to develop the pieces
as follows: 7.d3 l:h8 8.l.g5 f6 9.~e3 ~b6
10. 'i'e2 d6 11.0-0-0. The game
Bastijanic-Zelic. Pula 1994. is worth study-
ing a bit more as White won with the help of
a nice queen sacrifice - II ... i.g4 12. h3 l.h5
13.h4 t;.'.ge7 (I LliJd4! 14..txd4 .bd4
15.'ilfd2 ~b6) 14.l:ldgl -cg6 15.~h3 tL:f4'!!

33
Maxim Notkin
With this trick Black avoids the exchange on
g3 which would have improved White's
pawn chain.
16.0-0-0 'i!if4·+ 17.nd2 ~e6 18.<.t>b2
0-0-0 19.ttJxf5 ~xf5 20."e3 "iie4!?
This move falls into the same category as
l5 ....taS. I don't want to help my opponent
improve his pawn structure.
21,'Wxe4~xe4 22.n91 96 23.h3 ~d7
24.ng4 .i.f5 25.nf4 We6
The ending is clearly better for Black thanks
to the weakness of the h3 pawn. Before win-
ning it. only a little preparation is needed to
restrict White's possible counterplay.
26.h4 ndgB 27.~d3 .i.dB 2B.c4 lbh4
29.~xt5+ gxfS 30.cxdS+ cxd5
31.:a.xh4 hh4
And Black realized his extra pawn.
I'll usc another game of mine as a bridge tu
the final part of this survey. It was one of the
greatest frustrations in my chess career.
o Vladislav Vorotnikov
• Maxim Notkin
Moscow 1997
1.e4 eS 2.0.c3 ttJc6 3.g3 h5
Here my experienced opponent suddenly
plunged into deep thought. Two years before
this game I had a bad position against
Marinkovic (see below), and, therefore. I
considered 4.h3 as the most unpleasant
move for Black. When Vorotnikov finally
played.
4.tDf3
and I replied
4...h4
I was quite satisfied as for some reason I was
sure that here White had no other option ex-
cept for 5.gxh4and 5.tLJxh4. And Iwas ready
to play these positions. The next move
shocked me.
5.g4!
34
Played after another 15 or 20 minutes of hes-
itation. All my anticipation of sacrifices and
attacks collapsed in the twinkling of an eye.
In the following positional play Imade some
mistakes and like two years ago found my-
self in troubles.
5...~cS 6.h3 86
A needless move. fur, after6 ...t~ge7, 7.tLla4
is harmless in view of7 ....td6.
7.d3 d6
Again better is 7.Ji:Jge7 and in the event of
8.~g5 Black has 8...lLid4! saving the h4
pawn.
8.~g5 f6 9.~e3 tbd4
After 9 ... ~ge7 I did not like lO.d4, but
9...~xe3 I O.fxe3 ~e6 Il.d4 ~t7 was prefer-
able.
10.~xd4 exd4
Showing an excessive respect for the pair of
bishops.
It is better to cede the one which capacity is
reduced by its own pawns: 1O... .ixd4
Il.tbxd4 exd4 I2.tDe2 c5 and White has
only a small advantage.
1Vue2 c6 12.~g2lt.!e713,'ffd2 '*'b6
14.0-0 ~e6 15.c3 dxc3 16.bxc3 'ffc7
17.d4 sxt18.l:tfbl ~f719.nb2
At this point a certain opinion about my po-
sition formed itself in my mind. To be honest
it wasn 'I the tirst time Ifelt something simi-
lar when playing the 3... h51ine ofthe Vienna

Game. Here it is: 'I'm alright, all my pieces
stands well or at least have good prospects,
but what is this damned pawndoingat h4?!!'
I could have castled kingside, I could have
done many useful things had this silly piece
of wood remained at h7 where in fact it is
destined to be! The game went
19...~d8
Or 19... bS 20.a4 and Black is worse on both
flanks.
20.95!1 f5 21.exfS ~xf5 22.g6! .i.c4
Dismal is 22 ...i.xg6 23.~f4 .tf? 24.l::tel+
tiJe72S ..!LJg5+-.
23."g5l::tf8
Only computers play 23 ...0-0 here.
24.tDf4 wd7! 25 ..i:tf1?
In the event of 25.tiJxh4 I planned to play
25 ...tiJh6 (25...tiJxh4 26."xh4 ~c8 27.dS),
but after 26.d5! cxdf 27 .~ab 1 (premature is
27./1:Je6 lht2! 28.l:l:xf2 ~xf2+ 29.Wxf2
"b6+ 30.lbd4? 'iib2+) 27 ...b5 28.lDe6!
White wins the exchange as 28 .. 5~)xe6?
loses the queen to 29.~el+ wd7 30.l::te7+.
True, Black would have retained some
counterchances, but objectively his position
is bad. In the game after
25 ... .ixf1 2S.nxf1 nde8
1 managed to draw somehow.
Let's search for samples of more successful
play for Black in the lines where White
meets h5-h4 with g3-g4.
o Alexander Finkel
• Zoltan Almasi
Bratislava 1993
1.e4 e5 2.ltJc3 tOe6
Mieses also won Game 8 in his match
against Marshall, Berlin 1908: 2 ...i.c5 3.g3
tiJc6 4.~g2 h5 S.h3 h4 6.g4 d6 7.tL.a4 (7.d3
~e6 8.f4 exf4 9.~xf4 tQge7 lO.tDge2 lDg6
II.~h2 tt)d4 l2....d2 "'d7 13.0-0-0 0-0-0
14.>tb1 ~b8= Marinkovic-Markovic, Bel-
When I was Young
grade 1991) 7 ...~e6 8.d3 g5? 9.c3 (Black is
unable to prevent d3-d4 therefore his plans
of a blockade along the dark squares fail.
Perhaps Marshall thought thai after ~a4
Mieses would take the bishop?) 9 ...a6
1O.~f3 f6 Il.d4! exd4 12.cxd4 ~b4+
l3.~c3 ~c4 14.1Wc2 ....e7 15.~d2 0·0·0
16.b3 .bc3 17.~xc3 ~f7 IS.O-O Ag6
19.tbd2 d5 20.l:tfel "ti'd7 21.'tWb2 0,ge7
22.b4!± dxe4 23.tlJxe4 ~xe4 24.~x.e4 'i'd6
25.b5 axb5 26 .... xb5lUdS 27J:lab I ~b6 (not
27 ...texc3?? 28 ..if5+, but 27 ...b6 was stron-
ger) 28.d5 tjja7 29 .... a5 'i'b8 30.~d4 ttJac8
31.~c5 'tWd7 32.d6! ~xd6 33Jhb6! cxb6
34 ..hb6 ~c8 3S ..i.f5 1t'd6 (35 ...tCxb6D
36 ..hd7 [oxd7+- ) 36.~xc8 ~xc8
37.l::tcl+ ~d7 38."f5+ ~e8 39 .... g6+
Black resigned. An excellent game!
3.93 h5 4.h3
Another way of stopping the h-pawn - 4.h4
is not popular. Zamicki-Akopian, Rio
Gallegos 1986, went 4 ...d6 5.d3 .ig4 6 ...ie2
'tIrd7 7.i.xg4 hxg4 8..ie3 g6 9.... d2 .ih6
1O..ixh6 l:xh6 I 1.~;d5 Ilh5 I2.lDe2 f5
13.0-0-00·0-0 with an equal game.
In the next pair of examples two strong GMs
were apparently confused by that deceptive
move order that I faced in the game against
Vorotnikov: 4.d3 h4 5.g4 i.c5 6.h3 ttJge7
7.Ji.g2
A) 7 ...tlJd4 8.tDge2 tiJxe2 9.tiJxe2 ~b6?!
(9 ...d5) 1O.f4 d6 l1.d4! .ie6 (ll...exd4
35
Maxim Notkin
I2.lDxd40-0 13.ll)0!? and the h4-pawn is
weak) l2.'it'd3 exd4 l3.~xd4 tDc6 14.~xc()
bxc6 15.~d2 f6? (a decisive weakening)
16.e5! dxe5 (l6 ...d5 17.f5 ~cS IS.e6)
17.~x:c6+ <;p~ IU5 i..fl 19.~xaS ~xaS
20.0-0-0+- J.Pedersen-Aronian. Morso
2002.
B) 7...~g6 8.~e3 ~b6 (S...d6!?) 9.~\ge2
d6 1O."d2li:d4?! (10...~e6) 11.~xd4! exd4
12.tL.d5 c6 13.ltixb6 ~x.b6 14.c3 dxc3
15.bxc3 (a clever exchange manoeuvre led to
a position where While's pawn centre looks
formidable) 15...~d7 16.f4 0-0-0 17.d4 tt~e7
18.a4 g6 19.c4! (maybe it's not the strongest
move but I attach the mark of exclamation for
the fidelity to principle) 19...f5 20.exf5 gxf5
21.g5 llJg6 22.0-0 and in the end White won,
Cabe-Xu Jun, Manila 1991.
4...h4
I tested 4...i.e5. but, after 5.tL:.a4~e7 6..ig2
h4 7.g4, it turned out that the bishop lakes
the knight's square. My following play was
not too impressive- 7...lbf6 (7...a6!?)8.CL.c3
~c5 9.d3 lL;d4 1O.f4 exf4 I l.~xf4 c6
(ll...d6) 12.1i'd2d5 13.e5~h7?! (l3 ...tLid7)
14.0-0-0 ~e6 15.~h2 tLihf8 16.<1.\0Ci:;g6
17.d4 ~b4 18.~fl as?! 19.'C!fe3a4 2().tLie2
a3 21.b3 and Black suffers from a lack of
constructive ideas while White has various
means of active play on the kingside.
Marinkovic- Notkin, Tivat 1995.
5.g4 tiJge7 6.~g2lDg6 7.~ge2 ~c5
36
8.d3
In the event of 8.tLid5!?C,xe7 9.~\x:e7Wlxe7
10.c3 i:.b6 Il.d4 d6, correct is 12.0-0 and
White has a stable edge.
Instead, the game Finkel-Tseitlin, Beer-
Sheva 1997, saw 12.'i'd3 o-o 13.0-0 c5
14.'1Phlcxd4 15.cxd4 'ilff6 (Finkel suggests
15...d5!? but 1don't think it solves all Black's
problems) 16.g5! 'ite7 17.f4 exf4 18.tL>xf4
tbxf4 19.nxf4 $.e6? (l9 ...'i!hgS! 20.l:xfl
'tfg6 21 Jixf8+ \t>xf8;t;Finkel) 20.l:lxh4±.
Analysing the situation , conclude that
While's worst piece is the Queen's knight. It
hinders in building of the strong pawn centre
by c2-c3 and d3-d4. That's why White is try-
ing to exchange it. Hence, Black should not
facilitate his opponent's task. So. in reply to
8.~d5, the move 8...tL:d4!? comes into con-
sideration with unclear play.
8...tbd4 9.tDxd4 ~xd4 10.tbe2 ~b6
11.c3
Here 11.d4 is somewhat impatient. After
I J...exd4 12.f4 d6 J3.tbxd4 'iff6 14.tL.e2
.i.d7 15.'ifd3 Jonkcr-Klip, Dicren 1990,
15...0-0-0 16.g5li'e7 17.i.d2a complicated
position with mutual chances arises.
11...Wf6 12.d4 d6 13.a4
Simpler is 13.0-0.
13...a6 14.~e3?! ~e6 15.a5 ~a7
16,0-0~c4!
The first positional achievement - Black has
prevented f2-f4.
__________ •__ .. _. _ ... --'-W:...:_he=.:..:n_:l_:w::_::a:.::s'-Y,::_::o:..::u::...:..;;zng

17':1e1 0.f8!1 18.Wd2 tLJe6 41.c5 d5! 42.exd5 e4! 43.d6

From here the knight controls two important Clearly not 43.fxe4? lH2+ 44.'~gl II:xe2!.
squares. 43 ...c6! 44.1U1 ~d5 45.l:tf2 95
19.dS?! 46.~d1 ~g7
White could keep the balance with J9.g5 Almasi unhurriedly improves the positions
"'g6 20J4 exf4 21.lLixf4 ~xf4 22..bf4 of his pieces. It reminds me of Kharlov-
0-0-0. Topalov, Tripoli 2004, but with all the rooks
19...~xe3 20.'fhe3 ~xe2 21.dxe6 on the board.
~c4 22.exf7+ 'fIxf7
White is left with a bad bishop - his position
is slightly worse.
23.~g5 :th6 24J:lad1 fie7
Here 24 ...l:tf6!'! 25.... ;r.h40-0-0 deserved at-
tention with full compensation for the pawn.
25.1IIe3
White could break free with 25_~;r.e7+
wxe7 26.f4! equalizing.
25...~;[f6 26.~f1 .Re6 27.~e2 lU4
28.c4 Wf8 29.¢>g2
Miss] ng one more possibility of active play-
29.b4 Wg8 30.c5.
29•..Wg8 3O.b3 liaf8 31.f3 ~g5 47.~e2 Wh6 48.~dl llt7 49.Si.e2 't.Ifg7
32.~d3 ~d7 33Jlc3 ~c6 34.l:m ~f6 50.'i'c1?~eS?!
3S..id3 .ad7 36.~e2 'it.'h8 37 ..!:rcc1 Immediately decisive was 50...exD+
'ifgS 38.ttc3 ~e6 51.,bD 'fke5-+.
The last 7-8 moves are typical of time-troll- 51.~c4
ble play. White also loses after 51.~h I exf3 52...QdJ
39.b4 ~g8 4OJ:ld1 'iWf6 (52.~f111c4) 52...1hb4-+.
The time control is passed and a tough finish 51 ... exf3+ 0-1
begins.
 CHAPTER 5
Jeroen Bosch
Morozevich's Pet Line in the Albin
E .t~~.t
iii
~
8~
MCjj~iY~~
The Sideline 5 ... t2Jge7
Alexander Morozevich is famous for his ad-
venturous chess. In the 2004 Amber tourna-
ment he twice played the Albin Counter-
Gambit. Now the Albin does nOI enjoy a
very respectful reputation, but Morozevich's
interpretation is well worth studying.
o Boris Gelfand
• Alexander Morozevich
Monaco (blindfold) 2004
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5
The Albin Counter-Gambit is not a common
guest in games between world class players.
Historically, perhaps only the first game of
our eponymous hero fell into this category.
38
E
~'"
Cjj~
8~ ~
M NIC KEY VO 15,7
For it was in New York 1&93 (hat Adolf Al-
bin first played his daring gambit against
none other than World Champion Emanuel
Lasker. This debut could hardly be called a
success, though, as after 3.dxe5 d4 4.tbf3
tbc6 S.a3 j'Lg4 6.h3 ~xf3 7.gxf) ~xe5 8.f4
Cc,c6?! (8...tL:g6 had to be played) 9.~g2
'itd7 lO.M a6 II.~b2 White's game was
preferable.
3.dxe5 d4 4 ..:t.:.f30..c6 5,93
The strongest move at this stage and by far
the most popular line. The alternatives S.a3
and 5.~bd2 are less critical.
After 5.a3 the movc 5 ....i.e6 seems enough
for near-equality. A virtually equal ending
arises after 6.c3 dxe3 7.~xd8+ l:I.xdR

8 ..be3 tI:,ge7 9.1Dc3 tI:,g6 1O.tI:,b5 rId7
11.~bd4 tlJgxe5 I2.lLlxe5 tDxeS 13.~xe6
fxe6 14.~e2 ttJd3+, forcing the exchange of
White's bishop pair, as in Farago-Mesrel,
Belgrade 1982.
By analogy to our main game a set- up with
5 ...~ge7 comes into consideration. For ex-
ample. 5...ttJge7 6.g3 tbg6 7.~g2 <1':gxe5
8.ttJbd2~e79.0-00-O(9 ...a.5) 10.b4d311.b5
tLld4 with equal play, Pinter-Souleidis, Dort-
mund 1998.
Stronger is S.ttJbd2, when a game
Szilagyi-Kadas, Hungary 2000, went
5 ...tDge7 (the main line is 5..,~g4) 6.a3 a5
7.~h3 (7.g3 may be metby7 ...~g6 or 7 ... a4)
7 ...ti::.g6 8.tbbxd4 ~cxe5 9.~d2 (9.lC.xe5
~xe5 IO.i:.f4, followed by II.e3, looks much
better) 9...c6 10."c2 .ic5 I J..~c3 0-0
12.0-0-0 "e7 13.!tJfS ~xf5 14.... xf5l1~xf3
15,gxf3 .axt2 and Black was slightly better.
E .i.jV • .t~E
~~~ ~~~
~ Black's Took. More importantly, Black's at-
5...~ge7!?
In what is already a fairly uncommon gambit
this is a sideline. Fans of the Albin Counter-
Gambit usually try to checkmate their oppo-
nents as soon as possible with the coffee-
house set-up: ~g4, "'d7, 0-0-0, ~h3 and h5.
Whites position is too solid, though. for
such a one-sided strategy to succeed (with
best play that is). White should remember
one of the golden rules when playing against
a gambit: 'return material in time'. Alterna-
tively he may just crudely start an attack of
Morozevich's pet line in the Albin
his own on the queenside where Black's king
has found a not-too-safe haven. Two sample
lines that are sort of mainstream Albin theo-
ry arise after 5 ...~g4 (5 ...~e6 is also played)
6..tg2 'ffd7 7.0-0:
- Here it would be nice if 7 ...~h3 would
work. However, now is the time to throw a
spanner in the works with the standard 8.e6!.
Since Black is forced to take this pawn with
the bishop, White gains valuable time for de-
veloping his own initiative. The game
Dzindzichashvili-Manievich, Israeil Cham-
pionship 1978, illustrates why this is known
to favour White: R...!ixe6 9.'ih4 0-0-0
10J~dl a6 I UDc3 ors 12.~g5 SLe7
13..hf6 .txf6 14.~d5±.
- 7 ...0-0-08.~bd2h5 9.b4! (there is no need
for 9. h4, White's counter-attack is very
strong) 9....hh4 (9...~xb4 1O.a3 lLla6
11.tL;b3 was also better for White in Van der
Wiel- Tiviakov, Albin theme tournament,
Groningen 2001) JO.'eta4 b4 I UXbl hxg3
12Jhb4 ~xb4 13.• xb4 ~ 14.fxg3, and
White's minor pieces are stronger than
tack is going nowhere.
6.~g2lLlg6
The whole point of 5 ...lL;ge7 - Black simply
wants to retrieve his gambit pawn. If he suc-
ceeds, his advanced d4-pawn constitutes a
fair trade-off against White's powerful g2
bishop.
39
Jeroen Bosch

7.Ag5
This is the most ambitious move. White de-
velops with tempo and it is not immediately
obvious how Black should reply.
The natural 7.0-0 deserves separate treat-
ment. See the game Piskov-Mozny below,
Two minor alternatives:
• Alekhine once played 7.'tWa4, and Black
had no problems after 7... iob4+ 8.ttJbd2 0-0
9.0-0 Alekhine-Pires, Lisbon 1941. And now
9 ...a5!? -a suggestion of Raetsky and Chetve-
rik - planning to take back the gambit pawn on
e5 looks good . • 1O.~b<l2 h6 II.~h4 ~e7 12.:he7 ,*xe7
• Possible is 7..Q.f4 tbxf4! (the move order
cannot be inverted, for after 7 ...f67 8.exf6
13.'i'c2 "'f7 14.ttJel 0-0 (play is about
equal) 15.Q,d3 ~h8 16.b4 ~g4 17Jbel
<t;xf4 White has 9.t7+!) 8.gxt~ f6 9.tbbd2 ~ae8'!! (l7 ... a6 to prevent White's next is
fxe5 10.fxe5 ~f5, with a highly complicated stronger) 18.b5 ~d8 19.tia4;t 'lWfS20.lDe4
game in Tiviakov-Ligterink, Albin theme (the alternatives are also promising:
tournament Groningen 200 I . 20. 'ilxa7 .be2 21..1he2 'it'xd3 22.~fe I and
7...~d7! 23.~e4 is uncomfortable 10 meet; or 20.f3
Morozevich (temporarily) blocks his own ~g5 21.e3) 20 ...'fWh521.f3 ii.e6 22 ..I%cllDfl
bishop. This odd-looking move is in fact far 23.'iha7 .$..c8 24.'ilr'c5 lL:.g5 25.<1:df2 lDe6
stronger than the natural response 7 ... sa. 26 .• a3 b6 27.~h3!
for after Khe7 Black must take back with
the king (which has indeed been tried) in Of-
der not to remain a pawn down. 1. XX ~
Maxim Chetverik (author of a book on the ~ ~
Albin Counter-Gambit together with Alex- ~ ~ ~~
ander Raetsky) has championed 7 .. .f6?!. Ho-
wever, after 8.exf6 gxf6 9.~d2 Black's ~ ~ ~
pawn structure is too compromised, with no ~~ttJ
clear dynamic compensation in sight.
8.0-0
'if ~~1i.
There is a main alternative here in the form
~ ~Ci::J ~
of 8.e6!? This well-known Albin ploy may 1:[ n~
well be White's best bet for a small advan-
tage. As the d4 pawn needs protection Black (White has a huge advantage, so the young
must take back with the f-pawn on e6: Morozevich sacs a piece) 27 ...~gf4 28.gxf4
8 ...fxe6 9.0-0 e5. lL:.xf4 29.!hc8 tilxe2+ 3O.<t>g2 l:1xc8
Starting from this position there arc two 31.tbg3 'ilr'g6 32.%kel d3 33.nxe2 (return-
Morozevich efforts, the first one dating back ing material to end the complications)
to more than 10 years ago. Let's examine the 33 ... uxe2 34 ..I%el h5 35.'ii'd3 'tWg5 36.lL:.h3
games Krasenkow-Morozevich and Van 'i'h6 37 ..I%xe2+- h4 38 ..!lJfI .l%cd839 .• e4
Wely-Morozevich in detail: l:d440.'fVxe51Wg6+ 41.1Wg5 "'d3 42 .... h5+

40

c;f;>g843.l:td2 .xc4 44.lhd4 ii'xd4 45.tbgS
'ilfd3 46.~e3! r:ld8 47.fI'f7+ 'it>h8 48.'iWhS+
c;f;>g849 .• f7+ q;hR SO.ii'e6 :::I.a851.~h3
.bl 52.tbf7+ wg8 S3.0g5+ c;f;>h854.a3
.d3 55.lZ:.f7+ Wh7 56.~g5+ ~h8 57.t'2.g4
r:lfS 58.~e5 "'fl+ 59.'itr>g4 1-0 Krasenkow-
Morozevich, Podolsk 1993.
• 1().~a4 i:.d6 (lO...h6 II.~d2 .1e7 is
quite reasonable) II.Qibd2 h6
12.<.:S~? (an inspired answer) srs
12...
02.3.xc5 13."i!¥c2 hxg5 14.'fli'xg6+ 'itO
15:i!Vxf7+ WKf7 16.tbxg5+~; l2 ...hxg5
13.cxd6 g4 14.~g5 'itxd6 15.lUc4, and
Black's king will not find a safe place)
13.~h4 aS~? (I3...~xc5?! 14:lIIc2 ti]xh4
IS.llJxh4 is a pawn up in an unenviable posi-
tion) 14.a3 l%.a6?! (this is too much -
14...~e6 15.b4 ~d7 was better) l5.l:tfe1
'iff5 16.l:lacl ~e7 17..,be7 t'i:Jxe7 IS.e3
(White has started the middle game, where-
as Black still has to finish the opening)
18...0-0 19.exd4 exd4 20.b4 (2(Utc4+ 'iPh8
21.tL:b3 nets a pawn) 20 ...axb4 21.'itb3+
c;f;>h822.axb4 b5! 23.cxb6ep lhb6 24.ti'a3
..-f7 25Jlc5 ti:.d5? 26.b5?! (26.:::I.xd5! 'i'xd5
27.b5+-) 26 ...tDcb4 27.ttJe4 .ifS 28.lUeS'!!
.e7 29.f4·! ~xe4 (29 ../2.c2!-+) 30J%c4
tLixf4? (30 ...~xg2 31.tLig6+ l:xg6 32.l:txe7
lLlxf4 33 .• xb4 i.dS 34.r:le4~ tUh3+ 3S.'it;'g2
tL:f4+ with a draw or 35 ...~xe4+ 36.'it>xh3
r:lf5 to play on) 31 ,r:lxe4+- d3 3Vug6+
Morozevich's pet line in the Albin
tDxg6 33.lhe7 CiJxe7 34.it'xb4 l::td6
35Jhc7 tDf5 36.l::td7 ruf6 37.l::txd6 l::txd6
3IL~f3 d2 39.~dl l::td8 40.'itc5 tDd6
41.'fIc7 1-0 Van Wely-Murozevich, Monaco
rapid 2004.
Theoretically there may not be much wrong
with Black after 8.e6!? However, conside-
ring Morozevich's practical results here it
may well be the line you will encounter most
when you start playing this SOS-line.
In practice the move 8.• a4 has also been
tried. White was better in Kachiani
Gersinska-Strater, German Bundesliga 19981
99. after 8 ...h6 9.~f4 tCxf4 lO.gxf4 'i'g4~?
I 1.0-0 ~d7 l2.Wb3 W)(.f4!? (12 ...l:%b8)
13.~xb7 ttb8 14..~fxc7 :xb2?! 15.tbtxl2
i.e7 16.l:%fbl±.
However, on move 14 Black should play
14 .. J:l.c8! 15.~b7 l::tbS.
8.•.h6!N
This, and not his previous move, is
Morozevich's crucial novelty. Black had pre-
viously tried 8...lt.jgxe5 9.lbbd2 lbxf3+
10.£xf3 .icS. White is simply better here af-
ter II.tL!e I! Gartner-Baumgartner, Austrian
Team Championship 1995/96.
9.~f4
Allowing Black to grasp the initiative with
his forceful answer. Still whether you are
playing blindfold or not, nobody likes to
playa move like 9 .kc I .
9...tDxf4 10.gxf4
41
Jeroen Bosch
10...95! 11.lDbd2
Taking twice on g5 does not come into con-
sideration. After II.fxg5 hxg5 12.tL:xg5,
both 12...0xe5 and 12..... g413.f4 .. h4 are
good.
11...gxf4 12.tlJe4
This is inaccurate; hath I VtJb3 or the im-
mediate 12.~h I are stronger.
12...~e713."d2?
A bad move, according to Morozcvich. But
Black also has a pleasant position after
13.~hl :1gB.
13..."g4 14.~h1 ~fS
Demonstrating that White's 12th and 13th
moves were an unfortunate combination.
15.ttJxd4?
This blunders a piece. but Black has a morc
than satisfactory position after any of ihe al-
ternatives. For example:
A) 15.0f6+ .bf6 16.exf6 0-0-0
B) IS.lDeIO-O-O
C) IS.h3 'Wh5 16.""f4 .ixh3 17.tL:g3
.g4 18.... xg4 ~xg4, and Black is better in
this ending.
15...tld8
This is stronger than 15...0-0-0 as 16.tUxc6
tlxd2 17.tL:xe7+ is check! Still. even here
Black is vastly superior after 17...<t>d8
l8.~xfS :ld7.
16.~xf5
This queen sacrifice is not the best defence.
42
16.tbf6+ ~xf6 17.fhc6+ bxc6 18.exf6 c5
19.~a5 cxd4 (I9 ...l::txd4 20.• xc5 lId7
21.~c6!)20.l::tgl1Wh3 21.ii'xc7 offers White
some slight chances of survival. After a for-
ced sequence Black now obtains a decisive
material advantage.
16...J:txd2 17.lbxe7 <J;xe7 18.tbxd2
~xe2
Black is winning. The following moves spe-
ak for themselves.
19J~f3 ng8 20.b3 tLlb4 21.lud4 'tWg4
22.~e4
iii
•
22 ...ng5
This suffices fur the win. It is perhaps only
here that we notice that Morozevich is play-
ing blindfold. Had he been permitted one
cursory look at the board he would have
played 22 ...tDd3. when White has no satis-
factory defence against the threat of
23...'fWgl and 24 ...~f2 mate!
23.J:tgl fi'd7 24.lDf3 nxg1+ 2S.l:txg1
tUd3 26.J:tg2 c6 27.it.h7 a5 28.tDh4
q:·.xe5
White resigned.
We have seen the merit of Morozevich' s idea
against White'S most ambitious set-up:
7..1gS. However, White has another simpler
approach to play for an opening advantage:
7.0-0. Let's have a look at a special contribu-
tion by 1M Mark Ginsburg.

A Tightrope Act
A contribution by Mark Ginsburg
o Yury Piskov
• Milos Mozny
Clichy 1990
---------_ __ - c5 12.<te4 ~e7 l3.e3 and we've transposed
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 d4 4.tbf3 ~c6
5.g3 tLige7 6 ..tg2 .!L;g67.0-0
White simply castles and doesn't bother
about the gambit pawn. His play is based on
a slight lead in development. While Black
immediately regains his material, he can
achieve equality only by accurate play.
7...~e7?!
Black should immediately win back his
pawn with 7...tOgxeS! when there are two
main continutions:
• Less testing now is !ttt:.bd2 :il..e79.b3 0-0
1O..tb2 lbx.f3+ II.~xf3 -*.f6 12.1!ld2.
Burn-Schlechter; Barmen 1905. now went
12...~g4?!. when White missed the power-
ful IHIH4! 'it'd7 14.l:ladll:lad8 15.e3 and
White is on top. Instead of 12... .ig4 Black
should play 12...l:le8! 13.l:ladJ .ig4 14.'it'f4
lhe2 15..hd4 .1Lxf3 16..hf6 'i'xf6
17.'tt'xf6 gxf6 I S..1Lxf3 :lxa2 with an equal
ending .
• More to the point is 8.0xe5 .:exeS 9.h3!
(aiming to transpose to our main game Pis·
Morozevich's pet line in the Albin
kov-Mozny. Not active enough is 9.liJd2
YJ..e7 10.0.f3 ~xf3+ II..1Lxf3 0-0 12.~f4
Lautier-Raetsky, ACP blitz 2004. Instead of
the game continuation 12...c5?!, Black has
12 .th3 13.J:[c I c6 with equal chances)
9 gc5! (not 9....ie7 10.i.b2 .if6 I J.tDd2
to Piskov-Mozny) IO.Ab2 (the natural con-
tinuation, IO.b4 Si..e7 is nothing special for
White) IlL.O-O II.t2}d2
This is the critical position. If Black is not
careful, White will obtain an edge. The fol-
lowing lines illustrate the difficulties that
Black faces:
- 1l...~b6 12.b4!;!;
- 11 ...:il..g4'! 12.0e4±
- 11...f5?! 12.a3 a5 13.b4!~
- II...a6 l2}ue4 sa 13.e3!
Fortunarely, there is one move that saves the
day. B lack has I I... a5! and I cannot see more
than equality in variations stemming from
this move.
8.b3 ltJgxe5 9_lDxe5 ltJxe5 10..ib2
.Q.f6
Ideally, Black would like to play 1O...c5
here. Unfortunately, the tactics are against
him. White can exploit his small lead in de-
velopment with the thematic II.e3!
(J 1.~e4? 'i'b6 12.... c2 h5 gave Black a
good position in Babula-Mozny, Czech
Republic 1994)
43
Jeroen Bosch

14.~xc5!
With this powerful blow Piskov optimally
uses his edge in development.
14...~xc5 15.exd4lt.!xd4?
The only way !O limit the damage was
15...~.e7! 16.d5 tCb4 17.a3 ~a6 18..hg7
:erg8 19.~d4 and White is dearly better, but
not outright winning as in the game.
16.b4 .txb4
Or 16...~b6 17.cS.
17:~a4+ 4Jc6 18.~xc6+ bxc6
19.Axg7! ~g8 20."'xc6+ jLd7
• 11....ag4?! works well after 12.13? ~f5 21.l'lfe1+ ~e7
13.e4 (l3.exd4,!~d3) 13...~e6 with equali-
ty. far stronger is 12.1td2 when 12... tbf3+
13.~.xf3 ~xf3 14.exd4leaves White dearly
on top.
• So Black is forced to play 11...~f6
12.exd4cxd4 13.tDd2 when White is ahead in
development, has a target on d4. and stands
better. A sample line is: 13...~g4 14.~1!
'1!i'd7 15.f4! o1\c6 16..ael+ <t>f8 (not
ssrn
16... 17..i~.a3+-) with a huge edge for
White.
11.t2::d2 c5 12.tL;e4
Driving back the bishop. which prepares his
next thematic break. 22.lbe7+ ~xe7
12•.. jLe7 13.e3! lDc6 22...<iJxe7 23."f6+ ~e8 24.%11::1+ _Qe6
2S.l::rxe6+ fxe6 26.'1!i'xe6++-.
23."'xa8+ ~d8 24.1!fe4+ 'ilf'e7
25"~xh7 1-0
A crushing win by Piskov!

So, after 7.0-0 Black should avoid the disas-

ters of Piskov-Mozny, and perform a tightro-
pe act hy means of7 ...lZlgxe5 8.~xe5 tbxe5
9.b3 .!.icS 1O.i..b2 0-0 11.(Qd2 as! to gain
equality. Nobody said that playing the Albin
Counter-Gambit was easy!

44
 CHAPTER 6
Michal Krasenkow
The Dutch in the English?

I.

"
NIC KEY E049.7

Combining ...c5 and ...f5

1.tLif3 c5 2.c4 Black prevents the Maroczy set-up (e2-e4)

This order of moves is often used by players
aiming for solid play. without major risks.
These players want 10 avoid the Benko Gam-
bit, the Modern Benoni and other double-
edged openings. After
2...tbc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.tDxd4
it is noteasy for Black (especially ifhe wants
to win) to complicate mailers, either in the
Maroczy system (4 ... g6 5.e4) or in the clas-
sic line (4 ...li'\f6 5.tf\c3 e6 and now, say,
6.a3). However, he has another option. Ad-
mittedly. it is a risky one. but it will set White
a real positional challenge.
4...f5!?
and now intends to play ...g7-g6. The f5
pawn can be useful in future play (similarly
to the Dutch Defence, Black call start a
kingside attack). The Question is: Can White
make use of the tempo Black spends in such
a careless way?
An important thing to point out is that While
should now give up 'solidness' and play ac-
lively 10 refute Black's set-up!
I am ashamed to admit my own failure to
solve the problems when J faced this move in
my game against Nigel Short in Round 2 of
the FIDE World Championship in Libya
2004.

45
Michal Krasenkow
The provocative 4 ...£5 was applied for the
first time back in 1928 by German 1M Kurt
Richter. However, he failed to demonstrate
any worthy ideas, gave up a pawn and quick-
ly lost (see below). In the nineties the bishop
pawn lunge was picked up by Latvian 1M
(now GM) Nonnunds Miezis, who develo-
ped it into an orderly system.
Some of his followers have tried another
move order: 2...g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.~xd4 f5!?,
which generally led to the same positions.
Here are two games in which that didn't hap-
pen:
• Dragomaretsky-Pestov, Moscow 1990:
5.~c3 ~g7 6.e4 fxe4 7.~~xe4 "'a5+ 8.~c3
0.f6 9.tbb3 "i!feS+ 1O.~e2 0-0 11.0-0 0e4
12.tbxe4 'i!fxe4 13. .2.f3 li'fS 14.'ffe2 ~c6
15..ie4 ..-f6 16.l%bl d6 17...i.d2 'ifh4
18..Q.d5+ \t>h8 19..ic3 with a positional plus
for White.
• Zhachev-Pestov, Moscow 1990: 7. Ji:Jc6
8.~b3 (8..i.e3 li'aS+ 9.tDC3 - see below)
8...lLjf6 9.~xf6+ .Lf6 10.i.e2 b6 11.0-0
.Q.b7 12J~bl"c7 13..lil.e34'le5 14..id4 ,*c6
IS.f3 d6 16Jlf2 0-0 with complex play.
Back to the diagrammed position. White has
two major plans depending on the way he
develops his fI bishop. Of course,
developing it to g2 is more ambitious than to
e2. White can also start with 5.0.c3 and
define his plan on the next move. Let us first
divide the material into two main lines:
A) 5.tDC3
B) 5.g3
Nothing special is gained by 5.e3 (not follo-
wed by ~3). There has been only one game
with this plan, in which Black had no pro-
blems: S ...g6 6.~e2 ~g7 7 .~xc6 dxc6 8.0-0
~f6 9."i!fc2 0-0 IO.~a3 i.e6 II.c5 ~d5
12.:tdl 'fIe7 13.~2lUe4Srebmic-Grabics,
Punat 2003.
46
Variation A
5.~c3g6
.i .t'ii'~.t~g
1.1. I. I.
~
In the first game played with this system
Black just gave up the fS pawn, which hardly
deserves following: 5...tDf6? 6.lDxfS g6
7.ttJe3 $..g7 8.g3 b{) 9.~g2 0-0 1O.0-0.ib7
I U:rbl Kostic-Richter, Berlin 1928.
After 5... g6, White is at the crossroads:
AI) 6.e4
A2) 6.g3
A3) 6.e3
The following two moves were proposed by
WGM S.Prudnikova but have not been
tested in practice yet:
- 6,~f4!? d6 7.tL:rd5 ~g7 8.c3
- 6.tDxc6 dxc6 7.'fKxd8+ ~xd8 8.~f4 i.g7
9.0-0-0+ ~e8 1O.,*"c2 c5 II..~gS.
She evaluates the position as slightly hetter
for White in both cases but [ am sure GM
Miezis has a different opinion on this sub-
ject! In the first case I don't see any achieve-
ments for White after 8...lUf6 (the f4 bishop
is placed extremely awkwardly). In the sec-
ond ease - what is White going to do after
II...h6 as 12.:d8+ ~f7 is senseless (the
rook will be pushed back on [he next move)?
In the game Prudnikova-Kalevic, Belgrade
1999, she played 6.h4 i.g7 7.~xc6 dxco
 The Dutch in the English?!

8.thd8+ (8.1i'b3!? e5 9.~d2 CUe7 10.0-0-0 retsky-Pestov, this manoeuvre now brings
"c7 11.e4 is recommended by Prudnikova - Black a real benefit,
why not 9 ...tDf6?) 8...<;Pxd89.~d2 eS 10.g3 1VDxe4
tDf6 11.e4 l:lc8 12..ig2 .ie6 13.b3 'i;c7 The unnatural I2.tba4'!! proved a bad choice
14.J:1c1 l:tad8 IS.llJdS+ ~b8 16.tUxf6.ixf6 in Kuenitz-Miezis. Bad Wildbad 2000:
17..ie3 fxe4 IS..he4 ~fS 19..bf5 gxfS 12...d6 t 3.0-0 0-0 14..i.f3 .i.f5 IS. 'lWd5+
20,<".Pe2~c8 2Ulcdl ';d7 22.J:1hel draw. ~h8 16.nad I lrxdS 17.cxd5 ~eS with in-
itiative for Black.
Variation Ai 12..:tIixe4 13.0-0 .txb2
6.e4 This is the difference!
Black is well-prepared for this attack! 14.ti:)c5'it'h415J:lb1 ~d416.t;:)xb7
6••.fxe4 7.tDxe4 '6'a5+ 8.tZlc3 ~g7 Regaining the pawn but allowing Black to
9•..te3lOf6 complete his development: 16.g3 is harm-
9...tuh6!? is also possible although in the less due 10 16... 'i'f6 17.loe4 _eS.
following game White obtained an advanta- 16...0-0 17.~f3 ~e5 18.g3 'tIif6
ge, due 10 Black's inaccurate play: 10..te2 19..td5+ e6
0-011.0-0 "'eS?! 12.tDf3 'i'bS?! 13.• dS+! Draw. Collas-Khamrakulov, Campillos
~h8 14.... e4 tiffS 15.J:1adl! A.Rodri- 2004.
guez-Leyva, Matanzas 1998. Instead of
II....e5?!, GM A.Rodriguez recommends Variation A2
ll...hd4! 12..i.xd4 ll::.fS 13.lt:lbS (or 6.g3 ~g7 7.e3
13.i.e3 tbxe3 14.fxe3 ';xfl + IS..ixfl d6 To 7.O,1:2 Black can now reply with
16.... d5+ ~g7) 13...~.,fxd4 14.tt2xd4 'ili'eS 7 ... Lc3+!,? destroying the white pawn
IS.lDxc6 bxe6 and Black is OK. structure (quite a typical method in such po-
10.lLib3 sitions), e.g. 8.hxc3 'i'aS 9.tL:e3 d6 IO ..Q.g2
Worse is 10..ie2,!! Ci:,c4 II.fi'd3 'iixc3 Sd7 ! 1.0-0 :lcll 12.cS?! (this sacrifice
12.bl'.c30-0 13.h4?? lLixd4 14.i.xd4 e5 and doesn't bring White any profits) 12...'~xcS
Black wins a piece, Mirkovic-Nestorovic, 13.c4 tLlf6 14..i.b2 0-0 IS ..tlel b6 16.lLld5
Niska Banja 2004. tLle4! 17.e3:f7 18.... e2 'i'a5 19.:fdl Wa4
10.. :ite5! 11.~e2 ~e4 20J3 tUcs 21 ..lii.al h6 22:*'b2 ~h7 and
White's compensation for the pawn is in
doubt, Loncar-Doric, Rijeka 2004.

As distinct from the above game Dragoma-

47
Michal Krasenkow

Black must now develop his light-squared 8...dxc6 9.'¥hd8+ Wxd8 10..Q.d2tLlf6
bishop. Accordingly, he has two plans: 11..ig2.ib7

Variation A21
7...d6 8.~g2 jLd7 9.0-0 ~f6 10.b3
h5!?

An original idea, typical for GM Normunds
Miezis.Jackelen-Miezis. Bonn 1995, conti-
nued instead: 10...0-0 Il.Ah2 g5 12:~c2!
'fVc8 13.lUel (preventing ...f4) 13...J:tt7
14.tDdS tDg4 15.1Iad I tljxd4 16..i.xd4 ~xd4
17.~xd4 e6 18.h3 ~h6 19.tUc3 and White is
dearly better.
11..~b2 h412.liJd5 hxg3 13.hxg3 <i;f7
14.lDxf6 .ixt615.tlJxc6 ~xc6 '6.~xf6
Wxf617.e4
Looks formidable but Black holds
ground.
17.,:~fd7 18.f4 fxe4 19.'~d4+
20.f5?
A senseless pawn sacrifice.
20...gxf5 21.b4 e3 22 ...Q.d5+ wg6
23.J:tae1e5
with a clear advantage for Black in Schuur-
man-Miezis, Winterthur 2001. This looks
fine from Black's point of view, but what
was Miezis going to do after Il.h4! ... ?
VarIation A22
7...b68.tCxc6
Apparently, the only way to prevent Black's
comfortable development.
12.e4
12.0·0-0 cj;c7 13.e4 can be met with
13...ciig4' 14.~hfl 1Iad8 IS.exfS gxf5
16.l:ldel e5 17.h3 ~h618.f4e419.g4.ia6!
with good counterplay, Fahrner-Miezis,
Graz 1999.
12...c5
Also interesting is 12... eS!?
13.0~-0 ~e8 14.-8d5 ~?! 15.exf5
gxfS 16.~c3 nad8
16...e6? 17.0.xf6 ~xg2 18.~d7+ Wg6
19.1::tel!.
17,Uhe1! e6 18.~xf6 ~xf6 19.ttJxf6
his ~xg2 20.tDd7! We7 21.0e5
with a clear advantage for White in Ken-
~f7 gis-Miezis, Bonn 1995. Instead of the obvi-
ous (but inaccurate) 14...<;1o>f7. 14...:%d8!,
preventing 15.exfS, was much more precise.
In case of IS.i.c3 there follows IS ...fxe4.
Black appears to be fine in this line.
Variation A3
6.e3 tZlf6
Black did quite well without ...lDf6 in the
following game: 6 ...~g7 7.~e2 h6 8.~xc6
dxc6 9.'i!ixd8+ Wxd8 IO.~d2 ~e6 11.0-0-0
WeB 12.e4 tDh6 13.f3'!! l::tffl I 4.::'he 1 f4
15.g3 Ae5 C.roisor-Miezis. Baden 2000. Of
course, White played too passively (e.g.

48
 The Dutch in the English?!

13.~f3! was much stronger). tried yet but it doesn't look 100 promising.
7.~e2 ~g7 8.0-0 d6 9.b3 5 ...g6 6.~g2 i.g7
Too passive is 9.tLlc2. In Banas-Miezis, Pas-
sau 1994. there followed 9 ... 0-0 IOJlbl as
11.b3 tOO? 12.~b2 l~c5 13. t/,d4
(,correcting' the mistake) I3... Ad? 14.tLidb5
tiJe5 lS.h3 ~c6 16.~d4 f4 1?exf4 .uxf4
18.lLld5 ~xd5 19.cxd5 fi'b6 with good
counterplay for Black.
9... 0-0 10 ..ib2 g5!1

~ .t~ .i~
r.f'
=
.---.
.. ,
'A'..
, .f~'~ This position sometimes arises in practice
1'---'· via another move order: 1.tL:f3 c5 2.c4 g6
t!:,Cfj ] L 3.d4 cxd4 4.ti:Jxd4 f5 5.g31Lg? 6.1Lg2 ~c6.
t!:,Cfj t!:, White has now several replies. Possible is
7.~e3!? tbf6 (or h6) B.h3 which has not been
t!:,~ jLt!:,t!:,t!:,
tested in practice yet. The following moves
1:[ if J:!\t> have:

Normal development didn't work too well in Bl) Fi.':.c2

the following game: I0 ...~d7 11.J:rc I ao
12.:el nh8 13.lt:;d5 ~e4 14.f3 ~f6 l5.tU4
~c8 10.c5! e5 l7.tbxc6 bxc6 1B.{"i:;h3and
Black is in trouble, Kokarcv-E.Gasanov,
Voronezh 2003.
11.lbd5
A logical reaction hut the position remains
unclear.
11 ...tUe4 1Vuxc6 bxc6 13.~xg7
Wxg7 14.llJc3 tlJf6 15.~d2 .rtb8
lS.nac1 ""a5 17.l:tfd1 .Q.eS 18.h4 hS
19.cS dS
Giffard-Miezis, Paris 1996.
Variation B
5.g3
It is quite logical to develop the fI bishop at
once, in order to prevent the development of
the black light-squared counterpart (at least
to b7 or a6). The move 5 ...d6 has not been
82) 7.~b3
83) 7.e3
Variation B1
7.o1\C2?!
Amazingly, this passive move was awarded
an exclamation mark by GM Mihai Marin!
Fairly harmless is 7.cc.b5 lLlf6 8.~5c3 0-0
9.0-0b610.b3~b7 II.~b2~f7 12..-d2"f8
13.~~a3 ndS l4.=ad I ti\a.S with equality.
Botvinnik-Smyslov, 20th World Champion-
ship match game, Moscow 1955.
7 ...b6!
The right plan. The standard 7 ...d6 is what
White expects: 8.0-0 ~f6 (IL~e6 deserves
attention: 9.~e3 llcS 1O.~d5 ~a5 II.~a3
~d712 ..id2?!-12.~d3!wa<;muchbetter-
12...tlJxc4 13.lLJxc4 llxc4 14.~c1 llxcl
15.'CWxcl .ixdS 16..bd5 e6 17.~g2 Cf::.e?
and White did not obtain sufficient com pen-

49
Michal Krasenkow

sation for the pawn in Hultin-Bellon, pawn and gradually lost: 13...h6 14.tC.xf6+
Gothenburg 2004) 9.tl)c3 0-0 ~xf6 15.~xh6 J:[f7 16..id2 Donaldson-
Barbre. Kissimmee 1997.
9_LUe3 tLih6!
K .t'tW R*
~~ ~..t~
~~ ~~
~

- IO.J:rbl ~d7 II.b3 a6 12.~h2 .I:[c8

(l2 ...b5!? J3.1lt'd2 'iWa5 with counterplay,
according to Marin) 13.tCd5 b5 14.~xf6 Black's plan is ... 4',f7. eti, g5 etc. White's
.txf6 15.tL\xf6+ J:xf6 16.Q:)e3lt:Ja5 17.cxb5 pieces are placed passively and it is not easy
axb5 18.tl)d5 J:ln 19.0.f4 with an unclear for him to counteract it,
position. Engqvist-Bellon, Stockholm 2(0). io.eea 0-0 11."84 ~b7 lVt~ed5 e6
- iO.'iWd2!? SLd7 II.b3 deserves attention 13.tDb4 4';a5! 14~7 tDxb7
according to M.Marin. 15.~xh6 YLxhSlSJtadl (DeS 17.'ti'a3
- 10.b3!? (this exchange sac is best) 'ire8 18.tlJd3 ~b7!
Hl...lbe4!? 11.lbxe4 ~xa 1 12.<1;)(aI fxe4
13.tL;c2! ~fS 14.tbe3 'i'd7 15.~b2 J:[f7
16.~c2 h5 l7 ..he4 .Q.xe4 18.'CWxe4oJ;h7
19.f4 with a strong initiative for White in
Marin-Pogorelov, Benasque 1997.
The immediate queen development is also
unfavourable for Black: 7__ :tIi'b6 &.lbd
.hc3+ 9.bxc3 'itaS I0:.'d2 d6 11.0b4 iLd7
12.Ci;dS (M.Marin). or 7_•.• a5+1? 8.l?d!'>
(8.'i'd2!?) 8...~xc3+ 9.bxc3 'ilxc3+
(9...tLf6 is probably more appropriate than
this pawn-eating) 10.i.d2 ,*xc4 II.t.be3
.d4 IH~dS 1:b8 13.i.e3 .xol+ 14J:lxdl
e5 IS.tt.Jb4d6 16.J:[xd6 with an obvious posi- With an excellent position for Black.
tional advantage for White in Vekshenkov- Krascnkow-Short, Tripoli 2004.
Galliarnova, Novi Sad 1989.
8_0-0 ~a6 Variation 82
!L.~b7 is illogical: 9.tbe3 tUf6 IOJZJc3 0-0 7.lt.lb3
Il.tLledS d6 12.i.g5 ltd7 13.lta4 with a Slightly more active than 7.~~2.
strong pressure. Black decided to give up a 7 .._b6!?

50
 The Dutch in the E~glish?!

Or 7...0f6 8.tbc3 0-0 9.0-0 b6 I O...Ild2 ~a6 must resort (0 tactical measures:
11.c5 ;Ph8 12.1k I iLc4 with a good positi- 7...tLixd4 8.exd4 tfb6 9.0.c3!
on, Egger-Seibold, Germany Bundesliga B White must sacrifice a pawn without besita-
1987/88. tion!
8.0-0 ~b7 s.eea l:te8!? 9..:~hd4 10:",'b3 'ite5+ 11..ie3
Pressuring the c4 pawn and preparing
...Si.xc3 bxc3 li\a5!.
10.e51

10...tbf6?!
According (0 Yudasin I0...0a5! is better:
11.tt..'xa5~xg2 12.~xg2 bxa5 13.4'\a4 t;':f6
- threatening ...llJe4 - 14.f3 'f¥c7 with an un-
clear position.
11.~g5 h6?
Again II ..fi:.a5! was preferable.
12.~xf6 ~xf6 13.'ftd2! tLia5 14Ji:;xa5
~xg2 15.wxg2 bxa5 16.l1~,d5! ~g7
17.l:rac1
and White obtained a clear advantage (Tim-
man- Yudasin, Yerevan Olympiad 1996).
Variation 83
7.e3!
This move deserves the most serious attenti-
on. Black can't play either ...d6 or ...b6 and
11...i.h6?!
Logical but bad. 11...0f6 12.0-00-0 is more
accurate, but White certainly has good com-
pensation for the pawn.
12.0-0 ~xe3 13.fxe3 li:;f6 14.e4 h51?
15.exfS gxfS
IS...h416.0dS!
16.l:tae1 'it'c5+ 17.<.t>h1h4 18.tbdS
l/,xd5 19.~xd5 'i!t'd6 2OJlfe3 ~h6
21.g4! fxg4 22."i'd4 l:th7 23. fhg4
l:rh824.'Wg7
And Black had to resign. Jobansen-Miezis,
Jakarta 200 I .
To which extent does this pawn sacrifice
'refute' the whole 4 ...f5 system') Hm ... let's
wait for Norrnunds Miezis' new games ur ...
try 10 look into the position yourself, dear
Reader!
 CHAPTER 7
Dorian Rogozenko
Follow the Experts
4.'iVd3 in the Richter-Veresov
1.d4 tL:f6 Vt::;c3 d5 3.~g5 0bd7 4.~d3
I must admit right from the beginning that
this system does not bring an opening advan-
tage for White in (he classical sense. That is
not to say that it is not unpleasant for your
opponent. These days several strong players,
such as J. Hector, K. Chemyshov or M. Kha-
chian score almost 100% from the diagram-
med position. The point is that by playing
4.'i'd3 White aims for fast development
with 0-0-0 and e2-e4. Thus White quickly
gets an initiative and centralized pieces.
Therefore accurate play from Black is requi-
red. Sometimes White can suppon the ad-
vance c2-e4 by playing f2-f3. Actually 4.f3
is another interesting option for White inste-
52
NIC KEY OJ:)12.1
ad of 4.~d3, as can be seen in the annota-
tions of the last game from this article.
However. let's take things a bit slower. Al-
ready :Ui':c3 is in many ways a rather un-
pleasant surprise for your opponent, who
can forget about his main opening repertoire
and instead is forced to play 'your' type of
positions. If he is not a Pirc player against
I .e4, then2 ...d5 is the must likely reply after
2.tl:.;cl The next move 3.~g5 has some simi-
larities with the Trornpowsky (l.d4 tLlf6
2 ..i.g5). meaning that here White is also rea-
dy take on f6. breaking his opponent's pawn
structure and considerably limiting his
counterplay. But unlike the case of the
Trompowsky, here the knight on c3 renders

the active answer lDf6-e4 far less attractive
for Black. Some Black players arc ready to
allow .tg5xf6, but many aren't. This can be
seen from the fact that 3 .. .l2~bd7 is the most
frequent move in practice. Nevertheless, in
order to present a complete repertoire, we
also need to examine Black's alternatives to
3 ~bd7. These are 3...srs, 3 ... ce, 3...c5,
3 g6, and 3...lC.e4. After 3 ...e6 White has
nothing better than transposing into the
French Defence with 4.e4, so against II
French player the choice of this system with
White will no! contain the element of surpri-
se, but still remains perfectly playable, of
course.
I must add that the diagrammed position can
also be reached after I.d4 dS Vuc3 tUf6 (the
most popular choice in the practice) 3.~g5
tbbd74.'it'd3.
Finally. about the name of this system. Three
players of the past started lots of their games
with the move order Ld4 tDf6 Vue) d5
3.~g5: Saviely Tartakower, Kurt Richter and
Gavriil Veresov, I think that this opening can
be named after any of them. It is also worth
mentioning that in later years this system was
used periodically by many talented players,
such as for instance Mikhail Tal. Tony Miles,
Alexander Morozevich and Leven Aronian,
We'll examine four games taken from mo-
dern practice, and played by the best White
specialists of this system. In my annotations
to these games I'll try [0 cover Black's most
popular options to meet 3.~g5.
o Konstantin Chemyshov
• Alexander Beliavsky
Ohrid 2001
1.d4 tilf6 Vbc3 d5 3_~g5 g6
An important sideline that allows White to
capture on f6. Let us first investigate the ot-
her alternatives to 3...ti:>bd7: 3 ...c6, 3 ...~f5,
3 ...tUe4. and 3...c5.
Follow the Experts
• 3 ...c6 4 ..bf6 exf6 (4 ...gxf6 5.e4 dxe4
6.tL:xe4 ~fS 7.~d3 e6 8.~tJ CiJd7 9.~g3
~g6 lO.h4 ~c7 II.h5 ~xd3 12.'ir'xd30-0-0
13.()..0-0;t Albert-Furman, Daugavpils 1971 )
5.e3
A) 5.. .fS 6.~d3 ~e6 7.~f3 lLJd7 8.0-0
~d6 9.tLie2 g6 10.a4 a6 (10 ...0-0 Il.b3!)
II.b3 b5 12.'lWcl (l2.~f4!? 0-0 13.tLixe6
fxe6 14.c4;1;) 12...0-0 13.c4 bxc4 14.bxc4
c51 IS.t.!jf4 (15.a5!?) 15...fLxf4. Black now
equalizes: 16.exf4 dxc4 17.Lc4 ~xc4
18.~xc4 cxd4 19.!:Ifd 1 'ir'aS 20.lbxd4 'ffeS
21.~a2 !:Ife8 22.lDfJ Y2-\12 Chemyshov-
Anka, Gyula 2000.
B) 5 .. :'i'b6 6J%bl .tb4 (6 ...lDa6 7.a3)
7.~d3! 0-0 (7..."'a5 8.li)e2 W'xa29.0-0'itaS
IO.e4fg) 8.tL:e2 ~g4 9.0-0 AdS 10.a3 ~d6
11.0 ~h5 12.e4! Stewart-Mclaughlin, cr
BCCA-ch 1995/96.
C) 5 ...g6 6.g3 f5 7.M h5 8.'i!fd3 ~e6
9.~g2li':;d7 1O.li.jh3l1Jf6 I 1.~2 i.b4+ 12.c3
~d6 13""c2 ti.~e414.li.Jhf4 .d7 15.~d3. A
typical manoeuvre whereby White is slowly
improving the position of his knights.
15...()..()..O 16.0...0"()~b817.~1 'fje7 18.'iPal
.ic8 19.tDef4t'lhe8 20.~f3 'i'c72U1hel ne7
22.ne2 nde8 23 .... a4 ~d7 24.Acl ~e6
2S.tUxe6 !:Ixe6 26.c4 dxc4 27.'fjxc4 'itaS
28.b4 'ttb6 29.l::th2 A6e7 30.0e5±
Voloshin-Pushkarev, Minsk 1993.
D) 5...~f5 6.~d3 ~xd3 (6 .... d7 7.Axf5
'lWxf5 8.llJge2lld6 9.~g3 1t'e6 IO.'itf3;!; g6
53
Dorian Rogozenko
1l.0-0 fS 12.ttx:e2 ~d7 13.ti\f4 'iVe7 14.b3
hS 15.c4 h4 16.~ge2 and again White achie-
ved the typical initiative, which he converted
into a full point in Chemyshov-Kosteniuk,
Moscow 2001: 6 ...i.g6 7_ti:,ge2 ~b4 8.0-0
'fIe7 9.~f4! (White shouldn't fear 9 ....txc3
IO.bxc3, after which he can follow up with
c3-c4 and also use the b-file) 9 ... t1'!d7
10.tLlce2 ~d6 II.~g3! .ixd3 12.'ft'xd3 g6
rs
13.ctJfe2 14.b3! tOf6 IS.c4 0-0 16.cS ~c7
17.b4 a6 18.a4 lUeS 19.b5± Khachian-
Mnatsakanian, Yerevan 1994) 7.'~·xd3
D I) 7 ...~b4 8.li';e2 0-0 9.0-0-0 t;~d7
IO.g4laccording (0 Gufeld, White has better
chances to build a kingside attack) 1O... l:!e8
II.h4 b5 12.~b ItDb6 13.lDg3 .I:l.b814.~ce2
tl'ic4 IS.4\fS %lb6 16.gS .I:l.a6 17.t;~c1 'it'a5
18.gxf6 g6
19.h5! gxf5 20.'it'x.f5 l:e6 21. ... f4 ~f8
22.l:l.hgl+- Gufeld-Ujtumen, TbiJisi 197\.
54
D2) 7.Ji:.d7 8.~ge2 ~d6 9.e4!? dxe4
10.ti.lxe4 Qb4+ 11.c3 $i.e7 12.0-00-0 13.c4
t!2cS 14.CL;xcS~xc5 15..I:l.ad1 ~e8 16.tDg3
..Q.d6 17.l::tfel;!;. The pawn majority on the
queens ide secures White an advantage.
Black couldn't hold a draw in Baghcri-
Zozulia, Elancourt 2004.
• :L.~f5 This can be considered one of the
main answers to 3.~g5.
A) 4.~xf6 gxf6 (4 ...exf6 S.e3 c6 6.~d3
transposes to 3 ...c6) S.e3 e6
A I) 6.Qd3 ~g6 7.f4 cS (after? ...fS Whi-
te must play 8.tDce2 cS 9.c3 ~h5 10. "'d2)
8.f5! exfS 9.'t!H3 tL:c6 IO.ltlge2 'ifd7 11.0-0
While has an obvious advantage. Cherny-
shov-Ovetchkin, Srnolensk 2000.
A2) 6.tbge2 ~d6 (6 ...c5 7.l.Dg3 $i.g6 8.h4
h6 9.hS i.h7 1O.~d3;!;) 7.lDbS SLe7 8.Ci;g3
~g6 9.c4 <.:610.0c3 h5 and now in the game
Miles-Hort. Amsterdam 1982. White played
the somewhat weird II. Cbgc2. According to
Hort White would have had an advantage af-
ter the simple II.SLd3.
8) Another plan worth considering is
4.f3. White intends 'ird2 and 0-0-0:
B I) 4 ...~g6 5.'ird2 c6 (5...tiJbd7 6.0-0-0
c6 7.t"2.h3 ~e7 8.~f4 0g8 9.i.xe7 CiJxe7
10.e4;!; Khachian-Strikovic, Cannes 1996)
6.0-0-0 ~b4 7.cuh3 l1~bd7 8.a3 i.e7 9.tN4
c5 1O.dxc5 ~':xcS II.e4 with initiative.
Khachian-Goletiani, Yerevan 1996.
 Follow the Experts

82) 4...~bd7 H!t'd2h66 ..i.h4e6 7.e3 c6 B) 6 CL.c67.... h5!

8.tDge2 ~e7 9.~f2 b5 lO.g4 .ih7 I J.~g3 B I) 7 lUxd4 8.0-0-0 e5 9.~f3lbxf3 (or
tDb6 12.h4 with a complicated. doubled-ed- 9....ic5 JO.0.xe5) IO.i.b5+ ~d7
ged position. Hector-Fridh, Malmo 1986. 1U[xd5+-.
• 3...li~e44.qJxe4 (White can also consider B2) 7...e68.0-0-0
to play 'il la Hodgson' with 4.h4 In the fol-
lowing game this strategy paid off: 4...tbxg5
5.hxg5 i.f5 6.(1)f3 lfJc6 7.~d2 ~d7 8.e3
0-0-0 9.a3 f6 10.0-0-0 \tb8 11..te2 ~a5
12.nh4 'ttc6 13.l1dhl e6 14.~b5 'iYb6
15.1We2 a6 16.~d3 lk8 17.e4 dxe4
18.tLJxe4± Mamedjarova-Erdogan. Batumi
2002) 4...dxe4 5.e3 (5.'iIt'd2 c5 6.dxc5
1!t'xd2+7.~xd2 e5 8.b4 tUc6 9.e3 .i.e6 lO.a3
g6 II.lDe2 .i.g7 12.~c3 f5 IHJb5 0-0-0
14.tDd6+ ~b8 lS.O-O-O± Schneider-
Langeweg, Porz 1991) 5...cS 6.'i'd2

This is a complicated position. in which

White has certain positional advantages -
better development. a better pawn structure.
and an active queen:
B21} 8 ...i.g7 9.g4!? ~d7 lO.f4 (IO.~g2
llfb6 II.tLge2 0-0-0 12.tht7 ndg8 13.1lt'h5
Wb8 14.f4 f5 15.gxf5 tL;xd4 16.lbxd4 .bd4
17.fxe6 ~xe6 18.~f3 nc8 19.nhel lhc3
20JIxd4 ~xd4 2l.bxc3 'ltxf4+ with equal-
ity in Maksimovic-Rodriguez, Beograd
1980) 1O...... c7 1J.<t'Jge2lC,e7 12JIgi b5
A) In Maryasin-Manor, Israel It 2002, 13.f5 with a clear initiative. This position oc-
Black lost quickly after 6...'!l::c67.d5 <1le5 curred twice in two little-known correspon-
8.0-0-0 g6 9.f4! exf3ep 10.0xf3 tLixf3 dence games. both won by White.
(lO ...~g7 II.,*,c3!) Il.gxf3 JLg7 l2.d6! f6 B22) 8...~b4 9."1jge2 i.d7 10.h4! -..e7
13..tb5+ 9;f7 14.i.f4 ~e6 15.'tWc3 f5 I Uth3 0-0-0 12.:e3 White is slightly bet-
16.i.e5 i.xe5 17.'ttxe5 -..b6 18..td7! 1-0. ter. Mohr-Farago, Bled 200 I.
B) 6..:*'d5 7..if4cxd4 8.c4! -..d7 9.exd4 B23) 8..... a5 9.~bl ~b8 10.lLlge2 b5
e6 lO.a3 i.d6 Il.:d I 0-0 12.lbe2 VJlic7 Il.lbcl b4 12.lb3e2 'tfb6 13.f4 ~d6 14.f5!
13..bd6 "'xd6 14.~c3 f5 15.~e2;t Fomi- exfS (14 ...e5 15.• h6±) 15.g3 i.e6 16.~h3
na-Lirnberg, Tallinn 2000 . ng8 17Jihel ng5 IS.'it'xh7 li::,e7 19.c£:.f4
• 3...c5 4..bf6 gxf6 (4...exf6 S.e3 ~e6 Wd7 20.~xe6 fxe6 21.'it'f7+- Khachian-
6.tDge2 tLlc6 7.g3;!;) 5.e3 cxd4 (or 5...tL::c6 Hamid, Fajr 1992.
6.'it'hS) 6.exd4: 4.i.xf6
A) 6...hS 7:~t'f3! e6 (7...A.e6 !L~.b5+ As you might have noticed from the varia-
~c6 9.~ge2;!;) 8.0-0-0;!;. tions above, I believe that given the opportu-

55
Dorian Aogozenko
nity White should stick to the initial idea and
break the opponent's pawn structure by ta-
king on f6. Nevertheless. White has almost
always an alternative plan to play for a quick
0-0-0.
In the following game White took advantage
of his lead in development even in a closed
type of position. 4..-d2 tt.Jbd7(after 4....w..g7
White's idea is to trade the dark-squared bis-
hops with 5.~h6) 5.0-0-0 c6 6. f3 h6 7..hf6
tLlxf6 8.e4 h5 (8...~g7 9.e5;!;) 9.e5 tbg8
1O..id3 ttJh6 Il.<;;>bI zrs 12.t2Jge2~xd3
13..~fxd3 e6 14.~f4 ltd7 15"~'e2 0-0-0
16.g4 (suddenly Black is facing big pro-
blems with his kingside pieces. The next part
is very instructive) 16...hxg4 17.fxg4 ~e7
18.l:td311h7?! 19.h4 !:tg8 20J~dh3 ~b8
21.t'ba4! (that is what space advantage is all
about - the possibilities to switch pieces bet-
ween flanks quicker than your opponent)
21...b6 22.nb3 ~c7 23JIhh3 ncH 24.h5 g5
25.tbd3± <,PaS26.tijdc5! (fantastic play by
White. who totally outplays his talented op-
ponent) 26...~xc5 27.dxc5 b5 28.li:lc3 (in
spite of being a piece down, White has a lar-
ge advantage. He is ready to open up the
queenside and build a decisive attack.
Black's pieces on the kingside are simply
too far to help) 28..JIb8 (28 ...11hh829.a4 a6
30.axb5 axbS 31.lDxb5 cxbf 32."i'xb5+-;
28 ...d4 29.<Cxb5 cxb5 30.~e4+ ~c6
56
31.'iVxh7+-) 29.a4 a6 30.axb5 axb5
31.~xb5!+- cxb5 32.l:lxb5 nb7 33.%hb7
\t>xb7 34.:tb3+ ~c8 35.... a6+ ~d8
36:.-a8+ <tJd7 3Htb7 0xg4 38.'I'a4+
Schneider-Leko, Nenetal 1991.
4...exf6
5."fVd3!?
This amazing move is possible even here.
White keeps many options open. such as e3
or e4, the king might castle long. and also
White can first start pushing the kings ide
pawns in order to blockade the kingside and
get squares for the knights.
The usual plan would be 5.e3 ~g7 6.i.d3 I
believe that this is objectively the right plan
to develop the pieces. but Chernyshov is
very successful with his unusual play in the
opening. 6...0-0 (stronger is 6...f5) 7.tvf3 c6
8.g4! ::leS 9.0-0-0 as 10.tL!ge2a4 II.a3 b5
12.<1~a2 Miles-Spassov, Surakarta 1982.
According [0 Miles. White already has a big
positional advantage.
5...
'5
Chemyshov has played exactly this position
before. so the entire system wasn't an ope-
ning surprise for Beliavsky, 5...c6 6.h4 fS
7.h5 tLld78.f4 ~d6 9.e3 ~e7 ]().~e2 tUf6
Il.hxg6 fxg6 12.t'bf3 ~d7 13.tLle5 0-0-0
14.0-0-0 lDe4 15.~lle4 dxc4 16:iI'c3 ~b8
17.i.c4 (White is slightly better, Next Black
traded both light pieces. but still White kept
______________________
a marginal edge} 17.. .Jhe5 IR.dxe5 ~e6
19..be6 '-xe6 20.b3 hS 21.nd4 nxd4
22.~xd4 'fiIe7 23.l:d I and in the game
Chernyshov-Sinkovics. Gyula 2000, White
converted bis slight advantage.
6•..wg3!? .ig7
Instead of the fianchetto, 6...i.d6 unexpec-
tedly runs into 7.We3+ £e7 (7...j.e6
8.~xd5) 8.~e5 auacking both h8 and d5.
7.tL.b5
With original play in the opening Chernys-
hov manages to confuse his experienced op-
ponent.
7 ...tUa6 S:'i'a3 c5
As rightly pointed out by A.Finkel, Black
should have opted for an endgame with
8...'i!fe7. I doubt, though, that this ensures
'easy equality', as Finkel considers. The
endgame is complicated and both sides have
their chances. In a rather closed position
While's knights are certainly good pieces.
Black's main problem is the lack of space for
his bishops. A possible continuation would
be: 9.... xe7+ Wxe7 10.~c3 (lO.e3 f4!?)
IO...c6 (after IO...~xd4 I I.tlJxd5+ the king
feels uncomfortable in the centre, for instan-
ce: 11...~f8 12.c3 :Jig7 13.e3 c6 14.~xa6
cxdS 15.~d3!) II.e3 f4 12...Q.xa6bxa6
13.~a4!? (using the weaknesses in the
opponent's pawn formation) 13...l:e8
L4.ciic2Wd6 IS.Wd2 fxe3+ 16.fxe3 :b8
'-Fo=..;I.:...:lo=w.the
Experts
(16 ...~h6 17Pf4) IVl)f4 llb7 IR.!:laeI
J:be7 19.1L;cS.Black has problems with his
structure. White will push the a-pawn, blo-
ckading the doubled pawns and later will at-
tack them with the knights.
9.dxcS 0-0 10.e3 '*e7
10...f4 11.0-0-0 fxe3 12.fxe3±.
11.tLJd6 tDxc5 12:~kxc5 l:tdS 13.0-0-0
"iWxd614.'i'xd6 nxd61S.lnt3
White got what he was aiming for - a better
endgame with limited active possibil ities for
Black. Not willing to defend in passivity, in
the next part Beliavsky is trying to get some
counterplay, but he fails. IS ... bS 15...~e6
16kd4!. 16.tDd4 b4 17.~e2 Q.e6
18.l:td3 as 19.nhdl a4 20.~f3 l:ta5
21.a3! It turns out that the advance of the
queenside pawns has merely aggravated
Black's problems. Now his position is diffi-
cult. 21...bxa3 22.t1xa3 nb6 23.c3 ~f8
24.b4! na8 25.'~d2 This is technically
winning for White: two weaknesses on a4
and dS. plus better pieces will soon result in
a material advantage. 25...f4 26.ndal
fxe3+ 27.fxe3 ~d7 2S_~xd5 ne8
29.:11 lIe7 30.'~d3 ~g7 31.e4 .ie8
32.:a2l:tc733.nb1 i.fS 34.b5 a3 3S.c4
~c5 36.ciJc2 l:ta7 37.l:tba1 Wg7
38.l:txa3 ~xa3 39 ..Clxa3 l:tc7 40.ttJd4
nbS 41.l:a6 <Ms 42.b6 Ac5 43.Wc3
Black resigned.
57
Dorian Rogozenko
o Jonny Hector
• Humpy Koneru
Wijk aan Zee II 2003
1.d4 d5 2.l~c3 lLlf6 3.~g5 tbbd7
4.'iWd3e65.e4
This position is usually attributed to the
French Defence. but this is only partially
correct. In the french Defence one can hard-
ly see White playing a move like 'iWdl-d3 at
all. Moreover. the diagrammed position ne-
ver arises via a French Defence move order.
Even after thc next few moves. when wc'Il
have a standard' French pawn structure' .one
will have difficulties to find those positions
arising via the starting moves l.e4 e6 2.d4
dS. All because of the same reason - the
move 'itd3, which does nut exist in the theo-
ry uf French Defence. Moreover. in the
French Defence with 3 ...dxe4 Black very ra-
rely combines both ...t£Jbd7 with ...~e7, so
in our case I would not name it French De-
fence at all, or at least we can talk about a
very specific type of French Defence.
5...dxe4 6.(~xe4 ~e7 7.tiJxf6+ i.xf6
Hector later faced the other recapture too.
After7...tDxf68.~f30-09.0-0-0b6 10.li.~e5!
Ab7 11."iWh3l"~ (possibly better is 11 ...h6
12.i.e3 0d5 although making a pawn move
in front of the king without being forced to
do also has it" drawbacks: I J...0d5!'!)
58
12.Ae3 f5 13.8 lLId6 14.~d3. The strong
knight on e5 and the possibility to attack
with g2-g4 secure White a stable advantage.
14...'fteS IS.lIhel b5 16.g4~d5 IHPbl as
18.gxfS exf5 19.1Ig I lIf6 20.~g5 lIe6
21 ..1xf5 tL!xf5 22 .• xf5 c6 23.f4± Hector-
Sprenger, Hamburg 2003.
8.~xf6 'tWxf6
This is stronger than 8 ...~xf6 9.lbf3 0-0
1O.0-0-0;!;. In these pawn formations in or-
der to equalize completely Black must break
in the centre, either with the help of ...c5, or
...eS. Otherwise White's space advantage
will always secure at least a slight advanta-
ge. That's why Black keeps the knight on d7:
to support the central pawn advances.
9.4:Jf3 0-0
9 ...c5 10.0-0-0 cxd4 I U!i'xd4 tfxd4 12,lL~xd4
a6 l3.g3 b6 14.Ag2 .l:[a7 IS.tL!c6 .l:k7
16.lIdM Tolnai-Balogh, Budapest 2000.
10.1We3!
With this move White stops 1O...e5. Instead
10.0-0-0 allows 1O...e5. with equality.
10 ...c5 11.0-0-0
Inaccurate is 11.~d3 cx.d4 12.~xd4 'ihd4
13.lZ:.xd4 tbc5 14.Ac4 Ad7 15.0 ..0-0 lHd8
16.11hel a6 17.tL:b3 tDxb3+ 18.Axb3 Ac6=
Rosch-Orsag, Germany Bundesliga B
1996/97.
11 ... b6
After this natural move Black finds herself
in big trouble. Sti 11,life is also difficult after:

II ...cxd4 12.11xd4,and now
A) 12...e5 13J:te4 'lWe6 14..ic4 ~c6
15.~b3 l:e8 (l5...~f6 16.11c4±) 16.11f4!
(l6.tt::xe5±) 16...!lfB (16...<1"jf6
17.~xe5+-) 17.11xf7I:lxf7 18.11d1+- with
multiple threats. White will win back more
material than he sacrificed.
B) 12...li2c5 was the only way to develop.
However, White keeps better chances thanks
to development advantage and a perspective
of kingside attack.. 13.lUe5 b6 14.~e2 (or
14..ib5) and Black still does not have
14....ib7 because of 15.b4 followed by
16.tDd7.
12.~bS! cxd4
A few months later Hector played this positi-
on again: 12...... e7 13.d5! Q:lf614...Q.c6nbS
15.d6 ..-d8 16.d7 ..Q.b7 l7.tDe5 tbg4
18.tDxg4 .hc619.:Id6 .i.d5 20.ndl± h5
21.c4! ..Q.xc422.1De5 ~d5 23.111xd5 exd5
24.li.::.c6+- Hector-Lindberg, Malmo 2003.
13.l:txd4 ~e7
Or 13...~c5 14.li'..e5±.
14.~c611b815.nhd1 tiJf6
The only way to keep material equality for a
while was 15...llJc5 16.b4 tiJa6 (I6 .....Q.b7 this approach and therefore I recommend the
17.ltje5 nfc8 (l7...nbc8 IS...Q.xb7tLlxb7 central strategy (5.e4). 8...b5 9.lOe5 tbxe5
19.llo7 +-) I8.lld6! +-) 17.a3 but it would
have hardly changed the result - White has
strong pressure.
16.'ilt'e5!+- xa6
16...~b7 loses as well: 17.lld7 ~xd7
Follow the Experts
18.nxd7 'tlfb4 19..hb7 'tWa42O.ti'd4 fixa2
21.llJeS+-.
17.lla4l:tbc8
17...~b7 18.11xa7+-.
18.tt:ld4 teg419.'ilt'f4 h5 20J:£xa6
The rest is easy. 20 ... e5 21.~f5 'iff6
22.lff3 nxc6 23:iWxc6 "'xfS 24.'ii'f3
lfgS+ 2S ...t>b1 ~xh2 26."g3 ~g4
27.13 lld8 28.llxd8+ 'ilt'xd8 29.'ife1
tDf6 30.l:txa7 e4 31.fxe4 ~xe4 32.a4 f5
33.1\i'e2 "'g5 34.l:tb7 ~g6 3S.~bS
iVg4 36.nxb6 h4 37.a5 ttJd2+ 38.~a2
(~c4 39.nc6 ~e3 40.86 ~d4 41.c3
Black resigned.
o Melikset Khachian
• Igor Koniushkov
Moscow 1996
1.d4 d5 2.~c3 lDf6 3.~g5 tDbd7
4.iVd3 c6
4...h65.~h4c6 6.0-0-0 (6.e4? tiJxe4 7.(~xe4
dxe48 .... :\e4"-a5+9.c3 g5 JO.iLg3f5 follo-
wed by 11...f4 wins a piece for Black) 6...b5
7.tDf3 ~a5 8.tDd2 en 9.e3 iLe7 JO.f3 1i'b6
I I...Q.f2a5 12.e4. The position is difficult to
evaluate. Black has space on the queenside.
White in the centre and soon on the kingside.
In the game Gelashvili-Halkias, Yerevan
2000, White won after a long and cornplica-
ted strategical battle.
5.e4
The main idea behind 4.Wd3. Nevertheless.
another specialist of the system prefers to
castle queenside and push the kingside
pawns instead: 5.~f3 g6 6.0·0-0 ..Q.g77.h3
0·0 B.g4. I doubt the objective strength of
lO.dxe5 ttJd7 1l.f4 b4 l2.lea4 f6 13.exf6
exf614 ..i.h4"a515."b3l:le816 ..Q.g2~hS
17.e4 dxe4 18.l:rd6 and White later conver-
ted his positional plusses in Cherny-
shov-Boguszlavszkij, Harkany 2001. How-
59
Dorian Aogozenko
ever, the result had little to do with the
outcome of the opening.
5 tLixe4
5 dxe46.~xe4e6 7.lbf3 SLe7(compared to
the previous game, we have the moves tZifj
and c6 included, which clearly favours Whi-
te) 8.ttJd6+ (8.~xf6~) 8...~xf6 9.h4 h6
10.~e3 'fte7 11.0-0-0 e5 12.• e4 exd4
13.'i'xe7+<;t.Jxe714.ltJxd4tt;eS 15.Ji.e2l:Id8
16.f4 ~g4
17.tLxc6+ bxc6 18.~c5+ ~c8 J9.ld.del+-
Khachian-Miller, Los Angeles 2003.
6.t1··,xe4 dxe4 7.1he4 ~aS+ 8.~d2
'i!fd5
9 ...we3
9.'t!th4 tLif6 1O.c4 't!te4+ II.'iWxc4 (ilx.e4
12..ic3 g6 13.~d3 ~f6 14.tUfj .ltg7 IS.h3
0-0 16.0-0-0. White has much easier play in
the endgame: 16...a6 17..l:Ihel h5 18.4\eS
.ib7 19.94 J:lfd8 20.g5 tj'jd7 21.f4 l:lac8
60
22 ..ie2 llc7 23.~d2! tLixe5 24 ..ii.aS! t"iixc4
25.i.x.c7+- Khachian-Liu, Los Angeles
2003.
9 ...t.jfS 1O.lDf3 ~f5 11.c4 ~e4
12.lDeS l:td8 13."xe4 lDxe4 14.fLe3
f6 15.lL;f3 eS lS.0-0-0
The position is close to equal, but Black still
has 10 fight for it. 16...<M717.tl2h4! /Dd6
18.c5 g5 19.tt"Jxf5tlJxf5 20..i.c4 l2:xe3
21.fxe3 f5 22.Wc2 h5 23.b4 as 24.e4!
fxe4 25.l:thf1 + ¢;e7 26J;tfe1 ~h6
27 .l:txe4 ~g7 28.d5! cxd5 29.J:lxdS eS
30.a4 ~f8 31.l:td2 b6? 3 I ...ld.f432._g_dS±.
32.~.xa6 bxc5 33.b5+- I:td6 34.a5
l:[xd2+ 35.~xd2 1:If2+ 36Jie2 l::txe2+
37.Wxe2 ~d6 38.~7 e4 39.bS c4
40.a6
Rlack resigned.
o Konstantm Chemyshov
• Peter Szekely
Pardublce 2002
1.d4 ~fS Vbc3 d5 3.~g5 ~bd7
4.~d3
Another interesting way IU prepare e4 is the
immediate 4.f3. To give a few examples:
A) 4 ...h6 5.Ji1.h4e6 6.e4 ~e7 7.eS ~h5
8..be7 ..wxe7 9.~h3! c5 IO.g4! *h4+
II.<t>c2 cxd4 12.'i!txd4 f6 13.'iIi'f2! '1!hf2+
14.<t>xf2 fxe5 l5.gxh5+- Khachian-Kostin,
Pardubice 1996.
 Follow the Experts

B) 4 ...c6 5.e4 dxe4 6.fxe4 'it'b6 (6 .. .'~a5 12.exf6 exf6 13..Q.e3±) 12.ltixf6+ ~dxf6
7.e5 lLle4 8.~d2 tDxd2 9.'*fxd2 e6 1O.~f3 13.0-0-0 't!fb6 14.exf6lLlxf6 15.dxc5 tt'xc5
i.b4 II.a3 c5 12.11hl ~xc3 13.bxc3 'il'xa3 16 ..Q.c4± Hector-Moberg, Sweden tt
14.~d3 with very good compensation for 2001102.
the pawn. Miladinovic-Cbarbonneau. Mont- B) 7 ...c6 8.ttJf3h69 ..ie3~g4 IO.~gl e5
real 2(00) 7,tU3 e5 (7 ...'i'xb2 8.i.d2~) Il.d50-0 12.0-0-0'i'a513.lL:.d2!'i'c714.h3
8.dxe5 eg4? (S...'ihb2oo) 9.... d2 tDdxe5 tt.~gf615.g4cxd5l6.exd5lL;b617.~g2~d7
lO.h3!± l?Jxf3+ 11.gxf3 ttJe5 12.0-0-0± IS.Ah2! rUeS 19.:del l:adS 20.d6 'iWcS
Morozevich-Lazarev, Alushta 1993. 21.l:txe5 i.c6 22.~xc6 'tt'xc6 23.J:ldl±
C) 4...c5 5.dxc5 e6 (S...'itaS 6 ..bf6 ttJxf6 Hector-Ingbrandt. Sweden It 2003/04.
7.... d4 e5 8.• xeS+ ~e6 9.e3! (}.O..()IO.tbe2 7.e5 ibgB B.h4 tLJb6
i.xc5 11.~-d4 ~d6 12.'iWg5 h6 J3.'*¥h4 g5 Not S...h5 9.e6!.
14.lWt2 h3 15.lLib3 'iWb4 16.bxa3 ~x(;3+ 9..a4
17.• d2 .xd2+ 18.Wxd2± Khachian-
Minasian. Yerevan 1994) 6.e4 (6.b4!'! sa
as
Ul.b 1 8.a3 b6 9.c6 ~e5 10.b5 ..ha3 J 1.e4
was unclear in Khachian-Donchenko, Mos ..
cow 1995) 6...d4·!! 7.'I!hd4 £xc5 8 .... d2 a6
9.0-O-0'i'c710.'W'f4e5 11.... g3 0-0 12.\t>hl±
Aronian-Bokros, Szeged 1994.
4.•.g65.f3
Preparing e4. The immediate 5 .e4 also comes
into consideration: 5.e4 dxe4 6.<'Dxe4 i.g7
7.tUf3 0-0 8.0-0-0 c6 9.'~bl b5 1O.h3 a5
Il.g4;t Khachian-C..asella, Costa Mesa 2002.
5......
~g7 6..e4 c6 The position is highly unusual for any ope-
The alternative is 6...dxe4 7.fxe4. Two ga- ning.
mes by Hector arc relevant here: 9...luc4
A) 7...0-0 8.e5 llJeS 9.h4 c5 IO.1Ud5 f6 Or 9...h5 IO.a5!? (JO.tL;dl~) Hl...tDc4
«((l...~f5 II.Wdl tL;d712.g4~e613.lLlge2
hxg4 14.0.f4) u.eai tDxaS 12.t~e3 and
White has good compensation.
10.b3 ~f511.'ifdl t;'I.b612.lfd2
Amazing play hy White - the third move with
the queen and a lot of other moves with pawns.
And the result? White has a space advantage
and possibilities to play on both wings!
12...f6
Otherwise Black. cannot develop at all.
13.exf6 exf614 ..if411Je715.tLlge2 h6
I think this is a serious inaccuracy. Now
Black won 'I be able to castle, because pawn
II.'i'b3 e6 (l1...fxgS 12.lbxe7+ <;PhK h6 will be hanging.
13.~xg6+ hxg6 14.h)l.g5++-; J 1...whK 15...0-0 16.0-0-0!.

61
Dorian Rogozenko

16.tDg3 i.e6 17.j:_d3 .£f7 18.0-0-0
(:;bc8 19.1:tdel h5
19...gS 20.tN5±.
20.tLifl 'ft'd7?
Trying to prevent the advance g2-g4
(20...0-0 21.g4±), but...
21.~b5!
Truly amazing play. Black must have been
very surprised indeed to realize that he is al-
ready lost. 21...0-0 2VLic7 l:tb8 23.C a6 u
bxa6 23...1:a8 24/i;c5 'ii'd8 25.tDxb7+-.
24 Jixb8 tLid6 25.~xd6 "*,xd6
26.'i'c3+- f5 27.g3 iff6 28.14
28.'fHc5!+-. 28 ..•c51 29.lbd2 ~c6
30.~xc5 tDxd4 31.l:te5 tbc6 32.lN3±
Itd8 33.Ithe1 ~f8 34."'c3 d4 35J~e6
'il'xe6 36.l:txe6 dxc3 37.Itxc6 a5
38.l:txc3 ..ae8 39.tL:e5 .id6 40.~b5
~xe5 41.fxe5 ~xb5 42.axb5 l:tdS The
rook ending is winning of course. 43.l:tc6
1:txe5 44.lhg6+ ~ 45.l:Ig5 llxb5
46.l:txhS a6 47.c3 Wg6 48.1:[g5+ ~f6
49.Wc2 I:Ib8 50.g4 fxg4 Sl.l:txg4 l:th8
52.Wb2 We7 53J:ld4 We6 54.~a3
Black resigned
 CHAPTER 8
Jeroen Bosch
Let's wait and see: 3...h6 in the French
3 ...h6 - sur place!
This SOS chapter brings you a complete re-
pertoire against 3.ti',c3 and 3.li"d2 in {he
French based on (he move 3 ... b6!? As I will
demonstrate below. this little pawn move is
part of a subtle - indeed prophylactic - ope-
ning system in which, depending upon your
opponent's set-up, you have the opportunity
to opt for a favourable, typically 'French',
position. If, at first sight. you feel that 3... h6
surely is too ridiculous for words and are
afraid to cnd up as the laughing stock of the
tournament hall or your local chess club ...
Well. don't be! This line was invented by
French 1M Bricard, and is regularly played
by grandmasters Legky and Eingorn.
Morozevich is another recent convert.
NIC KEY FR 4.1
and FR 14.1
l.e4 e6 2.d4 dS 3.ci:c3 h6
l.e4 e6 2.d4 dS 3,ti~d2 h6
We will examine the concrete ideas behind
3...h6 with the help of two complete games:
Gashimov-Eingorn, Bled 2002 (3 ..~c3). and
Shaw-Eingorn, Bad Wiessee 2003 (3.Ci;d2).
It is useful. however. 10 sian off with a short
philosophical introduction.
In general. the semi-closed nature of the
French Defence lends itself almost ideally to
'slow' (prophylactic) play. If 3 ...h6 looks
odd. then what about 3 ...a6? Surely that
looks equally insipid. However, just think of
3.tL::d2 a6. which is a respectable line, as af-
ter 4.tL:gf3 c5 there is no check on hS.
Against both :ttbc3 and 3kd2 other 'slow
63
Jeroen Bosch
moves' are playable too, for example,
3 ...l.Uc6 and 3 ...~7. Versus 3.tDc3 both Pe-
trosian and Bronstein have been successful
with 3... fl.b4 4.e51i'd7 !?, when S.a3 .if8! is
a main Iinc. Iwill give you one final example
of backward chess in the French. because it
links up so well with one of the main ideas
behind Gashimov-Eingorn, as explained be-
low: 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.ttJc3 ~e7!? 4.~d3
~c6 5.~f3 tCb4! 6.e5 l'Dxd3+ 7.cxd3 h6(!)
8.h4 i.f8(!) 9.i.d2 0,e7 lO.llcl .td7 11M
a5 12.a4 l:Ic8 13.l:Ih3 liJc6 14.tLa2 :a8
rs.en '*b8 16.~gl "'a7 17.~e3 "'b6
18.l.Uc3 tDe7, and Black had a good position
in Hracek-Seirawan, Ceska Trebova 1998.
By the way, 6 ..te2 would have been met by
6 ...0f67.e5liJe4.
So on the basis of the above argument, let us
accept for the moment that the French has its
own peculiar idiosyncrasies which allow
you to take certain liberties as regards gene-
ral rules of good opening play. Then the next
question is: what are the positive features of
3...h6?
One of the useful points of 3 ...h6 is that
Black protects square gS. This is immediate-
ly obvious by pointing to the classical main
line 3.tDc3 lDf6 4.~g5. Moreover, in many
middle-game positions Black has to play h6
at some point to guard square gS, and the
dark squares on {he kingside in general. To
extend this point still further. not only does
Black need to guard the gS square. in many
early middle-game positions he actually
plays gS. threatening the white knight on f3
which defends d4 and e5.
However. to end this introduction and come
back to concrete play (and remember chess
is a very concrete garnet). the move 3 ...h6
has some very specific points. Thus, after
3.tUc3 h6 4.tOf3 0f6 White would like to
play S.eS. Yet this is solidly met by 5 ... o!Lle4
!,
as after6.tL:xe4 dx.e4 the extra tempo is detri-
mental to White (note that 3 ...h6 has taken
64
away the option of 0gS). This compares fa-
vourably with the (slightly dubious) line
3.ttJc3/d2 ~f6 4.eS tDe4 5.tDxe4 dxe4.
Another specific point of 3 ...h6 - also
against 3.ttJc3 - is that 4.~d3 is met by
4 ...tDc6 attacking d4, when after 5.t~f3
~b4!'! an interesting position arises. By the
way, after 3.tt:.d2 h6 4 ...td3 Black has 4 ...cS
as a concrete and perfectly playable line (a
possible ~b5 check at some point would
give Black the extra move ho-so no ~g5 '),
It is also useful to point out that after both
3.ti:d h6 and 3.tDd2 h6the move 4.e5 gives
Black good play after 4...cS, as the knights
are obstructing White's natural play in this
French Advance type of position. Similarly.
there is nothing to be gained from the French
Exchange Variation deferred with 4.exd5
(again a knight on c3 ord2 makes no particu-
larly strong contribution).
So, dear reader, thank you for bearing with
me so far. I hope your attitude towards 3 ...h6
is now somewhat similar to Polonius's as he
comments upon Hamlet's ramblings:
'Though this be madness, yet there is me-
thod in'r.'
o Vugar Gashimov
• Viaches)av Eingom
Bled Olympiad 2002
... _._._._------------
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.1Dc3 h6 4.~d3
This develops a piece and protects the e4
square, so that 4 ...tDf6 will be met by 5.e5.
White's main alternative is 4.~f3, which we
shall examine in some detail:
I 4.tUrJ ~f6 (White is of course slightly
better after 4 ...dxe4 5.the4 ~.'.d7 6.i.d3
tDgf6 7.'iife2liJxe4 8 ..he4, when in Panajo-
tov-Ivanov, Pamporovo 200 I, Black blunde-
red with !L~f6? 9.i.x.b7!±), and here the
line forks:
A) S.fLd3 and now Black has a choice:
AI) S ...~c6 6.0-0 (here 6.e5!? 0.d7 7.a3

is better for White in my opinion) 6...i.e7
7.eS tLid7 a.ses ~b4 9..ie2 cS 10.a3 tUc6
11..~bS a6 12.~xc6 bxc6 13.lDe2 cxd4
14..!L!exd4 'fNc7 IS..if4 c5 16.lt:ib3 g5
17.i.g3 as 18.a4..tb? 19.'fje2 i.a6 20.'fje3
Axfl, and Black was winning, although he
ended up losing in Barsky-Sebald, Dortmund
1999.The move S...~c6 is not the most logi-
cal choice here, as it does not attack d4.
A2) Better looks Eingorn's suggestion of
5...c5!? which has nor been tested in practice.
A3) White must be prepared to sacrifice
material after: 5" .i.b4 6.e5 ~e4 7.0-0 lZlxc3
8.bxc3 .bc3 9Jibl
White has reasonable compensation owing
to his good development. and the awkward
position of the bishop on d. Tournament
practice has seen:
• 9...a510.~b3 ~b411.c4 b612.'i'c2~e7
I3.cxd5 exd5 14.~b5+ wfR 15.~e3 with
good compensation in Bruzon-Arencibia,
Havana 2004 .
• 9...cS (this looks more natural) 10.llb3
cxd4 11.~a3 a6 12.... cl (planning 13.iU4)
12...g5! 13M g4 14.~h2 'i¥xb4 IS.g} 'f'h5
and White did not have enough in
A.Horvath-Borgo. Zemplinska Sirava 2004.
B) S.e5 is solidly met by 5...tDe4! (Black
takes advantage of the inclusion of 3...h6 and
4.tLif3when compared to the line 3...tbf6 4.e5
ttJe4?!. since White cannot take on e4 now -
6.lDxe4dxe4 7.~g 1c5 is nice for Black - he
Let's wai1 and see: 3 ... h6!? in the French
must allow a Winawer structure without ob-
taining the dark-squared bishop in retum)
6.i.d3 0.xc3 7.bxe3 c5 8.0-0 tL'.C6
White may have an edge in development but
Black has a structural advantage here.
Bluvshtein-Legky, Montreal 2003, went
9..te3 'f'a5 10.dxc5 "!hc3 ] 1.~.Jd4 a6?!
(stronger is 11....Q.d7 12.llJb5 "tixe5 13.l1eI
a6 14.~d6+ ~xd6 15.f4 ~xe3+!? (or
15...~c3) 16.~xe3 ~c5) 12.~xc6 bxc6
IH\Yg4 1txe5 l4.~a4 'itc? 15.i.d4 ~d7
16.11ae1,and White had excellent compensa-
tion, although be later lost due to a blunder.
II Practice has also seen 4.~e3, when
White gains a slight plus after 4...tDf6 5.e5
.!L.Jfd76.f4. Widmer-Fischinger, Schwarzach
2000. went: 6...g6 7.tDB b6 8.... d2 c69.'iVf2
.b6 1O.... g3 .ixfl ll.llxf!;t.
The inventor of 3...h6 twice played 4....ib4
5.a3 (sacrificing a pawn. Or S.e5 c5 6.dxc5
~be7 7.~f3 crs 8.~d2 ~xc5 9.~d3 0.c6
10.... e20-0 11.0-0-0 tLJfd4 IVLixd4 .bd4
13.f4 f6, and Black was fine in Letreguil-
ly-Bricard, SI Affrique 2002) 5....,hc3+
6.bxc3 dxe4 7.0 0c6 8..ib5 i.d7 9.tt::h3
exB 1O xf3 "'f6 II. ... g3 tLJge7 12.11fl
'i'g6 13 f2 tDd5 14.tC.f4lDxf4 lS.i.xf4
0-0-0, with an interesting posinon,
Guedon-Bricard, St Affrique 2002.
III Nothing much is gained by
'transposing' to the Exchange Variation:
4.exdS exd5 5.~d3 ~f6 6.tiJge2 cS (Black is
65
Jeroen Bosch
not forced 10 play this, of course) 7.dxc5
.ixcs 8..if4 0-0 9."ifd2 tiJc6 lO.a3 nell
J 1.0-0 a6. and Finkel assesses this position
from the game Skripcbenko-Bricard, Mont-
peJlier 1998. as unclear.
IV A cheeky answer to 3 ...h6 is 4.a3. The
main point is 4 ...~f6 5.eS. Black may go for
an acceptable Rubinstein Variation with
4 ...dxe4 S.~xe4lt:ld7. Compared to the nor-
mal line Black has prevented a future .i.g5,
while a3 serves no useful purpose.
Let us return to our main game after 3 ...h6
4 ..id3. How can Black take advantage of
White's last move?
4...r~c6!
This emphasizes the downside of 4.~d3:
pawn d4 is undefended. While this is easily
fixed with 5.4~f3. Black has another surprise
in store.
It is also logical to implement c5 at some
point (again this would stress the disadvan-
tage of 4 ..fLd3). However. the immediate
4 ...c5?! is met by 5.exd5 exd5 6.dxc5. when
White is slightly better, as 6 ....txc5 fails to
7 ..ibS+. winning a pawn. Bricard goes his
own way here with 4 ...~b4, which prepares
S...~f6. Nothing special now is gained by
5.'i'g4!·), as 5...dxe4 6.'ii'xg7 -.tf6 Htxf6
tlJxf6 S.$.c4lL>c6Iooks OK for Black (this is
an analysis by Finkel who assesses it as (0).
Instead, after 4 ....ib4, Bricard has twice en-
countered 5.exd5 exd5.
66
• 6.~f3!? tLic6 7.CDe2'tWf6!'!(an interesting
sacrifice) 8.'''xdS l:iJge7 9."f3 "xf3 lO.gxf3
~f5 11.$.e4 0-0-0 12.h3 hc3+ 13.bxc3
.i.xe4 14.fxe4 f5 15.f3 ~e8 16.h4 fxe4
17.fxe4 tLif5! 18.exf5 liKe3 19.wf2 nde8
20.nael ..t;>d72l.tDg3 l:lxc3 22.l:1xe8 WxeS
2Hjh5 lDxd4 24.~xg7+ ~f7, and Black is
winning. Van Elst-Bricard, Toulouse 1998 .
• 6.a3 :ke7 7.'fif3 (otherwise Black has
easy equality) 7 ...tlJf6 S.h3 c5 only now
9.dxc5 ~c6 lO.~ge2 (perhaps 1O.b4!?)
1O... ~xc5 ) 1..if4 ~e6 )2.0-0-0 a6 13.~c4
d4 14.~xe6 fxe6 15.lL;e4 tl}xe4 16.~xe4
'if¥f6 17..ig3 Black is slightly worse, but he
drew in Fressinet-Bricard, Val d' Isere 2002.
5.tLlf3 tbb4!
The point of Black's set-up is that after cha-
sing away the bishop he can finally imple-
ment the manoeuvre 6 ...ti)f6 7.e5 tiJe4.
6,.ae2
The most sensible answer. Naturally, White
does not allow the exchange of his bishop.
The altemati vc is 6.i.bS+. The point of this
check is to disrupt Black's coordination after
either 6 ....td7 7 ..te2 or 6 ...c6 7 .~e2. Let us
investigate both options:
Covering the check with the bishop has re-
ceived no practical tests yet: 6 ...~d7 7.~e2
dxe4 8.tL:xe4 .ic6 9.~g3?! ~xf3 lO..bf3
~xd4! Su White shuuld not play 9.~g3 and
settle for9.tDc3 or 9.tDed2. However, in eit-
her case Black should be fine. A final

----------------------------~
thought is 6.~b5+ ~d7 7 ..i..xd7+ 'ttxd7
8.tDe5!? - food for thought.
Recent experience has seen: 6...c6 7.~e2
tef6 8.eS ~ 9.0-0 c5
• I0.a3 ~xc3 l lbxc S tDc6 I Vue! 'iWa5
13.~d2 'i'a4 14.lbD b6 15.dxc5 ~xc5
16.'~::d4lill.d4 17.cxd4 ~xd4 18..tb5+ ~d7
19.~xd7+ Wxd7 20.'i'e2 'i'c4 with insuffi-
cient compensation in Vratonjic-Certic.
Petrovac 2004.
• iO ..i..e3.£;xc3 I J.bxc3 0c6 l2.dxc5 "'a5
13.ci:;d4 'ill'xc3 14.lbb5 ~xc5 15.... d2 and
White has enough for the pawn, De la
Riva-Legky, france u 2004.
6...~f6
Finally B lack starts developing his kingside.
7.e5 4.~e4
The pawn chain reveals that Black has played
the French Defence. However, the knights are
most unusually placed at e4 and b4. Their ag-
Let's wait and see: 3 ...h6!? in the French
gressive placement is an achievement in it-
self. Naturally, Black will not be able to keep
them there, but White will have to make a
concession in the process of kicking them
back. White cannot take on e4, as he will lose
the d4·pawn. Nor is he able to avoid the ex-
change of a pair of knights. Of course. 8.tDbl
(to prevent the exchange) 8...c5 9.c3 tt:;c6 is
too slow. Gashimov's next move allows the
swap on c3, but gains some time.
8.a3
Otherwise Black will execute the strategi-
cally desirable 8 ...c5. The game Delorme-
Legky, France It 2003, saw: 8..sl.e3c5 9.dxcS
tLxc3 iO.bx.c3 tUc6 I 1.0·0 ~a5 12.c4
(stronger is I2.ttJd4 which would transpose
tu De la Riva-Legky above - see the note to
6..te2)12 ....bc5 13.cxd5 exd5 l4.tUd4 (or
14.1hd5 .he3 15:~xa5 .txf2+ l6:~xf2
tDxa5~) 14....bd4! (giving up his 'good'
bishop to give the 'bad French' bishop an ex-
cellent outpost) 15.~xd4 0-0 16.f4 ~f5
17.c3 :tac8 18.~g4 lbxd4 19.cxd4 i.c2
20'-'We2 :tc4 21.e6 ~ 2Htacl :xcl
23.:txc\ fxe6 24 ..be6+ Wh8'F.
In AKovacevic-Certic, Petrovac 2004, play
was about equal after 8.0-0 c5 9.~e3 cxd4
(9 ...'~~c6) lO.liJxd4 4)xc3 II.bxc3 liJc6
12.c4sa l3.cxd5 exd5 l4.f40-0.
8...tUxc3
There is no point in preserving the knight on
its outpost. After !LtiJ<:6 9.'iii'd3 will force
the exchange anyway, without compromi-
sing the white pawn structure 9 .. .lDxc3
1O.... xc3 (Eingorn),
9.bxc3 lLlc6 10.0-0 ~
In playing the knight to the edge of the
board, Eingorn plays his seventhd) knight
move in a row. Still, his play is entirely logi-
cal: c5 is being prepared. Although only the
knights have left their stables, Black can ea-
sily get away with keeping the rest of his
army on the bottom rank. After all. the posi-
tion is closed and he has no weaknesses.
67
Jeroen Bosch

11.'t!Yd3
White would like to play the standard atta-
cking move 11.lL;g5 if it wasn't for Black's
pawn on h6. Perhaps he should have settled
for a more passive square with II.ti·'le I, pre-
paring the march of the f-pawn.
11...i.d712.lDel
Preparing to attack the base of Black's pawn
chain with f4-f5. Black similarly goes
12...cS 13.f4 'i'c714.g4 0-1}-0
Nothing wrong with this move. but 14... g6,
to stop f5 for the moment, looks playable
23....ae7?
too.
Correct was 23...~h6 24.~xh6 gxho, as in·
15.f51i.e7 16.tbg2 ~g5
dicated by Eingorn.
24.~d2 itb2 25.0e3 ~g5?
This is a blunder, 25 ...Wb6 had to be tried.
26.tt,xc4! dxc4 27 ~xg5+- J:1de8
28.~e4 16 29.£cl ~ 30.~e3 f5
31.~g2 nd8 32.:f.bl eraS
33.£f3 .Q.d5
34.Ji.xd5 'ii'xd5 35.fYxd5 nxd5
36Jbf5 b5 37.'it>g2 as 38.'M3 b4
39.We4 r.:thd84O.~g5 bxc3 41.~xd8
J::xd4+ 42.~e3 :rxd8 And White won.

It goes too far 10 call this a point of 3 ...h6, but

the move was necessary in view of l7.f6.
o John Shaw
• Viacheslav Eingom
A typically tense situation with castling Oil
Bad Wiessee 2003
opposite sides of the board has arisen. Black
is fine and I'm sure that a supporter of the
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Q;d2 h6
Winawer would feel quite confident here.
Note that Eingom commits a serious inaccu-
racy on move 23 and blunders two moves
later in a difficult position.
17.~f4 (i.;c618.~g3 ~aS
Eingorn evaluates this position as unclear.
19.nadl
Not 19.h4? c4 20.'iH3 ~d2+.
19...hS 20.fxe6
Again 20.h4 is not possible because of
20 c4 21 .... 0 hxg4 22.'i!fxg4 ~h6+.
20 ~xe6 21.gxh5 c4 22.'t!Yf3 ~xa3
23.~f4

68

In a way this looks even more pointless than
after 3 .'~~c3. Having placed the knight on d2,
White will not be able to play .ig5 any time
soon. Even worse, after 4,0gf3 tL:f6 5.eS
(the main line) Black cannot even favoura-
bly exchange his knight with 5."lbe4 as
6.~d3 forces 6 ...tbxd2 7 ..ixd2. with a big
edge in development. Waiting for White to
commit himself is one of the big points of
3".h6 against the Tarrasch. Compare this to
the two main lines: 3...c5 and 3...lbf6. In the
3 ...c5 line White will play his g l-knight to
f3, while in the 3. "l/',f6 line White will usual-
Iy play tDgI·e2 and lDd2-f3 (I am oversim-
plifying matters, of course, for the sake of ar-
gurnent). Thus it follows that with 3 ...h6
Black uses the cyclist's technique of sur pla-
ce, He will vary his approach (a set-up with
c5 or with lL!f6) in accordance with White's
actions. In my opinion. this strategy (3 h6
against the Tarrasch) is riskier than 3 h6
versus 3.tL:.c3.
4.<1.'-,g13
After this move plans with an early c5 no
longer make sense, For example. 4...c5
5.cxd5 cxd5 6.~b5+ and in this normal posi-
tion from the Tarrasch 3 ...h6 is a waste of
time compared to 4,t/:gf3. It is against the al-
ternatives for 4.~gf3 that 4...c5 forms a
good reply:
• 4.d c5 (playable is 4...dxe4 5.~xc4 tL:d7
when White is slightly better) 5.exd5 exd5
6.tiJgB tCc6 7.~bS cxd4 8.0-0!? ~d7
(8...dxc3!'!) 9.~b3 tbf6 lO.llel+ ~e7
11.~xc6 (11.tL!bxd4) II...bxc6 12.'Wxd4
0·0 13..if4 lle8 14.h3 W'b6 IS.tl::c5 DadS
l6.rladl;!; Conquest-Bricard, Reykjavik
2000, Instead of 5 ...exd5, Black can also
take back with the Queen. In Kudrin-Atalik,
Lindsborg 2003, Black equalized easily af-
ter 5...'fixd5 6.lbgf3 cxd4 7.t(lxd4 -1Jf6
8.lL!2f3 Jl.c5 9.Jl.e2 tbc6 10,0xc6 tvxc6
11.0-0 'iWc7 12.Ad3 0-0 13."'e2 b6.
• 4.~d3 c5 (but not 4 ...0f6 5.e5 tDfd7
Lei's wait and see: 3...h6!? in the French
6.tL.e2;!;) S.dxc5 ~xc5 6.tDgf3 tL!f6 7.e5
(7.ex05=) 7 ...tLifd7 8.liJb3 .1b6 9.~f4 gS!?
10 ..ig3tDc61I.h3'i!fe712,c3lOC513,lDxc5
(I3.~c2) 13... ... xc5 14.lDd2? .!l~xeS!+
Midoux-Bricard, Toulouse 1998.
4 ... lL;f6
5.e5
Clearly the way to proceed, as 5 ... tL:e4
6.jLd3 is better for White.
Nothing is gained by: 5.exd5 exd5 6.~d3
j:_d6 7.0-0 0-0= 8.lle I 1Dc6 9 ,c3 ~g4
1O,'ii'b3 l:lb8 11.4\e5 he5 12.dxe5 /1\d7
13.1lhd5 lbdxeS. with equaJity in Manik-
Eingom, Vienna 2003.
A more serious attempt is 5 ..LJ3, It is possi-
ble to go for positions similar 10 the Rubins-
tein Variation with 5 ...dxe4 6.tDxe4 0xe4
7.~xe4 tbd7. when White has his normal
opening advantage.
More ambitious, though, is 5 ...c5:
A) 6.dxc5 dxe4 (here 6...~xc5 transposes
to Midoux-Bricard above) 7.liJxe4 Ci:.xe4
8.~xe4 'i'xdl+ 9.Wxdl SLxc5 10.<;Pc20-0'?!
(now White gains a pleasant endgame edge;
IO...lL!d7 is stronger) II.~e3;!; .ixe3
12.<;Pxe3 f5 13.Ad3 ~c6 14.:adl e5
15..tc4+ Wh7 16.jLd5 e4 l7.hc6 bxc6
18.tDe5± Marciano-Bricard, French Cham-
pionship, Narbonne 1997.
B) 6.c3?! cxd4 7 .cxd4 d.xe4 8.~xe4 .tb4+
9 ..id2 ~xd2+ JO.Wxd2lille4 ) l.~xe4lbd7
69
Jeroen Bosch

12.0-0 lbf6 I3.~2 0-0. Black has ex-

changed two sets of minor pieces, which is
good for him, as he is playing against an iso-
lated pawn. His chances are no worse.

6...cS
The standard way to operate against White's
pawn chain. Bricard has played a slower
plan in the past: 6 ...b6!? 7.0-0 as
8.a4 ~a6
9.1i'e2 "'c8 10.l:tdl ~xd3 11..xd3 .a6
14.tlJeS tt'b6 15.l:tadl .ad8 (LS... ..td7 allows 12.c4lDc6 13.b3 tL:b4 14.... bl ~e7 15..Jta3
White to equalize with 16.d5! exd5 c61= Szylar-Bricard, Toulouse 1998.
(16 ...~b5 17.dxe6! 'l!i'xe6 18.l:tfel 'ifxa2? 7.c3
19.'fi'b4! .ic6 2o.Ab3 U'a6 21.1i'e7±) White played more aggressively in Gins-
17.lbxd7 ~xd7 18.~xd5 tt2f6 19.~b3=) burg-Eingorn, Metz 2003, with 7.c4. J will
16.f4!? i.d7 17.g4!? i.b5 18.1:f2 lDd7 give the game with brief comments: 7...cxd4
19."e3 l:ac8 20 ..ibl I:c7 21.h4/Uf8 22.g5 8.cxd5 tUc5 9.~b5+ ~d7 1O..bd7+ ~xd7
h5 23J:tfd2 g6 24.Ae4 _qc6 25.Axc6 bxc6. (here 1O...tUbxd7! is stronger) II.d6 ~b5
Now that While's offensive on the kingside (this looks dangerous, but the tactics don't
has been stopped it is clear that he has mere- work for Black) 12.lDxd4 ~b4 (not
ly created weaknesses in his own camp. 12...~d3+ 135J;1[1 'Wxe5 14.tD2f3 ~e4
Nevednichy-Eingom, Bad Worishofen 15..ie3±) 13.tlJf3 lDd3+ 14.'iPfi tDc6
2002. 15.1i'e2 It::f4 (the best choice considering:
C) 6.exdS WxdS 7.dxc5 ~xc5 8.0-0 b6 L5... lDxcl 16Jhcl Wxb2 17.nbl "xa2
9.~b3 ~e7 JO.~f4 ~b7 I1.c4 "d8 IVl~e5 18.llxb7± and IS 1!tbS 16.tDel lDcxe5
~c6 13.lbxc6 ~xc6 14.... e2 lit'd7 and after 17.f4+-) 16.a3 (16 c4 is an alternative)
this accurate move - Black prepares to ans- 16..:i!i'a4 17.b3 ~xe2 (better than 17.... a5
wer 15.l:tOOI with 15..... b7 - the players JS.We4 ~a6+ 19.tL:c4 or L8...~g6 19.~b2)
agreed a draw in Dolrnatov- v.
Popov, St Pe- 18.bxa4 ~c3 19.~b2 (or 19.tLl04 tbxa4
tersburg 2004. 20.~e3 (20.l:bl 0-0-0) 20 .. .f6 21.~d4
5...lbfd7 6.~d3 tbxe5 22.~xe5 fxeS 23.lbxe6 Wd7)
The high level rapid encounter - Vallejo- 19...0.xa4 20 ..abl f6! 21.exf6 tlJxb2
Morozevich, Monaco 2004 - led \0 mutual 22.llxb2 O-O-o! 23.fxg7 .hg7 24.nb3 Ilxd6
chances after 6.c3 c5 7.a3!? ~e7 8.~d3 a5 25. We2 b6 26.llc 1wd7 27 .lbc4l:tdS 28. tt:~e3
(aiming for 9 ...a4) 9.b3 b6 1O.~b5 (to ans- nd6 (Black has no reason to avoid the draw,
wer 1O...~a6 with Il.a4!) 10...tL':a6! 11.0-0 since 28 ...l:a5 29.nd3+ <i;c7 30.ltJd4 Axd4
lbc7 12.~e2 a4 13.b4 Aa6. 31.C.xd4 lle5 32.l:xc5 bxc5 33.J:i.h4 and

70

28...~d4+ 29.itJxd4l:txd4 30.l:I.bc3 are both
better for White) 29.tLlc4 lld5 30.tL:e3 lld6
3l.tlJc4 lh-lh.
7...lDc6
We have reached a position from the French
Tarrasch: 3.li'.d2li)f6 4.e5 tL;fd7 5.tlJgf3 c5
6.c3 tC.c6 L~d3, where Black plays all sorts
of moves but not 7 h6. Note that in practice
Black does play 7 g5!? - a set-up that co-
mes closest to our main game.
8.0-0 g5!?
This radical follow-up of 3 ... h6 is, of course,
not forced.
9.dxc5
Black obtains a decent game after 9.h3 'ilVb6
IO.dxc5 ~xc5 II.~c2 ti:::.d7 12.~el i.g7
13.c4 0-0 14.cxdS exdS 15.0b3 ~dxe5
16.li~xe5 <1\xe5, Jansa-Legky, France u
2004.
9...~xc5
Here 9 ...0dxe5 IO.~b5 ci:xf3+ !l.li:;xD
~xc5 12.c4 gives White considerable play
for the pawn.
10.0b3 ~b611.l:tel fie7
Building up the pressure on e5. After
11...g4 12.~fd4 White will get clear struc-
tural compensation for the pawn he is going
to lose on e5.
12.~b5 liJc5
An alternative is 12...a6!? 13.~a4 (I3 ..ixc6
bxc6 14.a4 c5 15.a5 i.a7) 13 ....hf2+!?
14.Wxf2 bS. The rest of the game sees Ein-
Let's wait and see: 3 ... h6!? in the French
gorn defending well to hold his slightly infe-
rior position.
13.~e3lDxb314.8Xb3 sat
This threatens 15...tDe5.
15.~xc6 bxc6 16.b4
Likewise, 16..bb6 "xb6 17.b4 cS 18.bxc5
'ili'xc5 also transposes to the game.
16...c5
Otherwise l7.~xc5 would strangle Black.
17.bxc5 .slxc5 18.~xc5
White could also try lS.~d4 or lS.h4.
18...'ifxe5 19.1Dd4J:!b820.l:ta2 as!?
To play a4 on the next move.
21.ttjb3
Winning a pawn, but Eingom has assessed
the double rook ending that arises as a draw.
21...'i'c4 22.J:!xa5 ~a4 23.lC.d2~xdl
24.lC.xc4dxc4 25.~xdl
White is a pawn up. but b2 and c5 are weak.
There is little White can do to prevent the
transition to a drawish single rook ending.
25...0-0 Always nice to castle this late.
26.l:td2 l:tfd8 27.l:txd8+ l:txd8 Because
of the weak back rank. Black gains the
time to keep White's rook passive. 28.g4
~b8 29.l1c5 l:txb2 30Jbc4 11e2 The
active rook and the weak c- and c-pawns
ensure rhat White has no winning chances.
31Jtc5 ~el+ 32.'it>g2Wg7 33.c4 Wg6
34.h3 h5 35.Wt3 h4 Now even h3 is
weak. 36.~b5 ~h1 37.rJolg2 ~cl
38.~c5 Draw.
71
 CHAPTER 9
Sergei Movsesian
Play like a Beginner

NIC KEY Sl 25.1

6.h3 against the Classical Sicillian

White has many options against the Classi- ~f6 5.tDc3tL;c66.h3

cal Sicilian. The Rauzer (6.~gS), the So-
zinIVe limirovic (6.~c4) or the Boleslavsky/
Scheveningen complex (6.ite2). Theoreti-
cally the Rauzer is perhaps the best option,
but all of them have a perfect right to exist.
and may cause Black players some heada-
ches. However, make no mistake about it:
they will not surprise your opponent. In the
'c Iaxsical ' Scheveningen move order - l.e4
cS V2~tJ d6 3.d4 cxd4 4kxd4 ~'J6 5.t~)c3
Preparing 7.g4·) Surely. such a beginner's
move can never be a serious option'! Howe-
ver, please don't dismiss 6.h3 straightaway.
Sergei Movsesian bas played this move with
great success. He demonstrates his pet line
in three annotated games.
o Sergei Movsesian
• Jesper Hal1
Malmo 1999

e6 - White has the Keres Attack with 6.g4.

Now wouldn't it be nice if something like 1.e4 c5 2.t2lf3 ~c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.tL:xd4
that existed here IOO? <iJf6 5}~c3 d6 6.h3 96
1.e4 c5 2.td3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.tt::xd4 Black goes for the Dragon. 'Show me where

72
 Play like a beginner

h3 comes in useful now'. Now White could 13...~e814.'iYd2 b515.tC.d5

very well play the fianchetto variation with
7.g3 (as in Movsesian-Stocek, Czech It
1998/99), or even the extended version 7.g4.
Even more subtle would be VDde2. not only
postponing the choice between the normal
and the extended fianchetto. but also avoid-
ing 7 ...tDxd4. White can also play 7 ..i.c4
which may lead to positions usually reached
via the Accelerated Dragon - and, yes, h3 is
useful there, toot
7.~c4 ~g7 8._~b30-0
Another option is the risky 8. Ji.Jxc4!?,
when after 9.lL:.l'.c6 .axc3+ lO.bxc3 bxc6
II.'i'd4 tiJf6 12.~h6 "'h6 13Jl9h4 White 15 .ab7
has certain compensation for the sacrificed 15 ~xb2 is followed by a strong blow
pawn, though a tough black defender may 16.e5! ~xal 17.exd6 'ifi'xd6 18.Axe7 ~c6
opine that he still has some things to 19 .lha I tL;xb3 20.axb3 :ib 7 21.c4! with a
prove ... strong attack, as 21. ..bxc4 22.bxc4 'iWxc4
9.0-0 loses due to the simple 23.li'of6+ ~g7
24.Q·,xe8+ .a.xe8 25 .... b2+.
16.03 nbS 17.~c2lL;a418.~b3lDc5
A ..t'ti' i:~ 1!L.tbb6 19.~xb6 "1!rxb6 20.~f4! c6
1.1. 1.1...t1. 21.11ad I .i.e5 22. "1!rh4with a pleasant ad-
~I. ~I. vantage.
19.~ad1 tiJxb3 20.axb3 a5 21.'&'c2

9...lDxd4 10.'i'xd4 ttJd7 11.~d1 tbc5

12.~e1 a6
Too aggressive is 12... a5 13.i.c4 a4 14.a3
.ae6 15.l?.d5 when White has the slightly
better position.
13..Qg5
White's aim is to increase the pressure on the Preparing c4-e5 and forcing Black to wea-
c7-pawn. In this game Black failed to solve ken (he position.
the problems, as even several exchanges did- 21...h6 22.~f4 ~xd5 23.11xd5
n't help. Now White targets Black's weak pawns and

73
Sergei Movsesian

also the attack on the kingside suddenly ViJde2.ie6

starts. Here 7 ...d5 looks too risky: 8.exdS tiJb4
23...'ii'b6 24.h4! 84 25.b4 .l:tbc8 9.~g5 ~bxd5 1O.<1:~xd5 ii'xd5 II.1!t'xd5
26."d2 <;t(h727.e5± dxe5 28.S(xe5 lC.xd5 12.0-0·0 ~e6
e6 29J:d7 ~e5
29...:cd8 30.:x17 Uxd2 31.Uxg7+ $h8
32.::'b7++-.
30J:txe5 wg7 31.hS l:tc4 32.hxg6
~xg6 33.'iWd3+Wg7 34.l:th5 'iWc6
Black is also lost after 34...'iWb835.:xh6
(35.g3) 35 ...<;to>xh6
36.:xf7 :h8 37.:f6+
~gS 38.'i!¥g6+ Wh4 39.Uf3+-; or 34 ...e5
35.lhf7+ <;t>xf736.~h7+ wf8 37JHS+.
35.'i'd2 ~h8

13.0.f4!! fLe7 14.j,b5+ wfS 15.j_xe7+

tbxe 7 16.tbxe6+ fxe6 17.l:ld7 ended as a dis-
lister for Black in Mikhaletz-Kravets, Lvov
1997.
8.f4

36.:tg5+ <M8
36 hxg5 37.Wxg5+ ..tf8 3S:.-e7+ <l;;g7
39 xf7+ <;tth64O.*f6+ <t>h541.'i*'xh8+;
36 <M637.l:lg3+-.
37..l:td8+~7 38.lbh8 hxg5 39.~d8
Mate.

o Sergei Movsesian Positions arising after 6 ... e5 seemingly have

• Vladimir Baklan nothing to do with 'normal' Sicilians al alll
Groningen 1998 8...exf4 gave White very comfortable atta-
cking play, with excellent control over the
1.e4 c5 2.~f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.~xd4 d5-s4uare. 9.tDxf4 ~e7 10.i.e3 0-0 Il._d2
tLlf6 s.eea tee6 6.h3 eS lLle512.0-0-0a613.g4:c814.Q(bl bS15.g5
Black is trying to clarify the situation in the li'.fd7 l6.h4± Movsesian-Milov, Panormo
centre. as White's 6.h3 looks so slow, bUI (blitz) 2002.
there are some drawbacks ... H.. khS!? 9.g3 exf4 10. .Lf4 ~e7 ! l.~d2

74
 Play like a beginner

tDe5 l2.0d4lDxf4 13..tbS+! ~d7 14.gxf4

.ih4+ 15.'.t.'e2 0c6 t6.lLlf3 0-0 t7.J:ladtt
and White is better - again due to his control
over the d5-square. Movsesian-Peptan, Oro-
ningen 1997.
Baklan plays yet another move in this com-
plicated position.
8...g6!1 9.g4 ltJd7 10.~e3 ~e7!?
11..tf2
Of'course, White would like to play t I.f5but
after t 1 ... ~h4+ 12.~d2 .ic4 Black gets per-
fect play.
11...exf4 12_ltJxf4 ttJde5 13.gg2 ~gS 23 'lWxf3!!. However, not the more natural
14.ltJcd5 h5 23 tC:xf3 24.'i'xc2 'i'xh3+ 25.hh3 .axh3+
26.~g2 J:lh2+ 27.~xf3 lhc2 28.~d4 win-
ning.
- Taking the rook leaves good practical
chances to survive after 23.• xc2 .xh3+
24.~xh3 l:txh3+ 25.<it>g2 l:lh2+ 26.~g3
llxc2 27Jlxf3 i;';xf3 28.~xf3 lhb2
29.~xa7 f5.
19.:I:Id1gxh520.l:1xd6?!
This is clearly not White's best option. Sim-
ply 20.b3 1.a6 21.c4! would have brought
White a big advantage. For example, 21 ...b5
22.l:[xd6 bxc4 23 .• e3±.
20...ng8 21.'~h1 ~e2! 22.~e3 li:Jc4
With this sharp move Black starts a kingside 23.~xe2!?
offensive. Instead, 14...~c7 doesn't solve Sacrificing the exchange rather than going
the d5 square problem 15.0-0 ~xd5 for the unclear 23.1:1.xc6 ~xe3 24.llxc8+
16.4\xe6 fxe6 t 7.exd5±. Wd7 25.l:[xg8 'iixf4!.
15.gxh5 ~xf4 16.ttJxf4 ..wg5 17.'it'c1 23...tlJxd6 24.~e3 'fi'e5 25.'iW'3~
nc818.0-0 ~c4?! :I:Ixg2
Black had several options here: Black was already pretty short of time and
• 18...gxhS 19.~xe6 'i'xcl 20.CDg7+ 't'f8 out of practical considerations decides to
21.l:taxc I ~xg7 22.l:lcd I±. simplify the position.
• Probably the best practical move was 26.lL!xg2 it'xe4 27. 'iWxh5 ~d7 28Jtd1
18...~xh3!? t 9.tL.xh3 lbf3+ 20.Wh I '~hhS 1:g8 29. "'d51!
21..~e3 tDceS 22.1!r'dt %hc2!. After this Much easier was 29.1hf7+ t;}e7 30.... f2
spectacular move White can either take the l:hg2 31.'i'xg2 'i'xe3 32.'i'xb7+ 'it;le6
knight or the rook: 33.'1tt'h3+ "'xb3 34.axb3 and White should
- Capturing the knight with 23Jhf3 loses win.
on the spot because of 29 ...ifxd5 30.Uxd5 0e7 31.1:d3 Wc6
Sergei Movsesian

going to develop his pieces in a 'classical'

way. White gets an advanced fianchetto and
an extra tempo for a kingside attack, but
Black's position remains very solid.
Instead of 6...e6 Black can also play 6... a6.
After 7.g4 a position is reached -via a diffe-
rent move order - from my game against
Ftacnik: 7...t2.ixd4 R.'ihd4 e5 9.t6'd3 ~e6
JO.f4 exf4 II.~xf4 d5 12.0-0-0 dxe4
I 3 Jt:;xc4

32 ..:tf4?
If you don't see a dear plan? Just grab the
pawn and think later! 32.~xa7!.
32...tDe4 33.Wh2 ~d5 34.]:[f3 f6 3S.c4
35 .~c I ! was stronger.
35 ...tbe7 36Jie3 f5 37.tDh4 tre8
38Jte1 'Ottd7 39.'Ottg2 ~e6 40.o;t>f3
t;':c6?
40...1:[h841..~g3 ~f6 and Black shall hold
on.
41.~d1 Cde7 42.4';g2 t:h8 43.h4 <1:',g6
44.~h1 li~eS+ 4S.Q.xe5 ~xe5 46.i:f.d1! 13...~d5,! (13 ...'~xd3 was obligatory here:
o8f6 47.tL;f4 %:g848.hS tDe4 49k,gS+ 14.Ci;xf6+ gxf6 15..hd3 0-0-0 l6._~c4
'bf6 50.:M4 ti:;cS 51.~d6+ ~e6+ Ihdl+ 17.:xdl h5 18.~d3 and Black must
S2.~e3 <ir'f7 now find (he only move 18...h5! 19.1:rc3+
52...:d8 53.c5 \tf7 54.tbf4 is to no avail kc4 with unclear play) 14.'iWb3! 'iWd7
either 15.~c4 0-0-0 16Jld3 and Black found him-
53.ttd7+ Wt6 54Jhb7 :3.>g55SJba7 self completely pinned in Movsesian-
f4+ S6.M3 tlJd4+ 57.'it'e4 tbcS 58.1U7 Ftacnik, Czech tt 1997/98.
~e8+ 59.'Ottd5 0b4+ 60.~c5 ~d3+ 7.94 a6 8.~g2 ~c7 9.Qe3 ~e7
61.Wd4 1-0

o Sergei Movsesian
• MJaden PaJac
Croatia n 1999

1.e4 c5 2.t.ijc3 d6 3.lL;f3 ~f6 4.d4

cxd4 5.tl'~xd4 0.c6 6.h3 e6
One of the main lines against 6. h3. Black is

76
_____________________ ._.. P.!~Ylik~ ~~!:ler

10.f4 t,;~d711.95 b5
Another option is 11...0-0 12.h4 bS 13.0-0
lDxd4 14.~xd4 b4 IS.ti2c2 ~e8 16.f5?~
(probably the more patient 16.C.Gg3!? would
be a better idea here) l6 ...ti:;e5 17.~f4 a5
IS.g6? (this just blunders Black's only
defence after a piece sacrifice) I!Lhxgo
19 ..he5 dxef 20.t;~xg6 fxgo 2l.fxg6
'iWc5+ 22.Wh2 'il¥e3-+ Manik-Solak.
Baturni 1999.
12.0-0 ..Q.b713.Wh10-0 14.~ce2
This plan turns out to be too slow, Black is in
time to create sufficient play at the queensi- 19.tbg3 ~f8 20.'~!t'c3 J:lec8 21.~d4
de. The typical 14.a3 was preferable. tL)d7 22.~e3 96 23.l:lf2 e5 24.~c3
14..J:Ue8 15.a4 bxa4 16.l:txa4 tLJc5 exf4 25.l:txf4 0.e5 26.1:a11 ga6
17.l:ta1 tl:;xd418.'ifxd4 a5! 27.l:l1f2 ~c4 28.~d4 a4 29.Wh2 1h-1h
 CHAPTER 10
Dimitri Reinderman
The Haberditz Variation
Play 6 ... h6 in the 'Sveshnikov'
The Sveshnikov Variation gives Black active
play and is theoretically sound. A lot of top
players are playing it with Black, and trying
to avoid it with White. The Sveshnikov rules
and completely owns l.e4. However. there is
one tiny disadvantage to the Sveshnikov:
then: are not many sound sidelines for Black.
In the NajdorflScheveningen you can play
ss. ~h7. il..e7.,*c7. Cf:.-c6/ti::d7, 0-0 in many
move orders, but in the Svcshnikov there arc
often just one or two good moves. That makes
it easier for White to prepare, since all you
have to do is look at the main line. However,
in a 5-minute-game on ICC, someone devi-
ated already on move 6 against me. ·6 ...b6?
Never looked at that, but I suppose it's just
78
NIC KEY SI 35.2
good for White' I thought, but alas, though I
played normal moves. the opening was a suc-
cess for Black, So I checked my books and
database to see what Ihad done wrong, but it
turned out that I had played [he theoretical
recommendation. Maybe 6 ...h6 was not so
bad after all]? I decided to keep the move in
mind for a suitable occasion, which was this
game in the loser's tina) of the play-offs of the
Dutch league.
o Dennis de Vreugt
• Dimitri Reinderman
Netherlands It 2004
1.e4 c5 V2f3 0c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.~xd4
 The Haberditz Variation

lLlf6 5.lLlc3 e5 6.llJdb5 h6 9.dxc6

This is sometimes called the Haberditz Va- Here 9.CLic3 tLid4 iO ..i.d3 d6 11.0-0 g6 is OK
riation. The point is to prevent 7.i.g5. The for Black.
main disadvantage of 6 ...h6 is that it allows 9 ... axb5 10.cxd7+ iLxd7
the knight check on d6. See the next game
for 7.~d6+.

In this position Black has two weaknesses:

7.lLld5
Some other tries:
- 7 ..ie3 d6 8.ti:At5 tU;.;.d59.exd5 t?',b8 (not
9.Jue7? lO.c3! a6 11.... a4+-) lO.c4 a6
11.lLjc3 jJ_e7 I 2.~d3 ~g5 13.tt'd2 .be3
14.'i!he30-0 15.0-0 lDd7 16.11ac I f5= and
the players agreed a draw in Zaitsev-Ghe-
orghiu, Sochi 1976.
- 7 ..ic4 a6 (7...d6 8.tDd5li';xd5 9.i.xd5 is
good for White) 8.tl2d6+ k;.;.d6 9.l!fxd6l!fe7
10.'i!¥xe7+ <$;xe7 I l..~e3 d6 I2.0-0-0 ~e6
13.tDdS+ ~xd5 14.exdS bS IS.~b3 (i;a5
16.f3 :hc8= Karpov-Hug, Graz 1972.
- 7 ..ie2 is not so innocent. 7 ...d6 8.tDd5
tL,xd5 9.exd5 ~bR IO.c4 is a little better tor
White. 7 ...a6 8.tL,d6+ ~xd6 9.~xd6 'i!¥e7
has never been tried, but should be OK, since
a6 is a useful move here (it prevents
1O.tt::b5).
7...cuxd5 8.exd5 a6
Compared to the normal Sveshnikov line
(6 ...d6 7.tbdS ttixd5 8.exd5) we cannot say
that h6 is such a useful extra move in this po-
sition - it weakens the kingside. However,
not having played d6 makes the text possi-
ble!
pawn b5 and the kingside. In exchange for
that. Black can develop freely and has an ex-
tra centre pawn.
11.xd3
Now I had to think for myself. and there fol-
lows a series of second best moves. Fortu-
nately the damage wasn't so bad.
11.....td6
1l...~c6 followed by 12...'i!¥d5 is better,
when Black is close to equality, For exam-
ple, II...iLc6 12.0-0 "iidS 13.... g4 h5
14."iih3 14e7 15.~e3 ~d7 16.~f5 .axf5
17.'ihf5 g6 IfU!fd3 1/2-V2, Vitolinsh-Luti-
kov, Soviet Union 1970.
12.0-0 b4
After 12...0-0 13.... e2 with the double threat
14.~xb5 and 14.'i'e4 is annoying. But
12.. ""c7 still keeps everything together.
13.~e414c8
16.'~c4).
bxc6 15.l!fg4 "f6
I didn't like the position after \3 ....ic6
14..hc6+ 16.1i"e4 (or
After 16...0-0 17.... xc6 lUcS
18.'.-e4 'ilfg6 19.'i!i"xg6 fxg6 20.ndl ~e7
2 I .c3 White has some winning chances in
the endgame.
14.1W13'ite715.1Wg3

79
Dimitri Reinderman
15...g5!1
I calculated 15...g6 16.f4 exf4 17.$.xf4 ~xf4
18Jhf40-0 19..hg6 fxg6 20.'i!hg6+ "fIIg7
21 Jhf8+ ~llf8 22JHI + Wg8 23.1We8+ Wh7
24J:rt7+- here and wasn't very happy.
15...f5 and 15...'4Pf8 are bad also, so after a
process of deduction and elimination I got to
15...g5, which had the bonus of reducing my
fear for the move f4. There is a fourth altern a-
ti YC in 15...'il'f6 but after 16.£4 exf4 17..i.xf4
iixf4 18."ifxf4 llfb6+ 19."'f2 'i'xf2+
20.:xf2 White is better.
16.'fYf30-017.Qd2
White must be better here, but 17.~h5 <j;;g7
18.h4 f5 19.~d3 e4 20.hxg5 exd3 21. frY xhti+
~g822."g6+~h8isonly a draw. 17.~f5 is
another logical move, when I wanted to play
17...'i;;g7 and 18...1Wf6. Maybe 17.g4!? is
bcst.
17 ...f5 1B...Q.d5+<J,;>g719.'itb3 Qd7
80
Now the position is about equal.
20.a4 bxa3ep 21.bxa3 ~a4 22JWb2
l:tacB 23.c4 b5! 24.l:tfc1 bxc4
25.~xc4 nb8 26.,*,c3 <;t.>g6
27.~d5 e4
2B.tva5 Ilb5 29.-.x84 ~xd5 30.~b4
~e5 31..i.xd6 lbd6 32J~d1 Ilfd8
33.:xd6
33.•. l:txd6
Something very strange happened here.
had considered 32 ...ltd3 instead of
32 ...~fd8, and the image of the rook on a I
hanging stayed in my mind. When Dennis
took on d6, I thought he had blundered. I did
a short check thaI I was really winning and
took the rook on a l. The Fide rules don't al-
low this move though, since I was in check,
as Dennis pointed out. Oops. So. I put the
queen and rook back. and took on d6 with the
rook, thinking about whether the extra mo-
ves would cause trouble with the digital
clock, which keeps score of the amount of
moves made. In the meantime Nijboer and
Timmerman on the board next to me were
laughing their heads off" about my illegal
move(s).That's plural yes: I had totally for-
gotten about the touch-and-move rule, and
so had Dennis. Fortunately it doesn't make a
big difference, after 33 ...'i'xd6 chances are
still about equal.
34.nd1 l:txd1+ 35.l!t'xd1 e3 36.txe3
~xe3+ 37.Wn "i!fxa3
 The Haberditz Variation

OK, now Black is even better. I could vague- 14M tL:.e8 IS.nh2 a6 16.g5 hxg5 l7.hxg5
ly remember having read that 3 versus 2 on a b5 l8.~b6 nd7 19.tDd5+ .bdS 20.exd5
wing in a queen endgame gives serious win- l%b7 21.~e3 tzib8 22.f4 !Zid7 23.i.h3 l:tc4
ning chances to the side with a pawn up. 24.l:reZ with a dear advantage for White in
Maybe my memory is wrong though. Ihave Stein-Miagmasuren, Sousse 1967. Howe-
no idea how Black should try to win it. It ver, things are not that bleak. Let us go back
showed, as Dennis had no trouble making a to the position after I2...~hd8 13.g4.
draw.
38JWd5 fi'a6+ 39.~f2 'ii'a7+ 40.~1
-.f7 41.ttc6+ ~h7 42 .... d6 h5
43 .... d8 94 44.... 95 f4 45_~f2 1I#a7+
46.<;t>f1fl'a1+ 47.Wf2 ~b2+ 48.Wf1
'it'c1+ 49.Wt2 f¥e3+
Draw.

o Aarne Saastamolnen
• Jyrki Saloneo
Tampere 1998

1.e4 cS 2.ti~f3 Cuc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.tL:xd4 Instead of Miagmasuren's 13...~ac8 Black
0816 5.tLc3 e5 6.lDdb5 h6 7.tDd6+ can play 13...d5~, since after 14.~c5+ we8
This natural check is the main line. 15.'~::;b5 %%:a<.:8!
16.~d6+ lhd6 17..bd6
7...~xd6 8.~xd6 Wie7 dxe4 Black gets two pawns for the exchange.
However, see the postscript below.

.... -
9..J:tb8!
A .t. I This was a new move, also played by Illy op-
~1 ~ifl~ ponent on ICC. Previously, Black took on
d6, but after 9... 'ttxd6 10.t~ixd6+ r;f;e7
~ 11.<1·f5+ wfS J 2.h3! White is better accor-
1 ding to theory. There are two main roads
~ now:
- 12...d5 i3 ..ia3+ wg8 14.cxd5 tL:xdS
15.tbd6 1:tbR I 6.~c4 ~e6 17.0-0-0 with a
pleasant game for White in Spassky-Ghe-
orghiu, Bath 1973, and
- 12...tC.xe4 13.~a3+ ~g8 14.lbd6 tZ:lxd6
9.tt:lb5 15.~xd6 'and Black can hardly move'.
More logical than 9.... xe7+, though that Actually, concerning the second line. I am
move has been played more. After 9 ...wxe7 not sure if theory is right here: after all Black
IO.~e3 (IO.b3 d6 1l ..lh3 %%:d8J 2.0-0-0 a6 has an extra centre pawn, and I can't find
13.tL:.dS+tL:.xd5 14.exdS tbb8 lS.c4 with a anything convincing for White if Black just
tiny advantage for White) IO... d6 11.0-0-0 develops. Still, 9 .. .l:tb8 is safer.
~e6 12.f3 White has scored very well in 10.b3
practice, for example 12...~hd8 13.g4 ':ac8 Otherwise the knight has to go back to d.

81
Dimi1ri Reinderman

Black can be very happy with the outcome of

the opening. The rest of the game is not im-
portant from a theoretical point of view.
Black outplays his opponent to obtain a win-
ning rook ending, only to spoil it in the end
when White succeeds in (barely) saving his
skin.20.lot'c3 g6 21.g4 16 22J:lhd1 hS
23.gxh5 1:[xh5 24.l:rd2 1:[a725.a4 1:[h4
26.l:le1 l:lah727.l:red1 l:rd728.1:[gl g5
29.l:te1 d5 30.exdS+ :xd5 31.1:[xd5
~xdS 32.:'1 ~e6 33.b4 f5 34.1%a1
\t>d5 35.a5 1:[h3+ 36.~b2 bxaS
10...t!Jxe4 11.'t!i'xe7+ ~xe7 12.~a3+ 37.1:[xaS+'it'd4 38.b5 J:txh2 39.b6 l:th7
d613.f3 40.J:[a7 J:th6 41.b7 l:lb6+ 42.Wc1 ~c4
Or 13.0·0-0 l:ld8 14.f3 a6 15.fxe4 axb5 43.l:la5 Uxb7 44.Uxe5 :f7 45.c;to>d2 g4
16..hb5 1:[a817.'J;b20d4=. 46.<st>e3f4+ 47.Wf2 ~d4 48.1Ig5 g3+
13...a6! 49.c;to>f3 %-%
Again this intermediate move is necessary
and good. So is 6 ... h6 a sound move or mainly good for
14.fxe4 axb5 15.&xb5l:la816.~xc6 its surprise value? It seems to me that it's
Better is 16.~b2. but Black is equal after better than theory gives it credit for. So if you
16 .. .f5 or 16...llJb4~,? like to play the Sveshnikov with Black, but
16...l:lxa3 want to avoid your opponent's preparation.
After 16... bxc6 Black is also a little better. or if you like to get an ending straight from
17.~dS b6 18.wd2 ~e6 19.kxe6 the opening, try itl
wxe6

Postscript by the author

After writing this article. I played a lot of
blitzgames with this variation on ICC. It
seems that White can improve on Stein's
play against Miagmasuren: 6...h6 7.tDd6+
Jtxd6 8.... xd6 Vi¥e79."xe7+ ~xe7 1O.~e3
d6 II .0-0-0 .lte6 12.f3 J:hd8 and now. in-
stead of Stein's 13.g4. White obtains an ad-
vantage with 13.~bl followed by 14.tL:d5+.
Alas, I don't see a good way to avoid this as
Black.
 CHAPTER 11
Jeroen BO~'ch
Get the Edge on the Budapest
~~
~ttJ~~~~
Play 5.lLlh3!?
The Budapest Gambit is an attempt on Black's
part to solve his opening problems by radical
means. Budapest players prefer dynamic piece
play over patient manoeuvring 10 solve the po-
sitional demands of the position. Our SOS re-
cipe is to move a knight to the edge of the
board. Budapest players will be surprised at
not encountering one the main lines (4.Cd'3 or
4.i:.f4) for which they arc so wcll prepared.
More importantly, we will see that this line
promises White a stable opening edge.
1.d4 ~f6 2.c4 e5 3.de5 ti~g44.e3
This blocks the c I bishop. and forces the
knight to take back the gambit pawn. Howe-
ver. for White's dark-squared bishop the
~ ttJ
~~~
br NIC KEY VO 17.1
a l-hH diagonal is most suitable.
4..ke55.tLih3!?
This move may look odd at first sight. but is
positionally well-founded. The knight is on
its way to the excellent square t4. from where
it will control the important d5 square. One
may compare this to the Dutch Defence. whe-
re in many lines Cog l-h3-f4 is an accepted
manoeuvre. By the way, if you want to increa-
se the shock effect you can also use the move
order 4.~h3 ~e5 5.e3.
The first three lines are divided according to
where Black will develop his dark-squared
bishop. In Line D we examine the prophy-
lactic 5...ftjg6.
B3
Jeroen Bosch
A) 5 ~c5
B} 5 ~b4
C) 5 g6
D) 5 lDg6
Before we investigate these main lines. Iwill
cite a few minor alternatives.
• 5...b6 6.~e2 ~b7 7.0-0 as 8.lbc3
tL:a6 9.b3 g6 1O.~b2 ~g7 11.f4! tDc6
12.~d2 0-0 13.1L1d5:!16 14..tf3 tDc5
15.~f2 d6 16.g4!? ~h8?! 17.g5 f5
17..JgS 18..ig7 ~g7 19.'i'b2 c;Pf7
20.tj\g4-+ 18.Ag7 wg7 19.'i¥c3 Wf7
20.tDfS± Ward-Lodhi, London 1988.
• S...'t'I'h4?! 6.ltJf4 c6 7.i.e2 d6
8.~~c3 gS?! 9.tDh5 g4 10.tLJe4 Jie7
11.tLieg3 0-0 12.0-0 .ie6 13.b3 ti'lbd7
14..ib2 l:[ad8 15.'i¥c2 lUfS lS.lUfS
~f6 17.l:[ad1 ~e7 18.cS± Rowson-
Keogh, Bunratry Masters 1997.
• S...d5?! acd5 6....d.5 6...~h3 7.gh3
~b4 8.~c3 ().() 9~g2 lL:.bd710.()'()± f5
11.dS?! Il.ffb3; II.~e2 11.•..tdS
12.i.b7 IlbS 13.~g2 tUc5 14.~e2 f4!
15.ef4 Q'.ed3 Kohlweyer-Lochte. Bad Wies-
see 1999.
The following two moves will usually
transpose into one of the main lines:
• 5...d6 This is a good move. After
6.rDf49S play transposes to line C.
• 5 ... 11jbc6 This move has little indepen-
dent significance. Black will have to develop
his dark-squared bishop 10 either b4. c5 or g7
anyway. And after 6.tbc3 Black may even
transpose to the tL:g6 line. 6.tbf4 6.tL::c3
i.b4 7..td2 (7.lt'~f4..ic3!~) 7 ...0-0 (7 ...dS?
8.cd5 i.g4 Fominykh-Chigvintsev, Omsk
1996. 9.~:\+-) 8.~f4 :reS 9.~e2 ~f8
10.0-0 d6 Il.tijfdS Ci:.-e7 12.f4 l2:ld7 13.e4;!;
Ubilava-Toshkov, Varna 1986. 6 ... ~b4 De-
veloping the b8 knight to c6 is not so good
in the .ab4 line; 6 ...iLcS and 6 ...g6 are the
alternatives. 7.~d2 j&,d2 8.'~'d2 0-0
84
8 ...d6 9.lL:.c3 ~e6 10.tDfd5 a6 II.~e2 'tIi'd7
12.0-0 0-0 13.f4 ttJg6 14.e4 f5 IS.g4!±
Jouhki-Poranen, Varuaa 1991. 9.~e2 d6
10.ti)c3 ~f5 11.0-0 a6 White is clearly
better. He has full control of the dS square,
and there is little Black can do to prevent
White's central pawns from advancing.
1V2~fd5 ti::.e713.f41 lC.5g6 14.e4 .td7
15.'5 t;.~d516.t~d5 CtJe7 17.f6! Drasko-
Brtlhl, Porz 1991.
Variation A
S ... .Q.cS
Developing the bishop to cS is, of course.
standard in the main line 4.tL:f3 ~cS 5.e3
~bc6 6.~e2 ~ge5 etc. In this line the move
~c5 makes sense: White is forced to play
S.d, restricting his c I bishop. Moreover,
Black often gets attacking chances against
the white king. In our SOS line White has al-
ready played e3 on his own accord. More im-
portantly, White has an extra defender on the
kingside - the h3 knight will go (0 f4 and
cannot be exchanged against Black's rest-
less' Budapest knight'.
6.ti\f40-0
7.~e2
Also good is 7.~c3 lle8 8..iic2 a5 9.b3!?
(deliberately postponing kingside castling)
9 ...:la6 I0.~b2 l:I.h6 (standard Budapest
fare. but pointless with the king iltill on e I)

11.'t!i'c2 tbbc6 l2.a3 d6 LttbcdS tbg4 14.h3
tDce5 15.b4 fLa7 16.ba5!? c6 IViJb6 ~b6
18.ab6 'i!i'b6 19.0-0± Khenkin-NJussupow.
Bad Wiessce 1998.
7 ... d6 8.0-0 lbbc6 9.lC.c3 a5 10.b3 .tfS
In Maksimovic-Mukic, Pula 1988. Black
played: 1O... l:Ie8 11.~b2
tbg6!? After 12.tl':h5
(l2.tlJcd5) 12.Joce5 I3.Whl ""4 14.~d5
c6. White should now have played IS.tbg7!
<J;g7 16.ta:7±. In the game IS.tLlc7 ~g4
16.h3 tbe3! yielded Black a dangerous attack:
l7.fe3l:e3 18..tg4 (18.1:1.0 ~h3 19.1:Ie3 ~g2
20.~g2 i.e3; 18.~f3 .tIt3) J8....tg4 19.-t'g4
.g420.hg41k8+.
11..ib2 ~e8
Both sides have made sensible developing
moves. Still, White's control over d5 and the
fact that Black's chances on the kingside are
illusory give White the better chances. This
verdict has been borne out in practice. There
are in fact several plans that promise White a
pleasant journey to Rome.
- 12.'~hl (White prepares a central advan-
ce with e4 and f4) 12...tbe7 13.e4 fLd7
14.lQhS! f6 IS.f4 lZl5g6 16.'itd3 ':f8
17.llad I ±, Borik-Blauert, Germany Bun-
desliga B 1987/88.
- 12.1I'd2 (White decides to play on the
queenside, He will prepare b4 with q,cdS
and 33. Black's next plays right into his
hands) 12..:"h4?! 13.tOcdS llac8 14.a3
.ia715.'itc3tt}d8? 16.'iWaS.tb817.'i'd2±,
Get the Edge on the Budapest
Conquest-Schon, Germany Bundesliga
1987/88.
- 12.a3 (always a useful move) 12...tDe7?t
l3.tOa4tiJ7g6(1 3 .ta7 14.c5) 14.t;jg6~g6
IS.tOeS deS 16 el. With simple means
White has achieved a superior position in the
game Skernbris-Anagnostopoulos. Cappeile
la Grande 1995.
Variation B
5,..~b4
A very popular move. Black speeds up his
development. The exchange of the dark-
squared bishops favours him in principle.
After a subsequent d6 Black has better dark-
square control than White.
6..id2
The best move. After 6.~d2 Black can sim-
ply continue with 6 ...d6 or, more aggressive-
ly, with 6...dS. Inferior is 6.0c3 ~c3 7.bc3
d6, and Black is already better.
6...~d2
It is hardly favourable to postpone the ell-
change:
- 6 'i'e7 7.tuf4 c6 8.~e2:t.
- 6 <1.'bc6 7.t.i\f4 d6 8~2 ~fS 9.0-0 ~d2
1O.1!fd2;!: 0-0 11.~c3 a6 12Jlac I tbg6
13.tbfdS tbce5 14.c4 (again Black has no ef-
fective means to counter the advance of
White'S central pawns) 14...~g4 15.f3 ~e6
16_[4.idS 17.tL\dS C,'.d7 18.f5 q-"ge5 19.f6,
Kaufman-Heiston, Western Mount Vernon 1998.
- 6...aS VtJf4 tua6 K.~e2 t£Jc59.0-0 l:ta6
(the well-known shift of the rook to the
kingside) IO.i.e3! (provoking Black into
playing d6, which would render his last
move pointless) IO....tc3 11.~c3 l:th6 (this
looks premature - IL.O-O!) I 2.g3 d6 13.a3
g5? (Black is too eager to attack. 13...0-0
14.b4 lZle6 15.':el;t) 14.~h5 .d7 15.f4!
gf416.ef4tDc6(16".~,g417.lQd5+-) 17.b4
t2Je6(l7 ...ab418.~dS) 18.lQd5 :;tIf819.~g4
'ite8 20.bS CiJe7 21.f5+-, Lima-De Andra-
de, Brasilia 199ft
85
Jeroen Bosch
7:~!fd2 d6
The most natural reply. The violent 7 ...dS?
simply fails to 8.1t'd5 ifdS 9.cd5 ..Q.h3
10.gh3±. Kohlmeyer-Hania, Ghent 1999.
More interesting is 7 .. .tbg6 B.g3!? (S.f4)
8...d6 9..ig2lLJc6 (better is 9...0-010.0-0 a5
11.~c3 lL'!a6) 10.0-0 tLlce5?! 1l.f4 ~g4
(1l...lL'!e4 12.... d4) 12.~c3 0-0 13.~.g5 .l:!b8
14.t~)f3:e8 15.:fe I ~f6 16.e4 with a white
edge in Malaniuk-Pastorini, Montecatini
Tenne 1995.
B.tLlf4
8...tiJbd7
Less good is 8... ~e6. because after 9.tZle6 fe6
IO.~e2 ~bc6 Il.f4! White is better. The
game Khenkin-Maidla, Stockholm 1996/97,
instructively continued: II...lbd7 12.~h5 ~
g6 J3.~f3tDcsI4.0·0a5 15.tt:lc30-0 16.lDb5
ll17 17.0d4 "'e8 18.~b3!'! ~b3 19.ab3 b6
20.b4~ ab4 2Ula8 .as 22.Wc2±.
Not very flexible is 8 ...tUbc6; in Atalik-Orti-
gala. Mar del Plata 2003. White was better
after 9.0c3 0-0 IO..ie2 ~g4 11.f3 i:.e6
12.b3 'W'h4 l3.g3 '*¥e7 14.0-0.
9.ti)c3 ~c5
Or 9 0-0 1O...Q.e2.and now:
- 1O lL!cS II.O-O.if512.f3!h613.e4~h7
14.b4.'!:!e61S.tbe6fe616.f408c617.bStLle7
18J:ladl WeS 19.eS! ~d8 (J9 ... dc5 20 ..ic4
wins back the pawn.) 20.cd6lld6 21 .... e3±
Soffer-Mauerhofer, Bern 1991.
86
- 1O...tt.\f6 II.O-O.ig4 12.f3 .ie6I3.b3lle8
14.~ad I b6 1s.tiJe6 :e6 16.l:lfe I l2:ied7
17.~f1 ne8 18.g3!?~519.~g2'i"d720.e4
Uad8 21.f4 as 22.'i'c2 ....c8 23.tDb5 tba6
24.a3 "'g4 25.tbd4 "'g6 26.~e6 ne8 27.b4
ab4 28.ab4 with a white advantage in
Davies-Tchakvetadze. Hamburg 1993.
1O..te2 a5 11.0-0 0-0
A typical position has arisen. White has
more space and can play on the queenside or
in the centre (by slowly advancing his e- and
f-pawns).
12.b3
12.:adl :e8 (according to Atalik, 12...f5! is
stronger. 13.b3 CiJf7 14.~b2 Atalik-Mohr,
Podlehnik 2(01) 13.(Nd5 ~e6 14.e4 .id5
IS.'WdS ~ed7 16J3~ Alexandrov-Pankra-
tov, Moscow 1996.
12...~f5
White has a slight advantage here. Two ex-
amples:
- 13.f3 f6 14.J:1adl 1:te8 IS.l:tfe I 0.17
ie.sn e6 17.e4 ~e6 IS.'tH2;!; Skernbris-
Mohr, Portoroz 1993.
- 13.l:tad I <ot;>h8
14.f3 b6 IS.e4 .Q.d7 16.lbfd5
f5 (l6 ...f6) 17.f4 tbg6 18.ef5 ~f5 19.93
:a7!? 20.i.f3;!; Lev-Porper, Tel Aviv 1991.
VarIation C
5 .•.g6
A healthy move. It is Lalic's main recom-
mendation in his The Budapest Gambit
 Get the Edge on the Budapest

(1998). However. S...d6 6.0f4 g6 may actu- in the game) 9.ted5 (9,cd5 ~h3 10.dc6 .1.c8
ally be a more accurate move order. Black II.tije4±) 9 ....th3 I0.gh3 ~4 II ,~e2lC.a6
prevents 5...g6 6.f4!? in this way. Our main 12.~e I 'ith5 13.wfl 'ifdl 14.~d I 0-0-0
game actually arose via the S ...d6 move Is.a3 ~e7 16.b4 ti}ds 17.cdS±. Bianchi-
order. Mailliez, Paris 2000.
6.lDf4 So, in conclusion. if Black uses the s...g6
The customary follow-up to S.tbh3. Howe- move order. then 6.f4 is a very interesting al-
ver, there is an alternative plan at this stage: ternative to the more common 6,ll)f4.
6.f4!'! In connection with White's next an in- 6...~g7 7.~e2 0-0 8.0-0d6 9.ttJc3
teresting way of exchanging the dark-squa-
red bishops. 6 ...tLiec6 (after 6 ...~b4 7.~d2
White achieves his aim) 7 .~d2. The point of
6. f4. Now that the diagonal a l-h8 is vacated,
White can oppose Black's fianchetto bishop.
The main disadvantage of White's set-up is
time.
- 7 •..d6 8.~c3 is a good intermediate move.
- 7 ..•~g7 is natural, but allows White to exe-
cute his plan. 8.~c3 0-0 (8 ...~c3 9,,'1',c3 me-
rely helps White to develop) 9.~e2 ~e8
(9..:"h4 1O.ll:.f2 .l:!.e8 J \.~g7 wg7 l2.lc.c3
'Lla6 J3.tvd2 tL:.cS14,0-0 is another plausible
sample line. White has a pleasant edge) This position has occurred quite often in
IO.~d2 practice.
9...ttJbd7
Less good is 9 ... ~e6?! IO.li':.e6 fe6 11.f4
tbed7 12.tLle4 as 13.~g4 ne8 14.'iYf3 -"c8
15.~h3 tLif8 16.l:tbl ~bd7 17.~d2 lLlf6
18.tLif6 ~f6 19.c4! Romanov-Biehl,
Schwabisch Grnund 2003.
Now White should postpone e3-e4 until a
more appropriate moment;
10.e4 ~c5 11.~e3 c6 12.tfd2 lL:.e6
13.:ac1 ttJf4 14.~f4 ~e6 15.b3 iraS
16.~h6 ~h617:i!fh6'5
With equality in Malaniuk-Sune Berg
Attacking eJ with 10.... e7?! is dubious be- Hansen, Lyngby 1991.
cause of II..ig7 <t;g7 12.ti:;c3± 'tWe3? Instead, there are two possible queen moves.
13,'iYe3 ~e3 14..:at5+-, So, Black should
settle for IO...d6 11.ll:.f2 t~d7 12.~g7 <J;;g7 CI) IO.ltd2
13..!Llc3'!. C2) lO.tvc2
- 7....tcS!? (aiming at the e3 weakness, but
what is that pawn doing on g6 now?) 8.tL:.c3 Variation C1
d5? (violent, but Black is unable to justify this 10.~d2 a511.b3 ~512.~a3

87
Jeroen Bosch

l:teS 18.~b2 iLc8 19.f3 g5! 2O.~d3 Li::cd3

21.kd3 f4! with an attack. M. Gurevich-
Tisdall, Akurevi 1988.
11...tlJc5 12.~b2 c6 13.l:tadl

g A~ g*
.l t .lA.l
J .l.l1 J.l -
II' • ~
ltJ ~r-
t::,
~ -~
12...~d7 t::,ltJ
Stronger than 12...b6l3.l:I.adl ~h8 14.ti',fd5
t::,~~ .1l.~t::,t::,
[5 15.f3 g5? l6.f4~ 0t7 17.fg5lbg5 I!L~b2
~e5? (18 ... ~d7) 19.tDbS! 0ce6 20.~e5 de5 l:t l:t~
21 :t!Yb2+- Khenkin-Marchand, Bratto 2002.
13.~adl b6 A typical King's Indian position. albeit with
Here Black should seriously consider a pawn on e3! White's space advantage gua-
l3 ...a4 14.b4 lLie6 IS.tDfd5 [5 16.£4 CiJt7 rantees him a slight edge.
17.c5 dc5 18.bcS ~c6'i' Martinez: Martin- 13 ..JWc7 lL'i'e7. 14_~d2 l:td8 15.e4
Del Rio AngeJis, Dos Herrnanas 2002. 'I1Wb6 16.~a3 ~g4 17.~e3 ~e7?!
After the text the game is pretty unclear. hut Better 17..._~e2 )8.lLife2!. l8.f3! I!L~c5
Black is not worse. de5 J9.'lWc5 iLl'8 20.'i!re3. 18 ... ~e8
14.~cl tte8 15.lDfdS f5 16.ttJbS c6 18... ~d7; 18....~e6 19.~:e6 t1je6 (19 .. .fe6
17.tZJd6cdS 18.~e8 ~e8 19.~c5 bc5 20.f4 tL.t7 21.e5) 20.f4±'
20.edSoo ~b5 21.~fel l:le8 22.J£.c4?
~c4 23.bc4 'tWa4!'i'
Zaiats-Gurieli. Kuala Lumpur Interzonal
1990.

Variation C2
10.iYe2 a511.b3
Stronger than the passive 11.~d2 0e5
12Jlad I f5 13.tiJa4?! (l3.b3 planning 14.a3
and b4 i~stronger, as Lalic has indicated. The
position is about equal) 13...b6 14.ci:iC3 (Whi-
te has deliberately provoked b6 10 prevent
Black taking away the d5 square with e6-
which would now be too loosening. However. 19.1bcd5! cd5 Or 19...'i'b8 20.tcb6+-.
there is nothing wrong with the as-b6-c7-d6 20.tt.\d5 lIb8 20 .. :t'd7 21.~b6 "c6
structure. White. clearly the stronger player. 22 . .ae5+-. 21.~c5 ees 22.lL~e7 \tIf8
had no advantage and lost in the end) 23.l:td8 We7 24.~g8 and White was win-
14...xb7 15.ti;cdS ~t7 16.~c) ~h4 17.b3 ning. Agrest-Budnikov, Katowice J 992.

88
 Get the Edge on the Budapest

Variation D 8.lijf4!? 4'~f4 9.ef4 ~e7 1O..Q.d3lOc5 II.Ji.c2

5•..t2lg6 ..Q.e6 12.~e2 0-0 13.n-D ..Q.f6 14.f5 ~c3
Prophylaxis. Black takes away the f4 square 15.fe6 ..Q.f6 16.ef7;!; Sagalchik-Furdl.ik.
from the h3-knight - hoping to glue it to the New York 1997.
edge of the board. White has some creative - 6 ... ~b4 7 ..td2 d6 8.lt:lgl!? (8.g3 is sensi-
replies at his disposal. In the first line we will ble and leads to positions examined below)
encounter an early 'irh5. In line 02 White 8...lt:lc6 9.lOf3 0-0 10.a3 ftc3 OO...Jta5
gets a safe edge by finunchettoing his f1 I J.b4 ~b6 lU;'dS) I J.~c3 a5 12.b3 a4
bishop. 13.b4 ~e6 14.~e2 tDh4 15.~h4 ilih4
J6Jkl J:lfd8 17.0-0! Biscboff-Pirrot, St
Dl) 6.tDc3 Ingbect 1998.
02) 6.g3 - 6...lOc6 7."h5 transposes to the com-
ments concerning 6.ilih5.
Variation 01 7.'!!Uh5! d6 8.ttJg5!
S.ttJc3 Much more energetic than 8.~d2 tUd7
Also playable is the immediate 6.~h5!? 9.fVg5 tLif6 1O.tbf4 h6 11.'I'g3lUf4 12."f4
(preparing 112g5,covering h3 - this becomes 0-0 l3.tL;d5 lOg4 14.h3 <1:e5 15.b4 ~b6
relevant after Black plays d6 - and preven- 16 ..ic3 ~e6 17..Q.e2 ~d5 18.cdS a5!~ 10-
ting ..ic.:5) 6...tLic6 (6...~b4 7 .ti'id2?! - 7.Ad2 nescu-Anagnostopoulos, Badalona 1995.
xd2 (7 ...tLic6) 8.<1\d2 ~f6 9.0-0-0 - 8..•~d7 9.tlJge4 0-0 1O.~e2 lU1S
7 ...'ilVf6! 8.ttbl d6 9.a3 1!t'f5, and Black is 11.~fS ~fS 12.ltd5!
fine, P. Meister-Bartsch, Germany Bundes- The knight swap has done nothing to relieve
Jiga B 1994/95) 7.liJc3 §Lb4 8.xd2 d6 9.ge2 Black's plight.
'*f6 (aiming to exchange queens with ..-f5; 12...'ffd8 13.b4 i.b6 14.~b2 es
9 ...a5 10.0-0 lt~ce5 11J4 t;\d7 1VDf2 tLif6 15.ldbS~b61S ..ic3 ~e617.c5! 'tWd8
13.'i'g5 0-0, Marin-De la Villa Garcia, Szi- White is also better after 17... deS 18.be5
rak Interzonal 1987 was also satisfactory for W'c7 19.0-0.
Black in the stem game) lO.a3 ~a5 11.b4 18.0-0 d5 19.14! f5 20.~d3 l:rf7
.ib6 12.0-0 ...wf513."f5 MS. with equality. 21.~d4±
Drasko-Chatalbashev, Cacak 1991.

Variation D2
6.g3
Apart from preparing to fiancheuo the bis-
hop. White protects h3 with a piece and ta-
kes away the h4 square from Black's queen
and knight. In practice White has done very
well with 6.g3.
6 ...tLlc6
Or 6 ....ib4 7 ...Q.d2~d2 8 .... d2 d6 9.f4 (after
the exchange of the dark-squared bishops it
has become even more important to put
6 ...~c5 pawns on dark squares) 9 ...... e7?! 1O.0.c3
- 6...d6 7.'it'h5 (even herel) 7.Ji::,d7 ~h3? (this looks like a clever tactic.: but is in
Jeroen Bosch

fact a blunder. Nikolaidis has seen one move but it works) 15...'iWa5 16.~e8 Dfe8
further) 11.~h3 ttJf4 (since 12.gf4 loses to I 7.'tirb 7 ;t.
12...'iWh4 Black must have thought he was 8.~d2 .Q.d2
winning a vital pawn") Or 8...0-0 9.~b4 ~h4 IO,tL;c3 d6 11.0-0
~e6 12.b3 Wc& l3JtJg5 ~g4 14.f3 h6
15.tDge4 ~h3 16.1i'd2 ~g2 17.t;Pg2 IreS
(I7 .. .f5 was better) 18.Irad! ~c6 19.tijf2
t1Jce7 20.e4t Drasko-Marchand. Montcca-
tini Terme 1997.
9.li.\d2 d6 10,0-0 0-0 11.'ifb3 Xlb8
12.f4 ~d7 13.tt2f2;!:;

l2.~c8! (this amusing double attack decides

the game) l2 ...ta:6 i3.~b7 lUa5 l4.i.a8
~c4 15. 'i'd4 ttJe3 16. ~d2 )-0 Nikolaidis-
A.lvanov, St Petersburg 1993.
7..Rg2.Rb4
In Almeida-Fuentes, Havana 1999, Black
played the creative 7 ...tlJce5 8.'itb3 ~f69.f4 13..J~re8 14J~rtel b6 15.1tc3 a5
$,b4, but White kept his opening advantage 16.tLlf3 tLif8 17.b3
with 1O.~d2 ~d2 11.tL:d2 tL:c6 12.0-0 0-0 White has more space, Shulman-Getz, Phi-
l3.tL:e4 fi'f5 l4.t.chf2 d6'!! l5,i.h3 (greedy ladelphia 2002.
 CHAPTER 12
Igor Glek
Gambit Lines in the Glek Variation
bi
~
tLJ
bbbb
1:[ ~iYw~
Is this the Belgrade Gambit?
The Glek Variation of the Four Knights Ope-
ning has become an acceptable way of play-
ing for a slight edge with White. It may not
be the Ruy Lopez, but as Black it can be
tough to play against a well-prepared oppo-
nent. In this chapter the main protagonist of
4.g3 attacks his own line with two gambit
continuations: 4...tbxe4!'! and 4 ...d5 5.exd5
tbd4!? Both lines aim to demonstrate that
thc extra tempo (4.g3) is detrimental to
White\ position.
Let us take a brief look at the rather silly line:
l.e4 e5 2.4.'of3 1Gc6 3.t2ic3 tUf6 4.<1::xe5?!.
White sacrifices a piece to obtain a mighty
pawn centre after 4 ...lUxe5 S.d4. However,
Ci:Jb
b b
M Hie KEY SO 1.6
after Black's strongest move S...t!\g6, he will
not obtain sufficient compensation. I don't
want to claim a White edge after 5 ...tDc6
6.d5 - but, at least, it's a game. It is obvious
from these comments that 4.g3 can be regar-
ded as some sort of weakness after
4 ...tZlxe4!? (perhaps sti II somewhat dubious,
but by no means as silly as 4.0.xe5).
While the Belgrade Gambit - 1.e4 e5 2.lbf3
tbc6 3.tL:c3lUf64.d4 exd45.t'bd5 - is clearly
not so dubious, it also does not represent
White's best bet for an opening advantage in
the Four Knights. Yet after the inclusion of
4.g3 (and with reversed colours) we will see
that it suddenly becomes an excellent surpri-
91
Igor Glek
se weapon for Black against the Glek
Variation!
We will treat the piece sacri fice 4...Ci:xe4 as a
'light appetizer', while the tactical compli-
cations of 4 ...d5 5.exd5 tLid4 will he our
'main course'.
Appetizer
1.e4 e5 2.lbf3 t;)c6 3.tz.lc3 ~f6 4.g3
0.xe4!?
However, you might fed about this piece sa-
crifice, don't condemn it outright. No less a
player than Macieja has dared it - against
Smirin in 2004. Before we investigate the
piece sacrifice, it is perhaps useful to draw
one more SOS para lie!. In the first volume of
Secrets (J{ Opening Surprises the intriguing
Gunsberg Variation (4.a3!,!) was investi-
gated on page 19. After one of Black's main
continuations, 4.. ,g6, Magnus Carlsen has
played 5.<1':xe5 lLjxe5 6.d4 CL:;c6 7.d5 (and
now 7...tL::b4 is obviously not on, see the
main line in the text) Carlsen-Nyysti, Hel-
sinki 2002.
5.tDxe4 d5 s.cca
The only retreat square. since White's fourth
has taken away the g3 square. No good is
6.Q,eg5 after either 6...h6 or 6 ...c4.
6...d4 7.li2b5!?
The most enterprising continuation. If Whi-
te does not want to refute 4 ...li;xe4 he can opt
92
for: 7 .~g2 dxc3 8.bxd which leads by way
of an amusing transposition to the line 4 ...dS
5.exd5 ~xd5 6.i.g2 <t:xc3 7.bxc3. This was
how Magnus Carlsen. who had prepared the
piece sacrifice especially for this game, was
outfoxed by and lost to Elena Sedina, SI Vin-
cent 2003,
Much more passive is 7.lbbl'! e4 8.tbgl.
Nevertheless. Black has only one pawn for
his knight.
Serious attention deserves 7.4::.c4 conside-
ring that it was Smirin's choice when faced
with the piece sacrifice. After 7...f5 8Ji,eg5
e4 9.~c4 ext] lO.lbxt1 (I 0.il.f7+ 'it'd7
11..i.c6+ c,t>e~: IO.0t7 'ilie7+ 11.~f1 0eS)
IO ... 'i'e7+ 11.<t>f1.ae612.d3~xc413.dxc4
~d7 14.<.t.>g20-0-0 play was about equal in
Smirin-Macieja, Czech n 2003/04.
7...a6 8.tLa3 e4
li ..t'if'*.t li
ii iii
~
 Gambit Lines in the Glek Variation

9.tUh4!? 18.';t>g2IXe I 19.tDh3 (Black managed to lose

In two games White chose 9.... e2?! but this this winning position by means of two con-
move is dubious against accurate play: secutive blunders) 19... :ae8? (he could
have reaped the gains of his previous play by
• 9 .... e7 lO.tiJgl ~e5 II.h3 d3 (11...~d7 19...J:lxcl 20Jhc\ ~xh3+2I.Wxh3Wxcl)
12..tg2 ~c6 I3.d3) 12.... e3 ~f5 13.cxd3 20.t2.Jf2 h6? (and here 20 ...~xf2+! would
exd3 14.~g2 (}·O·O IS.tCf3 (an alternative is still lead to an amusing draw: 21. ~xf2
15.g4) 15...t;\xf3+ 1n..bf3 'lWf6 (after nSe2+ 22 ..i.xc2 lIxc2+ 23.WgI lXeI+
16...~d7 17.0-0 White is winning) l7.~c4 24.<t>f2 l:te2+ with perpetual check)
bS 18.g4 bxc4 19.9xfS ~d7 20:(*'f4 .tcS 2I.g4!+- ~g6 22.~xd3 :le2 23 ...txe2
21."fixc4 IXhc8+ zz.en :e5 23.b4 :txf5 l:txe2 24.d4! tDxd4 25.~e3 liJe6 26.~xc5
24 ..ig4 and White won in Nordahl-Hersvik, tDxf4+ 27.~g3 and White wins.
Kristiansund 2001. By the way, also after the retreat 9.ti:::gl!?-
some might argue that a piece is still a
• 9 ....ba3! lO.bxa3 0-0 II.t2jgl (or piece ...
11.~h4 d3 and Black is better). Clearly, 9...~xa3 10.bxa3 0-0
Black has tremendous compensation for the Also insufficient is 1O...d3 11.~b2!
piece. White's pieces are a sorry sight on the 11.~b2
first rank.

Personally, I don't believe in the reality of

Black crashes through with Il... d3! !2.cxd3
(after 12.~d I tL;d4 U.cxd3 J:le8 14.~g2
~c2+ 15.~fl 'i'xd3+ Black is winning)and
now after 12...~4~ Black's attack should
win.
In the game Al Modiahki-Hakki, Teheran
Zonal 200 I, there followed instead:
12... fi'd4!?, which is also not bad, though
not quite as winning as 12...Ii)d4. Neverthe-
less, let's follow the game for some more
spectacular tactics: 13.:bl exd3 14.,*"e3
"fid5 15.f3 .irS 16.<M2 :lUeS 17."'f4 ,*"c5+
Black's attacking chance x here. A piece is a
high price 10 pay for some positional com-
pensation.
Let's follow my analysis:
11...l:te8 12..Q.e2 ~h3 13.~g4 ~xg4
14.~xg4 tDe5 15JWh3 tOf3+ 16.Wd1
~f6 17.... f5 "'b618.t1bl g619.~d5
Bad is 19.~f4? g5 20.'W'g4 h5 21.~xhS
gxh4.
19..J~e5 20.• d7 nbS 21.~xf3 exf3
22.~cl
and White is winning.

93
Igor Glek

Main Course analysed 7.tL;b5~c5 8.li'e2+ wfR 9.~g2 a6

1.e4 eS 2.tbf3lDc6 3.ti2c3 0.f6 4.g3 d5
5.exd50d4!?
So let's play the' Belgrade Gambit' with co-
lours reversed and the additional move
g2-g3 '? In this line Black sacrifices only a
pawn ...
I0.b4 ~b6 I I.tba3 ~g4 with excellent com-
pensation for Black. White should interpola-
te 7 .'ire2+sa before playing 8.li.lb5, after
8...0-0 9.~g2 tDxd5 1O.lt::xd4~b4 II.c3 c5
12.cxb4 cxd4 13.0-0 ..ixb4 play is equal.
7 ... 1J...d7
It is also possible to play 7...eM7. Two sam-
ples of how play might proceed:
• 8.tLle2a6 9.Jl.a4 i.c5 10.0-00-0 II.tbf4
~d6 12.d3 tt.;c5 13..ib3 t:.)xb3 14.axb3
~xf4 15.~xf4 g5 (l5 ....ih3 16J:tel g5
IHih5) 16.1J...d2~h3 17.llel 'irxd5 18.0
g4 19.1:tc4f5 20.l:tf4 ~feH 21.~a4 c5 and
Black's game is dearly preferable .
• 8.'iie2+ i.e7 9.d6 cxd6 iO.ti2d5 a6
11.~xd7+ ~xd7 12.0-0 Ac6 and Black is
fine.

Now White has three possibilities:

A) 6.0xd4
B) 6.0xe5
C) 6.~g2

Variation A
6k;xd4exd4

8.~e2+
Again interpolating this check is White's
most accurate option.
8 ... 'We7
Li.e7 9.d6 cxd6 (9...dxcJ 10.dxe7 cxd2+
II..ixd2 ft'xe7 12.'~!he7+ Wxe7 13.~b4+
<fti>d8 14.0-0-0±) iO..i.xd7+ and here the li-
nes fork, depending upon how Black recap-
tures on d7:
• l(l...tzJxd7 11.0d5 l:tcR 12.0-0 llxc2 and
now either 13.'ffg4. or 13.~ellLle5 14.f4 d3
7.~b5+ 15.'itft llJg6 16.thd3±.
Here the correspondence player Labahn has • 1O...'tWxd7 11.0b5 0-0 12.0-0 d5

94

13.lbxd4 nfe8 IHit] Q.c5 15..!L;b3~b6
16.d4 'iWh317.~d2±.
9.Q.xd7+ ~xd710.ti'xe7+
But not 1O.ttJbS"it'c5 Il.'i'd3 .l:teS+12.,.pfl
~xd5.
10 ... be7 1V!lJe2 l:the8 12.l1\xd4
i.c5+ 13.lbe2 lle7 14.d4 ~xd4
15.'itJlf1~e516.c4 J:{ae8
And Black's huge lead in development gives
him excellent compensation.
Variation B
6.t;'ixeS
Taking the second pawn is ambitious, but
very risky for White. Black can pin the
knight along the e-file (B I) or simply conti-
nue his development (B2).
Gambit Lines in the Glek Variation
B I) 6 ..JWe7
B2) 6...~d6
Variation B1
6•..'ffe7 7.14 tDd7
Here the inclusion of 4.g3 makes the main
line of the Belgrade Gambit unplayable:
7...~g4 8.d6 ihd6 9.tDb5 "it'b6 iO.tlJxd4
~xe5 II.'ite2 'itxd4 12.c3 ~g4 l3.,*,xe5+
~xe5+ l4.fxe5±. Also bad is 7...A-g4
8.A-e2±.
8.d6
Losing is S.d3 to. Black also gets the better
chances after 8..tb5 and now:
- 8...~xb5 9.tDxb5 lLixeS IO.fxeS a6
11.~)d4 .xe5+ 12.... e2 it'xe2+ 13.t2Jxe2
~f5 with compensation.
- or !L.c6 9.dxc6 0xe5 IO.fxe5 ~xe5+
II..liLc2~c5 12Jlfl 0-0 J3.d3 .i.g4 14..tf4
'i'e6 15.cxb7 tt:xe2 16.tiJxe2 J:[aeS 17.bS"-
fl'xe2+ 18.... xe2 .l:txe2+ 19.Wdl ~xhR
20.A-xbR rleR+ 21.~d2 Q.e3+22.~c3 nc8+
23.~b4 llxbR+ 24.~c3 ~e6 and Black is
slightly better.
8......xd6
After this move play get" a rather forced
character. Losing alternatives are:
- 8...'ite6? 9.~c4.
- 8...cxdfi? 9_{L:d5 'i'dS IOkxd7.
9.t'~b5 ttJxb5 10..i.xb5 c6
95
Igor Glek

Black plays in real gambit style!

7.li\c4
This is forced, as after 7.f4 ~xeS 8.fxeS
~g4 9.~e2 tl::xe2 (9...~xe2 IO.tbxe2l1i'xdS
Il.O-O ~xeS unclear) lO.exf60·0 I I.d3 (not
II.tljxe2,? lle8 12.0-0 .be2 and Black is
winning) a spectacular position arises in
which Black has an attractive choice.

11.~C4
This gives White a slight plus. Black has no
problems after II.tUxd7 .i.xd7 12.i.e2 (or
12.llVe2+ ~e7 13..ac4 0-0 14.0·0 J;tf6 with
the initiative) 12....Q.h3 13.d3 lIi'e6 14.e3
0-0-0 15.fj'b3 l:d5 16. ~f2 ~c5+ 17.d4 lle8
18..i.d3 nxd4 19.'iVxe6+ l:id7+ 20.1.e3
~xe6 (or 20 ...:xe6 21..b.c5 J:xd3
22.~ad[=) 21.~xc5 ~xd3 22.J:adl J:xdl He may either play the simple 11...l:I.e8. or
23.~xdl b6 24.~d4 with equality. opt for the following forcing line:
11...tDxe5 12.~e2 16 13.fxe5 13.d3 ~g4 1 l...'@'xf6 12.~xe2 ~fe8 13.llfl 'iWb6
14.fxe5 ~d4 15.c3 Wxc4 16.dxc4 .ixe2 14.llf2 l:Ixc2+ (14 ...llc7 IS.h3) 15.~xe2
17.~xe2 fxeS. 13 ...~xe5 13.. .fxe5 14.d3~. xu
if g 1+ 16.';¥;>d2'it I + 17.';l'ixdI lle8, when
14.'*¥xeS+ fxeS 15.d3 is.an ~h3 both
16.l:f7 b5 J7.~3 c5. 15...£h3 16..1Le3 - 18.h3 .~n (l8 ...~xe2+ 19.Wd2 ~f1)
with only a very slight edge fur White in 19.c4 Ihc2 20 ..Q.d2 with unclear play, and
the ending. - 18.c4 c6 19.dxc6 bxc6 with cornpcnsa-
lion, should cause him no headaches.
Variation 82
6....liLd6!?

7 ...~xg3!?

96
 Gambit Lines in the Glek Variation

At this stage there is a serious alternative in This is White's safest option.

the form of: 7 ....ag4 8 ...Q.e2 'fIIe7 9.lLie3 6....tg4
~xe2 IO.li)xe2 ~f3 11.0-0 tZlxd5 12.ft'e I This pin is best, although Black has an alter-
tDxe3 13.fxe3 ..Q.g4 14.d3 when White is native in 6 ...~c5:
only slightly better. Perhaps this is one of the few exceptions
InsteadoflL.'iI'e7 Karsten Miillerhas recom- when White should just grab the e-pawn.
mended lLtLlxe2 9.tLlxe2 0-0 10.0-0.i.f3!. White is better after 7.tLlxe5 0-0 8.0-0 ne8
8.~e3 9.~f3 (but not 9.~a4 .td6 10.tiJc4 bS
Black will obtain a dangerous initiative after II/Llxd6 -.xd6 IVtJc3 b4 13.~a4 .tg4
both: 8.fxg3 ~g4 9.~e2 lC:.xe2 to.li)xe2 14.f3 ~d7. with initiative) 9...~g4 10.d3
'ifxd5. and 8.hxg3 ~g4. tbxd5 11.tbxdS tbe2+ 12.~h I ttxdS
8...~f4 9.~b5 cS 10.dxc6ep 0-0 13.tDgS 'iWeS 14.f3 ~h5 lS.ltJe4 ~xcl
11.tDxd4 'itxd412 ..ig2 bxc6~ 16.~xc5 'fi'xc5 I7J:txcl and has kept his
small material advantage.
Still, one improvement in the above line can
change the verdict. After 7.0-0 there fol-
lows 7... ~g4. If White now aims to take the
pawn he is looking for trouble, e.g. 8.l:rel
0-0 9.l:rxeS (9.d3 ~xd5 lO.lbe5 l('-.xc)
II.bxc3 "f6 12.~f4 lL;xf3+ 13 ...Q.xf3
~d6=)9 ...'t\i'd610J:tell:[fe8withcompen-
sation,
As so often in this gambit variation it is bet-
ter for White not 10 lake the second pawn on
eS!
This position is rather similar to certain posi- Instead of 8.~el White can also play the
tions in the Gambit Variation of the Two quiet S.d3 when the lines fork:
Knights Defence (S...lDaS). It seems rhar • 8...~xd5 9.lbxd5 ~xd5 lO.lbxd4 ~xd4
Black has good compensation for the pawn. II.'iWel 0-0 (ll...O-O-O? 12.~e3 "d6
13 ..ixcs't!rxcs l4.'iWe4+-) 12.~xb7 J:rab8
Variation C 13.~g2±.
6.~g2 • IL.O-O 9.~e3 (9.~g5 h6 lO.~xf6 tt'xf6
II.cDe4 tbxf3+) 9 .. Jlc8
- 10.h3t"Dxf3+ II..txf3.b.e3 12.hxg4.td4
D.g5 ~x(;3 l4.gxf6 .1xb2 15.l:lbl 'tlrxf6
(I5 ...~d416.l:lxb7±) l6.~e4i.d4 17.11xb7
~b6 and Black is fine.
- 1O.t;~e4tLlxe4 t l.dxe4 'f'f6 12 ..bd4 and
White is better.
In general, there are too many problematic
lines for Black after 6 ... aes. Finding an im-
provement in one line is clearly not enough.
So it is better to concentrate our efforts on
6 ...~g4.

97
Igor Glek

Now White has two main possibilities: Instead of castling Black should play:
12...exd4! 13.'t!fxd4 (13 ..if3+ fiLe7
CI) 7.0-0 14.Wxd40-0 IS.!iLf4 !iLd6) 13 0-0 14.!iLg5
C2) 7.h3 !iLd7 (14 11e8 lS.!iLxh7+!; 14 h6 IS.!iLxf6
'i'xf6 16 xf6 gxf6 17.tl)bS) 15..1g2 h6
Variation C1 16..bf6 "xf6 17.... xf6 gxf6 18.~e4 ..Q.e5
7.0-0.tb4 19.c3 $.f5 and White has a slight edge.
In practice the direct 7 ...~)d7!? has also oc- 8.~e1 O-Ol?
curred. After the first sacrifice there is no choice but
to sac the e-pawn too.
Timid is 8...'it'd6 9.a3 !iLa5 and now:
• 10.b4 !iLb6 11.tL;a4 (11.!iLb2 0-0 12.d3
llae8 l3.tLle4 tLlxe4 14.dxe4 f5 IS.exf5
~xf3+ 16..i.xf3 .i.xf2+ I7.Wxf2 l:1xfS-»
11...cilxdS 12.t'iJxb6 axb6 13.!iLb2 0-0
14.!iLxd4exd4IS.h3!iLhS 16.g4Ag6l7.0xd4
t;\f4 and Black has good compensation .
• to.h3! .axf3 (or 1O...~x.f3+ Il..bf3
~xh3 12.d4) 11..i.xf3 hc3 12.dxc3 (ilxf3+
i3.'itxD and White keeps his extra pawn.

Black now threatens 8 ...'iI'f6. so White must

act.
8.h3 l?xf3+ 9..Lf:! .ixh3 IOJ:tel ~d6
11.~e4 (preventing Black from castling)
I I. ..tbf6 (bad is I l...h5 l2.d4 f5 (12 ....i.g4
13.f3 exd4 l4.~e2) 13.dxe5) 12.d4

9.a3
Again it is quite dangerous to take the se-
cond pawn: 9Jhe5 Wd6 IOJle3 .Q.c5
II.~c4 (iJxc4 l2Jlxc4 f5 13.l:lf4 nae~ and
Black has the initiative.
After 9.h3 ~x.D+ IO.~x.D Black should not
play lO... ~)(h3 I Ulxe5 'i'd7 12.d4 ..Q.d6
I :tl:tel (13.~f4!?) when Black has to prove
The critical position. The game Dznumaev- his compensation. Stronger is simply
Coleman. Mumbai 2004, now went: 12...0-0 1O... ~xf3; after II.'t!f"xf3 l:lc8 White has
13.dxeS £xe5 14.~xh7+ ~xh7 15J:lxe5±. nothing special.

98
 Gambit Lines in the Glek Variation

9...~d6 1O.d3 'i'd7 11.~e3 l:tfe8~
real cause of anxiety, e.g., 17.lbxd4 .axd4
18.~xd5 ..-xd5 19.~xd5 c6 (I9 ...lhel+
20.:xel .ixb2 21.l:te7±) 20.~f3 ~xb2
21 Jhe8+ J:txe822.J:tb1 ~xa3 23.l:[xb7 and
White has a serious edge.
17.Axd5 i!t'xd5
Bad is 17...cxd5 l8.~f4 f5 19.'fi'h5±. plan-
ning 20."!ff3.
18:thd5 cxd5 19.t2Jf4l:ted8 20.b4
~f8 21.0.e2 g6 22.li~xd4

Black has pressure for the pawn. White has

probably nothing better than:
12..axd4 exd413.tUe2 ~c5
This is stronger than the immediate
13....hn 14.i.xf3 ~e5 15.c4 dxc3ep
16.tDxc3 (not l6.bxc3 CUxd5 17.d4 ..if6
18.c4 Ci:,(7) l6 ...~xd l7.bxd lL:xd5 (or
17... J:txe!+ 18.'f!itxel lIe8 19.~b! 1I'f5
20.~e4 '$'e5 21.'i.fh3±) 18.c4 I1xel+
19.'i!fxel ~e8 20.'fi'aS tlJb6 2 I.lId I (stron- 22...l:tac8!?
ger than 21.~xa7 tfxd3 22"~xb7 Ci:.xc4 Stronger than the natural 22 ...~g7 23.<:3
23.1t'b5 l:tf8 24..i.g2 'it'c3 25 ..l:td1 lUxa3) 1:%ac8 24.J:tacl .~xd4 25.cxd4 ~f8;t.
21 ...a6 22.~x b7 ~jxc4 23. 'iif xa6 and White 23J:ta2 ~g7 24.tj~b3 <;Pf8
is better. Black clearly has compensation, as it is hard
14.ifd2 ~xf315 ..fLxf3 tiJxd5 16.'i'g5 for White to improve his position.

Variation C2
7.h3

16...c6
After 16..JiadS. Black's weak back rank is a

99
Igor Glek
White admits that he cannot keep the gambit
pawn. However, by forcing Black to release
the tension, he plays for a small opening ad-
vantage. Possibly this is the best choice
against our 'Belgrade Gambit'.
7...tDxf3+ 8.~xf3 ~xt3 9.'ii'xf3 ~b4
Black can also prepare queenside castling
with 9..._d7. after lO.d3 the immediate
10...0-0-0 allows the annoying pin 11..ltg5.
Play may continue II.. .~h4 (ll...~e?
12.'iWe3 or 12.0-0-0) 12..bJ6 gxf6 IHIVxf6
VJt'xd5 14.0-0.
Therefore, 1O... h6 is sensible - planning
11.~d2 0-0-0 12.0-0-0 lDxd5. White. on the
other hand, should play I I.We3:
• I 1...J.ib4 12.'ihe5+ Wf8 13.:t.>f) rle8
I 4.'tWd4 c5 15.VJt'c4b6 16..1£d2±.
• 1l...~d6 12id2 0-0 13.~f3 tL:h7 14.g4
f5 15.gxf5 ~xf5 16.... g4 t;':f6 J7.'i'g6;!;.
10.0-0 0-0 11.ne1
The game Houska-Pirrot. Germany Bundcs-
liga 2003/04. now went II.d3 '*d? 12. ~h2
.bc3 13.bxc3 0.xdS 14.:e1 :fe8 15.j.d2
c5 16.:abl b6 17.a4 tDc7. and although
White won it is clear that she has nothing
special at this stage.
Indeed. after I l.d3 Black can also play the
simple 1l....ixc3 12.bxc3 ,*xd5 13.'I'xd5
'c.xd5 14..i.d21Ue8 IS.c4LQe7 16.~c3 tl:c6
17.:l.abl b6 18.l:lfel f6 when he is OK, and
won the ending, in Gavrilakis-Gustafsson,
100
Aghia Pelagia 2004.
11_..l:Iea 12.d3
Too sophisticated is lVl:Je4. After
l2 ...tLlxd5 13.a3 ~f8 (but not l3 ...~e?
14.~c3 ~xc3 15.bxc3 c6 16.ltxe5 'i'd?
IH~g2) 14.c4 (14.d3 'lid?) 14...<1':e7!
(stronger than 14...lDb6 15.b3 '6'd7 16.g4
Ilad8 17.1l.b2 c6 IS.,tte3 with a slight advan-
tage for White)
it is Black who plays for the win! 15.lDg5 f6
16.tLic::6 'ft'c8 17.tL~xf8and now Black should
recapture in the right way:
Bad is 17.. .'.t>xf8 I8.lhe5 ~xh3 and now
19.d4 ttJg6 20Jhe8+ l:rxe8 2J.~d2. or
19.,tthS VJt'e620.'t!hb7!. III both cases White
is slightly better.
However, after the correct 17... I:txf8 ~Black
is just better because of the weaknesses in
White's camp (h3, d4). A sample line
would he 18.d4 l1~c6 19.dxe5 (l9 ..Jic3
~xh3) 19...fxe5 20.'i'd5+ $h8 (20 ... 1:tf7)
21.~g2 'fff5 22.~e3 ,ttad8 23.~h5 li\d4
24 ..txd4 "'f3+ 25.<;togl exd4 (25 .. Jhd4)
26.:f1 d3.
12...~xc3 13.bxc3 -.xdS
Worse is I3 ...~xd5. The following ma-
noeuvres are characteristic of the GJek Va-
riation: 14.l:tbl b6 15.c4 tDffi (15 ... ttJc3
l6.J:lb3±) 16..i.b20d7 17.,tte3 and White is
slightly beuer.
14:jJhd5 C.0.xd515.~b1b616.c4lUf6
 Gambit Lines in the Glek Variation

17.~g2 0.d7 18.t4 16 19.fxe5 tbxe5

~ ~ 20 ..Ji.f4~f7
111 Black has no problems to kccp the balance in
• & this endgame.

l'__
.L_'~. ConclusIon
So we have demonstrated that against the
Glek Variation the reversed Belgrade Gam-
bit - 4 ...d5 5.exd5 Qjd4!? - leads to quite
playable positions fur Black. Probably, only
6.~g2 leaves White some chances for a
small opening advantage. Clearly more
Here )6...~c3 only leads the knight astray- practical tests are needed. of course. And.
IH!.b3liJ.lI.a2 is ..ib2 a5 19.c311ad8 20.11a I yes. with such a heavy main course there is
:llUJ 21.l:lxa2±. no room left for a desert.
 CHAPTER 13
Jeroen Bosch
Beating the Van Geet

NIC KEY VO 12.3

1.4.;c3 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.tiJxe4 ~c6

The Dutch 1M Dick van Geet has made a lar- o James Plaskett
ge contribution to (he theory and populariza- • Jonathan Speelman
tion of 1.t!:c3 and scored some nice results Gibraltar 2003
with it. The Van Gee! Opening has indepen-
dent significance, even though play often 1.tDc3 d5
transposes into l.e4 lines. Both White and l.c4 c5 players ought to watch out here:
Black have to be alert to all sorts of trans po- e5 cannot be recommended. since 2.~·;f3
J ...
sitions or near-transpositions. While Caro- 4,"c6 3.d4 contains quite a few pitfalls. Actu-
Kann and French Defence players have little ally, I ...tl::f6 2.e4 e5 is a good option for the
to worry about. 1...e5 and 1...c5 players l.e4 e5 player.
should beware. 2.e4
The following entertaining game is used as a This position is sometimes reached via the
model for an SOS weapon versus 1.lL:c3. If Scandinavian move order: 1.e4 d5 2.lLic3.
the fairly sharp 3 .. _(~c61? is not to your li- While this is not too common, it was in fact
king, don't worry. some other suggestions the actual course of our present game.
are presented here, too. 2...dxe4

102

Black aims for an open position with plenty
of active piece play (for both sides!). At this
stage there are numerous alternatives. of
course. Thus, 2...e6, 2 ...c6 and 2 ...~f6 all
lead to positions from regular 1.e4 openings
(the French, Caro-Kann and Alekhine re-
spectively) while 2 ...d4 3.ttlce2 is an impor-
tant and independent line in the Van Geet
Opening.
3.tbxe4
3..k,c6!?
This is what this SOS is all about. Black in-
tends to develop quickly, putting his pieces
on natural squares. A general developing
set-up is: ~f5 (or ~g4), e6, tDf6, ~e7 and
0-0. Naturally, it is no good to switch 10 auto-
matic pilot. It surely makes sense to see what
your opponent does and the current game is
an excellent case in point.
As mentioned above, we will look at some
alternatives here. They are given in ascen-
ding SOS order.
A) 3..,e6 is a little meek. White need nOI
even transpose into the Rubinstein French.
B) 3 ...c6 The previous remark applies
here, too. White may try to find a more use-
ful move than 4.d4.
C) 3... e5?! This is actually quite careless,
after 4.~c4 we have one of those typical Van
Geet positions where Black has to perform a
tightrope act to stay in the game:
Beating the Van Geet
- 4 ...~e7 5.'iWhS tLlh6 6.d3 1-0 (Van
Geet-Sande, cr Volmac 1986) was obviously
not to Black's liking. Likewise,
- 4...~f5 5.'tWf3 ~g6 6.lj~gS! leaves Black
in dire straits.
- 4 ...tLlc6 is comparatively best.
D) 3 ...tlJd7 is a very reliable line. Black
plays Karpov's favourite Caro-Kann with-
out having 'wasted' a move on ...c6. Even
here there is a trap to avoid, though: 4.~c4
(4.d4 ~gf6 5.tlJxf6+ ~xf6 6.lCf3 ~g4= is
just like a very innocent Caro-Kann - again
without c6) 4 ...lLlgf6 allows a tactic 5.~xf7 +
~xf7 6.tLlg5+ <.Pg87 .ttJe6 "e8 8.tt:xc 7 .-g6
9.lDxa8
9 ..... xg2 (perhaps 9...tM5!? 1O.'itf3 tD7f6
gives enough compensation, Krajnak-
Obsivac, Olomouc 1998) IO.'itf3 'itxf3
Il.ttJxf3 tbe8 12.a4, and White looks better.
The game Krajnak-Obsivac is worth looking
into, though. Then 4 ...<£;gf6becomes a clever
move to provoke the complications after
5 .!.txt7 +. Instead of 4 ...~gf6 the other knight
may also go to f6. So. 4 ...tLJdf6 is quite safe
for Black, as is 4 c6.
On the whole. 3 l2ld7 is very sound, but no
points for surprise value!
ars
E) 3_.. leaves While a choice be-
tween:
- 4.'fVf3!?The point of'this move is 4 ...'fVd5
5.ciJd6+ 'i'xd6 6.'i'xf5, and White is possi-
103
Jeroen Bosch
bly slightly better. However, as Wahls points
out, 4 ...~g6! is strong. For as Wahls demon-
strates, 5.ta5? c6 6.lDxb7? 'fIfb6 7..-b3
tbd7 loses, as the knight is trapped.
- Stronger is 4.QJg3 .ag6 5.0f3 or 5.h4 h6
6.lDf3. The position resembles the classical
Caro-Kann, but without the pawn moves d4
and c6. Food for thought. The game A.Hoff-
mann-Kacheishvilli, New York Masters
2004, saw Black gaining the upper hand fair-
ly quickly: 4.tt~g3 ~g6 s.crs tDd76.~c4e6
7.d3 tOgf6 8.'fi'e2 i.e7 9 ..i.d2 0-0 10.0-0-0
c611.~bllle8 12.11hel b5 13.~b3 as and
Black's attack is well on its way.
F) 3..:iWdS!'!
This is a very witty answer, only playable if
the Scandinavian is part of your repertoire.
In fact, White has little better than to 'acqui-
csce' with 4.0c3 "a5. Some alternatives:
- 4.tDg3 ca6 5.08 e5, as in Rauber-Prie,
Yerevan Olympiad 1996.
- 4.d3 is passive. but perhaps a tad better for
White.
- 4.Wf3 ~f5 5.lC.d6+Klip-Baekelant, Bel-
gium u 2001/02, is an amusing rransposlrion
to 3....tfS. Superior is Wahls' suggestion of
4 ...ti)c6 S.l'a3 'ite5+. with equality. White
was too ambitious in Karagiannis- Tzermia-
dianos, Aghia Pelagia 2004: 4 ... ttJc6 5.tLe2
e5 6.lD2c3 'iWe6 7.llJbS?! "d7 8 ..ic4 a6
9.0g5 tDh6 and now White is forced to retre-
104
at his forces, after 1O.0c3 tDd4 II."g3?
~xc2+ 12.~d llDxa I 13."xeS+ ,*e7 Black
was winning.
So if you want a safe and reliable line versus
1.tt::c3, then play 3...li:.d7. If you want the
Scandinavian: play 3...1idS. And if you
want to win in 13 moves: play like Speel-
man!
4.~b5?!
This move is very logical, but Black's reply
refutes the whole idea. There are two main
alternatives: 4.ttJf3 and 4.~c4. Here are
some examples of how play might develop:
A) 4.tlJf3
A I) 4....tg4 5..tc4 (S.h3 i.hS 6.lCg3
~g6 7.tbh4 tDf6 8.Q\xg6 hxg6 9.c3!? was
Sergeev-Londyn, Trinec 2002; and 5.~b5
'ifd5 is nice for Black - compare with Plas-
kett-Speelman) 5...Ci;f6!?6.h3!'? .tfS 7.tbg3
~g6 8.0-0 e6 9.d4 .td6, and Black is fine,
Bosman- Van der Werf, Bussurn u 1992.
A2) 4...srs S.tLJg3.tg6
- 6..tb5 'iWd5'!7.c4 1id6 R.d4 0·0-0 9.0-0
a6 10..txc6 'iWxc6 II.~f4 was
Garbarino-Needleman, Buenos Aires 1993.
Of course Black should play 6 ...... d6.
- 6.d4?! Q:.b4! is primitive but effective:
7..tb5+ c6 R.~a4 ~a5 9.c3 4~d3+ 1O.~fl
tDf6 II.~c2 tDxcl 12.... xc l e6, and Black is
slightly better, Marquardt-Ott, Bad Wiessee
1998.

- 6.h4!? is interesting.
- 6 ..tc4 e6 7.d3 a6 8 ..ad2 h6 9.~e2 -8f6
I0.0-0 ~e7 II.a4 0-0 with equal chances,
Bertholee- Ljubojevic, Antwerp 1997. Black
later won in great style.
B) 4.~c4 srs (4...~h6!,! 5.d3 Cd5
6.t2Je2 g6 7.~d2 ~g7 8.Ad e5, and Black
was slightly better in Kristensen-Nd.Fries
Nielsen, Aarhus 1981) 5.tt;g3 .ag6
- 6.~f3 e6 7.d4 t;\f6 8.0-0 Jl.e7 is fairly
equal. Figueroa-Paz, Mar del Plata 1991.
- 6.h4 h6 7.h5 .ah7 8.:bf3 e6 9.d3 tL:f6
1O."ilie2 ~e7 looks like an easy Caro-Kann
for Black. Bibik-Tarasov, L<lhli 1999.
- 6.lZ::le2 e5 7.d3 4_';f6 8.0-0 ~c5 9.ke3
~xe3 1O.fxe3l/:g4 11.~c I ~g5, is OK for
Black, Schlindwein-Hammes. German
U- 17 Championship 1991.
4__
:ii'd5!
Beating the Van Geet
Excellent! Black ignores his typical develo-
ping scheme and opening rules like 'don't
play the queen too soon'. Her majesty can
perform miracles from the central d5 square.
She attacks two minor pieces, defends c6
and eyes the diagonal a8-h I (in particular
the g2 square).
5.'iVe2
White lost the thread in Den Hartog-Konijn,
Hengelo 2001, with 5.~c3 "i'xg2 6.~f3
~h3.
5...~f5 6.ti)g3
6.f3 is too ugly to consider, but having got
this far. White should probably swallow his
pride lind play 6.~xc6+ ,*xc6 7.d3 ~f6
8.tbxf6+ 'i'xf6=F, as in Sziva-De Kleuver.
Dutch Women Championship 1998.
6...'$'xg2
A curious moment. It is difficult to condemn
Speelman's move, which after all does win
him the game in a mere 13 moves. However,
if the analysis on move 9 holds up, then
6...'tYxg2 must be regarded as a mistake. Lu-
ckily, there is a strong alternative available
here in the form of 6...hc2!.
7.~e5!
The point of Plaskett's previous move. The
move 7.tLJf3 fails to 7 ...~g4, which wins on
the spot.
7 ...e6 8.'iWxc7
forced, as tl.f3'! does not trap the queen on
105
Jeroen Bosch

account of 8...~d6. White now threatens to

take on b7.
8...~c5

R 1 I
~
_R
j.~_i'tW

.t.t- -,
i
iii

A
.__

.--

~~~~
1:t
l

~
L

<;t>
• ttJ -
~'iJI~
ttJJ::t
D31) 1O.'tt'xb7 0-0 II. ... xc6 ~xf2+
12.wdl
exd5-+.
tDd5 13.~e7+ wh8 14.lUxdS

D32) JO.tlJg3 i.xf2+ II.'it»d I i.xg3

As there is no satisfactory defence to 12.... xb70-0 13.... xc6 0.e4-+.
White's threat Black has to counter-attack. 033) 1O.tL:d6+~xd6 II.ihh7 0-0, and
Play is razor-sharp and one mistake may de- Black is better.
cide the game. D34) IO..hc6+!? bxc6 Il.tiJxg7+ ,.pf8
9."f4 with two possibilities:
This is an admission of failure. D341) l2.li\xe6+ fxe6 13.... f4 <i;;e7
Executing the threat is no alternative: 14.1!H3 Axf2+ 15.We2 J;Ihg8. with nice
A) 9.~xh7 i.llf2+ (9 ...'ifi'x.1'2+? compensation.
1O.Wdl+-) IO.<jjJdl~g4+ II.tble2 .bc2+ 0342) 12.~f4 'lWxhl i3.tL:xe6+ <j;;c7
12..§LllC21:b8, and now, jf the queen goes. 14.tl~xc5 'iWxgl+ 15.'it»e2I:he8 16.d3 <t?r8+
bishop takes g3 decides, so White is forced 17...Q.e3~hal 18".!hf6..t>gR19.'i!fg5+,with
to play 13.~f1 .[3+ 14.~e2 'ifi'xhI+ perpetual check.
15.~xh I fhh7 16.lbxf2. and Black is an ex- 035) 1O.tL,xg7+~ -.pf8 and now:
change up.
B) 9.~dl tlJe7 10.'i!hb70-0and Black ix
fully developed and ready for execution.
C) 9.d4 ~xd4 I0.~e3 .be3 II.flle3 cc,e7
is good for Black, 100.
However. the next move needs to be investi-
gated in depth:
D) 9.li.'lxf5!?
D I) 9 exfS 1O.'ifi'llh7+-
D2) 9 1hhl io.en: <;tf8 II.'ti'xb7
nd8 12.~xc6 'ihh2 13.li)e3. or even 13.d4,
and in both cases White is better!
D3) 9...lCf6! This is best, the lines now
fork: 0351) not 11.'l'f4 ti'.d4 12.... xf6 "'xh I

106
 Beating the Van Geet

13.0.xe6+ ti:.xe614.'fhhS+ 'ii;e7. and Black pleasant edge.

wins. but 1O•.:~fxc6 11.d3 tDf6
0352) Il.lL~xe6+fxe6 12.d4! Black is fully developed and hal) no wea-
knesses. The opposite holds true for his op-

x
•• '1'
~
.i.t
.• ~

~
B ponent.
12 .....f3

~~~
~
•
~'iI~
I:l ~ W t2Jl:1
Now White has excellent attacking chances.
e.g. l2 ...... xhl13 ..Q.h6+ ~e8 14.0-0-0, with
a wi nning initiative. Also 12...~b4+ fails to
impress after 13.c3 'ii'xhl (l3 ...~xd4
14.~h6+ c;PgS IS.cxb4 tDxb5 I6.'Wte7+-)
14.~h6+ 'ii;eS 15.0-0-0.
In summary, White can make a draw with
9.li';xf5 ~f6 10.~xc6+ (line 0342). He
would even get excellent chances with
9.tLixf5~f6 JO.lt:xg7+ c;PfS II.tUxc6+ (line
0352).
9...0-0-0
Black has other options, but who could find
fault with this developing move that unpins
the knight as well.
10.~xc6
This is more or less forced, as JO.d3tbb4 is
awkward to meet: I J.~a4 .axd3; I Ut>dl
~xf2; I J.'ii'd2 ~xfl+.
Also bad is IO.i.fl ~d5 Il.c4 (I Li.c4
.txf2+ l2.<ttxf2 (l2 .... xf2 "'xc4)
12..... cS+ 13.q.,g2 :d4) 11...'~d4, with a
Defending the rook so that tbf5 could finally
be on the cards. The following neat tactic
puts an immediate stop to White's suffering,
though.
12 .•..ib4+ 13.~d2
There is no way out: 13.c3 .i.xc3+. while
13.~fI .th3+ wins the queen.
13 ...Vxc21
And Plaskett resigned. as 14.~xb4 '&!i'xb2
15.J:ldl 'ii'xb4+ 16.;PfJ ~xd3+ leaves him
three pawns down.
In conclusion, it is easy for White [0 go
wrong after 3 ...tbc6!? Indeed. after 4.~b5
'fi'd5! Black is already slightly better. The
position after 9.tLixf5!'!is worth analysing.
This move gives White the advantage. so
Black should refrain from 6...-'xg2 and play
6...~xc2 instead.

107
 CHAPTER 14
Dorian Rogozenko
A Latvian Speciality vs the Dragon
I~.t~~.t
ii
i ~i
Bishop Aggression 6.~g5 and 7.~b5
The Sicilian Defence is usually the biggest
problem for 1.c4 players. Some players pre-
fer to play 'Anti-Sicilian' lines, since there
are simply too many variations in Open Si-
cilians. Such an approach has some draw-
backs. though. the biggest one is perhaps
that once you are used to those Anti-Sicil-
ians you will find it much more difficult to
switch to Open Sicilian type of positions.
Here I would like to present a system that is
easy to study, but. at the same time. both am-
bitious and aggressive. It can also serve as a
good starting point for getting used to those
sharp positions with kings on opposite
wings. Does this sound too good to be true'!
LeI me convince you with the games below!
108
I
ii i
~
NIC KEY S115.1
1.e4 c5 2.l::,jf3d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.lj\xd4
tLif6 5.CL)c3 96 6.~g5
This is an old and somewhat forgotten con-
tinuation. White can connect it with two pos-
sible plans. In the beginning White players
used to follow-up with 'W1l2 and 0-0-0, in a
way similar to the Yugoslav Attack. Later
the Latvian Master Alvis Vi(olinsh found
new and dangerous ideas for While in a dif-
terent set-up: ~b5+. then 'iWe2 and 0-0·0.
This will be our present subject. In this sec-
ond case White can create dangerous threats
because of the central advance e4-e5. Black
must avoid quite a few traps in (his opening
line. and. he should actually know the theory
very well in order to avoid quick problems.
 A Latvian speciality vs the Dragon

From the modem OMs who employ this plan and now:
with White I should like to single out Alex- A) 9..J!Ya5?! IO/Db3 'WIc7 Il..hd7
ander Shabalov (another former Latvian). .ixd7 (I1..:~j'xd7 12.e5±) 12..txf6±
He scored 100% with it so far. although Lakes-Kahn. Balatonbereny 1996.
against much lower rated opponents. one B) 9...a6 l O..Q.xd7 .bd7 II.f4 (White
must add. has a typical slight advantage thanks to his
hetter control in the center and the constant
threat e4-eS) 11. ..~g4 12.tijf3 "'a5 13.ibb I
o Alvis Vitolinsb
• Boris Alterman
Naberezhnie Chalni 1988

1.e4 c5 2.ltJf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.4\xd4

tlJf6 5.ttJc3 96 6.~_g5~g7 7.~b5+

81) 13...:feS 14.h3.axf3IS.1lfxf3.::tac8

16.l:he 1 l:1c5 1Ute3 1:[ec8 1R.eS dxe5
19.fxe5 ~xe5 2().'~xb7 t1c8 21.b4 ~a3
2UheS ~xc3 23 ..::tc5 'l!ig3 24 ..ic I +-
Gy.Horvath-Ahn. Budapest 1996.
82) 13...:ac8 14.~xf6! exf6 (14 ....Jii.xf6
7...fi.d7 15.~d5±) 15.f5;!; Bratanov-Trent, Porto
The most natural and strongest answer. San Giorgio 20GO.
Another possibility is 7 ........
i:btl7 S.1Ve2 0·0 B3) LL~e6
9.0·0·0,

14.~.xf6! ~.xf615.lf'.d5~xd5 16.11xd5'i'b6

109
Dorian Rogozenko
J 7 .e5 ~g7 J 8 .I:hd I I:fd8 19.c4 :ac8 20. b3
dxeS 2 J .fxeS J:[xdS 22.:xdS as 23.J:[b5 ti'c7
24. 'tfe4 b6 2..H!i'd4 J:[b8 26.:dS a4 27.J:[d7±
Yurtaev-S.B.Hansen. Copenhagen 1991.
8.'li'e2 a6 9.~xd7+
9..,t2:;bxd7
Let us examine the alternative captures.
Let's stare with the artificial looking
9...tl2fxd7. Black plans to develop the
queen's knight on c6. but as usual the
absense of the other knight from f6 offers
White more chances for a kingside attack.
\0.0-0-0 ttx6 II..&e3 0-0 (it is probably
better to delay castling and play 1I...1:1c8
first) 12.h4lL:f602 ...hS I3.g4hxg414.h5is
dangerous) 13.h5!? (l3.g4 ....) l3...tl:xh5
14.tl)xc6 hxc6
15.lhhS gxhS 16.'iWxh5~.
110
Black may also take back with the queen:
9...'''xd7 10.0-0-0
- 10...0-0 " ..bf6 (ll.f4!?) II....bf6
12.~d5 ~xd4 13.l:!:xd4 tDc6 14.Ud3;;.
- 1O... lLlc6 Il.tLlxc6 'iWxc6 (1l...bxc6
12.cS±) 12.tiJdS;!;.
10.0-0-0
There is an interesting alternative at this
stage: 10.h4!? :c8 11.J:[h3 hS 12.0·0-00-0
13.wbl e6 14.tt~b3 J:[c6 IS.f4 fic7
16.l:lhd3;!; b5 17.a3 1:[c8 18.J:[ld2 l:rh8
I9.~dl b4 20.6Xb4l:!:xb4 21.e5 ~e8 22.'it'f3
Ciib6 23..id8! 'iWd7 24 ..i.xb6l:lbxb6 25.g4 ....
A.Frolov·Palk6vi. Siofok 1990.
10 ... 0-0 11.14 Uc8 12.tDb3 J:lxc3
A standard exchange sacrifice in order to get
counterplay. In the game White defends
pawn c3. then builds his own play, proving
that his chances are preferable.
13.bxc3 'fic714.r:d3;!; e6
I think that 14...tZlb6IS.nhdl (IS.e5?!~fd5)
15...~c4 would have kept more practical
chances fur Black. BUI not 15... l:!:c8 16.e5±.
15.f5 tile5 16.l:th3 exfS 17.exf5 llc8
18.l:ld1 'i!fc6
18...a5 19.fxg6 hlig6 (19 ...fxg6 20 .... b5±)
20.::1d4±.
19 ..ixf6 ~xf6 20. 'li'f2 as 21.fxg6
.RgS+ 2V;t.'b1 hxg6 23.'t!t'd4 a4
23...'i'xg2 24.11g3 'it'e2 25Jhg5 0f3
26.llxg6+ fxg6 27:ihd6±.
 A Latvian speciality vs the Dragon

24.lUd2 'i'b5+ 25.CitJal 83 26.Ubl i.d7 8.'tIte2 lUe6

'iWe227.ttJe4 i.e7 28.ltJxd6+- Exchanging on b5 brings no relief: 8....bh5
9.... xb5+ 'it'd7 10.0-0-0

K
*i &~ i.

•. ..
i Ai ~
ltJ ii 'iViiAi
i ..i
~ fI ~
i 8 ~ ltJ8
8 8 ~ 88 ltJ
\t>l:t ~8~ 8~8
\t>l::[ 1:
With precise play White has achieved a win-
ning position. Shabalov was twice successful from this po-
28 ...Ud8 29.'iWe4 'iitxe4 30.<1·',xe4f5 sition:
31.tL1f2 %td2 32.tDd3 ~f6 33.tLixe5 - 1O...tL:c6 1l.lDb3 &5 12.f4tag4 13.... e2
~xe5 34Jhb7 .l:Ixg2 3S..l:Ie3 1Ig1+ 'i'c7 14.h3 h6 15.i.h4 g5 \6.i.e1+-
36J:tbl lbbl + 37 .'~xbl ~xh2 38.c4 Shabalov-Chehayeb, Las Vegas1993.
In spite of all efforts Black ends up in a tech- - 1O...a6 I L'i!fxd7+ li:bxd7 12.f4 ~c8
nically lost position. 13.l::rhelh6 14,.ih4! g5 (14...0-0 IS.e5)
38 .. .';t;>f7 15.t2if5! ~f8 16.e5!± Shabalov-Leykekh-
38, ..f4 39.1::0 g5 40.c5 wt741.c6 '>t;c7 man. Newark 1995.
42.~d3 f3 43.~xf3 ~d6 44.1ha3+-; 9.0-0-0
38...g5 39.c5 g4 40.c6 i.c7 4L~e8+ cbn
42.1:c8+-.
39.c5 g5 4O.c6 94 41.Wcl ~d6
42.l1e3 !1i...c743.~dl f4 44.we2 ~eS
4S..l:Id3 ~bS 4S.e4 13+ 47.~f1 ii.c7
48.eS ~b8 49.<M2 ssr 50 ..::td4 .ab8
51J:td8 ~c7 52.l:td4 Qb8 53.ltxg4
~d5 54.1:a4 wxc5 S5..l:Ixa3 9;xeS
ss.exra i.eS 57.~e4 i.e7 58.Wd4
~b6+ 59.~c4 c.t>b7 60.Wb5 ser
61.tth3 jLb8 62.Uh7+ 1-0

o Alvis Vitolinsh 9 4.~xd4

• Leonid Yurtaev
Frunze 1979
1.e4 c5 2.lUf3 d6 3.d4 exd4 4.0xd4
lbf6 5.t2.:c3 g6 6.ii.g5 .ig7 7.~b5+
9 l:tc8 1O.~xc6 (A.Schneider's recommen-
dation of lO.tDxc6 bxc6 II.~a6 nbS 12.e5
seems far from clear because of 12.. .-1Ifa5!)
10...bxc6 11.f4 0-0 12,e5 dxe5 13.fxe5 tLJd5
14.Cilxd5 cxd5 15,u'hfl! (the correct move.

111
Dorian Rogozenko

It is instructive to see how in the next part 11.:td1 tLle4

White follows a 'dark-squared strategy', 17...h6 18..ie3 ~g8 19.1~~d5+-.
leaving opponent's light-squared bishop ef- 18.~e3 0.d6 19.:a7 tbc4 20.~c5
fectively without ajob. IS.e6? fxe6 16.tt::xe6 ~h6+ 21.<ot>b1 ~g7
..-b6! 17.lilxg7 1:1f2!+ Ghinda-Sax, Malta 01 21...4',d2+ 22.';Pal ll,'.e4 23.~b6 nb8
1980) IS ... nh8 16.c3 %1b6 17.l:rf2! a5 24.tt;:d5 e6 25.~c7+-.
18.... e3 a4 19.a31i'c7 20.l:rel 'tWc42L~bl 22 ..ixe7 llb8 23.0.e6+ cotg8 24.l:td8+
"'c5 22.Wa I! J:Ifb8? 23.lt:lf5! ~lt'xe3 ~xd8 25.lLixd8 Wg7 1-0
24.~xe7+ ~ 25.l:he3± Schula-Stoklasa,
Nymburk 1997.
The best move is 9...0-0 which leads to the o Alvis Vitolinsh
main line, see the next game. • Erling Mortensen
10.l:rxd4 Riga 1981

1.e4 c5 2.Qjf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.tj'·,xd4

~f6 S.ttJc3 g6 6.~g5 ~g7 7.~b5+
xd7 8."e2 CiJc6
This is the main line. Let us consider
kingside castling too. 8 ... 0-0 9.0-0-0 'i'a5
(9 ... i..xb5 IO.'iVxh5 ti:,hd7 II.f4 "lWb6
12 ..l:rhel ~xb5 13.0dxbS a6 14.tt;:c7 .l:rac8
15.~7d5 1:fe8 16.e5 dxe5 17.fxe5 tLixd5
18.l;Jxd5 <;t;>f8 19.e6t Vitolinsh-Itkis, Mos-
cow 1983) and now:
A) Less clear is 10.f4 ~g4 (10 ...<1\c6?
It is amazing that here Black already faces II.tDb3 ~b6 12.i..xf6 hto 13.tDd5±
serious problems. Shabalov-Vicary, Philadelphia 1993) 11.0f3
10._:"a5 ti.~h5Vitolinsh-Srnirin, Kuldiga 1987.
tDe8 (I1...dxc5 12Jhd7
IO ... ()-O Il.e5! B) 10.~bl J a6 (l0 .. .li'iC6?! is answered
tLxd7 13.1:dl+-) 12.exd6+-; 10...h6 by 11.~b3) 11.i..xd7 tt'xg5 (11 ...t;·,hxd7
11.e5! hxg5 J2.exf6 .hf6 13.:xd6+-. 12.f4!) 12M 1!ta5 13.~h3 tDc6 14.tLJb3
11.e5!± ~xb5 ~c7 15.f4 b5 (15 ...e6 16.g4 b5 17.h5!)
II...dxe5 12Jhd7 0xd7 13..l:tdI 0-0-0
(l3 ... 1:I.d8 14.'ii'g4 f5 !5 .... c4+-)
14.~xe7±.
12:ihbS+ 'IlWxb5 13.tDxb5 dxeS
14.tLlc7+ ~f815.l:tb4 nc8
15... :1bR 16.1Z1a6±.
16.l:txb7 a5
White is also winning after the immediate
I6. Ji:.e4 17..ie3 .tf6 18.llxa7 <i;g7 19.1:d I
lLd6 20.g4 h6 21.b3 l:lhd8 22.c4 e4 23.c5
li_je8 24.:txd8 llxd8 25.1:Ia8 1-0 Lakes-
Werner, Balatonbereny 1996.

112

B I) 16.g4! White has the advantage after
this advance: 16...b4 (16...h5? 17.lDdS;
16...lDa5? 17.e5) 17.llJdS 0xd5 IS.exdS
0.a5 19.1Dxa5~i'xaS 20.h5±.
82) 16.liJd5 16...~xd5 17.exdS 0.a5
l8.~"a5 ""a5
B21) 19.f5!? 'ifb4 20.c3 'iWxM
(20...~xc3 21.a3 'ifb3 22.nd3) 21.fxg6
hxgeee.
822) 19.'it'f3~?
823) 19.• d2'ifxd220Jbd2aodadraw
was agreed in Blodstein-Fedorov, Voskre-
sensk 1993. J believe that even after the ex-
change of queens White has the slightly
better chances.
9,0-0-0 0-0 10.~xc6
White bravely accepts the challenge to enter
the complications. But this is not the only
way. A good alternative is iO.tbb3.
White plans the standard attack with h4-hS.
If Black stops it by playing ...hS, then White
will continue as in the Yugoslav attack - f3
and g4.lt is worth mentioning that here Whi-
te has certain advantages in comparison to
the Yugoslav Attack: the bishops on g5 and
bS exert pressure on Black's position, which
together with the advance e4-eS can be real-
ly dangerous for Black. 10...ne8 (10 ...1»'c7?
1I ..bf6 exf6 12.lbd5± Anka-A.Horvath,
Balatonbereny 1993; 1O...a6?! 11..axc6
~xc6? 12.c5±) II.h4 a6?! 12..hc6 bxc6
A Latvian speciality vs the Dragon
13M 'it'b6 (l3 ...0xhS 14.l:txhS!? gxhS
IH!fxhS~) 14.hxg6 fxg6 l5.e5 lDd5
l6.tDxdS cxd5 17.e6 ~c6 18.• f3 l:lfB
19.• h3 h5 20 ..ae3 'f'b4 2 Uld4 .txd4
22 ..bd4 nf4 2H'g3 J:1g4 24.• xg4 1-0
Martmez-Calzetta Ruiz, Palma de MaJlorca
1992.
10...bxc6 11.e5 dxe5
Here Black has no choice and must sacrifice
a pawn. 1l... .. a5? L2.lob3 happened in sev-
eral games. Black can resign, since he is los-
ing a piece.
12.luxc6 '*feB
Again forced, as l2 .... c7? J3.tt'.xe7+ ~h8
14..1d6 ~xf6 l5.~dS is just bad:
l5 .1g5+ 16.f4 .hf4+ 17.tDxf4 exf4
18 e7 :rfd8 19.ttJd5 'iWb720.'iWf6+<i;>g8
21.ttJe7+ 1-0 Geldiev-Atabaev, Ashkhabad
2000 (2l...sPf8 22.:rdel and mate on h8
follows).
13.luxe5 .Q.e6
I
.t •
._
This is an important position for the whole
6..tgSline. Black sacrificed a pawn and has
long-term compensation in the fonn of open
files on the queenside, which is usually
enough in the Dragon to get good
counterplay. Nevertheless. the position of
Black's pieces is far from optimal yet, and
White has good control over the central files.
All this makes the evaluation very unclear,
with chances for both sides. I think that
113
Dorian Rogozenko

White has objective reasons to think that he tion too complicated, please keep in mind
should be able to defend and keep the extra that there were several playable alternatives
pawn. White's main task is to trade queens. available earlier on (IO.liJb3, 15.• b5).
Sometimes even after returning the pawn
and trading queens White will have the ad-
vantage in the endgame. This is due to either
a better control over the central squares, or
the better position of White's king which can
quickly support the queenside pawn
majority.
14.l:1he1
The best continuation for White. He must
bring all pieces into play.
14...~c8
Bad is 14.. J:rd8?!, because after l5,'t'b5
White achieves his aim: 15...'Uixb5 16J.Lixb5
~xdl+ 17.lhdl a6? 18.tC.c7 kf5 17.._~d5 18.lbb3 ~xb3 19.axb3 'ii'b8
19.tUc6+- Medvegy-Popescu, San Agustin 20.~xf6 ~xf6 2Vbd7 'li'xb3
1997. More interesting is 14.. .'.-c8!·! 15.f3 22.tiJxf6+ exf6 23J:le2 ~fc8
(15.'llfb5 'We7 16.... c6 "'a5 17,'i'b5 'it'c7 23...~b8 24.1lhfM.
18.'ilfc6 \\VaS 19.'ti'b5 V2-V2 Vokarev- 24.'li'xc8+ J::I.xc82S.J::I.d8+ lbd8
Fedorov, Krasnodar 1998) 15...Irb8 16.I:f.d3 25 ...<;t>g726.U.xc8 again White has some ad-
~b7 17.b31Hc8 18.g4 ~b4 19.'~d2 '@'a3+ vantage, according to Mortensen.
20.~bl a5 21.ti'c1 '*b4 22 ..trl2 ~c5 26.cxb3 ~f8 27.~c2 ~d6 28.b4:e6
23.t;~a4 'l!ib5 24.tbc3 'f'c5 25.tt·,a4 'it'b5
26.~a3 ~5 27.f4 lbb4 28.~e3°o f6?
29.~bxg6 hxg6 30.I:f.xe6 'ilfd5 31.J:[e2±
Kiss-Wukits, Aschach 1992.
15Jlta6
Mortensen wrote in his comments that
White is slightly better here.
Serious attention deserved 15.~b5. For in-
stance:
A) 15...'ii'xb5 16.lbxb5 a6 (l6 ....c:05
17.t~xa7±) I7.tLd4±.
B) 15...~g4 16.t'Qxg4 .b.g4 17.~xe8
I1fxe8 18D i.xc3 (I8 .....te6 19.t!;(5)
19.rLxe7 l:h.e7 20"txe7 .te6! 21.bxc3 ~xa2 29J:txe6??
22.rLd7;t. An incredible blunder. After 29.I:f.d2 White
1S...l:c716.t'~b5 l:c517.t'ild4 is slightly better, though a draw is the most
The present game is the only one available likely outcome.
with this position, therefore it is impossible 29...fxe6-+ 30.~d3 We7 31.Wc4
to give a tina! verdict. More practical tests ~d6 32.f4 h6 33.h4 h5 34.bS e5
are needed .In case you find the present posi- 3S.fxe5+ fxeS 36.b4 We6 37.'5t'cS ~f5

114
 A Latvian speciality vs the Dragon

38.~d5 e4 39.~d4 <M4 40.b6 axb6 meet 6.~gS. which actually means that
41.b5 0-1 6.~g5 certainly deserves more attention
from White players. Indeed, not all your op-
The general impression from this game is ponents will be willing to playa positional
that although the normal result should have pawn sacrifice right from the very beginning
been a draw, Black was the side fighting for of the game. Thus, in practice. you may well
it. The variation from the last game repre- encounter some of the other. less promising.
sents in my opinion the best way tor Black to lines for Black.
 CHAPTER 15
Mihai Grunberg
It is Better Playing White
88 88!J88
:gttJ~~<;t>~
1.tbf3 d5 2.c4 d4 3.c5!?
1.~f3 d5 2.c4 d4 3.c5!?
The story of this variation is quite simple.
It was born out of a natural desire to play
something new. Something that had not been
analysed by the theory sharks. who are eager
to push their analysis to the 25th move
and beyond. In Stefan BUcker's book Der
Geier: fin Hypermodernes veneidigungs-
/\(m,,('pl gegen I.d4 (Frunckh. Stuttgart
19R6) I found the following original varia-
tion: I.d4 C~f6 z.en c5 3.d5 c4!? BUcker
called this line the Habichd l'gotcha') its
main idea being to encircle the d5-pawn to
win it later on. I played this line successfully
with Black. Later 011 I decided that it would
116
ttJ
:g NIC KEY RE 13.1
be even stronger to play this idea with
White'
The idea of playing openings with reverse
colours comes from the brilliant Danish
grandmaster Bern Larsen. There is a com-
plex and interesting philosophy behind
playing lines with the advantage of an extra
tempo. U nfortunatcly, such an approach
docs not guarantee automatic success. Un-
less your opponent blindly plays the main
line as he would play with reversed colours.
Be that as it may, the line we will e-xamine
here will certainly present your opponent
with plenty of practical problems to solve
over the board.
 It is Better Playing White

o Mihai Grunberg B) 3 ...c6 4.'iic2! iid5 S.e3 (S.e4!'l

• Cristian Popescu dxe3ep 6.fxe3 kfS 7 .d3 ~g4 8 ..!L!bd2and
Romania n 1998 White is slightly better) S...~fS (S ...e5
._-_._ ...._---------- 6.b4;1;;) 6.~c4 d3 (6 ... dxe3 7.fxe3 (uf6
1.~f3 d5 2.c4 d4 3.c5!? 8.tLJc3 "-xc4 9 ..hc4 e6 lO.d4 with equal
The idea of this move is to block the c5 squa- play) 7.'~t'b4t ttJd7 (7..... d7 8.0.eS 'i'e7
re for a natural defender of the d4-pawn. and 9..bd3t) 8.... xb7 :tb8 9.'tIha7 eS IO.~e3
io free the c4-square for the knight or bishop. 'ilYxc5 11.'''xc5 ~xc5 12.lZ;h4 with a win-
Approximately the same reasoning lies be- ning position.
hind the move 3.b4. C) 3...li.:.c6 4 .... a4 i.d7!? (4 ... 'tWtl5trans-
However. in my opinion Black is OK after poses to the main line) S.lCxd4 e5 6.t;\xc6
both 3...c5. and 3 ...g6 followed by c5. Two ~xc6 7.'''c4 'tWd4 8.'tWlld4 exd4
examples by Predrag Nikolic from the
Bosna tournament:
- 3.b4 cS 4.e3 dxe3 S.fxe3 cxb4 6.d4 g6!?
7.~d3 i.g7 8.0-0 (uh6! 9.lUbd2 0·0 1O.~e2
~fS 11.1Ue4 tL:c6 12.~b2 'fjc7 n.h3 e5=i=
Seirawan-Nikolic Sarajevo 1987.
- 3.M g6 4.g3 ~g7 S.d3 e5 6.~g2 Ci:,e7
7.0-0 0-0 ltCjjbd2 as 9.b5 es: IO.bxc6ep
~exc6 II.J;tbl ~6 12.CDel J:te8 13,cDc2
lUab4 14.l:tb2.i.f8 15.a3 tL;a6+ Dizdarevic-
Nikolic, Sarajevo 1987.
3..:i'd5

9.b4 a5 IO.~b2 axb4 II..ixd4 tUh6 12.a3

bxa3 13.l:txa3 ::txa3 14.-t;xa3 liJf5 IS.e3
t2xd4 16.exd4= h6 17.l!}c4 bxc S lR.ti'ie5
~d5 19.~.h5+ We 7 20.dxc5 we6 21 .Cud3.
D) 3 ...e5! 4.tbxe5 i.xc5 5.b4! (5.~a4+
~d7 6.e3 C~f6'F is less promising for White)
when Black has a choice:

Attacking the c5-pawn and supporting e5.

There are plenty of alternati ves at this stage:
A) 3...~6 4 a4+ (4.c6!? tbc5 5.~c2
'tIfd5 6.b4;t) 4 <:6 S.'tIfxd4 'ti'xd4 6.{~xd4
-Lxc5 7.ttjf3 g6 8.d4 lUe4 9.~c3 Ci:.gf6
I0.M4 $i.g7 II.$i.eS 0·0 12.e3 and White is
slightly better,

117
Mihai Grunberg

DI) S...~c7 6.'ii'a4+ c6 7 ...Ilt.b2 ~f6

S.tLif3 bS 9."ifb3 i.e6 1O.~d3 .ixb4 :i~ .A~2
iii..t iii
•
I I.'tlh d4 VJke7 12.'*'h4 ~bd7 l3.e3 l:ldS
14.~e2 0-015.0-0, with equality.

~ i •
<iJ •

t::,~ ~~~t::,~
~ttJ~ c;t>~ 1:[
A) 7.0.c2 .ixcs 8.b4 .i.d6 9.Cilc3 tL:;f6
lO.a3 c6 Il.g3 as 12.bxa5 ~a6 l3.l;';a4, with
compensation.
B) 7.0.b3 tLia6 (7 ... aS!) 8.d4 exd4 9.e3
llJxc5 1O.<i::xd4tLif6 Il.lDc3 0-0-0 12.~c4
D2) 5...~b66.'i!fa4+(6.0.c4?0.f67.~b2 lLife4, unclear.
0-0 8.a3 .ie6 9.lDxb6 axb6~; 6.a4"!) 6...c6 C) 7.liJf3 0.c6 8.lLic3 Jtxc5 9.d3 lUge7
(6 ...tiJd7 7 .e3 ~\f6 S.$.b2 0-0 9./Uf3 l:leS 1O..id2 f6 I Ukl. with equality.
IO..ae2 tL:.e5 II.~xd4 .ag4 12.~:\f3 $.xf3 5.b4 e5
13.gxf3~) 7.~f3 ~g4 (7...t[:;f6 8.0.a3 0-0 The most natural move, 5...i.g4 6.tba3 eS
9.e3 .ig4 lO~e2 tbbd7 11.0.c4 neS 7.h3 (7.tZJb5!? cutting off the option to castle
12.~b2oo) 8.0.a3 tLif6 9.e3 .ixf3 JO.gxf3 queenside, also deserves attention) 7 ...~xf3
'i!fd5 II.~e2 (7 ....i.hS 8.g4 ~g6 9.ii.g2oo) 8.exf3! with a
good game for White after i.c4, 0-0, f4.
6.e3 Qd7
Inferior is 6 ...a6'1! 7.b5 "iixc5 8..aa3 0.b4
9.bxa6+ c6 1O.'iWxb4~xb4 11.~xb4 ~xb4
l2.liJxe5±; 6...i.g4 7.iLe2 ~xf3 (7 ...0-0-0
R.~b2) 8.~xf3 e4 9 .iLe2 d3 IO.~d I planning
0-0, f3, ..Ilt.b2, and White has a good game.

And now 11...lL)bd7 12. Wb3 with equal play.

or 1l...~g4 12.ttJc4 ~c7 13.e4 'ii'd8 14.fxg4
d3 15...Ilt.b2 dxc2 16 .... c2. unclear.
4:.-a4+ tLlc6
4 ....id7!? (perhaps the move which solves
Black's problems in this variation) S .... xd4
1!hd4 6.lGxd4 e5

118

7.bS'1hc5
7",tljd8?! 8,~c4 'i'e4 9.~\c3! "f5
(9...dxc3?? IO.~xf7+ t;"'xf7 1J.lt'xe4+-)
IO.lDd5q,ie6 11,c6 bxc6 12,bxc6 .Q.c8
13.0-0 dxe3,! (I3 ...lDe7 l4.cxd4 ~xd5
15..bd5 exd4 16.~xe6+-) 14.fxe3 .td6
IS..i.a3$:xa3 16.tL'<I4!'i'xf1+ l7.lhfl ~d6
18.<tb5 C,\e7 19.~';xd6+ cxd6 20.ti~b6 1-0
Grunberg-Rahman, Cairo 2000.
8.tL;a3!
Moving the knight to the edge is stronger than
8.:ib2 dxe3 9.bxc6 ~xc6 IO.M exf2+
l1.~xf2~xa412.dxc5 ~.xc5+ 13.:.tel f6ro.
8 ...ti',b4
Here 8...'itb4 is mel by 9.ft'e2. Alternative-
ly. 8...c4 leads to an interesting position after
9 .bxcf J.xc6 IO.~bS ex!'3 I 1..Jtx(;6+ 'IIV xcf
12.'i'xc6+ bxc6 13.gxf3~.
9.Qb2 dxe3 10.be3 ~d6 11.d4 'lWdS
12..ic4..-e4
It is Better Playing White
White has won some useful tempi to deve-
lop. Now, however, the queen appears to
have taken up a threatening position.
White's next move demonstrates that the
first player is still in control.
13.0-0-0! .!L;h6
l3...~xe3+ 14.~bl e4 l5.llhel ~f4
16.lbc5±,
14.l:the1 0-0 1S:.-b3 exd4
Or 15....tg4 16.dxe5 ~c5 17,.td4 ~e7~.
16.l:txd4 We7
Stronger is 16 'ii'g6 17.~xd6 tQxa2+!
(I7 ...• xd6?' 18 (;) lbfS 19.r1dl 'fie7
20.e4+-) 18. 'if xa2 cxdoco.
17.1Wc3 tUfS 18.l:'lg4
Black resigned.
When the joy of this victory had subsided, I
remained worried because of the variation
starting with 4....id7. which seems to solve
all problems for Black.
Trying to improve the variation I have found
a line which in my opinion leads to a compli-
cated light still offering White good chan-
ces. So at the fourth move there could follow
instead of 4 .• a4+.
4.e3!?
This leaves Black the following options:
A) 4 ...dxe3 5.fxe3 'ii'xc5 6.d4 'ft'h5
7.tLic3 tLif6 8.e4 c6 9..i.e2 with a strong in-
itiative for the pawn.
Mihai Grunberg
B) 4 ...tUc6 5.exd4 t;\xd4 6.~a4+
7.d4 and White ha s the advantage.
C) 4 ...e5 and now the strange
S.b3l?
~c6 Cl) 5 ...~xc5 6.~c4 ~d6 7.lbgS tbh6
8.tDe4 ~e7 9.~xeS ~xc5 1O.~a3 offering
move nice prospects to White.
C2) 5...~xc5 6.~a3. followed by i.xf8.
leading to an unbalanced and complicated
position where White has good chances.
The conclusion would be that 4."a4 is the
right reply to the move order 3... tDc6 and
4 ... ~d5. When Black plays 3 ...'fI'd5 the re-
action 4.e3 is more promising. Of course it is
difficult to draw a final conclusion, as long
as (here have been no top grandmasters who
have employed (his variation. Anyhow it is
clear that this SOS line leaves a lot of room
tor improvising, personal analysis. and
stands for a genuine confrontation of ideas.
 CHAPTER 16
Glenn Flear
The Solid but Tricky Fianchetto Spanish
1.e4 e5 2.<1:Jf3t2Jc63.~b5 g6!?
One of the best qualities of the regular Spa-
nish is its solidity. Classical development
plus a strong point on e5 give Black a solid
game. even if White has more options.
One of the downsides is that White can
meet 3 ... a6 with 4 . .ihc6. The Exchange Va-
riation is acknowledged by most as pretty
dull and against sensible White play it's
hard for Black to generate winning chan-
ces. Of course 4.1ii.a4 i~more popular, bUI
navigating all that theory can be hard work
and even then getting full equality is no
easy matter.
An interesting try for Black is 3 ...g6!'! where
Black threatens to develop his king's bishop
to g7. In a number of Iines where ~xc6 gets
NIC KEY RL 3.1
played Black gets a more dynamic game
than in analogous positions from the pure-
exchange variations.
To hope to punish his opponent White would
really like to play more vigorously in the
centre before Black can complete his deve-
lopment. With this in mind the sharper lines
with 4.<.14arc critical and sumetimcs dange-
rous ... but for both players!
In my opinion, Black's 'Fianchetto Spanish'
sets White new problems and it's not that
easy for him to gel anything concrete out of
the opening. Perhaps the best try after l.e4
e5 2.ti~f3 41c6 3.i.b5 g6 is to play 4.c3 a6
5.~c4! with some chances for White to ob-
tain typical Spanish-pressure.
121
Glenn Flear

Play through the following lines and see if easier game than in many lines of the Ex-
you can be tempted to put your kings bishop change Variation. 8.0b3 (or 8.ttJe2 .i1l7
on g7! 9.t;\bc3 0-0-0 1O.~e3 f5= 11.0-0-0, Y2-Y2
Komliakov-Malaniuk, Krasnodar 200 I)
o Yakov Geller A) A simple way to develop harmonious-
• Evgenia Ovod Iy is 8 ...b6 9.c3 (White presumably didn't
Novaya Ladoga 2001 like the idea of 9.tLic3 being met by
9 ....*-xc3+!'?) 9 ....ib7 1O..if4 0-0-0
1.e4 eS ViJf3 0.c6 3.~b5 96 4.~xc6 Il.lijld2 ~f6 12.f3 ~7 13.I:dl ttJe5,
dxc6 Bazan-Soppe, La Falda 1977.
B} 8 ...0.f6 9 ..!Dc3liXl7! ? (also interesting
is 9 ...0-0 IOn tbe8 11..~d2 0.d6 and the
c4-square is beckoning) 1O..id2 (I O.~f4
tL:;e5 11.0-0-0 0-0 12. f3 b6 leaves B lack so-
lid and the knight on e5 is nicely installed)
](La5 II.a4 0.b6!? 12.li::d I?! (too passive-
instead. l2.~f4! is best) 12...lbc4 13..ic I f5
and Black was already better in Kerkay-
Lein, St Paul 2000.
5...Qg76.0-O
The immediate 6.li::bd2 doesn't give Black
time to get his knight 10 c6. However, after
6 ...llJh6 H::'c4f6 8.~e20-09.h4 ~e610.h5
S.d3 g5 Il.ttle3 J:e8 12.tt::h2 'Et'd7 13.~d2 ~~ffl
Just like in the regular Exchange Variation 14.'l!rfJ :.tg7 15.a3 ~c5 16.%ldl :lad8,
White should not take on e5 (because of Vasiukov-Mi.Tseitlin, Budapest 1989.
5...~d4). Likewise, nothing is gained by im- Black had a dynamic position.
mediately creating the kingsidc majority 6 ... cS 7.tL:bd2 0,e7 8.lDc4li::c6
with S.d4. After 5 ...exd4 6.'i'xd4 'iYxd4 Black already has comfortable develop-
7.tbxd4 §Lg7 ment.
9.84 0-0 1O.h3 ~e6 11.Qe3 b6
12.il'd2 'Wd713.b3
~ 1.
....
.........

•
the bishop is nicely placed and Black has an

122
 The Solid but Tricky Fianchetto Spanish

13 ...f5! 'WgS l4.~d2 turned out in White's favour in

Taking the initiative. Conlon-Trent. Scarborough 2001.
14.extS gxfS 15.~h6 14 16.~xg7 7.exd5
'ir'xg717.';t.'h2 ~d5 18.... e2? Pushing the h-pawn - 7 .hS - is well-met by
Here l8.l:!g I holds things together for the 7...~g4!?
moment, bUI after 18... l:lae8 19.J:lae I .ce6 7...~xdS 8.i.g5 f6 9.~d2 tDxc3
Black has pressure. 10.bxc3 ~d711.h5 0,e712.~c4
18...li';d4! 19."xe5 ~ 2O....wxg7+ Otherwise 12..txd7+ 'i'xd7 13.h6 ..\tf8
~xg7 21.gxf3 ~xc2 22.l:rg1+ Wh8 14.J:tb 10-0-0 is fine for Black. Note that the
23.l:f.acl C~d4 h6-pawn is in danger of eventually being
And White's pawns are a total shambles. rounded up.
24.l:rg4 ];lae8 25.85 Q~,xb3 26 ..l::rbl 12...jLc6 13.'it'e2 'i"d6 14.a4 0-0-0
tbd4 27.8Xb6 axb6 28.l:ra1 tUxf3+ lS.h6 ~f816.0-0 ttJt517.~fbl ttJxh6
29.Wg2 ~el+ 30.<'\;f1 tLlxd3 3U~a7 The great Capablanca can', tind any com-
J:!.e1+ 32...t>g2 f3+ 33.'~h2 lbxf2 pensation.
34.l:rh4 J:!.g8 0-1 18.~e3 a6 19.d4 e4 20.~d2 f5 21.g3
lL:g4 22 ..tf4 'i"16 23.lcb3 g5!
Mr Cole's technique is convincing and he
now wins without any problems.
o Jose Capablanca 24.~cl J:!.e8 25.~1 ~h6 26.~el
• W.Cole "f¥h1+ 27.~f1 e3 28.fxe3 ~d6
London simul1913 29.~xh1 i.xg3+ 3O/Jte2 ~xh1
3VtJcS
1.e4 e5 2k:f3 ces
3.~b5 g6 4.tUc3
~g7 S.d3 tLJge76.h4!?

31...f41
The big f-pawn is more important than the
A typical reaction for some folk against fian- exchange.
cheno-developments, 32.~e6+ J:[xe6 33.ti\xe6 f3+ 34.'~d3
6...d5! 01"12+35.~c4 tI.le4 36.~3 f2 37.~a3
Central action is {he right answer! ~g2 38.d5 h5 39..1e7 Ilg8 40.c4 .1e5
6...tLJd47.h5 co 8.~a4d69.~g5 h61(}.~xe7 41.tDd4 ~xd4 42.Wxd4 llJd2 43.J:[dl
f:rxe7 II.hxg6 fxg6 l2.luxd4 exd4 13.~e2 f1'W' 44.r1xfl tUxf1 45.e4 h4 0-1

123
Glenn Flear

DAnna Zozulia 10...~a6

• Julian Radnlski Also worthy of further tests is to ...f6, e.g.
Marseille 2004 II.e5 (if 11.~bd2 then J 1..:iVb6) 11...'iWb6
12.~h4c5 13.cxf6wf8 14.J:[c1 trxf6
1.e4 e5 2.lbf3 ~c6 3.~b5 g6 4.d4
exd4 5.~g5 soa
6.~xe7 'i'xe7
7.~xc6

15.... c4 (after J5 .... e4 :tb8 16.Wc8+ ~g7

17.4·:hd2 Black simply develops with
J7...~h6) 15...d6 16.~hd2~f5 17.J:.e3 !!e8
7...'iWb4+!? I gJhe8+ Wxe8 19.'iWa4+ Wd8 2{).J:[e t t1::,e7
The main line continues 7 ...dxco 8. ~xd4 21.c4 g5 22.Ci;b3 Elf8 23.'iWxa7 g4
tN6 9.li\c3 Jtg4 IO.t;:;d2.cS with a reasona- Szewczyk-Ziemacki, cr 1998. and Black
ble game, but the text is more ambitious. was on top.
B.c3 ;\Wxb2SJ!S'xd4bxc6! 11.~xh8 .ixf1 12.'a'xg8+ ~e7
13.~xa8~d3

Far stronger than 9 ...~xa J '! as after to.()-()

f6 tt.e5 dxc6 12.exf6 White has a killing at- Black has a rouk and piece less, but because
tack. of White's back-rank weakness he wins all
10.0-0 the material back and even comes out a pawn
1O.'iWxh8?? gets mated after 10... ~cJ+ up.
II.~c2 i.a6+ 12.<.:4.hc4 mate. 14.h3 ~xa1 15.itxa7 .i:.xb1 16.~d4

124

~xa2+ 17.~h2 ~e6
The Black queen is out of play, so White
should use her extra time to win back the
pawn and just about equalize. Nevertheless
Black's opening idea has been a clear suc-
cess.
18.'fWc5+ WeS19_lbg5 ~d1
20.e51
After 20.lf.xh7 'ilkd6+ 21.'i!fxd6 cxdn
22.tt"gS ~c4 the advantage of bishop over
knight is rather nominal and a draw seems
likely,
20..:~d5 21.1»'83 h5 22.1tJh7 WdS
23.tDf6 Wa5 24.'i'd4 'it>c825.f4 ~a2
2S.'ij'c5 ~d5 27.'i¥fS+ c;Pb7 2SJWb4+
~a6!
Hiding from checks and forcing a very pro-
mising queen ending.
29.lbxd5 '&xdS 30.Wa4+ <;t>b7 fective perhaps While should consider
31.... b4+ 'tWb532."e7 '*c4 33.g3
33.'irxd7 is also hopeless after 33...'i'xf4+
34.<~)hI 'irc I + 3S.~h2 'i'xc3 36."xn
'ilt'xe5+37.<iPhl fj'e'+38.~h2'fibl and the
forward c-pawn is ready co advance.
33 ..:*e2+ 34.~91 'i'd1+ 3S.~h2
-..d2+ 3S.';.ith1 '6'dS+ 37.Wh2 c5 3S.c4
'i!t'd2+ 39.<;t.,h1"e1+ 40.Wg2 "e2+
41.-.tg1 'i'xc442.'i;lh2
Or 42.1\hd7 'tWd4+.
42 ...ita2+ 43.'~g1 'fWd5 44.<.1;>f2c4
45.ti'b4+ Wc6 46.'fWa4+ Wb6
The Solid but Tricky Fianchetto Spanish
47.'*i'b4+ 'itb5 4s:iI'd2 c3 0-1
White resigned as 49.*xc3 is met by
49 ...'i¥cS+.
o Devaki Prasad
• Vasily Smyslov
Calcutta 1995
1.e4 e5 2.lL!f3 0.c6 3.~bS gS 4.d4
exd45.c3
A dangerous Gambit line recommended by
Khalifman. However, if Black is prepared he
can obtain a good position, read on ...
5...dxc3 6.ti\'xc3 ~g7 7.~g5
7 ...1S1!
Black does best to avoid this move. Instead,
moving either knight to e7 is playable, e.g.
7 ... Cf::,ce7KO-O (as this doesn't seem very ef-
8.~a4t? or R.'ird2) S...h6 9.~h4 g5 (also
possible is 9 ...c6 IO.~e2 g5 II.~g3 d5)
IO.~g3 l2:.f6 (I O c6!?) II.h4 g4 12.lbd4
O-O?! (I prefer 12 a6 13.~e2 d6) 13.eHjh5
14.thg4 tt:.xg3 I5.'ti'xg3 d6 I 6.cxd6 '1txd6
17. it xd6 cxd6 18.nad 1 ~g6 with equal
chances. Kalygin-Rornanov, Tulu 2003.
Or 7 ...Ci:Jgc7 8.tDd5 h6 9.~f6 i.xf6
10.Ci:Jxf6+'Wt;>f8 I J.'i'd2 (threatening to come
to c3 with a decisive effect. so Black must do
something about the intrusive knight)
Il...lLlg8! 12.lLld5 (naturally White tries to
125
Glenn Flear
keep the pressure on) 12... tL;f6 13.... c3 Wg7
14.0-0·0 l:te8 15.:hel
While has a lead in development and an an-
noying pin for the pawn, but Black can esca-
pe with my suggestion 15...d6! 16..txc6
(16.e5 can be diffused safely with 16...lUxd5
17Jhd5 wg8) 16...bxc6 17.... xc6 (I7.tN4
also requires the calm retreat 17...WgRoo)
17...Si..e6with a comfortable game.
Khalifman's analysis continues with the in-
ferior 15...a6 16~xc6 (I6.~c4 doesn't im-
press after 16...d6) 16...bxc6 I7.tZlb4 ~b7
18.0e5 d6 19.1t::exc6 .hc6 20.tDxc6 'WcB
21.h3! 'ile6 22.b3 ~h7 23.c5±. But if Black
has to give the pawn back anyway, he should
at least find a more opportune moment!
8.~f4lDe5
After !L.Ci;ge7 9.'»i'b3 a6 1O.~e2 d6 11.0·0
~d7 I2J:tac I ii'cSI3.nfdl Har Zvi-Ballon,
Agios Nikolaos 1995. White had strong
pressure for the pawn.
9.lUd4?!
Black's idea can be shown to be suspicious
after 9.'tWd4! lOxf3+ 10.gxf3 0.e7 II.~a4
tl.Jc6 (I1. ..a6!? I HWc5!) 12:"c4 a6 13.ttJd5
b5 14.... c3 l:ta7 15.~b3 tLoe5 (15 ... l:tb7
16.l:tc I) 16.~e3 l:tb7 l7.f4 tLJg4 18.~d4 c6
19.1:tcl with the initiative, Khalifman.
9...c610.~e2 CiJe711.h4 h5
Black halts the advance of the h-pawn.
12.... d2 d5
126
Now is the right time to strike in the centre.
13.0-0-0 0-0 14,li::'b3 b51 15.exd5 b4
16.'Da4 cxd5
and Black was on top.
o Andreas Duckstein
• Vasily Srnyslov
Bad W6rlshofen 1991
........... _----
1.e4 e5 Vbf3 tLlc6 3.~b5 g6 4.d4
exd4 5.tUxd4
This is analogous to Larsen's line of the Phi-
Iidor (l.e4 e5 VDf3 d6 3.d4 exd4 4.<tJx.d4
g6) or a line of the Three Knight" (l.e4 e5
Vof3 tL;<.:6 3,t'ilc3 g6 4.d4 exd4 5.tDxd4). In
comparison. Black has a good version of
these in that:
I. He hasn't committed himself to ...d6.
2. The bishop on b5 isn't so great.
3. White doesn't have time for the 'Yugo-
slav Attack' (f3, i.e3. "d2, long castling
and h2-h4) because Black reacts quickly in
the centre with ...dS. Black easily equalizes
in the following sample lines.
5...~g7 6.~e3 tDf6 7.'Dc3 0-0
8.f3
Clearly, 8.0·0 can be met by S...tbg4!, for
instance, 9 .... xg4 t'uxd4 1O.~d3 d5!? (or
1O...d6 I Uifdl ~6 12.~c4 l:te8 13.:lel
~d7 14.... d2 ~c6 15.~d5 "'d7 I 6J:tad 1

llad8 Velikhanli-Mamedov, Abu Dhabi
2001, and Black has a satisfactory game)
II....g5 dxe4 12.lDXe4 .Q.f5 13.l:tadl h6
14.'i.hd8 ~axd8 15.c3 llfc8 16.f3 li:.c6
I 7.~f4 ~e5 with full equality. Belov- Vul.
Tula 2000.
8...(lje7
Black prepares to hit back with ...dS.
9.tbde2
Chrisrensen-Beliavsky, Copenhagen 20(.13,
went: 9.'\Wd2 d5! IO.e5 ttJd7 1l.e6 (be5
12.exf7+tbxt713.lbb3c614.~e2~f5,and
Beliavsky had already grasped the initia-
tive.
9... dS!
It's clear that hitting back at the centre with a
quick ...d5 is Black's right idea. Preparing
this with the preliminary 9...e6 also seems
effective e.g, 9...c6 IO..Q.e4dS! (better than
the over-enthusiastic 10...b5?! II.i.b3 b4
12.li:a4 d5 13.0-0 "'c7 Braslavsky-Krstic.
Salzburg 2003, because Black has unneces-
sarily loosened his queenside structure)
Il.exd5 lbfxd5 12.~xd5 cxd5 13.1!t'd2tbf5
14.~c5 l:Ie8 15.0"()d4, Vartapetyan-Koba-
lia, Herculane 1994. and Black was already
better.
10.exd5 tDfxd5 11.~g5
After II..ic5 Black can sacrifice the ex-
change for dark-squared dominance, e.g.
II...c6 I2.lDxd5 ~xdS 13.~xf8? i.xf8
The Solid but Tricky Fianchetto Spanish
14..Q.d3(14.tbc3? tlfe7+ 15.~e2 tDe3 with a
vicious attack) 14...tbe3 l5:~!t'd2tLlxg2+and
Black is much better. White's rooks are not
much help in stemming Black's strong ini-
tianve, e.g. 16.~f2 "'h4+! 17.t~g3
(I7.';Pxg2 ~h3+ IS.c;t;>gl~c5+) 17....Q.h3
with a winning attack.
'11••.c61Vi).xdS cxdS 13.c3 'it'd6
The isolated pawn is not a significant pro-
blem. White has problems to complete deve-
lopment and so has little hope of putting any
pressure on Black's centre.
14."d2
Taking a hot pawn with 14_.ixe7 'i'xe7
15.lItxd5 is dodgy because of the exposed
dark squares.
Furthermore Black has at least lS ...lldS
16.~e4 'il'g5 winning back the pawn and
perhaps more.
14...~c6 15J:l:d1~e6
16.C,2,d4?
16.~h6 playing for equality would have
been better.
16•.•lC.xd4 17.cxd4 l:tfc8 18.i.e3
18.0-0 'i'b6 19.~e2 ~f5 also leaves White
on the defensive.
18...'it'b6 19.~a4 l1c4!20.b3
If 20 ..ib3 then 20 ...l:Ib421.0-0 a5 and ...a4
is coming.
20 ...l:tc7 21.0-0 l:lac8
With a dear advantage to Black.
127
Glenn Flear
o Victor Bologan
• Vladimir Akopian
Moscow 2002
1.e4 e5 Vt:\f3 If.Jc6 3.~bS 96 4.c3 a6
5.~c4!
This could be White's best chance to keep
something OUI of the opening.
S•.•d6 6.d4 '&'e7
This bolsters the e5-point. The immediate
6...i.g7 often transposes. After 6...~g7
White can try 7.~g5 to try and disrupt nor-
mal black development:
• 7...1'6is a slight concession but Black can
still manoeuvre to equality e.g. S..ih4 Cilh6
9.dxe5 dxe5 lO.tlJbd2 'fie7 11.0-0 ci;17
12.b4 li'.<:d8 13.ll2el .Q.e6 14.t2lc2 ll2dn
15..he6 ~e6 16.lt:;e3 0-0 17.~b3 WhR
Magem Badals-Anic, France 2001.
• Even 7...lN6!? is playable as after
8.dxe5 dxeS 9.W'xdS+ tLJxdS IO.tDxe5
tLJxe4 11..i.xd8 Black equalizes with
11...~xe5.
• 7..."fi'd7!? 8.0-0 h6 9.~h4 -iJf6 1O.:el
0-0 I I.Cilbd2l:e812.a4b613.iJ1 ~b7with
just a minimal advantage to White (space,
flexible position etc.) Lobron-Salov, Wijk
aan lee 1993, but Black's position is hardly
worse than that in most other Spanish
variations.
7.0-0 §j_g7
128
K 1. ~ .. X
ii 'iWi.ti
"i.~~
8.dxe5
White opens the a3-f8 diagonal for his
bishop. S.dS (blocking the centre immedi-
ately releases the pressure) 8...'!L2d89.!ca3
f51? 10.exf5 gxfS 11.J:lelli\f6 12.Ag5lul7
13.YJ...h4 0-000, Computer XBP-Martinovsky.
Chicago 1994.
The most challenging is 8.h3! where White
retains the tension:
A) 8.,.tL.f6 9..c:el 0-0 lO.~g5 h6 11.gh4
g5 (1l...~e8,!! 12.lt:;bd2tiChS 13.tL:f1 tLJf4
14.~e3 with a pleasant edge to White.
Shirov-Giorgadze, Barcelona 2000) 12.~g3
tt':h5 13...'L\xe5dxeS 14.1hh.."iexd4 15..~d5
with a complicated struggle favouring White
slightly, Rytshagov-Vetemaa, Tallinn 1997.
B) 8...h6 9..'ie3 tljf6 lO.tLibd2 0-0
ll..c:e I ~h8 12.a4 b6 13.... c I ii.d7 14..i.f1
tLig815.dxe5 dxeS 16.ll2c4a5 l7.h3, Lanka-
Kortchnoi, Debrecen 1992. with a small
edge for White.
8...[~xe5
Also playable is 8...dxe5!? 9.b3 ~e6, and
now:
A) 10..ta3 'i'd7 (I0 .. :ttf6! II.~xe6
~xe6 12.'i'd5 '*f6 yields nothing tangible
for White) II.ti':bd2 &j~ge712.-iJg5 .hc4
13.tDxc4 h6 14.f:hd7+ $xd7 IS.:adl+
'>PelS16.tL;f3f6 favoured White slightly in
Cs.Horvath-Bcllini, Arnhem 1987.
B) 1O.'i'e2 lld8 II.tDbd2 (11.~a3 is lo-
gical bUI nut dangerous after II ....lhe4
 The Solid but Tricky Fianchetto Spanish

12.'ifxc4 'ii'f6 with ...eiJge7 and 0-0 to fol- jus, sit and wait. On the queenside White has
low) 11...tL!f6 12.0g5 .Q.xc4 13.lUxc4 ~hS the a-file and a target on c5 and 'he mighty
14.0h3 'ife6 15.~a3 ~f8 16.JLxf8 ~xf8 bishop on d5 is a nuisance for Black. So
17 .0e3 tL:f4 Y2-!h Varavin-Mukhametov, White has the better chances even without
Novosibirsk 1989. this loose move.
9.tLlxe5 dxe510.b3 tbf6 21.exf5 jt,xf5 22...wd1 .ah3 23.'ike2
If the note to 8...dxe5 is anything to go by %:tbe824.CLie4
then B lack can consider IO... JLe6! II..ia3 It's already hard to tind a satisfactory conti-
.-f6 against which I can't see anything to nuation for Black.
undermine Black's plan of ...0e7 followed 24 ...tDfS 25.tDxfS .xf6 2S.f4 ~f5
by 0-0 e.g. 12.~xe6 (l2.~d311d8; IV2.;d2 27.~xe5 ~xe5 28.fxe5
CLle7) 12...'t!rxe6 13.c4 Ci:Je7 14.tL:c3 lDc6 And White won easily.
(14 ...c6 yields an edge to White after
lS.-.d6; and worse is 14...()-O? which loses
material to IS.IUdS) 15.'ifdS ()5.~d5 o Krysztof Jakubowski
O-O-O!'!) l5 .. J:ld8~ 16.~xc6+ fxe6 with • Krysztof Spicak
equal chances. Polanczyk 2000
11.~a3 c512.~d5 0-0 13.c4
In S.Polgar-Smyslov. Munich 2000, 13.b4?! 1.e4 eS 2.<2.f3tbc6 s.ses g6 4.c3 as
led to a crushing Black win after 13...nd8 5.~xc6
14.bxc5 tllxe4 15.c41!fc7 l6J:el il.f5 17.g4 Another type uf exchange variation. The fact
tL:xf2'. that White has already played c2-c3 means
13..Jlb8 that be will have to rake into consideration
Perhaps 13... l%a7~? his d3-square.
14.tDd2 5...dxc6

14...b5?1
More solid is 14...b6! 15.'t!rc2 tL:h5 16.g3
~h8.
15.'Wc2 b4 1S.~b2 tLih5 17.a3! a5
18.axb4 axb419.g3 Wh8 20 ..I:lfe1f5?!
This essentially helps White but it's hard to
6.d4
The tluid centre doesn't worry the player
with the bishop pair.
After 6 ..sxeS the pawn can be recuperated in
two ways 6 ...... gS (6 .. :iWe7 7.d4 [6 8.tUf3
~xe4+ 9.~e3 ~d7 JO.ttJbd2 ..-f5 I UWb3

129
Glenn Flear

0-0-0 12.0-0-0 1i'b5 13.~he I ~hb3 14.axb3 Necessary was 9.8hd2.

b6 15.h3 h5 16.~e4 nh7 and Black had rea- 9...c5! 10.LDbd2? cxd4 11.~xd4
sonable chances, Della Mcrte-NDiaz, Tres 'ti'xd4!
de Febrero 2(03) 7.d4 'fi'xg2 IUWf3 l\txf3 And Black is already winning.
9.~xf3 SLg7 1O.~f4 ~g4 Il.tDe5 .i.e6 12.'ii'b3 "xb2 13·_"e3 .b6 14.tff4
12.tL:d2 0-0-0 13.0-0-0 f6 14.Cijec4 tL:h6 ~xf3 15.l:tab1.d6 16.• xf3 .xd2
IS.f3tZ::t7l6.b3b6 I7.Wc2'iPb718.h4tZ::d6 17.l:txb7'i'c318 .• d1 ~7 0-1
19.ci:;e3 ~he8 with balanced chances. Haan-
paa-Lehti. Helsinki 2001.
After the alternative 6.0-0 Jl.g7 7 .d4 (White o Alexander KhaJifman
can't get anything from the routine 7.d3 tL:e7 • Nigel Short
as Black simpl y completes development and Moscow 2001
then makes pressure against d3 a priority)
7 ...exd4 R.cxd4tDe7 9.tDc3 SLg4 IO.Qe3 0-0 1_e4e5 2.ruf3 t2]c6 3.~b5
II.h3 ~xf3 12.'ii'xf3 f5 (the cheeky Now after 3 ...g6 4.c3 a6 S.SLa4 d6 6.d4 play
12...i.xd4!'! is more ambitious) 13.,ig5 transposes to one ofthe principal lines in the
1ifd7 Black was OK in Chandler-Spassky, Steinitz Deferred Variation. There follows a
Vienna 1986. summary of how play might develop in this
6...exd4 7.cxd4 line.
This central pawn structure is prone to attack 3...a6 4.~a4 d6 5_c3 g6 6.d4 ~d7
down the semi-open d and e files as well as 7.0-0 i..g7
along the a l-h8 diagonal.
7.'~xd4 'ft'xd4 8.cxd4 (the white centre is
ripe for attack) 8.....Iig7 9.!2iC3 ~g4 lO.~e3
~c 7 11 .h3 SLxf3 12.gxD 0-0-0 13.0-0-0 fS
(Black continues to press against the centre)
14.t;~e2 l:I.he8 IS.:hgl .if6 16.Jl.g5 ~xg5+
17.:hg5 tL:d5 IR.eS c5 and Black was on
top, Marteau-Anic, Montpellier 2000.
7._.~g4 8.~e3 ~g7

Now White has tried several ideas. The best

chance for an advantage is to close the cen-
tre, exchange light-squared bishops and play
in King's Indian style i.e. A queen-ide push
acknowledging that Black will gain counter-
chances with .. .fS.
8_dS
Let us examine the alternatives:
A) 8.:tel t;~ge7
9.0-0? • 9.d5 Q';u5 io..bd7+ 1ifxd7 1 J.b3

130

Anand-Short, Merida 200 I, and now Black
should continue with Anand's suggested
ll...bS! 12.c4 cS! l3..ad2liJb7=. Instead of
II.b3 the game S.Polgar-Kamsky, New Del-
hi 1990, went 1l.lDbd2 b5 l2.b4 ~b7 13.a4
0-0 14.c4 cS and Black was OK .
• 9.~e3 0-0 10.lObd2 (lO.d5 ttJa5!)
1O... exd4 Il.cxd4 d5 12.c5 ttJf5 13.liJfJ
lOxe3 J4.lLlxe3 0.e7= Morovic Fernan-
dez-Gluckman, Bled Olympiad 2002.
• 9.dxe5 lDxe5 1O.l('lxe5 dxe5 11..~g5 h6
12.Ae3 ~xa4 13.1ha4+ 'tid7 14.'Uixd7+
<of;>xd7=Bertona-Soppe, Buenos Aires 2000.
B) 8.dxe5 (rather tame) 8 ...dxe5 (safest
but most dull is 8....t:lxe5 9JI..'.xeS dxe5
I 0 ..ixd7 + 'tt'xd7 11."'xd7 + Wxd7 12J:td I+
~e6= Bryzgalin-Malaniuk, Krasnodar
20(1) 9.Ag5 lUge7 (9...f6 is also possible)
lO.ttJbd2 0-0 II.[ilb3 'liVe8 l2.liJc5 ~c8
13.b4 f6 14.~e3 ~h8 15.~b3 tt'd8 16.tt~d2
£5 with counterplay despite a slightly con-
stricted game Ulibin-Safin, Abu Dhabi
2001.
C) Following S.j_gS £6 9.~e3 tUh6
1O.dxe5 Black can recapture with either
pawn to obtain a satisfactory game:
10...dxe5 (or 1O.. .fxe5 II..~g5 ~c8 12.f¥c1
tbf7 13.~e3 0-0 14.b4 tUfd8 15.tbbd2lL:c6
Nurkic-Mikhalchishin, Opatija 2(03)
II..tc5 .if8 12.'tfd5 ~xc5 13.'ti'xc5 "'e7
14.'tt'xe7+ Wxe7 IS.l?\bd2 thf7 16.h3 tUd6
17 .J::1fd1 l:thd8 IS.lDel lDa5 19.Axd7 .!lxd7
20.Wf! .!ladS Babaev-Malaniuk, Polanica
Zdroj 2001.
0) S..te3 ~f6 9.Q\bd2 0-0 IO.d5
(lO.dxe5 q~xe5 Il.li:;xe5 dxe5 J 2.f3 ~xa4
13.Wxa4 'ili'd3 gave nothing for White in
Topalov-Azrnaiparashvili, Madrid J 996)
10...tDe7 II.i.xd7 'i'xd7 12.lLlel ~g4
l3.~g5 f5 with adequate counterchances for
Black in Ye Jiangchuan-Short, Beijing 2003.
8...0.ce7 9.~xd7+
After 9.c4 Black has
AJ 9...b5!? gaining space on the queensi-
The Solid but Tricky Fianchetto Spanish
de. Then after 10.cxbS axb5 II.Ac2 h6
12.b4lilf613.tDc3 0-0 14.J:lel 1t'bS 15.~d3
c6 16.dxc6 i.xc6 17.1t'e2 d5 Black was
playing for more than equality, Tukhaev-
Malaniuk, Simferopol 2003.
B) or following 9 ...h6 lO.tile3 Black
should still continue with 1O.. .fS as in the
main game. Instead, JO .. .lbf6 is possible but
Black is slower getting his kingside playoff
the ground: 11.i.x.d7 + "'xd7 12.b4 a5
l3.~a3 axb4 l4jl.xb4 0-0 15.c5 QJh5
16.cxd6 cxd6 17.a4 l:ta6 18.tDd2 0.f4
19.tbb5 rs. Potkln-Kobalia, ICC (Internet)
2003.
9...'itxd7 10.c4 h6 11.~c3 f5 12,tue1
In Hamdouchi-Malaniuk, Groningen 1997,
Black stood well after 12.exf5 gxfS 13.ttJh4
~to! 14.f4 e4 15.'i'e I b5 16.g4 bxc4
17.lLixf5 ~xf5 18.gxf5 'ihfS.
12...0.f613.'3 O-{)14.lL'd3 9S 15.~d2
Black obtained enough counterplay follo-
wing 15.exfS tDxf5 16.ttJf2 liJd4 17.0.fe4
tbh518.~e3~f419.g3tDg620.~g2~f7in
Agnos-Smagin, London 1989.
15···0.9616.ttlf2
Black has made good progress, but there is
always a danger that he will miss his
light-squared ('good') bishop in the middle-
game.
16...f417.b411f71B.c5.atB
It's reminiscent of a King's Indian. Without
131
Glenn Flear

the light-squared bishops Black's kingside '{Wb5 30.l!fd1 1Le7 31.~e1 Ilfa
attack isn't as dangerous here, but he is at 3Vt:;c3
least well-prepared to create chances with White is better after 32.lt:.b2!? intending to
...g4. meet 32...f3 with 33.~xh4 ~xh4 34.gxD
19.tL!a4 ne8 20.l:tc1 hS 'Wxb435.<2;c4.
Another idea is 20 ...c6!? competing directly 32 ...thb4 33J:tb1 ~d4+ 34:it'xd4
for intluence in the centre. exd4 35.t'i':e2
21.c6 'iWcB 22.cxb7 ~xb7 23.~e2
l:tg7 24.l:tc6 llaB 25Jac1 0.h4 26.h3
g4

35 ...tt:;xg2!= 36.'it>xg2 f3+ 37.Wf1

fxe2+ 3B.<.t>xe2J::rxg4 39Jlxc7 1LgS
40.'itd3 l:tf3+ 41.\t>c4 nxe4 42.~b8+
The complications that follow should favour nf8 43.l:txf8+ \t>xf8 44.Jl.f2 ~e2
White. 45.~xd4 J::rc2+46.1Lc3 J:[xa2 47.'~b3
27.fxg4 hxg4 2B.(~xg4 tLlxg4 29.hxg4 te24B.l:tc6 "h."h
 CHAPTER 17
Jonathan Rowson
The Improved Nadanian
6,~a4 in the Grunfeld
1.d4 ~f6 2.c4 g6 3.tLic3 d5 4.cxd5
lUxd5 5,td3 fLg7 6.Q)a4
When Nadanian introduced 5/i"a41? a few
years ago. I was in the middle of writing my
book Understanding the Grunfeld. It was
clear that this move was just too cool to be
ignored. and that unless Black found a clear
antidote, it would soon charm its way to po-
pularity. In my book I wrote: 'One good way
to look at this move is simply to see it as ear-
ly prophylaxis. White realizes that Black's
main pawn-break is ...c5 and decides to put a
stop to it. He also realizes that his extra cen-
tre pawn is a long-term asset and is wary of
occupying the centre immediately ... It's al-
most li ke White can 'I believe his IU<.:kat ha-
NIC KEY GI 3.4
and G17.2
ving made the exchange of c- for d-pawn and
needs a move or \wo to get over the surpri se
before there are any further upsets!' Later in
the same chapter I added that 'As a general
comment, I think it is important not to under-
estimate the dangers present when White
just holds the structure with the pawn on d4
and prevents Black's central breaks. It may
seem that Black is in little danger when Whi-
te has not played e4, but it often turns out that
on completing development Black finds it
hard to do anything significant while White
can lise his slightly greater central control to
creep around the edges .. .' Therefore the tDa4
concept does put some pressure on Black.
most of all to find an effective pawn break.
133
Jonathan Rowson
Moreover, a well-prepared White player can
find ways to make these pawn breaks proble-
matic. For these reasons, 5.ttJa4 did indeed
become quite popular and was even used by
Kortchnoi to defeat Sutovsky. However, al-
though many Black players simply played
5...Ag7 and got on with the game, those who
studied the line closely came to the
conclusion that White had chances for an
edge there, but that S ...eS! was a more
challenging response.
~~ ~~~~
~ ~'iV\¥t~tbl:I
The challenging 5 ...e5!
Indeed, I recommended S...eS in my book
and it now looks like 6.dxe5 IL;c6! (Av-
rukh/Mikhalevski) poses some questions
about White's development to which nobo-
dy seems to have found an answer. In chess
we often make the mistake of rejecting a pro-
mising concept simply because we can't find
a way to implement it move by move. This
variation is a good example of how a little
flexibility can keep a concept ali ve, with just
a slight shift in move order. In this case,
White can simply wait a move before play-
ing his knight to the rim, and prevent the ...eS
antidote in the process. The drawback of this
approach is that the early commitment of the
knight means that White can no longer play
f3 and might run into i.g4 before he is ready
for it. Still, there is nothing to make tDa4 un-
playable and I can confidently state that
134
White is at least not worse in this line. So
should Black be scared'! I doubt it, bUI wit-
hout ... e5, it does mean that he is back to
working things out over-the-board and can
easily drift into a worse position if he fails to
find the right moment for a central pawn bre-
ak. Thus although this line may not impress
the world's elite, it remains an excellent sur-
prise weapon because you can pose your op-
ponent fresh problems with minimal risk.
Let's divide the material after 6.1oa4 into the
following lines:
A) Minor Alternatives
B) 6 i.g4
C) 6 tlJb6
D) 6 tlJf6
E) 6 0-0
F) 6 .tfS
Variation A
The following moves have not been very po-
pular in practice.
• 6 ...c6. Solid but a little passive. Putting
the knight on c7 raises some interesting pos-
sibilities for both sides, but this would not be
enough to put me off playing this way with
White. After 7.e4 4.~c7 8 ..te3 ~g4 9.i.e2
tDe6 10.e5 we have transposed into an analy-
sis by Nadanian. He assesses the position as
slightly better for White.
• 6 ...fS. There are no games with this dubi-
ous move. and I guess White should just con-
tinue developing with g3, ~g2 and 0-0 and
then slowly play for e4.
• 6...tlJc6. Nobody has tried this yet, and it
is probably too committal, but I'm not to-
tally sure. 7 .e4 ttJb6 IS.i.b5!? looks better for
White, bUI without practical tests I wouldn't
guarantee it.
• 6 ...tDd7 looks a little passive - White was
better in Toth-Gara, Budapest 1998, after
7.e4 ~5b6 8.Ae3 (or 8.Ae20·0 9.0-0 ttJxa4
1O.f1ha4 c5. In such lines Black has some

chances of equalizing, but the misplaced
knight on d7 also gives White chances to be
better) 8.. .lL'ixa4 9.... xa4 0-0 (9...c5 1O.:d I'
cxd4 11.~xd4! ~xd4 l2.1hd4±) IO.~e2
(also possible is IOJId I I?) 1O... ~f6 II.'ftc2
tbg4 12.0-0 (and here 12.~f4!'? comes into
consideration) 12...tL)xe3 13.fxe3 Ah6
14. 'ti' c3;t.
Variation B Variation
6...Ag4!?
Ambitious and quite critical but unexplored.
7 .~e5 ~f5!? leads to complications that will
favour the well-prepared player.
7.tLJe5
• 7 ...i.c8!'! Rowson. Not sure how good
this is, but such cheeky moves have always
appealed to me - in this case {i;b4 is some-
thing resembling a threat.
• 7 ...~f5!? Rowson 8.0c5' (S.e4 ~xe4
9.ci;c5 ~f6 1O.• a4+ wf8 II.tL:.xe4 {i:.xe4
l2 .... b3 l£Jd6 13.~e2~; 8.f3 tL:.b4! 9.e4
..-xd4! 10.'i.hd4 lLlc2+ 11.~f2 tUxd4
IVi.lxf7 ~d7! 13.tDxhS Axa4 14.tt·.:xg6
hxg6 15.b3 ~d7 16.~b2 c5 with a big edge
for Black) S...b6 9."'a4+ r;t>f8oo. I suspect
White has chances to be better here, but I'm
not sure exactly how he should go about it.
One idea is lO.g4!? ~c8 II...'tJe4 and now
I 1...f6 12.tL:.d3~xg4 13.i.g2 with a random
position - which is what you often get from a
The Improved Nadanian
random variation. However, for what its
worth, I think White has very good compen-
sation here .
• 7 ... ~xe5 8.dxe5 l2b4! Nadanian leaves
this with the assessment 'unclear' but my in-
tuition tells me that White should have a way
to be better here. 9.~h6!? looks like the best
place to start looking for the initiative.
C
6...~b6
This is quite sophisticated. White doesn't
have to weaken his centre with e4 but per-
haps he should, because otherwise it is diffi-
cult to prevent both ...c5 and ...e5.
Given a certain amount of accuracy this
move should not cause any real problems.
What follows is a vintage Griinfeld from
Jozsef Horvath.
7..tf4
Also interesting are 7.~g5~? and 7.e4!'!.
7...0-08.:'cl
I like 8..ie5 !? This is a liule hard to believe,
but it would bother me if Iwas Black.
8 •••tL:.c6 9.e3 eS! 10.i.gS 'itd6
11.tiJxb6 axb6 12.d5 tlJb4 13.a3 e4!
14.tDd4 tDxd5
And Black was dearly better in Topakian-
lHorvath, Austria tt 2002/03.
Variation D
6 ...~f6
Single-minded and probably slightly inferi-
or. This prevents e4 but there is more to ~a4
than that and White retains a space
advantage.
7.93
Here 7.i.f4!'? might be even more danger-
ous because it allows White to take control
of the c-file more quickly. The game
Friedrichs- Van de Mortel, Belgium It
2000/01. went: 7.~f4 0-0 8.e3 tDbd7. And
now. instead of the game continuation
9.Ae2. White should have played 9..l:lc I! c6
135
Jonathan Rowson

iO.tDc3 tL,h5!? with an unclear game. 1Wxgs33.l:tg1 1Wxg1+ 34.lUxg1 ttJg7

7...bS 35.~f3 ~f7 36.!~~g5+ ~e7 37.'i'h7
Browne- Yermolinsky, US Championship. rt;d7 38.ttJf7 1-0
Denver 1998. went 7.. /£.c6 8..2.f4 tDd5 9.e3 Zielinska-Bednarska. Zakopane II 2000.
~f5 lO.tbh4 ~d7 II.tbc5 b6 12.tDx.d7
'fi'xd7 13.l:tc I CLJd814.tL,tJ;;;.
8..ig2 .ib7 9.0-0 0-0 10.tel Variation E
IO ..iJ4!? 6...0-0
10.•.~)bd7 11/oc3 This is the automatic ami most popular re-
sponse. Now, after
7.e4 ttJb6
X1~ R~ move orders are critical but it is still not to-
~.i.~~~l.i.~ tally clear which one is best. Instead of

~=--
~ 7 ...ttJb6. Black sometimes plays 7 ...0f6.
After 7...0f6 play might continue: 8.~d3
_[ 6\ ~g4 (a good alternative is 8 ... e5 - Rowson)
~ 9.e5 ttJd5 and now IO.O-O'!fails to 1(l...~xf3
1-
Cjj Cjj £::, - (I0...tUc6 II..Yl.e4) II.'iWxf3 0c6 12.t"LJc5
t,;'idb4!+ Nadanian. However, White has the
l!:.~ l!:.l!:.~l!:. stronger 1O.~e4!;!;.
~ ~'iVZ:: <l> In Kahlbacher-Badstuber. Oberwart 1998,
White played 8.tL:.c3 in reply to 7 ...lbf6. Af·
11...~e8 ter 8...<.:59.d5 .i.g4 1O.£e2 a6 II.a4 tDfd7
The alternative is 11...c5!? 12.dS a6: 12.0-0 White was slightly better. Instead of
- 13.a4 h5! 14.axb5 axb5 15.l:txa8 ~xa8 II...tZ.lfd7. II...tLibd7!? looks better.
(IS ....ha8!?) 16.tbxb5 (I6.e4 b4 l7.tbb5
'lWa5) J6 ...tL::xd5 17.t!::c7 0xc7 18.~xd7
ttJdS.
- 13.e4! b5 14.e5 If';g4 15.~f4;t anti it
seems that White can keep control of the
centre.
12.e4 e6
It's not so easy for Black to break free, e.g:
12...c5 13.d5 e6 (13 ... tbg4!'! 14..!L:.gS!'!t)
J4.dxe61he6 15.e5 tLJe8 16.lLig5±.
13.l:.b1 ~b8
13...c5 14.eSli)d5 15.lGe4!.
14.~t4 tj'JhS 15•.ig5 f6 16..te3 ~f8
17.b4± <;>h8 18.g4 ~g7 19.e5 f5 As mentioned above. there are several possi-
20.lDg5 .-e7 2l ..ixb7 l:txb7 22.'i!¥f3 ble move orders. In practice. While has
!:leb8 23.'i'h3 h5 24.gxhS lLixhS mainly tried:
25.tLJf3 ~g7 2S.tlJh4 "f7 27.tDe2
c.tgB 2B.f4 tet8 29.Wf2 ~h8 30.~gl El) 8.~e2
'li'h7 31.llJxgS texg6 32J:lxgS+ E2) 8..lte3

136
 The Improved Nadanian

There are two interesting alternatives: 9 lLlc6

9 ~xa4 IOJi'xa4 c5 is very close 10 equal-
• 8.lbc5 ity - I don't think White can claim much
This looks premature, but it is not so easy to here.
deal with.
8...ti.:\6d79.~b3 b6
Interesting is 9...a5!?
And now instead of the game continuation
IO.~d3,?!, White should have played
1O.'it'c2!?, Paws Garnbarrotti-Arias, Me-
dellin 2003 .

• 8.h3
This might be playable. The advantage of
keeping the bishop on c I is that b2 is protec-
ted. Iguess Black should try something quite
fast.
8...lL!xa4 - 11.dxc5 ~xb2 12Jib I it.c3+ l3.'.t>f1
Inferior is 8...f5?! 9.I!t:~xb6 axb6 IO.~c4+ (this move looks like White's best try. but
~h8 Il.e5!±. Best is possibly 8...~c6 with the king on fl I find it hard to believe
9.i.e3 f5!? which looks critical-now Black that White can he better here) 13... ~c8!'!
has an important f5-f4 resource. (this is not really in the spirit of the
9.'t!fxa4 cS10.dxcS ~c711.~a3! Grtinfeld, but it might be necessary.
and although this looks like a bit of a dodgy 13... ~c6 14.lhb7 'itc8 15.llb3 S4g7
pawn grab. there is no clear refutation in 16.~a6 ~d7 17.~b7 'WIe6 18.h3 .hO
sight. 19.9xf3!;) 14.h4!. But who knows, maybe
there is some initiative here.
VarIation El - ll.l:dl cxd4 (I1. ..~xf3 12.dxc5! 'fIc7
8.~e2 13.~xf3 ~xb2 14.0-0;1;) 12.~xd4 ~xd4
In Nadanian-Pelletier, Cannes 1997, there 13.lDxd4 ~xe2 14.tllxe2 'WIb6 with equal
followed 8...0xa4 9.~xa4 b6 JO.~e3! play. Instead of 13.tbxd4, 13.lhd4 has also
(according to Nadanian IO.O-O?! i.b 7 is occurred. After 13... 'itb6 14Jlb4 'itc7.
equal. Not sure if this is true though. because White should play 15.0-0 ~6 with equal-
White can still play 11.~c2 Rowson) ity. rather than l5.~b3 ~c6! and Black had
10 ~b7 II.~c2;!; tLid7 12..Ildl!? (12.0-0) a clear edge in Nadanian- Malisauskas,
12 e6 13.0-0 h6?! (l3 ...l:tc8 14.~g5 Minsk 1997.
'1!i'e8;!;)14..ltb5! White intends to play 1O.d5 ~xf3?!
15..ic6 and has a pleasant edge. 10...tiJe5! I L~xe5 .be2 12.'itxe2 tDxa4!
8...i.g4 9.~e3 (12 ....txe5 13.~c5!±) 13.f4 e6 14.....c2
This position also arises after 8.~e3 ~g4 lLlb6 15.dxe6 .ixe5 16.ext7+ l:lxf7 17.fxe5
9.~e2 - though in that move order White of- 'fIe7 18.0-0-000.
ten prefers 9.lilc5. Instead of9.~e3 as in the 11_gxf3 tZJe5 12.0.xb6 axb6 13.14
game, worse is s.ees ~xf3 lO.it.xf3 'it'xd4 lLld7 14.e5± ttJc5 15.b4
11.'ikxd4 hd4 1VDxb7 tLlc6:j:. The alternative is IS.h4.

137
Jonathan Rowson

15...tDe4 16.itf3 f5 17."ilYb3 "ilYd7

18.0-0
Much better is 18.~e2! intending f3 - Black
will lose a piece.
18...<j;>h8 19.nac1 g5 20.~c4 na3
21.£xe4 fxe4 22.•e6 '*d6 23.fxg5
..-e5 24.ttxc7 .-xd5 2S:i:!he7 ~f5
26.~c7 ~e5

9•..~~c610.eS!?
A new move. The older lO.tDxb7 "iWb8
11..ta6~ is still an attractive option too. The
game Nadanian-Aronian, Armenia 1997,
went 11...~2Jb4 l2.·~t::c5.txt1 l3.gxt1 IId8
14.ffb3' tLid7!? (rather than
l4 ... Q·lxa6
15.tDxa6 ~c;8 (l5 .. :~'b7 16.~5) l6.tL:b4!
"'h3 (16 ...~xd4·J 17...ixd4 .l:I.xd4 t 8. 08c6
~d7 19.Ci;eS+-) 17.$>e2±, Nadanian)
27.~f4 bc7 28.~xc7 :aa8 29.~xb6 15.jLc4! with a clear edge for White.
'it'g4+ 30.'~hl ,*,f3+ 31.cJ;>g1~g4+ 10...~xf3 11.gxf3 ~d5
32.wh1 f¥f3+ %.% An alternative is ll...nb8.
Ashley-Romanishin. Cannes 1998. 12.~g2 f5 13.exf6ep hf6 14.0-0
r~xd4 15J:tc1 l[jf5 16.b3
Variation E2
8.Qe3
.I
and now: 111
- 8...~g4: Narciso Dublan-Nestorovic
- !L.lL;xa4: Kortcbnoi-Sutovsky
6\
ttJ'iW
o Marc Narciso Dublan ~~
• Dejan Nestorovic
Belgrade 2001 81;_~
J;I'W ~W
1.d4 ~f6 2.c4 g6 3.~c3 d5 4.cxd5
~xd5 S.tLia4 ~g7 6.e4 q'jb6 7.~e3 0-0 16...tL::h4
8.tLlf3~g4 g.tl'lcS Here 16...~d6!? would have been unclear.
Rather than 9.~e2. see El. This was one of 17.ihd5+ tLxd5 18.~·';x.b7 ~e5
the first lines given by Nadanian, and it still 19.~c5 ~f4 20.nxe5 0fxg2 21.~xe7
looks promising for White. ~xf3 22..liLd4 lU7 23.l:txf7 Wxf7

138

24.J:tc1 ne8 25J:txc7+ ..t>g8 26.Sii.c3
tt::;f4 27.11Jd6 %ld8 28..1:Ig7+ 'it>f8
29JU7 + ~g8 30.%lxf4 g5 31.J:U6 1·0
o Viktor Kortchnoi
• EmU Sutovsky
Dresden zonal 1998 (3)
Comments: Jeroen Bosch
1.d4 tDf6 2.c4 g6 a.eea d5 4.cxd5
lLlxd5 5.~a4!? ~g7 6.e4 t/.::b67.~e3
0-0 8.tLJf3lbxa4 9.'fha4 c510.%ld1
Well-played! White takes possession of the
(soon to be opened) d-file and annoys his
opponent's queen. Note that Kortchnoi ma-
kes all the necessary moves before comple-
ting his kingside development. Now relin-
quishing the pressure with 10...cxd4
Il.~xd4wouldclearty be in White's favour.
But neither 1O... ~g4 II.dxc5 'i'c7 12.'I'a3
Barsov-Bernard, Wijk aan Zee III 1997. nor
1O... $..d7 II.~bS cxd4 IVt~xd4! (l2 ..bd4
Kharlov- Vakhidov, Linares Open 1997) arc
capable of equalizing. Sutovsky decides to
move his queen from the d-file and to
maintain the tension.
10..:~b611J:rd2!
Simply covering b2. this move also prepares
the eventual doubling up of the rooks.
11_..Sii.d712.'tta3
Forcing Black to release the tension.
12...cxd413A:lxd4 'it'c7
In Jelen-Kos, Siovenian Championship.
Krsko 1997, White gained a quite consider-
able endgame plus after 13... .I:I.cS 14.i.e2
lItcS 15.'i'b3 _'b6 16.'''a3 _'c5 17.'tlhc5
:xc5 18.0-0 ;c8 19..vb3 Ae8 20 ..ig4 e6
21.~c5.
14.~e2e5
Black blocks his Grunfeld bishop but gains
more influence in the centre. More impor-
tantly though Black has problems comple-
ting his development. The natural 14...~c6
The Improved Nadanian
is answered by IS.lLJb5 ~c8 16.0-0 a6
17. {jjc3 when the knight prepares to visit the
hole on b6. Preparing tDc6 with 14...a6 fails
to l5 .... xe7 Ue8 16.'t!fa3 l:lxe4 t 7.0-0 and
now a hole on d6 has been created (t 7 ../1:Jc6
J8.tLb5 and 19.1Od6).
15J:tc2
This intermediate move is criticized by
Kortchnoi. He recommends IS.{jjb5! ~xbS
t6 ..txb5 a6 (bad is 16...llk6 17.~c2 and
Black's pawn structure will be destroyed; a
returning motif from now on) 17.0·0 ~c6
l8.~c4!? After 18... tiJd4 19.i.dS the active
knight on d4 is not enough compensation for
the pair of bishops. Moreover. the knight
could be undermined with a future f4.
15 'tWd8
IS -8c6? is still impossible. After 16.tiJxc6
~xc6 17.~b5 we have transposed 10 the pre-
vious note.
16.tDb5 ttJc6 1Vi:.d6 "b8 18.i.c4
ttJd4 19..txd4 exd4 20.0-0
In his analysis Kortchnoi proves thai White
only gains a tiny edge after 20.f4 .ie6
21..txe6 fxe6 22.0-0.
20....ie6?
This is the critical moment, where Black
could have profited from White's slightly in-
accurate 15th move. With 20 ....i.e5! Black
could have forced White into playing the un-
clear piece sacrifice 21.{jjxf7. After 21 ....I:I.xf7
139
Jonathan Rowson
22.f4 Siig7 23."S'b3 lIfe8 24.fixb7 1:[d8
25.~xt7+ 'it'xfl 26.1:[c7 White would regain
his material investments. Still, Kortchnoi
feels that a dynamic equilibrium has arisen.
21.Axe6 fxe6 22.l:tfc1
Eleven moves ago a doubling up of the rooks
was prepared. now that they have tinally
teamed up it is with particular force. Both
23.l:lc8 and 23.l:tc7 are threatened, and it is
no surprise that Black's position collapses
quickly.
22....ieS?
Another mistake in a difficult position. Ac-
cording to Kortchnoi the only defence was
22 ....ih6 when 2Ulel! (23 ..I:lc8 .txd
24.1:[xb8 llaxb8 is less clear) 23 ...1:[d8 24.e5
gives White a winning edge. Kortchnoi ana-
lyzes 24 ....irs 25.~3 .txd6 26.exd6 1:[xd6
(26 ...'''xd6 27J:lxe6 'i'd5 28.l:te8+ loses in-
stantly) 27J:xe6 :s.xe6 2R.~xe6+ \t>h8
29.1Wf6+ Wg8 3O.~xd4 and since Black's
king lacks protection the win is merely a
mailer of time.
23.l:tc7 .b:d6 24:ilhd6 l:t17 25. 'ii'xe6
Black resigned.
VarIation F
6...QfS
This is perhaps the most logical move- White
can no longer play f3 so the bishop is more
stable here and prevent' e4 for the time being.
o Ashot Anastasian
• Stefan Kristjansson
Antalya 2004
1.tbf3 lDf6 2.c4 96 3.d4 £97 4.~c3
dS S.cxdS lDxd56.~a4 ~f5
This move make s a lot of sense as a response
to tLJa4because it takes control of e4.ln factI
think it might tum out to be Black's most re-
liable move. even though it runs into the
slightly outrageous:
7.tL!h4!
140
I refer to this move as 'absurdly consistent'
in Understanding the Griinfeld but didn't
take it very seriously at the time. However, it
is the most testing move here.
Alternatively, 7.ciic5!? is met by 7 ...b6!
(7 ...tl',d7? 8.e4! tDxc5 9.dxc5 i.xe4
IO.'it'a4+) R.e4 (R.Ci;h3li'ih4) 8 ...bxc5 9.exf5
gxf5 lO.dxc5 e6. I prefer Black here. due to
the excellent knight on d5 and potential play
down the b-file, However, it cannot be de-
nied that White also has some positional as-
sets.
7 ...ttJc6
There <Iresome alternatives at this stage:
• 7...0-0 8.'1\xf5 (8.g3~? - there might be
something to be said for delaying the capture
of the bishop, because after ~g2 White will
also threaten e4 - 8 .. k;c6 9.~g2!(0) 8 ...gx f5
9.e3 .!L:d7 (in my book. I suggest that Black
might be OK here, hut a few years on I would
definitely prefer White) 1O.ti:k3!?!.
• 7 ... $.c8!? looks submissive, but it is now
difficult to find a good move for White.
A) 8.g3?! tDc6! 9.~g2?! (9.e3 e5!;
9.tL:f3 ~f5!: 9 ....ig4!?) 9 ...0xd4! IO.e3 g5!
II.exd4 gxh4 12.~c3 ~e6 and Black is a
pawn up and in control.
B) 8.li'.f3 P. Not a theoretical test of cour-
se, but the fact that White has the option is
worth knowing about. because it might dis-
courage some Black players from playing
this way.

C) 8.e4
Cl) 8...lllf6!? 9.lLlc3 0-0 (9 ...c5!?)
I 0.~e2. 1don't pretend that White is really
better here, but nor is he worse. Most impor-
tantly, as a result of his knight manoeuvres,
he is probably having more fun.
C2) 8...liJb6 9.~e3 0-0 10.tiJf3 transpo-
ses into something relatively normal. where
White has chances to be better.
C3) 8...tLJb4!? 9.tilf3 (9.a3? ~xd4!; 9.d..,)?
e6) 9...~xd4 consistent, but perhaps a little
risky - White can develop quite reasonable
compensation. e.g: 1O.1tc4! 0-0 (l0 ...c5'?
I \.~h6oo) 11.~6 fLg7 12..bf7+! $xf7
13.• ·h3+ e6 14~xg7 0d3+ (14 ...;.txg7
15.'fVxb4 0c6 l6.'fi"c3+ ~f6t) 15.'fi"xd3!
'fi"xd3 16.tlJe5+~xg7 17.&Jxd3!.
8.'~~xf5
But not 8.e3 ~c8!.
8...gxf5 9.e3 e5 10.dxeS
More testing might be 10.lLlc5!?, but it can
quickly become very complicated, c.g.
iO ... liWd6 11.'i'a4 (l1.i.d2!·!) ll...exd4
12.ti.\xb7 ~b4+ 13.'fVxb4 0~dxb4 14.'.t>dI
ttb8 15.tL:cS (IS.a3!?) IS ...dxe3 16.fxe3
We7! and Black is dangerously active.
10...tDxe5 11~e2 iVd6 12.0-0 0-0-0
13.~c2
Perhaps 13.*b3!?
13...'4!1
The Improved Nadanian
Given the result of this game. it would be
easy to assume that White was always better
and that Black played the opening badly.
However, it is really not so clear.
13...'ttg6 is also possible, but I don't think
that Black was worse in the game.
14.exf4 tDc615.~g4+?!
Here 15."f5+ <;Pb8 16..tc4 looks better,
when the position is unclear (to me at least).
15...'~b8 16.'it'c5 tL\d4 17.'i'xd6 J:txd6
18.l:tb1 .ih6
The stronger IH .. Jle8! gives Black chances
to be better.
19.~h5 ~xf4 20.11d1
20...~xcl?!
Essential was 20 ...~e5! 21..~xf7 tDb6! and
Black is at least not worse.
21.l:txd4 tiif4 22.11xd6cxd6 23.~xf7
Now White is in control.
23...l:tcB 24.g3 ~d3 25.~e6 l:tc7
26..Qf5 tbe5 27.~g2 d5 28.tt~C3.Q.xb2
29.t.:lxd5 1-0
All things considered, my tentative conclu-
sion is that Black has his fair share of the
chances if he plays 6...~f5 and follows up
accurately, but Ibelieve White has prospects
of an advantage against all the oilier conti-
nuations if he pays close attention to move
orders.
141
 The 50S
Competition
PLAYTHE BEST50S GAME, SEND IT TO US
AND WIN €250,-

• submitted games should start with one of the 50S-ideas from this book
• submitted games should include information about where and when it
was played and at what time rate (classical or rapid only)

• entries have to be submitted to New In Chess before May 1sf 2005

• New In Chess contributors ore excluded from participation

• New In Chess obtains the right to use the submitted games for its
publications

Prize:
€ 250 and the winning game will appear in
Volume 3 of Secrets of Opening Surprises

Games should be submitted to:

New In Chess, P.O. Box 1093, 1810 KB Alkmaor
The Netherlands or email toeditors@newinchess.com
 NEW iN CHESS

Editors-in-chief
Dirk Jan ten Geuzendam & Jan Timman
1. 'As usual I was delighted 4. 'New In Chess is trernen- 6. 'Congratulations with your
to receive my copy of dous. All articles are work. It mode me change
New In Chess.' well-writ1en, interesting end my whole product-line (first
GM Luke McShane the conlents are wide and "Schoch" and "Informator",
profound. Keep it that way.' now only NIC).'
2. 'The greatest chess Juho Konkkunen, Andreas Jedinger,
magazine of all lime.' Vontoo, Finland Rum, Austria
Jeremy Silmon
5. 'Greol Rag! When I'm 7. 'New In Chess is the
3. 'You are everything your not reading it I'm standing world's best chess
audience wonts to read. by my mailbox waiting for it.' publication.'
That is why you are so Beniomin Schooley, Mark Dvorelsky 01 the Miami
successful.' Gorl}' Kosporov Otsego, MI, USA International Chess Club

New In Chess - 8 issues a year

www.newinchess.com
 C 21,95
Le due Torr1
WWW.chess.it
TeI.551.522.433