/

c
SOS - Secrets of Opening Surprises 3
 SECRETS OF
OPENING
SURPRISES
3
Edited by
JEROEN BOSCH

Contributing authors
Mikhail Gurevich
Alexander Beliavsky
David Navara
Oleg Chernikov
Adrian Mikhulchishin
Carlos Matamoros
Ian Rogers
Karel van der Weide
Jcroen Rosch
Dorian Rogozenko
Mark Bluvshtein
Glenn Flear
Oleg Romanishin

2005 New In Chess - The Netherlands

© 2005 New ln Chess
Published by New In Chess, Alkrnaar, The Netherlands
wwwnewinchess.com
Appears twice a year

Previous versions of Chapters 3, 7, 12 and 15 have appeared

in New In Chess Magazine.

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

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

Cover design and lay-out: Steven Boland

Drawing on frontcover: Zander Dekker
Printing: A-O Druk BV, Zcist, The Netherlands
Translation: Ken Neat (Chapters 9, 10 and 16)
Production: Joop de Groot
Proofreading: Rene OIthof

Printed in the Netherlands

ISBN 90-5691-140-6
 Contents

Jeroen Bosch The SOS Files 9

2 Mikhail Gurevich Portisch's Ingenious Idea 18

3 Jeroen Bosch A Flank Attack in the Grunfeld 28

4 Oleg Romanishin Catch-as-catch- Kan? 36

5 David Navara The Paulsen Attack in the Petroff 42

6 Dorian Rogozenko Let's wait together in the Slav 51

7 Jeroen Bosch Surprise in the Scotch 62

8 Mark Bluvshtein Out of the French Book 71

9 Alexander Beliavsky Volga Gambit with 4.tlJd2 77

10 Oleg Chernikov Provocation in the Rauzer: 6 ...g6 82

11 Ian Rogers Caro-Kann Fantasy Variation 90

12 Jeroen Bosch A Central Thrust in the Reti 97

13 Karel van der Weide A French Nimzowitsch 104

14 Glenn Flear Protecting the Gambit Pawn in the QGA 110

15 Jeroen Bosch Evans Gambit: 'StonewareDefence 117

16 Adrian Mikhalchishin A Sozin Opening Surprise 127

17 Mikhail Gurevich English or Sicilian Reversed 131

18 Who is who? Authors and their Subject'> 143

 _-

CHAPTER 1 - page 9
Jeroen Bosch
The SOS Files

Winning the SOS Competition

+------------ -
CHAPTER 2 - page 18 CHAPTER 3 - page 28
Mikhail Gurevich Jeroen Bosch
Portisch's Ingenious Idea A Flank Attack in the Grunfeld

b
t!, ttl s
l!. t!, A t!, t!,
J:t~~iVw~ J:l:
King's Indian Reversed with 4 ... 1i,d6!? 4.h4 - Still following a central strategy

CHAPTER 4 - page 36 CHAPTER 5 - page 42

Oleg Romanishin David Navara
Catch-as-catch-Kan? The Paulsen Attack in the Petroff

Sicilian Kan Variation with 6 ...e6-e5!? Play 4.t)·:c4!? en route to e3

_________ ._..L __ . -...J
 CHAPTER 6 - page 51 CHAPTER 7 - page 62
Dorian Rogol.enko Jeroen Bosct:

.
Let's wait together in the Slav Surprise in the Scotch

X ..t • ~A
AAAA AAA
~
l!,
~
l!,l!,l!, l!,l!,l!,
l:llLl ~W~ ]I
The Chebanenko Variation with 5.h3!? Play the Blumenfeld Attack - 6.tLib5

CHAPTER 8 - page 71 CHAPTER 9 - page 77

Mark Bluvshtein Alexander BeJiavsky
Out of the French Book Volga Gambit with 4.tL:d2

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.~d3 A modest move

CHAPTER 10 - page 82 CHAPTER 11 - page 90

Oleg Chernikov Ian Rogers
Provocation in the Rauzer: 6 ...g6 Caro-Kann Fantasy Variation

x i.'it' • ..t &

AA AA A
.A ~A
A

Combining the Rauzer and the Dragon 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.f3 e5!?
 CHAPTER 12 - page 97 CHAPTER 13 - page 104
Jeroen Bosch Kure! va" der Weide
A Central Thrust in the Retl A French Nimzowitsch

.t.
/!,t:,
.(:)
t:,[!'t:, £!'At:.
l:t $.~W~~lt
3 ... e5!? - Unhinging your opponent A Little Weird: 3 ... tL:c6

CHAPTER 14 - page 110 CHAPTER 15 - page 117

Gien« Flear Jeroen Bosch
Protecting the Gambit Pawn in the QQA Evans Gambit: 'Stoneware' Defence

Play 3 ... tbd7!? 5 ... .ad6!? - Old Wine in New Bottles

CHAPTER 16 - page 127 CHAPTER 17 - page 131

Adrian Mikhalchi.'ihin Mikhail Gurevich
A Sozin Opening Surprise English or Sicilian Reversed

Hitting the bishop with 6 ... tLia5!? The 'modest' 4.a31?

 CHAPTER 1
Jeroen Bosch
The SOS Files
Albin Galore
505-2. Chapter 5. p.3H
There have been plenty of high-profile
clashes in the Albin lately. Especially.
Morozevich and Nakamura are putting up a
decent Albin show. employing of course
Morozevich's interpretation with 5 ... CLige7.
o Alexey Dreev
• Hikaru Nakamura
Gibraltar 2005
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5
I wonder how often Dreev has been con-
fronted with the Albin in a serious game.
3.dxe5 d4 4.tLlf3 tDc6 5.g3 tDge7
6.gg2 tDg6 7.~g5 'ti'd7 B.e6
In reply to 8.0-0. 8...h6! was Morozevich's
crucial novelty against Gelfand in Monaco
2004 (see 50S-2). After 9..1f4 Ci:;xf4lO.gxf4
g5 Il.t2;bd2 gxf4 a recent game Narciso
Dublan-Fluvia, Badalona 2005. went: 12.$h 1
(I2.~e4 was Gelfand's choice) 12...~g7
IH~b3 tLixe5 14.tUfxd4 0-0 15.'tWc2\i'g4
16.$..e4 'l!fh5 17J:tg I c5 18..if3 0xf3
19.ti':xf3 $h8 20.'i'd2 1ff5 2l.iL.cl ~e6
22.t.Ud3 u'ad8 23.u'ac I hS 24.b3 'li'e4 with a
sharp game and approximately equal chances.
8.. .fxe6
In Wiley-Rudolf, Budapest 2005, Black had
compensation for the pawn after 8...~b4+ !?N
9.tLibd2 'iYxe6 lO.a3 rucd2+ II.'ffxd2 h6
12.i.f4 ~xf4 13.'tWxf4 'ffxc4 l4.l:kl 1Wb5
IS.t?,xd4 C;;:':xd416.... xd40-O 17.:lxc7 :le8.
9.a3
The main continuation is 9.0·0 e5 and now:
• lO.t2:;bd2h6 II..Qh4 ~d6?! (11. .. sa as
in Krasenkow-Morozcvich, Podolsk 1993. is
preferable) 12.c5! (the same trick as in Van
Wely-Morozevich, Monaco 2004 - that game
wcnt 1O.'~a4 ~d6 Il.tLibd2 h6 12.c5)
12...iixc5 02 ...i.(7) 13.'ffc2 Cuxh4 14.tLxh4
~b6 15.t;~:g6t:.g8 16.... c4 ..-e6 17_~xc6+
(17.~d5 'i!i'xg6 18.hg8 (18 ..hc6+ ~f8)
18... £.h3 with a certain amount of counter-
play to compensate for the exchange)
17...bxc6 IS.cilxc5 'iWxc4 19.0dxc4 ami
White was better in Susan Polgar-Nakamura,
Virginia Beach rapid 2005 .
• lO.a3 as II.'ffa4 h6 12~c I tL~d8.Black
opts for the ending and is playing it safe lone
would think other openings would be better
suited for such an approach!). 13.'~xd7+
.i.xd7 14.b3 tLie6. Black has no problems in
this ending. The players agreed a draw here.
lzoria-Nikolaidis, Athens 2005.
9 ...a5
Not allowing 10.04. which would gain space
on the queenside.
9
Jeroen Bosch
~~~~~----------------------------------.-----------
10.'llfa4 h6 Divan Sokolov
This is always useful, Black will be able to • Alexander Morozevich
develop his bishop to e7. He has to watch Wijk aan Zee 2005
out, though. for tricks involving the unpro-
tected knight on g6. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 d4 4.C£.}f3 ~c6
11.jLc1 5.ti'lbd2 tL:,ge7!? 6.tbb311'J5!
Uri-developing the bishop. hut leaving the Stronger than 6.Ji:;g6 7/2,bxd4 which offers
d2-~quare available for his knight. If White Black no compensation.
hadn't played 9.a3 he could have contem- 7.a3
plated playing Qd2 and lOa3. It would be interesting to know what
11...e512.liJbd2 ~e713.0-0 0-0 Morozevich had in mind after the 'boring'
A fairly balanced position. Black's space ad- 7.e4!? The ending after 7...dxe3 8.~~d8+
vantage in the centre (due to the Albin pawn tL!xd8 9.fxe3 first occurred in the stem game
on d4) is neutralized by White's control over Lehmann-Srnedcrcvac, Hoogovens Bever-
the e-l-square and (he h l-a8 diagonal. White wijk 1965. After 9...0;6 IO.~d3 t/Je7
now starts his offensive on the queenside. 11.ti::bd4 .lii.g4 12.h3 hI) 13.~~f3 t.2Jg6
14.b40d8 l4 ..ihg6 hxgf IS.\tle2 Smederevac held a
A sensible reaction. draw after many adventures. The Dutch
15.'i'xd7 ~d7 16.b5 a4! 17.t1':e1 c6 Hoogovens company is now part of the Corns
18.nb1 cxbS 19.cxb5 na5 20.Qe4 concern - did Morozevich know about this
tDh8 21.ltJd3 iZJht722.1DC4 historically significant game? In a recent
Exchanging his weak b-pawn fur the game 9...~b4+ was played, after 10.'&1'2 ~e6
e-pawn. Il ..Q.d3 4~d 12.~hc5 Axd 13.u3as 14.b3
22...l:xbS 23.lbb5 ..axbS 24.Ci:.cxe5 0-0 15.~d2l:td8 16..,t;e2 White skilfully ex-
tDxe5 25.tbxe5 ~d6 ploited his endgame plus in Huvia
Not 25 ...~~e2? when 26.:te 1 $.b527P,g6 Poyatos-Fluvia, Badalona 2005.
is unpleasant. 7...~e7 8,93 a5 9.~d3 a4 10.(i:bd2
h5 11...ah3 g6 1Vt::e4 h4

~ .t.'if~ :!
11 .t.l
'II 1
~~
1 ~1t2J i
~ 'if t2J8Yl.
~ ~~ ~
J:t ~ ~ 1:[
26..idS+
Dreev forces the draw, as he is definitely not With a good feeling for symmetry Black
better after 26.liJd3 lleg 27 .~f3 ~c6. pushes both his rook-pawns 10 the founh
26...Wh7 27,~e4+ 'itlg8 28.~d5+ ~h7 rank. His last move is in fact a mistake as
29.~e4+ Y2-Y2 13.g4! Ci;;g7 14.~d2 t2::e6 15.0-0-0 is virtu-

10
 The SOS Files

ally winning as Morozevich himself indi- o Veselin Topalov

cated after the game.
13.j)J4? hxg3 14.hxg3 tC.g7
Here 14...tl::xg3 is answered by J5..i.d7+!
~xd7 16J::txh8 'i'xh8 17,thg3 WeR
1fUl-O-O when White is at least somewhat
better.
15.~~g2
Instead of the text, 15.0f6+ ~"f6 16.exf6
tL:e6 l7:ife4 was better.
15...l:txhl+ 16.~xhl ~_f5 17.tilfg5
~a5!
Not 17...$.xg5? 18..lhg5 .hc4 19.'lWd2!
which gives White a superior game.
Morozevich just continues to play his trade-
mark type of chess. In soccer terms we
would call Morozevich an exponent of
Dutch IOtaI football. He uses the wings to
make the board as 'broad' as possible.
18.'Wf3 ~619.0h7
19.tL:xc6W8!; less ambitious and wiser.
19....Q.xe420:~'xe4 c6 21.e3?
Now Morozcvich develops a raging initia-
tive.
21...tL:b3 22.l:tdl ~a5+ 23.:J;e2 tL:.ec5
24.1jj'g2 ~a6
• Alexander Morozevich
Monte Carlo rapid 2005
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 d4 4.~f3 0.06
5.a3 t;i';ge7
Mornzevich always plays 5...tf',ge7 - regard-
less whether White plays 5.g3, 5.t£Jbd2 or
5.a3 as in the present game. Established
Albin theory cites 5...~c6 with approxi-
mately equal chances.
6.b4
More interesting than 6.g3 ltJg6 7 ..2.g2
tGgxc5. Topalov isn't going to give up the
gambit pawn for nothing.
6...4\96 7.~b2 as!
A useful interpolation to weaken White's
qucenside before taking on e5.
8.b5lL:cxe5 9.C::xe5lbxe5 10.e3
Here IO..~.xd4 tL:xc4 Il.e3 transposes. Not
IO.~xd4?! 'f!hd4 11.~.xd4 ti'.xc4 with a
nice ending for Black.

ttJ
i ._.

10....~e6 11._~xd4 fuc4 12.~c2 tLJd6

13.~d3
Considering Black's next move 13.tDd2 co-
mes into consideration. Nothing special is
White's game is beyond saving. 13.'1:c3 ~;r5 l4 ..ie5 .td6.
25.'~f1 'Wxc4+ 26.~gl ~c2 27.~f3 13..:~lt'g5!?
d3 28.i.g5 li.Je4! 29.~xe7 .!lJxf2! Morozevich typically seeks complications.
30.1'kxf2~xd1+ 31.Wg2 'tIi'c2 32.~d6 Both g2 and b5 are under attack.
0-0-0 Or 32...d2. 33.Wg1 'tWx12+ 14.14 'i'h4+ 15.g3 ~h5
34.Wxf2 J:[h8 0-1 According to Nunn White is better after

11
Jeroen BOsch. :__
15...*,h3 16.c;i;f2. Obviously 16.fV xc 7
would he a big blunder because of both
16..."tWg2 and 16...1:[c8.
16.ttJc3 ttJf5?t
John Nunn gives 16...a4 17.()-O ..Iib3
concluding that White is slighty better.
17.0-0 0-0-0
17... ~xd4 18.exd4 doesn't work for Black
because of the threat 19.f5 - his king won't
find a safe haven in time. For example
18...~d6 19.fS ~d7 2(UXael+.
18...ta7!
Excellent play by Topalov. For the moment
the bishop cannot be trapped, while it assists
in a deadly attack on Black's monarch.
18...,*g419_~
Computer programs quickly indicate that
White wins here with 19.tL:a4! when a pow-
erful check on b6 can only be prevented with
the futile attempt (0 run (but not hide) with
19 <;f;ld7.
19 l:rd7 20.l:rfd1
And again Topalov misses a good opportu-
nity (remember that this is a rapid game).
White has an edge after both 20.tL.l2! lffg6
21.nfc I, and 20 ..i.c2 'iWg6 21.nfd I (Nunn),
20 .. JWf3
The queen now causes enough confusion.
21.ttJg5
Winning a piece but suddenly the odd posi-
tion of the bishop on a7 will tell.
21...lDxe3! 22.lbxf3 lt2xc2 23.Qxc2 b6
12
_
The trap snaps shut!
24.~e5 l:txd1 + 25.l:rxdl &.xa3 26.15
~a2
Aesthetically pleasing and also the only
move of course. Topalov's next move is a
clear mistake.
27.1:[a11 ~c5+ 28.Wf1 neB! 29J:tel
29.llxa2 llxe5 and the bishop on a7 is lost.
This was still the best chance as the opposite
coloured bishops (after a subsequent ~xb6)
offer White some hope for the draw.
29 ...f6!
Liquidating into a won ending.
30.ttJd3 ~xe1+ 31.Wxe1 .Qi.d63Vbc1
3id5
Black's bishops dominate, the rest is easy.
33.~b3 ~e4 34.~>xb6 cxb6 3s..b6+
<1;;c7 36...t>e2 ~e5 37.4i·..d3 ~d6
38.we3 .idS 0-1
Falling Short in the fast Lane
505-2. Chapter 8. (J.63
Nigel Short played 3 ...h6 in the French Tar-
Tasch at the 2004 Olympiad. He got a decent
position. but unfortunately missed a specta-
cular tactic.
o GaryLane
• Nigel Short
Calvia 01 2004
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.0.d2 h6 4.c3
The main line is 4,tL;gf3 ~jf6 S.e5 tL:fd7
6.:M.d3 c5 7.c3 .!Z:c6. In Purtov-Shtyrenkov.
Alushta 2004. Black went 7...b6 instead. after
R.~e2 as 9.0-0(9.a4 h61O.~b5!?) 9 L6
lO.c4 (1O.i.xa6 ~xa6 I I .c4) IO ~c6
I I .cxdS _ibd3 IHWxd3 tLlb4 I HWc4 tDxd5
he had realized his positional idea.
4 ... cS 5.tL:.gf3
The recent Navara-Cifka. Karlovy Vary
200S, went: 5.exd5 'irxd5 (5 ...exd5) 6.tl'igf3
_---------------------~The SOS
Files

t;:lc6?! (stronger is 6...cxd4! 7 .t;,xd4 -7 ..Q.c4 25.~xd5! Wxd5

'i'hS -7 ...tt:f6 as in a game Kudrin-Atalik,
see SOS-2) 7.~c4 (now White gains some
time, play transposes into a normal Tarrasch
line where ...h6 is not so useful) 7 ...'i'd8
8.tL2b3cxd4 9.~bxd4 ~xd4 IO.~xd4 a6
IJ .i.f4~ ..id6? and this is a blunder because
of 12.ti·iC6! hxc6 13.'fh.dfi 'ft'xdfi 14..hd6
with a big edge due to the pair of bishops.
5_..tL:f6 6.exd5 lDxd5 VDb3 0,d7
8..Si.d3~e7
Gaining a useful tempo because of the
threatened fork.
9..tc2 b610.0-0 ~711.~e1 Jle7
Black is tine here.
12.lLle5 ~xe5 13.dxe5 O-O-D 14.'iWg4
h515.~c4
15.1txg7? ~h4! traps her majesty.
15...g5
Perhaps the crude IS...'lWc6!? 16.~e4 f5
17.exf6 gxf6 when 18...\tf:\ is perhaps a tad
better for White.
16.a4 a6 17.~d2 '>fib8 18.l:tad1 g4
19.~c1 lldg8 20..ae4 h4 21.tLid3 g31!
This should have been prepared. for instance
by 21...<3;>a7.
22.h3 gxf2+ 23.lDxf2 'ii!Yxe5?
25 .. :fhel+ 26.:txe 1exd5 27.11xe7 is rather
similar to the game.
26..tf4+ .td6 27.~xd6+ ~c8 28.l:txd5
exd5 29.:e7 l:h6 30 ..i.f4 l:thg6 31.g41
hxg33V2Jg4
and Black's rook and pawns are no match for
the well-coordinated White pieces.
32 ...1:%.8g733.Wg2 d4 34.cxd4 cxd4
35.~e5 d3 36.l:tc7+
36.i.xg7 lhg4 was the trap. even though
37 ..tc3 wins comfortably. But nOI 37.hxg4?
d2 38.:te8+ We7 (38 ...~d7? 39Jle4+-)
39.1:te7+ ~e8 with a draw, as 39 ...~c6?
40.£Le5 loses.
36...~d8 37.~c3 llxg4
Otherwise White's win is elementary.
38.l:txd3+ We7 39.hxg4 l:txg4 4O.l:td4
l:tg5 41 ..if4 1:g6 42.~xg3 as 43.b3
l::tc644.l:te4 '.td7 45.<M3
Some accuracy is still required. NOI45.J:x<.:6?
'it>xc6 and with 46 ...b5 coming White would
have to resign himself to the draw.
45 •..l:tf6+ 4S..if4 1:c6 47.We4 l:te6+
48.c~d5 J:f6 49.,ae5 l:tf3 50.l:tc7+ 'otid8
51.Uc3 axe3 52.~xc3 ~d7 53.~e5 rs
54.~f4 1~O

~ K!:
Radulskl's Ruy lopez
1. 1.i - SOS-2, Chapter /6. p.121
ii i -~

i&'iW Glenn Hear's expose on the Fianchetto Spa-

~ 'Ii' ~ 1 nish featured a spectacular game by Julian
Radulski, In a subsequent game Radulski
/j, ~ has refrained from the most critical line
/j, ~ CfJ~ (7 ...'ft'b4+) - let's investigate why!
1:[1::[ ~
o Oliver Organdziev
The point of Short's previous moves. There • Julian Radulski
is a flaw however, for. after Vrnjacka Banja 2004
24..Q.xdS!~xd5
(instead 24 ... Wxd5 25.~f4+ wins even more 1.e4 e5 2.~f3 ~e6 3..Jkb5g6 4.d4
easily) White has A forcing line. More in Ruy Lopez. style are:

13
Jeroen Bosch
- 4.c3 a6 S.~xc6 dxc6 6.d4 exd4 7.cxd4
~g4 8.0-0 (8.~e3 see 505-2. the miniature
game Jakubowski-Spicak, Polanczyk 2000.
which ended in a quick win for Black)
8...~g7 9.tLlc3 ti).e110.~f4 0-0 I t.h3 (forc-
ing his opponent to finally take on d4)
11....ixf3 12.Wxf3 i.x:d4 13.l:!ad 1 cS 14.b4
b615.bxc5 bKC5 16.llJa4 'i'e8 17.~a3 ~c6
18.::r.xd4 cxd4 19."xe7 lUe8 20.llfa31:tx:e4
2Urcl 'iti'e8 22.~xc7 d3 and Black was
winning (but only drew) in Volokitin-Stevic,
Celje 2004.
- 4.0-0 £.g7 5.c3 a6 6...b4 d6 7.d4 ~d7
!S.dS(!Urel 0,ge7 9.~e3 0-01 0."d2 ttlxd4!
I l.cxd4 ~xa4 is a useful trick to know:
12.'l!fb4 exd4 J3.~xd4 cS 14.1!ha4 cxd4.
with a good game fur Black, Fluvia
Poyatos-Narciso Dublan, Mataro 2005)
8...tlJce7 9.c4 h6 1O.t2:,c3 fS II ..hd7+
'i'xd7 12.t;\el and now:
• 12.. .fxe4 seems to give White a slight
edge: l3.tbxe4tL;ft'J 14.0xf6+~xf6 J5.tt.:;f3
~g7 16"aJ2 0-0 11.!~e4 ~f5 18.Qe3 ti.:)d4
19J1cl <J.>h7 20.f3 :17 21..bd4 cxd4
22.'tWb3 b6 23.lIce I;!;. Stellwagen-Gagu-
nushvili. Vlissingen 2004 .
• 12...tN6 13.f3 0-0 14.0d3 c6?! (this was
a move on the wrong side of the board, cor-
rect was 14...g5. seeSOS 2. the game Khalif-
man-Short. Moscow 200 I) I 5.~e3 cxd5
16.cxd5.a17 17.~31hfS 18.tLif2and Whi-
te was better in Gelfand-Malaniuk, Tallinn
Keres memorial rapid 200S.
4...exd4 5.~g5 fLe7 6.£xe7 iWxe7
A slightly boring line is 6...ltJgxe7 7.~xd4
d5. White had a marginal advantage after
8.tLlc3 dxe4 9.~xc6+ ..'bxe6 1O.t2;xc6
'ifxdl+ I l.llxdl bxc6 IVt:;xe4 JiLf5 in
Klovans-Shabanov, Sarka 2004. Curiously,
it was Black who missed a win in a pawn
ending with his final (35th) move.
7.Jixc6
Not mentioned in SOS-2 was the less forcing
7.0·0!? While this is hardly critical our
14
SOS-cxpert on this line - Glenn Flear - has
let us know that it is important LO continue
with 7 ...ltJf6 R.eS (ilhS! (S ... lf.JxeS? 9.1:[el)
9 ..ae I 0-0 1O..bc6 dxc6 I J. '¥hd4 ~f5 with
unclear playas in Galdunts-Giorgadze,
Podolsk 1989. SOS-fans of the Fianchetto
line better take note of S...tLih5~
7...dxc6
Rather than the text. 7 .... b4+ was Glenn
Flear's main line (from the game
Zozulia-Radulski, Marseille 20(4). How-
ever. he later pointed out thai there might be
a few problems connected to the audacious
queen check. After R.c3li'xb2 9.'ffltd4 bxc6
10.0-0 ~a6
Flear now believes thai I I.tbbd2! is very
strong for White.
Another critical try is "JIe I!? f6
(I1...~xal 12.'ilhh8 0-0-0 13.~d4 allows
White a strong initiative according to Flear)
IV;;~bd2 'ilfb6 IHta4 :ab5 14.'~fa3 'iWa6
15.'iWb2 t~e7 (15 ...d6')! 16.eS!) 16.c4 ~xc4
17.'iWxf6 l:f8 IS. 'f# g7 as in the game Bou-
ore-Hear, Bagnols-sur-Ceze 2004. And
now, rather than the weakening 18...hS.
Black should play 18...~g8! when the strug-
gle remains unclear (Flear).
8.'t!fxd4tL::f6 9P:c3 ~g4 10.tLld2 ~e6
Or IO ... c5 11.t¥e30-0-0 12.h3.ad713.0-0-0
.tc6 14.f) b6 15..:(;c4 and now 15..:i'e6
keeps about equal chances. In Vokarev,
_--------_ .. - .. _ _---_ . The SOS Files

Malaniuk, Alushta 2004, there followed in- 24.ned1 ~b7

stead 15...h5?! 16.... g5!t.
11.f3 c5 12.~e3 0-0-0 13.0-0-0 1:[d4
14.rthe1 llhd8
with an equal game.

More Moro
505-2. Chapter 2. p.17

Who else than Alexander Morozevich could

be expected to play an SOS versus Bareev's
solid Caro-Kann. By the way. the fact that
this was a blindfold game is quite relevant to Morozevich now starts a creative combina-
the eventual outcome. tion which unfort unateJy contains a big hole.
2S.a3? ~xa3 26.li'!c3
o Alexander Morozevlch Winning the exchange'?
• Evgeny Bareev 2S..,rDxe3! 27.fxe3 ~xc1 28.~xb5
Monte Carlo blindfold 2005 Winning the queen'!
28.....axe3+ 29.<.t>h1 lixb5 30.~e4
1.e4 c6 2.l!:;f3 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.tL:.e5! ~g5 31.t;~)xg5rtxg5
Attaboy! Hm, perhaps a rook. bishop and two pawns is
4...e6 5.d4 t/:c6 a bit too much for only a queen?
Black has hardly chosen the most critical ap- 32.rtd2 lZf5 33.'*lYe3lZd5 34.~f4 .ad7
proach. In SOS-2 Ian Rogers now recom- 35.~e5 .ad5 36.~c7 l:lb5 37.l::td3.ae8
mended 6.c3 _id6 7.f4!? More's 38.~d7 1:[f839.¢h2 ~a8 40J:rc3 l:tb7
6.~b5 41.'i'd6 ~bb8 42.1:[g3 nb5 43.~e7
is perhaps less precise. The pin is not as ef- I:1f5 44.iVh4 ~h8 45:~e7 Wg8
fective because Black can still play .Ji:,gc7. 46.Wg1 g6 47.'lh7 rtda 48.1~·c7
Compare this to Scbag-Xu Yuanyuan,
Cannes 2004, (see SOS-2) where after
4.tl\e5 Black went4 ...<4·c65.d4 !;\f6 6.~h5!
'W'b6?! 7.c4! dxc4 8.ta:3 c6 9.'c!h4! with a
nice initiative.
6...'IWb67.c4 ~_b4+ 8.tI..·iC38e7 9.0-{)
0-0 1O.~xc6 bxc6 11.ti.·,a4 'il'd8
12.l1fc2 kdS 13.rte1 'fWc7 14.~d2
tL:.f515.tl2f3dxc41S.'li!fxc4 a5 17.1f':c5
White has a slight edge.
17...'fi'b6 18.1:8C1 h6 19.b3 nd8
20.'i'c2 ~f8
20 ...l;,~xd4 21.tL~xd4 .axeS 22.'ti'xc5 ~xc5
23.l:xcS lhd4. After a lenghty manoeuvring game White
21..ie3 i:rd5 22.h3 tt'b5 23.ttja4 ~b4 has managed to get the kind of one-move

15
Jeroen Bosch

threat on the board that is all-important for Ouch I A double attack.

these blindfold games. 6.'1Ifh5
48 ... h5?? 49. 'ti'xd8+ 1-0 This looks good: 6...lCh6 7.~xc4 is curtains.
Probably this was more of a surprise for However, your computer will like 6.lCxt7!
Bareev than his opponent's opening's choice ... 'iti>xt7 7.~xc4+ and it is right. With three
pawns for the piece and a potentially power-
ful centre, not to mention Black's unsafe
king, White has superior chances.
SOS Miniature 6...td6!
SOS-I, Chapter 9, p.NI A cruel reply, White can take f7 with check
but still loses a piece.
The following game (published in British 7.~xf7+ Wd8akxh7
Chess Magazine) is perhaps not exactly the The desperado of a desperate man. White is
most relevant update of our surprise weapon much worse anyway, but his lack of coordi-
against the 2.c3 Sicilian. However, it sure is nation could not be better illustrated than by
good fun! 8...tLJe5 0·1

o Blair Connell
• Nick Pelling Armenian Tiger Wins SOS Prize
England n 2004 SOS-2. Chapter 12. p.YI

1.e4 c5 2.c3 'ifa5 3.tOf3 ltJcB 4.~d3
This 'counter-SOS' is not as stupid as it
looks - think of the anti-Sicilian line 1.e4 c5
2.t2.if3 d6 3.c3 tL:f6 4.~d3. White plans to
castle, play i.c2 and d4. Black had a nice
brain wave now - based on a cheapo.
4...g5!1
Playing on the dark-squares. sometimes
...g4 is annoying too. But can't he just lake
the bugger?
5.lL:xg5 c4
Tigran Petrosian is a common Armenian
name, and rightly so. With his refined and
acutely developed sense ()f danger the 9th
World Champion must have looked down
from chess heaven in a state of shock at this
effort of his compatriot and namesake. Fol-
lowing a piece sacrifice on move 4 in Glck's
Four Knights, Pctrosian boldly lakes his
king forward to f6 to avoid a quick draw by
repetition. Clearly, a deserving winner of the
SOS Competition.

o Deep Sengupta
• Tigran L, Pctrosian
Kochin jr 2004

1.e4 e5 2.t2:;t3 ~f6 3.~c3 ltJc6 4.g3

~xe4!1 5.0.xe4 d5 B.lL!c3 d4 Vbe4
f5 8.tDeg5 e4 9.i.c4 exf3 10..if7+
10.lDxf3 was Smirin-Macieja, Czech It
2003/04, see SOS-2.
10 ...~d711 ..Iil,e6+ <ke812 ...tf7+

16
 The SOS Files

Aiming for a quick draw, but Tigran is out ing 19...f4 19..it7 (yes it's a computer de-
for blood! fence) 19 ...g6 20."'a4 f4 with a very strong
12...<j.Ie7!13..i.b3 'ittf6! attack (Short). Black wins after 16.cxd3 f4
17.h3 tL';d4 (17 ...'i'e2+ I R.'ii'xe2 fxe2+
19.Wg2 f3+) l8.~xhS 'tth5.
16...'!C:d4 17:iWxd3 lCxb3 18.tL:.xh8
~cS!
An excellent intermediate move.
19.Wg1 ~xa1 20.b3 ~xc2?!
Much better was 20 ...We6oreven 20 ...We7.
Now White restores material equilibrium.
21.1Wd4+ <Ji>eS
22Jtxa1 ~d7 23.~b2
~cS 24.h3 ~cS
There is a huge difference in activity, espe-
cially Black's menacing bishop pair is a for-
14.tLif7? midable force.
Missing Black's 15th, much safer was 14.d3 25.~.xg7 ~xf2+!
'ife7+ 15.:t-f1 'i.!'e2+ 16.'i1fxe2 fxe2+
l7.'~xe2 when Black is fine in the ending,
but White has no particular problems either.
14 ..:~te8+ lS.<l.>f1d3!

2S.Wh2
26.Wxf2 'ilt'xd2+ 27.wfl 'i¥g2+ wins.
26 'IlVe4?
26 .Yi.xg3+!27.Wxg3 ~d3+ 28.<;Ph4 '*fd8+
Paralyzing White's queenside, freeing (he (this wins as any computerwill point out.It's
d4-square for the knight, introducing a big not so easy for a human to spot such a long
queen check on e2. and ignoring his rook on backward move though) 29.'~g3 ~g5+
h8 completely. 30.wf2 '8!Vxd2+ 31.<.t>g3 'tlt'e3+ 32.'.t>h4
16:thf3 il'f4+ 3Ht>h5 ~f3 mates.
16.tL\xhS li:.d4! 17.c3 'i'h5 (l7 ...'iWc2+ is 27. ~f6+ Wd5 28.l:!c1?
perhaps what a human would play in prac- Sengupta misses a saving opportunity (made
tice: 18.~xe2fxe2+ 19...t;g2 ~xb3 20.axb3 possible by Black's 26th move), 28.:tf1
.i.e6 21.c4 ~d7 and Black should win) 18.h3 would have made it difficult for Black.
(IS.cxd4 'tth3+ 19.r;t:el 'tlt'g220.l:rfl f4 and 28 ...l:e8 29.l:tc4? ~g1+!
2l...i.h3 will kill White) IR...tL',e2threaten- And mates. 0-1

17
 CHAPTER 2
Mikhail Gurevich
Portisch's Ingenious Idea

b
b CiJb
bbb b b
:CiJil~~~ M
King's Indian Reversed with 4 ....~,d6!?

The following short draw is important for
the introduction of an ingenious plan to
counter White's King's Indian set-up against
both the Sicilian and the French. A revela-
tion in the development of Chess Theory!
o Vladislav Tkachiev
• Lajos Portisch
Tilburg 1994
1.e4 c5 2.~f3 e6 3.d3 lj':c6 4.93
~d6!?
This new and original move was introduced
in this game by the great Creator of Opening
theory, Lajos Portisch. Obviously, many
players. including the author of these lines.
have developed the ideas behind this 'artifi-
cial' move. We have to admit the theoretical
significance of this variation, as it applies to
both the Sicilian and the French Defence,
The common replies to 4.g3 arc: 4...d5,
4 .....'t.ge7,4 ...b6. or 4 ...g6. In developing the
bishop in front of the d-pawn Black aims for
the quickest possible development of his
pieces - without revealing the pawn struc-
ture he intends to build! Black wants to play
Ci.:;ge7,0-0, ii..<:7, and then d7-d6, nr d7-d5,
depending upon White's choice of strategy.
Although developing a piece in front of the
pawn goes against the traditional rules of
chess strategy, practice has seen no
refutation of Portischs idea - at least so far...

18

After ten years of practice in this line the
number of its supporters is rising. as the flex-
ible pawn structure gives Black many oppor-
tunities. Grandmasters Kengis, Ehlvest,
Kveinis and others play this provocative
idea. Some variations after 4 ....id6 lead to
typical Hcdgchog-schernes (when White
pushes d3-d4, and takes back with a piece af-
ter cxd4). In some games transpositions - or
more accurately 'similarities' - to the Reti
Opening, or to the Snake Variation of the
Benoni (l.d4 tL:f6 2.c4 e6 3.<'t:::f3 <:5 4.d5
exd5 5.c.:xd5~d6) occur. With reference to
the Snake Variation please note that in our
line Black will not give up space.
If a classical player like Lajos Portisch
breaks the strategical rules by putting a piece
in front of a pawn it must be good. Let's fol-
Iowa possi ble line of reasoning when exam-
ining the alternatives. The bishop must be
developed anyway, so the choice is between
the e7-. g7- or dti-square, Positioned on e7
the bishop is not active enough. g7 looks like
the perfect location for the bishop. although
by playing g6 Black weakens his pawn
structure, and in particular the dark squares
on the kingside. So, Portisch arrived at the
conclusion that the black bishop may well
start to operate on the diagonals u7-g1 or
a5-e I.Here I'm trying to analyse the process
of creation, CO explain the logic behind the
fantasy of Creator. This is not an easy task.
However. J can assure the Reader - as Ihave
known Portisch and his healthy approach to
life. for many years - that (he Maestro was
not drunk during the game. So. don 'r you
ever believe that the bishop's coming to d6
was just a slip of the finger.
5.~e3
Tkachiev recognizes Black's intention to
transfer the bishop 10 e7, and plays prophy-
lactically attacking the cS-pawn. His exam-
ple did not tind many followers, as (he
bishop is not well placed on e3. and might be
Portisch's Ingenious Idea
targeted by tL;g8-f6-g4. or by d7-d5·d4 (as
happens in the game).
See the other games for White's main move
5.i.g2.
5...tLJf6 6.~g2
Here 6.tL;c3 tbg4 7.~cl 0-0 8.~g2 ~c7
9.0·01We7'?! IO.tL:d2 0f6 11.'Cc4 a6 J 2.a4
nb8 13.lDe3 led to an unclear position in
Lang-Bezold, Deizisau 2002. The strongest
player eventually emerged successful after
the complications.
6 .•..Qe7!?
A 1.~~ :i
Ai 11.111
~ 1~
1
Portisch has first 'provoked' his opponent to
put his bishop on e3, and now he simply re-
treats the bishop to e7 with the idea of
d7-d5-d4.
I think Portisch would have loved to place
the bishop on c7. But to make this possible
Black would have to play b6, protecting the
c5-pawn. and (his would disconnect the
bishop from the a51b6-squares. At least such
was Portisch's understanding at the moment
of the game as Isee it. Mind you. this was my
understanding too when confronted with
this problem. The Baltic Grandmasters.
however, found a new solution to this prob-
lem. But let's not rush things at this point.
More explanation will be given in our next
game (Yudasin-Ehlvest),
Instead of 6 ... 1l...e7 the aggressive 6 ...t2ig4
looks more persistent, undermining the po-
19
Mikhail Gurevich
sition of White's bishop on e3. For example:
7 .~g5 fLc7 (also interesting is 7 .. .f6)
8 ..1i.xe7 ~xe7 9.h3 ~h6 I O.~bd2 d6 11.0-0
e5 l2.!tJe I 0-0 (with a very comfortable
position) 13.g4!? (this kind of 'pseudo-
activity' has to be avoided, as it weakens nu-
merous squares around White's king)
13...tbd4 14.4=~c4 lDe6 l5.tbe3 ~t~ and
Black is much better, Rivas Rornero-Rocius,
corr. 2002.
7.'ilVe2 d5 8 ..i.f4
Just like Portisch, Tkachiev is playing with
the same piece twice in the opening. Here it
constitutes an unpleasant necessity. Neither
8.exd5 '£ixd5 nor 8.eS?! /tjd7 9.~f4 g5
I O.~.c I g4 could satisfy Vladislav Tkachiev.
Black would get the better chances in both
cases.
8 .. :iWb6 9.c3 c4!?
& A
11
~~
1 New York 2003
1 /5,~
/5,/5, Cf:j/5,
W1/5,Jl~
W 1:[
This breaks White's pawn centre. and leads
to an original position. In case of 9 ...0·0
10.eS the centre would - at least temporarily
- be blocked. In such a situation there is al-
ways the danger that Black's king would
come under attack. This is an option, that
Ponisch docs not even want to consider.
However, in my opinion, it is not an obvious
decision to avoid the natural 9 ...0-0 IO.e5.
After I0 ...~d7 II.()-O f6 12.exf6 tLlxf6 the
position is not so clear.
The move in our main game opens the cen-
20
tre, and with an open centre, as my respect-
able Readers will probably know, flank at-
tacks are not so dangerous.
10.dxc4 ~xe4 11.l~e50-0 12.0-0lIe8
13.~c2!?
This is an accurate move, with the idea of
14.tlJd2 Tkachiev keeps the balance in the
game.
13...tef6 14.tbd2
And here the opponents agreed a draw in this
highly interesting theoretical duel. Actually,
the position is still full of life. White may
even have some symbolic initiative. How-
ever, Black's position is solid with no partic-
ular weaknesses. So, there must be another
practical explanation why the opponents
agreed to such a 'grandmaster draw'.
For us, the significance of the game is clear.
With Portisch 's 4 ..._~d6 a variation was born
and it started Life on ils own. As I will dem-
onstrate below it is alive and well today.
o Leonid Yudasin
• Jaan Ehlvest
1.e4 c5 V2.·,f3e6 3.d3 tee6 4.g3 .id6
5.~g2
This is the main lint: of the variation. White
finisbes his development of the kingside
without paying any attention to the oppo-
nent's 'strange' manoeuvres. With his strong
control of the centre White will later make a
choice out of two typical plans: (I) central
play, or (2) a kingside attack. This game will
illustrate the lirst (most classical) plan.
In the following game While tries to refute
Black's strategy by building a strong pawn
centre even before finishing his develop-
ment. In a way. a natural reaction consider-
ing the exposed bishop on d6: 5.c3 ~c7
6.~e3 d6 7.d4 cxd4 8.cxd4 .:cf6 9.<2bd2 0-0
IO..ad3. Everything would be fine here, if

only the g-pawn would be on g2. Here, the
main supporter of our system Edvin Kengis,
immediately underlines the disadvantages
of White's strategy: I O... eS (with such ideas
as 11...~h3 and 11...~g4, Kengis tights
White's 'strong' pawn centre, and tries to es-
tablish control over the dark squares. The
move 1O...ltJg4 was also interesting. win-
ning two bishops, and e6-e5 will follow)
Il.d5 ti'th4 12.~e2 ~g4 13.a3 tbxe3 14.fxe3
tt':a6 15M tbbR 16.0-0 .Q.h3 lum tL;d7
18.tL.h4 lDf6, Saulespurens-Kengis. Riga
2004. The knight enters into play, and Black
is much better considering his two powerful
bishops.
5.•.'i:ige7
Kveinis has chosen another set-up here:
5...~..r.;7 6.0-0 ~f6 (another square for the
knight) 7.~el d6 8.c3 0-0 9.h3 h6 IO.M
cxd4 II.cxd4 ~a5 12.tL.c3,!! (this is a primi-
tive reaction -and the reason for White's fu-
ture problems. The stronger 12..1d2 needs to
be researched) 12...e5.
Exactly like in the previous Saulespurens-
Kengis game. It is an interesting strategical
point of Black's strategy. Note that both
Kengis and Kveinis don't mind allowing
White 10 build a strong e4-d4 pawn centre.
Moreover, they develop their pieces in the
most flexible way and provoke their oppo-
nents to build this centre, only in order to at-
tack and destroy it later on. A controversial
Portisch's Ingenious Idea
strategy perhaps, but we cannot find a game
where it was refuted. The game now contin-
ued 13.d5 $.xc3 14.bxc3 tL:aS 15.lQh4 .td7
16..Q.e3 ~\c4 (Black's game is preferable)
l7.tbf5 .hf5 18.exfS tbxe3 19.11xe3 'finS
20.c4 1:ae8 and Black is clearly better,
Namyslo-K veinis. Dresden 1996.
6.0-00-0
Ehlvest develops his pieces in a most eco-
nomic fashion.
7.~e3
This move was always worrying me, that is
why I would play the bishop to <;7 earlier,
Black now has to play
7...b6 8.c3 ~c7
when the bishop doesn't enter the a7-gl or
a5-c I diagonals. This looks problematic to
me, but it doesn't worry Jaan Ehlvest,
9.d4 cxd4 10.cxd4 d5!
Here it comes, this illustrates the flexibility
of the whole idea behind 4 ...Q.d6. Black did
not hurry with his choice of pawn structure
earlier in the game, having developed his
pieces while keeping all 'pawn-options'
open. Ehlvest has wailed for the best mo-
ment for counterplay in the centre. Let
White strike first, let him show his inten-
tions, and define his pawn structure. Only
then you show him that the right coun-
ter-measures have been prepared.
The set-up with d7 -d6 and e6-e5, as in the
comments above, would not be logical here.
21
Mikhail Gurevich

as the bishop on e7 is blocked by the 17.exf6l:xt61S.tOh2

b6-pawn. So. Ehlvest fights for (he centre in Here 18.tile5 was better: 18.. .l!~xe5 19.dxe5
a different manner, provoking his opponent ~xe3 20 .... xe3 d4 21.~d I with an unclear
to close it. and after position. but Yudasin had no Fritz to his as-
11.e5 sistance.
play has been transferred to a kind of 3.e5 18 ...ti',fS! 19.ttJxbS
Variation of the French Defence. where Or 19..Q.xhS ~llb5 20.t;~llb5 tL;xe3 21.flle3
White's bishop has absolutely no business e5=l' and Black develops a strong initiative.
on g2 whatsoever, 19 ...tbxe320.'tWxe3
Black would also have a good game had Of course 20.fxe3 :xfl+ 21kxfl ~xb5+ is
Yudasin tried 10 keep the centre open. For unacceptable for White.
example, after 11.~';c3 dxe4 12.~xe4 .ib7 20 ... eS21.~b3 ~xd4 2VlJxd4 bd4
13.1kl DeS Black has fine countcrplay.
11...a5!
An introduction to a deep plan. Black's bish-
E ~
ops are coming to a6 and b6. and the ~ .t.t
queenside-pawns will advance to claim 1. & -
space on the queenside.
12."d2 .ia6 13.llcl bS 14.0..c3 ~b6
.t .t.t
1S.h4 ~d716.~fl 1. IS
'lW ~
t!:.~ ~ ~
: n ~~

What a career for the bishop! Here we see

the full realization of Black's strategy,
White is lost,
23.~Lg4 l:tb6 24 ..!Dxe5
A desperate act.
24 ... 't\Vd6 25.1:[c6 !hc6 26.tbXC6
'i'xc6 27.l:d1 ~c4 28.~c2 'ilfcS
The wrong choice in my opinion. Yudasin 29.Wd2 ..ibcf1 30:t!Vxd4 fi'xd4
tries to resist on the queenside. Prohably. 31.nxd4 .*.e2 32.1:1xd5 £c4
16.<I';e2 was better. with the idea of And here was the right moment to SLOp the
~e2-f4-h5 attacking the opponent's king: dock.
16....!L;f5l7.ti;f4 b4 (it isn 't easy for White to 33J~d2 ~xa2 34.tJ.1g2 ~.b3 35.g4 84
develop activity on tbe kingxide. but it was 36.Wg3 teS 37.h5 <j;;f7 38.Wf4 h6
the only way to PUI at least some psychologi- 39.f3 ~e7 40.g5 hxg5+ 41.~xg5
cal pressure on the opponenn IR..ih3 a4 1:1e5+ 42.Wh4 :ld5 43.l:le2 Wf6
19.~·:h5. 44Jlg2 rld4+ 45.~g3 I:lc4 4S.rld2
16 ...f611 ~c2 47Jld6+ riJe7 4S.IZa6 lbb2 49.14
Ehlvest starts a kind of global warfare. Ag- J:a2 50.15~a1
gressioo all over the board. White resigned.

22
 Portisch's Ingenious Ide?

Looking through the games so far, one may hog-like system. I don't see any danger for
come to a clear conclusion: the plan of crea- Black in this kind of position for two rea-
ting a strong pawn centre doesn't work for sons. First. White spent a tempo on playing
White. The pawn manoeuvres d2-d3-d4, in d3 and then d4. Second. one of the possible
connection with g3, are not dangerous for plans in the Hedgehog for Black is the ma-
Black. noeuvre ~fll-e7-dR-c7 where the bishop is
well placed usually. Simple calculation
shows that Black economized and won a
o Vladislav Nevednichy tempo by putting his bishop to c? in only two
• Mihailo Prusikio moves.
Miskolc (Hungary) 2004 10.h3 h6 1 L~e3 d5
Counterplay in the centre - an active (but UJJ-

1.e4 c5 2.4'J3 e6 3.d3 lUe6 4.g3 .QdS forced) response to White's strategy.
5.~g2 .~e7 S.O-O 12.exd5
Black had no opening problems in the fol- Interesting was 12.f4!? with the idea of
lowing rapid game: 6.d4 cxd4 7.ti.,xd4 t'.6ge7 l3.e5 - controlling the centre. In case of
(7 ...tt.',f6'?) 8.0-0 a6 9.tbc3 0-0 1O..Q.e3 d6 12...dxe4 (I2 ...~xd4 13.1Ihd4!? dxc4
11.l:tel tDxd4 12.~xd4 e5 13 ...Q.c3 b5 14.f4 14.Ci;xe4t) 13.tC.xc6bxc614.lL'xe4 White is
.Q.b7 I S.fxeS dxc5 16.~c5 l:te8? (here Edvin slightly better,
missed a chance to seize an initiative: 12...exd5
l6 ....ab617.~xb6l.\Vxh6+ lR.whll:tad1l+) Being an old fan of isolated pawns myself, I
17.W'h5 t"ilg6 1R.l:tad 1 'ilicS 19..ih3 l:te6 feel. that Black has plenty of'counterchanccs
2o ..bc6 fxe6 21.'it'g4 b4 22.~xb4 1-0 here.
Magem Badals- Kengis. Liepaja 200 I. 13.ti':b3 l:te8 14:~c1
6...0\f6 7Pic3 0-0 8.d4 Uncertain play by White now provoked the
A completely different approach. German player into a promising exchange
Nevednichy ha .. developed his pieces. and sacrifice.
then breaks in the centre, effectively trans-
posing the game into an open Sicilian.
8... cxd4 9.ti:'iXd4 a6

14 ...J:!xe3!? 1S.fxe3
Naturally, IS. 'iW xe3 d4 is out of the question.
15 ...~xg3
The game has transposed to a Hedge- Here two powerful bishops and the compro-

23
Mikhail Gurevich
mised position of White's king give Black
more than enough compensation. The theo-
retically significant part of the game has
passed. Suffice to say thaI Nevednichy was
very fortunate to save the gnme.
1S.~d2 .ie6 17.nadl ~e5 l8.~xd5
<iJxd5 19..ixd5 "g5+ 20JIi'g2 "i'xe3+
2l.~hl ~xh3 22.'lfU3 Wxf3+ 23Jbf3
~g4 24.Uxf7 .txd1 25 ..I:1f1 + 'it'h8
26.::txdl l:id8 2V2;c5 ttJb4 2B.c4 b6
29.ttJe6 l:id6 3O.b3 ttJxa2 3Utel ~f6
3VtJf4 l:idB 33Jle6 llb8 34.~g2 ~b4
35,~e4 a5 36.Wf3 t;~,a637 ..tc2 ti\c5
38.l:c6 ~d7 39.tiJgS+ ~g8 40.~f5
ttJeS+ 41.0xe5 ~xe5 42.'ite4 ~c3
43.~eS+ ~h8 44.~c8 g6 45.~h3
~g7 46.l:ic7+ Wi6 47.nc6+ wg5
48.~eS h5 49 ..if7 ~f6 SO.cS ::tb7
st ..ieS bxcS 52J~xc5+ ~h4 53Jba5
l:e7 54Jla6 ~c3 55.~f3 .td4 56.b4
g5 57.~4 ~f2 S8.Wf3 Q.gl S9.bS
94+ 60.r;i;>g2~d4 6l.nd6 ~e3 62.b6
J;lb7 63 ..ad5
63 ...l:tb8 After 63 ....l:xb6 64Jhbn kxh6
the resulting opposite-coloured bishop
ending is a theoretical draw. 64.b7 lif8
65.l:re6 i.a7 66.ne2 fld8 67 ...ae4 :tdl
68.l:tf2 l:tel 69.j(_c6 ~g5 70.l:tf8 l:te2+
71.Wfl l:tc2 72 ..ae4l:tc4 73.~d5 .I:1f4+
74.nxf4 ~xf4 75.<:;g2 h4 76 ...Q.e6h3+
77.~hl <l;g3 78.~xg4 ~xg4
Draw.
24
o Alexander Dgebuadze
• Mikhail Gurevich
Antwerp 1999
1.e4 e6 2.d3 c5 3.~f3 ti."Jc64.g3 .id6
5.~g2 ;;"c7
After 5 ... ti',ge7 6.0-0 :«'c7 it is possible to
play 7.t2,h4 with the idea of 8.f4 and an at-
tack on the kingside. This is typical of
Fedorov's approach. This player is always
looking for the opponent's king.
It was now correct to play: 7.,.d5 (flank ac-
tivity had to be met by central counterplay)
8.f4 (8.tL:d2 b6 9.f4 ~b7 iO.f5 ,*d7)
8...dxe4 9.dxe4 ~xdl JO.i:txdl b6 with an
unclear 'endgame'.
Kengis instead went: 7...lt:g6 (a nervous re-
action, that I don't understand) 8 ..!i:·.xg6 hxg6
9kd a6 lO.a3b5 11.ii.c3 ~c7'!! (it was a
bad day for Edvin, he misses the following
blow. Correct was 1 1...d6) IVLxi5! exdS
l3.exd5 JiLb7 14.dxc6 _bc6 15.~xc6 dxc6
In.'ilkf3 (Black's positiou now collapses)
16.. .'ilVdfi 17.~f4 'iWf6 18"~Yc3+ 'lPd7
19.:hc7 cJ;;xc7 20:~xl:5 and White is a
pawn up in a superior position. Fedorov-
Kengis, Vilnius 1997.
s.cea ~ge7 7kg5!?
Inspired by Fedorov's ideas, my opponent
introduces an interesting novelty. The
threats are ~L"i!fhS and X.f4. followed by
 Portisch's Ingenious Idea

9.t1Jf3 gaining space and developing activity 20.fxe6?! i.xe6 2VL~xe6 ~xe6
on the kings ide. With the centre dosed White's bishops are
7...f6 paralysed.
Another way to react was 7 ...h6 S.Ci:;h3 22.g5 t".0e5==F
23.gxf6 llxf6 24.lhf6
(S.... h5 g6 9.'¥i'h4 tOd4) 8...dS 9.0-0 0-0 ~xf6 25:~Va4 a6 26.i.d2
1O.f4 with an unclear position. Stronger was 26.fk2 'iWh4and Black is only
8.~h3 0-0 9.0-0 ~e5!? slightly better.
26..Jbb227.:11
Not 27."e8+ 'fifE 28:\i'h5 {i;xd3-+.
K .t~ K. 27 ...~g6 28:~'a3 "S'b6
ii i~ ii Losing is 2!L~hd2'?? 29.W'b3+. But
~ ii 28 ...~c4 29.dxc4 lhd2 30.'i!ff3 h6 is also

i
~.-'--~- .t
~
better for Black.
29.~a5 'Ilfb5 30.~c7 [i;xd3
Black now has a winning position.
CiJ~ 31.~d6 tLJg632.e5 h6?!
~~~
a: ~'iV
An interesting waiting move. I try to pro-
voke f4 before breaking in the centre.
Note that 9 ...d5 lO.exd5 exd5 11.t.bf4 would
give White a certain initiative.
10.tLie2 d5 11.c3 d412.c4
A surprising transposition to a King's Indian
defence type of position. The centre is
blocked, which gives my opponent some
chances to attack on the kingside, hut I have Unfortunately, Zeitnot starts to interfere. ln-
more space and good perspectives on the stead 32 ...:'xg2 33.Wxg2 c4 followed by
queenside, 34 ...h6 and 35 ...litd5 was totally winning.
12...l:tbS 13.f4 iLc7 14.94 b5 15.cxb5 33.e6 l:txg2 34.~xg2 'efc6+ 35.~g1
:xb516.~1!? 1iWxd636:fl'xd3 ~xe6 37.Wf5°o ~e3+
Planning 17.f5. In reply to the immediate No better is 37...l!rxf5 38.rlxf5 c4 39.Wf2.
16.f5 there follows 16...~e5 17.t.L:hf4 ~d6 38.Wh1 tDe5 39.~e6+ ~h7 40:~'f5+
with unclear play. 96 4UWf6!= "S'e4+ 42.~1 "ttg4+
16...~d717.f5 fi'b8 42...h543.h4!=.
It is important nut to dose the centre com- 43.'~'h1 "ti'e4+ 44/';'g1
pletely. thus avoiding a straight attack. Draw.
Moreover, control over the e5-square is im-
portant. Considering all commented games I could
1S.tL::ht4i.xf419.tDxf4 ~d6!? come to only one logical conclusion: White
Intending 20 ...~5. Bad is 19...e5 20.t.bh5 has to be extremely lucky to survive after
'i'd6 21.b3 tUbS 22.g5 with an attack. Portisch's ingenious ~d6 idea!

25
Mikhail Gurevich
I had already finished this article when fate,
and Alexander Dgebuadze, gave me an
opportunity (0 check and test the above
evaluations. When we met in the French
league. Dgcbuadz.c gave me a chance to
repeat the line, and I was feeling kind of
obliged to let him show what he had
prepared.
o Alexander Dgebuadze
• Mikhail Gurevich
French tt 2005
1.e4 e6 2.d3 c5 3.4~f3 ~)c6 4.g3 .Q,d6
5.Qg2 ~ge7 6.lDc3 JLC7 7.~e3
For 7.0g5 (Dgebuadze-Gurevich, Antwerp
1999) sec the previous game.
7.•.d68.d4
This time Dgebuadze makes the choice to-
ward central strategy.
8...cxd4 9.lLJxd4 0-0 10.0-0 a6
R A'iW
R~
iA ~iii
~ii
This might be an important position for the
evaluation of the whole variation. White's
strategy is simple, logical and transparent.
His pieces are mobilized, White has more
space and a certain amount of control of the
centre. With his following move my oppo-
nent connects the rooks in order to develop
them along the e- and d-files,
11.'i'd2
A Theoretical Novelty. It is a purely classi-
26
cal move, but it has its drawbacks.
• I I ...wh5 tUxd4 12.~xd4 e5 13.~e3 .lit.b6
14.J:[fel ~e6 15.l'hdl nc8 16Jld2 Aa5
17.l:tedll:tc618.f4f619.'i'h40g620.'ifh5
cxf4 2l..ixf4 ~xf4 22.gxf4 ~b!l+ 23.~hl
.te3+, Kl.arsen-Zagorskis, Copenhagen
1998.
• 11.J:[el tL:l(d4 12.Axd4 e5 13...Q.e3 b5
14.t4- ~b7 15.fxe5 dxe5 16.Ac5 (Stronger is
16 ...~b6!,!~) Magem Badals-Kengis.
Liepaja 200 I .
In my opinion, 11.... e2 and 1).f4 need to be
studied.
11...~xd4 12.~xd4 tL.c6 13.~e3
lte5!?
This is the point, and, it seems to me. that my
opponent missed it. After the exchange of
one pair of knights White's space advantage
is irrelevant, ami my second knight develops
quickly forward, creating (he unpleasant
threat of 14... t2:.c4. White needs to lose some
time to neutralize the threat.
14.'it¥e2 b5
Black's initiative develops quickly and natu-
rally. Already at this point I knew I had a
good game, as Black holds the initiative.
15.a3
Black is also slightly better after 15.b3 b4
16..~::a4(16.lDdl aSf) 16... J.:.d7.
15...tL.lc41S.9.c1
An unpleasant necessity in order not to give
his opponent the simple advantage of the
two bishops.
Thus. 16.eS is well-met by 16... /D)(e3
17.~xe3 nb8.
16...~b7 17.b3
A better chance was perhaps 17.a4 'it'd7
1R.axb5 axb5 19.:lxaR IIxaR 20. b3 tDe5
21.tDxb5 (or 21.'tWxb5 "c8! 22 .... e2 .ta6
23.ti:;b5 'ird7 24.c4 j}l(b5 2S.cxbS :Lb8=)
21 3:{a2with compensation.
17 ga5!?
Not allowing my upponent a second for re-
laxatiun.
 Portisch's Ingenious Idea

18.tbd1 Here 31.Wg4 is refuted by (he elementary

This i~ passive, but the alternatives arc no 31....l:rxa I 32.nxa! ~xe3 winning.
better: 31 ....Qa6
- l8.bxc4.ixc319Jlhl ~c620."'d3~e5. White's position collapses as it house of
- 18.0xh5 tOe5! 19.tbd4 (19.b4 axb5 cards.
20.bxa5 '\txaS) 19...~c3 20 ..Ji.e3 .hal 32.f5!1
2JJhal:j:. The attack fails after 32.~h6+ gxh6
18...'iJe519.~b2 ttc7 20Jlc1 b4! 33.ffg4+ Wf8 34.ffg7+ We7 35.f5 e5
An essential brick in Black's strategical 36.f6+ We8.
pian. As White moves his pieces to the 32 ...eS!
kingside, it's extremely important to break Much simpler than 32 ....txc4 33.lDh6+
on the opposite side and to distract the oppo- gxh6 (33...Wf8 34.~xg7+! Wxg7 35.'1Iig4+
nent. with attack) 34.~g4+ <M'8 35.~g7+ (or
21.axb4 .bb4 2Vbe3 a5 35.fxe6l2le5 36 ..he5 dxe5 37.:xf7+ ..-xf7
Intending both 23 ...a4, and 23 .....G.a6. 38.ext7 I:a I+ 39.~f1 nxf1+ 40.~g2 ::r2+)
23.f4 'iJd7 24.Wh1 35 ...'.t>e8 when Black is also better.
Or 24.f5 .2.c5 (24 ...e5 !?) 25.'iPh I ~t:5°o. 33.~d1 l:txc4 34.f6 h5!
Black is slightly better after 24 .... g4 ~c3.
24 ...a4!1 ~
Simple and persistent. As I don't see any real
threats to my king Icontinue my strategy.
~~ 11
Instead 24 ...~a6 2S.c4 ~c5 26 .... g4 would 1. 1 ~
have handed White the initiative. 11. 1 1
25.bxa4 lba4 26.c4
finally creating the threat of 27.'liVg4.
E ~ ttJ
26 ... ~a3! ~
Trying to eliminate the 'main enemy' of my ~~
king.
27Jla1
~ 'iV l:I \it
Or 27.~xa3 lha3:f. A final touch. Black gains a decisive mate-
27...l:tfaS 2S . .Q.c3 rial edge.
But not 28.l:txa3lha3 29.ffg4 g6 30.f5 tZ:;e5 35.fxg7
31 ...axe5 dxe5 32.fxe6 J:taI +. White's weak back rank is (he problem after
2S ... Qb4! 29.l:txa4 ltxa4 30 ..~a1?! 35.tL;h6+ gxh6 36.ffxhS 4'xf6 37.l1xf6
With the desperate hope to proceed with the (37.~xh6l2xe4) 37 .. .1kl+.
attack. Stronger was 30.~xb4 .l:rxh4 31 ..r:tdI 35...hxg4 36.tfxg4
~c5 32.'i!fd2 1:!b6 33.e5 ~xg2+ 34.tL2xg2 Again the hack rank tactics work for Black
tL:e4 35.'(Wd4 ~b7. though Black dearly in the line 36.'i!f'd2 t;:;f61 37.lhf6 ke3!
holds the initiative. 3lt'ilYxe3 llc I + and wins.
30....1c5+ 36...(:£::f6!
37."h4
I enjoy the bishop's manoeuvres in this 37J:b.f6 l:tc I +.
game. Each move of the bishop works as a 37 ...tl.'.h7 38.~b2 ~c2 39.l~:b1"'b8
nail in the coffin of my opponent's strategy. White resigned. I hope you enjoyed the
31.c~g4 game as well as I did, my dear Reader.

27
 CHAPTER 3
Jeroen Bosch
A Flank Attack in the GrOnfeld
4.h4 - Still following a central strategy
Keeping your main line repertoire against
the Griinfeld up-to-date is an arduous task.
Ernst Grunfcld's hypermodern weapon has
evolved into one of the most respectable
defences against 1.d4. NO! surprisingly, the
theoretical workload for both sides is wholly
in line with this status. If you are looking for
a weapon against the GrUnfeld this SOS
chapter will be of interest to you.
1.d4 ~f6 2.c4 g6 3.t;_jc3d5 4.h4
Why not embark on a flank attack the next
time you encounter the Grunfeld? The idea
of 4.h4 (apart from probing the 'weakness'
g6) is that the knight on f6 cannot defend the
squares d5 and h5 simultaneously. Thus af-
ter Black's most natural move 4 ...~g7.
28
White plays 5.hS. when after 5 ...lDxh5, he
gains an edge in the centre with 6.cxdS.
Somewhat paradoxically. this simple line
demonstrates that with 4.h4 White is still
following a central strategy.
In another form this idea is known from a
(Grunfeld) line against the English: I.c4
~f6 2.-2d d5 3.cxdS tUxdS 4.~f3 g6
5.h4''!. Here the knight has already been lu-
red to the centre. Consequently, White plans
the crude 6.h5. Two miniature wins by Jero.
en Piket (both in active chess) demonstrate
the dangers facing Black:
_ 5... 1.£7 6.h5 .!;:c6 7.g.1 ~g4 8.h6 (the
h-pawn is making a career for itself. Black
now gives up both his bishops. He ~hould

perhaps have opted for the simple 8....fH6)
8...~xc3 9.bxc3 ~xf3 lO.exf3 W'd6 II..~e2
0-0-0 12.'itb3 rs l3.a4 es 14.a5 c4 15.f4 tL:f6
16.0-0 lbg4 17.i.a3 ..-xd2? (a clear mistake
in II difficult situation; t7 ..... d7 was forced)
18.a6! (now that the a-pawn has also reached
the sixth rank, the game is over) 18...lba5
19.axb7+ Wb8 20.'iWbS e3 21.~c5! exf2+
22Jhf2. and Black resigned, J -0.
Piket-Shirov, Monte Carlo rapid 1998.
- S...lbf6 (laking {he assault of the h-pawn
seriously) 6.d4 fJ..g7 7.e4 0-0 8.~e2 cS 9.dS
e6 1O.hS! tDxhS I l.g4 (according to Shipov
White should have played I l..vgS!?, with
the better chances) 11. ..l(J6 12.~g5 'W'b6
(Black could have taken advantage of
White's 11th move with Shipov's 12...'ifaS!)
13..hf6 .bf6 14.'itd2 ~g7 15.0-0-0 tLd7
l6.gS c4 17.l:lh2 ,C[e8 18.d6 ,C[d8 19.'i!ff4
"'as (it is fitting that Whitenow dealt the de-
cisive blow along the h-file) 20JIxh7! and
White won, Pikct-Svidler, Internet,
KasparovChess 2000.
After this brief outing into the English
Opening, we will examine the virtues (and
vices) of 4.h4.
Let us divide the material along thematic
lines:
Natural development - ignoring the
march of the h-pawn.
II Prophylaxis - stopping the march of the
h-pawn.
III Acting in the centre - neutralizing the
march of the h-pawn.
Section I features the 'naive' 4 •••f;;_g7. The
second section examines the 'automatic' re-
sponses of the h-pawn: 4•..h6 and 4 ... hS. Fi-
nally, all central responses are the subject of
section lIT. Thus, Black can counterattack
with 4... c5, give up the centre with 4 .••dxc4,
or strengthen dS with 4 ...c6.
A Flank Attack in the GrOnfeld
I Naturaldevelopment
4 ... _Q,g7
The most natural move, but it falls right into
White's main idea.
5,h5!
This is the crux. Note that 5.cxd5lLJx.d5 6.hS
cS! (Williams-Beaumont, England It 1998)
favours Black.
5...~xh5
Considering the circumstances this is
Black's best bet. With 5 ...0-0 Black castles
into it, which surely justifies 4.h4 and S.hS!
After 6.hxg6 hxg6 the simple 7 .~h6
(Davies) gives While an attack. The ugly
5 ... gxlo? gives While a pleasant choice.
Bosboom-Gorissen, Haarlem 2002, went:
6.cxd5 4'xdS 7.,C[xh5;!; lL:xc3 8.bxc3 ti.',d7
9.J:[bl c5 IO.'ifa4 cxd4 II.cxd4 <JJf8 12.e3,
and White was better, Finally, S...dxc4 6.h6
~f8 7.e4 is simply disastrous for Black.
6.cxdS 0,f6
Moving the knight back into the fray. In
practice Black has also attacked the centre
here with his c-pawn:
- 6...c5 7.dxc5 WaS 8.e4 (or simply 8.~d2
'tWxc5 9.(4) 8...Wxc5 9 ..1e2?! (this allows
Black's next move, simply 9.~d2 preserves
an edge) 9 ...~d4!? IO.~xhS i.xf2+ 1 I.<;tyfl
.Q.xgl (l1. ..gxhfi) IUhgl gxhS 13.'fi'xhS
tbd7 14.... e2 b6 15..ae3 'iWaS 16.tL:b5 tL.f6
17.d6 Ad7 18.0c7+ ~8 19.~d4 ~gS
29
Jeroen Bosch
20.eS l:te8 21.~e3 ~xe3 22 ..be3 exd6
23.exd6 ~e4:j:, Sulyok-Nemeth. Hungary
1993.
- 6...c6 7.e4 (7.dxe6 .txd4 is about equal)
7 ... cxdS (7 ... ti)f6 8.dxc6 transposes to the
main line) R.eS! (threatening to win the
knight. Black is now forced to a sad regroup-
ing of his troops) 8....if8 9.g4 tbg7 (White
has obvious compensation for the sacrificed
pawn) 1 O.~g2 e6 J 1.~h6 tL c6 12.ti:·.ge2
1 VWd523.b3 ~hB 24.'ifh3 'Wf5 25..l:txc6
_~d7 13.'i!id2 f6 14.exf6'ifxf6ISJlh3! ~b4
16.:'f3 'fie7 17.~gS 'ifd6 lKa3 i..xc3
19.~xc3 lC.a5 20.'@'e2 nrs 21.-0xd5!. and
White won in Shliperman-Ady, New York
1999.
7.e4 e6 B.dxc6
B...bxc6
Black accepts a clearly inferior pawn struc-
ture because 8...tL:xc6 is met by 9.dS. The
pawn sacrifice !L.O-O 9.cxb7 .ltxb7 is also
inadequate. White has a pleasant choice
between
- W.e5 tDdS J l..~h6 ~xh6 J 2.l:Ixh6 'fib6
13.'tIU d2± Johnsrud-Scarani, e-mail corr,
2UOO.and
- IO.f3 ~':c6 I 1.~.e3 ViIIc7 12.Qh5 -.h6
13.... d2l:[fd8 14.<i:ge2 ~a6, Seres-Bali nov,
Budapest 1999. Now IS.d5 would have
given White a decisive edge.
9..te2 ~a6 10.0f3
White has a clear structural edge here. The
game Seres-Dembo, Budapest 2001. went:
30
10...'iVa5 11.0-0 0-0 12.~g5 h6
13.Qh4 i.xe2 14.~xe2l:[eB?!
Slightly better was 14...e6 15.e5 ~d5
16.~e4. However, since 16... g5? is refuted
by 17.~xg5 hxg5 18.~fxgS (Davies),
Black's position remains unenviable.
15J:tac1 'Wa6 16.'iS'c2 l£Jbd7 17.e5
tUh7 18.e6! txe6 19.~xg6 tUhfB
20. ff'g3 'i'd3 21.l:r1e1 "f5 22.0e4
~xh3 26.gxh3 tbg6 27.~g3 tLlgf8
28.tLle5 tUxeS 29.dxc5 .l:ted8 30.l:lc7
.l:taeB 31..l:txe7 ~xc5 32Jba7 l:ld3
33.~g2 ~c2 34.];te4 1-0
II Prophylaxis
Black can. of course. stop the h-pawn dead
in its tracks by playing 4 ...h5. Similarly.
4 ...h6 serves the same purpose, as 5 .hS gS fa-
vours Black. Still, these 'automatic' re-
sponses will not solve Black's opening prob-
lems.
4...h6?!
I don't like this move, although it is better
than 4...h5. The pawn 011 h6 is vulnerable
and provides White with an easy target. In
Chichkin-Nasikan, Kiev 1999, Black opted
fur 4 ...h5,)1 Play continued: S ..agS (this
demonstrates that 4...h5 is worse than 4.h4!.
Sinee White's bishop is now protected on
gS, Black does not have the customary
...~\,e4 response) 5...uxc4 6.e4 SLg7 7.~xe4
(White has u superior position) 7 ...lLlh7?!
8 ..1ie3± !ten 9.tL:ge~ e5 lO.dS Ci:Je7II..~cS
b6 12.~a3 e5'? n.dxc6 'iWxdl+ 14.~xdl
tL:xe6 lS.C2:;b5,and While was winning.
5.cxd5
Less good is 5kf3 fLg7 6.Qf4 c6 7.e3 Wb6
8.'i'd2 .!L:e4'. with approximate equality in
Seres-Blasko, Budapest 200 I.
5...ttJxdS6.e4 tL~xc37.bxc3 ~g7
A standard Grunteld position bUI for the po-
sition of the h.pawns. The difference favoun>
White. Dnvie~'s suggestion of 8 ..ae3, fol-

lowed by ..wd2, is one good set-up to take ad-
vantage of the inclusion of 4.h4 h6.
The game Seres-Nagy, Budapest 1998, went
instead:
8.~c4 c5 9.tile2 ttJc6 10.ii.e3 0-0
11.ac1 a6
Instead of the text 11 ... 'iWa5 was better.
12.'i'd2 ~h7 13.h5 g5 14.e5! ~h8
15.f4 1616.0-0 ~g417.tng3
With a clear edge for White.
17...b5 18.~b3 'W'a5 19.exf6 exf6
20.d5 c4 21.~c2 aad8 22.Qbl t:i':e7
23.d6 tilc8 24.'tWc2 f5 25.1xg5 t~xd6
26.l:U4
The threat is 27 .:txg4.
26..."'6'a427.'ii'xa4 bxa4 28.g6 ti;b5
Or 28 ...~e5 29.xd4±.
29.l:1xc4 01xc3 30.Wh2 4iixb1 31 J.:Ixbl
l:td3 32.Q.f4 l:1a3 33.~b7 +- l::txa2
34.l:tcc7 ~f3 35Jbg7 l:txg2+ 36.~h3
l::txg3+ 37.Wxg3 ~xb7 38.l::1xb7 l:1eS
39.~xh6 a3 4O.iLg7+ 1-0
III Acting in the centre
Clearly. sections I and Il lcavc White with a
pleasant opening edge. Nothing but good
news for our SOS line so far! If Black is to
find an adequate response to 4.h4 it will have
to be ill the current section. The three moves
that I represent here have in common that
they concentrate first and foremost on the
A Flank Attack in the Grunfeld
centre. Having lumped them together for
this reason, it is only fair to add that they are
also fundamentally different. Let us divide
them accordingly into:
A) 4 c5
B) 4 dxc4
C) 4 (6
Lines A and B are tactical in nature, whereas
line C is Black's most solid option.
Variation A
So far, I have not mentioned that the most
faithful adherent of 4.h4 is the Hungarian 1M
Lajos Seres. His games constitute the main
body of this article. Seres is, however, not
(he inventor of 4.h4. This 'honour' goes to
grandmaster AlexanderZaitscv. This player,
incidentally. should not be mistaken for his
namesake Igor Zaitsev, Anatoly Karpov's
long-time second. Alexander Zaitsev can
boast, for instance, shared 1stl2nd place in
the 36th Soviet Championship of 1968 (los-
ing the play-off fur the Litle 21,4-31,4 (0 Lev
Polugaevsky). In the stem game with 4.h4 he
managed to beat no less a player than Vasily
Smyslov.
Here is the stem game:
o Alexander Zaitsev
• Vasily Smyslov
Sochi 1963
4.•.c55.cxd5
Here 5.dxc5 is best. Note that 5.h5? is had
due to 5...cxd4.
5.Ji::xd56.dxc5!?
6.h5 S2.g7 7.hxg6 hxg6 8.11xh8+ ~xh8:'F.
6 ...~xc3 7.'t!bd8+ ~xd8 8.bxc3 kg7
Black appears to have no problems in this
ending. All the more interesting thaL Zaitsev
is able to outplay his famous opponent in his
own territory.
31
Jeroen Bosch
9.~d2 ~f5
Stronger is 9 ...t22a6 1O.~a3 (lO.c6 tL.c5 -
Davies - is clearly in Black's favour)
1O....if5, and if now 11.1'3 then 11....i.h6+
12.e3 ~c7 13.~xa6l:lad8+ 14.wel hxa6.
10.f3! tLld7
Better ix 10...~h6+ I I .Wd I .ttxc I 12. \tJxc I
<i;c7.
11.e4 ~e6 12.c6!
Much better than 12.~a3 :rc8::;:.
12...bxc6 13.~e2 iic4 14.wc2 We7
lS.h5 eS?! 16.~e3 .ie6 17.~el a5
18.lL;b3 f5 19.1bd2 f4 20.~f2 g5
21..tc4 ~he8 22.~xe6 ~xe6 23.C.2.c4
.if8 24.~hdl ~b8 25.tiJxaS ~h6
26.J:[d2 J:[xh5 27.l:tadl lbf6 28.tbc4 e5
29.t;\xe5 94 30.4.\f7 gu3 31.gxf3 l:lh2
32.e5 tiJdS 33.~xd5 l:Ixf2+ 34.Wd3
1Ixf3+ 35.~c4 ae3 36.ad7+ ~c6
37.lbd8+ l:Ixd8 38.l:Ixd8 J:[e4+39.Wb3
~e7 40.lIc8+ ~b7 41.lIe8 Ah4
42.~d7+ We6 43.axh7 f3 44.c4 1-0
An impressive win that had lillie to do with
the opening, though. Clearly, White must
improve upon Zaitscv's S.cxdS.
4...c5
Increasing the tension in the centre, and
thereby giving White no lime for 5.hS.
S.dxc5
This is the only serious test of Black's idea,
32
5 ... .Q.g7
A major alternative is 5 ...d4, when play
sharpens considerably: 6.~b5 tLJc6 7.e3 (or
7Jd3 e5 8..ig5 .ie7) 7...e5 8.exd4 lOxd4
(but not 8...exd4 9.~f4).
A tense situation in which White has tried
the following moves:
• 9.~f3?! (this is certainly not the correct
choice) 9 ....hc5 IO.tLlbxd4 exd4 \1.~d3
~g4 12.$.gS 'tWe7+ 13.<;Pfl h6 14.~f4 ~h5
\5.~d2 <.t>f8, and Black was beuer in
Porat-Jcrcz. Andorra 2001.
• 9.t'i:.~d4 exd4 10..i.<.I3 i.g7 II.it.f4 0-0
IVi';f3 J:[e8+ D.WfI stg4 14.... c2 CL;hS
15.~d6 i:.xf3 \6.gxB i:.e5 with unclear play
in Gozzoli- Van der Weide, La Fcre 2004.
• 9.b4!·) a5 IO.~g5~e7 l1.qjxd4(l1.~f3
was my recommendation in New In Chess
Magazine 2004/2) II...exd4 l2.b5 h6
13.i..f4 .ixc5 14.~d3 ~b4+ is.en ~g4
16.0 ~e6 J7 .:8e2 and both sides had their
chances in Ccbalo-Sebenik, Pula 2004.
6.cxd5 "a5
This was Black's idea, but his initiative is
easily stymied.
7.~d2 ~xc5 8.e4 0-0 9.~e2
Preventing both tZ::g4and :k.g4. Black does
not have enough compensation for the pawn.
The game Seres-Orso. Hungary 1997, con-
tinued:
9...e6 10.l:c1! ~a6 11.liJh3!? exd5
 A Flank Attack in the Grunfeld

12.e51? 12.lL.xd5. 12...0.d7 13.tDf4

lDxe5 14.tt)cxd5 Black's queen is in ma-
jor trouble. 14...'i.t'd4 14...'''d6 J5.~xa6!.
16.'Wb3 tDg4 16.'6'g3 :IleS 17.~c3
iVc4 18.0-O!+- :xe2 19.~xg7 1:Ic2
20.i.c3 1:txc1 2U[xc1 h5 22.0
22.~xg6! fxg6 23.'i!Vd6 and wins.
22..:.-cS+ 23.~h1 ~e3 24.tUxe3
.xe3 2S.1:Ie1Black resigned, for if the
queen moves, White mates with ~e8-h8.

Variation B
Black releases the central tension. thereby 9..txc4
relieving his knight of the task of defending What happens if White takes back on c3?
dS. Play resembles the Queen's Gambit Ac- After 9.bxc3 ltjd7 it looks as if White can
cepted with the moves g6 and h4 thrown in. advantageously play lO.hS. However,
Tactics reign supreme in this line. Leviczki-Varadi, Szornbathely 2003, went:
4...dxc4 5.e4 c5 IlLtDb6! II.hxg6 fxg6 12.~xc4 exf6 (even
White gains the initiative after 5...0.c6 6.dS better than 12...tLJxc4 13:ffa4+ wf7
lL.e5 7 .... d4 lt~d3+ 8.~xd3 cxd3 9.h5 14.'i'xc4 exf6) 13.~d3 f5! l4.c4 §;_g7
Cordes-Karelin, e-mail corr, 2000. l5J!bl 0-0 16.~~e2 .IiI.a6 17.... c2 'iWd6~.
6.dS b5 9 ...ti.:;d7
Otherwise Whitc would simply retrieve the The most natural reply: Black aims to take
pawn with excellent play. hack on f6 with the knight. After lO.fxc7
7.e5 b4 8.exf6 'llfxe7+ he gains time. No good is 9...cxb2
ux
Here 8.~a4 C d5 9.~xc4 yields some COOl· 1O.~xb2±. There is, however, a sharp alter-
pensation for the pawn. Bosboom-Goor- native available in the form of 9 ..."a5 l?
rnacbtigh, Haarlem 1998. continued: 9 ...e6 White is forced to sacrifice material with
IO.j,g5 'iiJjc7 (lO ...i.e7 11.lf'ixc5) lLU3 1O.4·:e2!'J cxb2+ 11 . .id2
~b7 12.hS I;Ig8 13.h6 tLJd7 14.0·0!? and
White won.
S...bxc3
This position should be compared to a
well-known line from the Queen's Gambit
Accepted: l.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e4 cS 4.d5
tLlf6 S.lLic3 bS 6.eS b4 7.exf6 bxc3. In the
QGA White now takes back on d. In our
Griinfeld SOS he can play more aggres-
sively. The inclusion of h2-h4 and g7-g6
generally favours White. He can probe
Black's kingside with h5 (although this is a
double-edged sword. of course), while the
main al-h8 diagonal is also weakened II.....-b6? (now White gets a virtually win-
because of g6. ning position for nothing. Still, after the crit-

33
Jeroen Bosch

ical ll. ..bxal~ I 2.'lWxaI 'it'b6 l3.fxe7 f6 This is Black's must solid option. The move
14.exf8'i'+ lhf8 15.0-0 White has huge is perhaps not in keeping with the Grunfeld
compensation for the exchange) 12.l:Ih 1 player's customary active temperament,
exf6 (or 12....ltf5 13.~a4+ tZ:d7 14.j;_bSf) though. Yet this set-up. similar to the
13.'i'a4+ ~d7 (I3....i.d7 14.'t!i'a3) l4J:lh3! Schlechter Variation. is not without logic.
hS'! IS.:b3 'itc7 16.d6 .ixd6 17..ta5 'li'b8 The move 4.h4 wa:) aimed lit the knight's in-
18J:t I xb2, 1-0 Cordes-Greger, Germany ability to defend both squares u5 and h5.
2000. With 4 ...c6 Black overprotects d5, so that
10:~a4! 5.h5 is no longer a threat. The pawn on h4
Not allowing Black to take back on f6 with looks slightly awkward now.
the knight. 5.cxd5
10..JWb6 11.bxc3 '$'xf6 12k,e2 kg7 Clarifying the situation in the centre. No
13.Qb5 good is 5.~f4 which is solidly met by
This move prevents Black from castling. 5 ...dxc4, with advantage.
White is better and won convincingly in Practice has also seen 5.e3 ii.g7 6,.td2 0-0
Seres-Pribyl, Liechtenstein 2000: 7 .l:Ic Iwhen Black has chosen the Schlechter
13...a6 14.~e3 nb8 15.1ic6 'lj'f5 set-up. White has yet to develop his
16.0-0 kingside. He deliberately waits, though: ~f]
Black is unable 10 complete hisdeve!opment would allow ....ltg4. while j;_e2/d3 is met by
and is therefore fighting a lost cause. ...dc4. Kruppa-Aronian. Linares 1998. saw:
16..:~·d3 7 ...C2,bd7?! (this is a mistake, as the knight is
Not 16...0-0? as 17.ti:!g3 wins on the spot. misplaced after the exchange on d5 - it then
17.J::[fe1 l:tb2 18.lDf4 ~xc3 19.1:tac1 belongs on e6. There are several playable al-
'itb4 20.~xc5 ~xa4 21 ..axa4 e5 ternatives: 7 ....~~f5, 7 ...$..e6 and 7 ... a6 spring
Instead of resigning. to mind) 8.cxd5! cxd5 9.li:f3 a6 (O.'i'b3 e6
22.dxe6 fxe6 23.11xe6+ ~f7 24.l:te7+ Il.a4l:teR 12.£e2;t.
Wf6 25.j(xd7 ~xd7 26.nxd7 £h6 Also interesting is 5.ilgS 3i..g7 6..i.xf6 gxf6
~~~+ 1~ 7.(;xd5 cxd5 8.d tLjc6 9.h5 g5 10M e6 and
in Claverie-Goloschapov, Le Touquet 2004.
a draw was agreed. Apparently, the stronger
Variation C (second) player did not (rust his position
4 ...c6 here.
5...cxd5 6.~f4
Controlling the e5 square. which is impor-
.i~.t'iK*..t .i tant. as the following game demonstrates:
~~ ii
~, i 6 ..ltg5 ~g7 7.e3 tbc6 !L~d3 O.() 9.~ge2 e5
JO.dxe5 tZ:xe5 II..~c2 ~e6 (2.0d4 J:lc8
l3.rtbl a6 l4.~e2 b5 15.tbxe6 fxe6 16.0-0
,*c7 and in Parker-Webb. England 2001. a
draw was agreed. but Black is slightly better.
Note that we have a Slav Exchange here with
h4 and g6 thrown in. A set-up with g6 is not
to be recommended in the Slav Exchange.
On the other hand. after I .d4 d5 2.c4 c6

34

3.cxd5 cxdf 4.llJl;) llJf6 5 ..QJ4 g6?! nobody
would play 6.h4?! either. On the whole,
White seems to be slightly better.
R~.i.~~i. :e:
11 11 1 White busy; play is about equal, Bosboom-
~1
6...~g7
To get a feel for the resulting positions, here
are some other practical examples:
- 6...a6 7.e3 ~g7 8.Q.e2 (hoping to play h5
at some point) lLhS?! 9.~f3 lL;c6 lO.t2.ie5
(now the position has stabilized, White has 1I
favourable Slav Exchange) 10...0-0 11.0-0
.tf5 12.'iii'b3 tCa5 13.'i'b4 ~e.4 14.tZ;xe4
.be4 15.l:tfcl± ~xe5 16.dxcS bS 17.a4
bxa4 18.11xa4 tLx:4 19.b3 Ct:;b2 20.l:txa6
:txa6 21..~.xa611;d3 22.~.xd3 ~.xd3 23.e6!
f6 24.~c7 neg 25.:lb7 fLa6 26.l:tb8 ~c8
27.'ffc5l:!.f8 28.b4 1-0 Seres-Farkas, Szcgcd
1998.
- 6... 0c6 ?toG xg7 8.e3 0-0 9.l{.';e5~b6
lO.~xc6 bxc6 11.'tWd2 :re8 12..i.e2 h6
13.~4 'tlYb7 14.~c5 'fHb6 15JlcI oiJd7
16.tL\xd7 .i.xd7 17.0-0 e5 18.kxeS .l:Lxe5
19.dxe5 l:xe5 20.:fd 1 l1e4 21.g3 .~.g4
22.~xg4 J:xg4 23.b4t Krzyzanowski-Ros,
e-mail COIT. 2000.
- 6 ... lL:.c6 7.e3 a6 8.~e2 fJ..g7 9.hS ~e4
lO.hxg6 hxg6 Il.lhh8+ flxh8 I Vl::.xe4
dxe4 13.,*c2 ~a5+ 14.'lt>fl ~c6 IS.'tWxc4
.ba2 16.~G .idS 17.l:txa5 i..xc4 )8Jtc5
l:!.c8 I 9.4)d2 ~J5 20.~f3 ti.:d8 21 ..l:c7 ':xc7
22.~xc7 b5 23.l~b3~ Kahn-Szeberenyi,
Budapest 2000.
7.e30-O
A Flank Attack in the Grunteld
7...~c6 8.h5 (this looks a bit drastic. The
modest 8.~e2 threatens hS at some point.
White has the slightly better chances) R...O-O
(why not 8...t/:::xh5? Was White really plan-
ning 9.l:lxh5 gxhS 10.'i'xh5?) 9.hxg6 hxgo
IO.lC.f3 "'b6and Black is just in time to keep
I.Soko)ov. Leeuwarden 1997.
8.h5!
Black must have underestimated this ex-
change sacrifice. With the king on g8 - d.
Bosboom-Sokolov - White's compensation
is obvious.
8..k,xhS 9.~xh5 gxhS 10:~xh5 f5
11..ad3 e6 12.g4 lL;d7 13.gxf5 tDf6
14:ilYh2 exfS lS.lDge2 .i.e6 16.0-0-0
White has excellent compensation for the
exchangt::
16..JU7 17':1g1 1:rc8 18.f3 wh8
19.wbl ~c6 20.J:thl ~g8 21.~b5
Threatening both 22.~d6 and 22.0xa7.
21...ti",e8 22.4.~xa7 ltb6 23.ti.;b5 ..G..f6
24.tLibc3 J:tg7 25.t['!a4 J:tc6 26.tL:.c5
Qc8 27.tLig3 b6 28.Qb5!
Winning material.
28...bxc5 29..ixc6 cxd4 30..i.xe8
dxe3
Black is trying to confuse the issue. but is
gelling nowhere,
31.$.b5 d4 32.l2;h5 l:tg2 33.~e5!
And after this neat finish Black resigned.
Cebalo-Brkic, Nova Gorica 2005.
35
 CHAPTER 4
Oleg Romanishln
Catch-as-catch ..Kan?
Sicilian Kan Variation with 6 ...e6-e5!?
Home preparation is becoming increasing-
ly more important, as our rate of play is get-
ting faster and faster, In the old days, facing
a novelty during the game, you could just
spend some time to find, ifnot the best, than
at least a reasonable continuation. These
days, you will have to react almost immedi-
ately, otherwise you'Il be under time pres-
sure until the end of the game. In my
opinion this is an important argument
against the new time control. The creative
side of chess suffers £\)0 much at the expen-
se of this strange wish to have chess players
play with their 'hands' rather than with their
heads. Indeed, even in the games of top
36
players, a lot of mistakes occur - one need
only examine the games from the 2004
FIDE World Championship. When a mista-
ke is the result of strong and interesting play
by one of the players, a so-called 'forced
error', then then: is no problem. But mostly
these mistakes were merely the logical con-
sequences of the new regulations. If you
want to profit from this aspect of modern
chess, then it is very useful to surprise your
opponent with an unexpected manoeuvre.
and better still. with some sharp variations.
Even if the complications are slightly dubi-
ous: there is every chance of success as long
as your opponent lucks the time to calculate
 Catch-as-catch-Kan?

deeply! Of course, objectively bad varia- The move 6 ...e6-eS!? in the Sicilian Kan Va-
tions can never be recommended. riation is another way to start a psychologi-
In the Soviet Championship of 19751 mana- cal fight. Sometimes it is very efficient to
ged to surprise two famous grandmasters: radically change the course of play - avoi-
Tigran Petrosian with l.t~f3 ~f6 2.c4 c6 ding yuur opponent's preparation and thwar-
3.0c3 b6 4.e4 ~b7 5.~d3 !?N ting his expectations. Of course. White can
steer the game into a well-known line from
the Najdorf Variation with 7.tLJb3 d6 8.tL:Jc3
g~ 'iV~.t :! fLe7 9.iLe2. However,there won't be all that
1_tl1 111 many players ready to give back a tempo. On
1 1~ the other hand. White must realize that with
a bishop on d3 he does nor have enough con-
trol over the dS- and g4-squares. Neverthe-
less, it is clear that transferring the game to
the 6 ..ie2 line in the Najdorf is not the criti-
cal test of this variation. So after, 6 ...eS Whi-
te should look for other possibilities.
1_e4 c5 V2jf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.lbxd4
a6 S..ad3 tbf6 6.0-0 e5!?
and Efim Geller with a pawn sacrifice after This move looks a bit strange and lead, to
l.e4 eS 2.lDO lbc6 3.~b5 a6 4.~a4 t2f6 positions that are not typical for the
S.D-O iLe7 6.lIcl bS 7..i.b3 d6 8.d 0-0 9.d4 Paulsen/Kart Variation. It was. perhaps for
~g4 10.d5 0.a5 I U1c2 c6 12.h3 .Q.xfJ the first time, played in the game
13.fi'xf3 cxd5 14.exdS tLc4 15.~d2 Ci:.b6 Fedorowicz-Dorfrnan, New York Open
16.0.fl! t2jbxdS 17.~g3 19R9. which went: 7.tCOd6 8.~c3 ~e7 9.a4
b6 lO.tbd20-0 Il.tDc4.
K '¥}j :i~ I've played several games with this system,
and I'll mention them with some short anal-
.tll1 yses. White has several options after the au-
1 ~ dacious 6 ...e5:
~1
A) ?CdS
B) 7P,e2
t!:. 'iYltJ~ C) 7.t!!f3
~~~ ~~ D) 7.tbb3
l:I ~ a: w E) 7.~gS

winning both games. Later Tigran Pctrosian Variation A

said to me: 'You are lucky, to have shot two 7.4'.f5?1
novelties in one tournament. Nevertheless. Hardly critical, Black gets to play both ...eS
the event doesn't consist of those two games. and ...dS.
but of the other fifteen' (the Soviet Champi- 7 ...d5 8_~g5
onships were mostly played with eighteen Of course not 8.exd5? e4.
participants) . 8...~xf5 9.exfS e4

37
Oleg Romanishin

White would answer 9 ...~e7 with 10.c4, 14.'\i\Yd30-0 1S.c'ad1 nc8

when 1O... e4 is well-met by 11 ..iLc2. Ipavec-Romanishin, Nova Gorica 1999,
10..ie2 i.e7 11.li.:c3 ~bd7 12.~d2
0-0 13Jl.ad1 I.lcB Variation C
7.4.':f3ti'lc6
Here 7 ...d6?! 8.c4 is preferable for White,

CI) 8.lLd
C2) 8.c4

Variation C1
8.tL;c3 d6

With more or less equal chances.

Variation B
7.tL:e2 aes
Developing the bishop outside the
pawn-chain.
B..tt,gS d6 9.tf~bc3 t1~:bd710..!LdS h6
11.1i.xfS li\xf6 12.ti'.ec3 Black has a decent position. as is
This is the point of White's 7th move - he demonstrated by the next 1\\10 lines:
gains control over the d5-s(juarc. • 9.tL.d5 tj~xd5 10.exd5 Ci;e7 11.c4 g6
12...~e6 13.$.c4 tl:;h7!? looks OK for Black. A playable alternative
is 11...t2;g6.
• 9.~.g5 sst 10.~.xf6 .axf6 11.CLd5
0-0 12.c3 2e6 13.2c4 Ile8 14.'1~·d3
tl.,a5 15.~_b3 ~g5 1S.11ad1 Qh6
17.~e2 Wh818.~.e2 -4ic419"w..b3 tL.a5
20.~c2 Ci;c4 21.~.b3
Play is about equal here. I now played some-
what inaccurately:
21 ...b5 22.84 f5 23.exf5 £xf5 24.axbS
axb5 25.~c2?;; Kutuzovic-Romanishin,
Pula 1998.

Variation C2
This odd move is in fact a nice strategical 8.c4 ~c5 9.li":e3 d610.h3 hS
manoeuvre, which leaves White with two Both sides have prevented the pinning of
knights for only one square. their knights.

38
 Catch-as-catch-Kan?

1La3 0-0 12.b4 ~a7 11.exd5?

From time to time the Computer makes such
stupid moves. After II.cxd5 C~d7 (l1...f5
12.exf5 .ixfS 13.:ixf5 llxf5 14.t2d2 tt:~d7
J 5.c~e4 is simply better for White) 12..Q.e3
.~.g5 J3.'l!Yd2 ~xe3 14.'ihe3 a5 Black
should keep the position.
11 ...f5 12 ..iid2 a5 13.a4 b6 14 ..lkc2
tL;a6 15.'fi'e2 gf6~
PConNer:; (computerj-Rornanishin, Lippstadt
1999.

Variation 01
8.tLlc3 :lie7 9.a4
Black should be fine. Thus, 13JIr'e2 may be Like I mentioned above, White can simply
answered by both 13...ri;h5'? and by transfer to a well-known Najdorf line here
13...tLld4 14..!L:.xd4 exd4 Iskd5 .~c6. with 9.~e2, but-and here isthe catcb -who
While, I3Jlel presents no problems for the is going to throwaway a tempo like that?
second player after 13...~e6 14.~.e3 kxe3
I5 Jlxe3 ii.:.d4.

Variation 0
7.l2Jb3d6

01) 8.c4
02) 8.~c3

Variation 01
8.c4 soa 9.~c3 0-0 10.tL;dSlDxd5
It was more flexible not to open the c-line
and to keep the position dosed with This position occurred twice in my own
1O...~bd7 11.~.e3 a5. practice.
• 9...b6 1O.~g5 lDbd7 11.taI2 ~c5?!
12._~xf6 .bf6 13.~4 .fib7
And now White withdrew his bishop:
14.~e2
With a slight edge in Herrera-Rornanishin,
Linares 1999.
• 9 ... ~e6 10 ...Q.e3 tilc6 11.l/.\d2 l:ree
12.~c4 0-0 13..igS 0.b4 14..ixf6
~xf6 is.ces tj~,xd5 16.~xd5 ~xd5
17.exdS .ig518.ltJf3 15
And Black wus slightly better in the game
McShane-Romanishin. Lippstadt 1999.

39
-=O_:_:le:..;;:9z....:Rc...:.o:::.:m..:..:-=a:_::ni:.::.s:_::hi..:..:n •. _ .. _-------_ ... - ---_--

Variation E has the returt 13.'ilfg3! planning 13...~c6

7..tgS!? 14.lLxtl4! with a clear edge.

This brilliant move was invented by the Brit- In this complex position White has two op-
ish grandmaster Peter Wells. Perhaps, it the tions:
most promising. and certainly the most dan- • 13.c3 96 14.t2::xd4exd4 15.tLJf6+
gerous. continuation. Let us first investigate rtJe7 16.lL\d5+ to repeat the moves.
the dangers that Black is running here by ex- • 13.~c4 .ie6
amining two sample lines: Of course not 13...g6? 14.!i:::gJi.g7 15.~b6.
- 7...exd4?! S.e5 .a5 9.~d2 followed by The move 13...4;a5 is simply answered by
IO.exf6 gives White excellent attacking 14.Ab3.
chances. 14:;lI'g3 96 15.tix:J4
-7...d6?! R.l!:f5 Q.xL'i9.~xf6! gxf6 IO.exf5 Dubious is 15.1'4 gf5 16.fe5 'fiVg5(or first
d5 Il.c4dxc4 12.~)(.c4 ~xdl 13..:lxdJ tbc6 16 f4) 17.0,c7 Wd8.
14.t2:ic3 :i.c7 15.fLd5 J:[b8 16..bc6+ bxc6 1S ed4 16.t2::c7 Wd7 17.~e6 fe6
17.4:a4± was the stem game Wells-Rorna- 18.ltja8 'iWa8
nishin, Berlin 1999. The game ended in a And Black is OK in this sharp position.
draw. but White has a considerable posi-
tional advantage at this stage. Variation E2
After 7 ..~.g5 Black's two main options are: 7...d5

EI) 7 h6
E2) 7 05

Variation E1
7...h6!? 8.~xf61i'xf6 9.~Df5
After 9.C~f3 .ii<:5 10..!!::c3 d6 II.CLid5 'lidS
I2.lLh4!? 0-0 r:t<1.~f5~xf5 14.exf5 t?:d7
Black has an equal game.
9...d5 10.tiJc3 d4 11.~d5 ...w dB 12.'l'f3
~c6
If Black plays the immediate 12...g6 Whitt:

40
 Catch-as-catch-Kan?

8.0.f3 And here White can cake a wrong tum with

Best, by attacking e5 White keeps the initia- 14.~xe4? g5 15.~gJ lLlxe4 16.l:lxe4 f5.
tive. Black, however. is now able to transfer 14...lL\xfS lS ..txe4 lDxe4 16.l:txe4 Qf5
the game into a sharp 'ending'. 17.l:te2 .i.e6 18.lDc3 0-0-0
8...dxe4
No good is 8... c2.c6? 9.exd.5 'i'xdS 10 ...I1;,xf6
gxf611.c4! -.!Vd.8t2.lijc3 f5 13."e2 ~g7
14.:ad I when White has a dangerous initia-
tive.
9..txe4 ~xd110J:txdl tLlbd7!?
The text is better than lO...JLe7 I 1..~_xf6
.bf6 lFa3 cat7 13.ttJd5~d8 14.c40-0
15.b4f5 16.~c2and White keeps a slight ad-
vantage.
After )(L.l2Jbd7 Black intends to counter
t i.ars by 1l...~b6~ 12..hc8 ~xc813.ft\xe5
(or 13.~c3 ~fd7) 13...:xc2 with adequate
counterplay. Therefore White continues With good compensation due to the pair of
11.~d3 bishops.

Variation E22
11...ti\d5!?
Offering a pawn.
12.~xa6 l:txa6 13.lixd5 f6 14.~e3
08b6

E21) Il...h6!?
E22) 11...lt'd5!'?

Variation E21
11...h6!? 12.~h4
Alternatively, 12.~xf6 gxf6 J 3.ci:c3 ~b6 Black has compensation for the pawn as the
14.tj~h4 is well-met by 14...Qb4!. intending following lines should prove:
15.~e4 .bc3 16.bxc3 tZ:.a4!. - lSJldl .it'S 16.c3 lDc4 17.~c 1 Ji.xb J
12...e4 13.Uel ~e7 18.l:txbllha2=.
Don', fall for 13...g5? 14..ag3 1;..e715.rile) - lS.l:tbS ~c4 16.ltJbd2 (I6.tOc3 1:tc6)
cxd3 16.~d6. 16...lilxe3 17.fxe3 l%c6IS.c4 b6.
14.~xfS - 15.~xb6 l:txb6 16.b3.

41
 CHAPTER 5
David Navara
The Paulsen Attack in the Petroff
Play 4.ttJc4!? en route to e3
Introduction
1.e4 e5 2.(';f3 tN6 3.ti':xe5 d6 4.t.2;c4
According to my database, Louis Paulsen was
the first player who played this Iine. He played
it twice in 1887. Let us start with comparing
the surprising knight move with the familiar
4/dl. White's knight is exposed on c4. so
subsequently White often has to play ~e3.
Surprisingly. the knight might be very
well-placed here. It attacks the d5-pawn. espe-
cially in combination with .~.d3 and c4. In
comparison to the classical variations. the
pieces of both sides arc in worse places.
Clearly, the positions that arise from Paulsen's
Variatiun are far more unusual. To be honest.
objectively I think that 4.q.)c:4 allows Black 10
42
equalize at some point However, let us not for-
get {hal in the main line While must make a big
effort to reach a slightly better position. It is for
this reason that I employed this variation
against COM A lexandra Kosteniuk. She reacted
well and reached equality in the early stage of
the game. A few months later. GM Shirov
played the Petroff defence against me. He told
me he was looking forward to meeting 4.tt.:c:4.
Be that as it may. let's look at (and play)
Paulsen's 4.';LC4.
Naturallv, the move
4..'c.:::.xe4
is practically forced. as 4 ...'tlfe7 S.-1'..;e3Q_Jxe4
6.d4 is advantageous for White. Now White
has three normal continuations:

_5.0c3
_ 5.d4 dS 6.lDe3
-5.ife2
Other moves are not very good, e.g, 5.d3
tlJf6 6.d4 dS 7.~;,e5 is a transposition into an
exchange variation of the French Defence.
7.tDe3 does not seem very dangerous, either.
In my opinion. the black knight is more vul-
nerable on e4. So more logical is 5.li:Je3,
when 5...d5 (5 ... go=) 6.d4 is a mere transpo-
sition, whereas 6.~e2 ~e6 is too passive.
Old Main Line
1.e4 e5 2.lt~f3 tbf6 3.lC.xe5 d6 4.~lC4
tUxe4 5.l/lC3
K~j_~~.t E
~" ~
,~,
This move caused a rcvi val of this variation
in the I 990s. However, this line is not very
dangerous for Black.
5...~xc3
Black has satisfactory results with 5 ... t.L:f6 (I
find this retreat a bit strange, but the knight
on c4 is not placed ideally) 6.d4 iLe7 (6 ...d5
7.tLie5;l; looks like a strange version of the
Exchange Variation of the French Defence,
White's chances arc only slightly better)
7.iLe2 (7.$..d3 0c6 8.d5 Ci;e5 9.[c,xc5 dxe5
10.0-0 0-0 I I.~e I lL;d7 12..1f5 li:Jb6
13.~xc8 was played in a game Khairullin-
Bezgodov, According 10 Bezgodov, both
lhc8 and ~xc8 should be sufficient for
equality as Black has enough compensation
for the pawn after 14Jhe5 ~f6) 7 ...0-0
( • A
The Paulsen Attack in the Petroff
8.0-0 d5 9.tLle5 (9.tL:e3 ~e6 followed by c5
is OK for Black) 9 ...~f5 with equal play.
6.bxc3
The alternative is 6.d)(c3 d5 7.tlJc3. when af-
ter 7 ...c6 8.... d4!? the lines fork:
- Black's queen would be misplaced after
8...'lWb69.'lWf4.
- 8...tiJd7 9.e4! (9.~d3 1Wf6!?=) 9 ...ftf6
IO.'iVxf6 ~xf6 1 l.cxdf cxd5 12.c3
(I2.~b5+.td7 J3 ..bd7+$xd7 14.0-0.ic5
and the while knight is misplaced). I do not
know whether White objectively stands a bit
better or not, but 12...Qc5 l3.0.c2 ~f5
14.~e3 is preferable for While.
- R ... ke6 9.f4 (otherwise would Black play
0.d7) 9 .. .f6 IO.c4c5 (lO ...dxc4I I.fte4 fte7
12.1(xc41(xc4
II.'ftd3 d4 l2.~e4
13.Wxc4 'lWb4+ l4.Qd2;!:;)
VJie7 J3.~d5 .hd5
14.'i'xe7+ .ixe7 (14 ...'~xe71? 15.cxd5 Wd6
16.g3 t;~d7 17.c4 f5=) 15.cxd5 tbd7 16.c4.
Sulskis-Zulfugarli, Bydgoszcz 1999, seems
to be equal.
Instead of 7 ...c6 Black can also play
7 ... ~e6!?, as the game is equal after both
K.ad3 Qc5, and H.Wh5 Wd6 9.~d2 tLld7
10.0-0-0 0-0-0, Benjamin-Lev, London
1987.
6 ... dS 7.lije3 c6
This move, which prepares 8...iLd6, seems
to be the best reaction to White's set-up.
8.d4ltJd7
After 8...~d6 9..ad3 (9.c4 dxc4 10..bc4
0-0 11.0-0) 9...0-0 10.0-0 fS 1J.f4 .ie6
Black has equalized. In Mochna-Sudakova,
St Petersburg 2002, White continued
12.g4?~, but Black was better after 12...fxg4
13.fS 'ifh4 14.:!!:::xg4 snl5.~f4 Qxf4
16.J:xf4VJig517.VJifi tal7(17 ...h518.h4!).
9.Q.d3 ti\f6 10.0-0 1l.e7 11.lbf5 itxf5
12.~xfS 0-0
White has the bishop pair. but his pawn
structure gives Black enough counter-
chances, Velickovic-Mikhalchishin, Cetinje
1992.
43
David Navara
Paulsen's Idea
1.e4 e5 2.lDf3 t;jf6 3.li\xe5 d6 4.tt.::.c4
tiJxe4 S.d4 d5 6.tDe3
This is Paulsen's idea. OM Smagin played it
until 1990.
6 ...~f6
We will treat this as the main line, because
Black has terrible results with many of the
normal moves. including 6....1e6. 6 ... SLe7
and so on. Let us investigate. for, objectively,
they cannot be all that bad:
• 6...~e6 7.Qd3 ~d6, with two options.
- 8.c4 .i.b4+'!! (8 ...c6 9:f'b3 '*c7=)
9.~fI! O-O?(9...c6 IO.cx.dS cxdS 11.~xe4
dxe4 12.dS ~d7 I HWd4 and the arising
complications seem to be in White's favour)
lO.a3 sa Il.cxdS i.",dS IH~xd5 ,*xd5
13.• e2+- 'lWc6 14.'iIt'xe4 'tiYxcl+ 15.~e2
'ffxb2+ \6.lM2 f5 06 ...g6 IUthbl)
l7.li!fxe71Dc6.
- 8.0-00-0 9.c4 c6 lO.lDc3 (lO.~xe4 dxe4
Il.dS cxd5 12.cxdS ~d7 13.tL:c3~h4 14.g3
~e7 15.f3 exD 16:~xf3=) IO...tL::xc3
II.bxe3 ~7 equal.
Instead of 7.~d3 I played 7.<1ld2?! ~xd2
8..ixd2 c5! when Black had easily equalised
in Navara-Kosteniuk, Lausanne 2004:
9.i.b5+ tLlc6 1O..i.c3 (lO.e3=) 1O...~b6
Il.i.xc6+ bxc6 12.0-0 and now White has to
be careful. After 12...~d6 13.'tIt'd2 0-0
14.dxc5 hc5 15.b4 the game was equal.
44
• 6 ... 1i..e7 7.~d3 (after 7.tbd2 (iixd2
8..Q.xd2White has at best a tiny edge) 7...0-0
s.o-o tL:f6 (!L~c6 9.c3) 9.4~f5 (or 9.~d2
c5!'! 10.dxc5 .1t.xc5 II.<1::b3 .i.b6 I VtJf5
(iie4=) 9...~xf5 IO.i.xf5 with a minimal ad-
vantage .
• 6...c6 and again White can consider both
7 .~d3 and 7.t2Jd2.
- 7.gd3 .ad6, and now:
- 8.c4 0-0 9.cxd5 1ith4 1O._b.e4 (I 0.g3
~xg3 II.fxg3 lbxg3oo) 10...'iWxe4 II.IQc3
'i!Vh4 with good compensation.
- lt~d2 f5 is also good for Black. In
Tigran L. Petrosian-Nasri, Fajr Z003, White
played 9.c4 f4 10.cxd5 ~xd2 Il.lQc2, but
Black reached a good position after
1l...~e7+ 12.'iVe2 (I2.f~xd2 O-O~)
12...t'iif3+! 13.gxf3 'it'xe2+ 14.~xc2 cxd5.
- 8.0-0 0-0 9.c4 ~e6 (for some strange
reason, this move has not been played so far)
1O.~c3 (1O.~xe4 dxe4 II.tbc3 f5 12.d5
cxd5 13.cxd5 .i.d7 looks like an equal posi-
tion, especially since 14.lL.~4 fails I\)
14... gxh2+) 1O... ti:oxc3 I I.bxc3 ~d7 with
equality,
- More chances for an advantage are of-
fered by 7 .It:id2tL:xd2 (7 ... ~d6 8.tL:xe4 dxe4
9.gc40-0 10.0-0 with an idea f2-f3 is a bit
unpleasant for Black. Perhaps simply
7... ~e7!'!) 8.~xd2 0d7 (White's pieces are
a bit better placed, but Black has no major
problems) 9.lI@I'e2 (or 9.~f3!?) 9...~e7
10.0-0-0 tLif6 II.~b4 ~e6 l2.i.xf8 1:lxf8
planning .ad7, 0-0-0.
• 6...~c6 7.c3 ~e6 8.tbd2 (8.~d3 'tIt'h4!?
9.i¥f3 0-0·0 JO.0d2!?) 8...f5 9.'Wb3!'!.
• 6...g6 was twice played by Mikhal-
chishin, but White was better in Srnagin-
Mikhalchishin, Russian Championship
Riga 1985, after 7.lbd2 fig7 8.lf'lxe4 dxe4
9.c3 0-0 10..1t.c4 (;d7 11.0-0 c5 12.dxc5
li'lxc5 13.~c2 .ie6 14.lIdP (Smagin).
7.'ife2
More spectacular is 7.£Lb5+ which was once

played by Smagin: 7 c6 8.0-0 cxh5 (accept-
ing the challenge, 8 ~e6 leads to an equal
position) 9.~.xdS ..-d6 IO.nel ~xd5
11.tt;,c3 fi'd8 12.lhe4+ ~e7 13.~g5 (in thc
game happened 13.lWe2, when Black could
have played 13... ~f5 14.l:e5 tt;,c6+. How-
ever, Black transposed to the main line after
l3...tUc614.$.gS) 13...lDc6(13 ...f614 ..hf6
gxf6 IS:t'h5+ ~fR 16.nael o!6c6 17,tLd5
probably leads to a draw) 14.'iWe2
- 14...f6 IS.dS tDe5 (l5 ....i.f5 J6.dxc6
~xe4 17.'iWxe4=) 16.~xb5 is about equal,
as White has enough compensation after
16...a6 (16 ...0-0 17.d6 ~xd6 18.ndl)
17.nxeS! fxeS 18.~xe7 'i;;xe7 19.'iWxeS+.
- 14....i.e6 15..he7 !?'xe7 16.d5 Ci;xdS
17.11d I is equal according to Smagin.
- 14...~fS IS ..be7 ::c,xe7 16.ne5 0-0
17.lhe7 Y2-Vl Smagin-Makarichev, Mos-
cow 1987.
7...~e6 B.c3
But nor 8.g3? "xd4 (Sulskis-Mamedyarov,
Dubai 2002) 9.... bS+ tL.d7 IO:W'xb7 l:[b8
II.'iWxc7 i:.tl6 12."c6 0-0+ (12 ...:xb2!?).
8...c6!
Less accurate is 8 .._4:x6. White should not
play 9.g3, as this allows Black to play
9 ...0-0-0 IO..tg2 -S6 (lO ...hS lJ.lL:d2
tLlxd2 12.~xd2 h4 is about equal) 11.t2:.d2 f5
IH~xe4 fxe4 13.f3 (13.~d2 h5 !'!) I Lexf3
14..i.xf3 i.d6 with equality.
The Paulsen Attack in the Petroff
Stronger is 9.tLJd2 0-0-0. when:
- 1O.tL::xd5cannot offer White any advan-
tage. The following continuation seems to
be the simplest way to equality: 10....1xdS
11.t;~xe4 ~xe4 (11..:i'g61'! 12.CLlg3 ..I!l.d6
promises Black full compensation. e.g.
IHth5 ~e6+ 14.~e3 go=) 12.Wxe4
tDxd4! 13.~d3 (not 13.cxd4?? i.b4+, after
13 ...ie3 tUf5 Black has no problems)
l3 ...~c5. The game is equal. Therefore,
stronger is
- 10.g3 t2:.xd2 (I(L~ g6 II.tbxe4 dxe4
12.i.g2 f5 13.f3 seems to be slightly better
for White as Black's knight is not placed
very well) II.~xd2 h5 12.h4;!; 02 ..Q.g2
Smagin-Makarichev, Moscow 1990, 12...h4
13.0-0-0 is also playable) and While has
better prospects owing to the weakness of
the d5-pawn. White intends 13.0-0-0, ~g2.
~f3. t;;.g2. tL;f4.
8...cS was played only once, in Jansa-
Volkmann (Austria tt 2(02). but it deserves
serious attention. After 9.c4! (9.dxcS ~xc5
and White's knight is placed pretty badly)
9...cxd4 IO.tLJxd5 ~xd5 II.cxd5 .ib4+
1.
Not dangerous is 12.WdI: 12..' i!i'e7 n.e
(13.ti~:d2 .Q.xd2 14..hd2 t007=) ILtLif6
(I3 ...tL::d6?! 14.a3 ~a5 15.~f4) 14."tWxe7+
(14.a3 .id615."tWxe7+'iPxe7 16.i.c4tLlbd7
does not cause a big difference) 14...~xe7
I S.~c4 llc8 and Black has equalised.
Therefore, Jansa played 12.~d2, when after
45
David Navara
12...\\Ve7 13.~xb4 'fhb4+ 14.4\d2 "-xd2+
15.~xd2tbxd216.wxd2~e717.Wd3.!:tdR,
us in the game, [ think that White could have
preserved some edge with 18.~xd4
(ISJ:te I + ~f6 19.\t>xd4 ~c6+ and C;\e7 is
good for Black) 18...lLx:6+ 19.~c5 09.<.i>e4
fS+=:) 19...t!Je5 20J!d Illac8+ 2 i.Wd4 c;.td6
(2l..5~f6 22.f4) 22.J:lel, but I can easily be
wrong.
Instead of going for the ending, Black could
also try 14...Wd8!? and White has to be care-
ful in order to avoid difficulties: IS.f3!
(15.0-0-0 'i'c5+ is good for Black after both
1o.'J;b I d3! 17.'i!iel 'fi'c2+ 18.~al tUxf2
19.11cl l:!e8! and 16.tbc4 l:te8 with threats
17...d3 and 17...b5) 15...t2lg3 16.hxg3 neB
17Jlxh7 lIxe2+ 18.~xe2 and White has a
small advantage as the move 18 we7
(IS ...'t!tfS 19.0-0-0 lDd7 20.t2ie4;t; IR 4·,d7
I 9.1:h8+ 0f'8 20.a3 ~c7 21.c1Je4±) is met by
19.:h8! li'c5 20.la4 (20 ..t.c4!'?) 20 ...'fi'xd5
21.::tc1.
9.tL:.d2
White cannot gel along without this move
and 9.g3 ~d7 IO.~g2 'fIg6 (10 ....td6!?
1 J . 0 ~xg3+!; II ...tbgS !2.h4 .itxg3+
13.~d!) Il.tUd2 f5 is OK for Black. After
12.ti:xe4!? (White needs to destroy Black's
centre otherwise be would be worse) the
chances arc cqual:
- 12...fxe4 13.f3 ~:;f6 (I3 ...cxfJ 14..hf3
0-0-0 IS.tLg2!?) 14.fxe4 tf';xe4 15.0-00-0-0.
- 12... dxc413.f3exf314 ..£xf30-0-0 15.0·0
.id6 16.d5 cxdf 17kxd5.
9...lj',xd2
Also playable is 9 ...tl\d7: IO.g3 'tWg6
II.tbxe4 dxe4 12.~g2 f5 13.f3 exf3 14..hf3
0-0-0 15.0-0 ~d6 16.d5 cxd5 17.tbxd5=.
Yegiazarian-Marnedyarov, Thilisi 200 J.
10..lbd2
Nothing is promised by IO."i'xd2.
10...lt;d7 11.g3 ~d6 12.~g2 0-0
13.0-0""'g6
With equality.
46
The strongest line
1.e4 e5 VDf3 lDt6 3.tC.xe5 d6 4kc4
li'.xe4 5.'fre2 fie7 6.lL:e3
This line is the 'youngest' one. White has
good results with it. Nevertheless, Black
should not have any problems if he plays
well.
Innocuous is 6.d3 C~f6 7.~g5 iLe6: tL:c4 is
not placed very well. nuw.
6...c6
Sensible is 6...lbf6. Nothing is gained by
7.h3 ':;';c6 8.~b2 X(.e6. or by 7.d4 d5 !S.b3
lL:c6 9.c3 ~d7.
White's main attempt after 0...0fo is 7.g3:
- 7...1t..d7 8..ig2 ~c6 9.0 g6 lO.lDc3
(I 0.0-0 ~g 7 Il ..t:r.e I 0-0 12.d4l:te8 is OK for
Black, as l2.c4 is harmless due to !2 ...d5)
1O...Cilbd7! (10...~g7 11.d4()-O 12.d5 .td7
13.0-0 and White was better, Planinc-Jones,
Niee Olympiad 1974) J 1.d4 t!':h6 12.£d2
planning to castle qucenside is slightly
better for White owing to a spatial advan-
tage.
- 7 ...d5 (for some curious reason, [hi s move
was not played so far) 8.d4 tL:e6 9.c3 .ie6
10..tg2 0-0·0 11.0-0 and Black cannot be
worse after both 11...hS and 11..... d7.
Playable is 6 ...~e6 7.g1 (7.d4 d5 8.lbd2
might be more dangerous) 7 ...0,c6 8.jLg2 d5
9.0-00-0-0 lO.e3 h5 when Black was OK.
Cabrilo-Marciano, Sabac 1998.

7.c4 g6 8.d3
Alternatively, 8.g3 does not seem to be very
dangerous 8... ~g7 9.S;Lg2 0-0 10.0-0 l2g5
(also logical is IO .. JIe8). So far the game
8Jaracz-Lysiak. Wisla Hugan open 1999.
In this position a logical continuation
would be I t.li\c) ~h3 12.f4 _hg2 13.~xg2
tLle6 after which 14.f5 0c5 15.f6 does not
work: 15... :hf6 16.tUed5 cxdf l7.tuxd5
~d4+.
8 •..'!Ll9S
Also natural is 8.. .lL:f6:
• 9.tLlc3 ~g7 lO.g30-0 I J.~g2 tL:a6 was
played in the game Sasu-Ionescu, Bucharest
1998. The game continued! 2.d4 '1:,c7 13.d5
(13.0-0 dS 14.b3!,!=) after which Black
could play 13...cxd514.0cxdS (l4.cxdS b6)
14...tDcxd5 JS.ttxd5 ~'ixdS 16. .Jli.xdS.De8
with a pleasant game. I would prefer 12.0-0.
especially when it is nOI a good idea to play
12 ... tL:.cS?! 13.d4 tLlcc4? because of 14.C,0c2
ne8 ISJlel. White posicion seems a bit
better to me .
• 9.b3!'! ~g7 IO.~b2 0-0 I J.~L:c3
- 1l...l:te8!? 12.0-0-0 dS 13.d4 ~e6
(13 ...~h6 14.h3!?he3+ IS .... xe3 ~xe3+
16.fxe3 ='xe3 17.g4=) 14.'~Wf3 leads to a
complicated position with equal chances.
- 11...aS 12.0-0-0 -tibd7. Would you guess
that this position originated from the Petroff
Defence? J3..c.el lLib6 14.0g4 ~xe2?!
(14 ... ge6 IS ..tJxf6+ ~xf6 gives Black more
play, as-a4 might be dangerous) IS.[i;xf6+
.ixf6 16.sixe2~ happened in Cicak-Oral,
Ostrava 1998.
9.~d2 ~g7 ie.aea £xc3+ 11.liJxc3
lLle6 12.tbc2
More promising than 12.0-0-0 <1jd4 J3.~d2
.te6 14.tLie2, which is about equal after
14 lt'f6 IS.tL!xd4 ~xd4 16.~c2 '(;'f6.
12 cS
Black misses his g7-bishop after 12...0-0
13.0-0-0;l;.
13.l1~d5 ~d814.h4
The Paulsen Attack in the Petroff
This may not be the strongest move.
14.0-0-0!'? Cc,c6 IS.d4 0-0 16.dxc5 dxcS
17.h4 tL::ed4 18.0xd4 cxd4 I9.h5 b5 leads to
complications which seem to be favourable
tor White after 20.~f3 (20.cxbS ~xd5
2l.bxc6 ~c6t) 20 ... iJ5 21.g4 'i'g5+
22.='d2 tL:e5 23.'it'a3! (23:tt'g3 ~xg4 24.f3
J:Iac8 2Htgl d3) 23...tL:xg4 24.f4 ~d8
2S.llJe7+ and White is better, especially af-
ter: 25...Wg7 26.~g2 tt;c3 27 ..i.xa8 'f!fxa8
2R.l:tdh2.
14 •.•hS?!
Belter is 14...lj\,c6 IS.hS 0-0 16.0-0-0 tLied4,
e.g. I7.tL:xd4 -8xd4 18.lDe7+ ~g7 19.~e3
i.e6 20.hxg6 hxgo and Black has no prob-
lems.
15.0-0-0 l?,c6 16.d4 0-0 17.dxc5 dxcS
And now, instead of 18.l\fe3 (as in
Cabrilo-Marjanovic, Pancevo 1987) when
Black could have equalized with IS ...4Ied41,
1 prefer
18.g4 C/\ed4
Of course, IS ...hxg4 19.'i'xg4 is very risky,
too.
19.tLJxd4 ~xd4 20.1i'e5 f6 21.~e7+
21.'ite4!? fS 22.gxfS ~xf5 23.tLJe7+ is also
very promising.
21 •./Jijlf7 22:ihc5 'i!Yxe7 23."'he7+
-:3;xe7 24.J:[xd4
And after 25.$.g2 White will have a huge ad-
vantage.
47
David Navara

Let us examine two recent games in this 11.ti\xdS

modem line. I believe that 11.lDxd6+ was stronger, e.g.
I I... c;t>d7 12.'ti'xe7+ <i;;xe7 I3.tQxc8+ l:xc8
o Mladen Paise 14,~g5+ jLto 15.tbxd5+ cxd5 16.~xf6+
• Ante Sane ¢xf617.0-0-0t.
Zagreb ch-CRO 2004 11...ifxe2+
Another possibility was 11... cxd5
1.e4 eS 2.lLlf3 lLlf6 3.tL:xe5 d6 4.0c4 12.~xd6+ Wd7 13.'W'xe7+ (l3.lUxe8 :'xc8
tDxe4 5:it'e21te7 6.tDe3 016 7.d4 g6 14.~e3? 'itb4+ 15.c3? ~xc3+) 13... :.t>xe7
I believe that 7...dS is stronger. and now:
a/bc3 c6 - 14.o1·;xe8+ :Lxe8 15.~3 (IS ..f&.g5+ f6
White can choose between two promising 16.~d2 lhc2 17.~c3 d4 18.~xd4 ~e6
moves after8 ...~g7 as both 9.g3 and9.lDed5 19.~c3 ~d8 20.~e2 ti.'ieS) IS,JDC6
~xd5 1O.0xd5 'ii'xe2+ II.~xe2 ~d7 give 16.~g5+;t, Black has to be cautio LIS in order
him the slightly better chances. (0 fully equalise.

9.dS - 14.tbbS!? ;t;d7 (14 ...<1!a6 15,~g5+±)

Otherwise Black would play d6-d5 with a
solid position.
9•..~g7
The move 9 ...~bd7 also has its drawbacks:
I O.~d2 (I 0.g3 0b6 II.iLg2 cxd5 12.~cxd5
Ci;bxd5 13.0xdS tt:;xd5 14..txd5 .ie6
15..tg2 ~g7=) 10... 1I.g7 11.0·0-0 ~b6
(11...0-0 IVLlc4t) 12.ttJc4(12.'tS'f3 ~c7t)
12..."i'xe2 l3.he2 tt:;xlA 14.~xc4 While is
better as Black has serious problems with his
d6-pawn.
10.tDc4 lQcd5
Black does not want 10 develop the white
bishop for free: IO..:"xe2+?! II.~xe2
tLlxd5 l2.lt~xd5cxd5 13.tLixd6+ is quite sim-
ilar to the game continuation.
15.~e3 ~xb2 16.1:d I might be a better try.
12_~xe2 cxd5 13.tUxd6+ <t;d7
Here 13...'.t1e7 is also unpleasant as a result
of 14.tDb5 (I4.tL:xc8+?! lhc8 15.~g5+ f6!
16.~d2 llxc2 17.i.e3 0d7 18.Wd I .lhc3
19.bxc3 f5=) l4...tba6 (I4 ...'itd7 15.-'1.f4)
15.~g5+;t.
14.tDxf7 neB
Black has some compensation for the pawn,
since the white king is not placed ideally.
15.\t>d1!?
15.c3 tLic6 16.~e3 might be a good alterna-
tive to the text.
1S...tiic6
IS .. JU8 16.~g51lxf2 17.kf3leads toa loss
of an exchange. Black will have some com-
pensation, but not enough.
16.~g4+
After 16.~f3 ( 16.~f4 ?'? J:{fS 17..ig4+ ~e 7)
White can win a second pawn: 16...'Ot>e7
17.~xd5. but Black's compensation seems
to be very good after 17....i.e6 18.i.xe6
Wxe6 19.tL:g5+ wf5 20.0f3 llad8+
21.~d2t.
16...'~)c7?
16.A;>e7 17..bc8 :axc8 18.li:lg5 r,!?d7
seems to be good for Black ax he threatens to
play 19...tLJb4. After the text White keeps a

48

material advantage and Black
enough compensation.
17 ..~f4+ ~b6 18.~xc8
Also good is 18.~f3!?
18...l:r.exc8
Not 18...l::taxdf? 19.Ca.t6+-.
19.tL:;g5
Now White is a dear pawn up. Black rooks
are no more active than White's.
19.....t>a6 20.1I:.e6 ~xb2 21.J:tb1 ~d4
22.Ci;c7+ lIxc7 23.i.xc7 ~xf2 24.lIf1
l:Ic8 2S.lbf2 lbc7 26.]:116 ::te7
27.<ot>d2 Qe4 28.J:tf7 %th4 29.l:tbxb7
l:txh2 30.J:txh7 J:txg2+ 31.'>tlc1 95?!
Here 31 ...d4± was more tenacious.
32.lIbd7 +- d4 33J~h6 ~b5 34 J:t b7 +
1-0
o Tatiana Kosintseva
• Ivan Akimflv
5t Petersburg 2003
1.e4 e5 Vbf3 tCf6 3.tUxe5 d6 4.tDc4
tLlxe4 S:twe2 VJ!ie7 6.tLJe3 c6 7.c4 g6
8.d3 {,c5 9.~d2 ~7 10.~c3 ~xc3+
11.4~xc3 tf'jbd7 12.0-0-0 tbf6 13.d4
.!L;a6?!
This is a little dubious. Instead, l3.Jiice4
looks much more natural and J think it
should be better. Nevertheless, White main-
tains a slight edge after l4.tL>xe4
The Paulsen Attack in the Petroff
has not
• 14...'tIVxe4
Now after IS.g3?! ~xhl I think thaI Black
has a few ways to a draw after 16.iUd5+
(16.1i.g2 ~xdl+ I7.Q,xdl+!?=):
- l6 ... :;tJrs 17.'fie7+ :;tJgR.
- l6 .. ke4.
- l6 ...~e6 17kxf6+ ~7 18.d5 ~xf6
1<.l.dxe6d5 20.l1el (20.0 'ttgl 21.f4 rJ.tg7
22.ext7 'ilNc5) 20 ... ~e4=.
However. on move 15 White can play 15,B
'fie7 16.'ltd2;t;.
• 14...ti:;xe4 15.'1!fc2 (J·O 16.it.d3;i; due to
the control of the centre and the safer posi-
tion of the white king.
14.~f3 t'jjc7 1S.$..d3 0-0
15...0e6 16.d5 l;;d4 17."f4 07.'itg3??
tLh5) 17...~e5 18.~xe5+ dxe5 19..l:.hel is
also better for White. because 19...0·0 is met
by 20.~c2 tLxc2 2 J .;t?xc2 cxd5 22.cxd5 and
Black has significant problems with his cen-
tral pawn (J:!e2, ndel).
16.h4
White had another promising. continuation:
16Jlhel Ci;e6?! (16 ..:~fd8) 17.d5 t[;d4
18.lIff4 'ire5 19.'fih4!±.
16...d5
Here 16... h5t has other drawbacks. the
go-pawn becomes weak and 17J:lhel ~d8
18.~g3 followed by f2-f4-f5 is very danger-
ous. 16 ... tL::e6 17.~e2 (or 17.~e2) does not
change a lot.
17.cxdS lZ!cxd5 18.lt2Cxd5 cxd5
49
David Navara

No better is 18... ti::xd5, since 19.0xd5 cxd5 Black cannot prevent White from playing
20.h5 is also better for White, as the line d4-d5.
20 ...... gS+ 2 I .~bl i.g4 22.'iWg3 is danger- 26.l:hd1 :te8 27.d5 }i,d7 28.h6
ous only for Black.
19,wb1
i<.H:'xd5 till.d5 20.'lWxdS ~e6 gives Black R ~
good counterplay, li 1. i i
19,..~e6 20.hS14ad8 K it::,
If Black takes on h5 - 20 ... l?·,xh5- then sirn-
plest is 21.~xd5 hdS 22.'lWxd5~. True, the ~ ~
more spectacular 2Ulxh5 gxhS 22 ..Q.xh7+ 'iN i~
leads to a win after 22 ... ~xh7? 23.~xh5+ tLJ
~g7 24.11';xd5 ..-d8 (24 ....txd5 25.~g4+
~f6 26.'lWh4+ ~e6 27.~el++-; 24 ... .tf5+
~~ 1:[ t::,
25.~xf5±) 25.l:td3 ~f5 26.'II#xf5 !leB ~ Ir
2Hlg3+ ~f8 28.tfhS+-.
However, Black has 22 ...'&>g7which leads to 28...l:te8?!
a position with mutual chances. Alas, 28 ...~b5 would allow a beautiful fi-
21.94 14d6 22.g5 tLJe4 nale after 29.'i'e5 ~tl3+ (29 .. .f6 30.gxf6
Here 22 ...t/:xh5 23.:xh5 gxh5 24 ..txh7+ J:tf8± is better. but nOI satisfactory)
:JJg7 25.'ilfxh5 ~c8 26.~:xdS is also favour- 30.J:txd3 t f6! 31.gxf6exd3 32.lf.';c4t! (Fritz).
able for White, but Black can still fight after - 32 ...!lxc4 33.'lWe8+ 'ilffl 34.f7+
26...'lWe6 27.tbf6 'lWh3 28.~c4~. - 32...'\Wxc4 33.f7+ -t>xf7 34.~g7+ q;,e8
23.Qxe4 dxe4 24_~f4 35JXel+ with male, or
White knight is very well placed, now. It - 32 ...:la6 33.t7+ wxt7 34.'~g7+ We8
helps 10 neutralise the black bishop's attack- 3S.d6 J:[xd6 36kxd6+ 'fWxtl6 37.:cl+ ~d8
ing power after d4-dS. 38.'iYg8+ '4id7 39.'t!Yf7++-.
24...l:tb6? - Best is 32 ...:'f8 33.t2]xb6 'Si'xb6 34.l:!.xd3
Black's attack can be successfully parried. It '\Wxf6<34 .. :ihf135.'tte6+ Wh8 36.!le3+-)
was better to keep the rook on the d-filc with 35.t4 and White has a winning position.
24 ...:fd8 25.'i!fe5 "d7. The direct approach 29.d6
is not the best now: 26.h6?! (26.hxg6 fxg6 Now the weakness of the black king turns
27.'l!fxe4 iLd5 28fi;xd5 J:[xd5~) 26...f6 out to be decisive.
27.gxf6 fif7. 29 ..•~b5 30.C2;d5 .Qf5 31.'tl¥e3 Uxd6
Note that White is clearly better after 3VLe7+
24 ... ~d5 25.tL:g4 e3 26.n. Even stronger is 32.'t!Vc3 f6 33.'i!Vc7. How-
25.l:td2 ever, the text move is good enough.
This move is more solid them the alternative 32...I:txe733.l:txd6 ~e6?!
25.05 'i'b4 26.b3 ~..d7±. 33...f6+-.
25 ...~b4 34.ifd4 1-0

50
 CHAPTER 6
Dorian Rogozenko
Let's wait together in the Slav

I~j_~~j_ I
i iiii
i ~
i
t3Jt3J
t2J t2J
t3Jt3Jt3J
~iVw~
The Chebanenko Variation with 5.h3!?

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.l'd3 ~f6 4.t.2;c3 a6
The move 4 ... 016 has proved 10 be a tough nut
to crac k and in spite of various continuations
for the first player. Black is usually happy
with the resulting positions. finding an ad-
vantage for White against the Chebanenko
Slav is certainly not an easy task. but what
about surprising your opponent?
First of all let's figure out the purpose of the
move 4...a6. One might think that by playing
4 •.. <16 Black wants to play ...b5. However.
that's only a (rather small) part of the story,
For instance, after 1.1I4a6 Black also wants
to play ... 05. which does nOI mean that 1...a6
is a good or popular continuation.
1 was a pupil of Chebanenkos myself and
followed the development of 4 ...uo long be-
fore it became popular on the highest level.
Therefore. I can tell the reader that when in
the late 1980-ies we (Moldavia» players)
were using this move at different Soviet
tournaments. the reaction was something
like 'come on guys. what are you. beginners
or what?'. Indeed, at tirsl sight. the advance
of the a-pawn seems to serve only one pur-
pose: to follow-up with ...h5 and nothing
else.
In fact the real advantage of the move 4 a6
lies far beyond the mere preparation of b5.
Without making any serious concessions
(like giving up the centre with 4 ...<.Ix.c4.or
dosing the diagonal for the bishop on cl:!

51
Dorian Rogozenko
with 4 ...e6) Black passes the ball into
White's court and wants to force his oppo-
nent to make those concessions, For exam-
ple a natural developing move like S.~f4 has
the drawback that after 5,..dxc4 6.a4 Black
plays 6 ...ci;d5, attacking the bishop, The
move 5.~g5 before Black has played ...e6
always means that White must reckon with
the immediate answer ...0e4. The move
S.c3 is just the sort of concession 1 was talk-
ing about, since it closes the diagonal of the
bishop on c l , and allows Rlack to comfort-
ably develop his bishop on g4. The advance
5.a4 before Black has played ,..dxc4 creates
some weaknesses in the q ueenside pawn for-
mation. The most principled answer to the
Chebanenko Slav is probably S.cS, but with-
out being forced to release the central ten-
sion, in a way White gives up the fight for the
centre. Please don't get me wrong: some of
the above-mentioned possibilities to meet
the Chebanenko Slav are by no means weak.
What I am arguing is that usually after
White's fifth move Black will be satisfied in
having forced his opponent to make some
sort of concession.
Therefore, J would suggest the following
SOS-solution to meet the 'ugly-looking'
4 ...a6. Let's play an even more surprising ad-
vance from (he other side.
S.h3!?
52
In 1997 when I saw this move fur the first
time my reaction was 'what is this begin-
ner-like kind of play?'. Doesn't it remind
you of something mentioned above?
Strangely enough, facing it as Black in a
Bundesliga game I felt quite uncomfortable,
since I couldn't get rid of'the feeling that my
opponent was trying to trick me. Why was
that? Very simple - 4 ...a6 suddenly appears
to be just a 'pale waiting attempt', since it
has been answered with an even more pro-
voking 'waiting' move. Hmm, J felt
confused.
With the move 5.h3 White asks his oppo-
nent: 'OK, great, I practically changed noth-
ing in the position, now show me the merits
of 4...a6'.
We'll see below that this provoking and
wailing attitude is not only unexpected for
Black, but is also quite a reasonable ap-
proach from White. Just like 4 ...a6, the move
5,h3 has benefits beyond the 'wait and see'
strategy. l-irst of all later un White can de-
velop the bishop to f4, not fearing its ex-
change after ...~h5. Secondly, the move
5.h3 fits in ruther well with almust any future
arrangement of White's pieces. Of course
taking control over the g4-square will often
turn out to be useful for the first player. In
modem opening theory the advance g2-g4
has become a rather common theme. so I
would not be surprised if in the future weIl
see (hat (he main reason forplaying S.h3 is to
follow-up with g2-g4.
o Rainer Knaak
• Dorian Rogozenke
Germany Bundesliga 1996197
1.d4 d5 2.04 c6 3..:Df3 <£)164.~c3 a6
5.h3 e6
The main alternative S... b5 is analysed in the
next game.

Some respectable grandmasters have rec-
ommended 5...dxc4. Nevertheless I think
(hat taking on c4 here is 3 dubious continua-
tion. In most of lhe variations given below
we will see that the pawn on h3 favours
White. Let us investigate the situation after
6.24:
• 6...~f5 7.e3 c6 lLbc4 h6 9.~b3 Wic7
10.0-0 tDbd7 Il.l:tel i.e7 12.e4 .i.h7
13.i.d2 0-0 14.a5± Stocek-Berthelot,
Sautron 2003.
• 6... ~d5 7.a5! (7.e4 tbxc3 R.bxc3 h5)
7...~f5 8.e3 ~d3 (8 ...e6 9..hc4 ~b4
1O.'iYb3:!:; 8...tL::b4 9.e4±) 9.$.:.xd3 cxd3
10.'i'xd3 ti,b4 II. ... e2 ~2d7 [2.0-0. White
will play e3-e4 next with a clear advantage.
Please note that if Black would have had the
pawn On a5 and White the pawn on 34, the
position would have been close to equal. In
the game Eingorn- Volkov. SI Petersburg
1996, Black now tried a radical method to
solve the opening problems. It brought him
nothing but trouble, though: 12..:~c7 13.e4
e5 14.dxe5 t2}xe5 15.kf~ f6 16.~xe5 fxeS
17. 'i'h5+ ~f7 18.lhe5+ ~c 7 I\Ulad I and
White is winning.
• 6 ...e6 7.e3 (this I:; simple and good.
White can also play the sharper 7 .e4 ~b4
8.'itc2 b5 9.QeZ with compensation for the
pawn. The game Hcllstcn-M.Andcrsson,
Sweden 1999, continued: 9...C.0bd7 10.0-0
~b7 I l.e5 <2;d5 ) 2.li';e4 f'5')' 13.exf6 gxf6
14.b3 cxb3 15.Wixb3 ~e7 l6.tLle5! - after
this unexpected blow Black is in dire
straits - 16... 0-0 l7.tlJxd7 ~xd7 18.~h6
"e719 ..hrRlhf820.l:1fcl and White con-
fidently converted his extra exchange into a
full point) 7 ...c5 (7 ...b6 8..bc4 £b7 9.0-0
~e7 10.'ife2 ~bd7 Il.e4 bS 12.~d3 b4
13.eS bxc3 14.exf6 ttJxf6 15.bxc3 c5
l6.l:I.bl ~xf3 17."xf3 "d5 18.1te2 ~c6
19.~g5 tbd5 20.~xe7 <t>xe7 21.~f3;!;
Lerner-Ragozin, Metz 1996) 8.~xc4 ~c6
9.0-0
let's wait together in the Slav
An amazing situation: we have a position
from the Queen's Gambit Accepted (QGA)
with an extra tempo for White - the pawn on
h3 instead of h2. The chances that this will
be favourable for Black are very small. This
would occur only in case of a kingside attack
with the pieces, when the first player won't
have the possibility to use square h3 for the
rook. However, much more realistic is that
only White will benefit from the pawn on h3,
since it restricts Black's options. Normally
in the QGA in a similar position from the last
diagram Black has two possible plans:
- to take on d4 and play against the IQP, or
- (a safer pian) to develop ~c7, ~e7 (.ad6),
0-0, b6 and ~b7.
In the second case White often plays for
d4-d5, followed by e3-e4. The move h3 is
very useful for that plan, which means that if
Black doesn't wish to recognize the fact that
pawn on h3 clearly favours White. he is
practical! y forced to play against the isolated
pawn. 9 ...~e7 1O.'i'e2 cxd4 II.~dl e5
(11. ..0-0 12.exd4 4"2b4 \3.tDe5 ~bd5
l4 ..ig5 ~xc3 15.bxc3 lM5 16.~d2 i.d7
l7.~d3 ~c7 18.1!ih5 f5 19.1:1el ~d6
20. 'i'fJ l:tac8 21.aS ± Golod- Yeke, lzrnir
2(04) 12.exd4 exd4 l3.~e3! (with the pawn
on h2 in a similar position of the Queen's
Gambit Accepted this move would have
been bad in view of the answer ...i.g4!)
13...0-014.tbxd4.c715.lUxc6bxc616.aS
53
Doria~. Rogozenko

c5 17.tL:a4 .tb7 18.lf.~b6'i'c6 19.'i!i'f1l:radH
20.l:tdc 1 and White was slightly better in
Speelman-Schandorff, Calvia 01 2004.
6.cS!?
White's idea is to play just as in the line S.cS.
where the set- up with the pawn on e6 is not
the most optimal for Black.
I should like to present the reader with some
other options too:
• 6.cxdS brings nothing: 6 ... exd5 (or
6...cxd5 7 ..1f4 .1d6=) 7.~f4 (Hlic2 ~d6
8..Q.g50hd7 9.e3 h6=) 7 ...~f5 8.~b311a7
9.e3 lbbd7 IO.~e2 ~e4 11.0-0 SLe7
IVuxe4 ~xe4 lh·Jh Sokolov-Ehlvest,
Reykjavik 2001 .
• 6.~g5 h6 (6 ...dxc4!'! 7.c4 b5 8.e5 0600)
7.kh4 g5 8 ..i.g3 ~e4 (again the most princi-
pled move is 8...dxc4) 9 ..Q.e5 f6 lO..ihbR
nxh8 11.e3 'i4'a5 12.~b3 kd6 (12 ...~b4
13.l:rcI 00) 13..Qd3f514.g4b5 !5.cxd5exd5
!6.11clIU8?! 17.i..xe4! fxe4 18.ttje5 ~.xe5
19.dxe5 llb7 20.0-0 l:tc7 2U!fdl± 'ilfb6
2H}¥b4~b7
1. ~g
'i¥g
i i i surprised finding himself in a such position:
i i~ i I doubt that he would be happy suddenly to
'iY i ~
ttJ ~ ~
~~ ~
:ll ~ - 9JIgi dxc4 IO.e4 e5 I1.g5 hxg5
23.tLxe4! c5 (23 ...dxe4 24.lld8+! 'otxdR
25.~xf8+ ~d7 26.lldl+ we6 2HWf6
male) 24.ti\d6+ <J.;>d7
25.tL;xb7 cxb4 26.e6+
1-0 Handke-Volkov, Port Erin 2004.
• 6.e3 (together with 6.c5 this gives While
the best chances for an advantage) 6...li';hd7
(6 ...cS 7.cxd5 exdf R..Q.d3 - 8.~e2!? -
!LCL;C69.0-0~d610.dxc5.he5) l.e4dxe4
12.lbxe4 fa.e7 IH!fe2 lilxe4 14.Sii.xe4 0-0
15.~f4 l:te!! 16.'itc2 h6 l7 ..hc6 bxc6
18.Wxc6 .Q.e6 19.trfd I 'ita5 20.tbd4 J:l!lc8
21.'i'f3 i.f6 22.i:.d2 'ffb6 23.~c3:t
Eingorn-Kir.Georgiev, Halkidiki 2002)
7.l\tc2 ~d6
Now we have the Meran Variation with the
moves h3 and 36 included. The position after
R.g4!? h6 can even arise via a 'pure Meran'
move order: l.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.tbf3 ~to
4.ti.~c3eo 5.e3 .!ilbd7 6.'fi<.:2 ~d6 7.g4 h6
R.h3 a6.
Docs White have the advantage? Objec-
tively the position offers mutual chances. but
it is very likely that your opponent will be
when Black is playing the Chebanenko Slav
find himself within the realm of a sharp vari-
ation from the Meran. Here are a few practi-
cal examples:
12..hg5 b5 LtO-O-O f¥c7 14.~e3 g6
15.dxe5 ~xe5 16.ti.;g5 ~b7 17.f4 0d3+
18.$_xd3 cxd3 19.1:txd3 $i.xf4 20 ..bf4
.....xf4+ 2! .Wb I While is better thanks to the
safer position of his king. In the game Dao
Thien Hai-S.Farago, Budapest 1995 Black
quickly lost after '11...'f'e5 22.'I'f2 ;Pe7
23.tt';f3 "c7 24.~c5+ weX 2S.eS ~d7
26.~e3 tL.f8 27.."i:e4.

54
 Let's wai1 together in the Slav

- 9.~d2dxc410 ..bc4b5 II.Qd3~b7(ac- 10.a3 also with a slight edge for White.
cording to Zviagintsev White's chances arc 7.cxb6 ~bd7
also preferable after 11. ..~5 12.-1.)e4 oli\,xe4 Simply bad is 7 .. .'tli'xb6?! 1:I.tt::a4! ~b4+
13.i.xe4 tb8 14.0-0-0) 12.g5 hxg5 9 ..ad2 '!Wa5 I0.a3 ~xd2+ 11.ti',xd2±.
IH::xg5 fle7 14.Dgl cS IS.tZlce4 cxd4
16.ti::;xd6+ 'ffxd(l 17.~g6!

8.g3!?
Interesting play. Stocek-Movsesian, Czech
This position is from Zviagirusev- Republic 2003/04, went S.e3 'ir'xh6 9 ..i.d3
Burmakin, St Petersburg 1999. After es lO.O-O .i.e7 Il.tLla4 \!fa7 12.dxe5 tl.:xc5
17...<1:e5 White could have achieved a big 13.tt~xc5 ~xc5 14.b3 0-0 15.~b2 $.d7
advantage with l!L~.xn+!. Therefore in 16,Ci;e5~.b5 1Uk I 'tIi'b6 18"txb5 axbf
Nyback-Dautov, Calvia 01 2004, Black im- 19.t;·\c6 Qa3 20.Axf6 gxf6 21.fig4+ WhH
proved with 17...0-0 18.~xf7+ :txt? 22.~h4 :tJg7 23.'~'g3+ WhH 24.~h4 J/Z-J/2•
19.~:'xt7 'itlxf7 20.~g6+ We7 21.~xg7+ In my opinion the move lL§Lf4!'!, followed
o.t.>e822.exd4 (Zviagintsev mentioned al- by e2-e3, deserves attention.
ready back in 1999 that White achieves a 8 ..•'lWxb6
clear advantage in the endgame after Black captured with the knight in
22.'i'h8+ 'tIi'f8 23.'fixf8+ \t>xf8 24.exd4. Handke-Miloradovic, Stockholm 2004. Af-
Maybe this evaluation is a bit too optimistic ter 8 .. ,ciixb6 9.~g2 ~d6 (9 ...(;5 10.0-0 $_e7
though) 22 ...l!fxd4 23Jld I ~e4+ 24.~e3 l1.b3;!;) 10.0-0 0-0 l1.b3 cS 12.~a3 c4
flb4+ 2S.J:d2 :c8 26.~g6+ <tie7 27.!;;:g4 13.~c5 cxb3 14.axb3 I:[b8 15k;eS 'llKc7
QrJ 28.'irg7+ and the players agreed to a 16.b4 tLfd7 17k-d3 tbc4 18.e4! ~xc5
draw. The general impression is that only 19.bKc5 dxe4 20.l2:;x.e4± a5'! 21.ffc2 ~a6
White can search for further improvements, 22.l::lfcl h6 23.:a4 White was winning.
since hc always has a draw in the pocket. 9..ig2 c5
6... b6 A logical move. which, however. does not
The only way to get counterplay is con- reach equality. In a later Bundesliga game I
nected to this advance. Leaving it for a later postponed this advance for a while. but ap-
stage offers White an additional possibility parently White keeps the better prospects
to protect the pawn c5 with b2-b4: 6 ...tDbd7 anyway: Y...~d6 10.0-0 0-0 11.~c2
7.~f4 b6 8.b4 a5 9.a3 and White is slightly (ll.e4'!! tDxe4 12.tL:xe4 dxe4 l3.tDg5 f5!
better. Or 6...JLe7 7.~f4 0-0 !I.e3 b6 9.b4 a5 14.t2:;xe6~eH~. also interesting is I U:rbl !'!)
Dorian Rogozenko
11...c5. Here in the game Ftaenik-Rogo-
zenko, Bundesliga 2000/01. my opponent
played 12.dxc5 tDxc5 13.SiLe3and after the
precise 13 ... SiLd7! Black equalized com-
pletely. Stronger for White was 12.~e3!
with an edge.
10.0-0 .id6 11.:lb1 0-0 12.<i:Ja4!~b5
13.b3 ~b8
White abo has a slight edge after 13 ~b7
14.dxc5 tDxc5 15.tDd4 ~e8 (I5 'iWa5?
16.b4 'iWxa4 l7.bxe5+-) 16.Xf.a3 ~c7
I7.tLxc5 ~xc5 18..i.xc5 'lWxc5 19.M.
14.~a3lbe4 15.fkc2
This position is slightly better for White.
The second player can hardly achieve more
than an endgame where White will have a
queenside majority. Clearly, Black may
never hope to achieve more than a draw.
15...~a5
Or 15...~b7 16.dxc5 tLidxc517.~xc5 tLxc5
18.~g5t.
16.dxc5 tL:dxc517.tL:g5!
After this strong move Black faces an un-
pleasant choice. 17.tbxc5 tLxc5 is more or
less equal.
17...tDxgS
The knight will be completely misplaced on
g5, but I didn't like 17...fS [8.~':xe4 tDxe4
19.~xd6 Q,xd6 2(}.'lWc5.with a clear posi-
tional advantage for White.
18..lixcS ~xc519."'xc5!
56
Unclear is 19.~xcS e5!?
19...~b5
After 19...'i'xc5 20.li';xc5 e5 21.~xd5 ~xh3
22.l:tfdl White is much better thanks to his
queenside pawn majority and the poor posi-
tion of the knight on g5.
20.~e3 h6 21.l:tfdl
White has a small, but stable advantage.
21...~b4
No better is 21 ...l:lb7 22J~bc I Uc723Jhc7
'iWxc724J:tc I ±.
22.l;Ibcl ~d6 23.f4! tLlh724.Uc2 o1\f6
25.~d4 ~b8 26.4\c5
Very skilful play by Knaak. Something defi-
nitely went wrong for Black, since now
White is already much better.
26...l::rb4 27."'IIVf2a5 28.Udcl lab5
29.fi'e3 ~a7 30.Wf2 ~b7 31.c,,\xb7
'¥fxb7 32.nc7 ~b8 33.1!Ya7~d8
Black keeps the queens on rhe board since
33 ..:*x<l7+ 14J~xa7 is completely hope-
less.
34.~a6 nb8 35.~xa5 ~a8 36.1id2
~bB 37J:t7c2 ~b6+ 38.'i'e3 d4
39.ffd3 Ua3
Black does not have sufficient compensation
for the pawn, but finally in this game he has
some activity at least,
40J:lc6 iWa7 41.nc7 'i'b6 42.nlc6
'itb8 43.ttc2 l:td8 44 ..tb7 rUB 4S..Q.f3
But nOI45."xd4'! Un7 46.'lWb4 0d5-+.

45 ...tld8 46.r.t'g2 h5 47.Wic4 h4
48.~c5! l:la6 49.l:lb7 'i'd6 50:i!Yxd6
l:ldxd6 51.84+- hxg3 52 ..!:td2?
White spoils a very good game in a techni-
cally winning position. The easiest win was
52.1:cc7.
52...lDd7! 53.l:b4?! ti'.c5 54..!:tbxd4
l:lxd4 55.l:lxd4 liixb3 56..!:td8+ r;iJh7
57.na8 l:I.d658.a5 ~d4 59..i..e4+?
This mistake caused by the time-trouble al-
lows Black to escape using tactical motifs
connected with the passed pawn on g3. On
(he other hand it is also very likely that Black
can reach a draw in the endgame after
59.'.!/xg3 ltJxf3 6O.<oPxf3 1:td2 6l.a6 :':a2
62.h4 c;t>g6.
59 ...15 60.~d3 tnxe2!
Unexpectedly the pawn g3 saves the day.
61.~xe2l:td2 62.wxg3
Or 62.<;t.f3 g2 with a draw.
62...l:lxe2 63.86 l:le3+ 64.'.t>g2 l:le4
65.a7l:la4 66.~ Ua3+ 67.'it>e2g6
VJ-1h
o Peter Heine Nielsen
• Dorian Rogozenko
Germany Bundestiga 2000101
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.4\f3 thf6 4.li':c3 a6
5.h3 b5 S.c5
Let's wait together in the Slav
The differences with regard to the line S.eS
are obvious - White has the pawn on h3 and
Black the pawn on b5 insteadofb7. Lei's see
who will benefit from this. Black can claim
that his queenside is not blockaded and with
his pawn on b5 the weakness of square b6
(and sometimes of pawn b7 as well) is prac-
tically non-existent. Besides, White's space
advantage is less obvious now. This is cor-
rect and it is also what I thought during the
game. However, the more I delved into the
position the more I realized that White's ad-
vantages are no less valuable. Here they are:
I. Black does not have at his disposal the
counterplay with b7-b6
2. The pawn on h3 is a necessary move in
the line S.cS, since the best diagonal for
White's dark-squared bishop is b8-h2 and on
f4 the bishop needs to be protected against
the exchange ... ti',h5. With the pawn on h3
the move ...~h5 is obviously pointless due
to the answer ~h2
3. The advance e2-e4 is much more dange-
rous for Black now, since now the weakness
of pawn c6 will be fatal. Therefore Black
must prevent e2-e4 at all costs.
In my opinion White is slightly better in the
diagram position and I am not the onl y one to
affirm that. Viktor Bologan expressed the
same opinion already in 1997, when he
faced the movc S.h3 for the first timc.
Apart from 6.cS White has an interesting op-
57
Dorian Rogozenko
tion to transpose into a kind of position simi-
lar to the Exchange Van arion of the Slav De-
fence with 6.cxdS. The justification of this
decision is that with the pawn on b5 Black's
development options are considerably re-
stricted. Nevertheless the drawback is obvi-
ous too - the arising positions offer both
sides limited fighting resources. After
6 ...cxd5 7 .~f4 Black has several options:
• 7...:af5? (with the pawn on b5 Black
should keep the bishop on the queenside)
8.e3 e6 9J:tcl JJ..e7 lO.a4 and Black has
problems protecting his weaknesses. The
game Eingorn-Gartner, Oberwart 1998. con-
tinued IO...h4 II.tLle2 (11.0b I!? is also in-
teresting, going to d2 and then to b3)
II...~a7 12.tDg3 .i.g6 13..Q.d3 0-0 14.U-0
Si.d6 15.i.xg6hxg616.l.xd6'1!fxd617.~c2
.!1:hd7 IKb3. White has a stable advantage.
Eingorn gradually increased it: l8 ...a5
19.~c6 ~b8 20.Ac2 Ild8 21.Arc I ti',e8
22.tUe2 1'k7 2Hi'a6 :a7 24.'l!fd3 .l:!c7
25,J:[xc7 0.xc7 26.tlJeS! 0xe5 27.dxe5.
White's next istDd4 and Black won't be able
to protect pawns a5 and then b4,
• After 7 ...tt::c6 8.e3 e6 9.£d3 ~d6 White
must chouse between 10.~xd6 "xd6
u.zcr. or 10.a4~'1 b4 (10 ....bf4 l Laxb.S")
11.Gt~e2.in both cases the first player is only
marginally better. Considerably weaker is
1O..itg5?! h6 II..illf6 ~xf6 12.:%cJ ~d7!
58
13.0-0 0-0 14.l'.Gd2 0a5=i= Rugozenko-
Saltaev, 's-Hertogenbosch 2003.
• 7...e68.e3
8 ....Qd6 (less good is 8 ...A.e7 9,.i.d3 ~b7
10.0-0 0-0 - 10...0c6 I Uk 1 0-0 12.a4 b4
13.tL:;bl ~b6 14.tL:bd2;!; Eingorn-Lendwai,
Oberwart 2002 - I1.a4 b4 12.~b 1 tbc6
I3.ti'.bd2 ~a5 14.~e2 with a slight plus in
Zviagintsev-Bologan, New Yorlc 1997)
9.j_xd6 (9.tZ:e5!,! 0-0 10.~d3 Ab7 -
1O".~)bd7? 11,l('::xf7! - 11.~g.5 ~e7 12.0-0
Cilbd7 13.f4 ~e4! 14..be4 dxe4 15.~xe7
~xe7 16.~c1 1:I:acS IVL~xd7 ~xd7 and in
Legky-Kornliakov, Sevastopol 1997, Black
didn't have any real problems to hold the
draw) 9 ...'i!fxd6 IO.gd3 tbbd7 11.0-0 .J;1.b7
12.tDe20-0 13.a4 _~_c6 14.a5 0e4 15.tbf4
~ac8 16..~.e2 ~h7 17.tt!dJ '¥He7 18.tbd2
~\d6 19.~~b3 tL:c4 20Jla2 J:tc7 21.<1\nc5
~xc5 22.Ci;x<.:5 :fc8 23.~d3 White has a
positional advantage, Gareev-Krivobo-
rodov, Kaluga 2003,
Let us return to our main game after 5.h3 b5
6.c5.
6...~f5
There are two alternatives:
- 6 ...ti··,e4 was never met in practice. After
7.a4! the position looks better for White,
- 6 ...g6 7,.if4 .Qg7 S.c} (}-O 9.i.d3 tCofd7,
Here in the game Braun-Murariu. Ohre-
novae 2004, White played 10.b4 as II.a3 f6
 Let's wait together in the Slav

12.e4 axb4 l3.axb4 Ihal 14.~xal e5 9.exf3

15.~e3 and now instead of 15...dxe4 Here 9.~xf3 e5 also deserves attention
16.lDxe4 exd4 17.~xd4 tLJeS 18 . ..\te2!±,
Black should have started convenient com-
plications with 15...f5. Therefore, stronger
was the simple 10.0-0 with advantage. Now
if 10...f6, then l l.e-l! b4 (even worse is
11...e5 12.i,e3 f5 13.exd5 e4 14.dxc6 o!l._jxc6
15.~xc4 fxe4 16.~xe4±) IVi:Je2 e5
13.~g3 dxe4 14.~xe4 f5 15..i.d3 e4
16..ic4+ <.t>h8 17.tbd2. Black has serious
problems with the development of the
queensidc, Besides, his position contains a
lot of weaknesses.
7.g4! This advance of the c-pawn was the idea of
my previous move. Without it Black is just
dearly worse. Now White has at his disposal
an interesting piece sacrifice. which J under-
estimated during the game: lO.dxe5 cDfd7
II.C:xd5! cxd5 12.'llixd5 :la7 13.c6 ~b4+
14.wfl tL:b6 15.W'xd8+¢'lld8 16.~J4 lk7
17.rte I and White has excellent compensa-
tion for the piece.
9...e6
White is also slightly better after 9...g6
10.0-0 (I 0.~.f41·) Ji.g7 II.""d2 0-0 12.Ji£.h6)
1O... ~g7 I Ui.el.
10.14 g6
It's a pity not to play this advance with White's advantage ili out of the question af-
tempo. even if 7.$;.f4 is not a bad move ei- ter IO...h5 Il.g5 -1'g8 12.f5' ed5 13.0-0.
ther. Maybe objectively best was IO...ser. hop-
7...~e4 ing to hold an inferior position.
Practice has also seen 7....~.g6 8.:~.:;t'5!
(8.~g2 is just marginally better for White)
8....8fd7 9.thxg6 hxg6 IO.e4 e6 (IO ...h4 1:6\ 'iH.A I:
II.t2::xd5! cxd5 I:!.exd5 t2::to J3.~g2gg) ~ ~
11..~g2 Jl..e7 12.0'{) Ita7 13."~d.~ dxc4 ~ ~ ~~~
14.'ii"xc4g5 15.f4± Lautier-Marzolo, Scnat
2003.
~~~
8.~g2 ~xf3 ~ ~ ~~
What else? White threatens 9.gS. For in- ttJ ~
stance: tL.:2;bd7 9.gS tbh5 IO.o!l._jxe4 dxe4
Il.tDd2±. Or 8...g6 9.g5 .hf3 IO...bf3 ~~ ~1l.
ti.:;fd7 II.c4. with a clear initiative. ~ A'ifw I ~

59
Dorian Rogozenko

11.f5?! 19...tLJd720.h5 gxh5!

This is a poor decision. helping Black 10 Far better than 20 ...tDxcS? 21.hxg6 fxg6
open the e-file for counterplay, 11.it..e3 22.dxcS ~xa2 23.l:td6! 'ifxb2+ 24.'~d I
seems more to the point. White has a space :ad82S ..td2±.
advantage, and although it is certainly not 21.l:tdg1
easy to break through Black's bastions. it is This is superticial and without concrete sup-
definitely the first player who has the better port. Correct was 2 I .<,t;>bI tLif8 22.1!i'h4=.
prospects. Black's problem in such positions 21...cDf822.~h3 <i.ig623.~f5?
is his lack of counterplay. The second player The last chance to hold the balance was
must mainly wait and try to be prepared for 23.'i1i'gS 'ilVxg5 24JhgS .cr.ad8 2S ..af5
White's actions. ~xd4 26 ..bg6 fxg6 27.lhg6+ <J;f7
11..,exf5 12.gxf5 ~g7 13.i.e3 0-0 28 ..!::.x.c61:!:eS.
Black is doing okay here. From {he opening 23...11ad8!+
point of view the rest is not really relevant. After this precise move bringing the last
since White could have achieved an advan- piece into play, Black's advantage is clear.
tage earlier. 23...'fVx.a2 24.1!i'x.hS l:tad8 25.~f5 ~c4+
14.~f3 26.r,t,>hl ~d3+ 27.'~al :lxd4 28.i.xd4
Or 14....wd2!? l:te8 IS.O-O-O unclear. 'ilrxd4 29.1!{;e2 ~'f4 30.'Il¥c2 was far from
14...11e8 clear to me, due to the open g- and h-files.
Weaker is 14...ti.:e4?! lS.ti',xe4 dxe4 Unfortunately it took me (00 much time to
16.'itxe4 Ite8 17.'ifd3 'itxd4 18.'itxd4 figure out the most precise continuations.
i.xd4 I9.0-0-0.w.xe3+ 20.fxe3 and Black re- 24.~b1 ~xd4 25.~xd4 'i.t'xd4
mains with an undeveloped queenside, 26.'i'xh5
15.0-0-0 -tJe4!? 16.fxg6 hxg6
BE
*...
More solid was 16...fxg6!,? with the idea
... .cr.a7-f7, but during the game I felt that
~
Black is able to create cnunterplay after
White starts to advance the h-pawn. ~ ~
17.tLxe4 dxe418.'1i'f4 ~d5 ~~ 'if
'iV~
~
~~ ~
~ I l:tx:t
26...~f6??
A silly blunder in time-trouble. After the
simple 26 ...'iIf'g7 with the same threat of
27 ...l:d2. White must play 2HWe2 (other
moves lose at once: 27.1HSJ:d2-+; 27.l:dl
Cd4 28."114 .cr.xd1+ 29 ..::lxdI lLJd3-+). but
after 27 ..Jld5 with a pawn up and no rea) at-
19.h4 tack for White the position is technically
Double-edged is 19.~bllC.d7 20.h4 £.01'6. winning for Black.

60

27.~f5 l:d228.'*'h7+
This is {he difference. The queen on g7
would have protected against this check.
which for some strange reason I thought
was completely harmless. Maybe this is the
right place to recall that years ago. during
our training hours. Chebanenko would lose
any interest and he even used to stop analys-
ing the games if he knew that I had been in
time trouble. He used to say: 'In time-trou-
ble one does not think normally, so I see no
point to search for reasonable explanations
of the mistakes. As a result I see no point of
watchi ng it at all'. I brought up this episode
in order (0 avoid any other explanation for
the lack of detailed comments of the rc-
rnaining part of the game. Black is now
dead lost.
28../~f8 29.'tIi'h6+ wg8 30.'iYxd2
'6'xf5 31.ii'h6 e3+? 32.~a1 'iVt6
I was about to get mated after 32 ...cxf2
33.'W'hS mate.
Let's wait together in the Slav
33.fxe3 l:te5 34. ~h3 J:[e6
Another nice mate on h8 exploiting the pin
on the g-file is: 34 ..Jb.cS 35.~e8+ ri;g7
36."hS mate.
35J:tf1 '*"'g7 36.'i'fS as 37.'ii'g5 a4
38.l:td1 l:teB 39.l:td8 l:txd8 40.'t!i'xd8+
tLlf8 41.a3 '*'g2 42.l%d1 Wg7 43.~d4+
Wg8 44.e4 'iirc2 45.l:if1! ~g6
46.~d8+ ~h7 47.J:lxf7+Wh6 48.-.d4
'fYc1+ 49.Wa21!fg5 50.'ffg7+ 1-0
In conclusion. sometimes a good waiting
move can be well met by another waiting an-
swer. Nor only can you pass the ball back
into your opponent's court. What is more,
you can also hide your aggressive intentions
very well (just luuk at those possible mates
at the end of my game versus Nielsen). And
yes, the move 5.h3 clearly contains the ele-
ment of surprise as well. Can you expect
more from a single marginal pawn advance
on move 5?
 CHAPTER 7
Jeroen Bosch
Surprise in the Scotch
Play the Blumenfeld Attack - 6.llJb5
This chapter features a surprise weapon for
Whitt: in the Scotch versus 4 ....~c5. The
word 'surprise' is not necessarily synony-
mous with 'novel'. of course. The whole line
was first played by Blumenfeld over a cen-
rury ago! It was popular in the first decade of
the 20th century, only to fall into neglect for
the next XO years or so. Recently
Blumenfeld's idea was taken lip by grand-
masters Zclcic and Natal'. Subsequently,
even Ponomariov has given it a try.
1.e4 e5 Vi,'3 ~",c6 3.d4 exd4 4.Q,:xd4
~.c5 5.~.e3
Here 5.'!.1~xe6is the other main line, While
5.tL,;bJ used to be popular, it is hardly played
62
these days, Neither is S.t:35 for that matter.
5..J~Yf6
Lasker's suggestion of 5 ...i:.b6 is a (minor)
alternative here, when 6.~f5 is widely ac-
knowledged to yield White an edge. After
the text While's usual response is n.d.
However, why not attack your opponent
head-on?
6.~b5!?
This is called [he Blumenfeld Attack by
Estrin and Panov, probably because of the
game Blumenfeld- W.Cohn. Berlin 1903/04.
White accepts II serious structural weak-
ness- isolated doubled p<lWIlS- in return for
II lasting initiative, Blumenfeld was a strong
_____________________ ---=.;Sl!rprisein the Scotch

master, but on the whole it is not his chess squares d4, dS. f4 and f5. Moreover. the
games for which he is remembered by the half-open d- and I-file may be used to good
chess world. He made important contribu- effect. The direct threat of 8A)xc7 forces
tions to the field of opening theory. Think of Black to make up his mind. Should he pro-
the Blumenfeld Gambit: l.d4 l?:f6 2.c4 e6 tect c7 (and how?), or should he counter-
3.~f3 cS 4.d5 b5, and also of the Blumenfeld attack with 7 ...~h4+ ami 8..:i!t'xe4'! Unat-
Attack in the Meran: l.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.tt.lf3 tractive, by the way, is 7 ...'''xb2?! 8.lUlc3!
tiJf6 4.t2k3 e6 5.e3 lLibd7 6.Qd3 dxc4 ~h4 9.tilxc7+ Wd8 IO:ilVd2t.
7..hc4 b5 8.~d3 a6 9.e4 c5 10.e5 cxd-l
11.0xb5. Blumenfeld is also known for his
research into the psychological aspects of
our game. Chess trainers allover the world
advise their impatient or blunder-prone pu-
pils to first write down their move on the
score sheet, 10 double-check il for gross mis-
takes, and only then to execute it 011 the
board. Sensible advice, first formulated by
Blumenfeld and therefore rightly known as
'Blumenfeld's rule'. Coming back to 6.tLib5,
this move (just as Blumenfeld's other open-
ing variations) starts major complications
right from the start. Play has an open. tacti- We will investigate:
cal character which ought to suit the player
of the Scotch. A) 7...<t>d8
6...~xe3 B} 7...... d8
The only natural response to White's auda- C) 7...'it'e5
cious knight move. There is a practical ex- D) 7 ..."*'h4+
ample with 6....ab4+: 7.j_d2 .hd2 + 8.[i:xd2
,,*,e5 (8 ...,,*,d8 9 .• g4fJ 9.~d3 t"i;d4? 1O.tL;c4 Variation A
~\:5 Il.b4!. and White won in Hari-Drozg, 7 .•.Wd8
Slovenia 1996. However. Black could have Postponing his decision about where to
put up some serious resistance now with move the queen. Black reasons that he will
11..:'i!i'xb4+ 12.c3 'it'xb5 13.Cild6+ cxd6 have 10 defend c7 with his king anyway
14 ..txb5 tL:xbS. In answer to the check I (which is indeed true in some lines). Still, it
would recommend 7.c3 ~a5 8.ci:d2 a6 means giving up the ngmro casde as early as
9.tC.a3!?, which is very pleasant for White. move 7!
7.fxe3 8.tD1c3 CDge7
The isolated doubled e-pawns look ex- Not. of course. 8 ...a6? 9.tbxc7+-.
tremely ugly. Indeed. in an ending White's 9.'I'f3!1
pawn structure would be a very serious defi- Now that Black has moved his g8 knight
cit. Still. in a middlegame there are also While proposes a queen swap, either to im-
some positive features connected to the prove his own structure (gxf3) or 10 fracture
e3-e4 pawn set-up. The white pieces may his opponent's (gxf6).
find useful strongholds in the centre on the Less good is 9.~c4, although in the game

63
Jeroen Bosch
Gantner-Manz, Germany 1991192. interest-
ing complications arose after 9 ... d6 IO.'iWd2
(DeS I l..ie2 ~e6 12.tt~xc7!? <l;;xc7
13.tlJb5+ ~d8 14.'i'xd6+ ~d7 (I4 ...tlJd7
IS.'itc7+ 'it>eH 16.()-O-O±) 15.'it'c7+ We8
16.ttJd6+ ~f8 17.llfI 'fi'e61H.tbxf7!? tbxf7
19J:dl. Black could now have won with
19... ~c6. After the game continuation
19..J:tc8? White could have landed a spec-
tacular blow with 20Jhd7!+- (instead of
20.f¥xd7).
A serious alternative. though, is 9.'iVd2!? In
the game N,Kosintseva-Petrukhin. Dagornys
2003. Black now played the loosening 9..,a6
1O.tL:d4 b5?! when after 11.0-0-0 ~c5
12.~e2 d6 13,l:lhfl fih6 14.'~:;f3 C,0g4 White
correctly invested some material with 15.e5!
tLixe3 16.exd6 cxd6 I7 .~g5! ~xfl 18..l:txfl
~e6 19.~ce4 with a winning attack.
Preferable - after 9. 'ilfd2 a6 10.t(jd4 - is
IO ... tt::e5 11.0-0-0 d6 12.~e2 with a bal-
anced position. Black's king will stay in the
centre for some time to come. meaning that
White has definite attacking chances. On the
other hand, Black is pretty solid and has
some long-term advantages.
9 ...'ilVh4+
White has a pleasant ending after 9, .. 'i/Vxf3
lO.gxf3. The game Gaponenko-Stiazhkina,
Belgrade 200 I, continued 10...d6 1 )Jlg I g6
12.0-0-0 a6 J3.tlJd4 tlJxd4 14Jhd4
(I4.exd4!?) 14....i.e6 15.f4 f6 16.l:ld2 '.t>eR
17.Q.g2 J:1b8 18.~f3 ~t7 19.h4t.
Perhaps Black should opt for the ending af-
ter 9 .. ,d6!? 10..Q.e2?! tf',e5 11.'tIkxf6 gxf6
12.0-0 f5 as in Remrnler-Korneev, Bohlin-
gen 2003.
10.g3 'fi'h6 11.'ii'f4!
White nevertheless succeeds in exchanging
the queens under favourable circumstances.
11...'itxt4 12.gxf4 a6 13.t;"d4 .!t\xd4
14.exd4
And White had a slight edge in Kccic-
Milosevic, Kranj 1999.
64
Variation B
7...~d8
Defending c7 with the queen without inter-
polating the check on h4 (line D2) is less log-
ical.
8. 'i'g4 g61!
This is the most popular move in practice.
Wor';;e than the text is 8... ltJf6'! 9.tCxc7+!
'ilxc7 10.'i'xg7 .CI.g8ll.'tIkJlf6~b4l2.lL::.a3
and White was clearly better in Mieses-
Lester. London 1944. However. the alterna-
tive 8...~f8 is probably a lot stronger. Black
does not weaken the dark squares. which
eases his defensive task. Chances are proba-
bly about equal. For example. 9,1t'f4 d6
lO.tblc3 a6 1I.[iJd4 ~eS 12.0-0-0 l[:;f6=,
Farah-Bielicki, Buenos Aires 1992.
9. 't!Yf4 d6 10 ...Q.c4 tt.'\eS
Bad is IO... tLif6? 11.()-(}~e5 12.~xf6 'ft'xf6
13.l:txf6±. Schneider-Spranger, Oberhof
1998.
11.0-0
11...~d7
The only move in this difficult position for
Black. However. as the queen will have to
move later on, (she is dearly obstructing
Black's development) this move involves a
further loss of tempo. To illustrate the prob-
lems that Black is facing:
- l1. ..~e6 12.,Q,xe6 fxe6 13.~Ic3± (im-
mediately winning is 13.~xc7+! 'i'xc7
14.~fR+ Wd7 15.'iha8+-) 13...'it>d7'?
 Surprise in the Scotch

14J:tadl ~R 15.'ii'xe5 1-0, Blumenfeld- 15...~e6 16.e5! dxe5 17.tL1exeS0-0-0

Helbach, St Petersburg 1905. 18.ttJd4 f6 19.~ec6! bxc6 20."ijxc6
_ 11...'tfe7 12.~lc3 c6 (not much better is 'lieS 21.~xd8 ~xd8 22.Uad1+ ~e7
12... g5 13.~f2c614 ..txf7+~d7 15.tC:d4± 23.r!d3 g5 24.'tWf3 ~e5 25:.-a8 .id7
R.Swinkels-De
13.ll)xd6+ (l3.ht7+
winning)
Vreugt, Hoogeveen 2(04)

13... 'itxd6
is also completely
14..bt7+ We7
26J:tfd1 ~e8 27J:e3 W 28.'if'xa6c6
29.tvc4+ ~g7 30.'il'd4+-
0,e7 32.'tWd6 'ifxd6 33.nxd6 ltJd5
"e6
31.a4

15.1fh4+ Wf8 16.i.xg8+ ~xg8 17J:tadl
-"e6 18Ji.d8+ <l;g7 19.1lxh8
20.'i'd8+ 1-0, Batkovic-Jevtic, Belgrade
1993.
12.lc1a3!
Keeping the momentum, and therefore
stronger than 12.ge2 a6 13.l1.ld4 'i'e7
14.~c3 ~e6 15.liX15 .lhd5 16.exd5 hS
17.tDf3 li:;xf3+ IRJhf3 Cbh6 19.'ilfa4+.
Gaponenko-Maric, Vrnjacka Banja 1996.
Although in that case While keeps some ad-
vantage too.
Equally good as the Text-move. though, is
12.tt::d2 as Zelcic played against Abbas at
the 2004 Olympiad in Calvia, White won
convincingly after 12...h5 13.tLlc3 :lh7
14.~b3 ~g4 15.tLidS! q;dH 16.tbt6 tL.xf6
(16...'iWxf4 17.exf4 ~xf6 18.fxc5+-)
17."'xf6+ ~e8 18.tbf3! ~xf3+ 19Jhf3
'ilid7 20.llafl 'tfe7 21.~.xf7+ and Black re-
signed.
12•..a6
Clearly, 12..k:xc4 13.tbxc4 leaves Black
defenceless against the menacing threats on
d6 and c7.
While, the immediate 12...ffc7 fails to
13..lhf7+! ti:.xf7 14.ti;xc7+ 'iWxc7 15'ci;b5
'fie 7 16.... xf7+ 'f¥xf7 17.tDxd6+ 1f;e7
18.tLlxt7 ~e6 19.LCxh8 -1\f6 20.tt.\xg6+ and
White's rook and fourt ') pawns are stronger
than the two pieces.
13.tLld4 tIIe7 14.tbf3
Ready to exchange an important defender.
14..•llJxc41S.lCxc4
White's enormous lead in development now
gives him the edge. Zelcic won convincingly
after:
34.nb3 sst 35.nb7 <bg6 36.e4 lLJe3
<l;xh8 37.e5 ~d5 38.1:.xf6+~h5 39.85 0xg2
40.a6 ttJe141.a7 1-0
Zelcic-Kuba, Pula 2003.
Variation C
7...'lie5
This is Bronstein's move.
8.'~·d5
This move forces Black to protect c7 with
his king. and. therefore, looks strong. Still,
Black is often forced to play wd8 at some
point anyway. In any case, there are clearly
some interesting alternatives at this stage:
• No good is 8.tl)lc3?! after both 8...a6
9.tL:d4 tbf6 lO.lbxc6 dxc6 Il."'d4 "'e7+
Oksanen-Rautio. Finland 1999/00. and
8...li~f6 9 .... f3 a6 10.li'oa3 d6 II,l[)c4 -.e7
12.h3 0-0 MammoJa-Masera. Sottomarina
1973, White has no compensation whatso-
ever for his structural deficit.
• In practice White has also been success-
ful with moving the knight to the edge of the
board with ~:.~ J a3!? .!Z!ce7?! 9.~c4 'llkc5
W.c3 ue 11M "'c6 12."'d4 tbf6 13.CbaS
~d7 14.eS! l2f5 15.'f¥f4 tDh5 16.Wf3±
Stamnov -Pancevski. Skopje 1998. How-
ever, in reply to !tlDla3 the customary
!L\t>d8 looks stronger.
• !:U2:id2>t>dS(not 8...0f69.tL:c4!+-) and
now the lines fork:
- 9.lDc3 ~t'6 10.1ff3 d6 II.h3 ~e6
12.0-0-0 'itcS (12 ...l:te8 13.~b5 a6 14..bc6
bxc6 15.'t!ff4 .id7 16.Wh4 'tfh5 was
Lipman-Averbakh, Moscow 1978) 13.... f4
t;\e5 14.<.t>bl We7 15.<1.}f3t£jg6 16.'Wg5

65
Jeroen Bosch

Wo'xg5 17.ttJxg5 c6=i= Rootanen-Pererjat- After the text Black gets a counterattack, ac-
kowicz, cr 1973. cording to an analysis by Estrin and Panov.
- 9.~d3 looks stronger, after 9 ... C.6f6 However, after
1O.0-Od6 Il.ttJf3"e7 (l1...iWxb2? 12.l:tbl 10.~f4!
'irxa2 13.e5!) 12.iWcl _Q_d7 13.~g3 White can at the cost of some material take
Pinkas-Sokolov, Lublin 1974. White keeps over the attack. The game Stocker-Nowack,
the initiative, according to Gutman. The Schleswig Holstein 1996. continued quite
more recent Predojevic- Tomashevsky, romantically with
Halkidiki 2003. went 9...tDh6 10.0-0 b6 10..:~xb211.'¥.txc7+ ~812.lC1c3!?
I I.'ire I f6 12.tQf3 'ire7 13.tLic3 tDe5 Here 12.'iVd6'IWxal 13.li':c7+~d8 14.lfje6+
14.(2;d5 'ird6 15J~'g3. draws.
8...Wd89.'¥.txf7 12...'fltxa1+ 13.~d2 ~f7 14:~f4! <M8
Alternatively, 9.tDlc3!? may also be investi- Equally bad is 14...lflCe5 15.ta.l6+! ~e7
gated. for example. 9 o0f6 (9 ...li:::.h6!'~) 16.tL;xf7 tbxt7 17.~c4 -.xhl 18.ffxf7+
10.... xl7 o0xe4 (10 g5 11.0-0-0 and ~d8 19.'ifxg7. winning. In my opinion
Black's king will he stuck in the centre for a 14...t;:·,fe5! with a very unclear position is
long time) Il.tDxe4 'iVxe4 12.0-0-0 (l2.'irxg7 best.
'fixe3+ 13.~2:e8 14:~f6+:%e715.'fih8+is 15.~d6
a draw) 12.... e7 (I2 ..:.xe3+ 13.$bl will Also winning is 15.~c4.
only make matters worse, as White can use the 15 ...Q',e516.tDxf7 ~g6
open e-file for his attack as well) 13.'irf4 do Or 16...lbxf1 17.~e4+-.
14.~d3 ta5 IH[hfl ~d7 16.c2.d4g6 17/.6f3 17.~d6+ ~g8 18..ic4 h619.li)g5
l:[f8?! 18.• 04 tlx6 19:fhh7 :b8 20.fla6 Mate.
l:tb6 21.'*fa3 '*fxe3+ 22.<;1(bl £.f5? 23.~h4
a5? 2Htfel 'i!fg5 25.i.xf5 'itxh4 26.lhd6+
1-0 Kecic-Tavcar, Ljubljana 1998. Variation D
9...ttlh6 7...~h4+
This is stronger than 9...~ge7 IO.tL:.lc3 a6 The main line.
II.li:::.a3 b5 12.0-O-Od613:trf3 ~e6 14.lLd5 8.g3
_hJ5 15.exd5l.?~a516.-.f41?Ci;g6I7.'ffxe5 Now the lines fork:
0.xe5 18.~e2 We7 19.b4!± Bontempi-
Taccalati, Italy 1996. DI) 8...... xe4
D2) 8...'t!rd8

Variation 01
8...\'Ifxe4 9.tI.'xc7+
White should take the rook now. for after
9.t2::le3 'ii'xh I I (ttbxc7+ q"d8 11.~d6 ~f6
12.tDxa8there is Fine's recommendation of
12...'iH3! to consider. Instead, 12...tUe8?!
proved less good in Blackburne-Ward, Lon-
don 1907. White won after 13."f4 f6
14.0-0-0 tLJe5 J5.tLJd5 lJxh2 16.~b5 tCc6
1?tL:ac7 'fkh6 l8.tbe6+' dxe6 19kb6+ ~e7
 Surprise in the Scotch

20.tlJ"d!+ c;t;>f8 21.W'f3 lbe5 22:.-e4 'ifg6 II... .. dS? 12.'i'xg7 'tIfe5 13:*f8+ ~e8
23. W'b4+ 1-0. 14.... xe8+ ~xe8 15k,c7+ Benderac-
9 ••.q,;>d8 Drljevic, Herceg Novi 200 I.
As always the king should go to dR. After - ll...g6 also looks weak after 12.lL:d2
9 .. .'l;'f8? lO.tDltaH W'lthl II.~d2 h5 IVuc3 'tWx.h2 13.0-0-0 ~h5 14.'tIff4 'tIfe5 15:*x.f7
h4 \3.0-0-0 ~f3 14.~g2 'ifg4 15.'i'd6+ Ci:Jge7 16.lL!c4 .-b8 17.lQd6.-xa8 18.... f6
t:bge7 16.'Wc7 d6 17.:xd6 g6, Miiller- :g8 19..tc4+- Godani-Duarte, Pontremoli
Stockfleth, Hamburg 1989, White gets a 1998.
winning advantage with 18..Cf.d8+! Wg7 Black has some stronger moves at his dis-
19Jbh8 ~xh8 2o.hc6 tDx.c6 21.1i'ltf7. posal though:
10.lLixa8 ~xh1 - Langer-Karnberi, Oklahoma 2003, ended
in a repetition after ll...'f.¥gl 12.'tlixg7
'G'xe3+ 13.~e2 'iVg I+ l4.~fl -efe3+ and so
on.
- Also interesting is 11...~ge7 12.<8c3
(12.'i'xg7 :g8t) 12...~xh2 13.0-0-0 hS
14.1iVf4h4, which is given by some sources
as better for Black. However. it seems to me
that IS ..!t:Ce4!gives White a tremendous at-
tack. Instead of 12...... xh2 Black should pre-
fer my suggestion (in NIC Magazine
2003n) of 12...tLle5~,!. This was tested in
R.Swinkels-llallebeek, Eindhoven 2004:
13.'iWxg7 qlf3+ 14.<J;>fHlg8 IS.'ffx.h7 tLlxh2
So after a mere 10 movcs we have reached a 16.lj!fe4 tLlg4+ 17.r~e2, and now according
position that is completely unclear, and to Hallebeek best was 17..:it'h2+ planning
might just as well have been played in the 18.St.g2? ~f5~ and 18.'ilig2 b6!.
19th century. Material is equal, Black's king 11...tt:lf612.t))d2!
is worse placed than White's. White's knight This time there are no playable alternatives.
on a8 is trapped. but it could also turn out to There is no time to pull the knight back:
be a major asset in a direct attack (square 12.tbc7? -eft] 13.tbc3 'iVx.e3+ 14.lte2 ~d4
c7t). IS.tD7bS Cilf3+ 0-1 Penillas Mendez-Prieto.
11.... d6 Asturias 1998. Also bad is ) 2:~IC7+ We 7
The most popular move, and it sure looks l3.~c3 '\!if3 14.e4 ~e8 15..Cf.dl tbxe4+
logical. A recent but dubious attempt is Haapaniemi-Pitkanen, Helsinki 2000.
II.'i-'d2?' when after 11. ..'l!fe412,tbc3 ~e5 While 12.t'bc3 ~f3+ was an old analysis by
B.O-O-O lDf6 14.li';b5 ~e8 15.t2Jd6 l:!e7 Keres. In all these lines ~f3 is the key coun-
16.~g2 tDe8 l7.ltk4 '*i'c5 1~!.'1Wc3b5~ ter-attacking move. which is why 12Jiid2 is
19.i.xc6 bxc4 Black was winning in necessary.
N.Kosintseva- Velcheva, Istanbul 2003. White is now ready to castle queenside leav-
Worthy of serious attention though is ing Black two possibilities:
1l.llrg4!? The attack on g7 is rather annoy-
ing for the second player. Oil) 12...lL:.e8
- White gets a superior ending after D12) 12...tLle4

67
Jeroen Bosch

Variation 011 with the direct 1S.Wxf7 'ii'b8 16.l!:.e4 ['Lie5?

12...tbe8
According to an analysis by Estrin and
Panov, Black is better now. This verdict
turns out to be too optimistic. The text de-
fends the important c7 square. Here is what
happens if White is given free rein:
- 12...Ue8 13.0-0-0 "d5 14."c7+ 'i;e7
15.0.c4 tic5 16.lCd6+- Haapaniemi-
Tuornala, Finland 1986.
- 12 't!t'd5 13.~c7+ <1;e7 14.0-0-0 ~e5?!
(!4 c5!? [5.~g2 Ue8 Hallebeek)
15.4',c4 "'xc7 16.4)xc7 Ud8 l7.lud6±
Janz- Von Rahden, Binz 1995.
13.~f4 "d5
Keres ended his analysis here, opining that
Black was better. More recently Gutman has
argued that the opposite is true! Instead of
Keres' move, 13... 'ifxh2 14.0-0-0 'tWh6.
Crespo- Pock, cr 2000. also merits attention.
(I6 ...'fha8 17.Qh3+-) 17.'ft'f4+-.
1S.•:iWxf416.exf4 f6 17.lud4
This is rightly given by Gutman as advanta-
geous for White. as Black has no way of win-
ning the a8 knight.
Variation 012
12 ... ti\e41
Play now assumes a forced character.
13:~'c7+ we714.0-0-O lilltd2 lS.kb5!
If it wasn't for this move White would be in
serious trouble. However, this has been
known for more than 50 years now.

15...~e4!
This is Gutman's discovery, which appears
to save the entire line for Black. Turning
12...tDe4? into 12...t;';e4' so to speak. Thus
Black is inferior after both:
- I 5... 'i.fx h2 16.~.xc6 bxc6 17.l!t'e5+ Wd8
14.0-O-0! H!.~c7+ <J;;e7 19.'ilie5+ ~d8 20.'iVxg7±
Not fearing 14... 'i!t'xa2! White is losing the Schneider-Leuchter, Bad Wiessee 1999, and
trapped knight after 14.~c4? ,*e5 15.0-0-0 - 15...'ii'd5 16.i.:.xc6 bxc6, and now White
"xf4 16.exf4 b6 17.~xf7 ~b7 I R.t.i,xb6 must realize that there is no hurry to recap-
axb6-+ Bucan-Bogic, Yugoslavia cr 19H3. ture on d2. with 17.'iha7~±. Instead the
14..:~e5 game Mieses-Sergeant, Hastings 1945/46,
For after 14...1ha2 1S.ti)b3!. and the Black went 17J1xd2 'itc5 18.Ud4 f6 19.b4 'lWc3
queen is merely trapped on a2: 15,..tt::.a5? 20Jle4+ ~t7 21. ~xa7 l:te8 22.11xeR 'iWe1+
fails to 16.... g5+. 23.¢b2 "'xb4+ 24.Wcl 'ft'el+ 25.Wh2
1S.~f3 '¥¥h4+ 26.<.tc I \12-'12.
White won in Guez-Lcbon, Bethune 2004. 16..Q.xc6 bxc6 17.l:txd2 ~xe3

68
 Surprise in the Scotch

18.-.td6+ ~d819.'iWc7+ After IO.tLllc3 d6 II. e2 a6 12.tLlu4 0c5

with a draw by perpetual is Gutman's main
line.
Ifthis analysis of 12...tDe4 is correct (and it
is quite possible that discoveries can be
made here), then White should tum his at-
tention to 11.'i'g4. a') given above.
13.... g2 (l3.tL:.f5) 13 ~e6 14.0-0-0 "'d7
IS.h4 Black faces a difficult choice. Should
he move forward with the g-pawn or take on
h4?

Variation D2
8_..Vi'd8
Naturally this must be compared to the im-
mediate 7..... d8 (line B).
9....g4
Here 9.lblc3 a6 10.~d4 tbe5 II...~g2 d6
12.0-0 was Nirnzowitsch-Spielmann,
Munchen 1905. According to ECO play
would have been equal after I 2. Ji:Je7 . Actu-
ally, Black's position looksjust better. White
has no tactical chances to makc up for his • IS...g416.~e2 ().O-O J7.~d5 ~xd5
structural deficits. l8.ex.dS 0.e7 19.1:1hfl h5 20.e4;!;
9_..~f8 Prcdojcvic-Kizov. Belgrade 2004 .
Again 'rt is better to avoid weakening the • IS ... gxh4 J6.gxh4 ~.g4 (Godena gives
dark squares. After9 ... g610 .• f4d611.~c4 16...0-0-0 17.'@'g7 tL:.e7 18.tL:.xe6 fxc6
.ie6 (I1...c~c5? 12.0-0 We7 'IFi;Ic3 <:6 19.Qh3 t"i:.7g6 as about equal) 17.i.e2 Ci.::,e7
14.~xf7+ - or 14.t("\xd6+ - 1-0 Berndrsson with fairly even chances in Ponornariov-
Kullberg-Bengtsson, Copenhagen 1916. Godena, Plovdiv II 2003.
This win is identical to that in the line with 1o.iff4 d6 11.li"1 c3
7...Wd8) 12..hc6 fxef J 3.0-0 I£ge7 Stronger than the immediate 11.~c4 tL:e5
14.tLdc3 (this is better than 14.'fYf7+ wd7 12.0-0 tLih6 ( 12...tDf6=) l3.~b3 ~h3
15.a.f6?-15.~4-15...~g816.tDc1"'xf7 14kIc3!? i.xfl l5":hfl as in Blurnen-
l7.lhf7l;\e5=t= Mieses-Johner, Berlin 1924) feld-W.Cohn. Berlin City Championship
14...lDe5 15.~f6 <;Pd7 16.tt:,d4 '@'g8 1903/04, the stem game of the 6.lf';b5 line.
l7.tZicb5 tD7c6 18.tz:xc6 bxc6 19..1hdl!!H8
20.'iheS %lxfJ+ 2J.~xfl 'i!¥f7+ (2l...cxb5
22.,*xb5+ <J.;e7 23.e5±) 22.',tg2 l:1t'S
23.tbx.d6 fff3+ 24.wh3 "*fxd I 25.'twg7+
Q;>xd6 26.~xfR+ Spielmann-Rubinstein,
Stockholm 1919, and White won this queen
ending easily.
However, there is something to be said for
Godena's 9... gS!? By moving the g-pawn
two steps forward Black not only defends
against the threat on g7, but he also takes the
important f4-squarc from White's queen.

69
Jeroen Bosch

11..•lDge7 Black's single pride and joy is {he stronghold

This is an unfortunate idea. Tn general Black on e5, but to adapt an aphorism of Tarrasch:
should place his knights on e5 and f6. The one strong square does not make for a strong
game Bernstein-Swiderski, Ostend 1907, position.
went instead: 11. ..t~e5 12.0-0-0. The point of 17.h3! h5
11.4~ I c3 is that White will castle queenside Otherwise White just goes g4.
rather than kingside. After 12...~g4 13.~e2 18.lUd4 c6 19.1Df5
h5 14.~xg4 hxg4 15.~d5 the white knights All these knight jumps demonstrate the ad-
are taking up a menacing position: 15...g5 vantages of the e3-e4 structure.
16.~f5 llJh6 17.... 1'2 c6 18.tiJdc7 ;;;t;g7 19...~xf5 20.exf5 CUe721.e4
19.tZlxa8 cxb5 20.14hfl ~h7 21.'ilfe2 'fie7 Now White has a huge edge. The Black king
22.ttJb6 axb6 23.~xb5 '!Wc7 24.~f6 wg7? is in mortal danger.
25.~fxd6 ~c8'n 26.~xe5+ 1-0. 21...aS 22..Qe6~c7 23.g4 951 24.h4!
However, readers might like to investigate What follows is a massacre.
II...a6 12kd4 tC.e5 13.0-0-0 ~f6 14.~e2, 24...gxh4
which is given as equal by Gutman. Instead Also losing is 24 ... tLixg4 25.hxg5 fxg5 26.f6
onhe last move, 14.h3!?isa minor improve- ~g6 27.ihg4 hxg4 28.l:txh8+ Ci::xh8
memo 29.~f5.
12.~c4 f6 25Jbh4 ~b6 26.li)d1
Preparing tL:;g6. but Black is going to regret Not even allowing Black [he pleasure of
the weakening of the diagonal a2-g8. After 'llfe3.
12...li·':e5 13.~b3 White also has a pleasant 26 ...'\t>g7 27.gxhS Wh7 28.J:rg2 thgB
edge. 29.Ug6!
13.0-0-0 t2}g6 14.'iWt1 tLice5 15..ib3 In such a position good moves are easy 10
~g416J:d2 ~d7 find. Naturally just taking the rook also
wins.
29 ...'ilVdB 30.i:Vf4 ~f8 31Jth2 t!h8
.i 'Wi 3Vt:;e3 l:eB 33.l:hg2 ~~5xg6
iiii. 34.fxg6+ ~g7 35Jlh2 15 36.exfS
i i'il ti,xg637.f6+ 1-0
Nataf-Onischuk, Montreal 2003.
~
~
.ittLJ ~ So the next time you are facing this line of
the Scotch, write down the move 6.~b5 on
~~~~ your score sheet. think of Blumenfeld. and
~ play it'
 CHAPTER 8
Mark Bluvshtein
Out of the French Book
I~j_t¥*.t~E
~~~
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.~d3
Doesn't it sometimes feel as if there is so
much theory to know. and even if you know
it there doesn't seem III be any advantage for
White? This was my feeling about the
French Defence, Every time I play it I need
to know tons of theory, which is supposed to
bring an advantage that is hardly discernible.
The line with 3.~d3 has never heen serious-
ly analyzed until this article. I am the only
player in the world who plays this line 011 a
regular basis against top class opposition.
Most of the ideas arc shown in my games.
bUI the credit should go to my former trainer
Yuri Ochkoos who showed this line tu me
with confidence. He introduced me (0 it and
tested most of our analysis himself. The best
~~~
thing about this line from my point of view is
that everything is 10 be solved over the
hoard. 1':0 real analysis has been done in this
line. Games in this line always become en-
tertaining in no time! I am not a fan of theory.
never was. I enjoy playing chess in unfamili-
ar territory for both players. Surprisingly.
this line has brought me unbelievable
success in important games. Hope you
enjoy!
Clearly, 3.~d3 is a very rare move. but it is
connected with several positional ideas.
White will castle kingside as SUllO as possi-
ble. The bishop move does not hlock any
pieces. and is a standard developing move.
71
Mark Bluvshtein
In contrast, 3.tbd2 for example blocks the
dark squared bishop, which does not make
much sense. With 3.~d3 you keep your op-
tions open. At first, this move does not seem
to make much sense due to dxe4 followed by
tbf6, thus Black gains time in development.
However. it is not So simple, as the
light-squared bishop on the long diagonal is
controlling the board. This is a great line to
surprise Black. Every French player has
played the lDc3 and tbd2 lines hundreds of
times, while the quiet.id3 line immediately
takes the opposition out of book. on move 3!
By the way, the natural 3 ...li:lf6 is no good,
for, after Ltt'.f6 4.e5 li.jfd7 5.1!Jf3 c5 6.c3,
White is significantly better positioned in
comparison to similar lines in the Advance
Variation or the Tarrasch Variation.
Studying the following illustrative games is
all you need to play 3.~d3 confidently in
your next game,
o Mark Bluvshtein
• Jean-Marc Degraeve
Montreat 2002
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.~d3 c5
Black is trying to over take the initiative. The
72
idea is to make the bishop on d3 feci mis-
placed as quickly as possible.
4.c3 ttJc6 5.tDe2 cxd4
This is a good move, but Black has a sensible
alternative here. After S ... dxe4 6.i.xe4 t.Wf6
7 .~f3 1J..e7 8.()-() 0-0 9.~e3 -'e7 IO.tL:d2
UI18 the position is about equal. Abo good in
this line is 7 ...cxd-l 8.cxd4 ~d6 9.~bc3 0-0
10.0-0 h6. This is no typical isolated pawn
position. White's bishop on f3 looks rnis-
placed but actually control s the main diago-
nal and therefore his counterpart on c8 with
ease. With the idea of tOe7 Black looks OK
though. This actually transposes to the re-
mark on move 6.
A sample line after 5 ...lL::f6 is: 6.i.g5 dxe4
7 ...Q.xe4 fiLe7 8.~xf6 ~xf6 9.~xc6+ hxc6
IO.dxc5 0-0 II.'iWxd8 Uxd8 IV2:;d2 Q.a6
13.tL:g3 Uab8 when Black has some com-
pensation for the pawn.
6.cxd4
This is better than 6.lbxd4 tl..lxd4 7.cxd4
dxe4 8..be4lZif6 9.~f3 i.d6.
6 .._ti')b4
Interesting play. In Bluvshtein-Barsov,
Montreal 2002, there followed: 6 ...dxe4
7.~xe4 l'iJf6 8.~("3 $'.d6 9.lf.Jbd 0-0 10.0-0
h6 1I.fiLe 3 [tie7. OM Barsov plays the posi-
tion with good understanding. he is aiming
to blockade the pawn. Chances were about
equal after 12.tt.'-e4 lihe4 13.he4 £d7.
7.~b5+
Black is tine after7 .e5lbxd3+ 8.'i!rxd3 ~d7.
7...ft.d7 8.Qxd7+ 'ii'xd7 9.e5
White has more space, but Black is comfort-
able enough as shown by OM Degraeve.
9...~e7 10.tL\bc3 lbf5 11.a3 tDc6
12.b4 $i.e7 13.0-0 !:lea 14.it'd3 16
15.g4
15. f4 0-0 Black is again very comfortable.
15...tbh4 16.f4 f5 17.h3
Positionally undesirable is 17.gS h6 when
Black is slightly better.
H...
fxg41B.hxg4
_-------- Out of the French Book
-.'_ -- .._----_._-----=-.:....;_;:........:;--=-:....:....::..:..:...:..._....:....:._

Or 4.td3 Cilb4- and it is impossible to imago

ine that Black can ever really be worse with
the tWO bishops.
4...e5 5.4·\f3 exd4 6.exd5 'ftxd5 7.0-0

18...h5 19.9xh5
After the positionally desirable 19J5 Black
gets a winning anack with 19...hxg4 20.fxe6
~l\e6 21.£f4 ~h6.
19...4\f5
Black has more than sufficient compensa- II seems as if here While is developi ng very
tion for the pawn. Important squares are con- quickly.
trolled by Black. and Lhe white king is nor as 7 ... Qd6 8.cxd4 tLige7 9.~c3 'ifih5
safe as White would like. 10.tLJe4
20.)i;lg2 White is slightly better here.
20.b5 (i!cxd4 21.~xd4 o.l:;xd4 22.'t!t'xd4 10...0..0 11.ti'\xd6 exd6 12.h3 CL.;b4
$.c5-+. 13.~b1
20....Qh4 21.~b5 ~ee7 22.a4 a6 White keeps his bishop pair.
23.tlJd6+ tLlxd6 24.exd6 tL;f5 25.b5 13 ...'lWb5 14.~e1 lbbd5 15.~,d3 ~b6
J:lxh5 26.bxa6 bxa6 27.~a3 Wf7 16.$,g5 t;·.c617.'ire2 l'Lidb418.d5!
28.l:tfe1 Uxel 29Jbc1 t;\xd6 Trading the bishop pair for a considerable
30.~xd6 ~xd6 31 ..l:!.cB J:th6 32J:ia8 space advantage.
~e7 33.l:!.xa6 'e'b4 34.f5 'i¥bB 35.~g3 18...tL::xd3 19.~xd3 tCb4 20.'iWe4 f5
Correct was 35.fxe6+ ~g8 36/iig3. 21,1lWe4 ii.d7 22.~e7 llf7 23.11ae1
35...'fi'bl 36.fxe6+ wg8 37Jla8+ 'it>h7 nea 24.'l!4Tb31:cf8 25.~d2!
38,<,t,'f2 Qh4 0-1 Well-played! With simple means White has
achieved a winning position.
25...l2:a6 26.lIhb6 axb6 2V2~g5 ::t.ic7
2B.l:bf7 llxf7 29.~xf7 Wxf7 30.~f4
o Maxim Uritzky tDxd5 31.~xd6 ~c6 32.f3 'it,?f6 33. Wf2
• Eduardas Rozentalis h5 34.h4 g6 35.a3 b5 36.J:le2 ~f7
Israel 1999 37.We1 Wf6 38.~d2 f4 39..Qe5+ wf7
40.J:le4 1-0
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.~d3 0c6
Rozentalis always comes up with interesting A nice game by Uritzky, showing a good le-
ideas in the French. and this is another one. vel of class in defeating Rozentalis after get-
4.c3 ling an advantage in the opening.

73
Mark 81uvshtein
In the remainder of the games we will
examine Black's main option to 'refute'
3 ..~.d3.
o Mark Blu\'sbtein
• Heikki Westerinen
Gausdal 2003
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.~d3 dxe4
The most obvious solution to the opening
problem. Black wins a tempo off of {i;f6
pushing the bishop back.
4.~_xe4li::f6 S..5tf3
This is the idea behind 3.$.1.13. now the de-
velopment of the black light squared bishop
must be delayed. The white knight will settle
nicely into the c2, c3 squares. White's idea is
to simply develop.
S...Qe7
Black makes a very simple decision to keep
developing.
6.tbe2 0-0 7.0-0 c5!
It is hard 10 come up with a better plan than
c5, the only active way to play the position.
Black's problem here is that the light-
squared bishop will never get the chance to
develop to a powerful square. White's light-
squared bishop, on the other hand, has al·
ready found the long diagonal on which he is
comfortable.
74
8.dxc5 Qxc5 9:~xd8 1:Ixd810.Ci;bc3
tDc6 11.~f4 .id7
An effort to connect the rooks and keeping
the position solid. II. ..e5 12..igS (Black has
weakened a few squares for (he development
of the light squared bishop) 12....lif5 (Black
is quite comfortable in this position)
i3J:tac l.
12.l~ad1 ~~e813.a3
White is dreaming about somehow advanc-
ing the queenside pawns with b4 and c4.
13...a6 14.li~e4~xe4 15.Qxe4
Black's position looks very passive now.
15...~ac8 16.b4 fi.a717.c4
The queenside majority is set in motion.
17...f6 18.~e3~ be3 19.fxe3 ~xd1
20.l:bd1 ~h5 21.<M2 ~f8 22.~d7
4.\e523J:txb7 1%xc424.tbd4 sst 25.h3
f5 26.~b1 f4 27.exf4 ~xd4 28.fxe5
l:d2+ 29.We3
Setting off on an impressive journey.
29...~xg2 30.c..9d4lld2+ 3V~c5 .te8
32.~b6 ~h2 33.l:ta7
The white king wins this game.
33 ...Qb5 34.a4 ~xa4 35Jba6 .~e8
36._Qe4~xh3 37.b5 .stxb5 38.~xb5
:le3 39.1:Ia4 ~7 40.Wc5 :tc3+
41.Wd4 :rh3 42.11a7+Wf8 43..!.id3 1-0
o Mark Bluvshtein
• Yaqoov Vaingorten
Montreal 2001
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.11d3 dxe4 4.~xe4
tUf6 5.~f3 c5
This is the main variation. The idea is to put
pressure on White's d4 pawn, as well as play
tbc6 without leaving the c7 pawn behind.
6.tbe2 tUc67.~e3
I have never seen an opening where White
develops pieces like this. White's idea is to
simply castle next move. A very unorthodox
 Out of the French Book

formation of white pieces at the board's line

of scrimmage.
7...e5

29.•.'it>e830.~d4 g6 31.a4 Qb4 32.Wf1

This is a very critical line. The idea is to take
advantage of the f3 bishop not having any
squares. As well as hoping to exchange
queens ami putting the white king on d I.
8 ..Q.xc6+ bxe6 9.c3
9.dxe5 '¥fxd I + IO.Wxd I C~g4 and Black has
satisfactory compensation which is shown
by the fact that the king is stuck on d I, and at
any time Black can take the e5 pawn back.
Here Black holds the initiative, Even worse
is 9.dxc5 "iWxdI + 1O.<bxd I t;\g4+.
9...cxd4 10.cxd4 exd4 11.'ilVxd4
~xd4 12.hd4 YJ..e7 13.0bc3 0-0
14.0-0
The result of this game does not really pro-
vide a clear look on the posi tion. A realistic
evaluation is equal. Black has the two bish-
ops, but a weakness on c6. This asset cancels
out the liability.
14...e5 15.~e3 ~d7 l6.ti':f4 Qe6
17.tDd3 :afeS lS.nfd 1 t;"e4 19.1L;xe4
Qxe4 20.nacl .Q.d521.b3 as 22.ll:ixc5
.ic6 23.tbd7 .i.xd7 24.J:!.xd7J:!.xc1
+ Or
25..\it.xc1 ~f8 26..ie3 a4 27.bxa4
l:txa4 28.r.ta7 1:txa7 29 ..i.xa7
White has been able to win the weak c-pawn.
and transformed the game into a technically
winning bishop ending.
'ltd7 33.we2 Wc6 34.wd3 ..t>d5
35..ab6 ~c6 36.~e3 ~d5 37.h3 h5
3S..ab6 15 39.13 g5 4O.a5 ~c6 41.'lt>e4
~d2 42.~d8 g4 43.a6 ~c1 44.a7 Wb7
45.Qb6 gxf3 46.gxf3 f4 47 .~d3 was
48.we4 ~d2 49.~d4 ~7 50,l.1:lf5~e3
51..~f6 ~xa7 52.~5 ~c6 53.~xh5
~d5 54.'Ji>g6 iLd4 55.~xd4 ~xd4
56.~f5 ~e3 57.~g4 1-0
o Mark Bluvshtein
• Keith Arkell
Gausdal 2002
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.~d3 dxe4 4..be4
Cd6 5.~,f3 c5 6.4\e2 lile6 7.Qe3 <1.\d5
This move makes great sense, trying to get
rid of the bishop 011 e3.
8.jLxd5 't1Vxd5
After 8 ...exd5 9.dxc5± White is simply a
pawn up. The c5 pawn is doubled and quite
weak. The d5 pawn though is also weak and
isolated.
9.tbbc3 'i'c4
9 ... 'l!!i'xg2 IO.Ugl "ti'xh2 11.~f4±.
White's next move is tt2b5. and Black's
pieces simply are not developed fast enough.
10.b3 'i'a6 11.dxc5
White is simply up a pawn. All counterplay
was quickly deflected.

75
Marl< Bluvshtein

- 9...'tlixd4 IO.Axd4;!;. This transition to a

simpler position helps White. There is no evi-
dent way of getting the Iigtu-squared bishop
on <.:8out. After White plays Cild and long
castle it is clear chat White has an edge.
- 9 .. JWa5+ 1O.~3 e5 11.'i1i'e4 ~e6
12...Q.c6+! tbd7 13.Qd5 ~xd5 14.~xd5
fixdS 15.tLixd5 J:tc8 16.0-0-(). And White is
slightly more comfortable in this ending and
won in Bluvshtein-Gorlin, Chicago 2002.
9.0-0
White's plan is to tight for an advantage with
11...Qe7 12.'lt'd3 ttJb4 13.iVe4 ~a3 his edge in development.
14.0-0 f5 15.~c4lbxc2 16.tLlb5 ~xe3 9...t,7··,xf3+10.thf3 e5
17.fxe3 ~a5 18.b4 'ird8 19J~ad1 After IO... ~e7 I lJ~dl;!; White's pieces are
~d7 20.~6+ ~xd6 21.l:txd6 ife7 very active.
22.l:tfd1 :td8 23.b5 '1/f'g524.c6 'iYxe3+ 11.tL::b5 a6 12.rtdl ~d7 13.0d6+
25.t.t>h1 bxc6 26.bxc6 0-0 27.l:txd7 ~xd614Jbd6
l::1c8 28.'iYd4 'i¥g5 29.~e5 llxc6 White is already feeling very comfortable
30.ti:'d4 J:tc1 31.lDxe6 l:txd1 + 32.J:txd1 with the position.
'iYf6 33.~d5 1-0 14 ...Wc7

o Mark 81uvsbtein
• Hoang Thanh Trang
Budapest 2003

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.~d3 dxe4 4.Axe4

tUf6 5.~f3 c5 6.lbe2 ~c6 7.Jie3 cxd4
Here 7...'t'b6 - trying to go after the 'poi-
soned' pawn - is quite risky. After 8.<2;bc3
'll:i'xb29.dxc5 all of White's pieces arc dcvcl-
oped, while Black's pieces are far behind.
Equally had is 8...cxd4 9.tL:xd4 iLc5 15J:txf6 gxf6 16.~xf6± 1:g8 17._Q.g5
IO.~xc6+ bxc6 II.O-()±. White is simply Qc618.tL:;c3
much better in this position, the threat of Black is completely dominated.
.:Lia4 is coming. Black's pieces are badly 18...h6 19.'ibh6 b5 20.l:tdl rtb8
misplaced. 21.~f6 <;ttf8 22.Qh6+ ~e8 23.tUd5
8.lbxd4li~e5 tlxg2+ 24.~fl
The idea is simple and obvious: to get rid of This is a bit sharper than necessary, but is a
White's bishop, or to at least kick it off the nice way to finish a sharp game.
long diagonal. 24.....Q.xd5 25.l:txd5 'i'c4+ 26.l:d3
The alternative was 8.....'L;xd49.... xd4. when 'ite4 27."iWh8+ ~e7 28.1!fxb8 l:g6
there arc two options: 29.Sil.g5+ 1-0

76
 CHAPTER 9
Alexander Beliavsky & Adrian Mikhalchishin
Volga Gambit with 4.ttJd2
A modest move
In principle. the Volga gambit can be com-
bated in two ways: (A) accept all the sacri-
frees; (B) avoid falling in with the
opponent's wishes and pay no attention to
his tactical trickery. For many years J
(Alexander Beliavsky) have followed the
first strategy, but in recent times I have de-
cided to switch to strategy B. I very much
like it, although as yet it has produced no
tangible results.
In recent times the set-up with the modest
4.tt\,d2 has begun to occur very often in my
games. The move 4.Q:d2 against the Volga
Gambit is a very cunning and complicated
(for both sides) weapon. Black has four fun-
damentally different responses:
• 4 ...b4, avoiding a clash in the centre.
However, (0 me this appears to favour White
- he has very simple and concrete play.
• 4 ...~a5 is an exclusively tactical move,
It is not in the spirit of the position. Catastro-
phes are possible, as in the game Beliavsky-
Rukal.
• 4...g6!'! is an interesting continuation,
aiming for free development and subscqucnt
play in the centre, as in the game Bcliavsky-
Martinez. This is not at all a bad plan.
• 4...bxc4 5.e4 e6 6.dxe6 dxef 7.~xc4
~b7 8.'i'e2. In my opinion. this is (he criti-
cal position of the entire system, and it is on
its evaluation [hat the fate of the variation de-
pends (see the diagram 011 the next page).
77
Alex?nder Beliavsky & Adrian Mikhalchishin

In Beliavsky-Sermek, Black chose the plan And Black resigned for he is losing a piece,
of fighting for the c5 square - 8...~bd7, Beliavsky-Bukal, Nova Gorica !999.
9...~c7 and IO...~d6, which led to very
sharp play. In this variation White needs to
seek an improvement. o Alexander Beliavsky
The second plan, involving a fight for the d4 • Tibur Fogarasi
square, was chosen by Fogarasi. Hungary Hungary tt 1998/99
200 I. Here White's chances are nevertheless
somewhat better. 1.d4 tl.lf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5 4.Q."id2bxc4
We will investigate the positions arising af- 5.e4 c3
ter 4.li ~d2 hxc4 5.e4 On the basis of three of
my games. Here are some 'stage directions'
considering Black's alternatives: R~.t~<w.t R
i iiiii
• 4...b4 5.e4 And While continues natu- Ij)
rally with ~d3. Cugf3 and 0-0. Sometimes
adding f4 for even more punch in the centre.

• 4...g6 5.e4 d6 6.cxb5 a6 7.a4?! i

This is not the best move. Simply 7.t~gf3
is correct. 7...fi.g7 8.tijgf3 0-0 9..l:!a3e6
~~ ttJ ~~~
10.dxe6 Qxe6 11.~e2 axb5 12.Qxb5 ~ ~'iY~~ttJIi
Vllic7 13.0-0 ~c6 14.:re1 d5! 15.exd5
~xd5 16.lL:e4 ~cb4 17.1We2~f5! with To weaken White's pawn structure. Another
an unclear game in Beliavsky-Martinez. common move is 5 ...06. when White contin-
Las Vegas 2000. ues 6.iLx(;4 g6 7.b3 ~g7 8.i.b20-09.tL';gD.
6.bxc3 d6 7.c4 g6 8_.Q.b2i.g7 9.~d3
• 4...'ita5 5.~c2 bxc4 6.e4 e6 The main attraction of the whole 4.Ci;d2Iine
7 ..txc4 ~6 8•.:Llf3 ..'t.lb49.1lj'c3 exd5 is that White has so many natural moves at
10.exd5 .ad6? This is a blunder, Black his disposal.
had 10 play IO...~e7! 11.0-0 0-0 12.a3 9...0-0 10.~bl
..o,a613.b3! It is abo possible to play 10."*(;2. However,

78
 Volga Gambit with 4.tLJd2

after W...e5 White should play IU'iJe2 tLih5 29.fxe5 ~e4 30.Qxd7 ti¥xd7 31.~h2
12.0-0;; as in the main game. rather than 'iWg4 32.C2;gl! i.f5 33.1:If4 'lfdl
Il.dxe6 .he6 12.t'LJc2 t'i!c6 13.a3 l:!b8 34.'lWf3?!
14.ii.e3 ~g4 15..ixg7 Wxg7 16.0·0 'f'f6 Missing the last chance for some advantage
17.l::ta2g5!+, Grachev-Poluliakhov, Kras- with 34.~b2! J:re835.tbf3.
nodar2002. 34..:~e1! 35:~e2 'i'xe2+ 36.tLxe2
10...e5 11.~e2 ~h5 12.0-0 ~d7 1:Ie837.g4!
Alternatively, Black could play 12..._~h6t? Now a drawn rook ending is reached.
intending 13...tL:f4. 37 ...~xe5 38.gxf5 Uxe2+ 39.Wxh3
13.~c3 gxf5 40.1:Ixf5 l::txa2 41.d6 l::td2
And here 13.g3!? to prevent the knight from 42.l::txc5l::txd6 43.1:Ia5a6 44.Wg3l::td4
coming to f4 was entirely possible. Draw.
13...lZ;f4 14.~c2 h5 15..'sia4h4
Now it was definitely time for 15...~h6.
o Alexander Beliavsky
I A'i¥ I~ • Tibor Fogarasi
~ ~ i.t Hungary 112001

~-
i i 1.d4 -i:::f62.c4 c5 3.d5 b5 4.C2;d2bxc4
~~i 5.e4 e6 6.dxe6 dxe6 7.hc4 gb7
~ ~ i As mentioned above. , consider this to he the
critical continuation.
~ 8.iYe2 .te7!? 9.c~gf3 0-0
~ CiJCiJ~~~
l:t 'if ~~
16.l::tb3
White could also enter the following forced
line: I 6. l'i;xf4 exf4 17.~xg7 Wxg7 18.~.cti
.t:i.b819.~f3 ~f6 20.~a3~.
16...h3 17.g3 tLih5
Or 17...~xe2+ 18.'(!gxc2 tiM 19..G·.cti~h8
20JHb I with a slight plus for White.
18.14!? exf419~xg7 wxg7 20.gxf4
White is not forced to recapture on f4. He is
also slightly better after 20.~xd7!? ~xd7 10.0-0
21.Wa I + ~g8 2V?:xf4 -1:;xf4 23J1xf4. There is something to be said for delaying
2o.. :ifh4 21.~h1 nb8 22.'i'a1+ ~g8 castling. After 10.b3!? tiic6 11.~b2 t;',d4
23.~t3 'tl'e7 24J:txb8 tt.~xb8 25.eS 12.tbxd4 exd4 13.0-0 White has kept a slight
id5! 26.'t!fc3 l"i:.d727kg3 opening edge.
Perhaps 27.l:!el !? 10...tt;;c6 11.~b3
27...o1;Xg3+28.hxg3 dxe5 Trickier is 11.J:d I !? hoping for 11.JDtl4?
And here Black could keep the tension with 12.c~xd4 cxd4 13.e5 ~and White is better.
28...r:b8!? 11...a5!?

79
Alexander Beliavsky & Adrian Mikhalchishin

But not J I...We7 J 2.e5 tDd7 13...Ilt4 when 41.l:tg8+ Wf5 42.l:th8 ~g6 43.J:ig8+
White's advantage is not to be disputed. ~h7 44.l:ta8 ~g6
12..tg5 84 13.~xf6 Draw.
Making use of the fact that the b3-knight is
still attacking cS. No! l3.lIfd J 'iWc7
14.tLlbd2 tLlg4 and Black has grabbed the o Alexander Beliavsky
initiative. • Drazen Sermek
13 ...gxf614.tbbd2 a3 15.b3 Bled It 2000
The game is unclear after 15.ti:b3 axb2
16.~xb2 ~c7. 1.d4 tLJf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5 4.Q.d2 bxc4
15 ...lL:;d4 16.ttJxd4 'tWxd4 17J:Uel 5.e4 e6 6.dxe6 dxe6
'i'e518.'i'e3 ~fd819 ..tf1 ~d6 Taking back with the f-pawn is not a good
idea. White is better after 6 .. .fxc6 7.e5 tL;d5
.I .I !ttLixc4 'fVh4 9.0tJ 'tite4+ 1O.'ff'e2 'fi'xe2+
Il.ihe2 ~a6 12.t~a5 Jl.e7 13.~d2.
A 7.~xc4 ~b7 8.~e2
Possibly White can even play differently
here. How about !I.D!? Q,c6 9.t1·;e2~.d6
10.0-0 ~e5 I J .lL:b3~?
8...8bd7 9.tLlgf3 V/Hc7
Black fights for control over the c5-squarc
with all his might.

20.8f31
Stronger was 20.g3!') planning 21.tf·,c4 with
a nice edge.
20...~f4 21.g3 1Wxe3 22..l:!.xe3 _~f8
23.S-ael ~h6 24 ..Q.c3~d2!
Correctly exchanging the bishop pair for a
rook on the second rank. The advantage bas
clearly passed to Black. White must defend
accurately to keep the draw.
25.ti.lxd2 ~xd2 26..l:!.e2.l:!.xe227.ii..xe2
:i.xe4 28.~f3! 10.b3
But not 28JlxcS ~b J 29 .1:c I ~xa2 30 ..i.c4 And White does just the same! Castling is no
nb8 with a clear endgame plus. better, as R lack has I0.0-0 ~d6 I I .lIe I tLeS
28...~xf3 29.l:ld3 J:ld8 J 2.~b5+ ~e7 13.0xe5 ~xe5 14.0f3
Bad was 29 ...f5? 30.tk3 1:a5 3 J .~fl intend- llhd8!? The king on e7 causes Black no
ing ~e2-d3-c4. b3-b4±. headaches.
30.J:lc3 .l:!.d2 31Jtxc5 J:lxa2 32.':a5 10....Q.d6 11.~b2 ti:'.e5!?
Wg7 33.b4 J:lb2 34.lha3 J:[xb4 Here 11... ~f4!'! 12.0-0 :IdS I.Utfdl O-U is
35.Wg2 f5 36.l:ta2 e5 37.l:ta5 16 about equal.
38.1:188 h5 39.J:la7+ cJlg6 40.l:ta8 f4 12.~b5+ <be7

80
 Volga Gambit with 4Ji\d2

16.•.~xh2+! 17.li~xh2
13.0-0?! No better is 17.~hl -»_f4.
It was still too early for castling. Still, after 17...ttd2 18.Ilxc5 'tlVb6 19."i¥c4 ~xb2
13.~dl CL!xf3+14.'ffxf3 ~a5 15..~.a4 c4 20.a4 a6!
Black has counterplay too. Accepting the sacrifice with 20 ....£xc5 gives
13...~xf3+ 14.ti';xf3 ti::xe4 1S.:lac1 White decent compensation after 21.bxc5
White plays for compensation. Clearly. ~c7 22.~h4+ ~f8 23.c6.
15..hg7 l:rhgR 16.1!rb2 f6 17..lth6 l:lg6 21.l:tc7+ <;fJf822.l:txb7 ~xb7 23.kc6
18.~e3 llag8 with an attack. was not 10 his l:tc8 24.Qxe4 l:txc4 25.i.xb7 l:tcxb4
liking. 26.~xa6 l:txa4 27..iid3 l:td4
15...C.hd8 Correct was 27 ... h628.4:f3 g5 and Black has
Also 15...li:f6!'! to put the onus on While all the chances in this ending.
was possible. 28..5ia6 l:ta4 29 ..ad3 e5? 30.J:le1 ~d4
16.b4!? Black allows White 10 escape 10 an elernen-
Again it is dangerous to play J6 ..'lxg7!"!. as tary draw.
16...llg8 17.~b2 r6 18..llh6 ~f4!'! gives 31_~xh7! 96 32.l"d3 l:tf4 33.~xg6
Black an attack. However, in the game Black fxg6 34.l:txe5
also grabs the initiative. Draw.
 CHAPTER 10
Oleg Chernikov
Provocation in the Rauzer: 6...g6

.t.iV~.t. .I
ii i
~i ~,
~

Combining the Rauzer and the Dragon

1.e4 e5 2kf3 [LieS 3.d4 cxd4 4.<L.xd4
CL;f6s.cea d6 6.il.g5 g6
A surprising answer 10 Rauzers 6.~.g5.
since the bishop move is thought to prevent
Black's fianchetto. The idea of 6...g6 is 10
forcibly transpose into the Dragon Varia-
lion. Black as though ignores the move ~J6,
xubsequently pinning his hopes on his f~
bishop. The source game Gromek-
Bondarevsky. Lodz 1955. is widely known:
7.~xf6 exf6 8.~c2 ~g7 9,ciJdb5 0-0
lO.~xd6 1'5 11.0-0 fxe4 12.'V;\Yxd8J:xd8
l3.tiJxc4 ~xb2~.
Luter, the first edition of the Encyclopaedia
of Chess Openings cited the games
Karner-Chernikov, Soviet Union 1965:
7.:-iLxf6 cxf6 8.'l!!fd2 iLg7 9.ti]db5 (J-O
1O.-1.xd6 rs 11.0-0-0 ~a5~. and
Suetin-Gurgenidze, Tbilisi 1969: 7..~.xf6
cxfo lL&.b5 £d7 9.0-0 ~g7 IO.~d2 0-0
11.[t.:,b31'5 !=.
Over the 50 yeurst ') since the time of the first
known game, not so many games have been
played with this variation. The aim of this ar-
ticle is to show in more detail the history of
the development of [he variation and to dem-
onstrate the most relevant games played with
this variation. So, in the position after fi.$.g5
g6. the most critical continuation is
7 ..iii.xf6 exf6

82

But sometimes While avoids this in favour
of the sharp 7.ltJxc6 bx«i 8.eS.
Several games on this theme have been
played largely by the author of this article, in
which Black successfully defends and even
launches a counterattack: 8...dxeS 9.~f3:
• 9... ~g7 IO.'fixc6+ Qd7 Il.~c5 0-0
12.Qe2 ~bH 13.0-0 1i'xb2 14..H3 .l:u<.:8
15.'~xe7l:tfe8 l6.'~'d6 l:e6 1 HWdl ~xc3
I!L~xf6~b5 19.~xg7 _1hf120.~h6~bS+
and Black converted his material advantage.
Kokorin-Chernikov, Soviet Union 1962.
The following reply is also interesting:
• 9...~d7 10.0-0-0 ~g7 II...hf6 exf6
12.t2le4 'fIIe7 13.016+ ",1'8 14.~c4 _~h6+
15!J;>bl Ae6~ 16.'~'x(;611d8 17..he6'). This
is a blunder because of 17.. :iJYxe6 18.J:rhel
<J;>e7! winning a piece and the game,
Bastrikov-Chernikov, Soviet Union 1963.
The exchange of queens after 8...dxeS
9.'ihd8+ (instead of 9.'fff3) also does not
promise White any advantage: 9 ...<.t>xdg
10.0-0-0+ ~c8 I J..iLc4 ~g7 12.llhel .!L:d7
13.0a4 f5!'? (14.f4 was threatened) 14.f3
:Ws IS.l:td3 ~b6 16.~xb6 axb6 17.l:tedl
~a6 1!U1a) h5 and Black retained his extra
pawn. Sporyagin-Chemikov, Soviet Union
1963.
Quieter positions arise when instead of Ke5
White plays the more restrained 8..ic4 fLg7
9.0-0 0-0:
Provocation in the ~auzer: 6...96
• 1O.~d2 ~e8 ! l.~b3 .a5 12JladJ If\d7
13.f4 tLlc5 14.1i'e3 'i!ib6 15JHei tLixb3
16.axb3 £I.e6 17.'l!t'xb6 axbo=, Fri-
Chcrnikov, Soviet Union 1963.
• 10..ab3 ~e6!? II.~xe6 fxe6 l2.eS!')
dxe5 13.'ir'e2 ttcd5 14.~d2 W'b6 15.tL;e4
~xb2 16.lltbl 'iixc2 17.:tcl tdf4 IH.~c3
~b2 19.93 ~d5 and White's slight initiative
hardly compensates for the three (!) missing
pawns, Matyukov-Chernikov, Soviet Union
1963.
Let us (Urn to the main reply. the variation
6 ...g6 7.~xffi exf6.
In this position White ha:.. a number of con-
tinuations, which we will examine in the fol-
lowing order:
A) X..ie2
B) lL~c4
C) 8.~h5
D} 8:tl-¥d2
E) R.~b3
Variation A
8.~.e2
Along with 8.gc4 and 8.~.b5, this is the
most frequently occurring continuation.
8...~g7
Sacrificing the d6 pawn. is the main varia-
tion. but since 8.~e2 is 1I0t the most active
continuation. 8...u6 is possible. One game
83
Oleg Chernikov

went9."d2~g7 10.t:dl 0-0 11.0xc6bxc6 18 ... l:rad7 19.axb5 axb5 20.14 kb7
12.0-0 nh8 13.1!hd6 'ii'xd6 14Jhd6 .t:!xb2 21.tDe3 iLc6
15..t:!xc6 f5 16.exf5 1:xc2 17.f6 .hf6 Black is slightly better. Kurolap-Chernikov,
18J:txf6 1:xc3 19.i.xa6 i.e6 20.a4 l'la8 Soviet Union 1960.
21.~b5 ~c4 Vz_Ii2, Stoica-Tischbierek, Ro-
mania 1984. Variation A2
9.tiJdb5
AI) 9.0-0 This looks more energetic than 9.0-0.
A2) 9.tL2db5 9 ... 0-0
And now White has to decide how (0 lake on
Variation A1 d6:
9.0-0 0-0 10.talb5 f5 • JO.ltJxd6 f5 II.exf5 (a later game went
This is a recurring theme in all lines. Black 11.0-0 Ci:d4 12.l'uxc8 l:rxc8 13..§Ld3 f4'! - too
needs to open the main diagonal for his optimistic; easy play was given by l3. ..b5
'Dragon-bishop' . with compensation for the pawn - 14.t-Lid5
.ie5 15.d tDe6 16.rlel ~g7 IHWc2 h5
18J:tadl 'iWh4 19.f3 "gS 20.'iWf2~, Vitinik-
Chernikov, Vladivostok J990) 11..:tlt'a5
12.0-0 .t:!d8!'!(Black is close to equality after
12....i.x.f5 I3.~xf5 Wx.f5) 13.fxg6 hxg6
14.4·'ce4 $.e5 15.kc4 ~xd6 16.tL!x.d6 'i'c5
17..ixt7+Wg7 lR.bg6! .uxd6 19.~d3 ti';e5
20.'~e2 ~g4 21.'iWe4 rlh8~, Zhilin-
Chernikov, Soviet Union 1961.
• lO.ffxd6 f5 II.'6'xd8 rlxd8 12.0-0 a6?!
13.~c7 :Xa7 14.l:!adl tlJl.dl IS..t:!Jl.dl bS
16...'2«::8b4
1 17.'-La4 0.d4 18.~c4 gd7 19.wfl
11:ihd6 .ii1.e5 20.tL:b6 :!.e7 21.0xc8 1:lxe8 22.ci:u6
Relatively the best move. although it must be ~xd6 23.U.xd4 rlxe4 24.~xt7+ Wxf7
dear that the endgame is advantageous for 25.lhd6 rlc4 26.rtd2~, Tappyrov-Chernikov,
Black. Even worse are: Soviet Union 1972. Not wasting a tempo with
- II.exf5 fufS IVbxd6 Qxc2 13.1!hc2 12.. .fxe4! comes into consideration; as the
'fYxd614."a41Ut41S.1lfel't}'b616Jlahl above game shows. the knight at e8 stood well.
:ac817.~f1 .t:!fd818.h3tL:fS 19.~b5~xb5
20.ti:,xb5 rlc2:f. Ivlev-Chernikov, Soviet Variation B
Union 1964. 8 •.1i.c4
- 11.~f3 ~c5 12.exf5 .lhf5 13.'i'd2 a6 Along with 8.Q.b5. one of the most active
14.tL:;a31k8 15.tL.c4 ~d4 16.ti';xe5 dxe5 + continuations.
17.11fdl? ~xc2 18..hh7 ~xdl+ 8 ... kg7
Korkishko-Chernikov, Soviet Union 1960. The main move. Ochers have also occurred:
11...a6 12:fbd8 l:txd8 13.tL:c7 lla7 - 8.Juc5'?! 9.~b3 a6 10.f4 tL:;d7 11.'iWf3
14.~7d5 fxe4 15.l:ladl ttJd4 16.1311 fig7 12.0-0-0 0-0 13.¢>b I tL:c5 14.f5 .1d7
b5 17.~2 t5 18.a4 15.h4 llJxh3 16.cxh3 neS
17.h5 g5±.
Preferable was 18.fxe4 with an equal position. I.Gurevich-Burnett, USA 1986. and

84

_8 ...~e7?9.ftd20-{) IO.O-O-Olle81I.Wbl
a6 12.h4 h5 J3.f3 rJ;;g7 14.rldg 1 tLlxd4
15.'i'xd4 J:lhS 16.g4 .te6 17.tC.d5±. Roiz
Bazlan-Igea. Oviedo rapid 1991.
After 8...~g 7 White must decide whether to
castle kingside or quecnside:
BI) 9.0-0
82) 9.~db5
Variatton 81
9.0-0 0-0 10.tDdb5
The most thematic continuation. White was
not very successful with the alternatives:
• 1O.~d5 "ftb6 1l.tDdb5 f5 12.11bl iic5
13.tt:'la3 1'4 14.lL:;c4 '&'c5 15.b4 ~d4=.
Mudrak-Chernikov, Soviet Union 1965.
• IO,l;~xc6 bxc6 11.'ilkf3 'ilkh6 12..b3 f5
13.l::tadl ~e5 14.:fel a5 15.a4 flic7 16.h4?
f4 17.lbe2 "ftc7 IS.g3 fxg3 19.fxg3 h5+,
Gedevanishvili-Chemikov, Soviet Union
1973.
• lO.t2::de2f5 I l.exf5 ~xf5 12.e.g3 (pas-
sive is 12.'~!t'd2lk8 13.tadl ceeS 14..ltd5
tt:'lc415..Q.xc4J:rxc416.-'xd6"'xd617.J:rxd6
.i.xc2 IUtd7 llb4 19.b3 ~f5'f Cesnauskas-
Chernikov, Soviet Union 1973) 12...gc8
13..tb3 llbS 14.f4 tUi4 15.tL.d5 b5 16.<.:3
~xb3 17.axb3 as 18.f5 l:le8 19.'f'd3 l:le5
20.'>th I ~b7 2I.tL'-e3 ~gS 22/2..;c2 .:lbe8
23.fxg6 hxg6=F. Sleich-Chemikov, Decin 1997.
10 ...f5
Provocation in the Rauzer: 6 ...g6
In practice Black was able to keep the bal-
ance:
• II.exfS i.xf5 12.lb(<.I6~xc2! (the alter-
native is 12...~xc3 13.ltJxf5 .axh2 14.th I
~f6 is.eae tLle5 16.11xb7 Qe7 17.t~Jxt7
tL:.xt7 18.lld7 "ftc8 19.~d5 ftc5 20.i.xu8
llxa8 21.lle l;t Tukrnakov-Gurgenidze,
Kiev 1969) 13.ttJxb7 llxdl 14.lUxdl .:I.a08
15.t?:d64"\a5 16.tiie3 ~xc4 l7.li';dxc4 kd3
I!UHdl ~xc4 19.&c4 .c.fcR 20.J:racl
~xb2=, Volkovich -Chemikov, 1961.
• II.(bxd6 tL:.d4 12.tDxc8 J:lxc8 13...i.b3
(the alternative is 13..ild5 f4'? - a mistake:
13 ... b5! 14.a3 as is correct; the standard mi-
nority attack leads to equality - 14.(be2 ~c6
15.<.:3 f3?! 16.gxf3 tZ::g5 17.... d3 lUh3+
18.<t>g2 tfh4 19.f4 'ilt'g4+ 20.~hl t;\xf4
21.tDxf4 'ttxf4 22.1:Iad 1±. Kopylov-
Chernikov, 1961) 13...lDxb3 14.axb3 ~xc3
15.bxc3 fxe4= 16.1tcl 'irb6 l7.c4 .:::I.fe8
18.'We3 'ilt'xe3 19.fxe3 a6 W.llfd I hS=.
Vitolins-Chernikov, 1975.
Variation 82
9.~db5 0-0 10.1!:fxd6 f5 11.0-0-0
There [Ire now two queen moves to consider:
B21) II... ... a5
822) 11... ~g5+
Variation 821
11..:~a5 12JWc7 a6 13.1ha5 tbxa5
14.t:~d6!
The strongest; the more usual 14.tbc7 does
not give any advantage after 14...1:a7
15.iLb3 .bc3 16.bxc3 fxe4 17. llhc I b5
18.tC.d5 f5 19.tt~b6+ wg7 20.1:1<.16lk7
21. <t>b2 .ab 7 22.g3 llf6 23.J:red I llxd6
24.llxd6 ~c6 25.c4 bxc4 26.4:.xc4 ~b7
V2-V2. Kholmov-Chernikov, 1982.
14...tLlxc41S.ti.)xc4 ~xc3?!
It is possibly better to retain both bishops:
15... .i.e6 16.tbb6 llad8 with quite good
compensation for the pawn.
85
0le9 Chernikov

16.bxc3 fxe4 17.tbb6 :tb8 18.:td6 in a comparatively recent game. lS...rtad8

l:te8 19.c4! wg7? 19...e3!?;j;. 20J%e1 (instead of 15 ...:16) proved not [he best con-
~fS 21.¢>b2 l:tbd8 22.c5 .l:[bS tinuation: 16.4}f6+ 'it1h8 17.4'lxg4 'ith4
22 ...]lxd6°o. 23.wc3 .l:[e724.l:te3± llt~c7! 'tjt'xg4 19.1bd6 _d7 20.'ilVxd7
Petrushin-Chernikov, Soviet Union 1973. 1:txd721.lLie4 tL:d4 22.c3l:tc8? 23 ..i.xf7 llf8
Instead of I 1...... as, more complicated play 24..ic4 b5 25 .i.d3 ~f3 26.11d I +-,
results from: Goloscbapov-Chemikov, Moscow 2002.

Variation 822 Variation C

11 ...~g5+ 8.~b5 ~_d7
In the books [his move is given a poor assess- In this position 9.0-0 often occurs with nu-
ment. I 1...1Ifg5+? 12.f4 ~xg2 13.e5±. but merous branches, as well as the knight re-
after 12...'~b6! (instead of 12...'~xg2) all is treats 9.tDde2 and 9.lbb3. We will examine
not yet clear. Several games played at quite [he variations in order.
high level provide confirmation of this.
12.14 iWh6 13.<Ml1 1xe414.lt:lxe4 .ig4 Variation C1
15.:tde1 a6 16.tbbc3 l:Iad8 17.~f6+ 9.0-0 ~g7
<;t>h8 18.CDXg4 'i'h4 19.'fLfc5 'lWxg4
20.i!fg5 "'xg5 21.fxg5 .ixc3 22.bxc3 :i I 'iV. g
b5
ii 1. i.ti
~i ii
s.
CfJ~
CfJ
~~~ ~~~
l:t 'if l:[~

10.tL:de2
Here various other have been played:
moves
I had no problems in two of my games: • lO.tLJd50-0 11.c3 ~e~ l2.~d3 V2-V2. Af·
- 23 ..~d3 :d5 24 ..i.e4 l:1cS25..ixc6 1:hc6 ter 12....i.e6 the game is completely equal,
26.l:1e3 ~c4 27.g3 h6'= 28.gxh6 \t>h7 Petrushin-Chernikov, 1973.
29J:tfJ f5 30.l:te6 l:tfdi with equality, Mo- • lO.Jhc6 hxe6 II.~e2 i.e6 12.11¥d3
kry-Chernikov, Rimavska Sobota 1990. 'Wie7 IU[ad ll:td8 14..!C.d40-0 I S.Wa6 Ik8
- the later game Klovans-Chernikov, Gries- 16.tL:ce2 l:tfe8 17.c4 'ilk'b6 IR.... xb6 axb6
kitchen 1998. went 23 ..i.b311d2 24.g3 ~g7 19.~xe6 lhe6 20.la3 :lal)=. Ermakov-
25.h4 '[jaS 26.l:hfl 1Dc4 27.:he4 bxc4= Chernikov. 1965.
28J:te4 :tg2 29.:xc4 :txg3 30.J:ra4 l:xc3 • 10.f4..-b6 I ULxc6 bxc6 l2.lba4 'ti'a5
3 IJ:txa6 !1e4 32.l::h I ]leI) 33.~a3 l:te2 13.tl::c3f5 14.~hl 0-0 15.exf5"'b416.t£:.b3
34.l:fl l:texc2. ItPh. gx.fS 17.a3 'iWb6 18.'itd2 l:tahR 19.1:radl
The 'improvement" employed by the author J:fd8=l=,Ukhanov-Chernikov, 1960.

86
 Provocation in the Rauzer: 6...g6

• iO.lDxc6 bxc6 (I 0 ...~xc6 is also not bad) l3.g4! ge6 14.f5 ~xb3! 15.axb3 '*'b6+
11.~a4 ~f8 (the natural 11...... c7 is infe- 16.'~hl ~xc3 17.bxc3 ~xb5 18.'t!Yxd6
rior: 12.'fi'd2 l::ld8 13JXadi .Qe6 14.llJd5! (IlUlel+ ~d7!) 18.. .10<:7 19.J:feJ 0-0
'6'b7 15.tlJb4±) I2.'tWd2 "as 13.:tadl soa 20J:lxe7 :tad8°o.
14.Wh6 zrs IHi'd2 i.e7= Belyaev- In Palac-Chernikov, Rimavska Sobota 1990.
Chernikov, 1960 . 13.l:[el+ was played instead of 13.g4 and the
• 10.... d2 0-0 II.~b3 (another plan is players agreed a draw. White has nothing in
I 1.II ad I f5 12..Qxc6 bxc6 13.exfS d5 with particular after either 13...~e6 14.f5 gxf5
counterplay. or I z.t~xc6 ~xe6 13.gxc6 15.~d5 0-0 or 14..a.c4 0-0 15..he6 fxe6
bxc6 14.exf5 d5 15.f)(g6 hxg6 with quite 16.l::txe6Ihf4= 17.l::lxd6? .Qd4++.
good play for Black) 11.. .fS 12.'Ii'xd6 fxe4 10.__~e6
IHJc5~c8l4.c'tj5xe40d415.'Ii'xd811xd8 Rather than 1O... .tc8 I l.~d2 0-0 12.1:1<1dl
16.~d3 ~f5 l7.f3 l::lac8, Y2-Y2 Suetin- f5 13.exfS ~xf5 14.~xc6 bxc6 (5.t·i:;d4 ~g4
Gurgenidze, Thilisi 1969. 16.f3 i.d7 17.~b3 d5 IR.tl\a4 Wlc7
However, the main alternative LO lO.o1}de2i~ 19.1.Gac5:!:Van den Doel-Bakhtadze, 1993.
lOk:;b3. After lO._~e6 White has tried: 11.'lWd2
11 •• d2 0-0 12.!tad I f5 13.l::lfe1 (another In the variation 1 l.tLif4 (instead of II.Wld2)
game went 13..Qxc6 bxc6 14.t'iJd4 'iWb6 11...0-0 12.tDxe6 fxe6 J3.Qc4 ~e7 14'[4 f5
15.exf5 .YLc4 16.nfel Wxb2 17.11bl 'ita3 Black has at least equal chances.
18.llJe4 llfe8 19.f6 dS zo.crs $.f8 21.l:[e3 11 ... 0-0
"'xa2 2V.ijc3 '¥.fa3 23.l:!h3 d400 And now:
Novopashin-Chernikov, Dnepropetrovsk • 12.t:adl f5 I3.li:.f4 ~8? 14.~fel t;~d4
1964) 13...il.e5 14..b(;6 bxc6 15.f4 ~b6+ 15.tLlfd5 iWa5 16.exf5 YLxf5 17..Jid3 ,$_£4'1
16.';!;'hl gg7 17.'iVxd6J:ad818 .• c5~xb3 (17...~xd3 18.Wxd3±) 18.'e'g5! (threatening
19.'fi'xb6 axb6 20.axb3 fxe4 2J..!L.xe4 19j1h.g4 and 19.1N6+) 1!L..ltfS J9,CL;f6+
.ixb2=, Skotorenko-Chernikov, 1962. Q.xf6 20.fixf6 tL\e6 2J.hf5 '(WxfS22.~xf5
A sharper continuation is 11.f4 (instead of gxf5 23.~xd6±, Klovans-Chernikov, Weil-
I J.... d2) I l...f5'?(of course, it is possible to burg 1998. The variation can be improved with
allow the squeeze f4·f5 and then bring OUI 13...thd4 (instead of 13...~cR) 14_..';.xe6fxe6
the bishop via h6toe3 and d4. but in this case 15.£c4 fxe4m or 15.~3 ~f6=, when
White has a slight advantage) 12.cxf5 i.xf5 Black's centralised knight securely covers his
(White is slightly beuer after 12...gxfS) weakened pawn chain.
• IUtfdl f5 13.~xd6 '{Itb6 14..lt)(c6 bxc6
15.~f4 ~xb2 I 6.l'1ab I ~;}3 17.'iWd6it'xd6
18.11xd6 fxe4 19.a4 ~.eS 20.:xc6 llac8
21 l:txc8 llxc8~ Zhelnin-Chernikov, 1972.
• ·12.~a4 f5 1~\.cxf5 ~.xf5 I4.nad 1 0.a5
15.gb3 ~xb3 16.cxh3 h5 17.h3 h4 J8.'iWxd6
$.c2 19.'ifxd8l:[uxd8 20.1:Id5 J:[xd5 21.~xd5
~xb2~, Astashin-Chernikov- 1974.

Let us turn to variation:; in which White im-

mediately retreats his knight with ~..t:.~de2or
9.li;b3, retaining the possibility ot 0-0-0.

87
Oleg Chernikov

Variation C2
9.lDde2 ~e6
A game ofthe Dragon expert Eduard Gufeld
went S... a6 10.i.a4 ~e7?! - dubious. with
all respect 10 the grandmaster - I I .tbd5 0-0
12.c3 f5 13.exfS ~xf5 14.0·() ~f6 15.t£2g3
.ix8 16.0xf6+ ~xf6 17.tL:e4 fJ'e5 18..hc6
bxc6 19.t'i;xd6 ~e6 20.!lel .f4 21.c4 c5
22.t;i·,e4 ~xc4 23."cl .-xcl 24.l:lexcl;!;,
Bronstein-Gufeld. Thilisi 1969.
• 10.h4 ~g7 11.hS 0-0 12Juf4 "fie7
13.hxg6 hxg6 14.tt::cd5 ~xdS
lS:-I!Pxd5l::tfe816.f3 f5!~ 17.~fl 't!¥f6 Variation C3
18.'*Yb3fxe4 19.1DdS~d8 20J:td1 a6 9.tbb3 ~e6 10.f4
21.~e2 tL:.d4 and Black was slightly The most critical continuation 10.0-0 a6
better in Astashin-Chernikov. 1973. Il ...G.e2..ag7 12.f4 f5 13.exf5 ~xf5 14.~d3;l;,
• 10.~d2 ~g7 Apart from this natural recommended in the Encyclopaedia of Chess
movc. Black can also consider IO...a6 Openings, is not obligatory for Black.
IU:.a4 ltc8 12.0-0-0 i.e7 or 12...b5, re- IO...~g7. instead of I0 ...a6.leads to variation
fraining from the development of his C I, notes to move 10, where an advantage for
dark-square bishop; however. White has a White has not been demonstrated.
slight advantage. 11.~d4 l:lcB 12.l:ld1 10....tg7
12.0-0-0 is beuer, 12.•.'..t,>e7'?!
Optimistic, Here 10...f5 is also not bad.
of course; if White had played 12.0-0-0. 11.f5 gxfS 1ViJd4 0-0 13.4~xe6 fxe6
this move would have been very risky. 14.exfS d5 15.0-0 ~e7 16.wh1 d4
13.0-0 tL:xd4 14JWxd4 'i'b6 15.tbb6 17.tL:e2 t2.Jxf5 18.11xf5!? exfS 19.Ci:.f4
axb6 16.~a4l::tc5 17.J:lfel f518.tLJd5+ 't!Yd6°o Bergin-Chernikov, 1963.
~xd5 19.exd5+ ~e5= Matanovic-
Chcruikov, Elista 2002. Variation D
The game examined below was played by 8."d2
two strong grandmasters, but with the rather A very rare continuation is R.g3 ~g7 9.c_Qdb5
slow manoeuvre ~d4-e2-f4 White is nOI 0-0 1O.~xd6 1'5 II.~g2 ~a5 12.'iWa3
able to refute the variation. ~xa3 13.';';:xa3 fxe4+ 14.0-0-0 .i.g4 15J~d5
• 10.0;14 iLg7 11.'ii'd3 0-0 1V/,xe6 ..he3 16.bxe3 f5 17.h3 ~5 18.ltel 1';1ac8
fxe6 13.l::tdl f5 14.~xc6 bxc6 15.~xd6 19.Ci,jc4 IXc7 20 ..~L::e3 tL'.C5!~, Delektorxky-
~b6 16.0-0 'fVxb2 17.4::a4 'i'xa2 Chernikov, 1961.
lB.tLlc5 fxe4'? )8 ...1:t1~8!. 19.tL:xe6 ;c[f6 Reckless is 8.h41i..g7 (or 8 ...h5=) 9.h5 0-0
20.ii'xc6 ;c[af8 21.c4'? 21.1:td6. 21...e3! I O.hxg6 hxg6 11.~c4 f5? (much better was
22.'tWdS l:lfS 23.'it'b7 1:[517 24.'i' bl I 1... <8xd4! 12.• xd4 f5~) 12.0xf5! .bf5
~xc4 25.C_Qxf8 e2 26.~xg6 exfl~+ 13.cxf5 li'a5 14.fxg6 i.xc3+ 15.Wfl .Q.f6
27.1:[xf1hxg6 28.f¥xg6 a5 16.l:th5 Ci:.e5 17.~xf7+ llxf7 IR.gxf7+
and Black's sole surviving pawn decided the <i.>xt7 unclear, Belov ..Chernikuv, 1966.
outcome of the game. Nataf-Nisipeanu, Ger- 8 •.. .Q.g7
many Bundesliga 2004/05. The main continuation. Instead 8...a6? has

88
 Provocation in the Rauzer: 6...g6

been played, but is not rated highly: 9.0-0-0 Variation E

lLie5 1O.<.pbI h5 11.f4 ~h6 12.h3 h4 13.tDd5 s.cea
tLld7 14.'W'b4 ~5 15.e5 fxe5 16.fxe5 0-0 A quiet continuation. usually associated
17 .it)f6+ 'YtTg718.lLlf3 "i'e7 19."\Wxh4 .ad8 with kingside castling,
1.0, Tseshkovsky-Polovodin, Moscow 1992. 8...~g7 9.~e2
9,~db5 Another move is 9.~d3 0-0 10.0-0 as 11.34
Or 9.0-0-0 0-0 and now: tbb4 IViJd5 tLlxd3 13.~xd3 f5 14.c3 l:!e8
• I 0.tCJb3 f5 II.h41? a5 12..Jii.h5 ~b6 13.a4 IS.exfS .hfS 16.1i'd2 lk8 17.~d4 i.e4~
fxe4 14.h5 ~e6 15.hxg6 hxg6 16.tL;xc4 18.~b5 .acS 19.~e3 :h5 20.h3?
..txb3 17.'i'f4 IUdS 18.cxb3 tCJe5~. As often (20.'itxd6~) 20 ...:xh3! 21.f3 i.xf3!
happens in the Dragon Variation. the attack 22.gxh3 'fig5+ 23,Wt2 ~h6 24.nael ~c6
on the quecnside proved effective, Genin- 2H!Vd4 l:te4 26.~d2 'Uff4+ 27.~gl 'ffg3+
Chernikov, 1962 . 28.'i1i'g2 l:txe3 29.ffxg3 lhg3+ 30.';1;f2
• 1O,0xc6 bxc6 II.~xd6 ~b6 12.1Wd4 l:lg2+ 0-1, Tappyrov-Cbernikov, 1973.
"'xd4? (the exchange of queens is not oblig- 9...0-010.0-0 f5 11.exf5 ~xf5 12.'iVd2
atory - 12...~7, 12...'fYb8 or 12..."35 all a5!
give prospects of an attack, and if Black
wants to exchange queens. he should play
12...f5! 13.'i¥xb6 axb6. when he has a fully
equal gamc) 13.:hd4i
15..aa4 .afd8 16.f4 ~.h6
i.e6 14,.ad3 c5
17.g3 .ctd6
••
1.e.1
1
18,..ic4±. Mrdja-Berna. Rome 1990.
9...0-010.liJxd6 .i.
Or 1O.'.-xd6 "'a5 I I.Ad3 a6 12.t;\c7 l:!dR
13.'.-g3 fS 14,t1:xaR Jl\.xc3+ 15.'~fl ~xb2
16.l:tel ~c3 17.l:tcl f4 18.~h4 Qe6 0-1.
Shahade-Kachcishvili, New York 2002.
Also very strong is 11...f5 (instead of 11...ae)
12,exf5 a6 13.f6? .ae8+ 14.Wfl ..Q.f8 15.'~'t4
axb5 16.~xb5 tE.eS 17.Jle2 ..Q.d7-+. Also possible is 12...tL;b4 13..ad I 'jWh4
G. Mukhin-Chernikov, Ozery 1997. 14.a3 tDc6 IS.g3 ...wf6 16.f4 d5 17.~f3 d4
10...f5 11,0-0-0 1Wa5 18.lDe4 ~d8~ Privorotsky-Chemikov,
Alternatively, 11...'ii'f6!? also comes into 1967.
consideration. 13.a3 a4 14k,cl d5 15.~d3 d4
12.~c4 16.~3e2 jLg4 17.h3 ~d7 18.i.e4 neB
More thematic than 12.exf5 :ld8 13Ji'd5 19.iI'f4 lla5 20.tlJxd4 ttJe5:r
nxd614.'i'xd6.iixc315.bxc3..ixf516 ..id3 Cherskikh-Chernikov, 1974.
lld8 17."f6 'lIfa3+ 18.~b1 :d6! 19.'UVxd6
'itxd6+. Karner-Chemikov, 1965. Summing up. it can be stated thaI the 6.~g5
12...fxe4 12...tLxt4. 13.~cxe4 'iVb6? g6 system is perfectly viable and, taking ac-
13...1We5!~. 14.Ab3 .ie6 15:it'd3 ltJd4 count of the surprise element, you could
16.~xe6 lillte6 17.1'i'b3 'i'a6 score well in practice. After all. White has to
18.tbxf7?? 18.c3t. 18...l:txf7 19.1:td6 conduct the fight in a strategically very com-
tt2d4-+ Plokhushko-Chernikov, 1973. plicated situation. Take a chance with it!

89
 CHAPTER 11
Ian Rogers
Caro-Kann Fantasy Variation
.I~j_~~j_~.1
ii
~~~
l:tttJ~iV~~ttJ1:.
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.f3 e5!?
Combatting the Fantasy Variation - l.e4 ~'6
2.d4 d5 :U3 -can be an annoying problem for
Caro-Kann players. Transposing to a French
Defence via 1 ..c6 4..:ie3 0f6 5.e5 [i..fd7 6.f4
is hardly attractive to most Caro-Kann devo-
lees, while the main line - .l..dxe4 4.fxe4 e5
5.t2:f3 gives White the type of attacking. posi-
tion he is hoping for when playing this line.
However Black has another alternative -
grabbing the initiative immediately through
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.f3 e5!?
The advantage of this move compared to the
3.,.dxe4 4.fxc4 c5 5.0f3 line is obvious -
Whitc docs not have 0 for his knight. How-
ever the disadvantage is that White can now
win a pawn and try to hang on to it. The
90
iii
~~
weakness of the a7-g1 diagonal will then be
of paramount importance and the soundness
of 3..,e5 will stand or fall on the question of
whether Black's control of that diagonal is
worth a pawn. In theory the compensation
may not he 1000/r adequate but, as with the
l.e4d5 2.exd5 tL:.f63.d4 ~g4 4.£3 .~.f5line-
another variation where at first sight the f3
weakness could not possibly be worth a
pawn, in practice Black scores well. Since
after 1...
e5 Black has the threat of capturing
on e4 followed by 5...'j!Vh4+. White's op-
tions arc relatively limited.
4.dxe5
Grabbing the garnbir pawn is the only criti-
cal continuation.

After4.exdS Black has a choice of attractive
possibilities. The main line is 4 ...exd4.
However. apart from the simple 4 ...W'h4+
which equalises instantly. Black can also
try 4..... xdS!? as played in the original
3...e5 game in 1932 between CHO'O
Alexander and Sir George Thomas. To
judge just how good Black's position is af-
ter 4 ...'i!txd5. consider the opening line
l.e4 dS 2.exdS ..-xdS 3.d4 c6 and ask
yourself why any player would choose
4.f3? here, asking for Black to blow open
the position with 4...e5. The Alexan-
der-Thomas game continued 5.~e3 ttJf6
6.lDe2 exd4 7.~xd4 ~e7 8.tt.~,bc3 ~a5
9.'tIVd2 0·0 10.0·0..0 ~e6 IJ.Wbl c5?
12..hf6 IDf6 13.tLid5 tfxd2 14.t'~xf6+
gxf6 15.l::!xd2Ci:.c6when. even after his in-
ferior 11th move, Black had no trouble
holding a draw.
After S.'i!i'xd4 cxd5 White may again live to
regret his f3 move as the normal anti-iso-
lated pawn strategies are not available. Play
can continue 6.~c3 ~e6!? (6 ...ti2f6 7.~g5
lle7 8.~d3tDc69.~f20·0alsogave Black a
very comfortable isolated queen 's pawn po-
sition in Tereladze-Meskhi, Batumi Open
2003) 7.~f4 .!i'.c6 8..~.bS ti'f6 9.0-0-0 and
now 9...~e7 and 10...0-0-0 is probably the
simplest equalising method, as opposed to
9 ...~aS which also led to no trouble at all af-
ter IO.ti,hV· (lO.t;'ge2) 10...0-0-0 !Lhctl
bxce 12.tfa4 ~xa4 l3.tLixa4.bh3 14.gxh3
\-'l-Y2 Obst-Giang Nguyen, Canberra 2004.
4.t.!';c3 is a sensible but rarely played try.
Black has always responded 4 ...exd4 (al-
though4 ...dxe4 5.dxe5 'ifrxdl+6.Wxdl exfJ
7.tLlxf3 lL:;d7 does not seem at all dangerous
for Black) 5.fhd4 tL;f6 6.~g5 ~e7 7.0-0-0
0-0 S.eS (the critical test in this line comes
when White grabs the d-pawn with 8.exd5
cxd5 9.tl.lxd5 4~xdS IO..txe7 'itxe7
II.1i'xd5 but after 11. ..~e6 l2 .... e4 <1.\d7!·}
Caro-Kann Fantasy Variation
White must be prepared for a difficult defen-
sive task ahead} 8 ••.tlJfd7 9..be7 ~xe7
lO.f4f61 VtJOfxe512.rxe5tt::c5 and Black
had no problems, going on to win in
Lutikov-Bronstcin, Moscow 1972.
4.~e2?! is as awkward as it looks: 4 ...dxe4
5.fxe4 'i'h4+ 6.0g3 ~d6 and Black was
very comfortable in Cvitanic- Trbojevic,
Szeged 1994.
4.~e3?! dxe4 S.i.c4 has been tried as a
Blackrnar-Diemer style gambit, but after
5•••~h6! 6Jlt' d2 l6.~l<h6 'ii'h4+) 6•••CLlf5
White is already worse.
4....ac5
Here 4 ...dxe4?! leads to a highly unpleasant
endgame after 5.'fVxd8+ <it>xd86.fxe4 .~.e6
7.tLJ3tLd7 8.~f4e:-e71J.tLlbd2q.lg610 ..~g3
when Black will probably never regain his
pawn.
Therefore the choice for Black is between
the text move and 4....'~fb6!? - the first of
many moments when Black can choose to
play ...'tVb6.
After 4 ...... b6 White's best is to transpose
back to the main line with S.0c3
Alternatives also tend to transpose buck to
4...~c5, e.g.
- 5.~d3 ~c5 will lead to4 ...i.cS lines, al-
91
Ian Rogers
though Galkin tried 5 ...dxe4!? 6 ..be4
.a5+ 7.ti~c3'fixe5 and held off White's
development advantage after fttLJge2 Q)f6
9.~f4 WaS 10.0-0 i.e7 II.Wel 0-0
IHJd5!:r*,cS+ 13.~e3 cxd5! l4.~xh7+
<4tiIxh7IS.~xcS ~xc5+ with an unbal-
anced struggle which was drawn ten
moves later in Ivanov-Galkin, St Peters-
burg 1993.
- S.g31? is not as silly as it looks, but after
5...$.c5 6.liJh3 (the point) 6 ...dxe4 7.fxe4
~e6 followed by ...tDd7 and ...0-0-0,
Black has more than enough for the pawn.
- 5.exd5 ~cS transposes to variations
considered under 4 ...~cS.
After 5.tL:c3 Black may have nothing better
than 5 ... ~c5 since 5 ...d4?! 6.t''iJce2 c5?!
(6 ...~c5 is a beuer try) Vuf4 lDe7 8.t.Gd5
tl,',xd5 9.exd5 c4 10.~e2 ~c5 I J.tL!g3 [.0.d7
12.f4 should have proved far too extravagant
for Black in Butkiewicz-Maciaga, Wysowa
2003. (Black won anyway.)
5.tL:.c3
The only good way to prevent Black from
causing havoc with 5...'tWb6.
The most popular alternative to 5.ti)c3 is
S.~d3 and since the frequently played
S...'iWb6 has some problems, there may be a
need to investigate:
- 5 ...dxe4!? 6.~xe4 ~f2+ 7.'it;e2 'lWxdl+
8.wxd I tLd7 9.f4 f6!? which may be play-
able for Black, although few 3 ...e5 players
seem to want to steer towards an endgame.
- 5...~e6 has been tried a number of times
and looks rather insipid. However after
6.~c3 Black can try 6 ...'Wb6! (not 6 .. .f6'!!
7.exd5 cxd5 8.ife2! i.d4 9.~b5 fxe5
Vasconcellos-Anic, Paris 1993, and now
White could have secured a huge advan-
tage after lO.lLlx.d4 'fih4+ II.g3 ~x.d4
12.c3 'it'b6 13.ihe5) with the idea that af-
ter 7.loa4?! (7.tOge2! is the real test of
Black's plan)? ...ifa5+ 8.c3 ~xg19.:xgl
dxe4 hits a bishop, enabling Black to cap-
92
lure on e5 with a much better version of
the main tt:;;c3-a4 line.
-5 ....bgl?! 6.l:txgl 1th4+ 7.g3 'fixh2
It~e3 when White has the two bishops at
no cost.
6.~e2 tDd7. A~ usual in this line, the check
on f2 should usually be kept in reserve. It is
less precise to play:
- 6 ...dxe4 in view of 7.he4! (and not
7.fxe4?! ~d7 8.i.f4 W+ 9.'iPfi ..te3!
when Black will win back the pawn with a
superior pawn structure) 7 .. .'~Jd7 8.f4.
- 6 ...~f2+?! 7.'~f1lthl7 8.f4 ele7 9.tDbc3
leaves the bishop on f2 misplaced and
lO.lUa4 in the air.
7.f4
Only hanging on to the e pawn makes sense
as can be seen from:
- 7.exd5 ~xe5 8.lbf4 ~f6 9.ti'd g5
IO.'~c2 (lO.lDfe2 tljxf3+! is Black's idea)
and now instead of 10...0-0? II.'t!fxe51'1e8
IV;\e6! as in Mtlller-Bruchrnann, Ger-
many 1997, Black should have played
1O...~d6 II.(iih3 ..hh3 12.gxh3 0-0-0
with a dangerous initiative.
- 7 ..tf4 li~e7 8.li_jbc3 d4 9.tfJa4 'iWa5+
IO.c3 dxc3 II.ti}axc3 tL!g6 and Black was
fine in Mashinskaya-Chasovnikova, Mos-
cow RUS Women's Ch. 1999.
7 .. liih6!? Now the threat of 1:L.tbg4 gives
White something to worry about.

Black can also try interpolating
7...dxe4 8.~xe4 before 8.J~h6 but this
also runs into 9.liJec3! (9.c3, intending
1O.~d4, is less incisive in view of
9....i.f2+ IO.wfl ~c5 11.0d2 ~e6
12k,d4 and now instead of 12...~e3?! as
in Thornen-Livner, Borlangc 1995, Black
should play 12...~xd4 13.cxd4 tUxe4
14.tbxeA 0-0 with ample compensation
for the pawn) 9...~f2+ 10.WfI /:i':c5
Il.tDd2! and the threat of J VDc4 gives
White the edge. e.g. II ...~e6 12.f5!.
8.lL!ec3!
- 8.h3 wastes an important tempo and af-
ter 8...~f2+ 9.WfI dxe4 1O.~xe4 tilc5
Il.tbd2 Sie6 12.g4?! (I2.b4!? has the
clever idea 12....ifxb4? 13.d ~b6
14.:tb I. but instead Black can play
12...0a6 when Black is fine after both
l3.a3 0-0-0 and l3.f5!? tbxf5 14..£xf5
.bf5 15.~c4 :ld8! 16.tbd6+ .uxd6 White has difficulties in surviving the open-
17.~xd6 ~h4) 12...0-0-0 13.ted Sic3
14.f5 tj"\xe4 15.tLJcxe4 ~d5 16.ti"d6+
llxd6 17.exdfi 'itd4!, Black soon won in
Nikolova-Frenklakh, Zagan 1997.
- 8.0g3 .if2+ 9.'.t.>f1ll:;c5 IO.ltf3? kd4' White (although 5...cxd5 6.~b5+ 0c6 is not
when the dual threats of ...~g4 and
..._~xb2 win for Black. Elgaard-Hanvig,
Hedehusene 1994.
8...~f2+ 9.'iW1 ~ lO.exd5 tbg41l'ci:.a3
It is not clear where Black's attack is going.
So 5.~d3 1!i'b6is currently under a cloud.
Caro-Karm Fantasy Variation
Other fifth moves for White are less testing.
5.tbe2 is a curious pian. intending to bring
the king's knight to c3. Not surprisingly.
Black has many attractive options:
S...ttd7
- 5...'itb6'? 6.tbec3 ~f2+ 7.We2 Sid4
should be enuugh to turn most players off
this idea for While. while
- 5...dxe4 6.Wxd8+ Wxd8 7.fxe4 il2d7
8.~f4 Cjje7 is a safe enough equalising
method for the faint-hearted.
6.Ci.iec3 ll:;xe5 7.exdS 1Wb4+ 8.g3 'i'e7
9.tUe4 tLif6 lOkbc3 tljxdS 11.<1:xdS
tDxf3+! IH!i'xf3 cxdS 13.~b5+ ~1'8
14.£d3 dxe4 lS.~xe4 ~3 16.'ihe7+
~xe7 and Black eventually converted his
tiny endgame advantage in Srnagin-
Meduna, Prague 1992. However Medu na
could have saved himself a lot of trouble had
he played 1O...0xe4! Il.tilxe4 ~f5 when
ing.
Of course if White tries to be greedy with
S.exdS then 5...'i'b6 causes big problems for
bad either) .
White is then forced to play 6.~h3 (the
Bronstein-like 6.d6!? i.f2+ 7.~e2 .txgl
8.1j'd3 actually secured a full point in the
game Agorneri-Boccia Mattia, Italy 1997,
93
Ian Rogers
after 8 ...~d4 9.tDd2 ~e6 10.f4 but the result
would have been reversed had Black found
8...lbd7! 9.[4 -.f2+ 10.'~d1 li)c5 when the
threat of 1I ....Q.g4+ decides) 6 •••.bh3
7.gxh3 and now Black should probably play
7 ..... b4+ (7 ...~f2+!? 8.~e2 .i.d4! and the
similar 7 ...cl\d5!? 8.lLlc3 Af2+ 9,r;t;e2 .td4!
give excellent value for a pawn as well) forc-
ing Ui'd2 (since 8.ttJc3 "'h4+ 9.~e2 f!l!f2+
IO.Wd3 'ifd4+ and M.c3 'tWh4+ 9.<.tJd2 tLJd7
arc dreadful for Whitc). Then after 8•••'iIfIh4+
9.t.>dl 0d7. White will need to play well
just to survive.
5 ...tLJe7!?
Not many players have been willing to try
this move, wh ich argues that the weaknesses
in White's position are long-term and do not
need to be exploited immediately. Most
players prefer S...'iti'M but it is far from clear
Ihat the main line 6.tlJa4! "a5+ 7.c3
i 12.lhdl tL:g6 13.gg3 ~d7 14.f~ with a
'i! .ti~
ttJ [!:,
~ [!:,
[!:,[!:, [!:,[!:,
l:r ~~W~ttJM
is satisfactory for Black. Black should con-
tinue 7... ~xgl (7 ....i.f8 is hardly in the spirit
of the variation, and after 8,b4 W/c7 9,exd5
~)u:5+ 10.'iWe2 'ffxe2+ I l.tLixe2 even a
player as strong as Vladimir Tukmakov was
not able to hold the resulting endgame in
Gallagher- Tukmakov, Geneva 1994)
U:.xgl
Inserting 8.M 'f#c7 before 9.l:xgl is not
helpful because of 9...t2:.e7! (9 ... 'ft'xe5
10.Wd4 ~d7 (10 ...... xd4 II.cxd4 dxce
94
12.fxe4 gives White a safe advantage,
with the pair of his hops and big pawn cen-
tre) I I.'ti'xe5+ lbxe5 12.exd5 cxd5
13..tf4 f6 14.0-0-0 and White was well on
top in Srnagin-Berg, Copenhagen 1993)
IO.exd5 'i'xe5+ 11.<t>f2 (on 1 UWe2
'i!fxh2!? is playable for Black) I 1... 0-0
l2.d6!? ~d8 IHllel 'it'xd6 14.~g5 ~e8
15J~dl 'fie7 when White's slightly ex-
posed king counter-balanced his initiative
in Mitkov-Izeta, San Sebastian 1993.
Note that White gains nothing here by
playing 16.M4?! I$'xf4 l7.the7 due to
the simple 17...~d7!.
8•..dxe4 and now White should preserve the
e5 pawn. although exactly how is far from
clear. The obvious move is 9.r4! but there are
two other serious options:
-9 ..iJ4lLid7! (dubious is 9.Ji:,e7 10.b4!
'*Y'd5OO ...'i'c7 11.'i'd6±) II.c4 'ffxdl+
( I I. .. 'i!t'e6 12.lDc5 'is'f5 13.Ag3 ttJg6
14.t2:.xe4 0-0 IS.ltid6 "'e6
16.f4 ~e7
l7.cS and White had the advantage in
Kalendovsky-Mlynek. Bmo 1999)
typical endgame where White's bishops
and space advantage are worth a 101) 10.b4
'i!Vd8 11.'tI9d4 0e7 12.'i!Vxe4 0d5 and
Black probably has enough for his pawn.
e.g, 13.~d2 (13.0-0-0 as! 14.bS 04.e6
t;.·7f6!oo) 14... 'iife7 is a total mess}
13...0-0 14.gd3 ~Sf6 IHid4 tL;xe5! and
Black was already slightly better in
Wartlick-Metz. Schwabisch Grruind
2001.
- 9.~d4 ext1 (9 Ci::.c7 is well met by
1O.~g5! t2::.g6OO 0fS'?! II.~xe4 0-0
l2.g4± Czebe-Stumrner, Budapest 1993:
IO.. .f6 Il.exf6 'thg5 12.fxe7±) I L~cS
0-0 12M b6? (l2...lle8 13.lC.xe4 llxe5
14.b4 fIIc7 15.h5±) 13.li;xe4± and Black
was in dreadful trouble in Bcblik-Franke,
Germany 200 I) I 0.'£f4 (lO.gxf3 may be a
bener try. but Black should be OK after

iO...lLl(7) 10...liJe7 was satisfactory for
Black in Priser-Theon, Guingamp 2002.
9...t1Je7 Nut the only option:
- After9 ...11.ld710.b4 'ilfdR Il.tlfd4 Black
should resist the temptation to grab the h-
pawn and play 1l...~e7 12.'tWxe4 0-0
13.~d2 b5 14.cU:5?~ tL;xc5 15.bxc5 $.f5
16.'iWf3f617.g4~e618.exf6l:.txf619.f5
il.d5 20.W'g3 tH8 when Black was very
active and went on to win in Tirard-
Gi ffard, Hamburg 1996. However White
can improve with 14.~b2 when Black's
compensation for the pawn is nebulous.
- However 9...~e6?1 is not to be recom-
mended. After 1O.b4 ~c7 II.-0cS the
bishop on e6 proved to be misplaced in
Torok-Balogh, Hungary 1999.
lO.b4(1 O.g4~?~d7 Il.b4 'lWd8! 12.'i!fd40-0
13.'iWxe4 is similar to the game
Tirard-Giffard but with the strange g4
thrown in. Black should have ample
counterplay after 13...lC.d5) 10.. :tWc7
J l.~lc50-0 12.~xe4 ~d8 13.'tlff3
:i~.tK ~ happy.
"'if ~"l
1 Clearly, 6.exd5 cxd5 7.:«-d3 0-0 8.f4 Ci:bc6
AI first sight Black has nothing for the pawn
but as usual in (his line, the lack of pawn pro-
tection for the White king can tell in the long
run. In the game Maslak-Martynov,
Serpukhov 1999. Black generated sufficient
coumerplay after 13•••a5! 14.bxaS "*YxaS
15•.~e2 ~a(i J6.~e3 lbfS~ 17.<&>1'2 i.e6
UJ.g4 tt)xe3 19."xe3 ~c7 20.c4 bS but if
Caro-Kann Fantasy Variation
you do not trust Black's compensation ill
such positions, 5._.... h6 will not be your
choice.
However S....i.e6!? is worthy of attention.
The bishop on e6 can be vulnerable to a later
f4-f5 but first White must find a useful de-
veloping move. (As usual, exchanging on d5
gives away the c6 square to the Black knight
and makes Black's life easy.) White should
probably try 6.~d3 (6.tljge2?! '*'b6 7.l2:f4
.1f2+ 8.;t;>e2Ad4 9.exd5 cxd5 1O.~e3lL;c6
II.~xd4 t;';xd4+ 12.We I lbe7 and Black
was in control in Czebe-Szabolcsi, Budapest
1998, since 13.~a4 allows 13...~xc2+~.
Note that 6J4?~ 'iWb6! is even worse, e.g.
7.tN3? ~f2+ R.We2 dxe4 and Black wins)
and now Black can switch plans with
6...ffb6!? because VL.u4?! 'S'a5+ H.c3
.i.xg I 9Jhgl dxe4 iO.$.xe4 "xeS is at least
equal for Black. However White can im-
prove with 7.~':ge2, when Black should
probably disrupt the White king with
7 ....tf2+ s.en .ih4, with II messy position
with which Black should not be 100 un-
6.~d3
9.1'fh5 g6 1O.~h4 f6! gives precisely the
son of wide open position Black dreams of
when playing this line. After 11.4=·J3
(Il.exf6 can be met by 1L.fie8!'1 -
ll...tc.f5 12.f7+! <Jdg7 i3.~xd8 :xd8 is
only equal - with the idea 12.fxe7? ~xe7!,
winning) 11...l"dS 12.fih3 fxeS and Black
was already well on top in I.ibiszewski-
Sulava, Monaco 1M 2003.
In Mannion-Gorrnally, British Champion-
ship 2004, 6.f4 worked out well for White af-
ter6 ...i.b4?! 7.0.f3 0-0 !L~.d2 .bc3 9 ..hc3
~b61O.~d3 tL:a6 II.We2lOCS 12.0-0-0 and
Black had nothing for the pawn. However,
6 fI'b6 looks logical, since 7.~a4 allows
7 trM+. After o...... b67.t~f3 ~f2+ 8.lit'e2
95
Ian Rogers
~cS, 9.tLia4 is still not playable so Black will
have time to start developing.
6...0-0!?
Continuing (0 play calmly. Of course it was
still possible to play 6 ....ii'b6. transposing to
positions similar to those considered earlier
after 7.ttjge2. Note once again that the posi-
tion of the bishop on d3 makes 7.o1'la47' un-
playable in view of 7...'ffaS+ 8.c3 ~xgl
(Hixgl dxe4.
7.f4 ~a6!? 8.• f3
8..~~f3 is the critical test of Black's play. Can
Black really have enough for the pawn in
this position? I doubt it. yet I also had my
doubts about Black's compensation in the
game continuation and even after ex-
changes, Black wins the game fairly com-
fortably. So presumably Black would reply
8 ...l'i;b4, capture the bishop and then try to
show thar While's pawn centre (and king)
are not going anywhere.
8..:~Wb69.~ge2 tL:b410.g4?!
If White wants to play f5 and shut the c8
bishop out of the game. he should do so im-
mediately.
10....ae6!
11.Wf1
A sign chat not all is well with White's posi-
tion. However after 11.f5 dxe4 12..1xe4
~d5, Black's pieces coordinate beautifully
96
and the c5 pawn may soon come under at-
tack with ...ne8.
11 ... tL';xd3 12.cxd3 !:lad8 13.tLJa4 'it'a5
14.t.uxc5 ~xc515.(i)c3
In theory the exchanges should have eased
White's position. yet the king on fI remains
a big handicap. e.g. 15.f5 dxe4 16.dx.e4 and
now Black can choose between I 6 ..:i'xe5 '?
and the simple 16...~c4.
15...b5! 16:~'f2 ~b4 17.f5 dxe4!
18.a3 iVb319.dxe4 .erd3!20.~g5 ~c4
21.'it>g2
21...tLig6!
Now the knight is invulnerable and the faJl of
the e5 pawn will cause total collapse in the
white position.
22.tL;e2 ~xb2! 23.<t:Jc1 t!Jh4+!
On 24.~xh4, nd2 wins easily, This was the
game Mitkov-Kallai, French Teams Ch.
1994, a convincing advertisement for 3 ...e5.
However it should be clear from many of the
examples given in this article chat to play
3 ...e5 requires strong nerves, an ability to ig-
nore your opponent's extra pawn and big
centre and a sense of exactly the right mo-
ment to play ...'iiib6. JUSt bear in mind that it
needs even better nerves 10 play White -
caught by surprise on the third move, keep-
ing your king in the centre and under con-
stant threat along the a7-gl diagonal.
 CHAPTER 12
Jeroen Bosch
A Central Thrust in the Heti
3 ...e5!? - Unhinging your opponent
When playing Black against the Rcti it is not
so easy to create unbalanced positions. On
the whole. the play after I /.:J3 tends to be
less theoretical (unless White transposes to
I .d4 positions, of course, as Kramnik was
wont to do). Equalizing is perhaps not your
bigges: worry as Black: unhinging your op'
poneru is a lot trickier, though. In a previous
SOS chapter I have made a case for 1...h5.
but this may not be to everybody's taste (see
Chapter 14 of Secrets ojOpening Surprises).
The present chapter advocates a bold central
thrust - 3...c5!? - brainchild of that
sacrificial genius Rudolf Spielmann.
1.ti"\f3 dS 2.c4 dxc4 3.t1\a3
We will focus on this move. dearly one of
the main options in this position. Below you
will find a list of White's alternatives. ac-
companied by some SOS suggestions.
• 3.e4!'! c5 4.iLxe4li';c6 5.0-0 e6 6.L1d a6
is a reliable set-up for Black. For example,
7.d3 ~f6 8.eS .... i:::d7 9.l::tel ~e7 1O..i.f40·0
I l.a3 b5 12..f:La2~b 7, with approximately
equal chances in the game Krasenkow-
Volzhin, Koszalin 1998.
• 3.g3, when in practice Black often plays
3 ...g6 4.~g2 SLg7 5.~a3 c5 6.0:;xc4 ~c6.
Now after 7.0-0 the Black knight can be de-
veloped to the edge of the board with
7 ... tt_:.h6!? when !S.d3 ~f5 gives equality.
• 3."a4+. and now 3...c~7 is most popu-
lar, e.g. 4.g3 a6 5.'ihc4 b5. Instead of 4.g3
97
Jeroen Bosch
White can also play 4.'it'xc4 a6 5.d4 e6
6.~g5 liJgf6 7.0,c3 b5 8.fj'b3 .ib7 9..I:I.dl
c5= Vaulin-Sherbakov, Novgorod 1997.
Slav players may prefer 3...c6 in answer to
the queen check. More original than either of
these moves is the manoeuvre 3... 'tWd7
4.• xc4 Wc6 to force a queen swap; now
5.b3 is best met by 5 ....ie6.
• 3.e3 is the main alternative to 3.tua3. My
SOS recommendation is 3 ...~e6, an original
move devised by Keres.
Now the lines fork:
- 4.~jg5 ~dS 5.e4 ~c6 6.~xc4 e6 7.d4 (here
serious attention should be paid to 7 .d3, e.g.
7 ...riif6 8.0-0 h6 9.lbf3 ~e7 IO.liJc3 0-0
11 .• e2~ Van der Sterren-Flear, Wijk aan
Zee 1987) 7...~e7 8.h4 tt.';f6 9.<1.:Jc3h6
IO.tbxe6!? fxe6 1l.e5 tL;d5 12.'UNg4?
(I2.'irh5+! ~d7! 13..bdS ~xd5 14.liJxd5
exd5 15.fj'g4+, with a perpetual, Taimanov)
12...b5 13.~b3 b4 14.'i'xe6 bxc3 15.'itg6+
WfS 16.bxc3 ~e8, and White does not have
enough and lost in Darga-Keres, Bevcrwijk
1964.
- 4.QJa3 tDf6 5.~x.c4 g6 (5 ...~d5 introduc-
ing a set-up with e6. c5 and ~e7 is also play-
able) 6.b4!·) (6.b3 ~g7 7.~b2 0-0 8.:ic2 c5
9.0-04iC6 10. .I:[cl .l:[c8 1 J.d4cxd412.1'i;xd4
Geller-Keres, Moscow 1963, and now
Suetin's recommendation 12...tL:.x.d4.with
equality) 6... ~g7 7 ..i.b2 0-0 8..i.e2tt:.c6 9.a3
1i'd5 10.0-0 a5 II.bxa5 4',xa5 12.04·x015
'ii'xa5 13.~c3 ~a4= Kozul-Sokolov,
Sarajevo 2003.
3...e5!?
The main line is 3...c5. and after 4.!t·xc4
0':c6 5.g3 either S...f6 or 5 ...g6. The text was
first played by Spielmann in 1925. Black
grabs a lot of space and will be able to de-
velop his pieces quickly from now on.
Clearly the nature of the position is radically
changed with this bold centra) thrust. Play
becomes' forced' and the price of each move
increases.
98
4.t1':xe5
The only serious reply. Note that after
4.liJxc4? e4 the modest 5.lL!gl is forced.
since 5.ttife5? f6loses a piece.
4•..~xa3
Pure tactics. Now 5.bxa3 fails to the double
attack 5 .. .'i!t'd4. So White's reply is again
forced.
5.'~a4+
An interesting position has arisen, Black is
at a crossroads. The few theoretical works
that mention 3 ...e5 devote their attention to
5 ...05 (perhaps because ofa neat tactical trap
mentioned below). However. there is no ub-
jective reason to neglect 5...t/.d7 which, in
my opinion, contains more venom.
We will investigate:
A) 5 b5
R) 5 li:;d7
Variation A
5...b5
This was Spielmann's choice in the stem
game against Euwe in 1925. Black forces
6.lIVxa3, as 6.'iWxb5+ c6 7.li\xc6 {£:xc6
~. W'xc6+ ~d7 9:~e4+ ~e7 is a lot beuer for
Black - the piece is much more important
than the three pawns.
6:~4Ixa3

Time to take stock. Black has the freer game
(his pawn on c4 gives him a space advantage
for the moment). and easy development.
White has some important structural advan-
tages, though. Apart from the bishop pair,
his pawn structure is also more solid. Black
has weakened his queenside with 5 ...b5.
Somewhat annoyingly. Black cannot castle
kingside SQ easily, since the White queen is
eyeing the fR square from a3. Usually. Black
will therefore play 'i'd6 at some point. This
means taking the game into an endgame
which should suit White because (If his
bishop pair. In addition. Black must take
care not 1t1 fall into a trap based on a combi-
nation of the weakness of the a8-h I diagonal
and square [], Taking all factors into ac-
count, we must assess White's game as
preferable.
6 .. .l;-·.f6
The best move. given the circurnstances.Im-
mediately losing is 6 ...'lWd6?? 7.'i'f:l. Also
bad is 6."!2c7. as in the game Novak-Nun.
Siary Srnokovec 1980. Instead of the game
continuation 7.d3?, White can win on the
spot with 7.~xt7! wxt7 8.'iWf3++-. Chang-
ing the move order does not work, though -
after 7."fI'O Black has 7 ...'lWd5.
The stem game went: 6 'W'<.I5 7.'1'0
(7.'tYg3!? looks good too) 7 tNfJ f!'~xd5
~:;xd5 9.g3 f6 IO.~g2 ~h7 Il.tbg4 h5
12.!i\e3l,i·:xe313 ..Q.xh7ttlCZ+ 14.Wdl tZ:.xal
A Central Thrust in the Reti
15..Q.xa8 c6 16.d3 Wd7 17..Q.e3 cxd3
18.exd3 ~a6 19.fLxc6+ ~xc6 2(Hpd2±
Euwe-Spielrnann, Wiesbaden 1925. Euwe
failed to bring home his advantage, though.
In the same year Spielmann also tried
6 ...~b7. After 7.e3 ~d6 8.ti'xd6 cxd6
9.~f3 tLlc6 lO.b3 d5 Il.bxc4 dxc4 12.a4!
.Q.a6 (12 ...a6 13.l:tbl) 13.~b2 f6 14.d3± he
was again in dire straits, and lost in
Tartakower-Spielmann, Moscow 1925. Still,
this game apparently did not dishearten any-
one. In this period we also saw:
- 7.b3 ti'd6 8.Qb2 f6 9.~xd6 cxd6 1O.ltJf3
cxb3 II.~d4 a6 12.axh3 wd7 l3.lDf5 g6
14.~e3 We6 15.11cl tDc6 16.g3~. although
Black won eventually, Torre-Ed.Lasker,
Chicago 1926. See below.
- 7.d3 'iVd6 8.'W'xd6 cxd6 9.tbf3 cxd3
IO..af4 0'J6 11..bd6± was Reti-
Tartakower, Bad Homburg 1927. And this
game ended in a draw.
7.d3
The following tactical trap deserves a men-
tion: after 7.b3 ~d6 Whitc should avoid the
natural 8 ..Q.b2? because of
8 ... c)!. The point is 9.'ihd6 cxd6! when
White gets only two pawns for his piece.
Instead of the unfortunate bishop move
White should exchange queens. A fine ex-
ample (from Black's point of view) is
Claescn-Motwani. Belgium tI 2002:
99
Jeroen Bosch

8.'ltxd6 cxd6 9 ..cf31Dc61O.a4 ~b4 I J.li:;d4
cxb3 l2.axb5 .ie6 13.f3 ticS 14.'st>dl tL;c2
IS.~\xc2 ~xc2 and Black's game is clearly
preferable.
Stronger than 7.b3 is 7.'i'f3. After 7...'i'd5
S.d3 White preserves a slight edge after
both:
- 8...cxd3 9.'iWxd5 'Cxd5 )().tL:xd3 ()-o
II.g3 t Cobb-Duncan. England 1999/00. and
- 8....ie6 9.'ilhd5 0xd5 IO..id2 cxd3
II.e4 tUb6 12..1xd3 a6 13.b3 f6 14.ftjf3;!;
Shamkovicb-Estrin, Moscow City Champi-
onship 1964.
7..:fi'd6
As mentioned above, Black can hardly do
without this move. He needs to castle at
some point. Still, White's bishop pair will
now become a force to be reckoned with.
8.iVxd6 cxd6 9.ltJf3 cxd3
In Alvarez-Pina, Matanzas 1992. White was
better after 9 ...ltJc6 IO.Qd2 cxd3 J I..:::tcI
0e5 l2.lt~xe5 dxe5 13Jk5 0-0 14.exd3.
10..if4
Active play by White. Also good is IO.e3
0c6 I l.bd3 nb8 12.0-0 Cile5 13..i:.e2
0.xf3+ Wexler-Dodero, Mar del Plata 1955.
and now 14.~xf3 rather than the game con-
tinuation 14.gxf3. In his book on the Reti,
Osnos rightly indicates 11...a6 12.i.d2l'i:e5
13.~e2 as very pleasant for White.
~ ~
iii
~
White's bishops promise him the edge.
11.e3 lL',c6 12.ttc1 ~b7 13.$.xd3± a6
14.~e2 d5 15.l:thd1 I:lfe8 16..ifS g6
17.~h3 ~g7 18.tDd4 tDxd4+ 19..!:txd4
~c8 20.~xc8 J:[axc8 21.J:[xc8 J:lxc8
22..Q.e5+- 95 23.ilxd5 I:lc6 24J:td6
I:lxd6 2S.Qxd6 tDe4? 26.~e7 16 27.13
rJ;Jf7 28.Qa3 1-0
Nyback-Deva, Halkidiki 2001.
Variation B
5...42d7
First played by Edward Lasker, who had ear-
lier used S... bS in a game against Carlos
Torre (see Variation A; (he note to 6 ... lC.f6).
The text was. in fact, a suggestion of Ossip
Bernstein's in a private discussion with Ed-
ward Lasker. Black docs not weaken his po-
sition (as he does with S...b5) but simply
continues his development His intention is
to sacrifice the c4-pawn for a considerable
lead in development.
6.0,xd7
This is most logical. However. White may
try ttl preserve the pressure with 6.bxa3!'?
The simple 6 .. .c6 fails to give Black equal-
ity: 7.tiJxc41We7t. After6 ...4:f6 7 .4",xc4 0·0
Black is a pawn down. although he may trea-
sure some hope on account of his lead in de-
velopment.
Probably insufficient is the ultra-sharp
6 ...b5!'.' 7.~xb5 J:rb8:

~
ttJ
~~~~
~~ a:
10...0-0
Or IO ... dxe2 I l.~xc2 0-0 12.0-0 and

100

A) 8.'it'c61lb6
- 9.Wa4 and now either 9 ...'I'f6 or 9... 1:[a6
IO.1!tb5 l:tb6, with a draw by repetition.
- 9.'i'd5 -.f6 10.f4 t?:,e7 11.'i'xc4 ~xeS
12.fxe5 "i*'xe5 13.11fc3 Wxc3 14.dxc3, with
equal chances.
B) 8."fia4 Wf6 9.tDxd7 (or 9.f4!'!)
9....hd7 lO.~x.a7 llb6
- II....a8+~e7 12.'i'e4+:l.e613.'i'bl :b6
is a curious geometrical draw.
- Il.:bl! .I:txbl 12.~a8+ followed by
13:~e4 check picking up the rook. Still
Black has some compensation for his
two-pawn deficit after 12.....Q.c8 13.'i!fe4+
CUe7 14:ti'xbl 0-0, when Black is fully de-
veloped and White's pieces are all on the
first rank. Food for thought.
The safest answer to 6.bxa3 is 6...a6. In the
game Tiggelman-Martyn. Belgium 1999.
Black had good chances after 7.~b2 b5
~Ui'c2 lbxe5 9..Q.xe5 0f6 1O.11d1 Wlc7
1Ubf6 gxf6 12.d3 ,*xa3 13.dxc4 'iWb4+
14.l:td2~e6. Instead of 7 ..tb2 it is better to
play 7.tL:xc4, as 7...bS'! fails to !!.0d6+!' So
Black should simply continue his develop-
ment with 7 ...tlJf6.
6...~xd7 7.'tWxa3
7...tDe7!
Preparing to castle and showing Black's
willingness to sacrifice a pawn.
In practice Black has done well with other
moves too.
A Central Thrust in the Reti
• 7 ...~e6!,! 8.e3 (8."g3!? lbf6!? 9.• xg7
llg8 10.'it"h6 We7 with compensation)
8...lbf6 9.d3 (9.~e2 We?) 9...cxd3 1O...Q.xd3
VJle7 I I.'i'xe7 + ~xe7 12.0-0 l:thd8 13..1e2
cs, and Black had an easy game in
Horowitz-Tenner, Bradley Beach 1928.
• 7...tlJf6 8.e3 (8.... c5!?) 8...tCg4!'?
(8 ....te6 transposes to the previous note)
9.~e2 VJlh4 I O..axg4 'ftxg4 was about equal
in M.S.Hansen-T.Christensen, Tjalfe 1995.
More ambitious is 9..Q.xc4 (instead of
9..Q.e2). Play becomes very sharp after
9.... h4 lO.g3 -.f6 I I.O"()CLieS (l1 ...,*f3
12.e4! ~xe4 13.d3±) 12.~d5 ~f}+. with
the following possibilities:
- 13.~hl??llf5 14.i.xb7.h3-+.
- 13..txf3 "'xf3 I4.e40 'ihe4:f IS.d:!...we7
or IS ... '1/Id5.
- 13.Wg2! tLJg5 14.f4 ~h3+ 15.~gl 0-0-0
(I5 ...~xfl 16.~xb7 lld8 17.1!ta4+ wf8
I 8.<;Pxfl ±) 16.Wb3 <.:6,with roughly equal
chances.
8. 'ilfc3
This double attack picks up the c4 pawn. The
move 8.e4 refuses to take the pawn, but fails to
achieve anything. The game Roe-Motwani,
British Championship 1986. went 8 ... .Q.c6
9 ..hc4.be4 10.0-00-0 I 1.<13 ~d5 12.i.g5.
The weakness on d3 is compensated for by the
bishop pair and some temporary activity.
12...f6 13.~f4 l:tf7 14~fe) ti~g6 (14 ...c6 is
solid, but Motwani prefers to attack) 15.kg3
f5 16.~e5 f4 17.Wi>3Lc4 (l7 ...c6) 18.dxc4
and now 18.... gS?! W'.IS perhaps too sharp.
The alternative 18...c6 yields equal chances.
8...0-0
This was Black's intention; at {hecost of one
pawn he will gain a big lead in development.
One more suggestion for the reader: is
8... .Q.e6 9.1!txg7 J:lg8 10."xh7 'it'd7, plan-
ning to castle queenside, really too wild?
9.'tWxc4 ~e6
The game Century-Thomas. British Cham-
pionship, Brighton 1977, saw a completely
101
Jeroen Bosch
different set-up: 9... lLlf5 1O.e3 ~c6 II.'iVg4
"'f6 12..i.e2 ~fe8 13.0-0 l:ad8. Black has
compensation due to his lead in develop-
ment. The game continued 14.d3 Ad7
15.*'f4 c5 16.~bl .g6 17.~d2 ~c6 18.D
(18 ..if3 ~xf3 19.... xf3lhd3; 18.... g4 tL:.d4
19.exd4 l:xe2 20.'i!hg6 hxg6~; J8.~g4
tZlh4; I 8.g3 ~d4) IlLttJd419J:tbel 0xe2+
20.Uxe2 Wxd3. with equality. Perhaps
White could have improved on move 17:
17.:el .ic6 I8.g3 (18.~f) :xd3; 18"'lWg4
'i'xg4 19.~xg4 lZ.ih4 20.e4 Ihd3 21.~g5
0g6=) 18...ltJd4 (I8 ....Q.b5) 19.exd4 Uxe2
20Jlxe2 "'xd3 21.J:%.el,*xbl. Now every-
thing would be OK for Black if it wasn 't for
22.d5!± J:te8 (22...~xd5?? 23.'l:!t'd6+-)
23.J:txe8+ .bc8 24.il'e5 'l:!t'xcl+ 25.';t>g2
~f8 26 .... d6+ <bg8 27.Vie7 g6 28.'Wxe8+
~g 729. "'e5+ wg8 30.d6, and White should
win this queen ending.
This position is critical for the evaluation of
5...tL:;d7.
In his Chess Secrets l leamed from the Max-
ters (1951), Edward Lasker aptly summa-
rizes White's predicament: 'White is a Pawn
ahead and he has two Bishops. But how is he
goi ng to get his pieces out? No matter where
the Queen moves, she will be subject to fur-
ther attack by the Black minor pieces. as
they gradually occupy the most aggressive
posts they can find.' (p. 363. Dover, 1969)
10.~a4
102
Understandably, White moves his queen
somewhat 'out of reach'. On f4. h4 or e3 the
queen can easily be attacked by the knight
(lO.~f4 ces. IO.'ifh4 ~d7; IO.We3 ~d5).
While 1O.'''d3 is too ugly to consider
(1O .. .'.-xd3. with excellent compensation).
The game Lagrain- Versyck, Belgium 1998,
went: IO.~c2 tDc6 II.e4 (ll.e3 tOb4)
I Lt'2.d4 12.'l:!t'c3 ne8 (l2 ...c5) 13.b3 lidS
14.1'3 "'f6 15.~b2 c5 16.~c4 and now. in-
stead of 16....ctad8? Black should have
played 16....Q.xc4!, with a distinct advantage.
as 17.bxc4 (I7.'1li'xc4? ~f3+ l8.gxf3
'iitxf3!-+) l7...~h4+ is.en (l8.<;t>dllb.e4
t:, 19.fxe4 ~g4+-+) 18..Jlxe4 t:, 19.fxe4
~f4+ 20.Wel 'l:!t'xe4+ 2l.WdJ ~g4+ wins.
10...ii'd5
Another active move hindering White's nat-
ural development. White's next chases the
queen from its excellent position but accepts
a gaping hole on d4.
11.e4
This is certainly not forced. hut it is quite un-
derstandable. White needs to solve his main
problem of developing his kingside forces
and castling as soon as possible. Black's play
is easier in a practical game. He will central-
ize his rooks along the c and d-files and move
his knight into the centre. The square d4 will
usually draw the knight like a magnet
11...'ilid612.d3 ~613.~d2 b5!
E
~
14.'iWd1
 A Central Thrust in the Heti

Considering how the game develops, White majesty has escaped. Not, however,
should perhaps have taken on b5 here. Let us 2l.fxe4? 'i'f6 22,i.e3 (22.~f4 'iWl'.f4
investigate: 14.... l'.b5 l:[ab8 l5.'i'a4 l:[xb2 23.'i'xf4 !:lxf4, and Black has retrieved his
16..tc3Ihf2!? 17.'oPxf2 'i'c5+ 18.d4 'lWxc3 investment with interest) 22 ...'i'h4+ 23.g3
19,J:[dl f5! 20,e5 and now: 'S'xe4 24J:f1 l::txfl+ 25.<.1.>xfJ 'ithl+
- 20,.,~b4 planning f4, e.g, 2 I,lfi'b5 winning.
(21..~e2 f4) 21...f4 22 ,'iWe2c5 23:tWd2 '*i'e3+ 21.Wf2 'i'xe4
24,~xc3 fxc3+ 25,~xe3 cxd4+ 26,l:[xd4 Superior is 21. .. ~xe4! 22.l:re 1 ~)xf3
(26.we4 g5!; 26.wd2!? l:[f2+ 27.~el !:lxa2 23 ..bf3 (23.gxf3 'i!r'd6 24.1:r.xe4 ~xh2+
28 ..CI.d2!:la5 29.~f2~) 26 ...lbc2+ 27.c.t>d3 25.wel Wg3+ ze.en ltxf3+ 27.~xf3
~xd4 28.'.1;>xd4with equality. 'S'xf3+ 28.~g 1 'l'xe4-+) 23 ....Q.xf3
- 20 ... f4! 21.ltd3 'S'b2+ 22.~e2l.Gb4. when 24.gxf3 'l'd6 and wins, Lasker.
White must return the exchange. 22.Ag5 Ude8 23.'G'e3 'G'f5!!
14,..f5 The exclarns are Lasker's.
Lasker energetically opens files against the 24.'ihd4 ~xg5 25.'ii'xd3 fics+!
uncastled white king. 26.~fl fie5 27.<M2 1WcS+ 28 ...t;>f1
15,ke2 fxe4 16.dxe4 :ladS 'it'e5 29_~f2l!¥xal 30.\hh7+!
Black has fully mobilized his forces and pre- The wily Kevitz goes for the best practical
vents White from castli ng. With his next few chance.
moves he pursues the same goal. Black is 30 ...Wxh7 at.zez- ~h6 32.:xal
clearly better. Taking into consideration that
our main focus lies with the opening phase
let us continue with some light comments.
17.'iYcl tLld418.~dl ~c4 19.b3 i.d3
Emphasizing the complete success of
Black's strategy. White is almost immobi-
lized, while his harvest of one meagre pawn
can be recaptured at any time.
20.f3

White has escaped into an ending where he

has one pawn for the lost exchange, He is
still lost because of Black's quecnsidc ma-
jority, which will enable Black create a
passed pawn.
Since this is not a book on endgame tech-
nique we will mercifully gloss over the rest
Suffice co say that Edward Lasker managed to
lose from this posicion! For this tragic fact he:
20 ..:tWg61 duly praised his opponent's handling of the
As Lasker indicates in his notes. this is even endgame (while castigating his own play).
stronger than 20 ...~xe4!'? 2l.0-0!, when his Kcvitz-Ed.Lasker, New York, 1931.

103
 CHAPTER 13
Karel vall der Weide
A French Nimzowitsch

A Little Weird: 3 ... tZJc6

Although 3.JLlc6 may look a lillie weird, rues to you in which White used different
some strong (grandjrnasters have made it methods to tackle this system.
into a respectable line. I would like to menti-
on Eduardas Rozcntalis, Josef Klinger, Lud- Game 1
ger Keitlinghaus and Matthias Thesing.
Occasionally il was used by world-class o Bart Michiels
players like Veselin Topalov and Viktor • Karel van der Weide
Kortchnoi. Groningen 2001
By playing this system, which Can also occur
from a real Nirnzowitsch (l.e4 Ci.:c6 2.d4 d5 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.tbc3 t/;c6 4.e5
3.t'....:c3 e6). Black restricts his options. The With this move White tries (Q smother his
c-pawn becomes immobile and it is difficult opponent immediately.
to develop the bishop on <.:8. Moreover, 4...16
Black looks up to a spatial problem. On the Black immediately attacks the pawn chain at
other hand, the Black position is without the front. White keeps control over the e5
weaknesses. I would like to present six gao square with:

104

5.~b5
Consistent. The alternatives are inferior:
• 5.exf6?1 is contradictory to White's for-
mer strategy: 5...tbxf6 6.ltJf3 (after 6..!.tf4
.id6 7.~xd6 cxd6 8.g3 e5 Black seized the
centre in Z.Polgar-Topalov, Singapore
1990) 6 ~d6 7..tbS (7.~g5 0-0 8..~.d3
'ffe8 9 e2 'ii'h5 IO.h4 e5 II.dxe5 t;"xe5
12.ti'.xe5 'O'xe2+ 13.~xe2 .Q.xe5 definitely
wasn't worse for Black, Gunnarsson-
Keitlinghaus. Reykjavikl(97) 7...0-0 8.0-0
~d7 9Jlel liteS iO..bc6 £xc6 I U2;e5
..ixe5 12.lhe5 'fin 13.f:\ ~ae8 and a draw
was agreed in Spassky-Keitlingnaus, Ger-
many 1988.
• 5.tL:f3 gives Black a choice between
quiet development with 5 ....id7 or the wild
5...fxe5 6.dxe5 ttih6 7.~g5 'ifd7 R.~xh6
gxh6 9.~b5 ~g7 ICl.O-O~d7 ll.llel 0-0-0.
Paneque-Arencibia, Bayamo 1990.
5....ltd7 6.tL;t3
The enterprising 6 .... g4 was played in
Drexel- Van der Weide, Liechtenstein 1997,
after 6 ...'llt'e7 7.tL;f3 "iWf7 8.~d2 0-0-0
9.0-0-0 ~ge7 10.llhei t£f5 11.~.x(;6 .~xc6
12.'i'h3 ~d7 l3.g4 Ct.:e7 14.g5 fxg5
15.Qjxg5 ~g8 16.f4 h6 I7.tLf3 tL:f5 Black
was OK.
6...iVe7
In these lC.c6-lines, Black regularly aims for
castling queenside. The black king is quite
safe there, because the tension is on the other
A French Nimzowitsch
side of the board. 6 ....i.b4 is a decent alterna-
tive for those of you who arc afraid the
bishop will never be developed. Rolf
Schwarz gave 7.~xc6 ~xc6 8.0-0 "'d7
9.t2.e2 0-0-0 10.d with a slight advantage
for White.
7.0-0 ~f7 8.ttel
Instead of the text, 8.a3!? is a further attempt
to suffocate Black. 8...0-0-0 9.h4 tijge7
1O.i.d3 was Nijboer-van der Weide, Rotter-
dam 1997. Here Black definitely should
have played JO .. .fxe5 Il.dxe5 h6 with some
counterplay.
The game Maus-Keitlinghaus, Germany
1992. shows a similar position. Instead of
1O.i.d3. White played IO.rlel. Black got se-
verely punished when he decided not 10 fix
e5: 10...h6 11.~d3 g5 12.exf6 'ilYxf6
l3.~a4.
8 ... 0-0-0 9.a4
Here 9.'ffe2 tLige7 I 0.exf6 gxf6 ll...if4leads
to a complicated fight for the e5-s4uare. After
tbg6/l:e8 or It..g7 things are unclear.
9...~b4 10.~d2 ~ge7 11.ttJe2 ~xd2
12.~xd2 fxe5 13.dxe5 ithtB 14.ttJed4
'iWf4 15.11e3 tf"'::xd4 16.tbxd4 c5
17.lLxd7+ Wxd7
White cannot profit from the curious posi-
tion of Black's king.
18.lL:b5lL.c619_~e2 ~c8
Followed by <;t>b8gives Black a slight ad-
vantage due to his nice centre.
105
Karel van der Weide

Game 2 9..ixe4
White has some compensation for the pawn
o Paul Keres after 9.0-0 ~xc3 iO.bxc3 .xc3 I U[bl
• Anatoly Lein lIi'a3, but I doubt whether it is enough.
Baku 1961 9...dxe410.a3

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.~c3 ttJc6 4.t:~f3 CL;f6 R .t

5.~g5 ~e7 6.e5 iii
This is how Bronstein and Keres handled the
~c6 system. There is always some logic ill ~ i
exchanging your bad bishop. ~
6...~',e4 7.$.xe7 'it'xe7
~ ~i
~ tiJ tiJ
~~ ~~~
1:[ 'iV~ Ii
A nice zwischentug which emphasizes
White's main idea. The position opens up
while the problematic French bishop on c8
has still not been developed.
10 .. :Wxb2 1 V2Jxe4 'fS'b5
The immediate retreat is best. The queen
should not hang around too long: 11...b6?!
8..ad3 12.0-0 .~.a6 13.U.bl "'a2 14.llb3 was al-
8.a3?! (l\xd! (8 ...~d7 gives White the op- ready lost for Black in Hazai-Kckki, Espoo
portunity to prevent the destruction of his 1988.
pawn-structure by playing 9.'tIHd3) 9.bxc3 12.~ed2 ;~a5
.id7 IO.~~.d3 .!2:a..'i I 1.0-0 cs 12.a4'!~ t:d! Stronger than 12... 0-0 13.c4 'iWb2 14..l:tbl
(Black's play is very easy here. Just aim for 'tW:<.a315.0-0 J:[d8 16.:t:e4 b6 17.0fg5 'IIIc7
the weak ca-spot) I3.h4 exd4 (13 ...0-0?? I ~\'~h5 h6 19.0·:f6+, which gave White a fe-
J4 ...G..xh7+) 14.cxd4 tl2c4 15.'liVcl h6 16.g3 rocious attack in Bronstein-Zarnicki, Bue-
0-0 17.4·,d2 f5 18.1'4 (after the alternatives, nos Aires 1988.
Black seizes the initiative: 18.exf6 ~xf6 13.c4 'ilfd714.0-0 b615.J:lc1 ~,b7
19.c3 e5, and 18.tL;xc4 dxc4 19..Ii;.e2 f4) Black's position is acceptable.
18...t:fd8 should have given Black a plus in
Czup-van der Weide, Bad Wicsscc 2004, be- Game 3
cause after 19.0x<.:4 uxc4 20 __ Qe2 d the
white pawn on d4 is a siuing duck. o Petr Zvara
8...~b4 • Liidger Keitlingbaus
It is quite interesting to play fL.lbxc3 any- Prague 199'
way, despite the fact that White did not com-
mit himself to a3. The extra tempo will not 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.-41c3 tLlc6 4.tN3 <816
benefit White that much. 5.~g5 Si.e7 6.~xf6

106

This is possibly too ambitious. White in-
tends to combine the motifs we saw in
Games I and 2. White gets rid of his bad
bishop, and also wants to smother his 0Ppo-
nen\.
6...~.xf6 7.e5
After 7.kh5 Black has a lot of ways to
achieve counterplay. One way I really like is
7 ... 0-0 S.O-O<£:bR!? 9.:le I c5!'! IO.exd5exd5
l l.dxcf ~xc3 12.bxe3 'fi'a5. as played
by both Josef Klinger and Claude Landen-
bergue.
7...~e7 B.h4 b6
On the kingside the black king is an easy tar-
get, so the castling-choice is limited.
9.~d2~.b7
10,~f4
Play in the game Jonkrnan-Van dcr Weide.
TIle Hague 2001. developed along almost
identical lines: 10.0-0-0 'i'd7 11.:1h3 0-0-0
A French Nimzowitsch
12.tt~g511dfS 13.f4 f6 14.exf6 gxf6 15.tbf3
J:%hg816.11cllle8 17.h5 'bb8 18.~dJ _td6
J9 ..1b5 J:.g4 20.g3 l'Jeg8 21. ... e3 a6
22 ..hc6 "xc6 23.t1)h2 l:t4g7 24.g4 lle7
25.:t>b I e5 and Black got the posi lion of his
dreams.
10...h611.0-0-O fi'd7 12.tth3 ~f8!
This subtle retreat secures the evacuation of
the black king.
13.tDh2 0-0-0 14.h5 f6 15.exf6 ~d6
16.~d2 gxf6
Because of the bishop-pair and his central
domination Black should be better,
Game 4
o JanTimman
• Matthias Thesing
Hengelo 2000
1.e4 eS 2.d4 d5 3.tbc3Ci:c6 4.0.f3 ~f6
5.e5 ti;e4 6.tbe2
In this line White hopes to prove lhal the
black knight 011 e4 is badly situated, The
variations involved show little analogy with
other tL;c6-lint:~.
6...t67.t/\g3
The alternative 7.exf6 'il'xf6 8.ci;g3 e5 can
lead to enormous complications. How about
these two games:
• 9.dxe5 tL::xc5 JO.~xd."i ~b4+ J I.d
.sxf3+ 12.gxll >8xc3 l3.bxc3 _~.xd+
14..:~.d2 .hal 15..Q.b5+ c6 16.0-0 ~.e6
17.~xe6+ .t>t7 18k,e4, Luther-Keitling-
haus, Germany Bundesliga 1990/9 l.
• 9.iLb5 exd4 10.0-0 ~.d7 J l.t;4 dxd
12.'tIYxd5 0-0-0 U.t,;·;xe4 cxbz. Hclkrs-
Klinger. Gausdal 19R6.
In both cases the resulting position i~a mess,
7.._fxe5 8.~b5
Recapturing with 8.dxe5 is line for Black af-
ter 8...~d7 9.~.dl .:2:<:5 10.~.h5 -4:xd3+
II.'li:Yxd3 'fIIe7. Hector-Rozcntalis. Malmd
199.3.
107
Karel van der Weide
8...exd4
In order to avoid drawish lines. I once took a
glance at 8...i.h4+ 9.(;3 (9.qyf) exd-l)
9...tL:x(;3 IO.bxd 1i.xc3+ II..td2 $.xal
12.~xal e413.tL:.e5~d7.Givingitasecond
thought. I saw Black was completely tight
up after fLxc6 and ~b4. Back tu the drawing
board!
9.tiJxe4 dxe4 10.q·,xd4 'iVd5
11.tLixc6
Stronger than Il.c4·~! ~b4+ 12.<;;>fl W'd6
13.QeJ .Q.d7 14.~a4 eS 15..Q.xc6 bxc6
16}·2;e2c5 and Black was a Iittle better. Hec-
tor-Rozentalis, Malmo 1997.
Now Thesing played
11..:t!fxd1+? 12.wxdl a6 13.~a4
~d7 14.l:Iel .i.xc6 15.i.xc6+ bxc6
16.l:Ixe4
which gave White a clear advantage.
Therefore I think it is better to play:
11...a6 12.it'xd5 exd5 13.tLb4+ axb5
14.tbxd5 Ji.d6 15.tbc3 ~b4
With equality.
Game 5
o Janis Klovans
• Alexander Riazaotsev
Bie12000
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.lLic3 tUc6 4.~f3 {i.Jf6
5.e5
108
Here S..Q.d3 ~b4 transposes after 6.e5, but a
separate line is 6 ..1gS dxe4 7 .~xe4 h6
8. .txf6 'i'xf6 where Black at least has his
dark-coloured bishop to count on. I should
mention that both Rozentalis and Agdestein
have played S...tL;b4 after 5..i.d3, so that is
allowed too.
5 ...tlJe4 6.~d3
This is quite of len played against (£;c6. so
maybe it is fair \I) call this the main line.
6...Q.b4 7.kd2
Instead 7.0-0 is an interesting pawn sacri-
fice. although it should nul worry Black
much: 7...8xc3 8.bxc3 ~xc3 9.~hl hti. A
common reply in order to prevent tbg5. Ac-
tually. the game Koch-Prie, Paris 1989. has
demonstrated that preventing the knight sor-
tie is not obligatory: 9 ... ~b4 IO.tiig5 1i..e7
Il.tbxh7 (11.tfh5 g6 12.'lfg4 tL:b4) I \...g6
12.4,f6+ ~.xf6 13.exf6 '*'d6 and a pawn is
still a pawn. Sti II. 9 ...h6 is also sufficient.
Several games have shown that White has
not enough compensation after IO..Q.a3 a5
I 1.~b5 .id7 12.~d3 ~b4.
7 ...tL',xd2 8.~xd2
Here Black has a choice. depending on his
intentions. I will consider the solid 8....td7
first. We will examine the sharp 8.. .f6 in
game 6 (Shirov-Rozentulis).
8..,~d7 9.a3 ~xc3
Of course. it was still possible 10 keep the

bishop on the board with l.f8 or i.e7. A line
that was played several times by Firman
goes 9 ...~e7 10.0-0 g5!? Well, why not?
10.1Wxc316 11.exf6
Otherwise Black will take on e5. Now there
are some weaknesses for White to attack.
11...gxf6 12.0-0-0 -.e7 13.~he1 0-0-0
14..ab5 ttJb81S ..if1lDc6
16.g3
Black should he able to hold after moves like
'itd6 or r:tde~. By the way, 16.£b5 Can lead
to a repetition of moves.
Game 6
o Alexey Shirov
• Eduardas Rozentalis
Titburg 1993
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.ri:;e3 .:De64.<'i:;f3tUf6
S.e5 0e4 6.~d3 ~b4 7.i.d2 tUxd2
8.~xd2f6
When played with the intention of keeping
the dark-squared bishop this is a much
sharper attempt than 8...~d7 as in Game 5.
9.a3
Both 9.exf6 ~xf6 and 9 ..ltb5 ~d7 IO.~xc6
.ltxc6 are harmless.
9....Q.e7
This is the most natural move. Still, two other
bishop moves come into consideration.
_...:..A-'-F;,....:r~nch
Nimzowitsch
K
11
How about the 'weird' 9...j:J8!,!.ln that case
the pieces do not obstruct each other. E.g.
I0.0·0 ~d7 I Urae 1 fxeS 1Vi.';xe5 l1\xe5
13JXxe5 iLd6 14.11h5~'f6and Black should
be fine, De ViJder-Van der Weide. Amster-
dam 1997.
Exchanging the bishop with 9....lii.xd
10.'il'xc3 .ltd7 would transpose to game 5. but
it is interesting to take on c5 instead of
10...i.d7: IO...fxef l l.dxef i:.d7 (Rozeruulis
once castled here) \ 2.~c5?! ~e7 13.~xe7+
~xe7 was Ott-Keitlinghaus, Germany 1989.
It would appear that Black is better prepared
for the ending.
10.exf6
After IO.~e2 fxe5 I l.dxe5 0-0 12.h4 Black
has 12...11xf3 13.gxf3 0xe5 which is a very
interesting exchange sacrifice that was
played twice by Rozentalis. In Yearbook 20
he comments on his game against Kuzmin,
Leningrad 1990. Rozcntalis considers
14.0-0-0 'iWf815.f4lLxd3+ 16.'ihd3 ..Q.d7to
be equal.
His game with Chandler, Germany 1992. on
the other hand, went 10.h4 fxe5 l LdxeS 0·0
12.11Ve2'iWe8 13.0-0-0 ~h5 14.rrdcl ~d7
15.11h3 J:f4 16.¢hl rra fR and Black was
well mobilized.
10...~xf6 11..~.b5 0-0 12.~xe6 bxc6
13.0-0 c5 14.dxc5 c6 1sJtfe1 tea
16.CL.:e5 d4 17.:£;a2 as
The position is undC<lr.
109
 CHAPTER 14
Glenn Flear
Protecting the Gambit Pawn in the QQA
E .t~*.t~E
iii~iiii
Play 3 ...ttJd7!?
1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.~t.Jf3
In this standard position imagine your oppo-
nent's emotions when you play
3...ri.:d7!?
He is already out of his theory on move ~!
You intend to follow-up with ... ~h6 to pro-
tect the extra pawn and there's no obvious
continuation for him. I suspect that hell al-
ready feel a shade uncomfortable! Let's have
a look at some variations and see if y()U agree
with me that the idea holds water, with
White's best chance for an edge probably
being 4.e4 and 5.~xc4. The main proponent
of this line has been the Russian Dmitry
Godes who over the years has tried il both
over the board and in correspondence chess.
110
4.e4
- Instead 4.e3 is nut very testing: 4.Ji:b6
5,04.od2 (5 ..i.xc4 makes less sense here as
White will realistically have to lose a tempo
with e3-e4 to get his bishop out) 5...k.e6!'!
(not the only. but perhaps the most provoca-
tive plan for Black) 6.ti.:g5 (6.~e5 .£f6 7.0
Farago-Kovacevic. Sarajevo 1910. and now
7...g6!) 6....~.d5 7.e4 e6 8.cxd5 ~xg51).dxc6
0-0-0 IO.exf7 !!':h6 with great play for Black
who leads in development. Niknlac-
Kovacevic. Yugoslavia 1974.
- 4/i;c3 ·!2:b6 5.ti!c5~? is interesting. S...g6
(I'm not sure thut White would fcc I that com-
fortable after ) ...~e6~? 6.e4 co 7 ..~.e3 .:'tf6
with some practical compensation for While
 Protecting the Gambit Pawn in the QQA

but nothing concrete) 6.tDxc4 (6.e4 Sig7

7.Sie3lbf6 8.f3 0-0 9.~xc4 is analogous to a
number of positions from the notes of
Gavrikov-Gulko, (except tha: here a2-a4,
a7-a5 haven't been played). Black has a
Grilnfeld set-up where White has a pull due to
his good hold on the centre) 6 ...~g7 7.lL\xb6
axb6 8..if4 c6 9.d tDf6 10..ie5 0-0 11.i..e2
b5 12.a4! and White has the tiniest of edges,
Mishuchkov-Godes, Soviet Union 1981.
- After4.lba3 Black can of course continue
with ...tDb6 but Godes has shown a prefer-
ence for playing as in a more traditional If you don't mind this sort of position then
QGA aiming for an early ...c5 e.g. 4...tbgf6 3...lL;d7 could be for you. In any case one
5.tbxc4 e6 6.e3 iLe7 7.~d3 0-0 8.0-0 c5 thing is clear: If you like 3 ..k:d7 you'll have
9.~e2 b5 IO.lbce5 c4 II.Q.c2 .iLb7 l2JXdi Godes on your side!
'ifc7 13.lbxd7 0xd114.e4 e5 Mikhalevski-
Godes, Tel Aviv rapid 1996.
- 4.'t!Ya4aims to transpose back to familiar o Georgy Sapundzhiev
territory. 4 ...c6 (4 ...tDf6 transposes to the • Dmitry Godes
line 3.~f3lbf6 4.~a4+ ~bd7 which is con- Markov mem corr 1987
sidered to be less likely to equalize than
4 ...c6 5."iihe4 ~f5. After S.tbe3 c6 6.e4 1.t;",13 d5 2.d4 0.d7!? 3.c4 dxc4 4.e4
ECO prefers White after both principal 4.~b6 5.~xc4 .!iJxc4 6.~a4+ c6
moves 6...a6 and 6...t:5) 5.'lWxc4e5!? 6.dxe5 7.lhc4
41xeS 7.-1.':xe5 '$'a5+ as in Efimov-Godes
should be OK for Black. ~ At¥~.t.~!:
4...~b65 ..~c4
Alternatives are discussed in the notes to
il illl
Gav ri kov-Gulko. 1
5.•.CDxc4 6.~a4+ c6 7.~xc4 ld6
8.{L;c3~e6
The risky 8...b5 is featured in Bonsch-
Godes. I think White should take up the
gauntlet with 9.~xc6+!'
9.~d3g6
As in Sapundzhiev-Godes, sec below. The
position can be considered as a type of Black has scored badly from this position
Grunfeld where While has been able to build which can be considered as the main line.
his centre. The exchange of one pair of mi- Let's see what hc can do.
nor pieces should ease Black's defence, who 7•..cre 8.lbc3 SLe6
is only slightly cramped here. Having the For R...b5 see Bonsch-Godes.
bishop pair may become a factor later. but at 9.~d3 96 10.0-0 ~g7 11.h3 0-0
the moment it's not that significant, 12..te3

111
Glenn Flear

It's remi niscent of a number of] ines from the
GrUnfeld. Black is solid but lacks counter-
play, so White with a well consolidated cen-
tre keeps something out of the opening de-
spite Black having the bishops.
12 ...lL;e8!? 13.tLJg5 'iWd7 14.Ci;xe6
'iWxe615.d5
15.f4 is well met by 15...f5! e.g. 16.e5 (Lx7
17...';:a4 b6! and Black has a nice light-
squared blockade.
15...cxd516.tDxd5 b6 17.~a3
Strongest is 17.Qg5! when Black has to play
precise! y: 17...~xb2 ( 17...f6 seems playable
but a shade passive e.g. 18..2.f4 J::[d819J:ifd I
lId7 2(Utaci ffn) IS..he? (18Jlabl Qf6
19..Yl.xf6ci;xf6 20.&:;C7"ii'xe4 leaves Black
with enough compensation for the ex-
change) 18...il.xa I 19.1ha I Ci::,g720 ..Q.xfR
:Xxf82IJlel f5! and Black seems lobeOK.
17 .. :~xe4 18.Aad1?
White should simply regain his pawn as after
1!l.lZJxe7+ Wh8 19.1:tfel 'fi'b7'!! White has
the rather strong continuation (Black should
instead settle for 19"k.f6 20.~h6 'tIVh4
21.~xg7+ ~xg7 when White only has a
nominal pull) 20.Sl.d4! t2:;f621.~c3.
18...~d6 19.f3 ~e6 20 ...Q.e1 llad8
21JUe1
After 21 ......xa 7 tl}fS Black has good chances
Black has more or less consolidated the ex-
tra pawn. There arc some technical diffieul-
ties due to the bishop having an influence on
both wings, but Godes gels there in the end.
25.~d3 b5 26 ..tf2 a6 27.b3 ~c6
28.'lWe2 tDf5 29J:t4d3 'tWf630.a4 b4!?
Another try is 30...bxa4 3I.bxa4l:tc6.
31.85 aea 32.~e1 J:[xd3 33:~'xd3
nb8 34.We4 ti'od6 35.'Ii'd4 ~e6
36.'iWa7l:1.b537.~f2?
The best chance is 37.'CWxa6!,after 37 ..,~e2
38J:tal 'CWe5(or 38 ...'iWb2 39.11dl .!Ig5
40 ..tf2 'iWxb3)39.l:td ll:txa5 Black is always
better but still a long way from the ful Ipoint.
37 .•.'ihb3 38.ne1 e5 39:~xa6 'iWd5
40:~a7 b3 41:itc7 b2 42.,*d8+ wg7
43.Qh4 ~d4+ 44.'M1 ti'\e4!
Simplifying to victory.
45:.Wxd4 exd4 46.fxe4 b1~ 47.nxb1
llxb1+ 48.~e2 lIa1 49 ...lid8 lIa3
50 ..Q.b6f6 0-1
o Uwe Bbnsch
• Omitry Cedes
Herzliya 1993
1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxe4 3.o11f3t1id7 4.e4
lbb6 5..ixc4 0.xc4 6.~a4+ c6

~
K 1:.
due to White's weakened kingside.

~~.t~
7. i¥'xe4 ~f6 8/be3 b5?!
Optimistic!

~ ~~ ~
ttJ

21.. ..ad4+! 22.~e3 'i'xd5 23.l:txd4

..wb7 24.lted1 J:[e8

112
 Protecting the Gambit Pawn in the QQA

A positional approach that isn '( the best. In A strong positional player like Bensch is un-
my opinion White can grab the pawn: impressed by his opponent's antics. His
9 .... xc6+! .td7 IO.... h7 (Petursson consid- strong bind forces Black to play eccentri-
ers White to be clearly better after IO:~c5 cally to try and free his position. Afterwards
e6 II.1!te5 b4 12.t2.\d5!) 10.. J!b8 I I.'iWxa7 he avoids the temptation to grab a pawn
l:ta8 (after II...b4 12.lDe2 ~xe4 Black is which would free Black's game.
still a pawn down and will need lime to com- 17...f5!? 18.exfS ttJf4 19....c4 ..-f7
plete development) 12."c5 e6 13.it'e5 ~a5 zo.nes l:tfB 21.l:tae1 exf5 22:f1lxf7+
14.0-0 b4 15.Q.:;d5 tDxd5 l6.exd5 f6!? (or wxf7 23.l:te7+ <Ji>g8 24.lbc5
16...~xd5 IHWxd5 exd5 IlL~el+ ~d~ Black's weaknesses won't run away.
with an inferior ending) Zharkov-Godcs, 24...a5 25Jlc7 ttJds 26.llxc6
Riazan 1986, and Black is worse as he lacks Finally! The rest is even more one-sided.
compensation. $Q I can't believe in 8...b5 Black resigned on move 41.
and prefer the solid 8...~e6.
9...b4!?
Pushing the knight away in order to gel play D Viktor Gavrikov
on the a6-fI diagonal. • Boris Gulko
10.tt\a4 e6?! Frunze ch·USSR 1981
Too slow. Instead IO...1!ta5! II.b3 (! I .ci:;c5c6
to get the light-squared bishop on the a6-fl di- 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.li'.f3 ti'.d7 4.e4
agonal. l2.CM2 .ixc5 13.~b3 ~d8 14.dxL:5 ~'~b65.a4
a5 with ...~,a6 in the air) 11... 'ti'h5 (or 11...YLa6
12.'*i'c2 ~d7!?) l2.~c2 tL:.d7 13.YLb2 c6
14.0-0-0 i.e7 15.wbl 0-0 which wasn't at all
clear in Miles-Bellon Lopez, Montilla 1978.
11.0-0 fLe7 12.fLgS 0-0 13.l:tfcl h6
14.fLh4
White shouldn't be in a hurry to take the
c-pawn as after 14.•\h.f6 ~xJ6 15J:t"c6? he
gets into hot water following 15...~d7.
14...l:te8 15.h3 lbhS 16.gxe7 ~xe7
17.l:tc5

Forcing 5 ...a5, which is a sensible inclusion

from White's point of view. Practice has also
seen:
- 5.lL;e5 g6! 6.0a3 tDf6 7.0 ~g7 8.!eaxc4
0-0 9.~e3 tDfd7 iO.0xd7 .hd7 II.eLia5
l:1h8 12..te2 c5 was line for Black in
Akopov-Godes, corr. 1986.
- 5.h3?! is tantamount to a loss of tempo.
After 5 ...tL:f6 6.tLlc3 e6 7 ..bc4 tbxc4
8.'i!h4+ c6 9:.wxe4 b5! (here this works')
iO.'iWxc6+ ~d7 II.'iWa6 b4 l2.tbb5 'tt'b~

113
Glenn Flear

Black was beuer in Zilberrnan-Godes, 14.~a2 ~d6 15.h4 ~e6 16•.Qxe6

Chelyabinsk 1975.
- 5.tDc3 (this transposed from J .d4 d5 2.c4
dxc4 3.tl.lc3 li:.d7 4.e4 ~b6 5.~t1) 5...i.g4
6.~e3 .ixf3 7.tfJtJ3e6
8.• dl c69.~e2~d6
10.0-0 C,';e7. Sadler-Vladimirov. Hastings
J 990/9 J, with a murky game in prospect
where White has some compensation for the
pawn (bishop pair. centre, space etc).
5._.a5 6.tL!e5 l~f6
A move order worth noting is 6 ... g6! with the
point being that after 7.tL:xc4 tLlxc4 8..2.xc4
j_g7 Black gains a tempo against d4. 9.gc3
t;':f6 1 O.f30-0 11.<7.'c3 probably yields White
a small edge,
7.~c3 ~fd7 8.tDxc4 g6 9.Sii.f4
Otherwise White has tried 9 ..~e3, e.g.
9...i.g7 10.-.d2 0-0 1 J.~e2 c6 12.0-0
tLlxc4 J3.kxc4tL.b614,j_b3~d615.'UVd3
~e6 J 6.lhe6 'itxe6 17.dS cxdS l8.exd5
W'd6 Yrjola-Koskinen, Tarnpere 1991.
when Black has equal chances.
9...c6 10.'ifd2 £g7
Another move order 10... .Q:;xc4 Il..lhc4
tL;b6 12.~a2 ~g7 1Uld 1 0-0 slows down
the white attack but on the other hand Black
is unable to access d6 with his queen as in the
fxe6?!
Opening the f..file at the cost of chronically
weakening his pawns. Gavrikov suggests the
more circumspect 16...\\he6 e.g, 17.~xg7
(instead 17.hSl2Jc4 J~!.~cJ ~xh6 J9.'f,fxh6
tbxb2 20.nd2 ~c4 2 U{d3 g5! 22.'iWxg5+
Whg isn't clear) 17...<j;>l'.g7IS.h5 f5!'! leads
to complications where While is probably a
slighl favourite.
17.~xg7 'it'xg7 18.h5 'lWf4 19.'Il\fxf4
l:!.xf4 20.hxg6 hxg6 21.We2
White's pleasant endgame edge is largely
due to his superior structure.
21...l:!.ff8 22.l:!.h4 :the 23.l:tg4 l:!.ad8
24.e5 c5 25.~b5 l:rh5?
25 ...1::t<.l7 26.<.Ix<.:5
nxd J 27.~xd I (Lid7repre-
sents a better chance.
26.t:,jc7~f7

I.
game.
11.$.h6 0-0 12Jld1 0.xc413.kxc4

.I i.'iK
,, "'lA' .t..it
27.li\xe6!
29J1xb6
Wxe6
~xd4
31.'.t>d3cxd4 32.l:tb5
28.lbg6+ Wf7
3O.l:txd4 l:!.xe5+

32J:txb7 is perhaps simplest.

32 ..J:te1 33.nxa5 e5 34J~b5 We6
35.nxb7
The rook ending should be winning but still
requires good technique.
35 ...l:ld1+ 36.~e2 l:[a1 37J~b4 ~d5
38.f3 I:g1 39.~f2 l:[c1 40.g4 .l%c2+
13 0b6 41.'itle1 e4 42.fxe4+ ~xe4 43J:tb8
13 ~xh6 J 4.1ixh6 'Wb6 is given us unclear ..te3 44J%e8+ c.td3 45.a5 l:!.xb2 46.g5
by Gavrikov and Slckis, :b1+ 47.c,t.>f2 l:tb7 48.g6 1:197 49.a6

114

~c2 50.We1 Wel3 51.:rh8 :ra7 sz.nea
%:1g7
53.<3Jf2
Wc2 54.a7!
o Juraj Nikolac
• Vlatko Kovacevic
Yugoslavia 1976
1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.~f3 ltJd7 4.e3
No good is 4.lL;bd2?~ as it allows Black to
take immediate control of events after e.g.
4 ...b5! 5.b3 c3 6.ltJbl b4 7.a3 e5 8.dxe5 l'L:xc5
9.~c2 ~e6 IO.e3 a5 and Black was better in
Borisenko-Dorfrnan, Chelyabinsk 1975.
4...tL·jb65.li"bd2
Here 5.fLxc4 gives White a poorer version of
4.e4 and 5.ll.xe4. White will have to play
e3-c4 anyway to gel his bishop out.
5...~e6!?
This seems perfectly sound here.
6.t~g5?!
White can try 6.tlJe5 ~f6 7.0 as in
Farago-Kovacevic, Sarajevo 1983, but after
7 ... g6! 8.tbdxc4 YJ..g79.e4 0-0 JO.~c3 tbfd7
Black has a reasonable game. Otherwise
6.~<.:2 tLif6 7.lAx.c4 00xc4 8..hc4 ~xc4
9.'iitxc4c610.0-0e61 J.~d2~d5wasequal
in Lukacs-Kovacevic. Tuzla 198 J.
6...gd5 7.e4 e6 8.exd5 ~xg5 9.dxe6
O-O-O!
Rapid development is the main priority here.
10.exf7 ~h6 11.tL.if3
Protecting the Gambit Pawn in the aQA
1 J.g3 is met by II...'tlfe7+. I then prefer
1-0 Black after 12.~e2 l:txd4 13.0-0 li'xf7
14.... c2. although Kovacevic feels that
White has compensation.
11.•:~Wg612.g3 ~b4+ 13..id2 .ixd2+
14:~j'xd2 'iWxf7 15.~e2 c5 16.0-0
J;[he8
Material is equal but Black's forces are bear-
ing down on White's centre in a menacing
fashion.
17.a4
17.l:tad I is well met by n...
lUf5.
17...cxd418.a5 d319.~d1
Kovacevic points out that 19.axb6 is hope-
less after 19...dxe2 20.bxa7 exfl..-+
21.~xfl '1;c7 22."i!i'a5+ b6.
19...ttld5 20.a6 b5 21.'i!Ya5it'd7
White is left thrashing about looking for
tricks, but cannot save the game.
22.~d2 tL:f5 23.~g4 g6 24JUc1 Wb8
25.b3 c3 26.:'xc3 lL~xc3 27:tWxc3
~c7 28.'ii'b4 ~d4 29.~f3 'jIb6
30:iYd2 ttJxb3 31.1Wf4+~c7 0-1
o Igor Efimov
• Dmitry Godes
Belgorod 1989
1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.~.J3 ttJd7 4:ifa4
c6
4...~.:J6 is best avoided for two reasons:
I. It's too conventional (why are you read-
ing an SOS-book anyway') and
2. It's not that great for Black after 5.lloc3 e6
6.e4.
5:~hc4e5!
5 ...tL;gf6 was played in Euwe-Alckhine,
World Championship match Holland 1935.
This position could also occur from a Slav:
l.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.~f3 ti.lf6 4.'i'c2 dxc4
5.'i;'xc4 Q·ohd7.
6.dxe5 t.i.\xe57.t!2xe51ta5+ s.eea
Not R.flc3?? ~b4.
115
Glenn Flear

8..:~xe5 9.Qf4 'Wc5 A tactical error! Instead, 17.11fd 1 is about

equal after 17.. Jlad8 18Jhd711xd7.
R .t *A~g 17..:~·d6
j.j. Fritz would play 17....ixa2! which looks

•
j.j.l
slightly precarious but White cannot exploit
j. Black's cheeky pawn grab. e.g. 18.lLld5
~ (l8.ttJxa2l!txd2) 18...'t!t'b3 19.~xe7+ llxe7

'if ~
20.1'3 'iYxc2 21.l:txc2 .ie6 and Black is more
or less a clear pawn to the good.
~ 18.~e3 tilg4 19..bg4 bg4 20.f4
~~ ~~~~ ~e6?!
Jl ~~ )::t Slightly risky as Black now loses control of
thc d-file. Safer is 20 .. J:Idd8 with equality.
10.e3 21.11cd1 'CWb422.f5 ~xd1 23.11xd1
lO.c4 wasn't successful in Romsdal-Hcim, i.c4 24J:td7?
Norwegian team championship 2001, as af- 24.a3! 'ilfaS 2S.1:id7 would favour White.
ter 1O... ~e6 I J.'fixc5 .axcS 12.~d3 0-0-0 24...~xa2!
13J:td I (De7 14.0-0 lbg6 15.Qg3 l:l.d7 Black Not missing the opportunity to grab the
had more than equalized. a-pawn this time around!
10...~e611.W84 2SJWd2
In Shainswit-Adams, Ventnor City 1943. 25.~xa2?? 'life I matc.
play was dead equal after 11.'iixcS QxcS 25...~b3 26.e5 .tf8 27.h3 a5 28.~e2
12.0-0-0tL:f613.a3 ~b3 14.11d20-0 IS ...td3 l:lea
llfd8 16.~c2. Stronger is 28 ...a4! intending ...a3.
11...tLJf6 12.~e2 Qe7 13.0-0 0-0 29.e6 fxe6?
14.llac1 "'b4 It's still possible to play 29 ...a4!? with the
idea of 30.1:ixf7 a3.
30.f6 gxf6 31.~h5 J:le7 32.l:ld4 ~c4
33.'iWh4?
White wins a piece with :n.'I4t'g4+ .ag7
34.1:ixc4 nxg4 3S.nxg4+ ~xg4 36.hxg4 but
the ending isn't clear.
33...'iixb2
Or 33 ...b5 34.'t!t'xf6 l:l.g7.
34.tbe4?
Instead 34.~xc4 l:lg7 35.1Ve4 leaves Black
with four pawns for the piece. but White has
reasonable chances of holding his position
together.
Black has a fully satisfactory game. Efimov 34 l:tg7 35.tt;xf6+ <J;>h8
36.lbg4 hS??
decides to keep the queens on in order to try 36 ..w.dSlocks the white rook out of play
and use his cent ra 1pawns to generate an at- and should win. The text is crazy!
tack. 37.l:td8 'Wa3 38.1:!i'f2 hxg4 39.11xf8+
1SJWc211fd816.e4 nd717.~d2? 1-0

116
 CHAPTER 15
Jeroen Bosch & Carlos Matamoros
Evans Gambit: 'Stoneware' Defence
5 ...~d6!? - Old Wine in New Bottles
In the famous tournament of Hastings 1895
the young Harry Pillsbury emerged victori-
ous after 21 rounds, This caused quite a sen-
sation since all the top players of the time -
Chigorin, Lasker, Tarrasch, and Steinitz -
were among the participants. Pillsbury twice
defended against the Evans Gambit with the
odd- looking 5...~.d6. Interestingly, this old
defence of the brilliant American has in re-
cent times been taken up by several grand-
masters including among others: Alexander
Grischuk and Ivan Sokolov,
Let us examine the recent (and old) theory
by means of rhe games Johava-Gri schuk and
Short-Sokolov,
o Baadur Jobava
• Alexander Grischuk
Plovdiv Ech·t\ 2003
1.e4 eS VL.Jf3 tLic6 3~c4 ~cS 4.b4
Here it is. the gambit devised by captain Wil-
liam Davies Evans around 1824. It became
general practice after his 1827 win over Al-
exander McDonnell (one of the strongest
players at the time). This game is generally
considered the stem game of the Evans
Gambit even though Evans himself used un
inaccurate move order (4.0-0 d6 5.b4
Evans-Mcfxmnell, London 1&27).
McDonnell, impressed by what the captain
117
Jeroen Bosch & Carlos Matamoros
had shown him. used it in his famous match
against De la Bourdonnais, The Frenchman
himself became equally willing to sac the
b-pawn in their following match games.
Anderssen, Chigorin and Morphy were
other adherents of the Evans Gambit in the
19th century.
Eventually, however, the popularity of this
romantic gambit waned. This was partly due
to the efforts of the first and second world
champion. In the case of Steinitz it is clear
that the spirit of the impetuous 4.1>4 went
against all that he stood for in chess. How-
ever, his defensive methods were rather odd.
Lasker - one of the greatest defenders in the
history of chess - devised the standard de-
fence accepted by the players of his day and
modem theoretician. s alike.
All was Quiet on the Evans front until the
mid-1990s. when none other than the 13th
world champion Garry Kasparov played 4.b4
to annihilate both Anand and Piker, (It has to
be said. though, that Fischer used the Evans in
a few casual games - two of which made it
into his My Sixty Memorable Games!)
Kasparov's efforts put the Evans Gambit
back on the modem chess map. Nowadays,
Short is the strongest grandmaster to play it
more or less regularly. But you can expect to
meet Captain Evans' move on all levels.
4...~xb4
Accepting the gambit pawn was once a qucs-
tion of honour. Nowadays all beginners
grow up with the rule that the only way to re-
fute a gambit is to accept. This SOS supports
this view! Naturally, 4....ib6 is playable. It
was this move that Piker chose when
Kasparov surprised him with 4.b4. After
4...~b6 5.a4 as (5 ...a6 is considered better)
6.b5 tLld4 7.lt~x.d4 .bd4 8 .c3 ~b6 9.d4 cxd4
10.0-0 cc,e7 II.£g5 h6 12..ixe7 ~xc7
l3.cxd4 White had a pleasant edge in
Kusparov-Piket, Amsterdam 1995.
5.c3
118
5...~d6!?
The bishop retreat to d6 naturally earns the
SOS stamp of approval. Pillsbury, in his
choice of S... .Q.d6. was influenced by two
American players (Stone and Ware) which is
why 5...~d6 was called the 'Stoneware' de-
fence according to Blackburne. The avid
SOS-reader will probably recognize this
move from several earlier SOS-subjects
featuring .td6. See also Chapter 2!
Before we exarni ne the main idea or 5...~d6.
it is useful tu give a brief overview of the
'normal' lines.
- s...~c5'!! 6.d4 exdd 7.0·0 d6 8.cxd4 .ith6
was once the main tabiya position of the
Evans Gambit. Although playable, it is il-
logical to give White the tempi to build up
his centre.
- 5...i.e7 6.d4 tL:aS 7.YJ..e2 (7.~xe5)
7 ...exd4 O...dri) R.'ilfxd4 liif6 (there are
stronger alternatives at this stage. such as
8...ciic6 9.~xg7 i.f6 JO.~g3 d6 or 8...d5)
9.e5 ..'t_;c6 10.... h4 ~dS II.ffg3 g6
(ll...Wf8) 12.0-0 ~b6 13.c4! d6 14.Udl
tLid7 l5.~h6~, with excellent compensation
for White. Kasparov-Anand, Riga 1995.
- 5 ...~a5 is the absolute main line. 6.d4
(6.0·0 d6 7.d4 .1b6~ was Lasker's sugges-
tion. which highlights the inaccuracy of
6.0-0) 6 ...d6(6 ...exd4 7.0-0tnge7! 8.~g5 d5
9.cxd5 tL.c5 is a modern recipe. Black is OK.
as demonstrated by Short-Adams, Sarajevo

2000. and Morozevich-Adarns, Wijk aan
Zee 2001) H!t'b3 .-d7 8,dxe5 ~b6!; with
this last move (similar to Lasker's 6".~b6
above) Black prepares ~a5,
Looking at the Sth move altemuti yes. we see
that White will always play 6,d4, creating an
ideal pawn centre, He tries to open up the po-
sition and go for an immediate attack. With
S",~d6 (Uherdeckung!) Black is winning
time to consolidate his position, The bishop
protects e5. making it easier for Black to
keep the e5 stronghold, Thus, he not only
gains time for completing his development,
but he also keeps the position closed for the
moment. Another advantage of keeping the
bishop on the a3-f8 diagonal is that ~a3 (a
standard move to prevent castling) is
avoided, Naturally, there are some dangers
connected to the move 5.".id6.1L takes more
time to develop the c8-bishop, which might
make it difficult to prevent the manoeuvre
4-"h4-f5 (however, see the main game!).
6.d4
Instead, 6,0-0 is a less forcing move order,
6."tbf6 (6".lLJaS has been played here. it tries
to show that 6.0-0 is inaccurate, However, I
cannot recommend it on account of the sim-
ple 7,1;..e2 4if6 8,d4, when Black must play
8".c2;c6, Now 9,~c4 transposes to the main
line, but 9,dxeS looks like a strong alterna-
tive) 7.,!;Iel (7.d4 transposes to the main linc)
7 ...~.e71 (well-played' White has dithered
with 6,(}..0 and 7.!1e I, giving Black lime for
this unexpected loss of tempo, Pillsbury now
gets a 'normal', Ruy Lopez-like position with
a sound pawn up) 8.d4d69,'1!fb3 0-0 10,Ci;g5
~e8 (White's primitive attack on f7 has
failed, and his pieces will he thrown hack,
The threat is 1l...~5, Instead of 1O",~e8
also strong is 1O... d5) ll.'ii'dl h6 12,tL;f3
.tg4 13,lL:a3 ~h7 14.lIbl J:lb8 IS.tLc2 tL:g5
16,'\t'hl ~h817,ta3..txf318,gxf3(ilh3,und
Black was materially and positionally better,
Schiffers-Pillsbury. Hastings 1895.
Evans Gambit: 'Stoneware' Defence
6...~f6
Speedy and natural development is a neces-
sity after a move like 5".$.d6, In the 19th
century players were fond of moves like:
6 ...h6 (McDonnell). 6".~e7 (Kieseritzky)
and 6",'iWf6 (Bilguer and Hanham),
7_0-0
The most logical. Rather meek is 7,lZ)bd2
0-0 8.~b5 ,!;leIS9,d5 tDa5 10,()-0 c6 II.dxc6
dxc6. and Black was a pawn up for nothing
in Szarka- Kcszlcr, corr, 1991.
It is important to react correctly when White
takes on e5.
So, after 7.dxe5 7.,.~xe5 is a mistake, be-
cause 8.tilxe5 ~xe5 9.f4 is awkward to
meet. Therefore, Black should continue
7.,,~xe5, as g,tL'xe5 ~xeS gains a valuable
tempo, After the consistent 8,tLgS Black
must take care:
- R.._O-O?! 9.f4 h6?! lO.l?ixf7 ::ixn
II..i.xf7+ ..t;>xf7 12.fxeS tbxe5 13,0-0 d6
14"i.f4± Annageldiev-Najjar, Beirut tI
2000.
- 8 ...d5' (a well-timed centra! thrust)
9.exd5 tL:a5 10,'&'a4+ c6 11.dxc6 0-0
12,~a3 t2:ixc4 IH!hc4 (13.~xf8? 'tIi'd3! or
13",,axc3+, and Black should win) 13".h5
14.'lWb3?! b4!? 15"bb4 (!S.~xb4)
15",l:tb8 16,'lWc4 lIxb4! 17.~xb4 'fi'd3
Fiorito-Krantz. COlT, 1988, and White re-
signed as there is no satisfactory defence to
the multitude of threats (.ia6. !le8), Instead
119
Jeroen Bosch & Carlos Matamoros
of 14...b4 Black may also consider
Stefanova 's 14...~f4 (see the note to White's
7th move in Short-Sokolov below).
Another direct attempt is: 7.ti:JgS 0-0 8.tbxf7?
1:txf7 9..txf7+ Wxf7 10.f4 exd4 I l.e5 Ae7
12.exf6.ixf6 13.0-0 d5. when Black had fine
compensation for the exchange in Bird-
Pillsbury, Hastings 1895, after 14.tL:.d2dxc3
15.~f3Wg816 ..Ilbl b617.~e3~g418.'i'a4
~xf3 19.1txf3 'i!Vd620.l:ldl .ad8 21.lth3 d4
22 ..tc I '*00 23.'i!Vc2 d3! Pillsbury secured a
winning advantage.
However, after 7 .~gS 0-0 the correct way to
proceed is 8.f4!'
Now 8...exd4 9.eS ~xe5 IO.lbxn .:Ixn
Il.~xf7 + Wxf7 12.fxe5 tl:xe5 13.cxd4 fa-
vours White. However, for the piece sacri-
fice 9 ....ic5 see the note to White's 7th move
in Short-Sokolov below. So Black should
play 8...exf4 9.eS ~xe5 (Here 9 ...~xe5!? is
a suggestion of Zaitsev's, After lO.dxe5
~xe5 Black has four pawns for the piece and
an edge in development. This may well
mean a comfortable advantage!) 10.dxe5
~xe5 II..~b3 h6 12.0h3 g5 13.0-0
(13 ..bf4!? gxf4 14.tlJxf4, and White is
better, according to Zaitsev) 13...d6
(l3...tlJg6 14.• d3 d5 IS.ndl ~g4 and
Black had excellent compensation
Diani-Correa. corr, 1992) 14)uf2 Ae6
15.tbd2 'itd7 16.tUfe4 tUxe4 17.lf':xe4, and
now Black should improve upon 17... f5,!
120
(17 .. :~rc6 or I7 .. '<.Pg7are likely candidates)
I8.tDc5 ~xb3 19.'i.hb3+"'f7 20.llJxb7±.
Anderssen- Kieseritzky, London 185 I.
7 ...0-08.1:I.e1
The main move, but it is good to examine the
alternatives, too .
• 8.tDbd2 'tie7?! 9...Q.d3 tl:e8?! (9 ...b6)
JO.tL:.c4f6 I J.~e3 (now it clear that White
has sufficient compensation) ll...g6 12.lud5
(12.li:Jg4) 12...'i'd8 13.~e3 Ae7 14.l2:d2d6
15.f4 tt.:g7 16.f5 g5 17.h4!± gxh4 18."g4
Wh8 19.fhh4 'fid7 20.c.iH'2 S;i.d8 21.~hl
tL:.e822.IIh3 tba5 23.I!ah 1 nn 24.£.e2 IIg7
25 ..b5 .t>g8 26.~xe8 ,*xe8 27.,*xh7+ (in
style, but 27.~g3 was also sufficient)
27 .. .l:xh7 28.IIxh7 hf5 29.exf5 'iWf8
30.l:lh8+ \tIf7 31.1:1 h7+ _g7 32.~h6 _ xh7
33.l'hh7+ (missing 33 ..Ilf8 mate) 33 ...r.ttg8
34.ng7+ 'It>h8 3S.tL:.e4 1-0 Kennedy-
Pillsbury, Philadelphia 1895. This game was
played before Pillsbury's triumph at
Hastings!
There nrc improvements for Black, of
course. Thus, 8 ...b6 was seen in Johnson-
Montecatini, correspondence game 1996.
After 9 .~d3 tte8 IO.ne I elld4 I I .cxdc .if4
12.4:.ifl .i.xcJ l3.ttxcJ .i.b7 14.c5 White had
attacking chances for the pawn.
On the 10th move (so after 8.lZjbd2 b6 9 ..id3
Ile8 lO.ttel) Black. in my opinion. can play
1O...~b7!'? After Il.tUc4 exd4 there can fol-
low:
in

- 12.cxd4 ~b4!.
- 12.t;i)xd6 cxd6 13.cxd4 Q_jh4.
- 12.e5lbxe5 13.lLlfxe5 ~xeS 14.tt:::xe5 (or
14.a.xe5 d5 l5 ..!:xe8+ 't!fxe8 16.tba3 dxc3)
l4 ...d6, with an unclear position.
As an afterthought, 8...h6!? is also interest-
ing after 8.~bd2.
• 8.tDg5 ~e7, and now the sharp 9.f4 d6.
for example:
- IO.'fid3 h6 (better is 1O... exd4! II.cxd4
d5 12.exd5 (l2.~xd5 ~xd5 13.exd5 Jk.xg5
14.dxc6 iLf6+) 12...1Z1b4+) 11.tL:.t3 d5?!
12.fxe5 dxc4 13:~e2. Quintero Velez-
Valencia Obando, Medellin 2000.
- 10.'iJd2 exd4 II.cxd4 dS 12.exd5 h6'l
(correct is 12...tDxd5!. when l3.~xt7? lhf7
14:1Ii'h5 ~e6 15.f5 has been suggested. but
this loses outright to 15 ... t'c.:;f6) 13.t2:xt7
tlxf7 14.dxc6 'fWxd4+ 15.<;t:hl "",xal?
16.'iWb3. and White won in Seidman-
Mengarini, New York 1951 .
• Finally, 8.1i'e2 b6 (8 ...h6) 9.~d5 .l:te8
1O.~g5 ii.b7 II.lL:xe5 ..IixeS 12.dxe5 .l:txe5
13.f4 ne8 14.e5 'WIe7 15.~xc6 .Q.xc6
16.'iVc4 'ili'e6! 17:ilhe6 :txe6 was Law-
rence- Woschkar. IECG email 1998. The
draw is forced after 18.cxf6 :te2 19JH2
!tel+ zo.nn !te2.
8...h6
Black prepares to regroup with rl.e8 and
~f8. With 8 ...h6 he prevents both o!Dg5and
Evans Gambit: 'Stoneware' Defence
~g5. A possible drawback is that the light
squares on the kingside (f5, g6) are weak-
ened. Jobava attempts to demonstrate this
with his next move.
R 1.'if i~
~~~~ ~~
..1. ..
~
~~~
~ tD
~ ~~~
stDjl'iYa: ~
9.0h4
Consistent in a way. but the move is refuted
by Grischuk's energetic play.
In Yearbook 70 Genna Sosonko analysed
9.~d5 l2..ixd5 10.exd5 CiJe7 II.dxe5 ~c5
l2.d6 t'Ug6 (so far an analysis by
Mikhalchishin who gave (he verdict 'un-
clear', Sosonko continues his line with)
13.~c3 cxd6 14.cxd6 ~b6 to conclude that
BIl:Icki:;OK.
It is better to complete development first
with 9 •.!Dbd2. Let us examine this line in
some detail:
A) 9...a6 iO ..ib2 b5 II..~b3 !;le8 12.tL:h4
(only nowl) 12... l;-·a5 13.4';f5 t;';xh3 14.l:Ixh~
exd415.~xd6cxd616.cxd4d5 (or 16...~b7
l7.d5g'i!) l7.c5 tLili7 18.~a3;!; Grosar-
Vodopivec, Nova Gorica 1997.
B) 9 ... exd4 is extremely risky, but per-
haps worth investigating for Black: IO.e5
(after lO.cxd4 ~b4 Black is fine after both
Il.e5 d5 and Il.d5 ~c3) IO...dxc3 II.exd6
cxd212.'it'xd2cxd613.Wxd6~e814:ii·g3
dS 15..id3 (not 15.~xh6 dxc4 16.nxe8
"f6-+) 15...Wh8 l6.i.a3 rl.g8 17.h4 "f6
(17 ... t2Jf6) 18.:ab I (White has obvious
compensation. Pillsbury and consultants
121
Jeroen Bosch & Carlos Matamoros

now return a pawn) 18...~f5!? 19.i.xf5 (15 ...tL:xc3 was recommended by Harding,
"ti'xf5 20.l:txb7 Wg6 2l.Wf4 f6 2HWa4 but the game continuation looks stronger, for
rtc8 23.l%d7 *,fS 24.rtf7 'i'd3?~ 25M 16.i.c2! ct.:.b5 17.Wd3 is scary to say the
ttJeS 26.:xeS fxeS 27.li"xeS 'f'b I+ least. But perhaps it would be only a draw af-
28.<it>h2 tCf6? (better was 28 ...'tWb8) ter 17...~c5+ 18.Whl tDd4 19.'it'h?+ ~f8
29.~g6+ <;Ph?30.l:txf6!, and with this coup 20.'it'h8+ ~e7 21."'xg7 ~xc2) I6.'it'e4 tCf6
de grace the lust World Champion soon 17. 'liYf3 (hoping for a draw) 17...d5
won in the exhibition game Steinitz- (17 ttJd5) l8.l%f! ~g4?' (much better was
Pillsbury/Stone/Barry, Boston 1892. 18 .tc5+ 195~h I ttJg4. and with threats
C) 9...l:te8 like 'it'h4, tDh2 and "'b6 Black is on top)
19.tLJb3 c5 20.~c2 d4 21.h3 dxc3,! 22.hxg4
c4 23.~c4!+-, Markosian-Mukhaev, Mos-
cow 1995.
C32) I 0 exd4 II.cxd41l.fflI2.e5 (12.d5
tL_jb4or 12 0e5 13.lDxe5 l:xe5 14.~b2
J:te8) 12...t;2.d5 13.~c4 ti;b6 14.~b3 d6, and
White has no real compensation for the
pawn. The game Sermek-Mikhalchishin,
Bled 2002, went: IS.'tWc2 dxe5 16.tL.xe5
0xe5 17.dxe5 i.e6 18.~b2 tDd5 19.'iWe4
t;~b4 20.l%ad I 'i'c8 21.a3 .txb3 22.lbxb3
~c6 23.f4 'ilre6 24.'flc2 1fg4 25.f5 rtad8
26,l:txd8 ttxd8 2?c6 f628.lUJ 'iWa429.'C!fc3
This is Black's most sensible reply. There ~b5 30."g3 rLd3 31...wg6 l:txb3 32.~f7+
are several practical examples from this po- <J.>h70-1.
sition. Ithink Black should be fine. C4) IO.gd5 exd4! II ..hc6 (or 11.cxd4
C I) IO.i.b2 b6 II.a4 .ub8 12.h3 i:.b 7 t'i;xd5 12.exd5 tl:xel+ i3.'lWxc I lbe7
13 ..2.a2 sra 14.'ffb3 d5 15.exd5 [~a5 14.'l!He4 <.:6) II...dxc6 12.eS dltc3 IVi;c4
16."'c2 exd4 17Jhe8..-xeS 18.l:rel "d8 1l.e7 14.'fVxd8 l:txd8 15.exf6 ~xf6 16.~f4
19.t2Jxd4 tL2xd5~, Ellis-Tait, corr. 1999. ~e6 and according to Sosonko in Yearbook
C2) 10.~b3 .i.f8 (not 1O... tL_ja5II.~c2 70 Black's future is bright - 17.tbcxe5 is an-
exd4 12.eS. However, for IO... h5 see swered by 17... l:rd5.
Short-Sokolov below) 11.~xe5 tbxe5 After this theoretical overview we now re-
12.dxe5 :1xe5 J3.tlJf3 lIe7 (or 13... l:!e8 turn to Jobava-Grischuk.
14.eStLih715.ifd5We7 16.i.a3) 14.e5 tUe8 9 ...exd4 10.tLlf5
15.teh4 (Sveshnikov has timed this ma- Here lO.cxd4 is what you would expect
noeuvre well. An alternative was 15.e6!?) However, all the tactics work for Black after
15...d5 (in view of the threat of tef5. Black the intermediate iO ... i.b4! 11..ltd2 tL.xe4~
returns material) 16.i.xd5 ~e6 17.i.xb7 12.ttxe4 (12.~xb4 ttJxb4 13.1:[xe4 dS-+)
l:[d7 18.'ft'a4 1:[b8 19..i.e4± Sveshnikov- 12 d5,
Zheliandinov, Bled 2000. 10 ~c5 11.cxd4
C3) lO..td3 White's position looks rather menacing. An
C31) 1O... ~f8 I I.tCxe5 tLxe5 12.dxe5 impressive pawn centre, an outpost on f5
l%xe5 13.f4 l:te8 14.e5 ~d5 15.'iWf3 c6 and an attacking bishop onc4. Grischuk has

122

prepared a nice central thrust to counter all
this.
11...d5!
Clearly reminding White thai he has a hid-
den lead in development. Suddenly, White's
attacking pieces are hanging in the air.
12.exd5
Worse are 12.dxc5 dxc4 13.'fNxdR .l:!xd8
14.~h2 ~xf5 15.~xf6 (IS.exfS tLie4-+)
15...gxf6 16.exfS .l:!d3-+ and 12.~xd5
.bf5 (12...~b4) 13.dxt:S .be4.
12...~xf5 13.dxc5 tba5 14.~b3
Possibly 14..llbS or 14.~f1 arc better. but
White's position is not to be envied in these
cases either.
14...tL~xb315.'~¥Xb3'il'xd5
Black is nuw simply a pawn up, having kept
his lead in development. The rest is a matter
of technique, we could say (especially in a
Evans Gambit 'Stoneware' Defence
column on openings). However, please play
through the rest of the game. Grischuk's
technique may not be impeccable, but it cer-
tainly is razor-sharp,
16.tbc3 l:tfe8!
See what I mean? By gaining a tempo on
White's weak back rank, the f8-rook is
brought into play, threatening WcS. But not
l6 ...'t!i'xcS? 17.~a3, nor 16...'CWc617..tf4
'itxc5'? l8.1:teS.
17.&e3 'fi'c618.'iWb5
Illogical, though it is hard to give good ad-
vice here.
18 .. .'~txb5 19.1Dxb5 ttJd5 20 ..Q.d2
l:ted8!? 21.l%ac1 ~g6 22.a3 c6!?
Luring the knight to d6.
23.tLld6 b6!
To undermine its position straightaway.
24.-8c4 16 25.f3 ~d3 26.tbb2
26.t;\e3 4'f4.
26 ....Q.g6
The well-known Russian ploy of repeating
moves in a superior position.
27.ti",c4
Instead 27.cxb6 axb6 28.11xc6 l:ha3 was
possibly a better chance for White. Ex-
changing pawns is generally a good idea for
the defender.
27...~ac8?!
28.~ed1?!
Here 28.cxb6 axb6 (28 ...~xb6 29 ..h5 llb8
123
Jeroen Bosch & Carlos Matamoros

30Jle6) 29.0xb6! ltJxb6 )0.~a5 gives 1O.~xd4 .ixd4 11.1Dc3 tDf6 12.0bS!!.
White good defending chances, since Black There followed 12...dS 13.exdS ~xa I
cannot keep the knight. 14..aa3 tfe5 15.f4 .ad4+ 16.<lPhl 'iVe3
After 30 ...tJ.Jd5 White has 31..hd8 llxd8 l7.tbxd4! ~x.b3 18.11el+ <lPdS 19..ie7+
32.11xc6 !:laS 33.1%al. So Black should go '>!;>d720.c~xb3 with tremendous compensa-
for30 ...l:td3! 31 ..ixb6l:txa3. when he is still tion although the game ended in a draw,
a long way from victory. Short-Nielsen, Skanderborg 2003. We faced
28...J:td7 29.jLe3 l:lcd8 30.cxb6 axb6 ourselves with the unappealing task of im-
31.~f2 b5 proving Black's play. Luckily the Women's
Now the queenside majority gives Black a World Champion Stefanova came to our res-
winning advantage. cue some rounds later when in the premier
32.<8a5tiJf4 group at Drammen she won a brilliant game
Again playing for tactics. with 5 ... 1i.d6 which caught our attention.
33.l:lxd7l:txd7 34.Ua1 6.d4 ~f6
A sad necessity. The apparently offbeat 5 ....ad6 has a quite
34...l:td6 35.~e3 0.d3 36.a4? J:.e6 classical idea, namely. to hold the centre.
37.~d2 Ideally Black will unravel his pieces by
37.axb5 .c.xe3 (3? ..cxb5) 38.b6 l%e5 39.nb I means of ...h6 (to avoid ~g5) .... :e8 and
~c5. ...~,f8. If the circumstances are unfavour-
37...J:.e2 38.l:la2 ssr
39.J:.c2 b4 able the B plan will be ...exd4 followed by
40.wf1 :f2+ 4Ut~g1 b3 42.l:tb2 <8xb2 the retreat of the king's bishop. In this case
White resigned, as the b-pawn goes for Black gives up the centre but only when he is
touchdown after43.r.t>xf2lZld I+ 44.<.&e2b2. more developed. Black can also play ...b6
and ....ab7 but this seems to me reliable only
in some very particular situations,
o Nigel Short 7.0-0
• Ivan Sokolov After 7 .t;jg50·0 8.f4 although 8 ...exf~ might
Sarajevo 2004 well be playable as seen above. Paloma
came out with the following interesting idea:
Comments: Carlos Matamoros 8 ... exd4!? 9.e5
1.e4 e5 Vet3 ~c6 3.~c4 ~c5 4.b4
At the end of the last year I played at the
open section of the Drammen Festival in the
company of my pupil Wf'M and Spain fe-
male junior champion Paloma Gutierrez. In
her very first game she had to face the Evans
Gambit and although her loss was not due to
the opening we decided to do some theoreti-
cal work.
4....ixb4 5.c3 ~d6
We first concenrrated on the generally ac-
cepted S...~a5 until we saw that Short had
come up with the following shot: 6.d4 exd4
7.'ib3 'file? 8.0-0 ~b6 9.cxd4 lL,xd4 9 ....acS! (Black jettisons a piece as with

124
 Evans Gambit: 'Stoneware' Defence

8...exf4 but wants 10 lake advantage of pie variation: 17.1t' c5 ~a6 1!Uk I tlad8
White's uncastled king) IO.exf6 (this is of 19.~bd2 tld5-+) and now instead of
course critical, the alternatives shouldn't 14...h4 as mentioned on the notes of the
worry Black: 10.lt2xf7 (lO.~d3 d5 Il.exf6 Jobava-Grischuk game, Stefanova came
ne8+ l2.'it>f1 g6 13.~b3 ars 14.'f'dl h6 with another nice solution.
15.~f3 'f'xf6-+) 10...~xt7 Il.~xf7+~xf7
12.exf6 _e8+! (an important intermediate
g 1.if !~
move to avoid 1i'hS+, picking the bishop on
c5) 13.MI (after l3.'iWe2 'iWxe2+ 14.Q;>xe2 ... ... ......
~xf6+ Black has too many pawns for the t!::, ~
exchange, not to mention the bishop pair)
l3...~xf6!. I really like Black's position.
... 1. 1LJ
White's king is much more insecure than
Black's and ...b6 followed by ~a6+ ~'iYt!::,
(amongst other ideas) is coming) 10 d5.1f
t::. t!::,t!::,t!::,
Black is allowed (0 play ...lIe8+, and .. :G'xf6
(possible after ...h6) he will have three IIttJ W l::t
pawns for the piece plus attack. The follow-
ing variations are only sample lines of what 14...~f4! IS.~xf8 1t'e8+ 16.wfI .Q.xg5
may happen: l7.h4 ~h6 18.~c5 W'xc6 19.~d4 t6e4
- 1l.$.d3 tle8+ 12.'~f1 g6 followed by 20."d I .tb7 2l.tlh2 tld8 and due to the
13...ihf6 with good attacking chances. threats of ...b4 and ....if4 Black is already
- II...-h5 i.f5 12.fxg7 ~e8+ 13.~fl .1g6 winning, Lie-Stefanova, Drarnmen 2005.
l4.'f'f3dxc415.fS1!re7 16.g44\e5 J7.'i'dl It looks logical to develop the queen's
'irf6-+. bishop before playing tilbd2: 7.i.gS 0-0
- I I. 1i.e2 1t'xf6+ 12.0-0'1 d3+. 8.l;~bd2 (on 8.0-0 there follows 8 ...~e7f
- II.~b3 J:[c8+ 12...t;>f1 h6 13.<'L:f3 'lWxf6 9.tDbd2 - 9.dxe5 tDxe4 - 9...d6 and White
14.~xd5 dxc3+. would be tine weren't for the fact that he
misses a pawn on b2, Kantsler-Kosashvili,
The aforementioned game of Stefanova's Israel 2003) 8 ...exd4 (Black makes use of
continued 7.dxeS .Q.xeS! 8.CL:gS(8.~a3 was plan B) 9.cxd41Le7 10.e5 (the alternatives
played in Van der Wiel-Sokolov are no better: lO.d5 liJa5 11..~.d3 4\xd5';
Leeuwarden 2004. After R...d6 9.1i.b5 ~e7! 10.0-0 dS! II ..bf6! i.xf6 12..hdS
1(>.0-0 0-0 II.tL:xe5 1t'xe5 12.~d3 ::le8 ~xd4+) 1O...~h5! II..be7 (or II..1e3 d5)
13.f4 ~a5 14:~c2 b6! 15.~b2 ~a6 II...'fhe7 12.0-0 tlJf4 l3.g3 (IHlel dS
16.i.xa6 ~xa6 White was simply a pawn 14..Q.b3 .tfS+) 13...d5! 14ib3llJe6+.
down) 8...d5~ 9.exd5 ~a5 IO.'tWa4+ c6 7...0-08.J:[e1 h6 9.lLlbd2 !:le8 10.~b3
l l.dxco O-O~12.~a3 (12.c)(b7 i.xb7 13.0-0 This retreat of the bishop eyeing f7 and pre-
~xh2+ 14.Wxh2 W'c7+ I 5.'.ti)g I ~xc4+) paring 0.c4 is perhaps the most dangerous
12...~xc4 13.1I'xc4 b5! 14.... b3 (after move for Black. Against IO.~d3 I very
14.Wxb5J:[e815.()-O"'c716.~Da.')! Black much like 10... ~f8 (I0 ...exd4 as above is
has very good compensation for just one also interesting) II.dxe5 tDxe5 IVtJxeS
pawn. It's nOI easy to lind good places for tlxe5 13.tLJf3 (\ 3.f4 wac; mentioned above,
both White's queen and king's rook. A sam- out Paloma came out with 13...~c5+!

125
Jeroen Bosch & Carlos Matamoros
14.:t'h l11h5! IS.e5 - else ...d6 or ...d5 - and directed against ...d5 - 13. .. d5! - anyway-
now she uncorked 15...~e4!!-+)
13... 11e8 14.e5 4)d5 15.~h7+ (it doesn't
seem very logical to part with this important
bishop but the alternative 15.i.c2 doesn't
worry Black - after IS ...c6! 16.Wld3g6 fol-
lowed by ...d6 Black is absolutely fine)
15...<.f,>xh716."iWxd5Wgg 17.~f4(Whitehas
some pressure but Black is a pawn up, the
bishop pair and no immediate danger faces
him) 17...d6 18.exd6 .!:rxel+ (this looks
better than I g ... Qe6 from P.H.Niclsen-
Johannessen, Sweden u 2003/04, which en-
ded in a draw after 19.~xb7 ~xd6 20.~xd6
~xd6 2I.iVb4) 19.1hel cxd6 20.tL:d4
(20. l:td I 'Wf6 2Ui.xd6 ke622.~xh7
:d8-+) 20 ... 1!Yb6 and Black seems 10 me to
be a good pawn up (21 ..!:re8lIi'b 1+).
10...b5
Directed against 0.c4. IO ... b6 may nOI stand
up to scrutiny: 11.t!.lc4 .kb7 12.d5 t"Ljb8 38.l:tb1 ~xb3 39.lbb3 nbS 40.cj;>d4
13.li';xd6 cxd6 14.lLlh4!. With ideas of Ci:f5. ~g7
'itf3-g3. ~a3. Black. is in grave danger.
Plan B might well do the Irick lO...exd4!?
J I.cxd4 and now 11...~b4! 12.e5 (I2.d5
~c3 13.l%bI tLJe5) 12...tZ:h7 with the idea
of ...dS, for example 13.~d5 (lHWc2 -
14.exd6 .!:rxel+ 15.tLJxel "iWxd616..bf7+,?
~xf7 17."iWxh7 lDxd4-+) 13...i.xd2!
(l3...tL:e7? 14.i.xf7+) 14..ixd2 /:i:,e7
15_.ic4 dS. Now White can get his pawn
back but after 16.exd6 cxd6 17.~h3 d5!
18,.hd5 tDxd5 19..axe8+ lIt'xe8 2o.fixd5
tLJf6Black is better due to the coming block-
ade on d5, better bishop and better pawn
structure.
For IO... ~fR see the notes 10 Jobava-
Grischuk. White is on top.
11.a4 b4 1VDc4 bxc3 13.dxe5 £ixe5
14.tUfxeS tUxeS 1S.tlJxe5 l:[xe5 16.Af4
Ue717.e5 tiie818.~d3
White has very good compensation for the
invested pawn. Although Sokolov manages
to get rid off the pressure by giving back the
pawn I think Black would do better to im-
prove his play before, maybe with IO ... cxd4.
18_..d519J!rxc3
Interesting is 19..2.c2!?
19...~f5 20.J:[ad1 l:[d7 21.a5 c6!
Now the knight gets back to work via c7 to
e6. The passed pawn and counterplay
against White's a-pawn balances White's
pair of bishops.
22.ihc6 zea 23.fka4 CiJc7 24.jLe3
~e6 25.a6 ees 26.~xcS J:[xc5
27.l:td4 J:[a5 28.'fl'c6 ~b6 29.'i'xb6
axb6 30.f4 l:[xa6 31Jlxd5 J:[xd5
32.Q.xd5 b5 33Jtc1 J:[b6 34_~f2 b4
35.~b3 95 36.fxg5 hxg5 37.We3 ke6
41.94 Wf8 42.Wc4 l:txe5
43.r:txb4 ne2 44.h3 ne4+ 45.~cS lIe3
46.9.Jd4J:[xh3
After all the Evans Gambit is just a pawn up
for Black.
47.~e4 ~g7 1f2-'h
 CHAPTER 16
Adrian Mikhalchishin
A Sozin Opening Surprise

Hitting the bishop with 6 ...ttJa5!?

1.e4 c5 2.~f3 ~c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.~~xd4 I I .b3 0-0 I2,ci:;ce2'!! (this allows the liberat-
~,f6 5.t/';c3 d6 6..~,c4 tl;a5!? ing 12...t15. Simply 12.it.h2 was better)
This variation was introduced into modern 12...d5 13.exd5 <1:xd5 14.c4 4'M 15.'l\fc3
practice by grandmasters Rashkovsky and ti:ac6 Black equalises. Ciganikova-Grabics,
Ubilava, It is an interesting idea, radically Nadllie 1995.
changing the direction of the play in this 8...e6
variation. White has the following It is risky to play R... ac8 9.~.g5 ~Jl.b5
conti nuations: 1O.~xb5+ f:'::d7 11.ti.;d5 (here 11.0·0-0 a6
12.'t!fe2 <2c4 U.t[jb3 is stronger) II .. J:tc4!
A) 7..~.b5+ 12.1Ld2 (12.0·0-0) 12..Jlxd4 13...!ha5
B) 7.~.d3 b6 14.Qd :xc4+ 15...t>d2 e6, and Black
C) 7.:1t..e2 achieved an excellent game. Gross-
Chernyshov, Czech Republic 2000/0 I.
Variation A However, there is the natural continuation
7.~b5+ xd7 8.1jWe2 8...a6 to consider. After 9.~.xd7+ the lines
After 8..Q.xtl7+.xu7 9.0-0 c6 10.'lWd31Lc7 fork:

127
Adrian Mikhalchishin

I SJ:lhdl b5 16.e5 tbc4! l7.exd6 'C!t'xd6!with

very sharp play. Rodin-Chemyshov, Voro-
nezh 2000.
13...lL:xb3+
It is a pity. but, considering the weakness of
d6, Black has no choice but to take on b3.
14.axb3 ltc8 15...-d2 rtc6 16.rthe1
0-0 17 •.CI.e3 .CI.d8
After 17 ... 'i'g5 18.g3 liJf6 19.:l.d3 'i'xd2+
20.: I xd2 J:[d8 21 .e5 White clearly has the
advantage in the ending. W.Arencibia-
Hernandez. Oropesa del Mar 1996.
• 9 ...'1!t'xd7?! 1O.~g5 e6 11.0-0-0 ~c7 18.f4 b5 19:>t>bl tLlc520.fr'd4l1cc8
12..bf6 gxf6 13.(4 tbc6 14.f5 and White
has only a slight advantage. Anand-Leko,
Munich blitz 1994 .
• 9...~xd7 10.0-0 g6 Il.kg5 h6 12.kh4
tbc6 13.tLixc6 bxcf 14.'.t>hl 'ifb6 15..CI.abl
§;..g7 with equality. Sluka-Chernyshov, Ry-
maTOV 1993.
Ifno improvement is found in our main line
below. then Black may weI! prefer to play
8...a6 instead of 8...e6.
9..tg5 YJ..e710.0-0-0 a6
Forcing White to release the tension
(l1..id3 is odd of course). In practice all 21.f5!
bishops were exchanged now. And White has the advantage, Hracek-
11.~xd7+ lbxd712 ..txe7 ~xe7 Chernyshov, Czech Republic 2000/01.

Variation B
7.Ad3
This was played by the great Bobby Fischer
in 1964, in the first game known to the data-
base featuring 6 ...tt~a5.
7 ...g6
NOI illogically Black opts for a Dragon
set-up. There Black often embarks upon the
manoeuvre ~c6-a5-c4. The first tempo has
already been gained!
Also quite possible is 7 ... e5 8.fLb5+ Ad7
9 ..bd7+ ""xd7 IO.liJb3 (or IO.tZ:dc2 h6
13.~b3 II.~d3 rLe8 12.0-0 'ii'c6 13.b3 a6 14.a4
In this critical position the other possible JJ..e7 15..ad2! with advantage to White,
continuation is 13.f4 0-0 14.lld3 .ctac8 E.Ghinda-Lendvai. Budapest 1991) IO...li\c4

128
 A Sozin Opening Surprise

II.~gS!,! (a sharp pawn sacrifice) White to stop the advance of the a-pawn with
II...~xb2 12.,*f3 'it'g4 13.,hf6 'it'xf3 12.a4. when he can use the b4-square for his
14.gxf3 gxf6 15.lf'id5 .c:.c8 with a sharp knight.
game. Fischer-Allen, Santa Barbara simul 12.84.te613.~cl llJb4
1964.
However after 7...c6 8.0-0 ~e7 9.f4 a6
1O.<;t>hl 'f!Ic711.tL:f3e5 12 .... e l l White is a
little better, Petrienko-Korpics. Dresden
2000.

14.f5?!
Here 14.<;t>hl followed by 15 .... e2 would
have been better.
14...kd71S.~g5l::!.c816.Wh1 ~h8!
A remarkable manoeuvre - see Black's 19th
8.0-0 move.
There are several alternatives at this stage. In 17.tL:.le2 tLg4! 18,~el gxfS 19.exf5
the event of S.b3 ~c6 9kxc6 bxc6 I0.~b2 l::!.g8
~g7 11.0-0 0-0 12.lL:a4 c5 13.c4 cuh5
14.cLic3 ti:f4 15.t'Lie2 WaS! Black has no
problems. Murko-G, Kuzrnin, Alushta 2002.
Possible is 8.~e3 ~g7 9.fl 0d7 IO.f4
0-0 11.0f3 lLic5 12.0-0 0xd3 13.cxd3
~d7 14.'CWd2 e6 I S.\t;'h I Ci:c6 16.g4 f5!
with a double-edged game. Martin
Gonzalez-Ubilava, Candas! 992.
Sharper is 8,~g5 JJ.g7 9.'f!Id2 0-0 10.0-0-0
tL:c6 Il.tDf3 ~g4 12M hS 13.~h6 .l'!c8
14.~xg7 <j;xg7 15.l:dgl! 'i'a5 16.:bbl
Soloviov-Chernyshov, Pardubice 2001, and
here Black should have played 16...tt0b4.
8...~g7 9.tt:Jb30-0 1O.~d2 t?-,c6 With an excellent game for Black. Fedorov-
The healthy Dragon-position of Black's Chernyshov, Srnolensk 2000.
pieces makes up for the apparent loss of
tempo. Variation C
11.'4 as! 7.~e2e6
Characteristic of the Dragon. Black forces Ubi lava played cunningly against Sofia

129
Adrian Mikhalchishin

Polgar: 7...36 R.f4 e5 9.~f3 'ilih6 1().t2:;d5
~xd5 Il.exd5 ~g4! 12.fxc5 .ixf3! 13.~xf3
dxcf 14.e3 .id6 and achieved an excellent
game.
The move 7...g6 has no point - 8.~g5 fLg7
9.~d2 tDc6 IO.tDb3 0-0 11.0-0 ~e6
J 2JZad 1 and White is powerfully central-
ised, Zimmcrsman-Gyorkos, Balatonbereny
1991.
12.~el 1:.1'>813.a4 0.d7 14.h3 1'>615..ta3
J:te8 16.11dI kb7 17.0.de2 with a slight ad-
vantage to White. Yilmaz-Leko, Budapest
1992.
In the recent game Rocha-Bauer, Nancy
2005. Black played 10...ti'!d7 l1..liLe3 a6
I HIVe I 1Lh4! 13.'1!r'd2 'fIIe7 14.fS tbe5
IS.~g5 ~xgS 16.W'xg5 to.

E .t.tf~.t •
~~ ~~~
~~~

8.0-0 11.4."::.f5
dtxf5 12.exf5 );le8
Played in Scheveningen style. It ix also pos- White now started to bum all his bridges
sible to launch an immediate attack: !i.g4 a6 with
9.g5 ~d7 IOJ:tgl bS II.a3 ~b7 12.b3!'! 13.g4 exf4 14.g5 ~d7 15.f6!? gxf6
'iWb6 13.'Ilid2 ne8 14.£i.b2 g6 15.0-0-0 es: 16.gxf6 9.xf6 17.$.J(f4 ~xc3! 18.bxc3
16.b4! with an unclear game. Hernandez- tL~je5!
Damaso, Novi Sad 01 1990.
Yet another possibility is 8.ggS a6 9.l\Yd3
SLc7 1O.f4 'iWc7 11.0-0')1 (the more aggres-
sive 11.0-0-0 is clearly better) 11...£d7
12.'.t>hl .:L:c6 I3J:adl 0-0 14.~g3 0xd4
15.lhd4 ~c6 16.fS ~h8 17.e5! dxeS
18.11h4 with a very complicated game.
Kupreichik-Rashkovsky, Kuibyshev 19R6.
8 ..•.Q.e1
In the game Dimitrov-Leko, St. lngbcrt
1990. Black gained equality after 8...a6 9.a4
~e7 10.f4 'fIIe7 II.~h I 0-0 12.~d3 .td7
13.'i'g3 :LacS 14.~d3 tLc6 15.il.e3 tbb4!.
9.14 0-0 10_~h1 e5! with a highly double-edged game in
More passive is 1O... a6 II.£i.f3 '*I'd Donccvic- Ubilava, Pamplona 1991.
 CHAPTER 17
Mikhail Gurevich
English or Sicilian Reversed

~ .t~~.t I
iiii iii
~ ~

The 'modest' 4.a3!?

1.c4 e5 2.4:c3 l/it6 3.-1"f3ti:2c6 4.a3!?
This variation in the Classical Four Knights
Variation of the English Opening has been
around for a hundred years or so. However,
the ideas behind this line have considerably
changed and developed in lime - as in any
other opening. Thinking back of the year
19881 vividly remember the game Chernin-
Vaganian (see our first game below) which
attracted Illy attention 10 the 4.a3 variation.
It was this game thai made me want to learn
and understand the ideas behind the move
4.a3. Alexander Chernin, is a great friend of
mine. and we both (Chemin first and I fol-
lowed) started to play this variation on a reg-
ular basis. Something. I've actually kept up
until today. Many of the world's leading
players were among my opponents as I kept
testing this 'modest' 4.<13 move and - let's
forget about modesty for a moment - I was
satisfied with the results.
Before we proceed with the moves, Jet's dis-
cuss [he ideas behind this 'strange' continua-
tion. White plays a move with his rook's
pawn rather than continuing to develop his
pieces with more useful pawn moves like
4.g3, 4.d4, 4.dJ, or 4.e3. After all, these mo-
ves would open up some diagonals for the
bishops. What. [hen. is the idea behind 4.a3'!
It isn't exactly a clussical approach, but let's
not use the word 'classical anymore when
discussing the Engli!-.h Opening.

131
Mikhail Gurevich
First of all. 4.a3 is a prophylactic against
Black's bishop coming to b4. as in the 4.g3
~b4 variation. Remember, this is generally
seen as Black's best option. So, it's especial-
ly advisable for rapid and blitz chess where
there is always a chance the opponent will
play 4 ....i.b4 ...
OK let's not kid ourselves, back to serious
business. The move 4.a3! has a great psy-
chological advantage, it might surprise - in-
deed even shock - our opponent(s). Just
consider for a moment the situation. Put
yourself in your opponent's shoes. He
thought he was playing an English Opening
with Black, where he properly learned all
these lines after4.g3 ~b4. And, suddenly, he
finds himself playing a Sicilian with White a
tempo down - a tempo which we wisely
spent on the typical Sicilian move a6 (in our
case 4.(3).
White can afford to 'lose a tempo' in the ope-
ning to hide his real intentions. Indeed, 4.a3
is a flexible continuation, which leaves us
many opportunities, White will start buil-
ding his pawn structure depending upon
Black's next move. Studying the games of
the best players who employ this powerful
opening weapon you will see that there art:
different interpretations. Every player
adopts the plan (and chooses the pawn
structure) that suits his taste.
So, tosummarizemy argument in a different
way. In order to understand the move 4.a3, I
can give only one recipe: learn to play Chess,
and once you understand Chess, you under-
stand how to play 4.a3. Or. alternatively.just
go and play it. enjoy it and love it. And, if one
day you feet mat you understood it, give me
a call. J will pay for the lessons ...
We will examine a selection of games star-
ting with the answer that is most populur in
practice: 4 ...d5. The final three games are
devoted respectively to 4...e4. 4...d6 and
4...g6.
132
o Rafael Vaganian
• Alexander Chemin
Naberezhnye Chelni 1988
1.c4 e5 2.tDc3 tDf6 3.tDf3 tlJc6 4_a3!?
d5
The most principled reaction, and the main
line. Black occupies the centre, following
the rules of classical chess. Although
Chemin was not a l.e4 player, faced by a
surprise continuation, he follows the general
rules. Only to find himself in an unfamiliar
position a few moves later.
5.cxd5 tLixd5 6.ftc2
An excellent (Sici I ian!) move. Other contin-
uations can be considered:
I will largely leave the alternative 6.e4 to the
blind followers of the Sicilian Sveshnikov,
- After 6 ... CL;f4 7.d3 ~g4 8.~e3 ~.xf3
9.'ifxf3 tL:d4 IO.-etd I c6 Il.g3 tbfe6 12.~h3
iLe7 13.0-0 0-0 14.f4 exf4 15.gxf4 f5
16.~e2 ~c5, Ibragimov-Galliamova, St Pe-
tersburg 1998, Black had a comfortable
game. A Sveshnikov player would seriously
consider 7.d4 though.
- Rechlis-Manor; Tel Aviv 1994. went
6...tN6 7.~b5 .td6 8.d4 exd4 9.~xd4 0-0
IO.1Lxc6 bxcri, when after the blunder
II.e5'1. White had to suffer in order to survi-
ve: 11...i.xe5 12.~xdH 1Lxc3+ 13.bxc3
J:[xd8 and so on.
 English or Sicilian Reversed

Naturally, one can play in Scheveningen

style with: 6.d3 1Le7 7.e3 .te6 8.~e2 0-0
9.0·0 a5 I0.'itc2 ~b6 II.b3 f5 12..tb2 .tf6
13.~d2 1Wd7 14.hlfdl !:lad8 15.~abl ttf7
I 6...ia I i.e7 17.llJb5 liJd5 18.ci;c4 .1f6
I 9.~f3, Kharlov-Stefanova, Ubeda 1999,
with a complicated, typically Sicilian, posi-
tion.
Also playable is 6.e3.
6 ...<iJxc3
Possibly not the best reaction. This ex-
change allows White lO improve his central
pawns structure. We will subsequently dis- 20.g4!± It::a5 21.'ilVa4! lDc6! But not
CliSS some alternatives. 21. ..b6? 22.gxf5. 22.~d2! ~e6 While
7.bxc3 £d6 8.g3!t calculated: 22 .. .fxg4 23.11xt7 Wxt7
Both the exclamation mark and the evalua- 24.1Wc4+! (not 24J!f1+? <J.o>g825.'1It'c4+
tion are Vaganian's. They reflect his under- ~c6!) 24 ...'i!Ye6 25.~xe5 ~xe2 26.'iiffS+
standing of the position at the time. I don't ~g8 27 .l:e I+-. 23.J:laf1 ~g6 24.g5! In-
want to be too critical. After all. we learned a accurate is 24.11g2?~ 'ti'd5!. 24 ... l:le6 Re-
lot from his games. turning to the centre as 24 ...h6?! fails to
Still, Black didn't do anything criminal, and 25.'iifc41 intending 26.~t7 or 26.1:f5.
hardly suffers from any weaknesses. So, in 25.e4 g6 Or 25 .. .f4?~ 26..bf4 'iWxc3
my opinion, the evaluation that White is 27.~d2+-. 26 .... b3 ~a5 27.iWc2!
slightly better can only be justified by 27.'f¥d5? 'ffxd5 28.exd5 fle8. 27 ... c4?! A
Vaganian 's optimism and the outcome of the decisive mistake in Zeitnot. Rafael now con-
game. verts his initiative into a winning endgame.
8...'iVe7 9.d3 0-0 10.~g2 ~d7! 11.0-0 After the stronger 27 ..kc6!? White plays
t2:;a5 12.lbd2! 28.~a21 planning 29 ..if4. 28.exfS gxfS
Stronger than the active l2.Ci:g5 f5!? 29.d4! 't!¥e4 30.lWxe4 lbe4 31.l:lxf5
13.1i.d5+!? (please don't win a pawn with l:tg4+ 32.Wh1 l:txf5 33.lhf5 tile6 No
13 ..hb7'!! lL::xb7 14.Wb3+ wh8 15.'if.!lxh7 better is 33...tLib3 34.~f4. 34.l::tcS l:le4
ho when Black is slightly better) 13...WhS 35.l:lxc4 <M7 36.~c5 ~g6 37.Wg1
14.'lfa2 .te8~ with unclear play. l:le2 38.~f4 c,';e7 39.M1 l:lb2 40.Wel
The game is equal after 12.d4e41 13.!Z:;g5f5 tUf5 41.d5 tDh4 42.wdl <1'\g243.j(d2
14.0 h6. Interesting is 12.e4!? c5 13.t;jh4 '.M5 44.d6+ Black resigned because of
go, though chances are still even. 44 ...~e6 4S.J:d5 <.t>d74fl.:td4.
12... c513.tDe4 '5!?
After 13 ... ~c7?!, Whitc has 14.c4 (t.
~c3·d5, ~b2) l4...1tk6 15.e3±. o Mikhail Gurevich
14.tZJxd6 'i'xd6 15,f4! • Anatoly Karpov
White has U pair of his hops and is opening up Cap d'Agde 2000
the game in the centre.
15.. J:tae8 16.fxe5 "'xeS 17.l:tf2 Qc6 This was an 'active' chess game. I present it
18.~xc6 tbxc619.'W'b3+ !:lf7 because of the interesting strategical fight.

133
Mikhail Gurevich

1.c4 ~f6 z.eea e5 3.lt:;f3 4Jc6 4.a3 d5 Underlining my own weaknesses on the
S.cxd5 tDxdS 6.1Wc2 tDxc3 7.bxc3 queenside,
~d6 18.ti\h4 ~e8 19JWd1!
In Chemin-Friedman, New York 1997, This is a multifunctional move. The queen
White was clearly better after 7 ...ge7 B.g3 eyes the kingside. and liberates the second
0-09.~g2 J:[b8 IO.O-Oho11.d4.id612.i.b2 rank for the ~al-a2-f2 manoeuvre, which
1Ilte7 13.e3 b6 14.c4:le8 15.J:fcl e416.tlJd2 would increase the pressure on the kingside,
f5 1H~;b3 tt'~d8 18.c5 bxc5 19.dxc5 ~e5 19...c5!
20.~xe5 ii'xe5 21.tDd4 c6 zz.sn ..Q.d7 A counter-action in the centre - a classical
23.'t!t'a4. reaction.
8.g3 0-0 9.~g2 h6 10.0-0 l1b8 11.d4 20.dxe5 fxeS 21.f5 1116!
It was time to take the centre, was my feel- This is Karpov's high class play, he prepares
ing. After all, for how long could I play to occupy the d-file with counterplay in the
against the great Champion with my pawns centre.
on d2 and e2. Note that Karpov's strategy 22.g4 ~e7 23."e2 lld6 24.lLlf3 ~d8
would have been successful in case of II.d3 25.a4
b6 12.a4 il.b7. While this isn't my side of the board, the
11..... e712.e4 ~d713.~e3 b6 temptation to get rid of a weakness (and 10
The a3-pawn was untouchable: 13.....ixa3 activate the a l-rook) was too strong.
14.dH\d8(14 ...~ia5 15.~a2) 15.tf!xe5. My 25...a6 26.axb5 ~xb5
pieces are developed, it is time to choose a An active approach, although it leaves Black
plan. with numerous pawn weaknesses.
14.4~d2! 27.~f2l:td3 28.h4
The sign for a decisive attack. More cautious

.t
J:
.t..t'if.t.t
:1* was 28.'iWe I.
28..J:txc329.g5

.t~..t
~~
.t
.t E 'if
1.. •
.t
.t
~ ~ .it ~ .t~~
'iVt2J ~i,.~ ~ ~
1:[ l:[W ttJ
'tW~
Planning 15.f4 with an initiative in the cen-
tre and on the kingside.
~ l:[w
14...~a515.f4 f6 A critical position in the game - Ioften give
Black had to support his central pawn. hut it to my pupils to solve. A great example to
the weakness of the pawn structure on the test your chess understanding.
kingxide is now obvious. Naturally, I start 29 ...hxg5?
the hunt for the opponent's monarch. The wrong answer, Karpov cracks under the
16.tL:.f3tlJc4 17.gcl b5 psychological pressure of White's attack.

After the opening up of the h-file Black's
king is indefensible. Instead. Anatoly had to
play 29 ..J;[b6!, activating thc last 'sleeping'
piece and taking the sixth rank under con-
trol. In that case it would have been very dif-
ficult to continue the attack. After 30.f6
(30.Wh I 'lifdJ 31. ~g3 'tWxe4) 30 ...gxf6
31 .gxh6 Wh8 the position is unclear.
30.hxg5 .!:lxc1 Karpov was hoping 10
neutralize my attack by this exchange sac-
rifice, but after: 31 ..!:laxc1 ~xg5
3Vt)xgS \!Vxg5 33 . .!:lc3! the attack con-
tinues, with a material edge for White.
33 ...W'd2 34.lfWg3 ~d4+ 35.<;!o:h1..Q.e8
The best chance to complicate things was
35 ...eld2. 36_f6 g6 37J~d3 'lWb2
38J:rd7! Q17 39.'t!th3 With two unavoid-
able threats - 40.'ffh6 and 40.l:txt7 - Kar-
pov resigned.
o Alexander Chemin
• Zsusza Polgar
Brno 1993
1.c4 eS VLlC3 q.,f6 3.tI':f3 ti',c6 4.a3 d5
5.cxd5 ti2xd5 6:t!fc2 ssa
Black wisely keeps the tension. continuing
to develop her pieces.
7.e3
One of most critical position ofthe variation.
7...a6?!
Zsofa 'blinked' first. This passive move pre-
vents the threat of 8..tbS. but allows Alex to
demonstrate the hidden dynamic resources
of the position.
The best response is 7 ...0-0, proceeding as
quickly as possible with the development of
the pieces. Let us consider two moves in this
position: 8j~b5 and 8.lt~xd5.
After 8,~b5 Black should reply with
8 ...~g4!? This is an important position for
the evaluation of the variation. Below you
will find some relevant examples. I would
English or Sicilian Reversed
especially suggest the reader to study the in-
tricacies of 9..ihc6.
- 9.iLc2r? ~h8 1O.tL;gS ~xg5 II..ixg4!.
White has the advantage of the two bishops,
as in Matamoros Franco-Korneev, Seville
20(H. In a couple of moves Korneev com-
mits suicide: 11...f5 12.~xf5 tbd4 13.exd4
exd4 14.Ci;xd5 ..wxd5 15.~e4 d3 16.~xd5
llae8+ 17.~f1 uxc2 18.d3 ars 19.1:a2 Ad4
20.f3 ~e3 21..ctal+-.
- 9.'i:Yd3. A creative approach of Kortch-
noi's, although it didn't bring White any par-
ticular advantage: 9 ..P~xc3 IO.1!Vxd8lf'.xd8
Il.bxc3 e4 12.0e5 ~e6 I3.Ae2 f5 14.d4
exd3 15.t2Jxd3 tL:c6 16.~b I ~5 17.t2Jf4
..ia2 18.11b2.if7 19..dbS tL:b3 20.0-0 tL;c5.
Kortchnoi-Rublevsky, Rethymnon 2003,
Black has a comfortable game.
- 9 ..Q.xc6 ~xf3. This is modern, a com-
puter's approach to deal with the problems.
An eye for an eye: 1O.j.xb7 (lO.gxf3 bxcti
II.b3 lUxe3 12.dxc3 .<15 13st>e2 e4
14.'i.he4 (14.fxe4 'i.fh5+ with an initiative)
14... ihb3 15..cthl ~a2+ 16.~h2 "xa3
17.~xc6 .Q.f6 UU:tb7 ii'a5 19.~b2 .ctad8
20.l:tal 11rf5. Beim-Rublevsky, Frankfurt
2000, and White has constant problems with
his king) IO....txg2 (a natural reply. but not
the best one it seems to me. Both 1O... ti;xe3
and IO...4:-,b4 deserve auention) 11.~xd5
Axd5 12.~xa8 ~xa8 13.1:81 li.D 14.d3 f5
15.e4 ~h8 16.~e3 fxe4 17.dxe4 .Q.d6
135
Mikhail Gurevich

J8.11g3 a5 19.1:c I 'ti'h4 20.h3 h6 21.~d3 Better than the alternatives 8.~e2 and 8.b4
.ah5 22.~d2 l:ld8 23. -..c4 and White was 4'lxc3! 9.dxc3=.
better in Harikrishna-Dao Thien Hai, Cal- 8...'ilYxd5 9.~d3!
cutta 2000. This stops Black from castling, and creates
Having discussed 8.~b5, we will now inves- the unpleasant threat of 1O..i.e4, II..ixc6,
tigate 8.t;\xdS. After 8...'i.t'xd5 White may and 12.tijxe5. Weaker was 9 ..i.c4 ~d6 with
consider 9 ..ltd3 g6 1O.b4. Practice has seen equality.
instead 9 ..ic4 'fid6 lO.b4 and now: 9 ....Q.d7 A blunder is 9...~g4? IO.~e4
'ifd6 II..axc6+ bxc6 12.0xe5+-. 10.b4
~.t g~ ~e6 Slightly unnatural, but the immediate
1O....id6?? is met by 11..t.c4+-. 11.~b2
111 .tlll ~d6 Or 11...f5 12.0-0 e4 l3.~c4 'llfg6
~'i¥ 14.tL;e5±. 12.tLig5! While's initiative de·
1 velops naturally after this move. Less ac-
curate was 12.0·0 ~6!=. 12...tfg4?!
White is also better after 12...1fh6 13.h4±.
Best was 12 'i!Ye7 13.lf';e4;t. 13.h4!
~xg2 Here 13 h6 is met by 14.0e4 (af-
ter 14.i..t:2 Black has 14...'*l'xg2 (not
14 ...... f5 15.ti\e4 f::,. l6.g4±) 15.~f3
- I0 ...~f6 I !.1:b I Ci:;e7 12.d3 ~f5 I3.h3 'tIYxhI + 16.~xh 1 hxg5 with compensation
nad8 14.e4 ~e6 IS ..txeti 'iiVxe6 16.0-0 IId7 for the queen) 14...'tIYxg2 15.0-0-0 with ex-
IHtdl t:fd8 18.~c3 a6 19.a4 h6 20.'~Wb3 cellent compensation. 14.0-0·0 tfg4
(20.b5!? was interesting pressurizing the 15.l:tdgl 'i!'Vh516.~c4! Even better than
queenside) Black is OK in the endgame. 16.tL:xh7 0-0-0 l7Jhg7 ~xb4 I R.ti'J6
20 ...'fixb3 2 Ulxb3 t2:g6 22.<.t>f1 Y2'Y2 ~h6 19.11xf7 i.e6 20.~f5±. 16... 0-0 This
Pikct-Ivanchuk, Wijk aan Zce 2001. is the only move as 16...tL:d8 is answered
- 1O...a6!? II.xb2 i.e6 (an accurate way of by 17.f4+-.
neutralizing the activity of White's bishops)
IZ.O-O!? ~f6 (planning 12...e4) 13..id3!? h6
14.~h7+ ~h8 15.i.e4 .2.dS 16.~c3!,! (in-
tending ~abl. a4. b5) 16.. .l:Ue81 17..~.)(d5
(this allows Black to equalize the game. Play
is also equal after 17.a4 tDd4! 18.exd4 ~xe4
19.''ilixe4 e,.;d4 20.~xb7 llab8 21.'i!fa7 dxc3
22.dxc3 §ixc3 23.:lacl i.b2 24.11xc7 llxb4
25.11b7. But 17.l:lab II? continuing an active
plan on the queenside was correct. then
17...ti'id4 is answered by 18..ixd4! exd4
19..bd5 1txd5 20.'ihc7;i;) l7...fixd5 IS.d3
J:!.ad8 19JUdi Etd7 20.04 (or 20.a4 b5 21.c4 17.f41! White had an aesthetic manoeuvre
'fie6=) 20 .....We6 with equal cbances in available to finish Black off: 17..ae2! .h6
Gurevich-Khalifman, Wijk aan Zee 2002. 18._~d3! f50 19.~c4+ (l9."c4+ '\th8
8.tUxd5! 20.tL:t7+? Etxt7 21.'fixt7 ~e6-+)

136

19...<.t>h8 20.liJn+ l:hf7 21..ixf7 with a
decisive edge. 17•..'J;~h818.Qd5 The im-
mediate 18.<1·:xf7+? fails to 18 ..JXxf7
19.:g5"'0 20.JIfi 'fi'h3. Possible was
18.~e2 "fi'h6 19..1d3. The text sets a trap.
18...l:tae8? Correct was 18... W 19. .Q.f3
'i'h6 20 ..te4 exf4 21.<1\xh7 fxe3!!. Now
the combination from the previous note is
playable. 19.tOxf7+! l:txf7 20.l:tg5 The
game is over. 20...l:lf5 Or 20 ....if5
21.~xf7 .hc2 22.~xh5. 21J~xh5 lbh5
22.~f7 I:I.h6 23.~xe8 ~xe8 24.~f5
l:lf6 25.1!fc8 .tUB26.l:I.g1 ~f7 27:~xb7
And Black resigned. A great creative
achievement of Alex Chemin.
o Mikhail Gurevich
• Juan Gomez Esteban
Linares zt 1995
1.c4 e5 2.li'c3 ~f6 3.C.wf3~c6 4.a3 d5
5.cxd5 ~xd5 6.... c2 tDb6!?
Another way to deal with the tension be-
tween these knights. although Black's
knight withdraws from the action zone.
7.e3 ..ad6 8...ad3!?
An important mano:uvre. It forces Black to
play:
8...h6
Which takes the square from Black's major
pieces in the future, and therefore helps to
protect White's king.
English or Sicilian Reversed
9.b40-0
Intending .. .f5 and ...e4. Losing is 9 ...ihb4?
lO.axb4 tL;xb4 II.~b5+ c6 12.'f6'e4+-.
White keeps an opening advantage after
9 ..,a6 IO.~e2 (IO.~b2 ~xb4 11..~.e4 ~d6
12..bc6+ bxco 13.iOe4~) 10...0-0 Il.d3
~e6 12.0-0 ~e7 13.~b2.
10..ie2 f5 11.d3 '*16 12.~b2 £d7!?
13.0-0 'itg614.b5!?
White is abo slightly better after 14.0b5! '!
~ae8 (14 ...ti:xb415.axb4.L.b5 16.lLlxe5t)
15.tbxd6 cxd6 16.!!.ac I.
14.•.tDe7 15.~a4
To gain control over the e5 square. Instead
15.d4 exd4 (l5 ...e4 16.lt~e5t) 16.~xd4 is
well-met by 16.. .f4! 17.'ifxg6 tLlxg6.
15...f4!?
A blunder is 15...~.xb5? 16.'l!fb3+.
16.t1'iXb6axb6
No good is the intermediate 16....ih3. White
wins after 17.Cbh4 'Wg5 18.tL.xa8 0
(I8 .."txg2 19.1l'oxg2 n 20.~xn+-)
19.~xf3 JIxf3 20 ..:"";xc7.
17.';t)h1
Black gains the initiative after 17.c1.'.xe5?!
.he5 18..he5 f3 (18 ... ~3 19.~f3 fxe3
20.fx.e3±) 19.~.d3 ~xf3 20.'iWxc7 ~f5!
(20 ... ~h3 21..itg3 ~d5 22.'Wxb7±) 21.d4
'lWe622.1!hb7 l:I.af8.
17...fxe3 18.4'ixeS!
Much better than 18.fxe3 tLId5!? intending
19.~d2 iLxb5 20.tDxe5 tig5 when Black
holds the intiative.
18.•..Q.xe519..Q.xe5lL;d5
White is better after 19...:xf2 20.!!.xf2 exf2
21.'i.hc7 'i.Vf522.~d41. planning moves like
23.~g3 and 23.!!.fl.
20.~c4 ~e6
White's game is slightly preferable after
20 ... ~e6 21.tt'e4 "fi'xe4 22.dx.e4 tUf4
23 ..w.xf41hf424.t1.
2U4! c6 22.• e4!1
White chances are on the kingside, worse
is 22.a4 cxb5 23.axb5 ::lxa 1 24Jha I tL'xf4
137
Mikhail Gurevich

25.~xf4 tf'xc4 26.dxc4 llxf4. 22 ... ~f7!? 8.b4

Or 22...cxb5 23.f5 'iJ¥f7 (23 ...rlxf5 24Jhf5
~xf5 25.'ihd5++-) 24.f6! with nice at-
tacking chances. 23."'3!? Aiming to
play 24.1tg3, again eying Black's king.
23 •.•~g6 Again Black gets into trouble
on the kingside if he takes on b5: 23 ... cxb'i
24.1Wg3~c6 25.~h5 ~e7 26 ...Q.g6.24.g4!
1tae8 25.'i!t'g3 After 25.d4 Black was pre-
pared 10 sacrifice the exchange with
25 ...rlxe5 26.dxe5 lIxf4. 25...cxb5
26.Wg1 ~c6 27.f5g? ~f7 28.1tae1?!
Equally inaccurate are 2S.£d6?! ti:;c3 and
28.d4·n tii<:3 29.""xe3 <12xe2+ 30."IWxe2
't!rd5 31.'ilVa2cx:.Best was 28.~h2! (intend-
ing to attack on the kingside with h4 and
g5) 28...lDf6 29M 'ifd5 30.~h2 and White
is better. 28 ..:~e7! 29.~d6? Another
mistake. Since 29.~b2 is mel hy 29...b4,
White should play 29.~al! when
29 ...'I!ha3? is a blunder after 30.g5! (but
nOI 30.h4 It)c3+ intending 31.g5
fNxa I !-+) 30...hxg5 31..ixg7! (31.'Wxg5
11#'c7+) 31..5.txg7 32.'fhg5+ ~h8
(32...'i;f7 33.~h5 mate) 33.'f'h6+ ~g8
34.l\Yg6+ Wh8 3SJ:~f3 tDf4 36.'@'h6+ ~g8
37.Ug3+ Wf7 3lUlg7 mate. 29 ... ~f6
30.~xf8 'fi'xf8 Black has enough for the
exchange. 31.f61? t)'.xf6 32.g5 hxg5
33.~xg5 li'c5 34.1tf5 '¥Ye3 35.1tef1
~e6 36.~g6 ~d2?? This blunder de-
cides the game. Correct was 36 ....~.e8
37.,*"g5 and now a repetition after
37...~c6 38.1!fg6. or 37...0h7 38.'Wd8°o.
37.1tg5+- ~e7 37...~f8 38.'iWxg7+ ..t>e8
39Jhf6. 38.iixf6 1-0
o Mikhail Gurevich
• Florian Handke
Amsterdam 2002
1.c4 t;'1f6 z.oea e5 3.tDf3 tDc6 4.a3 d5
5.exd5 tiJxd5 6:.-c2 ~e6 7.e3 .~d6
8.ti.\e4 is the alternative.
8...0-0 9.~b2 'i'e7!?
Black may also consider 9...s6 and 9...tbxc3.
10.~b5
Perhaps it is better to puuhe pawn on b5. Af-
ter IO.b5!? 01:a5 (IO ...0b8 11.'!cxd5 .txd5
12.e4 .Q.e613.tDxe5~) Il.d4 ~xc3 12.dxe5!
~xb5 13.exd6 tLixd6 I4.'i!fc3 ~f6 15.~xf6
gxf6 l6 ...ixf6 White has a slight advantage.
10...tL:b6!?
Also good was 10... a5!? 11.~.xc6 (11.LDxd5
~xd5 12.e4 tZid4'+) 11...bxc6 12.bxa5 f5.
11.0-0 a5 12.hc6 bxc6 13.tiJe4f5
14.q,g3!?
Stronger than 14.ll~c5 £<1..,}.
14.•.~d7
It makes sense to transfer the knight to the
queenside with 14...0c4!? 15..ic3 e4
16.tLid4tLJe5 17.hxa5 t;';g4.
15.d4 e4 16.ltJe5 .ixe5 17.dxe5 axb4
18.axb4 "+Wxb419.ttJh5!?
With dear intentions along the main diago-
nal.
19...~e6 Or 19...~c4 20.'iWbl 'ilVd3
21.'ilrcloo. 20.'i'xc6 ssr 21.~c3 'i'c4
22.~xc4 'L:xC4 Simpler was 22...i.xc4
23 .l:fc I =. 23.ttJxg7 <;f;lxg7 24.e6+ 'it;g6
25.exf7 :lxal White is slightly better in
the ending after 25 ...~xf7 26.1:ae 1 11a4
27.l:Ifdl ~e6 28.l:Ibl. 26J%xa1 Wxf7

138
 English or Sicilian Reversed

27.na6 lilb6!? Planning 27..J:ta8. This important new concept allows White to
28.l:ta7 t1.Jd529.~d4 nb8 30.h4 :tb1+ take the centre and to develop his pieces in
31.~h2 :tel 32.na6 c5 33.:c6 c4 the most natural way.
34.:td6 liJe7 This is correct. Afler the ac- Previously White used to play 7.'i'ixd3 tbe5
live 34...lj~b4 White keeps a slight edge 8.'ffc2:
with 35J:tf6+ <l:Je736.l:txf5 ~d3 37.11h5 c3 - 8 ...h6'?! 9.tL;ge4 ~xe4 lO.lijd5! 'i'd6
38.lhh7+ Wd6 39.l:1h8 c2 40J:tc8 ~xf2 I\.~xe4c612.~e3(no( 12.f4cxd5l3.cxd5
41.~b2 lle I. 35.~c5 c3? Bul this is a f6 14.fxe5 "xe5 15.'~!t'xe5+ fxe5=)
mistake. 3S ...liJg6 36.h5 l[}e5 37.~d4 ~.·!d3 l2 ..:~e6 13.g3 d6 14.£g2 g6 (perhaps
38.ll.d7+ ~6 39Jbh7 q'xf2 40.Wg3 tLd3 14... ~e7!?) 15.f4 f5 (15...~g4? 16.tUxg4
4l.h6 c3 42.J:tc7 c2 4Ht?h2 ~f2 with 'il'xe4 IV2:;[6++-) 16.'tWd4(ilf7 J7.~d2
equality. 36.rld7 e2 37J:lxe7+ ~f6 !1g8 18.0-0 xg7 19 .... d3 ~d7 (19 ...~xb2
38.~a3 Play is only equal after 38.:c7 20.J:tabJ ~f6 21.~c2 ~f8 2VDd4~)
l:1hl+ 39.'~xhl cl~+ 40.Wh2 '1t>g6 20.J:rabl sre 21.tL:c2..tn8 22.c4 White was
41.~d6. 38 •.•rta1 39.11xh7 rlxa3 better in Chernin-Mikhalevski, Beer Sheva
40J:th6+ We5 41.J:l:c6 rla2 42.h5 c1'i1k 1993.
White also wins after 42 ...<t>d5 43.:c8 - lLc6 9.e4 h6 IO.thf3! tLxf3+ Il.gxt1 g6
!:ta8 44.ll.xc2 l:th8 45.'~g3 llxh5 4fi.wf4. 12.~e}. Nogueiras- Vilela, Matanzas Capa-
43.nxc1 l:1xf2 44.h6 Wf6 45.~g3 rle2 blanca Memorial 1993.
46.rlh1 1:txe3+ 47.Wf4 1-0 - 8 ...d6 9.e3 g6 1O.:a,e2 1i.g7 II.h3 0-0
12..ad2 h6 13.ti":tl ~f5 14:"b3 ~d3+
15.~xd3 ~xd3 16.0e2 'ife4 17.l:cL C~d7
I!Ltb4 as 19.t;·~g3 "c6 20.1I""d3 axb4
o A1exander BeJiavsky 21.axb4 ~xb2 22J:tc2 J:[a3 23.'i'id2 lbe5
• Maxim ThI"Ov 24.0-0 ~xf3 25.l:1xb2 'ii'c6 26.11c2 nfa8 and
Copenhagen 2002 Black was better in Kortchnoi-Ivanchuk,
Roquebrune rapid 1992.
1.c4 e5 2.<iJc3liJf6 3.tbf3 ttlc6 4.a3 e4 7 ...h6 8.4':f3 d5
This is the most aggressive way to deal with VelY aggressive. Black cannot take on e4.
4.a3. The present game was responsible for - 8 ...tuxe4 9.tL!dS 'iWc5 (9...'CWd8 10.~xd3
putting the line out of fashion it seems, Ci:c5 II..lLc2 (11.0-0) 11... ~c7 12.0-0 0-0
5.4·'g5 Wie7 6.d3 exd3 7.e4! 13.114 with the initiative) 10.'iWxd31 ~xf2+
(IO .. :i1Va5+ 11.b4 .'.txb4+ IVDXb4 oi.!x.b4
13.'I!he4+ ~d8 14.~d2 J:re8 15:~he8+
rJixc8 16..Q.xb4±; IO... 0xf2 II.'ffe2+l
II.Wd I (2;c5 12.'CIYb I ! and wins because of
two unavoidable threats: 13.~e3 and
t3.tL:.xc7+.
- 8...g6 9.:it.xd3 d6 IOk'.d5 "'d8 11.0-0
1:Lg7 12.h3 0-0 13.~e3 l:e8 14.... c2 ti~e5
15.t2~xe5 dxe5 16.0.xf6+ 'i'xf6 17.c5 c6
IlUlfd I White is slightly better. Schlosser-
Schenk. Austria 2004.
9.cxd5 tLJxe4 10.j(e3 li:xe3 11.bxc3

139
Mikhail Gurevich
ttJe5 12.~xd3 lDg4
White is also better after 12...tDxd3+
l3.1ltxd3 'W'd8 14.0-0Ae7 l5.c4e5 16.~f4
0-0 17.lDd2 b618.l:tael.id6 19..bd6 'irxd6
20.~e3 ~d7 21.tLle4 ilVg6 22.l:rg3 'i"f5
23.'W'e3 ~h7 24.1ltc3 f6 2S.J:te3 .aae8
26.~fe I, Delchev-Papa, Zurich 2002.
13.0-0 tDxe3 14.fxe3 j(d7 Black does
not survive after 14...'fhe3+ 15.'it'hl ~e7
(l5 ...'ilkcS 16.tDe5) 16.~b5+. 15.e4 ~c5+
16.'lPhl 0-0-0 17.'ft'b3 .l:le8 18.a4 With
a decisive attack. 18...a5 19.e5 g5
20,~b5 gxb5 21.axb5 b6 Or 21...g4
22.0.d4 J:rxe5 23Jha5±. 22..l:la4 ~b7
23..l:lc4 ~a3 24.ifc2 With multiple
threats like 25.'We4 and 2S.d6. Black re-
signed. An important theoretical game, no-
table for Beliavsky's power-play.
o Mikhail Gurevich
• Anato)y Karpov
HiI\lersum 1993
1.c4 e5 ViJc3 tDf6 3.ttJf3 (!jc6 4.a3 d6
This continuation, as well as 4 ...g6, often
leads to transpositions to the theoretical
lines 4.g3 g6, or 4.g3 d6. That is unless
White plays:
5.e3
or 5.d4. Here is the main difference in ap-
proach to the 4.a3 variation between
Kortchnoi and me. I prefer to play flexible
structures here, like 5.e3 or 5.d3, since they
promise a long and complicated rnanoeuv-
ri ng game. Kortchnoi uses every opportunity
to open the centre with 5.d4 - in both the
4 ...d6 and the 4 ...g6Iines. In my opinion. it's
just a mutter of taste. Although J don't like
White's pawn structure on the queenside in
case of 5.d4, it leads to interesting dynamic
play in the early stage of the game. It would
be interesting to know Kortchnui's opinion
140
about the subject. However. having known
him for many years, I wouldn't expect to
hear any compliment!'> with respect to my
ideas ...
In the following two games unclear posi-
tions arose after 5.d4 exd4 6. tOxd4 g6 7.Ag5
~g7 8.e3 0-0 9.~e2 h6 10.~h4 and now:
- IO... tLJxd4 II.exd4 ~f5 12.0-0 (;6 13.g4
i.c6 14.f4 d5 15.f5 ~c8 J6.cxd5 cxdf
17.~hl i.d718.~f3..ac619."c2gS20.i.g3
:XcS 21.'ilig2 ~e8. Knrtchnoi-Bacrot, Cannes
19':16.
- 10...!le8 II. tL;xc6 bxc6 12.0-0 a5 13.i.f3
~d7 14.Uhl lite8 15. .aet l:b8 16.b4 axb4
17.axb4 tLig4 HCWb3 ttJeS 19.~e2 ~f5
20.e4 i.e6 21.f4 ~d7 22.1ltc2 'ilka6 23.~f2
i.xe4 24.:al .txe2 25J:txa6 ~xa6 26.b5
i.b7 27.bxe6 ~xc6 28.0.d1 iLa829.'tltxc7
tL:f6. Kortchnoi-Sokolov, Rethymnon 2003.
5..·966.d3
In a later game against Karpov I played 6.g3
.i.g77 .~g2 0-0 8.d3 ~d7 9.()-() 'ii'c8 1O..ab I
i..h3 l1.b4 i.xg2 IHPxg2 .ae8 13."c2
(l3.e4!?) 13...~d8 14.~b2tDe6IS.J:tbdl e6
16.h3hS J7.tLle40xe418.dxc4'i!i'c719Jtd3
as 20.J:rfd I axb4 21.axb4 .aed8 22.!l3d2 and
White was slightly better, Gurevich-Karpov,
Cap d' Agde 2000.
6...~g7 7.~e2 0·0 8.0-0 ]:le8 9.... c2
~f5
Anatoly would like to provoke me into
 English or Sicilian Reversed

playing I O.e4 in order to meet it by IO...~g4, 26,,,94 27.tije1 1Lf8 28.ti';xd7 'iYxd7
when Black would eontrol the d4-square 29.'4! exf4 30.~xt4 l:l.ea831.g3 l:ta2
with comfortable play. Perhaps just 31 .. JlaS!'!.
10.lLid21? a6!? 32.i.dl!
Not the blunder 1O...d5? l l.cxdf tl:,xd5 A blunder is 32.Qlg2? .Ihb2 :tt"'xb2
12.tDxd5 'i'xdS 13.e4 c1~d414.'ii'dJ+-. ':a2-+.
11.l:tbl 32 ...1j/gd833.lLJg2 Il8a5
Preparing b4 rather than falling for J 1.b4?! Stronger was 33 ...tDg5! 34 ..i.x.g5 'i'xg5
e4! l2.dxe4'tjxe4 i3.tL:dxe4 ~xe4. 3S.tL.f4 ~2aS=F.
11...hS12.b4 34.l:txa2 l:txa2 35 .• b1 'O'aS
Starting active play on the queenside. Again the alternative was 35 ...0g5.
12...tbh7 13.tL,d5!? 36.~b3 ~xb3 31.1i'xb3 tDf6
Intending a4 and b5. The immediate 13.a4 is Again aiming to attaek the c5·pawn with
answered by l3 ...a5!'? 38...~d7.
13....te6 14.a4li\b81 3S.Itfll?
Intending c6, d5. This is a clever way to deal White leaves his c5-weakness in favour of a
with the threat ofb4-b5-b6. The alternatives hunt for Black's king.
were: 38 ...l:~a3 39. tt'b8 "'xeS 4O.1Lh6 {Lid7
- 14...i..xd5 15.cxd5 'lie7 16.'iVh3 en 4Uj'e8 .e7 42.'iYc8 l:txd3 43.tbh4!
l7.uxc6 bxe6 18.ti\c4!? planning 19.~a5. With compensation.
and
- 14...a5 IS.bS ~xdS 16.cxd5 C~b4 l7.'t/Vc4
~f6 l8.~f3;t aiming to play I9.~a3.
15.b5 axb5 16.axb5 c6 17.bxc6 bxc6
18.tDb6?!
Equal is 18.0e3 dS 19'ci:f3. But more inter-
esting was l8.tDb4!?
18...l:ta7
Not J8 .. J:!.a6 J9.cS dS 20.e4! f; 2J.d4.
19.e5 d5 20.e4?!
This is the cause of my future problems with
the e5·pawn. Belter was 20.itb2!? with
ideas of 21.lbf3 or 2 J .f4 and While has the
better perspectives. 43...We6 44.~xf8 ~xf8 45.1!fd8! cS A
20 .. :~e7! perpetual results from 45 ...'it'xe4 46.'i'g5+
Emphasizing the weakness of c5. Worse is tt:g6 47 .... d8+. The same goes for 45 .. Jre3
20 ...d4?! 21.l£idc4tOO7 22.~d6.:::tf8 23.f4±. 40.1:1f5' l:rxe4 47.1:[g5+ <J;>h7 48.rtxh5+
21.rd3 l:taS 22.~a4 tiJd1 23.-'i..d2 1:a7 :;.tJgS, but not 4!L.Wg7? 49.11Jf5+ ~g8
24.l:tfcl d4 25J:tb2 5o.ffxf8+ 'Itoxf8 5U!h8 mate. 46A~f5 But
Intending C~b6.Black is slightly better after not 46.IlfS? rtdl+ 475bg2 'iWxe4+-+.
the immediate 25'cilb6 l:a2 26.J:lb2 l:txb2 46...l:tf3 47.l:txf3 47.Ci::,e7+ 'Itog7 48.o!'cf5+
27."xb2 ;b8. lhf5? 49.1:[xf5 t2!g6 50:"d5;t Karpov.
25...g5!126.tiib6 47...gxf3 48.0e1+ Wg7 49.ttJf5+ ~g8
Or 26.~b4 g4 27.t~d2 ~h6 28.l:eb I h4. Losing is 49 ...~g6 50.h4! "'f6 (50 .....!he4

141
Mikhail Gurevich

51.'i!i'g5+ Wh7 52.1Wg7 mate; 50 ...tL:h7 16...tDf6?!

51.~gll+ ~f6 52.'~!rg7 mate) 51.'lWxf8. Correct was 16... lbc8! (planning 17...c6)
50.0.e7+ ~g7 51.~f5+ 1h-Y2 17.b5 as 18.f4 b6 with unlcear play. Black
An interesting manoeuvring game which intends 19... t"i.e7 and 20 ...tLJf6.
led to dynamic equality at the end. 17.lL:xf6+ :Lxf6 18.b~ 1:[H8Or 18...a5
19.tbd5 ~xd5 20.cxd5±. 19.bxa6 bxa6
o Mikhail Gurevich 20.~c2 Planning to exchange all rooks
• Attila Groszpeter with 2U'Lxb8 and 22.~bl. Black's a-pawn
Pardubice 2000 (5) is weak. 20...Q:\c6!? 21Jbb8 .l:t.xb8
22.l:rb1 r~b4 23."*'d1 a5 White is
1.c4 e5 2.lbe3 lDf6 3.lDf3 lUe6 4.a3 g6 slightly better after 23 ...cS 24.a5 !?
5,93 .Rg7 6.~g2 0-0 7.d3 d6 8.0-0 h6 24.~d5!? ~xd5 Not 24 ... c5'1
9.b4 a6 1O.m,1 ~e6 11.~d2 ~d7 25.~xh6+-. 25.cxd5 Wh7 Aiming to ex·
12.lZ:d5! <i:.e813.lbe4!? change the dark-squared bishops with
26 ...h5 and 27 ....2.h6. 26.e4!±

Intending 14.~x.b6 or 14.lLiec3. Worse was

13.(14, as in Bcim-Gurevich, Bad Godesbcrg Suddenly 27.~h3 hangs in the air with
2000. The gam~ Chuchelov- Winants, good attacking chances on the kingsidc,
Brussels 1997. saw 13..I1el .th3 14.~hl Black therefore gives a pawn pinning his
~:;d4 IS.e3 tL:.e6 16.~b2 Itd8 17.a4 c6 hopes on the bishops of opposite colour.
18.fi;b6 '¥Vc7 19.a5 f5. 26 ..J1f8 27.~xb4 axb4 28Jbb4 14
13...f5 14.li\ec3 Itb8!? 29.a5 !'!a8 30.1$'a4 ~c8 31.'i'b5 h5
Black wants to play 15...b5. 32.l:tb1 White prepares the put the rook
15.a4 ~e7!? behind the passed pawn with 33.J:Ia I. Of
15...a5 is best met by 16.bxa5 (rather than course not the immediate 32Jta4? l:rbll-+.
16M ([jdS 11 17...b6) 16...tt:xa5 17.~a3. 32 ...fxg3 33.hxg3 ~a6?! 34.~xa6
planning 18.c5 with good play on the l:txa6 35.l:ta1 ~h6 36.1:[a2 The ending
queenside. wins for White. 36 ...g5 37.~f1 %ta7
16.~d21? 38...Q.e2g4 39.a6 ~g6 40..Qd1 ~g5
Preparing 17.b5, since after 16.b5?! a5 41.~a4 Black resigned since there is no
17.tLixc7+ 'i!i'xe7 18..i::d5 tfd7 19..ili.d2 good answer to (he manoeuvre .fi.a4-c6-b7.
Black has 19...b6. as 4l...lha6 fails to 42.~e8+.

142
 CHAPTER 18
Who is Who
Soon after his naturalization Mikhail
Gurevich jokingly remarked that he had
even started '10 play like a Belgian' (no 01~
fence intended). Innumerable tournament
wins later we know better of course, It is
ages ago that Mikhail wrote a theoretical ar-
ticle, so should we be surprised that he wrote
two chapters for this SOS volume?
In between working for his un iversity exams
and winning the Championship of his coun-
try twenty-year old Czech top grandmaster
David Navara graciously consented to
write an SOS. As there is no easy advantage
for White against the Petroff anyway, you
might as well play 4.e.c4!'1.
Top GM Alexander Beliavsky - the for-
mer trainer of Karpov and Kasparov - needs
no introduction of course. In this SOS Vol-
ume 'Big AI' presents his favourite weapon
against the Volga Gambit.
Bucharest-based former Moldavian grand-
master Dorian Rogozenko has estab-
lished quite a reputation for himself as a
serious author. As a former student of the fa-
mous Moldavian trainer Chebanenko who
could be better qualified to write on 5.h3 as
the ideal weapon versus the Chenanenkn
Slav?
The young Canadian grandmaster Mark
Bluvshtein is the strongest player in the
world to regularly employ 3.j:d3 against the
French Defence. With his natural adversity
to theory he explains the ins and outs of his
pet system.
How natural is iuo develop your knight to c6
in the French Defence not allowing yourself
the lever c7-cS? Dutch grandmaster Karel
van der Weide explains ihe main ideas of
the expert!' Rozentalis, Keitlinghaus and
Thesing.
Ian Rogers has quite a reputation for play-
ing all sorts of dodgy lines. Fact is that the
man from Down Under plays the Caro- Kan n
more often than. say. the Scandinavian.
Check out a bold central thrust versus the
popular Fantasy Variation.
In a thorough theoretical overview Oleg
Chernikov demonstrates that Black is OK
in the Rauzer with 6 ...g6. With some 45
years of tournament experience in this line
the grandmaster from Nizhny Novgorod is
its main protagonist.
Former Ukrainian. now Siovenian. OM
Adrian Mikhalchishin takes a critical
SOS look at the Sozin, Why not just attack
that bishop with 6...li'a5?
Carlos Matamoros, grandmaster from
Ecuador, makes good use of his experience
as a trainer in our chapter on Pillsbury's old
weapon against the Evans Gambit.
When reviewing SOS Volume 2 in Yearbook
73, SOS-aulhor Glenn Flear argued that
there was no conflict of interest whatsoever.
It is clearly in our SOS interest to keep him
writing on surprising opening lines. So, here
is Glenn's survey on a QGA sideline - why
not just protect the gambit pawn?
Creativity is Oleg Romanishin's hall-
mark. The Ukrainian grandmaster advocates
to radically change the course of play in the
Kan Variation by means of 6...eS!?
143
 The 50S
Competition
PLAY THE BEST SOS GAME, SEND IT TO US
AND WIN € 250,- (OR 275 US DOLLARS)

• submitted games should start with on SOS from this Volume

• 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 November 15th 2005

• New In Chess contributors are excluded from participation

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

Prize:
€ 250 (or 275 US Dollars) and the winning game will
appear in Volume 4 of Secrets of Opening Surprises

Games should be submitted to:

New In Chess, P.O. Box 1093,1810 KB Alkmaar
The Netherlands or email toeditors@newinchess.com
 C 21,95
Le due Torri
www.chess.it
TeJ.551.522.433