Technical Editor: IM Sergey Soloviov

Translation by: GM Evgeny Ermenkov

The publishers would like to thank Phil Adams for advice regarding
the English translation.

Cover design by: Kalojan Nachev

Copyright© Nikita Vitiugov 2012

Printed in Bulgaria by "Chess Stars" Ltd. - Sofia

ISBN13 : 978 954 8782 86-9
 Nikita Vitiugov

The French Defence

RELOADED

Chess Stars
Bibliography
French Defence: 3.tt:lc3 �b4 by Lev Psakhis, Batsford 2003
French Defence: 3.tt:ld2 by Lev Psakhis, Batsford 2003
Advance and other anti-french variations by L.Psakhis, Batsford 2003
French Defence: Steinitz, Classical by Lev Psakhis, Batsford 2004
Win against the French Defence by E.Sveshnikov, Moscow 2005
Opening for White Ace. to Anand (vol. VI-VII) by Khalifman, Chess Stars 2006
The Flexible French by Viktor Moskalenko, New in chess 2008

Repertoire books:

Opening for White Ace. to Kramnik l.ll:'lf3 by A. Khalifman

Volume 1a: Old Indian, rare lines in the Classical Variation, 2006
Volume 1b: The Classical Variation, 2006
Volume 2: Anti-Nim-Ind, Anti-Queen's Indian, English, 2008
Volume 3: English (l...c5), English (four knights), 2011
Volume 4: Maroczy, Modern, Trifunovic, 2011
Opening for White According to Anand l.e4 by A. Khalifman
Volume 8: The Sicilian, Paulsen-Kan and rare lines, 2006
Volume 9: The Sicilian, Paulsen-Taimanov and other lines, 2007
Volume 10: The Sicilian, Sveshnikov, 2007
Volume 11; The Sicilian, Dragon, 2009
Volume 12: The Sicilian, Rauzer Attack, 2009
Volume 13: The Sicilian, English Attack, 2010

Opening for Black According to Karpov by Khalifman

Current theory and practice series:

The Sharpest Sicilian by Kiril Georgiev and At. Kolev, 2007
The Safest Sicilian by Delchev and Semkov, 2nd rev.ed. 2008
The Queen's Gambit Accepted by Sakaev and Semkov, 3rd. rev. ed., 2008
The Easiest Sicilian by Kolev and Nedev, 2008
The Petrosian System Against the QID by Beliavsky and Mikhalchishin, 2008
Kill K.I.D. by Semko Semkov, 2009
The King's Indian. A Complete Black Repertoire by Victor Bologan, 2009
The Scotch Game for White by Vladimir Barsky, 2009
The Modern Philidor Defence by Vladimir Barsky, 2010
The Moscow & Anti-Moscow Variations by Alexey Dreev, 2010
Squeezing the Gambits by Kiril Georgiev, 2010
A Universal Weapon l.d4 d6 by Vladimir Barsky, 2010
The Meran & Anti-Meran Variations by Alexey Dreev, 2011
The Safest Grunfeld by Alexander Delchev and Evgenij Agrest, 2011
Fighting the French: a New Concept by Denis Yevseev, 2011
The Modern Reti. An Anti-Slav Repertoire by Alexander Delchev, 2012

More details at www . chess-stars.com

4
Contents

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Part 1. White avoids the main lines

l.e4 e6
1 2 .b3; 2.f4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1
2 2.tt:lf3 d5 3.tt:lc3 ; 3.e5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3
3 2 .d4 d5 3 .id3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8
4 2 .d4 d5 3.exd5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0

Part 2 . The Chigorin Variation & The King's Indian Attack

l.e4 e6 2 .'&e2 ; 2 .d3

5 2 .'&e2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 6
6 2 .d3 d5 3.tt:ld2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 9
7 2 .d3 d5 3.'&e2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Part 3. The Advance Variation

l.e4 e6 2 . d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 '&b6 5.tt:lf3 l2Jc6

8 6 .ie2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
. . . . . . .

9 6.id3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
10 6.a3 l2Jh6 7.b4 cxd4 8 . .b:h6 ; 8.cxd4 l2Jf5 9 .ie3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
11 6.a3 l2Jh6 7.b4 cxd4 8.cxd4 l2Jf5 9.ib2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
12 6.a3 id7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Part 4. The Rubinstein Variation

l.e4 e6 2 .d4 d5 3.l2Jd2 dxe4 4.l2Jxe4 tt:ld7

13 5.g3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
14 5.l2Jf3 l2Jgf6 6.ig5 h6 7.l2Jxf6 l2Jxf6 8.id2 ; 8 . .b:f6 ; 8 .ie3 . . . . . . . 8 0
15 5.tt:lf3 l2Jgf6 6.ig5 h6 7.l2Jxf6 l2Jxf6 8 .ih4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
16 5 .l2Jf3 l2Jgf6 6.l2Jxf6 l2Jxf6 7.g3 ; 7.id3 ; 7.ie 2 ; 7.ie3 . . . . . . 9 9
17 5.l2Jf3 l2Jgf6 6 .l2Jxf6 l2Jxf6 7.c3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 0
18 5.l2Jf3 l2Jgf6 6.id3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 9

Part 5 . The Morozevich Variation

l.e4 e6 2 .d4 d5 3.l2Jd2 ie7
19 4.c3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 4
20 4.e5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 7

5
21 4.tt:lgf3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

22 4.i.d3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 4

Part 6. The Tarrasch Variation with 3 . . . c5

l.e4 e6 2 . d4 d5 3.tt:ld2 c5

23 4.c3; 4.exd5 \Wxd5 5.dxc5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 74

24 4.tt:lgf3 cxd4 5.tt:lxd4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 0
25 4.tt:lgf3 cxd4 5.exd5 \Wxd5 6.i.c4 \Wd6 7.i.b3 ; 7.\We2 . . . . . . . 1 8 8
26 4.tt:lgf3 cxd4 5.exd5 \Wxd5 6 .i.c4 \Wd6 7.0-0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 9 4

Part 7 . The Winawer Variation

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.tt:lc3 i.b4

27 Various without 4.e5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0 7

28 4.e5 b6; 4 . . . c5 5.\Wg4; 5.dxc5 ; 5.i.d2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 9
29 4.e5 c5 5.a3 hc3 + 6.bxc3 tt:le7 7.i.d3 ; 7.h4 ; 7.a4; 7.tt:lf3 . . . . . 2 2 8
30 4.e5 c5 5.a3 hc3+ 6.bxc3 tt:le7 7.\Wg4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
31 4.e5 c5 5.a3 hc3+ 6.bxc3 tt:lc6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254

Part 8. The MacCutcheon Variation

l.e4 e6 2 .d4 d5 3.tt:lc3 tt:lf6 4.i.g5 i.b4

32 5 .i.d3 ; 5 .tt:lge2 ; 5.exd5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269

33 5.e5 h6 6.exf6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 73
34 5.e5 h6 6.i.c1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 79
35 5.e5 h6 6 .i.e3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 85
36 5.e5 h6 6.i.d2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293

Part 9. The Steinitz Variation

l.e4 e6 2 .d4 d5 3.tt:lc3 tt:lf6

37 4.i.d3 ; 4.e5 tt:lfd7 5.tt:lce 2 ; 5.tt:lf3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 0 1

38 4.e5 tt:lfd7 5.f4 c5 6.tt:lf3 tt:lc6 7.i.e3 \Wb6 ; 7 ... a6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1 4
39 4.e5 tt:lfd7 5.f4 c5 6.tt:lf3 tt:lc6 7.i.e3 cd 8 .tt:lxd4 i.c5
9 .\Wd2 0-0 1 0.g3 ; 10. 0-0-0 a6 wjo ll.tt:lb3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2 8
40 4.e5 tt:lfd7 5.f4 c5 6.tt:lf3 tt:lc6 7.i.e3 cd 8.tt:lxd4 i.c5
9 .\Wd2 0-0 10.0-0-0 a6 11.tt:lb3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4 5

Afterword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354
Index ofVariations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355

6
PREFACE TO THE NEW EDITION

I received, quite unexpectedly, many comments and opinions follow­

ing the publication of my first book on the French Defence. These were
quite varied, both in form and content. There were renowned experts,
who pointed out that some of the variations were not analyzed to per­
fection. Some meticulous readers looked for, and found ( ! ) , possibili­
ties for both sides, which I had omitted in several important, and even
not so important, lines. There were people who criticized my rather
ambitious concept, according to which I tried to present the opening
the way I saw it, instead of just following the branches of the database.
However, there were also some appreciative comments.

It took me some time to think about everything I had written, done,

read and heard . . . In the meantime I realised the objective defects of my
work. Chess develops so rapidly that writing a book devoted to open­
ing theory which will be valid for a long period of time is "mission im­
possible" nowadays. What was fashionable a year ago quickly becomes
outdated, while some dead and forgotten variations rise from the ash­
es. Nevertheless, I believe that the foundations which I laid eighteen
months ago can be enriched with new variations and ideas, while the
essence remains the same.

You are now holding in your hands a new book, in which the author
ventured to revaluate certain lines and enrich them with a new supply
of fresh, contemporary information.

I should like to express my sincere acknowledgement to GM Vasily

Yemelin for his invaluable collaboration in the process of writing of
this book.

Nikita Vitiugov
Saint-Petersburg, January 2012

7
PREFACE

Black can enter the French defence, as a separate opening, on move

one. I believe that players will find the French to be a comfortable and
reliable defence against l.e4, even if it happens to be the only one they
choose. Admittedly, it is a fact that chess is becoming more popular
and universal, and so you need to have a variety of weapons in your
opening armoury. Nevertheless, if you judiciously switch your varia­
tions within the French defence, it should serve you faithfully as Black,
even if it is your only reply to l.e4.

According to the generally accepted classification, the French de­

fence is semi-open. I think it can suit the styles both of aggressive tacti­
cal players and those who prefer patient positional manoeuvring.

The philosophical justification of the French defence is quite well

founded. Black acquiesces to the fact that he will not be able to com­
pete with White for control of every square on the chessboard, right
from the beginning of the game. In contrast, he fights fiercely for the
centre, attacks it with undermining pawn-moves, such as c7-c5 and
f7-f6, and exerts piece-pressure on it with if8-b4, lt:Jg8-f6, tt:Jb8-c6,
lt:Jg8-e7-f5, �d8-b6.

The arguments for and against the correctness ofthe French defence
began long ago and continue even now. The main themes are Black's
lack of space and the consequence of that - the fate of his light-squared
bishop, which is severely restricted right from move one. However, all
"French" players are well aware of the rule that sometimes, at the de­
cisive moment of the game, it is the same "bad" French bishop that
strikes the decisive blow and settles the issue.

In this book you will not find an unequivocal answer to fundamen­

tal questions such as "is it possible to equalize by playing the French
defence?", or "can White obtain a convincing advantage after l . . .e6?".

8
Chess is a microcosm of life and the same principles are applicable -
there are many questions and no definitive answers. In the French de­
fence we have already seen devastating novelties in variations which
previously had an unblemished reputation, as well as rehabilitation of
lines long thought to be dead and buried. So I have decided to present
to my readers the French defence - just as I see it and understand it.

I believe that chess players of all levels can find something new in
this book. It will enable some of you to include the French defence in
your opening repertoire and others of you to enrich your knowledge of
this opening and sharpen your understanding of its ideas.

The time has long passed when you could play the opening simply
according to common sense. Therefore there are many extensive analy­
ses of concrete positions in the book, as well as new ideas discovered in
the process of preparation for games and tournaments.

This book has been written from Black's point of view, but this
should not preclude a study of it by players who prefer the white side of
the French. It is always useful to know something thoroughly. It might
happen that a player who loves the white side of the French might be­
come an ardent fan of it as Black!

Nikita Vitiugov
Saint-Petersburg, April 20 10

9
 Part l

White avoids the main lines

l.e4 e6

In the first part of our book we shall deal with the different ways in
which White tries to avoid the main lines of the French defence. Objec­
tively, he can hardly rely on gaining an opening advantage with these
variations. However, he is following a different philosophy in this case.
It is far from easy to prove an advantage for White in the main lines an­
yway, so the idea is to obtain an original, non-standard position, which
the opponent has not studied deeply at home. This last factor is be­
coming more and more important in contemporary competitive chess.
Accordingly, Black must be well prepared to counter this approach and
to obtain good positions against the less principled lines.
Among the chapters included in our first part, the exchange vari­
ation is the most interesting. No doubt there are drawish tendencies
in it, but in practice it turns out that making a draw is not so easy for
either side. It should be enough to remember the famous game Gu­
revich - Short in the last round of the Interzonal tournament in Manila
1990. White only needed to make a draw to qualify for the next round
of the competition, but even such a super-expert in the French defence
for Black as Mikhail Gurevich failed under pressure to achieve the
desired result and lost. Nigel Short qualified to play a match against
Garry Kasparov thanks to this same remarkable game ! So we can high­
light the fact that modern chess history was greatly influenced by this
game. I can therefore advise White players to refrain from playing the
exchange variation of the French defence, at least to avoid the appear­
ance of new schisms in the chess world.

10
Chapter 1 l.e4 e6
Some seldom played variations
2.b3
This move can hardly be
dangerous for Black. Neverthe­
less, it is tried periodically by
some strong players. The hero
of this variation is that legend of
Saint-Petersburg chess, Vladimir
Ivanovich Karasev.
2 . . . d5
I can recommend to players
with wide opening knowledge the
move 2 . . . c5 ! ? , transposing to the
Sicilian defence.
3 . .ib2
White's plan is based on this
semi-gambit move.
3 . . . dxe4
I think that this is the most
unpleasant response for White to
face.
The alternative is 3 . . . lt:Jf6 4.
exd5 (4.e5 lt:Jfd7 5.f4 c5 6 .�g4
lt:Jc6 7.lt:Jf3 a6 8 . .ie2 b5 9 . 0 - 0oo)
4 ... exd5 5.�e2+ .ie6 ! ? (After 5 . . .
�e7, White's idea i s justified : 6 .
.ixf6 gxf6 7.�xe7+ .ixe7 8 .lt:Jc3
c6oo) 6.�b5+ lt:Jbd7 7.�xb7 and
Black's compensation for the pawn
should be sufficient. For example:
7 ... .ic5 ! ? 8.d4 .id6 9 ..id3 0-0 1 0 .
lt:Jf3 .ig4 11.lt:Jbd2 l"le8+ 1 2 . m fl aS�
4)lJC3 lbf6
The move 4 . . . f5? ! however,
can turn out to be really danger­
ous for Black - 5.f3 .id6 6.lt:Jh3
(6.g3 ! ? ) 6 . . . exf3 7.�xf3 lt:Jf6 8 .
0 - 0 - 0 0-0 9 . .ic4 and White's
initiative might become crushing.
5.�e2
It seems too extravagant to
play 5.g4?! .id7 6.g5 (6 . .ig2 .ic6
7.g5 lt:Jd5 8. lt:Jxe4 h6 9 .h4 lt:Jf4t)
6 ... lt:Jd5 7.lt:Jxe4 .ic6 and there a
logical question arises - was it re­
ally worth it for White to weaken
his position to that extent, only to
regain the pawn he sacrificed with
his third move?
5 . . . .ie7 6.lt:Jxe4
It is imprecise for White to
play 6.0-0-0?! lt:Jc6 7.lt:Jxe4 lt:J d4
8.�d3 lt:Jxe4 9.�xe4 .if6--t 1 0 .g4? !
11
Chapter 1

�d7! 11.hd4 �c6 12 .�b5 hb5 7 ... �d7 8.d4

13 .11*'xb7 0-0� Karasev - S.lva­ It would be too depressing for
nov, Leningrad 1991. White to continue with 8.l2Je3 ? !
6 0 - 0 7.lt)f3 (7. 0-0-0
•.. f6 ! and h e will have t o play 9.exf6
a5 ! ?) 7 a5!? 8.a4 b6 9. 0 - 0 - 0
•.. (It is too risky for him to play
.ib7 1 0 .d3 c!Llbd7 and Black has a 9.d4? cxd4 10.cxd4 fxe5 ll.fxe5
very good position. �b4+ 12.1i>f2 o-m= and White's
position is close to being hope­
2 .f4 less.) 9 . . . gxf6 10 .d3 0-0-0 11.�e2
�d6 and Black had a clear advan­
tage in the game Komliakov -
Rustemov, Moscow 1998.
8 �k8. This is a useful pre­
•.•

paratory move. 9 . .id3 cxd4.

Black demonstrates a concrete
approach to solving his problems.
(It is also possible for him to opt
for 9 . . . �e7! ?) 1 0 .cxd4 (He can
counter 10.l2Jcxd4 with �c5?)
10 .•. c!Llf5 ll . .ixf5 exf5

This move looks a little ugly,

but it is played quite often nev­
ertheless. At top level, I recall the
recent game Zvjaginsev - Zhang
Pensjang, won by White in a bril­
liant style.
2 .•. d5 3.e5 c5 4.c!Llf3 c!Llc6
5.c3
This is the idea of his set-up. It
resembles White's play in the Ad­
vance variation with 3 .e5, except
that he can choose the right mo­ In the variation with 3 .e5
ment to push d2-d4. (after 2 .d4 d5) , pawn structures
5 .•. c!Llh6 6.c!Lla3 of this type are considered worse
The move 6.d4? ! is still clearly for Black in view of the transfer of
premature - 6 . . . 11*'b6 7.�d3 �d7 White's knight to the f4-square.
8.�c2 cxd4 9.cxd4 ttJb4 and Black Here White's own pawn prevents
seizes the initiative. the knight from occupying this
6 .•. �b6 7.c!Llc2 square, so Black's position is quite
After 7.d4?! cxd4 8.cxd4 ha3 acceptable. 12. 0 - 0 §J.e7 13.c!Lle3
9 .bxa3 l2Jf5, Black wins a pawn. .ie6 14.b3 0 - 0 15 . .ib2 f6 ! ??

12
Chapter 2 l.e4 e6 2 .lt� f3 d5
We shall analyze a) 3.�c3
and b) 3.e5.
a) 3.�c3
This is one of the ways for
White to avoid the main lines of
the French defence. He some­
times chooses a similar system
of development against the Caro­
Kann defence and there it seems
more reasonable.
3 . . . d4
This is, of course, a much more
principled move than 3 . . . lt:Jf6 .
White is allowing his opponent
to occupy additional space and it
would be a sin not to make use of
that.
4.�e2
White has also played 4.lt:Jb5? .
Fortunately this book i s not an
opening encyclopaedia, so I do
not feel obliged to analyze such
moves .. .
4 . . . c5
The move 4 . . . lt:Jc6 ? ! flouts the
opening principle laid down by
Philidor - pawns in front and
pieces behind . . . 5.c3 e5 6.cxd4
exd4 7.'�a4 �c5 8 .b4i and Black
has problems.
5.c3
This is the most concrete deci­
sion for White. He wishes to im­
mediately destroy Black's pawn
centre, which has just appeared
on the board.
5.lt:Jg3 a6 ! ? (After 5 . . . lt:Jc6
White can simply play 6.�b5 �d7
7.hc6 hc6 8.lt:Je5 V!ic7 9.lt:Jxc6
V!ixc6 10.d3 and he has some pros­
pects for active play on the king­
side. ) 6.a4 (6.�e2 lt:Jc6 7.0-0 e5
(Black can also try here 7 . . . h5 ! ?
and 7 . . .�d6.) 8.d3 g6 and it i s not
obvious what White is supposed
to do, while Black's plan is crystal
clear - �g7, lt:Jge7, 0-0, h6, �e6,
b5 etc.) and now 6 . . . lt:Jc6. Here is a
possible continuation : 7.�c4 �d6
(7 . . . �e7! ? 8.0-0 h5) 8.d3 lt:Jge7
9.0-0 0-0 lO.lt:Jel :t'lb8 ll.f4 b5
13
Chapter 2
1 2 . axb5 axb5 13.�b3 �b7 with a
complicated position.
After 5.d3 there arise positions
with a King's Indian pawn struc­
ture but with colours reversed.
Black can usually only dream
of this sort of outcome from the
opening. 5 . . . Lt'lc6 6.g3 e5 7.�g2
�e7 8.0-0 g5 (8 . . . h5 ! ?) 9 .Lt'ld2
h5 ! ? and White already has prob­
lems (9 . . . �e6 10.f4 f6 ll.Lt'lf3 h6
12.c4oo Bachin - Korchnoi, Togli­
atti 2003).
5 .lbf6
..
This is the strongest move,
based on some simple tactics.
Black cannot hold on to his d4-
pawn : 5 . . . Lt'lc6 ? ! 6.cxd4 cxd4 7.
'\1;Ya4 �c5 8.b4 �b4 9 .Lt'lexd4 '\1;Ya5
(Or 9 . . .Lt'lge7 10 .�b5 '\1;Ya5 11.l"lb1
and he is unable to solve the
problems of the opening.) 10.�b5
(An alternative for White is 10.
'\1;Yxa5 �a5 ll.Lt'lb5 Lt'lf6 1 2 .Lt'ld6+
rtie7 13.e5 Lt'ld5 14.l"lb1 and Black is
again in trouble.) 10 . . . �d7 ll.l"lb1
(In the endgame after ll.Lt'lxc6
bxc6 12 .'\1;Yxa5 �a5 Black must
worry about his pawn structure.)
11.. .'\1;Yxa4 12 .�xa4 Lt'lxd4 13.l"lxb4
14
(White cannot achieve much with
13 .Lt'lxd4 �c5 14.�xd7+ rtixd7 15.
Lt'lf3 b6 16.�b2 Lt'lf6.) 13 . . .Lt'lxf3 +
14.gxf3 �xa4 15. l"lxa4 and White
has a slight advantage in this
endgame, even if Black defends it
correctly.
6.cxd4
I think it is weaker for White
to play 6.e5 Lt'lfd7 7.cxd4 cxd4
8.Lt'lexd4
8 . . . Lt'lxe5 ! White already has
problems, both in static and dy­
namic terms. He has not blun­
dered anything yet though, so
he might still be able to hold the
balance. 9.�b5+ Lt'lec6. Black is
not afraid of weakening his pawn
structure (It is less principled for
him to play 9 . . . Lt'led7, because
then White can develop his pieces
to acceptable squares.) 10 .Lt'lxc6
(10.0-0 �d7 ll.Lt'lb3 Lt'lb4 12.�c4
�c6 and Black obtains a comfort­
able game, Janturin - Lysyj, Par­
dubice 2005; it is also possible
for Black to opt for 10 . . . �e7.) 10 . . .
Lt'lxc6 11.hc6+ bxc6. Black's bish­
op pair is a very powerful factor,
compensating for the defects of
his pawn structure. 1 2 .'\1;Ya4 '\1;Yd5
13.0-0 �e7 14.b3 '\1;Yb5 15.'\1;Yf4 0-0

16.�b2 f6 17J'l:fc1 �d7? Guseinov
- Huzman, Warsaw 2 005.
I cannot recommend for White
the move 6.li:Jg3, which Black can
counter with 6 . . . a6 ! ? (after the
usual reply 6 . . . li:Jc6 White's game
is much easier - he can develop
his bishop actively with 7.�b5).
For example, the game Guseinov ­
Bartel, Kusadasi 2006, continued
in the following fashion: 7.li:Je5
h5 8 .d3 h4 9 .li:Je2 li:Jfd7 10 .li:Jxd7
Wfxd7 ll.f4 li:Jc6 1 2 .li:Jgl. It is be­
coming more and more difficult
to guess the moves of either side,
so we shall stop here. The position
is tremendously complicated. It is
an unclear strategic struggle, with
chances for both sides.
6 ••• cxd4
Black does not need to compli­
cate matters with 6 . . . li:Jxe4.
7.lLlexd4 lLlxe4
8 .lLlxe6
It looks as if White has caught
his opponent in a trap.
The check on b5 would not
achieve much - 8.�b5+ �d7 and
then what. . . ?
8 •••.h:e6 9.1Mfa4+ lLl c 6 1 0 .
l.e4 e6 2 . li:Jj3 d5 3. li:Jc3 d4
Wfxe4 i.c5
It turns out, however, that
Black has obtained excellent com­
pensation for the sacrificed ma­
terial and White must play accu­
rately to avoid being worse.
11.i.c4
The fanciful move 1l.�d3
changes nothing important -
1l.. .g6 12 .�c4 0-0 13.0-0 E'i:e8
14.he6 E'i:xe6 15.1Mfc4 �b6 and the
presence of the pawn on g6 is not
disadvantageous for Black's posi­
tion.
11••• 0 -0 12. 0 - 0
Black can counter 1 2 .�xe6
with the obvious developing move
12 . . . E'i:e8 and then 13 .0-0 E'i:xe6
14.Wfc4 li:Jd4 ! 15.li:Jxd4 (15.1Mfxc5??
li:Jxf3+ 16 .gxf3 E'i:g6+ 17.\t>h1
Wfd3-+) 15 . . .�xd4 with an advan­
tage and an easy game for Black.
12 ••• l3e8 13.d3
White creates the unpleasant
threat of li:Jg5 and Black must de­
fend against it right away.
13 •••h6 14.�xe6
If 14.�d2, it is very strong for
Black to play 14 . . . li:Jd4 ! 15.E'i:ae1
hc4 16.Wfxe8+ W!xe8 17.E'i:xe8 +
E'i:xe8 18.dxc4 li:Jxf3 + 19.gxf3 �d4=
Myagmarsuren - Adamski, Po­
lanica Zdroj 1972.
It might be interesting for
White to opt for 14.�f4 ! ? li:Jd4
15.tt:Jxd4 �xc4 16.Wff5, but Black
has a concrete answer to this -
16 . . . Wfxd4 17.dxc4 �b6 ! =
14 l3xe6 15.�c4 �b6 16.
•••
�d2 lLld4 17.lLlxd4 hd4 18.
�c3 l3d8= Vorobiov - Vitiugov,
Moscow 2 0 07.
15
Chapter 2
b) 3.e5 c5 4.b4
This is an interesting gambit
line. White sacrifices a flank pawn
with the idea of creating a solid
centre and organizing an offen­
sive on the dark squares. Never­
theless, his compensation for the
pawn is insufficient.
I will mention that a similar
position can arise from the Sicil­
ian defence after l.e4 c5 2.lLlf3 e6
3.b4 ! ?
4 . . . cxb4
The most principled reaction
for Black is no doubt to accept the
sacrifice. The resulting positions
have not been well analyzed yet
and this is easily understandable.
There are not so many players
with White who would be willing
to sacrifice a pawn for such ob­
scure compensation. I shall not
analyze this position extensively
and I shall just show you the cor­
rect moves to start off with. These
are not at all obligatory, just some
of the possibilities.
Black's attempt to maintain
the tension with 4 . . . b6, can be
countered with 5.c3 '1Wd7 6.a3 .ia6
16
7 ..ixa6 lLlxa6 8.d4 and we have
reached a version of the 3.e5 (2 .d5
d5) variation. The manoeuvring
game in that case may not be to
everyone's liking.
It is worth considering the oc­
cupation of the centre with 4 . . . d4
5.bxc5 hc5 6 . .ia3 , and here Black
must choose between two accept­
able retreats of his bishop. In both
cases the position remains rather
unclear: 6 . . . ib6 (6 . . . '\ W aS? ! 7.hc5
Wxc5 8.c3 lLlc6 9.cxd4 lLlxd4 10.
W/a4+t; 6 ... ie7 ! ?) .
5.a3 lLlc6 6.axb4 hb4 7.c3
.ie7 8.d4
So, White has achieved what
he wanted. However, Black has
his counter chances . . .
8 . . . i.d7
The character of the position
has been defined early, so Black
should not be in a hurry to com­
plete the development of his king­
side. It is obvious that White will
develop his initiative there, so
Black should leave his king in the
centre for a while.
I do not like the move 8 ... lLlh6
very much, because then White
 l.e4 e6 2. liJj3 d5 3.e5 c5

has a target to attack, which is the Black can counter ll.h5 with
knight on h6 (or f5) . 9 . .id3 li:Jf5 the preparatory move ll.. .Elc8 and
10.h4 ! ?and White's pawn-offen­ after 12.Elh3 - 1 2 .. .f6?
sive on the kingside would not be ll . . . f6 12 . .if4 f5
very pleasant for Black. However,
he could try the super-solid move
10 . . . h5oo
9 . .id3 a6
It would be interesting to play
the aggressive move 9 . b5 ! ? in­
. .

tending to follow up with b4.

Now it has become clear that

the f4-square is not suitable for
White's bishop in this pawn struc­
ture and he will need to change
his set-up.
13.Elg3 .if8oo The position is
complicated.
1 0 .h4 Of course, it is not possible to
After 10.0-0 Elc8, White will analyze it to exhaustion. How­
have difficulty proving that his ever, it is obvious that White's
compensation for the pawn is pawn-sacrifice on move four is
sufficient. hardly correct. Nevertheless,
1 0 .. .'�c7 Black should not try to refute it
Black is preparing the outright. It is advisable for him to
undermining move t7-f6. simply play the French defence,
ll.Elh3 but with an extra pawn.

17
Chapter 3 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.i.d3

4 ... exd5 leads to a version of the

This is a very seldom played
variation. Its idea is to maintain
the tension in the centre without
defining the position of the
queen's knight. Its drawbacks are
evident too. White's bishop comes
to the centre prematurely and it
can be attacked with tempo.
3 . . . dxe4
It would be interesting for
Black to play 3 . . . c5, but White has
the attractive tactical possibility
4.exd5 (After 4.c3 cxd4 5.cxd4
dxe4 6 . .be4 '2lf6 7.�f3 it is un­
clear why White's bishop on f3
has occupied the knight's usual
place; 4.dxc5? and White must
begin to fight for equality. 4 . . .
dxe4 5.�b5+ �d7+; 5.�xe4 �xdl+
6 .'tt> x dl .bc5 7.'tt> e 2 '2lf6 8 .�d3 b6;
8 .�f3 ct:Jbd7+) 4 . . . �xd5 (The move
Exchange variation.) 5.'2lc3 ! and
now Black will have to reply to
this with 5 . . . �xd4, when White
obtains excellent attacking chanc­
es, because after 5 . . . �xg2 , Black's
queen is suddenly trapped - 6.
�e4 ! . 6.'2lb5 (6.'2lf3 �d8 7.�f4.)
6 . . . �d8 7.�f4 ct:J a6 8 .�e2 '2lf6 9.
0-0-0 with a very powerful at­
tack for White.
4 . .be4 '2lf6 5.-i£3
This is the only way for White
to justify his third move, because
after 5.�d3 c5 Black has no prob­
lems whatsoever.
5 . . . c5
I do not think that Black has
anything to worry about after, for
example: 5 . . . �e7 6 .'2le2 0-0 7.

18
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.i!.d3 de 4.he4 Ci:Jf6
0-0 Ci:Jbd7 8.Ci:Jbc3 (8.i!.f4 c5) 8 . . .
e 5 9. Ci:Jg3 exd4 10.'� xd4 i!.c5 11.
1Mfc4 i!.d6, but the move 5 ... c5 seems
more active and to the point.
6.Ci:Je2 Ci:Jc6
Black continues in the same
fashion, exerting maximal pres­
sure against his opponent's centre.
7 .ie3 cxd4
• simply captures with 9 . . . Ci:Jxf3 +
The alternatives seem worse:
7 . . . e5? ! Black's attempt to play
analogously to the variation 3.
Ci:Jc3 i.b4 4.i.d3 is less appropriate
here - 8.i!.xc6+ bxc6 9.dxe5
1Mfxd1 + 10. 'it>xd1 Ci:Jg4 11. Ci:Jd2 i!.a6
12 .l"l:eU and White has a clear
advantage in this endgame,
thanks to his extra pawn and
Black's terrible queenside pawn
structure.
It would be bad to play 7 . . .
Ci:Jd5? ! 8 .hd5 1Mfxd5 9 .Ci:Jbc3 ! Rap­
id development takes precedence
over everything else ! 9 .. .'�xg2 10.
l"l:g1 1Mfxh2 l l.i!.f4 1Mfh5 1 2 .Ci:Jb5 and
Black is in great trouble. It would
be sufficient to say that the best
move for him in this position, ac­
cording to Fritz, is 12 . . . 'it>d8.
8.lt:lxd4
8 . lt:le5
•.
This move is simple and
strong.
Black is attacking White's
bishop and he can exchange it at
any opportune moment.
9. 0 - 0
For example, if 9.1Mfe 2 , Black
and begins fighting for the advan­
tage.
9 . . . i!.e7 1 0 . liJc3 0 - 0 ll . .ie2
11 1Mfc7! ?
•••
This i s a n active move, creating
the threat of Ci:Jc4. We can evaluate
the position after the opening as
at least equal for Black.
It is also acceptable for him
to try ll . . . i!.d7 12 .f4 Ci:Jc6 and there
arises a version of the Sche­
veningen variation of the Sicilian
defence, one in which he has
nothing to worry about.
12.liJcb5
12 .f4 ? ! Ci:Jc4
12 �b8 13.f4 c!Llg6 14.i.d3
•••
c!Lld5 15. �d2 .ic5 and White
must play very accurately for the
rest of the game.
19
Chapter 4 l.e4 e6
The Exchange Variation
2.d4
After 2.c4 there do not arise
any original positions, since Black
can enter the main lines of the
exchange variation without any
problems. 2 . . . d5 (I can recom­
mend to players who wish to play
more complicated positions the
move 2 . . . c5, which leads to a good
version of the Sicilian defence.)
3.exd5 exd5 4.d4 (White does
not achieve anything much with
4.cxd5 tt'lf6 5.�b5 + tt'lbd7 6.tt'lc3
�e7 7.tt'lf3 0-0 8.0-0 tt'lb6 with
easy equality for Black.)
2 . . . d5 3.exd5
What can we say about the
Exchange variation in general?
It was played actively for a while
by Garry Kasparov himself, but
20
i t cannot b e dangerous for Black.
It is obvious that White can cre­
ate considerably more problems
for his opponent only with the
moves 3 . tt'l c3 , 3.tt'ld2 and 3.e5.
Nevertheless, Black must play ac­
curately. For those chess fans who
always wish to play only for a win,
I should like to tell you that ac­
cording to the professional play­
ers there are two positive results
in chess - a win and a draw . . .
3 . . . exd5 4)iJf3
This is the most solid and flex­
ible move for White. It is also pos­
sible for him to play 4.c4, but in
general it is not so advantageous
for him to clarify his plan so early
in the game.
Black has at his disposal a
very harmonious set-up - 4. . .
tt'lf6 5.tt'lf3 ( H e can counter 5.tt'lc3
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.tt'lj3 .id6
with 5 . . . ib4.) 5 . . . ib4+ 6 .tt'lc3 0-0
7.ie2 dxc4. Now, White has nu­
merous alternatives, but they all
have certain drawbacks. If Black
so wishes, he can ignore his addi­
tional possibilities and stick to the
same plan. 8.0-0 (After 8.hc4
it is reasonable for Black to ex­
change the light-squared bish­
ops immediately with 8 . . . l"le8+
9.ie3 ie6 10.he6 l"lxe6 11.0-0
tt'lc6 1 2 .ig5 hc3 13.bxc3 �d5
14.ixf6 Elxf6, although White still
maintains some pressure with
15.�b3 .) 8 . . . ig4 (An alternative
for Black is - 8 . . . ie6 ! ?) 9.hc4
tt'lc6 10.ie3 . White is more or less
forced to enter this position after
4.c4. Considering that White has
recaptured on c4 in two moves,
Black should not have any prob­
lems after the opening. For ex­
ample : 10 . . . �d7 11.h3 ih5 12 .i.e2
Elfe8= and both sides' prospects
are approximately equal.
After 4.tt'lf3 Black has several
possibilities. I will concentrate
on the move 4 . . . id6, for two rea­
sons. Firstly, the situation after
5.c4 dxc4 6.ic4 can arise from
the Queen's Gambit Accepted and
it is always useful to know about
such transpositions between dif­
ferent openings. I am referring to
the variation l.d4 d5 2 .c4 dxc4 3.e3
e5 4.ic4 exd4 5.exd4 id6 6.tt'lf3 .
Secondly, I think this same
move combines reliability and
positional justification and avoids
complete symmetry enabling
Black to think about winning the
game after all . . .
4 ... .td6
The move 4 . . . ig4 was popular
during the nineties of the last cen­
tury, but after Kasparov found the
idea 5.h3 ih5 6.�e2 + ! it became
clear that Black would have prob­
lems in this variation.
6 ...�e7 7..ie3 tt'lc6 8.tt'lc3 0-0-0
9 . 0 -0-0:t Kasparov - Short, Til­
burg 1991.
21
Chapter 4
Black sometimes tries to pro­
voke complications with the move
4 . . . 4Jc6, but he may have difficul­
ties in the well-known variation
after 5.�b5 �d6 6.c4 dxc4 7.d5
a6 8.�a4 b5 9.dxc6 bxa4 10.0-0
4Je7 11 .1Mfxa4. White risks nothing,
while Black must still make sever­
al very accurate moves. Of course,
his most reliable resource here is
the symmetrical move - 4 . . . 4Jf6 .
5.c4
The famous principle of asym­
metry in the Exchange variation
can be illustrated here with the
move - 5.�d3.
I should inform my readers
that according to this principle
Black should be in no hurry to de­
velop his king's knight early, since
if its counterpart goes to f3, then
Black should deploy his knight
to e7, and vice versa . . . Of course,
you should not take all these par­
adoxical principles completely
seriously, but still, it is always
useful to keep them in mind. For
instance, in the following game
Black obeyed all these rules and
managed to gradually outplay his
22
opponent and prevail i n the end­
game. 5 . . . 4Je7 6.0-0 4Jbc6 7.h3
4Jb4 8 .�e2 �f5 9. 4Ja3 a6 10 .b3
0-0 ll.c3 4Jbc6 1 2 .4Jc2 4Jg6 13.
�d3 hd3 14.1M/xd3 1M/d7 15.�d2
4Jce7 16.:1'1fel 1M/f5 17.1M/xf5 4Jxf5
18 .g3 f6 19.:1'1e2 l"1fe8 2 0 .:1'1ael l"1xe2
21.:1'1xe2 'kt>f7 2 2 .'kt>g2 h5+ Gorbatov
- Rychagov, Moscow 2008.
5 dxc4 6.hc4 tt:lf6 7. 0 - 0
•..
0-0
8.tt:lc3
It is interesting for White to try
to seize the initiative immediately
with 8.4Je5 ! ? Black must react
very precisely: 8 . . . 4Jc6 ! This is
the right move ! (It is weaker for
him to opt for 8 . . . 4Jbd7? ! 9.�f4
4Jb6 10 .�b3 4Jfd5 ll.�g3 �e6
12 .4Jd2 l"1e8 13 .4Je4 1M/e7 14.l"1cH
and White obtained an advantage
in the game Tregubov - Vitiugov,
Sochi, 2009.) 9.4Jxc6 (Now he
cannot play 9 .�f4 because of the
routine reply 9 . . . �xe5 10.dxe5
4Jg4, and White cannot protect
his pawn.) 9 . . . bxc6. Black's pawn
structure has been weakened a lit­
tle, but he is not worse. For exam­
ple : 10.4Jc3 l"1e8 11.1Mlf3 l"1b8 12 .h3
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.'Llf3 id6
ie6?, and the dynamic factors
are in his favour.
8 .ll:l c 6
••
From this moment on, the
opening has many things in com­
mon with the Chigorin defence.
It is obvious that in this rather
original and complicated open­
ing, Black's position is considered
as acceptable, but things are not
so simple here.
9.h3
The seemingly active move
9.ig5, strangely enough, is not
dangerous for Black at all. 9 .. .
h6 (It is less precise to play 9 . . .
ig4, since White can counter
this with 10.'Lld5, obtaining the
advantage of the two bishops.
10 . . . ie7 ll.'Llxe7 + Wfxe7 12 .h3
ixf3 13.Wfxf3 Wfe4 14.Wfxe4 'Llxe4
15.ie3 'Lld6 16.b3 with some ad­
vantage to White, Lputian - Rom­
anishin, Manila 1992.) 1 0 .ih4
ig4. It looks as if White's best
here is the forced draw after ll.h3
ixf3 1 2 .Wfxf3 'Llxd4 13.Wfxb7 Elb8
14.Wfxa7 Ela8 15.Wfb7 Elb8, Gure­
vich - Azmaiparashvili, Saint
Vincent 2 0 03 .
9 . . . h6
1 0 .ge1
It is difficult to say which is
White's most useful move here.
He has tried many different ide­
as, but Black has good counter­
chances in all cases. In principle,
this is quite logical. Both sides are
playing solidly in the centre and
neither side should have prob­
lems.
White cannot harm his oppo­
nent with 10 .a3 if5 11.b4 'Lle4 !
12 .ib2 'Llxc3 13.ixc3 Wff6=
It would be too routine for
him to opt for 10 .ie3 a6 11.a4 if5
12 .'Llh4 ih7 13 .id3 ixd3 14.Wfxd3
'Llb4 15.Wfd1 Ele8 16.Wff3 if8 17.
Elad1 'Llbd5 18.'Llf5 illh 7 19.if4
c6 2 0.ie5 Ele6? Balashov - Mo­
rozevich, Samara 1998.
White has an interesting pos­
sibility here - 10 .Wfc2 , with the
idea of preventing the natural
development of his opponent's
light-squared bishop. Black can
react cleverly with 10 . . . a6 ! ? , or he
can play more simply - 10 . . . 'Llb4
11.Wfb1 c6 ! ? (White obtains some
targets to attack after ll . . . ie6
23
Chapter 4
12 .�xe6 fxe6 13J'le1 '\Wd7 14.�d2
ct:Jbd5 15.1Wd3 l'l:ad8 16.l'l:e2 1Wf7
17.l'l:ae1 l'l:fe8 18.'Lle4;t; Tkachiev -
Sulava, Gonfreville 2006.) with
the idea of responding to 12.l'l:e1
with 12 ... ct:Jbd5. It is also worth
considering 10 . . . 'Ll a5 11.�d3 �e6.
ll.a3 b5 12 .�d3 �b7, with good
counterplay.
1 0 J'l:e8
••
This is Black's most natural
response. He has some alterna­
tives though. The move 10 . . . �f5
was played in a game against a
computer by the famous French
defence expert Alexander Mo­
rozevich: ll.d5 'Lle7 1 2 .�e3 a6 13.
�d4 'Llg6 14.a4 l'l:e8 15.1Wb3 b6
16.l'l:xe8 + 'Llxe8 17.l'l:e1 'Llf6oo Fritz
- Morozevich, Frankfurt 20 0 0 .
Two other acknowledged giants
in this opening tested out the ben­
efits of including the moves 10 . . .
a 6 and ll.a3 : ll . . .l'l: e 8 12 .l'l:xe8+
1Wxe8 13.1Wd3 1Wf8 14.�e3 �d7 (It
was also interesting for Black to
continue with 14 . . . b5 15.�a2 �b7,
24
developing the bishop to a more
active position.) Now White ex­
erts some positional pressure.
15.'Llh4 �h8 16.'Llf5 l'l:e8 17.'Llxd6
(17.b4 ! ?) 17 . . . 1Wxd6 18.l'l:d1 (White
cannot play 18 .hf7 in view of 18 . . .
'Lle5 ! ) 18 . . . �e6 19 .he6 l'l:xe6 2 0 .
d 5 'Lle5 2 1.1Wd4 l'l:e8 2 2 .�f4 ( 2 2 .
1Wa7 ! ?) 2 2 . . . c 5 23.dxc6 1Wxd4 2 4 .
l'l:xd4 'Llxc6 = . The players agreed
to a draw, Korchnoi - lvanchuk,
Frankfurt 1998.
ll . .ie3
The eventual consequences of
the exchange of rooks were ana­
lyzed in our previous notes. I will
just mention that after ll.l'l:xe8+
1Wxe8 White cannot prevent the
development of Black's bishop to
f5 - 12 .1Wd3? 'Llb4 !
ll .. .if5
.
Black can also begin with the
move ll . . . a6 ! ?
12.a3 a6
13.lt:lh4 .ih7 14.1Wf3 �d7oo
with a very complicated position,
Short - Bareev, Pula 1997.
 Part 2

Chigorin Variation
l.e4 e6 2.�e2
King's Indian Attack
l.e4 e6 2.d3

In principle, different, "non-French" positions arise only if White

does not try to occupy the centre and does not place a pawn on d4. It
would be quite reasonable to tell you immediately that studying this
chapter will be useful not only for readers who play the French De­
fence. The King's Indian Attack can be considered as a separate open­
ing concept for White and Black must be well prepared to counter it.
White's play might not appear to be very ambitious or concrete, but
every possible move-order deserves thorough attention, since White's
opening strategy is not without venom.

25
ChapterS l.e4 e6 2 . �e2
Chigorin Variation
This move was invented by
Mikhail Ivanovich Chigorin. Its
idea is quite simple. White wishes
to build a typical King's Indian
Attack set-up. However, he tries
to impede Black's thematic move
d7-d5, since after the exchange of
pawns, Black will have to recap­
ture with his queen rather than
the pawn, which is not part of his
plan at all. On the other hand, this
early development of the white
queen also has some drawbacks.
2 ... c5
I believe this is the most logical
reaction for Black. He postpones
the move dS for a while, occupy­
ing and controlling the centre in
the process.
Black sometimes plays the
26
amusing move 2 . . . e 5 . The posi­
tion is rather unusual after that
and, if you see it for the first time,
you might think that after l.e4 eS,
White has played 2 .WI'e 2 ? ! In fact,
with his second move, Black wish­
es to emphasize that White's early
queen-sortie is completely harm­
less for the opponent. Still, this
is a tempo gained. It seems logi­
cal for White to choose the plan
of f2-f4, followed by moving the
queen to f2 . For example: 3.c3 4Jc6
4.f4 d6 5.4Jf3 g6 6.WI'f2 ig7 7.ic4
4Jf6 8.d3 0-0 9.0-0 exf4 10.ixf4
4Jg4 ll.WI'g3 C/JgeS 12.4Jbd2 4Jxc4
13.4Jxc4 ie6 14.4Je3 C!JeS 15.4Jxe5
dxeS 16 .ixe5 ixeS 17.WI'xe5 Wl'xd3
18 .llf3 Wl'e2 19.c4 ! and White went
on to win, Zvjaginsev - Ni Hua,
Ergun 2006.
Black also plays 2 . . . ie7, with
the idea of eliminating the x-ray
pressure along the e-file. But that
way he loses the possibility of fi­
anchettoing his dark-squared
bishop.
Even 2 . . . d5 is sometimes
played successfully by Black.
There is no doubt that in that
case White's queen move is jus-

tified, because after 3.exd5 Black
must play 3 . . . i�hd5. There arises
a strange version of the Scan dina­
vian defence (with the inclusion
of the moves �d1-e2 and e7-e6)
which has not been evaluated by
the theoreticians yet.
3.lilf3
There is a multitude of possi­
bilities and move-orders in this
position. We shall analyze White's
most natural and purposeful
moves.
Black should counter 3.f4 with
3 . . . d5. Here is a possible continu­
ation: 4.exd5 �xdS S.ltJc3 �d8
6.ltJf3 ltJc6 7.g3 ltJf6 8.ig2 ie7 9.
0-0 0-0 10 .d3 id7 11.ltJe4 8:c8
12 .c3 ltJdS with an approximately
equal position, Short - Korchnoi,
Groningen 1997.
3.g3 ltJc6 4.c3 g6 S.ig2 i.g7 6.
f4 ltJge7 7.ltJf3 d6 8.0-0 0-0 9.
tt:la3 8:b8 10.'it>h1 fS 11 .d3 bS 1 2 .
exfS ltJxfS 13.id2 d S 14.g4 ltJh6
15.ltJg5 �d7 16.8:ae1 b4 17.ltJb1
bxc3 18.bxc3 ltJd8� Lastin - Ba­
reev, Elista 1997.
3 ••• c!Llc6 4 g3
. clined to deploy it precisely there.
4.b3 ltJf6 S.e5 ltJdS 6.ib2 i.e7
7.g3 0-0 8 .ig2 d6 9.exd6 �xd6
10.0-0 if6 ll .ltJc3 ltJxc3 12 .dxc3
id7 and Vasily Vasiliyevich could
hardly be satisfied with his posi­
tion, Smyslov - Panno, Buenos
Aires 1990.
The move 4.c3 was tried by,
among others, the famous open­
ing experimentalist Vadim Zvja­
ginsev. This game continued in
creative fashion but did not end
up successfully for him. 4 . . .ltJge7
l.e4 e6 2. �e2 c5
5.ltJa3 g6 6.d4 cxd4 7.ltJb5 d6
8.ltJbxd4 ig7 9 .ie3 ltJxd4 10.cxd4
d5 11.e5 ltJfS 12.ig5 �b6 13 .�d2
id7 14.8:cl h6 15.if6 ixf6 16.exf6
�d8 and Black gobbled up a
pawn, Zvjaginsev - Rublevsky,
Poikovsky 20 0 6.
4.d3 transposes to the main
line after 4 . . . ltJge7 5.g3 g6 6.ig2
ig7.
4 g6
•••
This is a principled move.
Maybe not all French defence
players would like the develop­
ment of the bishop to the g7-
square, but I am very much in­
5.�g2 �g7 6. 0 - 0 c!Llge7
Black is unable to develop this
knight to a more active position
6 . . . ltJf6 7.c3 ! d5 (It is no improve­
ment for him to opt for 7 . . . 0-0
8 .d4 d5 9 .e5 ltJd7 10 .ig5 and
White obtains a clear advantage.)
8.e5 ltJd7 9.d4 f6 10.exf6 �xf6
ll.ltJgS and Black is in great trou­
ble.
7.c3 0 - 0 8.d3
8 .8:d1 e5 9.d3 dS 10 .ltJbd2 d4
ll.ltJb3 b6 12.cxd4 cxd4 13.ig5
27
ChapterS
�e6 14.1Mfd2 f6 15.�h6 1Mfd6 16.
hg7 lt>xg7 with a clear advantage
for Black, Chahrani - Gleizerov,
Dubai 2002.
8 ... d6
Black has two possible plans in
this position - playing on the
queenside, based on advancing
b7-b5-b4, or natural central strat­
egy of the type - e6-e5 and f7-f5.
9.llJbd2
Boris Abramovich once tried
9 .a3 , but he is unlikely to use it
again in his forthcoming match
against Anand. 9 . . . b6 10 .b4 cxb4
ll.axb4 'Llxb4 12.d4 tt:Jbc6 13.'Llbd2
i.b7 14.�a3 d5 15J'Ub1 :ge8 16.1Mfb5
dxe4 17.'Llxe4 lLldS 18 .1Mfd3 �f8
with an extra pawn for Black, Gel­
fand - Navara, Prague 20 0 6.
The move 9 . lLl a3 looks a bit
strange. Do not be prejudiced -
the knight is only half-way to its
destination. The only surprise is
that Vadim Zvjaginsev has not tried
it yet. 9 . . . :gbs 10 .lLl c2 bS 11.�f4 b4
12 .d4 bxc3 13.bxc3 cxd4 14.'Llcxd4
'LlaS 15.i.g5 h6 16.he7 1Mfxe7 17.
:gab1 �b718.'Lld2 :gbc8 with an un­
doubted advantage to Black, Lag-
28
vilava - Malakhov, Minsk 1997.
White can also try here the ex­
treme prophylactic move - 9.a4.
This is an amazing move, since it
is far from clear exactly what
White is defending against. It is
little wonder that the move 2.d4 is
about ten times more popular
than all of these attempts.
An alternative for White is -
9 .�e3 b6 10.d4 (10.lLla3 �a6 11.
:gfd1 :gcs 12.1Mfc2 bS 13.c4 lLld4 -
13 . . . b4! - 14.1Mfd2 bxc4 15.dxc4
lLlec6+! 16.:gac1? lLlxf3 + 17.hf3
1Mff6+ Jasim - Radjabov, Dubai
2 0 02) 10 . . . cxd4 (lO . . . aS ! ?) 11.'Lld4
(11.cxd4 aS ! ? with counterplay)
ll . . . lLl d4 12 .�d4 eS 13.�e3 �e6 -
this position requires additional
practical tests.
9 . . . e5 1 0 .a3 h6 11.b4 i.e6
I much prefer the idea of main­
taining the knight on the c6-
square with ll . . . a6 ! ?
12.b5 c!Da5 13 . .ib2 f5 14.
exf5 gxf5 15.c!Dh4, Smyslov -
Cramling, Prague 1995
and here with 15 . . . c4! Black
could have obtained an excellent
position.
Chapter 6 l.e4 e6 2.d3
King's Indian Attack
This move is definitely a bit
slow and usually indicates that
White wishes to postpone any
sharp struggle to the middle
game. It is also possible that
White is just a bit too lazy to study
the basic theoretical lines at home
and is trying to play safely and se­
curely early in the game.
2 . . . d5
Nowadays broad opening
knowledge is one of the most im­
portant features of a strong chess
player. For example, here it seems
very reasonable for Black to trans­
pose to the Closed Sicilian with
2 . . . c5 3.lLlf3 lLlc6 4.g3 g6 5.�g2
�g7 6.c3 lLlge7 7.0-0 0-0 (It is
maybe a bit more precise to play
7 . . . e5 ! ?) 8 .8:e1 (8.d4 ! ?) 8 . . . e5 9 .
lLla3 d 6 10.�e3 b6 1l.'Wd2 and
here Topalov tried the interesting
idea of exchanging his light­
squared bishop with 1 1 . . .�g4 ! ? 12 .
h3 hf3 13.hf3 'Wd7 14.�g2 f5 15.
exf5 gxf5 16.f4 8:ad8 17.8:e2? !
'We6 ! And Black seized the initia­
tive and went on to win the game,
Bruzon Bautista - Topalov, Wijk
aan Zee 2005.
3.lild2
White can also defend against
d5xe4 and support his e4-pawn
with the move 3.'We2 and we shall
analyze this in our next chapter.
3 .. .lilf6
Here Black has an equally ef­
fective move for our suggested
scheme of development - 3 . . . c5.
The text move has been chosen
mostly for the sake of the clarity
29
Chapter 6
of our explanation. Our notes
over the next few moves will help
you to become acquainted with
some positions in which Black
changes the pawn structure with
d5xe4 and e6-e5. This is going to
be our basic weapon against the
scheme with 3.�e2. After 3 . . . c5
White can consider placing his
pawn on f4, which is aimed
against Black's set-ups with �d6
and Ci:Jge7 or g6, �g7, Ci:Jge7, for ex­
ample : 4.g3 ! ? Ci:Jc6 (or 4 . . . �d6
5.�g2 Ci:Je7 6.f4) 5.�g2 Ci:Jf6 (after
5 . . . g6, White can play not only
6 .f4 followed by Ci:Jgf3, but also 6.
Ci:Jh3 ! ? , played by Morozevich)
6.f4. This idea has been tried only
rarely and it is difficult to assess
whether it is dangerous for Black.
The most likely continuation
would be then - 6 . . . �e7 7.e5 Ci:Jd7
8.Ci:Jgf3 leading to positions which
we shall analyze in our next
notes.
4.c!Llgf3
Here if 4.g3 Black has at his
disposal the after quite effective
set-up: 4 . . . dxe4 5.dxe4 e5 6.Ci:Jgf3
�c5 ! 7.�g2 0-0 8.0-0
30
and now:
8 . . . l"\e8 ! ? this is a very precise
move, with which Black shows his
reluctance to determine immedi­
ately the placement of his b8-
knight. 9.c3 (After 9 .b3 it would
be good for Black to play 9 . . . Ci:Jc6)
9 . . . a5 10. �c2 a4 1l.Ci:Jc4 Ci:Jbd7 12.
Ci:Je3 ! ? b6 13.l"\d1 �b7 14.Ci:Jh4 g6
15.�h3 ? ! This idea is just wrong.
15 ...he4! 16.fud7 hc2 (16...�xd7?
17.i.xd7 hc2 18.i.xe8 he3 19.i.c6!
hc1 20.E1xc1 +-) 17.E1xd8 E1axd8
18.Ci:Jxc2 l"\d1+ 19.@g2 h5 ! ? (This
is a prophylactic move, the point
of which can be seen in the varia­
tion 19 . . . Ci:Je4 20 .�g4 ! , but it is
even stronger for Black to prepare
the exchange of the active enemy
rook on d1 with the move 19 . . .
l"\ed8 ! when White's situation be­
comes critical.) 20.�g5 E1xa1 21.
Ci:Jxa1 Ci:Je4 22.�d7 l"\b8 23.Ci:Jf3 f6
24.�c1 Ci:Jxf2+ Nadanian - Lpu­
tian, Armenia 1998;
However, Black can try to play
more simply: 8 . . . Ci:Jbd7 9 .b3 b6 10.
�b2 �a6 (On the next move it
would not be so convenient for
him to develop his bishop to the
a6-square: 10 . . . �e7 ll.Ci:Jc4 �a6
12.Ci:Jfxe5 Ci:Jxe5 and now White
can either capture a pawn : 13.

.ixeS !'!adS 14. hf6 �xf6 1S.�e2,
when Black's compensation for it
should be sufficient to draw, or
else sacrifice the exchange : 13.
tt:lxeS .ixfl 14.�xf1� with very
good compensation.) 1l.c4 �e7
12.a3 .ib7 13.b4 .id6 14.tt:lh4 g6 1S.
�b3 tt:lhS 16 .:!'!ae1 aS 17 . .ic3 axb4
18.axb4 cS 19.bS :!'!fd8 ! The oppo­
nents agreed to a draw in this
complicated position, Voitsekhov­
sky - Andreev, Vladimir 2008.
Black's last move is important
and accurate, because now his
knight on d7 is headed for d4,
while his other knight on hS will
keep threatening to go to f4 at an
opportune moment, exploiting the
under-protected state of White's
knight on h4 : if 20 ..if3 tt:lf4.
The natural reply 8 . . . tt:lc6 is
also possible, but Black's knight is
slightly misplaced there : 9.c3 aS.
This is a very popular position
and it can arise from different
move-orders. 10 .�c2 b6 11.tt:lb3
.ie7 12.:!'!d1 �e8 13.a4 .ia6 14.tt:lh4
:!'!d8 1S . .ie3 tt:lg4 16.tt:lfS tt:lxe3 17.
tt:lxe3 :!'!xd1+ 18 .:!'!xd1 �c8 19.tt:ldS±
White managed to obtain a slight
edge in the game Bologan - Ma­
slak, Budva 2009.
An original position arises af­
ter 4.eS ! ? tt:lfd7 S.f4 (after S .d4,
White reaches a position from the
Steinitz system, but a tempo
down). In response, Black should
try to consistently seize space on
the queenside, for example: S . . . cS
(it would be also interesting for
him to try S . . .f6 ! ? with counter­
play) 6.g3 tt:lc6
l.e4 e6 2.d3 d5 3. ttld2 ttlf6
7.tt:lgf3 (7.tt:ldf3 bS 8.tt:lh3 b4
9.tt:lf2 aS 10 . .ih3 g6 11.0-0 .ia6
12.a3 �b6 13.axb4 cxb4 14.Wh1
.icS with a very good position for
Black, Najer - Chebotarev, Inter­
net 20 04) 7 . . . bS 8 ..ig2 �b6 9 . c3
.ie7 (It would be reasonable to try
Kamsky's recommendation: 9 . . .
c4 ! ? 10 .d4 b 4 11.0-0 �aSi with
initiative on the queenside. The
centre is closed, so Black is not
obliged to be in any hurry with his
development. White's pieces are
not very well placed at the mo­
ment, so he cannot punish his op­
ponent with the pawn-break f4-
fS.) 10.0-0 0-0 11.Wh1 .ib7 12.
�e2 :!'!ae8 13.tt:lb3 aS (Black can
again follow Kamsky's ideas with
13 . . . d4 ! ? 14.cxd4 tt:lxd4 ! ? , or 14 . . .
cxd4 1S.�f2 tt:l cS with a very com­
plicated game.) 14 . .ie3 a4 1S.
tt:lbd2 fS ! 16.exf6 .ixf6 17.d4 b4!
with a sharp position, Kamsky -
Bareev, Tilburg 1991.
(diagram)
4 ... c5
The plan we mentioned earlier
for Black, with the development
of his bishop to cS, is again possi­
ble here: 4 . . . dxe4 S.dxe4 .icS (af­
ter S . . . tt:lc6 6 . .ibS .id7 7.0-0 a6
8 ..ia4 bS 9 ..ib3 tt:laS lO .eS tt:lxb3
31
Chapter 6
11.axb3 tLldS 12 .tLle4 �c6 13.iWe2
�e7 14J�d1 iWb8 15.tLld4 �d7 16.
iWg4t White maintained a power­
ful initiative in the game Kiik -
Przewoznik, Espoo 1991).
This position has been en­
countered very rarely in games
between strong players and there
is insufficient practical material
to evaluate whether White can
transform his advantage of two
tempi (the first move and the
tempo which Black is going to
lose with e6-e5) into some mean­
ingful positional gains. 6.�d3 ! ?
(White did not obtain anything
much by deploying his forces "a la
Philidor" : 6.�e2 eS 7. 0-0 iWe7 8.
c3 aS 9 .b3 0-0 10.a3 �g4 11.�b2
tLlbd7 12 .h3 �hS 13 .tLlh4 ixe2 14.
iWxe2 g6 15.b4 axb4 16.axb4 �b6
32
17.g3 tLl h S 18.'it>h2 tt:Jf4 and the
opponents agreed to a draw, Hra­
cek - Akopian, Cap d'Agde 1996.)
6 ... e5 7.tt:Jc4 tLlc6 8.c3 and after
8 . . . tt:Jg4 9.0-0 bS 10.tLle3 ixe3 11.
ixe3 tt:Jxe3 12 .fxe3 a6 13 .a4 b4,
Rohde - Akopian, Los Angeles
1991, White could have continued
with 14J'k1 0-0 1S.cxb4 tt:Jxb4 16.
�c4 iWe7 17.ttJxeS !:t maintaining a
considerable advantage, but it
looks as if Black could have equal­
ized with 8 . . . a5 9.tt:Jcxe5 ttJxeS 10.
tLlxeS 0-0 11.tLlf3 iWe7. This idea
requires further practical tests.
5.g3
5 . . . g6
This set-up is only seldom
played and its idea is not only to
surprise the opponent, but to en­
ter a complicated position with
counter chances for Black. The
classical scheme in this situation
looks to me to be a bit passive -
s . . . tLlc6 6 .�g2 �e7 7. 0-0 b6 8J'!e1
�b7. I have played many games
with it, not without considerable
success, but I think White's play is
easier, since he makes the impor­
tant decisions.

6 . .ig2 .ig7
7. 0 - 0
White can try to seize the ini­
tiative with 7.exd5, but Black can
counter this with 7 . . . tt'lxd5 (But
not 7 . . . exd5 ? ! and he will have
problems after 8 .'�e2 + .ie6 9 .
tt'lg5±; the endgame arising after
8 .. .'�e7 9.�xe7+ �xe7 10.tt'lb3t is
no good for Black at all.) 8.tt'lb3 ! ?
(White cannot hurt his opponent
with 8.tt'le4 tt'lc6 9.0-0 b6 10 . .ig5
f6 1l ..id2 0-0 and the position is
double-edged.) 8 . . . tt'lc6 (It seems
weaker for Black to play 8 . . . 0-0
9.0-0 tt'ld7 10.Ei:e1 and he will
have problems with the develop­
ment of his light-squared bishop.
For example: 10 . . . b6? ! ll . .ig5 f6
12 . .ic1 ; ll . . . .if6 12 ..ixf6 �xf6 1 2 .
tt'lfd2 ! ?) 9.0-0 b6 and i t will b e
difficult for White t o achieve any­
thing from this position. For in­
stance, 10 .d4 (10.c4 tt'lde7 ll.d4
.ia6 ! ) 10 . . . .ia6 1l.Ei:e1 cxd4 (But
not ll . . . c4? ! 1 2 . tt'lbd2 c3 13. tt'le4
cxb2 14.hb2 0-0 15 ..ia3 tt'lce7
16.tt'le5t) 12.tt'lbxd4 tt'lxd4 13.
tt'lxd4 0-0 14.tt'lc6 (White cannot
obtain any advantage with 14.c3
l.e4 e6 2.d3 d5 3.lt'ld2 lt'lf6
Ei:c8 15.�a4 .ic4 16.tt'lc6 b5 17.
�xc4 bxc4 18.tt'lxd8 Ei:fxd8, Sav­
chenko - Vitiugov, Serpukhov
2008.) 14 . . . �d7 15.hd5 exd5 16.
lt'le7+ �h8 17.�xd5 �xd5 18.
tt'lxd5 .ib7 and Black has full com­
pensation for the sacrificed pawn.
7. . . 0 - 0
Black can also play 7 . . . tt'lc6, be­
cause he need not be afraid of 8 .
exd5 tt'lxd5 9.tt'lb3 (After 9.tt'le4 b 6
i t i s far from clear how White can
increase his pressure. 10 ..ig5 (Af­
ter 10.c4 tt'l de7 ll . .ig5 .ib7 1 2 .
tt'lf6+ �f8 , White's pieces will
have to retreat, coming under at­
tack with tempo, while the weak­
ness of the d4-square will be per­
manent.) 10 .. .f6 ll . .id2 0-0 1 2 .
Ei: e 1 e 5 and White's set-up seems
absolutely ridiculous for a King's
Indian scheme.) 9 . . . b6 10.c4 tt'l de7
1l.d4 .ia6 ! Black has a good posi­
tion.
SJ�el
The line 8.�e2 tt'lc6 9.c3 b6 is
not so good for White, because af­
ter Black's natural reaction 10 .e5
tt'ld7 ll.d4 a5, White's queen is
obviously misplaced.
33
Chapter 6

8 .lZlc6
••

do that successfully, though . . .

9.c3
White has completed his
King's Indian attack "pro­
gramme". We shall try to go a bit
deeper into the intricacies of this
position.
White cannot change much
with indifferent moves such as 9 .
a 3 b6 10 .c3, although White often
plays like this. He has tried also
l OJ''lb l. . . Unfortunately, he does
not do that very often . . .
White also has difficulties af­
ter 9 .'\We2 b6 lO.tiJfl (10 .c3 ia6)
10 . . . h6 ! ? (It is also very good for
Black to play the immediate 10 . . .
e 5 ll.tiJe3 ib7) ll.h4 e 5 12.tiJe3
ie6 13.exd5 tiJxd5 14.liJc4 ig4+
and Black is simply better, Ma­
tikozian - Lputian, Yerevan 1999.
(diagram)
9 .l'�e8
••
Black has several alternatives
to his last move.
It is weaker for Black to play
9 . . . e5? ! , because then he enters a
position from the King's Indian
defence with colours reversed,
two tempi behind, and this must
be an important factor. 10.exd5
liJxd5 ll .liJc4 f6 12 .'\Wb3 and
White's initiative is tremendously
powerful.
It is possible for Black to play
9 . . . b6 ! ? - the so-called "double fi­
anchetto". He will develop his
bishop, while keeping the elastic­
ity of his pawn centre intact. 10.e5
(Waiting moves for White such as
10.a3 would not change much -
10 . . . 1b7.) 10 . . . tiJd7 ll.d4 f6

It has become clear that after

Black has chosen his set-up, the
most principled plan for White
will be connected with e4-e5 and
d3-d4. Black will have to under­
mine White's centre with f7-f6 .
He needs t o b e well-prepared to 12 .ih3 ! ? This is the only way

34

for White to obtain some advan­
tage. (He should not give up the
centre with 12.exf6, since his op­
ponent will have no problems
after 12 . . . Wxf6 13 .We2 �b7 14.
Wxe6+ Wxe6 15J�xe6 cxd4, or 13.
tt'lb3 c4 14.tt'lbd2 �b7 15.b3 cxb3
16.axb3 e5 ! and in both cases
Black obtains an excellent posi­
tion.) 12 .. J'l:e8 13.exf6 Wxf6 14.tt'lfl
and here he can strike an immedi­
ate blow against White's centre :
14 . . . cxd4 15.�g5 Wf7 16. cxd4 e5
17J'k1 �b7 18.�e3 h6 19.�xd7 and
the opponents agreed to a draw,
Areshchenko - Vysochin, Olginka
2011, or he can calmly complete
the development of his pieces 14 . . .
�b7 15.�f4 (15.�g5?! Wf7 16.�f4
h6 17.tt'le3 e5 18.�xd7 Wxd7 19.
tt'lxe5 tt'lxe5 2 0 .�xe5 he5 2l.dxe5
E1xe5+) 15 . . . cxd4 16.cxd4 E1ac8. On
the board a complicated position
with chances for both sides has
been reached.
The prophylactic move 9 . . .
Wh8 ! ? was tried by the French
Defence specialist Lputian. His
rook remains on the f-file, so that
if White plays e4-e5 Black has the
undermining move f7-f6, while
the retreat of his king relieves his
anxieties about the safety of his
e6-pawn.
The move 9 . . . a5 ! ? deserves
thorough attention.
(diagram)
Let us examine White's possi­
ble replies :
it would be very risky now for
him to opt for the natural move
10.e5 ? ! owing to 10 . . . tt'lg4! ll.d4
l.e4 e6 2.d3 d5 3.tt'l d2 tt'lf6
cxd4 12.cxd4 f6 13.h3 (White
should avoid 13.exf6 Wxf6 14.h3
tt'lxf2 ! 15.Wxf2 Wxd4+ 16.We2 Wb6
17.tt'lf1 �d7- + ; 17. \ilfl tt'ld4 18.
tt'lb3 tt'lf5 19.�f4 a4; 17.Wb3 Wc7
18.g4 Wg3-. with a dangerous at­
tack for Black. It is interesting
that he can even afford to leave
his queen under attack: 16 . . .
�d7 ! ? ; 1 6 . . . Wa7 i s n o less effective
than the move in the text.) 13 . . .
tt'lxf2 14.Wxf2 fxe5 15.Wg1 (15.
dxe5 Wb6 + 16.Wf1 tt'lxe5 17.Wb3
Wxb3 18.axb3 tt'ld3 19.E1e3 tt'lxc1
20.E1xc1 e5+. I should like to men­
tion that not only does every pos­
sible capture on e5 lead to a better
position for Black, but even after
the prophylactic move 16 . . . a4 ! ?
his game i s preferable.) 1 5. . . exd4+
Black maintains a clear advan­
tage, Rathnakaran - Kurnosov,
Bhubaneswar 2009.
White has also tried 10.tt'lb3 b6
1l .e5 tt'ld7 12.�f4 �a6 13 .h4 E1c8
14.tt'lc1 d4 15.c4 b5 16.b3 a4 17.h5
h6oo with a very complicated posi­
tion, Amin - Vorobiov, Cappelle
la Grande 2 0 1 0 .
I f 10.tt'lf1 Black should consid­
er simplifying into an endgame :
10 . . . dxe4 ! ? (after 10 . . . a4 1l .e5
tt'ld7 12 .�f4 a3 13.b3 f6 14.exf6
35
Chapter 6
lt:Jxf6 15.�d2;!; White has a slight
edge, Bologan - Komarov, Ulcinj
1997) ll.dxe4 �xd1 12 .Elxd1 a4 !
(but not 12 . . . lt:Jxe4 13 .ie3� with
excellent compensation for Black).
Black is threatening a4-a3 and
has good counterplay.
It looks natural for White to
play 10.a4, but after 10 . . . b6, White
again has problems. Now a switch
to a French Defence pawn struc­
ture with e4-e5, followed by d3-
d4, would present the b4-square
to his opponent, while after lt:Jf1,
Black can go into an endgame and
occupy the d3-outpost with his
knight via e5, or c5 after c5-c4,
while 11.exd5 exd5 12.lt:Jf1 ia6 13.
if4 lt:Jh5 14.ig5 �d6 would not
achieve much for White.
1 0 .e5
White decides to make a solid
preparatory move without forc­
ing the game. If nothing dramatic
happens, Black's plan is simple
- b6, ib7, �c7, Elad8 etc., typi­
cal central strategy. Therefore we
shall study attempts to sharpen
the game.
36
If White tries to make another
useful move - 1 0 .�e2, Black can
continue according to the sche­
me: 10 . . . b6 11.e5 lt:J d7 12 .d4 f6 (or
12 . . . a5 13.lt:Jfl ia6 14.�d1co with
a complicated position) 13.exf6
�xf6 14.lt:Jb3 c4 15.lt:Jbd2 ib7co
with a complex and unclear posi­
tion, but Black could also serious­
ly consider playing 10 . . . e5 ! ? 11.
exd5 lt:Jxd5 when White has two
extra tempi in comparison to the
King's Indian Defence with col­
ours reversed, but one of them -
�d1-e2 is obviously superfluous.
10 . . .ll:ld7 ll.d4 f6 12.exf6
�xf6
13.c4 ! ?
This undermining move cre­
ates great problems for Black.
13.dxc5 ! ? This is a flexible
move. White is ready to give up
his centre in order to gain some
tempi for the development of his
pieces. 13 . . . lt:Jxc5 14.lt:Jb3 lt:Je4 15.
if4 (White is unable to challenge
the position of Black's knight -
15.c4 Eld8 .) 15 . . . �d8 . Strangely
enough, sometimes coming back

with the queen to its initial square
can be an unexpected but very
strong decision. 16.tLlbd4 ! (pre­
venting e6-e5) 16 . . . 2:f8 . Black is
eyeing the f2-pawn ! (It is bad for
him to play 16 . . . ¥Mb6? ! 17.¥Mb3
¥Mxb3 18.axb3 e5 19.tLlxc6 bxc6
20 . .be5 .be5 21.tLlxe5 Elxe5 22.f3
�f5 23.fxe4 .be4 24.b4±) . The
game might continue : 17.¥Mb3
ttJa5 18.¥Mc2 tLlc4 19.2:adl e5 20.
ttJxe5 .be5 21..be4 .bf4 22.tLlb3
ttJb6 23.gxf4 with an equal posi­
tion.
Here it looks logical for White
to play 13.tLlb3, for example, and
now: 13 . . . c4 14.tLlbd2 (After 14.
�g5 ¥Mf7 15.tLlbd2 e5 16.dxe5
ttJdxe5 17.ttJxe5 ttJxe5 and Black
has an excellent position, Nepom­
niachtchi - Moiseenko, Kazan
2003. White cannot obtain any
advantage with the forcing line -
18.f4 ! ? �g4 19.2:xe5 .bd1 20 . .bd5
.be5 21..bf7+ �xf7 22.Elxdl �f6
23.tLlxc4 Elad8 24.tLld6+ �e6 25.
.bf6 Elxd6 26.�d4 �f5 = . He can
win a pawn with 19.¥Ma4 tLld3 20.
Elxe8+ Elxe8 21..bd5 but only
temporarily, because after 21. . .
�e6 2 2 . .be6 ¥Mxe6 23.¥Mxc4 ttJxb2
24.¥Mxe6+ Elxe6, Black's position
is perfectly comfortable.)
l.e4 e6 2.d3 d5 3. tLl d2 tLlf6
The chronic weakness of the
e5-square might hurt Black in the
future. It would therefore be in­
teresting for him to try the pawn­
sacrifice 14 . . . e5 15.tLlxe5 tLldxe5
16 . .bd5+ �h8 17.dxe5 ttJxe5
Black is a pawn down but has
compensation. For example:
It would be too risky for White
to try 18.tLlxc4 �g4 19.¥Md2 tLlf3 +
20 . .bf3 �xf3 and despite the fact
that Black is now two pawns
down, his light-squared bishop
more than compensates for them;
White is unable to seize the
initiative with 18.tLle4 ¥Mf8 19.tLlg5
(It is bad to play 19.�f4? �g4
20 .¥Ma4 tLlf3 + 21.�g2 ttJxel+ 22.
Elxel Elad8 ! 23.¥Mxc4 ¥Mf5 24 . .bb7
�h3+ 25.�gl ¥Mh5+ with advan­
tage for Black.) 19 . . . �g4 20 .¥Md2
(the line: 20 .¥Mc2 �f5 21.¥Md2
Elad8 22.2:xe5 leads to almost the
same position, except that Black's
bishop is on f5, which is in his fa­
vour.) 20 . . . 2:ad8 (20 . . . h6 21.Elxe5
.be5 22.lLlf7+ �h7 23.¥Mxh6+
�xh6 24.�xh6 �f6) 21.2:xe5 Elxe5
22.lLlf7+ ¥Mxf7 23 ..bf7 Elxd2 24 .
.bd2 Ele2� and Black's compen­
sation for the pawn should be suf­
ficient for a draw;
37
Chapter 6
18 ..bc4 :gf8 ! (18 . . . �g4?! 19.
�e2 ! ) 19.f3 �f5 . Black has ob­
tained an excellent game for the
sacrificed material. His counter­
play is rich and easy - all in the
centre. He can also try 19 . . . �h3 ! ?
2 0 .�fl �d7.
13 .. .l:�f8
It is logical for Black to move
the rook back to its worki ng
file.
His alternatives are inferior:
it is bad for him to continue
with 13 . . . dxc4 14.dxc5 tLlde5 15.
tLle4 tLlxf3+ 16.hf3 '\Wd4 17.'1We2
(17.:gb1 ! ?) 17 . . . :gd8 18.:gb1 ! (Me3)
18 . . . '1Wd3 19 .�e3±;
13 . . . tLlxd4 14.cxd5 e5 (after
14 . . . tLlb6 it is good for White to
play simply 15.tLlxd4 '1Wxd4 16.
'1We2 ; 15 ... cxd4 16.dxe6 and Black
has problems; or 15.tLle4 '1Wf8 16.
d6 e5 17.tLlxd4 cxd4 18 .�g5) 15.
tLle4 '1Wf8 and White has several
promising possibilities : 16.�g5 ! ? ,
o r 16 .b4 tLlb6 17.bxc5 �g4 18.cxb6
�xf3 19.'1Wd3 axb6 2 0 .�b2 , or
16.�e3 tLlf6 17.tLlfg5 tLlxe4 18.
tLlxe4.
14.cxd5 exd5 15.dxc5
38
This is a critical position. Black
is faced with a difficult choice :
White enjoys a comfortable
edge in the endgame after 15 . . .
tLld4 16.:gf1 tLlxc5 17.tLlxd4 '1Wxd4
18 .tLlb3 'IWxd1 19.:gxdU;
15 . . . �h8 16.tLlb3 (16.tLlf1) 16 ...
tLlde5 17.tLlxe5 '1Wxf 2 + 18.�h1
tLlxe5 19 .�e3 tLlg4 2 0 .�d4 !±;
15 . . . tLlxc5 16. tLlb3 tLlxb3 17.
'1Wxb3 �h8 18.'1Wxd5 �f5 ! ?� Black
has compensation for the pawn.
White will be unable to develop
his queen's rook and bishop with­
out losing his b2-pawn. Still, his
chances seem slightly preferable.
Instead of his last move, the natu­
ral try 18 . . . �g4 would not grant
Black complete equality: 19.�g5
'1Wf5 20.'1Wxf5 :gxf5 2 1.�f4 :gb5 2 2 .
tLlg5t with a powerful initiative
for White.
It looks attractive for Black to
try 15 . . . tLlde5.
(diagram)
Now his position is quite play­
able after forcing lines, for exam­
ple : 16.tLlxe5 '1Wxf 2 + (16 . . . tLlxe5)
17.�h1 tLlxe5 18.hd5+ �h8 19.
tLle4 tLlg4 (19 ... tLld3) 2 0 .tLlxf2 (20.
'1Wd2 '1Wf5 - �tLle3 - 2 1 . tLld6 '1Wh5

2 2 .h4 �d7 2 3.WfgS 0,f2 + 24.Wg2
0,d3?) 20 . . . 0,xf2 + 2l.Wgl 0,xdl
l.e4 e6 2.d3 d5 3. 0, d2 0,f6
2 2 .l"lxdl �g4= with equality, or
16.Wfb3 �g4 17J'1xeS 0,xeS 18.
WfxdS+ �e6 19.WfxeS '&xeS 2 0 .
0,xeS �xeS with a complicated
endgame.
But White has a powerful re­
source here, which is to fortify his
position with the move 16.l''1 e 3 ! ? ,
s o a s after 16 . . . aS, o r 16 . . . �e6 to
continue with 17.Wffl . Black has
some compensation, but it seems
to me to be much easier to play
this position with White.
39
Chapter 7 l.e4 e6 2.d3 d5 3.W/e2

King's Indian Attack

move 'l'tldl-e2 might turn out to be

a loss of a tempo in many varia­
tions. In this chapter we shall an­
alyze some possibilities for Black
to exploit all this by changing the
pawn structure with the move e6-
e5, avoiding c7-c5, which is much
more typical for the King's Indian
Attack.
We shall now deal with a) 3 . . .

llJc6 and b ) 3 dxe4.

. . .

This move has been played The scheme we analyzed in the

successfully several times by Mo­ chapter devoted to the move
rozevich, as well as by strong 3.'Lld2 is less advisable here, al­
players such as Fedorov, Glek and though it is still quite playable:
Yudasin. The difference between 3 . . . Lt:lf6 4.Lt:lf3 cS S.g3 g6 ! ? 6.�g2
this move and 3.'Lld2 which we �g7 7.0-0
have already analyzed is that
White increases his pressure
against Black's dS-pawn and to a
certain degree restricts Black's
choice of methods of develop­
ment. It is important for White
that in many variations his dark­
squared bishop is free to move
and his knight may be developed
advantageously to the a3-square
if Black chooses a set-up includ­ 7 ... 0-0 (Black should avoid
ing the move c7-c5. The drawback experimenting with the order of
of White's third move is that his moves, since the premature de­
queen might become vulnerable velopment of his queen's knight
on the fl-a6 diagonal and that the would only present White with

40
 l.e4 e6 2.d3 d5 3.�e2 tt:J c6

the additional possibility of com­ avoid 14.cxd4 e5 15.dxe5 tt:J dxe5

plicating Black's defensive task
with ic1-g5 : 7 . . . tt:Jc6 8.ig5 ! h6 9 .
exd5 �xd5 10. tt:Jc3 �d8 ll.ie3
tt:Jd7 12 .�d2, Vescovi - Svidler,
Bermuda 2003, and the players
agreed to a draw, but Black's posi­
tion was a bit suspect. However,
8 . . . �b6 might solve Black's prob­
lems after all.) 8.c3 (It was also
16.tt:Jxe5 �xe5t) 14 . . . tt:Jxd4 15.
cxd4 and here, after 15 ... tt:Jb6 16.
b3 id?t, as well as after the more
principled 15 . . . tt:Jb8 16.tt:Jc3 tt:Jc6
17.%'\fdH, White's position would
be preferable.
a) 3 .tl:lc6
••

possible for White to play 8.e5

tt:Jd7 9 .if4 tt:Jc6 10 .tt:lbd2 , but the
way Damljanovic played was even
stronger.) 8 . . . tt:Jc6 9 .e5 tt:Jd7 10 .d4
f6 1l.exf6 �xf6

Black's idea is to maintain the

tension in the centre.
4.ll:lf3 e5
This position was reached in Black cannot occupy the cen­
the game Damljanovic - Svidler, tre without being punished, but
Plovdiv 2 003. White chose the preparing e6-e5 with 4 . . . tt:Jf6 also
seemingly attractive 12 .ig5 (after fails, because White can obtain an
12 .if4 �e7 13J:'i:d1 cxd4 14.cxd4 advantage by changing the pawn
Ei:xf4 Black probably has sufficient structure with 5.e5 tt:Jd7 6 .g3±
compensation for the exchange. It
is good for White to play simply
12 .%'\dl. It seems to me that he
should also consider 12.tt:lg5 ! ?)
12 . . .�f5 13.ie3 . Now Black's best
decision would be 13 . . . cxd4 (in
the above mentioned game there
followed 13 . . . b6 14.tt:Ja3 a6 15.
Ei:ad1 ib7 16.tt:Jg5 Ei:fe8 17.f4± and
Black ended up in an unpleasant
position) 14.tt:Jxd4 (White should

41
Chapter 7

5.exd5 ! and here it would be sufficient to

This is the only way for White
to utilize his two extra tempi in
comparison with the Philidor De­
fence with colours reversed.
After S.c3 tt:lf6, Black has no
serious problems. An early white
attempt to seize more space on
the queenside backfires : 6.b4 (It
would be too passive for him to
develop according to the scheme
of the Philidor Defence with col­
ours reversed and an extra tempo,
for example: 6.�c2 aS 7.�e2 h6
8 . 0 - 0 �d6 9.tt:lbd2 0-0 10J'l:d1
l'l:e8 11.li:Jf1 �e6 12.tt:lg3 �c8 13.h3
a4 14.�e3 li:Je7+ and in the game
Zhang Zhong - Bareev, Wijk aan
Zee 2004, Black even gained an
edge.) 6 . . . �g4 !
win the enemy b7-pawn with 14 . . .
c 6 1S.f4 �c7+ for Black t o gain a
clear advantage. ) 7 . . . d4 8 .bS dxc3
9.bxc6 cxd2 10.�xd2 ! (10 .�xd2
bxc6 11 .h3 �xf3 12.�xf3 l'l:b8 13.
�e3 l'l:b2+ led again to an edge for
Black, Strikovic - Ulibin, Santa
Cruz de la Palma 20 0S) 10 . . . �xf3
ll.gxf3 (Black is also better after
11.cxb7 l'l:b8 12.gxf3 l'l:b7+) 1 1 . . .
bxc6 12.�c3 �d6 13 .f4 �b4 14.
�xb4 �xb4 1S.<i>e2 li:JhS= with ap­
proximate equality in the end­
game.
5 .. .\!�'xd5 6)i:'lc3

6 . . . .ib4
After the retreat 6 . . . �e6,
7.li:Jbd2 (7.a3 aS 8 .bS dxe4 9 . White's energetic move 7.d4 ! pro­
bxc6 exf3 10 .gxf3 �e6 ll.cxb7 l'l:b8 vides him with a slight edge, no
12.f4 exf4 13.�g2 �d6 14.�c6+ matter what endgame arises,
tt:ld7 1S.d4 0-0 16.�bS �e7 17.
ci>d1 tt:lb6 18.li:Jd2 �h4 19 .f3 �h3
20./'l:e1 l'l:fd8 21./'l:e2 �f8+ Black is
obviously better in this position,
Skripchenko - Ulibin, Dubai
2003. White's chances would not
be improved by 12.�g2 �d6 13.
li:J d2 0-0 14. 0-0, Totsky - Ru­
dolf, Cappelle la Grande 2006

42

for example:
7 ... tt::l x d4 8 .tt::l xd4 exd4 9 .tt::l b5
ib4+ 1 0.id2 ixd2+ 1l.�xd2
@d8 12.�xe6 ixe6 13.tt::l x d4 and
now Black should probably ignore
the positional threat of tt::l d4xe6
by playing 13 . . . tt::l f 6. If he plays ac­
curately he is likely to make a
draw, but that would hardly be
enjoyable;
The move 7 . . . exd4 keeps more
material on the board but does
not change the evaluation of the
position : 8 .tt::l b5 ib4+ (8 . . . id6 9 .
�xe6+ ? ! ixe6 10.tt::l fxd4 tt::l x d4 11.
tt::l xd4 id7 12.tt::l b 5 ie5 13.f4 a6f! ;
9.tt::l x d6+ cxd6 10.if4 tt::l f 6 11.
0-0- 0 ; 10 . . . tt::l g e7 1l.�xe6 ixe6
12. 0-0-0 ig4 13 .ixd6 ixf3 14.
gxf3 0-0-0 15.ig3±) 9.id2 ixd2+
10. tt::l xd2 lf?d8 (after 10 . . . �xe2+
11. ixe2 lf?d8 the result is more or
less the same : 12.tt::l b 3 tt::l f 6 13.
0-0-0, an attempt by Black to
keep the d4-pawn, while giving
up the c7-pawn, with 11 . . . l"lb8
12.0-0-0 a6 13.tt::l xc7+ �d8 would
be short-sighted, because after 14.
tt::l d5 tt::l g e7 15.if3± he loses both
pawns) 11.tt::l b 3 tt::l f 6 12.0-0-0±
7.id2 .ixc3 8.ixc3 ig4
l.e4 e6 2.d3 d5 3. �e2 tt::l c6
9.Wfe4
White's alternatives are weak-
er:
he does not achieve much with
9.d4 0-0-0 (but not 9 . . . e4 10 .h3
ih5 1l.�c4 �xc4 12.ixc4 exf3 13.
g4 and owing to the threat of d4-
d5 White regains his piece, main­
taining an advantage) 10 .dxe5 be­
cause of 10 . . . tt::l f 6 ! and White must
be on the alert. 11.l"ld1 (after 11.h3
ixf3 12.�xf3, Black has a pleas­
ant choice between the simple
move 12 . . . tt::l e 4f! and the sharp
line : 12 . . . l"lhe8 13 .�f5+ lf?b8 14.
ie2 tt::l e 4 15.l"ld1 �xd1 + 16.ixd1
tt::l xc3 17. 0-0 tt::l x d1 with an excel­
lent position in both cases) 11 . . .
�xd1 + 12.�xd1 l"lxd1+ 13.1f?xd1
tt::l e4 14.ie1 tt::l xe5 15.ie2 l"ld8+ 16.
lf?c1 and Black can draw by play­
ing 16 . . . tt::l xf3 17.gxf3 ih5 18.l"lg1
g6=
We have to mention the
original move 9.l"lg1 ! ? , which
Black should probably counter
with 9 . . . tt::l f 6 (however, even after
the simple response 9 . . . tt::l g e7 1 0 .
�e4 �xe4+ 11.dxe4 f6 12.tt::l d2
0-0-0 13 .f3 ie6 White did not
achieve anything in the game
Maiorov - Kuzmin, Kramatorsk
2003; after 9 .. .f6 10.Wfe4 �d7 11.
h3 if5 12.�a4 0-0-0 13.0-0-0
tt::l ge7 14.d4 lf?b8 a complicated
position arises.) 10.h3 ixf3 11.
�xf3 �e6f! White will have tem­
porary difficulties if he castles
queenside and permanent prob­
lems if he castles kingside, so
Black's prospects are at least
equal.
43
Chapter 7
9 . . . .ixf3
The text move does not pro­
vide Black with complete equali­
ty, so he should consider the less
ambitious line : 9 .. .'W'xe4+ ! ? 10.
dxe4 f6.
1 0 .'\Wxf3 '\Wx£3 ll.gxf3 f6
ll . . . ltld4 1 2 . 0-0-0 0-0-0 13.
Ei:e1 lt:lxf3 14.Ei:e3:t
12 . .id2 !
This is a very powerful novel­
ty.
The seemingly attractive move
12 .Ei:g1, followed by 12 . . . <;t>f7 13.
0-0-0 Ei:d8 14.f4 exf4 15.Ei:g4 g5
16.Ei:xg5 fxg5 17 . .hh8 , was tried in
the game Jones - Broomfield,
Millfield 2 003. Black should have
continued with 17 . . . ltlf6 18 . .hf6
44
<;t>xf6 19 . .ig2 Ei:e8 20 . .ie4 h5 2 1 .f3
ltld8oo and his chances would not
be worse in the arising endgame.
12 .. A:ld4
After this attractive move
there are some forced variations
to consider.
The first game played in this
line continued with 12 . . . ltlge7 13.
f4 ltlg6 14.fxe5 ltlcxe5 15 . .ie2
(Here White could have played
15 . .ig2 0-0-0 16.h4:t with the
better game.) 15 . . . ltlh4 16.0-0-0
ltlef3 17 . .ie3 0-0-0 18.d4 Ei:he8
19 .c3 g5? and Black had suffi­
cient counterplay, Garcia Padron
- Vallejo Pons, Salamanca 1998.
13. 0 - 0 - 0 tt:lx£3 14 . .ig2
tt:lxd2 15.hb7
15 J�b8
••
The position is more compli­
cated after 15 . . . Ei:d8 16.Ei:xd2 ltle7
17.Ei:e1 (White's attempt to ad­
vance d3-d4 with the help of 17.
Ei:hd1 is less effective. Black suc­
ceeds in avoiding the exchange of
the central pawns after 17 . . . c5 18.
c3 <;t>f7 19.d4 cxd4 2 0 . cxd4 Ei:d7 21.
.ia6 e4 2 2 . .ic4+ <;t>g6 23.Ei:g1+
<;t>h6 24 ..ie6 Ei:d6 25.d5 Ei:hd8 26.

Ei:gd1 f5oo and he can improve his
position by playing mh6-g5-f6-e5,
as well as lt:Je7-g6-f4, so his chanc­
es would be at least equal.) 17 . . .
mf7 18.fi:e4 c 5 (The endgame fol­
lowing the exchange of the rooks :
18 . . . Ei:d4 19 .c3 fi:xe4 20.dxe4 me6
21..ia6 lt:Jc8 22.Ei:d5 lt:Jd6 23.f3 c6
24.fi:a5 md7 25 . .ifl fi:a8 26.b4:t
will be in White's favour in any
case; but it would be inferior for
him to play 23 . .id3 ? ! f5 24.f3 fxe4
25.fxe4 fi:f8 26.fi:c5 fi:f3+!) 19.f4
exf4 20.fi:xf4:t - The position aris­
ing is rather unclear, but White
has a bishop against a knight and
the pawn structure is asymmetri­
cal on both flanks, so his pros­
pects are preferable.
16 . .ic6+ �f8
After 16 . . . mf7 White has an
important intermediate check 17 .
.id5+ ! me7 18.Ei:xd2 md6 19 . .ib3
lt:Je7 (after 19 . . . c5 20.f4 exf4 21.
fi:e1 t he retains a powerful initia­
tive) 20 .d4 e4 21.fi:e1 f5 22.f3t
and his pieces are very active.
17.gxd2 lt:Je7 18 . .ig2
19.c3
19 . .• mt7 (Black can prevent
l.e4 e6 2.d3 d5 3. �e2 de 4.de e5
d3-d4 by playing 19 . . . lt:Jf5, but this
impedes the evacuation of his
king from f8: 20.fi:e1 with the idea
of fi:e1-e4.) 2 0 .d4 cxd4 21.
cxd4 ghd8 (Black would not
change much with 2 l . . . fi:hc8+
22.mb1) 22.ghdl gbc8+ 23.
mbH and despite the considera­
ble simplifications, White has a
slight edge.
So, in almost all the varia­
tions after 4 . . . e5 5.exd5! White
has a slight advantage and Black
needs to play accurately to fight
for the draw. These develop­
ments are hardly to everyone's
liking, even though a draw is the
most likely outcome. On the other
hand, it is equally unclear wheth­
er White players would consider
their achievements after the
opening to be convincing.
b) 3 ... dxe4 4.dxe4 e5 5.c!Llf3
c5
5 ••• c!Lld7
The move 5 . . . tt:Jc6 is more nat­
ural but less flexible. 6.c3 (The
plan of developing of the bishop
45
Chapter 7
on g2 is not as good here. Black
can exploit one of the drawbacks
of the move 3.1We2 by developing
his bishop on a6: 6.g3 ? ! LLlf6 7.
ig2 ic5 8.0-0 0-0 9 .LLlbd2 b6 !
This is a very typical motif! 10.
l2Jb3 id6 11.ie3 aS 1 2 . LLlc1 ia6
13.LLld3 LLld7+ - with a better posi­
tion for Black, Motwani - Glek,
Belgium 1997) 6 . . . l2Jf6 7.\Wc2
and now:
7 . . . a5 8.ib5 is not good for
Black;
7 . . . id6 8.l2Jbd2 0-0 9 . l2J c4 h6
10 .ie2 l'l:b8 ! ? This is a strange
move. Black provokes a2-a4. Lat­
er he wants to undermine White's
b4-pawn with a7-a5 and White
cannot support it with a2-a3. This
will give Black access to the im­
portant c5-square. Is it possible
that Speelman anticipated these
development so early in the
game?! 11.a4 b6 1 2 . 0 - 0 ib7 13.
l'l:e1 l2Ja5 (It also looks very good
for Black to continue with 13 . . .
l2J e 7 14.if1 l2Jg6.) 14.l2Jxd6 cxd6
15.ifl± and White maintains a
slight edge thanks to his bishop­
pair, Zhang Zhong - Speelman,
Bled 2 0 0 2 .
I t would b e interesting for
46
Black to prepare the development
of his bishop on c5, as well as a
potential attack on the c4-knight
by b7-b5, followed by the devel­
opment of the bishop on b7: 7 . . .
a6 ! ? after 8.b4 (I believe White
should calmly continue with his
development: 8.LLlbd2 ic5 9.ie2
0-0 10.0-0 and his prospects of
advancing his queenside pawns,
supported by the knight on c4,
seem to be more effective than
Black's only active plan, based on
LLlf6-h5-f4.) 8 . . . id6 9 . LLlbd2 0-0
10.LLlc4 h6
11 .ie2 (It is also good for
White to play ll.a4 and after 11 . . .
b 6 12 .ie2 ib7 13.0-0 l2Je7 14.
l2Jfd2± his position is slightly more
pleasant.) 1l.. .b5 12.LLlxd6 cxd6
13.a4 ib7 14.0-0 Wc7 15.id3 LLle7
16.l'l:e1 l'l:fc8 17.ib2 d5� and in the
game Svetushkin - Kruppa, Kiev
2 0 0 0 , Black obtained excellent
prospects.
Black should also consider the
less popular move 5 . . . c6, deploy­
ing his pieces harmoniously with­
out impeding the c8-bishop. The
game could continue : 6.l2Jbd2
Wc7 7.b3 ig4 8 .h3 ih5 9 .ib2
l2Jd7 10 .g3 l2Jgf6 ll.ig2 ic5 1 2 .

0-0 0-0 13.a4 me8 14.\Wc4 aS 1S.
tt:lh4 l'l:ab8 16.tt:ldf3 bS� with a
complicated position, Leon Hoyos
- Akobian, Merida 200S.
6.ll::l b d2
After 6.c3 tt:lgf6 7.\Wc2 fie7=
there arises a symmetrical, equal
position.
White's immediate fianchetto
runs into the above-mentioned
problems on the fl-a6 diagonal :
6.g3 tt:lgf6 7.!ig2 ficS 8.0-0 0-0
9.h3 l'l:e8 10.tt:le1 b6 11.tt:ld3 , Yuda­
sin - Cifuentes Parada, Dos Her­
manas 1998. According to Ci­
fuentes, Black could have solved
all his opening problems with the
natural reaction ll . . . fia6 12.l'l:d1
\We7 13 .tt:lc3 l'l:ad8 14.figS c6 1S.
\Wf3 fid6 16.l'l:d2 h6=
6 . . . !ic5 ! ?
Instead of the ambitious text
move, a safe continuation would
be 6 . . . c6 7.b3 \Wc7 8 .fib2 and now:
Nikolic tried 8 . . . aS 9.g3 tt:lh6
10 .!ih3 f6 11.a4 (Morozevich men­
tions that White does not need to
prevent aS-a4 for the moment:
11.0-0 a4 12.a3:t with a slight
edge for White) ll . . . fib4 12.0-0
l.e4 e6 2.d3 d5 3. \We2 de 4.de e5
0-0, Morozevich - Nikolic, Wijk
aan Zee 2000 and here, Mo­
rozevich recommends 13.tt:leU
when White exerts some pres­
sure.
After 8 . . .f6 9 .g3 tt:lh6, the move
10.fih3 soon leads to exchanges
and simplification. lO . . . tt:l cS 11.
fixeS \Wxc8 12.tt:lh4 \We6 13.0-0-0
0-0-0 14.f4 exf4 1S.gxf4 fid6 16.
eS fxeS 17.fxeS fie7 18.tt:lhf3 tt:lfS
19.tt:lc4 l'l:xd1+ 20.l'l:xd1, draw,
Popovic - Kosic, Hungary 2008.
Here White can try the more
modest move 10 .!ig2 ! ? with pos­
sible ideas of 0-0, tt:lf3-e1-(d3) or
tt:lf3-h4-(fS), f2-f4.
7.ll::l c4
After 7.tt:lb3 it seems to me
that Black should reply with 7 . . .
fid6 (the move 7 . . . !ib6 allows 8.a4
aS 9.tt:lfd 2 ! :t with an edge for
White) and the knight on b3
would need to be redeployed.
In practice White has tried 7.
g3 tt:lgf6 8 .fih3 0-0 9.0-0, Popo­
vic - Bodiroga, Valjevo 2011.
Black can counter this with 9 ... b6
or 9 ... aS and having saved a tem­
po by omitting \Wd8-e7 he should
47
Chapter 7

be able to continue comfortably

with the plan of developing the
bishop on a6, or attack the enemy
e4-pawn by developing the bish­
op on b7.
7 fie7
•.•

It also seems attractive for

Black to play 7 . . . liJgf6 8.liJfxe5
0-0, but after 9.f3 ! his compensa­
tion for the pawn is insufficient.

are preferable.
13 0 - 0 14.h3 .!Llf6 15 . .!Lle3
.•.

.!Llh5 ! ?
Gurevich considers that Black
should not delay the threat to
transfer his knight to the f4-out­
post: if 15 . . . fic7 16.0-0 liJh5 17.
:1'1d1 liJf4 18 ..if1 a4 19.liJc4±, with a
slight edge for White.
16.g3 .!Llf6

Now we shall analyze bl) 8.c3

and b2) 8.g3.

bl) 8.c3 a5 9.li)e3

White did not achieve any­
thing after 9 . .ig5 fie6 10 .liJe3 liJe7
11.liJd2 f6 12 ..ih4 b6 13.fif3 he3
14.fixe3 liJc5 15.f3 .ia6 16.ha6
liJxa6 17 . .if2 0-0-0= with subse­
quent simplification and a draw,
Maiwald - Socko, Graz 2 011.
9 .lL!b6 1 0 .fic2 .!Llf6
•. 17.g4 ! ? l'!e8
(diagram) With the idea of liJf6-d7-f8-g6-
ll.�b5+ f4.
Otherwise Black could have 18.l'!gl fic7 19 . .!Llh4 .!Llfd7
considered the transfer of his 2 0 .!Llhf5 .!Llf8 21.g5 ! ? .!Llg6 22.
•

bishop to the c6-square. .!Llg4 .ixf'S ! ?

ll . . . c6 12.�e2 .!Llg4 13 . .!Lldl ! ? Gurevich mentions that it
After the exchange 13.liJxg4 would be good for Black to play
hg4 14.0-0 0-0 Black's chances 22 . . . .ie6 23.h4 :1'1ed8 ! ?

48
 l.e4 e6 2.d3 d5 3. �e2 de 4.de e5

23.exf5 �f4 24.i.xf4 exf4 White should exploit the mis­

25. 0 - 0 - 0 f3 26 . .id3 placement of Black's knight on d7
Here it would not work for with the familiar development of
White to play 26.hf3 �f4+ 2 7. his bishop on the h3-square.
�d2 �xf3 2 8 .�f6+ gxf6 29.gxf6+ 8 . • . �gf6 9 . .ih3
@h8 30.�h6 �e3 ! ?-+
26 ..• �f4+ 27.@bl
Black has a good position after
the exchange of queens : 27.�d2
�xd2+ 28J!xd2 (28.@xd2 �d5+!)
28 . . . �d6 ! + and he is even better.

9... 0 - 0
An attempt by Black to ex­
change all the pieces would not
grant him complete equality: 9 . . .
�b6 10 .hc8 Elxc8 ll.�g5 ct:lxc4
12.�xc4 0-0 13.0-0 �b6 14.i>g2
This position was reached in (14.a4 �e6 15.�xe6 fxe6) 14 . . .
the game Glek - Gurevich, Ger­ �e6 ! ? (14 . . . h6 15.hf6 �xf6 16.a4
many 1998. Black could have sim­ aS 17.EladU) 15.�xe6 fxe6 16.Elae1
ply captured the pawn with a clear ct:lg4 17.h3 Elxf3 18.i>xf3 (18.hxg4
advantage : Elcf8 19.Ele2 �d4) 18 . . . �h2 + 19.
27 �xg5 !+
. .• i>e2 ct:lxfl 2 0 . Elxfl h6 2 1.�d2± and
White retains an edge, thanks to
b2) 8.g3 his superior pawn structure, but
the most likely outcome would be
a draw.
It is worth considering the
risky move 9 . . . b5 ! ? 10.'Lle3 0-0
11.0-0 (after 1l .�xb5 ct:lxe4, the
double attack 1 2 .�c6 is not dan­
gerous for him, because after 12 . . .
ct:ldf6 13.�xa8? hh3 White risks
being crushed.) ll.. .�b7oo with
chances for both sides.
1 0 . 0 - 0 a5

49
Chapter 7

The development of the bish­

op on a6 does not solve Black's
problems here : 10 . . . b6 1l.i.g5 i.a6
(ll. . .h6 ! ?) 1 2 . Elad1 �e8 (White is
also better after 12 . . . Elfd8 13.hd7
Elxd7 14.i.xf6 gxf6 15.lt:lh4 �e6 16.
b3 Elad8 17.lt:lf5t) 13.c3 h6 14.i.cU
In practice Black has tried 10 . . .
Ele8 ll.a4 b 6 ( H e could also try
ll . . . lt:lb6 12 .i.xc8 Elaxc8.) 12.lt:lh4
(12 .i.g5 ! ?) 12 . . . g6 13 .i.g5t and
White exerts pressure, Seminara Bearing in mind this last vari­
- Needleman, Mar del Plata 1998. ation, Black should probably look
ll.i.g5 h6 12 . .ixf6 lt:lxf6 more carefully at the prophylac­
13 . .ixc8 E:fxc8 tic move 10 . . . h6. His plans in­
(diagram) clude thefamiliar development of
and now the move 14.a4 ! ?t, his light-squared bishop on a6 or
postponing capturing on e5 for a b7, while he can counter the ma­
while, gives White a minimal noeuvre lt:l h4-j5 with the defen­
edge. sive set-up Elf8-d8 and �e7-e8.

50
 Part 3

The Advance Variation

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5

In the third part of our book, we shall analyze the Advance variation
of the French defence, which arises after 3.e5. This is in fact White's
most ambitious reply against the French set-up. White starts to exert
strong pressure over the whole board right from the start of the game,
trying as hard as he can to restrict his opponent's space. Black must
immediately play very actively; otherwise his pieces will be squashed
by the lack of operating space.
However, White's strategy also has a drawback. It might turn out
that he is not well enough prepared for a task of this magnitude. Black
is immediately presented with targets to attack, in particular his oppo­
nent's d4-pawn. There are several variations in which White's king is
endangered and sometimes his pieces have to occupy rather awkward
squares in order to protect and preserve his d4-e5 pawn-chain.
I think it would be useful to restate here the famous axiomatic
rule, known since the time of Aaron Nimzowitsch, who was an keen
exponent of the Advance variation of the French, that the d4- and e5-
squares are absolutely crucial in this variation. Will White succeed in
securely protecting his centre pawns? How effective will Black's at­
tempts to undermine them with c7-c5 and f7-f6 be? The outcome of
the opening battle, and possibly of the entire game, can depend on the
answers to these questions.
I should add that, in addition to Nimzowitsch's efforts, the
Advance variation has been played and actively popularized by Evgeny
Ellinovich Sveshnikov. There have also been many important games
played by Alexander Grischuk, Peter Svidler, Alexey Shirov, Alexander
Motylev and many other strong masters who from time to time use this
interesting variation, which leads complicated and fighting positions.

51
Chapter 8 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5

White has also tried 4.lLlf3

cxd4 5.i.d3 lLlc6 6 .0-0 lLlge7 7.
i.f4 lLlg6 8.i.g3 i.e7 9 . a3 0-0 10.
�el f5 ll.h3 i.d7 12 .b4 a5 13 .b5
lLl a7 14.a4 i.b4 15.�e2 f4 16.i.h2
lLlh4 17.lLlbd2 i.c3 18.�a2 lLlxf3+
19.lLlxf3 i.e8 with a considerable
advantage for Black, Hodgson -
Short, Gouda 1996.
4 .'!Wb6 5.ll:l f3
••

5.i.e3 ! ? If Black wishes to

Black should play this thematic avoid this interesting possibility,
undermining move without delay. which used to be a favourite of
4.c3 Victor Kupreichik, he can simply
This is a necessary response begin with 4 . . . Wfb6 instead of 4 . . .
and nowadays it is absolutely au­ lLlc6.
tomatic. 5 •.. lLlc6
There were times when there
were serious debates about the
possibility of 4.dxc5, after which
there arises a variation of the Ca­
ro-Kann defence which is satis­
factory for Black and here he even
has an extra tempo. 4 . . . lLl c6
(White can counter 4 . . . .bc5 with
5.Wfg4.) 5.lLlf3 .bc5 6 .i.d3 f6 7.
Wfe2 fxe5 8.lLlxe5 lLlf6 9 . 0 - 0 lLlxe5
10.1Mfxe5 0-0 ll.c4 Wfb6 12 .1Mfe2
i.d7 13.lLld2 �ac8 14.cj;>hl cj;>h8
with a complicated position, Mak­ The first critical moment of
ropoulos - Hug, Nice 1974. the variation is right here.

52
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 W1b6 5. liJ.f3 liJ c6 6. �e2 cd
6.�e2
This is by no means the most
dangerous move for Black. White
develops his bishop to a very
modest position. Black can obtain
a very comfortable game in this
line.
The game proceeds in similar
fashion after the seldom played
but very interesting move 6.liJa3 .
I think that our readers will be
hardly surprised to learn that Va­
dim Zvjaginsev is one of the expo­
nents of this variation. 6 . . . cxd4
7.cxd4 �b4 + . This is a principled
move. Black is trying to exploit
the early development of his op­
ponent's knight. (It is weaker for
him to opt for 7 . . . liJh6 8.liJc2 liJf5
9.�d3 �e7 10.0-0 �d7 and here
White has the strong move
1l.g4 ! ? . It is also interesting for
him to continue with 1l.b4, as in
the game A.Zhigalko - Vitiugov,
Warsaw 2008.) 8 .�d2 �d7 (It is
rather dubious for Black to play
8 . . . ha3 9.bxa3 liJxd4 10 .W1a4+
liJc6 1l.�d3 liJge7 12.!'1b1 W1c7 13.
0-0 and White has an excellent
compensation for the pawn.) 9 .
liJc2 . I think this is the only way
for White to fight for an opening
advantage. (He would not achieve
much with 9 .hb4 liJxb4 - after
9 . . . W1xb4+ 1 0 .'!!1d 2 White might
consolidate his position - 10.liJc2 .
Without this move White's knight
on a3 might remain out of play for
a long time. 10 . . . liJxc2 + ll.W1xc2
liJe7 12 .W1d2 0-0 with equal
chances. It would be harmless for
Black for White to try 1 2 . �e2 E1c8
13.'!!1 d 2 �b5= ) 9 . . . hd2 + 1 0.W1xd2
W1xb2. Accepting this sacrifice is
obligatory. 1l.�d3 liJge7 (It is
quite logical but a bit slow for
Black to play ll . . . h6 1 2 . 0 - 0 W1b6
13.E1ab1 W1c7 14.liJe3 liJge7 15.E1fc1
and he has problems castling, be­
cause of the threat of liJg4-h6.)
12.0-0 W1b6 13.'!!1g5 liJg6. I think
the most objective evaluation of
this position is - White has com­
pensation, Black has an extra
pawn.
6 . . . cxd4
As always, it is important for
Black to employ the right move­
order.
It might seem that he reduces
the tension in the centre in this
fashion, but this assumption is
wrong. He is just avoiding some
rather unfavourable variations.
It is inferior for Black to play
6 . . . liJh6, since White can counter
this with 7.hh6 ! gxh6 (Black los­
es now after 7 . . . W1xb2? in view of
8 .�e3 W1xa1 9 .W1c2 cxd4 10.liJxd4 !
and this shows the difference be­
tween playing the immediate 6 . . .
liJh6 and inserting the exchange
53
Chapter S
6 . . . cxd4. 10 . . ..b3 11.tLlb5+ - ; 10 . . .
�d7 1 1 . 0 - 0 l"lc8 12.tLlxc6 l"lxc6 13.
�b5 +-) 8.Wfd2 �g7 9 . 0 - 0 0-0 10.
tLl a3 cxd4 11.cxd4 �d7 12 .tLlc2 f6
13.exf6 l"lxf6 14.b4 l"laf8 15.b5 tLle7
16.tLle5 �e8 17.g3 and White ob­
tained an advantage in the game
Topalov - Bareev, Novgorod
1997.
7.cxd4 tiJh6
Again White has a choice, but
Black should not be afraid. White
has only two acceptable moves in
this position.
8.tiJc3
This is the most natural move.
He develops his b1-knight to its
most active position. However,
the point is that in this pawn­
structure the c3-square is hardly
the best one for this knight.
After the inclusion of 6 . . . cxd4,
capturing - 8.hh6 is not so good
for White any more and Black not
only can but should capture the
sacrificed pawn - 8 . . . Wfxb2
(diagram)
and now:
it is very bad for White to play
9 .�e3? Wfxa1 10.Wfb3 �b4+ and he
54
is unable to trap his opponent's
queen;
it is possible to continue with
9 .tLlbd2 gxh6 10. 0 - 0 (It would be
too optimistic for White to opt for
10.l"lb1 Wfxa2 11.0-0 and Black
should try here tLlb4 ! ?) . I think
Black should grab as much mate­
rial as possible, even though this
might seem risky at first sight.
10 . . . tLlxd4 (It is also possible for
Black to choose 10 . . . �g7 11.tLlb3
Wfa3 with an unclear position. It is
essential for him to be on the alert
- 11 . . . 0-0 12 .a3 ! and Black's
queen is in danger! ) 11.l"lb1 tLlxe2+
12.Wfxe2 Wfc3 13.l"lfc1 Wfa5 14.tLld4.
It looks as though White has acti­
vated his forces to the maximum
and will soon crush his opponent,
but this is an illusion. With accu­
rate defence Black can withstand
the initial assault and there might
never be a second wave. 14 . . . a6
15.tLl 2b3 Wfd8 16.Wfe3 l"lg8 17.g3.
The position arising is quite safe
for Black. White's knights are not
very dangerous and have no
threatening manoeuvres. White
has some definite compensation,
but it is hardly sufficient for two
missing pawns;
9.tLlc3 ! ? This is a very original
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 '&b6 5.CiJj3 tt'l c6 6 . .ie2 cd
solution to the problem - he puts
another piece en prise, defending
his rook on a1 in the process. It
may sound a bit ridiculous, but
Black has to make an important
choice in this position. He can
head for a position with an extra
pawn, but with compensation for
his opponent, or . . . he can end the
game with perpetual check. 9 . . .
tt'lxd4 ! ? This i s a paradoxical be­
ginning if playing for a draw.
(Fighting positions arise after 9 . . .
'&xc3+ 1 0 . .id2 '&a3 11.0-0 .ie7 1 2 .
'&c2 , a s played i n the game Man­
tovani - Yemelin, Kallithea 20 0 8 .
Black should continue here with
12 . . . 0-0 ! ? and after 13.l":ab1 the
position is very complicated.).
This is the beginning of a long
forcing variation ending in per­
petual check.
10 .'&xd4 (White can bring
about a tense struggle, but it
would not be to his advantage.
10.'&c1 '&xa1! ll.tt'lxd4 - He does
not change anything much with
ll.'&xa1 tt'lc2 + 12. rnd2 tt'lxa1 13.
.ie3 a6 14.l":xa1 b5 with a good po­
sition for Black - 1l.. .'&xc1+ 1 2 .
ixc1 a 6 . Black's chances in this
position even seem to be prefera-
ble. White must play very precise­
ly in order not to end up quickly
in a very difficult position. For ex­
ample : 13.tt'la4? ! b5 14.tt'lb6 l":b8
15.tt'lxc8 l":xc8 with an easy game
for Black.) 10 . . . '&xa1+ 1l..id1 gxh6
12.0-0 '&b2 13 . .ia4+ rnd8 (But
not 13 . . . .id7? 14.l":b1+-) 14.l":b1
'&a3 15.tt'lxd5 exdS 16.'&xd5 + lt>c7.
All this was played in the game
Maslik - Turcan, Slovakia 2 0 0 1
and the players agreed t o a draw.
We shall continue the variation a
bit further: 17.l":xb7+ .ixb7 18.
'&d7+ lt>b6 19.'&b5+ lt>c7 2 0 .'&d7+
rnb8 2 l .'&e8+ .ic8 2 2 .'&b5 =
8.tt'la3? ! This logical move is
good in principle in this pawn­
structure, but not at this mo­
ment . . . 8 . . . .ixa3. This is the most
radical solution for Black. 9 .bxa3
tt'lfS 10 . .ie3 '&aS+ ll.'&d2 '&xa3 (I
do not think Black should have
any problems after 1l.. .tt'lxe3 1 2 .
fxe3 .id7 ! ? = ) 1 2 . 0-0 tt'lxe3 13 .fxe3
0-0. White must play very ener­
getically in this position in order
to obtain compensation. 14. l":fc1 ! ?
(It would b e too slow for him to
opt for 14.l":ab1 b6.) 14 . . . .id7 (14 . . .
'&e7 15.l":ab1) 15.l":ab1 and White's
pressure might be enough for a
draw, but no more . . . . For exam­
ple: 15 . . . b6 (1S . . . l":ab8 16.l":c5 b6
17.l":c3 '&e7 18.l":bc1) 16.l":c3 '&e7
17.l":bc1 l":ac8 18 . .ia6 l":c7 19.-ibS
l":fc8 2 0 . .ia6=
White cannot gain any advan­
tage with 8.b3 ? ! .ib4+ 9 . rnf1 tt'lfS
10 . .ib2 .ie7. Black is playing quite
sensibly. He deprives the oppo­
nent's king of castling rights and
55
Chapter 8
then retreats his bishop to its usu­
al place. 11.lLlc3 (Or ll.h4 f6 ! ? ;
1l.id3 0 - 0 12 .h4 f6 13.hf5 exf5
and Black has the initiative.)
1 1 . . . 0 - 0 12 .lLla4 iWd8 13 .g3 f6 14.
exf6 ixf6 15. <;t>g2 '&d6 16.Ei:e1 b6
with an excellent position for
Black, Kupreichik - Piskov, Ger­
many 1998.
8 .id3 ! ? Apart from 8 .lLlc3,
this is the only interesting move
which might cause trouble for
Black. The first impression is that
White has just touched his bishop
by accident, and decided to move
it one square forward along the
same diagonal. In fact, things are
far from being that simple . . . 8 . . .
id7 9.ic2 (But not 9.l2Jc3 ? ! l2Jxd4
10.0-0 ic5 1l.a4 iWb3 12 .iWd2
lLlxf3 + 13.gxf3, Movsesian - Iva­
nov, Chalkidiki 2 0 0 2 , and here,
after the simple move 13 . . . 0 - 0 ! ? ,
Black obtains a n overwhelming
advantage).
Black has tried several possi­
bilities in this position:
9 . . . g5 ! This dynamic resource
is both interesting and attractive.
10 .h3 lLlf5 ll.ixf5 exf5 12.0-0
(12.lLlxg5 '&xd4 13.0-0 '&xd1 14.
Ei:xd1 l2Jxe5 15.lLlc3 ic6 and White
56
will regain his pawn, but without
gaining any advantage; 12 .hg5
'&xb2 13.l2Jbd2 '&b5 14.a4 '&a6 15.
iWe2 iWxe2+ 16.<;t>xe2 Ei:g8 and the
endgame is quite acceptable for
Black; 12.lLlc3 h6 13.0-0 ie6 ;
Black i s still threatening g4; 13.
lLlxd5 iWa5+ 14.lLl c3 0-0-0 15.
0-0 ie6�) 12 ... g4 (12 ... h6 ! ?) 13.
hxg4 fxg4 14.l2Jc3 gxf3 (it is also
possible for Black to opt here for
14 . . . ie6 15.lLla4 '&aS 16.lLlg5 if5)
15. lLlxd5 fxg2 16.Ei:e1 '&xd4 17.ig5
ig7? This was a blitz game and
playing precisely was obviously
mission impossible . . . ! (17 . . . ie7!
18.ixe7 ie6 ! 19.if6 ixd5 2 0.'&h5
'&f4 2 1.hh8 l2Jd4 2 2 . Ei:e3 lLlf3 +
23.Ei:xf3 '&xf3 with a n overwhelm­
ing advantage for Black) 18.lLlc7+
<;t>f8 19.lLlxa8 l2Jxe5 2 0.ie7+ <;t>g8
2l.Ei:xe5 ixe5 2 2 .iWxd4 ixd4 23.
Ei:d1 + - Movsesian - Caruana,
Moscow 2 0 1 0 ;
Black can show more restraint
with 9 . . . lLlf5 10.hf5 exf5 ll.lLlc3
ie6. It turns out now that White
has lost a tempo with the ma­
noeuvre id3-c2 , while Black has
done the same with id7-e6. 1 2 .
0-0 ie7 13.lLle2 (White cannot
hurt his opponent with 13.lLla4
'&d8 = ) 13 . . . h6 14.h4 Ei:c8 (Black
should avoid 14 . . . <;t>d7? ! , as in the
game Harikrishna - Meier, Meri­
da 2 0 07.) 15.h5 0-0 16.lLlf4 Ei:c7
with a very interesting position.
Black has some interesting al­
ternatives, but these fail to equalize:
9 . . . g6 ! ? 10.lLlc3 lLlf5 11.hf5
gxf5 1 2 . 0 - 0 Ei:g8 13.h3 ie7 14.Ei:b1
with an edge for White. Black can-
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Wb6 5. l'iJf.3 l'iJ c6 6. �e2 cd
not make good use of his control
of the g-file;
9 .. .f6? ! 10.exf6 (10.ixh6? ! gxh6
1 1.exf6 Wxb2 1 2 .l'iJbd2 l'iJxd4 13.
l'iJxd4 Wxd4 and Black has a good
position) 10 . . . gxf6 11.l'iJ c3 l'iJf7 1 2 .
0-0 �d6 13.a3. Black's unstable
centre will be a telling factor in
the future ;
It is possible to opt for 9 . . . �e7,
but even then White is better after
10.0-0 f6 ll.l'iJc3 fxe5 1 2 .l'iJxe5
l'iJxe5 (unfortunately it does not
work for Black to continue with
12 . . . Wxd4 13.Wh5+ lt>d8 14.l'iJxd7
lt>xd7 15.l"ld1 Wg4 16.Wxg4 l'iJxg4
17.l'iJxd5 ! ) 13.dxe5 l'iJf7 14.�e3
Wxb2 15.�d4 Wa3 16.l"lb1 b6 17.
l"le1 t with a very powerful initia­
tive for White.
8 . . . l'iJf5
9.l'iJa4
White has only just managed
to develop this knight and now he
is forced to place it on the edge of
the board.
It is easy to be convinced that
the alternatives are even worse
for him. 9 .�b5 �d7 10.hc6 hc6
and White has no compensation
for his missing light-squared
bishop.
The awkward move 9 . lt>f1 ? !
postpones the inevitable for just
one move : 9 . . . �d7 10.l'iJa4 (White
loses a pawn after 10.g4? l'iJfxd4
11.l'iJa4 (11.�e3 Wxb2-+) 11 . . .
WaS ! ) 10 . . . Wd8 11 .g4 l'iJh4 12 .�g5
�e7 13.�xh4 �xh4 14.l'iJc5 �e7
and, to add to his problems, his
king cannot castle.
9 . . . 1Mfa5+ 1 0 .�d2
This is a natural and reasona­
ble move. It would be futile for
White to play too enterprisingly
- 10.It>f1 b5 (It is also interesting
for Black to play 10 . . . �d7! ? 11.�d2
Wd8 .) ll.l'iJc3? (ll.l'iJc5 hc5 1 2 .
dxc5 b 4 13.g4 l'iJfe7 14.�e3 h 5 and
he seizes the initiative) ll . . . b4 1 2 .
l'iJ b 1 �a6 13 .�e3 �e7 14.l'iJbd2 0-0
15.l'iJb3 Wb6 16.ha6 Wxa6+ 17.
We2 Wb6 18.g4 l'iJxe3+ 19.Wxe3
f5 ! (In the game Black played the
weaker move 19 . . . a5 and after
2 0 .It>g2 l"lfc8 21.l"lac1 a4 2 2 .l'iJ c5
l"lc7 23 .h4 Wa7 24.l'iJd3 he came
under a crushing attack on the
kingside and lost, Movsesian -
Vitiugov, Novy Bor 2010.) 2 0 .exf6
l"lxf6 2 1.g5 l"lf7 2 2 . Wxe6 l"laf8 and
White will have problems with­
standing his opponent's pressure
on the f-file.
1 0 . . . �b4 ll . .ic3
White can sacrifice a pawn
here, but why? 11.l'iJ c3 l'iJfxd4 1 2 .
l'iJxd4 l'iJxd4 13.a3 l'iJxe2 14.axb4
l'iJxc3 15.hc3 Wb5.
ll . . . b5
This is Black's simplest re­
sponse. He should not be too
57
Chapter S
greedy 11 . . . hc3+ 12.'t:Jxc3 1M/b6
13.ib5 0-0 14.ixc6 1M/xb2 15.
lt:J a4 1Mib4+ 16.1M/d2 1M/xd2+ 17.
�xd2 bxc6 18.li:J c5 with an inferi­
or position for Black.
12.a3 .ixc3 + 13.ll:lxc3 b4
14.axb4 1M/xb4
15.\Wa4
This seems to me to be White's
most solid move.
The ambitious attempt 15.ib5
might boomerang after 15 . . . id7
58
16.1M/a4 1M/xb2 17. l"la3 0-0 (17 . . .
1M/c1 + ? 18.lLldl±) 1 8 . 0-0 a6 19.l"lb1
1M/xa3 20.1M/xa3 axbS 2 1.1Mlb2 l"lfb8.
Black has excellent compensation
for the queen.
It is possible for White to play
15.0-0 here, but even then Black
has a pleasant choice. For exam­
ple : 15 . . . lt:Jfxd4 (15 . . . 0 - 0 ! ?) 16.
lt:Jxd4 1M/xd4 (Or 16 ... lt:Jxd4 17. id3
and White has some initiative.)
17.ib5 ! 1M/b6. Now it looks as
though White must force a draw
in tactical fashion : 18.lt:Jxd5 exdS
19 .1M/xd5 ib7 2 0 . l"la6 ixa6 2 1 .
hc6+ �f8 2 2 .1M/d6+ � g 8 23.e6
(The evaluation is the same after
23.l"ld1 l"lc8 24.e6 h6 25.1M/e7 1M/xc6
26.1M/xf7 + �h7 27.1M/f5 = ) 23 . . . hf1
24.exf7+ �xf7 25 .id5+ �e8 26.
ic6+ �f7=
15 ••. .id7 16.1Mfxb4 c!Llxb4 = .
The prospects are equal i n this
endgame.
Chapter 9 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 �b6
5)£)£3 ltlc6 6 ..id3
White develops his bishop to
d3 and ignores the protection of
his d4-pawn, thus solving one of
his main problems in this varia­
tion. His compensation will be
based on rapid development and
the numerous moves of Black's
queen. Nevertheless, his central
pawn is too valuable. It would be
quite objective to confess that the
popularity of this gambit belongs
to the past. However, even today
there are still players who wish to
enter such dire straits.
6 . . . cxd4
The move 6 . . . �d7 presents
White with the additional possi­
bility of 7.dxc5 ! ? hc5 8 . 0 - 0 .
7.cxd4 .id7 8. 0 - 0
This i s the idea behind the en­
tire operation. Now Black is prac-
tically forced to accept the sacri­
fice. It would be too faint-hearted
for White to continue with 8.
�e2 ? ! tt:lge7 9.tt:lc3 tt:lf5 10.tt:la4
\WaS+ ll.tt:lc3?
White achieves nothing with
8 .�c2 tt:lb4=
8 . . . tt:lxd4
9.ll)xd4
It is very attractive to lure
Black's queen into the centre of
the board.
The alternative for White is 9 .
tt:lbd2 ! ? tt:l e 7 ( I f 9 . . . tt:l c 6 Black
might have problems after 10.tt:lb3
tt:lge7 ll .�e3 \Wc7 1 2 Jk l tt:lg6 13.
tt:lc5, Leon Hoyos - Meier, Merida
2008.) 10.tt:lxd4 \Wxd4 ll.tt:lf3 \Wb6
12 .�e3 \Wc7 13J'kl tt:lc6, with a
solid position for Black, Haba -
59
Chapter 9
Goloshapov, Cappelle Ia Grande
1998.
9 V�bd4 1 0 .tl:\c3
•••
It would not be in gambit style
for White to continue with 10 .�e2
CiJe7 11.4Jc3 CiJc6.
1 0 ... a6
This is a solid move. Black
takes the important bS-square
under control.
I have failed to find more than
a draw for White in the variation
lO . . . �xeS ! ? 1Ule1 �d6 (It would
be rather unclear for Black to
choose ll . . . �b8? ! 12.CiJxdS .id6
13 .�g4 <j;lf8 14 . .id2 fS - 14 . . . hS
1S.�h3 with good compensation
for White - 1S.hfS exfS 16.�d4
and White's attack might easily
become crushing. ) 1 2 . 4JbS (Black
neutralizes his opponent's attack
after 1 2 .�f3 CiJf6 13.l2lbS �b6
14 . .ie3 �aS, or 13 . .if4 �b4 14.a3
�b3 1S . .ieS .ie7 16.Elad1 and
White has some compensation,
but not more.) 12 . . . �b6 (It is sim­
ply weak for Black to continue
with 12 . . . �b8? 13.�f3 .id6 14.
�xdS hh2 + 1S.<j;lh1 l2lf6 16.�gS
0-0 17.£4 and he is in great trou­
ble.) 13 . .ie3 �as.
Strangely enough, the best
60
that White has is a draw by repeti­
tion:
14 . .id2 �b6 = ;
The inclusion of the moves
14.a4 a6 can hardly be in White's
favour - 1S. CiJd4 .ie7 (But not 1S . . .
l2lf6 16.l2lfS ! g 6 1 7. .igS and Black
is in danger.) 16.�g4 g6 and the
attack has reached a dead end;
14.l2ld4 .ie7;
14.�b3 a6 1S . .id2 �b6 16 ..ie3
�aS - Here White should acqui­
esce to the draw, because he
would not be happy with the con­
sequences of 17.l2lc3 (17.l2ld4
.ib4 ! ) 17 . . . �b4 18.�c2 l2lf6 and
Black ends up with extra material.
Of course, not everyone would be
happy to play only with his queen
at the beginning of the game.
ll.�e2
White can also play ll.Ele1, but
his compensation after ll . . . l2le7
1 2 . .ie3 �xeS 13.Elc1 Elc8 can hard­
ly be proved.
ll ••• .!L\e7
12.<j;lhl
This prophylactic move is
forced. The endgame is inferior
for White after 1 2 .Eld1 l2lc6 13.
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Wff b 6 5.CiJf3 ti:l c6 6. �d3 cd

.ba6 Wffx e5 14 . .bb7 Wffx e2 15.ti:lxe2 14.a3

Elb8 16.�xc6 .bc6. White cannot effectively ex­
12 . . . ttlc6 13.f4 �c5 ! ? ploit the awkward position of his
Black i s i n a hurry t o place his opponent's queen 14.Eld1 Wfff2 15.
bishop on a7, before he has evacu­ Wffg4 0-0-0 ! ? and Black is better.
ated his queen away from the cen­ 14 . . . .ia7 15 . .id2
tre. He can counter the ugly move
It is possible for him to play 15.ti:ld1, with 15 . . . Wffa4 for exam­
more actively 13 . . . ti:lb4 14J�d1 ple.
�c5 ! ? (It is obvious that White 15 . . . �b6 16.�g4 g6 17.b4
has some initiative after the cap­ �d8
ture on d3 - 14 . . . ti:lxd3 15.Elxd3
Wffb 6 (It is weaker for Black to opt
for 15 . . . Wffc4? ! 16.b3 Wff c 7 17.�b2
�c6 18.l''k 1 with good compensa­
tion for the pawn, Sveshnikov -
Razuvaev, Belgrade 1993.) 16.�e3
�c5 17.�xc5 Wffxc5 18.f5. Now, af­
ter the precise move 18 . . . d4 ! ? ,
Black has good chances o f obtain­
ing a satisfactory position: 19.b4
Wffc 7 2 0 .Elad1 0-0-0 21.Elxd4 (21.
ti:le4 �b5) 2 l . . .�c6 2 2 .fxe6 Elxd4
23.Elxd4 fxe6=) 15 . .ba6 Wfff2 16. The position has been stabi­
Wffxf2 M2 17.�b5 �c6 and the end­ lized. White is a pawn down and
game is very pleasant for Black, he hardly has any meaningful
Smimov - Smikovski, Omsk 1996. compensation.

61
Chapter 1 0 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 �b6
5)L)f3 �c6 6.a3
White is trying to seize more
space on the queenside and force
his opponent to clarify the posi­
tion in the centre.
6 . . .ltlh6
This move requires deep
knowledge of theory from both
sides.
We shall say a few words about
Black's other possibilities in the
next chapter.
As often happens, the inclu­
sion of the moves a3 - aS (or a6
- a4 with colours reversed) is ad­
vantageous for the side which has
advanced his pawn only one
square forward. 6 . . . aS? ! 7.�d3
cxd4 8.cxd4 �d7 9 .�c2 and Black
does not have the resource ct:Jb4
(It is also possible for White to
play the risky move 9.0-0 ! ? , en-
62
tering a favourable version of a
variation which we analyzed in
the previous chapter: 9 . . . ct:Jxd4
10.'Llxd4 '&xd4 11.'Llc3).
7.b4 cxd4 8.cxd4
It is possible for White to in­
sert the exchange 8 . .bh6 gxh6 9.
cxd4 but then his pawns, placed
on dark squares, become poten­
tially defenceless. 9 . . . �d7 10 .�e2
(It would be a mistake for White
to play 10.'Llc3?, because of the
standard tactical blow 10 . . . 'Llxb4.)
10 . . J'lc8 (It looks very interesting
for Black to try 10 . . . l"\g8 ! ? 11.0-0
l"\g4 12 .h3 l"1f4 13.g3 l"\xf3 14.�xf3
'&xd4 1S.'&xd4 'Llxd4 16.�hS aS
17.bxaS 'Llb3 18.l"\a2 'LlxaS 19.'Lld2
bS with good compensation for
the exchange.) 11.0-0 �g7 12 .bS.
White is reluctant to play this, but
he must. (His position would be
quite awkward after 12 .'&d2 0-0
13.l"\a2 and, just as before, he
cannot play 13.'Llc3? ct:Jxd4 14.
ct:Jxd4 .beS 1S.l"\ad1 '&xd4 16.
ct:JxdS ! '&xd2 17.l"\xd2 and the end­
game is better for Black - 13 .. .f6
14.bS 'Lle7 1S.exf6 .bf6 with a
good game for Black.) 12 . . . 'LlaS
(After 12 . . . 'Lle7 White can accom­
plish everything he wants and de-
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Wb6 5Jijf3 ltJ c6 6.a3 ltJ h6
velop his pieces to their optimal
positions. 13.Wd3 0-0 14.lt:lbd2 f6
with a complicated position.) 13.
a4 (It is inferior for White to play
13.Wd3 here, because of the pos­
sibility of 13 . . . Wc7 14.We3 Wc2 15.
�d3 lt:lc4 ! ) 13 . . . 0-0 14.lt:lbd2 f6
and the future developments will
be quite interesting.
8 .•. lt:lf5 9.�e3
White is ready to give up his
dark-squared bishop. However,
Black must play cleverly to exploit
this possibility . . .
9 . . . f6
I remember here an old cliche
- "You must strike a blow against
your opponent's centre from the
flank ! "
1 0 .exf6
There arises a well-known
draw after 10.b5 lt:lxe5 11.dxe5
lt:lxe3 1 2 .fxe3 Wxe3+ 13.We2 Wc1+
14.Wd1 We3 + (It does not appear
that Black has any serious
grounds for continuing the fight
here. He can still try, though . . .
1 4 . . . Wb2 15.lt:lbd2 fxe5 16J�b1
Wxa3 17.lt:lxe5 We3+ 18 .We2 Wc3,
but I should prefer White's po-
sition at the end.) 15.We 2 = Ro­
manishin - Lputian, Yerevan
1988.
10 .�d3 - This is a very inter­
esting move, which creates com­
plex problems for Black. 10 . . .
lt:lxe3 11.fxe3 fxe5 12 .b5 lt:lxd4 !
This is a key counter-strike and
Black's whole defence is based on
it. 13.exd4 e4 14.he4 dxe4 15.
lt:le5 �d7. The best thing to do in a
position like this is to calmly con­
tinue your development. (Black
can also head for an approximate­
ly equal endgame with 15 . . . Wa5+
16 .Wd2 - 16.lt:ld2 ? ! Wc3 17J'k1
We3+ 18 .We2 Wxe2 + 19.Wxe2
�xa3 and Black will retain an ex­
tra pawn - 16 . . . Wxd 2 + 17.lt:lxd2
�d7 18.lt:lxd7 Wxd7 19.lt:lxe4 = ; 18.
a4 a6 19.b6 �d6 20. lt:lxe4 �xeS 21.
dxe5 0-0 2 2 .lt:ld6 �c6, but Black
might have some problems at the
end of this line. It seems rather
artificial for him to play 15 . . . g6?
16.0-0 �g7 17.Wh1 he5 18.dxe5
Wxb5 19.lt:ld2 ---+ ) 16.0-0 (White
cannot create any difficulties for
his opponent with the simple line:
16.lt:lxd7 Wxd7 17.0-0 - 17.lt:ld2?
Wxd4 18.lt:lxe4 Wxd1+ 19.l"lxd1+
WeB - 17 ... l"ld8 18.lt:lc3 Wc8 and
although Black has spent three
moves on castling, instead of one,
he is still better.) 16 . . . 0-0-0
17.lt:lc3 �e8 ! ? (The brave move
17 . . . �c5 was tested in the game
Potkin Filippov, Togliatti
2003.). White must find new tar­
gets for attack; otherwise, Black's
bishop pair and extra pawn might
quickly become the decisive fac-
63
Chapter 10
tors. 18.'Lle2 'it>b8 19 J''!b 1 l"!d5
2 0 .'Llc4 'fff c 7. In Sveshnikov's book
"Win against the French Defence"
(Moscow, 2 0 05) this position was
evaluated as + / = . I disagree cate­
gorically with this opinion! 2 l.l"!c1
i.xb5 2 2 . 'Lle3 Wd7 23. 'Llxd5 exd5
and in this position, with a mate­
rial imbalance, I should even pre­
fer Black.
10 ..• gxf6 11.i.d3 'Llxe3 12.
fxe3
Black's pawn-structure is a bit
loose, but this is compensated for
by his two powerful bishops. His
dark-squared bishop has no op­
ponent and might become a mon­
ster.
12 .•. i.h6 13.'fffe 2
White should avoid coming
under "x-ray" pressure - 13. 'fffd 2
a5 14.b5 'Lle7 15.'Llc3 e5 and his
centre is about to crumble alto­
gether.
13 . . . i.d7 14.c!tJC3
If White has already read this
book and tries to cleverly change
the move-order - you should not
panic. 14.0-0 0-0-0 (The rou­
tine 14 . . . 'Lle7 can be countered
64
with the rather unpleasant re­
sponse 15.'Llfd2.) 15.b5 'Lla5 ! ?� .
This i s the point - now Black's
knight is not forced to retreat to
the a7-square.
14 .. .c!l:\e7 15. 0 - 0
This is again quite logical.
White mobilizes his forces in the
most natural fashion. The tricky
move 15.'Lld2 is harmless for
Black. For example : 15 . . . 0-0-0
16.0-0 e5 17.'Llb3 l"!hg8 18.i>h1 e4
19.i.b5 i.g4�
If White insists on preventing
his opponent from castling queen­
side, Black can go kingside. 15.l"!c1
0-0 16.0-0 e5 ! This is an impor­
tant moment. This pawn-break is
even stronger now that White's
rook is on cl. 17.i.bl e4 18.'Lld2
(18.'Llh4 l"!ac8) 18 ... 'fff a 6 19.l"!fe1
Wxe2 2 0 .l"!xe2 l"!fc8 with a very
complicated and double-edged
endgame.
15 •.• 0 - 0 - 0 !?
Black does not wish to solve
the problem of the safety of his
king on its usual flank and he
evacuates his monarch to the
queenside.
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 '&b6 5. ti:Jj3 ti:J c6 6.a3 ti:J h6
Nevertheless, it seems more
natural to play 15 . . . 0 - 0 16.mh1
E:ac8 with chances for both sides,
Morozevich - Bareev, Monaco
2002.
16.a4
There is no more resolute re­
action for White than a direct
pawn-assault.
He could try something differ­
ent though - 16.b5 mb8 17.tl:Ja4
'&d6 18.ti:Jc5 j,c8 with a compli­
cated position (or 18 . . . e5 ! ? 19.
ti:Jxd7+ Elxd7 20.dxe5 fxe5 2 l.e4
d4).
t6 . . . mbs
Black should avoid accepting
gifts - 16 . . . '&xb4? ! 17.Eltb1 '&d6
18.ti:Jb5 hb5 19.axb5 mb8 2 0 .b6
axb6 2l.'&a2 and White has won­
derful compensation for the sacri­
ficed pawns.
17.b5
White has no time for further
preparatory moves. For example:
17.Elab1 e5 18.a5 '&c7! I believe
Black has an excellent position
even without his last precise
move. Still, he should exploit this
wonderful possibility. 19.Elfc1
'&d6 and surprisingly it turns out
that White's rook on c1 is far more
of a liability in his position than a
strength. The game might contin­
ue in this fashion : 2 0 . ti:Jb5 hb5
21.hb5 ti:Jf5 2 2 .Elc3 Elc8 2 3 .Elcb3
Elhg8 24.a6 e4 25.ti:Je1 j,f4 ! ! - +
Black can counter the move
17.ti:Jb5, which was played in the
game Yagupov - Lastin, Orel
199 2 , with the quite effective
counter strike 17 . . . ti:Jf5 !
1 7. . . '&d6 18.a5 e5
There will be a fierce fight
ahead and the chances for both
sides are about equal.
65
Chapter 1 1 l.e4 e6 2 . d4 d 5 3 . e5 c 5 4.c3 VHb6 5 . lbf3
lbc6 6.a3 lbh6 7.b4 cxd4 8 . cxd4 lbf5
9 . .ib2
This is no doubt a much more
natural development of this bish­
op than on the e3-square. It has
its drawbacks though and one of
them is the "x-ray" pressure from
the enemy queen along the b-file.
9 ••• .id7 1 0 .g4
This is more or less forced.
White does have an alternative
in 10 .h4, but Black will have no
problems after 10 . . . h5 ll .g3 �c8
12 . .ih3 aS (Here 12 . . . g6 is also
worth considering.) 13.0-0 axb4
14.axb4 .ie7! (It is inferior for
Black to play 14 . . . 'Llh6? ! , which
was tried in the game Yemelin -
Gorovykh, St Petersburg 2007,
but instead he can play 14 . . . .ixb4.)
15.hf5 exf5 16.'Llc3 'Llxb4 - this is
the idea behind Black's modest­
looking 14th move, to capture on
66
b4 with the knight. It appears that
he has a good position.
Sometimes White plays 10 .
.ie2 , but he can hardly count on
any advantage with this move :
10 . . . .ie7 11.0-0 h5 12 .Wd3 g5 13.
�dl g4 14.'Llel f6 15.b5 'Lla5 16.
exf6 .ixf6 17.a4 a6 18. 'Lla3 axb5
19.axb5 'Llxd4 20.'Llc4 'Llxe2+ 2 1 .
Wxe2 dxc4 2 2 . .ixf6 �f8 23 . .ic3
Wxb5 24.'Llc2 and although he
won that game after wild compli­
cations, Alexander can hardly be
satisfied with the results of the
opening battle, Motylev - Liu
Qingnan, Chaongqing 2011.
10 . . . 'l:lfe7
Now Black's knight is headed
for another route . The targets are
the vulnerable f4- and h4-
squares.
It is less principled, but still
quite playable, for Black to con­
tinue with 10 ... 'Llh6 ll.h3 (It would
be worse for White to leave his
king in the centre with ll.�gl f6
1 2 .exf6 gxf6 13.'Llc3 'Llf7 14.'Lla4
Wc7 15.�cl Wf4 and Black h as ob­
tained good counter ch ances,
Short - Lputian, Batu mi 19 99.)
ll . . .f6 12.exf6 gxf6 13. 'Ll c3 'l:l f7,
Shirov - Berg, Tallin n 2 00 6.
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 V!ib6 5Jijf3 lU c6 6.a3 lUh6
ll.c!Dc3
ll . .• �a5 !
This key manoeuvre i s a n es­
sential part of Black's strategy.
It is positionally justified but
rather passive for Black to opt for
11.. .hS 12.CUa4 V!id8 13.lUcS �c8
14.gS and his lack of space will
hurt him.
12.�d2
White cannot allow his oppo­
nent's knight to come to c4.
He achieves nothing with the
more natural line: 12 .V!ic2 lUc4 13.
�xc4 dxc4 14.lUd2 V!ic6 1S.l2Jce4
and here Black can choose be­
tween a forced draw and playing a
position a pawn down but with
excellent prospects. 1S . . . c3 ! ? (lS . . .
lU e S 16.CUxc4 bS ! ?) 16.lUd6+ (M­
ter 16.V!ixc3 cuds, the missing
pawn is practically irrelevant.)
16 ... 1!/dS 17.lUxf7+ l!le8 18.lUd6+
l!ld8= Sveshnikov - Radjabov,
Tallinn 2 0 04.
12 Jk8 13.:1kl �g6
..
Black's plan has been slightly
altered. Now it has become evi­
dent that his attack against the
d4-pawn has failed, but White has
so many vulnerable squares in his
camp that Black can be optimistic
about the future.
14.h4
Here Alexander Motylev tried
a queen manoeuvre which seems
a bit slow - 14. V!ie2 �e7 1S.V!ie3
0-0 (1S . . . lUh4 ! ?) 16.h4 f6 17.h5
lUh8 18.l'k2 lUc6 19.lUa4 V!id8 2 0 .
exf6 hf6 2 l .CUcS e S and White's
king came under attack, Motylev
- Ponomariov, Khanty-Mansiysk
2 00S.
It would be too straightfor­
ward for him to opt for 14.�a1?!
lUc4 1S.lUxc4 dxc4 16.lUe4 aS with
powerful pressure for Black.
14 . . . i.e7
Here it is worth considering
the blockading idea 14 . . . hS ! ? 15.
gxhS lUf4 (After 1S ... lUe7? ! 16.�d3
- Black is a pawn down without
compensation, since it would be
bad to continue with 16 . . . V!ixd4
17.lUbS ! ) 16.V!if3 (If 16.l"k2 Black
has the resource 16 . . . CUc4 17.lUxc4
Elxc4 ! 18.Eld2 (Or 18 .hc4 dxc4
with a good game for the sacri­
ficed exchange.) 18 . . . Elc8 with
counterplay.) 16 . . . lUxhS 17.�d3 (It
67
Chapter 11
is also possible for White to try
the more forcing line 17Jk2 'Llc6
18.'Lla4 'l'¥d8 19.'Llc5 hc5 2 0 .bxc5
'l'¥a5 reaching a position which
has not yet been analyzed exten­
sively.) 17 . . . g6 18Jk2 'Llc6 19.'Lla4
'l'¥d8 2 0 .'Llc5 �xc5 21.dxc5. It
looks as if White can still hope to
gain an edge, but Black has his
counter-chances.
15.g5
Black successfully blockades
his opponent's pawns after 15.h5
'Llf4 16.'1'¥f3 �g5.
15 ••. 0-0
I n practice Black has tried 1 5 . . .
h 5 16.gxh6 :Bxh6 17.h5 'Llh4?! (It
seems that the computer's recom­
mendation is stronger here - 17 . . .
�g5 18.:Bc2 (White has a n inter­
esting alternative - 18.:Bg1, but
Black is likely to hold the position
after 18 . . . �xd2+ 19.'1'¥xd2 'Llb3
2 0 .'1'¥d1 'Llxc1 21.hxg6 :Bxg6 2 2 .
:Bxg6 fxg6 23.'1'¥xc1 Wxd4 2 4 . We3
'l'¥xe3+ 25.fxe3 cJle7 with a compli­
cated endgame. ) 18 . . . hd2 + 19.
:Bxd2 'Llc4 2 0.hc4 :Bxc4 21.:Bg1
'Llf4 2 2 . :Bxg7 :Bxh5 23.'1'¥f3 and the
fearless computer programme
Rybka considers that in the com­
plications after 23 . . . :Bxd4 24.
'Llxd5 :Bxd5 25.:Bxd5 Wc6, Black
can draw by perpetual check.) 18.
'l'¥g4 'Llf5 19.�d3 �f8 and White
had a powerful initiative in the
game Grischuk - Radjabov, Wijk
an Zee 2 003.
16.'1'¥g4
White exerts positional pres­
sure over the entire board and he
forces his opponent to temporari-
68
ly give up some material. It would
not be in the spirit of the position
for him to play 16.'Lle2 ? ! :Bfd8
17.h5 'Llf8 and Black's position is
quite acceptable, Shirov - Gurev­
ich, Khanty-Mansiysk 2 005.
16 . .• hb4
This is really the only move,
since he should avoid the position
arising after 16 . . . :Bfd8 17.h5 'Llf8 .
17.axb4 'l'¥xb4 18.:Bb1
There is just a transposition of
moves after 18 .�a1 'l'¥a3 (I do not
think it is worth trying here 18 . . .
'Llxe5 19.'1'¥g3 Wa3 2 0 .:Bb1 'Llec4
2 1.�xc4 'Llxc4 2 2 .'Llxc4 :Bxc4 23.
0 - 0 ; 23.h5 ! ?) 19 .:Bb1 (19 .'1'¥d1??
�a4-+) 19 ... :Bxc3 2 0 .�xc3 'l'¥xc3 .
18 ••• :Bxc3
It is again bad for him to opt
for 18 . . . 'Llxe5? 19.'1'¥g3 'Llec4 2 0 .
�c1 ! We7 2 1.hc4 dxc4 2 2 .'Llce4 !
19.hc3 '1'¥xc3
Black can be happy with the
material balance, but White's
kingside attack looks very danger­
ous.
2 0 .!%h3
White should not be in a hurry
2 0 .h5 'Lle7 2 1.h6? 'Llf5 !
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 cS 4.c3 V!ff b 6 5. CiJf3 CiJ c6 6.a3 CiJ h6
He should not play passively
either - 2 0 .i.e2 ? CiJ c4 2 l..bc4
dxc4 2 2 . h5 CiJe7 23.l"\h3 V!ff a5 24.
l"1xb7 i.c6 25. l"1xe7 c3 26.V!ffd l V!ffa3 !
27.l"\xc3 V!1xc3 with an advantage
to Black.
20 ••• V!ffc7 21.i.d3
White cannot really continue
the game without this move. Of
course he can try, but this will just
present Black with extra possibili­
ties. 2 1 .h5 CiJe7 2 2 .h6 g6 23.V!fff3
CiJf5 24.i.d3 i.a4 ! ? 25.'tt> fl i.c2 26.
.bc2 V!ffx c2 27.V!ffd 3 (It is more
ambitious for White to play 27.
V!ff c3 V!ffxc3 28.l"\xc3 CiJxd4 29.l"\c7
a6, but after all Black has three
extra pawns . . . ) 27 . . . V!ffc 7 and the
position is again completely un­
clear.
21 .tbe7 22.h5
••
In reply to 2 2 .V!fff4, as in the
game Solodovnichenko - Del Rio
Angelis, Spain 2006, Black should
continue with 22 .. .f5 ! ? 23.gxf6
l"\xf6 24.V!ffg5 (Or 24.V!ffg 4 l"\f7 25.
fi:f3 CiJf5 with counter chances.)
24 ... l"\f7 25.h5 h6 26.V!ffg4 CiJac6
with a very interesting play in
prospect.
22 ••• CiJf5 23.�f4
We have already analyzed the
position arising after 23.h6 ! ? g6
24.V!fff3 i.a4 !
(diagram)
23 . tbc6
••
There are some other possible
moves for Black, but they are all
very risky.
For example, it seems very
dangerous for him to play 23 . . .
CiJ c4? ! 24 . .bf5 exf5 25.h6 g 6 26.
CiJxc4 dxc4 27.d5 and despite the
fact that Black wins a pawn after
27 . . . l"\e8, the endgame which soon
arises will be tremendously diffi­
cult for him. For example: 28.
V!ff d4 (28.l"\e3? V!ffa5+) 2 8 . . . V!ffx e5+
29.V!ffx e5 fi:xe5+ 30 .l"\e3 l"\xe3 + 31.
fxe3 b6 3 2 .'tt> d 2 f6 33.gxf6 @f7 34.
l"\cl i.bS 35.l"\al a6 36.e4 'it>xf6 37.
exf5 gxf5 38.'it>c3±
It is worth considering 23 . . . b5
(23 . . . l"\c8 ! ?) 24.i.xf5 exf5 25.g6 ! ?
and here after the cold-blooded
response 25 . . . h6, Black maintains
the material balance (It would be
too risky to try instead 25 . . . fxg6 ? !
26.hxg6 hxg6 27.V!ffh 2 l"\ c 8 2 8 .l"\al
and Black's hanging knight on aS
spells serious trouble for him. It
cannot be good either to opt for
25 . . . CiJ c4 2 6 .CiJxc4 bxc4 27.gxf7+
l"\xf7 28. l"\a3 and White has the
initiative.)
24.hf5 exf5 25.g6 fxg6
26.hxg6 h6 27.tbf3 c!LldS -
Black obtained a good position
and went on to win in Fluvia Poy­
atos - Gonzales Garcia, Badalona
2 005.
69
Chapter 12 l . e4 e6 2 . d4 d5 3 .e5 c5 4.c3 �b6
5 )2� £3 lLlc6 6 . a3
I believe it is always useful to
have a "reserve airfield", so to
speak, if not in all the variations,
but at least in the main line. I sug­
gest below that you take a look at
some other possibilities for Black
in reply to the 6. a3 system.
6 . . . �d7
This is a universally useful
move in blocked French posi­
tions. It is almost impossible to
find a line in which the d7-square
would not be a reasonable one for
this black bishop.
The struggle develops in an
entirely different way after 6 . . .
c4 ! ? The resulting closed posi­
tions are not to everyone's liking,
but this move has its logic, in its
chess aspects as well as in the
70
purely competitive sense. Black
reduces the tension in the centre
but he occupies space on the
queenside, fixing the weak b3-
square in the process. The game
develops much more according to
schemes and plans, rather than
depending on concrete variations.
It becomes essential to manoeu­
vre skilfully, to hinder your oppo­
nent's ideas and to accomplish
your own plans. The games we
quote below are simply the most
typical illustrations of the play in
this pawn-structure and not some
axiomatic rules about how to pro­
ceed.
My own conclusions about
this variation are, in short, as fol­
lows :
1. Black should avoid exchang­
ing minor pieces, with the excep­
tion of the light-squared bishops.
2. The exchange of queens,
however, is in favourable to Black,
because then he can advance his
queenside pawns much more
comfortably.
3. Black should try to combine
play on the queenside with coun­
terplay on the kingside as well,
since otherwise he might be
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Wff b 6 5. tiJj3 tiJ c6 6.a3 1J.d7
squashed. 7.tiJbd2 tiJ a5 (7 . . . tiJge7?
8 . .bc4 ! dxc4 9.tiJxc4± ; 7 . . . 1J.d7? !
8.b3 cxb3 9 .tiJxb3 tiJa5 1 0 .tiJxa5
fffx a5 11.1ld2 tiJe7 12 .1J.d3 Wffc 7 13.
0-0 h6 14.tiJh4 with an initiative
to White, Motylev - Hort, Essent
2003.)
and here:
8.h4 JJ.d7 9.h5 f5 10.l'l:b1 tiJh6
11.1J.e2 1J.e7 1 2 . 0-0 l'l:c8 13.l'l:e1 tiJ£7
14.Wffc 2 Wff c7 15.tiJh2 g5 16.tiJhf1 g4
17.tiJe3 tiJg5 and Black exploited
his enormous space advantage,
Shabalov - Akobian, Philadelphia
2004;
8 .1le2 1J.d7 9.0-0 tiJe7 10 .l'l:b1
(10.l'l:e1 f5 1l.exf6 gxf6 12.l'l:b1
0-0-0 13 .b4 cxb3 14.tiJxb3 1J.a4
15.tiJfd2 1J.h6 with a good position
for Black, Klimov - Vysochin, St
Petersburg 2 008) 10 . . . Wffc7 ll.l'l:e1
tiJcB 12.tiJf1 tiJb6 13.1J.f4 tiJb3 14.
tiJ3d2 (14.tiJg3 1J.a4 15.1J.fl 0-0-0
16.tiJh5 h6 17.fffe 2 tiJ a5 18.fffd 2
Wff c 6 19.l'l:e2 fffe 8 2 0 .g4 1J.e7 21.
l'l:bel Wffg 8 22.Wffc 1 Wffh7 23.Wffb 1 fffxb1
24.l'l:xb1 g6 25.tiJg3 1J.b3 26 .1J.h3
tiJa4 27.l'l:f1 b5 28.1J.e3 tiJc6 29.tiJe1
aS 3 0 .f4 b4+ and Black realized
his advantage in the game S.Zhi­
galko - Andreikin, Moscow 2 0 10)
tiJa5 15. tiJg3 1J.a4 16.fffc 1 0-0-0
17.tiJh5 ®b8 18.tiJf3 1J.b3 19.tiJd2
1J.a4= Ni Hua - Bareev, Beijing
2003.
8 .g3 1J.d7 9.1J.g2 (9.h4 0-0-0
10 .h5 tiJh6 11.1J.h3 f6 1 2 .fffe 2 tiJ£7
13.0-0 f5 14.tiJh2 g6 15.f4 1J.e7
16.g4 g5 17.1J.g2 gxf4 18.gxf5 exf5
19 . .bd5 l'l:hg8+ 20.®h1 1J.e6 2 1 .
.be6 + Wffx e6 2 2 .tiJdf3 tiJ b 3 23. l'l:b1
tiJxc1 24.l'l:bxc1 Wffc 6 25.l'l:g1 tiJg5
26.l'l:g2 tiJe4 27.®g1 fffd 5 2 8 .tiJf1
l'l:xg2+ 29.<;hg2 l'l:g8+ 3 0 . ®h1 1J.h4
31.®h2 1J.f2 3 2 . l'l:c2 ffff7 33.tiJ3d2
1J.g1 + 0-1 Maslak - Asrian, Mos­
cow 2 007; 9 . . . 1J.e7 10 .1J.h3 f5 11.
exf6 gxf6 1 2 . 0-0 h5 13.l'l:el tiJh6
14.tiJh2 0-0-0 15.fffx h5 l'l:dg8 16.
Wff e 2 f5 17.tiJdf3 tiJb3 18.l'l:b1 ? !
tiJxc1 19.l'l:bxc1 f4 2 0.g4 tiJf5t and
Black's initiative more than com­
pensates for the sacrificed pawn ;
18 . .bh6 l'l:xh6 19.l'l:ad1 1J.xh4 2 0 .
tiJxh4 l'l:xh4 2 1.1J.g2 l'l:h7 2 2 .tiJf3
tiJ a5 23.fff d 2 fffd 6 24. tiJ e5 1J.a4 25.
l'l:b1 tiJc6 with approximate equal­
ity, Grischuk - Korchnoi, Biel
2001.)
9 . . . 1J.e7! ? ( 9 . . . 0 - 0 - 0 1 0 . 0-0
f5? This was a questionable deci­
sion after which Black's position
was soon in ruins. ll.exf6 gxf6
12 .l'l:e1 1J.d6 13.1J.h3 1J.c7 14.l'l:b1
71
Chapter 12
lt>b8 15.b4. It is already practical­
ly over. 15 . . . cxb3 16.l2lxb3 l2Je7
17.l2Jfd2 �c6 18.l2lc5 l2lf5 19.l2Jdb3
l2Jxb3 2 0 .�xb3 and the game last­
ed fifteen more moves only owing
to White's inaccurate play,
Grischuk - Vitiugov, Moscow
2 0 1 0 . A typical manoeuvring
game might arise after 9 . . . l2Je7,
followed by the standard transfer
of the knight to the b6-square.)
10.0-0 hS 11.l2le1 h4 12 .h3 hxg3
13.fxg3 l2Jh6 14.g4 fS 15.exf6 gxf6
16 .�c2 0-0-0 17.l2Jdf3 l2lb3 18.
l"lb1 eS and Black won quickly,
Hadzimanolis - Lputian, Athens
2 005.
7.b4
The awkward move 7.l"la2 ? ,
tested b y Sergey Fedorchuk, i s
unlikely t o attract any followers.
7 . . . c4 8 .i.f4 l2Jge7 9.l2lbd2 lLlaS 1 0 .
i.e2 l2J c 8 11.h4 �c7 12 .h5 h6 1 3 .
l"lh3 l2J b 6 14.a4? �c6 15.g4 l2Jxa4
and White ended up simply a
pawn down and unsurprisingly he
went on to lose, Fedorchuk - Alsi­
na Leal, Aix-les-Bains 2 0 1 1 .
7 • . . cxd4 8.cxd4 l''k 8
Black delays the development
72
of his knight on g8 for as long as
he can, operating only on the
queenside.
9 . .ib2
It seems to me that in this
case White must consider the
possibility of developing his
bishop to a more active position
- 9 .i.e3 l2Jh6 10 .i.d3 l2Jg4 11.0-0
i.e? 12 .l2lbd2 l2Jxe3 (It is weaker
for Black to play 12 . . . 0-0?! 13.
l2lb3 l2Jxe3 14. fxe3 �d8 15.l2lc5
b6 16.l2lxd7 �xd7 17.l"lc1 with
pressure for White.) 13 .fxe3 l2Jb8
14.�e2 ia4 15.l"lac1 l"lxc1 16.l"lxc1
0-0 with equality, Areshchenko ­
Paehtz, Gibraltar 2 0 0 8 .
W e have already seen several
times that the development of
White's bishop on e2 does not
bring him any benefits : 9 .i.e2
l2Jge7 (9 . . . a5 ! ? 1 0 .b5 l2Jxd4 11.
l2Jxd4 l"lxc1 12.�xc1 �xd4 Nikitin)
10.0-0 lLlfS 1l.i.b 2 i.e? 12 .�d2
0-0 13.l"ld1 f6 14.l2lc3 fxe5 15.dxe5
ie8 16.l"lac1 i.hS 17.l2Ja4 �d8
18.l2lc5 hcS 19.E\xc5 l2Jh4 and
Black's prospects are no worse,
Sveshnikov - Lputian, Podolsk
1990.
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 dS 3.e5 cS 4.c3 Wff b 6 S. t:iJfJ t:iJ c6 6.a3 �d7
9 . . . � a5 ! ?
This is a very aggressive move.
It looks as if Black has forgotten
about the existence of his king­
side. White cannot punish him so
easily for this, though . . .
I t would b e inferior for Black
to play here the move 9 . . . t:iJh6 ? !
recommended earlier. 10.t:iJc3 (It
would be a simple loss of a tempo
for White to play 10 .�d3 t:iJa5
11.0-0 t:iJc4 12 .hc4 l'!xc4 = ) 10 . . .
t:iJa5. We are already familiar with
this motif. 1l.t:iJa4 (Now it is no
good for White to play 1l.t:iJd2 t:iJf5
1 2.t:iJa4 Wff c 6 and the best that he
has is a repetition of moves with
13.t:iJc3. He would even be worse
after 13.t:iJc5 t:iJc4.). ll . . . Wffc 6
and now:
12 .l'!cl This move is played
with tempo, but it is not the best.
12 . . . t:iJ c4 13.hc4 dxc4 14.t:iJc3. It
is obvious that statically Black has
an excellent position, so his main
task is to complete the develop­
ment of his forces without losing
material if possible. 14 . . . t:iJf5 (He
has a good alternative here - 14 . . .
�e7!? 15.0-0 0-0 16.d5 exd5 17.
t:iJd4 Wffg 6 18.t:iJxd5 �d8 with an in­
teresting game in prospect.) 15.0-0
15 . . . �e7 (The game might de­
velop in amusing fashion after
15 . . . b5 ! ? 16.Wffd 2 �e7 17.d5 exd5
18. t:iJxd5 �d8 19.l'!fd1 �e6 2 0 . t:iJe3
0-0 and Black obtains a very
good position. It would not make
much sense for White to postpone
d4-d5 : 17.l'!fd1 0-0 18.Wfff4 �d8 = .
White cannot change much with
16.Wffe 2 �e7 17.l'!fd1 0-0 18.d5
exd5 19.t:iJxd5 �d8 and the posi­
tion offers chances to both sides. )
16.d5 exd5 17.t:iJxd5 and in the
game Khairullin - Dyachkov,
Dagomys 2008, the players
agreed to a draw. Let us continue
this variation a bit further: 17 . . .
�d8 ! ? (It i s weaker for Black to
play 17 . . . �e6? ! 18.t:iJxe7 Wxe7 19.
t:iJd4 t:iJxd4 2 0 .Wxd4 and White's
initiative might even be enhanced
73
Chapter 12
by the presence of bishops of op­
posite colour on the board.) 18.
1Wd2 (White cannot hurt his oppo­
nent at all with the line: 18.g4
tt:Jh4 19.tt:Jxh4 1xh4 2 0 .tt:Je3 b5.)
18 ... 0-0 19J'Ud1 1e6 and Black
has a good position.
12. tt:J c5 tt:Jc4
13.1c 1 ! Theist is a very power­
ful retreat. (13.1xc4 dxc4 14.0-0
1Wd5 15.1We2 1c6 16.Ei:fe1 1e7 17.
Ei:ac1 0-0 and Black is better, Ko­
rchnoi - lruzubieta, Oviedo 199 2 ;
13.1c3 b6 14.tt:Jxd7 1Wxd7 15.1d3
tt:Jf5 16.0-0, draw, Predojevic -
Vojinovic, Neum 2 005.) 13 . . . tt:Jf5
14.1d3 b6 (14 . . . 1xc5 15.dxc5 b6
16.cxb6 axb6 17. 0-0 and although
the computer evaluates this posi­
tion as equal, we cannot really
agree) 15.tt:Jxd7 1Wxd7
16.h4! This is a great posi-
74
tional move and it practically
forces Black's response. (16.0-0
1e7 17.Ei:a2 h5 18.1xf5 exf5 19.Ei:e1
Ei:c6 2 0 .h4 b5 2 l.i.g5 0-0 22 .1xe7
1Wxe7 23 .tt:Jg5 g6 24.'\Wf3 tt:Jb6 25.
Ei:ae2 Ei:e8 26.e6 and White's po­
sition was winning in the game
Grischuk - Le Quang, Beijing
2011.) 16 . . . h5 17.1xf5 exf5. Now
White will have access to the g5-
square in the arising pawn-struc­
ture. Meanwhile, the knight on
c4 is completely cut off from the
action. In fact, White's advantage
is already overwhelming. 18.0-0
g6 19.Ei:a2 1g7 2 0 .tt:Jg5 0-0 2 l .Ei:e1
Ei:fe8 2 2 . Ei:ae2 a6 23. tt:Jh3 Ei:c6 and
here White needed to find the pre­
cise move 24.tt:Jf4± (In the game,
White allowed his opponent to
free his position with the pawn­
break 24.'\Wd3 f6 ! and Black suc­
ceeded in equalizing, Zherebukh
- Vitiugov, Aix-les-Bains 2011.).
1 0 .c!L!bd2 .!Llc4
ll .!Llxc4
•
Or 11.1xc4? ! dxc4 12.Ei:c1 1Wa6
13.tt:Je4 ic6 14.tt:Jfd2 idS 15.0-0
tt:Jh6 16.1We2 tt:Jf5 17.g4 tt:Jh4 18.f4
h5 19.gxh5 tt:Jf5 with excellent
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 cS 4.c3 Wff b 6 5Ji'Jf3 lt'J c6 6.a3 fld7
counterplay for Black on the light
squares, Atutobo - Fishbein, New
York 1995.
ll . . . dxc4 12J'kl �a6 13.d5
This is the correct reaction.
White must open the position in
order to exploit the lag in devel­
opment of Black's pieces.
It is too risky for White to play
13.4'ld2? ! b5 14.4'le4 SJ.c6 15.Wffg4
lt'Jh6 16.4'ld6+ li>d7 17.Wffh 5 hd6
18.exd6 fJ.d5 and he ended up a
pawn down, Sveshnikov - Szy­
manski, Warsaw 2005.
13 . . . exd5 14.�xd5
14 . . .c!l:\e7
I believe Black should respond
in this fashion. It is a sin not to
use this tempo to develop his
knight.
It seems too routine for Black
to opt for 14 . . . b5 15.1J.e2 lt'Je7
16.Wff d 2 Wffg 6?! - he is playing too
optimistically. (He should try
here 16 . . Jl:d8 ! ?) 17. 0-0 flc6 and
after the simple move 18J'Ud1 ! ?
Black has great problems. For ex­
ample, after 18 . . . 4'lf5, White has
the resource 19.hc4 ! bxc4 2 0 .
E1xc4 fle7 2 l .b5±. The game con­
tinued instead with 18.E1fe1? ! lt'Jf5
19. Wfff4? ! (19.g3 ! ?) 19 . . . 1J.e7 2 0 .
fJ.d1 lt'J h 4 and White was even
worse at the end, Sepp - Yemelin,
Tallinn 2009. It is amazing, but
after the more active move 15.E1d1,
White cannot obtain any advan­
tage if Black defends accurately:
15 . . . 1J.c6 (He can also try 15 . . . 1J.e6
with the following sample contin­
uation : 16.Wffe4 lt'Je7 17.1J.e2 Wffc 6
18.Wffx c6+ lt'Jxc6 19. 4'lg5 and Black
should have only minimal diffi­
culties in this endgame. ) 16.Wffd 4
(It is inferior for White to contin­
ue with 16.Wffd 2 SJ.e7 17.e6 hf3 ! )
1 6 . . . 4'lh6 17.1J.e2 fle7 18.e6 f6 19.
0-0 0-0 and the position is very
difficult to evaluate.
15.�e4
This is the most popular reply.
Black's position is quite ac-
ceptable after 15.Wffd4 SJ.e6 16.1J.e2
g6 17.Wfff4 SJ.g7 18.0-0 0-0.
White's initiative gradually
ebbs away in case of 15.Wffd 2 SJ.e6
16.1J.e2 E1d8 17.Wffg5 b5 18.0-0 h6
and the knight will make way for
the f8-bishop with tempo.
It would be too fanciful for
White to play 15.Wffd 6 lt'Jc6 16.Wff d 2
b5 17.4'lg5 flf5 and Black ends up
with a very solid position.
15 . . . b5 16 ..ie2
Or 16.4'ld4 c3 ! ? 17.E1xc3 E1xc3
18.hc3 Wffx a3 19.1i>d2 Wff a 2 + 2 0 .
li> c 1 g 6 2 1 .4'lxb5 SJ.h6+ 2 2 .f4 0 - 0
and Black has good compensation.
16 . . . �g6 17.'�e3 .ic6� with
counterplay.
75
 Part 4

The Rubinstein Variation

l . e4 e6 2 . d4 d5 3 )!) d2 dxe4

The Rubinstein variation holds a very special place in the theory of

the French defence. Firstly, this is because it can arise after both 3.tt:ld2
and 3 .tt:lc3. Secondly, there will be none of the pawn chains which are
so typical of the French defence, or any other complicated pawn-struc­
tures. Black is playing purely to equalize, and so he relieves the tension
in the centre, starting on move three. This plan might look primitive
and is quite simple, but maybe this is also the reason why it is so strong.
The name of the great maestro Rubinstein, who began playing this way
long ago, is in itself a recommendation which speaks even more elo­
quently than the numerous grandmaster games played with this line . .
Nowadays chess players of various levels should have a n opening
repertoire which includes both sharp lines and lines which are com­
pletely safe and reliable, even if sometimes a bit passive. The Rubin­
stein variation definitely belongs to the second group.

76
Chapter 13 l . e4 e6 2 . d4 d5 3 )tj d2 dxe4 4 .ti:J xe4
4 . tl:ld7
. .
Black sometimes plays 4 . . .
i.d7, but I consider this line t o be
too passive and slow. Black defi­
nitely cannot equalize by playing
in this fashion. It might be possi­
ble for him to reach a position
which is only slightly worse, but
very solid and difficult to crack.
This approach is appropriate in
practical games, but in my ana­
lytical endeavours I have chosen
another, more classical, line.
5.g3
At the beginning of the 2 1st
century, this slightly unnatural
move was very fashionable for a
while, but then Black found a way
to counter it successfully and its
popularity gradually ebbed away.
5 .tl:lgf6 6.�xf6+ �xf6 7.
.•
i.g2
7 .•. e5 !
White's control over the centre
is not very secure at the moment
and Black exploits this, equalizing
immediately.
8.Wfe2
Black has no problems after
8.li:Jf3 exd4 9.0-0 i.e7 10.l"lel 0-0
ll.'&xd4 c6 1 2 .i.f4 'Wxd4 13.li:Jxd4
l"le8 = , or even 8 . . . e4 ! ? 9 .li:Je5 i.d6
10.0-0 0-0 ll.i.f4 c5oo with an
unclear position.
8.d5. The position is tremen­
dously interesting after this move
and there are plenty of possibili­
ties for both sides. 8 . . .i.g4 (8 . . .
i.d6 9 . li:J e 2 0-0 1 0 . 0 - 0 i.f5 ll.c4
77
Chapter 13
�d7 1 2 .tt:lc3 ih3 13.igS ixg2 14.
Wxg2 �fS 1S.ixf6 �xf6 16.a3 aS
17.tt:lbS e4= with approximately
equal chances, Naiditsch - Milov,
Bastia 2 0 0S) 9.tt:le2
9 ... e4 (9 ... �d7 ! ?) 10 .c4 c6 11.
�a4 �d7 12.dxc6 �xc6 13.�xc6+
bxc6 14.tt:lc3 ib4 1S.id2 0-0-0
16.a3 icS 17.igS id4 18.0-0 h6,
with a very good position for
Black, Jones - Mamedyarov, Bas­
tia 201 1.
8 . .'�xd4 9.tt:lf3 �d5
. tt:lxg7 id7, Black's bishop-pair
In reply to the rather artificial
move 9 . . . �e4, White has the re­
source 10.�xe4 tt:lxe4 ll.tt:lxeS tt:lcS
1 2 . 0 - 0 f6 13.tt:lc6 ! and Black must
still prove that he has equalized.
10.0-0
1 0 . . e4!
. ll.l:�dl
78
This is the most principled and
precise move for Black.
He has also played 10 . . . id6
and now:
1Ule1 ig4 12 .c4 (Black equal­
izes easily after 12 .h3 ? ! hf3 13.
ixf3 e4= ) 12 ... �c6 13.�d3 e4 14.
tt:lgS 0-0-0 1S.�b3 ie6 16.tt:lxe4
(White cannot obtain any advan­
tage in case of 16.tt:lxe6 fxe6 17.
igS icS.) 16 . . . hc4 17.tt:lxf6 hb3
18.hc6 ie6 19.tt:lhS bxc6 2 0 .
fully compensates for his disrupt­
ed pawn-structure.
It would be interesting for
White to opt for ll.tt:lxeS ! ? �xeS
12 .�xeS+ !xeS 13.Ele1 tt:lg4 (It is
weaker for Black to continue with
13 . . . ie6 14.hb7? ! Elb8 1S.ic6+
We7 16.ElxeS Wd6 ! 17.Elxe6+
fxe6= ; 14.ElxeS ! 0-0-0 1S.if4
and White has obtained the ad­
vantage of the bishop pair for
nothing.) 14.f4 ie6 1S.fxeS 0-0-
0 16.h3 tt:lh6 17.igS Eld7 18 .g4.
This position looks very difficult
for Black, but things are not as
bad as they seem. 18 . . . tt:lg8 19.
Elad1 hS with some pressure for
White.
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3Jijd2 de 4Jijxe4 liJ d7 5.g3 liJ gf6
Black can hold successfully af­
ter ll .liJg5 �g4 12 .�e3 �f5 13J'\el
i.d6=
ll ... �c5
12.h3 ! ?
This i s quiet move i s sensible.
White's attempt to smash his
opponent's position right away
would not work after: 12 .�g5 �e6
13.hf6 exf3 14.�xf3 gxf6 15.�xb7
l"\c8 16.l"\el <i>d8. Black has an
extra piece and a quite defensible
position.
It would be a crude blunder
for White to play 12 .�e3? exf3
13.�xf3 �e5-+
The position peters out to ster­
ile equality after 12 .l"\el �g4 13.h3
hf3 14.hf3 0-0-0 15.he4
liJxe4 16.�xe4 �d5 ! =
12 �d6 13.liJg5 0 - 0 14.
•..
tbxe4 liJxe4 15. �xe4
15 �f5! 16.�e3 he4 17.
..•
.h:c5
Here the only real problem for
Black is to choose between two
equalizing lines.
17 . . . hg2 18 .hd6 �f3 19.l"\d3
l"\fd8 2 0.hc7 l"\xd3 21.cxd3 =
18.he4 gae8 =
79
Chapter 14 l.e4 e6 2 . d4 d5 3)ijd2 dxe4 4)ijxe4
llJd7 5 . llJf3 llJgf6 6 . .ig5 h6
7_.!ljxf6+
7 . .ih4 ! ? This is an interesting
possibility for White. He post­
pones the exchange on f6, with
the idea of exploiting the fact
that Black's knight on d7 stands
in the way of his other pieces.
7 ... .ie7 (White can counter 7 . . .
c S with 8 .c3 �aS - After 8 . . . cxd4
he replies with the simple move
9.�xd4 - 9.tt:lxf6+ tt:lxf6 10.hf6
gxf6 11.dS .id7 12.dxe6 fxe6 13.
.ic4 0-0-0 14.�e2 �b6 1S.O-O-O
.id6 16.Wb1 Wb8 17J':1he1 E1he8
18.�e3 .if8 19.tt:lh4 .ic8 2 0.tt:lg6
and Black will have problems
protecting all his weaknesses,
Gashimov - Illescas Cordoba,
Lugo 2 0 09.) 8.tt:lxf6+ .ixf6. With­
out the inclusion of the moves h6,
.ih4, White would have the move
80
h4 here, which is considered to
be the most aggressive and dan­
gerous for Black in this position.
Now the situation is more favour­
able for him. (8 . . . tt:lxf6 ! ? 9 . .id3
0-0 10.�e2 tt:ldS ll.he7 �xe7
12.0-0-0 .id7 13.tt:leS .ic6 14.h4
E1ad8 1S. Wb1 E1d6 16 ..ie4 E1fd8
17.c3 tt:lf4 18.�f3 he4+ 19.�xe4
tt:ldS 2 0 .g4 cS and White repeated
moves after 21 .tt:lc4 E16d7 2 2 .ttJeS=
Inarkiev - Grachev, Taganrog
2011.) 9 . .ixf6
9 . . . �xf6 (9 . . . tt:lxf6 ! ? 10 . .id3
0-0 11.�e2 cS 1 2 . 0-0-0 cxd4
13.�eS .id7 14.tt:lxd4 E1c8 1S.f3
�c7= Leko - Anand, Monte Carlo
2 0 0 1 . ) 10 .�e2 0-0 11. 0-0-0 E1d8
1 2 .�e4 �e7 13.tt:leS cS (After 13 . . .
tt:lf6 14.�f3 a S 1 S . .ic4 tt:ldS 16.h4
�f6 17.�e2 b6 18.tt:lg4 �f4+ 19.
Wb1 .ib7 2 0 .g3 �d6, Black was
 2.d4 d5 3 . Ci'J d2 de 4Ji'Jxe4 Ci:J d7 5. Ci:Jj3 Ci:J gf6 6. i.g5 h6 7. Ci:Jxf6 Ci:Jxf6
slightly worse in the game Kur­
nosov - Lysyj , Rijeka 2 0 1 0 . ) 14.
i.c4 Ci:Jf6 15.�e3 cxd4 16Jl:xd4
l"lxd4 17.�xd4 id7 18 .l"ld1 ie8
19.g4 l"lc8 2 0 .h4 �cS= Kurnosov
- Grachev, Rijeka 2 0 1 0 .
7 .-!Lixf6
••
Before we deal with White's
most principled response 8 .ih4,
we shall analyze: a) 8 .i.d2 , b)
8 . .ixf6 and c) 8.i.e3.
a) 8.i.d2
White plans to attack the tar­
get on h6. This is not so danger­
ous for Black, though . . .
8 . . . c5
9.dxc5
It is inferior for White to play
9.id3 cxd4 10 .�e2 a6 (10 . . . ie7 ! ?
11.0-0-0 0-0 and here h e is
forced to play 12 .if4, which is
enough indication.) 11.0-0-0
ic5 1 2 .Ci:Je5 �c7 13.f4 Ci:Jd5 14.l"ldf1
Ci:Je3 1S.l"lf3 b5 16.l"lg3 gS 17.�h5
l"lf8 18.he3 dxe3 19.l"lf1 e2 20 .
.be2 ib7 2 1 .Ci:Jd3 id6 2 2 .�xh6
l"lc8 with wild complications,
Dworakowska - Zhukova, New
Delhi 2 0 0 0 .
Black obtained a good position
after 9 . . . a6 10 .�e2 b5 11.dxc5
hc5 1 2 . 0-0-0 �c7 13 .ic3 ib7
14.ie5 �b6 15.hf6 gxf6 16.ie4
l"ld8 17.hb7 �xb7 18.l"lxd8+
lt>xd8 19.l"ld1 + lt>e7 2 0 . Ci:Je1 l"ld8
2 1.Ci:Jd3 ib6 22 .f4= Bologan -
Komarov, Reggio Emilia 1997.
9 . . .hc5 1 0 .i.d3 0 - 0 11.
'!We2
ll . . . e5!
This is a standard resource for
Black. This pawn advances as a
spearhead in order to free the way
for the rest of his forces.
It is not advisable for him to
play 11 ... '\WdS 12.c4 '!Wc6 13 .ic3 eS
14.Ci:Jxe5 Wxg2 15.0-0-0 l"le8 16.
81
Chapter 14
E!df1 .ih3 17.E!hg1 W/xh2 18.1Mif3
and White had the advantage in
the game Khalifman - Dreev, Yal­
ta 1995.
12. o- o - o ges 13 .ic3
•
After 13 ..ib5 .id7 14.hd7 W/xd7
15 . .ie3 he3 + 16.W/xe3 W/a4 17.
\tl b1 E!ac8 18.1Mib3 W/xb3 19.axb3
ltlg4 2 0 .E!d2 e4+ Black's position
is preferable, Bologan - Dokhoi­
an, Germany 1993.
13 ... 1Mib6 ! 14.ltlxe5 .ie6 15.
f4 .ie3+ 16 ..id2 .id4 17.c3 .ig4
18)iJxg4 gxe2 19 . .!Dxf6 + .ixf6
2 0 .he2 W/e6 ! with advantage
for Black, A.Fedorov - Supatash­
vili, Ekaterinburg 1997.
b) S .ix£6
. 18.E!ad1= Amonatov - Vorobiov,
This variation is a bit similar
to the Moscow variation (l.d4 dS
2 .c4 c6 3.ltlc3 ltlf6 4.ltlf3 e6 S ..igS
h6 6 . .ixf6), but its popularity is
diminishing lately. Its idea is sim­
ple and easily understandable.
White is ready to give up his dark­
squared bishop for the sake of the
quickest possible development.
8 •.. 1M!xf6 9.i.b5+ c6 1 0 .id3
• heS 17.ltlxe5 W/xeS 18 . .if3 W/f6
.id7
82
ll . .!De5 ! ?
This i s the most unpleasant
move for Black to face.
The position is swiftly simpli­
fied after 11.0-0 cS ! 12 .c3 cxd4
13.cxd4 .ic6 14.ltle5 .id6 15.ltlxc6
bxc6 16.W/a4 0-0 17.W/xc6 W/xd4
Moscow 2006.
White has also tried the tricky
move 11 .c3, but Black can obtain
an acceptable position in that case
as well. 1l.. . .id6 (The complica­
tions after 11.. .0-0-0 12.0-0 cS
13.1Mib3 .ic6 14.ltle5 .idS 15.c4
.ixg2 16. \tl xg2 E!xd4 are unclear
and Black does not need to go in
for them, although his prospects
there are not at all bad. 17.f4 .id6
18.E!ae1 E!xf4 19.E!xf4 W/xf4co Amo­
natov - Maslak, Moscow 2 006.)
12 .1Mie2 cS 13.0-0 cxd4 14.cxd4
W/e7 15.ltle5 .ixe5 16.dxe5 .ic6 17.
.ie4 .ixe4 18 .W/xe4 0-0= Anand
- lvanchuk, Monte Carlo 2 004.
It is a bit too solid for White to
continue with 11.1Mie2 0-0-0 1 2 .
0 - 0 - 0 .id6 (12 . . . c5 ! ?) 13. \tl bl
\tl b8 14.a3 .ic8 15 ..ie4 eS 16.dxe5
19.E!xd8 E!xd8 2 0 .E!dl= Vallejo
 2.d4 dS 3JiJd2 de 4JiJxe4 t:iJ d7 5. t:iJf3 t:iJgf6 6. �g5 h6 7. t:iJxf6 t:iJxf6
Pons - lvanchuk, Monte Carlo
2 0 07.
ll . . . �d6 12.'!We2 0-0-0
13. 0 - 0 c5 14.c3
14 . . . 'i!?b8. Black should be in
no hurry to exchange the c-pawns.
15.Wfe3 .ic8 16.lUd1 .ic7 17.
.ie2 gds 18.li'lg4 W/g5 19.dxc5
gxc5 2 0 .g3 h5 21.h4 W/e7 22.
b4 gf5 23 . .id3 gds 24.�h2 g5t
and Black had the initiative in the
game Hracek - Lobron, Bad
Wiessee 1999.
c) 8 . .ie3
The variation which shall ana-
lyze below can also be reached
with the black pawn on h7. There
many transpositions between the
variations are possible, but there
are also some ideas which become
possible only under specific cir­
cumstances.
8 . . . �d5
Here Black has an alternative
which has been gathering popu­
larity lately - 8 . . . �d6. For exam­
ple : 9 .g3 (9 .�d3 b6 10.0-0 �b7
1l.c4 0-0 12 .h3 c5 13.dxc5 bxc5
14.t:iJd2 W/c7 15.�e2 �h2 + 16.cj;>h1
�f4 17.hf4 W/xf4 and Black was
better in the game Pikula - Meier,
Zuerich 2010) 9 . . . b6 1 0.�g2 �b7
11.0-0 0-0 12 .c4 c5 13.\We2 cxd4
14.�xd4 \We7 15.gfd1 E1fd8= Yu
Yangyi - Ding Liren, Hefei 2011.
9 . .id3
White is relying on rapid de­
velopment. This strategic re­
source is quite popular and you
can encounter it in many open­
ings. One side is willing to sacri­
fice some so-called static factors
in the opening for the sake of
quick development. This can be
critical in the opening phase of
the game. He would surely be re-
83
Chapter 14
luctant to operate like this in the
middle game or the endgame.
Black achieves quickly the de­
sired result after 9.�d2 ib4 ! This
is an exquisite manoeuvre and its
idea will become clear a bit later.
10 .c3 id6 1I.id3 (11.0-0-0 �e7
1 2.l2le5 ixe5 ! ? 13.dxe5 id7 14.
�d4 tt:lxe3 15.�xe3 ic6 16.id3 b6
17.ic2 Eld8 18.Elxd8+ �xd8 19.f4
�d5 = Najer - A. Rychagov, Mos­
cow 2 008.) 11 . . . �e7 1 2 . 0-0-0
id7 13.tt:le5 ia4 ! This is the point
of Black's move nine. White's
rook on d1 is very uncomfortable.
14.ic2, draw, Amonatov - Vitiu­
gov, Krasnoyarsk 2 007.
9 .id2 c5
Now:
10 .c4 tt:lf6 1I.id3 cxd4 12.0-0
id6 13.h3 0-0 14.tt:lxd4 e5 15.l2lb5
ic5 16.�e2 e4 (16 . . . a6 ! ? 17.tt:lc3
id4 18.Elad1 id7=) 17.ic2 �e7
18.ie3 id7 19.tt:l c3 ic6 2 0 . Elad1
Elfe8 2 l .Elfe1 a6 2 2 .a3 a5 23.id4
and Black had to struggle to
equalize for most of the game,
Amonatov - Potkin , Belgorod
2010;
10.l2le5 a6 11.id3 White has
this possibility only when Black's
pawn is on h6. 1 1 . . .cxd4. This is
84
the most principled move. (11 . . .
�c7 12 .c3 id6 13.�e2 b6 14.0-0
ib7 15.Elfe1 0-0 16.�g4 f5 17.�e2
cxd4 18.cxd4 ixe5 19.dxe5 �c6
20.f3 �c5+ 2l.�f2 �xf2 + 2 2 .<it> xf2
and Black managed to hold this
inferior endgame, Ganguly -
Gomez, Guangzhou 2010) 1 2 .
�h5 �c7 1 3 . 0 - 0 - 0 (13.tt:lxf7 tt:lf6
14.tt:ld6+ <it>d8=) 13 . . . tt:lf6 14.ia5
(White cannot hurt his opponent
at all with 14.�e2 id6 15.f4 b5
16.Elhe1 ib7 17.<it>b1 idS 18.g4
Elc8 and White has only slight
compensation for the pawn, Man­
ca - Kosic, Budapest 2 0 11) 14 . . .
tt:lxh5 (It looks very risky for
Black, but it might be best to play
14 . . . �e7! ? 15.�f3 �c5 16.tt:lc4 tt:ld5
17.Elhe1 ie7 18.Ele5 �c6oo with a
rather unclear position.) 15.ixc7
ic5 16.tt:lc4 (16.ie4 ! ? tt:lf6 17.if3
<it>e7 18.Elhe1 g5oo) 16 . . . b5 17.ie4
Ela7 18 .id6 ixd6 19.tt:lxd6+ <it>e7
2 0 . Elxd4 tt:lf6=
10 .ib5+ id7 11.ixd7+ �xd7
12.c4 tt:lb6 13.Elc1 ie7 14.dxc5
ixc5 15.b4 ie7 16.c5 tt:ld5 17.tt:le5
�c7 18.�a4+ <it>f8
19.tt:l c4 (Or 19. f4 g6 2 0 . 0-0
<it>g7 2 l .�b 3 Elhd8 2 2 J''ke 1 if6 23.
tt:lg4 id4 + 24.<it>h1 h5 25.tt:le5 b6
 2.d4 dS 3 J i:J d2 de 4J uxe4 lLJ d7 5. li:Jf3 li:J gf6 6. 1lg5 h6 7. li:Jxf6 li:Jxf6

26.cxb6 �xb6 27.bS heS 2 8 .fxeS

a6 and Black is better. His power­
ful knight on dS protects the dark
squares, while White's pawns are
vulnerable, Shirov - Wang Hao,
Moscow 2010.) 19 . . . hS 2 0 . 0-0 h4
2 1 .h3 �hS 2 2 . �fdl. This is an at­
tempt by White to improve on
Leko's play (22.�fe1 a6 23.�b3
�d8 24.a3 <±>g8 2S.�c2 �fS 2 6.1lc1
li:Jf4 27.!lxf4 �xf4, with a quite
comfortable position for Black,
Leko - Gurevich, Elista 2 0 07.)
2 2 ... a6 23.�b3 �d8 24.a3 i>g8
2S.!le3 �fS 26.�d3 li:Jf4 ! = Nai­
ditsch - Vitiugov, Poikovsky
2010.
9 . . . t!Jxe3 1 0 .fxe3 .id6
ll . . . c5! ?
That i s a rarely played move.
However, I believe that it will be­
come much more popular in the
coming years.
Black will have to fight long
and hard for a draw after 11 . . . eS
12.dxeS !lcS 13 .!lbS+ (But not
13.!lc4? �e7 14.�d2 0-0 1S.
0-0-0 c6 16.�hf1 bS 17.1lb3 aS
18.a3 a4 19.!la2 b4 2 0 .axb4 a3
2 1 .b3 hb4 2 2 .c3 !laS 23 .b4 !lc7
24.li:Jd4 �xeS 2S.li:Jxc6 �e8 26.
li:Jd4 !lg4 2 7.�de1 !leS and Black
had a powerful attack in the game
Nakamura - Akobian, San Fran­
cisco 2 0 0 2 . ) 13 . . . c6 14.�xd8+
i>xd8 1S.!lc4 i>e7

ll.e4
The cautious move 11. �e2
does not combine well with the
loss of the dark-squared bishop
on the previous move. ll . . . �e7
12.0-0-0 eS 13.1lc4 0-0 14.�f2
!lg4 (Or 14 . . . e4 ! ? 1S.li:Jd2 c6, with
an excellent game for Black.)
1S.�hf1 �ae8 16.h3 h£3 17.�xf3
exd4 18.exd4 �e3+ 19.�xe3 16.c3 (Or 16.a4 !le6 17.he6
�xe3 = Jenni - Pelletier, Zurich i>xe6 18.�d1 �hd8 19.i>e2 !lb6
2006. 2 0.�d3 �xd3 21.cxd3 �d8 2 2 .�cl

8S
Chapter 14

�d4 23.aS a6 24J'k4 .beS 2S.

'LixeS @xeS and White failed to
break down Black's defences in
the rook and pawn ending, Nai­
ditsch - Akobian, Moscow 2009.)
16 ... �e6 (After 16 . . . l"i:d8 17.a4 a6
18.@e2 �e6 19 . .be6 @xe6 2 0 .
l"i:hfl l"i:d7 2l.l"i:ad1 l"i:xd1 2 2 . l"i:xd1 aS
23.'Lie1 �g1 24.g3 �b6 2S.'Lid3
@e7 2 6.g4 l"i:d8 27.l"i:f1 �c7 2 8 .h4 �xeS+ @b8 20.�xeS+ �c7 and
l"i:e8 2 9 .hS @f8 30.l"i:fS White real­ White's attack reaches a dead
ized his advantage, Gashimov - end.) 14 ... �aS+ 1S.@f2 a6 16.exdS+
Akobian, Caleta 2 0 09.) 17 . .be6 @d8 17.�d3 c4 ! 18 . .bc4 �cS+
@xe6 18.@e2 �b6 19.l"i:hf1 l"i:hf8 19.@f1 l"i:e8 2 0 .�d3 �fS ! with a
2 0.l"i:ad1 l"i:ad8 2 l . l"i:xd8 .bd8 2 2 . powerful initiative for Black.
l"i: d 1 �c7= Leko - lvanchuk, More­ 12 •.• �e7 13.�d2
lia/Linares 2 0 07. The situation remains more or
less the same after 13.c3 �d7 ! ? , or
13 . . . cxd4 14.'Lixd4 �dS ! ?

12.e5
Black should not be afraid of
12 .dS exdS 13 .�bS+ 1 3 �d7 (Here Black could
•.•

(diagram) also have tried 13 . . . cxd4.) 14.

13 . . . @e7! (It is also acceptable
for him to continue with 13 . . . �d7
14 . .bd7+ �xd7 1S.�xdS 0-0-0
16.0-0 l"i:he8=) 14.�e2 (Or 14. 0-0
a6! 1S.�xdS axbS 16.'LieS .beS
17.�xf7+ @d6 18.�dS+ @c7 19.
0 - 0 - 0 �c6 15.@b1 �c8 16.
dxc5 .bc5 17.�f4 �b6 18.�e4
0 - 0 19 . .bc6 �xc6 and Black
gained an excellent position in the
game Yu Shaoteng - Wang Hao,
Cebu City 2 0 07.

86
Chapter 15 l . e4 e6 2 . d4 d5 3 .ti� d2 dxe4 4 . �xe4
� d7 5 . �£3 �gf6 6 . .ig5 h6 7. �xf6 +
�xf6 8 . .ih4

18.l"lfd1 .lla 4 19.b3 .\ke8= Huebner

- Rivas Pastor, Manila 199 2 .

a ) 9.dxc5 ! ?
White solves the problem in
one move.

This retreat is much more

principled than 8 . .\ke3 . White
keeps his opponent's knight on f6
pinned and he plans to maintain
his kingside initiative.
8 . . . c5
This is an energetic reply.
White can counter it in about ten 9 . . . �a5 +
different ways, so Black must be Unfortunately, it is inferior for
prepared against all of these. Black to continue with 9 . . . �xdl +
The alternative is - 8 ... .\ke7. 10.l"lxd1 .llxc5 ll.ti:Je5 (It would be
This move is safer but it is a bit just a loss of time for White to
passive. play ll..lkb5+ rJJ e 7 12 .ti:Je5 g5 13.
Here White can choose be­ .\kg3 li:Je4 and Black equalizes. For
tween: a) 9.dxc5, b) 9 .\kc4, c)
• example: 14 . .\ke2 .\kd6 15.ti:Jxf7
9. ltle5, d) 9 .ib5, e) 9.c3, 0
• .llxg3 16.ti:Jxh8 .llxf2 + 17. rJJ fl .llb 6
9 .\ke2 and g) 9.�d3.
• 18 . .\kh5 ti:Jf2 19.'it>e2 ti:Jxh1 2 0 . l"lxh1
It is not very logical for him .lld 7 2 l .ti:Jg6+ rJJ d 6 2 2 .l"ld1 + rJJ c 7
to opt for 9 . .\kxf6 gxf6 10 . .\ke2 23.ti:Je5 l"ld8 =) 11. . . 0-0 12 . .\ke2
cxd4 ll.ti:Jxd4 .llc5 12.ti:Jb3 �xdl+ ltld5 13 . .\kf3 ib4+ 14.rJJ f1 f5 15.c4
13J�xd1 .llb 6 14 . .\kf3 l"lb8 15. 0 - 0 ti:Je7 16 . .\kxe7 he7 17.ti:Jg6 l"lf7 18.
.\kd7 16.ti:Jd4 0-0 17.l"ld2 l"lfd8 li:Jxe7+ l"lxe7 19.l"ld8+ rJJf7 2 0 .rJJ e 2

87
Chapter 15
l"i:c7 2 1.b3± Sivokho - Serov, St
Petersburg 2008.
1 0 .c3 �xc5 ll . .id3 .ie7
The same position can arise af­
ter 8 . . . �e7 9 .�d3 c5 10. dxc5
�a5+ ll.c3 �xc5.
12. 0 - 0
This is the classical set-up for
White.
It would be more aggressive
for him to opt for 12 .�e2 0-0
and then :
after 13.0-0-0, Black has the
possibility of placing his light­
squared bishop in an active posi­
tion. 13 . . . �d7 14.l2Je5 �a4 ! (It is
possible, but I believe more pas­
sive, to play 14 . . . �c6.) 15.l"i:d2,
Morozevich - Zvjaginsev, Mos­
cow 2 0 05 (do not think that Black
88
has blundered his bishop - 15.
hf6 h£6 16.�e4 l"i:fc8 ! = ) 15 . . .
l"i:fd8 16.f4 b 5 17.g4 l"i:ac8� with a
very complicated and double­
edged struggle ahead.
13.l2Je5 b6 (Black can also try
13 . . . �d6 ! ? , for example : 14.�g3
b6 15.0-0-0 �b7 16.l2Jd7 �g5+ ! ,
o r 14.l2Jc4 �e7, freeing the d7-
square for the bishop. ) 14. 0-0-0
�b7 15.hf6. This is obviously the
only way for White to achieve
something in the opening. (The
quieter move 15.�b1 leads to a
complicated struggle: 15 . . . l"i:ad8
16.f4 l2Jd5�) 15 . . . hf6 16.l2Jd7
�g5+ 17.�c2 (17.�b 1 ! ?) 17 ... l"i:fd8
18.�e4 �d5 ! ? This interesting de­
cision enables Black to equalize.
19.l2Jxf6+ and the opponents
agreed to a draw in the game Su­
tovsky - Dolmatov, Moscow
2003.
12 ... 0 - 0 13J1�'e2 gds 14.
gfe1 b6 15.�e5
The move 15.�a6? ! looks like a
silent offer of a draw: 15 . . . l2Jd5
16.he7 l2Jxe7 17.l"i:ad1 ha6 18.
�xa6 l2Jc6 19.�e2 l"i:ac8 2 0 .h3=
Leko - Bareev, Monte Carlo 2 0 0 2 .
15 .ib7
.•.
 3Jijd2 de 4. 0,xe4 0, d7 5. 0,]3 0,gf6 6. ii.g5 h6 7. 0,xf6 0,xf6 8. ii.h4 c5
16.l3adl
Tactical strikes such as 16.0,xf7
do not work, because of 16 . . . 'it>xf7
17.�xe6+ 'it>f8 and White can do
nothing more to harm his oppo­
nent.
16 . . . l3d6 17.b4
The alternative is 17 . .ig3 !"1ad8
18.b4? �xc3 19.1"1c1 �xb4 2 0 .!"1c7
.ie4 2 1 .he4 0,xe4 2 2 . 1"1fl 0,c3 23.
�c2 0,d5 24.0,c6 1"1xc6 25.1"1xc6
.ic5, but Black gains a serious ad­
vantage.
17 . . . �c7 18 . .ig3 !"1dd8
Now the key-move for the cor­
rect evaluation of the position is
19. 0,xt7!?
In the game White played
19.1"1c1 ? ! and he was even worse,
although his opponent failed to
punish him. 19 . . . .id6 2 0.a3 a5 2 1 .
1"1ed1 1"1ac8, Fressinet - Degraeve,
Val d'Isere 2 004.
19 ... �c6 2 0 .<tJxh6+ gxh6 21.
fJ <.!?fl. White has sacrificed a knight
and he has two pawns for it, while
Black's king is exposed. However,
it is difficult to say whether
White's initiative will be sufficient
to compensate for the piece.
b) 9 . .ic4
It seems to me that the bishop
does not belong to this square.
White is unlikely to be willing to
sacrifice his bishop on e6. How­
ever, many strong players have
played this move.
9 .•• cxd4
It seems sensible for Black to
play 9 . . . a6, but after 10.0-0 (But
not 10 .�e2 ? ! b5 ll . .id3 g5 12 . .ig3
c4 13 . .ie4 0,xe4 14.�xe4 �d5 and
Black's idea will be perfectly j usti­
fied : 15.�xd5 exd5 16.h4 1"1g8 17.
hxg5 hxg5 18.0-0-0 f6 19.1"1h7
.ig7 2 0 .1"1e1 + 'it>f7 2 l..id6 .if5 2 2 .
1"1hh1 !"1ae8, with a n excellent posi­
tion for Black, Svidler - Bareev,
Haifa 2 0 0 0 . ) 10 . . . b5 ll . .ie2 .ib7
and White has the destructive re­
source - 1 2 .c4! and Black is in
trouble: 12 . . . �b6 13.�b3 cxd4 14.
cxb5 .id6 15.bxa6 �xb3 16.axb3
hf3 17.hf3 !"1a7 18.b4 hb4 19.
1"1a4 .id6 2 0 .b4 'it>e7 2 l.b5 1"1b8
22 . .ic6+ - Leko - Vallejo Pons,
Monte Carlo 2 004.
1 0 . 0 - 0 .ie7 11.�e2
It is obvious that the move 11.
0,xd4 does not combine well with
89
Chapter 15

the development of the bishop to 'Wxc2 ! ? (After 1 6 . . . 'We5 17.Ei:b5 'We4

c4. 11 . . . 0-0 12 J�� e 1 'Wb6 13 .i.b3
aS ! ? 14.a4 Ei:d8 15.c3 tt'ldS 16.i.g3
i.f6 17.Ei:e2 tt'le7 18.Ei:d2 i.d7 19.i.c4
Ei:ac8 2 0 . tt'lb5 i.xbS 2 1.hb5 tt'lfS
and Black is in no danger, Pono­
mariov - Bareev, Moscow 20 0 1 .
11 . . . 0 - 0 12.gadl �b6
Black is forced to play aggres­
sively.
13.tiJxd4
White cannot obtain an edge
with the modest-looking move
13.i.b3? ! : 13 . . . Ei:d8 14.Ei:d3 a5 15.a4
i.d7 16.Ei:fd1 i.c6 17.tt'lxd4 i.e4 18.
Ei:3d2 i.g6 19.tt'lf3 i.hS 2 0 .i.g3
Ei:xd2 2 1 . Ei:xd2 'Wb4 and despite
Black's strange bishop manoeu­
vre, his position is quite accepta­
ble, E . Romanov - Zhou Weiqi,
Moscow 2006.
13 . . . �xb2 14.tiJf5 !
The game becomes simplified
after this move, but White cannot
develop his initiative in any other
way.
14 . . . exf5 15.�xe7 i.e6!
18.he6 'Wxe6 19.hf6 'Wxf6 2 0 .
'Wxf6 gxf6 2 1 . Ei:xb7, theory prom­
ises Black the possibility of de­
fend a worse rook and pawn end­
ing, but he might well lose it. 2 1 . . .
Ei:fc8 2 2 . Ei:c1 Ei:c4 2 3 . 1t>f1 Ei:ac8 24.
Ei:xa7 Ei:xc2 25.Ei:xc2 Ei:xc2 26.a4
Ei:a2 and Black succeeded in sav­
ing this endgame, mostly thanks
to being a very classy player, Al
Modiahki - Huzman, Biel 2 0 0 2 . )
17.i.xe6 Ei:ae8 18.i.xf5 'WxfS 1 9 .
'Wxb7
19 . . . tt'le4! Black should be able
to equalize after this important
move. 2 0 .i.e7 Ei:xe7 21.'Wxe7 tt'ld2 =
16 . . . fxe6 17.�xe6+ 'it>h8 18.
�xf5 �xa2 19.gd6 ttJgS 2 0 .
�e4 �f7 21.i.g3 gadS 22.gxd8
gxd8 =

16.he6
After 16.Ei:b1, I recommend
that Black try the novelty - 16 . . .

90
 3. l2J d2 de 4. l2Jxe4 l2J d7 5. l2Jj3 l2Jgf6 6. i.g5 h6 7. l2Jxf6 l2Jxf6 B. i.h4 c5
I evaluate this position as
equal, although the computer
does not agree with me, Shirov -
Radjabov, Leon 2 0 04.
c) 9.lt:le5
White is trying to exploit the
fact that Black's last move was a
bit too active.
9 . . . a6
The game proceeds quite dif­
ferently after 9 . . . �a5+ 1 0 .c3 cxd4
11.�xd4 i.c5 12.�f4 (An equal
endgame arises after 12.l2Jc4 hd4
13.l2Jxa5 i.b6 14.l2Jc4 i.c7 15.i.e2
i.d7 16.i.g3 hg3 17.hxg3 @e7 18.
i.f3 Ei:ac8 19.l2Je5 Ei:c7 2 0 . 0-0-0
Ei:d8 2 1 . Ei:h4 i.e8 2 2 . Ei:xd8 @xd8
23.Ei:b4 b6= Topalov - Milov,
Ajaccio 2 004.) 12 . . . i.d6 13 .i.g3
0-0
14.i.e 2 . This is an important
intermediate move. (White can­
not create problems for his oppo­
nent with the immediate 14.l2Jc4
and now: 14 . . .hf4 15.l2Jxa5 hg3
16.hxg3 b6 17.l2Jc4 i.b7 18.f3 Ei:fd8
19 .i.e2 Ei:ac8 2 0 .l2Je3 @f8 2 1. Ei:h4
l2Jd5 2 2 . l2Jxd5 Ei:xd5 23.Ei:d1 @e7
24.Ei:hd4= Gashimov - Vysochin,
Cappelle Ia Grande 2 0 06.) 14 . . .
�c7 15.�c4 (15.�d4 ! ?) 1 5 . . . �xc4
16.l2Jxc4 hg3 17.hxg3 Ei:d8 18.
0-0 i.d7 19.l2Je5 i.e8 2 0 .Ei:fd1 @f8
2 1.i.f3 Ei:xd1+ 22.Ei:xd1 Ei:b8. White's
position is possibly slightly pref­
erable, but this seems to be insuf­
ficient for a win, Jakovenko -
Zhang Pengxiang, Poikovsky
2 0 07.
1 0 .dxc5
The correct way for Black to
equalize after 10 .c3 was demon­
strated by a truly classic French
defence game : 10 . . . cxd4 11.�a4+
i.d7 12 .�xd4 i.b5 ! 13.i.xb5+ axb5
14.�e3 �d5 15.0-0 �e4 ! 16.�xe4
l2Jxe4 17.Ei:fe1 l2Jd6 18.a3 i.e7 19.
Ei:ad1 Ei:d8 2 0 .i.g3 0-0= Short -
Korchnoi, Reykjavik 2 0 0 0 .
10 •• . '%Ya5 +
91
Chapter 15
Black should try the line: 10 . . .
�c7 ! ? 11.t2Jc4 (After 11.�g3 hc5
12 .�d3 �d6 13.�e2 �b4+ ! ? 14.
<i>f1 �d6, the manoeuvres of
Black's bishop might give the im­
pression that Black is showing
disrespect for the opponent, but
they seem logical enough.) 11 . . .
hc5 12 .�g3 �c6 13 .�e2 0-0
14. 0 - 0 t2Je4=
ll.c3 exc5 12 .�g3 �d6
13.ltJg4
This is the only way for White
to challenge Black's intention to
equalize.
13 �e7
••.
It is surprising, but after 13 . . .
�xg3 14.t2Jxf6+ gxf6 15.hxg3,
Black's pawn-structure has been
disrupted and White's rook on h1
conveniently comes into action.
This provides White with a slight
advantage and the ex-world
champion succeeded in winning
this position after 15 . . . �d7 16.l"1h4
l"1d8 17.�d4 �xd4 18.l"1xd4 �c6
19.l"1ad1 l"1xd4 2 0 . l"1xd4 'tt> e 7 2 1 .
�e2 t Ponomariov - Bareev, Cap
d'Agde 2 003.
14.t2Jxf6+ .ixf6 15 ..ie2 (It is
92
only White who might have prob­
lems after 15.�d6 �c6 16.�d3 e5
17. 0-0-0 �e6 and his bishop on
d6 is in trouble.) 15 .id7 16.•..
0 - 0 .ic6 =
d) 9.�b5+
This move only reduces the
tension and creates no problems
for Black.
9 ..• �d7 1 0 .hd7+ exd7 11.
ee2
It is somewhat depressing for
White to continue with 11.0-0
cxd4 12 .hf6 gxf6 13.�xd4 �xd4
14.t2Jxd4 0-0-0 15.l"1fd1 �c5 16.
t2Je2 'tt> c 7 17.g3 Wc6 and Black
equalizes easily, Leko - Shirov,
Linares 2001.
11 .•. .ie7 12. 0 - 0 - 0
Or 12 .dxc5 0-0 13.0-0 hc5
14.l"1ad1 �c7 15.hf6 gxf6 16.l"1d3
l"1fd8 17.l"1fd1 l"1xd3 18.l"1xd3 l"1d8
19.t2Je1 l"1xd3 2 0 .t2Jxd3 �d6= Ga­
shimov - Ivanchuk, Dagomys
20 0 8 .
12 ..• 0 - 0 13.dxc5
In reply to the risky move 13.
g4, I very much like this reaction
 3Jijd2 de 4. liJxe4 liJ d7 5. liJ.f.3 liJgf6 6. §J.g5 h6 7. liJxf6 liJxf6 8. §J.h4 c5
by an experienced long-time sup­
porter of the French defence -
13 . . . liJdS (After 13 . . . g5? ! 14.§J.g3
�dS 15.c4 �e4 16.�xe4 liJxe4
17.d5 l'l:ad8 18.l'l:he1 liJxg3 19.hxg3
White had some pressure in the
game Amonatov - Roiz, Dagomys
2008.) 14.he7 �xe7 15.Wb1 bS
16.dxc5 �xeS 17.liJeS l'l:ad8 18.
liJd3 �c4 and Black obtained an
excellent position, Chandler - Va­
ganian, Germany 1996.
13 .. .'�c6 14.li'le5 �xc5 15.
i.xf6 i.xf6 16A'ld7
16 .•• hb2 +
This i s a contemporary practi­
cal approach in action - Black is
willing to draw. (Incidentally, he
would not have any serious prob­
lems after 16 . . . �g5+ ! ? 17.Wb1
E:fd8 either.) 17.mxb2 �b4+ 18.
�cl �a3 + . White cannot be hap­
py with the position he gets if he
avoids the repetition of moves.
For example: 19.�d2 l'!fd8 2 0 .
mel �a4 ! and White's knight is
in trouble. (Things are less clear
after 20 . . . l'l:ac8 2l.l'l:d3 �xa2 2 2 .c4
�b1 + 2 3.�d1 �b4+ 24.�d2
�b1= ; 21.f3 �e7 2 2 . liJeS l'l:xd1+
23. Wxd1 - 23.�xd1 �gS ! - 23 . . .
�b4 24.�d2 and White will grad­
ually consolidate his position, re­
taining an extra piece. ) 2 1.�d3
l'!ac8 22J;d2 �h8. Now White
he is forced to repeat moves, be­
cause of the threat of his knight
being trapped. 23.�b3 �e4+
24.�e3 �b4 25.�b3 �e4+ 26.
�e3 =
e) 9.c3 cxd4 1 0 . ll:lxd4
1 0 . . . §J.c5!
Black is trying to equalize im­
mediately with this move. This is
an ambitious approach !
ll . .ib5+ .id7 12 .hf6
It is also interesting for White
to try the new move here 1 2 . �e2 ! ?
a 6 (The idea i s to counter 1 2 . . .
hd4 with 13.0-0- 0 ! hbS 14.
�xbS+ �d7 15.�xd7+ liJxd7 16.
l'l:xd4 f6 17.l'l:c4 Wd8 18.§J.g3 l'l:c8
19.l'l:a4 a6 2 0 . l'l:b4 b6 2 1 . l'l:d 1 and
Black had a hard task to equalize
in the game Sutovsky - Meier,
Porto Carras 2 011) 13.hd7+ (It
would not be good for White to
play 13.liJxe6 hbS 14.liJxd8+
he2 1S.liJxb7 l'l:b8 16.liJxc5 l'l:xb2
93
Chapter 15
17.<bf6 gxf6 18.f3 r!!l e 7 since Black
has tremendous compensation
for the pawn. Of course, it would
have been a disaster for him to
opt for 13 . . . fxe6? 14 . .bd7+ \Wxd7
15 ..bf6 .bf2 + 16.\Wxf2 Ei:f8 -
16 . . . 0-0?? 17.\Wd4+ - - 17. 0-0
Ei:xf6 18.\Wh4±; 15 . . . 0-0 16.�h4±
and White retains the extra
pawn.) 13 . . . \Wxd7 14. 0-0-0 tt:ld5
(It looks as if White cannot ex­
ploit the temporary stranding of
Black's king in the centre.) 15.f4
(Or 15.tt:lf5 0-0 16.tt:lxg7 r!!l xg7 17.
c4 \Wa4 ! 18. Ei:xd5 exd5 19.\Wg4+
r!!l h 7 20.\Wf5+ r!!l g 8 2 1.\Wg4=)
15 ... 0-0 16.f5 Ei:ae8, and Black's
powerful centralized knight on d5
keeps him out of trouble.
12 ••• 1Wxf6
Or 12 . . . gxf6? 13.tt:lxe6 ! .bf2 +
14. r!!l xf2 fxe6 15.\Wh5+ r!!l f8 16 .
.bd7 \Wxd7 17.Ei:hd1 \We7 18.r!!l g 1
Ei:h7 19.Ei:d3± K.Szabo - Galyas,
Budapest 2 0 04.
13.hd7+ r!!lxd7
It looks as though White is
about to punish his opponent, but
things are far from simple.
14. 0 - 0
94
White would not achieve any­
thing with 14.\Wh5 hd4 15.0-0-0
\Wg5=
14 .•• r!!l e7
I do not think that there will be
many players willing to defend
Black's position after 14 . . . Ei:hd8?
15.tt:lxe6 + ! r!!l x e6 16.Ei:e1+ r!!lf5 17.
\Wh5+ g5 18.b4 �b6 19.c4! Ei:d4
2 0 .c5 �c7 2 l.g3 and White's pow­
erful initiative will prey upon the
nerves of the opponent, despite
the absence of direct threats.
15.\Wb3 gab8 16.gadl ghd8
17.\Wb5
White has tried 17.Ei:d3 several
times, but without any success.
17 . . . �xd4 18.\Wa3+ r!!l e 8 19.cxd4
\We7 and in the game Almasi - Er­
dos, Kazincbarcika 2 0 05, the op­
ponents agreed to a draw. We can
continue this variation a bit fur­
ther, but the evaluation remains
the same: 2 0 .\Wxa7 Ei:a8 21.\Wb6
Ei:xa2 2 2 .d5 ga6 23 .\Wb5+ r!!l f8=
17 hd4 18.1Wb4+ lt>e8 19.
•••
gxd4 gxd4 2 0 .cxd4 gds 21.
gdl f!e7 22.f!a4+ lt>f8 23.
\Wxa7. White has won some mate­
rial, but he will not manage to
 3. 4J d2 de 4.Ci'Jxe4 4J d7 5. 4Jj3 4Jgf6 6. �g5 h6 7. 4Jxf6 4Jxf6 8 . � h4 c5

convert it into a full point. 23 •..

�b4 24.b3 @g8. In general,

Black can survive by doing noth­
ing, thanks to White's queen be­
ing out of play on the a7-square. If
he wishes however, he can force
the issue. 25.h3 (25 .g3 e5=) 25 . .•

b6 26.E:cl �xd4=

f) 9.�e2 ! ?

4Jd5 14.�f3 4Jf4 15.E\d2 g 5 16.�g3

0-0-0=
12 E:c8 13. 0 - 0 - 0 a6
..•

This move is imprecise and in­

This i s a clever move. White's
bishop is eyeing the f3-square.
9 •.. cxd4 1 0 .�xd4
stead he could have tried the more
flexible line: 13 . . . �c5 ! ? 14.4Jd6+
�xd6 15J�lxd6 g5 16.�g3 4Je4=
14. c!Dd6+ hd6 15.E:xd6 g5
16 . .ig3 c!De4 17.E:d4 (Thanks to
Black's 13th move, White could
have tried 17.E\b6 ! ? Black proba­
bly equalizes anyway, but he
would have more problems to
solve in that line.) 17 c!Dxg3. .•

10.4Jxd4 �e7 (10 . . . �c5 ! ? 11. 18.hxg3 @e7 19.�f.3 E:c7 2 0 . a4

4Jb3 �d6 12.0-0 Wffc 7= ) 11.0-0 e5 21.E:b4 a5 22.E:xb7 E:xb7 23.
0-0 12 .c3 e5 13.4Jf3 Wff c 7 14J'l:el hb7 ha4 24.g4= A.Galkin -
E:d8 15.Wic2 e4 16.�xf6 hf6 17. Bareev, Tomsk 2001.
Wixe4 and White ended up with an
extra pawn in the game Fressinet
- Moreno Carnero, Sanxenxo
2 004.
10 ... Wffxd4 ll..!Dxd4 �d7
(diagram)
12 .!Db5
•

White can check with this

move whether he has the edge, or
not.
If he plays routinely, he cannot
obtain any advantage : 1 2 . 0-0-0
�c5 13.E\d3 (13.�f3 0-0-0=) 13 . . .

95
Chapter 15
It seems to me that if White
wishes to bring about a long and
hard struggle, he should choose
this move.
9 . . . cxd4
9 . . . �a5+ ! ? Alexander Mo-
rozevich is reluctant to follow
well-trodden paths. 10 .c3 cxd4
11.l2Jxd4 id7 1 2 . 0 - 0 id6 (Black
managed to equalize even after
the more passive line : 12 . . . ie7 13.
Ele1 0-0 14.ig3 Elfd8 15.ic2 Eiac8
and the opponents agreed to a
draw, Sutovsky - Roiz, Netanya
2 0 09 . ) 13.�f3 �h5 14.�xh5 t2Jxh5
15.f3 l2Jf4 16.ie4 ic5 17.if2 hd4
18 .hd4 t2Je2+ 19. i>f2 t2Jxd4 2 0 .
cxd4 c±>e7= Nepomniachtchi -
Morozevich, Moscow 2011.
In this position we shall ana­
lyze the moves: g1) 1 0 . �xd4 and
g2) 1 0 . 0 - 0 .
g1) 1 0 .�xd4 ic5
Black has a good alternative
here - 10 . . . ie7! ?
11.�b3
White is fighting for a tempo.
It is more natural, but too
96
slow, for him to play 11.l2Jf3 0-0
12 .�d2 b6 13.0-0-0 ib7 14.l2Je5
(Or 14.Elhe1 ie7 15.l2Je5 l2Jd5
16.he7 �xe7 17.a3 Elad8 18.f4
l2Jf6 19.c4 �c7= Morozevich -
Pelletier, Biel 2 0 0 6 . ) 14 . . . ie7
15.a3 l2Jd5 16.he7 �xe7 17.f4
Eiac8 18.Elhf1 �c7 19.g4 g5 ! This is
an important resource. 20.h4
t2Jxf4 21.hxg5 �xeS 2 2 .Elxf4 �xg5
and Black ends up with an extra
pawn, but he is unlikely to be able
to exploit it, Nepomniachtchi -
Erdos, Dresden 2 0 07.
ll ... ie7 12.�e2 id7
Black should refrain from
experimenting with 12 . . . �d5 ? ! 13.
f3 id7 14.0-0-0 �c6 15.i>b1 �a4
16.c4 Elc8 17.Eld2 b5 18.hf6 ixf6
19.cxb5 c±>e7 2 0 . Elhd1 Elhd8 2 1.Elc2
Elxc2 2 2 .�xc2 ie5 2 3.ie2 hh2
24.Eld4 and suddenly Black's
queen was trapped in the game
Huebner - Korchnoi, Switzerland
1998.
13. 0 - 0 - 0 �b6 14.�d2
0 - 0 15.�c4 \Wc5 16.�e5 .ic6
17.�xc6
17 . . . bxc6 !
This is a very smart move. Af-
 3Ji'Jd2 de 4 . CiJxe4 11J d7 5. 11Jf.3 11Jgf6 6. iJ.g5 h6 7. 11Jxf6 11Jxf6 8. iJ.h4 cS
ter White has castled long, this
pawn-structure is in Black's fa­
vour, because he has the open b­
file and an excellently centralized
knight on d5. 18.c3 gfd8 19 . .ic2
tlJd5 2 0 .he7 Wfxe7 and Black
has a wonderful position, Jako­
venko - M.Gurevich, Batumi
2002.
g2) 1 0 . 0 - 0 ! ?
This is an interesting move or­
der, used regularly by GM Emil
Sutovsky. White wishes to avoid
the variation with 10 . . . ic5, which
arises if he captures the pawn im­
mediately.
Of course, Black can counter
this with a ruse of his own -
1 0 . . . .id7!?
This is an interesting move. al­
though slightly strange-looking.
The attempt to hold on to the
pawn would be too risky for Black:
10 . . . ic5 ll.Wfe2 0-0 12.1��fe 5 and
obviously he would have to give
up the extra material in order to
avoid the worst. 12 . . . ie7 13.ig3
1M'b6 14.1Mixd4 1Mixd4 15.11Jxd4 with
a slight edge for White. It would
be inferior for White to choose
14.11Jxd4, because of 14 . . . 11J d7 ! ?
15.1Mie4 (15.1M'e3 ig5 ! ) 1 5 . . . 11Jf6 =
Black can also transpose t o the
variation with 11Jxd4 ie7 - 10 . . .
ie7 ! ? 11.11Jxd4 0 - 0 12.c3 1Mib6 13.
1Mie2 id7 14J:'!adl E1fd8 15.ibl ia4
16.:1'1d3 :1'1d5 17.:1'1e3 .ib5 18.11Jxb5
E1xb5 19.b3 :1'1d5= Amonatov - Na­
jer, Zvenigorod 2008.
11.1M'e2
The rather romantic-looking
line 11.11Je5 .id6 12 .1M'e2 .ic6 13.f4
0-0 would not yield any benefit
to White. Black can counter 11.
1M'e2 with ll ... ic6.
If 11.11Jxd4 1Mfb6 ! ? (Here he can
also try ll . . . .ic5 12.11Jf3 .id6 with
similar ideas.) 12 .c3 (After 12.11Jf3
.id6, Black obtains an excellent
position.) 12 . . . .ic5 (It is rather
passive for Black to play 12 . . . .id6
13. :1'1el 0-0-0 14.1Mif3i and White
seizes the initiative.) 13.11Jf3 .id6
14.1M'd2 1Mic7 and Black has suffi­
cient counter-chances.
ll . . . .ic6 12.tlJe5
97
Chapter 15
12 •.. .id6
After the superficial move 12 . . .
fie7?, the author could have been
punished for his inadequate prep­
aration in the opening. 13.f4 0-0
14.f5 exf5 15.Ei:xf5 'Wd6
16.l2Jxc6 (Black would have
great problems after the move
16.Ei:afl±) 16 . . . bxc6 17.Ei:e1 .id8 18.
'Wf3 ltJdS 19 . .ig3 'Wd7 2 0 . .ie5 g6
21.'Wg3 .ic7 2 2 . Ei:xf7 'Wxf7 23.hg6
(diagram)
and after overlooking the re­
source 23 . . . 'Wf6 ! , Black ended up
in a very difficult endgame after
98
23 . . . 'Wf2 + 24.'Wxf2 Ei:xf2 25. �xf2
Ei:f8+ 26.�g3?, but then he struck
lucky with the beautiful reply 26 . . .
Ei:f6 ! Sutovsky - Vitiugov, Poiko­
vsky 2010.
13.f4 'Wc7 14 .if2
•
14 i.d5 15.�hl i.c5 16.
. • .
i.b5+ �£8 17.i.d3 b6 18.l"lael
h5 19 .ih4 l2Jg4 2 0 .ltlxg4 hxg4
•
21.'Wxg4 f5 22.'Wg3 �f7 23.i.g5
and in this position the players
agreed to a draw, although it ap­
peared to me to be slightly better
for Black, Sutovsky - Vorobiov,
Moscow 2011.
Chapter 16 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.liJd2 dxe4 4.liJxe4
liJd7 5.liJf3 liJgf6 6.liJxf6+ liJxf6

This move has become popu­

lar lately, but Black has found an
adequate response.
7 b6
••.

This is his strongest and most

natural reply.
If 7 . . . cS 8 .i.g2 cxd4 9.Wixd4
Wixd4 10.'Llxd4 a6 11.i.f4 'LldS 1 2 .
i.d2 b S 13.a4 b 4 14.'Llc6 a S 1S.c4
bxc3 16.bxc3 i.b7 17.'Lld4 i.a6 18.
'LlbS with some pressure for
Now we shall analyze White's White, Alekseev - Pridorozhni,
four possibilities to avoid the Khanty-Mansiysk 2 0 0 9 .
main line: a) 7.g3, b) 7 . .id3, c)
7.i.e2 and d) 7.i.e3.
For 7.i.gS h6 - see 6.i.gS h6
7.'Llxf6 'Llxf6.
If 7.i.c4 Black's simplest re­
action is 7 . . . i.e7 (It is riskier to
play 7 . . . cS 8.i.e3 cxd4 9.i.xd4
Wic7 10 .Wie2 i.cS 11.i.eS i.b4+ 1 2 .
c3 i.d6 13.i.bS+ i.d7 14.0-0-0
i.xeS 1S.'LlxeS 0-0-0 16.i.c4 ! and
White had strong pressure in the
game Milos - Vitiugov, Khanty­
Mansiysk 2009.) 8.0-0 0-0 9 . 8.i.b5+
Wie2 b6 10J'ld1 i.b7 ll.c3 Wic8 This is a very unpleasant sur­
12 .i.gS cS 13.'LleS Ei:d8 14.f4 .idS prise for Black! It turns out that
1S.i.d3 Wic7= Bindrich - Meier, White was just waiting for this weak­
Moscow 2 0 0 8 . ening of his opponent's position.
After the routine move 8 .i.g2 ,
a) 7.g3 Black can equalize i n a n interest-

99
Chapter 16
ing fashion : 8 . . . i.b7 9.0-0 i.e7
10 .c4 0-0 11.b3 aS ! 12 .i.b2 a4 13.
�e2 fi:a6 14.fi:fd1 fi:e8 1S.i.c3 l2Je4
16 .i.e1 axb3 17.axb3 fi:xa1 18.fi:xa1
i.f6 19.fi:d1 �a8 = Shirov - Anand,
Mainz 2 004.
8 ..• i.d7 9 . .ie2
9. a4 a6 10 .i.e2 i.c6 11.0-0
i.d6 (Here Black could have tried
11. . .i.e7 12.tLleS i.b7, making use
of the presence of the pawns on a4
and a6; otherwise in this position
White would have a check from
the bS-square.) 12 .tLleS heS 13.
dxeS �dS 14.�xdS tLlxdS 1S.aS bS
16.i.d2 0-0-0 17.fi:fd1 fi:d7 18.f3
Ei:hd8 19.1t>f2 l2Je7 2 0.i.gS fi:xd1
21.fi:xd1 fi:xd1 2 2 .hd1 tLlg6 23.f4
h6 24.i.h4 l2Jxh4 (Black could
have postponed the exchange of
his knight.) 2S.gxh4 fS and it be­
came clear that there was a for­
tress on the board, Morozevich -
Pelletier, Biel 2 011.
9 •.. .ic6
9 . . . cS? ! - This opening experi-
ment can hardly be described as a
success, despite the fact that Black
won the game. 10.tLleS cxd4 11.
�xd4 i.cS 12 .�h4 �c7 13.l2Jxd7
100
l2Jxd7 14.i.d3 fi:d8 1S. O - O l2Jf6 16.
i.f4± with a clear advantage to
White, Sjugirov - Timofeev, Ir­
kutsk 2 0 1 0 .
1 0 . 0 - 0 .id6
After 10 . . . i.b7? ! 11.lLleS a6 12.
c4 i.d6 13.i.f3 (13.�a4 + ! ?) 13 ... �c8
14.i.c6+ i.xc6 1S.l2Jxc6 0-0 16.
�f3 fi:e8 17.i.gS l2Jd7 18 .fi:fe1 f6 19.
i.e3, Black failed to obtain an ac­
ceptable position in the game Timo­
feev - Riazantsev, Ulan Ude 2009.
ll.tLle5 i.xe5 12.dxe5
Now, in most of the variations,
there gradually arises an end­
game in which White has merely a
symbolic edge.
Black exchanges the heavy
pieces along the d-file and builds
a fortress.
12 •.. �xdl
Or 12 . . . �dS 13.�xdS tLlxdS 14.
i.d2 aS 1S.f3 0-0-0 16.fi:fd1 h6
17.a3 l2Je7 18.1t>f2 fi:dS 19.f4 hS
2 0 .b3 Ei:hd8 2 1 .i.e1 fi:xd1 2 2 .fi:xd1
fi:xd1 23.hd1 g6 24.c4 lLlfS 2S.h3
i.e4 2 6.g4 hxg4 27.hxg4 l2Je7
28.1t>e3 i.h1 29.i.h4 lt>d7= Bolo­
gan - Laznicka, Khanty-Mansiysk
2 0 09 .
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.4'Jd2 de 4.4'Jxe4 4'Jd7 5.4'Jj3 4'Jgf6 6.4'Jxf6 4'Jxf6
13J�xd1 �d7 14.f4 0 - 0 - 0
15 .ie3 �b8
• This i s a sharp move. I f White
16.:!'\xdS +
16.�d3 �f3 17.:t!d2 �g4 18.c3
hS 19 .�fl :t!xd2 2 0 .�xd2 :t!d8 2 1 .
�e3 4'Jc6 2 2 .h3 :t!d1 23.:t!xd1 hd1
24.�b5 �b7 25.�f2 a6 26.�f1 4'Je7
27.�g2+ �c8 28.�e1 �c2 29.�f3
g6 3 0 .�e2 aS 3l.c4 c5= Vachier
Lagrave - Meier, Khanty-Mansi­
ysk 2 0 0 9 .
16...:!'\xdS 17.:Eid1 .ie4 18.
:Eixd8 + @xd8 19.c3 �c6 2 0.h4
g6 2 1.g4 �e7 22.b4 �d5 23.
.id2 f5 24.c4 �e7 25.g5 @d7=
Vachier Lagrave - Meier, Khanty­
Mansiysk 2009.
b) 7. .id3 c5
8. .ie3 ! ?
wishes to bring about a sharper
struggle in this position, this is
how he should play.
White does not achieve much
with 8.dxc5 hc5 9 . 0 - 0 0-0
lO .�gS b6 11.'1We2 �b7 12 .:t!ad1
'!Wc7 13.hf6 gxf6 14.�e4 E1fd8 15.
hb7 '!Wxb7 16.c3 '!Wc7 17.g3 :t!xd1
18.:t!xd1 :t!d8 19.4'Je1 :t!xd 1 2 0 .'1Wxd1
�e7 2 1 .4'Jg2, and the opponents
agreed to a draw, Anand - Gel­
fand, Monte Carlo 2 0 07.
It would be too cautious for
White to continue with 8.0-0
cxd4 9.4'Jxd4 �cS
1 0 . lt:lf3 (It is hardly any bet­
ter for him to play 10.�e3 �b6
ll.c3 eS - 11...0-0 ! ? - 12.4'Jc2
0-0 13 .�g5 h6 14.�h4 �g4
15.hf6 hd1 16.hd8 �xc2 17.
�xc2 E1axd8 = Korneev - Mo­
rozevich, Elista 1997.) 10 . . . 0-0
ll.'!We2 b6 12 .�g5 �b7 13.:t!ad1
'!Wc7 14.hf6 gxf6 15.�e4 l"!fd8
16.c3 l"!ac8 17.a3 a6 18 .hb7
'!Wxb7 19.:t!d3 :t!xd3 2 0.'1Wxd3 �e7
2 1.:t!d1 :t!d8 2 2 .'1We2 :t!xd1 + 23.
'!Wxd1 '!We4= Acs - Khalifman,
Dubai 2 0 0 2 .
8 ...�c7 9.�e2
101
Chapter 16
9 .•. i.e7
It seems too risky for Black to
play 9 . . . a6, although in the follow­
ing games he obtained a good po­
sition after 10.0-0-0 (10.0-0 b6
ll.dxcS i.xcS 12 .i.xcS �xeS 13.
�eS �xeS 14.l2lxeS rtJe7 1S.a4 ib7
16J''la3 aS 17.f4 g6= Caruana -
Pelletier, Biel 2 0 11) 10 . . . bS 11.
dxcS i.xcS 12 .i.gS i.b7 13.'2leS i.d6
14.f4 ltJdS 1SJ�hfl 0 - 0 = Shirov -
Drozdovskij , Mainz 2 0 07.
1 0. 0 - 0 - 0 0 - 0 ll.dxc5
ll... tl:\d5 !
Black should avoid ll ... i.xcS
12 .i.xcS �xcS 13.'2leS �e7 14.f4 b6
1S.g4 i.b7 16.Elhf1 Elad8 17.gS
l2ld7. White crowned his strategy
with a crushing kingside attack -
102
18 .i.xh7+ ! rtJxh7 19.�hS+ rtJg8
2 0 .g6 fxg6 2 1.'2lxg6 �f6 2 2 .fS !
exfS 23J''lxfS+ - Spraggett - Po­
gorelov, Andorra 2 0 0 6 .
12..id4 tl:\f4 13.'11;V e4
Black also has counterplay af­
ter 13.�eS �xeS 14.l2lxeS f6 1S.
l2lc4 Eld8 16.i.fl. White must play
in this awkward fashion if he
wishes to keep the extra material.
16 . . . eS 17.ie3 Elxd1+ 18.rtJxd1 ie6
19.'2laS b6 ! ?
13... tl:\xd3+ 14J:!xd3 f6
Black has temporarily sacri­
ficed a pawn and has gained the
bishop-pair. The pawn wedge "f6-
eS" looks very logical and White's
pieces are restricted in their mo­
bility, so Black might even gain an
advantage.
15J'i:hdl
White has also tried 1S.Ele1
Ele8 ? ! (It is not very easy to under­
stand why Black did not play the
natural move 1S . . . eS ! ?) 16.rtJb1
if8 17.'2ld2 �f7? 18.f4 Elb8 19.
l2lc4 eS 2 0.'2ld6 i.xd6 2l.cxd6 g6
2 2 .Elg3? White overlooks an ele­
gant tactical shot. (He could have
practically concluded the game by
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.liJd2 de 4.11Jxe4 11J d7 5.11Jf.3 11Jgf6 6.11Jxf6 11Jxf6

playing 2 2 .fxe5 ! �fS 23 .Wfe3 fxeS c) 7 .ie2 •

24.�xa7±) 22 . . . �f5 23.Wfxf5 exf4 !

24.�h1 fxg3 2S.Wfxf6 Wfxf6 26.
�xf6 gxh2 27.\t>cl �e6 2 8 .�e7 �e8
29.�xh2 �8xe7 30.dxe7 �xe7=
and after some wild complica­
tions the game ended in a draw,
Sulskis - Roiz, Port Erin 2 007.
15... e5 16.Wfd5+
Black's task is simpler after
16.�e3 �e6 17.�3d2 Wfc8 18.h3 b6
19 .c6 and the opponents agreed to
a draw in this rather complicated
position, Volokitin - Roiz, Beer­ This is a quiet move. White
sheba 2 0 05. avoids critical theoretical debates,
16 \t>hS
•.. 17.4Jxe5 fxe5 but still cherishes hopes of ob­
18.he5 taining an opening advantage.
7 . •• c5 8. 0 - 0

White has sacrificed a piece

and it looks las though his initia­
tive is very powerful. However,
Black can neutralize it with a se­
ries of precise moves.
18...Wfc6 19.�g3 Wfh6 + 2 0.
gd2 .ie6 2 1.Wfxb7 .if6 22 ..ixf6
�xf6 23.�f3 �xf3 24.gxf3
gxf3 25.gxf3 lt>g8 26.a4 a5 and
only Black can play for a win in
this position, Volokitin - Lysyj ,
Moscow 2 007.
8 . •• cxd4
Here Artyom Timofeev played
another move, one which was not
very well analyzed at the time : 8 . . .
a6 ! ? 9 . a3 Wfc7 10.c4 �d7 11.dxc5
aS ! 12 .g3 .ixcS 13.�f4 Wfc8 14.4Je5
0-0 1S.�f3 �a6 16.b4 axb4 17.
axb4 hb4 18.�b1 �b6 19 .�e3 �d6
2 0 .Wfc2 �cS= and Black equal­
ized, Lastin - Timofeev, Novo­
kuznetsk 2008.

103
Chapter 16
9.'!�'xd4
Strangely enough, the whole
idea of White's set-up is based on
this particular capture. White
hopes to prevail in the endgame.
He should refrain from 9.
Lt:lxd4 fie7 10.fif3 0-0 11.1'1:e1 V!ffc 7
and Black has a good game.
9...'11b d4 1 0.Lt:lxd4 .id7
The same position but with
White's bishop on c4 can arise
from the Tarrasch variation with
3 . . . c5 (see page 195, 10.V!ffxd4
V!ffxd4 ll.'Llxd4 fid7). We should
analyze this possibility thorough­
ly, because the bishop on e2 has
more prospects now.
Black might encounter some
problems in this seemingly
harmless variation and these can
be best illustrated by the follow­
ing game : 10 . . . fic5 1L'Llb3 fid6
12.fif3 0-0 13.'Lla5 1'1:b8 14.fie3
Lt:ld7 15.Lt:lc4 fic5 16.fif4 1'1:a8 17.
1'1:fd1 Lt:lb6 18.'Lla5 Lt:ld5 19.fig3
fib4 2 0 . 'Llb3 a5 2l.c4t with a pow­
erful queenside initiative for
White, Volokitin - Lysyj , Sochi
2 007.
ll. .i£3 0 - 0 - 0 12. .if4
104
12....ia4!
This standard manoeuvre is
very strong here and was recom­
mended in the annotations of
F.Bindrich.
It would be too passive for
Black to opt for 12 . . . Lt:le8 13.c4
fid6 14.fie3 Lt:lc7 15.1'1:ac1 fie5 16.
b4 mb8 17.b5 fic8 18 .'Llb3 Lt:le8
19.1'1:fe1 f6 2 0 . a4 and White main­
tained the advantage in the game
Vescovi - Seirawan, Istanbul
2000.
13.�adl
In response to 13.'Llb3, Black
should react simply with 13 . . . fie7.
It is inferior for him to play 13 . . .
fid6 ? ! 14.fixd6 1'1:xd6 15.fixb7+
<±>xb7 16.'Llc5+ <±>c6 17.Lt:lxa4 and
he can hardly prove that his com­
pensation for the pawn is suffi­
cient. He cannot equalize after the
rather strange knight manoeuvre
- 13 . . . Lt:ld5 14.fig3 Lt:lb4 15.c3 'Llc6
16.1'1:fe1 - Black's bishop on a4
does not beautify his position.
13....ic5 14.lbb3 .ib6 15..ie5
.ic6! ?
Black solves his problems in
radical fashion, reducing White's
queenside pressure by slightly
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 dS 3.lbd2 de 4.lbxe4 4:Jd7 S.ltJfJ l2Jgf6 6.4:Jxj6 l2Jxf6
worsening his own pawn struc­
ture. Black will have dynamic fac­
tors on his side, though . . .
16.hc6 bxc6 1 7.h3
17.c4? .bf2 + ! and White ends
up a pawn down.
17. . S�d5 and Black has a good
position. It would also be interest­
ing for him to play the sharper
line: 17 .. J=!xd1 ! ? 18J=!xd1 l2Je4 19.
c;f;>fl l2Jxf2 2 0.Eid6 l2Je4 2 1 . Eixc6+
c;f;>d7 2 2 . Eic4 l2Jd6 with rather un­
clear consequences.
d) 7. .ie3 ttld5
8 .id2
• 11.�f3 f6 12 .c3 cxd4 13.cxd4 and
Or 8.�d2 .ib4 ! and events will
develop in similar fashion to the
notes to White's ninth move in
the variation 6 ..ig5 h6 7.4:Jxf6
l2Jxf6 8 . .ie3.
It would be interesting to try
here 8 . .id3 ! ? l2Jxe3 9.fxe3 .id6
(This is a new possibility, which
has become possible thanks to the
absence of Black's pawn on h6:
9 ... g6 ! ? 10 .�e2 .ig7 11.0-0-0
.id7 12 . .ie4 �e7 13.4:Je5 he5 14.
dxe5 �c5 15.�f3 �xeS 16.hb7
Eld8 17.Eixd7 c;f;>xd7 18.�xf7+ c;f;>d6
19.l"i:d1+ c;f;>cs 2 0 .�e7+ c;f;>b6 2 1 .
Elxd8 Elxd8= Aroshidze - Rozen­
talis, Kavala 2006.) 10 .e4 c5 ! ?
( 1 0 . . . e5? ! 11.dxe5 .ic5 12 . .ib5+ c6
13 .�xd8+ c;f;>xd8 14 ..ic4 c;f;>e7 15.c3
and the endgame will be difficult
for Black without the pawn on
h6), playing by analogy with vari­
ation c (Chapter 14).
8...c5
9..ib5+
9.4:Je5 ! ? - This aggressive
move is playable. 9 . . . a6 (Black
should avoid 9 . . . .id6 10 . .ib5+ c;f;>f8
he is clearly worse.) 10.c3
105
Chapter 16
1 0 . . . .td6 (It is inferior to opt
for 10 . . . cxd4?! 1l.�a4+ .td7 1 2 .
�xd4 .tb5 13.c4 'Ll b 4 14.�c3 ! and
Black has obvious difficulties,
while if 10 . . . b5 White can play 11.
a4. ) 1l.�a4+ rJJe 7 (ll . . .rJJf8 !?) 1 2 .
�d1 cxd4 13.cxd4 �xeS ( It i s well
worth considering 13 .. .f6 ! ? 14.
'Ll c4 �c7 and Black's position is
quite acceptable with the pawn
barrier on the sixth rank.) 14.dxe5
�b6 15.�c4 �d7 16.0-0 �b5 17.b3
Ei:hc8 18.�g4 rJJf8 19.hd5 �xf1
2 0 . �b4+ �xb4 2 1 .hb4+ rJJe 8 2 2 .
hb7 �b5 23.ha8 Ei:xa8 24.Ei:cl±
and White ends up with a solid
extra pawn in the endgame, Ad­
ams - Meier, Liverpool 2008.
9 . dxc5. At first sight, this move
looks like a result of a bad home
preparation, or even a complete
absence of any such. However,
things are far from clear. 9 . . . hc5
10 .�d3 �c7 1l.�e2
106
11. . . 0 - 0 ! ? 12 . 0-0-0 (Or 1 2 .
0-0 b6? ! 13.c4 'Llf6 14.�c3 �b7
15.Ei:ad1 Ei:ad8 16.'Lle5 with some
pressure for White; 12 . . . 'Llf4 13.
hf4 �xf4 and he is unlikely to
obtain any advantage without his
dark-squared bishop.) 12 . . . 'Llf4 (I
believe that Black should consider
here 12 . . . a5 ! ?, or even the more
desperate move 12 . . . b5.) 13.hf4
�xf4+ 14.rJJb 1 f6 15.�c4 rJJh 8
16.he6 he6 17.�xe6 hf2 18.
Ei:hfl Ei:ad8 19.Ei:d7 Ei:fe8 2 0 .�e7+ ­
Nijboer - Dambacher, Hilversum
2 007.
Black plays 11.. .�d7 much
more often here.
It would be imprecise for
White to reply with 12.0-0, be­
cause of 12 . . . �d6 13.c4 'Llf4 14.
�xf4 h£4 15.g3 �d6 16.Ei:fd1 Ei:d8
17.Ei:ac1 �c6 18.�e4 0-0 19.c5=
Quezada Perez - Nogueiras San­
tiago, Havana 2 0 0 8 , or even the
rather cheeky line : 12 . . . 'Llf4 13.
hf4 �xf4 14.g3 �c7 15.'Lle5 �c6
16.'Llxc6 bxc6 17.�e4 �e7 18.�c4
Ei:c8 19.Ei:ad1 0-0 2 0 . Ei:d3 Ei:fd8 2 1 .
Ei:fd1 g 6 2 2 .b4 Ei:xd3 23.Ei:xd3 c5
24.b5 Ei:d8= N.Guliyev - Meier,
Germany 2 007.
The move 1 2.0-0-0 enables
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3Jfjd2 de 4.tiJxe4 CiJd7 5. CiJj3 CiJgf6 6.CiJxf6 CiJxf6
Black to equalize immediately
with the simple line : 12 . . . CiJf4 13 .
.b:f4 �xf4+ 14J�d2 0-0-0 15.i.e4
@b8 16.g3 �c7 17J':\hd1 i.c8 18.
Ei:xd8 Ei:xd8 19.Ei:xd8 �xd8= Stell­
wagen - Meier, Yerevan 2 0 07.
Or 12.CiJe5 0-0 13 . 0 - 0 Ei:ad8
(But not 13 . . . i.d4?? 14.�e4 and
Black had to resign, Fressinet -
N.Guliyev, Ajaccio 2 0 07.) 14.Ei:adl
(It would be a mistake for White
to try to obtain the bishop pair
in this particular case : 14. CiJxd7
Ei:xd7 15.g3 �b6 16.Ei:ab1 Ei:fd8 = .
Black's powerful centralized
pieces guarantee that he will
have no problems at all. ) 14 . . . i.c8
and Black should equalize gradu­
ally.
9 . . . .id7
1 0 . .ixd7+
If 10 .�e 2, White more or less
gives up the idea of obtaining the
advantage - 10 . . . cxd4 ll.CiJeS CiJf6
12.0-0-0 a6 13 . .b:d7+ CiJxd7 14.
Ei:he1 (14.i.f4 CiJf6 15.CiJf3 �dS 16.
@b1 �e4 = ) 14 . . . CiJxe5 15.�xe5
�d6 16.i.f4 Ei:d8 17.�xd6 .b:d6 18.
Ei:xd4 .b:f4+ 19.Ei:xf4= Adams -
Mamedyarov, Baku 2 0 0 8 .
10 ...�xd7 11.c4 �b6 12.l"kl
12 .. f6 ! ?
.
Black exploits the absence o f a
pawn on h6.
12 ... i.e7 13.dxc5 .b:cS 14.b4
i.e7 15.c5 CiJdS 16.CiJe5 �c7 17.
�a4+ @f8
and now:
18.CiJf3 hS ! This move is an im­
portant part of Black's plan - he
wants to activate his king's rook.
19.0-0 (White can halt the march
of his opponent's rook-pawn, but
obviously he should not do so:
19.h4 g6 2 0 . 0 - 0 @g7 and Black's
position is acceptable.) 19 . . . h4 2 0 .
h 3 Ei:hS 21.Ei:fe1 a 6 2 2 .Ei:e4 Ei:c8 2 3 .
�d1 �d8 24.�e2 @g8 25.Ei:cc4 g6
26.i.c1 aS 2 7.a3 axb4 28.axb4 Ei:a8
2 9.i.b2 Ei:a2 3 0.Ei:c2 Ei:xb2 ! = Jako-
107
Chapter 16
venko - lonov, Dagomys 2 0 0 9 ;
18.'2ld3 (Here, with a pawn on
h6, Black would have the impor­
tant resource 18 . . . �g5 ! , but he
cannot play that here and so his
position is worse.) 18 . . . a6 19.0-0
�d8 2 0 .Wb3 h5 2 l.a4 h4 2 2 .h3
�h5 23 .b5 and White's pawns
were advancing to promotion
rather quickly, Karjakin - Nav­
ara, Khanty-Mansiysk 2009.
It would be tremendously
risky for Black to play 12 . . . cxd4 ? !
13.c5 '2ld5 14.'2le5 Wb5
15.Wf3 (The position remains
quite unclear after 15.b4 'Llxb4
16.Wf3? ! 0-0-0 17.a4 Wxa4 18.
0- 0�; 16 . . .f6 17.a4 Wa6 18.hb4
fxe5 19 .Wh5+ g6 2 0 .Wxe5 �g8 = ;
16.Wb3 aS 17.a3 hc5 18.f4 0-0
19.axb4 hb4 2 0 . mf2 and al­
though White has an extra piece,
Black's four pawns seem to be suf­
ficient compensation. White
achieves nothing much after 15.a4
Wxb2 16.0-0 �e7 17.�b1 Wa3 18.
Wg4 �f6 19.Wxd4 b6 ! and Black is
not at all worse. ) 15 . . .f5 16.a4!
This powerful move guarantees a
long-lasting initiative for White.
(The game would be much sharp­
er after 16.Wh5+ g6 17.'2lxg6 hxg6
108
18.Wxh8 '2lb4 19.hb4 Wxb4 20.mfl
Wb5 2l.mg1 Wxb2 2 2 .�e1 0-0-0�
12 ... �c8. Black puts up a fight
for every square in the opening.
Now:
Black can withstand his oppo­
nent's pressure after 13.0-0 cxd4
14.'2le5 Wd8 (It would be more ac­
curate for him to play 14 . . . Wc7 ! ?
15.�e1 'Ll d 7 16.�f4 �d6 17.Wxd4
he5 18 .he5 'Llxe5=, while if 15.
�f4 Black can play 15 . . . Wd8.) 15.
Wb3 (White has a powerful alter­
native here - 15.Wh5 Wf6 16.�fe1
�e7 17.c5 '2ld5 18.We2 ! and he wins
material.) 15 . . . '2ld7 16.'2lf3 �c5
17.Wxb7 �b8 18.Wc6 �b6 19.Wa4
�xb2 2 0.�a5 Wc8 with an excel­
lent position for Black, Jakovenko
- Mamedyarov, Dagomys 2 008.
13.dxc5 hc5 14.b4 �e7 15.c5
'Lld5 16.'2le5 Wc7 17.Wa4+ mf8
18.'2lc4 (After 18.'2ld3 ! ? White's
far-advanced pawns might be­
come a powerful force in the near
future.) 18 . . . a6 19.0-0 h5 2 0 .�fe1
h4 21.h3 �h5 2 2 .Wd1 g6 23.We2
�d8 - Black ended up with a per­
fectly satisfactory position after
the opening, Motylev - Ding, Ji­
angsu Wuxi 2 0 0 8 .
13.dxc5 .bc5 14. 0- 0
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.{jj d2 de 4.{jjxe4 {jj d7 S.{jjj3 l:jj gf6 6.[jjxj6 l:jjxf6

14.b4 ii.e7 15.�b3 0-0 16.0-0

l'l:ac8 17.l'l:fd1 l'l:fd8 18.1J.e1 �a4=
Bacrot - Meier, France 2 0 1 0 .
(diagram)
14 . . . e5
14 . . . l'l:c8 - It is obvious that
this is not the best square for this
rook. 15.�e2 0-0 16.l'l:fd1 e5 17.
ii.e3 �c6 18.1i.xc5 �xeS 19.{jj d 2.
Black has some problems to wor­
ry about, Rasmussen - Meier, Co­
penhagen 20 10 . and Black's queen's rook will go to
15.�e2 0 - 0 16J3fdl ti'e7 the d-file.

109
Chapter 17 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.ltJd2 dxe4 4.ttJxe4
ttJd7 5.ttJf3 ttJgf6 6.ltJxf6+ ttJxf6 7.c3

eludes some personal element in

the assessment of the situation.
This is the case here - the White
player has to decide what line he
prefers in this particular position.
Naturally this is the most logi­
cal move for Black, but sticking to
chess logic often leads to terrible
consequences.
8 .ll)e5

This is a safe and solid move

yet it marks the beginning of a
very aggressive plan, which in­
cludes queenside castling for
White.
Black is faced with a difficult
choice - the immediate a) 7 c5 .•.

grants White a long-lasting initia­

tive, although it is the more prin­
cipled move, and the more relia­
ble; b) 7 . . . i.e7, which later on
will probably turn out to be a tem­
po loss, since Black can hardly
ever play the Rubinstein variation
without the pawn advance c7-c5.
a) 7 .•. c5
It often happens that, when a
player has a choice, he not only
evaluates objectively what is hap­
pening on the board, but he in-
8 ••. a6
The variation with 7.c3 proba­
bly owes its popularity to the
game below. It was played in a
very principled encounter be­
tween "The Great" and "The Ter­
rible", so it acquired a label of
quality and the inspired play of
Garry Kimovich contributed
greatly to its coming into fashion.

110
 2.d4 d5 3JiJd2 de 4JiJxe4 liJ d7 5. liJ.f3 liJgf6 6. liJxf6 liJxf6 7.c3 c5

8 . . . liJd7? ! 9.�b5 �d6 10.\Wg4 lt>f8 nieres sur Seine 2 0 06.) 12 .\Wxd7+
11.0-0 liJxe5 12.dxe5 he5 13 .�g5 liJxd7 13. 0-0-0 cxd4 14.hd4
�f6 14.:1'1ad1 \Wc7 15.\Wh4 hg5 16. 0-0-0 15.\t>c2 liJb8 16.�e2 liJc6
\Wxg5 f6 17.\WhS g6 18.\Wh6+ lt>f7 17.�b6 :1'1d6 18 .:1'1xd6 hd6 19.h4
19 .:1'1d3 a6 20.:1'1h3 \We7 2 l.�d3 f5 h5 2 0 .b4 �c7 2 l.�c5 g6 2 2 .a4 aS
2 2 .g4 ! and White prevailed in the 23.b5 liJe5 24.�d4 :1'1d8 25.b6 �d6
ensuing struggle, Kasparov - 26.:1'1b1 liJc6 2 7.�e3 lt>d7 2 8.�b5
Ponomariov, Linares 2 0 0 2 . E1c8 29.:1'1d1 lt>e7 3 0 .�g5± A.
9. .ie3 Sokolov - Vaisser, Pau 2 0 0 8 .
9.�g5 - This move transposes
to another variation. 9 . . . cxd4 10.
\Wa4+ �d7 11 .\Wxd4 �b5 ! This idea
belongs to Victor Lvovich Kor­
chnoi, who used it with the inclu­
sion of the moves h6 and �h4. It
works perfectly here as well !
9...\Wc7 1 0.\Wa4+
This is just one of the ideas be­
hind White's seventh move.

In this position w e shall ana­

lyze two moves: al) ll.�b5 and
a2) 11. 0 - 0 - 0 .

al) l l . .ib5 cxd4 12.hd7+

hd7 13.�xd4

lO ••• ttJd7
Black continues in principled
fashion.
He would be clearly worse af­
ter 10 . . . �d7 1l.liJxd7 \Wxd7 (Or
1 1 . . .liJxd7 12 .g3 0-0-0 13.�g2
liJb6 14.\Wb3 liJd5 15.�g5 �e7
16.he7 liJxe7 17. 0-0 cxd4 18.
cxd4 :1'1xd4 19.:1'1ac1 liJc6 2 0 .hc6 13 . .• �b5 ! ?
bxc6 2 1.:1'1c3 E1hd8 2 2 .\Wc2 :1'18d6 Black solves his problems i n a
23.\Wxh7± Svidler - Vaisser, As- concrete fashion.

111
Chapter 17

A more conservative approach

would be 13 .. .f6 14.li:Jxd7 �xd7 15.
�xd7+ i>xd7 16.0-0-0+ i>c6 17.
l'!d4 b5 18.l'!hd1 i.e7 19.l'!d7 l'!he8

pawn on b6 guarantees that White

You can study this position by
following the games between
Dominguez and Nogueiras,
played in the Capablanca Memo­
rial Tournaments. Judge for your­
selves - the quite principled Cu­
ban player defended it three times
and it was only on the third occa­
sion that White managed to
breach his opponent's defences !
2 0 .b3 h5 21.h3 e5 2 2 .i>c2 aS 23.a4
bxa4 24.bxa4 i.f8 25.g4 hxg4 26.
hxg4 l'!eb8 27.l'!f7 l'!b7 28.l'!xb7
i>xb7 29 .l'!b1+ i>c6 30.l'!b6+ i>d7
31.i>d3 and White went on to
overcome Black's defensive for­
tress, L. Dominguez - Nogueiras
Santiago, Havana 20 0 8.
14.a4 i.d6
(diagram)
15_.!ljxf7!?
The alternative here is 15.axb5
i.xe5 16.�a4 0-0 17.b6 �e7 18.
0-0 l'!fd8 19.l'!fd1 g6 2 0 .g3 l'!ac8
2 1.l'!xd8+ E\xd8 2 2 .l'!d1 hS 23.h4
l'!xd1 + and the players agreed to a
draw, D.Mastrovasilis - Meier,
Kallithea 20 0 8 . However, the
would not have risked much by
continuing to play for a win.
15...i>xf7 16.axb5 axb5
17.i>e2!
White must centralize his king
most of all !
Black can counter 17.E\d1 with
the automatic reply 17 . . . l'!hd8.
17..J!hd8
In the following encounter be­
tween two champions of this vari­
ation White prevailed: 17 . . . �c6.
This is a clear loss of time. Black
should have considered the idea
of �c4 + , which would be more
relevant than the pressure against
the g2-pawn. 18.l'!hd1 l'!xa1 19.
l'!xa1 b4 2 0 . E\d1 l'!d8

112
 2.d4 dS 3J'ijd2 de 4.CiJxe4 liJd7 S. liJ.f3 liJgf6 6. liJxf6 liJxf6 7.c3 c5
And now:
2 l.�b6 �c4+ 2 2 .Wel i.c7 23.
�xb7 :1'\xdl + 24.Wxdl bxc3 25.b3
�d5+ 26.�xd5 exd5 27.i.d4 i.xh2
28.g3 ! i.gl 29.We2 c2 3 0 .i.e3
We6 ! This is an important im­
provement by Meier on his game
against Ragger. However, I should
advise you to think twice before
you decide to contest files with
your king in this manner on a reg­
ular basis. (30 . . . d4? 3l .i.cl We6
3 2 . Wfl i.h2 33.Wg2 +- Ragger -
Meier, Rijeka 2010) 3l .Wfl i.h2
3 2 .<i>g2 <i>e5 33.<i>xh2 <i>e4 34.b4
d4 35.i.cl Wd3 36.b5 We2 37.b6
d3 38 .b7 d2 39.hd2 <i>xd2 40.
b8� cl� 4l.�f4+ <i>dl 42 .�g4+
Wel 43 .�xg7 �c2 ! = Guseinov -
Meier, Marrakesh 2 0 1 0 .
21.'1Wh4 i.e7 2 2 .�f4+ W g 8 2 3 .
:r"'xd8 + hd8 24.�xb4 �xg2 2 5 .
�b5 ! This endgame looks only
equal, but in fact it is rather un­
pleasant for Black. The game only
confirmed this evaluation. 25 . . .
�c6 26.�xc6 bxc6 27.b4 <i>f7 2 8 .
<i>f3 i.f6 29.c4 g 6 30 .We4 i.g7 3 1 .
b 5 cxb5 32 .cxb5+ - and t o hold
this ending in a practical game
would be extremely difficult, L.
Dominguez - Meier, Havana
2 0 0 9 . However, Meier handled it
in very principled fashion and
managed to hold it: 2 8 . Wd3 i.e7
29. Wc4 <i>e8 30 .i.c5 i.f6 3 l.i.d4
e5 32 . .ite3 e4 33.i.d4 i.h4 34.b5
<i>d7 35.b6 g6 36.<i>b4 <i>c8 37.c4
iJ.e7+ 38.c5 g5 39.h3 h5 4 0.Wc4
g4 41.hxg4 hxg4 42 .i.e5 i.h4 43.
i.g3 i.f6 44.i.f4 and the oppo­
nents repeated moves, Socko -
Meier, Lublin 2 0 1 0 .
18.gxa8 gxa8
It might look as if Black has
simply lost a tempo, but this is not
the case.
19.gdl ga6
19 . . ..ite7 2 0 .�f4+ i.f6 2 l.g4
:r"\a4 2 2 .�f3 :r"\a2 23 J!d2 b4 24.
�xc6 bxc6 25.cxb4 :r"\xb 2 = lstra­
tescu - Meier, Antwerp 2 0 1 0 .
2 0 .b3
White is forced to play this
move if he wants to play for a win;
otherwise, Black will simply force
a drawish endgame.
2 0 i.e7 21.�g4 �xc3
••• 22.
�h5+ m f8 23.�xh7 �xb3 24.
�hs+ mf7 2s.�hs + mgs 26.
gd8+ .ixd8 27.�e8+ mh7 and
White was unable to achieve more
113
Chapter 17
than a draw in the game Vachier
Lagrave - Grachev, Dagomys
2 009 .
a2) 11. 0 - 0 - 0
This is the White's most ag­
gressive option.
ll . .• cxd4
12.lt:lxd7
White loses his advantage af­
ter 12 ..bd4? ! id6 13.lt'lxd7 ixd7
14.Wc4 Wxc4 15.ixc4 l'l:c8 16.ib3
ic6 17.f3 0-0= Nepomniachtchi
- Vitiugov, Serpukhov 2 0 0 8 .
12... hd7
If White plays precisely, he
will be able to prove an advantage
after 12 . . . Wxd7 13.Wc2 icS 14.
ixd4 ixd4 15.l'l:xd4 Wc7 (Black
has also tried 15 . . . Wc6 16.f4 -
White would maintain a powerful
initiative after 16 .id3 ! - 16 . . . b5
17.id3 ib7 18 .ie4 Wc7 19.Wb1
l'l:d8 2 0 .l'l:xd8+ Wxd8 2 l.ixb7.
Wxb7 2 2 .l'l:d1+ We7 23.Wd3 Wc6
24.Wg3 h6 ! = L.Dominguez - Dre­
ev, Tripoli 2 004.) 16.id3 id7 17.
g3 h6 18 .l'l:d1 0-0-0 19.l'l:c4 ic6
2 0 .ie4 l'l:xd1+ 2 l.Wxd1 l'l:d8 2 2 .
114
Wf3 l'l:d6 23.h4 ! Wb8 24.ixc6
l'l:xc6 25.l'l:xc6 bxc6 26.h5 ! and the
queen and pawn endgame was
clearly better for White, who won
it convincingly, Adams - Anand,
Linares 2 0 0 2 .
13.Wfxd4 ic6
The ending is worse for Black
after 13 . . . e5 14.Wb6 Wxb6 15.ixb6
l'l:c8 16.ie2 ic5 17.ixc5 l'l:xc5 18.
if3 l'l:c7 19.l'l:d6 We7 2 0 .l'l:b6 l'l:b8
2l.l'l:e1 f6 2 2 .l'l:e4 l'l:c6 23 .l'l:eb4
l'l:xb6 24.l'l:xb6 ic8 25.a4± Gashi­
mov - Sumets, Cappelle Ia Grande
2 007.
14.ic4
If Black succeeds in develop­
ing his kingside he will not be
worse at all, but at the moment he
has obvious problems in accom­
plishing this.
14... l'l:d8
Black is almost lost after 14 . . .
b5? ! 15.ib3 ixg2? 16.l'l:he1 if3
17.ig5 ! ixd1 18 .ixe6 fxe6 19.
l'l:xe6+ ie7 2 0 .l'l:xe7+ Wxe7 21.
ixe7 Wxe7 2 2 .Wxg7+ We6 23.
Wxd1+- Baklan - Tratar, Trieste
2 0 07.
15.Wfg4 h5
 2.d4 dS 3. Ci:Jd2 de 4. Ci:Jxe4 Ci:Jd7 5. Ci:Jj3 Ci:Jgf6 6. Ci:Jxf6 Ci:Jxf6 7. c3 c5
It would be a disaster for Black
to opt for 1S . . . id7? 16.ib3 \WaS
17.igS l"lc8 18.l"lhel hS 19.he6 ! + ­
Karjakin - Rychagov, Sochi 2 0 07.
16.\Wg5 !
White continues to exert pres­
sure against his opponent's posi­
tion.
Black's defence is much easier
after 16.l"lxd8+ \Wxd8 17.\Wg3 iWd6
18.f4 h4 19.\Wg4 ie4 2 0 . l"ldl \Wc6
2 Lib3 ifS 2 2 .1Wf3 ie4 23.\Wf2
l"lhS 24.g4 hxg3 2S.hxg3 and
White offered a draw, which was
accepted, Anand - Bareev, Monte
Carlo 2 0 04.
16 •.• l::1xdl+
16 . . . l"ldS ! ? 17.l"lxdS ixdS 18.
l"ldl g6 19.iWf6 l"lh7 2 0 .if3 ie7 21.
\Wd4 hf3 2 2 .gxf3 h4 23.if4 "\Wc6
24.\WeS \Wc8 2S.iWe4 and here
Black preferred to repeat moves,
although he should have consid­
ered the possibility of fighting for
a win with 2S . . . \Wc6 (2S . . . l"lhS ! ?)
26."\WeS \Wc8 27."\We4 \Wc6, draw,
Kasimdzhanov - Meier, Sestao
2010.
17.l::1xdl g6 18JU6
White loses his advantage af­
ter 18.if4? \Wxf4 + ! 19."\Wxf4 ih6=
18 .l:�h7 19.g3 ie7 2 0."\Wd4
•.
20 •••.tf3
Black's play provokes admira­
tion. It is evident that Georg Mei­
er has deeply studied and ana­
lyzed this variation.
But not 2 0 ... h4 2 Lif4 WaS
2 2 ."\Wa7 @f8 23 .g4 with an initia­
tive for White.
21 .if4
•
Here it is possible that White
should prefer 2 l .l"ld2 h4 2 2 ."\Wa7
\Wc8 2 3.ib3 l"lhS , with good
chances of equalizing for Black.
21. 1Wc6
••
Or 2 1 . . .'\WcS ! ? 2 2 .\Wd7+ @f8
23.l"ld4 bS 24.b4 (24.ixe6 fxe6
2S.id6 hd6 2 6.\Wd8+ lt1g7 27.
l"lxd6 lf1h6 2 8 .1Wf8 + l"lg7 2 9 ."\Wh8+
l"lh7 30."\Wf8= ) 24 . . . "\Wc6 2S."\Wxc6
hc6 2 6.ib3 h4 27.g4 gS=
22.l::1 d2 h4 23.\We5?! @f8
24.\WbS + lt1g7 25 .ie5+ f6 26.
•
\Wc7 @f7 27.\Wxc6 hc6 and
Black was even better in this end­
game, Navara - Meier, Budva
2009.
llS
Chapter 17
b) 7...i.e7
8.i.d3
The rather bizarre move 8 .
�a4+ implies that chess has
evolved considerably.
However, I believe that White
merely reduces his own possibili­
ties with this move: 8 . . . c6 (Alex­
ander Grischuk tried to resurrect
this half-forgotten line at the re­
cent World Cup, but his opponent
reacted to it quite creatively. That
was hardly a surprise, though . . .
8 . . . i.d7 9.�b3 �c8 10.ltJe5 0-0
11.i.e2 !!d8 12.i.f3 !!b8 13.0-0
i.e8 14.i.f4 ttJd7 15.ltJd3 i.d6 16.
i.g5 f6 17.i.e3 i.t7 18.!'1ad1 e5. It
might seem paradoxical, but
Black has almost equalized. 19.
i.d5 hd5 2 0.�xd5+ �h8 21.
116
dxe5 ltJxe5 2 2 . ltJxe5 and the oppo­
nents agreed to a draw, Grischuk
- lvanchuk, Khanty-Mansiysk
2 0 1 1 . ) 9 .i.d3 0-0 10 .�c2 b6 11.
i.g5 h6
12 .h4 i.b7 13.!'1h3 c5. White's
risky play has led to a situation in
which he must attack, ignoring
possible loss of material. 14.
i.xh 6 ! ? This is the beginning of a
series af forcing moves. 14 . . . c4 ! (It
is bad for Black to respond with
14 . . . hf3? 15.!'1xf3 ? ! gxh6 16.!'1g3 +
�h8 17.�d2 ltJg8 18.!'1xg8 + �xg8
19.�xh6 f5 2 0.i.c4 !!f6 2 1.he6+
!!xe6+ 2 2 .�xe6+ with advantage
to White, Degraeve - Vaisser,
Gonfreville 2006. It is even better
for him to play 15.gxf3 ! gxh6 16.
!!g3 + �h8 17.�d2 ltJg8 18.!'1xg8 +
�xg8 19 .�xh6 f5 2 0 .�g6+ �h8
2 1.�e2 + - and the game is over,
thanks to the open g-file.) 15.
hg7 (White cannot be content
with the line : 15.hc4 gxh6 16.
!!g3+ �h8 17.�d2 ltJg8 18 .i.d3 f5
19.ltJe5 i.d6 ! and his pressure has
been neutralized, while Black has
retained the extra material. ) 15 . . .
cxd3 16.�d2 �xg7 (Black's only
alternative here is 16 . . . �d5 ! ? 17.
i.x£8 �xf8 18 .�xd3 ltJh5 with
 2.d4 d5 3. liJ d2 de 4.l!Jxe4 l!Jd7 5.l!Jj3 l!Jgf6 6. liJxf6 l!Jxf6 7.c3 ie7
good piece play. However, Black
must keep in mind that his oppo­
nent has a material advantage
and a quite serious one at that.)
17.�g3+ liJg4 18.�xg4+ Wh7 19.
liJg5+ (It is scarcely better for
White to opt for 19.�xd3 + f5
2 0 .liJg5+ hg5 2l.�xg5 �g8 2 2 .
�h5+ Wg6 23 .g4 �d5 with a very
sharp game. ) 19 . . . ixg5 2 0 . �xg5
ie4 ! This is Black's only possible
reply, but it is satisfactory. (Not
20 . . . �h8? 2l.�xd3 + f5 2 2 .�g3
'it>h6 23.�g6+ 'it>h5 24.�g5+ wh6
25.�g7 and Black resigned, Moty­
lev - Roiz, Khanty-Mansiysk
2005.) 21 .�h5+ (2l.�f4 ig6 2 2 .h5
if5+) 2 l . . .Wg8 2 2 .�h6 f6 23.f3
if5 24.g4 �d6 ! This is the last dif­
ficult move. 25.gxf5 �g3 + 26. Wd2
�f2 + 27.Wxd3 �xf3 =
8 ... 0-0
9.�c2
The overly routine move 9 .
0-0 would not give White any ad­
vantage : 9 . . . b6 1 0.�e2 ib7 1Lif4
c5 1 2 . dxc5 bxc5 13.�fd1 �b6 14.
liJe5 �adS 15.ig3 ia8 16.liJg4 �c6
17.f3 liJd5 18.liJe5= A.Sokolov -
Dorfman, France 2 0 0 2 .
White would not change much
with 9.ig5 h6 (9 . . . b6 ! ? ) 10.hf6
(10.h4 ! ?) 10 . . . ixf6 1l.�e2 �d5 !
Even Vladimir Kramnik failed to
obtain any advantage with White
from this position : 12 .h4 id7 13.
ie4 �h5 14.0-0-0 ic6 15.Wb1
he4+ 16.�xe4 �d5 17.�he1
�xe4+ 18.�xe4= Kramnik - Ba­
reev, Cap d'Agde 2003.
Maybe White can try to devel­
op his queen to a more ambitious
square, but that is not going to
radically change the evaluation of
the position. 9.�e2 b6 10.ig5 (It
is interesting to deploy this bish­
op to f4 : 10.if4 ib7 11.0-0-0
�c8 -here I should like to recom­
mend the advance of Black's
rook's pawn. 11 . . . a5 ! ? - 1 2 .h4 c5
13.h5 cxd4 14.liJxd4 �d8 15.Wb1
�d5 16.�h3 id6 17.hd6 �xd6 18.
g4 �d5 19.f4 h6 2 0 .�g1 �c5 2 1 .
�e3 with a comfortable position
for White, Timoscenko - Khol­
mov, Stary Smokovec 1996.) 10 . . .
ib7 11.0-0-0 �d5 ! This i s a
standard manoeuvre of Black's
queen in this variation. 1 2 . Wb1 c5
13.ic2 (Or 13.c4 �d6 14.h4 cxd4
15.liJe5 ? ! liJd7 16.if4 if6 17.liJxd7
�xd7 18.ig5 �e7 19.f4 �fe8 2 0 .
ie4 he4+ 2l.�xe4 �ad8 2 2 .�he1
h6 23.hf6 �xf6 and Black ended
up with an extra pawn, Ibrayev -
Rychagov, St Petersburg 2 0 06.)
13 ... mds 14.h4 h6 15.c4 �d6 16.
ie3 cxd4 17.�xd4 �c7 18.�hd1 e5
19 .�xd8+ �xd8 2 0.�xd8+ hd8
2 l.ic1 e4 2 2 .liJd2 e3 23 .fxe3 �g3
24.liJf3 �g4 25.id2 liJe4 26.ie1
if6� with excellent compensation
117
Chapter 17
for the pawn, Shirov - Bareev,
Monte Carlo 2 0 04.
9...b6 1 0.i.g5 h6
ll.h4! ?
White maintains his initiative.
There was a recent game which
continued ll ..bf6 i.xf6 1 2 .1e4
(White would not change much
by inserting the check - 12 .1h7+
mh8 13 .1e4 l"lb8 14.0-0-0 1b7
15 . .bb7 l"lxb7 16.�e4 �d5 17.
�xd5 exd5 18.l"lhe1 c6 19.mc2
mg8 20. lt:J e5 l"lc8 = Berelovich -
Totsky, Bucharest 1998.) 12 . . . l"lb8
13.0-0-0 1b7 14 . .bb7 l"lxb7 15.
�e4 �d5 16.�xd5 exd5 17.l"lhe1 c6
18.lt:Je5 l"lc8 19. mc2 mf8 2 0 .lt:Jd3
l"le7 2l.l"lxe7 1xe7 2 2 .l"le1 1d6 =
Ovetchkin - Mihajlovskij , S t Pe­
tersburg 2006.
11...1b7 12. 0 - 0 - 0
If 12. l"lh3 c5, there arises a
transposition to the game Mo­
tylev - Roiz, Khanty-Mansiysk
2 0 05, which we analyzed in the
note to White's eighth move.
12...�d5! 13.�h3
This is a bit too risky. It seems
more natural for White to play 13.
mb1 c5 with chances for both sides.
118
13... �fd8
It is preferable for Black to
play 13 . . . �xa2 14 . .bh6 �a1+ 15.
md2 �a5 16.1e3 c5 with a very
sharp game.
14.c!lJe5
White continues with the same
aggressive approach. However,
after 14 . .bh6 ! gxh6 15.�d2 (After
15.lt:Je5 1f8 ! it is only a draw. )
Black must be very careful not to
lose quickly. For example: 15 . . .
1d6 16.lt:Je5 ! ? mf8 17.�xh6+ me7
18.l"le1; 18.lt:Jg6 ! ? , or 15 . . . �h5 16.
lt:J e5 1d6 17.1e2 �f5 18.�xh6 lt:Je4
19.f3 1f8 2 0 .�e3 lt:Jd6 21.h5t
14...hxg5 15.hxg5
15... �xg2 (There is no forced
win for Black after 15 . . . lt:J d7 ! ? It
appears that the best White can
do then is to enter an endgame a
pawn down. 16.mb1 .bg5 17.1c4
�xg2 18.l"lg3 �e4 19.l"lxg5 �xc2+
2 0 . mxc2 lt:Jxe5 2l.l"lxe5+) 16.�g3
�h2 17.gxf6 h:f6 18.�e2 �h6+
19.mbl c5 2 0.�el �d6 2 1.�g4
�h4 22.�e2?! and Black pre­
vailed in the ensuing struggle,
Vachier Lagrave - Tratar, Herak­
lio 2 0 07.
Chapter 18 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3)!jd2 dxe4 4)!jxe4
tt:Jd7 5.tt:Jf3 tt:Jgf6 6.i.d3

17.!'1hd1 c5 18.dxc5 E1xd3 19.tt:lxd3

�c6 2 0 .�xc6 Wxc6 21. tt:le5 Wxg2
2 2 . c6 ! + - b6 23.Wa3 he5 24.
Wa6+ Galkin - Galavics, Ober­
wart 1999.

This is the most dynamic and

aggressive approach. White is de­
veloping a fresh piece with his
every move. Now Black must
choose between : a) 6 .c!L1xe4 and
..

b) 6 . .• c5.
We shall now analyze : al)
9. .id3 and a2) 9.�6.
a) 6. .t!L1xe4
.

This is more fashionable than al) 9.�d3

6 . . . c5. This move involves much
7 .ixe4 ttJf6 8 .ig5
. • more risk for both sides.
We shall analyze the routine 9 . ffb4+ 1 0.�d2
. .

move 8 .�d3 ? ! further on. White cannot count on any ad­

8...ffd6 vantage after 10 .Wd2 Wxd 2 + (But
Black might be totally not 10 . . . Wxb2?, because White
squashed after 8 . . . �e7? ! 9 .�xf6 develops his queen with tempo,
hf6 10 .ffd3 ! c6 11.0-0-0 �d7 and with disastrous consequences
12.ltJe5 g6 13. f4± ffe7 14.ffe3 for his opponent. 11.0-0 �e7 1 2 .
0-0-0 15J=!d3 �e8 16.c4 ffc7 Wf4 Wb6 13.Wg3 c 5 14.!'1ab1 Wd8

119
Chapter 18

15.dxc5 hcS 16J'Ud1 fffe 7 17.i.b5+

'tt> f8 18.l2Je5+- h6 19J�d7 hd7
2 0 . hf6 hf2 + 21.\Wxf2 gxf6
2 2 . l2Jxd7+ 'it>g7 23.1"1b3 1"1hd8 24.
1"1g3+ 'it>h8 25.ffff4 and Black
terminated his resistance, Alek­
seev - lsmagambetov, Khanty­
Mansiysk 2 0 07.) 11.hd2 cS 1 2 .
0-0-0

This position needs further

12 . . . i.d7? ! 13.dxc5 hcS 14.
lLleS ! White obtains an edge with
this strong move. 14 . . . a6 (Maybe
Black should gobble a pawn, since
after the move in the game he had
to suffer, with nothing in return.
14 . . . i.xf2 ! ? 15.1"1hf1 i.cS 16.i.c3
and White has tremendous com­
pensation, while Black has almost
no useful moves.) 15.f4 i.c8 16.a4
bS 17.a5 tLldS 18 .i.e4 i.b7 19.1"1he1
i.d6 2 0.h4 1"1b8 2 1.h5 heS 2 2 .fxe5
0 - 0 23.h6!± Rublevsky - Kosic,
Budva 2 0 0 2 .
I t i s stronger for Black t o go
for concrete action. 12 . . . cxd4 ! 13.
l2Jxd4 i.cS 14.if4 (It is no better
for White to continue with 14.i.e3
id7 15.1"1he1 l2Jg4, because Black
obtains at least an equal posi­
tion. ) 14 . . . l2Jd5 15.ib5+ id7 16.
ixd7+ 'tt> x d7=
1 0 ... �xb2 11. 0 - 0
practical tests. It is obvious that
White has excellent compensa­
tion, but it is not easy to tell
whether it should be sufficient to
claim an advantage. The game
quoted below is at present the
only practical example.
ll...fff a3
Black retreats his queen im­
mediately.
ll . . . ie7 12.c4 cS
13.d5 ! This is a standard pro­
cedure for White. It is clear that
Black will not capture this pawn
on dS and so it is going to cramp
his position considerably. 13 . . .
0-0 14.1"1e1 id7 1S.if4 1"1fe8 16.d6
idS 17.l2Je5 (It would be even
stronger for White to play simply
17.1"1b1! \Wxa2 18.1"1xb7 ic6 19.

120
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 dS 3Ji:Jd2 de 4Jijxe4 11Jd7 5.11Jj3 11Jgf6 6 . .id3 11Jxe4

l"lbl±) 17 . . .'�d4 18.'�d2 CiJhS 19. a2) 9 .bf6•

.ie4 ! ± .ia4 2 0 . .ixb7 l"lb8 2 1..ic6

Wxd2 2 2 .hd2 hc6 23.11Jxc6 l"lb7
24 . .ie3+ - l"ld7 25.hc5 .ib6 26 .
.ia3 �h8 27.c5 l"lc8 28. 11J e5 1-0
Volokitin - Levin, Dagomys
2009.
12.11Je5
12 .We2 ! ? Wd6 13 .c4 cS 14 . .ic3
.ie7 1S.d5 exdS 16 . .ie5 Wd8 17.
hf6 gxf6 18.cxd5 .ig4 19.l"lab1
l"lb8 2 0 . l"lfelt N. Kosintseva - Za­
tonskih, Hangzhou 2011.
12 �d6
..• White continues to rely on his
quicker development.
9 gxf6 1 0.c3
.••

It is weaker for him to play

10 .�e2 .id7 11.0-0-0 (ll.hb7??
Wb4-+ ) 11 . . . 0-0-0 1 2 . �b1 .ig7
13.c3 fS 14.i.c2 .ic6 and Black has
solved all his opening problems,
Can - Maslak, Peterhof 2 0 06.
10 ... f5

13.i.e3 (It is also possible for

White to follow Denis Yevseev's
recommendation in "Fighting The
French a new concept" 13 . .if4 ! ?
Wd8 14.Wf3t) 1 3...i.e7 14.c4 c5
15. i.c2 0 - 0 16.�d3 g6 17.
�ad1 �c7 18.�c3 b6 19.dxc5
bxc5 2 0 .i.f4! (White overlooked
this possibility in the game, but he
won the game anyway. 2 0 .i.h6 ll..ic2
l"ld8 21. l"lxd8+ .ixd8 2 2 .l"ld1 .ib7 It is possible that White should
23.11Jg4 with wonderful compen­ seriously consider 11 . .id3 here.
sation for the sacrificed pawn, The following game illustrates
Kasparov - Anand, Kopavogur this convincingly. 11 . . . .id7 12.11Je5
2 0 0 0 . ) 2 0 �b6 21.�b1 �d8
.•• .ig7 13.11Jxd7 Wxd7 14.�e2 0-0-0
22.ttJc6+- and it is all over. 15. 0 - 0 cS 16 . .ib5 �c7 17.dxc5

121
Chapter 18

'l'@'xc5 18.a4 l"ld6 19.\Wh5 1'@'c7 2 0 .a5 cupy a passive position. This is
a6 2l.�e2 <;t>bS 2 2 .l"la4 and only temporary, though . . .
White's initiative gives him prac­ 13 ••• �e8
tical chances, A.Timofeev - A. Ry­
chagov, Krasnoyarsk 2 007.
ll... �d7
It is essential for Black to play
his moves in the correct order: if
ll . . . �g7? 12.\We 2 ! and he is in
trouble. 12 ...�d7 (After 12 . . . 0-0 13.
0-0-0, White's attack against the
enemy king will be decisive.) 13.
h£5± 0-0-0 14.�c2 h5 15.0-0-0
�c6 16.�e4 \Wf4+ 17.4:ld2 �d5 18.
<;t>b1 e5 19.1'@'e3 1'@'f6 2 0 . dxe5 1'@'xe5
21.1'@'f3 �e6? 2 2 .�xb7+ <;t>bs 23. 14.�b3
�a6+- Alekseev - lsmagambe­ It is very important that Black
tov, Khanty-Mansiysk 2 007. can counter 14. 0-0-0 with the
double-attack 14 . . . \Wd5 ! , winning
a pawn.
14 ••. �g7 15. 0 - 0 - 0
White would not achieve much
with 15.f4 he5 16.fxe5 1'@'e7 17. 0-
0-0 �c6= Gaponenko - Alexan­
drova, Germany 2 0 0 9 .
15 .ixe5 16.dxe5 'l'@'c5 17.
•••

gxd8+ <;t>xd8 18.gd1 + c;!?c8

12.1'@'e2
1 2 .4:le5 �g7 13.f4. White's wish
to avoid entering a position with
bishops of opposite colours is un­
derstandable, but now Black equal­
izes easily. 13 . . . �xe5 14.fxe5 'l'@'d5
15.1'@'f3 �c6 16.\Wxd5 hd5 17. 0-0
<;t>e7 18 .�b3 �e4= Macieja - Ana­
stasian, Stepanakert 2 0 04.
12 ••• 0 - 0 - 0 13.�e5 White's pieces seem to be very
White exploits the possibility active, but the position is in fact
of forcing the enemy bishop to oc- equal.

122
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. CiJd2 de 4. CiJxe4 CiJ d7 5. CiJf3 CiJgf6 6. JJ.d3 c5
b) 6... c5
Black accomplishes all the
main ideas of the Rubinstein vari­
ation, one after the other.
As always in cases like this, it
is essential to do things in the
right order. He undermines his
opponent's centre before ex­
changing a pair of knights . . .
7. 0 - 0
White should not go too far in
his desire to develop all his pieces
immediately. 7.YJ.g5 cxd4 8.CiJxd4
�aS+ (I think that the routine
move 8 . . . YJ.e7 is weaker in this
particular case : 9.�e2 CiJxe4 10.
he7 �xe7 11.he4 0-0 12.0-0-0
CiJcS 13.f4 YJ.d7 14.YJ.f3 Elfd8 15.Eld2
CiJa4 16.Elhd1 �b4 17.c3 Eldc8
18.CiJc6 ! YJ.xc6 19.Eld8 +- Navara ­
Luther, Deizisau 2 005.) 9.YJ.d2
(White would not achieve any­
thing with 9.�d2 ? ! �e5 ! 10. CiJf3
CiJxe4 ll. CiJxeS CiJxd2 1 2 .CiJxd7
CiJf3 + ! 13. gxf3 hd7.) 9 . . . �e5 10.
CiJf3 �xb2 11.0-0 §J.e7 1 2 .CiJxf6+
CiJxf6 with a complicated game.
This position is similar to the
game Kasparov - Anand, Kopa­
vogur 2 0 0 0 , which we analyzed
above. The difference is that here
Black has already exchanged the
d4-pawn and this will considera­
bly ease his defence.
7.. )2Jxe4
Black should not help his
opponent to carry out his plans :
7 . . . cxd4? 8.CiJxd4 CiJxe4 (Black
can also opt here for 8 . . . YJ.e7 9.c3
0-0 1 0 .�e2 CiJxe4 11.he4 �c7
12 .§J.c2 CiJf6, but equalizing com­
pletely would then be a hard task
for him to accomplish. 13.YJ.g5
CiJdS 14.�e4 g6 1S.§J.h6 Ele8 16.
YJ.b3 CiJf6 17.�f3 §J.d7 18.Elfe1 §J.c6
19.CiJxc6 �xc6 2 0 .�xc6 bxc6 and
White maintained a comfortable
edge in the endgame, Motylev -
Akopian, Khanty-Mansiysk 2010.)
9.he4 CiJf6 10.§J.f3 JJ.e7 ll.YJ.f4
0-0
123
Chapter 18
12 .c3. Black already has some
serious problems. 12 . . . a6 13.Eie1
Eia7 14.a4 i.d7 1S.Wfb3 Wc8 16.a5
i.cS 17.Eiad1 i.xd4 18.Eixd4 i.c6
19.Wfb6 ! ± with a great advantage
for White, Alekseev - Mamedya­
rov, Moscow 2 0 0 8 .
8. .ixe4 lt:!f6 9.i.g5
This is once again the right
move. If he retreats the bishop,
his hopes of obtaining an advan­
tage will evaporate.
9... cxd4
1 0.lt:!xd4
White can also try here the
semi-gambit move 10 .Wfe2 , which
Black should counter in an ag­
gressive and even greedy fashion.
10 . . . Wb6 ! (Black's problem is that
playing in classical fashion would
not work here : 10 . . . i.e7? ! ll.Eiad1
tt:lxe4 12.Eixd4 tt:lxgS 13.Eixd8 +
hd8 14.tt:lxg5 hgS 15.Wb5 + - , or
12 . . . Wxd4 13.ltlxd4 tt:lxgS 14.h4±)
11.hf6 (White has also tried 11.
Eifd1 i.cS? ! 12.hf6 gxf6 13.b4
Wxb4 14.:1�ab1 Wa4 1S.Wfd2 Wd7
16.c3 d3 17.Wfh6 �e7 18.Eixd3 Wfc7
19.Eibd1 with a decisive attack,
Rublevsky - Kacheishvili, Ohrid
124
2001. Black should have defended
with ll . . . tt:lxe4 12.1�{ixe4 f6 ! 13.i.f4
i.e7 14.tt:lxd4 eS 15.he5 fxeS
16.Wxe5 i.d7 and White's attack
would have been over before it
had even started.) ll . . . gxf6
12 .Eiad1 i.g7 (It would be too
risky for Black to play 12 . . . i.c5 be­
cause of 13.Eid3 ! , with a combined
attack against the pawns on b7
and d4. ) 13.ltlxd4 0-0 14.c3 fS
1S.i.b1 Eid8 16.Eid3 i.d7 17.Eifd1
i.c6, and Black gradually neutral­
izes his opponent's lead in devel­
opment and equalizes, Saric -
Meier, Szeged 2 0 07.
White's attempts to play in a
sophisticated fashion with 12.Eifd1
would not guarantee him an ad­
vantage: 12 . . . i.g7 (For 12 . . . i.c5? !
13.b4 see the game Rublevsky -
Kacheishvili, Ohrid 2 001 .) 13.
tt:lxd4 0-0 14.c3 fS ! (14 ... i.d7? ! -
This move is a bit slow and White
can now exert some pressure. 15.
a4 a6 16.a5 Wc7 17.Wfh5 h6 18.Eid3
fS 19.i.f3 Eiad8 2 0.Eiad1 with an
advantage for White, Shirov -
Gelfand, Monte Carlo 2 0 0 2 . )
1S.i.d3 ( I t can only b e dangerous
for White to try 1S.i.f3 ? ! e5 16.ltlb5
e4 17.i.h5 i.e6.) 1S . . . i.d7 16.a4
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. CiJ d2 de 4.ti'lxe4 CiJd7 5.tiJj3 CiJgf6 6. JJ.d3 c5
:§fd8, with counterplay for Black.
1 0 . . . .ie7
It looks rather dubious to play
10 . . . h6?! ll . bf6 Wlxf6 12.'W!d3 a6
. the position, Morozevich - Pelle­
13 .:§ad1 .ie7 14.CiJc6 ! e5 15.CiJxe7
W!xe7 16.f4 exf4?? 17.hb7 and
White won, Svidler - Bareev,
Wijk aan Zee 2 004.
ll ..i£3 0- 0
This position is very similar to
the game Alekseev - Mamed­
yarov, for which see our notes to
Black's seventh move. There is
only one difference, but it is tre­
mendously important. White has
had to develop his bishop to g5
rather than the f4-square, where
it was much more functional.
Here, White can choose be­
tween several attractive possibili­
ties. Among these, we shall con­
sider bl) 12.�el and b2) 12. Wld3.
It would be too ambitious for
White to opt for 12.c4 Wfc7 13.'W!c1
(The move 13.'W!e2 can be coun­
tered with the typical resource
13 . . . CiJg4 ! ) 13 . . . a6 14.:§e1 e5 15.
CiJc2 �xc4 16.:§xe5 .ie6 = 17.CiJe3
�xc1+ 18.:§xc1 :§ac8 19.:§xc8 :§xeS
2 0 .hb7 :§b8 2 1.ha6 :§xb2 2 2 .a4
h6 23 . .ih4 :§b4 24 . .ig3 and the
opponents agreed to a draw, hav­
ing exhausted all the resources of
tier, Biel 2 0 04.
White sometimes tries 12 .c3
and it seems to me that Black
should reply with the active and
so far untested move - 12 . . . e5 !
(Or 12 . . . �c7!? 13 .:§e1 :§d8 14.Wle2
CiJd5 15.he7 CiJxe7 16.:§ad1 .id7
17.�e4 :§ab8 18 .g3 h6 19.h4 CiJd5
2 0 .�c2 CiJf6 2 1..ig2 .ie8 2 2 .'W!e2
Wlb6 2 3.:§d2 :§d6 24.:§ed1 :§bd8=
Womacka - Drozdovskij, play­
chess.com 2 0 06.)
13.CiJb5 (This is the only way
for White to create any problems
for his opponent.) 13 . . . .ie6 14.
�xd8 :§axd8 15.:§fd1 (Black
should fear neither 15.CiJc7 .ic4
16.:§fd1 b6 17.b3 :§xd1 + 18.:§xd1
:§c8 ! 19.hf6 hf6 2 0.:§d7 :§d8 = ;
nor 15.:§fe1 h6 ! 1 6 . .ih4 :§d2 with
good counter chances. ) 15 . . . h6
16 ..ih4 g5 17 . .ig3 .ic4 18.:§e1 !
White has played quite concretely
and appears to have gained an
edge, but Black has a wonderful
resource up his sleeve - 18 . . . e4
19.CiJd4 :§fe8 20.he4 .ia3 ! 2 1 .
bxa3 CiJxe4=
125
Chapter 18
Kramnik tested here the inter­
esting line: 12.a4 ! ? a6 13.l"1e1 Wffc 7
14.c3 l"1e8 15.Wffb 3 l"1b8 16.g3 �d7
17.a5 �c5 18.l"1ad1 Wffxa5 19.�f4
hd4 2 0 .hb8 �xf2 + 2l.cJixf2
l"1xb8 2 2 .l"1d4 and White prevailed
in the game Kramnik - Bareev,
Monte Carlo 2005. It looks better
for Black to play actively with 14 . . .
l"1d8 ! ? 15.Wffd 2 ! (15.g3 tt:ld5 16.he7
tt:lxe7 17.Wffe 2 �d7=) 15 . . . �d7 16.
�f4 (White can capture his oppo­
nent's bishop with 16.l2lf5, but
this will not gain him any advan­
tage : 16 . . . �c6 17.tt:lxe7+ Wffx e7 18.
Wfff4 hf3 19.Wffxf3 h6! Black repels
his opponent's bishop from its
wonderful square. 2 0.�h4 l"1d2 ! ;
2 0.�e3 l"1d5 = ) 1 6 . . . �d6 17.hd6
Wffx d6 with an approximately
equal position.
bl) 12.l"1el �b6
13)L\b3
White is understandably re­
luctant to retreat from the centre,
but in this case it is forced.
The ultra-aggressive move 13.
tt:lf5 led to a quick exhaustion of
126
the resources of the position after
13 . . . exf5 14.l"1xe7 tt:le4 ! = 15.�xe4
fxe4 16.Wffd5 Wffx b2 17.l"1cl �e6 18.
Wffx e4 Wffx a2 19.Wffx b7 l"1ac8 2 0 .
Wffx a7 l"1xc2 and the opponents
agreed to a draw, Cheparinov -
Perez Garcia, Seville 2 0 04.
13 . . . l"1d8 14.�e2
14 . . . �d7
Black plays this with the al­
most stereotyped idea of exchang­
ing the light-squared bishops.
It would be too risky to play
14 . . . a5 15.l"1adl! (It is less precise
for White to play 15.�e3 Wffc 7 16.c4
�d7 17.�d4 a4 18 .�e5 �d6 19.
hd6 Wffx d6 2 0 . l"1adl Wffb 6 21.tt:ld4
�e8 with an excellent game for
Black, Shomoev - Bareev, play­
chess.com 2 0 04.) 15 . . . �d7 (After
15 . . . a4 16.�e3 Wffc 7 17.l"1xd8+ hd8
18.tt:ld4 �d7 19.a3 - Black's
queenside has slightly weakened
by the advance of his a-pawn.)
16.�e3 (It is stronger for White to
play 16.Wffe3 ! Wffx e3 17.he3 �c6
18.�xc6 bxc6 19.l"1xd8 + �xd8 and
he obtains a long-term advantage
thanks to Black's devastated
queenside.) 16 . . . Wff c 7 17.tt:ld4 �c5
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3Jijd2 de 4Jijxe4 CiJ d7 5.C!Jj3 C!Jgf6 6 . .id3 c5
18 .g3 .ie8 19.c3 h6 2 0 .CiJb5 .ixb5
21.�xd8 + �xd8 2 2 .'Wxb5 .ixe3
23.�xe3 b6= Robson - Meier, ICC
2008.
15 . .id2
That is the right way for White
to create problems for his oppo­
nent.
15 . . . .ib4
It is premature for Black to
play 15 . . . a5, because of 16.'We5 !
and Black has have problems.
16.c3
16 . .ie3 ? ! 'Wc7 17.c3 .id6=
16 ....id6 17.c4 a5
18.l'�edl ! ?
This has the idea o f placing the
rooks on cl and dl, rather than dl
and el.
White can create wild compli­
cations with 18.�acl, but he might
end up on the wrong side of them.
18 . . . a4 19 .c5 hh2 + 2 0 . @hl
(Black obtains an excellent posi­
tion in the event of 2 0 . @xh2 'Wc7+
2 1.g3 axb3 22 . .if4 'WeB 23. axb3
.ic6.) 2 0 . . . 'Wc7 21.CiJa5 (It would
be disastrous for White to play
21.CiJd4? .if4 2 2 . hf4 'Wxf4 23.
.ixb7 �ab8 - 23 . . . 'Wxd4? 24.�c4 !
- 24.c6 'Wxd4 25.c7 'Wh4+ ! 2 6.@gl
C!Jg4-+) 2 1 . . . .ib5 ! 2 2 . 'Wxb5 �xd2
23.C!Jc4 �xf2 24.'Wxb7. Here Black
should place his rook in a defen­
sive position : 24 . . . �a7 ! ? (In the
game after 24 .. J''1b 8 25.'Wxc7 .ixc7
26.@gl .ig3 2 7.c6 C!Je8 2 8.�edl? !
a3 29.bxa3 �xa2, he freed his rook
and had a clear advantage, Ju.
Polgar - van Wely, Hoogeveen
2 0 0 1 . However, the Dutch GM
might have encountered difficul­
ties after 2 8 .�e3 ! ) 25.'Wxc7 hc7
2 6 . @gl .ig3 with a very interest­
ing struggle ahead.
It looks very attractive for
White to play 18.c5 ! ? , but fortu­
nately for Black he can just man­
age to neutralize White's assault.
18 . . ..ixc5 19.C!Jxc5 'Wxc5 2 0 .�acl
(Naturally, the move 20 . .ixb7? !
was not why White sacrificed a
pawn: 2 0 . . . �ab8 21.�ecl 'Wa7 2 2 .
.if3 �xb2 2 3.'\Wel a4 and Black will
manage to draw.)
2 0 . . . '\WfS (It would be tremen­
dously risky for Black to play 20 . . .
'We7? ! 2 1 .'We5 ! - 2 1.�c7? ! 'Wd6
2 2 . �xb7 .ic6= - 2 1 . . . .ic6 22 . .ixa5
�deS 23 .hc6 bxc6. Black's posi­
tion is strategically hopeless. Of
course, he can still play for tricks,
127
Chapter 18
but that's down to the individual.)
21.hb7 :1l:ab8 2 2 .:1l:c7 ib5 23.ll>Jt'e3
:1l:d3 ! (Black cannot stop half-way,
since that might lead to his
swift demise. ) 24.ll>Jt'f4 (24.ll>Jt'a7
:1l:xb7! - + ) 24 . . . tLle8 25.ie4 (25.
:1l:e7 :1l:xd2 ! 26.ll>Jt'xd2 ll>Jt'f6 and his
position is slightly the more active
after 27.:1l:xe8+ he8 28.if3 :1l:xb2
29.ll>Jt'xa5 ll>Jt'd4.) 25 . . . ll>Jt'xf4 26.hf4
ttJxc7 27.hc7 :1l:dd8=
The straightforward move 18.
:1l:ad1 enables Black to simplify the
position after 18 . . . ic6 19.ixc6
bxc6 2 0 .ic3 ib4 ( 2 0 . . . a4 ! ? 2 1 .
tLld2 ib4 2 2 . hb4 ll>Jt'xb4 23.tLlf3
with approximate equality, or 2 1 .
:1l:xd6 :1l:xd6 2 2 . c5 ll>Jt'd8 23.cxd6
axb3 and Black is not worse at
all.) 21.c5 ! ? ll>Jt'a7 2 2 .:1l:xd8+ :1l:xd8
23.hf6 gxf6 24.:1l:c1 :1l:d5=
18 ic6 ! ?
•••
I t would b e inferior for Black
to play 18 . . . ib4, because besides
what happened in the game -
19.ie3 ll>Jt'c7 2 0.:1l:ac1 ic6 21.tLld4
hf3 2 2 .Wxf3 e5 23.tLlf5 e4 24.Wg3
ll>Jt'xg3 25.tLlxg3 :1l:d3 26.cj;lf1 :1l:c8
27.cj;>e2 :1l:xd1 28.:1l:xd1 h5 29.b3±
128
Rublevsky - Voinov, Krasnoyarsk
2 007, White has the interesting
possibility of 19.ll>Jt'e3 ! ? ll>Jt'c7 2 0 .
hb4 axb4 2 1.ll>Jt'c5 and Black loses
part of his queenside.
19.hc6 bxc6 2 0 .i.c3
Black can counter 2 0 .ll>Jt'e1 with
2 0 . . . ib4.
The move 2 0 .ig5 can be par­
ried by Black with 20 . . . a4 21.hf6
gxf6 2 2 .:1l:xd6 :1l:xd6 23.c5 ll>Jt'd8
24.cxd6 axb3 with equality.
20 . •• a4
21.�xd6! ?
After 21.ctJd2 ib4= White will
merely reach a weaker version of
the variation which we analyzed
in our notes to White's eighteenth
move
21. �xd6 2 2.c5 1oWd8 23.
••
cxd6 axb3 24.1oWc4 bxa2 25.
ll>Jt'xc6
Or 25.:1l:xa2 :1l:xa2 26.ll>Jt'xa2 tLle8
27.ie5 ttJxd6 2 8.hd6 1oWxd6 29.
ll>Jt'a8+ ll>Jff8 30.ll>Jt'xc6=
25 .li:\d5 ! and Black's power­
••
ful knight on d5, together with the
missing white pawn on a2, in­
sures Black against any trouble.
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3Jjj d2 de 4Jijxe4 tiJd7 5.tiJj3 tiJgf6 6. �d3 c5
b2) 12.'1Wd3
This is the exact point at which
Black has been experiencing seri­
ous difficulties in this variation
lately.
12 '1Wc7
•••
Black also has problems after
12 . . . \Wb6 13.:l'l:ad1 �d8 (Here if 13 . . .
�d7 White can play 14.\Wb3, or
14.�fe 1 ! ? and in both cases he
maintains strong pressure.) 14.
�e3 'WaS 1S.'IWbS \Wc7 16.'Wb3 �d7
17.c4 eS 18.tiJbS hbS 19.cxbS e4
2 0.b6 'WeS 2 l .�e2 a6 2 2 .g3 �cS
23.hcS 'WxcS 24.�c1 'We7 2S.�c7
�d7 26.�fcl± Karjakin - Droz­
dovskij , Odessa 20 10 .
It would b e interesting for
Black to try a new move in this po­
sition - 12 . . . 'WaS ! ?
Now White has t o make u p his
mind about where to move his
bishop:
his possibilities are restricted
after 13.�h4 'Wb6, because his
bishop cannot go to the e3-square.
Here is a possible continuation :
14.a4 aS 1S.c3 �d7 and Black
completes his development har­
moniously;
13.�e3 �d8 14.'WbS 'Wc7 1S.'Wb3
tiJdS= ;
13.�f4 �d8 14.c3 tiJdS 1S.�g3
�d7 and Black solves his problems;
13 .�d2 'Wb6 14.�e3 �d7
1S.�fd1 (1S.�ad1 �cS 16.b4
'Wxb4 17.Ei:b1 'Wa4 18.tiJxe6 he6
19.hcS Ei:fd8 2 0 .'Wa3 'Wxa3 2 1 .
ha3 ha2 2 2 . Ei:xb7 �dS = ; White
would not achieve much with 1S.
'Wb3 'WaS ! 16.'Wxb7 �ab8 17.tiJb3
Ei:xb7 18.tiJxaS Ei:xb2=) 1S . . . 'Wc7 16.
'Wb3 Ei:ac8 (Black's position re­
mains inferior but still defensible
after 16 . . . eS 17.tiJbS 'WaS 18.tiJc3
�c6 19.tiJdS tiJxdS 20.hdS Ei:ad8
2 1.hc6 bxc6.) 17.'Wxb7 eS 18 .tiJc6
hc6 19.hc6 'Wxb7 2 0 .hb7 Ei:xc2
2 l .b3 tiJg4 2 2 .ha7 Ei:c7 2 3 .�f3
tiJxh2 24.@xh2 Ei:xa7 2S.a4. After
the forcing line a complicated
endgame has been reached.
129
Chapter 18
White's position looks preferable,
but his pawns are not likely to
promote any time soon. Black's
counter-chances seem to be suffi­
cient for equality.
13.:afel
The active sortie 13.Ci:JbS would
not yield any benefits after 13 . . .
WeS 1 4 . .ie3 .id7 1S.a4 .ic6 =
The move 13 . .ih4 was tested
recently by a young Russian
grandmaster. His opponent was
one of the main experts in the en­
tire Rubinstein variation and he
found a worthy response : 13 . . .
Ci:Jg4 ! 1 4 . .ig3 Ci:JeS 1 S . .ixeS WxeS.
White's pieces are active and it
looks as though he has the initia­
tive, but Black has the bishop pair
and no weaknesses at all in his
camp, so the prospects are equal.
16.:aad1 a6 17.Wc4 l"i:b8 18.l"i:fe1
WaS (18 . . . WcS ! ?) 19.Ci:Jb3 Wb6 2 0 .
a 4 .id6 2 1 .g3 Wc7 2 2 .Wxc7 hc7=
Timofeev - Meier, Havana 2009.
13.l"i:fd1 :adS? This is a weak
move (It was much better to play
13 . . . a6.). 14.c4 (After 14.Ci:JbS ! WaS
1S.Wxd8+ .ixd8 16.b4 Wb6 17.
.ie3 + - ; it appears that the least of
130
the evils for Black is 1S ... '\Wxd8
16.:axd8 + .ixd8 17.:ad1 .ib6, al­
though this ending must be also
lost for him.) 14 . . . a6 1S .Wc2 .id7
16.g3 :aac8 17.:aac1 Wb8 (17 . . . h6 ! ?
18 . .ie3 .icS = ) 18.1We2 e S 19.Ci:Jc2
.ie6 2 0 .Ci:Je3 l"i:xd1 + 21.l"i:xd1 bS
2 2 . hf6 hf6 23 . .idS and White
had the advantage, Najer - Lysyj ,
Ulan Ude 2009.
13.We3 ! ? WcS 14.c3 h6 1S . .ih4
Wb6 16.1We2 .id7 17.a4 a6 18.aS
1Wa7 19 . .ig3 l"i:fe8 2 0 .Wc4 l"i:ec8 2 1 .
Wb3 .ic6 2 2 .Ci:Jxc6 bxc6 23.l"i:fe1
and White exerts strong pressure,
Leko - Morozevich, Saratov 2 011.
13 :ads 14.:a adl a6 15.W e3
• • •
1S.c3 .id7 16.1We2 (16 .We3 .ie8
17 . .if4 1Wb6 18.Ci:Jb3 'IWbS= Kur­
nosov - Meier, Lublin 2010) 16 . . .
Ci:Jg4 ! (after 16 . . . .id6 17.g3 l"i:ab8
18 . .ig2 .ie8 19 .:ad3 Black was un­
able to equalize, Najer - Relange,
Ohrid 2 009) 17.hg4 hgS=
15 h6 16 .if4 .id6 17.tt'lb3
••• •
.ixf4 18.:axd8+ �xd8 19.1Wxf4
�b6 2 0 .'1We3 '1Wc7 21.'1Wc5
This position is by no means
equal, Akopian - Pelletier, Aix­
les-Bains 2011.
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 dS 3. ti:J d2 de 4. ti:Jxe4 ti:J d7 5. ti:Jf3 ti:Jgf6 6. ild3 c5

In order to conclude the results of the analyses in thefourth part of

the book, I should like to mention the following - the Rubinstein vari­
ation is in fact a separate opening. It is very different from the main
lines of the French defence. It has the reputation of being a super-solid
and even drawish opening, but this should not be overestimated. We
must remember that Black reduces the tension in the centre rather
prematurely and his bishop is restricted in its movements by the pawn
on e6, as always. On the other hand, we have been convinced, on the
basis ofconcrete variations, that if White wishes to create problems in
the opening for a well-prepared opponent, he himself needs to have
done some thorough analytical work.
I should like to recommend to French defence fans that they in­
clude this variation in their opening repertoire, but not as their main
weapon. One might get too used to playing rather simple positions
and then have problems in the other variations of the French, since
these are all very complicated, with pawn-chains, tension and many
non-standard tactical ideas.

131
 Parts 5 and 6

The Tarrasch Variation

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.ti)d2

When you think about the Tarrasch variation the words that first
come to mind are reliable, flexible and elastic. The positions arising
from 3.lLld2 do not depend so much on pawn-structure and manoeu­
vres, like after 3.e5, but on the other hand they are not so irrational and
sharp as those arising after 3.tt:Jc3. If your opponent prefers to play
quiet positions, then most probably he will be willing to include this
variation in his armoury. White does not risk much and the possible
set-ups after the opening are less varied and can be easily studied. You
very rarely find weak squares or pawn-weaknesses in White's position.
On the other hand, the more straightforward the game-plan your
opponent adopts, the easier it will be for you to prepare against it. If
White wishes to avoid any sharp theoretical debates, then it should be
simple enough for Black to implement his own plans in the absence of
any pressure from the opponent.
It is considered that after 3.tt:Jd2, Black has two main possibilities at
his disposal - 3 . . . c5 and 3 . . . tt:Jf6 . Recently, however, a variation which
used to be regarded as a sideline - 3 . . . �e7 - has become very popular.
I recommend to readers who are willing to take risks, both strategically
and tactically, to consider this particular variation. Later, for the play­
ers who prefer a "classical" approach, we shall also analyze 3 . . . c5. The
system with 3 . . . tt:Jf6 was undoubtedly a fairly trustworthy weapon for
Black for many years and also deserves attention. However, I do not
like it very much, because in that line Black can find it difficult to reach
really complicated positions. And there are so many weak squares in
Black's camp that he is likely to fail to equalize.

132
 Parts 5

The Morozevich Variation

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3)ijd2

It should not even cross your mind that mysterious-looking bishop

move is a finger slip. The point is that White cannot create any real
threats in the next few moves (This should come as no surprise, since
the game is just beginning . . . ) and Black develops his bishop to a safe,
although not necessary permanent, position. Quite simply he wishes to
see his opponent's next move.
This approach is quite reasonable if you want to complicate matters
against a less experienced opponent, or if the tournament situation
obliges you to opt for an asymmetrical position in order to play for a
win. It appears to me that Black should not be able to equalize by play­
ing in this fashion. But on the other hand, the conservative, routine
approach should not stand in the way of creative endeavour. Black has
wonderful possibilities for creativity in this variation !

133
Chapter 19 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3)Lid2 i.e7

12.i.f4 Elfc8 13.c4 c5 14.d5 exd5

4.c3
This is a solid move. It is even
a bit too solid to enable White to
fight for an opening advantage.
It is absolutely senseless for
White to transpose to the ex­
change variation - 4.exd5 exd5=
White has also tried 4.g3, but
White can hardly create any seri­
ous problems for his opponent by
playing in that exotic fashion. M­
ter 4 . . . tt:Jf6 5.i.g2 dxe4 6 .tt:Jxe4
tt:Jxe4 7.he4 c5= Black has a
comfortable game.
A French grandmaster tried to
play a joke here : 4.a3 dxe4 (The
move 4 . . . tt:Jf6 looks quite reason­
able too.) 5.tt:Jxe4 tt:Jf6 6.tt:Jxf6+
hf6 7.tt:Jf3 b6 8 .i.d3 i.b7 9 . 0 - 0
tt:Jd7 10 .Wfe2 0-0 ll.Eidl Wfe7
15.Wfxe7 he7 16.cxd5 i.xd5 17.i.f5
tt:Jf6 18.hc8 Elxc8 and White went
on to lose the game, Hamdouchi
- Edouard, Caen 2011.
4 . . . c5
White's idea is perfectly justi­
fied after 4 . . . tt:Jf6 ? ! 5.e5 tt:Jfd7 6.
i.d3 c5 7.tLle2 and he solves the
problem of the deployment of his
knights in an optimal way.
One of the real experts in the
French defence, and in particular
the 3 . . . i.e7 variation - Alexander
Morozevich - used to play 4 . . .
dxe4 5.tt:Jxe4 i.d7, reaching a fa­
vourable version of the Rubin­
stein variation.
5.dxc5

134

The move S.exdS can lead to a
simple transposition of moves.
On the other hand it presents
Black with an extra possibility -
S . . . i�lfxdS (S . . . exdS ! ? 6.dxc5 �xeS)
6.tt:lgf3 (6.dxc5 '\WxcS 7.tt:le4 '1Wc6
8.�d3 tt:ld7 9.tt:lf3 tt:Jgf6 10 .'1We2
tt:lxe4 1l.�xe4 '\Wc7 1 2 . 0-0 0-0 13.
a4 tt:lf6 14.�c2 b6 15.�g5 �b7=
Dvoirys - Morozevich, Samara
1998.) 6 . . . cxd4 7.�c4 'IWhS 8.tt:lxd4
'\Wxd1+ 9 .<;t>xd1 a6 10J'l:e1 tt:lf6 1l.a4
b6 12 .�e2 �b7 13.�f3 �xf3+ 14.
tt:l 2xf3 0-0 1S.<;t>c2 tt:lbd7 16.tt:lc6
�cS 17.�e3 :8fc8 18.�xc5 :8xc6 19.
�d4 tt:ldS 2 0 .g3 :8ac8= Khamraku­
lov - Caruana, Dos Hermanas 2006.
5 . . . .ixc5
Black can also play more con­
cretely with S . . . tt:lf6 ! ? 6.exd5 tt:lxdS
(An interesting position with
compensation for Black arises
after 6 . . . '\WxdS 7.b4 0-0 8.tt:lgf3 b6
9.�c4 '1Wc6 10.cxb6 axb6 1l.�b2
�b7 12 .'1We2 :8d8 13.0-0-0?!
Rather reckless . . . 13 . . . '\WcS 14.<;t>b1
�dS 15.a3 tt:lc6 16.:8he1 :8a7 17.g3
\WaS 18 .hd5 tt:lxdS 19.tt:lc4 bS 2 0 .
tt:l e 3 tt:lxe3 2 l.fxe3 :8c8 - the posi­
tion looks better for Black, Burg
- Werle, Netherlands 2 0 10.) 7.
tt:le4 (7.tt:lb3 tt:ld7 8.tt:lf3 0 - 0 9.�d3
a5 10 .'1Wc2 h6 1l.c6 bxc6 12 .a4 �a6
13.�xa6 :8xa6 14. 0 - 0 '\Wc7 15.
tt:Jbd4 �f6 16.:8d1 :8b8 = Tiviakov
- Shulman, Montreal 2 009)
7 ... 0-0 8 .�c4 '\Wc7 9.tt:lf3 b6 10.
0-0 :8d8 11.hd5 :8xd5 12.cxb6
axb6 13.'1Wc2 tt:lc6 14.c4 :8f5 15.'1We2
�b7 16.:8d1 tt:laS 17.tt:ld4 :8e5 18.
�f4 �xe4 19.'1Wxe4 :8xe4 2 0.hc7
tt:lxc4 with the better endgame for
l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. tt:ld2 �e7 4.c3 c5
Black, Godena - Sutovsky, Spole­
to 2011.
6.lbb3
White does not create any
problems for his opponent with
6.tt:lgf3 tt:lf6 7.e5 (It is completely
harmless for White to play 7.�d3
dxe4 8 .tt:lxe4 tt:lxe4 9 .'1Wa4+ �d7
10.'1Wxe4 �c6 11 .'1We2 tt:Jd7= Svidler
- Shipov, Moscow 2 0 06.) 7 . . .
'1Wb6 ! Black obtains dynamic
counter chances with this little
tactical trick. (7 . . . tt:Jfd7! ? 8.tt:lb3
�b6 9.tt:lbd4 tt:lc6 10 .�b5 '\Wc7 11.
0-0 tt:JcxeS 1 2 .�f4 tt:lxf3 + 13. '\Wxf3
'\Wd8 14.�d6 '1Wf6 15.'1Wg3 a6 16.�a4
'1Wg6 17.'1Wh3 '1Wh6 18.'1Wg3 '1Wg6
19.'1Wh3 '1Wh6 2 0 .'1Wg3 '1Wg6= Vajda
- Mkrtchian, Bled 2 0 0 2 ) 8 .tt:ld4
tt:lfd7 9.'1Wg4 0-0 (9 . . . g6? ! 1 0.
tt:l 2b3 ! tt:lxeS 11 .'\Wgsgg) 10.tt:l 2f3
tt:lc6 ll.�h6 g6 12.0-0-0 tt:J dxeS
13.'\Wf4 f6 14.�xf8 �xf8 . Even
though Morozevich lost that
game, he had a very good position
for the sacrificed exchange. 15.
'\Wxf6 tt:lg4 16.'1Wh4 eS 17.tt:lg5 hS
18.tt:ldf3 i.fS 19.:8xd5 tt:lb4 2 0 .�c4
<;t>g7 21.:8hd1 tt:lxdS 2 2 .:8xd5 :8c8
23. tt:lxe5 �e7 24.�d3 '1Wxf2 25.
135
Chapter 19

li::l e 6+ lt>h6 and Black decided not 8 ••• tlJf6

to wait for White's obvious re­
sponse 26.li::l g4 and instead re­
signed, Onischuk - Morozevich,
Germany 1999.
6 .ib6 7.exd5 exd5
•••

9 .ie2
•

White will just lose tempi later

The pawn-structure has been
clarified. White will try to prove
that the isolated pawn is a weak­
ness, while Black will argue that it
if he opts for 9 . .ib5+ li::l c 6 10.0-0
0-0 11..ig5 a6 12 ..ie2 l"le8 13.�d3
h6 14 . .ih4 g5 15 . .ig3 li::l e4 16.li::l fd4
f5 17 . .ih5 l"le7 18.h3 f4 19 . .ih2
li::l e 5+ Mezentsev - Atalik, Reno
2005.
9 0 - 0 1 0 . 0 - 0 tlJc6 11.
•••

is strong. tlJfd4 :!%e8 12 .ie3 tlJe5 13.:!%el

•

8.tlJf3 h6 14.ti'c2 .id7 15.:!%adl

The tricky move 8 .�e2 + does
not promise White any advantage
at all. 8 . . . li::l e7 9 . .ie3 .ixe3 10 .�xe3
0 - 0 11.�d2 (11..ie2 li::l f5 12 .�d2
l"le8 13.li::l f3 �e7 14.0-0?? �xe2
15.l"lfe1 �b5 16.�xd5 .id7- + ; 14.
li::l fd4 li::l xd4 15.li::l x d4 li::l c 6 16.li::l x c6
bxc6 17. 0-0= Zatonskih - Shul­
man, Lindsborg Kansas 2 0 0 2 . )
l l. . . li::l b c6 12 . .ie2 li::l g 6 13.li::l f3 �f6
14. 0 - 0 li::l f4 15.l"lfe1 .ig4 16 . .id1
l"lfe8 17.l"le3 h5 18.g3 l"lxe3 19.�xe3
li::l e 6 2 0 . It>g2 l"ld8 2 1 .li::l fd4 li::l cxd4 15 ti'c7 with an excellent po­
•••

2 2 .li::l x d4 li::l xd4 23.�xd4= Borisek sition for Black, Tiviakov -

- Caruana, Brno 2 0 0 6 . Kasimdzhanov, Kerner 2 007.

136
Chapter 2 0 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.ti� d 2 i.e7 4.e5
This is White's most princi­
pled response. With this move he
is trying to hinder Black from
completing the development of
his kingside.
However, matters are far from
clear. White's knight on d2 might
also impede his own develop­
ment. He is likely to be unable to
preserve his rather ambitiously
constructed pawn-centre.
4 . . . c5 5.�g4
This initiates complications,
involving risky decisions from
both players. Black fiercely at­
tacks his opponent's centre, but
he will have to pay for this with
the rather unsafe position of his
king. This might look anti-posi­
tional and risky, but in this varia­
tion Black will need to advance
his kingside pawns in any case.
His king will be in a perilous posi­
tion then, but White's pieces are
not harmoniously placed either,
which provides Black with com­
pensation.
For White it might be worth
considering the quieter possibility
of 5.c3 ! ? ttJc6 (It seems inferior
for Black to play 5 . . . cxd4? ! 6.cxd4
tLlc6 7.ttJdf3 �b4+ 8.�d2 �as 9.
ttJe2 hd2 + 10 .�xd2 �xd 2 + 11.
\ilxd2 f6 12.exf6 gxf6 13 .lLJf4 ttJge7
14J''1 e l \ilf7 15.�d3 �d7 16.g4
ttJxd4 17.ttJxd4 eS 18.ttJxd5 and in
the game Korchnoi - Short, Wijk
aan Zee 2 0 0 0 , the players agreed
to a draw.)
6.tt:ldf3 (It is bad for White
to play 6 . tt:lgf3 cxd4 7.cxd4 �b6
8.tt:lb3 aS 9.a4 �b4+ 10 .�d2
hd2 + and he must reply with
137
Chapter 2 0
l l . @xd2 , after which h e cannot
even dream about an advantage,
Coratella - Glek, Porto San Gior­
gio 2 0 0 1 ; it looks more reasona­
ble for him to opt for 6.lLle2 ! ? , but
Black's immediate attack on the
e5-square thwarts White's plans :
6 . . .f6 7.lLlf3 fxe5 8.dxe5 ¥!1c7 9 .�f4
lLlh6, with a complicated posi­
tion.)
Now:
After 6 . . . ¥!1b6 7.�d3 cxd4 8 .
cxd4, it i s too slow for Black to
play 8 . . . �d7 9.lLle2 lLlb4 lO .�bl
¥!1a6 11.lLlc3 l"i:c8 1 2 . a3 �d8 13.�e3
h6 14.h4 lLle7 15.h5 lLlbc6 16.�d3
¥!1b6 17.lLla4 ¥!len and his position
is cramped, so White's prospects
are better, Balogh - Rapport,
Szombathely 2011, but after 8 . . .
�b4+ h e should avoid 9 .�d 2 ? !
(the correct move is of course 9.
@fl) 9 ... lLlxd4 1 0 .lLlxd4 ¥!1xd4 11.
¥!1a4+ �d7 12.¥!1xb4 ¥!1xd3 13.
¥!1xb7 l"i:c8 14.lLlf3 lLle7 with endur­
ing compensation for Black, or
1l.�b5+ @e7 1 2 .lLlf3 hd2 + 13.
¥!1xd2 ¥!1xd2+ 14. @xd2 �d7 and
Black ends up with an extra pawn
in the endgame, Ni Hua - Vitiu­
gov, Ningbo 2 0 1 0 ;
The Polish G M Mateusz Bar-
138
tel, playing in very original fash­
ion, equalized with : 6 . . . ¥!1a5 ! ? 7.
dxc5 (7.�d2 ¥!1b6 ! ) 7 . . . ¥!1c7 8.�e3
f6 (8 . . . lLlh6 ! ?) 9.exf6 lLlxf6 10.lLld4
e5 11.lLlb5 ¥!1d8 12 .�e2 0-0 13.lLlf3
a6 14.lLld6 �xd6 15.cxd6 ¥!1xd6
16.h3 �e6 17. 0-0 Ei:ad8, with an
easy game for Black, Ni Hua -
Bartel, Beijing 2 0 0 8 ;
6 . . .f6 7.�d3 cxd4 8.cxd4 lLlh6
9 .exf6 �xf6 10 .�xh6 gxh6 ll.lLle2
¥!1a5 + . In this position, the author
had a heated debate with the Chi­
nese grandmaster Ni Hua. 12.@f1
This move is too ambitious. (Ni
Hua improved his play the follow­
ing year yet still ended up in an
inferior endgame after 12 .¥!1d2
¥!1xd 2 + 13.@xd2 �d7 14.�b5 @e7
15.l"i:ac1 @d6 16.l"i:he1 l"i:hf8 17.l"i:c3
�d8 18.a3 �a5 19 .b4 �b6 2 0.hc6
�xc6 2 l.g3 �d7 2 2 .lLlf4 aS, but
Black failed to realize his advan­
tage, Ni Hua - Vitiugov, Ningbo
2 0 1 0 . ) . 12 . . . �d7 13.a3 0-0-0 14.
Wic1 a6 15.b4 ¥!1b6 16.¥!1xh6 l"i:hf8
17.¥!ie3 @b8 with a wonderful po­
sition for Black, Ni Hua - Vitiu­
gov, Sochi 2 0 0 9 .
5 . . . wf8

It seems masochistically pa­
tient for Black to opt for S . . . if8 ,
but in fact that move is quite sen­
sible. 6.dxcS Wic7 7.lLlgf3 lLld7 (It is
weaker to play 7 . . . l2Jc6 8.ibS f6
9.lLlb3 ! ?± , or 9.0-0 !xeS 10 .c4
fxeS 11 .WihS+ g6 12 .WixeS WixeS 13.
lLlxeS l2Jge7 14.l2Jdf3 0-0 1S.ixc6
l2Jxc6 16.lLlxc6 bxc6 17.ih6 E1fS
18.cxdS cxdS 19.2"1ac1 ib6 2 0 .ie3
he3 2 l.fxe3 and the endgame is
better for White, Nevednichy -
Antic, Herceg Novi 2 0 0 1 . ) 8 .lLlb3
(White cannot gain any advantage
with the line : 8.ibS WixcS 9.c4 a6
10.lLlb3 Wc7 1l .ixd7+ Wixd7 1 2 . 0 -
0 dxc4 13. Wxc4 l2Je 7 14.lLlcS WdS
1S.Wc2 l2Jc6 16.ie3 lLlxeS 17.lLlxeS
WxeS 18.2"1ad1 ie7 19.id4 WigS
2 0 .lLle4 Wig6 21.2"1fe1 0-0 and his
compensation for the pawn is in­
sufficient, Khamrakulov - Lopez
Martinez, Ayamonte 2 0 07.) 8 . . .
lLlxeS 9.lLlxeS WixeS+ 10 .ie3 lLlf6
1 l.ibS+ id7 12 .ixd7+ l2Jxd7
13.0-0-0 ie7 14.h4 0-0 1S.id4
fS 16.Wf3 We4 17.Wg3 eS 18.f3 f4
19 .Wh3 WifS 20.WixfS E1xfS 2 l .if2
d4 2 2 .c3 = Todorovic - Drasko,
Subotica 20 0 8 .
White should counter the
rather cheeky move S . . . gS with the
elegant response 6.WhS! (White
lost a very instructive game after
6.dxcS hS 7.ibS+ id7 8 .We2 Wc7
9.lLlb3 hbS lO.WxbS+ lLlc6 11.f4
0-0-0 12.lLlf3 g4 13.lLlfd4 l2Jxd4
14.l2Jxd4 !xeS 1S.ie3 hd4 16.
hd4 �b8 17.icS �a8 18.id6
Wxc2 19 .0-0 l"1c8 20.fS lLlh6 2 1 .
E1f2 Wie4 2 2 .fxe6 fxe6 23.2"1af1 h 4
24.Wd7 Wd4 2S.g3 hxg3 26.hxg3
l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. lLld2 ie7 4.e5 c5
lLlfS 27.Wxe6 l2Jxg3 0-1 Adams -
Morozevich, Frankfurt 1999.) 6 . . .
lLlc6 7.l2Jdf3 cxd4 8.lLlh3 ! Wc7
9.lLlhxgS lLlxeS lO .ibS+ �f8 11.
l2Jxh7+ l"1xh7 12.Wxh7 l2Jxf3 + 13.
gxf3 WieS+ 14.�fl Wg7 15 .WhS lLlf6
16.Wh6 lLlg8 17.Wh3 eS 18.id7
hd7 19.Wxd7 E1d8 2 0 .WifS, with
advantage to White, Kurnosov -
Mesropov, Serpukhov 2 0 0 2 .
6.dxc5
White is forced to give up the
centre.
If 6.c3 ? ! lLlc6 and it is even
harder to hold his centre against
Black's pressure.
It is possible that the rather
slow move 6.lLlb3 may become
more popular in the near future. I
believe that Black should counter
this with 6 . . . c4 7.lLld2 lLlc6 8 .c3
lLlh6, with a very complicated po­
sition. It looks as though White
has lost several important tempi
in the opening trying to keep the
position closed.
It is bad for White to continue
with 6.lLlgf3 ? ! hS 7.Wig3 (He would
not fare any better with the awk­
ward line : 7.Wh3 lLlc6 8 . dxcS Wc7
139
Chapter 2 0
and White will lose his e5-pawn;
8 . . . g5 ! ? 9.g4 �c7. ) 7 . . . h4 8.�h3
tLJc6.
6 ••• tDc6
Now White is faced with a
choice. The position is very sharp
and it requires very precise treat­
ment from both sides. The next
few moves can involve complex
tactical decisions.
7.tilgf3
This is the most natural move
for White and probably the
strongest.
It seems rather artificial for
him to opt for 7.tDdf3 . Although
this move is quite sensible (it
looks attractive to develop the
bishop on c1 as soon as possible),
White's other knight looks a sorry
sight. 7 . . .f6
140
8.�g3 (In response to 8 .i.f4 ?!
Black h a s a n interesting manoeu­
vre - 8 . . . �a5 + ! 9.c3 �a4. This
placement of the queen justifies
the check on the previous move.
10.�g3 �c2 and White has great
problems coping with the enemy
queen on c2. However, Black has
also tried 8 . . . hc5 9 .i.d3 �a5+
10.c3 �b6 ll.tDh3 �xb2 12.0-0
�xc3 13.:Bfd1 fxe5 14.:Bac1 �b4
15.CDfg5 tDf6 16.tLJxe6+ he6 17.
�xe6 :Be8 18.�f5 tDd4 19.�g5
exf4 and the game is over, Feher
- Farago, Hungary 2006. In the
following game White tried to
radically solve all his problems
but he did not fare at all well. 9.
0-0-0? ! ixf2 10 .h4 f5 11.�h3
�aS 12 .a3 id7 13.i.d3 b5 14.g4 b4
15.a4 b3 16.cxb3 tDb4 17.gxf5
:Bc8 + 18.�b1 ha4 19.CDg5 i.d7
2 0.ic4 �a2 + 2 1.�c1 �a1+ and
White resigned in view of the
mate on the next move, Balogh -
Cvek, Germany 2 007.) 8 . . . hc5
9 .i.d3 (White should avoid 9.tDh3
fxe5 10.tDxe5 tLJxe5 11.�xe5 i.d6
and Black has an excellent posi­
tion.) 9 . . .fxe5 10.CDxe5 tLJxe5 11.
�xeS tDf6
For comparison's sake, I

should like to tell you that this po­
sition is known to theory, except
that normally a white knight is
on d2 instead of gl. Naturally,
this is considered to be preferable
for White. 12.ltlf3 ix:f2 + ! This is
an important detail ; otherwise,
White would obtain an advan­
tage. 13.<i> d 1 i.cS 14.Eifl . White
has undoubtedly some compen­
sation, but Black has an extra
pawn and nothing to worry about.
14 . . . <i>g8 ! ?? (Black has an alter­
native in 14 . . . i.d6, which was tried
in the game Akopian - Pelletier,
Aubervilliers 2 0 0 2 ) .
O n e more possibility for White
in this position is 7.\Wg3 f6 ! ? (I
think this is stronger than 7 ... ltlh6
8 .i.d3 i.h4 9.\Wf4 i.gS 10.\Wg3 i.h4
11.\Wf4 i.gS 12 .\Wa4 ltlxeS 13.ltlgf3
ltlxd3 + 14.cxd3 i.e7 15.b4 f6 16.
0-0 ltlfS 17.i.b2 hS 18.Eiac1 i.d7
19.\Wb3 Elc8 20 .ltld4 ltlxd4 2 1 .
i.xd4 h 4 2 2 .h3 \We8 23.f4 \Wg6
24.<i>h1 ElhS 25.ltlf3 and White
outplayed his young adversary
in the subsequent complicated
struggle, Svidler - Nepomnia­
chtchi, Moscow 2006.)
8.ltlgf3 ltlh6 (Of course Black
should not reduce the tension
l.e4 e6 2.d4 dS 3. ltl d2 i.e7 4.e5 c5
prematurely with 8 . . . fxe5?! 9.
ltlxeS ltlxeS 10.\WxeS ix:cS 11.i.d3
- 11.ltle4 ! ? - 11...ltlf6 1 2 . 0 - 0 i.d6
13.\We2 \Wc7 14.f4 ix:f4 15.ltlf3 i.d6
16.c4 i.d7 17.i.g5 Ele8 18.E\ac1 \Wb8
19.\Wf2 Ele7 2 0 .\Wh4 and White
had a powerful initiative in the
game Lastin - Kacheishvili, Ohrid
2001.)
9.i.d3 (It seems inferior to
play 9 .exf6 ix:f6 10.ltlb3. Black's
position might be less fearsome
than it looks, but still it is quite
satisfactory, at least. 10 . . . ltlf5 11.
\Wh3 eS 12 .g4 ltlfe7 with a sharp
game. It is very bad for White to
continue with 9.ltlb3? ltlfS 1 0 .\Wf4
gS 11.\Wa4 ltlxeS 12.ltlxe5 fxeS and
Black ends up with a very power­
ful centre and an extra pawn.) 9 . . .
ltlf7 1 0 .exf6 gxf6 1 1 . 0 - 0 (White
fails to destroy Black's excellent
pawn-formation with 11.c4 Elg8
12 .\Wh4 Elxg2 13.ltlb3 fS 14.\Wxh7
i.f6, with a double edged game.)
11 . . . e5 1 2 . ltlh4 (White should pos­
sibly start thinking about main­
taining equality, but Black would
not mind that. 12.ltle1 e4 13 .i.e2
ltld4 14.i.d1 ix:cS and White's
pieces have ended up on the first
two ranks. ) 12 . . . e4 13.ltlxe4. This
141
Chapter 2 0
i s the most principled response.
13 . . . dxe4 14.he4 i.xc5 ! GM Pel­
letier quite correctly recommend­
ed this move in his annotations :
(14 . . . ltJd4? ! 15.�d3gg Nevednichy
- Pelletier, Gothenburg 2 005).
15.ltJf5 (15.�e3 l2ld4 16J'lae1 l"1g8
17.i.xd4 �xd4 18.�b3 ltJgS and
Black is already counter-attack­
ing.) 15 . . . i.xf5 16.i.xf5 �dS+
7.�e2 ! ? This is an original and
logical try. White does not wish to
lose more tempi moving his queen
and so retreats it back home right
away, protecting his pawn in the
process. 7 . . . i.xc5 (Or 7 . . . f6 8.f4
i.xcS 9.ltJgf3 ltJh6 10.l2lb3 �b6
11.�e3 ltJfS 12.�f2 i.xf2 + 13.�xf2
�b6 14.�d3 �e3 + 15.�xe3 ltJxe3
16.\t>f2 ltJg4+ 17.\t>g3 ltJh6 18.l'%he1
ltJf7 19.i.b5 fxeS 2 0 .fxe5 l2lb8 2 1 .
ltJbd4 with a n obvious advantage
for White, Timman - Paehtz, Ant­
werp 2011. Black also has an in­
teresting pawn-sacrifice here -
7 . . . b6 ! ? 8.cxb6 axb6 9.l2lgf3 �c7
with plenty of promising possi­
bilities. Tournament practice will
show how meaningful Black's
compensation is.) 8. ltJb3 �b6 9 .
�e3 ltJge7 10.f4 ltJfS 11.�f2
11 . . . h5 (It would have been
142
much more consistent to continue
with 11 . . . g5 ! 12 .g4 i.xf2 + 13.�xf2
ltJh4 14. 0-0-0 gxf4 15.l"1e1 l"1g8+)
12 .ltJf3 �d7 13.�d2 i.xf2 + 14.�xf2
�b6 15.�d3 l2le3? 16.c3 ltJg4?! 17.
�e2 �e3 18.h3 �xe 2 + 19.\t>xe2
l2lh6 2 0 .g4 l2lg8 21.l2lc5 �c8 and
although Black's position is res­
ignable, in the end he managed to
draw, not without his opponent's
generous help, Bezgodov - Vitiu­
gov, Khanty-Mansiysk 2011.
7 . . . h5
The author of this book has
successfully tried 7 . . . l2lh6, but on
the whole this move can only be
considered as experimental. 8.
�h5 f6 9.�b5 l2lf7 10 .i.xc6? ! bxc6
11.ltJb3?! g6 12 .�g4 fxe5 13.h4 e4
14.ltJg5 e5 15.�g3 �f6 16.�d2 a5
17.a4 �f5 18.0-0-0 h6 19.l2lxf7
\t>xf7 2 0 .f3 exf3 2 1 .gxf3 d4 22 .f4
�d5 23.fxe5 i.xeS 24.�f2 �c4
25.�e1 �f4+ 26.\t>b1 �xb3 27.
l"1xd4 �e3 28.l'%d7+ \t>e8 0-1 Papin
- Vitiugov, Saratov 2 007.
8.�g3
It looks rather provocative for
White to play 8.�f4 ?! g5 9.�e3
ltJh6 (Black has an interesting al-

ternative here - 9 . . . d4 ! ? 10 .�e2
g4 11.lt:Jg1 �d5 12.f4 ih4 + 13.Wd1
lt:Jh6 with a quite acceptable posi­
tion for Black, Kapnisis - Skaper­
das, Athens 2 0 0 0 , or 10 .�e4 g4
11.lt:Jg1 f5 ! This is a key move for
Black. 12 .�e2 - Black has abso­
lutely nothing to worry about af­
ter 12.exf6 lt:Jxf6 13 .�d3 Wg7 -
12 . . . �d5 and White has great
problems developing his pieces to
active squares.) 10 .id3 (If 10 .h3,
I can recommend the following
sample variation: 10 . . . lt:Jf5 1l.�c3
Wg7 12. lt:Jb3 d4 13.�d2 aS 14.a4
�d5 15.lt:Jxg5 lt:Jxe5�. The move
10.lt:Jb3 would just lose a pawn for
White after 10 . . . lt:Jf5 1l.�d2 g4
12 .lt:Jfd4 lt:Jfxd4 13.lt:Jxd4 lt:Jxe5.)
10 . . . ct:Jg4 (It is too slow for
Black to opt for 10 . . . �c7? ! 11.lt:Jb3
lt:Jg4 12 .�e2 ct:Jgxe5 13.lt:Jxg5, be­
cause his vulnerable king will
soon come under a dangerous at­
tack. It looks attractive but is in
fact futile to play 10 . . . d4? ! 1l.�e4
g4 12.lt:Jglt. Black has lost the
elasticity of his pawn-mass and he
is unable to exploit White's tem­
porary lag in development.)
1l.�e2 �c7 (Black cannot equal­
ize after ll . . . hc5?! 12.0-0 lt:Jxf2 .
l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. lt:J d2 ie7 4.e5 c5
Black's attack has come to a dead
end and he must play enterpris­
ingly. Now it is bad for White
to continue with 13.lt:Jb3 ? ! lt:Jxd3 +
14.lt:Jxc5 ct:Jxc1 - but not 14 . . .
lt:Jxc5? 15.lt:Jxg5, with a powerful
attack for White - 15.l"laxc1 g4
16.lt:Jd2 �g5 and Black is even
slightly better. But after 13.l"lxf2 !
g4 14.b4 ! - things are not so clear
after 14.lt:Je1 �b6 15.lt:Jb3 ixf2 +
16.�xf2 �xf2 + 17.Wxf2 lt:Jxe5 and
in this complicated asymmetrical
endgame the prospects are ap­
proximately equal - 14 . . . lt:Jxb4
15.ia3 and having White has neu­
tralized his opponent's initial
pressure White has gained a clear
advantage. It is even worse for
Black to play 14 . . . hf2 + ? 15.�xf2
gxf3 16.lt:Jxf3 and White's initia­
tive on the dark squares is over­
whelming. I should like to men­
tion that it is much weaker for
White to continue (after 11 . . .
hc5? ! ) with the this line which
has been tried a few times : 1 2 .
lt:Jb3 ? ! ixf2 + 13. Wd1 ib6 ? ! 14.l"lf1
and the evaluation changes - now
it is White doing the attacking.
However, after 13 . . . �b6 ! 14.ixg5
l"lg8 ! ? - if Black tries to simplify
with 14 . . . ie3, White has chances
of seizing the initiative with 15.
he3 �xe3 16.�xe3 lt:Jxe3+ 17.
Wd2 lt:Jxg2 18.l"laf1� - 15.h3 lt:Je3+
16.Wc1 lt:Jxg2 . Black has played
riskily, but White's king is so vul­
nerable that such a strategy is
quite justified, for example: 17.h4
l"lxg5 ! 18.hxg5 lt:Jf4 19.�fl �e3+
2 0 . lt:Jbd2 ct:Jb4 and although the
143
Chapter 2 0
situation o n the board i s totally
chaotic, Black's prospects are not
at all worse, or 17.'tt> b 1 Ei:xgS 18.
lLlxgS l2lf4 19.�f3 �e3 20.�xe3
�xe3 21.l2lf3 l2lxd3 2 2 . cxd3 b6,
with an excellent game. ) 12 .l2lb3
(White must refrain from 12 .b4?
lLlgxeS 13.�b2 �f6 and Black is
clearly better.)
12 ... l2lgxeS. Black provokes a
crisis. (The time for cautious play
has long passed. It would not be
in the spirit of the position for
Black to continue with 12 . . . Ei:g8 ? !
13.h4 ! gxh4 14.�f4 b6 1S.cxb6
axb6 16.c3 ! ± . It would be rather
faint-hearted for White to choose
16.�bS?! l2la7 17.�d3 l2lc6 18 .�bS
l2la7 19.�d3 and here the players
agreed to a draw in the game Vaj­
da - Asrian, Bled 2 0 0 2 . ) 13.l2lxgS
aS ! This is another important de­
tail. 14.a4 (White should refrain
from 14.�e3? ! a4 1S.l2ld2? d4- + ;
o r 1S.l2lc1 l2lg4 and h e will have
great difficulties. It would be dy­
namic for White, if rather risky, to
continue with 14.f4 l2lxd3+ 1S.
�xd3 a4 16.l2ld4 l2lxd4 17.�xd4 f6
18.�e3 Ei:g8 - Black has a tricky
resource here - 18 . . . Ei:aS ! ? - 19.
0-0 fxgS 2 0 .fxgS+ 'it>e8 and
144
White's compensation for the
pawn seems insufficient.) 14 . . .
l2lxd3 + 1S.cxd3 b 6 and Black com­
plicates the position even further.
For example: 16.�e3 bxcS 17. 0-0
(17.hcS hcS 18.l2lxcS l2ld4- + ;
17.l2lxcS d4- + ) 1 7. . .f6 18.l2lf3 d4
19.�c1 <i>f7 and he has an excel­
lent position.
White has also tried the some­
what paradoxical move 8.�a4 ! ?
t o which Black must respond very
precisely, otherwise he might end
up in a difficult position.
8 . . . �c7 - I believe this is
Black's best move. (It would less
consistent for him to play 8 . . . hcS
9.l2lb3 �e7 10.�f4 l2lh6 11.�d3
lLlfS 1 2 .�xfS exfS 13 .�e3 �e6 14.
0-0-0 Ei:c8 1S. <i>b1 �c7 16.Ei:he1
lLl aS 17.l2lbd4 h4 18.l2lgS �d7 and
White had a clear advantage in
the game lvanchuk - Mkrtchian,
Yerevan 2 004. Black will not
equalize with 8 . . . �d7 9.�bS hcS
10.l2lb3 �e7 11 .�e3±) 9.�f4 f6
(This is a very important motif.)
10.�bS (Black should counter
White's activity after 10.l2lh4 with
the calm response 10 . . . <i>f7, al­
though practice has seen 10 . . .
�xeS+ 11.�xeS lLlxeS 1 2 .f4 gS

13.fxe5 gxh4 14.tt:lf3 .bc5 15.tt:lxh4
@g7 16.�f4 �d4 17.4Jf3 .bb2 18.
�b1 �c3+ 19.@d1 fxe5 2 0 .tt:lxe5
@f6 21.tt:lf3 e5 with a good posi­
tion, Liss - Botvinnik, Ramat
Aviv 2 0 00.) 10 . . . g5 ! ? This is
an original decision. (Black can
also play more simply with 10 . . .
tt:lxe5 but then i n the endgame
arising after 11.tt:lxe5 '\Wxe5+
12.'\Wxe5 fxe5 13.tt:lf3 �f6 14.0-0
he risks facing difficulties in de­
veloping his queenside. ) 11.tt:lxg5
(White should not back down -
11.'\We3 ? ! g4 12 .tt:lh4 @g7 13.exf6+
.bf6 14.g3 tt:lb4 15.�d3 tt:lxd3+
16.cxd3 tt:le7 and the game is quite
complicated.) 12 . . ..bf6 13.tt:lg1
tt:lge7 and Black has a very active
position, or 1 2 .exf6 '\Wxe5+ 1 2 .
'\Wxe5 tt:lxe5 13.tt:lh3 .bc5 14.tt:lf4
tt:le7 and the endgame is double­
edged.
8 . . . h4
This is an aggressive decision.
The move 8 . . . tt:lh6 ! ? has hardly
been tested in practice, but I be­
lieve it is a quite reasonable way
for Black to avoid the well-trod­
den theoretical paths.
l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. tLl d2 �e7 4.e5 c5
For example:
After White's natural response
9 .�d3, Black can continue with
his pawn-storm 9 . . . h4 10.'\Wf4 (Or
10 .'\Wh3? f6 and White is in trou­
ble.) 1 0 . . . g5 l l.'\We3 tt:lg4 (It would
also be interesting for Black to
give further tests to 1 1 . . . tt:lf5, e.g.
12 . .bf5 exf5 13.tt:lb3 f4 14.'\Wc3 h3
15.g3 d4 16.4Jfxd4 '\Wd5 17.'\Wf3
'\Wxe5+ 18.tt:le2 �f5 19.gxf4 '\We6
2 0.Elg1 g4 2 1.'\We3 '\Wd5 2 2 .�d2
�e8 and he had a powerful initia­
tive in the game Zhang Zhong -
Shipov, Internet 2 0 07.) 1 2 .'\We2
.bc5. An attentive reader might
have realized by now that we have
already analyzed a similar posi­
tion in our notes to White's previ­
ous move, examining the conse­
quences of 8.'\Wf4. The difference
is that here Black's pawn is al­
ready on h4 and this will soon be
very important. 13.�fl (Now it is
less attractive for White to con­
tinue with 13.0-0 tt:lxf2 14.�xf2
g4 15.b4? tt:lxb4 16.�a3 g3- + ; 15.
@h1 .bf2 16.'\Wxf2 gxf3 17.tt:lxf3 h3
and the position is unclear but
still quite playable for Black.) 13 . . .
'\Wc7 14.tt:lb3 �e7 1 5 . .bg5 .bg5
16.tt:lxg5 '\Wxe5 and Black is at least
equal.
145
Chapter 2 0
9.lt:lb3 lt:lf5 (Black has tried,
without much success, the stand­
ard and logical line: 9 . . . a5 10.c3
a4 11.lt:lbd4 ixc5 12 .1d3 �b6 13.
0-0 1d7 14.1e3 lt:lxd4 15.cxd4
1e7 16.1g5 ixg5 17.�xg5± Kob­
alia - Ivanov, Togliatti 2003.)
10.�f4 (10 .�h3 ? ! aS 11.a4 b6! We
already know this motif and once
again it works perfectly for Black.
12.cxb6 lt:lb4 13 .1d3 lt:lxd3+ 14.
cxd3 �xb6 and White is worse;
12 .c3 bxc5 13.1b5 �b6 with an ex­
cellent game for Black.) 10 .. .f6.
White is forced to defend in a
rather bizarre fashion against
with the threat of g5. ll.h3 (Or
11.h4? ! <;f;>f7 and the white pawn
on h4 will soon drop.) ll . . . g5 1 2 .
�h2 . You rarely see White's queen
ending up on this particular
square ! 12 . . . <;f;>g7 (It would be pre­
mature for Black to play 12 . . .
lt:lxe5 ? ! 13.lt:lxe5 fxe5 14.�xe5 1f6
15.1xg5 1xe5 16.ixd8 ixb2 17.
l"lb1 1c3+ 18.<;f;>d1 and White is
better in this endgame.) 13 .1d3
b6gg. The situation resembles an
ancient battle. Black has sacri­
ficed a small regiment of soldiers,
but has also deflected his enemy's
main forces away from the centre
of the battlefield. How all this will
end is not so easy to predict and it
requires thorough practical test­
ing.
9.�f4
The following possibility does
not need any further comment:
9.�g4? �c7.
9 ••• g5
Black must bite the bullet...
146
1 0 .�a4
It is simply very bad for White
to play 10 .�g4?! lt:lh6 11.�h5 f5 !
It is hardly any better to con­
tinue with 10 .�e3 lt:lh6 11.h3 lt:lf5
12.�c3 f6 13.1b5 lt:lxe5 14.lt:lxe5
fxe5 15.�xe5 1f6 16.�h2 and the
placement of White's queen is in
sharp contrast to that of its black
counterpart.
1 0 . . . .id7
Black can also try 10 . . . �c7, but
after ll.lt:lb3 1d7 12 .1b5 lt:lxe5
13.lt:lxe5 �xeS+ 14.1e3 ixb5 15.
�xb5 White is better.
ll . .ib5 a6
This might not be very good
for Black, but it is at least his most
consistent continuation.
It would not do for him to try
to be too tricky - ll . . . lt:lh6 12 .lt:lb3
a6 13.ixc6 ixc6 14.�b4, and
White's blockade is working per­
fectly.
12 .hc6 hc6 13.'1Wd4 lLlh6
Black's wish to open the long
diagonal is understandable, but it
will be too difficult to accomplish
this.
If 13 . . . h3 14.g4 ! and the knight
on g8 is going nowhere.
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. lt:J d2 i.e7 4.e5 c5

'&g4 lt:Jh6 17.'&h5 ! wg7 18.lt:Jb3±

14.h3 !
This is a very important im­
provement for White. Unfortu­
nately it is becoming clear that in
this variation Black needs to look
for an improvement at some ear­
lier point.
It is much weaker for White to
play 14.lt:Jb3? ! lt:Jf5 15.'&d3 d4 (or
15 . . . i.b5 ! ? 16.'&c3 E1c8) 16.l"1g1 '&c7
17.lt:Jfxd4 '&xe5+ 18 .i.e3 '&xh2 19.
0-0-0 lt:Jxd4 20.'&xd4 E1h6 21.
'&g4 '&e5 2 2 . lt:Jd4 i.f6 23.c3 '&e4
and Black had an excellent posi­
tion in the game Adams - Mo­
rozevich, Sarajevo 1999.
14 .tlJf5
••
15.'&g4 hc5
15 . . . lt:Jh6! This is a very good
move for Black. It does not solve
all his problems though . . . 16.'&h5
(16.'&b4 a5 17.'&c3 d4 18 .'&d3
E1g8�; 16.'&d4 lt:Jf5 17.'&g4 lt:Jh6
18.'&h5 and the players agreed to
a draw, Fargere - Wirig, Caen
2011) 16 . . .f6 17.lt:Jd4 i.d7 18.'&e2
(18.exf6?! i.xf6 19.lt:J4b3 g4 and
White has to worry about his
queen) 18 . . .hc5 19.lt:J 2b3 i.a7
with a very complicated position
in which Black must be on the
alert for the safety of his endan­
gered king. For example, he might
be in a serious trouble after 2 0 .f4 !
16. lt:Jb3 i.e7 17. 0 - 0 �g8
18.lbbd4±

Here Black has an interesting

idea at his disposal, but it back­
fires after 14 . . . b6 15.cxb6 lt:Jf5 16.

It is time we came to a conclusion about the results of the opening

battle. White played an important improvement on move 14 and
gained a slight but stable advantage. It is rather unpleasantfor Black.
However, he could and should have avoided playing into this line by
deviating earlier. In that case, there would have arisen some very
sharp and lively complications.

147
Chapter 21 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3)ijd2 .ie7 4.�gf3
This is an interesting line, one
which is often used by very ag­
gressive players, since White will
almost always have to sacrifice
material in order to fight for the
advantage.
4 .tt:l f6 5.e5
..
White does not achieve much
with the safer line 5.�d3 c5 6.exd5
(There will be only a few pieces
left on the board after 6.dxc5 dxe4
7.tt:lxe4 tt:lxe4 8 .he4 �xd1+ 9 .
Wxd1 hc5 10. We 2 tt:ld7 1U''l d 1 -
11.�e3 ? ! he3 1 2 . Wxe3 tt:lc5 and
only Black can think about an ad­
vantage - 1l.. .We7 12 .c4 tt:lf6 13.
�c2 b6 14.b3 �b7 15.�b2 l"lhd8
16.tt:le5 h5 17.f3 and in the game
Akopian - Korchnoi, Calcutta
2 0 0 0 , the players agreed to a
draw.) 6 . . . �xd5 7.dxc5 tt:lbd7! Af-
148
ter this good move it becomes
clear that Black has solved all his
opening problems.
Here White has tried :
8 .tt:lb3 tt:lxc5 9.tt:lxc5 �xeS 10.
0-0 0-0 11.�e3 �h5 12.l"le1 b6
13.tt:ld4 �xd1 14.l"laxdl �b7 15.c3
and the position is equal, Howell
- Shulman, Philadelphia 2 007.
8 . 0 - 0 tt:lxc5 9.�c4 �d6 (It
would be more ambitious but also
riskier for Black to play 9 . . . �h5 ! ?
1 0.l"le1 tt:lcd7 11.b3 0 - 0 12.�b2 b5
13.�e2 �c5 - 13 . . . �b7! ? - 14.c4
b4 15.�d3 �b7 16.tt:le4 �c7 17.�c2
h6 18.l"lad1 l"lad8 19.tt:lxf6+ hf6
2 0.hf6 tt:lxf6 21.tt:le5 �c5 2 2 .�e2
l"ld6 23.�c2 l"lfd8 24.l"lxd6 l"lxd6
25.tt:ld3 �g5 26.f3 tt:ld7 2 7.�e3=
Svidler - Shabalov, Odessa 2008.)
1 0.�e2 0-0 11.tt:lb3 tt:la4 12 .l"ld1
�c7 13.�b5 tt:lb6 14.tt:le5 a6 15.�d3
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. lLl d2 �e7 4. lLl gj3 lLlf6
tt:lbdS 16.�d2 �d6 17J''le l tt:Jb4 18.
�xb4 hb4 19 .c3 �d6 = Gufeld ­
Lputian, Las Vegas 2 0 0 1 .
White's attempt t o hold o n to
the extra pawn fails after 8 .b4 aS
9 .�c4 �hS 10.c3 tt:Jds 11 .hdS.
Naturally, he is reluctant to give
up this bishop, but he has to.
(Black can counter ll.�b3 with
the strong move l l . . . tt:lxc3 ! ; nor
would White achieve anything
with 11. tt:le4 axb4 12.cxb4 tt:Jxb4
13.tt:ld6+ hd6 14.cxd6 �cs lS.
�b3 �bS ! and Black has the initi­
ative.) 11 . . . �xdS
12 .�b2 axb4 13.cxb4 Elxa2 14.
Elxa2 �xa2 lS.�al �xal+ 16.hal
tt:lf6 17. o-o tt:Jds 18 .hg7 Elg8 19.
�d4 tt:lxb4 and Black is better, Tu­
rov - Shulman, St.Petersburg 1998.
12 .�b3 axb4 (It is also possi­
ble to maintain the tension with
12 . . .�f6 13.Elbl lLleS 14. 0 - 0 tt:ld3
1S.a3 - 1S.�a3 ! ? - lS . . . 0-0 16.Eldl
tt:lf4 17.�b2 �fS 18.c4 eS 19 .�e3
�g6 2 0.g3 �fS and Black out­
played his opponent in the ensu­
ing struggle, Kholmov - Mo­
rozevich, Russia 1998.) 13.cxb4
(Not 13.�xdS? ! exdS 14.cxb4 �f6
lS.Elbl Elxa2 16.0-0 0-0 and only
White will have problems in this
position.) 13 . . . �xb3 14.tt:lxb3 �f6
1S.tt:lfd4 Ela4 16.a3 tt:JxcS ! 17.tt:JxcS
(After 17.bxcS hd4 18.tt:lxd4
Elxd4 Black is even slightly bet­
ter.) 17 . . .�xd4 18.tt:lxa4 hal 19.
tt:lb6 �d7 2 0 . tt:lxd7 @xd7, with
comfortable equality for Black.
12 .a4. This is an interesting
idea. White creates a protected
passed pawn and fixes two poten­
tial weaknesses in his opponent's
camp on cS and aS. However,
Black's position is by no means
inferior, since his powerful light­
squared bishop provides compen­
sation. 12 . . . b6 13.0-0 bxcS 14.bS
(14.c4 �fS lS.bS eS - 1S . . . �b7! ? -
16.�e2 �b7 17.�b2 f6 18.tt:lh4 �e6
19 .f4 fS 2 0 .tt:lhf3 e4 21.tt:lb3 0-0
2 2 .tt:leS tt:JxeS 23 .heS gS 24J''l a cl
gxf4 2S.hf4 Elf7 26.�e3± Solak ­
Markidis, Kavala 2 0 11) 14 . . . �b7
1S.c4 �fS 16.�b2 0-0 17.�bl
�xbl 18.Elfxbl Elfd8 19.@fl tt:lb6
2 0 . @e2 f6 2 1.�c3 eS 2 2 .Eldl �c8
23.tt:lb3 tt:Jxc4 24.Elxd8 + hd8 2S.
tt:JxcS �b6 26.tt:lb3 �e6 and Black's
position is perfectly acceptable,
Naiditsch - Edouard, Mulhouse
2 0 11.
5 .li:lfd7
••
149
Chapter 21

6 . .id3
White sometimes plays 6.c4,
against which I recommend
6 . . . 0-0. (It is also possible for
Black to opt for 6 . . . dxc4 7.lLlxc4
lLlb6 8.a3 lLlxc4 9 . .ixc4 lLld7 10.
0-0 lLlb6 ll . .id3 .id7 12 . .ie4 lLld5
13 . .ixd5 exd5 14.�b3 .ic6 15 . .id2
a5 16J:Uc1 0-0 17.l"lc3 l"le8 18.l"lac1
l"la6 19 .�c2 .id7 2 0 .�b3 .ic6 2 1 .
�c2 .id7 and the opponents re­
peated moves in the game An­ 7.c3
toniewski - Bosiocic, Austria Liviu-Dieter Nisipeanu has
2008.) played several times the appar­
ently unambitious move 7.0- 0 ! ?
This fact should make u s pay seri­
ous attention to this plan. 7 . . . lLlc6
8.l"le1

This i s a position known to

theory, but with a white pawn on
a3. It arises in the Bogo-Indian
defence. White's main idea there
to advance with b2-b4. Here he
does not have this resource, so I
think Black's position is perfectly
acceptable; for example: 7.cxd5
exd5 8 . .id3 c5 9 . 0 - 0 lLlc6 10.l"le1
�b6 ll.a3 c4 12.lLlxc4 dxc4 13.
.ixc4 l"ld8 14.e6 fxe6 15.l"lxe6 Wh8
16.lLlg5 .ixg5 17 . .ixg5 l"lf8 18 . .ie7
l"lf5 19.g4 lLlf6 20 . .ic5 l"lxc5 2 1 .
dxc5 �xeS and White i s lost, Zhou
Weiqi - Sadorra, Kuala Lumpur
2 0 07.
6 . . c5
. lLlc5 ll.lLlfxd4 lLlxd4 12.lLlxd4
The ultra-aggressive approach
with 8 . . . g5 can be countered with
9.h3 h5 10.c4 ! It is not good for
Black either to play 8 . . . c4 9 . .ie2
g5 10.h3 h5 ll.lLlf1 and White has
the advantage .
8 . . . cxd4 9 .lLlb3 �b6 10.a4.
White has lost a pawn and al­
though that is not very important
at this stage, it does mean that he
must play very actively. (He would
not achieve much with 10 . .if4

150
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. 'Lld2 i.e7 4. 'Ll gj3 'Llf6

i.d7=) 10 . . . a6 (It is less good for line : 16.gxf3 ! ? hf4 17.'Llxe6

Black to play 10 . . . a5 l l.i.b5 0-0
12.i.f4 and White has promising
compensation.) 11.a5 WJ.c7 12.
'Llbxd4
i.xh2 + ! Black gobbles up another
pawn before retreating his bish­
op. 18.Wg2 he6 19.1''1 xe6+ Wf8
2 0 .l"lb6 i.e5 ! ; 2 0 .l"le2 i.d6 with an
approximately equal position.)
16 ... M4 17.g3 (There is merely a
transposition of moves after 17.
WJ.xd5 0-0.) 17 . . . g6. This trick is
not forced, but it is attractive.
18.WJ.xd5 0-0 19.WJ.d4 i.h6 = and
Black's bishop-pair compensates
for White's piece activity.

12 . . . 'Llxd4 (It would be too

risky for Black to be tempted by
the rook's pawn - 12 . . . 'Llxa5 13.
i.g5 ! ? and White has good attack­
ing prospects.) 13.'Llxd4 'Llxe5 14.
i.f4 i.d6 15.Wl.h5 (It is considera­
bly weaker to play 15.WJ.e2? 'Llxd3
16.hd6 WJ.xd6 17.'Llf5 WJ.f4 18.
'Llxg7+ Wf8 19.'Llh5 WJ.xf2 + ! and
White has no compensation for
the pawn in this endgame. It is 7 . . • 'Llc6
bad for Black to continue with Here 7 . . . b 6 ! ? leads to a posi­
15 . . . 'Llg6? 16.hd6 WJ.xd6 17.'Llf5 tional manoeuvring game .
Wif8 18.WJ.g4? ! - 18.WJ.e3 ! ± - 18 . . .f6
19.Wl.g3 e5 and the players agreed
to a draw in this position, Ni­
sipeanu - Itkis, Sovata 2 0 0 0 . )
1 5 . . . 'Llf3 + . Here, i n the game Czar­
nota - Socko, Poznan 2 0 05, a
draw was also agreed. We can al­
ready see that the variation is
suitable for players who do no like
to ponder over the board for long !
Leaving the humour aside, we White can try to create prob­
should like to continue this varia­ lems for his opponent by hinder­
tion a bit further. 16.'Llxf3 (White ing the exchange of the light­
has also tried the rather original squared bishops, but he cannot

151
Chapter 21
prevent in the long run anyway.
B.'�e2 aS 9.a4 ! ? (9.0-0 �a6 10.c4
lLlc6 ll.cxd5 hd3 12.1Wxd3 exd5
13.l"\e1 0-0 14.'\WfS cxd4 15.lLlb3
lLlcS 16.lL:lbxd4 1WcB 17.l2Jxc6 1Wxc6
1B.l2Jd4 1Wd7 19.1Wxd7 l2Jxd7 20.e6
l2Jc5 21.exf7+ <±>xf7 2 2 .�e3 �f6=
and Black has an excellent posi­
tion, Jones - Grigorian, Yerevan
2 0 07. White did not obtain any
advantage after 13.dxc5 lL:lxcS
14.1Wb5 1Wd7 15.a4 0-0 16.!"1d1 1Wc7
17.lL:lf1 lL:lxe5 1B.lLlxe5 1Wxe5 19.�e3
l'!fdB 2 0 .�d4 1We6 and his com­
pensation for the pawn was insuf­
ficient in the game Adams - Yem-
elin, Ohrid 2 0 09.) 9 . . . �a6 10 .�b5
'\WeB 11.c4 �b7 (11 . . . 0 - 0 ! ? ) 12.
dxc5 0-0?! Black is excessively
generous. (He should calmly play
12 . . . bxc5 13.cxd5 hdS.) 13.cxb6
l2Jxb6 14.b3 and White ended up
with a solid extra pawn, Fedor­
chuk - Burlai, Evpatoria 2 007.
It is interesting for White to
play in tactical fashion with B.
l2Je4 ! ? h6? ! This move is both a
loss of a tempo and weakening of
the position. (Black might also
have problems after B . . . h6 9.ha6
l2Jxa6 10.lLld6+ hd6 11.exd6 and
suddenly his d6-pawn will soon
be a great source of anxiety. The
line B . . . '\Wc7 ! ? 9.lLlg3 �a6 can be
recommended, but it requires
practical testing.) 9 .lLlg3 �a6 10.
lLlhS hd3 11.1Wxd3 <i>fB 12.0-0
lLlc6 13.�e3 g6 14.l2Jf4 <±>g7 15.c4
cxd4 16.cxd5 lL:lcS 17.1We2 l2Jb4 1B.
lL:lxd4 lL:lxd5 19.!"1fd1 lLlxf4 2 0.hf4
'\WeB 21.lLlb5 l'!dB 2 2 .lLld6± Gopal
- Drasko, Banja Luka 200B.
152
B . 0 - 0 �a6 9 .ha6 l2Jxa6 10.
l'!e1 b5 11.a4 (White did not
achieve much after 11.1We2 c4 12.
a3 l2Jc7 13.lLlf1 lLlb6 14.g3 h6 15.
h4 <i>d7 16.lLl3h2 '\WgB ! This is a
typical Botvinnik manoeuvre !
17.lLld2 1Wh7 and Black is better,
Andriasian - Nepomniachtchi,
Kirishi 2 0 07.) 1 l . . .b4 12.c4 l2Jc7
13.b3 0-0 14.�b2 dxc4 15.l2Jxc4
lL:ldS 16.l"\c1 l"\cB 17.1We2 1Wc7 1B.
l'!ed1 l'!fdB 19.1We4 '\WbB= Andria­
sian - Socko, Polanica Zdroj
2 007.
8. 0 - 0
This is close to becoming a
tabia of this variation. Black has
several interesting possibilities.
All of them are based on an attack
against White's key d4-pawn.
Black must always keep in mind
that if White manages to preserve
his centre over the next few
moves, he will maintain an ad­
vantage throughout the entire
game. The reason for this will be
Black's misplaced knight on d7
and the excellent route f1-g3-h5
for its white counterpart on d2.
Meanwhile, the unfortunate

"French" bishop on c8 will remain
a sorry sight. Therefore, all means
are justified at the moment for
Black to complete what he has
started.
We shall analyze now: a) 8
a5, b ) 8 h 5 and c ) 8 . . g5.
. . . . Maybe Black can rely o n the
a) 8 . . . a5
This is an interesting move, al­
though a bit mysterious. It will be
useful for Black in about 50% of
games, but in the rest it might be
useless and even harmful. Some­
times the pawn-advance a5-a4
can be very good for Black and
strangely enough the factor of
"having made a move" can turn
out to be quite useful. The idea of
g7-g5 is still on Black's agenda,
but he wants to play it at the best
possible moment.
9.E1el
It is weaker for White to play
9.b3? ! , because then Black's pre­
vious move is perfectly justified :
9 . . . a4 ! 10.bxa4 c4 11.ic2 IMfaS 12.
tt:Jb1 h 6 ! 13.ia3 tt:Jb6 14.h4 id7
15.h5 tt:Jxa4 16.he7 tt:Jxe7 17.ha4
l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. lLl d2 ie7 4. lLl gj3 lLlf6
1Mfxa4 18.1Mfe2 tt:Jc6 19.tt:Jbd2 1Mfa3
2 0.1Mfe3 bS and Black has the ini­
tiative, Sulskis - Lputian, Las Ve­
gas 2 001.
I find it hard to evaluate the
. . . consequences of the move 9.a4 ! ?
strength of the b4-square and try
to continue in positional fashion
with 9 . . . cxd4 (If 9 . . . g5? ! lO.dxcS
and in all variations White's bish­
op on bS will be very comfortable
since it is securely protected.)
10.cxd4 tt:Jb4, but still I would pre­
fer White's position. 11 .ib5 (11.
ib1 b6 12.E1e1 ia6 13.tt:Jfl E1c8 14.
tt:Jg3 E1c6 15.1Mfd2 1Mfc7 16.1Mff4 tt:Jd3
17.hd3 hd3 and Black is slight­
ly better, Kosteniuk - Matveeva,
Elista 1997.) 11 . . . 0-0 12.lLlb3 lLlb8
13 .id2 lLl 8c6 14.1Mfe2 lLla7 15.ixb4
hb4 16.id3 ie7 and the players
agreed to a draw on Black's offer,
Dervishi - Jacimovic, Elista
1998.
9 . . . cxd4 1 0 .cxd4
10 . . . g5
It looks logical but slightly
risky for Black to play 10 . . . 1Mfb6
11.lLlb 1 ! tt:Jxd4 12.lLlxd4 1Mfxd4 13.
153
Chapter 21
'Llc3. The gaping weakness on
the b5-square spells a lot of trou­
ble.
13 . . . 'W'b6 (It would be too pro­
vocative for Black to play 13 . . .
i.c5 ? ! 14.'Llb5 'W'xf2 + 15.�h1 0 - 0
16.i.g5 i.b4 17Jl:fl 'W'xb2 18.a3 i.c5
19.i.f4 'Llxe5 20.i.xh7+ �xh7 2 1 .
'W'h5+ �g8 2 2 .i.xe5 'W'xb5 2 3 .
i.xg7 ! + - Sutovsky - Vavrak,
Plovdiv 2008.) 14.'W'g4 0-0 (Black
will not have a quiet life after 14 . . .
g6 15.i.h6 'Llc5 16.i.b5 + i.d7 17.a4
i.c6 18Jl:ac1 0-0-0 19 .i.e3 'W'c7
2 0 .'Lle2 i.xb5 2 l . axb5 b6 2 2 .'Lld4
'W'xe5 23.'Llc6 'W'c7 24.b4 axb4 25.
�a1 b3 26.�a7 'Llb7 27.'Llxe7+
'W'xe7 2 8 .�c1+ �b8 29.'W'a4 'Llc5
30 .�a8+ �c7 3 l.'W'a7+ �d6 3 2 .
i.f4+ 1 - 0 Caruana - Vavrak, Ro­
gaska Slatina 2 0 09.) 15.i.h6 g6.
Black's positional exchange-sacri­
fice is, firstly, good enough to
dampen White's attacking fervour
and, secondly, it gives Black the
bishop-pair and control over the
dark squares. 16.hf8 (Black had
an excellent position after 16.'Llb5
'Llc5 17.'W'd4 i.d7. Notice that
Black makes it obvious that he
has no intention of moving his
rook to safety! 18.hf8 �xf8 19.a4
154
f6 2 0 .exf6 hf6 2 l.'W'e3 i.xb2 2 2 .
�a2 i.f6 23.�c1 d 4 24.'W'g3 'Llxd3
25.'W'xd3 i.c6 and the position was
very sharp in the game Rublevsky
- Lputian, New Delhi 2 000.) 16 . . .
hf8 17.i.b5 ! This i s a very good
decision. (White's play was much
weaker in the following game :
17.'Lla4 'W'a7 18.i.b5 b6 19.hd7
i.xd7 2 0 .'W'd4 i.b4 2 l .�ecl ha4
2 2 .a3 i.c5 23.'W'xa4 hf2 + ! and
Black had a clear advantage,
Mkrtchian - Matveeva, Istanbul
2 0 03.) 17 . . . 'Llc5 18.a4 (White has
fortified his bishop on b5 and
gained an edge.) 18 . . . i.e7 19.�ad1
'W'c7 2 0 .h4 h5 2 l .'W'f4 i.d7 2 2 .�e3
i.c6 23 .i.e2 'Lld7 24.'Llb5 'W'd8
25.hh5 i.xb5 26.axb5 hh4 27.
�h3 i.g5 2 8.'W'h2 'Llf8 29.f4 i.e7
3 0 .i.f3 with powerful pressure
for White, Nedev - Bauer, Bled
2002.
ll.h3
It would be weaker to play 11.
g4? ! h5 12 .h3 'W'b6 13.'W'a4 (The
sacrifice of the central pawn is ob­
viously not in the spirit of the po­
sition - 13.'Llfl? ! hxg4 14.hxg4
'Llxd4 15.'Llg3 'Llxf3 + 16.'W'xf3 'W'd4
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. l/J d2 ie7 4 . l/J gf3 l/Jf6
17.ib5 and here after 17 . . . !lh4 ! ?
Black could have won a second
pawn. However, he also main­
tained his advantage in the game
after 17 .. .'&b4 18.�e2 !lh4 19.f3
Wf8 2 0 .Wg2 l/Jc5 2 1.ie3 id7
2 2 .ixd7 l/Jxd7, Shirov - Kasim­
dzhanov, Moscow 2 0 07.) 13 . . .
hxg4 14.hxg4 l/Jdb8 . A paradoxi­
cal move. (The natural move 14 . . .
l/Jf8 i s less good for Black, because
after 15.l/Jf1 id7 16.ie3 l/Jb4 17.
�d1 l/Jxd3 18.�xd3, his knight on
f8 has no good prospects.) 15.l/Jfl
id7 16.ie3 l/Jb4 17.�d1 l/Jxd3 18.
�xd3 ib5 19 .�c3 l/Jc6 2 0 . a3
0-0-0 and in the ensuing sharp
struggle the chances of both sides
are approximately equal.
ll h5 12.lL!fl g4 13.hxg4
.•.
hxg4 14.lL!3h2 ib4
Black would not change the
character of the fight with 14 . . .
l/Jxd4 15.�xg4 (15.l/Jxg4 ! ?) 15 . . .
ic5, White is better, since his
king is much safer.
15.ge3 �h4
16.gg3 !
It is only this original rook
manoeuvre that enables White
to maintain an advantage in all
lines .
The endgame is good for Black
after 16.�xg4?! �xg4 17. l/Jxg4
l/Jxd4 18.l/Jfh2 b6 19.l/Jf3 ic5 2 0 .
id2 !lg8 21.l/Jfh2, with a compli­
cated position, Hracek - Kekki,
Saint Vincent 2005.
16 ... f5 17.exf6 c!Llxf6
White must act very resolutely
after 17 . . . id6 18 .�xg4 ! hg3 19.
�g6+ Wd8 2 0 .�xg3 and as well as
having enough material for the
exchange, he has a powerful initi­
ative.
18 . .if4! Degraeve - Ganaus,
Vienna 2 0 1 1 .
O f course, the game is not over
yet, but White's pieces are placed
much more harmoniously. Black
has so many weaknesses in his
position that I shall refrain from
further comment. . .
b) 8 h5 ! ?
. . •
This i s Morozevich's latest in­
vention in this line. With this
move Black prepares the unavoid­
able pawn-advance g5, but he
155
Chapter 21
does not weaken his kingside as
much. Of course, you can confuse
your opponent by playing like
this, but that's all . . .
9.:1:le1
Black's idea is perfectly justi­
fied after 9 . dxc5 ? ! lLldxe5 10.t2Jxe5
lLlxe5 11.lLlb3 lLlxd3 12.�xd3 h4
13. :i:le1 h3 14.g3 a5 15.�f4 0-0 16.
lLld4 hc5 17.l"le5 f6 18.:1:lxe6 he6
19.lLlxe6 �b6 2 0 .lLlxf8 hf2 + 21.
<i>f1 <i>xf8 and Black was fighting
for the advantage in the game
Hracek - Morozevich, Rethym­
non 2 0 03.
After 9.b3 g5 10.�b2 cxd4 11.
cxd4 �b6 White has great prob­
lems with the protection of his
d4-pawn.
9 .�e2 ! ? g5 (It is a matter of
tempi, but his idea would not
work after 9 . . . cxd4 10.cxd4 g5 11.
lLlb3 a5 12 .�e3 a4 13.lLlbd2 g4 14.
lLle1 - White has parried his op­
ponent's initial pressure and is
now ready to launch a counterat­
tack. Black can win a pawn, but
this would be insufficient com­
pensation after 14 . . . �b6 15.lLlc2
�xb2. ) 10.dxc5 lLlxc5 (It would be
156
too ambitious for Black to opt for
10 . . . g4 11.lLld4 lLldxe5 12.lLlxc6
lLlxc6 13.lLlb3 e5 and his lag in de­
velopment would be a telling fac­
tor in the future.) 11.�b5 (ll.�c2
lLld7!) 11.. .a6 12 .hc6+ bxc6 13.b4
lLld7 14.lLld4 �c7 15.:1:lel. Black's
position would be quite accepta­
ble if we could ignore his king­
side pawns, since the purpose of
their advance now remains a mys­
tery.
9 . . . g5
It is weaker for Black to play
9 . . . cxd4?! 10.cxd4 g5 11.lLlb3 g4
1 2 .lLlfd2 a5 (or 12 . . . �b6 13.lLlb1 a5
14.a4 lLld4 15.lLld4 �d4 16.lLlc3
with excellent compensation for
White) 13.a4 lLlb6 (it comes to
more or less the same after 13 . . .
�b6 14.lLlb1 ! ) 14.lLlb1 lLlc4 15.lLlc3
�b6 16.hc4 dxc4 17.lLld2 lLlb4
18.lLlxc4 �c6 19.b3± Smirin -
Cheparinov, Mallorca 2 004.
10 .dxc5 g4 11.c!L!d4 c!Lldxe5
White has an additional
resource in this position. 12.
c!Ll 2b3 ! (He could have trans­
posed to the main line here with
12 .�b5. )
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. li.Jd2 �e7 4. li.Jgj3 li.Jf6
c) 8 . . . g5
This is the most aggressive
move for Black and it creates the
most problems for the opponent.
9.dxc5
Black's position is quite ac­
ceptable after 9.a3 g4 (But not 9 . . .
h5? ! 10 .b4 g 4 11.b5 ! and White's
idea is perfectly justified : 11 . . .
li.Jxd4 12 .cxd4 gxf3 13.li.Jxf3 c4
14.�c2 a6 15J'1bl axb5 16Jl:xb5
�a3 17.li.Jg5 �cl 18.�xcl li.Jb8
19.li.Jh7 <;ild7 2 0 .li.Jf6+ <;ilc7 2 l .�e4 !
with an overwhelming attack, Ni­
sipeanu - Volkov, Saint Vincent
2003.) lO.li.Jel cxd4 11.cxd4 �b6 !
12.li.Jc2 (Black has n o problems
after 12 .�xg4 �xd4 13 .�xd4
li.Jxd4 14.li.Jef3 li.Jc5! It looks as
though White was not familiar
with my previous book and en­
tered an inferior endgame straight
from the opening: 15.li.Jxd4 li.Jxd3
16.li.J2f3 b6 17.li.Jb5 <;ild7 18.l"ldl
�a6 19.l"lxd3 �b5 2 0 . l"lc3 l"lac8
and Black failed to save this posi­
tion, Jones - Korobov, Aix-les­
Bains 2 011.) 12 . . . li.Jxd4 13.�xg4
li.Jxc2 14.�c2 �c7 15.�a4 �xe5
16.li.Jf3 h5! Black should be reluc-
tant to give back the extra mate­
rial, but he must neutralize
White's initiative at the very start.
17.li.Jxe5 hxg4 18. li.Jxg4 a6 - with
chances for both sides.
It would be interesting for
White to try 9 .b4 ! ? cxd4 10.cxd4
li.Jxb4 l l.�e2, with the idea, hav­
ing preserved the pawn-centre, of
trying to exploit the weakness on
g5. The position is very compli­
cated and requires extensive
practical testing at the highest
possible level.
9 . . .g4
Was that the reason Black
made his previous anti-positional
move?
The alternatives are less con­
sistent and weaker for the most
part.
It is absolutely not in the spirit
of the position to continue with
9 . . . li.Jxc5?! 10 .�b5 �b6 11.li.Jd4 a6
12 .�c6+ bxc6 13 .b4 li.Jd7 14.�h5
li.Jxe5 15.li.J2f3 li.Jg6 16.�g5± Ariz­
mendi Martinez - Herraiz Hidal­
go, Sant Lluis 2 0 05.
9 ... li.J dxe5? ! 10.li.Jxe5 (The
large number of pieces left on the
157
Chapter 21
board is definitely not in White's
favour in this case. lO .�bS? ! �d7
11.\We2 \Wc7 12 J"!e1 lt:Jg6 13.lt:Jb3 g4
14.lt:Jfd4 eS 1S.lt:Jc2 a6 16 .�a4 hS
17.Eld1 0-0-0 18.ElxdS lt:Jd4 19.
hd7+ Elxd7 2 0 . cxd4 ElxdS 2 1.lt:Jb4
Eldd8 2 2 .dS aS 23.d6 hd6 24.
cxd6 \Wxd6+ Rublevsky - Volkov,
Ohrid 2 0 01.) 10 . . . tt:JxeS 11.lt:Jb3 ! ?
This tempo for the development
of the initiative is much more im­
portant than the light-squared
bishop. (Or 1l.�bS+ �d7 1 2 .
hd7+ \Wxd7 13.lt:Jf3 lt:Jxf3 + 14.
\Wxf3 eS 1S.�e3 \We6 16.c4 d4
17.hd4 exd4 18.\Wxb7 \Wc8 19.
\We4 Elb8 2 0 .Elfe1 \WxcS 2 l .b4 \Wc7
2 2 .a3 Eld8 23.Elad1 �f8 24.Elxd4
�g7 2S.Elxd8 Elxd8+ Meier -
Socko, Bastia 200S. It would be
worse for Black to play the slightly
awkward line : 12 . . . tt:Jxd7 13 .b4 b6
14.c4 dxc4 1S.lt:Jxc4 bxcS 16.lt:Jd6+
hd6 17.\Wxd6 \Wb6 18 .\Wg3 cxb4
19.\WxgS \WcS 20.\Wg3 and his posi­
tion is difficult, Rublevsky - Mo­
rozevich, Togliatti 2 0 03.)
l l . . . tt:Jxd3 (Preparatory moves
such as ll . . . �d7 would not change
much. White's plan is simple and
effective. 1 2 .f4 lt:Jxd3 13.\Wxd3 h6
14.�e3 \Wc7 1S.�d4 Elf8 16.fxgS
1S8
hxgS 17.Elae1 0-0-0 18 .\Wh7 �e8
19.Elf2 aS 2 0 .�eS \Wd7 2 l .�g7 a4
2 2 .hf8 hf8 23 .\Wg8± Hracek -
Stellwagen, Germany 2 0 0S. 11 . . .
\Wc7? ! 1 2 .f4 ! ? hcS+ 13.lt:JxcS
\WxcS+ 14.Elf2 lt:Jxd3 1S.\Wxd3 g4
16.b3 �d7 17.�e3 \WbS 18 .\Wd4 Elg8
19.fS exfS 2 0 .\WeS+ �e6 2 l .ElxfS
0-0-0 2 2 . Elf2 a6 23.�f4 \Wc6
24.Eld1 bS 2S.c4 �b7 26.cxbS
\WxbS 27.a4± lordachescu - Vol­
kov, Moscow 2 007.) 12.\Wxd3 eS
13.\We2 \Wc7 14.Ele1 e4 1S.c4 �e6
and although Black has managed
to defend somehow, the evalua­
tion of the position is quite clear.
White's initiative is tremendously
strong. 16.lt:Jd4 hcS 17.cxdS hdS
18 .\WbS+ �f8 19.�e3 a6 2 0 .\Wa4
bS 2 1.\Wd1 \Wd7 2 2 .hgS Elg8 23.
�h6+ �e8 24.�e3 Eld8 2S.\WhS
hd4 26.�xd4 \Wg4= Pavasovic -
Bartel, Portoroz 2 0 0S.
lO .!LJd4 .!LJdxe5
•
It is weaker for Black to opt for
l O . . . tt:JcxeS? ! 1l.�bS a6 12 .hd7+
�xd7 13.f4 and White proceeds
with his standard attack.
ll .ib5
.
Black's strategy is justified af-

ter 11.'Ll 2b3? ! tt:lxd3 12.�xd3 eS
13.tt:lxc6 bxc6 14.�h6 f6. White's
set-up looks positionally dubious,
so he is forced to rely on tactics.
So far this has not been working.
1S.f4 gxf3 16.�xf3 :!'1g8 17.�hS+
:!'1g6 18.�e3 (18.�f4 �d7 19 .�g3
�a6 2 0 . :!'1f2 0-0-0 2 1.�xh7 E1dg8
2 2 . 'tt> h 1 �d3 23.�hS :!'18g7 24.�d1
�e4+ Korbut - Matveeva, Samara
200S.) 18 . . . �d7 19.h3 �d8 2 0 .
:!'1ae1 � f7 2 1 .'tt> h 1 �e6 2 2 .�f4 :!'1g7
23.�e2 �g6 24.tt:ld4 �d7 2S .�h2
�e7 26.tt:lb3 aS 27.�g1 �fS 2 8 .�d2
�e4 29 . :!'1f2 a4 30 .tt:lcl hcS-+
Gasanov - Izoria, Baku 2 0 0 2 .
ll . . . �d7
Black should not be too greedy:
ll . . . �xcS? ! 12 .f4 gxf3 13.tt:l2xf3
�d7 14.�xc6 tt:lxc6 1S.tt:lgS :!'1f8 16.
tt:lxh7 �h4 17.tt:lf6+ lt>e7 18 .�e3
tt:lxd4 19.�xd4 :!'1ac8 2 0 .�d2 :!'1h8
2 1.h3± Carlsson - Berg, Gothen­
burg 2 0 0S .
12)L! 2b3
This is White's most sensible
move. He develops his knight,
protects his pawn and opens the
diagonal for his dark-squared
bishop. Nevertheless, some other
l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. 'Ll d2 �e7 4.e5 c5
moves have been tried here.
12 .f4 ? ! This enables Black to sim­
plify the position favourably. 12 . . .
tt:lxd4 13.hd7+ �xd7 14.cxd4 tt:lc6
1S.�xg4 �f6 16.tt:lf3 tt:lxd4 17.tt:leS
�c7 18.�d2 hS 19 .�d1 heS 2 0 .
fxeS tt:lfS 2 1 . :!'1c1 �c6 2 2 .b4 d 4 2 3 .
�f3 a6 24.a4 :!'1g8, with a n excel­
lent position for Black, Smirin -
Radj abov, Sarajevo 2 0 0 2 .
I t would b e illogical for White
to strengthen his opponent's cen­
tre. However, it might be an inter­
esting idea to try 12 .�xc6 bxc6
13.f4 tt:ld3 (13 . . . gxf3 14.tt:l 2xf3 tt:lg6
1S.�e2 �c7 16.tt:lgS �eS 17.�f2
0-0 18.tt:lxf7 �g7 19.tt:lh6+ lt>h8
2 0 .'Llf7= ; 17.�hS �xeS 18.�d2 h6
19.:!'1xf7 hxgS 2 0 .�xg6 �xh 2 + 2 1 .
lt>f2 0 - 0 - 0 - + Oratovsky - Vitiu­
gov, Jerusalem 2010) 14.b4 aS
1S.tt:l 2b3 tt:lxc1 16.�xc1 axb4 17.
cxb4 :!'1a4 ! 18.fS 0-0 19.�f4 eS
(19 . . . exfS ! ?) 2 0.�xeS �f6 2 1 .�e1
:!'1e8 2 2 .�c3 :!'1e4 and Black has
good compensation for the pawn,
Smirin - Akobian, Philadelphia
2 0 04.
The following line is a bit simi­
lar to the Botvinnik variation of
the Semi-Slav defence : 12 .b4 aS ! ?
( 1 2 . . .h S 13.:!'1e1 tt:lxd4 14.�xd7+
�xd7 1S.E1xeS tt:lc6 16.:!'1e1 �f6 17.
bS tt:leS 18.tt:lb3 �xbS 19.tt:ld4
�xeS 2 0 . :!'1b1 b6 21.�f4 tt:lg6 2 2 .
�a4+ lt>e7 2 3 .tt:lfS+ 'it>d8 24.�e3
�c7 2S.hb6± Timofeev - Bartel,
playchess.com 2 0 04.) 13.f4 tt:lxd4
14.�xd7+ �xd7 1S.fxeS tt:lfS ! 16.
�xg4 tt:le3 17.�g7 0-0-0 and
Black's initiative is very powerful.
12 . . . h5
1S9
Chapter 21
It is inferior to play 12 .. J !g8,
because th en he loses the possi­
bility of castling kingside, no mat­
ter how ridiculous that might
seem at the moment. 13.Ei:e1 'Llc4
14 . .if4 'Llxd4 15.'2lxd4 Ei:c8 16.
Ei:xe6! and the issue has been al­
ready settled. (16.b3 'Lla3 17 ..id3
Ei:xc5 18 ..ixh7 Ei:g7 19 . .id3 Ei:xc3
20 . .ie5 .if6 2 l .Wfd2 .ixe5 2 2 . Ei:xe5
Wfc7 23.Ei:h5 Ei:g8 24.Ei:h7 e5 25.'2lf5
e4 2 6.Wfg5+ - Smirin - Akobian,
Minneapolis 2 0 05.) 16 . . . fxe6
(16 . . . .ixb5? 17.Ei:e1 .ia6 18.'2lf5 + - ;
1 7 . . . .id7 1 8 . .id6 + - ; 1 7 . . . '2lxb2 1 8 .
Wlb3 .id3 19 . .id6+-) 17.'2lxe6
.ixb5 18.'2lxd8 Ei:xd8 19.Wfe2±
Black's pieces are so discoordi­
nated that they are unable to pro­
tect his king.
13.l'�el
13 . .if4 'Llg6.
The move 13 .Wfe2 has been
played twice, quite successfully,
by Sergey Erenburg. I think Black
should respond with 13 . . . a6 ! ?
(13 . . . '2lxd4? ! 14.Wlxe5 .if6 15.
ixd7+ i'f8 16.Wfd6+ .ie7 17.Wfe5
if6 18.Wfd6+ .ie7 19 . .ig5 .ixd6
20 . .ixd8 'Llxb3 2 L.if6 'Llxc5 2 2 .
160
.ixh8 'Llxd7 23 . .id4 and the result
of the game will depend on wheth­
er White will realize his extra ex­
change or not, Erenburg - Peek,
Port Erin 2 0 05. 13 . . . Ei:g8? ! 14.
.ixc6 'Llxc6 15 . .if4 'Llxd4 16.cxd4
.ic6 17.Ei:fe1 .ig5 18 . .ixg5 Ei:xg5 19.
Wfd2 Wff6 2 0 . Ei:e3 h4 2 l.Ei:ae1 - 21.
'Ll a5 ! ? - 2 1 . . .i'e7 2 2 . '2lc1 Ei:ag8 23.
'Lle2 i'f8 24.g3 Ei:f5 25.l2Jf4 Ei:xf4
26.gxf4 Wlxf4 27.Ei:d3 Wff6 28 .Ei:e5
Wfg6 29.Wfe3 g3 30.fxg3 hxg3 31.
hxg3± Erenburg - Heberla, War­
saw 2 005. The move 13 . . . Wfc7? is
just bad and after 14 . .if4 Black
cannot play 14 . . . '2lf3 + ? 15.Wfxf3 ! )
1 4 . .ixc6 (White can also try to
preserve this bishop by 14.'2lxc6
'Llxc6 15 . .id3, but I think that af­
ter 15 . . . e5, Black has sufficient
counter-chances. If 14 . .ia4 Black
can play 14 . . . Wfc7 15 . .if4 'Llf3+ 16.
Wfxf3 gxf3 17 . .ixc7 'Llxd4 ! , regain­
ing the piece.) 14 . . . '2lxc6 15.Ei:e1
Wfc7 and the position is acceptable
for Black (It is weaker for him to
play 15 . . . '2lxd4 ?! 16.'2lxd4 .ixc5
17.Wfe5 ! ; 16 . . . Ei:c8 17.b4 and White
has managed to get rid of one of
his knights, since it was duplicat­
ing the functions of the other
one) .
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. ct:l d2 �e7 4. ct:lgf3 ct:lf6
13 )/jxd4
. .
This move forces the issue to
the greatest extent.
I can recommend to players
who are after more complicated
positions the line : 13 . . . ct:lg6 ! ?
14.c4 (Black should counter the
simplifying move 14.ct:lxc6 with
14 . . . hc6 15.�d3 l"ig8 and he ob­
tains good counterplay, for exam­
ple, 16.�xg6 l"ixg6 17.�f4 �d7 18.
�e2 h4 19.l"iad1 \tlf8 2 0 .�e5 �f6
2 1.�h5 \tlg7 2 2 .�e5 �d8 23.ct:ld4
�xeS 24.�xe5 + �f6 25.�c7 �d8
2 6.�e5+ �f6= Korneev - Stopa,
Forni di Sopra 2011. It is worse
for him to continue with 14 . . .
bxc6 15.�d3 l"lg8 16.c4t, because
his centre is rather unstable and
his pieces are obviously very pas­
sive.)
and now:
Black has tried 14 . . . a6 15.hc6
(15.cxd5 ? ! axb5 16.dxc6 hc6 17.
ct:lxc6 �xd1 18.l"ixd1 bxc6 19 .�d2
h4 2 0 . ct:l a5 l"ic8 2 1 .ct:lb7 l"ih5 2 2 .
�e3 l"ia8 23.a4 l"ixa4 24.l"ixa4 bxa4
25.l"ia1 h3 26.l"ixa4 l"id5 with a su­
perior endgame for Black, Naray­
anan - Shimanov, Chennai 2 0 11)
15 ... bxc6 (It is stronger to contin­
ue with 15 . . . hc6 ! ? 16. ct:lxc6 bxc6
and Black has managed to ex­
change his queen's bishop, which
is usually very passive in this
pawn-structure.) 16.�d2 e5 17.
�a5 �b8 18.cxd5 cxd5 19.c6 �c8
2 0.c7 �b7 21.l"ic1 �d7 2 2 .ct:lc5
�xc5 23.l"ixc5 0-0 24.�b3 �xb3
25.ct:lxb3 �e6 26.l"ic6 l"lfe8 27.
ct:l c5± Timofeev - Arencibia Rod­
riguez, Cappelle Ia Grande 2 004.
It looks attractive for Black to
play 14 . . . dxc4 15.hc4 ct:lxd4, but
unfortunately White has a very
powerful riposte : 16.ct:lxd4 (If 16.
�xd4 �f6, and the white queen
does not have a comfortable
square to retreat to: 17.�d3 ct:le5;
17.�d1 �c7 with an excellent po­
sition for Black.) 16 . . . hc5 (It
would be inconsistent to play
16 . . . 0 - 0 ? ! 17.�c2 ! ; while the
move 16 . . . �c7 is simply very risky
in view of 17.b4 0-0-0 18.�b2 .)
17.he6 fxe6 (White gains an ad­
vantage in problem-like fashion
after 17 . . . he6 18 .�a4+ ! �d7
19.ct:lxe6 fxe6 2 0.�c2 ! ) 18.�c2
�e7 (Black loses after 18 . . .hd4
19.�xg6+ \tlf8 2 0.l"ie4 e5 2 1 .
l"lxd4 ! ! exd4 2 2 .�f4+-) 19.�xg6+
�fl 2 0.�e4 0-0 2 1 .�e3, and
161
Chapter 21
White has a clear, if small, advan-
tage . . .
14 . . . l/Jxd4 1S.ll:lxd4 (Or 1S.
'&xd4?! .b:bS 16.cxbS .if6 and
Black's position is acceptable.)
1S ... .b:cS 16.cxdS .ixbS 17.l/JxbS
'&b6 ! Black's position looks peril­
ous, but in fact it is quite satisfac­
tory. 18.'&e2 (Or 18.dxe6? .ixf2 +
19.mh1 '&xbS 20 .exf7+ mf8 2 1 .
l'l:f1 .id4 ! and Black neutralizes
White's attack. ) 18 . . . 0-0 19 . .ih6
l'l:fe8 with counterplay.
14. lilxd4
Activating the white queen
with 14.'&xd4 is harmless for
Black after 14 . . . .b:bS 1S.l'l:xeS (IS.
'&xeS .if6 16.'&f4 '&e7) 1S ... '&d7 (It
is essential not to overlook the
trick 1S . . . .if6 16 . .igS ! ) 16.l'l:xdS
'&xdS 17.'&xh8 + md7 18.'&d4 .ic6
19 . .if4 l'l:d8 and Black will have
excellent compensation in the en­
suing endgame.
14 . .ixd7+ '&xd7 1S.cxd4 l/Jg6? !
(I believe that this is not the right
square for this knight. It seems
much more natural for Black to
continue with 1S . . . l/Jc6 16 . .if4
.idS, reaching a very complicated
162
position. The computer recom­
mends another move - 1S . . . l/Jc4.)
16 ..id2 .if6 17.l'l:c1 0-0 18.f3 eS
19.dxeS .ixeS 2 0.fxg4 hxg4 2 l..ic3
.ixc3 2 2 . l'l:xc3 l'l:ae8 23.l'l:f1 fS 24.
h3t White maintains a powerful
initiative, Rublevsky - Vysochin,
Olginka 2011.
14 . . . hb5
15.lilxb5 ! ?
This i s a novelty which has not
been tried in practice yet.
The move 1S.l'l:xeS has been
played in two games, but it does
not create any serious problems
for Black. 1S . . . '&c7 (Black can also
try 1S . . . .id7 16.b4 .if6 17.l'l:e1 '&c7
and the players agreed to a draw
in this complicated position, Emms
- Lalic, Southend 2 001 .) 16 . .if4
(Here the computer recommends
16.l'l:e1 '&xeS - 16 . . . .id7! ? - 17 . .ie3
'&c4 18 .b3 '&d3 19.l/JxbS '&xbS and
now the really cheeky move -
2 0 . .b:a7 ! ) 16 . . .'�xcS 17 . .ie3 '&c4
18 .b3 '&d3 19. l/JxbS '&xbS 2 0 . .id4
'&d7 2 l.'&d3 h4 2 2 .f4 gxf3 23.
'&xf3 f6 24.l'l:hS 0-0-0, with ad­
vantage to Black, Kolar - Boukal,
Czech Republic 2 0 04.
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. tt'l d2 i.e7 4 . tt'l gj3 tt'lf6
15 • . . ttlg6 16.c4
If 16.Wa4, Black should reply
16 . . . 0 - 0 ! without hesitation
16 . • . i.xc5
17.W c2 ! 0 - 0
It would be too risky to play
17 .. J'k8 18.l"lxe6+ fxe6 19.Wxg6+
<j;ld? 2 0 . cxd5 with an enduring
initiative for White.
18.i.h6
If 18.l"lxe6, Black has the pow­
erful riposte 18 . . . Wd7!
18 . . .l:�e8
Black is worse after 18 . . . Wb6
19.i.xf8 <j;lxf8 20.tt'lc3 dxc4 2 1 .
tt'l a4 Wc6 2 2 . tt'lxc5 \MixeS 23.l"lad1
and the position is open, so
White's rooks are very powerful.
19.cxd5
19 .'�b6
• .
Black must play sharply and
precisely in order to obtain a good
position.
2 0 .ttlc3
After 2 0 . dxe6, Black can reply
with 20 ... <j;lh7! 21.exf7 fue1+ 22.fue1
<j;lxh6 23.Wd2+ <j;lg? 24.l"le8 WxbS
25.fua8 Wc6! and he can easily co­
ordinate his pieces after taking con­
trol of the important dS-square.
2 0 i.d4 21.i.e3 exd5 22.
• . .
ttlxd5 �xb2 23.�xb2 i.xb2 24.
�abl i.e5 25.�xb7 �eb8 and
Black has sufficient counter­
chances with his far-advanced
kingside pawns.
163
Chapter 22 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3)i)d2 .ie7 4 ..id3
I consider this to be White's
most flexible move. He counters
the rather "abstract" move 3 . . . �e7
with a non-forcing developing
move - 4.�d3 . This is a perfectly
reasonable approach, because in
the other lines the game becomes
very tense and involves White in
some risky lines. Of course, it is
not easy for White to gain a big
opening advantage by playing like
this, but he can definitely create
problems for a less than well-pre­
pared opponent and he has good
chances of gaining a small edge.
4 . . . c5
Without this move Black has
no chance of organizing any
meaningful counterplay, not only
in this variation, but in the entire
French defence in general.
164
5.dxc5
This move does not appear to
be very principled, but this im­
pression is not correct.
Instead, it would make no
sense to play 5.exd5 ? ! because af­
ter 5 . . . 1Mfxd5 6.tt:Jgf3 cxd4 7.0-0
tt:Jf6 8 .�c4 1Mfd6 9.tLlb3 tt:Jc6, we
reach a familiar position from the
3.tLld2 c5 variation, except that
here Black has an extra tempo.
It is only slightly better for
White to play 5.tt:Jgf3 , after which
Black can choose between 5 . . .
cxd4 and 5 . . . tt:Jf6.
If 5.c3 cxd4 6.cxd4 dxe4 7.
tt:Jxe4 tt:Jf6 8.tt:Jf3 tt:Jc6 the game
transposes to positions analyzed
in the section of the book dealing
with 3.tt:Jd2 c5.
5 . . . .!Llf6
It is too passive for Black to
play 5 . . . tt:Jd7, after which White
can maintain a slight advantage
by simple means : 6.exd5 exd5 7.
tt:Jb3 tt:Jxc5 8.tt:Jxc5 hc5 9.tt:Jf3 tt:Jf6
10.1Mfe2 + V!ffe 7 ll.V!ffx e7+ <±>xe7 1 2 .
0-0 l"i: e 8 13.�g5 h6 14.l"i:fe1+ �e6
15.�e3 �xe3 16.l"i:xe3 <±>d6 17.
tt:Jd4;t Meier - Bartel, Germany
2008.
6.1Mfe2
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. 4J d2 �e7 4. �d3 c5 5.dc lt:Jf6 6. Vf1e2 lt:J c6
We shall now analyze a) 6
ll'lc6 and b) 6 ••• 0-0.
a) 6 ••• 4Jc6 7.ll'lgf3
7 .•• ll'lb4!?
This time-consuming ma­
noeuvre to nab White's bishop
brought good results to Mo­
rozevich in several games.
It seems more natural for
Black to play 7 . . . .b.c5, but this is
in fact a loss of time. 8 . 0 - 0 Vfffc 7
9.a3 ! ? This is a rather tricky move.
(White fails to obtain any advan­
tage with the concrete line : 9.exd5
ltJxdS 10 .4Je4 �e7 l l.g3 ! eS !
12.4Jeg5 - 12 .c4? 4Jdb4 13.�b1
�g4 and Black has an excellent
position - 12 . . . h6 13.�c4 hxgS
14 . .b.d5 �h3 15.Ei:d1 f6, with
chances for both sides, but it is
worth considering 9.e5 ! ? 4Jd7
10 .4Jb3 �e7 ll.Ei:e1 b6 12 .c3 ltJcS
13.�c2 �a6 14.Vfffd 1 4Jd7 15.4Jbd4
0-0-0 16.4Jxc6 Vfffxc6 17.a4 <i>b7
18.a5 Vfffc 7 19 .�e3± Vysochin -
Socko, Polanica Zdroj 2 0 0 0 . ) 9 . . .
�d7 l O .eS 4Jg4 ll.b4 4Jd4 1 2 .Vfffd 1
�b6 13.�b2 4Jxf3+ 14.4Jxf3 �a4
15.Vfffe 2 0-0-0 16.Ei:ac1 <i>b8 17.h3
•• . 4Jh6 18.4Jd4 Ei:c8 19.Vfffh 5 Vfffd 7
2 0 .Vfffg 5± Kotronias - Barsov,
Patras 2 0 0 1 . Of course, Black
could have defended much better,
but this variation does not prom­
ise him an acceptable position.
8. 0 - 0
White relies on quick develop­
ment. He is willing to part with
his light-squared bishop and
hopes to compensate for its loss
with rapid mobilization of his
forces, which is so important at
the beginning of the game.
However, White could try to
hang on to his extra pawn with
the greedy line : 8.4Jb3 4Jxd3+ 9.
cxd3 a S lO .�gS (It is weaker for
him to opt for 10.a4? ! dxe4 11.
dxe4 0-0 12.0-0 b6 13.Ei:d1 Vfff c7
14.�g5 bxcS 15.Ei:ac1 �a6 16.Vfff c 2
Ei:fc8 17.�h4 and the players
agreed to a draw in the game
Rublevsky - Radjabov, Hy­
derabad 2 0 0 2 . Black has also
tried 10 . . . b6, but this presents
White with additional possibili­
ties : 1 l.e5 4Jd7 12 .c6 ltJcS 13.4Jbd4
�a6 14.4Jb5 tt'lb3 15.Ei:b1 �b4+ 16.
<i>f1 0-0 17.d4 f6 18.Vfffe 3 .b.bS+
19.axb5 a4 2 0 .g3 Vfffe 8 2 l .Vfffd 3
4Jxc1 2 2 . Ei:xc1 a3 23.b3 a2 24. <i>g2
Vfffg 6 25.Vfffxg6 hxg6, with wild
complications, Adams - Mo­
rozevich, Wijk aan Zee 2 0 0 0 . )
10 . . . a 4 ll.tt'lbd2 h 6 12 . .b.f6 ( I t is
also possible for White to contin­
ue with 12 .�h4 ! ? VfffaS 13.exd5
VfffxcS 14.dxe6 .b.e6 15. 0-0 Ei:d8
16.4Je4 Vfffd S 17.Ei:fd1 gS 18.�g3 g4
19.4Je5 Vfffd 4 20.4Jg6 fxg6 21.
tt'lxf6+ .b.f6 2 2 .Vfffx e6± Navara -
165
Chapter 22
Libiszewski, Pula 2003, while the
move 12 . .ie3 does not achieve
anything after 12 . . . �a5 13.0-0
.ixc5 14 . .ixc5 �xc5 15J'1fc1 �b6
16.e5 lt:lg8 17.�e3 �xe3 18.fxe3
lt:le7 19.lt:ld4 .id7 2 0 .E\c7 E\b8 2 1 .
b 4 f6 2 2 . 'Ll 2f3 lt:l g 6 23.exf6 gxf6
24.E\ac1 1t>d8 25.1t>f2 lt:le7 26.E\7c5
b6 27.E15c3 E1c8 28.E\xc8 + lt:lxc8
2 9 .lt:lh4 lt:le7 30.lt:lhf3 e5 31.'Lle2
.ib5 and Black has a good posi­
tion, Navara - Duppel, Pardubice
2 0 0 0 . ) 12 . . .hf6 13.exd5 (If 13.e5,
Black obtains enduring compen­
sation for the pawn with his bish­
op-pair and the possibility of un­
dermining his opponent's pawn­
centre. 13 . . . .ie7 14.E\c1 �a5 15.�e3
.id7 16.0-0 0-0 17.E\c2 E\fc8
18.E\fc1 E1c7 19 .�d4 E\ac8 2 0 .b4
axb3 2 1 . 'Llxb3 �a6 2 2 .'Lle1 f6 23.
exf6 hf6 24.�b4 e5 25.d4 e4 26.
�b6 �a4 27.�d6 .ic6 28.E\d1 E\f7
29.�g3 E\eSgg Pogonina - Tairova,
Moscow 2 007, or 15 . . . b6 16.cxb6
idS 17.�c5 �xc5 18.E\xc5 .ixb6
19J=\c2 0-0 2 0 .'Llf1 .ia6 2 l . lt>e2
.ib5 2 2 .'Lle3 f5 23.E\hc1 E\ab8
24.a3 g5 25.h3 lt>g7 2 6.E\b1 lt>g6
27.E\cc1 h5gg Godena - Moroze­
vich, Istanbul 2 0 0 0 . ) 13 . . . �xd5
(The move 13 . . . 0 - 0 ? ! strikes me
as too gambit-like, but in the fol­
lowing game Black was quite suc­
cessful. 14.lt:le4 exd5 15.lt:lxf6+
�xf6 16.0-0 b6 17.E\ac1 bxc5
18.E\xc5 .ig4 19.�e5 �b6 2 0 . E\xd5
.ixf3 21.gxf3 E\ab8 2 2 . E\b1 a3
23.b4 E1fe8 24.�d4 E\e2 25.�xb6
E1xb6 26.E\a5 E\xa2 and the players
agreed to a draw, Rozentalis -
Pert, Dublin 2 0 07. It looks attrac-
166
tive, if rather risky, for Black to
continue with 13 . . . a3? ! 14.lt:le4
�xd5 15.lt:lxf6+ gxf6 16.b4 .id7
17.�e4 .ic6 18 .�xd5 hd5 19.lt:ld4
E1a4 2 0 .'Llc2 E\g8 2 1 . E\g1 b6 2 2 .cxb6
lt>d7 23.1t>d2 lt>c6 24.g3 lt>xb6
25.lt:le3 E\d8 26. lt:lxd5+ E\xd5 27.
E\abl± Vachier Lagrave - Marzo­
la, Chartres 2005.) 14.lt:le4 .id7
15.0-0 .ic6 16.E\ac1 E\d8 17.lt:ld6+
lt>f8 18.b4 axb3 19.axb3 �xb3
2 0 .lt:le5 .ixe5 2l.�xe5 �xd3 2 2 .
f4?? �d2 and White was s o de­
pressed that he resigned, Kotro­
nias - Nepomniachtchi, Moscow
2 007.
s .. .tl:lxd3 9.cxd3 hc5 1 0 .
ltlb3 .ie7 11 .ig5
•
Here it is worth considering
1l.e5 ! ? ll:ld7 12.'Llfd4 0-0 13 . .if4
ltlc5 14.�g4 lt>h8 15.lt:lxc5 .ixc5
16.lt:lf3 .ie7 17.E1fe1 .id7 18.�h5 f6
19.E\acl .ie8 2 0.�h3 f5 2 l..ie3
.id7 22 . .ic5 E\c8 23 . .id6 E\c6 24.d4
.ie8 25.E\xc6 .ixc6 2 6.�g3 h6 27.
h4, with some advantage for
White, Svidler - Radj abov, Mos­
cow 2 0 0 2 .
ll . . . h6 1 2 . .ih4
12 . . �b6 ! ?
.
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3JiJd2 �e7 4. �d3 c5 S.dc CiJf6 6. Vlie2 0 - 0
This i s the most fashionable
move for Black in this variation.
Do not try to justify it logically,
simply accept it as a fact.
13.e5 c!LlgS 14.i.g3
White should avoid 14 . .b:e7? !
CiJxe7 1S.CiJfd4 �d7 16.Ei:ac1 0-0
17.Vlffd 2 Ei:fc8 18.VlffaS Vlffx aS 19 .
CiJxaS b6 20.CiJab3 gS 2 1 . Ei:ce1 c!Llg6
2 2 .g3 aS, with a good position for
Black, Leko - Morozevich, Sara­
jevo 1999.
14 i.d7 15.i.f4 Vlffa 6 16.a4
•••
�eS 17.c!Llbd4 i.e5 1S.i.d2 �b6
19.i.e3 �dS 2 0 .�fel i.b6 21.
�xeS �xeS 22 .id2 c!Lle7 23.
• thanks to his bishop-pair and su­
i.b4 �dS 24.a5 i.e7 25.�e2
i.bS with an obvious advantage
for White, Anisimov - Nepomnia­
chtchi, Krasnoyarsk 2 0 07.
b) 6 ••• 0 - 0 7.c!Llgf3
7••• a5
I am not a fan of such a volun­
tary chronic weakening of the po­
sition, but if Black wants to cap­
ture on cS with his b8-knight this
is the only way for him to arrange
it.
It is bad for him to play 7 . . .
CiJbd7? i n view o f 8.eS±
However, the seemingly para­
doxical move 7 . . . CiJfd7 deserves
very serious attention by Black.
8 . CiJb3 (Or 8 .b4? ! aS 9.c3 axb4
10.cxb4 CiJc6 and Black regains
the pawn after all. 9 .bS CiJxcS - It
is far from clear what White has
achieved by advancing his pawn
all the way up to bS. 8.exdS CiJxcS.
However, Black could have easily
avoided sacrificing 8 . . . exdS ! ? -
9.dxe6 CiJxd3+ 10.Vlffxd3 .b:e6 11.
Vlffx d8 Ei:xd8 with an excellent
compensation for the pawn,
perior development. He also has a
good position in the event of 10.
cxd3 .b:e6 11.0-0 CiJc6 12.CiJe4 h6)
8 . . . aS 9.a4 (The alternative for
White is 9.exdS exdS 1 0 . 0 - 0 a4
ll.CiJbd4 CiJxcS 12 .�f4 CiJxd3 - 12 . . .
CiJc6 ! ? - 13.cxd3 CiJ c 6 and Black
obtains an acceptable position, or
1 0 .a4? ! CiJxcS and White cannot
exchange comfortably 11.0-0
CiJxb3 12.cxb3 CiJc6 = ; 11.CiJxcS
�xeS 1 2 . 0 - 0 Ei:e8 = ) 9 . . . CiJa6 10.
exdS. This is the most precise re­
action. (10 . .b:a6 Ei:xa6 11.0-0
dxe4 1 2 .Vlffxe4 CiJxcS 13 .CiJxcS �xeS
14.CiJgS fS 1S.Vlffe 2 h6 16.CiJf3 f4
with an unclear position.)
167
Chapter 22
10 . . . tt:ldxc5. Black is forced to
strike this counter-blow. (The
routine move 10 . . . exd5? ! leads to
an inferior position for Black after
l l.h:a6 !'1xa6 12 . .te3 Wic7 13.Wib5 !
and White preserves his c5-
pawn.) 11.dxe6 tt:lxd3+ 12 .Wixd3
h:e6 13.Wixd8 !'1fxd8 14.tt:lbd4
tt:lb4 15 . .td2 (Here White can also
try 15. 0-0, but then Black obtains
a good position with 15 . . . .tc4
16.!'1e1 .tf6) 15 . . . .td5 16.0-0-0
.tf6 with sufficient compensation
for the pawn. Black also solves his
problems after ll.tt:lxc5 tt:lxc5
12 . .tb5 exd5 13 .tt:ld4 (White was
obviously reluctant to play the
natural move 13 . 0 - 0 , because of
the possible pin - 13 . . . .tg4.) 13 . . .
.tf6 14 . .te3 tt:l e 6 ! This i s a concrete
variation and Black obtains a
good game with it. 15.!'1d1 (Black's
position is also perfectly accepta­
ble too after 15. 0-0-0 tt:lxd4 16.
h:d4 .tf5) 15 ... h:d4 16 . .txd4 WigS
17. 0-0 tt:lf4 18.Wif3 .tg4 19.Wig3
tt:lh5 20 .Wie5 Wixe5 21 ..txe5 .txd1
2 2 . l"i:xd1 and Black won this end­
ing, Milos - Vitiugov, Khanty­
Mansiysk 2009.
168
8. 0 - 0
The symmetrical response
8.a4 is not at all satisfactory for
White after 8 . . . tt:la6 9.e5 tt:ld7
10.tt:ld4 tt:ldxc5 (10 . . . tt:lb4 ! ?) 11.
.txa6 !'1xa6 12.tt:l 2f3 .td7 ! ? (It
seems to me that Black played in
even more straightforward fash­
ion in the following game : 12 . . .
tt:le4 13.0-0 f6 14.c4 Wic7 15.cxd5
exd5 16 . .tf4 Wic4 17.Wid1 .td7 18.
l"i:c1 Wixa4 19.l"i:c7 Wixd1 20.!'1xd1 fxe5
2 1..txe5 tt:lc5, with a complicated
position, Navara - Pelletier, Plov­
div 2003.) 13.b3 tt:le4 14.0-0 Wib6
with an excellent game for Black.
White did not achieve much
with the risky line : 8.c4 tt:la6 9.
cxd5 tt:lxc5 10.0-0 exd5 11.e5
tt:lfd7 (Or ll . . . tt:lxd3 ! ? 12.Wixd3
tt:ld7 13.Wixd5 tt:lc5 14.Wixd8 !'1xd8
and Black has good compensa­
tion for the sacrificed pawn.)
12 ..tc2 f6 13.e6 tt:le5 14.tt:lxe5 fxe5
15.Wixe5 .tf6 16.Wie2 !'1a6 ! A crea­
tive move. 17.tt:lb3 l"i:xe6 18 .h:h7+
'it>xh7 19.Wih5+ 'it>g8 2 0 .tt:lxc5 l"i:e5
2 1.Wid1 Wid6 2 2 .tt:ld3 l"i:e4 23 . .te3
d4 and Black seized the initiative
in the game Sjugirov - Bajarani,
Rijeka 2 0 1 0 .
White plays only rarely here
8.c3 tt:la6 ! ? (8 ... tt:lfd7 9.exd5 tt:lxc5
10 . .tb5 exd5 11. 0-0 tt:lc6 12. tt:ld4
.td7 13.tt:l2f3 .tf6 14 . .te3 !'1e8 15.
!'1fd1 tt:le4 16.a4 Wic7 17.h3 l"i:ad8=
Almasi - Radj abov, Pamplona
2 0 0 1 . White was not successful
either after 9 . 0 - 0 tt:lxc5 10 . .tc2
b6 11.!'1d1 .ta6 12 .Wie3 !'1a7 13.exd5
and the players agreed to a draw,
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. lbd2 �e7 4. �d3 c5 5.dc ljjf6 6. Vfie2 0 - 0
Yemelin - Vitiugov, St Petersburg
2 0 0 6 . ) 9.e5 [jj d 7 10 .�xa6 ll:xa6
ll.b4
1 1 . . .ll:a8 (Unfortunately, the
sharp 11.. .f6 12.exf6 hf6 13.b5
ll:a8 does not work. Now it is bad
for White to continue with 14.
Vfixe6+ ? ! @h8 15.Vfixd5 Vfie7+ 16.
@d1 hc3 17.ll:e1 VfixcS 18.Vfixc5
[jj xcS 19.ll:b1 �fS-+ ; 19 .�a3 �g4 ! !
2 0 .hc5 ll:fd8- + ; 16.@f1 hc3 17.
ll:b1 [jj xcS 18 .�a3 �b4 19.hb4
axb4 with advantage for Black,
who also won a game with 17 . . .
ll:e8 18.�a3 Vfie2 + 19.@g1 [jj f6 2 0 .
Vfic4 �fS 2 l.ll:e1 Vfixe1 + 2 2 .[jj x e1
ll:xe1 + 23.[jj f1 ll:d8 24.h3 �eS 25.f4
�d3 2 6.Vfia4 ll:xf1+ 27.@h2 �xf4+
2 8 .g3 ll:f2 + 29. @g1 �e3 0-1 Nekra­
sov - Vavrak, Edmonton 2006.
Nevertheless, after 14.�a3 ll:e8 -
but not 14 . . . hc3? 15.ll:c1 d4 16.
0-0 [jj f6 17.ll:fdl± Kudrin - Shul­
man, Philadelphia 2 0 0 8 - 15. 0 - 0
hc3 16.ll:ac1, White keep a n edge.
The position is rather unclear af­
ter 15.Vfie3 ? ! eS 16.0-0 e4 17.ll:ae1
Vfie7 18.[jj d 4 [jj e 5 19.f3 [jj d 3 2 0 .ll:e2
�gS 2 l.f4 �f6 and Black has some
compensation.) 12 .�b2 Vfic7 13.
0-0 b6 14.cxb6 [jj x b6 15.b5 and
Black must choose how best to
seek compensation for the sacri­
ficed pawn 15 . . . a4 ! ? (or 1S . . . {jj a4
16.ll:ab1).
8 . . . tba6 9 .e5
I believe White must try to ob­
tain an advantage in this precise
way.
In this position, many famous
experts on the white side have
preferred the line : 9.exd5 exdS
1Q.{jj b 3 (10 .ll:e1 ll:e8 U.[jj b 3 [jj xcS
12 .�b5 �d7 13 .�e3 a4 14.hd7
Vfixd7 15.hc5 axb3 - 15 . . . hc5 ! ?
16.[jj x c5 Vfic6 = - 16.he7 ll:xa2
17.ll:ac1 ll:a4 18 .Vfie5 ll:e4 19.hf6
ll:xe1+ 2 0 .[jj x e1 ll:xeS 2 1.he5±
Naiditsch - De Ia Riva Aguado,
Pamplona 2 0 04.) 10 . . . a4 1l.[jj b d4
[jj xcS 12 .�b5 �d7 (12 . . . [jj ce4 ! ?)
13.�f4 ll:e8 14.�xd7 Vfixd7 15 .Vfib5
VfixbS 16. [jj xb5 [jj e 6 17.�e5 ll:ec8
18.ll:ac1 ll:a5 19.[jj bd4 tt:ld7 2 0 .[jj fS
�fB 2 l .�d4 and White won this
endgame, but only thanks to his
superb technique, Malakhov -
Del Rio Angelis, Chalkidiki 2 0 0 2 .
9 . . . tbd7
1 0 .c3
White must play in this con­
sistent fashion, implementing his
169
Chapter 22
plan step by step, in order to ob­
tain an edge.
The other possible treatment
of this position is 10.'2:l d4 'i:ldxcS
ll.f4 ! ? (It is too cautious for White
to opt for 1l.'i:l 2f3 'i:lxd3 12.cxd3
�d7 13 .�e3 a4 14.a3 'i:lc5 1S.Ei:ac1
Ei:c8 16.Ei:c3 b6 17.�f4 fS 18.h3 h6
19.Ei:fc1 �e8 with a good game for
Black, Ki.Georgiev - Kornev,
Warsaw 2 0 0S.) 1l.. .�b6 12.'i:l 2f3
�d7 13.a3 'i:lxd3 (Black should re­
frain from 13 . . . 4Je4 14.Ei:a2 'i:lacS
1S.�e3 a4 16.�h1 f6 17.exf6 �xf6
18 .�e1 'i:lxd3 19.cxd3 'i:lcS 2 0 .
'i:le2 �bS 2 l.�b4 Ei:fc8 2 2 .4Jed4+­
Kotronias - Barsov, Montreal
2 0 0 2 . ) 14.cxd3 'i:l cS 1S.�e3 �a6
and the position remain rather
unclear.
White does not need to in­
crease the tension in the centre
with 10 .c4 'i:laxcS 1l.�c2 b6 12 .b3
�b7 13 .�b2 �b8 (Black should
avoid the risky line : 13 .. .fS 14.4:ld4
�b8 1S.Ei:ad1 �xeS 16.�xeS 'i:lxeS
17.4JxfS exfS 18 .�xeS Ei:ac8 19.
Ei:fe1 g6 20.cxdS �xdS 2l.'i:lc4
�xc4 2 2 .bxc4 �f6 23.�f4 Ei:fd8
24.Ei:dS �f7 2S.�e3 �e7 26.Ei:b1
Ei:b8 27.Ei:xd8± Vachier Lagrave -
Sprenger, Germany 2 0 0 8 ; 13 . . .
�c7! ?) 14.Ei:ad1 Ei:c8 1S.Ei:fe1 'i:lf8
16.�b1 a4 17.�e3 axb3 18.axb3
'i:lg6 19 .h4 h6 2 0 .hS 'i:lf8 2 l.'i:lh2
�gS 2 2 .f4 �h4 and the position
remained very sharp in the game
Kaplan - Rodshtein, Biel 2 0 07.
10 ••• 4Jaxc5 11 ..ic2
(diagram)
ll . . . b6
I believe the possibility of 1 1 . . .
170
bS ! ? will attract some fans, even
though Black failed to equalize in
the following game 12 .a3 (After
12 .'i:ld4 �c7 13.Ei:e1 b4 14.cxb4
axb4 1S.�e3 fS 16.exf6 'i:lxf6 17.h3
�d7 18.'i:l 2b3 'i:lce4 19 .he4 'i:lxe4
20.f3 'i:lgS 2 l.�eS �xeS 2 2 . Ei:xe5
'i:lf7, Black has a clear advantage
in this endgame, Sjugirov - Najer,
Olginka 2 011) 12 . . . �c7 13.Ei:e1 �b7
14.4:ld4 b4 1S.axb4 axb4 16.Ei:xa8
Ei:xa8 17.cxb4 'i:la6 18 .bS 'i:lb4 19.
�b1 'i:la2 2 0 . 'i:l 2b3 'i:lxc1 2l.Ei:xc1
�b6 2 2 .�c2 g6 23.�c7± Parligras
- Jackelen, Germany 2 0 07.
It is premature for Black to
play 1 l . . .f6?! 1 2 .exf6 hf6 13.'i:lb3
b6 14.4JxcS 'i:lxcS 1S.Ei:d1 �a6 16.
�e3 �e8 17.4JgS �xgS 18.�xgS
'i:le4 19.�h4 with an obvious ad­
vantage for White, Kotronias - Ni
Hua, Khanty-Mansiysk 2 0 0S.
12.Ei:el .ia6
Yuri Shulman, one of the ex­
perts in this variation for Black,
tried an interesting novelty here
in a recent game - 12 . . .f6 ! ? 13.
exf6 (Black's idea is best illustrat­
ed by the variation 13 .b4 axb4
14.cxb4 'i:la6 ! ) 13 . . . hf6 14.'i:lb3
�a6 , but White can also counter it
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3Ji'Jd2 JJ.e7 4. JJ.d3 c5 5.dc CiJf6 6. �e2 0 - 0
i n a n appropriate manner: h e can
play 15.�d1 JJ.b7 (Black cannot
equalize with 15 . . . �e7 16.4Jxc5
bxcS 17.JJ.f5±; 16 . . . 4Jxc5 17.4Je5,
since the use of the eS-outpost by
the white pieces spells enduring
trouble for Black.) 16.4Jxc5 CiJxcS
17.Ji.e3 C/Je4 18.he4 dxe4 19.
�xd8 l"lfxd8 20.4Jd4 hd4 21.
Ji.xd4 bS 2 2 .l"led1 JJ.ds 2 3.Ji.e3 a4
24. l"ld4 l"ldc8 25.l"lc1 and White
offered a draw, which was accept­
ed, Kryvoruchko - Shulman, Rey­
kjavik 2 0 09.
13.�e3 f6
Black's position looks accept­
able, but that impression is
wrong.
Nevertheless, in order to re­
fute Black's strategy White has to
play very resourcefully.
14.b4!
White does not achieve any­
thing by playing cautiously with
14.exf6, in view of 14 . . . JJ.xf6
15.4Jb3 eS 16.4Jxc5 (16.�d2 JJ.b7
17.4Jxc5 bxc5 18.C/Jg5 iJ.xgS 19.
�xg5 �b6�) 16 ... bxc5 17.C/Jg5
hg5 18.�xg5 �e8 19.Ji.e3 �f7
2 0 .�h4 h6 2l.l"lad1 l"lab8 and I
even prefer Black's position,
Kudrin - Perelshteyn, Tulsa
2008.
14 . . . fxe5
Black should not try to be too
tricky with 14 . . . axb4 ? ! 15.cxb4
fxeS 16.bxc5 JJ.xc5 17.�b3 !
15.ll:lxe5 c!Llxe5 16.bxc5 .ixc5
17.�xe5
This is the key-position of this
variation. After analyzing it ex­
tensively, I have concluded that
Black is worse and that objective­
ly he should seek an improvement
in the main line at some earlier
point.
17 . . . �xf2
A reasonable alternative here
is 17 . . . JJ.xf2 + ! ? 18.Wh1 JJ.xe1 19.
�xe6+ . I think White should not
be greedy here. (It would be
stronger for him to continue with
19.�xe1 �d6 2 0 .a4! l"lfe8 2 l.CiJf3
eS and his prospects in the ensu­
ing complicated struggle are
slightly better.) 19 . . . mh8 2 0 .�xe1
d4 2 1.Ji.b2 (2l.CiJf3 ! ? d3 2 2 .Ji.d1,
White wishes to redeploy his
bishop to a working diagonal.)
2 1 . . .d3 2 2 .Ji.d1 �g5 23.4Jf3 l"lae8
171
Chapter 22

24.�f2 d2 25.i.a4 l"i:e2 2 6.�g1 �e7 i.b7 27.�d4 ! and Black's bishop
27.c4 i.b7 28 .l"i:fl l"i:e1 29 .i.d1 l"i:xf3 will remain out of play.) 25.cxd4
30.gxf3 1'lxd1 0-1 Kristjansson - i.b7 with some compensation for
Caruana, Reykjavik 2 0 0 8 . Black.
18.®hl 18 . . .'�e7
Once again, White should re­ White can counter 18 . . . �h4
frain from gobbling pawns. 18. with the same manoeuvre: 19.i.d1!
�xe6+? Wh8 (The computer rec­ 19.i.dl �af8 2 0 .i.f3
ommends here the paradoxical It appears that in this varia­
move 18 . . . Wf8 ! ?, with the follow­ tion Black's pawn on e6 is taboo:
ing sample variation 19.®h1 �g5 2 0 .i.g4 l"i:8f6 2 1.he6 + ? Wh8-+
2 0.�h3 l"i:e8 2 1.l"i:g1 - 21.l"i:xe8 + ! ? 2 0 . . . �f6 21. �b8 + �f8 22.
®xeS 2 2 .i.a4+ b 5 23 .i.b3 - 2 1 . . . '\Wg3 a4 23.c4!±
i.c8 2 2 . lLlb3 �xc1 23.l"i:gxc1 hh3
24.lLlxc5 bxc5 25.gxh3 l"i:ee2 26.
i.a4 l"i:xh 2+ 27.Wg1=) 19.®h1 �h4
2 0 .lLlf3 (White loses after 2 0 .
�xd5? l"i:af8 2 1.�e4 i.f1 ! ! - + , as
well as after 2 0 .i.b2 ? l"i:af8 2 1 .
�xd5 i.b7 2 2 .�xb7 i.d6-+) 2 0 . . .
l"i:xf3 21.gxf3 �f2 a n d here White
must find two very important
moves : 2 2 .�e8+ ! (White lost in a
really childish fashion after 2 2 .
i.e3?? �xf3 + 23.®g1 i.f1 ! - + Du­
rarbeyli - Yemelin, Budva 2009.) White has freed his pieces and
2 2 ... i.f8 23.�e3 �xc2 24.i.a3 ! d4 obtained an overwhelming ad­
(24 . . . �f5 25.i.xf8 l"i:xf8 26.l"i:ab1 vantage.

Concluding out survey of the move 4. i.d3, we must say that Black
should be prepared to play some quiet and solid lines and he has a
wide choice. Attempts by Black to sharpen and complicate the game
can be countered by White quite venomously. However, none of this
means anything conclusive from the practical point of view. The ele­
ment of surprise. or finding White unprepared, can dramatically
change the outcome of the opening battle.

172
 Part 6

The Tarrasch Variation with 3...c5

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3)t)d2 c5

The philosophical justification of this system is tremendously sim­

ple. With his third move White is merely maintaining the tension and
not attacking the centre. The deployment of White's knight on d 2 , in­
stead of c3, is preferable from the point of view of building a pawn­
chain, so Black should undermine his opponent's centre before it be­
comes established.
I believe that this is the right way for Black to fight for equality in all
the systems of the Tarrasch variation. The resulting positions are not
very typical of the French defence. There will be no pawn-chains, no
chronically weak squares and no "bad" pieces. Of course, things are far
from simple and Black needs to play very precisely, but the overall
soundness of the entire system with 3 . . . c5 is beyond doubt.

173
Chapter 23 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3)i)d2 c5
4.exd5
After 4.c3 White can cannot
count on any advantage : 4 . . . cxd4
5.cxd4 dxe4 6.t2:lxe4 l2:lf6 - this is
the most concrete order of moves
for Black.
Now:
Black has no problems after
7.l2:lxf6+ �xf6 8.l2:lf3 �d7 (8 . . . tt:Jc6
9.�d3 - 9.a3 ! ? - 9 . . . �b4+ 10 .�d2
174
�d7 1l.�e4 �f4 12 .�xc6 hd2 +
13 .�xd2 �xd2+ 14.@xd2 hc6
15. @e3 f6 16J'!hcl @e7+ with the
better endgame for Black, Bert­
holee - Dvoretsky, Wijk aan Zee
1999) and if 9.l2:le5 he has the pre­
cise reply 9 . . . l2:lc6 10.l2:lxd7 �b4+
1l.�d2 �xd4 ! ;
after 7.l2:lc3 ? ! French Defence
players should think about trans­
posing to the Caro-Kann Defence,
since this would be a perfect ver­
sion of the Panov Attack for Black.
He has so many attractive possi­
bilities that making the right
choice becomes a real problem.
For example: 7 . . . �e7 (the move
7 . . . �d7 would almost certainly
transpose to the variations with
7.�d3. ) 8 . tt:Jf3 0-0 9.�d3 a6
10.0-0 b5 ! ? ;
7.�d3 �d7 8 .l2:lc3 (8.l2:lf3 l2:lxe4
9 .he4 �c6 and White is fighting
for equality) 8 . . . �c6 (It would be
less consistent for Black to opt for
8 . . . l2:lc6 9.l2:lf3 �d6 10.0-0 0-0
1U1e1 tt:Jb4 12 .�b1 �c7 13.�g5
l2:lfd5 14.a3 l2:lxc3 15.bxc3 tt:Jd5 16.
�d3t - White has seized the ini­
tiative, Plaskett - Martinez Mar­
tin, Roquetas de Mar 2010.) 9.
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3 . tiJ d2 c5 4.ed V!Jxd5 S.dc hc5
tt:lf3 tt:lbd7 (9 . . . hf3 ? ! 10.V!Jxf3
tt:lc6 11.�e3 �e7 12.0 -0 0-0 13 .a3
and White still has an edge) 10.
0-0 �e7 with an excellent version
for Black of an isolated queen's
pawn position.
4 V!Jxd5 5.dxc5
•••
On the one hand, giving up the
centre can hardly be good for
White, but Black is forced to place
in the centre pieces which will
soon come under attack.
We shall deal now in detail
with a) 5 hc5 and b) 5 tt:lf6.
••• •••
a) 5 ••• hc5 6.tt'lgf3 tt'lf6
7 .ic4
• Black has tried various re-
This move has become very
popular lately. White avoids tak­
ing any risks and creates some
practical difficulties for his oppo­
nent.
Previously White used to play
7.�d3 0-0 8.Wie2 (It is harmless
for White to play 8 . 0 - 0 b6 9.tt:lb3
tt:lbd7 10 .�g5 �b7 11.'Wie2 h6 12 .c4
V!Jc6 13.�d2 f1ad8 14.�c2 f1fe8 15.
f1ad1 e5 and Black seized the ini­
tiative in the game Conquest -
Budnikov, Neuwied 1993.) 8 . . .
tt:lbd7 9 .tt:le4 (White has also tried
9.b3, for example: 9 . . . tt:lg4 ! ? 10.
0-0 tt:lde5 11 .�e4 tt:lxf3 + 12.tt:lxf3
'Wih5 13.�f4 tt:lf6 14.f1ad1 'V!Jg4 15.
'V!Jc4 tt:lxe4 16.'Wixe4 f6 17.h3 'Wig6=
Rublevsky - Ivanov, St Peters­
burg 1998, or 9 . . . a5 10 .�b2 b6
11.0-0-0 �b7 12 .f1he1 a4 13.tt:le4
'Wih5 14.tt:lfg5 'Wih6 15.�b1 axb3
16.axb3 �a3 with chances for both
sides. However, there was no ne­
cessity for White to be mated
within a few moves . . . : 17.tt:lxf6+
tt:lxf6 18.hf6 'V!Jxf6 19.�xh7+ �h8
2 0 .'Wih5 'Wib2 # Rublevsky - Belia­
vsky, Novosibirsk 1995.) 9 . . . b6
10.tt:lxc5 'V!Jxc5 11.�e3 'V!Jc7 12 .�d4
�b7 13.0-0-0 tt:lc5 14.�e5 tt:lxd3 +
15.f1xd3 'V!Jc4 16.tt:ld4 �e4 ! and
Black prevailed in the complica­
tions, Kasparov - Anand, Reggio
Emilia 1992. As often happens,
this spectacular victory greatly in­
fluenced the development of the
entire variation, but at present
the whole line has faded into
oblivion.
7 •••V!Jc6
175
Chapter 23
treats of his queen, but it has be­
come clear that the last move is
his best option.
He can also play 7 . . .'�d6 8.
0-0 �c7 9.�e2 lt'lc6 10.lt'le4 fi.e7
ll.c3 ? ! White's last defensive
move is absolutely senseless. (He
could have maintained his open­
ing initiative with 11.fi.g5 ! ?). 1 1 . . .
b6 12 .fi.g5 fi.b7 13J'!ad1 0-0 14.
lt'lxf6+ hf6 15.fi.xf6 gxf6 16.fi.d3
�h8 17.fi.xh7 �xh7 18.�e4+ �h6
19 .�h4+ �g7 2 0 .�g4+ �h6 2 1 .
�h4+ and the game Pogonina -
Xu Yuhua, Krasnoturinsk 2008,
ended in a draw by perpetual
check.
It is rather dubious for Black
to play 7 . . . �h5?! 8.�e2 a6 9.lt'lf1
fi.d6 10.fi.g5 h6 11.0-0-0 hxg5
12.l'l:xd6 g4 13.�d2 lt'lc6 14.lt'lg5
fi.d7 15.lt'lg3 �h6 16.�e3 lt'le7 17.
h3± Carlsson - Braun, Wijk aan
Zee 2008 .
8.�e2
8 .. 0 - 0
. White obtains the advantage
Or 8 . . . a6 ! ? 9.b3 b5 10 .fi.d3 fi.b7
ll.a4 b4 12.lt'l c4 �c7 13 .fi.b2 lt'lbd7
14.0-0-0 0-0 15.lt'lfe5 lt'ld5 16.
lt'lxd7 �xd7 17.lt'la5 l'l:fe8 18.lt'lxb7
176
�xb7 19.fi.e4 with a complicated
game, Svidler - Grischuk, Almaty
2008.
After 8 . . . lt'lbd7! ? 9.lt'lb3 a 6 10.
a4 fi.d6 11.0-0 �c7 12.a5 0-0 13.
l'l:e1 e5 14.lt'lbd2 h6 15.b3 l'l:e8 16.
lt'le4 lt'lxe4 17.�xe4 lt'lc5 18.�h4
fi.e6 19.lt'ld2 l'l:ad8, Black is not
worse, Adams - Bareev, Chalkidi­
ki 2 0 0 2 . The readers should have
noticed by now that as long as he
plays accurately Black has no
problems and he simply needs to
select one of the possible lines.
9. 0 - 0 l!Jbd7
It is interesting to opt for the
prophylactic line : 9 . . . fi.d6 10 .fi.d3
fi.c7 ll.l!Jc4 l!Jbd7 12.l'l:d1 b5 13.
lt'lce5 lt'lxe5 14.lt'lxe5 �c5 15.lt'lg4
lt'lxg4 16.�xg4 fi.b7 17.�h4 g6 18.
fi.g5 fi.d8 19 .fi.xd8 l'l:fxd8= Adams
- Speelman, London/Crowthorne
2006.
1 0 .l!Jb3 b6
11.l!Jxc5
of the bishop pair. This does not
provides him with anything tangi­
ble though . . .
In a recent game White tried a
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3JiJd2 c5 4.ed Wfxd5 5.dc l'iJf6
completely new idea - ll.t'iJfd4 ! ?
ixd4 12.t'iJxd4 Wfc5 13.Ei:d1 ib7 14.
a4 t'iJe5 15.ib3 t'iJg6 16.ie3 Wfe5
17.f3 l"i:ad8 18 .Wfe1 Wfh5 19.Wfg3 h6
20.t'iJe2 t'iJd5 2 l .id2 Wff5 2 2 .c4
Wfd3 23 .t'iJc1 Wfd4+ 24.Wff2 t'iJdf4
25.Wfxd4 l"i:xd4 26.ie3 l"i:xd1+ 27.
ixd1 and the endgame was about
equal, Naiditsch - Hou Yifan,
Moscow 2 0 1 0 .
ll . . . Wfxc5 12.�e3 Wfc7 13.
�d4
Sergey Tiviakov is a master of
positions with a minimal advan­
tage and here he played 13 .l"i:ad1
ib7 14.Ei:d4 l"i:ac8 15.ib3 t'iJe5 16.
l'iJxe5 Wfxe5 17.c4 l"i:fd8 18.l"i:fd1
l"i:xd4 19.l"i:xd4 h6. Black failed to
anticipate the imminent danger
and, reacting rather carelessly,
was soon in trouble. 2 0 .ic2 Wfc7
2 l .b3 Ei:d8 2 2 .f3 l"i:xd4 23 .ixd4
Wff4 24.Wfd3 Wfd6 25.Wfc3 t'iJh5 26.
c5± Tiviakov - Malakhatko, Ajac­
cio 2 0 0 8 .
13 .ib7 14.l'iJe5
•••
14 ••• l::1 ad8
In the following game, the
young Dutch GM used a much
more forceful approach - 14 . . .
l"i:ac8 15.b3 t'iJxe5 16.Wfxe5 Wfxe5
17.ixe5 idS 18.ixd5 exd5 19.
l"i:ac1 l"i:fe8 2 0 . ixf6 gxf6 2l.f3 l"i:c3
2 2 . Ei:fd1 l"i:e2 23.l"i:xd5 l"i:cxc2 24.
l"i:xc2 l"i:xc2 and the players agreed
to a draw, Godena - Stellwagen,
Novi Sad 2 0 0 9 .
15.l::1 a d1 l'iJxe5 16.he5 Wfc6
17.f3 Wfc5+ 18.�h1 l'iJe4 19.
l::1xd8 l::1xd8 2 0 .if4 l'iJf6. The
•
position is approximately equal
and Black even managed to win,
Kornev - Zvjaginsev, Krasno­
yarsk 2 0 0 3 . In general, we must
admit that to play this variation
successfully Black must be capa­
ble of skilfully and patiently de­
fending slightly inferior positions.
In this system, forcing lines are of
less importance.
Without any false modesty, I
should like to offer you a plan, in­
troduced at top grandmaster level
by the author of these notes.
b) 5 ••• t'iJf6
The order of moves is of some
importance. After the immediate
5 . . . Wfxc5 White has an additional
177
Chapter 23
resource - 6.'Lle4 �b4+ 7.'Llc3
tt:lf6 8.i.d3 tt:lbd7 9.a3 ? ! Why force
the enemy queen to a better
square? 9 . . . �d6 10.'Llf3 tt:lc5 11.
i.b5+ i.d7 12 .�e2 a6 13.i.c4 �c7
14. 0 - 0 i.d6 15.b4 �c8 16.i.b2?
tt:la4 17. .be6 'Llxc3 18 . .bd7+ \tlxd7
and Black realized his extra piece
almost effortlessly, Timofeev -
Morozevich, Taganrog 2 0 11.
6.l!Jgf3
White has an alternative here
as well : 6.'Llb3 �xd1+ 7.\tlxd1
i.d7! This is a very good move.
Black's bishop might go to the a4-
square in many variations. 8.f3 . A
renowned master of opening
preparation, Vladimir Potkin, an­
alyzed this position thoroughly
and found a move which was not
at all obvious. 8 . . . ie7. Black plays
quite simply and develops his
pieces in the most natural fash­
ion. 9.'Lla5 ic6 10 .ie3 tt:lbd7 11.c3
ixc5 12.ixc5 and the players
agreed to a draw, Potkin - Vitiu­
gov, Khanty-Mansiysk 2011. It
would be fair to say that it is hard
for White to fight for an advan­
tage in this variation.
6 . .• �xc5
178
The essence of Black's idea is
quite simple. His queen will soon
be dislodged from the centre any­
way (and it will require more than
one move to reach a good
square . . . ), while the bishop would
be under threat of exchange on
c5, so its is best for Black to acqui­
esce to the loss of two tempi, rath­
er than three.
7 ..id3 .ie7 8. 0 - 0 0 - 0 9.
�e2 l!Jbd7 10 .l!Je4 �c7 11 ..ig5 b6
12.l'�adl
In the first game played in this
line there followed 1 2 .'Llxf6+ tt:lxf6
13.'Lle5 .ib7 14.�fe1 �adS 15.�ad1
�d6. This is a typical manoeuvre
in such positions, and is often
seen, for example, in the Rubin­
stein variation. 16.if4 'WeB 17.
tt:lg4 and a draw was agreed on
White's proposal, Kobalia - Vitiu­
gov, Dagomys 2 01 0.
12 ... .ib7 13 . .ih4 l!Jc5 14.
l!Jxc5
In the game Yegiazarian -
Lputian, Yerevan 1999, White
played 14.ig3 'Wc6 (14 . . . 'Wc8 !?)
15.'Lle5 WeB 16.'Llxf6+ .bf6 17.ic4
a6 18 .a3 b5 19 . .ia2 tt:le4 2 0 .'Lld7
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. Cb d2 c5 4.ed 'i/!Jxd5 S.dc Cbf6

and here Black was reluctant to However, the king of the silicon
sacrifice the exchange with 20 . . . brains - "Houdini" approves of it.
ib2 , which would have led t o a 16 . . . g6 17.a3 a5 18.'i/!Je3 'it>g7
very sharp position. As a result, 19 . .ig5
he ended up worse after 20 . . . 'i/!Jc6.
I should mention that the posi­
tion was reached by transposi­
tion. In fact, that game began with
the move-order 3.Cbd2 ie7.
14 .•. 'i/!Jxc5 15.lbe5 gadS

19 .lL!g8 !
.•

Black is playing very mven­

tively.
2 0 .he7 .!Llxe7 21 . .ic2 .ic6
22.�f4 f6 23 . .!Llxc6 �xc6, Ba­
logh - Vitiugov, Ningbo 2 01 1 , and
16.c4 later Black was even able to fight
This is a paradoxical decision. for the advantage.

179
Chapter 24 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3)t)d2 c5 4.ttlgf3
This is a very flexible option.
After Black's next move, White
will have the choice of transpos­
ing into the main theoretical lines,
or taking an independent line.
4 . . . cxd4
There are other acceptable
moves here, but since after 4.exd5
I advise Black to continue with
4 . . .'�xd5, here it logical for Black
to opt for 4,,cxd4, which often
transposes.
5.ltJxd4
After 5.exd5 �xd5 there is a
transposition to the main theo­
retical lines which we shall ana­
lyze later.
5 . . �f6
. Nevertheless, the most recent
Black has a good alternative
here - 5 . . . t2Jc6 6.�b5 �d7. For ex­
ample: 7.t2Jxc6 (This is the only
180
way for White to create some
problems for his opponent.) 7 . . .
hc6 (Or 7 . . . bxc6 8.�d3 and o n d7
Black's bishop is possibly placed
worse than on its initial square.
However, this position has not yet
been thoroughly analyzed and it
is too early to make a final evalua­
tion. For example: 8 . . . �d6 9.�e2
�c7 10 .t2Jf3 dxe4 11.�xe4 t2Jf6 1 2 .
�h4 h6 1 3 . 0 - 0 c5 14.�g5 t2Jd5 15.
�e4 l'l:b8 16.c4 t2Jf4 and Black had
a good position in the game Gu­
seinov - So, Khanty-Mansiysk
2 0 09.) 8 .hc6+ bxc6 9.c4. How­
ever, I do not believe that White
can create serious difficulties for
his opponent by playing this way.
games in this variation show that
Black has not yet demonstrated a
convincing way to equalize.
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3Jt'Jd2 c5 4Jijgf3 cd 5Jijxd4 CiJf6
It is not good to play 9 . . . dxe4? !
10.CiJxe4 (White does not need to
enter the complications arising
from 10 .'&a4? fS 11.'&xc6+ ill £7 12 .
0-0 CiJf6 13.CiJb3 id6 14.h3 Efc8
1S.'&b7+ '&c7 and Black is better,
Erenburg - Hug, Gothenburg
2 0 0S.) 10 . . . '&xd1+ 11.illx d1 CiJf6
12.CiJxf6+ gxf6 13.ie3 (It is less
precise for White to continue with
13. ill c 2? ! Efg8 14.g3 icS ! 1S.ie3
ixe3 16.fxe3 Efg4 17.b3 ill e 7 18.
Efad1 c5 and Black equalized in the
game Vachier Lagrave - Yu Sha­
oteng, Khanty-Mansiysk 2009.)
13 ... Efg8 14.g3 cS 1S. ill c 2 ill d 7 16.
a3 ! This is a new and very effec­
tive plan which gives White the
advantage. It seems to me that
even if Black plays very precisely,
he cannot avoid having serious
problems. (After 16.Efad1 + ill c6
17.Efd3 ie7 18.Efhd1 Efgd8 19.g4
Efxd3 2 0 . Efxd3 id6 2 1 .h3 ieS 2 2 .
Efa3 a S 23.Efb3 a 4 24.EfbS id6,
Black equalized, Delchev - De la
Riva Aguado, Andorra 2006.)
16 ... hS (Black is in trouble after
16 . . . ill c 6 17.b4 ! cxb4 18.axb4 ixb4
19.Efa6+ ill c 7 20 .Efha1 Efgb8 2 1 .
if4+ ! ? This i s a very accurate
move by White. 2 l . . .eS 2 2 .ie3
Efb7 23.g4 ill d 7 24. ill d 3± and
Black's position was a sorry sight
in the game Efimenko - Hou Yi­
fan, Moscow 2010.) 17.Efhd1 + ill c7
18.id2 aS 19 .ic3 ie7 2 0 .b3 ill c6
21.Efd3 fS 2 2 .ieS Efgd8 23.Efxd8
Efxd8 24.ic3 Efa8 2S.b4! This is
the key idea of the entire plan.
25 . . . axb4 26.axb4 Efxa1 2 7.b5+
illb 6 2 8.ixa1 - Black managed
somehow to defend this appar­
ently lost endgame, but it cannot
really be recommended, Rublevs­
ky - Kosic, Kragujevac 2009.
An interesting option is 9 ...
id6 lO.cxdS cxdS ll.exdS exdS
12.0-0 CiJe7 13.CiJf3 0-0 14.'&d3
'&d7 1S.Efd1 Effd8 16.ie3 aS 17.g3
h6 and Black almost equalized in
the game Topalov - Kamsky, So­
fia 2 0 0 9 . By the way, this evalua­
tion is applicable to most of the
positions arising from this varia­
tion.
9 . . . CiJf6 10 .'&a4 '&c7 11.cxd5
exdS 1 2 . 0 - 0 ie7 13.exd5 (Anoth­
er interesting continuation is
13.Efe 1 ! ? but Black has an easier
task against that. 13 . . . 0 - 0 14.e5
CiJd7 15.CiJf3 CiJcS 16.'&g4 CiJe6 17.
h4 Efab8 18 .b3 Efb4 19.'&g3 hS 2 0 .
CiJgS Efg4 2 1.'&d3 CiJxgS 2 2 . hxg5
ixgS and White failed to exact re­
venge for his defeat in the previ­
ous game, Bezgodov - Vitiugov,
Khanty-Mansiysk 2 0 11.) 13 . . .
CiJxdS 14.CiJc4 (Or 14.CiJf3 0-0 1S.
id2 if6 16.Efac1 ixb2 17.Efxc6
'&d7 and here the players agreed
to a draw, Smirin - Ni Hua,
Kallithea 2 0 08.) 14 . . . 0-0 15.id2
if6 16.Efac1 and White has endur­
ing pressure, Sebag - Xu Yuhua,
Nanjing 2009. Black should prob­
ably be able to overcome his diffi­
culties with tenacious defence,
but the character of the fight
spells trouble for him.
(diagram)
6.exd5
It is possible, but not very logi­
cal, for White to play 6.e5 CiJfd7
181
Chapter 24
7.ct:J2f3 (or 7.f4? ct:Jxe5 ! and Black
wins a pawn) 7 . . . ct:Jc6 8 .if4 (Black
has absolutely nothing to worry
about after 8.ct:Jxc6 bxc6 9 .id3
ia6 10.0-0 hd3 11.�xd3 ie7
1 2 .c4 0-0 13 .�c2 aS 14.l"ld1 a4
15.if4 ct:Jb6 16.b3 c5 17.l"lac1 h6
18.ie3 �b8 19 .h4 �b7, with a
very complicated position, Svidler
- Dreev, Rostov on Don 1993.)
8 ... �b6 9.l"lb1 g6 ! ? (9 ... ie7? ! 10.
c3 0-0 ll.id3 ct:Jc5 12 .ic2 id7 13.
0-0 a5 14.�e2 a4 15.�e3 a3 16.
bxa3 �d8 17.ct:Jb5 b6 18.ct:Jfd4 ct:Ja5
19.�g3 g6 2 0.ct:Jd6 ct:Jc4 2 1 .ct:Jxc4
dxc4 2 2 .ic1 �c7 23.l"ld1 ia4 24.
ha4 l"lxa4 25.ct:Jb5 �c6 26.l"ld4
ct:Jd3 27.ih6 l"ld8 2 8 .ct:Jd6± Kry­
voruchko - Grigorian, Yerevan
2 0 0 6 . It would be interesting for
Black to try the more active line :
9 . . . ic5 ! ? 10.c3 0-0) 10.ct:Jxc6
bxc6 l l.id3 ig7 1 2 . 0-0 ia6 13.
\Wd2 0-0 14.l"lfe1 l"lab8 15.h4 hd3
16.cxd3 \Wb4 17.\We3 h5 18.l"le2
�b6 19.�d2 �b4 2 0 .�e3 \Wb6 2 1 .
\Wc1 �a6 2 2 .l"ld2 c 5 and he ob­
tained a good position, Howell -
Grigorian, Yerevan 2 0 07.
6 . . . Vbd5
If Black has made up his mind
182
to capture on d5 with his queen,
then he should do so in every case,
within reason !
Black won a very beautiful
game after 6 ... ct:Jxd5 ! ? 7.ct:J2f3 ib4+
8 .id2 0-0 9.ic4 (9.c4 e5 10.cxd5
hd2 + 11.�xd2 exd4 12.\Wxd4
l"le8+ 13 .ie2 if5 14.\Wd2 ie4 15.
d6 ixf3 16.gxf3 �h4 17. 0-0-0
�xf2 18 .ic4 �xd 2 + 19.l"lxd2 ct:Jc6
2 0 .h4 Wf8 2 1.id5 l"lad8 2 2 .ie4,
draw, Howell - Stellwagen, Solin­
gen 2011; 9 .hb4 ! ? ; 9.c3 ! ?) 9 . . . e5
10 .ct:Jb5 e4 11.hd5 exf3 12 .hb4
�e8+ 13.Wd2 \Wxb5 14. Wc3 ie6
15.ixe6 ct:Jc6 16.hf8 �e5+ 17.
<i>b3 ct:Jd4+ 18.wb4 1Wb5+ 19. <i>c3
ct:Je2+ 20.Wd2 l"ld8+ 2 1 . We3 �e5+
2 2 . Wxf3 ct:Jd4+ 0-1 Fedorchuk -
Martinovic, Aix-les-Bains 2011.
This was a very impressive crush !
The interesting move 6 ... a6 was
tried in a recent match between
two capital cities. I do not believe
that Black can equalize by playing
in such an artificial manner.
7.ct:J2f3 �xd5 8.c4 \Wd6 9.id3
ie7 10.0-0 0-0 11.�e2 ct:Jbd7 12.
ic2 l"le8 13 .ig5 \Wc7 14.l"lad1 ct:Jf8
15.ct:Je5 ct:J6d7 16.ixe7 l"lxe7 17.
ct:Jdf3 f6 18.ct:Jg4 b6 19.ct:Je3 l"lf7
and White's position looks the
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3 . li'l d2 c5 4Ji'lgf3 cd 5 . liJxd4 11Jf6
more attractive, Malakhov - Ro­
manov, St Petersburg 2011.
7.tt:\b5
This is the way for White to try to
create problems for his opponent.
There is a quieter possibility -
7.11J2f3 a6 8.�d3 11Jbd7 9.0-0 �cS
10 .c4 1gfd6 11.11Jb3 �a7 12 .1gfe2
0-0 13 .�g5 1gfc7 14.�h4 l'%e8 15.
l'!fe1 �b8 . This is an original ma­
noeuvre. However, the player
with Black, Igor Lysyj , is one of
the most eminent experts in the
French defence in general, and in
this variation in particular, so we
should trust his moves, no matter
how wild they might seem at first
sight. 16.l'%ad1 b6 17.�g3 1gfa7 18.
tiJeS 11Jxe5 19 .he5 �xeS 2 0 .1gfxe5
1gfb8 and the players agreed to a
draw, Vysochin - Lysyj , St Peters­
burg 2009. It is weaker for Black
to play 7 . . . 11Jc6 8.11Jxc6 1gfxc6 (It is
possible that Black's seventh
move might be justified by the
strategically risky line : 8 . . . 1gfxd1 +
9.\t>xd1 bxc6 with a very compli­
cated endgame.) 9.�d3 1gfc7 ! ? (9 . . .
a6? ! 1 0 . 0 - 0 �d6 ll.b3 b S 12.a4
b4? 13 .�b5 ! axbS 14.axb5 �xh 2 +
15.11Jxh2 1gfb7 16.l'%xa8 1gfxa8 17.
1gfd6 tiJ dS 18.1gfg3 g6 19.11Jg4 hS
2 0.�b2 0-0 21.tt:lf6+ tt:lxf6 2 2 .
1gfeS ! + - Efimenko - Ivanov, Da­
gomys, 2 009) 10.0-0 �d6 11.�g5
�d7 12 .1gfe2 tt:ldS 13.c4 tt:lf4 14.
�xf4 hf4 15.g3 �d6 16.md1 l'!d8
17.l'%ac1 b6 and Black had a slight
edge, McShane - Shimanov,
Stockholm 2009. Of course,
White was not forced to play so
indifferently, but there is a feeling
that after 7.11J2f3 Black should
have no problems whatsoever.
7••• tt:\a6
Black does not really want to
develop his knight to this square,
but has no good alternative at this
point.
8.c4
This is the only move for White
which combines aggression and
soundness.
There are interesting develop­
ments after the gambit line : 8.�e2
�d7 9 .c4 (White even tried a
"double gambit" in the following
blitz game - without success,
though . . . : 9 . 0 - 0 �xbS 10 .c4 hc4
11.�xc4 1gfc6 12 .1gfe2 tt:lc7 13.tt:lf3
183
Chapter 24
id6 14.ig5 0-0 15J'l:ac1 iWb6 16.
.b:f6 gxf6 17.iWe4 ie7 18.iWh4
E1ad8 and the position was very
complicated, Svidler - Grischuk,
Moscow 2008.) 9 . . . 1Wxg2 10.if3
iWh3 1l ..b:b7
ll . . . tt:Jb4 (It is clear that Black
refrained from the more forcing
line starting with ll . . . tt:Jc5 because
of 12.1MI'f3 iWxf3 13.ixf3 l"1b8 14.
tt:Jxa7 4Jd3+ 15.�e2 with an un­
clear position. White does not
achieve much with 12 . .b:a8 4Jd3+
13.�e2 tt:Jf4=) 1 2 .4Je4 This is ad­
mittedly a bold move, but I can­
not recommend it since it is too
risky. (12 . .b:a8 4Jd3+ 13. �e2
tt:Jf4=) 12 . . . 4Jd3+ (Or 12 . . . 4Jxe4 ! ?
13.ixe4 l"1c8 and Black seizes the
initiative. White will remain a
pawn down and that might not be
the worst thing that happens to
him in this position.) 13.�e2
tt:Jxe4 14 ..b:e4 tt:Jxc1+ 15.l"1xc1 E1b8
16.b3 ic5 17.4Jc7+ �e7 18.4Ja6
E1b6 19.4Jxc5 iWh5+ 2 0.f3 iWxc5
and White emerged victorious
from the subsequent struggle, Ni
Hua - Lysyj , Dagomys 2 0 0 8 .
Black survived i n the only two
games played with the variation
8.ie2 iWxg2 9.if3 iWg5 10 .a4. It is
184
amazing, but the opponents in
both these games were the same !
10 . . . 1Wh4. This improvement
for Black was obviously the result
of home preparation. (Their pre­
vious game had continued with
10 . . . 1We5+ 1l.�f1 4Jd5 1 2 .4Jc4 iWb8
13 .ig5 h6 14.ih4 iWf4 15.4Jcd6+
.b:d6 16.ig3 iWc4+ 17.ie2 iWc6
18.4Jxd6+ �f8 19.l"1g1 tt:J ac7 2 0 .
l"1a3 and White had a n over­
whelming advantage, Yemelin -
S.lvanov, St Petersburg 1994.)
1l.l"1g1 ic5 12.1l>lfe2 0-0 13.b3 tt:Jb4
14.4Jc4 a6 15.ig5 iWxh2 16.l"1h1
hf2 + 17. �fl iWg3 18 . .b:f6 gxf6
19.1Wxf2 iWxf2 + 2 0 . �xf2 axb5 2 1 .
l"1ag1+ � h 8 2 2 .l"1h4 bxc4 23. l"1gh1
and after this wild struggle the
game ended with a draw by per­
petual check, Yemelin - S.lvanov,
St Petersburg 1996. However, I
believe that the variation has yet
not been exhausted and there are
many possibilities still to be tried.
It would be too optimistic for
White to play 8.4Jc4 iWxd1 + 9. �xd1
ic5 10.f3 (Or 10.4Jbd6 + ? ! �e7 11.
tt:Jxc8+ E1axc8 12.f3 E1hd8+ 13.id2
4Jd5 14.id3 tt:Jab4 15.�e2 b5 16.
4Ja3 tt:Jxd3 17.cxd3 ha3 18.bxa3
l"1c2 and the endgame is lost for
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 dS 3Jij d2 c5 4Jijgf3 cd S . tiJxd4 l:iJf6
White, Mannion - Hmadi, Yere­
van 1996.) 10 . . . 0-0 11.c3 l"ld8+
12.'it>c2 l:iJdS 13.b4 il.e7 14.il.d2 i/.d7
1S.a4 i/.e8 16.i/.e2 l:iJac7 17.1:iJxc7
lLlxc7 18.l"lhd1 l"lac8 19.g3 1:iJ dS 2 0 .
'it>b3 il.f6 2 1.f4 bS, Black's position
is totally dominant, Vorobiov -
Volkov, Krasnoyarsk 2 0 03 .
8.lLlc3 ! ? White i s planning a
long struggle with this move. 8 . . .
\Wd8 (An interesting for Black
here is 8 . . . \WeS+ 9.i/.e2 il.b4 ! ? with
a rather unclear position.)
Now:
9 . a3 il.e7 10 .i/.c4 0-0 (Or 10 . . .
lLlc7 1 1 . 0 - 0 0 - 0 12.\Wf3 lLlfdS 13.
lLlde4 fS 14.lLlg3 lLlxc3 1S.\Wxc3
lLldS 16.\Wf3 bS. GM Emil Sutovs­
ky usually treats the French de­
fence as a cross between the Gru­
enfeld Defence and the Najdorf
Sicilian . . . 17.hbS \Wc7 18.c4 Black
is unlikely to obtain compensa­
tion for his wild sacrifices, Ni Hua
- Sutovsky, Wijk aan Zee 2010.)
11.0-0 (White did not achieve any
advantage with the line: 11.\We2
lLlcS 1 2 . 0 - 0 a6 13.b4 lLlcd7 14.il.b2
aS 1S.bxaS \WxaS 16.lLlbS lLlb6 17.
i/.c3 \Wa4 18.il.b3 \Wh4 19.1:iJc7
l"lxa3 = Timofeev - Ni Hua, Tai­
yuan 2 0 0 6 . It would be rather
half-hearted for White to play 14.
lLlb3 ? ! \Wc7 1S.il.b2 lLleS 16.i/.d3
lLlxd3 17.cxd3 il.d7 18.lLle4 lLlxe4
19.dxe4 l"lfc8 20.\Wg4 eS 21.\Wg3 f6
and Black gained the advantage in
the game Handke - Lysyj , Stock­
holm 2 0 0 9 . ) 1 1 . . .lLlcS. (This move
is stronger than 11.. .lLlb8 1 2 .lLlde4
\Wc7 13 .i/.d3 lLlbd7 14.l"le1 b6 1S.
lLlbS \Wc6 16.1:iJbd6 ! ? l:iJ cS 17. 1:iJxc8
l"laxc8 18.lLlxcS hcS 19.\We2 l"lfd8
2 0 .il.f4 il.d6 2 1.i/.d2, Lastin -
Alekseev, Moscow 2 0 0 8 . It seems
to me that White's prospects are
superior in this position. Howev­
er, his advantage might not be so
easy to realize.) 12 .b4 lLlcd7 13.il.b2
aS 14.bxaS \WxaS 1S.lLlbS lLlb6 16.
il.d3 il.d7 17.l"lb1 hbS 18.hbS lLla4
19 .hf6 il.xf6 2 0 .lLle4 il.e7 2 1 . i/.xa4
and Black agreed to a draw in a
very comfortable position, Malak­
hov - Shimanov, Olginka 2 0 11.
There appeared a fresh idea
(not completely new in this posi­
tion, however . . . ), as early as the
second round of the World Cup,
from Peter Svidler (who won the
Cup, by the way. . . ): 9.g3 il.b4 10.
\Wf3 lLlc7? ! That was not the right
square ! (It was stronger for Black
to play 10 . . . lLlcS, protecting the
b7-pawn ! , for example: 11.i/.g2
il.d7 and his position is perfectly
playable ; or 11.a3 i/.xc3 12 .\Wxc3
b6? with chances for both sides. )
11.a3 i/.e7 12 .i/.g2 . Now the game is
developing in a rather unpleasant
way for Black. 12 . . . 0-0 13.0-0
l"lb8 14.lLlde4 l:iJxe4 1S.\Wxe4 il.f6
16.i/.f4 il.d7 17.l"lad1 \WeB 18.i/.d6
il.c6 19.\Wf4 hg2 2 0 . 'it>xg2 hc3
18S
Chapter 24
2 l .bxc3 'LldS 2 2 . Wlf3 Wlc6 23.ixf8
Elxf8 and later, showing tremen­
dous tenacity, Black somehow
managed to save the game, Svidler
- Nguyen Ngoc Truong Son,
Khanty-Mansiysk 2 0 1 1 .
8 ••• Wlc6
It looks quite sensible for
Black to try 8 . . . W!fS 9.ie2 ie7 10.
0-0 (10.'Llf3 0-0 11.'Lld6 WlaS+
12 .id2 Wlb6 13.'Llxc8 8:axc8 14.
Wlc2 'Llb4 1S.Wlb1 icS 16.0-0 'Llc6
17.ic3 8:fd8 18 .Wlc2 'Llb4 19 .Wlb1
'Llc6 2 0 .'<Mic2 'Lld4 and Black tried
to seize the initiative but failed to
win the game, Godena - Ni Hua,
Reggio Emilia 2 0 0 8 . ) 10 . . . 0-0
11.'Lld4 '<MicS 1 2 . 'Ll 2b3 '<MieS 13.if3
'<Mic7 14.'<Mie2 id7 1S.ie3 8:ac8
16.8:ac1 'Ll cS 17.8:fdl. If Black
manages to exchange queens he
will surely be able to equalize,
Howell - Ni Hua, Dresden 2 0 0 8 .
9.lLlf3
Over-complex solutions to the
position, such as the move 9.a3,
do not accord with the style of
competitive grandmasters. I do
not quite understand the idea of
this move in any case. 9 . . . ie7 10.
b4 (White tried something very
strange in this game : 10.'Llf3 0-0
1l.ie2 8:d8 12 .Wlc2 'LlcS 13 .b4 Wle4
14.'<Mixe4 'Llcxe4 1S.ib2 id7 16.
0-0 aS 17.bxaS ElxaS+ and Black's
position is much the more pleas­
ant, Kogan - Grischuk, Rogaska
Slatina 2 0 11.) 10 . . . 0-0 11.Wlf3.
This is another strange-looking
move. (It looks positionally more
sensible for White to play ll.ib2
Eld8 1 2 .'<Mif3 'Llb8 but after 13.'<Mic3?
186
aS 14.ct:ld4 '<Mid7 1S.bS '<Mid6 16.ie2
'Llbd7 17.ct:l4b3 a4 18.'Lle4 Wlf4 19.
ct:lbd2 ct:lcS 20.f3 b6 2 l .g3 Wlh6
2 2 .'Llf2 ib7 23.8:d1 Eld7 24.'Llfl
Elad8 Black had an overwhelming
advantage, Grekh - Vysochin, Li­
petsk 2 0 0 8 . After 12 .'<Mic2 'Llb8 13.
ct:ld4 Wlc7 14.ie2 aS 1S .bS a4 !
16.0-0 'Llbd7 17.8:ad1 ct:lcS 18.
'Ll4f3 'Llfd7 19.'Lle4 f6 20.8:fe1
ct:lxe4 21.Wlxe4 'LlcS 2 2 .8:xd8+
Wlxd8 23.'<Mic2 id7 Black scored a
very nice victory - White's posi­
tion is even worse than it seems at
first sight, Rublevsky - Riazant­
sev, Poikovsky 2 0 1 0 . ) 11.. .'Llb8
1 2 . 8:b1 aS 13 .bxaS Wxf3 14.ct:lxf3
ElxaS. I think Black should have a
perfectly acceptable position in
this ending. In the game he failed
to equalize, but even won it at the
end . . . 1S.ie2 'Llbd7 16.0-0 b6
17.id2 8:a4 18 .ib4 ct:lcS 19.8:fd1
ib7 2 0 .'LleS ia8 2 l.f3 Elb8 2 2 . 8:d2
'Lle8 23.'Lld7 8:b7 24.8:bd1 gS 2S.
ct:lxcS bxcS 26.ic3 Elb8 27.ieS Elc8
2 8 .8:d7 with positional pressure
for White, McShane - Ni Hua,
London 2009.
9 ... b6 10 . .ie2 .ib7 11. 0 - 0
ie7
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. CiJ d2 c5 4. CiJgj3 cd 5. CiJxd4 CiJf6
12.c!tJbd4
White's wish to break up his
opponent's battery on the long di­
agonal is understandable.
White has another interesting
line here - we are already famil­
iar with its ideas : 12 .a3 0-0 (12 . . .
CiJc5 ! ?) 13.CiJbd4 �c8 14.b4 l"1d8
15.�b3 e5 16.CiJc2 e4 17.CiJfd4 CiJb8
18 .�b2 CiJc6 19.l"1ad1 CiJxd4 2 0 .
CiJxd4 and White i s better, Howell
- Istratescu, Hastings 2 0 1 0 .
12 . . . �c8 13.�a4+ .!Lld7 14.
�g5
This is the start of a forcing
line. White considers, quite cor­
rectly, that Black's pawn-struc­
ture is solid enough and he tries
to create concrete problems for
his opponent based on the fact
that he has not yet castled.
14 .•. .!Llac5 15.�a3 .!Llf6
16.b4
White tried to obtain an ad­
vantage with much quieter meth­
ods in the following game, but he
did not achieve much : 16.l"1ad1
0-0 17.CiJe5 l"1e8 18.�e3 CiJce4 19.
�f4 l"1d8 20.f3 CiJd6 2 1.�g3 CiJd7
2 2 .CiJxd7 l"1xd7 23 .b3 �c5 and only
Black might think about an ad­
vantage, Rublevsky - Matlakov,
Moscow 2 0 1 0 .
16 •.. .!Llce4 17.M6 M6 18.
c5 ! ?
This i s a n interesting way of
playing for White, but it is very
risky.
18 . . .bxc5 19.�b5+ 't!?e7 2 0 .
l"1ac1
20 •.• cxd4!
Of course, Black must answer
a blow with a counter-blow!
2U!xc8 ghxc8 2 2.�a6
gc3 ! ? I believe that this move is
much more interesting than the
continuation of a previous game :
2 2 . . . l"1ab8 23 .b5+ CiJd6 24.hb7
l"1xb7 25.l"1d1 l"1c3 2 6.'&a6 l"1xb5 27.
�xa7+ l"1b7 28.'&a6 E1bc7 29.h3
l"17c6 30 .�a7+ l"1c7 31.'&a6 l"17c6
3 2 .'&a7+ and the players agreed
to draw, Vachier Lagrave - Ivan­
chuk, Biel 2 009. 23.�a5 .id5
24.gd1 't!?f8 25 . .!Llxd4 �d8 26.
�a4 �b6 with a very complicated
position in which Black's pros­
pects are by no means worse.
187
Chapter 25 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3)i)d2 c5 4.lLlgf3 cxd4
5.exd5 VMxd5
Readers should be aware that
this position can be reached via
another move-order: 4.exd5 '\Wxd5
5.tt::l gf3 cxd4. If Black intends to
recapture on d5 with his queen,
the move-order is irrelevant to
him. He also has the option of
another plan, based on capturing
on d5 with a pawn and then
playing with an isolated queen's
pawn. However, I believe that
Black should not weaken his
pawn-structure unnecessarily. Of
course, his queen comes into the
centre of the board rather prema­
turely and it is exposed to attack.
However, Black can hope to neu­
tralize White's activity in the
opening and if he manages this he
will have a bright future, since
there are neither pawn-weakness-
188
es nor any weak squares in his po­
sition.
6 .ic4
•
6 ••• '1Wd6
Black sometimes plays 6 . . . '\Wd8
as well. This move is regularly
played by Igor Lysyj . Possibly this
is the result of serious analytical
work. It is a bit passive but quite
reliable. I will quote several mod­
el games for you. 7.0-0 (7.tt::l b3
.ib4+ 8 . .id2 .ixd2+ 9.'\Wxd2 tt::l f6 10.
tt::l bxd4 0-0 11.0-0-0 '\Wc7 12 . .ib3
tt::l c 6 13 .Ei:he1 and the players
agreed to a draw, Popovic - Kosic,
Niksic 1997.) 7 . . . a6 8.tt::l b 3 tt::l c 6 9.
tt:Jbxd4 (9 .'1We2 b5 10 . .id3 tt::l f6 11.
.ig5 .ib7 12.a4 b4 13 . .ie4 .id6 14.
Ei:ad1 0-0 15.tt::l bxd4 tt:Jxd4 16.
Ei:xd4 .ixe4 17.Ei:xe4 h6 18 . .ih4 g5
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. Cb d2 c5 4. tb gj3 cd 5.ed Wffxd5 6. �c4 Wff d6

19.Ei:d4 Wffb 6 2 0 .�g3 hg3 2 1 .hxg3

Ei:ad8 2 2 .Ei:fd1 Ei:xd4 23.Ei:xd4 Ei:c8
and Black had some pressure,
Sjugirov - Riazantsev, Moscow
2009.) 9 . . . 4Jxd4 10.t2J xd4 �d6 11.
Wffd 3 (ll.Wffg4 l2lf6 12.Wffh 4 0-0 13.
�d3 h6 14.Ei:e1 l2Jd5 15.Wffx d8 Ei:xd8
16.c3 �c7 and a draw was agreed,
Navara - Lysyj , Dagomys 2 008.)
1l. . . Wffc 7 12 .h3 l2Jf6 13.Ei:d1 0-0 14.
l2lf3 �e7 15.�b3 b6 16.�g5 �b7 17.
c3 Ei:fd8 18.Wffe 2 h6 19,j,e3 �c5, draw,
Deviatkin - Lysyj, Voronezh 2009. This is White's most aggres­
Here Black should possibly sive plan, although it is not the
consider the move 6 . . . Wffd 7. At most popular. White is trying to
least, there have been several refute his opponent's opening
games played at a very high level strategy in a radical fashion. How­
in which it was tried and Black ever, he must take some risks if he
solved his opening problems eas­ is to accomplish such an ambi­
ily and convincingly. 7.0-0 l2Jc6 tious task.
8 .lLlb3 lLlf6 The motive for placing his
queen on this rather strange
square is that if White naively
plays 7.l2lb3 Wffb 4+ ! he will need to
go back with his knight: 8 .l2Jbd2 .
Attempts by White to avoid
the main line with moves like 7.
�b3 do not achieve anything. This
move can only rely on the element
of surprise and White's chances of
obtaining an advantage are mini­
9.l2Jbxd4 (9.�f4 �d6 10 .hd6 mal. 7 . . . 4Jc6
Wffx d6 ll.l2Jbxd4 l2Jxd4 1 2 .Wffxd4
Wffx d4 13.l2lxd4 �d7= Movsesian ­
Vallejo Pons, Reggio Emilia 2011)
9 . . . �c5 1 0 .l2Jxc6 Wffxc6 ll.l2le5 Wffb 6
12.Wffe 2 0-0 13.�d3 l2Jd5 14.Wffe4 f5
15.Wffe 2 Wffc7 16.�c4 �d6 17.l2Jf3 �d7
18 .hd5 exd5 19.�e3 f4 2 0 .�d4
�f5 and Black was better in the
game Caruana - Shirov, Biel 2 0 1 1 .

189
Chapter 25
8.ltlc4 (8.ltle4 Wd8 9.0-0 :Jie7
10 .We2 lt:lf6 11.:gd1 0-0 12 .c3 eS
13.h3. Black has an extra pawn
and no problems whatsoever. 13. . .
:JifS 14.lt:lg3 d3 15.We1 Wd7 16.
lt:lxeS lt:lxeS 17.Wxe5 :Jig6 18.:Jie3
:gfe8 and White must think about
equalizing. Black played less
strongly in the following game,
but he still won the rather compli­
cated ending after 18 . . . :Jid8 19.
:Jic4 :Jic7 20.Wb5 WxbS 2 1.:Jixb5,
Hansen - Akopian, Turin 2006.)
8 . . .Wd8 9.0-0 lt:lf6 10.We2 d3 !
The Chinese player treats the po­
sition in a very original fashion.
White's pieces are really awk­
wardly placed from the point of
view of fighting against the iso­
lated pawn. ll.cxd3 :Jie7 12 .d4
0-0 13.lt:lce5 lt:lxd4 14.lt:lxd4 Wxd4
15.:Jig5 lt:ldS 16.:gfd1 Wb4 17.:Jixe7
lt:lxe7 18.:gacl lt:lc6 19.ltlxc6 bxc6
2 0 . :gxc6 :Jib7= Timofeev - Ding,
Sochi 2009.
7 . . )i:lf6 8.tbb3 lbc6 9 .ig5
• chess. You can hardly win a game
9 . . . a6
I recommend that Black fol­
lows the most principled path.
Sometimes Black plays 9 . . .
190
:Jie7, or even 9 . . . Wb4+ 10 .:Jid2
Wb6.
1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 b5 ll.:Jid3 :Jie7
Both sides have almost com-
pleted the mobilization of their
forces.
White can choose here be-
tween several possibilities.
12.:ghel
This move has not been thor­
oughly analyzed yet, but I think it
is White's most promising. This is
quite typical of contemporary
at any level without demonstrat­
ing something new . . .
I t would b e a mistake for
White to opt for 1 2 .:Jie4? lt:lxe4
13.Wxe4 :Jib7 14.lt:lbxd4 Wc7 and
Black is even better.
The logical move 12.ltlbxd4
can be countered forcefully with
12 . . . lbxd4 13.lt:lxd4 WdS !
(diagram)
14.:Jixf6 :Jixf6 15.mbl. It looks
as though White has created some
difficulties for his opponent, but
that assumption would be wrong.
15 . . . :Jib7! This novelty solves all
Black's problems. (Previously
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 dS 3. t2J d2 cS 4. t2Jgj3 cd S.ed V!ixdS 6. iJ.c4 V!id6
Black used to play 15 . . . V!ffc5 16.iJ.e4
l'!a7 17.iJ.c6+ rnf8 18.V!ff e 3 lt>g8 19.
l'!d2 l'!c7 2 0 . l'!hd1 h5 2 1.iJ.a8 g6
with an acceptable position, Solak
- Wang Hao, Dubai 2 005. Of
course, not everyone likes to play
with such a stalemated rook.)
16.t2Jxb5
16 . . . rne7! This is another very
good move for Black. 17.t2Jc7 V!fc5
18.t2Jxa8 iJ.xg2. Suddenly it be­
comes clear that despite his extra
rook White must think about how
to equalize. 19.V!ffe 3 (Or 19.l'!hg1?
l'!b8 2 0.c3 V!ffxc3 21.l'!d2 iJ.f3 ! 2 2 .
l'!c1 V!ffx c1+ 23.rnxc1 he2 24.l'!xe2
l'!xa8 and Black has an over­
whelming advantage in this end­
game. ) 19 . . . V!ffxe3 20.fxe3 iJ.xh1
21.l'!xh1 (It is very risky for White
to opt for 2 1 .tt:Jc7 iJ.c6 2 2 . t2Jxa6 g5
and Black's pawns, supported by
his bishops, might well promote
rather quickly.) 2 1 . . . l'!xa8. Black
can continue playing for a win in
this position.
It is possible that White should
try 14.f4, but Black also has an ex­
cellent position in that case : 14 . . .
V!ffx a2 15.c3 iJ.d7 16.f5 (It i s inferior
to choose 16 .iJ.b1? V!ffa 5 17.V!ff e5
0-0 18. tt:Jb3 V!ff a4 and the players
agreed to a draw here in a better
position for Black, Akopian -
Roiz, Sochi 2006. 17 . . . l'!c8 ! and
White has no compensation for
the pawn.) 16 . . . l'!c8 17.iJ.b1 (White
might become the victim of a
beautiful combination if he ex­
changes pawns prematurely: 17.
fxe6 fxe6 18 .iJ.b1 l'!xc3 + 19.tt:Jc2
V!ffc4 2 0 .V!ffd 2 iJ.c6 ! 2 1 .V!ffxc3
tt:Je4 ! ! - + ) 17 . . . l'!xc3+ 18.tt:Jc2 V!ffc4
19.V!ffd 2 l'!xc2 + (Here 19 . . . iJ.c6?
2 0 .bxc3 t2Je4 does not work, since
after 2 1 .V!ff d 8+ he gets mated.)
2 0 .hc2 iJ.c6 21.l'!he1 iJ.d5 and
Black has excellent compensation
for the exchange.
White obtains no advantage
even if he plays 1 2 . mb1, since
Black answers that with 12 . . . iJ.b7
13.t2Jbxd4 tt:Jxd4 14.tt:Jxd4 iJ.d5 (Or
14 . . . 0 - 0 . This is also possible. lv­
anchuk can play anything . . . 15.
tt:Jf3 t2J d5 16.ma1 hg5 17.tt:Jxg5 h6
18.V!ffe 4 l'!fd8 19.V!ffh 7+ mf8 2 0 .tt:Jf3
V!fff4 2 1 .V!ffe4 V!ffxe4 2 2 .he4 f5 23.
iJ.xd5 l'!xd5. White is faced with a
rather unpleasant defence, Ni­
kolaidis - lvanchuk, Peristeri
2 0 1 0 . It is important that after
14 . . . 0 - 0 , it would not work for
White to play 15.t2Jxb5 axb5
16.hf6 iJ.d5 ! )
191
Chapter 25
1S.lt:lf3 (Or 1S.E!he1 ? ! ha2 +
1 6 . 'it>xa2 �xd4 and suddenly
Black has won a pawn, Dovliatov
- Malakhatko, Baku 2008, since
if 17.ixbS+ axbS is check.) 1S . . .
0-0 16.lt:leS b 4 17.h4 a S 18.E!h3
E!fd8 19.E!g3 a4 2 0 .f4 a3 with a
complicated position, Kim - S.
Ivanov, St Petersburg 2 0 04. Of
course, the play of both sides can
be corrected and improved, but
the overall picture is quite favour­
able for Black.
12 . . . h6
This is a new move and it is
based on an interesting tactical
trick.
Previously Black had played
12 . . . ib7 13.lt:lfxd4 lt:lxd4 14.lt:lxd4
�dS? (Black can also try the line:
14 . . . idS ! ? 1S.�e3 �c7 16.'it>b1
192
with a complicated fight ahead.)
1S.lt:lfS ! �xa2 16.�eS (16.c3 ! ±)
16 . . . �a1+ 17.'it>d2 �aS+ 18.c3
lt:le4+? 19.he4 hgS+ 2 0 . 'it>e2
he4 2 1 .lt:lxg7+- Ganguly -
Petrik, Dresden 2 0 0 8 .
Black can develop his bishop
another way - 12 . . . id7 - but it
seems to me that it is misplaced
there. 13. 'it>b1 (White does not ob­
tain any advantage with 13.ie4
E!c8 14.lt:lbxd4 �c7 1S.lt:lxc6 hc6
16.hc6+ �xc6 17.'it>b1 0-0 18.
lt:leS �c7 19.ixf6 hf6 2 0 .lt:ld7
hb2 ! = ; 19.lt:ld7 E!fd8 20.lt:lxf6+
h£6 2 1.hf6 gxf6 = ) 13 . . . E!d8
14.h3 lt:ldS 1S.ixe7 �xe7 16.
lt:lfxd4 lt:lxd4 17.lt:lxd4 �b4 18 .lt:lb3
0-0 19 .ie4 lt:lf6 2 0 .E!d4 �e7 2 1 .
id3 ic6 and Black has a n excel­
lent position, Lie - Avrukh, Her­
aklio 2 007.
In reply to 14.ih4 ! ? it would
be interesting for Black to try the
simple response 14 . . . 0-0 and
now:
1S.ig3 �dS 16.lt:lfd4 lt:ld4 17.
lt:ld4 g6 - Black's position seems
secure;
1S.g4 lt:lg4 (1S . . . g6 ! ? ) 16.ig3
�dS 17.lt:ld4 lt:lf6 - It is unlikely
that White will manage to mate
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3Jijd2 c5 4Ji:Jgj3 cd S.ed Vfffxd5 6. i.c4 Vfff d6
his opponent, but he does retain
some compensation ;
1S.C2Jfd4 ltJd4 16.C2Jd4 g6 17.
C2Jf3 C2Jd5 18 .i.e7 Vfffe 7 19.lLle5 Vfffc S=
13.i.h4
After 13 .hf6 ? ! hf6 14.i.e4
i.b7 1S.C2Jbxd4 C2Jxd4 16.C2Jxd4
he4 17.Vfffxe4 0-0, Black can be
quite happy.
13 ••• 0-0
It looks attractive to try 13 . . .
i.b7 but i t doesn't work very well :
14.ltJbxd4 C2Jxd4 1S.ltJxd4 Vffff4+?
16.'1t>b1 Vfffxh4 17.C2Jxe6 ! + -
14.i.g3
14.ltJbxd4? ltJxd4 15.ctJxd4 Vffff4-+
The preliminary 14.'1t>b1 mere-
ly presents Black with additional
possibilities. For example : 14 . . .
i.b7 1S.C2Jbd4 (1S.i.g3 Vfff d 8 16.
C2Jfxd4 C2Jxd4 17.C2Jxd4 i.dS ! ?) 15 . . .
C2Jxd4 16.ctJxd4 Wxh 2 . Black's
boldness can be envied. In fact,
everything which is not forbidden
is allowed! 17.i.g3 Vfffh S 18.f3 ttJdS
The plan with 7. Vfff e2 is becoming less and less popular lately.
White must try to find an improvement in this variation!
19.Vffff2 C2Jb4 2 0.i.e4 i.xe4 21.fxe4
!:'1ac8 2 2 .a3 ctJc6 with an extra
pawn and a superior position for
Black, Shyam - Shimanov, Chen­
nai 2 0 1 1 .
14 .tt/d5 15.'i!?b1 i.b7 16.
• •
c!bfxd4 c!bxd4
But not 16 . . . C2Jb4 ? ! 17.f3 C2Jxd3
18.!:'1xd3 and White seizes the ini­
tiative.
17.c!bxd4 E1fd8
The position is approximately
equal. Let us see some sample
variations.
18 .ie5
•
White would not achieve much
with the risky line: 18.C2Jf5 .if8
19.lLle3 WcS.
Black's position remains solid
after 18.C2Jf3 VfffcS 19.lLle5 i.dS.
18 .l'�ac8 with a very compli­
••
cated position.
It is inferior to play 18 . . . ltJd7? !
19.i.c7! and Black's pieces be­
come rather uncoordinated.
193
Chapter 26 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.lL'ld2 c5 4.lL'lgf3 cxd4
5.exd5 �xd5 6.i.c4 �d6 7. 0 - 0
This is the main line. White
plays solidly, relying on obtaining
an advantage through simple cen­
tral strategy.
7 .tiJ f6 8 .ti:l b3
•.
8 .l'!e1 - This is a risky plan and
Black must react aggressively
against it. 8 . . . '2ic6 9. '2ie4 'Lixe4
10.l'!xe4 ibe7 11.'2ixd4 (Black can
solve his opening problems suc­
cessfully after ll.ibf4? ! �c5 12 .ibd3
ibf6 13.a3 a5 ! ? and White cannot
develop any initiative. It is weaker
for Black to play 13 . . . 0-0, since
White can then carry out an inter­
esting idea : 14.b4 �h5 15.b5 'Lie7
16.ibe5 'LidS 17.1Lxd4 ibxd4 18.
l'!xd4 'Lif6 19.�d2 with some pres­
sure, Hracek - Kelly, Rethymnon
2 0 03.)
194
ll . . . e5 ! This is the beginning of
a forcing line, which leads to a
very complicated endgame. (It is
less principled for Black to play
1 1 . . . 0 - 0 ? ! 1 2 .1Lf4 �c5 13.'2ixc6
�xc6 14.ibd3 b5 15.a4 a6 16.l'!e3
ibb7 17.1Le4 �xe4 18.l'!xe4 1Lxe4
19.�e2 ibd5 2 0 .h4 l"1ac8 21.axb5
axb5 2 2 .ibg5 ibd6 23.l'!a6 ibb8 24.
ibe7 l'!fe8 25.ibd6 l'!ed8 26.1Lxb8
l'!xb8 and White succeeded in
winning this position, Kasparov -
Gelfand, Astana 2 001 .) 12.1Lf4 !
exf4 13.'2ixc6 �xd1+ 14.l'!xd1 bxc6
15.l'!de1 @f8 16.l'!xe7 ibe6 ! Black's
whole defence is based on this
possibility. He wins the exchange
and although White will have ex­
cellent compensation, this will
hardly be sufficient for victory.
17.l"11xe6 fxe6 18.l'!c7 h5! This is
the right way to develop Black's
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. liJ d2 c5 4. liJgf3 cd S.ed Wffxd5 6. 1lc4 Wff d6 7. 0 - 0 liJf6
king's rook. (It would be weaker
to play 18 . . . gS? 19.Wfl l'!e8 2 0 .
E!xa7 l'!e7 2 l . l'!a6 l'!c7 2 2 .l'!aS h6
23.l'!eS l'!e7 24.l'!cS l'!c7 2S.a4 We7
26.l'!eS Wd6 27.l'!xe6+ WcS 2 8 .b3
and White eventually won, Hra­
cek Borovikov, Pardubice
2 0 0 2 . ) 19. Wfl E!h6 2 0 . l'!xc6 E!d8
(One game ended in a quick draw
after 20 . . . E!e8 2l .l'!c7 l'!e7 2 2 . l'!c8+
l'!e8 23.l'!c7 l'!e7 24.l'!c8 + , Kurnos­
ov - Najer, Kazan 200S.) 2 l.id3
We7 2 2 .l'!a6 E!d7 23.l'!aS h4 24.h3
g6 2S.l'!a6 gS 26.We2 Wf6 27.b3
E!h8 2 8.ic4 l'!e7 29.l'!c6 E!b8 with
a very complicated endgame in
which Black's prospects are bet­
ter, Oral - Wang Hao, Mallorca
2 0 04.
8 .liJc6 9.tiJ bxd4 ttJxd4
.•
1 0 .�xd4
The endgame is absolutely
harmless for Black after 10.®xd4
®xd4 ll.liJxd4 id7 12.if4 E!c8
13 .ib3 icS 14.E!adl 0-0 1S.liJf3
E!fd8 16.liJeS ibS 17.c4 ie8 18.
E!xd8 E!xd8 19.E!dl l'!c8 2 0 . Wfl aS,
and Black even had the better po­
sition in the game Pavasovic -
Roiz, Valjevo 2 0 07.
10 . . . a6
This is the most sensible move.
Black has also tried here 10 . . . id7
and 1 0 . . . ie7.
White now has to make a
choice between several possibili­
ties.
ll.l'�el
This is his main and most ag­
gressive move. Now Black is faced
with concrete problems and he
must react very precisely.
It is weaker for White to play
ll.a4 Wc7 12 .b3 (12 .We2 id6 13.
h3 0-0 14.c3 h6 lS.l'!el b6 16.id3
ib7 17.id2 E!fd8 18.E!adl icS=
Short - lvanchuk, Montreal
2 007.) 12 . . . id6 13.h3 0-0 14.ib2
eS 1S.liJf3 e4 16.liJgS (16.li:Jd4 id7
17.We2 l'!ae8 18.icl WaS 19.l'!dl
WeS with an initiative for Black,
Tiviakov - Dreev, Podolsk 1992)
16 ... ifS 17.hf6 gxf6 18 .WdS
ih2 + 19.Whl ieS 2 0 .liJxe4 ie6
2 l.®dl hc4 2 2 .bxc4 fS 23.liJg3
hal 24.Wxal f6. White has com­
pensation for the exchange, but
not more than that, Movsesian -
Morozevich, Reggio Emilia 2 01 1 .
It i s hardly interesting for
19S
Chapter 26
White to opt for l l.i.d3 i.d7
12.li'lf3 Vfic7 13.l"le1 i.d6 14.Vfie2
li'l d5 15.a3 li'lf4 (Black has a rea­
sonable alternative here in 15 . . .
0-0 16.li'le5= Azarov - Akopian,
Plovdiv 20 0 8 .) 16.i.xf4 .b:f4 17.g3
i.d6 18 .l"lad1 l"ld8= Ponomariov -
Huebner, Istanbul 2 0 0 0 .
Black has some problems to
solve if White plays in prophylac­
tic fashion with 11.i.b3 .
It is quite principled for Black
to play 1 l.. .i.d7, preventing the
early activation of White's queen.
12 .c3 Vfic7 13 .i.g5 0-0-0 (13 . . .
i.d6? ! 14.i.xf6 gxf6 15.Vfih5 Vfic5
16.Vfif3 Vfie5 17.g3 0-0-0 18.l"lfe1
Vfig5 19.i.c4 Vfic5 2 0 .i.fl f5 2 1.b4
and White seized the initiative in
the game, Ye Jiangchuan - Wang
Hao, Jinan 2 0 05) 14 ..b:f6 gxf6
15.Vfih5 i.e8 16.l"lad1 <;t>b8 and de­
spite the fact that Black still has
some problems to solve in this po­
sition, he has scored excellent
practical results so far.
17.l"lfe1 l"lc8 18.Vfih4 i.e7 19.g3?
h5 ! 2 0 .Vfif4 Vfixf4 21.gxf4 l"lg8 + 2 2 .
<;t>f1 f5, with brilliant prospects for
Black, Rublevsky - Vitiugov,
Moscow 20 0 6;
17.l"ld2 l"l c 8 18.l"lfd1 l"lg8 19.
196
Vfixh7 l"lg6 2 0.g3 f5 21.Vfih5 f4
2 2 . Vfif3 i.c5 23.<;t>fl l"lh6 24.Vfixf4
Vfixf4 25.gxf4 l"lxh2 26.li'lf3 and the
players agreed to a draw, Tiviakov
- Stellwagen, Hilversum 2008.
l l . . . Vfic7
12.1�'f3. This is the idea behind
White's play. He wishes to save a
tempo by not playing l"lel. (It is
inferior to play 12 .i.g5 i.d6 13.
i.xf6 gxf6 14.Vfih5 Vfic5 ! and Black
solved all his problems after 12 .c3
i.d6 13.<;t>h1 0-0 14.i.g5 li'le4 15.
i.h4 e5 16.li'lc2 li'lc5 17.i.d5 i.f5 18.
li'le3 i.g6 19.li'lc4 li'ld3 2 0.Vfib3
i.e7= Rublevsky - Khalifman,
Neum 2 0 0 0 . ) 12 . . . i.d6 13 .h3 (The
ultra-cautious move 13.<;t>h1 does
not change much after 13 . . . 0-0
14.i.g5 li'ld7 15.c3 li'le5 16.Vfih5
li'lg6 17.i.c2 h6 18.i.e3 li'lf4 19.Vfif3
li'ld5 2 0 .i.d2 b5 2 1.Vfie4 f5 2 2 .Vfie2
l"lf6 23 .i.b3 Vfic5 24.l"lad1 <;t>h8 25.
i.c1 i.d7 26 . .b:d5 exd5 27.Vfif3 f4
with a rather complicated posi­
tion, Potkin - Rodriguez Guerre­
ro, Linares 2 0 0 2 . 17 . . . b6 ! ? 18.
l"lae1 i.b7 19.l"le3 Vfic5 2 0 .Vfig4
l"lae8 and Black's position is ac­
ceptable. 20 . . . i.e7?? 2 1.li'lxe6 !
fxe6 2 2 .Vfixe6+ l"lf7 23 . .b:g6 hxg6
24 . .b:e7 Vfib5 25.c4 Vfixb2 26.
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3 . lil d2 c5 4 . tilgf3 cd 5.ed Wixd5 6. il.c4 Wid6 7. 0 - 0 ltJf6
Wid7+ - Rublevsky - Morovic Fer­
nandez, Poikovsky 2 0 0 1. ) 13 . . .
0-0 14.il.g5 ltJd7 15.c3
15 . . . ltJe5 (One of the most re­
nowned experts in the French De­
fence, the German GM Georg
Meier played in this position 15 . . .
b5 16.E1fe1 il.b7 17.Wih5 ltJe5 18 .il.c2
ltJg6 19.E1ad1 Wic5 20.Wig4 ltJeS
2 1.Wih4 ltJg6= Parligras - Meier,
Rijeka 2 0 10) 16.Wih5 ltJg6 17.il.c2
b6 18 .il.e3 il.b7 19.ltJf3 h6 2 0 . E1fd1
ltJf4 2 l.il.xf4 hf4, and Black is
slightly better, but it is perfectly
obvious that White could have
played better, Tiviakov - lonov,
Ohrid 2 0 0 1 .
Previously White used t o con­
tinue with 1l.b3, but Black found
a way to obtain a good game. 11. . .
Wic7 (1l.. .e5. This i s a very risky
move. 12 .E1e1 ! ? il.e7 13.ltJf3 Wixd1
14.E1xd1 e4 1S.ltJeS 0-0 16.il.e3
and in the ensuing endgame
White exerts some pressure ;
12.ltJf3 b5 13.il.e2 e4 14.ltJd4? il.e7
1S.il.b2 0 - 0 16.Wid2 ltJg4 17.hg4
hg4 18 .Wie3 f5 19.f3 exf3 2 0.ltJxf3
f4 with a better position for Black,
Movsesian - Shirov, Plovdiv
2010. White should have ex­
changed queens - 14.Wixd6 hd6
15.E1d1 il.b4 16.ltJd4 il.c3 17.E1b1
0-0 18 .il.b2 hb2 19.E1xb2 b4 2 0 .
c 4 bxc3 2 l .E1c2± and h e would
have retained some advantage. )
1 2 .il.b2 il.d6
13.ltJf3 (Or 13.h3 ? ! 0-0 14.
ltJf3 bS 1S.il.d3 il.b7 16.E1e1 E1fd8
17.ltJeS ltJe4 18 .he4 he4 19.Wid4
hc2 2 0 .E1ac1 il.a3 2 1.ltJd7 hb2
2 2 .Wixb2 E1ac8 and Black ended
up with an extra pawn in the game
Postny - Filippov, Moscow 2 0 04.)
13 ... b5 14.il.d3 il.b7 15.c4 (It is no
better for White to play 15.E1e1
0-0 16.ltJe5 E1ad8 17.Wie2 ltJdS
18.Wig4 fS 19.Wih4 ltJb4 2 0.E1e2
ltJxd3 2 1 .ltJxd3 il.e4 and Black
even went on to win in Tiviakov -
Psakhis, Rostov-on-Don 1993.)
15 ... ltJg4 16.h3 il.h2 + 17.c;t>h1 il.g1
18.il.e5 ltJxeS 19.ltJxe5 Wixe5 and
here the players agreed to a draw,
Tiviakov - Prusikin, Dresden
2 007. Two different opponents
continued the fight from this
same position, but the result was
just the same in the end: 2 0 . c;t>xg1
E1d8 2 1 .Wie2 Wixe2 2 2 .he2 E1d2
23.E1fel bxc4 24.hc4 c;t>e7 25.E1e2
E1hd8 26.E1ae1 aS 27.f4 E1xe2 28.
E1xe2 il.dS 2 9.hd5 E1xd5 30.c;t>f2
c;t>d6, draw, Womacka - Luther,
197
Chapter 26
Chemnitz 2009. This is probably
the sign of a very strong player -
to anticipate the inevitability of a
certain result, long before it has
become really obvious . . .
I t looks reasonable, but rather
slow, for White to play ll.c3 V!ff c7
12 .i.b3 (White cannot create any
real problems for his opponent
with the line: 1 2 .V!ff e 2 i.d6 13.h3
0-0 14.i.g5 'Lle4 15.i.e3 b5 16.i.d3
i.b7 17.V!ffc 2 'Llf6 18 .i.g5 h6 19 .
.hf6 gxf6 2 0.i.e4 .he4 2 1 .V!ffxe4 fS
2 2 .V!fff3 Elac8 23.Elad1 i.eS 24.Eld3
Elfd8 25.Elfd1 i.g7 and Black equal­
ized easily, Bagirov - Djurasevic,
Oberhausen 1961; 12 .i.d3 i.d6 13.
h3 i.d7 14.V!fff3 0-0 15.i.g5 i.h2 +
16.<i>h1 i.eS 17.Elae1 .hd4 18.cxd4
'Lld5 19.V!ffe4 fS 2 0 .Wffe 2 V!ffb 6 21.Eld1
i.bS with an excellent position
for Black, Tiviakov - Kramnik,
Kherson 1991.) 12 . . . i.d6 13.h3
0-0 14. i.gS 'Lle4 15.i.e3 i.h2 +
1 6 . 'tt> h 1 i.f4 17.V!fff3 i.xe3 18.V!ffxe3
'Llf6 19.f4 bS 2 0 . Elae1 Ele8 2 1 .V!ff e5
V!ffx eS 2 2 . ElxeS i.b7 23.f5 exfS 24.
ElexfS Elad8 25.<i>h2 i.dS 2 6 . .hd5
ElxdS 27.Elxd5 'LlxdS= Tiviakov -
Huebner, Venlo 2 0 0 0 .
198
11 ••. V!ffc7
Black has a very attractive al­
ternative here - ll . . . i.d7 12 .i.g5
(It is probably quite reasonable
for White to try some less forcing
line, such as: 12.c3 ! ? V!ffc7 13.V!ffe 2
i.d6 14.h3 0-0 15.i.g5 i.h2 + 16.
<i>h1 i.f4 17 . .hf6 gxf6 18 .i.d3 fS
19.V!ffh 5 <i>h8 2 0 .'Llxf5 exfS 21.Ele7
V!ff c 6 2 2 .Elxd7! ± Yemelin - Filip­
pov, Panormo 2 0 0 1 . )
and here:
it is bad for Black to play 12 . . .
V!ffc S? 13 . .he6 fxe6 1 4 . .hf6 gxf6
15.'Llxe6 .he6 16.Elxe6+ i.e7 17.b4
V!ffc 3 18.Ele3 V!ffc 7 19.V!ffh 5+ <i>f8 2 0.
Elae1 and White has a decisive at­
tack, Adams - Nisipeanu, Sofia
2 0 07;
as is 12 ... V!ffc 7? 13 ..he6 i.xe6
14 . .hf6 gxf6 15.'Llxe6 fxe6 16.
Elxe6+ <i>t7 17.V!ffd 5 \t>g7 18.V!fff5
V!fft7 (18 . . . i.e7 19.Elae1 Elhe8 2 0.
V!ffe 4 <i>f8 2 1 .V!ffx h7 Elad8 2 2 .h4 V!ff cS
23.h5 1-0 Shytaj - Malakhatko,
Tromsoe 2009.) 19.Eld1 i.e7 20.Eld7
Elhe8 2 1.g3 Elab8 2 2 .h4 hS 23.c4
b6 24.b4 Elbc8 25.Elexe7 Elxe7
26.Elxe7 V!ffx e7 27.V!ffx c8 + - Andria­
sian - Rodshtein, Yerevan 2 0 0 6 ;
1 2 . . . 0 - 0 - 0 13.Ele3
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.0,d2 c5 4.0,gj3 cd S.ed Vffxd5 6. ilc4 Vff d6 7. 0 - 0 0,f6
This position was considered
to be difficult for Black, in view of
the possible transfer of White's
rook along the third rank. That fa­
mous master of original and spec­
tacular ideas, Emil Sutovsky,
managed to overturn that evalua­
tion. 13 . . . ilc6 ! (After the indiffer­
ent move 13 . . . Wb8 Black has great
problems: 14J'lb3 l"i:c8 15.Vfff3 ilc6
16.0,xc6+ Vffxc6 17.ilxf6 gxf6 18.
Vffxf6 l"lg8 19.ilf1 l"lg6 2 0 .Vffxf7 ilc5
2l.Vfif3 e5 2 2 .Vffxc6 l"i:gxc6 23.l"i:el±
Asrian - Wang Hao, Taiyuan
2006.) 14.l"i:d3 ile4 15.0,b5 (White
achieves nothing with 15.l"ld2 Vffb 6
16.c3 ild6 = ; he should avoid
15.0,f5 Vffc 7 16.l"lxd8 + Vffx d8 17.
Vffx d8 + Wxd8 18.l"i:d1+ Wc8 19.
0,d6 + ilxd6 2 0 .l"i:xd6 ild5= ) 15 . . .
Vffe 7 16.0,a7+ Wc7 17.ilf4+ (White
might try to create some prob­
lems for his opponent with 17.
l"i:xd8 Vffx d8 18.Vfie1 ild6 19.ilxf6
Vffxf6 2 0 .Vffxe4 ilc5 2 1 . 0,c6 bxc6
2 2 .l"i:fl l"i:d8, although the first im­
pression is that Black should be
able to hold. After 18 . . . Wb8, how­
ever, he is clearly worse: 19.Vffxe4
0,xe4 2 0 .ilxd8 Wxa7 2 1.ila5 ilc5
2 2 .ilel. Of course, if Black de­
fends well, White's advantage will
probably not be sufficient to win
the game, but under the present
fast time-controls it would be
very difficult for Black to defend
such positions in over-the-board
chess.) 17 . . . e5
18.ilxe5+ ? Vffx e5 19 .l"i:xd8 ild6
2 0 . l"i:xh8 Vffxh2 + 2 l . Wf1 ilxg 2 + 2 2 .
W e 2 Vffe 5+ 23.Wd3 b5- +
The only game played with
this line continued with 18.ile3
ilxd3 19.cxd3 Wb8 2 0 .l"i:c1 Vff d 6 (I
cannot understand why Black did
not play 20 . . . l"i:d4 ! ? 2 1.ilxd4 exd4
2 2 . 0,c6+ bxc6 23 .ilxa6 Vffe 6 24.
Vff a4 ilc5, with an extra piece.)
2 1.ilxf7 ile7 2 2 .Vffb 3 Vffb 4 23 .Vfic2
Vffd 6 24.h3 0,d7 and the game
ended in a draw: 25.Vffb 3 Vffb 4
26.Vffe 6 Vffd 6 27.Vffb3 Vffb 4 2 8.Vffe 6
Vff d 6 Shirov - Sutovsky, Poikovs­
ky 2 0 09 .
18.l"i:xd8 Vffx d8 19.Vffx d8 +
Wxd8 2 0 .l"i:d1+ 0,d7 2 1.ile3 (The
game might end in an amusing
draw after 2 1 .ilxf7 exf4 2 2 .ile6
Wc7 23.l"i:xd7+ Wb8 24.f3 ilc5+
25. Wfl ilxc2 2 6.ild5 ild3 + 27. We1
l"i:e8+ 2 8 . Wd2 l"i:e7 29.l"i:xe7 ilxe7
3 0 .Wxd3 Wxa7=) 2 l . .. Wc7 2 2 .ilxf7
ilf5, it seems that White cannot
really play this endgame for a win,
for example: 23 .a4 b6 24.ild5 0,f6
199
Chapter 26
25.c4 �d7 and the knight on a7 re­
mains a sorry sight.
12 .ib3
. where White is a pawn down. 18 . . .
The move 12 .�d3 is consid­
ered to be bad by theory, probably
because of 12 . . . �d6 13.tt:Jf5? !
hh2 + 14.\t>h1 lt>f8 15.g3 exf5 1 6 .
lt>xh2 h5 17.�f4 �b6 18.\t>g2 �e6
19.c4 h4 20.f3 hxg3 2 1.hg3 f4
2 2 .�f2 l"1h2 + 0-1 Smagin - Aka­
pian, Yerevan 1988.
12 .�e2 ! ? This is an interesting
try for White. He keeps his bishop
on c4, with the idea of retreating
it later to d3 if necessary. Black
will have some problems to solve.
It would be a step in the wrong
direction for him to try 12 . . . �d7?
13.�g5 0-0-0 14.h3 ! This is
White's most precise response by
200
White. He prevents i n advance
any attack on this pawn. 14 . . . �b4
15.c3 �d6 16.a4 h6 17.�e3 e5 18.
tt:Jc2 �f5 19.tt:Jb4 a5 2 0 .tt:Jd5 tt:Jxd5
2 1.hd5 e4 2 2 .�b5 �d7 23.�b3±
Lastin - Shimanov, Ulan Ude
2009.
12 . . . �c5 13.c3 (It would be too
passive for White to opt for 13.
tt:Jf3 b5 14.�d3 �b7 - 14 ... tt:Jg4 ! ?
15.l"1f1 �b7 16.�e4 0 - 0 = - 15.tt:Je5
0-0 16.�f4 tt:Jd5 17.�g3 tt:Jb4 18.
hh7+ . This is a beautiful combi­
nation, but it leads to an endgame
lt>xh7 19.tt:Jg6 fxg6 2 0 .hc7 l"1xf2
2l.�xf2 hf2 + 2 2 .<i>xf2 tt:Jxc2 .
Black failed to exploit it, howev­
er . . . , Azarov - Vitiugov, Aix-les­
Bains 2011.) 13 . . . b5 (Or 13 . . . 0-0?!
14.�g5 tt:Jd5 15.l"1ad1 �e7 16.he7
tt:Jxe7 17.he6 ! he6 18.tt:Jxe6 fxe6
19.�xe6+ l"1f7 2 0 . l"1d7 �f4 2 l.l"1xe7
�xf2 + 2 2 .<i>h1 l"1af8 23.h3± Emms
- Kelly, Birmingham 2 0 05.) 14.
�b3 0-0 15.�g5 �b7 16.hf6 gxf6
17.�h5 lt>h8 18.�h6 l"1g8 19.�xf6+
l"1g7 2 0.g3 �e7 2 l.�e5 �d6 2 2 .�f6
�e7 23.�e5 �d6 24.�f6 �e7 25.
�e5 �d6 26.�f6 and White had to
acquiesce to a draw, Emms - Le­
vitt, Plymouth 1989.
It is might be worth consider­
ing a more cautious approach for
Black - 12 . . . �d6 13.�g5 0-0
14.hf6 (White will not achieve
much with 14.tt:Jf3 b5 15.�d3 �b7
16.hf6 gxf6 17.�e4 l"1fd8 18.l"1ad1
l"1ac8 19.c3 he4 2 0 .�xe4 f5 2 1 .
�h4 �f8 2 2 . a4 �e7= Azarov -
Dubov, Aix-les-Bains 2011.) 14 . . .
gxf6
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. ttJ d2 c5 4 . ttJ gj3 cd 5.edVfixd5 6. JJ.c4Vfid6 7. 0 - 0 ttJ j6
15.id3 . The only chance for
White to create any real difficul­
ties for Black is to play with maxi­
mum aggression. 15 . . . ixh2 + (15 . . .
f5 ! ? 16.Vfih5 'it>h8 17.l'!e3 l'!g8
18.l'!ae1 §J..d 7 19.Vfixf7? This move
is obviously based on an incorrect
evaluation of the position arising.
19 . . . l'!xg2 + 2 0 . c;�;>f1 l'!f8 21.Vfixf8 +
hf8 2 2 . '\t>xg2 ic5 23.c3 hd4 24.
cxd4 ic6+ 25.'1t>f1 idS and Black
exploited his advantage, So -
Meier, Lubbock 2010.) 16.'1t>f1 if4
17.g3 l'!d8 ! 18 .Vfie4 ! (18.c3 ? ! ih6
19.Vfih5 §J..g 7 2 0.hh7+ 'it>f8 2 1 .
l'!ad1 §J..d 7 2 2 .'1t>g1 l'!ac8 , Black's
position is acceptable but rather
passive, Giri - Wiedenkeller,
Ohrid 2009.) 18 .. .f5 19.ttJxf5 exf5
2 0 . 1Jfixf4 Vfixf4 21.gxf4 'it>g7 and
the endgame is worse for Black,
but still defensible.
12 ... .id7!?
Some ten years ago, it was very
popular for Black to continue with
12 . . . id6 and although White
failed to prove any advantage in
the gambit which arises in the
main line, Black stopped playing
that line, for reasons I do not
quite understand. This is quite
typical of the trend of fashion in
chess. It is changing and com­
pletely unpredictable. 13.ttJf5
ixh 2 + 14.'it>h1 0-0 15.ttJxg7. I be­
lieve it is not necessary to put ex­
clamation marks to well-known
moves, so I shall simply show you
here what theory has approved
and time has tested. 15 . . . l'!d8 16.
Vfif3 'it>xg7 17.ih6+ (17.g3 ? ! b5
18.'it>xh2 ib7 19.Vfif4 Vfic6 2 0 . l'!g1
l'!d1 2 1.ie3 l'!xa1 2 2 .Vfig5+ 'it>f8
23 .Vfic5+ 'it>e8 24.Vfixc6+ ixc6 25.
l'!xa1 ttJg4+ with an advantage for
Black, Wolff - Gulko, Durango
1992.) 17 . . . '\t>g6 18 .c3 (18.l'!ad1?
l'!xd1 19.l'!xd1 e5 ! This was a very
important novelty at the time.
2 0 . 'it>xh2 ttJg4+ 21.'it>g1 'it>xh6 and
White had to resign, Zaw - Kha­
lifman, Bali 2000.) 18 . . . ttJh5 (18 . . .
ttJd5? 19.l'!ad1 'it>xh6 20.l'!xd5 ! +-)
19.l'!e4 'it>xh6 2 0 .l'!h4 lffie 5 2 1 .
201
Chapter 26
'Wxfl (After 2 l . E:xh2? f6 2 2 .g4
�d7, Black can fight for the ad­
vantage.) 2 l . . . 'Wf5 2 2 . E:xh5+ 'WxhS
23.'Wf6+ 'Wg6 24.'Wh4+ 'Wh5 25.
'Wf6 = Geenen - Barsov, France
2 0 07.
19.�e3 fS 2 0 .g4 liJf6 2l.gxf5+
exfS 2 2 .'Wg2 + liJg4 23.f3 bS 24.
�d4 'it>gS 25.�e6 �g3 26.�xc8
E:axc8 27.fxg4 �xe1 28.E:xe1 'Wc6
29.gxf5+ 'Wxg2 + 3 0 .\t>xg2 lt>xfS
and the position should be techni­
cally winning for Black, Sarakaus­
kas - Dochev, Tanta 2001.
19 .�c1 �f4 2 0 .g4 liJg3 + 2 l .fxg3
�xc1 2 2 . E:axc1 b6. This move en­
sures both the development of
Black's bishop on the long diago­
nal and also the c5-square for the
queen. (There is nothing wrong
with the less intricate 22 . . . �d7! ?
2 3 .�c2 + lt>g7 24.'We3 �c6+ 25.
'it>h2 h6=) 23.�c2 + (After 23.
'We3, a game by one of the most
famous experts in this line, Ser­
gey Ivanov, proves that Black has
no problems whatsoever: 23 . . .
�b7+ 24.\t>h2 'Wc5 25.'Wf4 'WgS
2 6 .�c2 + 'it>h6 27.E:cd1 'Wxf4 28.
gxf4 �f3 29.E:xd8 E:xd8 30.'it>g3
E:d2 = Solovjov - S. Ivanov, St Pe­
tersburg 2 005.) 23 . . . \t>g7 24.�e4
E:a7 25.E:c2 �b7 26.E:h2 �xe4
27.'Wxe4 'Wb7 28.E:xh7+ lt>g8 29.
'Wxb7 E:xb7 30.E:h2 E:d3 3l.'it>g2
E:d2 + 32.'it>h3 E:xh2 + 33. 'it>xh2
E:d7 34.E:e2 'it>g7 35. \t>h3 bS 36.b3
E:c7 37.E:e3 lt>f6 38.E:f3+ lt>g5=
Brodsky - Glek, Wijk aan Zee
1999.
13.'\W£3
White achieves very little with
202
13.'We2 0 - 0 - 0 14.�e3 �d6 15.h3
'it>b8 16.a4 �h2 + 17.\t>hl �f4 18.
E:ad1 h5 19.�xf4 'Wxf4 2 0.'it>g1 h4
2 l.'We3 'Wxe3 2 2 . E:xe3 = Pavasovic
- Akopian, Heraklio 2 007.
13 . . . �d6
This is the right answer for
Black. He must occupy the b8-h2
diagonal before his opponent
does.
The author of this book made
a terrible mistake in the move-or­
der in one of the morning rounds
of the Bundesliga. This led to six
hours of hard and laborious de­
fence, but in the end it all ended
successfully, by a miracle: 13 . . . 0-
0-0? 14.�f4 �d6 15.�xd6 'Wxd6
16.E:ad1 'Wc7 17.E:e3 'it>b8 18.E:c3
'WeS 19 .�c4 lt>a7 2 0 . E:a3 ! 'We4
(20 . . . 'Wc5 2 l.'We3 ! ) 2 1.'\Wc3 (Black
would have even greater prob­
lems to solve after 2 l.'Wg3 ! E:c8
2 2 .f3 'Wg6 23 .�xa6 ! 'Wxg3 24.
�d3 + 'it>b8 25.hxg3±) 2 l . . . E:c8
2 2 . 'Wb4 'WeS 23.�e2 'WcS 24.
'Wxc5+ :§:xeS 25.b4 E:cc8 26.c4
E:hd8 27.f4 and White had very
powerful pressure, Efimenko -
Vitiugov, Hamburg 2009.
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 dS 3.CiJ d2 c5 4.Ci:Jgf3 cd S.ed WlxdS 6. 1J.c4 Wld6 7. 0 - 0 [iJj6
14.h3
It is unsound for White to con­
tinue with 14.[iJf5? hh2 + 15. <i>h1
0-0-0 16.[iJe7+ (Or 16.[iJxg7 ie5
and his knight on g7 does not
seem to be doing anything.) 16 . . .
<i>b8 17.g3 Wffc5 ! and Black ends up
with an extra pawn and a superior
position.
A well-known draw arises af­
ter 14.he6 fxe6 15.[iJxe6 he6
16J''l:x e6+ <i>f7 17.Wffb 3 hh2 + ! This
is an important intermediate
move; otherwise Black would
simply lose the bishop on d6. 18.
<i>h1 <i>g6 19.Wffd 3+ <i>f7 2 0 .Wffb 3
<i>g6= 2 1.g3 ? ! This is a very risky
decision for White and it cannot
end well for him. 2 1 . . .hg3 2 2 .
fxg3 l"l:ac8 23.if4 Wffx c2 24.Wffxb7
l"l:he8 25.Wffx a6 l"l:xe6 2 6 .Wffx e6 l"l:e8
27.Wffh 3 l"l:e2 28.l"l:c1 Wle4+ 29.<i>g1
h5 3 0.Wfffl [iJg4 31.l"l:d1 l"l:h2 3 2 .
l"l: d6+ <i>h7 and White resigned in
view of the unavoidable mate, Be­
likov - Danielian, Jurmala 1991.
14 . . . 0 - 0 - 0
Black cannot change his mind
now: 14 . . . 0-0?! 15.ig5 ie5 16.
Wle3 and White obtains an advan­
tage.
15 . .ig5
Black easily solves his prob­
lems after the more modest line :
15.ie3 <i>b8 16.c4 e5 17.c5 ixc5
18.l"l:acl (18.l"l:ec1 Wffb6 19.l"l:xc5 Wlxc5
2 0 . [iJe6 Wlc6 2 1 .Wffx c6 ixc6 2 2 .
[iJxd8 l"l:xd8 23 .ixf7 [iJdS =) 18 . . .
Wffb 6 19.{iJf5 he3 2 0 . l"l:xe3 hf5
21.¥flxf5 e4 22 .ixf7 l"lhf8 23 .ib3
l"l:d2 24.Wfff4+ Wffd 6 25.Wffx d6+ l"l:xd6
with an equal endgame, Pavaso­
vic - Sakalauskas, Plovdiv 2003.
15 . . . �c5
The other plan for Black does
not work: 15 . . . ih2 + 16. <i>h1 ie5
17.l"l:ad1 h6 18 .ie3 g5 19.l"l:d3. It is
quite obvious that if White can
manoeuvre his rook along the
third rank in this variation, this
causes plenty of problems for the
opponent. 19 . . . <i>b8 2 0 .l"l:c3 Wffd 6
21.l"l:d1 Wffe 7 2 2 .ic4 with a power­
ful initiative for White.
16 . .ie3
It is too risky for White to gob­
ble up the gambit pawn : 16.ixf6
gxf6 17.Wffxf6 l"l:hg8 18 .l"l:ad1 l"l:g6 !
19.Wffxf7? ! (The line 19.Wfff3 l"l:dg8
2 0.g4 h5 can hardly be consid­
ered satisfactory for White. For
2 03
Chapter 26
example : 2 l.'Wxf7 hxg4 2 2 .he6
gxh3+ 23.Whl he6 24.!'1xe6
'Wd5+ 25.f3 l"1gl + 26.!'1xgl !'1xgl +
27.Wxgl 'Wxd4+ 28 .Wfl 'Wc4+ and
White is rather lucky that Black
has nothing better than delivering
perpetual check. .) 19 . . . !'1f8 2 0 .
'Wxh7 'WgS 2 l .g3 hg3 2 2 .'Wxd7+
Wxd7 23.'Llxe6+ Wc6 24.'Llxg5
hf2 + 25.Wh2 .bel 2 6 . !'1xel l"1xg5
and only White can lose this posi­
tion.
16 . . .'�e5 17.g3 Wfe4 18.gadl
.ic6 19. Wfxe4 .ixe4
2 0 . .ig5
White might create more
problems for his opponent with
the line : 2 0.f3 .tg6 2 1 .'Lle2 h6 2 2 .
Wg2 (White did not achieve any­
thing much after 2 2 . Wf2 .th7
23.a3 .teS 24.c3 l"1xdl 25.!'1xdl
!'1d8 26.!'1xd8 + Wxd8 27.g4 hS
28.'Llf4 hxg4 29.hxg4 'Lld7 3 0 .
204
'LlhS .tg6 3l.We2= Sermek -
Harikrishna, Istanbul 2000.)
2 2 ... .tc7 23.c4 !'1xdl 24.!'1xdl !'1d8
25.!'1xd8+ Wxd8 . As you can see,
White had some success in sever­
al games with very precise play,
but I don't think Black needs to
panic. 26 . .td4 eS 27 . .te3 .tas
(Here Black should consider the
possibility of activating his bishop
with: 27 . . . .tf5 ! ?) 2 8 .c5 'Lld7 29.a3
'Llb8 30 . .td5 'Llc6 3 l.b4 .tc7 32.g4
hS 33.'Llg3 hxg4 34.fxg4 WeB 35.
'Llf5 + - Almasi - Kindermann,
Germany 2 0 0 0 .
20 . . . .ig6 21.c3 .ic5 22 . .if4
ghe8 23 . .ie5 .if8 24 . .ic4
Even such an expert in posi­
tions of this type as Sergey Ti­
viakov understood that he had no
winning chances here and so of­
fered a draw, Tiviakov - Kramnik,
Moscow 1991.
 Parts 7-9

The Classical System

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.tbc3

The last three parts of our book will be devoted to the analysis of the
most popular and, I believe, also the most dangerous move for Black
- 3.tt:lc3 . White maintains the tension in the centre and develops his
knight to a more active position, in comparison with the variation with
3.tt:ld2. Now, unless Black opts for Rubinstein's 3 . . . dxe4, which we cov­
ered in Part 4, the game continues according to one of two basic sce­
narios - 3 . . . tt:lf6 or 3 . . . .ib4. The positions arising from each of these
moves are completely different; but what they have in common is the
importance of handling the different pawn structures correctly, plus
the tremendous importance of concrete variations in the implementa­
tion of the various plans. Thus the play involves great risks for both
sides.

205
 Part 7

The Winawer Variation

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.tiJc3 .ib4

We shall begin with 3 . . . ib4. This principled and double-edged vari­

ation requires precise and energetic play from both sides and the re­
sulting pawn structures are so varied that they should please both the
tacticians, who long for dynamic play, and the positional players who
love long manoeuvring battles.
I think that White can create the greatest problems for Black by
playing 4.e5. After this move Black will most probably have to give up
his dark-squared bishop for White's knight on c3 and then you can
simply forget about symmetry until the next game . I am not going to
. .

mention here all the strategic ideas which are typical of this variation,
since there are so many that systematizing them is practically impos­
sible. Sometimes Black castles queenside and sometimes kingside.
There can be attacks against White's monarch and very often Black
comes under attack himself. There can be games featuring a slow and
patient fight for squares and outposts, as well as games with wild tacti­
cal complications, in which the value of every tempo is tremendously
important. It is quite clear that whenever you play a game in the
Winawer variation, you will most probably enjoy the sheer process of
playing, particularly if you are well-prepared and have a deep under­
standing of the resulting positions.

2 06
Chapter 27 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3)ijc3 i.b4
If White wants to avoid the
main lines, he has many lines to
choose from. The point is, how­
ever, that he must then rely most­
ly on the element of surprise,
rather than the objective value of
these sidelines.
Now we shall cover: a) 4.�d3,
b) 4 . .id2, c) 4.'1Wg4, d) 4.exd5,
e) 4 . .id3, f) 4.a3 and g) 4.tt::lge2.
a) 4.�d3
This move looks a bit awk­
ward.
4 . . • tt::le 7
White would love the game
to continue with 4 . . . dxe4 5.'�xe4
C/Jf6 6.�h4 c5 7.dxc5 C/Jd5 8.
�xd8+ mxd8 9.C/Jge2 C/Jd7 1 0 .id2
C/J5f6 11.c6! This is an important
move, with which he maintains
the advantage. 11.. .bxc6 1 2 .a3 .ie7
13.0-0-0 Wc7 14.C/Jd4 .ib7 15 .
.ie2 l"lae8 16.C/Jb3 C/Jd5 17.C/Je4±
Anand - Van der Wiel, Wijk aan
Zee 1990.
5 ..id2 b6 6 ..ie2 0 - 0 7.a3
hc3 8 . .h:c3 a5 9.tt::lf3 tt::ld 7 1 0 .
exd5 exd5 11. 0 - 0 tt::lf6 12.�dl
tt::le 4 13 . .id2 l"le8 14.l"lel tt::lg6
15 . .ie3 a4 16.tt::ld 2 tt::ld 6 17.-i£3
.ie6 18.tt::lfl tt::lh4 with an excel­
lent game for Black, Anand -
Short, Wijk aan Zee 1990.
b) 4.i.d2
This move reminds me of
those good old one-move traps.
4 . • • dxe4 5.�g4
207
Chapter 27

White continues in the same The resulting endgame with a

style. He is not trying to mate his
opponent right away, but some­
thing similar. . .
5 .c!iJf6 6."1Wxg7 ggs 7."\Wh6
• •
material imbalance is, I believe,
better for Black. The following
game is an instructive example:
15 a6 !? 16.h4 b5 17.c!iJh3 b4
•••

"\Wxd4 8. 0 - 0 - 0 ts.gdfl bxc3 19.gxf6 i.g7 2 0 .

Black has no problems at all gffl f5 21.i.h5+ �e7with an ad­
after 8 .liJge2 "\We5 9.0-0-0 l"l:g6�, vantage for Black, Korepanov -
or 9.i.f4 "\Wf5 10.liJg3 Wg6 ll.Wxg6 Skomorokhin, Podolsk 1993.
l"l:xg6.
8 . . . .if8 c) 4."\Wg4
Black can also play 8 . . . l"l:g6 ! ?
9.Wh4 (It i s weaker for White
to play 9.Wf4?! i.d6 10.liJge2 hf4
ll.liJxd4 i.e5 and he ends up a
pawn down in an endgame.) 9 . . .
l"l:g4 10."\Wh3 "\Wxf2 ll.i.e2 l"l:g6
with some compensation for
Black.
9."1Wh4
But not 9.Wf4? ! i.d6.
9 • • • gg4 1 0 ."\Wh3 "!Wxf2 11.i.e2
gh4
It looks as though Black wins This lively sortie by White's
on the spot, but this is not the queen does not create any prob­
case. lems for Black.
ll . . . l"l:g6 ! ? 4 .c!iJf6 5. "\Wxg7 ggs 6. "!Wh6
• •

12."\Wxh4 "\Wxh4 13.g3 ! )3g6 7."1We3 c!lJxe4 8.i.d3

Now Black's queen is trapped! Here it looks interesting for
13 "\Wh6
• •. 14.i.xh6 i.xh6+ Black to investigate the greedy
15.�bl move -

2 08

s . . . gxg2 ! ?
which leads to a more o r less
forced line.
In an encounter between two
World Champions, the future
President of FIDE played too rou­
tinely and was punished for it:
8 .. .f5 9.tLlge2 c5 10 . .be4 fxe4 11.
�h3 ttJc6 12 .�xh7 �f6 13.tLlf4
cxd4 14.tLlxg6 dxc3 15.b3 ttJe7 16.
ttJxe7 �xe7 17.h4± and later
White prevailed, Alekhine -
Euwe, Netherlands 1935.
A very unclear position arises
after 8 . . . ttJc6 9.tLlge2 gxg2 10 . .be4
dxe4 1l.�xe4 �d5 12 .�xh7! ? �f3
13 .�e3 gxf2 14.�xf2 �xh1+ 15.
�gl . It looks as though the most
reasonable course for Black is to
sacrifice a pawn for the sake of the
fastest possible development -
15 . . . �d7 16.0-0-0 0-0-0 17.
�xt7 with a slight edge for White.
9 . .ixe4
This is White's only move.
9 . . . dxe4 1 0 .Wxe4
1 0 . . . gg6
Black must play accurately:
after 10 . . . �d5? 1l.�xd5 exd5 1 2 .
l!?f1 ! he loses a pawn.
l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. ttJ c3 �b4
ll.tlJge2
Black equalizes in the most
simple fashion after 1 l.�d2 .bc3
12 .�xc3 �d5 =
ll . . . ttJd7 12.�d2
Black has an excellent position
after 12.�f4 tLlf6 13 .�d3 �d7 14.
0-0-0 �c6.
12 . . . tlJf6 13.�h4 b6 14.
0 - 0 - 0 �b7 15.ghgl .ie7 -
with an acceptable game, since he
can counter the immediate attack
- 16.d5 - with the perfectly ade­
quate resource : 16 . . . tLlxd5 17.
�xh7 gxg1 18 J'1xg1 �d6 !
d ) 4.exd5 exd5
5 . .id3
This is a popular move. White
avoids any theoretical debates
and at the same time leaves Black
with some problems . .
5.�f3 ? ! This looks a s i f White
is trying to set up Scholar's Mate ;
Black's previous cunning moves
did not allow White to develop his
queen earlier to such an active po­
sition. 5 . . . �e7+ 6.tLlge2 (The line
6 .�e3 tLlf6 7.h3 would j ust lead to
a transposition. Bearing in mind
209
Chapter 27
what happens later, White should
think about equalizing with the
move 6.�e3 .) 6 . . . ttJc6
Now:
after 7.�xd5? ttJf6 8.�c4 i.e6
9.�d3 0-0-0 White will not sur­
vive for long;
7.i.e3 ttJf6 8 .h3 ttJe4 (It seems
quite sensible for Black to play
here 8 . . . i.xc3 + ! ? , for example : 9.
ttJxc3 ttJxd4 ! or 9.bxc3 ttJe4 and
White has problems.) 9.a3 (Black's
play is quite easy after 9 . 0-0-0
i.xc3 10.ttJxc3 ttJxc3 11.bxc3 i.e6
12 .i.d3 0-0-0 13.2"1he1 ttJaS 14.
<;1;>d2 �a3 and he is in no danger,
Onoprienko - Riazantsev, Biel
2 0 1 0 ; 12 .�g3 0-0-0 - 12 . . . 0- 0!?
- 13.�xg7 E1dg8 14.�h6 i.fS 15.
<;1;>d2 �a3 16.�h5 i.e4 17.f3 i.xc2
18.<;1;>xc2 �xa2+ 19.<;1;>d3 E1e8 - The
complications have ended in
Black's favour, Lehmann - Fara­
go, Kiev 1978) 9 . . . i.a5 (It would
be less ambitious to opt for 9 . . .
i.xc3 + 10.Ci:lxc3 Ci:lxd4 11.i.xd4
Ci:lxc3+ 12 .�e3 �xe3+ 13.fxe3 Ci:le4
14.i.xg7 E1g8 15.i.e5 i.e6 16.g4=
with an approximately equal posi­
tion.) 10.b4 ttJxc3 11 .bxa5 (11.
Ci:lxc3?! ttJxd4 12 .�d1 ttJfS 13.ttJxd5
Ci:lxe3 14.ttJxe7 ttJxd1 15.ttJxc8 Ci:lc3
210
and White must fight for equality)
11...ltJb5 12 .�xd5 ttJxa3 13.�b3
�b4+ 14. <;1;>d1 �xb3 15.cxb3 ttJbS
with an interesting struggle in the
endgame ;
7.�d3. White is trying to con­
solidate his position at the cost of
a tempo. This loss of time (a sec­
ond move with the same piece in
the opening, and moreover the
strongest one) is unlikely to hand
the advantage to Black in view of
the symmetrical pawn structure.
However, Black's game is com­
fortable, beyond any doubt. 7 . . .
ttJf6 (It i s slightly premature to
play 7 . . . g6 8.a3 i.fS 9.�e3 i.c3
10.�c3 �e4 11.i.f4 and Black fails
to win a pawn.) Now any bishop
development offers Black attrac­
tive possibilities. For example, af­
ter 8.i.e3 , 8 . . . g6 ! ? is already worth
consideration, and in the event of
8.i.g5 Black can ask the opponent
to define his intentions by 8 . . . h6.
The most sensible move is 8.i.f4.
It could be met by either 8 . . . 0-0,
or 8 . . . i.e6, intending to castle
queenside. In both cases Black is
probably fine, although the fight
is still ahead.

5 . . . c6
This is a rarely played move,
but one which seems to me to be
perfectly reasonable in the cir­
cumstances. Black should not be
disappointed that he has failed to
reach the complicated positions
arising after 4.e5. Instead, he
should simply try to equalize with
accurate play.
Fans of sharp positions play
here 5 . . . lt:Jc6 ! ? 6.a3 .bc3+ 7.bxc3
ct:Jge7 and later the development
of the game becomes totally un­
predictable. It seems to me that
Black is just asking for trouble
playing like that. For example: 8 .
�h5 �e6 9J�b1 b6 10.lt:Jf3 �d7 1 1 .
lt:Jg5 0 - 0 - 0 12 .lt:Jxe6 �xe6+ 13.
�e3 g6 14.�f3 lt:Jf5 15.0-0 ct:Jxe3
16J'!fe1 �d6 17.fxe3 f5 18.c4 dxc4
19.�xc4 and Black's king can nev­
er feel safe, Glek - Chenaux, Saint
Vincent 1999.
6.�f3
Black equalizes easily after 6 .
lt:Jge2 ct:Je7 7 .0-0 �f5 8.lt:Jg3 hd3
9.�xd3 0-0 10.lt:Jce2 lt:Ja6 ll.c3
�d6 12.�f4 lt:Jc7 13J�ae1 lt:Je6= on
- Short, Parnu 1996.
6 . . . �f6
l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. lt:J c3 �b4
7.�xf6
White cannot gain any ad­
vantage from 7.�f4 lt:Je7 8.�g3
lt:Jd7 9 .lt:Jge2 0-0 10.0-0-0 lt:Jg6
11.�g5 �d6 12 .�xd6 �xd6 13.h4
h6 14.�d2 lt:Jf6 15.h5 lt:Je7 16.f3
�f5= Moreno Camero - lvan­
chuk, Mallorca 2 004.
7 .. .ti:lxf6 8)l:\ge2 lilbd7 9.a3
.ie7 1 0 .f3 h5 11.h4 lilf8 12.lilf4
.id7 13.�f2 0 - 0 - 0 14.lilce2
tileS 15 . .id2 �f6 16 . .ib4 g6 17.
1::1a el lilg7 18.c3 .if5= with some
chances for Black to seize the ini­
tiative, Alekseev - lvanchuk, Biel
2009.
e) 4 . .id3
White wants to maintain the
tension in the centre. The idea is
excellent, but this way of imple­
menting it is questionable.
4 . . . dxe4 5 . .h:e4 lilf6 6.�f3
This move seems logical but,
as often happens, such an artifi­
cial idea can only work if the op­
ponent cooperates.
It is less sensible for White to
opt for 6 .�d3 c5 7.lt:Jf3 (The game
takes a completely different direc-
211
Chapter 27
tion after 7.a3 hc3 + 8.bxc3 �c7!
9.ltlf3 c4 10 . .ie2 ltld5 11.�d2 ltld7
1 2. a4 ltl7f6. Black has seized the
initiative with a series of strong
moves and he went on to win the
game, not without some mistakes
by his opponent. 13.�g5 0-0 14.
�h4 ltlxc3 15J''1 a3 ltlxe2 16. Wxe2
c3 17.l"ld1 b6 18.Wf1 .ia6+ 19.Wg1
.ie2 2 0 .l"le1 .ixf3 21.gxf3 ltld5-+
V.Shcherbakov - Petrosian, Mos­
cow 1955.) 7 ... cxd4 8.ltlxd4 e5 9.
ltlde2 .ig4 10.f3 .ie6 11.a3 .ie7
12 . .ie3 0-0 13.0-0 ltlbd7 14.ltlg3
.ic5 15 . .if2 hf2 + 16.l"lxf2 �b6
and Black had a slight edge in the
game Renet - lvanchuk, Izmir
2 0 04.
6 ... 0 - 0
Black has a good alternative
here : 6 . . . c5 ! ? 7.ltlge2 ltlc6 8.a3
.ixc3 + 9.bxc3 e5 ! 10 .hc6+ bxc6
11.0-0 exd4 1 2 .cxd4 0-0 13.l"le1
.ia6= 14.ltlg3 cxd4 15.ltlf5 l"le8
16 ..ig5 �a5 17.ltlh6+ Wf8 18.
l"lxe8+ l"lxe8 19.hf6 gxf6 2 0.h4
l"le4 21.f3 l"lxh4 2 2 .ltlg4 f5 23.
�xd4 fxg4 24.l"lb1 .ic8 0-1 M .
Tseitlin - Yusupov, Moscow 1983.
7.li:lge2
212
7 . e5 !
..
By playing in this energetic
fashion Black obtains an excellent
position.
8. 0 - 0
This is the most solid response
by White.
Greediness such as with 8 .
dxe5 does not bring White any ad­
vantage whatsoever. 8 . . . �xd1+ 9.
Wxd1 ltlg4 10 .hg4 hg4 11.f3 .if5
12 . .id2 ltlc6 13.f4 l"lad8 14.Wc1 f6
15.a3 hc3 16.hc3 .ig4 17.ltlg3
fxe5 18.fxe5 l"lf2 and Black was
clearly better, Muromtsev - Lysyj,
Sochi 2006.
The endgame is worse for
White after 8 . .ig5?! h6 9 . .ih4 exd4
10 .�xd4 �xd4 11.ltlxd4 l"le8+ 1 2 .
Wf1 hc3 13.bxc3 ltle4 14.he4
l"lxe4 15 . .ig3 ltla6 16.l"ld1 .ie6 17.f3
.ic4+ 18.Wf2 l"lee8, Movsesian -
Shirov, Sochi 2 0 0 6 .
8 .•. .h:c3 9 .lt:lxc3 exd4
White sacrifices a pawn and
temporarily seizes the initiative.
1 0 .c!l:\b5 c5 11.i.f4
(diagram)
ll .. .ll:\e8!?
The more cautious move 11 . . .
a6 presents White with a slight

advantage after 12.l2:Jd6 lt:Jc6 13.c3
.ie6 14.hc6 bxc6 15.cxd4 cxd4
16.'&xd4 and here in the game Jo­
vanovic - Vaganian, Dresden
2007 the players agreed to a draw.
12.c3
White did not achieve much
with 12 .Ele1 lt:Jc6 13.c3 a6 14.Elxe8
Elxe8 15.lt:Jc7 '&f6 16.'&d2 .id7
17.Eld1 Elac8 18.lt:Jxe8 Elxe8, with a
solid extra pawn for Black, Sarie­
go - Diaz, Bayamo 1991.
12 a6 13.li:Ja3 tlJc6 14.l'kl
•••
.ie6 - White definitely has some
compensation for the pawn in­
deed, but nothing more . . .
t) 4.a3
This is a very sharp move,
l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.ltJc3 .ib4
leading to forcing lines; it formed
part of the opening armoury of
Robert James Fischer.
4 hc3 + 5.bxc3 dxe4 6.
• • •
'%Vg4 tlJf6 7.'%Vxg7 l':1g8 8.'%Vh6
Now Black has a choice.
8 • • • tDbd7
Black has also tried 8 . . . Elg6 as
well as 8 . . . c5 9.lt:Je2 cxd4 10.cxd4
lt:Jc6 11..ib2 .id7 12.0-0-0?! lt:Jg4
13. '&f4 '&g5 14.Ele1 lt:Jxf2 15.Elg1
lt:Jg4 16.h3 lt:Jh2 17.Elh1 lt:Jxfl 18 .
Elhxfl lt:Je7 19 .g4 f5, with a solid
extra pawn for Black, Jobava -
Sutovsky, Novi Sad 2009.
9.tDe2
I can recommend to fans of
wild irrational positions the quite
creative line : 9.a4 c5 10.a5. The
Serbian GM Igor Miladinovic reg­
ularly plays this with White and
he is a very original player.
(diagram)
I do not think that White can
seize the initiative in this manner,
but he can definitely force his
opponent to solve problems over
the board. I like a new and inter­
esting plan here - 10 . . . lt:Jd5!?
11.'%Vd2 lt:J7f6 12 .lt:Jh3 e3 13.'&d3
2 13
Chapter 27
exf2 + 14.tt'lxf2 i.d7 and Black ob­
tains a very promising position.
However, Black might have
some problems after 9.tt'lh3 c5
1 0 .i.e2 . White plays very sharply
and his forces have their eye on
the f7-square.
10 . . . Ei:xg2? ll.tt'lg5 �a5 1 2 .
<±>f1 ! + -
10 . . . �a5 1Li.d2 Ei:xg2 12.tt'lg5
cxd4 13.�g7! (We shall analyze
13 .cxd4? ! �f5 ! a bit further on.)
13 ... Ei:xg5 14.�xg5 �xg5 15.hg5
dxc3 16.0-0-0. It looks as though
Black's knight and three pawns
should be sufficient to compen­
sate the missing rook, but in this
open position White's long-range
pieces can become very powerful.
16 . . . a6 17.Ei:hg1 b5 18.Ei:g3 tt'ld5 19.
Ei:h3 f6 2 0 .i.e3 tt'lxe3 2 l.fxe3 l2lf8
2 2 .i.h5+ <±>e7 23.Ei:g3 i.d7 24.Ei:g7+
and Black resigned, since he loses
214
his rook on the next move, Ljubo­
jevic - Korchnoi, Tilburg 1986.
An interesting try for Black is
10 ... cxd4 ! ? 1l.cxd4 (White can
continue in gambit fashion, but
Black can defend successfully:
11.0-0 dxc3 12 .i.g5 Ei:g6 13.�h4
�a5 14.hf6 l2lxf6 15.l2lf4 Ei:g5 16.
l2lh3 Ei:g6= ) 1 l . . . Ei:xg2 12.l2lg5 �aS+
13.<±>fl (After 13.i.d2 Black re­
sponds with 13 . . . �f5 14.0-0-0
and now it looks very attractive to
play the paradoxical line : 14 . . .
tt'ld5 15.i.h5 <±>e7 16.l2lxf7l2l7f6 17.
i.g5 �h3 ! It is quite unclear which
side has the safer, for example:
18.f3 i.d7 19.c4 Ei:c8 2 0 .tt'le5 Ei:xg5
2l.�xg5 �xh5 2 2 .�g7+ <±>d6 23.
fxe4 Ei:g8 24.�f7 �g5+ 25.Ei:d2
l2lc3 and Black has an excellent
position.) 13 . . . l2lg4 14.hg4 Ei:xg4
15.h3 �b5+ 16.<±>e1 Ei:g2 . Surpris­
ingly, the rook on g2 is perfectly
placed. It is attacking and defend­
ing at the same time. 17.i.e3 (17.
l2lxe4 �c6 18.�xh7 l2lf8 19.l2lf6+
<±>e7 2 0 .�h4 l2lg6 2 1.l2ld5+ <±>e8
2 2 .l2lf6 + <±>e7= ) 17 . . . b6 18 .�g7
�f5 - Now the game might end in
an amusing repetition of moves :
19.<±>fl Ei:g3 2 0 . <±>e1 Ei:g2 =
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. lt:l c3 i.b4

9 . . . b6 tiative is growing stronger, Ker ­

Or 9 . . . cS ! ? 10.a4 (After 10.h3 Berkes, Mallorca 2 004.
\WaS ll.i.d2 1Wa4 12.lug3 b6 13. 10 • • • 1We 7
dxcS bxcS 14.i.e2 i.a6 1S.O-O l"1g6
16.1Wh4 i.xe2 17.lt:lxe2 1Wxc2 18.
l"1ad1 lt:leS, White is deprived of
active possibilities, Nepomnia­
chtchi - Ponomariov, Moscow
2 0 1 0 ; 10.g3 b6 1l.i.g2 i.a6 12 .1Wd2
1Wc7 13.0-0 0-0-0 with chances
for both sides ; 13 . . . cxd4 ? ! 14.cxd4
l"1c8 1S.c3 i.xe2 16.1Wxe2 1Wxc3 and
here, in the game Henris - Gdan­
ski, Cappelle la Grande 1994,
White could have obtained rea­
sonable compensation for the 11.1Wh4
pawn with 17.i.e3 or 17.i.f4 ! ?) The seemingly logical move
10 . . . 1Wc7 11.dxcS 'IWxcS 12 .1Wd2 11.lt:lg3? loses for White owing to
lt:lb6 13.aS lt:lbdS 14.c4 lt:le7? the beautiful reply 1 1 . . .lt:lg4! 12.
(Black should continue here with i.xe7 lt:lxh6 and White's bishop is
14 . . . 1Wxc4 1S.lt:ld4 1Wc3 16.1Wxc3 trapped.
lt:lxc3 17.l"1a3 lt:lfdS 18.i.b2 eS ! - ll . . . i.b7 12.ttlg3
This is the move I overlooked ! )
1S.i.a3 'IWeS 16.1Wc3 1Wxc3+ 17.
lt:lxc3 a6 18 .g3? (18.lt:la4 i.d7 19.
lt:lb6 l"1d8 2 0 .i.d6 i.c6 2 1 .i.c7 lt:lfS
and although Black has some
compensation for the exchange,
White has the edge, of course.)
18 . . .i.d7 19 .i.g2 i.c6 2 0 . 0 - 0 lt:lfS
2 1 . l"1ae1 lt:ld4 2 2 . lt:lxe4 lt:lxe4 23.
he4? he4 24.l"1xe4 lt:lf3 + 2S.
�g2 lt:ld2 and despite desperate
resistance White soon lost the
game, Andreikin - Vitiugov, Sara­ 12 . . . h6!
tov 2 0 1 1 . That is an important finesse.
10 .ig5
• 13 .id2
•

After 10.lt:lg3 i.b7 11 .i.e2 1We7 Just as before, if 13.1Wh6 lt:lg4-+;

12.0-0 0-0-0 13.f3 l"1g6 14.1Wh4 13.i.h6 l"1g4 14.'1Wh3 0-0-0 1S.
exf3 1S.hf3 i.xf3 16.l"1xf3 l"1dg8 i.e2 l"1g8�
17.a4 hS 18.i.a3 1Wd8 19.l"1f2 l"1g4 13 •.• gg4
2 0 .1Wh3 aS 21.l"1e1 h4, Black's ini- Black has a good alternative

2 1S
Chapter 27
here - 13 . . . 0-0-0 14.i.e2 e3 15.
fxe3 hg2 16.Elg1 i.e4 ! ?
14.'1Wxh6
If 14.'\Wh3 Elg6 15.i.e2 0-0-0,
the queen seems misplaced on h3.
14 ... 0 - 0 - 0 15.c4 �g8 16.
'!We3 f5 17.ll:lh5 e5 18.dxe5
�xe5 19. 0 - 0 - 0
After 19.l2lf4 Elxd2 2 0 .\ilxd2
'\Wd6+ 21 .\ilc3 l2lc6 2 2 .i.e2 Elxf4
23 .g3 Elg4 24.hg4 fxg4 Black's
prospects are better in this posi­
tion with an unusual material bal­
ance.
19 .. .ll:ld 3! - + Black's attack is
decisive, Romero Holmes - Mata­
moros Franco, Elgoibar 1997.
g) 4.�ge2
216
This is a very popular move.
White wants to prevent his pawns
from being doubled on the c-file.
He has sacrifice a pawn to achieve
this though . . .
4 •.. dxe4
Black has a serious alternative
at this point; for example: 4 . . . l2l c6
5.a3 i.aS ! ? 6.b4 (6.'\Wd3 ! ? ; 6.e5 ! ?)
6 . . . i.b6 7.l2Ja4 dxe4 8 .i.b2 l2lf6
9.c4 a6 10.g3 0-0 11.i.g2 i.a7 1 2 .
0-0 '\We7 13.Ela2 Eld8 14.'\Wa1 bS
and Black's chances in this com­
plicated position are not worse,
Guseinov - Bauer, Heraklio
2 0 0 7.
5.a3 hc3+
Here 5 . . . i.e7 is also played, but
the text move is sharper.
6.l2lxc3 l2lc6 7 . .ib5
It is weaker for White to play
7.i.e3 ? ! l2lf6 8 .'\Wd2 i.d7 9.0-0-0
l2le7 lO.i.gS i.c6 l l.i.c4 '\Wd6 1 2 .
Elhe1 0-0-0 13.g3 lLledS 14.l2lxe4
l2Jxe4 15.Elxe4 l2lb6 16.d5 l2Jxc4 17.
Elxc4 '\WxdS and Black has a solid
extra pawn, Van Mil - Korchnoi,
Netherlands 1993.
White's most reasonable alter­
native to the main line is 7.d5. He
tries to regain his pawn and then
gain the advantage thanks to his
bishop pair. 7 . . . exd5 8.'\WxdS

8 . . . tt:lge7 ! ? This is an original
move. 9 .Wxd8+ 'Llxd8 10.'Llxe4
�f5 1 l.�d3 'Lle6. There is no doubt
that if White is allowed to consoli­
date his position he will have the
advantage. Thus Black needs to
play energetically to equalize.
12 .�d2 0-0-0 13.0-0-0 ct:Jd4 14.
�b1 (14.�e3 ct:Jec6 15.f3 �g6 16.
E1he1 tt:leS 17.�f1 tt:ldxf3 ! ? 18.gxf3
tt:lxf3 19.�h3 + �b8 20. 'Ll c5 'Llxe1
2 1 . !=1xe1 E1he8 with counter-chanc­
es, Ragger - Seifert, Austria
2 0 04.) 14 . . . ct:Jec6 15.f4 E1he8 16.
E1de1 E1e7 17.!=1e3 E1de8 18.!=1he1
�g6= Zelcic - Psakhis, Batumi
1999.
It looks more natural for Black
to play 8 . . . �e6 9.Wxe4 'Llf6 10.
Wh4 �fS (It is a mistake to con­
tinue with the ambitious move
10 . . . Wd4, because of 11.�g5 ! WeS+
12 .�e2 tt:l d4 13 .0-0-0! tt:l xe2 + 14.
tt:lxe2 Wxe2 15.hf6 gxf6 16.!=1he1
Wa6 17.Wxf6 E1g8 and here White
could have won immediately with
18.!=1e3 ! , since after 18. .. �f8 he has
the simple resource 19.!=1d8 + - .
However, what h e played in the
game also proved to be sufficient
for victory: 18.!=1d3 �f8 19.!=1ed1
E1e8 2 0.!=1d8 �d7 2 1.Wxa6 bxa6 2 2 .
E11xd7 E1xg2 23.!=1xe8 + �xeS 24.
E1xc7± Zaitsev - Kosyrev, Moscow
1996.) 11.�bs o-o 12 .hc6 (12.
0-0 tt:le4 ! ? 13.Wxd8 E1axd8 14.
hc6 bxc6 15.'Llxe4 he4 and
maybe only Michael Adams is ca­
pable of pressure this advantage
home. ) 12 . . . bxc6 13.0-0 hc2
(Black could equalize with 13 . . .
tt:ldS ! ? 14.Wc4 Wd6, since White's
l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.ttlc3 �b4
bishop cannot be developed to a
good square, which makes up for
the defects of Black's pawn struc­
ture.) 14.�g5 h6 15.�xf6 Wxf6 16.
Wxf6 gxf6 17. !=1fc1 �d3 18.tt:la4
E1fe8 19.'Llc5 and the endgame was
better for White, Bojkov - Gesing,
Chambery 2 0 07.
7 • • • tt:lge7 8.i.g5
Black can counter 8 . 'Ll xe4 with
8 . . . Wd5 !
Sometimes White plays imme­
diately 8 .�e3 , after which the
game can transpose to the line:
8 . . . 0-0 9.Wd2 f5 10.0-0-0 etc.,
which we analyze below.
8 • • • f6 9 .�e3 0 - 0
1 0 .V�!fd2
White should not try to regain
his pawn : 10.tt:lxe4? fS 11.'Llg5 f4
12 .�d2 Wd5 ! 13.�xc6 ct:Jxc6 14.'Llf3
'Llxd4 1S.'Llxd4 Wxd4 16.�c3 We4+
17.We2 Wxe 2 + 18.�xe2 eS and he
has no compensation for the
pawn, Thorhallsson - Moskalen­
ko, Copenhagen 1995.
10 • • • f5
If Black wants to play more
safely, then 10 . . . a6 ! ? is the right
move. ll.hc6 tt:Jxc6 12.0-0-0 b6
2 17
Chapter 27
13.'Llxe4 ib7 14.f3 �d7 15.Elhe1
Elad8 16.�e2 Elfe8 17.\t>b1 �f7
18.Eld2 Ele7 19.Eled1 Eled7= Ben­
tivegna - Drasko, Cutro 2 005.
11. 0 - 0 - 0
Black can counter the prema­
ture ll.f3 with ll . . . f4 ! ? 1 2 .hf4
�xd4 13.fxe4 eS 14.ie3 �xd2+
15.hd2 'Lld4 16.id3 ig4= Solo­
dovnichenko - Feygin, Germany
2003.
ll . . . a6
Black can even consolidate his
extra pawn with 1 1 . . .'Lld5, but this
is not satisfactory. 1 2 .'Llxd5 exdS
13.ixc6 bxc6 14.�g5 �e8 15.if4
Elf7 16.h4 ie6 17.�a5 �b8 18.Elh3
�bS 19.�d2 with excellent com­
pensation for White, Hector -
Furhoff, Stockholm 1993.
12 .�xc6 'Llxc6
13.�g5 ! ?
Black has considerably fewer
problems after 13.f3 exf3 14.
gxf3 eS 15.d5 'Lle7 16.ig5 (Black
can answer 16.ic5 with 16 . . . Elf7
17.�e3 b6! 18.d6 bxcS 19.dxe7
�xe7 2 0 .'Lld5 �d6 2 1 . Elhe1 ib7
and he ends up with extra mate-
218
rial.) 16 . . . �d6 ( 1 6 . . . �e8? ! 17.Elhe1
'Llg6 18.h4 'Llh8 19.�h2 'Llf7 20.
if4;t Jovanovic - Medic, Sibenik
2 007.) 17.Elhg1 id7 18.h4 \t>h8 19.
hS h6 and Black is even slightly
better.
13 J��fd7 14.d5
.•
14 . . .ll:le5 ! ?
This i s a n aggressive move.
It would be fair to say that
White maintains some initiative if
Black tries to plays more quietly.
14 . . . exd5 15.'Llxd5 �f7 16.if4 ie6
(Perhaps Black can consider the
exchange sacrifice 16 . . . Eld8 17.
hc7 ie6 18 .hd8 Elxd8 19.c4
ixdS 2 0 .cxd5 'LleS but not every­
one would be happy to go in for a
sacrifice of this type.) 17.'Llxc7
Elac8 18.'Llxe6 �xe6 19.�d7 �a2
20.�d5+ �xdS 21.Elxd5 'Lle7 2 2 .
Eld7 'Ll g 6 23 .ie3 Elf7 24.Elhd1 and
White still has some pressure in
this endgame.
15.£3 'Llc4
15 . . . exf3? 16.Elhelt
16.�e2 b5 17.fxe4 ib7 18.
exf5 exd5?, with double-edged
play.
Chapter 28 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.tiJc3 .ib4 4.e5
This is White's most ambitious
move. Now Black's knight will
have no access to the f6-square
and White will have excellent
chances of developing a kingside
initiative. However, chess is not a
simple game, and even the most
principled decisions can have
drawbacks.
4... c5
After this move both sides
must play very precisely.
The play is completely differ­
ent after 4 . . . b6. Black is trying to
encircle White's centre and his
strategy is based on the exchange
of the light-squared bishops. I ad­
vise you to play 4 . . . cS here, but I
shall supply you with some basic
theoretical variations after 4 . . . b6.
S.a3
Now:
Although it looks a bit exotic,
it is quite reasonable for Black to
play S . . . .if8 6.Li:lf3 (Or 6 . .ibS + c6
7 ..ia4 .ia6 8.Li:lce2 .ibS 9 ..ib3 cS
10 .c3 Li:lc6 ll.Li:lf3 Li:lge7 12 ..ic2
Li:lfS 13.hfS exfS 14.0-0 cxd4 1S.
cxd4 .ie7 16J"1e1 .ixe2 17.l"lxe2 h6
18.iWd3 iWd7 19.l"lc2 l"lc8 and the
game is equal, Dinesh Kumar -
Hamdouchi, Sort 2 0 07.) 6 . . . Li:le7
7.h4 (Or 7.b4 c6 8.a4 Li:lfS 9.l"lb1
Li:ld7 10 ..id3 aS 1l.bxaS l"lxaS
12 .iWe2 g6 13 .h4 h6 14.hS gS 1S.g4
Li:le7 16 . .ia3 .ib7 17. 0-0 Li:lc8 18.
hf8 l"lxf8 19.Li:ld2 cS 2 0 . Li:lb3 l"la8
2l.Li:lxcS bxcS 2 2 . l"lxb7 and White
went on to win, Najer - Hort,
Fuegen 2006.) 7 . . . h6 8 .hS aS
9 . .ibS + c6 10 . .ia4 Li:ld7 1l .Li:le2 bS
12 . .ib3 cS 13 .c3 Li:lc6 14. 0-0 iWc7
1S.l"le1 c4 16 . .ic2 Li:lb6 17 . .if4 .ie7
18 . .ig3 l"lb8 and Black has his typ-
2 19
Chapter 28
ical "French" counter-chances,
Kasparov - Ivanchuk, Horgen
1995;
5 ... hc3 + 6.bxc3 t'jje 7 (I think
it is riskier for Black to play 6 . . .
\Wd7 7.\Wg4 f5 8.\Wg3 ia6 9 .ha6
t'jjx a6 10.t'jje 2 t'jjb 8?! ll. t'jjf4 t'jjc 6?
1 2 .t'jjx e6 \Wxe6 13 .\Wxg7 0-0-0
14.\WxhS \Wg6 15.0-0 :1:'!d7 16.:1:'!e1
Wb7 17.if4 :1:'!g7 18.g3 t'jjg e7 19.
\Wf8 + - Zhigalko - Mihajlovskij ,
Minsk 2006; 1l.c4 ! ? dxc4 12 .d5
exd5 13.t'jjd4 t'jja 6 14. 0-0 0-0-0
15.e6 \Wd6 16.if4 \Wc5 17.\Wxg7
t'jje 7 18.c3 and White had excel­
lent compensation in the game
Grischuk - Dizdar, Mainz 2006;
10 . . . wf7 1l.a4 ! ? c5 12. \Wd3 \Wc8
13.!a3 t'jje 7 14.h4 t'jjc 6 15.\Wf3 :1:'!f8
16.h5 wg8 17. 0-0 :1:'!f7 18.h6 g6
19.c4 dxc4 2 0.d5 t'jjx e5 2 1.\Wc3
t'jjg4 2 2 .ib2 e5 23.:1:'!ad1 t'jjb4 24.
f3 t'jjf6 25.\Wxc4 \Wa6 2 6.\Wxa6
t'jjx a6 27.he5 and White exploit­
ed his edge in this endgame,
Vitiugov - Ulibin, Biel 2 007;
l l.h4 c5 12 .h5 :1:'!c8 13.h6 g6 14.
\Wh4 cxd4 15.cxd4 :1:'!xc2 16.:1:'!h3
\Wb5 17.t'jjc3 \Wc4 18.id2 t'jjb 8 19.
:1:'!b1 t'jjc 6 2 0 .t'jjb 5 \Wa2 2 l .t'jjd 6+
Wf8 2 2 . :1:'!d1 \Wb2 23.:1:'!d3 :1:'!xd2
24.:1:'!3xd2 \Wxa3 25.:1:'!c2 1-0 Moty­
lev - Ulibin, Moscow 2 0 1 0 . White
won a very good game. He sacri­
ficed a pawn for the initiative and
gradually increased his pressure,
while Black's kingside remained
static.) 7.\Wg4 t'jjg 6 8.h4 h5 9.\Wg3
(White sometimes plays the origi­
nal line: 9.\Wf3 \Wd7 10.a4 c5 1 1 .
ib5 t'jjc 6 12 .a5 \Wc7 13.t'jje 2 !d7
14.axb6 Wxb6 15.hc6 \Wxc6 16.
220
!a3 cxd4 17.t'jjxd4 t'jjx e5 18.Wg3
\Wc4 19.Wd2 \Wc7, with a very com­
plicated position, Kurnosov -
Ponkratov, Moscow 2 009; 9.Wd1
\Wd7 10.t'jje 2 Wc6 1l.!d2 ia6
1 2 .t'jjg3 !xfl 13. Wxfl t'jjd 7 14.
t'jjx h5 0-0-0 15.\Wf3 f6 16.exf6
gxf6 17.g3 e5 18.t'jjg 7 :1:'!dg8 19.t'jjf5
\We6 2 0 .t'jje3 t'jje 7 2 l.c4 e4 2 2 .\We2
f5 with good compensation for
Black, Karjakin - Grischuk, Odes­
sa 2008.) 9 . . . !a6 10.ha6 t'jjx a6
1l.!g5 \Wd7 1 2 .a4 c5 13 .\Wd3 t'jjb S
14.t'jje 2 t'jjc 6 15.0-0 :1:'!c8 16.t'jjg3
t'jjc e7 17.\Wd1 cxd4 18.cxd4 :1:'!c4
19.a5 b5 20.:1:'!a3 \Wc6 2 l .t'jjxh5 t'jjf5
with chances for both sides, Kos­
intseva - Riazantsev, Biel 2 009.
I think that the move 4 ... \Wd7
only reduces Black's possibilities,
because he will have to play b7-b6
anyway. Whether d7 is the right
square for his queen remains un­
clear. 5.a3 and in both cases the
game transposes to 4 . . . b6 5 . . .
hc3+ ( 5 . . . if8 6 .t'jjf3 b 6 ) 6.bxc3
In this chapter, we shall ana­
lyze White's attempts to avoid the
main line (5.a3) : a) 5.'�g4, b)
5.dxc5 and c) 5 . .id2.

The move 5.t2Jf3 does not lead
to original positions, since after
5 . . . tt:le7 the game transposes ei­
ther to 6 .dxc5 or to 6.a3 �xc3 +
7.bxc3.
a) 5.�g4? !
This move cannot be recom­
mended to White.
5 . . .tbe7
6.a3
For 6.dxc5, see 5.dxc5.
After 6 .�d2? cxd4 7.'&xd4
tt:lbc6, Black is better.
6.tt:lf3 ? ! cxd4 7.tt:lxd4 �c7! ? 8 .
�b5+ �d7 9 . 0 - 0 hc3 10.hd7+
tt:lxd7 11.tt:lb5 '&b6 12.tt:lxc3 0-0
13.l"1e1 l"1fc8 14.a4 l"1c4 15.'&h3
l"1ac8 16.tt:lb5 tt:lf5 17.g4 l"1xc2 18.
l"1fl tt:ld4 19.�e3 tt:le2+ 2 0 .<i>h1 d4
0-1 Friedel - Mamedyarov,
Chalkidiki 2003.
6 .'&xg7l"1g8 7.'&h6 (It would be
a disaster for White to opt for 7.
'&xh7? cxd4 8.a3 '&a5 9.tt:lf3 dxc3
10.b3 tt:lbc6 ll.tt:lg5 tt:lxe5 1 2 .f4
l"1xg5 13.fxg5 �d6-+ Manik - Yu­
supov, Warsaw 2005.) 7 . . . cxd4
8.a3 dxc3 (The game is rather un­
clear after 8 . . . '&a5 9.axb4 Wxa1
l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. tt:lc3 �b4 4.e5 c5
10 .tt:lb5, and the position is dou­
ble-edged.) 9.axb4 Wc7 10.tt:lf3
cxb2 11 .�xb2 Wxc2 12 .�d4 tt:l bc6
13.�b5 '&e4+ 14.<i>f1 tt:lf5 15.hc6+
bxc6 16 .Wd2 a5 17.b5 c5 18 .�e3
�d7 19. l"1xa5 '&b1+ 2 0 . tt:le1 l"1xa5
2 1.'&xa5 '&xb5- + Pogosian - Vy­
sochin, St Petersburg 2 0 09.
6 .. • Wa5 ! 7.axb4
7.�d2 cxd4 8.axb4 '&xa1 + 9.
tt:ld1 0-0 10.tt:lf3 f5 11 .exf6 l"1xf6
12 .�g5 e5 13.'&h5 g6 14.Wh4 l"1xf3
15.�xe7 l"1f4 16.Wg3 tt:lc6 with an
absolutely hopeless position for
White, Grischuk - Shipov, ches­
sassistantclub.com 2 0 04.
7 ... Wxa1 S.�dl cxd4 9.lbb5
0 - 0 1 0 .tb c7
It is absolutely senseless for
White to continue with 10.tt:lf3
tt:lbc6 1 1.�d3 tt:lg6 12.l"1e1 tt:l xb4
13.tt:la3 tt:lxd3 14.cxd3 �d7 15.
tt:lxd4 l"1ac8- + Jansa - Korchnoi,
Luhacovice 1969.
10 ... �d7 11.�xa8
ll . . . �a6!
This accurate move was rec­
ommended by Korchnoi in the
notes to his game. Black can also
play here 1 1 . . .tt:lbc6 12 .b5 tt:lb4 13.
221
Chapter 28
�xd4, which was played in the
game Cuijpers - Yusupov, Nether­
lands 2009 and now his simplest
response would be 13 . . . tt:Ja2
14.�d2 Elxa8 with an overwhelm­
ing advantage.
12.�xd4 tt:Jc6 13.�c3 tt:Jcxb4
-White's position is hopeless.
b) 5.dxc5
This move has much more
venom than is apparent at first
sight.
5 . . • tt:Je7 6.tt:Jf3
6.�g4 tt:Jbc6 7.�b5 (For 7.�d2
- see 5.�d2; 7.�xg7 Elg8 8.�xh7
d4 9 . a3 �a5 10.Elb1 dxc3 11.�e3
�d7 and to evaluate the position
correctly you only have to add up
the number of developed pieces of
each side.) 7 . . . �a5 8 .hc6+ bxc6
9 .�d2 tt:Jf5 10.tt:Jge2 h5 11.�f4
�xc5 1 2.0 - 0 �a6 13.Elfe1 �c4
with a superior endgame for
Black, Yudasin - Lputian, Simfer­
opol 1988.
6 . . • tt:Jd7
It is less good for Black to play
6 . . . tt:Jbc6 7.�d3 tt:Jg6 (Black should
222
avoid 7 . . . d 4 8.a3 �a5 9.b4 tt:Jxb4
10.axb4 hb4 11.0-0 hc3 12.Elb1
tt:Jc6 13.tt:Jg5 tt:Jxe5 14.�h5 g6
15.�h6 tt:Jg4 16.�b5+ �d7 17.
hd7+ �xd7 18.�g7 0-0-0 19.
tt:Jxf7 �c7 2 0 .�f4 �xf4 2 1.tt:ld6+
Elxd6 2 2 .�xb7+ - Zelcic - Barsov,
France 2003.) 8 . 0 - 0 (8.hg6 ! ?
fxg6 9 .�e3 0-0 10.0- 0 b6 11.cxb6
axb6 1 2 . tt:Jb5 �e7 13.tt:Jbd4 tt:Ja5
14.Ele1 �d7 15.b3 g5 16.h3± Yur­
taev - Dolmatov, Frunze 1983)
8 . . . tt:Jgxe5 9.tt:Jxe5 tt:lxe5 10.�f4
�xc3 (10 . . . tt:Jd7 ll. tt:Jxd5 ! exd5 1 2 .
�d6 and White has a n over­
whelming initiative.) 11.bxc3
tt:Jxd3 12 .cxd3 0-0 13.Ele1 �a5
14.�d6 Ele8 15.d4 Eld8 16.Ele3±
Damaso - Bartel, Evora 2006.
7 . .td3
7 . . . tt:Jxc5
It makes less sense for Black to
play 7 . . . �c7 8.0-0 hc3 9.bxc3
tt:Jxc5 and, since he cannot cap­
ture on e5 in any case, he might as
well delay the development of his
queen. 10.c4 �d7 11.�a3 h6 1 2 .
Ele1 0-0 13.Elb1 b6 14.�e2 Elfe8
15.cxd5 tt:Jxd5 16.hc5 tt:Jc3 17.�e3
�xc5 18.�xc5 bxc5 19.Elb3 tt:Jd5

with an equal endgame, Zelcic -
Berg, Kusadasi 2006.
8.0- 0 hc3 9.bxc3 i.d7
1 0 . .ie3 �c8 ll.�bl b6 12.�b4
ll:lg6 13.a4 0 - 0 14.a5 �c7 15.
axb6 axb6 16.hg6 fxg6 17.c4
dxc4 18.�xc4 i.c6, and the
players agreed to a draw, Zelcic -
Drasko, Bosnjaci 2 00S.
c) 5 . .id2
If White wants to avoid the
doubling of his pawns at all costs,
I can recommend this move. Now
Black has a choice of continua­
tions.
5 ..• ll:le7
This is Black's most popular
choice and it leads to very inter­
esting positions in which all three
results are possible.
The game is rather quieter af­
ter S . . . ll:lc6 6.ll:lbS �xd 2 + 7.�xd2
'2lxd4 8 .'2lxd4 cxd4 9.f4 (It is
weaker for White to opt for 9.'2lf3
'2le7 10.�xd4 '2lc6 11.�e3 �aS+
12 .c3 d4 13.'2lxd4 �xeS 14.�xeS
ltJxeS= Frolov - S. lvanov, Sochi
2004; 11.�g4 0-0 12 .�d3 fS 13.
l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. '2l c3 �b4 4.e5 c5
�f4 �b6 14. 0-0-0?! �xf2 1S.<i>b1
�d7 16.c3 .ie8 17.Eld2 �b6 and he
has no compensation for the sac­
rificed pawn, Meister - Ionov,
Sochi 2 004.) 9 . . . �b6 10.0-0-0
'2le7 11.'2lf3
After 11.. .'2lc6 White can try
Sergey Movsesian's patent: 12 .h4
hs 13.Elh3 g6 14.rnb1 �d7 1s.ttJgs
a6 16.Elb3 �a7 17.a4 Elb8 18.'2lf3
�cS 19.'2lxd4 '2lxd4 20.�xd4
�xd4 21.Elxd4 aS 2 2 .Elb6 �c6 23.
b4 axb4 24.Eldxb4 rnd7 2S.�bs
rnc7 2 6 .aS Elhc8 27.rncl rnd7 2 8 .
�xc6 + Elxc6 29.Elxb7+ with a win­
ning endgame for White, Movse­
sian - Hochgraefe, Hamburg
1997; or 13 . . . �d7 14.<±>b1 a6 1S.
�e2 g6 16.tt:'lh2 ! ? 0-0-0 17.Elb3
�cs 18.'2lf3 tt:'laS 19.Eld3 '2lc4 20.
�e1 '2le3 21.Elc1 '2lxg2 2 2 . �f2 '2le3
23.c3 and White seized the initia­
tive in the game Movsesian -
Koutsin, Frydek Mistek 199S.
11.. .�d7 12 .h4 Elc8 13.'2lxd4
'2lc6 14.hS tt:'lxd4 ! ? 1S.�xd4 �xd4
16.Elxd4 h6 17.Elh3 . The Slovak
grandmaster enjoyed a victory in
this ending as well. Still, I think
Black's position is not so bad. He
can draw the endgame with accu­
rate defence, but this task was be-
223
Chapter 28
yond the capabilities of an ama­
teur player: 17 .. J�c7 18 .g4 f6 19.
l"1e3 fxeS 20.l"1xe5 0-0 2 1.�d3 l"1f6
2 2 . cj;>d2 cj;>f8 23.cj;>e3 aS 24.a4 �c8
25.g5 hxgS 26.fxg5 l"1ff7 27.h6
gxh6 28.gxh6 cj;>g8 29.l"1g4+ cj;>h8
30 .l"1eg5 l"1f8 31.h7 d4+ 32 .cj;>e2 + ­
Movsesian - Guedon, Bourbon
Laney 1997.
6.ll:l b5
This is White's most consist­
ent move.
It is too provocative to play 6.
f4? ! tt:lfS 7.tt:lf3 cxd4 8 .tt:lb5 �cs
9 .b4 �e7 (The complications are
quite unclear after 9 . . . �b6 10.
�d3 �d7 11.g4 tt:le3 12 .tt:ld6+ cj;>e7
13.�e2 �c7 14.l"1c1 tt:Jc4 15.tt:lxc4
dxc4 16.hc4 �c6 17.�d3 hS 18.
0-0 hxg4 19.tt:lg5 tt:ld7 2 0 .�xg4
l"1af8 21 . tt:le4 cj;>d8 2 2 . tt:ld6 gS with
a rather messy position, Watson
- Lputian, Belgrade 1988.) 10.
tt:lbxd4 tt:lxd4 l l .tt:lxd4 tt:lc6 1 2 .
tt:lxc6 bxc6 13 .�d3 �b6 and White
should be happy if he manages to
equalize, De Ia Villa Garcia - Ariz­
mendi Martinez, Palma de Mal­
lorca 2009.
It is too slow and inadvisable
224
for White to play 6.tt:lf3 cxd4 7.
tt:lbS hd2 + (Black can try to con­
tinue in an original fashion with
7 . . . �c5 8 .b4 a6 9.bxc5 axbS, but
this would only justify White's
strategy.) 8 .�xd2 0-0 9J[jbxd4
tt:lbc6 10. tt:lxc6 bxc6 11.�d3 �b6
12 .b3 �a6 13.0-0 hd3 14.�xd3
tt:lg6 and Black has no problems
whatsoever, Miles - Menvielle
Lacourrelle, Gran Canaria 1996.
It looks interesting for White
to try 6.a3 �xc3 7.hc3 . He has
preserved his dark-squared bish­
op and his pawn structure is in­
tact. However, your opponent will
not always let you play so conven­
tionally in the opening. 7 . . . tt:Jbc6
8.tt:lf3 cxd4 9 .tt:lxd4 (9.�xd4 tt:lxd4
10.�xd4 tt:lc6 11.�g4 0-0 12 .�d3
f6 13.�h4 h6 14.exf6 �xf6 15.
�xf6 gxf6 16.0-0-0 eS= Bala­
shov - Lputian, Kiev 1986.) 9 . . .
tt:lxe5 10 .tt:lxe6 he6 11.�xe5 0 - 0
This position would b e better
for White if only we could ignore
the dynamic factors, which are so
important at the beginning of the
game. 12 .�d3 tt:lc6 13.�g3 �f6 14.
l"1b1 �f5 15.0-0 l"1fe8 16.hf5 �xfS
17.�d2 l"1e6 18.l"1fe1 l"1ae8 19. l"1xe6
l"1xe6 2 0 . l"1dl d4 2 1.a4 (21.l"1el h6

2 2 .f3 l'!xe1+ 23 ..b:e1 '&b5 24.b3
'&c5 25.b4 '&c4 26 ..ig3 b5 and
Black's position is better, Okkes -
Berelovich, Netherlands 2 0 07.)
2 1 . . .h5 2 2 .f3 '&c5 23 . .if2 '&c4
24.b3 '&c5 25.h4 '&e7 26.<;t>f1 a6
27.'&g5 '&xg5 28.hxg5 \ilh7 29.
.b:d4 l'!d6 30 .c3 \ilg6= Hector -
Rowson, York 1999.
It is sharper for White to play
6.dxc5 tt::lb c6 7.'&g4 0-0
8 .tt::lf3 (White sometimes plays
8.0-0-0 f5 9.exf6 l'!xf6 10 . .id3 h6
ll.'&h5 .id7 1 2 .tt::lf3 '&f8 13.tt::le 2
.ie8 14.'&h4 tt::lg 6 15.'&g3 '&xc5 16 .
.b:h6? gxh6 17.tt::lf4 '&d6 18.tt::lh 5
l'!f8 19.'&g4 tt:Jce7 and Black won
easily, Bengtsson - Renman,
Linkoping 1984. It looks very at­
tractive to play 8 . . . d4 ! ? 9 .tt::le 4
.b:d2 + 10.l'!xd2 tt:Jxe5 ll.'&g3
tt::l7g6 - 1 1 . . .tt::l5 g6 ! ? - 12.f4 tt::lc 6
13 ..ic4 tt::la 5 14 ..id3 '&d5 15.\ilb1 f5
16. tt::lg5 '&xc5 17.tt::l1f3 l'!f6 18 .h4 h6
19.tt::lh 3 tt::lc 6 20.l'!hd1 .id7 and al­
though White won the game, the
position is rather unclear, Robson
- Sevillano, Saint Louis 2009.
Black can also try 8 ....b:c5 9 .tt::lf3
tt::lg 6 1 0.'�h5 .id7 n.<;t>b1 '&e8 ! ?
12 .h4 - 1 2 . .id3 ! ? - 12 . . . l'!c8 13.
tt::lg5 h6 14.tt::lf3 f5 15.exf6 l'!xf6 16.
l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.tLlc3 .ib4 4.e5 c5
'&g4 .b:f2 17.h5 tt::lf4 18 .g3 e5 19.
'&h4 tt::lx h5 2 0 .tt::lxd5 l'!xf3 with an
overwhelming advantage for
Black, Movsesian - Bukal, Medu­
lin 1997.) 8 .. .f5 (The author has
reached this position several
times: 8 . . . tt::lg 6 9 . .id3 - 9.0-0- 0 ! ?
- 9 . . . f5 10.exf6 '&xf6 11.0-0 tt::lf4
12 ..b:h7+ \ilxh7 13.tt::lg5+ \ilg8 14.
.ixf4 .b:c3 15 .bxc3 '&xf4 16.'&h5
l'!f5 17.'&e8+ l'!f8 18.'&h5 l'!f5 19.
'&e8 + and the game ended in a
draw, Savchenko - Vitiugov,
Sochi 2006.) 9 .exf6 (It is weaker
for White to play 9.'&g3 ? ! tt::lg 6 10 .
.id3 d4 11.tt::lb 5 .ixd2+ 12 .\ilxd2 a6
13. tt::l d 6 '&a5+ 14.\ild1 '&xc5, with
an excellent position for Black,
Polzin - Timman, Germany
1997.) 9 . . . l'!xf6 10.0-0-0 e5 11.
'&h5 l'!f5 (Black often plays the
more popular line : 1l.. . .if5 12 .a3
.ixc3 13 ..ixc3 d4 14 . .ic4+ mh8
15.tt::lg5 .ig6 16.'&e2 '&f8 17 . .ie1
tt::lg8 18.h4 h6 19 . .id3 l'!d8 2 0.f3±
Borgo - Huebner, Baden 1999 ;
12 . . . '&a5 ! ? 13.axb4 tt:Jxb4 14 . .ig5
'&a1+ 15.\ild2 '&xb2 16.l'!cl .ixc2
17.tt::ld 1.b:d1+ 18.\ilxd1 l'!f7 19 . .id2
l'!f5 20.'&h4 tt:Jec6 with a powerful
attack. ) 1 2 .'&h4 '&f8 . This is an in­
teresting idea - Black makes sev­
eral preparatory moves before ad­
vancing his centre. 13 .'&g3 (Or
13.tt::lx d5? tt::lxd5 14 ..ic4 .ie6 15.
tt::lg5 .ixd 2 + 16.l'!xd2 l'!xg5 17.'&xg5
'&xc5 18 . .ib3 l'!e8 with advantage
to Black, 13.\ilb1 .ixc3 14 ..b:c3
l'!f4 ! - +; 14.bxc3 b6 15.c4 l'!xf3
16.gxf3 .if5 with acceptable com­
pensation for the exchange.) 13 . . .
\ilh8 ! I t becomes evident that
225
Chapter 28
White is nearly helpless against
Black's powerful central pawns.
14.�g5 e4 15.tt'ld4 tt'lxd4 16J�xd4.
Here Black can make a choice be­
tween two excellent possibilities :
16 . . . �xc3 ! ? 17.�xe7 Vfixe7 18.Vfixc3
E1xf2 19.E1xd5 �e6, with a very
good game, or 16 . . . �xc5 17.�xe7
�xe7 18.E1xd5 E1f4 and in this open
position Black's bishop pair fully
compensates for the sacrificed
pawn.
6 . . . .b:d2 + 7.�xd2 0 - 0
Black should not neglect the
possibility of castling.
8.f4
This is a routine move.
Black has no problems in the
greedy line 8.dxc5 <iJd7 9.f4 (9.
Vfic3 f6 10.exf6 tt'lxf6 11 .�d3 �d7
12.<iJd4 e5 13.<iJb3 Wic7 14.f3 a5
15.a4 �e6 16.�b5 Wh8 17.�d3 d4
18.�c4 �f5 19.Vfie2 <iJed5 with an
excellent position for Black, Jur­
cik - Chytilek, Olomouc 2005;
10.<iJf3 <iJxe5 ll.tt'lxe5 fxe5 12.
Vfixe5 �d7. This is an ambitious
approach. Black is trying to derive
maximum benefit from his lead in
development. He does not appear
226
t o have any problems a t all, for in­
stance in this logical variation :
13.0-0-0 Vfia5 14.tt'l c7 <iJc6 15.
�d6 Vfixa2 16.�xd7 E1xf2 17.�xe6+
Wh8 18.�e2 Vfia1+ 19.Wd2 Vfia5+
2 0 . Wc1 �a1=) 9 . . . <iJxc5 10.<iJd4
Vfib6 11.0-0-0 �d7. If we count
the tempi, it is clear that Black has
a good position. The following
game shows how play might con­
tinue : 12.<iJgf3 E1fc8 13.�e3 E1c7
14. Wb1 E1ac8 15.E1c1 a6 16.g4 <iJc6
17.h4 tt'le4 18.E1h2 tt'la5 19.�d3
<iJc5 2 0 .c3 C2Ja4 21.Wa1 �b5 2 2 .
�b1 C2Jc4 23.�e1 C2Jcxb2 ! and Black
was better in the game Karpov -
Nogueiras, Rotterdam 1989.
The move 8 .c3, reinforcing
White's pawn chain, has an obvi­
ous drawback: White's knight on
b5 is left isolated. 8 . . . <iJbc6 9.f4 a6
10.<iJd6 f6 ll.<iJf3 cxd4 12.cxd4
<iJg6 13 .�d3 (13.<iJxc8 fxe5 14.
dxe5 E1xc8 15.g3 Vfib6 16 .�h3 Wh8
17.a3 <iJa5? ! 18.Vfid4 �b5 19 .a4
�d7 2 0 . �b6± Timman - Agde­
stein, Taxco 1985; 17 . . . <iJcxe5 !
This is an important improve­
ment for Black. 18.<iJxe5 <iJxe5 19.
fxe5 E1c4. This attack with his ma­
jor pieces leads to victory, for ex­
ample after 2 0 .�g2 E1f5 21.E1cl
E1xe5+ 2 2 . Wfl E1f5+ 23.We1 Vfif2 + !
24.Vfixf2 E1xc1+ 25.Wd2 E1xf2 + 26.
Wxc1 E1xg2 and the rook ending is
winning for Black.) 13 . . . fxe5 14.
fxe5 (It is no better for White to
opt for 14.hg6 �xd6 15.dxe5?
�b4 ! and he ends up a pawn
down . 15.fxe5 Vfib4. Black can ex­
ploit the open file and his oppo­
nent's d4-pawn is weak, so the

endgame is at least equal for him.
16.�b1 aS 17.\Wxb4 axb4 18 .b3
�d7 19.'it>e2 E1a3 2 0 . !'1d1 tLl a7 2 1 .
�d3 E1a8 2 2 . 'it>e3 ttJ c 6 23.!'1d2 E1xb3
24.axb3 fua1, Royset - Haug, Kau­
tokeino 1997.) 14 . . . 2"1xf3 ! This is a
typical resource in the French de­
fence. After the exchange sacri­
fice, White will lose both his d4-
and eS- pawns. 1S.gxf3 ttJxd4 16.
�e4 ttJxeS 17.\Wxd4 \Wxd6 18.0-0-0
tLlc6 19.iWd2 �d7 and Black has
excellent compensation for the
exchange.
8 . . . .id7! ?
This is a rarely played move,
but it sets White some rather unu­
sual (for this variation) problems.
Black should avoid 8 . . . a6 9.
tLld6 cxd4 10.tLlf3 ttJbc6 11.�d3 f6
12. 0-0 fxeS 13.fxeS E1xf3 14.2"1xf3
ttJxeS 1S. iWf4 ttJxf3 + 16.gxf3 ttJc6
17.iWf7+ 'it>h8 18.'it>h1 g6 19 .hg6
\We7 2 0 .\Wf4+ - Perelshteyn -
Berg, Southampton 2003.
Black fails to solve his prob­
lems with 8 . . . ttJbc6 9.tLlf3 a6 10.
tLld6 ttJxd4 11.tLlxd4 cxd4 1 2 .�d3
\Wb6 13.0-0-0 �d7 14.g4 (White's
game is much easier.) 14 . . . ttJc8
1S.tLlxc8 E1axc8 16.fS �bS 17.hbS
iWxbS 18 .f6 d3 19.c3 \Wa4 2 0.'it>b1
iWc2 + 2 1.\Wxc2 dxc2+ 22. 'it>xc2
and White has the edge in this
endgame, thanks to his advanced
kingside pawns, Landa - Marzo­
la, Paris 2006.
9.dxc5
l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.tLlc3 �b4 4.e5 c5
After 9.tLld6 cxd4 10.tLlf3 ttJbc6
Black has a good game. For exam­
ple, he can counter 1l .b4 with the
interesting idea: 11...iWc7 12.bS tLlxeS!
13 .fxeS f6 14.b6 axb6 1S.exf6 E1xf6
16.tLlbS �xbS 17.hbS eS 18.0-0
tLlfS and Black's powerful central
pawn-mass more than compen­
sates for the sacrificed piece.
9 ••• .ixb5 1 0 . .ixb5
10 . . . a6
This is a new plan for Black in
this position.
Or 10 ... b6 ! ? 11.iWf2 bxcS 1 2 .
iWxcS tLld7 13.\Wa3 E1b8 14.hd7
\Wxd7 1S.tLlf3 E1fc8 16.0-0-0 aS
and he has good play along the
open files, Westermeier - Z.Med­
vegy, Austria 2 00S.
ll . .id3 .!Lld7
It is obvious that if Black re­
gains his pawn he will have an ex­
cellent position.
12.b4 a5 13.c3 axb4 14.
cxb4 b6 15.cxb6 iWxb6 16 .!LlfJ •
E1a3 !? White has difficulties.
-
227
Chapter 29 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3)t)c3 J.b4 4.e5 c5
5.a3
This is the strongest move for
White and logically the main line
5...hc3+
Nowadays Black rarely plays
5 . . . i.a5 ! ?, which has been named
"The Armenian variation", mostly
as a tribute to its greatest expo­
nents, Rafael Vaganian and Sm­
bat Lputian. Black's position
would be fine, were it not for 6 .
b4 ! cxd4 (Accepting the sacrifice
with 6 . . . cxb4 would be fatal
for Black, because after 7.lLlb5
White's initiative is crushing.) 7.
Wg4 lLle7 8.bxa5 dxc3 9.Wxg7 Ei:g8
10.Wxh7 lLlbc6 ll.lLlf3 Wc7. This
position attracted a lot of atten­
tion, at various levels, but then
Andrey Volokitin revealed an
analysis which proved to be very
unpleasant for Black. 1 2 .i.f4 i.d7
228
13.a6 ! 0-0-0 (Here Black can try
13 . . . b6, but this is hardly an im­
provement.) 14.axb7+ (White
postponed this capture in the fol­
lowing game and he was almost
punished for it - 14.Wd3 Ei:g4 15.
i.g3 Ei:e4+ 16.'tt>d l Ei:c4 17.Wh7
Ei:e4 ! ? with rather unclear conse­
quences, Vallejo Pons - S.Volkov,
Kallithea 2008.) 14 . . . 'tt>b 8 15.Wd3
Ei:g4 16.g3 lLlg6 17.Wxc3 lLlxf4 18.
h3 ! lLlxh3 19.Ei:xh3 lLlxe5 20.
Wxc7+ 'tt>xc7 2 1 .lLlxe5 Ei:e4+ 22.
'tt>d 2 Ei:xe5 23.i.d3± Volokitin -
Lputian, Mallorca 2 0 04. I think
that if theory ends up in this really
unpleasant endgame for Black,
the variation with 5 . . . i.a5 cannot
be recommended.
6.bxc3 c!L!e7
Black has some popular alter­
natives here - 6 . . . Wa5 7.i.d2 Wa4
with interesting play, as well as
6 . . . Wc7 7.Wg4 f6 (7 .. .f5 8.Wg3
cxd4 9.cxd4 lLle7 10 .i.d2 0-0 11.
i.d3 b6 12.lt)e2 i.a6 13.lLlf4 Wd7
14.h4 i.xd3 15.Wxd3 lLlbc6 16.Ei:h3
Ei:ac8 17.Ei:g3 Ei:f7 18.h5 lLld8 19.c3
Ei:f8 2 0 .'tt>fl Ei:c4 2 l .'tt>g l and White
has a clear-cut plan of action,
Kasparov - Short, Novgorod
1997.) 8.i.b5+ 'tt>f8 9.lLlf3 WaS
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. lt'J c3 1lb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 hc3 6.bc lt'Je7
10 J:'!b1 a6 1l.§ie2 \Wxc3+ 12 .§id2
\Wxc2 13.Elc1 \We4 14.\Wg3 lt'Jd7 1S.
exf6 gxf6 16.\Wd6+ lt'Je7 17. 0-0
Elg8 18.Elfe1 \Wg6 19.lt'Jh4 \Wf7 20.
tih6+ \ile8 2 1 .tihS+ - Vitiugov -
Dyachkov, Dagomys 2 0 0 8 .
I shall repeat - I recommend
that Black opt for another main
line.
Now White has several op­
tions, but in fact they can be di­
vided into two groups - 7.\Wg4
and the rest: a) 7 . .id3, b) 7.h4,
c) 7.a4 and d) 7.ti:lf3. We shall
deal with the queen-move in the
next chapter, while here we shall
analyze White's possible position­
al moves. I think it will be more
useful and reasonable if we focus
more on the typical plans, ideas
and manoeuvres and rather than
concrete variations (They are not
that many, in fact . . . ) .
a) 7 .id3
• This is an active move, con­
Black has no serious problems
after this quiet move.
7 .tbbc6 8 .tbf3
•.
Or 8.\Wg4 \WaS 9 .id2 c4 10 .ie2
0-0 1 1.h4?! f6 1 2 .f4 \Wa4 13 .id1
\WbS 14.ic1 \WaS 1S.id2 \WbS (lS . . .
\Wb6 ! ? and Black can prolong the
struggle) 16.ic1 \WaS 17.id2 and
the players agreed to a draw,
Short - Shulman, Dhaka 1999.
8 'tYa5
.•.
After 8 . . . c4 ! ? 9.ie2 0-0 10.
0-0 f6 ll.exf6 Elxf6 12 .lt'JeS lt'JxeS
13 .dxeS Elf8 14.igS \We8 1S.ixe7
\Wxe7 16.\Wd4 id7 17.f4 tieS 18.
Elf2 ig6 19.tig4 tie4, Black ob­
tained an excellent position in the
game Ju. Polgar - Sutovsky, Na­
tanya 2 0 0 9 .
9 . .id2 c4 1 0 . .ie2 .id7 11.
0 - 0 f6 12J3el fxe5 13.dxe5
0 - 0 14 . .ifl Elf5 15.g3 13af8 16.
13e3 135f7 17.§ig2 \Wc7
Black's position is slightly
preferable, De Firmian - Gulko,
Malmo 2 0 0 1 .
b) 7.h4!?
nected with a pawn-sacrifice.
7 . . . tia5
After 7 . . \Wc7!? 8.Elh3 lt'Jbc6
.
9.hS h6 10.lt'Je2 f6 1 l .exf6 gxf6
12.Elf3 eS 13.Elxf6 ig4 14.Elxh6
229
Chapter 29
E1xh6 15.1xh6 ltJf5 16.ig5 exd4
17.f3 hh5 18.g4 ltJe5co, wild
and unpredictable complications
arise, Shukh - Shimanov, Irkutsk
2 010.
7 . . . ttJbc6 8.h5 h6 ! ? 9.'W'g4 ltJf5
10.id3 0-0 11.l2le2 cxd4 12.cxd4
'WaS+ 13 .id2 'W'a4 14.E1b1? ltJxe5 !
and Black realized his advantage,
Nepomniachtchi - Savchenko,
Olginka 2011.
8.i.d2 'W'a4
Or 8 . . . ttJbc6 ! ? 9.ltJf3 id7 10.
h5 0-0-0 1l.id3 f6 1 2 . 0-0 c4
13 .1e2 fxe5 14.ltJxe5 ttJxe5 15.dxe5
E1df8 16.1g4 E1f7 17.'W'e2 @b8 18.
@h2 @aS 19.f4 g6 2 0.ih3 ltJf5
2 l .g4 ltJe7 2 2 .h6 with a compli-
cated position, Alekseev - ing play.
Grischuk, Moscow 2008 .
9)bf3
It is not very advisable for
White to try the risky line: 9 .h5 h6
(9 . . . b 6 ! ? 10.ltJf3 ia6 ll.E1h4 hf1
1 2 .@xfl ltJf5 13.E1f4 ltJc6 14.@g1
cxd4 15.g4 ltJfe7 16.cxd4 h6 17.
ltJh4 E1c8 18.c3 'W'xd1 + 19 .E1xd1
ltJa5 and the endgame is excellent
for Black, Sasikiran - Sutovsky,
Antwerp 2009.) 10.E1h4 ltJf5 11.
230
E1g4 cxd4 12.cxd4 b6 13 .1d3 ia6
14.hf5 exf5 15.E1xg7 'W'xd4 16.E1g3
f4 (Here, with 16 . . . 'W'e4+ ! , Black
could have obtained a considera-
ble advantage.) 17.E1f3 'W'xe5+ ? !
(17 . . . 'W'e4+ ! ?) 18.ltJe2 'W'xh5 19.
ic3. White seized the initiative
and went on to win, Vitiugov -
Lysyj , Serpukhov 2 008.
The game takes a completely
different course after 9.'W'b1 c4
10 .h5 h6 11.l2le2 ltJbc6 12 .g4 id7
13 .ig2 0-0-0 14.ie3 f6 15.f4 f5
16.g5 g6 and the players agreed to
a draw, Motylev - Rustemov,
Tomsk 2001.
9 . . .lbbc6 1 0 .h5 cxd4
This move leads to rather forc-
I t is also possible for Black to
opt for 10 . . . h6 11.E1h4 ltJf5 12.E1g4
cxd4?! (12 . . . b6! ?) 13.cxd4 b6 14.
c4 ! and White obtains an edge.
ll.cxd4
1l.id3 dxc3 1 2 .hc3 ltJf5 13.
h6. After this, the play is forced
for many moves. 13 ... gxh6 14 . .ixf5
exf5 15.e6 'W'e4+ 16.@f1 'W'c4+ 17.
'W'd3 'W'xd3+ 18.cxd3 0-0 19.exf7+
E1xf7 2 0 . E1xh6 d4 ! 2 1 .hd4 ltJxd4
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 dS 3JiJc3 ilb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 hc3 6.bc liJ e7
2 2 .liJxd4 and here, Black could
have equalized with 22 . . . YJ.d7= (I
played less well in the game and
ended up in an inferior position
after 22 . . . b6 23J'l:d6 YJ.a6 24.<i7e2
l"i:e8 + 25.�d2, Kurnosov - Vitiu­
gov, Moscow 2010.).
White's victory in the next
game is very instructive ll.l"i:h4 b6
(ll . . . liJf5 12.1"i:f4 b6 ! ? , provoking
g4) 1 2 .liJxd4 liJxd4 13.1"i:xd4 Vfffc 6
14.Vfffg4 liJf5 15.YJ.d3 l"i:g8 16.1"\f4
YJ.d7 17.Vfff e 2 g5 18.hxg6 hxg6
19. 0-0-0 l"i:c8 2 0.g4 liJe7 2 1 .Vffff3±
Guseinov - Bocharov, Khanty­
Mansiysk 2011.
ll . . . liJxd4 12.YJ.d3 c!Llec6
Or 12 . . . h6 ! ? 13.YJ.b4 liJdc6 (13 . . .
liJxf3 + ? 14.Vfffxf3 liJc6 15.1"i:b1 liJxb4
16.1"i:xb4 Vfffa5 17.YJ.b5+ �f8 18.
0-0±) 14.1"i:h4 Ci:lxb4 15.axb4 Vfffc 6
16.Vfffd 2 0-0. Of course, White has
active pieces and some attacking
chances for the sacrificed pawn,
but Black's position is quite solid
and his passed a-pawn might be­
come very dangerous in the fu­
ture.
13. �fl
13 • • • liJf5
After 13 . . . liJxf3 ?! 14.Vfffxf3 Vfff d4
15.1"\e1 liJxe5 16.Vfffg3 liJxd3 17.cxd3
0 - 0 18.1"i:h4 Vffff6 19.YJ.f4, White de­
velops a powerful initiative on the
dark squares.
14.hf5
Or 14.�g1 ? ! Vfffg4 15.Vfffe 2 f6 16.
h6 fxe5 17.hxg7 l"i:g8 18.1"i:xh7 e4
19.liJg5 Vfffx e2 20 .he2 l"i:xg7 2 1 .
l"i:h8 + � e 7 and Black i s better, Fe­
dorov - Gulko , Las Vegas 1999.
14 exf5 15.h6 �g8 16 .YJ.g5
•••
YJ.e6 17.�h4 Vfffa 6+ 18.@gl gxh6
19 .if6 �g4 2 0 .�bl �xh4 21.
•
YJ.xh4 �c8 and the players agreed
to a draw, Hellers - Gulko, Biel
1993.
c) 7.a4
This is an interesting move,
but in order to understand its
point, you must be familiar with
some of the finer points of this
variation. White achieves some
pluses with his last move, but he
wastes valuable time in the open­
ing. His a4-pawn might be strong
later, but it might become a liabil­
ity as well. In addition, the b4-
231
Chapter 29
square can be used by a black
knight after an eventual exchange
of pawns on d4.
7 . . . \Wc7!?
The essence of White's idea
can be best seen in the line : 7 . . . b6
8 . .ib5+ .id7 9 . .id3 . Following a
typical manoeuvre, Black's bishop
was denied the use of the a4-
square, where it would have been
excellently placed. 9 . . . ltJbc6 10.
ltJf3 h6 11.0-0 \Wc7 12J�e1 0-0,
with a complicated position, Her­
nandez - Ivanov, Balaguer 1997.
8.tt:lf3 h6 ! ?
This i s a very interesting mo­
ment. Black is in no hurry and
makes a useful prophylactic
move.
9 . .id3
After 9.h4 b6 10 . .ib5+ .id7 11.
.id3 lt'lbc6 12 . .id2 c4 13 . .ie2 f6 14 .
.if4 0-0 15.�d2 lt'lg6 16.hh6
fxe5 17.�g5 .ie8 18.h5 lt'lf4 19.�g4
exd4 20.cxd4 e5 21.dxe5 lUxeS
22 . .ixf4 E1xf4 23 .�e6+ ltJf7 24.h6
l=\e4 25.�f5 �d7 26.�xd7 ixd7,
the endgame is better for Black,
Konguvel - Rustemov, Biel 2 0 04.
9 . . . b6!
232
This is the point! Now the
check on b5 would lose a tempo
for White.
1 0 .a5
After 10.0-0 .ia6 11.a5 hd3
1 2 . axb6 axb6 13.l=\xa8 ixfl 14.
�xf1 0-0 15.�d3 ltJec6 16.�b5
E1c8 17.dxc5 bxc5 18.�xc5 lt'ld7 19.
�d6 �b7 2 0 .l=\xc8+ �xc8 2 1..ie3
ltJa5, Black has excellent compen­
sation for the pawn, De Firmian
- Ibragimov, New York 2 005.
10 ... bxa5 11. 0 - 0 c4 12.
.ie2 0 - 0 13J�el tt:lbc6 14 . .ifl
f6 15 . .ia3 fxe5 16 . .ixe7? \Wxe7
17.tt:lxe5 tt:lxe5 18.l:�xe5 \Wc7
19.g3 .id7 2 0 . .ih3 lU6 21.\Wcl
a4 22.\Wa3 gbs with great ad­
vantage for Black, Topalov - Ba­
reev, Wijk aan Zee 2 004.
d) 7.tt:lf3 b6
Black's idea is blatantly obvi­
ous - he wants to exchange the
light-squared bishops.
8 . .ib5+
We are already familiar with
this manoeuvre.
It is less principled for White
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. liJ c3 1J.b4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 hc3 6.bc liJ e7
to continue with 8.a4 §J.a6 9.1J.xa6
(Black has nothing to worry about
after 9 .1J.b5+ hb5 10.axb5 �d7
11.:gb1 a6 12 .dxc5 bxc5 13.1J.a3
axb5 14.hc5 0-0 15.�d3 :gcs
16.he7 �xe7 17. 0-0 4Jd7 18.
:gxb5 liJ c5 19.�e3 liJe4 2 0 . :gb3 �c7
with good play, Varavin - Bareev,
Elista 1996.) 9 . . . 4Jxa6 10.0-0
liJb8 ll.dxc5 bxc5 12 .c4 0-0 13.
cxd5 liJxd5 14.�d3 h6 15.c4 liJe7
16.�e4 4Jd7 17.:gb1 �a5 18.:gd1
)"ladS 19.�c2 4Jxe5 ! 2 0 .4Jxe5 �c3
2 l.�e2 �xeS and Black went on to
win, A.Sokolov - Yusupov, Riga
1986. I should mention that Artur
Yusupov is one of the greatest
specialists in this line and I plan
to use many of his games to illus­
trate most of the finer points and
intricacies of this variation.
8 . . ..id7 9.§J.d3 .ia4
This is an important moment.
Black's bishop will exert pressure
against White's c2-pawn from
this square and furthermore
White's bishop is prevented from
occupying the a3-f8 diagonal.
1 0 .h4 h6
ll.h5
The following game illustrates
very instructively how the game
can develop in this variation.
ll.fi.f4 4Jbc6 12 .h5 a6. Black has
decided nevertheless to exchange
the light-squared bishops after
all, but in this rather original
fashion. 13.�b1
This is a sensible response.
White leaves his rook on a1 to
protect his a3-pawn, in case the a­
file is opened. 13 . . . �c7 14.0-0
liJa5 1s.:ga2 :gbs 16.:ge1 i>d7.
Black's play in this part of the
game is not very impressive and
the instructive value of this en­
counter lies more in the way
White handles the position.
17.:gb2 c4. Black closes the centre
in order to avoid the worst. Now
readers should pay attention to
how Inarkiev (White) plays. His
manoeuvres are very impressive
indeed ! 18 .1J.e2 4Jac6 19 .�c1 b5? !
Black deliberately boxes in his
bishop. Up to this point Black's
play has perhaps been viable, but
his last move goes to far . . . 2 0 .
liJh2 ! a 5 2 1 . :ga2 �d8 2 2 .1J.g4 �g8.
This is another manoeuvre worth
noticing. 23.4Jfl i>c7 24. 4Je3 i>b7
25.1J.h3 liJc8 26.§J.g3 liJb6. White's
233
Chapter 29
play so far has been excellent.
This is exactly how his pieces
should be deployed in this pawn
structure - the knight on e3, the
light-squared bishop eyeing the
e6-square. He only had to make
one more important move and
Black's position would have been
very difficult. . . 27.f4? ! (It was
much stronger to play 27.Wh2 ! ,
protecting the bishop o n g3, and
his opponent would have been in
great difficulties.) 27 .. .f5 ! Black
exploits the fact that the white
bishop on g3 is hanging and he
eases his defence a little with this
move. 28 .'\Wd1 !1'Je7 29.l"lf1? ! (It
was again worthwhile for White
to play 29.Wh2, with the same
idea - to protect the bishop.) 29 . . .
g 5 30.hxg6 !1'Jxg6 31.hf5?! White
has already lost his positional ad­
vantage and now he goes in for
complications. (It is important
that he cannot play 31 .'\Wh5, be­
cause of 3 1 . . .!1'Jxe5 ! ) . 31. .. exf5 3 2 .
!1'Jxf5 <i> a 6 33.'\Wf3 h 5 34.!1'Je3 h4
35.�h2 h3 and Black triumphed
in the time scramble, lnarkiev -
Vitiugov, Moscow 2 0 0 8 .
234
ll . . . c4
Yusupov tried another set-up
in his match against A.Sokolov:
11 . . . !1'Jbc6 1 2 . l"lh4 c4 13.�e2 <i>d7
14.�e3 '\Wg8
Black's queen is quite useful
on the g8-square. It allows the
rook on a8 to get closer to the ac­
tion, it prepares an attack on the
c2-square from h7 and of course it
will support an advance of the f­
and g- pawns in the future. 15.
1Wd2 '\Wh7 16.l"lcl <i>c7 17.l"lf4 l"laf8
18.!1'Jh4 !1'Jd8. This is another mul­
ti-functional manoeuvre - Black's
knight is not attacking anything
from the c6-square, so it provides
additional defence of the key
" French" pawn on e6. 19.�g4 <i>b7
2 0 .l"lf3 �e8 2 1 . l"lh3 g5. This move
seems to flout some well-founded
positional rules, but this is exactly
the way for Black to activate his
pieces a little. 2 2 .hxg6 fxg6 23.
!:i'Jf3 g5 24.!1'Jh2 Wg7 25.'\We2 �g6
and Black had an excellent posi­
tion in the game A.Sokolov - Yu­
supov, Riga 1986.
12.�e2 <i>d7 13.lL!h4
13.�f4 '\Wg8 14.!1'Jd2 '\Wh7 15.
l"la2 l:i'Ja6 16.g4 !1'Jc7 17.l"lh3 l"laf8
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. lbc3 i.b4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 hc3 6.bc {jj e7
18.�e3 lt>c8 19.i.g3 {jj c 6 2 0 .{jj f3
�hg8 2 l . lt>d2 lt>b7 2 2 .'Wh1 {jj b 5
23.{jj e 1 {jj c 7 24.{jj g 2 �e8 25.f4 f6
26.exf6 gxf6 27.{jj h 4 f5 28.{jj g 6
fxg4 29 .hg4 'Wf7 30 .'Wh3 lt>a6
31.�a1 {jj e 7 32.{jj xe7 �xe7 Black
has gained an advantage, Bologan
- Vitiugov, Dagomys 2 0 1 0 .
13 •.. 'Wg8 14.i.g4 �h7 15J�a2
It is difficult to tell where this
rook belongs - on a2, or cl.
15 )Da6 ! ?
••
We have already explained all
the previous manoeuvres. It is
clear that the knight will ensure
additional protection of the e6-
pawn, but this time from a differ­
ent square. It can be activated
later, for example via b5.
16.13h3 tl:lc7 17.\t>fl 13af8
18.�gl g5
Nothing new under the sun.
Black's set-up has withstood the
test of time.
19.tl:lf3 tl:lc6 2 0 .ttlh2 f5 21.
exf6 13xf6 22.13e3 13hf8 23.£3
23 . . . �t7 with a very good po­
sition for Black, Ki .Georgiev - Yu­
supov, Las Palmas 1993. It is ob­
vious that the position is so com­
plicated that an exhaustive analy­
sis is practically impossible. What
matters is that you understand
the main ideas which are typical
for this rather original and non­
standard pawn structure.
235
Chapter 3 0 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.lt:Jc3 .ib4 4.e5 c5
5.a3 hc3+ 6.bxc3 �e7 7.'?Ng4
This is White's most aggres­
sive move. Black faces immediate
concrete problems with the pro­
tection of his g7-pawn.
7 . . . cxd4! ?
Black tackles his problems
head on! Attack is the best form of
defence.
I think I ought to clarify for
you the character of the arising
positions. They are totally irra­
tional. Probably only the Botvin­
nik variation of the Semi-Slav de­
fence stands comparison. Black
sacrifices his kings ide for the sake
of obtaining a lead in develop­
ment and keeping his opponent's
king stranded in the centre for a
long time to come. Black's com­
pensation is temporary and main­
ly of a dynamic sort. Black should
236
be reluctant to go into the end­
game, because his opponent's
passed pawns and in particular
the h-pawn, perfectly supported
by the rook from its initial square,
can become very dangerous.
White's king, however, can re­
main in danger right to the end of
the game, because even if Black's
first attacking wave fails, another
one can follow.
Nothing definite can be said to
make the play easier for either
side in this variation. In fact, the
position will be difficult for White,
owing to the necessity to defend
early in the game, as well as for
Black, since he is risking a lot. The
concrete theory of this variation is
tremendously complex and these
unbalanced positions are difficult
to analyse, even for today's pow­
erful computers. So, despite the
fact that everything seems to be
forced, there remains plenty of
scope for creative endeavour. It
seems to me that after you have
read all this, it would be sensible
for me to outline for you Black's
basic plans, ideas and resources
in this variation.
First of all, it is less precise to
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. t:iJ c3 i2.b4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 hc3 6.bc t:iJ e7 7. Wg4 cd
begin with 7 . . . Wc7, because then
White has the additional possibil­
ity of 8 .i2.d3 ! ? cxd4 9.t:iJe2 dxc3
10.Wxg7 l"i:g8 11.Wxh7 Wxe5 1 2 .i2.f4
Wf6 13 .Wh6 t:IJg6 14.i2.g5 l"i:h8 15.
i2.xf6 l"i:xh6 16 .hc3, with an ad­
vantage in the endgame, Carlsen
- Sanchez Alarcos Galian, Madrid
2 008.
Completely different positions
result from 7 . . . 0-0, but that
might be the subject of another
book.
8.�xg7
It is not so good for White to
play 8.cxd4? ! �c7
and now:
it would be too artificial to play
9 .l"i:a2 t:IJf5 10.t:iJf3 t:IJc6 1 1 . Wd1 h5
12 .Wg5 i2.d7 13.Wf4 f6 14.exf6
Wxf4 15.hf4 gxf6 16.c3 l"i:c8 17.
i2.d3 t:IJa5 18.a4 l"i:g8 19.l"i:e1 Wf7 2 0 .
hf5 exf5 2 1.i2.d6 l"i:ce8 2 2 . l"i:xe8
he8 23. We1 t:IJc4 24.i2.f4 l"i:xg2
25.i2.g3 f4 26.hf4 i2.d7 and Black
is better, So - Li Shilong, Manila
2 008.
I t looks too provocative for
White to choose 9.Wd1 h5 (Black
sometimes plays 9 . . . 0-0 10 .i2.d3
f5 11.exf6 l"i:xf6 12.Wh5 h6 13.g4 e5
14.g5 hxg5 15.h4 e4 16.hxg5 l"i:g6
- 16 . . . l"i:xf2 ! - 17.i2.b5 t:IJbc6 18.
t:IJe2 Wb6 19.a4 Wf7 2 0 .i2.a3? -
2 0 .i2.e3 ! ± - 20 . . . t:IJxd4 2 1 .l"i:b1 i2.d7
2 2 . a5 i2.xb5 23.l"i:xb5 Wxb5 24.
t:IJxd4 Wa4-+ Shirov - Zhukova,
Gibraltar 2006; another interest­
ing try is 14 . . . g6 ! ? , impeding
White's attack.) 10.Wf4 (Or 10.
Wxg7 l"i:g8 ll.Wh6 Wc3 12.l"i:b1 Wxd4+
13.i2.d2 Wxe5, White's king is vul­
nerable and he is a pawn down.)
10 . . . b6 11.i2.b5 + . This is a new ver­
sion of an old story. This annoy­
ing check haunts Black through­
out the entire Winawer variation.
ll . . . i2.d7 ( l l . . . t:iJbc6 ! ? 1 2 .t:IJf3 a5 13.
l"i:b1 i2.a6 14.ha6 l"i:xa6 15.l"i:e1 a4
16.h3 l"i:a8 17.i2.d2 l"i:c8 18.We3 t:IJa5
19 .Wd3 t:IJc4 with advantage for
Black, Savchenko - Shulman,
Khanty-Mansiysk 2009.) 12 .i2.d3
t:IJg6 13.We3 t:IJc6 14.t:IJh3 t:IJce7 15.
t:IJg5 t:IJh4 16.Wh3 t:IJhf5 17.i2.b2 f6
18.t:IJf3 0-0-0 19.l"i:e1 g5, White's
position is a disaster, Savchenko
- Kamsky, Baku 2009.
9 .i2.d2 Wxc2 10.l"i:c1 (10.Wxg7
l"i:g8 l l.Wh6 t:IJbc6 12.t:iJe2 i2.d7 13.
i2.c3 t:IJf5 14.Wd2 Wa4 15.g3 f6? 16.
exf6 e5 17.f7+ Wxf7 18 .i2.g2 t:IJcxd4
19.0-0 t:IJxe2+ 2 0.Wxe2 d4 21.
i2.d2± Kokarev - Andreev, Vla­
dimir 2 0 0 8 ; 12 . . . t:IJxd4 ! ? 13. t:IJxd4
Wb2 14.i2.b5+ i2.d7 15.0-0 Wxd4
16.hd7+ Wxd7 17.l"i:fe1 Wg4 18.g3
t:IJf5 19.Wf4 Wxf4 2 0.i2.xf4 t:IJd4-+
Srinivasan - Roller, Toronto
2 0 03) 10 . . . We4+ 11.Wxe4 dxe4.
Black has brought about an end­
game. He will soon have to give
up his extra pawn soon, but his
position will remain very good in
237
Chapter 3 0
any case. 12.lt:le2 0 - 0 13 .g4 .id7
14 . .ig2 .ic6 15 . .ie3 tt:Jd7 16.tt:lc3 f5
17.exf6 tt:Jxf6 18.g5 tt:Jfd5 19.he4
tt:Jxc3 2 0 .hc6 tt:Jxc6 21.Ei:xc3
Ei:ad8. I failed to win this position,
but still Black should be quite ea­
ger to go in for it again, Kobalia -
Vitiugov, Tomsk 2006.
White can also try the clever
move order 8 . .id3 WaS 9.tt:le2
(9.Ei:bl. This is Bojan Vuckovic's
excellent idea. 9 . . . Wxc3 + 10.�d1
�f8 11.tt:lf3 b6 12 .Wh5 h6 13.tt:lg5
g6 14.Wh4 Wc7 15.tt:Jxf7 �xf7 16.
Wf6+ �g8 17.Ei:b3 g5 18 .hg5 hxg5
19.Wxg5+ �f8 2 0.Wf6+ �e8 2 1 .
Wxh8+ �d7 2 2 . .ib5 + tt:Jbc6 2 3 .
Wf6 a 6 24 . .ixc6+ Wxc6 25.h4 a5
26.Wf4 Wc5 27.�d2 .ia6. Black's
pieces have great scope and are
tremendously active, Vuckovic -
Grischuk, Khanty-Mansiysk 2010.
It would be interesting to know
what White had in mind against
the solid move 9 . . . tt:Jg6 ! ? For
example: 10.tt:lf3 Wxc3 + 11..id2
Wc7 12.0-0 tt:Jc6 13.h4 0-0 14.
Wg3 f6 and Black's extra material
might become the decisive fac­
tor. )
9 . . . 0-0 (I t is obviously too
dangerous for Black to play 9 . . .
238
tt:Jg6 10 ..id2 dxc3 11.tt:lxc3 Wc7
12.f4 a6 13 .h4 h5 14.Wg3 tt:Jc6
15.0-0 tt:Jce7 16.tt:le2 tt:Jf5 17 . .ixf5
exf5 18.tt:Jd4 Wc5 19 . .ie3 We7 2 0 .
.if2 .ie6 2 1.Ei:ab1 b 5 2 2 .a4, with a
rather unpleasant position for
Black, Al Modiahki - Grischuk,
Sochi 2008.)
10 . .ig5 (10 . .id2 . This is an in­
teresting pawn-sacrifice, but it is
not quite correct. After 10 . . . dxc3
11.hc3 Wc7 12.0-0 tt:Jbc6 13.Wh5
tt:Jg6 14.f4 d4 15 . .id2 f5 16.exf6
Ei:xf6 17.tt:lg3 tt:Jce7 18.tt:Je4 Ei:f5 19.
tt:lg5 h6 2 0.hf5 exf5 2 1 .tt:lf3 White
was the exchange up, Maciej a -
Vysochin, Warsaw 2010. It is
worth considering ll . . . Wd8 ! ? 1 2 .
0-0 tt:Jd7, with the idea o f elimi­
nating White's light-squared
bishop with his knight, from cS.)
10 ... tt:Jg6 ll.f4 tt:Jd7 12 .hg6 (It
would be extremely risky for
White to continue with 12 .h4? ! f5
13 .Wg3 Ei:f7 14.h5 tt:Jgf8 15.Wh4
tt:JcS 16 . .ie7 dxc3 17.Ei:h3 .id7 18.
tt:Jd4 Ei:c8 since he obtains no com­
pensation for the two missing
pawns, Short - Shulman, Ohrid
2001.) 12 . . . fxg6 13.Wxe6+ Ei:f7 14.
WeB+ Ei:f8 15.We6+ Ei:f7 16.0-0
tt:Jb6 17.We8+ Ei:f8 18.We7 dxc3 19.
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. liJc3 ilb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 hc3 6.bc liJ e7 7. Wfg4 cd
if6 l"lf7 20 .Wie8+ l"lf8 2 1.Wie7 l"lf7
and the players did not avoid the
triple repetition of the position,
Svidler - Grischuk, Nalchik 2009.
8 J�g8 9.'\�!fxh7 Wfc7
• •
l O .liJe2
The following line is long out
of fashion: 10. \ild1 dxc3 11.liJf3
liJbc6 1 2 .liJg5 Wfxe5 ! ? (In the past
there were theoretical debates
about the merits of 12 . . . liJxe5 13.
f4 l"lxg5 14.fxg5.) 13.Wixf7+ \ild7
14.if4 Wfd4+ 15.\ile1 e5 16.ie3
Wfg4 17.ie2 Wff5 18.g4 Wfxc2 19.
liJh7 \ilc7 2 0 .liJf6 l"ld8 2 1.if3 d4-+
Busquets - Ivanov, Irvine 1997. It
is inferior for Black to play 10 . . .
liJbc6 11.liJf3 and here 1 1 . . . Ci:Jxe5
(ll.. .dxc3 ! ?) presents White with
a clear way to seize the initiative :
12.if4 Wfxc3 13.Ci:Jxe5 Wfxa1+ 14.
ic1 l"lf8 (Black should avoid 14 . . .
d 3 15.Wixf7+ \ild8 16.Wff6 - 1 6 .
Wff4 ! ? - 16 . . . dxc2 + 17.\ild2 Wfd4+
18.id3 Wfc5 19.\ile2 id7 2 0 .ie3
and White's game is much easier,
Stein - Beliavsky, London 1985.)
15.id3 id7 16.\ile2 liJc6 17.Ci:Jxf7
l"lxf7 18.Wfg8+ l"lf8 19.ig6+ \ile7
2 0 .Wig7+ \ild6 2 1.if4+ l"lxf4 2 2 .
l"lxa1 l"laf8 23 .f3± M atulovic -
Camilleri, Halle 1967.
10.l"lb 1 ! ? Wfxe5+ ll.liJe2 dxc3
12.h4. This i s a very ambitious
move and it was probably moti­
vated by the fact that the game
was played in a friendly match.
(12.if4 Wff6 13.h4 liJd7 14.ig5
Wfe5 15.ixe7 l"lh8 16.id6 l"lxh7 17.
ixe5 liJxe5 18.Ci:Jxc3 f5 ! ? with a
good endgame for Black; 12 .Wfd3
liJbc6 13.Wixc3 Wfe4 14.Wfd3 Wfxd3
15.cxd3 f6 - This position re­
quires practical tests. Black has
an alternative, but I do not like it
as much - 13 . . . b6 14.Wfxe5 Ci:Jxe5
15.liJd4 id7.) 12 . . . d4 13 .h5 (A po­
sition with dynamic balance
arises after 13.if4 Wff5 14.Wfxf5
Ci:Jxf5 15 .Ci:Jg3 liJxg3 16.ixg3 Ci:Jc6�
White's missing pawn is compen­
sated by his bishop pair and
passed h-pawn.) 13 . . . Ci:Jbc6 14.h6
f5 (Here it was very strong for
Black to play 14 . . . l"lg6 ! , cutting off
White's queen from the main field
of action.) 15.if4 Wff6 16.Ci:Jg3
Wfh8 ? ! (16 . . . Wff7) 17.Wfxh8 l"lxh8
18 .ig5t and White seized the ini­
tiative in the game Morozevich -
Vitiugov, St.Petersburg 2 0 1 1 .
10 .c!l:lbc6
• •
239
Chapter 3 0
ll.f4
White easily won the following
game after 1l.�f4, but that was
owing more to the overwhelming
difference in playing-class rather
than the intrinsic strength of
White's move. 1 1 . . . dxc3 12.1Wd3
Elg4 (12 . . . �d7 ! ? 13.\Wxc3 0-0-0
14.l2ld4 l2lxd4 15.\Wxd4 l2lf5 16.
\Wd2 �c6 17.Elb1 d4 with an excel­
lent game for Black, Lehmann -
Martinovic, Sibenik 20 07. Black
can go into an endgame if he so
wishes - 12 ... l2lxe5 13.\Wxc3 \Wxc3+
14.l2lxc3 f6 with chances for both
sides.) 13.\Wf3 Elh4 14.g3 Elh8 15.
\Wxc3 l2lg6 16.l2ld4 l2lxf4 17.l2lb5
\Wb6 18.gxf4 �d7 19.a4 d4 20.\Wa3
\Wa5+ 2 1 . ciJd1 0-0-0 2 2 .l2ld6+
ciJb8 23.Elb1+- Tal - Grefe, San
Francisco 1991.
ll . . .id7
. obliged to go in for forcing play.
Black can also try another ap­
proach - 11...dxc3
(diagram)
Now:
12.l2lc3 a6 (There are still un­
clear issues in the variation 12 . . .
l2ld4 13 .�b2 �d7 14.0-0-0 \Wb6
15.\Wd3 l2ldf5 16.l2lb5 Elc8 17.g3
Elc4 18.l2ld6+ l2lxd6 19.exd6 l2lf5
240
2 0 . ciJb1 �a4 2 l .Eld2 ciJd7f:! Kar­
jakin - Sutovsky, Poikovsky
2010.) 13.\Wd3 . White is trying an­
other line, but it is questionable
whether he knows what to do fur­
ther. (13 .�b2 �d7 14. 0-0-0
0-0-0 15.\Wh4. This is a very long
manoeuvre to transfer the queen
to the f2-square. Is it any good for
him, though . . . ? 15 . . . ciJb8 16.1Wf2
l2la5 17.ciJb1 Elc8 18 .�d3 l2lc4 19.
�xc4 \Wxc4 2 0 .Eld2 l2lf5 2 1.l2le2
\We4 2 2 .l2ld4 l2le3 23.Ele1 Elxg2 24.
\Wxg2 \Wxg2 25.Elxg2 l2lxg2 and
Black won this endgame, Magem
Badals - Stellwagen, Khanty­
Mansiysk 2010.) 13 . . . �d7 14.�d2
0-0-0 15.g3 l2lf5 16.�g2 l2la5 17.
�h3 �c6 18.hf5 exf5 19.\Wxf5+
ciJb8 2 0 .\Wd3 d4 2 1 .l2le4 f5 ! Black
went on to win, Kosintseva - Hou
Yifan, Hangzhou 2 0 1 1 ;
12 .\Wd3 d 4 . Now Black is
It is difficult to believe that White
will obtain an advantage as long
as Black's powerful pawn pair d4-
c3 remains on the board.
(diagram)
Here there is an interesting
idea played by a young Spanish
grandmaster: 13.h4 �d7 14.h5
0-0-0 15.h6 ciJb8 16.h7 Elh8 17.
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 dS 3. ttJ c3 ii.b4 4.e5 cS 5.a3 hc3 6.bc ttJ e7 7. Wffg 4 cd
Ei:b1 ii.c8 18.g4 (As a bonus, White
is able to develop his bishop on
g2 . ) 18 ... b6 19.ii.g2 ii.b7 2 0 .@f2
tt:Ja5 2 1.Ei:h3 ii.xg2 2 2 . @xg2 tt:Jec6
23.a4 Wffe 7 24.Wffe4 with advantage
to White, Salgado Lopez - Alek­
seev, Novi Sad 2009. In this game
Black first developed his bishop
to d7 and then transferred it to b7.
I think I can recommend to Black
the move 13 . . . b6 ! ? with the idea of
saving at least a few tempi. , for
example: 14.h5 ii.b7 15.h6 0-0-0
16.h7 Ei:h8 17.Ei:b1 @b8 with a com­
plicated game, or 14.0Jxd4 tt:Jxd4
15.Wffxd4 tt:Jf5 16.ii.b5+ ii.d7 17.
Wffx d7+ Wffx d7 18.ii.xd7+ @xd7 19.
Ei:h2 (19. @f2 Ei:g4 2 0 .ii.e3 Ei:ag8 21.
Ei:ag1 tt:Jxh4 2 2 .g3 tt:Jf5 with the
better endgame for Black, Bolo­
gan - Kamsky, Reggio Emilia
2010) 19 . . . Ei:g4 2 0 .h5 Ei:ag8 2 1.h6
Ei:h8 ( 2 1 . . .Ei:h4 ! 2 2 .h7 Ei:h8 23.Ei:xh4
tt:Jxh4 24.@f2 Ei:xh7 25.ii.e3 Ei:g7=)
2 2 . @f2 Ei:g6 23.h7 Ei:g7 24.ii.e3
Ei:gxh7 25.Ei:d1+ @c6 26.Ei:xh7 Ei:xh7
27.Ei:d3 and White won a pawn in
the game Svetushkin - Giri, Me­
lilla 2 0 1 1 .
White sometimes manoeuvres
his knight all the way to the d6-
square: 13.0Jg3 ii.d7 14.0Je4 (It is
less consistent to play 14.ii.e2
0-0-0 15.0-0 Wffb 6 16.0Je4 tt:Jd5
17.Wffb 5? Wffxb5 18.ii.xb5 @c7 19.
Ei:b1 a6 2 0 .ii.d3 b5 2 1 . a4 tt:Jcb4 and
White is in trouble, Khachiyan -
Shulman, Saint Louis 2009; 17.
tt:Jd6+ @b8 18.tt:Jxf7 Ei:df8 19.0Jd6
tt:Jce7 2 0 .ii.f3 ii.c6 21.a4 tt:Jb4 2 2 .a5
Wffc5 with an excellent game for
Black, Karjakin - Kamsky, Nal­
chik 2009.) 14 . . . 0-0-0 15.0Jd6+
@b8 16.Ei:b1
16 . . . b6 ! ? This idea of this move
will become clear a bit later. (The
main line in this position is con­
sidered to be : 16 . . . ii.c8 17.0Jxf7
Ei:df8 18.0Jd6 tt:Jg6 19.Wffe 4 tt:Jh4 2 0 .
g 3 tt:Jf5 2 1.ii.g2 @a8 2 2 .0Jxf5 exf5
23.Wff d 3, but Black's compensa­
tion for the pawn is insufficient,
Neelotpal - Sengupta, Mumbai
2003.) 17.0Jxf7 Ei:df8 18.0Jd6 tt:Jf5
19.0Jxf5 Ei:xf5 . Now if White plays
2 0 .g3, Black has the resource 20 . . .
tt:Jxe5 ! ? 2 1.fxe5 ii.c6 ! 2 2 .Ei:g1 ii.e4
23.Wffxe4 Ei:xe5 24.Wffe 2 Ei:xe2 + 25.
ii.xe2 e5 with a very sharp posi­
tion.
13.0Jxd4 tt:Jxd4 14.Wffx d4 ii.d7
15.Ei:g1 (For the main line - 15.Ei:b1
- see variation c.) 15 ... 0Jf5 (15 . . .
Ei:h8 ! ? 16.h3 tt:Jf5 17.Wfff2 ii.c6 18 .g4
tt:Jh4 19.Ei:g3 Wff a5 2 0 . Ei:d3 Ei:d8
241
Chapter 3 0
21.Wg3 E1xd3 2 2 .Wxd3 �f8 23.�f2
�g7 24.Wg3 lt:Jf3 25.�d3 E1d8 26.
�e3 E1xd3 ! 27.cxd3 Wb5- + Ortiz
Suarez - Nogueiras Santiago, Ha­
vana 2010) 16.Wf2 Wc6 17.�d3
(17.g4 We4+ 18 .We2 Wa4 19.E1b1
�c6 2 0 .�f2 Wd4+ 2 1.�e3 lt:Jxe3 -
2 1 . . .Wd8 ! ? - 2 2 .Wxe3 Wxe3+ 23.
�xe3 E1h8 24.h3 and White won,
Volokitin - Cornette, Aix-les­
Bains 2011. It seems to me that it
would be more precise for Black
to continue with 18 . . . Wd5 19 .�g2
Wc5 20.Wf2 lt:Jd4 2 1.�e4 0-0-0
2 2 .�e3 �c6 ! �) 17 ... Wd5
18.l"1b1 (18 .�e3 lt:Jxe3 19.Wxe3
E1xg2 2 0 . l"1xg2 Wxg2 2 1.�e4 Wxh2
2 2 .0-0-0 E1d8 23.�b1 �a4 24.
E1xd8+ �xd8 25.Wxa7 �d7 26.
Wa5+ �e8 27.Wxc3 Wxf4 28.
hb7± Robson - Shankland, Mil­
waukee 2 009; 22 . . . �c6 ! 23.�b1
he4 24.Wxe4 Wf2 = ; In principle,
Black should not be afraid of 18.
�xf5 exf5 19.�e3 0-0-0 2 0 .E1d1
Wc4 2 1 .ha7 �c6 2 2 . E1d4 Wa2 23.
We2 Wxa3 24.E1xd8+ E1xd8-+
Spitz - Debray, Evry 2 005.) 18 . . .
�c6 19.l"1b3 0-0-0 20.E1xc3 �b8
2 1.l"1c4 (At the recent European
Cup, Alexey Shirov won the fol­
lowing, somewhat unbelievable,
242
game : 2 1 . l"1b3 Wa5+ 2 2 .�d2 Wa4
23 .�b4 a5 24.�c5 E1d5 25.E1c3
E1gd8 26.g4 lt:Jd4 27.E1c4 E1xc5 2 8.
E1xa4 �xa4 29.c4 b 5 30 .�e4 bxc4
31.Wb2 + lt:Jb5 32.Wf2 E1d1+ 33.
�e2 lt:Jc3+ 34.�e3 lt:Jxe4 35.�xe4
�c6-+ Pijpers - Shirov, Rogaska
Slatina 2 0 11.) 2 1 . . . 2 1 . . .b6 ! ? ( 2 1 . . .
E1 h 8 2 2 . l"1c5 a n d the players
agreed to a draw, David - Wirig,
Fourmies 2 010) 2 2 .g4 �b5 23.E1c3
lt:Jd4 24.hb5 Wxb5 25.Wfl WaS
26.�d2 Wa4 2 7.�e3?? lt:Jxc2 - +
Kuipers - Stellwagen, Nether­
lands 2011.
12.'1Wd3 dxc3
This is in fact the key-position
of the entire variation. Now White
is faced with an important choice :
a) 13.l"1gl, b) 13.'1Wxc3, c)
13.gbl or d) 13.lZlxc3 .
However, it is far from clear
which move can be considered as
best for him at this point.
a) 13.13gl
This move has become popu­
lar just recently.
13 ••• 0 - 0 - 0 14.g4 d4 15.h4
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3 . tiJ c3 il.b4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 hc3 6.bc tiJ e7 7. Wig4 cd
It seems to me that it is illogi­
cal for White to advance his h­
pawn after it has been deprived of
the support of the rook from be­
hind it. Alexey Shirov, however, is
usually so good in this type of po­
sition that we should perhaps
trust his choice . . .
15 • . . il.e8
It might be interesting for
Black to play 15 . . . Wib6 ! ? with the
idea of preventing the activation
of White's rook on a1 to a more
active position on bl.
16.h5 f6 17.exf6 �d5 18.
il.h3 �b8 19 .g5 hh5 2 0 .he6
he2 21.�xe2 l"lge8 22.£5
Wie5 +
Black could have won here
with the surprising line : 22 . . .
Wih2 + 23.�fl tiJ e 3 + 24.i!.xe3
Wih3-+
23. �f3 Wih2 24.Wifl �e3 25.
he3 dxe3 26.l"ld1 e2 27.Wffx e2
�e5+ 28.�e3 Wih3+ 29.�f4
�c6 3 0 .Wffg4 Wffh 2+ 31.Wig3+­
and White's king is now quite
comfortable behind its pawn bar­
rier, Shirov - Shulman, Khanty­
Mansiysk 20 07.
b) 13.Wixc3
This move leads to very com­
plicated positions.
13 • . . �£5
14.l"lb1
Or 14.l"lg1 Wib6 ! It is because of
this powerful manoeuvre that
White usually begins with 14.l"lb1
(Black did not solve his opening
after 14 . . . l"lc8 15.l"lb1 d4 16.Wid3
�ce7 17.g4 Wixc2 18.Wixc2 l"lxc2 19.
il.d2 tiJh4 20.tiJxd4± Karjakin -
Harikrishna, Bilbao 2 0 07.) 15.
g4? ! (I am scared to recommend
15.Wib2 Wic5 16.c3, but the com­
puter programmes like this very
much.) 15 . . . tiJfd4 16.l"lg3 l"lc8 17.
Wffd 3 �b4 18.axb4 tiJxc2 + 19.�d2
tiJxa1 20.tiJd4 il.a4 2 l . 'it>e2 l"lxcl.
White resigned. This was a very
impressive blitzkrieg! A.Vlasov -
Ponkratov, Samara 2 004.
White has at his disposal a
paradoxical exchanging manoeu­
vre : 14.tiJg3 tiJxg3 (14 . . . 0-0- 0 ! ?
15.tiJxf5 exf5 16.h4 d 4 17.Wffd 3 f6
18.exf6 Wid6 and Black has com­
pensation.) 15.hxg3 l"lc8 16.l"lb1 (16.
a4 Wib6 17.a5 Wid4 18 .il.d2 tiJb4 19.
Wixd4 tiJxc2 + 2 0 . <i>f2 tiJxd4 21.
243
Chapter 3 0
l"la2 a 6 22 .g4 j,b5 23.g5 with ap­
proximate equality, Frolov - Bak­
lanova, St Petersburg 1994; 16 . . .
a5!?) 1 6. . .lLle7!? 17.�xc7 l"lxc7 18. j,d2
j,a4 19.j,d3 lLlf5 and Black should
be able to hold this endgame.
White sacrifices a pawn some­
times in order to simplify the po­
sition a little. Naturally, he does
not obtain any advantage by do­
ing so. 14.g4 l"lxg4 15 .j,h3 l"lh4 ! ?
16.hf5 exf5 17.j,e3 0-0-0 18.
0-0-0 with a double-edged game.
14.g3 d4 15.�d3 0-0-0 16.j,g2
lLlce7 17.0-0 j,c6 18.hc6 �xc6 19.
j,d2 <i>b8 2 0 . l"lf2 . Black had some
compensation for the pawn, but he
continued sacrificing needlessly
with 2 0 . . . lLld5? (20 . . . �b6 ! ? ; 2 0 . . .
l"ld7!?). 2 1 .lLlxd4 �b6 2 2 .c3 lLlxc3
23 .hc3 lLlxd4 24.�e3± Fogarasi
- Degraeve, Arnhem 1989.
14 . . . d4
15.�d3
White just helps his opponent
if he plays 15.�c5 b6 16.�c4 l"lc8 ! ?
(16 . . . �b7 17.l"lg1 l"ld8 18.�d3 lLlce7
19.g4 lLlh4 2 0 .lLlxd4 j,c6 2 l . l"lg3
l"lxg4 2 2 . l"lxg4 l"lxd4 23.�h3 lLlhf5
24.j,d3+ - Brkic - Sengupta, Bel-
244
fort 2 0 05) 17.j,d2 �b7 18 .�d3
lLlce7 with good compensation for
Black.
15.�c4 �a5+ (Black failed to
prove any compensation after
15 . . . 0-0-0 16.j,d2 lLlce7 17.
�xc7+ <i>xc7 18.l"lg1 j,c6 19.l"lb3
l"lh8 2 0 .g4 lLle3 2 1.he3 dxe3
2 2 .h3 l"ld2 23.l"lg3 tt:ld5 24.c4 l"la2
25.l"lb1 lLlb6 26.lLlc3 l"lxa3 27.
l"lxe3 l"la5 2 8.lLlb5+ hb5 29.
l"lxb5± Lukulus - Tatar, play­
chess.com 2 0 07.) 16.j,d2 �xa3
17.l"lxb7 lLle3 18.j,xe3 dxe3 19.�c3
(After 19.�b3 Black can easily
transpose to the line with 19.�c3
�a5+ 2 0 .�c3 �xc3 + 2 1.lLlxc3.)
19 ... �xc3 + 20.lLlxc3 lLld4 2 1 .lLle4
j,c6 2 2 .lLld6+ <i>d8 2 3 .lLlxf7+ and
the players agreed to draw, Adoc­
chio - Krueger, Germany 1988.
We can continue the variation -
23 . . . <i>e8 24.lLld6+ <i>d8 25.c3 e2
26.cxd4 exf1�+ 27.l"lxf1 hb7
2 8 .lLlxb7+ <i>e7 29.l"lf2 l"lab8 30.
lLlc5 l"lb1+ 3 1 . <i>e2 l"lb2 + 3 2 .<i>f3
l"lxf2 + 33.<i>xf2 a5, with an ap­
proximately equal endgame.
White's extra material is balanced
by Black's outside passed pawn.
15 . . . 0 - 0 - 0 16.:ggl
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 dS 3 . ti:J c3 �b4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 hc3 6.bc li'J e7 7. V!ig4 cd
16 . ll:la5
• •
I think this is the best move for
Black, but sometimes 16 . . .f6 or
16 . . . �e8 are also played.
17.g4
After 17.:1'1b4 Black should play
17 . . . a6 and if 18 .g4 then 18 . . . li'Je3 !
19.�xe3 �b5 2 0 .Vfid2 dxe3 2 1 .
V!ixe3 V!ixc2 22 .li'Jd4, Sharma -
Riedel, Bad Wiessee 2009, 22 . . .
Vfih2 ! 23.�b5 a b 24.:1'1b5 V!ih4 25.
mfl E1g4=
17 • • • .ia4 18.c3
18.gxf5 E1xg1 19.li'Jxg1 �xc2 2 0 .
V!ib5 . Now White obtains two
bishops for Black's rook. White
will have a material advantage,
but the dynamic factors should
enable Black to keep the game ap­
proximately balanced. 20 . . . :1'1d5
(20 . . . a6 ! ? 2 l.Vfib6 hb1 2 2 .Vfixb1
li'Jb3 23 .Wd1 V!ic3 24.fxe6 fxe6
25.Vfic2 li'Ja1 2 6.Vfid3 li'Jb3 27.Vfic2
li'Ja1 2 8.Vfib2 Wc7 - 28 . . . 2"1d7! -
29.�e2 b5 30.li'Jf3 V!ic6 3l .�d2 d3
32 .�a5 + - Smirnov - Arslanov,
Dagomys 2 0 09) 2 l.Vfib4 �xb1 2 2 .
V!ixb1 li'Jb3 23.Wd1 li'Jxcl 24.V!ixc1
E1c5 25.Vfib2 Vfic6 26.�d3 :1'1c3 27.
Wd2 Vfig2 + 28.li'Je2 Vfif2co Markin
- Kanovsky, Pardubice 2009.
18 .•• .ic2 !
This is the resource that
Black's strategy is based on. Now
the rest of his pieces become tre­
mendously active at the cost of
this bishop.
An alternative is 18 . . . li'Jb3 19.
gxf5 2"1g1 2 0 . cxd4 ( 2 0 .li'Jg1 dxc3
2 l.Vfie3 :1'1d1 ! + 2 2 . Wf2 c2 23.:1'1xb3
hb3 with a great advantage for
Black) 2 0 . . . V!ia5+ 2 l . Wf2 E1f1 + 2 2 .
Wf1 V!id5�
19.V!ixc2 d3 2 0 .Vfia2 W'c5 21.
l'!g2 ll:le3 22.ll:lg3
22 • • • l'!xg4
2 2 . . . li'J ac4? This mistake em­
phasizes once again that it is not
enough to know long forcing
lines, you also need to be able to
remember them at the right mo­
ment. 23. li'Je4 V!ic6 24.li'Jd6+ E1xd6
25.exd6 V!ie4 26 . .ixe3 li'Jxe3 27.
mf2 li'Jxg4+ 2 8 . Wg1 1-0 Ivekovic
- Martinovic, Sv Filip i Jakov
2010.
23.l'!f2 ll:lac4 24.V!ib3 b6 25.
V!ia4 ll:lc2+ 26.l'!xc2 dxc2 27.
\!ffx c2 ll:le3 28.W'e4 l'!dl+ 29.
'it>e2 ll:ld5! 30 .id2 l'!xbl (Or
•
30 . . . :1'1xd2 + ! ? 3l.Wxd2 V!ixc3+ 32.
245
Chapter 3 0
<±>d1 <±>b8 33 .'&d3 '&xd3+ 34.hd3
tt:lc3+ 3S.<±>d2 tt:lxb1+ 36.hb1
:§:xf4 and the endgame is worse
for White.) 31.�xbl gxf4 32.
�d3 g£2 + 33.<±>dl �xa3 and
Black triumphed in the ensuing
complicated struggle, Volokitin -
Ganguly, Moscow 2 0 07. Natural­
ly, the sharpest variation with 13.
Qc3 requires a very precise play,
but I think that in the pages of this
book it should be sufficient for me
to give you an idea of the outlines
of the arising positions and
schemes.
c) 13.gbl
After this useful inclusion of
White's rook, Black has an inter­
esting possibility:
13 . . . d4
Now after 13 . . . 0-0-0 14.tt:lxc3
Black cannot play 14 . . . a6??, be­
cause of 1S.'&xa6 !
14.ll:lxd4
This is no doubt White's most
logical reaction.
He cannot obtain an advan­
tage with 14.g3 0-0-0 1S ..ig2
246
ttJaS 16.0-0 .ic6 17.hc6 ttJaxc6
1 8.'&e4 WaS 19.:§:d1 '&cS 2 0 .:1'ld3
ttJdS and Black dominates, Do­
minguez Perez - Grischuk, Al­
maty 2008.
White plays 14.tt:lg3 0-0-0
1S . .ie2 (Black can counter 1S.tt:le4
with the powerful positional sac­
rifice - 1S . . . ttJxeS ! 16 .fxeS 16 . . .
'&xeS 17.'&e2 .ic6 18. tt:lg3 '&h8 -
18 . . . WdS ! ? - 19.Wf2 :§:g6 2 0 . .id3
:§:f6 2 1.'&e2 :§:dS 2 2 .tt:le4 :§:ffS 23.
<±>d1 tt:lg6 24.g3 :§:feS 2S.Wg4 fS
2 6.Wxg6 fxe4-+ Smirin - Short,
Tilburg 1992 ; White cannot be
successful if he avoids the forcing
lines : 16.Wxd4 .ic6 17.'&b4 aS 18.
'&xc3 he4 19.Wxc7+ <±>xc7 20.
fxeS .ixc2 2 1.:§:a1 :§:d1 + 22. <±>f2 ttJfS
23 .g3 .ie4 24.:§:g1 tt:ld4 2S . .ib2
:§:d2 - + Hou - Nepeina Leconte,
Paris 2006.) 1S . . . ttJfS 16.<±>f2 ttJce7
17.tt:le4 .ic6 18.g4 tt:lh4 19.:§:d1
<±>b8 (19 ... .ixe4 ! ? 20.Wxe4 tt:lc6
2 1.a4 tt:lg6 with chances for both
sides.) 20.:§:b4 he4 21.Wxe4 tt:lc6
2 2 .:§:b1 <±>a8 23.a4 a6 24 ..ia3 :§:dS
2S.'&h7! - Black overlooked this
simple tactical shot and the game
was soon over, Ju. Polgar -
Schmidt, Warsaw 2 0 0 2 .
White also plays here 14.:§:g1
0-0-0 1S.g4 (It is less consistent,
but still playable, to opt for 1S.
tt:lxd4 tt:lxd4 16.'&xd4 .ibS 17.'&xa7
.ixf1 18. <±>xf1 Wc6 19 . .ie3 ttJfS 2 0 .
<±>f2 '&e4 21.'&cS+ <±> b 8 22 .Wa7+
<±>c8 23.'&a8+ Aseev - Eingorn,
Odessa 1989; 18 . . . Wc4 + ! ? 19.<±>f2
We4 2 0 .WcS+ <±>b8 21.Wxc3 :§:c8
2 2 .:§:b4 '&h7 23.:§:c4 :§:xc4 24.'&xc4
:§:c8 2S.Wd4 :§:xc 2 + 26 . .id2 Wh4+
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. 4J c3 :ilb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 hc3 6.bc 4J e7 7. Wig4 cd
27.g3 Wixh2+ 28J�g2 Wih1 29.
Wid8 + <i>a7 30 .WiaS = ) 1S ... fJ.e8 (I
do not think that Black can equal­
ize with 1S . . . liJdS 16. 4Jxd4 4Jxd4
17.Wixd4 <i>b8 18J'lg3 ? ! 1J.c6 19.
'!lieS f6 2 0 .exf6 4Jxf6 2 1.WieS liJxg4
and his position is acceptable,
Dominguez Perez - Grischuk,
Linares 2009; it is stronger for
White to play 18.h4 ! ? 1J.c6 19.hS
4Jf6 2 0.Wixc3 4Jxg4 2 1 .1J.e2 4Jh6
2 2 .fi:xg8 fi:xg8 23.1J.e3 with an ex­
tra pawn. I can recommend for
Black the multi-purpose move -
1S . . . <i>b8 ! ?) 16.fi:g3
16 .. .f6 17.exf6 liJ dS 18.Wic4
(The best move for White is 18.
4Jxd4 ! 4Jxf6 19.4JbS fi:xd3 20.
4Jxc7 fi:xg3 2 1.4Jxe8 fi:xe8 2 2 .hxg3
and Black has great problems.)
18 ... eS 19.gS 1J.f7 2 0 .Wid3 1J.g6 2 1 .
fS fJ.hS 2 2 . Wie4 fi:ge8 23.<i>f2 1J.f7
24.1J.g2 4Jb6 2S.g6 fJ.dS 26.Wig4 e4
27.f7± Svidler - Berg, Heraklio
2 007.
Instead of 16 . . .f6, it looks very
good to me for Black to continue
with 16 . . . 4JaS ! ? 17. <i>f2 (After 17.
1J.g2 '!lieS 18.fl:b4 4Jec6 19.fi:bS Wie7
2 0 .Wih7 Wif8, White suddenly sac­
rificed a piece, but his position
was rather suspect in any case : 2 1 .
4Jxc3 dxc3 2 2 . fi:xc3 fi:xg4 23.Wih3
Wig7 24.<i>f2 <i>b8 2S.fJ.e3 1J.d7
26.Wif3 fi:g8 2 7.1J.h1 fi:h4 28.<i>fl
fi:xh2 0-1 Schachinger - Marti­
novic, Rogaska Slatina 2009.)
17 ... a6 (Black is planning 18 ...
:iJ.bS.) 18.4Jxd4?! 4Jac6 19.1J.e3
4Jxd4 2 0 .hd4 4Jc6 2 l . fi:b4 4Jxb4
2 2 . axb4 fJ.bS 23.Wixc3 fi:xd4 ! with
the better game for Black.
14 . . . 4Jxd4 15.Wixd4 ll:lf5 16.
Wi£2
16 . . . Wic6
At the price of a pawn Black
has gained several tempi for the
development of his initiative.
It would be too risky for him to
play what used to be considered
the main line here - 16 . . . 1J.c6 17.
fi:g1 0-0-0 18.Wixa7 4Jd4 19.1J.d3
(Or 19. <i>f2 f6 20.1J.e3? ! fxeS 2 1 .
1J.c4 Wih7 with a n overwhelming
initiative for Black, Nijboer -
Stellwagen, Hilversum 2 007.)
19 ... hg2 and here White should
continue with the brave move
2 0 .<i>f2 (It is only a draw after
20 .Wia8 + <i>d7 21.Wia4+ <i>c8 2 2 .
Wia8 + <i> d 7 23.Wia4= Ri ff - Cor­
nette, Le Port Marly 2 009.) 20 . . .
247
Chapter 3 0
V1/c6 21.:E!b4 V1/f3+ 2 2 . 1!?e1 V1/d5
( 2 2 . . . V1/h5 23 .:E!c4+ �c6 24.:E!xg8
lt:Jf3 + 25.1!?f2 V1/h4+ 26.:E!g3 V1/xh2+
27.\!?e3 lt:Jxe5 2 8 .V1/a8+ l!?c7 29.
V1/a5+ l!?c8 30.:E!xc6+ lt:Jxc6 31.
V1/g5+-) 23.:E!c4+ (It is even sim­
pler for White to play 23 .V1/xd4 !
V1/xd4 24.:E!xd4 :E!xd4 25.1!?f2 +-)
23 ... Wxc4 24.�xc4 lt:Jf3 + 25.1!?f2
lt:Jxg1 26.\!?xg1 �c6 + 27.1!?f1+- Be­
rescu - Vargic, Djakovo 2005.
17J'!b4 �d5 18.:E!gl �c6
So, Black has deployed his
pieces perfectly.
After 19 .�d3 0-0-0, White
must choose between two possi­
bilities : 2 0 .g4 and 2 0 . :E!c4 - see
19 .g4, or 19.:E!c4.
The move 19 .�e2 is sensible
only in connection with 19 . . .
0 - 0 - 0 2 0 .�f3, but Black can ob­
tain a good position by: 20 . . . Wd7
2 1.V1/c5 lt:Jh4, with counterplay.
If 19.g4 0-0-0 2 0.�d3 ( 2 0 .
�e2 V1/a2 ! ?) 2 0 . . . lt:Jd4 21.:E!xd4
V1/xd4 2 2 .V1/xd4 :E!xd4 23 .�e3 Ela4
(Black can also adopt a more
modest approach - 23 . . . :E!xd3 ! ?
24.cxd3 Elh8, recapturing the h­
pawn.) 24.h4 �e4 (If White is
248
playing for a win, he should opt
for: 24 . . . :E!xa3 25. 1!?f2 Ela2 26.h5
�a4 with rather unclear conse­
quences.) 25.he4 Elxe4 26.1!?e2
Ela4 27.�c1 Eld4 28 .h5 b5 29 .g5 a5
30 .�e3 Eld5 3l. l!?f3± Mitkov -
Lamoureux, Paris 1993.
19.Elc4 0-0-0. The game con­
tinued logically and ended in a
draw, so it is clear that White
needs to look for an improvement
somewhere. 2 0.�d3 l!?b8 21.Elxc3
V1/a2 2 2 .�e3 ( 2 2 . :E!xc6 bxc6 23.Wfc5
:E!xd3 24.cxd3 Elxg2 =) 22 . . . lt:Jxe3
23.Wfxe3 Elxg2 24.Elxg2 hg2 25.
l!?f2 �c6 2 6.�e4 �xe4 27.Wfxe4
Wfb1 28.:E!e3 Elc8 29.Ele2 Elh8 3 0.
Wfg2 Wf c 1 31.Wfg3 Wfh1 32 .1!?e3 a 6
33.:E!d2 V1/c1 34.\!?e2 V1/h1 35. \!?e3
Wfc1 36.1!?e2 Wfh1 and the players
agreed to a draw, Mamedyarov -
Alekseev, Ohrid 2009.
d) 13.lt:Jxc3 a6
White was threatening to pen­
etrate to the d6-square with his
knight.
Now we shall analyze in detail
dl) 14.lt:Je2 and d2) 14.:E!bl.
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. liJ c3 ilb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 hc3 6.bc liJ e7 7. '?1ig4 cd
The move 14.h4 merely pre­
sents Black with some additional
interesting possibilities : 14 . . . liJf5
15J�h3 0-0-0 (Or 15 . . J'k8 16.:id2
liJxe5 ! ? 17.fxe5 :ib5 18.'?1ff3 Wxe5+
19.'i!ld1 hf1 20.'?1ixfl d4 2l.liJe2
d3 2 2 .liJc3 E\xc3 23 .hc3 Wxc3
24.E\c1 E\g4 with excellent com­
pensation ; 18.liJxb5 Wxe5+ 19.
'i!lf2 '?1ixa1 2 0 .liJc3 E\g4 2 1.h5 Wxa3
leading to a complicated position
with a material imbalance. ) 16.h5
'?1ia5 ! ?
White sometimes plays 14.
:id2 , but I think this move will
lead to original positions only if
White starts looking for trouble;
otherwise, after 14.E\b1 or 14.liJe2
there will be a transpositions to
another variation : 14 . . . liJf5 (If
14 ... liJa5 15.h4 liJf5 16.E\h3 liJ c4 17.
E\a2 0-0-0 18.h5 :ic6 19.liJe2
l!lb8 20.liJd4 Wb6 2 l.liJb3 :ib5,
Black was better in the game Mor­
zywolek - Grzesik, Wroclaw
2005.) 15 .g4 E\xg4 16.:ih3 liJxe5 !
17.fxe5 Wxe5+ 18.'i!ld1 (Or 18.'i!lf2
E\d4 19.We2 Wf6 2 0 .hf5 E\xd2
2 1.'?1ixd2 Wxf5+ 2 2 .'i!le1 We5= 23.
'i!ld1 ? ! E\c8 with the better pros­
pects for Black.) 18 . . . E\d4 19.'?1ie2
Ele4 2 0 .Wf2 liJe3 + ! (20 . . . E\c8 2 1 .
hf5 exf5 2 2 .'?1if3 E\cc4 23.E\b1 :ia4
24.E\b4 + - Frackowiak - Her­
rmann, Germany 2002 ) 2 l.'i!lc1
E\c8 and Black's attack is decisive.
14.g3 liJa5 15.liJe2 (After 15.
:ig2 E\c8 16.:id2 liJc4 Black's posi­
tion is quite acceptable.) 15 . . . liJf5
(Or 15 . . . :ib5 ! ? 16.Wd2 Elc8 with a
complicated game.) 16.§lh3 E\c8
17.hf5 :ib5 18.Wc3 :ixe2 19.Wxc7
E\xc7 2 0 . 1!/xe2 exf5 2 l.'i!ld3 'i!ld7
2 2 .:id2 liJc4 23.:ic3 E\gc8 24.h4±
Spassky - Doroshkievich, Sochi
1964.
dl) 14.c!L!e2
White's knight retreats . . .
14 . .l''k8
.
The magician from Lviv tried
here 14 . . . 0-0-0 15.g3 d4 16.Wc4
liJf5 17.:ig2 liJa5 18.'?1ixc7+ l!lxc7
19.E\b1 :ic6 20 .hc6 l!lxc6 2 l .'i!lf2
d3 2 2 . cxd3 E\xd3 23.E\g1 E\h8 24.
h4 liJc4 25.a4 b6 26.Eia1 \!Ids and
in this endgame Black had good
compensation on the light
squares, Anand - lvanchuk, Nice
2009.
15.�d2
If 15.Eib1 Black must play
inventively: 15 . . . liJa7 (15 . . . liJf5 ? !
16.h3 liJce7 17.g4 liJ h 4 18.liJd4
liJc6 19.liJxc6 Wxc6 2 0.E\h2 E\h8
2 l .'i!ld1 '?1ic7 2 2 .'?1ib3 '?11c 5 2 3.'?1ib6
Wxb6 24.E\xb6± Chandler - Tim­
man, Linares 1988; Black should
also consider 15 . . . liJa5 ! ? with the
idea of countering 16.liJd4 with
16 . . . liJac6.) 16.:ie3 (Or 16.liJd4
249
Chapter 3 0
CL!bS 17.�d2 '\Wc5 18.lt'lxb5 hb5
19J=!xb5 axb5 20.'\WxbS+ '\WxbS 2 1 .
�xb5+ <i>f8 2 2 .g3 l"1xc2 and the
endgame is winning for Black,
Oliveira - Leitao, Campinas
2 009 ; 17 . . . CL!xd4 ! ? 18.'\Wxd4 CL!fS
with excellent position for Black.)
16 . . . CL!b5 17.CL!g3 CL!c3 18.�b6 '\Wc6
19.l"1b4 CL!e4 2 0 .CL!h5 l"1g6 2 l.Wd1
CL!fS 2 2 .CDf6+ l"1xf6 23.exf6 d4 24.
<i>e1 '\Wxc2 25.'\Wxc2 l"1xc2 26.l"1b1
CL!c3 27.l"1a1 �c6 2 8.�d3 l"1xg2 29.
l"1f1 �e4 and White resigned, Ves­
covi - De Toledo, Americana
1997.
15 .. .ll) f5
16.l:�gl
This move is rather dangerous
for Black.
16 .l"1b1 CL!a7 (He should carry
out the same idea but with the
stronger move 16 . . . CL!ce7! 17.h3 ? !
�a4 18.c3 d4 19.CL!xd4 l"1d 8 20.h4
l"1g3 21.'\We4 CL!xd4 2 2 .cxd4 �c6
23.'\Wc2 l"1xd4 24.l"1b4 '\Wd8 25.
l"1xd4 '\Wxd4 26.l"1h3 l"1xh3 27.gxh3
CL!fS and Black was better, Maslak
- Averell, playchess.com 2007;
17.'\Wc3 '\Wxc3 18.�xc3 �b5 ! ; 18.
CL!xc3 �c6 19.CDe2 d4 2 0 . l"1g1 �e4
250
with excellent compensation.)
17.CL!d4 CL!xd4 18 .'\Wxd4 CL!bS 19.
'\Wd3 '\Wxc2 2 0 .'\Wxc2 l":1xc2 2l.a4
CL!c3 2 2 . l"1xb7 CL!xa4 23 .g3 �c8 24.
l"1b8 <i>d7 25.�d3 l"1b2 26.l"1b4 §xb4
27.hb4± Khalifman - Shulman,
Khanty-Mansiysk 2 005.
16.h3 CL!aS (This is a quiet and
sensible decision. Black should
not provoke complications with­
out urgent necessity.) 17.g4 �bS
18.�xa5 '\Wxa5+ 19 .'\Wd2 '\Wa4 2 0 .
gxfS he2 2 l.�xe2 l"1xc2 2 2 .'\We3
l"1g2 23 .�d3 d4 24.'\Wf3 \WaS+ 25.
<i>fl l"1cf2 + 26.'\Wxf2 l"1xf2 + 27.<i>xf2
'\Wd2 + 28 .�e2 d3=
16 . . . llJce7
16 . . . '\Wb6 ! ? 17.c3 CL!aS 18.l"1b1
'\Wc5 (18 . . . �b5 ! ? 19 .g4 '\Wxg1! 2 0 .
l"1xb5 '\Wxg4 2 l . l"1xa5 '1Wh4+ 2 2 .<i>d1
'\Wxh2 and Black has good com­
pensation for the sacrificed mate­
rial, thanks to the totally mis­
placed white rook.) 19.g4 �bS
2 0 .l"1xb5 axb5 2l.gxf5 l"1xg1 2 2 .
CL!xg1 '\Wxg1 23.'\WxbS+ CL! c 6 24.
'\Wxb7+- Anand - Baer, Frankfurt
1994. After 17.g4, Black should re­
ply with 17 . . . CL!fd4 18.l"1g3 CL!xe2
19.he2 CL!d4 (19 . . . l"1h8 ! ? 2 0.l"1h3
l"1xh3 2 1.'\Wxh3 CL!d4 and it is un­
clear whether White has anything
better than perpetual check with
2 2 .'\WhS+ <i>e7 23 .'\Wf6 + . ) 20 .�d1
l"1h8 2 l.h3 l"1c4 with good piece­
play for Black (in the endgame
arising from 2 1 . . .�b5 2 2 .'\We3
CL!xc2 + 23 .�xc2 '\Wxe3 + 24.�xe3
l"1xc2 25.l"1c1 l"1xc1 + 2 6.�xc1 Black
might have some difficulties).
17.�bl .ib5 18.�xb5! axb5
19.g4
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. CiJ c3 ilb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 hc3 6.bc CiJ e7 7. !!lff g 4 cd

tinue with 15.id 2 ? ! CiJ c4 16.CiJe2

CiJf5 17.h3 !!lffc5 (It is even stronger
for Black to play here 17 . . . ib5
18.g4 �e7 ! ) 18.g4 CiJxa3 19.:1'i:b2
CiJc4 2 0 . :1'i:xb7 c!Llfe3 2 1.he3 CiJxe3
2 2 .:1'i:b3 CiJxc2 + 23.'it>d2 :Bc8 24.
!!lffc 3? !!lffa 7 25.!!lffb 2 ia4 26.:1'i:c3
:Bxc3 27.!!lffx c3 'it>d7-+ and White's
position is hopeless, Karjakin -
Ni Hua, Moscow 2 005.
15 • .. c!Llf5 16.l':lh3 0 - 0 - 0
With energetic play White ex­
erts positional pressure against
his opponent.
19 .lL1 h4 ? Black reacts in a
.•

very mediocre fashion. (He had to

play boldly - 19 . . . !!lffb 6 2 0 .gxf5
:Bxg1 2 1 . CiJxg1 !!lffx g1 2 2 .!!lffxb5+ 'it>f8
23 .f6 CiJf5 24.!!lffxb7 :Be8= ) 2 0 .
c!Lld4 �c4 21.@f2 �xd3 22.
i.xd3 'it>d7 23.c!Llxb5± Saric -
Vitiugov, Warsaw 2008 .

17.h5
d2) 14.l':lbl Black's has a decent position
after 17.:1'i:b4 d4 (Or 17 . . . CiJ c4 18.h5
!!lffc5? ! 19.CiJe4 !!lffg 1 2 0 . CiJg5 ib5
2 1 .!!lff e 2 !!lff c5 2 2 .!!lfff2 !!lff c7 2 3 .h6
:Bxg5 24.h7!± Alekseev - Vitiugov,
Kallithea 2 0 0 8 ; he should have
transposed to a theoretical posi­
tion by 18 . . . ic6.) 18.CiJe4 ib5 19.
:Bxb5 (19 .c4 dxc3 2 0 .!!lffc 2 CiJc6
2 1.:1'i:xc3 'it>b8co) 19 ... axb5 2 0 .CiJf6
:Bh8 2 1.h5 CiJ c4 2 2 .g4 CiJfe3 23 .ie2
and White has compensation for
the exchange, but nothing more.
14 • •. c!Lla5 It would be premature for
It would be a blunder for him White to continue with 17.id2
to opt for 14 . . . 0-0-0 15.�xa6 ! CiJ c4 18.CiJe2 d4 ! , preventing
15.h4 White's knight from coming to
It is too slow for White to con- the d4-outpost (After 18 . . . ib5?!

2 51
Chapter 3 0

19.a4 .ba4 20.tLld4 ttJxd4 2 1 .
�xd4 .bc2 2 2 .l"kl ia4 23.h5 ic6
24.h6, White obtained good com­
pensation, Klimov - Ivanov, St
Petersburg 2 005.) 19 .h5 (If 19.
ttJxd4 ib5 2 0 .tLlxb5 axb5- + ; or
2 0 . tLlxf5 Ei:xd3 21.cxd3 tLlxd2 22.
tLld6+ �b8 23.�xd2 �c5 and
White is clearly worse.) 19 . . . ib5
with an excellent game for Black.
17 • • • tLlc4
�c3 Ei:g4 23.h6 Ei:h8 24.h7 Ei:g7
25.Ei:b3 �a7 2 6.icl .ba4 27.�b4
b5 2 8 .Ei:h5 a5 29.�c3 Ei:gxh7,
White's position was hopeless in
the game Becerra Rivero - Shul­
man, Tulsa 2008.) 2 l . . .d4 2 2 .�b3
tLl a5 23.Ei:xb5 tLlxb3 24.Ei:xc5+
tLlxc5 25.tLlgl Ei:g3 26.ia3 d3 27.
Ei:xg3 tLlxg3 28.cxd3 ttJxa4 29.tLle2
tLlxh5 30 .g4 Ei:xd3 31 .gxh5 Ei:xa3-+
Cheparinov - Grischuk, Baku
2008.

18.h6
White has a reasonable alter­ 18 ... Ei:g6
native here - 18.Ei:b4 ic6 19.tLle2 This is one of the most impor­
(Or 19.h6 Ei:g6 2 0 .h7 Ei:h8 2 1.�dl tant ideas for Black in this varia­
Ei:g7 2 2 .g4 tLle7 23 .id3 tLlg6 24. tion. He keeps this active rook on
.bc4 dxc4 25.ie3 Ei:gxh7 26.Ei:h5 the g-file and blocks the passed
f6 ! and Black has the initiative, pawn with his other rook.
Chigvintsev - Pokrasenko, Novo­ 19.h7 ghs
sibirsk 2 0 0 2 . ) 19 . . . ib5 2 0.a4 (It is
more logical for White to contin­
ue with 20.tLld4 ! ttJxe5 2 1.�c3
tLlc4 2 2 .h6 ttJxd4 23.�xd4 f5 24.
Ei:bb3 and he maintains the
advantage; 2 1 . . . tLlxd4 2 2 .�xc7+
�xc7 23.Ei:xd4 .bfl 24.�xfl tLlc4
with a complicated endgame; 2 1 . . .
tLlc6 ! ? 2 2 . tLlxb5 axb5 23.Ei:xb5 tLld6
with some initiative for Black.)
2 0 ... �c5 2 1.�c3 ( 2 1.ia3 ic6 2 2 .

252
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3Ji:Jc3 ib4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 hc3 6.bc ltJ e7 7. 1Jf1g4 cd

2 0 .Y;'/f3
White fared terribly after
20.ltJe2 ibS 2 1 .ltJd4 ltJxeS 2 2 .Y;'/dl
ixfl 23.'it> xfl 1Jf1c4+ 24.ltJe2 1Jf1e4
25J'!bb3 iWxg2+ 26.mel ltJc4- +
Karjakin - Grischuk, Moscow
2 008.
The game ends in a forced
draw after 2 0 .ltJe4 dxe4 2 1.'1Wxc4
iWxc4 2 2 .ixc4 :1'1xg2 23.ha6 bxa6
24.:1'1c3+ ic6 25.:1'1xc6+ md7 26.
:1'1xa6 :1'1xh7 27.:1'1a7+ mc8 2 8 . :1'1a8+ iWxf3 23.:1'1xf3
mc7 29.:1'1a7+ mc8 30 .:1'1a8+ Becer­ After 23.gxf3 :1'1g7 the endgame
ra Rivero - Bhat, ICC 20 0 8 . is better for Black.
(diagram) 23 :1'1xh7 and Black has a
•••

2 0 )tJce3 !
••
Or 20 . . . :1'1g7 2l.g4 ltJe7 2 2 .id3
ltJg6 23.'\Whl ltJcxeS 24.fxe5 iWxc3 +
promising position, because if
24.i.xa6? he has the hidden tac­
tical resource 24 bxa6 25.
•••

25.mdl iWd4co Kulaots - Ivanov, :1'1c3+ .ic6! (but not 25 ... md8??
Sweden 2 006. 2 6.:1'1b8+ me7 27.l'k7 +-) 26.
21.i.xe3 Y;'/xc3 + 2 2 .id2
• :1'1xc6+ 'i!?d7-+

253
Chapter 31 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3)!jc3 i.b4 4.e5 c5
5.a3 i.xc3+ 6.bxc3 liJc6
After 6 . . . '2le7 7.'\Wg4 cxd4 there
arise very sharp variations, based
on sacrificing the kingside pawns,
so I suggest as an alternative for
Black the quiet developing move
6 . . . '2lc6, which is not very popular
and has not been analyzed exten­
sively yet. It leads to positions in
which the objective evaluation of
the position is not so important,
but it becomes essential to under­
stand how to play in complicated
closed pawn structures, to find
the optimal squares for the pieces
and discover surprising manoeu­
vres with them. This move was
regularly played by the Ukrainian
GM Yuri Kruppa and later it was
borrowed and played in several
games by the ex-World Champion
Ruslan Ponomariov
254
We shall deal in detail with a)
7.'2lf3, b) 7.a4 and c) 7.'1Wg4.
The move 7.h4 transposes to
the variation 6 . . . '2le7 7.h4 and it is
not worth-while for Black to avoid
this (for example: 7 . . . '\WaS 8 .�d2
iWa4 9.'2lf3 'Llge7, or 9.h5 cxd4
10.'2lf3 'Llge7) . However, depend­
ing on the move order chosen by
Black, White can try some origi­
nal lines. For example: 9.'1Wg4,
which Black should counter this
with 9 . . . <j;>f8. White's centre is un­
der threat and Black can continue
with the standard idea of b7-b6
and �c8-a6. This position re­
quires additional practical tests.
If Black chooses the move order
7 . . . '2lge7 8.h5 '!WaS 9.�d2 iWa4,
then, instead of 10.'2lf3, White can
try 10.h6, as played in the game
Volokitin - Zhang Pengxiang,
Feugen 2006. Black obtained an
excellent position after 10 . . . gxh6
ll.'Llf3 cxd4 12.cxd4 'Llxd4 13 .�d3
�d7 14.�b4 'Lldc6 15Jl:h4?! 'Llg6
16.�xg6 hxg6 17.�d2 iWa6.
a) 7.ll::l f3
This is a very good developing
move, which is a bit stronger here
in comparison to the variation 6 . . .
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. l!Jc3 flb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 hc3 6.bc l!J c6
l!Je7 7.l!Jf3, because now Black
cannot easily use the plan of b7-
b6 and flc8-a6.
He has other methods of fight­
ing, though . . .
7 • • • '1Wa5
It is sensible to postpone the
development of Black's king
knight for a while, since it will re­
capture on f6 if possible, or, more
rarely, it can take the route
l!Jg8-h6-f7.
Completely different positions
arise after 7 . . . l!Jge7 8 .1le2 (The
move 8.1ld3 provokes c5-c4, but
this pawn advance is part of Black's
plan anyway: 8 . . . '\Wa5 9.1ld2 c4 10.
fle2 !ld7 11.0-0 f6 12.E!e1 fxe5 13.
dxe5 0-0 14.1lf1 E!f5 15.g3 E!af8 16.
E!e3 E!5f7 17.1lg2 '\Wc7 and in this
rather complicated position the
players agreed a draw, De Firmi­
an - Gulko, Malmo 2 0 0 1 . ) 8 . . .
'\Wa5 9.1ld2 (after 9. '&d2 , i t would
be good for Black to play 9 . . . b6,
after which the standard exchange
of the light-squared bishops with
!lc8-a6 solves all his opening prob­
lems) 9 . . . 1ld7 (It is difficult to as­
sess the risk involved in winning a
pawn with : 9 . . . cxd4 10.cxd4 '&a4
1l.E!b1!? l!Jxd4 12.1ld3t, but the sta­
tistics of this variation are terrible
for Black, because White's initia­
tive is very dangerous.) 10.0-0
10 . . . '&c7 (It is also interesting
for Black to play 10 . . . c4. Although
White has an extra in comparison
with the game we have already
quoted (de Firmian - Gulko), that
is not so important in this closed
position. Besides the plan of cas­
tling kingside which we have al­
ready seen, Black can also con­
tinue, for example, with : l!Je7-c8-
b6-a4, or 0-0-0 and f7-f6.) 1l.E!e1
h6 (it is possibly more accurate
for him to play 1 1 . . . 0-0) 1 2 .1lfl
(Here 1 2 . dxc5 ! ? is worth consid­
ering; Bologan tried out another
route for his bishop : 12.a4 0-0 13.
flf4 l!Jg6 14.1lg3 l!Jce7 15 .1ld3 c4
16.1lf1 l!Jf5 17.h4 l!Jxg3 18 .fxg3 f5
19.1le2 a5 2 0.h5 l!Jh8 2 l .g4 fxg4
22.l!Jh2 g3 23.l!Jfl l!Jf7 24.l!Jxg3 l!Jg5,
with an excellent position for
Black, Bologan - Sengupta, Cale­
ta 2 0 11.) 12 . . . c4 13.a4 0-0 14.1lc1
f5 15.1la3 E!f7 16.h4 l!Jc8 17.h5 a5
18. l!Jh4 l!Jd8 19.g4 fxg4 20.'&xg4
ha4oo with a very sharp game,
Byrne - Vaganian, Vienna 1980.
255
Chapter 31
8 .id2
. endgame, for example : 15.l"i:b5 c4
White rarely plays 8.�d2 , with
the plan of developing his bishop
to the a3-f8 diagonal without los­
ing any tempi. This position has
not been encountered enough in
games between strong players.
Black has reacted in various
ways:
after 8 . . . l2Jge7 White created
problems for his opponent in sev­
eral games with the move 9.l"i:b1 ! ?
(He does not achieve much with
9.�d3 b6 10.a4 �a6 1l.dxc5 hd3
12. �xd3 bxcS 13.0-0 c4 14.�d2
0-0= Ivanovic - Vaganian, Nik­
sic 1978 ; the move 9.a4 has been
analyzed under 7.a4) . I believe
Black can obtain a promising po­
sition with 9 . . . b6! lO.dxcS (White
can prevent the development of
256
his opponent's bishop on a6 with
the manoeuvre lO .�bS �d7 - 10 . . .
�a6?! 1l .a4;t - 1l.�d3 , but Black
can use the tempi to follow the
plan of castling kingside and then
playing the undermining move f7-
f6 : 1 1 . . .c4 12 .�e2 0-0 13.0-0 f6oo
with a rather complicated game)
10 . . . �a6 11.ha6 �xa6 12 .�d3
�xd3 13.cxd3 bxcS 14.\t>e2 0-0.
Black has a good position in this
16.dxc4 dxc4 17.l"i:c5 l"i:fc8 18.l"i:xc4
lLlaS� with sufficient compensa­
tion for the pawn ;
Black has also tried playing
the immediate 8 . . . b6 ! ? 9.dxc5
bxcS 10.a4 �a6 11.ha6 �xa6
12 .�a3 l"i:c8 13.�d3 �xa4 14.0-0
�as 15.�e3 l2Jge7 16.l"i:fb1 lLld8
17.�b4 �c7 18.�a5 �d7 19.hd8
�xd8 20.l"i:xa7 0-0= with equali­
ty, Poulton - Pert, Birmingham
2002;
8 . . . f6 ! ? 9.l"i:b1 fxeS lO.CLJxeS
l2Jf6 ll.�bS 0-0 1 2 .lLlxc6 bxc6 13.
hc6 �a6� and Black has ob­
tained sufficient compensation.
The game continued: 14.ha8
l2Je4 15.�e3 l"i:xf2 16.�xe4 dxe4
17.\t>xf2 �xc3 18 .he4 �xd4+ 19.
lt>f3 �f6= with equal chances,
Van Riemsdijk - Rodriguez Vila,
Sao Paulo 2 004.
8 . . . �a4
Black wants to transpose to
the variation 6 . . . �a5 7.�d2 �a4.
In the game Gashimov - Pono­
mariov, Khanty-Mansiysk 2009,
Black closed the position immedi­
ately: 8. ..c4 9.a4 �d7 10.g3 0-0-0
l l.h4 fS 1 2 .lLlg5 l"i:f8 13.h5 lLlh6 14.
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. CiJ c3 1lb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 hc3 6.bc CiJ c6
Elh4 C/Jf7 15.C/Jxf7= with equality.
The opponents agreed to a draw.
9.gbl
White should also consider
9.dxc5 f6 10.C/Jd4 C/Jxd4 11.cxd4
�xd4 12 .1lb5+ �f7 13.0-0 �xe5
A complicated position has
arisen, which needs precise analy­
sis. White has compensation for
the pawn, but possibly nothing
more than that. The computer
recommends the logical variation
14.c4 (Black should counter 14.
c6 with 14 . . . �c7) 14 . . . d4 15.1J.a5
(Black has a very good game after
15.f4 �c7 16.1J.b4 C/Je7 17.�xd4
Eld8) 15 . . . �xc5 16.1J.b4 �b6 17.
1J.a5 ! ? = After this attractive shot a
repetition of moves takes place . .
After 9.h4 Black can play 9 . . .
C/Jge7 and transpose t o the favour­
able variation 6 . . . C/Je7 7.h4. In­
stead, Black could consider the
sharper 9 . . . cxd4 10.cxd4 C/Jxd4,
but White has a very powerful ri­
poste : l l.§J.b4 C/Jf3 (ll . . . C/Jc6 12.
C/Jd4 ! ) 1 2 .�f3 C/Je7 13 .1J.d3 C/Jc6
14.Elb1 and his initiative at least
compensates for the sacrificed
pawn.
Or 9 .�b1 c4 10 .g3 §J.d7 1 1.Slg2
0-0-0 1 2 . C/Jg5 Elf8 13 . 0 - 0 h6 14.
C/Jh3 g5 15.f3 f6 16.exf6 C/Jxf6 with
chances for both sides, Timman -
Vaganian, Bazna 2 007.
It would be too provocative for
White to choose 9 .§J.d3, when
Black's simplest reaction would
be 9 . . . c4 10 .1J.e2 §J.d7. In the game
which we mentioned above, the
ex-world champion equalized by
closing the centre even without
gaining a tempo. So I believe that
here Black should not have any
problems at all.
9 . . . c4 1 0 .�cl b6
Now White has a standard
plan based on the advance of his
h-pawn after ll.h4 .id7 12.h5
and the game transposes to the
257
Chapter 31
encounter Yemelin - Akopian,
Moscow 2008, in which after
12 0 - 0 - 0 13J3h3 f6 14 .if4
.•. • to continue with the plan for de­
�f8 15 . .ie2 �U'7 16 . .ih2 i>b7 17.
i>fl h6 lS.i>gl ll:lge7 19.\'Nb2
�hf8 2 0 .�fl \'Na5 21..if4 �h8=
Black obtained approximate
equality and neither side could
improve his position.
b) 7.a4
We have already seen this plan
in action in the variation with 6 . . .
ll:le7. There Black played b7-b6
and .ic8-a6, while here it results
in completely different positions,
which used to be popular several
decades ago.
7 ..• ll:lge7 S.ll:l£3 \'Na5
258
9 . .id2
It is also quite logical for White
velopment based on deploying
the bishop on a3 : 9.'1Wd2 .
We shall examine several pos­
sibilities for Black:
here it is not so good for him to
opt for 9 . . . b6 10 . .ib5 .ia6 (His po­
sition is also worse after 10 . . . .id7
11..ia3 , since it ll . . . cxd4?? runs
into 12 ..ib4) 11.Ei:b1 with the bet­
ter game for White;
a world-famous expert in the
French Defence played here 9 .. .f6
10 . .ia3 fxe5 ll.dxe5 \Wxa4 12 . .ie2
b6 13.c4 lt:Jd8 14. 0-0 \Wd7 15.lt:Jg5
h6 16.lt:Jh3 0-0 17.Ei:fd1 tt:Jdc6 18.
.ib2 .ib7 19.ll:'lf4 d4 with a slightly
better position for Black, Kuijpers
- Korchnoi, Wijk aan Zee 1971,
but White had a very powerful
counter: 10 . .ib5 .id7 11.exf6 gxf6
12.0-0 0-0-0 13 . .ia3 cxd4 14.
lt:Jxd4 e5 15.lt:Jb3 \Wc7 16.lt:Jc5 with
advantage to White, Felgaer -
Rustemov, Dos Hermanas 2005;
9 ... .id7 10 . .id3 (the position is
equal after 10 . .ie2 f6 11.exf6 gxf6
12.dxc5 e5 13.0-0 0-0-0 14.c4
dxc4 15.\Wxa5 ll:lxa5 16 . .id2 lt:Jac6
17 ..ixc4 .ig4 18 . .ie3 hf3 19.gxf3
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3 . lij c3 ii.b4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 hc3 6.bc Lt:l c6
Lt:ld4 20.f4 Lt:lxc2 = Felgaer - Ro­
jas, Santiago 2 006) 10 .. .f6 11.0-0
fxe5 1 2 . Lt:lxe5 Lt:lxe5 13.dxe5 0-0
14.c4 Wlc7 15J''1 e 1 ii.c6 16.Wle2 dxc4
17.hc4 ii.d5oo with good pros­
pects for Black, Tringov - Korch­
noi, Skopje 1972.
9 • • . ii.d7
l O .iJ.b5
This position has been reached
in more than two thousand
games, but it has still not been
analyzed thoroughly. Black has
succeeded in obtaining a good
game is several different ways.
White has tried some other
moves instead, but not very suc­
cessfully:
10 .h4 f6 ll .h5 fxe5 1 2 .Lt:lxe5
Lt:lxe5 13.dxe5 Wlc7 14.f4 0-0-0oo
with a complicated position, Pirt­
timaki - Farago, Helsinki 1983 ;
White did not achieve much
with 10 .g3 0-0-0 1l.ii.h3 f5 1 2 .
ii.g2 h6 1 3 . 0 - 0 ii.e8 14.Lt:le1 c4,
Van der Wiel - Nikolic, Wijk aan
Zee 1984;
Black obtains a good position
after 10.ii.d3 c4 1l.ii.e2 f6. We
have seen the same position in the
variation with 7.Lt:lf3, except that
instead of the move a3-a4, White
had played 0-0;
10 .ii.e2 f6 1l.c4 Wlc7 12.cxd5
Lt:lxd5 13.c4 (White can also try
supporting his centre pawn, but
this does not really benefit him:
13.exf6 gxf6 14.c3 0-0-0 15.0-0
Elhg8 16.Ele1 e5 - 16 ... Lt:lf4= -
17.c4 ii.h3 18.ii.f1 Lt:lb6 19.d5 Lt:lxc4
20.dxc6 Wlxc6 2l .g3 hfl 2 2 .Elxf1
e4 23.Wlb3 Wld5+ with an edge for
Black, Spassky - Korchnoi, Bel­
grade 1977.) 13 . . . Lt:lde7 14.exf6
gxf6 15.dxc5 0-0-0 16.ii.c3 e5
17.Wld6 Lt:lf5 18 .Wlxc7+ c;t>xc7 with
an excellent position for Black.
After 19.0-0 Lt:lfd4 2 0 . Lt:lxd4 Lt:lxd4
2 l .ii.d1 c;t>c6 22 ..bd4 exd4 23.
ii.f3 + c;t>xc5 24.hb7 ii.f5, White
was in trouble in the game Tim­
man - Korchnoi, Leeuwarden
1976.
10 . . . a6
Black can also close the centre
before exchanging White's bish­
op, which has remained isolated
from the rest of his forces: 10 . . . c4
11.0-0 h6 1 2 . Ele1 a6 13.hc6 hc6
and the players agreed to a draw,
259
Chapter 31

Anand - Oil, Rome 1990. o n d Kasimdzhanov in games

It is far from clear whether against Ponomariov.
White's bishop is better placed on
b5 than on e2 in the line 10 .. .f6
ll.c4 V/ic7 12.exf6 gxf6 13.cxd5
ltlxd5 14.dxc5 0-0-0 15.0-0
E1hg8 16.a5 e5 17.a6 ltlc3 18 . .bc3
�h3oo with a very sharp position,
Nunn - Wang Hao, Amsterdam
2 006.
ll . .ixc6 .ixc6 (Black has a
good alternative here - 1 1 . . . ltlxc6
1 2 . 0 - 0 Wic7.) 12. 0 - 0 h6 13.
dxc5 �xeS 14.ll:ld4 0 - 0 15.
�g4 l!?h7 16J3fe1 �d7 17.l'�ab1 8.h4
�c7 18.E1e3 .!Llf5 = with equality, It is a bit less precise for White
Kovalev - Tischbierek, Germany to follow the same idea with the
1991. move-order 8 .�d2 in view of 8 . . .
f5 ! (it i s also good for Black t o play
c) 7.�g4 8 . . . �d7, planning 9.h4 f5).

Black's dark-squared bishop is
already absent from the board, so
it would be logical to expect this
standard queen-sortie to create
the greatest problems for Black.
7 g6
•••
This is the key position of the
variation. I believe that the most
unpleasant plan for Black is the
one chosen by Anand and his sec-
Now:
the variation 9.V/if4 h6 10.h4
V/ib6 ll.dxc5 V/ixc5 leads to a posi­
tion we have discussed in our
notes to Black's eighth move in
the main line ;
the pawn-sacrifice 9.Wig3 is
not very dangerous: 9 . . . cxd4 10.
ltlf3 (10.h4 dxc3 ll.Wixc3 d4 1 2 .
Wic5 �e7oo) 10 . . . dxc3 11 . .bc3 ltlh6
and Black's position is quite reli­
able;

260
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. '2Jc3 Jlb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 hc3 6.bc '2J c6
after 9 .exf6 '2Jxf6 10 .�h4 eS
Black has a good game: ll.dxcS
(but not 11.'2Jf3, because after 11 . . .
exd4 12.cxd4 0 - 0 13.Jld3 c 4 14.
Jle2 JlfS 1S.c3 E1e8+ Black has a
clear advantage, Andriasian -
Tarlev, Voronezh 2011. And after
1 1.JlbS, Black has a choice be­
tween 1 1 . . . exd4, with an approxi­
mately equal middle game after
12.cxd4 0-0 13.'2Je2 cxd4 14.0-0
'2Je4 1S.�h6 �f6 16.f3 = ; or an
endgame after 11...'2Je4 12 .�xd8+
Wxd8 13.Jlxc6 bxc6 14.dxeS E1e8
1S.C2Jf3 Wd7! 16.c4 Jla6� with ex­
cellent compensation for the
pawn) 11 . . . '2Je4 (it is also possible
for Black to opt for ll . . . �e7 12.
'2Jf3 0-0 13 .Jle2 �xeS 14.0-0
JlfSoo) 12.�xd8 + Wxd8 (12 . . .
'2Jxd8 ? ! 13.Jle3) 13.'2Jf3 ltJxcS 14.
E1d1 (White achieves very little
with 14.JlbS Jlg4.) 14 . . . Wc7 1S.Jle3
'2Je4 16.E1xdS Jle6+! Black has
good counterplay and should
have no problems in the resulting
endgame.
White sometimes retreats his
queen in order to protect his
queenside. 8.�d1 �c7 ! ? (GM
Kruppa has also tried the plan
with 8 . . . �aS 9.Jld2 �a4 10.'2Jf3 c4
- I believe it is good for Black to
play here 10 . . . b6 ! ? - 11.h4 h6 1 2 .
g 3 Jld7 13.Jlg2 0 - 0 - 0 14.�c1 Wb8
1S.O-O WaS and it is unclear
whether White can improve his
position, but Black is very passive
with his knight on g8, forced to
protect the h6-pawn, Zontakh -
Kruppa, Kiev 2 006.) 9.'2Jf3 Jld7
10.h4 h6 ll.Jlf4
11.. .c4 (Black should have
grasped the chance to activate
his king's knight with 11 . . . '2Jf6 ! ?
12.dxcS ! '2Je4 13.§ld3oo) 12 .�d2
�as (12 . . . 0-0-0 13.'2Jh2) 13 .Jle2
0-0-0 (It is possibly better for
Black to play an immediate 13 . . .fS
with the idea of '2Jc6-d8-f7. ) 14.
Wf1 fS 1S.g3 (The position is rath­
er unclear after 1S.exf6 '2Jxf6 16.
Jlxh6 '2Je4 17.�e3 �xc3 18.�xc3
'2Jxc3 19.JlgS E1df8oo) 1S . . . �a4
16.Wg2 Jle8 17.'2Jg1 E1d7 18.g4
'2Jce7 19.'2Jh3± with slight pres­
sure for White, Yemelin - Krup­
pa, Amman 2008.
Alexander Khalifman recom­
mends in his book "Opening for
White According to Anand" (vol.
7) the variation 8.a4 �c7 (Black's
most natural reaction here would
be 8 .. .fs 9 .�d1 �as 10 .Jld2 '2Jge7
11.'2Jf3 c4 12 .h4 h6 13.�c1 '2Jd8
14.�a3 Jld7, Gligoric - Maksi­
movic, Yugoslavia 1991, but
White's position is still preferable
after 1S.Jle2 '2Jf7 16.0-0 '2Jc8 17.
�b4±. As usual in this system, it
seems sensible for Black to post­
pone the development of his g8-
knight with the move 10 . . . Jld7.
Tournament practice will show
whether this precision is essen-
261
Chapter 31
tial, but White should test the
consequences of the aggressive
move 11.c4 ! ? It looks as though
Black's position is O.K. after 11 . . .
V!ffc 7 1 2. cxd5 exd5 and White will
be unable to hold his centre, for
example: 13 .c3 cxd4 14.li:lf3 li:lxe5 !
15.Vlffe 2 0-0-0 16.li:lxe5 dxc3 17.
l"lc1 cxd 2 + 18.V!ffx d2 ic6ro. All this
seems rather risky, but Black has
two extra pawns as meaningful
compensation for his difficulties.
The position is unclear.) 9 .id2
9 .. .f5 (Black has also tried 9 . . .
f6 10.li:lf3 fxe5 1 1 .V!ffg3 cxd4 1 2 .
cxd4 li:lf6 13.ib5 0-0 14.hc6
li:le4 15.V!ffxe5 V!ffx c6 16.ih6 V!ffc 3+
17.Wf1 l"lf7 18.l"lc1 V!ffc 7, Della Mar­
te - Lemos, Villa Ballester 2006
and now the line 19.Wg1 V!ffx e5
2 0 .li:lxe5 l"lxf2 2 1 .h4 b6 2 2 .c4ro
would have led to a sharp and un­
clear endgame position. After 11.
li:lxe5 li:lxe5 1 2 .V!fff4 cxd4 13.cxd4,
Black should try V!ffx c2 and his ex­
tra pawn, together with the possi­
bility of exchanging queens on the
e4-square, might well be suffi­
cient for equality. Nevertheless,
the move 9 . . .f5 seems to be more
accurate.) 10.V!ffh 4. Similar posi­
tions are very typical for this vari-
262
ation and are quite difficult to
evaluate. It seems to me that
Black's defence should be easier
after he has advanced f7-f5 and
White must work hard to prove
any advantage. For example: 10 . . .
V!ffe 7 ( 1 0 . . . h6? ! 1 l.ib5t) 1l.Vlfff4
id7 12.li:lf3 h6 13 .h4 c4 14.ie2
0-0-0ro and we reach a standard
position. The deployment of
Black's queen on e7, in compari­
son to the aS-square, has its plus­
es and drawbacks as well. White
is not forced to protect his queen­
side and can acquire additional
space there by advancing a4-a5,
but castling kingside seems risky
in view of Black's possible offen­
sive there, based on V!ff e 7-h7 and
g6-g5 .
The somewhat forgotten move
8.li:lf3 was rehabilitated by a fresh
idea discovered by Andrey Volo­
kitin. 8 . . . V!ffa5 (In an earlier game,
Ruslan chose 8 . . . id7 9 .V!fff4 f5 10.
h4 h6 11.id2 c4 12 .a4 V!ffa5 13 .ie2
li:lge7 14.0-0 0-0-0 15.l"lfb1 l"ldg8
and Black had a comfortable posi­
tion, Cheparinov - Ponomariov,
Cuernavaca 2006. However,
White's play could possibly be im­
proved earlier.) 9.id2 V!ffa4 10.
ie2 (It only amount to a transpo­
sition of moves after 10.:l'la2 c4 ;
10.V!fff4 c4 1l .ie2 h6 12 .h4 id7
13.0-0 l"lh7 14.li:lh2 0-0-0 15.:l'la2
l"lf8 16.li:lg4 draw, Muzychuk -
Rajlich, Ohrid 2009. Instead,
Black should have opted for 12 . . .
V!ffx c2 with very problematic com­
pensation for White.) 10 . . . c4 11.
:l'la2 id7 12.V!ffh 4
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3Ji:Jc3 �b4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 hc3 6.bc 'Ll c6
This is an interesting idea.
White prevents his opponent
from castling in the most straight­
forward way. (He used to do that
indirectly, by attacking the fl­
pawn: 12.Wf4 h6 13.h4 l"lh7. Black's
rook-manoeuvre might look ri­
diculous, but is in fact quite rea­
sonable. 14.hS gS 1S.Wg3 0-0-0
16.'Llh2 fS 17.exf6 'Llxf6 18.'Llg4
'Llxg4 19.�xg4 WaS 2 0 .We3 eS and
Black seizes the initiative, Aver­
janov - Kruppa, St Petersburg
2 003.) 12 . . . h6 13.0-0 'Ll ce7. This
move looks artificial, but is quite
well motivated. . (Black fails to
equalize after 13 . . . 'Llge7 14.�gS -
14.Wf6? 0-0-0 - 14 . . . 'LlfS 1S.Wh3
l"lg8 16.�f6 WaS 17.g4 Wxc3 18.
gxfS gxfS+ 19.�h1 'Llxd4 2 0 .�d1
�c6 2 1 . a4 'Llxf3 22.�xf3 l"lg6 and
he has some compensation, al­
though insufficient, for the piece.
After 16.�d2 l"lh8 17.g4 'Llfe7 18.
�gS 'Llg8, Black's achievements
are rather questionable.) 14.�gS
�c6 1S.g4 WaS. The manoeuvres
of both sides are thematic and
quite consistent. 16.l"lb1 'Llc8 17.a4
'Llb6 18.l"lb4 'Llxa4 19.�f6 'Llxf6
2 0 .exf6 bS 21.Wg3 (White occu­
pies an important diagonal. ) 2 1 . . .
Wd8 (Black cannot change much
with the line : 2 1 . . Jk8 2 2 .'LleS Wc7
23.£4.) 2 2 .'LleS Wd6 (It would not
work to opt for 22 . . . �d7 23.f4 a6
24.l"laxa4 ! bxa4 2S.l"lb7 l"lb8 26.
l"lxd7 l"lb1+ 27.�f2 Wxd7 28.'Llxd7
�xd7 29 .hc4 dxc4 30.We3 a3 31.
dS exdS 32 .Wa7+ �d6 33.Wxa6 +
�d7 34.Wxa3 �c6 and White re­
tains an advantage.) 23.f4 'Llb6?
After this mistake the position be­
comes difficult for Black. He
should not have removed his
knight from its active position , es­
pecially since from there it con­
tained the activity of the enemy
rook. (or 23 . . . gS ! ? 24.Wh3 gxf4
2S.gS l"lh7 26.�g4 0-0-0 2 7.g6
fxg6 2 8.he6+ �c7, with counter­
play) 24.fS gS 2S.l"lb1 �d7 26.fxe6
Wxe6 2 7.l"le1 and White seized the
initiative and went on to win, Vo­
lokitin - Ponomariov, San Sebas­
tian 2 0 1 2 . We should mention
that this game was played in a
tournament in which the players
contested a match of two games
against each other (with White
and Black) simultaneously.
8 . . . h6
It looks as though Black can-
2 63
Chapter 31
not solve his all problems with the
move 8 . . .fS because of 9.�g3 ! (It
would less convincing for him to
opt for 9.�f4 h6, for example:
10.dxcS �aS 1 1.�d2 �xeS 12.li:Jf3
li:Jge7 13 .�d3 �d7 14.0-0 0-0-0.
Black has sufficient counterplay
on the kingside, for instance 1S.
l"lfb1 gS 16.hxgS - 16.�h2 �aS -
after 16 . . . li:Jg6 17.�g3 hxgS 18.�e3
�e7 19 .�xgS �h7 2 0 . Wfl l"ldg8i
Black has the initiative on the
kingside.) 9 . . . cxd4 lO .hS gS 11.
�xgS �aS 12.li:Je2 (Black obtains a
good position in the endgame af­
ter 12 .�d2 dxc3 13.�xc3 �xc3
14.hc3 li:Jh6.) 12 . . . dxc3 13.li:Jf4 ! ?
with advantage t o White. I t i s also
very good for White to continue
with 13.�xc3 �xc3+ 14.li:Jxc3
liJxeS 1S.liJbS� with a powerful
initiative for the sacrificed pawn.
Black's position in the main
line is not very reliable, so he
should consider much more care­
fully the line: 8 . . . �aS 9 .�d2 �a4
(or 9 . . . cxd4 10.cxd4 �a4) lO .hS
�xc2 (10 . . . liJxeS? 11.�g3 li:Jd7
12.hxg6 fxg6 13.l"lxh7±) 11.li:Jf3
cxd4 1 2. cxd4 h6 13.hxg6 �xg6
14.�h3 (in the endgame after
14.�xg6 fxg6 1S.�d3 Wf7 16.We2
264
�d7 17.l"lh4 Wg7 18.l"lah1 l"lc8,
White has full compensation for
the pawn, because Black cannot
untangle his kingside. Still, it is
far from clear how White can in­
crease his pressure and maintain
an advantage.) 14 . . . �d7 1S.l"lc1
0-0-0 16.�e2 (16.�h4 ! ?) 16 . . .
Wb8 17.l"lc3 �b1 + 18 .�d1 li:Jge7oo
Black obtained an excellent posi­
tion in the game Solozhenkin -
Kashtanov, St Petersburg 2000.
9.�d2
White has tried 9.hS gS 10.f4
�aS 11.�d2 fS 12.�g3 g4 13.dxcS
�xeS 14.�d3 li:Jge7. In the game
Motylev - Kruppa, Predeal 2007,
Black succeeded in closing the po­
sition on the kingside and his
prospects were by no means
worse.
9 . . . .id7
It is worth considering the
greedy line : 9 . . . �b6 lO.dxcS (or
10.li:Jf3 �b2 11.l"lc1 c4 and Black
closes the position, winning the
enemy a-pawn, while White has
difficulties in developing any ini­
tiative. After 12 .�e2 �xa3 13.0-0
Black, having played until now in
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3Ji:Jc3 il.b4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 hc3 6.bc 'Ll c6
computer style, should continue
in the same fashion : 13 .. .'11*'b 2 ! ?
14J�fd1 aSoo with a rather unclear
game) 10 .. .'�b2 1Uk1 �xa3 1 2 .
'Llf3 �xeS 13.il.d3 h S 14.�f4 'Ll h 6
15.l"lb 1� White has sufficient com­
pensation for the pawn.
Black has not yet tried the
move 9 . . . �a5. It seems to me
White has a powerful reply -
10.a4, preventing �a5-a4 and b7-
b6.
1 0 .i/.d3
1 0 . . �e7
.
Black can try placing his queen
on another square : 10 . . . �c7 ! ?
11.'Llf3 (There was a nice point to
Black's last, natural, move. It
would be a mistake for White to
play 11.'Llh3? owing to ll . . . cxd4
12.cxd4 'LlxeS ! ) . The position of
White's knight on f3 is less para­
lysing for Black. ll.. .c4 12 .i/.e2
0-0-0 13.0-0 'it>b8 (It would be
too early for 13 .. .f6 ! ? 14.�xg6
'Llge7 15.�g3 ! l"ldg8 16.�h2 fxeS
17.'Llxe5 'LlxeS 18.il.f4t and Black's
compensation for the pawn is in­
sufficient. I should like to men­
tion that it would be rather dubi-
ous for White to continue with
15.�h5 because of 15 . . . l"ldf8 , with
the plan of l"lhg8, 'LlfS, il.e8, for in­
stance: 16.l"lfe1 l"lhg8 17.�xh6 'LlfS
18.�f4 fxeS 19.dxe5 'Llg3 2 0 .�e3
'Llf5= and there is a repetition of
moves, while after 2 0 .fxg3 l"lxf4
2 l .gxf4 'Lle7oo the position is very
unclear.) 14.l"ltbl 'it>a8 15.a4, Al
Modiahki - Khader, Dubai 2011.
It seems to me that this was the
right moment for Black to achieve
the desired set-up for his pieces.
He should continue with 15 . . . il.e8 !
16.il.cl fSoo with chances for both
sides. This looks to me to be the
best line for him at the moment.
ll.'Llh3 ! ?
White plans t o deploy his
knight on f4, preventing the im­
portant pawn-advance for Black
in this system - f7-f5. Of course,
the deployment of the knight on
f4 and the queen on g3 is mainly
prophylactic and it is possible
that to accomplish a break on the
kingside he will have to regroup
his forces. Black will then have
the chance to play f7-f6, or f7-f5,
but it would not be very pleasant
2 65
Chapter 31
for him to await developments
with a paralysed kingside.
11 . . . 0 - 0 - 0 12. 0 - 0 c4 13 .
.ie2
13 . . . .ie8
Black's position is worse after
13 . . . f5 14.1&xg6 1&xh4 15.'i:Jf4.
The option 13 ... g5 ! ? deserves
a thorough analysis. Strangely
enough, it would be very difficult
for White to prove a substantial
advantage here: 14.1&h5 (after 14.
hxg5 hxg5 15 . .ixg5 f6 16.exf6
'i:Jxf6 17.f4 l"ldf8� with the idea of
't&h7, Black has compensation for
the pawn) 14 . . . f6. Now after 15.
hxg5 Black manages to hold the
balance in the forced variation
15 . . . fxe5 16.gxh6 'i:Jf6 17.1&h4 'i:Je4
18.1&xe7 'i:Jxe7 19 ..ig5 'i:Jxg5 2 0 .
'i:Jxg5 l"ldf8 21.dxe5 l"lxh6 22.f4
'i:Jg6 23 .g3 l"lg8 24.'i:Jf7 l"lh7
25.'i:Jd6+ Wc7 26.Wg2 .ic6= , with
enough counterplay to draw. It
looks very attractive for White to
play 15.f4 .ie8 16.'t&f3 gxh4 (it is
worse for Black to play here 16 . . .
gxf4 17.'i:Jxf4 fxe5 18.dxe5 .if7 19.
l"laeU with an edge for White) 17.
.ie1 , but even then after 17 . . .f5
266
18.'i:Jf2 l"ld7 19.'t&h3 't&d8 20.'i:ld1
h5 (planning 'i:Jg8-h6-g4), Black's
position is quite trustworthy. It is
also interesting to try 17 . . . .ig6
18 . .ixh4 l"l£8 and, as a reward for
the risk, Black is able to activate
his "French" bishop.
14.tl:lf4 'i!?b8 15.a4 'i!?a8
Black is still not well prepared
for the freeing sacrifice which he
accomplished a move later in the
game Anand - Ponomariov: 15 . . .
f5 16.exf6 'i:Jxf6 17.1&xe6 't&g7 18.
't&h3 .if7 (after 18 ... .id7 19.'t&g3
'i:Je4 20 .'t&h2 Wc8 2 1.l"lad1, White
is better. Black's king is much saf­
er on a8.) 19 . .ig4 g5 2 0 .'i:le6 .ixe6
2 1 ..ixe6 'i:Je4 with an advantage
for White after 2 2 .l"lad1, or 2 2 .
.iel.
16.a5 !
This i s a n important improve­
ment, which transposes to the
game Kasimdzhanov - Ponomar­
iov, Moscow 2 007. Another pos­
sible continuation is 16 . .ic1 f5 !
17.exf6 'i:Jxf6 18.1&xe6 't&g7 19.'t&h3
.id7 2 0 .'t&g3 .if5 2 1.'i:lh5 't&e7 2 2 .
'i:Jxf6 't&xe2 and Black ended up
with excellent compensation for
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 dS 3. CiJc3 1J.b4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 hc3 6.bc CiJ c6

the sacrificed pawn, Anand - 17 . . . hxg5 18.4Jh3 f6 19.exf6

Ponomariov, Leon 2007. CiJxf6
Here it would be interesting
for Black to try:
16 •.. g5? !
One o f the ideas behind the
move 16.a5 is that now 16 .. .f5 17.
exf6 4Jxf6 18.�xe6 �g7 19.a6 b6
2 0 .§J.f3 + - does not work for Black.
With his pawn still on b7, he
would have played here 1J.e8-f7
and g6-g5.
Bearing in mind that Black
fails to free his position with the
move in the main text, he should 2 0 .hg5 1J.g6
consider 16 . . . �c7 17.a6 (it is also 2 0 . . . 1J.h5 21.�f4±
possible for White to try 17.1J.cl 21.a6 b6 22.�f4 E1df8 23.
4Jxa5 18.1J.a3 4Jc6 19.l"1fbl 4Jge7oo §J.g4 e5
and he has obvious compensa­ Black should avoid 23 ... 4Jxg4
tion, but Black still has an extra 24.he7 E1xf4 25.4Jxf4 4Jxe7 26.
pawn) 17 . . . b6 18 .1J.cl White's a6- E1ael± and in this endgame his
pawn is weak and he has no pres­ two minor pieces are weaker that
sure on the queenside, but Black's White's rook and pawns.
kingside is vulnerable. Still, 24.dxe5 .!Llxe5 25.l"1ael §J.e4
White's prospects seem prefera­ Black's compensation for the
ble. pawn is insufficient after White's
17.hxg5 simple response
It is less convincing for White 26.-idU, but it is also good for
to continue with 17.4Jh5 f5 18.exf6 him to opt for 26J�xe4 ! ? dxe4 27.
�h7. 1J.f5t seizing the initiative.

2 67
 Part S

The MacCutcheon Variation

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3)iJc3 llJf6 4..ig5 .ib4

After 4 . .ig5 I recommend that Black chooses one of two possibilities

- either the sharp MacCutcheon counter-attack ( 4 . . . .ib4) or the quite
reliable and advantageous transposition, under favourable circum­
stances, to the Rubinstein variation ( 4 . . . dxe4 S.tt:lxe4 tt:lbd7). Both lines
have their devoted adherents and have been played successfully. In the
MacCutcheon variation Black risks more, but has chances of seizing
the initiative if his opponent reacts imprecisely. After the simplifying
move 4 . . . dxe4, his game is safer and he focuses on neutralizing White's
opening initiative.
The French Defence, as an opening, is centred on the pawn-advance
e4-e5. Black presents his opponent with this possibility on move three
(the Advance variation) , or on move four (the Steinitz variation or the
Winawer variation). If White insists on maintaining tension in the cen­
tre, then Black has the option of playing the MacCutcheon variation, in
which he can combine pressure against White's centre from his knight
on f6 and his bishop on b4 - a sort of combination of the Steinitz and
the Winawer.
This system used to be considered very risky, but recently it has
gained some popularity. The dangers for Black are obvious - his king­
side has been weakened by the absence of defending pieces, and his
king often has to roam all over the board in search of a safe haven. It
often happens that Black has to reduce the tension in the centre by
advancing c5-c4. White, in turn, has to react very precisely and ener­
getically in order to create problems for the opponent.

268
Chapter 32 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3)[jc3 �f6 4 ..ig5 .ib4
5.exd5
Attempts by White to main­
tain the tension in the centre do
not achieve much.
After 5.�d3 Black obtains an
excellent game by undermining
White's centre with 5 . . . c5 (This is
probably even stronger than 5 . . .
dxe4 6.he4 c 5 7.'Llge2 (7.dxc5 -
see 5 . . . c5) 7 . . . cxd4 8.tt:Jxd4 �a5
9 .hf6 hc3 + 10.bxc3 �xc3 +
11.�d2 �xd 2 + 12.i>xd2 gxf6
13 .l':lab1 'Ll a6 and Black has at
least equalized ; or 11.i>f1 gxf6 1 2 .
l':lb1 'Ll d7, and White's compensa­
tion for the pawn is sufficient only
for equality.) 6.dxc5 (It is rather
dubious to opt for 6.e5 ? ! cxd4 7.
a3 dxc3 8 . axb4 cxb2 9.l':lb1 h6.)
6 ... dxe4 7.he4 �xd1+ 8.l':lxd1
'Llbd7 9.�f3 hc3 + 10.bxc3 'Llxc5=
After 5.'Llge2 Black's most
practical decision is to continue
with a temporary pawn-sacrifice:
5 . . . h6 (The attempt to equalize by
simplifying: 5 . . . dxe4 6.a3 �e7 7.
hf6 hf6 8.tt:Jxe4 0-0 9.�d3 -
9.�d2 e5 - 9 . . . e5, fails owing to
White's powerful resource 10.
�f3 ! , played in the game S. Polgar
- M.Gurevich, Breda 2 000. After
10 . . . 'Lld7, White should have cho­
sen l l.tt:Jxf6 + , for example 12 . . .
gxf6 13.0-0-0;t with a slightly
better endgame for White; or 1 1 . . .
�xf6 12.�xf6 'Llxf6 13 .dxe5 'Llg4
14.f4 l':ld8 15.'Llc3 'Lle3 16.l':lcl l':ld4
17.g3 and Black's compensation
for the pawn is insufficient, or fi­
nally 1 1 . . . tt:J xf6 12 .dxe5 'Llg4 13.
�c3 f6 14.exf6 'Llxf6 15. 'Llg3 and
again Black does not have enough
for the missing pawn .) 6.hf6
�xf6 7.a3 �a5
2 69
Chapter 32
8.exd5 (The position is very
complicated but good for Black
after 8.b4 ib6 9.e5 'We7 10.ti:la4
id7 11.c3 0-0 12.t2lf4 ie8 13.g3
f6 14.exf6 'Wxf6 15.1"1a2 ti:lc6 16.h4
if7 17.ig2 1"1ad8 18.0-0 e5oo Hec­
tor - Glek, Copenhagen 1995 .)
8 ... 0-0 9.'Wd3 (The game is equal
after 9.'Wd2 1"1d8 10.dxe6 ixe6
11.'We3 t2lc6 1 2 . 0-0-0 ixc3 13.
ti:lxc3 ti:lxd4 14.id3 c5 15.1"1d2 b6=
N.Mamedov - Antic, Kavala
2 010.) 9 . . . 1"1d8 10.dxe6 ixe6 11.
0-0-0 'Wxf2 1 2 .ti:le4 'Wf5 13.t2lc5
'Wxd3 14.1"1xd3 ic8 15.g3 ti:ld7 16.
b4 ib6 17.ig2 c6 18.ti:lf4 a5 19.
'it>b2 ti:lf6 2 0 .d5 axb4 2 1 . axb4 ixc5
2 2 .bxc5 if5 = Unzicker - Piskov,
Germany 1991.
5 �xd5
.•.
Black can also play the simpler
5 . . . exd5 6.'Wf3 (White has also
tried 6.id3 0-0 7.ti:lge2 c6 8.0-0
1"1e8 9.t2lg3 h6 10.id2 ti:lbd7 11.
ti:l ce2 ixd2 12.'Wxd2 ti:lf8 13.ti:lf4
'Wd6 14.f3 id7 and his advantage
is merely symbolic, Shirov - lvan­
chuk, Morelia/Linares 2008.) 6 . . .
ti:lbd7 7.0-0-0 (7.id3 0 - 0 8 .
ti:lge2 c6 9 . 0 - 0 - 0 1"1 e 8 10 .h4 ie7
270
11.t2lg3 ti:lf8 12.ti:lf5 ixf5 13.'Wxf5
'Wd7 14.'Wxd7 t2l 6xd7= Kadziolka
- Rajlich, Ostrow 2 002 ) 7 . . . ie7 8.
1"1e1 0-0 9 .id3 1"1e8 10.ti:lge2 c6 11.
ti:lg3 ti:lf8 12.t2lf5 ixf5 13.ixf5
t2l 6d7 14.ixe7 1"1xe7= Black has
solved all his opening problems,
Galkin - Alavkin, St. Petersburg
1999.
6.hf6
a) 6 . . . hc3+
b) 6 gxf6
• • •
a) 6 . . . hc3+
This zwischenzug is consid­
ered to be a good alternative to
the immediate 6 . . . gxf6. However,
giving up bishop for knight with­
out any clear necessity, or imme­
diate benefits, and especially un­
provoked, as a zwischenzug, is a
positional concession for Black.
7.bxc3 gxf6
(diagram)
s:�d2
This is White's most precise
move. He cannot obtain much in
this pawn-structure however.
It is harmless for Black for
White to continue with 8.ti:lf3 b6
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.liJc3 li'Jf6 4. �g5 �b4 5.ed Wffxd5 6. hf6 hc3
9.�e2 �b7 10.0-0 li'Jd7 11.a4 aS
and Black has a very comfortable
game.
An active queen-sortie is not
very satisfactory for White after:
8.Wffg4 '&aS 9.li'Je2 (9.Wffg3 �d7 10.
�c4 �c6 11.li'Je2 li'Jd7 1 2 .Wffg7 ct;e7
13.he6 ct;xe6 14.li'Jf4+ ct;e7 1S.O-O
:1'i:af8 16.dS �a4 17.:1'i:fe1+ ct;dS 18.
li'Je6+ fxe6 19.dxe6 :1'i:fg8-+ and
Black has parried the attack, end­
ing up with a lot of extra material,
Christiansen - Volkov, Internet
2004.) 9 . . . ct;e7 10 .g3 (White has
also tried here 10.Wfff3 :1'i:d8 11.Wffe 3
cS 12 .:1'i:d1 cxd4 13.:1'i:xd4 :1'i:xd4 14.
li'Jxd4, Pilavov - Kiselev, Lugansk
200S, but after the simple reply
14 . . . Wffe S+ Black's position is pref­
erable.) 10 . . . li'Jc6 11.�g2 eS 1 2 .Wfff3
li'Jxd4 13.li'Jxd4 exd4 14.0-0 Wffxc3
15.:1'i:fe1+ �e6 16.Wffxc3 dxc3 17.
hb7 :1'i:ab8+ and Black's game is
slightly better, Robson - Vagani­
an, Moscow 2009.
Black does not have the slight­
est problem in the endgame after
8 .Wfff3 Wffxf3 9.li'Jxf3 b6 10.g3 �b7
11.�g2 li'Jc6 12 .li'Jd2 0-0-0 13.
0-0-0 e5 14.dxe5 fxe5= Feygin ­
Vallejo Pons, Emsdetten 2010.
8 . . . Wff a5
This is Black's most popular
continuation - a prophylactic move
against c3-c4 - but the attempt to
undermine White's centre imme­
diately deserves close attention :
8 . . . c5 9.li'Je2 cxd4 10.cxd4 li'Jc6
11.Wfff4 ct;e7 12.c3 '&aS 13.g3 :1'i:d8
14.Wff e 3 eS� with sufficient coun­
ter chances, Smirin - Vaisser, Tel
Aviv 199 2 ;
8 . . .e 5 9.li'Jf3 (Black has n o prob­
lems after White's active queen­
sortie 9.Wffh 6 Wffe 4+ 10.ct;d2 Wffg 6
11.Wffxg6 hxg6 12 .:1'i:e1 li'Jc6 13.dxe5
fxeS 14.�b5 :1'i:h5 15.li'Jf3 �d7, A.
Sokolov - Korchnoi, Switzerland
2002.) 9 . . . li'Jc6 10.dxe5 Wffxd2 + 11.
ct;xd2 fxeS 1 2 . li'Jxe5 liJxeS 13.:1'i:e1
f6 14.f4 �e6 15.fxeS 0-0-0+ 16.
�d3 fxe5 17.:1'i:xe5 �xa2 18.:1'i:a1 �dS
19.:1'i:xa7 ct;bS 2 0.:1'i:a4 �xg2. White
maintains some minimal pres­
sure, thanks to his well-placed
bishop on d3 and the vulnerabili­
ty of Black's h-pawn, but the posi­
tion has been simplified so much
that a draw seems inevitable, A.
Sokolov - Kolly, Lenk 2011.
9.�d3 �d7 1 0 .ll:le2 �c6 11.
tl:lf4 tl:ld7 12.c4 Wffx d2 + 13.
271
Chapter 32
'i!?xd2, A.Sokolov - S.Atalik, Ger­
many 2 003 and here it seems
quite reasonable to follow GM
Andrey Sokolov's recommenda­
tion: 13 . . . 4Jb6 14.c3 0-0-0�
b) 6 . . . gxf6
7.4Jge2
After 7.'&d2 '&aS 8.4Jge2 it is
good for Black to play 8 . . . 4Jd7,
planning to transfer the knight via
the attractive route lt:Jd7-b6-dS.
9 .'&f4 (the position is simplified
and balanced after 9.0-0-0 tt:Jb6
10.'i!?b1 4JdS = ; if 9.a3 tt:Jb6 10J'1d1
!J.e7 ll.lt:Jc1 fi.d7 12.4Jb3 '&gS, Black
has nothing to complain about)
9 . . . bS ! ? 10.0-0-0 !J.e7 ll.'i!?b1
b4�
7 • • • 4Jc6 8.a3
8.'&d2 '&gS 9.f4 '&g6 10.a3 !laS
11.g3 fi.d7 12 .fi.g2 0-0-0 13.b4 fi.b6
14.lt:Ja4 tt:Je7 1S.lt:Jxb6+ axb6 16.
0-0-0 §J.c6= and again, after the
numerous exchanges, Black has
equalized comfortably, Rabiega -
Huebner, Altenkirchen 2001.
8 hc3+ 9.lljxc3 '&xd4 1 0 .
• • •
'&xd4 llJxd4 11. 0 - 0 - 0 c5 12.
llJe4
272
12 • • • b6
It is a bit less precise to play
12 . . . We7 13.4JxcS eS. In the game
Safarli - Nepomniachtchi, Kirishi
2007, there followed 14.c3 lt:Je6 1S.
tt:Je4 fS 16.4Jd6 4JcS 17.!J.c4 !J.e6 18.
l'l:he1 Wf6. Now it seems danger­
ous for Black if White plays 19.
he6 fxe6 20 .b4 4Ja4 2 1.Wc2 l'l:ag8
22 .g3 l'l:g7 23.c4, but Black can hold
the balance, for example with
23 . . . 4Jb6 24.2'l:e3 tt:Jc8 2S.lt:JbS hS
26.:8:de1 a6 27.4Jc3 e4 2 8.f3 tt:Jb6=
13.c3 llJb3+ 14.Wc2 llJa5 15.
b4 llJb7 16.llJxf6 + 'i!?e7 17.llJe4
.id7 18.b5 f5
Black has obtained an excel­
lent position and it is high time
for White to think about fighting
for equality.
19.llJg5
It is more accurate to continue
with 19.4Jf6 !J.c8 2 0 .4JhS lt:Jd6, but
Black has a good position in any
case.
19 ghg8 2 0 .llJf3 llJd6 21.
•••
llJe5 .ie8 22.g3
If 2 2 .2'l:b1 c4.
22 llJxb5 White has to fight
• • •
for a draw, Morozevich - Kovalev,
Moscow 1994.
Chapter 33 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3)2Jc3 �f6 4.i.g5 i.b4
5.e5
This is a natural and princi­
pled move. Nevertheless White
should think about whether it is
reasonable to acquire so much
space and he must try not to suc­
cumb to provocation.
5 .•• h6 6.exf6
This move is tried only very
rarely in contemporary tourna­
ment practice. Its positional de­
fects are obvious and White can­
not effectively exploit the draw­
backs of Black's king being
stranded in the centre, or the vul­
nerability of his kingside. Al­
though this line is not as harmless
as it looks, it is not the most
fearsome line that Black must
face in the MacCutcheon varia­
tion.
6 . . .hxg5 7.fxg7 �g8 8.h4
After 8.Wh5 Wf6 9.ltlf3 Wxg7
10.a3 .id6, White might have
problems with his over-active
queen.
8 ••• tLlc6 ! ?
This interesting move attract­
ed attention after it was played by
Morozevich in his game against
Landa.
It was considered to be quite
safe for Black to play simply 8 . . .
gxh4 9.Wg4 (White does not ob­
tain much with 9.1Mfh5 Wf6 10.
Ei:xh4 Wxg7 11.ltlf3 ltlc6 12 ..ib5 .id7
13.hc6 hc6 14.ltle5 0-0-0+±;
1 2 . 0-0-0 .id7 and he must make
use of his control of the open h­
file in order to maintain the bal­
ance. Black has no problems at
all.)
273
Chapter 33

Wgxe6+? cj;Jc7 2l.Wf4+ cj;Jb6 2 2 .

Wee3 + ic5 23.g8W b1W

and here :
Black plays 9 . . . ie7 only rarely.
This might be owing to fear of
some old but spectacular analysis
by Alekhine. Many inaccuracies
and mistakes have been discov­
ered in it, but still it is not every
day that you see a position where,
in a quite natural and logical way,
five (yes five ! ! ) queens appear on
the board. 10 .g3 (It would be
much more unpleasant for Black
for White to play simply 10.tt:lf3
if6 1l.Wf4 a6 1 2 . 0-0-0t with a
powerful initiative.) 10 . . . c5 11.
gxh4 (It is better for White to play
here 1l .dxc5, but after ll . . . if6
Black has an excellent position,
for example: 1 2 . 0-0-0 Elxg7 13.
We2 We7 14.tt:lb5 cj;lfS 15.tt:ld6 tt:ld7
16.Wb5 Elb8 ! planning b6; or 1 2 .
tt:lf3 Elxg7 13.Wf4 tt:l d 7 14.0-0-0
tt:lxc5? ; 12 .ib5+ id7 13.0-0-0
hg7 14.cj;Jb1 cj;lfS?) 11. . . cxd4 12.
h5? ! dxc3 13.h6 cxb2 14.Elb1 Wa5+
15.cj;Je2. Unfortunately, here Black
can obtain a clear advantage, neu­
tralizing his opponent's attack
with the move 15 . . . if8 ! The fa­
mous position with five queens on
the board arises after 15 ... Wxa2
16.h7 Wxb1 17.hxg8W+ cj;Jd7 18.
Wxf7 Wxc2+ 19.cj;lf3 tt:lc6 20.
24.Elh6 ! and . . . White is better.
9 . . . Wf6 10.Elxh4 (Black can
counter 10.Wxh4 with 10 . . . Wxg7.)
10 . . . Wxg7 (White cannot refute
10 . . . Elxg7 11.Elh8+ cj;Je7 12 .Wh3
tt:lc6 13.0-0-0 ixc3 14.Wxc3
Elxg2, Barczay - Hoang Thanh
Trang, Budapest 2001. Here he
should continue with 15.ixg2
Wxh8 16.We3� with sufficient
compensation for the pawn.) 11.
Wxg7 Elxg7 12 .Elh8 +
12 . . .if8 (The move 12 . . . cj;Jd7
does not solve all of Black's prob­
lems: 13.tt:lf3 tt:lc6 14.0-0-0 b6
15.ib5 and here it is important
that the attempt to fortify his po­
sition with 15 .. .f6 16.Elh6 ie7?
fails to 17.tt:lxd5 ! exd5 18.tt:le5 + ,
while i f 15 . . . j,d6 16.tt:le5+ -

274
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.liJc3 [/Jj6 4. §ig5 §ib4 5.e5 h6 6.efhg
16. [/Je4 §ib7 - 16 . . . 1ixe5 17.dxe5
§ib7 18.Elh6 Eld8 19.[/Jxd5 exd5
2 0. c4 'it>c8 2 1.hc6 iixc6 22.Elxc6
dxc4, the forcing line has led to a
complicated rook and pawn end­
ing with the better prospects for
White. ) 13.0-0-0 §id7 (Black
should consider the seemingly
unattractive line 13 . . . [/Jd7 14.[/Jf3
c6. It appears that he can do what
he likes behind his solid pawn­
chain, since White's dark-squared
bishop is absent from the board,
for example: 15.g3 Elg6 16.§ig2 Elh6
17.Elh1 Elxh1+ 18 .1ixh1 f6 - plan­
ning @f7 - 19.Elh7 §id6, evicting
White's rook by [/Jf8.) 14.Ele1 1ic6
15.f4 [/Jd7. Black frees his position
with this pawn-sacrifice. (An at­
tempt to exchange White's active
bishop does not lead to quick
equality for Black: 15 . . . Elg6 16.[/Jf3
Elh6 17.Elg8 [/Jd7 18.§ib5?! hb5 19.
[/Jxb5 0-0-0 20.[/Jxa7+ 'it>b8 21.[/JbS
[/Jf6 2 2 . Elg3 [/Je4 23.Elg8 [/Jf6 = ; 18.
g4 Elh1 19.g5 0-0-0 2 0 . '\t>dU) 16.
f5 0-0-0 17.f:xe6 fxe6 18.Elxe6
This position has been known
for a long time and is considered
equal. However, it must be admit­
ted that Black still has to play pre­
cisely: 18 . . . §ie7 (18 . . . Elg4 19.Elh5
Elxd4 2 0 . [/Jf3 Elg4 21.[/Jxd5 'it>b8
2 2 .Ele1 id6 ; 19.[/Jf3 ig7 2 0 . Elh5
[/Jf6, Belavenets - Bondarevsky,
Tbilisi 1937; his compensation is
sufficient for a draw, but still, af­
ter for example: 2 1.Elh2, he must
take care.) 19.Elxd8+ 'it>xd8, Heu­
er - Dvoretsky, Tallinn 1976.
White has an extra pawn but
he will not be able to exploit it if
Black defends accurately. White
cannot protect his pawns on d4
and g2 and prevent the appear­
ance of his opponent's knight on
e4, all at the same time. We shall
continue this variation a bit fur­
ther: 2 0 .[/Jf3 [/Jf6 2 1.Ele1 (White
does not achieve much with 2 1 .
[/Jh4 [/Jg4 2 2 .[/JfS ig5+ 23.'it>b1
Elg8 ; or 2 1 .[/JeS ie8.) 2 l . . .id6
( 2 l . . .id7 ! ?) 2 2 .[/JeS he5 23.dxe5
(23.Elxe5 [/Jg4 24.Elh5 [/Je3 25.id3
Elxg2) 23 . . . [/Je4 24.[/Je2 Elg5 and
Black regains his pawn.
However, if the prospect of
having to defend a drawish end­
game a pawn down does not ap­
peal to Black, he should pay more
attention to the slightly risky
move 8 . . . [/Jc6.
I should mention that after the
move 8 . . . Elxg7 White is not forced
2 75
Chapter 33
to advance his h-pawn, transpos­
ing to the main line. He can reach
original positions by playing 9 .hxg5
'Wxg5 10.lt:lf3 1Wg6 11.'Wd2, or 9.lt:lf3.
9.h5
It is also good for White to
play 9.'Wd3 ! ? l"\xg7 (the line 9 . . .
'Wf6 10.hxg5 'Wxg5 also deserves
attention) 10.hxg5 'Wxg5 11.lt:lf3
'Wf4 12 .a3 'We4+ 13.'Wxe4 .ixc3+
14.bxc3 dxe4 15.lt:ld2 f5 16.f3 exf3
17.lt:lxf3 lt:ld8 ! ? 18.0-0-0 lt:lf7
White's position appears to be
more attractive, at least optically,
but there is just too little material
left on the board for him to be
able to achieve anything.
Black should not fear the im­
mediate 9 ..ib5 l"\xg7 10.lt:lf3, be­
cause of 10 . . .gxh4 11.lt:le5 'Wg5 ! It
is also possible for play simply 9 . . .
gxh4 10.'Wh5 (White's attempt to
exploit his rapid development
fails after 10.lt:lf3 l"\xg7 ll.l"\xh4
l"1xg2 12 .!"1h8+ .if8 13 .'Wd2 'Wf6
and his attack comes to a dead
end; 11.lt:le5 .id7 12 . .ixc6 .ixc6
13.'Wh5 'Wf6 14.!"1xh4 l"\xg2 and he
has nothing) 10 . . . !"1xg7 ll.'Wh8 +
.if8 1 2 .lt:lf3 l"\xg2 13.lt:le5 .id7 14.
276
.ixc6 bxc6 15. 0-0-0 'We7 16.!"1xh4
0-0-0, Black's pawn-structure
has been disrupted but this is
practically irrelevant, whereas his
extra pawn might become a deci­
sive factor.
9 ••• 1';xg7
1 0 .h6?!
The advance of White's passed
pawn, in combination with an at­
tack on the advanced g5-pawn,
looks quite natural, but it is prob­
ably stronger for him to opt for
10 . .ib5 .id7 1l.'Wd3 (or 11.lt:lf3 f6 ! ?
12 .'We2 'We7 13.h6 l"\h7 14 . .id3 l"\h8
15.a3 .ixc3+ 16.bxc3 o-o-m= and
Black's position is preferable) 11 . . .
'Wf6 ( l l . . . 'We7 1 2 .h6 l"\g8 13.lt:lf3 f6
and Black's game is rather pas­
sive). However, Black's position
would be acceptable after 12 ..ixc6
(or 1 2 .lt:lf3 .ixc3 + 13 .bxc3 g4) 12 . . .
.ixc6 13.lt:lf3 @e7!?+
10 . . 1';h7
.
It is less precise for Black to
play 10 . . . !"1g8 ? ! l l . .ib5.
ll.i.d3
The line ll.lt:lf3 'Wf6 ! loses the
h6-pawn for White, as does ll.a3
.if8 .
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. l1J c3 l1Jf6 4. �g5 iJ.b4 5.e5 h6 6.efhg
He also has to fight for equali­
ty after 11.'Wd3 l"\h8 1 2 . 0-0-0 'Wf6
13.h7 iJ.d7.
ll . . . l"i:h8
12.'Wh5 ! ?
1 2 .a3 iJ.f8 13.h7 l1Jxd4 14.'Wh5
(the line 14.iJ.g6 iJ.g7 is in Black's
favour) 14 . . .'Wf6 15.0-0-0 iJ.d7+
with a clear advantage for Black.
12 . . . 'Wf6!
It is less accurate for Black to
opt for 12 . . . l1Jxd4 13 .l1Jh3 'Wf6 (af­
ter 13 . . . iJ.e7 ! ? 14. 0-0-0i White
has initiative for the sacrificed
pawn) 14.l1Jxg5 and there is a
transposition to the game, but
Black loses the possibility of im­
proving his play on move 13.
13. ll::l f3
13 .•. ll::l xd4
This is an important moment.
Morozevich points out that it is
much stronger for Black to play
here 13 . . . �d7! analyzing the fol­
lowing variations : 14.l1Jxg5 (14.a3
iJ.e7+) 14 ... 0-0-0
15.l1Jxf7 iJ.e8 16.iJ.g6 iJ.xf7 17.
iJ.xf7 l"ldf8+
15.'Wh4 l1Jxd4 16.0-0-0 (16.
l1Jxf7 l1Jxc2 !+) 16 . . . iJ.d6 ! +
15.0-0-0 Ei:dg8 16.l1Jxf7 iJ.e8 ;
16.l1Jf3 l"\xg2 and again h e has an
excellent position.
15.1!/f1 ! ? l"ldg8 ! ? 16.l1Jf3 l1Jxd4
17.'We5 'Wxe5 18.l1Jxe5 iJ.e8. Black's
position is slightly better, thanks
to his powerful centre and the
bishop pair. Now 19.l1Jxd5? exd5
2 0 .c3 fails to 20 .. .f6-+
We should like to show you the
analysis of the less precise move
played in the game and Mo­
rozevich's recommendations for
White, in order to clarify what is
playable in this rather non-stand­
ard position.
14.ll::l xg5 ll::l £5
It is too risky for Black to play
14 ... l1Jxc2+ 15.1!/d1 l1Jxa1 (15 ... iJ.xc3
16.l1Jxf7! 'Wxf2 17.l1Jxh8 + l!ld8 18.
bxc3+-) 16.l1Jxf7.
277
Chapter 33

15 . . . hc3 + 16.bxc3 �xf5 17.

l"lh3±
16.l"lh4!?
16.0-0-0 .ie7 17.lt:Jf3 �xh5
18.l"lxh5 f6 ! and Black can be very
happy with his position (but not
18 . . ..if6? 19 .g4±) .

15.hf5 !
This is the correct move for
White, as pointed out by Mo­
rozevich in his annotations to the
game, from where we have bor­
rowed his analysis.
White went wrong in the game
and Black maintained an advan­
tage: 15.h7?! hc3+ 16.bxc3 �xc3+ 16 . . . .ie7
17.We2 �e5+ (but not 17 . . . lt:Jd4 + ? It is bad for him to continue
18.Wd1 18 . . . �xa1+ 19.W d 2 lt:Jb3+ with 16 . . . c5? 17.l"lxb4 ! cxb4 18.
2 0 . axb3 �f6 21.lt:Jxf7+ - ; 19 . . . lt:Jb5 me7 19.�h4 !
�xh1 2 0.�xf7+ Wd8 21.�f6+ Wd7 White is also better in the
2 2 .�xh8 ; 18 . . . lt:Jxc2 19 . .ib5+ c6 event of 16 . . . .if8 ? ! 17.h7 .ie7 18.
2 0. �xf7+ md8 2 Uk1±) 18.Wd2 f4.
�f4+ 19.We2 lt:Jd6! 2 0 . l"lae1 .id7 17.f4 .id7 18. 0 - 0 - 0 0 - 0 - 0
2 l .Wfl 0-o-m: Landa - Mo­ 19.ll:le2 .ie8 2 0 .g4 �f6 21.lt:Jf3t;
rozevich, Samara 1998. with somewhat better chances for
15 . . . �xf5 White.

278
Chapter 34 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.ll::J c3 <!bf6 4 ..ig5 .ib4
5.e5 h6 6 ..icl
White retains his important
dark-squared bishop in order to
organize an attack later against
Black's kingside.
This move also has some
drawbacks. It is detrimental to his
development and weakens the
centre. In addition, after the ap­
pearance of a pawn on c3, it will
be undefended, and this indirect­
ly weakens the d4-pawn as well.
White should avoid 6 . .ih4 gS
7 . .ig3 'Lle4 8. 'Llge2 fS (8 . . . cS 9.a3)
9.exf6 �xf6 10.a3 'Llxg3 11.'Llxg3
0-0 12 .f3 .bc3 + 13.bxc3 eS 14 .
.ie2 'Llc6 1S.dxeS �xeS 16.0-0
.ie6 17.�d2 d4+ Galkin - Beloze­
rov, Tomsk 2004.
6 . . . 'Lle4
Here it would make sense for
Black to try a move which has not
often been tested in practice - 6 . . .
'Llfd7 and after 7.�g4, h e can
choose between 7 . . . g6 and 7 . . . .if8 .
7.�g4
7 . . . g6
7 . . . gS. This move unnecessarily
weakens his position. 8.'Llge2 (Af­
ter 8.a3 .ixc3 + ! ? - 8 . . . .iaS 9.'Llge2
transposes to 8.'Llge2 - 9.bxc3 cS
10 ..id3 hS 1l.�f3, Black should
consider 1 1 . . .'Llxc3 ! ? 12.dxcS 'Llc6,
since the alternatives are not at
all impressive : ll . . . g4 12 .�e3
'Llxc3 13.h3 'Llc6 14.hxg4 cxd4 1S.
�f4t White has a powerful initia­
tive, Hector - Vitiugov, Horsholm
2 0 0 8 ; if 1 1 . . . cxd4 White is better
not only after 12 ..ixe4 g4 13.�d1
dxe4 14.cxd4 �aS+ 1S . .id2 �dS
16.'Lle2 e3 17 . .ixe3 �xg2 18.!"1g1
2 79
Chapter 34

Wc6 19.c4± Khalifman - Janovs­

ky, Kirishi 2007, but also after
12.cxd4 ti:Jc6 13 .ti:Je2 WaS+ 14.<i>f1
Wd2 1S.i.b 2 ! ±, or 1S.g3 h4 16.gxh4
Wxc1 + 17 .Elxc1 ti:Jd2 + 18. lt>g2 ti:Jxf3
19.ci>xf3 Elxh4 2 0 . ElcgU with an
advantage for White in all lines.)
8 . . . cS 9. a3

White has two promising

9 . . . i.aS (9 . . . hS 10.Wf3 g4 11.
Wf4 i.aS 12 .b4 ti:Jxc3 13.ti:Jxc3 cxd4
14.bxaS dxc3 1S.h3, Aveskulov -
Vovk, Lviv 2006. Black's position
remains rather unpleasant even
after his best option 1S . . . gxh3 16.
Elxh3 ti:Jc6. He has also tried 10 . . .
WaS ll.axb4 Wxa1, Zdebskaja -
Podolchenko, Odessa 2007 and
here White maintains a clear ad­
vantage with 12.ti:JbS ! ? ti:Jc6 13.
bxcS±) 10 .b4 ti:Jxc3 11.ti:Jxc3 cxd4
12 .bxaS dxc3 13.h4 Elg8 (The less
optimistic line 13 . . . Wc7 14.hxgS
WxeS+ still leaves White with the
better prospects, even after the
unambitious line: 1S.We2 Wxe 2 +
16.i.xe2 h S 17.hhS±) 14.hxgS
hxgS 1S.Elh7t and White has a
dangerous initiative.
Based on contemporary theo­
ry, the move 7 . . . ci>f8 seems to me
to be less reliable than 7 . . . g6 in
this line.
plans.
1) The rarely played 8.a3 can
lead to original positions only
if Black plays 8 . . . hc3 (8 . . . i.aS
transposes to 8. ti:Jge2 cS after 9.a3
i.aS, since it would not be advisa­
ble for White to opt for 9 .i.d3 ow­
ing to the simple response 9 . . .
ti:Jxc3 10.i.d2 ti:Ja4 or 9 . . .c S 1 0 .
he4 cxd4 1l.b4 dxc3 12 .bxaS
dxe4, with a good game for Black
in both cases.) 9.bxc3 ti:Jxc3 (after
9 . . . cS, White can still play 10 .i.d3)
10 .i.d3 (Here 10.a4 cS 1l.aS ! ? de­
serves analysis) lO . . . cS ll.dxcS
ti:Jc6 12.ti:Jf3
Now it is bad for Black to play
the natural move 12 . . .fS?! (He
should continue instead with 12 . . .
WaS, o r 12 . . . d 4 13.0-0 WdS, but
White still has good compensa­
tion for the pawn . ) The same po-

28 0
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 dS 3 . Ci:J c3 C2Jf6 4. �g5 �b4 5.e5 h6 6. �cl C2J e4
sition but with a bishop on e3 also
arises in the 6.�e3 variation, but
there White can create problems
for his opponent with the move
13.'Wh5, Goloshchapov - Volkov,
Silivri 2003. With the bishop on
c1, White has another powerful
resource: 13.exf6 'Wxf6 14.�b 2 ! e5
15.'Wh4 ! This accurate move is
important. 15 . . . g5 16.'Wg3t and
White is better since, owing to the
move g7-g5 which White has pro­
voked, Black cannot now play 16 . . .
e4? ! 17.he4 C2Jxe4 18.�xf6.
2) 8 .C2Jge2 c5 9.a3
and now:
9 . . . �a5 10.dxc5 (the line: 1 0 .b4
C2Jxc3 11.bxa5 C2Jxe2 12 .�xe2 C2Jc6
is not very promising for White.
He has compensation for the
pawn, but nothing more) 10 . . . C2Jc6
(for 10 ... C2Jd7 - see 10 ... C2Jc6 ll .b4
C2Jxe5 ; after 10 . . . 'Wc7 ll.'Wf4 a
somewhat better endgame for
White arises by force : l l . . . C2Jxc3
12.C2Jxc3 hc3 + 13.bxc3 C2Jc6 14.c4
'Wxe5+ 15.'Wxe5 C2Jxe5 16.cxd5
exd5 17J'l:bU; GM Suetin's recom­
mendation from his book "The
French Defence" 10 . . . C2Jxc3 11.
C2Jxc3 d4 12 .b4 dxc3 13.bxa5 C2Jc6
does not stand up to scrutiny, be-
cause after 14.a6± White has a
clear advantage.) 11.b4 C2Jxe5 1 2 .
'Wh5 (White has also tried the oth­
er possible retreat 12 .'Wh3 �c7
and after 13.C2Jd4 C2Jc6 14.C2Jxc6
'Wf6 15.'Wf3 bxc6 16.'Wxf6 C2Jxf6 17.
�d3 e5co Black obtained an excel­
lent position in the game Savchen­
ko - Volkov, Serpuhov 2 0 0 8 ; or
13.C2Jxe4 dxe4 14.�b2 b6 15.cxb6
axb6 16.C2Jc3 �b7 17.C2Jb5 �b8 18.
'Wc3 Wg8 19J'l:d1 'We7 2 0 .�d4 Wh7
2 1.'Wxb6 �d5 2 2 .�d4 f6 23.c4 �c6
24.�e2 C2Jg6 25.C2Jd6 i"ld8 26.c5
C2Jf4f! Stocek - Tibensky, Slovakia
2008.) 12 . . . �c7 13.C2Jxe4 dxe4 14.
�b2 �g5 15.�xg5 hxg5
16.C2Jc3 (Now it seems to be
very unpleasant for Black if White
chooses 16./"ld1 ! , hindering the
development of the c8-bishop
and planning C2Je2-c3-b5-d6.
However, the position remains
rather unclear, for example: 16 . . .
C2Jd7 17.C2Jc3 �e5 18.C2Ja4 �xb2 19.
C2Jxb2 aS 2 0 .C2Jc4 axb4 2 1 . axb4
We7 2 2 .C2Jd6 f5f! ; 18 .�b5 We7 19.
c6 C2Jb8?! 2 0 . C2J d5+ exd5 2 1.cxb7
hb7 2 2 .he5 f6 23 .�d4t; 19 . . .
bxc6 2 0 . .bc6 !"lb8 and suddenly,
Black has nothing to complain
about. I should like to mention
281
Chapter 34
that Black should refrain from the
natural move 16 . . . �e7 17.'Llc3 e3
18.'Llb5 exf2 + 19.�e2 i!.b8 2 0 .
'Lld6± and White i s clearly better.)
16 . . . e3 17.fxe3? ! (Here White
should not have ignored the open
d-file: 17. 0-0-0 ! , for example :
17 . . . a6 18.'Lle4. Black's position
looks rather worrying. He cannot
play 17 . . . 'Llg4?, because of 18 .i!.e2 !
'Llxf2 19.'Llb5) 17 . . . 'Llg4 18 .i!.e2
i!.g3+ 19.�d2 'Llf2f7 with chances
for both sides, Bruzon Batista -
Short, Havana 2 0 1 0 .
I t would b e interesting for
Black to try 9 . . . hc3 + ! ? 10 .bxc3
(after 10.'Llxc3 f5 11.exf6 'Llxf6 1 2 .
W d 1 cxd4 13.'\Wxd4 'Ll c 6 14.'\Wc5+
'\We7 15.i!.e3 i!.d7 16.0-0-0 �f7±
White obtains a minimal edge, but
Black made a relatively easy draw
in the endgame after 17.i!.d3 Wxc5
18.i!.xc5 'Lle5 19.i!.d4 'Llxd3+ 20.
cxd3 ghc8 2 l . �d2 'Llg8 2 2 .f4 'Lle7
23.'Lle2 i!.a4= with equality, Bu­
kavshin - Volkov, Samara 2011)
10 ... cxd4 (after 10 ... '\WaS 1l.f3
'Llxc3 12 .i!.d2 cxd4 13.'Llxd4 '\Wc7
14.'\Wf4 i!.d7 15.i!.d3 �g8 , White
has excellent compensation) 11.
cxd4 (It would unconvincing to
opt for 11.f3 h5 12 .'\Wh3 'Llxc3 13.
282
'Llxd4 'Lld7 14.i!.d2 '\Wc7 15.f4 'Lle4
16.i!.b4+ �g8 17.i!.d3 a5 18.i!.d2
'Lldc5 19.'\We3 i!.d7 with a good
game for Black, Ehlvest - Bhat,
San Francisco 2 000.) 11 . . . 'Llc6
12 .c3 WaS 13 .i!.e3 'Lle7 14.'\Wh3 f6
(It might be worth testing the line
14 . . . b5 ! ? 15.gc1 �g8 16.f3 'Llg5 17.
'\Wg4 Wxa3 - Black's pieces seem
to be totally misplaced, but he has
an extra pawn and is threatening
b5-b4, while White's king is stuck
in the centre.) 15.exf6 ? ! (It is pos­
sible that the variation 15.f3 ! ?
'Llg5 16.'\Wh5 creates rather serious
problems for Black.) 15 . . . 'Llxf6
16.g4 �g8 17.f3 i!.d7 18 .i!.d2 'Llg6
19.'\Wg3 gf8 2 0 .h4 h5 2 l.gxh5
'Lle7+ Vallejo Pons - Kindermann,
Bahia Feliz 2011.
8.ll:l ge2
In this position White hardly
ever plays 8.a3 hc3 + 9.bxc3,
when Black has a choice between
9 . . . 'Llxc3 10 .i!.d3 b6, analogously
to the variation 6.i!.e3 , or 9 . . . c5
10 .i!.d3 cxd4 ! (it is inferior to play
10 . . . 'Llxc3 1l.dxc5 '\Wc7 12.'Llf3 'Lld7
13.0-0 'Llxc5 14.'\Wh4t and White
exerts powerful pressure on the
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. t/J c3 t/Jf6 4. �g5 �b4 5.e5 h6 6. �cl t/J e4
dark squares, while 1 1 . . .WaS can
be countered with the standard
reply 12 .Wb4± with a better posi­
tion for White.) 1l .�xe4 (but not
ll.cxd4? WaS + 12. Wf1 Wc3 13.l"1b1
Wxd4+ with an obvious advantage
for Black.) 1l...dxe4 12 .Wxe4 dxc3
with an extra pawn.
8 . . . c5
It would be interesting for
Black to test the rare move 8 . . .
t/Jxc3 9.bxc3 (If 9.t/Jxc3 c S 10.a3
�xc3 + ll.bxc3 WaS 12 .�d2 Wa4 a
position arises which resembles
some of the lines of the Winawer
variation, but with the exchange
of a pair of knights. Naturally,
Black must also consider the pos­
sibilities of 10.dxcS or 10 .�d2 .)
9 ... �e7 10.l2Jf4 cS ll.�bS+ l2Jc6 12.
a4 cxd4?! This reduction of the
tension in the centre is the main
cause of Black's difficulties. (after
12 . . . Wa5 13 .�d2 c4 14.0-0 �d7
Black maintains a good and safe
position) 13.cxd4 �d7 14.0-0 Wc7
1S.�a3 0-0-0 16.�xe7 l2Jxe7 17.
l2Jd3± White has an edge, thanks
to his queenside pressure, Najer
- Glek, Silivri 2 003.
9.a3
9 ..• hc3 +
It is bad for Black to play 9 . . .
WaS 10.axb4 Wxa1 11.lLlxdS ! ± with
an obvious advantage for White.
It looks as though the move
9 . . . �aS would not solve Black's
problems either. 10.dxcS (It is less
effective for White to opt for 10. b4
l2Jxc3 11.t/Jxc3 cxb4 1 2 . lLlbS b3+
13.c3oo. Or ll ... cxd4 1 2 .tiJbS �c7
13.f4 l2Jc6 14.�d3 a6 1S. l2Jxc7+
Wxc7 16.0-0 �d7 17.Wh4 Wd8
18 .Wf2 , Borriss - Huebner, Ger­
many 2 0 0 1 and after 18 . . . 0-0,
Black's position is not at all worse ;
13.Wxd4 l2Jc6 14.l2Jxc7+ Wxc7 1S.
�bS �d7 16.�xc6 Wxc6 17.�e3
Wa6 18.a4 l"1c8 19 .bS WaS+ 2 0 .�d2
Wb6 2 1.Wd3oo Berg - Nepomni­
achtchi, Wijk aan Zee 2 0 07.) 10 . . .
l2J c 6 ( 1 0 . . . Wc7 11.Wf4 l2Jxc3 1 2 .
l2Jxc3 �xc3+ 13.bxc3 WxcS 14.�d2
l2Jd7 1S.l"1b1 a6 16.�d3 Wc7 17. 0-0
WxeS 18.Wb4� with excellent
compensation for White ; 13 . . . t/Jd7
14.�bS WxcS 1S.�xd7+ �xd7 16.
0-0i - The vulnerability of the
dark squares in Black's camp
more than compensates for
283
Chapter 34
White's weakened pawn-struc­
ture, Spraggett - Vernay, La Mas­
sana 2 010) 11.b4 tt:JxeS 12.1lfih3
:!c7 13.LLlxe4 dxe4 14.LLlc3 aS, Negi
- Nepomniachtchi, Wijk aan Zee
2007 and in this position the
move 1S.:!b2± creates serious
problems for Black.
1 0 .bxc3 cxd4 11.cxd4 �a5+
12.c3
12 .•• §J.d7
Complications arise after
Black's other attractive move -
12 . . . l2Jc6 ! ?, but it looks as though
White retains an edge at the end
of the variation. 13.1J.e3 hS (the
line 13 . . . l2Je7 14.1lfih3 f6 might turn
out to be better for Black than it
looks at first sight) 14.1lfih3 bS 1S.
fi:c1 (1S.f3 tt:Jxc3 16.1J.d2 b4oo) 1S . . .
'Wxa3 16.f3 l2Jb4 (the only move)
17.cxb4 ! (after 17.fxe4 tt:Jd3+ 18.
md2 dxe4� the threat of bS-b4
provides Black with reasonable
284
counterplay for the sacrificed
piece) 17 . . . 1lfixb4+ 18.LLlc3 l2Jxc3
19.§J.d2 'Wxd4 2 0 .hc3 (20.fi:xc3
b4) 20 . . . 1!fie3+ 2 1 . 'it>d1 b4 2 2 .1J.d2
'WxeS 23.1lfih4 aS 24.1J.bS+ §J.d7
2S.fi:eU and despite the fact that
he has sufficient material equiva­
lent for the piece, White has the
edge.
13.£3
White's alternative here is to
sacrifice the exchange : 13.fi:b1
§J.bS 14.fi:xbS 'WxbS 1S.f3 LLlgS 16.
'Wf4�. White has definite compen­
sation, but Black has no reason to
be afraid of this position.
13 §J.b5 14.fxe4 he2 15.
•••
�h3 .hf1 16.:gxfl dxe4 17.mf2
lLld7oo A very complicated posi­
-
tion has arisen, in which Black
has weak dark squares but can or­
ganize an offensive on the light
squares, Rytshagov - Anderton,
Gausdal 2000.
Chapter 35 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3)2jc3 tLlf6 4.i.g5 i.b4
5.e5 h6 6.i.e3

and the opponents agreed to a

draw, Kupreichik - Cibulka,
Stockholm 1997.
The line 7.a3 ixc3 8.bxc3 is
most likely to transpose to varia­
tions we analyze below, since af­
ter 8 . . . lt:Jxc3 or 8 . . . c5 White's most
logical move is 9.�g4. However,
an original position arose in this
game: 8 . . . c5 9 .id3 �a5 1 0 .lt:Je2
cxd4 ll.ixd4 lt:Jc6 12.0-0 lt:Jxd4 13.
The idea of this move is the cxd4 lt:Jc3 14.lt:Jxc3 �xc3 15.\Wg4
same as with 6.ic1 - White wish­ 0-0= with approximate equality,
es to preserve his dark-squared Sutovsky - L'Ami, Wijk aan Zee
bishop. 2010.
The difference in the place­
ment of the bishop is the key in­
fluence on the further develop­
ment of the game. On e3 the bish­
op is developed and protects the
d4-pawn, but it comes under at­
tack in many variations. Inevita­
bly a doubled pawn appears on c3
and this will be sacrificed in many
variations.
6 .ti:'le4 7.�g4
••

Strong players almost never

play 7.lt:Jge2 and indeed this move We shall analyze now a) 7. . .

should not trouble Black, for ex­ �f8 and b) 7 . . . g6 .

ample : 7 . . . b6 ! ? 8.a3 lt:Jxc3 9 .lt:Jxc3 At this particular point, in the
ixc3 10.bxc3 0-0 11 .if4 (11.�g4 variation with 6.ie3 it seems to
f5) f5 12.exf6 E1xf6 13.ie3 �d6 me that weakening the pawn-

285
Chapter 35
structure on the kingside with
(7 . . . g6) is a lesser evil for Black
than moving the king, although
both moves have their pluses and
minuses.
The pawn-advance 7 . . . gS ! ? is
interesting, but weakens Black's
position considerably and irrevo­
cably.
Here are some typical examples:
8 .l2Jge2 hS 9.'&f3 fS 10 .h4 g4
ll.'&f4, Aroshidze - Moskalenko,
Banyoles 2 007. Black must try to
organize counterplay with 1l.. .cS.
8.a3 hS 9.'&d1 (For 9.'&f3 hc3+
10.bxc3 cS 1l .�d3 - see 7 . . . g6 8.a3
hc3 9.bxc3 cS 10 .�d3) 9 . . . l2Jxc3
(9 . . . �xc3 + 10.bxc3 l2Jxc3 1l.'&d3
l2Ja4 12.l2Jf3 g4 13.�gS '&d7 14.�f6
l"lh6, Belov - Alavkin, Sochi 2 0 04.
White now have played 1S.LLlgS
'&c6 16.h3 gxh3 17. l2Jxh3t with a
dangerous initiative) 10 .'&d2 �aS
ll.bxc3 cS ! ? 12.dxcS '&c7 13.l2Jf3
(but not 13 .�d4 �d7 14.l2Jf3 g4
1S.LLlgS l2Jc6, Felgaer - Lemos,
Mendoza 2008) 13 . . . g4 14.l2Jd4
'&xeS 1S .�bS+ l2Jd7 16.0-0t again
with an initiative for White. Black
must obviously try to save his
king by castling kingside and later
he will regret his active play with
286
his pawns.
8 .h4 hS 9.'&d1 (The spectacu­
lar queen-sacrifice 9.hxgS led to a
quick sharing of the point after 9 ...
hxg4 10.l"lxh8+ M8 ll.l2Jxe4 dxe4
12 .l2Je2 cS 13.0-0-0 '&aS 14.l2Jc3
cxd4 1S.hd4 l2Jc6 16.l2Jxe4 l2Jxd4,
draw, Shirov - Volkov, Rethym­
non 2 0 03.) 9 . . . cS 10. l2Jge2 l2Jc6 11.
a3 cxd4 12.axb4 dxe3 (it is prefer­
able for Black to opt for 12 . . . l2Jxc3
13.hgS L2Jxd1 14.hd8 LLlxf2 1S.�f6
l2Jxh1 16.hh8 l2Jxb4 17.l2Jxd4 l2Jg3
with approximate equality) 13.
l2Jxe4 dxe4 14.'&xd8+ �xd8 1S.
hxgS exf2 + 16.�xf2 l2Jxe5 17.l2Jc3
l2Jg4+ 18.�g3. White has the ini­
tiative in this complicated end­
game. We should like to quote
this brilliant game to the very
end : 18 . . . l2Je3 (Here it is prefera­
ble for Black to play 18 . . .f5, with
good chances of equalizing.) 19.
l"le1 l2Jf5+ 2 0 . �f4 l2Jd6 2 l .g4 h4
2 2 . l"ld1 �e7 23.�eS l"ld8 24.l"lxh4
aS 2S.bS a4 26.l"lh7 a3 27.g6 a2
28.l"lxd6 l"lxd6 29. l"lxf7+ �e8 30.
�xd6 a1'& 31.l2Jxe4 1-0 Lanin -
Skorchenko, Sochi 2006.
a) 7 . . . �f8
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. 4Jc3 4Jj6 4. ilg5 ilb4 5.e5 h6 6 . ile3 4J e4 7. Wff g 4 r;f;JB
8.a3
The alternatives for White are
not convincing:
In the variation 8 .4Jge2 , you
can see one of the differences be­
tween 6.iJ.e3 and 6.iJ.cl: 8 . . . c5 9.f3
4Jxc3 ! 10 .bxc3 cxd4 ! l l.hd4 iJ.a5
12.f4 4Jc6 with a good game for
Black, Savchenko - Volkov, Dag­
omys 2 0 0 8 ;
After 8 .iJ.d3 4Jxc3 9 . a 3 , i t is
equally attractive for Black either
to capture the pawn with 9 . . . iJ.a5
10 .iJ.d2 4Ja4, or to simply preserve
his bishop with 9 . . . 4Ja2+ lO.r;f;fl
iJ.e7 11.l"1xa2 b6; he has a very good
position in both cases.
8 ..• .h:c3 + 9.bxc3
9 . . . 4Jxc3
This move, followed by 10 . . .
4Jc6, i s based o n the idea o f pre­
serving a closed pawn-structure.
Black's attempt to retain the
possibility of organizing more ef­
fective counterplay with 9 . . . c5 is
in crisis at the present moment.
10.iJ.d3 4Jxc3 (10 . . . Wffa 5 ll.CiJe2
cxd4 12 .hd4 4Jc6 13.0-0) ll.dxc5
4Jc6 (White should counter 11 . . .
Wffa5 with the standard resource
1 2 .Wffb 4, for example: 12 . . . Wffxb4
13.axb4 4Jc6 and here he can ob­
tain a better position in two ways :
14.l"1a3 d4 15.iJ.xd4 4Jd5 16.c3
4Jxd4 17.cxd4 4Jxb4 18.iJ.e4± with
superior prospects, Rytshagov -
Brynell, Gothenburg 2 0 0 2 , or 14.
iJ.d2 d4 15.4Jf3 4Jxb4 16. 4Jxd4
4Jxd3+ 17.cxd3 4Jd5 18.r;!;e2± and
the idea of 4Jd4-b5-d6 gives White
an edge, Istratescu - Bressac,
France 2 0 0 9 ; White is again
better following 14 . . . 4Je4 15.he4
dxe4 16.iJ.c3±; I should like to
add that the move 12 .iJ.d2 is less
promising for White, owing to
12 . . . 4Jc6.) 12.4Jf3 f5 13.Wffh 5 d4
(The computer is quite optimistic
in its evaluation of the lines 13 . . .
Wffe 8 14.Wffh 3 and 1 3 . . . iJ.d7 14.g4,
but there are some purely human
factors to consider here. In a posi­
tion with material equality, White
has a bishop pair and Black's king
appears to be rather misplaced on
f8 .) 14.iJ.d2 Wffd 5 15.ilxc3 dxc3 16.
l"1d1 Wffxc5 17.0-0 r;f;g8
18.iJ.xf5 ! ! A brilliant combina­
tion ! 18 . . . exf5 19.l"1d6 ! iJ.e6 (This is
Black's only move.) 2 0 . l"1xe6±
White gained a clear advantage in
the game Goloshchapov - Volkov,
287
Chapter 35
Istanbul 2 003. After losing this
game, one of the main experts in
the MacCutcheon variation for
Black - GM Volkov - switched to
the defensive system with 9 . . .
li'lxc3 and 10 . . . li'lc6.
lO . .id3 lDc6
ll.lDf3
White has also tried some oth­
er plans in this position.
11.li'lh3 f5 12.'&g3 '&e8 (This is
Volkov's improvement on his
game against Areshchenko, in
which Black's position was very
suspect: 12 . . . g5 13.f4 g4 14.li'lf2
li'le4 15 . .ixe4 dxe4 16.h3 gxh3 17.
Ei:xh3 '&e7 18.c4 b6 19.d5t with a
dangerous initiative for White,
Areshchenko - Volkov, Gibraltar
2006.) 13 .'&h4 '&e7 14 . .ig5 '&f7 15.
f3 �g8 16 . .id2 li'la4 17.Ei:b1 li'lb6
18.c3 li'lc4 19.icl '&e7 2 0.'&g3
li'lxa3 2 1.Ei:a1 li'lc4 2 2 .li'lf4 '&fl 23.
h4 h5 and Black gradually con­
solidated his position and real­
ized his extra material, Zenklusen
- Volkov, Fuegen 2006.
11.h4 li'le7 1 2 .f3 ! ? (In the game
Amonatov - Volkov, Khanty­
Mansiysk 2009, White neglected
288
this prophylactic move and Black
successfully solved his opening
problems : 1 2 .li'lh3 li'lf5 13.li'lf4
li'le4 14.'&f3 c5 15 . .ixe4 dxe4 16.
'&xe4 '&a5+ 17.id2 '&a4 18.c3 Ei:b8
19.g4 li'le7 2 0.f3 li'lc6 2 1.ie3 b6
2 2 . 0 - 0 .ia6 23.Ei:f2 Ei:c8 - 23 . . .
�g8 - 24.li'lxe6+ fxe6 25.d5 '&xe4
26.fxe4+ �e7 27.dxc6 id3+ with
the better position for Black.)
12 . . . li'la4 (It is possibly more
precise to play 12 . . . li'lf5 13 .id2
li'la4) 13.Ei:b1 li'lb6 14.li'le2 li'lc4 15.
icl li'lf5 16.'&f4 h5 17.li'lg3 g6? !
Now White manages to develop a
powerful initiative. (After the
simple exchange 17 . . . li'lxg3 18.
'&xg3, Black's position is very sol­
id, but he has no active prospects
in sight. He should have support­
ed his knight with the move 17 . . .
'&d7 ! ?) 18.c3 b 6 19.li'le4 ! ± and
White's prospects are slightly bet­
ter, Popov - Andreikin, St Peters­
burg 2 0 07.
ll . . . lDe7
White has also tried ll . . . li'la4
12.0-0 (12.Ei:b1 ! ?) 12 . . . li'lb2 13.ie2
li'l c4 14.li'ld2 li'lxd2 15 . .ixd2 f5 (It
is worth trying 15 . . . b6, with the
idea of a7-a5, ic8-a6.) 16.exf6
'&xf6 17.c3 e5 18.'&g3� with pow-
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.tiJc3 Ci'Jf6 4. 11.g5 ffl.b4 5.e5 h6 6. 11.e3 Ci'J e4 7. � g4 g6

erful compensation for the sacri­

ficed pawn, Naiditsch - Volkov,
Stockholm 2011.

ffl.xc4 dxc4 17.dxc5 �a5+ 18.

12.§J.d2
The move 12 .h4, with the pos­
sible plan of h4-h5, Ci'Jf3-h4, Ei:h1-
ttJd2 W/xc5 19. 0 - 0 c3, Ponkra­
tov - Volkov, Izhevsk 2 0 09. After
2 0 .ttJc4 ! Black's position is very
worrying.
b) 7 g6 8.a3
•••

h3-g3, was tried in the game S. It would unconvincing for

Solovjov - Yemelin, St. Peters­ White to opt for 8.Ci'Jge2 cS, or 8 .
burg 2 0 1 1 : 12 . . . Ci'Jf5 (it seems very §J.d3 Ci'Jxc3 9.a3 §;.aS 10 .ffl.d2 Ci'Ja4.
promising for Black to opt for 8 ••• hc3+ 9.bxc3
12 . . . 11.d7 with the idea of ffl.bS.)
13.§J.d2 Ci'Ja4 14.h5 (14.Ei:b 1 ! ?) 14 . . .
Ci'Jb2 15.ffl.e2 Ci'Jc4 16.11.b4+ 'kt>g8 17.
�f4 b6 18 .g4 Ci'Je7 19.Ei:g1 cS 2 0 .
dxcS aS 2 1.ffl.c3 bxcS 2 2 .g5 Ci'JfS 2 3 .
ffl.d3 hxgS 24.Ei:xg5 d 4 25.0-0-0.
There arose a very sharp position.
After the correct response 25 . . .
�b6 ! White must defend very
carefully.
12 )i)a4 13.l'�b1 ttJb6 14.h4
••

ttJc4 15.ffl.c1
(diagram) We shall analyze now bl) 9 •••

This is a very typical position c5 and b2) 9 ••• ttJxc3.

for the 10 . . . Ci'Jc6 variation. Black's
extra pawn is irrelevant at the
moment and he has no counter­ b1) 9 •.• c5
play at all . His attempt to acti­ This is a more active plan than
vate his pieces ended up in 9 . . . Ci'Jxc3.
White's favour: 15 c5 ! ? 16.
••• 1 0 .§J.d3

289
Chapter 35
1 0 . . . h5
It is slightly worse for Black to
play 10 . . . tt'lxc3 ll.dxc5 tt'lc6 (11 . . .
\WaS 12.1�b4 '\Wxb4 13.axb4;t; and
White is a bit better, for example:
13 ... tt'lc6 14.:i'l:a3 d4 15.hd4 tt'ld5
16.c3 tt'lxd4 17.cxd4 tt'lxb4 18.�e4
�d7 19.md2 �c6 20.f3;t; Iorda­
chescu - Foisor, Naujac 2 0 0 2 ;
19.hb7? ! :i'l:b8 2 0 . :i'l:xa7 tt'l c6�, or
20 . . . �c6�) 12.tt'lf3 (12 .�d2 ! ?) 12 . . .
d 4 ( 1 2 . . . '\WaS 13.0-0 '\Wa4 14.'\Wxa4
- 14.'\Wh3 ! ? - 14 . . . tt'lxa4. The end­
game is in White's favour. 15.�b5
tt'lc3 16.a4 �d7 17.:i'l:a3 tt'le4 18.:i'l:b1
tt'l a5 and Black managed to hold
the position, Hracek - Vaisser,
Pula 1997. However, it is more
promising for White to opt for
15.:i'l:ab1 a6 16.:i'l:fc1, or 16.h4 ! ?)
13 .�d2 ! '\Wd5 14.'\Wf4 '\WxcS 15.
290
'\Wf6 :i'l:h7 16.0-0 and White's com­
pensation for the pawn is more
than sufficient.
For some unknown reason, in
practice White has preferred to go
in for the less promising capture
of the pawn : 13 .hd4 tt'lxd4 14.
tt'lxd4 (In the endgame after 14.
'\Wxd4 '\Wxd4 15.tt'lxd4 Black has no
problems at all : 15 . . . �d7 16.a4
:i'l:c8 17.md2 :i'l:xc5 18.tt'lb5, Paehtz
- Socko, Ekaterinburg 2 007 and
here it would be correct to con­
tinue with 18 . . . tt'lxb5 19.axb5 �xb5
2 0 . :i'l:xa7 0-0 2 l.:i'l:a5 :i'l:d8 = with
equality, exploiting the circum­
stance that 2 2 .:i'l:b1?? fails to 22 . . .
:i'l:xc2-+) 1 4 . . . '\WdS 15.tt'lf3 '\Wxc5
16.0-0 �d7 17.'\Wh4 �c6 18.:i'l:fel.
Now Black has several attractive
possibilities : 18 . . . hf3 ! ? This is
the simplest. (It is also possible
for him to choose 18 . . . md7 ! ?
Zakhartsov - Borovlev, Russia
2 0 04, or 18 . . . :i'l:d8 19.'\Wf6 0-0 ! ?
2 0 .hg6 �xf3 2 l.�xf7+ :i'l:xf7 2 2 .
'\Wxd8+ :i'l:f8 23.'\Wh4 �e2 with very
sharp play; 2l.�d3 :i'l:xd3 22.cxd3
�e2 ; 2 2 .gxf3 :i'l:d7 23.mh1 mh7 24.
:i'l:g1 :i'l:g8 25.:i'l:xg8 mxg8 26.:i'l:g1 +
mf8 = ) 19.'\Wf6 0-0 20.'\Wxf3 :i'l:ad8 !
2 1.'\Wxb7 :i'l:d5= with equality.
(diagram)
11.'\Wf4
White can try some other re­
treats of his queen :
ll.'\Wf3 tt'lxc3 12.dxc5 tt'l c6 13.
'\Wf4 d4 14.�d2 g5 15.'\Wxg5 (the
move 15.'\Wf6 has been analyzed in
the variation with ll.'\Wf4) 15 . . .
'\Wxg5 16.hg5 tt'lxe5 17.�f6 (17.
tt'lf3 :i'l:g8 18.�f6 tt'lxd3+ 19.cxd3
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. CiJ c3 CiJf6 4 . ilg5 ilb4 5.e5 h6 6. ile3 CiJ e4 7. 111i g 4 g6
lt:ldS 2 0 .ilxd4 j"lxg2 with advan­
tage to Black, Sutovsky - Wang
Hao, Poikovsky 2 008) 17 . . . lt:lxd3+
18.cxd3 fi:g8 19.hd4 lt:ldS (but
not 19 . . . lt:lb5 2 0.ile5 with an edge
for White) 2 0.g3 ild7. In the re­
sulting endgame Black has suffi­
cient compensation for the pawn,
for example: 21.ctJe2 (It is not ad­
visable for White to play here 2 1 .
lt:lf3 ilc6 2 2 . ctJe5? ! 'LJb4 23.'LJxc6
lt:lc2 + 24.@d2 'LJxa1 25.lt:la5 b6 26.
fi:xa1 bxaS and Black's prospects
are even slightly preferable, Kos­
teniuk - Zhukova, Caleta 2 010.)
2 1 . . .f6 2 2 .f4 (22.j"lb1 eS�) 2 2 ... ilc6
23. @d2 @f7� with the idea of
lt:le7-f5.
An interesting try for White is
the rarely played line 11.111ih 3 ! ?
lt:lxc3 1 2 . dxc5 d4 13 .ild2 111i d 5 14.
'LJf3 lt:lc6 (it is also good to capture
the enemy cS-pawn with one
of his knights : 14 . . . 'LJe4, or 14 . . .
'LJd7.) 15.0-0 'LJxe5 16.lt:lxd4 lt:lxd3
17.ilxc3 'LJf4 18.111i g3 eS 19.fi:fe1
0-0 20.lt:lf3 f6 with a good posi­
tion for Black, Van Kampen - Ko­
tainy, Dortmund 2011.
ll g5 12. �f3 ci)xc3 13.dxc5
• • •
d4 14.ild2 ci)c6
15.�f6 (Here White has also
tried 15.�g3 111id 5 16.111ixg5 -
16 .hg5 lt:le4 - 16 . . . 111ix e5+ 17.
'LJe2 = with equality, Nemcova -
Guo Qi, Gaziantep 2 0 08.) 15 • • .
�xf6 16.exf6 ci)a4 (It i s inferior
for Black to continue with 16 . . . g4
17.ilxc3 dxc3 18.ctJe2 'LJeS 19.ile4
j"lb8 2 0 .h3 @d8 21. CiJxc3 §ld7 with
a very complicated endgame in
which Black has to fight for equal­
ity, Jakovenko - Vitiugov, Mos­
cow 2 0 07.) 17.hg5 ci)xc5 18.
ci)f3 ci)xd3+ 19.cxd3 b6 2 0 .l'k1
ilb7 21.@d2 �d8 22.�c2 �d5 23.
�hc1 @d7 24 .if4 �c8 = with ap­
•
proximate equality, Areshchenko
- Smerdon, Port Erin 2 0 07.
b2) 9 • • • ci)xc3 1 0 .§ld3
291
Chapter 35
10 ..• b6 ! ?
I n several games Nepomnia­
chtchi preferred the move 10 . . .
t2l c 6 , but tournament practice
confirmed this to be too risky:
ll .h4 t2le7 12 .h5 gS 13.t2le2 t2lxe2
14 .11tixe2 and White had more
than sufficient initiative for the
pawn, for example : 14 . . . c5 15.dxc5
d4 16.0-0-0 .id7 17.hd4 .ic6 18 .
.ic3 11tid5 19.!:'1hg1 11tixc5 20 . .ib4
11tib6 21.c4 .ia4 2 2 . 11tif3± with a
clear advantage for him, Popov -
Nepomniachtchi, Dagomys 2008,
or 14 . . . t2lf5 15.g4 Lt:lxe3 16.fxe3 cS
17.c3 c4 18 . .ic2 11tia5 19. �d2± with
an edge for White, Vuckovic -
Nepomniachtchi, Plovdiv 2008.
ll.h4 .ia6 12.h5 g5 13.f4
gxf4 14J�'g7
Black obtained a good position
after 14.hf4 �d7 15 . .id2 Lt:le4 16.
he4 dxe4 17.11tixe4 �c8 18.Lt:lf3
.ib7? in the game Gashimov -
Nakamura, Monaco 2011.
14 �d7 15.Y;bf7+ fie7 16.
..•
fixe7+ �xe7 17 .bf4 hd3 •
White's prospects are prefera­
ble after 17 . . . c5 18.dxc5 bxcS 19.
Lt:lf3 (19.Lt:le2 .ixd3 20.cxd3 Lt:lxe2
2 1 . �xe2 Lt:lc6 2 2 . !:'1abU) 19 . . . hd3
2 0 . cxd3 Lt:ld7 21.Lt:lh4±
18.cxd3 �d7 19.ll:lf3 ltlc6
(diagram)
The evaluation of Black's de­
fensive approach depends almost
entirely on the proper assessment
of the resulting endgame. The
292
weakness of Black's pawn on h6 is
a important trump for White.
Here Naiditsch recommends 2 0 .
.id2 (In the game he played 2 0 .
� d 2 Lt:l b S 2 1 . �e3 l:!af8?, but
Black had sufficient counterplay,
Naiditsch - Stellwagen, Wijk aan
Zee 2 006) 2 0 ltlb5 21 . .ie3,
•..
evaluating the position as some­
what better for White. Indeed,
Black must immediately find
some very precise moves. We
shall try to continue that variation
along the most forcing lines : 2 1 . . .
gaf8 22.gfl gh7 23.a4 gxf3
24.gxf3 ltlbxd4 25.hd4 (or
25.!:'1f2 LLlfS 26 . .if4 l:!g7 and White
cannot unblock the kingside)
25 ltlxd4 26.gf2 and now
.•.
Black can either restrain White's
pawn-majority with 26 gg7!?, .•.
or he can grab another pawn for
the exchange with 26 ltlc6. Fu­
.. •
ture games in this ending will in­
dicate its correct evaluation and
determine whether it will become
fashionable.
Chapter 36 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.ltJC3 tt:lf6 4.i.g5 i.b4
5.e5 h6 6.i.d2 hc3
7.bxc3
The move 7.hc3 ! ? is much
less popular, because it makes the
standard queen-sortie �d1-g4, af­
ter Black's knight moves, sense­
less. Still, a move which keeps
White's pawn-structure solid and
intact should not be bad. 7 . . . tt:Je4.
Now:
the awkward move 8 . .iaS with
the idea of provoking b7-b6 and
preventing Black's queen-sortie
to the aS-square was convincingly
refuted in the famous game Fis­
cher - Petrosian, Curacao 196 2 :
8 . . . 0-0 (but not 8 . . . b6 9.�b4 cS
10.�a3) 9 . .id3 tt:Jc6 10 .�c3 tt:Jxc3
1l.bxc3 f6 12.f4 fxeS 13.fxeS tt:Je7
14.tt:Jf3 cS 1S.O-O �aS 16.�e1 �d7;
8.tt:Je2 0-0 (8 . . . cS 9.dxcS tt:Jc6
10 .�d4 �e7 - 10 . . . �c7 ! ? - 11. tt::l c 3
tt:JxcS 12.f4 0-0 13.�d2 �d7 14.
0-0-0 tt:Jxd4 1S.�xd4 j"\ac8 16.
g3;t Sutovsky - Comas Fabrego,
Pamplona 1998) 9.�b4 cS 10 .�a3
tt:Jc6 1l.f3 bS 12 .fxe4 b4 13.hb4
tt:Jxb4 14.c3 tt:Jc6� and Black has
good compensation for the pawn,
Svidler - Morozevich, Frankfurt
1999 ;
8 .�b4 cS 9 .hcS (It is very bad
for White to play 9.dxcS? tt:Jxf2 .
After 9 . .ia3 ? ! tt:Jc6 lO.dxcS, as
played in the game Sulskis - Jes­
sel, Cappelle la Grande 2009,
White faces great problems after
10 . . . �aS+ ll.c3 d4 and Black has
dangerous threats.) 9 . . . tt:JxcS 10.
dxcS �aS+ (Black's compensation
for the pawn after 10 . . . b6 ! ? 11.
cxb6 �xb6 1 2 . j"lb1 .ia6 is highly
questionable. ) 1l.�d2 �xeS 12.f4
tt:Jc6 13.tt:Jf3 aS 14.�d3 b6 1S.c3
293
Chapter 36
�a6 and Black has no problems at
all and can even think about fight­
ing for the advantage, Guseinov -
Nepomniachtchi, Porto-Karras
2011.
7 • • • ll:le4 8.'�g4 lt>f8
9.�d3
9.lLlf3 c5 10 .�d3 t2Jxd2 1l.Wxd2
(it is not convincing for White to
opt for 1l.t2Jxd2 t2Jc6, with the idea
of �a5) - see 9.�d3.
We should take a look at
White's alternatives.
If in the main line White wants
to use the plan with 11.h4 and
l"lh1-h3, then it would be good for
him to play the immediate 9.h4,
depriving Black, after 9 .�d3 t2Jxd2
10.Wxd2 , of the possible transi­
tion into an endgame with 10 . . .
�g5, although, a s w e will see lat­
er, this is not good for him in any
case. 9 . . . c5 10.l"lh3 t2Jc6 1l.�d3
t2Jxd2 12.Wxd2 c4 and on the
board we have a position from the
main line.
The move 9.�f4 enables White
to avoid the necessity of placing
his king on d2, but his queen is re­
moved from its active position.
294
9 ... c5 10 .�d3 tt'lxd2 1l.�xd2 'Llc6
12.'Llf3 c4 13 .�e2 We7! Black im­
proves the position of his king. He
has a very good plan at his dispos­
al, which is quite typical for the
system with 8 . . . Wf8, in response
to 6.�d2. 14.a4 Wd7 15.0-0 Wc7
16.�c1 �d7= with approximate
equality, Kargin - Volkov, Mos­
cow 2008. In this position, which
is very reminiscent of the Winaw­
er variation 3 . . . �b4, White's dark­
squared bishop is absent from the
board, while Black has a knight,
which works in Black's favour.
With the intricate move 9.
�c1 ! ? White reaches a position
from the variation with 6.�c1,
having deprived his opponent of
the possibility of 6.�c1 tt'le4 7.�g4
Wf8 8.a3 �a5, and with the slight
difference that his pawn is on a2
instead of a3 .
Strangely enough, this detail is
very important: 9 . . . c5 10.�d3 (A
continuation which was a possi­
bility in the 6.�c1 variation, 10.
'Lle2? ! , is not good here : 10 ... cxd4
ll.cxd4 �a5+ 12 .c3 tt'lc6 13.�f3
b5i and Black has the initiative.
The absence of the pawn on a3 is
important in the variation 13.
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. 4:J c3 l1Jf6 4. iJ.g5 iJ.b4 5.e5 h6 6. iJ.d2 hc3

iJ.e3? !1Jb4 ! - + ) 10 . . . 4:Jxc3 (Black

can also try the risky-looking line :
10 . . . 1Wa5 11.4:Je2 cxd4 1 2 . 0-0 dxc3
13 .iJ.xe4 dxe4 14.1Wxe4 4:Jc6 15.Eld1
g6. It is not clear how White can
exploit the weakness of his oppo­
nent's dark squares, for example:
16.1Wf3 1Wxe5 17.4:Jxc3 1Wf5 18.1We3
eS 19.4:Je4 \ilg7oo lordachescu -
Vaisser, Aix-les-Bains 2 0 11.) 11.
dxc5 1Wa5
We shall analyze now a)
ll . .!lJ:£3 and b) ll.h4.
I should also mention that af­
ter White's immediate 1l.dxc5,
trying to transpose to the game
Leko - Huebner, Black has the
possibility of 1 1 . . .4:Jd7!?

a) ll . .!lJ:£3
Now, depending on circum­
It is important here that White stances, White can either prevent
does not have the standard re­ Black's counterplay on the queen­
source 1Wg4-b4, which is possible side, or develop his initiative by
with a pawn on a3. 12 .iJ.d2 1Wa4 advancing his kingside pawns:
13.h3 1Wxg4 (13 . . . !1Je4 14.4:Je2 4:Jd7 h2-h4, g2-g4, g4-g5 . . .
15.iJ.xe4 1Wxe4 16.1Wxe4 dxe4, Klo­
vans - Dvoretsky, USSR 1974.)
14.hxg4 !1Je4 (14 ... 4:J a4 ! ?) 15.iJ.xe4
dxe4 16.f4 iJ.d7 17.4:Je2 'LJa6 18 .iJ.e3
Elc8 19 .Elb1 'LJxcS 2 0 .iJ.xc5+ ElxcS
2 l . Elxb7 \ile7= Black can hold the
balance in this endgame, Hebden
- Lautier, London 1988.
9 ... .!lJxd2 1 0 .\ilxd2 c5
After 10 . . . '\WgS+ 11.\WxgS hxgS
12 .g4 ! f6 13.h4 ! ? fxe5 14.dxe5 4:Jc6
15.4:Jf3 gxh4 16.Elae1 h3 17.Elh2
iJ.d7 18.Eleh1 \ile7 19.Elxh3 Elxh3 Black i s faced with a n impor­
2 0 . Elxh3± Black is slightly worse tant choice (it is more or less a
in this ending, Gdanski - Ditt­ matter of style . . . ) whether to close
mar, Saint Vincent 2 0 0 0 . the centre immediately (11.. .c4),

295
Chapter 36
which might lead to some difficul­
ties in advancing his queenside
pawns, or to allow the typical cap­
ture on c5 after 11.. .li'lc6 12.dxc5 ! ?
ll . . . c4
11. .. li'lc6 12.dxc5 ! ? (The line :
12 .h4 c4 13 .ie2 b5 has been ana­
lyzed below after the move order:
1l. .. c4 12 .ie2 b5 13.h4 li'lc6; simi­
lar positions arise after 12.1l*'f4 c4
13 .ie2 b5.). Here, the natural
moves 12 . . . 'Wa5 13.'Wf4 Wxc5 14.
li'ld4 id7 (It is too passive for
Black to continue with 14 . . . li'lxd4
15.Wxd4 Wxd4 16.cxd4 id7 17.
Elhb1 Elb8 18.a4 r:J1e7 19.a5t with a
small but stable advantage for
White, Brynell - Bagirov, Lenin­
grad 1989.) 15.Elhb1 b6 (This is a
recommendation in the annota­
tions to the game Leko - Hueb­
ner, instead, 15 . . . li'ld8?! 16.a4 Elc8
was tried in the game Morozevich
- Vallejo Pons, Pamplona 1999,
but of course with tragic conse­
quences for the Spanish grand­
master: 17.Elb3 a6 18 .h4 Elc7 19 .g4
li'lc6 2 0 . li'lxc6 ixc6 2 l.'Wb4 - here
Morozevich recommends 2 l.h5t
- 2 1 . . . 'Wxb4 2 2 . cxb4t and White
went on to convert his minimal
advantage into the full point.) 16.
a4 li'la5 17.ia6 leads to a position
in which White succeeds in tem­
porarily blocking his opponent's
queenside, but Black's position is
quite safe, Leko - Huebner, Dort­
mund 2000. Black can consider
Leko's suggestions - 17 . . . Eld8 or
17 . . . 'We7.
12 . .ie2 b5
296
1 2 ... li'lc6 13.a4 a6 14.Elhb1 Elb8
15.h4 b5 16.axb5 axb5 17.'Wf4 We7
18 .'We3 r:J1e8 ! 19.h5 r:J1d8 2 0 .li'lg1
b4. White's attempts to impede
Black's counterplay on the queen­
side soon led to simplification and
a draw: 2 l.f4 id7 2 2 . cxb4 Elxb4
23.Elxb4 Wxb4+ 24.'Wc3 Wxc3 +
25.r:J1xc3 r:J1c7= Black easily equal­
izes in this endgame and the op­
ponents soon agreed to a draw,
Khalifman - Short, Merida 2001.
13.h4
White is trying to consistently
implement his plan of g2-g4-g5.
He has tested some other ideas
too.
After 13.Elhb1 id7 14.'Wf4,
Black can try 14 . . . li'l c6 ! ?, exploit­
ing the fact that after 15.Elxb5, he
has the tactical shot 15 . . . g5 ! +
The move 13.a4 breaks up
Black's pawn-structure and pre­
vents the threat of b5-b4, but pre­
sents Black with other possibili­
ties: 13 . . . bxa4 14.Elxa4 id7 15.
Elaa1 li'lc6 16.h4 aS 17.'Wf4 a4 18.
g4, Ganguly - Volkov, Moscow
2 0 07. After the immediate reac-
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 dS 3. liJ c3 liJf6 4. §J.g5 JJ.b4 5.e5 h6 6. JJ.d2 hc3

tion 18 . . . 4Ja7 19.gS tt:JbS, Black's

position is quite satisfactory.
13 ••• tt:Jc6 14.a3
Or 14J"!hbl l"i:b8 1S.a3 aS.
14 ••• a5 15.\Wf4 i.d7

ll ••• tl:lc6
The move 11 . . . c4 leads more or
less to similar positions.
12.l"i:h3 c4
Now White can retreat his
bishop to two different squares
16.g4 (An equal endgame is with the same effect.
reached after 16.l"i:hbl l"i:b8 17.hS
%'fe7 1 8.g4 ..t>e8 19.\We3 @d8 2 0 .
l"i:gl b 4 2 1 . axb4 axb4 2 2 . cxb4
\Wxb4+ 23.\Wc3 \Wxc3+ 24 . ..t>xc3
f6= Madl - Huebner, Loeberitz
2 001 . ) 16 b4 17.axb4 (17.gS
•••

bxc3+ 18 . ..t>xc3 4Je7+) 17 axb4•••

18.cxb4 tl:lxb4 19.\We3 tl:la2 !

This is an important resource.
Black's knight cannot retreat, but
it turns out that it is perfectly
placed on the a2-square ! 2 0 .
l"i:hbl ti'a5+ 21.c3 \!;>e7 2 2 .idl
l"i:hb8 with a very good game for
Black, Berg - Renman, Sweden
2003.
b) ll.h4
This plan is based on exerting
piece-pressure against Black's
kingside. White's rook is deployed
on the third rank and his knight is
developed on f4.
• 13.i.e2
An important point here is
that White cannot play 13 J"!g3
cxd3 14.\Wxg7+ @e7 1S.\Wf6+ @d7
16.\Wxf7+ tt:Je7+ when Black has a
big advantage, since 17J"!g6 l"i:f8
18.\Wxe6+ @e8 does not work and
so White can resign, Kopec -
Smith, Virginia Beach 2 0 04 .
13.i.fl b S 14.l2Je2 a S (It i s also
good for Black to play here 14 . . .
l"i:b8 1S.a3 \WaS, exploiting the fact

297
Chapter 36
that White's rook on a1 is unde­
fended. 16.�f3 �d7 17.g4 rile?
18.�g2 b4 19.cxb4 l"1xb4 20.axb4
�xa1 2 l.�a3 �xa3 2 2 . !"1xa3 li:Jxb4
23. !"1xa7 !"1b8 24.f4 li:Jc6 25.!"1a1 f6
2 6.h5 - An equal endgame with
an already familiar pawn-struc­
ture has arisen and here the play­
ers agreed to a draw, Volokitin -
Vallejo Pons, Wijk aan Zee 2009.)
15.a3 �d7 16.li:Jf4
16 . . . !"1g8 17.!"1f3 rile? 18.li:Jh5 b4
19 .�f4 bxc3+ 2 0 .rile1 �e8 21.
l"1xc3 . The position on the board is
from the game Leko - Korchnoi,
Essen 2 0 0 2 . Later Leko analysed
the following sample variation :
2 l . . .�b6 2 2 .!"1d1 �b2 23.!"1g3 �xc2
24.li:Jxg7 !"1b8 25.li:Jf5+ exf5 26.
l"1xg8 �c3 + , evaluating the posi­
tion as equal, and we agree with
this.
Black has a very good alterna­
tive here in 16 . . . li:Je7 (instead of
16 . . . !"1g8) and this emphasizes the
reliability of his position : 17.li:Jh5
li:Jf5 (Black obtained an excellent
game with 17 . . . !"1g8 ! ? 18.�f4 b4
19.axb4 axb4 2 0 . !"1xa8 bxc3 + 2 1 .
l"1xc3 �xa8 22 .g4 �a5 and the
awkward positioning of his pieces
is only temporary. He is threaten-
298
ing li:Je7-c6 and later li:Ja7-b5, or
�a5-b6. White prevented this,
but allowed the activation of
Black's rook. 23.g5 hxg5 24.hxg5
!"1h8 and he has the edge, Muzy­
chuk - Paehtz, Krasnoturinsk
2 007.) 18.�f4 b4 19 .�e2 bxc3 +
(19 . . . bxa3 !?) 2 0 .rilxc3 �b6 2 1 .
!"1hh1 l"1g8 2 2 .g4 li:J e7 23.!"1hb1 �a7
24.!"1b2 l"1b8 (it is also good for
Black to play 24 . . . a4 ! ?) 25.!"1ab1
!"1xb2 26.rilxb2 li:Jg6 27.�d2 li:Jxh4
and Black has an extra pawn and
the better prospects, Fressinet -
Belozerov, Izmir 2 0 04.
13 . . .b5
14.�f4
This move is played with the
idea of increasing the effect of the
advance of the g-pawn by moving
the bishop to the h5-square.
If 14.!"1f3 a5 15.a3 �d7 16.li:Jh3
li:Je7oo Arnold - Almasi, Budapest
1997.
Or 14.a3 a5 15.�f4 !"1a7 16.�h5
�e7 17.!"1g3 l"1h7 18.!"1f3 rileS 19.
\Wg3 g6 2 0 .!"1f6 b4 2 l.�d1 h5
2 2 . li:Jh3 rild8 23.li:Jf4 �d7 24.\WgS
bxc3 + 25. rile3 !"1c7 2 6 .li:Jxh5 gxh5
27.\Wg8+ �e8 28.\Wxh7 li:Jxd4oo
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.luc3 CiJf6 4. JJ.g5 JJ.b4 5.e5 h6 6. JJ.d2 hc3
with rather unclear complications
in which Black prevailed in the
end, Gashimov - Korchnoi, Dago­
mys 2008 .
14J''1 g3 l::l g 8 1S.'Wf4 (1S.CiJh3
CiJe7) 1S . . . JJ.d7 16.JJ.hS JJ.e8 17.l::lf3
fS. Black's fS-pawn can become a
target for White's undermining
move g2-g4 but nevertheless this
typical blow is in Black's favour.
18.he8 lt>xe8 19.hS aS 2 0.g4 l::l f8
2 1.CiJh3 b4+ and his position is
preferable, Shukh - Najer, Dago­
mys 2 0 1 0 .
14 • • • i.d7
Black has also tried 14 . . . 'We7
1S.JJ.hS lt>e8 16.a3 aS 17.l::lg 3 l::l g 8
18.CiJf3 l::l a 7 19.CiJh2 'it>d8 2 0 .JJ.e2
b4 2 1 . axb4 axb4 2 2 .l::l x a7 'Wxa7 23.
cxb4 CiJxd4 24.'We3 'Wa1 2S.'Wa3
CiJb3+ 26.l::lxb3 'Wd4+ 27.\t>c1 cxb3
28.'WaS+ with a draw by a perpet­
ual check, Volokitin - Korchnoi,
lgualada 200S.
15.i.h5
It is premature for White to
play 1S.g4?! b4 ! 16.cxb4 'Wb6 17.
l::l b 1 CiJxd4 18.c3 CiJc6 19.a4 'Wc7
2 0 .l::l e 3 d4 21.l::l e 4, Areshchenko -
Yemelin, St. Petersburg 2009.
Here Black wrongly refrained
from the attractive possibility of
2 l . . .l::l c 8 ! 2 2 . <i>e1 d3, with advan­
tage to Black.
15 • • • i.e8 16.ll:\e2 a5 17.g4 b4
18.g5
The preparatory move 18.l::l a h1
was tested in the game Kinder­
mann - Reefschlaeger, Alten­
kirchen 1999: 18 . . . l::l a 7 19.gS CiJe7
2 0.JJ.g4. Here Black missed a
wonderful opportunity to close
the kingside with the move 20 . . .
hS ! , since White would lose a
piece after 2 1 .he6? 'it>g8 2 2 .JJ.fS
g6.
18 • • • hxg5 19.hxg5 'it>e7
(Now, according to an analysis by
Acs and Hazai, Black can obtain a
very good position with 19 . . . g6 ! ?
2 0 .l::l a h1 ! bxc3+ 2 1 .CiJxc3 'Wb6.)
2 0 .�ahl bxc3+ 21.tt:\xc3 'Wb6
22.�h4 �b8 23.i.f3 �xh4 24.
�xh4 'Wb2 25.g6 tt:\b4 26.i.dl
tt:\d3 Black's prospects in this
rather complicated position are
not at all worse, Acs - Almasi,
Ohrid 2001.
299
 Part 9

The Steinitz Variation

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.ltk3 tlJf6 4.e5

The move 4.e5 introduces the Steinitz variation and the game usu­
ally develops into the sort of complex positional struggle of which the
first World Champion was so fond! Nowadays, the tabia of the varia­
tion arises after 4 . . . tt'lfd7 5.f4 c5 6.tt'lf3 tt'lc6 7.�e3 . All the typical fea­
tures of the French defence are displayed here - the passive bishop on
c8 and the undermining pawn-breaks against White's centre, ranging
from the routine f7-f6 and c7-c5 to the more classical b5-b4 and the
ultra-modern g7-g5. White's plan is often based on his control of the
d4-outpost; posted there, his knight is usually very powerful. His active
play is usually connected with a pawn-storm on the kingside (particu­
larly in positions with opposite sides castling), or with a combination of
piece-pressure and the pawn-break f4-f5. Players of the black pieces
are attracted to this line because it is reliable but they can also play it
actively and sharply. I believe that at present this is a very important
variation of the French defence.

300
Chapter 37 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.lDc3 lDf6

5.exd5
I think it is a bit artificial for
White to play 5.'Llf3 cxd4 6.'Llxd4
eS (White can counter 6 . . . 'Llc6
with 7.i.b5 ! ?) 7.'Llf3 d4 (It is worse
for Black to choose 7 . . . dxe4 8 .
i.b5+ i.d7 9.'Llxe5 i.b4 10.'Llxd7
'Llbxd7 11.0-0 i.xc3 12 .bxc3 0-0
13 .i.a3 l"le8 14.l"lb1 and White has
the initiative.) 8.'Lle2

We shall now analyze a)

4 . .id3 and b) 4.e5.
White enters an inferior ver­
sion of the Exchange variation
with 4.exd5 exdS S . .igS .ie7 6 .i.d3
'Llc6 7.'Llge2 'Llb4 8.'Llg3 'Lle4 9 .
i.xe7 'Llxc3 10.i.xd8 'Llxd1 1U'1xd1
c;t>xd8 12.c3 'Llxd3+ 13 J''1x d3 aS
14J''1 e 3 l"la6= Short - Morozevich,
Sarajevo 2 0 0 0 . 8 ... i.g4. This is a good move.
Black exploits the fact that his eS­
pawn is taboo. 9.'Llg3 (Black ob­
a) 4 . .id3 tains an excellent position after
Sometimes White maintains 9.c3 i.xf3 10.gxf3 dxc3 11.'Llxc3
the tension in the centre in this 'Llc6 12.f4 i.d6 13.fxe5 i.xeS 14.f4
fashion. i.d4 15.Wf3 0-0 16.i.d2 'Llb4 17.
4 . . . c5 i.b1 l"le8 18. c;t>fl l"lc8, with a con­
This is the best move for Black. siderable advantage for Black,
He tries to undermine his oppo­ Mantell Lorenzo - Comas Fabre­
nent's centre. go, Linares 1998.) 9 . . . i.b4+ (This

301
Chapter 37
is a typical manoeuvre. In pawn
structures of this type, which are
completely untypical for the
French defence, it is advanta­
geous for Black to exchange the
dark-squared bishops and he can
achieve this here.) 10 .id2 4Jc6
ll.ixb4 4Jxb4 1 2 . 0-0 0-0 13.a3
4Jxd3 14.cxd3 �b6 15 .h3 ixf3 16.
�xf3 g6 and Black has the better
position.
5 . . . cxd4
6)L\b5
Here White often plays 6.ib5+
id7, for example : 7.�xd4 ixb5
8 .4Jxb5 4Jxd5 9.4Je2 4Jc6 10 .�a4
a6 (After 10 . . . ic5 ! ? Black has
chances of seizing the initiative.)
11.4Jbd4 4Jb6 12 .4Jxc6 4Jxa4 13.
4Jxd8 Elxd8 14.0-0 ie7 15.b3 if6
16.Elbl lLlc3 17.4Jxc3 ixc3 = Stein­
itz - Blackburne, Vienna 1873, or
7.ixd7+ 7 . . . �xd7 8.'Wxd4 4Jc6 !
9 .�dl exd5 10.4Jf3 d4 (It would
be too risky for Black to opt for
10 . . . 0-0-0?! 11.0-0 4Je4 12 .ie3
f5 13.4Jb5 a6 14.4Jbd4 id6 15.
4Jxc6 bxc6 16.�d3 �b7 17.c4 d4
18.ig5 Eld7 19.Elabl h6 2 0 .id2
ib8 2 1.b4 g5 2 2 .a4 Elg8 23.c5 and
302
White's attack looks very danger­
ous, Von Bardeleben - Black­
burne, Frankfurt 1887. Attentive
readers might have noticed that
this variation was very popular in
the 19th century. It is positionally
solid, but the game is not very
concrete or tactical. 11. 4Je2 ib4+
12 .id2 d3 13.cxd3 'Wxd3 14.0-0
ixd2 and the players agreed to a
draw, Khalikian - Stezko, Yere­
van 1980.
6 .. )l:\xd5
7)L\f3
7.4Jxd4 e5 ! This sharp move
enables Black to obtain a fine po­
sition. (If 7 . . . ib4+ 8.id2 �g5 9.
ixb4 4Jxb4 10.4Jgf3 4Jxd3 + 11.
�xd3 �a5+ 12 .c3 4Jc6 13.4Jxc6
bxc6 14.'Wd6 ib7 15.0-0-0 Eld8
16.'Wxd8 + 'Wxd8 17.Elxd8 + lt>xd8,
Black might have problems in this
endgame, Ljubojevic - Padevsky,
Amsterdam 1972 .) 8.'We2 (8.4Jdf3
4Jb4 9.ic4 'Wxdl + 10.\t>xdl f6 and
only Black can think about an ad­
vantage.) 8 . . . ib4+ 9.c3 0-0 10.
4Jb3 4Jxc3 (10 ... e4 ! ?) ll.bxc3
ixc3+ 12 .id2 ixa1 13.4Jxal lLlc6,
Black has some initiative in a po-
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. lD c3 lDf6 4.e5 lDfd7 5. LD.f3 c5
sition with equal material.
7 •.. <tlc6
7 . . . ib4 + ! ? 8.id2 0-0 9.0-0
'Wb6 10.hb4 tLlxb4 11.tLlbxd4
LD 8c6 1 2 .ltJxc6 bxc6=
8.<tlbxd4 <tlxd4 9.<tlxd4
<tlb4 1 0 . 0 - 0 <tlxd3 11.'Wxd3
ie7 12 .if4 0 - 0 13.�adl
13 . . . �b6 (Here Black could
have tried 13 . . . if6 ! ? 14.tLlb5 'Wxd3
15J'lxd3 e5 with a good game. )
14.<tlb3 a5 15JWg3 a4 16.ic7
'Wb5 17.<tld4 �c5 18.�fel b5 19.
�d3 b4 2 0 .c3 �a6 21.if4 if6
- Black's position is preferable,
Ljubojevic - Bednarski, Bath
1973 .
b) 4.e5 <tlfd7
Of course White's main line
here is 5.f4 and in this chapter we
shall deal with bl) 5.<tlf3 and b2)
5.<tlce2.
bl) 5.<tlf3 ! ?
White sometimes prefers to
defend his centre with pieces.
5 . . . c5
6.dxc5
Once in a while White even
plays 6 .ib5 here, but I believe
Black has various ways to solve all
his problems. Here is j ust one of
his possibilities : 6 . . . a6 7.hd7 +
ixd7 8 . 0 - 0 tLlc6 9J"le1 'Wc7 10 .ie3
cxd4 l l.hd4 ie7 12.tLle2 0-0
13.'Wd2 l:'i:fc8 14.l:'i:ac1 b5 15.tLlg3
tLlxd4 16.<tlxd4 'Wc4 17.b3 'Wc3
18 .'Wxc3 l:'i:xc3 with a considerable
advantage for Black, Buckley -
Riazantsev, Cannes 1997.
White has also tried 6.ie3 ? !
tLl c 6 7.ib5 cxd4 8.ttlxd4 'Wc7
(Here Black could consider 8 . . .
ttldxe5 9.f4 a 6 10.fxe5 axb5 11.
0-0 ic5 1 2 . ttlcxb5 0-0 13.Wh1
ie7 14.tLlf3 l:'i:a4 ! ? and his position
is preferable.) 9.f4 ic5 10 .'Wd2 a6
303
Chapter 37
11 .i.e2 0-0. A position from the
Classical variation has arisen, ex­
cept that White had lost a tempo.
12.0-0-0 b5 13.li:J xc6 �xc6 14.
i.xc5 'Llxc5 15.i.f3 i.b7 16.f5 b4
17.f6 gxf6 18 .�h6 fxe5 19.�g5+
wh8 2 0 .�f6+ Wg8 2 1.�g5+ wh8
2 2 .�f6+ Wg8 23 .�g5 + , draw,
Rausis - Bricard, Paris 1995.
6 •.. 'Llc6
The move order is important.
It is less precise for Black to
play 6 . . . i.xc5, since White then
has the possibility of leaving his
queen's bishop on c1 for the time
being: 7.i.d3 'Llc6 8 .�e2 . It is
highly probable that he will have
to deploy his bishop on f4 in any
case, but Black should force him
to do so.
7.i.f4 .ixc5
Black can also continue with
7 . . . 'Llxc5. For example, Ian Nepo­
mniachtchi is an keen fan of the
following line for White : 8 .h4 a6
9.a3 b5 10 .h5 h6 1U''lh 4 i.b7 1 2 .
ig3 �b6 13.b4 'Ll d 7 14.�d2. One
cannot expect to gain an advan­
tage with such wild play, but you
can certainly confuse your oppo-
304
nent in that fashion, as ilack's
next move shows - 14 . . . �d8
15.�e3 'Llb6 16.l"ld1 'Lle7 17.'Lld4
'Llc4 18 .i.xc4 bxc4 19.l"lg4 �d7
2 0 .ih4 'Llc6 2 1 .'Ll ce2 'Llxd4 2 2 .
'Llxd4± Nepomniachtchi - Lintch­
evski, Dagomys 2009.
8.i.d3
8 . . . f6
This is Black's most concrete
response.
The play is much more com­
plex after 8 . . . a6 9.�d2 b5 10 .h4
�b6 11.Wfl f6 1 2 .exf6 'Llxf6 13.l"le1
0-0 14.h5 l"la7 15.l"lh4 l"le7 16.h6
g6 17.a3 'Llh5 18.l"lxh5 gxh5, but
even though White won that
game, his compensation for the
exchange was insufficient, Nepo­
mniachtchi - Volkov, Novo­
kuznetsk 2008.
Not 8 . . . 0-0?? 9.i.xh7+ Wxh7
10.'Llg5+ wg6 11.�d3+ f5 12.�g3
'Lldxe5 13.'Llxe6+ 'Llg4 14.'Llxd8
ix£2 + 15.�xf2 'Llxf2 16.'Llxc6
'Llxh1 17.'Lle5+-
9.exf6 �xf6
This is an interesting idea for
Black and it less well-analyzed
than 9 . . . 'Llf6.
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. 4:J c3 4:Jj6 4.e5 4:Jfd7 5. 4:Jj3 c5
1 0 .i.g5
Sometimes White plays 10.
.tg3 0-0 11.0-0 4:Jd4 1 2 .4:Jxd4
hd4 13.�e2 (13.�d2 4:J c5 14.E1ae1
4:Jxd3 15.cxd3 .td7 16.4:Je2 .tb6
17.'i!ih1 E1ae8 18.4:Jg1 .tbs 19 . .td6
E1f7 2 0.f4 .td4 21.4:Je2 E1d8 22 . .ta3
.tb6 23.4:Jc3 .tc6= Lein - Dvoret­
sky, Moscow 1973.) 13 . . . 4:J c5 14.
ltJbS hb2 15.l"1ab1 .td7 16.4:Jc7
E1ac8 17 . .td6 E1f7 (17 . . . .td4 ! ? 18.
hf8 E1xf8 19.4:Jb5 .txbS 2 0 . l"1xb5
a6 2 1 . l"1bb1 bS and Black has
excellent compensation for the
exchange.) 18 .hc5 E1xc7 19 .ha7
E1f8 with an playable game,
Guseinov - Stellwagen, Baku
2002.
1 0 . . . �£7
ll.�e2
White occasionally plays 11 .
.th4 ttJ deS (It was quite unclear
what Black was trying to achieve
with 11 . . . h6 12.0-0 0-0 13 . .tg3
4:Jf6 14.4:Je5 ttJxeS 15.he5 .td7 16.
'i!ih1 .tc6 17.f4 4:Je4 18 .�e2 4:Jd6
19.4:Jb5 hbS 2 0 .hb5 ltJfS 2 1.c3
4:Je3 2 2 . E1f3 4:Jg4 23 .h3 ttJxeS 24.
�xeS= Tsigelnitskiy - Leniart,
Moscow 2006.) 1 2 .4:Jxe5 ttJxeS
13 . .tg3 (13 . .tb5+ .td7 14.�e2 4:Jg6
1S . .tg3 0-0 16.0-0 .tc6 17.E1ad1
E1ad8 18 .hc6 bxc6 19.4:Ja4 .td6
2 0 .c4 4:Jf4 2 1..txf4 hf4= Rogers
- Gurevich, Batumi 2001) 13 . . .
0-0 14.0-0 4:J c 6 15.�d2 a 6 16.a3
�f6 17.'i!ih1 .td4 18.f4 .td7 19.l"1ae1
g6? ! This is a rather strange move.
Why is Black weakening his king
voluntarily? (Or 19 . . . E1ae8 ! ? with
chances for both sides.) 2 0 .4:Jd1
.txb2 2 1 .4:Jxb2 �xb2 2 2 . l"1b1 with
an initiative for White, Kosintseva
- Xu Yuhua, Krasnoturinsk 2 005.
After 11.0-0 0-0 12 . .th4
�hS ! ? 13 . .tg3 a6 14.�e2 4:Jf6 15.
E1ad1 .td7 16.4:Ja4 .ta7 17.c4 4:Jb4
18.4:Jc3 4:Jxd3 19.�xd3 E1ac8 2 0 .
cxdS exdS 2 1 .4:Jxd5 �xdS 2 2 .
�xdS + ltJxdS 23.l"1xd5 .te6 24.l"1d2
.txa2, White ended up in an infe­
rior endgame, Sengupta - Gurev­
ich, Gibraltar 2 007.
11 . . . 0 - 0 12. 0 - 0 - 0 h6 13 .
.th4
13 . . . a6
Black has a reasonable alter­
native here in 13 . . . .tb4 ! ? , since it
is ineffective for White to contin­
ue with 14.4:Jb5 (Or 14.�e3 hc3
305
Chapter 37
15.bxc3 e5 with an excellent game
for Black.) 14 . . . a6 15. l2Jc7 \Wf4+
16.'\t>b1 \Wxc7 17.\Wxe6+ j:\f7 18.
ih7+ c1s . .ig6 ttJb6 ! ) 1s ... mfs 19.
\Wxd5 l2Jf6 2 0 . .ixf6 gxf6 and
White's attack has reached a dead
end, while Black has retained an
extra piece.
14 .ig3 c!Llb6 15.'it>b1 .id7 16.
• much, and a single inaccuracy
ghfl "MM'h5 17.a3 gac8 18. gde1
g£6 19.1M!'d2 1MI'f7
Black has deployed his pieces
in a rather unusual fashion, but
he still has a sound and solid posi­
tion.
2 0 .c!Lle5 c!Llxe5
2 1.he5. This move is over­
optimistic. 2l.j:\xe5 ! ? 21. gxf2
••
22.1MI'd1 "MM'e 7 23,gxf2 ixf2 24.
gfl .ic5 25.1Mfh5 gf8 26.ge1
"MM'g5 27.1Mfxg5 hxg5 and Black re­
alized his extra pawn, Morozevich
- Bareev, Sarajevo 1999.
b2) 5.c!Llce2
This move is practically
White's only real alternative to
the Classical system with 5.f4. He
wants to play the Advance varia-
306
tion with his knights developed
to unusual squares. Although
Black's knight on d7 is not well
placed, White's knight on e2 is
impeding the moves of all his
pieces at the moment. I think that
this variation has lost its popular­
ity because White is trying for too
might bring him very close to dis­
aster. Playing in that fashion is
not to everyone's taste.
5 • • • c5 6.f4
It is amazing but if White plays
6.c3, Black has more possibilities.
For example, he can opt for 6 . . .
cxd4 ! ? (Or 6 . . . b5 ! ? This i s a n orig­
inal and attractive move. 7.a3 ?!
This is a rather feeble reaction by
White. Now Black's concept is
justified. White does not need to
provide his opponent with a tar­
get for attack and could play 7.f4
instead. 7 . . . cxd4 8.cxd4 b4 9.a4
.ia6 10.f4 l2Jc6 11. b3 ie7 12 .l2Jf3
j:\c8 13.l2Jg3 ixf1 14.l2Jxf1 f6 ! 15.
exf6?! ixf6 16.j:1b1 0-0 17.l2Je3
"MM'b 6 18 ..ib2 l2Je7 and Black can be
quite happy with the outcome of
the opening battle, Nepomnia-
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. l2Jc3 l2Jf6 4.e5 C2Jfd7 5. l2J ce2 c5
chtchi - Vitiugov, Moscow 2 0 10.)
7.cxd4 f6, immediately attacking
White's centre.
White cannot harm his oppo­
nent with 8.exf6?! C2Jxf6 9.C2Jf3
C2Jc6 1 0. C2Jc3 �d6 ll .g3 (After 11.
�d3 0-0 12.0- 0, there arises a fa­
vourable (to Black) version of the
variation with 3.C2Jd2 C2Jf6, for ex­
ample: 12 . . . �d7 13.�e3 �e8 14.
C2Jg5 We7 15.f4 h6 16.C2Jh3 �h5 17.
�e2 �xe2 18.Wxe2 Wf7 19.E1ad1
E1ae8 2 0 . \t>h1 C2Je7 Black he has a
very good game, Sevillano - Ako­
bian, Los Angeles 2003.) 1 1 . . . 0- 0
1 2 .�g2 �d7 1 3 . 0 - 0 Wb6 14.a3
E1ae8 15.b4 E1e7 16.C2Ja4 Wc7 17.
l2Jc5 �e8 18 .�b2 �h5 19.Wd2 b6
2 0 .C2Jd3 C2Je4 2 l.We3 E1ef7 2 2 .C2Jfe5
he5 23.C2Jxe5 C2Jxe5 24.dxe5 �f3
0-1 Okkes - M .Gurevich, Hoo­
geveen 2 0 04.
After 8.C2Jf4 Black should try to
simplify the position with 8 . . .
�b4+ 9 .�d2 Wb6 10 .hb4 Wxb4+
11.Wd2 Wxd2+ 12.\t>xd2 lt>e7 13.
exf6+ gxf6 14.E1e1 C2Jb6 15.C2Jf3
lt>d6. This is an important finesse.
(It is less precise for Black to con­
tinue with 15 . . . l2Jc6 16.�b5 ! �d7
17.hc6 bxc6 18.E1e2 E1ae8 19.E1he1
lt>f7 2 0 . \t>c1 C2Jc4 2l.C2Jd2 and
White obtained an edge, which he
converted successfully into a full
point in the game Anand - Ba­
reev, Shenyang 2000.) 16.�d3
C2Jc6 17.C2Jh5 E1f8 (17 . . . e5 ! ?) 18.
�xh7 e5 19.dxe5+ fxe5 2 0 . \t>c1
�g4 2 1 . l2Jg3 �xf3 2 2 .gxf3 C2J d4
with advantage to Black, Ara­
khamia-Grant - Gleizerov, Port
Erin 2001.
The game becomes very sharp
after 8.f4 fxe5 9.fxe5 (9.dxe5 Wb6
10.C2Jc3 C2Jc6 ll.C2Jf3 �b4 12 .�d2
l2J c5 13.a3 hc3 14.hc3 0-0 15.
g3 �d7 16.b4 C2Je4 17.�d4 Wd8
18 .�e3 E1c8 19 .�d3 a5 20.Wb1 C2Je7
2l.C2Jd4 C2Jf5 and the players
agreed to a draw, Bologan - Short,
Beijing 2 0 0 0 ; 9 . . . C2Jc6 10.C2Jf3
�b4+ ll.C2Jc3 C2Jc5 12 .�e3 Wa5
13 .Wc2 0-0 14J'k1 d4 15.C2Jxd4
C2Jxd4 16.�xd4 E1xf4 17.E1d1 'Wc7
18 .�e2 �d7. White has problems,
Shirov - Ivanchuk, Tilburg 1993)
9 . . . �b4+ (Strangely enough,
White gains a good position after
9 . . . Wh4+ 10. C2Jg3 �b4+ 1L it>f2
0-0+ 12.C2Jf3 C2Jc6 13.�e3, since
Black's activity has ebbed away.
There followed 13 . . . C2Jdxe5 14.
dxe5 C2Jxe5 15.\t>g1 Wf6 16.Wd4
�d6 17.�e2 �d7 18.E1c1 b6 19.a3
307
Chapter 37
tt:Jxf3 + 2 0 .gxf3 �e5 2 1 .j!,l{d2 hb2
2 2 . Elc7 Elf7 23. 'tt> g 2 �xa3 24.Elfl
and White won from this complex
position, Morozevich - Gurevich,
Moscow 2001.) 10. 'tt> f2 0-0+ 11.
LLlf3 tt:Jc6 12.a3 (If 12 .�e3, Black
can try 12 . . . tt:Jb6 ! ?) 12 . . . LLldxe5 (It
looks very strong for Black to play
the novelty 12 . . . �a5 ! with the idea
of transferring the bishop to the
b6-square, attacking White's cen­
tre and his king. 13 .�e3 �b6 14.h4
LLldxe5 15.dxe5 d4 and Black seiz­
es the initiative.) 13.axb4 (13.dxe5
�c5+ 14. 'tt> e 1 tt:Jxe5 15.tt:Jxe5 �f2 +
16. 'tt> d 2 j!,l[g5 + 17.'tt> c 2 j!,l{xe5 18.
'tt> b 1 �d7 19.LLlg3 Elac8 2 0 .�d3
�e8 2 l.�d2 �g6 2 2 .hg6 hxg6
23 .�c3 d4 24.�b4 Elf4 25.\t>a2.
White realized his extra piece,
Popov - Danin, Smolensk 2005.)
13 ... "*'h4+ 14. 'tt> g 1 LLlxf3 + 15.gxf3
Elxf3 16. LLlg3 LLlxd4 17.�g2 Elf7
18 .�e3 tt:Jf5 19.LLlxf5 Elxf5 2 0 .b5
�d7 21.b6 a6 2 2 .j!,l{d4 j!,l{h5 23.h3
�c6 24.'tt> h 2 and Black's compen­
sation was insufficient in the
game Polgar - Hernandez, Meri­
da 2 0 0 0 .
6 . . .c!i)c6
308
In answer to 6 ... b5, the most
precise line for White seems to be
7.c3 b4 (If 7 . . . tt:Jc6 then White
plays 8.a3 ! , impeding Black's
pawn-advance b5-b4. 8 . . . cxd4 9.
tt:Jxd4 LLlxd4 10.cxd4 b4 ll.a4 j!,l{a5
12 .�d2 �e7 13.tt:Jf3 0-0 14.�b5
LLlb6 15. b3 �a6 16.ha6 j!,l{xa6 17.
a5 LLld7 18 .j!,l{e2 LLlb8 19.'tt> f2 j!,l{xe2 +
2 0 . \t>xe2 tt:J c 6 2 1.Elhc1 Elfc8 2 2 .Ela2
Elc7 23.Elac2 Elac8 24.a6 and
White won this endgame, Anand
- Shirov, Leon 2000.) 8.cxb4
cxb4 9 . LLlf3 �e7 10.f5 exf5 ll.LLlf4
0-0 12.tt:Jxd5 tt:Jb6 13.tt:Jxe7+ j!,l{xe7
14.�d3 �e6 15.0-0 tt:Jc6 16.�e3
LLld5 17.j!,l{d2 LLlxe3 18.j!,l{xe3 Elad8
19.Elac1 j!,l{b7 2 0 . Elc5. White has
gained some pressure, but it is ob­
vious that Black should be able to
find an improvement, Sax -
Gulko, Aruba 199 2 .
7.c3
After 7.tt:Jf3 it would be quite
logical for Black to play 7 . . . b5, fol­
lowed by the standard pawn-of­
fensive on the queenside and the
development of the bishop to a6.
(Of course, the natural move 7 . . .
�e7 i s quite playable too.). 8.a3
Elb8 9 .g3 j!,l{b6 10 .c3 a5 11.�g2 b4
1 2 . axb4 axb4 13. 0 - 0 �a6 14.Elf2
cxd4 15.tt:Jexd4 �c5 16.'tt> h 1 0-0
17.�e3 bxc3 18.bxc3 �c4 and
Black's position is slightly better,
Tiviakov - Navara, Sibenik 2009.
In this pawn structure, Black
has several typical ideas and
plans. He can also prepare a clas­
sic knight-sacrifice on e5 after
preparation with f6, �e7, j!,l{b6 and
0-0.
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.lbc3 CiJf6 4.e5 CiJfd7 5. 4J ce2 c5 6f4 4J c6
7 �b6
. . .
However, Black has also tried
out some other ideas. For exam­
ple : 7 .. .'�aS ! ? 8.4Jf3 bS 9 .id2 �b6
10.fS ie7 ll.CiJf4 0-0 12 .id3 cxd4
13. cxd4 4Jxd4 14.f6 4Jxf6 1S.exf6
ixf6 16. 4Jxd4 ixd4 17.We2 ib7
18.ic3 ixc3+ 19.bxc3 eS and
Black's pawn-mass turned out to
be stronger than White's extra
piece, Hamdouchi - Gurevich,
Belfort 2003.
It would be very interesting for
Black to opt for 7 . . . ie7 8.4Jf3 0-0
9 .g3 f6 (It is also possible for
Black to choose the less forcing
line : 9 . . . cxd4 10.cxd4 4Jb6 l l.ig2
aS 1 2 . 0 - 0 a4 13.g4 a3 14.bxa3
4Jc4 1SJ:!:b1 ixa3 16.Elb3 ixcl 17.
4Jxc1 b6 18.Wc2 f6 19.Wf2 fxeS
2 0.fxeS id7 2 1.Eld1 We7 with a
good game for Black, Socko - Gu­
revich, Venaco 2 00S.) 10 .ih3
cxd4 11.4Jexd4 4Jxd4 12 .cxd4
WaS+ 13.id2 Wb6 14.Wb3 Wxb3
1S.axb3 CiJb8 16.exf6 gxf6 17. 0-0
4Jc6 18.Elae1 <;t>f7 19.Elf2 id7 2 0 .
ic3 fS and the endgame i s about
equal, Palliser - Speelman, West
Bromwich 2003.
White can try another plan for
the development of his pieces (in­
stead of 9.g3), but it looks too
risky for him: 9 .a3 aS 10 .h4 f6 11.
4Jeg1 cxd4 1 2 . cxd4 Wb6 13.id3
f:xeS 14.fxeS CiJdxeS ! ? 1S.dxeS
CiJxeS 16.ic2 id7 17.We2 Elac8 ! !
This is a fabulous move ! 18.ixh7 +
(The essence of Black's idea can
be best illustrated in the line :
18.4JxeS ixh4+ - this is another
typical tactical blow in this varia­
tion - 19.<;t>d1 ia4 ! ! 20.ixa4 Wd4+
with a quick checkmate.) 18 . . .
<;t>xh7 19.WxeS id6 2 0 .ie3 Wb3
2 1 .4Jd2 Elf1 ! - + Macieja - Ivan­
chuk, Moscow 2001.
8.lt:lf3 f6
9.a3
This move is standard in simi­
lar positions - White prevents the
309
Chapter 37
possible check from the b4-square
and prepares the pawn-advance
b2-b4, seizing extra space.
He has a safer plan here - 9 .g3
cxd4 10.cxd4 (10.<Llexd4 ! ? <Llxd4
11.<Llxd4 �cS and Black has a good
position ; 1l.cxd4 fxeS 12 .fxeS
�b4+ 13.<±>f2 ! ? �e7 14.\t>g2 <Llb8
1S.�d3 <Llc6 16.:1'1£1 �d7 17.:1'1f2
0-0-0 18.�e3 E1df8 19.a3± and it
appears that White is slightly bet­
ter, Kosintseva - Edouard, Cap
d'Agde 2010 ; 10 . . . fxeS ! ? 1l .ti:lxe6
e4 12.<LlfgS <Llf6 13.\Wb3 - this po­
sition needs further practical test­
ing.)
10 ... fxeS (It would be quite
reasonable for Black to delay this
pawn exchange for a while with
10 . . . �b4 + ! ? ll.<Llc3 0-0 12 .a3 �e7
13.�h3 <±>h8 14.<Lla4 \Wa6 1S.�fl bS
16.<Llc3 fxeS 17.�xbS \Wb6 18 .�xc6
\Wxc6 19.fxeS �a6 2 0 .�f4 :1'1ab8
with an excellent game for Black,
Sznapik - Knaak, Bratislava
1983.) 11.fxeS �b4+ 12 .<Llc3 (Or
12 .�d2? 0-0 13.�g2 <LldxeS 14.
dxeS <LlxeS 1S.�xb4 \Wxb4+ 16. <±>f2
\We4 17.<Llc3 <Lld3+ 18. <±>f1 \Wc4 !
And Black has a dangerous at­
tack; 17 . . . <Llg4+ 18.\t>fl <Lle3+ -
18 . . . '\We3 ! ? - 19.<±>e2 <Llxd1+ 2 0 .
310
<Llxe4 dxe4 21.:1'1hxd1 exf3 + 2 2 .
�xf3 =) 12 . . . 0 - 0 13.�f4
Now:
Black should refrain from 13 . . .
\WaS 14.\Wc2 <LlcS 1S.dxcS d 4 since
after 16.0-0-0 dxc3 17.<LlgS E1fS
18.�c4 he is in a great trouble.
13 . . . �e7 14.a3. White is able to
hold his centre in this paradoxical
fashion and thus retain the open­
ing advantage. (It is weaker to
play 14.\Wd2? gS ! 1S.<LlxgS �xgS
16.hgS ti:lxd4 17.�g2 <LlxeS 18.
0-0-0 E1f2 19.\Wxf2 <Llb3+ 20.
axb3 \Wxf2 2 1.:1'1d2 \WfS 2 2 .�h6
<Lld3+ 23.<±>b1 <Llf2 + 0-1 Dolmatov
- Bareev, Elista 1997. White
should also avoid 14.�h3? \Wxb2
1S.\Wc1 - 1S.�xe6+ ? <±>h8 16.ti:la4
\Wg2 ! - + - 1S . . . \Wxc1 + 16.:1'1xc1 <Llb6
17.<LlbS <Lld8 18.<Llc7 :1'1b8 19.0-0
h6 2 0 .�d2 <Llc4 2 l .�c3 bS and
White lost this pawn-down end­
game, Anand - Sisniega, Phila-
delphia 1987.) 14 . . . :1'1f7 1S.ti:la4
\Wd8 16.h4 <Llf8 (16 . . . <Llb6 ! ?) 17.
�d3 �d7 18.b4 b6 19.<Llc3 aS 2 0 .
bS <Lla7 21.<LlgS hgS 2 2 .�xgS \WeB
23 .\We2 :1'1c8 24.�d2 :1'1c7 2S.E1fl
E1xf1+ 26.\t>xfl± Dubinin - Ala­
tortsev, Leningrad 1947.
13 . . . <LldxeS ! This is a powerful
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. {/j c3 {/jj6 4.e5 [jjjd7 5. {/jce2 c5 6j4 {/j c6
tactical resource, in complete har­
mony with Black's sound strategy.
14 . .ixeS (14.{/jxeS? {/jxeS 1S.
.ixeS .ixc3 + 16.bxc3 'Wb2 17 . .if4
'Wxc3 + 18. 'tt> f2 gS and White is in
trouble; 14.dxeS .iaS ! ? 1S.'Wd2 d4.
Black regains his piece and has a
perfectly acceptable position.)
14 ... {/jxeS 1S.{/jxe5 .ixc3+ 16.bxc3
'Wb2 17.'Wc1 'Wf2 + 18.'tt> d 1 'Wxfl + !
This i s a key move. 19.Ei:xfl Ei:xfl+
20. 'tt> d 2 Ei:xc1 2l.Ei:xc1 b6 2 2 . Ei:f1
Ei:b8 23.Ei:f7 Ei:b7 and despite
Black's solid extra pawn, White
should be able to hold the draw,
Robson - Meier, Lubbock 2 0 1 0 .
9 • • • .ie7
After 9 . . . aS? 10 .g3, Black can­
not base his counterplay on any
checks. 10 . . . .ie7 ll . .ih3 {/jf8 1 2 .
0-0 a 4 13.exf6 gxf6 14.fS cxd4
1S.cxd4 eS 16.{/jc3 Ei:aS 17.\t>h1 e4
18 .{/jh4 'Wxd4 19.'WhS+ lt>dS 2 0 .
Ei:d1 +- Vasiukov - Kaminik, Bad
Wildbad 1993.
1 0 .h4
If 10 .b4, play usually transpos­
es to a line we shall analyse below.
10 . . . cxd4 11.{/jexd4 {/jxd4 12.cxd4
0-0 13 . .id3 fxeS 14.dxeS aS 1S.bS
a4 16.h4 h6 17. 'tt> f1 {/jcS 18 . .ie3
.id7 19 .Ei:b1 and Black agreed to a
draw in a position where she had
an overwhelming advantage, Mo­
rozevich - Zhukova, Mainz 2 0 04.
10 . . . 0 - 0
1U�h3
The situations clarifies consid­
erably after 1l.b4 cxd4 12.cxd4 aS
13.bS ! This is an important and
quite natural stratagem. 13 . . .
'WxbS 14.{/jc3 'Wb6 1S.Ei:b1 'WdS
16 ..id3
(diagram)
Black's extra pawn is com­
pletely irrelevant in this position.
However, he has other pluses . . .
16 . . . fxeS (Or 1 6 . . . h 6 17 . .ic2 b6
18.'Wd3 fS 19.g4 .ia6 20. {/jbS {/ja7
2 l.a4 {/jc6 2 2 . .id2 {jj b4 23 . .ixb4
311
Chapter 37
hb4+ 24.'it>d1 Elc8 25.Elb3 1xb5
2 6 . axb5 V!ffe 7 with great advantage
to Black, Firman - Podolchenko,
Minsk 2006; 17.li:Jb5 f5 18.Wffc 2
li:Jb6 19.g4 li:Jc4 2 0 .Wffg 2 fxg4 2 1 .
V!ffxg4 Elf5 2 2 .Elg1 if8 23 .h5 li:Je7
24.li:Jh4 Ela6 25.a4 id7 and the
position is very complicated from
a strategic point of view, Bauer -
Carlsson, Kerner 2 0 07.)
17.dxe5 (In reply to 17.li:Jg5?
the computer suggests a radical
continuation - 17 . . . exd4 18.
hh7+ 'it>h8 and "says" that
Black's position is acceptable . . . It
looks as though this is true. Nev­
ertheless, I prefer the "human"
solution to the problem : 17 . . . e4
18.li:Jxe6 V!ffe 8 19.li:Jxf8 exd3 2 0 .
li:Jxd7 ib4+ and Black seizes the
initiative. He can counter 17.fxe5
with 17 . . . li:Jxd4 18.li:Jxd4 li:Jxe5
19.1g5 h6 2 0.he7 V!ffx e7 with suf-
312
ficient compensation for the
knight. He can also try 17 . . . Elxf3
18.gxf3 li:Jxd4 19 .hh7+ lt>xh7
2 0 .V!ffxd4 and the position is un­
clear.)
17 . . . h6 (An earlier recommen­
dation loses practically by force :
17 . . . li:J c5? 18.hh7+ ! 'it>xh7 19.
li:Jg5+ 'it>g8 2 0 .Wffh 5 1xg5 2 1.hxg5
li:Jd3+ 2 2 . 'it>e2 li:Jxc1 + 23.Elbxc1
li:Jd4+ 24.\t>d1 li:Jf5 25.li:Jb5 V!ffe 8
26.Wffh 7+ 'it>f7 27.Elc7+ id7 28.g4
V!ffe 7 29.gxf5 1-0 Bindrich -
Straub, Deizisau 2 004. But not
18.li:Jb5 li:Jxd3+ 19.V!ffx d3 h6 2 0 .
Wffg 6 id7 2 1 .li:Jg5 hg5 2 2 .hxg5
li:Je7 23.V!ffd3 hb5 24.Elxb5 V!ffc 7
25.1d2 hxg5 26.Wffh 7+ 'it>f7 27.Elh6
li:Jf5 28.Elf6+ 'it>e7 and Black pre­
vailed in the subsequent mind­
boggling struggle, Bologan - Bau­
er, Belfort 2 0 0 2 . ) 18.li:Jg5 (18.
li:Ja4? li:Jc5 19.li:Jxc5 hc5 2 0 .li:Jg5
V!ffc 7 2 1.ih7+ ? 'it>h8 2 2 .Wff d 3 li:Jxe5 !
23.fxe5 Wffxe5+ 24.'it>d1 id7- +
and White can already resign,
Armbrust - Kipper, Germany
2 007) 18 . . . li:Jc5 19.1h7+ 'it>h8 2 0 .
ic2 d4+
ll . . . a5 12.b3
The play of both sides might
seem rather mysterious to any
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. Ci'J c3 l:i'Jf6 4.e5 l:i'Jfd7 5. Ci'J ce2 c5 6j4 l:i'J c6
non-specialists in this variation.
12 .•• �c7
It is a bit passive for Black to
opt for 12 . . . Wd8 13.Ci'Jg3 Ci'Jb6 14.
id3 f5 15.ic2 id7 16.ie3 cxd4 17.
cxd4 a4 18.b4 l:i'Ja7 19.Ci'Jh5 ie8
2 0 . Ci'Jg5 Wc8 2 U'k1 Ci'Jc4 2 2 J'1g3
ig6, but he is still better here,
Smirin - Psakhis, Las Vegas 1999.
13.tbegl
White loses immediately after
13. Ci'Jg3?? cxd4 (There was only
one game played with this line
and Black decided to trust his op­
ponent and played only to equal­
ize : 13 . . . b6 14.id3 f5 15.Ci'Jg5 ixg5
16.hxg5 g6 17.ie3 ia6 18. mf2
ixd3 19.'\Wxd3 E!f7 20.E!hh1 E!c8
2 1 . E!hcl cxd4 2 2 . cxd4 Wb7 23.Ci'Je2
E!ff8 24.Ci'Jc3 and the players
agreed to a draw, Klimov - Danin,
Smolensk 2 005.) 14.cxd4 fxe5
15.fxe5 Ci'Jdxe5-+
13 ..• a4
Anand recommended 13 . . . b6 ! ?
i n his annotations to the game
and this move gives Black an ex­
cellent position. 14.ie3 ia6 15.
ixa6 E!xa6. Now White's attack-
ing potential is considerably di­
minished and we start to wonder
why he deployed his kingside
pieces in this awkward fashion.
16.Wd3 b5 ! 17.E!a2 c4 18. bxc4
bxc4 19.Wc2 E!b8 2 0 .a4 E!ab6 and
Black is clearly better, Netzer -
Picard, Mulhouse 2006.
14.b4 fxe5 15.fxe5 ll::l dxe5
This is a risky decision in the
style of Alexey Shirov.
16.dxe5 ll::l xe5 17.ll::l xe5
�xe5+ 18.�e2 hh4+ ?
Anand recommended here the
move 18 . . . Wc7, followed by the
advance of his centre pawns. Nev­
ertheless, White is slightly better.
19.c!>dt
19 �f6? (Black had to con­
.••
tinue here with 19 . . . Wxe 2 + , but
he did not create created such
chaos on the board just to end up
exchanging queens . . . ) 2 0 .ll::l f3
�xc3 21.i.b2 �b3 + 22.c!>cl e5
23J.,�xh4 i.f5 24.�dl e4 25.
�xb3 axb3 26. ll::l d 2 e3 27.ll::l f3
and White realized his two extra
pieces, Anand - Shirov, New Del­
hi/Teheran 2 0 0 0.
313
Chapter 38 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.tiJc3 ttJf6 4.e5 ttJfd7
5.f4 c5
6.ltlf3
White should avoid the inferi­
or line 6.dxc5 'Llc6 (White can an­
swer 6 . . . ixc5 with 7.Wg4 ! ?) 7.a3
ixc5 8.Wg4 0-0 9.id3 (9J2jf3.
Here it would be interesting for
Black to try 9 . . . Wb6 ! ? 10 .id3
if2 + 1l.We2 f5 12 .Wh3 'Llc5 with a
good position.) After 9 . . . We7 10.
id2 f6 1l.Wh4 h6 1 2 .exf6 'Llxf6
13.0-0-0 e5 14.fxe5 'Llxe5 15.'Llf3
'Llxd3 + 16.cxd3 b5 17J'l:he1 Wb7
18 .ie3 ixe3 + 19.l'i:xe3 aS Black
went on to gain a winning posi­
tion, but then. . . lost the game,
Short - Morozevich, Reggio Emil­
ia 2 0 1 0 .
6 ... ltlc6 7.ie3
(diagram)
This is the key position of the
Steinitz variation. Modern chess
314
requires players to have a lot of
ideas and lines in their armoury,
so that they can vary their lines
from game to game. I shall thor­
oughly analyze the move 7 . . . cxd4
in the next two chapters, so here I
should like to recommend to
Black two other back-up lines : a)
7 . . . Wb6 and b) 7 . . . a6 .
Attentive readers might have
noticed that recently the author
of this book has been regularly
playing 7 . . . ie7. I should like to
leave extensive analysis of this
variation for a future book of
mine . . .
Black sometimes plays even
more extravagantly (although
with the same ideas as in varia­
tion b: 7 . . . l'i:b8 8 .Wd2 (The world­
famous exponent of the French
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. liJc3 liJf6 4.e5 liJfd7 5f4 c5 6. liJ.f3 liJc6 7. ie3 Vf1 b6
defence, Viktor Lvovich Korch­
noi, treated this position in a very
original fashion : 8 .ie2 cxd4
9 .liJxd4 ic5 10.Vfid2 0-0 1 1 .l'!d1
Vfih4+ 1 2 .if2 Vf1e7 13.0-0 liJb6
14.liJcb5 id7 15.Vf1e3 liJxd4 16.
liJxd4 B:bc8 17.Vf1h3 f5 18.c3 Vf1e8
19.ih5 g6 2 0 .ie2 ixd4 2 1 . l'!xd4
ib5 and Black equalized, Landa
- Korchnoi, Reggio Emilia 2 007)
8 . . . Vf1a5 9 . a3 b5
10.l'!a2. This paradoxical ma­
noeuvre has recently become an
integral part of White's strategy in
the Steinitz variation. White de­
fends against b4 and leaves his
rook on the a-file in case it be­
comes open. 10 . . . c4 11.f5 ie7 1 2 .
fxe6 fxe6 13.g3 0 - 0 14.ig2 liJb6
15.0-0 liJa4 16.liJe2 vt1xd2 17.hd2
liJb6 18 .ih3 liJa8 19.ig4 liJc7 2 0 .
h 4 a 5 2 1.c3 id7 2 2 .liJf4 liJ d 8 2 3 .
l'!aa1 liJf7 24.ih3 !'!aS 25.g4 liJd8
26.g5 liJc6 27.liJh5 <i>h8 2 8 .liJf6 !
and White triumphed i n the ensu­
ing struggle, Bologan - Korchnoi,
Gibraltar 2006.
If White does not hinder
Black's queenside pawn-storm,
he cannot count on any advan­
tage : 9 .ie2 (instead of 9.a3) 9 . . .
b5 10.0-0 b4 11.liJd1 ia6 12 .ixa6
vt1xa6 13.liJf2 ie7 14.liJd3 c4
15.liJf2 c3 ! ? Vadim Zvjaginsev's
ideas can often be beyond the log­
ical understanding of mortal hu­
man players, but you just have to
accept that that is the way he
plays. (Here, for example, he
could have considered quieter
moves such as 15 . . . id8 ! ?) 16.bxc3
Vf1c4 17.cxb4 ixb4 18.Vf1d3 liJb6
19.B:ab1 Vf1xd3 20.cxd3 <i>d7 and
Black survived in this endgame,
Jakovenko - Zvjaginsev, Moscow
2 005.
a) 7 Vf1b6
. . .
I think you should make this
move part of your opening ar­
moury.
8.ll:\ a4
It is riskier for White to opt for
8.Vf1d2 vt1xb2 9.B:b1 Vf1a3 10.ib5 ! ?
(10.liJb5? vt1xa2 ll.l'!c1 B:b8 12 .ie2
cxd4 13.liJfxd4 ib4 14.c3 Vf1xd2+
15.<i>xd2 ic5 and White has no
compensation whatsoever for the
two sacrificed pawns, Ragger -
Andreikin, Gaziantep 2008. In
the game Nakamura - Mo-
315
Chapter 38
rozevich, Reggio Emilia 2 0 1 2 ,
White continued with 10.f5? ! a6
11.fxe6 fxe6 12 . .te2 .te7 13 .0-0
0-0 14. i>h1 cxd4 15.Ct:Jxd4 tt:Jdxe5,
but in the resulting position he
could already resign.) 10 . . . c4
(10 .. .'�a5 ? ! 11.0-0 c4 12.f5 tt:Jb6
13.\19e1 exf5 14.a4 .te6 15 . .td2 .tb4
16J''1 xb4 �xb4 17.Ct:Je4 �b2 18.
Ct:Jd6+ i>f8 19 . .tc3 �xc2 2 0 .Ct:Jxb7
tt:Jxa4 2 L.tb4+ ci>g8 22 ..txc6 �c8
23.�f2 �b3 24.Ct:Ja5+- Kamslq -
Akobian, Saint-Louis 2011) 11.f5
tt:Jb6 12 .f6 g6 13.0-0 .td7 14.bc6
bxc6 15.Ct:Je2 h6 16 .c3 0-0-0 17.
h4 ci>b7 18.Ct:Jh2 i>a8 19. Ct:Jg4 g5
2 0 .hxg5 hxg5� Sethuraman -
Volkov, Vrachati 2 0 1 1 .
I t i s too slow for White t o play
8.a3? ! cxd4 9.Ct:Jxd4 .tc5 10.Ct:Ja4
�aS+ 1 l.c3 .txd4 12 . .txd4 Ct:Jxd4
13.�xd4 b6 14 . .te2 (White should
not go into an endgame here, be­
cause his knight on a4 will be un­
able to come into play any time
soon: 14.�b4 �xb4 15.axb4 ci>e7
16 ..tb5 .tb7 17. 0-0 �hd8 18.i>f2
f6 19 . .txd7 �xd7 2 0 . i>e3 �f8 2 l.b3
.tc6 2 2 .Ct:Jb2 .tbs 23.�f3 ci>d8 24.
�d1 ci>e7 25.�a1 �c7 26.i>d4 .te8
27.�e1 .tg6 with advantage to
Black, Nunn - Ehlvest, Reykjavik
1988.) 14 . . . .ta6 15 . .td1 �b5 16.b4
�c8 17.Ct:Jb2 �c6 18.�c1 0-0
(Black can resort to a more con­
crete response here - 18 .. .f6 19.
exf6 tt:Jxf6 2 0 . .tf3 ? ! 0-0 2l.c4?
�d7 2 2 . a4 .txc4 23.tt:Jxc4 �xa4
24.0-0 �xb4 and he gained a
winning position in the game
Gueroff - Jackelen, Germany
316
1989; 2 0 . .ta4 .tb5 2 L.tb5 �b5 2 2 .
c4 dc4 23.0-0 �d5 with pressure
for Black.) 19.a4 .tc4 20 . .tg4 .tb3
21.0-0 .txa4 2 2 . f5 .tb5 23.�fe1
�feB 24.�e3 f6 ! and the young
Filipino player triumphed with
Black over his very experienced
opponent, Kamsky - So, Khanty­
Mansiysk 2009.
8 . . .'�a5+ 9.c3
9 . . . cxd4
This is an aggressive move
based on a piece-sacrifice. Inci­
dentally, Black is not obliged to
play so riskily. He has alternatives
which lead to a quiet positional
struggle.
9 . . . c4 10.b4 �c7 1 1.g3 .te7 12 .
.th3 (12 . .tg2 ! ? f5 13 .0-0 tt:Jf8 14.
�b1 b6 15.g4 ! fxg4 16.Ct:Jd2 Ct:Jg6?
17.f5 exf5 18.bd5 �d7 19 . .txc4
f4 20 . .txf4 Ct:Jxd4 2 L.tg3 Ct:Je6 2 2 .
Ct:Je4+- Edouard - Michiels, Ant­
werp 2011. Black should have
been less generous and preserved
his centre with 16 . . . h5 17.f5 tt:Jd8
and Black should be able to with­
stand his opponent's initial offen­
sive.)
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. lb c3 CiJf6 4.e5 11Jfd7 5/4 c5 6. 11Jj3 CiJ c6 7. �e3 Vfff b 6
1 2 . . . 11Jf8 (One of the important
guidelines for Black in this posi­
tion is not to allow his opponent
to re-activate the knight on a4,
which is reminiscent of Black's
knight on a5 in the Ruy Lopez.
12 . . . b5? ! 13.11Jc5 a5 14.a3 axb4
15.axb4 !'lxa1 16.Vfffx a1 CiJxc5 17.
dxc5 0-0 18.11Jd4 CiJxd4 19.hd4
�b7 2 0 . 0 - 0 and White enjoys a
comfortable advantage, Svidler -
Bareev, Elista 1997.) 13.0-0 b6
14.�g2 �d8 15.CiJb2 CiJe7. It is
worth noting Black's play here. It
looks as though his manoeuvres
are completely random and not
based on any coherent idea. This
assumption is entirely wrong,
however . . . 16.a4 a6 17.11Jd2 !'la7
18.Vfffe 2 b5 19.�f2 �d7 2 0 .g4 (Hav­
ing seen what happens later, it
can be recommended to White to
play 2 0.a5 here.) 20 . . . h5 2 1.gxh5
a5 ! 2 2 . axb5 hb5 23.bxa5 !'lxa5
24.!'lfb1 CiJf5 25.11Jd1 g6 ! 2 6.hxg6
CiJxg6 27.�g3 CiJxd4 28.cxd4 c3
29.Vffff2 c2 30.11Jb3 !'la2 ! Once the
position opened up, Black's play
was very impressive and he soon
obtained a decisive advantage in
the game Bologan - Volkov, Sochi
2006.
The other plan for White be-
gins with the move - 1l.�e2 .
Here a true master o f such po­
sitions, Sergey Volkov, has tried
various moves. 1l.. .�e7 (He can
place another piece on the e7-
square : 1 1 . . . 11Je7 12.0-0 CiJb8. It
might look as though Black is re­
placing his pieces ready to begin
the next game, but you need to
have a very specific understand­
ing of these positions in order to
play them successfully. 13.11Jh4
CiJg6 14.11Jxg6 hxg6 15.�g4 CiJc6
16.!'lb1 b6 17.!'lf3 �d7 18.!'lh3 !'lxh3
19 .hh3 !'lb8 2 0.�g4 a5 2 1 .bxa5
CiJxa5 2 2 .11Jb2 b5+ Salem - Vol­
kov, Dubai 2 0 0 2.) 12.0-0
12 ... 11Jf8 (12 . . .f5 13.�f2 CiJf8
14.�h4 CiJg6 15.�xe7 CiJgxe7 16.
V!ffe 1 �d7 17.�d1 b6 18.V!ffg3 0-0
19.CiJb2. White has not achieved
much, but Black decided to be the
317
Chapter 38
first to sharpen the game and af­
ter 19 . . . bS? ! 2 0 .a4 aS? 2 l.axbS
LL'l a7 2 2 .b6! Wxb6 23 J''1 x aS, he
ended up a pawn down in an infe­
rior position, Almasi - Volkov,
Nakhchivan 2011.) 13.LL'lb2 �d7
14.a4. It seems that White has se­
cured his queenside and will soon
begin his kingside offensive. The
position on the board however,
changes with dramatically speed.
14 . . . LL'lg6 1S.We1 fS 16.LL'lgS 0-0 17.
Wg3 a6 18J'U3 bS 19.aS LL'lxb4 !
White's attack never even started
and Black's pawn-mass settled
the issue, Shomoev - Volkov,
Tomsk 2006.
Black can also try a very clever
move order here - 9 . . . b6 10.�d2
c4 1 1.b4
ll . . . Wa6. The drawback of this
move is that Black's queen is mis­
placed. (Black can sacrifice a piece
here, but only with the idea of
building a fortress - 1 1 . . .LL'lxb4
12. cxb4 �xb4 13 .hb4 Wxb4+ 14.
�f2 bS 1S.LL'lcS LL'lxcS 16.dxcS
WxcS+ 17.Wd4 Wxd4+ 18.LL'lxd4
�d7 19.�e2 �e7 2 0 .a3 aS 2 U ' 1hb1
l'J:hb8 2 2 . �e3 l'J:b6 23 .�d1 f6? !
This i s the wrong plan. Black had
only to make one more useful
318
move - 23 ... l'J:ab8 ! ? and then he
could just sit tight and wait. 24.
�c2 h6 2S.h4 l'J:ab8 26.g4 E1f8 27.
l'o:h1 fxeS 2 8 .fxeS E1bb8 29.gS. The
position has been opened up in
White's favour, Karjakin - Ernst,
Wijk aan Zee 2 00S.) 12 .a3 �e7 13.
g3 fS 14.exf6. The aggressive
Finnish player obviously disliked
a closed pawn structure. 14 . . . gxf6
1S.fS eS 16.�h3 �b7 17. 0-0
0-0-0. Black's queen is a sorry
sight, but things were not as trag­
ic as they seem . . . 18.l"1b1 bS 19.
LL'lcS LL'lxcS 2 0.bxcS l'J:he8 2 l .l'o:e1
�f8 2 2 .Wc1 LL'laS 23.Wb2 LL'lb3 24.
�e3 hcS ! 2S.dxcS d4 and Black
seized the initiative, Nyback -
Volkov, Plovdiv 2 008.
1 0 .b4 .!Llxb4 11.cxb4 .ixb4+
12.�d2 hd2 + 13 . .!Llxd2
White's pieces seem to be mis­
placed at the moment. Can Black
exploit this and if so, how?
It is true that nowadays theory
considers White's prospects to be
superior . . .
13 . . . b6
It has been proved that the
move 13 . . . gS does not provide
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. Ci'J c3 Ci'Jf6 4.e5 Ci'Jfd7 5f4 c5 6. Ci'Jf3 Ci'J c6 7. �e3 Wfb6
Black with an acceptable position.
14J"1b1 gxf4 (White won beauti­
fully after 14 . . . a6 15.�d3 gxf4
16.0-0 4Jxe5 17.4Jb6 l"lb8 18.4Jxc8
- 18.4Jf3 ! ? - 18 . . . l"lxc8 19.l"lxb7
4Jxd3 20 .Wfh5 0-0 21 . 4Je4 l"lc1
2 2 . l"lxc1 4Jxc1 23.4Jf6+ lt>g7 24.
4Je8+ Wh8 25.Wfe5+ f6 26.l"lxh7+
Kalegin - Okotchik, Russia 1992.)
15 .�b5 l"lb8 16.4Jc5 Wfc3 17.4Jd3 a6
18.l"lc1 Wfa3 19.Wfb3 Wfa5 2 0 .hd7+
�xd7 21.4Jxf4± Short - Timman,
Amsterdam 1994.
Another possible try for White
here is 13 . . . 0- 0 ! ? 14.�d3 b5 15.
Ci'Jb2 Ci'Jb6 16.0-0 (It is weaker for
White to play the cautious move
16.Wfc2 Ci'Jc4 17.hh7+ Wh8 18.
�d3 �d7 19.We2 l"lac8 2 0 .4Jf3 f6
2 1.hc4 bxc4 2 2 .4Jxd4 fxe5 23.
fxe5 l"lf4 and White is unable to
maintain the blockade, so Black's
position is good enough. He has
no problems either after 18.4Jbxc4
bxc4 19.0-0 d3 2 0.�xd3 cxd3
21.Wfxd3 �a6 2 2 .Wfh3 + Wg8 23.
l"lf2 l"lac8 .) 16 . . . 4Jc4
17.�xh7+ ! ? This is a key point
in this variation - White has a
very powerful attack. (He should
not change the move-order: 17.
Ci'Jf3 ? ! 4Jxb2 18.hh7+ lt>h8 ! ) 17 . . .
lt>xh7 18 .Wfh5+ lt>g8 19.4Jf3 g 6 (It
would possibly be more interest­
ing for Black to try 19 .. .f6 2 0 .4Jxc4
bxc4?! 21.exf6 Wfc7 2 2 . fxg7 Wfxg7
23.4Je5 l"lf5 24.Wlh4, but the ab­
sence of any pawn cover for his
king might be a telling factor in
the near future; but after 20 . . .
dxc4 ! 2 1 .exf6 Wfc7 2 2 .fxg7 Wlxg7
23.Wfb5 White slight initiative
proves to be temporary. However,
White can avoid this line if he ex­
changes on c4 on move 17, when
capturing with the d-pawn would
not be good for Black.) 2 0 .Wfh6
Wfc7. Black's position is so dubi­
ous that I am not sure that he can
hold it, so this line cannot be rec­
ommended. 2 1 .4Jh4 (21.4Jd3 ! ?)
2 1 . . .f6 ( 2 1 . . .4Jxb2 2 2 . l"lf3+-) 2 2 .
4Jxg6 Wfg7 23 .Wfh5 l"l f7 24.4Jxc4
dxc4 25.l"lf3 Wfh7 26.Wfg4 l"lg7 27.
l"lg3 l"lb8 2 8.h4 f5 29 .Wfg5 l"lxg6
and the game ended in a draw by
a perpetual, Quesada Perez - Cor­
dova, Havana 2009.
Recently the theoretical de­
bates in this position have been
focused on the move 17.4Jbxc4,
for example, 17 . . . dxc4
18.�xh7 lt>xh7 19.Wfh5 lt>g8
2 0 .4Jf3 g6 2 1 .Wfh6 Wfc7 2 2 .f5 ( 2 2 .
319
Chapter 38
lt'lh4 d3 23.E1f3 E1e8 24.lt'lxg6 fxg6
25.E1g3 'Wh7 26.E1xg6+ Wh8 27.
'Wg5 E1f8 28.E1h6 E1b8 29.E1xh7+
<±>xh7 30 .'Wh5+ <±>g7 31.'Wg5+ <±>h7
32.f5 E1xf5 33 .'We7+ Wg6 34.'Wc7
E1a8 35.E1b1 E1f7 36.'Wc6 d2 37.'Wa4
�d7 38.'Wc2 + Wg7 39 .'Wxd2 and
White realized his advantage in
the game Edouard - Hovhani­
sian, Antwerp 2011) 22 .. .f6 (22 . . .
exfS 23.E1ae1 f6 24.exf6 'Wh7 25.
'Wf4 'Wf7 26.E1e7 'Wxf6 27.E1fe1 E1f7
2 8 . E1xf7 Wxf7 29.lt'lg5+ Wg7 30.
'Wc7+ <±>h6 31.'Wh7+ <±>xg5 32 .g3
1-0 Zherebukh - Jaiswal, New
Delhi 2011.) 23 .fxg6 'Wg7 24.'Wh5
�d7 25.exf6 E1xf6 26.lt'le5 E1af8
27.E1xf6 E1xf6 28.E1b1 �e8 29.E1b8
E1f8 30.'Wh3 hg6 31.'Wxe6+ �f7
3 2 . E1xf8+ 'Wxf8 33.'Wg4+ 'Wg7 34.
'Wxd4, Black's position is accepta­
ble in this endgame, Frolyanov -
Danin, Belgorod 2010 .
14.�d3 �a6
Black plays quietly, relying on
his three pawns and White's un­
coordinated pieces.
15.liJb2 ttlc5
After 15 . . . hd3 16.lt'ld2 lt'lc5
17.lt'lf2 , White easily consolidates
320
his position; 16 . . . 'Wc3 17.We2 0-0
18.'Wb 1 ! - Black is in a big trouble.
16.i.xa6 'Wxa6 17.'1We2
17 'Wa3
• • •
Black does not achieve much
with 17 . . . d3 18 .'We3 'Wa3 19.'Wd4
0-0 20.0-0 E1ac8 21.lt'ld1 E1fd8
2 2 .lt'lf2 lt'le4 ! ? This is an interest­
ing decision. He gives up a pawn
with the idea of creating a power­
ful passed pawn, supported by his
rooks. 23.lt'lfxe4 dxe4 24.'We3 E1c2
25.lt'lxe4 'Wb2 26.'Wf3 d2 27.E1ad1
E1d5 28.h3 h6 29.Wh2 E1c1 30.'We3
E1xd1 31.E1xd1 'Wxa2 32 .E1xd2.
Black saved the game, but he was
on the verge of losing throughout,
Psakhis - Dizdar, Portoroz 1987.
18.'Wb5+ �e7 19. 0 - 0
White's knights are rather
misplaced, but Black cannot ex­
ploit this.
19 'We3+
• • • 2 0 .E1f2 1'!hc8
21.1'!afl
2 1.E1d1 g6 22.lt'lf1 'Wa3 23.E1xd4
'Wxa2 24.lt'lg3 'Wb3 25.'We2 -
White has the better prospects in
the ensuing struggle, Chandler -
M .Gurevich, Leningrad 1987.
21. .. g6 22.ttlb3 ttlxb3 23.
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 dS 3. ltJ c3 ltJf6 4.e5 ltJfd7 5j4 c5 6. 4Jj3 4Jc6 7. 1l.e3 a6
tbdl �e4 24. axb3 l'k5 25.�a6
@f8 26.�d2 'it>g7 27.�a4 �bl
28.�xd4± and White went on to
win, S.Zhigalko - Podolchenko,
Minsk 2 0 11.
b) 7 ... a6
This is a very logical move.
Black's plan is extremely simple
- he will advance his queenside
pawns as far as the opponent per­
mits.
8.�d2
8.4Je2 ! ? This is an original and
fashionable move. White is trying
to emphasize that Black's last
move is useless, by transposing to
positions more typical of the
S.lij ce2 variation. However, the
point is that White's extra tempo
- the move ie3 - might even turn
out to be harmful for him. Black
has some active, concrete possi­
bilities up his sleeve. 8 . . . �b6
(Black has a reasonable alterna­
tive here : 8 . . . ie7 9.c3 0-0 10.a3
f6 11.4Jg3 cxd4 12.cxd4 �b6 13.
�d2 ltJ aS 14.:gd1 �b3 ! 1s.:gc1 4Jb6
16.:gc3 �a2 17.id3 4Jbc4 18.�c2
fS 19.ic1 bS 2 0 . 0 - 0 b4 21.axb4
hb4+ Svidler - Vitiugov, Mos­
cow 2 0 0 9 ; lO.dxcS ! ? ttJxcS 11.
4Jed4 4Jxd4 1 2 .4Jxd4 id7 13.ie2
with relatively quiet play.) 9.Wc1
(With 9.:gb1 WaS+ 10 .id2 Wc7
1 1.c3 bS 12 .f5 exfS 13.4Jf4 4Jb6
14.id3 c4 15.ic2 ie7 16.0-0 g6
17.b3 cxb3 18.axb3 0-0 19 .�e1
4Jd8 2 0 .c4 dxc4 2 1.ia5 ib7 2 2 .
bxc4 hf3 23.:gxf3 Wxc4, White
sacrificed too much material and
went on to lose, Shirov - An­
dreikin, Plovdiv 2010.)
9 ... g5 ! This is a standard way
of undermining White's centre.
(The well-known French Defence
expert Vladimir Potkin tried the
developing move 9 . . . ie7 here and
obtained a good position: 10 .g3
cxd4 11.4Jexd4 ltJcS 12 .ih3 i'h'aS +
13. Wf2 id7 14. 4Jb3 4Je4+ 15. Wg2
Wc7 16.c4 4Jb4 17.cxd5 i'h'c2 + 18.
Wxc2 4Jxc2 19.ib6 4Jxa1 20.dxe6
fxe6 2 1.:gxal+ Shirov - Potkin,
Khanty-Mansiysk 2011.) 10 .c3
(Here 10.fxg5 cxd4 11.4Jexd4
ttJdxeS? 12.4Jxc6 ! 4Jxf3 + 13.gxf3
Wxc6 14.id4 :ggs 15.id3 and
Black will have problems ; 11 . . .
ttJcxeS 12.4Jxe5 ttJxeS 13.c3 4Jg4 ! ;
13.ie2 icS 14.c3 4Jc6 15.Wd2 eS
321
Chapter 38
16.Lt:l xc6 bxc6 17.�xcS ®'xeS -
Black's centre should compensate
for the vulnerability of his king.
Instead it would be interesting for
Black to play: 13 . . . h6 ! ? 14.gxh6
�xh6 1S.�xh6 'Wxd4 16.'Wf4 'Wxf4
17.�xf4 'Llc6 with a very compli­
cated endgame.) 10 . . . cxd4 11.cxd4
�b4+ 1 2 . �f2 f6 13 .g3 g4 ! Mo­
rozevich improves on his own
previous game. (Or 13 . . . E1f8? 14.
�g2 g4 1S.l2:lh4 E1g8 16.h3 hS 17.
hxg4 hxg4 18.'Llc3 fxeS 19 .fxeS
'LlcxeS 20.dxeS d4 2 1 .'Lla4 'WaS
2 2 .'Wc4 'LlxeS 23.'Wxd4 'Llf3 24.
'Llxf3 gxf3 + 2S.�f2 'Wxa4 26.�d3±
Topalov - Morozevich, Morelia/
Linares 20 07.) 14.'Llh4 fxeS 1S.
fxeS 'LldxeS 16.dxeS d4 17.�f4 E1f8
18.�g2 �d7 19 .h3 d3 20.hxg4
dxe2 2 1.�xe2 'Lld4, White's king is
in a more perilous situation than
its black counterpart, Predojevic
- Morozevich, Sarajevo 2008.
8 . . . b5
9.a3
This is the most fashionable
move in the position. White tem­
porarily impedes the advance of
his opponent's pawns.
322
He has also tried several alter­
natives, since there are many rea­
sonable moves in this position.
It would not be advisable for
White to opt for 9.fS?! cxd4 10.
fxe6 (10 .'Lld4 'LldxeS 1l.fxe6 he6 !
- this is the move which makes
the difference - 1 2 . 0-0-0 E1c8
and it now seems a mystery why
White sacrificed the pawn in the
first place.) 10 . . . fxe6 11.'Llxd4
(White also played the move
11.�xd4 and it can be evaluated
thus: he obtained a good game in
the end, but not without effort.)
1 1 . . . 'Llxd4 (It is too risky for Black
to play ll . . . 'LldxeS 1 2 .�e2 , fol­
lowed by 0-0 and White has com­
pensation, since Black's king is
stranded in the centre.) 12 .�xd4
�cS, with an excellent game for
Black. Having exchanged the f­
pawn, White has merely created a
weakness for himself on eS.
9.g3 b4 10.'Lle2
10 ... g6. This is an important
prophylactic move. (I had a game
in which I played routinely and
carelessly and I was punished for
it. lO . . . aS? ! 1l.fS ! cxd4 12.'Llexd4
'Llxd4 13.'Llxd4 'LlxeS 14. 0-0-0
�d7 1S.�f4 'Llc4 16.'We2? - 16.
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. tt'J c3 tt'Jf6 4.e5 tt'Jfd7 5.f4 c5 6. tt'Jf3 tt'J c6 7. .ie3 a6
.ixc4 ! dxc4 17.'1We2 and Black's
position was practically hopeless
- 16 . . . '1Wf6 17 . .ig2 .ie7? (17 . . . .ic5 ! )
18 J':1he1 g 5 19 .fxe6 .ixe6 2 0.b3
gxf4 21.bxc4+- lnarkiev - Vitiu­
gov, Dagomys 2008.) 11 ..ig2 a5
1 2 . 0-0 .ia6 13J':1f2 h5 14.h3 '&b6
15.l"l:d1 l"l:c8 16.g4 hxg4 17.hxg4
.ixe2 18.l"l:xe2 cxd4 19.tt'Jxd4 tt'Jxd4
20 . .ixd4 '&xd4+ 21.'1Wxd4 .ic5 and
Black has good prospects in the
approaching endgame, Richards
- Kiriakov, West Bromwich 2 005.
For a long time White used to
play here 9 .dxc5 .ixc5
10 . .ixc5 (10 . .id3 '&b6 11 . .if2
b4 1 2 . tt'J a4 .ixf2 + 13.'1Wxf2 '&xf2 +
14.�xf2 .ib7 15.l"l:ac1 0-0 16.l"l:he1
l"l:fc8 17.h4 tt'Je7 18.tt'Jd4 .ic6
19.tt'Jxc6 l"l:xc6 20 .h5 f6, with a
complicated endgame, Karjakin -
So, Khanty-Mansiysk 2 0 1 1 ; 10.
tt'Je2 b4 11..ixc5 tt'Jxc5 12 .tt'Jed4
tt'Jxd4 13.'1Wxd4 '&b6 14.tt'Jd2 l"l:b8
15.tt'Jb3 tt'Ja4 16.0-0-0 0-0 17.a3
a5 18. '&xb6 l"l:xb6 19.l"l:d4 .id7 2 0 .
axb4 axb4 2 1..id3 l"l:c8 = Shomoev
- Potkin, Taganrog 2 0 1 1 ; 10 . . .
'&b6 11 . .ixc5 tt'Jxc5 12.tt'J ed4 .id7
13 .tt'Jxc6 .ixc6 14.tt'Jd4 0-0 15 . .id3
f6 16.exf6 l"l:xf6 17. 0-0-0 .ie8 18.
l"l:hf1 l"l:c8 19 .g4 '&d6 2 0 . �b1 tt'Jxd3
21.cxd3 .id7 2 2 .tt'Je2 l"l:cf8 23.l"l:g1
d4 24.h4 .ic6 25.l"l:df1 b4 and
Black was better, lnarkiev - Lysyj ,
Rijeka 2010.) 10 . . . tt'Jxc5 11.'1Wf2
(The ultra-modern move 11.b4 is
interesting only because it is very
provocative : 11 . . . tt'Jxb4 1 2 .tt'Jxb5
0-0 13.'1Wxb4 '&b6 14.a4 axb5 15.
a5 '&a7 16.'1Wd4 .id7 17 ..id3 tt'Ja4
18.0-0 l"l:tb8 19.'1Wxa7 l"l:xa7 2 0 .
l"l: fb 1 l"l:xa5co Safarli - Lintchevski,
Kirishi 2 006) 11 . . . '1Wb6
12 . .id3 (This attempt to play
tactically fails : 12 .b4?! tt'Jxb4 13.
l"l:b1 d4 ! This is a nice counter­
blow. White's idea can be best il­
lustrated in the variation 13 . . . tt'Jc6
14 . .ixb5 ! - 14.tt'Jxd4 '&a5 15.'1Wd2
tt'Jxa2 16.tt'Jd1 '&xd2+ 17. �xd2
tt'Je4+ 18.�d3 .ib7 19.l"l:b2 .idS 2 0.
�e3 tt'Jac3 and Black ends up with
an extra pawn in this endgame,
Heberla - Carlsson, Fuegen 2006.
White does not achieve much
with 15.tt'Jdxb5 tt'Je4 16.'1Wf3 tt'Jxa2
17.tt'Jc7+ �e7 18.'1Wxe4 l"l:a7 19.
tt'Jxa6 .ixa6 - 19 . . . '1Wxc3 + ! ? 2 0 . �f2
l"l:d8 - 2 0 . .ixa6 :1'1d8 2 1 . 0 - 0 tt'Jxc3
2 2 . l"l:b7+ �f8 23 .'1Wxh7 :1'1xb7 24.
.ixb7 '&b6+ 25. 'tt> h 1 '&xb7 with an
extra piece for Black, Fogarasi -
Bhat, Budapest 2001.) 12 . . . b4
323
Chapter 38
13.4Je2 aS 14. 0 - 0 .ia6 1S.c;t>h1
4Je7
We can formulate a very spe­
cific rule for Black in this position.
If White places his f-rook on d1
then, after a transition into an
endgame after 4Ja4, he can open
the queenside in his favour with
a3. So, in that case, Black should
play h6 and castle. But if White
places his a-rook on d1 then the
endgame is harmless for Black.
16 J'l:ad1 (Or 16.l:l:fd1 h6 17.4Jed4
0-0 18.�h4 l:l:a7 19.g4 4Jg6 2 0 .
.bg6 fxg6 2 l.fS l:l:af7 2 2 .gS l:l:xfS !
with a good game for Black, Main­
ka - Glek, Recklinghausen 199S;
16.b3 h6 17.l:l:ad1 l:l:b8 18 . .ixa6
4Jxa6 19.4Jfd4 tt:JcS 20.fS 4Je4 2 1 .
�f3 0-0 2 2 .4Jf4 4J c 6 23.4Jxc6
�xc6 24.fxe6 fxe6 2S.�g4 Wxc2
2 6.Wxe6+ c;t>h7 27.Wg6+ c;t>h8 28.
Wg4 4Jf2+ Berndt - Glek, Germa­
ny 2003.) 16 . . . 4Ja4 17.Wxb6 4Jxb6
18 .g3 4Jd7 19 . .ba6 l:l:xa6 20.a3
bxa3 2 l . l:l:a1 4Jb8 2 2 . l:l:xa3 4Jbc6
23.4Jc1 0-0 24.4Jd3 l:l:b6 and the
players agreed to a draw, Do­
minguez Perez - Nogueiras San­
tiago, Merida 2 0 0 2 .
It i s also quite solid for White
to play 9 . .id3, but then Black has
324
his hands free to carry out all his
own ideas. 9 . . . b4 10.4Jd1 (10.4Ja4
c4 1l..ie2 c3 12 .Wd1 cxb2 13.4Jxb2
4Jb6 14.0-0 .ie7 1S . .id3 .id7 16.
tt:JgS g6 17.l:l:f3 tt:J aS 18.l:l:h3 4Jbc4
19.4Jxc4 4Jxc4 20 . .ic1 .ia4 2 1.We1
Wb6 = Black has equalized com­
fortably, Nakamura - Wang Hao,
Moscow 2010.) 10 . . . Wb6 11.Wf2
aS 12.0-0 .ia6 13 . .ba6 l:l:xa6 14.c3
.ie7. Black has accomplished what
he wanted and the only thing
White can and should do is try to
sharpen the position. 1S.fS exfS
16 . .if4 cxd4 17.cxd4 0-0 18.c;t>h1
.id8 19.4Je3 4Je7 2 0 .l:l:ad1 h6 2 l.g4
fxg4 2 2 .4Jxg4 tt:JfS 23.l:l:g1 c;t>h8 24.
l:l:g2 l:l:g8 2S. l:l:dg1 4Jf8 2 6.Wd2 We6
and White has no compensation
for the pawn, Shaposhnikov -
Volkov, Samara 2 0 0 0 .
White sometimes plays more
cautiously: 9 . .ie2 Wb6 10.4Jd1 b4
(10 . . . cxd4 11.4Jxd4 4Jxd4 12 . .ixd4
.icS 13.c3 0-0 14.0-0 aS 1S.a3
.ib7 16.4Jf2 b4 17.4Jg4 hS 18.4Je3
g6 19.l:l:f3 .ia6 2 0 . .ba6 bxc3 2 1 .
bxc3 l:l:xa6 2 2 .g4 hxg4 23.4Jxg4
l:l:b8 24.l:l:h3 Wb2 and later White
ended the game with perpetual
check in order to avoid the worst,
Karj akin - Potkin , Moscow 2010.)
11.0-0 aS 12.c3 .ia6 13 . .ba6 Wxa6,
but the character of the position
remains more or less the same.
14.fS bxc3 1S.bxc3 exfS 16.4JgS
4Je7 17.dxcS h6 18.4Jf3 gS 19 ..id4
l:l:g8 2 0.4Je3 We6 2 l.a4 f4 2 2 .4Jc2
tt:JfS 23.4Ja3 l:l:c8, and after some
non-standard operations, Black
obtained a good position, Riazan­
tsev - Michna, Hamburg 2 00S.
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. ltJ c3 ltJf6 4.e5 ltJfd7 5j4 c5 6. ltJj3 ltJ c 6 7. .ie3 a6
White sometimes tries the hy­
peractive line : 9.h4 b4 10.ltJe2
.ie7
1l.dxc5 (Or 1l .g3? ! 0-0 12 .
.ih3 aS 13.dxc5 ltJxc5 14.ltJed4
ltJe4 15.Wfg2 Wfb6 16.0-0 .ic5 17.
E1fd1 a4 18.Wh2 a3 19.b3 ltJc3 2 0 .
E1 d 2 f6 with a n overwhelming ad­
vantage for Black, Fedorov -
Volkov, Samara 1998.) ll . . . ltJxc5
1 2 . ltJg3 h5 (12 . . . 0-0 ! ?) 13 . .ie2 g6
14.0-0 ltJ a4 15.c3 bxc3 16.bxc3
Wfa5 17.f1acl .id7 18 .f1c2 ltJa7 19.
ltJg5 ltJb5 2 0 .f5 ! ? with a rather un­
clear game which later Black
managed to win, Anand - Mo­
rozevich, Monte Carlo 2 004.
It is worth noting this game,
which was particularly important
for the outcome of the tourna­
ment, won by Alexander Grischuk
against one of the renowned ex­
perts in this variation. 9.ltJd1 ! ? b4
10 . .ie2 Wfb6? ! (Black should not
have been obsessed with the quick
development of his queenside.
The correct move was 10 . . . .ie7.)
1l.c3 bxc3 1 2 .ltJxc3 f1b8 13.b3 Wfa5
14.f1c1 cxd4 15.ltJxd4 ltJxd4 16.
.ixd4 .ia3 17.f1c2 0-0 18.ltJa4 .ib4
19 . .ic3 f6 20 . .ig4 and Black did
not survive, Grischuk - Potkin,
Khanty-Mansiysk 2 011.
9 •.. Wfb6
This is just one of his possibili­
ties. It seems to me to be very log­
ical and principled. Black contin­
ues with his queenside action , in­
creasing the pressure against the
d4-square in the process.
The fans of really sharp play
may try here the line: 9 . . . g5 ! ? 10.
fxg5 cxd4 l l .ltJxd4 ltJcxe5 12 . .ie2
.ib7 13 . 0 - 0 .ig7 14. f1ae1 0-0 15.
ltJd1 ltJc4 16 ..ixc4 dxc4 17. ltJf2
ltJe5 18 .Wfe2 c3 19. bxc3 f1c8 2 0 .
E1 d 1 Wfd5 2 1 . ltJg4 ltJxg4 2 2 . Wfxg4
f1xc3 23.ltJe2 f1c4 24.Wfg3 Wfe5 with
a better position for Black, Kar­
jakin - Morozevich, Nice 2008.
Or 9 ... .ib7 10 . .id3 g5 ! ? ll.fxg5
cxd4 1 2 .ltJxd4 ltJdxe5 13 . 0 - 0 .ig7
14. ltJxc6 .ixc6 15 . .ic5 Wfc7 16.a4
ltJc4 17.Wff2 b4 18 . .ixb4 ltJxb2 19.
l'lab1 ltJxd3 20.cxd3 .ie5 2 l.f1bcl
and White was better in the game
Jakovenko-Vitiugov, Moscow 2008.
One must be very well prepared to
cope with these sharp forcing
lines. I think this approach is very
risky and not very practical, but of
course it is quite possible.
325
Chapter 38
l O . lLle2
This move is the best.
Black equalizes easily after
10 .�e2 �b7 11.0-0 cxd4 1Vuxd4
�cS 13J'!ad1 !"k8 14J"\f3 CiJxd4 15.
�xd4 hd4+ 16.�xd4 We7 17J"\g3
Ei:hg8 18.�xb6 CiJxb6 19.Ei:d4 and
the players agreed to a draw, Na­
jer - Vitiugov, Dagomys 2009.
It would be interesting for
White to opt for 10.g3 cxd4 11.
CiJxd4 CiJxd4 12 .�xd4 �cS 13.CiJe2
�xd4 14.�xd4 �b7 15.�xb6 CiJxb6
16.CiJd4 We7 17.�h3 g6 18.�fl CiJc4
19.b3 CiJ aS 2 0 . Wd2 CiJc6 2 l . We3
CiJxd4 2 2 .Wxd4 �c6 and his posi­
tion is passive but very solid in
this endgame. 23 .�e2 hS 24.Ei:hfl
�d7 25.l"i:f3 l"i:ac8 26.l"i:c1 Ei:hg8 !
This is an important manoeuvre.
Black is maybe threatening gS,
maybe not, but White has to con­
sider this possibility. 27.h4. I
don't think White can breach
Black's defences after this move,
Nepomniachtchi - Grachev, Mos­
cow 2 0 1 0 .
10 ... b4! ?
I was able to demonstrate this
idea back in the year 2009. Black
326
opens the b-file with tempo. H e
weakens the a6-pawn in the pro­
cess, but his dynamic resources
compensate completely for this.
Despite the fact that Kasparov
himself failed to hold the position
after 10 . . . c4, Black cannot equal­
ize by reducing the tension in the
centre. 10 . . . c4 1l.g4. White must
play aggressively, otherwise Black
will continue with his queenside
offensive. ll . . . hS 12 .gxh5 Ei:xhS 13.
CiJg3 Ei:h8 14.f5 exfS 15.CiJxf5
1s . . . cuf6 ! 16.cug3 cug4 17.�f4
�e6 18 .c3 (White failed to achieve
anything in the line: 18.�g2 0-0-0
19 .c3 CiJe7 20 .h3 cuh6 2 l . CiJg5 �d7
2 2 .0-0 f6 23.exf6 gxf6 24.CiJf3
CiJg6 with the better prospects for
Black, Kurnosov - Looshnikov,
Satka 2008.) 18 . . . �e7 19.CiJg5
0-0-0 (19 . . . CiJa5 ! ?) 2 0 .CiJxe6 fxe6
2 l .�e2 CiJgxeS ! ? 2 2 .�e3 (Black
obtains some compensation after
2 2 .�xe5 CiJxeS 23.dxe5 �cS since
White's king will remain stranded
in the centre for a long time. Nev­
ertheless, White should have cho­
sen this very line, and his extra
piece might then have been the
decisive factor in the ensuing bat­
tle. 23 . . . �c7! ?) 2 2 . . . CiJd7 23 .�xe6
 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3)1jc3 ti:Jj6 4.e5 ti:Jfd7 5f4 c5 6. ti:Jf3 ti:Jc6 7. .ie3 a6
.ih4 24.\Wg4 g5 25 . .id2 Ei:de8 26.
0-0-0 ti:Ja5 and Black seized the
initiative and triumphed in the
subsequent struggle, Kasparov -
Radjabov, Linares 2 003.
ll.axb4
ll . . JWxb4
This is the point.
12.c3
Some practical tests are re­
quired of the endgame arising af­
ter 12.\Wxb4 ti:Jxb4 13.Wd2 and
now Black has plenty of possibili­
ties on almost every move. 13 . . . c4
(13 . . . ti:Jb6 ! ? ; 13 . . . ti:Jc6 ! ?) 14.g4 h5
(14 . . . ti:Jb6 ! ? ) 15.gxh5 Ei:xh5 with a
very complicated position.
12 •.• �b7
(diagram)
13.ti:Jcl ! ?
This i s a non-standard deci­
sion. It did not bring White any
success in this game, though . . .
After the introduction o f this
line for Black, it attracted some
popularity and several very inter­
esting games have been played
from the diagram position during
the last year and a half.
13.ti:Jg3 cxd4 14.ti:Jxd4 ti:Jxd4 15 .
.ixd4 ti:Jc5 16.\Wc2 ti:Jb3 17.Ei:xa6
Ei:xa6 18 . .ixa6 ti:Jxd4 19.\Wa4+ \Wc6
20 .\Wxc6+ ti:Jxc6 2 1..ixc8 g5 22 .
.ib7 ti:Ja5 23 . .ia6 gxf4 24.ti:Jh5
Wd8 25 ..ib5 Ei:g8 26.ti:Jxf4 .ig7 27.
0-0 We7 2 8.Ei:a1 .ixe5 29.ti:Jxd5+
exd5 30.Ei:xa5 Ei:b8 3 1..id3 Ei:xb2
32.Ei:xd5 .ixc3 33 . .ixh7= S.Zhi­
galko - Stupak, Minsk 2 0 1 1 .
13.g3 .ie7 14 . .ig2 Ei:b8 15.Ei:a2
ti:Jb6 16.b3 ti:Jd7 17.ti:Jcl cxd4 18.
ti:Jxd4 ti:Jxd4 19 . .ixd4 ti:Jc5 2 0 .b4
ti:Je4 2 1.\We3 \Wb5 22 . .if1 \Wc6 23.
.id3 0-0 24.0-0 f5 25.ti:Je2 .ib7
26.Ei:fa1 Ei:a8 = N. Kosintseva -
Zhukova, Konya 2009.
13.dxc5 ti:Jxc5 14.ti:Jed4 .ie7 15.
.ie2 0-0 16.0-0 a5 17.b4 ti:Jxd4
18.ti:Jxd4 ti:Je4 19.\Wc2 axb4 2 0 .
cxb4 .id7 2 1 .b5 �fc8 2 2 .\Wb2 .ic5
with the better game for Black, Li
- Ding, Xinghua 2010.
13 .ie7 14 .id3 c4 15 . .ibl
• • • •
:Sb8 16.:Sa2 tlJb4 17.:Sal ti:Jc6
18.:Sa2 and a draw was agreed,
Karjakin - Vitiugov, Khanty­
Mansiysk 2009.
327
Chapter 39 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.ltk3 �f6 4.e5 �fd7
5.f4 c5 6.�f3 �c6 7..ie3 cxd4

for total simplification with 9 ...

4Jxd4 10.1xd4 hd4 ll.�xd4
�b6.

Black reduces the tension in

the centre and plans to exchange
one or two pieces on d4 later and
then advance his queenside
pawns. It is important to under­ 10.0-0-0
stand that this plan has its posi­ If White does not wish to study
tional j ustification (the exchange theory, he has an interesting
of the "French" bishop from the alternative here, one which
a6-square) as well as some pro­ should not be underestimated :
phylactic importance (after 10.g3 ! ?
White's queenside castling, the
possibility of Black playing b4-b3
and a4-a3 would distract the op­
ponent from his kingside attack).
Black sometimes succeeds in or­
ganizing an attack on the queen­
side, but this is much more often
a side effect than the object of the
entire plan.
8.ll'lxd4 i.c5 9.'\�!fd2 0 - 0
Black's alternative here is to go Black should react to i t i n one

328
 5f4 c5 6. 11Jj3 11J c6 7. ile3 cd 8. 11Jxd4 ilcS 9. Wff d2 0 - 0 1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 a6

of two natural ways, but he must

play precisely in either case :
1) 10 . . . a6 11.ilg2 11Jxd4 12 .ilxd4
ilxd4 ! This is an important mo­
ment! (The careless line : 12 . . . b5
13.11Je2 ! leads to some problems
for Black. Now he must quickly
construct the standard defensive
set-up with a knight on e4: 13 . . .
Wffc 7 14.a3 ilb7 15. 0-0 ilxd4+
16.11Jxd4 11Jc5 and Black's position
is slightly inferior but solid 10 . . . a6
enough, Macieja - Brynell, Istan­ Here is a new and promising
bul 2 0 03. I should like to mention idea instead of the routine basic
that it is rather dubious for him to plan : 10 . . . ilxd4 11.ilxd4 Wff a5 ! ? 1 2 .
opt for a move which has been � b 1 (The game ended in a spec­
played in several games - 13 . . . tacular draw after 12 .h4 l"lb8
a5? ! , because o f 14.a3 and now 13 .l"lh3 b5 14.f5 l2lxd4 15.f6 b4 16.
Black will be unable to advance WigS l2lf5 17.ild3 h6 18.ilxf5 hxg5
with b5-b4, while White will 19.hxg5 bxc3 2 0 .ilh7+ �h8 2 1 .
soon play b2-b4 himself and ilg6+ � g 8 2 2 .ilh7+ � h 8 23 .ild3+
then the weak pawn on b5 will �g8 24.ilh7+ , draw, Shirov -
make Black's defence rather diffi­ Grachev, Lublin 2011.) 12 . . . l"lb8
cult.) 13.Wffxd4 b5, or 13 . . . 11Jb8 ! ?
with a n approximately equal posi­
tion.
2) 10 . . . Wff e 7 11 .ilg2 (The move
11.0-0-0 was tested in the game
Kasparov - Shirov, Astana 2 0 0 1 .
After 1 1 . . .11Jb6 12 .11Jb3, White
gained an edge. However, if
Black chooses the plan with a7-
a6, either immediately, or after
the preliminary exchange of any 13.h4 (13.ile3 b5 14.l2le2 b4
of his pieces on d4, then the 15.l2ld4 l2lxd4 16.Wffxd4 ila6 17.f5
inclusion of the moves g3 and l"lfc8 18.fxe6 fxe6 19.Wffg4 l2lf8 2 0 .
Wffe 7 will be in his favour.) 11 . . . h 4 l"lc6 21.h5 l"lbc8 2 2 .ilh6 l"l8c7
l:iJb6 1 2 .b3 l2lxd4 13.ilxd4 ilxd4 23.ild2 l"lxc2 24.Wffxb4 Wffxb4 25.
14.Wffx d4 Wff a3 ! ?� Black's knight ilxb4 ilxfl 26. l"lhxfl l2ld7 2 7.ild6
on b6 is misplaced, but the same l"lc8 28.l"lcl l"lxcl + 29 .l"lxcl l"lxc1 +
can be said for White's pieces 3 0 . �xcl= and after some quite
too. logical play from both players,

329
Chapter 39
there arose an endgame in which
Black managed to hold the bal­
ance convincingly, Svidler - Zv­
jaginsev, Moscow 2010.) 13 . . . b5
14 .l2le2 b4 15.l2lc1 l2lxd4 ! Black
played very carefully, which
should be admired (White's idea
was 15 . . . �a6 16.l2lb3 ®'a4 17.f5t
with initiative.). 16.®'xd4 l2lc5 17.
h5 �d7 18.h6 g6 19.l2lb3 l2lxb3
2 0 . axb3 mcB 21.f5 ®'c5 2 2 .\WxcS
2:xc5 and in the resulting end­
game Black had no problems
achieving a draw, Naiditsch -
Grachev, Sibenik 2 0 1 1 .
I should like t o mention that
1 1 . . .\WaS ! ? is part of a new plan.
Previously Black connected the
preliminary exchange with the
standard move 11 . . . a6. He pre­
vented the plan which we analyze
in our next chapter - 10 . . . a6 11.
l2lb3 - but as so often happens,
simpler was better.
As a result White obtains a
very good extra possibility: 1 2 .�f2
(or 12 .�e3) 12 . . . b5 13.l2le2 b4 14.
l2ld4 l2lxd4 15.hd4 a5 16.g4 ®'c7!
(the straightforward reaction 16 . . .
�a6 17.�g2 ®'c7 18.Wb1 fi:fc8 19.
fi:cl fi:ab8 20.f5± provided White
with a better position and an easy
330
plan for its further improvement,
Anand - Gurevich, Bastia 2002 ;
Froljanov recommends the line:
16 .. .f6 ! ? 17.exf6 l2lxf6 18.g5 l2le4
19.®'e3 a4 2 0.�d3 b3, with coun­
terplay for Black. It seems to me,
however, that White's prospects
should be preferable owing to his
powerful dark-squared bishop.)
17.Wb1 ! ? (after 17.�b5, Black has
the resource 17. . . l2lc5 ! 18.®'e3 �a6 !
19.hc5 2:fc8 2 0 .�xa6 2:xa6=,
whereas the straightforward reac­
tion 17 . . . �a6 ? ! 18 .�xd7! ®'xd7 19.
2:hg1 2:fc8 20.f5 left Black without
any counterplay in the resulting
position with bishops of opposite
colour, and so White retained an
advantage, Svidler - Iljushin,
Russia 2002) 17 .. .f6 (Black is try­
ing to deviate from the Anand -
Gurevich game.) 18.exf6 l2lxf6 19.
�e5 ®'a7 2 0 .�d3± and White
maintains a slight but stable edge.
It is possible but, I think, not
the best for Black, to continue
with 10 . . . l2lxd4 11.�xd4 a6 with
similar ideas to 10 . . . �xd4 and 11 . . .
a6.
12 .®'e3 ! This is the simplest.
(Here, as well as the standard
moves 12 .®'f2 and 1 2 . Wb1, White
 5j4 cS 6 JiJj3 CiJ c6 7. �e3 cd 8.CiJxd4 �cS 9. V!ff d2 0 - 0 1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 a6
has at his disposal a very promis­
ing variation: 12.�xc5 CiJxc5 13.
l?!ffd 4, Nijboer - Gurevich, Amster­
dam 2 0 0 2 . The game continued :
13 . . . b6 14.�b1 �b7 15.�d3 l"lc8
16.l"lhe1 l?!ff c7 17.g4 f6 18.f5 CiJxd3
19.cxd3 and White had the edge,
so Black had to fight for the draw.)
12 . . . l?!ffc 7 (12 . . . l?!ffe7 13 .�d3 �xd4
(13 . . . b5 14.l?!ffh 3 ! This possibility
became possible thanks to the de­
ployment of the queen on e3. 14 . . .
g 6 15.CiJe2t) 14.l?!ffxd4 l?!ffc5 15.CiJe2
b5) 13 .�d3 b5. White is better af­
ter this move. (However, even af­
ter 13 . . . �xd4 14.l?!ffxd4 b5t the po­
sition arising is slightly inferior
for Black, and we shall cover it in
the move order ll.l?!fff2 CiJxd4 1 2 .
�xd4 l?!ff c 7 etc.) 14.l?!ffh 3 g6 ( 1 4 . . . h 6
15.CiJe2) 15.CiJe2 (It i s also good,
but less dangerous for Black, for
White to play 15.l?!ffe3 b4 16.CiJe2
a5 17.h4t, or 15 ... �xd4 16.l?!ffxd4
V!ff c5 17.CiJe2t with a slight edge.
The subsequent pawn-advance
h2 -h4-h5 would be rather un­
pleasant for Black, even in the
endgame.) 15 . . . b4 16.l?!ffe 3t (it also
looks attractive for White to opt
for 16.l?!ffh 6).
After 10 ... a6 we shall deal with
the moves a) ll.�f2 and b)
ll.h4.
Positions of a quite different
character arise after 1l. CiJb3 which
we shall consider later.
White cannot hurt his oppo­
nent much with 1l.CiJce2 l?!ffe 7 1 2 .
CiJb3 �xe3 13.l?!ffx e3 f6 14.exf6
CiJxf6 15.h3 a5, and Black has a
good game, Svidler - Morozevich,
Moscow 2 005.
The move 1l.�b1 seems to be
more precise, but is less aggres­
sive.
We shall show you some of the
possible continuations for Black:
One of the fine points of 1 l . �b1
is that the plan for Black begin­
ning with 11.. .hd4?! seems rath­
er dubious: 12 .hd4 b5 13.�f2 b4
14.CiJa4 a5 15.�b5 l?!ffc 7 16.c4 ! bxc3
17.l?!ffxc3 �b7, Adla - Gomez Bail­
lo, Buenos Aires 1990, 18.l"lc1 mc8
19.l?!ff d 3 l?!ffd 8 2 0.a3± and White
has a clear advantage;
it is possible for Black to opt
for 11. . .l?!ffc 7 12.l?!fff2 (12. CiJb3 �e7)
12 . . . CiJxd4 13.hd4 b5 14.�d3
�xd4 15.l?!ffxd4 l"lb8, transposing
to a game quoted in the variation
with 1l.l?!fff2 , - Smeets - Stellwa-
331
Chapter 39
gen, in which Black managed to
equalize;
a good continuation is 11.. .1!tfe7
12 .h4 (12 .tt:lb3 ! ?). Here, in com­
parison with the ll.h4 variation
Black's queen is a bit misplaced
on e7, but nevertheless it is ac­
ceptable for him to continue with
12 .. .f6 , or 12 . . . tt:lxd4 13.hd4 bS
14.Elh3 �b7, analogously to the
variation with 11 .1!tff2 ;
l l . . .tt:lxd4 12 .�xd4 b S 13 .1!tfe3
1!tfb6 ! ? 14.�xc5 tt:lxcS 15.�d3 b4
16.tt:le2 aS 17.tt:ld4 �a6 (Black can
also consider the attractive line:
17 . . . a4 18.f5 exfS 19.tt:lxf5 hfS
2 0 .hf5 Elfd8? and he obtains
good counterplay, Wojciechowski
Scibior, Szklarska Poreba
2 0 07.) 18.f5 tt:lxd3 (or 18 . . . hd3
19.cxd3 , with an edge for White.)
19.f6 ! ? Timoshenko - Korchnoi,
Panormo 2001. Now, instead of
accepting the pawn-sacrifice,
Black could have tried to fight for
the initiative by sacrificing mate­
rial himself with 19 . . . b3 ! ? 2 0 . axb3
gxf6 21 .cxd3 a4 2 2 .exf6 �h8
23.bxa4 Eltb8 24.Eld2 eS?
a) 11.1!tff2
332
Here, Black is faced with a
choice as to which piece to use to
capture on d4. We shall analyze
both possibilities : al) ll .. .tl:lxd4,
a2) ll . . . hd4.
al) ll . . AJxd4 12 .hd4
Now Black must again make
up his mind whether to support
his bishop, or continue with the
exchanges. We shall deal with
both lines in order to clarify for
you the finer points of this posi­
tion.
12 . . .1!tfe7
The idea of this move is not to
allow 1!tff2 -h4, as was played in the
game Kramnik - Radjabov.
It is also possible for Black to
opt for the routine and rather pas­
sive move 12 . . . b6 ! ?
The seemingly attractive and
most popular move 12 . . . 1!tfc7 does
not solve his problems either.
13.�d3 hd4. Black is forced to
entice the enemy queen to the d4-
square. (After 13 . . . b5, White has
the standard manoeuvre 14.1!tfh4 !
h6 15.tt:le2. It is interesting that
 6JiJ.f3 tt:Jc6 7. �e3 cd 8. tt:Jxd4 �c5 9. V'ff d2 0 - 0 1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 a6 11. V'if2
Kramnik evaluates this position
as "White is clearly better.", while
the computer program "Houdini"
considers it to be equal. We be­
lieve that artificial intelligence is
still not superior to that of hu­
mans in the aspect of evaluating
positions . . . After 15 .. .f6 ? ! 16.V'ffg 4
�xd4 17. tt:Jxd4 tt:Jc5 18.V'ffg 6 tt:Jxd3+
19 J'1xd3 V'ff c4 2 0 J''1 h d1, there can­
not be any doubt that White has a
great advantage, Kramnik - Rad­
jabov, Linares 2003.) 14.V'ffx d4
and now:
14 . . . V'ffc 5 15.tt:Je2 b5 16.Wb1 !
White can also play the move
16.1"\he1 and transpose to varia­
tions with 14 . . . b5, but the position
now arising is one of the most im­
portant in this variation and can
be reached via different move or­
ders. In fact, Black can reach it by
force, if he so wishes, but this is
less favourable for him. 16 . . . b4
17.1"\c1 f6. This is probably Black's
most resilient defence. (He has
also tried 17 . . . V'ffxd4 18.tt:Jxd4 tt:Jc5
19.1"\hd1 tt:Ja4 - otherwise c2-c3 -
2 0 .1"1e1 �d7 2 1.1"\e3, planning f4-
f5. White has a slight but stable
advantage, Khalifman - Gurev­
ich, Germany 2002.) 18.exf6
V'ffxd4 19.tt:Jxd4 1"1xf6 2 0.1"\he1 tt:Jc5
2 1 .g3 a5 2 2 . 1"\e3 �a6 23.ha6.
This exchange is playable, al­
though not necessary. After
White's simple response 23.1"\ce1
he is obviously better. 23 . . . 1"\xa6
24.c3 (His previous move would
have been perfectly justified if fol­
lowed by 24.c4, when Black would
be faced with a rather difficult de­
fence.) 24 . . . tt:Je4 25.cxb4 axb4
26.1"\e2 g5 and Black managed to
hold the balance in the game In­
arkiev - Rychagov, Moscow 2 0 07;
it is more or less the same after
14 . . . b5 15.1"\he1 (We must mention
that the move 15.Wb1 transposes
to a position which is advanta­
geous for White from the game
Khalifman - Gurevich, which we
have already analyzed above, aris­
ing after 15 . . . V'ffc 5. However, Black
has an alternative plan of devel­
opment: 15 . . . 1"\bS 16.tt:Je2 b4 17.
V'ffe 3 tt:Jc5 18.h4 �d7 19.h5 a5 2 0 .
h6 g 6 2 1.lt:Jd4 a 4 2 2 .V'ffg 3 a 3 2 3 .
V'ffg 5 V'ff d 8 24.Wxd8 1"1fxd8 25.b3
1"1b6 2 6.Wc1 �c8 27.Wd2, draw,
Smeets - Stellwagen, Wijk aan
Zee 2 005. It would not work for
White to play 15.tt:Je4? ! dxe4
16.Wxe4 g6 17.Wxa8 �b7 18.V'ff a7
tt:Jc5 19.b4 tt:Ja4 20 .1"\he1 1"\a8 21.
Wd4 1"\d8 2 2 .Wa1 tt:Jc3 23 .1"\d2 a5
and Black has a dangerous initia­
tive. He can also draw easily with
the simple move 23 . . . �d5 if he so
wishes.) 15 . . . Wc5 16.tt:Je2 b4 (Here
there is a possible improvement
in the shape of the prophylactic
move 16 . . . 1"\eS ! ? and after 17.g4 b4
18.V'ffx c5 tt:Jxc5 19.tt:Jd4 a5 2 0.f5
333
Chapter 39

�a6 2 U!e3 a4, Black obtains

sufficient counterplay, while he
should counter 17.�bl with 17 . . .
�b7, but not 1 7. . . b4? ! 18Jkl and
the inclusion of the moves l'l:hel ,
2: e8 is not in Black's favour. I n
fact, his position i s bound t o re­
main worse, no matter what . . . )

response : 1S.l2Je4 ! f6 16.exf6 lLlxf6

17.fS (Black has sufficient re­
sources against the simple plan:
17jWxcS lLlxcS 18.�d2 aS 19.l2Jd4
�a6 2 0 .2:al 2:fc8 2 l .a3, Szelag -
Depyl, Cappelle la Grande 2001.
Black could have equalized here
with 2 1 . . .2:cb8 . His position is sat­
isfactory too after 20 . . . 2:tb8 2l.fS
2:b6 2 2 .fxe6 fxe6 23.2:e3 a4 24.
2:h3 g6 2S.l'l:e3 �c4= ) 17 . . .'®xd4
18.lLlxd4 2:e8 19.fxe6 fxe6 20.2:e3
lLlcS, Perpinya Rofes - Roj as
Keirn, Sabadell 2009. After 2 1 .
2:h3, provoking a weakening of
Black's kingside, White preserves
some advantage. Black's position
is quite defensible, though . . .
13.i.d3
(diagram)
13 . . . b5
We should like to highlight an
important detail : if 13 . . .�xd4
14.1�hd4 bS (14 . . . \WcS 1S.lLle2 - see
12 . . . \Wc7) White has a very strong
17.lLlgS± with an obvious advan­
tage, Grischuk - Lorenz, Mainz
2 00S.
14)i:le2 !
This is more precise than
14.�bl hd4 (the move 14 . . . b4
transposes to the game Karjakin
- Iljushin, Dagomys 2008, which
we quote below) 1S.\Wxd4 b4 ! ? ,
which we shall analyze later - see
11 . . . \We7! ?).
14 . . . b4
15.�bl!
It would be less convincing for
White to choose 1S.\We3 ! ? aS
16.\Wh3 (he has a good alternative
here - 16.�bS ! ) 16 . . . g6 17.'�'h6
�a6 18.h4 b3 19.cxb3 , Kulaots -

334
 6. li'Jf3 li'J c6 7. �e3 cd 8. li'Jxd4 �c5 9. Wld2 0 - 0 1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 a6 11. Wlf2
Brynell, Sweden 2006. In this po­
sition Black could have obtained
sufficient counter-chances with
the line : 19 . . . hd4 20.li'Jxd4 hd3
2 l . l"lxd3 li'JcS, for example: 2 2 . l"le3
a4 23.h5 axb3 24.a3 (or 24.l"leh3
bxa2 25.%lfxh7+ Wxh7 26.hxg6+
with a draw by a perpetual check)
24 . . . l"lxa3 25.bxa3 li'Je4 and the
complications ended in a draw.
15 . . . a5 16 ..ib5
This is the point. After ex­
changes, White wants to obtain a
superior position with a knight on
d4 against his opponent's light­
squared bishop. If Black avoids
that with 16 hd4 17)t)xd4
• ..
ll:lb8 18.f5± then he ended up in
a clearly worse position in the
game, Karjakin - Iljushin, Dago­
mys 2008.
In view of all the variations
we havejust analyzed, it seems to
me that Black's best move order
for the ltl c6xd4 plan is:
ll . . .'�e7! ? 12.Wb1
This is already a minute
achievement for White. (A very
complicated position arises after
12 .�d3 f6 13.exf6 ll:lxf6 14.h3 �d6
lS.l"lhfl �d7 16.l"ldel li'Jb4 17.%lfd2
li'Jxd3+ 18.cxd3 bSoo Jakovenko -
Morozevich, Moscow 2 007. If 14.
:§bel, as played in the rapid-chess
game Karjakin - Morozevich,
Tomsk 2006, Black overlooked
the possibility of gaining an edge
by means of the tactic 14 . . . li'Jg4
15.li'Jxc6 %lff6 ! ) .
Now Black i s forced t o ex­
change :
12 ll:lxd4 13.�xd4 b5 14.
• • •
.id3 hd4 15.'1Wxd4
We have mentioned this posi­
tion in our notes to move 14 in the
variation with ll...li'Jxd4 12.hd4 %lfe7
13.�d3 bS (14.\t>bl hd4 15.%lfxd4).
335
Chapter 39
In fact, the point of this move
order for Black is to obtain this
position and to play here the
move 15 . . . b4 ! ?
I t looks risky, but i t cannot be
refuted directly.
After 1S .. .'®cS there arises a
position which is disadvanta­
geous for Black and which we an­
alyzed using the move order 11. . .
'Llxd4 12 .ixd4 1l!ic7. Black has also
tried 1S . . . ib7 16J''l h e1 but now he
should avoid 16 . . . b4, which led to
an inferior position for Black after
17.'Lle2 aS 18.1lffe 3 'LlcS 19.'Lld4
'Lle4 2 0.ixe4 dxe4, Dolmatov -
Korchnoi, Las Vegas 1999 and
now, according to Korchnoi's rec­
ommendation, 2 l . 'LlbS idS 2 2 .
'Ll d 6 fS 23 .g4±. White's dominant
knight provides him with an over­
whelming advantage. Instead, af­
ter 16 . . . 1lficS 17.'Lle2 b4 18.fS 1l!ixd4
19.'Llxd4 E\ae8 2 0 .g4 E\e7 2 1.E\e2
exfS 2 2 .e6 'LlcS 23.gxfS fxe6 24.
fxe6 g6 2S.E1e3 E1f4 2 6.ie2 Wg7=
Black equalizes, Hillarp Persson
- Brynell, Lund 2 0 1 0 .
16.tl:le4 a5
336
17.lt:ld6 (White cannot hurt
his opponent with the line: 17.
'LlgS h6 18.h4 ia6 19.'Llf3 'LlcS,
with the plan of b4-b3 . An inter­
esting option for White here is
17.h4 ! ? ia6 18.'LlgS ixd3 19.1lfixd3
fS 20.exf6 gxf6 2 1 .'Llf3 'LlcS 2 2 .
Vffd 4, AI Sayed - Roghani, Dubai
2003. Now Black could have cre­
ated good counterplay with the
pawn-sacrifice : 2 2 . . . a4 ! ) 17 ia6
• . .
18.f5 ! ? This move leads to sim­
plification, but if White allows f7-
f6 then the future of his active
knight on the d6-square might
become highly questionable. It is
difficult to see how White can im­
prove his position in any other
way. 1 8 . . . .ixd3 19.l:�xd3 f6
2 0 .fxe6 exe6 2 1.exd5 exd5
22.l'�xd5 lt:lxe5. White's advan­
tage is only minimal but Black
must play very accurately, Zhang
Pengxiang - Lou Yiping, Hefei
2010.
Having examined the finer
points of this line, which in any
case sometimes leads to an infe­
rior endgame for Black, the ques­
tion arises as to whether it is re­
ally worthwhile for him to com­
plicate matters so much ?! The
rather "primitive " line 12 . . . hd4
13. 1lffxd4 bS 14. id3 Vff b 6 15. 'Ll e2
E1b8, Edouard - Berend, Differ­
dange 20 0 8, does not seem infe­
rior for Black to the main varia­
tion of the 'Ll c6xd4 plan. This all
requires further practical tests,
though.
 6.CiJj3 t2J c6 7. ie3 cd 8. t2Jxd4 ic5 9. V!Jd2 0 - 0 1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 a6 11. V!1j2
a2) ll . . . .ixd4
This non-standard capture
enables Black to easily advance
his queenside pawns and develop
his light-squared bishop to the
a6-square without any problems.
12 ..ixd4 b5 13 ..ie3 b4
White has a slight edge after
13 . . . V!fa5 14. �b1 ib7 15.t2le4;!;
Of course, it is also possible for
Black to play patiently with 13 . . .
ib7, for example: 14.id3 tt:Jb4
15.id4 Ei:c8 16.�bl V!1e7 17.Ei:he1
t2lc5 1 8 .hc5 V!1xc5 19.V!1xc5 Ei:xc5
2 0 .ifH with a slightly better end­
game for White. After some forty
more moves Black equalized com­
pletely in the game Khalifman -
Iljushin, Sochi 2005.
14.�a4
White's knight is very well
placed here at the edge of the
board.
In contrast, he does not
achieve much with 14.t2le2 aS 15.
t2ld4 tt:Jxd4 16.hd4 ia6 17.f5 (or
17.�b1 V!fc7 18 .h4 Ei:fc8 19.h5 t2lc5
2 0 .hc5 V!1xc5 21.V!ixc5 Ei:xc5=
with an equal rook and pawn end­
ing, Shirov - Radjabov, Leon
2 0 04) 17 . . . exf5 (it is good for
Black to play here 17 . . . V!fc7 ! ) 18.
V!1xf5 V!1e7 19.g4 hf1 2 0 .Ei:hxf1
l"lfc8 2 1.l"lf2 t2lf8 2 2 .ie3 V!1b7 23.
V!1f3 l"lc4 24.l"lxd5 l"lxg4 25.b3, Kar­
jakin - Stellwagen, Wijk aan Zee
2 0 05. Black eventually lost this
game, but according to Karjakin's
recommendation, the move 25 . . .
l"lg6 would have led to a very com­
plicated position.
14 . . • a5 15.h4
After 15.g4 ia6, the game
transposes to Fedorov - Hassan,
Abu Dhabi 2006, which we shall
analyze below.
15 . . • .ia6
The pawn structure seems
very good for Black, but unfortu-
337
Chapter 39
nately for him White's knight on
a4 completely paralyses Black's
queenside counterplay, so he will
have to resort to the undermining
move f7-f6 in the majority of cas­
es. However, any opening of the
position will be in White's favour,
since he has an unopposed bishop.
16.h5
If Black avoids playing f7-f6,
his position can become very dan­
gerous; this is best illustrated by
the following game : 16.g4 .bfl
(he would not change much with
16 . . . Wb8 17.h5 ! ) 17J''1hxfl Wb8? !
(Fedorov recommends here 1 7. . .
f6 ! 18.exf6 Wxf6 19 .h5 Elac8 2 0 .
�bl+. Predoevic analyzes : 18.ct:Jc5
We7 19.f5 exf5 2 0 .gxf5 ct:Jdxe5 2 1 .
ct:J e 6 ct:Jg4 2 2 .Wg3 ct:Jxe3 23.Wxe3 . I
believe that after 23 . . . ct:Jd8 24.
Elxd5 ct:Jxe6 25.fxe6 Elfd8, Black
can hold the balance.) 18.h5 Elc8
19.h6 g6 2 0 . �b1 Wb5 2 1 .b3 Elc7
2 2 .ct:Jb6 ct:Jxb6 23 .�xb6 Elb7 24.
�c5 ct:Je7 25.f5 ! exf5 26.Wd4+ ­
with a winning position for White,
Fedorov - Hassan, Abu Dhabi
2006.
16 • . • .hfl
338
Black begins the immediate
preparation of the undermining
move f7-f6.
We must take a look at his al­
ternatives too :
after 16 . . . We7 17.h6 g6 18.g4 f6
19 ..ba6 Elxa6 2 0 .�c5 ct:Jxc5 2 1 .
ct:Jxc5 Ela7 2 2 .exf6 Wxf6 23.Elhf1
Elaf7 24.We2, in the game Mueller
- Buhmann, Germany 2007,
White ended up with a comforta­
ble advantage ;
Black tried an interesting de­
fensive line in the following game :
16 . . . Wc7 17.h6 g6 18.�b1 Elfc8 19.
Elcl ct:Jcb8 ! ? 2 0 .b3 (20 .g4) 20 . . .
�xf1 2 1 .Elhxf1 Ela6 2 2 .g4 Elc6 23.
�d4 (White can opt here for 23.
f5 ! ?) 23 ... Wd8 24.f5 We7 25.Wf4
ct:Ja6 26.Elf2 ct:Jc7 27.Elcf1 ct:Jb5 2 8.
�b2 ct:Ja3 + ! ? and in the position
arising, White's pressure has been
reduced to his control of the f-file,
which is insufficient for a mean­
ingful advantage, Luther
Drozdovskij , Neustadt an der
Weinstrasse 2009.
17J�hxfl
It is also possible for White to
play 17.h6, which leads to a trans­
position of moves.
17 f6 18.h6 g6
••• 19.exf6
ct:Jxf6 2 0 .We2 lt'le4
(diagram)
This is an important position
for the evaluation of the plan with
�xd4. It looks a bit worse for
Black, since his king is not as safe
as his opponent's and White's
threat of g2-g4 and f4-f5 might
break up his pawn structure. It
looks as though White has played
 6. li'Jj3 li'J c6 7. fle3 cd 8. li'Jxd4 flc5 9. Wd2 0 - 0 1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 a6 11.h4
all the best moves and deserves
an edge from the opening. In the
two games that have been played
from this position, Black has
missed at some point the correct
path to equality.
21.'l;Vd3
After 21.Wb5, in the game
Cheparinov - Stellwagen, Wijk
aan Zee 2006, Black immediately
made a mistake. He should have
continued with 2 1 . . .'l;Vc7 2 2 .g4
!'labS 23 .Wa6 WeB, holding the
balance in the endgame.
21. . . 'l;Vc7 22.g4 �ac8 23.
@bl, N. Kosintseva - Brynell,
Wijk aan Zee 2007.
In this position Black has a
powerful resource in 23 . . . g5! , for
example: 24.flb6 (after 24.fxg5
l"lxfl 25.l"lxfl li'Je5 26.Wdl li'Jc4
27.flcl Wc6� Black has nothing to
complain about.) 24 . . . 'l;Vb7 25.
fxg5 (Black's position is quite ac­
ceptable after 25.f5 li'Je5 2 6.\Wd4
li'Jc4 27.l"lfel e5 28 .Wxd5+ 1Wxd5
29.l"lxd5 li'Jf6.) 25 . . . li'Je5 26.Wd4
l"lxfl 27.l"lxfl li'Jc4 2 8. ci>al li'Jcd2
(but not 2 8 ... e5? 29.\Wd3 Wc6 30.
flc5) 29 .We5 li'Jxfl 30.Wxe6+ ci>f8
31.fld4 l"lc7 32 .We5 l"lxc2 33.flc5+
li'Jxc5 34.Wh8+ ci>e7 35.Wxh7+
ci>d6 36.Wxc2 li'Je4 and White
manages to draw, thanks to his
threats against the enemy king.
We shall continue this forcing line
to the very end, just out of curios­
ity: 37.g6 Wb5 38.g7 li'Je3 39 .\Wcl
Wd3 40. g8\W li'Jc2 + 41.Wxc2 Wxc2
42.Wf8 + ci>e6 43.Wfl Wxa4 44.h7
b3 45.a3 ( 45.\Wbl li'Jd2 46.Wf5+
ci>d6 47.a3 Wd4=) 45 . . . Wd4 46.
Whl Wh8 47.\Wh6+ li'Jf6 48 .g5
Wxh7 49.Wxf6+ Wd7 with a draw.
b) ll.h4
ll . . . c!ilxd4
After ll . . . hd4 12 .hd4 b5,
339
Chapter 39
White has generally responded in
one of the following ways :
13J'l:h3 - This move seem less
convincing against Black's chosen
plan. 13 . . . b4 14.ct:Ja4 (14.ct'le2 aS)
14 . . . aS etc.
After 13.hS, the simplest road
for Black to equality is transpose
favourably to the ll.h4 ct:Jxd4 vari­
ation, by playing 13 . . . b4 14.ct:Ja4
�aS 1S.b3 ct:Jxd4 16.�xd4 i.b7.
Black should react similarly to
13.�b1 b4 14.ct:la4 �as 1S.b3
ct:lxd4 16.�xd4 i.b7.
White has also tried the moves
13.i.g1 and 13 .i.f2 , while the na­
tural move 13 .i.e3, strangely
enough, has not been sufficiently
tested. Nevertheless, it would be
quite interesting to see whether
White can continue with 13.i.e3
b4 (13 . . . �aS 14.�b1 b4 1S.ct'le2
ct:JcS 16.�eU with an edge for
White. ) 14.ct:Ja4 aS 1S.�f2 , trans­
posing to the variation with 11.
�f2 i.xd4, in which Black must
still play very precisely to fight for
equality. We shall not examine
this in detail and instead we shall
try to equalize for Black using the
tried and tested classical recipes.
12.hd4 b5
340
13J:1h3
The alternatives for White
would not achieve much :
The move 13 .hS is not so effec­
tive and only loses time: 13 . . . b4
14.ct:Ja4 (14.ct:Je2 aS 1S.�e3 �c7
16.�b1 i.a6 17.hcS ct:JxcS 18.ct'lg3
l"1fc8 19.l"1c1 a4 2 0 .ha6 l"1xa6 2 1 .
l"1hd1 a 3 2 2 .b3 l"1c6 and Black ob­
tained the better position in the
game Topalov - Morozevich, Sa­
rajevo 1999. He should not fear
1S.hcS ct:JxcS 16.�e3 �b6 17.fS a4
18.�b1 b3 19.cxb3 axb3 2 0 .a3
exfS 2 l . l"1xdS, Smirin - Lputian,
Rostov-on-Don 1993, because af­
ter 2 1 . . .ct'la4 Black has a good
game. The surprising move 18 . . .
�c7 ! ? may even help him seize
the initiative ; if 19.f6 ct:Je4.) 14 . . .
hd4 1S.�xd4
 6JiJ.f3 lLl c6 7. .ie3 cd 8. lLlxd4 .icS 9. Wf d2 0 - 0 1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 a6 11.h4
1S . . . aS (It is also possible for
Black to play 1S . . . W/aS 16.b3 .ib7
17.fS .ic6 18.f6 gxf6 19.exf6 mh8
20 . .id3 .ixa4 21.W/f4 Elg8 2 2 .bxa4
W/xa4 23.mb1 lLlcS and White's
premature attack reaches a dead
end, Gallagher - Barsov, Bern
1994. ) 16 ..ibS Elb8 17 . .id3 .ib7
18.mb1 (It would not work for
White to play 18.h6 g6 19.fS,
Nunn - Lputian, Manila 1992 ,
owing t o Nunn's recommenda­
tion 19 . . . gxfS ! 2 0 . ElhS f6+ with a
clear advantage for Black; if in­
stead 18.fS WigS+ 19.mb1 Elfc8 2 0 .
Eldfl .ic6 2 1 .h6 .ixa4 2 2 .hxg7 exfS
23.hfS W/xfS 24.ElxfS hc2 +
Black wins, Gofshtein - Glek,
Baden-Baden 2001.) 18 . . . .ic6 19.
lZJcS .ibS 2 0 .l2Jxd7 W/xd7 2 l.g4
Elfc8 2 2 .fS hd3 23.cxd3 b3 24.a3
Elc2 , Black's queenside attack is
much more effective than White's
threats, Olenin - Zvjaginsev,
Togliatti 2003.
It is more interesting for White
to choose 13.hcS lLlxcS 14.W/d4
Wfc7 1S.a3 .id7 16.fS Elfc8 17.f6
gxf6 18.exf6 mh8, but he is unable
to organize an effective attack
against Black's king. 19.mb1
(Gurevich recommends as best
for White : 19 . .id3 ! aS 2 0 .hh7! eS
21.W/xdS .ie6 2 2 .lLlxbS hdS 23.
l2Jxc7 Elxc7 24.ElxdS mxh7 with a
very sharp endgame.) 19 . . . Elab8
20 . .ie2 aS 2 l..ihS b4 2 2 .hf7 eS
23.W/e3 .ifS and Black's advantage
became decisive in the game Api­
cella - Gurevich, Clichy 2 0 0 1 .
The game Kamsky - Gurevich,
Belgrade 1991, continued with 13.
l2Je2 aS 14.W/e3 W/c7 (Black can
also try here 14 . . . W/b6 1S.mb1 b4
16.g4 .ia6 17.hcS lZJxcS 18.l2Jg3
l2Ja4 19.W/xb6 l2Jxb6 2 0 .ha6
Elxa6= with equality, Beulen -
Glek, Breda 1999.) 1S . .ixcS lLlxcS
16. l2Jd4 b4 17.g4 .ia6 (It would be
much more energetic and consist­
ent for Black to continue with 17 . . .
a 4 18.fS b3.) 18.fS and the ex­
change of the bishops provides
him with equal chances: 18 . . . hf1
19.Elhxf1 l2Je4.
Black develops his pieces com­
fortably after White's natural
line : 13 .W/e3 W/c7 14 . .id3 b4 1S.
l2Je2 aS 16. mb1 .ia6 17.Elc1 Elfc8
18 .g4 hd4 19.W/xd4 W/cS 2 0 .
Elhd1= with approximate equality,
Kuczynski - Luther, Germany
1992. A comparison with the 11.
W/f2 variation shows that the
move h2-h4 has not been at all
helpful to White.
13 . . . b4
Black's position is quite relia­
ble and this can be best illustrated
by the fact that even the prelimi­
nary move 13 . . . .ib7 is quite ac­
ceptable for him.
341
Chapter 39
We shall show you several ex­
amples without going into too
many details :
14.g4 b4 15.LLle2 a5 16.g5 ia6
17.h5 l"lc8 18.1t>b1 i!tfb6 19.g6, Gru­
enfeld - Gurevich, Haifa 1995 and
here Gurevich points out quite
justifiably that the position would
remain rather unclear following
19 . . . fxg6 2 0.hxg6 hxg6oo
White's game is less comforta­
ble after his alternatives :
14.h5 b4 15.LLla4 ixd4 16.i!tfxd4
i!tfa5 17.b3 ic6 18.LLlb2 l"lfc8 ! ?
( 1 8 . . . i!tfxa2 19.LLld3�) 19.f5 i!tfc7 2 0 .
i!tlxb4 LLlxe5 2 1 .h6 exf5 2 2 .hxg7
id7t Tischbierek - Knaak, Ger­
many 1993;
14.a3 i!tfe7 15.h5 ic6 16.h6 g6
17.g4 b4 18.ixc5 i!tlxc5 19.axb4
i!tfxb4 2 0 .LLle2 i!tfxd2+ 2 l . lt>xd2
ib5 = and Black has no problems
in this endgame, Najer - Ry­
chagov, Krasnoyarsk 2 007;
14.l"lg3 b4 15.LLla4 ixd4 16.
i!tlxd4 i!tfa5 17.b3 ic6 18.LLlb2
(White should avoid 18.f5 i!tfc7
19.fxe6 fxe6 20.LLlc5 LLlxc5 2 1 .
i!tfxc5 i!tfxe5 2 2 . l"le3 i!tff4+ with a n
edge for Black, Berg - Ilj ushin,
Yerevan 2000.) 18 ... LLlc5 19 .id3
l"lfd8 2 0 .f5 exf5 21.ixf5 LLle4 2 2 .
ixe4 dxe4 23.LLlc4 l"lxd4 24.LLlxa5
342
l"lxd1 + 25.\t>xd1 l"ld8+ and the end­
game is better for Black, Du­
treeuw - Gurevich, Brussels 1995;
14.\t>b1 ixd4 15.i!tfxd4 f6 ! ? 16.
exf6 i!tfxf6 17.i!tfxf6 l"lxf6 18.LLle2
l"le8 19.l"lc3 l"lf7 2 0 . l"lc7 LLlf6 21.
l"lxf7 lt>xf7 2 2 .LLlg1 lt>g6 23 .id3 +
lt>h6 24.\t>c1 d4. White is unable
to solidify his pawn structure in
this endgame and the resulting
position is favourable to Black,
David - Gurevich, Vlissingen
1999.
14)!Ja4
It is no improvement for White
to opt for 14.LLle2 a5 15.i!tfe3 i!tfc7
16.hc5 LLlxc5 17.LLld4 a4 18.\t>b1
(The move 18.a3 ! = would have
maintained the balance.) 18 . . . a3
19.b3 ia6 and Black managed to
obtain a better position : 2 0 .ixa6
l"lxa6 2 1.i!tfe1 l"lb6 2 2 . c3 i!tfb7 23.l"lc1
LLle4 24.cxb4 l"lxb4 25.l"ld3 l"lc4 !
Polgar - Shirov, Prague 1999.
14 ... hd4 15.i!tfxd4 a5
You can see one of the points
of the idea h4 and l"lh3 after 15 . . .
i!tfa5 16.b3 ib7 17.c3 ! l"lfc8 18.1t>b2
bxc3+ 19.l"lxc3 l"lxc3 2 0 .i!tlxc3 with
the better position for White,
 6.tiJ.f3 li'J c6 7. j,e3 cd 8 . tiJxd4 j,c5 9. Wff d2 0 - 0 1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 a6 11.h4
Nijboer - Luther, Leeuwarden
199 2 .
16 . .ib5 �b8
17.c4!
This i s the only way for White
to create problems for Black.
17 . .bd7 j,xd7 18.li'Jc5 Ei:c8 19.
Ei:d2 Wff c 7 20 .li'Jxd7 Wffxd7 and his
game is much easier, Wells -
Glek, Vienna 1998.
White does not obtain much
with 17.j,d3 .
Black's only problem here is to
make the right choice between
several attractive possibilities :
17 . . . Wff c 7 18 .h5 j,b7 19.Ei:e3 (af­
ter 19.g4, Fogarasi - Luther, Kec­
skemet 1993, it would be good to
play 19 . . . f6 ! ) 19 . . . j,c6 2 0 .li'Jc5
li'Jxc5 2 1 .Wffxc5 Ei:fc8 2 2 .f5 j,bS 23.
Wffxc7 Ei:xc7 24.f6 .bd3 25.Ei:dxd3
Ei:bc8 26.Ei:e2 gxf6 27.exf6 Ei:c4 2 8.
Ei:g3 + Wf8 29.Ei:g7 Ei:f4 30.Ei:xh7
Wg8 31.Ei:g7+ Wf8, draw, Fedorov
- Akopian, Moscow 2 0 0 2 ;
White was unable t o create
any real problems for his oppo­
nent after the straightforward line
17 . . . j,b7 18.f5 j,c6, for example:
19.Ei:g3 (or 19.li'Jc5 Ci:lxc5 2 0 .Wxc5
Wffb 6 2 1 .Wffx b6 Ei:xb6 2 2 .Ei:f3 Ei:c8
23 .fxe6 fxe6 24.Ei:f4 j,b5= and an
equal ending was reached in the
game Marj anovic - Antic, Suboti­
ca 2000) 19 . . . exf5 (19 . . . Wffc 7! ?)
20 ..bf5 ( 2 0 .e6 g6 2 1.exd7 j,xa4
2 2 . .bf5 .bd7=) 2 0 . . . j,xa4 2 1 .
Ei:xg7 + (Black has nothing to fear
after 2 1.j,xd7 .bd7 2 2 .e6 g6
23 .exd7 Wxd7 24.h5) 2 1 . . . Wxg7
2 2 .Wffg4+ mh6 23.Wfff4+ mg7= ;
even after 17 . . . Ci:lb6 18. Ci:lc5
Ci:ld7, White cannot create any
meaningful threats against
Black's position ;
1 7. . .f6 ! ? Black i s planning to
enter a complicated endgame in
which both sides have weakness­
es. White's less ambitious possi­
bilities, which we have analyzed
above, lead to equality for Black
without any problems, so we can
conclude that the entire concept
with h2-h4 and Ei:h1-h3 is harm­
less. 18.exf6 Wxf6 19.Wffxf6 Ei:xf6
20.Ei:e3 Ei:xf4 21.Ei:xe6 Ci:lf6 2 2 .Ei:d6
j,g4 23.Ei:e1 j,hSoo with a rather
unclear endgame, Langheinrich -
Shirov, Germany 2 003.
17. . . bxc3
Here the move 17 . . . li'Jb6 ! ? is
worth considering.
343
Chapter 39

18.tb xc3 \Wb6 19.\Wxb6 i'!xb6

2 0 .b3 f6 21.exf6 ltlxf6

White's kingside has been seri­

ously weakened by the advance of
his h-pawn .
White's game is a bit easier in 27. ltlxb5 i.d7 28.ltld4, Yur­
this ending but, objectively speak­ taev - Goloshchapov, Kolkata
ing, Black's position is quite ac­ 2000.
ceptable.
22.a4 ltlg4 23.i'!d4 ltlh6 24.
@b2 ltlf5
The complications after 24 . . .
e 5 25.fxe5 ixh3 26.gxh3 Ei:f2 +
27.@a3 ltlf5 28.Ei:xd5 ltle3 29.
Ei:d8+ Ei:f8 30.Ei:d3 Ei:f3 31.Ei:xe3
Ei:xe3 32 .ic4+ lt>f8 33.ltld5 end in
White's favour. Black should not
play so riskily.
25.i'!dl ltld6 26.i'!f3
(diagram)
26 •.• ltlxb5 After 28 .ixa4 29.i'!al i.e8
. • .

Black could have obtained a 3 0 .i'!xa5 i.h5 3l.i'!fl i.g4, threat­

very good position after the at­ ening e6-e5, or simply 31. . . .ig6,
tractive exchange of the light­ Black's strong bishop is sufficient
squared bishops with 26 . . . ia6, or to ward off any danger and the most
with 26 . . . ib7, emphasizing that likely result of the game is a draw.

344
Chapter 4 0 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.lbc3 �f6 4.e5 �fd7
5.f4 c5 6.�£3 �c6 7..ie3 cxd4 8.�xd4
.ic5 9.V«d2 0 - 0 1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 a6 11.�b3

plex of "unclear spots" in this var­

iation .
Black must now make his
choice between four different
plans: a) ll . . . b6, b) ll . . . .ixe3,
c) ll . . . i.b4 and d) ll . . . i.e7 and
which one he should prefer is not
at all easy to decide . . .

a) l l . . . b6
Black is striving to complete
This is a very fashionable re­ his development as quickly as
sponse by White. possible.
He avoids the exchange of 12 .h4 i.b7 13.h5 gcs 14.gh3
knights and his own knights often i.b4
prevent the advance of Black's a After 14 .. .'&e7 15.@bl gfd8 16.
and b-pawns. The positions aris­ lt:Je2 f6 17.lt:Jed4, White obtained a
ing are difficult to evaluate and slight edge in the game Nijboer -
the correct choice of a line for Glek, Apeldoorn 2001, analyzed
Black is not at all easy. The Dutch in the book "Opening for White
GM Friso Nijboer has contributed According to Anand".
greatly to the development of this
variation, winning several spec­
tacular games in this fashion. The
move ll.lt:Jb3 has also been rec­
ommended and analyzed as the
main line for White in the book
"Opening for White According to
Anand".
I should like to point out here
Black's possible ways of creating
counterplay, as well as the com-

345
Chapter 4 0

15 . .if2
15J'l:g3 <j;Jh8 (it is bad for Black
to opt for 15 . . . lLle7 16 . .id3 lLlc5
17 . .ixc5 bxc5 18 .f5 ! ---+ Lorand -
Werner, Budapest 2008) 16.a3
.ixc3 (it seems to me that after the
simple move 16 . . . .ie7 Black has a
very good position) 17.�xc3 lLla5
18.�b4 �c7 19.lLld4 lLlc5 20 . .id3
lLlc4 2 1 . <j;Jb1 lLle4 2 2 . Elh3t with the
slightly better game for White, Di­
ermair - Luther, Austria 2009. It prospects, and future tournament
is far from clear, however, how he practice will determine whether
can improve his position. this position has been evaluated
15.h6 g6 16.a3 .ie7 17.lLle4 correctly and will become fash­
ttJ dxe5 (Black could have avoided ionable.
this exchange of blows with the 17.t!�xc5 hb2 +
simple reply 17 . . . �c7 ! ? , obtaining I t would b e interesting for
excellent prospects.) 18 .fxe5 dxe4 Black to try 17 . . . .ixe5 ! ? 18 .fxe5
19 .�f2 �c7 (after 19 . . . �e8 the po­ (Black regains his piece after 18.
sition seems to be in Black's fa­ lLlxb7 .ixf4+ 19.<j;Jb1 �c7 20 .�xa6
vour) 2 0 . .ixb6 �xe5 2 l . Eld7, lLlb8 2 l.�a4 .ie5 and the position
Baramidze - Buhmann, Bad Wo­ remains unclear) 18 . . . bxc5 19.
erishofen 2008 and after the pos­ h6!?, but it is all very risky for
sible continuation 2 1 . . . .if6 2 2 .c3 him.
.ia8 23 ..ixa6 Elb8, Black's chances 18. @xb2 bxc5
look very good in this sharp posi­
tion.
15 . . . ttJc5 16.�e2
Black should not be afraid of
16 ..ih4 lLlxb3 + 17.axb3 .ie7 18 .
.ixe7 �xe7 19 . .id3 f6 2 0 .exf6
�xf6 2 1.f5 lLla5 2 2 .<j;Jb1 exf5 23 .
.ie2 d4, because the resulting
endgame is very good for him,
Saw - Smerdon, Canberra 2009.
(diagram)
16 . . . hc3?!
The forcing lines conclude in 19 .hc5 (it is possibly prefer­
White's favour. able for White to choose 19.h6 g6
Black should prefer the quiet­ 2 0 . .ixc5) 19 .ll:lxe5 2 0 .ixf8
.• •

er response 16 . . . �c7, with good tt:lc4+ 2t.<j;lat �f6+ 22 .c3 <j;lxf8

346
 6.tiJj3 CiJ c6 7. :ie3 cd 8JiJxd4 :ic5 9. Wi d2 0 - 0 1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 a6 1l. CiJ b3
23.�f2 Black's compensation for
the exchange seems to be insuffi­
cient, Rodriguez Lopez - Sum­
merscale, London 2010 .
b) Black's most straightfor­
ward approach is based on:
ll . . . he3 12 .Wixe3 b5
Black does not lose time re­
treating, exchanges a piece in a
cramped position, and continues
with his planned pawn advance.
White's decisions in this posi­
tion are not difficult either. He is
able to maintain an advantage by
simple means, so I do not like this
line for Black. However, such an
expert in this variation as Mo­
rozevich played this way in the
recent World Cup, so Black might
have some hidden resources here.
13.i.d3 b4 14.ll:la4
White has tried all the possible
knight-retreats :
the seemingly attractive move
14.CiJe4 aS 1S.CiJbcS CiJxcS 16.CiJf6+
leads only to a draw (His attempt
to continue the fight with 16.WixcS
CiJe7 17.CiJgS h6 18.CiJf3 :ia6 19.�b1
Wffd 7 2 0 .g4 a4 21 .ha6 l"lxa6 2 2 .
Wixb4 CiJc6t provided Black with a
powerful initiative for the pawn in
the game Fier - Morozevich,
Khanty-Mansiysk 2011.) 16 . . . gxf6
17.hh7+ �xh7 18.Wih3+ �g7 19.
Wlg4+ �h7 20.Wih4+ �g7 2 1 .Wig4=
Bobras - Socko, Lublin 2 0 0 8 ;
the retreat o f the knight t o e 2
however, deserves serious atten­
tion : 14.Wffh 3 (it makes sense for
White to immediately create a
target on the enemy kingside)
14 . . . g6 1S.CiJe2 aS (The line 1S . . .
Wffb 6 16.�b1 a S 17.Wih6 a4, Axlrod
- Pitam, Israel 1994, is too opti­
mistic for Black. After 18.h4 !
CiJ dxeS 19.fxeS CiJxeS 2 0 .hS CiJg4
2 1.WigS eS 2 2 .hxg6 fxg6 23.CiJd2,
White has an edge.) 16.CiJbd4
CiJxd4 17.CiJxd4 a4 18.Wie3 Wffc7 19.
h4 b3. Now, since h4-hS cannot
be prevented, White seems to
have an advantage, but it is not
really so clear. After 20.a3 bxc2,
Black's plans include CiJd7-cS,
ic6-a6-c4, l"lfb8, Wffb 6, l"la7 and it
is questionable whether White
will manage to increase his pres­
sure on the kingside. He has the
edge, though . . .
14 . . . a5 15.'�h3
347
Chapter 4 0
15 ..• g6
The move 15 . . . h6 is less trust­
worthy for Black: 16.g4 .ia6 17.g5
i.xd3 18.l"lxd3 lLlb6 (White has a
clear advantage after 18 . . . lLldxe5
19.fxe5 lLlxeS 2 0 . l"lg3 hxgS 2 1 .
lLld4±, a s well a s after 18 . . . lLle7
19.gxh6 g6 20.lLld4±) 19.gxh6 g6
2 0 .lLlxb6 '\Wxb6 2 1.lLld2± and
White has the better position.
16.1Wh6 .ia6 17. lLlbc5 lLlxc5
1S.lLlxc5 hd3 19J�xd3 '\We7
2 0 .gh3 f6 21.lLlxe6 gf7 22.f5
lLlxe5 23.gg3 @hS
This more or less forced series
of about ten moves led in the
game Edouard - Socko, Differ­
dange 2008 to a very peculiar po­
sition. White has the better pawn
structure and seemingly the safer
king, but Black has a strong knight
on eS. There is so little material
left on the board that Black can
count on a favourable outcome of
the game. White is slightly better,
but he cannot convert his edge
into anything real. For example:
24.gxg6 (The games ends in a
draw after 24.l"lel gxfS 25.lLlf4
'\Wa7 26.l"lxe5 fxeS 27.lLlg6+ @g8
348
2 8 .lLlxe5+ l"lg7 29.l"lxg7+ '\Wxg7 30.
1We6+ @h8. It becomes clear that
White cannot achieve much by
forcing the issue, so he should
maintain the tension with 24.fxg6
lLlxg6 25.l"lel l"lg8 26.'\WhS '\Wd6
27.l"lee3 ! ? His rook will remain on
g3, encouraging an exchange of
rooks, which will weaken his op­
ponent's king. Black should be re­
luctant to enter a position of
this type.) 24 . . . b3 ! ? (The end­
game is worse for him after 24 . . .
lLlxg6 25.fxg6 '\Wxe6 26.gxf7 1Wxf7
27.l"lfl l"la6 28.l"lel±) 25.cxb3 a4
26.gg3 axb3 27.gxb3 '\Wa7 2S.
ga3 gcS+ 29.@bl '\Wf2 . Black
has sufficient compensation. Af­
ter 3 0 . @al lLlc4 31.gb3 gas
32.1Wf4 1Wa7 33.a3 gb7 34.'\Wg3
gabS 35.gxb7 \Wxb7 36.\Wc3
\Wxb2+ 37.\Wxb2 gxb2 the most
likely outcome of the game is a
draw.
c) ll . . ..ib4
With this pin Black restricts
White's possibilities. Sometimes
the threat of capturing on c3 may
 6. tiJf3 tiJ c6 7. 1i.e3 cd 8. tiJxd4 1i.cS 9. Wi d2 0 - 0 1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 a6 11. tiJ b3
be very unpleasant for White. Lat­
er Black has ideas of b7-b5, tiJc6-
a5, fi.b7, l"1c8, tiJd7-b6 and even
a6-a5. After a2-a3 , the pawn on
a3 might become a target for
Black's pawn-advance b5-b4.
12.1i.d3 b5
The line 12 . . . tiJa5 13.g4 Wic7 is
too passive. 14.tiJxa5 1i.xa5 15.1i.d4
fi.b6 16.1i.xb6 tiJxb6 17.Wie3 f6,
Bachmann - Berelowitsch, Nu­
remberg 20 08 and here White's
simplest reaction would be 18.
exf6 l"1xf6 19. tiJe2± keeping a slight
edge.
13.g4
We should mention the game
Anand - Morozevich, which end­
ed in a spectacular draw: 13.l"1hf1
tiJb6 14.a3 (Here I shall mention
another game as well: 14.Wif2 tiJc4
15.1i.xc4 bxc4 16.tiJd4 tiJe7 17. g4
and now Bareev gives an exclama­
tion mark to the move 17 .. .f6 ! ,
evaluating the position after 18.
exf6 l"1xf6+, as slightly preferable
for Black, Cabrilo - Bareev, Bel­
grade 1988. We shall soon en­
counter a similar position.) 14 . . .
fi.e7 15.tiJd4 Wic7 16.tiJxc6 Wixc6
17.1i.d4 tiJ c4 18 .Wie2 l"1b8 19.
fi.xh7+ ! ? Wxh7 20 .Wih5+ Wg8 2 1 .
l"1 d 3 f5 2 2 .l"1h3 fi.c5 23.l"1ff3 fi.xd4
24.l"1fg3 l"1b7 25.Wih7+ wt7 26.
Wixg7+ We8 27.Wixf8 + , draw,
Anand - Morozevich, San Luis
2 005.
13 .lt:'la5
• •
This move seems to me to be
the most promising for Black at
the moment.
After 13 . . . tiJb6 14.Wif2 tiJc4 it
would be good for White to play
15.tiJe4 15 . . . 1i.e7 16.1i.c5 ! ? , ana­
lyzed in the book "Opening for
White According to Anand", as
well as 15.1i.xc4 bxc4 16.tiJd4,
Amonatov - Rychagov, Dagomys
2009, for example : 16 . . . 1i.d7 (Af­
ter 16 . . . tiJe7, White can try 17.f5
and here, you can see the differ­
ence from the above-mentioned
game Cabrilo - Bareev, in which
instead of g2-g4 White played the
move l"1hfl.) 17.tiJxc6 fi.xc6 18.
fi.d4, or 18 .1i.c5 with a better posi­
tion for him.
13 . . . 1i.b7 - This natural devel­
opment looks good but might be a
bit too slow. 14.l"1hg1 l"1c8 (Here
again it looks good for Black to
opt for 14 . . . tiJ a5. After 15.Wfff2 ! ?
there i s a transposition to the
game Inarkiev - Nakhapetiane,
Olginka 2011. Black should have
continued with 15 . . . l"1c8 16.1i.d4
tiJc6 17.tiJe2 fi.e7, gaining a good
position. If 15.1i.d4 tiJc6 16.l"1g3
then 16 . . . a5 ! ?� with counterplay,
or 16.a3 fi.e7. Furthermore, Black
could consider trying the immedi­
ate pawn-sacrifice : 14 . . . a5 ! ?) 15.
349
Chapter 4 0
l"lg3 g6 ! ? (It i s too late for 15 . . .
'Lla5 ? ! 16.1:'\h3 g 6 1 7. .id4 and
White is threatening f4-f5, Nijbo­
er - Sielecki, Breda 20 0 1 . Black
can postpone any decisive action
a few more moves: 15 . . . 1:'\eS 16.
l"lh3 g6 17.1Wf2 , and here, not the
passive line 17 . . ..if8 18.g5 'Llb4
19.�b1 'Llxd3 20.cxd3 .ic6 2 1 .
'Lle2t - even though i n the result­
ing position White's edge is just
minimal, Nijboer - Glek, France
2003, while 17 . . . 'Ll a5, or 17 . . . .ixc3
18 .bxc3 \We7 19.g5 d4 ! ?oo lead to
rather unclear consequences.)
16.1:'\h3 f6. This was the idea be­
hind Black's previous move.
17.�b 1 ! This position was
reached in the computer game
Rajlich - Rentner2 , Playchess.
com 2 0 07.
White ignores the threat
against his e5-pawn and prepares
f4-f5 (The immediate pawn-ad­
vance would not work: 17.f5
'Llcxe5 18 .fxe6 'Llxd3 + . ) . The con­
tinuation was 17 . . . fxe5 18.f5 ! A
tremendously complicated posi­
tion has arisen, and it is very dan­
gerous position for Black. We
must have a look at some possible
lines : 18 . . . 1Wf6 (But not 18 . . . 'Lle7
350
19 .fxe6 'Llf6 2 0 ..ig5 l"lc7 2 1.1We1
\Wd6 2 2 .1Wh4 \Wxe6 2 3 .l"lf1 and
White's position is winning. He
also maintains an advantage
after 18 . . . e4 19 . .ixe4 'Ll ce5 2 0.fxe6
'Llf6 2 1..ig2 .ixc3 2 2 .bxc3 .) 19.
.ih6 (Things would be rather un­
clear after 19.1:'\h6 e4 20 . .ixe4
'Ll ce5) 19 . . . .ixc3 2 0 .bxc3 e4 2 1 .
.ixf8 'Llxf8 2 2 . .ie2 'Ll e 5 23.1:'\flt
and White is the exchange up
for a pawn and has some advan­
tage.
14.i.d4
After 14.'Llxa5 \Wxa5 15 . .id4
.ic5 16 . .ixc5 'Llxc5, Black's posi­
tion is quite acceptable, for exam­
ple : 17.�b1 .ib7 18.'Lle2 \Wxd2
19.1:'\xd2 and here, he can liven up
the game with 19 . . . d4 ! ? 2 0 .l"le1
!:'ladS? with sufficient counter­
play, or else choose the standard
move 19 . . .f6.
14 .ti:Jc4
•.
It is also possible for Black to
opt for 14 . . . 'Llc6, which would not
necessarily lead to a repetition of
moves. White can respond with
15 ..if2 'Lla5 16.1:'\hg1 (or 16.�bl)
16 ... 'Ll c4 17.\Wel. However, after
 6. 4Jj3 4J c6 7. 1J.e3 cd 8. 4Jxd4 fJ.c5 9. Vf1d2 0 - 0 1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 a6 11. 4J b3
17 . . .f6co, the position remains un­
clear.
15.�f2 a5 !
This pawn-sacrifice is essen­
tial for Black; otherwise, his play
would come to a dead end.
16.a3 fJ.e7 17.-!l:lxb5 fJ.a6 18.
4Jc3 �c7 19 . .ixc4 hc4 2 0 .
tl:ld2 �ab8 21.tl:lxc4 �xc4 22.
�e2 �c6 23.�d3 �fc8� and
Black has excellent compensation
for the pawn, Gharamian - Ni
Hua, Biel 2011.
d) ll . . . fJ.e7
After this retreat of the bishop,
Black plans to advance b5-b4 and
in the event of the blockading
move 4Jc3-a4, he intends to attack
the enemy knight with 4Jc6-a5
and fJ.c8-b7-c6.
12.h4 b5 13.1!lbl
The game we were following
transposed to the main line after
13.�h3 fJ.b7 14.mb1, Nijboer -
Stellwagen, Leeuwarden 2 0 0 2 ,
but Black had a good alternative
- 13 . . . 4J a5 ! ?
13 . . . 1J.b7
It is rather difficult to evaluate
whether Black should allow his
queenside to be blocked for the
sake exchanging the light-squared
bishops: 13 . . . b4 14.4Ja4 aS.
He can follow the same plan
with b5-b4 and 4Jc6-a5, even
without the preliminary move
fJ.c8-b7, for example: 13 . . . Vfffc 7 14.
hS b4 15.4Ja4 CiJaS 16.Vffff2 4Jc4 17.
fJ.xc4 dxc4 (but not 17 . . . Vfffx c4 18.
fS) 18.4Jbc5 �b8 and it is hard to
see how White can convert
the temporary activity of his piec­
es into anything really meaning­
ful.
14.�h3 �c7
The position is far from clear
351
Chapter 4 0
after the risky-looking immediate
14 . . . b4 15.tt:la4 tt:la5 16.tt:lbc5, but
Black should not allow this unless
he has to. It appear that he can af­
ford to lose a tempo to take the
c5-square under control.
15.h5 b4 16.tt:la4 tt:la5 17.
�g3
17 .ic6!
•.•
Now Black should not lose
more time: 17 .. J'lfd8 18.tt:lxa5
'&xa5 19 . .id4 ! ! '&xa4 20.f5 and
White's attack became decisive in
the game Nijboer - Stellwagen ,
Leeuwarden 2 0 0 2 .
18.c!Llxa5
The move 18.tt:lbc5 presents
Black with the extra possibility of
18 . . . d4 ! ? and, compared with
18.tt:lac5 tt:lxc5 19.tt:lxc5 tt:lc4 (19 . . .
.ib5 i s also good) 2 0 . .ixc4 dxc4
2 1.'&e2 l"lfd8, he has an excellent
position.
18 . . Jba5
This looks risky, but the forc­
ing line is very interesting.
It would be acceptable for
Black to choose the quieter varia­
tion: 18 . . . ha4 19.tt:lb3 l"lfc8 2 0 .
.id3 .ib5 = with equality.
352
19.f5 .ixa4 2 0 .ih6 b3!
•
Black loses after 2 0 . . . g6 2 1 .
hxg6 hxg6 2 2 . .ixf8 l"lxf8?! 2 3 .
.id3 ! ! + -
21.axb3
We must examine what hap­
pens after the other possible cap­
ture : 21.cxb3 ! ? '&xd2 2 2 . l"lxd2 .ic6
(The move 2 1.cxb3 is aimed at
preventing 22 . . . .ib5 since here
White can continue with 2 3.hb5
axb5 24.fxe6. If he captures on b3
with his a-pawn, Black can play
24 . . . fxe6, while here he would
have no other choice but to play
24 . . . tt:lxe5 25.l"lxg7+ lt>h8 26.l"lxd5
fxe6 27J''l xe5 .if6 2 8.l"lgg5 .ixe5
29.hf8 .if6 30.l"lxb5 l"lxf8, and
only White is in any danger; or
25.hg7 .ih4 2 6.e7 l"lfe8 27 . .ixe5+
hg3 2 8.hg3 l"lxe7 29J''lx d5, with
a very sharp endgame) 23 .f6 (the
line : 23.hg7 .ih4 24.l"ldd3 h6! is
in Black's favour) 23 . . . tt:lxf6 24.
exf6 (24.l"lxg7+ lt>h8 25.exf6 hf6
26.l"lg4 l"lg8 and Black's position is
perfectly acceptable in this com­
plicated endgame.) 24 . . .hf6 25.
.ixg7 hg7 (it is weaker for Black
to opt for 25 . . . .ih4 26.l"ldd3) 26 .
 6.li:JfJ '2l c6 7. i.e3 cd 8. '2lxd4 i.cS 9. V!ff d2 0 - 0 1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 a6 11. '2l b3

h6 e5 27J�xg7+ <ioh8 2 8 . Ei:f2 ! ? f5

29.Ei:c2co with a rather unclear po­
sition. A very unusual pawn struc­
ture has arisen in this endgame,
but Black's centre pawns guaran­
tee that he will not have any prob­
lems.
21 •.• V!ffx d2 22.Ei:xd2 .ib5 23.
c4
23.fxe6 fxe6 (The variation
23 . . . '2lxe5 24.hb5 axb5 2 5.hg7
i.h4 26.e7 Ei:fe8 27.he5+ hg3 It does not often happen that
2 8.hg3 Ei:xe7 29.Ei:xd5 leads to a you have an extra rook for two
sharp endgame which is difficult pawns in the endgame and yet
to evaluate.) 24.Ei:xg7+ Wh8 25. have to fight for the draw! Black
i.d3 i.b4 = and White does not can still cope with this task,
have any more than a draw. though . . . :
23 •.. dxc4 24.bxc4 27. . . ggs
The line 24.Ei:xg7+ Wh8 25.f6 It is also possible for Black to
i.b4 26.Ei:xd7 hd7 27.bxc4 trans­ continue with 27 . . . Ei:fd8 2 8 .i.d3
poses to the same position. i.f8+ and he has sufficient coun­
24 ..• .ib4 ter chances.
28.gxf7 .ie8 29 . .ig7+ Ei:xg7
3 0 .gxg7 .if8 31.gc7 .ixh5 32 .
.id3 .ig6 33 . .ixg6 hxg6=

25.gxd7!
White cannot achieve more
than a draw with 25.Ei:d4 i.c6
2 6.hg7 Ei:fb8 and he unable to in­ All these complications were
crease the pressure. quite interesting, but a draw
25 . .• .ixd7 26.gxg7+ Wh8 seems to be the most likely out­
27.f6 come.

353
AFTERWORD

Finally, I should like to tell you that the dynamic progress of the devel­
opment of contemporary chess theory obliges us to regard almost every
book with a degree of scepticism. Everything in this world undergoes
evolution and chess is no exception. The assessment of certain posi­
tions changes dramatically and sometimes even entire openings are
refuted. New variations and theoretical novelties appear and fade into
oblivion every day. I have therefore tried in my book to show you some
of the general principles, typical manoeuvres, exchanges, plans and
tactical resources which are intrinsic to the French defence, all based
on concrete analysis. I believe that a book of this type will be always
useful.

354
Index of Variations

Part 1. l.e4 e6
White avoids the mail lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0

Chapter 1 l.e4 e6
2 .b3 d5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2 .f4 d5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2

Chapter 2 l.e4 e6 2.ltlf3 d5

a) 3 .tt'lc3 d4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
b) 3 .e5 c5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Chapter 3 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3 .id3 dxe4 •

4.he4 tt'lf6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Chapter 4 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5

4.tt'lf3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0

Part 2. 1.e4 e6 2.f!'e2 ; 2.d3

Chigorin Variation; King's Indian Attack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Chapter 5 l.e4 e6 2.fl'e2

2 . . . c5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Chapter 6 l.e4 e6 2.d3 d5 3.ltld2

3 . . . tt'lf6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Chapter 7 l.e4 e6 2.d3 d5 3.f!'e2

3 . . . tt'lf6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
a) 3 ... tt'lc6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
b) 3 ... dxe4 4.dxe4 e5 5.tt'lf3 tt'lc6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
5.tt'lf3 c6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
5.tt'lf3 tt'ld7 6.tt'lbd2 c6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
b1) 6.tt'lbd2 .ic5 7.tt'lc4 We7 8.c3 . . . . 48
b1) 8.g3 . . . . 49

355
Index of Variations

Part 3. l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5

The Advance Variation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Chapter 8 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 �b6 5 . .!L:rf3 lLlc6

6 . l2J a3 cxd4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
6 .ie2 cxd4 7. cxd4 tLlh6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Chapter 9 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 �b6 5.lLlf3 lLlc6 6.id3

6 . . . cxd4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Chapter 1 0 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 �b6 5.lLJf3 lLlc6 6.a3

lLJh6 7.b4 cxd4
8.ixh6 gxf6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
8 . cxd4 tLlf5 9 .ie3 f6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Chapter 11 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 �b6 5.lLJf3 lLJc6 6.a3

lLJh6 7.b4 cxd4 8.cxd4 lLJf5 9.ib2
9 . . . id7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Chapter 12 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 �b6 5.lLJf3 lLJc6 6.a3

6 . . . c4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
6 ... id7 7.b4 cxd4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Part 4. l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.lLld2 dxe4

The Rubinstein Variation . . . • . . . • . . . . . . . . • . . . . . 76

Chapter 13 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.lLld2 dxe4 4.lLlxe4 lLld7 5.g3

5 . . . ttJgf6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Chapter 14 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3 .lLld2 dxe4 4.lLJxe4 lLJd7 5.lLlf3 lLlgf6

6 . .ig5 h6
7.ih4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
a) 7.tLlxf6 tLlxf6 8 .id2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
b) 8.ixf6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
c) 8 .ie3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Chapter 15 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.lLld2 dxe4 4.lLlxe4 lLld7 5.lLlf3 lLlgf6

6 . .ig5 h6 7.lLlxf6 lLlxf6 8 . .ih4 c5
9.ixf6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
a) 9.dxc5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

356
 Index of Variations

b) 9.i.c4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
c) 9.CUe5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
d) 9 .i.b5 + . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
e) 9.c3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
f) 9.i.e2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
g) 9.i.d3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Chapter 16 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.tl:\d2 dxe4 4.tl:\xe4 ttJd7 5.ll:\f3 tl:\gf6

6.tl:\xf6 tl:\xf6
7.i.c4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
a) 7.g3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
b) 7.i.d3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
c) 7.i.e2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
d) 7.i.e3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

Chapter 17 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.tl:\d2 dxe4 4.tl:\xe4 tl:\d7 5.tl:\f3 tl:\gf6

6.tl:\xf6 tl:\xf6 7.c3
a) 7 . . . c5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
b) 7 ... i.e7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

Chapter 18 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.tl:\d2 dxe4 4.tl:\xe4 tl:\d7 5.tl:\f3 tl:\gf6

6.i.d3
a) 6 . . . ttJxe4 7.i.xe4 ttJf6 8 .i.g5 i.e7 . . . . . . . .... ..... .... ..... . . . 119
a1) 8 .i.g5 �d6 9 .i.d3 . .... ..... .... ..... . . . 119
a2) 8 .i.g5 �d6 9.i.xf6 .... ..... .... ..... . . . 121
b) 6 ... c5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

Part 5. 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3 .tl:\d2 i.e7

The Morozevich Variation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

Chapter 19 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.tl:\d2 i.e7

4.g3; 4.a3; 4.c3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

Chapter 2 0 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.tl:\d2 i.e7 4.e5 c5

5.c3 CUc6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
5.�g4 lt>f8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

Chapter 21 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.tl:\d2 i.e7 4.tl:\gf3 tl:\f6

5.i.d3 c5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .148. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5.e5 cufd7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

357
Index of Variations

Chapter 22 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.tl:\d2 i.e7 4.i.d3 c5

5.exd5 ; 5.c3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
a) 5.dxc5 tt:lf6 6.'&e2 tt'lc6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
b) 6.'&e2 0-0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

Part 6. l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.tl:\d2 c5

The Tarrasch Variation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

Chapter 23 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.tl:\d2 c5

4.c3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

a) 4.exd5 '&xd5 5.dxc5 hc5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175

b) 5.dxc5 tt:lf6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

Chapter 24 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.tl:\d2 c5 4.tl:\g£J cxd4

5.tt'lxd4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180

Chapter 25 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.tl:\d2 c5 4.tl:\g£J cxd4 5.exd5 '&xd5

6 . .ic4
6 . . . '&d8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
6 ... '&d7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
6 ... '&d6 7.i.b3 tt:lc6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
7. '&e2 tt:lf6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190

Chapter 26 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.tl:\d2 c5 4.tl:\g£J cxd4 5.exd5 �xd5

6 . .ic4 �d6 7. 0 - 0
7. . . tt:Jf6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194

Part 7. l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.tl:\c3 .ib4

The Winawer Variation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . 206

Chapter 2 7 l.e4 e 6 2.d4 d5 3.tl:\c3 .ib4

a) 4.'&d3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
b) 4.i.d2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
c) 4.'&g4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
d) 4.exd5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
e) 4.i.d3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
f) 4.a3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 13
g) 4.tt:Jge2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216

358
 Index of Variations

Chapter 28 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.lt:lc3 .ib4 4.e5

4 . . . b6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 19
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

a) 4 . . . c5 5.'\Wg4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 1
b) 4 . . . c5 5.dxc5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 2
c) 4 . . . c5 5.i.d2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 3

Chapter 29 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.�c3 .ib4 4.e5 c5 5.a3

5 . . . i.a5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 8
a) 5 . . . i.xc3 6.bxc3 ljj e 7 7.i.d3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 9
b) 7.h4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 9
c) 7.a4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
d) 7.ljj f3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232

Chapter 30 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.�c3 .ib4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 .b:c3 6.

bxc3 �e7 7.'�g4
7 . . . cxd4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236

Chapter 31 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3Ak3 i.b4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 .b:c3 6.bxc3

�c6
7.h4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
a) 7.ljj f3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
b) 7.a4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
c) 7.'\Wg4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260

Part 8. l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.�c3 �f6 4 . .ig5 J.b4

The MacCutcheon Variation . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268

Chapter 32 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. �c3 �f6 4.J.g5 .ib4

5.i.d3 ; 5. ljj g e2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
a) 5.exd5 Wxd5 6.hf6 hc3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270
b) 6.i.xf6 gxf6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272

Chapter 33 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.�c3 �f6 4.J.g5 .ib4 5.e5 h6 6.exf6

6 . . . hxg5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273

Chapter 34 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.�c3 �f6 4.J.g5 .ib4 5.e5 h6 6 . .icl

6 . . . ljj e4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279

Chapter 35 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.�c3 �f6 4.J.g5 .ib4 5.e5 h6 6.i.e3

�e4
7.ljj g e2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285

359
Index of Variations

7.Wg4 g5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286
a) 7.Wg4 c;t>£8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286
b) 7.Wg4 g6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289

Chapter 36 l.e4 e6 2 .d4 d5 3. tlJc3 tlJf6 4 . .ig5 .ib4 5.e5 h6 6 .

.id2 .ixc3
7.hc3 l2le4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293
7.bxc3 l2le4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294

Part 9. l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.l2lc3 tlJf6 4.e5

The Steinitz Variation . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . 30 0

Chapter 37 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.tlJc3 tlJf6

4.exd5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .301. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

a) 4 . .id3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301
b1) 4.e5 l2lfd7 5.l2lf3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303
b2) 5.l2lce2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306

Chapter 38 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.tlJc3 tlJf6 4.e5 l2lfd7 5.f4 c5

6.dxc5 l2lc6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314
6.l2lf3 l2lc6 7 ..ie3 Elb8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314
a) 7 . .ie3 Wb6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315
b) 7 . .ie3 a6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321

Chapter 39 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.tlJc3 tlJf6 4.e5 tlJfd7 5.f4 c5 6.tlJf3

tlJc6 7 . .ie3 cxd4 8.tlJxd4 .ic5 9.tM2 0 - 0
10 .g3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328
10. 0-0-0 hd4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329
10.0-0-0 l2lxd4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330
1 0. 0-0-0 a6 11.l2lce 2 ; 11.c;t>b1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331
a) 11.Wf2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332
b) 11.h4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339

Chapter 40 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.tlJc3 tlJf6 4.e5 tlJfd7 5.f4 c5 6.tlJf3

tlJc6 7 .ie3 cxd4 8.tlJxd4 .ic5 9.tM2 0 - 0 1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 a6 11.tlJb3
•

a) 11. .. b6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345
b) 11. .. he3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 347
c) 11. .. .ib4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 348
d) 11. .. .ie7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351

360