Ê
 

 

  20.Bxb5+ gave White a winning
  Ê

  advantage in E.Sveshnikov-
[Sam Collins] J.Timman, Tilburg 1992.; 11...Rc8
transposes to P.Haba-C.Renner,
   ! !" " #" # $#  Austrian Team Ch. 2004, where
"$%&'  #Diagrama White had a healthy extra pawn
after 12.Qb1 Qb6 13.Qxb6 axb6
14.Rb1 Bxa3 15.Rxb6 Bc6 16.Bb5
Ne7 17.Ke2 0-0 18.Bxc6 Nxc6
19.Ra1 Ra8 20.Rb3 Be7 21.Rxa8
Rxa8 22.Rxb7 Rc8 23.Kd3 .; 11...Ba4
12.Qb1 Qc7 13.Bd3 Ne7 14.0-0 ,
followed by Rc1 and c4, gave White
the better game in A.Praznik-
A.Yakimenko, correspondence
G$'! (!G I feel this is sloppy as
White's last move contained a
positional threat which Black
shouldn't ignore. )'* [The point,
although White has also tried 8 Be2,
8 g3 and 8.Rb1 , all of which tend to
transpose to the main lines after
8...Na5, but note that delaying this
move with 8...Nge7? runs into
9.Bxc4! which wins a pawn since
9...dxc4 10.Nxc4 , 11 Nd6+, 12
Nxf7+ and 13 Nxh8 is crushing.
However, immediately opening the
queenside is best and will neutralise
Black's long-term advantage on that
wing, as well as draw attention to

 could cast
the underdevelopment of the black
kingside. ] )#+' ,$+' $"
$+" &+" (! $G The
alternatives don't change the nature
of the position: [11...Qa4 12.Qb1!?
Bc6 13.Bd3 Ne7 14.0-0 h6
Ê.Kroeze-H.Hoeksema, Enschede
1994 deviated with


1993.] (! &#G  - 
itherwise White would consider
Ng5 and, if kicked, Nh3-f4-h5 to
pressurise the g7-pawn. $-
[This may seem to be shooting into
thin air, but White reckons that
Black can't hold back ...g6 for long
(if necessary, an f4-push should
force it in any event). Pascal
Charbonneau implemented a more
conentional plan against Mark
Bluvshtein in Montreal 2003:
14.Qe2 Nc8 15.Be3 Nb6 16.Nd2 Bc6
17.f4 g6 18.Rfc1 Qd7 19.a4 Nxa4
20.c4 Nb2 21.cxd5 exd5 22.Bb1 Bb5
23.Qf3 Nd3 Ê
doubt on the pawn sacrifice 24.Rc3
Rc8? Êswallowing his pride with

 was best 25.Rxc8+ Qxc8
26.Qf1 Qc3 27.Rxa7 with a winning
position.] .  ". $#)
(+. */ [Typically enterprising
play from Motylev, whereas 16.Ng2
followed by Ne3, Qe2 and playing

  when simplest is for c4 or f5 is a more sedate way of

 

 and Black's handling the position.] ('"/*
compensation is insufficient 15.Rc1 [After this White is definitely much
Nc8 16.c4 dxc4 17.Rxc4 Qb5 better and so 16...fxg6 is superior,
18.Qxb5 Bxb5 19.Rxc8+ Rxc8 although 17.Nxg6 Rg8 18.Qh5 Kd8
19.Nxf8 Rxf8 20.Bxh6 gives White
c
three good pawns and a centralised
black king for the piece.] G&.
%+.  )$+.  (+%  ,&+ 0 $G
$+-)(! $%G&!G$! 0
1!) &% */ After a queen
exchange, White could take a fourth
pawn on either h6 or b7, but
Motylev is an aggressive player and
was clearly enjoying his position too
much to opt for a better endgame.
1#G&%( "2' [25.c4!
was even stronger, when the pawn
is untouchable in view of Ba5+.]
"&   # 2!) G$+'G (+'G
)("0 1#) ,(+!) $%"
adopted this plan with good results.
)( [Preparing to meet an
eventual ...Bc5 with kingside
castling is an obvious and good plan.
In contrast to the previous game,
7...f6 puts much more pressure on
the white centre and so 8.b3 is
inappropriate: 8...fxe5 9.Nxe5
Ê
 
 is nothing for White
9...Nxe5 10.dxe5 Bc5 11.Qh5+ g6
12.Qh4 was D.Bronstein-L.Roos,
Hastings 1993 and now 12...cxb3
13.Rb1 Ne7 14.Rxb3 Qc7 gives
Black good chances.; Another
standard plan, 8.g3 , also falls short
2+'G* 1+'G  #+!"0 &#) after 8...fxe5 9.Nxe5 Ê  
! 01 &!01'G&'"0 plans to hit the e5-pawn with ...Nf7
1)"(#G  &# 0&'GG!G and ...Qc79...Nf6 and 10...Bd6 with
 equality, as in J.Johansson-
L.Karlsson, Swedish Ch.,
Ê
'3.
45-
6 Lindesberg 1993.; However, Dvoirys
 preferred 8.Nh4!? in S.Dvoirys-
7!Ê

 G.Vallin, Cappelle la Grande 2001
and was rewarded after 8...g6

Ê
 
 


[Sam Collins] is roughly equal 9.f4 fxe5?
ÊMcDonald suggests    10.fxe5
   ! !" " #" # $# 
Bg7 11.Nhf3! Nh6 12.Bxc4! dxc4
"$% &'   # G$'! % 
13.Nxc4 Qa6 14.Nd6+ Kd7 15.Bxh6
Diagrama
Bxh6 16.d5! with an attack.]
)%+" ,$+" It makes sense to
capture with the knight in order to
free the f-pawn and to let the light-
squared bishop out. ,$+"
[Preventing White from gaining a
bind as he obtained after 9...Nf6
10.f4 Bd6 11.Ndf3 in J.Prizant-
D.Erashchenkov, Essentuki 2003.]
!+" (#"  $G By no
This is probably the best alternative means the only try: [11...Bd7 12.Rb1
to 7...Na5. Black reopens Ê 
 followed by b4 is another
discussions on the stability of the way of playing on the queenside
white centre, intending to exchange although the immediate 

on e5 to secure the c5-square for his runs into  


bishop, and recently Pelletier has 12...Ne7 13.b4 cxb3 has seen White
2
try two plans: 14.c4 (14.Nxb3 0-0
 looks more
Ê


 
 15.Nxc5 Qxc5 solid 21.c4 Nf5 22.cxd5 h6 23.dxe6
16.Rxb7 Qc8 17.Rb4 Qxc3 18.Bd3
Be8 19.Bb2 Qc5 20.Qg4 Nf5 21.Rb7
Qc6 22.Qb4 also led to a draw in
.Braga-J.Vilela, Bayamo 1984)
14...0-0 15.Bf3 Rad8 Ê 

 29.Bf6! g6 30.Rbd1 supplies a clear
   

  is more advantage; Pelletier then switched
ambitious 16.Qxb3 Bc6 17.cxd5



Bxd5 18.Qa4 Qc6 was drawn in

 
  

  


S.B.Hansen-S.Brynell, Copenhagen
1993.; 11...Nh6 12.b4 cxb3 13.Nxb3
Nf5 14.a4 Be7 15.Bb5+ Kf7 16.Nd4
Rd8 17.Bd3 Kg8 18.Bxf5 exf5
19.Ba3 Re8 20.Re1 Be6 21.Qd3 saw
White dominate in E.Prie-J.Roos,
rench Ch., Chambery 1994. ;
11...Qc7 12.b3 cxb3 13.c4 Bd4
14.Rb1 Bxe5 15.Nf3 and the
exchange of Black's dark-squared
bishop will leave White with the
initiative.] '*Diagrama
[Winning the bishop pair at the cost
of some queenside looseness,
whereas 12.Bh5+ g6 13.Bg4 h5
14.Be2 Bd7 15.Rb1 0-0 16.Nxc4 dxc4
17.Qxd7 Rad8 18.Qa4 Rxf2 19.Rxf2
Bxf2+ 20.Kh1 Qc6 21.Qxc6 Nxc6
22.Bg5 Re8 23.Bf6 gave White a
slightly better endgame in .Vallejo
Pons-Y.Pelletier, Biel 2002.]
20.Rab1 b6 Ê
Bxe6 24.Bg6 Qc4 25.Qh3 Ne7
26.Bd3 Qa2 and now instead of
Grischuk's 27 Qh5, 27.f5! looks very
convincing as 27...Bxf5 28.Bxf5 Nxf5
to 15...Rf7 16.Rb1 Ê 
 
  was equal in Li Shilong-
J.Arizmendi Martinez, Linares
200216...b6 17.Qh3 Qc7 18.Bd3 g6
19.Re1 Qxc3 20.Bb2 Qc6 21.Rbc1
Qd7 which left White struggling to
show enough compensation in
S.Conquest-Y.Pelletier, rance
2002, but 19 Bg5!? may improve.]
 2%G G(-" A standard
device to weaken the kingside dark
squares. G.  )(.$%" ,(."
This position is extremely difficult
for Black as after the inevitable
exchange of his knight, he will be
unable to control his own dark
squares. ,&# &- -"
 (+%"* +%" 2%  (  (% 
2#) & 1-G "2#  2%#G
 - !/ [26...Qg4 , trying to
create his own play, was much more
tenacious, but after 27.Qd2 f4 28.f3
Qg3 29.a5 b5 30.a6! White will
penetrate along the b-file.] G#+!
&+# 0)2+# 2+# 0,1-The
black rooks just aren't effective
enough, whereas the white queen
has the long-range power as well as
the short-range knife required to
mount a lethal attack on the black
#+' $+'  $+#" king. ,2 # &! (!"
&+#" "&! '  [In A.Grischuk-  &' 2' & 2#  (G*
Y.Pelletier, Biel 2001, Black Introducing the possibility of Bd6
preferred 15...Qc7 16.Bg5 Rf7 17.f4 followed by running with the e-
Bd7 18.Bh5 Ê   is Pelletier's pawn, as well as the slightly more
suggestion 18...Qc5+ 19.Kh1 Rff8 exotic Qd2 and Bf8 to engineer a
j
dark-squared breakthrough. % 

  


 
&!%"(%)1.) &- 2#G 
      ,
G&+. 0  securing equality 11...0-0-0 12.Rb1
Kb8 13.h4 Ka8 14.h5 Qc7 15.Nf1
Ê
!
89:
 Nb3 16.Bf4 g6 17.g4 gxh5 18.gxh5
;9-9-9
 Nf5 19.Ng3 Nxg3 20.fxg3 Be7
!99Ê

 21.Nh2 Rdg8 22.Ng4 Bg5 23.Rf1
White was doing well in A.Motylev-
[Sam Collins]
A.Berelovich, Bucharest 1998.] 
 %" [10...Nf5 can hardly be classed
   ! !" " #" # $# 
as a mistake, but gives White the
"$% &'   # G$'! $"
interesting option of Bg2-h3xf5 and
Diagrama
in such closed structures, bishops
are generally inferior to knights:
11.Re1 Be7 12.Rb1 h5 13.h4 Rc8 Êor

  
 
  


  
 

   
 
 


 

 with the better chances for
White in G.Hernandez-J.Gonzalez
Zamora, Cuernavaca 2003 14.Bh3
g6 15.Qc2 Rc7 16.Nf1 Qb3 17.Qe2
Ba4 18.Bxf5 gxf5 19.Bg5 Qc2 20.Qe3
). I've taken some liberties with Qe4 21.Bxe7 Qxe3 22.Nxe3 Kxe7
the move-order of this game as 23.Ng5 and the h5-weakness,
Golod actually fianchettoed his coupled with Black's inferior pieces,
bishop a little earlier, but it really gave Black a difficult defensive task
doesn't make much difference so in J.Nunn-K.Arkell, Isle of Man
long as White remembers not to let 1994.] +% Diagrama
the black knight into b3. )(!G
,(. ine of three possible spots
for the white bishop. in g2 it
doesn't do a great deal, of course,
but it has the benefit of blocking
neither the e-file nor the h-pawn.
It's fair to say, however, that this
development, according to recent
practice, isn't enough for an
advantage. ,$G [Instead after
9...h6 10.0-0 Ne7 11.Re1 ÊBlack
I think this is the correct response,
played more precisely in B.Ivanovic-
because otherwise White risks
V.Dimitrov, Niksic 1996 with
becoming worse on the kingside.
  
    (saving a
.+%  $-  The
tempo in the journey to a4)  

3
structure which has arisen is a
typical and fascinating one. Black
has control of the centre and the
possibility of an eventual ...e5 which
could give him an overwhelming
game, but in the meantime White
will be exerting as much pressure as
possible on the e6-pawn. The
present game is a good example of
both sides playing sensibly and
maintaining a dynamic equilibrium.
&-" () & $.  "$!%
There's a strange balance on the
kingside, since neither side wants to
exchange knights: White would be
improving the black structure by
doing so, while Black would be
resolving the awkward position of
the f3-knight. "(%G ( 1')
G2%  1) )(- (.G ,&#
2!) 2 $#   2  $+-
$+- $G (% $.  $.
" [Had Black tried 24...Nxf4
25.Nxf4 e5 , the response 26.Qf5!
would have generated enough
counterplay to hold the balance.]
"(  Quite possibly Black
,(- Probably the most logical
spot for the bishop, and certainly so
after 8 g3, because from h3 the
bishop targets both the f5-square
and the e6-pawn, thereby
discouraging Black's typical moves,
...f5 and ...Nf5. It must be said that
against this plan Black has enjoyed
a lot of success with a rapid ...g5
and ...h5 pawn storm, gaining time
on the bishop, but I don't think this
is objectively worrying. I have
pointed out improvements below,
although anyone who gets queasy
seeing pawns running towards their
king should consider a set-up with
g3, h4 and Bh3 where such a plan is
should have played on. < < much harder for Black to pull off.
, [Korchnoi once wrote that
Ê

(-
= castling is always the most natural
 move, but not always the best. In
239> these lines it can be useful to leave
-9-9Ê

 the c8-square free for the king's
 knight so that it can swing round to
b6. That said, it's a blocked position
[Sam Collins]
and the black king frequently ends
up on b8 or a8 anyway, so I don't
   ! !" " #" # &' 
think it's a big deal. 9...Ne7 is the
"$% $#   # G$'! $"
main alternative as Black judges
).(!GDiagrama
that castling is not an immediate
necessity and plans to save a tempo
by keeping the c8-square free for the
knight. The idea is ...Qc7 and ...Nc8-
b6 before committing the king, and

x
after 10.0-0 we are at something of a
tabiya. Then 10...h6 leads to a
further split and appears best: 

10...Qc7 11.Nh4 Nc8 12.f4 g6 13.Rb1
Nb6 14.Ndf3 h6 15.Ng2 0-0-0
16.Bg4 Ê  is even better,
intending 17 Ng4 and if Black stops
Qc7 18.Nxb3 cxb3 19.Bd2 Na5
20.Rbc1 Nc4 21.Nxc4 Qxc4 22.Rg1
Kb8 23.g4 Bb5 24.Bf1 Qc6 25.f5 gxf5
26.gxf5 Bg5 27.Bxg5 hxg5 28.Rg2
Rh7 29.fxe6 fxe6 30.Qf6 Bxf1
31.Rxf1 a6!? 32.Rxg5 Rgh8 33.Rf2
Qc4 was L.Psakhis-I.arago, Banja
it with   then
  leaves Luka 1985 and in view of the h-file
White with more options than in the
game, since he can prepare g4 with
h3 16...Be7 17.h4 h5 18.Bh3 Kb8
19.Ng5 Rdf8 20.Be3 Ka8 21.Rf3 Nc6
22.g4 hxg4 23.Bxg4 Nd8 24.Rh3 Qc6
25.Qe2 Qb5 26.Rf1 Qb3 27.h5 gxh5
28.Rxh5 Rxh5 29.Bxh5 Na4 30.Bc1
Nb6 31.Ne3 and White was pressing
pressure and his insecure king,
White's winning chances were
minimal. ; Some strong players have
recently experimented instead with
9...Be7 . Then 10.0-0 Êagainst
  , Black found an interesting
plan in P.Etchegaray-M.Apicella,
rench Ch., Nantes 1993 and
in J.Pinter-E.Mednis, Budapest secured fine play after  
1976.; '
 10...g6 was Tigran 

, but White should prefer
Petrosian's choice against Igor a trick: 


 
 

Zaitsev at Sochi 1977. After 11.Rb1
h6 White produced an instructive
knight manoeuvre: 12.Nh4!? 0-0-0
13.Ng2 Kb8 14.Ne3 Rc8 15.Ng4 Bg7
16.Bg2 when a draw was agreed,
although I think White has an edge
because 17 h4 will follow, while
  

  
16...h5 17.Nf6 slightly favours
White.; #
 10...Qc6?! 11.a4 Qc7 is
senseless provocation and Black can
easily lose control of the queenside. ;
Returning to 10...h6: 11.Nh4
Ê     

 14 Nf1, obtaining the better game


     , gaining the
advantage 10...h5 11.Rb1 is the
usual way to meet 9...Be7 and is a
move generally in White's favour
because otherwise ...Nb3 is an
important resource for Black. After
11...0-0-0 Ê 
  was good for Black in
A.Minasian-V.Korchnoi, European
Ch., ihrid 2001, but White should
have allowed the black 'threat' with
the simple 12 Re1 Qc6 13 Qe2 Ba4


   


   12.Ne1 g5 13.Bg2 Nh6 14.Bh1! Nf5


   15.Ng2 f6 16.exf6 Bxf6 17.Re1 g4


 saw Black produce a classic 18.Nf4 h4 19.b4 White was doing
counterattack typical of this line in well in M.Bosboom-
R.Burnett-Hoang Thanh Trang, J.Brenninkmeijer, Dutch Ch. 1992.]
Budapest 2000:       -  [10...Nh6 11.Rb1 Bb5
  
 
    12.Re1 Qc6 13.b3 Êbut I'd

      recommend  


with
which won material in view of a normal edge 13...cxb3 14.Nxb3

 
   Nxb3 15.Qxb3 Bd3 left White with
11...Nec6 12.f4 0-0-0 13.Rb1 Êand no advantage in I.Zaitsev-A.Lunev,
not     13...Be7 14.Ng2 irel 1994.] $ Diagrama
Rdg8 15.Kh1 g6 16.Ne3 Nb3 17.Qf3
J

[Against 11.Rb1 , Black can sit tight
with 11...Kb8 , when the position
after Ê 
      the knight would be sidelined after

   
 
 
   tighter, although after 25.Ng5 Rdf8
left White clearly better in G.Sax-
D.Marovic, isijek 197812.Ne1 Ne7
13.Ng2 has been reached several
times, with Black making a plus
score. The reason for this isn't the
magnificence of his position but the
fact that white players messed
around with moves like Kh1 and
Qf3 to no end - I'm not giving these
games since I regard them as
theoretically irrelevant. I think that
a much better plan is to play Ne3
and push for f4-f5, with normal
play.; Note that 11.Nh4 g5 12.Ng2?
h5 was good for Black in K.Regan-
E.Mednis, Budapest 1978.] -"/
[The problem with this is that now
...g5 will be very difficult to achieve,
whereas 11...g5 12.Bg2 Be7 13.Rb1
h5 14.Qe2 is very logical play from
both sides and 14...Nh6 Ê


 avoid 45.Bxd5?? Qxe5! .] "2! 
just grab the pawn.] $!%*
Immediately heading for the
weakened square. $' 2' 
$+#  &+#  Black was virtually
compelled to go in for this exchange,
but now White has a natural
kingside build-up which is hard to
prevent. ( "$."$-  %
.  G$.(G )&!1') ,$
2!%) $%    &% 1G
(.* 2!) - $%" This is
definitely best, because otherwise
g4. $+%" +%"*/ [24...gxf5 looks
26.h4 the h-pawn is a target while
Black needs to keep an eye on the
b3-break.] "-2#) $!2-!)
G2%#  2#  )$%  2#G ,(%*
&" &. 2#!G  $ White
has achieved a perfect set-up, but
it's difficult to see a breakthrough
and so Motylev manoeuvres
patiently until his 39th move.
 (' 2  &'" 2 (%)
1- ""2 ( 2!(G
G2  (' )2! &#  What
follows isn't too difficult for the
Russian Champion: , * %+ 
$+!" +!"  2+G (
2  2+G2+G&% 2"
(# "&*[While material is still
equal, the superiority of every white
piece makes the black position
untenable, although Motylev had to
 
   

   2GG&"1'))1. 1G
       ,1% 1'  "1 1  " 1!

        1'  "1#  1  "1# 1' 

  left Black with all the "1!  1  ""1! 1'  " 2-G
good squares in G.Sax-E.Mednis, &!) "G2G 1G ")2  2+ 
Rome 198415.Nc2 Kb8 16.Ne3 Rc8 ",&+  
was J.Pinter-Schmidt, Budapest
1977, when I think that White can

G
Ê"
 $:3

 
9 has been the main player here and I
?
>  think his games tell the story of the
 Ê "

 " position: 12...Kb8 (12...Nec6 13.Rb1
Kb8 Ê 


   
[Sam Collins]
 


 
  saw Black improve in
The young GM and new US
N.Pokazanjev-V.Kosyrev, Kazan
Champion, Hikaru Nakamura, has
2005 14.Qc2 Qc7 15.Nf1 Nb3
demonstrated touching fidelity to
16.Be3 Nca5 17.N3h2 Ba4 18.Qe2
the Advance Variation over the past
h5 19.Bg5 Be7 20.Bxe7 Qxe7 21.Nf3
year or two, even within the context
Nc6 22.Ng5 was pleasant for White
of an extremely wide repertoire
in S.Erenburg-J.Lechtynsky,
(anyone who successfully plays 1 e4
Budapest 2002; White had
e5 2 Qh5 clearly likes variety!). As
favourably exchanged the dark-
he has made exceptionally rapid
squared bishops, while the black
progress which shows no sign of
minor pieces had the control of a
abating, we could soon have another
desert) 13.Rb1 Qc7 Ê 
 
adherent of the Advance at the


  
 
  was
highest level.    ! !" "
S.Erenburg-E.Bareev,
#" # &'  "$% $#   #
playchess.com (blitz) 2004;
G.(!G)-Diagrama
Erenburg abstained from the h5 and
f4 plan, but without gaining
anything and

  

    
         


 supplied balanced play 14.Nf1
Nc8 15.N3h2 Ê 
 was
S.Erenburg-Hoang Thanh Trang,
Budapest 2002 and Black assumed
the initiative after 

  

  
 
      
)$" ,$'! We've seen that 
       


White often wants to gain space 15...Be7 16.Ng4 looked very
with h4 and that a bishop on h3 gets promising to me at first, with the
in the way. Thus one aim of White's idea being that White wants to
8th is to get an improved version of occupy f6 as soon as possible once
the Bh3 lines, while he also has the Black g-pawn moves.
interesting independent play based urthermore, after 16...h5 17.Ngh2
on Ng5 or pushing the h-pawn. , he's on the the point of establishing
Racing the king away, but Black
has experimented with a number of
alternatives: [9...Ne7 10.Bh3 h6
11.0-0 0-0-0 12.Re1 has been
extensively tested. Sergey Erenburg
a bind, but it is precisely here that
Black has an excellent pawn
sacrifice: 17...g5! 18.Bxg5 Bxg5
19.hxg5 h4 20.gxh4 Rxh4 21.Bg2
Rdh8 22.Nf3 R4h7 with more than

enough compensation and after 12.Bh3 Bxe5 13.dxe5 Ng8 14.Qg4 g6
23.Ne3 Nb6 24.Ng4 Ba4 25.Qe2 Nd7 15.0-0 Ne7 16.Nf3 Nb3 17.Be3 Qc7
White is still stuck for a plan.; 9...h5 18.Rad1 h6 19.h5 g5 20.Nd4 Nxd4
10.Bh3 Nh6 has been played several 21.cxd4 0-0-0 22.Bd2 Nc6 23.Kh2 b5
times, but the model response was 24.f4 gxf4? Ê

    
demonstrated in one of its first   
    is
outings: 11.0-0 Be7 12.Ne1 g6 unclear 25.Rxf4 Qb6 26.Rf6 b4
13.Ng2 0-0-0 14.Rb1 Kb8 15.Nf3 27.axb4 Nxb4 28.Bxh6 saw White
Qb3 16.Qe2 Ba4 17.Bg5 Bxg5 shortly win in A.Grischuk-
18.Nxg5 Qc2 19.Qf3 Nb3 20.Qf4 M.Apicella, rench Team Ch. 2003.
Nd2 21.Rfc1 Qd3 22.Rd1 Nxb1 ] (-Diagrama
23.Rxd3 cxd3 24.Nf3 d2 25.Nxd2
Nxd2 26.Qxd2 gave White a
winning position for White in
G.Sax-H.Ree, Amsterdam 1979. ;
9...Qc6 10.Ng5 h6 11.Nh3 Qa4
12.Qf3 Qc2 13.Nf4 Ne7 14.Ng2 Qh7
ran into 15.b4! cxb3 16.Bd3 Qg8
17.Rb1 Ba4 18.Ne3 Rc8 19.c4 dxc4
20.Ndxc4 Nxc4 21.Nxc4 Nd5 22.Bd2
Be7 23.0-0 in E.Sveshnikov-
V.Eingorn, Sochi 1986. ritz [10.Bg2 makes less sense and was
assesses this as being clearly better well met by 10...Nh6 11.0-0 f5
for Black but it is probably winning 12.exf6 gxf6 13.Re1 Ng4 14.Nh2 h5!
for White due to the comical 15.Nxg4 hxg4 16.Qxg4 e5 17.Qf3 e4
position of the stuff on g8 and h8.; 18.Qe2 f5 with a bind in
9...h6 10.Bh3 Be7 Ê   K.Valkesalmi-J.Tisdall, Torshavn

    


 1987. ] %" +%  The only
     


  correct response, and Black has
 

   
  was scored very heavily when White
balanced in S.Vysochin-E.Andreev, doesn't take en passant, especially
Barlinek 200211.0-0 g5 12.h5 0-0-0 when h4 has weakened the g4-
13.Re1 Kb8 14.Rb1 Rh7 15.Bg4 Rg7 square and made an ...f4-advance
16.Qe2 Ba4 was also level in
Y.Gonzalez-i.Almeida, Barcelona
2003 when neither side could do
much on the kingside, while Black
couldn't break through on the
queenside.; 9...f5 10.exf6 Ê  
attractive. .+%   -"
[Instead 12...Bd6 13.Qe2 Re8 14.Re1
Kb8 15.Nf1 h5 16.Ne3 Nh6 17.Ng2
Ng4 18.Nf4 Nb3 19.Nxh5 Nxa1
20.Bxg4 f5 21.Nf6 Qd8 22.Nxe8
Qxe8 23.Bh3 Nb3 24.Bg5 was
   


 crushing in M.Panarin-L.Psakhis,

 
 
 , as in EU Internet Ch. (blitz) 2004,; but
D.Schneider-V.Akobian, Las Vegas I.Khairullin-M.Rodshtein, Belfort
2005, is a less convincing treatment 2005 indicated a possible defence:
because Black can't be stopped from 12...Ne7 13.Re1 Rg8 14.Nf1 Ê
 
playing ...g5 10...Nxf6 11.Ne5 Bd6
‰
  is good for Black 14...Nb3
15.Rb1 Qd6 16.Kh1 Nxc1 17.Qxc1
Nc6 18.Qc2 Rg6 19.Ne3 Qc7 20.Ng2
e5 21.Bf5 Rg7 22.Ne3 Kb8 23.Bxd7
Qxd7 24.Qf5 e4 25.Nh2 Rg6 26.Kg2
Qxf5 27.Nxf5 Ne7 28.Rh1 and a
draw was agreed.] 2  $- 
$- The attack on the h5-pawn
creates problems for Black. $%"
[This leads to a thankless defensive
task, but Black was already under
pressure. 14...Nf7 15.Bg2 Nd6
16.Rb1 Re8 17.Ndf1 Bg7 18.Bf3
favoured White in G.Sax-
A.Kuligowski, Warsaw 1979. ]
"(+%" +%" %* (!  G1%*
The g3-pawn is now covered, and
there's very little room to hit the
white king on either side, while the
f-pawns render the black bishops
almost entirely useless. Black
needn't necessarily lose this position
(and a subtle point is that a queen
trade, which is generally in White's
favour, will leave the h-pawn safe
from diagonal attack), but White
can play on forever. G2!)
)2+)0 2+) ,$-%  $'
$+' &+'  &+' #+'
* Another precise move by the
US Champ. If Black were able to fix
the pawn on a3 with ...b5, then
...Bxa3 would be a major resource to
restrain White's ambitions. '"
" ' itherwise the b3-pawn
would fall to Be3 and Nd2. (!
'+# "(+#   This is probably
going to the g-file.] 2  (%)
 $%  (!G $! 2  2+ 
(+  $+' White now has
something real to work with and
Nakamura sets about his task.
1#  "1# 1'"  $! 1
G$%  (!  )$ (#G ,$! 
(+" (+" 1+"  1' 1' 
$# " 1 (!G0 1
White was unable to retain the a5-
pawn, but the minor piece endgame
is tough for Black to defend.
Looking at how to play this would
take us too far afield, but I'll give
the moves anyway: (# 
"$01'" 1'('GG$#0
1' )1(# ,'1 "1'
1'  " $0 1'" "'+" 1+"
"$#" () "$  (%G ""$!)
() " $'G0 1'  "G$!  (!G
")1' 1#  ",$'" 1'  $#
(#  $'  (!G $! ('"
$' (!G $#" () "$ 
(%G $%) 1#  G$-G 1! 
)$+%  (.  ,$.) (%G G$% 
(.  G $.) (%G G$-  ( 
G1'" (!G0 G1" (  G"1' 
1!G G 1#" 1#G GG$+%" (+%"
G)1+!" 1!G G,1" (. )1% 
1!  ) %" 1!G )1.  (% )!"
(+!" )1+-" 1G )"1." 1%G
) . (% )G-" 1.G ))1- (! 
),."(#,- 01-G, 1.(' 
,1% (# ,1" (! ,1 
(#0 ,"1G (' , %  1.  ,G%G
(+%G ,)-G 1+-G ,,1+%G 1-)
1. * [And not 100.g6
quite close to equal since Black stalemate.] 
should be able to cover all his
pawns, but in practical terms I'd Ê
 4 9#

  1#-9

much prefer White because Black is 
the one with all the weaknesses. 9 3
 @9A9. Ê
 2#  1'G G$ (  )1


 
2#) ,1! 2#  [29...Rc7 is more
flexible, retaining the option of
[Sam Collins]

c

    ! !" " #" # $# 
"$% &'   # G$'! $"
).(GDiagrama
[Here we will look at lines where
Black delays ...Bd7, although often,
16.Qg2 g5 17.Qf1 Qc7 18.f4 gxf4
19.Qxf4 h5 20.Rb1 h4 21.Nf1 Rdg8
22.Rg1 Qd7 23.Qf2 hxg3 24.hxg3
Rg7 25.Bf4 Rgh7 26.Bf3 didn't give
Black enough for the pawn in
V.Malaniuk-G.Kuzmin, Nikolaev
Zonal 1995.] ,--"[Korchnoi had
previously tried 9...Bd7 against
Grischuk at Biel in 2001 and after
10.Bh3 f5 11.exf6 gxf6 12.0-0 h5
13.Re1 Nh6 14.Nh2 0-0-0 , it was
rare to see Korchnoi giving, rather
than receiving, pawns. However,
here it was fully justified in terms of
open lines for his rooks and 15.Qxh5
Rdg8 16.Qe2 f5 17.Ndf3 Ê

as in our main game, this simply was a better attempt 17...Nb3
amounts to a transposition. 18.Bxh6? Rxh6 19.Rad1 Bxh4
Korchnoi is quite fond of these 20.Nxh4 Rxh4 was in Black's
systems, and his games are favour.] (-Diagrama
generally worth studying for offbeat
methods of dealing with the
Advance Variation. Another
delaying ...Bd7 idea is 8...h6 which
has been played a couple of times
against Malaniuk, and his response
9.Nh4!? aims to place the knight
optimally on e3 before committing
either his h-pawn or his king's
bishop: 9...Bd7 10.Ng2 0-0-0 11.Ne3
Ne7 12.Qf3! ÊMalaniuk's
improvement on his game with
Prandstetter from erevan 1984,
when Black was fine after 

(!G  $-  2  
  

   
2'  1') $-*/ [Enabling



  


the other knight to come to f3.


 


Instead 14.Ng5 Bxg5 15.hxg5 Nf5

 
   
 

 
looks quite playable for Black.]
 
  



.  "$!% &' & (
and went on to win12...Nf5 13.Be2
G(." (+." )$+." &# ,$% 
Be7 Êprovacative, but 
[19.Qf3 is more ambitious and

looks nice for White and the
19...Nb3 20.Nf1 offers an edge.]
f7-pawn will be a permanent
,&+ 2+ $#  Black now
problem 14.Nxf5 exf5 15.Qxd5 Be6
has a safe position and drew

cc
comfortably:  % 2!%) 1.
$%" (+%" .+%" $ $G
"1% 1#G  $. 1'  G$%
1" )1 (!G ,2! ' 
2- 1  $ $.  $%
intending to swing the knight round
to f5, was well dealt with in E.Prie-
M.Apicella, rench Ch., Auxerre
1996: 10.Rb1 Nh6 11.Re1 Nf5
12.Nf1 0-0-0 13.Bf4 Rdf8 14.Ng3
$G$$.  < < Nxg3 15.Bxg3 h5 16.h4 f6 17.Qd2
Nb3 18.Qe3 Be8 19.exf6 gxf6 20.Bd1
ÊG
 7. 
B  9
 Bg6 21.Bxb3 cxb3 22.Rbc1 Kd7
 23.Nd2 Bc2 24.c4 left White with
8#- > -9-9 some advantage. ; 9...f5 10.a4 Be7
11.Qe1 g5 12.Kh1 Nh6 13.Bd1 Nf7
Ê G

 "
14.Ng1 h5 15.Bc2 0-0-0 16.Rb1 Kb8
[Sam Collins] 17.Qd1 Rc8 18.f4 Rcg8 19.Nh3 Qd8
20.fxg5 Nxg5 21.Nxg5 Rxg5 and
   ! !" " #" # &' 
now 22.b4 would have been pleasant
"$% $#   # G$'! $"
for White in E.Prie-M.Apicella,
)((!G,Diagrama

 




[Better than 9.Rb1 Ne7 10.Nf1 Qb3
11.Bf4 Ba4 which was comfortable
for Black in S.Erenburg-M.Shur,Tel
Aviv 2001. ] ,$GThere have also
been important games after other
responses from Black: [After 9...f6
White successfully opened the
queenside in V.Anand-D.Prasad,
Delhi 1987 with 10.Rb1 0-0-0
11.Re1 Ne7 12.Bf1 Ng6 13.b3 cxb3
14.c4 fxe5 15.c5 Qc7 16.Nxe5 Nxe5
17.Rxe5 Bxc5 18.Nxb3 Bd6 19.Nxa5
Qxa5 20.Bd2 Qc7 21.Re3 Kb8
22.Reb3 leaving him with an attack,
but Black missed the excellent
18...Bxd4! after which he would
have been clearly better.; 9...Be7 ,
 
Clichy 1993. ; A.Delchev-J.Moreno
Carnero, Andorra 2002 showed the
downside to early queenside castling
for Black: 9...0-0-0 10.Rb1 Kb8
Ê  
  was better for White in
S.Mamedyarov-E.El Gindy, Dubai
2003 as the bishop on b3 is seriously
out of play 11.b3! cxb3 12.c4 Ba4
Ê 
 
 


sees the queenside open to the
detriment of the black king and
now 13.c5 would have been very
promising for White.] 2  In
turn, White has essayed a number
of alternatives: [10.Qc2 f6 11.Bd1 0-
0-0 12.a4 Nec6 13.b4?! just created
weaknesses after 13...cxb3 14.Nxb3
Nxb3 15.Qxb3 Qxb3 16.Bxb3 Na5
17.Ba2 f5 in I.Asmundsson-
J.Hjartarson, Vestmannaeyjum
1985 - only rarely can White take
the queenside initiative in this line.
; After 10.g3 A.Volzhin-R.Kholmov,
irel 1992 demonstrated that
Black's position is resistant to early
knockouts: 10...Qc7 11.Nh4 Nc8
12.f4 g6 13.g4 Be7 14.Ng2 Nb6
15.f5!? exf5 16.Ne3 Ê  
c2



 would have ensured an improve coordination. ] 2' 
exchange of bishops under more Diagrama
favourable circumstances when
White has compensation 16...fxg4
17.Bxg4 Be6 18.Qf3 Qd7 19.Bxe6
Qxe6 (White is struggling, but his
attempt to accelerate the play
doesn't help) 20.b4? cxb3 21.c4 dxc4
22.d5 Qxe5 23.Qxf7+ Kd8 24.Nf3
Qf6 and 0-1.; 10.Rb1 Qc7 11.Nh4
Ê  is better when can
be met by and 13 h411...Ng6!
12.Ndf3 Nxh4 13.Nxh4 Be7! &#G $%  $' [Recent
(otherwise White would be able to practice has also seen 12...Nb6 and
play f4 before the knight dropped 13.Bg5 Ê 

 
  
back to f3) 14.Nf3 f5 gave Black a   



  
very solid game in S.Dvoirys- 


     
R.Vaganian, European Club Cup,  



Izmir 2004. White should be careful 


 

about playing Nh4 before the e7- 

      gave Black an
knight has committed itself to the overwhelming attack in P.Simacek-
queenside.] $#) Black's play is T.Petrik,Cartak 2003 13...h6
very logical and his delay in castling 14.Bh4 Ba4 15.Qd2 Ê   

queenside has two benefits: i. The 

 

 
typical manoeuvre of ...Qc7 and
  was also drawn in
...Nc8-b6 takes one fewer move,
because Black doesn't have to spend
a tempo on ...Kb8 to vacate the c8-
square. ii. With ...h6 omitted, ...0-0-
0 would leave the f7-pawn
vulnerable to a quick attack (Ng5
would certainly be on the cards) and
so the king stays on e8 to guard this
pawn, thereby drawing some of the
sting from Ng5. [However, I'm less
than convinced by the 10...Ng6
11.g3 Be7 12.h4 f5 of P.Motwani-
I.Gurevich, Hastings Challengers
1991/92. Here I think that White
should continue 13.exf6 gxf6 14.h5
Nf8 when the f8-knight is a poor
piece as, although it defends e6, it
impedes the rooks and lacks options
itself. or White, the manoeuvre
Be2-f1-h3 seems a good way to
 
B.Predojevic-Wang Hao, Istanbul
2005. 15...Kd7 16.Bd1 Re8
17.Bxa4+ Nxa4 18.Qc2 Nb6 19.N3d2
g5 20.Bg3 h5 21.h3 Be7 22.Ne3
Reg8 23.a4 Qc6 was agreed drawn
in Ni Hua-Wang Hao, Xiapu 2005. ]
( $'  $! I'd like to
draw the reader's attention to the
manner in which White played his
last five moves, because he
proceeded in extremely thematic
fashion: firstly, he played Re1 to
give his knight the f1-square;
secondly, he went Rb1 so that ...Nb3
wouldn't fork the rook and the
bishop; thirdly, he got his bishop out
to e3 (f4 can also be a useful
square); and fourthly, he challenged
the black knight with N3d2, and not
cj
with N1d2, because White wants to
clear the d1-h5 diagonal so his
queen and bishop can get out.
$" "(."*/ Dramatically
raising the stakes, in so far as any
chess move is capable of being
dramatic. The bishop keeps the
black king in the centre and White
plans to follow up with f4 (and f5, if
possible). A trade of dark-squared
bishops is positionally unacceptable
for Black, and so he is virtually
forced to block this bishop out with
2+-  G&+-  $#  )&-" $% 
,&." &+." (+." The
simplification hasn't been kind to
Black whose g-pawn is falling.
$) (! $! (+.1!G
(% $) $-" 1G "(."0
1%G  $% $.G G(% $') ).
(#) ,(-  (!G "(+.G 1+.G
" ." $  "1. $#G "$-"0
1.  "1% $) ""$. $.G
" (!  "0 "G1+" 1+."
")1+!" 1- ",$%  (- $!
$%" 1 1. $+# 1%
his own kingside pawns, thereby 1% 
gaining space but creating
weaknesses. "( &#  -  Ê)
 4 9#

  4'9:

G(- ." )(. -" ,- (-  
$ I suppose White would like 93
?3Ê)


to play Rf1 and f4, which is why

Black undertakes the following
operation. .*/  -+. (+
[Sam Collins]
%+ -+. (% 2.) The g4-
   ! !" " #" # $# 
pawn is a difficult target to attack
"$% &'   # G$'! $"
and it controls some crucial kingside
)((!G,$GDiagrama
squares. The game is still balanced
at this point, but it gradually slips
away from Black. (!  (# 
"$%    $. &G G1%
$!G[White also would have gained
the advantage after 27...Ba4
28.Bxa4 Nxa4 29.e4! .] )2-  % 
,+% &+% 2- 2.  2+. 
&+.  (# &.G &! I think
White has several factors in his
favour: he controls more kingside
squares, which means he's more
likely to win overall control of that [Black can also play 9...h6 at this
sector; the black g-pawn is a juncture at this juncture when
significant weakness; and there's no White has one standard and one
real room to the side of the white enterprising plan: 10.Rb1 Ê 

king, but there is to the side of the was an invention of the ever-
black one (a black rook on h2 would creative Ukrainian GM ileg
be ineffective, but a white one on h7 Romanishin against Karsten
could prove devastating). 2-) Mueller in Altensteig 1992; after
2%  '  "&!  ('G  2-       
 
c3
  


  kingside in Peng Xiaomin-B.Nadera,
  

 
   Asian Team Ch. 1995, but after
  White had a 18.Bf4 Qb6 19.Bc2 Be7 20.Nxf5 exf5
substantial queenside initiative and 21.Qe3 Bf8 22.e6!? (I guess Black
was clearly better 10...Qc7 (or could have put his bishop here were
10...Ne7 11.g3 ÊZaitsev later he concerned about this advance)
switched to  and  22...Bxe6 23.Ne5 Rg8 24.Bxh6 Bd6
  


 25.Bf4 Qc7 26.g3 Nc6 27.Qd2 a6
    
 28.Bd1 Rce8 29.Ba4 Bxe5 30.Bxe5


    


 Qd7 31.Bf4 White was considerably
   
  
 was better.] 2  ince again, a
much better for White in I.Zaitsev- number of different plans have been
I.Naumkin, Moscow 1995 11...0-0-0 tested: [10.a4 is something of a
Ê  


   Romanishin patent in this line and

 
 
   
 10...h6 11.Ne1 Ê      


 
 
 
  



    
 
 was agreed drawn in    

 
 
E.Sveshnikov-I.arago, Novi Sad       was soon
197912.Nh4 f5 13.exf6 gxf6 14.Bg4 drawn in E.Vasiukov-G.Kuzmin,
e5 15.b3 cxb3 16.Nxb3 f5 17.Bh3 Moscow 1991 as Black didn't feel
Ba4 18.Nxa5 Bxd1 19.Rxb6 axb6 like pushing the h-pawn, although
20.Rxd1 bxa5 21.dxe5 and White readers may have different
had more than enough for the sentiments and 
  

exchange in I.Zaitsev-I.arago,     
 
Szolnok 1975) 11.Re1 0-0-0 and now 
        is
there have been two instructive unclear 11...Nf5 12.Nc2 Nb3
displays: 12.Qc2 Ê   
 13.Nxb3 Qxb3 14.g4 Nh4 15.Ne3




 
 Qxd1 16.Bxd1 g5 17.f3 Be7 18.Bc2
 




  0-0 19.Ng2 Nxg2 20.Kxg2 f6 21.exf6


   Rxf6 22.Bd2 Raf8 23.Rf2 saw White
   

 

  soon arrange h4, with a superior
 
 

 

 was endgame in
B.Miljanic-A.Istratescu, Bucharest
1999 when White proceeded to
potter around and drew; that was
largely due to not playing the only
aggressive plan (pushing b3),
although that would have been very
double-edged since lines would have
been opened for the black pieces and
weaknesses would have been
created on a3 and c3 12...Kb8
13.Bd1 Rc8 14.Nf1 Ka8 15.Ng3 g6
16.h4 Ne7 17.Qe2 Nf5 was an
interesting attempt to plug the
i.Romanishin-
A.Vaisser, Tallinn (rapid) 1988.;
10.g3 h6 11.Nh4 0-0-0 12.Kh1 Kb8
13.f4 f5! (an appropriate response
because the knight on h4 looks
misplaced in the new structure)
14.exf6 gxf6 15.Rb1 Qc6 16.Qe1 Rg8
17.Ndf3 Nf5!? 18.Nxf5 exf5 19.Qf2
b6 20.Nd2 Nb7 and Black soon got
his knight to e4, where White left it
which led to a draw in B.Ivanovic-
J.Sofrevski, Skopje 1991.; 10.Ng5 h6
11.Nh3 0-0-0 12.f4 Nf5 13.Nf3 Nb3
14.Rb1 Ba4 15.Qe1 Na5 16.Bd1
cx
Bxd1 17.Qxd1 h5 18.Bd2 Be7
19.Qe2 Kd7!? was Shulman's
interesting idea in R.Biolek-
Y.Shulman, Pardubice 1999 - the
king is going to e8 to hold the f7-
pawn and Black drew comfortably. ;
10.Rb1 Qc7 11.Ng5 h6 12.Nh3 0-0-0
13.Nf4 g6 14.Re1 Kb8 15.h4 Nf5
16.h5 g5 17.Nh3 Be7 was quite
comfortable for Black in Qin
Kanying-Hoang Thanh Trang,
Shenyang 2000, because the h5-
pawn can prove to be a weakness,
while the f5-knight blocks the white
  
 

rooks after an f4-break. ] &#G
   

 

his knights can be aggressively
placed on relatively central squares
whereas Black's can only attack
from the a-file.; '
 12.Nf1 Nb3
13.Be3 Ba4 14.N3d2 Nf5 15.Bg4
Be7 16.Nxb3 Bxb3 17.Qd2 Nxe3
18.fxe3 a5 19.e4 dxe4 20.Rxe4 was
about equal in L.ressinet-
T.Radjabov, iropesa del Mar 1999. ;
Returning to 12 Qc2: 12...Kb8
13.Bd1 Êthis is one of the main
points behind 8 Be2, covering the
sensitive b3-square, whereas  



[10...h6 is again a major alternative     occured in
with several options arising after H.Nakamura-Y.Timman,
11.Rb1 and 11...0-0-0 Ê  
 Copenhagen 2005 when the white
    

 
  a4-pawn was in need of constant
 
 

 

   protection and this factor made it
     very difficult for White to play for a

 


 
 
 win 13...Rc8 14.Nf1 Nb3 15.Bf4


    
  was E.Prie- Ka8 16.Ng3 Ba4 17.Qe2 Qb5 18.Nh5
L.Roos, rench Ch., Chambery Na5 19.Nd2 Rc7 20.g4 Nc8 21.Bxa4
1994, where White gained the Qxa4 22.Nf1 Nb6 23.Bg3 Qb3
advantage by playing Bc2, Ne2-f4 24.Ne3 Na4 25.Nxd5!? exd5 26.e6
and Bf6, hitting the weak g6-pawn Re7 27.Nf4 Nb6 28.Qf3 Qb5 29.exf7
12.Qc2 is by no means the only Rxf7 30.Nxd5 Rxf3 31.Nc7+ Kb8
move tried: 
 12.h4 Kb8 Ê   32.Nxb5+ Kc8 33.Nxa7+ Kd7 34.Re5
   
  
 




 

  
was 37.Re1 Nc6 38.d5 and 1-0 was
less than clear in T.Shaked-
Y.Shulman, Halle 1995, although
White has more to justify in view of
his pawn deficit) 13.h5 Ka8 14.Qc2
Qc7 15.Bd1 Nc8 16.Nf1 Nb6 17.Bf4
Ba4 18.Qc1 Bb3 19.N3d2 Bxd1
20.Qxd1 Qd7 21.Ne3 Rc8 22.Bg3
Be7 23.Qg4 Rhg8 24.Bh4 Bxh4
25.Qxh4 brought about an
interesting position in E.Prie-
i.Renet, Paris 1994. I think Black
is fine in the pure major piece
positions, but with knights on the
board I'd take White, if only because
Nc6 35.Rb5 Nxa7 36.Rxb6 Kc8
E.Sveshnikov-T.Casper, Moscow
1987; one of the stem games in this
line.; Another instructive
Sveshnikov game was
E.Sveshnikov-V.Eingorn, Palma de
Mallorca 1989, although this was
one of the first examples of good
black defence in this line, and
repays close study: 10...Qc6 11.Qc2
Nc8 (playing this before ...0-0-0
effectively saves a tempo on ...Kb8)
12.Ng5 h6 13.Nh3 Nb6 14.Nf4 0-0-0
15.Nh5 Qc7 16.a4 Bc6 17.Bd1 Kb8
18.Re3 Rc8 19.Rg3 g6 20.Nf6 Nd7
cJ
21.Nxd7+ Qxd7 22.Rf3 Rc7 23.Qb1
Qe8 24.h4 h5 25.Rg3 Bd7 26.Nf3
Nb3 27.Bxb3 cxb3 28.a5 Bb5 29.Bg5
Be2 30.Bf6 Rg8 31.Ng5 Bh6 32.Nh3
Bg4 33.Bg5 Bxh3 34.Rxh3 Bxg5
35.hxg5 Qd8 36.Rg3 Rc6 and
Eingorn had nothing to fear.]
2' $#) $% $'  (%- 
&!Diagrama
[If the black knight goes to b3, the
queen can now nestle on e3,
whereas 14.Bg3 Ba4 15.Qc1 0-0-0
16.h4 Bb3 17.N3d2 Ba2 18.Ra1 Bb3
19.h5 Be7 20.Ne3 Kb8 21.Rf1 Ka8
22.Qe1 Ba4 23.Kh1 g6 24.Rc1 Rdg8
left the white pieces clumsily placed
in P.Haba-I.Naumkin, Cappelle la
but White gets tremendous
compensation and 20...Nf8! would
have been much tighter, since
21.Qxf7?? loses to 21...Be8 .]
 &+%G$%)$%(+' 2+' 
Rooks are never going to be the star
pieces in such a blocked position,
which means that White's
compensation is very promising.
&!G $.  $+.  "&+. 
(!) $!2%)[26...Qe8 is better,
since endgames are less favourable
for White than middlegames, and
27.Qc2 g5 forces White to find the
excellent 28.h5! , giving up a pawn
in order to prosecute his queenside
advantage in comfort.] G' #+'
)$+' $+' ,2+' &%G
&#1') #."#+!".+-
!+  &+  (- ('  "(#
2#)  2# &. G 0 1)
)(" 2-.)/ [Black should have
played more dynamically with
38...Bxd4! 39.Bxh8 Rxh8 , when
40.Bd5 Ê
 
 is annoying
40...Bxc3 41.Qxc3 leaves White with
good chances, but also a much less
Grande 1998. ] (G "-
$. [Heading to the h5-square
in order to pressurise the g7-pawn,
whereas 16.Bg3?! makes it more
difficult for White to co-ordinate his
pieces and 16...Rdg8 17.h5 Ê

 as, for example, 39...Rxc3 40.Qxc3
 doesn't trouble Black 17...Qd8
18.N3h2 Kb8 19.Bg4 Ka8 20.Ne3
Qf8 21.f4 f5 22.Bf3 g5! left Black
with some advantage in J.Degraeve-
W.Arencibia, Guelph 2002.]
2!.) G$-"&!) )(.(
,(% $!G&%*/I selected this
game because the positional
sacrifice this move introduces is
quite original and impressive.
(# [Going for the exchange,
clear position than in the game.]
,(% / [White must have been
rushing to make move 40 and
misses the beautiful multipurpose
move, 39.Bd5! , which wins easily
h3 41.Qf3! Qxf3 42.Bxf3 hxg2
43.Bh5 sees the three connected
passers decide.] ,&+  (#
2+# [40...Qc6! would have left
Black with the better game and,
given that the rest is theoretically
irrelevant, I'll just give the bare
moves:]  2+# -" 1- -
. - 2# -+.0 "2+.
2+.  %+. " G 1G
)&!  (!) ,. &!" "1+-
& " (. &-G0 "1. &0
cG
"1- &!" "(" & ""(.
&!" " &! (." "G&# (G
")&#G('",&#(G 

Ê 
 - >C

;!3#9  9 
8 
 
[Sam Collins]
   ! !" " #" # $# 
"$%&'  $- Diagrama
Black consistently plays for
pressure against the d4-pawn and
he chooses this route, rather than
going via e7, so as not to obstruct
the bishop's defence of the c5-pawn.
G' White logically continues with
his plan on the queenside. G#+!
[Black has to trade as 7...c4 would
leave White with a very strong
position on the queenside and in the
centre. ] )#+![This is the natural
response, but the 8.Bxh6 gxh6
9.cxd4 of Game 9 is a good
alternative, setting up a struggle
[White holds the d-pawn and keeps
as many pieces on the board as
possible, while 9.Be3 is the other
method of defence, detailed in
Games 10-11.] ,(!G [Black
prepares for rapid queenside play,
aiming to exploit White's slight lack
of development. 9...Be7 is a major
alternative and is dealt with in
Games 12-16. Then any g4-advance
can be met by ...Nh4, and so it takes
a little more work to deal with the
f5-knight.] .White has a couple
of minor alternatives, but the only
real way to challenge Black is to
kick this knight and to gain some
kingside space. $%G [The
knight temporarily blocks the f8-
bishop, but it plans to relocate to g6
from where it will hit the weak f4-
square, as we'll see in Game 19. The
alternative is the 10...Nh6 of Games
17 and 18 when Black gains some
time by hitting the g-pawn, and the
knight can perform some useful
work after ...f6 and ...Nf7.] D
Ê
 
  4
between the white centre and the
black bishops. ] )$%"Bringing the 4.3! 9
? 
knight to a strong square with gain 5'!  Ê ,

 
of time. ,('Diagrama [Sam Collins]

c
    ! !" " #" # &' 
"$% $#   $-  G' #+!
 
  
)(+- Diagrama

     
  

).+-  ,#+! The benefits and

  
  

 
 
burdens of this exchange are readily
    

 

apparent: White gains a structural
advantage and, more importantly,
easy development, while Black has
a big old bishop-pair and prospects
down the g-file. ,(!G [Assuming
Black wants to play a system with
...Bg7, the text is the most precise
way to start because White is
   21...Qxe5
denied his most active set-up for a
reason we'll shortly discover. If
though Black wants to play ...Rg8,
he should do so now before White
has a chance to meet this move with
castling. 9...Rg8 is a dynamic
selection, playing down the g-file at
the cost of weakening h7 and
denying obvious paths to the black
king and dark-squared bishop
(...Bg7 now seems nonsensical). The
rook hits the g-pawn and White
must also be attentive to the idea of
...Rg4! which can prove very
disruptive. Against 9...Rg8, White
should prefer 10.Nc3 (the attempt to
keep everything covered with 10.h3
Bd7 11.g3 Rc8 12.Be2 was
emphatically refuted in Peng
Xiaomin-B.Villamayor, Shenyang
1999: 12...a5! 13.b5 Nxd4!! 14.Nxd4
Ê

   
wins 14...Bc5 15.Nc2 Bxf2+ 16.Kd2
Bxg3 17.Rf1 Bxe5 18.Ra2 Bxb5
19.Bxb5+ Qxb5 20.Qe2 Qb3 21.Qf3
Bf4+ 22.Qxf4 Rg2+ 23.Rf2 Rxf2+
24.Qxf2 Qxb1 and 0-1) 10...Bd7
11.Na4 Qd8 12.g3 , taking care of
the threats on the g-file; this is well
worth a tempo. R.Antonio-
B.Villamayor, Quezon City 2000
continued 12...f6 13.Bd3 fxe5 Ê  

    

is strategically very favourable
for White, and he won in
L.Keitlinghaus-C.Sielecki, Bremen
199814.dxe5 Rg7 15.0-0 Kf7 16.Rc1
Kg8 17.Nc5 Bxc5 18.Rxc5 Qf8
19.Bb5 Qf5 20.Bxc6! bxc6 21.Nd4
Ê 
 



22.Nxc6 Qd6 and now best was
23.Qc1! , followed by Re1 and Ne5,
with an excellent game. ] (
[Not the best square for the bishop,
but the problem is that 10.Bd3??
drops a pawn for nothing since, with
the a4-e8 diagonal covered, there is
no Bb5+ after 10...Nxd4 11.Nxd4
Qxd4 .; urthermore, 10.Nc3 ,
intending 11 Na4 and 12 Bd3, runs
into 10...Nxb4! 11.axb4 Bxb4 12.Qb3
Rc8 13.Rc1 Qa5 Ê 
 
was the continuation of
M.Rodriguez Boado-M.Sion Castro,
Spanish Team Ch. 2002, but the
text is more precise 14.Kd2 when
White is in a very uncomfortable
pin. 14...0-0 15.Bd3 Rc7 16.Ng1 f6!
17.exf6 Rxf6 18.Nge2 Ba4 19.Qa2
e5!! 20.dxe5 Rxf2 21.Ke1 Bxc3+
22.Kxf2 Rf7+ 23.Kg3 Bxe5+ 24.Kh4
c‰
Qd8+ and Black has a winning  
    

attack.] 2#) [Trying to
    
 
  
destabilise the white queenside   was winning for Black in
structure with 10...a5!? 11.b5 Ne7 A.Rodriguez-E.ernandez Romero,
looks like a reasonable idea to me. Ayamonte 2004 13...f6 Êthe 
I.Rogers-D.Velimirovic, Vrsac 1987 of E.Polovnikova-S.Matveeva,
continued 12.Nc3 Ê 
   Krasnoturinsk 2004 should have



 , preparing Na3-c2, is been met by
     

more natural 12...a4! 13.0-0 Qa5 
  


 
14.Qd2 Nc8 15.Rfc1 Nb6 16.h3 Rc8    with reasonable
17.Nh2 Nc4 18.Bxc4 Rxc4 19.Ng4 binding chances14.b5 has seen the
Bxb5 and now White should play black knight go two ways: 14...Ne7
20.Rc2! Bg7 Ê

     Ê
     

    
 

   

    
   is excellent for White 
  was J.Bosch-
21.Nxd5 Qxd2 22.Ndf6+ Ke7 S.Lputian, Wijk aan Zee 1999 when
23.Rxd2 , followed by d5 with the instead of 21 Nb4? White has
initiative. ] Diagrama
      

 Black employed a
 
 
 followed
$G/* [This is slightly
inaccurate in that it allows White to
immediately improve his bishop to
d3. The main move is 11...Bg7 with
which Black has scored well. 12.Qd2
(the usual response, but 12.b5! Ne7
13.a4 0-0 14.Nbd2 Qd8 15.Bd3 Ng6
  
 
  with advantage and note
that 

 is impossible due to
  15.exf6 Rxf6 16.Nc3 Ng6
Êwith 
typical stratagem in the rench in
G.Hernandez-E.ernandez Romero,
Ayamonte 2004 and White should
respond
by a5 with a queenside initiative.
17.Na4 Qd6 18.Nc5 b6 19.Nxd7
Qxd7 20.g3 Rf7 21.Qe3 Qd6 22.Re1
Kh8 23.Bf1 Qf8 24.Bg2 Qe8 25.a4
Re7 26.Rae2 Rc4 27.Qa3 favoured
White in M.Bosboom-G.Barbero,
Wijk aan Zee 1991. ] (! (.G
&! &#G Black has failed to
create enough early trouble. 
  "2*  $# %  G+% 
16.Re1 f5 Ê 
   
2+%  [17...Bxf6 drops the h6-pawn
  
   
is also nice for White 17.Nb3 b6 which is a trivial but vital point in
the 8 Bxh6 line. ] )$ &! 
18.Qd2 Be8 19.Rec1 Rf7 20.Ne1
,$" 2%%) % This is an
gave White an edge in B.Reefat-
obvious bind and the only question
P.Harikrishna, Kelamabakkam
is whether White can increase his
2000, and could be the way to
advantage. ()  ('  (. 
handle the position) 12...0-0 13.Ra2
2- 2#G $. 2%#) $-"
Ê  



 
(+'  "2+'  2#  &!  $. 
2

G2. 2# )2+# 2+#
,&.&' [The game has slipped
into a simple technical exercise and
so Black plays for unfruitful
complications, but 29...Bxe5 30.fxe5
Qc6 31.h3 is still overwhelmingly
better for White.] $+.  -+. 
 &+. &+!01- 2!-
&# [Alternately 33...Rd1+ 34.Rxd1
Qxd1+ 35.Kh2 Qd4 36.Qxe6+ leaves
White with a winning pawn
endgame.] 1- 1%) "2# 
pawn after an exchange on e3. The
main move, 9...f6, will be explored
in the next game, but 9...Nxe3
10.fxe3 g6 11.Qd3! Bd7 12.Be2 Bh6
13.Nc3 Ne7 14.0-0 0-0 was
R.Slobodjan-H.Elissalt Cardenas,
Matanzas 1994 when White devised
an excellent plan: 15.Nd1! (heading
for g4) 15...Bg7 16.Nf2 h5?! and the
game's 17.g4 was enough for an
edge, but I'd prefer 17.a4 to grab
some queenside space.] (!
2+-0 .+-&!0G&.  [White was also better after 10.Nc3
Nxe3 11.fxe3 Bg7 12.Bd3 0-0 13.0-0
Ê 
 A 9#-
  9
 f6 14.exf6 Bxf6 15.Qe1 Bd7 16.Na4
 Qd8 17.Nc5 b6 18.Nxd7 Qxd7
8;7 6! -
 $C 7-9 19.Qg3 in N.Vlassov-S.Iskusnyh,
Novgorod 1995.] $+ %+
Ê 

 
(-  [11...Bg7 is a good alternative.
[Sam Collins] ] &!Diagrama
#"$%$# # !!"
"" &'   $-  G' #+!
)#+!$%",(Diagrama

[A new move, although after 12.Qe2


 
 
 was
I don't believe White has a real shot
at advantage here. The f5-knight
  , as
can be a real target in such
positions, either for spatial gain
with g4 or for wrecking Black's
structure with Bd3xf5, but this
 
doesn't apply when it can simply
     also favours
exchange itself on e3 whenever it
likes. ,. */ [The bishop is aiming
for h6 from where it will hit the e3-
White hasn't done so badly and
12...Bd7 Ê    

 
S.Movsesian-M.Roiz, Panormo 2002
when White could have gained a
clear advantage with
opposed to the careless 17 Rac1?
which could have been met by
17...Nxd4! 13.Nc3 Ne7 14.0-0 Nf5
15.g4! Bxe3+ Ê   
White 16.Kh1 Bxd4 17.Nb5 Bxa1
18.gxf5 exf5? Ê     
2c
is roughly equal 19.Nd6+ Kf8
20.Rxa1 was excellent for White in
P.Thipsay-D.Neelotpal, Mumbai
2000.] (!G $# $G .
(.G " 2#) [Black should
prefer 15...f6 16.exf6 Bxf6 , which
Psakhis considers to be unclear.]
  G$'" (+'" )+'"*/
[A very effective decision, binding
the black queen to the defence of the
a-pawn, although the simple
18.Bxb5 was also good enough for
an advantage.] )%  ,+% 2+% 
1. 2#%)  &# $#) -
$!  -" 2#) & &!)/
[24...Nc4 25.hxg6 hxg6 would have
been more tenacious because 26.g5
Rff8 27.Bxg6?! e5! is fine for Black.]
"-+.  -+.   2+G Now White
is much better and wins without
any real difficulty.  &G G$"
2+%  )&+%  (+" ,!+" $
(+!+ &% &+% +% 

 which is good for Black
2#G ." 1%G 1. " "' 
2!G  1. 1  G2) 1! 
[This is critical, but comes with the
practical disadvantage that Black
must be willing to play into a forced
draw. In two recent games Black
has preferred to test simple bishop
developments: 9...Be7 10.Bd3 Nxe3
11.fxe3 f6 12.exf6 Bxf6 13.Nc3 0-0
14.0-0 Bd7 15.Na4 Qd8 16.Nc5 Bc8
17.Rc1 gave White a fine game in
S.Zhigalko-I.Vasilevich, Hengelo
2005.; 9...Bd7 10.Nbd2 Êbut not
 
 

10...Rc8 11.Rc1 Be7 12.Bd3 0-0
13.Nb3 Nxe3 14.fxe3 Nb8 15.Nc5 a5
)2.)  16.0-0 axb4 17.axb4 Bb5 18.Rf2 was
B.Kalezic-S.Ivanov, European Club
Ê 
A 9#-
(
 Cup, Saint Vincent 2005 when I
 prefer White. ] +%  [This is the
! ' Ê9!

 main move, but not the only one:
# Ê

  10.b5 Nxe5 11.dxe5 Nxe3 12.fxe3
[Sam Collins] Qxe3+ 13.Qe2 Qc1+ ÊWatson
suggests playing on with 
!    !" " #" # &' 

    
  
"$% $#   $-  G' #+!  , but this carries a serious
)#+!$%",(% Diagrama warning: Black has two nice pawns
and two bishops, but he's a piece
down and has absolutely no
justification for spuring the draw,
especially after


  ,
followed by Kd2 with good chances
for White14.Qd1 Qe3+ Ê
is
also rather risky:   
  
 
  

22
 
 
  
      Be8 24.Bb5 Nc6 gave Black an extra

      

 pawn in the endgame of

  
       H.Jonkman-P.San Segundo Carrillo,


 
  and 1-0 was Mondariz Zonal 2000. ] "
A.Kunte-A.Cherniaev, Biel 2001 1-  [White has been scoring
15.Qe2 Qc1+ and this position has well after 15...0-0 but that doesn't
been agreed drawn in several mean that Black is worse, although
games. ; 10.Bd3 Nxe3 11.fxe3 fxe5 both 16.Qe1 Rac8 17.Qg3+ Kh8
12.b5 Nxd4 Ê 
   18.Qh4 Kg7 19.Qg4+ Kh8 20.Qh5

       Kg7 21.Qg4+ Kh8 22.Nd1 Qd6

 gave White a clear
advantage in E.Prie-J.De la Villa
Garcia, Leon 1991 13.exd4 e4
14.Bxe4 dxe4 15.Ne5 Bd7 16.0-0 0-
0-0 17.Nc3 Bc5 18.Na4 Bxd4+
19.Kh1 Qd6 20.Nf7 Qd5 was
unclear, but roughly balanced, in
V.Potkin-V.ilippov, Russian Team
Ch. 2003. ] .+%  (! $+
[11...Nce7!? is more flexible and
12.0-0 Bg7 13.Nc3 0-0 14.Na4 Qd8
15.Qc2 was agreed drawn in
B.Miljanic-D.Komarov, Niksic 2000.
] %+(-  &Diagrama
[Better than the 13.b5?! Ne7 14.Qe2
0-0 of I.Khamrakulov-C.Matamoros
ranco, Coria del Rio 2004 when
even the relatively best 15.Nc3
favours Black after 15...e5 .]
23.Qh3 Kg7 24.Nf2 f5 25.Rae1 Rc3
26.g4 fxg4 27.Nxg4 Nf5 28.Nxh6
Nxh6 29.Ne5 (H.Jonkman-
P.H.Nielsen, Moscow (rapid) 2002);
and 16.Rae1 Rac8 17.Nd1 Bg7
18.Kh1 e5 19.dxe5 fxe5 20.Nxe5
Bxe5 21.Qh5 Ng6 22.Bxg6 Qxg6
23.Qxe5 (A.Krapivin-S.Matveeva,
Moscow 2004) turned out clearly in
White's favour. ] 2#) G$! 
(.G [17...Ng6 is a good alternative
and leads to unclear play after
18.Nd2 ÊWhite preferred  in
H.Stevic-G.Dizdar, Croatian Ch.,
Vukovar 2005, but that should have
been met by the immediate  
18...Qd6 19.Qh5 Kg7 20.Nb3 .]
)$% " ,!+" %+"  !
 2#  Positions with protected
passed pawns can be quite difficult
to judge, but I think this particular
instance is good for White:
monitoring the pawns won't take too
much energy, while for the sake of
the black king and dark-squared
bishop, it would be much better to
have some wood on the a2-g8
diagonal rather than on the a1-h8
diagonal. Note that a good rule
(!G $# $G "
[Accurate, whereas 15.Ne5?! fxe5
16.Qh5+ Kd8 17.Qxh6 Rc8 18.Rc1
exd4 19.Qf6 Rg8 20.exd4 Rg4!
21.Rf1 Qxd4 22.Qxd4 Rxd4 23.Rf8+
when trying to exploit the two
bishops is to improve the bishop
which has no counterpart; a task
which hasn't been accomplished
here. Morozevich goes on to out-
manoeuvre his opponent:  $. 
2j
2+#) (+#) . (-  $!
1.G"$#&  '"&GG$! 
(!G )2+%) &+%) , &'
-&#" $%$-)$.$%G
&% &G $" (#) "$#
(#  1-- G&! ()(% 
(' ,(- &#" $' &#
 $! (!  $.% (+-
1+-&#&.01%)"&!G
&+  &+'G &  G1. 1.G
  is
12.g3 a6 13.0-0 Qa7 14.Qd2 b5
15.Rd1 Qb7 16.Nc3 also left him
with a nice position.; However,
Dolmatov preferred 10...Bd7 in
V.Arbakov-S.Dolmatov, Russian
Ch., Elista 2001 and after 11.0-0 h5
12.Qd2 g5 13.Rd1 g4 14.Ne1 Rg8
15.Nc2 Bg5 16.Qd3 Nce7 17.Nc3
Rc8 18.a4 Rc4 19.Nb5 a6 20.Nc3
Ê       
)&!G&,1-  slightly better for White according
to Psakhis 20...Nc6 21.Na2? Rxc2!
Ê 
4-
$(
 22.a5 , Black should have played
? 29! ?
   22...Ncxd4 23.axb6 Nxe2+ 24.Kh1
Ê 

 ,,  Rxb2 with a winning position.] 
 " '"  1-  $" $#
[Sam Collins]
$# "(+# !+# An unusual
position has arisen which revolves
   ! !" " #" # $# 
around White's d5-advance. Psakhis
"$% &'   $-  G' #+!
calls this 'complicated and unclear'
)#+!$%",('(GDiagrama
and that is probably about right.
&!Diagrama

( This is an interesting

(!G G2'  &" )!"
alternative to the sharper 10 h4 of
[18.Qc2!? is a worthwhile
Games 14-16. Both Bareev and
alternative as 18...Bxb5 19.d5 Bd7
Dolmatov have lost after 10 Be2 and
20.d6 leaves White with full
so it has to be taken seriously.
 [10...h5 was tried in
L.Schandorff-E.Mortensen,
Ringsted 1995 when White could
simply castle, but Schandorff's
11.h4 Bd7 Ê     
 


takes advantage of the
extra protection of the d-pawn and
gives White the better chances
compensation.] )+!" ,&+!"
(  &+'G 2%')  & (+
(  (%)/ [22...h6 was essential,
in order to monitor the g5-square
and after 23.Nd5 Rc8 24.Nf4 c3
25.Nxe6 fxe6 26.Qc2 Bb4 , White
needs to find something quickly.]
. $G $." $.  "$+ 
23
%+  &+#1-)[Black is shortly
busted after this, but 26...Nxe5
27.Qxe6+ Nf7 28.b6 would also have
been very good for White.] G$
2) )$!  2G ,% 2') %"
&)0  &#  $- &+) 2+)
broke through on the queenside:
12.Qd2 Qd8 13.Bxf5 exf5 14.Nc3 g5
15.Ne1 h4 16.f4! gxf4 17.h3 Bg5
18.Nf3 Bh6 19.Rac1 Be6 20.Na4
Qe7 21.Rc2 Rg8 22.Rfc1 Rg3 23.Nc5
Nd8 24.Qe2 Rg6 25.Bc3 Kf8 26.Be1
' 2')'G+%""2%#   Bg5 27.b5 a5 28.Qd3 Kg7 29.a4 b6
30.Na6 ÊWhite can regain his pawn
Ê "
 
   :9
 with superb play after but
 he wants more 30...Ra7 31.Rc7
239 > Rxc7 32.Rxc7 Qf8 33.Nxg5 Rxg5
34.Bxh4 Rg6 35.Qf3 Kh7 36.Qxf4
-9-9 Ê 


Qa3 37.Bxd8 Qxa4 38.Rc1 Qxb5
 39.Nc7 Qb2 40.Bg5 and 1-0.;
[Sam Collins] 10...Bd7 11.0-0 has also seen Black
suffer: 11...Rc8 Ê   
   
   ! !" " #" # $#  


     

"$% &'   $-  G' #+!  
 
     

)#+! $%" ,(' (G (! 
 
 

    
Diagrama 
      
 
    
 and Black
faced an unpleasant defence in
J.edorowicz-Y.Dokhoian, Wijk aan
Zee 1989while   
   

 loses a whole tempo for
Black, although White is
committing to the capture on f5:
ivetchkin-Shipov, Russian Cup
(blitz) 2004 continued
 and
now I don't like the game's 15 Qa4,
but 
  
 
 
 
Here White relies on piece play and
   
  
Black must find some quick       
 
counterplay. "* [Throughout would have been a stable edge
the Advance, Black is committed to 12.Nbd2 g5 13.Nb3 h5 14.Rc1 g4
a strategy of disruption and if he 15.Ne1 a5 16.Bxf5 exf5 17.Nd3 axb4
holds back, White will develop freely 18.Nbc5 is a typical pawn sacrifice -
when his space advantage gives him both for this line and of Khalifman's
a very pleasant game: 10...a6 11.0-0 enterprising style - and 18...Be6 Êor
h5 misses the mark and  



 
K.Valkesalmi-A.Shneider, Espoo       and White is
1988 was a paradigm of how to deal much better 19.axb4 Qb5 20.Nf4
with this type of Black play. White Rh6 21.Bc3 Bg5 22.Bd2 Bxf4
compromised the black centre, spoilt 23.Bxf4 Rg6 24.Be3 Rg8 25.Re1 Ne7
the black kingside advance and 26.Qd2 h4 27.Bg5 h3 28.Bxe7 Kxe7
2x
29.Qh6 Rc6 30.Qf6+ Ke8 31.Ra1 and

  
   
1-0 was A.Khalifman-S.Dolmatov,
    
 
European Club Cup, Rethymnon
   
   

2003. ; 10...0-0 11.0-0 a5 12.b5! is a
crucial white resource because a
volley of captures on d4 ends in
tears for the black queen after
Bxh7+, and 12...a4 13.Ra2! Na5
14.Nc3 g6 15.Bxf5 gxf5 16.Bc1 Qd8
17.Bh6 Nc4 18.Nxa4 Re8 19.Nc3
Kh8 20.a4 Rg8 21.Ne2 Bd7 22.Ra1
left White much better in .Vallejo
Pons-G.Hernandez, Dos Hermanas
2002.] &*[I'm convinced this is
best, whereas 11.Bxf5 exf5 12.Nc3
 

 


   
 
 occurred
in K.Kiik-V.Korchnoi, Stockholm
2003. The veteran won this one, but
I'd take White here; in general when
I sacrifice an exchange for a pawn
and an outpost, I like the square to
be untouchable which isn't the case
here because White always has the
option of Bxe4 13.Bxf5 exf5
ÊS.Vysochin-B.Sambuev, St
Petersburg 2003 deviated with
  , but after

 

Be6 13.b5 a4! has scored very well      
 
for Black in practice. The fact that  


 


 
both h-pawns are at home (rather  
 
 
than on h4 and h5) is enormously in
  
 , the
Black's favour, since the weakness
of g5 is a vital strategic factor, but
I've never seen the weakness of g4
come into play in such structures.
Given this clear inferiority to a
known line, I won't cover the
variation in depth but will just give

complications had ended badly for
Black 14.0-0 Be6 15.Nc3 Na7
16.Qb3 Rfd8 17.Rfe1 fxe5 18.Nxe5
Bf6 19.a4 Qxd4 20.Ne4 Qxe4
21.Rxe4 fxe4 22.f3! saw the queen
prove to be stronger than the
assortment in A.Lastin-Se.Ivanov,
one high level example: 14.bxc6
Qxb2 15.0-0 bxc6 16.Nxa4 Qb5
17.Nc3 Qc4 18.Ne2 0-0 19.Rc1 Qa6
20.Rc3 Rfc8 was agreed drawn in
  
A.Shirov-A.Khalifman, Linares
     
 was
2000.; Likewise 11.b5 is dubious, in
view of the 11...Ncxd4 12.Nxd4
Moscow 2004. ] '"  
$G [After 13...f6? 14.Bxf5 exf5 ,
simplest is the decisive 15.Nc3
Êwhereas   
D.Schneider-C.Marzolo, Moscow
2004, although even here  
Nxd4 13.Qg4 Nf5 14.Bxf5 Qxb5
15.Bd4 exf5 16.Qxg7 Rf8 17.Nc3
    
 
Qc4 18.Ne2 of P.Haba-I.Glek, Stare
Mesto 1992 when 18...Bd7! 19.e6
Bb5 would have been excellent for
Black.] (!G [Placing a bishop
on the same diagonal as the enemy
queen is a very natural approach,
but Black can also simply castle.
After 11...0-0 12.b5 , he has tried
     

would have been much better for
White 15...Be6 16.bxc6 Qxb2
17.Nb5 .] $# $- "$+-
(+- &!  %" G$ [17.exf6
Bxf6 18.Na4 Qd6 19.Qe2 Rae8 20.f4
b6 21.Rf3 g6 22.Raf1 was also
pleasant for White in G.Guseinov-
D.Schneider, Nakhchivan 2003. ]
two approaches: 12...f6 Ê 
 G&!) )&' '  ,$# ()





 

  (G  $ (%G - ('
2J
( (+ &+ It's
interesting to note that Black could
find nothing to do with his dark-
squared bishop other than to
present it for exchange. The white
advantage is now obvious and
Motylev converts confidently:
2#) "2#  &!G  . %+.
G-+. 2+#  )2+#  2#)
,1. 2+#  &+#  $#)  &#
. &# 1.G$.$G&."
$.) "$-"0 1-)  $%  &G
G&- -  )." 1.G ,.+- 0
$+-  $-"0 1%)  &% .+-"
&+- 0 1) (.  &-
(+%G0 1+%G "% &+!
 &+-"0 1G G&-G0 1!)
)&.)0 1G ,&.G0 1)
"&. 01G" &% 01!G"&%G0
1!) "&+  &!0 "1- &!
""&.)0 1G " &.G0 1)
-" [10...Bd7 looks like a less
effective version of Dolmatov's idea
(which we'll see below in Yemelin-
Dolmatov) and 11.g4 Nh6 12.Rg1 0-
0 13.Nc3 f6 14.Na4 Qd8 15.exf6
Rxf6 16.g5 Rxf3 17.Qxf3 Nf5 18.Rg4
Ncxd4 19.Bxd4 Nxd4 20.Rxd4 Bxa4
21.Bd3 Qc7 22.Kf1 Qh2 23.Re1 Bd7
24.Rf4 gave White excellent chances
in A.Grischuk-L.Johannessen,
Reykjavik 2000.] (! "
[Instead 11...Bd7? is an awful move
and 12.Bxf5 exf5 13.Nc3 Be6 14.Qd3
Rc8 15.0-0 Qd8 16.Rac1 0-0 17.g3
left White with a clear advantage in
M.Rytshagov-S.Pedersen,Gausdal
2000.; There's also 11...g6 but this is
always a move Black needs to play
with caution because the g5-square
is now an outpost: 12.Bxf5 gxf5
13.Nc3 Rg8 14.0-0 Êalternatively
"G&-)01G")&-0 
  
 
 

  
   
Ê
 4!9
  (3
7
      was drawish in
 A.Grischuk-K.Sakaev, Russian
;!9 -
 9:- Team Ch. 2001, but




     
   
Ê 

 

 
    

[Sam Collins]
 left White with excellent
   ! !" " #" # $# 
"$% &'   $-  G' #+!
)#+! $%" ,(' (G -
Diagrama
   
 
    


compensation for his two pawns in
A.Shabalov-V.Akobian, US Ch.,
Seattle 2003 14...Rg4 15.Ne2 Bd7
16.g3 0-0-0 17.Bc1 Rdg8 18.Kh1 Kb8
19.Bf4 Ka8 20.Qd2 f6 21.exf6 Bxf6
22.Rfc1 and White had a bind in
A.Grischuk-Zhang Pengxiang,
Shanghai 2001. ] &*/
Diagrama

2G

[12.Bxf5 will be examined next, but
weaknesses on b7, f7 and h5.
G(  )2#  (# ,2# 2+ 
&+  1%)  $- 1.G $%
&' 2 &! 1. '"/
"$+ 0* %+   &G0 1. 
G&G (! )&+ 0 1-G
,&G0 1.  &."0 1-G
 &+-"0 1.G &."0 1-G
&G0 1-  &% 0 1-G
"&%G0 1-   -" % G&+%0
1-G )&%G0 1-  ,2% (
this is an interesting alternative. In "1- 
addition to pinning the a-pawn, the
white queen simply occupies a4 and Ê G
 #-9
4 
so the black pawn can't advance. ] ?9 
 
(!G [12...Bd8 13.b5 Nce7 is -9.9 
 4
offbeat, and for a good reason as the ?'3. Ê "

 
black pieces are treading on each [Sam Collins]
other's toes. ] '" $G $#
&!) "&! . [15...Nxh4 16.Nxh4    ! !" " #" # $# 
Bxh4 17.g3 , followed by Rxh5, is "$% &'   $-  G' #+!
nice for White and so, by defending )#+! $%" ,(' (G - -"
his h-pawn, Black makes 16...Nxh4 (!"Diagrama
a real threat, although the
weakening of f6 is a big positional
problem for Barua.] . 
G(# * $#) )(." $'  ,
(+." $+." &G  (# 2#)/
[21...Nc4! , using Black's positional
trumps on the queenside, is a big
improvement. After 22.Nf3 Êand not


   



 
 22...0-0 the game is
balanced.] $+ $+
[Continuing in compliant mode,
(+%"+%" $#( [13...axb4
whereas even here 22...Nc4 would
was a rare idea essayed in
have supplied some compensation. ]
E.Sveshnikov-E.Bareev, Russian
(+ 2# (#*/ [A deep
Ch., Elista 1996, but so far, no
approach and 24.b6 was more
further takers have been found for
straightforward.] (+'" "2 
the pawn-down opposite-coloured
2+  (+%" .+%" G&'  White
bishop endgame arising after
has gone from a pawn up to a pawn
14.Nxd5 Qa5 15.Nxe7 b3+ 16.Nd2
down, but I still prefer his position
Nxe7 17.Qxb3 Rh6 18.Bc3 Qd5 19.0-
due to Black's poor coordination and
0 Qxb3 20.Nxb3 Rc6 21.Bb4 Nd5

2
22.Na5 Rc2 23.Rfc1 , probably
because Bareev wasn't able to hold
it.] '"[Instead 14.Qa4 0-0 15.b5
Na7 16.Qd1 Qd8 17.a4 worked out
well for White in Y.Gonzalez-
W.Schilow, Guillermo Garcia
Memorial 2005, but Black has
improvements based on the
vulnerability of the b2-bishop in
15...Rac8!? and 16...a4!. ] 
"&!Diagrama
[Rightly avoiding 15.0-0 due to
15...Na5! 16.Qxa4 0-0 17.Bc1 Rfc8
18.Ne2 Rc4 19.Qd1 Qxb5 20.Bg5
Bf8! 21.Nf4 Qb3 and Black was at
least fine in M.Panarin-A.Rychagov,
playchess.com (blitz) 2004.
   would still have been
equal, because if Black ever castles
Qh6 will cause enough disturbance
to compensate for the pawn, and
otherwise Qg5 is threatened)24...0-
0 25.Rad1 Rc8 26.Rxc3 Qxc3 and
Black went on to win.] )&+'"
[18...Nxb5 19.Bg5! Bxg5 20.hxg5
also gives White strong
compensation and he can play with
his major pieces on the b- and c-
files, while the kingside can be
effectively tidied up with Nf4, g3
and Kg2.] ,(."Diagrama
,&'/* [19...Rc7 20.Qxb5+ Nxb5
21.Bxe7 Kxe7 22.Rfb1 Na7 23.Rb6
] leaves White with excellent
"$G  2#) G(#  2#
)$ [18.Rd1 was Grischuk's
choice in a very instructive stem
game against Lputian at the 2002
Bled ilympiad. At that time
Grischuk was winning the vast
majority of his games in the rench
Advance, so his reversal came as a
major surprise. He tried to force the
black knight to capture on b5
(thereby avoiding a configuration of
...Qb5 and ...Nc6), but in fact the
knight on b5 is pretty well placed
and the loss of the tempo more
significant: 18...Nxb5 19.Ne2 Qc6
20.Bg5 Bxg5 21.Nxg5 Nc3 22.Nxc3
Rxc3 23.Qe2 g6 24.Rd3? Ê

compensation, but this was
certainly a better shot than the
game continuation.] &+' +'
 (+G 1+G 2%'  2-#)
[White soon reaches a perfect
ending with knights on f4 and g5,
but he also would have been
winning after 22...Rc2 23.Rxb3!
Rxe2 24.Rxb7+ .] 2+' '"
$% .  ". 2#  2' 
2)# G1. 1) )$." (!G
,  (+  $.+  2+'
 2+' %+  $+  $# 
2+'" $+! 2')0 1%G
"$% 2#G  2'  2G G$+. 
2+ )$% $# ,$+!" $ 0
1%  2   2% 0 1.G 2+%"
2‰
1.  2."0 1-  1 $# was better, but still grim.]
"$%  G$+! )$+!" (+'" ,(#
&!) $+G (+!  (' $.)
Ê )
=9
7
4 $+.)&!"2.&- 0

239-
1: Ê ,
4-
$@39
4
Ê

 
[Sam Collins] 3>-
(39
Ê G

 ,,,
   ! !" " #" # $#  [Sam Collins]
"$% &'   $-  G' #+!
)#+! $%" ,(' (G - "*/    ! !" " #" # $# 
Diagrama "$% &'   $-  G' #+!
)#+! $%" ,(' (!G Here Black
doesn't concern himself with
controlling the h4-square, believing
that the gain of time for queenside
operations, coupled with potential
white weaknesses on the kingside,
will more than compensate him for
any inconvenience when his knight
is kicked. .Diagrama

Much more aggressive than

blocking with 10...h5 as Black
allows his knight to be sidelined in
order to accelerate his queenside
play. '"  . $-  2. 
[C.Sandipan-S.Dolmatov, Moscow
2002 had seen 13.Nc3 Nxg4 14.Nxa4
Qa5+ 15 Nd2? and now Black would
have been better after 15...Ncxe5.
Psakhis has thus suggested 15.Nc3
Qb6 when if White rejects the draw,
an unclear game arises after 16.Be2
Na5 .] $" $#/ [14.Qxa4 [I think White is duty-bound to play
Bd7 15.Nbd2 0-0 16.Rc1 Nc4 this as Black's position is simply too
17.Nxc4 dxc4 18.Qxc4 Rfc8 gave good if the knight isn't kicked. Both
Black ample compensation in 10 Nc3?! and 10 Bd3?! drop the d-
A.Shabalov-J.Rouleau, Philadelphia pawn for insufficient compensation,
2005, but the game move just leaves while 10 Be2 Be7 transposes to the
White struggling.] $' "2 note to White's tenth move in Game
&" (! (!G G$!/ [17.Kf1
j

19. 10.h4 has enjoyed some
popularity, but I simply don't like it
as it appears unnecessary when the
h4-square isn't contested. 10...Rc8
11.g4 Nfe7 12.Nc3 Na5 13.Na4 Qc6
14.Nc5 Nc4 15.Bc1 h5 saw Black
secure the f5-square, with
promising play, in S.Movsesian-
T.Haimovich, European Club Cup,
Panormo 2001, but the simple
10...h5 also leaves him with a good
game.] $-  2.  [This is a
more active defence of the g-pawn
than the 11.h3 of our next
illustrative game.] %  [11...Rc8
puts White under less pressure and
12.Nbd2 Be7 13.Bd3 0-0 14.Qb1 g6
15.Rg3 gave him good kingside
chances in i.Zambrana-
E.ernandez Romero, Havana
2005.] +%  .+%  $#
Diagrama
[This is clearly the most natural.
13.g5!? is a little more committal,
but definitely not bad, and 13...fxg5
14.Rxg5 Be7 15.Rg1 Nf5 Ê  
  
 doesn't work in view of
 16.Nc3 Ncxd4 (critical, but
perhaps not the most prudent)
17.Nxd5 exd5 18.Nxd4 Bf6 19.Qe2+
Kf7 20.Nxf5 Bxf5 21.Qh5+ Bg6
22.Qxd5+ Kg7 23.Qd7+ Kf8 24.Qd2
Qe6+ 25.Be2 Rd8 26.Qf4 Kg7
27.Bxf6+ Qxf6 28.Qxf6+ Kxf6 gave
White an extra pawn, although the
conversion proved too difficult, in
U.Garbisu de Goni-S.Del Rio
Angelis, Spanish Ch., Palencia
1999. ] $%G This position is
remarkably tough to assess with
neither king being conventionally
safe, while the strength or weakness
of both structures (White on the
kingside and queenside; Black with
his central cluster) is still to be
demonstrated. $Diagrama
[14.Rc1!? Bh6 15.Rc2 Ne7 16.h4 Bf4
17.Bd3 h6 18.Re2 was a creative
rook lift in J.Lautier-C.Bauer,
rench Ch., Val d'Isere 2002,
although the game was drawn after
18...Qc7 19.Qb3 Nd6 20.Rc2 Qb8
21.Ne2 Ne4 22.b5 a6 23.bxa6 .]
&#G [Remaining active,
whereas 14...Qd8 15.Nc5 Bc8 16.Rc1
Nd6 17.Bd3 Qe7 18.g5 f5 19.Ne5
Nxe5 20.dxe5 Ne4 21.Qh5+ Kd8
22.Nb3 Rg8 23.h4 Bd7 was .Vallejo
Pons-T.Hillarp Persson, Benidorm
(rapid) 2003 and now 24.Qd1! would
have left the e4-knight under
threat. ] "2#  &% $#"
[Lputian later faced 16.Rc3 Ng5
17.b5 Na5 18.Nxg5 fxg5 which was
unclear in M.Savic-S.Lputian,
Neum 2002.] (+#" G!+#"
$#" )$+" $+" ,2. This
position is just unclear and here
jc
Black should play 19...a5 or
19...Rg8. What Lputian actually
does allows Short to consolidate and
quickly reach a better endgame.
, /* ( ('"  &!*
&+! (+! 2%) ." (+
1+ $!G ".+%  "  ('
2+%  G2.)0 2%) )2+%)0 1+%)
,2!  ! % "  %+" +'
+' 2 2! $+"
(+! 2+!0 "1+! $%0 [A natural counter, but there are
 1# 1G G- $." )- $% other approaches: 11...Rc8 12.Nc3
,-"$-1!$%" ("1  Na5 13.Na4 Qc6 14.Nc5 Ê
 

1 $G '" ine would 
 
  


expect Short to convert from here,    
   
 
but Lputian manages to hang on.  
  saw White go on
$#) (') $G "#  '+#  to win in A.Shirov-D.Sadvakasov,
 ' $!"G'G$% 0)1%$!G Astana 2001, but I'd be sceptical of
,(#G 1%" "(% #" " (!  # my ability to demonstrate enough
"1 1  "(. # "(  # compensation here)14...Nc4 15.Bc1
""1! 1!" " (. 1#  "G')& Be7 Ê  

 
 
$+') ")(+') 1!" ",1+# 1     
 looked
-  1%" (G 1.  ( 1%G balanced in P.Haba-G.Dizdar,
1! 1.) 1 1%) "1%" Germany 1991 16.Bd3 b6 17.Nxd7
1%G (! 1.) G1%  1%) Kxd7 18.0-0 Ng8 19.Nd2 Bh4 20.Qf3
)(#"0 1.) ,1G 1-) G1%) Ne7 21.Nxc4 dxc4 22.Be4 Nd5
< < 23.Qxf7+ was winning in
S.Vysochin-I.Smikovski, St
Ê
69
 Petersburg 1996.; 11...Be7 gives
:-:
 White a little more breathing space
(.9>-Ê and 12.Bd3 Ê  

)

"
   

   
[Sam Collins]
  
  also left White
better in P.Haba-S.Koutsin,
   ! !" " #" # $#  Wattens 1999 12...Rc8 13.Nbd2
"$% &'   $-  G' #+! Nb8 14.Qe2 a6 15.Nb1 Nc6 16.0-0 0-
)#+! $%" ,(' (!G . $-  0 17.Nc3 Nxd4 18.Nxd4 Qxd4
-% Diagrama 19.Ne4 Qb6 20.Nf6+ Bxf6 21.exf6
Bb5 22.Bxb5 Qxb5 23.Qe3 gave
White a decisive advantage in
J.Timman-Cu.Hansen, Malmo 2003.
; 11...Na5!? 12.Nbd2 Nc4 13.Bxc4
dxc4 14.Nxc4 Qb5 was a typical
pawn sacrifice in D.Prasad-

j2
P.Harikrishna, Hyderabad 2000. It
could catch on, since the game was
drawn after 15.Nfd2 Bc6 16.0-0 Be7
17.f3 Rc8 18.Qe2 Qa6 19.Nd6+ Bxd6
20.Qxa6 bxa6 21.exd6 f6 22.Rfc1 .]
(!Diagrama
pawn.] %+" !+" ."*
"$% 2#  2! 2!) G2!
() )$' '  ,2 ! 2#G
2! 2!#)  $'! 2# 
$%  2  $ 2##  2! 
2+!  "$+!  2  $ $!)*
G$+." $'G )-/ $#" ,-"
2+ 2! !  $!  (+'"
%(# 01%2'

Ê
9#-3:
2!E'
>

69E:FÊ ,


[Sam Collins]

   ! !" " #" # $# 

[12.exf6 gxf6 could be labelled 'anti- "$% &'   $-  G' #+'
positional', but the black structure )#+' $%" ,(' (!G .
may prove fragile. M.Savic- [10.Be2 has done very badly for
B.Miljanic, Novi Sad 2000 was an White and Watson offers 10...Be7
excellent example of the energetic 11.0-0 Ê 
 


play required of White in such 
 

  
situations: 13.Nc3 Bg7 14.Na4 Qd8       
15.Nc5 Bc8 16.Bd3 0-0 17.Bc2 b6
      gives Black more
18.Qd3 f5 19.Nb3 Bd7 20.Rg1 Rc8 than enough activity to compensate
and now 21.Rc1! would have been for his loose structure11...0-0 12.g4
much safer than the game's 21 0-0- Nh4 13.Nxh4 Bxh4 14.f4 f6 which is
0.] $%G $'! " [Instead unclear.] $%GDiagrama
13...fxe5 14.dxe5 Be7 15.Rc1 Ng5
16.h4 Nxf3+ 17.Qxf3 Nd4?!
Ê  18.Qe3 Nb5 19.Nf3!
Qxe3+ 20.fxe3 a5 21.Bxb5 Bxb5
22.Nd4 Bd7 23.b5 Bd8 24.a4
instructively left White with the
better endgame in E.Sveshnikov-
S.Lputian, Tilburg (rapid) 1992, but
17...Rc8 is a clear improvement.]
'" $G " $.  (+. 
-+.  G( (+ )2+ 2#)
,1%  &#G 2 &#   1. $# $" [White's last was
&+!  2+!  1G $  [White clearly best and this is the only
has a small edge in this endgame, move to deal with the threatened
but somehow manages to lose, and Na4. I don't like the alternatives:
here 23.g5 was better, fixing the g6- 11...h5 12.Na4 Qd8 13.Nc5 b6??

jj
14.Nb7 Qc7 15.Nd6+ and Black iron fidelity to his pet systems but
could resign in A.Grischuk- also a good instinct for saving his
A.Khruschiov, Dos Hermanas (blitz) own hide!) 16...Kd8 17.Nxf7+ Ke8
2003. if course Black needn't play 18.Nd6+ Kd8 19.Nf7+ Ke8 20.Nd6+
this badly, but even after a stronger a draw was agreed.] 2#)
13th move White is solidly better.; 2# Diagrama
11...Ng6 12.Na4 Qd8 13.h4 h5 14.g5
, as in V.Nevednichy-S.Lputian,
European Ch., ihrid 2001, leaves
White better in view of his extra
space, for instance 14...b6 15.Rc1 a5
16.b5 Nce7 17.Qd2 and White has
an edge.; 11...Qd8 12.Na4 Ng6
transposes to 11...Ng6.] $!
Diagrama

[Keeping the tension. Instead


  
 


[Covering the important c4-square.
Instead 12.Qc2 Nc4 13.Bxc4 dxc4
14.Nd2 Qc6 Ê
  
 

 

 15.Nce4 Nd5 16.Nxc4 Rxc4 17.Rxc4
 
 
   Be7 18.0-0 0-0 19.Rc5 Bxc5 20.dxc5
 was E.Alekseev-S.Ivanov,
Russian Team Ch. 2001; the reader
probably has his own ideas about
what chance White has in such a
  when both
position, but to my mind it seems a
relatively straightforward draw

 
 
 look good for
15.Nce4 c3! was E.Sveshnikov-
T.Radjabov, Tallinn (rapid) 2004.
The white pawns have been pushed
all across the board, so opening up
the game, even at the cost of a
pawn, is the logical choice and after
16.Nd6+ (a very interesting choice
from Sveshnikov, who has a cast-
13.Na4 Qc6 14.b5 Qc2 Ê

   
 was the more complex
continuation of E.Relange-D.Antic,
Sabac 1998 and paid dividends for
Black after  
 

 
      with
an edge15.Qxc2 Rxc2 was a simple
equaliser in S.Yudin-
D.Erashchenkov, Essentuki 2003. ]
$.  [13...Nc4 14.Bxc4 dxc4
Qd8 21.Nd6 gave White a clear
advantage in H.Jonkman-
S.Vysochin, Tanta 2002, but; 13...h5
14.Rc2 ÊI prefer

14...Nac6 15 Na4 and



White 14...Nc4 15.Bxc4 dxc4
16.Nce4 Nd5 17.Nxc4 Rxc4 18.Rxc4
a5 left Black with interesting
positional compensation in
V.Ivanchuk-E.Bareev, Dubai (rapid)
2002. ] -Diagrama

j3


 is
[Though I shamefully forgot to play
this move in my European Club Cup
game against Valery ilippov (in
which Black was doing well after 14
g5? h6), it used to be the only real
try for an advantage until
A.Motylev-R.Ponomariov, Khanty
Mansyisk 2005 introduced a new
concept: 14.Qe2!? Be7 15.Qe3 0-0
16.h4 f6 17.h5 Nh8 18.Rc2 Nc6
19.Na4 Qd8 20.exf6 Bxf6 21.Nc5
with an edge.] (G "." - 
[Black preferred 15...0-0 in
V.Potkin-W.Hug, European Ch.,
Silivri 2003 which is one of the
major talking points in this line.
Here 16.Ba1!? is my own suggestion
which I haven't seen played or dealt
with, and so I'll draw on my original
analysis from 'An Attacking
Repertoire for White'. There's also:

 16.Qg4 Bxb4 17.axb4 Qxb4
18.Rb1 Rxc3 19.Bxc3 Qxc3 20.h5
Ne7 is unclear according to Psakhis.
After 21.Rh3 Qc7 22.h6 g6 both
sides have some king safety issues.;
'
 16.Ne2 Rfd8 17.h5 Nf8 18.Rg1?!
16...Nc4 Ê 
comfortably better for White
17.Bxc4 (giving up this bishop is a
concession, but I think it's worth it
in order to get the white knights
going) 17...dxc4 18.Qg4! Bc6 19.Rh3
(defending lots of important squares
along the third rank) 19...Rfd8
20.Ne2 Bd5 21.h5 Nf8 22.Nf4 with a
continuing attack, such as 22...a5
23.g6 axb4 24.gxf7+ Kxf7 25.axb4
Qxb4 26.Rg3 Ke8 27.Qxg7 Qb5
28.Nxd5 exd5 29.Rf3 leaves Black in
trouble. ] .+-  2+-  [I'm
grateful to GM Bogdan Lalic for
drawing my attention to 16...gxh6!?
. He says it has been played, but not
in a game that's in my database. In
any event, given Black's difficulties
in the main game, the move merits
consideration. After 17.h5 Nf4
18.Qf3 Bg5 Black is pretty well
placed, but the position doesn't
permit a clear assessment, with a
sample variation running 19.Rc2
Nc4! Ê   leaves White
close to consolidation 20.Nxc4 dxc4
21.Ne4 Bc6 22.Rxc4!? Rd8 . White's
extra pawn is then almost entirely
irrelevant from a material point of
view, but it cuts out a lot of black
play on the d-file and on the g1²a7
diagonal. Black has beautiful light-
square control, but Nd6+ can be a
useful resource and, in general, I
think I'd take White, but we really
need some good games here before
Ê  is better 18...Rxc1 Ê 
 the truth is known.] G-" The pin

 
    
   means the knight isn't threatened
is also promising for Black19.Nxc1
and now 19...Rc8 would have been
slightly better for Black in A.Shirov-
M.Gurevich, Khanty Mansyisk
2005; Returning to 16 Ba1!?:
in a conventional sense, but with
Rg1 on the cards it had better move
somewhere. G$- [Heading for
f5, whereas 17...Nf8 18.Rc2! Nc4
Ê  
 is also
bad for Black 19.Nxc4 dxc4 20.Bc1
jx
Rh8 21.Qg4 was clearly better for
White in P.Thipsay-D.Barua,
Calicut 2003 and; 17...Nc4? 18.Nxc4
dxc4 19.Rg1 sees White win the g7-
pawn.] )&.Diagrama
)$%" ,(! (%) $
[Promising, but 20.Bxf5 exf5 21.Qf3
Nc4 22.Nxc4 dxc4 23.Rd1 was even
stronger.] $#  $+# !+#
"1# &#"0 " 1!  &-" "&!
1G "&0 1%) "&! 1G
""&0 1%) " &#  (#" "G1#
&-G0 ")1! &-" ",&)0 1G
&'G0 1%) &#)0 1G
&#G01) &# 01%) &)0
1G "2% &.  20 1!G
G&'G0 1!  )2% 1  ,&# 0
1"G&#G01 G %%"G&# 0
1%G G&!"0 1%  G1! &."
G"& &.  G 1# &%G0 GG&!"
&+!"0 G)1+!" ( G,2# %
)2# 0 1%" ) 2#) 1%  )2%)0
1G )2%" (! )2"0 1!G
)"2-" ( ) 2-G0 1!) )G1 
(#" ))2!G0 1#) ),2%G (
,1!  1') , 1#  '" ,1+'"
1#) ,1#  1!) ,1!  1)
,"1  (! , 2#G 1%) ,G1% 
1),)2G01!),,2 
(+%" +%" In the space of two
moves the black centre has literally
stepped aside. &. " (#
+'"+'2) !"The white
centre is overwhelming.  2
G1% * Avoiding any ...Bxb4xc3+
ideas, and White enjoys an
overwhelming centre. G& 
)2 1!),2-%2-&
   2+ 2+ &+# 2-
&# 0 [33 exd7 was more precise,
because here Radjabov missed
33...Qxb4 34.exd7 Qb1+ 35.Re1 Qf5
which complicates matters, since
36.Re8+ Kxd7 37.Rxf8 Qb1+ 38.Ke2
is a perpetual.] 2  &!
"+!G (+'  2  2 
G&+.G (#" )2% 2+ 0
,&+  &+!" &-)0 1+!G
 2+% # &+# &- 0 1
&+-"0 2% '  "&%  1)
 &# 0 1G G&'G0 1)
)&01%)What follows is a long
and precise technical
demonstration: ,1!* (! 

jJ