GEWMIE | )

Play the
Najdort
Sicilian

A new guide to the King of Chess Openings

 Play the
Najdorf Sicilian
James Rizzitano
First published in the UK by Gambit Publications Ltd 2010

Copyright © James Rizzitano 2010

The right of James Rizzitano to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accor-
dance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a
retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photo-
copying, recording or otherwise), without prior permission of the publisher. In particular, no part
of this publication may be scanned, transmitted via the Internet or uploaded to a website without
the publisher’s permission. Any person who does any unauthorized act in relation to this publica-
tion may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damage.

ISBN-13: 978-1-906454-16-6
ISBN-10: 1-906454-16-7

DISTRIBUTION:
Worldwide (except USA): Central Books Ltd, 99 Wallis Rd, London E9 SLN, England.
Tel +44 (0)20 8986 4854 Fax +44 (0)20 8533 5821. E-mail: orders@Centralbooks.com

Gambit Publications Ltd, 99 Wallis Rd, London E9 5LN, England.

E-mail: info @gambitbooks.com
Website (regularly updated): www.gambitbooks.com

Edited by Graham Burgess

Typeset by Petra Nunn
Cover image by Wolff Morrow
Printed in Great Britain by The Cromwell Press Group, Trowbridge, Wilts.

10987654321

Gambit Publications Ltd

Managing Director: Murray Chandler GM
Chess Director: Dr John Nunn GM
Editorial Director: Graham Burgess FM
German Editor: Petra Nunn WFM
Webmaster: Dr Helen Milligan WFM
Contents

Symbols

b
Dedication
Acknowledgements

b
Bibliography
Introduction

N
Typical Najdorf Themes

O
1 Fischer Attack: 6 2c4
2 6f3%b6and 6 Le3 Hgd
3 6 Ke3e5 and the English Attack
4 Fianchetto Variation: 6 g3
5 Classical Najdorf: 6 2e2 e5
6 The Aggressive 6 f4
7 Gelfand Variation: 6 2.g5 €6 7 f4 £bd7
8 Kasparov Variation: 6 £g5 6 7 f4 Wc7
9 Poisoned Pawn and Polugaevsky Variations
10 Main Line: 6 £g5¢e6 7 f4 Ke7
11 White’s Sixth-Move Alternatives

Index of Variations
Symbols

+ check
++ double check
# checkmate
" brilliant move
! good move
1? interesting move
N dubious move
? bad move
7 blunder
Ch championship
COIT. correspondence game
1-0 the game ends in a win for White
12-12 the game ends in a draw
0-1 the game ends in a win for Black
(D) see next diagram

Dedication
To Jane

Acknowledgements
Special thanks to my wife Kim and to our children Jillian and Jay for their enthusiasm and support.
Bibliography

Books
Aagaard, J. (ed.) & Shaw, J. (ed.): Experts vs the Sicilian, 2nd ed., Quality Chess 2006
Anzmendi, J. & Moreno, J.: Mastering the Najdorf, Gambit 2004
Bosch, J.: Secrets of Opening Surprises, Volume 5, New In Chess 2006
Bosch, J.: Secrets of Opening Surprises, Volume 6, New In Chess 2007
Davies, N.: Taming the Sicilian, Everyman 2002
Emms, J.: Play the Najdorf: Scheveningen Style, Everyman 2003
Emms, J. & Palliser, R.: Dangerous Weapons: The Sicilian, Everyman 2006
Gelfand, B.: My Most Memorable Games, Olms 2005
Golubev, M.: The Sicilian Sozin, Gambit 2003
Georgiev, Ki. & Kolev, A.: The Sharpest Sicilian, Chess Stars 2007
Kasparov, G.: My Great Predecessors, Part I, Everyman 2003
Kasparov, G.: Revolution in the 70s, Everyman 2007
King, D.: Winning With the Najdorf, Batsford 1993
Kosten, A.: Easy Guide to the Najdorf, Gambit/Everyman 1999
Matanovié, A. (ed.): Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings B (‘ECO’), 4th ed.,
Sahovski Informator 2002
Nunn, J. & Gallagher, J.: Beating the Sicilian 3, Batsford 1995
Nunn, J.: Grandmaster Chess Move by Move, Gambit 2005
Nunn, J.: The Complete Najdorf: 6 2.g5, Batsford 1997
Nunn, J.: Secrets of Practical Chess, New Enlarged Edition, Gambit 2007
Nunn, J., Burgess, G., Emms, J., Gallagher, J.: Nunn’s Chess Openings (‘NCO’),
Gambit/Everyman 1999
Nunn, J. & Gallagher, J.: The Complete Najdorf: Modern Lines, Batsford 1998
Palliser, R.: Starting Out: Sicilian Najdorf, Everyman 2006
Pedersen, S.: Easy Guide to the Sicilian Scheveningen, Gambit/Cadogan 1998
Polugaevsky, L..: Grandmaster Performance, Pergamon 1984
Polugaevsky, L.: Grandmaster Preparation, Pergamon 1981
Rizzitano, J.: Understanding Your Chess, Gambit 2004
Sammalvuo, T.: The English Attack, Gambit 2004
Stohl, I.: Garry Kasparov’s Greatest Chess Games Volume 1, Gambit 2005
Stohl, L.: Garry Kasparov’s Greatest Chess Games Volume 2, Gambit 2006
Stohl, I.: Instructive Modern Chess Masterpieces, Gambit 2001
Watson, J.: Mastering the Chess Openings Volume 1, Gambit 2006

Electronic/Periodicals
ChessBase Mega Database 2008
Chess Mail UltraCorr2 2008
New In Chess Magazine (2005/1 — 2009/6)
New In Chess Yearbook (Nos. 54-91)
Sahovski Informator (‘Informator’) (up to No. 104)
The Week In Chess (up to No. 781)
Introduction
“Why do you play the Najdorf?” a 12-year-old
boy asked me during the spring of 1980 (I was a
know-it-all 19-year-old). “The Najdorf is the
only theoretical equalizer — it has the highest
ECO code B99 of all king pawn openings and
the last line has an evaluation of unclear,” I re-
plied with a straight face. Of course, according
to this logic I should have been playing the
Chigorin Variation of the Ruy Lopez (ECO
code C99). The explanation must have been
convincing because at a tournament several
weeks later the 12-year-old asked: “The thing
about the highest ECO code — is that why you
play the King’s Indian too?”” The ruse could not
be maintained forever, and for many years every
time a Najdorf appeared in one of my games, the
future U.S. Champion Patrick Wolff would be
quick to remind me that the Najdorf is “the only
theoretical equalizer!”
There is at least a grain of truth in most
jokes, and it is easy to see why young players
across generations are attracted to the Najdorf.
After all, you can’t go wrong riding on the
shoulders of giants and following in the foot-
steps of many World Champions including Tal,
Fischer and Kasparov. The Najdorf is often re-
ferred to as the King of Chess Openings — the
opening to be played in high-stakes, must-win
games at all levels from the local club match to
Chess Olympiads and World Championship
matches. Let’s consider several reasons to play
the Najdorf:
* Black can play for a win with the Najdorf
without incurring excessive risk. The pawn-
structure is unbalanced and Black has an ex-
tra centre pawn.
* The Najdorf is considered to be fundamen-
tally sound; this is the gold standard for a
chess opening because no one has demon-
strated a way for White to obtain an advan-
tage by force.
* The world’s strongest grandmasters regu-
larly employ the Najdorf and these great
players generate a constant supply of fresh,
high-level Najdorf games to analyse and learn
from.
The Najdorf is an opening that can be played
for a lifetime — from club player to Grandmaster,
the Najdorf has something to offer everyone. I
started playing the Najdorf from an initial U.S.
Chess Federation rating of 886 to a peak rating
of 2585 (a range of almost 1700 points), versus
opposition ranging from local club players to a
former World Champion. The Najdorf is an ex-
cellent weapon for the improving player because
its uncompromising nature facilitates the devel-
opment of several important chess skills:
* Developing or neutralizing an initiative: Will
the attack succeed with pieces alone, or do 1
need to utilize my pawns to clear out the de-
fender’s pieces? Do I have enough pieces
around my opponent’s king to sustain the ini-
tiative, or will the attack peter out and leave
me vulnerable to a strong counterattack? This
is a skill that tends to improve with experi-
ence.
* Evaluating king safety: Both White and Black
must constantly evaluate the vulnerability of
their respective kings. In some lines, Black’s
king is most comfortable in the centre be-
cause there it is shielded by Black’s two
centre pawns. The Poisoned Pawn Variation
features several lines where Black’s king ap-
pears to be boxed in, but it defies the attacking
army by slipping away along the dark squares
weakened by the exchange of White’s dark-
squared bishop.
* Handling dynamic pawn-structures: White
often develops an initiative by launching the
g4 pawn advance, while Black must decide
whether to ignore the pawn, restrain the
pawn with ...h6, or counterattack in the cen-
tre with a timely ...e5 or ...d5. Simlar deci-
sions must be made on the queenside: should
White play a4 to restrict Black from playing
...b3? The Classical Najdorf features sev-
eral lines where Black restrains from playing
 INTRODUCTION 7

...b5 because the reply a4 weakens Black’s b3) 6...e5 (D) is discussed in Chapter 3.
queenside; this tends to be more of a concern
for Black after White has castled kingside.
3%3&@%?
The Najdorf starts with these moves: W
1 ed ¢5 2 &3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Dxd4 Hf6 5

N
&He3 a6 (D)

EQoligesA 7
/////
%

N %Y

N
Hor)

R
>

@‘
\\\\\
-1 ?%%fi%

\
s ;//& % We mostly focus on the English Attack,i.e. 7
&b3 with 3 to follow soon.
AL
///
AT
% %// ¢ %’/ :
c) 6 g3 is the Fianchetto Vanation (Chapter
E 2Wwia EH 4). Lines with 6...e5 are covered.
d) In Chapter 5 we examine the Classical
Najdorf, which arises after 6 £e2 e5.
The intent of this book is to utilize a selec- e) 614 is a popular variation without a gen-
tion of recent high-level games to provide guid- erally accepted name. In Chapter 6, lines with
ance for both White and Black. The emphasis is 6...e5 are investigated.
on traditional lines for Black with ...e5, except f) White has many 6th-move alternatives,
when ...e5 1s considered a mistake (for exam- including 6 h3, 6 a4, 6 W3, 6 £d3, 6 gl and 6
ple, versus 6 £c4 and 6 £g5). a3. We take a look at these possibilities in
6 L85 Chapter 11.
This is the traditional main line of the Naj- 6..6 714 (D)
dorf, and although this status has been chal-
lenged in the last three decades, the move’s
popularity has been on the increase recently.
The alternatives are:
a) 6 f.c4 is the Fischer Attack (Chapter 1);
lines with 6...e6 are covered.
b) 6 £e3 is widely considered the new main
line of the Najdorf, with White very often in-
tending f3 and an aggressive kingside pawn
advance, an approach known as the English At-
tack. An alternative move-order is 6 3, intend-
ing to follow up with £e3. Now (after 6 R.e3):
bl) 6...6 is a major option, classified as
part of the Scheveningen (ECO code B80), and y'%@@g/z
not covered in this book.
b2) 6..%g4 is a way to avoid the standard Now:
English Attack, and covered in Chapter 2. This a) 7...%Dbd7 is the Gelfand Variation (Chap-
chapter also examines 6 f3 Wb6, which is a re- ter 7). Black seeks to develop his queenside
lated line as it 1s Black’s main way to seek to rapidly without forcing an immediate confron-
avoid a standard English Attack versus White’s tation, though if White chooses, the play can
alternative move-order. quickly become chaotic.
8 PIAY THE NAJDORF
b) 7..¥Wc7 is the Kasparov Variation (Chap-
ter 8). This has similar general aims to the
Gelfand Variation, but the specifics are natu-
rally different.
c) 7..b5 (D) is the Polugaevsky Variation.
%%%
| as can be seen from the fact that play generally
%&7 /
A AT Y
H wugge H
It leads to exceptionally sharp play, as 8 e5
dxe5 9 fxe5 ¥c7 brings about an immediate cri-
sis. See Chapter 9.
d) 7..¥Db6 is the Poisoned Pawn Variation
(also Chapter 9), challenging White to sacrifice
his b-pawn by 8 Wd2 Wxb2 (D).
!%i/@fi
This has been subject to immense theoretical
and practical investigation for several decades.
SICILIAN
A great many razor-sharp variations have been
analysed to a forced draw, but recent years have
witnessed the rise of some novel approaches
that open up new possibilities for both sides.
e) 7...2¢€7 is the subject of Chapter 10, and is
normally called the Main Line, although it is
open to debate whether it is genuinely the main
line of the 6 £g5 Najdorf, given the prominence
of the Poisoned Pawn in particular. However, it
is in many respects the backbone of the Najdorf,
continues 8 W3 Wc7 9 0-0-0 2bd7 (D).
x/g/z/ 2
. &mzeE
’
Note that Black has played both ...2\bd7 and
...Wc7, the characteristic moves of the Gelfand
and Kasparov Variations, and both those varia-
tions are indeed attempts to improve upon the
Main Line. If White avoids the critical lines in
the Poisoned Pawn or Polugaevsky, positions of
a similar type can also arise. Thus the themes
underpinning the Main Line are of great im-
portance even to players who prefer different
lines. Many of the key Sicilian concepts are
found in abundance in its theory: the $d5 sac-
rifice, White’s kingside pawn-storm, Black’s
counterplay with ...h6 and ...g5, Black’s flexi-
bility with respect to his king’s location — these
and a host of other Sicilian ideas find their
clearest expression in the Main Line.
James Rizzitano
Southborough, Massachusetts 2010
Typical Najdorf Themes

Najdorf play is exceptionally rich in thematic Black has avoided the first wave of White’s
ideas, and I shall be highlighting these basic attack and safeguarded his king. See Chapter 1,
weapons in the Najdorf player’s arsenal Game 2 for the details.
throughout the book. The more of them you
are familiar with, the more skilfully and suc- Counterattack
cessfully you will be able to handle Najdorf
positions, and many Sicilian situations in gen-
eral.
In this short chapter, I would like to highlight
some of the most central of these themes, some
/W A
}/ %£7W%
highly concrete and others of a more concep-
tual nature. Each position is drawn from one of

\
the main illustrative games in this book, so for
» % 4,

\[;;.\\\
more details you can refer to the game in ques-
tion. ) é‘f@8

@
Timing
W%&a
- %g/z
v !/ /1/1 Viorel lordachescu — Andrei Maksimenko
Serbian Team Ch, Zlatibor 2006
A AAK
///- - 19...Efc8!
The rook move is more logical than locking
in the dark-squared bishop with 19...f67! 20

/?é
£b2 &7 21 £d4 d5 22 exdS We5+ 23 Le2,
when White has an edge.

&fia/ LY 20 ¢3 £¢4 21 Hcl £xe2 22 2xe2 (D)

B B )y E X ¥
Vasily lvanchuk - Veselin Topalov
zr/ " Jy
A0 A /9%
Morelia/Linares 2008

Black has just played 11...b4! at a moment

when White is not in a position to execute the A
thematic &)d5 sacrifice. ».] /@2/&// 0
12 Dad
The knight must therefore move to the edge %7fiw%&/
of the board. The sacrifice 12 £)f5?! should be %WM;/&/
met by 12...bxc3 13 Hxg7+ &d8!.
12...%bd7 13 £3 0-0 14 Zfd1 &h8 2 & | E
10 PLAY THE NAJDORF SICILIAN

22...2.xd4 23 ¥xd4 a5! 27 £d4 Hd7 28 Wh2 Wa8

Black’s queen’s rook now has more scope. Black has compensation for the material.
24 &d2 See Chapter 3, Game 8.
24 b5?! Wc5 25 Wxc5 ExcS is pleasant for
Black since the white bishop has little to do. Attacking Vulnerable Pawns
24...axb4 25 cxb4 ¥dS
The chances are equal. See Chapter 2, Game
4 for further information.
z/gy;@
Piece Activity s 0, A %
% 3
W7 TaKer

N
/////

B /% /////, %~ ‘ % ‘

,,,,, %@%g%
A
/////// Y BE
Evgeny Alekseev — Leinier Dominguez
Biel 2008

Aé%g%g% 13...h5!?
Black becomes active on the kingside before
Ernesto Inarkiev — Sanan Siugirov White plays &g3. The solid 13...8.a6 14 Hel
Ulan Ude 2009 0-0 is also playable.
14 gxh5 Exh5 15 Hd4?!
24...Exa3! White exploits Black’s undefended rook to
This exchange sacrifice keeps Black fully in plant his knight on c6, but this turns out to be
the game. 24..%)c7?! and 24.. Wxd5?! are too ineffective. Another sharp idea is 15 &f4!?
passive. Eh4 16 Deb6 fxe6 17 dxe6 b8 18 Wd3!? Lf8.
25 bxa3 Wxa3 26 Wd2 Hf6!? (D) 15...%16 16 Dc6 WeT (D)

/ _ /é/./%@@/ z%g/@% _
/%
7%
.
4
B 4
/”/// bV
C W sia
//
% 7 Ve 7 z

%,% »n
///i:'/ &fi/&///
, , ,S RS5452@//
2 B2
/////

(I rri

Continuing with the theme of maximum White would usually expect to have an ad-
piece activity. vantage in most Sicilian lines when he obtains
 TYPICAL NAJIDORF THEMES 11

an advanced knight outpost, but there are sev- Simplification

eral reasons why Black is OK here:
* The exchange of one set of knights on the d5-
square followed by White’s recapture with
his e4-pawn has closed the d-file and limited

\
White’s options for infiltrating Black’s posi-

&?&h&
tion.

Hx
* White’s natural pawn-break f4 can now be
met by ...e4, keeping the centre closed.
* The powerful knight on c6 is offset by

w§w®
N
N\

\\\
N

A\
White’s weakened kingside: the split f- and

o
\\§\ g
h-pawns leave the white king extremely vul-
nerable.
See Chapter 4, Game 10 for the game contin-
uation and additional details.
OHAL
AEZR
,5, , , , GW ES R
Fighting for Space
Sergei Tiviakov — Suat Atalik
Turin Olympiad 2006

_
7
7
AR 14 5 L.e6
More solid than 14...gxf5 15 £xh5 fxe4 16
2xf4 Re6 17 Le2, when Black’s vulnerable
kingside affords White compensation.
15 Hxe7+ Wxe7 16 Lxh5 Hxh5 17 Lxf4
xt4 18 Exf4 Eac8
Hanging on to the f4-pawn was a clever ploy
by Black to reduce White’s attacking chances: to
recover the sacrificed pawn he had to exchange
AW O three sets of minor pieces, and the chances are

o ////Zé
now equal. See Chapter 6, Game 4.

Exchange Sacrifice on ¢3
Arkadij Naiditsch — Boris Gelfand
Dortmund 2007

/z%@%/é
o aTA AR
13 Efd1
White’s set-up was pioneered by Karpov,
whose original idea 13 Hfcl is well met by
13...83¢5 14 &xc5 dxc5 15 £3 ¢4 16 Dad Dd7,
since White cannot now establish a queenside Vi~ 4
bind.
13...9¢c5 14 Dxc5 dxe5 15 £3
15 &)d5 can be met by 15...&xd5 16 exdS
£d6 17 c4 %d7 followed by kingside expan- oY%
sion with ...f5. 7
11111

15..2fd8 16 Wel Exd1 17 Lxd1 c4

Black has secured an equal game: he has
plenty of space on the queenside and counter-
play with ...2b4. See Chapter 5, Game 12 for Alexei Shirov — Viswanathan Anand
more information. Morelia/Linares 2008
12 PLAY THE NAJDORF SICILIAN

13...Xxc3!?
This type of exchange sacrifice is one
most important themes in many Sicilian
and the Najdorf is certainly no exception.
eliminates any attacking ideas involving a &)d5
sacrifice, weakens White’s queenside and makes
the e4-pawn more vulnerable. In many cases,
the positional compensation is sufficient even
when the white king is castled kingside.
14 bxc3 Wc7
The queen guards e5 while preparing ...
a4.
15 b1 Ke7 (D)
14 g4
of the White is spending a lot of time seeking king-
lines, side play. It is not easy for Black to bring his
Black king to a completely safe home, so his best op-
tion is to fight for the initiative by counterat-
tacking against the white king.
14...2b7 15 £g2 0-0-0 16 bl
White tries to tuck his king away, anticipat-
ing Black creating pressure on the half-open c-
file.
b6- 16...%¢5 17 Ehel
White must avoid 17 £xf6?, as he loses ma-
terial after 17...h3! 18 £f1 Lg7.
17...8¢7 18 Wh3 <b8 19 5 e5 20 Db3
aS!?
The position is dynamically balanced. The
black a-pawn is a powerful battering-ram, and
targeting the dark squares around the white
king is totally logical given the fact that White
has exchanged off his bishop that operates on
that colour squares. See Chapter 8, Game 18.

Kingside Attack

OKS .t -
< EZ
16 e5!?

%M%%Qmé%
with tremendous complications. See Chap-
ter 7, Game 16 for additional details.

Queenside Attack » i§= //23/% =

L el B/%’/ %7 %/
BN /%7/ 7
o
N

= a7, .
. EE
Alexei Shirov — Wang Hao
Russian Team Ch, Dagomys 2009

22...%)de5?
Black had to play 22...a5! 23 b5 &ce5 24
£b3 a4 25 £d1 Hg6. Now White'’s attack
smashes through.
23 Exhe!! 1-0
The key line is 23...Wxh6 24 &f6+ 2h8 25
£.05 Wh7 26 Hixh7 xh7 27 Wed+ Lg8 28
Daniel Stellwagen - Tiger Hillarp Persson £.d5 £d7 29 Ef4. See Chapter 9, Game 20 for
Malmo 2008 additional details.
 TYPICAL NAJDORF THEMES 13

Central Breakthrough

rrrrrr

e i
/@/2/ fi
/r/r

Evgeny Nayer — Nick de Firmian
World Open, Philadelphia 2009
In one of the sharpest lines of the Najdorf,
Black had gone astray several moves earlier by
allowing the white knight into d5; here White
has too many pieces massed in the centre, and
must seek a vigorous way to smash through
Black’s defences.
20 Hg7! Dxed 21 Kxe6! (D)
21...8xd5
21...fxe6 22 Dc7+ Ld8 23 Hcxeb+ Lc8 24
HExb7 &xb7 25 Wxed+ also leads to disaster for
Black.
22 & xf7+ &d8
Or 22...2xf7 23 Wxe4+, mating.
23 Hb3 Dd2+ 24 Exd2 £ xf3 25 Hxas Ehe6
26 Eg6
White has an extra pawn and a dominant po-
sition.
See Chapter 10, Game 23 for additional de-
tails, and to see how Black could have avoided
this calamity.
1 Fischer Attack: 6 £c4

Our coverage begins with one of White’s most straightforward attacking lines versus the Najdorf
Sicilian. The 11th World Champion Bobby Fischer began playing his namesake line in his early
teens; he also defended against 6 £.c4 many times with the black pieces. After the usual moves
6...6 7 £b3 Black’s traditional continuation has been 7...b5 (Game 2), but during the late 1980s
the modemn alternative 7...%)bd7 (Game 1) began gaining in popularity, culminating in its use by the
13th World Champion Garry Kasparov during three games of his 1993 PCA World Championship
match versus English grandmaster Nigel Short. The position after 6 £.c4 occurred during eight of
these Short-Kasparov games, and a close examination of these battles would be beneficial for any-
one playing these lines.
The Fischer Attack tends to crystallize into two main ideas: White’s attempts to soften up
Black’s defences along the a2-g8 diagonal versus Black’s attempts to prove that White’s light-
squared bishop is a juicy target for Black’s natural queenside expansion with ...b5, sometimes in
combination with ...3bd7-c5. Black’s theoretical prospects in the Fischer Attack are quite healthy
and to date he has been able to neutralize White’s various attacking schemes. During the past de-
cade the line has waned somewhat in popularity, but enterprising players including Ivanchuk,
Morozevich, Rublevsky, Volokitin, Nisipeanu and Miiller have been injecting the Fischer Attack
with new ideas that continually challenge Najdorf players.

Game 1 (Sigfusson-de Firmian) features the modern 6 £.c4 e6 7 £b3 &bd7. Sigfusson in-
creases the pressure on Black’s centre by playing the f4-f5 pawn advance in conjunction with &f3.
de Firmian releases the central tension and stabilizes the central pawn-structure by employing a pre-
cise sequence of moves:
* Attack White’s d4-knight with ...e5 to drive it away from the centre.
» Exchange White’s light-squared bishop with ...2)xb3.
« Attack White’s c3-knight with ...b4 so that after the further moves #\d5 £xd5, exd5 White has
occupied the d5-square with a pawn and there is no longer a ‘hole’ on d5.
This is a typical idea for Black in the Sicilian Defence, but de Firmian is able to introduce it in
a new position. The middlegame features very energetic play by Sigfusson to swing his queen’s
rook to the kingside. Both players go astray in the sharp tactics that follow, and this exciting game
ends in perpetual check.

In Game 2 (Ivanchuk-Topalov), Black plays the traditional 6 £.c4 €6 7 2b3 b5. After 8 0-0 £e7
White selects the piece-based attack beginning with 9 W3 and Black counters with 9...b6.
Ivanchuk introduces a new idea 15 @h1!? to remove his king from a potentially dangerous diagonal
and he follows up by prising open the a-file and obtaining strong queenside pressure. Topalov de-
fends well, but Ivanchuk misses a couple of opportunities to increase his advantage. Late in the
middlegame, Black appears to be under pressure, but an instructive tactical resource enables him to
escape from difficulty and the game peters out into a draw. Ivanchuk has introduced another inter-
esting new idea in the Fischer Attack: the note to White’s 8th move in this game includes coverage
of the alternative development scheme 8 Rg5 L7 9 W3 Wc710e5!? £b7 11 exd6 £xd6 12 We3
£.¢5 13 0-0-0 &£c6 and now instead of the traditional capture 14 £xf6, Ivanchuk introduced the
fascinating queen sacrifice 14 Wxe6+!? fxe6 15 £xe6 in a rapid game versus Sergei Kariakin. This
creative sacrifice is a good example of the opportunities for introducing opening novelties even in
well-known positions.
 FISCHER ATTACK:
Game
Sigurdur Sigfusson — Nick de Firmian
Copenhagen 2005
1 e4 ¢5 2 &3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 HHxd4 Df6 5
&\c3 a6 6 L.c4
White’s light-squared bishop occupies the
powerful a2-g8 diagonal and takes aim at the
potentially vulnerable e6- and f7-squares. The
drawback of this aggressive move is that the
bishop may be vulnerable to harassment from
Black’s minor pieces and pawns; the natural
queenside advance ...b5 will now come with
gain of tempo.
6...e6 (D)
Black contests the d5-square and shortens
the range of the c4-bishop.
;%A%@% z
v A %”%a
A ALl
55 >
IOy B
/ ~/% .
g%&% BAK
LYy | E
7 2b3
White anticipates the ...b5 pawn advance
and waits for Black to commit himself to a par-
ticular development scheme. Alternatives:
a) With 7 a3, White expends a tempo to
prepare a secure retreat for his light-squared
bishop, but the loss of time allows Black to
mobilize his queenside pieces more quickly.
7..82e780-00-09 £a2b510f4 b7 11f5e5
12 &de2 (White appears to have good pros-
pects because of the potential weakness of the
d5-square, but Black’s position is more than
satisfactory thanks to his smooth development
and safe king position) 12...23bd7 13 &g3 Kc8!
14 £.85 (14 £e3 b6 15 £.xb6 Wxb6+ 16 2hl
We3! favoured Black because of his dark-square
dominance in Robatsch-Fischer, Capablanca
6 8.c4 15
1 [B86]
Memorial, Havana 1965) 14...Exc3! (this the-
matic exchange sacrifice is the reason why
Black refrained from playing an early ...Wc¢7)
15 bxc3 Dxed 16 Lxe7 Wxe7 17 Dxed K xed
gave Black good compensation for the ex-
change in Ciri¢-Gligori¢, Novi Sad 1965; this
evaluation has been confirmed by many sub-
sequent games.
b) 70-0(D).
i%fi%é%w%
= A T ARA
i /x”,%
. /y%y
/%%&%,%
%w%% @
/ /
White employs a cunning move-order which
is quite effective against players with only
.. bd7 lines in their repertoire; now Black
must be careful not to respond in mechanical
fashion. 7...b5 8 b3 Le7 and 7...8e7 8 £b3
b5 both transpose to Game 2, while 7...&c6
switches to a line of the Sozin Attack (ECO
code B88); note that White cannot play the
Velimirovi¢ Attack now that he has committed
his king to the kingside. Other tries cannot be
recommended:
bl) 7...4xe4? (Black is too far behind in
development to exploit White’s ‘omission’ of
£b3)8 Dxe4 d5S9 Kg5! Ke7 10 L.xe7 Wxe7 11
£.xd5 exd5 12 %c3 gives White a crushing lead
in development, Arakhamia-Tazhieva, USSR
Women’s Ch, Podolsk 1990.
b2) 7...2bd7? 8 Hel! (White is able to
profit from delaying £b3; the piece sacrifice 8
Lxe6!?fxe6 9 Dxeb is also dangerous) 8...2e5
(8...8e779 Kxe6! fxeb 10 Dxeb gives White a
16 PLAY THE NAJDORF
devastating attack as he will pocket a third
pawn for the sacrificed piece) 9 £b3 (the bishop
is compelled to retreat, but now White will be
able to oust the black knight with gain of tempo)
9..8.e7 10 f4 &c6 11 Dxc6 bxco 12 W3 fa-
vours White thanks to his lead in development,
Zapata-R .Mateo, Decameron 2003.
7..22bd7
This flexible knight development is charac-
teristic of many Najdorf lines; in the Fischer
Attack, the knight typically continues on its
journey to the c5-square, where it defends the
e6-pawn, exerts pressure on White’s e4-pawn
and also gives Black the option of exchanging
off White’s potentially dangerous light-squared
bishop.
One important concept to be aware of when
learning the Najdorf is to understand the vari-
ous functions that Black’s queen’s knight can
perform depending upon White’s chosen piece
and pawn configuration; it can remain on d7 to
restrain an e5 pawn advance and bolster the f6-
knight, or it can sometimes move to e5 or b6.
We shall be exploring these various develop-
ment schemes throughout the book.
The pawn advance 7...b5 is covered in Game
2; the alternative knight development 7...%c6 is
another transposition to the Sozin Attack (with
White retaining the option of castling queen-
side).
814
White prepares to soften up the a2-g8 diago-
nal.
8..5\¢5 (D)
&%&/fl%&%
£ sy | E
Black follows through on his plan of attack-
ing the e4-pawn. Another important theme in
SICILIAN
this line is to determine if and when the e4-
pawn can be safely captured without opening
too many lines for White’s pieces.
915
The f-pawn advance is the most direct ap-
proach. Alternatives:
a) 90-0 Ke7 (9...0fxed 10 Dxed Dxed 11
f5 has been played in several top-level games in-
cluding Topalov-Kasparov and Topalov-Short,
Euwe Memorial, Amsterdam 1996; experi-
ence has shown that White has sufficient com-
pensation for the pawn) 10 e5 (10 ¥f3 0-0 11
Re3 Wc7 is another sharp line with balanced
chances) 10...dxeS 11 fxeS @)fd7 12 Whs &f6
(12...g6 13 We2 h5!? 14 ££4 g5 was suggested
by Arizmendi and Moreno; now I consider 15
£.d2! to give White good chances to exploit
Black’s weakened kingside) 13 Wd1 (13 exf6!?
Wxd4+ 14 2hl gxf6 was given by Sandler in
Informator 51; 1 think White should then play 15
214! f5 16 Hadl Wg7 17 We2, with good com-
pensation for the pawn because of Black’s vul-
nerable king position) 13...fd7 14 We2! (this
could also have been played on move 12; the al-
ternative is 14 ¥h5 &f6 15 Wd1 1-2-1/2 Sandler-
Danailov, Adelaide 1990) 14...0-0 (14...¥c7 15
24! 0-0 16 Hadl gives White a promising at-
tacking position) 15 £f4 b6 16 Hadl with
central pressure since Black is struggling to
complete his development, Golubev-Kovchan,
Kharkov 2006. This promising idea needs fur-
ther tests.
b) 9 e5 &Hfd7!? (Black seeks to keep lines
closed; also playable is 9...dxe5 10 fxe5 Dfd7
11 £f4 b5 12 Wgd!? h5! with sharp play,
Short-Kasparov, PCA World Ch match (game
8), London 1993; this game is annotated by
Igor Stohl in Garry Kasparov’s Greatest Chess
Games, Volume 1) 10 exd6 &Yf6! (note that this
knight manoeuvre is a viable option because
Black’s dark-squared bishop is still on f8) 11
£e3 Kxd6 12 W3 0-0 13 0-0-0 Wc7 14 &bl
&xb3 15 cxb3 e5 16 fxeS Lxe5 with acomfort-
able position for Black thanks to his superior
pawn-structure and bishop-pair, Hakki-Sadvak-
asov, Doha 2006.
c) 9 W3 b5 10 f5 transposes to the main
game.
We now return to the position arising after 9
f5 (D).
9...b5
 FISCHER ATTACK:
//%/ | /// /4//
A0 %,%
fi%&% A
H Ltwg B
Alternatives:
a) 9...%fxe4? (the pawn-grab is too greedy!)
10 fxe6! Wha+ (10...fxe6 11 Dxed Dxed 12
0-0 leaves the black king stranded in the centre)
11 g3 &xg3 12 &f3 Wh5 13 exf7+ 2d8 14
Hgl with a crushing advantage for White,
Fischer-Bednarski, Havana Olympiad 1966.
b) 9...e5 (Black voluntarily creates a hole
on the d5-square, but he is able to break with
...d5 before White can consolidate) 10 &de2
9xb3 11 axb3 d5!? 12 g5 d4 13 Lxf6 gxf6
14 d5 Kd7 15 0-0 Kc6 with sharp play,
Sieiro-Gonzalez — Vilela, Santa Clara 1983.
) 9..8e7 10 Wf30-0 11 Ke3 (110-0is a
popular alternative) 11...e5 12 &de2 b5!? (an-
other approach is 12...%xb3 13 axb3 b5) 13
£d5 Hb8 14 b4 Had!? (14...%cd7 15 0-0 Dxd5
(15...50b6!, with a slight advantage for Black,
was recommended by Kasparov} 16 & xd5 £b7
with a balanced game, Short-Kasparov, PCA
World Ch match (game 6), London 1993) 15
Dxad (15 Ka7 HxdS 16 HxdS Ka8 17 el
£b7 is fine for Black) 15...bxa4 16 a3 leaves
White slightly better according to Kasparov in
Informator 59, but I believe Black can play
16.. Wc7 17 c4 aS! with good prospects as
White’s queenside is collapsing.
d) 9..Kd7 is recommended by Arizmendi
and Moreno to accelerate Black’s queenside
counterplay by controlling the c6-square. They
provide detailed coverage of 10 Wf3 (10 &g5
Le7 is fine for Black as the c6-square is cov-
ered) 10...b5 11 0-0 £e7 12 fxe6 fxe6 13 e5!?
dxe5 14 Qc6 Lxc6 15 Wxc6+ Df7 with sharp
play in Istratescu-Short, Erevan Olympiad 1996
and several later games.
10 @13
6 R.c4 17
Another idea is 10 £g5 b4 11 Had Hxb3 12
axb3 e5 (this instructive move sequence should
be compared to the game continuation; here
Black drives White’s c3-knight to the edge of
the board, exchanges his c5-knight for White’s
light-squared bishop and plays ...e5 to drive
White’s d4-knight away from the centre) 13
&c6 (13 2x16 Wxf6 14 Hf3 Zb8 with equality,
Tomescu-Vajda, Bucharest 1995) 13.. Wc7 14
&xb4 Eb8 15 c3 Dxed 16 Re3 &6 is equal.
10...e5 (D)
For 10..£d7,
move above.
see note ‘d’ to Black’s 9th
z/g%@éy%
N %7%5%}
}/ A B
_
o8 15 3
ANAT AL
L 2 & B
Black evicts the white knight from the centre
and relieves the pressure on the e6-pawn. The
advance of the e-pawn creates a hole on the d5-
square, but Black’s next few moves are directed
towards eliminating this issue.
11 Hde2
White’s most popular choice is to swing the
knight toward d5 with 11 &c6 Wd7 12 @b4
Kb7 13 &bdS (after 13 £d5 Hcxed! 14 Lxb7
Wxb7 15 Kg5 Eb8 16 £xf6, as in J.Tomczak-
Chlost, Polanica Zdroj 2007, Black should play
Golubev’s 2001 suggestion of 16...9xc3!; for
example, 17 Wxb7 HExb7 18 &xg7 &xg7 19
bxc3 &d7 with an edge for Black as he will infil-
trate along the half-open c-file) 13...%cxed 14
Dixed (14 b6 Dxc3! 15 Wxe3 Wxfs 16 Hxas
£ xa8 favours Black) 14...20xd5 15 &.g5 %b6 16
0-0-0 is the critical line according to Golubev. 1
think Black is fine after 16...%)c4 17 Ehel £6 18
Wh5+ W7 19 Wxf7+ &xf7 so White needs
some new ideas in this line. The idea of plant-
ing a knight on d5 is desirable for White from a
strategic perspective, but the manoeuvre costs
18 PLAY THE NAJDORF SICILIAN

several tempi and Black’s tactical resources ap-

pear to be more than adequate.
11...5xb3!?
White has scored well in a handful of games
after 11...82b7 12 Rg5, so in conjunction with -
rrrrrrr

his next move de Firmian introduces a standard

Sicilian Defence idea in a new position.
12 axb3 b4 13 Zd5 Hxd5 14 exd5
The timing of the sequence of moves ...e5,

NN
..&Dxb3 and ...b4 is critical and tends to work

R
best for Black if White is forced to occupy the
d5-square with a pawn after an exchange of
pieces on that square. . B%
14...2¢7 15 0-0 0-0
Another reasonable idea is 15...8c7!? to ac- b) Not 22..g67 23 &\f6+ £xf6 24 Wxf6
celerate Black’s play along the half-open c-file. with a mating attack.
16 g3 £b7 17 Ead YWbe+ c) 22..Wd3? also loses: 23 Dxg7 &h8 24
Safer is 17...a5 to protect the b-pawn. The Nf5 Wxds (24...&xd5 25 &h6! is winning for
game continuation leads to tremendous compli- White) 25 Wh3 We6 26 Eg7.
cations. d) 22..&h8! 23 Exg7 WxdS 24 Wrs Wed
18 £e3 Wbs (D) (the black queen arrives just in time to shore up
the kingside) 25 Exh7+ g8 26 Hg7+ &h8 27
Wh3 (27 Eh7+ $g8 28 Hg7+ ©h8 repeats)
g e 27...\Wh4 28 W5 Wed with a draw by repetition.
8 BAXA
N

w 22 Bgd 152
A &% Black’s last chance was 22..Wxd5! 23 Bxg7+
$h8 24 Wg3 Wd3 25 bxc3 (25 Hgxf7 Exf7 26
ALY Bxf7 216! 27 £xfo Wdl+ 28 2f2 W2+ is a

2K & 0 @ draw by perpetual check) 25...&h4 26 Wxh4

N

Wxe3+ 27 &h1 Wh6 28 h3 with just a slight ad-

A7 gy vantage for White thanks to his more secure

CBAY LAY
king position.
23 Bxg7+ &h8 (D)
.. EBZ
19 c4!?
A real all-or-nothing move: White allows his
queenside to disintegrate in return for opening a
path to the kingside for his rook.
19...bxc3 20 f6 £xf6 21 Hh5 (D)
21...2d8?!
White’s attack looks formidable, but Black
has some positional trumps such as his active
queen and strong light-squared bishop. Black
can hold the position by maintaining the com-
munication between his rooks with 21...2e7! s

22 Hg4, and then:

a) 22...f57 loses to 23 Exg7+ &h8 24 Wg3 24 Wh3??
£16 25 Exh7+ &xh7 26 Exf5, as in the note to Right piece, wrong square. Intuitively, this
White’s 24th move. move appears wrong because it reduces the
 FISCHER ATTACK: 6 f.c4 19

mobility of a major piece. More concretely,

White overlooked the opportunity to create a
mating-net by exploiting the weakness of g7:
24 Wg3! 26 (24...cxb2 25 Exh7+ &xh7 26
Wo7#) 25 Exh7+ &xh7 26 Exf5 (Black has an
extra rook but he is unable to ward off White’s
mating attack) 26...We2 (Black desperately tries
to control h5, but now White has a long series
of checks culminating in mate) 27 &xf6+ Exf6
28 Wha+ g8 29 Bg5+ Lf7 (or 29...Lf8 30
Wh8+ @e7 31 Bg7+ Kf7 32 L5+ &d7 33
Hxf7#) 30 Wh7+ Pe8 31 Wgs8+ Hf8 32 We6+
&d8 33 Lb6#. .
24..
. Wxf1+! 25 Lxf1 cxb2
Black’s pesky b-pawn cannot be prevented 27... g8
from promoting, so White is compelled to sac- Black must remain alert and avoid the care-
rifice a rook and deliver perpetual check. less 27..2g777 28 Deb+ 2f7 (28...Lg8 29
26 Bxh7+ &xh7 (D) We3+ &f7 30 We7+ is winning for White) 29
27 Dfd+ Wh7+ &e8 30 Wg6+, when White wins.
Another way is 27 O\f6++ g7 28 Who+ 28 We3+ &h7
&7 29 Wh7+ &xf6 30 Who+ f7 31 We6+ Not 28... 21777 29 W6+ De7 30 Web#.
g7 32 Whe+ &f7 with a draw. 29 Wg6+ Th8 30 Whe+ Vz-V:

Game 2 [B87]
Vasily Ivanchuk - Veselin Topalov
Morelia/Linares 2008
1 e4 ¢5 2 Df3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Hxd4 6 5 Black expands on the queenside and pre-
@3 a6 6 L.cd 67 LLb3 pares to increase the pressure on White’s e4-
For comments on the moves up to here, see pawn with ...£b7 in combination with a timely
Game 1. ...b4 pawn advance.
7...b5 (D) 80-0
This is the traditional main line. 7...8\bd7 Alternatives:
and Black’s other 7th-move alternatives were a) 8 f47' £b7! 9 f5 e5 10 &£de2 and now:
covered in Game 1. al) 10...%Dxe4!? is not so easy to refute: 11

LT
Hixed (11 £45 Hxc3 12 Hixe3 £.xdS 13 Wxd5
Nd7 14 Lg5 Ke7 15 8xe7 ¥xe7 favoured
Black in Grabher-Wojtkiewicz, Liechtenstein
L 4
§D®*®

1997) 11...&xe4 12 0-0 Wb6+ 13 h1 Wb7 14

Bf2 &Hd7 15 Dg3 K.c6 leaves White with insuf-
2 §

ficient compensation for the pawn, Yasseen-

G.Hemandez, Dubai Olympiad 1986.
a2) 10..%bd7 11 £g5 L7 12 0-0 Xc8 13
SN
2N
\

&g3 h5!! (Fischer unveils a profound idea to

\

prevent White from increasing the kingside

pressure with a timely ©h5; the h-pawn ad-
vance also threatens to dislodge the g3-knight)
14 h4 b4 15 £xf6 L&xf6 16 Hd5 fxhd 17
Axh5 We5 with a clear plus for Black because
20 PLAY THE NAJDORF SICILIAN

of White’s stranded knight, R.Byme-Fischer,

v 87
Sousse Interzonal 1967.
b) 8 £g5 £e7 9 W3 Wc7 10 e5!? (a very
aggressive idea) 10...2b7 11 exd6 £xd6 12
We3 R¢5 13 0-0-0 &6 (D) and now:

z/ %@/fié
w2l T AR
x/fi/}%w iy i
%}%/% / =B
200" 23 xd1 &xe7 “and only Black has winning
chances” according to John Nunn in New In
a% _ %g% Chess Magazine 2008/3. 1 expect further devel-

. ®E/ /B opments in this line.

8..8e7 (D)

bl) The old line ran 14 &xf6 gxf6 15 Hed

g
(White sacrifices the exchange to expose Black’s
king; another sharp idea is 15 £\d5, as analysed
by Morgado and Alvarez in New In Chess Year-
book 88) 15...xd4 16 Exd4 D xd4 17 Hxf6+
&f8 18 Wxd4 Hd8 19 Wha h6 20 c3 We5 21
Dh7+ Le8 22 D6+ Lf8 23 Hh7+, leading to a
draw by repetition, A.Kogan-Sutovsky, Ashdod
2006.
%&%
b2) 14 Wxe6+!? (Ivanchuk’s creative sacri-
fice has infused new life into this line) 14...fxe6
15 &xe6 and then:
&%é% iy
rrrrr

b21) 15..We5 16 Dxg7+ 2f8 17 Deb+ /////

&f7 18 BEhel £xf2! (the stem game continued

18..Wxel? 19 Hixc5+ g6 20 Exel 2xg5 21
#xb7 with a decisive advantage for White,
Ivanchuk-Kariakin, Amber Rapid, Nice 2008)
19 Exe5 $xe5 20 Hd8++ Lg6 21 L.xf6 Lxf6
22 Dxb7 Ehf8 23 Hed+ Lg7 24 Tbl!? with a
sharp but roughly balanced position.
b22) 15..We7! 16 Ehel (16 &d5!? Hxd5
17 £xe7 ScxeT 18 Dxc5 0-0-0 19 Ehel a51?
with a slight advantage for Black as his extra
knight is stronger than the two white pawns)
16.. Wxe6 17 Exe6+ De7 (D).
18 £xf6 (18 Hdel is another sharp line ana-
lysed by Morgado and Alvarez in New In Chess
Yearbook 87) 18...gxf6 19 £d5 (19 Edel? &d7
favours Black, T.Andrews-Gopal, Philadelphia
2008) 19...£xd5 (19..2f7!? is also complex)
20 Hxd5 Ed8 21 Hxe7 7 22 Exa6 Exdl+
White threatens to create havoc on the long
diagonal with e5, but this threat is easily parried
and the queen is actually angling for the g3-
square to exert pressure on Black’s kingside.
The queen manoeuvre marks the beginning of a
piece-based attack, and this aggressive idea has
grown in popularity over the past two decades
in comparison to the older pawn-based attack
beginning with 9 f4. Another idea behind defer-
ring the f-pawn advance is to retain the option of
developing the dark-squared bishop to g5 or h6.
9..Whé
Alternatives:
a) 9..8b77 (this careless move is a typical
club-level mistake in the Najdorf; Black must
always be alert to the possibility of a piece
 FISCHER ATTACK:
sacrifice on the e6-square, particularly if he
has already played ...£e7 as this leaves the g7-
pawn unguarded) 10 £xe6! fxe6 11 Zxe6 with
a dangerous attack.
b) 9..Wc7 (this is a major alternative) 10
Wg3 Db 11 Dxco Wxeo 12 el (12 Wxg7?!
g8 13 Who6 Dxed 14 Dxed Wxed 15 £3 W5 is
comfortable for Black) 12...2b7 and now:
bl) One possibility is 13 Wxg7!? Hg8 14
Wh6 0-0-0 with sharp play, though Black has
scored well from this position in practice thanks
to his strong counterplay along the half-open
g-file.
b2) 13 a3 was played in Rublevsky-Karia-
kin, Russian Team Ch, Dagomys 2008, and the
next few moves featured an instructive battle
over a tempo: White would like to delay mov-
ing his dark-squared bishop until Black has cas-
tled kingside so that he can play £h6 in one
move. Note that Black was not threatening to
play ..b4 immediately because of the reply
L a4, pinning and winning the queen, but sooner
or later Black will castle and threaten to drive
the c3-knight away from the centre. 13...2d8
(two can play at this waiting game: Black coun-
ters with a useful developing move to reinforce
the d6-pawn) 14 £3 0-0 (Black has no more use-
ful waiting moves, so he acquiesces to the up-
coming exchange of dark-squared bishops) 15
£h6 De8 16 Hadl Lh8 17 £g5 Lxg5
Wxg5 &\f6 19 Bd2 Ed7 20 Hed1 Efd8 and the
18
chances were equal. Black has successfully
completed his development and defended his
d6-pawn.
We now return to 9...\&b6 (D):
z%g%@/ E &% 0 %a%
7Y 7!
%L% _
&
>
6 f.c4 21
The cheeky 10 £g5!? should be calmly
answered by 10...0-0 (Black must avoid the
greedy 10..Wxd4? 11 e5 &d5 12 Hxd5 exds
{12...8xg5 13 QDc7+ Ld8 14 Hxa8 and White
wins} 13 fxe7 &xe7 14 Kxd5, when White
has an overwhelming attack) 11 Zadl (11 e5?
is over-aggressive and bad: 11...dxe5 12 &f5
{12 Wxa8 Lb7 traps the white queen} 12...exf5
13 £xf6 £b7 14 d5 Kxf6 15 Dxb6 Kxf3 16
gxf3 Ha7 and Black has a material advantage,
H.Hages®ther-Elsness, Norwegian Ch, Asker
2000) 11...2Abd7 (11...Rb7 is a popular alter-
native) 12 Wg3 &h5!? (the idea is to defuse
White’s attacking possibilities by exchanging
dark-squared bishops) 13 Wh4 fixg5 14 Wxg5
&hfe 15 Rfel £b7 16 Ke3 &e5 (the knight
heads to the kingside for defence) 17 Eg3 &g6
with a solid position for Black, Shabalov-
Nakamura, Miami 2007.
10..&b7
The queen ‘fianchetto’ is a standard ma-
noeuvre in the Fischer Attack: the queen exerts
strong pressure on the e4-pawn and takes ad-
vantage of White’s momentary coordination is-
sues.
11 g3 b4! (D)
iRt & z
v )W %5%1
A AAa
"%%%nAwN @
B N Y-
N
Black selects an opportune moment to divert
the knight to the edge of the board before White
has time to prepare any sacrifices involving
&4\ds.
12 Dad
White is not quite prepared for the specula-
tive sacrifice 12 &f5?! bxc3 (12...exf5? 13
Wxg7 Bf8 14 &\d5 is dangerous for Black be-
cause of his lack of development) 13 Hxg7+
and then:
22 PLAY THE NAJDORF
a) 13..&d77 14 e5 £idS was recommended
by Ki.Georgiev and Kolev on the basis of the
stem game Zapolskis-Ki.Georgiev, European
Team Ch, Batumi 1999, but the black king is
poorly situated on d7 and White can blast open
the centre with 15 £xd5! Wxd5 (15...exd5 16
bxc3 Wc6 17 Habl gives White a crushing at-
tack) 16 Ead1 We4 17 Bd4 Wxc2 18 exd6 L16
(18...8c6 19 dxe7+ Hxd4 20 £xd4 and White
wins) 19 Ec4 and White has a decisive attack.
by 13..2d8! 14 e5 Hed! 15 W4 Lg5 (this
is one of the reasons why the black king is safer
on d8: the f-pawn is now protected) 16 Wg4
£xe3 17 fxe3 cxb2 and Black has successfully
parried the attack, Godlauskas-Tietjen, corr.
2003. White has insufficient compensation for
his material deficit.
12...)bd7 13 £3 0-0 (D)
X2
v WA ]
'y
ALY AR
&%
14 Xfd1
An alternative plan is to exploit Black’s lag-
ging queenside development by opening the c-
file with 14 Eacl Eb8!? (Ponomariov intro-
duces a new idea; the older 14...%e5 is a solid
alternative) 15 c3 bxc3 16 Exc3 Hes5 17 Efcl
£d7 18 Wel (18 Ec7 Wb4 19 Ea7 Efc8 is fine
for Black) 18...£d8!? (Ponomariov employs a
finesse to drive White’s queen to a less active
square; the thematic 18.. Efc8 is also reason-
able for Black) 19 Wd1 £a5 20 HE3c2 Efc8 is
equal as Black has neutralized White’s build-up
along the c-file, Rublevsky-Ponomariov, Can-
didates match (game 4), Elista 2007.
14...&h8 (D)
15 &h1!?
Ivanchuk is the first to introduce a new
move: he removes his king from a potentially
SICILIAN
X8 K
\KAT TAK
dangerous diagonal in anticipation of opening
lines on the queenside. Anotherideais 15 Hacl
@De5 16 De2 a5 17 c4 (the c-pawn advance
aims to exploit Black’s lagging queenside de-
velopment) 17...bxc3 and now we have a cou-
ple of games between the same two players:
a) The earlier game, Zapata-Morovi¢, Cien-
fuegos 1997, went 18 Exc3 £d7 19 b6 Ea6?!
(19...Hab8!? 20 Hxd7 Wxd7 looks safer, to
prevent White from activating his light-squared
bishop) 20 Dxd7 Yexd7 and now 21 £c4! Hc6
22 Eb3 Wa8 23 £b5 would have given White
an edge thanks to his active pair of bishops.
b) 18 Dexc3 Eab 19 f4 g6 20 L.c4 Hcb is
equal, Zapata-Morovi¢, Yopal 1997.
15...20e5 16 a3
White prises open the a-file with the goal of
creating pressure on Black’s a-pawn.
16...bxa3 17 Exa3 Eb8 18 Hc3
Another idea is 18 @\b6!? Dh5 19 Wel Wxb6
20 Dxe6 Wb7 21 HHxf8 Lxf8 22 Hdal with an
unbalanced position, but Ivanchuk prefers to
avoid complications for now.
18...Ded7
Topalov redeploys his knight with the in-
tention of hunting down White’s light-squared
bishop.
19 Ha2 &5 20 L4 We7 21 b3 247 22
Wel Efc8 23 Edal (D)
23...5e82!
The knight retreat is consistent with Topa-
lov’s aggressive and generally effective style.
However, more circumspect is 23...Ha8 to for-
tify the a-pawn.
24 Hde2?!
Ivanchuk misses the opportunity to blast
open the queenside by 24 &\ce2! £.f6 25 b4 e5
 FISCHER ATTACK: 6 f.c4 23

Missing the tactical shot 37 Wc3! Wg6 38

ZxcS dxc4 39 Wxc4, when White has a clear
extra pawn.
37...dxc4 38 bxed Lxf5 39 Hxf5 He2 40
Wxb6 Exb6 41 2h2 Hd2
White has won a pawn, but Black has draw-
ing chances thanks to his active rook on the sev-
enth rank.
42 h4 &h7 43 h5?!
Another idea is 43 Bc5!? De6 44 Ed5 He2
45 g3 Hel 46 Ded with good chances to ex-

v
,//“”/: ’7
ploit the extra pawn.
43...2f6 44 EeS He6 (D)

26 Dc6! Lxc6 27 bxc5 dxc5 28 Lxa6 Ed8 29

Wa5 with an advantage for White as the black %fi% »
c-pawn is doomed.
- /,/A%%
ry Az &
24...816 25 £d4 £xd4 26 Hxd4 Whe 27
We3 Hc7
Topalov has succeeded in
queenside weaknesses. Now
defending his
both sides ma- %/% %@%g
sy
o WA,
noeuvre to improve the position of their pieces.
28 h3 h6 29 Za5 g8 30 Z1a2 Whd 31
Dce2 Wh6 32 De3 Whd 33 Dee2 Who 34
g3t E/&% _
Ivanchuk gamely avoids 34 &c3 Wb4 with a
draw by repetition. 0 v
34...d5? 35 exd5 exd5 36 Ddf5 Ee8 (D)
45 Hxa6?!

/%y%!/@/ Relatively best was 45 c5 although Black

hangs tough after 45...2)d4 46 @xd4 Exd4 47
v }5/2//;4// &g3 Hc4 with a drawn rook endgame.

AW7 T A 45...2)d4! 46 Exf6 Dxf3+ 47 Lh3 Fixes 48

Hd6 Hxc2
W 7YY Black has recovered his pawn and retained

asis B
his active rook.
49 Ed5 Dxcd 50 Ec5
A MAGA Ivanchuk gives up his c-pawn to force sim-

HELE T2 4
plification into a drawn knight endgame with
pawns on one side of the board.

I 50...20e3 51 Exc2 Dxe2 52 g4 el 53 g3

Dd3 54 2f3 Lg8 55 Red DeS+ 56 2d5 Hd7
57 Ped A8 58 214 D5 59 Les5 Deb 60 Ld5
37 WxcS?! Le8 61 Le5 A8 62 Led 12-1;
2 613 Wbh6 and 6 £e3 Hg4

The English Attack has exploded in popularity over the past two decades as players at all levels
have employed this exciting attacking scheme to combat the Najdorf Sicilian. The idea of playing
£e3, 3, Wd2 and 0-0-0 followed by a kingside pawn-storm beginning with g4 and often h4 was
originally employed versus openings featuring a kingside fianchetto; the Yugoslav Attack versus
the Sicilian Dragon and the Simisch Variation versus the King’s Indian are two well-known exam-
ples. The ‘big idea’ behind the growth of the English Attack was that this set-up can also be effec-
tive versus non-fianchetto openings; another example can be found in the Richter-Rauzer Attack
versus the Classical Sicilian when White retreats his dark-squared bishop from g5 to e3 and plays
f3 followed by g4 to launch a kingside attack.
Our coverage of the English Attack begins with the move-order finesse 6 f3 (Game 3) and con-
tinues with the standard move-order 6 R.e3. In this chapter we shall examine the sharp lines begin-
ning with 6 £e3 #g4 (Games 4 and 5), by which Black seeks to disrupt White’s attempt to launch
the standard English Attack pawn-storm. Garry Kasparov began playing 6...%)g4 during the mid-
1990s and this naturally led to an increase in the popularity of the line. After 7 £g5 h6 8 &h4 g59
K3 Kg7 Kasparov’s insight was that Black’s advanced kingside pawns (Black often follows up
with ...h5 in this line) control useful space and can act as a battering-ram to soften up White’s
kingside. Today, Kariakin and Grishchuk are two strong players who continue to employ the line
and develop new ideas.

Game 3 (Ruiz-Quezada) features the modern move-order 6 £3. White’s idea is to avoid the line 6
Le3 Dgd. Black’s most common reply to 6 f3is 6...e5 7 ©b3 Le6 8 Le3, reaching a position con-
sidered in Chapter 3, Games 7 and 8. The subject of this game is 6 f3 Wb6; the idea behind the early
queen development is to prevent White from playing £e3 for the time being, and so force White to
adopt a different set-up entirely, or else to make some concessions if he insists on an English At-
tack. Naturally, White can argue that the black queen’s early exposure on b6 can also have its draw-
backs. The 6 f3 Wb6 line is a natural complement in the repertoire of a Najdorf player who prefers
to meet 6 Le3 with 6...g4.
The game follows one of the main theoretical paths until Ruiz strikes out with 14 f4!7 to grab the
centre and control the e5-square. Quezada responds with the provocative pawn sacrifice 14...g5!?
15 fxg5 h6!7? to secure control over some key central squares. White goes astray several moves later
by decentralizing his queen and Black misses a chance to exploit the exposed position of White’s
knight on a4. The finish is a typical Sicilian back-and-forth slugfest.

In Game 4 (Iordachescu-Maksimenko), White employs the standard move-order 6 &e3 and

play continues with 6...20g4 7 £g5 h6 8 2h4 g59 £g3 £g7 10 h3 HeS. Both players complete
their development and the position resembles a Sicilian Dragon with Black’s kingside pawns situ-
ated on g5 and h6 instead of the usual g6 and h7. Iordachescu tries to take advantage of Black’s
slightly exposed kingside, but Maksimenko is able to counterattack on the queenside and defuse
the kingside pressure by exchanging two sets of minor pieces. The end result is a well-played draw.

Game 5 (L.Dominguez-Kariakin) also features the line 6 £e3 g4 7 £g5h6 8 £h4g59 L3

£g7 10 h3, and here Black varies from Game 4 by playing 10...2f6. Dominguez chooses the ag-
gressive combination of 11 We2!? followed several moves later by 15 g4!? with the goal of freezing
Black’s g-pawn and prising open the h-file. Kariakin responds too slowly and White goes astray
 6 f3 Wb6 AND 6 Re3 g4 25

with 22 b4? instead of the thematic developing move 22 0-0-0!. The middlegame is very exciting
and White sacrifices material to coax the black king out into the centre of the board. Kariakin dem-
onstrates that the king is safe enough and he is able to launch a decisive counterattack on
Dominguez’s own king. This is a typical Najdorf middlegame demonstrating the importance of
maintaining the initiative.

Game 3 [B9O0]
Orlen Ruiz - Yuniesky Quezada
Cuba 2007
1 ed ¢5 2 Hf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Dxd4 D6 5 c) 6...e57 b3 Leb6 8 fe3 is equivalent to
Hec3 a6 63 (D) the standard move-order 6 £e3 e5 7 ©b3 Le6
This move-order finesse is designed to avoid 8 f3, which we examine in Games 7 and 8 in the
6 Ke3 Dg4; this line is the subject of Games 4 next chapter.
and 5. We now return to 6...%&b6 (D):

Qe s &= EAL w8 X
B./x/ %;%z v AT _AAAA
A A B AW X B
'y /7% / v
B U 3 %W%a/ _
%/% 0y » /&%
AT A g%&%fl%a%
2 2ugaeE
\\\

2 Lwgd B
6..%b6
The queen move interferes with White's de-
velopment by preventing Re3. Black’s most
important alternatives are:
a) 6..b57! 7 a4!? (7 Ke3 eb6 transposes to a
line of the English Attack vs the Scheveningen)
7..b4 8 Dd5 DxdS 9 exdS Kb7 10 L4 Hd7
11 a5 (Sammalvuo’s 11 &f5?! is well met by
11...g6 12 Wd4 {12 Dh6 5! with the threat of
Wha+} 12..0e5 13 De3 Lg7 14 W4 Hixcd
15 Wxc4 Wa5 with the bishop-pair and easy de-
velopment for Black) 11..Wc7 12 We2 g6 13
£2.g5 Wc5 14 Dc6! De5 15 Hxes5 dxes (Kritz-
Ruck, Budapest 2004) 16 Wxe5! Wxc4 17 Wxh8
f6 18 Wxh7 fxg5 19 Wxgo+ 2d7 20 W5+ Le8
21 Ed1 gives White a strong attack.
b) 6...e6 7 &e3 transposes into another form
of the English Attack classified as a Scheven-
ingen Sicilian (ECO code B80).
7 &b3
fice 7 3?7 Wxb2 8 Dad Wbd+ 9 c3 Wa5 10
Ebl &bd7, when Black has an extra pawn,
Toma-Worek, Polish Under-16 Girls Ch, Zako-
pane 2001.
The game continuation is also commonly
reached via the move-order 7 g4 @c6 8 b3 e6.
7....6 8 g4
Alternatives:
a) 8 £f417bd7 (the pawn sacrifice 8...d57!
9 exd5 £b4 10 dxe6 Lxe6 11 Wd4! favours
White, Zontakh-Ruck, Warsaw rapid 2002) 9
g4 2e7 10 We2 h6 11 h4 Wc7 12 0-0-0b5 13 a3
Eb8 with equal chances, Anand-Ponomariov,
Wijk aan Zee 2005.
b) 8 We2 &Hc6 9 Ke3 Wc7 10 g4 is another
move-order to reach the same position as in the
main game.
26 PLAY THE NAJDORF SICILIAN

8...2¢6 (D) light-squared bishop belongs on b7; Black of-

ten finds it more useful to play ...Xb8 to keep a

2
¥ &2 4
s ’
K white piece out of the b6-square.
12 ¥f2 (D)

o &8
%
X -
"%A/%Q%L%

9 We2
The queen move is an acknowledgement of
the disruptive effect of the black queen upon
White’s development; White would prefer to
develop with L¢3 followed by Wd2. The alter-
native is to advance the kingside pawns with 9
g5 \d7 10 h4 Wc7 (Black voluntarily with-
draws his queen in order to clear a path for the
advance of his b-pawn; this allows White to de-
velop his bishop directly to €3 without having
to play We2 first, but Black is aiming to show
that White’s kingside pawn advance is some-
what premature because the black king is still
in the centre and White cannot yet employ the
typical attacking motif of playing h5 followed
by g6) 11 £e3 b5 12 h5 and then:
a) 12..&%ce5 13 f4 b4! 14 &bl Hcd 15
£xc4 Wxcd 16 D1d2 Wc7 17 Ec1!? with an
unclear position according to Acs and Hazai in
Informator 87. Then I think Black should play
17...a5 18 c3 Wb7 with a comfortable position
as it will be difficult for White to generate any
12...b4 (D)
The pawn advance is more direct than the
slower 12...Eb8 13 &bl. Then:
a) 13..20b6 14 f4!7 b4 15 De2 e5 16 fxe5!?
(165 a5 17 Dg3 a4 18 £)d2 a3 with sharp play,
Anand-]J.Polgar, Mainz rapid 2003) 16...2xe5
(16...dxe5 17 Hg3! Lxgd 18 Le2 is a promis-
ing pawn sacrifice for White as he will be able
to generate a rapid kingside attack) 17 h3 fa-
vours White as his knights have some attractive
central squares.
b) 13...&Ace5!? (this was a 2004 suggestion
by Sammalvuo) 14 Egl b4 15 He2 Hcd 16
£cl Le7 17 Dedd £db6 with sharp play ahead,
Anand-Grishchuk, Amber Rapid, Monte Carlo
z%g/@%
\\"'
§F§

@3%
@m&h&

threats on the kingside without his light-squared

e
=

VIR

bishop.
N\
N\

b) 12...£b7 13 Bh3 was played in Acs-J.Pol-

\

gar, Budapest 2003. Now Black should just get

on with it and play 13...b4! 14 &e2 &\ce5 with
NN

good queenside play to offset White’s kingside

‘N§

\
joor I >\

build-up. 7 i
N

9...8c7 10 2e3 b5 11 0-0-0 Dd7 i : »

)

Black covers the sensitive b6-square in prepa- 8 5Zi?,

m.
= \\\\\\

V =
ration for playing ...b4; he also sidesteps White’s
N

7
NS\

\
N
=

prospective g5 pawn advance. The knight move

N

is more precise than the popular alternative

11...2b7 because it is not yet clear that the 13 Dad
 6 f3 Wb6 AND 6 Re3 Dg4 27

The knight takes aim at the b6-square. An- 15 fxg5 (D)

other idea is 13 De2 Kb7 14 Ded4 Hxd4
(14...2e7'D 15 Dxd4 (15 £xd4 e5 16 Le3 Le7
is fine for Black as White’s remaining knight is
a long way from d5) 15...d5 (15...8e7'? 16 g5
0-0 17 h4 d5 is also comfortable for Black) 16
exd5 £xd5 17 &bl £.c¢5 18 h4 0-0 with equal-
ity, Anand-J.Polgar, Cap d’ Agde rapid 2003.
13..2b8 (D)
%g/@% x
. Wa 144
\
15 f5 &ce5 16 fxe6 fxe6 17 Lxg5 (17
ANd47! &c5 favours Black) 17..4f7 18 £h4
&de5 is comfortable for Black thanks to his
control of the central squares combined with
his strong knight outpost on €5. Meanwhile,
White’s knights are out of play on the queen-
%2/@%/%
“waaw

1/&%1/ _
%7% > NE T AAD
afly/fi% _ 7
%Q%,%,w1
ARAT %%
% o
on BAE
:
%

//jfi//fi
%W@z/fi/ »-
rrrrr

15...h6!?
14 14!? Black continues in gambit style. Another
Ruiz introduces a new move to try to exploit idea is 15...%ce5.
Black’s lagging kingside development. An ear- 16 gxh6
lier game saw 14 Hgl: White could consider undermining the e6-
a) 14..%ce5 15 f4 Hcd 16 Ka7 Eb7 17 pawn via 16 g6!? fxg6 17 Kc4 Hd8 18 Hd2
£.d4 W6 18 We2! (the queen move is more £g7, when the chances are roughly equal.
challenging than 18 £xc4 Wxc4 19 & b6 Hxb6 16...%5ceS (D)
20 £xb6 Wc6 21 £a5 Le7 and “Black should
have no complaints” — Sammalvuo) 18...Xc7
(18...2a3 19 bxa3 Wxa4 20 Wc4 favours White) Iy 1]
19 Wxc4 Wxcd 20 £2xcd Excd 21 Has5 Ec7 22
b6 £b7 23 Hixd7 Lxd7 24 Hxb7 Exb7 25
v %m/x7,
Hg3 with some pressure for White as Black ;/ AL N
must work to unravel his kingside.
b) 14...£e7 15 &bl 0-0 (15...20d8?! 16 £d2 '
gives White more harmonious development,
Leko-J.Polgar, Cap d’ Agde rapid 2003) 16 g5
Nk /%/&%
&ceS is equal. /@/ 7 ///
14...g5!? AFLT W
This is a common Sicilian motif when White
tries to build a broad pawn-phalanx along the . %z%g/
fourth rank: Black diverts White’s f4-pawn in
order to obtain control over the e5-square for 17 Ka7
his knights. This idea is more often seen in the White compels the black rook to move for-
Browne Variation of the Main Line (Game 23), ward a square to interfere with the protection of
but it can also occur in the English Attack when the a6-pawn.
White shifts gears with 4. 17...Eb7 18 2.d4 Sxgd (D)
28 PLAY THE NAJDORF SICILIAN

The attempt to trap the ad-knight by 18...Wc6? 22 W2 Wc6?!

is premature in view of 19 Hac5!, with favour- Quezada misses the more precise continua-
able complications for White. tion 22... Xxh6! 23 &bl Wc6 24 £ xe5 (24 b6

T e
Hf6) 24...%xe5 25 Hb6 Bb8 26 ADd5 exd5 27
exd5 Wb6 with a clear plus for Black because

‘V/E%Q/a//
of his material advantage; White has no way to

A7 kAL
displace the powerful knight on e5.
23 Hb6 Hxb6 24 £ xb6 Wxed 25 bl Exhé

i
26 £.d4 Eg6 27 Ehgl £g7 28 Exg6 fxgé
3 Also possible is 28...Wxg6 29 Eg1 Wh7 with

Y . %&%Q equal chances.

o B @
29 Xel W5 30 We2 Le7 (D)

ATAT W 7 %E% % @
. ¥R&/ B
19 Wg2?
White plans on capturing Black’s a6-pawn %”%Mfiy%
X2 =
with his bishop, but this only accelerates Black’s
development. White should keep his queen in-
volved on the queenside by 19 We2 &ge5 20 D
Wxa6 Exh6, with equal chances. &%fi/%% i
19...)ge5 20 £.xa6 Zb8 21 £ xc8 HAxc8 (D)
v B
EXTeE
o _eanAn
The king steps up to avoid a check on the
b5-square.

LT 31 Bf1?
Ruiz blunders away a pawn and the game in
time-pressure. White can hang on by 31 Wg2
Wr3 (31..8c7 32 &b6! is annoying) 32 Wg5+
/ 216 33 Wd2 Wfs 34 Wg2, with equality.
31...2xc2! 32 Exf5 (D)
Or 32 Wxc2 Wxf1+ 33 Hcl ¥f5 and Black’s

%z% %z
Black has every reason to be satisfied with
the results of the opening; although he will re-
B,/ / %i /,// //%

main a pawn down after recovering the h6-

pawn, he has a secure central knight outpost
and his compact pawn-structure controls many
% |
e B
important central squares. White’s knights are
particularly ineffective on the queenside be-
cause they have no targets to attack and the a4-
SEXGWE g
ey ¢ ©
knight is unprotected. Black’s king is perfectly
safe 1n the centre, whereas White’s castled king
is vulnerable along the half-open c-file.
 6 f3 Wh6 AND 6 R.e3 Qg4
32..Hxe2 33 Ef2 Hxf2 34 fxf2 Hf3 35
£93 d5 36 a3 bxa3 37 bxal e5
The triumph of the central pawn-majority;
the black king will easily round up White’s
Game 4 [B90]
Viorel lordachescu — Andrei Maksimenko
Serbian Team Ch, Zlatibor 2006
1 e4 c52 &Hf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Hxd4 9Hf6 5
&\c3 a6 6 Le3 (D)
The move-order 6 f3, to prevent Black’s next
move, was the subject of Game 3.
%@% %
aE
/%&//
DR
KA AT
™ Thr
6...0\g4
Black’s most aggressive choice; by harassing
White’s dark-squared bishop he gains time to
fianchetto his own dark-squared bishop at the
risk of weakening his kingside pawn-structure.
7 L85
Various transpositions are possible after 7
fcl;eg., 7..8c6 (7.6 8 Re3 Dgd 9 Kcl
&Xf6 is a draw by repetition) 8 Le2 &f6 9 Le3
e5 (9...e6 10 0-0 £e7 11 4 0-0 transposes into
the Classical Scheveningen — ECO code B85)
10 b3 £e7 11 0-00-0 12 a4 Le6 and we have
reached a position from the Classical Najdorf
(note ‘c’ to White’s 10th move in Game 12)
with two extra moves for each side.
7..h6 (D)
8 2h4
The ...h6 pawn advance has weakened the
g6-square and White can try to exploit this with
the provocative retreat 8 £c1!? &6 9 Ke2
&6 10 Le3, and now:
29
passed a-pawn, whereas White has no answer
to Black’s connected and passed centre pawns.
38 a4 2d6 39 Sc2 Dc6 40 a5 b5 41 Sdl
ed 42 214 5\d4 0-1
ERoWeds B
w A AdAX
% ;
¢%, ,//&%Q/%
a) 10...e6 11 f4 £e7 12 0-0 £d7 13 Wel
transposes into the Classical Scheveningen
(ECO code B85) with the extra move ...h6 for
Black. This appears to be a disadvantage for
Black because in some lines the g6-square is
weakened or the h6-pawn is loose.
b) With 10...e5!7, Black establishes a pawn-
structure to take advantage of his control of g5
by denying White the opportunity to increase
his control over the d5-square with £g5xf6.
After 11 ©b3 £e7 12 0-0 0-0 (Kurnosov-Sho-
moev, Copenhagen 2005) 13 Wd2 £e6 we have
reached a position from the Classical Najdorf
(note ‘a’ to Black’s 10th move in Game 12) with
the useful extra move ...h6 for Black.
8..859 283 897 (D)
Black has gained control of the long diagonal
and marginalized White’s dark-squared bishop
at the cost of weakening his kingside pawn-
structure. White will drive the black knight
away from the kingside and redeploy his dark-
squared bishop with f3 and £f2. Black must be
careful about castling kingside because White
has the option of playing h4 to prise open the
h-file.
10 h3
30 PLAY THE NAJDORF SICILIAN

——
22} 7,,/%7 x to be prepared for it) 11...h4! 12 hxg4 hxg3 13
Exh8+ Kxh8 14 fxg3 (White is saddled with the
w /; /////// f; fi/// dreaded ‘Irish pawn-centre’, viz. tripled isolated
pawns!) 14..4c6 15 b3 L.e5 with a clear plus
for Black thanks to his powerful piece outpost
on the e5-square, Shirov-Sadler, Oviedo rapid
1992.
c2) 115f5!? & xf5 12 exf5h4 13 £xd6 (13
&xh4 WaS! 14 £xg4 Lxc3+ 15 bxc3 Wxc3+

| fia’%// BAR %Y & %Y 16 &f1 Exh4 17 Ebl £)d7 with a solid position
for Black thanks to his control of the dark
\\\\\\\
NN

squares, Shamugia-Jobava, Georgian Junior Ch,

D wEr
g H
White has several important alternatives here:
a) 10 £c4 (this move is harmless as Black
can easily defuse the pressure on the f7-pawn)
10...23¢6 11 &xc6 bxc6 12 hd Wa5 (12... b6 is
a solid alternative) 13 Wf3 X8 14 2b3 &e5 15
We3 Le6 16 hxgs hxg5 17 0-0-0 Hg4 with an
even game, Ni Hua-Xu Jun, HeiBei Zonal 2001.
b) 10 Wd2 (White covers the e3-square in
preparation for regrouping with f3 and £f2)
10...2¢c6 11 b3 Hge5 12 a4! (the pawn move
restricts Black’s queenside expansion; White
can easily be driven back after 12 f3 b5! 13
££2 b8! 14 HHd4 b4 15 Hd1 Dxd4 16 Lxd4
d5! and Black took over the initiative in Ivan-
chuk-Kasparov, Linares 1999) 12...£¢6 13 &\d5
Hc8 with a balanced game, Hossain-Browne,
Stratton Mountain 2000.
c) 10 £e2 hS (D).
EQoilidy B
w i A KAR
Ad w6
Thilisi 2000) 13...2xf2 14 2xf2 exd6 15 &S
&6 (15...80d7 16 Hel 0-0 17 c3 &Xf6 is equal —
Sammalvuo) 16 c3 £e5 17 Hel He7 is equal,
Jenni-Van der Stricht, Bled Olympiad 2002.
c3) 11 h4 (White seeks to demonstrate that
the g4-knight is misplaced) 11...gxh4 12 Exh4
(12 £xh4 &Hc6 13 Db3 Keb6 14 Wd2 Wh6! 15
&dS £.xd5 16 exdS HceS was fine for Black in
Morozevich-Grishchuk, Moscow blitz 2006,
and many earlier games) 12...%c6 13 b3 Le6
14 Wd2 Hc8!? 15 0-0-0 (White should avoid
the trap 15 Wg5? £f6 16 Exh5 &d7! {Smi-
kovski- Yudasin, Chigorin Memonal, St Peters-
burg 1997} 17 Exh8 Wxh8 18 W4 &b4 with a
clear plus for Black) 15...5%b6 16 f3 We3! 17
£f4 Wxd2+ 18 Exd2 fxc3 (18...%40ge5 19
fe3 216 20 Eh1 &c4 21 L xca was played in
Morozevich-J.Polgar, FIDE World Ch, San
Luis 2005, and now Morozevich recommends
21...82xc3 22 bxc3 fxc4 leading to roughly
equal chances) 19 bxc3 Dge5 20 Le3 Dgb 21
Zh1 Hce5 22 4 (1 think 22 £d4 could be met
by 22...f6!? 23 g3 &\c4 24 Lxc4 Lxc4 25 Edh2
h4 26 gxh4 Eh5 with reasonable compensation
for the pawn) 22...8c4 and “Black everywhere
has a comfortable game, and White is fighting
for a draw.” according to Morozevich in his in-
structive New in Chess Magazine 2005/8 notes
to this game.
c4) 11 Kxg4 is the most critical response.

AR LAWY
Now:
c41) 11..Rxg4 (the bishop recapture went

% wE g out of fashion after Kasparov switched to

White has several options, of which line ‘c4’
is the most critical:
cl) 11 h3? (the misguided pawn move has
been played surprisingly often, so it is important
11...hxg4 in two games from 1999, but there are
still many unanswered questions) 12 f3 £d7 13
K2 Dc6 14 0-0 e6 15 Dde2 We7 16 Dad De5
17 &b6 Hd8 18 £d4 £.c6 19 c4 (D).
Now I think Black should keep his rook on
the h-file, retaining his castling rights:
 6 f3 Wb6 AND 6 Le3 Higd
\
E®
c411) The black king runs into trouble after
19...Eg8? 20 &\c3 g4 21 f4 h4 (Blehm-Kem-
pinski, Warsaw 2002), when White should have
exploited Black’s poor king position with the
temporary sacrifice 22 @cd5! exd5 23 exds, re-
covering the piece with a large advantage.
c412) 19...g4! 20 f4 ha 21 Wc2 (21 &d5
exd5 22 cxd5 h3! is fine for Black) 21...h3! 22
fxe5 hxg2 23 Ef2 dxe5 24 Le3 (24 L¢3 We5)
24..8%h3 25 g3 Wh4 26 Exg2 Exh2 27 W2
Eh3 gives Black strong pressure in return for a
small material investment.
c42) 11...hxg4 (D).
5 vy /z
White has several options, of which line
‘c423’ is the most critical:
c421) 12 Wd2 @c6 13 D5 Lxf5 14 exf5
Wb6!? (14..Wa5 15 Dd5 Lxb2 16 Ebl trans-
poses to line ‘c422’) 15 0-0 Wxb2 16 Dd5 Wd4
17 Wxd4 Hxd4 18 Hael (18 f6 Lxf6 19 Eael
@e6 20 £xd6 Hd8 with a favourable endgame
for Black) 18...2xf5 19 @c7+ &d7 20 Dxa8
Exa8 21 Hed4 Ec8 22 Exgd £16 gives Black
31
good compensation for his small material defi-
cit.
c422) 12 Dd5 &§xc6 13 D5 Lxf5 14 exf5
£2xb2 15 Bbl Wa5+ 16 Wd2 £d4! 17 Wxa5
Dxa5 18 D7+ £d7 19 Hxa8 Exa8 with ade-
quate compensation for the exchange, Anand-
Topalov, Dortmund 1999.
c423) 12 0-0 &c6 13 Hf5 Kxc3 14 bxe3
Was 15 Wxga (15 De3 Le6! 16 BEbl b5 was
fine for Black in Leko-Gelfand, Amber Rapid,
Monte Carlo 2002) 15..f6 16 f4!? &xf5 17
exfS Wc5+!1? 18 ©h1 Wcd (another idea is
18...gxf4 19 Kxf4 0-0-0 with equal chances) 19
W3 gxfd 20 Lxf4 0-0-0 (Nyysti-Sammalvuo,
Velhot rapid 2003) 21 Hfel! De5 22 Ee4!
Wb51? (22...Wf7 23 Lxe5 dxe5 24 Bb1 Bd7 25
h3!? “may be slightly better for White” accord-
ing to Sammalvuo, but I think Black is fine after
25...d5 as White’s extra pawn is useless) 23
L xe5 dxe5 24 Eb4 Wd5 with an even game.
10...5e5 (D)
10...8)f6 is the subject of Game 5.
EQoWe 2
v 7 )
’//
KRB
& & &
:::::
1113
White can gain the bishop-pair by 11 @f5
£xf5 12 exfS, when Black has several viable
options:
a) 12..W%a5 13 Wd5 Wb6! (the queen retreat
is stronger than the more popular 13...2bc6 14
Wxa5 Dxa5 15 Ad5 Ec8 16 0-0-0 with a fa-
vourable endgame for White thanks to his cen-
tralized knight and bishop-pair) 14 0-0-0 £bd7
15 h4 g4 16 Wd4 Ec8 17 Wxb6 Dxb6 18 Hed
%ed7 with roughly equal chances, Kariakin-
Grishchuk, FIDE Grand Prix, Nalchik 2009.
b) 12..2bd7 13 &Dd5 b6 14 c3 Hxd5 15
Wxd5 Wd7 16 2e2 Wc6 17 0-0-0 Wxd5 18
32 PLAY THE NAJDORF
Hxd5 Ec8 19 h4 £f6 with an equal endgame,
Amonatov-Khismatullin, Zvenigorod 2008.
c) 12..4ec6!? (this voluntary knight re-
treat appears to be a loss of time, but the idea is
to exploit the absence of White’s dark-squared
bishop from the queenside) 13 £.d3 £xc3+ (an-
otherideais 13...%a5 14 0-0 £xc3 {14...2d7!?
looks safer} 15 bxc3 Wxc3 with sharp play,
Emelin-A.Naumann, Dresden 2008) 14 bxc3
Nd7 15 0-0 HceS 16 Ebl We7 led to a sharp
bishops-versus-knights battle in Yarmolyuk-
Rammstein, corr. 2007.
d) 12..%50bc6 13 DdS e6 14 fxe6 fxeb 15
&e3 (D).
X0 el X
/A7 T“_m
K E sWe X
» » A BAR
A TaAki&% &
. v
5
Apomar
iy
AL,
BYLiis % BRifiy
wgd B
2
/
Black has two centre pawns, but he must be
careful advancing them or they will become
vulnerable to attack from White’s bishop-pair.
Now:
d1) 15..%aS5+ 16 c3 D3+ 17 Wxf3 Lxc3+
18 od1 Wad+ 19 Hc2 £xb2 20 Hcl! (Svid-
ler’s improvement over 20 Wb3 Wxb3 21 axb3
£xal 22 Hxal Le7 with sharp play, Svidler-
Topalov, FIDE World Ch, San Luis
20...&xc1 21 ¥f6 2d7 22 2xcl1 Wxa2 23 £d3
(23 f.e2 is recommended by Gershon and Nor;
23...Hac8 is an adequate reply) 23...Ehc8! (Svid-
ler’s suggested improvement over 23...Hac8?!
24 Hd1 d5 {24...%e7 loses to 25 £b5+!} 25
£15 Ehe8 26 Wf7+! &d8 27 Hel! with a large
advantage for White, Svidler-Grishchuk, World
Ch, Mexico City 2007) 24 Ed1 &e7! 25 Hd2
Hc6 26 &d1! Kac8 27 He3 “with initiative” ac-
cording to Svidlerin his Informator 101 notes.
d2) 15...0-0 16 £¢2 and then:
d21) 16...d5 17 0-0 &g6 18 c4 d4 19 & c2
(19 Hgd 54 {19..h5!7} 20 Kxfa Hxf4 is
SICILIAN
equal, Carlsen-Adly, Reykjavik 2006) 19...8)f4
(19..Wd7!?) 20 Hel with a slight advantage
for White thanks to his control over the light
squares, Emelin-Naumann, European Clubs
Cup, Kallithea 2008.
d22) 16..We7 17 0-0 Had8 18 Kh5! (the
white bishop prevents the manoeuvre ...2g6-
f4) 18..&h8 19 Hel d5 20 a4 W16 (20...20c4?
21 &xc4 dxc4 22 We4! with a clear plus for
White, Kasimdzhanov-Anand, FIDE World Ch,
San Luis 2005) 21 a5 &g6 22 Hgd W5 23
Lxg6 Wxg6 24 Ha3 Ede8 25 Wd2 with a slight
advantage for White according to Kasimdzha-
nov in Informator 94.
11...0bc6 12 ££2 (D)
AT Aax P
¥ 0AE B
ATIAY BAL
2 TwWEe 2 B
12...2e6
Alternatives:
a) 12..8xd4 13 £xd4 £e6 14 Wd?2 trans-
poses to the main game.
b) 12..e6 13 Wd2 Hgb6 14 0-0-0 Le5 15
bl (another idea is 15 &xc6 bxc6 16 £d4 &4
17 £e3 fLe5 18 h4!? to prise open the kingside)
2005) 15...8d7 16 Dxc6! Lxc6 17 £.d4 Wc7 18 W2
(White could consider 18 £.xe5!? dxe5 19 We3
with the intention of utilizing his extra queenside
pawn) 18...2xd4 19 Wxd4 0-0-0 20 f.c4 He5
21 £b3 Hhg8 with roughly equal chances,
Nunn-Bosch, Bundesliga 1999/00.
c) 12..&4g6 13 Wd2 Wa5 (D).
Now:
cl) 14 b3 £xc3 15 bxe3 Wc7 favours
Black thanks to his superior pawn-structure,
Bakre-Visweswaran, Lucknow 2004.
c2) 14 &d5 Wxd2+ 15 &xd2 Bb8 16 3
&Hxd4 17 Lxd4 £xd4 18 cxd4 b5 leads to
equality.
 6 f3 Wbh6 AND 6 Re3 Dg4 33

b
N\
b
N
»
e
T

\&\\

R
W RN
N

/7 /, /7 ; /7 1

% % 2,@,/%2

c3) 14 0-0-0 £e6 15 bl (15 Dxeb fxeb 16 19.. Efc8!

£c4 £xc3 17 bxe3 &ce5! gives Black a prom-
ising attack) 15...Hc8 16 b3 £xc3 17 HxasS
£xd2 18 Hxc6 Hxc6 19 Exd2 L.c4 (this was
Tiviakov’s Informator 89 suggestion; less ac-
curate is 19...f6 20 b3!, when the bishop-pair
gave White something to play for in Tiviakov-
L.Dominguez, Wijk aan Zee 2004) 20 £xc4
Hxc4 21 b3 Ec8 22 h4 16 23 b2 &7 with an
equal endgame.
13 Wd2 SHxd4 14 £xd4 (D)
;/// y@/fl
AR
This rook move was a 2004 suggestion by
Sammalvuo. Alternatives:
a) 19..f67! 20 £b2 L7 21 £Hd4 d5 (an-
other idea is 21...Kfd8!? 22 &f5 d5) 22 exd5
Wes+ 23 2e2 Wxd5 24 0-0-0 with a slight ad-
vantage for White because of his more secure
king, Akopian-Kramnik, Wijk aan Zee 2004.
b) 19..8e5!?20 £xe5 dxe5 21 Wxg5 Wxc2
(21...Efd8 was suggested by Akopian in Infor-
mator 89, but I think White can try to retain the
extra pawn by 22 Bh6 Wc6 23 Hcl) 22 Eci
Wb3 23 Bho6 Hfc8 24 Exg6+ fxg6 25 Wxgb+

2f8 26 Who+ f7 27 Wh5+ 216 28 Whé+

with a draw by repetition — Fta¢nik.
20c3 (D)
Black has no problems after 20 £xg7 &xg7

B aE
21 Wxg5 Wxc2 22 Whe+ g8 23 Hdl Wb2, as
given by Sammalvuo.

% A //
LE94 & %
&%/& %fi
B ®e = 7 maram
14...Wa5
By immediately activating his queen, Black
seeks to inhibit White from castling queen-
side.
15 a3 0-0 16 h4 Hg6 17 hxg5 hxg5 18 b4
We7 19 He2! (D)
This knight manoeuvre maintains the ten-
sion and is more challenging than 19 2xg7
&xg7 20 0-0-0 Xh8 21 Kxh8 Exh8 22 b2 f6 20...8.c4 21 Ecl
with equal chances, Anand-Ponomarniov, Rapid By playing 21 ©g3 White can retain his
match (game 2), Mainz 2002. knight for a potential kingside attack, but this
34
allows Black to use the f4-square for his own
knight: 21..&xf1 22 $xfl £xd4 (22.. Wc4+
23 &gl e5 24 Re3 Wxc3 25 Wxc3 Hxc3 26
£xg5 6 27 Kd2 Hd3 is unclear according to
Iordachescu in Informator 97) 23 cxd4 &\f4
(23..Wc3 24 Wxc3 Exc3 25 9f5 a5 26 b5 ad is
unclear — Iordachescu) 24 f2 Wc2 25 Ha2
with equal chances.
21...8.xe2 22 & xe2 Lxd4 23 Wxd4 as!
Black liberates his a8-rook.
24 &d2
White must retain control over the c5-square
by avoiding the hasty advance 24 b5?! Wc5 25
WxcS HxcS with a favourable endgame for
Black; the white bishop has no targets.
24...axb4
Alternatives:
Leinier Dominguez Perez — Sergei Kariakin
1 ed ¢52 HHf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Dxd4a 516 5
De3 a6 6 Le3 Hgd 7 Lg5h6 8 Lhd g59 L3
£g710h3
For comments on the moves up to here, see
Game 4.
10...5M6 (D)
Black now has the idea of ... Wb6 threatening
..&xed. 10...5e5 was the subject of Game 4.
Le X
A ’/4
’/, 3 /2
7 7& 7
/ o &
/ PR
“ 7
AFRT wg%
o wgEga B
11 We2!?
Black has a solid position after the more
popular 11 Wf3 Wb6 12 0-0-0 £c6 13 Hxchd
Wxc6 (13...bxc6?! 14 5 dxeS 15 £xeS favours
PLAY THE NAJDORF SICILIAN
a) 24...d5!? (Black opens a diagonal for his
queen) 25 exd5 axb4 26 cxb4 Wg3 27 Eh3
Wfa+ 28 Wxf4 Dxf4 29 Exc8+ Exc8 30 Ehl
Ha8 with an equal endgame.
b) 24..Wd8 25 g3 axb4 26 axb4 Ha3 27
Bh5 “with counterplay” according to Iorda-
chescu; Black could then consider 27...e5 28
Wd3 g7 to keep the game going.
25 cxb4 Wd8 26 Exc8 Exc8 27 Hcl Hxcl
28 &xcl H\f4
Or 28... Wf8!?, to invade along the h-file.
29 211 e5 30 We3 d5 31 exd5 Wxd5 32 $b2
b5 33 g3 Deb
Both sides have weaknesses to defend and
the game peters out to a draw.
34 £d3 Hd4 35 Led4 WdS8 36 g4 Tg7 37
Wd2 12-1;
Game 5 [B9O]
Wijk aan Zee 2009
White) 14 £e2 (14 e5 Wxf3 15 gxf3 dxe5 16
£xe5 £d7! is equal, Shirov-Kasparov, Sara-
jevo 2000) 14..Wc5 15 Ehel Re6 16 €5 dxe5
17 £.d3 e4 18 Dxed Hxed 19 Wxed 0-0-0 with
equal chances, Lutz-J.Polgar, Budapest 2003.
11 £c4!? is an interesting pawn sacrifice.
11..9b6 12 0-0 (after 12 £b3, 12...5xe4 13
W13 f5 and 12...0-0 13 h4 g4 are both unclear)
12...0-0 (not 12...20xe4? 13 Hxed Wxd4?! 14
Nxd6+! exd6 15 We2+) 13 Hde2?! (13 Hb3
&c6 14 £hl De5 15 Le2 g6 is unclear ac-
cording to Kasparov) 13...Wxb2 14 £b3 Wa3
2& 15 f4 &6 16 ¥h1 &h5! (more precise than
16...8.e6, as played in the stem game Kaspa-
rov-J.Polgar, Wijk aan Zee 2000) 17 Wd3 Wc5
18 Dd5 Dxg3+ 19 Wxg3 £xal! 20 Hxal ©h7
21 fxg5 X g8 and Black consolidated his mate-
rial gains in Azarov-Ruck, European Clubs
Cup, Saint Vincent 2005.
11...2¢6
The alternative is 11...%b6 12 0-0-0 %c6
13 Dxc6 Wxc6 14 €5 (the central pawn-break
favours White because in comparison to the 11
W3 line, Black is unable to relieve the pressure
by exchanging queens) 14...dxe5 15 £xe5 0-0
16 We3 K15 17 Ke2 Had8 18 £13 Wc8 19 g4
£.2620 Bd4 with a slight advantage for White.
 6 f3 Wb6 AND 6 Le3 Dg4 35

12 Dxc6 bxe6 13 e5 dxe5 14 LxeS 0-0 (D) a4 Hc8 25 Lxa5 Ha7 26 b4 Exc2 27 0-0
favours White as he has retained his extra pawn.

;/gy T d) 16..8f5 17 kg2 Wd7 18 0-0 Efd8 19

Hfel with a slight advantage for White thanks
v AAE to his supenior pawn-structure,
kin, FIDE Grand Prix, Nalchik 2009.
Bacrot-Karia-

15...a5? (D)
& The queenside pawn advance is too slow be-
cause it does not address White’s threat to prise
open the h-file. Black should complete his de-
velopment by 15...8.e6 16 £g2 (16 h4 Wa5!?)
16...Wa5, with sharp play.
ATEAT
%Y & Y Y

= - ;%gy Lo

\\
w/’//%t& 7
B
15 g4!?
Dominguez introduces an interesting new A
idea to prevent ...&f5 and fix Black’s g-pawn.
A i3
The usual line is 15 h4 g4 16 g3 (D), and now:
5 7
z/gw Ee o my 7 A
B%i% %g@y M%fi%fi% .
. &a B
%/
_
16 h4!
White sacrifices a pawn to open lines on the

_ % /wfiy kingside. Instead, 16 £g2 226 17 We3 Wd7 18

Wd4 Wxd4 19 £xd4 e5 20 £b6 Kb 21 Lxc6
&fi;%g / £b722 £xb7 Exb7 23 Dad Hc8 24 Lxa5 Ka7

= 7 ®ipn 25 b4 Bxc2 26 0-0 £\d5 gives Black good com-

a) 16..%b6?! 17 0-0-0 £e6 18 Lg2 Kfd8
19 Ehel h5 20 b3 favoured White in Pono-
mariov-J.Polgar, Benidorm rapid 2002. This
was the stem game for 11 We2.
b) 16..8e6 17 £g2 Wa5 18 0-0 Had8 was
suggested by Sammalvuo. Then 19 Efel favours
White because of his superior pawn-structure.
c) 16..a5 17 £g2 226 18 We3 Wd7 (Black
must avoid 18..Hc8? 19 Edl &d5? 20 £Hxd5
cxd5 21 Hxd5, which is winning for White,
Rowson-de Firmian, Selfoss 2003) 19 Wd4 (19
Ed1 W5 20 Ed2!? was suggested by Rowson in
Informator 89, 20...Efd8 is an adequate reply as
White’s king is stuck in the centre) 19...Wxd4 20
£xd4 e5 (Hoffmann-Kiilaots, Budapest 2004)
21 2b6 Efb8 22 Lxc6 £b7 23 Lxb7 Hxb7 24
pensation for the pawn because of the weakness
of the f4-square. This line should be compared
to note ‘c’ to White’s 15th move: the structure
with pawns on h3 and g4 is less favourable for
White than with them on h4 and g3 because
here Black has the possibility of ...2)f4 target-
ing White’s h-pawn.
16...2.xg4 17 £3 215 18 hxg5 hxg5 19 We3
a4
Kariakin rushes to create queenside counter-
play. Instead, 19...e6 20 Wxg5 Qe8 (20...2g6
21 Wg3! intending £.d3 favours White) 21 Wgl
a4 22 Hd1 We7 23 £d3 gives White a powerful
attack.
20 Wxg5 Rg6 21 Ld3 a3 (D)
21...Ha57! 22 0-0-0! Wb6 23 L.xgb fxgb 24
f4 gives White a decisive advantage as Black
cannot defend his kingside.
36 PLAY THE NAJDORF SICILIAN

24...&xh7 25 0-0-0 ¥xb4 26 Zh1+ g8 27

2xg7?!
Relatively best is 27 £xg6 fxg6 28 Wxg6
Zf6! 20 Wd3 (29 Kxf6? loses to 29..Wf4+)
29...f7, although Black has a clear plus be-
cause White’s attack has run out of firepower.
27...2xg7 28 Whé+ (D)
White’s attack peters out after 28 We5+ 6
29 Wg3 5 30 De2 Had and Black has a deci-
sive material advantage.

////

22 b4?
When in doubt, develop another piece! White
should complete the mobilization of his army
with 22 0-0-0!, when Black has no adequate de-
fence:
a) 22..Wb6 23 b3 Hh77! 24 Exh7 xh7 25
Rh1+ g8 26 Kxg7 ©xg7 27 Yed is winning
for White.
b) 22...Wa5 23 £c4! axb2+ 24 bl (not
//
24 &xb2?77? Efb8+ 25 Pcl {25 £b3 Dh7 wins
for Black} 25..2g4 26 fxgd Wxe5 27 Wxe5
{White’s threats peter out after 27 Wxg6 W4+ 28...216 29 Ded+ Le6 30 Rd1 Wh2+ 31
28 Xd2 Wxc4 29 Wh7+ &8 and Black wins} &d2 d7 32 Wi4
27...&xe5 28 He2 BEb4 and Black wins material) Or 32 Yc5+ Le8 33 Kxg6 Hd8+ 34 Hd3
24...e6 25 41 HHh7 26 Exh7! Kxe5 27 £5 Lxh7 Wf6 and Black wins.
28 Eh1+ g8 (28...2g7 29 Pe4 mates) 29 fxgb 32..Hfd8 33 Le2 e8 34 Zhl Has 35 We7
£.27 30 Wh4 and White has a decisive attack. Had5 36 e3 &18 37 ¢3? (D)
22...Wb6 23 Eh4 Hh7! (D) White was in extreme time-pressure here but
the end result is the same after 37 Xh4 E5d7 38

%@% Wg3 Wal: Black wins.

/ Z
L S
T—ys
%

24 Exh7? /%%”/fi
White should settle for 24 Wf4 £xe5 25
WxeS Wgl+ 26 £f1 Ead8 27 fe2 with equal 37..Exd3+ 38 <14 f6 39 Eh8+ 217 0-1
chances. 40 Exd8 Wh2+ 41 Hg3 Wha# is mate.
3 6 2e3 eb5 and the English Attack

The most popular response to 6 £e3 is the traditional Najdorf move 6...e5, by which Black estab-
lishes a central strongpoint and stakes a claim to the important d4- and f4-squares at the cost of a
slight weakening of the d5-square. The e5-pawn stabilizes the centre and restricts White’s ability to
attack the black king through the centre; the lines commencing with 7 &b3 typically feature the de-
layed development of White’s light-squared bishop in comparison to other Najdorf lines. The stra-
tegic complexity in the middlegame is attractive to players at all levels seeking to outplay their
opponents; many of these lines are on the cutting edge of opening theory.
The English Attack with 6 £e3 e5 7 b3 has been played with both colours by most of the
world’s top players over the past decade: Kasparov, Kramnik, Anand, Topalov, Leko, Shirov,
Gelfand, Svidler, J.Polgar, Morozevich, Grishchuk, Carlsen, Kariakin and many other great play-
ers have all enriched the line with exciting games and interesting novelties. I anticipate steady
growth in the popularity of these lines as many creative new ideas continue to be developed and re-
fined for both sides.

Game 6 (Ivanchuk-Topalov) features the positional line 6 £e3 e5 7 &)f3, which has quite differ-
ent themes from the English Attack. The kingside retreat applies pressure on the centre and dis-
courages Black from liberating his position with the ...d5 pawn-break, but the f3-knight interferes
with the launch of a kingside pawn-storm involving f3 and g4. Ivanchuk introduces a concrete idea
to exploit the weakness of Black’s b6-square and his creativity is rewarded when Topalov develops
his queen’s knight to the wrong square. Ivanchuk’s middlegame build-up is quite impressive as he
is able to create pressure in the centre by doubling rooks along the d-file and tying Black’s rooks
down to the defence of his backward d-pawn. White then opens a second front on the queenside
with a4. Topalov responds by sacrificing a pawn for piece activity, but it is not enough as Ivanchuk
carefully consolidates his pawn advantage. Then a rare tactical oversight by Topalov quickly ends
the game.

In Game 7 (Caruana-Vallejo Pons), White plays the traditional English Attack line 6 2e3 e5 7
b3; after 7...8e6 8 f3 Ke7 9 Wd2, Black opts for the hypermodern idea 9...hS to inhibit White
from expanding on the kingside with g4. Caruana completes his development and builds up in the
centre; after Vallejo Pons castles kingside, White shifts gears and expends a tempo to open the g-
file for attack. Black manages to withstand the first assault, but after a series of inaccuracies by both
sides, White is able to sacrifice the exchange to generate a kingside attack. Vallejo Pons’s king is
forced out into the open and quickly perishes from overexposure. This game is a classic example
demonstrating the strength of a knight outpost on the f5-square versus a passive black rook.

Game 8 (Inarkiev-Siugirov) is another traditional English Attack featuring the popular line 6
Le3e57 &b3 Ke6 8 f3 Le7 9 Wd2, and here Black varies from Game 7 by playing 9...0-0. The
theory of this variation has been worked out in depth; many of the lines feature classic attacks and
counterattacks as the opposing kings are tucked away on opposite sides of the board. White
chooses the ambitious line 14 f4 to challenge Black’s e6-bishop; the aggressive pseudo-sacrifice 16
\bd4 is met several moves later by 19...£b3 20 axb3 axb3, opening the a-file against the white
king. Black sacrifices the exchange to keep his pieces active and after a further skirmish the game
appears headed for a draw. Inarkiev avoids an opportunity to steer the game toward a perpetual
check; Siugirov never looks back as he wins two pieces for a rook and simplifies into a winning
38 PLAY THE NAJDORF SICILIAN

rook endgame. This game is a great example of the importance of maintaining the initiative: every
tempo is critical as the players strive to attack the opposing king.

Game 6 [B90]
Vasily lvanchuk - Veselin Topalov
Morelia/Linares 2007
s K
E// Wep 8 'E
/////
1 ed c5 2 53 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Hxd4 56 5
$e3 a6 6 Ke3 (D) Zr— — ]

E
B A

Mj / f;
e %y:/;g/// A possible continuation is 15 exd5 &b4
£d2 0-0 17 0-0 Efd8 with an even game.
16

b) 10...d5 11 £xc4 (11 exd5 Lxfl 12 Exf1,

6...e5
6...%4g4 was covered in Games 4 and 5.
7 O3
White returns the knight to the kingside; this
gives him attacking possibilities later on in-
volving &h4 or &g5, but the downside is that
the £3-knight is a long way from controlling the
d5-square. The main drawback to having the
knight on f3 is that it prevents White from gen-
erating a kingside pawn-storm with f3 and g4.
7 &b3 is White’s most aggressive and proba-
Nisipeanu-Kempinski, European Ch, Dresden
2007, 12...Rb4! 13 Dle2 b6 14 Wd3 Hbxd5
15 0-0-0 &xc3 16 Dxc3 Wxd3 17 Exd3 Ed8 is
equal according to Nisipeanu in Informator 99)
11..dxc4 12 Wf3 b5 (12..8Rc5 13 Dle2 0-0
also equalizes) 13 Dle2 b4 14 &dS Hxd5 15
exd5 &6 16 0-0-0 £d6 with sharp play ahead,
Nisipeanu-Topalov, Vitoria Gasteiz 2007.
We now return to 7 93 (D):

; /A%/
bly strongest continuation. This move is the
fi»m

iy

subject of Games 7 and 8.

The retreat 7 £de2 is a speciality of Roma-
nian GM Liviu-Dieter Nisipeanu; White avoids
blocking his f-pawn at the cost of temporarily
blocking his light-squared bishop. 7...£.¢6 8 f4
&bd7 (Black can retain light-squared bishops
by 8...26 9 h3 h5 10 fxe5 dxe5 11 Wxd8+ Lxd8
12 0-0-0+ &bd7 with a balanced game, Nisi-
peanu-Topalov, Sofia 2007) 9 f5 £c4 10 &cl
(D) and then:
a) 10..Wc7 11 £xc4 Wxcd 12 Wd3 Ec8 13
b3 (13 D1e2 looks safer) 13...Wxd3 14 cxd3
d5 -2 Fedorov-Gashimov, Abu Dhabi 2006.
 6 f.e3 e5 AND
This is the most popular choice: Black devel-
ops a piece and prepares kingside castling. Al-
ternatives:
a) 7..8c6 8 £c4 £e7 9 0-0 0-0 transposes
to the note to Black’s 9th move.
b) 7..b5?! is premature, since White can
undermine the b-pawn with 8 a4! b4 9 &\d5
A\bd7 10 c4! Dxed 11 a5 Eb8 12 Lb6 Hxb6
13 axb6 Exb6 14 We2 H\c5 15 H3xb6 Wxb6 16
&g5, when he has a strong attack, Lauk-S.Spa-
sov, ICCF corr. 2006.
c) 7...h67" (Black prevents a white piece
from occupying g5 at the cost of weakening g6
and f5) 8 £c4 2e7 9 0-00-0 10 Dh4! Leb 11
Lxe6 (exchanging bishops is the logical fol-
low-up so that White can occupy the g6-square;
less effective is 11 £b3 &\c6 with equal chances,
Medvegy-Bischoff, Bundesliga 2004/5) 11...fxe6
12 g6 Kf7 13 W3 (13 We2!?) 13...8c6 14
Wh3 Wd7 15 Eadl with slight pressure for
White.
d) 7...8e6 (Black prevents White from play-
ing Lc4; the bishop development has a poor
reputation because White can gain the bishop-
pair, but in return Black obtains control over
d5) 8 Dg5 (D) and now:
X6 WeE X
, AW BAMA
| . o’ # 4
W e
%
B GAE B % o
APAT FIARS
2 ¥gse H
d1l) 8..Wc7?! is probably too committal: 9
#xeb6 fxeb 10 ad (10 g4!? also looks promis-
ing for White, Werner-Zuse, 2nd Bundesliga
1996/7) 10...2bd7 11 g3 Wc6 12 £g2 &c57!
(Black is not threatening to capture the e-pawn
s0 12...5e7 13 0-0 b6 looks like a safer plan)
13 0-0 Re7 14 We2 with an edge for White
thanks to his bishop-pair and prospects for
opening the position with a timely f4 pawn ad-
vance, Hellers-de Firmian, Wijk aan Zee 1986.
THE ENGLISH ATTACK 39
d2) 8...%4c6 (the knight move is more flexi-
ble) 9 Hixe6 fxe6 10 Lcd Wd7 (10...d57! 11
exd5 Da5 12 Re2 exd5 13 Kg5 favours White)
11 a4 (11 0-0 £e7 12 £2b31?7) 11...£€7 120-0
Ec8 13 We2 0-0 with a solid position for Black,
Kariakin-Anand, Amber Blindfold, Nice 2008.
This line needs more tests.
e) 7..Wc7 (White is prevented from playing
f£.c4, but it may be premature to commit the
queen this early) 8 a4 £e7 9 Ke2 (the bishop
development appears to be more dangerous than
the popular 9 a5) 9...0-0 10 0-0 b6 and now 11
Wd3! (D) is an idea of English GM Nigel Short:
e
[ EARA
//%/
iy A7
/,%‘@@2%
w%&/ fi&%
g2 | |B%
NSRS
el) 11..2b7 12 ©Hh4 g6 13 Lh6 Ed8
45! 18 (Wojtaszek-Lanin, World Under-16
Ch, Kallithea 2003) 15 £g5 &bd7 16 @e3
14
(White has a slight advantage according to Short
in Informator 67) 16...Kdc8 17 f3 Wc5 18 Efd1
h6 19 £h4 d5!? 20 exd5 £xd5 21 &cxd5 (21
82 8e6)21...50xd5 22 K12 &Hxe3 23 Ed2! fa-
vours White’s bishop-pair on an open board.
e2) 11..0bd7 12 Wc4! Wdg (12...Wxc4?
13 xc4 £b7 14 &d2 favoured White thanks
to his control over d5 in Short-Gelfand, Novgo-
rod 1996 and several later games) 13 Efd1 Lb7
14 §d2 Hc8 15 Wa2!? &c5 16 f3 Qe with
complex play.
8 2cd4 (D)
The bishop takes control of the critical d5-
square along with the important a2-g8 diago-
nal. White has a couple of harmless alterna-
tives:
a) 8h30-09 £c4 Hc6 10 0-0 Qa5 11 Kd3
b5 is equal, Arencibia- Abreu, Santa Clara 2008.
b) 8 a4 0-0 9 a5 Hc6 10 £Lb6 WeB 11 Lc4
fe6 12 22d5 Hc8 with a comfortable position
40 PLAY THE NAJDORF
for Black as White lacks any effective pawn-
breaks, Meijers-L’ Ami, Dieren 2001.
z%gyg//
s A7 BAR
A A2 A
%% %%
8...0-0
Black’s most popular alternative is the im-
mediate 8...2e6 9 £xe6 fxe6 10 g5 Wd7 11
W3, and here:
a) 11..45c6 12 Wh3! Ad8 (12...d5 13 Da4!
with strong pressure, Lederer-Lederman, Beer-
sheba 1998) 13 £b6 h6! 14 0-0-0 (14 £xd8
Lxd8 15 Wxe6+ {15 Hxe6 La5! “with good
compensation” — Sammalvuo} 15..8xe6 16
Axe6 La5 is fine for Black) 14...0-0 15 £xd8
hxg5 16 £xe7 Wxe7 17 Wg3 favours White
thanks to his superior pawn-structure.
b) 11...d5 12 exdS exd5 13 0-0-0 d4 14
Oced 0-0 15 £d2 Dxed! (15...2c67! 16 Qxf6+
£.xf6 17 @b3+ 2h8 18 h4 b5 19 Eh3 { Veréci-
Savova, Women's Zonal, Brno 1989} 19... Eae8
20 f3 favours White because of his knight out-
post on e4) 16 Wb3+ (16 Wxed4 Lxg5 17 Kxg5
Exf2 18 Wxe5 {Rakowiecki-Jaworski, Bielsko
Biala 1990} 18...%c6 19 Wg3 Wf7 with aslight
advantage to Black thanks to his more secure
king position) 16...&h8 17 &xe4 a5! 18 3 a4
19 Wd3 (Gipslis-Roeschlau, Frankfurt 1989)
19...a3 20 b3 £a6! with a comfortable position
for Black as he can initiate counterplay along
the c-file and challenge White’s knight with a
timely ...2\c5.
90-0(D)
9..2e6
Black has a reasonable alternative in 9...2)c6
(and not 9...b5?7 10 £d5 Hxd5 11 Wxd5 1-0
Smirin-Huizer, Groningen 1996) 10 Hel b5
(10...8e6 11 Hd5 £xd5 12 exdS b5!? 13 &f1
b4 14 c4 bxcd 15 Sxc4 Was5 16 £d2 We517
SICILIAN
z%g%/é .
AT f4%4
A7 %/% 0
P %y/y
887 1
B fi@/
&%&/ anl
£ ¥ EY
HEc1 &bxd5 18 K g5 Wa5 with sharp play, Gao
Rui-Negi, Subic Bay 2009) 11 £f1 Eb8!? 12
L5 (the idea behind Black’s previous move is
that 12 &\d5? &xe4 costs White a pawn since
Black controls the b6-square) 12...2\g4! (Black
offers to exchange dark-squared bishops; he re-
tains the knight in order to contest the d5-square)
13 £d2 (13 Rxe7 @Dxe7 14 a3 Kb7 is equal,
Short-Ehlvest, Horgen 1995; this was the stem
game for 11...Xb81?) 13...£e6 14 HXd5 h6 15 h3
&6 16 c4 Wd7 17 b3 £d8! (Topalov prepares
to activate his dark-squared bishop) 18 Hcl
£xd5 19 cxd5 De7 20 £d3 £b6 with equality,
Anand-Topalov, Morelia/Linares 2007. Topa-
lov was well-prepared for this 8th-round game;
our main game was contested in the 2nd round.
We now return to 9...Re6 (D):
\©F§§
=
%”/
%g%g/y _
e
% 4@%3@
10 Rxe6!?
Prior to this game, the exchange of bishops
on e6 was considered harmless because it
strengthens Black’s centre and gives him con-
trol over d5. Ivanchuk’s fresh insight was that
 6 Re3 e5 AND THE ENGLISH ATTACK
Black has some tactical problems due to the
weakness of the b6-square. Alternatives:
a) 10 £d5 £xd5 11 £xd5 £bd7 is fine for
Black as he has retained a knight to control d5,
Martinsons-Neborak, corr. 2000.
b) 10 We2 (10 Wd3 fxcd 11 Wxcd is equiv-
alent) 10...2xc4 11 Wxc4 b5 12 Wd3 b4! 13
Ad5 Dxd5 14 Wxd5 Dd7 15 Wd3 (15 a3 Whs is
fine for Black) 15...Wc7 16 Eacl (16 a3 Efb8 is
equal — Ki.Georgiev and Kolev) 16... b7 with
equal chances, Vachier-Lagrave — Guidarelli,
French Ch, Aix-les-Bains 2007.
c) 10 £b3 &6 11 Lg5 Hd7! (a similar
idea was seen in the note to Black’s 9th move
{12...g4!}: Black is willing to exchange dark-
squared bishops, but he does not want to allow
White to exchange his dark-squared bishop for
one of the black knights as this would enable
White to increase his control over d5) 12 £ xe7
Wxe7 13 Dd5 Wd8 14 We2 HHas 15 Badl Ec8
with an even game, Leko-Van Wely, Amber
Rapid, Nice 2008.
10...fxe6 11 Dad (D)
s
LEA,I& ?,
A/ KAW 7
Q%%%g%%/
. By
AU BAY
)
N\
\\\\
Ju 8%
\\
\\\
AN
AN N
11...20g4
Black attempts to eliminate White’s dark-
squared bishop. Alternatives:
a) 11..8bd7?! (Black drops the e6-pawn
but this move is much better than its reputation)
12 D g5 Wa5 13 D3 (13b3d5!7? 14 Dxeb Bfc8
is unclear) 13...Efc8 (13...d5!? 14 Hixe6 d4 15
Nxf8 HAxf8 16 £xd4 exdd 17 Wxd4 Lc5 18
Wcd+ £h8 19 h3 favours White as he should be
able, with care, to mobilize his kingside pawns)
14 Dxe6 Wb4 15 Dd5!? (15 Ebl Wed was fine
for Black as she recovered her pawn in Houska-
Ding Yixin, UK-China match, Liverpool 2007)
41
15...80xd5 16 exd5 (16 Wxd5 9 f6) 16...Wed
(16...Wxb2? loses to 17 Hbl) 17 ¢3 &f6 18
285 WxdS 19 £xf6 Wxdl (19...Wxe6 20 £xe7
Wxe7 21 Wd5+ &h8 22 Kad1 Xd8 23 Ed3 fa-
vours White because of his superior pawn-
structure) 20 Haxd1 gxf6 21 f4 2f7 22 5 with
just a slight advantage to White thanks to his
control over the d5-square.
b) 11..8fd7 covers b6 and avoids the issues
associated with allowing White to play &\g5 as
in line ‘a’ above. Now:
bl) 12 ¥d3 b5 13 Wb3 (or 13 Hc3 &6 14
ad b4 15 &e2 Hc6 with equal chances, Lorand-
Humphrey, Budapest 2008) 13...bxa4 14 Wb7
Exf3! 15 gxf3 (15 Wxa8?? Kxe3 16 fxe3 Wc7,
with the idea of ...2b6, traps the white queen)
15..2¢5 (D).
ih W
White must choose carefully:
bl1) 16 Wxa8? Lxe3 17 Wb7 (17 fxe3 Wc7
again traps the queen) 17...8f4 with a clear
plus for Black.
bl2) 16 f4? exf4 17 Rd4 {3 18 &hl ADc6!
(the knight move is clearer than 18...e5?! 19
Wxa8 exd4 20 Wd5+ &h8 21 Wxd6 L6 with
“a highly unbalanced position, but I prefer the
three black pieces against the two white rooks”
according to Kolev in his New in Chess Year-
book 84 article on this line; however, I think
White can disrupt the coordination between
Black’s minor pieces by 22 Had1 We8 23 e5!?
Lxe5 24 Kfel a3 25 Wxa3 Wh5 26 Exe5 Wxes
27 Wxf3 h6 28 W7 Wed+ 29 £3 Wxc2 30 Hgl
Wh7 31 Ed1 Wc2 32 Egl with a draw by repeti-
tion) 19 Wxc6 24 20 Hgl Des5 21 Wb7 g6
with an advantage for Black because the white
king is vulnerable.
42 PILAY THE NAJDORF SICILIAN

b13) 16 Lxg5? Wxg5+ 17 &h1 Wds! 18 dxc5 17 b4 c4 18 Wc3 b5 19 bxaS bxa4 with
Hadl (18 Egl1? ¥Wb6 19 Wxb6 Dxb6 20 Eadl rough equality, Kolev-Alsina Leal, Navalmoral
d5 with a decisive advantage for Black, Gao 2007) 15 Hadl (15 a3!?) 15...Wg6 with equal
Rui-Sandipan, Subic 2009) 18...b6 19 Efel chances. I anticipate further developments in
(19 c4? loses to 19...238d7 20 Exd6 Wf8, while these lines.
19 Eg1 £8d7 20 Exd6 Eb8 21 Wa7 {Kislik- 12 Wd3 Hxel
Denisov, Budapest 2009} 21...Wc8! 22 Hgdl A relatively new idea for Black is 12...4c6
Hag8 23 Exd7 Exa7 24 Exa7 h6 gives Black a 13 Wb3 Hf6 14 £g5 (14 £b6!?7) 14...20a5 15
decisive material advantage) 19...28d7 20 Exd6 Wd3 (15 Wbo Ef7 16 fLxe7 Exe7 is equal,
Ebg 21 Wxa6 W8 favours Black as the f3- Inarkiev-Morozevich, Russian Ch, Moscow
pawn falls. 2008) 15...Eg6!? 16 £.xe7 Wxe7 17 h3 &h6 18
bl4) 16 Hfel! (White waits for Black to ex- c4 &f7 with a balanced position.
change bishops so that his rook defends the f3- 13 Wxe3 b5 14 £b6 (D)
pawn) 16...82xe3 17 Exe3 ©b6 18 Ed1 D8d7
19 Exd6 Eb8 20 Wxa6 Wc7 21 Hdl Wxc2 22

v
Hxd7 Dxd7 23 Wxe6+ 2f8 24 Wxd7 Exb2 25 2 7\

&“%
za%% o x

N\
Wd8+ f7 26 Wd5+ 2f8 27 Wd8+ with a draw

AN
by repetition.
A A
wAw_&_W
b2) 12 c4 &c6 (D) and here:
R
E '»
7 //%L //&/////
owom
T, ,
\%

\
F
&

2
N\

A\
AN

W
b
\
S

7/ = 7
A

&%&% , , ,
: ¢ //
D>\
§

> g %
§

14...Ka7
Black hits tactical problems after 14.. Xxf3?
AT T FAS
\

15 gxf3 Lg5 (Offenborn-P.Schuster, corr. 2000)

GWERS
//////////

16 f4! L.xf4 (after 16...exf4 17 Wh3 Wxb6 18

b21) 13 Ecl Zc8 (13...20c¢5 14 Qxc5 a-Ya
Bindrich-Brki¢, European Team Ch, Dresden
2007; after the recapture 14...dxc5 15 &el!?
Nd4 16 ©d3 ¥d6 the chances are equal) 14
c51? dxc5 15 Wb3 d4 16 Lxd4 exdd 17
Wxb7 Exf3!? 18 gxf3 Kd6 19 Efdl Ebg 20
Wxa6 W8 21 &f1 Wf4 gave Black sufficient
compensation for the exchange in Das-Ghar-
amian, Calvia 2007.
b22) 13 b4 Dxb4 14 Bbl &Hc6 15 Exb7
Qa5 16 Exd7 Wxd7 17 £b6 Wc6 18 Hxal
Bxa8 (18...2xc4!?) 19 c5 ‘-2 Fedorchuk-
Borovikov, Ukrainian Games, Evpatoria 2007.
b23) 13 Wb3 Da5 14 Wd3 Weg!? (14...Wc7
15 Hacl Hac8 {15...4c5 16 Wa3 enabled White
to develop some queenside pressure in E.Berg-
O.Moor, Politiken Cup, Elsinore 2008} 16 c5!?
Wxe6+ f8 19 Wd5 White wins a piece) 17
Wh3 Wxb6 18 Wxe6+ L8 19 Efdl Lxh2+ 20
g2 with a decisive advantage for White ac-
cording to Ivanchuk in Informator 99.
15 &Hd5 Eb7
Black defends the sensitive b6-square. Alter-
natives:
a) 15..Hd7? 16 Dxe7+ Wxe7 17 Eadl A\c6
18 Wb6 Bc7 19 c3 favours White, A.Sokolov-
Z.Stankovié¢, Basle 2009. Black’s queenside
pawns are weak and White can also increase
the pressure by doubling rooks along the d-file.
b) 15..40c6 16 Wd3 Weg 17 Dxe7+ Wxe7
18 Hfd1 Ed8 19 a4 (19 c4, with a slight advan-
tage for White, was suggested by Ivanchuk)
19...2b7 20 axb5 axb5 21 ¥Wb3 with an edge for
White, V.Spasov-Hernandez Leon, La Laguna
2007. White followed up with Eab6 to increase
the pressure.
 6 Re3 e5 AND THE ENGLISH ATTACK
16 Wd2! (D)
Ivanchuk selects the correct square for his
queen; it is important to stay beyond the range
of the black knight, as demonstrated in line ‘b’
below. Less precise are:
a) 16 Dxe7+Wxe7 17 Efd1 Ec8 (17...40c67?
18 Wa3! highlights the weakness of Black’s
pawns, Fedorchuk-Dydyshko, Ustron 2007) 18
c3 &)d7 with equal chances.
b) 16 Wd3 &d7 17 HHxe7+ (17 Badl &Hc5!
18 Dxe7+ Exe7 19 We3 {after 19 Wxd6? Hd7
Black wins the exchange} 19...2d7 is comfort-
able for Black as he has defended his vulnerable
pawns) 17...Wxe7 18 Efd1 Xb6 with a balanced
game, Khairullin-Mozharov, Moscow 2008.
//// : /gé/@/
\\\\&
B/;/yfi a1
;%7%1/7/
A0 B a
B N
r )3
ABAW BT
B #ED
16...Dc6?!
Topalov elects to complete his development,
but c6 is not a stable post for the knight. Black
should prefer one of these alternatives:
a) 16..4)d7 17 Eadl %c5 18 Dxe7+ Exe7
19 Dxe5 Hixed 20 We3 Wag 21 Hfel!? (the
rook move is more precise than 21 f3 dxe5 22
fxed4, when White keeps a small advantage ac-
cording to Leon Hoyos in New In Chess Maga-
zine 2007/3, but I think Black can equalize after
22..BExfl+ 23 Bxfl {23 &xfl Hf7+24 &gl h6
is equal} 23...Wd8 24 ¢3 Ed7 with the idea of
infiltrating along the d-file) 21...d5 22 {3 &f6
23 Wd4 with a slight advantage for White be-
cause he can double rooks along the e-file to
apply pressure to Black’s backward e6-pawn.
b) 16..2h4 17 Hxh4 Wxh4 18 He3 Ed8!
(J.Hemandez-Macayo, ICCF e-mail 2007; Black
leaves the rook on b7 to defend the queenside)
19 Wd3 d5 20 exd5 exd5 21 Wb3 Wad! is
equal.
43
c) 16..Wd7 17 Dxe7+ Wxe7 18 Efdl b6
19 a4 (19 We3 Hc6 is similar to line ‘d’ below)
19...bxa4 20 Exa4 Exb2 21 Eb4 Exb4 22 Wxb4s
c6! 23 Wbo (23 Wxd6?? loses to 23.. Ed8)
23..Wd7 24 Wxa6 k-2 Strauting-Karkuth,
ICCF e-mail 2007.
d) 16..%h8 17 Hxe7 Wxe7 18 Efdl Eb6 19
We3 Hc6 20 c3 Dd7 21 ad c5 22 axb5 axb5
23 Ka5 Eb8 24 Hdal h6 (after 24...b47? 25 Eb5!
White wins a pawn) 25 Hd2 (25 We2 b4 26
Hb57! Ecb6 27 Exb6 '2-1/2 D.Popovi¢-P.Popo-
vié, Zlatibor 2007; after 27...Exb6 28 £)d2 bxc3
29 bxc3 Eb2 30 We3 Wb7 Black has a slight
advantage as he has saddled White with a weak
c-pawn) 25...b4 26 c4 &h7 with equal chances.
17 Hadl Xd7 18 Wc3! b8
Black’s knight quietly returns home, but
18...exd5 19 Wxc6 d4 20 ¢3 dxc3 21 Wxc3 fa-
vours White because of his superior minor piece.
19 S xe7+ Wxe7 (D)
. Pnyrs
20 Xd3
More precise is 20 Xd2! Xfd8 21 Wa3 Hc8
22 Bfdl Bc4 23 Exd6 Exc2 24 h4 (the idea be-
hind the pawn move is to avoid any possible
back-rank issues) 24...Hxd6 25 Wxd6 Wxd6 26
Exd6 %c6 27 b3 2f8 28 Exe6 bd 29 Hxe5
Hxa2 30 ©g5 with a clear plus for White ac-
cording to Ivanchuk.
20...h6 21 Efd1 Zfd8 22 h4
White creates luft for his king. The immediate
22 a4!?, to weaken Black’s queenside pawns, is
also strong.
22..%h7 23 E1d2 Wf8 24 Wh3 WeS 25 a4
Wea6!?
Topalov plays in accordance with his ener-
getic style by offering a pawn to activate his
44 PLAY THE NAJDORF SICILIAN

knight. 25...bxad 26 Wxad leaves Black in a
passive position, where White can advance his
queenside pawns and carefully prepare the b5
or c5 pawn-break.
26 axb5 axb5 27 He3 Ha6
The knight re-emerges but it is too late to de-
fend Black’s queenside.
28 Wxb5 He5 29 Wed
Another way is 29 Wc6! Ha7 30 Exd6 Exd6
31 Wxd6 Dxed 32 Wxe5 Hal+ 33 Hel with a
decisive advantage for White according to Ivan-
chuk.
29...Ka7 30 Hel
Also strong is 30 b4 Hal+ 31 Qel Hab6 32
c3, when Black’s knight is hopelessly out of
play.
30...5e8 31 b4 Had 32 Wh3 £\b6 33 Hedl
Ead7 34 Wd3 Ec8 35 ¢3 a7 36 Wel a6 37
We2 H\c4 38 Ha2 Hac6 39 Ha7 X6c7 40 Hdal
Wr77?
Black overlooks a tactical idea.
41 Wxcd 1-0
After41..Hxa7 42 Exa7 White wins a piece.
A smooth win for Ivanchuk but a tough loss
for Topalov as he was unable to demonstrate his
trademark dynamic playing style.

Game 7 [B90O]
Fabiano Caruana - Francisco Vallejo Pons
Pamplona 2008
1 ed c5 2 53 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 5 xd4 &f6 5 development of White’s light-squared bishop)
He3 a6 6 Le3 e5S 7 2Db3 Ke6 (D) 8...4bd7 and now:
cl) 90-0-0?! (White’s king is now an attrac-

%@% x
tive target) 9...2c8 10 f3 Exc3!? 11 bxc3d5 12
exdS (White should avoid 12 €b2? dxe4 13
w //x/, AR fg5 Wc7! {this was suggested by Kosten in
1999} 14 fxe4 &b6! intending ...2Da4+ with a
h = \\\

clear plus for Black) 12...20xd5 13 &d2 Wc7

with compensation for the exchange.
c2) 9£4 Bc8 10£5 Lc4 11 W3 d5! 12 exdS
%/87//| £b4 13 fxcd £xc3+ 14 bxc3 Excd with a
\\\
\\

structural advantage for Black, Shaley-Matié,

\\\§‘
\\

IECG e-mail 2001.

AN

8&// /g‘m%
N
§

d) 8 f4 (White aims to open the centre and

2 O wr
e B
This is the traditional English Attack move:
White bolsters his centre and at the same time
prepares to attack on the kingside with g4. Al-
ternatives:
a) 8 Wd2 Re79 3 is another route to the po-
sition encountered in the main game.
b) 8 £e2 Le7 9 0-0 0-0 transposes to a line
of the Classical Najdorf (Chapter 5); this posi-
tion is the subject of Game 12.
c) 8 We2?! (this odd-looking move has the
benefit of vacating the d-file for White’s rook,
but the idea has some drawbacks as it neglects
the support of the c3-knight and impedes the
undermine Black’s control of the d4-square)
8...exf4 9 £ xf4 &c6 and then:
d1) 10 Wd2 d5! 11 0-0-0!? (11 exd5 &xd5
12 Dxd5 Wxd5 13 Wxd5 £xd5 14 0-0-0 0-0-0
with an equal endgame, Klovans-Dvoirys, Bu-
dapest 1992 and many later games) 11...2xe4
12 Dxed dxed 13 We3 W6 14 Wxed Ke7 15
2d3 Db4! (this was suggested by Arizmendi
and Moreno in 2004) 16 £Hd4 2d5 17 Wfs
@xd3+ 18 Hxd3 0-0 is equal, Iordachescu-
S.B.Hansen, Malmo 2005.
d2) 10 We2 Hc8 (10...£e7 11 h3 £Hd7 12
0-0-0 HceS! is another solid set-up for Black,
Shirov-Gelfand, Afytos 1993 and many later
games; one of the ideas is to deploy the d7-
knight on the queenside with a later ...Ab6 or
...&Xc5) 11 h3 g6! (D) and now:
 6 8e3 e5 AND THE ENGLISH ATTACK 45

%E @% x novelty designed to develop the bishop via h6

to slice through the heart of White’s position;
w A7 %1%1 less effective is the older 15...8¢7 16 a4 Ebg

A7 Aaj 244 _ 17 &cl! 0-0 18 Ha2 2d8 19 Hxbd Lxa5?!

{Black might as well try 19...e4!?} 20 Exa5
5 %,/ Wxb4 21 Wxb4 Exb4 22 b3 and White quickly
obtained a decisive advantage by piling up on
Black’s weak a6-pawn in Tseshkovsky-Bukic,

Dgy A
/ ////
///%f/& %y ///
Banja Luka 1981) 16 a4 b8 17 &c1!? (17
Wad3 Hag 18 Wd2 Kb8 19 Wd3 Ka8 with adraw
AJCA W AT by repetition in the stem game Shirov-Kas-

2 WK1 ) parov, Frankfurt rapid 2000) 17...h5 18 ©\d3

d21) 12 0-0-0 Hh5 13 Lh2 Hg3 14 £xg3
We5+ with a clear plus for Black according to
Ivanchuk in Informator 59. 1 think White can
fight on with 15 £bl ¥xg3 16 £d5!?.
d22) 12g4h5(12..5e5!? 13 0-0-0 Wc7) 13
g5 4\d7 with a comfortable position for Black
thanks to his knight outpost on e5, Shirov-
Ivanchuk, World Team Ch, Lucerne 1993.
d23) 12 Wd2 %Hh5 (12...d5 was given by
Sammalvuo;, now White’s safest course
exd5 Dxd5 14 Hxd5 Wxd5 15 Wxd5 £xd5 16
Bdl Le4 17 c3 Le7 18 12 0-0 with an equal
endgame) 13 2g5 Wb6 14 0-0-0 g3 15 Ke3
Wc7 with sharp play, Svidler-Morozevich, Rus-
sian Team Ch, Dagomys 2008.
8...8¢7
8...2bd7 (D) is a major alternative.
E Nids
w A %Q%gfit
£.h6 (18...xd5 19 £.xd5 Wxd5 20 Hxba Wb5
21 b3 “would have left White with a positional
advantage” — Kasparov) 19 We2 0-0 20 £xb4
Wd7! with sharp play, Shirov-Kasparov, Lina-
res 2004. Kasparov’s Informator 90 notes to
this game are very instructive.
b) 9g4b510g5b4 11 &d5 (11 He2 is an-
other sharp line) 11..20xd5 12 exd5 &f5 13
£d3 £xd3 14 ¥xd3 £e7 15 h4 aS (Ivanchuk
introduces a new idea; after the usual 15...0-0
Topalov had prepared the improvement 16 a3!
1s 13 a5 17 axb4 axb4 18 Exa8 Wxa8 19 de2! “and
next 20 Hal, and the rook penetrates the queen-
side” according to Topalov in his New In Chess
Magazine 2008/3 notes to this game) 16 a3 a4 17
&Hd2 Hb8 (17...bxa3!? 18 Exa3 0-0 19 &4 15
with counterplay, Martello-Rocca, corr. 2008)
18 axb4 Hxb4 19 Wc3! (19 Wa3 was played in
Topalov-Ivanchuk, Morelia/Linares 2008; Topa-
lov’s intention was to meet 19...%a5 20 c3 Xb8
with 21 Wa2! when I think Black should seek
kingside counterplay with 21...h6!7) 19...&b8
20 Wc6 HExb2 21 Le2! “and White gets a very

'y 4;%//
strong initiative” — Topalov.
9 Wd2
%y/ 2 %y The immediate 9 g4?! is premature because
the bishop being on €7 enables Black to strike
»m B m back in the centre with 9...d5! 10 exd5 (this is

9y B AT safer than 10 g5 d4 11 gxf6 2.xf6 {note how the

bishop supports the d4-pawn} 12 L2 dxc3 13
&%&% &% Wxd8+ &xd8 14 bxc3 &£d7 with a structural

L ¥ga B edge for Black, Hossain-Ghaem

Dhaka 2007) 10..2xd5 11 &xd5 Khd+ 12
Maghami,

K12 {xr2+ 13 &xf2 Kxd5 14 Lg3! (White

Now: avoids a queen check and forces the exchange
a) 9 Wd2 b5 10a4 (100-0-0 £e7 11 g4 0-0 of queens) 14..4c6 15 c4 Ke6 16 Wxd8+
is the subject of Game 8) 10...b4 11 &d5 L.xd5 Bxd8 with just a slight endgame edge for Black,
12 exd5 @b6 13 fxb6 Wxb6 14 a5 Wb7 15 Rozenberg-J. Anderson, ICCF e-mail 2005.
£.c4 g6! (this was another important Kasparov 9..h5 (D)
46 PLAY THE
rxzEd
10 0-0-0
White has several less aggressive alterna-
tives:
a) With 10 £)dS, White aims for a queenside
pawn-majority. This move has declined in pop-
ularity as the early exchange of minor pieces
enables Black to free his position: 10...2xd5
(10...8xd5 11 exd5 @bd7 12 0-0-0 {12 c4!?})
12..Ec8 13 &bl transposes to note ‘bl’ to
White’s 11th move below) 11 exd5 25 12 2e2
Nd7 13 ©Da5!? (Black has no problems after 13
0-0 0-0 14 c4 Wc7 15 f4 exfd 16 Lxf4 Lg6 17
Hacl {Ponomariov-Kariakin, Benidorm rapid
2002} 17..Efe8 with equal chances) 13...%c7
14 ¢4 &hd+ 15 g3 £16 is equal, Sadvakasov-
Sandipan, World Open, Philadelphia 2007.
b) After 10 a4, Black should settle
10...8bd7 11 Le2, transposing to line ‘c’,
since 10...d5?! 11 exd5 Dxd5 12 Hxd5 Wxd5
13 ¥xd5 £xd5 14 0-0-0 is slightly better for
White.
c) 10 £e2 Hbd7 11 a4 Wc7 12 0-0 0-0 (this
position is nearly identical to one arising from
the Classical Najdorf, with the additional moves
3 for White and ...h5 for Black — see note ‘a’ to
Black’s 11th move in Game 12) 13 Efd1 Efd8
14 a5 b5!? (the quieter 14...Xac8 is also suffi-
cient for equality) 15 &d5 (Leko declines the
pawn-grab 15 axb6 Hxb6 16 Exa6 Exa6 17
£xa6 d5 18 Hb5S Wb8 19 Ha5 £d7 20 exdS
&\fxd5, when Black has compensation for the
pawn — Fta&nik) 15...82.xd5 16 exd5 Hac8 17 ¢3
Wb7 with a balanced game, Leko-Topalov, Wijk
aan Zee 2008. White possesses the bishop-pair,
but Black has the possibility of obtaining good
squares for his knights with the ...e4 break.
10...5bd7 (D)
NAJDORF SICILIAN
,,,,,,,
A .
tax s -
. gE4 E
11 h3
White most popular choice is 11 @bl, when
Black has several options:
a) 11...b5 12 £d5 (White seeks an exchange
of minor pieces on the d5-square so that he can
obtain a knight outpost on c¢6) 12...8xd5 13
exd5 b6 14 Lxb6 (14 Da5?! Dbxd5 15 K g5
Wc7 16 c4 £4d8! {16...bxcd 17 £xc4 0-0 was
unclear in Morozevich-Gelfand, Tal Memorial
blitz, Moscow 2008} 17 cxd5 WxaS 18 Wc2
0-0 leaves White with insufficient compensa-
tion for the pawn) 14.. Wxb6 15 Ha5 Hc8 16
&\c6 (White succeeds in landing a knight on c6,
but Black has a tactical idea to equalize the
game) 16..9xd5! 17 Hxe7 Hxe7 18 Wxd6
Wxd6 19 Exd6 &)c6 20 Bd2 Re7 21 43 Bhd8
for 22 Ehd1 g6 with an equal endgame, L.Domin-
guez-Anand, Linares 2009.
b) 11..Ec8 12 &4d5 and now:
bl) 12..8xd5 13 exd5 b6 14 Rxb6 Wxb6
15 £d3 0-0 16 c4 Efe8 17 We2 g6 (or 17...a5!?
18 \d2 a4 to grab space on the queenside) 18
@d2 h4 with roughly equal chances, Liu Dede-
Ponomariov, Calvia Olympiad 2004.
b2) 12..4xd5 13 exdS &5 14 Ld3 £.xd3
15 Wxd3 £g5 16 £f2! (White must retain his
dark-squared bishop if he wishes to fight for
any advantage) 16..Wc7 17 ¢3 (17 h4 £h6 18
g4 hxgd 19 fxgd L4 20 Dd2 DI6! 21 g5 Hgd
22 Ded HHxf2 23 Dxf2 Wed! “leads to a slight
advantage for Black” — Sammalvuo) 17...g6 18
h4 £2h6 19 Ehel (Nepomniashchy-Zakhartsov,
Moscow 2006) 19...5)f6 20 \d2 £.xd2 21 Exd2
0-0 1s equal.
c) 11..Wc712h3 b5 13 £d3 h4 (Black pre-
vents White from forcing through g4) 14 {4
(White tries to generate play along the f-file)
 6 8e3 e5 AND THE ENGLISH ATTACK
14..Hc8 15 Ehel g6 16 ¥1f2 Wb7! with sharp
play, Kanakin-Topalov, Wijk aan Zee 2007.
11..%Wc7 12 £d3
12 bl is line ‘c’ of the previous note.
12...h4
This obligatory pawn advance prevents White
from obtaining a free hand on the kingside with
g4, but Black could consider the provocative
12..b5!?7 13 g4 b4 14 Ye2 (14 D5 Dxd5 15
exd5 £.xd5 is fine for Black) 14...a5 15 &bl a4
16 @bcl 0-0, with sharp play ahead.
13 14
13 ©bl b5 is again note ‘c’ to White’s 11th
move.
13...b5 14 Xhel (D)
14...0-0
Vallejo Pons plays a new move; an earlier
game saw Black emphasize his queenside play
with 14...2b8 15 &bl &b6, and then:
a) 16 £xb6 Exb6 17 &Hd5 £.xds (17...8xd5
18 exd5 £xd5 19 &f5 gives White compensa-
tion for the pawn according to Svidler) 18 exd5
2 xd5 19 fxe5 dxe5 20 We2 94 (20...2£6!7) 21
Wxe5 Wxe5 22 Exe5 Hxd3 (I think 22...Eh5!?
is also fine for Black) 23 Exd3 He6 with equal
chances according to Svidler in Informator 99.
b) 16 We2!? Had 17 £4d2! is unclear ac-
cording to Svidler. Now Black could consider
17...0xc3+ 18 fxc3 &Hh5 19 5 Kxb3 20 axb3
&@Xf4 21 Wgd L6 with a solid position.
c) 16 W2 bd 17 De2 &c4 is equal, Svid-
ler-Topalov, Morelia/Linares 2007.
15 g4!?
Now that Black has tucked his king away on
the kingside, Caruana shifts gears and strives
for open lines on that flank.
47
15...hxg3 16 Hgl exf4
Black elects to keep lines closed. Another
idea is 16...b4 17 &\d5 (after 17 &£e2 a5! Black
seizes the initiative) 17...2.xd5 18 exd5 &xd5
19 £e4, when White has adequate compensa-
tion for the pawn.
17 2.xf4 He5 18 Nd4 WS 19 Le3
White retains his dark-squared bishop to
counter the influence of the black queen. 19
Lxe5 dxe5 20 Dxe6 fxe6 21 Hxg3 HhS 22
Hg4 &4 is comfortable for Black because
White’s minor pieces are ineffective and the
f4-knight keeps the white queen away from
Black’s king.
19...b4 20 Had
White must avoid 20 #xe67?? bxc3 21 Hxc5
cxd2+ 22 £xd2 dxc5, when Black has won a
piece.
20...%a5 21 b3 Rd7 (D)
7&%////%/
s
/////E
22 &b1?
The king move is too slow; in such a sharp
position every tempo is critical and White
should eliminate the front g-pawn by 22 HExg3
&Hh5 23 Hg2 £ xa4 24 bxad £6, with roughly
equal chances.
22...20xd3 23 cxd3 DhS 24 We2 g6 25 Edf1
L.xad?
Black can maintain the better game by in-
creasing the range of his dark-squared bishop
with 25...Rf6.
26 bxa4?
White misses another chance to stay in the
fight. He should eliminate the key defender of
Black’s kingside with the intermezzo 26 Ef5!
Wc7 (26...gxf57? 27 Wxh5 gives White a mat-
ing attack; 26...2b57! 27 &c6 W7 28 Hxe7+
48 PLAY THE NAJDORF SICILIAN

Wxe7 29 Exh5 W6 30 Hxg3 favours White) 27
Exh5 £d7 28 Exg3 ££6 with a balanced game.
26...Wxad 27 ©b3 (D)
{1 By
: 7 //%1/
A & A
5 % 7w A
TN
/%/&@/%;
NGB BN y
| EBH
B g%,%g%
% .
27...Wb5??
But now Vallejo Pons goes decisively astray
by setting himself up for a powerful tactical
blow. He could have crowned his counterattack
with the exchange sacrifice 27... Efc8! 28 £.d4
Hc3! 29 £xc3 bxe3 30 e5 (30 W2 Hcs is
hopeless for White) 30...dxe5 31 Wxe5 c2+ 32
Lal (32 b2 Wa3+ 33 Lal Ec8 wins for
Black) 32...&£f8 and Black has a decisive ad-
vantage because of White’s poor king position.
Even 27..%d7 is a lot better than the text-
move, as 28 Kf5 can then be met by 28...2g7.
28 Hf5! gxf5
Black has no choice since after 28...Wc6 29
HxhS5 he drops a piece.
29 Hd4 WeS 30 Zc6 P4 31 Lxf4 Wxf4 32
SHxe7+ £h7 (D)
Or 32.. g7 33 Hxg3+! Wxg3 (33..066 34
@d5+) 34 & xf5+, winning the black queen.
X . E
“w%//%%l/@
1//%7 //iyn
%y%y%u%
% %&%
33 DxfS
Another path to victory is 33 Exg3 fxed
(33...2g8 34 Wh5+) 34 Wh5+ Whe 35 Wf5+!
&h8 36 Eg5 and Eh5.
33...g6 34 De7+ Sh7
Again 34..g7 35 Exg3+! Wxg3 (35...16
36 £d5+) 36 &5+ costs Black his queen.
35 DfS g6 36 Ef1 Wes 37 h4!
The decisive thrust to divert Black’s queen
from its defence of €7 and g4.
37...\¥f6
No relief is offered by 37..Wh5 38 Se7+
&h6 39 Ef6+ and White wins.
38 Wgd+ 2h7 39 Wh5+ g8 40 Hh6+ 1-0

Game 8 [B9O]
Ernesto Inarkiev — Sanan Siugirov
Ulan Ude 2009
1 ed ¢5 2 )f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Hxd4 D6 5 a) 11 Wel Wc8 (Black sidesteps the threat of
3 a6 6 Re3 e57 b3 Re6 83 Le7 9 Wd2 &c5) 12 a4 &c6 13 g4 b4 14 Tb1 (14 g5 Hd7
0-0 15 &bl and now 15...Wc7 was fine for Black in
9...hS was the subject of Game 7. Sagafos-Sahl, Norwegian Ch, Moss 2006, while
10 0-0-0 (D) 15...f5!7? is also worthy of attention) 14...d5 15
10...22bd7 g5 @e8 16 exd5 Kf5 17 Bd2 &c7 18 ¥d1 (18
10...a5!? is a controversial line that simply £c4 b5! 19 axb5 De8 20 We2 ad 21 Hcl &Dd6
refuses to go away; Black concedes the b5- and Black’s knight pirouette enabled him to
square and often follows up with a material sac- blockade White’s d-pawn and launch a danger-
rifice to open lines for attack. Let’s examine ous attack in Nedev-Gajewski, European Team
two of White’s most dangerous tries: Ch, Khersonisos 2007) 18...2d8 19 &al &e8
 6 2e3 e5 AND
. @EpalE
20 £b5 #\d6 with adequate compensation for
the pawn, Topalov-L.Dominguez, Sofia 2009.
b) 11 2b5 Ha6 12 We2 a4 13 £ xa4 Wbs 14
g4 Ec8 15 g5 &h5 16 £b5 &)c7! 17 bl Dxb5
18 Wxbs fc4 19 Wd7 Ec7 20 Wea &Hf4 21
£xf4 Re6 22 Wel Hxc3 23 bxc3 exf4 with
sharp play in Kariakin-Bu Xiangzhi, Russian
Team Ch, Dagomys 2008. Black has compensa-
tion for the material according to Bu Xiangzhi
and Wang Hao in Informator 102.
11 g4 b5
Another popular line is 11...%c7 12 &bl b5
13 g5 &hS 14 HHdS £.xd5 15 exd5 b6 16 Egl
g6 17 Has5 Hxd5 18 WxdS Wxas 19 Egd4!?
Wc7 with equal chances, Leko-Alekseev, Tal
Memorial, Moscow 2007.
12g5(D)
X W Ed
N /mfigfix
S
x%/%g% /
’””%_Z
8 E
12...b4
This pawn-push has been favoured by a ratio
of roughly 4:1 over 12..5h5 13 £d5 £xd5 14
exd5 f5 15 gxf6 £xf6 16 £a5 &Hf4 (Sammal-
vuo’s 2004 suggestion of 16...Ab6 should be
THE ENGLISH ATTACK 49
met by 17 &c6 Wc7 18 Wa5! Hxd5 19 Wxc7
Axc7 20 Exd6 4 21 Hgl with a slightly better
endgame for White thanks to his bishop-pair and
more active pieces) 17 @6 (17 c4 bxc4 18
Lxcd Dg2! 19 Wxg2 Wxa5 20 &bl Hab8 gave
Black sufficient counterplay on the queenside in
Zontakh-Purtov, St Petersburg 2005) 17..8c7
18 c4 bxc4 19 2xc4 b6 20 Was (White block-
ades the queenside; the alternative is 20 £b3 a5
21 a3 a4 22 £a2 §\c8 {22..Fh8 23 &bl Lg5
24 Ehgl £h6 25 Ec1 Wb7 is unclear according
to Svidler in Informator 97} 23 &bl &e7 with
equal chances, Leupold-Gerasimov, ICCF e-
mail 2007) 20...2d8 21 £b3 H\d7 22 Wd2 Wb7
(Black could stir up activity on the queenside
with 22...a5!?) 23 &xd8 Baxd8 24 &bl 'h-1/
K.Szabo-Nepomniashchy, European Ch, Plov-
div 2008.
13 2e2 (D)
B/’ %l
_
i mJ _
////,7/ » ////
ATCAME
% &gH & B
13... 8
The knight retreat is the overwhelming fa-
vourite in comparison to 13..2h57! 14 &g3!
(White is able to challenge the kingside block-
ade because his pawn is still on h2) 14..2)f4 15
h4 a5 16 &bl a4 17 £d4! exd4 18 Lxf4 b3! (the
pawn advance is more resilient than 18...8a5!
19 DF5 L.xf5 20 exf5 Wxf5 21 Wxd4 b3 22 £d3
bxa2+ 23 @al with a clear plus for White as his
bishops rake the board, Topalov-de Firmian,
Polanica Zdroj 1995) 19 cxb3 axb3 (19...2xb3
20 Ec1) 20 a3 Wc7! (Black creates counterplay
utilizing the c2-square) 21 Nf5 Kxf5 22 exf5
Efc8 23 £d3 (Bocanegra Moreno-Grifoll Miro,
ICCF corr. 2005) 23...%c5!? 24 Hcl with just a
slight advantage for White.
14 14
50 PLAY THE NAJDORF
This is White’s most ambitious idea, but two
major alternatives have also been played and
analysed extensively:
a) 14 h4 a5 15 &bl (D) gives Black two rea-
sonable options:
X7 UAK S
2 ///m%;%z
,%,%i% /
/Q%fi%ifii
al) 15...a4 16 &bcl b3 17 cxb3 axb3 18
Nxb3 Bxa2 19 &xa2 Wag+ 20 $bl £xb3 21
Ncl (21 &3 Dc7 is fine for Black) 21...&xd1
22 Wxd1 Dc7 23 Lc4 Xb8 and then:
all) 24 g6? (White should avoid this reck-
less pawn sacrifice) 24...hxg6 25 h5 gxhS (the
thematic capture is more logical than 25...g5™
26 h6 {Sutovsky-Amonatov, Moscow 2005}
26...20e6 27 hxg7 xg7 28 De2!, angling for
the f5-square with dangerous threats) 26 Xxh5
f8 27 Eh1 Wb7 (27...40g6'7) 28 Wd2 Hg6 29
Wh2 £f6 leaves White with insufficient com-
pensation for the pawn.
al2) 24 h5 d5! (Black sacrifices a pawn to
extinguish White’s kingside attacking ambi-
tions) 25 £xdS S xdS 26 Wxd5 Wxds 27 exds
(White’s pawn-structure is unwieldy and he will
be unable to maintain his extra pawn) 27...f5
(27...16 28 g6 hxg6 29 hxg6 {Danek-Stern,
ICCF corr. 2002} 29...2d8 is equal) 28 f4 2d6
29 fxe5 Dxe5 30 De2!? (30 £14 Eb5 main-
tains the balance, as analysed by Ki.Georgiev
and Kolev) 30...%4c4 31 £d4 Ec8 (Black threat-
ens ...20d2+ followed by ..Ha8+ mating) 32
Ed1 &f7 with an equal endgame.
a2) 15...0b6 16 Dg3 a4 17 Dcl d5! (Black
sacrifices a pawn to free his kingside pieces) 18
£xb6 Wxb6 19 exds Kd8 20 Rc4 &c7 21 dxeb
(the queen sacrifice is compulsory as Black
takes over the initiative after 21 We2?! &xd5)
21..Bxd2 22 exf7+ &h8 23 Exd2 Hb5
SICILIAN
2xb5 (24 Ed7 Ha3+ 25 bxa3 bxa3+ 26 b3
Wb4 {Black can obtain the same position via
the move-order 26...Wc6 27 BExe7 Wxc4 28
Ded) 27 Ded Wxca 28 Exe7 axb3 29 axb3
Wd4 30 c3 Wd3+ 31 &a2 We2+ 32 &xa3 Ha8+
33 &b4 Bb8+ 34 da3 a8+ with a draw by
perpetual check — Anand) 24..Wxb5 25 &f5
Exf7 26 Hxe7 Exe7 27 Bel (27 Bd8+7! He8 28
Hhdl Eg8! with an edge for Black, Kariakin-
Anand, Wijk aan Zee 2007) 27...5g8 28 Hed is
equal according to Anand in Informator 99.
b) 14 &g3 a5 15 &bl ad 16 &cl b3! and
here:
bl) 17 &5 bxc2+ 18 £xc2 d5 19 Dxe7+
Wxe7 20 exdS ££5+ 21 £d3 Ad6 22 Kxf5 (22
Wb4??, as played in Lopez Martinez-Kolev,
Navalmoral de la Mata 2006, loses to 22...a3!
23 bxa3 {23 b3 Efb8 24 Wh4 Ec8+ 25 &d2
£xd3 26 Dxd3 e4 wins for Black) 23.. Bfc8+
24 &d2 £.xd3 25 Dxd3 e4 and Black has a de-
cisive attack) 22...89\xf5 23 &bl Eab8 (D) and
here White has two moves:
B R .
v AWLA A
,% 5>
\\\\\
\\\\
. %V& %’/
\
\&
%
'y 5
o
\\
\\\
W B
CenEy wE
bl1) 24 Ehel &£d6! (24...Eb5 25 d6 Web is
line ‘b12’) 25 Wd3 Bfc8 26 Wa3 &£\b6 27 £.xb6
Wd7 (this queen intermezzo is more ambitious
than 27...Exb6 28 &)d3, as in J.Sanchez-Maen-
hout, Condom 2006, when 28.. Wxg5 29 Wxa4
Wrs 30 Wgd Dbs5 31 WxfS {31 Lal Dd4)
31...50a3+ 32 al Hc2+ 33 &bl Da3+ is a
draw by perpetual check) 28 Wd3 (28 Hxe5?
Nc4! 29 We7 Wh5 30 HNd3 Dxe5 31 WxeS
Wxb6 gives Black a large advantage since the
white d-pawn is easily blockaded and the black
rooks have open lines for attack) 28..Exb6 29
&al Ecb8 and Black’s piece activity compen-
24 sates for his missing pawn.
 6 Re3 eS AND THE ENGLISH ATTACK
b12) 24 d6 We6 25 Ehel Eb5 gives Black
reasonable compensation for the pawn, Svid-
ler-Morozevich, Amber Rapid, Monte Carlo
2006.
b2) 17 cxb3 axb3 18 axb3 Wb8 19 &5 £.d8
20 &.c4 £b6 21 £2xb6 Lxc4 22 bxed Dxb6 23
Wb4 Xa4q 24 Wb3 Wa7 and Black’s opportuni-
ties to exploit White’s exposed king compen-
sate for his missing pawn, Edouard-Fargere,
French Team Ch, Mulhouse 2009.
14...a5 1515 (D)
7%M%; , , ,; //
/// /43//%
Vv
/////
rrrrr
Black has a major alternative in 15...&2xb3!?
16 cxb3 a4 17 bxa4 Exad, when White has sev-
eral options:
a) 18 b3 Ea5 19 Hg3 (19 bl d5 20 exd5
£¢5 21 fxc5 Dxe5 22 Wxba &d6 23 £6? {23
g6!?) 23...Wa8 intending ...Eb8 gave Black a
strong attack in Grandelius-Zdebskaya, Copen-
hagen 2009) 19...d5!? 20 exd5 f£c5 21 &bl
(Hillarp Persson-Wang Hao, Reykjavik 2008)
21...8xe3 22 Wxe3 Qb6 23 Lg2 HxdS 24
£.xd5 Exd5 25 Exds Wxds 26 f6 d6 is equal
— Ftaénik.
b) 18 f6!? (White invests a pawn to prise
open the g-file) 18...gxf6 (the piece sacrifice
18...2exf6!? 19 gxf6 £xf6 is worthy of atten-
tion: 20 &bl Wa8 21 Hcl {21 b3 Wxed+ 22
Wd3 Wxh123 bxad Wxh2 favours Black thanks
to his wave of kingside pawns} 21...b3! 22
#xb3 Exa2 and Black has adequate compen-
sation for his slight material deficit in view of
the exposed position of White’s king) 19 &bl
(19 b3 Ba5 20 Hg3 Dg7 is fine for Black as he
has defended the vulnerable squares f5 and
h5) 19..Wa8 20 Hicl D5 21 K xcS dxc5 22
51
gxf6 (White can hunt down Black’s remaining
knight with 22 b5 Ea5 23 £xe8 Wxed+ 24
Lal Hxe8 25 gxf6 2.xf6 26 Ehgl+ &h8, al-
though then the black king is safe because the
white knight is too far away from the kingside)
22...20xf6 resulted in a balanced game in Svid-
ler-Bu Xiangzhi, Russia-China match, Ningpo
2008; White’s remaining minor pieces are un-
able to exploit the slightly exposed position of
the black king.
c) 18<&bl Exa2 19 £ cl (19 Pxa2 Was+ 20
&b3 £xg5! 21 Wd3 QDef6 22 Lg2 Kxe3 23
Wxe3 Wc6 24 Ecl Dc5+ 25 BExce5 dxc5 gives
Black good compensation for the piece, Szelag-
Bobras, Polish Team Ch 2007) 19..Ea8 20
b3 Wb8 21 £.c4 Db6! (21..2d87 22 £dS
_ with a large advantage for White, Nijboer-Nep-
omniashchy, European Ch, Budva 2009) 22
£xb6!7 (22 Wxb4 Dxcd 23 Wxcd Wb7 24 Hd3
Bc8 25 Wadq Hag 26 Wca Ec8 with a draw by
repetition) 22...Wxb6 23 f6 £d8 (not 23...gxf6?
24 g6!, when White has crushing threats) 24
fxg7 @xg7 25 h4 and White has reasonable
compensation for the pawn.
We now return to 15...a4 (D):
X AKX
v/ 7agika
Z BAE
% AR
,,,,,,,
/fi/
16 $\bd4
Alternatives:
a) 16 &bl axb3 17 cxb3 Exa2!? 18 fxe6 (18
$xa27?? loses to 18.. Wa8+ 19 &bl Lxb3 20
Hcl £xd1) 18...fxe6 19 £h3 Was 20 L xe6+
h8 21 Hg3 (White’s light-squared bishop has
tremendous scope and should be retained; less
effective is 21 £xd77?! Bal+ 22 &c2 We7+ 23
c3 Bxdl 24 Wxdl Wxd7 25 Hd5 e 26
xe7 Wxe7 with a slight pull for Black thanks
to his extra centre pawn, Millstone-Braakhuis,
52 PLAY THE NAJDORF SICILIAN

ICCF e-mail 2003) 21...%c5 22 £.c4 Hc7 (Bar-
amidze-P.H.Nielsen, Bundesliga 2005/6) 23
fxc5! Hal+ 24 dc2 Exdl 25 Wxdl Wxc5 26
g6 Deb6 27 DfS D4+ 28 Hxd4 exd4 with an
even game.
b) 16 fxe6 axb3 17 exf7+ Exf7 18 &bl (18
cxb3 Hxa2 19 &g3 HExfl {Black eliminates
White’s dangerous light-squared bishop to force
a draw by perpetual check} 20 Ehxf1 Hal+ 21
Sc2 Wes+ 22 2d3 Wab+ 23 dc2 Weo+ 24
&d3 Wb5+ 25 c2 Wc6+ /-1 Mastrovasilis-
Mamedyarov, European Ch, Warsaw 2005)
18...bxc2+ 19 Lxc2 &b 20 Hcl d5! (Black
clears the d6-square to enable his e8-knight to
enter the fray) 21 exd5 9d6 22 &bl {bcd 23
2xcd4 Dxca 24 We2 WcB! (24...5xe3 25 gb!
hxg6 26 Wxe3 is equal, Czarnota-Bobras, Pol-
ish Ch, Poznan 2005) 25 Ehel (White loses a
tempo after 25 Xd3? e4 26 Edd1 Wa6 with ini-
tiative for Black, Krueger-Davletov, ICCF corr.
2006) 25...Wa6 and Black has adequate com-
pensation for the pawn thanks to his queenside
pressure and more active pieces.
16...exd4 17 Hxdd b3
Black should avoid 17...£.xa2? 18 &c6 ¥c7
19 Hxe7+ ¥h8 20 Wxb4 a3 (Talla-Jakubow-
ski, Czech Team Ch 2006/7) 21 bxa3! with a
material advantage for White.
18 bl bxc2+ 19 Hxc2 (D)
Ch, 2007/8} 24 £f4 Wb6 25 Ha3 favours
White thanks to his superior board control and
potent pair of bishops) 23 £.d4 HKc8 24 f6 &8
(24...gxf6? 25 gxf6 Lxf6 26 Hg3+ Lg7 27
fxe5 dxe5 28 fc4 with a winning attack,
Muchnik-Bromberger, Neuhausen 2008) 25 g6
hxg6 26 h5 with a strong attack for White.
20 axb3 axb3
The mutual captures on the b3-square have
given Black open lines for attack, the use of the
a4-square for his pieces and an annoying pawn
on b3 to hem in the white king.
21 Ha3
White’s knight is forced to the rim since after
21 d4?7? Eal+! 22 &xal Wa8+ Black wins
the house.
21...50e5
Black’s pieces are in no position to support the
central pawn-break 21...d5? 22 Wxd5 £xa3 23
Wxd7 Wa5 24 Wb5 Wc7 25 Wed WaS 26 Wxb3!
(26 Wb5 Wc7 27 Wca WasS 28 Wb5? -1k
Harikrishna-Kariakin, Foros 2006) 26...£b4
(26...2.xb2 27 Wxb2 Wc7 28 £b5 Xb8 29 Bd5
We7 (Harikrishna-Volokitin, Cap d’ Agde rapid
2006} 30 Ee5! ¥b7 31 Hd1 D7 32 Hd7 Wes
33 Hd6 and White wins — Ki.Georgiev and
Kolev) 27 g6 %)d6 28 gxf7+ ®h8 29 f6 g5 30 e5
xf7 31 £.d4 Kfc8 32 f.c4 with a clear plus for
White, Craciuneanu-Fichaud, ICCF corr. 2006.
22 h4 (D)

K7 MAxe Another idea is to transfer the queen to the

kingside by 22 g2 Wb8 23 f6 2d8 24 h4 £b6
(24..Ka4!?) 25 Bh3 L xe3 26 Hxe3 gxf6 with

Ko 7
,,,4

7 roughly equal chances, Latronico-Boccia, ICCF

7%//%; %7’///
/z&/g
»
X7 AKX
7 kakaA
7 % % _
%@%2/ %z
5

78
@
@

A
N

19...2b3
N

SN
Y
\

One of the ideas behind placing the bishop en

prise is to compel White to open the a-file; this
RSN

move has been favoured by a ratio of more than

6:1 over the pawn capture 19..2xa2+?! 20
&xa2 He521 ha Wb8 22 Bh3 Hc7 (22... W3+
23 &al &Hc7 {Bodenez-Cossin, French Team
 6 Re3 e5 AND THE ENGLISH ATTACK
American GM Nick de Firmian introduced
this idea to keep the b4-square under surveil-
lance.
Black 1s pushed back after the inferior con-
tinuation 22...2a5? 23 Wb4! (23 Wc3? Was 24
£g2 Hc711 25 Wxc7 Hc8! 26 Wxe7 Hcd! led
to a spectacular win for Black in Kariakin-
Anand, Wijk aan Zee 2006) 23... Wa8 24 £b6
Ead 25 Wxb3 Wxed+ 26 &\c2 Ea8 (26...Wxh1
27 Wxad Wb7 28 Wa6 favours White) 27 Wd5
Wxds5 28 Exd5 Eb8 29 Ra5! (White has an
overwhelming score with this move in corre-
spondence chess) 29...2.d8 30 £c3 with a slight
advantage for White thanks to his bishop-pair,
R.Smith-Rinesi, ICCF corr. 2006.
23 Zh3
Or:
a) 23 Wg2 Wa8 24 f6 £d8 25 £d4 &c7 26
fxg7 &@xg7 27 h5 &eb6 28 fixe5+ (White's at-
tack runs out of steam after 28 g6? HExd4 29
Exd4 %xd4 30 h6+ 26 and Black has a deci-
sive material advantage, Shirov-Van Wely, Wijk
aan Zee 2007) 28...dxe5 29 g6 £.g5 30 gxf7 h6!?
is equal, Movsesian-Hracek, Ostrava 2007.
b) 23 h5 Wa8 24 h6 (24 Wd5? Exa3 25 bxa3
Wxa3 26 Wd2 (26 Eh2 b2 27 Eh3 Wal+ 28
22 HXf6! with a decisive attack, Sethuraman-
Czakon, Marseilles 2006} 26...b2 27 £d3 Wal+
28 2c2 Wad+ 29 &bl Hxd3 30 Wxd3 &fe6!
wins for Black - Olthof) 24.. Wxed+ 25 £d3
Hxd3 26 Wxd3 6 27 g6 hxg6 28 fxgb 5 29
b5 (Shabalov-de Firmian, Mashantucket 2006)
29...50\f6 (D) and now:
. Be
»v/// 2 A
K WA
TAET
Xi: mwE
HAmWE w
“ m_
e SmEE B
bl) Not 30 &c3? Efa8! (Black maintains
the initiative; this represents an improvement
over 30...Wxd3+? 31 Exd3 Eg4 with an equal
53
endgame, as given by Ki.Georgiev and Kolev)
31 Hxa4 (31 cl Wxd3 32 Exd3 Eal+ 33
&bl De4 and Black wins due to the threat of
..Ec8+) 31...Wxad 32 &cl d5! 33 £d2 We4,
when Black has a decisive attack.
b2) 30 Wxed Dxed 31 Hd4 Exd4 32 h7+
&h8 33 Hxd4 &c5 34 Efl 8.6 35 HExf5 Hel
36 Hxf6 gxf6 37 H)f5 He6 38 Hixd6 He7 39
N7+ Exf7 40 gxf7 &xh7 with a draw.
23..6a8
Another idea is 23...Hxe4 24 Wg2 Hg4 25
Wh7 Wd7 26 Wxd7 &HHxd7 27 fcd &HcT with
equal chances as Black has managed to untan-
gle his kingside, Svidler-Van Wely, Foros 2007.
24 Wds (D)
W Akd
BB EAKL
BN NN
% YA N
B EAE1
B %z
AT
%@/z/g/
24.. Hxa3!
Black is able to stay active by means of this
exchange sacnfice. Other moves are too pas-
sive:
a) 24..4c77?! 25 Wxa8 Hfxa8 26 £d4 Xb8
27 Hc3 gives White a raging initiative, Nayer-
Fta¢nik, World Open, Philadelphia 2007.
b) 24..Wxd57! 25 Exd5 Exed 26 £b5 f6 27
Bd4 Hxd4 28 Hxd4 Hc7 29 £d2 gives White
nagging pressure along the light squares, Gran-
delius-L.Ivanov, World Under-16 Ch, Vung Tau
2008.
25 bxa3 Wxa3 26 Wd2
White has also tried 26 Ed2 &c7 27 Wb7
Wa5 28 Wa7 (28 Wxb3 &c6!7) 28..Wc3 (if
28...\b4!? White should reply 29 Wd4, since
29 Wxc77! Ha8 gives Black a dangerous attack)
29 Wd4 Wa5 30 Wal (30 Wa7 repeats the posi-
tion) 30..Wb4 31 Kd4 Wb7 with sharp play,
Kover-Filipchenko, ICCF corr. 2006.
26...256!? (D)
54 PLAY THE NAJDORF SICILIAN

36...%xd7 37 Eh1 h5! 38 Exhs (D)

% % A
B%g% Iy

&
// B /////

%/%H%Mfifi
0 B W
. ] 7 %
/@%Z%fi% _mve 7
27 2d4
White can also accept the piece sacrifice by
AN
27 gxf6 £xf6 28 £d4 (28 WbH2?! &c4! 29 Wxa3 38.. W1+
Dxa3+ 30 fcl b2+ 31 &d2 b1W 32 Exbl Siugirov misses an opportunity to snuff out
Axbl+ 33 &d3 HEc8 favours Black) 28...4Hf3 further resistance with 38...2a8! 39 Wh7+ &f8
29 Wb2 Wa2+ 30 Wxa2 bxa2+ 31 &xa2 1»-12 40 Who6+ (40 £.x16 W1+ 41 c2 We2+ is win-
Grandelius-Ter Sahakyan, European Under-16 ning for Black) 40..%e8 41 Wxf6 Wed+ 42
Ch, Herceg Novi 2008. After 31...Ha8+ 32 &bl Scl Wel+ 43 Sc2 We2+ 44 Hcl Ec8+ 45
Hxd4 Black’s grip on the dark squares com- £.¢3 WxhS, when Black has a decisive material
pensates for his slight material deficit. advantage.
27...2fd7 28 Wb2 Wa8 29 Exb3 39 Wel Wxcl+ 40 &xcl £xd4 (D)

L
Inarkiev has had enough of Black’s far-ad-
vanced b-pawn. 29 Hel &c5 30 f6 gxf6 31 gxf6
2xf6 32 £c4 EbS is unclear.
29..Wxed+ 30 Wc2 Wxhg
Eb7 fxg5 33 £g2? (D)
31 f6 gxfé 32
W/E%Q%)/
v
o.W&B7W
This is too ambitious; White should settle for
33 &xe5 Dxe5 34 Exe7 Bb8+ 35 ©a2 Ha8+ 36
&bl Eb8+ with a draw by perpetual check.

7 EW o oy
- EaARLa 5y >
u // s %
-
/

_ /,m».» Yy
41 Exg5+

> .
// & ,,,”'%y/ fy Also futile is 41 Exd7 £e3+ 42 &c2 L4 as
. Black will centralize his king and advance his

N e pawns.

e a Ry b
33..Wg4 34 Sed 21635 &5 Wi4 36 Rxd7
After 36 £.xh7+ g7 37 &5 &Hf3!1 38 L xf6+
@xf6 White is defenceless against the pawns.
41..2h7 42 Eh5+ $g6 43 HdS De5 44
Exd6+ f6 45 Eb1 Ec8 46 2d1 Hed 47 Exd4
De3+ 48 c2 Dxbl+ 49 &xbl 5
White’s king is too far away to mount a de-
fence.
50 Ed1 4 51 Ed5£3 52 £b2 2 53 Ed1 Ef8
54 Ef1 Sg5 55 ©c2 gd 56 d2 g3 0-1
4 Fianchetto Variation: 6 g3

The Fianchetto Variation is one of White’s most underestimated weapons versus the Najdorf Sicil-
ian. White’s light-squared bishop supports the e4-pawn and the d5-square from a safe position on
g2. In many lines, the fianchetto also inhibits Black’s traditional Najdorf counterplay involving an
early ...b5 and quick pressure against White’s e4-pawn. White expends two tempi to fianchetto his
bishop, but in comparison to the Fischer Variation, the bishop is not subject to attack by an early
...b3 and the piece cannot easily be exchanged.
White has two major ideas in the Fianchetto Variation after 6 g3 e5: he can focus on the
queenside and aim for control of the d5-square beginning with 7 &3b3 (Game 9), or he can play the
traditional move 7 $de2 (Game 10) with the intention of expanding on the kingside with h3, g4
and 9g3. The Fianchetto Variation has never been as popular as some of White’s more direct at-
tacking systems, but the line is sometimes trotted out at the highest levels as a surprise weapon.
Many strong grandmasters, including Alekseev, Movsesian, Al.Ivanov, Kudrin and Popovié, have
shown a preference for this set-up.
The Fianchetto Variation can be a very effective repertoire choice at club level because many
Najdorf players have not fully worked out a defence to it. Another potential advantage is that the
characteristic positions arising from the Fianchetto are fundamentally different from more popular
lines such as the English Attack and are therefore less familiar to Najdorf players.

Game 9 (Alekseev-Arizmendi) features the line 6 g3 e5 7 £b3. White restrains Black’s

queenside expansion and plays for control of the centre with the modern plan of Hel followed by
@\d2-f1, angling for a timely @e3 with an iron grip on the d5-square. Black counters with the stan-
dard manoeuvre ...Ec8-c5 followed by ...WaB to exert pressure on White’s e-pawn. Alekseev plays
14 £.g5 with the intention of exchanging the dark-squared bishop for one of the black knights; this
is a typical method of increasing control over the d5-square. Arizmendi counters with an ambitious
pawn sacrifice to increase the scope of his dark-squared bishop. The middlegame features forceful
kingside play by Alekseev to exploit Black’s offside queen.

In Game 10 (Alekseev-L.Dominguez), White plays the more popular 6 g3 e5 7 &de2, followed

by the traditional kingside build-up with h3 and g4. Black leaves his king in the centre and introduces
the new move 13...h5!? to cut across White’s plans and open the h-file for the black rook. Black has
had a lot of success delaying castling and advancing his h-pawn in several Najdorf lines; in this par-
ticular game his king is relatively safe in the centre of the board because the d-file is closed. White
counters by obtaining a visually attractive knight outpost on c6, but Black is able to manoeuvre
around the far-advanced steed to target White’s weakened kingside pawn-structure. The game turns
into a classic race between White’s advancing queenside pawns and Black’s kingside attack.

Game
9 [B91]
Evgeny Alekseev - Julen Arizmendi
Biel 2006
1 e4 ¢5 2 &3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Dxd4 DHf6 5 White’s light-squared bishop stakes out a
#\c3 a6 6 g3 (D) claim to the long diagonal; from g2 it will
56 PLAY THE NAJDORF SICILIAN

e) 6..8g4 73 Rd7 can lead to other Sicil-

ian lines. For example, 8 Re3 #c6 9 g4 €6 also
transposes to a Scheveningen Variation, this
time an English Attack.
4 7 b3
Alternatives:
%7
DAY % 7 a) 7 &)f57?, with the idea of clamping down
on the d5-square with Pe3, is well-intentioned

B B but runs into 7...d5! 8 £.g2 d4 9 De2 g6 with a

Al B
very comfortable position for Black.
b) 7 &de2 is covered in Game 10.

B SuULLTE 7...2.e7 8 £.g2 &\bd7 (D)

defend the e4-pawn and support a potential E tWd K

knight outpost on d5. The Fianchetto Variation
v AT/
AR AR A
is deceptively quiet in comparison to most other
Najdorf lines; play tends to develop slowly at Yy %,“ _
first but then things often heat up quickly in the
early middlegame. Black must play precisely to
o b
ensure he obtains active play. L BAD T
6...e5
The traditional Najdorf reply seems espe- A
cially logical here: Black closes the long diago- 3171y ]} %gfi
nal for White’s bishop, albeit at the cost of a
slight weakening of the d5-square. Black has 2 2wy | H
several options here and White must be pre-
pared to meet these alternatives: The development of the queen’s knight to d7
a) 6...b57! (this thematic advance is prema- instead of c6 enables Black to meet White’s
ture here because White can quickly generate plan of g5 and £xf6 with ...2Axf6 to retain
threats along the e-file) 7 £g2 £b7 8 0-0e6 9 control over the d5-square.
Hel and then: 9 ad b6 10 0-0 £b7 11 Hel
al) 9..Wc7?walks into 10 £g5 ©$\bd7 11 a4 White’s moves appear innocent enough, and
b4 12 §d5! exd5 13 exd5+ He5 (13..2d8 14 it is easy for Najdorf players to be caught off
Db+ L.xc6 15 dxcb &5 16 Lxfo+ gxf6 17 guard; White’s last move vacates the f1-square
Wd4 gives White a strong attack for a small ma- in preparation for the strategic manoeuvre £d2-
terial investment) 14 f4 and White recovers his fl1-e3 to control the d5-square, so Black must
piece with a crushing initiative, Shabalov-Ben- counter this threat.
jamin, US Open Ch, Philadelphia 1993. 11...Kc8
a2) 9..%Wc8 10 a4! bxad 11 Hxad Hbd7 Black develops the rook to the c-file to retain
(Y.Griinfeld — Har-Zvi, Biel open 1993) 12 the option of playing the thematic exchange sac-
Ha3!intending Ec3 with a clear plus for White. rifice ... Hxc3; this idea is very effective if Black
b) 6...g6 leads to Dragon-type positions af- can follow up by capturing White’s e-pawn.
ter7 £g2 £2780-00-09h3 Hc6 10 Re3 Kd7 12 d2 Hcs!?
and the game is just beginning, Alekseev-Istra- Black clears a path to the comer for his
tescu, Poikovsky 2007. queen to increase the pressure on White’s e4-
c) 6..e6 7 g2 Wc7 8 0-0 Ke7 transposes pawn while retaining pressure along the c-file.
to a line of the Scheveningen Variation (ECO 13 &f1 Wa8 (D)
code B80). 14 Kg5!?
d) 6..%9c6 7 £g2 £d7 8 0-0 6 is another This is the latest try, but White has a wide
transposition to the Scheveningen. range of alternatives:
 FIANCHETTO VARIATION: 6 g3
» pause to defend his e4-pawn; previously seen
»)
a) 14 g4 (White seeks to drive away one of
the defenders of the d5-square, while clearing
the g3-square for his knight) 14...2xc3! (Black
responds with a thematic exchange sacrifice;
the idea is to shatter White’s pawn-structure
and snuff out any initiative on the kingside) 15
bxc3 Dxed 16 Hg3 Dxg3 17 Lxb7 Wxb7 18
hxg3 0-0 gives Black adequate compensation
for his slight material deficit, Stoica-Stefanov,
Predeal 1988.
b) 14 {3 (the drawback to this move is that it
reduces White’s control over the d5-square)
14...d5! 15 exd5 @xd5 16 Ded Hc7 is equal.
c) 14 £e3 Exc3! 15 bxc3 &Hxed 16 c4 0-0
17 &d2?! (playing with fire; however, 17 £cl
&\dcS5 is fine for Black) 17...&0xf2! (this 2004
suggestion by Arizmendi and Moreno is an
improvement over 17...%xd2 18 £xb7 Wxb7
19 ¥xd2 Hc8 “with compensation” according
to Stoica in Informator 46, but I prefer White
after 20 a5! as he is opening lines on the
queenside for his rooks) 18 £xb7 &xdl 19
£xa8 Hxe3 with an edge for Black — Ariz-
mendi and Moreno.
d) 14 £d2 0-0 15 He3 HKfc8 16 Hf5 £18 is
equal, Al.Ivanov-Sarkar, Mashantucket 2007.
e) 14 Ha3!? (the idea here is to reinforce the
c3-knight) 14...0-0 15 &e3 is another interest-
ing try, Steel-Blaauw, Cape Town 2007.
) 14 He3!? & xed and then:
f1) 1595 Hxc3 16 £xb7 Wxb7 17 bxc3 gb
18 Hxe7 Lxe7 19 £a3 Bd5!? (19...Ehc8 20
£.xc5 Exc5 was a promising exchange sacrifice
in P.Popovi¢-King, Palma de Mallorca 1989) 20
We?2 Wc6 with a comfortable position for Black.
f2) 15 &xe4! (this is a significant improve-
ment) 15...8xe4 16 Lxe4 (16 3 £g6 is fine for
57
Black) 16...Wxe4 17 b3! Wg6 18 £a3 Hc8 19
&d5 gives White good compensation for the
pawn in view of his powerful knight outpost,
Berelovich-Henrichs, 2nd Bundesliga 2006/7.
This line deserves further practical tests.
14...h6 15 Lxf6 Dxf6 16 He3!? (D)
Alekseev introduces a new idea rather than
was 16 Wd3 0-0 17 &e3 Efc8 (Tyomkin-Quan
Zhe, Guelph 2004) 18 95 &8 19 W3 ©h720
Had]l Wb8 with a balanced game.
W~ e
p //.9./%1%%
///
e B
-
2 7
III,,V / 2, 7 ,A
16...g6
Black prevents the threatened &)f5. The al-
ternative is 16...9xe4 17 Wf3 d5 (the exchange
sacrifice 17...Exc3 18 bxc3 &5 19 Wg4 g6 20
£xb7 Wxb7 21 Babl Wc6 22 Wea £d823 b4
favours White because of his control over the
d5-square) 18 &cxd5 and now:
a) 18..Hxd5 19 &xd5 £xd5 20 Wf5 &6
21 Wxe5 0-0 (21..Wb7 22 £xd5 Hxd5 23
Wxg7 Ef8 24 Hadl is winning for White be-
cause the black king is marooned in the centre)
22 2xd5 HxdS 23 c4 Hbd 24 Wxe7 D2 25
Badl Hxel 26 Hxel with a clear extra pawn for
White in the major-piece endgame.
b) 18...£xd5 19 Dxd5 Wxd5 20 Bad1l We6
21 Wxed 0-0 22 c3 and despite the opposite-
coloured bishops, White has a slight advan-
tage thanks to his control of the d-file and the
potential vulnerability of Black’s queenside
pawns.
17 ¥d3 0-0 18 f4 exf4 19 gxf4 Xh5
Black also has a satisfactory position after
19...¥c8, bringing the queen back into the
game.
20 Ef1 d5 (D)
58 PLAY THE NAJDORF SICILIAN

Arizmendi offers a thematic pawn sacrifice 22..267

to open a diagonal for his dark-squared bishop
and take aim at White’s kingside. A reasonable,
and possibly superior, alternative is 20...%c8
intending ...He8 or ... ¥c5 with a balanced game.
The long diagonal looks attractive, but the
bishop only becomes a target on the kingside.
Black should improve the position of his queen
by 22...Wc8 23 Kael Wc7, with compensation
for the pawn in the form of the bishop-pair and

W /y%%/
White’s loose kingside pawn-structure.
23 Hadl 27 24 15
w ), 8 #A_ Another strong idea is 24 Xf2, preparing the
advance of the extra d-pawn.
/% _ fi;% 24...8.e5 25 h3 g5 (D)

, /A /K
g%fl@%fi _ !/ " @
////
/;.Q;%
d

"
ZEZ
21 Hexds
Alekseev avoids the sharp 21 e5!?. Then:
1L R
]
p

a) 21...50e4 22 Hcxds 2xd5 23 Hxd5 L5+

24 ©hl WxdS 25 &xed (25 Wxd5?7? Dg3#)
25...Wxd3 26 £.xd3 favours White as he has re- _ B B/ B&
tained the extra pawn.
b) 21...8.c5!722 exf6 d423 £2xb7 (23 b4?? 26 Ded!
loses to 23...dxe3!) 23.. Wxb7 24 b4! £xb4 25 Alekseev alertly exploits Black’s offside
Wxd4 2.c5 26 Wd2 g5!? with tremendous com- queen to blast open the kingside.
plications. 26..Kxf5 27 BExf5 gxf5 28 &\g3 f4 (D)
21...20xd5 22 exd5 (D) Arizmendi retains this pawn to deny White
White elects to retain his knight for attacking access to g3. 28..Wd8 29 Hixfs Wg5 30 Efl
purposes. The alternative is 22 &xd5 Kxd5 23
exd5 £2.d6 and Black has lost a pawn, but the
opposite-coloured bishops and White’s slightly
exposed king assure him of reasonable coun- %/ o 3@%
terplay.

!///
58 7
i, meso
7
8, % ) 7, KX sy

B &
29 55 Wd8 30 Hxh6+ g7
White’s pieces infiltrate the kingside after
30...&h8 31 W5 Wc7 (31... 916 32 Wh5 g7
 FIANCHETTO
33 g4 Ld4+ 34 ©h2 and White wins a piece)
32 £e4 16 33 Wh5 with a mating attack.
31 Hf5+ Lh8
Losing material, but even after 31...2f6 32
&\d4 g7 33 c3 White has a material advantage
and the black king is hopelessly exposed.
Game
Evgeny Alekseev — Leinier Dominguez Perez
Biel 2008
1 e4 c5 2 513 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Hxd4 516 5
&\c3 a6 6 g3 €5 7 Dde2 (D)
This is White’s most popular move. 7 &b3
was covered in Game 9.
Wee'sV7 L
E
//W%% o
%7
087 7
77 %’/
2% i
i3 1igi
R~
W& TR 7
7..2¢7
The immediate bishop development is one of
several options for Black. Alternatives:
a) 7...b5 8 &\d5 (Alexander Ivanov’s pref-
erence 8 £.g5 is a sharp alternative) 8...4bd7
9 Dec3 £b7 10 Kg2 Hxd5 11 HxdS £b6
(11...516 12 £g5'? £xd5 13 exd5 27 “with
chances for both sides” was recommended by
Anzmendi and Moreno; this idea awaits a prac-
tical trial) 12 £g5! Wxg5 (the power of White’s
attack is seen after the long but pleasing varia-
tion 12...f67 13 £xf6! gxf6 14 Wh5+ &d7 15
W7+ £c6 16 Dba+ Tc5 17 Wxb7 2xbd 18
a3+ £a5 {18..2c5 19 b4+ mates} 19 L£f3!
Wc8 {19..b4 20 axbd++ Fxb4 21 0-0 and
White wins } 20 c3 Wxb7 21 b4+ &ad 22 2d1#)
13 &xb6 Eb8 14 Ad5 gives White a slight ad-
vantage due to his control over d5, Alekseev-
Kariakin, Russian Team Ch, Dagomys 2008.
VARIATION: 6 g3 59
32 We2
The double attack on the e5-bishop and the
h5-square is decisive.
32.. 916 33 Wh5+ g8 34 Hh6+ 1-0
Black runs out of squares after 34...&g7 35
@ g4 Ld4+ 36 2f1, winning a piece.
10 [B91]
b) 7..42bd7 (this is Black’s most popular
choice) 8 a4 b6 9 £g2 £b7 10 h3 Ec8 11 g4
&cS5 12 Dg3 g6 (D) and now:
R
EMes E
7 RN
/B
bl) 13 g5 &fd7 14 hd De6 15 Dd5 £.g7 16
£e3 Df4! 17 Dxfa exfd 18 Lxf4 L£xb2 is
equal, Golinka-Deriabin, Mariupol 2003.
b2) 13 0-0 £e6 (13...h5!7) 14 Ad5 £¢7 15
¢3 0-0 with equal chances, Kudrin-Peters, USA
Ch, Berkeley 1984.
b3) 13 h4!? (this is PopoviC’s latest idea)
13..20e6 14 h5 &)f4 15 L2xf4 exfd 16 Hge2
with sharp play, P.Popovi¢ — Vachier-Lagrave,
Paris 2006.
8 £g2b5 (D)
9 h3 £\bd7 10 g4
This is a typical plan in the Fianchetto Varia-
tion: White advances on the kingside to gain
space for his pieces and clear the g3-square for
his knight.
10...b4!
This logical advance was suggested by Pat-
rick Wolff in 1993, but another seven years
passed until the idea received a practical test.
60 PLAY THE NAJDORF SICILIAN

the centre of the board, Ye Jiangchuan-Gelfand,

FIDE Knockout, Shenyang 2000.

m K W T,
u T
AA
b) 13 a3 £a6 (this is one of the benefits of
delaying ...5b7: Black is able to develop the
bishop to its optimal square in one move) 14
0-0 0-0 15 axb4 axb4 with a comfortable posi-
tion for Black as he has smoothly completed
Z his development, Al Modiahki-Sedlak, Biel
7 /j /// 2003.
/%_ /;
13...h5!?
iy i iy Dominguez introduces a sharp new idea.

%@@ _ B Black can also play the solid 13...&a6 14 Eel

0-0 15 Dg3 g6 16 £.h6 He8 with equal chances,
Livshits-Smirin, Ashdod 2006.
The alternative is 10...0-0 11 Dg3 Hc5 12 0-0 14 gxh5 HxhS5 (D)
£b7 13 £e3 Kc8 with equal chances, Kamsky-

,%fif@/ .
Wolif, USA Ch, Long Beach 1993.
11 Dd5 Dxd5s 12 exd5
The white queen becomes a target for Black’s
minor pieces after 12 Wxd5 Zb8 13 Hg3 0-0
w /Q%A%
14 2.e3 (Himanshu-Ramesh, New Delhi 2007) // 2
14..20c5 15 &f5 £b7 16 Wcd g6 17 HxeT+
(17 &xc5 gxf5! 18 &xb4 fxe4 19 0-0 d5 20
%%/&% /;
RKxe7 Wxe7 favours Black thanks to his clump 7% > 5
of mobile centre pawns) 17...&xe7 18 0-0 a5
with a solid position for Black as he has com- . . . A
pleted his development and the white queen is
exposed on the c4-square.
é%&/%%i/
12...a5 (D) I LW BE
;%ay@/ 2 15 Dd4?!
Alekseev exploits Black’s undefended rook to
vl /) a%ikai plant his knight on c6, but it is better to open the
long diagonal with 15 @f4!? Eh4 16 Deb (16
%/% /7% @h5 g6 is fine for Black) 16...fxe6 17 dxe6 Zb8

%fi%&% _ (the speculative exchange sacrifice 17...2b6!?

18 Kc6+ 28 19 Lxa8 #ixa8 20 W3+ L6621
%// N Wxa8 We8 is roughly equal as White is weak on

/ A the light squares and his king is vulnerable) 18

Wd3!? &f8 (Black must return the piece as after
%&/%%fi/ 18...f87 19 L.c6+ White wins) 19 exd7 £xd7

2 Bug 2 20 f4 e4!? (20..Lg8 is a safe alternative) 21

13 0-0
Alternatives:
a) 13 Dg3 Ka6 14 h4 0-0 15 Ke3 (15 HOF5
He8 with a slight advantage for Black accord-
ing to Gelfand) 15...Wc7 16 Ec1 &c5 17 b3 a4
18 Wd2 Hab8 with an edge for Black as his
light-squared bishop has cut a swath through
Wxe4 £6 and the looseness of White’s king po-
sition gives Black solid compensation for the
pawn.
15...516 16 Hc6 Y7
In the introductory chapter ‘Typical Najdorf
Themes’, we discussed in detail why Black is
OK here despite White possessing an advanced
knight outpost.
17 Wf3?! (D)
 FIANCHETTO VARIATION: 6 g3 61

White should immediately crack open the pawn on the b-file because his knight controls
the queening square.

XFLEwT &
26...8xd2 27 Wxd2 Ef4
The rook move clears the way for the black

» W SAK 7
queen to infiltrate White’s kingside. Black must
avoid 27...9\f4+77 28 Wxf4, when White is win-
ning because of the back-rank mating threat.

'%a% s
28 Eh3 18
The black king heads for the g7-square to
avoid any potential back-rank issues.
29 Hahl Wgd+ (D)
///g/
NG Rel /
_
2 /R%
/
17..815
Black begins implementing the straightfor- Yy
ward but effective plan of piling up on White’s %
h3-pawn.
18 Eel Wd7 19 a3 b3!? (D)

LD, w0
W %7/ %%%l ) 30 211
Alekseev concedes the loss of the exchange

IS 31) and pins his hopes on the advanced b-pawn. His

king would quickly perish after 30 @h2 g7 31
Bgl W5 32 Hg2 Hg3!! 33 We3d (White is
mated after 33 fxg3 Wxh3+! 34 ©xh3 Eh8#, 33
Lxg3 Ef3+ or 33 Ehxg3 Eh8+) 33..2e4 34
Wd3 (34 He7 Wd7 35 Wc6 Wxh3+! 36 Sxh3
Zh8#) 34.. Wf6 35 We3 (35 £3 &£)g5) 35...0x12
with crushing threats.
30...20g3+ 31 Bxg3 Wxg3 (D)

z////@
Dominguez offers a pawn to keep lines closed
on the queenside. His play in this game is a
model of consistency because he keeps his fo-
cus on exploiting the weak squares on the king-
side.
20 cxb3 £xh3 21 £2d2 {xg2 22 dxg2 Hf5
23 Wd3 Hhs
Now the focus shifts to the f4-square: if
Black can exchange dark-squared bishops, his
remaining pieces will have free rein to attack
%/
\\

\\

the white king.

SN

2’?;
x

24 Eh1 g6 25 b4 L5 26 b5!?
\\\\
\\\\\
\\

The pawn capture 26 bxa5 looks more natu-

ral, but Alekseev prefers to have the passed B % { )
62 PLAY THE NAJDORF SICILIAN

32 b6
White has no time for the materialistic 32
Eh8+ g7 33 Hxa8 Wh3+ 34 el (34 Le2
Wr3+) 34..Whil+ 35 Le2 W3+ 36 el (36
Pfl Bh4 mates) 36...Ked+ 37 We3 (37 2fl
Whi#) 37..Hxe3+ 38 fxe3 Wxe3+ 39 &dl
Wd3+ 40 2l e4 and Black wins.
32..%f3 33 Eh2 (D)

7,W 7
s . A Y ey
%%afiwéfi%
///////

A 37 Eh1
Relatively best is 37 Eg2! Wh3 38 g1 (38
We2 g7 39 bW Exb8 40 £xb8 Hxb4 is win-
ning for Black) 38...Xh4 39 3 Wxf3 40 b8'W
Exb8 41 Dxb8 Wa3 42 Hc6 Wal+ 43 22
z
Z. A

2
/s
7
Bf4+ 44 g3 5 45 DeT+ Df7 46 Dxgb Lxgb
47 We2 &f6 with a decisive advantage for
Black as the white king is too exposed.
37..913 38 Eh2 Wg3 39 Eh1 Wb3! (D)
33... g8
The shortest path to victory is 33...@b3! 34
Eh8+ g7 35 Exa8 Wh3+ 36 el (36 &e2 . K &)
.
Hom_ A
W3+) 36..
. Whl+ 37 Se2 W3+ 38 el (38
&f1 Zh4 mates) 38...Hed+ 39 We3 (39 Ffl
Whi#) 39...Hxe3+ 40 fxe3 Wxe3+ and Black
wins.
34 b7 Xe8 35 b4 ////’// /%& /%%
White’s knight is tied down defending the » ’j%y 2
d4-square; for example, 35 b8W Hxb8 36 £xb8

o M B
Hd4 and Black wins because of the back-rank
threats.
35...axb4 36 axb4 (D)
36...Wg3 . | &/ 8
Black can wrap things up by placing White
in zugzwang with 36... Hg4!: Finally on the right track!
a) 37 Eh8+ g7 (not 37...&xh8?? 38 Who+ 40 b8W Hxb8 41 Hxb8 Exb4
g8 39 De7+ mating) 38 Who+ (38 Exe8 Eh4 Slightly quicker is 41...Wf3! 42 Egl &d4,
with a mating-net) 38...&f6 and Black wins. when White’s back-rank weakness is fatal.
b) 37 b5 Ba4 38 Wel Wd3+ 39 &gl Hgd+ 42 D7 Wed+ 43 g2 Wed+ 44 ©h2 Whs+
40 Bg2 Hxg2+ 41 Lxg2 Wxd5+ 42 2h2 Wxb5 45 &g2 g4+ 0-1
43 b8'W Hxb8 44 Hxb8 Wxb8 and Black has a The finish would be 46 213 Hf4++ 47 &g2
decisive material advantage. W3+ 48 g1 Kgd+ and Black wins.
5 Classical Najdorf: 6 £2e2 e5

The Classical 6 £e2 is a popular choice versus the Najdorf Sicilian: White develops his light-
squared bishop to the e2-square and prepares to castle kingside. This relatively modest bishop de-
velopment should not be underestimated; although White rarely develops quick pressure against e6
and f7 in comparison to more overtly aggressive lines, the bishop on e2 can sometimes emerge with
a vengeance on g4 or h5 in support of a kingside attack.
Let’s examine some of the important issues to be aware of in the Classical in comparison to other
Najdorf lines:
* White’s light-squared bishop is not a target for Black’s normal plan of queenside expansion in-
volving ...bS. In fact, White can often respond to this thrust by playing a4 to undermine the b5-
pawn and seek to gain control of c4.
* A bishop is very effective at restricting a knight posted three squares vertically or horizontally
away from it. I call this fanning a knight as the bishop’s scope resembles the shape of a hand
fan. In some lines of the Classical Najdorf, the white bishop on e2 fans a black knight posted
on e5: the bishop controls d3, c4, {3 and g4, squares that are all within range of the e5-knight.
* The bishop is able to assist in the defence of White’s e4-pawn by shifting to {3 if needed.

The Classical Najdorf has been closely identified with two great players over the years: world
championship candidate Efim Geller and the 12th World Champion Anatoly Karpov. Geller played
the Classical for more than 40 years, racking up a tremendous plus score against the strongest op-
position. Karpov infused the line with many new ideas beginning with his 1974 Candidates match
victory over Lev Polugaevsky; Karpov scored 3 wins and 1 draw with the Classical. The first two
Karpov-Kasparov World Championship matches also featured a number of games with 6 £.e2, but
Kasparov always responded with 6...e6 and headed for the Scheveningen Variation. The Classical
Najdorf has been played at least once by the last ten World Champions, and today leading players
including Leko and Shirov are among its adherents.

Game 11 (Arencibia-Quezada) features the line 6 2.e2 e5 7 b3 £e7 8 0-0 0-0 9 ©h1. White’s
precautionary king move is a modern refinement to see Black’s reply before determining how to
proceed. Quezada plays one of the main lines featuring 9...4c6 and follows a theoretical line where
Black exchanges a pair of knights on the queenside to free his position. White pursues a gradual
build-up on the kingside and Black counters by maintaining a strongpoint on e5. Black eventually
goes astray by stranding his dark-squared bishop on the h4-square; Arencibia is able to exploit the
loose piece by transforming the pawn-structure to obtain a powerful passed d-pawn. Black still has
some opportunities for resistance, but a further error enables White to force home the passed pawn.
The middlegame is a good demonstration of how one inaccuracy by the defender can allow the ag-
gressor to transform the position quickly to his advantage.

In Game 12 (Naiditsch-Gelfand), White employs the Karpov plan 6 £e2 e5 7 3b3 2.e7 8 0-0
0-0 9 Le3 Ke6 10 Wd2, followed by the traditional pawn advance a4-aS to restrict Black’s
counterplay. Black counters with a timely ...%4)c5 and after an exchange of knights on this square,
the players battle for control of key squares on the queenside. At one point the game appears
headed for a threefold repetition, but Naiditsch gamely varies and Gelfand responds in kind by ex-
panding aggressively on the kingside. The game is very deceptive because it begins quietly but then
erupts into sharp tactics thanks to the adventurous play by the combatants.
64 PLAY THE NAJDORF
Game
Walter Arencibia — Yuniesky Quezada
Santa Clara 2007
1 ed 5 2 3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Hxd4 56 5
&3 a6 6 Ke2 e5 (D)
The characteristic Najdorf move. Black’s
other options include:
a) 6...g6 can lead to positions more akin to
the Dragon; for example, 7 0-0 £.g7 8 £e3 0-0
9 f4 Hbd7 10 a4 Wc7 11 2hl &b6 and the
game is just beginning, Galkin-Timofeev, Eu-
ropean Ch, Dresden 2007.
b) 6...e6 7 0-0 £e7 transposes to a line of
the Scheveningen Variation (ECO code B85).
AR LW . 7
v AT //%//
///5
Ak
.///
’/‘//// %/
AB AE LT AL
B AWE 8
7 $b3
White has two harmless alternatives:
a) 7 &5 (this move would be strategi-
cally desirable for White if only he had time to
clamp down on the d5-square with &e3, but
there is a tactical flaw) 7...d5! (the freeing pawn
advance is the usual response to an early £f5) 8
£.g5 d4 9 £xf6 (9 DA5?? Kxf5 costs White a
piece) 9.. Wxf6 (Black could consider the ad-
venturous 9...gxf6!? 10 bl Wb6 11 Hd2 Wxb2
12 0-0 Wa3 13 c3!? dxc3 14 &c4 Wes 15 Ecl
Lxf5 16 exf5 &c6 17 Exc3 Ed8 with an advan-
tage for Black as White has inadequate com-
pensation for the missing pawn) 10 $\d5 Wds
11 c4 &6 with a comfortable position for
Black thanks to his bishop-pair and passed d-
pawn, King-A.Petrosian, Belgium 1991.
b) 7 &f3?! (the reader should compare this
position to the line 6 £e3 e5 7 &f3, which we
SICILIAN
11 [B92]
examined in Game 6; here the knight retreat is
ineffective since White’s light-squared bishop
has already been developed and White will lose
a tempo moving the piece to the more desirable
c4-square) 7...h6 (the idea is to prevent White
from increasing his control over d5 with the
standard manoeuvre £g5 followed by £xf6) 8
0-0 £¢e6 9 Eel (White’s f3-knight inhibits his
natural kingside pawn-break with f4, so he ini-
tiates a manoeuvre to protect his e4-pawn in
preparation for $)d5)9...8e7 10 £f1 0-0 1 h3
$bd7 (Black’s queen’s knight is usually more
effective here than on c6 because he now has
the option of playing ...2c5 to increase the
pressure on White’s e4-pawn) 12 {Hd5 Hxd5
(this capture would not be possible with the
knight on c6 as White’s recapture would fork
two pieces) 13 exd5 £f5 14 ¢4 a5 is equal,
Drenchev-Clemens, Groningen 2007. Black has
smoothly completed his development and se-
cured the c5-square for his knight.
7..%e7(D)
e 4 .
i w //,/
ER N
A\
on B
80-0
White’s main alternative is to fight for con-
trol over the d5-square with 8 &g5. Then:
a) 8..4bd7?! is inaccurate on account of 9
a4!'b6 10 £c4 b7 11 We2 0-0 12 0-0 W7 13
Efd1 with a slight advantage to White because
of his firm grip on d5; an instructive example
is Kramnik-Gelfand, Cap d’ Agde rapid 2003.
 CLASSICAL NAJDORF:
This position has occurred more than 30 times
in my database and practice has shown that
Black has difficulty generating counterplay.
b) 8..Re6 9 2xf6 2xf6 10 Wd3 &6 11
0-0-0 Wb6!? (Black offers a temporary pawn
sacrifice to activate his pieces; [ expect this idea
to gain in popularity in comparison to the more
popular alternatives 11...%d4 and 11...8e7) 12
Wxd6 Re7 13 Dd5 &xd5 14 WxdS 0-0 (or
14..Kd8 15 Wc4 Hxdl+ 16 Exd1 Wxf2 with
equality, Stellwagen-L’ Ami, Dutch Ch, Hilver-
sum 2008) 15 Wd2 Wxf2 is equal, Anand-
Topalov. Morelia/Linares 2008. Black has re-
covered the sacrificed pawn and the game was
soon drawn.
8..0-0 (D)
XA LW Ed
Aik 4
4
v /7 //
W L
B mAE
&
N
o #
\
AT A2YA TS
B SwizE
9 hil
White plays a useful waiting move to see
what set-up Black adopts before deciding how
to continue. Alternatives:
a) 9 Ke3is covered in Game 12.
b) 9 47! b5! (Black immediately targets
White’s e4-pawn) 10 a3 £b7 11 L3 Hbd7 12
Wel Hc8 13 We3 Xxc3!? (the thematic Najdorf
exchange sacrifice to destroy White’s centre)
14 bxc3 Dxed 15 Wel f5 gave Black good play
for her small material deficit in Nimmy-Kara-
vade, Indian Women’s Ch, Pune 2007.
c) 9Rg5 Reb 10 2xf6 (10 f4 exfd 11 &xf4
transposes to note ‘bl’ to White’s 10th move in
Game 12) 10...&xf6 11 a4 (White hopes to uti-
lize his control over d5 to create a queenside
bind) 11...c6 12 Dd5 £g5 13 a5 Hc8 14 £g4
b817? 15 Kxe6 fxe6 16 Db6 Kb 17 ¢3 &Hd7
is equal, Areshchenko-Kariakin, Russian Team
Ch, Sochi 2006.
6 Re2 e5 65
d) 9 a4 £e6 (this is a straightforward way
for Black to equalize; a reasonable alternative is
9...%)c6, transposing to Game 25) 10 f4 exf4 11
Lxf4 Hc6 12 Lh1 d5! (this central break usu-
ally equalizes for Black; White’s a4-pawn can
sometimes become a target in the resulting end-
games) 13 e5 Qed (after 13..20d7 14 Hxd5
@dxe5 15 Dxe7+ Wxe7 16 Wel, as in Mestel-
Nunn, Zonal Playoff, Leiden 1982, Nunn’s sug-
gestion of 16...f6 is fine for Black thanks to his
powerful knight outpost on the e5-square) 14
£d3 £5 15 exf6 £.xf6 16 @Dxed dxed 17 Kxed
Wxdl 18 Haxdl £c4 /2-12 Belikov-Kovaliov,
Alushta 2008.
We now return to 9 2hl1 (D):
EALW Kel
» FAT #AKA
e
9...2c6
%@%z%@
Black has a wide choice here so I shall focus
on two of the alternatives:
a) 9...b5 was Black’s original choice, but
attention soon turned toward other moves as
practice showed that White was able to gener-
ate some pressure by coaxing Black’s queen-
side pawns forward with 10 a4:
al) 10..2b7 11 &d5 &bd7?! (11..b4 is
line ‘a2’) 12 Hxe7+ Wxe7 13 3 d5 14 exd5
£.xd5 15 axb5 axb5 16 Exa8 £xa8 17 £xb5
gave White a large advantage in Stellwagen-Bu
Xiangzhi, Wijk aan Zee 2007. Black has insuf-
ficient compensation for the lost pawn.
a2) 10..b4 11 HHd5 £b7 12 Hxe7+ Wxe?
13 f3 (White reinforces the e4-pawn with the
intention of slowly opening the position for his
bishop-pair, so Black opts to crack open the
centre) 13...d5 14 exd5 £xd5 15 £g5 Ed8 16
Wel &c6 17 W2 h6 18 Ke3 Rxb3 19 cxb3
Nd4 20 fc4 with just a slight advantage for
66 PLAY THE NAJDORF
White, Yakovenko-Nayer, Russian Ch, Kras-
noiarsk 2003.
b) 9..b6!7 (D).
7 i ke 7
!%A%y%@%
v 5T
;%
wadA
i %y%
_ » _ » %y J
/ //
/&// y _
g%&%g@&%
Y /
H @
Black leaves his pawn back one square so as
to deploy his light-squared bishop on the long
diagonal without allowing his queenside pawns
to be undermined; once he is better developed,
the b-pawn often advances another square. Boris
Gelfand popularized this idea by successfully
employing it in several top-level games. Now:
bl) 10 £g5 Hbd7 11 Hd5 Hxd5 12 Wxd5
Hb8 13 £xe7 Wxe7 14 Hadl &6 15 Wxd6
Wxd6 16 Exd6 Hxe4 17 Bd5 16! 18 £3 HHg5 19
Bfd1 &f7 leads to an equal endgame, Sutov-
sky-Gelfand, Isracli Team Ch, Tel-Aviv 1999.
Black’s knight manoeuvre has defended the
critical d6-square and prevented the white rooks
from infiltrating along the d-file.
b2) 10 Ke3 Kb7 11 3 (11 HdS Hxd5 12
exd5 Rg5 13 Wd2 R xe3 14 fxe3 Wh4 is equal,
J.Polgar-Gelfand, Dortmund 1997) 11...b5 12
a4 b4 13 Ad5 Dxd5 14 exd5 £d7 15 c3 bxc3
16 bxc3 £g5 17 £12 Wc7 18 c4 Hab8 19 a5
La8! (this move was a 2004 recommendation
by Arizmendi and Moreno) 20 £d3 (a draw
was agreed here in El Taher-Ghaem Maghami,
Dubai 2006; instead 20 Ka4?! Wb7 gave Black
a slight pull thanks to his pressure along the b-
file in Nijboer — Vachier-Lagrave, Wijk aan Zee
2007) 20...f5 (20..Eb4!?) 21 Wc2 g6 with a
balanced game. I expect further developments
in this line.
10 4 b5 11 £13 Has 12 Hxas Wxas (D)
13 Wel
Other moves have not caused any difficulty
for Black; let’s examine why:
SICILIAN
/////
a) 13 0d5 Hxd5 14 exds exfd 15 x4 215
with a balanced game, Kramnik-Topalov, Wijk
aan Zee 2004.
b) 13 fxe5 dxe5 14 d5 (14 £g5 Kb7 {an-
other reasonable idea is 14..2e6!? 15 &d5
£xd5 16 exd5 Ead8 with equal chances —
Atalik} 15 a3 Wd8! 16 £xf6 £.xf6 17 Wel Ec8
with a slight pull for Black because of his
bishop-pair and pressure along the half-open c-
file, Dervishi-Atalik, Bratto 2005) 14...%4\xd5 15
Wxd5 (15 exd5 £d6 blockades the passed d-
pawn and prepares ...f5) 15... %Wc7 16 Wxa8 £b7
17 Wxf8+ &xf8 (17...&xf8 18 Lg5, Sutovsky-
Colovi¢, World Under-18 Ch, Szeged 1994, and
now 18..f6 19 £e3 Wc4 is comfortable for
Black as the white rooks are bottled up) 18 2.3
(Ganguly-Feldman, Mumbai 2004) and now
18..®c4! 19 b3 Wc3 with counterplay was
suggested by Ki.Georgiev and Kolev. A possi-
ble continuation is 20 Eae1 Wb2 21 Edl £c6
with a slight advantage for Black as his queen is
causing trouble on the queenside and the white
rooks do not have any entry-points.
13...%¢c7 14 a3 £b7 (D)
15 We3
Arencibia continues his kingside build-up.
The main alternative 1s 15 f5 a5!? (15...h6! {to
prevent g5} 16 Wg3 ©h8 was suggested by
Adams in Informator 72; a possible continua-
tion is 17 Ed1 Wc4 18 Wel Efc8 with a com-
fortable position for Black as White's kingside
play has been stymied and Black is developing
pressure along the half-open c-file) 16 &xb5
Wxc2 17 &c3 Wb3 18 £g5 h6 19 £ha Efd8
with equal chances, Adams-Svidler, Madrid
1998. White’s slight kingside pressure is offset
by the need to defend his b2-pawn.
 CLASSICAL NAJDORF: 6 £e2 e5 67

,7,’/ l% % ,i'// =,

,,,,, iry B
7 78 &
,,,,; o /7” /’//’,”/’: //// v 4 rrd A

by

/gfi T 7=, g % %

15...Efe8 The exchange of the white f-pawn for the

Quezada introduces a new idea. Previously
seen was 15...&h8 16 Re3 Hacg 17 ael Wb8
intending ...a5 with equal chances, Kanakin-
Kovchan, Ukrainian Junior Ch, Kramatorsk
2002.
16 £e3 (D)
White could also play the immediate capture
16 fxe5 dxe5 17 2h6 £.f8 (Black could play on
with 17...g6!7) 18 g5 Ke7 (18...Ee6!? is an-
other way to avoid a repetition) 19 Eael (19
£.h6 repeats the position) 19...%c5 with a bal-
anced game. A common theme in these lines is
that Black’s e5-pawn is very effective at limit-
ing the scope of White’s light-squared bishop;
White usually needs to activate this piece to
generate any kingside threats.
black d-pawn has resulted in a typical Najdorf
pawn-structure; this configuration is generally
satisfactory for Black because he has only two
pawn-islands in contrast to White’s three. White
must take care to guard his isolated e4-pawn
and seek counterplay along the half-open f-file.
18 2h6 L1819 Eael Wcs
Black can also maintain the balance with
19...Ee6 or 19...&h8.
20 25 Re721 £d1
Another idea is 21 £2.xf6 £xf6 22 £\d5 £xd5
23 exd5 g6, with equal chances.
21..Wd6 22 He3 Hac8 23 Hd3 ¥b6 24
£xf6
White concedes the bishop-pair in order to
activate his light-squared bishop.
24...8 xf6 25 £.g4 Kc7 26 Efd1 Wes 27 Ef1
(D)

&
» 8K T ARA
N

s ’// e

gy /,// ‘., ’7 ad /A
1 37, _ 2, %/
7 %z %fi%%
16...%c4 /% ///,fi. %@
Black creates additional pressure on the e4-
pawn; now White is forced to clarify the central 27..%e7
tension to avoid material loss. Black can safely exchange a pair of rooks by
17 fxeS dxe5 (D) 27..Ed8 28 Le6!? (28 Exd8+ £xd8 29 Edi
68 PLAY THE NAJDORF SICILIAN

£16 is fine for Black) 28...Hxd3 29 cxd3 &f8

30 £d5 £.c8 with equal chances.
28 Bdf3 (D)

7 R e
. 11
17
%Q% Z

WEY LAY
%E%,%M . B &
The rook move turns out to be a wasted move

B because of White’s back-rank mating threats.

28...2h4?
Only bad things can happen when you have a
dangling piece. Black can maintain the balance
with 28...&h8.
29 Wh3 Wds 30 Ed3 We7 31 £Hd5 Lxd5 32
exd5!
White unbalances the position to exploit
Black’s loose bishop. The alternative recapture
32 Exd5?! £g5 is level.
32..Hxc2 33 d6 WdS 34 Xdf3 Xf8 35 Le6
(D)
35...Kd2?
Relatively best is 35..&h8 36 g3 Wxd6 37
gxh4 Wc6 38 W5 (38 £d477! Wb7 is unclear)
38...&xb2 39 £xf7 with an advantage for White
as Black’s two pawns are insufficient compen-
sation for White’s extra bishop.
36 Lxf7+ Lh8 37 Le6 Exf3
37...Kf4 38 Xxf4 exf4 39 d7 Exb2 40 Wd3 is
also crushing for White thanks to his advanced
d-pawn.
38 Wxf3 g6 39 d7 Zd6 40 W7 L.g5 41 hd
1-0
The passed d-pawn decides the game after
41...£xh4 42 Hcl, with the idea of Ec8, win-
ning.

Game 12 [B92]
Arkadij Naiditsch — Boris Gelfand
Dortmund 2007
1 e4 ¢5 2 D3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Dxd4 DI6 5
N3 a6 6 Ke2e57 b3 2e780-00-09 el
9 &h1 was covered in Game 11, along with
White’s other 9th-move alternatives.
9..2e6 (D)
10 Wd2
This is the first phase of the Karpov plan:
White develops his queen and connects his
rooks. He will follow up with a4 and a5 to re-
strict Black’s queenside play and then he will
deploy his king’s rook to either cl or dl. The
second phase involves improving the position
of the b3-knight by playing &c1 followed by
@a2-b4 or £)d3-b4, angling for occupation of
 CLASSICAL NAJDORF: 6 £e2 e5 69

the d5-square. Depending upon Black’s re-

sponse, White will sometimes change plans
and play an early £\d5; after an exchange of mi-
A W Eé
nor pieces on d5 followed by a recapture with
White’s e4-pawn, White will then mobilize his AT ALl
queenside pawn-majority to exploit Black’s lack
of manoeuvring space on the queenside. Black
AL T
%fi/’ 7 %7/ %7
will often respond with ...f5 to obtain coun-
terplay on the kingside.
There are some alternative approaches: BB 3
a) 10 &)d5 @bd7 (the exchange sacrifice ATCAMW
QT AT
10..2xe4?! 11 b6 Wd7 12 Hc7 Q6 13
42 | BY
v 7

D xa8 Bxa8 14 c4 favours White) and now:

al) 11 &xe7+ Wxe7 12 &f3 (preventing
Black from playing the liberating ...d5 pawn ad-
vance) 12...Eac8 13 Wd2 Ec6 is equal, A3ié-
Ruck, Bosnian Team Ch, Neum 2003.
a2) 11 Wd3 £xds 12 exdS &5 13 &xcS
dxc5 14 c4 e4 15 Wc3 Wc7 with equal chances,
Paragua-Bu Xiangzhi, Beijing rapid 2008.
b) 10 f4 exf4 and then:
bl) 11 £xf4 (note that White has lost a
tempo because his dark-squared bishop has
moved twice in comparison to the line 9 a4 26
10 f4 exf4 11 £xf4; this should be compared
to note ‘c’ to White’s 9th move 1n Game 11)
11..8¢c6 12 &h1 d5! 13 e5 Hd7 14 Hxd5
Hdxe5 15 c4 (15 Dxe7+ Wxe7 16 Wel {Mar-
janovi¢-Tarjan, Malta Olympiad 1980} 16...f6
with a solid position for Black) 15..8g5 16
Qc5 Rxf4 17 Dxeb6 fxe6 18 Hxf4 Wxdl 19
Black has two major alternatives:
a) 10...5c6 11 Efdl a5 12 a3 a4 13 &l
Wa5 14 £3 Bfc8 15 &h1! (White avoids any po-
tential issues along the gl-a7 diagonal; this is
an improvement over 15 £f1 2d8! intending
...82.b6 with a balanced game, Ehlvest-T.Geor-
gadze, Moscow Spartakiad 1983) 15...£d8 16
Wxd6 2\d47! 17 £xd4 exdd 18 Wxd4 £b6 19
Wd2 and White has won two pawns, Tsesh-
kovsky-Zaichik, Moscow Spartakiad 1983.
b) 10...b5!? (this advance has fallen out of
favour because Black concedes the bishop-pair,
but it may appeal to players seeking to sharpen
the position) 11 a4 b4 12 £d5 Hxed 13 Hxe7+
Wxe7 14 Wxb4 £5 15 Ha5 Ec8 (D) leads to an
unbalanced position where White’s bishop-pair
is offset by Black’s mobile central pawns. Now:

LLS
Haxd1 Ef6 is equal, Psakhis-I.Gurevich, Resh-
evsky Memorial, New York 1992.
b2) 11 Bxfd &c6 (11...4bd7!?, as recom- T
mended by Arizmendi and Moreno, is a rea-
v W KA
sonable alternative) 12 &Hd5 £xd5 13 exdS
&e5 (Black has a firm grip on the e5-square to
offset White’s bishop-pair) 14 Eb4 Wc7 15 a4
g%y%g/y/
&fd7 16 a5 Xfe8 17 ¢3 £16 18 £f2 2 g5 with
equality, Mortensen-Karpov, European Team
Ch, Plovdiv 1983.
Y /
c) 10 a4 &c6 (10...2bd7 11 Wd2 transposes %;fl' P ¥
to the main game) 11 Wd2 Hc8 (a safe alterna-
,,,%&//fi,%
tiveis 11...d5 12 exd5 £xd5 13 Dxd5 £xd5 14
Efd1 £xb3 15 cxb3 Wxd2 16 Exd2 Hfd8 with , , , "7 B%
equal chances, Hiibner-Anand, Wijk aan Zee
1996) 12 £f3 £b4 13 Hfdl Hgs 14 Lxgd bl) 16 Hfdl (Hamed-Magerramov, Dubai
£xgd 15 f3 feb6 is equal, Stefansson-Renet, 2001) 16...23c6 17 &xc6 Bxc6 is equal.
Reykjavik 1992. b2) 16 L3 £d7 17 £.xed fxed 18 Eadl (18
We now return to 10 Wd2 (D): Efdl &c5 19 Hc4 {Yermolinsky-Dzhandzh-
10...22bd7 gava, World Open, Philadelphia 1990} 19...a5!?
70 PLAY THE NAJDORF SICILIAN

20 Y xa5 Wc7 with a sharp but balanced posi- Wd7 and Black was able to maintain the bal-
tion) 18..%c5 19 Lxc5 Exc5 with equality, ance in Leko-Shirov, Dortmund 2002.
Babaev-Magerramov, Abu Dhabi 2000. b2) 15 3 Ec6 16 £b6 W8 (the exchange
11 a4 (D) sacrifice 16...Zxb67! 17 axb6 £xb3 18 cxb3
Wxb6+ 19 &h1 Wxb3 20 Hacl led to material

B
X7 W E:
£e equality in Leko-Shirov, Tal Memorial,
cow 2008, but White was able to grind out an
Mos-

//%/l %//Q%‘f 7 endgame win thanks to his grip on d5) 17 Wel

(17 &cl allows the freeing 17...d5! 18 exd5
A A2% 111111 Nxd5 19 Hxd5 Lxd5 with equal chances; the
@V%7%7%7 tactical point is that 20 Wxd5? Exb6 favours
Black) 17..2d8 18 £f2 b5 with a balanced
A 8 T game, Motylev-Nepomniashchy, Russian Ch,

99y & Novokuznetsk 2008.

c) 11...42c5 (this was Tony Kosten’s 1999
H AW AT NS recommendation; one of the ideas is to clarify

s B¢ the central pawn-structure before committing

11..Hc8
Black completes his development by occu-
pying the half-open c-file. Confusingly, several
of these lines can lead to the same position, so
let’s examine the various transpositions:
a) 11..Wc7 12 a5 &c5 (12...Hac8 transposes
to the main game) 13 &xc5 dxc5 14 Efd1 Efdg
15 Wel Hxd1 16 Wxd1 Hd8 with equality,
Voitsekhovsky-Kokarev, Vladimir 2008.
b) 11...49b6 12 a5 (White kicks the knight to
c4 so that he can exchange it before Black has
the chance to play ...Ec8 and recapture with the
rook; see the note to White’s 12th move in the
main game for an example) 12...%9c4 13 £xc4
£xc4 14 Efd1 Ec8 (D) and now:
Black’s queen’s rook to the c-file) 12 &xc5 dxc5
13 Wxd8 (13 Hfd1 Wc7 14 a5 transposes to line
a’ above) 13...Efxd8 14 3 c4 15 £f2 HacB 16
a5 &f8 17 Dad Hd7 18 Efd1 and then:
cl) 18..Ec6 19 &c3 &6 is equal, Leko-
Topalov, Wijk aan Zee 2004.
c2) 18..82b4!?7 19 Nc3 £c5 20 Eaq!? was
played in Leko-Anand, World Blitz Ch, Mos-
cow 2007, and now 20...&¢7 would have led to
a balanced game.
12 a5
White clamps down on the queenside and
controls the b6-square. The move-order is criti-
cal here and it is important to avoid the careless
12 Bfd17! Db6! 13 a5 Hc4 14 £ xc4 Exc4 (the
black rook is well-placed on c4 because it si-
multaneously exerts pressure along the half-
open c-file, attacks White’s e4-pawn and pre-

LW Ed
vents White from activating his queen’s
via a4) 15 {3 Wc7 16 2b6 Wc6 17 Kacl Hd7
rook

v AT
d

18 £e3 f5 19 exf5 Exf5 with a comfortable

N

\
-

RN

”
///////
position for Black, Kalashian-Papadopoulos,
AN
N\ N\

World Junior Ch, Gaziantep 2008.

12..%¢7 (D)
13 Efd1
N

Karpov’s original idea of 13 &fc1 has been

neutralized by both of the following ideas:
a) 13..Wc6 14 &3 Lc4! (the bishop inter-
»i feres with White’s plans to advance his c-pawn;

G2y &
/////

the bishop is surprisingly difficult to dislodge

from this active post) 15 Wd1 (15 &d5? Hxd5
16 exd5 Wb5! favours Black; 15 Ha4 Efe8 16
bl) 15 &cl d5! 16 £b6 (16 exd5 £b4 is b4 Wc7 17 Dd5 Dxd5 18 exd5 &f6 with equal
fine for Black) 16...We8! 17 exd5 £b4 18 d6 chances, as first played in Lukin-Hjartarson,
 CLASSICAL NAJDORF:
11111
15
Leningrad 1984) 15..Hfe8 16 &Hd2 Le6 17
&\f1 K18 is equal, Leko-Gelfand, Amber Rapid,
Monte Carlo 2003. Note that in both of the
game examples quoted here, Black developed
his king’s rook to €8 rather than to d8; this is the
optimal rook placement in this particular line as
Black avoids any possible tactics by White in-
volving a timely £.b6.
b) 13...8c5 14 &xcS dxc5 (this line also
leaves the rook looking misplaced on c1) 15 f3
c4 16 Dad d7 17 Lf1 Hfd8 18 Wel Wc6
with a solid position for Black as he has pre-
vented White from establishing a queenside
bind, Ivanchuk-Kramnik, Amber Rapid, Monte
Carlo 2004.
13...0c5
The knight leap was popularized by Joe Gal-
lagher. Boris Gelfand has also played it a cou-
ple of times in addition to this game. The line is
closely related to the 11...%c5 variation because
Black seeks to clarify the central pawn-structure
before commencing further operations; the dif-
ference is that here Black has committed his
queen’s rook to c8, while White has advanced
his pawn to a5. White is hoping to prove that the
a5-pawn cramps Black’s queenside, whereas
Black will seek to demonstrate that the ad-
vanced pawn is a weakness requiring defence.
Black has other reasonable moves including
13.. Hfd8, 13..Wc6 and 13...Efe8, but I shall
not be covering these alternatives here.
14 Dxc5 dxe5 (D)
15 £3
Alternatives:
a) 15 Ad5 £xd5 16 exdS £d6 17 c4 9\d7 is
fine for Black as he is poised to expand on the
kingside with ...f5.
6 8e2 e5 71
ErE Y
N
NN
S
AN
&\\\
&g.@,/&/
:\\
N
b) 15 £.f3 Bfd8 16 Wel Xxd1 17 Wxd] c4
18 £.b6 Wd6 is equal, Lautier-Gelfand, Tilburg
1996.
c) 15 Wel Xfd8 (15...c4 16 &d5 £xd5 17
£b6 Wd7 18 exd5 £.c5 19 £xc5 Exc5) 16
Hxd8+ Xxd8 17 2h1 Wc6 18 3 c4 with equal-
ity, Ivanchuk-Van Wely, European Clubs Cup,
Kallithea 2008.
15...2fd8 16 Wel Exd1
Similar positions arise after 16...c4 17 Exd8+
Rxd8 18 Ha4 H\d7 with an even game, Petrik-
Fercec, Pula 2007.
17 £xd1
The alternative recaptures are also harmless
for Black:
a) 17 Wxdl c4 18 Dad b4 19 Lb6 Wc6 20
c3 Le7 with a balanced game, Brunner-Galla-
gher, Biel 1990.
b) 17 ©xdl c4 18 Ebl h6 19 b4 cxb3 20
cxb3 Wc2 21 Eb2 Wc6 with a comfortable po-
sition for Black thanks to his control of the open
c-file, Leosson-Gallagher, Reykjavik 1998.
17...c4
Black gains some space on the queenside
and creates the possibility of ...2.b4, harassing
White’s a5-pawn. Now both players undertake
a series of tidying-up moves to improve their
positions.
18 Dad Dd7 19 Re2 We6
Naiditsch had previous experience facing
19...h6: 20 g3 (20 h1 Wc6 would transpose
back into the main game; 20 &f1 &h8 21 b6
2xb6 22 Lxb6 Wc6 with a solid position for
Black, Jansa-Steingnmsson, Differdange 2007)
20...Wc6 21 g2 Wb5 with equal chances, Nai-
ditsch-Hou Yifan, Moscow 2007.
20 ©hl (D)
72 PLAY THE NAJDORF SICILIAN

The white king steps aside to avoid the trap
20 Db6? Rc5! 21 Lxc5 Wxc5+ 22 W2 Hxb6
23 axb6 Wxf2+ 24 xf2 Hc6, when Black
wins a pawn.
24 2f1 $h7 25 Wd1 W6 26 Wel Wd6 27
Zh2
27 Wd1 repeats the position.
27...2g8 28 g3 g5!?
Gelfand tries to exploit White’s offside knight

/Z% %@7 by opening lines on the kingside.

29 Lg2 £6 30 hd &h7 31 h5!?
This is a double-edged idea as the pawn
could become exposed here. A safer planis to
exchange light-squared bishops with 31 hxg5
hxg5 32 £h3 £xh3 33 $xh3 g6 34 £g2 with
an even game.
31...24 32 We3 Hg8 33 fxgd Lxgd 34 213
W6 35 2d27! 5! 36 Lxg4 Exgd (D)

»r
20...h6
viZAZAg Td
Black could consider provoking queenside
i
i %/!//////
B Iy N
/%7

N A AR
weaknesses with 20... Wb5!?7 21 £d2 (21 Wcl
£.b4 22 Hc3 Ycb is equal, Misiunas-Avotins,
Baltic Club corr. Ch 2005) 21...2d6 22 b4
Wc6 23 c3 £5 24 exf5 Lxf5 25 b2 feb witha
balanced game, Asrian-Voitsekhovsky, Minsk BAE T &
1998.
21 h3 &h7 22 £d2 Wde s .
Another idea is 22...f5!? 23 exf5 £xf5, to
generate some play in the centre. 37 Wr3!
23 L¢3 (D) White concedes a pawn because the obvious
capture 37 exf5? runs into the surprising coun-

X 7 ter 37...5)f6!! 38 We2 (38 Wxh6+ g8 39 g5

Eh4+! is winning for Black) 38...2.d6 with a
za%;%a e decisive advantage for Black as White’s king-
side pawns are vulnerable and his king is ex-
posed.
37..Wxed 38 Wxed Hxed 39 Hc3 Hgd 40
Rf1 f4
A FY iy BN Black can preserve some slight winning

B AT A chances with 40..8g5!? 41 fel Ed4 (not

Bl A7
41...f47 42 2h3 56 43 Hed! and White wins
material) 42 Exf5 £g8.
R 41 gxfd Zhd+ 42 Lg2 Exh5 43 Hd5 248
44 {3 12-12
The position peters out after 44...exf4 45
23..%g8 Bxf4 De5 46 Dxcd Dxc4 47 BExc4 Lxa5 48
Now 23..Hd8!? looks reasonable, to grab & xa5 Hxa5 49 Bc7+ g6 50 Exb7 Ec5 with a
the open d-file. drawn rook endgame.
6 The Aggressive 6 4

6 4 is an appealing choice for attacking players; the footsoldiers side-by-side on €4 and f4 control
the centre and support a potential kingside pawn-storm. White is also able to meet ...e5 by &f3
without impeding his f-pawn; the knight may then be deployed to the kingside via &g5 or £ h4-f5
to support a kingside attack. The downside of the f-pawn advance is that White loses the possibility
of advancing the pawn more modestly to £3 to support his e4-pawn. The f-pawn advance also weak-
ens the gl-a7 diagonal; after White has castled kingside, this gives Black several possibilities for
creating counterplay with ... &b6+.
6 f4 experienced a surge in popularity during the late 1980s and early 1990s as White searched
for a fresh weapon with which to combat the Najdorf; one of the attractions was the wide-open
field for developing new ideas. John Nunn’s recommendation of 6 f4 in his Beating the Sicilian
series also contributed to the popularity of this line. We shall focus on Black’s traditional Najdorf
reply 6...e5. The major alternative 6...e6 transposes to a line of the Scheveningen (ECO code
B82).

Game 13 (Navara-Maksimenko) features the main line 6 f4 €5 7 {3 &\bd7 8 a4 L.e7 9 £d3 0-0
10 0-0 exf4 11 Lxf4. White recaptures his pawn and offers the b2-pawn in order to lure the black
queen away from the centre. Black accepts the sacrifice and White masses his forces on the
kingside in preparation for a kingside assault. Navara misplays the attack and Maksimenko over-
looks an opportunity to consolidate his advantage by harassing the white queen. Maksimenko fol-
lows up with a reckless pawn advance in front of his king, and after a further miscue his advantage
disappears and Navara is able to steer the game into a drawn rook endgame. The middlegame dem-
onstrates the importance of remaining vigilant and minimizing any opportunity for the opponent to
generate counterplay.

In Game 14 (Tiviakov-Atalik), White varies with 6 f4 e5 7 &3 &bd7 8 a4 £e7 9 £d3 0-0 10
0-0 exf4 11 &h1. The idea behind the king move is to defer recapturing the pawn in order to limit
Black’s queenside counterplay. Atalik responds by defending the f4-pawn; the goal is not to retain
the pawn, but rather to compel White to exchange minor pieces in order to restore material equality.
Several sets of exchanges give way to one of the characteristic Najdorf structures, where White has
an isolated e4-pawn and knight versus Black’s isolated d6-pawn and bishop. Both players respond
with some accurate moves and the result is a well-played draw.

Game 13 [B93]
David Navara — Andrei Maksimenko
Bundesliga 2007/8
1 ed c5 2 £Hf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Hxd4 56 5 This is Black’s consistent Najdorf response;
?c3 a6 6 14 other options include 6...2bd7 and 6... Wc7, but
White grabs space on the kingside and pre- I shall not be examining these moves here.
pares a retreat for his d4-knight behind the f- Black’s most important alternative is 6...e6,
pawn. transposing to a line of the Scheveningen (ECO
6...e5 (D) code B82).
74 PLAY THE NAJDORF SICILIAN

// Y

B QWELPE Y A Y
/////

////// = Ag/%z

7 &3 Black from driving the c3-knight away from

Alternatives: the centre with a timely ...b4 pawn advance. Al-
a) 7 @f5 (arare move that could be an effec- ternatives:
tive surprise weapon) 7...d5! (the stem game of a) 8 Kc4 Ke7 9 a4 transposes to the note to
this line saw 7...2xf5 8 exf5 &6 9 g4!? with White’s 9th move.
sharp play in Fischer-J.MacDonald, Montreal b) 8 £d3 b5 (for 8...2e7 9 a4, see the main
simul 1964) 8 £e3!? and then: game) 9 0-0 £e7 10 ©h1 0-0 11 a3 He8 12
al) 8...d47?9 fxe5 g8 10 Kc4! is very dan- Wel (12 ©h4 Hc5 13 fxe5 dxe5 14 HDF5!
gerous for Black; for example, 10...h6 11 £xf5 15 ExfS {15 exf5 Hxd3 16 cxd3 Wd4 is
Deds &6 (11...dxc3? 12 L.g5! Wa5 {forced; also depressing for White because of his vul-
12..Wd7? 13 &b6 with crushing threats or nerable d3-pawn} 15...2fxe4! 16 Hxed Dxed
12.. Wxg5? 13 D7+ Le7 14 Wd6#) 13 bd is and Black has won a pawn, Guliev-Van der
dreadful for Black) 12 £xh6 dxc3 13 £g5 Wa5 Stricht, Moscow 2004) 12...£b7 13 fxe5 dxe5
14 b3 with an advantage for White as he will re- 14 L5 Wb6 15 Hh4 g6 with equal chances,
main a pawn ahead. Henao-Browne, US Open Ch, Los Angeles
a2) 8..2xe4 9 Hxed dxed 10 Wxd8+ &xd8 1991.
11 fxe5 (Losev-Dubinsky, Moscow 1997) and 8..2e7(D)
now 11..2e6 12 £c4 Lxc4 13 Dxcd Hd7 is
equal — Arizmendi and Moreno.
a3) 8..exf4 9 Hexd5 Hxd5 10 Wxd5 £d6 E fWeée X
with roughly equal chances.
v 2434
'y 0
b) 7 &b3 (the knight is marginalized here)
7..40bd7 8 £d3 £79 0-0b5 10 £h1 £b7 11
We2 0-0 12 £d2 Ee8 and Black has smoothly
completed his development, Radulov-Sigur-
jonsson, Lucerne Olympiad 1982. One of the
ideas behind the 6 f4 Variation is to prepare a
retreat for the white knight behind the f-pawn;
the combination of f4 and b3 does not work
well because the knight cannot readily partici-
pate in a potential kingside attack.
7..4bd7 (D)
8 a4 9 2d3
White invests a tempo to grab some space White has not been able to demonstrate any
and restrain Black’s ambitions on the queen- advantage after 9 £.c4 Wa5! 10 We2 (10 0-0??
side; if Black is allowed to play ...b5, White is Wc5+ picks up the bishop) 10...0-0 11 0-0 exf4
often compelled to respond with a3 to prevent 12 &.xf4 &e5 (note how the black queen lends
 THE AGGRESSIVE 6 f4 75

support to the e5 strongpoint) 13 &d5 (13 Lxe5 14th move) 15..2f6 16 Habl Wc7 17 £g5
dxe5 14 ©h1 Wc7 with a balanced game, Stell- Wds (17...g6 18 Kh6 Wd8 19 £xf8 Wxf8 20
wagen-Nunn, Amsterdam 2006) 13...xd5 14 Nd2 2d8 was agreed drawn in Haslinger-
£xd5 2eb6 15 £xe6 Dxf3+ 16 Wxf3 fxe6 17 Rowson, British Ch, Douglas 2005, but White
Wb3 WesS+ 18 ©hl We8 19 Badl (19 a5 Wd7 should play 21 &c4 with an edge) 18 Wed g6
20 Hadl Hac8 is also harmless for Black) 19 ¥ha h5 (D).
19...b5! with equal chances, Leko-Kasparov,
Sarajevo 1999.
9...0-0 10 0-0 exf4 %2% g@%
Another major option is 10...c5 11 &hl
(the king steps aside as 11 fxe5 dxe5 12 Hxe5??
Wd4+ wins the knight) 11...exf4, transposing to
note ‘b’ to Black’s 11th move in Game 14.
11 &xf4
11 &hl is covered in Game 14.
11...Wb6+ 12 Thl Wxb2 (D)

27}%/%@/
v A /m%&% x
//////////
Wy
s Gallagher’s suggestion of 23 Wg3 should be
%W%E%Z%@
|UALHAY
13 Wel
The queen heads for the kingside.
become established as the main line,
are two important alternatives:
a) 13 Wd2 (the queen appears to
placed here) 13..%b6 14 Hd5 Hxd5
&\c5 and then:
al) 16 Hael Wd8 17h3 (17 Ke3!?) 17...Rd7
18 a5 Hc8 left White with inadequate compen-
sation for the pawn in Adams-Van Wely, Gar-
misch Partenkirchen rapid 1994.
a2) 16 g5 fLxg5 17 Lxg5 16 18 fe3 Wc7
19 £xc5 Wxc5 20 Eabl with the idea of Wb4
enabled White to equalize in Vogt-Gelfand,
Halle 1987.
b) 13 £)d5 (White clarifies the central pawn-
structure before committing his queen to a par-
ticular square) 13...20xd5 14 exd5 and now:
bl) 14..%Wb6 15 We2!? (for 15 Wd?2 see line
‘a’; 15 Wel transposes to note ‘b’ to White’s
8/7B ¢
Now:
bl1) 20 Eb4 Lxg5 21 Dxg5 Des 22 Ebf4
y f5 (Gross-Womacka, Feldbach 1997) and now
met by 23...%g4, when Black has adequate de-
fensive resources.
bl12) 20 Lxf6 Wxf6 (20...4)xf6, Filippov-
Al Modiahki, Hyderabad 2005, and now 21
e5 Hixd5 {21..2g7 22 Hb6! leaves Black
paralysed} 22 Wxd8 Exd8 23 Hxf7 Bd7 24
& g5 favours White as Black has difficulty un-
This has ravelling his queenside) 21 g5 We7 22 g4 b5
but there 23 Hbel Hes5 24 gxh5 b7 25 Led with an
edge for White as his king is more secure.
be mis- b13) 20 h3!? (a new move to prise open the
15 exd5 kingside) 20...2.xg5 21 Dxg5 He5 22 g4! fa-
voured White in Arakhamia-Gormally, Euro-
pean Union Ch, Liverpool 2008.
b2) 14...&%c5! (the safest choice, eliminating
White's dangerous light-squared bishop) 15 We2
Hxd3 16 Wxd3 Wb4 17 £g5 (D), and here:
b21) 17...f6!7 (this was a 1995 Informator
65 suggestion by Gelfand) 18 £d2 Wg4 (an-
other reasonable move is 18...Wc5!?, Boucher-
Aykent, ICCF corr. 1996) 19 Hael £.f5 20 &b3
Hfe8 is fine for Black as White’s queenside
pawns are vulnerable.
b22) 17..8xg5 18 @xg5 £5!? (this was sug-
gested by Ki.Georgiev and Kolev as an improve-
ment over 18..Wh4 19 &ed4 (Leko-Gelfand,
76 PLAY THE NAJDORF
- B
Belgrade 1995} 19...We7 20 Hael 5 21 &5
W6 22 Deb Rxeb6 23 dxe6 Hae8 with a slight
advantage for White according to Gelfand;
however, I think Black can hold the position af-
ter 24 Wxd6 We7 as White’s e6-pawn is block-
aded) 19 Efel £d7 (19..Wh4 20 &He6 Zf7 also
looks reasonable) 20 @De6 (20 Ee7? Hae8 was
given by Ki.Georgiev and Kolev as an example
of the weakness of White’s back rank) 20...&f7
and Black retains his extra pawn.
We now return to 13 Wel (D):
!/fi%%2/
13..Wb6
This is Black’s most popular choice: having
snagged a pawn, the queen withdraws from
any potential trouble along the b-file. Alterna-
tives:
a) 13..Wb4?! (this queen retreat is too pro-
vocative and the queen quickly becomes ma-
rooned on the queenside) 14 Ebl Wc5 15 £d5
xd5 16 exd5 £16 17 c4! Wc7?! 18 Wg3 He5
19 £g5 £xg5 20 Kxh7+! &xh7 21 Dxgs+
&h6 22 Wha+ Lg6 23 Eb3!? with a mating
SICILIAN
attack for White, Vogt-Womacka, East Ger-
many 1989.
b) 13...%8c5!? (this move is more resilient
than its reputation) 14 Eb1 &£xd3 15 cxd3 Wc2
(15...%a3?7 loses to 16 d4) 16 e5 (16 d4 He8
17 Ef2 Wd3 18 Ec1 ££8 19 Ed2 Wc4 was fine
for Black in Axelsson-de Firmian, Stockholm
1993; 16 Ed1 Wb3 17 Hd4 Wb6 18 £e3, with
compensation for the material, was suggested
by Ki.Georgiev and Kolev, and this looks rea-
sonable in view of 18...8d8 19 &f5 £ xf5 20
Exf5 Ec8 21 Ebl Wd7 22 £d4 with kingside
pressure) 16...20h5 17 £d5 £.d8 18 L.¢5 (D)
and here:
z/géy%@/
Bf/z%r%x%t
A/ 2
K 2a
. @a@agw
7 M &Y Y
.
wr &
bl) 18...f67 was played in Nijboer-Armas,
Wijk aan Zee 1989, but then 19 6! He8 (after
19...fxg5 20 £Xd4 White wins as the black king
is in a mating-net) 20 e7 &xe7 21 &xe7+ Rf8
22 Wed gives White a decisive attack.
b2) 18..Re6! 19 HeT7+ LxeT7 20 Lxe7
&fal 21 We3d (21 Ef2 Wxa4 is fine for Black)
21...dxe5 22 2xf8 Hxf8 23 Hxe5 Kd5 with
roughly equal chances as Black has good piece-
play in return for his small material investment;
this line could use some practical tests.
We now return to the position arising after
13..¥b6 (D):
14 2g5
Alternatives:
a) 14 Eb1?! Wd8 15 e5 dxe5 16 Dxe5 &c5
17 £c4 Leb 18 Lxeb fxeb 19 &Hc4 (Savon-
Vaulin, Katowice 1993) 19...We8 20 b6 Hd8
favours Black thanks to his extra pawn.
b) 14 £d5 @xd5 15 exd5 Wd8 and then:
bl) 16 Wg3 and here Black has two promis-
ing moves:
 THE AGGRESSIVE 6 f4 77

light-squared bishop) 16...dxe5 17 £xf6 Hxf6

18 Hg5! (18 Hxe5?! Keb gave Black a large
advantage in Kveinys-Van Wely, Moscow
Olympiad 1994; Black has the bishop-pair to
go along with an extra pawn) 18...h6 19 &xf7!
xf7 20 Lc4+ (D).

%fi%!%
&

\§W§*§
\\\\\Q
[;::
/ 7
B R

N\ §
N
b11) 16..5cS 17 Bael (17 £d2!? looks

\
o
more prudent, to preserve White’s pawn-struc-
ture) 17...2xd3 18 cxd3 £f5 19 He3 Ee8 left

White with insufficient compensation for the
pawn in de Firmian-Van Wely, Akureyri 1994.
b12) 16..5f6 17 Wha Hed 18 Wh5 g6!
(18...5)f6 led to a draw by repetition in Bar-
glowski-Bobras, Polish Team Ch, Lubniewice
2003) 19 Who He8 20 £xe4 21821 Wg5 6 22
Wg3 Hxe4 and again White has insufficient
compensation for the pawn.
b2) 16 c4 (White expends a tempo to prepare
a retreat for his light-squared bishop) 16...%)c5
17 £c2 g4 18 Wg3 L h5 (this is the most pre-
cise continuation, by which Black plays to neu-
tralize White’s dangerous light-squared bishop)
19 Kael (the stem game in this line saw 19 &H\d4
L6 20 D5 Lxf5 21 £xf5 Kha 22 Wg4 g6
with an edge for Black, M.Negele-G.Miiller,
corr. 1998) 19...8g6 20 Lxg6 fxgbd 21 Hxe7
(21 £g577 Bxf3 22 Wxf3 £xg5 23 W7+ &h8
gave Black a decisive advantage in Panchana-
than-Saravanan, Nagpur 2002 as the white rooks
§\
Now:
a) 20..8e6 (20..2f877 21 Wh5 mates) 21
£ xe6+ Txeb 22 Wed+ 2d7 23 Badl+ £d6 24
Exf6 gxf6 (24..Wxf6 25 Hed W4 26 Hc5+
&c8 27 Wd5 Lxc5 28 Wxe5+ b8 29 Wd6e+
©a7 30 WcS+ &b8 31 Wd6+ is a draw) 25 Hed
e7 26 Hixd6 Wxd6 27 Hxd6 xd6 28 Whbd+
Le6 29 Wxb7 with a likely draw as it is difficult
for the black king to find shelter.
b) 20..%g6 21 £d3+ Lf7 22 Lcd+ with a
draw by repetition — Van Wely.
This example illustrates several typical Si-
cilian attacking themes and underlines the im-
portance of exchanging White’s light-squared
bishop.
15 Wh4 % xd3 16 ¢xd3 (D)

LT 30
have no entry-points) 21...Wxe7 22 £xd6 We2
23 Hel Wxc4 24 £.xf8 Exf8 with an advantage

P47 Ak
for Black as he has retained his extra pawn and
White’s remaining pawns are vulnerable.
14...45¢5
This knight move aims to eliminate White’s

AW AV W
potent light-squared bishop. This was a 1994
Informator 62 suggestion by Van Wely after he
played 14..Wd8 15 Wh4 Xe8 (15..h6!? 16
£xh6 gxh6 17 e5 Pxe5 18 Wxh6 {18 Hxe5?
loses to 18...%\g4!!} 18..%egd 19 Wg5+ &h8 By
20 Wha+ g7 21 Wg5+ with a draw by repeti-
tion) 16 e5!? (this is a common motif in this
line: White opens the bl-h7 diagonal for his
78 PLAY THE NAJDORF
16...Wa5
Another reasonable move is 16...Wd8!? fol-
lowed by ...h6 to repel White’s dark-squared
bishop. This idea awaits a practical trial.
17 De2?!
White is systematically driven back after this
knight retreat.
The most dangerous try is 17 e5. Then:
a) 17..Wxc3 18 Eacl Wb2 19 Ebl We3 20
Ebcl Wb2 '»-'42 Bielczyk-Vera, Cappelle la
Grande 2008.
b) 17...dxe5! 18 De4 Wd8 19 Hixe5 Ad5 20
Bxf7 Exf7 21 xf7 2xf7 22 Wxh7 fxg5 23
Wh5+ g8 24 Hixg5 Df6 25 W7+ Lh8 26
Bf1 20427 Wg6 Lh5 28 D7+ L8 29 Hh6+
$h8 30 D7+ with a draw by perpetual check.
17...h6 18 £.d2 Wd8 19 Wel £d47 (D)
fi@/
/ a2
7 A
20 Dfd4 Dgd 21 Ygl L16
Black should exploit the white queen’s lack of
squares with the direct attack 21...&2h4! 22 ¥f3
(22 Wxd6 D2+ 23 gl Dxd3 24 Ba3 L.g4 fa-
vours Black thanks to his powerful bishop-pair)
22...0e5 23 We3 g5 24 &3f4 Wb6 with an ad-
vantage for Black as White has no compensa-
tion for his missing pawn and he is caught in an
uncomfortable pin.
Game
Sergei Tiviakov — Suat Atalik
Turin Olympiad 2006
1 ed c52 &$Hf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Hxd4 &Xf6 5
&3 a6 6 14 e5 7 3 Dbd7 8 a4 £e7 9 £d3
0-0 10 0-0 exf4
SICILIAN
22 Habl Qe5 23 214 Eb8 24 O3 Gxf4 25
Dxf4 £5?!
The pawn advance needlessly weakens the
kingside. Black should instead consolidate his
advantage with 25...f6 26 ©d4 Wa5 27 Hfe2
We5, when White has no compensation for his
material deficit.
26 Hd4!
Navara seizes the opportunity to stir up some
trouble on the kingside.
26... W16 27 Oxf5 Kxf5 28 HdS (D)
7 % % //
B ////41///4/ _ 7,///
/////
8 /82 &
28...We6?
Black should keep the knights on the board
and exchange queens with 28... We5! 29 Wxe5
(29 exf5 Wxg3 30 hxg3 Ebe8 favours Black be-
cause of White’s boxed-in king) 29...2xe5!
(29...dxe57! 30 De7+ £h7 31 &xf5 is equal)
30 exf5 (30 &e7+ h7 31 Hxf5 &Hxd3 32
@ xd6 Exf1+ 33 Exf1 b5 34 axb5 axb3 also fa-
vours Black) 30...4xd3 and Black retains win-
ning chances thanks to his extra pawn.
29 exf5 Wxd5 30 ¥xg4 Zf6 31 Ef3 b5 32
Wed Wxed 33 dxeq He8
If 33...b4, then 34 a5 enables White to main-
tain the balance.
34 axb5 axb5 35 Exb35 Exed 2.1
14 [B93]
For comments on the moves up to here, see
Game 13.
11 &h1 (D)
 THE AGGRESSIVE 6 f4 79

11 £xf4 was covered in Game 13.

. % %A
I 0 _
5K
AT ., M
WA
.
l
///Af/
mA
B @
E //%;g /%7 %7 7

major ideas is ...£2h5-g6 to put pressure on e4)

and then:
11...20h5!? bl) 13 Wd2 Ec8 and here:
Black defends the f4-pawn at the cost of bl1) 14 &Dd4 d5! 15 e5 &fed 16 We3 Hxd3
moving his knight to the edge of the board; one (Y2-/2 Gdanski-Kuczynski, Ksiaz 1998; but
of the ideas is to induce White into wasting pre- Black should play on) 17 Wxd3 &xc3 18 bxc3
cious tempi to restore material equality. Black Wd7 gives Black good chances to exploit
has two major alternatives: White’s weakened queenside.
a) 11..50e5 12 £xf4 Wc7 and now: b12) 14 Hael He8 and now:
al) 13 Wd2 £e6 14 Hd4 Eac8 15 Ace2 b121) 15 £Hd4 Wb6!? (this was a 2004 rec-
Hfe8 with equal chances, Tal-Rizzitano, Na- ommendation by Arizmendi and Moreno) 16
tional Open, Chicago 1988. This game is fully b3 (after 16 £g5? Pxd3 17 Wxd3 Wxb2 Black
annotated in Understanding Your Chess. simply wins a pawn, Ahn-Feller, Charleroi
a2) 13 Wel £e6 14 Dxe5 dxeS 15 Lg5 2006) 16...60xd3 17 ¥xd3 Wc5 18 £d2 K48
&h8 16 HXd1 Ead8 with a balanced game, Mal- 19 &d5!? DxdS 20 exd5 £16 21 Df5 Ke5 22
lahi-Andriasian, Sevan 2006. c4 with equal chances as White has managed to
a3) 13 £g5 (this introduces a dangerous safeguard his queenside pawns.
exchange sacrifice, against which Black must b122) 15h3 £h5 16 Dd4 £g6 (16..Wb6!?)
play precisely to hold the balance) 13...2.e6 14 17 &5 &xf5 18 exf5 d5 with good play for
AxeS5 (14 a5 Dfgd! 15 L4 Dxf3 16 Wxf3 Des Black as he has smoothly completed his devel-
17 Wg3 Kac8 is equal, J.Polgar-Wojtkiewicz, opment, Zi Jing Wong-Palliser, British League
Budapest Zonal 1993) 14...dxe5 15 £.xf6 £.xf6 (4NCL) 2008/9.
16 Exf6! gxf6 17 Whs &g7 18 Hfl Xh8 19 b2) 13 Wel Ec8 (D) and now:
Wha (19 He2 was a 1998 suggestion by Joe
Gallagher, to which 19...Ehg8 looks like an ad-
equate defence) 19..We7 20 Hd5 £xd5 21
exd5 (D).
21...a5! (Black must blockade the queen-
side; this was an improvement over the careless
21...Had8? 22 c4 a5 23 Ke4 b6 24 b4! axb4 25
a5 with a deadly pawn-roller, Glek-Malishaus-
kas, Tallinn 1986) 22 c4 b6 23 £e4 Wd6 24 b4
axb4 25 a5 (White lures the black rook off the
back rank) 25...Hxa5 26 Wg4+ with perpetual
check, S.Gonzalez-A.Petrosian, Bogota 1987.
b) 11..4c5 12 &xf4 £2g4 (an important
manoeuvre: as we shall see, one of Black’s
80 PLAY THE NAJDORF
b21) 14 Wg3 £h5 15 £e3 £g6 16 £.d4
d5! 17 £x£6 (17 exd5 @Dxd3 18 cxd3 Dxd5 19
WeS5 &6 favours Black as he has the superior
pawn-structure to go along with his bishop-
pair) 17...2xf6 18 €5 &£xd3 19 cxd3 (19 exf6
&xb2) 19...2e7 “and Black has nothing to
complain about” — Arizmendi and Moreno.
b22) 14 Hd4 Wb6! and then:
b221) 15 £e2?! £xe2 16 Wxe2 Hfe8 (the al-
ternative 16...8xb2!? should lead to the same
position after 17 &)f5 Efe8, since 17 £d2? loses
to 17...2cxed!) 17 &S Wxb2 with an edge for
Black, J.Polgar-Anand, Buenos Aires 1994.
b222) 15a5!&xd3 16 axb6 Hxel 17 Haxel
Hca offers Black counterplay according to
Anand in his 1994 Informator 62 notes. 18 #f5
£xf5 19 exf5 He8 is comfortable for Black.
We now return to 11...5h5!? (D):
E 2W Ré
tv/;%flfix%,
}% A %y/
% % . %/
%&%/%
% %g%@%
7 AT
TBwWZEEE
12 Hd4
The white knight aims for the f5-square. Al-
ternatives:
a) 12 &Hel (this retreat fails to impress as
the knight is headed in the wrong direction)
12...5e5! 13 Ke2 (13 Wxh5?? Lg4 traps the
queen) 13...8)f6 14 £xf4 Le6 and then:
al) 15 &f3 and here Black has a choice be-
tween speculative or solid moves:
all) 15..Wb6!? 16 Hxe5 (16 Wd4 Wxd4 17
&Hxd4 Kac8 is equal) 16...dxe5 17 L. xe5 Efd8!?
(17...Hac8?! was tried in Friedel-Esserman,
Berkeley 2008, but 18 £d5! favours White) 18
Wc1 Hac8 gives Black easy development in re-
turn for the pawn.
al2) 15..Wc7 16 £Hd4 (Meier-Guelpen, corr.
1995) 16...Eac8 with a solid position for Black
thanks to the strongpoint on e35.
SICILIAN
a2) 15 9d3 Dgb6 16 £.g3 d5 (Black has al-
ready equalized) 17 exd5 (17 Kf3 d4 18 He2
Ngd 19 Lxg4 L.xgd was also fine for Black
in Bauer-Gelfand, French Team Ch 1999/00)
17..2xd5 18 Hxd5 &xd5 19 Lf3 L6 12-12
Groszpeter-Varga, Gyula 1998.
b) 12 &\dS and now:
bl) 12..8\df6 13 Dxf4 Lgd 14 c4 He8 is
equal, Arakhamia-Areshchenko, Caleta 2005.
b2) 12..48c5 13 &d4 (13 Dxfd Hxfa 14
2xf4 £16 15 c3 Ee8 is fine for Black, Petro-
vié-Tringov, Novi Sad 1986) 13...g6 14 &xf4
xfa 15 Lxfa Lg5 16 Wd2 Kxf4 17 Wxf4
&e6 with an even game, Dvoirys-A.Shneider,
Podolsk 1993.
12...26 (D)
12...9)df6 13 fe2 g6 is another route to the
position seen in the main game.
;/g” 2é
v /A/AKAL/ A
x%,% %1/
5
Y %&% %
% At
pAl mAK
@
o GuEnie
13 Se2
White can also play the immediate 13 &f5
df6 14 HxeT+ Wxe7 15 L.xf4 Pxf4 16 Exfa
(the exchange of two sets of minor pieces has
reduced any potential threat to Black’s king-
side) 16...2e6 (or 16..We5 17 Wd2 Le6 18
Raf1 &\d7 with a solid position for Black as his
queen cannot be dislodged from its centralized
post) 17 We2 Eac8 (another idea is 17...5)d7 18
L4 £ b6 with equal chances — Ki.Georgiev and
Kolev) 18 €5 &Yd7 (Black must avoid 18...4d5?
19 &xd5 &.xd5 20 Ed4, when White will wina
pawn, Dvoirys-Averchenko, Tomsk 1997) 19
exd6 Wxd6 with equality.
13..5\df6 (D)
14 D5
The challenge for White is to find a way to re-
cover the f4-pawn without allowing excessive
 THE AGGRESSIVE
7 prevents Black from establishing a knight out-
N
BAEAEAL
o OBW R &
simplification. The alternative is 14 £xh5 @xh5
15 dS £g5 16 Y3 (16 Sxf4 Dxf4 17 Kxf4
£xf4 18 Exf4 d5 is equal, Sokolov-Gelfand,
Yugoslav Team Ch, Ulcinj 1997) 16...8d7 17
De2 £c6 18 Dexfd Dxfa 19 £xf4 LxdS 20
exd5 Ec8 and the players soon agreed to a draw
in J.Polgar-Gelfand, Linares 1997.
14...2¢6
The bishop takes control of the vital d5-
square; this is Black’s safest choice. Alterna-
tives:
a) 14...gxf5 15 &xh5 fxed 16 £xf4 Le6 17
fe2 gives White reasonable compensation for
the pawn in view of Black’s vulnerable king-
side.
b) 14.. He8 15 Dxe7+ Wxe7 16 £xf4 Dxf4
17 Bxf4 Re6 is equal, Friedel-Ludwig, USA
Ch Qualifier, Tulsa 2008.
15 Dxe7+ Wxe7 (D)
v Ce 17
|[EA WAA
4 “ -
&4a%;%44
o.
16 2xh5
Tiviakov elects to exchange one of the black
knights before recovering the f4-pawn; this
6 f4 81
post on the e5-square as in note ‘a’ below. Al-
ternatives:
a) 16 fxf4 Hxf4 17 Exf4 Hd7 18 Wd4
Hac8 with a solid position for Black as his
knight will have a comfortable perch on e5.
b) 16 b3!? Wc7 (16..8fd8 17 b2 Wc7
with sharp play, Korbut-Vaulin, St Petersburg
2001) 17 £2b2 Wc5 (17..Hacg!?) 18 &Hd5!1?
£xd5 19 exd5 Hae8 20 c4 gives White suffi-
cient compensation for the pawn thanks to his
powerful dark-squared bishop.
16...xh5 17 Lxf4 Hxf4 18 Exf4 Eac8 19
Wd2
White is driven back after 19 Wd4 Zc4 20
W2 Wc7, when Black has strong pressure
along the half-open c-file.
19..Wg5
Black’s queen will slide along the fourth
rank and prevent White from generating any
kingside threats.
20 Zd1 Efd8 21 h3 b5 22 axb5 axb5 23 Xf2
(D)
Bf/
/t@
B T A
Al
78
LA
&
23..Wc5
Black can also play 23...We5 24 Wd4 b4 25
Hd5 Kxd5 26 exdS Ee8, maintaining the bal-
ance as after 27 Wxb4 Eb8 he recovers the
pawn.
24 W4 Wes
Atalik challenges the white queen. Another
idea is 24...b4 25 &d5 Lxd5 26 Exd5 Wa7 27
Wf6 He8 with equal chances as both sides have
a vulnerable centre pawn.
25 Wxe5 dxe5 26 Exd8+ Exd8 27 Hixb5
Eb8 28 H\c7 Exb2 29 Hxe6 fxe6 30 gl Ebl+
31 Zf1 Bb4 32 Bf6 Exed 33 Exe6 Ecd 12-1-2
7 Gelfand Variation: 6 2g5 e6
7 f4 S\bd7

6 £.g5 was the most popular Najdorf line for many years, before being supplanted by the English
Attack during the 1990s. However, there has been a recent revival in the more aggressive bishop de-
velopment as players have taken a fresh look at some older positions and developed new ideas for
both sides. Black’s traditional reply is 6...e6 and after 7 f4 we begin our coverage with 7...23bd7.
The knight move was first played in the 1950s, but over time the variation has become closely
identified with Boris Gelfand. The grandmaster from Belarus has achieved excellent results with
this line in high-level games for more than twenty years. Black delays the development of his dark-
squared bishop with ...£e7 in order to accelerate his queenside expansion with ...b5. This is a pro-
vocative concept and White has several interesting sacrificial ideas to attack Black’s king position.
The most critical lines start after 8 Wf3 Wc7 9 0-0-0 b5 10 £d3 £b7 11 Ehel Wb6. The Gelfand
Variation is a very topical line and ideas are developing at a rapid pace.

Game 15 (E.Berg-Negi) covers the sharp tactical line beginning with 12 £\d5. White sacrifices a
bishop for three pawns and attacking chances as the black king is marooned in the centre. Black
misses an opportunity to contest the open d-file and obtain a slight advantage. Berg plays very ag-
gressively and keeps up the pressure, while Negi misses an additional opportunity to repel the attack.
After a further error, White is able to infiltrate with his major pieces and Black is forced to sacrifice
his queen for a rook and bishop to prevent mate. Berg quickly finishes off the game as the queen is too
powerful on an open board. This game features some exciting back-and-forth tactics and demon-
strates how important it is for the defender always to be alert to possible tactics directed against his
king. In this game we also consider alternatives for both sides, starting with Black’s 6th move.

In Game 16 (Shirov-Anand), White chooses the relatively quiet alternative 12 &b3. Black re-
sponds with 12.. Ec8 and after 13 Wh3 he sacrifices the exchange with 13...Exc3!?; this is a typical
Sicilian Defence motif whereby Black invests a small amount of material in order to reduce
White’s attacking opportunities and break up White’s queenside pawn-structure. Shirov advances
in the centre with 16 €5!? to open lines for his rooks, but after 16...dxeS he goes astray with 17 £5?!,
when Anand is able to safeguard his king in the centre of the board. Black misses an opportunity to
increase his advantage, and then White overlooks a chance to equalize. Anand concludes the game
very forcefully with a nice combination to exploit Shirov’s weak back rank. The main theme of this
game is White’s inability to activate his rooks, which allowed Black gradually to increase his ad-
vantage and create irresistible mating threats.

Game 15 [B96]
Emanuel Berg — Parimarjan Negi
Malmé 2007
1 e4 ¢5 2 Df3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 DHxd4 HF6 5 6...e6
el a6 6 L85 (D) Alternatives:
 GELFAND VARIATION: 6 285 e6 7 f4 Dbd7
11111
7
B B
1
&fl&//// TAN
L ¥ugs
a) 6...2)c6 leads to positions more akin to
the Richter-Rauzer, to which it will probably
transpose, so I shall not cover it here.
b) 6...4bd7 is an older line that has not been
developed much in recent years. The most prom-
ising response is 7 £.¢4 (7 f4 e6 is equivalent to
6...6 7 f4 \bd7) 7...Wa5 8 Wd2 e6 9 0-0-0 b5
10 £b3 2b7 11 Ehel 0-0-0 12 a3, when theory
favours White.
7 4
White has a couple of minor alternatives:
a) 7 We2?! (the queen runs into a tactical
problem on this square) 7...h6! 8 Rh4 £e7 9
f4 $xed! 10 £xe7 Dxc3 11 We4! (White sac-
rifices a pawn to keep his structure intact)
11..&xe7 12 Wxc3 He8! (Black prepares to
castle ‘by hand’) 13 0-0-0 &f8 14 &f3 (14
g4 e5! 15 Df5 Lxf5 16 gxfS Q6 favours
Black, Blazi-Keller, Marktredwitz 1984; 14
bl g8 is also fine for Black, as is 14 £e2
Wb6, Shabalov-Bryant, Las Vegas 2008) 14...d5
leaves White with inadequate compensation
for the pawn.
b) 7 Wf3 h6! 8 £hd (8 Lxf6 Wxf6 9 Wxf6
gxf6 10 f4 h5 11 f5 Hc6 12 Bdl £d7 13 K4
@e7 gave Black a comfortable endgame thanks
to his bishop-pair in Short-Kasparov, Sarajevo
2000) 8...20bd7 9 0-0-0 Wc7 10 Re2 Ke7 11
Ehel Eb8 12 Wh3 b5 is equal, Korchnoi-Sad-
vakasov, Match (game 7), Astana 2003.
We now return to 7 f4 (D):
7...2bd7
In comparison with the Main Line (Chapter
10), Black delays the development of his king’s
bishop in order to accelerate his queenside ex-
pansion; this is a provocative idea and White
has several interesting sacrificial ideas to attack
83
11111
' FY //141
2
U 4
A /% %fi
&
Black’s king position. Black has a wide choice
of alternatives:
a) 7..Wc7 has similar aims, and is covered
in Chapter 8: Kasparov Vanation.
b) 7...Wb6 is the Poisoned Pawn Variation —
see Chapter 9.
c) 7...b5 is the Polugaevsky Variation, also
examined in Chapter 9.
d) 7...8.¢7 is discussed in Chapter 10: Main
Line.
e) 7...4)c6 was popular in the 1990s, but is
currently quite rare. Let’s briefly examine the
main lines after 8 e5 h6 9 £h4:
el) 9..&xd4 10 Wxd4 (White must avoid 10
exf6? &Xf5 11 fxg7?! Wxhd+ 12 g3 Dxg3 13
gxh8W? Ded+ with a mating attack, Sprenger-
Danner, Oberpullendorf 2002) 10...dxe5 11
Wxd8+ Lxd8 12 fxe5 g5 13 £g3 Od7 14 0-0-0
£g7 15 £e2! and White completes his develop-
ment and homes in on the vulnerable f7-pawn
after 15..2e7 16 £h5, Paramos Dominguez-
L.Dominguez, Santa Clara 1999.
e2) 9...dxe5 10 Dixc6 Wxd1+ 11 Exdl bxc6
12 fxeS &d5 13 Ded Hb8 14 b3 L£e7 15 L¢3
with a slight structural advantage for White,
Adams-Anand, Linares 1997.
e3) 9...g5 allows White two attractive ideas:
e31) 10 fxg5 &d5 11 Hixd5 exd5 12 exd6
£xd6 (12..Wxd6? 13 We2+ Re7 14 Dxch
bxc6 15 £g3! favours White as the black king
is marooned in the centre, Shabalov-Browne,
Las Vegas 1997) 13 &ixc6 bxc6 14 Wd4 We7+
15 £e2 Le5 16 Wad Xb8 17 g6 and then:
e311) 17..¥d6 18 gxf7+ gives White a
strong attack after 18...&xf7 19 0-0+ g7 20
£¢3 or 18...&f87?! (McDonald-Danner, Buda-
pest 1996) 19 a3! (covering b4) 19...£xb2 20 0-0.
84 PLAY THE NAJDORF SICILIAN

e312) 17..Wbd+ 18 Wxb4 Exb4 19 gxf7+

Lxf7 20 0-0+ g7 21 &2 Ef8 (Bracker-Hei-
germoser, Kelheim 2007) 22 Eael £xb2 23

S
£d3 with slight pressure for White.

RN
e

NS
e32) 10 £g31? §Hd5 (10...gxf4?? loses a

Do
L
piece: 11 Hxc6 Wb6 (11...bxc6 12 £h4!} 12

\\\NN

NS
22 Wxc6 13 exf6) 11 &xd5 exd5 12 HHxcb

»
\‘\.
\%

NN
bxc6 13 We2 Re6 14 exd6 gxfd 15 Lxf4 Lxd6

AR
C>

\
\
16 &xd6 Wxd6 17 0-0-0 with an edge for

White due to his more secure king, Zjukin-
Shishkov, Estonian Team Ch, Tallinn 1998.
8 W3
This is White’s most popular move, prepar-
ing to castle queenside and develop a rapid ini-
tiative in the centre. Alternatives:
a) 8 fcd Wb6 9 £xf6!? (White aims for
quick central pressure; this idea has recently
become popular) 9...2xf6 10 £b3 and now:
al) 10..e5 11 Kad+!? (11 Dde2 exfd 12
Nxfa We3+ 13 Hfe2 Ke7 is balanced, Beliav-
sky-Gelfand, Linares 1994) 11...&e7 (another
idea is 11..8d7!? 12 &xd7+ $xd7 13 fxe5
dxe5 14 b3+ c7 with approximately equal
chances) 12 &de2 exf4 13 £b3 Ke6 14 Dd4
with good compensation for the pawn on ac-
count of Black’s misplaced king, Naiditsch-
Siugirov, Moscow 2009.
a2) 10...Wc5 11 Wd3 £e7 12 0-0-0 e5 (the
simple 12...0-0 looks like a reasonable alterna-
tive) 13 5 L.xf5 14 exf5 with a slight advan-
tage to White thanks to his grip on the light
squares, Kurnosov-Anisimov, European Ch,
Budva 2009.
b) 8 We2 Wc7 9 0-0-0 b5 and then:
bl) 10g4 b4 11Dd5?! (11 Dad!?) 11...exd5
12 exd5+ £e7 13 &6 (13 Bel 0-0! 14 Wxe7
Be8 15 Wxe8+ Dxe8 16 Hxe8+ Af8 favours
Black) 13...20b8! 14 £.xf6 gxf6 and Black was
able to withstand the assault in Jobava-Karia-
kin, Sochi 2007.
b2) 10 a3 £b7 11 g4 Ke7 12 Khd h6 13
&bl Bc8 14 L2 We4 is equal, Bosio¢ié-Are-
shchenko, European Ch, Budva 2009.
8..%c7 9 0-0-0 b5 (D)
Black delays the development of his king-
side in order to accelerate his queenside attack.
Another option is to transpose into the ‘Main
Line’ by 9...&¢7, which we consider in Chapter
10 via the standard move-order 6 £.g5 e6 7 f4
Le7 8 W3 Wc7 9 0-0-0 & bd7.
10 243
\\
White has a wide range of alternatives here:
a) 10 £xf6 (White voluntarily exchanges a
set of minor pieces; the goal is to increase the
impact of a sacrifice on b5) 10...2xf6 11 €5
£b7 and then:
al) 12 We3!? (White keeps his queen in the
centre of the board) 12...dxeS 13 Hcxbs Wbo
14 fxe5 Dd5 15 Wg3 axb5 (Black must grab the
piece as 15...0-0-0? 16 a3 favoured White
thanks to his more secure king in Hector-Van
der Stricht, European Team Ch, Plovdiv 2003)
16 £.xb5+ d8 (D) and now:
7 & B &
R
Bt B
all) 17 c4?! and then:
alll) 17..8xa2?! 18 &bl1!? (I think this is
more challenging than 18 cxd5 £xd5 19 &bl
£.¢520 b3 Bxb2+ 21 Lxb2 Wxb5 with easy
play for Black, as indicated by Luther) 18...Ea8
19 Wf21? £.c5 20 Wxf7 £c8 21 cxd5 &xd5 22
Wd7+ &b8 23 Hc6+ Rxch 24 Wxc6 Has 25
Wxb6+ Lxb6 26 L.c4 Hxe5 with equality.
all2) 17..8c5! 18 &b3 &c7! is worthy of
attention, and looks quite promising for Black.
 GELFAND VARIATION: 6 Rg5 e6 7 f4 Dbd7
al2) 17 a4 c8 18 Ehf1 is analysis by Lu-
ther; I think Black should then play 18...2.a6 19
Exf7 2xb5 202 xb5 HExad 21 Exd5 exd522 €6
Wel+ 23 ©d2 Hdd+ 24 Hxd4 Wxdd+ with
equal chances.
a2) 12 Wh3 dxe5 13 £ cxbS (White runs out
of firepower after 13 @xe6? fxe6 14 Wxe6+
We7 15 Wb6 Ec8 16 fxeS Exc3! 17 bxc3 {17
exf6? loses to 17.. We3+} 17...0d5 18 £xb5+
axb5 19 Wxb5+ Wd7 20 Wb3 Wc6 with a clear
plus for Black, Willumsen-Urkedal, Copenha-
gen 2006) 13...Wb6! 14 fxe5 Ded 15 Lcd 2!
with sharp play, Carlsen-Gelfand, Biel 2005.
b) 10 £xb5 (White sacrifices the bishop
from its original square; this idea is dangerous
because White has not lost a tempo with a pre-
liminary £d3 as occurs in several other lines)
10...axb5 11 Hdxbs Wbs (11...Wb6 is another
continuation that has been explored in detail)
12 €5 Ha5 (and here 12...&b7 is a major possi-
bility) 13 exf6 gxf6 14 £h6! £xh6 15 Hxd6+
Le7 16 &bl Ed8 17 Ehel Qb6 18 &\cb5 (D)
fi% B
B,/ , %2/1
\\\
\
3
%fi% %w/
5 .y
. W
\\
ARET T ASS
&/ BH
bl) 18..Exb5?! 19 HxbS Hcd 20 WH3 Dd2+
21 Bxd2 Exd2 22 Wbd+ Xd6 23 g3 &£d7 24
Wxd6+ Wxd6 25 Hixd6 Lxd6 26 Ed1+ (Koni-
kowski’s suggestion 26 b4!? also looks reason-
able as 26...e5 27 fxe5+ fxe5 28 &b2 favours
White, as his queenside pawns are ready to roll)
26...c7 27 Efl (a draw was agreed here in
Simmelink-Stuart, corr. 1997, but White should
play on) 27...&b6 28 b4 &b5 29 BEd1 L6 30
Bd6 L8 31 c4+ b6 32 c5+ 2c7 33 Edl with
a clear plus for White as his queenside pawns
are in motion.
b2) 18...Ka6 and then:
85
b21) 19 &f5+ #f8 20 We3 Hxb5 21 Wxf6
Bxb2+! (the only move, but it is sufficient to
save the game) 22 Wxb2 (White must capture
the rampaging rook as 22 %al? Hxa2+! 23
Lxa2 Kcd+ 24 Lal Wa7+ leads to mate)
22...8)d5 23 Bxds Wxb2+ 24 oxb2 g7+ 25
Axg7 Bxd5 (this is the point of the combina-
tion: the white knight is unexpectedly trapped)
26 Dxeb+ fxe6 27 Exe6 '42-'2 Lutz-Gelfand,
Dortmund 2002. A possible continuation is
27.. 811 28 g3 Eb5+ 29 c3 Hc5+ with equal-
ity.
b22) 19 Wc3 Exb5 20 £xb5 £xb5 21 Wha+
Hd6 22 Wxbs £xf4 23 a4 (D) and now:
WE T
» [ 7 @ATA
& ZAd
WWi W
&8, ) &
J /7o,
/ GAT
& 2B _7
b221) 23...Wa7 (“double-edged” — Palliser)
24 g3 (I think this is best as White is able to mo-
bilize his pawns) 24...Re5 25 Exd6 £xd6 26
aS ¢\d7 27 ®d1 with an edge for White thanks
to his queenside pawn-roller.
b222) 23..Wc7 (Kantsler-Kuporosov, Sochi
1979) 24 Bxd6 (recommended by Luther)
24.. Wxd6 (24...2xd6 25 a5 &c4 26 ab also fa-
vours White) 25 a5 £d5 26 Wb7+ &c7 27 Red
with a slight advantage for White in a very
complex position. I expect further developments
in this line.
c) 10 e5 (the idea behind this sacrifice is to
lure Black’s light-squared bishop away from
defending the e6-square) 10...2b7 11 Wb3 dxe5
12 Sixe6 fxe6 13 Wxeb+ Re7 (D).
Now White has a choice - line ‘c3’ is safest
and appears to lead to a draw by perpetual
check:
cl) 14 Kxb5? axb5 15 Hxb5 Wc6 (15.. &b6
is another sharp line) 16 £d6+ d8 17 fxe5
Sc7 18 Wxe7 &dS! (this is stronger than the
86 PLAY THE NAJDORF SICILIAN

§ /@//% Exh5 19 Wg8+ £18 20 We6+ 2-'/2 Capelan-

Polugaevsky, Solingen 1974; many later games
‘Véiyflfi %y followed this path.
10...£b7 11 Ehel Wb6 (D)
The queen moves a second time in order to

\\\\
A%w/ %, ,%
, @7
,,,
/‘ %7 7 7 //// dislodge White’s centralized knight. Black has
one last opportunity to transpose to a branch of
_ the Main Line by 11...Re7, a variation dis-

) _ cussed in the note to Black’s 10th move in

&fi&/ “ a1 e Game 22.

_ @z%géfi
more popular alternative 18...Hxa2
Hal+ 20 &d2 Wd5+ 21 &c3 Wa5+ 22 &d3
Wd5+ 23 &c3 k-1 Vitoling-Yuferov, Mos-
cow 1972) 19 Exds Wxd5 20 Ed1 Wxe5! 21
Hxb7 Wxe7 22 £xe7 Exa2 23 H\d6 (23 &bl?
Eha8 24 £a3 E2xa3 25 bxa3 Xb8 and Black
emerges with an extra piece, Stojié-Motoc,
Queenstown 2009; 23 Ed3 He8 with a clear
plus for Black) 23..Eal+ 24 &d2 Exdl+ 25
&xdl &c6 with an endgame advantage for
Black.
c2) 14 &xb5 axb5 15 £xb5 fed! 163 (16
Bd27 &f8 17 Kca4 KRgb favours Black, Kam-
sky-Gelfand, Linares 1993) 16...0-0-0 17 Ehel
(White completes his development with tempo;
less effective is 17 Wxe7? Wb6 18 Wb4 Wel+
19 Ed2 &b8 {19...h67? 20 £a6+ 1-0 Van der
Wiel-Gutman, Amsterdam 1984}
{Pinasco-Jabari, e-mail 1999} 20...2c6! witha
clear plus for Black) 17...£a3 18 Wa6+ 2b7 19
Wxa3 e4 (!/2-'2 Foenander-Pilalis, ICCF corr.
2007) 20 &bl with a sharp but balanced posi-
tion.
c3) 14 £xf6 gxf6 (not 14...50xf67 15 Lxb5+
L8 16 fxe5 axb5 {16...£c8 17 Wc6 wins for
White} 17 exf6 £xf6 18 Ed7 W4+
£xc3 20 We7+ 1-0 Matsuura-Rocha, Brazil
2002; White has a decisive material advantage
after 20...2g8 21 bxc3 Wf6 22 Wxf6 gxf6 23
Exb7) 15 £e2 (White threatens a fatal check
on h5) 15...h5 16 £Hd5 £xd5 17 Exd5 &£b6 (an-
other way is 17...2c5 18 W5 Wc6 19 Wg6+
Sf8 20 Ehd1 We8 21 W5 Wc8 22 Wg6 We6 23
£xh5 Wg8 24 Hd8+ HExd8 and a draw was
agreed in Van der Wiel-Kasparov, Amsterdam
1991 in view of 25 Exd8+ £.xd8 26 We8+ g7
27 Wg6+ &f8 with a repetition) 18 Lxh5+
¥ %gfiufi
19 exf6
‘v/w%a%xmx
AW R A4
A B
DA
0 gzs
12 £d5
The knight leap is White’s most aggressive
choice. Alternatives:
a) 12 HHxe6? fxe6 13 Wh3 e5 14 Hd5 £xd5
15 exd5 0-0-0 16 .15 c7 left White with insuf-
ficient compensation for the piece in Geller-
20 Wc4+ Polugaevsky, PortorozZ Interzonal Playoff 1973;
this was the stem game for 11...Wb6.
b) 12 &b3 is the subject of Game 16.
12...%xd4
This has generally been considered to be
Black’s only reasonable move, but line ‘c’ be-
low 1s worthy of attention:
a) 12..4xd577 13 exd5 &c5 (13..¥xd4 14
19 &bl Hxe6+ fxe6 15 Wh5+ mates) 14 &xe6 fxe6 15
Wh5+ with a crushing attack.
b) 12..8xd57? 13 exd5 e5 (13.. Wxd4 14
dxe6 is winning for White) 14 &6 and Black is
pulverized along the e-file.
c) 12...exdS 13 &c6! dxed! (Swedish IM
Nils Grandelius introduced this improvement
over the older 13..£2c6? 14 exd5+ £e7 15
dxc6 95 16 2xf6 {16 Lf5!? Ba7 17 £xf6
gxf6 18 Exd6 was also good enough in Rizzi-
tano-Lindsay, Boston 1981} 16...gxf6 17 £f5
Wc7 {Chiburdanidze-Dvoirys, Tallinn 1980)
 GELFAND VARIATION: 6 2.g5 e6 7 f4 Dbd7
18 Ee3! intending Ede1 with a crushing attack)
14 £xe4 DcS5 15 Kxf6 gxf6 16 Wh3 He6 17
£6! 2d7 18 RKxf7 Lxc6 19 Wxe6 Wd8 20
We3 with reasonable compensation for the piece
in view of Black’s vulnerable king, Maslak-
Grandelius, Olomouc 2009.
13 £xf6 gxf6 14 £xbs Wes (D)
B~ 98 K
v, 274 A A
2 this line.
A
15 Dxf6+
White can win the black queen in exchange
for three minor pieces with 15 b4 Wxb5 16
DT+ fe7 17 Dxb5 axb5. Now:
a) 18 Wh5 Exa2 19 ¥xb5 £h6!! and then:
al) 20 57! (Shabalov-Gelfand, Bermuda
2004) 20...Hc8! (Golubev) 21 exd6+ £d8 22
Wd3 Hcxc2+ 23 Wxc2 f£xf4+ and “Black is
close to a win” — Gelfand.
a2) 20 &bl Eha8 21 Wxb7 £xf4 22 c3
£e5!7 (22..K2a7 23 Wb5 De5 is equal) 23
Wco H8a3 24 Wc4 HExg2 25 He2 Exc3 “with
full compensation for the queen” — Gelfand.
b) 18 Wd3! Ha6 19 Wxb5 Eb6 20 Wd3 £h6
21 g3 (D) and here:
. 20 ¥d4
e
87
bl) 21...e5 (Jerez Perez-Czakon, Sitges 2008)
22 a4! exf4 23 Wd2! with a clear plus for White
as he has mobilized his queenside pawns.
b2) 21..2a6 was first played in Mnatsa-
kanian-Kr.Georgiev, Erevan 1982. Now White
should play 22 Wd2! with a clear plus.
b3) 21..EaR 22 a3 e5 (Nataf-Lalié, Salou
2004) 23 We3! Hba6 24 Hd3 with a clear plus
for White as he has successfully defended his
pawns and prevented Black from activating his
minor pieces. I expect further developments in
15...2d8 16 Hxd7 Wxb5 17 DHxf8 Exf8 18
Wa3 Ze8
The king move is more flexible than 18...2c8?
19 Wxd6+ Le8 20 He3! Wc6 21 Wd2 &e7 22
Wba+ &6 23 c3! (23 Wd4+ e7 24 Wb+ re-
peats the position, but White can play for more)
23...Wc5 24 e5+ 25 25 g4+ Lgb 26 5+ g7
27 W4 &h8 28 Who (intending Eh3) 28... g2
29 Hd7! with a strong attack, Goh-Chan, Singa-
pore Ch 2006.
19 Wxd6 We6 (D)
19...Ec87? transposes to the previous note.
z// //@3 /A
/&’%&/%
KRR
\\\\
\
D3=
SBEHE
x\
The white queen retains access to a4. 20
Wd2 Wc7 21 g3 (21 15 Ed8 22 Whg Exdl+ 23
Hxd1 g8 is equal, Georgiadis-Perunovié¢, Eu-
ropean Ch,:Budva 2009) 21...f6 22 e5 {5 23
Wde Wxd6 24 Exd6 Le7 25 Hedl £d5 26 b3
Hfc8 was roughly equal in Luther-Sashikiran,
Moscow 2007; Black went on to win an instruc-
tive endgame.
20...Wc7 21 5 Hg8 22 g3
White keeps the black rook at bay. 22 Wad+
L.c6! (this is more ambitious than 22...Wc6 23
88 PLAY THE NAJDORF
Wd4 Wc7 with a repetition) 23 Wc4 Exg2 24
fxe6 Hc8 25 exf7+ Wxf7 is fine for Black as all
his pieces are active.
22..Hc8 23 2d2 (D)
X
B %i% %/‘ //% F
// / AU
////%é& A
23...e5
Black should contest the open d-file with
23..Ed8! 24 Wad+ Wc6 25 Was Hxd2 26 Wxd2
e5 27 Ed1 Wc7 (Black has a slight advantage
according to Berg) 28 We2 (28 We3 Hg4!?)
28...f6 (after 28...&e7?! 29 Wh5 White’s queen
becomes active) 29 Hd3 Hg7 and the black
bishop is superior to the white pawns.
24 Wad+ Sf8
Also possible is 24...Wc6 25 Wb4 £6 26 c3
Wh5 27 Wd6 Wco 28 Wha with a repetition —
Berg.
25 Kd7 Wc6 26 Whd+ g7 27 Wd2
The black king is relatively safe in the corner
after 27 f6+ £h8.
27...&h8 28 ¢3
White’s king is too vulnerable for 28 Exf7
Bgzds 29 We2 (29 Wc3? Wd6! 30 We3 £xed! is
winning for Black) 29...Wh6+ 30 We3 £.xe4!
31 c3 (31 Wxh67? Exc2+ 32 ©bl Ee2+ mates)
31..Wh5 32 Bf6 Wxh2 33 Wxed Wd2+ 34
&bl Eb8 35 b3 Wxc3 36 Ec6 HExb3+ 37 axb3
Wxb3+, leading to a draw.
28...f6 29 Xd1?!
A safer line is 29 Ed6 Wa4 30 Wh6 Hcf8
(both 30...Exc3+? 31 &bl £xed+ 32 Lal and
30..Wxa2? 31 Wxfe+ Hg7 32 Eb6! favour
White) 31 Exf6 2xed 32 Exe4 Wxed 33 Exf8
Wel+ 34 &c2 We2+ 35 b3 Wb5+ 36 Lc2 (36
&a37? Wc5+ costs White the £8-rook) 36... We2+
with a draw by repetition.
29..Hg7
SICILIAN
Berg recommends 29...Ec7! 30 Xd8 Xf7 31
Who6 Wc7 with advantage to Black.
30 2dé6 (D)
30...%Waq??
The queen is too far astray here. Alterna-
tives:
a) 30..Wxed 31 Hxf6 Wga 32 Wd6 Led
with roughly equal chances in a complex mid-
dlegame.
b) 30..Wc7 31 Exf6 £xed 32 We3 Hd8!
and now:
bl) 33 Bel? Wd7! (now Black switches over
to the attack) 34 b3 (not 34 Wxeq? Wd2+ 35
&bl Hb7! 36 b3 Edb8 and White must sacrifice
a rook to prevent mate) 34...2.xf5 with an ad-
vantage as the black bishop is superior to the
white pawns.
b2) 33 Exd8+ Wxd8 34 Exa6 £xf5 with
roughly equal chances.
31 Zd8+ Hg8 32 Wheé! Exc3+
Black’s bishop is lost after 32...Hgxd8 33
Wxf6+ g8 34 HExd8+ Hxd8 35 Wxd8+ &f7
36 Wc7+ &f6 37 Wxb7 and White wins — Berg.
33 &b1!
White’s king glides to safety along the back
rank. The rook is poisoned: 33 bxc3?? Wa3+ 34
c2 Wxa2+ 35 Scl Wad+ 36 &c2 £xed+ 37
H1d3 fxd3+ 38 Hxd3 Wa4+! (38..We7?! 39
Wd2 gives White counterplay) 39 &d2 Wc6
with an advantage for Black because of his
passed pawns and more secure king position.
33...2xed+ 34 Lal Wxdl+
Black’s rook and bishop are no match for the
white queen, but the black king is unable to
fend for himself after 34...Ec1+ 35 Exc1 Exd§
36 Wxf6+ g8 37 Wxd8+ with a mating attack.
 GELFAND VARIATION: 6 Rg5 e6 7 f4 @Dbd7 89

35 Exd1 Ec6 36 Wh5 Hgc8 37 b3 Z6¢7 38 38...Hf7 39 Bd6 Hcf8 40 g4 b7 41 hd ed

Whé 42 g5 He8 43 Xxf6 1-0
More precise is 38 Wh4!, but the game con- An entertaining struggle typical of the back-
tinuation is good enough. and-forth tactics in this line.

Game 16 [B96]
Alexei Shirov — Viswanathan Anand
Morelia/Linares 2008
1 ed 5 2 5)f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Dxd4 D6 5
73 a6 6 L.g5 e6 7 f4 Hbd7 8 W3 Wc7 9
0-0-0 b5 10 £d3 £b7 11 Zhel Wh6
For comments on the moves up to this point,
» /87
see Game 15.
12 b3 (D)
The alternative 12 £)d5 was covered in Game

:%//@% , ARAT WAR

B:@A%QVt%t o Erm o
13..Hxc3!?
Black sacrifices the exchange in order to
weaken White’s queenside and eliminate any
attacking ideas involving a knight sacrifice on
d5. Another idea is 13...b4 14 &bl (14 &d5!?)
14...a5 with sharp play, Belov-Efimenko, Euro-

% @Y pean Ch, Plovdiv 2008.

14 bxc3 Wc7
The queen move restrains White’s e5 pawn-
12...Hc8 break and vacates b6 in preparation for the pos-
Anand seizes the half-open c-file. Shirov sible manoeuvre ...\b6-a4.
had previous experience facing the main alter- 15 &bl Le7 16 e5!'? (D)
native 12...b4 13 @bl (13 Had Wc7 14 Hd4 is
another sharp line) 13...8¢e7 14 H1d2 Wc7 15
Wh3! e5 (15..Kc8 16 bl e5 17 Hcd 0-0 with . e B
SWAS AL A
g&b

equality, E.Berg-K.Szabo, Rilton Cup, Stock-

Do &\\
=]

holm 2007/8) 16 %c4 with a slight advantage

_ t% %
A\

for White, Shirov-Kariakin, FIDE World Cup,

A
@

Khanty-Mansiisk 2007.
N\

W\
\

\\
A\
\

13 Wh3 (D)
Similar positions arise after 13 bl Exc3!?
14 bxc3 Wc7 15 £f1 (15 Wh3 transposes to
BN
RN

the main game) 15...8e7 and Black has ade-

quate compensation for the exchange in view of
White’s weakened queenside, Timman-Hillarp
Persson, Malmo 2008.
90 PILAY THE NAJDORF
Shirov opens lines for his rooks in accor-
dance with his preference for active play.
16...dxeS
This is the critical moment.
17 £57!
White should recapture the pawn with 17
fxe5! d5 18 Kxe7 Lxe7 19 Ed2 Dxc3+ 20
&b2 Hxe5 (this was given by Anand without
evaluation in his Informator 102 notes) 21
Wh4+!? e8 (the only move as 21...f6?77 22
Wb4+ picks off the knight) 22 Wh4 (22 Wh5!?)
22...Nad+ 23 Lal @c6 with sharp play.
17...5)d5 18 Lxe7
The exchange of dark-squared bishops pulls
the black king into the centre to defend the e6-
pawn.
18...2xe7 19 fxe6 (D)
i w
LAk %V
/ Wo7+ Ld6 26 Hd3 Wd8 27 ©d2 Wh8 repels
% L
9/ 28 .
19...fxe6?!
Black should prefer the direct 19...4xc3+! 20
cl (20 2al Dxd1! 21 Exdl {21 exd7?? Wc3+
mates} 21...fxe6 with a clear plus for Black be-
cause he has retained his extra pawns) 20...%f6
(20...89xd17 loses to 21 exd7 &c3 22 Wg3!) 21
Ed2 e4 22 exf7 We5 (22..&xf77! 23 Kcd+!
Wxcd 24 Bd7+ Dxd7 25 Wxd7+ g6 26 Wd6+
&f7 27 Wd7+ with a draw by repetition —
Anand) 23 £e2 Hxa2+ 24 bl Hc3+ 25 el
£.d5 with a clear plus for Black — Anand.
20 Wg3 £6 21 Ed2 Ec8 22 Wp5+
The white queen retains more options after
22 Wha+ 716 (22...Le8? loses to 23 Wxh7)
23 Hf2 e4 24 2xed4 Dxc3+ 25 dcl Wes 26
Exf6 Dxa2+ 27 &d2 (27 bl D3+ 28 el
a2+ also repeats) 27..Hd8+ 28 £.d3 Wc3+
29 &e3 WeS5+ with a repetition — Anand.
SICILIAN
22...%e8 (D)
vk %
////g// ,,,,,
He
7
23 Wgdq?
The queen move is too slow as Black is able
to defend his vulnerable e6-pawn. Alterna-
tives:
a) 23 Lxgb6+? hxgo 24 Wxgo+ Le7 25
the attack.
b) 23 Who! 716 24 Lc1 (given as unclear
by Anand) 24.. %xc3!? (White hangs on after
24..
. We7 25 Exe5) 25 Kxgb+ hxgo 26 Wx g6+
$d7 27 W7+ Tc6 28 Wxeb+ 2c7 29 Wxe5+
(29 Exes!?) 29.. Wxe5 30 Hxe5 &d6 31 Eel
Hc3 with roughly equal chances.
23...20xc3+ 24 al kd5
Black’s light-squared bishop defends the e6-
pawn, blocks the d-file and takes aim at the
white king. White has difficulty obtaining coun-
terplay because he is unable to generate any
threats with his rooks.
25 He3 6 26 Wha We7 27 211 £xb3 28
cxb3 Hce4!
Black is able to generate decisive threats
thanks to the weakness of White’s back rank.
29 Eb2
No relief is offered by 29 Hxe4 Wa3 30 £d3
(30 Eb2 Ec1+ 31 Ebl Hc2 mates) 30...Hxed
31 Wxed Wcl+ 32 £bl Wxd2 and Black has a
decisive material advantage.
29..Hc1+ 30 Eb1 ¥Wcs 0-1
An instructive game by Anand as the ex-
change sacrifice worked bnlliantly. Shirov was
unable to create any significant counterplay and
his rooks were helpless bystanders throughout
the entire game.
8 Kasparov Variation: 6 £2g5 e6
7 f4 Wc7

The variations arising from 6 £g5 e6 7 f4 Wc7 have not been analysed in as much detail as the more
popular Poisoned Pawn or the Main Line, so there is still plenty of opportunity for independent
analysis. The move 7...Wc7 was the choice of a young Garry Kasparov; he played several interest-
ing games in this line early in his career before moving on to prefer the Poisoned Pawn Variation.
One of the ideas behind 7...8c7 is to meet White’s typical plan involving Wf3 and e5 with ...b5 and
...&b7; Black is also well-positioned to play ...b4 before White is able to respond with the thematic
&\d5 piece sacrifice. Several of these lines can transpose into the Gelfand Variation or the Main
Line, so it is beneficial to be familiar with these lines also.

Game 17 (Anand-Kramnik) features Kramnik’s first outing with 7...Wc7; this was a must-win
game for the 14th World Champion. Anand plays the positional line 8 £xf6 to weaken Black’s
pawn-structure, and after 8...gxf6 9 f5 Kramnik chooses 9...Wc5 instead of the more usual 9...&\c6.
Black’s attempt to unbalance the position with the double-edged novelty 12...exf5!? is met by the
precise 13 We3!, seizing two critical diagonals and creating some tactical possibilities involving
the weakened d5-square. Kramnik goes astray with 17...f5? instead of the more accurate 17...2e6!,
which allows Anand to defuse the tension and force an exchange of queens into a slightly advanta-
geous endgame. The players agree to a draw and Anand retains his world championship title by the
score of 6'/2 points to 4'/2 points. This was a relatively short but interesting encounter because of
Kramnik’s opening novelty and the tense competitive situation.

In Game 18 (Stellwagen-Hillarp Persson), White chooses the sharp 8 Wf3. Black plays the
timely 11...h5! to grab some space on the kingside before White can clamp down with £&h5. The
middlegame is a typical Sicilian slugfest: Stellwagen wins a pawn on the kingside at the cost of ty-
ing up his queen and knight along the h-file, while Hillarp Persson strikes out on the queenside with
20...a5!? to loosen up White’s king position. The tension culminates in an exciting combination by
Black to create mating threats, but White is able to counter precisely and force a draw by repetition.
The main theme of this game is the importance of piece activity: Black sacrificed his h-pawn, butin
return he was able to draw two of White’s pieces out of play and create strong attacking threats on
the queenside.

Game 17 [B96]
Viswanathan Anand - Vladimir Kramnik
World Ch match (game 11), Bonn 2008
1 ed c52 2f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Hxd4 f6 5 Championship match by the score of 6 points to
e3 a6 6 £.g5 e6 7 f4 W7 (D) 4 points with two games left to play, so in this
The queen moves out of the pin, restrains must-win situation his usual Petroff or Berlin
White’s e5 pawn advance and prepares ..b5 Ruy Lopez would not be suitable choices — crit-
and ...2b7. Kramnik was trailing in the World ical games demand the Najdorf!
92 PLAY THE NAJDORF SICILIAN

Ll
N
Do

N
RN

\\\\\
N

B JumaE
8 Lxf6 1989. This game is annotated by Igor Stohl in
White weakens Black’s pawn-structure but Garry Kasparov’s Greatest Chess Games, Vol-
concedes the bishop-pair; now it will be difficult ume 1.
for Black to castle kingside. Alternatives: d3) 11 g4!?7h6 12 £h4 g5 13 e5!? dxe5 14
a) 8 Wf3 is the subject of Game 18. Hc4 Wb8 15 fxg5 hxg5 16 K.g3 H)d7 with sharp
b) 8 £5!?7 (White increases the pressure on play, Naiditsch-Swiercz, European Ch, Budva
e6 at the cost of conceding the e5-square to 2009.
Black’s pieces) 8..2e7 9 fxe6 fxe6 10 Wd3 8...gxf6 (D)
&c6 (also reasonable is 10...20g4!? 11 Lxe7
Wxe7 12 D3 &6 13 Wd2 0-0 and “Black has
a good game thanks to his control over e5” - ERe8 &
Arizmendi and Moreno) 11 0-0-0 £d7 12 Re2
w iAW 7& A
Iy | %1%/%
(Nataf-Bruzon, Capablanca Memonal, Havana
2002) 12..2e5!7 13 Wh3 0-0 14 Ehfl Hae8
with a solid position for Black — Arizmendi and
Moreno. 5 v
c) 8 £d3 bS! 9 We2 b4! (Black drives the 4/%&% .
knight away from the centre before White has
the possibility of sacrificing the piece on d5) 10 3D D
d1 Dbd7 11 92 £b7 12 0-0-0 Re7 13 Ehel fi%&% %fi%
a x
h6! 14 £h4 (Nisipeanu-Istratescu, World Ju-
nior Ch, Mamaia 1991) 14...g5! 15 fxg5 hxg5 O
q4 wg
16 £xg5 Wa5 17 2xf6 £xf6 “with excellent
compensation for the pawn” — Emms. 915
d) 8 We2 &\c6! (Black exploits the momen- This 1s the logical follow-up to increase the
tary lack of coordination between the white pressure on Black’s centre. Alternatives:
pieces by challenging White’s central knight) 9 a) 9 Wh57! (the queen excursion is popular
0-0-0 £xd4 10 Exd4 Ke7 (D). but dubious, as now Black is able to force a fa-
Now: vourable exchange of queens) 9...Wc5! 10 Wxc5
dl) 11 e57! dxe5 12 fxe5 £d5 13 £d2 (13 dxc5 11 @b3 Rd6 12 g3 &e7 13 £g2 Ha7! 14
2xe7?! Hxe7 {13..2xc3!? is possibly even 0-0-0 Xd8 15 a4 b6 with a comfortable posi-
better, contrary to Kasparov’s analysis } 14 &le4 tion for Black as he will follow up with ...Ead7
0-0 left White with a vulnerable e5-pawn in and ...2c7, Kamsky-Svidler, FIDE Grand Prix,
Ivanchuk-Kasparov, Tilburg 1989) 13...2xc3 Baku 2008.
14 £ xc3 b5 with equal chances. b) 9 Wd2 Hc6 (Black’s kingside pawn-
d2) 11g32d7'12L2g2h6 13 &h4 Lc6 was structure has been compromised, so he focuses
fine for Black in Ljubojevi¢-Kasparov, Belgrade on preparing to castle queenside; this transposes
 KASPAROV VARIATION: 6 R.g5 e6 7 f4 Wc7 93

into a solid line of the Richter-Rauzer Attack

{ECO code B67} and is safer than the popular
alternative 9...b5) 10 0-0-0 £d7 11 &bl 0-0-0

i WA
and then:
bl) 12 Recd ©b8 13 Dxc6+ Wxc6 14 Kb3 A AKAx
h5 15 Ehfl1 Wc5 16 Wd3 (Topalov-Anand,
Dortmund 1997) 16...£2e7 17 f5 Edg8 18 Wh3
Hg4! was recommended by Leko to keep an
eye on the e4-pawn,; the chances are equal.
b2) 12 Ke2 h5 13 Rhfl &b8 14 Bf3 Hxd4
(another idea is 14...h4 with equal chances, AL AR
Manik-Stocek, Slovakian Team Ch 2007/8) 15
Wxd4 Le7 16 Wd2 Hdg8 looks reasonable for . &22 8
Black, as suggested by Arizmendi and Moreno.
We now return to 9 f5 (D): since it concedes the d5-square to White's
pieces. A more typical plan would be for Black

ERe wg X to maintain his control over the central squares

via 12...8d7 13 &d2 b5 with a balanced posi-
tion.
13 We3!
Anand seizes some dark squares and clears
d5 for his rook. The queen move is more inci-
sive than 13 9d5 £h6+ 14 &bl 28 with sharp
%// play: Black’s king has been displaced, but his
/'/é/ /////A/ bishop-pair could become powerful.
%/
SRS ////&M
13..2g7
Kramnik defends the f6-pawn as 13...fxe4
14 Bd5 We6 15 £d4 Hxd4 16 Wxdd £d47 17
#xe4 gives White a dangerous lead in develop-
ment.
9..Wc5 14 Xd5 We7 15 Wg3 (D)

KRR
Black has a solid alternative in 9...%c6 10
fxe6 fxe6 11 £.c4 Dxd4 12 Wxd4 Eg8 13 0-0-0 77 7

AT WAwA
/]
£d7 14 £b3, and now:
N

a) 14..0-0-0 15 g3 Re7 16 a4 Lb8 (after

16.. Bg57! 17 Ed3 White has a slight advan-
tage, Radjabov-Grishchuk, FIDE Grand Prix,
Sochi 2008) 17 & b6 Hg4 is equal.
b) 14..Exg2! 15 Wxf6 Wd8 16 Wd4 Wg5+
17 &bl We5 18 Wh8 0-0-0 19 Wxh7 £g7 20
Wh3 Eg6 and Black’s bishop-pair provides ad-
equate compensation for the pawn, Smirmnov-
Nayer, Russian Ch, Novokuznetsk 2008.
10 Wd3
The queen development prepares for queen-
side castling and covers the sensitive e3-square
so that the d4-knight can retreat. 15..Hg8
10...20¢6 11 b3 Wes 12 0-0-0 (D) The alternatives are unappetizing:
12...ext5!? a) 15..0-0 16 exf5 He8 17 £d3 %b4 18
Kramnik introduces a new move, but such a Hd4 Hxd3+ 19 Wxd3 and White has a clear
double-edged idea is not to everyone’s taste plus thanks to his grip on d5.
94 PLAY THE NAJDORF SICILIAN

b) 15..2h6+ 16 &bl 4 17 Wh4 £g5 18 16...fxe4

W2 £5 19 £d3 favours White thanks to his su-
perior development.
16 ¥f4 (D)
Anand keeps up the pressure and avoids sim-
plification. It is too early to recapture material
with 16 Wxd6? fxed 17 Wxe7+ Dxe7 18 Eh5
5 19 Exh7 £2e6 20 &c5 0-0-0, when Black has
an edge thanks to his passed e4-pawn.
Anotherideais 16...2e6 17 2d1 (17 exf5??
£xd5 18 &xd5 Wel#) 17...fxe4 (17...0-0-0 18
exf5 £d7 19 £d3 with a slight advantage for
White due to his control over e4 and d5) 18
Nxed Lga! 19 Hd3 (19 Dxd6+?! Rf8 20 Kcd
£xd121 Exd1 Wes is fine for Black) 19...&f8
20 h3 fe6 and Black can maintain the bal-
ance.
17 Hxed £5?

%fi%g/zi
Now Black is left struggling for a draw. There
was still time to transpose to the note to Black’s
s A %5@7 16th move by 17...£e6!, as White has nothing

A Az &
better than 18 Hdl.
18 xd6+ 218 19 Hixc8 Exc8 20 b1 Wel+

. /)2
& 21 Dl He7 22 Wd2!
Black is compelled to exchange queens be-
3y cause of the mating threat on d8.
22..Wxd2 23 Bxd2 &h6 24 Hf2 Le3 V2-1»
Kramnik made Anand a draw offer he could
ARAT T
%;@ %7 %

lllll ‘4
not refuse. Although White has a slight advan-
tage after 25 Hf3, the draw clinched victory in
the world championship match for Anand.

Game 18 [B96]
Daniel Stellwagen — Tiger Hillarp Persson
Malmé 2008
1 ed c5 2 &)f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Dxd4 Df6 5 9 2.xf6
Hc3 a6 6 L.g5 e6 7 £4 We7 8 W3 White has a wide range of options:
The queen development is White’s most pop- a) 9e57 £b7 10 Wg3 £d5 11 HxdS LxdS
ular choice. 8 £xf6 is covered in Game 17, 12 5 dxe5 13 fxe6 fxe6 14 0-0-0 (Gorovykh-
along with White’s 8th-move alternatives. Brodsky, Peterhof 2009) 14...4\d7 leaves White
8..bS (D) with insufficient compensation for the pawn.
b) 9 f5?! (this line has fallen out of favour)

EAsLg X
9...b4! 10 &cb5 (White must avoid 10 fxe6??
bxc3 11 £xf6 cxb2 12 Hbl gxf6 13 Wxf6
v W 7 AKA We3+ 14 2f2 Lxe6 15 Wxh8 @c6 and Black
wins) 10...axb5 11 £xb5+ £d7 12 fxe6 £xb5
A %} a 13 &xb5 Wc5 14 Lxf6 fxe6! 15 Hd4 gxf6 16
%l/// /4&{%
5 % AL /o
Nxe6 Wcd 17 Wxf6 Hd7! favours Black as
White’s attack has run out of steam, Molander-

)
Z Z Moreno, Port Erin 2003. My database contains
/ & 7
more than 30 games with this position, while
Arizmendi and Moreno provide detailed cover-
g%g%// /////@8/ ¢ age of this line.

£ | =24 B c) 9 £d3 b4! 10 Hce2 Dbd7 11 0-0-0 £b7

12 &bl £e7 13 Bhel Hc5 gives Black easy
 KASPAROV VARIATION: 6 £g5 e6 7 f4 Wc7 95

development, Leiber-Wojtkiewicz, Bad Woris- $d2 £c3+ 21 Le2 fxel 22 We7+! (Ariz-
hofen 1991. mendi and Moreno only consider 22 Exel &g7
d) 9 0-0-0 b4! (D) and now: and Black escapes) 22...&g8 (the point of the
queen check is that 22...&g77? loses to 23 Wg5+

;%A/@@é 2 &8 24 Who+ Wg7 25 Wxd6+) 23 Lxel and

White has a clear plus as Black has difficulty
v MW T ARA activating his rooks. This line could use some

A AAA /
practical tests.
d32) 12..Wc513 2d3 Ha7 14 ££5 Lxf5 15
/ L
\\\
&\

\ fi& Axf5 Be7 16 Rhel+ &d8 17 Wed 2c8 18 Bd4

\

a5 19 b3 9a6 20 Hcd4 Wb5 with tremendous

E DAW B
N

complications, as first played in Akopian-Lau-

_ _%'//
\&
\\

tier, Ubeda 1997. Again, further practical tests

N

afig/ A
TN

are needed.
\

9...gxf6 10 0-0-0

_ gE ¢ E White has another aggressive but dubious al-

ternative beginning with 10 €5?! d5 11 exf6 b4!
(D).

o have been refud) 10,57 11 B v

12 &xb5+ Nbd7 13 Wh3 b3! 14 Wxb3 £d5 15
c4 De4 16 Wc2 &b7 17 Ehel Dxgs 18 fxg5
0-0-0 19 £xd7+ Exd7 20 Hb5 W5 21 &bl
dxe5! with a clear plus for Black, Yeo-Teran
Alvarez, Campillos 2004.
d2) 10 Dce2 Dbd7 11 g4 £b7 12 Hg3 EcB
13 R£d3 Ke7 14 &bl Hc5 15 Hb3 Dad!? is
equal, Becerra-Wojtkiewicz, New York rapid
2003.
d3) After 10 £d5!? exd5 11 £.xf6 gxf6 12
exd5 (D) Black has two defensive options:

Now:
a) 12 Hce2 Nd7 13 £5 e5 14 Deb fxe6 15
/%
fxe6 @xf6! (Black returns the piece in order to
extinguish White’s attack) 16 Wxf6 £.g7 17
/‘
WS Efg! 18 Wh5+ &d8 19 0-0-0 (19 Wxh7
.
£ xe6 also favours Black) 19...£xe6 20 &Hg3
%
(Adler-Semeniuk, Vilnius 1974) 20...2c8!?
(Arizmendi and Moreno) 21 &bl &b7 favours
- W77 Black thanks to his bishop-pair and central con-
) ;
trol.
%/
b) 12 &xd5 exds and then:
bl) 13 ¥xd5 b7 14 Kb5+ axb5 15 Hxb5
2xd5! (this was a 2004 suggestion of Ariz-
d31) 12..8g77! was recommended by Ariz- mendi and Moreno) 16 Dxc7+ $d7 17 &xd5
mendi and Moreno. The critical line is 13 £d3 &c6 18 0-0-0 Exa2! 19 &bl Ba5 20 De7+
f5 14 Ehel+ 28 15 We3 Wd8 16 £xf5 2b7 £Lxe7 21 fxe7 He8 22 Hhel (Geenen-Ringoir,
(G.Ginsburg-Moreno, Bundesliga 2003/4) 17 Eupen 2008) 22...&c7! with an advantage for
Wed! Nd7 18 Dc6 W6 19 £xd7 Wxb2+ 20 Black as the piece is stronger than the pawns.
96 PLAY THE NAJDORF SICILIAN

b2) 13 0-0-0 &Hd7 14 £bS axbs 15 Ehel+

&d8 16 Wxds Ka6 17 Wxf7 Wxf4+ 18 &bl
£.c5! 19 He6+ Hxe6 20 Wxe6 Pc7 favours
Black, Balabaev-Dibley, ICCF corr. 2005.
We now return to the position after 10 0-0-0
(D)

;%A/@% :
B/;&//}/A
x% AdA

7
__ "y Y
has won a pawn, Bobras-Moranda, Polish Ch,
Lublin 2008.

4y 4 1Y /// AR
/%’/ A %% %7/ ¢/
b) 15%xh4 0-0-0 16 f5 5!? (another option
is 16...8)c5 with reasonable compensation for

. %E2 B the pawn — Emms; the line-up of white pieces

along the h-file does not inspire confidence) 17
&\b3 d5 18 exd5 b6 19 Le2 HxdS5 20 L3 a5!
10...b4 11 Hce2 gives Black a very promising attack — Anz-
11 &£Hd5!? exd5 transposes to note ‘d3’ to mendi and Moreno.
White’s 9th move above. c) 15 Hixeb fxe6 16 Wxe6+ Le7 17 Dg7+
11...h5! (after 17 e5? fxe5 18 fxe5, as in Volokitin-Pap-
Black mobilizes his h-pawn and grabs some aioannou, European Ch, Plovdiv 2008, Black
space on the kingside before White can prevent should play 18...d5! 19 &g7+ £d8 20 Hxd5
the advance with &g3. Wc6! with a clear plus as he has repelled the at-
12 Hg3 hd 13 Hhs Hd7 (D) tack) 17...&d8 18 & c4 and White has sufficient
compensation for the piece. I expect further de-

Z/fi/@% i velopments in this line.

14...2b7 15 £g2 (D)
Another idea is 15 £h3 0-0-0 (15...&Xc8!7)
16 Ehel &b8 17 &bl Ke7 with sharp play,
Shirov-Zdebskaya, Warsaw rapid 2008.

14 g4
The g-pawn supports the f5 pawn advance.
The alternative is to utilize the queen via 14
Wed 2b7 (D):
a) 15 Dg7+? Rxg7 16 Wxg7 Le7! (Black’s
king is safe here; now the threat is ...&ag8, trap-
ping the white queen) 17 Wg4 £ xe4 and Black 15...0-0-0 16 &bl
 KASPAROV VARIATION: 6 2g5 e6 7 f4 Wc7 97

White moves his king to safety in anticipa- 24 Kxed!

tion of a black build-up along the half-open c-
file.
16...%¢5 17 Ehel
The f6-pawn is poisoned after 17 ©xf6? h3!
18 £f1 £g7 and Black wins material.
17...827 18 Wh3 b8 19 f5e520 b3 (D)
Stellwagen avoids 24 f.xe4? Wc3 25 H\d3
ds 26 £f3 2c5 (with the idea of ...2d4) 27
&c1 Ec8 (threatening ...Le3+) 28 Dxc5 Hxc5
29 Ee2 £a6 and Black wins. Note how out of
play White’s queen and knight are over on the
h-file.
24...82 xed 25 Lxed Wel (D)

xU X
A o T

\\

\
\\

%
k\\\\

A\
% //% o, , , y
Jiy )&)
\\
TN
7 sy, 4 l,/,,..//, 1// 1// /l

20...a5!?
Hillarp Persson uses the a-pawn as a batter-
ing-ram to weaken the dark squares around the
white king; this is a typical motif to exploit
White’s missing dark-squared bishop. Black
has also tried 20...Ec8 21 &ixc5 Wxc5 22 Bd2
a5 with sharp play, Kanarek-Swiercz, Polish
Ch, Chotowa 2009.
4 %& L) //// Y
B
26 H\d3 d5 27 Wr2!
The white queen returns in the nick of time
to exploit Black’s exposed king.
27...dxed 28 Wh6+ a8 (D)
The black king cannot escape the checks as
28...%c8 29 Wa6+ &c7 30 WaS+ &d7 31 Wh5+
is also a draw by repetition.

— @//%///
21 Wxh4 ad 22 &cl a3 23 b3 Hixed! (D)

wx 2 w /% 24
A\ '“°
S

\\\\K&
S\
A\
SN
A\
N
N

AN
\

a@a% B
e
g
SN
o
= N

29 Wa6+ b8 30 Who+ a8 31 Wa6+ 12-1:

A nice combination to create mating threats A well-played game demonstrating the ex-
on b2. citing tactics in this line.
9 Poisoned Pawn and Polugaevsky
Variations

The Poisoned Pawn Variation, 6 £g5 €6 7 f4 Wb6, has a well-deserved reputation as one of
Black’s most uncompromising opening choices. Black seeks to exploit the absence of White’s
dark-squared bishop from the queenside by launching an immediate counterattack on White’s b-
pawn. Many of Black’s manoeuvres in this line do not appear to conform to generally accepted
chess principles; for example, Black often makes many moves with his queen while lagging in
development. The justification for this extreme queen activity is that the typical exchange of
White’s dark-squared bishop for Black’s king’s knight enables the black queen to operate virtu-
ally unopposed on the dark squares; the queen plays the role of ‘disrupter’ by constantly pecking
away at White’s queenside. White’s dark-square colour-complex problems also appear in several
sacrificial lines: White often appears to be closing in for the kill only to come up short as the
black king scoots away along the dark squares.
Former World Champions Bobby Fischer and Garry Kasparov scored heavily with the Poisoned
Pawn; the opening is well-suited to players who have the capacity for hard work, enjoy independ-
ent research and trust their ability to deal with unusual material imbalances. Many leading players
employ the Poisoned Pawn and it is on the cutting edge of opening theory; the line is popular in cor-
respondence chess and at lower levels too. The Poisoned Pawn requires a relatively large amount of
initial effort to leamn, but it can be a very effective weapon at club level because White often re-
sponds passively to avoid opening theory and a well-prepared player is able to secure easy equality
as Black.

The Polugaevsky Variation, 6 £g5 e6 7 f4 b5, is among Black’s most provocative opening
lines. He allows White to attack the pinned f6-knight with 8 e5 because he can save the piece
with the tactical idea 8...dxe5 9 fxe5 Wc7. White has several sharp attacking ideas and Black
must play with great precision to survive the tactical onslaught. Many players consider the varia-
tion to be too high risk/low reward to employ as a primary defensive weapon, but several of the
lines have been rather neglected recently and there is plenty of opportunity for independent re-
search. The Polugaevsky Vanation has been out of favour for many years since the passing of its
namesake exponent, but perhaps the line will experience arevival if a leading player takes up the
gauntlet.

Game 19 (Kasimdzhanov-Sadvakasov) highlights (after 7...Wb6 8 Wd2 Wxb2) the Poisoned

Pawn knight retreat 9 @ b3. Black responds with 9...8a3 to remove his queen from the danger zone.
Sadvakasov plays 13...Ec8 and invites Kasimdzhanov to occupy the kingside and put pressure on
the f7-pawn with 14 £h57?!; the bishop looks attractive here, but recent experience has shown that
the bishop can in fact interfere with White’s kingside attack. Black manoeuvres his knight to the
queenside with 16..%)a5, to which White responds by 17 f5, increasing the pressure on the
kingside. The black knight returns to the centre and takes control of the e5-square at the cost of two
tempi. Kasimdzhanov sacrifices the exchange to try to exploit the far-away position of the black
queen, but Sadvakasov calmly refutes the sacrifice and exploits his material advantage. This game
is more evidence that it may not be necessary for Black to play ...h5 to prevent White from occupy-
ing the h5-square with his light-squared bishop in these lines.
 POISONED PAWN AND POLUGAEVSKY VARIATIONS 99

In Game 20 (Shirov-Wang Hao), White chooses the main line of the Poisoned Pawn with 9 Eb1
Wa3 10 e5, and Black responds with the latest idea, 15...£¢5 to try to keep lines closed. Shirov cir-
cles the black kingside with 19 Zd6! and after 19...&xe5 20 £c¢4 Wang Hao continues developing
with 20...23c67?! (20...Wh5!? may be necessary here). Black goes astray with 22...%de5?, allowing
the spectacular sacrifice 23 Xxh6!!, leading to the win of Black’s queen. This is currently the most
topical line of the Poisoned Pawn and Shirov has put the onus upon Black to demonstrate a clear
path to equality. The main theme of this game is the importance of piece activity: White focused on
completing his development and he was able to generate irresistible threats on the kingside.

Game 21 (Leko-Ghaem Maghami) is a Polugaevsky Variation featuring the sharp line 10 exf6.
Black responds with 12...Ha7 and the players follow established theory for several more moves.
Leko’s new idea of 19 &)fg5! followed by 20 Exb4!! places enormous pressure on Black’s position;
Ghaem Maghami goes down quickly after 22... Kg8?! (22...£.¢3 is more resilient, but then 23 Ec1!!
1s strong) and White was able to finish off the game with an attractive temporary queen sacrifice.
This was a relatively one-sided game, but it serves to illustrate the difficulties Black has defending
when he is behind in development and his king is stuck in the centre of the board.

Game
Rustam Kasimdzhanov — Darmen Sadvakasov
Skanderborg 2003
1 e4 c5 2 D3 d6 3 d4 cxdd 4 Hxd4 D6 5
93 a6 6 2.g5 e6 7 f4 W6 (D)
19 [B97]
...Wa3 Black must be wary of tactics involving
White playing £\d5) 8...Wxb2 9 b1 Wa3 105

Efii/gfiyfl fe7 11 fe2 &6 12 fxeb fxe6 13 Dxc6 bxcod

(D) and now:

w A T ARA E 4 & K
x%%A%M - R %%xk.
W% %% A AKAl
%
7 _ %f%%%
y JUZEE
&fi&% /&% il
Amaroman
%
gy//
This 1s the characteristic move of the Poi- B & 7 K
soned Pawn Variation, by which Black seeks to
exploit the absence of White’s dark-squared al) 14 2h5+!? @xh5 (14...g67 15 e5! gave
bishop from the queenside. White a strong attack in Mamedov-Kokarev,
8 Wd2 European Ch, Plovdiv 2008) 15 fxe7 &f4 16
White offers the b-pawn in exchange for a Wd4 e5 17 Wxe5 dxe5 18 £xa3 Dxg2+ 19 2
lead in development and the possibility of gain- Nf4 20 Ld6 Hgb and the complications led to
ing time by attacking the black queen. The al- an equal endgame in Huschenbeth-Bracker,
ternatives are harmless for Black: Hamburg Ch 2008.
a) 8 Wd3 (the white queen is somewhat vul- a2) 14 0-0 Wa5 15 £xf6 gxf6 16 £g4 0-0
nerable on the d3-square, but after an eventual (D) and then:
100 PLAY THE
% %
_ /
I pE® |
/////
a2l) 17 Wca d5 18 Wxc6 WcS+ 19 WxcS
Lxc5+ 20 £h1 dxed 21 Hxed Le7 (Areshch-
enko evaluated this as unclear in Informator
86) 22 Le2 £5 23 Hg3 a7 with a comfortable
position for Black thanks to his bishop-pair.
a22) 17 He2 Wg5 18 £h3 d5 19 Hf4 dxed
20 Wxed WeS+ 21 2hl 5 22 We2 Ef6 is
equal, Solodovnichenko-Zakhartsov, Cappelle
la Grande 2009.
b) 8 a3 (the pawn move sets a cheap trap
but does not substantially enhance White’s po-
sition) 8...2c6 (8.. Wxb2?? 9 Ha4 traps the
queen) 9 b3 Le7 10 W3 Wc7 11 0-0-0 £47
(note that Black leaves his b7-pawn at home so
as to provide pawn-cover for queenside cas-
tling) 12 g4 h6 13 Lxf6 £xf6 14 h4 0-0-0 15
£g2 &b8 16 g5 Ke7 with a balanced game,
Luther-L.Dominguez, Capablanca Memorial,
Havana 2001.
c) 8 & b3 (the knight retreat is harmless but
fairly popular as it avoids sharp theory) 8...2.e7
(8...We3+ may not be to the taste of most Naj-
dorf players, but it forces an exchange of queens
that leaves White no more than marginally
better) 9 W3 Hbd7 10 0-0-0 Wc7 11 £d3 b5
12 HEhel b4 (another solid line is 12...2b7; for
example, 13 Wh3?! {13 @bl is safer}
14 &bl e5! 15 &1d2 a5 with a queenside initia-
tive for Black, Kamsky-Topalov, Sofia 2006)
13 De2 (13 Sb1?! b7 14 Wh3 is a position
we saw in the previous bracket) 13...2b7 (D)
and now:
cl) 14 bl a5! (the knight on b3 is an attrac-
tive target for Black’s a-pawn) 15 &ed4 a4 16
b5 Wb6 17 £Hd2 0-0 18 Wg3 Ra6 19 Dxd6!?
£.xd6 20 £.xf6 Dxf6 21 e5 Hh5 22 W3 (Pego-
raro-Mietzner, Arco 2000) 22...2xd3 23 cxd3
NAJDORF SICILIAN
E %fi%
/////
% /&fi @
//@/fi/y/
1 %zg %
x4 24 Wxf4 £c5 25 d4 Le7 with an edge for
Black as his queenside attack is in progress and
the bishop is more effective than the knight.
c2) 14 Ded4 Hc515 b1 0-0 16 g4 Hac8 17
£.xf6 (17 Wh3?! &xd3 18 cxd3 a5! gave Black
a strong initiative on the queenside in Kamsky-
Vallejo Pons, FIDE World Cup, Khanty-Man-
siisk 2005) 17...8.xf6 18 g5 &xd4 (18...2e7 19
h4 a5 with an unclear position — Ki.Georgiev
and Kolev; a possible continuation is 20 f5!? d5
21 Hxc5 fxc5 22 Hb3 Ka7 with roughly
equal chances) 19 Hxd4 Efd8 20 Ef1 e5 21
b3 De6 with a comfortable position for Black
as his minor pieces are more effective than their
white counterparts.
We now return to 8 Wd2 (D):
z%g/@% x
B:/;/ /;%2
) /
W% .
%
g%fi%/%fi%
13...b4
. $a B
\\\
8...Wxb2
Black has the option of declining the gambit
pawn with 8...&\c6. This knight move has been
played over 400 times, but it is not even men-
tioned in ECO. This is a good secondary or sur-
prise weapon for Poisoned Pawn players in
 POISONED PAWN AND POLUGAEVSKY VARIATIONS 101

case they run into trouble in the main lines with

8...%xb2 during a tournament. But note that the
characteristic positions are more akin to the

N
Richter-Rauzer Attack (5...4c6 6 £g5), which

A\
will also be in the repertoire of many 6 £g5

\
R
players. Let’s examine White’s options:
a) 9 0-0-0 Wxd4 10 Wxd4 Dxd4 11 Exdd

SN

\\x
£¢e7 (D) and then:

el
%3%%%w

g&

N
/@72% %z

\\
\
position for Black) 16 &xa5 Wxa5 17 Ed3
wy
:::::
(Sulskis-Loginov, Vilnius 1997) 17...8.¢6 with
% &_ a balanced game.
c2) 14 Ehfl Ke7 15 Ef3 Edg8 (15...h4 16
£ f1 (Spraggett-Quezada, Buenos Aires 2005}
and now 16...Xh5 intending ...f5 is a suggestion

g %2%
11111

by Ki.Georgiev and Kolev) 16 £f1 h4 17 Wel

Ho4 with equality, Kamsky-Ponomariov, FIDE
World Cup, Khanty-Mansiisk 2007.
al) 12 a4 Kd7 13 £b6 HEd8 14 Hxd7 9 Hb3 (D)
@xd7 (14..HExd7 15 Le2 h6 16 £hd HhS5 17 White’s most popular choice, 9 Ebl, is cov-
£xh5 £xh4 is equal, Kramnik-Svidler, Wijk ered in Game 20.
aan Zee 2004) 15 £xe7 £xe7 16 Le2 e5 with
7
E%A/@4 %
7
equal chances — Ki.Georgiev and Kolev.
a2) 12 £e2 £d7 13 Ehdl Rc6 14 £f3 h6 Vi Z

15 2xf6 gxf6 16 f5 h5 with a balanced end-

game, Walek-Shtyrenkov, Pardubice 1998.
s &)
/
//x% %x
b) 9 b3 Hga! 10 2d3h6 11 £h4 g5tisan . AA
%/////?
idea that is well known from the Main Line
/ _
(Chapter 10): Black obtains control over the
AR _
%_%@3,, @
eS-square. Then 12 fxg5 £e7 13 0-0-0 We3
(the exchange of queens eliminates White’s at-
tacking ambitions) 14 £e2 &Hce5 15 Lxgd »
Nxgd 16 Ehel Wxd2+ 17 £Hxd2 hxg5 18 £.g3 Vorrrrr?
e5 led to equality in Short-Naiditsch, Baku
2007.
¢) 9 £xf6 (White exchanges his bishop for
the black knight to weaken Black’s kingside The knight retreat takes away some squares
pawn-structure and to avoid the ...%g4 idea in from the black queen at the cost of removing
line ‘b’) 9...gxf6 10 b3 £d7 11 0-0-0 0-0-0 the white knight from the centre.
12 &bl £b8 13 Le2 h5 (D) and here: 9..Wa3
cl) 14 h4!? (the idea behind this move is to Black has only two playable alternatives:
fix the h5-pawn and gang up on it later) 14...%a5 a) 9..9bd7 10 Lxf6 gxf6 (10...Dxf6?? 11
15 Eh3 (15 &xa5 Wxa5 16 £f3 5 17 exf5 ad4! with the idea of 12 Xa2 traps the black
Wxf5 is equal, Luther-Quezada, Capablanca queen) 11 £e2 and then:
Memorial, Havana 2004) 15...Ec8 (another idea al) 11..Wa3 transposes to the note to Black’s
is 15...43xb3!? 16 axb3 L.¢6 with a reasonable 11th move below.
102 PLAY THE NAJDORF SICILIAN

a2) 11..b5 12 0-0 £b7 13 Habl Wa3 14 £5

Hc8 with sharp play, Spraggett-Komljenovié, EAal
g d ZE /////

Seville 2007.
ad) 11..&c5 12 0-0 £d7 13 Babl Wa3
(Black must avoid 13...22xb37? 14 axb3 Wa3
15 b4 Hc8 16 Eb3 1-0 Luther-Kersten, Bad
Zwesten 2002) 14 5 Hc8 15 &hl &Hxb3 16
Hxb3 (Kurnosov-Kokarev, Serpukhov 2002)
16...%a5! also leads to a sharp position.
b) 9...4\c6 (this move has declined in popu-
larity as the main line leaves Black defending a
slightly inferior endgame) 10 £xf6 (10 a37?
loses to 10...4aS) 10...gxf6 11 Had Wa3 12
ANb6 Hb8 13 Hcd Wad 14 a3 (White restricts
the mobility of the black queen; instead, 14
2e2 allows Black to force a more favourable
exchange of queens by 14...b5! 15 &xd6+ £xd6
16 ¥xd6 b4+ with equal chances) 14...b5 15
Nxd6+ £.xd6 16 Wxd6 Wxed+ 17 Le2 (D).
:3-/;@// ¥ 14 f5 exf5! 15 £b5+ axb5 16 Dxd6+ 2f8 17
iy Il i
B
WGy _—
iy hy"
£ L4 B
10 £.x16
White exchanges his bishop for the black
knight in order to weaken Black’s pawn-struc-
ture and discourage kingside castling.
Black has no problems after 10 £d3 £e7 11
0-0h6 12 £xf6 (12 2h4 Nxed! 13 Hixed £xhd
xc8 c6! with a clear plus for Black in Spas-
sky-Fischer, World Ch match (game 7), Reyk-
javik 1972; several later games have confirmed
this evaluation) 12...£xf6 13 e5 dxe5 14 Hed
&\d7 15 £5 We7 16 fxe6 Wxe6 17 £2.c4 Who+ 18
£h1 0-0 19 Bf3 Wc7 20 £d5 Ke7 (20...a5!7)
21 Eafl &b6 favours Black, Mukhin-G.Soro-
kin, USSR 1973.
10...gxf6 11 Le2 (D)
>

Now:
A\

bl) 17..Rb77! 18 Ac5 Wd4 19 Ed1 We3+7!

\
W

20 212 Bd8 21 £d7 Eg8 (Vouldis-Paunovié,

Kavala 1997) and now Nunn recommends 22
Bd3! Bxg2+ 23 &f1! Eg8 24 HEgl Exgl+ 25
x\
A\\IBA\

Lxgl Wel+ 26 £f1, when Black cannot de-

b 2
TS

fend against the mating threats on f8 and f6.

S\

b2) 17..%d5 18 Wxd5S exdS (Black is slightly

worse because of his inferior pawn-structure)
")
N

iifi\
RO

19 0-0-0 De7 20 K213 Keb6 21 Ehel 0-0 22 g4

f5 23 gxf5 &xf5 and here White can choose be-
tween 24 £xd5 (Adams-Gelfand, Candidates
match (game 3), Wijk aan Zee 1994) or 24 &c5,
as in Nunn-Stohl, Bundesliga 1995/6. This game
is annotated by John Nunn in Grandmaster
Chess Move by Move.
We now return to 9...Wa3 (D):
11...2c6
The alternative is 11...4d7 (11..hS 12 0-0
&\d7 is equivalent) 12 0-0 (12 £h5? &\c5 13 £5
{13 0-07? &xb3 14 axb3 Wc5+ costs White a
piece} 13...Eg8 favours Black) 12...h5 13 &hl
h4! 14 h3 £e7 15 Eadl b5! and then:
 POISONED PAWN AND
a) 16 £xb5? axb5 17 HHxbs5 Wad 18 Hc7+
&8 19 Hxa8 Wxa8 20 Hdel £b7 with a clear
plus for Black thanks to his pressure along the
h1-a8 diagonal, Delavekouras-Lakatos, ICCF
e-mail 2003.
b) 16 &Yb1?! Wb2!1? (16.. Wad 17 &Hc3 Wa3
18 &bl repeats) 17 Wa5 Wxc2 18 Hc3 £.d8
19 Wb4 a5 20 Wd4 (20 Wxd6 Wxc3 21 £xbs
Wc7 22 Wxc7 £xc7 reaches the same position)
20...2b6 21 Wxd6 Wxc3 22 £xb5 Wc7 23
Wxc7 (23 Wa37? Ha7 leaves Black with an ex-
tra piece, Santana Penate-Ilczuk, corr. 2005)
23..82xc7 24 Hc5 De7 25 2xd7 Hd8 26 £xc8
Haxc8 favours Black as the bishop is superior
to the knight here.
c) 16 We3 £b7 17 f5 He5 (Pruijssers-Senff,
Dieren 2005) 18 &bl Wb4 (18..Wb2!?) 19
Bd4 &cd 20 £.xc4 bxced is equal.
12 0-0 £d7 13<h1 (D)
z%/%@% 2
N FY 51 ¥y ¥
'Y 'Y B
/y/y% _
B i
wa%fi% _
&%&%gégfi
~ I s
13..Hc8
Let’s briefly examine the immediate advance
13...h5!?, which has been used in two world-
championship games:
a) 14 &bl Wb4 15 We3 De7! (15...d5? 16
exd5 £e7 17 c4! gave White a large advantage
in Spassky-Fischer, World Ch match (game 11),
Reykjavik 1972) 16 c4 f5 17 a3 Wa4 18 Q3
Wc6 19 Dd4 Wc5 20 exf5 L7 21 fxe6 fxe6 22
Zadl £xd4 23 Wxd4 Wxd4 24 Exd4 OF5 25
Hd2 Hc8 with an edge for Black because of his
superior pawn-structure, Qi Jingxuan-Karpov,
Hannover 1983.
b) 14 Ad1 Hc8 15 De3 Wb4 16 c3 Wxed 17
£.d3 Wad 18 Dc4 KEc7 19 b6 Wa3 20 Hcd (20
Hael? He7 21 Hcd Excd 22 fxcd hd! gives
Black good compensation for the exchange as
POLUGAEVSKY VARIATIONS 103
White will have difficulty activating his rooks,
Short-Kasparov, PCA World Ch match (game
4), London 1993) 20...Wa4 21 £b6 Wa3 22 H\c4
1/2-1/2 Gulko-Psakhis, Beersheba 1993.
We now return to 13...Xc8 (D):
/;/@fi /.
%1/1/1
\SA
o
m\
\ ko
&
e\
\N >
/////
.
14 £h52!
The bishop excursion to the kingside is
White’s most popular choice here, but it is diffi-
cult to see how to develop the attack. Alterna-
tives:
a) 14 f57! Qe5 15 fxe6 fxe6 16 Lh5+ 2d8
17 &e2 (17 Exf6? fails to 17...Wbd! 18 Wg5
R2e7) 17..&c7 18 &Hf4 &b8 favoured Black in
Ligterink-Geller, Wijk aan Zee 1977. His king
has found safety on the queenside and he has a
powerful knight outpost to go along with his
extra pawn.
b) 14 Ef3?' h5! 15 Ed1 (15 KEh3 h4 favours
Black) 15...2¢e7! (15.. b4 16 We3 He7 17
a3!? Wxa3 18 Wb6 &Hc6 19 Wxb7 b8 20 Wc7
Wb4 21 £xa6 Wbo {21..8e7!7) 22 Wxb6
Zxb6 is equal, K.Johansson-Lennox, corr. 1998)
16 Ee3 (Sedlak-D.Popovié, Subotica 2002)
16...h4! 17 g4 Wb4 favours Black.
c) 14 Badl se7 (14..Wb4!? 15 Rf3 h5 is
also worthy of investigation) 15 £h5 (15 Ef3?!
h5! transposes to line ‘b’) 15...Kf8 (15...0-0?
16 Ef3 &h8 17 Eh3 gives White a strong at-
tack; Black usually needs his bishop developed
on g7 in order to castle kingside) 16 Xf3 &d8!
(D).
Black’s king will be safe on the queenside.
Now:
cl) 17 Bd3 Ec7 18 hbl Wb4! (18...Wa4 19
&c3 Wa3 20 Dbl Wad 21 Hc3 Wa3 Y2-12 Lu-
ther-Ki.Georgiev, French Team Ch 2003) 19
104 PLAY THE
_ Black, Shabalov-de Firmian, USA Ch, Chan-
. %E% | dler 1997.
Dc3 Has 20 Eg3 Hxb3 21 cxb3 Lc8 with a
slight plus for Black according to Ki.Georgiev
and Kolev.
c2) 17 Hg3!7Ec7 18 Hg7 Da5(18...Le8!?
19 Bxh7 &c8 is worthy of investigation) 19
£xf7 Wba 20 He2 Wxd2 21 Bxd2 Hxb3
(21...&c41722 Bd3 Eh8 is also fine for Black)
22 axb3 Hh8 is given by Ki.Georgiev and
Kolev. Now I think White should play 23 Hg3
with equal chances.
d) 14 &d1 (the knight is angling for the c4-
square) 14...8g7 (another reasonable move is
14...h5!?, transposing to note ‘b’ to Black’s
13th move above) 15 &e3 b5 16 c4!? (accord-
ing to Ki.Georgiev and Kolev, 16 £h57! 0-0 17
Had1 Hfd8 left Black with a slight advantage
in Sedlak-Ki.Georgiev, Vrnjacka Banja 2005)
16..Wb4a 17 Badl 0-0 18 Wxd6 Efd8 19 f5
Wxd6 20 Exd6 £e5 is equal (Ki.Georgiev and
Kolev).
14...8¢7 15 Ef30-0 (D)
& K
» EAELEANA
Aakak o
W W s
3 mail 2003.
%@2 Ay,,,//
/////
NAJDORF SICILIAN
Kasimdzhanov doubles rooks along the f-
file. Alternatives:
a) 16 Eel £a5 17 5 (Liberzon-Ribli, Bue-
nos Aires Olympiad 1978) 17...%c4 18 Wf4
&e5 19 Eg3 &h8 is a more favourable version
of the game for Black because the white rook is
less active on the el-square.
b) 16 Eg3 &h8 17 Bfl De7 18 57! (18
Bd1!?) 18...exf5 19 exf5 £xf5 (19..4xf5!?)
20 Wel Le6 with a material advantage for
c) 16 Edl (D) and then:
\\D{@@:
0 IRy7%
cl) 16...f5 17 exfS exfs5 18 £d5 Wxa2 (not
18...8e6? 19 Hd4 Wxa2 20 Hxc6 bxc6 21
De7+ h8 22 Hxc8 Exc8 23 Wxd6 and Black
had insufficient compensation for the loss of
the exchange in Am.Rodriguez-Vera, Havana
1978) 19 Eg3 &h8 20 £b6 Le6! (20...Ecd8?
21 Bxg7! &xg7 22 Wc3+ £6 23 Hal traps the
black queen, Hallier-Jalanskis, ICCF corr. 2002)
21 &xc8 Bxc8 22 Bd3 with a slight advantage
for White.
c2) 16..2fd8 17 Eg3 Wb4 18 f5 He5 19
Nd4 (19 Whe Hg6!) 19.. W4 (19...2h8? 20
£xf7 exf5 21 Le6! favours White) 20 £e2
Wes5 21 Whe Hg6 22 Wd2 Hes 23 Wheé with a
draw by repetition, Fiala-Bamsley, IECG e-
c3) 16...40a5 17 Wxd6 ¥xd6 18 Hxd6 xb3
19 Exd7 &c5 20 Ee7 Ecd8! (this manoeuvre
enables Black to expel White’s active rook from
the seventh rank) 21 @g1 (after 21 Ec7? Dxe4!
Black wins a pawn) 21...2d7 22 Exd7 £xd7 23
Bd3 9c5 24 BEd6 Bc8 intending ... &f8-e7 with
a slightly favourable endgame for Black.
 POISONED PAWN AND POLUGAEVSKY VARIATIONS 105

16...%)a5 17 £5 The difference in the activity of the minor

Whate tries to launch an attack before Black pieces is telling: Black has a central knight out-
breaks through along the c-file. post and a potent pair of bishops, while White
17...%0c4 18 Wfd He5 (D) has an awkward bishop on h5 and passive
knights marooned over on the queenside.
19 Xg3 £h8 20 Exg7
White does not have enough firepower to
threaten Black on the kingside, but after a qui-
S
N\ =N\

eter move such as 20 £e2 Black plays 20...Ec6

and doubles rooks along the c-file.
20...2xg7 21 Wg3+ h8 22 Wha Hg8 23
N

L.xf7 Dxf7 24 Wxf6+ Eg7 25 fxe6 De5!

Sadvakasov returns his knight to its domi-
nant post and retains his material advantage.
T
D}Jl\\\é

26 exd7 PDxd7 27 ¥d4 Wb2

White has run out of tactical tricks.
s

28 &HdS Hxc2 29 He3 Hexg2 30 Wxd6 Wr2!

\

0-1
&

White cannot avoid mate.

Game 20 [B97]
Alexei Shirov — Wang Hao
Russian Team Ch, Dagomys 2009
1 e4 c5 2 %f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Dxd4 56 5
23 a6 6 225 e6 7 £4 Wh6 8 Wd2 Wxb2
For comments on the moves up to here, see
Game 19.
9 bl
The rook move is the most popular choice:
White occupies the half-open b-file and gains
time by attacking the black queen. 9 ©Yb3 was
covered in Game 19. Black has only one possi-
>N
j\\\é\\
“\\\\
10 e5
The merits of this central pawn advance have
been hotly debated for many years. As recently
as in his 2003 book My Great Predecessors,
Part I, Kasparov adomed 10 e5 with the ‘dubi-
ous move’ symbol and called it “An unprepared
attack.” The move is currently back in fashion
and White has recently scored several impres-
sive attacking victories, but the only thing cer-
tain is that the pendulum is likely to swing back
and forth again in the coming years as improve-
ments are developed for both sides.
Let’s briefly examine White’s tenth-move

R
\\

alternatives:
A7 . , a) 10 &xf6 (White exchanges his dark-
\La

squared bishop for the knight in order to break

i A //é
b

up Black’s kingside pawn-structure) 10...gxf6

De

11 £e2 &c6 12 Dxc6 bxe6 13 0-0 Wa5 (this is

a typical manoeuvre in the Poisoned Pawn:
Black improves the position of his queen and
pins the c3-knight) 14 @hl £e7 15 {5 hS! (f
White reacts passively, Black will follow up
with ...h4, meeting h3 with .. We5, ...d5 and
..Rd6) 16 Kf3 2Af8! 17 fxe6 Kxe6! 18 b7
fi&\:

d\

Ke8 gives Black a comfortable position thanks

106 PLAY THE NAJDORF SICILIAN

to his control of the central squares, Geissler-

Verhoef, ICCF e-mail World Ch 2002.
b) 10 £e2 (White completes his develop- B %7 "y "'7
ment before committing to a central pawn ad-
vance) 10...£e7 11 0-0 h6 12 £h4 &Hbd7 13 A A A}
v

Ph1 Wa5 14 £5 He5 15 fxe6 fxe6 16 Lh5+ (D)

0Ny U
and now:

i/i/@7 z >
J%/fi%
Wfi/ &y
provided Black defends accurately. For in-
stance, 19...fxe4 (19...Wa4 is the alternative, and
also viable after 20 d6+ £.xd6 21 Wxd6 Was5+

g%l%y/&% 22 &f1 Ba7!; instead, the untested 19...0-0 is a

move your analysis engine might advocate, but

8 HE & 20 £c4 £hd+ 21 De2 is difficult for Black) 20

We3 £d8 21 Wxc6+ (D).

bl)
loses
16..80xhS 17 &xe7 Wc7 (17..&xe77?
to 18 &d5+) 18 &dbsS axbs 19 &Hxbs /A%@% E

Wxe7
N5+)
20 Hxd6+ 2d8 (20...2d777 loses to 21
21 DFf7++ Le8 and here White could
play on with 22 &xe5!? (rather than 22 H\d6+
&d8 '2-12 D.Fischer-Firsching, corr. 1999)
22..2f8 23 Qg6 Exfl+ 24 Exf1 WcS 25 e5!7?
Exa2 26 Wd1 with a dangerous attack.
b2) 16..9f7 17 &xf7+ (17 5 dxe5 18 £xf6
gxf6! 19 &de2 f5 favoured Black in Leise-
bein-Schlupeck, corr. 1987) 17...&xf7 18 Wd3
Hd8 19 Hce2 Wh5 with equality, Behling-
Geryk, ICCF e-mail 2002.
¢) 10 5 (the idea here is to home in on the
e6-square; this line was popular before the re-
surgence of the 10 €5 variation) 10...2¢6 11
fxe6 fxeb6 12 Dxc6 bxc6 13 e5 (White sacrifices
a second pawn to free the e4-square for his
knight; 13 Ke2 is another major line) 13...dxe5
14 £.xf6 gxf6 15 £ed. The knight controls the
important c5- and d6-squares and limits the
mobility of the black queen. Now:
cl) 15..8e7 16 £e2 h5 17 Ef1 (D) (this
idea was analysed in some detail by John Nunn
in the new edition of Secrets of Practical Chess,
and appears to be more dangerous for Black
than the older 17 Eb3) and now:
c11) 17..£5 18 Ef3 Wxa2 19 Efb3 and here
Nunn gives many variations leading to a draw
&N
B,% 5
%;% -
W A L AN
8B % 7
Now not 21...%2e7? 22 Wxa8! Wxc2 23 Wa7+
£.d7 24 Bb7, which gave White a strong attack
in Ibraev-Kokarev, St Petersburg 2003, but
21..82d7 22 Wxed (22 Wxa8 Wxc2) 22...Fe7!
23 Hd1 Wa4 24 Ebd Ra5 25 Whd+ 2e8 26
L xh5+ Exh5 27 Wxh5+ Le7 28 Wha+ &f7
29 Wh7+ '2-/> Bobras-Wojtaszek, Bundesliga
2009/10.
cl2) 17..Wxa2 18 Ed1 ¥Wd5 (18...f5 also
looks viable; e.g., 19 Wc3 0-020 Wg3+ h721
g5+ L.xg5 {21...2h87! 22 Wh4 followed by
23 Ef3 gives Black some problems} 22 Wxg5
Wa5+ 23 Ed2 e4 and White has nothing better
than taking a perpetual check) 19 We3 ¥a5+20
c3 5 21 Wg3 (D) and now:
 POISONED PAWN AND POLUGAEVSKY VARIATIONS 107

z@;%g@y%
9
A A w1
A}
Y

»iJ //// %/ 2 %/// %?%/ ///%

O, ///@@./%,&/ /
| BE¥E
cl21) Not 21...&f7? 22 BExf5+ exf5 23 £c5+23 hl Was 24 Eh3 Wc7 25 Hixe6 Wd6
fcd+ Wd5 24 Hxd5! cxd5 25 fxd5+ Leb 26 &xf8 Wxf8 27 Kf1 favours White although
(Galiana Salom-Tattersall Rodriguez, Palma de Black hung on for a draw in Grishchuk-Anand,
Mallorca 2003) 26 WxeS! £xd5 27 WxdS+ Linares 2009) 22 Eg3+ &h8 23 Hg5 Hg7!
g7 28 WeS+ f7 29 Wxf5+ Le8 30 Web (23..8xg57 24 Wxg5 Bg7 25 Wfe Wa3 26
&d8 31 c4, when White has a decisive advan- Hxg7 Exg7, Caceres Cortes-Alvarez Gonzalo,
tage as Black is unable to activate his rooks. Mexico City 2006, and now 27 Rxa6! gives
c122) 21..Ha7! (21..2f8 22 W6 Ha7! is White a decisive advantage) 24 @xe6 Hf7 25
equivalent) has held up well in correspondence Ef1 with equal chances.
and computer games. 22 Wg6+ (22 £xh5+ c22) 19..h8 20 Eg3 Ed7 21 Whe Er7 22
&f8 23 Wgb is the same as the next bracket) Whs Exdl+ (Black must avoid 22...Ef8?7 23
22...&18 23 g3 (23 £xhS ExhS 24 Wxh5 Hd7 Exd7 £xd7 24 Eh3 with a mating attack) 23
is roughly equal according to Nunn, an assess- £xdl Wa5! (this is the key idea that holds
ment not shaken by testing in correspondence Black’s position together) 24 &f1 (24 h37?
games) 23..Wb6 24 Dd6 (24 DgS Kxgs 25 Wc7! wins for Black) 24... Wd8 25 Wxf7 Wxd1+
WxgS Eah7 looks like a draw) 24...£xd6 25 26 &f2 Wxc2+ 27 &f3 (several months later
W6+ g8 26 Exfs Bg7 27 Hegs Wel+ 28 &d2 saw 27 &e3 £.c5+ '2-'2 Azarov-Kasparov, Eu-
Wa7 29 Xf1 Wd7 30 Hxg7+ Wxg7 31 Wds+ ropean Clubs Cup, Izmir 2004) 27..Wd1+ 28
28 32 Wxc8 Eh6 33 Wxc6 Tf6 34 Kxa6 hd &2 We2+ 29 Le3 L5+ 30 Dixc5 Wxc5+ 31
led to a draw in a game Fritz-Rybka, Lulea &d2 W2+ 32 2c3 Wdd+ 33 2 W2+ 34
(SSDF) 2008, although Nunn considers White &c3 -2 Vallejo Pons-Kasparov, Armenia-
to have an edge in this endgame. RoW (game 2), Moscow 2004.
c2) 15...Wxa2 (Black snatches a third pawn; We now return to 10 e5 (D):
all of this pawn-grabbing may seem rather
greedy, but the black queen is a disruptive force
and White must act quickly before Black’s ma-
terial advantage begins to tell) 16 Ed1 Re7 17
Ke2 (17 Dd6+? Kxd6 18 Wxd6 a5+ 19 Hd2
Ha7 favours Black as White’s attack has dissi-
pated, Borkowski-Stempin, Polish Team Ch,
Jachranka 1987) 17...0-0 18 0-0 Ea7 (the rook-
lift on the second rank is frequently seen in
these lines; from here the piece can aid the de-
fence of Black’s kingside) 19 Ef3 (D) and now:
c21) 19..8d7 20 £4d3 (for 20 Wh6 Exd1+
21 £xd1 Er7 22 Eg3+ $h8 23 WhS5 see line
‘c22°)20...f5 21 Whe Ef7! (21...2h87 22 Hg5
108 PLAY THE NAJDORF
10...h6
The pawn move reduces White’s attacking
options (see the note to White’s 14th move, for
instance), but Black does not have to play it im-
mediately. After 10...dxe5 11 fxe5 Dfd7 12 He4
(the older line 12 £.c4 £b4 has proven satisfac-
tory for Black) 12...h6, practice has shown that
Black need not fear 13 £b5?! (White’s best
choice is 13 £h4, transposing to the main
game) 13...axb5 14 &xb5 hxg5 15 Hxa3 Hxa3
16 0-0 c6 17 Eb5 Had! 18 d6+ (18 Dxg5?!
dxe5 19 Exe5 Dxe5 20 We3 Hc6 with a ma-
terial advantage for Black, Stellwagen-Anand,
Bundesliga 2008/9) 18...2xd6 19 exd6 f6 20 ¢3
Hah4, which was fine for Black in Vogelmann-
W.Loeffler, corr. 1987.
11 Lh4
White can try to exploit Black’s move-order
by exchanging the bishop with 11 £xf6 gxf6,
and now:
a) 12 He4?! fxe5 13 Bb3 Wa4 14 fxe5 dxeSs
15 &Xf6+ Le7 16 &5+ (D) and here:
w
2%3/,,,,,,,,,
/x zz i
Y Y - y
%%%% _
%z/ LD » 13...Wxa2
iy %/& %/ ////%ATy 7
| Fe
al) 16...exf5?! 17 Hd5+ Le6 18 D7+ 2Af6
19 $)d5+ (19 Wd8+?? 2g6 20 Bg3+ @h7 21
W6 Wa5+ and 19 ©xa8?? Wed+ 20 &d1 Lc5
win for Black, as given by Nunn) 19..2e6
(19...2g67? loses to 20 Eg3+) 20 Hec7+ A6
l/2-1/2 Bradvarevi¢-Buljov¢ié, Yugoslav Ch, Novi
Sad 1965.
a2) 16..2xf6! 17 Wds+ Lxf5 18 £d3+ e4
19 0-0+ Le5! 20 W6+ &d6 21 Wxh8 Ad7 22
Exf7 Ke7! (this is an improvement over the
older line 22...exd3?! 23 Exd3+ &c6 24 Exf8
Dxf8 25 Wxf8 &b 26 W2+ &c7 27 Wel+
with perpetual check — Nunn) 23 c4 Wxa2 24
c5+c7 25 We3 exd3 26 Exe7 We2 and Black
SICILIAN
has a decisive advantage, G.Miiller-Bock, ICCF
corr. 1994.
b) 12 exd6 Wxd6 (12...42d7!? 13 £b5!? f5
looks fine for Black as he will recover the d6-
pawn under more favourable circumstances) 13
ed Wds 14 Wc3 Le7 15 £e2 b5 (15.. Hg8!?
16 0-0f5 17 &f2 £.d6 18 £d3 gives White rea-
sonable compensation for the pawn because of
his lead in development) 16 Ed1 &d7 (16...b4?!
17 Wg3! {17 Wcd &d7 with sharp play, del
Rio-Vallejo Pons, Spanish Ch, Leon 2006}
17..%a5 18 g7 BEf8 19 0-0 gives White a
frightening lead in development) 17 £f3 £b7
18 D xf6+ Lxf6 19 £Lxb7 Ha7 20 £13 Bc7 is
equal.
11...dxe5 12 fxe5 H)fd7 13 Ded (D)
KAs @i
B/l%fl%t%w
AT /A/ i
Ty |l S GBI
Black must avoid 13...%a4? 14 £e2 Nc6? 15
Dxe6! g5 (15...fxe6 16 Lh5+ mates; this tacti-
cal motif is always lurking whenever Black has
played ...h6) 16 &f6+ 1-0 Radjabov-Anand,
World Blitz Ch, Rishon Le Ziyyon 2006. The
finish would be 16...2xf6 (16...&e7 17 Wd6#)
17 D7+ &e7 18 Wde.
14 Ed1
The rook centralization has replaced the
older line 14 Eb3 Wal+ 15 &f2 Wa4 16 2b5?
axb5 17 &xb5 Lc5+ 18 Hixc5 Wxha+ (this is
one of the ideas behind the preliminary 10...h6)
19 g3 Wd8 20 Wd6 (20 Hxd7 £xd7 21 Hd6+
&f8 22 Exb7 f5 also favours Black) 20...&8xc5
21 DcT7+ Wxc7 22 Wxc7 Dbab 23 Wb Hxb3
24 cxb3 0-0 and Black secures a decisive ma-
terial advantage, Korchnoi-Tolush, USSR Ch,
Riga 1958.
14..%d5 (D)
 POISONED PAWN AND
Kasparov suggested this queen retreat in
New In Chess Magazine 2006/8 with the pro-
phetic comment “White would need a lot of
creativity to prove his point after that.” The
current state of theory indicates that White’s
attack has proven to be quite formidable, and
defenders of the black cause have been under
pressure to demonstrate a clear path to equal-
ity.
15 Wel £.¢5
The bishop development is a new idea to
keep lines closed, but in view of recent develop-
ments, attention may shift back to the slightly
older and more extensively tested line 15...Wxe5
16 22 £.c5 (Black should avoid 16...2f67 17
#b5! Lbd+ 18 ¢3 0-0 19 Lxf6 gxf6 20 Wxh6!
Wxed 21 Hd3 Wg6 22 Hg3 and White has a de-
cisive advantage — Anand) 17 £g3 2.xd4 18
Hxd4 Was5+ 19 Ed2 0-0 20 £d6! (D).
v
/4, 7
/A
7 % 4,74
= _E
Despite the whole 14 Hdl line being un-
known before 2005, this position has been con-
tested in a remarkable number of games, many
POLUGAEVSKY VARIATIONS 109
of them involving supergrandmasters, top-class
correspondence players and the leading analy-
sis engines. Now: '
a) After 20...%c6 21 0-0! f5 (21..Ed8 22
W4 Wf5 23 Wha g5 24 Wxh6 Wxe4 25 Wxg5+
We6 26 Wha Wh7 27 £h5 intending Hd3 is
difficult for Black) 22 £.xf8 Hxf8 23 &d6 (D)
the material balance is slightly in Black’s fa-
vour as he has three pawns for the exchange,
but his queenside is undeveloped and White has
a powerful knight on d6. Now:
L Er T
. A W
BABLYAL
4 Z/;/
. | BZ
al) 23..b5724 £f3 £d7 25 &xf5! exf5 26
Bxd7 &Hxd7 27 fxc6 Ed8 28 &xd7 1-0 Shi-
rov-Guliev, Calatrava rapid 2007.
a2) 23..We5 and then:
a21) 24 Wxe5 Hxe5 25 Ebl Hfd7 (the al-
ternative 25...8.d7!? 26 Exb7 a5 is unclear, and
maybe preferable) 26 @xc8 (I think 26 $xb7
should be met by 26...a5!? with counterplay)
26...Exc8 27 Exb7 &c5 28 Ha7 Eb8 was ana-
lysed by Ki.Georgiev and Kolev. I feel White
has a slight advantage but Black has reasonable
counterplay.
a22) 24 W2 2477 (24.. Wc3!? is unclear)
25 Sxb7 b4 26 Wc5! (this is stronger than
26 R£3? Ec8 !/-14 Kristjansson-Thorhallsson,
Icelandic Ch, Reykjavik 2007) 26..Wb2 27
&d6 Xb8 28 Bfd1 gives White a clear plus.
a3) 23..Qe5 24 &h1 (24 Eb1!?) 24..5fgb
25 &4 Dxc4 26 L.xcd 2h7 with sharp play,
Nayer-Nepomniashchy, Mainz rapid 2008.
b) 20..Xd8 21 Wg3 (D) and then:
bl) 21...Wf5?! has been the most popular
move, but White has scored overwhelmingly
with the energetic sequence 22 Re5 Wg6 23
Wha &c6 24 £h5 W5 25 £xg7! in high-level
110 PLAY THE NAJDORF
t%// [T I
Z /%‘%7,
B BOE
B a%&
v 7 & 7%
%4'&Ty //
correspondence and computer games. One line
runs 25...%c5 26 Dxc5 wxg7 27 Kfl We5+ 28
Ned Wal+ 29 Hd1 Exdl+ 30 £xdl Wes 31
Bfe £d7 32 Wxh6+ g8 33 Ef4 £5 34 Kh4
Bd8 35 Eh3 Yxed+ 36 &fl Wes 37 Hg3+
Wxg3 38 hxg3 and Black doesn’t have enough
for the queen, Winkler-Dothan, corr. 2007 and
more than a dozen other games.
b2) 21..%c6! (this looks very solid from
the available evidence) 22 Rc7 (22 0-0?! f5 23
£.¢7 Wh4 is good for Black) 22...Wal+ 23 Edl
Wb2 24 5\d6 (24 0-0 Zf8 25 £d6 #)d4 has also
held up for Black; e.g., 26 £g4 &f5 27 Lxf5
exf5 28 &\c3 He8 29 H\d5 He2 30 De7+ Exe7
31 Lxe7 Wxc2 32 £b4 $h7 33 Bd6 16 34 Eel
&e5 35 ExeS f4 36 Wxf4 fxe5 37 Exh6+ 14-14
Leitdio-Cesetti, corr. 2008) 24...Ef8 25 &Hxc8
Haxc8 26 Exd7 Wxc2 27 &4 Efd8 28 £xh6
Wbil+ 29 Edl Exdl+ 30 £xd1 Wed+ 31 &f2
W5+ 32 213 W2+ 33 Re2 WS+ led to a
draw in C.Persson-Winckelmann, World corr.
Ch 2007-9.
16 S xe6! (D)
&
/7 ’/
/ a crushing attack.
n We5 (21...40¢6?! 22 0-0 transposes to the main
SICILIAN
16...2.b4+
Other moves are unplayable:
a) 16..Wxd1+7? 17 &xd1 Lxe3 18 Q\d6#.
b) 16..8xe37? 17 Hic7+ Lf8 18 DxdS Lg5
19 &xg5 hxg5 20 £d6 Hc6 21 e6 fxe6 22 Hc7
Eb8 23 &Hxc8 with a clear plus for White -
FtacCnik.
c) 16.. Wxe6? 17 WxcS &c6 18 Wa3 WxeS
19 £d3 15 (19... Wa5+ 20 Wxa5 &Hxas 21 HHd6+
&f8 22 &5 and White wins material; 19...f6
20 0-0 also leaves Black with no satisfactory
continuation) 20 0-0 fxe4 21 Rxe4 leaves the
black king hopelessly exposed.
17 ¢3 Yxe6 18 cxb4 0-0 (D)
E%A%,%@%
w%l/fl%tfi,
'y /g/
/// //,/é
B moE
78
“un
i W WALE
888
19 Hde!
The rook-lift is more incisive than 19 227!
e 20 0-0 Wxe5 21 £cd4 Wh5 22 W3 &h7
with an edge for Black as he has safeguarded his
king, E.Berg-Nayer, FIDE World Cup, Khanty-
Mansiisk 2007.
19..¥xe5 20 £.c4 Hc6?!
Black strives to develop as rapidly as possi-
ble, but will hit a snag. Of the options available
to Black, only line ‘c’ appears to be playable:
a) 20...He8?' (Black cannot afford to leave
the f7-pawn unguarded) 21 &xf7+! &xf7 22
Wb3+ Be6 23 0-0+ &6 24 Hxf6 gxf6 25
Exfo+ Wxf6 26 L.xf6 Lxf6 27 W3+ 1-0 Nes-
terovsky-Alexikov, Petach Tikva 2008.
b) 20..2b67! 21 Exb6 Le6 (Iermito-Quir-
oga, La Plata 2009) 22 0-0! £xc4 23 &6 with
c) 20...%h5!? (this move was suggested by
E.Berg in New In Chess Yearbook 86) 21 ¥f4
game) 22 Wf3!? (White can repeat by 22 We3
 POISONED PAWN AND POLUGAEVSKY VARIATIONS 111

Whs 23 Wi4 Wes524 We3)22..b523 £.g3 Wh2

24 £b3 and White has active play to compen-
sate for his two-pawn deficit, Y.Vovk-Vidoniak,
Lvov 2009. This idea has held up well for Black
in correspondence games, but I expect that this
may not be the last word on this line.
21 0-0 Wh5 22 Wr4 (D)
White has a strong alternative in 22 £f6!
Axf6 (after 22...0de5 23 Wg3 Lg4 24 Lxes
&Hixe5 25 Hd5 Hae8 26 h3 White wins mate-
rial) 23 Dxf6+ gxf6 24 Hfxf6 L5 (24...50e5
» &
25 Exh6 Sxc4 26 We7 1-0 Siugirov-Brodsky,
St Petersburg 2008) 25 Wg3+ Wg5 26 Eg6+! - %z%
£xg6 27 Exg6+ Lh7 28 Hxg5 hxgs 29 Wxg5
with a decisive advantage for White as the The finish would be 23..Wxh6 24 &6+
black rooks are no match for the white queen $h8 25 £g5 Wh7 (25..Wg6 26 Whd+ mates;
on an open board. 25...g6 26 Wg3 traps Black’s queen) 26 Zxh7
22..)de5? Sxh727 Wed+ 2g8 28 £d5 £d7 (28...£e6 29
The best defensive try is 22...a5! 23 b5 @ce5 Lxe6 fxe6 30 £f4 and White wins) 29 Kf4
24 Rb3 ad 25 Kdl Dg6 26 Kxh5 Hxf4 27 with a decisive advantage for White.
Exf4 a3 28 Hf1 a2 29 Hdd] with an advantage A classic example of Shirov’s tactical imagi-
for White as Black has insufficient compensa- nation and creativity. Black needs to examine
tion for the piece. his alternative options carefully, and both sides
23 HExhe6!! 1-0 need to keep abreast of new developments.

Game 21 [B96]
Peter Leko — Ehsan Ghaem Maghami
World Team Ch, Erevan 2001
1 ed ¢5 2 D3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Dxd4 2 f6 5 Lev Polugaevsky almost single-handedly trans-
#c3 a6 6 Lg5¢67 f4 b5 (D) formed this provocative move into an extremely
- dangerous weapon: he spent a lifetime analys-

i%iy@% ) ing and publishing analysis of this sharp line.

The following quote from his classic book
Grandmaster Preparation illustrates his pas-
sion for analysing ‘The Variation’: “. . every
day for roughly six months(!) I spent hours at
the board studying positions from the variation,
and even went to sleep and dreamed about it.”
\

The Polugaevsky Variation has fallen out of

favour since the passing of its namesake expo-
X
N

C>N\

”, nent; such razor-sharp lines are dangerous to

S
\\\\\

\\\‘\\\
\\\\\\\

repeat at the highest levels because the playeris

\\\\\§
\ x>

D~’>

B wmse ® susceptible to being surprised by a crushing

&

novelty. The critical positions lend themselves

to careful preparation with analytical chess en-
Black expands on the queenside and seeks to gines and Black is under some pressure in the
demonstrate that White’s intended pawn ad- main lines due to his lagging development and
vance e5 is not actually a threat. Grandmaster vulnerable king. However, White has not so far
112 PLAY THE NAJDORF
been able to deliver a knockout blow to the line.
As things stand, the Polugaevsky Variation is
certainly playable, and at club level it has proven
to be an excellent choice for those seeking to
unbalance the position at any cost. White can
obtain dangerous attacking chances for a small
material investment, and it takes strong nerves
and confidence in one’s tactical abilities to de-
fend such positions in an over-the-board game
played at a fast time-limit.
8eS
White takes up the challenge, because a more
standard plan of development allows Black to
begin his queenside play more quickly than in
normal lines:
a) 8a3 £b79 £d3 (9 e5 dxe5 10 fxe5 Wc7
saves the piece, as in the main line)9...%3bd7 10
We2 and now 10..Wc7 11 0-0-0 Ke7 12 Ehel
0-0 was equal in Jonasson-Wojtkiewicz, Reyk-
javik 1994, but 10...%¥b6 is the more thematic
Polugaevsky move.
b) 8 £d3 Dbd7 9 We2 Wb6 (Black saves a
tempo in comparison to some lines of the Gel-
fand Variation because he is able to play ... Wb6
in one move without having played ... Wc7) 10
&3 b7 followed by ... Hc8 was comfortable
for Black in Metz-P.Schlosser, Baden 2000.
c) 8 Wf3 £b7 9 £d3 Dbd7 10 0-0-0 Le7
11 Ehel Wb6 (again we see this key motivation
of the Polugaevsky Variation) 12 We3 h6 13
£h4 b4 14 bl 0-0 gives Black easy play on
the queenside, W.Schmidt-Taufratshofer, corr.
1994.
8...dxe5 9 fxe5 We7 (D)
x
z%g%@%
3
W 18 @e5 (W.Watson-Hodgson, Reykjavik 1989)
%l%
% ;///4
im-
% %
% %%
“Bums
Black breaks the pin and saves the piece
thanks to this tactical trick.
SICILIAN
10 exf6
White plays for open lines at the cost of
leaving Black with a potentially dangerous
dark-squared bishop. The alternative is to retain
the cramping e5-pawn with the equally popu-
lar 10 We2 £fd7 11 0-0-0 £b7 and here one of
White’s most dangerous and well-explored
ideas is 12 Wg4 Wxe5 13 £e2 with good attack-
ing chances for the pawn. For details, consult
your database and more encyclopaedic theoreti-
cal works.
10...WeS+ 11 £e2 Wxg5 12 0-0
White has an important alternative in 12 ¥d3
Wxf6 (12..Ea7 13 Ded Wes5 14 D3 Wxb2 15
0-0 Ed7 transposes to the main game; note that
this is a way for White to bypass the 12 0-0 We5
line, at the cost of giving Black an extra option,
if he so desires) 13 Efl1 We5 (D) and now:
x%g/@%,fi
»v%y%//tfi;
'y %A% .
A %W% _
7% 25 B
4%fifl%¢%,
A% %%%fifi
% 7 &R
a) 149371 ¥d6 15 Wed (15 We3!? Wc5!is
fine for Black; for example, 16 We4 Ea7 17
0-0-0 £e7 leaves White without an effective
follow-up) 15...Ka7 16 Bd1 Wb4 17 We3 Ed7
18.. Hxdl+ 19 £xd1 f6 20 Wa7 £\d7 with an
edge for Black. A common theme in this line is
that Black’s strength on the dark squares makes
it difficult for White to generate an attack.
b) 14 Edl Ea7 15 O3 Wc7 16 Dg5 15 17
Wd4! with sharp play. Note that this is a line
that has been extensively tested in practice, and
possesses a substantial body of theory.
We now return to 12 0-0 (D):
12...Ea7
One persistent theme in this line is the ac-
tivity of the black queen; this is possible be-
cause White’s dark-squared bishop has been
 POISONED PAWN AND POLUGAEVSKY VARIATIONS 113

LT T30
U woR
AT WA
/}% »

AR
////// ////
I
/////2/ %///
,%g%gca%
2 W8 %
exchanged. Black’s main alternative is 12...We5 b12) 18 £d3! was suggested by Nunn in
13 X3 Kc5+ 14 Shl Wxf6 15 Ded We7 16 1996. This is best because after 18...Hxf7 19
#e5! and now: Rxf7 Wxf7?1(19...2xf7 20 Wh5+ g6 21 Ef1+
a) 16..f5 17 h5+ g6 18 Hxg6 hxg6 19 Pe8 22 Wxc5 favours White) 20 &g5! (ignor-
Lxg6+ 2f8 20 HxcS Kh6 (D) and then: ing the loose piece is stronger than 20 &xcS5,
as given by Luther) 20...8d7 21 £xh7+ &f8
ERe e5
ly%y%
(21...h8 22 WhS5 is a simple win for White)
22 xe6+! Te7 23 Hixc5 White has a decisive
material advantage.

'S 1B FY1Y
b2) 17..Bxf7 18 Bxf7 &xf7 19 Kh5+ g8

AT 7
20 &xc5 Ka7 (20..Wxc5?7? 21 Wd8+ was first
A played in Lukas-Feist, corr. 1997; after 21... W8

v v 22 £f7+! &xf7 23 Ef1+ Black loses his queen)

oo
21 &$Hd3 &Hc6 (Moreira-Garcia Rodriguez, e-
mail 2004) 22 Wf3!? (22 L3 A)d4 23 Ked is

ATIATE WA recommended by Luther; a possible continua-

tion is 23...2b7 24 & xb7 Exb7 25 c3 &5 26 a4

B WEB with a structural advantage for White) 22...2)d4

al) 21 Rh5 Hc6 22 b4! Hxb4 (22...a5 was
suggested by Luther, but 23 Wf3! e5 24 Rg4
Wh4 25 h3 favours White as the black king is too
exposed) 23 £f3 Wc7 24 h3 &Hc6 25 ad! with
23 W4 Bd7 24 Hes5 Ed5 25 c3 &HF5 26 K13
with an edge for White thanks to his more ac-
tive pieces and superior pawn-structure.
13 Wd3 Ed7 14 Hed Wes 15 Hf3 Wxb2 16
We3 £b7 (D)

4 os
strong queenside pressure for White, Wosch-
Nordin, IECG e-mail 2001.

W3
a2) 21 Dxeb+!? Lxe6 22 LxfS L7
&c6 24 RKed4 with a dangerous attack,
23
‘v/g%i7x%1
Diaz-Vera, Havana 1986.
b) 16...0-0 17 & xf7 (D) and now:
bl) 17..2b7?! and then:
bll) 18 &xc57! Wxc5 19 Wde Wxd6 20
Dxd6 Exfl+ 21 Bxfl £d5 22 a4! (22 &8
&c6 23 b6 Ed8 24 Gixd5 exd5 was equal in
Corkett-Lamford, corr. 1986) 22...b4 23 Ef7
&#\c6 24 Ec7 with just an edge for White thanks
to his active pieces.
114 PLAY THE NAJDORF SICILIAN

17 ad! (D) a) 27 Wha+ Wg5 28 W2 &Hc6! (28..

White compels the black b-pawn to advance.
17 Bab1 Wxc2 18 Dfg5 is less effective:
a) 18...g67 19 Kbcl Wad 20 Dxe6! fxe6 21
7+ 2d8 (21...Kxf7 22 Dd6+ Lxd6 23 Wxe6+
and White wins) 22 Wg5+ He7 23 We5 1-0
Negi-Hermansson, Malmo 2007.
b) 18..Wc7! 19 fxg7 &xg7 20 Df6+ L xf6
21 Exf6 £d5 22 Ecl &c6 is equal, J.Sullivan-
Birtz, [ECG e-mail 1997.
. Hc7M
29 Hadl with a slight advantage for White,
Am.Rodriguez-Stangl, Biel 1988) 29 c5 (White
has a large advantage according to Am.Rodri-
guez, but matters are not so clear) 29...Kd2 30
Hadl Ec2! and Black is able to maintain the
balance. White is tied down to the defence of
his kingside, and Black’s passed b-pawn is a
powerful asset.
b) 27 £h5!'? was suggested by Nunn in
1996. After 27..Wg5 (27...2c67 28 Rael Wg5

4 es 2 29 Bxf7+! Bxf7 30 &xf7 &xf7 31 Ef1+ g6

{31..%e7 32 WrB#} 32 We8+ wins for White)
s /97 R AKA 28 Bxf7+ Kxf7 29 £xf7 Bd8! (after 29...2xf7?

A
30 Zf1+ g6 31 Wxb8 W5 32 Hel Ef7 33 h3
AN White’s extra pawn should be decisive) 30 Wh7

' B B Hd2 31 £h5+ £d8 32 Wb7 &Hd7 33 L£f3,

White’s extra pawn may perhaps give him some
8, %) winning chances, but Black can certainly still

B mh fight.
18 Zabl Wxc2 (D)
,%fi/@%fi%
1 | BE a //7@/?/ x
W//Azy%;%}
Black’s main alternative is 17...\b4!? 18 c4 Yy %x% %
£xed 19 Wxed WeS+ (19...gxf67?! 20 axb5 axb5
21 Wf4 favoured White in Luther-Bromberger, . /77
Austrian Team Ch 2006) 20 ©h1 b4 21 Wf4 246 AKX 0 %
(21...5c67! 22 Hadl favours White, Moreno
Carretero-Olsen, corr. 2004) 22 fxg7 Hg8 23 'y %@/
Whe £e5 (23.. W15!7 24 5 £14! 25 Wha Hxg7 /!/g/a%
8 E%
26 Habl might possibly favour White, but is
rather unclear) 24 Wxh7 Exg7 25 Wh8+ Je7
26 &xe5 (26 Hadl Exd1 27 Exdl £d7 and
Black hangs on) 26... Wxe5 (D) and now: 19 Hfgs!
Leko unveils a significant improvement over

a / % 19 Hxb4 £xb4 20 fxg7 Eg8 21 &f6+ ®d8 22

Wb6+ 8 23 Wxb4 Hxg7 24 Wrs+ Kd8 25
w X Wxg7 Wxe2 26 Wxf7 (Rolph-Hucks, IECG e-

AW
_
,/}/ "
» %,
mail 1995) 26...8xf3 27 gxf3 Hdl 28 Exdl
Wxd1+ 29 &2 Wd2+ with equal chances.
19...Wc7 20 Exb4!! (D)
20...
8 xed
a%&/,b Alternatives:

77/ _ a) 20..h6? (Langheinrich-L”

Ami, Augsburg
2002) loses to 21 fxg7 fLxg7 22 Hxf7.
W%// Y b) 20..2xb4? 21 fxg7 Hg8 22 &Hf6+ &d8

N B & 23 Pxg8 £.c5 (Alfred-Dub, Budapest 2002) 24

S xe6+! fxe6 25 Ef8+ mates.
 POISONED PAWN AND POLUGAEVSKY VARIATIONS 115

B el Hc1!! (less effective is 23 gxh8W+7?! £xh8 24

ZAWXC AL
Wh6 Wes5 25 Wxh7 &f8 26 &hl with just a
slight advantage for White according to Leko

7:%%% and Am.Rodriguez; then Black could consider

26..2g7 27 &c4 96 28 Lxa6 Ed4 29 £bS
Hxe4 30 Kxc6 Hel 31 Wd3 Exf1+ 32 Wxfl

_
Wc3, when it will not be easy for White to uti-
lize his extra pawn because of the presence of

_ | opposite-coloured bishops) 23...&xg7 24 Exc7

%;% i Bxc7 25 Hd6+ £f8 26 Kh5! Hc6 27 Wa3

7

/
ix &
Kdd+ (27..g8 28 Kxf7+ Exf7 29 HDxf7

B &xf7 30 Wf3+ is winning for White) 28 &hl

c) 20..%c6 (relatively best) 21 Hc4 We5
22 Wb6!? a5 23 Hccl h6 24 fxg7 Lxg7 25
Nxf7 Wdd+ 26 Wxd4 Rxd4+ 27 hi
@xh6+ g7 29 Exf8 Lxf8 30 £g5 favours
White, as given by Leko and Am.Rodriguez in
their Informator 83 notes.
g7 29 De8+ Kxe8 30 Wg3+ £h6 31 Wxc7
(31 h4 L6 32 Wxc7 gives White a clear plus
according to Leko and Am.Rodriguez) 31...Eb8
32 g3 &xh5 33 Wxf7+ g5 34 W4+ g6 35
0-0 28 Wed+ &f6 36 Wxc6 and White has a decisive
advantage as his queen is too strong for Black’s
rook plus bishop.
23 56+ Ld8 24 Hxg8 ficS (D)

B % mon
21 Dxed Kxb4 22 fxg7 (D)

s
9 7
WE a74
K WX
A. EAEA G
'y %4%7%
\\\\

%/%
» _ _ AU %H/ _
AR 9 %7% "
_ 'y y%y/fi%&%
_ /g/a% n E%
@

. 1 B¥
25 & fe6!
22... Hg8?! This is the spectacular point of the combina-
Ghaem Maghami allows a pretty finish, but tion beginning with 20 Hxb4!!: the g7-pawn
even after 22..8c3 (Tibor Karolyi analysed cannot be stopped.
this position in New In Chess Yearbook 61, but 25...8xe3+ 26 Lhl 2c8 27 £xd7 1-0
did not consider the following rook move) 23 Powerful play by Peter Leko.
10 Main Line: 6 285 e6 7 f4 2e7

The Main Line, 6 £g5 €6 7 f4 R€7, was the focal point of the 6 £g5 variation during the 1970s and
early 1980s; attention then shifted to the Poisoned Pawn Variation. Several of the critical Main Line
positions were somewhat neglected during the past two decades, but there has been an upsurge in
attention during recent years as players have re-examined some older positions and developed new
ideas for both sides with the assistance of analytical chess engines. After the usual continuation 8
W3 Wc7 9 0-0-0 Dbd7, White has an important choice between continuing his development with
10 £d3 (Game 22), or initiating a kingside pawn-storm by 10 g4 (Game 23).
Both lines are critical and highly theoretical, so it is important to work through the lines and un-
derstand the details before venturing into these sharp positions. Strong nerves are required by both
players in the Main Line: White is often called upon to give up material (for example, via the £d5
piece sacrifice) in order to maintain the initiative, and Black often finds his king under attack in the
middle of the board. A thorough knowledge of these types of positions is an important step toward
developing an understanding of the subtle balance between time and material in pursuit of the ini-
fiative.

Game 22 (Mamedov-Areshchenko) features the developing move 10 £d3, to which Black re-
sponds with 10...h6 (the Browne Variation) 11 £h4 g5 to kick White’s dark-squared bishop away
from the kingside. The players follow the main line for several moves. Areshchenko expands on the
queenside with 17...b5 (17...8d7 is safer), and Mamedov counters several moves later with 20 a4
to try to break open Black’s queenside. The queenside battle escalates as Black sacrifices an ex-
change to keep the initiative; the middlegame is a typical back-and-forth Najdorf battle. The end of
the struggle is marred by time-pressure, but the game illustrates the importance of keeping the ini-
tiative, even at the cost of some material.

In Game 23 (Nayer-de Firmian), White opts for the aggressive 10 g4 and Black selects the
13...43c5 line. Nayer plays Perenyi’s dangerous 16 Egl and after 16...h5 he opts for the crafty 17
S&.h3. de Firmian goes astray and Nayer is able to unleash a cascade of sacrifices to shatter Black’s
king position. Black resists but ends up a pawn down in a sharp middlegame; a further error allows
White to finish off the game in style. This battle is rather one-sided and there are improvements for
Black in the notes, but the game is a stark reminder of the latent power in White’s set-up: Black
must play extremely accurately or he can quickly find himself in a difficult situation.

Game 22 [B99]
Rauf Mamedov - Alexander Areshchenko
Moscow 2007

1ed c52513d63d4cxdd 4 Dxdd DFf6 S5
&c3 a6 6 g5 e6 74 27 (D)
8 Wr3
Another common transposition is 8 We2 h6! 9
£ha?! (but9 Lxf6 Lxf6 10 0-0-0 Wc7 is com-
fortable for Black, Kim-Lanin, St Petersburg
2007), when Black has 9...8xed! — for the de-
tails, see note ‘a’ to White’s 7th move in Game
15.
8..Wc7
The queen move is directed against the e5
pawn-break. Less popular is the older line 8...h6
 MAIN LINE: 6 2.g5 ¢6 7 f4 Re7
R peTee 7/ —
,
g w
D, B8 77
ABCRY % A1
L Owgs R
(nowadays Black tends to avoid this move until
White has played £d3) 9 £h4 and then:
a) 9..Wc77100-0-09bd7 11 £e2! (White’s
light-squared bishop is particularly effective on
e2 after Black has played ...h6 because from
here the bishop controls g4 and also gives
White various tactical opportunities involving
the h5-e8 diagonal; White can also transpose
into the game continuation by playing 11 £.d3)
11...Hb8?! (Black should prefer the more re-
centidea 11...0-0!? 12 Wg3 Nc513 Kf3e5 14
D5 Kxf5 15 exf5S Hac8 with equal chances,
Sammour Hasbun-Ludwig, US League 2009; I
expect further developments in this line) 12 Wg3
Hgo8 (Black’s dual rook moves make a bad im-
pression) 13 Bhfl g5 14 fxg5 De5 (14...Wa5?!
15 9xe6 fxe6 16 gxfe Hxg3 17 Hd5!!
combination highlights the weakness of Black’s
kingside after he has played ...h6} 17...Wxd5
18 &xd5 Dxf6 19 YDxf6+ Kxf6 20 Lxg3 wins
for White, Weinstein-De Fotis, US Open Ch,
Chicago 1973) 15 @3 hxg5 16 £xg5! (this
was suggested by Nunn in 1996; 16 Hxg57!
Wes (16..Hg6? 17 Wf4! bs 18 Dxf7! b4 19
£.xf6 bxc3 20 £L.xe7 1-0 Bowie Reed-Douth-
waite, corr. 1992} 17 &bl is only somewhat
better for White) and now White wins in all
lines: 16...0h5 17 Wh3! Exg5 (17...20xf3 loses
to 18 £.xe7 — Nunn) 18 #xe5 Exe5 19 £xhS5 or
16...20xf3 17 £xf3 &h5 18 L.xh5.
b) 9..g5 10 fxg5 &fd7 (D) is the famous
Gothenburg Variation, which was the prototype
of the method employed by Black in our main
game.
At first sight, Black’s play looks like sheer
madness, but the logic is that he is trying to se-
cure a grip on the vital e5-square. If he succeeds
117
7
7 8 Ty
w/}/a/
A A
,/H%&% o
)
SHSE /;fi
2 %4 E
in planting a knight firmly on this fine central
post, then he is unlikely to have any major
problems, even if this comes at a small cost in
material or structure. Therefore White tends to
react vigorously, either striking combinatively
before Black can establish a knight on e5, or
else to remove the knight from this square once
it arrives. The critical lines are:
bl) 11 &xe6!? fxe6 12 Wh5+ Lf8 13 Lb5!
(the logic behind this extraordinary move is
that the bishop will eliminate one black knight
or the other, unless Black takes the bishop on
b5, but then the extra tempo will grant White’s
attack a decisive impetus) 13...Eh7! 14 0-0+
g8 15 g6 Hg7 16 7! £xh4 17 Wxh6 Exf7
18 gxf7+ &xf7 19 Ef1+ (19 Wh7+ is a draw)
(this 19...5.16 20 Wh7+ (20 e5 dxeS5 21 Zed4 Wb6+!
22 &h1 axb5 23 Hxf6 e7 24 Bdl LDxf6 25
W7+ Pe8 26 W6+ Le7 1o-12 Zivkovié-Mar-
tinovi¢, Zenica 2008) 20...&e8! (the older move
20...&f87 loses to Dale Kirton’s idea 21 e5 dxe5
22 fe2! with a decisive attack, T.Schmidi-
Limayo, ICCF e-mail 1999) 21 Wg6+ f8 22
e5 (22 Whé+ is a draw) 22...dxe5 23 £xd7!?
(23 Ded?! Wb6+ 24 Lhl axb5 25 Hxf6 Le7
26 We8+ 2d6 27 Wxc8 and now the strong im-
provement 27...Ka4! was introduced in Seve-
&ek-Cranbourne, ICCF e-mail 2001; then 28 b4
is relatively best, although White is struggling
for a draw) 23...xd7 24 Ded We8!? 25 Who+
Le7 26 Dxf6 Yxf6 27 Wxfo+ Ld6 28 Kdl+
&c6 led to a draw in Daurelle-Rousset, France
2007. Interested readers are directed to the NIC
Yearbook 85 Forum.
b2) 11 Wh5 He512 £93 Lxg513 £e2 (13
&3 is another approach) 13...8b6 14 ®d1 (D)
and here:
118 PLAY THE NAJDORF
z%g%@% ’
b\
. rE % @/, ®RzL
b21) 14..%xb2?! 15 0-0 Ef8?! (15...0-0 16
Had Wb 17 &Of3 favours White) 16 Hxe6!
(this is an improvement over 16 &Ydb5?! axb5
17 &xb5 Le7 with sharp play, Iskov-T.Kjeld-
sen, Odense 1975) 16...£xe6 17 Exd6 £xa2
18 Dxa2 &bd7 19 Sxcl Lxcl 20 Ee6+ 2d8 21
Exe5! Dxe5 22 L xe5 gives White a strong at-
tack in return for the exchange as the black king
is caught in a central crossfire.
b22) 14..bd7 15 Hxeb (the strength of
Black’s central knight outpost is seen in the line
15 0-0 &f6 16 Wh3 Wxb2 17 &4 &xf4 18
Exf4 ©Dh7 19 £Hd5!7? exd5 20 Wxh6 Wa3 21
Wg7 28 22 Wxh7 £d7 23 exd5 0-0-0 with an
unclear position) 15...f6 16 ©)d5 (Poenisch-
H.Schreiber, corr. 1987) 16...WaS+! 17 b4 @xh5
18 Nec7+ Ld8 19 bxas (19 £xe5!? is an inter-
esting try, though after 19..Wxa2 20 £xh5
dxe5 21 &Hxa8 Fe8 no clear end is in sight)
19..%xg3 20 hxg3 Ha7 is roughly equal as
Black’s misplaced rook is offset by White’s
horrible pawn-structure.
The Gothenburg Vanation is easy to con-
demn on general grounds but very hard to re-
fute with concrete analysis. Its main drawback
may be no more than the fact that White can
force a draw in line ‘b1’ above; however, this is
a type of practical ‘defect’ that applies to many
sharp tactical opening lines.
9 0-0-0 »\bd7 (D)
10 £d3
The bishop is generally well-placed on d3
because it supports the e4-pawn, defends the
c2-pawn and takes aim at Black’s kingside. One
potential drawback is that White’s centralized
knight is now unprotected. Alternatives:
a) 10 g4 is the subject of Game 23.
SICILIAN
\
\3‘\¥
RNl
N
B
&l
\Q:
AN
.
\
N
R
\
&fii
B
zzzzz
b) 10 f5 e5 11 &b3 (11 Hde2 bS5 12 Hg3
£b7 is also comfortable for Black) 11...b5 12
a3 2b7 13 h4 Ec8 is equal, Ader-Fischer, San-
tiago 1959.
c) 10 Wg3 (White applies indirect pressure
on the g7-pawn; this line was popular during the
1970s and 1980s, but interest in the queen move
waned as the correct response was discovered)
10...h6 11 £h4 g5 (Black is able to utilize the
vulnerable position of White’s queen and bishop
to liberate his position) 12 fxg5 &h5 (12..Eg8 is
a sound alternative) 13 We3 Wc5 (this is the key
idea: Black recovers the pawn with a solid posi-
tion) 14 &bl hxg5 15 K2 He5 16 Wd2 Wc7 17
3 Dxf3 18 gxf3 £.d7 with a balanced game,
Kupreichik-Beliavsky, USSR Ch, Leningrad
1974, and many later games.
d) 10 £e2b5! (Black should avoid 10...h67!
11 £h4, which transposes to note ‘a’ to Black’s
8th move above) 11 £xf6 Hxf6 12 e5 £b7 13
Wg3 (Keres’s original queen sacrifice 13 exf6
2xf3 14 &xf3 {xf6 15 Lxa8 d5 {now the
white bishop is unable to retreat} 16 £.xd5
£.xd4 17 Exd4 exd5 18 Hxd5 Wes5 19 Eel+
&8 20 c3 h5! left White struggling for a draw
in Keres-Fischer, Bled/Zagreb/Belgrade Can-
didates 1959) 13...dxe5 14 fxe5 £d7 15 £xb5
(White should settle for 15 ££3 0-0 16 £xb7
Wxb7 17 Ehel &c5 with a queenside initia-
tive for Black, Morgado-Ricardi, Mar del Plata
1988) 15...axb5 16 £dxb5 Wcs 17 Wxg7 WxeS!
(Black returns some material to extinguish
White’s initiative) 18 &c7+ Wxc7 19 Wxh8+
820 Wg8 Has5 21 Bhfl £g5+ 22 &bl Lxg2
23 Bgl Wxh2 24 Wg7 Zf5 with an edge for
Black as the two bishops are superior to the
white rook, Grimm-Pershin, ICCF corr. 2002.
 MAIN LINE: 6 Rg5 e6 7 f4 Le7 119

We now return to 10 £d3 (D): a) 16..23b6 17 £h4 Eg8 18 He2 Wxc6 19

£xh7 Be8 20 Wxg7 Wcd (after 20...5xh77!, as
played in E.Berg-Negi, Wijk aan Zee 2007, 21
Wxf7! Ba7 22 Wxh7 Ec7 23 del £d5 24 g3
B /%%a%x%x7 Y 2. ) %
favours White as Black can’t unravel his pieces)
21 Exe7 Wxfa+ 22 He3! Wxe3+ (22...Wxh4?
loses to 23 g3) 23 &bl We6 24 Lxf6+ Ec7 25
2.g5 gives White reasonable compensation for
his slight material deficit in view of Black’s ex-
posed king.
b) 16..Wxc6 17 £xf6 Dxf6 18 Wxg7 Hes
19 Wxf7 Ba7 20 Exe7 Haxe7 21 Wxf6 c7 22
AT Wd4 Wb6 (22...WcS 23 WxcS+ dxc5 24 £xab

&EZ 7R also favours White) 23 Wxb6+ &xb6 24 &d2

10...h6
Lines with ...h6 by Black are generally known
as the Browne Varation.
The equally-popular alternative is 10...b5 11
Zhel £b7 (the provocative advance 11...b47! 12
&\d5 gives White a more favourable version of
the knight sacrifice) 12 Wg3 b4 13 &£)d5 exd5 14
exd5 (the pawn recapture is more dynamic than
c5 25 5 with an endgame edge for White as
the bishop and two pawns are superior to the
rook, Navara-Shirov, Prague rapid 2005.
c) 16..40¢5 17 £h4 Eg8 18 £xh7 Eh8 19
Wxg7 Bxh7 20 ¥xf6 Exh4 (not 20...£xf67721
£xf6+ c8 22 Ee8+, when White mates) 21
Wxf7 Eh8 22 Ke5 a4 23 Re3 Ha7 24 Rdel
(D).

W e////
14 €5 dxe5 15 fxe5 ©hS 16 Wh4 {the queen sac-
rifice 16 e6 Dxg3 17 exf7+ Txf7 18 Exe7+
g8 19 hxg3 also leads to a draw} 16...&xg5+
17 Wxg5 g6 18 €6 &Hc5 19 exf7++ Lxf7 20 1/&%y/y -
Rf1+ g8 21 &5 He6 22 Dh6+ g7 23 Df5+
1/2-1/2 Lassen-G.Nielsen, Danish corr. Ch 1982, > %y%y
and several later games) 14..%d8 15 &c6+! Ay 5
(White offers another pawn to open lines in the
centre; this idea of Kotronias’s has revived inter- __ /7%
est in this line) 15...&xc6 16 dxc6 (D). &%fi/ /fi%
£ B
X .2 2
. %m%g%; Black has two extra pieces, but his king is in

t/&%y% _
a jam. Now:
cl) 24..Ke8 25 5 Wxc6 26 f6 (Kotronias-
//// ») A.Shneider, Korinthos 2004) 26...Ec7 (26...%c5

.y
27 &bl keeps up the pressure) 27 K1e2 Wb5 28
fxe7+ ¥c8 29 h4 favours White as the pawns
8 B are superior to the knight.
c2) 24.. ¥Wxc6! 25 Exe7 Exe7 26 Wxe7+
AN /fi% &c8 27 h3 (27 h4 &4c5 is unclear, Poli-Bues-

. SBE sing, ICCF corr. 2007) 27...%4)c5 with roughly

equal chances, Hebels-Chopin, ICCF e-mail
2006. I expect there will be further develop-
Now Black must decide how to deal with the ments in this line.
pawn on cb6: 11 £h4
120 PLAY THE NAJDORF SICILIAN

White has two important alternatives:

a) 11 h4?! (D) is an attacking idea that has
been played in more than 100 games. The
pawn-thrust has attracted a bit of a cult follow-
ing over the years: the idea is not so easy to re- /////

fute and Black’s best defence has never been

clearly established. He can try:

Ar

a®-§§
//.e./@//%

o
R

7 @ ¥ &=
/&7//7/&/%’/ 7////’/

1983} 21...g6, when Black has an extra rook)

EYLE [ 1y
. %z% K N6 19 Wxf6 Hxg6 20 HdS gxf6 21 HxcT+
al) 11..hxg5 12 hxg5 Xf8 (the strength of
White’s attack is apparent after 12...Exh1?! 13
Exhl Hg8?! 14 Eh8 &f3 15 Wh3 d5 16 €5
£xg5 17 Exg8+ with a mating attack, Fiore-
ntini-Villa, corr. 1984) 13 gxf6 £xf6 14 &de2
#eS 15 &bl £d47! (15..Eb8? 16 g4 favours
White, Silman-Tarjan, Lone Pine 1979) 16 g4
0-0-0 (16...g5!'? 17 Eh6 Lg7 18 fxg5 WdS is
unclear) 17 g5 2¢e7 18 Eh7 Eg8 with roughly
equal chances.
a2) 11..b5 12 Kxf6 &xf6 13 e5 £b7 14
Wh3 (14 Wg3 dxe5 15 fxeS5 0-0! with a slight ad-
vantage for Black “shows the dark side of h4” —
Nunn) 14..5d5 15 £g6! (this is an improve-
ment over 15 Hxe6? fxe6 16 Wxe6 Dxf4 17
£ g6+ £d8 with an edge for Black, Czaya-Born,
corr. 1978) 15...2xc3 (15...4xf4 16 Hxe6!) 16
A xf7+ Lxf7 17 YWxeb+ 28 18 W5+ g8 19
We6+ &8 20 W5+ with a draw by repetition.
a3) 11..45!7 125 hxg5 13 hxg5 Exhl 14
Exhl (D) and now:
a31) 14..%fd77' 15 Eh8+ and here:
a311) 15...2f8 16 fxe6 and then:
a3111) 16..4e5? 17 d5! Hcxd3+ 18 bl
Wa5 19 Wf1!! (Vigorito faced this shocker in an
online blitz game; the line was originally be-
lieved to favour Black after the inferior continu-
ation 19 exf7+7? Dxf7 20 Exf8+ &xf8 21
cxd3 {R.Burgess-R.Booth, Australian corr. Ch
19...9b4 20 €7 Wxa2+ (20...0g6 21 exf8W+
xf8 22 b3 with a clear plus for White) 21
el g6 22 exf8W+ Nxf8 23 Hb3 Waq 24
g6! and White wins — Vigorito.
a3112) 16..&8xd3+! 17 &bl D3eS 18 g6
&d8 22 Bxf8+ Pxf8 23 e7+ Lxe7 24 Hixa8 b5
is a spectacular line, with a likely draw.
a312) 15...%0f8 16 f6 gxf6 17 gxf6 (D) and
then:
g%g%%% =
s AN A&
BB N
a3121) 17...2d8? 18 W4, with a strong at-
tack, has been played several times.
a3122) 17..b57! 18 &xb5+ axb5 19 Hcxbs!
Wa5 20 b4 Wxb4 21 Hc7+ Ld7 22 fxe7 Wel+
23 Wd1 &d3+! (this is an improvement over
23..We3+7 24 &bl! {24 Wd2? Wgl+ 25 Wdl
We3+ was a draw by repetition in Tsuboi-Pao-
lozzi, Brazilian Ch, Sdo Luis 1981} 24...&xe7
25 N5+ exfs 26 A5+ 2d7 27 Hxe3, when
White has a decisive material advantage) 24
cxd3 We3+ 25 &bl Eb8+ 26 &icb5 Wxd4 27
 MAIN LINE: 6 Rg5 €6 7 f4 Re7 121

exf8\+ Le7 28 Dg6+ fxg6 29 Eh7+ d8 30

a4 favours White, but he may not be winning.
a3123) 17..Wd8! 18 fxe7 Wxe7 19 We3 W
247 20 &bl 0-0-0 is equal.
a32) 14..0g8! 15 6 &xf6! 16 Zh8+ Ld7
17 gxf6 (D) and now:

{11 BB
5 AldS Al
\\\\\\
\\

D-
N
N
TN
P

14..0c4? 15 fixcd Wxcd 16 Dd2 We6 17

7 Y. / 2
n // / a white knight on b3} 17 a3 £¢6 {17...b5!7} 18
a321) 17..0xd3+7! 18 Wxd3 £xf6 was as-
sessed by Nunn as unclear back in 1996. Now
White could consider 19 &3 Wa5 (19..£xc3
20 bxc3 Wc5 21 Eg8!? is annoying) 20 g4!?
(now White has possibilities of Eh3 and/or g5 in
some lines) 20...8.xc3 21 bxc3 Wa3+ (the idea is
to give Black the option of ... Wb5+ if necessary)
22 bl W5 23 Eh7 e724 Exg7 £d725 Dg5
(25 e5!7) 25.. Wigl+ (25..Kf8 26 Wf3) 26 b2
Who+ 27 cl Wgl+ with a repetition.
a322) 17...8xf6! looks good for Black, as
theory’s recommendation 18 £c¢4 is strongly
answered by 18...Wb6! (this is even better than
18..2xd4 19 &b5! {F.Larsen-Kubach, corr.
1984} 19...£ xb2+ 20 ©xb2, when 20...Dad+
21 &b3 Hc5+ 22 b2 Pad+ is a draw by repe-
tition, while 20...¥b6 tries for more)
&c7 with a large advantage for Black thanks to
his extra pawn and pair of bishops.
b) 11 ¥h3 (White maintains the position of
his bishop by pinning Black’s h6-pawn; this
move was popular during the 1970s but has
since fallen out of favour) 11...£\b6 (this move
controls d5 and makes way for ...&d7 followed
£g5!, which favours White as he will land one
of his knights on d5, Timman-Hamann, Am-
sterdam 1975) 15 @xa4 (15 Kd2?! Dxc3 16
£xc3 a5! {this is the usual recipe for harassing
Hhel b5 gave Black a queenside initiative in
Timman-Portisch, European Team Ch, Plovdiv
1983) 15...5xa4 16 Wg3 Lc6 17 Wxg7 Hg8 18
Wxh6 Dxe4 with equality.
b2) 13 Hde2 £.d7 14 bl L6 15 Le3 d5!
(it 1s usually a good sign for Black if he can
liberate his position with ...d5) 16 £xb6 Wxb6
17 exd5 £a3 18 b3 £.xd5 (Black must avoid
18...0xd57 19 &Dxd5 L£.xd5 20 Hc3 £.06 21
f6! gxf6 22 Lc4 with a strong attack as the
black king has no safe haven) 19 @xd5 &xd5
20 Le4! (20 £.c4 D6 21 Dc3 0-0 is equal,
Nunn-Browne, Tilburg 1982) 20...5){6 21 Wf3
0-0! 22 £ xb7 Ha7 23 Ked a5 gave Black rea-
sonable compensation for the pawn in Nunn-
Sadler, Hastings 1997/8.
We now return to 11 £h4 (D):
19 Hde2
K2@ X
B /%‘/ zfi/ 2/‘%
7 7& 2
_ /%_, 7 /z,
S
N

SN

by queenside castling; there are also some tacti-

&\
NS
Do

cal possibilities based upon the vulnerable po-

.

sition of the white queen) 12 f5e5 (D) and here:

\

bl) 13 &b3 £d7 14 Le3 (14 &bl £c6 15

N
RN

Ehel £bd7 with a balanced game, Naiditsch-

Kempinski, Bundesliga 2007/8) 14...2)a4! (not
e
122 PLAY THE NAJDORF SICILIAN

11...g5 15 &¢3 &6 16 bl £47 17 ££2 0-0-0 18 b3

The g-pawn thrust is a common motif in the (Szabo-Browne, Amsterdam 1972) 18...50h5
Najdorf: by diverting White’s f4-pawn, Black with a balanced game.
secures the e5-square for one of his knights.
12 fxg5
White has also tried to crack open the centre 3/3%@% x
with 12 e5?! gxh4 13 exf6 &xf6 14 5 (14
Ehel £d7 15 Ee3 Hg8 16 Edel Wb6 17 &5
£.18 18 Wf27! {18 £xh4 0-0-0 favours Black}
18...0-0-0 and White’s attack has backfired,
J.Anderson-Hunt, Hastings 2008/9) 14...e5 15

7 %, -
Hde2 £d7 16 Le4 Ec8!1? 17 £xb7 Lc6 (an-
other idea is 17...Eb8!? 18 £e4 a5) 18 £xc6+
Wxc6 19 ¥xc6o+ Hxc6 20 Ehf1? (20 Hd5!7)
ABAEW AL
@ oy ir
20...%g8 21 g3 (Khlusevich-Neverovsky, Mos-
cow 1986) 21...%g4! favours Black as White’s
kingside is under heavy pressure.
12...5e5 13 We2 (D)
14..hxg5
XELHe The immediate pawn recapture is more pop-

o AW AW &
ular than the older 14...2xf3. Then:
a) 15 Wxf3 hxgs (15..9e5 16 Wh5 g6 17
£.¢3 hxg5 18 Wf3 &e5 reaches the same posi-

z
tion) 16 £g3 He5 17 Kxe5 dxe5 18 Kdfl Kh7
19 h4 gxh4 20 Wp4 218 21 Bxh4 Be7 22 Wh3
(22 We2 £d7 is comfortable for Black) 22...We7
AL |
“\x\

AN

23 Eh7 (23 Bh5!'7) 23.. Wp5+ 24 &bl £47

\

with equality, Suarez Real-Andres Gonzalez,

;%é%@%fi%
Oviedo 2006.
b) 15 gxf3 hxg5 16 £g3 De5 (D).
®H 7/ EH
%i%g%/%
13...%fg4
» 7Y
The knight advance has proved to be more
reliable than the retreat 13...2h7. Then: 4 A&k
’ 7
o
7
7
a) 14 £g3 hxg5 15 Bhfl £f6 16 O3 Hfd7 7

BAE B
A e
(16...20h5!7) 17 &bl b5 is equal, Ivanchuk-
Vallejo Pons, Amber Rapid, Monte Carlo 2005.

b) 1443 hxg5 15 £2! D8 16 Dxe5 dxe5
17 £e3 247 (17.. Kg8?! 18 Wf2 £d7 {Hort-
Bobotsov, Wijk aan Zee 1970} 19 Ehfl! 6 20
Le2 favours White as Black has issues unrav-
elling his kingside; note that after 20...2\g6?
21 £xg5! Black loses a pawn) 18 Wf2 &g6
(Kostro-Kavalek, Polanica Zdroj 1968) 19 g3
Hc8 20 Edfl Eh7 21 &bl with an edge for
White thanks to his more secure king position.
14 53 (D)
White challenges Black’s strongpoint on the
e5-square. This is more critical than 14 h3 hxg5
. 254D/R/l/%A%g;4
8
_
This position has occurred more than 150
times in practice, but to date White has been un-
able to demonstrate any advantage:
bl) 17 h4 gxh4 18 4 S xd3+ 19 Exd3 K47
20 Wel £b5! 21 Ed1 h3 is equal, Ljubojevié-
Browne, Wijk aan Zee 1976.
 MAIN LINE: 6 Rg5 e6 7 f4 L.e7 123

b2) 17 f4 gxf4 18 Kxf4 2d7 19 Edfl Eh7
20 h4 0-0-0 21 h5 Edh8 with equality, Hra-
busa-Bindrich, European Under-18 Ch, Sibenik
2007.
15 &xg5
White opens up the kingside and wins a
pawn at the cost of leaving his knight tempo-
rarily misplaced. Black has no problems equal-
for his missing pawn, Vuckovi¢-Vujacié, Yugo-
slavia 1999) 24 exd6 Wxd6 25 Wxd6+ £xd6 26
Ded+ Le5 27 Exf7 He8 and again Black’s
bishop-pair compensates for his pawn, Pill-
hock-Cutillas Ripoll, corr. 2000.
15...&xg5+ 16 Dxgs Wes (D)
72/@%
IALLIZY,

izing after 15 £g3 (15 Dxe5 DxeS 16 Lg3 g]z -7

£d7 17 Ehfl b5 is comfortable for Black)

15...£47 (15...&)xf3 16 gxf3 transposes to note
‘b’ to Black’s 14th move above) and now:
a) 16 Ehfl Wc5 (another idea is 16...f6 17
h3 &xf3 18 Exf3 &He5 and Black has a solid
position thanks to his strongpoint on the e5-
square, Walek-Mozny, Czech Team Ch 2002/3)
17 &xe5 &Hxe5 18 bl Hc8 (18...b517) 19 12
Wa5 is equal, Shirov-Ivanchuk, Leon rapid
2008.
b) 16 h3 &xf3 17 hxgd Exh1 18 Exhl &Hh4 . gz/ /
19 e5!? £¢6 20 Ef1 (D) and then:
17 &Hh3
X /@% _
White should avoid 17 &f3?! £f2 and then:
a) 18 Hxe5? Axd1! 19 HHxf7 Hxc3 20 W3
(D) and here:

XEdliel¥
g //‘gy ’ '/
/}%1%7/
%,% i\ 3 5 A ,//%@%%
/W% Al
0 e &
Sy 1 1Y
%= 87
mal GzHAR
& w
bl) 20...&xg2 21 Ef2 £c6 22 Wil Wbe6!?
(22...dxe5 23 Bxf7 g2 24 Eh7 &Xf4 {Bengts-
\

son-Powles, IECC e-mail 2000} 25 Eh8+ £.18

26 Bh7 Le7 with a repetition) 23 exd6 We3+
24 &bl Wxg3 25 dxe7 g2 26 Wel Ec8 with
roughly equal chances.
b2) 20..Hxg2 21 W2 (21 exd6 Kxd6 22
£xd6 Wxd6 23 Hed {23 Red H)f4} 23... 2xed
24 &xed Hf4 25 Wcd was given by Nunn as
unclear in 1996; now Black could consider
25..H2d8!? 26 a4 Wb6, when White seems to
have insufficient compensation for the pawn)
21...54 22 £ xf4 gxf4 23 Wxf4 2d7 (23...0-0-0
24 exd6 Wxd6 25 Wxd6 Kxd6 26 Bxf7 Lg5+ 27
&bl Ed4 and Black’s bishop-pair compensates
al) 20..Bf8? 21 Hfl (Champagne-Rizzi-
tano, Boston 1978) 21..5xa2+ 22 &bl &b4
23 e5 &xd3 24 Wxd3 Exf7 25 Wg6 &d7 26
Wxf7+ Lc6 27 Ef3 b6 28 Hc3 Wgl+ 29 a2
dxe5 30 W8 with equal chances according to
Lepeshkin.
a2) Black should also avoid 20...
W h57? 21
W6, when White has a decisive attack, Rapo-
ports-Kalnins, Latvian Team corr. Ch 1978.
a3) 20...Exh2! (this is a significant improve-
ment) 21 Exh2 Wgl+ 22 £f1 (White runs out
124 PLAY THE NAJDORF
of firepower after 22 ۩d2 Qb1+ 23 Fe2 Wxh2
24 c4 Pe7 25 £xbl Wh7 26 Hxd6 We7! 27
@D xc8+ Hxc8 28 Wa3+ &d7 and Black has a
decisive material advantage) 22...20xa2+ 23
&bl Wxh2 24 &xa2 Re7 25 Dgs5 WeS 26
W7+ &d8 27 W8+ &d7 28 &7 W6 29 €5
We7 30 Wg8 d5 31 £d6 c7 favours Black.
b) 18 a4 (relatively best) 18...2exd3+ 19
Exd3 Hxd3+ 20 Wxd3 (Lapshun-Mirabile,
World Open, Philadelphia 2004) 20...®@c7 21
Hdl £d7 22 &c3 0-0-0 23 Wxd6 Wxdo6 24
Exd6 Rc6 25 Exd8+ £xd8 with a favourable
endgame for Black.
17...b5
The b-pawn advance is almost a standard re-
action in such positions, but it gives White a po-
tential target on the queenside. I prefer to leave
the b-pawn at home and safeguard the king via
17...£d7 18 Edel 0-0-0 19 bl £.c6 20 Hd1
Hdg8 and Black has Benko Gambit-style com-
pensation for the pawn as it is difficult for
White to unravel his kingside, Taddei-Czakon,
Rewal 2007.
18 &bl £b7 19 Edel 0-0-0 20 a4 bxad
Another idea is 20...b4 21 &a2 a5 22 &l
b8 23 b3 Wb6 with equality.
21 Dxad Wa5 22 b3 b8 23 Hb2 Ec8
Black could consider shifting to the kingside
with 23... Hdg8!?.
24 D2 xf2 25 Yxf2 Whd 26 We2 Hc5
(D)
ALY L YL
5 8 Y % %7’/
& E B with a repetition.
27 Bd1
Black’s a-pawn is poisoned after 27 £xa6?
Ha5! and then:
a) 28 £xb7 2xb7 followed by ...Eha8 gives
Black a mating attack along the a-file.
SICILIAN
b) 28 c3 Wxc3 29 £c4 (29 Kxb7 Wxb3! is
also winning for Black) 29..&h4! and Black
wins since White cannot defend the e4-pawn.
c) 28 £d3 Pc7 followed by ...Eha8 with a
mating attack.
27...Ka5 28 Wd2 Wa3 29 Had Hxad!?
Areshchenko gamely sacrifices the exchange
in order to open the b-file for attack.
30 bxad a8 31 Wc1 Wxad 32 Wb2 Zb8 33
el £5!
Black is utilizing his entire army to keep up
the pressure.
34 Se2 Wxed 35 Bd2 Wel
The queen may not be optimally placed
here. Black should perhaps grab material by
35..Wxg2!? 36 Hhdl £.f3 37 £.xf3+ Wxf3 38
Wal Bb6 with sharp play.
36 Wal £.c8? (D)
Black should target White’s vulnerable g-
pawn by 36...Kg8! 37 £.xa6 £xg2 38 Xdl &3
39 Le2+ b8 40 Wb2+ ®c7 41 Wb3 with
@%i/% /% /
%/
7 =, 7
37 Eel?
White was in desperate time-trouble here
and missed an opportunity to turn the tables:
a) 37 £xa6? Wa7 38 Exd6 Hcd 39 Ehdl
We3+ 40 E1d2 (40 E6d2 Wa7 41 Ed6 We3+
repeats the position) 40.. Wgl+ 41 Ed1 We3+
b) 37 h4! Bb6 38 Xh3! Wgl+ 39 £.d1 Wcs
40 Wa3 favours White as it is difficult for Black
to contend with the passed h-pawn.
37...d50-1
White lost on time. The position remains
very sharp; for example, 38 Ef1 Eb6 39 h4 with
roughly equal chances.
 MAIN LINE: 6 Rg5 ¢6 7 f4 Re7 125

Game 23 [B99]
Evgeny Nayer — Nick de Firmian
World Open, Philadelphia 2009
1 ed c52 &3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Dxd4 D6 5
i/fi./ 2

SN
WQ@ KR 5 peA\ \\
It
&3 a6 6 £.85 67 4 L.e7 8 W3 We7 9 0-0-0

\\g

S\
\@m&

©bSN§hfi®
&bd7 10 g4
White initiates a kingside pawn-storm. 10

I
£d3 was covered in Game 22, along with

N
Rl

RN
White’s alternatives up to this point.

e
\
10...b5 (D)

220

\\\\.
XV e

N
NN
v WAagisa A
\\&\\
SN

\\\‘
. éZ% 7/2

&
\\\

Black has a couple of alternative recaptures,

and there is room in line ‘b’ for independent in-
vestigation:
a) The pawn recapture 11...gxf6 has been
out of fashion for years. Many games have fol-

%'%z%i/ lowed the main line 12 f5 £e5 13 Wh3 0-0 14

11 £xf6
White has also tried the sideline 11 a3 b8
12 £xf6, and then:
a) 12...0xf6 135 €5 14 Hde2 b4 (14... 2b7
15 g5 Dxed! 16 Dxed d5 17 Ddc3 d4 18 Ded
Axg5+ 19 &bl 0-0 with complex play, Nunn-
Lali¢, London 1996; this game is annotated by
John Nunn in Grandmaster Chess Move by
Move) 15 axb4 Exb4 16 g5 Sxed 17 Dxed
£b7 with sharp play, Pioch-Podzielny, corr.
1984.
b) 12...gxf6!? (the pawn recapture is more
effective in comparison to the main line with 11
£.xf6 gxf6 because the addition of the moves
a3 and ... Xb8 enables Black to accelerate his
queenside counterplay with a quick ...b4) 13 f5
@e5 14 Wh3 b4 15 axb4 Exb4 16 fxe6 fxe6 17
g5 Was5 (the threat of ...&Wal+ compels White to
settle for a repetition) 18 &Hb3 Wc7 19 Hd4
Wa5 20 Hb3 Wc7 14-Y2 Garcia Martinez-Ribli,
Ljubljana 1975.
We now return to 11 £xf6 (D):
11...xf6
Bg1 ©h8 15 Hg3 Kg8 16 Dce2 247 17 &4
with an edge for White because of the weak-
ness of Black’s e6-pawn.
b) 11..8xf6 12 £xb5 (12 g5 gives Black a
choice between transposing to the main game
with 12...2e7 or taking an independent path by
12...8xd4!? 13 Exd4 £b7 14 Le2 0-0 15
Ehd1 Eac8 with sharp play, Siugirov-Swiercz,
European Under-14 Ch, Sibenik 2007) 12...0-0
(12..Eb8 13 £xd7+ £xd7 14 g5 £xd4 15
HExd4 Wb6 16 Wd3 Wxb2+ 17 &d2 £b5 18
We3! favours White, Sulskis-Nayer, Groningen
1998, and several later games) 13 £.xd7 £xd7
14 g5 £e7 15 h4 Bfb8 16 5 Wb7 17 &b3 (I
think 17 b3!? also favours White because he
keeps his knight in the centre) 17...exf5 18 £d5
K8 19 exf5 a5 “with counterplay” according
to Jonathan Rowson in his New In Chess Year-
book 54 article on this line. It seems to me that
White can forge ahead with 20 h5! a4 (20...&xf5
21 Wxf5 a4 22 Ehgl 2h8 23 h6 axb3 24 hxg7+
£xg7 25 &)f6 L.xf6 26 Wxf6+ g8 27 g6! fxgb
28 BExg6+ hxg6 29 Wxg6+ with a decisive at-
tack for White as he will eventually have queen
and three pawns versus two rooks) 21 h6! g6
126 PLAY THE NAJDORF SICILIAN

(21...axb3 22 hxg7 &xg7 23 f6 bxa2 24 De7+
&f8 25 fxg7+ mates) 22 fxg6 fxg6 23 46+
&h8 24 Wxb7 HExb7 25 £)d4 and White retains
his extra pawn with a crushing bind. Black
needs to come up with an earlier improvement
in this line.
but the resulting positions tend to favour White
because he can usuvally exchange Black’s light-
squared bishop and dominate the light squares
in the centre and kingside. 14 &b1 He5 15 Wh5
(D) and now:

E 4 8
12 g5 $H\d7 (D)
rrr
‘W§Pfi
A\
\@

\\\
AR
>\
W

\\
NS

//////
N
R

/%, %%y%
BN VT
AL
% %fi//// T //,,,,, B &7
a) 15..h67! 16 &xe6! (the knight capture
forces the exchange of Black’s light-squared
1315(D) bishop) 16...8xe6 17 fxe6 0-0 18 h4 £.d8 19
This aggressive advance has replaced the &d5 Wb7 20 £h3 ©h7 (L.Rowley-V.Pedersen,
older line 13 a3 Eb8 14 h4 b4 15 axb4 Exb4 16 Australian Under-18 corr. Ch 1989) 21 &f5+!
£h3 Wc5! (Black concedes a tempo, but draws g6 22 Hhgl with a winning attack for White.
the white knight away from the centre; this b) 15...8f6 16 Dxe6! Lxe6 17 fxe6 favours
move has proven to be more reliable than the al- White.
ternatives 16...8c5, 16...b6 and 16...0-0) 17 c) 15..4d8 16 h4! (D).
&\b3 Wb6 18 h5 Hc5 19 Hxc5 dxc5! with a
comfortable position for Black, Bellin-Portisch,
Teesside 1972, and many later games.

%fi/@/&%
e
e

5 /////

N
\\\

Az% /B
@

This is White’s strongest reply; after Black

plays the inevitable ...g6 to drive the queen
away, White will follow up with h5 to prise
13...%c5 open the kingside. Black has two tries:
13...8.xg5+ has a solid reputation, but I be- cl) 16...b4 17 hxg5 bxc3 18 &xe6 L.xe6 19
lieve that White can obtain an advantage with fxe6 g6 20 Whe Wb6 (20...cxb2 {A.Stuart-
accurate play. Black temporarily wins a pawn, Thom Leeson, corr. 1999} 21 exf7+ @xf7 22
 MAIN LINE: 6 g5
£h3 with a strong attack) 21 b3 fxe6 22 Wg7
(22 Wh3 intending 22...&e7 23 Wxc3, as rec-
ommended by Nunn, is a strong alternative)
22...0-0-0 23 Eh3 &b8 24 Exc3 favours White
as his active pieces and safer king are more sig-
nificant than Black’s centralized knight.
c2) 16..£816 17 fxe60-0 18 £h3 ¥h8 (Black
should avoid the weakening 18...g67! 19 We2
He87! 20 exf7+ &xf7 21 h5 with a strong at-
tack, Nunn-T.Heinemann, Bundesliga 2001/2;
this game is annotated by John Nunn in Grand-
master Chess Move by Move) 19 9\d5 fxe6 20
Lxe6 Kb7 21 Hdfl We8 22 Wdl £xd5 23
2xd5 Hc8 24 De6 Kf7 25 Ef5 favours White
according to Nunn, llyes-Irzhanov, ICCF e-
mail 2000.
d) 15..We7 16 Dxe6! (the reader should rec-
ognize a common theme in these lines: exchange
Black’s light-squared bishop!) 16...8xe6 17
fxe6 g6 18 exf7+ &xf7 19 Wh3! Lg7 20 Hd5
Wdg 21 Wc3! a7 22 Wa3 with an edge for
White thanks to his powerful knight outpost
and pressure along the d-file, Baklan-Galla-
gher, Bundesliga 2000/1.
14 £6 gxf6 15 gxf6 2.8 (D)
7%%@% A cl) 19 Wxh3 Wd7 20 Ehel+ d8 21 De6+
A7 WAL _
w //,/ 927 ///‘/‘
ABAD T %
| o/ E
%2/
16 gl
This idea of Bela Perenyi’s has long been es-
tablished as White’s most dangerous option.
Alternatives:
a) 16 &f57 (this move simply loses a piece)
16...exf5 17 2d5 a5 18 exf5 (18 &bl fxed 19
We3 b4 “and White has very little to show for the
piece” — Nunn) 18.. Wxa2 19 £g2 Lh6+20 54
£b7 (20...0-0 21 Wgd+ 2h8 22 L2 xa8 Wal+ 23
2d2 Wxb?2 also wins for Black) 21 We3+ fe4!
(not 21...&f8?7? { Bluemers-Roelofs, corr. 1989}
e6 7 f4 Re7 127
22 £xb7 and White wins) 22 £xe4 0-0-0 23
£c6 Wal+ 24 ©d2 Wxb2 gives Black a deci-
sive attack.
b) 16 a3 b8! (16...2d7?! 17 Egl h5 trans-
poses to the awkward line 16 Xgl h5 17 a3
£d77) 17 b4 d7! (17...2a4? 18 Dxa4 bxad
19 Hg1! h5 20 b2 extinguishes Black’s queen-
side counterplay) 18 Hgl (Kral-Vrbica, cormr.
2001) 18...0e5 19 Wh3 hS5 is equal.
c) 16 &h3 b4! 17 Hd5 (17 Dee2 Kb7 18
g3 0-0-0 is comfortable for Black) 17...exdS
18 exd5 £xh3 (D) and now:
X
es ¥
v W ///A A
'S B By
. B
,% 25 N
y
ARA %yw
. ®EB, E
(White’s attack runs out of steam after 21
Neb+? Lc7 22 Whe a5 23 &b, as in Poulsson-
George, Ybbs 1968, when Nunn recommends
23.. Hg8 24 Wxh7 Bg6 25 Wha We4, activating
Black’s pieces) 21...fxe6 (21..%c8!? 22 W3
b8 is unclear) 22 dxe6 Wc6 23 e7+ c7 24
f7! (with “reasonable compensation” — Nunn)
24...8xe7 (24...82.g77 loses to 25 Wg4! 2e526
Hxe5! dxe5 27 Wg7) 25 Exe7+ &b6 is unclear.
c2) 19 Ehel+ 2d8 20 Dc6+ c8 21 Wxh3+
&b7 22 Hxb4 Wd7 was played in Ciocaltea-
Fischer, Netanya 1968. Now 23 Wc3! gives
White reasonable compensation for the piece as
Black’s king is exposed and he will have diffi-
culty activating his dark-squared bishop.
d) 16 ¥h5 £d7 (16...Eg8 is another play-
able line) and now:
d1) 17 £h3 b4 and then:
di1) 18 &ce2 0-0-0 19 ¥xf7 £h6+ 20 bl
Zdf8 21 Whs (21 We7 He8 22 Wf7 and now
22.. Hef8 is a draw; not 22...28xe4?? 23 Dxe6
Wed 24 Hd4! Wxe2 25 &8, when White wins)
21...Hxf6 22 Khfl Ehf8 23 Exf6 Exf6 24 Wh4
128 PLAY THE NAJDORF
He6 25 &f3 a5 26 Of4 Lxf4 27 Wxf4 (Car-
mona-Montejo, corr. 1985) 27...e5 28 fxd7+
Dxd7 29 We3 Eg2 is equal.
d12) 18 &d5 exdS 19 exdS 0-0-0 (Black can
transpose into line ‘c2’ above via 19...2xh3 20
Hhel+ &d8 21 Hc6+ Lc8 22 Wxh3+) 20 Hc6
He8 21 Ehel b7 22 £xd7 Hxel 23 Hxel
Wxd7 (23...20xd7 24 Hed!? a5 25 Wxf7 b6 is
unclear, Spitz-Hefka, ICCF corr. 2003) 24 Wh4
a5 25 Hxa5+ c7 with unclear play.
d2) 17 a3 Wa5 (17...0-0-0 is playable too)
18 2e2 (Black was threatening ...b4 followed
by ...20b3+) 18...b4 19 axb4 (19 &Ha2 bxa3 20
b4 Wbb6 is fine for Black, Nunn-Fedorowicz,
Bunratty 2005) 19..%xb4 20 Ehfl Eb8 21
Wxf7+! &d8! (21..Lxf7? loses to 22 2h5+
g8 23 Hgl+ £g7 24 Hxg7+ $f8 25 Bf7+
De8 26 Exh7+ $d8 27 Exh8+ Lc7 28 Exbs
Wxb8 29 £7 W8 30 Hgl) 22 O b3 Hxb3+ 23
cxb3 Wxb3 24 Xd2 Le8 (24...a5 25 Wh5!?) 25
Wa7 Wb6 26 Wxb6+ Hxbb6 is equal, M.Fer-
nandez-Magallon Minguez, corr. 1994.
16..15 (D)
YT
w //%)!’ A is redeployed to block the e-file) 20 Z)c6 £b7
/Mfii 7 A
D ws .
%/ A L
y&%&%/ »:
. %E 2F
The pawn move has displaced the alterna-
tives. Black prevents Wh3, liberates his king-
side and secures the option of placing a piece
on g4 in some lines.
17 £h3
Nayer employs a clever move-order. Alter-
natives:
a) 17 Hel £b7 18 £h3 0-0-0 19 Hd5 Wa5
2023 (20b4!7 Wxa2 21 Wc3 &b8 22 bxcS dxc5
23 Dxe6 fxe6 24 Lxe6 Lh6+ 25 &d1 Ehe8 26
WeS+ &a8 is unclear) 20...2h6+ 21 &bl Wd2
22 Bd1 Wxh2 23 He7+ 2c7 (not 23...5b8?7
{Kalod-Navara, Czech Ch, Ostrava 2002} 24
SICILIAN
Dec6+ a8 25 Hxd8 Hxd8 26 Wxh5 and
White wins material) 24 g7 (24 Wc3 &b6! fa-
vours Black, as given by Palliser) 24...8xe4 25
Bxf7 Wxc2+! (not 25..2b67 26 We3 Wes 27
a4 Bd7 28 Hg6 1-0 A Hunt-Gormally, British
League (4NCL) 2006/7) 26 &xc2 £xf3 27
Nd4 Led+ 28 La2 b6 29 Hixe6 Hixe6 30
£xe6 h4 with equality.
b) 17 a3 (White invests a tempo to slow
down Black’s queenside counterplay) 17...Xb8
(17...2d77! 18 &bl! BEb8 19 b4! has scored
well for White) 18 Hg7 b4 19 axb4 Exb4 20
We3 £b7 (20...Wa5!? 21 &c6 Wal+ 22 $d2
Wxb2 23 Hxb4 Wxb4 gives Black adequate
compensation for his slight material deficit) 21
&d5 exd5 22 exd5+ d8 23 Hel Wd7 24 c3
b3+ 25 Hxb3 Exb3 26 Lcd4 BEb5 27 Lxb5
axb5 28 Wd3 &c7 29 Hg2 Lc8 is equal, Cal-
zolari-Kranabetter, corr. 1998.
c) 17 Eg7 (this is the logical follow-up to
White’s previous move: the rook applies pres-
sure to the f7-pawn and creates some tactical
threats along the 7th rank) 17...b4! (the rook is
immune from capture as 17...2xg7? loses to 18
fxg7 Hg8 19 Hdxb5! axb5 20 £xb5) 18 HdS
(18 €5 £b7) 18...exd5 19 exdS £d7 (the knight
21 2h3 £xc6 22 dxc6 De5 23 Kd7+ &d8 24
Wed Wb6 (D).
z/ .7 7&K ’/ /
/ Y= _ 4 2 ecccer =/
=
Aagm% % //
7 7,/ ////
Ty
V. — - Lo
%%y%yyy/
ABAT %7%
. £87 7
25 Le6 (after 25 Sb1?, 25...&c7! favours
Black, but not 25..2xg77? 26 fxg7 Hg8? 27
Wh4+ &c7 28 We7 and White has a winning at-
tack, Kvisla-de Firmian, Tromse 2007) 25...&c7
26 &xf7 Dxc6 27 ¥bl (the king sidesteps a
potential check on e3 in some lines; White must
avoid 27 £d5+? Kxg7 28 fxg7 Ehg8 29 £xg8
 MAIN LINE: 6 &85 e6 7 f4 Ke7 129

Exg8, when Black has a decisive material ad-

vantage, Vasquez-Vallejo Pons, FIDE Knock-
out, Tripoli 2004) 27..Xd8 28 £d5+ 2xg7!
(the capture leads to a draw by perpetual check
and is more precise than 28..2d7?! 29 Wg2!
£xg7 {29...%0e5 30 Le6) 30 fxg7 Ee8 31 g8W
Exg8 32 £xg8 with an edge for White because
of his more secure king) 29 fxg7 Ehg8 30 ¥h7
&e7 31 Lxg8 Exg8 32 Eel £d8 33 b3 W2 34
Hxe7 14-1/2 Kersié-Kubach, ICCF corr. 2006.
We now return to 17 £h3 (D): /////

E & g X
/ w A& b3) 20 Edel+&d8 21 &co+ L8 22 Wxh3+
Wd7 23 ¥f3 &c7 with sharp play. I expect
%”%A% o there will be further developments in this line.

/A%W/ A 18 &bl b4 19 Hd5 (D)

%W%&//% / %gfi i
%/fl 7%%%
iy & &///».
B 2
17...8b7?
Or:
a) 17..8d7?7 18 e5! d57 19 Dxe6! (this
represents an improvement over the known 19
/%%/
///
ay @
Y

& 87
oy
ADxdS) 19..£xe6 (19...fxe6 20 f7+ =2d8 21 7z

Wfe+ c8 22 Wxh8 b7 23 Eg8 and White @

rzzre s

wins; 19...2xe6 20 DxdS Wca 21 Hc7+ Wxc7

22 Wxa8+ Wcg 23 W3 gives White a large ad-
vantage) 20 &HxdS Lxd5 21 Exd5 HEbg 22
Hgd1 gives White a ferocious attack for a small
material investment.
b) 17...b4! 18 £)d5 exd5 19 exdS &xh3 (D)
and now:
bl) 20 Wxh3 Wd7 21 Wh4 0-0-0 (21...a5!?)
22 c6 HeB 23 Wxb4 ©b7 24 Wa5s (24 Wh4a!?
ed 25 b3) 24..
£ h6+ 25 &bl Ee4 and in this
sharp position a draw was agreed in A.Csonka-
A .Peter, Hungarian Team Ch 2002/3.
b2) 20 Hgel+7! &d8 21 Hco6+ Lc8 22
Wxh3+ Wd7 23 Wh4 Wg4 24 Wf2 &c7 with an
edge for Black. In comparison to note ‘c’ to
White’s 16th move, here Black’s pawn is on h5
and this gives him the additional possibility of
...2h6 and means that the black queen is de-
fended on g4.
19...%a5
White crashes through after 19...exd5 20
exdS &d7 (20..d8 21 Eg7! Lxg7 22 fxg7
Eg8? 23 Eel wins for White) 21 Hgel+! @e5
(21...2d8 22 Dcb+ L xcb 23 dxc6 DS 24 WdS
and White wins) 22 Wb3! (the threat of Wa4+ is
difficult to meet) 22...2c8 23 £xc8 Hxc8 24
&6 Bh6 25 Was Wd7 26 Wxab with a crush-
ing attack.
20 Eg7! Hxed 21 Lxe6! Lxd5
Black’s king position is demolished after
21...fxe6 22 Nc7+ 2d8 23 Hexeb+ Lc8 24
Exb7 2xb7 25 Wxed+ d5 26 Wg2 Ec8 27 b3
Whe 28 HExd5S &b8 29 Ed7 Wce (29...£d6
loses to 30 2a5) 30 Wg3+ a8 31 A7+ Exc7
32 Wxc7 Wxc7 33 Exc7 with a decisive mate-
rial advantage.
22 2xf7+ &ds
130 PLAY THE NAJDORF SICILIAN

No relief is offered by 22...£2xf7 23 Wxed+ 24 Exd2 fxf3 25 &Hxa5 Eh6 26 Hg6 Sc7
with a mating attack. 27 %f2 (D)
23 b3 (D)

z/ / %
;/ %/% z
N %/%gfi
5/ ‘B
wy/g% A
A a
AW
AIAT T T &7
@8
27...2g4?
23..0d2+ More resistance is offered by 27..Hxg6 28
Black’s pieces are buried on the back rank £xg6 fgd 29 Y4 with a clear plus for White
after 23...8c3+ 24 Wxc3 bxc3 25 Hxas5 Lxf7 thanks to his extra pawn.
26 Exf7 Kc8 27 b7+ de8 28 Hg7! (White is 28 Hg5 Kc829 Hed 2d830b3 Hc731 2d5
threatening Xel+ so Black is forced to liquidate 1-0
into a hopeless endgame) 28...82xg7 29 fxg7 Powerful play by Nayer on his way to win-
Hg8 30 Dxd6+ Le7 31 Dxc8+ HExc8 32 Hgl ning the World Open for the second year in a
g8 33 b4 &7 34 a4 and White wins. TOW.
11 White's Sixth-Move Alternatives

White has several sixth-move choices aimed at navigating along the road less travelled. The main
idea behind these lines is to surprise and confuse the Najdorf player. However, although these alter-
natives may have proportionally less opening theory than the mainstream choices, they should all
be treated with respect. The main motivation to play one of these lesser-known variations is the de-
sire to take the Najdorf player out of his comfort zone and force him to think on his own at an earlier
stage of the game.
One of the best ways to prepare for these lines is carefully to weigh the advantages and disadvan-
tages of a particular variation: think about what strategic goals these moves support or neglect, and
how this can be exploited. Let’s consider some examples:
* 6 h3 supports kingside expansion but neglects the centre. The logical response is for Black to
counter in the centre with 6...e6 7 g4 d5.
* 6 adis a cunning semi-waiting move: White gains space on the queenside and prevents Black
from playing ...bS, but the pawn move weakens the b4-square and commits White to kingside
castling. My recommendation is to play 6...%c6, waiting for White to develop one of his bish-
ops; after 7 £e2 e5 White has the choice between exchanging knights with 8 &xc6, or heading
back toward the Classical Najdorf with 8 &b3.
» 6 W3 is an aggressive attacking move, but it commits the queen at an early stage; our choice is
the flexible 6...e6.
* 6 2.d3 develops a piece and supports the e4-pawn, but the bishop blocks the half-open d-file; the
response 6...%c6! forces White to make a concession by either exchanging or retreating his d4-
knight.
» 6 Hgl supports the advance of the g-pawn, but the rook move neglects the centre and commits
White to queenside castling. Our response is to counter in the centre with 6...e5 7 b3 K.e6 8 g4
ds!.
* 6a3is a generally useful move which may transpose into other lines; Black can play 6...e5 7 & f3
f.e7 and face the future with confidence.
Black can obtain equality versus these less popular lines by employing some common sense and
playing logical moves. The Najdorf player should always remain flexible concerning the pawn-
structure; note that the traditional Najdorf reply 6...e5 is only recommended against two of the
above lines.

Game 24 (Satyapragyan-Negi) covers the deceptively modest pawn move 6 h3. White prepares
an extended fianchetto on the kingside, but the idea does have the drawback of neglecting the centre
and Black responds with the popular line 6...e6 7 g4 d5. Satyapragyan introduces a new opening
idea to maintain his centralized knight; Negi reacts calmly and chases the white knight away from
the centre. The critical moment in the battle occurs early in the middlegame when White has the op-
portunity to win a pawn at the cost of losing the ability to castle; he wisely rejects the pawn-grab
and instead offers a sacrifice of his own to lure Black’s queen offside. Black accepts the bait but
quickly returns the material in order to secure safe passage home for his queen. The position be-
comes simplified and the result is a well-played draw. The notes to this game also cover the minor
lines 6 Wf3, 6 £d3, 6 Xgl and 6 a3.

In Game 25 (Adams-Kariakin), White plays the popular restraining move 6 a4. One of the ideas
behind the queenside pawn advance is to inhibit Black’s expansion involving ...b5, but a more
132 PrAY THE NAJDORF SICILIAN

subtle point is to see which defensive structure Black will adopt before White commits either of his
bishops. Kariakin responds with the flexible 6...2)c6, targeting the potentially vulnerable b4-
square, and after 7 e2 e5 8 ?\b3 Le7 9 0-0 0-0 the game has transposed into a line of the Classical
Najdorf with White having played an early a4 pawn advance. Adams plays 10 &g5 (the alterna-
tives 10 f4 and 10 &e3 are covered in Chapter 5), aiming to increase his control over the d5-square
by exchanging his dark-squared bishop for the black knight. Kariakin introduces an opening nov-
elty designed to help loosen White’s queenside bind. Adams goes astray in the complications and
we are treated to an instructive endgame example demonstrating the superiority of a bishop over a
knight on an open board.

Game 24 [B90]
Swayangsu Satyapragyan — Parimarjan Negi
Indian Ch, Mangalore 2008
1 ed ¢5 2 D3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Dxd4 Df6 5 £xd5 16 exd5 Hc8 is comfortable for Black)
@3 a6 6 h3 14...£xd5 15 Wxd5 Wxd5 16 exd5 Ec8 with a
Let’s briefly survey some of White’s minor dynamically balanced endgame.
alternatives: c) 6 Wf3 (the aggressive queen develop-
a) 6 a4 is the subject of Game 25. ment may transpose into more mainstream
b) 6 a3 (White anticipates ...b5 and prepares lines, but there are some independent ideas)
a possible retreat for his light-squared bishop) 6...6 (D) (Black should avoid the mechanical
6...e5 (viable altemnatives include 6...g6 aiming response 6...e57! because 7 A5 gives White
for a Dragon, or 6...e6 7 f4 {7 £.c4 is covered in good prospects for exploiting the d5-square;
note ‘a’ to White’s 7th move in Game 1} 7...£e7 however, 6...8b6 and 6...g6 are reasonable al-
heading for a Scheveningen) 7 9\f3 £e7 (D) ternatives).
and then:

XA oW s K
We X
AT BAW -
i
73 ] A4
\\

Ty
;% % %_/
N

/ ”/, »
_
%W% /@% 5%& BA1%
T Y

J2y BAS
\

g Sk
bl) 8 Kc4 Reb 9 RKxeb fxe6 is fine for
Black.
b2) 8 Lg5 2e69 2xf6 Lxf6 10 Ad5 Ad7
11 £c4 &b6! (Black challenges the d5-knight;
this position with White’s pawn on a4 is known
to be satisfactory for Black) 12 a2 (12 Dxf6+
Wxf6 13 £xe6 Wxeb6 is equal) 12..xd5 13
£xd5 Wa5+ 14 ¢3 (14 Wd2 Wxd2+ 15 Dxd2
E & gi/
Now White has several options:
cl) 7 8g5iscovered via6 Kg5e6 7 W3 in
note ‘b’ to White’s 7th move in Game 15.
c2) 7 £e3 Hbd7 8 Le2 h5!? prevents g4
and gives Black reasonable play.
c3) 7 g41? @c6 8 xch (8 Db3 De5 9 Wg3
Dexgd 10 £e2!? De5 {10...h5!?7}) 11 4 Dg6
12 £e3 was suggested by Palliser; now 12...b5
looks like an adequate reply) 8...bxc6 9 g5 &\d7
 WHITE’S SIXTH-MOVE ALTERNATIVES
10 h4 d5 (10..¥b6!?) 11 h5 Eb8 12 a3 £d6
with sharp play, Kogan-Zambrana, Sort 2006.
c4) 7 b3?! (the American master Andrew
Karklins and the English player Charles Ken-
naugh are both faithful to this line, but the
queenside fianchetto is too slow to cause Black
any issues) 7..8b6! (an important finesse to
drive the white knight away from the centre) 8
de2 Wc7 (8...4c6!79 £b2 He5 10 Wg3 £47
is also pleasant for Black) 9 £b2 b5 10 a3 £b7
(D).
iA /@%y%
w/iyy%t%
a/y%t% _
A
7 % 7
7 The knight development is the most precise
oy i
7’//1 ",y 0%%
5 LR
Now:
c41) 11 0-0-07! Dbd7 12 g4? (12 We3 Ecs
is favourable for Black) 12...Ec8 13 BEd2?! He5
14 Wg2?! &xe4! (a nice combination to exploit
White’s dormant kingside) 15 &xe4 Hd3+ 16
&bl Del 17 Wg3 Lxed and Black has a deci-
sive material advantage, Karklins-Wojtkiewicz,
World Open, Philadelphia 1995.
c42) 11 g4 (this was Karklins’s improve-
ment over his earlier game featured in line
‘c41’) 11...22bd7! (this is the most accurate as
White is unable to contest the critical e5-square;
also reasonableis 11...d5 12 exd5 £xd5 13 £.g2
&d7 with just a slight advantage for Black,
Karklins-Svidler, World Open, Philadelphia
1995, although Karklins prevailed in a major
upset) 12 £g2 He5 13 Wg3 Dexgd with an
edge for Black as White has insufficient com-
pensation for the pawn.
d) 6 £d3 provides additional support for the
e4-pawn and prepares to castle. The drawback of
this developing move is that the bishop has lim-
ited scope and blocks the half-open d-file. Then:
dl) One option is the traditional 6...e5 7
@\de2 27 8 0-0 0-09 f4 £bd7 10 ¥h1 Ac511
133
& g3 b5 with easy development for Black in
Motylev-Balcerak, Swidnica 1999, and several
later games.
d2) 6..%c6! (D).
E btlids =
wi Al AdAAA
1/&% a
.9
0 88T T
%_%3/,%
& % &/ %&%
7
_E
way to exploit the momentary instability of the
d4-knight. Now White must make a concession
by either retreating or exchanging his central-
ized knight:
d21) 7 £e3 Dga 8 Pxc6 bxc6 9 Kcl gbis
fine for Black.
d22) 75b3g680-0Lg79 Lg5h6 10 £h4
0-0 gives Black a comfortable Dragon-type po-
sition, Vozovi¢-Savchenko, Istanbul 2007.
d23) 7 &xc6 bxc6 (this knight exchange is
well-known from certain lines of the Taimanov
Sicilian: White has exchanged a piece which
has moved three times for a piece which has
only moved once, but the move ...a6 is of lim-
ited use to Black in this new pawn-structure) 8
0-0 g6 9 f4 £g7 10 &hl Hd7 11 Wel a5!
(Black prepares to exchange White’s poten-
tially dangerous light-squared bishop) 12 &e3
a4 13 Ebl 0-0 14 £d1 Ra6 with equality,
Campora-Ehlvest, San Roque 1996.
e) With 6 Hgl, White supports the advance
of his g-pawn; the downside is that he neglects
his development, negates the possibility of king-
side castling, and in some lines the rook would
be better off on its original square. Despite
these drawbacks, the rook move is surprisingly
popular as White obtains considerable benefit
from playing g4-g5 to drive the f6-knight away
from the critical e4- and d5-squares as we have
seen in many English Attack lines. 6...e5 (Black
has a wide range of reasonable alternatives,
134 PLAY THE NAJDORF SICILIAN

including 6...g6, 6...e6 and 6..2c6) 7 Db3

EAL
M & Nl
e
b, 7K
=
A
Le6 8 g4 d5! (D).

A W v8 X
v EAT Faw
A i A4il
8
a
w A7 “awa n
A7 el /M%fl/ _
/ _EAR By A
WA 4%ABAT
4 71y fi/
,rfid
/%% n L Luw B
ECO classifies this position as a Scheven-
ingen (code B81) via the Keres Attack move-
Black strikes back in the centre before White order 5...e6 (instead of 5...a6) 6 g4 a6 7 h3.
can implement his plan. Now: However, this line is more likely to arise via the
el) 9 g5 is a reckless thrust: 9...%xe4 10 Najdorf move-order as the stronger alternatives
Dxed dxed 11 Wxd8+ xd8 12 Le3 &c7 13 7 fe3 and 7 g5 are more challenging for Black.
0-0-0 &6 14 Lg2 (Gorovykh-Utegaliev, St 7..d5 (D)
Petersburg 2007) 14...h6! (Black cracks open Negi responds in accordance with classical
the kingside) 15 gxh6 g6 16 £xed4 £2xb3 17 development principles by countering the wing
axb3 2xh6 with an edge for Black thanks to his advance with action in the centre of the board.
superior pawn-structure. The alternatives 7...%)c6 and 7...b5 are fully
e2) 9 exd5 HHxd5 10 Hxd5 Wxd5 11 Le3 playable, although I shall not be examining
Wxd1+ (the popular alternative 11...%c6 12 these lines here.
Wxd5 £xd5 13 0-0-0 0-0-0 is also sufficient to
maintain the balance) 12 Exd1 AOd7 13 £g2
0-0-0 and now: z%gwgfi 2
e21) 14 £d5 Dc5 15 Lxeb+ Dxe6 16 e
/5%;
7/t@y%
Ke7 with an equal game, L.Dominguez-Nai-
ditsch, Wijk aan Zee 2004.
e22) 14 a3!? b6 15 £d5 Kxd5 16 Exd5
£e7 is equal, L.Dominguez-Delgado Ramirez, %}% _
Capablanca Memorial, Havana 2004. ) W@&/&/
We return to 6 h3. This move was employed
% o _ /fi
AL
by Fischer several times during the early 1960s;
the modest pawn advance enabled him to avoid K
revealing any ideas in the main lines of his fa-
vourite opening and forced his opponents to AWga B
think on their own.
6...e6 (D)
Black has a wide range of reasonable moves White opens the long diagonal for his light-
here, including 6...2)c6 heading for a Scheven- squared bishop. Other moves are harmless for
ingen, and 6...g6 aiming for a Dragon. Black’s Black:
most popular alternative is the immediate 6...e5, a) 8 e57! &fd7 gives Black a favourable
but after 7 £ de2 White often plays g4 followed French-type structure because White’s extended
by £g2 and he has gained a tempo over the re- kingside fianchetto does not enhance his pros-
lated Fianchetto Variation line — see Game 10. pects.
 WHITE’S SIXTH-MOVE ALTERNATIVES 135

b) 8 Hde2 Hxed 9 Hixed dxed 10 Wxd8+
xd8 11 Hc3 £d7 with equal chances in the
endgame, Romero-Ubilava, Subijana de Alava
2001.
c) 8 £g2 Dxed 9 Dxed dxed 10c3 (10 0-0
h5! ruffles White’s exposed kingside pawns)
10...2)d7!? (Black keeps the queens on the board;
also satisfactory is 10...e5 11 Hc2 Wxdl+ 12
&xdl £d7 13 £xe4 Lc6 with an equal end-
game) 11 Rxe4 Wc7 12 0-0 £d6 with chances
for both sides — Arizmendi and Moreno.
8...20xd5 (D)
slightly bottled up with the ‘superfluous knight’;
this is more dynamic than an earlier game in the
same tournament which continued 11...%xc3
12 Dxc3 e6 13 a3 R.e7 14 0-0 W7 with equal
chances, Kurajica-Mecking, Hastings 1971/2)
12 Ded Le7 13 0-0 &c6 14 b3 f5! with a
kingside initiative for Black, Kurajica-Najdorf,
Hastings 1971/2.
a2) 11 0-0 &Hxc3 12 Hxc3 Wc7 (Black
should avoid 12..£xc3?! 13 Wxd8 Hxd8 14
bxc3 @c6 15 bl with a slight pull for White
thanks to his queenside pressure, Zherebukh-
Van Wely, Moscow 2009) 13 We2 (Gabdra-

z%fiw @8 B khmanov-Kengis, USSR Junior Ch, Riga 1977)

13..8d7! with equal chances as Black will
v &7 %;%x contest the long diagonal with ...&c6.
b) 10 £d2 @xc3 11 Hxc3 Kd7! (Geller
a Y 5 prepares to contest the long diagonal) 12 We2

» 1Y%,/ £c6 13 gl Wc7 14 0-0-0 &d7 is equal, Gip-

u 0 & slis-Geller, Moscow 1967.

oy . A
9..2b4 (D)

LBIy
Twr e H ’%1%,
9 Ld2
This is White’s most ambitious line because
he maintains his centralized d4-knight. The al-
ternative is 9 £de2 b4, and now:
a) 10 £g2 0-0 (D) and then:
A RA/QR B
& X" %g% = // %Q,%Z
‘v/x/,/xf
747\E mAl 10 Wf3!?

B UR
Satyapragyan introduces a new move to lend
support to the c3-knight. Alternatives:

& o, O a) 10 &de2 transposes to note ‘b’ to White’s

9th move above.

o9 A b) 10%e40-0 11 c4 2xd2+ (another idea is

afi&/@%@/
11..Wb6!? 12 £xb4 Hxb4 13 c5 Was 14 Hb3
Wc7 with equality) 12 Wxd2 &f6!? 13 £g2

2¥Wg | H Dxed 14 Lxed §d7 15 0-0-0 Wc7 and the

chances are balanced — Arizmendi and Moreno.
c) 10 Hxd5!? &xd2+! (this is safer than
al) 11 £d2 & b6! (this is an important motif 10..Wxd5 11 £xb4 Wxhl 12 Wd3 d5 13
in several Sicilian lines: Black avoids the ex- We3 Hc6 14 Dxc6 Wxc6 15 0-0-0 and White
change of knights as this would assist White in has a strong attack in return for the sacrificed
freeing his position, and instead leaves White exchange) 11 Wxd2 Wxd5 12 0-0-0!? (12 gl
136 PLAY THE NAJDORF SICILIAN

_
£d7 13 £g2 {13 0-0-0!?7} 13..We5+
Wxe3+ 15 fxed Kcbis equal) 12...8d7 13 Ke2
14 We3
iAaeZ VA
p/

Wxa2 (“Black is much better” according to

Arizmendi and Moreno, but I think White can
mix things up here) 14 Wc3! Wad (14...e5 15
&f3 gives White an attack) 15 £.c4 &6 16 Df5
(16 &2b3!?) 16...exf5 17 £xf7+! (D) and now:

E e B
5 A%i/i%t
Aa /z% ® 72
14...8c515 Le3
!/4
% ////// 2 4
_ ) ///4 A7 The exchange of dark-squared bishops fa-

55 B vours White because it increases his chances of

infiltrating on b6 or d6.
1 i 15...& xe3 16 Hxe3 Wa5 17 0-0
&8’ B
/////

White has a slight lead in development to

offset his crippled pawn-structure.
17...%¢6 18 Hicd Wxa2 19 We2 (D)
cl) 17..&xf7? 18 Exd7+ De7 19 Bxe7+
Dxe7 20 Wxg7+ 2d6 21 Hdl+ L5 22 ba+!
Wxb4 (22...&xb4 23 WeT+ Lc4 24 Web+ b4 - IY %%/
25 Wd6+ mates) 23 Wc7+ b5 24 Wxb7+ Lad
. 7y
%m%,%
25 Wc6+ a5 (25...Wb5 26 Ed4+ mates) 26
W7+ Lad 27 Wd7+ a3 (27...2as5 28 Bd5+
Wb5 29 Bxf5 is winning for White) 28 Ed3+
&a2 29 Wd5+ Lal 30 Wdd+ Wxd4 31 Ba3#.
c2) 17..0d8 18 Le6 (18 Wxg7?! Wal+ 19
Ld2 Was5+ 20 dcl1 We5 defends) 18.. Wal+ 19
d2 Wad 20 Sc1 Wal+ 21 d2 Wad 22 Sl
with a draw by repetition.
10...20xc3 11 bxc3
8
7 /Ay

White must avoid 11 Rxc3?? Wxd4 and

Black wins.
11...8¢7
Another reasonable idea is 11...2d6!? 12
£d3 4d7 13 0-0 0-0 with a solid position for
Black.
12 292 0-0 13 Ebl e5 (D)
14 D5
White wisely refrains from 14 Xxb7?! exd4
(this is more ambitious than 14...2 xb7 15 ¥xb7
exd4 16 Wxa8 dxc3 17 Lxc3 Wc7 with roughly
equal chances) 15 Ebl Ha7 16 Exb8 £d6 17
Ebl He8+ 18 @f1 dxc3 19 fxc3 Ed7 and
Black has strong pressure in exchange for the
missing pawn — White’s king is misplaced and
his king’s rook is out of play.
White defends his c-pawn and threatens to
trap the black queen with Xal, so Black is com-
pelled to return the extra pawn in order to ex-
tract his queen from its precarious post.
19...582e6 20 Nxes Hxes 21 Wxe5 Hae8 22
Wg3 b5 23 Zal Wxc2 24 Hfcl!
White must remain alert as the careless cap-
ture 24 Kxa6? allows 24...&c4 25 Efal b4! 26
K6a4 b3! and Black wins material.
24...Wb3 25 Ecb1 Wed
Black has no good way to avoid the simplifi-
cation as 25..Wc2 26 Hc1 maintains the bal-
ance.
26 Exa6 Hc8 27 b6 Wxe3 28 Wxc3 Y-
 WHITE’S SIXTH-MOVE
Game 25 [B90]
Michael Adams - Sergei Kariakin
European Clubs Cup, Kemer 2007
1 ed c5 2 Hf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Hxd4 26 5
&c3 a6 6 a4 (D)
%
74
Y
A B\AE
7/// 2
¥ GWESE
White plays a generally useful move before
developing either of his bishops. However, the
a-pawn’s advance does have some drawbacks:
* White is committed to lines involving king-
side castling as the a4-pawn would be an at-
tractive target with the white king on the
queenside.
* The b4-square has been weakened; Black
can often exploit this with the manoeuvre
...2\c6-b4 to put pressure on the c2-pawn and
cover the d5-square.
This line is a form of the Classical Najdorf
covered in Chapter 5, but White has some inde-
pendent ideas below which are only available to
him via the 6 a4 move-order.
6...23¢c6 (D)
The idea behind the knight development is to
wait for White to commit one of his bishops be-
fore playing ...e5. Black has several reasonable
alternatives here, including 6...g6 heading for a
Dragon and 6...e6 aiming for a Scheveningen.
Black’s most popular alternative is the immedi-
ate 6...e5 7 Df3 (7 Db3 Ke7 8 Le2 &ch trans-
poses to the main game) 7...2e7 (7..h6 is a
popular alternative) 8 £c4 (note how White is
able to develop the bishop to c4 in a single
move) 8...8e6! (it is important for Black to
challenge White’s light-squared bishop and
ALTERNATIVES 137
contend for control of d5) 9 We2 0-0 10 0-0
Wc7 11 £xe6 (11 £a2 Dc6!? {11...Ec81? with
the idea of ...&bd7 also looks reasonable, as
suggested by Arizmendi and Moreno} 12 Ed1
&b4 with equal chances in Marjanovié-Chan-
dler, Ni3 1983; Black has exploited the weak-
ness of the b4-square to cover d5) 11...fxe6
12 a5 h6 with equality, W.Wittmann-Nguyen
Huynh Minh, Budapest 2008. Black’s last move
prepares ...2Abd7 without allowing %g5 in re-
sponse.
B otWds K
w ///A// %,A%t
//Al _
//, » /,
yg/ fi:%// /
,,%&// %&%
, AWl B
7 Se2
White has several harmless alternatives:
a) 7 f4 Lg4!?7 8 &f3g6 (8..Hc8!7) 9 h3
£xf3 10 Wxf3 £g7 11 £d3 0-0 12 0-0 &d7
(Pirc Defence players will recognize this struc-
ture from the Austrian Attack; the addition of
the moves a4 and ...a6 favours Black because
his pieces can utilize the b4-square) 13 &hl
Hc8 14 Bbl &b4 with a slight advantage for
Black, Ye Jiangchuan-Gelfand, Erevan Olym-
piad 1996.
b) 7%b3 b6!?8 Ke2 Lb79 Le3 e6 100-0
Ec8 11 f3 £e7 12 Wd2 0-0 with a solid posi-
tion for Black, Mestel-Sunye Neto, Las Palmas
Interzonal 1982.
c) 7 £g5 (the bishop development does not
harmonize well with a4 because in the Rich-
ter-Rauzer Variation White normally castles
queenside) 7...6 8 Le2 £e7 9 0-00-0 10 Wd2
138 PLAY THE NAJDORF SICILIAN

Wc7 11 €hl Ed8 with a solid position for

Black, Rios Escobar-Vasquez, Santiago 2005. E oW
7...5 (D)
v A
A/
/gy@% X .
w i A mrvn
Ax A
1 54 Y %
7 Vo %

AT A 2 sv
a) 10 f4 exf4 11 £xf4 Leb6 transposes to

E 2wy X
// /7/ ,// /7 . 2 /7/ rd 1

note ‘c’ to White’s 9th move in Game 11.

////// b) 10 £e3 Le6 is note ‘c’ to White’s 10th
move in Game 12.
10...2e6 11 2 xf6 £x£6 12 Hd5 (D)
White has two alternatives:
a) 8 &xcb bxc6 9 f4 a5!? 10 Le3 (10 fxes
dxeS 11 Wxd8+ &xd8 was fine for Black in E W Re
King-Rashkovsky, Cappelle 1a Grande 1990 and
B./;/,/x%a
several subsequent games; Black has good con-
trol over the important central squares) 10...&¢e7 AT Aajeg
(10...2d7 11 0-0 £e7 is equal - L.Gurevich) 11
.9
n 1 |
fxeS dxe5 12 Wxd8+ £xd8 13 0-0-0 £e7 (this is
rrrad

more accurate than 13...8e67! 14 Hd6 £d7 15

£.c4 with a slight advantage for White, 1.Gure-
vich-Palac, Kecskemet 1991) 14 b6 £e6 15
£c7 Od7 with equality, Zinchenko-Tukhaev, /

Ukrainian Junior Ch, Dnepropetrovsk 2005.

b) 8 &f3 h6 (8...8e7 is also quite playable;
the idea behind the pawn move is to keep more
pieces on the board by preventing White from
increasing his control over the d5-square with
the standard manoeuvre £¢g5 followed by £xf6;
the position is actually a form of the Classical
Najdorf where White has played an early a4
and Black has responded with ...2\c6 targeting
the b4-square) 9 0-0 £e7 10 Zel 0-0 11 £f1
£ g4 with equality, Faibisovich-Vaulin, Pardu-
bice 1997.
8...2e790-00-0 (D)
10 285
White develops his dark-squared bishop with
the intention of exchanging it for the black
knight; this is a typical manoeuvre employed
by White to increase his control over d5. Two
alternatives transpose to lines of the Classical
Najdorf:
W E®
12..Xc8
Black completes his development and seizes
the half-open c-file; 12...£g5 13 a5 Hc8 14 ¢3
(14 £g4 b8!?) reaches the same position. Al-
ternatives:
a) 12...82xd5?! (Black should generally avoid
this exchange as it cedes White control over d5)
13 WxdS Wc7 14 c3 De7 15 Wcd with a slight
plus for White as he can exert pressure along
the d-file, Kostro-O.Jakobsen, Arhus 1971.
b) 12..4d4 13 Hxf6+ Wxf6 14 @xd4 exd4
15 £d3 (more challenging is 15 a5!? intending
Ead4) 15..Kac8 enabled Black to equalize in
Short-Lautier, Wijk aan Zee 1997.
13¢3
A useful move to counter Black’s pressure
along the half-open c-file; 13 a5 £g5 14 c3 is
 WHITE'S SIXTH-MOVE
another move-order to reach the game continu-
ation. Alternatives:
a) 13 &ixfo+7! Wxf6 14 Wxde Xfds 15 Wa3
2xb3 16 cxb3 (after 16 Wxb3? Hd4 Black
wins material) 16...2)d4 with an edge for Black
thanks to his dominant knight, Marcotulli-Borst,
IECG e-mail 2001.
b) 13 £g4 Db8!? (Black prepares to rede-
ploy his knight to the kingside; this is safer than
13...Dd47! 14 Rxeb fxe6 15 Dxfo+ Wxf6 16
c3 Hxb3 17 Wxb3 with a slight pull for White
because of his superior pawn-structure, Ad-
ams-Edouard, European Union Ch, Liverpool
2008) 14 £xe6 fxe6 (Black does not object to
the exchange of light-squared bishops on e6 be-
cause the pawn recapture enables him to retain
control over dS5; this position should be com-
pared to note ‘a’ to Black’s 12th move) 15
Dxfe+ Wxf6 16 c3 We7 17 We2 A7 18 Efdl
&6 19 a5 '4s-12 Zinchenko-Borovikov, Pardu-
bice 2006.
13..8¢5 (D)
_
14 a5
This is the logical follow-up to White’s pre-
vious play as he seizes control of the b6-square.
A less critical line is 14 &d2 @e7 15 c4 £xd2
(15...£5!? also looks comfortable for Black) 16
Wxd2 &c6 with a solid position for Black as he
has a strong knight outpost on d4, Vogt-Fta¢nik,
Czechoslovak Ch, Tren¢ianske Teplice 1979.
14...2b8!?
Kariakin introduces a novelty. The kmght Ie-
deployment to d7 enables Black to control the
sensitive b6-square; sometimes the knight may
move to c5 or f6 to exert pressure on White’s
e4-pawn. This manoeuvre is well-known from
ALTERNATIVES 139
several Sicilian lines; Black can afford the loss
of time because he has completed his develop-
ment and the pawn-structure is stable. The al-
ternative is 14...20e7 15 b6 Hc6 (another idea
is 15..Hc7 16 £g4 £5 17 exf5 &xf5 with a bal-
anced game, Abreu-Bruzon, Santa Clara 2000)
16 g4 &c8 17 Hd5 Wd7 18 h3 £d8 19 Had
e7 with equal chances, Yudasin-A.Shneider,
European Clubs Cup, Lyons 1994. Black has
covered the sensitive b6-square.
15 Xa4!
Adams utilizes the fourth rank to activate
his rook and increase the pressure on Black’s
queenside.
15...2)d7 16 Eb4 Eb8 17 £.c4 b5!?
Kariakin opts to activate his queenside pieces
at the cost of incurring an isolated a6-pawn.
18 axb6 Hxb6 (D)
W Ze
AfA 2////Y .0
Y FANY
BWEES
/////
19 Hxb6!
Alternatives:
a) 19 xa6?! Hxd5 20 Exb8 Wxb8 21 exd5
£d7 22 2d3 Wb6 gives Black compensation
for the pawn according to Kariakin in /nfor-
mator 101. A possible continuation is 23 &d2
Wxb2 24 Hca Wxc3 25 Hxd6 f5 with good
play for Black thanks to his bishop-pair.
b) 19 Ha5 £xd5! 20 Lxd5 Dxd5 21 Hc6
@ xbd 22 Hxd8 Hfxd8 23 cxb4 Exb4 is equal -
Kariakin.
19...Exb6 20 Lxe6 fxe6 (D)
21 Has5?!
White should take advantage of the momen-
tary looseness of the black kingside with 21
We4! He8 22 HExb6 Wxb6 23 Wh5! (the idea is
to coax Black into weakening his kingside
pawn-cover before exchanging minor pieces;
140 PLAY THE NAJDORF SICILIAN

e by 24 Wg4! axb4 25 Wxg5 bxc3 26 bxc3 Wxed

27 We7 Wd5 28 c4 Wixc4 29 Wxd6 Wd5 30
- /// | 24 Wbh4, when he has reasonable drawing chances
because Black’s extra pawn is doubled and the
AE Z;}/ o pawns are all on one side of the board.
») /':/ 2 24...Wxed 25 Wxd6 Wed 26 &l
The tactics work in Black’s favour after 26
%/ %;/ _ Wxe5? 2.4 27 Wxa5 £xh2+ 28 Lxh2 Wxfl,

N3 N which gives Black a decisive advantage — Karia-

B w momn Kin.

v BuZES
26...e4 27 b3 Wxc3 28 Wxe6+ h8 29 Wd6
Xds8 (D)

this is more challenging than 23 Wxg5 Wxb3

24 Wd2 d5 with equal chances) 23...26 24 Wxg5
Wxb3 25 Wd2 (White has a slight advantage
w%
according to Kariakin) 25...6Wb6 (the point of

\
White’s 23rd move is revealed after 25...d5 26

INW
@
h4! with an edge as White is threatening to
crack open the kingside) 26 b4 with a slight
structural advantage for White.
21...2xb4 22 Hc6?! %&«L

PRUNN
White should settle for 22 cxb4 Wd7 23

DZ)-"
. B Bg \\\

NS
Wd3 Xb8 24 Wxa6 Bxb4 25 g3 (creating some
luft for his king; 25 9c4 Le7 26 Was+ f7 is
fine for Black as the white knight is unstable)
25...Wc7 with equality. 30 ¥g3
22..Wa8 The passive knight is a helpless bystander af-
The queen move to the corner may look ex- ter 30 Wb6?! W2 (30...3 is a strong alterna-
otic but the purpose is to eliminate White’s re- tive) 31 WxaS Hdl 32 g3 (32 Wa8+ £d8)
maining central pawn. 32...e3 and Black wins.
23 Yxb4 a5 (D) 30...Wcs
Also strong is the immediate queen exchange
30...Wxg3 31 hxg3 8d2 32 Hel g8 33 He2 e3
E%% //// 24 with a clear plus for Black — Kariakin.
w ///% //%7/,///%7 2 A 31 De2e3 (D)

w 7, %/ //L
B A S
Y NGRS
24 Da2?
The knight is out of play here. White should
head for a slightly inferior major-piece endgame
 WHITE’S SIXTH-MOVE ALTERNATIVES 141

32 fxe3 Wxe3+ 33 Wxel £xeld+ 34 Thl The b-pawn falls after 37 Eb5 &.b4 38 Ebg+
g8 &f7 39 Eb7+ 2f6 40 Eb6+ e5 and Black
Black begins bringing his king toward the wins.
centre in anticipation of attacking White’s vul- 37..Kxf3 38 gxf3 Sf7
nerable b3-pawn. White has managed to exchange rooks, but
35 h4 Hd3 (D) he is unable to stop the march of the black king

W
to the queenside.
39 g2 e6 40 Dd4+ De5 41 Hc2 h5!

vl i, o, KA
Kariakin fixes the vulnerable h4-pawn on a
dark square to ensure that he can eventually

5Dy
create an outside passed pawn with ...g5.
42 22 2b4 43 Le2
%y/ _ /% The king and pawn endgame after 43 £xb4
axbd 44 &e3 Sf5 45 Ld4 g5 is an easy win for
7%7%%%7M
poEE
Black thanks to his outside passed pawn.
43...87 44 De3 £d8 45 HHg2 2d4 (D)

// D A7 ¢7 &
. B3 ‘Vy// A
36 Hf5
This endgame is a great example of the supe-
riority of a bishop over a knight on an open
%_%W% %}
Vo % /’/ //

board with pawns on both wings. Passive de- 5 4?,2%

fence does not work: 36 Hal 2b6 37 Ebl Ee3
38 &f4 (38 Dgl loses to 38...Hed 39 HHf3 Hb4 A /&%/
with the idea of ...a4) 38...8.d8 39 h5 £h4 40 Vzy/g%@%
gl Kg3 41 £d5 Ee5 and Black wins the h-
pawn while the white king remains boxed in on B nn
the back rank.
36...8d2 (D) 46 &d2
The knight’s futility in dealing with an out-

_ % side passed pawn is illustrated by the variation

46 fa Lc3 47 Dxh5 Lxb3 48 Hxg7 ad 49 h5
v 7. . Ak a3 50 h6 &6 and Black wins — Kariakin.

» 4 1 G
46...g5 47 hxg5 L2.xg5+ 48 f4 2.d8 49 Le2

éy% miE
h4 50 De3 h3 51 2f3 h2 52 95+ Pc3 53 L2
@xb3 54 Hdd+ Lcd 0-1

Z
S\

The finish would be 55 @c2 (55 @c6 a4 56

T
@xd8 a3 and the pawn cannot be stopped)

%fi%i/ 55...%d3 56 a3 Le7 57 b5 Lc4 and Black

_ womam
wins as the knight is unable to cope with the a-

7 ie
pawn.

. Kariakin displayed excellent technique in

the endgame; this game is a classic demonstra-
tion of the superiority of a bishop over a knight
37 Hf3 on an open board.
Index of Variations

Chapter Guide Index with Page References

A: 6285
B: Other moves

A)
2£g582
6 £.c4 — Chapter 1
6 g3 — Chapter 4 Other moves 83
6 Re2 — Chapter 5 7 f4
6 f4 — Chapter 6 Other moves 84
6 f3 — Chapter 2 7 2e7 116
6 Ke3 Hg4 — Chapter 2 7.6 83
6 Re3 e5 — Chapter 3 7. b5 111
Other moves — Chapter 11 7. W7 91:
6 e6 8 Lxf6 92
Other moves — Chapter 7 8 W3 94
7 fa (D) 7...25bd7 83 8 W3 Wc7 9 0-0-0 b5 10 £4d3
Other moves — Chapter 7 £b7 11 Ehel Wb6:
12 &\d5 86
12 51b3 89
%z%
%...//// // %
A MG
/% a4\ /a/
W
/173/
i)\«

7..%bh6 99 8 Wd2 Wxb2 (D):

0

\
o
%4/
U -
=

i
/y//”
xl
\ %z

%fi% N8

/M//m
\\<3l

\ wf
.,/

.
%&7

,/g/
\ <1 3§

/fi
=

Now (after 7 f4):

7 &c6 — Chapter 7
......
......
------

7 &\bd7 — Chapter 7
7 Wc7 — Chapter 8 9 &b3 101
7 Wb6 — Chapter 9 9 Ebl 105
7 b5 — Chapter 9 8 w3
7 £e7 — Chapter 10 8...h6 116
 < W EM ] <« W B
143

fi NN n.p....:b N N Y
M_ o ///;,7 % // .//&///Q/ mmM LN O %// ////&MV/%
i 35 S @%4%/,,,_, /%m 4 3 g [Deew<
2 5, % lem m %@/ ORI N
cog935RE @@ |\ K | o5 T3¢ re. W |G
2xe2i5E el N 3,99 3 el el <08l 9E
VARIATIONS

Cha - gEZce 5 wwn_u

© © = @ ¢ = ~ S Z o o
OF
INDEX

. /%4&/@/ 3
////A/ %mfi__ mOP.
%/‘/A%%///
W/“% \ N %.‘% / AV/ s M
x@m//.,.,,-///mfi_// N
3 oML oma
QR
e .
.@.fi % 3
a3 G 3 , om m s d
/../ / & s e . o @ 7.@“%/ sa S3%gR
ML« A /// e 3328052 ) | OB d54340338
=
34D
Mmm
.m QFARZ I
O \O O O © O e o
SRR
- o
Nunn’s Chess Endings Volume 1
John Nunn
In a major two-volume work, renowned
endgame theoretician John Nunn teaches the
skills that are most important for success in
practical endgames. He shows how lack of
familiarity with key concepts can cause
important ideas to be missed even by very
strong players, and we discover that a
staggering amount of previously published
endgame analysis is simply wrong. This
volume covers general topics, pawn endings,
queen endings and minor-piece endings.
320 pages, 248 x 172 mm; $29.95/ £17.99
Mastering the Chess Openings Volume 4
John Watson
In this highly-acclaimed series, John Watson
explains not only the ideas and strategies
behind specific openings, but also the
interconnections of chess openings taken as a
whole. This final volume is packed with
original analysis, and covers a wide variety of
opening structures and variations not seen in
the earlier volumes.
320 pages, 248 x 172 mm, $29.95 / £17.99
Play the Alekhine
Valentin Bogdanov
The Alekhine (1...2)6) is arguably the most
aggressive reply to 1 e4. Black immediately
forces the pace and drags the game onto his
own favoured territory. Bogdanov describes the
unique positional and tactical themes, and
presents a wealth of new ideas for both sides.
128 pages, 248 x 172 mm; $19.95 /7 £12.99
A Course in Chess Tactics
Dejan Bojkov & Vladimir Georgiev
The authors present each major tactical theme
in turn, explaining how it works and providing
inspiring examples. You immediately get a
chance to put your new-found knowledge to
the test, as there are challenging exercises
throughout the book, with detailed solutions.
192 pages, 248 x 172 mm; 322.95 / £14.99
About the Publisher: Gambit is a specialist chess publishing company, owned and run exclusively
by chess masters and grandmasters. We are passionate about producing innovative and instructive
chess books, suitable for all levels of player.
[[JAIBEAT
A Killer Chess Opening Repertoire -
new edition
Aaron Summerscale & Sverre Johnsen
Bored with the same old openings? Womied
about having to learn too much theory? Then
this book will come as a godsend. The queen’s
pawn repertoire for White 1s based on rapid
piece development, and includes many lethal
attacking ideas and traps.
192 pages, 210 x 145 mm; $19.95 / £12.99
Understanding the Marshall Attack
David Vigorito
It is almost a century since Frank Marshall
invented his sensational gambit in the Ruy
Lopez, but it is still controversial and popular.
Vigorito explains how Black secures long-term
attacking chances and activity that can persist
well into the endgame, and provides
cutting-edge theoretical coverage of all its
* main lines, including Anti-Marshall systems.
192 pages, 248 x 172 mm; $23.95 / £14.99
The Giant Chess Puzzle Book
Zenon Franco
This fun and challenging book begins with
120 relatively easy positions suitable for
novices, and ends with a selection of
extremely tough puzzles, which provide a
mind-bending challenge even for
grandmasters. There are 1001 puzzles in total,
all with detailed computer-verified solutions
and verbal explanations of the main
instructive points.
288 pages, 248 x 172 mm; $26.95 / £16.99
FCO: Fundamental Chess Openings
Paul van der Sterren
The perfect survival guide to the chess
openings. All openings are covered, with
detailed verbal explanations of plans for both
sides. The strategies explained will remain
valid as long as chess is played, and so the time
spent studying this book will be rewarded
many times over.
480 pages, 248 x 172 mm; 329.95 /7 £19.99
www.gambitbooks.com
_ www.gambitbooks.com

The Najdorf Sicilian has a unique place amongst chess openings: for several
decades it has been regardedby the top grandmasters as the best way for Black to
play soundly for a win against 1 e4. It was a particular favourite of World Champions
Bobby Fischer and Garry Kasparov, and plays a vital role in the repertoires of
current top players such as Viswanathan Anand and Veselin Topalov.
Black’s stance is totally uncompromising. He accepts no organic weaknesses and
stays flexible, ready to counterpunch in any part of the board. White has no safe or
easy reply. On the other hand, he does have a vast array of extremely dangerous
attacking options, such as the old 6 £g5 main line, which can lead to the Poisoned
Pawn, a variation that has undergone much development in the 21st century. The
current main line is 6 £e3, intending the English Attack. But given the Najdorf's
importance, White has tried almost everything imaginable in the search for an
advantage, with considerable bodies of theory evolving for lines that contain merely
a drop of poison.
In the ever-changing Najdorf landscape, it is easy to lose sight of the strategic
backbone that underpins the Najdorf. In this book, James Rizzitano, a battle-
hardened Sicilian warrior, distils the most important ideas and themes from current
practice to provide an ideal guide for those looking to succeed as White or Black in
the Najdorf in the modern scientific era.
James Rizzitanois a strong international master
who dominated chess
in the New
England region during a 14-year period from 1976 to 1989 — he won 157 out of 336
events in which he competed. His career highlights include victories
over Alburt,
Benjamin, Benko, Christiansen, Dlugy, |.Gurevich and Wolff. In recent years Rizzitano
has made a return to competitive chess, and has already written four books for
Gambit, including How
to Beat 1 d4 and Chess Explained: The Taimanov Sicilian.

Other chess titles from Gambit include:

£13.99 $22.95

New Enlarged Edition’