Batsford Chess Library

Winning With the Benko

Byron Jacobs

@
An Owl Book
Henry Holt and Company
New York
Henry Holt and Company, Inc.
Publishers since 1866
115 West 18th Street
New York, New York 10011
Contents
Henry Holt® is a registered
trademark of Henry Holt and Company, Inc.

Bibliography
Copyright © 1995 by Byron Jacobs. Symbols
Foreword
All rights reserved.
Introduction
First published in the United States in 1995 by
Henry Holt and Company, Inc. 1 The Main Line
1 Brunner-Kotronias, Geneva 1990
2 Hort-Ermenkov, Tunis IZ 1985
3 Seirawan-Belotti, Lugano 1988
4 Hjartarson-P. Cramling, Ostersund 1992
5 Hegeler-Tatenhorst, Bundesliga 1987
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 94-72754
The Fianchetto Variation
ISBN 0-8050-3908-2 (An Owl Book: pbk.) 6 P. Nikolic-Kotronias, Bled 1991
7 Van der Sterren-Adams, Ter Apel 1992
8 Formanek-Conquest, Hastings 1985
First American Edition - 1995
The Modern Line: 5 e3 g6
Printed in the United Kingdom 9 Petursson-Fedorowicz, Reykjavik 1990
10 Browne-Alburt, US Championship 1983
All first editions are printed on acid-free paper.o
11 Davies-Wolff, Preston 1989

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
The Modern Line: 5 e3 axb5
12 Nickoloft-Wolff, Toronto 1985
13 Shirov-Adams, Khalkidiki 1992
For my parents
14 Shirov-Adams, Dortmund 1992

513
15 Dlugy-Alburt, US Championship 1991
16 Gelfand-Adams, Tilburg 1992
Editorial Panel: Mark Dvoretsky, John Nunn, Jon Speelman
General Adviser: Raymond Keene OBE
5b6
Managing Editor: Graham Burgess
17 Shirov-Adams, Hastings 1991/92
 18 Van Wely-D. Garcia, Las Palmas 1993 120

7 5 &3 126
19 Burgess-Katishonok, Vosu 1989 126
20 Timoshchenko-Adams, London 1992 134
Bibliography
8 4 §f3 and Others 138
21 Yermolinsky-Wolff, Groningen 1993 138

143
ChessBase
Index of Variations
Informator 1-60
Fedorowicz, The Complete Benko Gambit, Summit Publishing 1990
Ravikumar, Play the Benko Gambit, Maxwell Macmillan Chess
1991
Matanovic, Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings, Volume A, Sahovski
Informator 1979
Burgess, Attacking the Benko, Chess Enterprises 1990
Jacobs, Play the Benko Gambit, TUI Enterprises 1986
Jacobs, Trends in the Benko Gambit, Trends Publications 1989
Jacobs, Trends in the Benko Gambit, Vol 2, Trends Publications
1992
Symbols Foreword

+ Check The Sunday Observer occasionally runs a mildly voyeuristic column

++ Double check entitled “How Much do they Earn?” In this, the salaries of various
! Good move grades in differing professions or, alternatively, the prices of various
[} Excellent move unusual goods and services, are offered for our consideration.
? Bad move As a foreword to this book, I would like to offer my own version
?? Blunder of this feature - What can you buy, in terms of chess products and
1?7 Interesting move services in Britain in January 1995, for the price of this book? The
n Dubious move following are, to the best of my knowledge, comparable purchases.
OL Olympiad
Ch. Championship
16 minutes of private chess tuition by a leading grandmaster.
Z Zonal
32 minutes of private chess tuition by an international master.
I1Z Interzonal
1-0 Black resigns 52 moves of a postal chess game (assuming one first class stamp
12-12 Draw agreed per move).
0-1 White resigns 41% of the price of a standard tournament chess clock.
33.3 minutes of the chess news phone service at cheap rates.
26.2 minutes of the chess news phone service at peak rates.
Please note: in view of the clumsy nature of alternative construc- Approximately half the cost of a typical entry fee for a weekend
tions 1 have, throughout this book, used the term ‘he’ to represent a tournament in London.
player in the general sense. 28% of the price of a day ticket to The Times World Chess
Championship, held in London in 1993.
14% of the price of Chess Genius - the software program that de-
feated World Champion Garry Kasparov.
0.65% of the price of the Pentium computer it was running on at
the time.

Byron Jacobs,
Brighton,
January 1995
introduction

Typical Themes in the Benko Gambit

It is very difficult to elucidate ‘golden rules’ in chess, as being a
strong player is often about recognising the moments when the
rules can be successfully broken. Nevertheless, I will try here to
identify a few general themes that occur repeatedly in the Benko
Gambit.
Endgames favour Black, even if the gambit pawn has not been
regained. The Benko Gambit is probably unique in that one side
plays a gambit opening and then tries actively to exchange pieces to
simplify the position. This is a remarkable feature and one which
often throws White players when they have not yet developed a
familiarity for the opening.
The central break ...e6 works best for Black when White has
adopted a slightly non-standard set-up, such as a system with €3, {3
or maybe f4. When White has committed himself to one of these
slightly weakening moves, Black should be looking for a chance to
open up the centre to expose these weak spots.
As Black, be very careful against what appear to be outlandish
attacking systems played by White. Some of these look positively
rustic, but can be very dangerous indeed. Many very strong players
have been destroyed by underestimating the potency of attacks
based on moves such as g4 or an early f4.
As White, look for opportunities to return the extra pawn in order
to obtain advantages elsewhere. For example, Black pressure can
result in the win of the b2-pawn, but often he then finds that he has
merely landed in a difficult endgame where White has a strong
passed a-pawn. Another common error by Black is to concentrate
exclusively on playing on the queenside while White is building up
in the centre andfor on the kingside. The Black pressure may result
in the win of the a2-pawn, but this will be of little use if meanwhile
White is crashing through in the centre with a timely e5-advance.
For Black, the light-squared bishop is often the worst piece and
plans which involve exchanging it should always come into consid-
eration. Of course, in the main line, this happens at a very early
10 Introduction
stage but, in other systems, such as the fianchetto variation, Black
can find himself stuck with it. It may look optically very attractive
if it is on a6 bearing down into the white position, but it is often
striking into thin air and merely getting in the way of Black’s
queenside play.
Typical Manoeuvres in the Benko Gambit
In this section I will discuss the pluses and minuses of some of the
manoeuvres utilised by both White and Black in the Benko Gambit.
In chess, every move has its good and bad points and strong moves
are obviously the ones where the positive factors outweigh the
negative ones. An understanding of what both sides are trying to
achieve will help you to identify these factors and thus make a
judgement about the relative merits of individual moves. Finally, it
will pay to remember the old adage that all rules have their excep-
tions...
For Black
wcd
With this advance, Black is trying to create an outpost for a knight
on d3. If successful, then this can be very strong. The knight is
placed right in the heart of the white position and observes a num-
ber of important points including the vulnerable b2-square. A fur-
ther bonus of ...c4 is that it opens up a route for a black knight to
get to ¢5 and then d3. Advancing ...c4 can also be a means of at-
tacking a White queenside set-up with pawns on a2 and b3. How-
ever, in this case, Black must be sure that White cannot safely reply
b4, sidestepping the Black attack and creating a dangerous pair of
connected passed pawns on the queenside.
There is, however, a drawback to ...c4: the d4-square is freed for
use by the White pieces, in particular a knight. If White can respond
with @d4 and &c6, then ...c4 may not seem like such a good idea
after all. The ...c4 advance works best when the white knights do
not have immediate access to d4. For example, White might have
played &f3-d2 or developed with £h3.
b f3. This fits in with the general black plan of playing for exchanges
Black plays to undermine the white pawn on d5 and possibly prise
open the long diagonal. This can be an effective plan in the main
line (chapter 1) where the white king is stationed on g2. Black often
Introduction 11
develops the queen to either the a8 or b7-square with just this idea
in mind. The idea is also effective when White has decided against
playing e4 at an early stage, for example in the 5 e3 and 5 f3 varia-
tions. In that case, Black usually plays ...e6 before ...d6, so that if
White makes the capture dxe6, Black can recapture with ...fxe6 and
then play ...d5 in one go. A further time when ...e6 can be useful is
when White is trying to attack on the kingside with f4. If Black is
permitted to play ...exd5 then White has lost the chance to push
forward with e5, while if the capture dxe6 is played then White has
given up the strongpoint in the centre.
There are drawbacks to ...e6. Black must watch out for the se-
quence dxe6, ...fxe6 and now e5, which can lead to him being sad-
dled with a very ropey pawn structure. If the capture dxe6 is met
instead by a recapture with a piece (most likely the queen’s bishop)
then Black may well have active piece play, but is left with a back-
ward pawn on d6, vulnerable to attack by a white formation such as
Wd2, &bS and ££4.
«..f5
This is a great move for Black in the endgame. I have seen count-
Jess games in the Benko where Black has won back his pawn on the
queenside and then gained a winning advantage in an equal-looking
endgame with ...f5. If White captures on f5, the d-pawn can often
become indefensible, while if he plays f3 (if he has already played
f4, he does not even have this option), Black can exchange pawns
and then has a very strong square on 5 for use by, for example, the
king.
Advancing with ...f5 does, of course, seriously weaken the king-
side and so it is not usually a move that Black will consider in the
middlegame. Playing ...f5 at an early stage is often a sign that Black
has run out of ideas.
..2)f6-g4, e8 or d7
The black knight on f6 is not very well placed and so it often moves
at an early stage of the game and there are many options for Black
as to which route to choose. Playing the knight to g4 and then on to
5 is done with the intention of exchanging off the white knight on
and, if the other black knight is on d7, Black can meet &xeS by
recapturing with the d7-knight, which can then aim at the vulner-
able c4 and d3-squares. The drawback of ...&)g4 is that White may
be able to meet ...A\geS with £d2 (remember White usually wants
12 Introduction
to avoid exchanges) and then the knight at €5 is a target for a White
advance in the centre with f4.
The routes round to the queenside with ...2De8 and ...5)d7 are also
commonly used. With the former Black is usually locking to con-
tinue with ...9e8-c7-b5 and, with the latter, the path ...)d7-b6-a4 is
often on the cards. Both these manoeuvres are attempting to swap
off the important white knight on ¢3. This knight is a vital defender
of the queenside and, once it is gone, the a2- and b2-pawns can be-
come very exposed. Thus Black is often willing to expend a great
deal of time to effect this exchange. White can sometimes
(particularly in reply to ...%)a4) try to arrange the counter &\d1. This
is somewhat retrograde, but it avoids the exchange of pieces, de-
fends the b2-pawn and the knight can often re-emerge at a later
stage.
..Wa5, b6 or ¢7
Where to place the queen is often a tricky problem for Black. On a5
it is aggressively placed, but can be vulnerable to attack by the
white pieces, in particular if White has a bishop on d2, then a move
from a white knight on c3 can expose it to attack. The quiet de-
velopment is on ¢7, when the queen is out of harm’s way and the
rooks are free to operate down the a- and b-files.
A compromise between aggression and caution is to choose the
b6-square, but in some ways this is the weakest option. The queen
interferes with the action of the rooks on the open b-file and also
occupies a square which is useful for the black knights. Of course,
the queen does not have to settle on one of these dark squares. An
attractive alternative is to use either the b7- or a8-squares from
where the queen eyes the d5-pawn and also helps to pressurise the
queenside.
wixe3
This move is obviously undesirable on general principles as it
weakens the black kingside. However, it often comes into consid-
eration if it happens to regain Black his pawn. For example, White
might have played bl and Black then has the opportunity for
..4&xc3 and ..Hxa2. In general, this is a temptation that should be
resisted. Regaining sacrificed material is all well and good, but it is
not of paramount importance in this gambit. Black plays the Benko
in order to obtain good piece play and strong queenside pressure
and these trumps should not be thrown away merely to re-establish
material parity.
Introduction 13
For White
a4
White’s great dream when playing against the Benko is to achieve a
set-up with pawns on b3, a4 and a knight on bS. If this structure is
not immediately vulnerable to a Black attack (i.e. by ...c4 or per-
haps ...&\c7, threatening the knight at b5) then it can render the
queenside almost impregnable to the black forces. Black must ob-
viously be careful not to let this happen. White’s a4 advance is
slightly weakening to his own position and Black should be looking
to use the squares along the b-file for counterplay in the event of
White making this thrust.
b3
White frequently uses this move as part of an attempt to obtain a
solid structure on the queenside with 2b2. Of course it exposes
White to tactics on the long diagonal and so the move will often be
prefaced with Eb1. If White can achieve this piece configuration he
has solved the problems of the development of his queenside forces
and may be able to create the opportunity to exchange the dark-
squared bishops and thus weaken the black kingside.
e5
This advance, or at least the possibility of it being played, should
never be underestimated - it is often the key to the position. It is the
thematic advance for White in that, if played successfully, it will
gain time and space and shut the bishop on g7 out of the game, es-
pecially if White has already played f4. Even if White has not
played f4, advancing with e5 when Black is obliged to play ...dxe5
can be very strong. The black c-pawn will have lost its main sup-
port and, additionally, the pawn at e7 can become vulnerable along
the e-file. Black must be constantly aware of these dangers and
should not allow €5 unless he is specifically prepared to meet it.
Black has various ways of dealing with the e5 menace. One is to
pressurise the dS-pawn (which is, of course, defended by the e-
pawn) in order to make it difficult for White to play advance with
ed-e5. A common set-up for doing this is knights on f6 and b6 and
the queen on b7. With three black pieces hitting d5 White will find
it hard to defend this point the same number of times and may only
be able to consider e5 as a sacrificial way of playing.
14 Introduction

A second option for Black is to clamp down on the e5-square

with moves such as ... g4 (which also frees the g7-bishop for this
task) and ...Wc7. In that case both sides must be aware of tactical
opportunities surrounding the e5 advance. For example, White may
be able to play e5 and meet ...dxe5 with d6, perhaps hitting the 1 The Main Line
black queen, or maybe generating tactics along the h1-a8 diagonal.

Lg5
This is often a difficult move to judge. White is trying to put pres- This is one of the oldest ways to ..&\g4. In game 1 we see White
sure on the black e-pawn (assuming the black f6-knight has moved) counter the Benko Gambit and doing just that, while in game 2
and force a passive move like ... Ee8, but the queenside is weakened has held its popularity over the White decides to allow the ma-
in the process. Additionally, White may not even be threatening to years. In a way it is a critical noeuvre if Black wishes to play
capture on e7, as Black may be able to reply ...f6, trapping the test of Black’s gambit: White 1t.
bishop. has taken the pawn, made sim- 9 g417, which is the subject of
ple developing moves and his game 3, is not held in high theo-
‘Mysterious’ rook moves, e.g. Ze2, a2 or Ha3 position has no obvious weak- retical regard, but it is a very
Having accepted the gambit pawn, White is always looking for nesses. It is up to Black to dem- dangerous, and perhaps under-
ways to protect his investment whilst not becoming too distracted onstrate that he can obtain good estimated, move. Against an
from furthering his own plans. These rook moves are often very play for the sacrifice. unprepared opponent, it can be
useful for tidying up the white position while at the same time they White’s plans in this varia- lethal. T feel it is worth a close
can form part of an aggressive plan. For example, White can often tion include Hel, Xe2 and Wc2 examination because, as well as
consider a4 and Ea3 as a means of nullfiying any tactics on the long to defend the second rank, £g5 being a perfectly playable
diagonal. At a later date the rook may then be able to swing over to with possible awkward threats move, it is the sort of variation
the kingside or centre. against e7 and the central ad- that at club level, could rack up
Hel-e2 has a similar idea in mind. The rook defends the queen- vance €5. Black’s ideas include point after point.
side laterally whilst also maintaining pressure along the e-file. A the knight manoeuvres ...Z)f6- Finally, game 4 looks at the
useful principle to bear in mind in chess is that if you can’t think of g4-e5 and ...5)\6-e8-c7-b5, the system where White hides the
a plan, try to improve your worst-placed piece. These quiet rook pawn advance ..c4 (double- king on h2 instead of g2 and in
moves can often do just that. edged as Black gets ¢5 and d3 game 5 we consider another
for his knights but may allow aggressive system for White —
the White cavalry in at d4 and storming the centre with 7 f417.
¢6) and the central breaks ...e6
and, in the endgame, ...f5. Game 1
A long-running discussion in Brunner-Kotronias
this variation revolves around Geneva 1990
whether after the standard se-
quence 1 d4 &f6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 1 d4 o6
b5 4 cxb5 a6 5 bxab g6 6 &c3 2 c4 c5
£xa6 7 e4 Kxfl 8 &xfl d6 9 3 d5 b5
O3 Kg7 10 g3 0-0 11 Hg2 4 cxbs a6
&bd7 White should take a time- 5 bxa6b g6
out with 12 h3 to prevent 6 &c3 £xa6
16 The Main Line The Main Line 17

White often plays the move
h3 at some point in this varia-
tion, but whether the move
part of a grand design, or sim-
ply a useful waiting move, has
never been clear to me. It is
certainly helpful to eliminate
long diagonal as well as the a- Black kingside) 16...8xc3 17 promising is 20 Hel! Wa6 21
file. However, many other £xc3 Exa2 18 He2 a3 Rivas- Wxh5 HExb2 22 Le5! Wgb 23
moves are also possible: Adams, Biel 1Z 1993. Now with W3 with dangerous threats)
a) 12...Ha6 and now: 19 Wd2, White would have ob- 18...%)e87! (Ivanchuk points out
tained a very pleasant position. the improvement 18...h5! 19 3
hxg4 20 fxgd He8 21 He3 &\d6
W b) 12...Wa5 13 Hel and now:
bl) 13..80b6 14 5 Dfd7 and Black stands well) 19 He3
. //Q (14..dxe5 15 &xe5 and the with equality, Spassky-Ivan-
E%/
3 weakness on c6 creates prob-
lems for Black) 15 £g5 Efe8
chuk, Linares 1990.
b22) 14 He2 He8 15 £g5!7
16 6 fxe6 17 dxe6 &6 18 He2 Ha7) 16 £xe7? (16 Ecl with
Wab 19 &xf6 &xf6 20 Ded the intention of continuing Xcc2
fKg7 21 hd Efg 22 h5! and is preferable) 16..2xc3 17
White has the initiative as well bxc3 f6 18 Wcl? (White has a
as an extra pawn, Knaak- bishop sacrifice in mind, but
Vaganian, Moscow 1982. would do better to bale out with
b2) After 13...Efb8 Black has 18 e5 fxe5 19 Lg5 c4! when
al) 13 Hel Wa8 14 Wc2 Hbs deployed his forces in classical Black, who plans the knight
15 b1 b6 16 b3 &)fd7 (Black Benko fashion. From this posi- manoeuvre ...2Yd7-c5-d3, stands
has a better plan available here, tion, practice has seen: well) 18..50b6 19 £xd6 Dxd6
namely 16...5e8! planmng 20 e5 (20 Wf4 is also unsuc-
is cT-bS) 17 a3! &)cB (as.. cessful, e.g. 20...2bc4 21 Wxf6
is strongly met by b4, Black is EE 2 Bf7 and Black wins) 20..He7
rather stuck for something to 7 A atiht 21 Wel Hbes 22 e6 Hxd5! and
do) 18 &d1! Hab6 19 He3 Wac
20 a4 H6b7 21 £d2 Hcb6 22 a5
’////”/ %/// Black soon won,
Milos, Santiago Z 1989.
Morovic-

the black possibility of ...%g4, %8 23 Hcd and White has an c) 12..Mb6 13 Hel Hfb8
but this can often be met suc-
cessfully by an exchange of
ideal position, 1. Ivanov-Christ-
iansen, Philadelphia 1990.
// 7///,////// (13..Wb7 14 He2 Hb6
h6 16 Lxf6 Kxf6 17 Hcl Kg7
15 f2g5

knights followed by f4 and e5. a2) 13 Xb1 &b6 14 b3! (this

7// /%’/ 18 Wd3 Wa6 19 Wxa6 Hxa6 20
///////

However, by ‘passing’ for a is often a good response to a3 b8 21 Hdl Had 22 Hec2

move, White obliges Black to ..&0b6, as White takes away Bab6 23 HHd2 Dxb2 24 Hixb2
commit himself to a particular squares from the black knight, Hxb2 25 &Hed4 Hbl with an
deployment of his pieces. Hav- can meet ...c4 with b4 and pre- b21) 14 e5 dxe5 15 Dxe5 equal endgame, Haba-Mainka,
ing a look at the opponent’s pares a4 with a strong bind on Hxe5 16 Hxe5 Ha7 17 We2 Bad Wérishofen 1992) 14 He2
formation enables the first the queenside) 14..9Dfd7 15 Ebb7 18 g4? (in Informator, He8 15 L4 &7 16 Ecl Wa5
player to gear his response ac- £b2 Wa8 16 Rel (White is Ivanchuk suggests that-White’s (Black is losing far too much
cordingly. content to allow Black to regain best try for the advantage is time) 17 Hcc2 @ab 18 eS dxeS
12 . Ra7 his gambit pawn with the fol- with an exchange sacrifice: 18 19 DxeS Dxe5 20 Kxe5 Bb7
This prepares to bring the lowing sequence, as he judges 241 Hhs 19 BxhS gxh5 and 21 £xg7 &xg7 22 a3 Hd7 (a
black queen to the useful a8 that he will have good attacking " now White has various attack- drawback of the e5 advance is
square, creating pressure on the prospects against the weakened ing options of which the most that the White d-pawn loses
18 The Main Line The Main Line 19

support and this is what Black is ..&)d7-c5 with a bind on the If White now advances themati- Hxad 18 b3 and White gains
counting on here) 23 Wd3 Ead8 queenside) 16 Wc2 Qes5 17 cally with 14 ¢57 then 14...dxe5 control of the queenside. 15
24 Wf3 Nc7 25 ed (unfortu- Hxe5 Lxe5 18 b3 5 (Black is 15 HxeS HixeS 16 HxeS Hxd5! Wc2 Sb6 16 Bbl is probably
nately for Black, his own c- hoping to undermine the centre, leaves ‘Black with a winning best met with the simple
pawn is vulnerable and this en- but White has a powerful con- position, as 17 Xxd5 is met by 16..5)d7 holding up the ad-
ables White to maintain a win- solidating manoeuvre at his dis- 17...€6. vance e5 and preparing ...c4 and
ning advantage) 25..9a6 26 posal) 19 Hbg! Hd7 20 £h6 14 . Zb8 AN
DxcS Hxc5 27 b4 Wa8 28 Ef7 21 Ebdl Wa6 22 a4 and 14..0b6 15 Wd3 (15 Wc2 15 Hbe
Hxc5 and White soon won, White has a clear advantage, %a4 16 d1 should probably 16 We2 DNad
Skembris-Djurhuus, Gausdal Tukmakov-Fishbein, New York be met by 16...Eb8 with similar 17 AL
1993, 1990. The set-up with b3, a4 play to the main game, but not 17 &xad? Exa4 leaves White
d) 12..\¥b8 (keeping an eye and &b5 is what White is aim- by 16...e6 17 dxe6 fxe6 18 g5 facing an awkward double at-
on the eS-square) 13 Hel (13 ing for in this variation. Ee8 19 Hb1 h6 20 D3 Hf7 21 tack against the a- and e-pawns.
W2 looks better, as 13...5e8 is b3 Ab6 22 &3 when Black did 17 . Eb4
now not advisable on account of not have enough for the pawn,
14 fLg5; D. Gurevich-Alburt, Ionescu-Cramling, Debrecen
Philadelphia 1982 continued 1992) 15..5a4 16 £g5 h6 17
13..20b6 14 Hel Wb7 15 Hbl £xf6 Lxf6 18 e5 dxe5 (Black .
fd7 16 b3 £5 17 exfS Hxfs 18 can also sit tight with 18...2g7 7
Hxe7 Haf8 19 Rf4 £f6 20 19 e6 £5! 20 Kbl Xb8 21 Hxad ,
Hbel Lxe7 21 Hxe7 &Hc8 22 Hxad4 with a good game) 19
He3 &Hdb6 23 Lh6 and White DxeS Hxb2 20 Wf3? (Fedoro-
had tremendous play for the wicz points out the improve-
exchange sacrifice and soon ment for White: 20 Wed! Dad
won) 13..De8 14 We2 &7 15 21 Hcl with equality) 20...Ea3!
££4 (15 K5 can be simply met 21 Hcl Had 22 &7 Lxc3 23
with 15..He8) 15.Wb7 16 Hxf8 Lb2 24 Wed Wxf8 25
Had1 Zfb8 17 5 Wxb2 18 exd6 Exb2 Hxb2 26 HExc5 Ha8 and The drawback of White’s
exd6 19 Ded Wxe2 20 Hxe2 Black has an extra piece, Zc2 manoeuvre is now appar-
He8 21 Heel 5 22 Hxd6 Hxel Rajkovic-Fedorowicz, Brussels ent. The vulnerability of the e-
23 Dxel DI6 24 Dxf5 Hexds 1987. pawn forces White into a highly
25 Dxg7 Dxfa+ 26 gxfa wxg7? 15 Hc27! unpleasant rook move,
27 Hcl Exa2 28 Hxc5 Exf2+ White is transferring re- 18 Hcd Hab7
29 &xf2 Ped+ 30 Le3 Dxcs sources to the queenside to 19 K42
31 &f3 Y2-2 Ehivest-Hodgson, counter Black’s pressure on the White reconciles himself to
Rakvere 1993. a- and b-files. However, the returning the pawn, but there
13 Hel (D) problem with this plan is that it was little choice as 19 £d2 runs
13 Hbl Wa8 14 a3 &b6 15 leaves the white e-pawn lacking into an unpleasant pin after
Hel &fd77N (this is much too support. A more harmonious 19..Wa6 e.g. 20 &f1 Hxc4 21
passive, but quite playable for development for White would &xc4 Hb4 and Black has a clear
Black was 15..%0a4 16 &Hxad be 15 Wc2 b6 16 Hbl in order advantage.
Hxa4 17 Wc2 c4 planning Black’s last move set a trap. to meet 16...%a4 with 17 Hxad 19 .. Hxcd
20 The Main Line The Main Line 21

20 VWixed Hxb2 28 Xxed very draughty, simply present- 11...8)a6 is playable but risky,
21 Hxb2 Exb2 This loses quickly. A better ing Black with more avenues e.g. 12 We2 Wb 13 Hdl Tfb8
22 a4 try was 28 Re3 Wxad 29 Hg5!? for counterplay. The continua- (13..5)c7 14 €5 dxeS 15 Dxe5
with some chances for counter- tion of Hoi-Hodgson, Copenha- Wb7 16 W3 Ba6 17 Tbl b5
play. gen 1985, was an instructive 18 £e3 £d4 19 Kxd4 cxd4 20
28 .. dxed demonstration of Black’s chan- EBxd4 &d7 21 Hxd7 Kxd4 22
29 g5 Wixad ces: 7 e4 £.xfl 8 &xfl d69 g3 Hxfe Bfo 23 Wed HExf2+ 24
0 2c3 £xc3 £97 1022001114 Hbd7 12 &h1 £xc3 25 bxe3 Wa6 26
31 Wxc3 Wal+ 5f3 Wbs 13 Hel Hes 14 He2 &6 Hfl+ 27 g2 Exbl -
0-1 Hc7 15 5 Wb7 16 exd6 exd6 Hort-Bellon, Ziirich 1984) 14
17 £5 £xc3 18 bxc3 Hxd5 19 Bb1 Hd7 15 Lf4 HcT 16 e5
Wc2 Des 20 Wed Had! (White has achieved an ideal
set-up and Black has no coun-
terplay) 16...Xe8 17 b3 WH7 18
0, B
i
Bbcl &b6 19 Wd3 Red8 20

8w,
\%// // 1, £g5 dxe5 21 fxe7 Hd7 22 d6
22 .. e6! f5 23 We2 He6 24 Pgl and
This thematic central break White won easily, Hort-Gaprin-
% ran /
brings the whole of the black
position to life and frees the c-
and d-pawns to advance. The v %% ///////g//g/
&
7
dashvili, Wijk aan Zee 1979.
12 Xel

slight discomfort experienced

T ES
by the black king is a minor
inconvenience. Following 32 g2 Exf2+ the 7////?jft.&}
23 dxe6 Dxed white queen is lost.
oA Al
24 exf7+ Hf8
Game 2
21 Wxa4 Dxc3 22 ExeS
Hxad 23 Hel Wd5 24 214 Db2 / g0 A
’// /
25 Hel
White has to move the rook Hort-Ermenkov 25 £h6 Ha8 26 fxg6 hxgb 27 %
/Q//////fii?
as Black was threatening to un- Tunis IZ 1985 a4 $d3 28 Hedl c4 29 Bd2 ¢3
cover an attack against it by
moving his own rook on b2. 1 d4 o9f6
30 Hc2 Hb8 0-1. White
sometimes consider f4 in the fi-
can %’fi
25 . ds 2 c4 c5 anchetto variation (g3 and £.82)
26 Wl c4 3 ds bs but, without the light-squared
The black pieces dominate 4 cxb$s a6 bishop to defend the kingside, With 12 We2 White prevents
the board. 5 bxa6 gb the advance really creates too Dgd (12.5g47 13 Dd2
27 &gl 6 &3 Lxa6 many weaknesses, unless it forces 13..8gf6 as 13..%e5
White would like to generate 7 &f3 dé pushes Black off the board. loses a piece to 14 f4), but this
counterplay with 27 &g5 but 8 e4 £xfl1 1 . OHbd7 is not a good way to support the
this unfortunately fails to the 9 &xfl kg7 In this variation White is of- 5 push and also allows Black
tactic 27...Exd2! 28 &xe4 dxed 10 g3 0-0 ten angling for a quick central to swiftly offer a queen ex-
29 Wxd2 e3+. 11 g2 advance with e5, so this move is change, e.g. 12..Wb6 13 Rdl
27 . Wa7 11 f4 leaves the white king very logical. The alternative Wa6 14 Wxa6 Hxa6 (this is an
 22 The Main Line
ideal Benko Gambit
for Black) 15 &d2 Zb8 16 a3
Qb6 17 Ha2 Dga 18 He2 £5
(one of the reasons that Black is
usually happy to aim for an
endgame in this line of the
Benko is that this undermining
advance can be played without
fear of exposing the king) 19 h3
De5 20 Df4 Had 21 exf5 gxf5
22 Hel c4 23 Of1 2h6 24 He2
Eb3 25 Hc2 &b6 26 Bal £xfa
27 fxf4 §)d3 28 Le3 HHxd5 29
Hxcd &OHxb2 30 Hd4 Hc3
Ef4 e6 32 g4 De2 33 Bf3 Hica
34 Hel fxg4 35 hxg4 Dxe3d+ 36
Sxe3 £d4 37 Bf4 Ed3 38 Hbl
Haxa3 39 Bb7 Hab3 40 Exd4
Hxe3 41 He7 Hed3 42 Bf4 e5
43 Rff7 Ed4 -2 1. Ivanov-
Alburt, Hastings 1986. Black
was never in trouble.
12 .. Hgd
Black is anxious to clamp
down on the e5-square, but
other moves are also quite play-
able: 12..8Yb6 13 He2 Wd7 14
Wd3 Da4 15 HEbl Efc8
c4! 17 Wc2 Hc5 18 Le3 e6 19
dxe6 fxe6 20 Lxc5 Hxc5 21 e5
dxe5 with an equal position,
Salov-Tseshkovsky, USSR Ch.
1987, 12..E8a7 13 We2 Wag
(this manoeuvre is worthy of
attention: Black is trying to in-
hibit the e5 advance by target-
ing the d5-pawn) 14 2d2 Ebs
15 Habl &8 16 £f4 &b6 17
e5 &xd5 18 Hxd5 Wxd5 19
exd6 &xd6 20 b3 Hba8 21 a4
Hb7 22 RKe5 ‘-2 Dlugy-
Fedorowicz, USA Ch. 1985,
The Main Line 23
endgame xcd 24 fcl Ha8 25 Hd1 Da3 &h1 Had! 26 f4 gxf3 27 Heb
26 Kxa3 HExa3 27 De3 Had 28 f2! and Black soon won. -
Hc4 Hba7 29 Hxad4 Hxad 30 c) 13..Wb6 (this has the ad-
&f3 and White is a pawn ahead, vantage over 13..WaS5 of ren-
although winning will not prove dering Rg5 useless, e.g. 14
easy, Bagirov-Zilberman, USSR L£g5?7 h6 15 Rxe7 Hfe8) 14
1972) 16 h3 He5 17 &xes Hc2 Wa6 15 Del Hges 16 f4
fxe5 18 Wd3 (Black is very A4 17 We2 Hfb8 18 2d3 £.d4
short of counterplay) 18...Wb4 19 §f2 &Hxb2 (a typical Benko
19 a3 Wa5 20 &\d1 c4 21 Wd2 Gambit combination which re-
Wa6 22 De3 g7 23 Dgd Dd7 gains the pawn) 20 Wxa6 Hxa6
24 £h6 &h8 25 £e3 HabB 26 21 Exb2 & xc3 22 Hxb8+ Hxb8
£d4 &6 27 Ec3 Wad 28 L.xf6 23 b1 9d7 24 Eb7 Df6 25 a3
31 exf6 29 Wd4 &g7 30 Ef3 He5 £d4 26 Exe7 Kxf2 27 &xf2
White has two main strate- 31 HxeS dxe5 32 Wd2 &c5 33 &f8 28 Hb7 SHxed+ 29 &f3
gies at this juncture. With the Hc3 Wobs 34 We2 5 35 Exca oHf6 30 Hb8+ Le7 31 Hb7+
text move, he prepares an ag- Sxed 36 3 HHf6 37 Ebs Wes AHd7 32 £5 &ds 33 £b2 Xb6 34
gressive plan of %d2 and f4. 38 Hxb8 Wxb8 39 We3 1-0 was L6+ #c8 35 Hxb6 Hxb6 36
This is obviously slightly weak- the game Spassky-Vaganian, fxg6 fxg6 37 Led b7 38 g4
ening, but White is hoping that Linares 1985. a6 39 Le7 Hc8 40 L8 &b5
the time he will gain (by kick- 41 d3 Pad 42 Lcd Db6+ 43
ing the black knights around) 2d3 D8 44 cd 2-'2 Marin-
will enable him to launch a Sznapik, Stara Zagora Z 1990.
centra] initiative. He is judging 13 .. Hges
that this will be more relevant 13...¥a5? is a bad mistake on
than the kingside weaknesses. account of 14 &d2 when
The alternative plan is a slower A2
A Z
14...2)ge5 loses a piece to 15 f4.
16 h3 one whereby White aims for In Podgaets-Arbakov, USSR
development and consolidation &
1983, Black was forced to rec-
before any attempt to expand is 7.
made. The key move in the lat- * 74 7p
oncile himself to the loss of two
tempi with 14..8gf6 15 Hc4
ter case is 13 He2 and now: Wba 16 £d42 Hb6 17 Dad
a) 13..Wa5 (this is a logical Wxc4 18 HHxb6 Wxe2 19 Hxe2
move, but it allows White to b) 13...c4!? looks suspicious- 2a6 20 Hcd HHd7 21 a4 Ebg 22
develop his queen’s bishop with ly premature, but worked out £.¢3 and White won easily.
tempo after which his position well in the entertaining game 14 &Ha2 b6
is fully mobilised) 14 £ g5 Hfe8 Loffler-Krempel, corr 1987: 14 15 f4
15 Bc1 (D) Hc2 Dges 15 HixeS Dxe5 16 White must stick to his guns-
15..83b6 (15..Ha7 16 Hcc2 fe3 Hd3 17 Wd2 1517 18 £h6 otherwise Black will have time
@b6 17 h3 Ne5 18 Dxe5 LxeS f4! 19 L.xf4 g5!17 20 Le3 g4 21 to create a powerful outpost
19 Wd3 Whs 20 £d2 Bb7 21 Db5? Wes! 22 HHd4 Wh5 23 with ...c4 and ...2d3.
b3 c4 22 bxc4 Wxcd 23 Wxca Excd He5 24 Hccl Wh3+ 25 15 . Ded7
24 The Main Line The Main Line 25

£xc3 28 Wxc3 Eb2+ 29 &hi 27 Wa2 Ea7

H38b3 30 Exb3 Exb3 31 HxeT+
1-0 Staniszewski-Papatheodor-
28
29
We2
Wd1
Hc8
/ _.52 &
ou, Gausdal 1986. // / /
17 &Hdl Ka7
CEET AT /;///‘g//1/
%
T 2,

/é// ¥
18 Ebl Wa8
? ;7 19 We2
E%{///}/
g, ey
7, ,,,4/////4,/ 7% 20 a3 eb ///W/ii?
21 dxe6 fxe6 X/

oS
4% 4

.
7 %7
%wAl %/%
;z///z // ////
16 SN
After this, Black has no 39 Hxd2 Lxbd
problems. Much stronger is 16 40 DNed Le7
a4! (a move overlooked by most % White is hoping to generate 41 Nd6 £ xd6
iy, /7
%,
commentators), which prevents counterplay with &g5 and Wg4, 42 W6+ g8
Black’s ..%a4. Huss-Vaiser, 43 exd6 WS+
- ;I %,

but Black keeps firm control

=

SN

Swiss Grand Prix 1990 contin- over the position and never 4 &hd KasS
ued 16 a4! Ha7?! (this is woe- 45 g4 h=4t.]
G

gives him a chance.

fully passive) 17 a5 &a8 18 29 .. d4 46 Wdd Wes
Aed Dc7 19 e5 Wa8 20 W3 This game demonstrates that 30 Eb3 cxb4 0-1
a6 21 Ha3 and Black has been Black’s strategy in this varia- 31 &Hxb4 &5
completely strangled. Black tion is by no means limited to 32 Ebl d3 Game 3
needs an improvement over this ploughing down the queenside 33 Ha2 Seirawan-Belotti
game. One possibility, a sug- in the hope that something White cannot capture the ad- Lugano 1988
gestion of Hertneck, is 16 a4 drops off, but that a well-timed vancing pawn as 33 &xd3 Ed8
Wc8 intending ...Wa6 and creat- central break with ...e6 can sig- wins material. 1 d4 &Hf6
ing the additional option of nificantly add to White’s diffi- 33 . Hds 2 4 cS
..c4. 16..8£xc3?! would regain culties. In particular, the un- 34 $h3 Hed 3 d§ b5
the pawn but leave Black with a comfortable position of the 35 Wbl d2 4 cxb5s a6
completely lifeless position and white king on g2 now makes 36 f£xd2 Hexd2 5 bxa6 RKxa6
a permanently vulnerable king. itself felt. 37 Wxe6+ h8 (D) 6 &3 dé
16 .. Dad 22 52 ds 38 Hxd2 7 ed Lxf1
16..5f6 (this move, which 23 €5 AT If White could capture on d2 8 <xfl g6
blocks in the king’s bishop, is 24 He2 Eb8 with the knight he might just 9 gd?
misguided) 17 £d2 $ad 18 b3 This is a very good position stay in the game but, unfortu- This move, which is a fa-
Dxc3 19 Kxc3 Ha7 20 Wcd for Black, as White is utterly nately, this is impossible on vourite of the creative Ameri-
Wa8 21 a4 Hb8 22 a5 Hab7 23 lacking any sort of active plan. account of 38 Hxd2 D2+ 39 can Grandmaster ~ Seirawan,
Ha3 Ha7 24 b4 Hd7 25 bxc5 25 Hd3 Rab7 &h4 RKe7+ winning the white should not be underestimated.
Dxc5 26 Dd4 Hab7 27 &6 26 b4 L18 queen. At first sight, it looks far too
26 The Main Line The Main Line 27

rustic to have much chance of further with g5, as the weak Black play is an attractive fea- Hxh8+ £xh8 18 Lxg3 Dab 19
success but, against careless light squares on the kingside ture of 9 g4. £d2 &b4 20 a3 &c2 21 Hcl
Black play, White’s kingside would then be very accessible 10 .. 0-0?! HNd4 22 Hea wd7 23 g2 Kg7
initiative can quickly develop to infiltration by the black This provocative move is 24 De3 He2 25 DAl KeS 26
alarming proportions. Benko queen. The game Seirawan-D. risky, but probably just about &f1 OF4 27 £c3 Hhg 28 Rel
players are often highly ag- Gurevich, New York 1987 con- playable. Of the three following £xc3+ 29 Hxc3 Hh3 30 Bg3
gressive creatures who have tinued 10 h3 Kg7 11 g2 0-0 alternatives, line ‘a’ is double- EhsS and, thanks to the white
their sights set on all-out attack. 12 Hge2 Da6 13 fe3 Wb7 14 edged, but ‘b’ and ‘c’ look fine kingside weaknesses, Black fi-
9 g4, howeyver, calls for a meas- Wd2 9c7 15 £3 Efb8 16 b3 for Black. From a practical nally regains his gambit pawn,
ured response from Black which &b5 17 Hacl Dd7 18 Hxb5 point of view, Black would Suba-Hodgson, Spain 1993) 13
is not always to the taste of Wxb5 19 Hc2 HeS with ap- certainly be well advised to g3 Dfa+ 14 kxf4 Wxfa 15
those playing 3...b5. proximately equal play. avoid the text, as there is now a h4 0-07 (this is a very bad mis-
10 &g great danger of being overrun take after which Black loses
on the kingside. almost by force — 15..8a6 or

"
a) 10...5a6 11 g5 &d7 12 hd 15.h6 as in Suba-Hodgson
_4 Y X17 7 Hb4 13 h5 c4 14 h6 (both sides would have been better) 16 Xh3
///// A ,m,/: /
seem to be adoptmg a policy of
completely ignoring what the
a6 17 Dge2
Wd7 19 h5 c4 20 Wh1 Rfb8 21
Wegd+ 18 Hg3

”7”/? o / // other is up to) 14..&xc3 15 hxgé hxg6 22 Wha £\c5 23 Bhl

/ / /// // &\d3 24 figh?a £6 25 Wh7+ 1-0.
"uon %,
bxc3 Hd3 16 Le3 0-0 17 Df3
e6 18 Hel H7e5S 19 &Hxd3 White will follow up with 26

:fzé // /@,///,/ Hxd3 20 Wga He8 21 Ehbl Wxg7+ and mate with the
\\\\\1\

/@ e//éA= Wa5 with unclear play, Suba- rooks.

29
Conquest, London 1991.
b) 10..Wc8 11 g5 &Oh5 12
EE 7
%A%,
-//7//”1
ge2
Completing development is 10 g5 should be met by
sensible enough, but Black has 10...5Hh5, holding up White’s
//////,//
other moves here: play on the kingside. The dan-
a) 9..80bd7 10 g2 Wbe 11 gers of deserting this area of the
/;%V/
.1
m //%
g5 Dh5 12 Dge2 h6 (this at- board were graphically demon-
tempt to prove that the advance strated in Zvolanek-Kantorik,
/////f
4 2/
/éye
g4 also weakens White’s king Czech Ch. 1992: 10...8)fd7? 11
leads to
h4 £g7
very unclear play) 13
14 bl He5 15 b3 0-0
&g2 Wa5 12 Dge2 Hab 13 a3
0-0 14 h4 c4 15 &)d4 He5 16 hS ;%f% am Bame
16 gxh6 £h8 17 Dg3 HDxg3 18
fxg3 Wb4 19 2b2 c4 and Black
&5
Wc7
17 Wgl
19 Wh2
Ded3
Hfe8
18 &ico
20 hxgé /@fi@
Ay 7B a0k ¢) 10..2bd7 is a suggestion
has a strong initiative for the hxg6 21 Le3 Hb3 22 Habl f8 of the American Benko expert
two pawns, Seirawan-Alburt, 23 Wg3 Wd7 24 Xh7 e6 25 Wh3 Fedorowicz who gives 11 3
New York 1989. and the threat of Xh8+ is unan- 12..Wg4+ (12..h6 13 h4 Hes 12 &ge2 Wc8 intending
b) 9..Wc8 is an attempt to swerable. The possibility of this hxg5 14 hxgs Wgd+ 15 Dg3 ... Wa6, eyeing the d3-square.
dissuade White from advancing kind of quick kill against sloppy Wxdl 16 &OHxdl DHxg3 17 11 g5
 The Main Line 29
28 The Main Line

11 f3 is less incisive: it requires strong nerves to play 25 Wxf6 Hh7 a) 12..43b4 led to adventur-
11..60bd7 12 %ge2 WasS 13 Black in such a position. 26 W4 ous play in Savon-Vaiser, Uzh-
L64 Bbg 14 Wd2 De8 15 Eacl 13 bS Avoiding 26 XExh7? Wgd+ 27 gorod 1988: 13 a3 c4 14 Kh6
He5 16 b3 Wab 17 Lxe5 K.xe5 White’s attack on the king- &f1 Bbi+ 28 Hxbl Exbi mate. £ xh6 15 axb4 WbH6 16 b5 Hxal
18 Hc2 b4 19 ©dl and White side plays itself. The situation is 26 .. g5 17 Wxal HHd7 18 Bfl Hc5 19
has a clear edge, Seirawan-Fed- already desperate for Black. 277 Wg 10 &\d4 &xed 20 DFS gxf5 21 fxed
orowicz, USA Ch. 1989. How- 13 . We7 fxe4 22 Wel Wds 23 Wha Rg7
ever, Black’s 13th move was 14 Wg4 EMS Game 4 24 Wxe7 e3 25 Hf3 Wd2+ 26
misguided ~ 13..2b6! intend- 15 hxgé hxgé Hjartarson-P. Cramling &h3 fes5 27 Wg5+ &h8 28
ing ..&a4 was much more to 16 Wh4 Of8 Ostersund 1992 Ho3 W2 29 Hed W1+ 30 Hg2
the point. 17 &3 Wwd7 ¢2 31 Who 27 0-1.
11 .. afd7 17..50b4 18 Dh2 &2 19 1 d4 A () b) 12..Wa5 13 R¢5 BfbS 14
11..5h5 (if Black wants to &gd Dxal 20 Dh6+ Kxh6 21 2 d c5 Hb1 Hb7 15 Wd2 Bab8 16
play like this, he is better off Wxh6 £6 22 gxf6 exf6 23 Whe+ 3 as b5 Hhcl Hb4 with unclear play,
substituting... Wc8 for ...0-0 as &f7 24 Eh7+ wins. 4 cxbsS a6 Garcia Palermo-Emst, Malmo
then he has ..Wgd+ available 18 Dh2 4b4 5 bxa6 g6 1987.
against @geZ) 12 &ge2 £5 13 19 &g Ha3 6 &3 £xab 7 . deé
gxf6 exf6 14 g3 Dxg3 15 20 Eh3! Hxel 7 53 8 ed £xfl
hxg3 £d7 16 fLh6 fxh6 17 21 Hxcl Hxb2 White can also try a set-up 9 oxfl g7
nxhfi Whe 18 Wgd Zf7 19 22 ZHchl Hab8! based on &ge2, lending further 10 h3
Hah1 &f8 and Black is too pre- protection to the knight on c3.
occupied on the kingside to be
able to get going successfully
However, this is rather passive
and more or less gives up on the H; %f //A H
on the other wing, Gulko- idea of the central push eS5.

W
oA AL ///
Andruet, Amsterdam 1988. Some examples: 7 e4 Kxfl 8 %///IZ/A
12 h4! Lxfl d6 9 &ge?2 (the key move
— 9 &f3 leads, of course, to
normal channels) 9...8g7 10 {3
EA @”/ E@
”@ i
0-0 11 g4 a6 12 Lg2 and:
o, / : 181
\\\

\\\\\
\

/ =8 / %
_ » f:tffi//// x
/ // i% i 23 Hf6+! 7/7 Vf’; With this move White plans
%/ }D %//// Black’s last move set a neat
trap as pointed out by Seirawan:
to run the king to h2 instead of
g2. This has the advantage of
fi_?fi’?
A
4 / i @// 23 Hh6+? £xh6 24 Wxh6 i/fi// preventing ...2g4 and not ex-
7, =) Wga+ 25 Hg3 Hxf2+! 26 wxf2 posing the king on the poten-
Bb2+ 27 &fl Wf4+! and Black tially vulnerable hl-a8 diago-
12 .. Hab mates first. nal. However, it takes an extra
This is too slow. A better 23 .. exf6 tempo and Black should make
chance was ...c4 and ...&cS, but 24 gxf6 2.x£6 use of this to further his queen-
30 The Main Line The Main Line 31

side play in the usual manner. Andrianov-Vasiukov, Moscow Lxe5+22 g3 Hab8 23 Hce2 left dxe6 fxe6 16 e5 D5 17 Dxd5
One further point is that it is 1982) 15 Ec2 &b6 16 We2 Wab6 White better in Schoen-J. Pol- exd5 is very uncomfortable for
now difficult for White to ad- 17 Wxa6 Hxa6 18 £.g5 D4 19 gar, Reykjavik 1988) 14 He2 White.
vance with e5 (after Hel) as, £xe7 Hxb2 20 Hxb2 Hxb2 21 NeS! (Black has played various
following a sequence of ex- e5 &d3 and Black had the ad- moves here, but this recent try
changes which leave a white vantage, Blees-Greenfeld, Tel- appears promising) 15 Dxe5 % /////E:/7

rook on e5, Black may have the Aviv 1988. (White may well do better to
tactic ... gd+. b) 14 Wc2 b6 (14..Hb7 15 decline the exchange with 15 B
27 U
;7/i at/
10 e5!? looks suspiciously £42 Wa6 16 gl Des 17 Hd1 Hel) 15..8xe5+ 16 gl Hibd

%/////
premature, but worked out well c4 18 fe3 Hab8 19 Ld4 left (the next few moves are an in-
in Anastasian-Martinov, Frunze White with an edge in Dumitra- structive demonstration of how
1989 after 10..dxe5 11 &xe5 che-Gomez, Cappelle la Grande exchanges can often advance
0-0 12 &cd Hbd7 13 g3 Db6 1991, but maybe the best for Black’s counterplay in the main
14 HHxb6 Wxb6 15 g2 Efds Black here is 14..5e8 15 £d2 lines of the Benko) 17 L3 Wa6
16 Wf3 Wb7 17 Edl Dd7 18 Wa6 16 a4 HEba 17 a5 Hab8 18 18 Ed2 Efb8 19 Ecl c4 20 b3
We2 Hb6 19 Wed Hc8 20 ad. OHd1 B4b7 19 Hbl &7 as in &d3 21 Hec2 Db4 22 Ecl Hd3
However, 12..Wc8, intending Pytel-Peev, Lublin 1972 when 23 Hcc2 cxb3 24 axb3 HHb2 25 15 . exd5S
.. Wa6 is a good response for Black has good play) 15 &d1 Wel Hxb3 26 f4 £g7 27 $h2 16 exdS Hfe8
Black. Wa6 16 £.d2 Eb7 17 a3 94 18 Hd3 28 Wdl Db4 29 Ha2 Although it is tempting to
10 .. 0-0 £.c3 Was 19 Hc1 £h6 20 Wxad Hxa2 30 Hxa2 Ha3 31 Hxa3 gain this tempo, it gives White
11 &gl Ha6 Hxad 21 Hc2 Hd7 with an un- Wxa3 and Black went on to the opportunity to generate
A perfectly satisfactory alter- clear endgame, Arlandi-Borgo, win, Bernal-P. Cramling, Spain promising kingside play. Black
native for Black is 11...2bd7 12 Reggio Emilia 1992. 1993. would have done better with the
&h2 Wa5 13 Hel Hfb8 12 <h2 Whe 13 .. Hba immediate 16..Wa6 17 Wxa6
13.. .28 14 HdA2 &c7 15 Hxa6 which intends ...c4 and
Nca Wab 16 2.d2 Ad7 17 Ehel ...)d3, with an unclear position.
by, .,:E He5 18 Hxe5 Lxe5+
£d4 20 &Lcl Wxe2 21
19 f4
Hxe2
17
18
Wc4
Wh4!
Wa6
W8
/,',,,/ Z’Z

7 &f8 22 Hdl f5 with an excel- 19 £h6

/ ’/
A lent position for Black was Ca-

EEE
7/‘4
mara-Benko, Sao Paulo 1973.
However, more to the point for
White is 14 a4, intending &b5.
14 ad (D) -/:%//
. iih
Y At
14 .. e6!
- w8
gt
/ / "
This is a good plan as
14..Wa6 15 Db5 Efb8 16 242
and now: 13 We2 gives White what he wants.
a) 14 He2 He8 (14..Hb4 15 13 Hel &d7 (13..Efb8 14 15 Hdi
Black has better development
% /w:
$gl De8 16 Hc2 Wab 17 £d2 He2 b4 15 Le3 Hd7 16 Kd2
5b6 18 Hbl &icd 19 Lel WH7 Wa6 17 a3 Wa5 18 Hc1 Haé6 19 so it is logical for White to try
20 Wc1 with a balanced position, We2 b3 20 Hdl He5 21 Hxes to keep the centre closed. 15
32 The Main Line The Main Line 33

19 . £h8 29 2h4 g5 a) 40.. Xxe7? 41 Wg8 mate. things are popular at certain
19..£xh6 20 Wxh6 Wf5 21 30 Lxg5 hxgs b) 40..f7 41 e8W+ Wxe8 times. If this is the case, then 8
Lgl! and the threats of ®g5 31 SHxgS Hxeb 42 Wixg7+ oxg7? 43 Dxed+ Hd2 can be regarded as the
and 9b5 keep White on top. 32 dxe6 Wc6 Rf7 44 HHxd6+ Leb 45 Hcd. flared trousers variation — very
20 Hacl WIS 32..We7 33 Wed! wins due 41 Wxg7+ d8 popular in the early seventies,
21 W4 Wd7 to the dual threats against a8 42 Wh8+ <be7 since when it has almost com-
21.. Wxf4+ 22 f2xf4 Hed8 23 and h7. 43 Dg8+ T pletely disappeared from view.
b3 leaves White a comfortable 33 Hdi £d4 Or 43..2d7 44 WgT+ &ds Black has various ways to ob-
pawn ahead. 4 We2 AV(] 45 Wxd4. tain a comfortable game:
22 Kgs Hhs 35 SHeed Hxed 44 Wh7+ $f8
23 Wa2 Nr6 36 SHxed Ha7 45 HDe7 1-0 7
If 45..Wd7, then 46 Dg6+
. 7 51
24 W4 &hs Now White eliminates the
25 Wgd 5 last defender of the kingside. Pe8 47 Wg8 is mate. Notes &
26 Wca fp7 37 HExd4! cxd4 based on those of Stohl in ”4% ;%
% %y?/ 4
27 Hel 38 W ChessBase Magazine.

Game 5
%%// Hegeler-Tatenhorst
_ i/ <A
Bundesliga 1987

1 d4 &6
2 d c5
4
3 ds b5 a) 8..Wa5 is probably the

/,/@
4 cxbs a6 simplest as a5 is a good square
5 bxa6 g6 for the black queen and White is

T Apart from the aggressive

pawn storming variation that
now forced to make a slight
concession to continue his de-
velopment. e.g. 9 f3 (9 g3 Lg7
forms the theme for the main
The position has turned badly game, White has a quiet way to 10 e4 £xf1 11 Pxfl Hbd7 12
against Black. Her knights are Black is helpless The other play which avoids having to Ned Wab 13 We2 0-0 14 Rg5
stuck offside, she has weak variations are: 38..%f8 39 castle by hand. This is reached Hfb8 15 Rel h6 16 K42 Db6
points at d6 and e6 and White Wxfa+ e8 (39..%e7 40 W7+ by 6 Hf3 Kxa6 7 Hc3 d6 and with equal play, Donner-
still has an extra pawn. $d8 41 Wxa7) 40 Dxd6+ e7 now 8 A\d2 (D). Hebden, Marbella Z 1982)
27 .. f4 41 Dfs+!; 38..%h8 39 &Hf6 The point of this move is to 9..2g7 10 e4 LKxfl 11 Hxfl
Black hopes to stir up trouble Wa8 (39...Wc8 40 7!) 40 Wh5+ recapture on f1 with the knight, &)fd7! (this is a good move as
by trapping the white bishop on g7 41 Wgs+ SfR 42 Wgl+ which can then regroup to e3 both 12 Wc2 a6 and 12 £42
g5, but White simply sacrifices Le7 43 W7+ £d8 44 e7+ from where it eyes the impor- He5 are awkward for White) 12
it for a winning attack. This is Hxe7 45 W8+ winning in all tant c4-square. Although chess De3 Kxc3+ 13 bxe3 Wxc3+ 14
not surprising bearing in mind cases. players are not generally noted K42 Wd3 15 We2 Wxe2+ 16
the difference in mobility of the 39 &6+ A8 for their sartorial elegance, ®xe2 b6 17 Khbl £8d7 and
two sides. 490 e7+! Lxe7 chess theory can sometimes be Black has no problems at all,
28 He6! hé There is no defence, e.g. rather like fashion - certain Haik-Sievers, Hamburg 1991.
34 The Main Line The Main Line 35

b) 8..2g7 9 e4 &xf1 (9...0-0 prepared to face it with confi- of typical Benko endgame
is a strange decision which dence. should be fine for Black even
passes on the opportunity to 7 . d6 though White can use his king
force White to move his king — Black’s first important deci- to defend the queenside — an
even this though was fine for sion is whether to commit his option not normally available to
Black after 10 £xa6 Hxa6 11 king to the kingside. 7..8g7 him) 14 &d1 (14 0-0-0 is best
e 7 12 0-0 Hb6 13 He3 can transpose back to the main met by Fedorowicz’s suggestion
Wd7 14 £d2 Dc7 15 Wc2 Rfb8 line, but generally signals of 14..9g4 15 Xhfl Lxc3 and
16 Wd3 %Had 17 b3 Hxc3 18 /it@ / Black’s intention of looking for ..Hxa2, but not 14.85b6 15
£xc3 &xc3 19 Wxc3 Ebd 20 £3
&b5 21 WH2 Hd4 in Tisdall- ////%,QQ///,it/i counterplay whilst leaving his Khel Hbg 16 He2 De8 17 €5

Gretarsson, Gausdal 1992) 10 / s king in the centre. After 8 {3

we have:
@7 18 Lel Kh6 19 g3 Raal
20 h4 and White was on top,
Oxfl Wa5 (10...0-0 allows a) 8.Wa5 9 &d2 (Yacob Bayer-Fedorowicz, Porz 1988)
White to complete his devel- and the knight on d3 Murey is a wonderfully creative 14..90g4 15 &c2 c4 16 Hhel
opment smoothly, e.g. 11 Qe3 (reminiscent of Kasparov’s fa- player but sometimes, as in the Hes 17 He2 &Hd3 18 h3 and
Wa5 12 0-0 Wa6 13 Wc2 Hbd7 mous ‘octopus knight’ on d3 following game, he gets rather now in Andruet-Fedorowicz,
14 a4?! Zfb8 15 Ld2 De8 16 against Karpov in their World carried away: 9 &f27! 0-0 10 h3 Wijk aan Zee 1989, Black re-
Ra3 &c7 17 Rfal b6 18 b3 e6 Championship match 1985), e6! 11 ed exds 12 e5 Ded+ 13 treated with 18..86. The
19 aS &c8 and White is better, gives Black very good counter- DHxed dxed 14 Hg5 c4! 15 American Grandmaster and
Meulders-Carreau, Brussels Z play, Bareev-Kasparov, Linares @xe4 d5 and the White king is Benko expert suggests instead
1993) 11 £d2 (11 £Hg3 is an 1994. very uncomfortably exposed, 18...8gf2, meeting 19 Hf1 with
enthusiastic attempt to attack on 6 &3 Lxa6 Murey-Fedorowicz, Paris 1989) 19...Xb8 and 19 a3 Eb8 20 Hbl
the kingside: 11..0-0 12 0-0 7 417 9..0-010e4 with 20..4h1!? with unclear
Dbd7 13 We2 Hfb8 14 &hl play. Andruet soon had a
Hb7 15 f4 He8 16 Rf3 Habg 17 chance to test this out for him-
h3 &7 18 &h2 Hb5 19 HxbS5 self on the Black side: 18 h3
Rxb5 20 Rd2 Wa7 21 RKc3 Pgf2 19 a3 Xb8 20 Ha2!? Hab6
£xc3 22 bxc3 Eb2 with prom- 21 Dad Ka6 22 &Hc3 Rab6 23
ising counterplay, Vrona-Kor- Dad Hb5 24 e5 5 25 DHd4
manyos, Hungary 1991) 11...0-0 4 7% Hxd5 26 Dc6 Hb7 27 Ke3 Ded
this is better than (11...bd7 12 28 4b6 HbS 29 Hxcd Hc7 30
el Wa6 13 We2 He5 14 Dxe7+ Hxe7 31 *xd3 He7 32
Wxa6 Hxa6 15 Le2 Hfgd 16 £d4 dxe5 33 Dxe5 Hb3+ 34
Hedl 0-0 17 K3 Hfa8 18 Kc3 Kxe5 35 fxe5 Dxc3 36
Hxgs Dxgs 19 LxgT dxg7 20 bxc3 Hcxc3+ 37 &d4 Rd3+ 38
Ac3 Hb8 21 Xhbl f5 22 h3 &cd4 Hde3+ 39 &d4 Rd3+ 40
&eS 23 exfS gxf5 24 4 &cd 25 With this move White an- and now Black must decide &c4 -2 Skembris-Andruet,
b3 #a3 26 Bb2 and White has a nounces his intention of treating whether to exchange bishops: Montpellier 1989.
small edge, Sorokin-Krzywicki, the position as if it were a al) 10..d6 with the further al2) 11 e5 is dangerous for
Pardubice 1992) 12 He3 Hbd7 King’s Indian Four Pawns At- split: both sides, e.g 11..28
13 0-0 Wa6 14 Wc2 Hes5 15 b3 tack. This is a very dangerous all) 11 &xa6 Wxa6 12 We2 (11...dxe5 12 fxe5 &gd comes
&fd7 16 4 Hd3 system and Black must be well Dbd7 13 Wxa6 Exa6 (this kind into consideration, but not
 The Main Line 37
36 The Main Line

11..5d7? 12 e6 Kxf1 13 Hxfl eg. 12.Wb6 13 &gl Wxb2 although very natural, is very e.g.
fxe6 14 Hg5 Dab 15 dxe6 DI6 (this looks very risky but Black dangerous for Black as White b1) 15..Wa5 16 h3! &h6 17
16 £Hd5 WH5 17 Hixe7+ wh8 18 has realised that once the queen quickly develops a fierce attack, L4 Wb4 (17..£6 18 Lxe5 fxgs
£c3 with an overwhelming is regrouped to a6, it will be eg. 9 e4 Rxfl 10 Hxfl d6 11 19 Lxg7 xg7 20 g4! and the
position, Hoi-Fedder, Lyngby difficult for White to avoid the e5 dxe5 (11...%9e8 also failed to knight on hé is completely
1989) 12 h4 {d7 13 e6 fxeb exchange of queens) 14 We2 solve Black’s problems in the stuck) 18 exf7+ Dhxf7 19 Deb
Wb7 15 Habl Wa6 16 Wxa6 (if game Bischoff-Schwarz, Bad c4? (Kaidanov gives 19..%c4
16 Wel Wd3 is a nuisance, so Mergentheim 1989: 12 &f2 20 Hixg7 Hxb2!? 21 Rf3 Dad
»
%51
White must acquiesce to a Wbe 13 &gl &7 14 Wel 22 £d2 dxg7 23 Dxad Wxad
worse endgame) 16...xa6 17 Hba6 15 Wh4a Kfe8 16 Dg5 h6 24 LKc3+ as the only try, but
Hb7 Xfbg 18 Hfbl Hgd 19 h3 17 &xf7! xf7 18 f5 g5 19 White is still clearly better) 20
Ne3 20 Kxe3 Lxc3 21 Hxb8+ Wh5+ g8 20 6 exf6 21 exf6 fxesS! HHixeS 21 Exf8+ Hxf8 22
Exb8 22 Hxb8+ £xb8 23 Hd2 c4+ 22 @hl Lxf6 23 Kxg5s! Hxf8 Hd3+ 23 &fl xf8 24
A7 24 2f2 5! (thematically L.g7 24 W7+ $h8 25 L6 Mgl Hd1! and White is winning,
.7 undermining the d-pawn) 25 26 Wg6 We3 27 Hael 1-0) 12
fxe5 Dgd 13 We2 Dd7 14 eb6
Maksimenko-Kaidanov,
1987.
USSR

i ®e2 $f7 26 #d3 Kxd2

£xd2 fred+ 28 Pxed D6+
27
Hde5 (14.. Wa5 15 £42 HdeSs b2) 15..f6 16 &f7 Exf7 17
winning a pawn, Tozer-Tseitlin, 16 &xe5 Dxe5 17 £.f4 Wa6 18 exf7+ &h8 18 £f4 c4 19 0-0-0
Hastings Challengers 1991. fxe5 Wxe2+ 19 dxe2 sxes £5 20 h3 Hd3+ 21 Hxd3 cxd3
14 h5 (White continues in a22) 12 e5 De8 13 We2 Wa6 20 exf7+ Exf7 21 Exf7 &xf7 22 We6 Df6 23 Le5 Hc8 24
caveman fashion but 14 dxe6 14 Wed4 (a queen exchange, as 22 a4 £.xh2 23 a5 Le8 24 &d3 &b1 with a winning position for
&df6 gives Black a reasonably we have already seen, favours £d6 25 ca wd8 26 DbS h5 White, Schlager-S. Schmidt,
solid structure on the kingside) Black, so Murey keeps the ten- 27 a6 g5 28 a7 h4 29 &xd6 Bundesliga 1994.
14..8&xf1 15 &xfl gxh5 16 sion) 14..2Dc7 15 &f2 A7 16 exd6 30 &b5 &c7 31 &a6 1-0 b3) 15...fxe6 16 Hxe6 Hxfl+
Hgs &7 17 Wxh5? (here gl Hab8 17 b3 Hb4 18 Wel Hoi-Conquest, Naestved 1987) 17 &xfl Wd6 18 Kf4 g5
White misses the chance for 17 and White has strong kingside 15 g5 (18..8h6 19 Kxh6 Hxh6 20

B
Hixh7 Wa6+ 18 el Kf5 19 gd! pressure, Murey-Hebden, Lon- Sb5 Wa6 21 Wxe5 Wxb5+ 22
hxgd 20 Wxgd &)f6 21 Dxf6+ don Haringey 1988. gl 1-0 Bangiev-Devcic, Pula
Xxf6 which Zsofia Polgar as- b) 8...0-0 1990) 19 Kg3 h5 20 Hel ££6
sesses as unclear) 17..5f6 21 h3 h4 22 Kxe5 Dxe5 23
(now White gets driven back
2%@%;% 17 gl Dg6 24 Hf1 with a clear
extra pawn, Naumkin-Dybala,
and Black is much better) 18
oK
-

Wh3 Wa6+ 19 &el exd5 20 Prague 1989.

Hxh7 Hfbs 21 Ebl d4 22 /////////
//’///W/ 8§ oOf3 Ke7

7L
Hixf6+ exf6 23 Ded Wxa2 24 9 e4 K.xf1
&2 Bxb2 25 Hxb2 Wxb2 26 10 Exf1 Wh6
Wh7+ &f8 27 Wgb De8 28 Kh7 0% A timely thrust from Black.
Ha7 29 dgl Wbl+ 30 ¥h2 d5 Not 10...0-0?!, which transposes
0-1 Hoi-Zso. Polgar, Vejstrup into the note ‘b’ above.
1989. and White has a vicious at- 11 €5
a2) 10...8.xf1 11 Exf1 d6: tack which Black, to date, has Black seems to have good re-
a2l) 12 &f2 is a little slow, not been able to defend against, sources after this move. White
38 The Main Line The Main Line 39

may well do better with the pre- 20 f5 Def8 21 fxg6 hxgb 22 stands well, Christiansen-D.
paratory 11 We2 0-0 Wd2 Was 23 $f1 HHf6 24 h3 Gurevich, USA Ch. 1986.
Eab8 25 H\d4 Hbe8 26 gl 4 -
Wa8 27 &h6 Hc5 28 Kxg7 | w1
bxg7 29 Rff1 and White won,
Hoi-Busch, Naestved 1988. _
% /A/// B
/ x fQ.I,
10
W // Q / /1
T b
11 .. dxeS
12 fxeS
by, /
/ // /?/%/
/ /
////*%////i
7%
% o
%&% White maintains a very
strong initiative in the endgame
(play now becomes worry- After 17 &6 it is not easy to and, of course, he still has an
ingly similar to the lines above, see a decent way for Black to extra pawn.
so 1 would suggest that Black play as 17..8f6 runs into 18 17 . Nd3+
should consider 11..Wa6!7) 12 &ds, while if 17..8&xh6 18 18 de2 Wxd4
e5 De8 (Black can easily get WxeS 0-0-0 and now the game 19 cxdd a6
squashed here, e.g. 12..2)d7 continued 19 Xf2 but 19 dS! 20 £a3 Xb8
13 &2 c4+ 14 Le3 Wb4 15 a3 12 .. OHfd7?! seems very powerful. 19...Wa5+ 21 Habi a7
Wb3 16 gl dxe5 17 fxe5 After this Black is struggling is met by 20 b4! (20...cxb4? 21
Dxe5 18 Dxe5 Lxe5 19 Lh6 to complete his development Hxe7+). Unless Black can find 43} //4 ] ?
a way to cope with 17 £h6 he
A/@Wfl
K44+ 20 2hl He8 21 Exf7 1-0 and the White initiative grows
O. Rodriguez-Broomes, Buenos steadily. A much better idea is should settle for 13...Wa6.
Aires OL 1978; or 12..4)g4 13 12..20g4 13 We2 d7 (due to 13 6 m%/%/
h3 Dh6 14 g4 Dab 15 &2 the Guidez-Koch game Black 13 We2?! gives Black the
%4%
dxe5 16 Hxe5 Hfe8 17 £5 Hba
18 g2 Wb7 19 Wed gxf5 20
may be in trouble after this but,
fortunately, there is a good al-
ternative: 13..Wa6 14 £f4 Hd7
chance for 13...Wa6.
13 .. fxe6 %m //
gxf5 f6 21 £xh6 Kxh6 22 Hic4 14 OHg5 c4
&h8 23 &hl Hg8 24 Hgl 15 6 Wxe2+ 16 &xe2 fxe6 17 15 &Hxe6 Lxc3+
fi/%@fi
Bxgl+ 25 Hxgl HHxa2 26 Dxa2
Exa2 27 £d6 1-0 Youngworth-
dxe6 D8 18 &HbS
&)g5 Ha6 and Black is fine, D.
Hxe6 19 This is hopeless for Black as
he gives up his powerful bishop e
Erlingsson, Lone Pine 1978) 13 Gurevich-Bukal, Lugano 1983) and takes away his counterplay
Ke3 7 14 Hdl Hd7 15 Kel 14 €6 fxe6 15 dxe6 &de5 16 against b2. However, although 22 Rxb8
Wa6 16 Hf2 c4 (this is too Hxe5 HixeS 17 Kh6! (D) it is easy to criticise this move, White unaccountably acti-
ambitious as 16..Wxe2+ 17 Guidez-Koch, France 1989, it is not easy to suggest an al- vates Black’s rook and creates
Hxe2 Hfb8 is fine for Black and not 17 d5? Wd6 18 Wed ternative as 15..8f6 runs into problems for himself. 22 &c5+
who can meet 18 exd6 exd6 19 0-0-0 19 Dxe7+ ¥c7 20 Kf4 16 De4. &axc5 23 dxc5 would have
Be7 with 19..He8) 17 RKe3 b6 21 Hf3 Hxf3+ 22 Wxf3 16 bxc3 QeS won more easily.
Hfe8 18 6 fxe6 19 dxe6 Hxe6 Wxe6+ 23 &f1 Khf8 and Black 17 W 22 . Exb8
40 The Main Line The Main Line 41

23 Hes+ HDaxes can also gain good counterplay something will drop off one ..h6 before launching a king-
24 dxcS =45 with other queenside set-ups. day. Most of the time, this is side attack, but the same prin-
25 d6 12 Kel is proving more of a just not good enough. Books on ciple applies to a queenside at-
White has made things diffi- test for Black. The traditional strategy will always point out tack. If you can force White to
cult, e.g. 25 c6+ ¥c7; 25 Rf7 antidote of 12..2g4 may be that attacks will have a greater play, for example, a3 or b3
Hxc5 26 Hxh7 Ha5. Fortu- okay but Black needs to find an chance of success if a weakness when he doesn’t want to, your
nately for him, Black now blun- improvement over game 2, as has first been forced. This will queenside initiative will have a
ders and allows a neat finish. 16 a4! looks very promising for usually be with reference to much greater chance of eventual
25 .. Has? White. Benko players should provoking a concession such as success. -
25...exd6 and it is not easy to turn their attention to 13..Wb6
see how White can improve on and 13...c417.
26 cxd6 Ha5 27 Ef7+ #d8 with 9 g4 and the plan with h3 and
perpetual check. &h2 are both fully playable
26 6+ systems but they are designed to
be practical weapons and do not

" m) set the Benko any serious theo-

" wew 1
retical problems.
7 f41? is well worth a close
///é /// look. It is not easy for Black to

G /// find a clear route to equality.

| 1é /
The safest option for Black is
line ‘all’ in the note to Black’s
7th move of game 5, but then

‘%‘///”/éy// White reaches a typical Benko

B LT endgame where his king is bet-

ter placed than normal. If Black
is determined to keep the fight
Now, from White’s point of going in the middlegame, he
view, everything is again rosy will have to play very accu-
in the garden. rately or be in danger of suffer-
26 .. Lxc6b ing a horrible reverse.
27 dxe7 Hes+ An important point which has
28 sdl . Hes been very clear from research-
29 fKxc5 PxcS ing material for this chapter is
30 Hel 1-0 that it is essential to play these
positions with a plan. Of course,
Summary it is usually good to play any
After 12 h3 Black seems to be position with a plan, but it is
making good use of the extra particularly important here. I
tempo to develop the initiative have seen many games where
on the queenside. I like the plan Black simply charges down the
of ..Ha7 and .. Wa8, but Black queenside in the hope that
 The Fianchetto Variation 43

7 RKg2 deé
8 &3 Kxab 4V

. kil
9 00 Nbd7
10 el Db6
2 The Fianchetto Variation

Fianchettoing the king’s bishop Black can choose between Nl

R
with g3 and Rg2 was, origi- 9..&)bd7 10 0-0 %)b6 (game 6)
nally, one of the most popular and the simple 9...0-0 (game 7).
ways of combating the Benko The advantage of the former is 7. ",
Z
Gambit. White completes his that White can be slightly ham- /Z %Z
This move has been success-
development smoothly and sets pered by the pressure against
fully adopted by the Bosnian
up a sound position for the the d-pawn, while the latter al-
JQ;/
middlegame. He does not have lows Black greater flexibility. /fi Grandmaster. Others:
a) The drawbacks of combin-
to waste time moving his king An important branch of the
around and he has not exposed Fianchetto Variation is the This move places pressure ing g3 and Kg2 with e4 were
against the d-pawn and thus quickly exposed in Gurieli-
himself with any central ad- double fianchetto line, where
slightly hinders White in his Marinkovic, Smederevska Pal-
vances. White places his queen’s bishop
on b2 in order to counteract its plans. One theme of the ensuing anka 1990. After 12 e4?! Dfd7
However, there is also a dark
play is that Black will often ex- 13 Wc2 Hed 14 DA2 Dee5 15
side to g3 and £.g2. It is rather opponent on g7. If you have
ever wondered why Black pend time to try to provoke Kf1 c4 16 g2 &S 17 O3
a passive set-up and makes little
attempt to set Black any early nearly always plays S...g6 in- White into playing e4, weaken- Ned3 18 Kxd3 Hxd3 19 Hfl
stead of 5...£xa6, the answer is ing his light squares, in particu- 2b8 20 Hbl Wd7 21 RKe3 5
problems. Furthermore, when
given here — it allows Black a lar d3. Black had an excellent position.
the hand-to-hand fighting starts
on the queenside, the white very effective counter against 11 Hel b) 12 §Hd2 Wc7 13 Db3 s
the double fianchetto. This is 10..5b6 has the happy by- 14 h3 Hfb8 15 Wc2 Wb 16
bishop can find itself out of
play on g2. Possibly for these examined in game 8, which also product of setting a neat trap, as Bb1 Hd7 17 Lf4 Hde5 18
reasons, there has been a de- considers White tries based on is revealed after the natural 11 Hecl £c8 19 e4 £d7 20 &hl
cline of interest in the Fi- an early £h3. Zb1?! when Black wins a pawn Korchnoi-Greenfeld, Beersheva
anchetto Variation and the the- with 11..82c4! 12 HHd2 Lxa2 1984. Now 20...Wb4! keeps the
13 HHxa2 HExa2 14 Wb3 Ha8 15 position equal.
ory has not significantly ad- Game 6
vanced over the last ten years or P. Nikolic-Kotronias Wbs+ Hfd7 16 Db3 Ebs 17 12 .. HhS
Wc6 0-0 18 f4 (Black was Black immediately challen-
s0. The main protagonist of the Bled 1991
white side is the grandmaster threatening ...2e5) 18..4c4 19 ges the bishop. Others:
Nal Ha3! 0-1 Saeed-Alburt, a) 12...Ha7!? and now:
from Bosnia-Herzegovina, Pre- 1 d4 96
Taxco IZ 1985. A dramatic and al) 13 h3 Wbs 14 g47! Wb7
drag Nikolic. 2 c4 c5
swift conclusion — Black wins 15 e4 &cd 16 Ebl Hd7 17 Kf1
After the main line sequence 3 ds bS§
of 1d445f62c4c53d5b54 the exchange. P. Nikolic-Milos, Buenos Aires
4 cxbs a6
cxb5 a6 5 bxa6 g6 6 g3 Rg7 7 5 bxa6 g6 0-0 1992. Now with 17..%ce5 18
Kg2 d6 8 D3 Kxa6 9 0-0, 6 g3 Lg7 12 R4 Hxes DixeS 19 He3 Wb4a Black
44 The Fianchetto Variation The Fianchetto Variation 45

could have had a good game. siders to be a concession (i.e. Hxc5 Hbd4 is the point of ready to push forward with eS5.
a2) 13 {d2 Wa8 (by increas- ...h6), White must now form a Black’s combination) 25...8¢c3 Additionally Black, having
ing the pressure against d5, plan to complete his develop- 26 £xa8 Hxa8 27 £d2 Dxbs played ...&c4, cannot now eas-
Black forces the weakening e4) ment. Other ways of doing this 28 Dxbs Wxa2 29 Wxa2 Hxa2 ily use the manoeuvre ...c4 and
14 e4 b8 15 Wc2 Hgd 16 .13 are: 30 £b4 Hed 31 KxeT &3 32 ..@c5-d3.
De5 17 Re2 fxe2 18 Exe2 Nxc3 fLxc3 33 Hel Hxe2 34 16 .. OHfd7
Had 19 Dxad Hxad 20 Lxes Hxc3 Hxe7 h-'2 Gavrikov- 16..&xa2 is the consistent
Kxe5 21 Hcd Lg7 22 a3 Kbba Ernst, Tallinn 1989. follow-up, but then Black badly
23 axb4 Rxal+ 24 &g2 cxbd 15 . fcd misses the light-squared bishop,
with equality, Karolyi-Green- This may well be a mistake eg 17 Dxa2 Hxa2 18 eS!
feld, Budapest 1989. as Black reduces his options by HfxdS 19 e6 (White's earlier
b) 12...%)c4 allows White the eliminating the possibility of bishop manoeuvre — provoking
set-up he is looking for, e.g. 13 ...c4 and ...c5 — an important ..h6 — has bome fruit as the
Wel Was 14 &d2 Hfb8 15 part of his armoury. Preferable kingside light squares are now
Hixcd Kxcd 16 £d2 HHd7 17 b3 is 15..9fd7 leaving White very weak in Black’s camp)
RKab 18 Dad (18 Hed is also slightly stuck for a move, as 19..5b4 20 exf7+ &xf7 21
good, e.g. 18..Wd8 19 Lc3 both 16 a3 and 16 e4 can be £h3 &h7 22 Ke6 WIS 23 Kxf7
Wf8 20 9d2 and White is on successfully countered with Wxf7 24 Hed WdS 25 We2 e5
top, P. Nikolic-Greenfeld, Thes- a) 15 a37! (unless White has 16...c4. 16 Wc2 leads nowhere 26 He3 and Black does not have
saloniki OL 1984) 18..Wds 19 a clear cut follow-up in mind, as 16..%c4 17 a3 Kxd5 18 enough for the exchange, P.
fLc3 W8 20 £h3 £5?! (unless this voluntary weakening of the Hixd5 HixdS 19 Dhd 6 20 Hdl Nikolic-Fedorowicz, Lucerne
this is undermining the pawn on b3-square is rarely a good idea) ATH6 21 ed &7 22 Le3 DbS 1989.
d5 — by attacking a white pawn 15..Ha7 16 Kbl Wa8 17 ed was excellent for Black in van 17 a3
on e4 — this move is usually a Ofd7 18 Wc2 Hca 19 b3 Hees der Sterren-Alterman, Munich It was mentioned earlier that
sign that Black has run out of 20 HxeS DxeS 21 Bd1 Hb8 22 1992, this is not a move White nor-
ideas and is fishing around h3 Hab7 and Black has good 16 ed mally wants to play, as it weak-
speculatively) 21 &g2 &f6 22 play, Cvitan-Milos, Novi Sad ens the b3-square. Here, how-
£b2 c4 23 Rd4 Ded 24 We3 OL 1990. ever, Black is insufficiently
and Black has very little to b) 15 &Hd2!? Wc7 16 &f1 well mobilised to exploit this
show for the pawn, P. Nikolic- Hfb8 17 Wc2 Dga 18 h3 HeS and White can quickly follow
Vaganian, Sarajevo 1987. 19 b3 ¢4 20 £.d2 was unclear in up with b3 and £b2.
13 4g5 hé Obukhov-Poluliakhov, Kuiby- 17 .. La6
14 Sfcl A1 () shev 1990. 18 We2 HNed
Black does best to immedi- c) 15 h3 Wc7 16 Hd2 Rfbs Black would like to play
ately regroup. Instead 14..Eb8
/y -y,

17 Xb1 Wb7 18 b4 (White tries 18...c4, but this exposes holes in

15 Wc2 4 16 Dd2 De5 17 14
&\d7 18 Df3 HHhf6 19 h3 Hes
20 e4 led to White’s advantage
“in van der Sterren-Fedorowicz,
Wijk aan Zee 1989.
15 Hbl
Having forced what he con-
%
to take the initiative on the his position, e.g. 19 Ke3 and
queenside himself — a double- &¥f3-d4-c6 is on the agenda.
edged strategy) 18..cxb4 19 19 Xd1(D)
Hxb4 Wc7 20 Wo3 HEA7 21 19 .. Wa5s?
b5 Kxb5 22 Exb5 &Hc5 23 White does not usually want This is a mistake, based on a
Wc2 Wa7 24 Ded Hxds! 25 to combine g3, £g2 and e4, but tactical oversight. Black could
Sxd6 (25 Hxb8+ Kxb8 26 here he is well developed and limit his disadvantage by
46 The Fianchetto Variation The Fianchetto Variation 47

19...40de5 20 b3!? &Oxf3+ 21 With an extra pawn and an ®e8 65 g5 d5 66 Fed e6 67 to play the move now is that
Kxf3 De5 22 Le2 when White active position White is win- Eh1 &£7 68 Xh6 &£c3+ 69 wf4 Black does not have the reply
is only a little better. ning easily. De2+ 70 g4 Dd4 71 EhT+ ..&c4 at his disposal. If White
27 . Hds g6 72 BT e5 73 £3 £b5 74 waits with, for example, 11 Wc2
28 82hn2 Kxb2 Xd7 1-0. then he has slightly weakened
// ’//E’/ 29 Hxb2 Hxed the defence of d5 and Xb1 can
//&/% Z/ 30 Hd4d Game 7 often run into ...&c4. The only
The black rook is trapped in Van der Sterren-Adams recent practical example of 11
midboard and he is also threat- Hbl was 11...Wa5 12 £.d2 Xfb8
g/ / ened with £c6.
Ter Apel 1992
13 Wc2 Hb6 14 b3 Wa3 15
//%%fi/ | 30 .. Hxd4 1 d4 Hf6 £cl Was5 16 Bd1 £b7 17 &d2
@ / /fi
An unfortunate necessity as 2 cd cS as in the game Gavrikov-Lukov,
) 30..%&xd5 31 Hc6 Kxc6 32 3 ds b5 Moscow 1989. White has the
RBY
bxc6 wins for White. 4 cxb5 a6 advantage, as 17..Wa3? is met
31 Hxd4 &Hbé 5 bxa6 g6 by 18 &b5! Wxa2 19 Xb2.
32 Ea2! b8 6 &He3 £.xa6 11 Xbl is not much consid-
20 bd! cxbd White’s last move enabled 7 & dé ered by other commentators.
Unfortunately for Black, his him to hold on to the d-pawn, as 8§ g3 L7 Fedorowicz does not mention it,
intended 20...xa3 loses to 21 the two variations 32...2xd5 33 9 g2 0-0 while Ravikumar merely sug-
£xa3 Wxa3 22 Hb3. Now a7 and 32...2.xd5 33 Ea6 both 10 00 Hbd7 gests that 11..3b6!? is possi-
White surges forward with gain win for him. ble. My own suggestion is
of time. 33 Ha7 &8 11...2a7!?, planning ... Wa8 and
21 axb4 Whe 34 Qg2 De8 perhaps ..Rb7 with pressure
22 bs £b7 35 ZHal Db6 against d5. Compared with the
23 Had Was 36 Ha Le8 %
variation 11 Wc2 Ha7 (see note
A
24 Wixced4 Efc8 37 En4 £xds to Black’s 11th) the move Ebl
25 Wb3 Wxad 38 Hxh6 a7 does not do much for the White
26 Wxad Exad 9 ZnT Lxg2 %% cause.
A
%/éfi
27 &h3 40 xg2 Db b) 11 h3 Ra7 (this move is
and, with a clear extra ex- often a good response when
change, White is winning eas- White is playing slowly) 12
ily. The remaining moves were: Hel Hb6 13 ed4 DFd7 14 L1
41 Hel+ &f6 42 Ke3 Hf8 43 £.xf1 15 xfl (this manoeuvre
2f3+ Le6 44 Bg7 Hd7 45 Ah7 11 We2 rather defeats the object of
&6 46 Xha Hb8 47 Re3+ &d7 This is, by far, the most playing the fianchetto variation)
48 Ha4 Hb7 49 b3 &d5 50 15..Wa8 16 Wc2 Hb8 17 Re2
//
popular move, but others are
Rd4 Peb6 51 hd f5 52 Kad Rd7 possible: Ha4 18 Dxad Bxad 19 a3 Wab
/%/ 53 Ra8 &e6 54 Kf8 de5
b1 Le6 56 Hel+ &d7 57 Hgs
55 a) 11 Kbl is, in my opinion,
an underrated move. The point
20 g2 c4 and Black stands
well, Whiteley-Wilder, London
Exb5 58 Exg6 Kb8 59 h5 Xh8 is to play b3 next move and 1987.
60 Hg5 &6 61 Hxf5 Exh5 62 then &b2 with a very solid c) 11 Hel Wb6 12 h3 Rfb8
HxhS5 Dxh5 63 wf3 96 64 g4 queenside position. The reason 13 Xb1 &e8 14 Wc2
48 The Fianchetto Variation The Fianchetto Variation 49

£L.xd5 18 Kh6 16 19 Wdl Lxed fg7 21 Lf1 and White is pre- c) 11..Ha7 12 Xd1 Was8
20 Hxed Wxed 21 HHg5 Wd4 22 paring £bS with a bind on the
K45+ &h8 23 Of7+ wg8 24 queenside, Stohl-Vaganian, Ma-
=0
x W

Axd6+ Lh8 25 DT+ g8 26

&\ H" I
nila IZ 1990.
Dg5+ e6 27 Kxe6+ Lhg 28

W
Df7+ g8 29 De5+
Df7+ '-42) 12 Ebl (12 Wel
wh8 30
Al
Hfb8 13 b3 Ha7 14 Xbl De8 15
£h3 Wb7 16 Rel 53b6 17 2g2
£xc3 18 Wxc3 Hxd5 19 Wd2
O&

Dxfa 20 Wxf4 Wa7 21 Dgs

:

W5 22 Wd2 &b7 23 ed W6
N

7 %,
0

White’s play has been some-

with an excellent position for
Black was the game N. Nikolic- ,/ '
7 1y L, 7

what slow and now Black can Petronic, Novi Sad
successfully initiate tactical 12..Wb7 (Black’s plan of pres-
complications with the aggres- surising the d5-pawn doesn’t
sive 14...£c4 (14..4c7, on the work out well here as he is al-
other hand, is unimpressive, e.g. ways running into problems on
15 .d2 Rc4? 16 Wed L xa2 17 the long diagonal — this is one
Hxa2 Hxa2 18 Wxe7 De5 19 of the attractions of opting for
Dixe5 L.xe5 20 Kc3 Kg7 21 e4 the set-up with ..Ha7) 13 Hel
and White is a pawn ahead for fKcd 14 b3 KxdS 15 HxdS
nothing, Szilagyi-Tatai, Bala- Wxd5 16 £d2 WhS
tonbereny 1985) 15 &d2 K xa2 Hxa8 18 a4 e5 19 Ke3
16 Ral Rxc3 17 bxc3 &£xd5 18 (Black has fair . practical
Zbi Wc6 19 e4 Keb 20 5 d5 chances for the exchange, but
21 Hxb8 Xxb8 and Black stands White should be better) 20 {3
very well, Speelman-Watson, He8 21 £12 e4 22 fxed dxed 23
London 1985. &f1 He5 24 Wc2 Wh3 25 &xc5
d) 11 Lf4 is an attempt to Hc8 26 b4 L8 27 a5 W5
play as Nikolic did in the previ- Hecl ©fgd 29 a6 Kxc5+ 30
ous game. There is little practi- bxc5 W2+ 31 &hl WES 32 a7
cal experience with this move, %6 33 Wa4 e3 1-0 Lalic-
but Fedorowicz likes it and Wilder, Saint John 1988.
awards it an exclamation mark. 1m . Was (D)
Practical play has seen 11...Wb6 Others:
(11...Ka7 led to the following a) 11...2g4 is not really rele-
complications in Spraggett- vant, e.g, 12 Bd1 Wc7 13 &d2
Mohr, Zagreb 1993: 12 h3 Wa8 Zfbs 14 Habl Wa7 15 h3 Hges
13 Hel Xb8 14 b3 £b7 15 e4 16 Dxe5 KxeS 17 b3 £d4 18
Dxed 16 Hixed fxal 17 Wxal Lel Eb7 19 a4 Hab8 20 e3
1988) (this is a reasonable plan but
not as effective as in some ear-
lier positions, as here White has
b) 11..Wb6 12 Hbl Efbs 13 already brought extra protection
Hd1 De4 14 L.g5 (14 K42 Hc8 to his d-pawn) 13 h3 (White
15 h3 &geS 16 Hxe5 Dxe5 17 wants to advance with e4 with-
b3 Wbd 18 a4 WasS 19 Kel out allowing the manoeuvre
Habs 20 ¥h2 Wc7 21 4 Dd7 ..Dga-e5 in reply) 13..8c4!?
22 e4 and, once again, Black (this move backfires, so Black
17 fxa8 has little for the pawn, Manor- should consider the alternatives:
d5 Maus, Lyon 1990) 14..¥d8 15 13..5b8 or 13...0b6 14 e4 Lb7
h3 (15 a3? voluntarily weakens 15 Hel Hc8 16 h2 Hfd7 17
the queenside for no good rea- f4 Had 18 HF3 Hixc3 19 bxc3
son, e.g. 15..h6 16 £d2 Dge5 Ob6 20 DHgl Has 21 Kd2
17 HHxe5 &xeS 18 bd cxbd 19 Ka6! 22 Wxad £d3 23 Wxa7
axbd &\c4 and Black has quite Wxa7 24 a4 b8 25 a5 Kb5 26
28 reasonable play on the queen- a6 Hb6 27 Kel Exa6 28 Racl
side, Buckley-Gokhale, Oak- ¢4 0-1 Rasmussen-Steinfl, Lu-
ham 1992) 15...&0ge5 16 DxeS gano 1989) 14 a3! Jb8 (Black
Hxe5 17 b3 Ka7 18 £d42 Was is unable to capture on d5 —
19 Hed Wa3 20 L¢3 Lc821 4 14..Hxd5? 15 2 wins, as
Nd7 22 Kxg? Exg? 23 A3 does 14..£xd5? 15 @xd5
2b4 24 &h2 LgB 25 e4 ¢4 26 Hxd5 16 Hd2! with Hc4 next -
Md4 Ra6 27 Wcl Was 28 We3 and so his plan his failed) 15
D5 29 e5 Ha8 30 exd6 exd6 Hd2 £a6 16 b3! and White has
31 f5 with a significant advan- a clear advantage, Barbero-
tage, P. Nikolic-Adams, New Fedorowicz, Montpellier 1987.
York (Rapidplay) 1994. 12 Hdi
50 The Fianchetto Variation The Fianchetto Variation 51

12 £4d2 is a sensible alterna-
tive, e.g. 12..2fb8
14 Hfel Wb6 (14..4c7 15 b3
b5 16 HxbS WxbS 17 L¢3
fxc3 18 Wxc3 Ha7 19 ¢4 £6 20
h4 with the initiative, Ilincic-
Pavlovic, Borovo 1991) 15
Habl &c7 16 b3 £b7 17 ed €6
18 dxe6 &ixe6 19 £d5 with an
edge, Ilincic-Boric, Pula 1991.
12 e
after 30...Wc5 31 Lc6 Ral+ 32
13 h3 QDe8 &g2 Wa7) 31 f£c6 Hal+ 32
g2 Ha7 33 ha W8 34 b6 b7
35 f.xb7 Wxb7 36 Wbs Wb8 37
b7 e6 38 Wd7 £a7 39 Wcs+
1-0.
b) 12..Kfb8 13 b3 Hb7 14
2b1 De8 15 £d2 Wd8 16 Kel
7 17 £1 Haa7 18 a4 Hb8 19
e4 Wc8 20 Rh3 Hes 21 Hd2
AT Wd8 22 Kfl De5 23 Kxab
square. However, with Black’s For example 26 Wcl Wa2! 27
bishop coming to b7, this is an Kd3 £xh3 and wins. The
unrealistic hope and the ad- problem with grabbing a large
vance of the a-pawn only weak- territory for yourself is that you
ens White’s queenside. Better need a large army to defend it.
was 18 f4 and now if 18..8d7, After the exchange of a few
19 &h2 and White is well pieces the advanced points can
placed to continue with a4 and simply become weaknesses.
ed, so better is 18...c4+ 19 &@h2
D7 20 bxed Wa6 21 ExbS
Bxb8 22 &b5 and, although
//,Q;"’//1

Exa6 24 &g2 06 25 b5 Wd7 White now has two extra 47

26 h3 was Smejkal-Zsu. Polgar pawns, Black can keep the dis- 4//’
Baden Baden 1985. This game advantage to a minimum with
is a model demonstration by 22...5)b6.
White who has achieved the 18 Lf15! %Efi/&/;f/
optimum set-up on the queen- 19 ed 247 7

///»M//'/ 7
e
side and is preparing to advance 20 Re3
with f4 on the other wing. Although Black has elimi-
13 ad2 a8 nated all the retreat squares
14 b3 Wheé from his central knight, White
15 h3 Hges is unable to capitalise, e.g. 20 26 .. Kxad
16 &Hxe5 Hxes 4?7 c4+ 21 &h2 cxb3 and Black 27 Kd3
17 Habl £c8 wins; 20 £h2 c4 21 bxcd Wxf2 27 Hcl £b2 28 Hel £b3 29
White probably stands a little with very good counterplay; or £d2 Ha4 30 bl £d4+ and the
better here. Other examples: finally, 20 Rel!? c4! 21 bxc4 c4-pawn falls.
a) 12..9b6 led to very 21 b4 @d?a) 21..Wc5 and 27 . £b3
complicated play in Forintos- Black again has good play. 28 M2 £a2!
Browne, Skopje 1970. After 13 20 Was 29 Eel £b2
Zb1 N4 14 Hd2 HA7 15 Lh3 21 f4 Ded! 30 HEc2 £b1
&\db6 16 a3 Dxd2 17 b4 Hxbl - 22 bxcd £xc3 31 Ea2 £xd3
18 Wxbl Hxd5 19 Hxd5 cxbd Now the pawn at a4 is 32 Hxd3 Excd
20 axb4 Wd8 21 Rg5 Hed 22 doomed and the one on c4 will With an extra pawn and ac-
b5 &b7 23 e4 White had good also be very vulnerable. tive pieces, Black is winning
play for the exchange. The 23 Hxb8+ Hxh8 easily.
game continued in complex 24 Hbl Hbdl (D) 33 XEb3 Eb4
fashion: 23...&xd5 24 exd5 Kal 25 211 34 Hxb4 cxbhd
25 Wd3 Hxdi+ 26 Wxdl Wb6 18 a4?! 25 Exb4 cxb4 wins for Black. 35 &e2 b3
27 £d7 Ha8 28 We2 £f6 29 White has an edge, but this 25 .. Wxad! 36 &d3 £16
fe3 £d4 30 £h6 Wd8 (this move is misguided. White is 26 Wxad White cannot challenge the
retreat looks like a mistake — hoping to bring his knight to b5 Suddenly White seems to be b3-pawn as if he plays Re3-d2-
Black would surely be winning and consolidate it on this vulnerable all over the board. ¢3, then ...b2 wins. Therefore he
52 The Fianchetto Variation The Fianchetto Variation 53

cannot defend against the Black this, but there is no need for dxe6 fxe6 12 f3 @xed! in his York 1987.
plan of bringing his king up to Black to allow this, as 5...g6 has book on the Benko Gambit, a 6 . deé
a4. no disadvantages over 5...8.xa6 book in which Messieur Mar- Black can also play 6..8.g7
and allows him to counter the chand would have been well when play will transpose back
/& double fianchetto very effec-
tively. The lines here are so
advised to invest a few Francs,
eg. 13 fxg7 &xg7 14 fxed
into the game unless White tries
Suba’s ambitious 7 d6.
/ %
41/
%
strong for Black that systems Wfe 15 Wxd7+ Zf7 16 Wd2
/%
it
with b3 have all but disappeared fxed 17 Hf3 Wxal 18 0-0
from top-class tournament play. Sxbl 19 Wd1 Haf8 20 Wd6
6 g3 Bxf3 21 £xf3 Wda+ 22 Wxdd+
cxd4 23 Hxbl Exf3 24 b4 d3 25 im j irait
0,
/// ////
/,
b5 &Hc5 26 b6 Ef8 winning,
Marchand-Stomer,
11..exd5 12 exdS
£xd5 14 £xdS Hbxds 15 0-0
Paris
&b4
1989)
13 a3 .
37 f5 18
He8 16 Hd2 and Black has a
great position. Schienman-
X i //
// |
38 g4 Fe8 Marinkovic, Biel 1989 con- . Gl =he=AnK -
39 ad2 &d7 cluded 16..We7 17 Hel Ha6 18
40 Ras g5 N3 He6 19 Hc3 HExel+ 20 7...0-0 (7.. WaS5+ is risky, e.g.
41 L4d2 LT Wxel Wd8 21 Wd2 Hxc3 22 8 Ld2 Wxa6 9 dxe7 Wb7 10
42 el hé Wxc3 Be2 23 Dd2 He8 24 Wel Df3 Ded 11 Hc3 Wxb2 12
43 Kd2 &b7 £xb2 25 Wxb2 We5 26 Edl Hxed Wxal 13 Dd6+ wxe7 14
The king will simply advance The main point of playing Wf5 27 Bf1 Wd3 28 Edl &£d6 &5+ e6 15 Kh3+ £5 16 0-0
to a2. 5...g6 instead of 5..&xa6 is to 29 a4 W5 0-1. Wxd1 17 xd1 and White had a-
0-1 counter the Double Fianchetto b) 10 £Hh3 e6 11 Df4 Hxds strong attack against the ex-
variation by White. After 5...g6, 12 fxg7 xg7 13 Hxd5 KxdS posed king, Suba-Pasman, Beer
Game 8 if White is persistent, he can 14 £xd5 exd5 15 0-0 (15 Sheva 1984) 8 £.g2 Hxa6 9 Rf4
Formanek-Conquest easily run into trouble: 6 b3 Wxds? W6 is not a great idea (9 dxe7 Wxe7 10 Dh3 d5 11
Hastings 1985 g7 7 £b2 0-0 8 g3 Hxab. for White and so Black has won 0-0 Bd8 12 £g5 h6 13 Lxf6
This is the key to Black’s play. his pawn back with an excellent Sxf6 14 &)c3 d4 15 Ded Kg7
1 d4 of6 The knight can swiftly come to position) 15...d4 16 a3 h5 17 16 &f4 c4 with tremendous
2 ¢4 5 b4 and place a great deal of Wd3 h4 18 &Hd2 hxg3 19 hxg3 compensation for the pawn,
3 45 b5 pressure on the white centre, W5 20 D3 Wed 21 g2 DT Dieu-Lazarev, Cannes 1992)
4 cxbs a6 e.g. 9 g2 Kb7 and now: 22 Eh1 He6 23 Wd2 g5 24 Hh2 9..5\c6 10 dxe7 Hxe7 11 £d6
5 bxa6 g6() a) 10 e4 e6 (10..WaS5+ 11 Wed+ 25 £3 WS 26 Hgd Xh8 &Hfd5 12 &xd5 Hxd6 13 Kxf7+
After 5..8xa6 6 g3 g6 7 £.g2 £c3 b4 as in Lputian- 27 a4 d5 28 Wa2 Hae8 29 Wd2 Exf7 14 Wxd6 £xb2 15 Dd2
d6 8 b3(!), White safely enters Bykhovsky, Irkutsk 1983 is also c4 30 a5 c3 31 Wd1 Hxhl 32 £xal 16 Wxc5 £b7 17 Hgf3
the Double Fianchetto Variation good for Black but the text is so Wxh1 Eh8 33 Wbl c2 34 Wgl &S and Black is a piece up for
and has good chances to obtain strong that there is little need to Hc8 35 a6 d3 36 exd3 Wxd3 37 very little, Fant-Hartvig, Lyng-
the advantage. There have been look elsewhere) 11 He2 (Fed- a7 d4 38 We3 Wxe3 39 Dxel by 1988.
many games that started like orowicz points out the trap 11 Hxb3 0-1 Csom-Alburt, New 7 RKg2
54 The Fianchetto Variation The Fianchetto Variation 55

White can also insist on a &xf3 0-1 Pavlovic-Georgadze, normally has at its disposal. fel Ha3 21 De2 RKxe2 22
double fianchetto set-up, but Lugano 1985; or 11 3 £b4 12 Practice has seen: 9...8xa6 10 Wxe2 Wa7 23 Bc2 Ha8 24 £h3
this is still an insipid choice, ed xed! 13 fxed Lxb2) 0-0 Wb6 11 Hel (11 HDd2 Hc7 NeS 25 Hbcl Hxa2 26 g2
eg. 7b3 £g7 8 £b2 &Hxa6 9 11..80b4 12 &fl (12 e4 Dxed! 12 Hb1 &d7 13 We2 £a6 14 a3 Wa6 27 Wad2 Rxc2 28 Xxc2
£g2 0-0 (9..815!?, preventing 13 &xed4 £.xb2 14 Ebl Hxa2!) Hfb8 15 Hel Wb7 16 b3 fxc3 Wd3 29 Wxd3 DHxd3 30 Kc3
10 ed4, may be even stronger) 12..Wa5 13 Of3 Led 14 Dad 17 Wxc3 HHxd5 18 We2 £b5 19 Ha3 31 &f1 Ab4 32 Lxb4 cxb4
gives us the same position as in £xd5 15 &g5 h6 16 £xdS e4 9c720 £b2 L.c6 21 b4 Lad 33 £d7 Exb3 34 Pe2 Ha3 35
the note to White’s 6th, except Hbxds 17 Df3 Hfb8 18 &c3 22 Wc3 e5 23 We3 cxb4 24 Ec8+ g7 36 Hb8 b3 37 g4 b2
that here Black has played ...d6 Axc3 19 Wxc3 Wxe3 20 Kxc3 axb4 Wa7 25 Wxa7 Hxa7 with 38 gxh5 Hal 39 &d3 £f6 0-1
instead of ...&b7. This position Ded 21 Lxg7 dxg? 22 g2 an equal position was seen in L. Efimov-Erdelyi, Lenk 1991. An
is fully satisfactory for Black: Ne3 23 Dd2 Hxa2 with a win- B. Hansen-P. Cramling, Biel instructive game by Black.
a) 10 a3 &c7 11 &c3 4b7 12 ning endgame for Black, Spa- Mixed 1991) 11..&gd4! 12 h3
Ha2 (such contortions are nec- cek-Mainka, Luxembourg 1988. He5 13 Dd2 (13 Dxe5 &xe5 #

essary to deal with the problems This is a good illustration of 14 2h6 Wxb2!) 13..0c7 14 f4
on the al-h8 diagonal) 12...Ha7 Black’s possibilities in this Nd7 15 a4 La6 16 Lh2 Habs 181
7%

13 h4 Wa8 14 e4 e6 15 Hge2 variation. 17 a3 c4! 18 Wc2 D5 19 iy /‘//

f

/ // /
exd5 16 exdS &exdS 17 b5 ¢) 10 e4 WaS+ (if Black is Hd1l Wbda! 20 He3 Hb3 21
Qe3 and White’s position is unhappy with the complications Hexcd with complex play, Hu-
falling apart, Kaiser-Wegner, after this move, then an alterna- lak-Alterman, Zagreb Z 1993. / % /
///////
Bundesliga 1987. tive plan is ...2c7, ..&b7 and b) 8 £d2 is an attempt to ‘i
b) 10 Wd2 &f5 ...e6 or, alternatively, 9..&f5,
as mentioned above) 11 £.¢3
play a double fianchetto without
running into problems on the
¢ /fi;’/fi”
b4 12 a3 Dfxds 13 exd5 Kf5 long diagonal. As usual, Black ) /
14 £xg7 Lxg7 15 &fl &2 16 does best to capture with the
B Ha2 Wbs+ 17 He2 Wxb3 18 knight on a6, e.g. 8...0-0 9 £¢3
%//
21% &Abe3 Had 19 h3 Efa8 with un-
clear play, Campos-Alburt, San-
Hxa6 10 Hh3 b4 and now, as An aggressively inclined
Fedorowicz points out, 11 White might try to prise open
tiago 1981. £xb4 cxb4 12 0-0 &xh3 13 the h-file with 9 §c3 Hxa6 10
7 . f.g7 £xh3 EHas! 14 £g2 &Hxd5 15 &4 &c7 11 ha
8 &Hh3 £xd5 £xb2 is good for Black,
Others: while if 11 £xf6 £xf6 12 Ac3
a) 8 &c3 0-0 9 HHf3 gives Black has the two bishops and
Black the option of transposing chances for long-term pressure
directly back to the Fianchetto against the white position.
with a very active position Variation. However, Black can 8 . 0-0 (D)
for Black. It is White who is also experiment with 9...%)xa6!? 8...4)xa6 is again quite play-
struggling to equalise, e.g. 11 — a quite reasonable idea as the able, e.g. 9 ©)f4 0-0 10 h4 h5 11
He3 (11 D3 b4l 12 0-0 bishop can get in the way on a6 Ac3 Who 12 0-0 &7 13 We2
&Hc2 13 Hhd Hixal 14 HDxf5 and is often regrouped to c8 RK15! 14 e4 fcB 15 Rd2 Lab
&xb3 15 axb3 gxf5 16 Wg5 h6 anyway. This set-up also allows 16 Rfcl &g4 17 Rabl &Hb5 18
17 Wxfs Wd7 18 Wf3 Ha2 19 the black queen’s knight to &xb5 Lxb5 (White’s position
&c3 Wgds 20 HA2 Wxf3 21 come to c¢7 — not a square it is very exposed) 19 b3 £d4 20
56 The Fianchetto Variation The Fianchetto Variation 57

but it is difficult to see this much in the spirit of the Benko 25 Hdi £xd1 plays as in game 7, but the re-
causing Black much trouble Gambit. Black plans to jettison 26 Wxdl Hcs sulting positions are well suited
when the rest of the board is a further pawn to open up lines to the Benko player, as Adams
27 e4 fxed
split wide open, e.g. 11..Hb8 for his pieces.
28 fe3 Exd5 demonstrated. One reason why
(11..h5 is also perfectly good 12 &a3 b4 29 Wad Wbs these lines are not so popular
because, as we say in Efimov- 13 Hxed Kab 0-1 any more is that even if White
Erdelyi, the gd-square can be 14 Wxgd Rxcd gets the advantage, it is often a
more of a problem for White 15 X2 aod3 very hard slog to convert this to
Summary
than the g5-square is for Black) 16 ERd2 Whe a victory.
9...%bd7 and 10...2)b6 (game 6)
12 h5 &b5 13 hxg6 hxg6 14 The White position is riddled The double fianchetto is, if
seems slightly more promising
Ded Kf5 15 Dxfe+ exf6! (the with weaknesses and the black than 9...0-0 (game 7). Game 6 anything, better for Black, while
e-file is a useful source of pieces are ready to invade. was promising for White once lines with £h3 hold no prob-
counterplay) 16 e4 He8 17 f3 17 ¥ Hfc8 he had played 16 e4, but Black lems for Black. The early
Kd7 18 g4 £5 19 gxf5 Lxf5 20 18 O el had plenty of chances to im- variations from game 8 are well
De2 &d4 and Black is in prove earlier, such as 12..Ha7 worth close study as they give a
charge, Gurgenidze-Georgadze, good indication of the dynamic
or 15..5Mfd7.
USSR 1983. White can probably count on opportunities available to Black
9 .. Dxab a slight theoretical edge if Black in the Benko.
10 147!
This is very weakening. 10
Of4 is much better. Bukic-
Bogdanovic, Yugoslavia 1973
continued 10..Wb6 11 &a3
Hba 12 £d2 Dga 13 h3 Des
14 £c3 £47 15 Wd2 Efb8 and
Black had good counterplay.
10 .. dgd
11 €3 c4! An unusual outpost for a
black knight, but a very effec-
tive one nonetheless.
19 Wed Hxa2
This is played not so much to
regain a pawn as to seriously
weaken White’s back rank.
20 BExa2 Lxa2
21 Ed1 Hxg2
22 &xg2 kb3
Black forces the win by
combining threats against cl
and d5.
23 Zn Wh7
This is an excellent move and 24 Wi f5
 The Modern Line: 5 e3 g6 59

£b2 —~ White gets into some-

3 The Modern Line: 5e3 g6
When the variation with 5 e3
first came to light it was, for a
while, considered almost to be a
death-blow for the Benko Gam-
bit. White’s plan is to maintain
the extra pawn whilst stifling
Black’s queenside counterplay
with moves such as a4, 9b3
and a3,
The early attempts to counter
this system consisted of normal
Benko moves such as ..d6,
..bd7, .. Wa5 and ...Ra6 and
they all failed hopelessly. The
White structure on the queen-
thing of a tangle after this, so
perhaps better was the more
straightforward move 16 bl -
16..5d7 17 Hga Wa5 18 H)da
HeS5 19 Kh4 £f6 20 Xh3 W4
21 Kal 9cd 22 Kkgd Rfe8 23
N2 Wb3 24 Had Txad 25
play. The drawback of delaying 2xf6 De4 26 DHd4 Wxdl 27
e4 is that the white d-pawn
temporarily lacks protection and
so why not attack it at the earli-
fi’f
.;. V//
£xd1 Hal 28 Lh4 Hcd2 29
Hb3 Bxdl 0-1 Leitao-Gershon,
Bratislava 1993)
est opportunity? This is the
strategy that we examine in this This is by far the most popu-
chapter. lar move but others are worthy 35”, H
The main line of this varia-
tion occurs after 1 d4 96 2 c4
of consideration. Note espe- // %,I///
cially 9 Hbi!? which is little
c53d5b54cxb5a65e3g66 tested but causes difficult
A3 Rg7 7 D3 0-0 8 ad Kb7. problems for Black. / f’// ///
/////,/,,/ 7
é//,/
Black now intends ..e6 and a) 9 Ebl1!? (the purpose of
White’s various plans to deal this move is to play b4 at a later
with this are examined in game date, exchanging the rather 7y,
9. In game 10, Black adopts the useless b2-pawn for the well-
/ / (7

side quickly becomes very se- slightly dubious strategy of placed black one on c5 while
cure and it is almost impossible 8..d6, while in game 11 we also clearing a route for the
for Black to generate meaning- consider various alternative de- white knight to get to c6) 9...e6 15 &)d4 We7 16 e4 Dxed 17
ful play there. velopments (mainly for White) (as this has not proved terribly Hxed dxed 18 Hc6 Lxc6 19
Fortunately, all was not lost at earlier stages. successful, Black players are bxc6 De5 20 Wc2 (this leads to
and the Black players soon de- well advised to investigate Fe- a small edge for White but
veloped alternative strategies of Game 9 dorowicz’s untried suggestion maybe the more ambitious 20
counter-attack. One of these, Petursson-Fedorowicz of 9..axb5 10 axb5 Wa5 after b5, gaining connected passed
5..axb5 6 £xb5 Wa5+ is con- Reykjavik 1990 which he analyses 11 £d2 Wb6 pawns on the queenside, would
sidered in the next chapter. 12 e4 e6 13 dxe6 fxe6 14 £.d3 have better) 20...%)xc6 21 Wxed
However, continuing the normal 1 d4 Df6 d5 15 exd5 exd5S 16 0-0 &bd7 Hxb4 22 £xc4 Ph8 23 Kd2
Benko strategy with 5..g6 is 2 cS as leading to an unclear posi- and White is a little better, Gli-
also playable but, in that case, 3 d5 bs tion) 10 dxe6 fxe6 11 Le2 (D) goric-Raicevic, Yugoslav Ch.
Black is well advised to launch 4 c¢xbs a6 and now: 1984.
a quick central counter-attack 5 e3 g6 al) 11...axb5 12 axb5 d5 13 al2) 13..We7 holding up b4
with ...e6, rather than concen- 6 &3 207 0-0 and we have the following is a very logical move. In Flear-
trating his efforts on one- 7 93 0-0 further split: Mainka, Polanica Zdroj 1992
dimensional queenside play. 8 ad Kb7 all) 13..9bd7 14 b4 c4 White continued with simple
This is a quite logical way to 9 Hal (14..cxb4 15 Hxbd Dc5 16 development 14 &d2
60 The Modern Line: 5 ¢3 g6
22Y QD
N
>
NS \‘@\:‘SN
[
Lo\
\\\\&
a
\
14..e5 (this seems rather
hasty — White cannot immedi-
ately improve his position, so
why not wait a move with
14..5bd7?) 15 e4 d4 16 Lca+
Ph8 17 ©d5 Hxd5 18 exds
ad7 19 g5 b6 20 d6 Wxd6
21 &7+ Hxf7 22 &xf7 Wd7 23
Wh3 Hd5 24 £xdS Lxd5 25
Wg3 c4 26 Hal Hes 27 Has
Kb7 28 3 Wc7
30 hl Wcs 31
b6 Wc6 33 Xa7 hs 34 Wg5 &h7
35 Exb7 Wxb7 36 Za7 1-0.
a2) 11..d5 12 0-0 &8
Wc2 Nd6 14 ed! d4 15 e5 £.xf3
16 £.xf3 Exf3 17 exd6! Xf5 18
Wed 547 19 Wxe6+ Fh8 20
De4 Re5 21 Wgd axb5 22 axbs
We8 23 g5 )16 24 Wh3 c4 25
£42 Ef5 26 Hfel Wxbs5 27
De6 and White is in complete
control, Lukacs-Leko, Budapest
1993,
b) 9 .4 provides a target for
the black knight, e.g. 9...%e8 10
0-0 2d6 11 bxa6 Hxa6 12 Le2
f5 (12.%5c7 13 e4 £xc3 14
bxc3 Dxed 15 c4 Hc3 16 We2
Dxe2+ 17 Wxe2 L6 18 Wed
De8 19 £h6 Hd6 with ap-
proximate equality, I. Ivanov-
Hartman, Canada Ch. 1985) 13
b5 Wb8 14 £d2 £xd5
S.c3 e6 16 Dxd6 -1 Gulko-
Kishnev, Moscow 1984.
¢) 9 bxa6 Hxa6 10 Lc4d e6
R
(this central break is not very
successful and so better
RW
- KE
10..2%e8 11 0-0 £)d6 transpos-
ing into the note above) 11 0-0
o
H\b4 12 e4 exd5 13 exdS Ra6
14 Rxa6 Hxa6 15 Le3 d6 16
Wd2 Wa8 17 Hadl and Black
does not have a lot to show for
his pawn, Miles-Sax, Wijk aan
Zee 1981,
9 .. axb5s
In his excellent book on the
Benko Gambit, Fedorowicz dis-
misses this as weaker than 9...e6
on account of the variation 10
29 Hfal Wbs Sxb5 e6 11 dxe6 fxe6 12 Wd6
Wg4 Wds 32 Ded 13 Hxed Lxed 14 0-0
which he analyses as good for
White. However, as we
13 see, Black does not need to play
12...2e4. Other moves, such as
12..Wc8 or 12.%xf3, will
most likely transpose back into
the main lines. One advantage
of making the capture on b$
immediately is that White’s op-
tions are cut down. He cannot
recapture with the knight (the d-
pawn would be loose), which is
a useful option in other varia-
tions, while 10 axb5 Hxa3 11
bxa3 Wa5 is fully satisfactory
for Black. The only real draw-
back of 9..axb5 is that Black
The Modern Line: 5e3 g6 61
loses the chance to try to con Hxg7 25 Hfcl Wd7 26 bxed
White out of a tempo — see line Hxad 27 &d4 1-0 Fedorowicz-
‘all’ below. Kohlweyer, Dortmund 1986)
After 9...e6 we have: Here White now has the further
15 options:
all) 13 &xb5?! (White has
now made two moves with his
bishop and thus loses a tempo
174y,
over the main game) 13..Qe8
is .
14 Wg3 £xf3 15 gxf3 (the main
line is fine for Black anyway —
now, with the extra tempo, he
W
///,. has all the chances) 15...%)c6 16
0-0 Des (16...d5 17 Edl cd is a
~\\\\¥
less promising plan, e.g. 18
N\
He2 Des5 19 Dd4 HHd6 20 Hc3
Hxb5 21 axbs Wd7 22 Wh3
a) 10 dxe6 fxe6 and now 11 \d3 23 b3 Ha2 24 Rd2 Hf4 25
Wd6 is undoubtedly the best exf4 fxd4 26 bxcd Hxd2 27
move. Unless he wants to sacri- Hxd2 £xc3 28 Kxd5 Wc8 29
fice further material, Black will Hd6 Wxc4 30 b6 Wcs 31 Hxe6
be forced to waste time with £.d4 32 g2 Wc2 33 Wha Wf5
..e8 and ... Wc8 to expel the 34 Hd6 fc5 35 Hc6 Rb8 36
white queen. White will lose a Hc7 h5 37 b7 £d46 38 Hc8+
tempo retreating the queen, but &g7 39 Wd8 Wxf4 40 Wh8+
f7 41 We8+ g7 42 Wh8+
the time lost by Black regroup-
shall ing his pieces is more signifi- -1/ Hertneck-Mainka, Bun-
cant. desliga 1992) 17 Re2 d5 18
al) 11..Wc8 12 Re2 axb5 £.d42 &d6 19 b3 &5 20 Wh3
(not 12..5e8 13 Wg3 axb5 14 g5 21 Ha2 Xf6 22 Hcl HAhé 23
&xb5 — this is an important les- Wg2 Hha 24 Wg3 W 25 f4
son: White takes the chance to gxfd 26 exfs Hg6 27 fxeS Lxes5
28 f4 £d4+ 29 &hl Hxg3 30
recapture on b5 with the knight
hxg3 &f5 0-1 was the game
and thus prevent his kingside
pawns from being broken up. It Martin del Campo-Fedorowicz,
is much more difficult for Black Mexico City 1991.
to obtain counterplay when the al2) 13 axb5! (this is the
white kingside is intact - 14...d5 drawback of delaying the cap-
15 0-0 Hc6 16 b3 De7 17 Ra2 ture on b5 — now White takes
the chance to recapture with the
5 18 Wh3 e5 19 &a3 e4 20
Hh4 Hf6 21 Hc2 c4 22 b2 a-pawn as, after an exchange of
Rf7 23 DxfS gxf5S 24 Lxg? rooks on a3, the black queen
62 The Modern Line: 5 e3 g6 The Modern Line: 5 e3 g6 63

can no longer hop out to a5) bl) 10...22d5 11 Hed axb5 12

HxcS b4 13 Hd3 Rcb 14 Hd4
", Wb6 Bass-Benjamin, New York
//
/ / / 1983. Fedorowicz suggests in-
///é///g/,,
}/ stead 14..Wa5 15 Hdb3
and Black has counterplay.
Wa7

%%//4. 5%,

%/% b2) 10..axb5 11 Kxb5 &c6

“w '/
//% 7 12 0-0 Db4 13 He5 Ha7 14 3
£a8 15 Hd3 Hxd3 16 Wxd3
Ty %z R
P /]
//g//
N wn
&e8 17 fc4 and Black has lit-
tle play, Finegold-Hebden, Has-
tings 1988.
10 R&xb5
0-1 Kir. Georgiev-Rogers, 1-0 Plaskett-Popovych, Gaus- As mentioned earlier, 10
13..9e8 14 Wd2 d5 15 Exa8 Biel 1Z 1993. After 27 ¥xg2 dal 1985. A geometrically at- axb5 Hxa3 11 bxa3 Wa5 is fine
Kxa8 16 0-0 (Black has some Bxf2+ 28 Exf2 Wg3+ White is tractive finish. for Black.
counterplay for the pawn, but mated. a3) 11..&xf3 12 gxf3 Wc8 10 .. e6
the lines where the white king- a2) 11...Xe8!? (this plans to (this is an interesting move or- 11 dxe6 fxe6
side is broken up - after ...&xf3 continue with ...&f8 and ...d5) der) 13 f4 (this is probably best 12 Wde6
— are more convincing for 12 Wxc5 (this exchange sacri- as 13 Ke2 axb5 looks fine for
Black) 16..2)d7 (16..Wb7?! 17 fice is almost certainly the best Black) 13..2e8 14 Wdl axbs
b3 Dd7 18 Ka3 Hc7 19 Had reply for White as if Black is 15 £xb5 &Hc7 (15..%8¢c6 and
Efiyfygfi
/%/%/m£
Hxb5 20 Dxc5 Dxc5 21 Lxcs allowed to carry out his plan, he ..d5 immediately is a more %
Hc8 22 b4 e5 23 Hal Wc6 24 will have a good position) conventional plan and looks
£xb5 Wxbs 25 Exa8 1-0, 12.. .88 13 Wd4 Kxa3 14 bxa3 better as the e8-knight is most
d6 15 Rc4 &g7 16 0-0 e5 17 effectively placed on f6) 16
//////,//
Schiissler-Zso. Polgar, Vejstrup
1989) 17 b3 Hef6 18 &b2 (18 Wd2 Wcs 18 Ke2 d5 19 £b2 Ke2 d5 17 hd &6 18 h5 De7
Ra3 and Dad, as in Schiissler- @bd7 20 Hcl (White has good 19 hxg6 hxgé 20 e4 Wb7 21
Zso. Polgar, comes into consid- play for his minor material in- b5 c4 22 Kgd a6 23 Dxc7
eration) 18...e5 19 Had Wb8 20 vestment — the rest of the game Wxc7 24 exdS exd5 25 We2
Wc2 Ded 21 Hd2 Hxd2 22 was entertaining) 20..Wb8 21 Of5 26 Lxf5 Hxfs 27 He3
Wxd2 d4 23 exd4 exd4 24 La3 bxa6 Lxa6 22 Hxd5 Dxd5 23 Was+ 28 eft Wxad4 29 He7
Ke5 (now, in this complex po- fKxa6 Hxa6 24 Wxd5 Wxb2 25 Q7 30 Hxf7 &xf7 31 {5 Wa7 12 . L£xf3
sition, White blunders) 25 Wxd7+ &f8 26 Rdl Zf6 27 32 fxg6+ Hxg6 33 Eh5 g8 34 This exchange is the key to
Dxc57? (this allows a beautiful Wxh7 Wb3 28 Whi+ Pe7 29 W3 c3 35 Exd5 cxb2 36 £xb2 Black obtaining counterplay. A
finish — instead the alternatives Wg7+ W7 30 Wh6 Wb3 31 Wc8 37 Wd3 Wgs 38 Lxg7 less impressive plan is 12...2e4
25 R.c4+ ¥h8 26 Dxc5 Kxh2+ Hci Bc6 32 Wg7+ wd8 33 Rfl &xg7 39 Rd7+ &h6 40 We3+ 13 Dxed4 Kxed with the follow-
27 &hl Ef5 28 ©xd7 EhS5 or He7 34 Whs+ He8 35 Wha+ Wg5 41 Wh3+ Wh5 42 Eh7+ ing examples:
25 Who Wa7 26 £.g4 were un- wc7 36 Wb4 Wc2 37 WaS+ 1-0 Thorsteins-Meinsohn, Lyon a) 14 Kd3 (this method is
clear) 25..&xh2+ 26 <2hl &d6 38 h3 He6 39 Wds+ dc5 1990. rather convincing for White)
Kxg2+!! 40 Dd4 b) 10 d6 is a double-edged 14...£xd3 15 Wxd3 (15 Hxd3 is
try, e.g. daft, e.g. 15..WaS5+ 16 RKd2
64 The Modern Line: 5 e3 g6 The Modern Line: 5 e3 g6 65

Wxa4 17 Ha3 Wc6 18 Wxc6 R.g4 ©h8 23 ed d4 24 5 Bcb big trouble. 41 Hel d2
Dxc6 19 Kcl Hab8 20 b3 Xbs 25 a5 Wa6 26 Wfl 9b3 27 Ke2 42 Hdi Reb
21 sedi Efb8 22 c2 Hbd+ 23 c4 28 fe3 K18 29 Ha2 £¢530 43 Exd2 @f5
&d2 d5 and Black has a great fxc5 Exc5 31 Wh3 Ec7 32
position, Babu-Hebden, London Ba3 Hcs5 33 b3 Wb5 34 bxcs
BB
1990) 15...d5 16 b3 @c6 17 0-0
We7 18 e4 d4 19 Rd2 h6 20
Ma2 2f7 21 Wb5 Hc8 22 He2
dxc4 35 Wha Hd7 36 We7 Wco
37 a6 ¢3 38 a7 'r-Y2
Ravikumar-Miles, British
was
Ch.
i //
/// ///

\
and White is in control, Stone-
Popovych, Philadelphia 1989.
1985.
However, after 15...d5, White //// :
b) 14 0-0 &c6 15 Hdl Hxf3
16 Rxc6 Kxc6 17 gxf3 Sxf3
should take the chance for 16
L.xe8, as the black knight is a ///w1i1 ///// //fi/
// //
18 Hel c4 19 b4 cxb3 20 Hxb3 much more useful piece than
P
£dS with good compensation the white bishop.
it f////fi/ // //)
for the exchange as White’s 16 Ded Des
//// /// =
/ mam
king will be permanently ex- 17 14 ) ¢
posed, Conquest-Hodgson, Brit- 18 &Hg5 45 4 Ef2
After 44 Re2 &xf4 45 He7
ish Ch. 1987.
13 gxf3 Wcs % % %%a Black wins by forcing White to
-4 “u / take his c-pawn, e.g. 45...c3+ 46
%z
14 00 He8
&d3 (46 Pxc3 Ha3d+ and
f%/g/ Black has everything going
for him: better-placed pieces,
..Eh3) 46...c2 47 &d2 Hal! 48
oxc2 Ha2+ and ... Hxh2.
// connected passed central pawns 4 .. c3+
and a safer king. Petursson now 45 Hxc3 Exf4
eliminates two of these prob- 46 g2 Red
lems by exchanging bishops and 47 B2+ dxgs
queens, but the black c- and d- 48 d2
/fi/ pawns leave him with a hope- After this it is easy. A better
/// less task in the rook and pawn try was 48 &d3 but then Black
19 e4? endgame. will still win with 48..h4 49
This opening of the position 30 fa Wd7 Pe2 ®h3 50 &fl Had4 and
backfires on White whose king 31 K{b2 £xb2 White remains uncoordinated.
15 Wg3 is now permanently exposed. 32 Wxb2 d4 48 e Hed
15 Wdl has not been tried, Much better would have been to 33 Wb+ ¥7 49 d3 He7
but may be better than the text, shore up the defences with 19 34 Wxf7+ Exf7 50 Ef3 Fhd
as the queen is often out of the Xd1 and £f1. 35 g2 c4 51 2d2 g5
game on g3. 19 . Ded6! 36 &3 He7 52 Xa3 hS
15 .. &e6 20 exd5 exdS 37 Ea1 d3 53 Zb3 Hes
15..d5 16 Ke2 &Hc6 17 f4 21 Wd3 Dxgs 38 a4 Ea7 54 Ha3 gd
&d6 18 Wh3 Eb8 19 Hd1 Xe8 22 fxgs K.d4! 39 ed Hxad 55 Hb3 Zas
20 b5 Kd8 21 HHxd6 Hxd6 22 Suddenly the white king is in 40 <Ld4 17 0-1
66 The Modern Line: 5 e3 g6 The Modern Line: 5 e3 g6 67

Game 10 some justification, that White’s 20 Db4 &c5 21 Ha2 (this is a

Browne-Alburt position is very loose) 12...axb5 classy move - Beliavsky elimi-
US Championship 1983 13 f.xb5 Da6 14 L. g5 Was+ 15 nates all possible Black coun-
Wd2 was the continuation of / W terplay based on long diagonal
1 d4 o6 Campos-P. Cramling, Barcelona
% & ///,@ tactics) 21..20b3 22 RKe3 Dd4
2 ¢4 S 1991 and White got the advan-
tage. But what about 12..Wc7, . fi/ % 23 Wdl HxbS 24 Lxb6 Hxc3

%fi/ / %
3 d§ b5 25 Wc2 Hxa2 26 Wxa2 Xxb6
4 cxbs a6 planning to develop the queen’s 27 Wxc4 Hb8 28 g3 g4 29
5 €3 g6 bishop on b7? If White plays Wc7 He8 30 &Hc6 1-0 Be-
6 el 2g7 Wd6 at some moment, Black
/fl.\%///////////fi liavsky-Hodgson, London 19835.
7o5
Black can also opt for a set-
up with ...d6 if White decides to
may well have the tactical reply
...&xe5! and if White captures
with the queen, Black ex-
B on $ a4 deé

temporarily delay the develop- changes queens and plays 28 Wf3 Wds 29 Wf7 1-0 -
ment of the king’s knight, e.g. 7 ...He8, regaining the piece with White’s third offer of the queen
24 0-0 8 e4 the initiative. is unanswerable.
b) 8..d6 9 &f3 axb5 10 b2) 11 Lg5h6 12 £.d2 Hbd7
£.xb5 £a6 and now: 13 0-0 Dgd 14 Wc2 &ges 15
b1) 11 We2 gave rise to good Dxe5 Dxe5 16 Lxa6 Exa6 17
entertainment in Cvitan-Bisch- b5 and Black has insufficient
off, Groningen 1980: 11...%\xe4 play for the pawn, Griinberg-
12 Wxed Rxc3+ 13 bxc3 Lxb5 Kir. Georgiev, Stara Zagora Z
14 c4 Xxa4 15 Hxad £xad 16 1990.
0-0 d7 17 £b2 46 18 W4 b3) 11 £d2 &Hbd7 (11..5e8
e5 19 Hxe5 HhS 12 0-0 Dc7 13 We2 &A7 14 h4
~ interestingly, White decides A number of commentators
not to be side-tracked by his consider this to be a reasonable
Y extra pawn and instead treats way for Black to play, although
the position as a kind of Schmid not perhaps as sharp as 8...e6. 1
and now the most combative Benoni — 14...48)b6 15 h5 KxbS do not agree. Although this
response from Black is line ‘a’, 16 axb5 Wd7 17 hxg6 hxg6 18 variation has been seen many
but note that the variations in Ng5 K6 19 f4 L.d4+ 20 Ke3 times, I think it is highly un-
line ‘b’ have been seen more e6 21 Hadl Sxe3+ 22 Wxe3 pleasant for Black. It is cer-
frequently in practice: exdS 23 exd5 Hae8 24 Wg3 f5 tainly a poor practical choice, as
a) 8...6 9 e5 (9 dxeb fxe6 10 25 Wd3 He7 26 Ef3 Hfed 27 White’s game plays itself while
e5 De8 and White will have Eh3 Hel+ 28 Hxel Exel+ 29 Black has to look hard to find
problems with the e5-pawn) £h2 He§ 30 Wg3 Hfl 31 Deb counterchances.
9..5xd5 10 Hxd5 exd5 11 1-0 F. Portisch-Barlov, Bel- 9 Ha3
Wxds Ha7 12 O3 (12 f4 axb5 20 g4 6 21 Wd2 Kd7 22 grade 1975) 12 0-0 &Hgd 13 9 e4 transposes into the lines
13 £xb5 Wha+ 14 g3 We7 - a Dh6+ 2h8 23 g4 g7 24 Hel We2 Wa5 14 Ha3 Xfb8 15 Efal considered in the note to
variation suggested by Fedor- g5 25 f4 £.c8 26 fxg5 fxgs 27 Wb6 16 Hel Dgfe 17 Hd3 White’s 7th.
owicz, who considers, with We3 We7 S£.xb5 18 axb5 Exa3 19 bxa3 c4 9 . Dbd7
68 The Modern Line: 5 e3 g6 The Modern Line: 5 3 g6 69

This is the most solid option lessly weak into the bargain) 20 Guglielmi, Mendrisio 1989) down for nothing, Cvitan-
for Black. Others are less reli- D6cd Dxad 21 D3 HEfbg 22 Kobas, Yugoslavia Ch. 1985.
able: Zxb8+ Wxb8 23 Kf4 Wh7 24 PR: M 10 e4 axbd

soa1
A
a) 9...axb5 10 Lxb5 with: Wc2 b5 25 Wb3 Ha7 26 e5 w. 7, Others:
and Black is getting crushed, a) 10..4)g4 is not very the-
Benjamin-Sagalchik, New York 2 VA% dn I8A 2 matic and did not turn out well
1992. in Petursson-Manca, Lugano
b) 9.e6 10 RKcd4 exds 1989: 11 &Hd2 f5 12 Ke2 axb5
(10..axb5 11 &xb5 exd5 12 13 &xbs Dixf2 14 oxf2 fxed+
£xd5 ©Oxd5 13 WxdS Ha6 14 15 el &6 16 &c3 Hbg 17
0-0 fe6 15 Wg5 Wb6 16 Xdl Qca b4 18 a5 £b7 19 a6 Ka8
and Black does not have enough 20 £.g5 and Black did not have
for the pawn, Schneider- nearly enough for his piece.
Kessler, Boblingen 1985, al- b) 10..2b7 11 RKe2 (11
though the continuation was 13 WxdR Exdgf 14 £e3 Hhd7 fc4A? led to one of the few
mysterious: 16...KXd8 17 Wh4 d5 15 bxa6 fxa6 16 xa6 Exa6 Black successes with 8...d6:
18 e4 d4 19 Hg5 hS 20 Dxeb 17 Re2 &d5 18 HHd2 &HHf4+ 19 11...5b6 12 Wa3 (this game is
al) 10.£a6 11 0-0 (11 fxe6 21 Hg3 e5 22 Hxg6 Wxg6 Rf3 HA3 20 Hcd Db 21 Hcl an illustration of the fact that it
£.xa6 assists the black knight to 23 Wxd8+ &h7 24 Wxb8 Wxed &c6 22 Ded (White has a bind is rarely a good idea for White
arrive at a useful outpost on b4, 25 §d6 Wd5 26 De8 Hg6 27 g3 on the position and Black’s to aim for exchanges in the
eg. 11.80xa6 12 0-0 Dbd) Wf3 15-12) 11 Hxd5 axb5 12 bishop is not participating in the Benko) 12..&xc4 13 Wxc4
11..Wc8 12 Hd2 £xb5 13 axbs fKxb5 £b7 13 fc4 (White gets struggle) 22..%)d4+ 23 Rxd4 Nd7 14 0-0 &b6 15 Wb3 axbs
Qbd7 14 Dcs We7 15 Ld2 kicked around after this and exdd 24 Le2 8 25 a5 Kb8 26 16 axb5 Wd7 17 Hd2 £5 18
b6 16 Dxb6 Wxb6 17 Wb3 Black gains reasonable coun- f3 b7 27 &f2 Hb5 28 &d3 Ned Dxcd 19 Wxed fred 20
Wb7 18 Hfal Hd7 19 Hxal terplay, so 13 Qxf6+ is indi- b8 29 Hcal Hc6 30 2dl Ke7 Hxa8 f£xa8 21 Wxed Kf5 22
Zxa8 20 Exa8+ Wxa8 21 Wad cated) 13.%9xd5 14 Kxd5 31 c2 £d8 32 Kb3 Hba+ 33 Wad We8 23 g4 B3 24 Ke3
Wxad 22 &xa4 and White is a Lxds 15 Wxd5 WaS+ 16 &d2 @xb4 cxb4 34 Ed3 and White W7 25 Hbl £xc3 26 bxcl
pawn up in the endgame, Por- a6 17 0-0 Db4 18 Wed d5 19 has excellent winning chances, Wxd5 0-1 was Chachere-Van
tisch-Bellon, Thessaloniki OL Wbl Wa6 20 b3 We2 21 HF3 Andruet-Tringov, France 1985. Riemsdijk, Groningen 1990)
1984. Hab8 with good counterchan- d) 9..%e8 is just too slow, 11..Wc7 12 0-0 Kfbs 13 Hd2
a2) 10...a6 11 Hd2 Hd7 12 ces, Birmboim-Manor, Israel Ch. e.g. 10 Wb3 Hd7 (10..axb5 11 axb5 14 Lxb5 Ra6 15 D4
ed §c7 13 Le2 Ka6 14 0-0 1986 2xb5 Hc7 12 0-0 Dbabé 13 b6 16 b3 WcB 17 Has Lxbs
Kxe2 15 Wxe2 Wc8 16 Hel c) 9..2b7 10 e4 e6 11 dxeb £d2 b4 14 Lcd e6 15 ed 18 axb5 Wc7 19 &c6 Hxa3 20
Wa6 17 bS5 (this typifies the fxe6 (D) . exd5 16 &xd5 HexdS 17 exdS £.xa3 Hag 21 fcl 4\c8 22 We2
kind of problems Black has in 12 e5 (White takes the oppor- Hbg 18 L¢3 Ra6 19 £xab Wb7 23 f4 DeB 24 e5 DcT 25
trying to combat 5 e3 in stan- tunity to mess up Black’s pawn xa6 20 Wcd Dbd 21 hd hS 22 f5 and White has the advantage
dard Benko style — White is structure) 12..dxe5 (12...Dd5S % g5 and Black has nothing for on the queenside, kingside and
already close to achieving his 13 Ded Exf3 14 Wxf3 Kxes 15 the pawn, Chemiak-Kossak, in the centre, Scarella-Giardelli,
ideal set-up on the queenside) g5 We7 16 Wgd Dba 17 Sdi New York 1992) 11 &d2 Xb8 Buenos Aires 1991.
17.. b7 18 Eb3 Hb6 19 &Hxd6 £45 18 &c4 h5 19 We2 and 12 Re2 &c7 13 0-0 ¢6 14 e4 11 £2xb5 RKa6
Wa7 (19...exd6 20 &c4 regains Black has insufficient compen- exd5 15 exd5 He8 16 g5 f6 17 12 We2 £xb5
the piece and leaves d6 hope- sation for the exchange, Sarno- £f4 and Black is again a pawn 13 &HHxbs
70 The Modern Line: 5 e3 g6 The Modern Line: 5 e3 g6 71

and makes it exceedingly diffi- 25 14 5Hb8 43 hxg3 Wd3+

cult for him to develop coun- 26 Hed Na6 4 32 We2+
terplay there. 27 Wel Ne7 44, Wxbl 45 He5+ does not
3 . De8 28 Haal ©bS help Black.
14 0-0 e 29 Wd3 Nd4 45 el Wed+
15 b3! Hxb5 30 EHabl 46 Ld2 Wxg2+
16 Wxb5 Ha7 Black’s last move set a neat 47 &3 Eb7
Both 16..Hb8 and 16...Wc7 trap, e.g. 30 b4? Wxb4 31 Eebl 48 Wel Wa2
have been suggested here as We3l. 49 Hb2 Wal
improvements, but it is difficult 30 Whda 50 Wd2 e8
to work up much enthusiasm for 31 e5 dxe5 51 We3 $d7
Black’s position. 32 fxe5 Ba7 52 bd 1-0
17 £d2 Wa$ 33 exf6+ EHxf6
This is a very good position 18 Hel b7 34 Wed Bes Game 11
for White and just what he is 19 W b6 35 dé Davies-Wolff
aiming for with S e3 against the 20 We2 Preston 1989
Benko. It is instructive to com-
pare this position with the one
/,73,,,1,,@1
1 d4 &f6
arising after the main line se- 2 ¢4 c5
quence 1 d4 &6 2 c4 ¢5 3 d5
//// /// 3 ds5 b5
b5 4 cxb5 a6 5 bxa6 g6 6
Lxa6 7 e4 Lxfl 8 Lxfl
N3 Lg7 10 g3 0-0 11
Hc3
d6 9
g2
/3// 4
5

/@/ ///
6
Dbd7 12 We2.

. ///g//%
n //fi
35 . e6
20 Ha7 White’s last move was based
Now Black is very passively on the idea 35...exd6 36 Hxd6
e placed. A better chance to stir Hxd6 37 We7+ Lg8 38 Wxd6.
up some trouble was 20...Hc8,
\\\\\D-‘E\.?‘\.

e White now has two big passed

D0 planning ...c4. . pawns and the win is not far
R

21 a5 Hd7 away.
22 R Wh7 3¢ EHfl Wel
23 Qxg? <oxg? 37 Hfecl Wh4 7 a4
Instead g3, &fl and g2, 24 Haz f6 38 Hf1 We3 White invariably wants to
White has played the consid- Having to move the f-pawn 39 Hxfs gxf5 play a4 at some moment and
erably more useful a4, Ha3 and without a very good reason is 40 Wes+ A7 doing so now gives him maxi-
%\b5. This structure acts as a normally a sign that things have 41 VWxe5 HDe2+ mum flexibility. The immediate
clamp on the Black queenside gone badly wrong for Black. 42 &l OHgd+ 7 fc4 0-0 8 Dge2 is the main
72 The Modern Line: 5 e3 g6
alternative, and now:
a) 8...2e8 (this manoeuvre is
often a good idea against
early £c4 — the black knight
will pressurise b5 whilst gain-
ing time by attacking the bishop
on c4) 9 0-0 £Hd6 10 Wb3 Hixcd
11 Wxc4 d6 12 a4 Dd7 13 Ha3
Des5 14 Wb3 Was 15 Hed Wha
16 Wxb4 cxb4 17 Eb3 £57 18
&f4 a5
(the white rook is completely
stuck) 19 f3 Efc8 20 £d2 Hc4
21 Hel f5 22 Hxc4 Hxcd
g5 Hc2 24 Hd3 2xb2 25 e4
Exd2 0-1 Hurme-D. Gurevich,
Helsinki 1983.
b) 8..&b7 9 0-0 e6 10 HHf4
axb5 11 &xb5 exdS 12 HxdS
Hxd5 13 £xdS Kxd5 14 Wxd5
Ha6 15 e4 Wb6 16 a4 and
Black’s simplistic plan has not
given him much compensation
for his pawn, Fedorowicz-
Adrian, Cannes 1988.
c) 8...d6 9 0-0 Hbd7 10 bxab
£xa6 11 Rxa6 Hxa6 12 Wc2
Wa8 13 e4 Hb8 14 Hg3 c4 15
Hb1 D5 16 Ke3 Hd3 17 b3
was unclear in Guliev-Pann-
witz, Pardubice 1993.
an 7 .. 0-0
8§ Ha3
8 £.c4 is again possible here.
White’s intention is to place a
firm hold on the d5-square with
&\ge2-f4. Play can continue:
a) 8..8b7 9 Dge2 6 10 Df4
(10 bxaé is slightly illogical and
gave Black no trouble in
Spassov-Chiburdanidze, New
Delhi 1984: 10..%xa6 11 0-0
23 exd5 12 HHxdS Hxd5 13 &xdS
b8 14 Hc3 b4 15 e4 Ka6 16
b5 Lxb5 17 axb5 Hxd5 18
Wxds Hxb5 19 Ha7 ‘h-1)
10..axb5 11 £xb5 HxdS 12
Acxd5 exd5 13 0-0! (the im-
mediate recapture is not promis-
ing, e.g. 13 &xd5 Wgs5 14 &f4
£e5 15 h4 Wf6 with a good
game) 13...d47! (after this move
White develops a surprisingly
swift initiative and so Chess-
Base Magazine recommends
instead the exchange sacrifice
13..Wg5! 14 ed dxed 15 Deb
W5 16 HHxf8 Lxf8 with rea-
sonable play for Black) 14 exd4
&xd4 15 De2 Ke5 (15..8¢7
allows 16 Wd6 and it is hard to
see how Black can successfully
complete his development) 16
f4 216 17 £S &c6 18 Wd6! HHd4
19 fxg6 Hxe2+ (some varia-
tions which demonstrate the
kind of problems Black is fac-
ing are: 19...fxg6 20 Rcd+ Lh8
21 Kh6+-; 19..hxg6 20 Wxf6
&Hxb5 21 W2 with the intention
of £h6 winning; and finally,
19..5xb5 20 Wxf6 fxg6 21
Wxf8+ Wxf8 22 Hxf8+ &xf8
23 fe3 He8 24 2f2 H)c7 25
£xc5+ with a winning end-
game) 20 f£xe2 £d4+ 21 &hl
hxg6 22 L4 g7 23 Ka3!
(once this rook swings over,
all of White’s pieces will have
obtained attacking positions)
23..Wha 24 Hg3 Hae8 25 £g5
1-0 Lautier-Benjamin, Paris
1989. After 25..Wed 26 &f6+
either g6 or f7 will cave in with
fatal consequences.
b) 8..6 9 &ge2 axb5 10
£xb5 exd5 11 Hxd5 £b7 12
The Modern Line: 5 e3 g6 73
fc4 Ogd4 a trappy move —
Black threatens ..2xf2 and
... Wha+ and if 13 0-0, the same
motif can be put into effect, e.g.
13..5xh2! 13 Defd He5 14
fe2 a6 15 0-0 He8 16 ed
c6 17 £3 Ebg 18 bl Hab4a
19 Ke3 d6 20 Hxbd Hxbs 21
£b5 K6 22 Lxc6 Dxc6 23
Wd2 Eb3 24 Hd5 WH8 with
reasonable counterplay, Spass-
ov-Hebden, Silkeborg 1983.
c) 8...axb5 9 Hxb5
4
and now:
cl) 9..e6 10 He2 exd5 11
&xd5 Ha6 (11..5c6 12 0-0
£a6 13 Ha3 HxdS 14 Wxd5
We7 15 Hd3 SDe5 16 Hddl
Bfb8 17 Dec3 Kb7 18 Wd6
Wxd6 19 Hxd6 L.c6 20 f4 Hga
21 h3 §Hh6 22 ed L.d4+ 23 &h2
f5 with a continuing Black ini-
tiative, Farago-Vaganian, Has-
tings 1982) 12 Hec3 DxdS (this
seems to free White’s position,
so Fedorowicz suggests instead
12..%c6 with the idea of
..&b4, fighting for the d5-
square) 13 9xd5 Kb7 14 0-0
74 The Modern Line: 5 e3 g6 The Modern Line: 5e3 g6 75

Wha 15 f4 ©h8 16 e4 d6 17 g3
Wds 18 f5 Hd7 19 L4
fxg6 hxg6 21 &bc3 and White
has control of the position,
Lukacs-Fedorowicz, Wijk aan
Zee 1988.
as the lines with Kc4. White $g7 17 £b2 axbS 18 Dxb5
He8 20 hopes to nullify Black’s coun- exf4 19 H\d6 X8 20 Nxb7 Wc7
terplay by placing a firm grip HEA W HoD 21 Wd5 Dc6 22 Hd6 Kab8 23
on the d5-square. He is delaying
4 _ //,,;Q. £c37 (23 §bS! was winning
the development of his king’s
bishop in the hope of saving 1 for White) 23..fxe3?
players miss chances in this
(both

/////////////
c2) 9..80e4 10 Df3 (10 De2 time, e.g. he may be able to play complex position — 23..Hbl+
is more logical) 10...d6 11 0-0 K£xb5 (in reply to ..axb5) in 24 De2 Exhl 25 Ded+ Hxel
Hd7 12 Wc2 f5 (this is an un- one go. For a while, this varia- 26 W7+ &h6 27 Wxf6 f3+! 28

SN
usual plan for the Benko tion was quite successful for gxf3 Exh2 29 Wg7+ @gS 30
Gambit, but it generates good White, but here Wolff demon- W6+ hS was winning for
play for Marinkovic) 13 Hbl strates an excellent antidote. Black) 24 0-0 (now White is
&\b6 14 b3 Hixcd 15 Wxcd 226 9 .. e6 winning again, but Black con-
16 £b2 £xb2 17 Exb2 Wa5 18 10 o4 and now: tinues to set problems and is
Hc1 Xfb8 19 g4 (b5 is caving al) 11...axb5 12 £xb5 Hc6?! eventually rewarded with a
in, so White finds a way to 74 Karolyi-Sznapik, Helsinki 1988. draw) 24...e2 25 Kxe2 De7 26
A e
simplify the position) 19...2xb5
20 axb5 Wxb5 21 gxfS gxf5 22 Shm //,x Karolyi suggests the alternative
13 Hxd5 Wg5 as
Wes Heds5 27 Kd4 Wc2 28
£b5 ¥h6 29 4 Hc7 30 Lxd7
/‘}‘,Z/
12.86xd5
Hha Wxca 23 Hxcd &6 24 being unclear. b1 31 Wgs+ g7 32 HF5+
Hxf5 Lf7 25 e4 Ha3 26 e5
/ wal /// a2) 11..5xdS 12 Hxd5 Wes
13 &f4 Le5 14 b4 is unclear.
Lg8 33 Hhe+ g7 34 D5+
@gS 1,-1; Kouatly-Fedorowicz,
it%///
1/,-1, Lukacs-Marinkovic, V-
jacka Banja 1988. a3) 11..d6 12 b6!? AxdS 13 Sesimbra 1987.
c3) 9..d6 10 De2 Hed (as Hxd5 £xd5 14 Wxds Wxb6 15 ¢) 10...g57! is rather too pro-
White has developed his knight Wxa8 £xb2 16 Lxb2 Wxb2 17 vocative, e.g. 11 &h5 Hxh5 12
on €2 and thus has the move {3 Hd3 c4 18 Bdl Wbd+ 19 e2 Wxh5 exdS 13 hd h6 14 ed!
at his disposal, it is hard to see c3 20 &f3 Hd7 21 Wed De5+ with a very dangerous attack.
what Black is hoping to achieve 22 &f4 Wb2 23 Lgd 2 24 d) 10..He8 11 fc4 axb5 12
with this) 11 0-0 &d7 12 Ea3 10 e5! fixa6 cxd1W 25 Exdl (Black xb5 exdS 13 Dxd5 £xdS 14
&H\b6 13 b3 £La6 14 3 &6 15 Visually, thls is a very diffi- has done very well to reduce his £xd5 HHxd5 15 WxdS &6 16
ed Dfd7 16 Wc2 De5 17 Kd2 cult move to find. Black’s deficit to a mere pawn — unfor- &d6 (as White is unable to
Wd7 18 f47 (White completely whole idea in this variation is to tunately he is still lost) 25...£5 maintain the knight on this out-
misses Black’s idea) 18..Dexc4 lever open the long diagonal in 26 £ca+ dg7 27 Wd4 and post he would be better off
19 bxc4 Hxcs 20 Eb3 Lxb5 21 the hope of generating play with White went on to win, Metge- castling immediately) 16...Xe6
axb5 a3 22 Wcl DxbS 23 e5 his bishops. 10...e5 locks the Sarfati, Auckland 1992. 17 0-0 Hba 18 Wd2 We7 19
Ea2 24 Bdl dxe5 25 Wbl Hxd2 bishop on b7 out of the game b) 10..82h6 and now 11 &b5 d5 20 b3 Xd8 21 Wdl d4
26 Exd2 {d4 27 Kb Wxds 28 and leaves White with a power- dxe6?! (11 e4! exdS 12 9fxds with good counterplay, Flear-
&2 exfa 29 Hxf8+ £xf8 30 ful pawn on d5. However, the fxcl 13 Hxfe+ Wxf6 14 Wxcl Mainka, Dortmund 1989.
&xf4 Wg5 0-1 Lukacs-Hodg- white pieces are now driven He8 15 f£cd! fxe4 16 0-0 is 11 Hh3
son, London 1988. back, and Black gains a strong given in numerous sources as This is as good as anything:
8 .. b7 initiative on the kingside. Pre- good for White) 11..fxe6 12 a) 11 9d3 We7! and sud-
9 Hh3 vious Black tries were: Wd6 Hes! 13 Wxce5 4187 14 denly White is threatened with
This has the same motivation a) 10...exd5 11 Hfxd5 Wg5 2xa3 15 bxa3 e5 16 Kcd+ the loss of a piece by ...e4.
76 The Modern Line: 5 e3 g6 The Modern Line: 5¢3 g6 77

b) 11 &fe2 e4 and it is diffi- nesses and he is unable to 26 f£xa3 Qa6 &xb5), then it is more difficult
cult to see a better move than 12 achieve anything worthwhile on 27 Hcl Ems for Black to gain good coun-
&f4 transposing into the game. the queenside. White is losing a pawn on the terplay.
queenside which renders his As Black, don’t play lines
game hopeless. with ...d6, unless you have a
0-1 very specific idea in mind.
A A=Y Above all, don’t play like this
7 Rl
f 2, and then just develop your
H
, Summary
There does not appear to be pieces — the chances are you

z% @%/ will find yourself a pawn down

,/2; fi/,
anything much wrong with the

|Y lines where Black counters with

...e6. The important lesson from
for nothing.
If you want to try something
&

the material here is that Black slightly unusual with White

should ensure that he adopts a then the lines with Sf.c4 and
;’/ ’/// ) 5/ . g w 8
move order whereby he can &\ge2 offer reasonable chances.
weaken White’s kingside with Black has to respond accurately
g ... &xf3 at some stage. If White as simply developing the pieces
12 54 18 &fe2 Hed is allowed to keep his bishop on allows White time to clamp
- 12 d6!? axb5 13 L£xb5 with 19 b3 Wes e2 (e.g. by meeting axb5 with down on the d5-square.
unclear play is a suggestion in 20 g3
ChessBase Magazine, while
Wolff himself considers that
White should perhaps try the / e
aggressive 12 g4!?. /M // a1
13 E.eZ 9 ///’9/ / /
White is a little too co-
operative around here. He might §NQ7:%Q% %
/

do better to try to stir up com-

plications with 13 g4!? when a
'y
/ Z

possible continuation is 13...g5

14 &Hh5 Hxh5 15 gxb5 15, al-
thongh this does look quite
pleasant for Black. 200 .. W5
13 .. axb5 White is now forced into des-
14 £xb5 Dab6 perate measures to counteract
15 0-0 ALY the threat of ...2e5 and ... \f3+.
16 Sfc4 We7 (D) 21 Sxed Wixed
17 Wdz 22 f3 Wxe3+
It is very hard to see an active 23 Wxed Oxel
plan for White here. Playing f3 24 Sfxed He2
will lead to kingside weak- 25 fcl Pxa3
 The Modern Line: 5 e3 axb5 79

Tilburg 1992.
b) 9...4)d6 (this is much bet-
ter than 9...g6— as White cannot
reply 10 a4) 10 f.a4 g6 11 0-0
4 The Modern Line: 5 e3 axb5 fg7 12 £g5 (12 Hel 0-0 13
$£g5 Hes8 14 Hcl Ra6 15 £b3
fc4 16 g3 Lxb3 17 axb3 {6 -
18 &4 Ha6 19 W3 DbS 20
This line against 5 3 was origi- More troublesome for Black /4/
,@'///f/if/,,/%; Hxbs Wxbs 21 He3
Hed £5 23 Hc3 Wb7 24 Ke5
&b4 22
nally known as the 5..8b7 is Farago’s idea 8 £e2!? which
£h6 25 4 Lg7 26 Ke5 Lh6
variation, as this was the move we examine in games 13 and
order by which it usually came 14. This is a more pragmatic
’ (A= 27 L£f4 -2 P. Nielsen-O. Jo-
about. However, it is now approach. White immediately
hansen, Gausdal 1993) 12..5¥5
returns the extra pawn, presum- considered in the next two 13 &b5 (a strange manoeuvre)
known that 5...axb5 is a more
accurate move order to adopt. ing that he will be able to gen- games. The only other white 13...0-0 14 a4 e6 15 &g3 Hixg3
This variation caused a great erate pressure with his lead in move worthy of consideration is 16 hxg3 £d4 17 Ded 5 18
deal of confusion when it origi- development. The resulting po- the speculative 8 e4!? when af- AN .Q.xdS 19 Le7 D6 20
ter 8...20xe4 9 e2 we have: £xf8 Hxf8 21 Ded Kxcd 22
nally emerged in the mid-1980s sitions remind me of some
— in one issue of Informator, variations of the Sicilian - a) 9...g67! 10 0-0 2d6 11 ad! £xc4 DeS 23 KbS f4 with a
11 _Q.d3 £g7 12 £g5 Ra6 13 complete mess, Montecatine-
5..£b7 was variously assessed Black has healthy pawn struc-
as ! (Alburt), !? (Browne) and ture and good long term pros- Hel f6 14 &fd4 Of7 15 &g3 Komljenovic, Benasque 1993.
7! (Krogius). pects, but is often struggling to £xd3 16 Wxd3 De5 17 fxe5 8 .. Wh6
The point of this variation is combat White’s initiative. fxeS 18 &)ged also looked good
to play for pressure along the In Game 13 we look at for White in Ziegler-Takle,
long diagonal with the bishop 8...2xdS, while Game 14 con- Gausdal 1990) 11..%g7 12 "\ /,
on b7. In one of the main lines, siders 8...4)xd5 with some other £g5 h6 13 £f4 0-0 14 £xd6
this strategy triumphs for Black odds and ends. exd6 (Black’s position is cut in
as his light-squared bishop re-
moves both central pawns, the Game 12
two so when White launches his
kingside attack, he will find it
//
e ”’// %//
g2-pawn and finally the rook on Nickoloff-Wolff very difficult to feed pieces
hl. Toronto 1985 over for the defence) 15 f4 5
In game 12 we consider the 16 g4 %h8 17 gxf5 gxf5 18
- lines arising from 1 d4 &6 2 c4 1 d4 oHfe Wd3 Ha6 19 Hadl Ef7 20 Shl
¢53 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5 €3 axb5 2 4 c5 Wba 21 fcd Hc7 22 b3 Ee8 23
6 fxbS Was5+ 7 &Hc3 £b7 8 3 d5 b5 B3 Wa5 24 Egl Wag8 25 Hh3
£.d2. With this system, White is 4 cxbSs a6 He6 26 Hg2 &h7 27 Ehg3 Hee7 9 Wn3
28 Hg6 W8 29 h4 Lh8 30 hS The main line and the sharp-
often putting the black idea to 5 €3 axb5s
Wes 31 Ro6g3 Ef8 32 W3 &h7 est — White tries to hang on to
the test by attempting to hang 6 2xb5 WasS+
33 &gl HDe6 34 Db5 Ka8 35 the extra material. White also
on to the extra material. How- 7 De3 2b7 (D)
Hg6 Dd4 36 Dexd4 cxdd 37 has various ways to return the
ever, thanks to Patrick Wolff’s 8§ ad2
@xd6 Wds 38 Wg3 Hg8 39 extra pawn in the hope of get-
12..Wb7!, Black seems to be 8 Rc4 e6 9 £.d2 will trans-
Hxf5 1-0 Beliavsky-Adams, ting his pieces out quickly:
passing this test. pose, while Farago’s 8 He?2 is
80 The Modern Line: 5 e3 axb5
a) 9 Hge2 Hxd5 10 0-0
(hoping to capitalise on his de-
velopment lead) 10..e6 (or
10...520f6 11 a4 e6 12 &g3 &c6
13 Hced Hxed 14 Dxedt LeT
15 £.¢3 0-0 16 g4 f6 17 Hadl
Wc7 18 f4 and White has some
pressure, Brenninkmeijer-And-
ruet, Amsterdam 1988; alterna-
tively 10...8c7 looks too slow,
e.g. 11 a4 Pxb5 12 Hxb5 e6 13
ed Re7 14 £f4 0-0 15 Hec3
and Black is suffering from too
many weak squares, Ruban-
Martynov, USSR 1986) 11 a4
(this gives Black the chance to
move her knight and leave the
White pieces slightly in each
other’s way - Fedorowicz’s
suggestion of 11 e4 Pxc3 12
Dxc3 Ke7 13 ad is stronger)
11..20b4 12 e4 Re7 13 &g3
0-0 14 Wg4 Th8 15 Nce2 L£c6
16 &Hh5 Hg8 17 £c3 K18
£xb4 Lxb5 19 axb5 Hxal 20
Hxal cxb4 and the White attack
has bumt out, Arnason-Zso.
Polgar, Reykjavik 1988.
b) 9 fcd eb
m W@A
The Modern Line: 5 e3 axb5 81
and now 10 Wb3 will trans- Wxc6 21 Re5 Lbd+ 22 $fl d4 nal.
pose back into the main line. 23 We2 d3 24 Wed Wxed 25 c) 9 &Hf3 HxdS 10 Hxd5
Other options for White are: fxe4 Eh4 0-1 was Schaeferbar- £xdS5 11 a4 (11 Kc3 e6 12 ad
bl1) 10 e4 Qxed. Black must thold-Wohlfart, Hessen 1988) transposes to the lines below
capture this pawn and so this is 13..8g6 14 WfS Wxb2 15 Ed1 and may be more accurate as
an important position. White Wes+ 16 De2 Wed 17 WhH3 Black is not given the option of
has several ways to try to de- £e7 18 £3 W6 19 £b5 WdS 20 ..Wg6) 11..e6 (declining the
velop the initiative: fc4 -2 Grooten-Alekhina, chance for 11..Wg6!? which
bll) 11 Df3 Le7 (11..5f6 Kecskemet 1984, 17..Wxg2 18 could turn out to be a good
12 0-0 exd5 13 Hel+ Le7 14 Hg1 Wed would have placed the square for the queen — covering
£b3 c4 and now instead of 15 onus on White to justify the two e4 and g7, eg. 12 0-0 e6 13
£.247, Guliev-Khachian, USSR pawn deficit. f£c3 Re7 14 Hel 00 15 13
1986, White should play 15 b2) 10 Wf3 is very risky, e.g. £b7 16 a5 d5 - Black has a fine
£c2 &6 16 £g5 with an un- 10...exd5 (10..5a6 11 e4 &ba position — 17 Ha4 216 18 We2
clear position; 11..8d6!? 12 as mentioned by Fedorowicz is £a6 19 &xa6 Dxa6 20 Hgd
He5 KeT 13 b3 L16 14 &gd also very strong) 11 &xdS Whe 21 e4 £xc3 22 bxc3 D7
£.d4 150-0 0-0 16 De3 £a6 17 Nxd5 12 KxdS .Q.XdS 13 Wxds 23 exd5 exd5 24 We5 Hfe8 25
£.xa6 §xa6 18 Kcl was unclear Wxb2 14 Xdl Dc6 (Wolff sug- Wxc7 Wed+ 26 hl W2 27
in J. Horvath-Mate, Hungarian gests that Black should simply Hxg7+ dxg7 28 Wg3+ Wxg3
Team Ch. 1994) 12 0-0 (if 12 grab the pawn with 14..Wxa2 29 hxg3 He3 0-1 Beil-Haugli,
&xed Black will regain the 15 Wed+ Le7 16 £.c3 Wad!) 15 Gausdal 1988) 12 L¢3 and:
piece with 12...exd5) 12...0-0 13 fcl Wbd+ 16 Bd2 Wgd 17
Hel &6 (capturing instead on 5e2 Weo 18 &fa Wxds 19 -' 4 / QY A
18 d2 or c3 will leave the Black Hixds Ha7 20 de2 Hb4 21
kingside very short of defend- Hixbd cxbd 22 Hc2 Le7 23 _ /// / Za
%%/é
ers) 14 £b3 £a6 15 HDes exds Hc8+ £d8 24 £d2 Hxa2 25 / /////%7
16 Dxd7 &Hxd7 17
18 &g5 d4 19 Hxb7
Hxe7 Df6
Wxb7 20
Ebl 0-0 26 ®el
draw was agreed in Yuferov-
RKa5 and a
o // ///,
Lxf6 gxf6 21 Wgd+ Sh8 22 Utemov, Moscow 1991.
WfS @Obd 23 Hed Rg8 24 g3 b3) 10 Lcl is, according to
and White has a promising at-
tack in return for the exchange,
Fedorowicz: ‘a move which no-
one in his right mind would
Christiansen-Sarfati, Welling- play’. This harsh assessment
ton 1988. was bome out in alarming
b12) 11 dxe6 fxe6 (11...5xc3 fashion in Domanski-Schlesing- c1) 12...8e7! (the best):
12 exf7+ *d8 13 &xc3 Kxg2 er, Giessen 1991, where White cll) 13 £xg7 Hg8 14 Ke5
14 £d5 is very dangerous for only managed to make one 5617 (14.. Bxg2 15 Lg3 W7
Black) 12 Hxe4 £xed 13 Wh5+ more move: 10..Wbd 11 Wb3 16 £e2 £b3! 17 Wd3 £d5 18
(13 13 is not very dynamic, e.g. exd5 0-1. Whatever sequence of Wdi &b3 forces a draw, but
13..8g6 14 fc3 6 15 De2 captures White chooses to Black decides to play the posi-
Hd8 16 a4 d5 17 Kb5 &f7 18 adopt, he will inevitably suffer tion in gambit fashion) 15 Kg3
Hf4 c4 19 Dxg6 hxgb 20 K xc6 an accident on the long diago- Was+ 16 se2 (16 Wd2 Wxb5
 82 The Modern Line: 5 3 axb5
The Modern Line: 5 ¢3 axb5 83
17 axb5 Exal+ 18 de2 Lcd+ b4 cxb4 22 Lb5 Lb7 23 Wb3 perhaps better is 13 dxe6 c4!? — the game was eventually drawn,
wins) 16...Hg4 17 Hel Hb4 18 Ac5 24 Wxbs d4 25 exd4 Wds 13...2.xg2 also comes into con-
Hd3 Eov3 Halasz-Zsu. Polgar, Lillafiired
26 Lf1 exd4 27 Hd1 d3 28 &d2 sideration — and now 14 exf7+ 1989.
a6 29 &4 Heg6 30 £g3 hS #d8 when, although Black is a3) 12 &f3 §Hbd (12...exd5
and Black has good chances, three pawns down, the threats 13 0-0 fe7 14 Hfdl 0-0 15
Georgadze-J. Polgar, Salamanca against g2 and d3 assure him of Kel Ac7 — now that White’s
1989. a substantial material gain, e.g. knight is so far from the f4-
9 .. e6 15 Lad Sxg2 16 Hgl Hd3+ 17 square it is difficult for him to
10 o4 Rdl Dxf2+ 18 &2 Led+ 19 place the black centre under any
10 £.c47! Wxb3 11 £xb3 &ixed Y6xe4 with active play) pressure — 16 &h4 g6 17 g3
Hfb8 18 Hg2 £.c6 19 Habl c4
20 R.c2 De6 21 &)f4 d4 22 exdd

’\\\\

TN
2f3 23 Dfe2 £ba 24 d5 Hg5

e
/V

3
25 h4 Sixe2 26 hxgS £xdl 27
Hxdl He8 and in the game, D.

L
(Black has excellent play) 19 Gurevich-Benjamin, Chicago
Hel Da7 20 e4 Dxb5 21 exds 1986, Black soon won) 13 0-0
Dd4+ 22 kfl Wa6 23 He3 c4 ANbxdS 14 Hxd5 Hxd5 15 Bfcl
24 §cl Exe3 25 fxe3 c3+ 26 - 96 16 De5 dS 17 £d1 £d6 18
$f2 cxb2 27 Wxd4 bxalW 28 I i D3 Ded 19 Kel 2d7 (Black’s
Wxal Wxa4 29 Whe+ £f8 30 central pawns give her the ad-
dxe6 dxe6 31 Wxh7 Wc4 and vantage) 20 Re2 £a6 21 &f1
Black went on to win, Van der Ehb8 22 b3 e5 23 Hd2 5 24 g3
avoids complications and 13..5bxd5 14 Hxd5 Hxds
Werf-Nicholson, Lugano 1989. heads for an endgame. The Lxfl 25 wxfl Ba3 26 Hxed
c12) 13 0-0 Wb7 14 &el 0-0
15 e4 &6 (15...50b4 16 @g3 hS fxed 27 &e2 Rba8 winning a
drawback is that, if anyone, it is 17 h4 Ke7 18 £.c3 Bh7 19 a3
15 Wg4 6 16 D3 a6 17 Bfcl pawn, Vera-Zso. Polgar, Novi
Black who now has the better a6 20 e5 fxh4 21 £c2 Bhe
Hfd8 18 &d2 Hc7 19 £d3 Hes Sad OL 1990.
chances: 22 Ded Le7 23 D6+ £xd6 24
20 e4 Rc6 21 b3 Edb8 22 Habl b) 11...exd5 (this is perfectly
a) 11..2)a6! now the knight exd6 f5 25 f3 &f7 26 Ld2
Wc7 23 cd g6 24 5 5 25 will
playable but not as incisive as
come to b4 and disturb Hhh8 27 b4 cxb4 28 axb4 h4 line ‘a’) 12 &ge2 Ha6 13 0-0
We2 g7 26 Wd2 Wd8 27 £a5 White’s co-ordination: and Black is a pawn up for not and now:
Wf8 28 f3 Ha7 29 &3 £d5 30 al) 12 f3 exd5 13 &ge2 Hc7 much, Mirallés-Koch, Lyon Z bl) 13..2e7 14 Xfdl 0-0 15
Hb2 HhS 31 Hcbl g5! and 14 0-0 £d6 15 Rfd1 £¢6 16
Black has taken over the initia- Kel 0-0 is about equal, Lam-
1990) 16 e5 @g4 17 fc3 £6 18 el c4 (15..8c7 16 Df4 c4 17
exf6 gxf6 19 g3 Le7 20 Hfel £c2 Ke6 18 Hfe2 RS 19
tive, Portisch-Nogueiras, Reg- precht-Geisler, Nastved 1988.
gio Emilia 1986.
g8 21 Hadl £.c6 22 f3 Hh6 Habl %e6 20 a3 Xb6 21 Ha2
a2) 12 9 ge2 9b4 (D) (if Black consolidates her centre
c2) 12..8c6 13 Le2 d5 14 Habg 22 Hb4 La8 23 K.c3 and,
13 0-0 (after 13 dxe6 Fedor- she will have an excellent posi-
NeS £d6 15 0-0 0-0 16 Hc4 following Black’s passive play,
owicz gives 13..d3+ 14 &fl tion, so White initiates compli-
Wc7 17 Hxd6 Wxd6 (the strong White has gained the upper
fxe6 when he claims that cations) 23 £.xe6 dxe6 24 Exe6
black centre compensates for hand, Pinter-Emst, Thessaloniki
‘Black’s active pieces ensure £d7 25 He3 &d8 26 Hdel Hes
the white bishop pair) 18 Wc2 him of an edge’ — maybe, but
OL 1984) 16 S.c2 £¢6 17 Df4
27 Exe7 Hxe7 28 £xf6 g8 29 4b4 18 &bl Hfb8 19 hd4 Lf8
e5 19 Hfcl Ec8 20 el Hd7 21 Black is a whole pawn down, so Lxe7+ Dxe7 30 Ded c4 and 20 Hce2 Hab 21 Kc3 Le7 22
84 The Modern Line: 5 e3 axb5 The Modern Line: 5 ¢3 axb5 85

h5 with an edge, Hjartarson- this variation rather pointless 33 Lxgd g6 34 £d7 Ha8 (not functions on the f3-square than
Fedorowicz, Hastings 1985. for White as he can now only 34..gxh5 35 Kc6! and White e2) 15..8xhl 16 &Hxhl 0-0
b2) 13...4c7 14 Efd1 £d6 15 really hope to draw. Previously wins) 35 &xf4 Kxa5 and White (16..8f6 17 Dg3 0-0 18 Pfl
fKel 0-0 16 Bacl (16 £3 Hfe8 the highly complex 12...f5 had managed to convert his edge ds 19 Eel Ha6 20 2f4 c4 21
17 &2 Ke5 18 Ed2 L£c6 19 been the norm: 13 g3 (the into a win, Beliavsky-Miles, We2 Hc5 22 Ke3 d4 23 Kxd4
Hadl h6 20 h3 Heb8 21 Rc2 original try, 13 9g5?, doesn’t Thessaloniki OL 1984. £xd4 24 HHxd4 £4 25 Hes A3
Abs 22 Hxb5 Lxb5 23 b3 work, e.g. 13..8xg2 14 We2 26 fxc4d Wxd4 27 Wxd3
Hxa2 24 &h7+ &xh7 25 Exa2 £.xhl 15 f3 Ba6 16 a4 Ke7 17 Wxd3+ 28 £xd3 Hxa4 29 Hcs
Kxe2 26 Hxe2 Exb3 27 Hc2 c4 A)1h3 h6 18 a5 Wb7 19 Dxe6 with a good endgame for White,
28 &fl g5 29 e2 g6 30 Lel Hxe6 20 Wxe6 Wxbs 21 We2 Novikov-Palatnik, Lvov 1986)
Lf5 31 e4+ Le6 32 Hdcl dxed Wxb2 22 Hdil &Hc6 23 Sf2 17 g3 d5 18 &f1 Wd6 19 Rel
Wd4+ 24 Ke3 Wha+ 25 $gl
33 fxe4 L4 34 Hal
&f1 Hxed 36 Hab+ d6 37 Had
He3+ 35
Wxh3 26 &xhl Hxa5 27 KxcS / DNa6 20 De2 K16 21 R4 e5 22
$xa6 exf4 23 Kc4 Hxad 24 b3
Ads 38 Lf2 Kel3 h-h was &c6 28 Lxe7 Dxe7 29 Hgl /// _ Bb4 25 £xd5+ h8 26 Hdi
Razuvaev-Tseshkovsky, Calcut-
ta 1986) 16...82c6 17 Dg3 Efbs
&f7 30 Exg7+ &xg7 0-1 Ben-
jamin-Alburt, USA Ch. 1984)
/;%///,//// Wd7 27 $£c4 and Black is
struggling to stay in the game, I.
18 Xb1 g6 19 3 Eb7 20 Hge2 13..8xg2 Qz/'
7 Ivanov-Wolff, New York 1985.
Hab8 21 &h4 Hce8 22 Hd2 // a22) 15 &le2 Kxhl 16
with equality, Ornstein-Biries- &Hxhl 0-0 17 Kc3 d5 18 0-0-0
cu, Vienna 1986. al2) 18..4\c6 19 &bl Des Na6 19 Re5 Kf6 (White’s lack
10 .. Nxed 20 We3 Hxf3 21 £c3 Lg5 22 of control of e5 is causing him
Without this tactic Black’s Wxc5 Wed+ with a complicated problems) 20 Lxf6 Hxf6 21
play would make no sense. position, Kouatly-Ermenkov, &4 Dc7 22 Dg3 BF7 23 We2
11 Hxed RKxd5 Albena 1985. Wd6 24 Hh3 h6 25 f4 HHixb5 26
12 Wa3 a2) 14...8.e7 with the further WxbS Hfa7 and Black has a
split: winning position, Conover-Al-
a21) 15 Hf3 burt, USA 1985.
b) 14 &Hle2 £xhl 15 Hxhl
Sfe7
%
and now:
a) 14 a4: //// ;;
al) 14..Wb7 15 3 Ke7 16
4/12// /7
Nl1e2 fLxhl 17 Hxhl 0-0 18
/77/// '///
//////ga
0-0-0 (D)
all) 18..8f6 19 Lc3 d5 20
Ofa Rxc3 21 Wxc3 Hf6 22
Ng3 a6 23 PDghs Rf7 24
12 .. Wb7! Dxe6 D7 25 DxcT WxeT 26
This move, the brainchild of Wd2 £4 27 Wxds Haf8 28 We6
the inventive American Grand- &h8 29 Hd7 Hxd7 30 £xd7 (this is White’s best — the
master Patrick Wolff, makes Wd8 31 a5 Wg5 32 Wgs Wixgd knight performs more useful
 86 The Modern Line: 5 e3 axb5
The Modern Line: 5 e3 axb5 87
and now:
32 bxc3 Hxc3 33 We2 f6 (Black Had 23 Hc3 Xa8 24 Hb5 Rad
b1) 16 £hg3 0-0 17 a4 and: is winning, although White now 25 &\c3 Xa8 26 b5 1h-12 Kar-
bl1) 17..%4c6 18 £c3 d5 19
swindled his way to a draw) 34 pov-Miles, Tilburg 1986.
We3 A\d8 (19...e5 doesn’t work, Wa2+ W4 35 Xf2 Ha8 36 Wbl c) 17 fxe4 &d7 (17...46 18
e.g. 20 Lxe5 Lg5 21 f4 Hael Hexa3 37 Exf6 Hal 38 Wb7 D3 Dba 19 Kxbds Lxbd+ 20
22 £xc6 Wxc6 23 Hcl fe7 24 H1a2 39 Wc6 Wha 40 Xff1 We7 &f2 0-0 21 Xhdl Hfc8 was
b4 Rd6 25 Hxc5 £xc5 26 41 Wd5+ '»-Y2 was Tihonov- equal in Dlugy-D. Gurevich,
Wxc5 Wxad 27 Wxd5+ &h8 28 Vescovi, Szeged Junior World USA Ch. 1985) 18 &e2 &5
Wd4 2f7 29 &f2 with a win-
Ch. 1994. (this isn’t bad, but 18..8c5
ning position for White, Plas-
b) 17 Wxe4 pinning down the white king
kett-Barlov, Bor 1985) 20 &\h5
looks even better — Black need
(this is unimpressive so Fedor-
not be in a rush to regain mate-
owicz suggests instead 20 b4 f4
rial) 19 0-0 Hxed 20 Ke3 K46
21 bxc5 Kxc5 22 Wes Lxf2+
21 £.d4 0-0 22 &\c3 with equal-
23 #fl Zf7 24 Hh5 when
ity, R. Garcia-Pazos, Dubai OL
White has a very strong attack) 16 We2 1986.
20...d4 21 §xd4 cxd4 22 Lxd4 16 Wd4 dxe4 (16..6)c6 17 17 .. Kb4
Wb7 23 £xg7 Whi+ 24 £11 f4 We3 dxed 18 Wxed Lb4 is
25 We2 Rf5 26 0-0-0 Wc6+ 27 completely equal) 17 Lc3 exf3
&c3 3 28 Wd3 Wxad 29 H)g3 18 &xf3 &c6 19 Wed H£b4
Hd5 0-1 D. Gurevich-Nichol- 12-1» Diedam-Vogelmann, Bun-
son, Lugano 198S. desliga 1993,
b12) 17...d5?! is too neglect- dxed
ful of development, e.g. 18 &)f4

NN\
17 RKc3 and now Black has two pos- Z 4, P
Ha7 19 &f1 £16 20 Hel He7 Others: sibilities of which the first is by N 7% 4

N
21 &xe6 Kxe6 22 Wxd5 &f7 23 a) 17 Ecl &d7 18 fxed (18
o VN 7,

far the more promising: i

P"
s

§‘
Rc4 Rfe8 24 OHxf5 &g6 25 Wxed is much safer, e.g. bl) 17..Wxb2 18 Ebl Wxa2 %
Hxe6 Hxe6 26 Wxe6 1-0 Costa- 18..Wxed+ 19 fxed &Hc5 20 19 He2 Dd7 (there is no need

DN
\\x
7
"t 4 7
Popovic, Reggio Emilia 1985. Pe2 Hxa2 21 O3 Hxb2 22 B4

N
for Black to weaken himself A 7A
b2) 16 L¢3 led to a disaster £e7 and Black has an extra

V
with 19...f5 when after 20 Wd3
for White in Farago-Ermenkov, pawn, although it will be very
Prague Z 1985, viz. 16...0-0 17
£c5 21 Hc3 Wa7 22 Wbs+ 18 He2?
difficult for him to convert this, d7 23 Wc6 0-0 24 b7 Wal+ This is very poor. 18 fxed
£xd77? 2d8 18 Wg3 ££8 0-1. Litvinchuk-Wolff, USA 1985) 25 Eb1 Wa7 26 b7 a draw was Lxc3+ 19 bxe3 0-0 20 &3
13 f3 18...8c5 19 a3 &xgl 20 Hxgl agreed in Santos-Koch, Manila Wb6 would the White disadvan-
13 g3 &xg2 14 f3 Lxh1 15 0-0 is very risky for White who OL 1992) 20 &c3 Wa6 21 b5 tage to a minimum.
&Hxhl Ke7 16 a4 0-0 and the will have to play the whole HcB 22 0-0 £c5+ 23 &hl 0-0 18 .. exfl
advantage for Black over the game with his king lacking and White is a pawn down for 19 gxf3 Lxc3+
variations with 12...f5 is that his shelter, e.g. 21 Kfl Hacg 22 nothing, Cherepkov-Sivokho, 20 Wxed3 0-0
king is not unpleasantly ex- SLc3 Hed 23 f2 Wh6+ 24 $g3
posed. Black has a clear advan-
Leningrad 1990. 21 Hgl
N5 25 Heel W6 26 Hfd e5 27 b2) 17..Wxed4+?! 18 fxed 21 0-0, attempting to con-
tage. Rgd Nd7 28 Rg5 9f6 29 h3 he Od7 19 De2 &cS 20 &3 struct some sort of shelter on
13 . c4 30 Xf5 Dxed+ 31 &h2 Hxc3 Dd3+ 21 de2 Dxb2 22 Db5 the kingside was preferable, but
88 The Modern Line: 5 €3 axb5 The Modern Line: 5 e3 axb5 89

Black is obviously still much next game. D. Martin-Hodgson, London all) 11..8g7 12 £g5! h6 13
better. 1989. £h4 d6 14 f4! (White is stead-
b) 10..&xb5 11 &xb5 &Hcb ily developing a strong initia-
12 £d2 (12 a4 d5 13 e4 dxe4 14 tive) 14..0-0 15 -e5 dxeS 16
Wg3 e5 15 Dec3 f2e7 16 Wxg7 fxe5 Dgd 17 KxeT Kxe5?
Hg8 17 Wh6e Hd4 18 Hxd4 (17..He8 18 £xc5 Dxe5 when
cxd4 19 &Hxed Wd5 20 Dg3 Black is ‘only’ a pawn down, is
Hg6 21 Wh3 &.c5 22 W5 &f8 preferable) 18 £xf8 K xh2+ 19
led to a very unclear position in &hl &xf8? (a more promising
Nickoloff-Basanta, Canada Z try is 19..82xg2+ but after 20
1992) 12..Wb6 13 a4 d5 14 e4 xg2 De3+ 21 wxh2 Hxdl 22
dxed 15 Wg3 e5 16 Dec3 Ke7 Haxdl &xf8 23 §)f4 White has
17 Wxg7 Hg8 18 &Od5! (com- far too much play for the queen
pared to the game Nickoloff- for Black to have much hope)
Basanta game, the insertion of 20 &f4 fxfa 21 Wxgd Rgs5 22
21 6 9 .. £c6 £d2 and ...Wb6 gives White the $e4 Lxb5 23 axbS Wxal 24
22 Hg3 &)c6 Black’s bishop is an impor- chance for this powerful tactic, Hxal Exal+ 25 $h2 and White
23 Hgd HfcS tant piece and should not be which leads to a good endgame) is winning, Novikov-Kir. Geor-
24 &Hg3 Eab8 given up with 9..e6 10 $xd5 18..Hxg7 19 &xb6 Eb8 20 a5 giev, Moscow 1994.
White is now completely lost &xd5 as after 11 a4 White has a d7 21 HdS &d8 22 &de3 15
as 25 b3 runs into 25...5)b4. good game. 23 a6 &c8 24 a7 Ha8 25 DdS
25 Qed Wxb2 Note that 9...2b7 transposes &b7 26 Ddc7 Dxa7 27 Hxa8
26 o6+ g7 into the note to Black’s 9th in .
Hxb5 28 Ha5 &9Hd6 29 Efal
27 Hh5+ Sf8 the next game. 8 30 Hb5+ &c6 31 Bb3 R.d8
28 Wxb2 Exb2 10 ad 32 Ra6+ &d5 33 Eb7 Hf7 34
29 &Hg3 HDes This bolstering of the queen-
D7+ sbed 35 De6 Rf6 36
0-1 side is a good move, but also Had+ &d5 37 Hab &c4 38 Hc6
possible is 10 Wd3, e.g. &d5 39 Hxc8 dxe6 40 Hc6+
Game 13 a) 10..e6 11 c4 Le7 12 Kf4 &d5 41 Exf6 Hxf6 42 Exd7+
" 2. w Tens % ,? 7

Shirov-Adams (12 K¢S gives more chances of @c4 43 L¢3 Heb 44 Hxh7 f4 7. y/;//?, 7 gl
Khalkidhiki 1992 gaining the initiative) 12...0-0 45 &fl 1-0 Farago-Stangl, Al-
13 £.xc6 Dxc6 14 e5? c4! 15
tensteig 1987. ’
1 d4 o6 Wxcd DxeS 16 Wd4 &6 10 .. e6 al2) 11..d6 12 f4 {xb5 13
2 c4 c5 (Black has an excellent posi- Qxb5 Kg7 14 e5 dxe5 15 fxe5
Others:
3 ds b5 tion) 17 Wd2 d5 18 Hfcl Hac8 a) 10...g6 (D) g4 16 Lg5 Ha6 17 Dec3
4 c¢xb5s a6 19 a3 Xfd8 20 b4 Wa8 21 Wd1 Dxe5 18 Hd5 0-0 19 RKxe7
is another way to complete
5 €3 axb5 d4 22 Had HHd5 23 £.d2 £16 24 A\bd7 20 K.xf8 L.xf821 We2 c4
development, but Black is vul-
6 SLxb5 WasS+ Babl d3 25 Dec3 Hxc3 26 nerable to a quick f4 and e5 22 seh1 Wds 23 Radl Rg7 24
7 He3 £b7 £xc3 Dd4 27 b6 De2+ 28 Hdc3 Wb8 25 Rd5 and Black
from his opponent. White can
8 He2 Lxd5 &fl Wb8 29 &xf6 Wxh2 30 try to arrange this advance in does not have enough play for
Black’s alternative capture, Pel Whi+ 31 &d2 Whe+ 32 the exchange, Brenninkmeijer-
the following ways:
8...5xd5, is considered in the el Excl 33 Hxcl d2+ 0-1 A. Van der Sterren, Dutch Ch.
al) 11 e4 and now:
90 The Modern Line: 5 e3 axb5 The Modern Line: 5 e3 axb5 91

1990. Hd3+ 37 g3 DHbs 38 Hcel crushed, Fedorowicz-Berg, Os-

a2) 11 £.d2 ¥b6 12 e4 Hd3 39 Hc2 Qb4 -1, To- tend 1987. .
nescu-Biriescu, - Romania Ch. 11 ed!?
1988. Notes based on those of
Ionescu in ChessBase Maga-
; %lfi =t
//// 11
zine. //
b) 10..&xb5?! (it is not a
, £é% 7
///
good idea to encourage the
white pieces into attacking po- '{ 74

sitions) 11 &xb5 d5? (11...e6 is

essential; also bad is 11..2c6 fi%%/%/%
12 £2d2 Wb6 13 Rc3 e6 14
Lxf6 gxf6 15 &4 d5 16 WhS
@ % %
/, / //;//fi
Ha7 17 e4 dxed 18 Bfdl Hxb5 £d5 £g6 (18..8xd5 19 Dxd5
19 axb5 Hxal 20 Hxal &e7 21 Wdg 20 XEh3 h6 21 Lxh6) 19
12...8.g7 (it is rarely a prom- h4 0-0 22 Wh6 ¥h8 23 Hh5 Hxg6 hxg 20 Wxg6 and wins,
ising idea for Black to capture Hg8 24 Ha8 £d8 25 Dxf6 g7 This is the most direct, but Prudnikova-Gocheva, USSR
on e4 and this position is no 1-0 Peeck-Mannion, Edinburgh White can also gain a good at- 1989.
exception, e.g. 12..%0xe4 13 1988 — 26 Wd2 wins) 12 e4! tacking position with 11 &g3 12 Hxb5 Hxed
Hxed L xed 14 L¢3 £6 15 Df4 fe7 12 e4 0-0 13 e5 &d5 14 This is a good practical deci-
and it will prove be very diffi- £d2 Wc7 15 Hxd5 £xd5 16 sion. Black does not have an
.-'\
cult for Black to complete his o, - . / M
Kc3. attractive position, so he might
development) 13 &f4 &xed /% x 1 . Kxb5 as well have an extra pawn.
13 Hgd
(clearly dangerous but 13..0-0 Others:
14 e5 Hed 15 Lxc6 Hxc3 16 a) 11..5xe4 12 Lxc6 Dxc3 13 Kf4 is also promising, e.g.
£xc3 Wxc6 17 Hd5 He8 18 Q@”
/ % 13 £xd7+ Hxd7 14 Hixc3 is 13...5a6
Hel is very unpalatable) 14 / / unpleasant for Black.
&5Hfd5 £xd5 15 HxdS Wb7 16 W,/
% / b) 11..8xe4 12 Dxed Dxed
/ /zf’
Lf4 0-0 17 Hxe7+ &h8 18
Wh3 d6 19 Wd5 Wxd5 20 Dxd5
13 &c3 is given in some
sources, but I don’t see the it
£xb2 21 Bael
tiative persists
(the White ini-
into the end-
point of this
Wd3 looks more logical.
manoeuvre. 13 ///%4%
% %A/
game) 21...f5 22 £h6 Hdg 23 £3 12...dxe4 (Black is in a real c) 11..8e7 12 €5 Hds 13
£d4+ 24 Le3 Hc3 25 DT mess, as the following varia- . §xd5 exdS 14 Ha3! (this rook
Ha7 26 De6 fKxe3+ 27 Exe3 tions ~ given by Fedorowicz — manoeuvre is one of the advan-
He7 28 Hfel Hd5 29 H3e2?!
(29 Dxd8 Hixe3 30 D7+ Hxf7
show 12...e6 13 exd5 9xd5 14
5 f4 Dba 15 Wed!; 12..d4 13
tages of 10 a4 over 10 Wd3)
14...Wc7 15 &4 d4 16 c4 0-0
fi //
/a
31 Bxe3 Hd7 32 He8+ &g7 33 b4! cxb4 14 5! Hd5 15 e6 fxeb 17 Wh5 RKe4 (White’s last
Bd8 is winning for White) 16 &Hexd4) 13 b4l Wds move set the beautiful trap of
29..Hc8 30 Bd2 9c3 31 Exd6 (13..cxb4 14 Wc2! wins) 14 17...Kxa4 (D) and now:
Hxb5 32 axb5 c4 33 Sf2 3 34 Wc2 e6 15 bxc5 Ha6 16 Hdl 18 Wxh7+!! &xh7 19 Eh3+ a) 14 Hec3 Dxc3 15 bxc3
Hc1 Hd7 35 Ddd De5 36 Hc2? Wc8 17 c6 and Black is getting &g8 20 Hg6! and Eh8 mate) 18 £e7 16 d6+ (16 246 keeps
92 The Modern Line: 5 e3 axb5 The Modern Line: 5 e3 axb5 93

the initiative, but is less con-
vincing, e.g. 16..Wd8
0-0 18 Hfdl £xd6 19 Hxdé
17 Wf3
14..R¢€7 is a better defence. The best defence was to ex-
The tremendous dynamism of
Shirov’s imagination is seen in
the following variations: 15 b4!
e change a pair of rooks with
21..Hd8 22 Exd8+ £xd8 (not

é//// 2
Hc7 20 c4 Des 21 Bdd1 &f6 22..&xd8? 23 Rdl+ Fe8 24
22 Wa3 Wc8 23 a5 d5 24 a6 cxb4 (15.Wd87! 16 &Hdé+ Hfd6+ with a big advantage) 23
dxcd 25 Wa5 Hd5 26 Edcl
Wc6 and Black has wriggled out
of trouble and went on to win,
£xd6 17 Wxd6)
17 Exe7+ Pxe7 18 Wd6+ &d8
16 &F5! exfs

19 £g5 &6 (19...Ke8? loses to

,“//a//// Hfd6+ we7 24 Hcd Lc7 and
White is only slightly better.
22 Hfdé+ &e7
Jelen-Sermek, Slovenia 1993) 20 Lxf6+ gxf6 21 Wxf6+ He7 23 Hed &Hb4
16..8xd6 17 Wxd6 Wd3 is 22 Hel &c6 23 Wh8+ wins, but 24 b3
promising for White, Holmes- 19..%c8!? may leave White This is a surprisingly timid
Mannion, Scotland Ch. 1991. with no more than a draw by 20 move from Shirov. Much more
b) 14 f3 is insufficiently dy- Hcl+ D6 21 HExc6+ dxc6 22 effective was 24 Hedl! and
namic, e.g. 14..2f6 15 Hdé6+ Wxc6+ $d8 23 Wde+) 20 White ensures that the black now:
£xd6 16 Wxd6 Ec8 and Black £xf6+ &c8 (20.gxf6 21 king remains stuck in the cen- a) 24..85)d5? 25 &c3 Hxc3
threatens ...Hc6, Giulian-Man- Wxf6+ &c8 22 Wxh8+ b7 23 tre. (25..50b6 26 Hxd8 Dxcd 27
nion, Glasgow 1991. Wf6 and White is better) 21 16 .. Wh4 H1d7 is mate) 26 Xd7+ e 27
c) 14 §Hg3 &6 (14...0xg3 15 Ed1! 17 fLeS! Wigd bxc3 and White is winning.
fxg3 only opens more lines) and 18 &xf6 Wxdl b) 24...£5 25 Kd7+ &6 26 b3
now 15 Eel and, as usual in Not 18... Wxf5? 19 £xg7 Hg8 and White is much more ac-
these variations, White has a 20 He5 and White is winning. tively placed than in the game
strong attack. 19 Haxdl gxf6 continuation.
13 .. AT 20 Exds 24 .. La5
13...&xg3? will almost never Black has escaped into an 25 Hedl Ehd8
be a good idea and here it is endgame but the White initia- 26 M1 Hxd2
particularly disastrous, e.g. 14 tive persists. 27 Hxd2 &d8
fxg3 &c6 15 Exf7 and wins. 20 ... KeT 28 <e2 Hb8
14 Hel 29 g4

5’/{&1f
B
@i
%///i/
_
% /// 1 with the possibilities:
a) 21..Ha7!? 22 Rxg7 Hes
23 Wd5 or 23 Wc5 b8 24
/
Wxf5 with a continuing attack.
b) 21..gxf6 22 Wxd7+ &b8 ///////
// //
: aoE_///
////fi/fi//”fi
23 Wd6+ (White has to settle
for a draw as 23 Wxc6?! Ha6! is
okay for Black) 23..%b7 24 f,, 7 biy /// %/,%/
Wd7+ b8 with a draw.
15 Kf4 ds
fi
16 &f5! 21 . £d8?! Shirov still has the advantage
94 The Modern Line: 5 e3 axb5 The Modern Line: 5 e3 axb5 95

thanks to his active pieces and 2 c5 a big development advantage) Ha7 18 Wgd ££6 19 0-0 &b4
outside passed a-pawn. 3 d5 b5 10..exd5S 11 exd5 &Hxd5 and 20 Rc4 Xfad 21 Wed Wc6 22
29 Nds 4 cxbs ab now line ‘al’ causes Black Wxc6 Dxc6 23 Lxf6 gxf6 24
30 <3 Le? S &3 axb5 enormous problems: £.d5 and White won, Benjamin-
31 h3 £d8 Attempts to avoid 5...g6 and al) 12 Rc4! Alburt, USA Ch. 1986.
32 Ded! 5...axb5 are not great for Black: b) 5...€6 is not too bad if you
a) 5..8b7 6 Dc3 Wa5 could don’t mind being a pawn down
transpose back to the main lines for about half a pawn’s worth of
after 7 £d2, but 7 bxa6! play. As this is very similar to a
. -S| Blumenfeld Gambit, rather than
a Benko, I will restrict myself to
.1t E”"/
//. = a couple of examples: 6 Dc3 (6
/
.///
//
dxe6 seems to give Black more
chances, e.g. 6...fxe6 7 &c3 d5
7
4
8 O3 £Le7 9 b3 0-0 10 Kb2
7 z /fi axb5 11 Lxb5 Wa5 12 £d3 d4
13 exd4 cxd4 14 Hxd4 Ka3 15
////fi// Wd2 WeS+ 16 Hde2 fKxb2 17
12..We6+ (Black has a very Wxb2 &g4 and Black had
White has cleverly prepared difficult position as Lautier promising play, Dautov-Blees,
to sacrifice the exchange with demonstrates, e.g. 12..%ac7 13 Kecskemet 1989) 6..exdS 7
®xd5! when his two passed &Hxd5s Hxd5 14 0-0 &Hc7 15 dge2
pawns on the queenside will be gives White the advantage, Hel+ He6 16 Kc3 0-0-0 17
very difficult to deal with. In an e.g. 7..80xa6 (7..8xd5 is dubi- £d5; 12..0f6 13 We2+ Re7
attempt to avoid this, Adams ous as White gets a big lead in 14 0-0 dS 15 £b5+ Kc6 16
blunders. development, e.g. 8 £d2 Rc6 9 Hfel a7 17 fxc6+ Wxc6 18
2 . DTN Df3 Wc7 10 Db5S Kxb5 11 He5 Wb6 19 Kg5 and in both
Essential was 32...9\b4 when Kxb5 Dxa6 12 a4 Wb7 13 WbH3 cases White has a huge initia-
after 33 f4 White can continue e6 14 L.c3 fe7 15 Hd1 Hd8 16 tive) 13 De2 Wgd? (the best
to probe the black position. La5 Hbs 17 Wd3 &Hb4 18 chance was 13...£.d6 14 0-0 0-0
33 Ha7 el L.xb4 cxbd 19 0-0 0-0 20 He5 15 &4 Hac7 16 Dg5 Wg6 17
34 &b 1-0 d5 21 Q6 Ea8 22 Wd4 £d6 23 £d3 £5) 14 Wb3 Habs 15 0-0
After 34..Ha8 White wins DHxbs Ded 24 Hc6 KcS 25 and the threat of a3 gives White
with 35 &b6. Notes based on Wd3 Dd6 26 Wc3 2b6 27 Whe a winning position, Lautier-J.
those of Shirov in ChessBase Hixb5 28 Wxb5 Wa6 29 Hal Polgar, Haifa 1989.
Magatzine. £d8 30 b4 L16 31 Wxa6 Hxa6 a2) 12 fe2 (this is good for (this is a relatively recent try
32 b5 Xxc6 33 bxc6 fxal 34 White, but line ‘a’ should be — White gets slightly better de-
Game 14 Hxal Hc8 35 a5 1-0 Browne- preferred) 12..%e7 13 &xd5 veloped before taking the pawn)
Shirov-Adams Dunning, USA 1984) 8 &d2 £xd5 14 £c3 Le6 15 He5 0-0 7..207 8 &4 axb5 9 Kxb5
Dortmund 1992 WH6 9 ed e6 10 &)f3! (a familiar (this simply loses a pawn, so £d6 10 Hifxd5 DxdS 11 Dxd5
response by White in these lines 15..8d8 should have been Wa5+ (this is dangerous, but
1 d4 o6 — he returns the pawn and gains tried) 16 Dxd7 Kxd7 17 Wxd7 otherwise Black will be a pawn
96 The Modern Line: 5 e3 axb5 The Modern Line: 5 e3 axb5 97

down for not much) 12 &c3 &\c7 Hac8 23 Wc2 Hd7 24 Xcl change, Vaiser-Chernin, New He5 17 £b5 Bb8 18 a4 Le7 19
fe5 13 a4 Kxg2 (13..8xc3+ Dgd 25 De6 1-0 Kouatly- York 1994, Af1 0-0 20 De3 HEd7 21 Kg3
14 bxc3 Wxc3+ 15 242 Wes is Bukal, Budapest 1987. al2) 14 {47! leaves White a Hfd8 22 f4 Qg6 23 Hcd Wc7
a sounder way to play) 14 Egl 8 He2 Dxd5 little too spaced out, e.g. 14...c4 24 f5 BgeS 25 fxe6 fxe6 26
£c6 15 Rd2 K/xb5 16 Dxbs 9 00 Hxc3 planning to bring a knight to d3 Dxe5 Dxe5 27 fxeS dxeS 28
Wb6 17 Wh5 Hc6 18 f4 g6 19 Black has tried other knight 15 £5 b4 16 Wd2 Ke5 17 &hi Wgd4 2a8 29 Wxe6+ &h8 30
Wgs h6 20 Wg2 26 21 Wd5 moves: da6 18 a3 &c6 19 6 h6 20 Hxd8+ Hxd8 31 HRft L&f6 32
Lhd+22 de2 Re7 23 Kc3 Kf8 a) 9.8c7 10 Kc4 Lab £h4 e6 21 Hadl d6 and the Hxf6 1-0 was Lautier-Wegner,
24 Hgdl 0-0-0 25 Wc4 b7 26 (10...e6 11 e4 £a6 12 Kxa6 black structure is very solid, Hamburg 1986) 11 e4 Ke7 12
2d5 b8 27 Had1 We6 28 Wh3 Hcxab 13 RKe3 d6 14 L4 Wb6 Ruban-Beliavsky, Novosibirsk &f4 0-0 13 Ld6 Kxd6 14
Wa6 29 £a5 1-0 Lukacs- 15 Wd2 Ea7 16 Hadl Hd7 17 1993. Wxd6 Hc8 15 a4 Wc7 16 Xadl
Plachetka, Belgrade 1984, Lg5! h6 18 Lh4 Hc6 19 f4 a2) 11..Wxa6 12 e4 e6 13 and Black is struggling to un-
6 2xb5 WaS+ with an edge, Haugli-Halbritter, K14 d6 14 a4 Hc6 15 Db5 tangle, Lautier-Andruet, Mar-
7 &He3 St. Ingbert 1989) 11 fxa6 (11 0-0-0 16 Hec3 De8 17 We2 seille 1989.
Wd3 &c6 12 Bdl £.c8 13 £4 g6 b7 18 Hfdl Le7 19 Hd2 Hd7 b2) 10 Wd3 e6 (10...g6 11 e4

EALTEN E
14 £d2 Lg7 15 DS Wa7 16 20 Hadl e5 21 Le3 QDd4 22 Ac6 12 f4 b4s 13 Wed Hc2 14
£.¢3 0-0 17 Dg3 was unclear in Wca O)f6 23 Kxd4 cxdd 24 Ebl Wb4 is unclear, Farago-
the game Bjerke-Hartvig, Co- &d5 and White has an enor- Nikovits, Hungary 1991) 11 e4

D
penhagen 1989) and now: mous position, Farago-Ermen- De6 12 Rd1 Bd8 13 Wg3 Re7
al) 11..93bxa6 12 e4 g6!? 13 kov, Albena 1985. 14 g5 0-0 15 5 HhS 16 Whd
g5 Kg7 b) 9...5f6 £xg5 17 Wxg5 g6 18 Xd3 Wc7
19 Xh3 f6 20 exf6 Hxf6 21
Wxc5 Dgd 22 Kxc6 Kxc6 23
2f1 Hf5 24 Wd4 hS 25 Xg3
®h7 26 h3 &f6 27 We3 e5 28
Hegs5 Rxgs 29 Wxg5s Rf8 30
el g7 31 Hd3 d6 32 Hdl
7 . £b7 S
Z
Y Wb7 33 f3 Re8 34 h2 WH8
7..8a6 8 f£xa6 \Wxa6 is and White has successfully con-
playable for Black, but White solidated the extra pawn, Ben-
should be slightly better without jamin-Alburt, USA Ch. 1988.
too much trouble, e.g. 9 Dge2 b3) 10 ed! sets Black difficult
26 10 0-0 £g7 11 a4 d6 12 &b5 problems, e.g. 10..&xe4 11
Wb7 13 Dec3 0-0 14 e4 Hab 15 Kf4 96 12 Bel Db 13 Dg3
Sg5 Efe8 16 Hcl (16 We2 &Hc7 and: with the further branch: - (Fedorowicz suggests that an
17 Dxc7 Wxc7 18 QbS5 Wb7 19 all) 14 Wd2 Hb4 15 Radl bl) 10 f3 (this move has improvement over this is 13
£d2 9Hd7 20 £c3 and Black &d8 16 Hd5 HcxdS5 17 exd5 h6 proved successful for Lautier, Kxc6! Lxc6 14 &g3 e6 15 D5
doesn’t have a great deal for the 18 d6 e6 (18..hxg5 19 dxe7 but since White can play e4 in d5 16 fe5 and the black king is
pawn, Farago-Bukal, Rome &xe7 20 Wd6+ Pe8 21 Hfel is one go, it does not seem neces- stuck, e.g. 16...d4 17 2xf6 gxf6
1986) 16...4c7 17 Hxc7 Wxc7 hopeless) 19 £.xd8 Wxd8 20 a3 sary) 10..e6 (10..8c6 11 Sicd 18 &He4 and Black still has
18 €5 dxe5 19 &b5 Wb6 20 &\c6 21 b4 and Black has noth- Wb6 12 e4 d6 13 &g3 Wb7 14 problems) 13..2d4! 14 a4 €6
fe3 Hed8 21 HExc5 Wb7 22 ing to show for the missing ex- We2 e6 15 Edl &bd7 16 Kf4 15 Ke5 Ke7 16 DhS &xh5 17
98 The Modern Line: 5 e3 axb5 The Modern Line: 5 e3 axb5 99

WxhS &xb5 18 Dxb5S 0-0! Wxd5 &xc3 16 bxc3 0-0 17 h4 Wgd+ 2h8 18 Wha gives White
leaving White with very little to d6 18 Wg5 Wa5 19 a4 Wd8 20 a very strong attack) 15 Kf4
show for the pawn, Kouatly- Hfdl Dab 21 e4 Dc7 22 Kcd
”/
Wb6 16 a4 0-0 17 £d6 and
Fedorowicz, Clichy 1986. e6 23 Wg3 (White has all the White maintains a very strong
10 Dxc3 trumps: good play on the king-
//4 //1/ 1 clamp on the black position,
side and a passed pawn on the
queenside) 23..d5 24 exd5 /" Klarenbeek-Bosboom,
Ch. 1992.
Dutch

&xdS 25 h5 We8 26 a5 &5)f6 27 c) 11...8¢e7 and now:

h6 We7 28 WeS Hfd8 29 a6 cl) 12 Rf4
Exd1+ 30 Exdl He8 31 £b5 16 /”/ /
32 We4 Hd8 33 Hxd8 1-0 was /’fi;
the conclusion - of Kouatly-
M
Kerkhof, Brussels 1987.
%
’/
¢) 11 ed4 Rg7
Kg5! e6 (13..Wd8
12 a4 0-0 13
14 &H\d5 f6
(Kramnik claims that White
is better in the endgame, but the
15 £f4 @a6 16 £xd7 &h8 17 further course of the game sug-
fe6 Wes 18 Wb3 Wc6
Dxe7 Wxed 20 Hxg6+ 1-0
19 gests that it is, in fact, com- 7//
%/
pletely equal, e.g. 16 Wc6 Wds!
10 e6 Wiedenkeller-Ornstein, 1991) 17 Wxd5 exds 18 Hel+ &d8 19
10...g6 glves White various 14 Wd6 with a big plus, while Zd1 d4 20 b4 Had and White is
ways to obtain an advantage: Fedorowicz recommends 14 getting nowhere) 16..e5 17
a) 11 Kc4 (a slightly strange fe7 Hc8 15 Ha3 which also Wc6 Wad 18 Wxad Hxad 19
move as the bishop is not par- looks very strong. Ke3 e7 20 Hfcl c4 21 He2 with the further split:
ticularly stable on c4, but White 11 a4 Zb8 22 a3 Le6 23 Hdl Eb7 24 cl1) 12...0-0 13 a4 transposes
is hoping to provoke ...e6 which 11 e4 is an interesting alter- g3 &Of6 and again White has into the note to Black’s 11th
will leave unpleasant weak- native. Black now has the op- nothing, Arlandi-Manca, Reg- move.
nesses on the dark squares) portunity to play a forcing com- gio Emilia 1992. cl2) 12..%5c6 13 Wd3 &Hd4
11...e6 (this is rather compliant: bination which, if good, will a2) 14 Wf3 De5 15 W4 14 Re5 £f6 15 Kxf6 gxf6 16
11..Wbd)? is more combative completely nullify White’s ini- (slightly preferable was 15 We?2 b4! Wb6 17 Rfdl e5 18 bxc5
and after 12 Wd3 &g7 13 Hd5 tiative; &c6 but this is equal too) Wxc5 19 a4 and White is per-
Wa5 14 e4 £xd5 15 £xd5 &c6 a) 11...8xe4!? 12 Lxd7+ (12 15..)d3! 16 We3 Hd8 17 Dc3 haps slightly better, Pinter-
16 Rxc6 dxc6 17 e5 0-0 18 4 Hxed Wxb5 13 Dd6+ Lxd6 14 Wc6 18 Wg3 c4 19 a4 h5 20 h3 Adams, France 1992.
f6 19 Wca+ &h8 20 Ke3 was Wxd6 Ra6 gets White nowhere) e5 21 a5 f5 and Black has good c2) 12 Wd3 0-0 13 £f4 (13
equal in Lutz-Koch, Pau 1988) 12...5)xd7 13 &xe4 Wad! (D) . play, Kramnik-Adams, Khalkid-Wg3 &h8 14 L4 Hc6 15 Rfel
12 e4 Wbd 13 Kb5 Rg7 14 and now: hiki 1992. " eS1? 16 £xe5 Dxe5 17 Wxe5
Wd6 £xc3 15 £g5 c4 16 Wh6 al) 14 Hd6+ Kxd6 after a3) 14 Wxa4 Hxad4 15 Hc3 L6 18 Wxc5 d6 19 WfS did not
&c6 17 bxc3 WaS 18 WS Wa7 (14..%e7 Kramnik suggests 15 Ha6 is completely equal. give Black a lot for two pawns,
19 Wxc4 and White has a big Wf3!? &xd6 16 Wxf7 c7 17 b) 11..80c6 12 £e3 Ke7 13 Kramnik-Tseshkovsky, Mos-
plus, Petursson-Djuric, New ff4+ Rd6 18 Lxd6+ wxd6 19 f4 Hd8 14 £f5 Wc7 (Black has- cow 1992) 13..Rd8 14 Wg3 d6
York 1989. Hfd1+ <kc7 20 Hacl which he tens to return his queen to the 15 Hadl £xe4 16 £xd6 Lxd6
b) 11 Wb3 L6 12 £d2 Kg7 assesses as ‘with compensa- scene of the action as 14...0-07! 17 Bxd6 £b7 18 Rxd8+ Wxd8
13 &d5 Wa7 14 Lc3 Lxd5 15 tion’) 15 Wxd6 Wd4 16 &f4 15 f6! &xf6 16 Hxf6 gxf6 17 19 Ed1 We7 20 Wd6 Wxd6 21
100 The Modern Line: 5 e3 axb$s The Modern Line: 5 e3 axb5 101

Hxd6 &f8 22 Hd8+ de7 23 d4 37 f3 exf3+ 38 &xf3 and 14 .. 00 meeting ...8f6 with £xf6 and
He8+ 216 24 13 D6 25 Ded+ was drawn in 57 moves. 15 Hadl &Hdd £xd7, winning a pawn with
Le5 26 HExa8 Lxa8 27 HxcS b) 13..Wb6 14 Lxb8 Hfxbs 16 fLe5 216 impunity. Other Black defences
$d4 28 b3+ Re3 29 a4 Hb4 15 Wxd7 &f6 16 Wd3 Rds 17 fail, e.g. 20..8c67 21 &c7 Wc8
30 a5 &d3 31 a6 Dxb2 32 Has We2 Wc7 18 Xfel £e5 19 h3 22 Ke5; 20..HcB? 21 Kes5 £f6
$d4 33 Rc6 Hcd 34 Lxa8 hé 20 Hadl Wa5 21 Wc2 and 22 L£.xf6 Wxf6 23 £xd7 Hcds
Hxa5 35 £d5 1-0 Farago-Van the bishop pair gives Black 24 Kb5 with a safe extra pawn.
den Berg, Luxembourg 1986; or some compensation for the
21 exfS
11 Wd3 £e7 12 £d2 Wc7 13 pawn, Lautier-Yanovsky, Bel-
y 21 Sxe7 Wxe7 22 Wc7 is
Hfcl &c6 14 Had (this is a grade 1988.
tempting but flawed, e.g.
very quiet way to treat the posi- c) 13..Wd8!? 14 Wd3 (this is
tion) 14..WeS 15 f4 WhS 16 .7 22..82xe4 23 Dxed fxed 24
insipid and does not give Black
Wxd7 Wxd7 25 £xd7 Rfb8 and
Hc2 Kd8 17 Hacl d6 18 £a6 serious problems ~ 14 e5, al-
Black has good play as 26 d2?
£xa6 19 Wxa6 Wd5 20 &b6 though double-edged must be a >
b8 21 Wa7 Wed 22 b4 216 23 better test of Black’s idea) 7 loses to 26...Kd8.
White is now planning an in-
Wad+ Wc6 24 Wxco+ Dxc6 25 14...d5 15 exdS exd5 16 Hfel vasion with Wc7, but Black has
bxc5 d5 26 a4 0-0 27 a5 and the d4 17 Ded Da6 18 Wg3 Lh4 17 &d6 sufficient counterplay on the
extra White pawn eventually 19 Wh3 Rxed 20 Hxed £16 21 The d7-pawn is taboo, e.g. 17 kingside to hold the balance.
proved sufficient for the full Hael 9c7 22 £d3 g6 23 £xc7 Lxfe?! Wxfe 18 Lxd7? Kfds 21 .. 2xf5
point, F. Portisch-Sergienko, Wxc7 24 b3 Had8 25 Wf3 dg7 19 £b5 Hxb5 20 Wxb5 RKab Not 21..9xf5? when 22
Zalakaros 1994. 26 h4 Hd5 and Black has and Black picks up the ex- Lxe7 Wxe7 23 Wc7 is very
nm . AN equalised, Pinter-Cacho, Span- change. strong.
This is almost always played ish Team Ch, 1993.
22 fxe7 Wxe7
as a matter of course, but a very 12 e4 Re7 23 We7 DI+
interesting choice is 11..RKe7 13 &f4 Wds 24 hil Ehs
12 e4 0-0 13 &f4 and now line
After 24.. Wh4?! 25 h3 Black
‘c’ in particular is worthy of
is left with threats against b7
attention:
and d7 and has no way to con-
a) 13..Wb4 14 Hel Wxb2 15
tinue his attack.
K42 c4 16 Ha2 Wb4 17 &S
25 h3
exd5 18 fxb4 Kxbd 19 He3
At first sight, 25 &xd7 looks
dxed 20 Kxc4 Lc5 21 Hh3 and
strong, but it actually loses to
White must be winning, but the
game Flear-Andruet, Val Mau-
25..0xh2! e.g. 26 gl D3+
27 gxf3 Lxf3 and White gets
buee 1989 ended as a draw after
mated.
further adventures: 21..d6 22
25 . Hxh3+
Wh5 hé6 23 g4 Ha5 24 Wh4 d5
25 £b5 Hc6 26 Hc2 fe7 27
26 gxh3 Whd
Wh5 £)d8 28 Hc7 Kg5 29 Hb3 14 Wd3
27 g3 (D)%t
Black has a perpetual check
Peb 30 hd HHf4 31 hxg5 HHxh5 14 £.d6, aiming to exploit the 20 .. 5! with 27..9)d2+. Interestingly,
32 gxh6 Lc8 33 gxh5 gxh6 34 dark squares should give White This is an excellent move. the game Spitz-Miiller, World
Ho3+ &h8 35 Sf1 Keb6 36 Le2 a small plus.
White was threatening Le5, Junior 1992, was drawn in ex-
102 The Modern Line: 5 e3 axb5

actly the same way. a5. However, Beliavsky’s 8§

7%
Summary
If White wishes to keep playing
the main line of game 12, he
will need a big improvement as
12..Wb7! takes all the fun out
of this variation. White can try
giving back the pawn on move
9, but compared to the lines
with 8 @e2, he has played the
not terribly useful move £d2,
while the black queen is proba-
bly slightly better off on b6 than
e4!? is interesting and, as an
alternative to 8 Ne2, is well
worth a look.
After 8 De2 the lines with
8..2xd5 9 0-0 Rc6 10 a4 are
difficult for Black. If he fi-
anchettoes the king’s bishop,
White has the simple plan of e4,
f4 and e5 with a dangerous at-
tack, while playing with ...e6
leaves Black somewhat vulner-
able on the light squares (e.g.
£.14-d6).
8...0xd5 is looking like the
most promising move for Black
investigation. After 9 0-0 £xc3
10 Hxc3 e6 11 e4 gives Black
the chance for 11..Rxe4!?
which looks okay. If White tries
instead 11 a4 then the main line
with 11..8¢c6 12 ed Re7 is
certainly playable for Black, but
better might be 11..Wd8!?, in-
tending ..d5 as in the game
Pinter-Cacho, where White was
unable to prove any advantage.
5 513
This variation has the distinc-
tion of generating the most un-
usual positions in the Benko
Gambit. Virtually all the lines
arising from 5 f3 are chaotic //////
and many positions look as if
the pieces have been dropped
on the board at random. This is 2 // %
a variation that should appeal to
those of a creative nature.
Black has three main meth-
ods of dealing with 5 3. 5...e6
and 5...g6 are seen in game 15,
while the sequence 5...axb5 6 e4
Wa5+, which has become pop-
ular recently, is examined in After 5.. g6 6 e4 White will
game 16. attempt to pursue a similar
In some of the systems in the strategy to the 5 e3 g6 lines, but
Benko, one can get by with an with the advantage of playing
understanding of the general e4 in one go. Play can continue:
principles. This does not apply a) 6...d6
with 5 f3. This is an very sharp
system and knowledge of spe- K. 2-
cific move orders is essential to “. 7,

avoid early accidents.

//////:///jz
Z/ //
,/
Game 15
////’fi% o,
Diugy-Alburt
US Championship 1991 ///////////
/////i”//
1
2
d4
o4
A (]
c5
fif J / /,fi,/fi
3 ds b5
4 cxb5s a6
104 53 5/3 105
and now: hopes to prise it open with ...e6. counterplay) 8...8.c5 9 De2 0-0 £f4 d6 11 Wd2 fe7? 12 He2
al) 7 Dc3 £g7 8 a4 0-0 9 Stohl-Plachetka, Austrian Team 10 £g5 d6 11 Dbc3 h6 12 Lhd 0-0 13 &\c3 axb5 14 Kxb5 Was
Ua31? (9 £g5 h6 10 £d2 6 11 Ch. 1994 continued 7 bxa6 b4 13 Had La7 14 dxeb fxebd 15 0-0 26 16 ad Xd8 17 Lhi
fKc4 axb5 12 KxbS exd5 13 @xa6 8 &)c3 d6 9 Lg5 Lg7 10 15 ©d4 and now instead of Kd4 18 L5 16 19 Ke3 RKe520
exd5 Da6 14 Hge2 Hc7 15 Wd2 0-0 11 Hh3 Wa5 12 Le2 15..g57! 16 Dxe6 Kxeb 17 Hadl and White is well in con-
fLc6 Hb8 16 Rcl Lab6 17 0-0 Dc7 13 0-0 e6 14 dxe6 Hxeb fi.xe6+ g7 18 g3 Tosic- trol, Dlugy-Alburt, USA Ch.
N7 18 Hel He5 with the ini- 15 Rh6 &d4 16 Lxg7 wxg7 17 Fominykh, Alushta 1994, when 1986.
tiative, Subasic-Tesic, Yugoslav &4 Bfbs 18 Hfd1 Hd7 19 &f1 White held a clear advantage, 7 €5
Ch. 1991) 9..axbS5 10 £xb5 DeS 20 W2 RKa6 21 £xa6 15..We8 would have been un- 7 exdS is an extremely com-
£a6 11 Dge2 KxbS 12 Hxbs Hxa6 22 HfdS Ha7 23 4 Dec6 clear. plex alternative, e.g. 7..We7+
$a6 13 0-0 Hc7 14 Dec3 Hd7 24 Habl Eab7 25 b3 and White a2) 7 &c3 axb5 8 Dxb3 . .£.d6!7 led to obscure play
15 &hl &b6 16 b3 Dxb5 17 is a fairly clear pawn up. in the game Vasiliev-Kron, Vo-
AOxb5 Wd7 18 Ha2 Hfbg 19 6 ed exds fig@z/} 78 ronezh 1991, viz. 8 We2+ f8 9
Rff2! and White has achieved a A=Y MNe3 axb5 10 Hxb5 Ka6 11
solid position
pawn, Anand-Adams,
with an extra
Roque-
//////f/ Wd2 We7+ 12 ££2 h6 13 Hxd6
Wxd6 14 He2 Wxds 15 Wxds
brune 1992. ////,, & xd5 with equality) 8 #f2 c4 9
a2) 7 Da3!? (White leaves c3 //%/////// Ne3
free for the king’s knight) ¥ 2
1
daaiwi %
7...2.g7 8 De2 0-0 9 &c3 Dbd7
10 Re2 Hb6 11 0-0 e6! 12 dxe6
L£xe6 13 £.¢5 h6 14 Lh4 axb5 S1wSi07
hi mi mw
15 @axb5 Hcd 16 e5 DxeS 17
Wxd6 Wxd6 18 &Hxd6 and
White stands well, Poluliakhov- 8...%a6 (probably best — oth-
Shashin, Moscow 1991. ers are not convincing, e.g. //////////
/////////
a3) 7 a4 Kg7 8 ©a3 0-0 9 8..exd5?! allows 9 e5 Ka6 10
DNe2 axb5 10 Dxb5 Des 11
Dec3 Dc7 12 Kg5 Hba6 13 is an interesting try. Black is
@03 8..Wa5+7! 9 c3
e5; or, finally, 8...Wb6 9 fxc4
exds 10
7 i
f&.c4 (Black’s play has been too willing to sacrifice material to K¢5 10 £Hh3 0-0 11 &c3 all of
passive and White is already free his position as quickly as which are to White’s advantage)
close to consolidating the extra possible. Play can continue: 9 &)c3 (not 9 &xcd? Lxb5 10 9. Wb4 (this is an improve-
pawn) 13..Xb8 14 0-0 h6 15 al) 7 fixc4 axb5 (7..8cS £xb5 WaS+ winning a piece) ment over 9...axb5 10 £e3 Kb7
Ke3 £d7 16 Wd3 &h7 17 f4 £5 may be stronger, e.g. 8 &e2 9..4c5 10 Hh3 00 11 Lg5 11 Wdd Wha 12 el Ke713d6
18 e5 dxe5 19 fxe5 RKxeS Wb6 9 Hbe3 axb5 10 £b3 0-0 Wb6 12 Wd2 was seen in Not- and White was better in Piskov-
Bareev-Adams, Munich 1993. 11 Rg5 Hes 12 Wd2 &2+ 13 kin-Nesterov, Moscow 1994. Vaiser, USSR 1988) 10 We2+
Now 20 &xh6! fLxh2+ 21 $fl Rc5 14 2d1 Ha6 15 Ke3 Here 12...exd5 13 &xf6 Wxf6 &ds 11 Wxcd £c5+ 12 Rel
®xh2 @xh6 22 We3+ g7 23 d6 16 g3 e5 17 dg2 5 18 Kc2 14 &xdS Wes gives Black good He8+ 13 dl axb5 14 Wxb4
Wes+ Hf6 24 Hael leaves fxed 19 fxed &6 20 Dec3 counterplay for the pawn. fxbd 15 £d2 &£xc3 16 £xc3
White with a winning position. Ha7 21 K43 -2 Shipov- b) 6..Wc7 is not active Hxds 17 £d2 De3+ 18 Kxe3
b) 6..8b7 places the bishop Nesterov, Moscow 1994) 8 £b3 enough, e.g. 7 &c3 exdS 8 Exe3 19 He2 and the compli-
on a blocked diagonal but Black (8 Kxb5 Wb6 9 &Hc3 L.c5 with Hixd5 Hxd5 9 Wxd5 &£b7 10 cations have resulted in an end-
106 513 53 107
game where Black has a slight too exposed, Akopian-Vaiser, 16 £a2 Wxe5+ 17 We2 Wxe2+ 15 Hel Hed 16 Wb6 (16 fxed
edge, Akopian-Vaiser, Moscow Moscow 1989.
18 Qcxe2 &5 19 £d5 Lba+ dxed! 17 Re3 £d6 and Black is
1989. b) 12 £d2!? intending to 20 fd1 d3 21 fxb7 dxe2+ 22 clearly -better) 16..2c6 17
7 .. We7 castle queenside in untested. Hixe2 Ba7 23 Led D6 24 b6 Ofxd5 Rxd5 18 fxed Leb 19
8 We2 g8 c) 12 ©h5 Wb6 13 a4 Hb7 25 £xb7 Dxb7 26 &c3 Wb7 WaS 0-1, Lobron-Hert-
9 &3 a2b7 neck, Munich 1991.
0-0 27 HHd5 £c5 28 bd L4429
10 %Hh3 Ha3 &Hic6 30 Hel 4dé6 1-0 ) 11 £g5 6! 12 exf6 Wxe2+
Komljenovic-Mainka, Bad Mer- 13 &xe2 gxf6! 14 Kel Kbd
gentheim 1989. with good play.
11 fe3! 11 . axb5
11..WxeS 12 0-0-0 &f6 13
Wf2 and Black is struggling
against White’s lead in devel-
opment.
12 0-0-0

13...axb5 (Fedorowicz gives

A TEEAE
i1
Y a y //4

13..2g6 14 a5 Web6 15 4 axbs

10 .. c4!? 16 Dxb5 a6 with a complete
This is an attempt to improve mess, but this must be better
over 10..Wd8 11 &4 He7 and than the text) 14 &xb5 Hg6 15
now: £4 &)c6 16 5 0-0-0 (giving up a Lining up against the weak-
a)
12..g6
12 2f217
13
axb5 15 HexdsS Hxd5
Wd3
c4?!
c4!
(better is
14
16 Dxd5
Wd1
piece is pretty hopeless — pre-
sumably Black did not fancy
16...DgxeS 17 Df4 when the
ened d4-square is logical and
this does, in fact, appear to be
mEiiag
@Rl
the best. Others:
£.g7 which is fine for Black) 13 d5-square caves in with disas- a) 11 £d2 axb5 12 &HxbS
RKe3d D5 14 HHfxd5 £Lxd5 15 trous consequences) 17 fxg6 White is now very well de-
Wc5 13 Hd6+ £xd6 14 exd6+
Dxds Dxe3 16 Wxe3 axbs 17 He8 18 a5 Wds 19 gxf7 He6 f8 is good for Black. veloped and his threats against
ODf6+! gxf6 18 exfo+ Ke7 19 (19.. Exe5 20 &Ha7+ dc7 21 the d-pawn are difficult to meet.
b) 11 WF2 axb5 (11..Wxe5+
fxe7 Wc7 (19..Wxe7 20 Hel! £.f4 and the pinning piece finds 12 &dl is risky for Black) 12 12 .. WxeS
Wxe3+ 21 Hxed+ £d8 22 Hes! itself pinned) 20 a6 RKa8 21 Of4 (12 Ke3 Wb4! 13 0-0-0 An attempt by Black to solve
and White has a very good dl c4 22 W2 g6 23 HaT+ his problems by aggressive
Ne7 14 HHf4 Was! 15 a3 Eab!
ending) 20 b3 d5 21 a4 &c6 22 Xb8 24 Pxc6+ Lxc6 25 Hf4 16 Hfxds DxdS 17 DxdS means fails due to his lack of
Re2 d4 23 Wed 15 24 Wet d3 Hxe5 26 De2 X5 27 Wdd L.d6 development, e.g. 12..b4 13
£xd5 18 Hxd5 £xa3, and the
25 axb5 W6+ 26 We3 Wxe3+ 28 Re3 Exf7 29 &c3 1-0 was HHxd5 £xds (13...Wxe$ loses to
black attack breaks through)
27 Fxe3 Hxal 28 Hxal dxe2 29 the game Lalic-Marinkovic, Yu- 14 Dc7+! Wxc7 15 K4+ win-
12.. ¥Wxe5+ 13 edl &Hf6 14
bxc6 cxb3 30 ¥xe2 ¥xe7 31 goslav Team Ch. 1990. ning the queen) 14 XxdS c3
Lxc4? (14 Ke2 is more cir-
Ha7+ &d6 32 BEb7 dxc6 33 d) 12 g3 led to the following (14..Bxa2 15 Wxc4 Hal+ 16
cumspect, but still looks good
Exb3 £d6 34 Le3 and White is random encounter: 12...c4 13 a4
for Black after 14...d41? 15 Hel &c2 and the rook cannot be
winning as the black pawns are W6 14 Wr2 d4 15 Lxcd Wes &d8 16 fxcd Wc5) 14..bxcd expected to do much damage on
 108 513 5/3 109
its own) 15 Wc4 and White has 32 Dbdd+ Hf6 e.g. 8 Wh3 Ra6 9 £a3 b4 10
very strong threats. 33 Exa7 Hc4 Wc7 11 Dh3 d6 12 a3 g6
13 We7 and White won easily with 13 Wad+ )fd7 14 axbd Kb7 15
14 Hxds! his two extra pawns. The con- Wdl cxbd 16 Kxa8 fxa8 17
cluding moves were: 33...g6 34 Wal Rb7 18 b3 Hf6 19 Kxb4
Des &Hxh2 35 HNdc6 Kd6 36 with an extra pawn, Yuneev-
Dxf7 Bc8 37 Hxd6 Hxcb 38 Andreev, St. Petersburg 1992.
Hxh7 &f1 39 Ded+ Lf5 40 8 &Hal
Be7 &xf4 41 Bf7+! &xed 42
Hxfl Hc5 43 ba Zb5 44 a3 &d3
45 Hcl Xf5 46 Hc2 g5 47 Hb2
1-0. Notes based on those by T1ix
/? ,,,/41. /,///

Stohl in ChessBase Magazine.

White has an extra pawn and
active pieces. The result is not Game 16
in doubt. Gelfand-Adams
22 .. 0-0-0 Tilburg 1992
14 .. dé6 23 Ha7 dgd
The rook cannot be captured, 24 RKdd4 Db 1 d4 ()
e.g. 14..82xd5? 15 Hxd5 Wed 25 4bs 2 cd cS
16 &c7+ £d8 17 &Hxa8 Wxal 3 ds5 b5
18 S.b6+ &c8 19 Wes+ &b7 20 4 c¢xbs a6
Wxf8 and White wins. Now 5 3 axb5s Others:
Black’s pawn chain will be 6 ed Was+ a) 8..%a6 9 &Hicd Wc7
swiftly undermined, 7 Kkad2 (9...8xc4 leaves White with a
15 EHxb5s &6 very free hand to develop an
16 Wa2 ds attack, e.g. 10 Rxc4 d6 11 We2
17 Rxcd! dxcd g6 12 f4 Rh6 13 Hh3 0-0 14
18 Scs Wa7 0-0 %fd7 15 e5 dxe5 16 fxeS
Black is being torn apart by -4
p £xd2 17 Wxd2 Hxe5 18 Whé
the active White forces. One
Wy
%
fga 19 Wgs £5 20 £4 w8 21
particularly attractive finish is Hf3 Hf6 22 Hh3 Whe 23 Xel
18..Wxc5 19 Hel+ Ded 20 Wde (D)
Hixed! Wxb5 21 HHf6 mate. 25 .. Xd7 24 Hxe7 Wxe7 25 Hxg6+
19 We3+ (D) 25..Bxd4 26 Sxd4 Lc5 27 /%7 %
%,
v Hxg6 26 Wxe7 Rg7 27 Wis+
%2 4, A
Hg8 28 Wxf5 Bg7 29 Nxh7+
¥/

19 .. We6 Bad! £xd4 28 Bxcd+ wins.

A
‘y
19..%e7 20 fxe7 Wxe7 21 26 Zcl Hxa7 Hxh7 30 Wf8 mate was Con-
ch_:7+ &xe7 22 Hxb7+ and 27 Excd+! $d7 quest-Hodgson, London 1990)
White wins. 28 R2xa7 %6 10 Hh3 d6 11 a3 fxcd 12
20 Hxb7 Wxe3+ 29 g5, RKe7 7. Wb6 is an attempt to Kxc4 bxa3 13 Hxa3 Hxa3 14
21 fxe3 &HHhd7 30 o3 Hxa7 maintain the pawn front of b5 bxa3 g6 15 Wad+ Dbd7 16
22 &b 31 Hc7+ Peb and c5, but it is unsuccessful, Was+ Wb 17 Wxb8+ Hxb8 18
 5f3 111
al) 10 Rd3 g6 11 De2 Kg7 0-0 13 0-0 bxa3 14 Hxa3 Wb7 D4 Hxfa 15 Kxf4 Ke7 16 0-0
12 0-0 bd7!? (12..Dfd7 13 15 Wc2 (other possibilities are: Ne6 17 Ked Hdd 18 HA6+1?
Wcl £a6 14 a3 0-0 15 &hl 15 &c3 a6 16 Wal H)d7 17 f4 £.xd6 19 £xd6 Has

e
fKxcd 16 Kxcd D6 17 KbS b6 18 Das Wc7 19 &cb c4 20
Bl bxa3 18 Xxa3
Wc8? 20 £h6 Lxh6 21 Wxh6
Wb7 19 Rb3! fLe2 Kb7 21 Ke3 Kxc6! 22
Hxa6 L4711 23 Lxb6 Wxb6+

/”//Qé///
¢4 22 Rc3 and White has the 24 Exb6 £d4+ 25 &hi Hxal
initiative on both sides of the 26 Kxal fxb6 27 Rxc4 -k / i
board, Piket-Hodgson, Gronin- Gelfand-Adams, Munich 1993;

AL
/§///
gen 1993) 13 a3 bxa3 14 Exa3 15 £c3 Ha6 16 Wal Wb 17
Wbs 15 Hxa8 Wxa8 16 Wal Zb1 He8 18 Ha5 £b7 19 Wad
Wbs 17 Wa5 0-0 18 b4 cxb4s 19 b4 20 Kxb4 cxbd 21 Wxbd
Kxb4 Wb7 20 bl Was 21 Bc7 22 Wd2 Ka6 23 bs fxcd
P
M.
Fe2 £.g7 19 bl and White
has obtained a winning ending,
Gurevich-Miles, Manila 17
e3 &b7 22 e5 dxe5 23 Lxe?
Eb8 24 Wxa6 Kxa6 25 Hxes
NxdS 26 Hxd5 LxeS 12-12 was
24 Hxa8 Wb6+ 25 &fl Zxal 26
Sfixc4 and the position is ap- L
proximately equal, Olafsson-
1990. the game Olafsson-Nedobora, Thorhallsson, Kopavogur 1994) 20 £.e57?! (White misses the
b) 8..g6 9 &c4 Wc7 10 a3 Linares 1994, 15..5fd7 16 f4 Exa3 17 bxa3 chance for 20 Wxd4! cxd4 21
~ bxa3 11 Exa3 Hxa3 12 bxa3 dé a2) 10 a4 Hbd7 11 a5 Ka6 Wa7 18 Ebl &f6 19 h3 Kab Lc6+ Wd7 22 £xd7+ $xd7 23
13 Wad+! A7 14 L¢3 £6 15 12 Wa4 Hb8 13 Kg5 &d 14 with a balanced position and £.xb4 HExa2 24 Rxa2 &xa2 25
£d3 £h6 16 De2 0-0 17 0-0 We2 g6 15 b3 .@.g7 16 Ka2 He8 equal chances, Arlandi-Bukal, Bd1 £c6 26 Exd4 with a small
with a pleasant position for 17 ©h3 h6 18 fcl Kc3+! 19 Reggio Emilia 1992. edge) 20..0-0 21 £xd4 cxd4
White, M. Gurevich-Hertneck, £d2 £d4 20 K43 Hc7 21 Hf4 a32) 11 &e2! signifies the with equality, Van der Sterren-
Munich 1993, %e5 and Black has obtained a start of an interesting career for Hertneck, Munich 1994,
9 &Hed solid position, Hjartarson-Hert- the white knight, e.g. 11..Rg7 b2) 10 a3 €6 11 dxeb Kxeb
neck, Munich 1993. 12 &cl 0-0 13 &b3 bxa3 14
Hxa3 Wb7 15 RKe2 Hxa3d 16
a3) 10 a3 g6
bxa3 £d7 17 Hbas5 Wa7 18 0-0 H%’ &W ?E
Ha6 19 Wc2 Ebg 20 Ebl Hc7
21 Eb3 Hfe8 22 Wbl Exb3 23
Wxb3 e6 24 Wb6! Wxb6 25
‘Qz?fi%y//@
HINT ~ Y Hxb6 Lb5 26 Lxb5 Hxb5 27
/ /@ iy% facd and, thanks to his outside
illi{‘//@ ///%%/i/ »
7 Z
passed pawn, White has the ad-
vantage in the endgame, Jawor-
?, ’:,,,; O
ski-Protaziuk, Soczewka 1992.
b) 9..Wd8 defends the d-
pawn in preparation for creating
9 .. We7 counterplay with ...e6. Practice and now:
Other queen retreats are also has seen: b21) 12 axb4 Hxal 13 Wxal
playable: and now: bi) 10 £d3 e6 11 dxe6 L.xe6 d5 14 exd5 &xd5 15 Wad+ (15
a) 9..Wa7 a3l) 11 £d3 Kg7 12 He2 12 &e2 d5 13 exd5 @Dxd5 14 bS 9b4 16 Lxbd cxbd 17 b3
112 53
fc5 18 Wes &d7! 19 Wxg7 12 92 g6 13 &3 sets a neat 15 faS £h6!
X8 20 Hh3 &)f6 21 Wgs5 £44, trap, viz. 13..8g7? 14 &cb5 16 &He7+ M8
and Black has promising play as Wb7 15 Dc7+!! Wxc7 16 HbS
winning) 12 b5 Hxal 13
¥ 7 7
the white king is stuck, Koml-
jenovic-Vaiser, Oviedo 1993) Wxal g6 14 Wa5 Rg7 15 Dc7+
15..20d7!
Wc6 £d5
16 De5
18 Wb5S
D566
Wha+
17
19
28
&e2 &h7
16 £¢3 h6 17 R4 g8
19 0-0 Y2-12 Chernin-
18 SMaLEEY
&dl Ke7 20 bxc5 Lxc5 21 Hodgson, Munich 1992,
’//
i{/ 7-
/7//%//;/////
De2 0-0! 22 Dxd7 &xd7 and b) 11 bxa3 g6 12 £c3 kg7
Black has a good position, Gel- 13 Rd3 0-0 14 He2 Hbd7 15
fand-Hertneck, Munich 1994 as 0-0 £a6 16 a4 Hb6 17 Has
23 Wxd7 is met by 23..8b3+
24 sbcl Hd8 25 g3 Exd7 26
gxhd Re3!.
Sxd3 18 Wxd3 &fd7
Ab8 20 a5 Dc8 21 Hxbs Kxbs
22 Hfbl with an edge, Slipak-
19 &6
///////;f
b22) 12 He3 bxa3 13 Exa3 Giardelli, Argentina 1994.
Abd7 14 He2 Exa3 15 bxa3 d5 11 .. dxa3 White’s invasion looks im- 28 & xd4 cxdd 29 HHia6 Kb5
16 exd5 Dxd5 17 &Hxd5 &xd5 pressive but it only leads to him 30 &b4 Rxe2+ wins.
@8 £c3 £c6 19 Dg3 Wes5 20 getting his pieces tangled up. 28 .. Zb7
d2 Wxd2+ 21 &xd2 f6 22 17 b3? 29 Ha8 He8
£.c4 and White has a small ini- White would do better to re- 30 RfKe2 16
tiative, I. Sokolov-Bareev, Par- treat his forces with 17 b5 31 2xd4 cxdd
dubice 1994, g7 18 £c3 with an equal po- 32 Hbl Exbl
10 a3 bxa3 sition. 33 Qxbl LbS
The central break with
10...e6! may well be better, e.g.
17 . g7 34 Ogd @3
18 Re2 Des 35 o1 L5
11 dxe6 (11 axb4 Hxal 12
19 Wbs 36 f4
Wxal exdS 13 exd5 &xd5 14 White is now struggling to
bxc5 dxc5 15 Was Wb7 16 £.d3
B .,
extricate his pieces, e.g. 19 @b5
fKe7 17 HDe2 0-0 18 0-0 &6 19 £.d7 and the knight is in a hor-
Wa3 £e6 20 Hal Hdb4 is per- 12 Hxa3!
rible pin. //// ,/1// A 1
fectly okay for Black, Annagel- This is based on a misguided
19 .. Wa7 // X A1 /
dyev-P. Cramling, Manila OL
1992) 11...8xe6 12 axb4 Hxal
adventure. More solid, and giv-
ing a small edge is 12 bxa3 e6
20 b6 Wxh6 7
//}‘Q‘}///g 2//,
21 &xb6 Rd7
13 Wxal d5! 14 exd5 &Hxd5 15 13 dxe6 L.xe6 14 £f4 Kxc4 15 22 RaS Hbs

\
b5 £d6 16 £d3 &b4 17 Lxb4 fxc4 Re7 16 De2 0-0 17 0-0 23 adl Hd3+ //////é

\
was Touzane-Nikolaev, Podolsk A6 18 a4 DaS 19 Kb5 c4 20 pZ S~ | &el (D)
3
1991. Here 17...&xc4! 18 £xc4
cxb4, would give Black a good
game.
Wd2 Rc8 21 We3 b3
Nd7 23 RKe3
French Team Ch. 1993,
22 Hdl
Vaiser-Koch,
Black has completely
over the initiative and, thanks to
the weaknesses at ¢7 and b3,
taken
om mos
11 Hxa3 12 .. g6 has a winning position. 36 .. f5!
White has other recaptures: 13 DbS Wb7 25 &e2 &xb3 This is the thematic under-
a) 11 Hxa3 Wb7 (11..Wa7 14 Wad &bd7 26 fc3 Kel mining move for Black in a
114 573
Benko endgame. Here, how- Summary
ever, it is lent added force by 5...g6 is a difficult variation for
the fact that the knight on a8 Black. White has simple devel-
will be rounded up if Black can opment and, as with 5 e3 g6
control the long diagonal. (and a later ...d6), it is easy for 6 5Db6
37 gxf5 gxf5 Black to end up a pawn down
38 e5 Lcd for insufficient compensation.
39 &Hg3 d2 The main line of 5...e6 is cur-
40 fc2 Lxd5+ rently looking a little dubious Many 1 d4 players are unhappy is the queen’s knight ever going
41 &fl 213! for Black — virtually all the facing the Benko Gambit. They to do? It can go to d7, but then
There is no rush to take the variations seem to give White play 1 d4 with the expectation the black knights are treading
a8-knight — White wants to promising play, although the of meeting the King’s Indian or on each other’s toes.
emerge two pieces ahead. One positions tend to have both the maybe the Benoni and have 5 b6 has been immensely
must admire the coolness with kings wandering around in mid- their favourite attacking sys- popular over the past few years,
which Adams is conducting this board and are thus highly com- tems against these particular being championed especially by
endgame, bearing in mind there plex. If you are not afraid to openings worked out. 3...b5 up- the Latvian Grandmaster Alexei
was 50,000 dollars at stake. play with a couple of pawns sets their rhythm - they like to Shirov, who has racked up an
42 Hxf5+ Sf8 deficit, then the recent innova- play positions where they have enormous score with it. Unlike,
43 exd6 exd6 tion of 6...c4!? is well worth a a pawn centre with pawns on e4 for example, 5 f3, this is a sys-
4 Hg3 d1¥+ closer look. and d5, but don’t relish the tem where an understanding of
45 RQxdl £xdl 5..axb5 6 e4 Wa5+ is the prospect of fending off Black’s the ideas takes precedence over
46 Ded £a7 soundest method against 5 f3, ready-made initiative on the precise knowledge of move or-
47 g5 &e? Black has to be careful not to let queenside. For such players, 5 ders.
48 f5 £b3 White generate strong pressure b6 is a good choice. By refusing
49 Hxh7 L£ds on the queenside, particularly as to fall in with Black’s plans of Game 17
50 h4 £ xa8 endgames where Black is facing opening the queenside at an Shirov-Adams
With two pieces more the win a passed a-pawn can be very early stage, White creates the Hastings 1991/92
is trivial. The game finished: 51 difficult. However, some of the time to mount an attack in the
Pe2 Led 52 g5 Lxf5 53 &f3 plans with ...e6 (for example in centre or on the kingside. The 1 d4 of6
A6 54 ofa £d7 55 D3 &f7 the note to Black’s 10th in game drawback of 5 b6 is that it is not 2 ¢4 c5
56 Dd2 &h5+ 57 Lg5 HHf6 58 16) look promising. This is not a theoretically critical test of the 3 d5 b5
&ca d5 59 DeS+ Le6 60 D3 surprising, as when White has Benko. 4 cxb5s a6
fe3+ 61 g6 d4 62 Del Ke8+ played a move like f3, opening One of the main points of 5 5 b6(D)
63 g7 Kb5 64 HNc2 Ld3 65 up the centre is a logical re- b6 is that if this pawn is cap- 5 . dé
9b4 Led 0-1. sponse. tured with the queen, White can Or 5...Wxb6 6 &Hc3 and:
play a4-a5, gaining a tempo and a) The continuation 6...g6 7
fixing the black pawn at a6. e4 d6 is likely to result in posi-
This leaves the black queenside tions from our main game. Al-
pieces struggling to find a way ternatives are:
to participate in the game. The al) 8 a4 Wbd (8..%g7 9 a5
bishop no longer has access to 9...Wb7 will most likely trans-
the natural a6-square and what pose to the main game) 9...Wd8
116 5b6 506 117

10 £c4 0-0 11 &3 fi.g4 12 h3 {the white knight has been tem- now takes over the initiative —
Kxf3 13 Wxf3 Hbd7 14 We2 porarily ejected from c4 but 18..8gd! 19 Hadl Kd4 20 xv 4

De5 15 Kxa6 Wc7 16 0-0c4 17 now Black will either have to £.g3 £5! 21 Ee2 Hb4 with good
Kb5 HxaS 18 Hxa5 Wxa5 19 allow it back or weaken his play for Black, Kir. Georgiev- WAt iRt
Kxc4 Whbs 20 Ra2 and White queenside with ...a5) 13...a5 14 Topalov, Burgas 1992; alterna- :t///%/1:/,7//]
is in control of events, Bagirov-
L. B. Hansen, Amsterdam 1989)
0-0 £a6 15 &xa6 Exa6 16 £42
Haa8 17 Hcl Wd7 18 b3 6 19
tively, 11..%eS! heralded
interesting strategy by Black -
an ji?i %//
9 £d43 £g7 10 Hge2 0-0 11 a5 Ded! Dxcd 20 bxcd exdS 21 reminiscent of a plan in the
€6 12 0-0 exdS 13 exdS &bd7 exdS and, with the weaknesses Modern Benoni, viz. 12 &hl g5
. ,fl////,,
14 £c2 He8 is about equal, at a5 and d6 to aim at, White 13 Dc4 Hixcd 14 fxcd g4 15
/fi’//é///’/

\\\\
Glek-Lorenz, Bundesliga 1990. has a very pleasant game, b1 &h8 16 Le3 Wbd 17 43
Knaak-Hertneck, Bad Lauter- Hd7! 18 a3 Wb7 19 Wxgs Des
78 berg 1991. 20 Wd1 5 21 f4 Hxd3 22 Wxd3
a22) 9 Ke2 0-0 fxe4 and, with a bishop coming (again White seems to be
to f5, Black stands well, Fries pressing, but the exchange of a
Nielsen-Plachetka, Rimavska pair of minor pieces has consid-
Sobota 1991) 12 a4 erably eased Black’s defensive
task) 19..Eb4 20 b3 Kb5! 21
Hadl Wb7 22 exd6 exd6 23
HNed Dxds! 24 Hxd6 Lxcd 25
///wx’ bxcd @c3 26 Wd3 Wc6 27 Rd2
£5 28 Hel Hbb8 29 2f2 Rfd8!
/ f
and Black is winning, Moska-
/ lenko-Tukmakov, Wijk aan Zee
a2) 8 Nf3 g7 (8..Kgd?" 9 ii// / / // 1992.
Wad+! 247 10 Wb3
axb3 Lg7 12 Kcd 0-0 13 0-0
Wxb3 11
//,’////// b) 6...e6 7 e4 exd5 8 exdS d6
9 &§}f3 Ke7 (Black prefers not
Ha7 14 5 De8 15 exd6 Hxd6 10 Dd2 (10 0-0 Lg4 11 Dd2 ALk b to fianchetto the king’s bishop
16 Bel £f5 17 Lf1
Lg5 L6 19 Lxf6 exf6 20 Dd2
Eb7 18 fxe2 12 Wxe2 &bd7 13 b3
Wb7 14 &b2 Hb6 15 Hadl
wey and instead keep a solid king-
side structure) 10 fe2 £g4 11
with an edge, Bischoff-Hargens, Hfe8 16 a4 Hac8 17 Fhl c4 18 12.. . Bb8 (12...9.1)7 13 &4 Hid2 Lxe2 12 Wxe2 0-0 13 0-0
Bundesliga 1991) and now: b4 §H)fd7 and Black has gener- b6 14 Ha3 Hae8 15 K4 eb6 He8 14 Hcd WcT 15 K14 Hbd7
a21) 9 &d2 (c4 is an attrac- ated good play against the white 16 Hcd Hixcd 17 fL.xcd exds 18 16 Wf3 &8 17 a4! (a standard
tive square for a white knight in queenside, Christiansen-Adams, 5xd5 Hxds 19 £.xd5 £xd5 20 plan in this variation — White
this structure and here there is Cannes 1992) 10...5bd7 11 0-0 Wxds He6 21 Hadl £d4 22 b4 wants to get the pawn to a5 to
the added bonus of gaining a Wc7 (others: 11..5b8 12 Hcd Hfes 23 h1 Wb6 24 3 Wxba fix a weakness at a6) 17..23b6
tempo against the black queen) Wc7 13 214 HHb6 14 €5 De8 15 resulted in a painless draw for 18 He3 Rab8 19 a5 Hbd7 20
9..20bd7 10 Dc4! Wc7 11 Re2 exd6 exd6 16 Wd2 Hxc4 17 Black in D. Gurevich-Ben- &\ca Bba 21 Wd3 DhS 22 Kd2
Hb6 12 He3 0-0 (12..e6 13 fxc4 of6 18 Hfel — White jamin, Philadelphia 1990) 13 a5 Wb7 23 £4 Dhf6 24 Hael Hxel
dxe6 fxe6 14 a4 0-0 15 a5 seems to be forcing the pace HNes 14 Hca Hes5 15 4 Dxcd 25 Exel Eb3 26 h3 with a clear
Dbd7 16 Dcd De8 17 0-0 with but, in fact, the exchanges have 16 $xc4 Wa7 17 We2 &7 18 advantage to White, I. Sokolov-
a small plus for White) 13 a4 freed the black position and he £e3 2471965 Kotronias, Novi Sad 1990.
118 5 b6 5b6 119
6 &c3 Wxb6 15 fe3 Wxb2 16 Wd3 Wb7
7 a4 g6 17 Rabl Wa7 gives White a
8§ as
e useful initiative for the pawn,
BN
a7 but Black is very solid.
15 .. Dbs!
15...e67! allows the White
/gv/

\\c\\\\B\\*‘

\\\\

=
\
attack to rumble forward with
16 dxe6 fxe6 17 Lxe6 Dxeb y///
//
A //fi

1S §
/%fi i
18 f5.

i
16 fe3 L4a7

\\§
17 Wa3

VRN
17 e5 &e8 is very comfort-
able for Black. Opening the e-
and:
file with 18 exd6 is favourable
a) 14 2.g5 He8 15 f4 £b5 16 for Black, as we have seen in ‘The black king is slightly ex-
b3 &d7 17 Wh3 Habs (17...e6 previous examples, and White posed, but he has well co-
8§ .. Wb7 18 5 and White has a strong has no way to defend the e- ordinated pieces and good con-
8...Wb4 is an attempt to dis- attack) 18 e5! dxe5? 19 d6!
pawn. trol of the centre.
turb White’s development, e.g. De6 (19..exd6 20 Kxf7+! 17 .. e6 23 .. Ha7?
9 Had Wb7 10 e4 2g7 11 Ke2 &xf7 21 Wxh7 e4 22 f5 wins) This is misguided. A better
£d7 12 Ha3 Wb4 13 3 0-0 14 20 Dxb5! axbs 21 Lxe6 fxe6 way to counter White’s coming
£d2 Wb7 15 £c4 De8 16 22 Wxe6+ ¥h8 23 dxe7 and attack was with 23...Kae8 when
Nge2 Dc7 17 0-0 £b5 18 b3 White has a winning position, after 24 Ha4!? We7! 25 Kf2
&d7 19 f4 Efe8 20 Hg3 Hads Li-Rodriguez, Havana 1992. We6 26 Bh4 h6 27 Hf3 d5!
21 Wf3 (White has an aggres- b) 14 f4 2b5 15 b3 &Hd7 16 Black has good play.
sive set-up but once Black Ha2 Had8 17 £b2 &f6 18 Ral 24 HgS!
prises open the e-file, he gains e6 19 h3 Hfe8 20 @g3 Ed7 21 Black was probably expect-
excellent counterplay) 21...e6 dxe6 fxe6 22 f5 fLxc4 23 bxed ing 24 Hxf8+ Xxf8 25 Wxd6
22 h3 exd5 23 exd5 f5 24 Wd3 exf5 24 exf5 g5 25 Kb2 Wa8 26 &h8! 26 Wd5 Wxd5 27 Dxd5
He7 25 Haal Hde8 (Black’s Hb6 g4 27 hxgd Dxgs 28 Hiced Hbg 28 &c7 Hxb2 29 Rxb2
threats are becoming increas- fixal 29 Hxal Bde7 30 el d5 £xb2 30 Hxa6 Lc3 and the
ingly awkward to deal with) 26 31 Wdl dxed 32 WXg4+ Hg733 game burns out. White prefers
Habl He3 27 £xe3 Hxe3 28 Wf4 Wds 34 f6 Wdd+ 35 &h2 to avoid exchanges in order to
18 dxe6
Wxe3 £d4 and the white queen Zf7 36 DS Wxcd 37 Hho+ The consequences for White keep his attack going.
drops off, Savchenko-Lazarev, h8 38 Hxed Wxed 39 Dxf7+ of allowing the opening of the 24 ..
Alushta 1993, g8 40 Hh6+ Lhs 41 Wxed e-file are clear from previous 25 Had! &QeS
9 e4 Lg7 Hxed 42 Eb8+ He8 43 Hxe8+ games. Black must be careful. After
10 L4 0-0 Dxe8 44 f7 1-0 Shirov-Hodg- 18 .. f.xe6 25.. . Wxb2? 26 Hha OHf6 27
11 Hge2 De8 son, Hastings 1991/92. 19 f2xe6 fxeb &\d5 White wins.
12 00 &7 13 . a7 26 Wxd6 &h8
20 f5 exfs
13 h3 14 f4 o6 21 exfS gxfs After 26..Wxb2 27 Wxc5
13 Wd3 &£d7 15 Ha2 22 Exfs &Hxel White is a pawn up, but not 27
 5b6 121
120 5 b6

Hxg7+? dxg7 28 Lh6+ #h8 32 Wde+! Xf6 2 c4 c5 e4 (again White is falling in

29 £xf8 when Black turns the 33 Wds Efs 3 d5 b3 with Black’s plans = the pawn
tables with 29..83+ 30 gxf3 34 2xe5 HfxeS 4 cxb5 a6 on b7 is easily rounded up)
Hel mate. 34..Hexe5 35 Wg8+ &f6 36 5 b6 e6 8..8xfl 9 &xfl Hbd7 10 b7
27 Wxc5! Wxb2 Ad5+ ExdS 37 Ke6 mate. Ebs 11 D)3 Wc7 12 a4 Wxb7
35 Hgda+ Hgs 13 Wxb7 Bxb7 14 D2 B4 15
36 Wdl+
LIEST b3 g6 16 £a3 Kg717 de2 Rb3
18 Ehcl £h6 19 Xabl 0-0 20

. oititl
/// m/ 7
N5 £xd2 21 $xd2 Dxed+ 22
. » / E/ Le2 Hb6 0-1 Basin-Kaidanov,
//% US Open 1992.

/ ///////’//
ah
6 &He3 Hxd5
/// ’ 7 &Hxd5 exd5
o // . ) // 8§ Wxd5 &Hc6
// LEA
B N7 7,
9 O3

vy &T
2% 1 %2 /

\\\N
28
White
Exg7!
removes the key de-
fender of the black kingside. 36
A=/}

.. &f7?
is an interesting try. Black
will swiftly bring the bishop to
a6 and hopes to hamper White’s
5////”
e
@/////////
28 .. Sxg7 This loses easily. Black could development, e.g. 6 @c3 Ra6 7
29 EHed have forced White to find a Wb3 (7 f4 intends to ape the
tricky win with 36...&g7 when strategy of 7 f4 in the main line
White gets home with 37 Wd7+ Benko — see game 5 — and is a
&f8 38 Wd6+! g7 (38.. g8 dangerous idea as here White
39 Wd5+ wins immediately) 39 has an extra tempo, e.g. 7...d6 8
24! g8 (39...Wxc3 40 Wd7+ ed £xfl 9 doxfl Wxb6 10 e5
&h6 41 Ehd+ Eh5 42 Wd6+! HFA7 11 O3 e6 12 We2 Ke7 9 .. Wxb6
g7 43 ExhS) 40 He4 wins. 13 dxe6 fxe6 14 exd6 Wxd6 15 Others:
37 Wxh7+ <&f6 f2 0-0 16 Ed1 We6 17 gl is a) 9..2e7 10 &e5 0-0 11
38 Hd5+ HxdS unclear, Lev—Bykhovsky, Tel Hxc6 dxc6 12 Wxd8 should be
39 Wge+ 10 Aviv 1994; 7 e4 is rather too better for White as Black’s
39 Hed+ follows. compliant to create real prob- pawns are so bad, e.g.
Notes based on those of Shi- lems for Black, e.g. 7..8xf1 8 al) 12..Hxd8 13 £f4 (13 g3
rov in ChessBase Magazine. &xfl d6 9 b7 fia7 10 f4 €6 11 c4 14 £d2 Eb8 15 £g2 Exb6
29 .. ars! dxe6 fxe6 12 D3 Wd7 13 We2 16 £.c3 with an small edge for
Gritty defence. 29...2)g6 lost Game 18 Exb7 14 €5 dxe5 15 Hxe5 WcB White, Holemar-Hudecek, Pra-
immediately to 30 Wdd+! g8 Van Wely-D. Garcia 16 Hed Le7 with a messy po- gue 1992) 13.. L1614 2d1 Bd4
31 Wds+ g7 32 Wd7+. Las Palmas 1993 sition where Black should not 15 e3 Eb4 16 b3 Keb 17 Kc7
30 £d4 Wer+ be worse, Brenninkmeijer-Kai- $c3+ 18 Pe2 c4 19 bxed
31 w2 el 1 a4 o danov, New York 1993) 7...d6 8 fxca+ 20 2f3 £d5+ 21 g3
 5b6 123
122 5 b6

h5 22 fe2 ha+ 23 Sh3 Leb+ centre) 12..We8 13 0-0 Hd4! Hhel a4 with a comfortable
24 g4 hxg3+ 25 @xg3 and 14 b4 d6 15 bxc5 dxc5 16 fe3 edge for Black, Levin-Malpert,
Bxb6 17 £xd4 cxdd 18 Df3
White has kept his extra pawn, Philadelphia 1992.
b22) 13 g3 13..0-0 14 2g2 ] // '“fi
Karpov-Christiansen, Wijk aan
1&%%g% |
(18 Wxd4?! Xb4! 19 Nxf7 Bxf7
Zee (Rapidplay) 1993. 20 &xf7+ Wxf7 is better for ¥xb6 15 0-0 fe6 and now we
a2) 12..&xd8 13 e3 Hb8 Black) 18...Kb4! 19 £d3 RKeb have the further split:
(13..4f6 14 £d2 Hb8 15 Ka5 (Black’s bishops glve him an b221) 16 Edt £4d5 (16..Ed8
fKe6 16 Hel RKxa2 17 Excs edge, but Shirov is a tricky 17 Exd8+ £xd8 is equal) 17
Wc2 We6 18 b3 c4 19 bxcd
@, ,//;//};
{45 18 £xa6 Lxg2 19 Hgl customer) 20 Wa5 Xad4 21 Wb6
£4d5 20 b7 £xb2 21 £c7 Ka3 Wds 22 Wa7 a3 23 £.c2! Xb4 fxc4 20 Le3 and White may
22 Hxd5 cxd5 23 Eg5 and 24 £b3 Hb6 25 Lxe6 fxe6? have a very slight advantage,
White has obtained a winning (this is disastrous ~ 25..Xxe6 Lalic-P. Cramling, Manila OL
position, Lputian-Annageldyev, was essential) 26 Habl &b2? 1992.
Azov 1991) 14 b7 Lxb7 15 27 &eS! (suddenly, thanks to b222) 16 &f4! Hb4 17 We3 10 e4 Wba+!? 11 £.d2 Wxb2
$d2 216 16 Ebl £.c8 17 b3 c4 threat of £c4, White finds him- Wd4 18 b3 Hc8 19 Bfcl Wxe3 12 Ed1 L.e7 is unclear.
self in a winning position) 10 . Dxes
18 £xc4 &5 19 Edl with a 20 £xe3 c4 21 £d2 and White
clear extra pawn, Kumaran- 27..b87! 28 Wxb8 1-0 Shi- has a slight edge, Babula-Hu- Black’s speculative gambit is
rov-Neverov, USSR Ch. 1991. forced, as 10..f6 loses to the
Waitzkin, Oakham 1992. decek, Luhacovice 1993.
b) 9...Hb8 and: b2) 10 Hes 10..Wf6 11 ¢) 9...£b7 is not impressive, reply 11 Df7.
bl) 10 e4 £e7 11 £c4 0-0 Hixc6 dxc6 12 Wed+ Ke7 eg. 10 De5 WeT (10..5xeS 11 Wxa8 Wc7
12 K14 Ld6
resulted in another Shirov vic-

JEEY ES tory after 11 Wxb7 Rd6 12 13 0-0-0

Stohl suggests that White will
WL
Wds Wbs 13 &£f4 0-0 14 Edl
O3+ 15 Wxf3 £xf4 16 g3 Les have a small edge after 13

/////
f////
17 b7 Ha7
£g2 Wes
18 Exd7
20 Hc7
Sxb2
WeS
19
21
Wed1? 0-0 14 Wc2 267 15 €3.
13 . Hd3+!?
Black is in combative mood.
Wxf7+ Bxf7 22 b8W+ Xif8 23
/// Wb3+ &h8 24 Hxa7 Rc3+ 25 13...0-0 gives White the chance
%/’/////@/ // &fl c4 26 Wxcs WES 27 2f3 to simplify with 14 Hxd6!?
Wxd6 15 Wed He8 16 g3 when
//
o //iy fi?
il Wh3+ 28 gl
Vasiukov, Moscow
1-0 Shirov-
1989) 11 he retains an edge.
14 Hxdd &xfd+
Af4 HHd8 12 Wd2 Web6 (12...d5
13 Wc2 We6 14 Wad+ &e7 15 15 €3 0-0!
with a balanced position, e.g. e4 g5 16 exdS £xd5 17 0-0-0 16 Was
bl1) 12 0-0 Has! 13 £.d3 (13 b2l) 13 Wf4 0-0!? (13...2xb6 gxf4 18 Hel £g7 19 Df3 was a Not 16 exf4? &b7 17 Wa7
b3 Hxb6 14 L4 is about equal) 14 Wc7 2.d8! 15 Wxc8 0-0! is disaster for Black, A. Sokolov- a8 and Black is better.
13..Exb6 14 Wh5 &£b7 15 Bdl assessed by Vaisman as win- Onishchuk, Jurmala 1991) 13 16 . Le5
c4 16 Kc2 Hb5 17 Wgs K16 is ning for Black due to the threat 17 Ea2 d6 (D)
Hd1 dS 14 e4 d4 15 L.c4 Wxb6
unclear, Lev-Pein, Tel Aviv of ..Exb2) 14 Wxb8 c4 15 3 16 Wc2 and White has a small This is a difficult position to
1992. .Q.dé 16 Wxd6 Wxd6 17 kd2 advantage, Gavrilov-Katisonok, assess. White is probably better,
b12) 12 Hg5?! (this is active Wd4 18 0-0-0 Ke6 19 e4 Wxb6 Moscow 1991. but in the hurly-burly of a tour-
but also takes an eye off the 20 £c3 a5 21 Re2 W2 22 10 DeS nament game, many players
124 5 b6 5b6 125

might well prefer to take the and probably better, plan. 35 axb3 Wal+ wins. White. The material here sug-
black pieces here. 26 .. gxf5 35 .. Wxa2! gests that White has a good
27 Wxfs Was! 0-1 chance to develop an attacking
The attack against f7 is un- formation on the kingside while
important. White will find it it is not easy for Black to gen-
very difficult to cope with the erate counterplay. The White
black bishops raking against his set-up with £c4 and Dge2 is
open king. more flexible than that with
%,,/,, N 7 28 Wxf7+ <<h8 Of3 and fLe2 and should be
29 He2 preferred.
P 29 Wf4 d5! threatens .. Zf8. 5.6 (game 18) is a more
% % (3
29 .. Led dynamic continuation and is
30 Wr2? scoring better for Black. The
White goes astray, proving exchange sacrifice which forms
how difficult it is to play such a the theme of the main game is
position. He had to try 30 £d3 speculative, but Black has a
but 30..8xd3 31 Hxd3 Wel+ A nice finish. If 36 Exa2 bl perfectly good alternative in
20 Ehdl fc6 32 Bd1 Wxe3+ 33 &bl Wes is is mate. 9..5b8 (note ‘b’ to Black’s
21 We2 Hb8 very good for Black. 9th). Finally, the little-tested
22 b3 Bd8 30 .. Wa3+ Summary 5..a5 appears quite playable
This is necessary to defend 31 Eb2 18 The main line positions of game and should be good for random-
the d-pawn. 32 Va2 17 appear quite promising for ising the position.
23 f4 216
24 g g6
25 g5 2g7

32 . ds
33 In
If 33 Ke2 c4 and White is
26 f5 getting torn apart.
This demonstration backfires 33 . Zbs
on White. 26 £.d5 £b5 27 e4!? 34 fe2 Hxb3!
intending e5 was an alternative, 35 Efé

7 54&¢3
With the move 5 &c3, which is
often known as the Zaitsev
Variation, White is announcing
that he is more concerned with
going e2-e4 in one move,
with hanging on to the gambit
pawn. White relies on superior
development to generate an ini-
tiative and, in many variations,
it is White who is sacrificing
material — not a situation that
always suits the aggressively
minded Benko Gambit player.
The move 8 Mc4, which
forms the main topic of game
19, could perhaps be considered
as a sideline in the Benko and
not really worthy of a full game.
However, this dangerous try has
been almost completely passed
over by theory and so I have
looked at it here in some depth
in an attempt to redress the bal-
ance.
Game 19
Burgess-Katishonok
Vosu 1989
1 d4 &6
2 cd c5
3 ds b5
4 cxbs a6
5 &3
than
% 15 Rel! e57! (probably best was
A
%
4 O
’ /,% /
=
2Ny
A = ',;
A, -
5 .
5..Wa5 is a
alternative, e.g.
e4 b4 8 e5 bxc3
Wxa4 Hxad 11
here, Black was thought to have
a quite reasonable endgame, but
a couple of games by the Ger-
man player Breutigam have
shown a quite convincing
method for White, e.g. 12 b5
Ha7 (12..Ha8 13 De2 £b7 14
0-0-0 &d8 15 &bl Hg8 16 HHg3
d6 17 Ke2 Hd7 18 Lh5 &e8
19 Zhel and Black is strug-
gling, Breutigam-Geisler, Ber-
lin 1987) 13 He2 L.26 14 Lxab
Hxa6 15 d6 e5 16 0-0-0 Hv4
17 Dg3 Hg8 18 Lxbd cxbd 19
Hd5 Rg4 20 &bl Bd4 21 Hd1
Hxd1+ 22 Exdl and Black has
5&¢3 127
a dreadful position, Breutigam- so easy. Other tries are:
Hertneck, Bundesliga 1991. a) 8 &f3 g6 9 e5 dxe5 10
6 ed4 h4 NxeS Kg7 11 Ked 0-0 12 00
7 &b5 dé £b7 (12..8a6 may be better,
8 Rcd eg 13 Hel £xb5 14 KxbS
Wxd5 15 Wc2 b3 and here
Black had a good game, Gulko-
Vasiukov, Erevan 1976) 13 d6
B\c6 (13..e6 14 DT Dd5 15
£.xd5 exdS 16 £f4! is better for
White) 14 &xf7! (better than 14
/ //// £f4 as in Ftacnik-Plachetka,
/ // "
Trencianske Teplice 1985,
/W// ////// when 14...8h5! 15 &ixc6 Kxcb
i} é/ i :’d:
16 £g5 &xb5 17 Kxb5 Wxd6
was good for Black) 14..Kxf7
15..e6!7 16 fKxe6 Wf8) 16
. This is a very dangerous £e3! Wd7 17 &7 Rd8 18
” move which has received re- fxc5 Das 19 Lxf7+ Wxf7 20
markably little attention. Ravi- Hxe5 9c6 21 Hel hS 22 Deb
axb5 kumar mentions it very briefly, Hd7 23 h3 Hh7 24 Wb3 HFB 25
quite playable but without considering 9 eS Gixg7 Wxb3 26 axb3 Hxg7 27
6 £d2 axb5 7 which is the main point of the He8 &f7 28 Hael Hd7 29
9 fxc3 Wad 10 move. Fedorowicz gives one £xb4 g5 30 Lc3 Hh7 31 b4
exf6 gxf6 and game where White wins in 27 &gb6 32 bS5 &)cb8 33 Hgs+ S5
moves and the only alternatives 34 He7 Eh6 35 Uxb8 1-0 Ep-
he suggests for Black he as- ishin-Sznapik, Warsaw 1990.
sesses as either giving White a b) The old main line, also
very good position or a danger- highly complex, is 8 &f4.
ous initiative. Many years ago, this used to
8 fc4 is an almost purely be regarded as a serious test of
tactical move. White plans to the Benko Gambit, but it has
sacrifice two pawns to gain a since been relegated to some-
very big initiative. Often, the thing of a sideline as the main
problem with wild attacking line was thought to have been
schemes is that there is a simple worked out as being perfectly
stratagem whereby the defend- adequate for Black. However, in
ing player can give back the the last couple of years it has
material and obtain a more or been the subject of a sudden
less equal position. However, resurgence of interest. Black
against 8 S.c4, even that is not can try:
128 5&)c3 583 129

&xf6 £xf6 21 Hhs Ke5 22

Hc4 R2d7 23 h4 in Vogel-

e\ i
\\\\
gm‘

\\“\\&\s\:‘\\\\\
WG\

A \\;&

e i
Gerusel, Bundesliga 1982) 11

&
AN

“w o
Ne2 (11 Kxed led to obscure

\\\@

bY
Z
747

éfl///
&

play in Briimmel-Biirvenich,
W
.

XeW W Hamburg 1993, viz. 11.. Wxbs

8

12 £d3 Wa5 13 fLxg5 La6 14

/ /S/ /
/

%7 %7 w Hf3 4xd3 15 Wxd3 b3+ 16 /,

/
,
. %
£d2 Wxa2 17 Hxa2 bxa2 18
e2 alW 19 Hxal Kxal 20
\\fi »

//////’/ /
o[~}
X \D?’

SN

IR
Sc3 Hg8 21 Wxh7 Hg6 22 Hha
fi A
2y 7, [
Y

%
%f/ iy,

Y
S\

Hh6 23 Wed and White had the

T

% [ ]

better of it) 11...f5 12 0-0 f4 13

bl) 8...g6 (this is very risky) fcl &f6 14 Hel £f7 15 b3 is a very messy position We have arrived at a very
9 e5 Hh5 10 exd6 exd6 11 @bd7 16 £b2 De5 17 Lxes where practice has seen: interesting position, which for
We2+ &d7 12 Le3 We7 13 g4 dxe5 with an equal position, C. b2311) 14 3 00 15 fxed many years had been purely
&)f6 14 Lh317 £d8 15 g5 HhS Hansen-Fedorowicz, Amster- fxed 16 g3 (16 Wxed4 Wd2! is theoretical, as no-one seemed to
16 £xc8 Lxc8 17 &h3! and the dam 1990. strong) 16...Wxa2! 17 Hxa2 (17 want to try it out. I first saw this
White initiative was too much Hel Ea4! and Black intends to position at least 15 years ago
for Black to cope with, Golod- continue with ...%a6) 17...bxa2 and the general assessment was
Nesterov, Bratislava 1993. Ad- 18 $£xa2 Exa2 19 &c7 Kf5 that Black, despite having lost a
ditionally, it is hard to see what (19..5a6 20 De6 Lxe6 21 pawn and the right to castle,
is wrong with Fedorowicz’s
suggestion, which he attributes
/'// dxe6 b8! 22 Wxed Ebxb2 23
He2 Hxe2 24 Wxe2 Hxe2 25
stood well. This position has
been in all the books on the
to Jay Whitehead: 10 £g5 dxe5 &xe2 &c7 and Black has good Benko Gambit, without ever
11 d6 Qa6 12 d7+! Wxd7 13 winning chances) 20 &e6 Exb2 actually appearing in tourna-
Wa4 and Black is utterly help- with an obscure position, Sil- ment play. However, all this has
less in the face of the threats of man-Christiansen, Los Angeles now changed and there has been
IXd1 and £)d6+. 1989. , a positive flurry of activity in
b2) 8...g5 has for a long time b2312) 14 a4 was neatly re- this variation with no less than
been regarded as the antidote futed in Koerholz-Fogarasi, Bu- five games in the past couple of
for Black against 5 &)c3. Recent b22) 9 €57 gxf4 10 exf6 dapest 1993, viz. 14...0-0 15 h4 years. They have seen: 14 d6
games have seen the following: Nd7! 11 fxe7 Wxe7+ 12 Le2 Wb4 16 Eh3 Hxad 17 Exad b2321) 14...e6 15 Wd2 (this
b21) 9 Le3 Hxed 10 Kd3 De5 13 ©fl £g7 14 Wd2 0-0 Wxa4 18 Exb3 £xb2 19 f3 Le5 is motivated by an understand-
Was (D) 15 Wxf4 & g6 and Black won 20 £xe5 Wxca 21 Wxcd NA2+ able desire to exchange of
(this may be an improvement Markzon-Fedorowicz, Philadel- 22 2f2 Sixcs 23 &f4 Hab and Black’s powerful dark-squared
over the old 10...2)f6 which led phia 1989. Black is a pawn ahead for no- bishop) 15...0d5 (this does not
to a useful White initiative after b23) 9 £ xg5 @xed 10 Lf4: thing. look good, so maybe 15...5)e4!1?
11 fxg5 £¢7 12 He2 Dbd7 13 b231) 10..Wa5 11 £c4 g7 b232) 10..£g7 11 We2 Hf6 and if 16 Wc2 Wb7! threatens
0-0 De5 14 a4 Hxd3 15 Wxd3 (11...8a67! 12 We2 b3+ 13 @fl 12 Dxd6+ (12 £xd6 DxdS5 13 .b3) 16 £h6 Wd7 17 KxgT+
0-0 16 Hfel Wd7 17 Hg3 Has &d8 14 a4 is good for White) Hd1 0-0! is good for Black) @xg7 18 Wg5+ 2f8 19 Whe+
18 b3 &h8 19 Racl Wb7 20 12 We2 b3+ 13 &f1 £5 12...0f8 13 Hxc8 Wxc8 sbe8 20 Wg7 Xf8 21 £)f3 Wxd6
130 5&c3 5&c3 131

22 £b5+ e7 23 0-0 and White endgame, Timoshchenko-Gol- one of them. met by 13 Bdl) 12..Hxbs 13
stands well as the black king od, Russia 1993) 19 Ke2 Wed a2) 11..2g7 12 Dxe5 £eb £xb5+ Dbd7 14 K4 We7 15
will never find shelter, Reine- 20 Hcl £b6 21 $fl Wxc2 22 (12...0-0 loses to 13 %c6 Wbo a3 bxa3 16 De2!? Kg7 17 &3
mer-Rohrich, Dortmund 1993. Txc2 Ded 23 24 5)d5 24 Lcl 14 dxe7 He8 15 &d6 Wxc6 16 axb2 18 Za8 0-0 19 Hd5 Wds
b2322) 14..exd6 15 Lxd6+ h6 25 g3 &h7 26 Kd3 5 27 Axf7+ £h8 17 Hixe8 Dxe8 18 20 0-0 h6? 21 Hxc8 Wxc8 22
%h4 Ehf8 28 &g2 and White is £d5) 13 Sxe6 fxe6 and now HeT7+ ¥h7 23 Dxc8 Bxcs 24
a pawn up but the position is after 14 Wb3 Black is strug- £xf6 Dxf6 1-0 Burgess-Beau-
not easy as Black is very active, gling, e.g. 14..8)d5 15 d7+ &f8 mont, Bristol 1988) 12..h6
as was bome out by the con- 16 W3+ 26 17 Lh6+ Lg8 18 (12...4)c6 is met by 13 £d2 and
tinuation: 28...2d4 29 Hel b3 Wg4 and White wins. the threats of &ed, &b3 and
30 axb3 9b4 31 Hdl Hxc2 32 a3) 11...exd6 12 g5 and it is Wb3 create problems, e.g.
Lxc2 Hxf2 33 Kd2 Ded 34 difficult to see a defence for 13..8e7 14 &b3 Hxb5 15
He2 4)d6 35 Hxe8 Hxe8 36 &fl Black, e.g. 12..8e6 (12..8b7? fxb5 Wb6 16 a4 Wab 17
g7 37 Kf4 RKe5 38 Ke3 13 Hixes We7 14 Hxd6+ Wxd6 Lxf6 Lxf6 18 Wxd6 Wxad 19
Lxg3 39 Lxh6+ wxh6 40 hxg3 15 &xf7+ e7 16 Wxd6+ Wxf6 0-0 20 0-0 and White is
$g5 41 &2 Ded+ 42 f3 &xd6 17 £xf6 &£h6 18 Hd1+ the exchange ahead and can
&xg3 and Black went on to &c7 19 BEd7+ b6 20 £xh8 meet 20...c4 with 21 Hfcl) 13
win, Timoshchenko-U. Nielsen, Exh8 21 0-0 and Black can re- Hxe5 hxgs 14 Hxf7 We7+ 15
London 1993. sign, Drkulec-Andrews, US &f1 ExbS 16 Hxh8 Ha5 17 hd
and now: 8 .. Hbad7 Open 1992) 13 &£xf6 Wxf6 14 and the position is completely
b23221) (apologies for the The main point of White’s Hxdo+ £xd6 15 Wxd6 and unclear. One line which illus-
horrible numbering system) 16 play is revealed after the natural Black cannot deal with the trates the dangers for Black is
W3 6! 17 De2 (17 Kxcs 8...g6 when the continuation is combined threats of £b5+, 17...gxh4 18 Hxg6 Wes 19 Wel
&es5 18 We3 A5 19 Wel Web 9 e5 dxe5 10 d6 $xa6 and Wc6+. and Black is in trouble.
20 £e3 &g4 and Black wins) b) 10...exd6 11 £g5 b2) 11..5bd7 12 Wb3 Wh6
17..We8! 18 Kxc5 Ded 19 13 &xf7+ &d8 14 W3 dS
fe3 b3 and Black has excellent 4 M 7457A p (14.. Wxbs 15 Wxa8 $c7 16 a4

SN
7, ‘ h A

play, as 20 a3 can be met by

K A A= bxa3 17 Wxal L£b7 18 Of3
20...2\b4!, Koerholz-Leko, Bu- £¢7 19 Wb3 Wxb3 20 LKxb3
dapest 1993. Hb8 21 Ma3 d5 22 0-0 Kc6 23
b23222) 16 &3 Wc6 (here =17
£cl L£f8 24 Hg5 and White
16..Wf5 is a good alternative, gradually obtained the upper
e.g. 17 We5 Wxe5+ 18 Kxe5 hand, Sharp-Bjornsson, London
Nbd7 19 Lxf6 He8+! 20 Ke5 1989) 15 Wxd5 &b7 16 Lxf6+
Hxe5 with a small edge for £e7 17 fxe7+ dxe7 18 Wed
Black in the endgame, Nemeth- £a6 (18..&xg2 19 £d5 Lxd5
Leko, Gyula 1992) 17 g3 20 Wxds Wxb5 21 0-0-0 Khd8
bd7 18 Wc2 He8+ (18...We6+ and now: 22 (3 is good for White) 19
19 £e2 b3 20 Wc4 Hxa2 21 a) 10...5a6 11 &3 and here and now: £d45 Hafg8 20 Wha+ Hf6 21
Hxa2 bxa2 22 0-0 Wxcd 23 Black has various possible de- b1) 11...Ha5 12 &f3 (this is SL.cd Kxbs 22 D3 g5 23 Wxgs
fxc4 Ded 24 Kxa2 Dxg3 25 fences: the main try, but 12 Wb3 is also Lxc4 24 Wg7+ Bf7 25 Wxh8
hxg3 with an extra pawn in the al) 11...2g4 12 &xe5! is not very dangerous, as 12..d5 is and White is winning, Labarthe-
132 583 5&c3 133

Liardet, Geneva 1992. ter, Labarthe-Collas, France

b3) 11...8b7 1989,
b4) 11..Ka6 12 £xf6 Wxf6
13 Dc7+ 2d8 14 Lxab6 Lxa6
15 %xaé HHxa6 16 a3 (if Black
Y

7
qa

could consolidate he would

—Ja
rerrf

N
have good chances, but the po- 2
4 f 2z,

\\l\\\\l\*
N\
sition is very open and this

N
makes it difficult for him)
16.. W4 17 Se2 Wed 18 0-0
e7 19 axbd Hxbd 20 Ha7+
&f6 21 f4 We3+ 22 hl e4 23
f5 g5 24 &g3 ©d3 25 Wh5 Pe5
(25...5e5 9 . b6 12 .. g6
9..g6 10 e5 HxeS5 11 Dxe5 12...89xa4? 13 Hxad Lxb5 14
and: dxe5 12 d6 exd6 13 RKg5 is £xb5+ Hxb5 15 &4 is good
b31) 12 &£d5 Dxd5 (the al- similar to the main line and for White.
ternative 12..2xd5 13 RKxf6 similarly unclear — one possible 13 b3 g7
Wxf6 14 Wxd5 Has 15 Hc7+ continuation, analysed by Emnst, 14 £b2 00
&d7 16 Wb7 is bad for Black, is 13..Hb8 14 Wa4 47 15 15 0-0 Hga
e.g. 16.Wd8 17 Ha6+ so the Lxf6 Wxf6 16 Hc7+ &d8 17 16 Kxg7 sexg?
queen sacrifice is forced) 13 WaS Wh4 and White can settle 17 Hel Hes
2xd8 &xd8 14 Hf3 f6 and for a draw by perpetual check 18 &afl
Black has two pieces, two but it is dangerous to try for With the threat of f4, White
pawns and a solid position for more. has a good game. Black’s next
the queen. 10 f£d3 Eas is a radical method of prevent-
b32) 12 Wb3 and now Bur- 10..g6 11 b3 £g7 12 Kb2 ing this advance.
gess gives 12..d5 13 0-0-0 as allows a beautiful finish after 0-0 13 0-0 e6 14 dxe6 (this is 18 ..
the main line, but 12..82¢g7 has 26 Wh6+ £xh6 27 Hh5 mate) rather timid — Burgess suggests 19 &f3 fé
been more popular in practice: 26 Wxf7 d5 27 We6+ d4 28 instead 14 Wc2 exd5 15 Hxd6 20 &Sxe5 fxeS
13 &xf7+ (13 0-0-0 Ha6 14 W6+ &cd 29 W3+ b5 30 and Black will have problems The problem with 20...dxe5?!
Lxf7+ &f8 15 DF3 &xf3 16 Wb3+ $c6 31 Wb7+ Fd6 32 with the c5-pawn) 14...2xe6 15 is 21 Wcl Wc8 22 d6 and White
gf?! Wd7 17 £c4 Eb6 18 Wd3 Wc7 mate, Burgess-Whitcutt, Wc2 Hc8 16 e5 dxe5 17 Dxe5 has a clear advantage.
e8 19 h4 is completely un- Torbay 1989. We7 18 Hael Rfd8 19 14 c4 20 21 Wa2 hé6
clear, Fang-Veach, Philadelphia A final option for Black on Kxc4 Dxcs 21 bxed Lxcd 22 22 &Ha3 24
1989) 13..f8 14 Ed1 Hab6 15 move 8 is 8..2a5 when 9 a4 xc4 Wes+ 23 Lhi Wxcd 24 23 &Hc2 We8 (D)
O3 We7 16 Lc4 h6 17 Hhd bxa3 10 Hxa3 g6 11 Kxa$ Wxc4 Hxc4 25 Hcl Hed and 24 g¥?
(this is a waste of time and WxaS+ 12 £d2 Wd8 13 Wad Black has a very good position, White misses 24 $ixb4 cxb4
therefore better is 17 Lxf6) gave White a promising initia- Breutigam-Fedorowicz, Germa- (24..5xa4? 25 Hd3 winning)
17..8e4 18 £xf6 Lxf6 19 HHf3 tive, Burgess-Fedorowicz, ARC ny 1990. 25 Wxb4 Hxd5 26 Wxb6 and
$g7 20 0-0 Ed8 21 Rfel £b7 Masters 1988. 11 a4 £47 the a-pawn will be decisive.
22 245 &6 and Black is bet- 9 &Hf3 12 a2 24 .. a3
134 583 58\ 3 135

25 el Wg6 &xhl Wh7+ 38 dgl Wh3 39 10 We2 b3+ 11 $fl £xb5 12

26 Re2 gd? DHxf3 and wins. £xb5 Wxa2 13 Hxa2 bxa2 14
K7 S £c8 0 a e Wxed4 alW 15 De2 which was
35 al Hd7 unclear in Agrest-Zolotov,
é% 36 a6 e6? USSR 1988.
37 dxe6 Wxe6 10 .. b3+
/’Q’//',/ 383 OHxf3 Axf3
/////
ui 11 &e2!

%fi//fi” =ii/ft
/// /’// 39 Wxf3 5Hb8 _ /// / It is best to play this as a
X /
40 WIS+ Wxfs gambit, as attempting to hang
Y- // 41 exf5+ 10 on to material gives Black good
P Many of the notes and varia- play, e.g. 11 $f11? £xb5 12
4 7 tions in this game are based on Lxb5 Wxa2 13 Xbl £5! 14 {3
those of Graham Burgess in his (14 He2 c4 15 Wxcd Wxbl 16
survey Attacking the Benko. 8 &d2 transposes into the Wes+ $f7 17 3 We2 18 e6+
note to Black’s 5th move. 16 19 exd7 Wdl 0-1 Wandel-
This is overambitious. Better Game 20 8 .. Ded Sievers, Germany 1990) 14...c4
was 26.. Xf8 27 fg4 Qxgd 28 Timoshchenko-Adams 8...£a6 was convincingly re- 15 Wxcd (15 &Kxc4? &5 16
Dxga Dd7 with counterchan- London (Lloyds Bank) 1992 futed in Timoshchenko-Zupe, Wxf5 g6 wins) 15..d8! 16
ces. Maribor 1990, viz. 9 a4 bxa3+ fxe4 Wxbl 17 &Hf3! (not 17
27 &xf3 gxf3 1 d4 &f6 10 £.d2 Wb6 11 exf6 axb2 12 exf5? Hal 18 He2 Wxf5+ 19
28 Wd3 w7 2 4 cS Zbl Lxb5 13 Exb2 Wxf6 14 el WxeS which is good for
29 oHf1 Lgd 3 ds b5 Bxb5 Wes+ 15 £e2 Wxd5 16 Black) 17..Hal! 18 &f2 Wc2+
30 &Hd2 Has8 4 cxb5 ab £13 We5+ 17 De2 &c6 18 214 19 Wxc2 bxc2 20 exf5 g6 with
31 h3 h5 5 &3 axb5 Wf5 19 £xc6 dxc6 20 Eb7 Hd8 continued obscurity.
32 Wed g6 6 ed Wa5s 21 Wa4 We6 22 0-0 and White 1 . Lxb5
33 h2! h=t 2. This has received attention was a piece up for nothing. 12 &xb5 Wxa2
recently, as it has been used by 9 2 La6
the English Grandmaster Mi-
3 ?
chael Adams.
// /t\ér/ 7 e5 (D)
/Jh/f/ |//
7,
4 b4
7.. Q)e4?' 8 Kd42! Hxd2 9
Wxd2 b4 was seen in Ti-
W
Fall 2 //, 2

moshchenko-Adams, London
2 ;’I’fi, 1991. Now White played 10 1///
A\b57? but after 10...d6 11 exd6 ////%
exd6 12 fcd fe7 13 We2 Wds
14 &f3 0-0 Black was perfectly
/ 7
A 7%
%
% /

okay. Correct instead would ZZ

34 Rh1? have been 10 He4 when White 13 Xxa2

Quicker was 34 hxg4 hxg4 35 stands very well. 10 Wad3 13 Eb17 Hc3+!.
Zh1 Xh8+ 36 &gl Exhl+ 37 8 &Hbs! This is an improvement over 13 .. bxa2
 136 5&c3
58c3 137
14 Vixed alW g3+ ®h3 29 Whs+ &g2 30
15 Df3 Was Wf3+ &h3 coming, is any good) 23 Hd2 After 25 &e3 Wh3+ 26 Bd3
16 f£c4 e6 Wc3 but then White wins with Black has run out of moves.
24 Wg5+! (but not 24 Hxf8 Notes based on those of Stohl in
Had 25 Wha+ &e8 26 &Hxd7 ChessBase Magazine.
Hxc4 which is messy) 24...&e8
25 Rd3! c4 26 Led exds 27 Summary
Wxg7 Wb4 28 Bxd5 Ha2+ 29 5 &c3 was out of favour for a
&f3. long time, as it was thought that
Another try is 21...exd5 but Black gained a perfectly satis-
then 22 Wxf7+ &d8 23 Wxds factory position with 8...g5 (see
c8 24 Hf7 Hfg 25 Hfl! note ‘b’ to White’s 8th move in
leaves White with a winning game 19). This may be so, but
position, but not 25 e6?! dxe6 play is not so clear as had been
26 9d6+ &d8 27 Wxeo Bd7 thought and this provides a
and now White wins with the and Black is still kicking. good field for further research.
neat 31 &f1! hS 32 &gl and 22 exf6+ gxf6 The unashamedly hacking
Timoshchenko had clearly £f1 mate is coming. 23 d6+ Le8 move 8 fc4 has been almost
prepared very well for this 19 Rxe7 kxe7 24 Wxfo Wxcd+ completely neglected by theory.
game and had only taken 16 20 25! Vb4 1-0 The main line of game 19
minutes to reach this position. 21 W4 should be more or less okay for
Black is the exchange and a Black but if you want to chance
pawn up, but White has an your arm in the complications,
enormous attack and is threaten- then I would suggest that line
ing, amongst other things, &g5. ‘b32’ is the most promising.
17 .. Le7 6...Wa5 may have been dealt a
18 Qg5! Ha7 death blow by Timoshchenko in
White develops a fierce at- game 20. It is not easy to see an
tack after 18...2xg5?! 19 Hxg5 improvement for Black and,
h6 with 20 Dxf7!, e.g. 20...0-0 even if there is one, such a po-
(20..&xf7 21 dxe6+ Le7 22 sition is not a pleasant one for
Wg6 &d8 23 Wxg7 Hes 24 practical play.
exd7 wins) 21 dxe6 dxe6 22
@Dxh6+ $h8 23 N7+ Bxf7 24
Wha+ g8 25 Bd8+. 21 Wha? Wxb2+ 22 f1 f6.
Another way to try to defend 21 .. f6?!
is 18...h6 19 Kxe7 Pxe7 when Black could have forced
a possible finish would be 20 White to play accurately with
dxe6 fxe6 21 Wha+! &fg8 22 21.Bf8 22 &Hxh7 Wxb2+
Dg5! Wbd 23 Hixe6+ dxe6 24 (neither 22...Xh8 23 Wha+ de8
Wds+! &f7 25 We7+ &g6 26 24 96+ nor 22..Ha4 23 b3
K43+ $hS5 27 W7+ Lhd 28 Ha2+ 24 &fl with Wg5-g7
 493 and Others 139

15 &xf2 £h6 16 Hed and £.a6 is good for Black.

White has a good game, Mur- b) 4...g6 will often transpose
shed-Hodgson, London 1992. back to main lines of the Benko,
but there are some independent
8 4 ©f3 and Others tries, e.g. 5 cxb5 (5 a4 bxc4 6
\c3 d6 7 e4 Ra6 this may be -
considered greedy, but Black
gets away with it here: 8 Re2
White does not set much of a 14 b3 a6 15 Hael £g7 16 Hdl £g7 9 0-0 DHbd7 10 L4 Hga
theoretical challenge to Black a5 17 e3 and White has a 11 Wd2 Eb8 12 Habl 0-0 13
by declining even to take on bS5, pleasant game as it is difficult Del Dge5 14 Kgs Kb3 15
but some of the lines here can for Black to undertake anything, Wdl h6 16 Ke3 Wbe 17 Wd2
make good practical weapons. Murshed-Adams, London 1991) Zbg 18 Lxh6 Hxb2 19 Hxb2
There has not been a great 5 £f4 and now: Wxb2 20 Wxb2 Hxb2 21 fcl
deal of interest in these varia- Hb3 22 &Hb5 Lxb5 23 axbs
tions over the past few years R Ml Hxb5 24 f4 Hb1 25 Le3 BAb2 26
B-— A/;/ PA~
and the theory has not changed % A :/,/4,
22 Xb3 27 D2 &d3 0-1
much, so I have kept the survey Over the last decade or so, Gostisa-Sermek, Portoroz 1993)
brief. this has become the most 5...a6 6 &c3 axb5 (now 7 Hxb5
o
2 A/ .
is likely to lead back to the
rxn
%’ % %,
popular try. Black takes the
natural c3-square away from
/////
Game 21 main lines, but here White tries
Yermolinsky-Wolff White’s queen’s knight and an alternative, and quite dan-

1
Groningen 1993 ///
7/// % // )
/fi/fi/
plans to play in Czech Benoni
or Modern Benoni style. 1 be-
gerous try) 7 d6!?

lieve that this idea was first lent

1
2
d4 Df6
c5
% 00&4,
respectability by the creative E
3 ds b5 - English Grandmaster James
'// ’//
4 OB a) 5..e6 6 Wc2 Hxf2 7 Lxf2 Plaskett. Others: /

White has various quiet ways W6 8 Wed! g5 9 Hh3 gxf4 10 a) 4...2b7 is an old move, not
of declining the gambit such as OHc3 £g7 11 Hxbs 0-0 12 much seen nowadays - a couple
4 Wc2, 4 §Hd2, 4 b3 etc, but Wxf4 Wxb2 13 Hdl Ha6 14 of recent examples: 5 a4 b4
they all allow Black an easy Rd2! We5 15 g3 £b7 16 g2 (5..Wa5+6 2d2b4 7 £g5d6 8
game with simple developing Hab8 Arencibia-Lugo, Cuba Hbd2 Hbd7 9 e4 h6 10 Lxf6
moves, and are well catalogued 1986 and now 17 a3! is good for exf6 11 g3 g6 12 £h3 £g7 13
elsewhere. White, as is pointed out by 0-0 h5 and Black was comfort-
4 £g5 (D) various commentators. able, Razuvaev-Mainka, Prague
is a lively offbeat try, e.g. b) 5. Wa5+ 6 &Dd2 g5 7 KeS 1992) 6 &bd2 d6 7 e4 e5 8 g3 and now:
4..%De4 (4..bxcd leaves White Hg8 8 b4 (Seirawan recom- g6 9 Rg2 87 10 0-0 0-0 11 bl) 7..2g7 8 e4 0-0 (8..b4 9
with a free hand, e.g. 5 &c3 d6 mends 8 Wc2 Hxd2 9 Kc3) el Dbd7 12 £42! exfd 13 gxfd b5 0-0 10 5 Hgd 11 Lg5
6 &xf6 exf6 7 €3 KeT 8 Kxcd 8.\Wxb4 9 Dgf3 g4 10 Ebl &h5 14 Dd3 5 15 exf5 was e 12 Wd5 e6 13 Wxc5 Was
0-0 9 £d3 Hd7 10 O3 Xb8 11 Hc3 11 Exbd Hxdl 12 Hxb5 Xu-Fedorowicz, Lucerne 1989. Indjic-Plachetka, Stara Pazova
Wc2 g6 12 e4 He8 13 0-0 218 gxf3 13 exf3 d6 14 Kal &Hxf2 Now 15...8xfS planning 16 £)f3 1988, is better and good for
 140 4 83 and Others 4 9Y3 and Others 141
Black) 9 e5 9g4 10 £g5 Dxe5 York 1988) 7..%g7 8 £.g2 0-0 ters 1990. 20 &gs
11 £xe7 He8 12 £xb5 (not 12 9 0-0 a5 10 Dbd2 &£b7 11 Wad 7 . £g7 If 20 Wxd8? Hxd8 21 &xg7
£xd8 Hxf3 mate) 12...Hec6 13 Wc7 12 Dd4 d6 13 &b5 Wes 8 oHn Gxg3 22 fxg3 Lxg7 and Black
0-0 Hxe7 14 dxe7 Hxe7 15 with a. complex position, Sad- 8 0-0 0-0 9 Eel e5 10 dxeb is better.
Wds Has 16 Wxc5 a6 17 Wca ler-Adams, London 1993. £xe6 11 e5 dxe5 12 Hxes Dga 20 .. Nxgs
Ac7 18 a4 Dxb5 19 axbs Hxal b) 5 g5 d6 6 Dbd2 e5 7 13 &df3 DxeS 14 Dxe5 Lxes 21 Qxg5 Was
20 Hxal £b7 21 Wf4 h6 22 h3 dxe6 fxe6 8 g3 Ke7 9 Kg2 Kb7 15 Exe5 £xc4 with a clear ex- 22 Hcel S£xb2
&h7 23 Hdl and White is 10 Wc2 Hbd7 11 0-0 Wb 12 tra pawn, Levitt-Wolff, Hast- Not 22..Hxel? 23 Hxel
slightly better, Greenfeld-J. Pol- £h3 d5 13 £.xf6 Dxf6 14 Hg5 ings Masters 1990. Wxd5 24 He8+ D8 25 Hed
gar, Haifa 1989. £.¢c8 15 e4 h6 16 Hgf3 0-0 with 8 0-0 with too may threats.
b2) 7..Wa5 is also possible, a balanced position, Lerner- 9 Hgl €6 23 Hed
e.g. 8 €3 exd6 9 Lxb5 Des 10 Hawelko, Polanica Zdroj 1986. 10 0-0 exd5
Wd3 (10 £d2 Hxc3 11 Lxc3 11 cxd5 Hbd7
Wxb5 12 a4? — better is the im- 12 h3 &b6 B
mediate 12 £xh8 La6 but here 13 £g5 as
Black also has good counterplay 14 Hcl
— 12..Wcd4 13 £xh8 Ra6 14
Zc1 Wed and Black stands well,
. Sadler-Hodgson, London 1988)
10..8xc3 11 bxc3 £a6! 12
Eb1 Re7 13 0-0 0-0 14 c4
Wxa2 15 e4 &xb5 16 cxbs
Ha4! with approximate equality,
Groszpeter-Hertneck, Mitropa
Cup 1990. 23 . fg7?
5 &Hbd2 Black should have tried
Others: 5...d6 6 a3 bxa3 7 Hxa3 g6 8 23...a4! as suggested by Anand,
a) White can also challenge g3 £g79 £g2 0-0 10 0-0 a5 11 when 24 Re7 b3 25 Hxd6 Xbs
Black on the queenside imme- b3 Dfd7! 12 Wc2 Ha6 13 &b2 26 &c4! is unclear.
diately, e.g. 5 a3 g6 (5...a5 6 Qb4 14 Wbl Lxb2 15 Wxb2 - 14 L. Lab 24 fe7! Xb6
axb4 cxbd 7 g3 g6 8 £g2 Kg7 &b6 and although Black’s 14...c4 may be stronger, as if 24, Wxd5? lost to 25 &gs
9 0-0 d6 10 &)d4 0-0 11 h3 £d7 kingside is weak, he has good White captures twice, Black has Of8 26 L£xf8 Hxel 27 Hxel
12 fe3 Qa6 13 Dd2 Wc7 14 counterplay on the other wing, ...R.a6 winning the exchange Lxf8 28 Hn7+ g8 29 He8+
Wc2 a4 and Black has a promis- Kir. Georgiev-Ermenkov, Bul- 15 8xa6 Hxa6 but a good try was again 24...a4.
ing game, Gulko-D. Gurevich, garia Ch. 1989. 16 Wd2 He8 25 Re3! 48
US Ch. 1992) 6 axb4 cxb4 7 g3 6 ed dé 17 Wr4 Hbd7 26 Bfel &Hh7
(7 Dbd2 £.g7 8 e4 0-0 9 £d37! 7 Kd3 18 Wh4 Not 26..WxdS 27 &f6+
— White does better to continue 7 a3 bxa3 8 Hxa3 £g7 9 £d3 White is trying to build up on winning.
aggressively with 9 ¢5 — 9...d6 0-0 10 0-0 &a6 11 Hel &b4 12 the kingside, but now Black 27 Oxd6 RXf6
10 0-0 g4 11 Wa4 a5 12 e5 Kbl e5 13 Hf1 Hh5 14 Lg5 finds a clever tactic. ‘ 28 W4 (D)
9fd7 and White is over-ex- Wb6 15 Wcl was unclear in 18 .. hé! 28 .. g5
tended, Petursson-Alburt, New Levitt-Hebden, Hastings Mas- 19 2xh6 Hxed Black is in big trouble, as f7
142 4 &3 and Others

is so weak. Another possible Not promising, but 30...Xxd6

variation is 28..Wb8 29 £xf6 loses to 31 We8+ Wxe§ 32
Hxe3 30 Bxe3!? Hixf6 31 Exe8+ D8 33 Le7 Hxds 34
He8+! Dxe8 32 Wxf7+ &h8 33 £.xf8 &h7 35 Hes.
SHxe8 WeS 34 d6 and if 31 Wxg5+ <$h7 Index of Variations
34..
. Wel+ 35 ©h2 Wes+ 36 f4 32 Wxf6 Wxds
Wfs 37 Wxfs gxf5 38 d7 Ebg 33 He8! 1-0
39 £)d6 and White wins. Some of these notes based on
those of Yermolinsky in Chess- 1d4 f6 2 c4 c53 d5 b5
Base Magazine.
1) Main Line (4 cxb5 a6 5 bxa6 g6 6 Dc3 fixa6)
7 ed4
Summary 7 4 (33),7 3 d6 8 Hd2 (33)
The main source of concern for 7...&xf1 8 Xxfl d6 9 HI3
9 g4 (25), 9 Hge2 (29)
Black here is probably 7 d6!? 9..2g7 10 g3
{note ‘b’ to Black’s 4th). Black 10 h3 (29)
needs to be careful against this, 10...0-0 11 &g2
but the reply 7...Wa5 looks per- 11 4 (20)
fectly playable. 11...55bd7
4..£g5!?7 is a good surprise 11..5a6 (21)
12 h3 (16)
weapon, as natural developing 12 Rel (20), 12 We2 (21)
moves by Black can lead him
29 fxf6! Exel into trouble. However, an active 2) Fianchetto Variation (4 cxb5 a6 5 bxa6 g6)
30 Wxe3 &Hixf6 response with 4...%e4 is fine.

6..2g77 d6 (53)
7 Rg2
7 b3 (54)
7..8¢78 D13
8 8)3 0-0 9 )3 &xa6 (54), 8 DHh3 (52)
8...£.x2a6 9 0-0 Dbd7 10 He3 Hb6 (43)
10...0-0 (47)
3) Modern Line 5 3 g6 (4 cxbS a6 5 e3 g6)
6 D3 K.g7 7 D3
7 a4 0-0 and: 8 e4 (66), 8 Rc4 (72), 8 Ba3 £b7 9 Hh3 (71)
7 R4 (71)
7...0-0 8 ad Rb7
7...d6 (66)
9 Xa3 (58)
9 HEbl (59), 9 Lc4 (60), 9 bxa6 (60)

4) Modern Line 5 €3 axb5 (4 cxb5 a6 5 €3 axh5)

5..8b7 (94), 5...e6 (95)
6 f.xbs Was+ 7 De3 Lb7
7...8a6 (96)
8 Ad2
 144 Index of Variations

8 De2 £xd5 9 0-0 £¢6 and:

10 a4 €6 (88), 10 a4 g6 (89), 10 ad L xb5 (90), 10 Wd3 (88)
8 Ne2 Hixd5 9 0-0 and:
9...8xc3 (94), 9...40c7 (96), 9..6X6 (97)
8..Wh6 9 Wh3
9 Qge2 (80), 9 Lc4 (80), 9 DF3 (81)
9...¢6 10 ed4
10 Rc4 (82)
10...Dxed 11 Hixed £.xd512 Wd3 Wb7 (78)
12...£5 (84)
5) 5 £3 (4 cxb5 a6 5 £3)
5...e6
5...86 (103), 5...axb5 6 o4 Wa5+ 7 Rd2 (109)
6 ed exd5
6...c4 (104), 6.. W7 (104)
7e5 -
7 exd5 (105)
7..We7 8 We2 g8 9 HNe3 £b7 10 Dh3 cd (103)
10...\¥d8 (106)

6) 5 b6 (4 cxbSs a6 5 b6)
§..66
5..a5(121)
5..Wxb6 6 &3 and:
6...86 7 e4 d6 and: 8 a4 (115), 8 f3 (116)
6..06 (117)
5...d6 6 &\c3 Wxb6 7 a4 g6 8a5(115)
6 De3 Nxd5 7 DxdS exds 8 WxdS Hic6 9 H)3 Wxb6
9..8e7 (121),9..Mb8 (122),9...8b7 (123)
10 Qes (120)
7) 5 &3 (4 cxb5 a6 5 D)
5...axb5
5..Wa3 (126)
6 ed b4
6..Was (134)
TObSd6 8 Lcd
8 Rf4 (127)
8. bd7
8...g6 (130), 8..Ha5 (132)
9 QM3 (126)

8) 4 23 and Others (4 {13)

45013
4 2.g5(138)
b4
Y (139),4...86 (139)
5 H\bd2 (138)