The Most Flexible Sicilian

A Black Repertoire with 1.e4 cS 2.�f3 e6

Alexander Delchev
Semko Semkov

Chess Stars
www.chess-stars.com
Chess Stars Publishing
Current Theory and Practice Series

The Most Flexible Sicilian

Cover design by Kalojan Nachev

Copyright© 2014 by Alexander Delchev and Semko Semkov

Printed in Bulgaria
ISBN: 978-954 8782 97-5
Contents
t.e4 c5 2 . �f3 e6

Foreword 5
Introduction 6

Open Sicilian
Part 1 The Classical System 11
3 . d4 cxd4 4.tt:\xd4 tt:\c6 5.tt:\c3 V!ic7 6.ie2 ; 4 ... a6 5.tt:\c3 V!ic7 6.ie2
Part 2 The English Attack 45
3 . d4 cxd4 4.tt:\xd4 tt:\c6 5.tt:\c3 V!ic7 6.ie3 ; 4 . . . a6 5.tt:\c3 V!ic7 6.ie3
Part 3 The Third Rank Set-Up 77
4.tt:\xd4 tt:\c6 5.tt:\c3 V!ic7 6.ie3 a6 7.id3 ; 4 . . . a6 5.tt:\c3 V!ic7 6.id3
Part 4 The f4 System 123
3 .d4 cxd4 4.tt:\xd4 tt:\c6 5.tt:\c3 V!ic7 6.f4; 4 . . . a6 5.tt:\c3 V!ic7 6.f4
Part 5 The Fianchetto 155
3 . d4 cxd4 4.tt:\xd4 tt:\c6 5.tt:\c3 V!ic7 6.g3 ; 4 . . . a6 5.tt:\c3 V!ic7 6.g3
Part 6 Kan - the Mar6czy Bind 197
4 . . . a6 5.c4; S.id3
Part 7 Taimanov with S.tt:lbS 241
3 .d4 cxd4 4.tt:\xd4 tt:\c6 S.tt:lbS d6
Part 8 Rare Lines on 5th and 6th Move 273
3 .d4 cxd4 4.tt:\xd4 tt:\c6 5.tt:\xc6 ; 5.tt:\c3 V!ic7 6.tt:\xc6 ; 6.V!id3; 6.tt:ldb5

Anti-Sicilian Systems
Part 9 The Alapin System 289
3 . c3 dS
Part 10 KID Reversed 301
3 .d3
Part 11 Rare Lines on Move 3 315
3 .b4 ; 3 .b3 ; 3.c4; 3.tt:\c3 ; 3.V!ie2 ; 3.g3

Index of Branches 337

Bi b l i ogra phy
Books
The Safest Sicilian, Alexander Delchev and Semko Semkov, Chess Stars
2008
The Sicilian Taimanov: Move by Move by John Emms, Gloucesters
Publishers, 2012
Play the Sicilian Kan; Johan Hellsten, Everyman Chess 2008
The Complete Hedgehog: Volume 1+2 by Sergei Shipov, Mongoose Press
Experts vs the Sicilian, 2nd edition, Quality Chess, 2006
English Attack by Nick de Firmian and John Fedorowicz, Batsford, 2 004
Anti-Sicilians: A Guide for Black by Dorian Rogozenko, Gambit, 2003
Winning With the Sicilian by Mark Taimanov, Collier Books 199 1
Secrets of Opening Preparation 2 by Mark Dvoretsky and Artur Yusupov,
1996 (In Russian)
Super Tournaments 2000, Ches� Stars, 2001
Super Tournaments 2002, Chess Stars, 2003
Super Tournaments 2003, Chess Stars, 2004
Opening for White According to Anand, vol . 9, by Alexander Khalifman,
Chess Stars 2 0 07
The Complete c3 Sicilian by Evgeny Sveshnikov, New in Chess 2010
How to beat the Sicilian Defence by Gawain Jones, Everyman Chess 2011

Periodicals
Chess Informant
New in Chess

Internet resources
Databases
The Week In Chess (chesscenter.com)
10 Days (Chessmix.com)
Internet Chess Club (chessclub.com)
ChessPublishing.com forum
Chess Today

4
F or ew or d

This book offers a double reper­ The queen goes early to c7 to

toire for Black based on the moves control the central dark squares and
l.e4 cS 2.ltlf3 e6 ! . It is divided in support the bishop when it goes to
several parts : playing against ie2 ; b4 or d6;
against f4 ; g3 ; the third rank set-up We often change the pawn struc­
ie3+id3 ; the English Attack; the ture by recapturing . . . dxc6 followed
hedgehog structures. by . . . e6-e5.
After 3.d4 cxd4 4.lt:lxd4, I The hedgehog structures share
analyse in separate chapters the the same main plan - to achieve the
Taimanov move order with 4 . . . lt:lc6, break . . . dS.
and the Kan with 4 ... a6. Every part
begins with a chapter "Main Ideas" The concluding parts present a
which discuses the pros and cons of repertoire against the Anti-Sicilians
the two approaches and offers ad­ like the Alapin with c3 , the King's
vice which one works better against Indian Reversed with d3, and the
White's particular set-up. The next modern fianchetto with 3.g3.
chapters, called "Taimanov - Step It is difficult to make a repertoire
by Step" and "Kan - Step by Step", which would satisfy every taste. I
present detailed theory. Finally, a would recommend the Kan to read­
"Complete Games" chapter offers ers who : understand positional play
additional annotations. and prophylaxis; are not theoreti­
This structure should allow you cians ; defend calmly and unabash­
to better understand the typical edly.
ideas which are similar in many as­ If you like early clashes and
pects : sharp theoretical disputes (and
Black's pawn often remains on have good memory!), the Taimanov
d7 allowing an early activation of is the better choice.
the dark-squared bishop through The ultimate goal should be to
b4, cS or even d6 in some lines, the master both systems. Then you'll
.. . dS break is without loss of tempo be really unpredictable to your op­
o n . . . d6; ponents !
The pressure on the e4-pawn
with . . . bS, . . . ib7, . . . ltlf6 is common Alexander Delchev
for both systems; April 2014

5
I ntroduction

The Taimanov System which aris­ Sicilian brought about a burst of

es after the moves l.e4 cS 2.lt:lf3 e6! popularity of my pet system. The
3.d4 cxd4 4.tt:lxd4 tt:lc6 S.tt:lc3 Y!fc7 first players developed many new
was my main weapon against l.e4 plans, the engines also improved
until 2008. dramatically. Some of my back­
up alternatives were refuted. There
was no more ground for retreat and
I had to accept deep theoretical
disputes in every game. It became
practically unrewarding to keep my
repertoire in full swing all the time.
So I decided to reserve the
Taimanov for rapid games where
there is no time for targeted home
preparation and good understand­
ing is often more important than
the objective evaluation of the posi­
It suits well my style and it tion. Thus I was able to experiment
brought me good practical results. with new ideas without spending
Another cause of my successes was too much time on them.
that my opponents lacked clear At the same time I began my mi­
models to follow since the varia­ gration toward the Kan. I was ex­
tion was not popular at top level. I tremely impressed by its flexibili­
was able to play my own schemes ty and the variety of plans it offers.
and I only had to make minor im­ The move order l.e4 cS 2 .tt:lf3 e6!
provements on my previous games. 3.d4 cxd4 4.tt:lxd4 a6 is outwardly so
It was sufficient to keep in store a modest and unobtrusive that White
few alternatives which aimed to es­ could choose virtually any develop­
cape home preparation and assured ing scheme at his liking. The play
me of the psychological edge. I had is not forced and both sides have
always the feeling that the battle tons of options on every move. This
was fought on my land. However, greatly reduces the chance of be­
the second edition of The safest ing caught on a home preparation .
6
 Introduction

The wide choice also means an am­ White must give up the c4-pawn
ple ground for strategic mistakes. with a dubious compensation.
Even good grandmasters often mix
up the move order and allow an easy The best way to exploit the weak­
equalisation. Look at the follow­ nesses of your opponents' reper­
ing variation: l.e4 cS 2.l2:\f3 e6 3.d4 toires is to master the whole range
cxd4 4.l2:\xd4 a6 5.c4 l2:\f6 6.id3 l2:\c6 of systems with 2...e6. That would
7.ie3?! allow you to choose the most un­
pleasant set-up against any par­
ticular opponent. For instance, if
the White player is narrowly spe­
cialised in the English Attack, you
may choose to delay ...l2:\c6. This
approach effectively discourages
White's set-up with ie3. It is also
very good against the fans of an
early f4, the fianchetto with g3 and
the Classical system with ie2. On
the contrary, if your opponent is a
practical player who avoids main
White played a natural devel­ lines, then the Taimanov move or­
oping move, but Black suddenly der would be more unpleasant as it
leaps forward: 7...l2:\e5! 8.h3 - an­ narrows White's safe paths in the
other natural move which occurred opening.
in 5 games (8.l2:\c3 l2:\fg4; 8.0-0
ti:Jfg4 9.if4 gS!) 8...\Wb6! and Black I would choose the Kan against
already has an initiative - 9.l2:\b3 any player who treats it with 5.l2:\c3,
(9.a3 �xb210.l2:\b3 l2:\xd3+ ll.�xd3 and the Taimanov against fans of
'&eS12.l2:\ld2 �c7; 9.l2:\b5 icS+) 9... the Mar6czy Bind. The Kan may
'&c6! (9...ib4+ 10.l2:\c3 �d6 ll.id4 also be the better option if your op­
ti:lxd3+ 12.�xd3 e513.0-0-0!) ponent tried to outwit you by the
move order l.e4 cS 2.l2:\f3 e6 3.l2:\c3.
The knight is committed to c3 so 3...
a6!? would be an excellent choice.

Keep in mind that the Taimanov

is a self-sufficient system while in
some Kan lines it is best to develop
the knight on c6 switching over �o
the Taimanov. One such example IS
l.e4 c5 2.l2:\f3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.l2:\xd4
a6 5..ie2!?

7
 Introduction

players. That means your oppo­

nents will lack a model game to fol­
low and will have to play over the
board with their own capacity.
A more complex approach is
s . . . tt'lf6 6.0-0 Vf!c7 7.Vf!e2 d6 8.c4.
Again, I propose 8 . . . g6.

Perhaps the best option here is

s .. :�c7 (or s . . . tt'lf6 first) 6.0-0 tt'lf6
7. tt'lc3 tt'lc6.
Undoubtedly, the move order
with S.id3 is the most challeng­
ing system against the Kan. White
hopes to build up the Mar6czy
Bind with c4 and keep a firm grip Ivanchuk often plays it with
on the centre. A partial consolation the fresh positional idea of . . . tt'lhS,
for Black is that he is spared of di­ . . . ig7xc3 followed up by a blockade
rect attacks against his king. I offer on the dark squares.
two anti-dotes. If you hate long ma­
noeuvring in hedgehog pawn struc­ The most dangerous plan against
tures, you can play S . . . g6 ! ? followed the Taimanov has always been the
by . . . tt'le7 and . . . d7-d5. English Attack - l.e4 cS 2 . tt'lf3 e6
3.d4 cxd4 4.tt'lxd4 tt'lc6 5.tt'lc3 Vf!c7
6.ie3 a6 7.Vf!d2 tt'lf6

Thus you will be able to elimi­

nate the centre and gradually neu­
tralise White's lead in development. In 2 013, Black has developed a
This line is not popular among top new way of meeting it - 8. 0-0-0

8
 Introduction

.>le7! 9.f3 b5 10 .g4 tt::lxd4 ! ll . bd4

. I wrote this book in first
.l!i.b7 which brings terrific results. person, but it is a collabora­
White even began to avoid it and tive work.
switched over to 8.f4, but we are Every line has been checked
well prepared against it, too. and discussed by both authors. I
play these systems with both col­
In conclusion, the Sicilian devel­ ours while Semko Semkov de­
opment with 2 . . e6 has never been
. fends exclusively Black's side -
in a better theoretical state. It has first as a practical player, then as
become extremely popular among a theoretician.
the elite so we'll be seeing it very of­ We tried to answer for you all the
ten in the years to come. questions we thought important.

Alexander Delchev
April2014

9
10
 Pa rt 1

Th e C lassic a l S yste m w ith ,i e2

In this part, I consider the always popular system with i.e2 and short
castling. This is my favourite plan when I defend White's side. No matter
what is currently in vogue, this positional system will always be one of
the most testing set-ups against Taimanov/ Kan structures. It stakes on
natural development and firm control of the centre, which allows White to
choose between a wide range of plans on both flanks.

While some typical Black's set-ups with White's pawn wedge on e5 look
outwardly cramped, this very pawn could also be White's biggest weak­
ness. A lot of games witness a sudden turn of events caused by the under­
mining move t7-f6.
The secret of Black's vitality on so little space is the excellent efficiency
of his long-range pieces. His bishops often operate on the important dia­
gonals gl-a7 and hl-a8.

11
Pa rt 1. The Classical System with ie2

M a in Ideas

In the Taimanov, White aims for the

position on the following diagram :

l.e4 c5 2 .-li�f3 e6 3.d4 cxd4

4. tLlxd4 tLlc6 5.tLlc3 V!fc7 6 .le2 a6
•

7.0-0 tLlf6 8 .le3

•

Ta imanov 1

Black will also play here . . . tt:lc6

but first he'll gain an important
tempo by hitting the e4-pawn. Now
8.�f3 is not very impressive : 8 . . .
tt:lc6 ! 9.tt:lxc6 dxc6 10.'�� e 2 �d6 ! ?
ll.g3 tt:lf6 o r lO .eS VffxeS ll.l'!el V!fc7
�hS �e7 13.1'!xe6 g6. Thus the only
way to stay in the battle for the
This is the favourite approach of opening advantage is:
players who love the Scheveningen
with White. Sometimes they use the s.gel tLlc6 9.tLlxc6 dxc6 10.e5
refined move order 6.�e3 a6 7.�e2, gds n . .ld3 c5
aiming to avoid the Scheveningen
without . . . a6 which might arise after Ka n 1
6.�e2 tt:lf6 7.0-0 �e7. However, it
also has a counter-strategy - Black
can refrain from . . . a6 by 6.�e3 tt:lf6,
inviting the opponent to a theoret­
ical duel in the sharp line 7.f4 �b4
which is, however, dubious - see
Part 2 .
Our main line i n the Kan arises
after l.e4 c5 2 . tLlf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4
4.-li�xd4 a6 5.-li� c3 Wc7 6 . .le2 b5 The current status of this posi­
7. 0-0 .lb7 tion is roughly equal. Black's rook
12
 The Classical System with .te2

is very active on the d-file, the eS­

pawn is a double-edged asset as it
needs protection.

Let's see what happens if we try

to employ the same development in
the Taimanov. In line 1, Black can
play 7 . . . b5? ! 8.4Jxc6 dxc6 9.a4!

12 . . . l'l:b8 ! 13.g3 4Jf6 14 ..tf3 g6 !

15.4Jb6 eS (or 15 . . . l'l:d8)

The most topical line is 10. �xc6

bxc6 11. �b6 gb8 12. �xc8 �xc8
13.�d4
Taimanov 2

It turns out that we missed one

tempo for .. Jl:d8 so 9 . . ..tb7? los­
es owing to the knight's sac on bS.
The only way to keep the queenside
closed is 9 . . . b4, but then White ob­
tains long-term pressure on the
weak c- and a-pawns by occupying
c5 : lO.liJbl 4Jf6 ll.liJd2 .tcs 12 . .td3
eS 13. 4Jb3 .ta7 14.h3 aS 15.�e2 0-0 Currently, 13 . . . c5 looks a bit
16 .te3 .
.
more accurate than 13 . . . �c7. White
still preserves an initiative, but
A plus for the Kan: the plan with practice has shown that Black does
. . . bS works better. not experience serious problems .

In Taimanov 1, Black should opt Do not try 6 . . . 4Jf6 7.0-0 .tb4 in

for the Scheveningen, or for 8 . . . the Kan !
.ib4 when White's most challeng­
ing i dea is to thrust his knight to­
ward b6 by 9.�a4 �e7

Here, the pawn sacrifice 10.c4

41xe4 ll.cS 0-0 12 J'kl has faded
out of fashion since Black success­
fully frees himself with . . . d6, for in­
st ance:

13
 Part 1

It may look that Black has a fa­ veningen or the transition to the
vourable version compared to Taimanov with 6 . . . �c7 7. 0-0 ll:lc6.
the Taimanov, because he direct­ The only way for Black to refrain
ly threatens to win a pawn. In my from . . . ltlc6 is 6 . . . .ib4
opinion, the opposite is true be­
cause White has not committed his
bishop to e3 yet. Thus 8.i.gS ! i.xc3 ? !
( 8 . . . i.e7! i s a wiser decision, but if
Black wanted to play the Schevenin­
gen, he could have done it anyway)
9 ..ixf6 gxf6 10.bxc3 �xc3 1U'1b1 is
dubious for Black since his king will
never find a safe haven.

A plus for the Taimanov: the plan 7.eS ! 7 . . . ltldS (7 . . . ll:le4 8 . 0-0)
with . . . i.b4 is more solid. 8. 0-0 ll:lxc3 9.bxc3 i.xc3 10 .i.a3
�as (10 . . . �b6 ll.ltlf3 �as 12 .�d6
It seems that many White play­ ltlc6, but 13J''1ab1 i.xeS 14.ll:lxeS
ers prefer to avoid the Kan with �xeS 1S.�d2 gives White a very
ltlc3. That can explain the burst of unpleasant initiative) 11 .i.d6 ll:lc6
popularity of the tricky move order 12.ltlxc6 dxc6 13.�d3 ! .
S.i.e2 ! ? (instead of S.ltlc3). Then The move order with S.i.e2
S . . . bS 6.a4 ! is unpleasant for Black shows why Black should have in his
so he should play S . . . ltlf6 ! ? 6.ltlc3, repertoire not only the Kan, but also
when objectively best is the Sche- the Taimanov or the Scheveningen.

Weapon of Choice

I tend to prefer the Kan (compare positions Kan 1 to Taimanov 2). It can be
learned virtually in 2 hours and Black's play is fairly simple and straightfor­
ward. On the other hand, the same is true for White, too ! The pawn struc­
ture is symmetric and it is relatively easy to exchange everything and make
a draw. The Taimanov's strategically unbalanced game should offer more
chances against much weaker opponents.

14
Pa rt 1. The Classical System with .ie2

Ta i ma nov - S tep by S tep

t.e4 c5 2 . �f3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 by 9.g4 or 9.f4 d6 10.g4. This pro­

4.�xd4 �c6 5. �c3 f!Jc7 6.J.e2 phylactic move is certainly not dan­
gerous for players who have a good
command of the whole TaimanovI
Kan arsenal. For instance, we'll see
below that 7.0-0 bS is best met by
8.ltJxc6 dxc6 9.a4 ! . So the most nat­
ural retort to 8.a3 is:

8 . . . b5
The only flaw of this move is
perhaps the possible draw after:
9.ltJxc6 dxc6 10.f4
6.i.e3 a6 7.i.e2 is the better 10.0-0 ib7 ll.f4 ie7 12 .e5 Ei:d8
move order unless White is plan­ 13.f!Je1 ltJd7 leads to the same struc­
ning 8.a3 or B.ltth l. After 6 . .ie2 , ture : 14.f!Jg3 0-0 15.Ei:ae1 cS 16.if3
Black may choose the Scheveningen .ixf3 17.Ei:xf3 f!Jc6= , Baramidze­
without . . . a6, e.g. 6 . . . ltJf6 7. 0-0 ie7 Ribli, Austria 2006.
which is a worthy alternative to the
Taimanov. If Black tries to reach the 10 ... ib7 1l.e5 Ei:d8 12 .id3 ltJd7
same position after 6 . .ie3 ltJf6, he (12 ... �d5 13.ltJxd5 cxdS 14.i.d4 i.cS
must reckon with 7.ltJdb5 f!Jb8 8.f4 15.c3 0-0 16.f!Je2) 13.f!Jg4 cS 14. 0-0
or 7.f4. Most experts avoid these g6
possibilities in favour of 6.ie3 a6,
when 7.ie2 leads to our main line.

6 .•• a6 7. 0-0

7.£4 bS is considered in Part 4

wh ile 7 . . . ltJxd4 8.f!Jxd4 bS is possi­
ble as well.
White can also play 7 . .ie3 ltJf6
8.a3 having in mind to attack 8 . . . ie7
15
 Part 1

15. 'Wh3 (or Black will advance his White carries on the same plan
queenside pawns) 15 . . . �e7 16.'Wh6 after ll . . . aS, e.g. 12 .�d3 �e7 13.'We2.
�f8 17.'Wh3 .
12 .�d3 eS
7 ••• t0f6 Alternatively:
12 . . . 0-0 13 .'We2 eS 14.tt:lb3 �g4
7 . . . b5 is an attempt to get a posi­ 1S.'We1 �e7 16.�c4 c5 17.f3;t, Heber­
tion from the Kan. However, White la-Zhigalko, Instanbul 2 0 05.
has a straightforward way of ob­ 12 ... h5 13.'We2 tt:lg4 14.tt:lf3 �d6
taining the initiative : 8.lt:lxc6 ! dxc6 15.);13;!;, Abu Sufian-Hossain, Dha­
9.a4! ka 2013.

13.tt:lb3 �a7 14.h3 aS 1S.'We2 0-0

16.�e3

The only way to avoid seri­

ous trouble now is to keep the play
closed with :
This set-up promises White
9 . . . b4 lasting pressure because Black's
queenside pawns will be a perma­
9 . . . �b7? loses owing to the
nent cause of concern . The game
knight's sac on bS.
Heberla-Firman, Warsaw 2 0 06,
9 .. J�b8 10.e5! is also awkward.
went 16 ... �e6 17.ha7 'Wxa7 18 .�c4
Against I.Sokolov, I replied 10 . . . tt:le7
�feB (18 . . . tt:lh5 19.�xe6 tt:lf4 2 0 .'Wc4)
and went on to draw after ll.�f4 fS
19.he6 �xe6 2 0 .�adU.
1 2 .exf6 'Wxf4, but ll.axbS ! is very
unpleasant. White opens the a-file
and the endgame after ll . . . axbS
12 .'Wd6! is difficult. 12 . . . 'Wb7 13 .'Wd3
tt:lg6 14.tt:le4! is even lost.
The other recapture ll . . . cxbS
does not save the day either: 12 .tt:le4
tt:ld5 13 .'Wd4 with domination in the
centre.
10.tt:lb1 tt:lf6 n.tt:ld2 �cs

16
 The Classical System with .ie2

After 7 . . . ftlf6, White has three 10 .g3 could be attacked later

main continuations: A. 8.a3 ; B. with h5, for instance, 10 . . . b5 ll . .if3
s . @h 1; c. B . .ie3 ib7 12 .\Wd3 �c8 13.�e1 .ie5 14.id2
h5+, Alexandridis-Miladinovic, Ka­
8 . .ig5 is inconsistent. Apart from vala 2001.
8 . .ie7, Black can equalise with typ­
. .

ica1Taimanov means: 8 . . . .id6 9.<i>h1 10 .te5 U.ti'd3 0-0!

••• 12.f4
L2Jxd4 10.\Wxd4 .ie5 ll .\Wd3 b5 12 .f4 hc3 13.bxc3 d5 14.exd5
.�.xc3 13.bxc3 .ib7 or the minimalis­
tic 8 . . . ftlxd4 9.\Wxd4 ic5 10 .\Wd2 b5 Stein-Suetin, Moscow 1964 saw
ll..if4 e5 12.ftld5 ftlxd5 13.\Wxd5 .ib7 14.e5 �e4 15.c4 \Wxc4 16.\Wxc4 dxc4
14.\Wxe5+ \Wxe5 15 .he5 0-0, Brkic­ 17.hc4 .id7= . Black could aspire to
S mirin, Rijeka 2010. an edge with 15 . . . b5 ! ? 16.cxd5 exd5
17.ti'xd5 if5+.

A . 8.a3 14 .•. exd5 15 .te3

•

Sometimes White opts for this

move in order to avoid 8.ie3 ib4.
Of course, this is a meager rea­
son for playing second rate varia­
tions. Any system against 8.<i>h1 is
even better against 8.a3. In many
Taimanov set-ups, a3 could prove
to be a superfluous move. Also in
the Scheveningen, Black faces more
problems when defending against
a4 instead of a3.
Black has the initiative. All his
8 . . . �xd4 9.ti'xd4 .1d6
pieces have good prospects. Per­
haps best is 15 .. J:'le8 ! 16.id4 ftle4
while G. Kuzmin-Andreikin, Alush­
ta 2 0 04, saw 15 . . . .id7 16.id4 ftle4
17.c4 if5 18.\We3 �feB 19.cxd5
\Wc2 = .

B . S . �hl �xd4

Black can transpose to the Sche­

veningen by 8 . . . .ie7 9.f4 d6, hav­
ing won a small opening victory.
lO.�hl The point is that by having commit-

17
 Part 1

ted his king to h1, White deprived

himself of one the most danger­
ous system against the Schevenin­
gen which is based on the quick ma­
noeuvre �d1-e1-g3 and Ei:ae1 while
the king remains on gl.
I suggest to stay in the Taimanov
waters. Our first task will be to find
an active occupation to the dark­
squared bishop. Besides the text, we
often see 8 . . . .tb4. Then 9.�d3 �d6
10.tt'lxc6 �xd3 ll.cxd3 dxc6 leads Bl. ll.f4 ; B2. ll.igS ! ?
to an equal endgame, but 9.-tgS ! is
more testing. Then 9 . . . �d6 10.tt'lxc6
B l . ll.f4 .ib7 12 . .ifJ
�xd1 1l.tt'lxd1 dxc6 12 .e5 tt'ld7 13.f4
as in Smislov-Razuvaev, USSR
1975, leaves Black in a cramped al­
beit solid position.

9.Ybd4 .ic5 10.�d3

Alternatives:
10 . .tf4 .txd4 ll . .txc7 .txc3
12 .bxc3 tt'lxe4 13.c4 dS=.
10 .�d2 0-0 (Black should not
provide the opponent with a lever 12 . . . h5
for an attack with 10 . . . h6) 1l .�g5
d6 (11.. . .td4 12 . .td3 .txc3 ! ? 13.bxc3 This move enables . . . tt'lg4 and
d6 14.f4 dS is more ambitious, but builds up tension.
risky.) 12 . .td3 tt'ld7 (12 . . . b5 13 .�g3 12 ... 0-0 ! ? is simple and sol­
.tb7 14.ih6 tt'le8 = , Jakovenko-Lau­ id: 13.e5 tt'le8 14.ib7 (14.tt'le4 .te7
tier, France 2 0 07) 13.f4 (13.�g3 bS 15.ie3 fS 16.tt'ld2 Ei:c8= , Oleksienko­
14.tt'le2 tt'leS 15.f4 tt'lxd3 16.cxd3 fS) Shaposhnikov, Minsk 2 006) 14 . . .
13 . . . id4+, Van Oosterom-Giri, En­ �b7 15.a4 (15.f5 f6=) 1 5 . . . b4 16.tt'le4
schede 2009. .te7 17 . .te3 �c6 temporarily gains
space, but White is unable to keep
his achievement : 18.c4 bxc3 19. bxc3
10 •.• b5 dS 20.tt'ld2 tt'lc7= , Ye Jiangchuan-J.
Polgar, Prague 2 0 0 2 , or 18.tt'lg5 g6
lO . . . hS is too committing. You (18 .. .f5=) 19J'!ad1 d6 20 ..td4 dxeS
could opt for such plans if you des­ 2l .ixe5 tt'lf6 22 .�h3 hS+, Grischuk­
perately needed a win. J. Polgar, Linares 2001.
18
 The Classical System with i.e2

13.e5 pushing b3-c4, or to blockade it by

c3-b4, trying to organise an attack
13 .i.d2 li:\g4 14.'<Mfe2 d6! restricts on the other wing. The latter is rath­
White's activity in the centre. er annoying for Black.

13 .i.e3 ! ? i.e3 14.'<Mfe3 aims to 16.i.e3

weaken Black's dark squares (d6, 16.b3 is well met by 16 . . . l:!c8 !
c5, b6) . Therefore, 14 . . . d6! is called (Black is trying to dissuade the op­
for. (14 . . . b4? ! 15.li:\a4 d6 16.c3) ponent from pushing 17.c4. In that
15 .E!ad1 (or 15.a3 '<MfcS ! 16.'<Mfd2 h4 event 17 . . . 0-0 would find White un­
17.E!ad1 0-0- 0 ! ) 15 . . . b4 ! 16.li:\a4 (16. developed for active play. ) 17.i.b2
1Lle2 0-0) 16 . . . 0-0 17.'<Mfd4 (17.c3 li:\h6 18.'<Mff3 '<Mfb8 19.l:!f2 li:lfS. Black
,1!W6) 17 . . . a5 ! 18.E!fe1 E!fd8 ! = (Gross). accomplished the thematic knight's
manoeuvre-see game 1 Lutz­
13 ••• �g4 14 .ib7 •
Grabliauskas, Pula 1997.

White does not get an advantage

by 14.li:\e4 i.xe4 (14 . . . i.e7 15.li:\d6+ ;
14 . . . E!b8 ! ?) 15.'<Mfxe4 E!c8 16.'<Mfe2
l/ih6 17.a4 li:\f5 18.axb5 axbS 19.i.d2
h4 20 .i.g4 '<Mfc6 = .

14 •.• '<Mfb7 15.�e4

In several games White scored

well with 15.a4 ! ? b4 16.li:le4 l:!c8 16 . . . l:!c8 17.i.d4 !
17.c4. After fixing the queenside, he
In the majority of games White
could turn his attention to Black's
chooses 17.c3. Then the march of
king. I suppose that the best an­
the h-pawn is very efficient: 17 . . .
swer is 15 . . . 0-0 ! ? 16.li:\e4 i.e7 17.h3
h4 ! 18.h3 (18.i.d4? ! h3 ! 19.g3 fS !
l!lh 6 , maintaining tension all over
20.exf6 li:lxf6 ! 21.i.xf6 gxf6 ! ) 18 . . .
=

the board.
li:\h6 19.l:!ad1 li:lfS 2 0.i.f2 0-0.
White's pawn chain on the kingside
15 l:!c8 ! ?
is paralysed for good and could be
• .•

attacked, e.g. 21.'<Mff3 l:!c7 2 2 . l:!d3 f6 !

Black recognises 16.i.e3 a s the
main positional threat of the oppo­ 17 . . . li:\h6 (17 . . . h4 18.�f3 '<Mfc6
nent. Database statistics show 61% 19.'<Mfg4 '<Mfe4 20 .c3 !;!;) 18.c3 ! h4 (18 . . .
in Bl ack's favour after 15 . . . l:!c8 ! ? li:\f5 19.�f3 ! '<Mfc6 2 0 .l:!adU) 19.'<Mff3;!;.
Let's ponder over the frequently White can follow up by b4, i.cS.
seen 15 . . . i.e7. Now that White cannot play
White has two reasonable plans : 16.i.e3, he probably should conti­
to b re ak through the queenside by nue with :

19
 Part 1

18.ic3 ltlh6 ! 19.f5 tt:lfS 2 0 .�xf5

exfS 2 l .ltld6 ixd6 2 2 . exd6 cj{fB
23.�e7 �h6 24.\WfS f6 25.\Wxd7 (25.
�xd7 �g6) 25 ... \Wxd7 26.�xd7 �xc3
27.bxc3 fS ! = ;
18 .c3 ltlh6 19 .ie3 ltJfS 2 0 .id4
h4 21.\Wf3 0-0 2 2 .�d1 �fd8.

JJ2 . u . .tgs .tb7 t2 .f4 .tb4 !

16 .td2
•

16.a4 is inconsistent. When the

queenside is opened, Black can
safely castle, because he can easi­
ly organise counterplay should the
opponent attempt to assault his
king. I propose 16 . . . ie7! ? 17.axb5
axbS 18.�a5 (or 18 .h3 ltlh6 19�ie3
0-0 2 0 .ltlg3 \Wc6 = , Tirard-Delchev,
Cappelle ·1a Grande 2006) 18 . . . b4
19.id2 \Wc7 2 0.�fa 1 \Wc6 ! = . f4-f5 is
White gets an edge after 12 . . .
no longer a threat.
b4? ! 13.e5 tt:ldS 14. tt:lxd5 ixdS
15.if3 ixf3 16.�xf3 d6 17.�afl!t, as
16 . . . .te7! 17.gael
in Berg-Brynell, Gothenburg 2006.
Alternatively: 17.a3 \Wc6 ! 18.ib4
13 . .tf3
fS= , Delchev-De la Riva, Benasque
1997; 17.b3 \WdS.
13.ixf6 defines White's plans
too early. In Dolezal-El Debs, Sao
17 . 0-0oo.
. .

Jose do Rio Preto 2 007, Black put

his rook to g8 and stood well : 13 . . .
According to my analysis, Black
gxf6 14.a4 ixc3 15.bxc3 �g8 16.g3 fS
holds firmly in this position. The
17.if3 fxe4 18.ixe4 ixe4 19.\Wxe4
biggest danger for him is 18 .f5, but
\Wc6 = .
18 . . . tt:lxe5 19.\Wg3 f6 20 . .ic3 �c4
neutralises the pressure.
13 . . . .bc3 14.bxc3 gc8 15 .txf6
•

Black has successfully tested in

practice 17 . . . \Wc6 ! ? 18 .'.f9f3 fS ! = , Yu 15.a4? ! \Wxc3 16.axb5 \Wd3
Shaoteng-Ye Jiangchuan, Yongchu­ 17.cxd3 axb5 18.�fb1 ic6 was good
an 2003. Other options after 17 . . . for Black in Zezulkin-Tregubov,
\Wc6 ! ? are : Krasnodar 1998.

20
 The Classical System with .ie2

15 . . . gxf6 16.gadl = . bishop for the c3-knight or push d7-

d5 and retreat to d6 in future.
Black can gain space o n the
Obviously White should ig­
kingside by 16 . . . h5 and hope to use
nore the threat to e4 and coun­
White's split pawn structure on the
ter-attack, but how?
ot her wing.
The straightforward approach :
d) 9.f4 ixc3 10 .bxc3 lt:lxe4
C. 8.J.e3 J.b4 11.id3 proves to be insufficient af­
ter ll . . . dS ! (ll . . . lt:lf6 12 .'1We1 is not so
clear) . Black's knight on e4 is a good
defender.

e) 9.lt:lxc6 bxc6 10.f4 ixc3

ll .bxc3 is more testing.

Black attacks the e4-pawn. If

White defends it, he loses the initi­
ative and could become worse:
a) 9.if3?! lt:leS 10.if4 ixc3
ll. bxc3 d6+. Now after 11. . . lt:lxe4 (In Ran­
tanen-P. Cramling, Helsinki 1991,
b) 9.id3?! lt:leS leads to positions
Black chose the modest: ll ... cS
from Part 3 with an extra tempo for
12 .e5 lt:ldS 13 .id2 c4 14.l'!b1 0-0 = . )
Black. After 10.lt:lde2, he can try to
12.if3 [12 . .id3 lt:lf6 13.'1Wf3 (13 .id4
punish immediately the opponent
cS 14 . .ixf6 gxf6 lS.fS eS+) 13 . . . d6
by 10 . . . lt:lfg4 (10 . . .ixc3 ll .bxc3 dS= )
14.id4 l'!b8 15.'1Wg3 'it>f8 16.c4 cS
ll. if4 g S 12 .ig3 hSoo, but probably
17.ic3 lt:le8 18.l'!ael fSoo, Oleksien­
the best way is to continue develop­
ko-Swapnil, Kolkata 2012], Black is
ment by 10 . . . 0-0 ! ? ll .h3 d6.
forced to cover the critical diagonal
c) 9.f3? ! Black carries on ... d7- a3-f8 by 12 . . . lt:ld6 (12 . . . lt:Jf6 13.ic5
d5 with excellent play. This plan dS 14.'\Wd4�) . The game Pulkkinen
co uld be executed in different set­ -Suetin, Espoo 1989, went 13.l'!b1
ti ngs: 9 . . .ixc3 10 .bxc3 dS or 9 . . . d5 l'!b8 14.l'!xb8 '\Wxb8 1S.ic5 lt:lb7,
lO.exdS exdS . Most players prefer when White's initiative is bound
9 . 0-0 as more flexible. Depend­
. . to evaporate : 16.'1Wd4 (16.'1Wb1 '\Wc7
i ng on White's response, Black will 17 . .ib6 '1Wd6) 16 . . . lt:lxc5 17.'1Wxc5 'IWbS
ch oose whether to give firstly his 18.'1Wd6 f6 ! .
21
 Part 1

f) 9.tt'lxc6 bxc6 10.'Wd4 (10 .'Wd3 0-0 16.id3 (16.�ab1 �feB 17.id3
d5 11.exd5 cxdS= ; 10 .id3 dS =) 10 . . . 'Wc6 1B .hc5 'WxcS = , Cawdery-Gre­
cS ll.'Wc4 has always been a side­ tarsson, Reykjavik 2014; 17 . . . c4 ! ?)
line. 16 . . . 'Wc6 17.f3, Garbisu-G. Hernan­
dez, Villalba 1993, 17 . . . c4= .
1 4 . . . 'Wxf4 15.hf4 hc3 16.bxc3
0-0. Here my opponent chose the
straightforward 17.�ab1 ic6 1B.�b6
ibS 19.ixb5 axbS 20.�xb5 tt'le4 = .
However, 17.c4 ! would have given
White somewhat preferable chanc­
es because of the weakness of the
cS-pawn.
I think that Black should look for
That accounts for the fact that improvements earlier:
Black has not established yet his
11 . . . 0-0 ! 12 .if3 d6
best defence.

I faced it in Delgado Crespo­

Delchev, Sort 200B and chose . the
natural 11.. .ib7? ! 12 .a3 (12 .if3
'WeS = or 12 . . . e5=) 12 . . . d5
12 . . . ixc3 is more popular, but
I'm afraid that the position af­
ter 13.'Wxc3 is in White's favour.
The renowned Taimanov expert
Pia Cramling chooses here 13 . . . 0-0
which is quite safe, but leaves the Black is behind in development
opponent with a small edge after so it is logical to keep the centre
14.f3 �feB 15.ig5 tt'leB 16.�fe1 (16. closed. He had no problems in Na­
eS dS) 16 ... 'Wc6 17.�ad1 dS 1B.exd5 kar-Roiz, Acre 2013, which went
exdS:t, De Ia Villa-Cramling Cor­ 13.a3 iaS (13 . . . hc3 14.'�'xc3 ib7=)
doba 1995. Taking on e4 is out­ 14.b4 (14.e5 dS 15.'Wxc5 tt'ld7) 14 . . .
right dubious : 13 . . . ixe4 (13 . . . tt'lxe4 cxb4 15."Wxc7 hc7 16.axb4 ib7= .
14.'Wxg7 0-0-0 15.f3 �hgB 16."Wxf7
�dfB 17.'We7±) 14.f3 ig6 15.'Wxc5
'WxcS 16.ixc5 hc2 17.�ac1 ia4
1B.id6 'it>dB 19.�c5 tt'leB 20 .ig3 White discovers the sore point
ic6 2l.�a5�, Shtyrenkov-Eljanov, in Black's position-b6, and the cen­
Novi Sad 19B9. tral dark squares in general. Note
13.exd5 exd5 14.'Wf4 that the move order 9.tt'lxc6 bxc6
Black's pawn centre is dangerous 10 .tt'la4 is probably inaccurate, be­
with queens : 14."Wh4 hc3 15.bxc3 cause it offers Black additional op-

22
 The Classical System with �e2

tio ns as 10 . . . 0-0 (10 . . . �d6 11.tt:lb6 order: ll. tt:lxc6 bc6 12.tt:lxc8 �c8
i\bB 12 .g3 ! looks better for White) 13.c4 tt:lxe4 14.�d4 tt:lf6 1S.cS, but
u . tt:lb6 !=1b8 12 .tt:lxc8 !=1fxc8 13.ha6 this position is good for Black. For
!"\dB 14.�d3 �d6. This line was instance, he can prepare . . . !=1b8-b4
popular in the 70s, then it has faded by 1S . . . aS 16.�c4 tt:ldS 17.�g7 �f6
out of fashion. It is considered satis­ 18 .�g3 !=1b4.
factory for Black, e.g. 1S.f4 eS 16.b3
exf4 17.�d4 f3 18.eS �xeS.
Cl. 10.c4 ttJxe4 ll.c5
9 . . . .ie7!
ll.tt:lxc6 bxc6 12 .�d4 tt:lf6 13.tt:lb6
White was threatening c4-cS. !=1b8 14.cS is a decent alternative.
Unfortunately, 9 . . . bS runs into
1 0 . tt:lxc6 dxc6 11.�cS ! ;t hcS (11 . . .
bxa4 12 .�b4 cS 13.�a3 ! tt:lxe4 14.�f3
s�.b7 1S.E1e1 tt:ld6 16.!=1eS±) 12.tt:lxcS;t.
The old move 9 . . . 0-0?! gives
White a terrible initiative after
1 0 . c4 ! tt:lxe4 (10 . . . �d6 ll.g3 tt:lxe4
1 2 .�f3 fS 13.cS �eS 14.tt:lb6 !=1b8
15.!'1c1�) ll.cS dS (ll . . . d6 12 .tt:lc6
VJlc6 13.cxd6 �xd6 14.�c2 fS 1S.!=1fd1
VJ1e7 16.tt:lb6 !=1b8 17.!=1acl±) 12.tt:lxc6 Black must free himself immedi­
fixc6 13.tt:lb6 !=1b8 14.!=1c1 �aS ately because after 14 . . . e5 15.�c4 0-0
(14 . . . �d7 1S. tt:lxd7 �xd7 16.!=1c4±) 16.!=1fd1, White has a bind - 16 . . . tt:ldS
1 5.�f4±. (16 . . . dS 17.cxd6 ixd6 18.!=1acl±)
17.tt:lxdS cxd5 18.�xdS !=1xb2 19 .ic4
Wh8 20 .ib3 fS 2 1 .�d3±. So he fol­
lows up with :
14 . . . d6 1S.cxd6 hd6 16.tt:lc4
ixh2+ 17.Wh1 cS 18 .�xcS �xeS
19.hcS ic7 (19 . . .if4 is more risky
and materially unbalanced after
20.if3 �b7 21 .id6 hf3 22 .hb8
hg2+ 23. Wxg2 hb8 24.!=1ac1 if4
2S.E1c3 We7oo) 20.!=1ac1 tt:le4 and
White cannot extract much from
the a3-f8 diagonal, e.g. 2 1.�a3 ib7
Cl. 10.c4; C2 . 10.tt:lxc6 2 2 . Wg1 fS 23.!=1fd1 !=1d8 = .

1 0 .tt:lb6 should be answered by 11 . . . 0-0 12.gc1

10 . . . !=1b8. Then White can try to
surprise us with the tricky move 12 .�f3 is countered by 12 . . . tt:lgS !

23
 Part 1

The text move is more straightfor­

ward.

12 . . . gb8 ! 13.g3 (preparing a

retreat square in the event of if3
tt:lgS) 13 tt:lf6 14.if3 g6 !
•••

16. tLlb3 d6 17.cxd6 ixd6

Black aims for . . . e6-e5 so he 18.tLlc4
takes fS under control. White has
been unable to find gaps in Black's White attempted to improve
armour. His compensation is only with 18.ix:c6 bxc6 19.�f3 in Kam­
sufficient for equality. sky-Nisipeanu, Sofia 2 007, where­
as John Emms suggests 19 . . . \WdB ! ?
15. tLlb6 2 0 .tt:lxc8 e4.

Alternatively: 18 .•• ie7 19.ib6 \Wd7 20.tLlc5

15.Eie1 (15.\Wb3 eS ! ; 15.\Wd3
Eld8=) 15 ... e5 16.tt:lb3 d6 17.cd6 .id6 It is dangerous for White to
18.ia7 Ela8 19 . .ib6 \We7 20 . .ic6 bc6 keep on queens with 2 0 .\We2 e4
2 l.Eic6 ib4 22 . .ic5 .icS 23.tt:lbc5 2l..ixe4 tt:lxe4 2 2 .\We4 \Wh3 = , Pol­
Eld8 24.\Wb3 .ih3 with active play; zin-Heissler, Germany 1999 .

15.ig5 Eld8 16.tt:lb6 h6 ! ? 17.ix:h6

dS 18.Eie1 eS 19. tt:lxc6 bxc6 2 0 .\We2
tt:ld7 2l..ixd5 tt:lxcS 2 2 . tt:lxc8 ElxdS
23.tt:lxe7+ \Wxe7 24.Eied1, Brenjo­
Sarenac, Belgrade 2009, 24 . . . e4 ! = .

15 .•• e5

Karpov introduced 15 . . . Eid8 ! ?

when 1 6 . .ig5 h 6 i s the above-men­
tioned game Brenjo-Sarenac.
16 .�a4 eS 17.tt:lb3 dS 18.cxd6 Elxd6 The play is balanced. Black can
19.tt:la5 .ih3 20.Eife1 e4 is also fine. trade queens or aim for complica-

24
 The Classical System with .ie2

tions with 20 .. .'�h3 2 l..ig2 �h6

22Jle1 .ig4.

C2. 10.tbxc6 bxc6 ll.t'Llb6

Elb8 12 .t'Llc8 �c8

15.c4

15.�d3 is best met by 15 . . .'�c7!

(avoiding 15 . . . 0-0 16.�g3) 16.�e4
(16.�g3 i.d4 !), when 16 . . . 0-0
17 . .ixa6 f5 18.exf6 ll'lxf6 19.�e2
ll'ld5 2 0.g3 !'lxf2 21.!'1xf2 Elf8 2 2 .i.f4
i.xf2 + 23.�xf2 e5 is playable, but
it is better to keep more tension
The position is very unbalanced by 16 . . . a5 17.a3 0-0 18.i.d3 f5, e.g.
strategically. Black has more pawns 19.�c4 �a7 2 0 .c3 ll'le7 2 l .i.c2 ll'lg6
in the centre and the semi-open b­ 2 2 .�e2 a4 23.Wh1 f4't, Corrales­
file for his rook. He only needs a cou­ Quesada, Las Tunas 2 009.
ple of moves to consolidate ( . . . 0-0,
15 . . . ll'le7 16.Wh1
.. . �c7, ... d5) and his pieces will be
perfectly co-ordinated. White bases 16.b3 �c7 17.i.b2 faces Black
his hopes on a kingside attack. For with a choice. He can challenge the
the moment, he has some spatial ad­ opponent to enter unbalanced po­
vantage and the initiative, so he must sitions with 17 . . . d6 18 .ed6 i.xd6
play actively. (19.h3 .ih2 2 0 . Wh1 .ie5) 19.�d4 c5
(19 . . . ll'lf5 2 0 .�e4 i.xh2+ 2 1 . Wh1 c5
13 .id4
.
2 2 .g4 ll'ld4 23 .i.xd4 cxd4 24.f4 i.g3
25.Wg2 i.h4 26.!'1ad1 i.e7=) 20.�xg7
a) 13.e5 is less popular because .ixh2+ 21 .Wh1 !'lg8 or 19.i.xg7 !'lg8
after 13 . . . ll'ld5 the bishop has to re­ 2 0 .i.c3 i.xh2+ 21.Wh1 i.e5 2 2 .i.xe5
treat to its initial place: �xeS. A more restrained approach
14 . .ic1 (the difference with the is to castle and try to provoke f2-
main line is that after 14 . .id4 c5 f4 before breaking in the centre
Wh ite has not the e5-square for the with . . . d6, for example, 17 . . . tt:lg6 ! ?
bishop and has to play 15.c4 cxd4 18.Wh1 0-0 19.f4 o r 1 7. . . 0-0.
1 6.cxd5 �c5 ! 17.i.f3 i.g5 ! 18.Elb1 16 . . .'�c7 17.f4 0-0 18 .b3. I played
exd5 ! = or 17.d6 i.f8 ! . here 18 . . . a5, but this move is not
14 . . . .ic5 ! necessary. It would be natural to

25
 Part 1

open the centre by 18 . . J'l:fd8 19 . .ib2 2 l..id3 !!gS 2 2 .�f3 �g8 23.!!be1
lt:lfS (or 19 . . . d6 20 . .id3 dxeS 2l.i.xe5 �g7 24.Wh1 aS 25.!!e3 f6= .
.id6 2 2 .�c2 lt:lg6 ! =) 2 0 J'l:f3 dS ! t .
b ) 13.�d4 i s rarely seen. I an­
swered it with 13 . . . �c7! ? 14.e5 lt:ldS
15.b3, Asrian-Delchev, Evry 2 008,
when 1S ... c5 ! would have seized the
initiative.

13 . . . c5

13 . . . �c7 is Miladinovic's pet line. 17 . . . if6 ! ?

This variation is very flexible, but
with accurate play White can get a 1 7. . . !!d6 18 .id3 c 4 19.bc4 �c6
small, but lasting edge due to his 2 0.g3 lt:lgS stumbles into 2 l.f3 hS
better pawn structure. See game 2 2 2 . @h1 ! . Instead, a member of the
Adams-Banikas, Porto Carras 2011 chesspublishing.com forum pro­
for more details. posed to play 17 . . . c4 ! immediate­
ly. Capturing on c4 is bad, due to
14 . .tes gb6 18 .hc4? �c6 19.g3 icS 2 0 .id4
lt:lgS; 18.if3 lt:lgS; 18 .id4? !!d6,
18 .ih5 �c6 19.�f3 lt:lf6 2 0 .�c6 !!c6
2 l ..if3 dS are not dangerous either.
However, White should be slight­
ly better with a sound central stra­
tegy: 18.�d4 c3 19.ic1 �c6 (19 . . .
!!b4 2 0 .�d3 icS 2 1.�h3 �c6 2 2 .a3
!!d4 23.b4 ib6 24.ie3 lt:ld2 25.hd4
.ixd4 26.g3±) 20 . .if3 dS 2l.ie3 !!b4
2 2 .�d3 lt:lgS 23.ie2.
It is safer to abandon the at­
tacking plans and opt for the good
15.�d3
positional idea of exchanging the
dark-squared bishops:
Alternatively, 15.b3 lt:lxe4 (White
18.ixf6 lt:lxf6 as in game 3 Bali­
is slightly better after 15 . . . 0-0
nov-Sommerbauer, Tweng 2007.
16.�d3 d6 17 . .ib2.) 16.hg7 !!g8
17 ..ib2
15 . . . d6 16 . .tc3 0-0 17.b3
1 � . .ieS.id6! 18 ..ig3 lt:lxg3 19.fxg3
.
.ieS Is equal. The game Radjabov­ Sadvakasov played against me
Cori, Tromso 2013, went 20.!!b1 17.�g3 . It was a novelty in 2 004. I
(2 0 ..ih5 l"lg7 2 1.c3 lt>e7=) 20 ... \t>e? answered 17 . . . �c6 18.!!fe1?! �xe4 !
26
 The Classical System with �e2

and won. Ribli suggested 18.i.f3 e5 19...!'1d8 does not solve all the
19J�fel c4=. Later games featured problems: 20.�g3 (Black is intend­
17 .d518.exd5 exd5 19.b3 !'1e6=.
. . ing to double his rooks on the d­
file so White must hinder this plan.
20.!'1adl leads to simplification fol­
lowing 20...f6 21.i.g3 tt:lf4 22.�f3
tt:lxe2+ 23.\Wxe2 c4=; 20.�h3 los­
es control over d6 - 20...�f6 21.hf6
tt:lxf6 22.!'1adl !'1bd6=)

17 .'e«c6!?
••

This move keeps more tension

than:

17...d5 18.ed5 White is slightly better after ei­

ther 20...i.f6 21.i.xf6! tt:lxf6 22.!'1adl
Or 18.e5 tt:Jd7 19.f4 c4 20.bxc4
or 20...f6 21.i.b2 i.d6 22.�f3 �c7
L\c6 21.�h3 tt:lb6 22.i.d3 g6 23.!'1f3 23.g3 i.e5 24.ie5 �e5 25.ic4;!;, Ba­
(23.f5 exf5 24.!'1xf5 tt:lxc4 25.e6 fxe6 rua-Muhren, Arnhem 2007.
is a desperate attack without seri­
ous chances to succeed.) 23...!'1e8oo. 20.hf6 tt:Jxf6 21.!'1adl �c7
Black can be optimistic about his
position, Nisipeanu-Delchev, Beni­
dorm 2005.

18... tt:Jxd5 19.i.e5

19.i.d2 tt:Jb4 20.�c4 !'1d6 (or 20...

ild8=) is equal: 21.i.c3 (21.hb4 cxb4
22.�xb4�xc2 23.ha6!'1xa624.�xe7
ilxa2 25.!'1xa2 �xa2, draw, Kasparov­
Anand, Frankfurt 2000) 21...!'1fd8
22.!'1fcl, Arizmendi-De la Riva, Se­ This position occurred in seve­
ral games. White commonly trip­
ville 2004, when Black should either
activate his passive dark-squared pled his heavy pieces on the d-file
and Black kept the balance by ex­
bishop with 22...i.g5 or bar the long
diagonal with 22...tt:lc6 23.i.d3 tt:Jd4. changing one of his weak queenside
pawns with ...a6-a5-a4 or ...c5-c4.
19...i.f6 However, in one of my games as

27
 Part 1

White I carried on the manoeuvre 24.�g3 g6 25..ial lt:lb6 26..id3

22.�d2! h6 23.�a5! which main­ lt:ld7=) 2l...�a4! .
tains some pull.

18 .if3
•

The endgames after 18.e5 lt:ld5

19.exd6 .b:d6 20..if3 �b5 2U!adl
�xd3 22J'!xd3 lt:lb4 23..b:b4 cxb4
or 19..if3 �b5 20.�xb5 axb5 2l..ib2
lt:lb4 22.exd6 :i!xd6 23..idl .if6 are
equal.

18 . . . lt:ld7

18...c4 is also interesting. Then 20 . . . cxb3

19.bxc4 lt:ld7 20.e5 �a4 2l..ie4 g6
22.exd6 :i!xd6 23.�e2 .if6 24..b:f6 20...:1!c8 2l..id4 :i!b7 22..ie2
lt:lxf6 25..id3 lt:ld7 gives Black good cxb3 23.cxb3 :i!bc7=.
counterplay so White should prob­
ably try 19.�e3 e5 with sufficient 21.cxb3 V9 b7
counterplay on the queenside.
Black has no serious problems
here as long as he keeps control over
the c-file. His play is not based on
19.�e3 leads to similar positions forced variations so you can choose
after 19...:1!c8 20.:1!adl (20..ie2 .if6) other moves, too. For example:
20...c4 2l..id4 (2l.b4 �a4=) 21... 2l....ig5 22.�xg5 �xc3 23.:1!cl%'b4
:i!b7 22..ie2 cxb3 23.cxb3 :i!bc7. 24.�e3 �aS 25.:1!c2lt:le5 26..ie2 :i!c6
Black can also keeps the queenside 27.:1!xc6lt:lxc6 28.:1!dl :i!d8=.
closed with 19...h6 20J!adl .ig5 After the text, the game may con­
2l.�e2 lt:le5. tinue with either 22..ib2 :i!c8 23.:1!cl
:i!bc6 24.:1!xc6 :i!xc6 25.:1!cl :i!xcl+
19 . . . c4 26..ixcl= (26.�xcl tt:le5), or 22.�d4
tt:le5 23..ie2 .if6 24.�e3 :i!c6 25..ial
Or 19...:1!c8 20.�e3 c4 2l.b4 (21. V9c7 26.:1!cl :i!c8 27.:1!xc6 V9xc6 28.f4
ie2 cxb3 22.cxb3 �b7 23..ic4 :i!bc6 lt:ld7 29.e5 idS=.

28
Part 1. The Classical System with i.e2

Kan- S tep by S tep

t.e4 c5 2 tL!
. f3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 The point of White's tricky move
4.tL!xd4 a6 5.tL!c3 'f!Jc7 6 . .ie2 order. His queen's knight will reach
d2 in one move (compare it to vari­
If White aims to get the Sche­ ations with tt:lb1-c3-b1-d2!). Thus
veningen or the Taimanov, he he will be able to save J.f3 which is
should use the move order with not too active.
5.ie2! ?. The mundane 6.0-0 is less chal­
lenging:
6...ib7 7.if3 (7.'�d3 Wic7 8.f4
tt:lf6 9.if3 tt:lc6 10.4:lxc6 dxc6 ll.eS
l"ld8 12.Wie2 tt:ldS=, A.Sokolov-Ivan­
chuk, Asnieres sur Seine 2006) 7...
tt:lc6
It is already late for 7...d6 due to
8.a4! b4 9.Wid2, when 9... d5 loses to
10.l"ld1 dxe4 11.4:lxe6 Wixd2 12.4:lc7+
@d7 13.ixd2. However, 7...Wic7 is a
Black's normal options here are good alternative: 8.a4 (8.l"le1 tt:lc6!
5 . . .'�c7 6.0-0 tt:lf6 7.4:lc3 d6 or 7... 9.4:lxc6 dxc6 lO.eS l"ld8 ll.Wie2 tt:le7
Cilc6 - see the Taimanov chapter. 12.4:ld2 cS=) 8...b4 9.l"le1 tt:le7 lO.eS
A more sophisticated version of the tt:lbc6.
Scheveningen- without ...'f!!c7, may 8.l"le1 (after 8.a4 b4, White
be reached after 5...4:lf6 6.lt':lc3 d6. has to exchange the knights with
White can try to be original with an equal game after 9.4:lxc6 ixc6
6.�f3, but Black can benefit here 10.4:ld2 tt:lf6) 8...4:lge7 9.4:lc3 tt:lxd4
from having saved ...d6, e.g. 6...'�c7 10.'�xd4 tt:lc6 ll.Wie3 tt:leS=, Tosic­
7.0- 0 J.e7 8.4:lc3 0-0 9.g4 tt:lc6 10.g5 Goldin, Vrnjacka Banja 1998.
Cile8 ll.J.g2 f6!. It is nice to have e6
6...b4 7.0-0!
defended.
Black can remain in Kan waters 7.e5 Wic7 8.if4 ib7 9.if3 tt:lc6
with 5...4:lf6, but let's also consider: equalises: 10.tt:lxc6 ixc6 11.0-0
tt:le7 12.tt:ld2 l"lc8 13.ixc6 Wixc6
a) 5...b5?! 6.a4! 14.l"le1 tt:lg6 15.ig3 J.e7 16.tt:le4

29
 Part 1

'\1!1Txc2 17.lt:Jd6+ .b:d6 18.'\1!1Txd6 aS, ie7 16.Wic2 lt:JcS 17.lt:JxcS dxcS
Petrik-Oral, Czechia 2006; 7..!f3 18.'\1!1Tb3 .b:f3 19.lt:Jxf3 0-0 20.lt:JeS
'\1!lrc7 8.0-0 .!b7 9.�e1 lt:Je7! gives with domination;
Black his typical play, Volokitin­
9...lt:Je7 10.lt:Jc4 dS ll.exdS .b:dS
Markowski, Moscow 2004.
12.b3±.
7...ib7 8.lt:Jd2 Vfic7
b) S ...lt:Jf6! ? 6.lt:Jc3 ib4?!
Or 8...lt:Je7 9.lt:Jc4t; 8...d6 9.c3
bxc3 10.'\1!1Tb3 '\1!1Tc7 ll.Wixc3 �xc3 This attack is rather risky. You
12.bxc3. White's big lead in de­ should be ready to defend a very
velopment secures him an advan­ passive position after 7.eS!.
tage: 12...lt:Jd7 13.�b1 lt:Jc5 14.f3 lt:Jf6 The Scheveningen after 6...d6
1S ..!a3 lt:Jfd7 16.lt:Jc4t. is a sound and more complex ap­
proach. Another decent option is 6...
9.�e1
�c7 7.0-0 lt:Jc6 (Caruana bet Anand
with 7....!cS B..!gS lt:Jc6 9.lt:Jxc6
bxc6 in a rapid game, Zurich 2014.)
which transposes to the Taimanov
while 7...ib4 (7...bS 8.if3±) may
amazingly lead to ... the Scheve­
ningen after 8.igS!. Now Black has
nothing better but return to e7: 8...
ie7! , when the paradoxical 9..!e3!?
looks best.
Note that the popular line 8...
I cannot find a good way of de­
ixc3 9.ixf6 gxf6 10.bxc3 Wixc3
fending the b4-pawn. White's main
1U!b1 is rather dubious for Black:
positional threat is to play lt:Jd2-b3,
id2. Eventually, he may open up
the queenside with c2-c3. I have
analysed:

9... d6 10..!f3 lt:Jd7

Or: 10...lt:Jf6 11.lt:J2b3 .!e7 12.i.d2
aS 13.c3; the same plan works
well after 10...lt:Je7 ll.lt:J2b3 lt:Jbc6
12..!d2 g6 13.lt:Jxc6 lt:Jxc6 14.c3;t ig7
1S.cxb4 .b:b2 16J'!b1 ig7 17.�cl '\1!1Te7
(17...�d8 18.ic3 0-0 19.ixg7 'it>xg7 ll ...lt:Jc6 12.lt:Jxc6 bxc6 13J'!b3
20.eS;t) 18.bS axbS 19.axbS lt:JeS '\1!lre5 14.f4 '\1!1TcS+ 15.'it>h1�. Black is
20.b6 t. running out of useful moves: 1S ...
11.lt:J2b3 lt:Jgf6 12.id2 lt:JcS hS 16.Wid2 h4 17.h3 aS 18J:l:c3 '\1!1Tb4
13 ..bb4 lt:Jcxe4 14.ia5 '\1!1Td7 1S.c4 19.a3 Wffe7 20J'!bl.

30
 The Classical System with .ie2

7 .eS! 10...�aS

Alternatively: Hellsten recommends 10...�b6

bl) 7.�d3 may transpose to the ll.lt:lf3 �aS 12.�d6 lt:lc6, but 13.:gab1
Taimanov after 7...�c7 8.0-0 lt:lc6 .ixeS 14.lt:lxeS �xeS 1S.W'd2 gives
9.i'h1 lt:lxd4 10.�xd4 icS. I like White a very unpleasant initiative.
more:
ll.id6 lt:lc6 12.lt:lxc6 dxc6
7...d6 8.0-0 0-0 which is consid­
13.�d3!
ered below. S...lt:lbd7 9.lt:lb3 lUeS is
also possible. The stem game Giri-Vitiugov,
Reggio Emilia 2012, went 13.f4 ixa1
b2) 7.0-0 d6! [7...ixc3?! S.bxc3
13...�dS!? 14,:gb1 �xd1 1S,:gfxd1
ll:lxe4 9.if3!± dS 10.ixe4 dxe4
aS looks enough for a draw: 16.a4
11.ia3 is difficult to defend, for
(16.a3 a4 17.i'f2 iaS 1S.c4 idS
instance: ll...eS 12.W'e2 fS (12...
19.cS ie7 20.:gb4 :gfS=) 16...ib4=,
exd4 13.�xe4+ .ie6 14.�xb7 lt:ld7
Ramnath Bhuvanesh-Arutinian,
1S.cxd4±) 13.f3�] S.�d3 0-0 9J�d1
Dubai 2012.
The attack on g7 is harmless:
14.�xa1 �d2 1S.id3 �e3+
9.�g3 lt:lbd7 10.ih6 lUeS 1U'lfd1
16.i'h1 id7 17.�b2 bS 1S.a4 :gcs
(ll.igS lt:ldf6) 1l....hc3 12.bxc3
19.fS, when Stohl suggests 19...hS
Wic7 13.c4 lt:lcS=. Other options are:
intending .. ,:gh6, exfS.
9.igS lt:lbd7 10.lt:lb3 .hc3 ll.bxc3
'f1c7 12J�ad1 bS=; 9.id2 eS 10.lt:lb3 13...ixeS 14J�adU.f61S.�e3 ie7
1ie6 ll.a3 ixc3 12..hc3 lt:lc6=. 16.ixe7 i'xe7 17.:gd3 :ges 1S.�e4
9 ...lt:lbd7 10.lt:lb3 lt:leS 11.�d4 (11. White has full compensation for
'a'e3 bS 12.a4 lt:lc4) ll...lt:lc6 12.�e3 the two missing pawns.
ffc7 13.id2 dSt, Fedorchuk-Hillarp
Persson, Budva 2009. 6 . . . b5 7. 0-0

7...lt:ldS (7...lt:le4 8.0-0) S.0-0 7.f4 ib7 S.if3 is considered in

(S.id2 lt:lxc3 9.bxc3 ie7 10.0-0 Part 4.
Vffc7 ll.f4 d6) S...lt:lxc3 9.bxc3 ixc3
10.ia3 7. . . .ib7 8.l3 el

31
 Part 1

8..if3 could be justified only if Kasparov crushed Polugaevsky at

White is planning to sac a pawn af­ the Soviet championship in 1978:
ter 8... tt:Jc6 9.tt'lxc6 dxc6 10.e5

10.'\We2 offers Black a pleas­

ant choice. At the Olympiad 2012
against Martinez Reyez, I decided
to play solidly and opted for a sym­
metric position with 10...e5 ll.a4
tt'lf6 12J'!d1 (It is better to exchange
on b5 immediately 12.axb5 cxb5 al­
though the position after 13..ig5 .ie7
14..bf6 hf6 15.tt'ld5 .txd5 16.exd5
�d6 17.c4 bxc4 18JUc1 0-0 19J�xc4 12.ih5 ie7 13.l"lxe6 g6 14.l"le1
aS should be impossible to crack.) l"ld8? 15.�f3 c5 16.if4 �b6 17.�g3
12...ie7 13.ie3 (13.axb5 cxb5 is al- gxh5 18.ic7. However, two years
ready totally equal) 13...0-0 14.g3 later Wojtkiewicz took the piece
!'ladS 15.ig2, when 15....ic8 or 15... 14...gxh5! and won. The latest at­
b4 16.tt'la2 a5 is fine for Black. tempt to revive this line was Nava­
Much more interesting is 10.�e2 ra-Movsesian, Czechia 2010, but it
id6!? 11.g3 tt'lf6 (or ll...tt'le7 12.ig2 turned out that Navara had noth­
c5 13.f4oo) 12.ig2 0-0 13.f4 e5 14.f5 ing new to show: 12.a4 tt'lf6 13.axb5
axb5 14.tt:Jxb5 cxb5 15.l"lxa8+ ixa8
16.ixa8 id6 17.g3 0-0 18.ig2 b4.
Black is fine and that was known
from a previous game.

8 ... �c6 9 .li� xc6 dxc6 10.e5

Compared to the Taimanov with

an early ...b5, Black has inserted
here 7...ib7 8.l"lel. That takes the
White hopes for a kingside pawn sting of 10.a4 due to 10...l"ld8 (10...
storm, but Black is the first to start id6 ll.g3 ie5 12..id3 tt'lf6 13.ie3
active actions: 14...a5 15.�f3 b4 0-0 14.ic5 l"lfd8 15.f4, Asrian-Mi­
16.tt'ld1 ic5+ 17.ie3 he3+ 18.�xe3 lov, Groningen 1998, 15...hc3
.ia6 19.l"le1 l"lfd8 20.tt'lf2 c5 21.l"led1 16.bxc3 tt'ld7 17..ie3 c5oo) ll.id3
h6+, Hecht-Ravikumar, La Valetta tt'le7! (White gets a strong attack
1980. after ll...id6? 12.e5 he5 13.�h5
.txc3 14.bxc3 tt'le7 15.l"lb1 l"ld5
10...�xe5 ll.l"le1 �c7
16.�h3) 12.e5 tt'lg6 13.tt'le4 l"ld5.
This variation had its five min­
utes of glory when 15-years old to ,gds ll . .id3 c5
..

32
 The Classical System with .ie2

T.Horvath chose against me in

Varna 2012 13.'Wg5 with the obvious
idea to provoke further weakening
of my castling position. However,
the inclusion of 13...h6 is in Black's
favour. After 14.�g3, I could have
expanded on the kingside by 14...
c4 15.ie4 'Lle7 16.'Wf3 'Llc6 17..if4
g5 18.ig3 'Lld4 19.'We3 ib4 20.l"!ed1
ixe4 21.'Wxe4 hc3 22.bxc3 'LlfS
with complex play. I opted for the
common 14...ig7. This is not a bad
In this position, White usually
move, of course, but it gives White
transfers the queen to the kingside:
more options, for instance, 15.f4
'Lle7 16.'Wf2 'Llf5 (16...0-0 17.ie3)
A. 12.'Wh5; B. 12.'Wg4
17.ie4 b4 18.ixb7 bxc3 19.ie4 cxb2
20.hb2 0-0=. My opponent erred
12.'We2 is a minor option: 12...
with 15.if4? 'Lle7 16.a4 and was lost
�'lle 7 13.a4 (13.ig5 h6 14.'Wh5 l"!d4
after 16...c4 17.ie4 b4 18.hb7 bxc3
15.ie3 l"!d7 16.if4 c4 17.ie4 b4! 19.ixa6 cxb2 20.ib5+ 'it?f8. When­
18.'Lldl 'LldS, V.Dimitrov-Vyzma­
ever White's bishop leaves cl, the
navin, Burgas 1993) 13...b4 14.'Lle4
idea with ...c4, followed by ...b4 be­
V'ic6 15.b3 (15.'Wh5 'Llg6 16.ifll"!d4 comes effective.
1 7.f3 l"!dS) 15...'Llg6 (15...'Llf5 16.ig5
;(d5 17.l"!ad1 h6! 18.if4 ie7 is also 13.'We2 ig7 is rarely seen. Then
p ossible, but I want to provoke f4 in 14.f4 'Lle7 15.ie4 'LldS, and 14.ig5
order to limit White's dark-squared 'Lle7 15.a4 b4 16.'Llb1 l"!d7 17.'Lld2
bishop's scope) 16.f4 ie7 17.ie3 0-0 are roughly equal. The most
tilh4. It is unclear how White should principled continuation is 14.a4 b4
improve his position from here. For 15.'Lle4, but 15...�xe5! 16.g3 'Llf6
instance, the attack on c5 by 18.'Wf2 equalises.
is neutralised with 18...l"!d5.
13 .ig7 14 . .ig5
.•.

A. 12 .�h5 g6 Sacrificing the central pawn by

14.a4 b4 15.'Lle4 is a mistake (15...
12...c4 13.ie4 'Lle7 14..b:b7 'Wxb7 ixe5 16.ig5 l"!d7), but White has
15.ig5 l"!d4 16.l"!ad1 l"!xd1 17.'Wxd1 h6 two decent alternatives to the main
18.ih4, S.J.Solomon-Miezis, Mel­ line:
b ourne 2013, is pleasant for White.
a) 14..if4!? is a solid and unpleas­
ant approach. Black has not any­
13.�h3 thing better but to hold the oppo-

33
 Part 1

nent to a draw in the line 14...tLle7 gbs 26.b3 gcs 27.c4 gbsoo) 16...
(14...h6?! preserves more pieces tLle7 17.tLlxc5 �c7 18.tLld3 h6 19.�f3
on the board, but 15.a4 b4 16.tLle4 0-0. Black has compensation for
.ixe4 17.gxe4 a5 18.gd1 c;f;>f8 19.�f3 the pawn, for example, 20.�d1 tLlc6
tLle7 20J''!ee1 c;f;>g8 2l.h4 is obvious­ 2l..id2 .heS 22.tLlxe5 tLlxeS 23.�c1
ly better for White.) 15.a4 b4 (Hell­ gS 24.h3 gd4i or 20.i.e3 b3 2l.axb3
sten's recommendation 15...c4? �xc2 22.tLlb4 �xb3 23..ic5 �xf3
16..if1 b4 17.tLle4 tLlfS loses the c4- 24.gxf3 gd7 25.gxa6 gcs 26.he7
pawn after 18.c3! bxc3 19.bxc3 0-0 gxe�.
20.g4 .ixe4 21.gxe4 tLle7 22.gxc4::t)
16.tLle4 .he4 17.gxe4 �c6 18..ig5 14 ... gd7!?
gd7 19..he7 gxe7.
This move is less explored than
b) 14..ie4 creates the strong po­
14...tLle7 which has a good reputa­
sitional threat of taking full control
tion, too:
over the dark squares, for example,
after 14...tLle7? (Hellsten) 15..hb7
�xb7 16..ih6! . It is clear that Black
should hinder this plan. I see two
sensible ways:

a) 15..if6 0-0 equalises easily:

16.a4 (16.tLle4 he4 17.gxe4 gd4)
16...b4 17.tLle4 he4 18.gxe4 hf6
19.exf6 tLldS 20..ixa6 tLlxf6.

14....ixe4 15.tLlxe4 .ixeS 16.i.g5 b) 15.a4 b4 16.tLle4 he4 17.gxe4

gd7 17.gad1 h6 18.gxd7 �xd7 .ixeS 18.ha6 .ixb2=.
19.tLlxc5 �d6 20.i.e3 tLle7 21.tLld3
c) 15..ixb5+ axbS 16.tLlxb5
.id4 22.gd1 .ixe3 23.�xe3 tLldS;
�b6 17.tLld6+ gxd6 18.exd6 �xd6
14...b4 15.hb7 �xb7 16.tLla4 19.gad1 �c6 20.�g3 h6 2l.�b8+
(16.tLle4?? �xe4! ; 16..ig5 gd4 �c8 22.�xc8+ hc8 23.ie3 .hb2
17.tLla4 �c6 18..ie3 gds 19.tLlxc5 24..ixc5 fS 25.a4 at first sight looks
gxcS 20.hc5 �xeS leads to very promising for White, but Black can
unbalanced position where Black's set up coordination of his pieces
chances should not be worse, in my and take over the initiative, e.g. 25...
opinion: 2l.a3 tLle7 22.axb4 �xb4 c;f;>f7 26.gd6 ges 27.c4 .ic3 28.ged1
23.�a3 �xa3 24.gxa3 0-0 25.gxa6 eS 29Jk1 iaS 30..ib6 .ib4 3l.c5

34
 The Classical System with .ie2

.�.e6 32.a5 !'!:a8 33.1"1:a1 .ic3+. 16.ih4 .b:e4 17.tt:lxe4 ixeS

18.1"1:ad1 is not dangerous. Black only
d) 15..ie4 !'!:d4 16..b:b7
has to avoid Hellsten's recommen­
16.1"1:ad1?! !'!:xd1 17.1"1:xd1 .b:eS
dation 18...g5? which stumbles into
18.1xb7 'Wxb7 19.'We3 .id4 20.'We4
19.1"1:xd7! 'Wxd7 20.!g3 'WdS 21..b:e5
','!J'x e4 21.tt:lxe4 fS gives Black a slight
'WxeS 22.'Wa3±. Instead, he can opt
i nitiative; 16.'We3 tt:ld5=.
for a drawish endgame after 18...f5
16...'Wxb7 17.f3 h6
19.1"1:xd7 ltfxd7 20.tt:ld2 tt:lf6 21.'We3
Hellsten suggests as an alterna­
tt:lg4 22.�d3+ 'Wd6 23.h3 'Wxd3
tiv 17... tt:ld5! ? 18.tt:le4 !xeS.
e
24.cxd3 .b:b2 25.hxg4 ic3 26.1"1:e2
18.ie3 !'!:c4 19.lt:Je4 .b:eS 20.c3
.b:d2 27.1"1:xd2 fxg4 or for attrac­
.S idS. This position was reached in
tive complications after 18... 1"1:xd1! ?
the game Rosito-Hellsten, Mendo­
19.1"1:xd1 ltff8 20..id8 (20.'Wa3 b4)
za 2005. White chose here 21.b3?
20...'Wc6 21.'We3 .id4 22.'We1 f5oo.
)(xc3 22.tt:\xc3 .b:c3 23..b:c5 .ixa1
2 4 .1"1:xa1 'Wc'T-F. Hellsten gives as best
16 . . . b4 17 . .ixb7 bxc3 18 . .ixa6
21 .R:ad1 'Wc6 22.b3 !'!:xc3! 23.tt:lxc3
'Wa5 19.J.c4 cxb2 2o.gabl lLle7
.0.xc3 24.id2 id4+ 25.1tfh1 hS, fol­
(20...g5? 21.�b3) 21.�b3 0-0
lowed by ...0-0 and 'Black has no
problems'.
Black has finally castled and his
pieces are very active, for instance,
15.J.e4
22.'Wb5 �c7 23.1"1:xb2 gS 24.ig3 tt:lfS
25.f4 !'!:fd8 26.id3 tt:\xg3 27.hxg3
a) 15.a4 b4 16.tt:le4 .b:eS.
gxf4 28.gxf4 c4�.
b) 15.f4 c4 16.ie4 b4 17.hb7
does not work (17.tt:ld1 is the only
move) due to 17...bxc3+. B. 12.'Wg4 ! ? gd4

15 . . . h6 Black should resist the tempta­

.
tiOn to harass the queen by 12...h5
because this move seriously weak­
ens his kingside. White has the
better chances after 13.'We2! [13.
'Wh3 .ie7 14.b3 (14.if4 gS 15.ic1
b4 16.tt:le4 'WxeS) 14... 1tff8 15.a4 c4
16.bxc4 bxc4 17.if1 tt:\h6oo] 13...
c4 (13... tt:le7 14.ig5) 14.ie4 .b:e4
15.'Wxe4 .icS 16..ig5 tt:\e7 17.a3;!;.

12...tt:le7, on the contrary, is a fair

alternative to our main line. 13..ig5
16.J.f4 !'!:d4 14.�g3 tt:lg6

35
 Part 1

15J'!ad1 �2.c3 dxc3 23.�b4 c2 24.�c1 lt:'le7

25.�e2 lt:'ldS 26.�d4 0-0 27.�exc2
15.lt'le2 �d7 16.�ad1 does not �a6 or 22.�b4 lt:'le3 (22...g5! ?)
change the structure. Black may 23.�xe3 dxe3 24.�d6 �c7 25.�b5+
grab space on the queenside by 16... l!?e7 26.�b4 lt>e8=.
c4 [16...h6 17.ie3 lt'le7 18.c4! bxc4
19.ic2 g6 20.lt:'lc3 (20.�xd7 l!?xd7 13.�g3
21.�f4 lt:'lf5) 20...lt'lf5 21.�xd7 lt>xd7
22.hf5 gxfS leads to an interest­ White has an alternative:
ing position where Black's king is 13.ie4 he4 14.lt:'lxe4 �xe5 15.c3
perfectly safe on the queenside.] �d3 [Hellsten suggests 15...�a4, but
17.hg6 hxg6 18.�xd7 �xd7 19.lt:'lc3, theendgameafter 16.�e2 (16.b3 lt:'lf6
Danin-Bocharov, Taganrog 2011,
·
17.lt:'lxf6+ gxf6 18.�d1 �e4 19.�xe4
19...b4! ? 20.�d1 �c7 21.lt:'l a4 idS �xe4 20.a4 ig7 21.!e3 0-0=) 16...
22.b3 !e7 23.he7 l!?xe7 24.�e3 lt:'lf6 17.lt:'lxf6+ gxf6 18.�xe5 fxeS
�b8 25.h3 �b5=. 19.�xe5 is slightly better for White
since theh7-and c5-pawns are weak.]
15...ie7 16.hb5!
16.i.f4 lt:'lf6 17.lt:'lxf6+ �xf6 18.a4 (18 .
The critical variation. Alterna­ .igS �g6 19.�ad1 c4 20.�xd3 cxd3
tively: 21.�g3 f6=) 18....ie7 19.axb5 axbS
20.�a8+ �d8 21..ie5 �gS 22.�xg5=
16.lt:'le2 �d8 17.hg6 hxg6=, Zel­
with mass elimination.
cic-Lanka, Graz 2009.
16.he7 �xe7 17.lt:'le4 he4 13 . . h5 ! ?
.

18.�xe4 �dS was balanced in Efi­

menko-Svidler, Fuegen 2006.

16... axb5 17.lt:'lxb5, Polivanov­

Zakhartsov, Lviv 2012, 17...�b6
18.lt:'lxd4 cxd4 19.he7 lt'lxe7 20.�b3
�c6 21.f3 lt:'lfS. In Chess Informant
116, Zakhartsov assesses this posi­
tion as equal. I would say, it is un­
clear. The game might continue:

36
 The Classical System with i.e2

I criticized this advance on the h3 17.\Wf3 ixe4 18.&iJxe4 &iJfS.

p re vio us turn, but here it has at­
t ac ki n g purpose and allows Black 14 h4 15. \We3 �e7 16.b3 �c6
••.

to seiz e the initiative: 17 .ib2 gd7 18J:!adl .ie7 19.\We2

•

�d4 20.\Wg4 0-0

14.h3
The game might continue 2l.icl
Or 14.f3 h4 15.\Wf2 h3 16.g3 &iJe7 &iJfS 22.ixf5 l=l:xdl 23.&iJxdl exfS
1 7.il. e4 &iJc6; 14.�e4 &iJe7 15.\We3 24.\WxfS .ic8 25.\Wf4 l=l:d8 26.&iJc3
t/1 c6 ; 14.f4 h4 15.Wf2 &iJh6 16.ie4 ie6� 27.a3 b4 28.&iJe4 l=l:dS.

37
Pa rt 1. The Classical System with ie2

Com p lete G a m es

my opm10n, 18...Wi'b6, which has

1 . Lutz-Grablia uskas
been designed as an improvement
Pula 1 997 on 18...Wi'b8, is not so good in vew
of 19.Wxh5:t. The other option 18...
l.e4 c5 2.ll:�f3 e6 3.d4 cxd4
Vfffc6 puts the queen on a file which
4.ll:�xd4 c!Dc6 5.c!Dc3 W/c7 6.�e2 a6
is going to be opened soon. That
7.0-0 c!Df6 8.�hl c!Dxd4 9.Wi'xd4
gives White the initiative, 19J'lac1
�c5 10.Wi'd3 b5 ll.f4 �b7 12��f3
0-0 20J"lfe1 h4 21.g4 hg3 22.hg3
h5 13.e5 c!Dg4 14.hb7 Wi'xb7
Eic7 23.c4, Tischbierek-Michaelsen,
15.c!De4 �e7
1996.

I recommend 15..J'k8 in order to

19.�f2 c!Df5 20J:!dl h4
avoid 15...i.e7 16.ie3. Anyway, 15...
Eic8 16.b3 ie7 would have trans­
The opening stage is over. Black
posed to the game.
regrouped successfully and leveled
the game. His aim is to organise
16 .b3 �c8 17.�b2 c!Dh6 18 .Wi'f3
some play on the queenside after
which he will castle.

21.�d3 �k7 22 J'!fd2

18 .•. Wi'b8 !

White was threatening to win

the queen, so we must retreat. In 22 b4? !
•.•

38
 The Classical System with i.e2

Ribli assesses positively this ly seizes the initiative. 35...13c2 ! ?+

m o ve , but Black is still not ready for 36.tt:\e4 tt:\g4 37..id4 f6 would have
it. 2 2 . \Wb? (or 22...\Wa7) 23.a3 aS=
. . kept the active rook alive.
wou l d have been better.
36.�a4 ge2 37.ge3 ga2
38.gc3 gxc3 39.�c3 gb2 40.gd7
gb3 41.�e4! �a3 42. �g5
Now White misses his chance for
2 3 .c4 ! bxc3 24.i.xc3;1; and Black's Despite the limited material and
pawn is unable to reach a4. pawns on one wing, Black still has
some difficulties because his pieces
23 ti'a7 24."i'f2 "i'b7 25.ti'fJ
.•.
are cramped.
a5 2 6 c4 bxc3 27.hc3 a4+±
.

2 8 . 13dl? ! 42 gbs 43.�a7 ges 44. �g2

•••

�e7 45. �e4 �g4 46.�h3 f5 ! ?

With this humble move, White 47.exf6 draw.
acquiesces in being worse. 28.b4!
was better, when 28...i.xb4 leads At this moment the opponents
to a draw by perpetual after 29.13b2 signed the draw. White had chances
VXfa7 30.�f2 \Wa6 31.13xb4 \Wxd3 for torturing the opponent for many
32J=Ib8+ <Jle7 33.13xh8 13xc3 (33... moves ahead. He should aim for a
VXfxe4?? 34.\Wb6) 34.tt:\xc3 \Wxc3= position like that:
3 5 . h3 \Wc1 36.<Jlh2 tt:\g3 37.13h4 tt:\fl.

28 0-0 29.�el (29.bxa4 \Wa7)

•••

2 9 axb3 30.axb3 gas 31.�f2

.• .

13a2 32 .g4 hxg3 33.hxg3 �h6

34. �c3 \WxfJ 35.gxfJ

For instance after 47.tt:\d2;1; .if8

48..id4 ie7 49.tt:\f3 <JlfB 50.13c7 13b8
Sl..igl 13b1 52.<Jlg2 13b2 53.<Jlhl.
The vulnerability of the e6-pawn
makes the difference.
The play could continue with
35 .•. gb2
53.. J"�a2 54.tt:\d4 13a6 55.tt:\c6 .ia3
Afte r this move, Black's advan­ 56.<Jl g2 <JleB 57.tt:\b8 and Black is
tage dissipates and White gradual- still struggling.

39
 Part 1

into 18.Y!Jc1! , but 17... lt:Jb4 18..!c3 cS

2. Adams-Ban i kas
19.i.f3 (19.£4 d6) 19...d6 (19 ...dS! ?)
Porto Ca rras 04. 1 1 .20 1 1
20.exd6 (20.Y!Je2 dxeS) 20....ixd6
2l.g3 ieS 22J'Ud1 ixc3 23.Y!Jxc3
l.e4 c5 2 . c!Llf3 e 6 3.d4 cxd4
a4 equalised in Moreno Camera­
4. c!Llxd4 tilc6 5.c!Llc3 Y!Jc7 6 .te2 •

Valles Moreno, Madrid 2009.

a6 7.0-0 c!ilf6 8 .te3 .tb4 9.c!Lla4
•

.te7 10. c!Llxc6 bxc6 ll. c!Llb6 gbs 16...cS 17..!b2 0-0
12.c!Llxc8 Y!Jxc8 13.J.d4 Y!Jc7 14.e5
tild5

The play is balanced. It would

be interesting to try 18.a4 gfd8, but
15.c4! my game Magem-Delchev, France
2009, finished here in a draw. In The
This looks stronger than 1S.b3 Safest Sicilian I analysed in detail:
aS!
18.Y!Jd2 a4! 19.if3 lt:Jb4 20.1"lfd1
It is better to delay ...c6-cS. In gfd8 2l.Y!Je2=. White attempted to
some variations Black can use the improve by 20.1"lfe1 axb3 2l.axb3 c4
cS-square for a piece. Another ar­ 22.ged1 cxb3 23.cxb3 gfd8 24.Y!Je2
gument in favour of 1S ...aS is seen lt:Jc6 2S.!'ld3 lt:Jb4 26.1"lc3 lt:Jc6=, Gar­
in the line 16.i.d3 0-0 17.Y!JhS g6 cia Corada-Van Unen, ICCF email
18.Y!Jh6 fS, when 19.c4 lt:Jb4 is equal, 2009.
due to the threat of lt:Jc2, while 19.ef6
i.f6 20.i.g6? fails to 20... d6! . 15 ••• c!Llf4 16.g3

16.g3 16..!f3 is more popular. Black

meets it by 16...0-0! 17.ge1
If White takes the f4-square un­
17.g3 lt:Jg6 18.Y!Je2 (18.ie4 lt:JxeS!
der control with 16.Y!Jd2!? 0-0 (af­
19.hh7+ 'it>xh7 20.Y!JhS+ 'it>g8
ter 16...i.b4! ? 17.Y!JgS 0-0 18.c4
21..beS Y!JaS 22.1�'e2 d6 23.ic3
lt:Je7 19.i.d3 lt:Jg6 20.Y!Je3 a4, More­
Y!JfS=) 18...£6 19.exf6 hf6 20.hf6
no Carretero-Raijmaekers, ICCF
!'lxf6 2l.b3 aS=, Duda-M.Andersen,
email 2009, White could not prove
Chatawa 2010.
any substantial advantage) 17.c4,
the zwishenzug 17...i.b4? stumbles 17... lt:Jg6! 18.cS. (18.g3 ib4+)

40
 The Classical System with ie2

This position first occurred (after a owing to 20.i.h5+.

different move order) in the game
19 �c6+ 20.£3 f6 21.exf6
Kasparov-Anand, Linares 2002.
•••

i.x£6 22 .�d3 �f7 23.gadl �h6

18. f6 19.ef6 if6 20..te4 and here
. .

1 proposed the novelty 20.,..txd4! ?

Black can take on c3 on move 22
2 l .�xd4 tDf4 22.!!adl tDdS with mu­
or 23, but I do not like his position.
tual chances. The play may contin­
ue with 23.�d3 (23.a3 aS 24.g3 �dB
24.W6 gxf6 25.�c3 0-0
2S ..id3 �f6 26.!!e5 g5=) 23... !!xb2
26.i.d3;t
2 4 .ixh7 'it>h8 25.i.g6 �f4 26.!!e2
:·(xe 2 27.�xe2 �gS 28.�h5 �xhS
2 9.ixh5 !!b8t=.

16 c5 ! 17.i.c3 (17.gxf4 cxd4

. .•

18.�xd4 0-0�) 17 tDh3 ! 18.<.!,lg2

•••

tDg5

White's rooks are much more

active while the bishop restricts
Black's knight and is ready to eat it
should it reach fS or c6. Black will
have to struggle for the draw.

Black's knight is heading for fl. 26 . . . �c7 27.gf2 gbd8 28.gfd2

It is the ideal place for it. The knight f5 29.i.e2 f4 30.i.d3 d6 31.i.e4
will control from there the critical t[)f5 32.hf5 gxf5 33.g4 gf7
squares eS and d6, protecting at the 34.gd3 <.!,Jf8 35.h4 <.!,le7 36.h5? !
same time Black's castling position. gf6 37.a3 a5 38.�el (38.b4! ?)
38 h6 39. <.!,lh3 e5 40.�e4 <.!,Jf8
19.b3 !
.••

This novelty of Adams allows

White to consolidate while re­
taining the better pawn structure.
1 9 .�d3 �c6+ 20.f3 f6 2l.!'!adl tDf7
2 2 .exf6 ixf6 23.ixf6 gxf6 24.�c3
�?l e 7 25.!!d2 hS, Mastrovasilis­
Miladinovic, Valjevo 2011, or
1 9 .f3 f6 20.exf6 .txf6 21.�d2 .txc3
2 2 . �xc3 eS lead to complex play.
After the text, 19...f6 is dubious Black has not any counterplay.

41
 Part 1

It looks incredible that he could extremely difficult for White to find

hold this position. a target, because the central pawn
cluster keeps his pieces at a bay.
4UM5 gbs 42 .Y;\'d3 'i:t>g7 Black has plenty of dark squares
43.Y;\'c3 ges 44,g5d2 'i:t>h8 45.b4 to manoeuvre on them. It is im­
axb4 46.axb4 cxb4 47.Y;\'xb4 portant first to exchange a pair of
Y;\'c6 (47...Y;\'a7! �) 48,gd5 'i:t>g8 rooks to reduce White's attacking
49.Y;\'b3 'i:t>h8 50 .Y;\'c3 Y;\'a6 51.c5 resources.
'We2 52,g5d2 Y;\'e3 53.Y;\'xe3 fxe3
54,gxd6 gxf3 + 55. 'i:t>h4? 'i:t>h7 18.hf6 lL!xf6 19 .if3 •

56.gel? ggs 57.c6 gf4 58.gg6

gxg6 59.hxg6+ 'i:t>xg6 60,gxe3 This allows the manoeuvre
draw. .. .l'!gS-eS which removes the only
flaw of Black's set-up - unconnect­
ed rooks. I have investigated the
more challenging move:
3. Balinov-Sommerbauer
Tweng 2007 19.Y;\'d2! 'i:t>e7 20.l'!adl

20.l'!fel l'!d6 2l.We3 Wc7 22.l'!adl

l.e4 c5 2 . ltlf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4
l'!xdl 23.l'!xdl dS 24.g3 aS.
4.lL!xd4 ltlc6 5.lL!c3 a6 6 .ie2 •

'Wc7 7.0-0 ltlf6 8 .ie3 .ib4 9.lL!a4

• 20...Wc7
.ie7 lO. lL!xc6 bxc6 ll. ltlb6 gbs
12. ltlxc8 Y;\'xc8 13 .id4 c5 14 .ie5
• •

gb6 15.b3 lL!xe4 16.hg7 ggs

17 .ib2 .if6 ! ?
•

White has no weaknesses and

his pieces are much more compact.
Nevertheless, Black's game is very
easy! It is a widely know fact that
This might be Black's best op­ W+ tLl often dominate W+.i. If he can
tion. It seems appealing to attack trade one ore both pairs of rooks, he
on the g-file, but apparently White would become clearly better. The
has adequate defence even against a6-pawn will move out of the bish­
17...c4! ?. By exchanging the dark­ op's range to aS, and the knight will
squared bishops, Black ensures the be seeking to land on a central dark
safety of his king in the centre. It is square.

42
 The Classical System with .ie2

2 1 . 'tt> hl :Se5 22.ti'c3 :axel+ 23.:Sxel <lJe7

24.a3 :Sb8 25.g3 a5 26.:Sdl :Sc8
Alternatives are:
27.ti'c4 We5 28 .'1Wa6 Wc7 29.<lJg2
2 1.'1We3 �d6 22.�xd6 \Wxd6
:Sb8 30.:Sd3
2 3 . �dl \Wc7 24.c4 (24..ba6 �aS);
2l .c4 �d6 22.\We3 �xdl 23.�xdl
hS ;
2l..if3 �d6 22.\Wf4 �c8 23.'\Wa4
� xdl 24.�xdl aS 2S.c4 hS 26.h3 h4
2 7.\Wa3 �b8 28.'\Wcl a4 29.'We3 axb3
:3 0.axb3 'WaS 31.'\WgS �xb3 32.'\Wxh4
VVb4 33.'tt> h2 �b2 34.'\Wg3 �d2+;

2l. ..�d6 (or 21...'\WeS 22.�fel

V·VgS) 22.We3
30 ••• d5
Or 22.Wf4 \Wc6 23.f3 �xdl
2 4J:!xdl dS 2S ..id3 Wd6 26.Wh4
Sommerbauer has shown that
V"feS 27.Wa4 (27.�el Wd4) 27...lt:JhS
he could simply stay and wait. Now
28.Wxa6 lt:Jf4 29..ifl 'We3.
he demonstrates that Black is able
2 2 ...�d4 23..if3 (23.c3 'LldS; to shift forward his defence line.
2 3 . �xd4 cxd4 24.Wxd4 Wxc2) 23...
,!Jg4 24.hg4 �gxg4 2S.c3 �de4 31.:Sd2 Wb6 32.ti'e2 :Sd8
2 6 .\Wd2 �eS 27.f3 (27.f4 �dS) 27... 33.'1We5 '!Wd6 34.'\Wc3 '\Wb6 35.'1We5
T\h4 28.h3 dS 29.'Wf2 �f4�. '\Wd6 36.'\Wc3 '\Wb6 37.�e2 '\Wc7
38.<lJgl Wb6 39.:Sel '\Wc7 40.:Se2
19 . . . :Sg5 20 .:Sel Wc7 21.Wd2 '!Wb6 41.:Sel draw.

43
44
 Pa rt 2

The Engl ish Attac k

This part is devoted to the Taimanov move order l.e4 c5 2 . �f3 e6

3 . d4 cxd4 4. �xd4 �c6 5.�c3 ti'c7 6 .ie3 a6 7.%Yd2 �f6
•

I allocated only one page to the Kan since l.e4 cS 2.tt'lf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4
4 .'Llxd4 a6 S.tt'lc3 'Jfffc7 6.ie3?! is simply dubious due to 6...tt'lf6!
White is living through a crisis in the English Attack with f3. I expect
to see the focus of investigations shifting toward set-ups with an early f4.

45
Pa rt 2 . The English Attack

M a in Ideas

l.e4 c5 2 . �f3 e 6 3.d4 cxd4 7. . . �f6 8. 0-0-0

4.�xd4 �c6 5. �c3 �c7 6 . .!e3
Black has greater choice against
8.f3. Perhaps the most practical re­
tort is to transpose to the main line
with 8...b5 9.g4 .ib7 10.g5 �xd4! .
8.f4! ? :JJ.b4 9.1J.d3 0-0 10.a3 :JJ.e7
leads to complex play with mutual
chances.

6 . . . a6 ! 7.'i;Yd2

This set-up has no analogue in

the Kan because after 4...a6 S.lik3
�c7 6.i.e3 tt:\f6 7.f3 i.b4! 8.�d2 dS
gives Black an initiative.
Thus the whole chapter deals ex­
clusively with the Taimanov move 8 ••. .!e7!
order.
8....ib4 had been the main move
The plan with 0-0-0, f3, g2- for a decade. It is not refuted, but
g4 used to be White's main weap­ White has found several variations
on against the Taimanov, but in the where he could play slightly better
last 2 years White is struggling to endgames without any risk. Only in
get break-even. His latest attempt 2013 did the second players devised
is 7.�f3 and I'm sure we'll be seeing a totally new approach. It is bring­
more of it in the coming months. Do ing amazing results so far. White
not miss to look at game 5 Vallejo­ still cannot recover from the shock
Spraggett, Catalunya 2013 where I and seems unable to generate any
suggest 7... tt:\f6! 8.0-0-0 :JJ.e7 9.i.e2 sensible ideas. Let's investigate the
0-0. position after
46
 The English Attack

9 .£3 b5 10.g4 (10.\t>bl 0-0! ...dS. We castle only when we are

l l . g4 tLlxd4 12..b:d4 ib7) 10 .•• forced to do it or if White gives us a
ti:Jxd4 ! tempo by playing some quite move
like lt>bl. Next, I will show the main
scenarios from the diagram posi­
tion.

1. 11. \Wxd4 ib7 12 .g5 c!Llh5

13.ih3

The point of Black's new plan.

He intends to attack the centre with
. . ..�b7 and ...dS or ...eS followed up
by . . ds.
.

The trick is to trade knights before

castling! 13 . . . gc8 ! 14.ig4 b4 15.hh5
bxc3 16.\Wxg7 cxb2+ 17.1t>xb2
Before, Black played 10...0-0 gf8 = . See game 8 Demetrio­
l l .gS tLlhS, when 12.tLlce2 tLlxd4 Schiendorfer, ICCF email 2009.
13 .�xd4 ib7? would drop the d7-
pawn. That forced Black to opt for 2. 11.hd4 ib7 12 .g5 c!Llh5
flank counterplay with 13...f5, but 13.c!Lle2 (Taking f4 and g3 under
White is somewhat better after control. 13.i.e5 �xeS=; 13.h4 tLlg3!)
1 4 .tLlg3 tLlf4 lS.exfS .hgS 16.tLle4
eS 17.�d6t, Shirov-Munoz Santa­
n a , Istanbul 2012. Of course, Black
could try to enable ...dS by 12..J'!d8,
but this tempo gives White the in­
i t i ative. He may choose, for exam­
ple, 13.tLlg3 tLlxd4 14.tLlxh5 tLlxf3
1 5 .�f2 tLle5 16.ib6, although his ex­
t ra exchange does not automatically
guarantee him an advantage.
13 gcs
••• (threatening 14...
The timely exchange on d4, fol­ .txgS!) 14.gg1 0-0 15 .th3 g6 (or
•

l owed by ....tb7, keeps the d7-pawn lS...dS 16.e5 g6) 16. lt>b1 d5 17.e5
Pr o tected and enables fast develop­ c!Llg7. Black has a good game. He will
rn ent of the queenside with ..J'k8, push his pawns to a4 and b4.

47
 Part 2

We see that White's most Here are some examples of the

straightfmward plans, which are break ...dS.
typical for the English Attack, do
not set serious problems. White
may also turn to natural develop­
ment and central play with:

3. ll .hd4 i.b7 12. i.d3

•

Then the play is not forced and

Black has various decent options. I
analyse the most consistent one - to
limit the bishop's scope with: 14.tt:le2 dS

12 e5 13. i.f2 0-0 14.g5 c!tlh5 !

.•. Watch out if White played
15.c!tld5 (stopping ...dS) 15 .hd5..• 14.tt:la4 dS 15.tt:lb6.
16.exd5 c!tlf4 17.h4 (17.ixh7!
l!ixh7 18.d6 hd6 19.1Mfxd6 E:ac8 is
roughly equal)

We must meet this by 15...dxe4!

- never allow e4-e5 when White's
knight is on b6. This pawn struc­
17 f5 ! , when 18.gxf6? tt:lxd3+
.•. ture would be pleasant for White in
would be in Black's favour. the event of 15... E:ab8?! 16.e5 tt:ld7
17.tt:lxd7. We need the knight for
Latest games show that White is counterplay from cS.
disappointed from the above-men­
tioned courses and looks for more
flexible move orders with 'i!ibl
waiting for Black to define his plan �
first. The ensuing play is not forced
and offers both sides rich possibil­
ities of playing chess. I suggest to
meet 'it>bl with . . . 0-0 and then . . J'k8
or ...ds.

48
 The English Attack

If White has already played Game 6 Volokitin -Najer

g S , we can boldly trade our light­ M uelheim 201 3
squared bishop for the enemy
kn ight since the possession of the
f4-square fully balances White's
bishop pair: 15...b4 16.tt'la4 .hd5
1 7.tt'lb6 !!ad8.

If we delay too much the break,

t rying to combine it with ...e5 first,
White may get additional options:

Analysis 16...d4! 17.tt'lxd4 0-0 18..ie2

!!fd8 19.1ltfcl g6 20.!!he1 1!tfxe5.

A more sophisticated example:

Analysis

17.ig4 tt'lf4 18.tt'lxf4 exf4 19.e5!

VJff xeS 20..id4t.

OK, we have achieved ...d5.

what's next? The short answer is:
17...d4! 18.tt'lxd4 0-0 19.hh5
we aim for ...d4!.
gxh5 20.!!hel !!fd8 21.1ltff2 (21.f4
.if3). White's king lacks defenders
Bauer-Lopez Martinez so we can even ignore the e5-pawn:
Linares 201 3 21...a5! (21...1!tfxe5 22.@bl=) 22.@bl
a4-+.

Ana lysis

15...d4! 16.tt'lxd4 0-0 17.id3

�f d8 18.@bl g6 19.!!hf1 1!tfxe5.

49
 Part 2

Even if we cannot activate our Black will be threatening to

bishop, White has not any attack. build up a �+.i battery on the main
We easily defend the 7th rank: diagonal. Moreover, the f3 and h2-
26.hxg6 fxg6 27.gdhl 4Jf5. pawns are weak.
Keep in mind the following typi­
cal trap White often overlooks: Even without queens, Black's
bishop pair and an active rook com­
monly balance the game:

Analysis

15.g5? 4Jxe4! 16.fxe4 hg5! , win­

ning the queen because of the mate
on c2.; it also works after 15.4Jb6 ·

4Jxe4! 16.fxe4 .igS ! . The position is unclear.

Going deeper into the middle­

Game 7 Robson-Wang, Vue
game, I would like to bring your at­
rapid, N i ngbo 201 3
tention to the possibility of sacrific­
ing the exchange for a pawn. This
is a good way to neutralise the en­
emy attack.

Analysis

22....if4. Black is better due to

his domination on the dark squares.

50
Part 2 . The English Attack

Ta i manov - Ste p by Step

l .e4 c5 2 .c!l:'lf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4

4 . ttl xd4 ttlc6 5. ttlc3 '1Wc7 6 .te3
•

12...f6 (12....ixc3 13.lt:lxc3 f6

14.exf6 l'!xf6 15.0-0-0 d5 16.g3, Mot­
ylev-Shimanov, Aix-les-Bains 2011)
13.exf6 l'!xf6 14.g3 d5 1S ..ixb4 lt:lxb4
16.lt:ld4 �b6 17.c3 lt:lc6 18.0-0-0.
6 . . a6
.

White has a stable positional edge.

6 ... ttlf6 practically eliminates Another possible argument in

the English attack as a choice for favour of 6...lt:Jf6 would be to avoid
White, but why to jump out of the the 7..id3 main line with 7...b6 or
fryi ng pan into the fire?! The arising 7...lt:Jxd4 8..ixd4 .icS 9..ixc5 �xeS
unexplored positions bring White 10.�e2. Again, I doubt the sound­
much better results than the Eng­ ness of these deviations.
l is h attack itself! Although there is
a vast field for improvements and Summing up, by delaying ...a6
investigation, I do not see any rea­ Black hardly improves his chances
son to deviate from the main lines. in the main lines while the addi­
tional options of White, especially
Let me note two important 7.f4, look really unpleasant.
ga mes after 6... ttlf6.
Giri-Bauer, Leon 2012: 7.f4 .ib4 7.'1Wd2
8 . lt:l db5 �aS 9.e5 lt:ldS 10..id2 lt:lxc3
l l .ii.xc3 0-0 12.�d2 7..ie2, 7..id3 and 7.f4 are subject

51
 Part 2

o f other parts of the book. I will con­ b) 7.�f3 tt'lf6! (7...b5 8.�g3;
sider here two rare altern atives: 8.tt'lxc6 �xc6 9.id3 .ib7 10.�g3; 7...
a) 7.a3 is a particula r move or­ ib4 8.0-0-0 tt'lge7 9.�g3, Chepa­
d e r, which throws us out of our re­ rinov-Swiercz, Yerevan 2014, are
p e rtoire. B lack's biggest problem is pleasant for White) 8.0-0-0 is
h i s enormous choice. Virtually all trendy.
conceivable plans are playable, but
I u nderstand that such a statement
has no practical value. Schevenin­
gen fa � s will be especially happy to
_
face this mnoc uous move. I propose
to adopt a typ ical Taima nov set-up
for consistency sake:
7...b5

The Scheveningen approach 8...

.ie7 (8...d6 is less accurate as it al­
lows 9.tt'lxc6!? bxc6 10.g4) 9.ie2
(9.tt'lxc6 bxc6 10.g4 is already un­
impressive due to 10...d5) 9...0-0
10.�g3 [10.g4 tt'lxd4 ll.l'!xd4 (11.
hd4 b5 12.g5 tt'le8 13.l'!hg1 ib7
14.'it>b1 l'!c8 15.id3 f5 16.gxf6 ixf6
8.tt'lxc6 17..ixf6 tt'lxf6 18.�g2 l'!f7) ll...d5
Or 8..ie2 .ib7 9.f4 tt'lxd 4 10.�x d4 12.exd5 tt'lxd5] 10...d6! seems the
l'!c8 ll.if3 (Anticipatin g u...tt'lf6. most logical retort to White's set­
lU!dl tt'lf6 12.e5 tt'ld5 would be OK for up, because his queen hampers the
Black) ll...h5 12.h3 h4 13 .0-0 tt'lf6oo. march of the g-pawn. After ll.f4,
Black will complete development
8...�xc6 9.ie2 with ...id7-e8 keeping the tension
9.�d4 ib7 10.ie2 l'! c8 ll.l'!d1 in the centre. See more details in
tt'lf6 12.e5 should be Ill et by 12... the annotations to game 5 Vallejo­
tt'ld5! . The trick is that 13.if3 Spraggett, Catalunya 2013.
is
not dangerous in view o f 13 tt'lxe
... 3
14.�xe3 �c7 15.ixb7 �x b7 7 c!Df6
16.0-0
•••

b4 17.axb4 hb4 18 . tt'le4

l'!xc 2
19.l'!d6 l'!c6. 7...b5 contradicts the spirit of
this book and my own understan­
9...ib7 1 0.i.f3 �c7 1 1.0 -0
i.d 6 ding of the Taimanov. I think that
12.g3 tt'lf6 13.�d3 i.e S
wit h com ­ Black should seek active piece play
plex p l ay.
and the knight on c6 has an impor-

52
 The English Attack

role in that design. So I have a

t a nt b) 8.f4 ! ?
goo d reason to avoid 7 . . . b5 8.ltlxc6.
This line enjoys a burst o f pop­
ularity. However, it might be short­
8 . 0-0-0
lived if White does not find some­
thing substantial against the rather
I n the early days of the English
forced endgame which arises after:
Attack, White used to play:
8 . . . ib4 !
a) 8.f3
Karjakin-Svidler, 2014, saw 8 . . .
It was aimed against 8 . . . ltlg4,
bS , but I believe that it i s important
bu t it is already clear that the
to provoke a3 in order to have a le­
k n ight jump after 8 . 0-0-0 is bad
ver for our attack on the queenside.
d u e to 9.if4 ltlge5 (9 . . . e5? ! is even
The game went 9.e5 ltlg4 10.ig1 ib7
worse, 10.ltld5 �d8 ll .h3 ! ±) 10 .ig3
11. 0-0-0 ltlxd4 12 .ixd4 ie7 13.id3
.' : . x d 4 1l.�xd4 f6 12.f4 icS 13.�d2
f5 14.h3 ltlh6 15J�hg1 0-0 16.�e3 (16.
: f7 14.e5t, Grischuk-Needleman,
g4 g6 17.1!lb1 if3 18.Eidf1 ic6 19.g5
Khanty Mansyisk 2 005.
ltlfl 20 .h4 is better for White) 16 . . .
8 . . . b5 9.g4 E\ac8 17.1!lb1 ic6 18.ltle2 idS 19.g4
g6 20.b3 �b7 2 l .Eidfl aS 22 .ltlg3
9 .ltlxc6 dxc6 is similar to
ic4 23 .ie4 idS 24.id3 draw.
1 0 . CiJxc6 ; 9. 0-0-0 transposes to the
main line. 9.id3

9 . . . ib7

9 . . . h6 10.ltlxc6 ! [10. 0-0-0 ltleS

( i n te nd ing . . . dS) ll.h4 b4 12.ltla4
d5 13.ie2 counts on the trick 13 . . .
dxe 4 14.ltlb6 �xb6 15.ltlc6 (15.ltlxe6
' ' \' a5 16.ltlxf8 ib7). However, Black
h as th e counter-blow 15 . . . ltld3+
1 6 .Jhd 3 �c7 17.if4 e3 ! .] sets some
p r oblems since 10 . . . dxc6 might be
s l ig htly better for White because 9 . . . ltla5
. . . h 6 has provided him with a le­
ve r o n
This is a critical line for White's
the kingside. Perhaps Black
eighth move, but I prefer the dou­
s h o uld try 10 . . . �xc6 and follow up
ble-edged: 9 . . . 0-0 ! . Now 10.ltlxc6
by . . . ib7,�c7, ie7, dS.
bxc6 ll.e5 ltlg4 12 .igl dS cannot be
1 0 . g5 ltlxd4 ! transposing to the of any concern to us. The only prin­
111 ai n l i n e. (In the event of lO . . . ltlhS cipled retort is 10.a3 ie7! 11. 0-0-0
l l . l2Jxc6, our knight would be mis­ bS 12.e5 ltlg4 13.igl ib7 with com­
Pl ace d on hS.) plex play.

53
 Part 2

16 . . . i.d7!
16 ... b5? ! 17.i.d4 fS 18.exf6 gxf6
19.0-0, Edouard-Javakhishvili, Ca­
leta 2 0 14, may be defendable, but I
see no fun for Black.

17.i.d4 gcs 18.ttlxb7 .ic6 19.tt:la5

i.dS 2 0.gb1 fS ! . White's knight
might remain stranded on aS, his
doubled extra pawn is not worth
We can undermine the enemy much. White also has to worry about
centre with .. .f6 or push . . . b4. For possible . . . ggs, . . . gS. 2 1 .gb6 is not a
instance, 14.tt:lb3 b4 15.axb4 tt:lxb4, threat due to 2 1 . . . \t>d?. Perhaps best
or 14.'We2 ttlh6. Unfortunately, I do is 2 1.ttlb7 gS= with counterplay.
not know of any practical example
yet. 8 . . . ie7

10 .a3
8 . . . b5 is less accurate due to
In the event of 10.tt:lde2 . tt:lc4 9.i.f4 �b6 when 10.ttlb3! tt:lg4
ll .ix:c4 'Wxc4 12 .e5 tt:le4 13.'Wd3, ll.i.e2 ! tt:lgeS 12.�e3 assures White
Black completes development with of the edge. 10.ttlxc6 'Wxc6 ll.f3 also
either 13 . . . b5 or 13 . . . d5. deserves attention.

10 . . .ix:c3 ll.'Wxc3 'Wxc3+ 12 .bxc3

9.f3
dS (In Shomoev-Grigoriants, Ta­
ganrog 2 0 14, Black tested 12 . . . d6,
9.f4 forces the play so it de­
but 13.ttlb3 is pleasant for White
mands memorisation : 9 . . . b5 ! (9 . . .
who has pressure on the queenside
d 6 10 .i.e2 0 - 0 i s a sharp Schevenin­
with ttld2, a4, gbl.) 13.e5 ! (13.exd5
gen position) lO.eS
tt:lxdS 14.i.d2 ttlb6 15.0-0 tt:lbc4=,
Ziaziulkina-Zhigalko, Minsk 2014) 10 .i.d3 gives Black time to repel
13 . . . tt:le4 14.ttlb3 ! tt:lc4 15.ixc4 dxc4 the c3-knight: 10 . . . b4 11.ttla4 gbs.
16.tt'l a5 The game Gashimov-Movse­
sian, Reggio Emilia 2010, went fur­
ther 12.i>b1 d6! 13.b3 (13.e5 dxeS
14.tt:lxc6 \Wxc6 lS.fxeS tt'ldS) 13 . . . 0-0
14.tt:lxc6 'Wxc6 15.ghe1 \Wc7 16.'We2
.id7 with mutual chances.
10 . . . b4 !

This move provokes the follow­

ing interesting sacrifice:

54
 The English Attack

15.�xd6 �xd6 16.E!xd6 E!xa2 17.\ilb1

E!aS 18.ie2 .
13.exf6 gxf6. White has a forced
way to equality, see game 4 Wei Yi­
Stukopin, Kocaeli 2013.

9 ... b5 10.g4

a) 10.lt:lxc6 dxc6 brings about a

11.lt:lcb5 symmetric pawn structure where
the chances are roughly equal.
ll.exf6 bxc3 12 .�xc3 hf6 13 .g4 10 . . . �xc6 ll .g4 d6 is often seen
h6 14.h4 (14.ig2 ib7 15J'l:hg1 E!c8 in the Scheveningen, but I believe
16.\ilb1 lt:lxd4 17.�xc7 E!xc7 18.ixd4 that White is better prepared for an
is at least equal if not slightly bet­ attack.
ter for Black, Hracek-Akesson, Par­ ll.g4 eS 12 .h4 ie6
dubice 2013) 14 . . . ib7 15.E!h2 E!c8
16.�d2 . Black has a wide choice
here. Perhaps safest is 16 . . . hd4
17.ixd4 lt:lxd4 18.�xd4 0-0 19.g5 hS
2 0 .E!f2 d5 ! = , Guseinov-Macieja, Is­
tanbul 2012. In Wijk aan Zee 2 014,
Saric tried to contest this assess­
ment against Yu Yangyi. Instead of
attacking on the kingside, he tried
to exploit Black's "bad" bishop with
2 1 .E!e1 g6 22 .E!e3 aS 23.E!b3. How­
White may claim some space ad­
ever, the Chinese GM found a good
vantage on the kingside, but he has
way to obtain counterplay with the
no real threats. For instance, after:
pawn sac 23 . . . a4 ! 24.�xa4 �cS
13.g5, Black can exchange a pair
25.E!g2 (25.E!bf3 d4 26.E!a3 d3) 25 . . .
of rooks with 13 . . . E!d8, or he can
:l aS 26.�b4 �xb4 27.E!xb4 E!xa2.
preserve more pieces with 13 . . . lt:ld7
Bl ack has no problems in this end­
followed up by 0-0-0. 13 . . . lt:lh5 ! ? is
game.
good, too. At the same time, White's
ll . . . axbS 12.lt:lxb5 YNaS king's bishop lacks prospects.
Therefore,
12 . . . 'i9b8 might be the only way
to play for a win, but it is risky as 13.ih3 looks consistent. Moty­
Wh ite has good compensation for lev-Fominyh, Ubeda 2001, went 13 . . .
t he pawn after 13.exf6 gxf6 14.lt:ld6+ E!d8 14.�h2 E!xd1+ 15.E!xd1 0-0? !
C l 4. \ilb1 d5 15.�f2 ia6 16.ib6 hbS 16.g5 lt:lhS 17.he6 fxe6 18 .'Wh3t,
17 . hb5 �b7 18.f5 E!b8) 14 . . . hd6 but 13 . . . lt:ld7 evens the chances.

55
 Part 2

Then 14.g5 would not make much not like such static positions with a
sense in view of 14 . . . .ixh3 15J'!xh3 clear plan for White.
0-0- 0 = , but 14.ltJd5 cxd5 15.exd5 The other obvious alternative is
.ixd5 16.�xd5 �d8 17.�d3 ltJb6 is 10 . . . i.b7 hoping for ll.g4 ltJxd4. In­
also fine for Black. stead, White can set serious practi­
White may wait to see where the cal problems with the still untested
black king castles: ll.i.f4 ! ? e5 12.ltJf5 exf4 13.ltJd5.
13.'it>bl. Perhaps castling is not
necessary at all. 13 . . . �d8 14.�h2
�xdl+ 15.ltJxdl h6 16.i.h3 �a5 17.b3
ltJd7 gives counterplay on the dark
squares.
Eliseev chose twice 13 .�f2 . Pot­
kin answered 13 . . . a5 (I do not un­
derstand this move) 14.i.c5 0-0
15.h5 .ixc5 16.�xc5 ltJd7 17.�d6
�xd6 18.�xd6 �fc8 = . Dragun opted Without the inclusion of 1 0 . 'it>b1
for 13 . . . .ib4, but after 14.a3, he sud­ i.b7, Black would have 13 ... �e5 ! ,
denly changed his mind with 14 . . . but now the b7-bishop i s hanging.
!J.e7?. I would rather try t o trade 13 . . . �b8 ? ! keeps tha extra piece,
a pair of rooks with 13 . . . �d8 (13 . . . but 14.ltJxg7+ 'it>f8 15.ltJf5 is a mess.
ltJd7 i s probably less accurate due to Still, I would take White without
14.ltJd5) and decide later whether to any hesitation. Look at the varia­
castle at all. tion 15 . . . i.d8 16.ltJxf4 h5 17.g3 ! . It is
unclear how to get rid of the dom­
b) 10.'it>b1 ! ? is a tricky wait­ inating knight on f5. To be sure,
ing move which is not deprived of 17 . . . ltJe7 fails to 18.ltJd6 i.c7 19.e5±.
venom. My recommendation is to It is better to eliminate to a near­
transpose to line A2 with 10 . . . 0 - 0 ! ly equal endgame with 13 . . . ltJxd5 !
ll.g4 ltJxd4 12 . .ixd4 i.b7. 14.exd5 ltJb4 15.d6 �xc2+ 16.�xc2
ltJxc2 17.ltJxg7+ 'it>f8 18.dxe7+ 'it>xg7
Black would be nastily surprised 19.'it>xc2 �ac8+ 2 0 . 'it>b1 i.c6 2U:!d4
if he tried to transpose to the main �he8 2 2 .�xf4 �xe7 23 .i.d3 h6. Black
line with 10 . . . ltJd4? ! ll.i.d4 i.b7 will be staying with his rooks on the
(ll . . . b4 12.ltJa4 �b8 13.�f2) 12 .�g5 ! e-file, avoiding exchanges.
when 12 . . . 0-0 loses to 13.e5+-. In 10 . . . ltJe5 returns to the older
the blitz game Ivanchuk-Wang Yue, treatment of the Taimanov. Per­
Beijing 2 0 13, Black played 12 ... b4 haps Black should check the posi­
13.ltJa4 0-0 14.ltJb6 �ae8 15.�g3 tion after ll.g4 (ll.ltJb3 �b8 12.�f2
d6 16.ltJc4 e5 17.i.b6;!; when 17 . . . ltJc4 13 . .ixc4 bxc4 is fine for Black)
�b8 would have hold on, but I do 11 . . . 0-0 12 .g5 ltJhS 13.f4 ltJg4 14.e5

56
 The English Attack

b4 15.li:'le4 .ib7 16 . .ig2 d6 17.li:'lf6 + An important juncture. White

ixf6 18 . .b:b7 �xb7oo, but so far should decide whether to continue
White has won both games where it his initial plan, or focus on the cen­
was tested. tre :

10 ••• lt:'lxd4! Al. 12 .g5 ; A2 . 1 2 . 'it>bl; A3. 12 . .id3

Minor alternatives are :

a) 12 .h4. White aims to play hS
first, but this idea is too slow and
does not hamper the break 12 . . . d5
since 13.g5 li:'lhS 14.exd5 is met by
14 . . . b4 15.li:'le4 .b:dS. White's knight
stands well on e4, but we can al­
ways exchange it. The game Dam­
brauskas-Schiendorfer, ICCF email
2 0 1 0 , went 16.�e3 :Bc8 17.:Bd2 .b:e4
A. ll . .b:d4 ; B. ll .�xd4 18.fxe4 0-0 19.:Bhh2 eS 20 . .ib6 �c6
2 l . l'!d5 li:'lf4 22 .l'!a5 h6! with an ini­
tiative on the kingside.
A. ll . .hd4 .lb7 b) 12.�f2 0-0 13 . .id3 (13 . .ib6
�c6 ! 14.g5 li:'lh5) 13 . . . b4 ! ?
The immediate attack in the cen­ Topalov chose against Karja­
tre with ll . . . b4 1 2 . li:'l a4 :Bb8, plan­ kin in Beijing 2 0 13 the more flexi­
ning . . . dS, seems a plausible alter­ ble 13 . . . :Bac8 14.li:'le2 d6 15.li:'lg3 li:'ld7
native. This branch is still unex­ 16.:Bhel li:'l cS 17.rit>bl :Bfd8 18.b3 eS
plored, maybe because Black ob­ 19 . .lb2 .ih4 ! 2 0 . :Bgl g6, with the
tains more than satisfactory results better game.
in the main line. A possible continu­
ation is 13.rit>bl 0-0 14.�f2 dS lS.gS
tt:lhS 16.exd5 exdS 17.h4 :Be8.

14.li:'le2 (14.li:'la4 dS lS.gS li:'ld7;

15.li:'lb6 dxe4 ! - never allow e4-e5
when White's knight is on b6 and

57
 Part 2

can take ours on d7. We need the matic break is still possible. Only
knight for counterplay from cS.) instead of 15 . . . b4, Black should play
14 ... d5 15.e5 lLld7 16.f4 aS 17.�b1 15 . . . lLlf4 ! , recovering the pawn with
(17.f5 lLlxe5) 17 . . . a4t. a satisfactory position. However,
White has no immediate threats so
why not keep the tension for a while
Al. 12.g5 �h5 13.�e2 with 14 . . . l'!ac8 . White has not any­
thing better than 15.i.e3 (15.l'!g4 g6;
a) 13.�b1 gives a tempo for cast­ 15.i.h3 lLlf4), when 15 ... d5 16.exd5
ling: 13 . . . 0-0 b4 is already possible.
a4) 14.i.d3 lLlf4 (14 ... e5 ! ? 15.i.f2
lLlf4, intending to capture the gS­
pawn on 16.lLle2 , may be stronger)
15.h4 l'!ac8 16.lLle2 lLlxd3 17.cxd3 eS
18.i.e3

a1) 14.lLle2 f5 15.gxf6 h£6

16.hf6 lLlxf6 17.h4 with a balanced
game. Black's pressure down the f­
file neutralises the open g-file. The
email game Salvador Marques­
Schiendorfer 2010 went 17 .. J�f7 Here 18 . . . d5 19.lLlg3 d4 2 0 .i.f2
(17 . . . l'!ac8 18.l'!g1 lLlh5) 18.l'!g1 'l;'ih2 g6 2 1.l'!c1 Wffd 7 2 2 .lLle2? (or 2 2 .f4 ! ?)
19 .'l;'ie3 l'!c8 20 .a3 lLlhS 21.l'!g4 Wffc7 might be dangerous so Morozevich
2 2 .l'!d2 'l;'icS 23.lLld4 eS 24.'l;'ib3 l'!cf8 opted for the forced line 18 . . . i.b4 !
25.l'!g5 g6 26.lLlf5 �h8 27.i.e2 gxfS 19.Wixb4 Wic2 + 2 0 . �a1 'l;'ixe 2 = .
28.l'!xh5 fxe4 draw.
b ) 13 .i.e5 leads t o a sharp end­
a2) 14.i.e3 does not hamper 14 . . . game after:
dS. After 15 .exd5 b 4 16.lLla4 i.xdS
17.lLlb6 l'!ad8 18.lLlxd5 l'!xdS 19.'l;'ic1 13 . . . 'l;'ixe5 !
l'!xd1 20.'l;'ixd1 lLlf4, Black seized the It is dangerous to avoid simpli­
initiative, Bauer-Ganguly Linares fication by 13 . . . 'l;'ic6 since 14.a3 will
2013. retain White's grip on the centre :
a3) 14.l'!g1 takes control of g3 and 14 . . . 0-0 15.i.h3 fS 16.l'!he1 l'!ae8
prepares h4, i.h3. It seems that 14 . . . 17.exf5 exfS 18 .i.g2;!;;
d S i s bad due t o 15.exd5 b4-? 16.lLle4 14 . . . l'!d8 15.�b1 (15.i.h3 WicS
i.xdS 17.lLlf6+, but in fact the the- 16.f4 h6) 15 . . . 0-0 16.i.e2 or 16.i.h3

58
 The English Attack

whereas Black's queen does not at the same time. The game might
control the critical square f4. continue 16.1!ib1 b4 17.tt:la4 (17.
tt:le2 e5 18 . .if2 d5 19.tt:lg3 l:'lfd8) 17 . . .
14.1Wxd7+ l!ifB 15.�xb7 h:g5+
d 5 (or 17 . . . i.c6 18.tt:lc5 a S 19.tt:ld3
16.1!ib1 �b8
d5 2 0 .�e3 a4oo) 18.exd5 (18.e5 aS
19.�f2 i.c6 2 0 .tt:lc5 a4t) 18 . . . h:d5
19.tt:lb6 l:'lad8 2 0.tt:lxd5 l:'lxd5+.

d) 13.i.d3 is an arguable idea,

because Black can always equalise
by trading the bishop after . . . tt:lh5-
f4xd3. 13 . . . 0-0 14.tt:le2 e5 15.i.e3 g6
(15 . . . i.c5 16.h:c5 �xc5 17.1!ib1 l:'lac8
18.l:'lhf1 = ) 16.tt:lg3 tt:lf4 17.h4

17J:�d7
17.'\Wc6 g6 ! ? would be double­
edged while 17 . . . �c8 18.�xc8 + (18.
�b6 .if6 19.tt:le2 .ie5 2 0.l:'lg1 g6)
does not change this assessment.
17. . . �xb7 18.l:'lxb7 .if6 19.a4 (19.
'Lle2 g5) 19 ... h:c3 2 0 .bxc3 bxa4
21.h:a6 g5 2 2 . .ib5 l!ig7 23.l:'ld1, Ter
Sahakyan-J. Polgar, Yerevan 2 0 14.
17 . . . l:'lac8 (17 . . . 'Llxd3+ 18.'1Wxd3
Black must keep both rooks here
!ladS = ) 18.hf4 exf4 19.'Lle2 d5
or White's c-pawn will run forward
2 0 .�xf4 (20.'Llxf4 .id6 21.ttle2
quickly. Perhaps safest is 23 . . . tt:lf4
l:'lfe8 ! ) 2 0 . . . .id6 21.e5 (21.1Wg4 dxe4
24.c4 !lacS ! , since 24 . . . tt:lg6 ! ? 25.c5
2 2 . fxe4 .ie5iii) 2 l . . .h:e5 2 2 .1Wd2
'Lle5 26.c6 tt:lxf3 27.c7 tt:lxh2 is rath­
.ig7 23.f4 l:'lfe8 24.1!ibl. Dominguez­
er unclear.
Potkin, Havana 2012 saw here
c) 13.h4 ! ? counts on the trick 24 . . . l:'le4? 25.h:e4±. Instead, 24 . . .
13 . . . 0-0? ! 14 . .ih3 tt:lf4 (14 . . . b4 d 4 25.l:'lh2 l:'le3+ would have given
15.'Lle2 e5 16 ..if2 d5 17 . .ig4 tt:lf4 Black an initiative.
18.tt:lxf4 exf4 19.e5t) 15 . .ie3 ! tt:lxh3
16.1Wxd7±, Muzychuk-Galojan, Bel­ 13 .•• l'3c8 14.l'3gl
grade 2 0 13. Black should kill the .ifl
with 13 . . . tt:lg3 ! 14.l:'lg1 tt:lxf1 15.l:'lgxf1 14.h4 might prove superflu­
0-0, killing two birds with one shot ous if Black defended with .. .f6 or
- he has solved the problem of his . . .f5. For instance : 14 . . . 0-0 15 . .ih3
knight at the edge of the board re­ f5 16.gxf6 (16.exf5 h:f3 17.fxe6 d5
moving a dangerous attacking piece winning the exchange) 16 . . . tt:lxf6.

59
 Part 2

14 . . . 0-0 15 . .th3 g6 (or 1S . . . dS 13 ..id3 b4 14.li:Je2 eS 1S.gS

16.eS g6) 16.�bl d5 17.e5 �g7 exd4 was pleasant for Black in
Yu-Nepomniachtchi, St. Peters­
burg 2 0 1 2 . Amonatov-Saiyn, Mos­
cow 2 0 14, showed that even if
White achieved everything he want­
ed, Black would still be fine - 13 . . .
�ac8 14.�f2 d 6 1S.h4 l!J d 7 16.gS b4
17.l!Je2 dS 18.exdS hdS.
The text move deserves atten­
tion if for no other reason than be­
cause it was played at highest level.

Black has a good game. He will

push his pawns to a4 and b4 keep­
ing the tension. White's only plan is
h2-h4-hSxg6, but then Black recap­
tures by . . . fxg6 and easily defends
the h7-pawn along the seventh rank
with . . . l!JfS. This suggests that Black
should leave his rook on f8 in or­
der to ensure the possibility of tak­
ing .. J:!xfS after hfS. Almasi-Mov­
sesian, Warsaw 2 0 13, went further
13 . . . d5 !
18.f4 b4 19.!g4 aS 2 0 .l!Jcl (or 2 0 .h4
a4 2 1.ltlg3 !cS) 2 0 . . .!a6 2 U�g2 a4
I suppose that this novelty is
2 2 .h4 !cS (clearing the 7th rank)
the best retort to White's tricky last
23.hcS �xeS 24J'%h2 �c7 (24 . . . a3
move.
2S.b3 �c3) 2S.hS. Here 2S . . . �b6
26.hxg6 fxg6 27.�dh1 l!JfS+ would Alternatively:
have been promising. 13 . . . �ac8 14.�g1 .ic6 (14 . . . b4
1S.gS �hS 16.l!Ja4) 1S . .id3 b4oo oc­
curred in game 9 Caruana-Svidler,
A2 . 12.�bl 0-0 13.�f2 Rhodes 2 0 13 ;
1 3 . . .b 4 14.l!Ja4! (14.g5 l!Jh5
13.!e3 does not prevent 13 . . . b4
1S.l!Ja4 dS 16.exd5 hd5 17.l!Jb6
14.l!Je2 d5 ;
�ad8=) 14 . . . d5 is positionally dubi­
13 .h4 �ac8 14.!d3 turned out ous since White trades his awkward
badly for White after 14 . . . eS 15.!e3 knight for an important black piece.
!b4+, Kurayan-Stukopin, Kocaeli _ 15.l!Jb6 �adS 16.eS l!Jd7 17.l!Jxd7.
2013. Black has no counterplay here.

60
 The English Attack

14.g5 ttld7 15.exd5 b4 16.ttle4 instance, 13.h4 b4 14.ttle2 eS 15.i.f2

dS ; 13.ltle2 d5 14.e5 ttle4 15.'�e3 ltlc5.
16.dxe6 fxe6 17.'�'e2 eS is rough-
ly equal : 18 .'�c4+ �xc4 19 . .bc4+ 13.J.f.! 0-0 14.g5 ttlh5!
®h8 2 0 .ltl d5 hg5 2 1.i.f2 = .
Svetushkin-Negi, Linares 2 0 13,
16 hd5 17.J.d3 gfd8
••• saw 14 . . . b4? ! 15.lt:Ja4 lt:JhS 16.ltlb6
:i!ab8 17.i.c4 i.c6 18.lt:Jd5 hd5
19 . .bd5 aS, but White's bishop is
at least theoretically better than
Black's one.

15.ttl d5 hd5 16.exd5 ttlf4

17.h4 (17.hh7! '.t>xh7 18.d6 hd6
19.�xd6 :i!ac8 is roughly equal)

White's pieces look daunting,

but Black can quickly trade a cou­
ple of minor pieces, for instance,
... he4 followed up by . . . i.cS.
18.:1!hg1 eS defends everything.
Then Black can thrust forward his
own a-pawn.
18.�h4 g6 19.�f2 :i!ac8 2 0.h4
ttlc5 also neutralises the attack be­ 17 f5 !
•..

cause 2 l .ltlf6 + ? loses to 2 1 . . .hf6

22.hf6 ha2 + ! 23.'>t>xa2 b3+ while This move assures Black o f a
21.hc5 hc5 2 2 .ltlf6+ '.t>g7 23.�e2 good game since 18.gxf6? lt:Jxd3 +
ie7 (or 23 . . . �f4) is roughly ba­ would give him pressure down the
lanced. f-file.
Remains 18 .h4 :i!ac8 19.h5, but
this drops the g5-pawn after 19 . . .
B . ll.�xd4 J.b7 12 .g5
he4 ! 2 0.he4 .bgS.
12.'>t>b1 :i!c8 13.�d2 fails to 13 . . .
b 4 14.lt:Ja4 lt:Jxe4 15.fxe4 he4
A3. 12 .J.d3 e5
16.ha6 �xc2 + .
It is positionally sound to re­ 12.:1!g1 :i!c8 13.:1!g2 (13 .g5 will
strict the d3-bishop. Of course, transpose to the main line) makes
12 ... 0-0 cannot be bad either, for some sense, but White abandons

61
 Part 2

the dangerous manoeuvre .ifl-h3- 18.hgS �xgS 19.tt::l c3 ! �e3 2 0 .�b4

g4. Black should not worry about �xf3 2 1 . �gU) 16.tt::l a7 �c7 (some
this attack anymore so he can pre­ commentators claim that 16 . . . eS? !
pare short castling with 13 . . . .ic6 17.�xeS �c7 i s unclear, but i n my
(but not 13 . . . b4? ! 14.tt::l a4 .ic6 opinion, the endgame is obviously
1S.tt::l b 6 �b8 16.gS tt::l hS 17.�gd2 ! pleasant for White, e.g. 18.�d4 �d8
eS 18.�c4 �xb6 19.�xd7! ! , Pruijss­ 19.tt::l b S �c6 2 0 .tt::l d 6+ hd6 2 1.�xd6
ers-Zwirs, Dieren 2 0 13) 14.gS tt::l h S �xd6 2 2 . �xd6 0-0 23.b4 fS 24.gxf6
1S.�f2 0-0. Now 16.f4? ! f6 or 16 ..ih3 tt::l xf6 2S.icS ic6 2 6.c4;!;) 17.tt::l b S= ,
tt::l f4 17 ..ig4 hgS are clearly better Dominguez-Caruana, Paris 2 0 13.
for Black, so White should prob­
b) 13.@b1 �c8 puts· the question
ably continue with 16.eS, but then
to White : what is he going to do with
the simplest 16 . . . �fd8 17.tt::l e 4 he4
his queen?
18.�xe4 d6 19.exd6 �xd6 equalises.
14.�d3 is unaesthetic. To be
sure, 14 ... b4 1S.tt::l a4 dS 16.exdS
12 . . . tbh5 13 . .ih3
hdS 17.tt::l b 6 tt::l f4 (the thematic 17 . . .
�d8 fails here t o 18 .�xa6) 18.tt::l x dS
This is the only way to prevent
tt::l xdS 19 .ic1 would be pleasant for
the freeing . . . d7-dS. Alternatively:
him, but the immediate 14 . . . dS !
a) 13.�d2 �c8 14.hbS is only 1S.exdS �d8 solves allthe problems.
good for a draw.
14.�d2 admits that capturing
14.�g1 is innocuous due to 14 . . . eS on d4 by queen was pointless. That
(or 14 . . .icS 1S.�xc5 �xeS 16.hcS does not mean it is a bad move, but
�xeS= 17.a4 b4 18.tt::l a 2 aS 19 . .ibS it is certainly not the most princi­
ic6 20 .hc6 �xc6) 1S.�d3 (1S.�a7 pled opening idea. We have the
tt::l f4 16 . .ib6 �c6 17.tt::l dS id6 18 . .if2 usual choice between . . . ic6, . . . 0-0
tt::l xdS=) 1S . . . .ib4. or the . . . dS-break. For consisten­
cy with the previous examples, let's
14 . . . axbS 1S.tt::l xbS
check the most straightforward
plan : 14 . . . b4 1S.tt::l e2
1S.tt::l a4 dS 16.exdS hdS 17.tt::l b 6
�d8 18.lLlxdS �xdS 19 ..id3 0-0

1S . . . �c6 (1S . . . �d8 does not lose,

but White's heavy pieces are bet­
ter after 16.�a7 0-0 17.�xb7 hgS

62
 The English Attack

leads to a typical position with

comfortable play for Black. The
bishop pair is inefficient due to the 13 . . .f6 is inconsistent since our
weakness of f4. Black will be trying main plan is to break in the centre
to trade dark-squared bishops in with . . . dS. White can maintain the
order to bring his knight into play. tension on the kingside with 14 . .ig4
(14.'tt>b 1 fxgS 1S . .ig4 4Jf6=) 14 . . . 4Jf4
15 . . . d5 16.e5 d4 ! . After this deep
1S.�d2 or 15.h4 ! ? .
counter-sac Black seized the initi­
1 3 . . . b4? 14.4Ja4 d S fails to
ative in game 6 Volokitin-Najer,
1S . .ig4.
Muelheim 2 0 13.
The rook's move gains a cru­
c) 13.a3 l"lc8 14.'tt> b i prevents
cial tempo because besides target­
the . . . dS break, but gives Black time
ing c2, it also enables . . . .icS. The
to castle and undermine the cen­
trade of dark-squared bishops be­
tre with .. .fS : 14 . . . -icS 15.�d2 .ixe3
comes Black's primary strategic
16.�xe3 0-0 17.l"ld2 (17.l"lg1 t!lf4
goal when his knight reaches hS.
18.h4 l"lfd8 revives the plan with
Thus, 14.l"ld2?! .icS ! would be ex­
... ds, e.g. 19.l"ld2 dS ! 2 0 .e5? d4 !
cellent for him.
2U''l xd4 t!ldS) 17 . . .f5 ! . The pressure
down the f-file assures Black of the
14.�g4
initiative.
d) 13.lLle2 l"lc8 14.�d2 (14.l"ld2 ? ! The only way to protect c2 while
dS was tested i n Inarkiev-Schloss­ evading . . . .icS is 14.�d2? ! , but this
er, Yerevan 2 0 14 - 15.exd5 .ixdS retreat completely takes the sting of
16.4Jf4 4Jxf4 17 ..ixf4 �aS 18.�xg7 .ig4 since Black can answer it with
l"lf8 19.l"lxd5 �a4 2 0 .l"ld2 �xf4= . . . g6. So he can already push :
2l.h4? l"ld8 2 2 . .id3 .ib4 23.l"lhd1
14 . . . b4 15.lLle2
when 23 . . . .ixd2+ 24.l"lxd2 'tt> e 7
would have been difficult for White) 15.4Ja4? ! dS ! (1S ... .ic6 is also
14 . . . d5 1S.e5 d4 ! is considered in the good - see game 7 Robson-Wang
annotations to game 6. The play is Yue, Ningbo 2 0 13) 16.exd5? (16.
very similar to line b. 'tt> b 1 dxe4 17 . .ig4 h6! 18.f4 hxgS
19 .fxg5 g6+) 16 . . . .ixd5 17 . .ig4

63
 Part 2

15 . . . i.xa2 ! ! 18.4Jb6 (18.i.xh5 Then 17.�xd7? fails to 17 . . . i.c5 ! and

0-0+) 18 . . . 0-0 19.4::\ xcB E:xc8 . It White's dark squares around his
turns out that White has no defence king gape wide.
against 20 . . . i.b3- + .
16 . . . cxb 2 + 17.'it>xb2 gf8
1 5 . . . . d 5 16.i.g4 g 6 17.e5 d4 ! . Do
not allow the opponent to blockade
the centre ! 18.4Jxd4 0-0 19.i.xh5
gxh5 2 0 . E:he1 (White did not last
long after 20.E:hg1 E:fd8 2 l.�f2 a5
22 .E:d2 a4 23.g6 hxg6 24.4:\xe6 E:xd2
25.�xd2 �xeS- + , Espinosa-Hevia,
Merida 2 0 13) 20 ... E:fd8 2 l.�f2 (21.
f4 i.f3) 2 1 . . . a5 ! (21.. .�xe5 2 2 .'it>b1=)
22.'it>b1 a4--+.

14 . . . b4 15 . .bh5 bxc3 16.�xg7

White is better co-ordinated, but
Browne-Van Kampen, Reykja­ his unsheltered king allows Black to
vik 2014, introduced the novelty maintain the balance. See game 8
16.b3? ! . I guess it was an improvisa­ Demetrio-Schiendorfer, ICCF email
tion since 16 . . . 0-0 would be strong. 2009.

64
Pa rt 2 . The English Attack

Ka n - Ste p by Step

l.e4 c5 2.ti�f3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 7.a3 bS 8 . .id3 .ib7 9.0-0 ll'lc6 is a

4.�xd4 a6 5 . � c3 �c7 6.i.e3 dream Sicilian.

After the text, Black has a wide,

but pleasant choice :

A. 7 .ib4 8. c!Dde2
•.•

8. 0-0? ! hc3 9.bxc3 d6! (9 ... d5?

lO.exdS liJxdS l l.id2 0-0 12 .�h5
g6 13 .�h4t) 10.�f3 eS ll.ll'lfS .ixfS
1 2 .exf5 ll'lbd7 13 J�;:abl dS.

8 ••• d6
This set-up is only a faint at­
tempt to reach the English Attack 8 . . . d5 9.a3 ! is not too clear.
since Black attacks first with . . . .ib4
9 . 0-0 c!Dg4 = .
and seizes the initiative. He only
has to start with :
B. 7 .ic5 8 .�e2
.!Df6 !
•••

6 •••

Or 8 . 0- 0 d6 9.�e2 liJbd7
Hellsten recommends 6...
ib4 7.c!Dde2 ll'lf6 8.a3 .iaS ( 8 . . .ie7 8 ••• d6 9 . 0-0-0 0-0.
9.liJa4 ! ?:t) 9.b4 .ib6, but instead of
10 .hb6, White can gain space by
10 .if4 ! t �dB l l.es. C. 8 ••• b5 9.0-0 J.b7 10.a3 J.e7

7.J.d3 Miladinovic played lO . . . hS ! ?

l l.h3 ll'lc6.
7.f3 does not hold the centre due
to 7 . . . .ib4 8 .�d2 (or 8.f3) 8 . . . d5. ll.f4 h5 +±.

65
Part 2. The English Attack

Complete Games

4. Wei,Yi-Stukopin 18.Wd2 �xb2 19.�e2 �f6? 20.�f3

Wch U20 Kocaeli 22.09.2013 would be a terrible mistake.

l.e4 c5 2.tt.Jf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 17.Wd2

4.tt.Jxd4 tt.Jc6 5.tt.Jc3 Wfc7 6.�e3 a6
7.'�d2 tt.Jf6 8.0-0-0 fi.e7 9.f4 b5
10.e5 b4 ll.tt.Jcb5 axb5 12.tt.Jxb5
Wfa5 13.exf6 gxf6

17...�a2!

17...�xb2?! 18.l'l:b3 is in White's

favour: 18...�al 19.�c5!± or 18...
14.tt.Jd6+ �a2 19.�b5.

White's king is the more vulner­ 18.l:�b3 gxb2

able one after 14.c4 bxc3 15.ltJxc3
0-0. This move lets the white bishop
to b5. It would be simpler to keep
14...hd6 15.Wfxd6 Wfxa2 White passive by 18...�bl! 19.l'l:gl
16.�d3 (16.�b5 �al+ 17.Wd2 l'l:xb2. The difference is obvious af­
�xb2) 16...Wfal+ ter 20.�d3 �a2 21.l'l:xb2 �xb2. This
position is unclear, with mutual
It is better to play for attack. The chances: 22.�c5 (22.�c5 �b7) 22...
passive defence 16...f5 17.�c5 �al+ �c3+ 23.We2 b3 (23...f5 24.l'l:el f6

66
 The English Attack

2S.I!?f2 l!?f7 26.l'!e3 �d2 + 27.l'!e2 = ) 8 . 0-0-0

24.cxb3 �xb3 25.l'!b l = .

19 . .ib5 �a2 ? !

Perhaps Black did not notice

that he had perpetual check after
19 . �xhl 2 0 .hc6 dxc6 2 l.�xc6+
..

m£8 22 .i.d4 �xh2 23.�xc8+ <Jlg7

24.hf6+ <Jlxf6 25.�xh8+ l!?e7
26.�xb2 �xg2 = .
8 . . . d6
20J�xb2 �xb2 2 1 .ic5 ? !•

In my opinion, 8 . . . .ie7! is the

White misses the strong rede­ better move order, having in mind
ployment 2 l .l'!cl ! �c3 + 2 2 .1!7e2 l'!g8 9.�xc6 bxc6 10 .g4 dS. Let's consid­
23.g3 eS 24. <Jlf2 hS 25.l'!dl, with an er other alternatives :
initiativ e, e.g. 25 . . . h4 2 6.i.a4 hxg3 +
a) 8 . . . .ib4? ! 9.ll:Jxc6 �xc6 (9 . . .
27.hxg3 e4 2 8 .�d5. After the text,
hc3 10.ll:Jd4 .ib4 ll . .if4) 10 .i.d4
the game is balanced.
hc3 ll .hc3 �xe4 12 .�xe4±.

21 �c3 +
• .• 2 2 . <Jldl .ia6 b) 8 . . . b5 9.ll:Jxc6 �xc6 10 .e5;!;.
23.ha6 (23 .hc6 �al+ 24.1!7d2
c) The central approach 8 . . .
�c3+=) 23 �al+ 24.<Jld2 �xa6
ll:Jxd4 9.hd4 e S 10 . .ie3 d6
•••

25 .td4 ggs 2 6.g3 �b7 27 .ic5

• •

�b8 2 8.�xb 8 + �xb8 29 . gal

li)c6 30.ga8+ �d8 3 1 .f5 exf5
32.hb4 f4 33.gxf4 draw.

5. Val lejo Pons-Spraggett

Cata l u nya 02.02.20 1 3

l.e4 c5 2 . �f3 e6 3.d4 cxd4

4.�xd4 �c6 5 . � c3 �c7 6 .ie3 •
looks reasonable, but White has
li)f6 7.�f3 a6 a clear plan : he pushes his pawns
to gS and hS and gains space with
I have also analysed the new ll:JdS followed by exdS. Black lacks
move 7 . . . i.a3? ! . It leads to cra­ counterplay. For instance :
zy complications, but White's in­
ll.h3 !
itiative is rather dangerous after
8.0-0-0 or 8.�db5. ll . .ie2 .ig4 12.ll:Jd5 ll:JxdS

67
 Part 2

13.'?9xg4 l"!c8 14.E!d2 h5 15.�h3 lt:)c3

16.i.b6 lt:)xe2+ 17.l"!xe2 '?9d7=.
ll . . .b5 12 .a3 ! (12 .i.d3 i.e? 13.g4
b4 14.lt:)d5 lt:)xd5 15.exd5 a5 is un­
clear) 12 . . .i.b7 13.g4 i.e? 14.c.!lb1!
(14.g5 lt:)xe4 15.lt:)xe4 d5 16.i.d3
l"!c8=)

The first critical moment of the

game. Black should decide how to
finish his development. The en­
gines propose 11.. .d5 12.exdS· lt:)xd5
13.ll:Jxd5 exdS 14.i.f3 l"!d8 15.E!he1
i.f6, but it is difficult to defend such
Now 14 . . . lt:)xe4 15.lt:)xe4 d5
a position over the board. White
16.lt:)c3 d4 17.lt:)d5 hd5 18.'?9xd5
has a lasting pull, for instance : 16.c3
E!d8 leaves Black a pawn down af­
h6 (16 . . . g6 17.f5 �xg3 18.hxg3 hd4
ter either 19.hb5+ axb5 2 0 .'?9xb5+
19.hd4 i.x£5 2 0 .i.b6 l"!e8 2 1 .hd5
l"!d7 2l.i.c1 0-0 22.E!heU, or 19.�e4
i.g4 2 2 . l"!f1) 17.c.!lbl.
dxe3 20.l"!xd8+ '?9xd8 2 l.fxe3 0-0
22 .i.d3 g6 23.'?9xe5.
Still, I do not approve of Black's
The queenside attack with 14 . . . last move either. This prophylax­
ll:Jd7 15.h4 E!b8 16.h5 0 - 0 17.g5 i.c6 is was not obligatory at all. Per-
is not too efficient due to 18.lt:)d5 ! haps Spragget did not like ll . . . i.d7!
hd5 19.exd5 b 4 2 0.a4 b 3 2 l .c3 in view of 12.e5, but then 12 . . . lt:)e8
and White's threats are much more 13.c.!lb1 (13.l"!hfl l"!c8 14.i.d3 ll:Jb4
tangible, e.g. 2 1 . . .f5 2 2 .gxf6 ll:Jxf6 15.c.!lb1 ll:Jxd3 16.E!xd3 , Wang Jue­
23.'?9f5�. Lei Tingjie, Xinghua 2 0 14, 16 . . .
b5) 1 3 . . . l"!c8 i s quite solid. The
9.i.e2 i.e7 play may continue with 14.i.d3 b5
15.a3 b4 16.axb4 (16.ll:Jxc6 hc6
9 . . . h5? ! 10 .h3 lt:)e5 turned out 17.axb4 E!b8) 16 . . . lt:)xb4 17.i.e2 l"!b8
well for Black in Shankland-Wang or 14.l"!he1 b5 15.i.d3 (15.a3 b4)
Chen, Las Vegas 2 013. However, af­ 15 . . . g6. White's space advantage re­
ter 10.ll:Jxc6 ! bxc6 ll.c.!lb1, White's mains, but he has not a pawn lever
pieces stand more harmoniously. on the kingside to use.

10.'?9g3 0-0 ll.f4 12.ghfl

68
 The English Attack

I doubt that White's rook's best It is preferable to avoid direct

place is on fl. It might be more use­ clashes in dynamic positions when
ful from e1 or even from its cur­ you are lagging behind in develop­
rent stand. A waiting approach like ment. I would vacate the d7-square
12 .@b1 .id7 (12 . . . bS 13.lt:Jxc6 �xc6 with :
14 . .if3) 13 . .if3 looks more unpleas­ 14 . . . .ie8 ! ? . Then White will need
ant. Note that the plan with e4-eS to redeploy his pieces which will
is risky, because it releases Black's give Black time to launch his own
pieces : 13.lt:Jf3 �ac8 (13 . . . eS 14.fxeS attack: 1S . .if3 bS 16.a3 (16.�f2 b4
li:lxeS 1S.lt:Jd4 bS 16 . .igS .ie6 17.lt:JfS 17.lt:la4 lt:Jd4 18 . .ixd4 .ixa4� 19.eS
li:lxe4 18.lt:Jxe4 .ixfS 19 . .ixe7 �xe7 lt:J d7) 16 . . . �b8 17.�f2 aS with mutu­
20.li:lxd6 .ig6 2 1.�d2 f6 2 2 . �hd1) al chances.
14.eS lL'ldS 1S.lt:JxdS exdS 16.c3 bS
17J"lxdS dxeS 18 .fxeS .ie6t. 13 dxe5
••• 14.fxe5 YlYxe5
15 .if4 ti'c5 16. �b3
•

12 J.d7 13.e5
• .•

It was better to play for a repe­

Vallejo should have kept the ten­ tition with 16 . .ie3 �eS (16 . . . lt:Jxd4
sion with 13.@b1 �ac8 14.lt:Jb3. [14. 17 ..ixd4 �c6oo) . Now White has not
li:lf3 lt:Jb4 1S.lt:Jd2 (1S.�d2 �aS) 1S . . . full compensation for the pawn.
ia4 16.�cl �aS 17.a3 �xc3 18 .bxc3
li:lc6�] 16 YlYa7 17 . .ie3 b6 18.�f2
.••

�ab8 19.g4 .ie8 (19 . . . lt:Jb4 ! ?)

20 .g5 �d7 2 1.h4 f5 2 2 . c.t>bl f4
23 .icl e5 24.h5 �c5 25.h6
•

.ig6 26.hxg7+ @xg7 27 .if3 •

�b4 28. toal hg5 29.�gl h6

30.a3 a5 31.�el gfe8 3 2 . �b5
�e7 33.axb4 axb4 34. �xb4 e4
35 .ie2 gas 36.gd6 �e5 37 .id2
• •

ga4 38 .YlYc3 YlYxc3 39.�xc3 e3

40.�xa4 exd2 41.�c3 Draw.
White is threatening e4-eS, e.g.
14 ... bS 1S.eS. It is tempting to stop it
with 14 . . . eS, but this pawn structure
is dangerous with opposite castles. 6. Volokiti n-Najer
White answers 1S. �f2 bS 16.fS b4 M uelheim 23. 1 1 .20 1 3
17.lt:ldS lt:lxdS 18.exdS lt:JaS 19.lL'lxaS
�xaS 2 0 .g4 and he is way ahead l.e4 c5 2.�f3 e6 3.d4 cxd4
in the race, e.g. 20 .. .f6 2 1 .h4 .ibS 4.�xd4 �c6 5.�c3 �c7 6 .ie3 •

22 .gS �c7 23.�d2 .ixe2 24.�xe2 a6 7.YlYd2 �f6 8 . 0-0-0 .ie7 9 .f3
�d7 2S.g6. b5 10.g4 �xd4 ll.ti'xd4 .ib7

69
 Part 2

12.g5 �h5 13.�bl �k8 14.YlYd2 pawn with . . ..tdS or . . .�c4. 16.lLlxd4
b4 15.�e2 0-0 17 . .id3 �fd8
It looks tempting to leave the
Or 1S.lLla4 dS 16.exdS hdS
rook on f8 and open the f-file with
17 . . . .tdS ! ? 18.@bl g6 19.�hfl �xeS
15 . . . d5 16.e5
2 0 .f4 �c7 2 1.lLlb3 f6 ! ? . However,
this decision is risky from a prac­
tical standpoint as it weakens the
castling position. White can sac a
piece, for instance: 2 2 .gxf6 �xf6
23.fS exfS 24 . .txfS 111xf5 2S.�xf5
hb3 26.axb3 gxfS 27.�dS+ @h8
28.�xfS lLlg7 29 . .td4= whereas
Black is unable to untie his pieces.
The source game Bauer-Lopez
16 . . . d4 ! Martinez went 18.@bl g6 19.�hfl
�xeS 2 0 .f4 �c7
Life is brighter for Black with an
active light-squared bishop !
16 . . . �xeS? 17.lLlg3 lLlxg3 18.hxg3
�c7 19J''! h 2 opens lines to White's
long-range pieces.
The idea for the counter-sacri­
fice was not new to Najer. For in­
stance, in September, Lopez Mar­
tinez introduced it against Bauer in
a slightly different setting: 13.lLle2 2 1.�f2 .tf8 2 2 . lLlb3 �dS 23 . .tb6
�c8 14.�d2 dS lS.eS �d6 = .
Kurmann-Berkes, Bad Wiessee
2 013, did hot improve anything:
17 . .tg2 �fd8 18.f4 hg2 19 .�xg2
�c4 ! 2 0 .@bl ltJxf4 2 1.hf4 �xd4
2 2 .�xd4 �xd4+. Black's combina­
tion became possible due to the hit
on a2 so we must recheck White's
idea with the insertion of @bl b4.

17.�xd4 0-0 18 . .te2

1S . . . d4 ! . White's king il) still on
cl here. This gives Black a tempo in Analysis confirms that 18 . .tg2
some lines where he attacks the a2- .tcS 2 0 .�hgl �fd8 2 0 .�f2 does not

70
 The English Attack

leave White a pawn up (although 2S . . . :gxdl 26.:gxdl .ie4 27.l!Jxe7

even then the game is even, since �xe7 2 8 . :gd2 aS is probably slight­
the �+l!J is at least a match to a ly more accurate. In the game Black
queen+bad bishop), due to 2 0 . . . also achieves an opposite-coloured
�b6 2 l .f4 .bg2 2 2 J'!xg2 :gds 23.f5 bishops attack. White's defence is
l'kd8 24.fxe6 fxe6 25.:gg4 :gxeS. quite difficult.

18 gfd8 19.§'cl g6 2 0.ghel

••. 26.�xe7+ §'xe7 27.gxd8 +
�xeS 21.f4 §'c7 §'xd8 2 8.ge2 i.g6

White failed to hold this ex­

22.f5 ! ? tremely unpleasant position.

Black came out o f the open­ 29 .b3 a5 30 .i.f2 '%Yd5 31.i.g3

ing with the better pawn structure a4 (31.. .h4 ! 32 .hh4 a4- +) 32.gd2
so White must attempt to alter it. fff3 33.bxa4 b3 34.axb3 ffxb3 +
22 .-bhS gxhS would leave the b7- 35.§'b2 ffxa4 36.he5 �h7
bishop without an opponent on the 37.�cl §'e4 38.i.f6 §'el + 39.gdl
light squares so Volokitin's deci­ §'e3 + 40.gd2 §'gl + 41.gdl §'xh2
sion is understandable. His other 42.gd2 §'gl + 43.gdl §'e3 +
option was really grim: 2 2 .ltlb3 l!Jg7 44.gd2 gxc2 + 45.Wxc2 hc2
23.E1xd8+ :gxd8 24.l!Jd4 .icS . 46.�xc2 h4 47.gd3 ffe4 48. �d2
tfg2 + 49.�e3 �g6 50. �f4 '%Yf2 +
22 ••• e5 23.fxg6 51.gf3 Wh2 + 5 2 .�e4 h3 53.i.e5
We2 + 54.ge3 Wg2 + 55.gf3 h2
23.f6 .if8 24.ltlb3 l!Jf4 2S . .ig4 56.i.xh2 We2 + 57.ge3 Wxh2 0-1
l"la8 26 ..bf4 exf4 27.:gfl :gxdl
28.�xdl :gds 2 9.§'cl .id6 gives
Black a passed pawn up and the 7 . Robson -Wang ,Yue
bishop pair. Rapid N i ngbo ( 1 . 1 ), 25.07.201 3

23 hxg6
••• 24.i.xh5 gxh5 l.e4 c5 2 . �f3 e6 3.d4 cxd4
25.�f5 i.e4 4.�xd4 �c6 5.�c3 ffc7 6.i.e3

71
 Part 2

a6 7.YlYd2 tilf6 8 .0-0-0 j.e7 9.£3 are passive. The subsequent play is
b5 10.g4 tilxd4 ll.'exd4 j.b7 so logical and straightforward that
12 .g5 tilh5 13.j.h3 :!! c 8 14.YlYd2 it does not need comments.
b4 15.tila4
23 .ih3 'i!le7 24 .ifl a5 25 .id3
• • •

h5 26.h3 h4 27.:!!h gl g5 2 8 .:!! d el

:!!b 8 29.:!!g4 f6

15 • .• i.c6 ! ?

This game is not too important

for the opening theory since Black
has yet another good option in his
possession - 15 . . . d5 . However, it White is looking for a way to re­
sets a milestone in the understand­ turn the exchange. 3 0 J �ggl is also
ing of the Taimanov pawn struc­ murky due to the possible raid of
tures. Black's king to f4 (after . . . .ig3) fol­
lowd up by . . . dS. White will be un­
16.tilb6 :!!b 8 17.j.g4 :!!xb6 ! ! able to defend both the h3- and f3-
18.hb6 'exb6 19 .bh5 'ea5 • pawns.
20.'i!lbl 'exg5 2 1.'exg5 hg5
22 .j.g4 j.f4 30 j.e3 31.:!! e l j.f2 3 2 .:!!fl
• .•

j.g3 33. 'i!lcl 'i!ld6 34. 'i!ld2 'i!le5

35.:!!g l d5 36. 'i!le2 d4 37 .:!! g 2 :!!h 8
38.:!!g l :!!h 5 39.:!!g 2 f5-+ 40.exf5
exf5 41.:!!4xg3 hxg3 42.:!!xg3
'i!lf4 43.'i!lf2 j.d5 44.b3 :!! h 8
45.j.e2 :!! e 8 46.:!!g l :!! c 8 47.j.d3
h£3 48.j.xt"S 'i!lxf5 49. 'i!lxf3
:!!x c2 50.:!!g4 :!! c3 + 51.'i!lf2
:!!xh3 5 2 .:!!xd4 gh2 + 53.'i!lf3
'i!le5 54.:!! e 4+ 'i!ld5 55.:!! g4 :!!h5
It turns out that White has to 56.:!!g 2 'i!ld4 57. 'i!lg4 :!!h 8 58.:!! c 2
struggle for the draw despite be­ :!! e 8 59. 'i!lxg5 :!! e 5+ 60.'i!lf4
ing an exchange up. His kingside 'i!ld3 61.:!!h 2 :!! e 2 6 2 .:!!h 3+ 'i!ld4
pawns are vulnerable and the rooks 63.:!!h 8 :!!f2 + 0-1

72
 The English Attack

lS.<;t>al d5? !
8. Demetrio-Schiendorfer
ICCF email, 1 0.09.2009
18 . . . Wfxc2 ? ! would give White
tempi for :t'!bl and :!'!bel, but 18 . . .
l.e4 c5 2 . �f3 e6 3.d4 cxd4
J.b4 ! 19.J.d4 J.c3+ 2 0 .hc3 Wfxc3+
4.�xd4 �c6 5 . � c3 'lfc7 6.J.e3
2 1.Wfxc3 :t'!xc3 is a decent alterna­
a6 7.'lfd2 �f6 8 . 0-0-0 J.e7 9.f3
tive.
b5 10.g4 �xd4 l l.'lfxd4 .ib7
12.g5 �h5 13 .ih3 �k8 14.J.g4
•

b4 15 .ixh5 bxc3 16.Wxg7 cxb 2 +

•

17.<.!.>xb2 �U'8

OTB, I would choose this end­

game because I would have a lasting
initiative without any risk. White's
This forced line is critical for extra pawn would be irrelevant as
Black's set-up. At first sight it looks Black's rooks are very active. He
rather messy, but in fact the game is can play later .. .fS or . . . h6 gxh6 :t'!h8 .
completely balanced and it is even
White who should find a couple of In a correspondence game, how­
accurate moves. Black has only one ever, Black can boldly aim for more
tangible target - the t7-pawn and tangled play. His idea to take on e4
his pieces are more compact. This is is double edged as it opens the f­
clearly seen in the line 18.Wd4 J.cS+ file and weakens the e8-king. This
(McDonald-Brunello, London 2013 might tell if White succeeded in
saw 18 ... d5 when 19. <;t> al! would shifting his queen to the queenside.
have been equal) 19.Wfxc5 'l!tlxcS For instance, he has the interesting
20 .hc5 :!'!xeS 2 l .h4 h6+, Rasik-Mi­ counter-strike 19 .c4 Wfxc4 (19 . . . dxe4
ton, Slovakia 2 0 14. 2 0 .fxe4 he4 21.:t'!hfl J.g6 2 2 .hg6
fxg6= ) 2 0 . :t'!cl Wfd3 2 l.:t'!xc8+ hc8
18.c3 seemingly defends the c­ 2 2 .J.f4 dxe4 23 .:t'!cl J.b7 24.Wfe5 with
pawn, but 18 . . . J.d6 (18 . . . d5 19 .Wfd4 an initiative, although 24 . . . Wfd5 de­
id6 2 0 .'1!tff6 J.e7= is a repetition of fends everything. Demetrio opts for
moves) would force 19.:t'!xd6 since the most solid continuation :
19.J.d4? eS cuts the g7-queen off
from its king. 19 .id4!
•

73
 Part 2

19.c4 dxe4 2 0 .fxe4 i.xe4 21.Elhfl

i.g6 22 .i.xg6 fxg6 is equal.

19 dxe4
..• 20 .fxe4 he4
2U::!hfl i.g6

Caruana's last move was obvi­

ously aimed against Black's the­
matic idea 13 . . . b4 14.lt'la4 dS when
22 .Ae2 15.lt'lb6 ! Elad8 (the exchange ·sacri­
fice 15 . . . dxe4 is in White's favour)
This move obstructs the second 16.e5 lt'ld7 17.lt'lxd7 would face Black
rank. 22 .i.f3 ! is more unpleasant. with unpleasant position with­
The reason behind it is the manoeu­ out counterplay. However, 13 . . . d5 !
vre 22 . . .�a5 23.c3 �xgS 24.Elf2 , right away is possible - 14.g5 lt'ld7
aiming for the b-file. White's activ­ 15.exd5 b4.
ity would be very unpleasant. In­
stead, he assumes a passive stand 14.l::!h gl J.c6 15.J.d3 b4
which costs him the initiative. 16.ti�e2

22 'ti'a5 23 .ib2 l::! c7 24.h4

. .• • 16.e5 would be well met by 16 ...
hc2 25 .ih5 ! .ixdl 26.hf7+
• lt'le8 ! .
®d8 27.l::!xdl+ l::! d7 28.l::! c l Wd2 The knight i s very important for
29.Yfe5 J.d6 30.Wf6 + l::! e 7 3 1.Wf3 the defence as I already mentioned
'ti'xcl+ draw. in the previous note. 16 . . . lt'ld5
17.lt'lxd5 i.xdS 18.f4 d6 19.g5 dxeS
2 0 .i.xe5 �c6 2 1.f5 offers White the
initiative, although Black's position
9. Caruana-Svidler is quite resilient. After the knight's
Rhodes 26. 1 0.201 3 retreat, the manoeuvre lt'le2-g3 is
slow. Black will trade the active d3-
l.e4 c5 2 . li:Jf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 bishop with 17 . . .i.b5 and then . . . d6
4.li:Jxd4 li:Jc6 5.li:Jc3 'ti'c7 6.J.e3 a6 will neutralise the opponent's spa­
7.Vd2 li:Jf6 8 .0-0-0 Ae7 9.f3 b5 tial advantage. Obviously White
10.g4 li:Jxd4 ll . .ixd4 .ib7 1 2 . ®bl should seek a quick conclusion:
0-0 13.Vf2 17.lt'le4 f6 18.exf6 lt'lxf6 19.i.xf6

74
 The English Attack

ixf6 2 0.g5 .ie5 2 1.li'lf6+ , but 2 1 . . . This position illustrates Black's

l"lxf6 ! 2 2 .gxf6 i.x£6 offers u s anoth­ strategic aim in the English Attack.
er example where Black's bishop + If White has not anything forced,
pawn hold their own against a rook. he is even slightly worse. Black has
an open file against the enemy king
and an extra pawn in the centre. the
pawn storm . . . a5-a4, . . . b4-b3 is not
easy to stop. An important factor in
Black's favour is that queens trade
would underline the weakness of
White's kingside pawns. For in­
stance, 19.f4 .ic5 2 0 .f5 g6 2 1 .hc5
�xeS. Caruana attempts to take f4
under control.
Black will always be threaten­
ing to build up a �+.i battery on 19.gg4? ! e5! 20 .ie3 'ec6
•

the main diagonal. Moreover, the

f3 and h2-pawns are weak. 20 . . . g6 ! was more cunning.
White has not an active continua­
16 ••• d5 17.g5 tion as 21. li'lg3 could be met by 2 1 . . .
f5 o r 2 1 . . .li'lf4. The text does not ac­
The pawn structure after 17.e5 tually threaten f3 and it wastes time.
is good for White only if his knight White could exploit it with 2 1.li'lg3
is on b6. Otherwise the d7-knight when 2 1 . . .hf3? fails to 2 2 .li'lf5 l:%ce8
has good prospects from c5 : 17 . . . 23.l:%c4.
lt:ld7 18.f4 .ia4 19 J'!d2 ltlc5 2 0 .li'lc1
a5 setting up the trap 2 1.f5? .ig5
22.l:%e2 li'lxd3 23.li'lxd3 .ih4 ! with an
initiative, for example, 24.�g2 �c4
25 ..ic5 l:%xc5 2 6 .b3 �c3 27.ltlxc5
.ib5 28.li'ld3 a4 ! .

17 ••• ltlh5 18.exd5 .ixd5

22 f5
.••

A good move, but Black may

have technical problems to con­
vert his advantage due to his weak-

75
 Part 2

ened king. He had more solid op­ 31. t0xf3 exd3 32.ttxd3 Vxd3
tions : 2 2 . . . .id6 ! 23 . .ie4 l!Jf4 24.hf4 33.cxd3 i.f8 34.i.d2 i.d6 35.t0g5
he4 25.fxe4 exf4. Then 2 6 .e5 heS gxfl + 36.gxfl i.xh2 37.hb4
27.l!Jd3 .id6 28.l!Jxf4 does not help i.e5 38.t0e6 t0g7 39,ge1 i.g3
owing to 28 . . .f5 ! 29.Eih4 .ie7 30.l!Jd3 40.l:� e4 ges 41. t0c5 h5 42 .i.c3
aS with domination. gxe4 43.t0xe4 i.f4 44.�c2 t0f5
45.�dl �t7 46.i.d2 i.e5 47.b4
23.gxf6 t0xf6 24,gggl t0h5 �e6 48.a4 t0g3 49. t0xg3 hg3
25.tM2 hf3 26.t0b3 50.b5 axb5 51.axb5 �d5 52 .i.e3
i.d6 53. �e2 .ic5 54.i.g5 i.b6
Black has won a pawn, but White 55.�f3 �c5 56.�e4 i.c7 57.d4+
set up co-ordination between his �xb5 58.�d5 i.g3 59.i.e3 �b4
pieces. Eventually, Svidler failed to 60.�e6 h4 61.d5 �c4 6 2 .d6
bring the point home. hd6 63. �xd6 �d3 64 ..igl �e4
65.�e6 g5 66.�f6 �f4 67.i.h 2 +
26 .. ,gfd8 27.ttf2 gf8 28.i.h6 �g4 68. �g6 �h3 69. �xg5 �xh2
gf7 29.tte3 e4 30.t0d4 ttd5 70 .�xh4 draw.

76
 Pa rt 3

Th e Th i rd Ra n k Set-U p
I consider here set-ups with tt:Jc3, .id3, 0-0. White often follows up with
ie3, f4, Wlf3, but I also analyse �e2+id2 in the �n. Plans with f4 and long
castling are covered in Part 4.

The big flaw of White's set-up is that id3 cuts the queen's support for
the d4-knight and leaves the g4-square without control. The Taimanov way
to exploit that is a direct attack with . . . tt:Jb8-c6-e5-g4 while the bishop goes
to cS. The Kan fans prefer the flexible development . . . tt:Jb8-d7-c5 planning
to swap the d3-bishop.

77
Pa rt 3 . The Third Ra n k Set- U p

M a i n I d eas

l.e4 c5 2.tbf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 You may have noted that I did
4.tbxd4 ltlc6 5.ltlc3 Y!!c7 6 . .ie3 a6 not even mention possible long
7 .id3 ltlf6 (7 . . . b5 is dubious due to castling. It is rarely seen since Black
·
•

8.ltlxc6) 8 . 0-0 obtains a good game after s :�e2

.id6 ! ? 9. 0-0-0 .ie5 10.ltJxc6 bxc6.

A plus for the Taimanov: Black

avoids plans with Y!!e2 , 0-0-0.

In the diagram position, Black

can choose 8 . . . ttJxd4 9.hd4 .ic5,
followed up by . . . d6, . . . e5, . . . .ie6 .
This i s a solid plan where White en­
joys a temporary initiative. Howev­
White is playing "by the book" . er, I think that Black should exploit
He leads out the knights first, then the biggest flaw of the opponent's
the bishops. That ensures him a set-up - the g4-square :
lead in development which could
easily grow into a crushing kingside 8 • .• ltle5 ! 9.h3
attack. For instance, the Sche­
veningen set-ups with 8 . . . d6 are 9.ltJf3 ltJfg4 10.ltJxe5 ltJxe3
very risky, so Black should better 1UWh5 ! is analysed up to a draw
look for concrete play on the cen­ endgame. I'd like to recommend
tral dark squares. 9 . . . ttJeg4 ! ? 10 . .id2 d6 with a solid
position and mutual chances.
A plus for the Taimanov: in order to
9 .ic5
develop the bishop on d3 , White has
• .•

to play first .ie3 which rules out set­ At this point, White must decide
ups with .id2 . the further pace of the game.

78
 The Third Rank Set-Up

Taimanov 1 Taimanov 2

The oldest approach is to push The current state of theory is in

e4-e5 : 10 .'1'9e2 d6 ll.f4 ll'lg6 1 2 .ll'lb3 Black's favour.
ixe3 13.'1'9xe3 0-0 14J'�ael b5
15.e5 dxe5 16.hg6 hxg6 17.fxe5 In the Kan, Black refrains from
ttJd7 18.ll'ld4 i.b7, but practice has . . . ll'lc6 in favour of . . . ll'lbd7:
proved that Black is fine. White's
hopes for reviving this line have l.e4 c5 2 . �f3 e6 3.d4 cxd4
been connected lately with the ex­ 4. �xd4 a6 5.�c3 �c7 6.i.d3
tremely sharp line :

lO.'it>hl d6 ll.f4 �g6 12 .�el

0-0!? 13.f5 �e5 14.�h4 b5

Black has sidestepped the alleg­

edly dangerous English Attack so
he might be tempted to enter the
Taimanov now. However, 6 . . . ll'lc6
15.l'U'3 exf5 16.exf5 �xf3 can be met by 7.ll'lxc6 \Wxc6 ! ? 8 . 0 - 0
17.gxf3 i.b7 18.ggl i.xf3 19.�xf3 which looks balanced, but i t i s a leap
i.e3 20.�f6 hgl 2 1.�g5 in the unknown.

Practical experience has seen 6 �f6 7.0-0 (7.\We2 i.d6 ! ?) 7 . . .

.••

Black gradually improving his de­ d6

fence in this position. The second
players also learned how to coun­ Black's next moves are 8 . . . ll'lbd7,
ter-attack. 9 . . . i.e7 (only to 8.a4 he plays 8 . . . b6

79
 Part 3

first) waiting for White to define his Kan 1

plan. Delay . . . bS in order to rule out
queenside activity with a2-a4, c2-
c3.

A plus for the Kan : Black's set-up is

very flexible. It offers the opponent
a wide choice and an ample ground
for positional mistakes.

White has 4 main set-ups:

See g;,�me 18 Kerekes-A. Ko­
vacs, Hungary 2 007.
1. 8.f4 �bd7 9 .Wf3 J.e7 10.J.e3

�
'

2. 8.f �bd7 9.�f3 b5! lO.cj;>hl

(lO .�el i.p7 ll.i.d2 .te7) 10
J.b7 •..

ll.Wel · ·

Kan 2

The third rank set-up is ineffi­

cient against . . . lLlbd7. It is only dan­
gerous if Black submits himself to
an attack with 10 . . . 0-0? ! l l.g4. In­
stead, we should fianchetto the
A good option here is ll . . . b4
bishop to b7 and restrict the oppo­
12 .�dl d� or 12 . . . lLlc5 13.lLlf2 dS.
nent's pawn advance by . . . g6, aim­
ing for this position:
3. s . tl\'e2 �bd7 9 . cj;>hl i.e7
10.i.d2 ! ?; 0-0 ll.f4 �c5 12 .gael
Ka n 3

or for ... h7-h5-h4 as in the fol­

lowing example :
80
 The Third Rank Set-Up

Objectively best here is 12 . . . b5 Kan 4

which, however, assumes a draw in
the variation 13.e5 ll'lfd7 14.i.xh7+
lfixh7 15.�h5+ @g8 16J'!f3 dxe5
17J!h3 f5 18.�h7+ .
12 . . . ll'lxd3 13.cxd3 b5 is passive,
but at least Black will be playing for
all three results.

4. 8.a4 b6 9 .f4 .ib7 10.�f3

�bd7 11 .id2
• ll . . . i.e7 (ll . . . g6 ! ? 12.�h3 .ig7)
12 .gael 0-0

A plus for the Kan : There is little Black is waiting for White to play
theory and the play is not forced. 13.�h3 before putting in 13 . . . ll'lc5.
You do not have to constantly watch See game 16 Cubas-Hellsten, Bue­
for new developments. nos Aires 2006.

Weapon of Choice

If you feel confident in your home preparation and regularly check modern
practice for new developments in position Taimanov 2, then the Taimanov
should be your weapon of choice. It leads to very sharp play with a lot of cal­
culations and offers Black considerable winning chances. If you started with
the Kan move order, you should try to steer the game into the Taimanov
with 6 . . . ll'lc6. The only sensible White deviation would be 7.ll'lxc6 �xc6 ! ? .

I f you are much stronger than your opponent, you may want t o choose
the Kan. It allows many different move orders and the cost of every move in
the opening is much lower than in the Taimanov. You could always outplay
your opponent in the middlegame. It would be enough to kill his d3-bish­
op with . . . ll'ld7-c5xd3 in order to secure your king, and patiently wait for an
opportunity to open the main diagonal for you b7-bishop.

81
Part 3. The Third Rank Set-Up

Taimanov - Step by Step

l.e4 c5 2.tlJf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 Black lacks a sensible plan. The

4.lt)xd4 tlJc6 5.tlJc3 �c7 6 ..ie3 common ll....ie712.Wf3 d613.El:adl
a6 7..id3 Wc7 (13...0-0 14.Wh3) 14.Wh3! 0-0
lS..igS h6 (15...Effd8 16.El:e3 Wcs
17.tt'ld5---t) 16.hh6! gxh6 17.e5! is
·

gloom.
Emms and Ribli advocate 11...
.id6 12..id4 eS 13..ie3 .icS. Then
14.Wf3 he3 15.El:xe3 �cS 16.Wf5!
�f8 (16...0-0 17.tt'ld5) 17.El:dl We7
18.El:f3 �g8 19.h4 h6 20.tt'ld5 hdS
2l.exd5 d6 22.c4 is by no means
fun for Black, but 14.a4! b4 lS.tt'ldS
tt'lxd516.exd5 Wxd517.Wg4 is a real
disaster: 17...0-0-0 18.hc5 WxcS
7...tlJf6 19..ie4---t ( or 19.c3).

The other popular move is 7... 8.0-0

bS. It scores well and Emms recom­
mends it in his repertoire book, but Castling is by far the most fashio­
I definitely do not like the position nable continuation nowadays, but
after 8.tt'lxc6! Wxc6 9.0-0 .ib710.a3 White has also tried:
tt'lf6 ll.El:el!
a) 8.tt'lb3. This retreat is aimed
against 8.0-0 tt'lxd4 9.hd4 .icS
which isquite safe for Black. White's
idea is to organise a Scheveningen­
style attack with 0-0, f4, Wf3. Still,
wasting a tempo in a sharp posi­
tion ( even two tempi, since White
needs his knight for the attack and
often brings it back to d4 en route
to f3), reduces his chances of get-

82
 The Third Rank Set-Up

ting an edge. bxc6 (9 . . . dxc6 10.f4 e5 ll.f5 b5

Black should develop by 8 . . . . b5 1 2 . a4 ! ) 10.f4 e5 11.f5 ! .ie7 12 .�f3
9.f4 d6 10 .�f3 .ib7 and trade his c6- .ib7 (12 . . . 0-0 13 .g4 h6 14.h4 tlJh7
knight for the d3-bishop. 15.g5 ! +-) 13.�g3 0-0 14 . .ih6.

b) 8.�e2 , intending to castle

long, is seldom seen lately. Black's
A. 8 . . . ttJxd4 ! ? 9 . .ixd4 .ic5
most testing answer is 8 . . . .id6 ! ?
9.0-0-0 (9 .g3 .ie5 10 .tlJb3 d5 ! ) 9 . . .
ieS, when after 1 0 .tlJxc6 both cap­
tures are fine for him :
10 . . . dxc6 ll.tlJa4 tlJd7 12 .�d2
id6 (12 . . . .if6 ! ? - Miladinovic) 13.f4
eS 14 . .ic4 .ie7 15.�f2 ! = , Sax-Mila­
dinovic, Ano Liosia 1999 ;
1 0 . . . bxc6 ! ? ll. tlJa4 l'!b8 12 .b3
(12.c3 ! ?) 12 . . . d5 13 . .ic5 .id6 ! , Ro­
din-Hasangatin, Voronezh 2003.

Black's strategy is simple and

straightforward. He wants to com­
plete development and play in the
centre. Black's next steps are: . . . d6,
... e5, ... .ie6 and castling when pos­
sible.

Remember! We refrain from

. . . b5 in the opening. Thus we
gain time for development and de­
prive the opponent of a target on
Black has a number of alter­
the queenside.
natives here. Note that the Sche­
veningen set-up with 8 . . . d6 is very
White has three main plans from
risky against 7 . .id3 . White often ob­
this point:
tains a crushing attack with simple
developing moves like f4, �f3-h3 , 1 . He doubles or triples on the d­
�ael. file. Then we move our king to e7.
2. White splits our kingside
pawns by: 1 0 .ixf6 gf6 11.�g4 @f8 .
A. 8 . . . ttJxd4; B. 8 . . . ttJe5
W e can leave our pawn o n d 7 in or­
8 ... .id6? ! is an inferior alterna­ der to have . . . .id6 or defend it by
tive because White quickly launch­ . . . .ic6. There is nothing to worry
es a kingside attack - 9.ttJxc6 ! about as we gradually connect our

83
 Part 3

rooks and display activity on the 16 . . . 1'!g5 17.g3 aS ! ] 14 . . . 'ifle7 lS.i.hS

kingside. l'!af8 16.'iflhl �b6 .

3. White plays f4. We answer it ll • .• .ixd4 1 2 . t!fxd4 e5 13. t!fb4

by . . . eS, . . . i.e6, exf4 before castling. .ie6

Al. 10.i.e2 ! ? ; A2 . 10.i.xf6 ; A3 .

lO.i.xcS

Al. 10 .ie2 ! ?
•

This position occurred in the

very first game played in this varia­
tion. At the Black side was the God­
father Taimanov. White hopes to
use the weakness of d6.

10 d6
White might need his rook on
•••

the queenside so 14.1'!fdl is a logical

Many strong players prefer 10 . . .
alternative. Black can answer with
eS, but I have strong doubts about
either 14 . . . 'ifle7 ! ? when 15.f4 is not
the soundness of this choice. Af­
dangerous in view of lS . . . aS 16.�b5
ter ll.i.xcS �xc5 12 .�d3 bS (12 . . . d6
(16.�a3 �b6 + 17.'iflfl �b4 18 .fxe5
13J%adl 'ifle7 14.�g3±), the novelty
dxeS) 16 . . . 1'!hc8, or 14 . . . �c5 15.a3
13J�tbl! assures White of a lasting
�xb4 16.axb4 'ifle7 17.1'!a5 !!hc8
edge. For example: 13 . . . i.b7 14.b4
18.f3 i.c4 = , Dembo-V.Schneider,
�c6 (14 . . .�c7 15.a4 l'!c8 16.axb5±)
Plovdiv 2 0 0 8 .
15.a4 bxa4 16.1'!dl 0-0 17.tt:\d5 tt:\xdS
18.exd5. 14 ••• t!fc5 (14 . . . 'ifle7) 15.a3

ll.'ffd3 15.�xb7 0-0 16.a3 l'!tb8 17.�e7

!!dB= (threatening l'!d7- +) leads to
White scores poorly after a repetition.
ll.i.x£6 ! ? , but this is his most prin­
cipled continuation. The compari­ 15 • • • 0-0-0 ! ?
son with line A2 is in White's fa­
vour here because of the weak d6- Hector-Haba, Hamburg 2 0 04,
pawn. Black must defend very accu­ saw 15 ... �b4 16.ab4 'ifle7 17.1'!d2
rately: ll . . . gxf6 12 .�d2 i.d7 13.1'!adl l'!hc8 18.f3 i.c4 = . I decided to face
l'!g8 14.�h6 [14.�f4 'ifle7 15.1'!d3 the opponent with more complex
i.c6 16.a3 (16.i.h5 1'!af8 17.1'!fdl l'!g5) problems.

84
 The Third Rank Set-Up

16.gd2 'Ml4 17.ab4 d5 = . O r 12 .�h4 �e5 13.�h6 ritlg8

14.'iflh1 �g5 15.�h3 h5= .
Black has even some slight in-
itiative, M amedov-Delchev, Be- 12 • . • h5 13.�h4
nasque 2005.
13 .�h3 �f4 14.i.e2 b5 15J''l a d1
should be met by 15 . . . d6!oo. (15 . . .
A2 . 10 .ixf6 gxf6 l l.�g4!
• rifle7? lost a pawn after 16.Eld5 d6
17.Elh5, Balashov-Tregubov, Kato­
wice 1992.)

13 ••. .te7 14.f4 b 5

This is more precise than 11. riflh1

h5 and Black follows the scheme
... b5, . . ..tb7, . . . 'itle7, . . . Elag8, . . .f5 like
in the game Morozevic-Poluljahov,
Orel 199 2 . Black's game is easy. He wants
The text is a n attempt t o drag to complete development and play
Black's king to f8 instead of the bet­ . . . ritlg7, . . . Elag8, . . . riflf8 . White can­
ter place e7. not wait.

ll . . . ritlf8 15.f5 !

This is not obligatory at all. In Tzeitlin-Soffer, Tel Aviv 1994,

Black has perfect compensation White delayed this thrust - 15.Elae1
for the pawn after ll .. .'�e5 12 .'�g7 and Black achieved the redeploy­
(perhaps 1 2 . 'iflh1 is more solid, 12 . . . ment following 15 . . . i.b7 16.f5 �e5 !
�g5 13 .'�e2 h5 14.f4 �g4oo) 12 . . . Elf8 17.a4 i.c6 !
13.riflh1 �g5 14.�h7 Elg8 15.�h3 b5
The pawn structure in the cen­
16.f4 �g7 17.Elf3 Elh8 18.Elg3 �f8
tre is identical with The Poisoned
19.�g4 i.b7. If White plays h3, riflh2 ,
pawn variation in the Najdorf. Black
Black can shift his dark-squared
should keep control of c4 to avoid
bishop to the h2-b8 diagonal.
the manoeuvre lt:ld1-e3-c4. In Fe­
dorov-Miezis, Istanbul 2 0 0 0 , White
12.riflhl

85
 Part 3

chose 17.ll)dl at once, but could not ll.�hl

even equalise after 17 . . . �g7 18J''!f3
:i'!ag8 19.c3 �f8 2 0 .tt:le3 :!'!g5 2 l .:i'!e2 The plan with f4 is currently ac­
:!'!hg8 22 ..ic2 .ic5 23.tt:lfl d5. knowledged to be the only real dan­
ger for Black. Other options are:
18.a5 :!'!e8 19.tt:'ldl .id8 2 0.c3 �g7
2l.b4 :!'!eg8+. a) ll.a4 White prevents b7-b5,
but we were not too eager to play
15 Yfe5 16.gf3
•.•
it anyway! ll . . . d6 12 .a5 0-0 13.�d2
.td7 14J'i:fel :i'!ac8 15.tt:la4 i.xa4
16Jl:abl .ib7 17.tt:le2 .id6 18.tt:lg3 16.:!'!xa4 tt:lg4 17.c3 :i'!fd8 18 . .ifl
�e7. tt:le5= Mitkov-Zapata, Mexico City
2 0 07.

b) ll.tt:'la4 �c7 12 .c4 d6 13.:i'!cl

.id7

White seems unable to improve Now the typical hedgehog for­

his position. We can continue with mation after 14.tt:lc3 0-0= is fine for
. . . .id6, . . . �e7, or . . . �g7-h8 . Black since two minor pieces have
been exchanged and he has plen­
ty of room for manoeuvring. White
A3 . 10 .hc5 fixeS can open the centre with :
14.c5 0-0 15.cxd6 �xd6 16.tt:lc5
.ic6 17.�e2 :i'!ac8 ! = . See game 12
Zaragatski-Delchev, Bad Wiessee
2005.

c) l l.�d2 d6

You should remember to refrain

from . . . b7-b5 before castling safe­
ly. Although the variation ll . . . b5
12 .:!'!el tt:lg4 13 .e5 tt:lxe5 14.tt:le4 �c7

86
 The Third Rank Set-Up

15.�b4 d5 16.lLld6+ �d7 17.�xe5

�xd6 18.�d4 i.b7 19.a4 bxa4
20J'�e3 is not clear, in a practical
game White's game is much easier.
12 .�ad1
Solak's rook lift 1 2 .�ae1 (having
in mind �e3-f3xf6) sets concrete
problems. For instance, 12 . . . 0-0
13.Ele3 e5 14.�f3 �h8 15.�xf6 gxf6 14.�fe1 �hd8 15.i.f3 i.c6 16.�e3
16.�h6 �g8 17.lLld5, Solak-Safar­ �d7= .
li, Baku 2 0 13, gives White an ini­
tiative: 17 . . . �g7 (17 . . . �g6 18.�f8 + ll . . . d6!
Elg8 19.�xt7) 18.lLlxf6 i.e6 19.�e1
�b4 2 0 .�e3 �d2 2 1 .h3, when Black ll ... b5 is often seen, but it is con­
is deprived of any counterplay. I nected with a wrong plan.
think that it would be wiser to re­ Black obtains a good game with
frain from castling: 12 . . . e5 ! 13.�e3 a central strategy.
ie6 14.�f3 h 6 ! ? 15.i.e2 �e7 16.�g3 1. His first aim is to prevent e4-
g5 17.�d3 �hd8. White stays pretty, e5. It is best achieved by . . . e6-e5.
but I do not see any threat to Black 2. Then he should castle.
in near future. 3 . He must evade some tactical
12.�fe1 is inconsistent. Besides tricks, connected with a sacrifice on
12 . . . i.d7, Black gets time to castle: f6. Moves like . . . �h8 or . . . �e5 serve
12 ... 0-0 13.�ad1 e5 14.�e3 (14.i.fl well this cause.
Eld8 =) 14 . . . i.e6 15.i.e2 �fd8 16.�d3 4. The next stage is to organ­
lLle8 17.lLld5 (17.�g3 �h8) 17 . . . b5 ! = ise counterplay in the centre by ex­
(preventing any ideas with c2-c4). changing on f4 and activate the
White can switch over to plans with rooks - to e8 and c8 .
f4, for example: 1 2 .�h1 e5 ! 13.�ae1
0-0 14.f4 �h8 ! ? anticipating 15.lLld5 1 2 .f4
lLld5 16.ed5 �d5= as in Kotronias­
Pelletier, Athens 2 0 05. Berg advocated 1 2 .f3, but I do
12 . . . i.d7 not see any reason behind this
move. After 12 . . . 0-0 13 .�e1 eS, he
White would get a slight pull in did not find anything better than
the endgame in the event of 1 2 . . . 0- 14.f4 (14.�h4 i.e6) 14 . . . exf4 15.�xf4
0 13.i.e2 �d8 14.�d4 �xd4 15.�xd4 i.e6 16.�d2 �g5 = , Berg-Pelletier,
e5 16.�b4 Crete 2 0 07.
13.i.e2 �e7 Black is just in time 12 .�e1 e5 13.lLla4 �c6 14.�b4
to regroup successfully: is a provocation to 14 . . . b5? ! when

87
 Part 3

15.ttlc3 followed up by a4 will be in but then Black's king would feel fine
White's favour. Instead, 14 . . . .ie6 is in the middle: 15 . . . l:!g8 ! 16.a4 .ic6
equal. 17.Elad1 '!9b4+!.

12 ... e5 ! 13.Yfel 14.gdl exf4 15.c!Lld5

13.'!9e2 .ig4 ! 14.'!9el .ie6 is simi­ White must cut Black's queen
lar to the main line. from e5. He would be struggling af­
ter 15.Elxf4 �e5 16.'!9d2 0-0 17.Eldfl
13.ttld5 lLlxd5 14.exd5 deserves
Elac8 .
attention.
Now safest is 14 . . . 0-0= 15.fxe5
15 c!Llxd5 16.exd5 �xd5
(15.'!9d2 f5 16 . .ie2 a5 ! 17J'U3 .id7)
.•.

17.gxf4 �g5 18.gd4 0-0 19.gxd6

15 . . . dxe5, when 16.'!9h5? ! f5 17 . .ixf5
gadS = .
hf5 18 J''i xf5 1!9xd5 19.Elxe5 walks
into 19 . . . '!9a2+.
14 ... 1!9xd5 is risky because af-
B. 8 ttle5
ter 15.'!9h5 Black will have to castle
• ••

long: 15 . . . .ie6 ! ? 16.Elael 0-0-0, but

Black's knight strives to reach
this line is also more challenging.
g4, for example, 9.f4 lLleg4 10 . .id2
.ic5 ll.lLlce2 e5 (ll . . . d6 12 .h3 e5 is
13 .ie6
also possible) 12 .fxe5 d5 ! ! (only
• .•

move ! ) 13 ..if4 ttlxe5 14.exd5 lLlxd5= ,

SPIKE-H IARCS, IPCCC, Paderborn
2 007.
Our general plan is to carry on
a dark-squared strategy by . . . .ic5,
. . . d6, . . . ttlg6 and possibly . . . e5 . In
contrast to line A, Black keeps both
knights. That makes play more tan­
gled and double-edged.

Now our main line branches to:

Black is ready to take on f4 so Bl. 9.lLlf3 ; B2. 9. h3
White should do something about
it. Waiting moves like 14.a3 do not Sometimes White tries to sur­
work: 14 . . . exf4 15.Elxf4 '!9e5 16.Elf3 prise the opponent with 9.i.e 2 . I
ttlg4t. propose you to follow the usual
It would be logical to close the plan:
centre by 14.f5 .id7 15.'!9g3, (or 9 ... .ic5 10.f4 d6 ll.@hl 0-0
15.'!9h4 .ic6 16.Elf3 h6 17.Elg3 @f8 12 .'!9el lLlg6 (12 ... lLleg4 ! ? has been
18.a3 b5 19.Elfl b4 2 0 . lLl h l Elb8t, successfully tested in practice)
Kotronias-Filip, Eforie Nord 2 0 08) 13.�g3

88
 The Third Rank Set-Up

12 .c4
The position is rather closed so
Black's lag in development cannot
be punished by 12.lilb6 Eib8 13.a4
.icS 14.tt:lxd7 tt:lxd7 15.'1!9g4 '.tf8 ! .
The king can make a n artificial
castling after 16 . .id2 h6 17.a5 '.tg8
18.'.th1 lilf6 19 .'1!9h4 Eid8 = .

Black has two interesting possi­ 12 . . . .ic6 13 .'1!9c2 '1!9a5

bilities: The most straightforward way
a) 13 ... .ia3 14.e5 (14.lild1 .icS=) to swap the dark-squared bishops.
14 . . . dxe5 15.bxa3 '1!9c3 16.fxe5 tt:ld7+; In Zaragatski-Perunovic, Balaton­
lelle 2 0 0 1 , Black successfully real­
b) 13 . . . .ib4 ! with complica­ ised the idea .of obtaining a strong
tions that look to be in his favour: knight against a bad bishop after
14.f5 (or 14 . .id3 hc3 15.bxc3 eS 13 . . . tt:ld7 14.a3? ! ha4 15.'\Wxa4 .icS
16.f5 exd4 17.cxd4 tt:le7 18 . .ih6 tt:lhS 16.hc5 '\WxcS 17.b4 '\Wc7 18.c5 0-0
19.'\WgS f6 2 0 . '\WxhS gxh6 2 1.'\Wxh6 19.Eifd1 tt:lb8 ! 20 .'\Wb3 tt:lc6 2 l . a4
§'xc3 2 2 .Eiad1 .id7 23.Eif3 '.th8+) tt:ld4, with an initiative. However,
14 ... hc3 15.fxg6 hb2 16.gxh7 White could prevent it by 14.Eifd1!
1!1h8 17.Eiab1 tt:lxe4 ! 18.'1!9h4 hd4 ha4 (14 . . . Eid8 15.tt:lc3 .icS 16.hc5
19.hd4 f5+. tt:lxcS 17. .if1) 15.'1!9xa4 .ie7 16.c5.
14.lilc3 .ic5 = , Siewert-Capuano,
Bl. 9 . tt:l£J IC!eg4 ! ? ICCF 2 0 07.

The text i s a more complex ver­ b) 9 . . . tt:lfg4 has been the main
sion of the natural set-up with : line. It's status is still OK, but Black
a) 9 . . . d6 ! ? 1 0 .lilxe5 dxe5= . Even has no chances to win the end­
here, the possession of the b6- game after 10.lilxe5 tt:lxe3 1 1.'\WhS
square does not give White a sub­ g6 12.'1Wf3 1!9xe5 13.fxe3 f6 14.'\Wxf6
stantial advantage : ll.lila4 .id7 '1!9xf6 15.Eixf6 .ig7 16.Eif3 bS 17.Eiafl !

89
 Part 3

White's idea is to meet 17 . . . ll.a4

j'!f8(?) with 18.j'!h3 .
White has never tried the seem­
17 . . . .ib7 18.j'!f7
ingly most consistent continuation
ll.h3 tt'le5 1 2 .tt'lxe5 dxe5 13.f4 .ic5+
If White retreats his knight to a
14.'it>h1 .id4 15 .f5. I suppose that he
passive square, Black can already
does not like the possibility for long
swap one pair of rooks : 18.tt'ld1 j'!f8
castling, e.g. 15 . . . exf5 16.exf5 .id7
19.j'!h3 j'!xf1+ 2 0 .'it>xf1 h6 2l.j'!g3
17.tt'le4 .ic6 18.�e1 0-0-0+.
'it>f7 2 2 .j'!f3 'it>e7 23.'it>e2 .ie5t, Li
Shilong-Wen,Yang, Shandong zt The first top-level game in this
2007. The fine point is that White line, Carlsen-Ivanchuk, Skander­
is left without a plan, whereas we borg 2005, saw ll.tt'le2 .ie7 12 .c4
can proceed with a typical Sicilian (White's knight has no business on
queenside attack. the kingside : 12 .h3 tt'le5 13.tt'lxe5
dxe5 14.tt'lg3 0-0 15.tt'lh5 tt'le8 ! ?
18 . . . .ie5 19.tt'le2
16.�e2 b 6 17.j'!ac1 .ib7 18.c4 j'!d8
Or 19.tt'ld1 .ic6 2 0 .c3 aS, 19.j'!fd1 f5t, Moller-Petukhov, ICCF
Kotrotsos-Mastrovasilis, Kavala 2010) 12 . . . 0-0 13.j'!cl b6 14.tt'lc3 .ib7
2 0 07. Only Black can play for a win 15.�e2 tt'ld7= .
in this position.
ll . . . b6
19 ... .ixb2 20.tt'ld4 0-0-0 2 l.c4
2l.j'!g7 j'!dg8 was good for Black The game Sanner-Tosi, ICCF
in Pilgaard-Bui Vinh, Budapest 2009, suggests that Black can allow
2007. a4-a5 - ll . . . .ie7 ! ? . This move may
be even more accurate since it dis­
21.. .bxc4 22 . .ixc4 .ixd4 23.exd4
courages 12 .h3 tt'l e5 13.tt'lxe5 dxe5
.ixe4 24.j'!c1 'it>b8 25 . .ixa6 h5= ,
14.f4 due to 14 . . . exf4 ! ? 15 . .ixf4 e5
Persson-Coleman, ICCF 2 007.
16 . .ig5 .ie6= . Sanner chose 12 .a5
.id7 13.h3 tt'le5 14.tt'lxe5 dxe5 15.�f3
10 . .id2 d6
0-0 16.j'!fd1 .ic6 17.tt'la4 j'!ad8 with a
comfortable game for Black.

12 .%Ye2 il.e7 13.h3 ttle5

14. ttlxe5

14.tt'ld4 0-0 15.f4 tt'lg6 is simi­

lar to line B 2 . Instead, 15 . . . tt'lxd3
16.cxd3 e5 17.tt'lc2 left White with a
slight pull after 17 . . . .ie6 18.j'!ac1 exf4
19 ..ixf4 �b7 2 0 . tt'ld4 j'!ac8 2 l..ig5,
Mueller-Ribli, Germany 2 0 07.

90
 The Third Rank Set-Up

14 ••• dxe5 15.f4 0-0 16.gael 10 .�d2 d6 ll.f4 ttJg6 12.'1Mff2 sets
the positional trap 12 . . . 0-0 13.e5
The game is balanced. It is pos­ dxe5 14.ttJxe6 (which is far from
sible to meet f4-f5 by . . . exf5, for clear after 14 . . . he6 15.hc5 ttJxf4
instance, 16 . . . �c5 + ! ? 17.'it>h l �d4 16.hf8 l'!xf8�). Perhaps Black
18.f5 exfS 19.exf5 �b7 2 0 .�g5 hc3 should neutralise it by 12 . . . b6 and it
21.bxc3 l'!fe8 2 2 .hf6 gxf6 = . is unclear what plan White actually
I n Dembo-Delchev, Cappelle had in mind.
la Grande 2006, I refrained from
this exchange : 16 . . . �b7 17.f5 :!! feB
18.fxe6 fxe6 19 .�g5 ttJd7 2 0.he7
l'l:xe7 2 1.�c4, but the e6-pa\vn is a
permanent weakness.

B2. 9 . h3 .tc5

Taimanov's pet line 9 . . . b5 has

faded out of fashion. The famous
Womacka-Zakhartsov, Guben
game Fischer- Petrosian, Santa Mo­
2 0 1 1 , went further 13.ttJce2 0-0
nica 1966, went 10.f4 ttJc4 ll.�c4
14.c3 eS 15.ttJb3 (15.f5 exd4 16.cxd4
j!,!fc4 12 .'1Mfd3 dS 13.e5 ttJd7 14.\MI'xc4
ttJeS) 15 . . . he3 16. �xe3 exf4 with an
dxc4 15.f5 ttJxe5 16.fxe6 fxe6 17.l'!ae1
excellent game for Black.
with a pull in the endgame, e.g. 17 . . .
In my game Eggleston-Delchev,
1Lld7 18.a4 b 4 19.ttJd5.
Bad Wiessee 2 0 13 , White imitat­
ed activity by 13 .g4? ! , but 13 . . . e5 !
14.ttJde2 (14.fxe5 dxeS 15.ttJde2 �e6
16.hc5 bxc5 17.b3 0-0 18 .�c4 hc4
19.bxc4 \MI'a5 2 0 .\MI'f3 l'!ab8 2 l .tLld5
l'!b2 2 2 . tLl xf6+ gxf6 23.\MI'xf6 \MI'd2)
14 ... exf4 15.tLlxf4 ttJxf4 16.�xf4 �e6
17.l'!ae1 0-0 18.ttJd5 hdS 19.exd5
ttJd7! gave me a typical Sicilian
structure with a better knight and a
safer king.

Main branches here are :

B21. 10.ttJa4 ; B 2 2 . 10 .�e2 ; B23. B 2 1 . 1 0 . � a4 .ia7 11.c4
10.'it>h1
According to Taimanov, the
10.f4 d6 transposes to other whole variation with 9 . . . �c5 gives
lines. Black a restrained position due

91
 Part 3

to the possibility of ll.c4. This

understanding ensues from the old
passive treatment of the hedgehog
structures by Black. If the second
player aimlessly manoeuvred on
the last two ranks, he undoubtedly
would risks to get under a kingside
attack. On the contrary, active play
on the dark squares with the break­
through b7-b5 in mind, ensures him
a comfortable game.

15.Yfe2

15.a4 only weakens the b3-

pawn. Black continues with 15 . . . .icS
intending to meet 16.�e2 or i 6 . .ie2
by . . . �b6.
In the game Astaneh-Vl. Dimit­
rov, Vila de Marin 2 005, White
chose 15 . .ie2 . This move has at least
two drawbacks. The bishop is too
passive there because it is not aimed
Here, 11 . . . 0-0 12J:'k1 �dB seems at the enemy king, and it is hinder­
the most concrete continuation. It ing the protection of the e3-bishop
counts on luring the opponent into by �e1 or �e2 . Black followed up
c4-c5. Then Black would obtain ex­ with 15 . . . .ic5 16.a4 �feB 17.f4 ltJg6
cellent counterplay by . . . d6. How­ (17 . . . ltJc6 ! ?) 18.�d2 , when 1B . . . e5 ! ?
ever, White can calmly pursue his 1 9 .feS deS+ would have seized the
main plan for consolidation, when initiative. Dark-squared strategy
the rook move to dB could prove to was also good, e.g. 16 . . . �b6 17.�e1
be inaccurate since . . . �feB or . . . �feB ltJc6 = .
could be better. Even more impor­
tant consideration is that Black may 15 . . . l"!fe8
be able to carry out . . . b7-b5 or . . . eS
without moving his rook at all. Black's rook stands up in oppo­
sition to the enemy queen. It is clear
ll . . . d6 12.gcl .id7 13 .�c3 0-0 that White is unable to generate any
14.b3 Yfa5 ! ? threat, see game 13 Varga-Almasi,
Budapest 2 0 04.
The queen i s eying the knight o n
c3, making � c 2 impossible.

92
 The Third Rank Set-Up

B22. 10 .Ve2 White can prevent . . . bS, but

Black has good places for his piec­
This is the oldest set-up. It was es anyway: ll.a4 b6 12 .lt'lb3 he3
tested at highest level in the World 13.�xe3 0-0 14.gael .ib7 15.f4 lt'lg6
title match Spassky-Petrosian, 16.lt'ld2 lt'ld7 17.lt'lc4 gadS 18.�f2
Moscow 1969. dS ! , Cuenca Jimenez-Zakhartsov,
Benasque 2 0 1 0 .

ll . . .li�g6

The game Spassky-Petros ian,

showed that ll . . . lt'ld7 leaves Black's
castling position shaky under the
impact of the d3-bishop. Capturing
on d3 is sad, because we would have
to struggle without counterplay
against a possible queenside activ­
ity of the opponent.
The reason behind the text move
is to protect the bishop on e3 and ex­ 12.li:lb3 .ixe3 13 .Vxe3 0-0
pand in the centre without further
prophylaxis. White's next moves
are f4, lt'lb3 and a quick eS. The ex­
change of the dark-squared bish­
ops exposes two critical points in
Black's position - d6 and cS, but the
biggest danger usually comes from
the kingside and the f6-square.
With time, Black has learnt to
neutralise the enemy's threats. All
he needs to know is a couple of ac­
curate moves in order to finish de­
velopment. Black can also choose 13 . . . b5
since the only attempt to punish
10 . . . d6 this move order would be 14.a4,
but then 14 ... b4 15.lt'lce2 0-0 16.a5
10 . . . lt'lg6 has no positive sides gbs (preventing �b6) would be fine
after ll.lt'lb3. However, White could for him. 13 . . . b5 also provokes 14.e5
try to exploit the unnecessary re­ dxeS 15.hg6 hxg6 16.fxe5 lt'ld7
treat by ll.lt'la4 followed by c4. 17.gxf7? which loses after 17 .. .c;t>xf7
18 .�f3 + lt'lf6 ! 19.�xa8 Vb6 + 2 0mfl
ll.f4 ghs ! .

93
 Part 3

14.gael is a positional line aimed basically

at obtaining a spatial advantage by
14Jiad1 bS 15.e5 dxeS 16.hg6 e4-e5, here White is trying to pre­
is not dangerous due to 16 . . . hxg6 serve his dark-squared bishop for a
17.fxe5 lt:ld7 18J':'id6 b4, equalising. kingside attack. Black's counterplay
14.c;!;>h1 b5 15.a4 b4 16.lt:le2 eS= . is directed toward the knight on d4.
He should also open the e-file. Prac­
14 b5 15.e5
••• tice has seen long castling too, but
that is really playing with fire.
15.a3 loses momentum. Black
was fine in the game Exizoglou-Vl. 10 ••• d6 ll.f4 lt:lg6
Dimitrov, Thessaloniki 2004: 15 . . .
i.b7 16.lt:ld4 :B:ae8 17.'Wf2 e5 18.lt:lde2
(18 .fxe5 :B:xeS) 18 ... ef4 19.lt:lf4 lt:lf4
20.'Wf4 :B:eS+.

15 dxe5••• 16.i.xg6 hxg6

17.fxe5 lt:ld7 18. lt:ld4 J.b7 19.lt:ldl

12 .'Wel

A multi-purpose move. The

queen defends the e3-bishop, en­
abling the plan with lt:lb3. At the
same time it is eying the square h4
which is its ideal attacking posi­
tion. Black is at a critical juncture
and I will examine his options in
With this final touch, Black detail, but let us also see some oth­
solves the opening problems. He er White's options:
is threatening . . . lt:lxeS ! In Radulov­
Suetin, Budapest 1970 , White an­ a) 12 .'Wd2 0-0 13 . :B:ae1 (13.'Wf2
swered 20 .c3 lt:lb6 21.lt:lf2 lt:lc4 and :B:e8) 13 . . . b5 14.a3 :B:e8. Black got
Black already had an edge. precious time for development and
stands well, see game 14 Onis­
B23. 10.c;!;>hl chuk-Salov, Elista 1998.

This is another straightforward b) 12.�f3 leads to similar po­

plan. In distinction to B22 which sitions after 12 . . . 0-0 (12 . . . b5 ! ?)

94
 The Third Rank Set-Up

13.Elael bS. 13 . . . i.d7 is also playa­

ble, but be sure to avoid the typical
mistake, seen in the game Reinaldo
Castineira-Comas Fabrego, Andor­
ra 2001: 14.ltJb3 .be3 15.�xe3 eS? !
(15 . . . i.c6 is essential ! ) 16.fxe5 dxeS
17.Elxf6 ! gxf6, when 18.lDd5 ! �d6
(18 .. .'�d8 19.Elfl fS 2 0 .exf5 hfS
2l.Elxf5 �ds 2 2 .�h6 Elfc8 23.lDd2±)
19.lt'la5 ! i.c6 2 0 . ltJ c4 �d8 21.lDcb6
.ixdS 2 2 . exd5± would have been un­ 16.i.g1 exfS 17.b4 �xb4 18.Eiab1
pleasant for Black. �a4 19.exf5 Elhe8+, Haznedaroglu­
Ribli, Saint Vincent 2 0 05, or 16.b4
c) 12 .f5 ltJeS 13.ltJce2 (13.�e1 �xb4 17.Elab1 �a4 18.Elb3 ltJxd3
is well met by 13 . . .i.d7) 13 . . . exf5 19.cxd3 eS 2 0 . ltJ c3 �aS 2 1 .lDc2
14.exf5 0-0 15.i.g5 ltJed7. i.c6+, Stoumbos-Javakhishvili, Li­
nares 2005.
It seems that Black is safe in this
Perhaps after 13.f5 ltJeS, White
position. White is unable to break
should opt for the more restrained :
through his defence until he is hold­
ing the critical squares f6 and h6. 14.ltJce2 �b6 (14 . . . exf5 15.exf5
At the same time, the open e-file 0-0-0 16 .b4 Eihe8 is unclear) 15.�g3
and the weak square e4 ensure suf­ 0-0 16.b4 �xb4 17.c3 ! �b6 18.i.h6
ficient counterplay. See game 15 ltJfg4oo.
Kotronias-De la Riva, Bled 2 0 0 2 .
13.f5 ltJe5 14.Yfh4
12 ••• 0-0 ! ?
14.�g3 is harmless in view of
12 . . . i.d7 i s a decent alternative. 14 . . . b5 or 14 . . . �h8. Or 14.g4? dS !
Then 13.f5 (13.ltJb3 he3+
14 b5
14.Vtfxe3 0-0 15.Eiad1 Elad8 is a
•••

calm, typical Sicilian game.) 13 . . .

ILleS 14.�h4 0 - 0 15.Elf3 exfS 16.exf5
li:Jxf3 17.gxf3 i.c6 is a better version
of the main line, because Black's
queenside has not weaknesses, see
game 10 Vatter-Zakhartsov, Bad
Wiessee 2 0 1 1 .
I n this line, Black can also cas­
tle long: 14 . . . �b6 15.ltJce2 0-0-0.
White has failed to meet it ade­
quately so far:

95
 Part 3

15.gf3 15 ...tt:Jxf3 16.gxf3 tlle8 is little

explored. Perhaps Black fears the
I'm still unsure what sign to tack closed centre which facilitates the
onto this move but it is undoubt­ opponent's attack. A possible line is
edly the most challenging contin­ 17.:ggl g6 18.:gg4 Wb7 19.Wh6 :ga7!
uation. Macedonian GM Mitkov's 20.b4= hb4 21.:gh4 f6 22.fxg6 Wg7
idea (it was first employed against 23.tllc6 :gc7 24.gxh7+ r4;>h8 25.tt:Jxb4
the set-up with ...b5 by Nedev) is :gxc3 26.:gg4 Wxh6 27.hh6 :gf7
truly amazing and it faces Black 28.id2 :gxd3 29.cxd3 r4;>xh7.
with considerable practical prob­
lems. Computers think that the ex­ 16.exf5 c!Llxf317.gxf3 .ib7
change sacrifice is not entirely cor­
rect, but over the board humans do Adla and Glavina suggest 17...
not cope very well with the heavy d5? which offers White an edge af­
calculations that are vital to survive ter 18.:ggl We5 19.tlldl id7 20.c3±.
the attack.
Lately White began to try other
moves, too:
19.r4;>h2 loses to 19...We7 20.Wg3
15.tllce2 exf5
We5 2l..if4 tllg4+.
Houdini 4 suggests 15...Wa7
(Hector-Rasmussen, team ch. 19 .ie3 20.�f6 .ixgl 21.iWg5
•..

DEN 2008, saw 15...Wb6?! 16.b4!

ix:b4, when 17.fxe6 fxe6 18.tll xe6
Wxe3 19.tllxf8 r4;>xf8 20J�xf6+ gxf6
21.tllf4! would have torn Black
apart) preparing to meet 16.b4 by
16...ib6, but I do not like to distract
my strongest piece from the king­
side in such a crucial moment of the
game. White might get a somewhat
better version of the main line with
16J'U3 exf5 17.exf5 tt:Jxf3 18.gxf3 We7
19.ih6 ib7 20.:gg1 ix:f3+ 2l.tt:'lxf3.
This crazy position first arose
16.exf5 :ge8! (Belov-Volkov, in Stojanovski-Jovanic, Sarajevo
Moscow 2009 saw 16...ib7 and 2006, but it gained popularity af­
here 17.ih6 keeps the initiative) ter the game 11 Carlsen-Vachier
17.ih6 We7 18.Wg5 Wf8 19.Wxf6 Lagrave, Cap d'Agde 2006. It went
gxf6 20.ix:f8 r4;>xf8=. 2l...Wc6 22.tlle4 f6 23.Wxgl. In The
Safest Sicilian I proposed the nov­
15 exf5
•..
elty 23...Wd5!. It was tested in the

96
 The Third Rank Set-Up

game Hamilton-Foulds, ICCF 2 0 1 0 . Wiessee 2 0 1 1 (where the pawn is on

Apparently, Black is only slightly b7) . Its idea is to refrain from . . . f6
better after it. Perhaps he should as long as possible. Instead, Ev­
try to play for a win by: ans-Veen, ICCF 2 007, went 2 2 . . .
f6 23.'1Wg4 d S 24.�f3 �feB 25.Wg2
21 . . . ti'c5 2 2 .�xgl �adS 26.a3 �d7 27.�d4 �eS 28.�e6
'We3 29.lt:ldl ti'el 3 0 .lt:lf2 �e7 31.h4
22."�'xgl 'Wxgl+ 23.Wxgl l:Uc8 �5xe6, draw.
should be in Black's favour because
White's knights have not access to
the e6-square. Besides, Black can After the text, Black has more
also play 22 .. J'Ue8 or 22 . . . Wh8 as chances to convert his material ad­
shown below. vantage. His plan is to give up a rook
for a knight and play with a rook+2
22 . . .!:�ae8 ! ? pawns vs. 2 minor pieces in an open
position, for example: 23.�h4 (23.
I borrowed this set-up from · lt:le4 'WdS) 23 ·... �e5 24.lt:lf3 �xfS
game 10 Vatter-Zakhartsov, Bad 25.'Wg4 �hS+.

97
Pa rt 3 . The Third Ra n k Set- U p

Ka n - Step by Step

l.e4 c5 2 . �f3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 Taimanov move order with 4 . . . tt:lc6

4.�xd4 a6 5 . � c3 Wc7 6 . .id3 5.tt:lc3 Wffc 7 6.tt:lxc6 . thus my vote
goes for the unexplored and flexi­
ble continuation:
7 . . .'\Wxc6 ! ? 8. 0-0

White has defined his set-up and 8 . . . b5

we should make our choice right
Grischuk tried in a blitz game 8 . . .
now. The Taimanov is a tempting
tt:le7 ! ? 9.l"'el tt:lg6 10 .e5 �c7 1l.V!fh5
option against i.d3 so we can an­
b5 with mutual chances.
swer:
9 .�e2 Wff c 7! ? (9 . . .i.b7 10 .a4 b4
a) 6 . . . tt:lc6. White's only reason­
11.ttld5 ttlf6 1 2 .ttlxf6+ gxf6 should
able deviation is 7.�xc6, when all
be slightly better for White) After
three recaptures are possible.
the text, ttld5 is no longer a threat.
7 ... dxc6 8.0-0 e5 9.f4 tt:lf6
Both opponents are on their own
10.\t>hl i.d6 11.f5 is a bit cramped
-

I do not know of any practical ex­

for my taste.
ample.
7 . . . bxc6 8 . 0-0 ttlf6 9.�e2 d5 is a
popular set-up. White's game is too b) 6 . . . b5 is beyond the scope of
straightforward and easy. Moreo­ our repertoire. I advocate to de­
ver, Black has practically lost a tem­ lay the fianchetto in favour of . . . d6,
po on . . . a6, compared to the pure . . . tt:ld7.

98
 The Third Rank Set-Up

A. 7.'<!9e 2 ; B. 7. 0 - 0 ; C. 7.f4 8.J.d2

7.f4 bS ! is considered in Part 4. a) Fortunately, 8.ltldb5? axbS

9.ltlxb5 is not winning. In fact, Black
7. .te3? ! is totally innocuous
is better after 9 . . . '<!9a5+ 10 . .td2 .tb4
here. Black leads out his bishop to
l l.hb4 �xb4+ 12 .c3 �cS 13.e5
b4 or cS and obtains a good game:
ltldS 14.ltJd6+ �f8 15.�h5 (15.'<!9f3
7. . . .tb4 8 . 0 - 0 hc3 9.bxc3 d6!
fS 16.hf5 ltJf6 17. 0-0 �xeS) 15 . . . g6
(9 . . . d5? lO.exdS ttJxdS ll ..td2 0-0
12 .'<!9h5 g6 13.�h4;!;) 10 .'<!9f3 eS
ll.ltlfS hfS 1 2 .exf5 ttJbd7 13J3abl
d5 ;
7. . . .tc5 8 .�e2 (8.0-0 d6 9.'<!9e2
tt:Jbd7) 8 ... d6 9 . 0-0-0 0-0.
7 . . .b5 is also possible, but the
play is very sharp after 8.f4 .tb7 (8 . . .
b4? stumbles into a very interes­
ting new idea: 9.ltla4 .tb7 10.�f3 d6
11.0-0 ttJbd7 12 .a3 ! bxa3 13J3xa3 ! e5 Somehow Black's king escapes
14.fxe5 dxe5 15.ltJf5 with a strong and White has not even a draw:
attack) 9.'<!9f3 ltlc6 1 0 . 0-0-0 b4 16.�h6+
ll.ltlce2 h5.
Or 16.hg6 fxg6 17.'<!9f3+ �e7
18 .�f7+ �d8 19.�g7 l'!e8 20 .'<!9f7
ltlc6 ! ! 2 1.�xe8+ �c7 2 2 . 0-0 ( 2 2 .
A. 7.�e2 J.d6 !
� h 8 ltJf4 23.0-0 ttJxe5 24.ltJe4 �ds
25.f3 b6+) 22 . . . ttJxe5 23.ltJe4 '<!9c6+.
7. . . d6 offers White very sharp
Scheveningen type options as 8.f4 16 . . . �g8 17.h4 (Black's minor
or 8.g4. The text is familiar to the pieces are very strong following
Taimanov players. It significantly 17 . .te4 l'!a6 18.�g5 l'!xd6 19.exd6
narrows the opponent's choice. b5, e.g. 2 0 .hd5 .tb7 2 1 .�d8+ �g7
2 2 .�xh8+ �xh8 23 .hb7 �eS+t)
17 ... ttJc6 18 .h5 ttJxeS and White re­
signed in the blitz game Kasim­
dzhanov-Rublevsky, Moscow 2 007.
Alternatively:
b) 8.ttJf3 ltlc6 9. 0-0 0-0 10 .h3
ttJe5 ll.ltlxe5 he5 = .
c ) 8 .h3 ttJc6 9.ltlxc6 (9.ltlf3 b6
1 0 . 0-0 .tb7 l l . .td2 ltle5) 9 . . . dxc6
10.0-0 0-0 ll.f4 e5.

99
 Part 3

8 ••• �c6 9.�f3 (9.llJxc6 dxc6 9.f4 d6 10.e5 ! ? dxeS

10.g3 bS) 9 0-0 10.0-0
10 . . . llJfd7 ll.exd6 �xd6 12.llJe4
••.

(Topalov beat Svidler with 12 .�e3 ! ?)

12 . . . �b6+ 13.@h1 llJf6 14.%Vf3 llJbd7
15.�e3t .
1 1.fxe5 llJfd7
11 . . . %Vxe5 12 .�f4 %Vh5 13.�e2
�g6 (13 . . . %Vh4 was refuted in the
game Kryvoruchko-Smirin, Plovdiv
2008, which went 14.g3 %Vh3 15.llJe4
eS 16.llJd6+ ! ) 14.h4 (Stohl suggests
14.Eif3) 14 . . . h5 15.�g5 and Black is
10 b5 lU!ael �g4 12 .h3
•••
helpless against the threat of �d3,
�ge5 13.�xe5 �xe5 14.f4 �xd3 for example: 15 ... llJg4 16.he7 @xe7
15.cxd3 f5 ! 17.%Vd4± or 15 . . . llJg8 16.�d 3 fS
17.�e2 llJc6 18.llJa4±, Paragua-Bil­
There is no reason to allow guun, Jakarta 2 0 13 .
15 . . . b4 16.�a4. The text address­ 12.%Vg4 g6
es Black's main problem - the pas­
sive light-squared bishop. The play
might continue 16.Eicl �b7 17.�e3
�dB = .

B . 7.0-0 d6

The majority of players prefer:

a) 7 . . . �c6, but then 8.�xc6 bxc6
or 8 . . . dxc6 are too easy to play with 13.�h6! llJxeS 14.%Vg3 llJbd7
White. There is nothing wrong with
these lines, but I would like to put White also has full domination
the opponent in a situation where in the event of 14 . . . llJbc6 15.�e4 �d8
he would have tougher decisions to 16.�f4 f6 17.hc6+ bxc6 18.llJe4 0-0
make. 19.@h1, e.g. 19 ... %Vg7 2 0.he5 fxeS
2 l .Eixf8+ �xf8 2 2 .%Vd3 Eib8 23.Eif1
I would like to forewarn you %Ve7 24.�d 2 + - .
about the popular line:
b) 7 . . . �c5?! 8.�b3 �e7. Hellsten 15.Eiae1 �f8 16.hf8 @xf8
devotes a whole chapter on it in his 17.@h1 @g7 18.ltJe4 Eif8 19.llJg5 %Vd6
book, but I believe that White's at­ 2 0 .llJd4+-, Zinchenko-Filip, Paleo­
tack is very strong after: chora 2 0 1 0 .

100
 The Third Rank Set-Up

Main branches now are : Then 15.h4 will be met by 15 . . .h5

Bl. 8 .a4, B 2 . 8.�e2, and B3. 8.f4 while 1S.�f2 i.c6 16.g4 could be an­
followed up by �f3 or l2Jf3. swered with 16 . . . l2Jh7 17.�g3 �d8 .
In a blitz game, Ivanchuk even de­
nied g2-g4 altogether by playing h7-
Bl. 8.a4 b6 9.f4 h5 himself, but this plan abandons
short castling and involves more
9.�f3 l2Jbd7 10 .i.d2 i.b7 1 l.�g3 difficult decisions from Black in fu­
g6 12J'!fe1 counts on the trap 12 . . . ture.
1g7? ! 13.l2Jdb5 axbS 14.l2Jxb5 �b8
15.tt:lxd6+ c;!(f8 16.i.b4 c;!;>g8 17.i.b5�. b) 10 .�e2 tt:Jbd7 ll . .id2 .ie7
Black can parry the threat with 12 . . . 12 .�ae1 is somewhat underestimat­
liJhS ! . A more sophisticated version ed.
of the same idea is 1U!fel. Then af­
ter ll . . . g6, White can put his queen
on h3, followed up by i.h6. Kozul
answered this move order with 11 .. .
liJeS ! ? 12 .�h3 (12 .�g3 hS ! ?) 12 . . .
h5 (12 . . . i.e7 ! ? = ) and quickly seized
the initiative after 13.tt:lb3 (13.a5 !
1e7 14.axb6 �xb6 1S.tt:lb3 l2Jfg4
16.1e3 l2Jxe3 17.�xe3 �xe3 18J'%xe3
li:lxd3= ) 13 . . . i.e7 14.f4 l2J eg4 15J''1e2
d5. You should remember to ignore Now it is rather risky to castle
a4-a5 since . . . bS? ! provokes danger­ under the fire of all White's piec­
ous sacrifices. es: 12 . . . 0-0 13.e5 dxeS [13 . . . tt:ld5? !
14.tt:lxd5 ! (14.tt:lxe6 fxe6 15.�h5 g6
9 . . . J.b7 10.ti'f3 16 . .b:g6 lD7f6 17.exf6 l2Jxf6 18 .�h6
hxg6 19.�xg6+ c;!;>h8 is rough­
a) 10.f5 eS ll.tt:lb3 demands pre­ ly equal: 2 0 .l2Je4 he4 2l.�xe4
cision from Black. He must an­ l2Jxe4 = , or 20.�xe6 �g8 2 1.�h6+
ticipate the pawn storm with g4- l2Jh7 2 2 .�f2 .if8oo) 14 . . . hd5 15.c4
g5 which would be possible after i.b7 16.f5t] 14.fxe5 .icS 1S.�f4 g6
l l . . . i.e7 12 . .ie3 tt:Jbd7 13.�f3 0-0 16.�h4 tt:lh5 17.c;!;>h1 l2Jg7 18 . .ih6 .ie7
14Jiad1 [14.g4? dS 1S.tt:lxd5 (15. 19.�h3 . Black can unload the ten­
exd5 h6 16.h4 e4) 15 ... l2Jxd5 16.exd5 sion with 19 . . .�xe5 20 .�xe5 tt:lxeS
li:lf6] 14 . . . .ic6 ? ! 15.g4 h6 16.h4 tt:lh7 2 l.�xe5 .if6 22 . .if4 heS 23 .he5
17.g5 ! hxgS 18.hxg5 hgS 19.hg5 f6 24.i.c7 bS 2S.l2Jb3t, but the two
li:lxg5 2 0 .�g3 l2Jh7 2l.�f2 t. minor pieces might soon take con­
Since this is the only serious trol of the board.
threat of White, it would be wise to I suppose that it would be safer
neutralise it in advance by 14 . . . h6 ! . to kill the d3-bishop:

101
 Part 3

12 . . . lLlc5 13.b4 lLlxd3 14.cxd3 b) ll.Wh1 is a bit slow. Black can

0-0 lSJ'kl �d7. I discuss this pawn follow the main plan with ll . . . .ie7
structure in the annotations to 12 . .id2 0-0 13.�h3 lLlc5 14.b4 lLlxd3
game 16 Cubas-Hellsten . The dif­ (14 . . . lLlxe4 15.lLlxe6 is slightly better
ference is that White's queen is on for White) 15.cxd3 E1fc8.
e2 here. This is perhaps in White's ll ... g6 ! ? is also possible. Que­
favour as his queen is not under the sada-Arencibia, Santa Clara 2 007,
X-ray of the b7-bishop, and the d4- coninued 12 . .id2 .ig7 13.E1ae1 0-0
knight has a retreat square on f3. In 14.�h3 E1ae8 15.lLlf3 lLlcS with mu­
result, Black lacks the counterplay tual chances.
with . . . i.e7-f6xd4, followed up by
. . . f7-f5. However, White also has
not a clear plan. For instance, 16.g4
lLle8 (threatening with 17 . . . d5)
17.E1bl .if6. If White opts for a wait­
ing game with 16.Whl E1fc8 17 . .ie3 ,
we can adopt the same set-up I rec­
ommend against 1 0 .�f3 : 17 . . . lLle8
(planning ... �d7, ... .if6) 18.f5 eS
19.lLlf3 bS 2 0 . axb5 axbS 2l.E1fd1
lLlf6=.

lO • .• lLlbd7 ll .id2
•
u .te7
...

a) 1l..ie3 has no advantages over Black has another, much sharp­

ll . .id2 . The bishop only hampers er set-up which was tested only in
the break e4-e5 and it does not de­ the game Antal-Wallner, - Austria
fend the c3-knight in the event of 2003:
b2-b4. Black should follow the same ll . . . g6 ! ? 12 .�h3 .ig7 13.a5
plan as in the main line: Black's main idea is seen in the
ll . . . .ie7 12 .E1ae1 0-0 13 .�h3 (13. variations 13.f5 gxfS ! 14.exf5 eS fol­
g4 lLlc5 14.g5 lLlfd7) 13 ... lLlc5 14 . .if2 lowed up by long castling, or 13.lLlf3
(14.e5? fails to 14 . . . dxe5 15.fxe5 0-0 14.f5 gxfS ! ? 15.exf5 eS 16.�g3
�xeS) 14 . . . E1fe8 15.Whl. The play is Wh8 where the open g-file might be
balanced. Black has several ways of in Black's favour. The text conceals a
manoeuvring further. trap - 13 . . . b5? 14.hb5 ! so we castle:
One straightforward plan is to
swap the d3-bishop. For instance : 13 . . . 0-0, and if 14.axb6 �xb6!
15 . . . �d7 16.lLlb3 lLlxd3 17.cxd3 eS= 15 . .ie3 lLlg4 = . Critical is:
18.hb6 �xh3 19 .gxh3 .ic8 2 0 .f5 14.f5 gxfS (14 ... exf5 15.exf5 lLl e5)
E1b8 2 l.a5 .idS. 15.exf5 eS 17.lLlb3 bS

102
 The Third Rank Set-Up

ing 1S.�d2 ltJcS 16 . .id4 gb6 17.�aS

lt:Jfd7 18.-b:cS dxcS 19 . .ibS gxbS
2 0.�xbS .id6 2 1.eS !J.c7 2 2 .h4. It is
true that Black cannot disentangle
his minor pieces, but on the other
hand, White also is unable to break
the fortress.

The other alternative to the main

line with . . . i.e7 is the set-up with
17.g4 b4 18.lt'ld1 e4 19 .i.e2 ltJdS 9 . . . bS? ! 10.i.d2 .!b7 1l.�h1 (ll.gae1
20.gS i.eS ! ( 2 0 . . . �h8 21.f6 llJ 7xf6 !J.e7 12.�h1! b4 ! ) ll . . . .!e7
22 .gxf6 .b:f6 23.gxf6 gg8+ 24.�f2
lt:lxf6 2S.lt:Je3±). Black has an initia­
tive, e.g. 2 1.c4 bxc3 2 2 .lt'lxc3 e3.

12 .gael 0-0

12 ... lt:J c5 13 .b4 lt:Jxd3 is also play­

able, but the text is more ambitious.
Black waits for White to play 13. �h3
before putting 13 . . . ltJcS. I explain
the subtleties of this position in the White gets an edge with 12 .b4 !
annotations to game 16 Cubas­ 0-0 13.a4 bxa4 14.gxa4 lt:Jb6 1S.gaa1,
Hellsten, Buenos Aires 2 0 0 6 . when 1S . . . dS 16.eS lt:Je4 17.lt:Jxe4
dxe4 18 . .b:e4 .b:e4 19.�xe4 �c4
2 0.c3 retains a healthy extra pawn.
B2. 8.�e2 lilbd7
The delay of f2-f4 aims to dis­
8 . . . bS? ! is a mistake before courage both . . . bS and . . . �b6.
White has committed himself with 9 ..id2 achieves the same effect, for
f4. After 9.a4 ! b4 10.lt'la2, followed
instance : 9 . . . bS? ! 10 .b4 i.b7 ll.a4.
up by c2-c3, White opens up the However, the set-up with 9 ... g6
queenside to his favour. is quite possible since the bishop
would be passive on d 2 .
9.�hl ! ?
9 . . . .!e7
9.f4 �b6 ! ? i s a tough nut to crack.
The complications after 10 . .ie3 9 . . . bS (9 . . . .ie7 1 0 . .id2 transpos­
V9xb2 ll.ltJdbS axbS 1 2 .ltJxbS gas es to the main line) 10 .a4 b4 1l.lt'la2
13.gfb1 gxbS 14.gxb2 gxb2oo might �b7 12 . .id2 aS 13.c3 bxc3 14.lt:Jxc3
lead to a drawish position follow- ltJcS 1S . .ibSH.

103
 Part 3

9 . . . g6 10.f4 ig7 11.fS tileS 12.tt::l f3 a) 12 ... bS which, however, ac­

is slightly better for White who has cepts a draw in the variation 13.eS
a clear plan on the dark squares, tt::l fd7 14.ixh7+ (14J'!f3 tt::l xd3
for example, 12 ... tt::l c6 13.�f2 id7 1S.cxd3 dxeS ! 16.fxeS ih4) 14 . . .
14.\1;l/h4t or 12 ... tt::l hS 13.\1;lff2 tt::l xf3 lt>xh7 1S.�hS+ lt> g 8 16J'!f3 dxeS
14.\1;lfxf3 ieS 1S.ih6t. 17J'!h3 fS 18.\1;l/h7+ .
Instead, 13.b4 tt::l x d3 14.cxd3
ib7 1SJ'k1 �d7 is fine for Black. See
game 19 Moen-Topalov, ECC Rho­
des 2 0 13, about this structure.

b) 12 . . . tt::l x d3 is passive, but at

least Black will be playing for all
three results.
13.cxd3 bS
The life-long Kan player, GM Ve­
10.id2 ! ? 0-0 likov, chose 13 . . . \1;l/d8 14.g4 h6, but
this is really too provocative. White
10 ... tt::l c5 ll.f4 bS? loses to 12 .eS. has a serious initiative after 1S.gS
See game 17 Delchev-Castellanos hxgS 16.fxgS tt::l d 7 (16 . . . tt::l h 7) 17.h4.
Rodriguez, Leon 2012. 14.g4

ll.f4 �c5 12.gae1 Alternatives are :

14.eS dxeS 1S.fxeS tt::l d 7 16J'!c1
Or 12 .eS tt::l fd7 13J'!ae1 tt::l x d3 \1;lfb6 17.ie3 ib7 18.tt::l fS �dB = ;
14.cxd3 dxeS 1S.fxeS ih4 ! 14.�f2 b4 1S.tt::l c e2 aS 16J'!c1 (16.
�g1 eS 17.tt::l fS ixfS 18.exfS �c2+)
16 . . . \1;l/d7 17.tt::l c 6 ib7 18.tt::l x e7+
�xe7= ;
14.�c1 \1;lfd7 1S.a3 ib7.
14 . . . b4 1S.tt::l d 1 dS 16.eS tt::l d 7

Black is at a crossroads. Perhaps

his strongest move is:

104
 The Third Rank Set-Up

The continuation of White's at­ V9xb2 is dubious: ll.ltJcbS axbS

tack is not trivial. Our defence is 1 2 .ltJxb5 �b4 (12 . . . �a5 13.�ab1 �xbS
based on the potential power of the 14.hb5 V9c3 15.�b3 V9c7 16 . .id4±)
b7-bishop : 17.f5 .ib7 18J'U3 (18 .g5 13.ltJc7+ 'it>d8 14.ltJxa8 �aS 15.�ad1
exfS 19.lljxf5 d4+ 2 0 .'it>g1 .ic5) 18 . . . �xa8 16.e5 ltJdS 17 . .id4t. Instead,
.ih4 19.ltJf2 V9b6 2 0 . .ie3 .ie7. Black follows his main plan :
The same defensive set-up could 9 . . . .ie7 1 0 . .ie3 ( . . . V9b6 was al­
be employed against 14.a3 .ib7 ready an option : 10 .�g3 �b6
15.g4 (15.b4 �feB 16.g4? dS 17.e5 ll . .ie3 V9xb2 1 2 . ltJ de2 V9a3 13.�xg7
\Wb6 ! ) 15 . . . d5 16.e5 ltJd7 17.b4 (17. �g8 14.V9h6 bSoo; 10 .g4 V9b6 ll . .ie3
Eic1 �ac8) 17 . . . V9b6 18 ..ie3 f6+. �xb2 12.ltJce2 ltJcS)
Note that Black's counterplay is
often based on ... V9b6 when White
cannot find a decent way to protect
his knight on d4. Shift the queen to
f3, and the same structure would be
better for White due to the possibil­
ity of b4, ltJc3-e 2 . Black would risk
to remain without any plan.

B3. 8.f4 10 . . . b5 !
Do not castle under attack in
This move is not too flexible
this set-up ! The queen on f3 and the
as White commits himself on the
bishop on e3 do not generate any
kingside. That rules out plans on
threats in the centre, but they are
the other wing so Black can safely
well set for 10 . . . 0-0?! ll.g4. There­
answer with 8 . . . b5. We saw in line
fore, we should complete develop­
B2 that the early fianchetto was du­
ment and safeguard the kingside
bious due to a4, but after f4 this
before moving our king there.
break is no longer effective. Howev­
er, I recommend to follow the same ll.a3
move order as in line B2 for consist­
ll.g4? is neutralised by ll . . . h6.
ency sake.
The same defence works well in the
event of 1 1.�ae1 .ib7 12 .g4? (or 1 2 .f5
eS 13.ltJb3 hS) 12 . . . h6.
More interesting is 1 2 .'it>h1,
The most popular follow up al­
when 12 ... g6 13.a3 ltJcS transposes
though White should not worry
to ll.a3.
about . . . �b6 . Thus he could play:
Another very interesting plan is
a) 9.V9f3, when 9 . . . V9b6 10 . .ie3 to push ... h5-h4, for instance :

105
 Part 3

12 . . . h5 ! ? 13 . .ig1 h4 14.'�h3 tt:\h5 14 . .ig1 0-0

Black's king is absolutely safe
and nothing can stop the break . . . e5,
e.g. 15.V9g3 eS; 15.'�'h3 eS. Suess­
Spassky, Dortmund 1973 went:
15.V9e2 e5 16.tt:\b3 (16.fxe5 dxe5
17.tt:\b3 tt:\e6) 16 . . . tt:\xb3 (16 . . . exf4 ! ?
17J!xf4 E!ae8) 17.cxb3 exf4 18.E!xf4
tt:\d7= .

It is unclear how White could b) 9.tt:lf3 has been out of fashion

display activity here while Black has for quite a while. It was designed to
plenty of useful moves as .. J!c8/d8, provoke . . . e5? ! and use the opened
. . . @f8, . . . g6 or .. J!h6. See game 18 f-file to sac the exchange on f6,
Kerekes-A.Kovacs, Hungary 2 0 07. e.g. 9 . . . i.e7 10 .V9e1 e5? ! 11.@h1 0-0
12 .fxe5 tt:\xeS 13.tt:\xe5 dxe5 14 . .ig5
ll . . . .ib7 12 J!ae1 g6 .ie6 15.'1Mfh4 E!fe8 16.i.xf6 hf6
17.E!xf6 gxf6 18.E!f1. Although 18 . . .
Simple and good. Now fS is im­
�dB ! would tame the first attack­
possible, 13.g4 is still bad due to
ing wave, White keeps an initia­
13 . . . h6, so White has nothing better
tive. I think that Black has various
than wait.
promising plans provided he re­
13.@h1 frains from . . . e5. I would also avoid
an early . . . tt:lcS since Black's posi­
tion after b4 tt:\xd3 is solid, but pas­
sive. The most straightforward re­
tort to White's scheme is:
9 ... b5 ! 10 .@h1 (10 .�e1 .ib7
1 1..id2 .ie7) 10 . . . .ib7 11.V9e1

13 . . . tt:\c5
The combination of . . . g6 + . . . hS
is not perfect, but it is playable: 13 . . .
h S 1 4. .ig1 h 4 15.h3 tt:\h5 16.tt:\de2 ,
Saltaev-Ilincic, Elista 1998. At this
point 16 .. J!c8 (instead of 17 . . . e5?
18.tt:\d5±) 17 . .id4 0-0 would have ll . . . b4 12.tt:\d1 dS or 12 . . . tt:\c5
been unclear. 13.tt:\f2 dS 14.e5 tt:\fe4 15 . .ie3 ie7

106
 The Third Rank Set-Up

16.id4 0-0 17.�e3 , Arnason-Pli­ 13.�h3

ester, New York 1989, 17 .. Jl:ac8 = .
In Thipsay-Lomineishvili, Kishi­
Black can also keep the centre
nev 1995, White chose 13.b4 l'l:fe8
fluid by ll . . . ie7 12 .id2
14.�h3, when the thematic 14 . . .
12 .e5 dxeS 13.fxe5 tt:lg4 is good
e S 15.tt:lf5 if8 solved the opening
for Black: 14.�g3 hS 15.h3 tt:lgxeS
problems.
16.LDe4 (16.�xg7 0-0-0) 16 . . . h4
After the text, 13 . . . tt:lc5 14.b4
17.�xg7 0-0-0 or 14.tt:le4 tt:lgxeS
tt:lxd3 15.cxd3 l'l:fc8 is a solid, but
15.�g3 fS 16.�xg7 0-0-0 17.�xe7
passive approach. A more straight­
fxe4 18.tt:lxe5 exd3 = .
forward attempt is 13 . . . b4 14.tt:la4
12 . . . 0-0 (12 . . . tt:l c5 13.b4 tt:lxd3
(14.tt:ld1 tt:lcS) 14 . . . d5 15.e5 tt:le4, but
14.cxd3 0-0 15J'l:c1 �d7 16.a3 l'l:fc8 =)
White retains some pull with 16.c4
13.b4 (13.tt:ld1 tt:lcS 14.tt:lf2 l'l:ac8 ;
g6 17.ixe4 dxe4 18.b3.
13.e5 dxeS 14.fxe5 tt:lg4 15.�g3 fS+)
13 . . . tt:lb6 followed up by . . . tt:lc4. I like the flexible 13 . . . l'l:fe8 ! ? . It
prepares . . . eS so White should antici­
9 . . . J.e7 10.�f3 pate it with 14.e5 dxeS 15.fxe5 LDxe5
16.if4 id6 17.tt:ldxb5 axb5 18.tt:lxb5
10 .�e2 0-0 11.id2 tt:lcS is con­ tt:lxd3 19.LDxc7 tt:lxf4 20 .LDxe8 tt:lxh3
sidered in line B 2 . 2 1 .tt:lxd6 ic6 22 .l'l:e3 lDgS 23.l'l:c3
l'l:a6 24.b4 id7. The long forced se­
1 0 . . . b5 ll.J.d2 J.b7 12.gael quence is over. In such sharp unbal­
anced positions, it is easier to play
Black has counterplay after with the two minor pieces.
12 .b4 0-0 13.a4 bxa4 14.l'l:xa4 l'l:fc8
15.l'l:aa1 tt:lb6 16.�h3 tt:lc4.
If White retreats his knight to b3 c. 7.f4 b5
now, or on the next move, we follow
the main scheme with . . . 0-0, . . . l'l:e8.

12 . . . 0-0

7 . . . d6 might turn into a loss

of tempo if Black later plays . . . b4
followed up by . . . d6-d5. It also rules

107
 Part 3

out the active development . . . .icS. 13 .ttlg3 tLlcS 14 ..if3 g6 15.a3 hS, in­
The only drawback of 7 . . . b5 is that tending to meet 16.f5 by 16 . . . h4
it allows e4-e5, but we'll see that 17.fxg6 hxg3 (17 ... fxg6 18.ttlge2oo)
the arising positions are entirely ac­ 18.gxf7+ 'it>d8 19.�e1 �xh 2 + 2 0 .'it>g1
ceptable. �h8 2 1.�xg3oo. However, it is more
natural to complete development
8.e5 with :

Alternatives may lead to the ll . . . .icS 1 2 .'it>h1 0-0 13 .�d3 fS

Taimanov: 14 . .if3 with mutual chances.

a) 8.'�f3 .ib7 9 . .ie3 ttlc6 trans­

poses to the Taimanov with f4 - see
Part 4.
Only 9.g4 is of independent sig­
nificance. The game may conti­
nue 9 . . . ttlc6 ! (9 . . . b4 10.ttlce2 dS
ll.eS ttle4 12 .f5 ! is rather unclear:
12 . . .exf5 13.e6 .id6) 10 . .ie3 (10.
ttlxc6 �xc6 ll.gS .ib4 12 ..id2 .ixc3
13 ..ixc3 ttlxe4 14 . .ixg7 �g8 15 . .id4 In the game Edouard-Iturriza­
tLlxgS) lO . . . hS which is again a ga, Benasque 2 0 0 9 , Black even in­
Taimanov side line. tercepted the initiative after 14 . . . g6
b) for 8.�e2 .tb7, see Part 4, 15.a3 �c8 16.i.d2 bxa3 17.bxa3 ttlb6
game 26 An.Martin-Delchev, Be­ 18 . .ixb7 �xb7, but 14 . . . a5 15.�b1
nasque 2 013. ttla6 also deserves attention .

8 . . . b4 9.�a4 ! ? b) 9.ttlcb5 axbS 10.exf6 gxf6

ll.ttlxbS (11.�e2 .tcS) l l . . . �b6
a) 9.ttlce2 ttld5 10 . .te4 .tb7 is not 1 2 .�f3 i.b7! ? (12 . . . �a5 13 .i.e3 i.cS=)
popular. 13 .i.e3 �xbS.

At first White tried 11.�d3, but c) 9.ttle4 ttlxe4 10 ..ixe4 i.b7

maybe Iordachescu's suggestion 11.�f3 .ixe4 12 .�xe4 ttlc6 13.ttlxc6
ll . . . d6 (ll . . . .te7! ? 1 2 . 0-0 ttlc6=)
12.exd6 .ixd6 13.f5 ttld7 14.fxe6 tLlcS
15.�f3 0-0- 0 ! scared him. Indeed,
Black has serious initiative. Lately,
White tested:
11. 0-0 which is aimed against
ll . . . d6, e.g. 12.exd6 .ixd6 13.f5 eS
-
14.ttlb3±. Instead, Black may ex­
periment with ll . . . aS 1 2 .'it>h1 ttla6

108
 The Third Rank Set-Up

This position is equal : the queenside wit 1 2 . c4, but Black

holds on after 12 . . . 'Wxc4 13.b3 �c7
13 . . . �b7 (hoping to keep an asym­
14.'Wf3 it)c6 15.ib2 l"!c8 16.ixd5
metric pawn structure with . . J'l:c8)
it)xd4 17.ixd4 ixd5 18.'Wf2 'Wc6
14.ie3 (14.�f3 dxc6 15.ie3 ie7
19.tlJb6 l"!c7 2 0 .ie3 �b7=. The most
16.0-0 = ; 14.c4 bxc3 15.bxc3 ic5
unpleasant retort is probably:
16J'%b1 �xc6 17.�xc6 dxc6 18.'it>e2
0-0-0=) l"!c8 15.0-0-0 �xc6 16.'Wxc6 12.l"!f2 ! (preparing to occupy the
l"1xc6 17.l"!d3 ie7 18.l"!hd1 l"!c7 19 .id4 c-file by c4, l"!c2) 12 . . . ie7 13.ixd5
f6 with typical counterplay; ixd5 14.c4 bxc3 15.it)xc3 ib7
16.ie3 it)c6 17.l"!c1 tlJxd4 18.'Wxd4.
13 . . . �xc6 14.�xc6 dxc6 15.'it>e2
White has lasting pressure on the
0-0-0 = ;
queenside, for example : 18 . . . ic6
13 . . . dxc6 14.ie3 ie7 15. 0-0-0 19.it)a4 0-0 2 0 .tlJb6 l"!ab8 2 1.l"!fc2
0-0 16.�c4 c5 17.l"!d2 'Wc6 18.l"!hd1 �d8 2 2 .l"!d2 l"!b7 23.b3.
l"1fe8= . Black has counterplay on the It is better . to trade quickly
queenside. White's active pieces:

9 ••. �d5 10 .i.e4 ib7 11.0-0 1 2 . �xc3

Or 12 .bxc3 ixe4 13.cxb4 it)c6

14.c3 it)xd4 15.'Wxd4 ixg2 16.'it>xg2
'Wc6+ 17.l"!f3 �xa4oo.

12 . . . bxc3 13.ef3

13.ixb7 cxb2 14.ixb2 (14.l"!b1

bxc1� 15.�xc1 l"!a7 16.if3 ic5
17.l"!d1 0-0=) 14 . . . �xb7 15.l"!b1 it)c6
16.'it>h1 (16.l"!f3 ie7 17.l"!b3 �c7
18.it)xc6 �xc6 19.id4 0-0=) 16 . . .
ll . .• �c3 ! ie7 17.f5 (17.ia3 �c7) looks dan­
gerous, but Black has sufficient de­
I n practice, Black has been fence :
struggling so far. He has tried 11 . . .
ie7? 12 .it)f5± and :
ll . . . g6

This is Houdini's first line at

depth 23. Rublevsky also put his
fate in it against Bologan. In my
opinion, such a development is too
slow. I tried to refute it by opening

109
 Part 3

17 . . . ll:\xd4 18.hd4 �e4 19.�d3

(19.f6 gxf6 20.exf6 l:'lg8 2 l .�d2
i.d8oo) 19 . . . �xd3 20.cxd3 with
equal endgame:
20 . . . h5 2l.g3 l:'lc8 2 2 .l:'lb6 0-0
23.l:'lxa6 l:'la8 24.l:'lxa8 l:'lxa8 =
25.fxe6 dxe6 26.l:'lal l:'la3 27.i.b2?
l:'lxd3 28.a4 i.b4;
20 . . . exf5 2l.l:'lxf5 0-0 2 2 . l:'lb7
l:'lfd8 23.l:'lfl <;!{f8 = .
Black has no problems here:
1 3 .b:e4
••• 14.�xe4 cxb2 19.i.e3 l:'ld5 2 0 .c4 ( 2 0 . l:'ltbl i.c5=)
15.hb2 ll:\c6 16.ll:\xc6 �xc6 2 0 ... l:'ld3 2 l . <;!;>f2 i.e7 2 2 .l:'ltbl l:'lhd8
17.�xc6 dxc6 18.i.d4 0-0-0 23.l:'lb3 l:'lxb3 24.axb3 l:'ld3 = .

110
Pa rt 3 . The Third Ra n k Set- U p

Com p l ete G a m es

1 0. Vatter-Zakhartsov
Bad Wiessee, 04. 1 1 .201 1

l.e4 c5 2 . �f3 e6 3.d4 cxd4

4.�xd4 �c6 5.� c3 ftc7 6.J.e3 a6
7 .i.d3 �f6 8. 0-0 �e5 9.h3 J.c5
.

lO.chhl d6 11.f4 �g6 12 .ftel J.d7

It is logical to open the g-file for

the rooks instead of playing 25 . . .
g6, but why not take o n f6 with the
same goal. The endgame after 25 . . .
gxf6 ! ? 26.lt:Jxf6 Wxg2+ i s difficult
for White since his knights have not
13.f5 �e5 14.fth4 0-0 15.gf3 any stable outposts. In this line the
exf5 16.exf5 �xf3 17.gxf3 J.c6 pawn is probably better on b7 than
ts.ggt J.xf3+ 19.�xf3 .txe3 on b5 - Black has no weaknesses.
20.�xf6 hgl 2 1.�g5 ftc5
22.�xgl gae8 2 6.ftf3?

This is the same position from 26.'1Wg5 was the only move. Then
my main line, only the pawn is on 26 . . . E:e5 27.fxg7+ E:xg7 28 .'1Wd8+
b7 instead of b5. E:g8 29.ftf6+ is a draw so Black
should play 26 . . . 1Wxg5 27.lt:Jxg5 gxf6
23.�e4 �d5 24.ftg2 chh8 28.lt:Jxf7+ @g7 29.lt:Jxd6 E:el. With­
25.f6 out the d-pawn, Black can hardly

111
 Part 3

win this endgame though. 'ecS, but Carlsen's play is nonethe­

less impressive.
26 J:!e6
•. 27.fxg7+ gxg7
28.�e2 21 ••. 'ec6 2 2 . �e4

This position is won for Black. 2 2 .�e4 \Wc5 23 .�a8 fails to 23 ...
Strongest is 28 . . . \Wxa2, but Zakhart­ .ie3.
sov's decision to leave the queen in
the centre is more practical. 22 ••• f6 23.'exgl gae8?

In The Safest Sicilian, I pro­

28 \We5 29.'ef4 'exb2
posed to centralise the queen with
•••

30.<.!.>h2 \Wxa2 31.�xd6 'ed5

23 . . . 'ed5 ! White should defend the
32.�xf7+ ? gxf7 0-1
f5-pawn with 24.ll'ld4 !'1£7 25.ll'le6
l'!e8 2 6.\Wg2 <.!.>h8 and Black is some­
what better. The modern under­
standing is that Black should not
1 1 . Carlsen-Vachier Lag rave
weaken the e6-square.
Cap d' Agde 2006
24.Vd4 d5 25.ltlc5 ge7
l.e4 c5 2.�£3 e6 3. t0c3 t0c6 26.<.!.>g2 g6 27.t0e6 gxe6 28.fxe6
4.d4 cxd4 5.�xd4 'ec7 6 . .ie3 a6 'exe6 29.a4 !
7 .id3 �f6 8. 0-0 tOeS 9.h3 .ic5
•

lO.<.!.>hl d6 11.f4 �g6 12.'eel 0-0

13.f5 �e5 14.'eh4 b5 15.gf3 exf5
16.exf5 �xf3 17.gxf3 .ib7 18.ggl
.ix£3+ 19.�xf3 .ixe3 20.'exf6
.ixgl 2 1.�g5

Black's queenside pawns are

weak, his queen is passive. Still,
nothing terrible has happened yet.

29 bxa4 30.'exa4 gbs 3 1 .b3

•••

gb6 3 2.Va5 <.!.>g7 33.c!Lid4 \Wd6

This was one of the first games 34.c3 h5?
that reached this crazy position. I
mention it since it gives an excellent This natural move turns out to
idea of White's possibilities. Later be dubious. 34 . . . 'it>f7 35.b4 fS was
Black found improvements, as 2 1 . . . a better set-up. White stands im-

112
 The Third Rank Set-Up

pressively, but everything in Black's ti'd4 20.ti'f2 Wxf2 2 1 . c;f{xf2 = , J.

camp is protected. Moreno-Tregubov, France 2000.
This endgame might be White's
35.h4 <tt> h 6 36.b4 gbs? best option though. Zaragatski re­
lies on the symmetric structure and
Humans hate to stay passive­ avoids taking any committing deci­
ly and too often lose because they sions, but this is always a dubious
strive to force events instead of approach .
miserably repeating aimless moves.
Now 36 ... c;f{g7 was holding the po­ ts.gfdt ti'e5 t9.f3 gfd8
sition, but Vachier-Lagrave had a ·
2 0.Wf2 h5!
counter-attack in mind.
In such pawn structures, Black
37.ti'a6 ti'f4? 38.c!i�f5! has two major plans. One is to push
gS. This is a good defensive set-up.
A beautiful mating combination · I chose to gain space on the kingside
out of the blue. Black resigned. by . . . h5-h4. White should have pre­
vented it by playing h4 himself.

2t.Afl Wgs 2 2 .b4? ! h4 23.gds

1 2. Zaragatski -Delchev gds 24. �h3 �hs
Bad Wiessee 2005

l.e4 c5 2.�f3 e6 3.d4 cxd4

4. c!Dxd4 �c6 5 . � c3 ti'c7 6 . .ie3 a6
7..id3 �f6 8.0-0 �xd4 9.hd4
1c5 10.hc5 ti'xc5 ll.�a4 Wc7
12 .c4 d6 13.gcl 0-0 14.c5 .id7
15.cxd6 ti'xd6 16.�c5 .ic6
17.ti'e2 gac8

It is amazing how quickly one

can get into trouble in a seeming­
ly simple and safe position. White
would not have had problems with­
out rooks, but he cannot exchange
them.

25.gc5 e5 26.�d4 �f4 27. <tt> h t

.ia4 2 8 . �f5 gdl 29.g3 �d3
Black holds the position thanks 3o. gc8+ <tt> h 7 3 1 . ti'e2 �c1 3 2 . ti'f2
to the tactical trick 18 .e5 ti'dS 19.f4 .ib5 33. �e3 �d3 34.Wgl gel

113
 Part 3

35.a4 .ixa4 36.f4 exf4 37.c!Og2 19 axb5+ 2 0 . �c2 b4 2 1 . c!Oe2

•••

�at 38.gxf4 c!Oxf4 39.�c5 Wg4 \&b6 ! 2 2 .�dl? ! (The rook is bet­
40.c!Oxf4 9f3+ 0-1 ter on the open file : 2 2 . �fcl+.) 22••.

�a5 ! 23.�cd2 .ic6 24 .ibl �f5 !+

•

25.Wg3 .ie4 26.�d6 Wa5 27.We3

hb1 28.�xbl c!Od5 29 .Wd4 Wxa2
1 3. Varga-Aimasi 30.�el h6
Budapest 2004

l.e4 c5 2 . c!Of3 c!Oc6 3.d4 cxd4

4.c!Oxd4 9c7 5.c!Oc3 e6 6 .ie3 c!Of6
•

7 .id3 a6 8.0-0 c!Oe5 9.h3 .ic5

•

10.c!Oa4 .ia7 ll.c4 d6 12 .�kl .id7

13.c!Oc3 0-0 14.b3 9a5 15.9e2
�fe8=

Black could have taken anoth­

er pawn : 30 . . . �xb3 ! since 31.tt:lg3
�gS 3 2 . tt:le4 �xg2 ! 33.'t!lxg2 tt:lf4+
34.'t!lgl �f3 35.tt:lf6 gxf6 36.\&e4
tt:lh3 37.'t!lh2 tt:lgS 38.�e3 �c8-+
loses at once. It is incredible, but
Black went on to lose from the dia­
gram position. 1 : 0 on move 76.
16.c!Of3 J.xe3 17.Wxe3 c!Oxf3 +
18.9xf3 b5?
1 4. Onischu k-Salov
A good idea at a wrong time. El ista 1 998
Black is still slightly unco-ordinat­
l.e4 c5 2.tt:lf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4
ed, so 18 .. J�ad8 ! ? would have been
4.tt:lxd4 tt:lc6 5 . c!Oc3 \&c7 6 .ie3 a6
better.
•

7 .id3 tt:lf6 8 . 0-0 �e5 9.h3 .ic5

•

lO.'t!lhl d6 11.f4 c!Og6 12 .\&d2 0-0

19.cxb5?
13.�ael b5 14.a3

White misses his tactical chance

19.e5 ! dxeS 20 .tt:le4 with a very an­
noying initiative. The c-pawn sud­
denly becomes dreadful. Nei­
ther 20 . . . \1*/dS 21.c5±, nor 20 . . . tt:le4
21 .\&e4 g6 22 .\1*/eS \&a2 23 . .ie4 �ac8
24.hb7 �b8 25.\&c7 bxc4 26.bxc4±
suits Black.

114
 The Third Rank Set-Up

�e7 3 1.!:id6 J.c6 3 2 .!:id4 J.d5

14 . . . e5 lS.fxeS dxeS 16.l!Jf5 .be3

17.l!Jxe3 is slightly better for White.
14 . . . .ib7 fails to lS.fS so Black
defends the e-pawn.
14 . . . �b6 ! ? is a good alterna­
tive : lS.eS l!JhS 16.�f2 l!Jhf4 17.b4
ix:d4 18 . .bd4 l!Jxd3 19.cxd3 �c6
20.ed6co.

15. �b3 .ixe3 16.ti'xe3 ib7 33.�d3

17.e5
Sooner or later White should
This is the main plan. 17.f5 exfS swap the rooks ant the arising end­
18 J§:f5 dS or 17. l!Je2 eS 18.f5 l!Je7 game should be · drawn : 33.E:xc4
transform the centre in Black's fa­ bxc4 34.l!Jdl lt>d7 35.l!Je3 lt>c6
vour. 36.Wf2 lt>cS = . In the game, White
has been stubbornly avoiding this
17 dxe5
••• 18 .fxe5 �d7 decision until it became too late.
19 . .ixg6 fxg6 20.!:ie2 !
33 a5 34.\t>f2 lt>d7 35.�el
••.

A flexible move which makes 'it>c6 36. �e3 h6 37.g3 'it>b6

way for the other rook to dl. 38. �d3 !:ic8 39.a4 !:if8 40.axb5
'it>xb5 41.�e2 !:if5 42.g4 !:if7
43.�el g{4+ 44.'it>e3 !:if1 45.�c2
!:if3 + 46.�d2 .ib3 47.!:ib4+ axb4
A critical moment of the game. 48.�d4 + 'it>c4 49.�xf3 bxc3 +
Salov plays very well endgames 50.bxc3 �d5 51.�e3 J.c4 52 .h4
so he gladly allows the trade of gxh4 53. �xh4 �xe5 54. �f3+
queens. I think that 2 0 .. J'!ac8 main­ 'it>d5 55.�d2 J.b5 56.�f3 J.a4
tains a dynamic balance without 57.g5 h5 58. �f4 J.c2 59.�e5 J.f5
much risk, because Black's pawn 60.�f3 �c4 61.�h4 .ig4 62 .g6
structure on the kingside is nearly �xc3 63.�e5 'it>d3 64.'it>d6 'it>e4
unassailable: 21.l!Jd4 ( 2 1.E:dl l!Jb6+; 65. �e7 �f4 0-1
21.�d4 l!Jb6 22.lt:ld2 E:cd8=) 21 . . .
liJb6 22 .l!Jdl = .
1 5. Kotron ias-De Ia Riva
21.ti'c5 !:iac8 2 2 .ti'xc7 !:ixc7 B led ol 2002
23.�a5 .ia8 24. �gl lM8 25.!:idl
gxdl+ 26.�xdl �f7 27.�f2 �c4 l.e4 c5 2 . �f3 �c6 3 . d4 cxd4
28.�xc4 !:ixc4 29.c3 g5 30.!:id2 4.�xd4 e6 5. �c3 ti'c7 6.J.e3 a6

115
 Part 3

7 .td3 �f6 8.0-0 �e5 9.h3 J.c5

• 2 0 . l:U'3
lO.<.!>hl d6 ll.f4 �g6 12.£5 �e5
13.�ce2 exf5 14.exf5 0-0 15 .tg5 •

�ed7

2 0 . . . .lf8 ! ?

Black anticipates l'!g3 - 20...

16.�el .tb7? 2 1.l'!g3 J.d6 ( 2 1 . . .ll:Jh5 2 2 .�h5
J.d4 23.l'!g4 i.b2 24.c3�) 2 2 .l'!g7!
Or 16.c3 dS ! , in order to keep the �g7 23.i.h6 �h8 24.ll:Jf3 with a
bishop on the f8-a3 diagonal in the crushing attack.
event of b4.
21 .lf4 �b6 2 2 .J.e3 ( 2 2 .l'!g3
•

16 . . . h6 17 .td2 d5 18.ti'h4
•
lt?h8) 22 . . . ti'c7 23.�f4? ! (23.J.f4
looks more realistic.) 23 . . . �c5
White stakes all on the kingside 24.b4? �ce4
attack. A more positional approach
is to trade dark-squared bishops, Black is aiming to prevent at any
trying to underline the awkward cost an attack against his king. He
stand of the bishop on c8. Still, could have tried to seize the initia­
he has enough weaknesses on the tive by 24 . . . ll:Jxd3 25.cxd3 (25.ll:Jxd3
queenside to worry about: 18.i.f4 ll:Je4 26.�g4 �c3 27.l'!e2 aS) 25 . . .
i.d6 (18 . . . ll:Je5 19.�h4 �e7 2 0 . l'!ael) �c3 26.ll:Jde2 �xb4 27.i.d4 ll:Jh7
19.�g3 i.xf4 2 0 .�xf4 �b6 2 1 . ll:lb3 28.ll:Jd5 �d2 t.
l'!e8 2 2 .l'!ael lLleS 23.ll:Jed4 ll:Jxd3
24.l'!xe8 ll:Jxe8 25.cxd3 i.d7=. 25.tl:�d5 �d5 26.i.e4 J.b7
27.a3 :Bad8 draw.

Black must be very careful about

his king. e.g. 19 . . . i.e7 20.ll:Jc3 ll:JcS
is likely to lose to 21.i.xh6 gxh6
22 .�xh6 ll:Jxd3 23.cxd3�. Instead,
Black has an interesting way to re­
group with 19 . . . ll:Je4 ! ? 2 0 .i.f4 �b6,
for example 2 1.i.xe4 l'!xe4 2 2 .ll:lb3 = .
116
 The Third Rank Set-Up

Ka n G a m es .idS 2 1 .lLlxdS exdS 2 2 .lLlfS f6 = . At

a second glance, 14 . . . dxe5 ! ? lS.fxeS
lL\xd3 16.exf6 lL\xel 17.fxe7 �xe7
18.l:!xeloo may be even more attrac­
1 6. C u bas-Hel lsten tive. So let's focus on:
Buenos Aires (7), 09. 1 0 .2006 14.b4 lLlxd3 15.cxd3 l:!fc8

l.e4 c5 2.c!Llf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4

4. c!Llxd4 a6 5 . c!Ll c3 ffc7 6.J.d3
�f6 7.0-0 d6 8 . a4 b6 9.f4 J.b7
lO.YlYf3 c!Llbd7 11 .id2 J.e7 12 .gael
•

Black's b7-bishop is current­

ly without prospects. On the other
hand, the c3-knight is also not par­
ticularly impressive. The evaluation
of this position depends on White's
12 ••• c!Llc5 ability to gain space on the kingside.
If he achieves g4-g5, he would get
The idea of killing the most dan­ some initiative. However, 16 .g4
gerous white piece, the d3-bish­ would let in the blow 16 . . . d5 17.e5
op, cannot be wrong. I believe that .bb4. The inclusion of 16.<it>hl �d7
the ensuing position, where Black does not enable 17.g4 dS 18.e5 due
has the bishop pair and no appar­ to 18 . . . lL\e4 ! . We see that the con­
ent weaknesses, is roughly equal. trol of b4 is vital for White's setup.
Still, 12 . . . 0-0 13.�h3 lLl cS is per­ Therefore, the most logical move is:
haps the more accurate move or­
16.l:!bl �d7
der. Black has made an obligatory
move while in the symmetric pawn This is the ideal place for Black's
structure after . . . lLlxd3 the queen is queen in this structure - it is eye­
in no way better placed on h3 than ing the a4-pawn while protecting
on f3. It even hampers a possible e6 and c6. Again, 17.g4 lL\e8 18 .g5
plan with g2-g4-g5, h2-h4. Black is well met by 18 . . . d5 ! 19.e5 g6 and
only has to watch out for sacrifices White cannot generate any active
on e6. The critical question is: can idea. On contrast, Black has plenty
Black exchange the d3-bishop at of play. For instance, 2 0 . l:!fcl .ic6,
all? Let's check 14.e5 lL\xd3 15.exf6 when White is unable to keep the
ttJxel 16.fxe7 .bg2 17.exf8�+ l:!xf8 queenside closed anymore because
18.�g3 .bfl 19 . .bel .ic4 2 0 .b3 of the hanging pawns on the fourth

117
 Part 3

rank. 20J:!b3 lt:lg7 2 1.!%a1 is useless . . .'?9d7, . . . lt:le8. It is quite good here,
due to 2 l . . . lt:'lf5 ! 2 2 .lt:'lxf5 exfS 23.d4 too, despite the rook being still on
!%c4 24.lt:'le2 .ic6 - the dozing bish­ f8 : 15 . . . lt:le8 ! ? , when 16.g5? would
op enters the play with a great ef­ be a mistake due to 16 . . . d5. Af­
fect. Obviously, White should post­ ter 16.!%c1 '?9d7, White also lacks a
pone active plans: good continuation. Perhaps White
should defend the b4-pawn : 16.!%b1
17.!%fc1 lt:'le8 18.'it>h1 .if6
.if6 17.lt:lce2 '?9d7 with sufficient
counterplay.
Black can even unbalance the po­
sition by the interesting queen sac­
.
rifice: 15 . . . d5 ! ? 16.e5 hb4 17.lt:lcb5
�cS 18 .!%c1 axbS 19.!%xc5 hcS
20 . .ie3 lt:ld7 21.axb5 !%a3 2 2 .!%d1
!%fa8oo.

16.!%cl '?9d8 17.lt:lce2 !%c8 ? !

We see a reliable set-up for

Hellsten i s constantly avoiding
Black. After 19 . .ie3 bS ! 2 0 .a5 (20.
concrete decisions. 17 . . . a5 18.b5
axbS axbS 21.lt:'ldxb5? .ia6), he can
lt:lcS 19.lt:'lc6 hc6 2 0 .bxc6 lt:lxa4
activate the b7-bishop by 20 . . . hd4
2 1.d4 bS would have been much
21.hd4 fS, or delay this plan in fa­
more enterprising.
vour of doubling on the c-file first.
To take stock, 12 . . . 0-0 looks fine
18.g5 !%xc1 19.!%xcl g6 20 .h4
for Black.

13.b4 c!Dxd3 14.cxd3 0-0

15.g4

20 . . . e5? !

Despite his mundane play so

far, Black still has a good game.
He had to secure the cS-square for
In my explanations to move 12, his knight by 2 0 . . . a5 ! . After 2 1 .b5?!
I recommended the set-up with lt:lcS 2 2 . lt:'lc3 f6, White would have

118
 The Third Rank Set-Up

too many pawns hanging. Instead,

Black hands the opponent the d5-
square for his knight.

21 .!Llc6 hc6 2 2 . gxc6 exf4

•

23.d4 ge8 ? !

It i s amazing how passively Hell­

sten treats this position . He had to
seek counterplay with 23 . . . f6. After 9.i.d2
the text, White is already much bet­
ter and he went on to win (not with­ By delaying f4, I discourage an
out mistakes though). early . . . b5 which I would attack by
a4. However, an ever more sophisti­
24 .!Llxf4 .!Llb8 25.gcl .tf8
•
cated move order is probably 9.<.!?hl
26 .!Lld5 �g7 27.gc7 gf8 28.YU4
•
which is also aimed against 9 ... g6.
ixd4+ 29 .�e3 �e5 30.Y5g4 + -
9 .te7 10.<.t>hl! .!Llc5 11.f4 b5?
•..

This move should be played after

�ael, e.g. 1 1 . . . 0-0 12.�ael b5. Now I
could have achieved a decisive at­
tack with 12 .e5 lLJfd7 (12 . . . dxe5
13 .fxe5 .!Llfd7 14.�xt7 <.t>xt7 15.YlYh5+
g6 16.hg6+ hxg6 17.YlYxh8 lLJf8
18.�fl+ <.t>e8 19.YlYg7 '\1;;'d 7 2 0 .i.g5
i.b7 2 1.�t7) 13.lLJd5 ! ! , but I was fol­
lowing the general principle which
30 b 5 31.a5 (31.axb5 axb5
assumes that . . . b5 should be ex­
•.•

32.h5+-) 3 1 Y5e8 3 2 . .!Lle7+

ploited by a break on the queenside.
• • •

�h8 33.�f4 �d4+ 34.<.!?g2 YlYd8

Here is another example from my
35 .!Lld5 �g7 36.�d2? (36.h5 ! )
practice:
•

36 f5?? (36 . . . Y5e8) 37.gxf6 �6

.•.

38.i.h6 ggs 39.Y5e6 i.e5 40 .YlYt7 Delchev-Rasu lov

1g7 41.hg7+ 1-0 Edirne 201 3

17 Delchev-Castellanos Rodriguez
Leon 06. 1 1 .201 2

l.e4 c5 2 .!Llf3 e6 3 . d4 cxd4

•

4 . .!Llxd4 a6 5 .!Llc3 YlYc7 6.�d3 .!Llf6

•

7.0-0 d6 8 .Y5e2 .!Llbd7

119
 Part 3

10.b4 ! i.e7 ll.a4 bxa4 12J'!xa4± bishop which has not bright pros­
�c8 13.tt'le5 �c7 14.t['lc4 d6 15.lDa5 pects. I decided to exchange it in
i.c8 16J�a3 tt'lf6 17.tt'la4 tt'lfd7 18J'k3 order to gain full control over the c­
�d8 19.i.e3 i.f6 20J'k4 0-0 2 1.f4 file, but it does not bring substan­
�e7 22 J'!el e5 23.f5 i.g5 24.i.f2 tial dividends. Instead, I should
�d8 25.i.fl. Black is totally stran­ have produced a second weakness
gled and he cannot prevent 26.�d5. in the opponent's camp by 2 2 .f5 ! ,
when 2 2 . . . e 5 23.tt'lxb7 ti'xb7 24.lDc6
12 .b4 tt'lxd3 13.cxd3 i.b7 d5 25.i.g5 would give me a clear
14JUcl ! positional edge.

I seize the initiative. Black 2 2 ti'xb7 23.lLlc6 !:!e8 24 .tel

• •• •

should be able to hold on, but he .idS?!

must endure a lasting pull.
24 ... i.f8 ! 25.�c2 d5 ! 26.e5 tt'lg4
14 �d8 15.a4! bxa4 16.tt'lxa4
..• would have equalised. After the
!:!c8 17.!:!xc8 ti'xc8 18.!:!cl ti'd7 text, Black cannot easily unpin his
knight:
18 . . . �b8 ! 19 .i.e3 0-0 2 0 .lDb6
�e8 was preferable. 25.i.h4 ! e5 2 6.fxe5

19.tt'lb6 fid8 20.lLlc4 0-0 It was better to play 2 6.ti'f3 im­

mediately. The f4-pawn is impor­
tant since it prevents . . . h6, . . . g5

26 dxe5 27.ti'f3 ti'd7 28.h3

•••

!:!e6? ! (28 . . . h6 ! ) 29. lLlxd8 ti'xd8

21.lLla5

Perhaps 2 1.i.e3 was more un­

pleasant. Black cannot find good
places for his pieces.
30.d4 ! !
21 • •• ti'd7 2 2 .lLlxb7? !
I t turns out that 30 . . . exd4 31.e5
In this pawn structure, Black's �xeS 32.i.xf6 gxf6 33 .�g4+ �g5
only concern is his light-squared 34.�c8 wins a rook.

120
 The Third Rank Set-Up

30 . . . fi'd7 31.d5 gb6 3 2.ti'c3 \Wxc2 23.�xd6+ <Jlc7 24.lt:lb5+ with

'fYe8 33 .bf6 gxf6 34.fi'c7 h5
• a perpetual (24 . . . 'it>b8? 25.\Wd4). It
35.d6 1-0 is easy to understand White's wish
to kill the hS-knight.

ts ••• b4 t6 .ixh5 gxhs

•

1 8. Kerekes-A. Kovacs
H u ngary, 09. 1 2.2007

l.e4 c5 2.�f3 e6 3 . d4 cxd4

4.ctlxd4 a6 5 .id3 <tlf6 6.0-0 d6
•

7.ie3 �bd7 8 . � c3 ti'c7 9 . s!?hl

1e7 10.f4 b5 11.fi'f3 .ib7 1 2 . gael
h5

Black has active pieces. After

17.lt:lb1, he could evacuate the king
from the centre by 17 . . . 'it>f8 and fol­
low up by . . . g6 or . . . gh6.

17.� a4 �f6 18.c3 fi'a5?

This mistake mars the nice

White's set-up is entirely g4-g5 game. The simple 18 . . . lt:lxe4 would
oriented. Now he has to revise his have ensured a solid edge thanks to
strategy and think up a way to ex­ the threat of . . . gh6, . . . lt:lg3+. White
ploit the weakness of the h-pawn. could have now levelled the chances
with 19.ltlb6 ! gbs 20.cxb4.
13 .igl h4 14. ti'h3 �h5 15 .ie2
• •

19.b3 �xe4 20.cxb4 ti'd5

This is a difficult position for 2 1 . �b6
both sides. Black has some tempo­
rary initiative, but he must play con­
crete chess to keep it. For instance,
15.a3 0-0-0 is very interesting (of
course, 15 . . . gcs is also possible, but
the fact that it does not threaten an­
ything worries me) . After 16.lt:lde2
tLlg3+ 17.lt:lxg3 hxg3 18.�xg3 ih4
19.�xg7 he1 2 0 .gxe1 fS, White is
lucky to find 2 1 .hb5 ! axbS 2 2 .lt:lxb5

121
 Part 3

21
�g3 + 22.hxg3 (22 .�xg3
• •.

hxg3+) 22 ti'xg2 + 23.�xg2

• •.

hxg3+ 24 .ih2 gxh2+ 25. �g1

•

gxg2 + 26.�h1 gb2 + 27.�g1

gb1# 0-1

1 9. Moen -Topalov 2 2 .. .f5 is already a threat. 2 2 .g4

ECC Rhodes 20.1 0.201 3 lt:Jg7 would only add oil into the fire
as . . .fS would gain in strength.
1.e4 c5 2 . �£J e6 3.d4 cxd4 Moen decides to trade a cou­
4.�xd4 a6 5.�c3 �c7 6 . .id3 ple of rooks along the c-file, but his
ic5 7.�b3 ie7 8.f4 b5 9.a3 ib7 move weakens the f4-pawn and en­
10.0-0 d6 ll.�h1 �d7 12 .id2 •
ables another break in the centre :
�gf6 13.ti'e2 0-0 14.�d4 gac8
15.gae1 �c5 16.b4 �xd3 17.cxd3 2 2 .lUc1 d5 (22 . . . f5 was also
possible) 23.exd5 (23.e5 d4) 23 .•.

exd5 24. �f2 d4

A typical sacrifice on gener­

al considerations which unleashes
all Black's pieces. Concrete calcula­
tion shows that 24 . . . �f5 ! 2S.d4 �d3
26 . .id2 lt:Jg7 was very strong. The
knight arrives in the centre with a
decisive effect. Anyway, Moen opts
17 ••• tM7 18.gcl gfe8 19.�b3 for the wrong capture on d4 and his
g6 position goes down quickly.

The engines like 19 . . . e5, but I 25. �xd4? gcd8 26. �e4 .ixe4
suppose that Topalov did not like 27.dxe4 gxe4 2 8 . �b3 �e6
20 .fxe5 when the b7-bishop would 29.gc3 ges 30 .id2 �xf4 3 1 .�d4
•

be biting on granite until the rest of gxd4 32.!xf4 gxf4 33.�xf4 .ih6
its days. The plans with .. .fS or . . . d5- 34.�xh6?? (34.'�fl .ixcl 35J!xcl
d4 are more flexible. '\!!!fe 3 36.l'!al '\!!!f c 3 37.'\!!!f c l �xcl+
38.l'!xcl l'!e3+) 34 �e1+ 35.gxe1
•••

20.ie3 it'S 21.gc2 �h5 gxe1# 0-1

122
 Pa rt 4

The f4 System
The early f4 is coming into fashion in the Taimanov. White then takes on
c6, castles long and tries to maintain a firm grip on the centre by a3, :B:hel .
Against the Kan, this plan i s ineffective and i t i s rarely seen.

123
Pa rt 4. The f4 System

M a in I d eas

l.e4 c5 2 .!D f3 e 6 3.d4 cxd4

• the f4-pawn ensures this advance
4 . .!Dxd4 a6 5 .!Dc3 YlYc7 6.f4
• at any time. However, it is effective
only in connection with an attack on
h7. Therefore, the queen would be
best placed on h3. Another draw­
back of �e2 is that the queen takes
the natural retreat square of the
lt:Jc3 in the event of . . . b4.

8 .!Df6 9 . .ie3 (9.g4? ! lt:Jc6!

•••

10 . .ie3 hS) 9 . . . .!Dc6 1 0 .0-0-0 (10.

g4 hS ! )
White's last move did not devel­
op a piece so Black can spend time
on a pawn move, too :

6 ••• b5 7 .id3
•

The absence of a knight on c6

narrows White's safe path because
of the threat of . . . .ib4.

A plus for the Kan : easy to learn. The play has transposed t o a
minor line of the Taimanov. Thus
7 •••.ib7 s.ef3 Black side-stepped the most un­
pleasant positions with tt:Jxc6 �xc6
s.ee2 lt:Jf6 is fine for Black, see where Black should practically lose
game 26 An.Martin-Delchev, Be­ a tempo on retreating to c7 later.
nasque 2013. White commonly puts
his queen on e2 in order to support A plus for the Kan : Black plays an
e4-e5. That has no sense here since improved Taimanov.

124
 The f4 System

In the diagram position, Black

can simplify with 10 . . . lt:Jxd4 1l.i.xd4
icS or maintain the tension with :

10 b4 ll.c!i�ce2 lL! a5 1 2.g4 d5

•••

13.e5 lL!d7 14.'i!?b1 lL! c4 15 .Ac1 •

Bb6 16.ghfl .Ac5

Black has good counterplay on

the queenside thanks to . . . aS, . . . i.a6.
We are familiar with this struc­
ture from the previous chapter.
The Taimanov theory is much · Commonly, Black swaps his knight
more complex. White can get rid of for the d3-bishop with 12 . . . lt:Jb4 and
his hanging knight on d4 by taking gets a safe albeit passive position. I
on c6, and then comfortably devel­ advocate a sharper way which may
op the rest of his pieces. also lead to the same knight's ma­
White's main set-ups are: noeuvre, but after White has com­
mitted himself with g4.
1.e4 c5 2 . ltl f3 e6 3.d4 cxd4
4. tLlxd4 tLlc6 5.lL!c3 'ffc 7 6.f4 a6 12 .•• 0-0 13.g4

If White refrains from the pawn

storm (13.'i!?hl), Black redeploys his
forces with . . . lt:Jd7, . . . i.f6. See game
22 Belikov-Zakhartsov, Alushta
2005.

13 ••• tLlb4 ! ? 14.g5

A critical position arises after

A. 7.tLlf3 .Ac5 8 .Ad3 b5 9.e5
• 14.e5 lt:Jxd3 15.exf6 lt:Jxb2 16.fxe7
d5 (9 .. .f5 ! ?). Eife8! 17.i.d4 l:!xe7

B. 7 .Ae3 b5 8 .id3 .ib7 9 .ltlb3

• •

�f6

9 . . . lt:Ja5 ! ? now or on the next

move is easier to play, but it gives
the enemy a free hand in the centre.

10.0-0 d6 n.'fff3 .Ae7 12.eh3

125
 Part 4

In my opinion, Black has good

practical chances here.

13 . . . .ib4 ! ? 14 . .id4 0-0oo 15 . .ixf6

gxf6 16.tt::l e 2 l'!fd8 17.c3 .ic5 with
double-edged game.

Planning a counter-attack with n . . . Wc7! ? 12 .Wd4 h5

. . . .idS, . . .f6. The play is double­
edged.

C. 7.J.e2 b5 8 .�xc6 Wxc6

9.Af3 Ab7 10.Ae3 (10 .e5 Wfc7
11.tt::l e4 tt::l h 6) 10 J�c8
••

This is meant to enable 13 . . . tt::l f6.

If White answers 13.h3, then we
can vacate the h5-square by 13 . . .
h 4 14.0-0 tt::l f6, see game 24 Gof­
shtein-Tregubov, Montpellier 1998.

My suggestion is to keep the D. 7.�xc6 Wxc6 8.J.d3 b5

queens by retreating to c7 (although 9.We2
. . . Wfc4 is by all means playable) and
lead out our dark-squared bishop to
b4 or c5. Plans with . . . d6 are passive.

ll.a3

An illustration of my previous
note is the variation l l.Wid3 Wfc7 ! ?
12.0-0-0 tt::l f6 13.'kt>b1 (13 .g4 b4
14.tt::l e 2 Wc4)

126
 The f4 System

This has been the main line in I think that Black has good
the Taimanov with f4 lately. The chances here, but it is difficult to
question where to develop the judge without practical tests.
knight is still open. It is tempting The plan with ...lLle7 is not so de­
to put it on the more active square manding, but it offers White a tem­
f6, but then White will have eS. So porary initiative:
Black should play a few waiting
moves first, like 9....ib7!? 10..id2 9 ....ic5 10 .id2 .ib7 11.0-0-0
•

l"lc8 ll.a3 .ie7 12.0-0-0 lLlf6. Now lLle7 12.a3! 0-0

critical is 13.g4! dS 14.exd5 lLlxdS
15.:B:hf1 lLlxc3 16..ixc3 0-0 17.g5
l"lfe8! 18 ..ixg7 @xg7 19.�h5 �h8
20.f5 exfS 2l.:B:xf5 �g6 22.'\1;!fg4 '\1;!fd6
23 ..ixb5 '\1;!fe6 24.'\1;!fd4+ @g8 25 ..id7
�c4 26..ixc8 '\1;!fxd4 27.:B:xd4 .ixc8
28.:B:e5 .ie6 29.:B:a4 .id6 30.:B:e2 @g7

A topical position. I analyse it in

detail in the annotations to game
21 Nepomniachtchi-Vitiugov, Nizh­
ny Novgorod 2013. I do not see
compelling reasons to avoid it with
Black.

Weapon of choice

The answer is very easy, because we have an unconditional winner - the

Kan move order is definitely preferable.
The f4-Kan theory is a subset of the Taimanov. Black plays ... lLlc6 only
after ...bS, ....ib7. Thus he can recapture on c6 by the bishop, avoiding the
loss of tempo after ...�c7xc6-c7. White's choice is narrowed to plans with
queenside castling and double-edged positions.

127
Pa rt 4. The f4 System

Ta i manov - Step by Step

l.e4 c5 2 .c!b £J e6 3.d4 cxd4 7.lbb3 bS 8 . .ie3 transposes to

4. c!Dxd4 c!Dc6 5 .!Dc3 fic7 6.f4
• line B.

A. 7.c!D£J .ic5

7 . . . b5 first is also possible, since

8 . .ie3 .ib7 9 . .id3 c!DaS suits Black,
for instance, 10.0-0 lbc4 ll . .id4
lbxb2 1 2 .lbxb5 axbS 13.hb2 lbf6.

8 . .id3

8 .e5 gives Black good counter­

6 ••• a6 ! play after 8 . . .f5 (8 . . . d5 ! ? ) 9 . .id3 bS
10 .fie2 fia7, Hector-Zvjaginsev,
6 . . . lbxd4 has come into fashion Berlin 1993.
lately. I do not like too much this
option because it allows White to 8 . . b5
.

castle long and obtain some initia­

tive, for instance, 7.fixd4 a6 8 . .ie3
bS 9. 0-0-0 .ib7 10 . .id3 l"lc8 1l.c;t>b1 ! .
See game 2 0 Yemelin-Rodshtein,
Skopje 2013.
Commonly, White trades knights
himself, but then we take by queen,
putting pressure on e4.

A. 7.lDf3 ; B. 7 . .ie3 ; C. 7 . .ie2 ; D.

7.lbxc6

128
 The f4 System

9.e5 of quick development. Why do I pay

attention on it?
9.�e2 tt::'l d 4 ! 10.tt::'l x d4 i.xd4 pro­ Actually, this set-up conceals a
vides Black with time for complet­ lot of venom. White avoids the pin
ing development: ll.tt::'l d 1 (or ll . .id2 from cS which would be strong af­
ib7 12 .e5 fS ! ) ll . . . tt::'l f6 12 .c3 .icS ter 0-0. He also escapes the trade of
13 .e5 tt::'l d S 14.tt::'l f2 .ib7 (14 . . . f5 ! ?) dark-squared bishops after . . . tt::'l x d4
15.tt::'l e 4 0-0 16.tt::'l xc5 �xeS 17 . .id2 followed up by . . . .icS. This exchange
l"!ac8 18 .vtff2 vtfxf2 + 19.'i!lxf2 f6t, is commonly good for Black in the
Dvoirys-Tregubov, Rostov 1993 . Taimanov/ Kan since after . . . d6,
. .. eS, the remaining .ib7 is obvious­
9 . . . d5 ly more active than its white coun­
terpart on d3. Another argument in
9 .. .f5 is positionally more unbal­ favour of the exchange on d4 is that
anced, but it brings excellent results it reduces White's attacking forces.
after 10 .g4 tt::'l g e7 or 10 .vtfe2 �a7. At first this · system brought
White good results as it deprived
10.exd6 Black of his thematic Taimanov
plans and put him in a Schevenin­
10 .�e2 �a7 underlines the gen structure. With time, the sec­
weakness of the diagonal g1-a7. ond players have learned to han­
dle this set-up, but we can still face
10 . . ..ixd6 11. 0-0 c!Df6 1 2 . c!D e4 it in practice. Occasionally, White
�xe4 13 . .ixe4 .ib7 14.fiel 0-0+. chooses it in order to avoid long
theoretical lines and keep more dy­
namic in the position.
B. 7 .ie3 b5 8 .id3 .ib7
9.�f3 tt::'l f6 is the main line of our
• •

Kan chapter.

9 . . . c!Df6 !

9 . . . tt::'l a5 ! ? i s easier t o play, but

this is true for both sides.
White commonly answers with
10.tt::'l x a5
10.0-0 ! ? tt::'l c4 1l . .id4 tt::'l b 2 1 2 .tt::'l b 5
abS 13 . .ib2 tt::'l f6 14.\We2 b4 15.'i!lh1
.ie7 16.e5 tt::'l dS 17.f5 g6oo
10 . . . '\WxaS ll.a3 !
This retreat looks like a second­ Securing the position of the c3-
rate move which defies the principle knight. On g3 it would be harassed

129
 Part 4

by the h-pawn: 11.0-0 b4 12.ltJe2 14.�g3 hS ! � . Black can play h4 and

icS 13.ix:cS �xeS+ 14.�h1 tt:lf6 castle short, but he could also de­
1S.tt:lg3 hS ! (One move later this velop the bishop to d6 and hide the
move would be impossible: 1S . . . king to the other flank in the event
d6? 16.'1We2 ! h S 17.eS± h 4 18.tt:lfS. of �xg7.
Castling short under the fire of all lO .eS has been tested in only
White's pieces is hopeless : 16 . . . 0-0 one game : 1 0 . . �b4 11.tLlbS? ! (11.
17.eS dxeS 18.fxeS tt:ld7 19.l'!ae1--+.) tt:le4 tt:lxe4 12 . .ixe4 dS 13.exd6
16.�£3 (Here 16.e5 fails to 16...h4-+) ix:d6 14.0-0 0-0 is about equal, e.g.
16 . . . h4 17.tt:le2 l'!b8 ! ? (protecting 1S.tt:lc5 .ixc5 16.hc5 tt:le7=.) 11 . . .
the bishop which is hanging in the axbS 1 2 .exf6 gxf6 13.0-0 tt:l e 7 ! head­
variation 17 . . . h3 18.g4 dS 19.eS and ing for fS, Hector-Lindberg, Orebro
there is no 19 . . . d4) 18.l'!ad1 h3 19.g4 2013.
dS 20.tt:lg3 dxe4 2 1 .tt:lxe4 tt:lxe4
22 .ix:e4 he4 23.�xe4 l'!c8+. 10 . . . d6

Again, lO . . . tt:laS ! ? is a viable op­

tion. It leads the game into a typical
Taimanov track: ll.tt:lxaS
Or 11.eS b4! 12.tLlbS axbS 13.exf6
tt:lc4 14.id4 gxf6 with counterplay
on the g-file.
l l . . . �aS 12.a3 !
12 .eS i s again premature due to
11 . . .�c7 12. 0-0 icS 13.icS �cS
12 . . . b4 13.exf6 bxc3 14.fxg7 hg7
14.�h1 tt:lh6 1S.eS 0-0! 16.ie4 �b6
1S.b4 �dS 16.l'!f2 l'!g8 17.hh7 id4 !
17.�d3 ix:e4 18.tt:lxe4 tt:lfS 19.l'!f3
18.hg8 he3 19.�dS idS 2 0 .ih7
l'!fb8 20 .l'!dl b4 2 l .a4 l'!a7= . White
fS.
does have a space advantage in this
line, but it should not bring him di­ 12 . . . �c7!
vidends.

10.0-0

We see the result of 9 ... tt:lf6 -

White is forced to renounce plans
with queenside castling as lO .�fJ
allows lO . . . dS ! 11.exdS (Or 11.eS
d4 12.exf6 dc3+, Venci Popov­
Miladinovic, Korinthos 1999) 11 . . .
tt:lb4 12.0-0 tt:lbxdS 13.tt:lxdS hdS We know already this manoeuvre

130
 The f4 System

from the comments to move 9 . Most players prefer to attack im­

Black keeps all his options open. mediately the enemy bishop on d3
He can switch over to Sheveningen with 12 ... lt:\b4. You should keep in
structures with . . . d6, or trade his mind this move as a backup line in
dark-squared bishop through cS. your repertoire. Its downside is that
Even . . .b5-b4 is worth considering. White's b3-knight gets an excellent
In the event of 13.'i!?h1 hS ! ? (aim­ place on d4 from where it supports
ing for . . . h4-h3) 14.�f3 lt:\g4 15 . .id4 White's play on both flanks. The
icS, Black has some initiative. critical position arises some moves
13.e5 lt:\dS 14.lt:\xd5 hdS 15.a4 later (on the next diagram).
(15.b4 .ie7 16.�d2 0-0 17.a4 E:fc8)
13.E:ac1 0-0
15 ... .ic5 16.�e2 0-0 ! is also fine for
him. In my game against Baklan at
the Olympiad in Istanbul 2000, I
ll.�f3 J.e7 underestimated the importance of
the c-file and chose 13 . . . lt:\d7? ! 14.a3
lt:\xd3 15.cxd3 �d8 16.f5 eS, when
17.lt:\d5 ! hdS 18.exd5± underlined
the weakness of the c6-square.
13 . . . E:ac8 is a worthy alternative
which often transposes to the main
line.
14.a3 lt:\d3 15.cd3 �d8
15 . . . �d7 deprives the f6-knight
from its best retreat square, but it
is playable.
12.ti'h3
16.lt:\d4 E:c8
12 .g4? ! runs into 12 . . . h5 !
12 .a3 is a consistent move. How­
ever, it slows down the attack. Black
should play immediately 1 2 . . . b4
13.axb4 lt:\xb4 in order to keep an
eye on the d3-bishop : 14.�h3 (14.
'i:la5 0-0=) when 14 ... 0-0?! allows
15.e5 ! . Therefore, it is better to pre­
vent it by 14 . . . e5 or 14 . . . E:b8 ! ? (va­
cating a retreat square on a8 in the This position is roughly equal,
event of lt:\aS). but it is difficult to win it as Black.
White is very solid in the centre and
12 . 0-0
.. he can manoeuvre without risking

131
 Part 4

to get worse. For instance, he can forces with . . . tt'ld7, . . . �f6. See game
double the rooks on the c-file or 22 Belikov-Zakhartsov, Alushta
play '\Wg3, <;t> hl. I prefer to avoid it 2 0 05.
if possible. I will consider below the
advance of the g-pawn : 1 3 . . . tt'lb4 ! ?

17.g4
The stem game Kozakov-Ata­
In Nedev-Lautier, Chalkidi­ lik, Lvov 2 0 0 0 , saw another move
ki 2 0 0 2 , was 17.tt'lf3 d5 18.e5 d4 ! ? order: 13 . . . tt'ld7. It allows Black to
19.tt'lxd4 tt'ld5 2 0 .tt'lxd5 '\Wxd5 2 1.'\Wf3 avoid the piece sacrifice after 13 . . .
'\Wd'Too . tt'lb4 14.e5, but offers the enemy the
option of 14.f5 ! ? exf5 15.tt'ld5 �d8
17 . . . tt'ld7 18.g5
16.gxf5 tt'lce5 with unclear play ac­
cording to Atalik. I think that unless
The game Negi-Mamedov, Dubai
practical tests prove 13 . . . tt'lb4 14.e5
2004, saw 18.b4 �f6 19.tt'lce2 E:xc1
to be dubious, Black should delay
20.E:xc1 e5? 21.tt'lf5 exf4 2 2 .tt'lxf4±.
the manoeuvre tt'lf6-d7.
A possible improvement is 2 1 . . .
'\Wb8, planning . . . E:c8, . . . �d8-b6.
14.g5

18 ... tt'lc5 19.E:cd1 E:e8 ! ?

The crucial question here is how
to evaluate the position after 14.e5
Black should not admit the ene­
tt'lxd3 15.exf6 tt'lxb2 16.fxe7 E:fe8 !
my knight to f5. The game Baklan­
17.�d4 E:xe7
Tregubov, France 2003, saw 19 . . .
e5? ! 2 0 .tt'lf5 tt'le6 2l.tt'lxe7+ , when a
draw was signed. Instead, 2 1.�g3 !
would have been unpleasant.

Let me add that the popular

lately 12 . . . h5 is not all roses. After
13. <;t> h1, I'm at a loss to offer a good
move : 13 . . . tt'lg4 14.�g1 g6 (14 . . . g5
15.�e2±; 14 . . . tt'lb4 15.�e2) 15.�e2 ;
13 . . . g6 14.a3 ! ? tt'lg4 (14 . . . E:c8 15.f5 In my opinion, Black has good
gxf5 16.exf5 e5 17.�g5) 15.�g1 �f6 practical chances here. The gaping
16.E:adtt. main diagonal and the semi-open c­
file will be a constant source of con­
13.g4 cern to White. Black will soon play
. . . e5 to open the position. Add to
If White refrains from the pawn that your opponent's surprise. He
storm (13. <;t> h1), Black redeploys his may have read annotations stating

132
 The f4 System

that 14.e5 was winning, but instead

finds himself faced with serious tac­
tical problems. Summing up, an in­
teresting struggle is ahead : 18J�ae1
ti'lc4 19.ltle4 e5 2 0 .fe5 lt:lxe5 ! oo .

It i s time t o take stock. On move

12, I recommended 12 . . . 0-0 instead
of 12 . . . lt:lb4. That could cost us even
a piece should the opponent braced 15 . . . 13ae8 ! ?
himself for 14.e5. However, only
two moves later the situation seems Atalik's recommendation.
nearly the same as in the comments 15 ... ltlc5 might finish with a re-
to move 1 2 . What has Black gained . petition of moves after 16.f5 exf5
by his risky move order? 17.ltlxf5 (17.exf5 lt:lbxd3 18.cxd3
Let us examine White's options : '!Wd7t) 17 . . . lt:lbxd3 18.cxd3 lt:lxd3
15.a3 is outright bad due to 15 . . . 19 . .id4
ti'lxd3 16.cxd3 ltl c5 17.lt:lxc5 deS+.
19.lt:lxg7 is dubious since Black
After 15J3acl, instead of trans­
gets a terrible initiative after 19 . . .
posing to the game Baklan­
lt>xg7 2 0 .g6 hxg6 2 1..ih6 'it>g8
Tregubov by 15 . . J:l:ac8 16.a3, we
2 2 .hf8 \Wc5+ 23. 'it>h1 1'l:xf8 24.'\Wxd3
have 15 . . . lt:lc5 ! 16.f5 (16.lt:lxc5 dxc5
lt>g7.
17 . .ie2 1'l:ad8 18.f5 ef5 19.ef5 c4�)
16 . . . exf5 17.exf5 lt:lbxd3 18.cxd3 19 . . . lt:le5 2 0 . 1'l:ac1 \Wd8 21.1'l:cd1
�d7+, Bjerring-Plachetka, Copen­ '\Wc7 ( 2 l . . .f6 ? ! 2 2 .\Wg2t) 2 2 .1'l:cl.
hagen 1990.
In my unfortunate game against 16.f5
Baklan I had something like this in
mind, but the untimely . . . lt:ld7 al­ Or 16.1'l:f3 .id8 17.'\Wh5 g6 18.\Wh6
lowed White to attack with the f­ f5 ! 19.gxf6 .ixf6oo.
pawn, leaving the g-pawn on its ini­
tial square. 16 ... exf5 17.lt�xf5 (17.exf5? !
Another plus is that we have lt:lxd3 18.cxd3 ltl e5t) 17 . . . �e5oo.
provoked the weakening advance
g2-g4.
C. 7 .ie2 b5
•

Another critical moment for

Black's plan is: If White wants to take on c6, he
should do it before Black played
.ib7.

133
 Part 4

with 14 . . . d6 coming (even to 1S.g4).

10 . . . �c4 is a fair alternative. It

commonly leads to a minimal edge
for White in the endgame after
11.�d3 �c8 12 .a3
1 2 . 0-0-0 .!Df6 13.eS is parried
by 13 . . . .hf3 14.gxf3 �xd3 1S.�xd3
8.loxc6 b4 ! = , e.g. 16 . .!D a4 .!Dd5 17 . .!Db6 .!Dxb6
18.hb6 �b8 19 . .tc7 �b7 2 0 . .td6 aS,
An alternative is 8.i.e3 .tb7 9. 0-0 Balogh-Vitiugov, Plovdiv 2 0 1 2 .
(9 . .tf3 .!DaS ! 10.0-0 .!Dc4 ll.i.cl .!De7
12 . . . .!Df6 13 .i.d4 ! �xd3 (Svidler­
12.@h1 .!Dg6, Hou,Yfan-Movsesian,
Hracek, Yerevan 1996, saw 13 ...
Khanty-Mansiysk 2 011), but 9 . . . -tcS
dS? when 14.�xc4 ! dxc4 1S.eS .!DdS
solves all the problems : 10 .i.f3
16. @f2 would have been pleasant
Or lO . .!DfS .he3+ (10 . . . .!Dce7 for White.) 14.cxd3 .tcS 1S.hcS
ll ..hcS �xeS+ 12 .�d4 �xd4+ �xeS and Black should gradually
13 . .!Dxd4 b4 14 . .!Da4 he4 1S . .!DcS .!Df6 equalise.
16 . .!Dxa6 .!DedS 17.a3 @e7 18 . .!Dxb4
.!Dxb4 19.axb4 .!DdS 2 0 .g3, draw, Ni­ ll.a3
sipeanu-Grabliauskas, Berlin 1997)
ll . .!Dxe3 �b6 12 .�d2 d6 = . This is the most popular move,
but this prophylaxis is in no way
10 . . .d 6 ll.@h1 �b6 12 . .!Dce2 (12.
obligatory. White also chooses :
eS? ! hd4 13.hd4 .!Dxd4 14.hb7
�d8 1S . .te4 fS 16.i.d3 dxeS 17.fxeS a) 11.�d4 �c7 (This plan is con­
.!Dh6+) 12 . . . .!Df6 13.c3 0-0 14.b4 sistent with the main line.) 1 2 . 0-0
.hd4 1S.cxd4 (or 1S . .!Dxd4 �c7 hS (enabling ... .!Df6) 13.�ad1 .!Df6
16.�c1 .!Dxd4 17.cxd4 �e7 18.�d3 14.h3 h4 1S.�f2 .tcS 16 . .hcS �xeS
�ac8=) Shabalov-Rohde, Philadel­ 17.hcS �xeS= .
phia 1996, when 1S . . . .!Db4 ! ? 16.�b3
b ) 11.�d3 �c4 i s solid, but pas­
aS would have faced the opponent
sive, as seen in the comments to
with the task of finding compensa­
10 . . . �c4. I would like to advocate
tion for the pawn.
for:
8 �xc6 9 .if3 .ib7 10 .te3
•.• • . ll . . . �c7 ! ? . It leads to sharp play
where White might easily overes­
lO .eS �c7 11 . .!De4 is typically met timate his chances. Independent
by ll . . . .!Dh6 12 .i.e3 .!DfS 13.i.f2 �d8 variations arise after:

134
 The f4 System

12.0-0-0 t!Jf6 13.'it>b1 (13.g4 b4 2 1 .exf6 bxc3 2 2 .�xc3 aS. An im­

14.t!Je2 �c4) portant resource. The pawn is head­
ing for a3, the b7-bishop obtains an
active place on a6. Over the board, it
is easier to play with Black. 23.t!Jc1
�b6 24.�e2 �e3 2S.�e1 a4 26.�d3
hc1 27.:t!xc1 a3 2 8.�d2 axb2
29.:t!xcS :!'!xeS 30.�xb2 �e3 31.�e2
�e4+ 3 2 .'it>a1 d4= ;

21.cxb4 hb4 2 2 .exf6 aS 23.t!Jd4

(23 .gS :t!d6 24.1'!cl �a6) 23 . . . �cS
13 . . . �b4 ! ? 24.t!Jb3 �xf4oo
24 . . . �d6 2S.:t!c1 �b6 26.:t!xcS
Zapata successfully tried 1 3. . .
:!'!xeS 27 . .ie2 a4 forcedly leads to a
d6, but it cuts the scope of the dark­
draw endgame with opposite col­
squared bishop.
oured bishops : 28.�d4 �c7 29.:t!c1
14.�d4 0-0oo 1S.hf6 gxf6 �c6 3 0.�bS axb3 31.:t!xc6 bxa2 +
16.t!Je2 :t!fdS 17.c3 �cS (17 . . . �e7) 3 2 .'it>a1 �bS 33.:t!xcS+ �xeS 34.fS
18.:t!hfl 'it>hS 19.g4 �bS 3S.�d3 �eS 36.fxe6 fxe6 37.gS
�a7= .
How to evaluate this position? If
2S.t!JxaS �b4 26.t!Jxb7 �xb7
we ask Houdini, it tends to prefer
27.�e4 :t!bS 2S.b3 �a7 29.hh7
White's side. In my opinion, Black
:t!xb3+ 30 .�xb3 :t!bS 31.�c2 :t!xb3 +
has full-fledged counterplay with
32 .hb3 �b6 33.gS �b4 = .
his bishop pair.
c ) Once again, ll.eS misses the
19 . . . b4 (19 . . . dS 2 0 .exdS hdS
goal - ll . . . �c7 1 2 . 0-0 (12 .t!Je4
21.hdS :t!xdS 2 2 .�f3 :t!xd1 + 23.:t!xd1
t!Jh6 13.0-0 �e7 14.a4 bxa4 1S.:t!xa4
aS 24.fS e5fZ) 2 0 .eS (20.cxb4 hb4
0-0=) 12 . . . t!Je7 (12 . . . t!Jh6 13.t!Je4
21.�d4 �e7 2 2 .1'!cl �d6) 20 . . . dS !
�e7 14.c3 0-0 1S.�e1 �dS 16.t!Jg3
�f3 17.:t!f3 d6=, Milos-G. Hernan­
dez, Bogota 1992) 13.hb7 (13.t!Je4
t!JdS) 13 . . . �xb7 14.�d3 t!Jf5 1S.�f2

Black sacrifices a pawn in order

to keep the enemy pieces passive. I
have analysed from this point:
13S
 Part 4

1S . . . hS (1S . . . dS ! ? may be sim­ Lukin-Novgorodskij , St. Petersburg

pler.) 16.lLJe4 tie7 17J%ad1 0-0! (it 1996 there was 14 . . . 0-0?! 15.e5 fix£3
is better to avoid dark-squared 16.gxf3 lLJe8, when 17.'�xd7! would
blockade after 17 .. .'�c6 18.c3 0-0 have been clearly better for White).
19.b4 ! ) 18.'�f3 (18.c3 l:l:fd8=) 18 . . . 1S.g4 (1S.i>b1 0-0) 1S . . . lLJd7 16.l:l:hd1
�c6 (mind the check!) 19.l:l:d2 d6 eS 17.�d3 exf4 18 . .hf4 lLJeS with
20.exd6 lLJxd6 2 1.lLlxd6 .hd6= , Pla­ chances for both sides.
chetka-Doda, Novy Smokovec 1971 . Black's main problem in the f4-
line is how to develop his king's
d) 11.0-0 ticS 12 .�e1 (12 .�d3
knight. Its most active stand is f6,
b4 13.lLle2 lLlf6 ! 14.lLJd4 �b6oo)
but the enemy could attack it with
12 .. .'grb6 (12 . . . lLJe7) 13 . .hcS �xeS+
e4-eS . That's why Black should pre­
14.i>h1 lLJe7= .
pare for the knight a square where it
could jump from f6. The text move
ll . . . �c7!?
enables lLJg8-f6-g4.
The queen's retreat anticipates
e4-e5 and maintains the tension.

12.�d4

After 1 2 . 0-0 ticS (12 . . . lLJe7 might

transpose, but it offers White addi­
tional options: 13.'grd2 ! lLJg6 14.l:l:ad1
ticS 1S ..hcS �xeS+ 16.'it>h1 0-0 ! . It
turns out that Black has good com­
pensation for the pawn following
17.�xd7 �b6.), Black completes 13.h3
development unimpeded : 13 . .hc5
�xeS+ 14.i>h1 lLJe7 1S.�d2 when This prophylaxis is positional­
1S . . . lLJg6 16.l:l:ad1 0-0 was men­ ly risky since the weakness of the
tioned above, but Black also has the g3-square often turns to be fatal
natural 1S . . . l:l:c7= . for White. At the same time, it is
the most testing continuation. Now
12 . . . h5 Black must waste a tempo on h4 in
order to find another place for his
12 . . . tie7! ? is worth testing, too : knight - on hS. Besides, on h4 the
13.0-0-0 (or 13.0-0 lLJf6 14.l:l:ad1 pawn is an easy target. The other at­
0-0 1S.eS .hf3 16.gxf3 lLJhS 17.�d7 tempts are not too convincing:
.icS?, Ghizdau-Matera, USA 1976)
13 . . . lLJf6 14.l:l:d2 (14.eS? tif3 1S.gxf3 a) 13 . 0-0 lLJf6 14.i>h1 .icS
lLJdS) 14 . . . d6 ! oo (In the source game 1S.�xc5 �xeS 16 . .hcS l:l:xcS = .

136
 The f4 System

b) 13.0-0-0 tt:lf6 14J'!d2 (14. 12 .hc5 (12 .�e2 he3 13.�xe3 dS

eS? ! tt:lg4 15.!!d3 hf3 16.gxf3 tt:lxe3 14.exd5 tt:lxdS 15.tt:lxd5 �xdS 16.!!f2
17.�xe3 dS is obviously better for 0-0=) 12 . . . '\MfxcS 13.@h1 d6 14.'1Mfe2
Black.) 14 . . . tt:lg4 ! (In Brajovic-Ra­ eS 15.ttld5 ttlxdS 16.exd5 0-0 17.fxe5
jkovic, Herceg Novi 2 0 0 2 , was 14 . . . dxeS 18.'\MfxeS draw, Ni Hua-Ye
ia3? 15.e5 'IM!xc3, when 16.�xc3 ! Jiangchuan, Yongchuan 2003.
l'!xc3 17.hb7 !!xe3 18;exf6 i.cS
19.fxg7 !!g8 2 0 .ha6 !!e4 2 1.@b1
would have earned White a small
edge.) 15.i.g1 eS 16.fxe5 tt:lxeS
17.tt:ld5 �b8?.

13 h4 14.0-0 �f6
••.

Black has good prospects. For

15.e5 (15.!!ad1 is altogether dubi­
ous due to 15 . . . ha3 16.tt:lxb5 axbS
17.bxa3 0-0.) 15 . . . tt:lh5, see game
24 Gofshtein-Tregubov, Montpel­ Black can develop his king's
lier 1998. knight on e7 or f6 :
Dl. 9 . . . ic5; D 2 . 9 . . . ib7

D. 7.�xc6 ti'xc6 8 .Ad3 bS

•

Dl. 9 ••• J.c5 10 .id2

•

8 . . . i.c5 is Taimanov's pet move.

It often leads to the same positions 9.i.e3 i.b7 1 0 . 0-0 h4= (10 . . . tt:lf6
as 8 . . . b5. You can choose it in or­ ll.hcS 'IMfxcS 1 2 .@h1 b4 reaches a
der to avoid variations with short well known position where both
castling for White. However, they knight's retreats, to b1 or d1, lead
look pretty harmless as you'll see in to equality.) , see game 23 Stuer­
the comments on the next move. At zenbaum-Taimanov, Bad Zwische­
the same time, Black should reck­ nahn 2 003.
on with the more dangerous answer
9.�g4 g6 10 .i.d2 (10 .e5 fS ll.exf6 10 .ib7
.••

ltJxf6 1 2 .i.g6 @d8 ! 13.'\MfgS i.e7+)

lO . . . dS ! ll.exdS exdS 12.'\MfgS tt:le7 10 ... ttle7 allows ll.eS J.b7 12.ttle4;!;.
13.0-0-0oo.
11. 0-0-0

The rare ll.a4 scores extremely

9.i.e3 (9.0-0 i.cS ! ?) 9 ... .ib7 well. Black's task is not easy at all.
10.0-0 tt:lf6 leads to unclear play If you are not prepared for a prin­
with mutual chances: ll.a3 i.cS cipled fight after ll . . . b4 1 2 .ttld5,

137
 Part 4

you may try to surprise your oppo­ 15.1!ib1 a4 and Black is ahead in the
nent with ll . . . lt:Jf6 ! ? 12.axb5 axbS pawn race). However, he may also
13J''!x a8+ haS 14. ixbS (14.e5 choose long castling, using the awk­
'Wxg2) 14 ... 'Wb7. Black does not win ward position of the enemy queen:
a pawn here, but his pieces are ex­
12 ... g6 ! ?
cellently placed.
Let's return to ll . . . b4 1 2 .ll::l d 5
'Wd6 13.lt:Je3 '\Wxf4 14.lt:Jc4

13.'\WgS
From here, the queen is eying
White has a certain compensa­ the bishop on cS thus making 13 . . .
tion for the pawn. 14 . . . '\Wh4+ 15.g3 b4? impossible d u e t o 15.lt:Ja4±.
Wie7 16.ll::l a5 is messy. More ambi­ In contrast, 13.'\Wh4 allows 13 . . . b4
tious is: when White has two possibilities :
14 . . . '\Wc7 15.Wig4 dS ! ? 14.'\Wf6 0-0-0 15.ll::l e 2 dS 16.ll::l g3
(16.e5 stumbles into 16 . . . d4 ! ) 16 ...
15 . . . 1!if8 16 . .if4 is unclear.
'Wa4 ! ? 17.®b1 dxe4 18 .b3 '\Wd7
16.exd5 fS 17.'We2 .b:dS 18.lt:Je3 19 . .ie4 .id4 2 0 .'\Wh4 .ixe4+;
.ixe3 19.'\Wxe3. This position was 14.lt:Je2 f5 15.lt:Jg3 0-0-0 16.l'!hel
reached in Wang Li-Sadorra, Sub­ '1Wb6 17.1!ib1 l!ib8 18.l'!e2 l'!c8+.
ic Bay 2009. Black would have had
a comfortable game after 19 . . . lt:Jf6 13 . . . 0-0-0 ! ?
20.ixb4 l'!b8 2 1..ic3 lt:Je4. 1 3 . . .£5 i s a worthy alternative.
The game Rublevsky-Papin, Tagan­
ll . lt:Je7 12.a3 !
..
rog 2011, went on 14.exf5 gxfS
15.'\WhS+ ®dB 16.g4 b4 17.gxf5 exfS
The most topical continuation . 18.ll::l e 2? '\Wg6+. Instead, 18.l'!he1
White prevents . . .b 4 and waits to was the only move, when simplest
see his opponent's plan. is 18 . . . 1!ic7 19.ll::l e 2 Wig6 = .
12 .Wih5 is the older approach.
Black may transpose to the main 14.l'!he1 fS 1 5 . .ie3 l'!de8 16 . .ixc5
line by 12 . . . 0-0 when 13.a3 seems 'WxcS 17.exf5 h6 18.'\Wh4 gxfS 19.g4
obligatory (Papp-Szabo, . Buda­ fxg4 with mutual chances, Rublev­
pest 2008, saw 13.g4 b4 14.ll::l e 2 aS sky-Alekseev, Irkutsk 2 0 1 0 .

138
 The f4 System

12 . . . 0-0 13.e5 lLldS 14.lLlxd5 '\WxdS = . The

game Lanin-Vitiugov, St. Peters­
12 ... 0-0-0 does not promise burg 2 007, soon ended in a draw af­
Black adequate counterplay. After ter 15.a4 i.cS 16.hc5 '\WxcS 17.'\Wf2
13.'.t>b1 g6 14.1":1he1 fS 15.g3, White's '\Wxf2 + 18.1":1xf2 i.c6 19.axb5 axbS
pieces are extremely well co-ordi­ 2 0 . 1":1a5 b4 ! 2 1.1":1d2 '.t>e7 2 2 . '.t>f2 1":1a8
nated in the centre. draw.

10 . . . .te7! ? ll.a3

Or 11. 0-0 b4 12.lLld1 lLlf6 13.lLlf2

0-0t.

It is good to make a useful move

before leading out the knight. Af­
ter l l . . . lLlf6 1 2 . e5 lLldS 13.i.e4 b4
14.axb4 i.b4 1S.lLlxd5 hd2 16.'\Wxd2
I suppose that this sharp posi­ exdS 17.i.f3, White is a pawn up al­
tion will be extensively tested in the beit in a sharp position.
following years. I analyse it in de­
tail in the annotations to game 21
Nepomniachtchi-Vitiugov, Nizhny
Novgorod 2 0 13 .

D 2 . 9 . . . .tb7! ? 1 0 . .id2

White could try to use the pos­

sibility of castling short, but prac­
tice is favourable for Black: 1 0 . 0 - 0
ttJf6 ! ll.a3 (ll.eS b 4 12.exf6 bxc3+)
ll . . . i.cS 1 2 . '.t>h1 i.d4 ! 13.lLla2 d6 1 2 . 0-0-0
14.a4 bxa4 1S. lLlb4 '\Wb6 16.1":1xa4 aS !
(improving on Hector-Plachetka, 12.0-0 lLlf6 is equal : 13.'.t>h1 0-0
Gausdal, 1989, which saw 16 . . . 0-0) 14.1":1£3 dS 15.exd5 lLlxdS 16.hh7+
17.i.b5 (17.c3 i.cS 18 .i.b5 '.t>e7) (16.lLlxd5 '\WxdS 17.1":1h3 g6) 16 . . .
17 . . . '.t>f8 ! 18.c3 axb4 19.1":1xa8 ha8 '.t>xh7 17.1":1h3 '.t>g8 18.'\WhS f6= or
20.cxd4 i.e4+. 13.e5 lLld5 14.lLle4 fS= .
10.a3 i.e7 ll.i.e3 is another rare
alternative : 11 . . . 1":1c8 1 2 . 0-0 lLlf6 12 . . tt)f6 13.g4 !
.

139
 Part 4

White has a number of other op­ 2 0 .tt:le4 i.e7 21 . .ic3 0-0 = . Perhaps
tions. Black always meet them with critical is 16. 'i!lb1 which is yet to be
. . . b4 : tested.

a) 13.'i!lb1 13 . . . . d5

This is aimed against the the­

13 . . . b4 14.axb4 .b:b4 15.g5 .b:c3
matic 13 . . . b4 14.ab4 i.b4, when
16 . .b:c3 tt:lxe4 17 . .b:g7 :!! g 8 18.i.e5
15.l!:ld5 i.d2 is without check. Nai­
was better for White in M . Leon
ditsch-Grigoriants, Moscow 2008,
Hoyos-Y.Hernandez Guerrero,
went 16.tt:lf6 gf6 17J�d2 V9a4 18.V9e3
Toluca 2009.
V9b4 19J�hd1 :!! cS and here 20.V9g3 ! ,
eyeing b8, would have been quite
14.exd5 (14.e5 tt:ld7) 14 tt:lxd5
unpleasant. We can answer with the
• • •

15J::!hfl tt:lxc3 16.hc3 0-0

no less cunning:
13 . . . V9b6 ! which in its turn neu­
tralises White's main idea of 14.g4
owing to 14 . . . b4 15.axb4 .b:b4 16.g5
.b:c3 17 . .b:c3 :!!xc3 18.gxf6 gxf6oo.
b) 13.:!!hf1 b4 14.axb4 .b:b4
15.g4 0-0 (15 . . . d6 leads to more
complex play) 16.g5 .b:c3 17 . .b:c3
tt:lxe4 18 . .b:e4 V9xe4 19.V9xe4 .b:e4
20.:!!xd7 :!!fd8. This endgame should
be a draw due to the opposite col­
oured bishops. Black has completed develop­
ment, but there is a fair chance that
c) 13.:!!h e1 ! ? b4 14.axb4 .b:b4
White is winning by force. The good
15.g4 d6
news is that the most consistent con­
tinuation of White's play, 17.f5, is
not dangerous due to 17 . . . i.g5+ (An
only move. 17 . . . :1!fe8? 18.f6 .b:a3 is
very dubious as White gets a terri­
ble attack with 19.i.e5 i.cS 2 0 .b4
.b:b4 2 1.fxg7.) 18 .i.d2 (18.'i!lb1 eS is
balanced: 19.h4 .b:h4 2 0 .'�h2 i.f6oo
or 19.f6 e4 2 0 .fxg7 :!!fe8 21.V9f2 V9g6
22 . .ie2 e3 23 .'�g3 i.e4 24.:!! d 6 :!! e 6
25.:1!d7 i.f6 = ) 18 . . . .b:d2 + 19.�xd2
Jovanovic-Timofeev, Budva
exfS 20 . .b:f5 :!! c 7.
2009, saw further 16.e5 �eS 17.g5
tt:ld7 18.i.e4 V9c7 19 . .b:b7 V9xb7 Critical is:

140
 The f4 System

17.g5 gfe8 ! 27J"!xd4 hc8 2 8J"!e5 i.e6 2 9J"!a4

i.d6 3 0.ge2 <tlg7
Emms' suggestion 18 . . . W/b6? los­
es at once to 18 .i.d4 i.c5 19.hg7.

18.hg7 <tlxg7 19.1lfh5 gbs

20.f5 exf5 21.gxf5 1lfg6 2 2 .1lfg4
ffd6

I think that Black has decent

play here, but it all depends on the
evaluation of the following hazy
ending: 23.hb5 (23.i.e4 W/b6 Next, Black will play 3 1 . . .gas
24J"!xf7+is a perpetual check af­ and then he will attack the enemy
ter 24 . . . <tlxt7 25.1lff5+ <tlg8 26.i.d5+ kingside pawns with his king and
i.xdS 27.1lfxd5+=) 23 . . . W/e6 24.W/d4+ bishop pair. I believe that over the
c;!;>g8 25.i.d7 W/c4 26.hc8 W/xd4 board, Black's game is easier.

141
Pa rt 4. The f4 System

Ka n - Step by Step

l.e4 c5 2 . �f3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 (7.a3 .tb7 8 . .td3 transposes) 7 . . . .tb7

4. �xd4 a6 5.�c3 'f!Jc7 6.f4 8 . .tf3 . The simplest retort is 8 . . . b4
(8 . . . lt:Jc6 is also good : 9. �xc6 hc6;
9 . .te3 lt:JaS 1 0 . 0-0 lt:Jc4 ll . .tcl .tc5
12 . 'it>h1 lt:Je7 13.�d3 �b6 1 4 .lt:lce2
0-0 15.b3 lt:ld6 16 . .tb2 f6+, Rojo
Huerta-Rajkovic, Madrid 1994)
9.lt:Ja4 lt:Jf6 10.�e2 lt:Jc6 11.lt:lb3 lt:Ja5!
1 2 . 0-0 .te7.

7 . . . .ib7 8.�f3

a) 8.�e2 lt:Jf6 is fine for Black,

see game 26 An . Martin-Delchev,
This move is seldom seen, be­ Benasque 2 0 13. Of course, 8 . . . lt:Jc6
cause it offers Black a wide choice 9.lt:Jxc6 �xc6, transposing to the
of good plans. It is better to await Taimanov, is also possible, but it is
. . . lt:Jf6 first as in the variation 6 . .td3 hardly the sternest test of White's
lt:Jf6 7.f4. In the diagram posi­ set-up.
tion, Black can transpose to the
Taimanov with 6 . . . lt:Jc6, but that b) 8.0-0?! .tcs pins the d4-
would not be the best decision. It is knight: 9 . .te3 �c6 ! (there is no rea­
more logical to fianchetto the bish­ son to give White an initiative after
op to b7 first. Then he could recap­ 9 . . . �b6 10.lt:Jce2 lt:Jf6 ll.c3 ! lt:Jxe4
ture on c6 by . . . hc6. As for the g8- 12 .b4 .tf8 13.a4) 10.lt:Jce2 (10.�g4
knight, it can go to e7 in some lines. lt:Jxd4 11.�xg7 lt:Jxc2 12 .hc2 he3+
13.'it>h1 b4 14.lt:ld1 .tb6 1S . .td3 lt:Jf6,
6 . . . b5 7 . .td3 when 16.�xh8+? loses to 16 . . . 'it>e7
17.�g7 �g8 18 .�h6 �xe4-+) 10 ...
The only reasonable alterna­ lt:Jf6 ll.c3 lt:Jg4 12 . .tc1 0-0 13.'it>h1
tive to this development is 7 . .te2 eS = , Skage-Macieja, Tromso 2 0 07.

142
 The f4 System

8 .lt�f6 9 .ie3
.• . 14.lt:Jd1 hb2 1S.lt:Jxb2 �c3 + 1 6 . .id2
�xb2 17.0-0 lt:Jf6+) 14 . .id4 b4
9.g4? ! is premature. 1S.h:f6 gxf6 16.lt:Je2, when 16 . . . dS !
17.lt:Jg3 !!h4 18 .fxe6 �xe6+ would
Even the most straightforward
have gained the edge.
retort 9 . . . b4 10.lt:Jce2 dS l l.eS lt:Je4
gives Black counterplay: 1 2 .lt:Jg3 ll . . . lt:Jg4 12 . .ig1 lt:Jxd4 13 .h:d4
liJcS (12 . . . lt:Jc6 13 . .ie3 .icS 14.lt:Jb3 ! .icS ! ?
he3 1S.�xe3 lt:Jxg3 1 6.hxg3 d4
1 3. . .e S 14.fxeS .icS 1S.hcS �xeS
17.�g1 lt:JxeS 18.fxeS �xeS+ 19.�d1
16.0-0-0 0-0 is unclear.
hh1 2 0.�xh1 !!b8 2 1 . a3 bxa3
22.!!xa3 �xg3 is a total mess) 13.0- 14 . .ixcS (14.hg7 !!h7 1S . .if6
0 lt:Jxd3 14.cxd3 .icS 1S . .ie3 �b6 lt:Jxf6 16.gxf6 .id4t) 14 . . . �xcS
16.�f2 lt:Jc6 17.lt:Jge2 0-0 = . After a 1S.�e2 fS
swap of rooks on the c-file, the d3-
It turns out that 16.h3? loses to
pawn will become quite sensitive,
16 . . . b4 17.lt:Jd1 (i7.lt:Ja4 �d4) 17 . . .
e.g. 18.!!ac1 !!feB 19.!!c2 aS 2 0 . !!fc1
fxe4 18 . .ixe4 �c4 + , but 16.gxf6
hd4 2 1 .lt:lxd4 lt:Jxd4 2 2 .h:d4 !!xc2
lt:Jxf6 17.a3 0-0-0 also looks very
23.!!xc2 �bS.
pleasant for Black.
However, I think that Black can
b) 1 0 . lt:Jb3 is well met by 10 . . . dS !
aspire to the edge with 9 . . . lt:Jc6 !
ll.exdS (ll.eS d4 ! ) ll . . . lt:Jb4 12 . .id4
1 0 . .ie3 (10.lt:Jxc6 �xc6 ll.gS .ib4)
lt:Jxd3+ 13.�xd3 lt:JxdS with the
lO ... hS, transposing to 1 0.g4.
bishop pair. The play may continue
14 . .ieS �c8 or 14.lt:JxdS .ixdS 1S.O-O
9 lt:Jc6 10. 0-0-0
.id6.
. ..

a) It is still early for 10 .g4 due to c) 10.0-0 lt:Jxd4 ll.h:d4 .icS

lO . . . hS ! 12 . .ixcS �xeS+ 13.�h1 b4 ! offers
Black easy play on the central dark
squares by . . . d6, . . . eS.

ll.gS
Andriasian beat Potkin in Bel­
gorod 2 0 1 0 with ll.gxhS? ! lt:JxhS
12.lt:Jxc6 �xc6 13.f5 lt:Jf6 (13 . . . .ia3 ! ? 10 b4
...

143
 Part 4

This leads to more complex play 19.'W'f2 .ia6 2 0 .b3 Elb8 2 1.hc4 dxc4
than 10 . . . tt:\xd4 ll.hd4 .icS. At this 2 2 . .ie3 cxb3 23.cxb3 'W'c6 = .
point, 12 .hcS 'W'xc5 13 .'W'g3 (13.a3
b4 ! ) 13 . . . lt:lhS 14.V9g4 (14.'W'f3 lt:lf6) 17 a5 18.b3 �a3+ 1 9 . .b:a3
• • •

14 ... g6 1S.f5 b4 16.tt:\a4 'W'e3 + 17.'i!lbl bxa3 20.£5 0-0-0 2 1.�e3 g6

.ic6 is balanced. 2 2 .fxe6 fxe6 23.'i!lal ghf8
The problem line is 12 . .ieS V9b6
13.hf6 gxf6 14.fS. Perhaps Black
should answer 14 . . . eS followed up
by . . . hS, . . . 0-0-0. This Rauzer struc­
ture is too static. It may be solid,
but the potential appearance of op­
posite coloured bishops is a herald
of a draw.

ll.lt:lce2 �a5 12.g4 d5 13.e5

�d7 14. 'i!lbl �c4 15 .icl �b6 •

16.l:�hfl .ic5
Both sides have fulfilled their
Black has good counterplay on plans and the position is balanced.
the queenside thanks to . . . aS, . . . .ia6 White's first rank is permanent­
activating the passive bishop. The ly weak so he lacks a clear plan. A
play may continue : possible continuation is 24.c3 'i!lb8
2S.lt:lf4 (2S.h4 Elxfl 26.Elxfl .ia6
17.�f2 27.hS Elc8 28.hxg6 hxg6 29.ha6
�xa6 30.Elbl Elf8 31.Eldl 'i!la8 3 2 .�f4
Or 17.�b3 aS 18.�xcS tt:\xcS hd4 33.cxd4 gS= ) 2S . . . Elc8oo.

144
Pa rt 4. The f4 System

Com pl ete G a m es

7.Ybd4 a6 8 .ie3 b5 9 .0-0-0

20. Yemelin-Rodshtein •

.ib7 10 .id3 �c8 l l.<i>bl c!Llf6

Skopje 1 4.03.201 3 •

Some good players opt for 11 . . .

l.e4 c5 2.c!Llf3 e6 3 . d4 cxd4
WfcS 1 2 . Elhe1 Y;l/xd4 13 .hd4 ltle7,
4.c!Llxd4 c!Llc6 5 . c!Ll c3 Wfc7 6.f4
·

but this endgame is slightly better

c!Llxd4
for White after 14.a4 ltlc6 1S.�f2
bxa4 16.ltlxa4 ltlb4 17.ltlb6 ltlxd3
18.Elxd3 Elc7 19.f5, Shabalov-El
Debs, Sao Paulo 2009.

12.e5 c!Lld5 13.c!Lle4 c!Llxe3 14.Wxe3

This is an attempt to remedy

Black's basic problem in the main
line 6 . . . a6 7.ltlxc6 Wfxc6 when the
queen often has to return to c7. The
text effectively discourages plans
with �e2-f3 and leaves White a
very narrow path to follow. Thus 14 . . . �d5
you can prepare a decent repertoire
against the f4-system virtually for a 14 . . . �e7 should not change the
few minutes (by reading the anno­ course of the game as 15.Elhfl .idS
tations to this game). The flip side 16.Y;l/e1 transposes. Instead, An­
is that White's task is even easier. driasian-A.Horvath, Cappelle la
He can reach a pleasant position by Grande 2 0 1 2 , saw 15.Wg3 g6 16.h4
making the most natural develop­ hS 17.Elhe1 (17.ltld6+ hd6 18.exd6
ing moves. Y;l/xd6 19 .hb5 �dSoo) 17 . . . .id5 (17 . . .

145
 Part 4

he4 1S.he4 't!?fS=) 1S.lt:lf6+ hf6 21 ••• ti'c5 ? !

19.exf6, when 19 . . . 't!?dS ! would have
been unclear. Black's counterplay is based on
The text is threatening 15 .. .'�a5. . . . a4-a3 when any open file would
be in Black's favour. The correct
15.ti'el IJ..e7 16.�m. b4 17.ti'e2 move order was 2 1 . . .a4 ! 2 2 .f5 a3
a5 18.c4! 23 .b3 l=!gS as in the game.

This way White neutralis­ 2 2 .f5 a4 23.13f3? !

es the enemy pawn storm on the
queenside, but the weak second White misses the opportunity
rank will be a constant cause for to activate his bishop with 23 . .ic2 ! ,
concern. Still, it is the best option. e.g. 23 . . .'�c6 24.'�f3;!;.
1S . .ia6 l'!bS 19.lt:ld6+ hd6 20.l'!xd5
.icS 21.l'!ddl 0-0 2 2 .g4 d6 would 23 • • • a3 24.b3 13g8 ! ? 25.fxg6
have been completely balanced.
25.f6 .idS 26.1!Md2 should be a
18 ••• .he4 draw after 26 . . . 1!Mxe5 27.hg6 l'!c7
2 S.l'!el '<!Mb2 + 29.1!Mxb2 axb2 30 . .ih5
A difficult decision. Rodshtein l'!gS 31.'t!?xb2 h6. The opposite col­
acknowledges the fact that he is oured bishops become a strong lev­
slightly worse and should struggle elling factor without queens.
for the draw.
After 1S . . . hc4 19.l'!cl hd3 + 25 • • • hxg6 26.13dfl
20.ti'xd3 '<!Mb7 21.l'!xcS+ '<!MxcS 22 .l'!cl
'<!Mb7 23.lt:ld6+ hd6 24.1!Mxd6 't!?dS
25.1!Mc5 '<!MaS 26.'t!?al± Black would
be without useful moves.
1S . . .bxc3 19.lt:\xc3 .ic6 20 .f5 l=!bS
(20 . . ..ib4 21.lt:\b5 '<!Mb6 2 2 . l'!f4±)
21.lt:\b5 '<!Mb7 22.a4i is also boring to
defend.

19.ti'xe4 g6 20.g4 ti'c6 2 1.ti'e2

26 • . . ti'd4

Black is right to give up the f7-

pawn, but he should have done it
by 2 6 . . . 't!?dS ! 27.l'!xf7 't!?c7 with ex­
cellent counterplay. White's extra
pawn is not worth much. On the
contrary, Black will use the open

146
 The f4 System

f-file to his benefit. After the text, The opposite castles give Black
White retains some tine edge in the more chances to fight for a win than
endgame which, however, should 12 . . . 0-0-0. Although both White's
be drawn. bishops point to the kingside, it is
not easy to mount an attack. For in­
27.lU4 ti'c3 28.g4f3 ti'd4 stance, 13.g4 may face a counter-at­
29,gf4 ti'c3 30.gcl ti'b2 + tack in the centre with 13 . . . d5. Then
31.ti'xb2 axb2 3 2 . gcfl gcs (32 . . . 14.e5 ti'c7 (enabling . . . c!l:lc6, . . . b4)
Elh8 =) 33,gxf7 gxe5 34,gb7 ge3 1S.f5? c!l:lc6 would favour Black.
35.hg6+ �d8 36.!Uf7 gxg6 In practice White had tried
37,gxe7 gd3 38.geg7 gxg7 13.Eihf1 f5 14.g4, when in both games
39.gxg7 gb3? (39 . . . 1':\di+ ! = ) Black replied with the mundane 14 . . .
40.�xb2 (40.Eig5 ! Elxh2 41.Eib5 Elae8?! and only after 1S.i>b1, did he
Elh1+ 42. �xb2 Elh2 + 43.i>b1 push 15 . . . d5. [1S . . . .id4 16.gxf5 exfS
Elh1+ 44.'it>c2 Elh2+ 4S. i>d3 Elxa2 17.e5 d6 18.a4 looks nice for White :
46.'it>e4±) 40 .. ,gxh2+ 41.i>bl . 18 . . . bxa4 19 . .ic4+ 'it>h8 20.exd6 l!Jc8
�c7 42.ggs ghl + 43. �c2 gb2 + 2 1.ti'd3 ti'xd6 ( 2 l . . .l!Jb6 2 2 .ti'xd4
44. �d3 gxa2 45.c5 d5 46.cxd6+ l!Jxc4 23.Eig1 E\f7 24.Eige1 Elxe1
�xd6 47,gbs gg2 48.�b4 gg3+ 25.E\xeU h6) 2 2 . l!Jxa4 .ie4 23 .ti'b3
49.�e2 �e5 5 0 . i>f2 gc3 51 . �g2 ti'f6 24 . .ic3 hc3 2S.ti'xc3t] Smirin
gd3 5 2 . �h2 gc3 53. i>g2 gd3 continued against Soffer, Plovdiv
54.�h2 gc3 55,gb5 + �f4 56.g5 2 0 1 2 , 16.gxf5 exfS 17.e5 d4 18.l!Ja2
e5 57.g6 gc6 58.g7 draw. l!JdS 19.l!Jb4 with a positional edge.
The rook is misplaced on e8. More­
over, it may be needed on a8 to sup­
port an attack with . . . aS, . . . b4. Thus I
21 . Nepomn iachtchi-Viti ugov
reached to the conclusion that Black
N izhny N ovgorod 1 1 . 1 0.201 3
should immediately define the cen­
tre by 14 . . . d5 ! 15.gxf5 exfS (1S . . . d4 ! ?
l.e4 c5 2 .c!Li f3 e6 3.d4 cxd4
may transpose to 1 S . . . exf5).
4.c!l:lxd4 c!l:lc6 5. c!l:lc3 ti'c7 6.f4 a6
7. c!l:lxc6 ti'xc6 8 .id3 b5 9 .ti'e2
•

i.b7 10 .td2 .ic5 11. 0-0-0 c!l:le7

•

12.a3 0-0

Now 16.e5 d4 17.l!Ja2 is ineffec­

tive due to 17 . . . ti'h6 , anticipating
l!Jb4 and preventing �hS. The dif-
147
 Part 4

ference is seen in variations like

18.i.c4+ @h8 19.i.b3 l'!fc8, intend­
ing . . . as.
16.exd5 lt:lxd5 17.lt:lxd5 Wxd5
18.i.c3 l'!fe8 19.i.e5 Wfl is roughly
balanced.
This analysis led me to the
insidious move 14.@bl (instead
of 14.g4). Then 14 . . . l'!ae8? ! 15.g4
would transpose to Smirin-Soffer 23.Wg4 i.c8 24.f5 Wd5 25 . .icl
so we should play 14 . . . d5 ! 15.exf5 i.g7 2 6.l'!dfl l'!f7 (26 .. ,l'!xd3 27.cxd3
exf5 when the only way to set Black Wb3 + 2 8 . @al �xd3 29 .�dl Wxdl
problems is 16.b4 3 0 .l'!xdl hf5=) 2 7.h3 i.d7 2 8 . l'!f4
( 2 8.i.b2 gxf5 29.hf5 i.xf5 3 0 .l'!xf5
l'!xf5 31.l'!xf5 l'!el+ 32 .i.cl �e6=)
2 8 ... l'!xd3 29.cxd3 �b3+ 3 0 .@al
Wxd3 3 1.i.b2 i.xfS 32 .�f3 �xf3
33.1'!4xf3 l'!e7 34.g4 i.c2 35.h4 h 6 = .
Nepomniachtchi tries t o im­
prove White's play by discouraging
. . .f5.

16 . . . i.d6? ! 17.Wf2 (with lt:lc3-e2- 13 .�h5 f6

d4 in mind) 17 ... i.c7 18.lt:le2 i.b6
19 . .ie3 he3 2 0 .Wxe3;!; is strategi­ 13 . . .f5?! is really bad after 14.g4
cally grim despite White's weak­ g6 15.�g5 d5 16.l'!hel l'!fl 17.gxf5
ened castling position. exf5 18.exd5±, but 13 . . . b4 ! ? 14.axb4
hb4 15.l'!hel is unclear. Instead,
Fortunately, Black can employ Vitiugov chooses to remain passive
Kasparov's favourite method of de­ on the kingside.
fence - a positional pawn sacri­
fice: 16 . . . i.d4 ! 17.Wxe7 l'!ae8 18.�g5 14.g4 gac8 15.gbet 'ml6 16. @bt
hc3 19.i.xf5 i.f6 2 0 .�g3 d4 with i.d4 t7. �e2 .if2 ts.gfl gf7
excellent compensation. Here are
some illustrative variations : 21.l'!f2
(21.Wb3+ Wc4�; 2 1 . . .Wd5 2 2 .Wxd5+
i.xd5 23.g3 l'!e2 24.h4 l'!h2 25.i.d3
i.c4�) 2 1 . . .g6 22 .i.d3 l'!e3 !
This rook splits White's position
in two. I do not see how he could
improve:

148
 The f4 System

Black's set-up is very resilient. 23.f5! exf5 24.i.xf5 tDf8

Nepomniachtchi admits that fur­ 25.exf6 g6 26.J.d3 gxf6 27.b3
ther pawn advances are not promi­ gxfl 28.gxfl tDe6 29.i.b2 gf8
sing and starts a redeployment of 30 . gdl gf3 3 1.Vh4 J.c6 3 2 .i.c4
his pieces. i.b5 33.tDd4 gf7 34.tDxe6 hc4
35. tDg5 ge7 36.'e'h3 J.e2 37.ti'g2
19.'�h3 tDg6 20.i.cl .ic5? ges 3 8.ti'd5 + 1-o

The critical moment of the game.

The f2-bishop must have stayed on
its place in order to bar the f-file. 22. Beli kov-Zakhartsov
A possible follow up was 2 o ... a5 Alushta 2005
2l.tt:'lc3 b4 2 2 . tt:'lb5 b3 23.cxb3 (23.
c3 :!'i:ff8 24.a4 :!%cd8) 23 ... :!%xcl+ ! ? l.e4 c5 2 . tDc3 e6 3 . tDf3 tDc6
24.:!%xcl tt:'lxf4 with fair compen­ 4.d4 cxd4 5. tDxd4 ti'c7 6. tDb3
sation. Here is an illustrative line : a6 7.J.d3 tDf6. 8. 0-0 b5 9.f4 d6
25.'�f3 .ie3 26.:!%cdl fS 2 7 . .ic2 fxe4 10.fif3 .ib7 ll ..ie3 .ie7 12 .fih3
28.he4 dS 29 . .id3 d4 30.'�g3 .ia6 0-0
3l.a4 tt:'lxd3 3 2 . :!%xf7 �xf7 33 J'!xd3
hbS 34.axb5 'W'xb5= .
I f White shifted his bishop to b2,
Black should plug the main diago­
nal by . . . eS, e.g. 2 1 .b3 'W'cS 22 . .ib2
e5= 23 .\1;lfg2 .ie3 24.fxe5 tt:'lxeS.

21.e5! b4

It turns out that 2 1 . . .fxe5 2 2 .fxe5

:!%xfl 23.:!%xfl :!%f8 fails to 24.tt:'lf4. The 13.�hl? !
game is practically over now.
Playing on the basis of gener­
2 2 .axb4 J.xb4 al considerations in a sharp posi­
tion often implies losing the initi­
ative. Besides, I am not sure at all
that the king is better off on hl. Crit­
ical is 13.g4 tt:'lb4 ! ? which is consid­
ered in "Step by Step". This game il­
lustrates Black's possibilities when­
White is waiting without commit­
ting himself with pawn moves.

13 . . . gfe8 14.gael tDb4 15.a3

149
 Part 4

tilxd3 16.exd3 tild7 17.tild4 tileS 19.f5 ! tre7 2 0 . tilf3

18J:�dl
2 0 .fxe6 fxe6 2 1 . tt:l ce2 ! maintains
Black has consolidated his de­ the tension. White chooses a wrong
fence and could think about some setup for his knights and gradually
activity on the queenside. The most loses ground.
consistent move in that sense is :
2 0 .. -l:�aeS 21.he5 gxe5 2 2 . d4
ge4 23 .fxe6 fxe6 24.gfel b4
25.axb4 gxb4 26.ge2 g6 27.trg3
.ig7+ 28.trel ge4 2 9.trd2 gf8
30.trd3 geeS 31.dS e5 32. tila2
gf7 33.'llYe 3 trf8 34.trb3 .ih6+
35.gf2 �h8 36.trd3 Wd8 37.Wb3
�e7 38. tile3 trc5 39.gffl. gcf8
40.tila4 tre7 41.We3 a5 !

18 . . . tt:la4 ! . Finally Black finds the decisive

Essentially, exchanges are in improvement of his position. The
Black's favour so he should have dozing bishop on b7 comes into play.
grasped the occasion. The point is
that White's knight cannot escape 42.gal .ia6 43.gfel gbs
the swap because the pawn on b2 is 44.h3 gb4?
hanging (19 .tt:lce2 tt:lb2 2 0 J''1 d2 tt:la4
2 1.f5 e5 2 2 .tt:lf3 d5) . After 19.tt:la4 White is so passive, that Zakhar­
ba4 2 0 J'kl �d7 2 1.f5 e5 2 2 .tt:lf3 tsov loses vigilance for a moment.
!'lacS+, White's attack would be Now 45.tt:lc5 ! ! could have turned
over. Instead, Black played the non­ the tables, when already Black
committal move : should be careful - 45 . . . .ic8 ( 45 . . .
�c5 46.tt:le5 lt>g8 47.�xc5 dxc5
18 ••. .if6?! 48.tt:lf7 mf7 49 .l:"la5±) 46.tt:le6 �xc3
47.bxc3 l:"lc4 48 .l:"la5 he6 49.dxe6
I had a similar position (with the l:"le7 50 .l:"ldl l:"lxe6 51.l:"la8 lt>g7 52 .l:"la7
rook still on f8) in Shanava-Delchev, mg8 = . All that could have been pre­
Kusadasi 2006. It arose following vented by the simple 44 . . . \t>gB+.
the move order 14 . . . tt:lb4 15.a3 tt:lxd3
16.cxd3 tt:ld7 17.tt:ld4 tt:lc5 18.l:"ladl 45.We6? .ib5 46.trxe7 gxe7
.if6 . My opponent chose the pas­ 47. tilc3 gxb2 48.tildl ge2
sive 19.tt:lf3 when 19 . . . hc3 ! would 49.ggl a4 so.ga3 gee2 51. tile3
have been fine for Black: 2 0 .bxc3 g2c3 52.gxe3 gxe3 53.tilg4 �el
l:"lae8 2 1.f5 exf5. 54.tilg5 hg5 0-1

150
 The f4 System

23. Stuerzenbaum-Taimanov 24. Gofshtein-Tregubov

Bad Zwischenahn 2003 Montpellier 1998

1.e4 c5 2 . � £3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 1.e4 c5 2 . �£3 e6 3.d4 cxd4

4.tL!xd4 �c6 5.�c3 Wc7 6.f4 a6 4. �xd4 �c6 5.�c3 Wc7 6.f4
7.lL!xc6 Wxc6 8 .J.d3 J.c5 9.We2 �xd4 7.Wxd4 a6 8 .te3 b5 9 . .te2
•

b5 10 .te3 .th7 11.0-0 b4 12. �d1

• J.b7 10.a3 l"!c8 n�.tf3 h5 12 .h3

1Vt:lb1 is slow. Black can attack

immediately the centre - 12 .. .f5
13.tt'ld2 (13.J.xc5 Wxc5 14. r;t>hl fxe4
15.J.xe4 J.xe4 16JWxe4 l'l:c8) 13 . . . tt'lf6
14.J.xc5 Wxc5 15. r;t>h1 fxe4 16. tt'lxe4
tt'lxe4 17.J.xe4 .be4 18. \Wxe4 = .

12 ... �f6 13..b:c5 Wxc5+ 14.�12

0-0 15.c;!.>h1 e5
White anticipates . . . tt'lf6 which
would be attacked by e4-e5. Black
must seek another retreat square
for the knight.

12 . . . h4 13.0-0 �f6 14.e5

After 14.l'l:ad1 J.e7 15J:U2 d6

16.!Ud2, Black can calmly castle.

A typical move for the Taimanov, 14 . . . �h5 15 .tb7

•

performed by the guru himself!

Black fixes a target on e4. Now The enemy knight will be
16.fxe5 \Wxe5 17.tt'lg4 tt'lxg4 18. \Wxg4 cramping White's kingside from
l"lae8 19.'\Wd7 J.xe4+ ( 2 0 . l"lae1 f5) g3 so Anand preferred to kill it on
would have been the lesser evil. the spot: 15.J.h5 l'l:h5 16.l'l:ad1 J.c5
17. \Wd3 J.xe3 18. \Wxe3 \Wc5 19.l'l:d4.
16. �g4? ! �xg4 17.Ybg4 f5 Black had good play after 19 . . . f6�,
18.We2 (18.exf5 e4+) 18 . . . fxe4 Anand-P. Cramling, Lugano 1988.
19.J.xe4 d5+ 20 .if3 e4 2 1 .tg4
• •

l"!f6 22 .id7 Wd6 23.J.a4 l"!xf4

• 15 ... Wb7 16.Wd3 �g3 17.l"!fe1
24.l"!xf4 Wxf4 25.l"!fl Wd6 26 .ib3 • Wc6 18 .J.f2 J.c5
l"!f8 27.l"!d1 We5 28.h3 e3 29.c3
bxc3 30.bxc3 l"!f2 31.Wd3 c;!.>f8 Black's bishop has more pros­
3 2 J�e1 Wg5 33.l"!fl d4 0-1 pects than its White counterpart, so

151
 Part 4

it would be good to keep it. Tregubov

recommends 18 . . . l2Jf5 19.E!:e2 \Wc4
20 .\Wf3 (20.\Wxc4 E!:xc4 2 l.l2Je4 dS+) White misses the chance to trade
20 . . . d5+. queens by 32 .�a7 E!:b7 33.\WcS 'i!?f7
34.\Wb4. The ensuing endgame
19.l3ad1 .ixf2 20.'i!?xf2 '1Wc5+ could be saved: 34 . . . E!:b4 35.l2Jc5
21.ee3 a5 22 .l3d2 f5 ! l2Je2 36.'i!?fllt:if4 37.b3+. Now all is
over.

32 l3d5 ! - +
••• 33.�a7 l3d1
34.c!Df6 'i!?d8 35.�a8 'i!?e7 36.Wa7
'i!?d8 37.eas 'i!?c7 38.ea7 'i!?c6
39.Wa6 'i!?c5 40.Wc8 'i!?b5 0-1

25. Kosanovic-Banikas
Black i s consistently paralys­ Korinthos 1999
ing the kingside. Now White had to
simplify to four rooks endgame with 1.e4 c5 2 . c!Df3 c!Dc6 3.d4 cxd4
23.exf6 gxf6 24.1Mfxc5 E!:xcS 25.l2Je4 4. c!Dxd4 Wc7 5.c!Dc3 e6 6 .ie2 a6•

l2Jxe4 26.E!:xe4 = , but apparently he 7.f4 b5 8. c!Dxc6 Wxc6 9 .if3 .ib7

•

underestimated the dangers to his 10 .ie3 l3c8 ll.a3 Wc4 1 2 .Wd3

•

own king. c!Df6 13.0-0 .ic5 14.hc5 Wxc5

15.'i!?h1 e5 16.l3ae1 (16.g4 h5 ! ?)
23.l3d4? 'i!?e7 24. 'i!?g1 b4 16 0-0
•••

25.axb4 axb4 26.l2Ja4 exc2

27.l3xb4 l3c4

The fewer heavy pieces on board,

the more difficult is the defence of
the first rank. Therefore, 27 . . . E!:b8+
would have been more consistent.

28.l3xc4 exc4 29.c!Db6 eb4

30.l3d1 l3b8
17.g4 .!DeS ! 18.f5 c!Dd6! 19.l3e2
The safe haven of Black's king c!Dc4 2 0 .c!Dd1 l3fd8 2 1 .ig2 d5-+
•

makes the difference in this posi­ 2 2 .g5 dxe4 23.Wh3 c!Dd2 24.g6
tion. 30 . . . 'i!?t7! 3l.E!:d7 'i!?g6+ would fxg6 25.fxg6 h6 26.ru:7 c!Df3 27.c!De3
have underlined his advantage. The l3c6 28 .l3d7 Wb6 29.l3xd8 Wxd8
pawns are unimportant. 30.Wg4 l3d6 31.l3f2 eb6 0-1

152
 The f4 System

lLlc6 14.ia3 lLld4! 15.lLld6+ V!Jxd6

Kan Games 16.hd6 lLlxe2 17.@xe2 �g8 with a
pleasant endgame.

26. Martin Gonzalez-Delchev 9 •.• �c6 10.�f3

Benasque 06.07.2013
White's play looks normal, but
l.e4 c5 2 . �f3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 in fact this move puts him on the
4. �xd4 a6 5.�c3 V!Jc7 6.f4 b5 defensive. 1 0.ie3 b4 11.axb4 ltJxb4
7..id3 �b7 8 .V!Je2 �f6 1 2 . 0- 0 ie7 and 1 0.lLlxc6 �xc6 are
balanced.

10 .•• b4! ll.�a4 bxa3 12.0-0

lLlb4

The computer will defend suc­

cessfully after 12 . . . axb2 ! 13.hb2
ie7 14.e5 lLld5, but against an oppo­
nent with a lower rating than mine,
I prefer the most solid approach.
9.a3
13.bxa3 �xd3 14.cxd3 �c6
White prevents . . . b4 followed by
... d5 which is possible after 9.�d2.
For instance, 9 . . .b4 (9 ... .ic5 1 0 .�b3
ie7 ll.e5 lLld5 1 2 . lLl e4 lLl c6 is also
possible, 13.c3 0-0 14.0-0 g6, plan­
ning .. .f5 . However, White retains
some space advantage.) 10.lLld1 [10.
ltJa4 d5 (or 10 . . . ltJc6 ! ? ll.lLlf3 d5
12 .e5 lLle4=) ll.e5 lLle4 12 .ie3 lLld7
13 .0-0 lLldc5 14.ltJxc5 hc5 15.lLlb3
ie7= , Bologan-Rublevsky, Dort­ 15.V!!c 2
mund 2 0 04] 10 . . . lLlc6 11.lLlxc6 �xc6
12.lLlf2 .ic5 13.ie3 0-0 14.g4 he3 15.lLlc3 ie7 16.id2 0-0 17.�fc1
15.�xe3 d5 16.e5 ltJe4+, Cuartas­ (17.d4 d5) 17 . . . �fc8 and 15.lLlb2
Kogan, Catalonia 2 0 13 . ic5+ 16.ie3 he3+ 17.�xe3 �b8
maintained equality.
Critical should b e 9.e5 b4
The queen is misplaced on the
10.exf6? ! [10.lLle4 lLlxe4 ll.he4
open c-file and I could try to ex­
ixe4 (ll . . . lLlc6 ! ) 12 .V!Jxe4 lLlc6= is
ploit it with 15 . . . i.d6 ! ? 16.e5 hf3
known from the �f3 set-up. ] 10 . . .
17.�xc7 hc7 18.�xf3 lLld5 19.id2
bxc3 ll.fxg7 hg7 12.lLlf5 if6 13.b3

153
 Part 4

0-0. White has weak pawns in the tion. My opponent decided to part
centre. with a pawn right away. The rest of
the game is irrelevant to the open­
15 ••• gcs 16.c!l)e5? ing.

White neglects development. 2 2 . c!l)c4 .id4 23.gbl c!l)xe4

16 ..ie3 .id6 17.e5 .ix£3 was only 24.c!l)a5
marginally better for Black. Now
I'm in complete command.

16 J.b5 17.'�xc7 �c7 18.c!l)b2

•.•

J.c5+ 19.'.t>hl 0-0

Following the same lazy ap­

proach of avoiding concrete deci­
sions. l9 . . . c!l)xe4 2 0 .a4 c!l)f2 + 2 U!xf2
.ixf2 2 2 . axb5 axb5 brings about a
serious edge because my rooks have Test your self!
invasion squares. My quiet move is 24 . . . lt:Jg3 + ! 25.hxg3 !!cS produc­
very unpleasant for White, too. es a rare mating threat in a simple
endgame. My continuation 1s no
20.a4 .ic6 21.c!l)xc6 gxc6 less effective though.

24 c!l)f2 +
••• 25J�xf2 gxcl +
26.gxcl .ixf2 27 .g3 gbs 28. '.t>g2
.ie3 29.gc7 .ib6 30.gb7 gxb7
31.c!l)xb7 '.t>f8 32.c!l)d6 J.c5 33.c!l)c4
'.t>e7 34.c!l)d2 .ib4 35.c!l)b3 '.t>d6
36.g4 f5 37.gxf5 exf5 38.c!l)d4 g6
39.c!l)b3 '.t>d5 40.'.t>f3 .id6 41.h3
h6 42.'.t>e3 g5 43.fxg5 hxg5
44. '.t>f3 .ib4 45. '.t>g3 d6 46. '.t>f3
Amazingly, White is practically '.t>e5 47.'.t>g3 .iel + 48.'.t>f3 .ih4
lost here. The only way to keep the 49.'.t>e3 g4 50.hxg4 fxg4 51.'.t>e2
material even would be 2Vt:ldl, but .idS 52.'.t>e3 .ib6+ 53.'.t>e2 '.t>f4
then 22 . . . d5 23.e5 lt:Jd7 or 22 .. J'!b8 54.c!l)d2 d5 55.c!l)b3 g3 56.d4
would assure me of a total domina- '.t>e4 57.a5 hd4 0-1

154
 Pa rt S

The Fian chetto

I offer a choice in the Taimanov: l.e4 c5 2.liJf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.ltJxd4 a6
5.ltJc3 'Wffc 7 6.g3 a6 7 ..ig2 d6, which is well tested and solid, and the more en­
terprising flank attack 7 ... h5 - see the diagram. I propose a lot of new ide­
as and correct some wrong suggestions of other authors.
The fianchetto has no venom against the Kan - Black can fight for the
initiative.

155
Pa rt 5. The Fia nchetto

Main Ideas

The fianchetto system i s perhaps The first problem of Black

the most universal weapon of White is how to complete develop­
against the Sicilian. It is very solid, ment.
but at the same time flexible . By The straightforward approach
planting the bishop on the main di­ does not work:
agonal, White significantly restricts l.e4 c5 2 . �f3 e6 3.d4 cxd4
Black's counterplay. The good con­ 4. �xd4 �c6 5.�c3 §'c7 6.g3 a6
trol of the centre allows him to 7 . .ig2 tt:Jf6 8.0-0 !J.e7 9 .:!�e1
choose between a large number of
plans ranging from calm position­
al play on the queenside with a4-
a5 to a pawn storm on the oppo­
site flank. Unexperienced play­
ers underestimate the 6.g3 sys­
tem because White's wins are rare­
ly quick and spectacular. Howev­
er, the opposite is even more true.
Black should be very accurate with
his move order. Moreover, memo­ My advice is to avoid this
rising the first 12-15 moves does not position.
help much since decisive clashes in White is better after 9 ... 0-0
this system usually occur deeply in 10.tt:Jxc6 dxc6 ll.e5 or 9 ... d6
the middlegame. So second players 10. tt:Jxc6 bc6 ll.e5 ! dxe5 12.Elxe5.
should know typical plans of coun­ So we cannot comfortably devel­
terplay, which are illustrated with op with . . . tt:Jf6, . . . !J.e7 and . . . d6. I of­
practical examples in the "Complete fer two thoroughly different solu­
Games" chapter. tions in the Taimanov:

156
 The Fianchetto

A. 7 ••• d6 8.0-0 J.d7 See game 28 Fressinet-Del­

chev, Calvia ol. 2 004.

Now I'll try to arm you against

the dangerous plan of a kingside
pawn storm. It has been topical
lately. White's concept is to retreat
the knight from d4 to e2 or b3 and
push f4, g4, g5. The key moment
is that the f6-knight is deprived of
its natural square d7 while on e8 it
Looking at the diagram position would be rather clumsy. Attempts
you may ask: "OK, we have defend­ of reviving it by f6 or f5 would only
ed c6, but how do we castle?" aggravate Black's situation. My ad­
vice is to hinder White's attack with
9.gel J.e7 10.tLlxc6.hc6 11.fig4 · . . . h6. Then the blockade on the
(line A61) dark squares could be reinforced by
. . . tLlh7 and even g5 or e5. The play is
We simply do not castle at all ! very sharp and interesting:

ll h5 ! 12 .�e2 h4 13.a4 hg3

••• 7 d6 8 . 0-0 J.d7 9 . tLlb3 b5
•••

14.hg3 'i!?f8! 10.a3 tLlf6 ll.'i!?hl

Alternatives are ll.i.e3 tLle5 or

ll.g4 h5 ! ? 12 .g5 tLJg4.

ll ••• J.e7 12.f4

Black has a good game. His only

concern is how to transfer the queen
to the kingside. The open h-file
will be a constant source of threats
against White's king. Keep in mind
the manoeuvres . . . �c7-d7-e8-�g8- In short, here is the general sce­
h7 (after g6 and lt>g7) and . . . �c7-d7- nario against White's knight re­
g4 (e6) after a preliminary . . . e6-e5. treats :
We answer 9 . . b5, then develop
.

15.a5 gc8 16.J.e3 tLlf6oo. our kingside and put our rook on b8

157
 Part S

or c8 before castling. If White plays draw looks the most probable re­
i.e3, we attack it with . . . lt:\e5-c4. sult:
Else, we play . . . h6 and only then can
we castle, having in mind to meet g4 7 d6 8 . 0-0 .id7 9 .�xc6 .bc6
•.•

by ... lt:\h7. The break . . . d5 may work 10.a4 �f6 ll.a5 .ie7 12 . .ie3 0-0
in some variations, but if White's
bishop is on e3, refrain from it! See
game31 Ponomariov-Dubov and
game 30 Guseinov-Vasovski.

A possible continuation is 12 . . .
1!b8 13.'\We2 0 - 0 14.g4 h6

Black has not serious problems

if he plays patiently for equalisa­
tion.

13 . .ib6 (13 .1!e1 lt:\d7 14.lt:\a4

1!ae8 ! 15.lt:\b6 f5 provides
counterplay.) 13 . . . ti'b8 14-l�el
�d7 15 . .id4 .if6 = .
Now 15.i.e3 lt:\h7 will restrain
White's attack while 15.h4 d5 16.g5 I f you want t o force your oppo­
(16.e5 lt:\e8) 16 . . . lt:\xe4 ! (do not nent to think on his own from the
open up the h-file ! ) 17.lt:\xe4 dxe4 very beginning, I recommend you
18.i.xe4 f5 19.i.g2 \!;>t7! 2 0.i.e3 1!h8 to pay attention to the following
gives good counterplay. daring variation:

This should be enough to feel B. 7 . . . h5 ! ?

confident against 6.g3. Should the
opponent surprise you with oth­
er plans like b3, or lt:\ce2 etc., just
remember that you are playing the
Sicilian ! Typical counterplay on the
queenside by . . . b5, . . . 1!c8 even be­
fore castling should be at least a
playable option.

Yet, the picture would be incom­

plete without mentioning the very The early pawn raid faces White
dry positional line A62 where the with concrete problems and seizes

158
 The Fianchetto

the psychological initiative. If White op on c6. Here, the bishop can go to

hoped for a solid position where he b7 while the king will feel quite safe
could play on the queenside with­ on the queenside. The play is dou­
out any risk, he would be drastical­ ble-edged.
ly thrown out of his zone of comfort.
To be sure, an early counter-attack The Kan is much easier to play
with Black is double-edged, but cur­ because Black solves the queenside
rent practice is encouraging. This development problem with :
variation is still at an experimental
stage and it offers a vast ground for l.e4 c5 2 . c!Llf3 e6 3 . d4 cxd4
innovations. 4. c!Llxd4 a6 5.c!Llc3 ftc7 6.g3 J.b4!
Main continuations are :
a) 8 .h3 h4 9.g4 i.cS ! 10.lLlb3 i.a7
11.'1Mfe2 lLlge7 12.f4 bS 13 .i.e3

A plus for the Kan :

a n easy queenside development.

13 . . . g5 ! ? A glance in the database re­

veals that White is quite far below
Black gains control over the dark the 50% which is certainly unusu­
squares. al for a modern opening. Of course,
Black can confidently transpose to
b) 8 . 0-0 h4 9 J'!e1 hxg3 10.hxg3 the Taimanov by 6 . . . lLlc6, but objec­
d6 ll. lLlxc6 bxc6 tively, the bishop sortie is the better
choice. We can then put the queen's
knight on d7 and push . . . eS. This
set-up is known from the Najdorf,
but here our dark-squared bishop is
not on e7 which is undoubtedly in
our favour. For instance :

7. c!Llde2

7.i.d2 lLlf6 8.i.g2 lLlc6 9.lLlb3

We have seen a similar posi­ gives Black a pleasant choice be­
tion Oine A61), but Black had a bish- tween 9 . . . 0-0 ! ? 1 0 . 0-0 d6 11.f4 hc3
159
 Part S

12 .hc3 eS and 9 . . . �e7 10.0-0 0-0 !

ll.f4 (ll.g4 dS 12.exd5 exdS)

This is the point of 9 . . . ll'lbd7.

By not castling, Black forestalls
ll . . . dS ! 12.exd5 ll'lb4 with an in­ the enemy attack on the kingside.
itiative. Thus he gains time to complete his
queenside development and pre­
7 . . . �f6 8 . .ig2 d6 9.0-0 �bd7 pare a break in the centre or a coun­
10.h3 .ic5 ! ll.g4 h6 ter-attack against the enemy king.

Weapon of choice

The Kan should be the weapon of choice against fianchetto fans. Without a
knight on c6, Black is more flexible. By attacking the c3-knigt with 6 . . . �b4,
he practically forces the enemy to retreat his active knight from d4. As a re­
sult, White is deprived of the unpleasant option of ll'ld4xc6 which is a cause
of constant concern in the Taimanov.

160
Pa rt 5 . The Fia nchetto

Taiman ov - Step by Step

l.e4 c5 2.�£J e6 3.d4 cxd4 or 14.f4 l"1b8 15.g4 d5 16.exd5 lt:\xd5

4.�xd4 �c6 5.�c3 �c7 6.g3 a6 17.lt:\xd5 exd5 18 .hd5 l"1e8;:;) .
There i s one more question that
still has not a· definitive answer:
what does Black benefit from de­
laying . . . a6. Let's check 7 . .ig2 lt:\xd4
8.�xd4 .id7 9.0-0 lt:\f6 10 . .ig5 .ie7
The trade of knights gave White
some spatial advantage in the cen­
tre. The main battlefield will be the
left wing so the queen's rook should
stay on a1 while the other one goes
to d 1 :

This move is not obligatory, but

it is more flexible than the alter­
native 6 . . . d6 which allows 7.lt:\db5
'Wb8 8 .a4. This position is practical­
ly unexplored. The game Romero
Holmes-Wolff, Palma de Mallorca
1989, continued 8 . . . .ie7 9 . .ig2 lt:\f6
10.0-0 0-0 11.�e2 l"1d8 ? ! 12 . .ie3 a6
13 .lt:\a3 d5? 14 . .ib6 l"1d6 15.a5±.
Black could improve with 11 . . . ll.l"1fd1 ! ? a 6 12 . .if6 gf6 13.�d2
a6 12.lt:\a3 b 6 13 . .ie3 �c7, when h5 14.h4 l"1c8 15.l"1acloo, Kaidanov-J.
14.g4 ! ?oo starts the typical attack Horvath, Calcutta 2 0 0 0 . Black has
on the kingside, but in an original active rooks, but his pawn chain is
set-up with a knight on a3 . (White damaged. The h5-pawn would be a
should not delay this advance since tangible weakness in an endgame.
Black would be ready with . . . d5 ! In my opinion, White's game is
- 14.f4 l"1b8 15.l"1ad1 l"1e8 16.g4 d5 ! somewhat easier.

161
 PartS

7.i.g2

he cannot complete develop­

ment without considerable conces­
sions in space since 9...d6 runs into
10.l2Jxc6 bc6 1l.e5! dxe5 12.l"i:xe5.
Black has at least four different
This position was topical 40 years
set-ups against the fianchetto. In
ago. Exhaustive testing proved that
line A. 7...d6, I offer you a well test­
Black is unable to compensate for
ed and flexible approach, based on
the split queenside pawns.
the Scheveningen pawn structure.
Line B. 7...h5!? introduces a rare at­
tack which is nearly unexplored. It A. 7 ..• d6 8.0-0
will face your opponent with a dif­
ficult choice, Statistics confirm that 8.l2Jxc6 bxc6 9.0-0 l"i:b8 10.l2Ja4
White's defence is not trivial. He �e7 ll.c4 c5 12.�e2 �f6 13.�e3 �d7
scores only 41% although the sam­ (13...l2Je7!? 14.f4 l"i:b4 15.lLlc3 �d4)
ple of only 61 games is too small to 14.lLlc3lLle7 15.f4 �d4 16.hd4 cxd4
be representative. 17.l2Jd1 0-0 18.b3 a5=, Smirin-Jan­
jgava, Vilnius 1988.
I rejected 7...l2Jf6 8.0-0 l2Jxd4
9.�xd4 i.c5 10.i.f4 d6, because this 8...i.d7
is one of the most drawish variation
in the opening theory! Black practi­ The only downside of this move
cally has not won a single game at a is that the bishop occupies a square
higher level. A typical position aris­ which might be useful to the king's
es after 1l.�d2 h6 12.l"i:ad1 e5 13.i.e3 knight. We'll discuss that issue lat­
�e6 14.hc5 dxc5. White will then er- see the line 8...�d7 9.lLlde2lLJf6
play l2Jd5 (or f4 first), recapture on 10.h3 �e7 11.g4. However, the alter­
d5 by the e-pawn, and occasionally natives have major drawbacks.
will convert his tiny advantage.
a) 8...l2Jf6 9.l"i:e1 �d7 10.l2Jxc6,
7...l2Jf6 8.0-0 �e7 is a playable, when the options are: 10...hc6
but passive alternative. Black's ll.l2Jd5 hd5 12.exd5 e5 13.f4 �e7
problem is that after 9.l"i:e1!, 14.�e2±; 10...bxc6 ll.l2Ja4±, fol-

162
 The Fianchetto

lowed by c4, and the bishop is mis­ In the diagram position, White
placed on d7. Both evaluations are has tried nearly all possible moves
not final. They just reflect the cur­ and plans. I'll examine the most
rent state of theory, but the play is reasonable of them:
quite tangled. Al. 9 . lt:l de2 ; A2 . 9.lt:lb3; A3.
9 . .ie3 ; A4. 9J!e1; AS. 9 .a4 ; A6.
b) 8 . . . lt:lxd4. Black wants to ex­
9.lt:lxc6
change the d4-knight before it ran
away! 9 .�xd4 .id7
9.lt:lce2 is totally harmless in
view of 9 ... lt:lf6 10.b3 (10 .c4 lt:lxd4
1l .�xd4 .ie7 and Black easi­
ly achieves . . . bS later) lO . . . bS with
good play.

Al. 9 . lt:l de2 ·

10J'!d1
10 . .if4 leads to unclear conse­
quences after 10 . . . .ic6 ll.lt:ldS exd5
12.exd5 .id7 13J'!fe1 lt:le7 14J!e3 f6
15J!c3 �d8oo.
10 ... lt:lf6 (perhaps Black could de­
lay the knight move with 10 . . . .ic6 ! ?)
ll . .igS .ie7 12 .hf6oo. White saves his knight from ex­
The early exchange on d4 leads change and transfers it to g3 after a
to a practically new branch of the­ preliminary h3, g4. Practical results
ory which is waiting to be explored. are quite alarming for Black. Com­
However, I think that White's play monly the second players do not
is natural and easy. pay due attention to White's threats
and quickly fall under attack, like in
the following game :
Inkiov-Tsorbatzoglou, Chania
1994
l.e4 c5 2.lt:lf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4
4.lt:lxd4 lt:lf6 5.lt:lc3 lt:lc6 6.g3 d6
7 . .ig2 .id7 8.0-0 .ie7 9.lt:lde2 0-0
1 0 .h3 a6 ll.g4 �c7 12 .lt:lg3 bS 13 .g5
lt:le8 14.f4 i!d8 15.<it>h1 b4 16.lt:lce2 f6
17.h4±

163
 Part S

13.�g3 0-0 14.f4 ltJh7 leads to

the same position.

13 . . . �h7!?

17 . . . fxg5 18.hxg5 <;!;>h8 19.f5 ltJeS

20.ltJf4 dS 2 1.W/h5--t.
In my opinion, the whole set­
up with the knight residing on e8
is very passive and leaves the op­ Black sets a flexible defence line
ponent a free hand on the king­ on the kingside.
side. The other typical approach is 13 ... 0-0 14 . .ie3 l:%fd8 15.g5 hxgS
to meet g4 with h6 and gS. That is a 16.fxg5 ltJh7 17.h4oo gives White the
double-edged plan, but Black's king initiative in view of the threat of
in the centre is considerably more . . . �f4 followed by . . . g6.
vulnerable than his White counter­ After the text, it is unclear how
part. White could expand further. The
I think that Black should em­ only way is apparently h3-h4, but
ploy a defensive design which is Black is able to hinder it. For in­
frequently seen in the hedgehog stance :
system (the plan with f4, g4) . He 14.W/e1 0-0 15.h4 leaves c2 un­
prevents g4-g5 with h6 and when guarded after 15 . . . b4. Following
White plays f4, the f6 knight goes to 16.lZld1, Black could take an edge
h7! Then Black could safely castle with 16 . . . bxa3 17.g5 (17.bxa3 gS ! )
and expand on the opposite wing. 17 . . . axb2 18.hb2 hxg5 19.fxg5 ltJe5.
I only hesitate about the early b7- The quiet 14 ..ie3 0-0 15.ltJg3 (15.
b5. It is risky, but enterprising. You W/el �d8 16.l:%dl l:%c8) 15 ... l:%fd8 also
must be sure to push it before White looks appealing to Black who could
played g4, in order to force the an­ combine his counterplay with the
swer a3 . Otherwise the c3-knight manoeuvre ltJh7-f8-g6.
will replace its teammate on e2.
Let's substantiate these reflec­ A2 . 9 . �b3 ! ?
tions with concrete variations :
This has been the most topical
9 . . . b5 ! ? 10.a3 �f6 ll.h3 J.e7 line lately. White's concept is sim­
12 .g4 h6 13.f4 ilar to line Al, but the knight on b3

164
 The Fianchetto

is a bit distant from the kingside. variations the rook stands better on
On the other hand, White does not b8.) might transpose to the main
need h3 in order to push g4. White line after 13.'it>hl. An independ­
could also play a4-a5 to restrict ent variation is 13.�e2 b4 14.axb4
queenside counterplay. So I pro­ tLlxb4, when 15.h3 0-0 16.g4? stum­
pose to start with : bled into 16 . . . d5 in Beshukov-Tre­
gubov, Krasnodar 1998. As a rule,
9 . . . b5 we should always contemplate . . . d5
against g4, even when it is a real
I consider similar positions pawn sacrifice.
without the insertion of 9 . . . b5 10 .a3
in the annotations to game 31 Po­ ll . . . .ie7 12.f4
nomariov-Dubov, Tromso 2 0 13 .

10.a3

10.f4 b4 1l.tLle2 tLlf6 1 2 . a3 e5

should be fine. The early . . . b4 is not
so good against a developing move
as 10 . .ie3, since White could open
the c-file in his favour with c2-c3 .
However, .ie3 also has drawbacks.
It provokes 10 . . . tLle5 ! ? , when ll.tLld2
tLlf6 12 .h3 Ek8 13.f4 tLlg6 looks quite
safe. 10 . . . tLlf6 11.f4 gcs is also possi­ 12 . . . gbs
ble and White will probably trans­
pose to the main line with 1 2 . a3 be­ From this square, the rook sup­
cause 12 .g4? could be put to the test ports the b-pawn. It also prevents
with 12 . . . h5! 13.h3 hxg4 14.hxg4 b4 possible .ib6 if White set the bat­
15.tLla4 e5. tery .ie3-�f2 , and indirectly hits the
b3-knight (with the threat of . . . b4,
10 . . . tLlf6 ll.�h1 . . . tLlxb4, . . . tLlxc2) .
12 . . .1':k8 i s a good alternative.
White does not seem to have
See game 31 Ponomariov-Dubov.
more useful moves since ll . .ie3 will
face again ll . . . tLle5. ll.g4 is com­ Another legitimate option is
mitting as Black has not castled yet. immediate castling. After 12 . . . 0-0
The standard retort would be ll . . . h6 13 .g4 h6 14.h4 (14 ..ie3 tLlh7 ! ) 14 ... d5
12.f4 .ie7 13.'1We2 gbs, but ll . . . h5 ! ? 15.g5 (15.e5 tLle8 16 ..ie3 gbs 17JU3
looks also very tempting: 12 .g5 tLlg4 f6 18.exf6 tLlxf6, with counterplay)
13.�h1 g6 14.f4 V:Ma7. 15 . . . hxg5 16.hxg5 tLlxe4 17 . .ixe4
ll.f4 i.e? 12 . .ie3 gcs (I'm not dxe4 18 .V:Mh5 is not dangerous as
sure about this move. In many White is behind in development:

165
 Part S

18 . . . g6 19 .�h4 f6 2 0J'U2 fxgS by delaying castling any longer as

2 1.�h6 .if6 2 2 J'�h2 .ic8 23.tt'lxe4 White has plenty of useful moves.
�g7 24.tt'lxf6+ !!xf6 = . For example, 13 . . ..ic8 14.g4 h6
15 . .ie3 tt'ld7 16.�f2 tt'lb6 17.tt'ld4
13.�e2 tt'lxd4 18 .hd4 0-0 19.�g3 with ac­
tive pieces.
After 13 . .ie3, the most practical Of course, in the above line Black
approach is to forestall possible g4 can refrain from . . . h6, allowing the
and h4 with 13 . . . h6 ! . Then we can thematic plan gS, �hS. However, I
already castle since we would have like too much to play it on the white
. . . tt'lh7 to g4. side so I cannot recommend it for
Black.
13 . . . 0-0 14.g4 h6 is more risky:

a) 15.h4 tt'lh7! (15 . . . d5? fails to 14.g4 h6 15 .ie3

•

16.g5 ! hxgS 17.hxg5 tt'lxe4 18 . .ixe4 !

dxe4 19.�h5, with attack) 16.g5 15.h4 can be attacked with 15 . . .
hxgS 17.hxg5 g6oo. dS ! ? 16.g5 (16.e5 tt'le8), when i t is
extremely important to avoid open­
b) 15.g5 hxgS 16.fxg5 tt'lh7 ing the h-file by 16 . . . hxg5 ? ! 17.hxg5,
because White's game is a little bet­
ter after 17 . . . tt'lxe4 18.tt'lxe4 dxe4
19 . .ixe4 fS 20 . .ig2 g6 2 1.!!f3 ! , e.g.
2 1 . . .!!f7 2 2 .!!h3 !!h7 23.!!xh7 lt>xh7
24 . .id2 !!h8 25.\t>g1 \t>g8 2 6.!!e1 eS
27.fxe5 .ie6 28 .�f2 . Instead, Black
should continue 16 . . . tt'lxe4 ! 17.tt'lxe4
(17 . .ixe4 dxe4 18 .gxh6 fS 19.!!g1
!!f6 2 0 .�g2 g6) 17 . . . dxe4 18 . .ixe4
f5 19 . .ig2 . l!ff7! 2 0 . .ie3 !!h8, with
is considered in game 30 Gusei­ counterplay.
nov-Vasovski, Struga 2009. In this
pawn structure, we push . . . g6, pos-
sibly . . . lt>h8 , and seek counterplay
with . . . gxhS. It is important to leave
our kingside pieces as they are -
eyeing gS. We can even win the gS­
pawn at some point with . . . �d8.
It would be a mistake to redeploy
them in a passive defensive stand.

13 . . . 0-0

I do not see what we could gain Amazingly, I have not any prac-

166
 The Fianchetto

tical example with this particular .ie7 11.tt:lb3 bS 12 .g4 hS 13 .gS, when
position in my database. Black has 13 . . . tt:lg4 is with tempo.
two radically different approach­
es here. The first one is to carry on
... dS and play in the centre :
1S . . . b4 16.axb4 tt:lxb4 17.tt:ld4
dS 18.eS (18.gS hxgS 19.fxgS tt:lxe4
20.tt:lxe4 dxe4 2 1.he4 g6) 18 . . .
tt:lh7 19.�f2 f6. This may b e not
the most exact move, but it gives
us immediate counterplay. 2 0 . exf6
tt:lxf6 2 1 .h3 eS 2 2 .fxeS tt:le4 23 .1klre1
1"!xf1+ 24 . .txf1 �xeS 2S.tt:lxe4 dxe4
26 . .ig1 .id6 27.1"!d1 .ic7 2 8 . .ig2 tt:ldS
29.1klfxe4 1klrxe4 3 0 . .ixe4 tt:lf6 = .

The other alternative i s more in­ 10 .�e2

teresting: 1S ... tt:lh7! ? . I analyse the
same position (only the rook is not 10.f4 .ie7 11.tt:lb3 bS and 10. tt:lb3
on b8, but on c8) in the comments are considered in line A2 .
to game 31 Ponomariov-Dubov. 10.tt:lxc6 transposes to line A62 .
In our case, the game may con­
tinue 16.�f2 aS 17.h4 b4 (17 . . . gS ! ? 1 0 . . . i.e7 ll.f4
18.hxgS hxgS 19.eS d S 2 0 .tt:lcS .ic8
21.tt:ld3oo) 18.axb4 axb4 19.tt:le2 eS From the other options, only
20 .gS exf4 (After 20 . . .hxgS 2 1.fxgS ll.a4 0-0 12 .1"!ad1 is of independent
g6, we reach the same pawn struc­ significance. Black equalises with
ture as in game 30 Guseinov-Va­ typical Sicilian methods : 12 . . . tt:lxd4
sovski.) 21.tt:lxf4 hxgS 2 2 .tt:ldS �d8 13 .hd4 eS 14 . .ie3 bS 1S.axbS axbS
23.hxgS .ie6 with a complex, bal­ 16.-igS 1"!fc8 17.�d3 .ie6 18.tt:lxbS
anced game. �xc2 19.tt:ld6 1klfxd3 2 0 .1"!xd3 1"!cb8=.

ll . . .l'k8 !

A3. 9 .ie3
• If you read line A2 carefully,
you should have noted that we pre­
A normal developing move fer to develop the queenside before
which keeps all the options open. castling. Do not forget that White
However, it is too tentative for a can always retreat the knight. For in­
sharp opening as the Open Sicil­ stance, 12 .tt:lb3 bS 13.a3, when sim­
ian. Black gets time for develop­ plest is 13 . . . h6 14.'i!th1 0-0 1S.g4 tt:lh7.
ment. Another downside of the text
is seen in the variation 9 . . . tt:lf6 10.f4 12 . gadl b5 13.a3 0-0

167
 Part S

Most of the games feature 10 . . .

lt:Jf6, when ll.a4 follows the idea of
the previous retreat. White wants to
bind the left wing by aS. If now Black
answers ll . . . b6 12 .£4 0-0 13 .g4 (13.
<i>h1 enables another set-up: 13 . . .
l'!fd8 14.g4 .ie8 1S.gS lt:Jd7) 13 . . . .ic8
14.gS lt:Jd7, we'll have a typical Sch­
eveningen position. However, a4-
aS is not so dreadful: 11 . . . 0-0 12.aS
A devoted Sicilian player could lt:JeS 13.h3 l'!ac8 14.g4 h6 with excel­
only dream about such position. lent play. White is unable to break
Black is all set up for expanding on trough the dark-square blockade on
the queenside. 14.fS lt:Jxd4 1S.hd4 the kingside.
eS 16.i.e3 aS 17.i.gS i.c6 would be
roughly equal. White can play lt:Jb3 ll.a3 (ll.f4 fails to ll . . . b4
or allow . . . lt:Jxd4, for example : 12.lt:Je2 lt:Jf6) ll . . . ttlf6 12.f4

14.\t>hl tl:\xd4 15.h:d4 e5

16.i.e3 i.e6

The chances are even. Medina­

Tal, Palma de Mallorca 1966, went
17J:'lfe1 i.c4 18.�d2 aS.

A4. 9,ge1

The play usually transposes to

other lines. I examine here some White's strategy is a failure.
specific variations. Black can choose between 12 . . . l'!d8
and the more enterprising, but risky
9 . . .i.e7 10.tl:\b3 b5 ! ? 12 . . . l'!c8. In both lines 13.eS does
not work. 13.g4 is not much bet­
I recommended the same active ter due to 13 . . . hS 14.gS (14.h3 hxg4
approach against the 9.lt:Jb3-line. 1S.hxg4 gS ! ? 16.fgS lt:Jh7. This vari­
The current position hides a slight ation would have been bad against
nuance - instead of a bishop on e3 the i.e3-l'!f1 setup ! ) 14 . . . lt:Jg4.
White has the rook on el. The latter
supports the threat of eS, but also The big difference between the
makes Black's counterplay with two rook moves is seen in the vari­
. . . hS more efficient because in that ation 13 . .ie3. White renews the
case the rook is needed on fl. threat of g4. With the rook on d8,

168
 The Fianchetto

Black could castle 13 . . . 0-0 since Now, here is the good news :
14.g4 is met by 14 . . . �c8 15.g5 llJd7. Black can ignore the threat of a4-a5 !
12 .. J'k8 13 ..ie3 practically for­
ces Black to adopt the defence with 10 J.e7 ll.a5 (ll.f4
• .. llJaS)
13 . . . h6 14.g4 llJh7 15.ygd2 (15.�f2 ll llJe5! 1 2 .f4 �c4
• •.

llJf8) 15 . . . g5oo with very sharp play.

In game 27 Hoogendoorn-Lau­
tier, Algarve 1999 Black realised a
dubious mix of both plans.

AS. 9 . a4

13.yge2

13.g4 is risky when Black's king

is still on e8. After 13 . . . h6 14.yge2
( 14.h4 bS) 14 . . . l:!c8 15.'i!?h1 g5, Black
could try to gain the initiative count­
ing on the excellent position of his
9 ••• llJf6 knight on c4 (15 . . . llJh7 is worth con­
sideration too, e.g. 16.ygf2 0-0 17.h4
I have noted before that the g5oo). Serper-Epishin, Tashkent
exchange 9 . . . llJxd4 10 .ygxd4 llJf6 1987, saw further 16.fxg5? ! (16.h3
ll . .ie3 (ll . .igS .ie7 12.l:!fd1 l:!c8 = ) gf4 17.l:!f4 llJh7oo) 16 . . .hxg5 17.hg5
.ie7 12 .a5 leaves Black without
· llJb2 18.e5 �c3+.
much counterplay. After the text move, Black should
decide how to face White's pawn
lO. llJb3 storm on the kingside. I think it is
good to raise a pawn barrage on the
The bad news now is that 10 . . . dark squares:
b6? ! ll.f4 .ie7 12 . .ie3 followed by
g4 leads to a known variation from 13 . . . e5 ! ?
the Scheveningen with a clear ex­
tra tempo for White who commonly Remember that castling and re­
spends time on .ie2-f3-g2 . treating the knight to e8 is clearly
Black is in a similar tempo-down in White's favour. More interesting
situation after 10 . . . llJ a5? ! ll.llJaS is the old suggestion of GM Ceba­
�as 12 . .id2 �c7 13.a5. lo to sacrifice a pawn with . . . d5. His

169
 Part S

analysis in Informator 33/312 exa­

mines (by transposition) : 13 ... 0-0
14.g4 d5 ! 15.e5 (15.exd5 l:l:fe8 ! ) 15 ...
tt'le4 16.tt'lxe4 dxe4 17 . .ixe4 i.b5
18.i.d3 l:l:ad8�. However, no one has
tested it for more than twenty years
already.

14.f5 �!k8

14 . . . h6 is also possible, intend­

ing to meet 15.g4 by 15 . . . b5 16.axb6
�xb6 17.c;th1 l:l:c8 . A61. 10.l:l:e1 ; A62 . 10 .a4

15.g4 h6 VVe have reached the key po­

sition of the g3-system. . Perhaps
I like Black's position. In the White players like it so much be­
game Trichkov-Peschardt, Lyngby cause one does not need any home
1991, White attempted to fulfil his analysis in order to reach and play
main strategic goal with 16.h4 �d8+ it. White has some spatial advan­
17.g5 hxg5 18.hxg5 tt'lh5 19.�g4 tt'lf4 tage, better development and no
20.g6, when 2 0 . . . l:l:h4 ! + would have weaknesses. This is one of the safest
been sobering. line in the Open Sicilian ! Still, Black
keeps refining his defence and cur­
rently has no considerable theoreti­
A6. 9. ttlxc6 cal problems.

White often resorts to this ex­

change after 9.l:l:e1 i.e7. Perhaps A61. 10.gel
such a move order is more accurate,
because it enables an interesting VVhite does not renounce the a4-
positional sacrifice against 1 0 .tt'lxc6 a5 plan. On the contrary, most of
bxc6. White could follow up with the games transpose to line A62 in
ll.e5 ! ? dxe5 12 .�e2 or ll.tt'la4 l:l:b8 the next moves. However, the text
(ll . . . l:l:d8 12 .�e2 i.c8 13.e5 d5 14.c4;!; move requires from Black concrete
Timman-Marjanovic, Zagreb 1985) knowledge of some sharp variations
12 .e5 dxe5 13.b3 tt'lf6 14.i.b2;!; . which I examine in the next lines.

9 . . . .b:c6 10 ••• i.e7!

9 . . . bxc6 is probably underrated. 10 . . . tt'lf6 ll.tt'ld5 .ixd5 12.exd5 e5

It leads to complex play: 13.f4 i.e7 14.�e2 with some pull.

170
 The Fianchetto

Now ll.a4 leads to A62 . Black's counterplay is not evi­

ll . .if4 i s a n overt proposition of dent. In all events he will display
a draw: ll . . . ll'lf6 (you can keep some activity on the opposite wing. First-
tension at your own risk by 11 . . . e5 . ly he should decide where to evac­
12 . .ie3 lt'lf6 13 . .ig5 ll'lg8 14. \Wd2 h6 uate the king. Currently . . . <;t>f8, in­
15 . .ie7 lt'le7) 12 .e5 dxe5 13 . .ixe5 tending . . . g6 and . . . <;t>g7, looks pref­
'Wb6 14 . .id4 \Wc7 15 . .ie5. Then 15 . . . erable to castling.
'Wc8 1 6 . .ixf6 .ixf6 17.lt'le4 .ixe4= The activation of Black's queen
looks like a dead draw, Shevelev­ is another urgent matter. On the
Lerner, Israel 2003. left wing it is constantly harassed
White's only hope to punish the by the enemy's bishop, rook and
opponent for his particular move knight, so it has to find a way to
order is : the other half of the board. You can
see in my game against Fressinet
11.\Wg4 h5! 12 .We2 h4 the manoeuvre . . . �c7-d7-e8 having
in mind . . . �g8-h7 after . . . g6 and
12 . . . b5? ! is a serious mistake. . . . <;t>g7. Another route for the queen
In this system, White's main plan is . . . \Wc7-d7-g4 (e6) after a prelimi­
is based on a queenside expan­ nary . . . e6-e5.
sion. Black's pseudo-activity goes As a whole, Black has fair chan­
half way the opponent's intention. ces. See the annotated games 28
White will easily break-through by and 29 in the "Complete Games"
a4 with an edge. section in order to better under­
stand the options of both sides.
13.a4 hxg3 14.hxg3 I'll confine myself here only to the
problem of the best move order in
A fashionable position . I play the diagram position.
it with both sides ! White is going
to push aS and introduce a minor 14 . . . <;t>f8 !
piece on b6. Then he will try to ad­
vance the c- and b-pawns. 14 . . . ll'lf6 is a normal, frequent-

171
 Part S

ly seen move. Its downside is that Delchev, Calvia ol 2 0 04 . See the

White could answer 1S.i.f4 eS "Complete Games" chapter.
16.i.gS \Wd7 17.i.xf6 i.xf6. Black
may hold this position, but his win­
ning prospects are null, for instance A62 . 10.a4 �f6 ll.a5 .ie7
after 18J!ed1 (18.b4 ! is better) 18 . . . 12 .i.e3 0-0
i.d8 19.aS.
12 . . . lt:\d7 gives White a tempo for
15.a5l'k8 c4 as in Leko-Zvjaginsev, Wijk aan
Zee 199S, which went on:
Black should evade the trap 1S . . . 13.lt:la4 0-0 14.lt:\b6 Ei:ae8 1S.c4!
g 6 16.i.e3 lt:lf6 17.i.b6 \WeB 18 J'!ad1 The text move keeps the hit on e4,
@g7 19.lt:ldS ! which is based on so White must include Ei:e1 before
the hanging state of the e7-bish­ heading with the knight for b6.
op. Against Berescu, I answered
19 . . . i.xdS 20.exdS eS 21.c4 i.d8,
when 2 2 .b4 ! i.xb6 23.axb6 aS 24.cS
would have given White an initia­
tive. 20 . . . lt:\xdS 21.i.xdS i.f6 2 2 .�f3
\Wd7 23 .i.d4 i.xd4 24J'!xd4 does not
solve the problems either. This ex­
ample explains the reason behind
the otherwise awkward continua­
tion 1S . . . Ei:e8 ! ? 16.i.e3 lt:lf6 . I dis­
cuss it in game 29 Timman-V. Mi­
lov, Biel 199S.
13 . .ib6
16 .ie3 �f6oo.
•

I have not seen any new ideas in

this variation lately. White is very
solid, but Black has no weaknesses.
A popular alternative is:
13.Ei:e1 lt:ld7 14.lt:\a4 Ei:ae8 ! . This
is is Black's only active plan. It is
enough for obtaining sufficient
counterplay:
1S.lt:lb6 fS 16.lt:\xd7

Alternatives are :
a) 16.exfS i.xg2 17. @xg2 Ei:xfS ;
This rich double-edged position
occurred in game 28 Fressinet- b) 16.i.d4, when 16 . . . f4 ! ? looks

172
 The Fianchetto

best. 16 . . . e5 is not bad, but it offers Black's position is somewhat

White the d5-square - 17 . .ie3 f4 cramped so exchanges should re­
18.tt:ld5 .b:d5 19.�xd5 r4lh8 2 0 . .id2 lieve his defence.
b5 ! (White develops a very strong
initiative after 20 . . . fxg3 2l.hxg3 16 .ixf6 c!Dxf6
• 17.c!D a4 c!Dd7
�xc2? ! 2 2 J'!ecl �xb2 23J'%abl �d4 18.�d4 .b:a4 = .
24 . .ie3 !;!;) 2 l . axb6 �xb6 2 2 .�b3
and White even has an initia­
tive after 22 . . . fxg3 23.�xb6 gxh 2 + B . 7 . h5 ! ?
..

24.r4lxh2 tt:lxb6 25.r4lg3 l'%c8 2 6 . .ie3

tt:lc4 2 7 . .icl l'%c6 = .

1 6 . . . �xd7 17.�d3 (17 . .ib6? ! f4 ! t)

17 . . . fxe4 18 . .b:e4 .b:e4 19.�xe4
d5 = . Also equal is 19 . . . .if6 2 0.�b4
d5 2 l.c3 l'%c8 2 2 .l'%ad l = .

13 ••• �b8 14J:�el

14.�e2 is similar: 14 ... tt:ld7

15 ..id4 �c7 16.l'%fdl l'%ac8 17.b3
if6 = , Sharafiev-Zakhartsov, Kazan Black aims t o create tension on
2010. the kingside and hinder the enemy
plan of castling short and then ad­
vancing the g-pawn. Lately, . . . h5
has become very popular in the Naj­
dorf, but in that opening it has only
restrictive functions. In our case,
this advance pursues much more
active goals : we hope to open the
h-file and use it for an attack. We
may castle long or leave the king in
the centre (f8 seems a safe place).
Should White answer 8.h3 h4 9.g4,
we'll base our play on the weakness
14 c!Dd7
of the squares f4 and g3 .
•••

Jeroen Bosch recommends this

One way or another, Black will
attack in his electronic book SOS
exchange a couple of minor pieces
File 2: Sicilian Taimanov, but with
and hold the ensuing positions.
a totally wrong argumentation.

15 .id4 Af6
Main branches now are :
•

Bl. 8 .h4? ! ; B 2 . 8.h3 ; 8.B3. 8.0-0

173
 Part S

8.lt:lf3 and 8.lt:lb3 lack any sense. 7 . . . lt:lf6 8.0-0 i.cS 9.lt:lxc6 dxc6
8 . .igS counts only on 8 . . . .ie7? 10.lt:la4 .ia7 ll.c4 and:
which is a positional mistake before 7 ... hS 8.h4 lt:lf6 9.0-0 .icS
White has castled short since he can 10.lt:lxc6 dxc6 ll.lt:la4 .ia7 12 .c4?
exchange on e7 and follow up with 'Wxg3 ! - the g3-square is weak.
'Wd2 , 0-0-0. Or 7 . . . -icS 8.lt:lb3 .ia7 9.�g4 'it>f8
However, White's bishop on gS - White has riot 'Wg4 at all. Anoth­
will give us a valuable tempo for . . .f6 er argument is that White's play is
at some point. Reasonable options mostly based on f4, when the g4-
are : square will become a gaping hole.
8 . . . lt:lge7 intending 9.'Wd2 lt:lxd4 Therefore, I advocate:
10.'Wxd4 'Llc6 ;
8 . . . f6 9 . .if4 eS 10.lLlc6 dc6 1l . .ie3
i.g4 12 .i.f3 E:d8 13.'We2 lt:lh6 = ;
8 . . . lLleS 9.'We2 I do not like 8 . . . i.cS 9 .lt:lb3 i.a7
10.i.f4 lt:leS in view of ll . .ixeS �xeS
1 2 .f4 'Wc7 13.'We2 d6 14.0-0-0:t
where d6 is very weak. We need to
improve this idea.

9.0-0

The most principled continu­

ation now is 9 . . . i.a3 10.lt:ld1 i.b2
ll.lt:lb2 'Wc3 12 .'Wd2 'Wxb2. Let the
opponent prove his compensation
for the pawn. 13 .0-0 lt:lc4 14.'Wd3
lt:leS 1S.'Wd1 f6 16.i.e3 (16.i.f4 h4
17.lt:lf3 lt:lf7oo) 16 . . . h4. In the dia­
gram position Black can also try 9 . . .
h4 ! ? . 9 . . .i.c5 10 . .!i)xc6

10.lt:lb3 i.a7 ll.i.f4 lt:leS is al­

B l . 8.h4? ! lt:lf6 ready fine for Black. 1 0 .i.e3 is also
innocuous due to 10 . . . lt:l eS. 10.i.f4?
We'll try to prove that the inser­ presents another example of the
tion of h4-hS favours Black. Let's dividends Black can reap from the
compare some of the main lines insertion of h4-hS : lO . . . eS ll.lt:lb3
without these moves : exf4 1 2 .lLlxcS fxg3.

174
 The Fianchetto

10 dxc6 ll.Wd3 �g4 1 2 .�a4

••• 13.exd6 hd6 14.li:Je4) 12 .�e3 ltla5
.ia7 13 .c4 b5 13.b3 �b7 14.Wd2 !lc8 15.0-0-0
�c6 ! is double-edged.
I prefer Black here.
I have analysed in the diagram
position :
82. 8 .h3 h4 9 .g4
a) ll . . . ltla5 1 2 .b3 b5 13.Wd2 �b7
(13 . . . �a3 14.0-0 0-0 15.!lad1) 14.a4 !
(14.0-0-0 !lc8 15.f4 �c6 ! ) 14 . . . b4
15.ltla2 ltlc6 16.0-0-0 �e7 17.f4. I do
not see clear counterplay for Black
in this position.

b) 1 1 ... ltlce5 12 .b3 �a3 13.f4 ltlc6

is rather extravagant. Black is too
· generously presenting tempi. White
can calmly develop, or open the
centre with 14.e5 d5 15.exd6 hd6
16.ltle4 �e7 17. 0-0, intending f4-f5.
9 ••• .ic5 !
As a whole, White achieves in
White's kingside dark squares these lines comfortable and har­
are weakened. Jeroen Bosch con­ monious development. His bishop
siders only: stays excellently on e3.
9 . . . ltlge7? ! . It looks consistent to 9 ... �c5 addresses exactly this is­
put a knight to g6, but this devel­ sue since 1 0 .�e3 Wb6 would be po­
opment is a bit slow, and, moreo­ sitionally fine for Black after 11.ltla4
ver, passive. White castles long and V!1/a5+ 1 2 .c3 hd4 13.hd4 ltlxd4
takes the initiative : 14.Wxd4 e5 or ll.ltlce2 ltlxd4 (11 . . .
�xb2 1 2 .ltlxe6 �b4+ 13.c3 dxe6
10.ltlde2 ! ltlg6 11 .�e3 ! 14.cxb4 �xb4+ 15.�d2oo) 12.hd4
hd4 13.Wxd4 �xd4 14.ltlxd4 ltle7
15.0-0-0 ltlg6 16.ltle2 �e7 17.f4 d6.
In both lines White remains with
a "bad" light-squared bishop and
kingside pawns fixed on the same
colour.

10. ltlb3

If White's knight has to retreat,

Bosch completely missed this it is better to do it with tempo.
idea. ll.f4 b5 (ll . . . �c5 12 .e5 d5 10.ltlde2 b5 11.0-0 �b7 1 2 .�f4 d6

175
 Part S

13.�d2 4Jge7 14.l'!adl ttJeS is even ness of g3 is also essential. The play
slightly better for Black. may continue 14.l'!fl .ixe3 15.�xe3
gxf4 16.l'!xf4 4Jg6 17.l'!f2 �g3, or
10 . . . J.a7 11.�e2 4Jge7 12.f4 14 . .ixa7 l'!xa7 15.fxg5 �g3+ 16.�f2
�xf2 + 17.\t>xf2 l'!g8 = .
12 . .ie3 4Jg6 13 . .ixa7 l'!xa7 would
make a horrible hole on f4.
B 3 . 8.0-0 h 4 9.gel
12 •.• b5
9.4Jxc6 dxc6 (9 ... bxc6 10.4Ja4
12 . . . 4Jd4 13.4Jxd4 .ixd4 14 . .id2 d6 is also an option) 10 . .ie3 hxg3
d6 15.0-0-0 .id7 is also possible, but ll.hxg3 4Jf6 1 2.4J a4 4Jd7 13.c4 bS
I prefer to complete development. 14.4Jc3 bxc4 gives Black counterplay
on the queenside.

9 ..• hxg3 10.hxg3 d6 .

I would like to lead out the bish­

op, but lO . . . .icS? (Bosch's recom­
menndation ! ) 11.4Jxc6 ! bxc6 (11 . . .
dxc6 12 .e5) 12 .e5 ! i s horrible for
Black. He is positionally lost here.

11.4Jxc6 !

13 . .ie3 If White misses the opportunity

to trade knights, he might not have
13.e5 .ib7 14.4Je4 0-0 leads to a second chance. For instance, after
a curious position where White is ll . .igS (as Radulski played against
overextended and should be wor­ Ivanisevic), Black has ll . . . ttJeS or
ried about possible .. .f6. 15.4Jd6 even ll . . . .ie7 12 . .ixe7 4Jcxe7 ! ? .
does not help in view of 15 ... 4Jd4 The same applies t o ll.a4 ttJeS,
and 15.c3 b4 apparently passes although 11 . . . 4Jf6 is also possible.
Black the initiative. Then the thematic 1 2 .4Jxc6 bxc6
13.e5 dxeS 14J'!xe5 can be attacked
13 . . . g5 ! ? by 14 . . . �xe5 ! 15 . .ixc6+ .id7 16 . .ixa8
4Jg4 17 ..if4 �hS where the open h­
This i s by n o means the only file is a nice asset - 18.�f3 is only
move, but I chose it since it best il­ move as 18 .�d2 J.cS 19.4Jdl eS
lustrates Black's strategic goal in the 20 . .ie3 �h7! ! is rather unpleasant.
7 . . . h5 variation. Now the eS-square
is under his full controL The weak- ll . . .bxc6

176
 The Fianchetto

to f6 has no alternative. The typical

manoeuvre . . . tt:lg8-e7-c6 leads to a
passive position : 13 . . . 4Je7 14.i.b2
cS 15J�l!d2 tt:lc6 16J'!ad1 0-0-0 (16 . . .
f6 17.i.c3 a5 18.tt:lb2, heading for c4)
17.c4±. White then carries out b4.

12 .e5

It is very interesting to compare

this position with the one which aris- .
es after 7 . . . lt'lf6 8.0-0 i.e7 9J'!e1 d6 14.c4 cS 15.i.b2 (if White delays
10.tt:lxc6 bxc6 11.e5 ! ± . If we counted this move, hoping to meet . . . tt:lf6
the developed pieces, it might struck by i.gS, then we'll occupy the main
us that Black appears to be clear two diagonal with 15.'�e2 i.c6 16.tt:lc3
tempi down ! In fact, the absence of i.f6 = , e.g. 17.i.b2 Wf8 18.lt'ld1 hb2
the knight from f6 takes the sting 19.lt'lxb2 eS) 15 . . . 4Jf6 16.'�e2 i.c6 ! ?
of White's pawn trust since Black is 17.tt:lc3 Wf8 .
not obliged to capture. If we delve
deeper, we'll notice that the raid of b) Another version o f the same
the h-pawn was not just a waste of set-up was tested in the blitz game
time. It developed a heavy piece - Malakhov-Grischuk, Moscow
which is now pointed at the enemy 2 0 1 3 : 12 .i.e3 tt:lf6 [Black may also
king! In most variations Black will cover the b6-square with 12 . . . i.b7
castle long or leave his king on f8. 13 .lt'la4 cS (13 . . . i.e7? 14.i.b6 �b8
Only future will tell how substantial 15.e5), but then White can refrain
Black's counterplay is. from c4 and swing the a4-knight
Let's investigate what happens if to that square, starting with 14.b3.]
White refrains from 12 .e5 : 13.tt:la4 �b8 14.c4 cS. It might seem
that White has won a tempo (by
a) 12 . lt'l a4 i.b7 13.b3 (13.c4 cS having provoked . . . �b8) , but the
14.e5? does not work against the bishop is misplaced on e3 and he
open h-file ! ) 13 . . . i.e7! ? will probably have to redeploy it.
Perhaps this i s the most accurate 15.b3 i.e7 16.�e2 i.b7 17.tt:lc3 lt:Jd7
move order because after 13 . . . lt'lf6 18.�ad1 �d8 (18 . . . \t>f8) 19.i.c1 lt'le5
White may contemplate 14.i.g5. (19 . . . i.f6) 2 0.i.b2 lt'lc6 2 1 . tt:lb1 i.f6
Note that the knight's development 2 2 .hf6 gxf6+.

177
 Part S

12 . . . d5 13.�a4 .ib7 17.ftxc4 c5 18.�e4 �f5 19.i.e3

We must prepare to take on c4 I have also analysed 19 . .igS l'l:d4

or we would risk to remain without 2 0 .�c3 .idS !
any counterplay: 13 . . . lt::Je 7 14.c4 lt:JfS
1S . .igS l'l:b8 16.l'l:cl W!a7 17.a3t.

14.c4 dxc4! 15.�c3 �e7

16.fta4

A curious position where Black

cannot move his dark-squared bish­
op, but White cannot make pro­
gress either:
2 1 . l'l:ad1 �c6 2 2 . l'l:xd4 lt:Jxd4
23.�aS (23.b3 l'l:hS) 23 . . . 'i!tb8 24.b3
16 . . . 0-0-0 ! Wffb 7oo;
2 l . l'l:ac1 W!c6 2 2 .�f3 'i!tb8 23.b3
16 . . . l'l:d8 17.W!xc4? lt:JfS was fine W!b7 24.W!g4 l!ta7 2S.l'l:cd1 W!bS.
for Black in Musakaev-Malakhatko,
Pavlodar 20 12 : 18 . .ie3 [It is under­ 19 . . . �xe3 2o.gxe3 �xeS ! ?
standable that White does not wish
to let Black's rook to d4: 18 . .igS l'l:d4 The most principled continu­
19.Wffe 2 cS 2 0.l'l:ad1 (20 .lt:Je4 .ie7 ation. Sprenger-Avrukh, Sibenik
2 1.he7 l!txe7 2 2 .l'l:ac1 he4 23 .he4 2 0 1 2 , went 20 .. J�d4 2 1.�c2 c4
W!xeS 24.W!xa6= ) 20 . . . .ie7 2 1 .he7 2 2J'l:d1 �xeS 23 Jl:xd4 �xd4. Here
l!txe7 22 .hb7 W!xb7 2 3 .lt:Je4 W!dS, 24.lt:JgS hg2 2S. l!txg2 W!dS+ 26.lt:Jf3
with a firm grip of the centre.] 18 . . . l!tb7 27.l'l:c3 .ic5 28 Jl:xc4 .ib6 may
lt:Jxe3 19.l'l:xe3 .ie7 2 0 .l'l:d1 l'l:xd1+ be equal, according to the comput­
(20 ... 0-0) 21.lt:Jxd1 0-0 2 2 . l'l:b3 aS er, but perhaps it is easier to play
23.lt:Je3 .ia8 24.lt:Jg4, draw. with White whose king is more safe.
However, 17 . .igS ! l'l:d7 (17 . . .
l'l:d4 1 8 . .ie3) 18.W!xc4 i s better for 21.gb3 gd4 2 2 .�d6+ hd6
White: 18 . . . lt:JdS 19.l'l:acl ! or 18 . . . 23.hb7+ 'i!td7 24.ftxa6 l!te7
lt:Jg6 19.l'l:ad1! l'l:xd1 2 0 . lt:Jxd1 l'l:hS 25.i.c6 g6 =
21.Wig4 l'l:h8 2 2 .Wfff3t when 22 . . .
lt:Jxe5?? 23.l'l:xeS W!xeS 2.4 .W!xc6+ is The king returns home via the
a very economic mate. dark squares.

178
Pa rt 5 . The Fia nchetto

Kan - Step by Step

l.e4 c5 2 . ttlf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 13.tt'la4 �a7 14.�b4 tt'lc5 15.hc5

4. ttlxd4 a6 5.ttlc3 YNc7 6.g3 J.b4 ! when 15 . . .�xc5 16.tt'lxc5 §'xeS
17.tt'lc3 �e6 18.tt'ld5 hd5 would
have offered Black the better pros­
pects. In this typical pawn struc­
ture, the knight is more mobile than
the bishop. ·

I advocate to delay castling in or­

der to leave White without a clear
plan. However, 9 . . . 0-0 is a viable
option: 1 0 .h3 tt'lbd7 ll.g4
The possibility for this active
development makes the Kan a per­
fect weapon against the fianchetto
fans. White has not displayed any
new ideas for a long time. We can
simply look at a couple of Smyslov's
40-years-old games to set us ready
for the battle.
In the diagram position, White
can defend the c3-knight with :
A. 7.tt'lde2 or B . 7.�d2 After this advance, Black's main
task becomes to prepare . . . d5. He
may use his king's rook ( .. J'ld8) or
A. 7. ttlde2 ttlf6 8.J.g2 d6 9 . 0-0 leave it on f8 to support a pawn
break by the f-pawn as in Antonov­
9.�f4 e5 1 0.�g5 provokes 1 0 . . . Donchev, Sofia 1984, which saw
tt'lbd7, but Black had exactly this ll.a3 �a5 1 2 . Wh1 l"!b8 13.g4 b5 14.f4
set-up in mind anyway! Van Riems­ �b7 15.g5 tt'le8 16.l"!f3 (16.f5 exf5)
dijk-Smyslov, Buenos Aires 1990 , 16 . . . l"!d8 17.l"!g3 §'b8 18 .b3 d5 and
went further 11.0-0 h6 12 .�d2 �c5 Black intercepted the initiative.
179
 Part S

In Ree-Darga, Las Palmas 1973,

Black played ll . . J'!d8 immediate­
ly. The game continued 12 .gS ll:Je8
13.f4 bS 14.h4 i.b7 1S.a3 i.cS+
16.�h1, when 16 . . . dS !+ would have
made clear who was in command.

10.h3

White may try to harass our

bishop with : Here, 1S . . . .ie6 . 16.ixcS dxcS
a) 10.ll:Ja4 eS ll.a3 i.cS 12.ll:JxcS 17.ll:Jc3 :!'!d8 18 .ll:JdS ixdS 19 .exdS
ll:JxcS 13 .ll:Jc3 �d6 was equal in Filippov-Stell­
wagen, Yerevan 2 0 0 6 : 2 0 .:!'!fe1 0-0
2l.c4 ll:Jd7 2 2 .f4 :!'!deS 23 .fxeS :!'!xeS
24 . .ih3 fS = . A simpler solution is
1S . . . .ig4 16.ixcS �xeS 17.h3 he2
18 .�xe2 0-0 = .

1 0 . . i.c5 ! ll.g4 h 6
.

Similar positions arise in the

Najdorf when White plays ll:Jc3-
dSxe7. They are known to be fine
for Black - all his pieces are active
and he has the better control of the
centre. The game Katalymov-Kara­
sev, Naumburg 2 0 0 2 , went 13 . . . i.e6
(13 . . . h6!?) 14.i.gS ll:Jcd7 1S.�d2 h6
16.i.e3 ll:Jb6 17.b3 :!'!c8= .
This i s the point o f 9 . . . ll:Jbd7.
b ) 10.i.d2 i.cS ! ( mind the trap By not castling, Black forestalls
10 . . . 0-0? ll.ll:JbS) ll.ll:Ja4 the enemy attack on the kingside.
Thus he gains time to complete his
After ll.ll:Jf4 0-0 12 .�e2 ll:JeS
queenside development and pre­
13.:!'!ad1 bS 14.ll:JhS ll:JxhS 1S.�xhS
pare a break in the centre or a coun­
ib7, Black owns the initiative,
ter-attack against the enemy king.
Medina-Smyslov, Las Palmas 1972 .
White's task in the diagram posi­
ll . . . .ia7 12 . .ib4 ll:JcS 13.ll:JxcS tion is not trivial. His main idea
!xeS 14.�d2 eS 1S.:!'!ad1 of pushing gS is no longer enticing

180
 The Fianchetto

while the advance of the f-pawn is �e6 2 1 .flf4 flc4 2 2 .�b4;1;) 18.l2Jd3
at least double-edged : 12 .1!ih1 �b8 l2Jc4 19.flg5. White is slightly ahead
13.f4 b5 14.a3 �b7 15.f5 exf5 16.�xf5 with his attack.
h5 ! ? 17.g5 l2Jg4.
The stem game Micheli-Smys­
lov, Venice 1974, went instead : Bl. 9 ••• 0-0 ! ?

12.a4 �e5 13.1!ih2 fle7 (13 . . . This move i s consistent with

.!Llg6 ! ? ) 14.�g3 g5 line A. We do not waste any tem­
po on retreating the bishop to e7,
Black's dark-squared strategy but opt for a sound positional idea
has triumphed. - to build up a pawn barricade on
the central dark squares. Our lead
in development practically rules
B . 7 .id2
• lDf6 8.J.g2 �c6 out any White's plan with early
9.�b3 pawn advances -since both 10 .g4 or
1 0 .f4 will be strongly met by 10 . . . d5 !
ll.exd5 exd5.
10 .fle2 or 10 .a3, besides 10 . . .
J.xc3 ll.J.xc3 e 5 , could also face
1 0 . . . J.e7 ! ? , transposing to sidelines
of line B 2 .

10. 0-0 d6 11.f4

Bl. 9 . . . 0-0 ! ? ; B 2 . 9 . . . J.e7

Miezis' pet line 9 . . . h5 10.f4 d6

ll.a3 J.xc3 12 .J.xc3 e5 is an inferi­
or version of line Bl. White's bish­
op pair is restricted, the kingside
pawn storm is stalled. Still, I do not
like this set-up. It is too passive -
Black's pieces have mostly defen­ ll . . . hc3
sive functions. The game Garnelis­
Miezis, Kaunas 2 0 09, showed a Black may not need ll . . . b5 at all.
good, active approach for White : Guseinov-Ghaem Maghami, Fu­
13.fld2 ! a5 14. 0-0-0 a4 15.fxe5 dxe5 jairah City 2 0 1 2 , went 12 .g4 l2Jd7
16.lDc5 0-0 17.h3 lDaS (17 . . . �d8 13 .g5 and Black returned to the ad­
18.flg5 .!Lld4 19 .J.xd4 exd4 2 0 .lDd3 vance of the a-pawn : 13 . . . a5 14.a3

181
 Part S

hc3 1S.bxc3 (1S . .bc3 i.b7 16.�f3 17.b3 b5 18.lU3 b4 19.J.d2 J.a6
b4 17.i.eloo) . Here lS . . . eS 16.fS a4 2 0 . gh3 gfc8
17 . .!Llcl .!LlaS would have been the
sternest test of White's attacking
potential.

12 .hc3 e5 13.f5 a5

It is against common sense

to make weaknesses on the flank
your opponent will attack. Still,
13 . . . h6 is an interesting option.
The game Kudrin-Dobrov, Mos­
cow 2004, went 14.i.d2 aS 1S.a4
bS (1S . . . �d8 ! ? 16.g4 .!Llb4 ! intend- White has achieved everything
ing 17 . . . dS) 16.axbS '?9b6+ 17.@hl he was aiming for. And still
. he can-
�xbS 18.g4 i.b7 (18 . . . a4 ! ? 19 .gS not break through !
hxgS 2 0.hgS t!Jh7 2 l.i.h4 i.d7
22 . .!Lld2 '?9xb2 23 . .!Llc4 �d4+) 19.gS 21.�h5
hxgS 2 0 .hgSoo. Perhaps White
should try something more ener­ Or 2 1 .f6 g6 2 2 .�el .!Lld4 23 .�h4
getic as 14.g4 aS 1S.h4 a4 16.gS .!Llh7 hS- + .
17 . .!Lld2 hxgS 18.hxgS .!LlxgS 19 .�hS
f6 20 . .!Llf3 although White's attack
is not too impressive.
Instead, I consider an immedi­ 2 2 .f6 .!Lld8 23 .fxg7 @xg7+ or
ate counter-attack with the a-pawn. 2 2 .g6 fxg6 23.fxg6 t!Jd4- + favour
Black can also start with . . . 13 . . . bS. Black.
The following variations are far
from being encompassing. I only 22 . . . .hd3 23.�d3 ttld4
aimed to show the defensive stand 24.c3 bxc3 25.hc3 ttlb5 2 6.Ael
against White's most direct attack­ ti'b7!
ing plan.
Black's chances are preferable,
14.g4 e.g. 27.f6 �c2 2 8 .i.d2 �ac8 29 .fxg7
@xg7 3 0 .i.h3 �e8.
14.a3 gives a tempo for a break
in the centre : 14 . . . �d8 1S.g4 h6
16.h4?! a4 17 . .!Lld2 dS 18.exdS .!LlxdS B2. 9 Ae7
••.

19 . .bdS �xdS 20 .gS .!Lld4+.

At first sight Black has lost a
14 ... a4 15.g5 ttld7 16.ttlcl a3 tempo with the bishop manoeuvre.

182
 The Fianchetto

In fact, we'll see later that he might

have even gained one, as in the var­
iations where he plays . . . lt:\c6-e5-
c4 and White retreats his bishop
to cl. A more important argument
in favour of the inclusion of . . . i.b4
is that White has no longer the op­
tion of capturing on c6, followed
by e4-e5. We know that this threat
is the crux of the opening battle in ll.a5 lt:\e5 1 2 . 0- 0 ( 1 2 . lt:\ a4 lt:\c4)
the Taimanov. Without it, Black 12 . . . lt:\c4 13 .i.c1 d6 14.g4
has green light for developing the
queenside pieces while delaying 14.'�e2 looks pointless due to
his castle. In more general terms, 14 . . . i.d7, when 15.g4 (15.f4 i.b5)
White has one piece less in the cen­ could be met by 15 . . . d5 16.exd5 Eife8
tre and that allows more aggressive ·
17.g5 (17.dxe6?· ! he6 18.h3 Eiad8�)
play from Black. 17 . . . lt:\xd5 18 .hd5 exd5 19.lt:\xd5,
when 19 . . .'�xh 2 + 2 0 . \tlxh2 i.d6+
10.0-0 2 l.i.f4 Eixe2 2 2 .hd6 lt:\xd6 23.lt:\b6
Eid8 is roughly equal since 24.lt:\xd7
White often connects the place­ Eixd7 25.Eiad1 Eixc2 26.Eid3 \tlf8
ment of his knight on b3 with the would be even pleasant for Black.
advance of his a-pawn : 14.f4 leads to a position from
the Taimanov where it is White to
a) 10.a4. In practice Black au­ move ! We can borrow the set-up
tomatically answers 10 . . . b6, . . .i.b7, from the game Bartel-Akopian, Port
. . . d6, . . . lt:\d7 and then defines the fu­ Erin 2 0 0 6 : ll . . . Eid8 12 .'�e2 Eib8
ture of his king. If White has weak­ (12 . . . d5 13.e5 lt:\d7 14.hd5 lt:\ dxe5 is
ened his kingside, . . . 0-0-0 becomes possible, but why not await g4 while
a plausible option: I consider in de­ preparing typical counterplay with
tail this setup in game 33 Forcen­ . . . b5). 13 .g4 d5 !
Korneev, La Roda 2 0 1 2 .
However, I would like also t o of­ 14.g4 d5 15.exd5 Eid8 16.h3
fer you as a surprise weapon a new
idea, which tries to exploit the con­
crete move order:
10 . . . 0-0 ! ?

Now ll.f4 will b e strongly met

by ll . . . d5 12.exd5 lt:\b4. We often
meet this sacrifice in this chapter.
So White should carry on his plan :

183
 Part S

I think that Black has decent should know what to do in it since

counterplay here. For instance, you may get it in several different
16 . . . b5 ! ? 17.axb6 c!bxb6 18.id2 ways. My suggestion is more sim­
lt'lfxd5 19.lt'lxd5 c!bxd5 2 0 .ia5 lt'lb6 ple and straightforward.
21.ha8 (21.�e2 ib7 2 2 .�e3 l!d6oo)
2 1 . . .l!xd1 22.l!fxd1 h5 23.l!d3 hxg4 ll.f4 (ll.g4 d5 1 2 . exd5 exd5)
24.hxg4 �b8 25.if3 ib7oo. The
queen is powerful against the un­
protected king.

b) 10.f4 0-0
10 . . . d6 is also a good move which,
however, transposes to my alterna­
tive suggestion in the annotations
to game 33 Forcen-Korneev after
ll.a4 b6 or game 32 Radulski-Fi­
lev after 11.0-0.
Instead, ll.g4 commits White
on the kingside too early. Black has ll ••• d5 !
several attractive retorts. He only
should not castle, for instance : 11 . . . Amazingly, this sacrifice has not
h 6 12 .h4 b 5 13.g5 lt'ld7 14.�e2 b4 been tried in this particular position.
15.lt'la4 a5 16.ie3 i.a6t when the However, the same idea is known as
c!ba4 is a cause of concern to White, deserving attention in several oth­
Sutovsky-Podzielny, Essen 1999, or er settings. Now 12 .e5 c!bd7 leads
11...b5 12 .g5 lt'ld7 13.�f3 (13.�h5 to a pawn structure which is unan­
g6 14.'�'h3 lt'lb6 15.l!d1 id7 16.0-0 imously assessed as fine for Black.
0-0-0 ; 13 . 0-0 lt'lb6 14.f5 lt'lc4 15.ic1 For instance, 13.lt'le2 lt'lb6 14.lt'lbd4
id7oo) 13 . . . b4 14.c!ba4 a5 15.ie3 c!bc4 15.icl id7 16 .c3 (16.b3 c!bxd4
ia6. 17.c!bxd4 lil a3) 16 . . . l!ac8t .

10 ••• 0-0 ! 12.exd5 lt'lb4 13 .dxe6

Black commonly delays castling I suspect that the unassuming

with 10 . . . d6. Then he finishes his move 13.l!c1 is a wiser option: 13 . . .
queenside development, prepares c!bbxd5 14.c!bxd5 exd5= .
to carry on the break . . . d5, and only
at that point does he define the po­ 13 .b:e6 14.@hl gadS 15.f5
• • •

sition of his king. See game 32 .tc4 16.gel b6

Radulski-Filev, Plovdiv 2 0 1 2 , for
details. This game is also interest­ Black has full compensation for
ing with the French pawn structure the pawn, e.g. 17.if4 id6 18 .hd6
which arose after 14 . . . d5 15.e5. You l!xd6 19 .�c1 l!fd8.

184
Pa rt 5 . The Fia nchetto

Comp l ete Games

27. Hoogendoorn-Lautier 17.ti'd3?!

Al garve 1999
White misses the opportunity
l.e4 c5 2 . �f3 �c6 3.d4 cxd4 for 17.ltJd5 ! exdS 18.exd5 �c4 (18 . . .
4.�xd4 ti'c7 5.�c3 e6 6.g3 a6 ltJ b 8 19.�d4 + - i s a double-attack! )
7.�g2 d6 8 . 0-0 �d7 9J3el �e7 19.�c3 0-0 2 0 .dxcM.
tO. �b3 b5 u.a3 �f6 t 2 .f4 gds
(12 . . . �c8 13 . .ie3 h6 14.g4 �h7 17 . • • �c4 18 .�cl g5? !
15.�d2 gSoo) 13 .g4? !
Apparently Lautier overestimat­
Too optimistic. 13 . .ie3 is more ed the eS-square. 18 . . . �b6 19.'it>h1
prudent. Now Black can choose be­ .ib7 2 0 .a4 ltJb4t was safer and bet­
tween 13 . . . h5 ! 14.h3 hxg4 15.hxg4 ter.
gS+ or the more restrained 13 . . . .ic8 .
Instead, he mixes up ideas with : 19.a4! gxf4 20.axb5 �b6
2 1 . 'it>hl axb5 22.�f4

13 h6 14.h3 �c8 15.�e3 �d7

. • •

16.�d2 �b6 ? ! 22 .if6

• • •

The weakness of bS does not let

Black overlooks a tactical blow. Black enjoy the eS-outpost. 22 . . .
It was time for 16 . . . 0-0 17.�f2 .if6 .ia6 23 .�g3 b 4 24 . .if1 h S 25.ltJa4
18.�d1oo. �b7 2 6.g5 eS 27 . .icU is double-

185
 Part S

edged, but White's king is relative­

28. Fressinet-Delchev
ly safer.
Calvia ol 2004

23.�d2 � 6e5 24.�xc4 bxc4

l.e4 c5 2 . �f3 e6 3 . � c3 �c6
25.'%M2 �g7 26.i.e3 �c6 27.�a5
4.d4 cxd4 5. �xd4 �c7 6.g3 a6
h5 28.gxh5 �xh5 29 .%Ye2
7.�g2 d6 8 . 0-:-0 i.d7 9. �c6 �c6
�h8 30.�eal i.b7 31.�b5 �a8
lO.�el i.e7 11.�g4 h5 12 .�e2 h4
32.�a8 + i.xa8 33.�b6 %Yd7
13.a4 hxg3 14.hxg3 �f8 !
34. �b5±

White has won the first battle.

His rook is extremely mobile. How­
ever, he gradually begins losing
ground in the next moves.

34 i.c6 35.�a3 (35.lt:Jd4 i.b7

•••

36.'�'d2±) 35 c3 36.�b8+?
•••

This is a double mistake. White

15.a5 �c8 16 . .ie3 �f6 17.i.b6
exchanges his best piece instead of
pushing his passed pawn : 36.b4±.
White's main problem is that
he does not have a clear plan. In
36 �e7 37.�xh8 .ixh8
fact, he must wait for Black to push
•••

38.bxc3?
. . . e5. Only then can he aim for lt:Jd5
followed by a pawn storm on the
The turning point of the game.
queenside. Meanwhile he is risking
38 .b4 %Yb7 39.b5t would have re­
to lose the initiative, for instance :
tained some edge.
17J�edl e5 18 .i.b6 %Yd7 19.�d3
g6 2 0 .�adl c;t>g7 2 1 . �1d2 (21.b3
38 �b7 39 .ig5+ �d7 40.�cl
�e8 2 2 .lt:Jd5 .ixd5 23.exd5 i.d8+;
•.• •

�f6 41.%Ye3 i.d8 42 .�e2 i.e7

2 1.f4 �g4 2 2 .�1d2 W/e2 23.�e2 lt:Jd7
43.c4 �g6 44.�b5 �h4 45.�d4
24 . .if2 .idS 25.b4 i.e7 26.�ed2 lt:Jf6
YlYbl 46.�fl? (46.%Yd20 i.a8 47.c5
27.i.f3 i.d7+)
lt:Jg2 48.c6 .ic6 49.lt:Jc6 lt:Jh4+)
46 i.b7 47.i.e3 �xfl+ 48.i.xfl
•••

i.xe4+ 49.�gl e5 50.�b5 hc2

51.�f2 f5 52 .i.a7 f4 53 .ie2 �c6
•

54.�c3 �b7 55.�d5 .idS 56.c5

�xa7 0-1

The moral of this game is that

one good square (e5) does not com­
pensate for bad piece co-ordination.

186
 The Fianchetto

2 1 . . .'�e8 ! Remember this ma­ White's queenside will be vulnera­

noeuvre ! The queen is heading for ble.
h7. The play might proceed with :
19 ••• e5 20 .ie3
•

2 2 .b3 Preparing tLl dS and c4.

2 2 .f4 only helps Black's plan - Black's bishop is hardly bet­
2 2 .. .'�g8 23 J�d6 .M6 24J:'!:d6 tLld7 ter on b6: 20 . .ib6 g6 2 l.f4 (2 l.tLld5
25 ..ie3 'r9h7 26 .'�f2 'r9h 2 . hdS 2 2 . exd5 .idS 23 .J.d8 'r9d8 = )
2 2 . . .'�g8 23.f4 'r9h7� 24.fe5 (24. 2 1 . . . tLld7 2 2 .J.e3 W/d8 ! 23 .b4 lt>g7
.if3 tLld7 25 ..ie3 tLlcS = ) 24 ... de5 24.tLld5 (24J'!:fl Wg8 ! 25.tLld5 hdS
25.'r9f3 (25.tLld5 h:dS 26.exd5 .ib4 26.!'!:xd5 'r9h7 2 7.fxe5 tLlxeS 28 . .id4
27.!'!:dl 'r9h2 28. 1t>fl !'!:hS 29.!'!:f3 e4) 'r9h2 29. 1t>f2 !'!:h3) 24 . . . hd5 25J�xd5
25 . . . tLle4! 26.tLlxe4 fS 27.'�e3 \Wh2 W/c7 26.!'!:d2 tLlf6�. As you see, Black
28. 1t>fl fxe4 29 . .ie4 \Wh3+. can shift the direction of his attack,
These variations illustrate combining threats along the h-file
Black's hidden possibilities. and against the weak aS-pawn.

17.f4 is more dubious than it is

enterprising. We blockade the cen­
tre with 17 ... e5 18 . .ib6 V9d7 (18 . . .
\Wb8 19.!'!:adl exf4 2 0 .gxf4 .idS
2l.h:d8 !'!:xd8 2 2 .e5 h:g2 23.1t>xg2
\WeB+ is also good) 19.!'!:adl and here
19 . . . \Wg4 2 0 .'r9xg4 is roughly equal,
but the engines find a concrete way
for Black to intercept the initiative: 20 ••• g6
19 . . . exf4 ! 2 0 .gxf4 !'!:h4.
A consistent move, but the ma­
17 ••• Wd7! noeuvre 20 . . . J.d7! is stronger. The
point is that 2 l.J.g5 .ie6 2 2 .hf6
Black had played previously only .ix£6 23.!'!:xd6 fails to 23 . . . .ie7
17 . . . 'r9b8 which is a rather deplor­ 24.!'!:d2 J.b4 so Black keeps more
able fate for the strongest piece ! I pieces on the board.
have better prospects for it. After the text, White can reach
a drawish position with 2 l..ig5
18.gadl We8 ! 19.J.d4 lt>g7 2 2 .!'!:d3 !'!:hS 23 .h:f6+ lt>xf6
24.tLld5 + . The aggressive 2 l.f4 ? !
Inkiov played here 19.f4 when lt>g7 2 2 . !'!:fl would allow the thema­
19 . . . e5 is again the best retort. Then tic manoeuvre 22 . . . '?9g8 ! with coun­
if White continue 2 0.f5, we can ter-attack.
change plans withe 20 . . . tLld7 2 l..ie3
W/d8 2 2 . !'!:al (22 .b4 tLlf6) 22 . . . J.g5. 2 1 . tLld5 .ixd5 2 2 . exd5 Wa4!

187
 Part S

Black's queen is extremely agile ! 29.hd6+ gxd6 30.c4 Wg7

Instead of going to h7, it hits targets 31.c5 gd7 3 2 . d6 tLlf6 33 .b4 ghs
on the other wing. As long as 23 J�al 34.ge7 �e7 35.dxe7 a5 36.hb7
�xc2 24.l'!acl �fS 2S.l'!xc8 �xeS axb4 37.gcl b3 38.c6 b2 39.gbl
26.l'!cl �d7 27.�c4 Wg7 28.�c7 tLle8 4o.gxb2 ges 41.i.c8 gxe7
�d8+ covers all invasion squares, 42 .J.d7 tLld6 43 . Wg2 f5 44.gd2
White is forced to give up the aS­ tLlb5 45.gds tLlc7 46.gas Wf6
pawn and hope for a counter-attack 47.ga7 tLlb5 48J'�b7 tLld6 49.gbs
against eS. ge2 + 50.ci!;>f3 gc2 51. ci!;>e3 ci!;>e5
draw.
23.c3 �a5 24.f4

29. Tim man-V. Milov

Biel 1995

l.e4 c5 2 . tLlf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4

4.tLlxd4 a6 5.tLlc3 Wc7 6.g3 tLlc6
7.J.g2 d6 8 .0-0 J.e7 9.gel i.d7
lO.tLlxc6 hc6 11.Wg4 h5 12 .We2
h4 13.a4 hxg3 14.hxg3 ci!;>f8
24 ••• Wb5? 15.a5 tLlf6 (1S . . . l'!e8 ! 16.�e3 ltJf6)
16.�e3 ges
A horrible mistake which might
have cost me the point. The simple
24 . . . �c7 2S.fxeS dxeS 26.d6 hd6
27.�f3 Wg7 28.�xb7 aS would have
retained the pawn with a good posi­
tion. Even more consistent is:
24 ... ltJd7! 2S.fxeS [Or 2S.�f2
fS ! 26.fxeS (26.g4 �h4) 26 . . . ltJxeS
27.�b6 �bs 28 .�d4 �f6+.] 2S . . .
ltJxeS 26.�d4 �c7 27.heS (27.
This strange-looking move aims
l'!fl Wg7 28.l'!del l'!ce8+) 27 ... dxeS
to ensure a good retreat square for
28.�xeS �cS 29.l'!d4 l'!hS+.
the queen on c8 while protecting
The rest of the game is a desper­ the e7-bishop against tactical hits
ate struggle which was eventually as ltJc3-dS.
rewarded with a draw. As a positive side effect, Black
threatens to break in the centre by
25.fxe5 �xe2 26.gxe2 tLlg4 . . . dS. 17.�gS or 17.l'!edl could be met
27.exd6 hd6 28.J.f4 gds by 17 . . . 'itlg8.

188
 The Fianchetto

17 .id4
• 2 0 .f4 �f6 2 1 .if3 g6 2 2 . <;f:;>g2
•

<;f:;>g7 23J:!hl geh8 24.gxh7 +

Timman tries to carry on e5 gxh7 25.ghl gxhl 26. <;f:;>xhl e5
with tempo. Most games continue 27.<;f:;>g2 .id7! ?
17 . .tb6 �c8 and then:
a) 18 J:�edl e5 19.b4 .td7 2 0.Eia3 White's king i s weaker s o Black's
g6 2 l .lt:'ld5 lt:Jxd5 2 2 . exd5 <;f:;>gf+, threats are more dangerous. Now he
Gallagher-Bosiocic, Olbia 2 0 0 8 ; wants to transfer the bishop to e6.
b) 18.b3 g6 19.lt:Ja4
28. �d5 �xd5 29.exd5 .ib5
30 .W'dl .if6 31.b3 .id7 3 2 . c4
.ih3 + 33. <;f:;>f2 exf4 34.gxf4 W'h8+
35.W'hl

Black has gained the initiative

and could have played for a win
with 35 . . . <;f:;>g8 ! threatening 35 . . . .td4
or 35 . . . .tc3. Instead, he prefers to
repeat the moves.
19 . . . d5 ! 2 0 .e5 lt:Jd7 2 l ..td4 .tb4
22 . .tc3 .te7 23 . .td4 .tb4 24 . .tc3 .te7 35 ••• �c8 36.W'dl ti'h8 draw.
25.W'e3 <;f:;>g7 26 .W'd2 Eih7 27 . .td4
Eieh8 2 8 .lt:Jb6 lt:Jxb6 29 .axb6, Salda­
no-Tsuboi, Campinas 2 0 11, when
29 . . . Eih2 , intending . . . E18h7, . . . W'h8 30. Guseinov-Vasovski
should win. Struga 12.08.2009

17 • •. W'c8 18J�edl :!!h 7 This game is a good example of

what Black should not do - instead
18 . . . e5 19 . .te3 W'e6 would have of staying active and generate con­
been better, in order to avoid the stant threats, he opted for a defen­
capture on f6. sive set-up on the kingside. This is
19 .ie3
•
rarely a good approach in the Sici­
lian
White admits that he has no
plan. l.e4 c5 2 . lt:Jf3 lt:Jc6 3 . lt:Jc3 d6
4.d4 cxd4 5. lt:Jxd4 e6 6.g3 .id7
19 ••• �d7! ? 7 .ig2 lt:Jf6 8 . 0-0 .te7 9 . lt:Jb3 a6
•

10.f4 W'c7 11 .ie3 b5 12.a3 gbs

•

Preparing to meet 2 0 ..tf4 by 13.<;f:;>hl 0-0 14.g4 h6 15.g5 hxg5

20 . . . lt:Je5 16.fxg5 �h7 17.W'g4 �e5 18 .'t!fg3

189
 Part S

by 22 . . . gxh5 23.�h4 lLle5 24.E1h3

�g'T+, when the h-file will open in
Black's favour.

21.�e2

I would take the chance to cen­

tralise the knight at once with
21.lLld4 lLle5 2 2 . lLlf3 lLlxf3 23.'1Wxf3
It may seem that Black has an .ie8 24.E1f2 . The exchange of one
easy game thanks to the outpost pair of knights underlines the fact
on e5. In fact, White's plan is much that Black practically plays without
more clear. He will push the h-pawn a piece.
up to h5 (and even h6 sometimes)
and then he will be looking for a way 2 1 . . .if8 2 2 .h5 .ig7? ! 23.�h4
.

of swinging a knight to the kingside. �f8? !

Black must quickly generate con­
crete counterplay before it became
too late. It would be a bad idea to
stay passively, as the course of this
game will teach us.
A logical continuation would
be to target the weak pawn on c2
with 18 . . . a5 19.h4 b4 20 . axb4 axb4
21.E1a7 E1b7 2 2 .E1xb7 '!Wxb7 23.lLldl
E1c8, with an initiative. The text
move is not bad either. Black has achieved his goal, but
he will soon discover that his bish­
18 . . . �c4 19 . .icl g6 20.h4 op will be useless on the long di­
gfc8? ! agonal. It only takes away the g7-
square to its king. He still could
Black embarks on a wrong rede­ have reconsidered and captured on
ployment. His kingside pieces were h5 to get some breathing space on
perfectly placed, hitting g5. For in­ the kingside.
stance, h4-h5 would often cost
White a pawn due to . . . �d8. There­ 24. �bd4 a5
fore, he should have activate his
queen with 20 .. .'�b6 ! , denying the It is already late for 24 . . . gxh5
d4-square to the b3-knight. Then 25.'1Wxh5 .ie8 26.c3 lLle5 27.lLlf4--t.
the straightforward 2 1.h5 �h8
22 .E1f3 would be strongly countered 25.b3 �e5 26 . .i.e3 ? !

190
 The Fianchetto

26.h6 ! .ih8 27 . .ie3 would have veloping move before defining the
been clearly better for White as king's position. Since sooner or lat­
Black cannot untie himself. For in­ er Black will have to at least threat­
stance, 27 . . . ltJc6 would run into en with . . . dS, it looks logical to play
28.h7+ ! ltJxh7 29J'!xf7 ! . After the ll .. J'l:d8. However, on this square
text, instead of 26 . . . gxh5 ! , Black the rook may be awkward when
falls into the same trap� White plays .ie3, '@f2 (g1) hitting
b6. For instance, 12 . .ie3 0-0 13.g4
26 ltJ c6? 27.h6 hd4 (27 . . .
••• h6 (13 . . . d5 14.e5 lLle8 15.'\tlfe2) 14.h4
.ih8 28.h7+ ! ) 28. ltJxd4 ltJh7 dS 15.e5 ltJeB 16.g5 hxgS 17.hxg5
29.'@f2 i.e8 30.ltJf3 ltJd8 3U�adl g6 18.l'l:f3 c!>g7 19.l'l:h3 l'l:h8 2 0 . l'l:xh8
.ic6 3 2 . c!Llh2 '@e7 33. c!Llg4 gc7 c!>xh8 2 1.�g1, winning a crucial
34.gxd6 f5 35.gxf6 '@xd6 36.i.f4 tempo for '@h2 + .
'@d7 37.'@g3 gbb7 38.c!Lle5 '@e8
Let's correct this idea by 1 1.. .l'l:c8
39. c!Llxg6 gf7 40.c!Lle7+ c!>h8
1 2 .i.e3
41.'@g7+ 1-0
12 .g4 ? ! runs into 12 . . . h6 13.'@e2
eS+, but 12 .�e2 is a fair alternative.
Perhaps this is the maximum Black
31. Ponomariov-Dubov can extract from the delay of 0-0 -
FIDE World Cup, Tromso 2013 White has to play two quiet moves
like c!>h1 and '\tlfe2 . Then and it is
l.e4 c5 2 . c!Llf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 time to castle. In Alekseev-Rod­
4. c!L!xd4 c!Llc6 5.c!Llc3 a6 6.g3 '@c7 shtein, Legnica 2 0 13, he persisted
7.i.g2 d6 8 . 0-0 i.d7 9. c!Llb3 c!L!f6 with his tricky move order, but 12 . . .
10.f4 i.e7 11.<!>hl e S 13 .i.e3 0 - 0 14.f5 put him under
attack. The game went 14 . . . b5 15.a3
b4 16.axb4 ltJxb4 17.g4 h6 18 .g5
hxgS 19.hg5 '\tlfc4 2 0 .'\tlfd2 l'l:fd8
2 1.l'l:g1 <i>h7 2 2 . .if3 + -.
12 . . . b5 13.a3 h6 14.�e2 0-0 15.g4
ltJh7! 16.'@f2 .if6

11 ••• 0-0

Black chooses to await g4 and h4

in order to strike back in the cen­
tre with . . . dS. Another popular ap­
proach is to make yet another de-

191
 Part S

Black is OK here : sharp, but White lacks immediate

17.h4 i.xc3 18.bxc3 liJe7 19.g5 threats. For instance : 19.i.xf4 i.xgS
hxgS 20.hxg5 f6 ! ? ; 2 0 .i.xd6 liJe7 or 19. liJxe7+ liJxe7
Alekseev-Cordova, Khanty- 2 0 J�xf4 lt:lg6 2 1. :gf2 liJeS.
Mansiysk 2010, saw 17.gad1, when White can fight for the initia­
I think that Black should have opt­ tive with 17.gf3 , when 17 . . . g6 ! ? , in­
ed for a dark-squared blockade tending . . . rtlg7, looks best. Instead,
with 17 . . . i.xc3 18.bxc3 e5 19.f5 liJe7. 17 . . . e5 18.gg3 exf4 19 . .ixf4 i.xgS
White is not ready for a serious at­ 2 0.i.xg5 liJxg5 2 1.'l;l/xd6 liJh7 2 2 .�h6
tack. After 2 0.h4 liJf6 2 l..if3 (21.g5 �f6 23 .'l;l/h2 liJeS 24.liJd5 'l;l/d8 25.c3
lt:lg4 22 .'l;l/e2 hS) 2 l . . .d5 ! 2 2 . exd5 leaves White with some edge.
liJexdS 23.g5 lt:lxe3 24.'\1�'xe3 hxgS
25.hxg5 lt:lh7 26.f6 .ifS+, he is clear­ 15.g5 !
ly over-extended.
My conclusion is that 11.. .gc8 15.exd5 lt:lb4 i s extremely de­
deserves attention. manding for White while Black's
game is much easier.
12 .g4 h6 13.�e3 15.e5 lt:le8 16.g5 hxgS 17.hxg5
g6 is double-edged - 18.gf3 lt:lg7
19.'l;l/g1 liJfS 20 . .ib6 �b8 21.ltlc5
i.xcS 2 2 .i.xc5 gfd8 23 . .ib6 gesoo.

15 ... hxg5 16.hxg5 t0xe4

Remember this position ! When

White has completed development
and his bishop is on e3, we should
take the threat of h4 very seriously
and address it by 13 . . . lt:lh7! follow­
ing the example of the previous di­ 17. t0xe4?
agram. The . . . dS break is no long­
er effective ! 17.i.xe4 ! dxe4 18.'l;l/h5 .ie8
19.gf2 gives White an overwhelm­
13 . . . !1!ac8 14.h4 d5? ing attack. After the text, Black took
over the initiative.
It was high time for 14 . . . lt:lh7. The
position after 15.g5 hxgS 16.hxg5 17 . . . dxe4 18.he4 f5 19.gxf6
'l;l/d8 17.'l;l/h5 ? ! eS 18.liJd5 exf4 is gxf6 2 0 , g:f2 t0b4 21.�g4 .ic6

192
 The Fianchetto

2 2 . gg2 .if8 23 .ixc6 ti'xc6

• castle only when he is ready to meet
24 .id4 gh6 + 25.®gl �d5?
• g4 by . . . dS. Long castling is also pos­
26.gel �e7 27.c3 gds 28 .ie3 • sible so White should think twice
gds 29.�d4 ti'd7 3o.®f2 gdhs before flinging forward his kingside
31.gegl �d5 32 .ti'f3 gb3 33.gg3 pawns. On the other hand, switch­
gxg3 34.gxg3 ti'f7 35.�e2 .ie7 ing to restrictive play with ll.a4
36.gg2 .if6 37.®gl .ie5 38.ti'e4 tLleS ! ? (ll . . . b6 is the common retort)
�xe3 39.ti'xe3 .id6 40 .ti'd4 1 2 . a5 tLl c4 13.tLla4 0-0 is not very
.ic7 41.ti'e4 .ib6 + 42. �d4 ti'h5 enticing for White.
43. ®f2 gf6 44.®e3 .ic7 45.ti'xb7
.ixf4+ 46.®d3 .ih6 47.®c2 e5 ll.f4 b5 1 2 . a3
48.ti'd5 + ®h8 49.ti'as + ®h7
50 .ti'e4+ ®h8 51.�a8 + ®h7 12 .e5 dxe5 13.fxe5 tLlxe5 14 . .ixa8?
52 .ti'e4+ ®h8 53 .�a8 + ®h7 �a7+ is clearly better for Black.
54.ti'e4+ Draw.
12 . . . .ib7 13.�e2 0-0

It makes sense to wait one more

Kan Games move before castling - 13 .. J'M8 ! ? .

14.g4 d 5 15.e5? !
32. Radulski-Filev
Plovdiv 04.02.2012 The critical line is, of course,
15.exd5 tLlxdS 16 ..ixd5 (16.tLlxd5
l.e4 c5 2 . �f3 e6 3 . � c3 a6 exdS 17.�f2 d4 18.Eiad1 Eife8�) 16 . . .
4.d4 cxd4 5. �xd4 ti'c7 6.g3 .ib4 exdS 17.tLlxd5 �d8 18.tLlxe7+ tLlxe7
7 .id2 �f6 8 . .ig2 �c6 9 .�b3 .ie7
• 19.tLla5 .idS 2 0 . Eiad1
10.0-0 d6 ! ?

If Black consolidated, he would

This move shows that Black has have fair chances against the weak­
put aside the idea of pushing . . . dS ened enemy king. But he has to
early. Instead, he will fianchetto the make a couple of accurate moves:
bishop, put a rook on c8 or d8 and 20 . . . Eic8 ! [20 . . . Eie8 21.Eife1 �b6+

193
 Part S

2 2 .�f2 �g6 23 .h3 .ie4 24 . .ib4 lLldS 16 ltlb6 ! 17.gh3 ltlc4 18.g5
•••

2S.fS (2SJ�d4 ltlxb4 26J'�exe4 �xe4 g6 19.ltldl a5 20.c3

27.f5 �f6 28.�xe4 ltlxc2 = ) 2S . . .
�h6 26.'>th2 ltlxb4 27.axb4 '?9f6
28.�e2t] 21..ic3 (21..ib4 '?9b6+
22.�f2 ltlg6 23.�xdS ltlxf4 24.'?9f3
lLlxdS 2S.�xdS �xc2 26.'?9f3 = ) 2 1 . . .
�b6+ 2 2 .�f2 �g6 23 .h3 i.a8ii;.

15 .c!bd7
••

20 ••• '?9b6 +

White's attack has reached a

dead end and Black can already
launch a counter-attack. The gener­
al rule dictates to strike in the cen­
tre and, indeed, 20 . . . a4 2 1.ltlc1 d4 is
perhaps the best way to exploit the
16.:!U3 enemy weaknesses. The flank strike
20 . . . b4 is also a plausible alterna­
White would be unable to hold tive. Instead, Black takes a seem­
his queenside with solid central­ ingly inexplicable decision to seal
ising moves. For instance, after the queenside.
16 . .ie3 ltlb6 17.lLlcS, he'll face 17 . . .
d4 ! . H e also should reckon with the 21.i.e3 ltlxe3 2 2 .'?9xe3 '?9xe3+
threat of . . . gS at some point. There­ 23. ltlxe3 a4?
fore, Radulski makes a right choice.
He tries to attack h7. He is not A horrible move. Did Filev forget
afraid of 16 . . . gS since after 17.�h3 that he had a light-squared bishop? !
gxf4 he may draw by 18.hf4 lLlcxeS 23 . . . �fc8 24.ltlg4 b 4 would have
19.gS f6 20.�xh7= or gamble with preserved a strong pull. Now 24.ltlc1
18.�d3 fS 19.exf6 ltlxf6 2 0 .lLlxdS followed by ltld3 would have bal­
exdS 2 1.hdS+ 'lth8 22 . .ic3 .id8oo. anced the game. You could guess the
To be fair, in the latter line Black reason behind Black's actions when
could neutralise the attack with you knew the ratings ! He is more
22 . . . lLleS 23.-ixeS �xeS 24.hb7 than 2 0 0 points underdog so he just
�ad8 2S.�fS '?9xfS 26.gxfS �g8+ wanted to make a draw! The rest is
27.<kt>fl ltlg4. This sharp endgame is unrelated to the opening. White was
probably balanced. Filev correctly stubbornly trying to win his worse
refrains from forcing the play. position and eventually lost.

194
 The Fianchetto

24.li�d2 ti)a5 25. ti)g4 �g7 lt:Jc5 16 ..ie3 lt:Jxb3 17.cxb3 b5 is un­
26.gdl gabS 27.ti)f6 gbs 2 8 . tl)f3 clear. The bishop probably stands
h5? 29.i.fl ti)c4 30 .b:c4 bxc4
• better on c8, protecting e6 and leav­
31.�fl i.a8 3 2 . gd2 gb7 33.f5 ing the b-file open for the rook. So
exf5 34. ti)xd5 .ic5 35,gh4 gd7 I like :
36.ti)f4 ge7 37.ti) d5 gd7 38.ti)f4
13 . . J%b8 ! ?
ge7 39.�e2 gbs 40.e6 gb6
41.ti)e5 gbxe6 42. ti)xe6+ gxe6 Now 14.0-0 lt:Ja5 i s fine for Black,
43,gxc4 gxe5+ 44.�fl .ic6 e.g. 15.gad1 Y!lc4 16.lt:Jxa5 W/xe2
45,gb4 f4 46.c4 .i.e3 47,gd6 17.lt:Jxe2 bxa5 18 .b3 lt:Jxg4 19 .h3
i.e4 48,gb3 gxg5 49,gxe3 fxe3 lt:Jf6 20 ..ixa5 .ib7t ; 14.0-0-0 lt:Jd7
50.�e2 gg2 + 51. �xe3 f5 52 .h4 15.Wb1 lt:Jc5 is an improved version
gxb2 53.�f4 gc2 54,gd7+ �f6 of the above-mentioned line. The
55.gd6+ �f7 0-1 game Malisauskas-Grabliauskas,
Vilnius 2009, went:
14.h4 lt:Jb4 15.0-0-0 h5 (15 . . .
33. Forcen Esteban-Korneev
b5 ! ? ) 16.gxh5, when 16 . . . lt:Jxh5
La Rod a 07.04.2012
would have been double-edged.
I recommend the more concrete
l.e4 c5 2 . ti)f3 e6 3.d4 cxd4
move 14 . . . lt:Ja5 ! ? 15.g5 (15.0-0-0?
4.ti)xd4 a6 5.ti)c3 Y!lc7 6.g3 .ib4
lt:Jxb3+ 16.cxb3 b5) 15 ... hxg5
7. .id2 ti)f6 8 . .ig2 ti)c6 9 .ti)b3 .i.e7
16.hxg5 �xh1+ 17 . .ixh1 lt:Jd7
10.a4 b6

11. 0-0 18.lt:Jxa5 bxa5 with a tangled po­

sition, e.g. 19 .b3 e5 ! , exploting the
ll.f4 d6 12 .g4 h6 13.Y!le2 is more hanging state of the c3-knight -
aggressive. White is planning long 2 0 .f5? .ixg5.
castling. The mundane 13 . . . .ib7 is
hardly the best answer although ll . . . .ib7 1 2 .f4 d6 13.g4
14. 0-0-0 (14.h4 d5) 14 . . . lt:Jd7 (14 . . .
lt:Jb4 15.g5 hxg5 16.fxg5 lt:J d 7 17.g6 13 . .ie3 transposes to a side line
fxg6 18.lt:Jd4 lt:Jc5 19 .Y!lg4--.) 15.�b1 of the Taimanov. Black's most natu-

195
 Part S

ral plan is to prepare the break . . . d5 ble . . . g5, he will control the critical
with 13 . . . ltlb4. For instance, 14.�e2 square e5.
(14.a5 b5 15.�b6 �c4) 14 . . . 0-0 15.g4
d5 16.e5 ltld7 17J�ad1 l'!ac8 18.l'!d2
g5.
15.�f2 is dubious due to 15 . . . ltlg4
16 . .ixb6 �b8 17.�e2 he4t 18 . .ixe4
�xb6+ 19.'it>h1 d5.
It is safer to sit tight on the
kingside with 15.l'!fdl d5 16.e5 ltld7
17 . .if2

16.Ae3 g5 17 .f5 i.f6 18.a5

b5 19.fxe6 fxe6 2 0.Ab6 �xb6
21.l'!xf6 'ee7 2 2 . l'!xh6

Or 2 2 .l'!af1 ltlc4 23J'�t7 �e8

24.l'!lf6 l'!d7 25.l'!xd7 'it>xd'l+
26.l'!xh6 l'!xh6 27.�xh6 �e7.

22 -efg7
.•• 23.l'!xh8 l'!xh8
This structure is generally good 24.ti'g3 ltlc4
for Black. He can continue simply
17 . . . l'!ac8 18.ltld4 ltl c6 = . Black has a huge advantage
thanks to the gaping dark squares
13 ••• h6 14.�f3 in the enemy camp. The rest of the
game went in a severe time trouble
White aims to shift the queen to and at some point White even be­
an active position on h3. If he adopt­ came better. in the endgame.
ed a waiting game with 14.�e2,
Black could prepare a counterat­ 25.�d1 � 6e5 26. �d4 �g6
tack with . . . g5, for instance : 14 . . . 27.-efc3 �f4 2 8.-tfl 'efh7 29 .h3
ltld7 15.�e3 g5 ! ? 16.f5 ltlce5 17.ltl d4 'exe4 30.�f2 'efe3 31.�xb5
�c4oo, or 14 . . . ltlb4 15.a5 (15.l'!f2 d5) ti'xc3 32. �xc3 �e5 33.<.t>h2 c.t>d7
15 . . . l'!c8 (15 . . . b5? 16.ltlxb5) 16.axb6 34.<.t>g3 d5 35.b4 l'!c8 36.�a4
�xb6+ 17 . .ie3 �c7 18.l'!fd1 d5 19.e5 l'!xc2 37.h4 �e2+ 38.he2 gxh4+
ltld7 20 .l'!d2 g5t. 39.<.t>xh4 l'!xe2 40.�c5 + c.t>c6
41.'it>g3 .ic8 42.g5 c.t>b5 43.l'!b1
14 .tbd7 15.�h3 0-0-0 !
•• �g6 44.<.t>f3 l'!e5 45.�cd3 l'!f5+
46.'it>e3 l'!xg5 47.l'!c1 i.d7 48.l'!c7
Black should be satisfied with .ic6 49. �d1 l'!g3 + 50.<.t>d2 d4
the opening. After the inevita- 51.l'!g7 e5 0-1

196
 Pa rt S

Kan - the Ma roczy Bin d

This part covers a huge material so I separated the Kan from the Taimanov.
Actually, I analyse here both l.e4 c5 2 .4Jf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.4Jxd4 a6 5.c4 and
5.i.d3 which aim to establish pawn control of the centre with c4.
After 5.c4 4Jf6 6.4Jc3 i.b4, Black's dark-squared bishop is not caged be­
hind a d6-pawn and it can split White's queenside.
5.i.d3 commonly leads to Mar6czy Bind structures, but the character of
play greatly depends on the move order. I offer two alternative approach­
es for Black:
Line Bl. 5 . . . g6 followed by . . . 4Je7 aims to eliminate the pawn centre with
... d7-d5. This is play for equalisation.
Line B 2 . 5 . . . 4Jf6 6.0-0 'fic7 7.�e2 d6 accepts the Mar6czy Bind. I advo­
cate to fianchetto the bishop on g7 from where it exerts pressure on White's
queenside and enables the positional threat of . . . i.xc3 .

197
Pa rt 6. Ka n - the M a r6czy B i n d

Main Ideas

The previous parts taught us that c2-c4. Black has tried in practice at
Kan's utmost flexibility brings ex­ least five distinct schemes in retort.
cellent dividends in all the systems I do not cover the 5 . . . �c5 6.tlJb3
where White puts early his queen's �a7 system, because it does not suit
knight on c3. However, this flexi­ my taste. White trades dark-squared
bility has its cost - it allows White bishops via e3 and the weakness of
to build up the Mar6czy Bind. This d6 forces Black to enter Kalashni­
part should learn you to cope with kov-type structures with . . . eS. They
White's most cunning retort to the are too rigid and look passive to
Kan: me. I have always preferred plans
l.e4 c5 2.�f3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 with . . . dS (or .. .fS) in the Sicilian.
4. �xd4 a6 5.i.d3 Besides, White is usually well pre­
pared against 5 . . . �c5 and we would
hardly surprise him in the opening.

I will offer you instead a choice

between two approaches. Both are
based on the fianchetto of the dark­
squared bishop, but the first one
aims to quickly eliminate the cen­
tre with . . . t2J e7 and . . . d7-d5 while
the second one assumes a rather
We are getting a taste of our own unusual hedgehog structure where
medicine ! The enemy exploits the the g7-bishop longs to split White's
lack of t2Jc6 and develops in a flexi­ queenside pawns by taking the c3-
ble way which keeps all his options knight. I think that the surprise ef­
open. Depending on our set-up, he fect should be at your side.
may then return to t2Jc3 and long In practice 5 . . . g6 and 5 . . . �c5
castling, or opt for the restrictive bring similar results.

198
 Kan - the Mar6czy Bind

Let's step back a little and see 6.tt:lc3 .ig7 7 . .ie3 tt:le7 8 .Wfd2
what happens if White plays imme­ should not scare us out of our main
diately S.c4 tt:lf6 6.tt:lc3 .ib4 idea: 8 . . . d5 9.tt:lb3 ! ? dxe4 ! ? 10.tt:lxe4
0-0 ll . .ih6 .ixh6 ! 12 .Wfxh6 tt:lfS
13.'?9d2 aS ! . A thematic method of
seizing space on the queenside by
tempo.

7 . .id3 tt:lc6 8.tt:lxc6 dxc6 9 .e5 '?9a5

is equal - 10.exf6 .ixc3+ ll.bxc3
Wfxc3 + so the top players prefer:

7.'?9d3 tt:lc6 8.tt:lxc6 dxc6

I give a detailed analysis of
the endgame which arises after
14.0-0-0 a4 15 . .ic4 '?9xd 2 + . Re­
member to avoid rook exchanges !
Instead of contesting the d-file, we
should put our heavy pieces on c8
and aS.

6 ••• .ig7 7.ft1b3

Alternatives do not hinder the

Here both 9.Wfxd8+ and 9.e5
freeing . . . d7-d5 - 7 . .ie3 (7 . .ie2 dS !
lead to balanced endgames where
8.exd5) 7 . . . tt:le7 8.tt:lc3 (8.0-0 dS
White has the bishop pair, but his
9.exd5 exdS 10.tt:lc3 0-0 ! ) 8 . . . d5
queenside is severely crippled, for
cuts across White's plans to torture
instance : 9 .'?9xd8+ 'it>xd8 10.e5 (10.
us in a Mar6czy Bind structure.
!d2 eS) 10 ... .ixc3+ ! 1l.bxc3 tt:ld7
12.f4 b6 13 . .ie3 c5 14 . .id3 'it>c7 15 . .if2
!b7 16.0-0 fS ! with counterplay.

Let's now return to the more so­

phisticated S.!d3 . I propose to play
for equalisation with:

5 .•• g6 ! ? 6.c4

199
 Part 6

Black's play is straightforward Black's pieces are very active so

and easy - 9.exd5 exd5 10.0-0 0-0 he can afford to sacrifice a pawn
n.:gel tt:lbc6 12.tt:lxc6 bxc6 13..ig5 with 15...b5! 16.cxb5 tt:lxd3 17.'\Wxd3
.ie6=. axb5.
You see that two hours of study­
7...tt:le7 8.tt:lbc3 tt:lbc6 9.0-0 0-0 ing suffice to start playing 5...g6.

If the idea of getting a symmetric

pawn structure with an early ...d5 is
revolting to you, my backup solu­
tion is:

5 .•• ltlf6 6.0-0 �c7

This is a very interesting posi­

tion with mutual chances. White
has discouraged ...d7-d5 due to
the option of playing .ig5, but his
knight left the centre (and offered
us a tempo!). That gives us a free
hand on the kingside. Our offensive
could begin with ...f7-f5, leaving the
d-pawn on d7. The c8-bishop will
enter play from the queenside af­ After this clever move which
ter ...b6, or, even better, ...b5! See awaits ...d6, we cannot escape the
game 34 Ermenkov-Kotsur, Dubai Hedgehog. 7.c4 is a positional mis­
2000, which featured 10..ie2 f5!. take due to 7...tt:lc6! 8.ie3 (8.tt:lxc6
10.if4 will be met by 10...d5. dxc6 9.tt:lc3 e5- see game 35 Eich­
horn-Delchev, Bad Wiessee 2013)
10 ..ig5!? h6 11..ih4 g512 ..ig3 8...tt:le5 9.h3 b6. Fortunately, the
ltle5 13.f4 gxf4 14 ..ixf4 ll:l7g6 queen move rules out the most dan­
15..ie3 gerous plans with ie3, �d2, :gdl.
Even more importantly, .id3 can­
not retreat to fl. We should use that
to trade the bishop with ...tt:lb8-d7-
e5xd3.

7 ..• d6 8.c4

We should be happy to see the

double-edged 8.f4 g6 9.tt:lc3 .ig7.

200
 Kan - the Mar6czy Bind

White's f-pawn cannot return to de­ I analyse in detail the position af­
fend e4 anymore. The only way to ter 1 2 . . . b6 13J'l:fdl �b7 14.�f2 !%ac8
justify its advance would be lO .eS lS.�fl !%fd8 (or 15 . . . !%fe8) 16.b4 Wffb 8
dxeS ll.tt:ldbS axbS 1 2 .tt:lxb5 Wffe 7 17.tt:lb3 - see game 38 Simacek­
13 .fxe5 0-0 14.exf6 .ixf6, but our Akopian, Plovdiv 2 0 1 2 .
king is safe and the e- and f-pawns
control the centre.

8 ••• g6 ! 9 . tt:lc3 i.g7

M y conclusion i s that we should

not allow it at all !

The fianchetto has certain plus­

es : Our plan is to take the bishop,
1. It limits the scope of the d3- but let's give White the option of
bishop. displacing it to bl! Most practical
2. The bishop is more active on games went from this point 14.b3
g7. It takes an active part in the bat­ �b7 lS.i.bl? ! !%fc8 16.Wfff2 !%ab8
tle for d4 and eS enabling ideas like 17.tt:la4
. . . tt:ld7-e5 or . . . eS followed up by
. . . �g4.
3. A very interesting positional
idea is to cripple White's queenside
by . . . hc3, followed up by . . . eS,
. . . tt:ld7-b6.
Of course it has downsides,
too : Black spends an extra tem­
po, weakens the d6-pawn and the
dark squares around his king. Now
Note the rooks on b8 (protecting
White can try to put pressure on d6
b6) and c8 (hitting c4) . In the "Step
or follow a typical hedgehog plan :
by Step" chapter I consider two ac­
tive plans for Black. They involve
A. 10 .i.e3 0-0 lU�acl �bd7! shifting our queen to the kingside
(not ll . . . b6) 12.f3 �e5! (the b8-rook takes over the defence

201
 Part 6

of b6 ! ) followed up by . . . g6-g5. 13 . . . .ixc3 ! 14.bxc3 f6

In the event of: It is easy to play this position
with Black. See game 37 Leko­
14.�d2 , we have no choice lvanchuk, Mukachevo 2 007, for
but kill the bishop: 14 . . . tt:lxd3 more explanation.
15.�xd3 tt:ld7! 16.b3 gds 17.�d2
i.b7 18.tt:lde2 .if8 19. �hl gac8 Here is another version of the
20.i.g5 ges same plan:
10.l2Jf3 0-0 ll . .if4

White has not a clear plan for

improvement. ll . . . lLlhS ! 12 . .ie3 .ixc3 ! 13.bxc3
eS ! . See game 40 Grischuk-Ivan­
chuk, Beijing 2 0 13.
B. Lately, White p refers more
energetic plans. He tries to pinpoint The idea of giving up our dark­
our weakness on d6 with l2Jf3, l':l.dl, squared bishop sometimes works
.if4. They all lead to a similar pawn even without the benefit of splitting
structure: the enemy's queenside pawns :

lO.l"ldl 0-0 ll. l2Jf3 l2Jc6 12 .h3 Simek-Kanovsky

l2Jd7! (targetting the c3-knight) P rag ue 2011
13 . .ie3 (or 13 . .if4 .ixc3 14.bxc3 e5,
see game 36 Todorovic-Caruana,
Rijeka 2 010)

19 . . . .ixc3 2 0 . l':l.xc3 e5 21. f5 tt:lf4

22.fxg6 hxg6 23 . .ibl l2Jf6 24.'.We3
b5�.

202
 Kan - the Mar6czy Bind

On a final note, Black should not be scared of S.�d3 . This move is not
even White's first choice against the Kan. While the Mar6czy Bind is rather
restrictive, it is far from the true spirit of the open Sicilians. The l.e4 players
are commonly not big fans of long positional manoeuvring. Even when they
choose S.�d3 because it is supposed to be the "best" answer to 4 . . . a6, they
tend to treat it over-aggressively. That gives us fair chances for full-fledged
counterplay.

2 03
Pa rt 6. Ka n - the M a r6czy B i n d

Step by Step

l.e4 c5 2.�f3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 7.ltlc2 ltle5 8.0-0 'Wc7 9 . ltlc3 b6

4.�xd4 a6 10.ltle3 i.b7 ll.f3 i.d6+, Kokol-Kor­
neev, Nova Gorica 2 014

6 . . . i.b4

This chapter deals with White's

approach based on the Mar6czy
Bind. He either plays A. 5.c4 imme­
diately, or delay it by B. 5.i.d3 . If you aim for the Hedgehog, you
should choose 6 . . . 'Wc7 7.a3 b6 8.i.e3
.ib7 9.f3 .ie7 10 . .ie2 0-0 1U'1c1 d6.
A. 5.c4 �f6 6. �c3 This structure is not part of the
opening, but rather of the middle­
6.i.d3 ltlc6 gains control over the game.
dark squares and White often fails In the diagram position, White
to even equalise. Here are two ex­ has tested nearly all the legal moves.
amples: I will focus on:
7.ltlxc6 dxc6 8.ltlc3 e5 9 .'!We2
i.c5 10 .i.g5 h6 11.i.h4 i.g4 12.f3 i.e6 Al. 7 . .id3 ; A2 . 7.'Wd3 ; A3. 7.'Wc2 ;
13.0-0-0 'WaS 14.i.c2 b5 15.i.b3 i.d4 A4. 7.'Wf3
16.i.e1 'Wb6+, Savchenko-Caruana,
Moscow 2010; Minor alternatives are :

204
 Kan - the Mar6czy Bind

a) 7.eS? lLl e4 8.�g4 (8.�f3

�aS 9.�xe4 hc3+ 10.'tt> d 1 hd4
11.�xd4 lLlc6; 8.�c2 lLlxc3 9.bxc3
i.e7 10.�e4 d6 ll.i.f4 �aS 12 .i.d3
lLld7) 8 . . . lLlxc3 9.a3 i.f8 10.bxc3
�aS (10 . . . d6+) 11.�g3 d6 12 .exd6
hd6 13.�xd6 �xc3+ 14.'tt> d 1 (14.
i.d2 �xa1 + 1S. 'tt> e 2 �b2 16. 'tt> e 3 i.d7
17.i.b4 �c1+ 18.�e2 �gS) 14 . . . �xa1
1S.i.d3 i.d7+, Enevoldsen-Portisch, 12 . . . bS ! White's lag in develop­
Munich 19S8. ment prompts for energetic actions.
13.cS
b) 7.i.d2 0-0 ! 8.eS ! (8.i.d3 ? !
13.cxbS axbS 14.-hbS E1xa2
dS ! t) 8 . . . hc3 ! 9.hc3 lLle4
1S.O-O i.d7 is balanced. White can
try to capture the pawn later, for
instance, 14.a3 i.d7 1S.lLlxbS lLlc6
16.f4 (16.ie2 lLlxeS 17.�xeS hbS
18 .-hbS �aS + ) 16 . . . �b8 17.lLld6
f6+, or 1S.hbS hbS 16.lLlxbS lLld7
17.f4 E1c8 (17 ... �h4+t) 18.�d2 �b6
19.lLld4 tLl cS 2 0 .0-0 lLle4+. 1S.i.d3
�b6 gives Black a "free" initiative.

13 . . . �c7 14.f4 f6 1S.ie2 fxeS

Black's defence is based on the 16.fxeS �xeS 17.lLlxbS = .
exchange sacrifice 10.i.b4 d6 ! (10 . . .
�b6 ll.hf8 'tt> xf8 offers Black d ) 7.lLlc2 hc3+ 8.bxc3 �aS
enough material, but a bad posi­ (This is the most straightforward
tion after 12 .E1b1 �aS+ 13.b4 �xeS equaliser. For more complex play,
14.tLlf3 �c3+ 1S.lLld2 �d4 16.lLlxe4 you should opt for 8 . . . lLlc6 9.id3
�xe4+ 17.i.e2 �xg2 18 .i.f3 �g6 d6 1 0 . 0-0 �c7 ll.f4 0-0 12 .lLle3 b6
19 .�d6+ ) 11.�e2 �b6 12 .lLlc2 lLlc6 or even 12 . . . bS ! ? . ) 9.�d3 lLlc6 (9 . . .
13.a3 dS ! . The stem game Korchnoi­ �eS ? ! 10.f3 dS 11.�d4;J;) 10 .i.e2 (10.
Furman, Leningrad 19S7, went fur­ i.a3 dS) 10 ... �eS ll.f3 dS 12.exdS
exdS 13.f4 dxc4 ! = 14.fxeS cxd3
ther 14.f3 lLlcS 1S.�e3 d4 16.lLlxd4
1S.exf6 dxe2 16.fxg7 E1g8 17.ih6 f6
lLlxb4 17.axb4 �xb4+ = .
18.'tt> x e2 'tt> f7 .
10.�c2 lLlxc3 1l.�xc3 dS ! (avoid­
e) 7.f3 0-0
ing ll . . . d6 12 .E1d1 ! ) 12.E1d1 (12 .exd6
�xd6 was thoroughly tested . . .back 7 ... �c7 is often seen, but it is
in 19S7 ! ) connected with the passive set-up

2 0S
 Part 6

. . . tt'lbd7, . . . b6. The queen move does 10.bxc3 d6 ll ..ia3 V!ic7 12 ..ic2 Eid8)
not support the freeing . . . d7-d5. 8 . . . h6 ! (This move order aims to
For instance, 8 . .ie2 0-0 9.0-0 dS? ! avoid 8 . . . d6 9.0-0 h6 10.c!ba4 ! 0-0
is not enough due to 10.cxd5 .ixc3 ll.a3 .iaS 12 .b4 i.c7. 8 . . . .ic5 ! ? pur­
ll.bxc3 exdS 12 .i.g5 tt'lbd7 13.tt'lf5 sues the same goal.)
dxe4 14.'�d4t.
8 . .ie2 (8 . .ie3 does not hamper
8 . . . d5, but Black may also consi­
der the positional plan 8 . . . .ixc3 + ! ?
9.bxc3 d6. I t is effective when
White's bishop took away the e3
square putting an obstacle to the
manoeuvre tt'ld4-c2-e3.) 8 . . . tt'lc6

9.0-0 i.cS ! ? 10.tt'ld5 · d6. The

game transposed to Perunovic-Ga­
jewski, Legnica 2 013 - ll.b4 ia7
12 . .ie3 tt'lxdS 13.exd5 .ixe3 14.fxe3
aS ! with counterplay, for example,
15.a3 0-0 16.Eic1 c!Dd7 17.'1Wd2 (17.
cS axb4 18.axb4 dxcS 19.bxc5 l"!aS
2 0 .c6 tt'lf6 = ) 17 . . . b6.
9 ..ie3 dS. Of course, White
can also play 9.tt'lxc6 bxc6 10 .e5 8 . c!Dxc6
tt'JeB, but this is a fine version
a) 8.tt'lc2 .ixc3+ (8 . . . i.c5) 9.bxc3
of the Taimanov. Black will get
d6 10.0-0 (10.i.a3 0-0 ll.f4 V!ic7
counterplay with .. .f6.
1 2 . 0-0 :!!.d 8 13.�f3 bS 14.cxb5 axbS
15.ib2 tt'l a5 16.tt'ld4 tt'lc4 17.ic1 eS+,
Al. 7 .id3 c!bc6
• Ahmad-Ni Hua, Macau 2 007) 10 . . .
�c7 11.f4 0 - 0 12 .i.a3 l"!d8 13 .�e2 b6
This is the well known equaliser. 14.l!ae1 .ib7 15.tt'le3 l!ac8.
Its only apparent drawback is that it
leads by force to a drawish position b) 8.tt'lde2 i.cS ! ?
with opposite-coloured bishops. A The idea of this retreat i s t o an­
reasonable alternative is: ticipate tt'la4, followed by a3. 8 . . . d5
7 ... V!ic7 8.tt'lde2 tt'lc6 9.a3 .ie7 unloads the centre and should grad­
10 . .if4 d6 ll.b3 tt'leS 12 . .ic2 .id7 ually equalise. 8 . . . �c7 ! ? 9.a3 .ie7
13.a4 c!bg6. was mentioned in the comments to
I have also analysed 7 ... e5 the previous move.
8.c!bde2 (8.tt'lf5 0-0 9.tt'le3 .ixc3+ 9.0-0 d6 (9 . . . tt'lg4 ! ? 10 .h3 tt'leS)

206
 Kan - the Mar6czy Bind

ll.f4 it)xd3 12.V!Jxd3 d6. Black is

only one move shy of castling and
the pawn structure is favourable
for him. The only way to generate
some threats is 13.f5 eS 14.it)c2 bS
1S.i.g5 bxc4 16.V!Je2 it)d7 17.f6 gxf6
18.hf6, but both 18 .. J'!g8 19.V!Jh5
it)xf6 2 0 J'!xf6 l:!g6 21.l:!f2 i.b7 and
18 . . . it)xf6 19.l:!xf6 i.e6 2 0.it)e3 l:!g8
10 .h3 (10 .a3 0-0 ll.b4 i.a7 give Black good piece play while the
12 .i.f4 it)hS=) 10 . . . it)eS (or JO . . . h6) extra pawn does not get in his way.
ll.a3 i.d7 (Miezis' idea ll . . J'�g8 is
consistent due to the pawn lever 8 dxc6 9 .e5 (or Black plays
•••

White provided with h3, but it is . . . eS himself)

still a little dubious. After 1 2 .b4 i.a7
13.i.g5 h6 14.i.f4, Black has to play 9 V!Ja5 10.exf6 .ixc3+ ll.bxc3
•••

14 . . . it)fd7, because 14 . . . g5 15.he5 V!Jxc3+

dxeS 16.c5 favours White.) 12 .b4
i.a7 13.i.f4 V!Jc7oo.
c) 8 .i.e3 it)eS! 9 . 0-0 (after 9.it)f3,
best is perhaps 9 ... it)xd3+ 10.V!Jxd3
bS ! 11.0-0 i.b7, destroying the ene­
my centre) 9 . . . V!Jc7 10Jk1 it)eg4.

d) 8.a3 hc3 + 9.bxc3 it)eS

9 ... V!Ja5 10.0-0 V!Jxc3 is dubious:

ll.it)xc6 dxc6 (ll . . . V!Jxa1 1 2 .V!Jb3
dxc6 13.i.b2 V!Jxf1+ 14.hfl 0-0
12 .id2
1S.V!Jg3 it)e8 16.c5) 1 2 J'l:b1 e5 13 .i.b2
•

V!JaS 14.V!Jc1 h6 1S.i.c3 V!Jc7 16.f4�.

12 .V!Jd2? is a good news for
10.0-0 (10.f4 it)xd3+ ll.V!Jxd3 Black. With an extra exchange plus
dS) 10 . . . V!Jc7 a couple of pawns he can always
give back a part of the loot: 12 . . .
V!Jxa1 13.0-0 V!Jxf6 14.i.b2 [14.i.a3 e5
aiming for a long castle - 15.l:!e1 (15.
V!Jb4 V!Jd8 16J'!e1 V!Jc7 17.f4 i.e6 18.f5
0-0-0) 15 . . . i.e6 16.i.d6 l:!d8 17.c5
l:!xd6] 14 . . . e5 (14 . . . V!Je7) 15.l:!e1 (15 .
.ixe5 V!Jxe5 16.l:!e1 V!Jxe1+ 17.V!Jxe1+
i.e6) 15 . . . V!Jh6+.

2 07
 Part 6

12 . . . ti'xd3 13.fxg7 gg8 14 .ih6

• I do not like 7 ... 0-0 due to 8.e5 ! ,
Yfc3 + for instance : 8 . . . tt:\g4 9.�g3 �a5
10 .�e2 h5 ! ? (10 . . . tt:\xe5 ll.tt:\b3 �c7
14 . . . �e4+ is similar: 15.Be2 (15. 12 .�h6 tt:\d3+ 13.hd3 �xg3 14.hxg3
@fl �h4 16.Bc1 f6 17.\t>g1 e5 18 J%b1 gxh6 15.:t'!:xh6 f5 16. \t>e2) 11.�xg4
�f5 19J%xb7? 0-0-0 20J%a7 �xh6- hxg4 1 2 . 0-0± or 8 . . . tt:\e8 9 .�f4 ! d6
+ ) 15 ... �xe2+ 16.\t>xe2 e5 17.f4 (17. 10.tt:\c2 hc3 + 11.�xc3:t.
c5 f6) 17 ... exf4 18.\t>d3 �e6 19J%hfl
7 ... d5 is playing for two re­
b5 2 0 J!xf4 hc4 + = .
sults only: 8.exd5 exd5 9.�e2 0-0
10.0-0 tt:\c6 ! ll.tt:\xc6 bxc6 12 .�g5
a5 (Rublevsky's idea) 13.cxd5 �a6
14.�c2 !t.
7 . . . �c7 is the most popular move,
but it leads to the Hedgehog after
8.a3 �e7 (8 . . . hc3 + 9.�xc3 tt:\xe4
10 .tt:\b5 ! is the point of White's idea
- 10 . . . axb5 ll.�xg7 :t'!:f8 12 .�h6 �c5
13.f3 ! , N.Ninov-Pikula, Lazarevac
1999) 9.�e2 b6.
Black can try to stay in Taimanov
waters with 9 . . . tt:\c6 1 0 . 0-0 tt:\xd4
11.�xd4 �d6 12 .\t>h1 �e5, but White
17 ••• �e6 retained some edge after 13.�e3
0-0 14.tt:\a4 b5 15.tt:\b6 :t'!:b8 16.tt:\xc8
17 . . . b5 is also possible, but the :t'!:fxc8 17.f4 �d6 18.e5 �c5 19 .�f3:t,
text is more forced. The follow­ Leko-Bologan, Beijing 2 0 1 2 ; or
ing mass elimination leads to a 9 . . . 0-0 1 0 . 0-0 tt:\c6 11.\t>h1 :t'!:d8 12.f4
completely balanced endgame : d5 13.cxd5 exd5 14.e5 tt:\e4 15.tt:\xc6
18.:t'!:xb7 0-0-0 19J�ia7 �h4 2 0.:t'!:a8+ �xc6 16.f5, Giri-Landa, Eilat 2 0 1 2 .
\t>c7 21.:t'!:xd8 :t'!:xd8 2 2 .h3 �xc4+
23.�xc4 hc4+ 24.\t>e1 f5= , Vande­ 8 .fi � xc6 (8.�d2 0 - 0 ) 8 ••• dxc6
voort-Kveinys, Charleroi 2 0 07.

A2 . 7.ti'd3

This is perhaps the most chal­

lenging continuation. White pre­
pares e5, �f4, 0-0-0 and �g3 .

7 .ti�c6
••

208
 Kan - the Mar6czy Bind

A2 1. 9.�xd 8 + ; A2 2 . 9.e5 probably not allow it, but the var­

iation 15 . . . �b7! 16.0-0 f5 ! 17.exf6
ttJxf6 18.l'l:ae1 l'l:ad8 19.�b1 l=l:d2 ! is
A21. 9.�xd8+ �xd8 10.e5 roughly equal.
Or 1 0.�d2 e5.
10 • • • hc3 + !

Black has played s o far only 1 0 . . .

ttJ e4? ! when ll.a3 ! hc3 + 12 .bxc3
b5 13.h4 ! gives White strong pres­
sure on the kingside, for i n stance :
13 . . . ttJxc3 14J '!h3 ttJ a4 15J!g3 l'l:g8
16 .�h6 g6 17.�g5 + . This exam­
ple suggests that we should try to Black's rook is so active on the
blockade the position rather then second rank; that White should
open it against White's bishop pair. be careful to maintain the bal­
ance : 2 0 . l'l:xe6 l'l:e8 21. l'l:xe8 ttJxe8
ll.bxc3 tlJd7 1 2 .f4 b6 13 .ie3 •
2 2 .l'l:e1 tlJf6 ! ( 22 . . . ttJd6 might be
c5 14 .id3 �c7 15 .if2
• •
drawish, but only for computers -
23.hh7 l'l:xa2 24.h4 a5 25.f5 tlJe4
26.l'l:xe4 he4 27.f6 l'l:a1+ 2 8.'iflh2
gxf6 29.he4 f5 30.�5 a4 31.h5 a3
3 2 .h6 a2 33 .h7 l'l:h1+ 34.'it>xh1 a1�+
35.'it>h2 �xc3 = ) 23 .h3 a5 24.g4 (24.
a3 'it>b8 25.g4 a4 2 6.g5 tlJh5=) 24 . . .
�a6 = .

A2 2 . 9 .e5 �xd3 !

White's spatial advantage is

White hinders . . . l=l:d8 which
more substantial with queens. His
would be possible after 15. 0-0 l=l:d8
centre is a bit shaky, but once he
16.l'l:ad1 tlJf8 = . After the text, Black
consolidated, his prospects for a
should not wait passively because
kingside attack would be consid­
White will carry on f4-f5, for in­
erable - 9 . . . ttJd7? ! 10 .�g3 (10.�f4
stance: 15 . . . ttJf8 16.0-0 tlJg6 17.l=l:ad1
�a5) 10 . . . �a5 11.�f4 hc3+ (11 . . .
tlJe7 18.g4 �d7 19.f5 h5 2 0 .�g3 h4
tlJf8 12 .�d2) 12 .bxc3 tlJf8 .
21.�f4±.
At the surface, it seems that
The solution is to blockade Black has a good game. For exam­
the centre with . . . f5. White will ple:

209
 Part 6

2 0 1 0 saw 13 . . . 0-0 14.�fl ! eS, when

instead of 15.f5, White had 15.fxe5.

13.�e3 tlJg6 14 . .ig3 b6 (14 . . . tlJe7=

15.�d2 tlJfS 16 . .if4 0-0 17 ..id3 �dB
1B.�d1 bS) 15 . .ie2 cS 16 ..if3 (16.0-
0 0-0 17.�fd1 tlJe7=) 16 . . . �a7 17. 0-0
.ib7; 13 ..ie2 tlJg6 14.0-0 0 -0 = .
14.f5 0-0 15JU1 .ixc3 !
16 .ixc3 c!tlg4 17.<i>e2 c!tlh6=
However, the stranded cB-bish­
•

op kept bothering me and a deep­

er analysis confirmed my fears. In
A3. 7.�c2 0-0 !
the diagram position, White has the
awkward manoeuvre:
This move is dubious after 7.�d3
13.h4 ! tlJg6 14.�h3 ! ! i.d7 (14 . . . h5
since White can meet it by 8.e5 tlJg4
15 . .ie2 ) 15 . .ie2 hS 16.�d1 cS 17.i.g5
9 .�g3. Against 7.�c2 , it is the most
i.c6 1B.�d2 i.e4 19.�h1 and he is
principled retort. It has no decent
dominating all over the board. It is
alternatives if we want to avoid the
better to kill the enemy's strongest
main Hedgehog lines which arise
pieces right away.
after 7 . . . �c7 B.a3 .ie7.

10.hd3 c!tld7 ll.f4 Note that 7 . . . tlJc6 B.tlJxc6 dxc6

9.e5! is dubious for Black: 9 . . . tlJd7
n ..tf4 .tas 12 . .ig3 .ic7 13.f4 f6 (9 . . . tlJg4 10 . .ie2 tlJxeS ll.0-0�; 10 .a3
14.0-0 fxeS 15.fxe5 .txeS equalis­ .icS ll.tlJe4 .td4 1 2 .i.f4 �b6 13.�b1
es: 16.�ae1 i.xg3 17.�xe6+ <i>dB c5 14.b4 0-0 15 . .ie2 tlJxe5 16. 0-0oo)
1B.hxg3 tlJf6 19.�ee1 �eB 2 0 . tlJ e4
tlJxe4 21.�xe4 �xe4 2 2 .i.xe4 'i!;e7
23 . .txh7 .ie6 24.b3 �dB. Black's
king will invade the queenside via
the dark squares.

u . . . f6 12.exf6 ttlxf6 13.i.d2

e5!

Kovacevic-Miezis, Nova Gorica

210
 Kan - the Mar6czy Bind

10.a3 ! All the other moves allow the

break . . . dS :
I n his survey for New in Chess
Yearbook 1 0 1, Ninov gives as a main a) 8.i.e2 dS= 9.exdS exdS l0.0-0
line 10.f4 f6 ll.exf6 �xf6 12 .i.d2 dxc4 ll.E:d1 �c7 12 .i.gS (12.lt'le4
0-0 13.0-0-0 lt'l c5 14J"l:e1, but then lt'lxe4 13.�xe4 i.d6 14.lt'lf3 lt'ld7
14 . . . eS ! takes over the initiative. 1S.�xc4 �xc4 16.i.xc4 lt'leS) 12 . . .
It is much stronger to play lt'lbd7= .
13.i.d3 ! when 13 . . . �h4 + ? ! is po­
b) 8.i.d3 dS ! 9.cxdS exdS 10 .eS
sitionally grim, but 13 . . . g6 ! holds
E:e8 11.0-0 !'!:xeS 12.lt'lf3 E:hS ! .
firmly, for example, 14.0-0-0 eS
(or 14 . . . lt'l cS 1S.E:he1 eS 16.fxeS �e7
s .tog4 9.f4 .ic5
17.a3 i.xc3 18 .�xc3 E:d8 19.E:e3
••

lt'lxd3+ 2 0 . E:xd3 E:xd3 2 1.�xd3

The quieter 9 . . . d6 ! ? is also possi­
i.fS 2 2 .�e3 E:e8 23 .i.c3 �h4 24.b3
ble - 10.lt'lf3 dxeS ll.h3 lt'lh6 12 .fxeS
�xh 2 = ) 1S.a3 i.xc3 16.i.xc3 (16.
lt'lfS 13.a3 JJ.e7 (13 . . .i.cS 14.i.f4
�xc3 exf4 17.�xf6 lt'lxf6 18.i.xf4
lt'lc6 1S.E:d1 �e7 16.�e4 f6) 14.i.f4
lt'lg4 19.E:hfl i.fS 2 0 .i.d6 lt'le3
lt'lc6 1S.E:d1 �aS 16.i.d3 f6, Ninov­
21.i.xf8 E:xf8 2 2 .i.xf5 gxfS 23.E:f3
Shchekachev, Bethune 2 0 0 0 .
lt'lxd1 24.'.t>xd1 E:f7=) 16 . . . �xf4+
17.'.t>b1 lt'l cS 18.E:hfl �xf1 19.i.xf1 i.fS
2 0 .i.d3 lt'lxd3 2 1.'.t>a1 E:ad8 2 2 .�e2
lt'lf4 - the endgame after 2 3.�e1
lt'lxg2 24.�g1 E:xd1+ 2S.�xd1 lt'le3
2 6.�d2 lt'lc2 + 27.ri!?a2 lt'ld4 2 8.hd4
exd4 29.�xd4 is a draw. If White's
king goes to b6, Black starts push­
ing his passed pawn on the g-file.

lO . . . �aS (10 . . . i.e7 ll.f4 f6

12.exf6;!;) ll.f4 i.xc3 + 12 .bxc3 ! ( 1 2 .
�xc3 �xc3 + 13 .bxc3 b6 14.i.e2 i.b7 10.lt'lb3
1S.O-O cS= ) 12 . . . 0-0 (12 . . . bS 13 .i.e3
lt'lb6 14.E:bU) 13.i.d3. White has an 10.lt'lf3 lt'lc6 ll.h3 lt'le3 12 .i.xe3
attack and the queen cannot help i.xe3 13.g3 dSi.
much from aS. If Black attempts to
close the kingside, he lands in a dif­ 10 •.• i.f2 +
ficult position - 13 . . .fS 14.0-0 lt'lcS
1S.E:d1 E:d8 16.i.e3 E:xd3 17.E:xd3 It would be a sin to miss this
lt'lxd3 18.�xd3 bS 19.E:dl±. check. Still, 10 . . . i.a7 ll.cS (ll.i.e2
fS) ll . . . b6 12.lt'le4 (12 .i.d3 fS 13.exf6
8.e5 lt'lxf6 14.lt'le4 bxcS 1S.lt'lxf6+ �xf6

211
 Part 6

16.hh7+ 'i!ih8+) 12 . . . bxc5 is possi­ so conspicuous. White releases the

ble, too. pressure on d6 and allows :

7 .ixc3 +
• ..

11 . . . '%lfh4 ! ? was played in Nanu­ Exploiting the fact that 8.'%lfxc3

Markowski, Plovdiv 2008. drops a pawn. 7 . . . d6 8.tt'lc2 ! hc3 +
is not enticing since the g7-pawn is
12 .h3 already hanging.

Vuckovic-Pikula, Zlatibor 2 0 0 6 8.bxc3 d6

ended u p badly for Black after 12 . . .
Wfh4 ! ? 13.c5 (13.tt'le4 fS) 13 . . . '%lff2 +
14.'i!id1 tt'le3+ 15.he3 Wfxe3 16.'%lfe4
i.xc5 17.tt'lxc5 Wfxc5 18.i.d3 g6 19 .h4
dS 20 .'%lff3, but the engines assure
me that after 2 0 . . . '%lfe7! 2 l .h5 tt'lc6
only Black has an attack. I do not
have any reason to doubt this as­
sessment, but common sense and
my practice of Taimanov/Kan play­
er suggest a simple and safer solu­
tion: 9 . .ia3

12 •.• tt'lh6+ Piece attack on the kingside is

ineffective. In this pawn structure,
This is my fifty cents in the the­ Black's knight pair is more power­
ory of this variation. Now Black's ful than the bishops.
castling position is unassailable
while the enemy king in the centre a) 9.'%lfg3 0-0 10.i.h6 tt'le8, fol­
is a ridiculous sight. Possible con­ lowed up by . . . eS. Alsina Leal-Yu
tinuations are : 13.g4 tt'lc6 14.i.g2 Yangyi, Moscow 2011, saw 10 .i.d3
(14.f5 Wfh4 ; 14.tt'le4 aS ! ) 14 . . . d6t. e5 11.tt'lf5 hf5 1 2 .exf5 tt'lbd7! 13.0-0
'i!ih8 14J'l:d1 l'!c8 15.i.e2 WfaS 16.�e3
dS+.
A4. 7.'%lff3 b) 9.i.e2 ! ? 0-0 1 0 . 0-0 tt'lbd7.
Black has no compelling reason to
This move has obvious pluses define the centre at this point with
- Black cannot trade queens like 10 . . . e5 ll.tt'lfS hfS 1 2 .exf5 although
in the 7.'%lfd3 variation. Compared it is possible - 12 . . . tt:Jbd7 13 .'%lfxb7
to 7.'%lfc2 , the queen is more active tt'lcS 14.�f3 WfaS. He can quietly
on the kingside. Its drawback is not complete development with natural

212
 Kan - the Mar6czy Bind

moves while White's play is not tri­ If you think that this move of­
vial. Perhaps he will have to return fends the basic strategic princi­
to the plan with .ia3. ples of chess, bear in mind that it
was employed in the past by fin­
9 ••• 0-0! lOJ;dl est positional players like Smyslov,
Vasiukov and recently by Kamsky,
10 .lL'lb3 �e8 (escaping the pin and Bacrot. In contrast with the Hedge­
preparing . . . d6-d5) ll.�d1 (ll . .id3 ? ! hog waiting approach, Black aims to
ltJ c 6 1 2 . 0-0 ltJ eS ; ll . .ie2 ltJ c 6 1 2 . 0- open the centre early with . . . ltJg8-
0 lL'leS 13 .�e3 bS 14.c5 dS 15.�fd1 e7 and . . . d7-d5 or .. .fS . I would like
.ib7 16.f4 ltJc4 17 . .hc4 bxc4+) 11 . . . to warn you right away that this is
d S 12 .e5 ltJe4 1 3 . .id3 'IWgS ! 14.0-0 straightforward play for equalisa­
ltJc6 15 . .he4 dxe4 16.'1Wxe4 �xeS is tion. In line B 12. 6.c4, we often see
equal. mass elimination and symmetric
positions where White's initiative
10 e5! ll..!Df5 hf5 12.exf5
••• gradually evaporates. On the other
.!Dc6 ! 13.J.e2 (13 . .hd6 ltJd4 ! ) 13 ••• hand, there is little theory to learn
'flta5 1 4 .ixd6 c!Dd4 15.'fltd3 c!Dxe2
• and Black's play is clear and easy -
16.'fltxe2 'fltxc3 + . he makes obvious moves and lets
the opponent sweat about how to
Black has seized the initiative, generate tangible threats.
Dominguez Perez- Ivanchuk, Nice
2010. If you want to keep more ten­
sion, you can always postpone . . . dS
in favour of . . . d6 and enter a non­
B. 5.J.d3 standard hedgehog with . . . ltJe7 and
. . . g6. However, although practice
experience has been favourable for
Black, according to my database, I
feel that White has the upper hand.

Bll. 6.lL'lc3 ; B12. 6.c4

Minor alternatives are :

6 . .id2 ig7 7 . .ic3 eS 8.lL'lf3 lL'lc6
9.0-0 ltJge7 10.ltJbd2 dS+ ;

6.lL'ld2 .ig7 7.ltJ2f3 d6 8.0-0 ltJf6

BL s . . . g6; B 2 . s . . . lL'lf6 9.'1We2 0-0 10.�d1 lL'lbd7 11.lL'lb3 �c7
12 .c3 b6 13.h3 ib7 14 . .if4 e5 15 . .ig3
�feB, Bauer-Bologan, Germany
Bl. 5 . . . g6 1998.

213
 Part 6

6.0-0 �g7 will most probably

transpose to the main lines, e.g.
7.�e3 tiJe7 8.c4. Instead, the game
Sevian-Stripunsky, Ledyard 2 0 14,
introduced the novelty 7.tiJf3 tiJc6
8.c4 tiJge7 9.tiJc3 0-0 10 .'�b3

9.�g5
9.�f4 tiJeS 10 .�e2 fS ! is a the­
matic break. Lutz-Bischoff, Es­
sen 2 0 0 1 went ll.�gS tiJf7 12 .�e3
(12 .he7 Wfxe7 13.exf5 gxfS 14.�h5
0-0 15.f4 bS) 12 . . . fxe4 13.tiJxe4 dS
We can follow the main plan 14.tiJc3 tiJfS 15.�c5 b6 16.�b4 tiJeS
with 10 . . . d5 ! (of course, you can also with excellent piece play.
create havoc on the board with 10 . . . 9 . . . 0-0
f5 1l.�e3 b S 12.cxb5 axbS 13.hb5
fxe4 14.tiJxe4 dS) ll.cxdS exdS Undoubtedly, this is the most
12.exd5 tiJaS [12 . . . tiJxd5 13.�g5 (13. flexible approach. 9 . . . h6 weakens
�xdS hc3) 13 ... tiJf6 14J'Ud1 �aS = ] . the g6-square although White has
not much after 10 .�h4 (10.�f4 tiJeS
is familiar from the previous exam­
B U . 6.�c3 i.g7 7.i.e3 ple. The insertion of . . . h6 brings
about new possibilities for kingside
a) Another plan is to lead out the play: ll.Wid2 gS 12 .�e3 tiJg4 13 .�d4
bishop to a more active square as f4 �c7 14.g3 hd4 15.tiJxd4 d6.) 10 . . .
or gS : dS ! ?
7.tiJb3 tiJc6 8.0-0 10 . . . 0 - 0 ll.f4 d S 12 .e5 i s un­
pleasant. Houdini 4 suggests the
8.�f4 is typically parried with
extravagant 10 . . . hc3 ll.bxc3 gS
S . . . tiJeS.
12 .�g3 eS claiming full equality.
Smyslov answered 8.�e3 with
However, in this pawn structure the
8 . . . d5 9 .exdS exdS and took over the
knight should stay on f6 so I'm a bit
initiative after 10 .�c5?! b6 1l.�a3
reserved about this line. 10 . . . 0-0
tiJge7 12.0-0 0-0 13.tiJe2 �c7 14.c3
1l.f4 fS ! 1 2 .exf5 (12 .g4 fxe4 13.he4
tiJeS 15.tiJbd4 tiJc4, Silman-Smys­
�b6+ 14.�f2 Wfc7) 12 . . . gxf5 is stra­
lov, Lone Pine 1976.
tegically highly unbalanced. Black
8 ... tiJge7 (8 . . . d6 is more solid, is behind in development, but the
but it allows White to stay in his strong pawn control of the cen­
comfort zone) tre should keep him safe until he
214
 Kan - the Mar6czy Bind

regrouped: 13.�f3 'fffc 7 14.Wfd2 b6 7 . . . ti)e7 8.'lfd2

15.i.f2 l!Jg6 16.�d1 l!Jce7 17.i.e2 i.b7
18.�g3 i.c6 19.i.d4 �f7 20 . .ih5 �h7. 8.f4 dS 9.e5 l!Jbc6 10.l!Jce2 f6
Black has counterplay against the 11.exf6 i.x£6 1 2 . 0- 0 0-0 13.c3 is sa­
f4-pawn and down the g-file. tisfactory for Black since he can
11.exd5 exdS. Now 12.f4 0-0 easily develop his light-squared
13.f5 Wfb6+ 14.i.f2 Wfc7 15.fxg6 fxg6 bishop. For instance, 13 . . . e5 solves
gives Black a good game mostly due the problem at once while 13 . . . 'fffc 7
to the eS-square for his minor piec­ 14.l!Jf3 i.d7 is also possible.
es. On the other hand, 12 .Wfd2 0-0
13.�fe1 i.e6 is only slightly better
·
8 . . . d5
for White.

10 .Wfd2 (10.f4 fS) 10 . . . d6 11.�ad1

'ffc 7 12 .i.h6 i.xh6 13.Wfxh6 bS
14.f4 (14.a3 l!JeS), Wiwe-Stripun­
sky, Copenhagen 2 0 07. Here, 14 . . .
b 4 15.l!Je2 fS assures Black o f full­
fledged counterplay, e.g. 16.�h1
fxe4 17.i.xe4 i.d7.

b) 7.l!Jf3 l!Jc6 8.i.f4 dS 9.exd5

(9.e5? f6 10.'fffe 2 fxeS 11.l!Jxe5 l!Jge7
12. 0-0-0 0-0+, Li Chao2-Wang The main idea of this system.
Chen, Chengdu 2 011) 9 . . . exd5 Black opens the centre and gradual­
10.0-0 l!Jge7 11.�e1 0-0 is a typical ly neutralises the enemy initiative.
position for this line. 9.exd5 l!JxdS lO.l!JxdS 'fffxdS 11.0-0
0-0, Leko-Vyzmanavin, Leon 1993,
was extensively tested in practice
and proved to be innocuous for
Black. The plan with long castling
seems more dangerous :

9.ti)b3 ! ? dxe4 ! ?

9 . . . l!Jbc6 10 .i.h6 i.xh6 ll.'fffx h6

l!Jg8 12 .Wfg7 (12 .Wfd2 l!Jf6) 12 .. .'�f6
The game Martinovic-Strikovic, 13.'�xf6 l!Jxf6 14.exd5 exdS offers
Zlatibor 1989, went 1 2 .'fffd 2 (12 .h3 White only a symbolic advantage, in
i.e6) 12 . . .i.g4 13.l!Je5 i.e6 14.l!Ja4 my opinion. However, the text leads
l!JxeS 15.i.xe5 i.xeS 16.�xe5 Wfd6 to more complex play.
and a draw was signed a few moves
later. 10. ti)xe4 0-0 ll . .ih6 .ixh6!

215
 Part 6

Black has played only ll . . . tt:'lbc6 21.b3 gadS 2 2 . gxd8 ( 22 .c3 gds
so far when 12 . .ixg7 c;!,lxg7 13.h4 fS 23.gd2) 22 .. ,gxd8 23.c3 ! (23.gd1
14.tt:'lgS? h6 was fine for him. How­ tt:'ld4 24 . .if1 tt:'lec6 2s.gd2 b6=) 23 . . .
ever, 14.tt:'lc3 ! h6 1S.O-O-O looks tt:'lh4 24.ggu] 2 0 . .ie2 gas ! (we play
rather dangerous. I propose to play a middlegame ! ) 21. a3 ( 21.tt:'ld6? ! a3
more concretely: 2 2 .b3 tt:'ldS 23.tt:'lxfS+ exf5 24.c4 tt:'l c3
2s.gd2 ges 26 . .if3 bSt) 2 1 . . . ges
12.Yfxh6 �f5 13.ti'd2 a5 ! 22 ..id3 gc8 = .

A thematic method of seizing B12. 6.c4 i.g7 7. �b3

space on the queenside by tempo.
a) 7 . .ie3 tt:'le7 8.tt:'lc3
Or 8.0-0 dS 9.exdS exdS 10.tt:'lc3
0-0! - there is no reason to rush
with taking on c4 although 10 . . . dxc4
ll . .ixc4 0-0 12 .ge1 tt:'l d7 ! ? i3 . .igS
tt:'lf6 14.gc1 h6 1S ..if4 bS 16 . .ib3 ges
holds on.

8 . . . dS (or 8 . . . 0-0 9 . 0-0 dS)

The plan with . . . d6 may look
more flexible, but in my opinion it
14.0-0-0 is inferior to the text. For instance :
8 . . . 0-0 9.0-0 d6 10.Wfd2 ! tt:'lbc6
14.g4 (14.a4 b6) 14 . . . a4 1S.tt:'lbcS (10 . . . tt:'ld7 n.gfd1! with pressure
b6 16.gxfS is strongly met by 16 . . . on d6 is clearly better for White.
exfS 17.Yfc3 fxe4 18.tt:'lxe4 tt:'ld7oo. He has a clear plan with gael, b4,
tt:'lb3, cS) ll.tt:'lxc6 ! tt:'lxc6 12 .gad1 e5
14 . . . a4 15 . .ic4 Wfxd2 + ! 13.tt:'lds tt:'ld4 14.f4 .ie6 15.gf2 gcs
16. �bxd2 .id7 16.gdfl with an initiative. There­
fore, if Black wants to play a hedge­
My analysis suggests that this hog structure, he should choose the
endgame is balanced. We only have set-up with 5 . . . tt:'lf6 - see line B 2 .
to avoid trading ANY rook. Instead,
we keep them on the queenside - c8
and aS. White cannot improve his
position. For instance :
17.tt:'lf3 .ic6 18.ghe1 a3 19.b3 bS
2 0 . .id3 b4;

17.tt:'lf6+ c;!,lg7 18.tt:'lxd7 tt:'lxd7

19.tt:'le4 tt:'lb6 ! [19 . . . tt:'leS 20 . .ie2 a3

216
 Kan - the Mar6czy Bind

9.exd5 tt:Jxe4 tt:Jbc6) 12 . . . �xd1 13.�axd1

tt:Jbc6 14.�fe1 h6 1S . .ie3 .ifS= .
Spassky-Panno, Manila 1976,
saw 9.cxd5 exdS 1 0 . 0-0 0-0 1L�c1 9 . . . tt:Jbc6 1 0 . 0-0 h6
tt:ld7 ! ? 1 2 .tt:lxd5 (after 12.tt:lf3, we can
choose between 12 . . . dxe4 13.he4 My analysis suggests that Black
tt:lf6 14 ..ic5 �xd1 1S.�cxd 1 ! �e8 equalises after 10 . . . �a5 11.�d2 dS
16J�fe1 tt:lc6 17.hc6 bxc6 18.�xe8+ 12.exd5 exdS 13;b4 ! (13.tt:Jxd5 �xd2
tt:Jxe8 19 . .id4 .ig4 20.hg7 hf3 ! = 14.hd2 tt:lxdS 15.cxd5 tt:leS 16 . .ie4
and 1 2 . . . tt:Jf6 13 . .ic5 �e8 ! = ) 1 2 . . . tt:lc4 17 . .ic3 �e8 18.tt:lg3 tt:Jxb2
tt:JxdS 13.exd5 tt:lf6 1 4 . .ic4 tt:JxdS 19.�acl �b8 2 0.hg7 lt>xg7 21. �c7
15. �b3 tt:Jxe3 16.fxe3 when 16 . . . bS 2 2 .d6 .ie6 23.f4 tt:Jc4 24.f5 gxfS
�e7! evens the game. 25.hf5 ltJxd6) 13 . . . �xb4 14.cxd5
tt:lxdS 1S.tt:lxd5 �xd2 16 .hd2 �d8,
9 . . . exd5 10.0-0 0-0 11.�e1 (11.
but the text is more interesting. It
�c1 tt:ld7 ! ; ll.cxdS tt:lxdS 12.tt:lxd5
aims to brea� the connection be­
�xdS 13.�c1 �xa2 14 ..ic4 �xb2
tween .igS and �d2 .
is very interesting. White has am­
ple compensation for the missing l l . .ih4 �a5 12 .a3 (now the queen
pawns. Perhaps it is safer to decline will be pinned after 12 .�d2 dS) 12 . . .
the gift with 13 . . . tt:Jd7.) ll . . . tt:Jbc6 �h5 13 . .ig3
12.tt:lxc6 bxc6= 13 . .ig5 .ie6

13 . . . d5 14.cxd5 exdS 15.exd5

White can grab a pawn, but he tt:JxdS 16.hg6 fxg6 17.tt:lxd5 .ig4
will be unable to keep it for long after 18.tt:Jdc3 gS. The bishop pair offers
14.cxd5 cxd5 1S.tt:lxd5 �xd5 16.he7 compensation for the pawn.
�feB 17 . .ia3 �aS, e.g. 18 .�e2 �a4
19.h3 �ab8 2 0 .ha6 ha2 . c) 7 . .ie2 dS ! 8.exd5 exdS 9.tt:lc3
tt:Je7 10 . .ig5
b) 7.tt:le2 tt:Je7 8.tt:Jbc3 0-0 9 . .ig5 ! ?
10.0-0 0-0 ll . .ie3 dxc4 12 .hc4
This i s the only way to prevent tt:Jbc6 ; 10.tt:lf3? ! d4 11.tt:le4 f5 12.tt:lg3
. . . dS. Commonly White plays 9.0-0 tt:Jd7 13.tt:lxd4 (13.0-0 tt:lcS 14.�e1
dS 10.cxd5 exdS ll . .igS dxe4, un­ 0-0 1S . .if1 tt:lc6 16 ..ig5 �b6) 13 . . .
loading the center - 12 .he4 (12. tt:Jb6.

2 17
 Part 6

10 . . . dxc4 11.'?;Va4+ .id7 12 .'?;Vxc4 10 . .ie2 . We should counter-attack

lt:lbc6 13.lt:Jxc6 hc6 14.0-0 0-0 the centre with lO . . .fS ! - see game
15J''� a d1 V9c7 34 Ermenkov-Kotsur, Dubai 2 0 0 0 .

10 . . . h 6 ll.i.h4 (ll.i.f4 dS
12.exd5 exdS 13 .c5 ltJ eS) ll . . . g5
12 . .ig3 ltJe5 13.f4

Caruana opted for 13 .i.e2 against

Grandelius in Porto Carras 2 011.
The game went 13 . . . lt:\7g6 (13 . . .f5 ! ?)
14.�d6 ! (Seizing space. Or 14.V9d2
b6.) 14 . . . ltJf4 15.hf4 gxf4. It is dif­
Black has equalised, since ficult to understand what happens
16.!1fe1 (16.lt:Je4 V9e5) 16 . . . !1ae8 here.
17.lt:Je4 V9a5 18.ltJf6+ hf6 19.hf6
is well met by 19 . . . lt:Jd5 2 0 .i.g5 ( 2 0 .
.ih4 lt:Je3 21.fxe3 ge4 2 2 .!1d4 gxh4)
2 0 . . . lt:Jc3 ! .

7 ••• lt:Je7 8. lt:Jbc3 ltJbc6 9. 0-0

9 ..ie2 0-0 10.0-0 fS transposes

to game 34 Ermenkov-Kotsur.

9 . . . 0-0 At first sight White is much bet­

ter, because the black bishop looks
stuck on c8. On the other hand, the
other one - on g7 - is extremely
powerful and its pressure over the
enemy queenside would be tangi­
ble in an endgame. Black's main
task should be to bring the sleeping
bishop into play. The simplest way
to achieve it is to sacrifice a pawn
with . . . bS. A finer point is the right
timing for this break. I join Grande­
lius' assessment that Black should
10.i.g5 not be too hasty. Anyway, White's
only way to prevent it is 16.c5, but
White often attempts to gener­ then 16 . . . �g5 17.ltJd2 !idS threaten­
ate pressure down the d�file with ing . . . .if8/.ie5, . . . d6, easily equal-

218
 Kan - the Mar6czy Bind

ises : 18.'it>h1 ltlc6 (18 . . . .tf8) 19.ltla4 a) 20.ltlf3 �hS 21.lt:lxe5 (21.
.teS 2 0 .�d3 d6. The same method g4 ! ? lt:lxg4 2 2 . !!g2 fSoo 23.lt:le5 !!a6
works against 17.'it>h1 - 17 . . . lt:lc6. 24.�b4 d6 25.lt:lxg4 fxg4 26.!!xg4
Caruana decides to play on the �cS 27.�xc5 dxcS 2 8.hb5 !!a'Too ;
kingside. This is a really danger­ 21.ltld4 �h4 2 2 .f3 lt:l c4oo) 2 1 . . .�xe5
ous plan as the g-file might open in 2 2 .�xe5 .txes 23.hb5 d6 24.!!gb1
White's favour:

16.ltld2 �gS (16 ... b5 was already

possible) 17.'it>h1 (17.lt:la4 b5 18.ltlb6
!!a7) 17 . . . 'it>h7 (17 . . .b5) 18.!!g1

24 . . . .ta6 ! . White is unable to

hold his extra pawn due to the ac­
tivity of the black long-range pieces
- 25.a4 !!feB 2 6.i.xa6 !!xa6 27.!!a3
White is fully prepared for an !!b6�.
offensive so I think now is the best
b) 2 0 .lt:lxb5 lt:lg4 2 1.i.xg4 �xbS
moment to distract him with:
2 2 . !!gb1 �b8 23.�xb8 !!xb8 24.i.e2
18 . . . b5 ! !!xb2 25.!!xb2 i.xb2 26.!!b1 i.c3
27.ltlf3 dS= .
Grandelius postponed it with
18 . . . !!g8 , but I'm afraid that 19.lt:la4 c ) 2 0.!!ac1 .ta6 2 1.a3 b 4 2 2 . axb4
would have been unpleasant. Caru­ .txe2 23.lt:lxe2 lt:lg4 24.!!gf1 .tes
ana played inste.ad 19.!!ad1 i.f6 25.�d3 !!g8 2 6.g3 �hS with an at­
(19 . . . b5 ! ?) 2 0 .lt:lf3 lt:lxf3 2 1.i.xf3 (21. tack.
gxf3 ! ?) when 2 1 . . .�e5 ! was called
for: 2 2 . lt:la4 (22 .�d3 bS 23.c5 !!a7 13 . . . gxf4 14 . .bf4 �7g6
24.ltle2 b4 25.ltlxf4 aS 2 6.g3 .ta6
27.�e3 i.e7=) 22 . . . b5 23.ltlb6 �xd6 The dark-squared strategy 14 . . .
24.!!xd6 !!a7 25.!!d2 d6 2 6.!!c1 !!c7 �c7 15.�d2 (15.i.e3 b6 16.c5 bxcS
27.!!cc2 !!c6 28.lt:lxc8 !!exeS = . 17.i.xc5 d6 18 . .te3 fS 19 .!!c1 lt:lg4)
19.cxb5 axbS 15 . . . lt:l7g6 16.i.e3 lt:lxd3 17.�xd3
lt:leS is also possible, but we have
I believe that Black has full com­ more aggressive intentions in store.
pensation for the pawn. Here is an
illustration: 15 . .ie3

219
 Part 6

Vb7 27.fif3 fS. Black's mobile pawn

centre assures him of the initia­
tive. Perhaps 23.4Jc7 is more real­
istic, when 23 .. J:!ac8 24 . .txf8 V9xc7
25.Vxc7 l':ixc7 2 6.i.h6 l':ic2 is close to
the draw, but still White must make
it. Black maintains an attack due to
the threats of . . . .tb7, .. .fS, . . . lt:Jh4.

82. 5 . . . lilf6 6.0-0 fic7

15 . . . b5!

Our bishop pair will be very effi­

cient in an open position. Black has
only tried 15 . . . b6 and 15 .. .'?9c7 so far.

16.cxb5 lilxd3 17.fixd3

axb5iii 18.lilxb5 .ixb2 19 . .ixh6
.ixal 20 J:�xal fih6+ 21.'.thl Aa6
22.Vc3 e5

7.fie2

Here is the big difference with

line Bl. If White wants to put in c4,
he has to move the queen first, but
that rules out dangerous plans with
i.e3, V9d2 , l':idl. To be sure, 7.c4 is
also possible, but I consider it as a
positional mistake. We answer 7 . . .
lt:Jc6 ! 8 . .te3 (8.4Jxc6 dxc6 9.lilc3 eS
- see game 35 Eichhorn-Delchev,
Black is fine here. He only
Bad Wiessee 2 013) 8 . . . 4Je5 9 .h3 b6!
should avoid Komodo TCECs re­
commendation 23.i.xf8 c;!;>xf8? 9 ... .tc5 ! ? in Taimanov-style is
24.a4 c;!;>g7 since White gets a also possible : 10.lilc3 d6 ll.l':icl 0-0
strong attack with 25.lil3d4 ! ! exd4 12 .i.e2 h6 13.f4 (13.a3 i.d7 14.b4
26.4Jxd4 c;!;>f8 27.4Jf5±. Instead: .ta7 15.'?9d2 Eiac8 16.f4 lt:Jg6 17.4Jf3
23 . . .l'�xf8 ! (23 . . . .txbs 24 . .tb4 V9f6 i.xe3+ 18.V9xe3 Eifd8 19.Eifdl lt:JhS)
25.a3 lt:Jf4 is a decent alternative) 13 . . . 4Jg6 14.f5 lt:J e5 15.V9el i.d7 16.b3
24.4Jc7 .tb7 25.4Jd5 .txds 26.exd5 exfS 17.exf5 lt:Jc6.

220
 Kan - the Mar6czy Bind

10.f4
This attack has no venom with­
out the light-squared bishop, but
after 10.lt:lc3 .ib7 1Uk1 (ll.f4 lt:lxc4
12 . .ixc4 �xc4 13J'k1 lt:lxe4 ! 14.lt:lcb5
axb5+) ll . . . .ie7 (ll . . . i.c5 ! ?) White
will have to push f4 anyway.

10 . . . lt:lxd3 11.�xd3 d6 12.lt:lc3

.ie7 13.l'!ad1 (13.l'!acl 0-0 14.f5 .id7
15.b3 l'!ac8 16.a4 �b7=) 13 . . . 0-0 ll.lt:ldb5 axb5 12.lt:lxb5 �e7
14.b3 .ib7 15.f5 e5 16.lt:lf3 bS ! with 13 .fxe5 0-0 14.exf6 .ixf6 15.c3, Wei­
counterplay. Artemiev, Chongqing 2 0 13 . Black
should be fine - his king is safe and
7.lt:lc3 and 7.<;t>h1 d6 8.f4 lt:lbd7
the e- and f-pawns control the cen­
9.lt:lc3 transpose to the Third Rank
. tre. The game · went 15 . . ..ig7 16.a4
set-up.
.id7 17 ..if4 e5 18 .b4 lt:la6 19.l'!ae1
when 19 . . . l'!fe8 2 0.i.c4 .ie6 2 1..ie3
7 . . . d6 8 .c4
l'!ac8 2 2 .i.xe6 �xe6 would have
been balanced. I suppose that 15 . . .
White may keep us guessing
.id7 i s slightly more accurate. Pos­
about his queenside plans with :
sible continuations are 16 . .ie3 .ig7
a) 8.f4. Then 8 . . . lt:lbd7? ! will 17.'�f2 lt:la6 or 16.a4 l'!d8.
be met by 9 .c4 g6 10 .f5. An inter­
esting reply is 8 . . . e5 9 .lt:lb3 (9.lt:lf5 b) A rare set-up is 8 .b3 g6 9 . .ib2
.ixf5 10.exf5 .ie7; 9.lt:lf3 .ig4 10.lt:lc3 .ig7 10.lt:ld2 0-0 ll.a4 (ll.@h1 b6
lt:lbd7) 9 . . . i.e7 10 .lt:lc3 0-0 (10 . . . 1 2 .f4 i.b7 13.l'!ae1 lt:lbd7 14.e5 lt:lh5
lt:lbd7 11.g4) ll.f5 b5 12 .g4 b4 13.lt:ld5 15.lt:lc4 dxe5 16.fxe5 .idS 17.lt:le3
lt:lxd5 14.exd5 lt:ld7 15.g5 .id8oo. i.xe5 18.lt:lxd5 exd5 19.lt:lb5 axb5
Perhaps it is best to fianchetto 2 0 .i.xe5 lt:lxe5 21.�xe5 �c5 2 2 .b4
the bishop : �xb4 23.l'!b1 �h4 24 ..ixb5 l'!xa2+,
Dutreeuw-Psakhis, Vienna 1991)
8 . . . g6 9.lt:lc3
ll . . . b6
9.f5 .ig7 10 .fxe6 fxe6 ll . .ic4 is
bad due to ll . . .'�c5 12 . .ie3 lt:lg4
13.b4 �h5 14.h3 lt:lxe3 15.�xe3 lt:lc6
16.c3 .ih6 17.�g3 �e5+.

9 . . ..ig7 10 .e5 (or 1 0 .@h1 0-0

ll ..id2 b6 12 .l'!ae1 .ib7 13.lt:lf3
lt:lbd7oo, T.Bauer-Farago, Hungary
1993) 10 . . . dxe5

221
 Part 6

It is unclear what White should b) 12 .i.c2 is an original ma­

do from this point. The game Geller­ noeuvre. The game Shirov-Wang,
Huebner, Wijk aan Zee 1975 went Shanghai 2 0 1 0 , illustrates its main
12.lt:lc4 lt:lbd7 (12 . . . d5 ! ? 13.exd5 idea: 12 . . . lt:ld7 13.i.e3 lt:lde5 14.i.b3
lt:lxd5=) 13J'l:fe1 i.b7 14.�d2 Ei:fd8, i.d7 15.�d2. The c4-pawn is de­
preparing ... d6-d5. 14 ... Ei:ad8 would fended while the d6-one is ripe for
have been even better. collection. I recommend the more
active retort 13 . . . lt:la5 ! 14.i.b3 i.xc3
8 g6 ! 9.lt:lc3 i.g7
••• 15.bxc3 b6 ! ?oo or 15 . . . e5 16.�d3 lt:lc5
17.i.xc5 dxc5 = .

12 . . . lt:lg4, preventing i.e3, i s also

possible - 13.i.f4

Naiditch's 13.lt:le1 looks over­

ly ambitious. We can take up the
gauntlet - 13 . . . lt:lge5 14.f4 lt:ld7
when the c4-pawn suddenly turns
to be very weak after 15.lt:lf3 lt:la5
16.i.d3 (16.i.b3 lt:lb6) 16 . . . lt:lc5.
13 . . . lt:lge5 14.i.b3 (14.Ei:ac1 lt:lxf3 +
The main branching point of 15.�xf3 e5 16.i.e3 lt:ld4) 14 . . . i.d7
this line. White must define his when Shirov's move 15.�d2 from
plans. In practice, he achieves best the above-mentioned example fails
results by attacking the weakened to 15 . . . lt:lxf3+ 16.gxf3 lt:ld4.
d6-pawn with B21. 10 .Ei:d1 or B 2 2 .
10.lt:lf3 (planning i.f4). The third 12 . . . lt:ld7! 13 .te3
•

plan is to enter a standard hedge­

hog with B23. 10 .i.e3. The latter 13.i.f4 provokes . . . e5, but this
is considered not very challenging moves is on Black's agenda anyway.
and scores close to 50%. After 13 . . . i.xc3 14.bxc3 e5, the pawn
structure is similar to the main line.
See game 36 Todorovic-Caruana,
Rijeka 2 0 1 0 .
B21. lO,gdl 0-0 ll.lt:lf3 lt:lc6
12.h3 Only 13.i.d2 prevents 13 . . . i.xc3
(although the engines still like this
Alternatively: capture ! ) . Then 13 . . . b6 14.Ei:acl
a) 12.i.f4 faces 12 . . . e5 13 .i.e3 i.b7 15.i.e3 leads to positions from
.tg4 14.h3 lt:ld4 15.i.xd4 .txf3 line B23 with an extra tempo for
16.�xf3 exd4 17.lt:ld5 lt:lxd5 18.cxd5 Black. He can follow up with 15 . . .
�b6= , Svidler-Ivanchuk; Monte lt:lc5 16.i.b1 Ei:fe8 17.b3 Ei:ad8, hav­
Carlo 2005. ing . . . t7-f5 in mind.

222
 Kan - the Mar6czy Bind

after 12 . .id2 0-0 13.l'!ac1, the knight

would be a bit awkward on c6. By
all means this continuation has no
advantages over the main line.)
12 . .id2 ! (12 . .ie3 .ig4 13.h3 ltJd4 ! = )
12 . . . .ig4 13.�e3 and White can or­
ganise an offensive on either flank.

l l .if4
•

ll.h3 eliminates the idea of . . . eS

followed up by . . . .ig4, but I noted
13 .••.ixc3 ! 14.bxc3 f6 above that it was not so attractive
anyway. We follow our main plan
A critical position for this line. In enjoying a clear extra tempo - 11 . . .
my opinion, it is very easy to play it ltJc6 1 2 . .if4 ltJhS ! 1 3 . .id2 (13 . .ie3
with Black. The last move is the first .b:c3 14.bxc3 eS 15.c5 ltJf4 16.hf4
link of a plan which aims to ensure exf4 17.cxd6 �xd6 18.e5 '?ffc S) 13 . . .
secure control of the dark squares. b 6 14.l'!ac1 .ib7 1S . .ie3
It includes . . . b6 and . . . ltJc6-d8-t7 if
needed. Nakamura opted for 14 . . .
b 6 against Dominguez i n Wijk aan
Zee 2 004, but 1S.�d2 ! iDeS 16 . .ic2
ltJaS could have turned out badly
after 17 . .ih6 ! l'!e8 18.�f4 eS 19.�f6
ltJe6 2 0 .ltJh2.
See game 37 Leko-Ivanchuk,
Mukachevo 2 0 07, for more expla­
nation.
White is threatening with ltJdS,
but we are just in time to prevent it
B 2 2 . lO.tD£3 0-0 with 15 . . . ltJeS ! . Then:
a) 16.ltJxe5 dxeS 17.g3 (17 . .ib1
10 . . . ltJc6 is less flexible as it de­
ltJf4 18.'?ffc 2 '?ffxc4 = ; 17.ltJa4 ltJf4
fines the placement of this knight
18.�c2 .ic6 19.ltJxb6 l'!ad8) 17 . . . f5.
too early while it would have been
more useful on d7 in some lines. b) 16.l'!fd1 ltJxf3 +
Black wants to seize the d4-square,
O r 1 6 . . . ltJxd3 17.'?ffxd3 l'!ad8=
but practice suggests that it might
be insufficient to balance the game. 17.�xf3 fS ! . Black has seized the
For instance, ll . .if4 eS (ll ... ltJhS, initiative: 18 . .ib1 l'!t7! 19.�e2 f4
intending . . . .b:c3, is possible, but 2 0 . .id2 f3 2 1.gxf3 l'!af8-+.

2 23
 Part 6

18.b3 �b8 19.i.h6 .ie7 2 0 . .ig5 .if8,

Kryvoruchko-Nikolov, Rethymnon
2011. It is good to preserve the dark­
squared bishop which protects the
d6-pawn and the kingside. At the
same time, it usually plays an im­
portant role in a counter-attack
with . . . d5 by hitting b4 or by going
to d6.

12 . . . hc3 ! 13.bxc3 e5!

ll . . . l0h5!
We have obtained the same
It is already late to return to the pawn structure as in the previous
plan with ll . . . ll:\c6 12 J:!ac1 e5? in line, only the knight is on h5. This
view of 13 . .ig5 .ig4 14.ll:\d5. "small" difference forces changes
in Black's plan since after 13 .. .f6,
12 .J.e3 the knight would have no prospects
whatsoever. The text opens the c8-
12 . .ig5 would give an extra tem­ bishop which is assigned to kill the
po for .. .f6 or . . . ll:\e6. For instance, white knight. It is better to eat it
12 . . . .ixc3 13.bxc3 e5 14.ll:\h4, Shi­ on f3 rather on d5. See game 40
rov-lvanchuk, Motril 2008, 14 . . . Grischuk-Ivanchuk, Beijing 2 013.
ll:\g7 15.g3 .ih3 16.ll:\g2 ll:\ e 6 1 7. .ih6
l'!d8 18.l'!fd1 .ixg2 19. 'ii> xg2 ll:\d7oo.

12 ..id2 would mark a turn in B23. 10 ..ie3 0-0

White's strategy. He does preserve
the Mar6czy Bind's pawn structure,
but his pieces need a serious re­
grouping. That gives us more than
enough time for completing com­
fortably development. Black's best
set-up is perhaps 12 . . . b6 13 .l'!ac1
.ib7 14.l'!fd1 (Firat-Delchev, Skop­
je 30.03.2014, saw 12 . . . ll:\d7 13.l'!ac1
b6 14.b3 .ib7 15 . .ib1?! l'!ac8 16.ll:\e1
l'!fe8 17.f4 f5+) 14 ... ll:\d7 15 . .ie3
(or 15.h3 l'!ac8 16 . .ie3 '<MI'b8 17 . .ib1 This line leads to the Hedge­
l'!fe8 18.'<MI'd2 .if8 19.b3 .ia8 2 0 .i.h6 hog in its "nearly" best version for
i.e7 2l.i.g5 ll:\hf6 2 2 .i.f4 ll:\e5 = , White. Why is it less popular then
Vavulin-Artemiev, Moscow 2 0 14) the previous two lines then? Kritz
15 . . . l'!ac8 16 . .ib1 l'!fe8 17.'<MI'd2 .if8 even accompanies the move 10 . .ie3

224
 Kan - the Mar6czy Bind

with a question mark ! ! It does takes Amazingly, but this position

guts to stigmatise in such a way the seems utterly unexplored. I see
white side of a hedgehog! In my more than 30 games in my data­
opinion, this is the most principled base, but none of them can serve us
and unpleasant weapon against the as a model to follow. Even the young
Kan and I can only be too happy Karpov looks hesitant in his actions.
that it is underrated. I suspect that Look at the game Musil-Karpov,
l.e4 players usually do not feel com­ Ljubljana 1975 : 12 . . . b6 13.V9f2 �b7
fortable in these structures. They 14.E:fd1 l2Jh5? ! (What is this? Did he
commonly prefer more straightfor­ intend to push .. .fS?) 15.�fl E:ac8
ward plans which involve a kingside 16.E:c2 (16.b4 ! ) 16 . . . l:!fe8 (not at all ! )
.
attack. In our case, Black's king is 17.E:cd2 (17.b4 ! ) 1 7. . . �f8 18.l2Jdb5? !
well protected by the fianchet­ axbS 19.l2Jxb5 �b8 20 .l2Jxd6 l2Jc5?
toed bishop so the direct assault 2 1.l2Jxe8 and Black is in very bad
has little chances to succeed. After shape.
ll.f4 l2Jbd7 12 J:!ac1 b6 13.'it>h1 �b7; Shipov has written 1100 pages
14.£5 would be a mistake, because it on the Hedgehog. A great prose, but
opens the e-file to Black's favour. In no answers, unfortunately. Or even
practice, White turns to the thema­ worse - wrong answers. He men­
tic plan with b4, but then why had tions only two games (where White
he played f4? ! - 14.b4 E:fe8 15.l2Jb3 did not even choose the best con­
E:ac8 16.a4, when the best set-up is tinuations) where Black is conspic­
16 . . . E:b8 ! 17.a5 bxa5 18.l2Jxa5 �a8 . uously worse.

lU�acl �bd7! (not ll . . . b6) The overwhelming majority of

12.f3 players choose the set-up with . . . b6
and even score more than 50%, but
White may try to counter my they clearly did not know what to do
plan of an early . . . l2Jd7 -eS by 1 2 .E:fd1 against the plan with 12 . . . b6 13.E:fd1
llJeS 13.l2Jf3, but we get counterplay �b7 14.�f2 E:ac8 15.�fl E:fd8 (or
with 13 . . . l2Jfg4 14.�g5 b6 15.l2Jxe5 15 . . . E:fe8) 16.b4 �b8 17.l2Jb3.
ttJxeS 16.b3 �b7 17.�b1 fS .

I analyse in detail this position

in the annotations to game 38

225
 Part 6

Simacek-Akopian, Plovdiv 2 0 1 2 . i.e8 19.i.d4 e5 2 0 ..ie3 �xc4; 17.a4

M y conclusion i s that we should not i.e8) 17 . . . b5 18.b4 �d8 19.�xd6
allow it at all ! �xc4 2 0 .�cd1 �e8 21.e5 tt:l d5
2 2 .tt:lxd5 exd5 23.�6xd5 .ic6.
I see only one possible way to ex­
ploit White's set-up with i.d3-�e2 b ) 14.�d2 ! tt:lxd3 15.�xd3 �fd8 !
- the bishop cannot retreat to fl.
Therefore, our first task should be 15 . . . �fc8? ! looks more active, but
to play quickly . . . tt:lbd7-e5, aiming the long forced variation 16.tt:lb3
to trade it for the bishop if White .ie8 (16 . . . tt:le8 17.c5) 17.�xd6 �xd6
answers �d2 . So we start with : 18.�xd6 tt:ld7 19.c5 ! i.f8 2 0 .c6 ! bxc6
2 1.�d2 c5 2 2 .tt:la4 c4 23.�dc2 tt:le5
12 ... �e5! 13J:�fdl 24.tt:lb6 cxb3 25.�xc8 �xeS 26.�xc8
tt:ld3 27.�a1 tt:lb4 2 8 . axb3 �c2
29.�xa6 tt:lxe3 3 0 .tt:ld6 .id7 31.�a7
hd6 32.�xd7 faces Black with a
difficult ending - the .i + tt:� gener­
ally perform poorly against a �+
passed pawn.

Now we have a choice. I spent

some time on:
13 ... i.d7. It is a logical develop­
ment since the bishop would sup­
port . . . b5. In practice White invar­ Here 16.tt:lb3 is less effective
iably answers : as 16 . . . i.e8 17.i.f4 �b6+ 18.@h1
�d7! ! 19 .�xd6 �xd6 2 0 . �xd6 tt:le5
a) 14.b3? ! when, besides 14 . . .
2 1 . �xd8 �xd8 2 2 .i.xe5 he5 offers
�xd3 , we can maintain the tension
Black full compensation for th e
with 14 . . . �a5 ! ? . Then 15.i.b1 �fc8
pawn - 23.c5 f5= . Black plays on,
16.�d2 �e8 would allow us to push
ignoring the enemy's extra pawn .
. . . b5 (if White played a4, he would
tt:l a5 is always met by . . . i.c6. I took
never achieve b4 due to the weak­
my time to explore this endgame
ness of the c4-pawn). 15.�d2 tt:lxd3
very deeply. The verdict is that only
16.\Wxd3 �fd8 is similar to line b, so
Black can win it.
I analysed mainly 15.�b2 (threat­
ening i.f1 or b4) 15 . . . tt:lxd3 16.�xd3 So far so good. I proved that
�feB 17.�de2 (17.b4 �c7 18.tt:lde2 this set-up was possible. However,

226
 Kan - the Mar6czy Bind

returning back to move 16, my ini­ with .ifl, b4, lt'lb3.

tial enthusiasm began to evaporate. H aving shifted the bishop to b1
I could not set up decent counterplay gave us time for an active redeploy­
against best play: 16.b3 V9a5 17.lt'lde2 ment:
.ie8 18.i.f4 ! (to drag the bishop to
15 . . . !1:fc8 16.�f2 E:ab8 17.lt'la4
c6, 18 . .id2 V9c5+ 19.'k!?h1 bS; 18.'k!?h1
bS) 18 . . . .ic6 19 . .id2 !

Note that I propose to put the

rooks on b8 (protecting b6) and c8
Black has to abandon his dream
(hitting c4). We can already breathe
of . . . bS and consent to a waiting
freely as the enemy is left without
stand with 19 . . . !1:d7 2 0 .'k!?h1 ( 2 0 .
an active plan. In contrast, we have
lt'ld4 E:c8 21.lt'la4 V9d8 2 2 . lt'lxc6 E:xc6
at least two promising ideas based
23 . .ie3) 2 0 . . . �d8 .
on kingside play with . . . gS :
This analysis made me explore
a) 17 . . . lt'lfd7! 18.a3 (hoping for
the same structure with a bishop on
.ia2 , b4) 18 . . . lt'lc5 19.lt'lc3 V9e7! (re­
b7.
locating the queen to the kingside)
2 0 . .ic2 .if6 (20 . . . 'k!?h8 ! ? 2 1.�g3
13 b6
fS) 2 1 .h3 (21.'1!9e2 g5 2 2 .b4 lt'lcd7
. . .

2 3 ..ib3 E:c7=) 2 1 . . .g5 2 2 .�g3 'k!?h8.

Most practical games went from
this point 14.b3 [14 . .ib1 lt'lxc4 is bal­
anced - 15.lt'la4 (15 . .if2 .ib7) 15 . . .
b S 16.b3 e S 17.bxc4 bxa4 18.lt'lc2
.id7 19.�d2 E:fc8] 14 . . . .ib7 15 . .ib1 ? !
(15.�f2 could face 1 5 . . . d5 ! 16.cxd5
lt'lfg4) . We politely allowed the
bishop to live on and it ran away!
Naturally, we could have traded
on d3, but I think that Black has
more chances to win if he kept both
knights. My idea of playing . . . lt'ld7- b) 17 . . . .ia8 18.lt'le2 lt'led7 19 ..id3
e5 was not so much aimed against �d8 2 0 . lt'l ac3 lt'leS 2 1 .'1!9e1 V9e7
the bishop, but against the plan 2 2 . lt'ld4 lt'led7 23 . .ifl (23.b4 lt'leS)

227
 Part 6

lt:\e8 (24.b4 lt:\eS) 24.a3 .ieS 25.b4

%l/f6 26.%l/d2 gS 27.lt:\ce2 h6 2 8 . lt:\g3
%l/g6 29 . .id3 lt:\ef6 with an interest­
ing game.
However, we must also prepare
for White's best retort:

14.Wd2 lt:\xd3 15.Wxd3 lt:\d7!

t6.b3 gds t7.ed2 J.b7 t8.lt:lde2
J.f8 19.'kt>hl gac8 2 0 .ig5 ges
•

White is very solid indeed, but You know what to look for - . . . bS,
at least he has not a clear plan for or . . . dS. He might wait with . . . �b8,
improvement. Black should be pa­ . . . .ia8, . . . lt:\c5, . . J3:c7 - all that typi­
tient and wait for his chance. cal hedgehog jazz.

228
Pa rt 6. Ka n - the M a r6czy B i n d

Comp l ete Games

34. Ermenkov-Kotsur 'I am very suspicious toward

Dubai 30.04.2000 this type of "Dutch Defense" in the
Sicilian. ' (EE) The break . . .fS is one
This game was annotated back of the main ideas of the set-up with
in 2 0 0 0 for Chess Base Magazine . . . ttle7. Black is going to destroy the
by our friend and established Chess enemy centre by taking on e4 and
Stars translator, GM E. Ermenkov. pushing . . . dS. Therefore, White's
He has been a devoted Sicilian play­ next move is cpnsistent and popu­
er with both colours throughout his · lar.
entire career so it would be interest­
ing to compare his notes: ll.c5

l.e4 c5 2 . ttlf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 'John Nunn recommends here

4. ttlxd4 a6 5 .id3 g6 6.c4 i.g7
• ll.exj5!? in his wonderful book
7.lt:�b3 ttle7 8.ttlc3 ttlbc6 9. 0-0 "BTS-3 ". ' (EE) Well, after ll...ltJxfS
0-0 10 .ie2 • 12 .fi.f4 bS ! nothing will remain from
the Maroczy Bind pawns. Philidor
would have been happy to see first­
ly . . . fS, then . . . bS ! White is walking
on thin ice - 13.cxb5 axbS 14 . .ixb5
ltJ cd4 - 15. ltJxd4 ltJxd4 16.fi.d6 ltJxb5
17.ltJxb5 'il.fS 18.a4 .ia6.

White can discourage . . . bS with

ll.a4, but ll . . . fxe4 12.ltJxe4 dS
solves the opening problems. (en­
'This move is the point ofWhite's gines are fond of the more flexible
set-up. After the bishop's retreat, 12 . . . b6)
White is preventing . . . d5 and in­
ll . .if4 fxe4 12 . .id6 e3 ! 13 .fxe3
tends simply !i.f4 followed by Wff d2,
'il.xfl+ 14 . .ixfl ltJfS is also pleasant
'il.fdl, 'il.acl, fi.h6, etc. with a strong
for Black.
positional bind. ' (EE) lO .fi.gS is cer­
tainly more dangerous for Black. Only the paradoxical and some­
what ugly move ll.f3 ! ? keeps con­
10 • • • f5 (! - A. D.) trol of the centre. Black should

229
choose the right moment for . . . f4.
He may play it at once and follow
up by his initial idea of . . . d7-d5.

ll fxe4
• •.

'll . .. b6 has been tried in prac­

tice, but White was a little better
after 12.cxb6 Wfxb6 13. i.e3 WfdB
14:f4. ' (EE) 14.c!lJxc5
14.Wffd 2 fxe4 15.tt:Jxe4 dS 16.tt:Jec5
tt:Jfs 17.i.g5 '?9d6 18J�ac1 h6 19.if4, 14 . .te3 hb2 15J�b1 i.eS 16.hc5
Psakhis-Oratovsky, Tel Aviv 1993, Wffc7 17.g3 tt:Jds 18.tt:Je4 d6 19 .i.a3,
would have been fine for Black af­ Li,C.-Grandelius, Malmo 2012,
ter 19 . . . e5 ! , but Ermenkov's propo­ does not look as an improvement.
sition 14.f4? is simply bad due to After 19 . . . a5, White would have
14 . . . fxe4 15.tt:Jxe4 tt:JdS. Therefore, been struggling to prove sufficient
ll . . . b6 is a viable alternative to the compensation for the pawn.
game.
14 ••• c!lJd4? !
12. tt:Jxe4 b6
'But not 14 . . . ttJf5 15. ttJxcB' (EE)
�t first sight what Black is do­
ing seems very logical. He wants to 14 . . . tt:Jf5 ! assures Black of a fine
get rid of the pawns on e4 and c5 game. Black should not delay this
and then using the "d" and "e" pawn move as the pin from gS would
tandem to prevail in the fight for be awkward. Ermenkov's retort
the centre. This plan, however is too 15.tt:Jxc8 has no venom since 15 . . .
ambitious to succeed against the ex­ Wffx c8 16.Wffx d7? loses t o 16 . . . tt:Jcd4.
cellent development of White. ' (EE) Black rules in the centre after
In fact, White has no advantage 16.i.g5 d6 17.tt:Ja4 Wffb 7 18.!k1 tt:Jcd4
neither in the centre, nor in devel­ 19 .b3 tt:Jxe2+ 2 0 .Wffx e2 tt:Jd4.
opment. I would say, Black's pieces The possession of the d4-square
are clearly more active which is bal­ ensures full-fledged counterplay in
anced by the hole on d6. the other lines, too :
15.tt:Jxf5 l'!xfS 16 .ie3 l'!dS 17.'?9e1
13.tL:ld6 ! tt:Jd4 18 .l'!cl aS 19.i.g4 a4;
15.ig4 tt:Jxd6 16.'?9xd6 tt:Je5 17.h3
This horse is coming here to stay tt:Jc4 18.Wffd 3 tt:JeS;
and graze till retirement. . . ' (EE) 15.tt:Jce4 tt:Jcd4.

13 ••• bxc5 15.J.d3?!

230
 Kan - the Mar6czy Bind

It was essential to provoke weak­ complications, he succeeded in fi­

nesses with lS . .!gS ! h6 16 . .!h4 gS nishing the game in style:
17 . .!g3 l2Jef5 18 .i.d3.
20.{4 .!g7 2 1 . lLld6 h6 2 2 .g4
15 .'�c7 16.l2Jce4 J.e5 (why
•• 'it>h8 23.J.bl a5 24JU'2 J.a6
not 16 . . . lLlf5 ! ) 17.J.e3 ! 25.gxf5 gf6 2 6 . c!Ll e4 gxf5
27.c!Llg3 gf6 2 8.�g4 ge6 29.f5?!
gxe3 30.f6 c!Lle5 3 1.fxg7+ 'it>xg7
3 2 . c!Llf5 +

17 ••• l2Jdf5

17 . . . l2J ec6 ! was simpler: 18.lLlxc8

E:axc8 19.'it>hl dS 2 0 . lLlc5 �d6 32 'it>h8? (32 . . . 'it>h7 was more
•••

21.lLlxa6 .ixh2 2 2 .�g4 .if4. Also resilient) 33.�dl �b6 34.c!Llxe3

17 . . . lLlf3+ 18.gxf3 .ixd6 19.lLlxd6 �xe3 35.gc3 �a7 36.�d6 c!Llg4
�xd6 deserves attention. 37.gc5 ! ges 38.gf8+ gxf8
39.�xf8 + 'it>h7 4o.�t7+ mhs
18J�cl c!Llc6? 41.�e8+ mg7 42 .�xg6 + mf8
43.�d6+ 'it>t7 44.�c7 1-0
18 . . . �b8 was unclear. It seems
that Kotsur forgot his kingside.
35. Eichhorn-Delchev
19. lLlxf5 exf5 Bad Wiessee 30.10.2013

'19 . . . gx.f5 does not look attrac­ l.e4 c5 2 . c!Llf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4
tive after 2 0 . ltJgS with the threat 4. c!Llxd4 a6 5 .id3 lLlf6 6. 0-0 �c7
•

� h5, check or no check with 7.c4? !

. . . i.xh2+ while 19 . . . E:x.f5 2 0 . ltJg3
followed by 21. � g4 and Black will
not survive this attack. ' (EE)
After the text, Black's centre is
ruined and my heart is aching to
watch his poor king left to the mercy
of the opponent's pieces. Although
Ermenkov went for unnecessary

231
 Part 6

This is a frequent positional mis­

take. White should delay c4 until
. . . d6 as now his dark squares pass
under Black's control.

7 �c6 ! 8. �xc6 dxc6 9.�c3

• •.

e5 10.ti'c2 ! ? (threatening ltla4)

10 .ic5 1U��b1 a5 12.a3
•.•

White intends to push b4. Then 18.b4

the bishop cannot survive long on
d4 in view of ltle2 - 12 . . . 0-0 13 .b4 White deludes himself that he is
axb4 14.axb4 i.d4 15.ltle2 i.a7 16.c5 the active side, but his advance only
i.e6 17.h3 b6 18.i.e3. Therefore, it produces a weakness. The fact that
is important to hinder b4, at least my setup on the queenside is defen­
for a while. sive does not automatically mean
that White has an advantage there.
12 • •. ti'e7! 13.�a4 .id4 14 .ig5
•
He could have stayed with i.e2,
:B:bdl.
My bishop is well established in
the centre, but now I must deal with 18 axb4
..• 19.gxb4? ! ti'a7
a new positional threat - 14 . . . h6 20.ti'b2?
15.i.xf6 ti'xf6 16.c5 i.e6 17.ltlb6. To
be fair, the engines think that 17 . . . Who would believe that the
:B:a7 (17 . . . :B:d8 =) would b e fine for game will be over in two moves? !
Black, but I doubt that an organic 2 0 .i.e2 i.e6 21.c5 would b e even -
creature would voluntarily isolate 2 1 . . .b5 2 2 .ltlb6 ltld7 23.ltlxd7 ti'xd7
his rook in such an exemplary way. 24.ti'c3 ti'c7 25.a4 bxa4 2 6.:i'!xa4
It seemed to me better to keep the :B:b1 + 27.i.fl. However, White per­
queenside fluid, but my idea has a sists with his idea of attacking b6.
serious flaw. This leads him to a tragic end:

14 ••• b6 15.gfe1 20 ••• �d7 2 1 .ifl? c5 0-1

•

15.ti'd2 i.e6 16.i.e3 :B:d8 ! seizes

the initiative, but 15.c5 ! b5 16.ltlb6 36. Todorovic-Caruana
:B:b8 17.a4 ! b4 18.i.xf6 = would have Rijeka 06.03.201 0
effectively petrified the left wing.
1.e4 c5 2 . �f3 e 6 3.d4 cxd4
15 ••• 0-0 16 .ie3 .ixe3 17.gxe3
• 4. �xd4 a6 5 .id3 �f6 6.ti'e2
•

gbs d6 7.0-0 g6 8.c4 i.g7 9 . � c3 0-0

232
 Kan - the Mar6czy Bind

to.gdl %Yc7 1l.h3 c!Llc6 12.c!Llf3 tt:l aS 2 1 . tt:ld5 hdS 2 2 . cxd5 bS is

c!Lld7 13.J.f4 also possible) 2 0 .i.cl ( 2 0 . .ih6 l'!fc8
2 1 .tt:le3 tt:ld8 2 2 . tt:ld5 hdS 23.cxd5
gS 24.h4 tt:lfl+) 20 . . . tt:la5 2 l.tt:le3 bS
2 2 . tt:l d5 hdS 23.cxd5 tt:lc4.
16 . . . tt:lc5 17 . .ic2 'fff e 7 18.tt:ld2

13 ••• .bc3 !

This exchange is perhaps the

main strategic aim of Black's set­
up. It is possible in various settings,
Black has some initiative, Karja­
for instance, with a white bishop on
kin-Ivanchuk, Amber-blindfold Nice
e3, or a black knight on h5. The aris­
2008.
ing pawn structure is so static, that
White practically remains without
16.c!Llh2 c!Llc5 17.i.c2 f6
any active plan. He will push f2-f4-
f5 and that is about all. Black, for his
part, will seek to destroy the other
enemy knight since it is a dangerous
piece around his king. See also the
next game.

14.bxc3 e5 15 .ih6 ges

•

The idea of this strange move is

to keep the dB-square for the ma­
ts.ef3
noeuvre . . . tt:lc6-d8-t7.
Ivanchuk chose in an earlier
18.tt:lg4 hg4 ! is absolutely safe
game the more trivial 15 .. J'!d8 when
for Black. White might try to fix a
Karjakin answered 16.'\We3.
little his pawn structure by trading
The manoeuvre tt:lf3-h2-fl-e3- the knight on dS after 18.tt:lfl tt:ld8 !
d5 is fairly slow and Black gets 19.tt:le3 i.e6 2 0 .tt:ld5? ! , but sudden­
counterplay with . . . bS - 16.tt:lh2 tt:lcS ly the h6-bishop finds itself in a pre­
17 . .ig5 l'!f8 18 . .ic2 (18.tt:lg4 hg4) dicament - 20 . . . hd5 2 1 . cxd5 gS.
18 . . . .ie6 19.tt:lfl f6 (it is safer to plug White falls in the same trap in the
the hole on f6, but 19 . . . l'!ac8 2 0 .tt:le3 game :

233
 Part 6

18 ••• ti'e7 19.�fl J.e6 20.�e3 when White's only sensible idea is
�d8 ! to sacrifice a pawn with 16.l2Jd4 �e8
17.c5 ! l2Jxc5 18.l2Jb3
The threat . . . g5 is extremely an­
noying. Todorovic braces himself
for a desperate sacrifice which has
no chances to succeed.

21.�£5? gxf5 22.exf5 .i.d7

23.gxd6 �h8 24.gadl J.c6
25. ti'h5 �f7 26.gxc6 bxc6 27 .i.e3
•

gf8 28.fih4 gadS 29.hc5 �dl +

30.hdl fixeS 31.ti'xf6+ �g8
32 .ih5 �d6 33.fig5+ �h8 0-1
• White has full compensation for
the pawn and unpleasant initiative.
Perhaps Black should simplify to an
37. Leko-lvanchuk ending with 18 . . . b6 19.l2Jxa5 bxa5
Mukachevo g/10'+1 0" 2007 2 0 . �ab1 .ib7 2 1.�c4 �e7 2 2 .�d4 e5
23 .fixd6 �xd6 24.�xd6 .ixe4.
l.e4 c5 2 . �f3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 This example explains why in
4.�xd4 a6 5 .id3 �f6 6.0-0 fic7
• practice Black met 15 . .ic2 by 15 . . .
7.fie2 d6 8.c4 g6 9.�c3 .ig7 l2Jc5 16.l2Jh2 (at first the engines of­
lO.gdl 0-0 ll.�f3 �c6 12 .h3 fer 16 . .ixc5 dxc5 17.e5, but White
�d7 13.J.e3 .ixc3 14.bxc3 f6 has not any advantage after 17 . . .
l2Jxe5 18.l2Jxe5 �xeS 19.�xe5 fxe5
2 0 J:!e1 �dB 2 1 . �ad1 .id7 2 2 . �xe5
.ic6= ) when instead of 16 . . . e5
17 . .ixc5 dxc5 18.l2JfU, I prefer 16 . . .
l2Ja5 17.l2Jg4 e5.

15.�d2 gds (15 ... l2Jd8 retains

more tension) 16 .ic2 �c5
•

White has an extra tempo in

comparison to the previous game
since . . . e5 is undoubtedly a useful
move. For instance, White's knight
can reach g4 as in the line 15 . .ic2
l2Jd8 16.l2Jh2 l2Jf7 17.l2Jg4 with some
initiative. Black's knight could hit
the c4-pawn instead - 15 . . . l2Ja5

234
 Kan - the Mar6czy Bind

First critical position. 17.hc5 hc4 2 6.Wg4+ 'i!ih8 27.l'!b6 .idS

dxcS 18.�e3 eS 19.�xc5 i.e6 28 .Wh4 .ic6 29.l'!b4
20 J':1abl assures White of a tiny
edge although his doubled extra The weakness on f6 gives White
pawn has little practical value. For enough conterplay and the game
instance : 2 0 . . J'!xdl was eventually drawn.

Grimberg-Kveinys, Bad Woer­

29 . . . l'!g8 30.l'!g4 We7 31.Wh6
ishofen 2 0 1 1 , went 20 .. J'!ac8 2 U : 1b6
dS 3 2 . c;!,>h2 �d7 33 . .ib3
with a quick draw. 2 1.�b6 is more
testing. After 2 1 . . .�xb6 2 2 J'!xb6
l'!xdl+ 23 .hdl lt:ld8 24.lt:ld2 'i!if7,
Black's knight is passive on d8.
2 1.hdl l'!d8 2 2 .i.e2 �as
23.�xa5 lt:lxaS 24.<±>fl l'!d6 2S.l'!b4
b6, planning . . . lt:lb7.
Leko's move is more ambitious,
but it allows Black to consolidate.
White loses his main trump - the
initiative. 33 . . . Wt7 34 .if2 l'!xg4 3S.hxg4
•

l'!g8 36. 'i!ih3 l'!g7 37 .ih4 c;!,>g8

17. �d4 �aS 18 .We2 eS 19.�f3
•

38.l'!d3 'i!if8 39.l'!g3 'i!ie8 40.gS

.ie6 20. �d2 Wt7 21.f4
�cS 41 .idl .id7 42 . .ihS .ixf5+
•

43 .'i!ih2 l'!g6 44 .ixg6 Wxg6 •

4S.Wxg6 + hxg6 46.gxf6 c;!,>t7

47.l'!e3 �e4 48. 'i!igl bS 49.c;!,>fl
gS SO.l'!xe4 .ixe4 Sl.hgS .ig6
S2. c;!,>e2 c;!,>e6 S3.c;!,>e3 c;!,>f5 S4 . .ih4
c;!,>g4 SS .if2 c;!,>gs S6.c;!,>d2 'i!fxf6
•

S7 .icS .ibl S8.a3 c;!,>f5 S9.'i!ie3

•

.ie4 60.g3 .ig2 61 ..ib4 .ih3

62 .icS .ig4 63 .ib4 c;!,>e6 64.c;!,>d2
• •

The second critical position. c;!,>d7 6S .iaS c;!,>c6 66 .ib4 d4

• •

Black has already a clear advan­ 67.cxd4 exd4 68 .iaS c;!,>cs •

tage. He should take on f4 in order 69. c;!,>c2 c;!,>c4 70 .'i!ib2 c;!,>d3

to make another target on e4, and 71 .ib4 c;!,>e2 72 .'i!icl d3 73 .ic3
• •

then on c4. However, we cannot be .ie6 74 . .ib4 c;!,>f3 7S. c;!,>d2 .if5
exigent to a rapid game. 76 .iaS c;!,>xg3 77 . .ib4 'i!if3 78 .iaS
• •

c;!,>e4 79 . c;!,>ct c;!,>e3 80 .id2 + c;!,>d4

•

21 . . . l'!ac8 2 2 .l'!abl �xc4 8t.c;!,>b2 c;!,>cs 82 . .iaS c;!,>c4 83 .id2 •

23.f5 gxf5 24.exf5 .idS 2S.�xc4 .ig6 84 .iaS Draw

•

235
 Part 6

38. Simacek-Akopian
can simply ignore the gift with
Plovdiv 22.03.2012
18.exd5 exd5 19.c5 !

This game is an illustration of

what position we should avoid at
any cost in the Hedgehog.

l.e4 c5 2.�f3 e6 3.d4 cxd4

4.�xd4 a6 5.J.d3 �f6 6.0-0 Y;Yc7
7.'e;Ye2 d6 8.c4 g6 9 . � c3 J.g7
10.J.e3 0-0 lUUdl b6 (I recom­
mend ll . . ttlbd7-e5xd3 ! ) 12.l:'!acl
.

J.b7 13.f3 �bd7 14.ti'f2 Perhaps this is White's best way

of meeting . . . d5 even when grab­
bing the pawn is possible. It is bet­
ter to have a positional rather than
a material advantage. After the text,
19 . . . bxc5 2 0 .ttlxc5 ttlxc5 2 1.bxc5 J.f8
22 .ttla4 Y;Yc7 23.J.d4;!; would open the
b-file in White's favour. The pawn on
a6 and the b6-square are weak.
It is more consistent to keep the
flank closed and hope to use the c4-
White has achieved the most square : 19 . . . b5 2 0 .ttl a5 ttle5 2 1.J.d4,
unpleasant redeployment of his but White is clearly on top in view of
pieces. They are all directed to the the threat a3-a4. 2 1 . . . ttlc4? simply
queenside to support b2-b4 and drops a pawn after 2 2 .ttlxb7 ti'xb7
then c4-c5 or a2-a4-a5. Since b6 is 23.J.xf6 J.xf6 24.ttlxd5 + - .
the sore point of Black's set-up, it
makes sense to defend it with 14 . . . Instead o f 17 . . . d 5 , Eingom
:!! ab8 15.J.fl J.a8 16.b4 l'l:fe8 17.ttlb3 played against E. Geller 17 . . . J.f8, but
J.f8. Akopian prefers to keep b8 for White could safely take on b6.
his queen.
16.b4 Wb8 17. �b3 .ia8
14 ••• l:'!ac8 15.J.fl l:'!fd8

Black's main active plan is . . . d5

so putting the king's rook on a po­
tentially open file is more consistent
- 15 . . . 1'!fe8. However, after 16.b4
f;Yb8 17.ttlb3, the break-through in
the centre 17 . . . d5 does not solve the
opening problems because White
236
 Kan - the Mar6czy Bind

I feel that White is clearly bet­ '!Mfb8 27.a3, nor 19 . . . �e8 2 0 .b5 axbS
ter. He has not a direct break­ 21.cxb5 �cc8 2 2 .lt:Jd4 dS 23.lt:lc6
through since 18.c5 dxcS 19.ha6 hc6 24.bxc6 �xc6 25.i.b5 are rosy
i.b7 2 0.hb7 '1Mfxb7 2 1.bxc5 bxcS for Black.
22.lt:l xc5 lt:JxcS 23J'!xd8+ �xd8 Instead, White tries to repeat
24.hc5 stumbles into 24 . . . lt:Jg4 ! = , moves ! That suddenly unlocks the
but h e can patiently wait for the best dozing power of the black pieces.
timing, for instance, with 18.a3 i.f8
19.lt:Ja4 �c6 2 0 .�bl ! - thus he pre­ 19.lt:ld4? �c7 2 0 .tt:J b3 b5 ! ?
vents counterplay with . . . b5. Then
he can double the rooks on the d­
file or win the b6-pawn by b4-b5.
Note that White has another
thematic plan in his disposal - to
produce a passed pawn with 18.a4
i.c6 (Johnson-West, email Argenti­
na 1997, saw 18 . . . d5 ! ? when 19.exd5
exdS 2 0 .c5 ! is again the best retort)
19.\Wa2 lt:JeS 2 0 . a5 bxa5 21.\WxaS,
White has n o longer i.a7 s o this
followed by b4-b5, but it would be
break is already possible. In the en­
more effective when Black's pieces
suing hand-to-hand combat Aka­
went to passive places, for instance,
pian outplays his opponent al­
i.f8 .
though White should still be better.
For instance, 21.cxb5 ! axbS 2 2 .lt:lb6
18.tt:la4 l!k6 (18 . . . b5? 19 .i.a7)
�xcl 23.�xcl dS 24.lt:lxd7 lt:lxd7
25.exd5 hd5 26.lt:ld4 looks promi­
A critical position. The b6-pawn
sing. Then 26 . . . \Wa8 leads to a grim
is doomed in view of the threat b4-
ending after 27.lt:lxb5 (27.�c2 i.c4 ! )
b5. The only question is when to
2 7 . . . '\Mfxa2 28.\Wxa2 ha2 29.lt:la7,
take it. The immediate 19 .b5 axbS
but 26 . . . i.e5 ! 27.f4 i.d6 28 .a3 lt:Jf6
20 . cxb5 is not accurate since 20 . . .
keeps Black in the game.
�xcl 2 1 . �xcl d S offers considerable
counterplay. Instead, White can im­
21.ltlb6 bxc4 22.fucc4 fucc4
prove his position with 19.a3 �dc8
23.hc4 ltle5? !
20 .�b l !
More straightforward i s 19.�bl 23 . . . lt:Jxb6 or 23 . . . d5 24.exd5
when neither 19 . . . b5 2 0 . cxb5 axbS lt:JxdS 25.lt:Jxd5 hd5 2 6.hd5
21.i.a7 \Wc7 ( 2 1 . . .�c2 2 2 .hb8 lt:Jf6 = are stronger. After the text,
�xf2 23 .hd6 �xfl+ 24.@xfl bxa4 24.ha6 ! was possible: 24 . . . he4
25.lt:Ja5±) 2 2 .hb5 �c2 23.�bcl �xcl (24 . . . d5 25.lt:Jxa8 '!Mfxa8 26.b5 dxe4
24.�xcl '!Mfb7 25.i.b6 lt:Jxb6 2 6.\Wxb6 27.�xd8+ '1Mfxd8 2 8 .b6 exf3 29.gxf3

237
 Part 6

'\1;Yd5 30.@g2 tt'lfg4 31.b7 tt'ld7oo) As a whole, White often turns out
25 . ./tJaS tt'ldS 26 . ./tJxdS .bdS 27.b5 to be overextended and his practi­
'\1;Ya8 28.�b6 ge8 29.a4 tt'ld7? . cal results are deplorable.

24 .te2 d5 25. tt'lxa8 �xa8

• 11 .•• 0-0 12.gacl
26.exd5 tt'lxd5 27.J.c5 tt'ld7
12.gae1 b6 13.@h1 i.b7 14.i.f2
The game is equal (28 .�d4), but was countered by 14 . . . e5 ! 15.fxe5
White blunders and he can resign tt'lxeS, Salles-M .Nikolov, Marseille
immediately: 2013.

28.a3?? tt'lc3 29.gd3 tL!xc5 12 b6 13. @hi

•.. .tb7 14.b4
30.tt'lxc5 i.d4 31.gxd4 tt'lxe 2 + gfe8 15.tL!b3 gac8
32 .fbe2 gxd4 33. c!Dxe6 gd6
34 .!Dc5 eds 35.ee4 gd4 36.tt'lb7
•

gdt+ 37.@f2 egs 38.h4 er6

39 . .!Dc5 @g7 40.c!Dd3 gal 41.h5
gxa3 42 .!De5 gxh5 43.c!Dd7 ga2 +
•

44.@gl �b2 0-1

39. Y.Gruenfeld-Psakhis
Tel Aviv 1991 Both sides has made the easy
moves. It is time for White to de­
l.e4 c5 2 . .!Df3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 fine his plans. 16.c5 dxcS 17.bxc5
4.c!Dxd4 a6 5 .td3 tL!f6 6.0-0 �c7
• tt'lxcS 18 . ./tJxcS bxcS 19 . .ba6 .ba6
7.�e2 d6 8.c4 g6 9.tLlc3 i.g7 2 0 .�xa6 c4+ should be rejected by
10 . .te3 c!Dbd7 ll.f4 obvious reasons. 16 .i.g1 only weak­
ens the f4-square. Black can exploit
White assumes the obligation it with 16 . . . ./tJhS, threatening .. .fS,
to play all over the board. It is clear . . . dS or . . . �hd8-h4. Even . . . i.xc3
that this move does not fit in well followed up by . . . eS is an interesting
with the queenside plan b4, tt'lb3. option. Remains the move I men­
Moreover, the hanging e4-pawn tioned in the previous game :
demands the bishop to remain on
d3 so White has not the usual pres­ 16.a4 ebs 17.a5 bxa5
sure on d6. What does White gain 18. c!Dxa5 .ta8 19.gbl
in return? Frankly, I'm not too sure.
Perhaps the advance f4-f5, but it White has made some progress,
should be supported by all White's but his further offensive is stalled.
heavy pieces to be a serious threat. Black can trade a pair of knights

238
 Kan - the Mar6czy Bind

with 19 . . . lt:lg4, but Psakhis opts for 23 dxc5

• . • 24.ll:lxc5 c!Llxc5
a more aggressive approach. 25 . .h:c5 fxe4 2 6.J.e2 gbd8
27.tlfe3 gxdl 28 . .h:dl ttlf6+
19 . . .li�h5 20. 'ed2 'ec7 2 U�bdl 29.J.a4 c!Lld5 30. 'eel gcs 31. 'exe4
'ef7 32.J.b3 J.c3 33.J.d4 .h:d4
This natural move proves to be 34. \Wxd4 c!Llxf4 0-1
dubious due to the tactical possibil­
ity 2 1 . . .lt:lc5 ! ? 2 2 .�c2 hc3 23.'exc3
lt:lxe4. However, Psakhis prefers to 40. Grischuk-lvanchuk
maintain the tension. Beijing 05.07.2013

21 . . . gbs 2 2 .tl:l a4 l.e4 c5 2 . c!Llf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4

4.c!Llxd4 a6 5 . .id3 ttlf6 6.0-0 'ec7
7.'ee2 d6 8.c4 g6 9.ttlc3 .ig7
10.c!Llf3 0-0 ll . .if4 c!Llh5 12 . .ie3
.h:c3 13.bxc3· e5 14.gfdl

22 . . • f5

After 2 2 . . . lt:lhf6 ! , White can­

not retain his front line intact. He
must push 23.c5 dxcS 24.hc5 lt:lxc5 Compared to the previous game,
25.lt:lxc5 \Wa7 where Black's bishop this position is easier for Black. He
pair has more potential than the cannot attack immediately the c4-
knights on aS and cS. 22 .. .f5 is also pawn with . . . lt:lc6-a5, but in return
consistent, though. he is not lagging behind in develop­
ment. The game now enters a ma­
23.c5 noeuvring stage where Ivanchuk's
primary goal is to blockade firmly
23.exf5 exfS 24.c5 dxc5 25.lt:lxc5 the c4-pawn and prevent any white
(25.bxc5 :gxe3 2 6.�xe3 \Wxa5 activity on the kingside. That's why
27.\We6+ \t>h8 2 8.\Wxd? :gd8) 25 . . . he puts his queen's rook on d8 rath­
lt:lxc5 2 6.hc5 \t>h8 27.ha6 :gbd8 er than activate it from cB.
28.�f2 :gxd1 29.:gxdl lt:lxf4 would be
roughly equal, but White was afraid 14 ... .ig4 15.h3 .h:f3 16.�xf3
to open the e-file and the diagonal c!Lld7 17.J.fl gadS 18.J.g5 f6
to the aS-bishop. 19.Ah6 c!Llg7 2 0 . gd2 c!Llc5 21.gadl

239
 Part 6

'9c6 22.gds gf7 23.'9e3 �ge6 ates the king in the centre in ad­
24.g3 gfd7 25 .ig2 • vance. However, his king does not
find a safe haven on e7. 26 . . . :1!t7 was
more natural.

27.h4 �e7 28.c5

2 8.g4 �xc4 29 .g5 is a better way

of seeking counterplay.

28 . . . �axc5 29.h5 '9a4 (29 . . .

lt:J a4 ! ) 30 .ie3 b 6 31.'9g4 ggs
• ·

White is on the defensive. He 32 .hxg6 hxg6

must constantly think of the weak
pawns on e4 and c4. For instance,
2S . .ie2? would have lost materi­
al after 25 . . . �c7. The text, howev­
er, leaves his queenside even more
vulnerable. Black should find a way
of redeploying his knights from a
blockading to attacking set-up. That
is a delicate matter since White will
also obtain chances with f4. Still,
staying nicely will not win the game
so he should seriously consider the White is not without threats.
manoeuvre 25 . . . lt:Jc7 26.:1!5d2 tt'la8 ! ? Now 33.f4 would have added oil into
targeting the c4-pawn. The text is the fire. Instead, Grischuk makes a
also consistent. couple of non-committal mundane
moves which tip the scales back in
25 . . . �a4 26.'9f3 �f7? ! Black's favour. The ending of the
game looks heavy influenced by a
The game has entered a more mutual time trouble.
concrete stage. The c4-pawn looks
doomed so the question is what aa ..if3 gdds 34. �g2 ghs
White will be able to do on the (34 . . . g5 ! ) 35.'9xg6 gdg8 36.�f5
kingside. Thus I can understand �g7 37.�g6 �e8 38 .�f5 �g7
Ivanchuk's reasoning - he evacu- 39.'9g6 �e8 40.�f5 Draw.

240
 Pa rt 7

Taimanov with 5.� b5

This part considers two different systems. Line A deals with SveshnikovI
Kalashnikov structures where White tries to build on his full control of the
d5-square after l.e4 c5 2.lt:lf3 e6 3 .d4 cd4 4.lt:ld4 lt:lc6 5.lt:lb5 d6 6 .i.f4 e5.
Line B considers the Taimanov version of the Mar6czy Bind: 6.c4 lt:lf6
7.lt:l lc3.

241
Part 7. Tai manov with 5 .'2J b5

Main Ideas

l.e4 c5 2 .!0£3 e6 3.d4 cd4 4.c!Od4

• C. lonescu-D. Heinbuch
c!Oc6 5.c!Ob5 d6 6.c4 c!Of6 Berlin 1 988

In this system, Black gets a hedge­ Beware this setup! The hedgehog
hog of a highly improved breed. In structure is not bullet-proof. White
order to achieve the desired pawn has a clear plan for a queenside
structure, White's knight under­ pawn storm.
takes a time-wasting walk along the In the diagram position, White
route d4-b5-a3. These tempi are has a very unpleasant idea. Beside
just enough for Black to complete preparing c4-c5 or a4-a5, he could
development and counter-attack in capture on eS and base his play on
the centre before the opponent con­ the clumsy bishop pair.
solidated. 19.he5 ! dxeS 2 0.c5 ! l'!fd8 2l.�el
There is a widely accepted opini­ l'!xdl 22 .l'!xdl l'!d8 23.cxb6 hb6
on that in this type of positions Here instead of 24.ltla4 l'!xdl
time is not too important. We can 25.�xdl he4 ! with counterplay,
often see games where both sides White should have exchanged the
are aimlessly manoeuvring for 2 0 + rooks by 24.l'!xd8, followed by
moves without committing t o any 25.ltla4±.
concrete action. This design works only when
My first advice to Black is: Black's dark-squared bishop has
Do not wait passively! left the a3-f8 diagonal. It is espe-

242
 Taimanov with S.lt::J bS

dally efficient if White's knight is

on b3, but as we'll see later, from
a3 it also could be activated via c4.
In the latter case, however, White
needs his queen on the gl-a7 diag­
onal and additional positional ad­
vantages like more active rooks.
I could add more practical ev­
idence on this theme, but I hope
you have grasped the essential -
White has a dangerous plan against M y second advice is: Forget
Black's entrenchment. Th erefore, about this plan !
we should hinder it.
There are many reasons for this
It was supposed that Black had a verdict. The most important one
universal set-up against this version is that I consider the whole idea of
of the hedgehog. In many games the putting the bishop to c7 dubious. It
second players half-automatical­ only facilitates c4-c5.
ly line up their forces by the follow­ I'd like to cheer up Black players
ing scheme, regardless of the oppo­ right away - they have other good
nents actions: plans!
7.lt::J lc3 a6 8 .lt::J a3 b6 9 .i.e2 i.b7
1 0 . 0-0 lt::J b 8 ll.f3 lt::J b d7 12 .i.e3 i.e7 The slogan of Black's cam­
13 .�d2 �c7 14Ji:fdl 0-0 lS.�acl paign should be: . . . d6-d5 !
�ac8 16.i.fl
White is practically unable to
prevent this break-trough. Even if
Black forgot his lesson and failed to
achieve it in the opening, he should
be manoeuvring with this break in
mind. Sometimes it could be com­
bined also with . . . b6-b5, but this
queenside activity is usually less
efficient and often only provides
White with a juicy target.
16 . . . V9b8 17.V9f2 i.d8 (In his book In some positions . . . d6-d5 leads
about the hedgehog Shipov calls to a mass elimination and proba­
this move "The Saemisch manoeu­ ble draw. In "Step by Step" I sug­
vre") 18.<;!;>hl �e8 19.�c2 !J.c7 2 0.�gl gest, whenever possible, more com­
<;!;>h8 2 1. �cd2 �g8 ? ! (see game 46 plex alternatives, at your own risk
Daly-Tregubov, Cappelle la Grande of course. In the "Complete Games"
2000) you can see examples which could

243
 Part 7

give you some insights about the the scheme . . . b6, . . . .ib7, .. J'k8 (or
possibilities of both sides. . . . �d7, �fd8).

Sometimes . . . f7-f5 deserves at­ 7 a6 8 . c!Ll a3 b6 9 .ie2 .ib7

••• •

tention against passive White's 10.0-0 (10 .f4 dS ! ) 10 .ie7 11 .ie3

••• •

play. (ll.f4 0-0) 11 0-0

•••

Analysis

This is the system's "tabia".

l.. J!f8 ! ? 2 .Wffl (protecting c4 White should decide how to con­
and hoping for ll::l c 2-d4) 2 . . .f5 ! . trol the centre. f3 is solid while f4
suggests a more risky approach
and possibly (but not obligatory!) a
Analysis
pawn storm on the kingside.

12.fib3 is a modification of
the f3-plan. The queen move is
aimed at restricting the opponent's
choice. White hinders . . . dS indeed,
but Black obtains good play on the
dark squares. 12 . . . ll::l d 7 13.�fdl lLlc5
14.�c2 .if6 lS.�acl �e7!

l.. .<�h8 ! meeting 2 .f3 or 2 .b3 by

2 . . .f5.

Let's go to the variations now.

For more details check "Step by
Step" chapter.

In the event of i ll::l 5 c3, Black The queen moves away from the
refrains from . . . a6 and follows X-ray of the dl-rook. . . . d6-d5 is al-

244
 Taimanov with S.ltJbS

ready on the agenda: 16.l2Jabl l2Jb4 !

17.�d2 1'%fd8, threatening d6-d5.
Pay attention to the modern
13.1'%adl. It demands a different ap­
proach - 13 . . . l2J c5 14.�c2 \Wc7!
15.l2Jabl l2Jb4 16.�d2 1'%ad8 !

Now 13.1llli3 is the only move to

hinder . . . d6-d5. We should then aim
for the following set-up: 13 l2Jd7
•••

14.1'%adl 1'%c8 15.1'%d2 �c7 16.1'%cl

l2J ce5

Black's plan is . . . dS or . . . fS : 17.b3

dS ! 18.exd5 exdS 19.i.f4 \WeB ; 17.f3
dS ! .

After 12.f4 1'%c8 13.1'%cl 1'%e8

14 .tf3 l2Ja5, we reach a critical po­
•

sition for this line.

The game enters a manoeuvring

stage where Black's task would be
to keep the a3-knight pinned to
protect the c4-pawn. A possible
counterplay is . . .1'%f8 followed up by
. . . f7-f5.

After 12.1'%cl, we set up our

White aimed all his forces at pre­ rooks to c8 and e8 and push . . . dS:
venting . .. dS, but left c4 under-pro­ 12 l2Je5 13.�d4
•••

tected. Ironically, 15.�d3 dS ! is still

possible while 15.'1We2 \Wc7! 16.b4 13.f3 1'%e8 14.\Wd4 l2Jed7 15.l2Jc2
l2Jxc4 is another sharp option. (15.1'%fdl dS ! ) lS ... dS !

13 l2Jed7 14.1'%fdl 1'%e8 15.l2Jc2

•••

12.f3 leaves the e3-bishop hang­ 1'%c8 16.f3 d5! ? 17.cxd5 exd5
ing so 12 1'%e8 ! is a natural retort.
••• 18.exd5 .td6 !

245
 Part 7

Black plays all over the board. 11 0-0 ! 12. tilc4 i.e6 13.Vbd6
• • •

His main threats are . . . !!eS or . . . bS. Vfe8 ! .

These lines should be enough to 9.i.c4 i s perhaps the most an­

arm you sufficiently against White's noying line - for both sides ! White's
attempt of imposing slow manoeu­ positional aim is to exchange 2 or
vring play in a Mar6czy Bind struc­ 3 minor pieces through ds· and ob­
ture. tain a lasting edge due to the bet­
ter dark-squared bishop and more
active rooks. Even without any mi­
nor piece the pressure on d6 usually
Sveshnikov structures ensures an advantage. In this sce­
nario Black's situation would be ag­
6.i.f4 e5 7 .te3 a6 ! ? 8.til5c3 tilf6
•
gravated if his b-pawn advanced to
is a different story. bS since White could create a sec­
ond weakness on the queenside by
pushing a4. The best solution is to
develop quickly:

9 ••• .ie7 10.tild5 tild5 ll.J.d5

0-0

White has provoked . . . eS, but

lost tempi. This may prove to be .
very dangerous for him in the line :
9.i.g5 i.e7 10 .hf6 i.xf6
•

ll.tild2

We sacrifice a pawn and seize Now Black threatens to trade his

the initiative with: bad bishop with . . . i.gS.

246
 Taimanov with S.liJbS

12 .'i'd2 J.e6 13. tilc3 �k8 You should memorise the fol-
14.0-0 'i'c7! lowing move order:

9 J.e6 10. �c4 b5 ll.�b6

•••

gbs 1 2 .�bd5 �g4 13.J.e2 �xe3

14. �xe3 J.e7 15. � cd5 J.g5 16.0-0
0-0 17.c3

It is essential to avoid . . . b7-b5

or . . .f7-f5. Instead, we play . . . llJ aS
and patiently manoeuvre on the
queenside.

9 .llJd2 ! ? is White's only fresh This position commonly aris­

idea in the last years. es from the Sveshnikov. It is rare­
ly seen as Black has a decent game.
He may play for equalisation
with 17 . . . llJe7 18.'i'd3 he3 19.�xe3
Wic7 (Rogozenko), or seek compli­
cations with .. .fS - 17 . . . g6 18.a4 fS
19.axb5 axbS 2 0 J:!a6 W/c8 2 U:!b6
1:!xb6 2 2 . llJxb6 W/b8 23.exf5 gxfS
24.llJbd5, Shukh-Frolyanov, Nabe­
reznye Chelny 2010, 24 . . . Wib7!oo.

247
Pa rt 7. Ta imanov with S . ttJ bS

Step by Step

l.e4 c5 2.c!Df3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 14.@xd2 g6+) 13 . . . \Wc1 14J3c1 i.e7

4.c!Dxd4 c!Dc6 5 .!Db5 d6
• end the endgame is in Black's fa­
vour: 15.ll'ld5 ll'ldS 16.ed5 g6 17.c3
ll'lfS+.
10 . . . i.e7 ll.b4
ll.c3 i.e6 12 .\Wa4 @d7 13 .h4 \Wg6
14.\WbS (14.h5 �g5 15.�b5 \t>c8+)
14 . . . @c8+ is not appealing either.
11.. .i.g4 12 .f3 i.e6 13 .b5 ll'ld4
14.b6 \We3 15.i.e2 ll'lh5- + .

7 a 6 8 . c!D 5c3 c!Df6

• •.

A. 6.i.f4 ; B. 6.c4

A. 6 .if4 e5 7 .ie3
• •

7.i.g5? \Wxg5 8.ll'lc7+ @dS

9.ll'lxa8 counts on the surprise ef­
fect. If Black decides to win the
knight by b6, White gets some play
by taking on b6 and attacking that
pawn with the queen. Perhaps Black's
best approach is to win the knight by
his king, but firstly to develop with
Al. 9.i.c4 ; A2 . 9.i.g5 ; A3. 9.ll'ld2
9 ... ll'lf6 ! ? . The game Grafl-Jansa,
Fuerth 2 0 0 2 , continued :
9.ll'la3 ? ! is well met by 9 ... 1'!b8 !
10.ll'ld2 10.ll'ld5 ll'lxd5 ll.exd5 ll'le7 12 .c3
tt'lf5 = .
10 .ll'lc3 allows 10 ... ll'ld4 ! ll.h4
(ll.a4 d5 ! --+ ; ll.h3 d5 ! --+ ) · n . . . \Wf4 9.i.e2 probably aims t o trans­
12 .i.d3 i.g4 13 .\Wcl (13 .\Wd2 \Wxd2+ pose to the Sveshnikov with 7.ll'ld5

248
 Taimanov with S.lt'lbS

after 9 . . . .ie7 lO.lt'ldS lt'lxdS ll.exdS 1 2 . lt'l c3 .igS 13 .J.g5 \1;llg5 14.0-0
lt'lb8 1 2 . 0-0 0-0 13.c4 lt'ld7 14.lt'lc3 .ih3 15. �f3 .ie6 16.�ac1 �ac8
f5 where Black is actually fine. We 17.'i!th1 h6 18.a3 lt'laS 19.'11;Yd 3 �e7
can also choose the independent 2 0 .�fd1 �fd 8 = , Sulskis-Tregubov,
line 9 . . . .ie6 ! ? 1 0 . 0-0 (lO .lt'ldS i.xdS Koszalin 1999;
ll.exdS \1;ll a 5+ 1 2 .lt'lc3 lt'le7 13.0-0 1 2 . 0- 0 .igS 13.�e1 .ie6 14.lt'la3
lt'lexdS 14.lt'lxd5 �xdS 15.�xd5 he3 15.�xe3 �c8 16.c3 (16.�d3
lt'lxd5 16 . .if3 lt'lxe3 17.fxe3 �b8) 10 . . . \1;lfc7 17.he6 fxe6 18.�xd6? lt'ld4),
�c8 ll . .if3 (ll.lt'ld2 lt'le7 ! ) ll . . . lt'le7 J.Geller-Grachev, Moscow 2 0 14,
12 .�e1 (12.lt'ld2 dS) 12 ... lt'lg6 13.lt'ld2 when simplest is 16 ... �c7;
.ie7 with mutual chances. 12.lt'la3 .igS (12 . . . 'i!th8 ! ? 13.0-0
fS is sharper) 13.lt'lc4 he3 14.lt'lxe3
9.lt'ld5 does not fit in with the
lt'le7.
move .ie3 since White �11 lose a
tempo after 9 . . . lt'lxd5 lO.exdS lt'le7
Therefore, White should take gS
ll.c4 lt'lf5 = , for instance, 12 . .id2 .ie7
. under control.
13 . .id3 0-0 14.0-0 lt'lh4.

12 .�d2 .ie6 13. � c3 �k8

14.0-0 �c7!
Al. 9.J.c4 J.e7!

Black solves the opening prob­

lems with natural, typical Sicil­
ian methods. 9 . . . .ie6 lO .lt'ldS lt'lxe4
ll . .ib6 �gS 1 2 . 0 - 0 ! i.xdS 13.f4 exf4
14.hd5 is dangerous for him.

10. �d5 �d5 l l.J.d5 0-0

It is essential to avoid b7-b5 as it

only provides White with a lever on
the queenside, e.g. 14 . . . b5? ! 15.a4 b4
16.lt'la2 ! ;t aS 17.lt'lc1 i.xdS 18 .�xd5
lt'ld4 19 .i.xd4 exd4 2 0 .lt'ld3�.
After the text, Black has no prob­
lems :
15.a4 lt'la5 = , Bacrot-Tajmanov,
Cannes 1998 ;
Black would be happy to trade 15.�ac1 lt'l a5= 16.�fd1 lt'lc4
his bad bishop with . . . .igS. That 17.hc4 �xc4 18.a3 �c6 19.lt'ld5
would be possible after: i.xdS 2 0 .\1;llx d5 �fc8 2 l .c3 g6 2 2 .f3

249
 Part 7

�xd5 23J"�xd5 f6 24.'i!ff2 'i!ffl 25.g4 13 ••• ti'e8 !

'i!fe6 26J!cd1 fS, Wedberg-Gobet,
St. Martin 1991. I faced this idea as White many
years ago in my game Delchev- Ber­
nal Moro, Hyeres 2 0 0 1 , which went
A2. 9 .i.g5 i.e7 10.J.xf6
• 14.lt:Jd5 .ixdS 15.�xd5 �dB 16.�c5
lt'ld4? ! 17.i.d3 �e6= . I underesti­
It is very tempting to keep the mated it at that time, but later I re­
bishop for a while with 1 0 .lt:l d 2 ? ! turned to it and my wife tested it on
intending to play lt'lc4 first and only the Black side in 2006. White im­
then exchange on f6. That would al­ mediately erred - 14.lt'le3? ! �dB
low White to achieve the lt:Jd5-lt:Je3 15.'1Wc7? �d7 16.ti'b6 idS 17.�c5
set-up. However, 10 . . . .ig4 ! ll . .ie2 .ie7 18 .ti'b6 .ib4+ and went on to
.ie2 12 .lt:Je2 d5= spoils this plan - lose, Lillo Castan-Djingarova, Illes
see game 41 . Medes 2 0 07. Since no one seems
to have entered this position .ever
10 .•• .i.f6 ll.tL!d2 since, here is our "family" analysis :

14. tL!d5

14.'\Wd2 �dB 15.lt'ld5 (15.�c1

ti'e7) 15 . . . lt'ld4 16.lt:Jce3 (16.lt'lxf6+
gxf6 17.�c3 ti'c6) 16 . . . .ig5 17.c3 (17.
h4 i.h6) 17 ... i.xd5 18.exd5 �xdS+.

14 .•• hd5 15.ti'xd5

11 ••• 0-0 ! 12.tL!c4 i.e6 13.ti'xd6 15.exd5? lt:Jd4 16.lt:Je3 i.g5 17.�d1
(17.i.d3 e4) 17 .. .f5 18.c3 �f6.
13.lt:Jxd6 �e7t is dubious for
White. 15 .•. gds 16.ti'c5
White's setup does not make
much sense if he does not take the
pawn at all : 13.lt:Jd5 bS 14.lt'lce3 (14.
lt:Jxd6 i.xdS 15.�xd5 vtfc7) 14 ... i.g5
15.i.e2, Ponomariov-Dubov, Trom­
so 2013. This is the same position
as in line C, but it is Black to move !
13.lt:Je3 vtlb6 14J!b1 �d4 (14 . . .
i.gS ! ? 16.lt'lcd5 �aS+ 17.b4 vtld8)
15.i.d3 lt:Jb4 gave Black an initia­
tive in Hartman-Shulman, - Stock­
holm 1998.

250
 Taimanov with 5.ll'lb5

16 ••• .ie7! Black has a strong initiative. His

queen is eyeing both d4 and h4, f2 is
16 . . . '1We6 17.ll'le3 (17 . .id3 �d4 ! ; cracking. White can stay in the game
17.c3 'Wg4) 1 7. . . �d4 1 8 . .ic4 �c8 with best defence only. It seems that
19.c3 1i.e7 is roughly equal. he has a wide choice, but this im­
pression is deceptive :
17.�b6 2 2 .�hd1 ll'lf4 + 2 3 .1!lf1 �h4 ;
2 2 .�b3 ll'lxf2 2 3 .�hf1 ll'lxe4;
17.'1We3? b5 18.ll'ld2 (18.lt'la3 f5) 2 2 .ll'le3 ll'lf4 + 23.1!?f3 Yfh4 24.h3
18 . . . lt'lb4-+ . he3 2S.@xe3 (25.fxe3 lt'lh5) 25 . . .
lt'lxg2 + .
17 ltlb4 1 8 .id3 (H3 .�c1 .ig5
Only 2 2 .g3 lt'lxf2 23.�d5 allows
• • • •

19.lt'le3 �a4 ; 1 8 .lt'le3 'Wd7- +) 18

White to consolidate - 23 . . . '1Wc8
•••

gxd3 !
24.lt'lxe5 ll'lxh1 25.�xh1 .ib6 2 6.�c6
Yfh3 27.\!?f3 .id4 2 8 .'1Wd7 �hS + .
18 . . . �d4 wins the queen, but
Black regains the material while
White holds on: 19.0-0 'Wb8 2 0 .a3
the enemy king will remain in the
( 2 0 .c3 �xd3 21.cxb4 �d4) 20 . . . �c8
draught for long.
21.axb4 .idS 2 2 .�c5 �xeS 2 3.bxc5 = .

19.cxd3 ltlxd3 + 2 0 . �e2

A3. 9. ltld2 ! ?
Only move. 20.'it>f1 .ic5 2 1.'1Wc7
( 2 1.�xb7 �d8) 2 l . . .�b5 ; 2 0 .I!?d2
'Wd7 2 1.�hd1 �c8 .

20 ••• J.c5 2 1.Yfxb7

2 1.'1Wc7? loses to 21.. .ltlf4+ 2 2 . �fl

( 2 2 . 1!lf3 f5 ; 2 2 .�d2 �b5) 2 2 . . . Yfe6
23.'1Wxc5 �c8 24.�d1 h6 25.�b4 �xc4.

I guess that this move owes its

current popularity to the variation
9 . . . 1i.g4 ? ! 10 . .ie2 he2 ll.'Wxe2 d5
12.exd5 lt'lxd5 13.lt'lxd5 '1Wxd5 14.0-0
fie? 15.�g4 which is slightly better
for White. We'll disillusion the op­
ponent with :

9 ••• .ie6 ! ?

251
 Part 7

This move is based on the pawn He may play for equalisation with
sac 10 . .ig5 .ie7 11.tt:lc4 0-0 ! - as in 17 . . . l!Je7 18.�d3 .ixe3 19.tt:lxe3
line A2 . Wfc7 (Rogozenko), or seek compli­
I suppose that 9 . . . l!Jg4 10.tt:ld5 cations with the thematic break
l!Jxe3 ll.tt:lxe3 .ie7! also equalises - . . . f5 - 17 . . . g6 18.a4 fS 19.axb5
12 . .ic4 0-0 13.0-0 .ig5 14 . .id5 .ixe3 axbS 2 0 J'l:a6 (20.exf5 gxf5 2 1 .f4
15.fxe3 Wfc7 16.l!Jc4 (16.Wfh5 l!Jb4 exf4 22 .tt:lc2 'it>h8) 2 0 . . . Wfc8 2 U'l:b6
17 . .ib3 .ie6) 16 . . . l!Je7 17.tt:lxd6 .ie6 l'l:xb6 2 2 .tt:lxb6 �b8 23.exf5 gxfS
18.l!Jf5 .ixf5 19.exf5 WfcS. 24.tt:lbd5, Shukh-Frolyanov, Na­
bereznye Chelny 2 0 1 0 , 24 . . . �b7! oo
10 .li)c4
• b5 n . .!L)b6 gbs (in the game, Black answered 24 . . .
12 .li)bd5 .li)g4 (12 . . . .ie7 13.a4 ! )
• 'it> h 8 which left the fS -rook unde­
fended in the line 25.hb5 ! �xbS
26.l!Jc7 Wfb3 27.Wfxd6).

B . 6.c4 .li)f6

6 . . . a6? ! is not outright bad, but it

is certainly inaccurate. In some var­
iations this move is not necessary,
for example after 7.l!J5c3 , as noted
in the next paragraph.

13.i.e2
7 .li) lc3
•

White cannot exploit our move

7.l!J5c3 is rarely seen. Black usu­
. . . bS by 13.a4 since 13 . . . b4 14.tt:lb1
ally saves a tempo on a6 and ob­
l!Jxe3 15.l!Jxe3 Wfc8 16.tt:ld2 .ie7
tains a good game. White is unable
17 . .id3 0-0 was nice for Black in
to employ efficiently his b1-knight
Eid-Al Modiahki, Casablanca 2 0 0 2 .
- 7 . . . .ie7 8 . .ie2 0-0 9.0-0 b6 10 . .if4
1 3 . .ic1 may b e questioned by
(or 10 . .ie3 .ib7 11.tt:ld2 dS= 12.exd5
13 . . . .ie7 14 . .ie2 l!Jf6. White's bishop
exdS 13.cxd5 l!Jb4) 10 . . . .ib7 ll.l'l:e1
might be more active on d3, moreo­
l'l:c8 (ll . . . Wfd7 12 .tt:ld2 l'l:fd8 13.l'l:c1
ver, we have sidestepped the varia­
l'l:ac8 14.a3 h6 15 . .ig3 l!Jh7 16.'it>h1
tion 12 . . . .ie7 13.a4 ! .
tt:ld4 17 ..id3 l!Jf8 18.tt:lfl tt:lg6 is ano­
ther interesting set-up) 12 . .if1 l!Je5,
13 .li)xe3 14 .li)xe3 i.e7
see game 42 Kavalek-Liberzon,
.•• •

15 .li)cd5 i.g5 16.0-0 0-0 17.c3

Amsterdam 1977.
•

This position commonly aris­ The rematch Fischer-Spassky

es from the Sveshnikov. It is rare­ 199 2 , drew attention to 7.l!J5c3 .ie7
ly seen as Black has a decent game. 8.g3. Black chose the logical plan of

252
 Taimanov with S.liJ bS

preparing . . . bS by . . . a6, . . . i.d7, but 8 . . . b6

it is a bit passive. Perhaps the at­
tack on c4 is more effective : 8 . . . b6 ! This move order is hardly bet­
9.i.g2 i.b7 1 0 . 0- 0 0-0 ll.b3 (ll.f4oo ter than 8 . . . i.e7 followed by 9 . . . 0-0.
�c8 12 .b3 a6 13 .i.e3 tl:\d7 14.tl:\d2 I chose it for the main line because
i.f6 15.�c1 tl:\cS) 1l.. .�c8 (ll ... tl:\d7 ! ? it is more popular lately. Initial­
12 .i.b2 tl:\ c5 13.tl:\a3 ll.J e S i s a n orig­ ly it was designed to counter f4-
inal idea. Black was slightly better plans with an early . . . dS. Black was
after 14.�e2 tl:\ed3 15.�ad1 tl:\xb2 afraid that otherwise White would
16.�xb2 a6+, Nemeth-Markus, achieve 9.i.e 2 , 10.f4 and ll.i.f3. The
Szombathely 2 0 03) 12 .i.b2 �c7 text move allows to meet 9.i.e2 i.b7
1 0 .f4 by 10 . . . d5 ! with initiative, e.g.
ll.cxdS exdS 12 .e5 d4 13.exf6 dxc3
14.�xd8 tl:\xd8 !+.
Let's suppose, however, that
Black played 8 . . . i.e7 instead of 8 . . .
b 6 . After 9.i.e2 0 - 0 1 0 . 0-0 b6 ll.f4,
my analysis proves that ll ... dS is
perfectly possible:

13.tl:\d2 �b8 14.�c1 a6 15.�e2

tl:\d7 16.�fd1 (16.a3 bS ! ) 16 . . . tl:\c5
17.tl:\f1 bS !

7 • • • a6 8.c!ila3

8.tl:\d4 is completely innocuous

as Black can equalise at once with a) 12 .e5 tl:\e4 ! (this is better than
8 . . . d5 9.exd5 exdS 10 .cxd5 tl:\xdS 12 . . . -tcS ? ! 13.<±>h1 tl:\e4 14.i.f3 tl:\xc3
ll.tl:\xc6 bxc6 12. tl:\xd5 cxdS. How­ 15.bxc3 tl:\e7 16.cxd5 exdS 17.tl:\c2
ever, I would recommend 8 . . . i.d7 ! , i.fS 18.tl:\d4 i.e4 19.f5;!; or 14 ... tl:\f2
aiming t o push . . . bS - 9.tl:\c2 [9 .i.e2 15.�xf2 hf2 16.cxd5 exdS 17.hd5
�c8 10.0-0 (10.tl:\c2 tl:\e5 ll.tl:\e3 gS i.b7 18.tl:\c4 i.cS 19 .i.e3t, Valle­
12 .b3 bS 13.a3 �b6 14.�b1 i.c6 15.f3 jo Pons-Shavtvaladze, Wch U16
g4) 10 . . . tl:\a5 11.b3 bS] 9 . . . i.e7 10 .i.e2 Oropesa del Mar 1998) 13.tl:\xe4
0-0 ll.i.f4 (11.0-0 �c8 1 2 .f4 bS dxe4 with initiative.
13.cxb5 axb5 14.hb5 tl:\xe4 15.tl:\xe4
b) 12 .cxd5 exdS 13.exd5 (13.e5
�b6+ 16.tl:\e3 �xbS 17.tl:\xd6 hd6
i.cS 14.<±>h1 tl:\e4 15 .�d5 tl:\f2 16.�f2
18.�xd6 �fd8) ll . . . tl:\e5 1 2 . 0-0 �c8
�ds 17.tl:\ds i.f2+) 13 . . . tl:\d4t.
13.tl:\e3 bS ! 14.cxb5 axbS 15.a3 �b6,
Palac-Rublevsky, Aix-les-Bains 2011. c) 12 .exd5 i.c5+ 13.<±>h1 tl:\d4

253
 Part 7

14 . .ie3 lt:lxe2 15.'1'9xe2 exd5 16.hc5 2. I find the manoeuvre

bxc5 17.cxd5 lt:ld5 = . . . . lt:lc6-b8-d7 over-prophylactic. I
I n the game A . Karpov-G. Kaspa­ prefer a more concrete approach
rov, World Championship Moscow with . . . d7-d5 in mind. Black should
(12) 1985, the young challenger sur­ redeploy his c6-knight indeed, but
prised the chess world with 8 . . . d5? ! e5 is a better place to go than b8.
which was proclaimed "novelty of Then in some variations Black can
the year". The game went on with find a better use of his centralised
9.exd5 exd5 10.cxd5 lt:lb4 knight than retreating it to d7. In
some variations, especially when
White places his queen on b3, Black
has . . . lt:lb4 (after . . . ltlc5 first) and
. . . d5.

3 . In fact Black is unable to avoid

f4-plans. Moreover, he obtains a
passive version of them after 10 . . .
lt:lb8? ! ll.f3 lt:lbd7

Kasparov scored 1,5 out of two

with this move and created a mem­
orable evergreen, but the initial en­
thusiasm quickly evaporated. White
discovered that he could continue
developing by ll . .ie2 . Then neither
ll . . . .ic5 12 . .ie3 ! .ie3 13.'1'9a4 lt:ld7
14.'1'9xb4 .ic5 15.'11*/ e 4;J; nor ll . . . lt:lfxd5
12.0-0 .ie6 13.'11*/ a4 b5 14.lt:laxb5 ! ?
axb5 15.hb5--+ i s enticing for Black. 12 . .if4 ! ? lt:le5 13.'11*/d 2 .ie7 14J:Ud1
'11*/c7 15J:!aci 0-0 16.'it>h1 l:!ac8 17 . .ig3
9 .ie2 J.b7 10.0-0 (10.f4 d5 ! )
.
l:!fd8 18.f4 lt:lg6 19 . .if3 - see game
10 .te7!
.•.
45 Brodsky-Kruszynski, Pardu­
bice 1993. Notice that in this exam­
10 . . . ltlb8? ! aims to draw the sting ple Black's choice is considerably
of plans with f2-f4 or '11*/b 3 (which is restricted while White could also
met by . . . lt:lbd7) . I do not recom­ opt for 17 . .ie3 which is even a big­
mend this manoeuvre because of ger source of concern for the second
three reasons : player.

1. I think that White's most dan­ ll.i.e3

gerous plan is based on f2-f3 so eve­
ry effort of Black should be aimed a) ll.f4 0-0 (ll . . . d5 12.cxd5 exd5
against it; 13.e5 .ic5+ 14.'it>h1 lt:le4 15.lt:lxe4;J;)

254
 Taimanov with S.tt'lbS

12 .i.f3 !lc8 13.i.e3 transposes to the for a kingside attack with f4 faces an
main line. energetic counterplay in the centre.
Another plan for White is : I propose to attack c4 after prelimi­
nary . . . !lc8 and . . . !le8. In most cases
b) 11.ll'lc2 0-0 12. tt'le3
Black solves his problems with the
This setup is aimed against the
help of the break . . . d6-d5, followed
freeing break . . . d6-d5. White hopes
by . . . i.e7xa3. This exchange ensures
to regroup his forces later by the
an excellent outpost on c4 to the
scheme b3, tt'le3-c2-d4, i.e3, return­
aS-knight. The variations are very
ing to the usual queenside plans.
sharp and nearly untested.
Black should not get lulled by the
seemingly unambitious play of the 12.Wffb 3 has been Karpov's fa­
opponent. Perhaps his best set-up vourite choice. He used to win this
includes the following moves : 12 . . . position with both sides against any
W!c7 13.Wid2 !ladS 14.!ld1 !lfe8 15.b3 opposition, including Kasparov.
(15.f3 dS) 15 . . . tt'le5 and if 16.f3 , then I propose a modern set-up which
16 . . . d5 ! 17.exd5 tt'lg6 ! . gives Black comfortable play.

11 . . . 0-0 White's most dangerous plan is

examined in lines B3 and B4. It is
aimed at bolstering up the centre
with f3 and rooks on c1 and d1. Then
both bishops retreat to safer places
while the king goes to hl. Finally,
with all possible prophylaxis done,
White plays b4 and looks for possi­
bilities to expand on the queenside
by a4-a5 or c4-c5. Although the po­
sition is dynamically balanced, if
Black misses the right moment to
generate counterplay, he risks to get
Bl. 12 .£4 ; B2. 12. '!Wb3 ; B3. 12.£3 ;
in a murky situation.
B4. 12. !lc1
It is difficult to show a clear­
cut counter-plan for Black because
12.Wffd 2 is an innocuous alterna­
the position allows many differ­
tive. Black answers 12 . . . tt'le5 13.£3 ,
ent move orders. I'll try to provide
when 13 . . . d5 ! ? 14.exd5 exd5 15.cxd5
you with concrete variations where
i.xd5 16.f4 tt'lc6 17.!lad1 tt'lb4 18.tt'ld5
Black equalises by pushing . . . dS at
tt'lfdS or 18 .i.d4 !le8 is equal. More
the right moment. However, you
tangled is 13 . . . !le8 ! ? - see game 47
should be acquainted with the main
Rabrenovic-Delchev, 2 0 05.
plans of Black in the event you land
White has three major plans in in a position which requires long
the diagram position. The attempt and patient manoeuvring.

255
 Part 7

B1. 12.f4 �c7? ! stumbles into 15J'!acl t!Jd7

16.b4 ! when Black must retreat un­
der the blow 17.t!Jd5 ! ±) 15.cxd5 b5
16.t!Je2 exd5 17.e5 t!Je4 = .
Black can also transpose t o the
main line with 13 . . . !%e8 14.!k1. In­
stead, 14.vtfd2 t!Ja5 was balanced in
game 43 Radulski-Iotov, Sunny
Beach 2009. I also consider in the
annotations 14.�e2 e5 ! ? .

13 . . . ges 14 . .if3 �a5

In the early days of the hedge­ Black scores well without for­
hog structures, White believed cing the events, e.g. 14 . . . t!J d7 (or
that he should punish the oppo­ 14 . . . i.f8) 15.vtfe2 vtfc7 16.!!fd1 vtfb8.
nent for his "passive" play by mat­ The downside of this approach is
ing him. Practice has shown that that White is controlling firmly the
Black has enough counter-chanc­ centre and can gradually build a
es due to the unstable centre and kingside attack with g4.
weaknesses on c4 and e4. However,
if White consolidated and brought
his knight to the centre by the ma­
noeuvre t!Ja3-b1-d2 , he would have
the better chances. Then he would
be able to choose pawn storms on
the queenside by b4-a4-a5 or on the
opposite wing by g4-g5.

12 . . . gcs

Another possible design is to re­

deploy the c6-knight to d7 via b8 A crucial position for this line.
and adopt a waiting strategy, but White is unable to prevent a clash
I'm against such an approach when­ in the centre :
ever we have another clear plan.
15.�d3
13.gcl
Alternatively:
13 .i.f3 is less accurate due to a) 15.�e2 vtfc7 16.b4 (The game
13 . . . t!Ja5 14.�d3 (or 14.�e2 d5 Mannion-Lautier, Barcelona 1993,
15.exd5 ha3 16.bxa3 !!xC4+) 14 .. . went 16.t!Ja4? ! he4 17.hb6 vtfc6
d5 ! (A good idea of Cramling. 14 . . . and Black has a pleasant game. The

256
 Taimanov with 5.tt'lb5

exchange of the central pawn for B 2 . 1 2 . §'b3 c!Dd7

b6 is good for White only without
queens. Karpov proved that against 12 . . . tt::l a5? ! 13.�xb6t led to a bet­
Kasparov in a famous game from ter endgame in Karpov-Kasparov,
the World title K-K series. 16.�f2 is 1984.
also harmless - 16 . . . �b8 ! 17.hb6
tt::l xc4 18.tt'lxc4 l':l:xc4oo.) 16 . . . tt::l xc4
17.tt::l xc4 �xc4 18.�b2 �d3 19.hb6
tt::l x e4 2 0 . l':l:fd1 �xc3 2l.l':l:xc3 tt::l x c3�. a) 13.f3 is inconsistent. Black
could continue as in the main line
or switch to ideas from line B3 by
12 . . . l':l:e8.
b) 13.l':l:ad1

White enables the manoeu­

vre tt'l a3-b1 · and leaves the other
rook on f1 from where it could sup­
port f4. The general crisis of the f4-
plans had swept the queen's rook
I proposed this queens sac in move out of fashion, but Naiditch
The Safest Sicilian, but there are no and K.Szabo have been trying to re­
candidates to test it. vive it lately. Perhaps the most logi­
cal approach is to underline the ab­
b) 15.tt'la4 tt::l d 7 16.�d2 (16.b4 sence of White's rook from c1 by
d5} 16 . . . tt'lc5 17.tt'lc3 tt::l d 7 18.�e2 preparing . . . d5 :
(18 . .ie2 tt'lf6) 18 . . . �c7 19.l':l:fd1 tt::l xc4
13 . . . tt'l c5 14.�c2 (14.hc5 bxc5
2 0 .tt'lcb5 axb5 2l.tt'lxb5 �b8 2 2 . l':l:xc4
15.�xb7?? drops the qeen after 15 . . .
l':l:xc4 23.�xc4 l':l:c8�.
tt::l a5 ! ) 14 . . . �c7!

15 . . . d5 ! 16.cxd5 (16.exd5 ha3 Naiditsch-Antoniewski, Berlin

17.bxa3 tt::l x c4) 16 . . . b5 17.e5 2 013, went 14 . . . if6 15.tt'lab1 �e7
16.a3 aS 17.tt::l b5 l':l:fd8 18.tt'l 1c3? ! a4
17.tt'lcxb5? ! axb5 18.�xb5 l':l:a8 19.f3, when 19 . . . tt'la7 neutralises
19 . .ib6 �d7+ ; White's pressure. Critical, howev­
17.id4 b4 18.e5 tt::l xd5 19.tt'lxd5 er, is 18.b3 ! ? , planning tt'l c3-a4. The
hd5 2 0.l':l:xc8 �xc8 2 1.hd5 bxa3t. b6-pawn would be a sore point.

15 . .!Dab1
17 ... .txa3 18.bxa3 c!Dxd5
19. c!Dxd5 hd5 20.gxc8 �xeS K.Szabo-Ribli, Paks 2 0 14, saw
21 . .lxd5 exd5 22.Yfxd5 c!Dc4 the tricky 15.�d2 when 15 . . . tt::l b4 is
23.J.f2 c!Dxa3 24.gdl c!Dc4 25.h3 already dubious due to 16.f3 - set­
Yfe6 = . ting up the trap 16 . . . l':l:ad8? 17.tt::l cb5 ! .

257
 Part 7

Black answered 15 . . J�fe8 (15 . . . 13 ••• tt:lc5

l:'lad8 ! ?) 16.ltlc2 l:'lad8 17.b4 ltld7
18.l:'lc1. The knight does have more In reserve, Black has another
prospects on c2, but it also hinders good set-up: 13 . . . l:'le8 14.l:'ld2 l:'lc8. If
the rook to defend the c4-pawn. White persists with his initial idea
Ribli could have exploited that with he could quickly find himselflost a �
the thematic 18 . . . ltlce5 19.ltld4 ltlf6 in Prie-Semkov, B UL-FRA m. So­
20.£3 d5! with an initiative. fia 1 9 9 0 : 15.'Wd1 Wic7 16.'Wf1 ltlce5
1 7.l:'lad1 ltlf6 18.£3, when 1 8 ... d5!
15... tt'lb4 16. Y!fd2 EfadB!
19.exd5 .ha3 20.d6 .hd6 21.l:'lxd 6
lLJd5+ would have crowned Black 's
strategy.
More accurate is 15.l:'lac1 ltlce5
16.Wd1 ltlg6 ! (16 . . . 'Wc7? 17.f4 ltlg6
18.e5±) 17.�f1 (17.f4 %Yc7 18.e5 d5
19.cxd5 .icS) 17. . . �c7 18J!ddL

Now 17.a3? fails to 17 ... ltlb3,

the other moves allow ... d5, for in­
stance: 17.b3 d5 ! 18.exd5 exd5
19 . .if4 %Yc8 ; 17.f3 d5 ! . The only way
to hinder the break is:

17.if4, but then we can attack

the centre with .. .f5 - 17 . . . @h8 18.b3 White protects the c1-rook
(18.f3 fS) 18 .. .f5 19.exf5 l:'lxf5 2 0.ig4 against central breaks. The game
l:'lf6 2 l..ig3 l:'lg6 2 2 .%Ye2 if6oo. Psakhis-Ro m anishin, Szirak 1986,
went 18 . . . %Yb8 19.f3 if6 2 0 .ltJ ab1
c) 13.l:'lacl ltlc5 14.'Wc2 if6 idS 2 1 . @h1 draw, but Black could
15.gfd1 transposes to the main line. have played more actively - 18 . . .
ltJf6 19.f3 'Wb8 ! ? 2 0 .'Wf2 d 5 2l.cxd5
id6 !+.

14. §'c2 (14. .hc5?! bxc5 15. V9b7??

ltla5) 14 .if6 ! 15 .!3acl
•.• •

a) With the rook still on a1,

15. ltl ab1 is dubious. Black could
counter-attack with 15 ... ltJ b4 ! 16. 'Wd2
aS (16 ... �c8 ! ?) 17.f3 %Ye7 18.i.f4 i.e5

258
 Taimanov with 5.lLlb5

19 . .ig5, Gajsin-Zakharstov, St. Pe­ similar positions - 18.lLlab1 (18 .�e1

tersburg 2 0 0 2 , 19 .. .f6 ! ? 2 0 .i.e3 f5 d5 ! +) 18 . . . d5 !+.
2l.exf5 exf5t.
16.�d2 �fd8 17.�e1 ! (17.f3 lLlb4
b) Another dubious alternative 18 . .if4 i.e5 19.i.g5 f6 2 0 .i.e3 d5
is 15.f3 i.e5 16.�d2 �h4 17.g3 'Wf6t. 21.cd5 ed5 2 2 .lLld5 lLld5 23 .i.c4 lLla4
24.i.d4 bS 25 . .ib3 'i!lh8+) 17 . . . lLlb4
c) 15.�ab1 creates the threat ofb4
18.lLlab1 d5= , Magem Badals-Rubio
so Black has to blockade the pawn :
Mejia, Linares 2 0 13 .
15 . . . lL\b4 16.�d2 i.e5 ! (it is good to
provoke f4. In Averbakh-Poluga­
16 c!Llb4 ! 17.Yfd2 gfd8
evsky, Palma de Mallorca 1972 was
•••

16 . . . hc3? 17.bc3t) 17.f4 i.c3 18 .bc3

Threatening . . . d6-d5. Black
lL\e4 19 .�b2 lLlc6 = .
gains the initiative after:

15 ••• Yfe7! 18 .J.d4

The queen feels superbly here. 18.f4 aS ! + (attacking e4) 19.i.f3

This set-up faces White with prob­ lL\cd3 ! (Almasi) 2 0 .hb6 �db8 ! + ;
lems. The more provocative 15 . . . 18 .�e1 d5+, Pokojowczyk-G.
i.e5 16.lL\ab1 'Wh4 17.g3 �f6 18.�d2 Kuzmin, Sochi 1976.
'Wg6 19 .f4 lL\xe4 2 0 .lLlxe4 �xe4
2 l .'i!lf2 'Wf5 2 2 .g4 'Wf6 23 .g5 'Wf5 18 • • • J.e5 !
24.'i!le1 'We4 25.fxe5 'Wh1+ 26.i.fl
lL\xe5 27.�f2 b5 ! also gave Black 18 . . . hd4 19.�xd4 �g5 is good,
good chances in lvanchuk-Wang, too : 2 0 .�d2 h6 2 l .�xg5 hxg5
Beijing 2 0 13 . 2 2 .a3 lLlc6 23.lLld2 lL\ d4 24.i.f1
lL\db3 25.lL\xb3 lLlxb3 2 6.�bl 'i!lf8
16.c!Llabl 27.f3 'i!le7+ ; 2 0 .f3 lLlbd3 2 1.hd3 e5
2 2 .�f2 lL\xd3.
Alternatives are:
16.f3 �fd8 17.�d2 lLlb4 leads to 19.Yfe3 c!Llc6 2 0 .ixe5 dxe5
•

259
 Black has a clear edge. Svetush­ Black's knight has found a more ac­
kin-Ducarmon, Roquetas de Mar tive stand than e5 ! We see here one
2014, went further 21.tt'ld2 �d4 more reason to delay the manoeu-
(21.. .a5) 22 .tt'lf3 �adS 23 ..ifl f6. vre . . . tt'lc6-e5. 16.d6 ! (16.tt'lc4 tt'lfd5+)
16 . . . �xd6 17.Wffx d6 hd6 18.tt'lc4
.if8 19 . .if2 tt'lbd5 2 0 . �fe1, Rindlis­
B3. 12.f3 bacher-Huber, Legnica 2013, b5 ! = ;
13.tt'la4? ! was invented by a
White starts building the ideal computer: 13 . . . tt'ld7 14.tt'lxb6 tt'lxb6
set-up against the Hedgehog. How­ 15. Wffb 3, Comp Mephisto Genius -
ever, Black is able to hinder his plan. Loeffler, The Hague 1997. Here the
human missed 15 . . . tt'ld7! 16.Wffb 7
tt'lc5 17.�c6 (17.hc5 dxc5 18.Wffx c6
Wffd 4+ 19.�f2 Wffb 2+) 17 . . . �c8+.
The rook's X-ray along the e-file
cocks the trigger of the break . . . d6-
d5. Instead, 12 . . . tt'lb4 13.�b3 ! d5
leaves Black lagging behind in de­ The classic book on the Scheve­
velopment - 14.cxd5 exd5 15.�fd1 ningen by Kasparov/Nikitin, 1984,
Wfc7 16.�ac1 ! .ic5 17.lt:Ja4 .ie3 mentions this as the best move,
18 .Wie3±. without any analysis though. It took
several decades to the mere mortals
to reach to the same conclusion.

14.�fd1 was the old main line -

14 . . . tt'lc5 15.Wffc 2 .if6 16.�d2 !
16.�ac1 .ie5 17.�d2 Wffh 4 18 .g3
hg3 19.hxg3 �xg3+ is a draw by
perpetual, but Black can play on
with 16 . . . tt'lb4 17.�d2 d5= .
16.�ab1 tt'lb4 17.�d2 .ie5 ! (in­
tending . . . Wffh 4) 18.f4 hc3 19.bxc3
13.Wb3 tt'lxe4 2 0 .�b2 tt'lc6 ! oo .

The alternatives run into . . . d6-

d5 with a strong initiative:
13.Wie1? ! d5 ! + ;
13.�c1?! i s even worse : 13 . . . d5 !
14.cxd5 exd5 15.tt'lxd5 tt'lxd5 16.exd5
tt'lb4+;
13.Wid2 could also be met by 13 . . .
d5 ! = 14.cxd5 exd5 15.exd5 tt'lb4.

260
 Taimanov with S . .!tJbS

16 . . . i.e5 ! 17.ltJc2 (17J�acl �h4 !

18.g3 hg3 19.hxg3 �xg3 + = ) 1 7. . .
�h4 18.g3 hg3 = .

White hopes to revive his a3-

knight with .!tJ ab1 so we must tie it
up with the defence of the c4-pawn.
14 . . . ltJc5 15.�c2 ltJb4 16.�d2 17.Ei:c2 ! ? - the only way to untie
�b8 (16 . . . �c7 17.ltJab5) is accepta­ the a3-knight. Alternatives are :
ble, but a bit passive. White could
continue 17.ltJab1 (17.ltJc2 .!tJxc2 17.b4 dS (17 . . . ltJc6 18.b5 ltJa7
18 .�xc2 i.c6 19.Ei:d2 bS+!) 17 . . . Ei:d8 19.c5 bxcS 2 0 .bxa6 i.c6 21. ltJ ab5
18.i.f2 ! (threatening a3) 18 . . . i.f6 ltJxbS 2 2 .ltJxb5 hbS 23 .hb5 Ei:ed8)
(18 . . . d5 19.exd5 exdS 2 0 .a3 ltJb3 18.ltJab5 (18.c5 ltJf6) 18 ... axb5
2 1.�e3 i.cS 2 2 .�g5 ltJc2 23.ltJxd5±) 19.ltJxb5 �b8 2 0 .bxa5 bxaS ;
19.a3 ltJc6 2 0 .�c2 ( 2 0 .b4? ! ltJb3 17.b3 Ei:ed8 18.ltJab1 i.f6 19.Ei:c2
2 1.�d3 .!tJbd4) 20 . . . a5 2 1 . ltJb5 a4 �b8 2 0 .�d2 ltJ c6 2 1.Ei:d1 .!tJcS ;
2 2 . ltJ 1c3 ltJ a7. 17.c;t>h1 Ei:ed8 (17 . . . ltJe5 18.ltJa4
ltJd7 19.b4 ltJc6 20.b5 .!tJceS 21.bxa6
ha6 22.ltJc3 .!tJxc4 23.hc4 hc4
24.ltJcb5 hb5 25.ltJxb5 �c4 26.ltJxd6
15.�c2 should be met by 15 . . . hd6 27.Ei:xd6 .!tJeS) 18.b4 (18.b3 dS)
.!tJceS ( 1 5 . . . d 5 looks good only at 18 . . . ltJc6 19.�b3 .!tJceS 20.Ei:c1 .if6 .
a cursory glance. After 16.cxd5 17 . . . �b8 ! 18.Ei:cl (18 .�d2 ltJc6 !
exdS 17 . .!tJxd5 ha3 18 .bxa3 ltJb4 19.ltJa4 i.a8 2 0 .b4 dS h) 18 . . . ltJc6
19 .�xc8 ! , White has a nasty initia­ 19.�d2 (19.ltJc2 .!tJceS ! 2 0 .b3 bS;
tive - 19 . . . �xc8 2 0 . axb4 bS 2 1.Ei:c1 19.ltJab1 .!tJ ceS 2 0.ltJd2 .ic6 2 1.f4
�b8 2 2 . Ei:fd1 f5 23.ltJc7 Ei:e7 24.ltJe6 ltJg6 2 2 .b4 .if6 23.�b3 bS) 19 . . .
fxe4 25.f4 Ei:xe6 26.Ei:xd7 i.c6 27. Ei:a7 .!tJceS and i t i s unclear how White
Ei:d6 28.Ei:xa6 i.e8 29.Ei:a7 Ei:d7 can improve from this point.
3 0 .Ei:a5;!;) 16.�d2 ltJf6 .

15 . . . �c7

15 . . . ltJa5 ! ? targets the c4-pawn

- 16.�d1 (16.�c2 dS ! 17.Ei:fd1 ha3
18.bxa3 ltJxc4) 16 . . . �c7. White has
not a rook on c1 to defend c4 if the
a3-knight headed to the centre.

261
 Part ?

We have mobilised our forces B4. 12. gel ! ?

while the enemy's pieces are still
tangled on the queenside. Or next The old Kasparov/Nikitin book
task is to prepare an active plan on gives this as White's main option.
the kingside, but not to rush with Although it has drifted out of fash­
it ! We should patiently manoeuvre ion, this move greatly restricts
and await the best timing for .. .fS Black's options� By delaying f3,
or even gS. Of course, White should White deprives the opponent of tac­
also hinder . . . dS. tical tricks along the e-file.

16.�dl - anticipating 16 . . . lLlce5?

17.f4. 16 .. J''kd 8 and 17.lLlc2 does
not help in view of 17 ... lLla5 while
17.lLlabl is passive - 17 . . . lLlce5 18.b3
lLlf6.

16 . . . lLlce5 17. YlYdl lLlf6 18.l:&dc2

9b8 19.Whl .ia8 20.�gl lLlfd7
2U�d2 gf8
12 . . . lLle5

. . . E1e8 is not an obligatory move !

The text is more straightforward -
by hitting e4 Black is trying to drag
the pawn to f3. Then he could try to
carry on . . . d6-d5.

In the event of 13.f3, we should

activate the rook - 13 .. J'�e8 and
I do not see how White can make White can hardly prevent a break in
any progress. If he defends the c4- the centre:
pawn with 22 .�fl, we can make a 14.�d4 lLled7 15.lLlc2 (15.E1fdl
sortie out of the trench - 2 2 . . .f5 ! ? dS ! ) lS . . . dS ! 16.cxd5 exdS 17.exd5
23.exf5 E1xf5�. i.d6 18.E1fdl bS ! t ;
14.i.d4 lLlc6 15.i.f2 d S 16.cxd5
You should remember exdS 17.exd5 lLlb4 = , Beliavsky -
Black's primary aim - the Liberzon, Baden 1980 .
break d6-d5. If it is impossi­
•.• Only 14.YlYb3 hinders . . .d S , but
ble, we keep pressure on c4. after 14 . . . lLlfd7 15.E1fdl �c7 16.�c2

262
 Taimanov with S.lLlbS

Eiac8 17.'1Wd2 Eied8, White is still fac­

ing the problem of how to activate
the a3-knight.

13 . . . tiled7 14JUdl

14.f3 is attacked with 14 . . . d5 ! =

15.exd5 exdS ! (15 . . . �c5 ? ! 16.�d2
�e3 17.'1We3 edS 18.Eifd 1 ! ;t Karpov­
Tukmakov, URS-ch 1971) 16.cxd5 White has prevented ... d6-d5
(18.Eifd1? Eie8 ! 19.'!9d2 dc4+) 16 . . . and preserves his spatial advan­
�cS 17.'!9d2 �e3 18.�e3 EieS 19.�f2 tage. This does not implicitly mean
llJdS 2 0 .lLld5 �dS draw, Tseshkovs­ that he has an edge, but at least
ky-Geller, Las Palmas 1976 . Black should switch to defence. His
14.b4 i s also premature d u e to main task is to hinder b4, lLla1-b3
14 . . . a5. and eventually '!9d2 . In the game, I
managed to keep the balance with
14 ••• Eie8 18 . . . Eic7 19.lLla1 Eiec8 2 0 .lLlb3 lLlcS
21.lLld2 lLle8 2 2 .'!9e3 h6 23 .�fl �gS
It is possible that 14 . . . �c7 is 24.1!9e1 �c6 25.�e3 he3 26.�xe3
more precise. The text move aims llJa4 27.lLlxa4 ha4 2 8.Eie1 �d7
for 15.f3 dS ! 2 9.Eicd1 bS 3 0 .b3 �a7 31.'!9a7 draw.

15.tilc2 16.f3

White should not delay this move

much longer. 16.b4 1!9c7 17.lLla3 �b8
18.lLlab1 lLleS 19.�f4 lLlc6 2 0 .�xb6
eS 2 1.�g5 lLld4 2 2 .�a5 lLl e4 was in
Black's favour, Tseshkovsky-Ribli,
Riga 1979 .
Instead of 17.lLla3, White had
17.f3. Then 17 . . . d5 ! ? (17 . . . 1!9b8 ! ?)
equalises after 18.exd5 exdS 19.�f4
(19.lLlxd5? lLlxdS 2 0 . cxd5 �f6
15 . . . Eic8 2 1 .�d3 hb2+) 19 . . . �d8 2 0 .�fl
dxc4 2 1 .hc4 = .
15 . . . 1!9c7 occurred in my game
Morovic Fernandez-Delchev, Pula 1 6 . . . d5 ! ?
2 0 0 0 , but Black is unable to al­
ter the hedgehog formation after 16 . . . 1!9c7 transposes to the above
16.'i!th1 ! Eiac8 17.f3 �b8 18.�gl. game Morovic Fernandez - Delchev.

263
 Part 7

17.cxd5 exd5 18.exd5 This position is unanimously as­

sessed as promising for Black The
18.lDxd5?! lDxdS 19.exd5 .!f6 game played between Leningrad
20.\Wd2 .!b2 2U!bl hc3 2 2 .\Wd3 Chess Club-Central Chess Club in
iaS+. 1971 seems to prove that evaluation :
19.�d2 bs 2 0 . a3 �c7 2 1 . @hl
18 . . . .id6 ! ( 2 1.f4 lDcS�) 2 l . . .�b8 2 2 .g3 \WaS
23. @g2 lDeS�.

The e-mail game Nasybullin­

Bern, ICCF 2006, saw 19.�h4 bS
2 0 . .!d3 l:!eS 2 1..!f4 (21.lDe4 tDxe4 is
equal - 2 2 .\Wxd8 l:!xd8 23.fxe4 ttJcS
24 ..!f4 ttJxd3 25.l:!xd3 l:!xe4 26.hd6
l:!xd6 27.lDe3 l:!d7=) 2 l . . .l:'!h5 2 2 .�g3
\Wb6+ 23.@hl hf4 24.�xf4 lDxdS
25.lDxd5 l:!xd5 26.lDb4 l:!xc1 27.�xcl
l:!d6 28.h3 lDf6 = .

264
Pa rt 7. Ta i m a n ov with 5 . ltJ b5

Com pl ete G a m es

White overestimates his position

41. Almasi-lvanchuk
and makes an active move while he
Polanica Zdroj 2000
had to think about how to equalise,
probably with 15.tt'lc3 ! ? .
1.e4 c5 2.tt:\t3 tt:\c6 3.d4 cxd4
4.tt:lxd4 e6 5.tt:\b5 d6 6 . .U4 e5 15 • • • dxe4 16. tt:\xe4 .ie7 17.c5
7 .ie3 tt:\f6 8 . .ig5 a6 9.tt:\5c3 .ie7
•

10.tt:ld2 .ig4 11 . .ie2 he2 12.tt:\xe2 Following the same risky strate­
gy.
12."�'e2? tt:\xe4 13.tt'ldxe4 .igS+
loses a pawn. 17 �c7 18.W/b3 gad8 19.gfd1
• • •

g6 2 0 .W/c4 tt:\a5 21.�4 Wg7

12 • • • d5 = 2 2 . tt:\ 2c3?

According to Chess Stars book

Super Tournaments 20 0 0, White
could have maintained the balance
by 2 2 .tt'ld6 tt'lc6 23.�a3 b6 24.�a6= .

22 tt:lc6 ! 23.W/c4 f5 24.tt:\d6

• • •

.ixd6 25.cxd6 gxd6 26.gxd6

�xd6+ 27.gd1 tt:\d4 28.f4 b5
29 .�d3 gds 3o.wh1 h4!
13 .ixf6 .ixf6 14.0-0
The knight endgame is won.
•

In a later game, White played 31.tt:\e2 tt:\b5 ! 32 .�xd6 gxd6

14.tt'lc3 dxe4 15.tt'ldxe4 .ie7 draw, 33.gxd6 tt:\xd6 34.fxe5 tt:\c4
Fontaine-Lautier, FRA-ch 2 004. 35.b3 tt:\xe5 36. tt:\f4 a5 37.h4
<llf6 38.<ll g 1 tt:\g4 39.tt:ld3 <ll e 6
14 . • • 0-0 15.c4? ! 40.tt:\c5+ Wd6 ! 41. tt:lb7+ Wc7 0-1

265
 Part 7

c4-c5. It is the main reason I do not

42. Kavalek-Liberzon
recommend the stand with . . . gS in
Amsterdam 1977
the hedgehog. I prefer .. .fS or even
. . . h5-h4 instead. Of course, White
l.e4 c5 2 . �f3 e6 3.d4 cxd4
can try to redeploy his bishob, but
4.�xd4 �c6 5.�b5 d6 6.c4 �f6
that costs tempi.
7.�5c3 J..e 7 8 . .ie2 0-0 9.0-0 b6
10.i.f4 J..b 7 lU:!el �k8 12.J.fl
�e5

In the game Lopez Martinez-Flu­

via Poyatos, Barcelona 2 0 1 2 , Black
opted for a waiting game with :
15 . . . Wfc7. This is possible, but
practice shows that White does not
defend well in the Hedgehog. It is
better to attack him even if that in­
volves taking risks. The above game
went:
16.b4 �b8 17.a3 l=!fd8 18.�h5
ll:\g6 19 .h3
White's plan is l'!c1, a3, b4, then
19.ll:\f3 ! ? ll:\f6 2 0 .�xg5 was a bet­
i.g3 and f4 in order to remove the
ter try, ( 2 0 .Wfh6 ll:\g4 =) but Black
restraining pressure on c4. Sprag­
has sufficient counterplay after
get got an edge in two of his games
20 . . . ll:\xe4 2 l.�h6 ll:\xg3 2 2 .hxg3 dS !
following this scenario. Our task
should be to safeguard the eS­ 19 . . . \!tg7 2 0 .�d1 ll:\deS 2 1 . ll:\b5
knight with . . . g7-g5. 13.ll:\a3 would i.f6 2 2 .ll:\b3
have been passive, for instance, 13 . . .
W!c7 14.l'!c1 W!b8 15.h3 W!a8 16.Wie2
i.a6 17.ll:\cb5 i.b7 18.ll:\c3 = .

13 ••• �fd7! 14.J..g3

Or 14.l'!c1 a6 15.i.g3 gS 16.f3

\!th8.

14 ••• g5 !
Black could wait further with
This plan is positionally sound 22 . . . ll:\f4, but he decided to throw
with a white bishop on - g3 . Stayed more forces against the enemy king:
it on e3, White would have the awk­ 22 . . . h5 ! ? 23.f3 (White obviously
ward plan i.d4 followed up by b4, panicked. 23.W!xh5? loses to 23 . . . g4,

266
 Taimanov with S.tt:lbS

but he should not have made weak­

nesses. 23.�d2 was unclear.) 23 . . .
.ic6 24.tt:l5d4 .ia4 2S.c;t>hl

2S.�d2 .ixb3 26.tt:lxb3 dS ! , plan­

ning . . . tt:lxf3+, is also better for Black.
After the text, 25 . . . g4 ! 2 6.hxg4 (26.
f4 h4! 2 7 ..ih2 g3) 2 6 ... -igS would
have given a decisive attack.

23 �g6
16.f3 �h8 17 . .if2 �g8
.••

Black's pieces are very menac­

ing, but 23 . . . g4 is still ineffective in
view of 24.f4. He had to bring more
power to the attack with . . . ti'h6 or
. . .fS . Liberzon's move is not bad ei­
ther. Apparently Kavalek under­
stood that passive waiting was
doomed and he made a desperate
attempt to free his pieces with :
Black has some prospects for an
24.f4 gxf4 25.tt:lxf4 �h6
attack, but White's position is very
26.�g3 �xg3
solid. The advance . . . g4 is not an
imminent threat - yet. After 18 .b4
26 . . . 2"1f8 ! 27 . .id4 fS would have
.if8 ! 19 . .ie3 �f6, the play would be
kept more tension, but Liberzon
unclear. Instead, Kavalek consider­
simply grabs a pawn.
ably weakens his castling position :

27.hg3 h4 28 .if2 .ixe4

18.h3 �g7
•

29.c5? dxc5 30.bxc5 .ixc5

31 . .ixc5bxc5 32. c!bc4 ti'f5 33. fid2
Another interesting resource
�f6 34.c!bxe5 c!bxe5 35.fid8 +
was 18 . . .�f8 19 .b4 fS when 2 0 .exf5
�g7 36.g3 c!bf3+ 37.�xf3 .ixf3
exfS 2 1 .tt:ld5 is dubious due to 2 1 . . .
38 .id3 fie5 0-1
.ixdS 2 2 . cxd5 l"1xcl 23 .�xcl g4 !
•

24.f4 gxh3 25 .fxe5 hxg2 .

19.b4 h5 2 0 . a3 figS 21.�e3

�h7 (2l . . . g4 2 2 .f4 tt:lg6 23.tt:le2 eS 43. Radulski-lotov
24.f5 tt:lf4) 2 2 .tt:le2 �cg8 ! (22 . . . Sunny Beach 10.06.2009
g 4 was premature due t o 23.f4
tt:lf3+ 24.tt:lxf3 gxf3 25.2"1xf3 ti'xe4) l.e4 c5 2 . c!bf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4
23.�cc3 4. c!bxd4 c!bc6 5. c!bb5 d6 6.c4 c!bf6

267
 Part ?

7. �5c3 a6 8.�a3 j.e7 9.J.e2 b6

10.0-0 j.b7 n.f4 o-o 12 .if3 gcs
•

13.j.e3 ges

16 . . • d5 ! 17.exd5

White cannot justify the place­

ment of his queen on f2 by 17.f5 be­
14.�M2 cause he has only one check after
17 . . . .ixa3 18.fxe6 fxe6 19.bxa3 lL!xc4
14J''k l is a more natural move 2 0.�f7+ 'i!th8 with an edge.
since it protects White's most sen­ After the text, Black would be on
sitive point - the c4-pawn. top after 17 . . . .ixa3 ! 18.bxa3 lL!xc4
19.J.xc4 !!xc4 2 0 . dxe6 !!xe6 2 l..id4
14 • • • �a5 15.�f2 !!g6 2 2 .g3 �c8.

lSJ'!acl is already late - 15 . . . d5 17 ,exd5? ! 18.gadl

• •

16.cxd5 J.xa3 17.bxa3 lL!c4 18.�f2

exdS 19.!Udl �d7 2 0 .e5 lL!g4+. 18.lL!xd5 simplifies to a near­
ly equal position although Black
15 •.• �d7!? retains some initiative after 18 . . .
J.xa3 19.bxa3 lL!xc4 2 0 .J.xc4 !!xc4
15 . . . lL!xc4 16.lL!xc4 !!xc4 17.e5 2 1 .lL!xb6 l'!ce4 2 2 . lL!xd7 �xd7! ? .
lL!e4 18.lL!xe4 J.xe4 19.J.xb6 �d7
20 .J.xe4 l'!xe4 is roughly equal, but 18 .ixa3
• • • 19.bxa3 lL!xc4
Iotov decides to maintain the ten­ 20.j.d4
sion.
White hopes to win the dS­
16.j.e2 pawn. 2 0 .J.xc4 dxc4 2 1.J.xb6 �xb6
2 2 . l'!xd7 �aS 23.�d2 .ia8 was rath­
White is already on the defen­ er dull for him.
sive. 16.lL!a4 lL!xc4 17.lL!xc4 l'!xc4
18.lL!xb6 lL!xb6 19 . .ixb6 �a8 gives 20 • • • lL!d6? ! ( 2 0 . . . lL!f8+) 2 1.f5?
Black an initiative - 2 0 . !!fel l'!ec8
21.b3 l'!c2 2 2 .l'!e2 l'!cl+ 23.l'!xcl 2 1..if3 lL!cS 2 2 .J.xc5 bxcS
l'!xcl+ 24.l'!el �c8--+. 23 . .ixd5 .ixdS 24.lL!xd5 lL! e4 25. �b2

268
 Taimanov with S.lt:lbS

kept White in the game. Instead, he 14 ••• e5 ! ? 15.Wf2

blunders material.
White cannot keep the centre
2 1 fucc3 2 2.hc3 c!Lle4 23.Wd4
••• closed since 15.f5 lt:ld4 16. �d3 stum­
c!Llxc3 24.Wxc3 fuce2-+ 25J::�d 2 bles into 16 . . . b5 ! 17.cxb5 dS+. Alter­
l::!xd2 26.Wxd2 We7 27.l::! e 1 'tYc5+ natively, 15.lt:ld5 lt:ld4 16.i.xd4 (16.
28.'tYf2 �f8 29.h3 .ic6 30.l::!b 1 �f2 lt:lxf3+ 17.�xf3 i.xdS 18.cxd5
.ib5 31.l::!b4 Wxf2 + 32.�xf2 .ic4 exf4 19.i.xf4 bS) 16 . . . exd4 17.Elfd1
33.l::!b 2 �e7 34.�e3 �d6 35.�d4 lt:lxd5 18.cxd5 i.f6 is balanced. Black
b5 36.a4 c!Llb8 37.axb5 axb5 can play for a win though with 17 . . .
38.�e3 c!Llc6 39.�f4 .d4 40.g4 i.f8 ! ? 18.Elxd4 lt:lxdS 19.cxd5 bS
�d5 41.f6 gxf6 0-1 2 0 .Eld2 g6. His dark-squared bish­
op has no opponent.

15 c!Lld4 ! (15 . . . exf4

••• 16.i.xb6
44. Sandu-Potkin �d7 17.i.e2 gS) 16.l::! a d1
Sautron 27. 1 0.2007
16.i.xd4 exd4 17.lt:ld5 (17.�xd4?
1.e4 c5 2 . c!Llf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 dS) 17 . . . lt:lxd5 18.cxd5 i.f6 is equal,
4. c!Llxd4 c!Llc6 5. c!Llb5 d6 6.c4 c!Llf6 but Black can also sacrifice a pawn
7.c!Ll 1c3 a6 8 . c!Ll a3 .ie7 9 .ie2 0-0
• with full compensation - 17 . . . d3
(9 ... b6 10. 0-0 i.b7 1l.f4 dS) 10.0-0 18.Elfd1 bS 19.cxb5 lt:lxdS 20.exd5
b6 ll.f4 .ib7 12 .if3 l::! c 8 13 .ie3
• • axbS 2 l . Elxd3 �aS 2 2 .lt:lc2 .idS
l::! e 8 ! 14.We2 2 3 .Ela3 �b6 24.lt:ld4 .if6 25J'l:d3
:!! c 4�.

16 c!Llxf3+
••• 17.Wxf3 exf4
18 .ixf4
•

We saw in the previous game

that 14.�d2 lt:l aS was awkward for
White so �e2 looks logical. It has
two major drawbacks, however.
The queen falls under the X-ray of 18 •.• 'tYc7
the e8-rook, and the d4-square re­
mains without control. Potkin pin­ Black has won the opening bat­
points both with his excellent move : tle. This open Sicilian would have

269
 Part 7

been satisfactory for him even with rest of the game is full of mistakes
White's pawn on c2 and a knight and is irrelevant to the opening.
on d4 instead of a3. Now 18 .. .'�d7 ! ,
heading for e6, would b e i n his fa­ 28 . . .'llY f2 29 .ig3
• �e3?
vour (19.l!Jd5 �d8 2 0 .!!fe l bS), but 30.hf2 �xd3 3 1 . l!Jf3? (3U3el)
the text is also good enough. 31 . . . b5 !+ 3 2 . �c1 .ih6 33.�b1 �c3
34. c.tg1 c.tf7 35. c.tfl bxc4 36.bxc4
19.c.th1 .if8 (19 .. .'�'d7! ) 2 0 . l!J d5 .ic8 37 . .id4? �xc4+ 38.�b6 .if8
l!Jxd5 21.exd5 'e;Yd7 22 .'e;Yd3 g6 39.c.te2 .ie7 40.c.td3 �a4 41 .ib2 •

23.b3 �xa2 42,gbs .id7 43.�b7 .ic8

44.�b8 f4 45.c.tc4 .ig4 46.l!Jd4
gas 47.h3 �c5 + 48. c.td3 .if5+
49.c.te2 .ie4 50.tbe6 �xd5 0-1

45. Brodsky-Kruszynski
Pardubice 1 993

1.e4 c5 2 . l!Jf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4

23 •.• f5? 4.l!Jxd4 l!Jc6 l!Jb5 d6 6.c4 l!Jf6
7.l!J 1c3 a6 8 . l!Ja3 b6 9 .ie2 .ib7
•

It seems that Potkin could not 10.0-0 l!Jb8 ll.f3 l!Jbd7 12 .if4 •

find an active plan. Had Black a l!Je5 13.'e;Yd2 .ie7 14.�fd1 'e;Yc7
knight to occupy eS, this move . 15.�acl 0-0 16.c.th1 �ac8 17.�g3
would have been normal, but here
it only weakens the e6-square. He White opts for f4, but 18 .'e;Yel in­
should have displayed activity on tending �gl, �e3 , l'!cl-c2-d2 and fi­
the queenside with 23 ... b5 and then nally b4 is also promising .
. . . !kS, targeting the c4-pawn.
17 . . . �fd8 18.f4 tt:lg6 19 .if3
•

24.�fe1 'e;Yg7? ! 25. l!Jc2 (25.

'e;Yg3 ! ) 25 . . . 'e;Yb2? (2S . . . b5 =)
26.l!Jd4? (26.�e3 ! + -) �xe1+
27.�xe1 �e8 28.�g1

It was more natural to trade

rooks in order to invade Black's
camp through the e-file - 28.�g3
l'!xel+ 29.hel �cl 30 .�e2. After
the text, Black is OK, e.g. 28 . . . l'!e4.
He only must control the e-file. The 19 . . .'llY b 8 20 .�e2 l!Jd7 21.tt:lab1

270
 Taimanov with S.lt:JbS

J.f6 2 2 . tt:ld2 i.c6 23.b4 a5 24.a3 L u p u lescu-Perunovic

'ea8 25.lt:Jdbl J.e7 26.i.g4 tt:lgf8 Kavala 2004
27.J.f3 tt:lg6 28.f;Ye3 Y;Yb8 29.J.e2
'ea8 30.i.f3 'eb8 3 1.J.e2 f;Ya8
3 2 .l:�c2 'eb8 33.ga2 tt:lf6 34.J.f3
axb4 35.axb4 b5?

Black is the first to lose patience.

36.cxb5 hb5 37.e5 tt:ld5

38.tt:lxd5 exd5 39.e6 J.c4
40.exf7+ rJlxf7 4L ga7 rJJ f8
42.tt:ld2 d4 43.�xd4 .if6 44.�gl 24J''&b l gd4 25.b5 aS 2 6.c5 ! �f8?
'exb4 45.tt:lxc4 gxc4 46 .id5 • 27.cxb6 .ixb6 28 .lt:Jc4 .icS 29 .'ecl
gd4 47.gf7+ rJle8 48.gxf6 gxd5 �d8 3 0 .b6 lt:JhS 31.lt:Jxa5 gd2
49.gel + tt:le5 50.gf5 g6 51.gf6 1-0 32 .lt:Je2 1-0

Let's return now to our main

game. White can obtain the better
46. Daly-Treg u bov
chances even without b4. That is
Cappelle Ia Grande 2000
possible thanks to the breakthrough
24.c5 ! bxcS 2S.lt:Jc4 ggd8 26.�xc5t.
l.e4 c5 2 . tt:lf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4
In the game, White missed this op­
4. tt:lxd4 tt:lc6 5. tt:lb5 d6 6.c4 tt:lf6
portunity and played too tentative­
7.tt:l lc3 a6 8 . tt:l a3 b6 9 .ie2 J.b7
ly to lose in the end :
•

10. 0-0 tt:lb8 ll.f3 tt:lbd7 12 .ie3 •

J.e7 13.'ed2 'ec7 14.gfdl 0-0 24.tt:lc2 ggd8 25.b4 gd2

15.gacl !i!ac8 16 ..ifl 'eb8 17.'ef2 26.gd2 J.d8 !
J.d8 18.rJlhl !i!e8 19.1i!c2 .ic7
2 0.'egl rJlh8 21. 1i!cd2 !i!g8 22 .if4
•
Black's first step is correct. The
tt:le5 23.he5 ! dxe5 bishop should control the squares
b4-c5.

27.a3 'ec7 28.tt:lal ! ? g5? !

It is useless to discuss the pros

and cons of this plan. If so many
players like it, apparently it has
some value, but to me it is only pro­
ducing weaknesses around Black's
king. The game will be decided in
Let's compare this typical posi­ the centre so 28 . . . lt:Jd7 29.lt:Jb3 .igS
tion to another model game : 3Q.gdl fS� looks more adequate.

271
 Part S

29.�b3 g4 30.tfe3 J.e7 31.J.d3? 13 ges 14.gfd1 gcs 15.tfd4

• • •

�ed7 16.tfd2 tfc7 17.gac1 tfb8

White is lingering again. 31.lLla4 18.lLlab1 gcd8 19 .!fl h5!?
•

gxf3 32.gxf3 lLld7 33.c5 was called

for - 33 . . . bxc5 34.lLl axc5 lLlxcS
35.lLlxc5;!;.

31 ggs 32.lLla4 lLld7 33.gc2

•••

�c6 34.lLlc3 gxf3 35.�xf3

f5+± 36.�fl f4 37.lLld2 (37.c5 !
bxcS 38.lLla5) 37 a5+ 38.gb2
.••

lLlf6 39.lLlf3 �g4 40.�b1 axb4

41.axb4 �e8 42.�d1 tfh5 43.c5
bxc5 44.bxc5 hc5 45.h3 J.c8 This flank assault is usually bet­
46.�c2 lLle3 47.�xc5 �xd1 ter than g5. It targets the g3 square.
48.gbs J.d7 49.gb7 gds so.ga7
.ie8 51.J.c4 J.f7 52 .ga2 'i!lg7 20.tff2 d5!
53.he6 lLlf2+ 54.gxf2 he6 0-1
Eventually, I discovered that
beating about the bush was not get­
ting me any closer to the point.
4 7. Rabrenovic-Delchev
Bijelo Polje 2005 21.exd5 exd5 2 2 . �xd5 lLlxdS
23.cxd5 Ad6 24.hb6?
1.e4 c5 2 . lLlf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4
4. toxd4 �c6 5. lLlb5 d6 6.c4 lLlf6 The abrupt change of the game
7. lLl1c3 a6 8.lLla3 b6 9.J.e2 Ab7 course clearly confused my oppo­
10. 0-0 J.e7 ll . .ie3 0-0 12 .�d2 nent and he commits a decisive
�e5 13.f3 mistake. 24.g3 h4 ! 25.'i!lg2 hxg3
26.hxg3 is more resilient although
it would be difficult to defend after
26 .. Jlxe3 ! ? 2 7.�xe3 hg3 threaten­
ing . . . lLlf6-h5, or 26 . . . lLlf6 27.lLlc3 bS.

24 hb2
• . . 25.'i!lh1 Ag3
26.tfd4 lLlxb6 27.�xb6 gd6

27 . . . .if4 28.!k2 �eS was winning

at once.
I knew that now 13 . . . d5 was
roughly equal, but I decided to 28.tfb4? �d8 29. lLlc3 f5
maintain the tension. 30.gd4 tfg5 0-1

272
 Pa rt S

Ra re Lines on
5th and 6th move

273
Pa rt 8. Rare Li nes on 5th a n d 6th Move

Main Ideas

l.e4 c5 2 . �f3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 A. 5.�xc6

4.�xd4 �c6
Great ideas are simple, they say.
This one might have been too, but
when put to the practical test, it just
does not work. Black has different
ways of defending against the at­
tack. When White's opening initia­
tive begins to fade, it becomes clear
that Black's powerful pawn centre
is a weighty factor in the ensuing
struggle.

5 . . . bxc6 6 . .id3 �f6 7.0-0

If you were a novice in chess,
your first thought in this position
might be : 'OK, how to mate the guy
quick and neat? �c4 is apparently
pointless, so I move the bishop to
d3, the queen to hS or g4 and throw
all the rest against Black's king.' If
you were also smart enough, you
would notice that the knight on d4
was hanging and anyway it falls out
of the whole design. At this point, 7 . . . d5
you already know what to do. Of
course wasting precious tempi on When you choose this move, you
retreating the clumsy knight is out should know how to survive against
of question, so you part happily a direct kingside attack. Black has
with it by: at least two other setups which are

274
 Rare Lines on 5th and 6th Move

probably not worse than the main 8.�d2 ti'c7! 9.f4 .la6
line. One of them is connected with
... e6-e5, the other one - with ... d6.
The latter is calm and safe, but not
too popular. Black embraces the phi­
losophy of the hedgehog structures.
Hidden behind the pawn wall along
the sixth rank, he is awaiting for the
best moment to determine his plan.
It could be an advance of any one of
the three central pawns.
After castling, Black will push
Our defence after 7 . . . d5 is based the a-pawn to a4, see game 48
on two main principles : Hou,Yifan-Dzhumaev, Kuala
1. We destroy the most danger­ Lumpur 2 0 1 0 .
ous enemy piece which is the d3-
bishop. That could be done in some More practical examples :
variations by . . . i.c8-a6, but we of­
Martin-lllescas
ten have a better solution - the ma­
Dos Hermanas 2004
noeuvre . . . tt.:Jf6-d7-c5xd3 :
Burger-Ai burt
Philadelphia 1989

The attack a5-a4xb3 creates a

weakness on b3 :
18 . . . axb3 19.axb3 l':ia2+.
Position after ll . . . tt.:Jc5.
Analysis
Should your opponent allow it,
take the bishop and push a- and c­
pawns. That will ensure excellent
counterplay.
2. If White attempted to secure
his bishop with c3, we either take
control of the centre with . . .'�c7,
. . . i.d6, . . . e6-e5, or trade our main
enemy with . . . i.a6.

275
 Part S

If White tries to stop the march e5 12.i.f4 !

of the a-pawn with a knight, Black Perhaps 8 . . . i.e7 ! ? is best, since
should counter that by . . . ll::l d 7-b6. 9.e5 ll::l d 5 1 0 . 0-0 0-0 is balanced.

B. 5.c!Llc3 V!Jc7 6.c!Llxc6 bxc6 C. 5.c!Llc3 Wc7 6.Wd3

7 .id3 c!Llf6
•

This move has occurred in only

Everything said about the move one game, Vallejo Pons-Adhiban,
S.ll::l xc6 is valid here, too. Having Caleta 2 014. I propose:
committed his knight to c3, White
has not a wide choice. 6 c!Llf6 7.c!Lldb5 Wb8 8.Wg3 d6
•••

There is one important tactical 9 .ie3 (9 . .if4 ll::l h S) 9 a6 10.c!Lld4

• •••

nuance which you should take into e5 l l . c!Llb3 .ie6 with a normal Sici­
account. The queen on c7 could be lian position.
attacked by ll::l bS ! That's why you
should refrain from dS before de­
veloping the bishop to e7: D . 6.c!Lldb5 Wb8 7 .ie3
•

In the diagram position,

8.V!Ie2 is notjust a transposition
(compared to 8.0-0 i.e7) :

There is some mystification

about this system. It has the repu­
tation of "very" interesting, proba­
Black has a number of interesting bly even better for White, but it is
options here except of 8 . . . d5? in view seldom seen. I suppose that com­
of 9.exd5 ! cxdS lO.ll::l b S! V!Jb8 ll.g3 mon sense reminds us that a queen,

276
 Rare Lines on 5th and 6th Move

even together with a pawn, is usual­ Protecting indirectly g 7 and pro­

ly inferior to 3 pieces. viding Black with time to castle.
Most importantly, we avoid weak­
7 . . . a6 ! 8 . .ib6 axb5 9 .�xb5 ening f6, which is a major downside
.ib4 10.c3 .ia5 ll.�c7 Wxc7! of 13 . . . g6.
12 . .ixc7 .ixc7 13.Wg4 .ie5 ! ?
14.f4 �f6 15.Wf3 .ic7

Black has full compensation for

the queen. His only concern is how
to activate the light-squared bish­
op. That could be achieved by ei­
ther . . . b6, . . . .ib7 (beware the X-ray
of the queen from f3 ! ) or . . . .id7 af­
ter advancing the d-pawn.

277
Pa rt 8. Ra re Li nes on 5th a n d 6th M ove

Step by Step

l.e4 c5 2.tt:\f3 e6 3.d4 cxd4

4. tt:\xd4 tt:\c6

7 .•• d5

Sometimes Black chooses plans

A. S.lt:lxc6 ; with e6-e5, but this set-up does not
B. S.lt:lc3 V!ic7 6.lt:lxc6; provide many possibilities for ad­
C. S.lt:lc3 V!ic7 6 .lt:ldb5 ; vancing the central pawns. On the
D. S.lt:lc3 V!ic7 6.V!ff. d3 contrary, the c6-d5-e6 wedge is
For S.c4 lt:lf6 see Part 11/Cl quite mobile. Black could play c6-
c5, d5-d4 or undermine White's eS­
pawn with . . . f6.
A. 5. tt:\xc6 bxc6 6 .id3 • If you do not like the type of po­
sitions arising in the main line, I
6.c4 is not flexible. It offers propose you to consider:
Black an ample choice. Perhaps
7 . . . d6
simplest is 6 . . . lt:lf6 7 . .id3 dS= , but
6 . . .-icS 7 . .id3 eS 8 . 0-0 lt:lf6 is also a The play is calmer and Black is
good option. Black has clear play on running less risks of getting mated
the dark squares. than after 7 . . . d5. I have not chosen
it for the main line mostly because it
6 . . . tt:\f6 7.0-0 is significantly less popular.

278
 Rare Lines on 5th and 6th Move

Game 50 Diez del Corral­ 12.l2Jc4 �c7 13.�f3 i.e6 14.i.d2 l2Jd7
Korchnoi, Palma de Mallorca 1968, 15.i.c3 f6 16.l2Je3 l'l:fe8 17.i.c4;t. Note
is a typical example: that the bishop goes to c3 in order
8.b3 i.e7 9.i.b2 e5 (White was to bind Black with the defence of
threatening 10 .e5;t) to.l2Jd2 0-0 the e5-pawn and then White trades
ll.l2Jc4 i.e6 12 .�e2 l2J d7. See the rest the light-squared bishops. Howev­
in the "Complete Games" section. er, 9.l2Jd2 is inaccurate due to 9 . . .
e5 ! 10 .fxe5 ( o r 10.l2Jc4 d5 ! ll.exd5
If White plays c4, Black should
e4 ; 10.l2Jf3 0-0 ! and White can­
follow the plan with . . . e5, . . . i.e6 .
not achieve the set-up of the game
The other common set-up with
Lein-Tal.) 10 . . . l2Jg4 ll.l2Jf3 �b6
. . . l2Jf6-d7-e5-c6 is a bit passive :
1 2 . \!thl l2Jf2 13.l'l:f2 �f2 14.exd6
8.c4 i.e7 9.l2Jc3 0-0 10 .�e2 e5
i.xd6 15.i.xb5 cxb5 16.�xd6 �f1
ll.h3 i.e6 1 2 .f4 exf4 13.i.xf4 l2Jd7;
17.l2Jg1 �c4 18 .�e5 i.e6oo . After the
8.c4 l2Jd7 9.l2Jc3 i.e7 10 .�c2 l2Je5
text, Black has to prevent 10 .e5. If
ll.i.e2 c5 12 .i.e3 0-0 13J!ad1 �b6
he plays 9 .. :e5 himself, then 10 .fxe5
14.f4 l2Jc6, Meij ers-Ksieski, Leu­
dxe5 ll.l2Jd2 i.e6 1 2 .�f3 will prob­
tersdorf 2 0 0 1 .
ably transpose to the game Lein­
The game Kholmov-Korch­ Tal which is not too appealing. Re­
noi, Riga 1970, shows the flexibili- mains:
ty of 7 . . . d6. Black can always return 9 ... �c7 10.l2Jd2 0-0 11.�e1 l2Jd7
to the . . . d5-plan in proper circum- with unclear play.
stances:
Let's return to 7 . . . d5 :
8.�e2 i.e7 9.l2Jd2 l2Jd7 1 0 .f4 l2Jc5
ll.l2Jf3 0-0 12 .i.e3 d5= .
Perhaps the most testing plan is
8.f4 i.e7

White often plays 8.e5, nurtur­

9.cit>h1
ing hopes for a kingside attack. This
White's best set-up was shown is a lost cause, since Black can easily
in the game Lein-Tal, Kiev 1964: eliminate the bishop on d3. Without
9.l2Jd2 0-0 10.I!th1 e5 11.fxe5 dxe5 it, any direct attack should fail - 8 . . .

279
 Part S

tLld7 9.�e2 (9.f4 limits the scope of 9.�e1 ttJd7 ! ? (avoiding �gS or
the c1-bishop. We'll trade the oth­ the variation 9 . . . 0-0 10.if4 tLld7
er one with 9 . . . h.6 or 9 . . . tLlcS, fol­ ll.exdS cxdS 1 2 -l!J bS;t) 10.if4 (10.
lowed by . . .JJ.e7, . . . g6 and .. .fS) 9 . . . �hS tLlcS) 10 ... d4
JJ.e7 10.tLld2 0 - 0 ll.f4 (ll.tLlf3 ! ? is In normal circumstances, this
more realistic, when Black follows set-up is not too flexible, but here it
the same design - with ll . . . tLlcS) is with tempo.
1l.. .tLlcS 12. c;!;>h1 aS+ 13.tLlf3 ttJxd3 ll.tLla4 eS 12 .ig3 hS (12 . . . 0-0)
14.cxd3 c5 1S.JJ.e3 JJ.a6 16J:Ucl �b6 13.h3 h4 14.ih2 0-0 1S.c3 dc3
17J:k2 a4+, Burger-Alburt, Philadel­ 16.tLlc3 icS 17.�fl id4 18 .�c2 tLlcS
phia 1989. 19 .ic4= Delgado-Jobava, Havana
200S.
8.tLlc3 is possible, but inconsis­
tent. It leads to positions that com­ After 8.tLld2, we reach a posi­
monly arise after another move or­ tion which might be familiar to the
der - l.e4 cS 2.tLlf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 French-playing people - l.e4 e6 2 .d4
4.tLld4 tLlf6 S.tLlc3 ttJc6 6.ttJxc6. The dS 3.tLld2 cS 4.tLlgf3 cxd4 ·s .ttJxd4
knight is misplaced on c3, because tLlc6 6.tLlxc6 bxc6 7.id3 tLlf6 8.0-0.
it has no prospects there and should White is trying to be too clever and
be redeployed, probably to a4. This keep all his options open. However,
plan is harmless for Black. He it has its cost - he cannot play eS
could oppose it by the manoeuvre without the help of his f-pawn after:
. . . tLlf6-d7-b6 which is Black's univer­
sal retort to tLla4. 8 • • • �c7!
Let's see some typical examples :
8 . . . JJ.e7 is less principled. 9 .�e2
8.tLlc3 JJ.e7
Alternatively, White can choose
to maintain the central tension
with b3 and c4, where Black push­
es his paWns to a4 (and even to a3
in some situations), and cS. Anoth­
er possible setup is based on b3 and
a4 which allows Black to trade the
light-squared bishops through a6.
These plans are less dangerous,
because White plays on the wing
9.eS tLld7 10 .�g4 (10.�e1 0-0 where Black is stronger - 9.�e2
ll.f4 fS) 10 ... ttJxeS 11.�xg7 �g8 0-0 10 .b3 aS ll.a4 �e8 12 .ib2 �b6
12 .�h6 �b8 13.tLle2 �b4. 13.�ad1 ia6 14.�fe1 hd3 1S.�xd3
�c7 16.eS tLld7 17.�e3 = , Kofidis­
9.b3 0-0 10 .�e2 tLld7 ll.tLla4 Semkov, Heraklio 1993.
tLlb6=, Hector-Lautier, Malmo
1998. 9.�e1 0-0

280
 Rare Lines on 5th and 6th Move

White does not have any ac­

tive plan, see game 48 Hou,Yifan­
Dzhumaev, Kuala Lumpur 2 0 1 0 .

B . 5.lbc3 �c7 6 .lbxc6

10.c3 !

lO .eS li:ld7 ll.c3 fS ! i s excellent

for Black - 12.exf6 h:f6 ! ? 13.�h5
g6 14.h:g6 hxg6 15.�xg6+ !ig7
16.�xe6+ �f7 17.�xc6 �b8 18.�xd5
!ib7 19.�d3 �b6 with a strong at­ This exchange has a bad repu­
tack, Senff-Nielsen, Germany 2 008. tation, because the knight on c3
has not clear prospects. Sometimes
10 ... li:ld7 ll.!ic2 ! with unclear
White even returns it back to b1
play.
in order to redirect it to d2-f3, or
moves it to a4 in order to enable c4.
9.f4
6 ••• bxc6
9.c4 abandons the centre - 9 . . .
!id6 10 .h3 0 - 0 1l.�e2 .ib7 1 2 .b3 6 . . . dxc6 has its adepts, but I do
.ih2 + 13.'itlh1 .ie5 14.�b1 c5 15.exd5 not like such symmetric pawn for­
exdS 16.ltlf3 , Kofidis-Ehlvest, Ko­ mations in the Sicilian. They are dif­
motini 199 2 , 16 . . . .id6 ! with initia­ ficult to win.
tive.
7 .id3 lbf6 8. 0-0
•

9 • .. !ia6 10.e5 lbd7 11.lbf3 .ie7

Attention! 8 .�e2 is not just a
transposition :

281
 Part 8

Black has a number of inter­ 13.exf6 tt:lxf6 or by the typical 12 . . .

esting options here except of tt:lcS, since 13 .hh7 @xh7 14.:!=1h3
8 ... d5? @g8 15.�h5 fS is not really a threat.
This move has never been pun­ Note that I do not recommend to
ished in practice, but it is inferior to trade light-squared bishops by pre­
8 . . . ie7, 8 . . . id6, 8 . . . d6 or 8 . . . e5. The paring ia6. 1t is better to kill White's
reason is : bishop by the knight ( . . . tt'lf6-d7-c5),
9.exd5 ! cxdS (or 9 . . . tt:Jxd5 10.0-0 when ib7 will rule along the main
id6 11.g3 tt'lc3 12 .bxc3 0-0 13J:'1dl±) diagonal after . . . c6-c5 and . . . d5-d4.
IO .tt:lbS ! �b8 ll.g3 eS 12.if4 where Black's most flexible answer to
I have not a good advice for Black: 9.:!=le1 is 9 . . . d6. Then 10.f4 0-0 ll.eS
12 . . . tt:Je4 13 .he4 dxe4 14.�c4 exf4 tt:ldS 1 2 . tt'le4 dxeS 13 .fxe5, Kaka­
15.tt'lc7 @e7 16.0-0-0+- or 12 . . . tt:Jd7 badze-Schlosser, Baden-Baden
13.0-0 (13.0-0-0±) 13 . . . ie7 14J:'1fe1t. 1993 , is better for Black due to 13 . . .
Perhaps 8 . . . ie7 ! ? is best, since :!=ld8 ! .
9.e5 tt:ldS 10. 0-0 0-0 is good for
Black. 9 . . . d5
More challenging is 8 . . . id6 ! ? us­
ing the fact that White has not cas­ 9 . . d6 1 0 .f4 tt:Jd7 offers Black
.

tled. This continuation has passed nice statistics in the database.

the test in a couple of games.
10.b3
8 • • • J.e7
Black can meet I O.f4 0-0 ll.@h1
There is not a single reason to with the typical setup ll . . . :!=le8
play d7-d5 unless White threatens 12 .i.d2 i.b7 13.:!=lae1 tt:Jd7 14.e5 (14.
eS. 8 . . . d5 9.ed5 is not dangerous, tt:Ja4 tt'lb6) 14 ... tt:Jc5.
but why to hand the opponent ad­
ditional options connected with the
exchange on dS. Still, in Stenzel-So­
fia Polgar, Kona 1998, Black com­
pleted development after 9 . . . . exd5
(9 . . . cxd5 10 .tt'lb5 with initiative)
10J�e1 ie7 11.�f3, when 11 . . . 0-0=
would have been safe enough.

9.Y!Ye2
10 0-0 ll.i.b2 l;e8 12.l;ael
••.

Black should be only happy to J.b7 13.e5 tt:Jd7

face a head-on "attack" of the type
of 9.f4 dS IO .@h1 0-0 ll.eS tt:ld7 I prefer Black's chances in this
12.:!=1£3. He could parry it by 12 . . .f5 typical position, in view of his mo-

282
 Rare Lines on 5th and 6th Move

bile pawn centre. See game 49 i.cS 9.\!;!fd2 a6 1 0 . 0-0-0 bS ll.eS!

Martin Perez-Illescas Cordoba, Dos lt:lg4 1 2 .lt:l e4 \!;!!x eS 13.E:e1 is really
Hermanas 2 0 04. dangerous for Black.) 8 .lt:lxc6 bxc6
is a blank spot in theory, but gS is
hardly the best place for the enemy
C. 5.�c3 'tYc7 6.'tYd3 bishop. For instance, White can­
not trade queens with 9.\!;!fg3 due to
9 . . . i.d6 - the gS-bishop "protects"
the g7-pawn. Of course, White can
castle first, but 8 .0-0-0 i.e7 9.�g3
�xg3 10.hxg3 lt:lxd4 ll.E:xd4 i.cS
1 2 . E:d2 lt:lg4 13.f3 f6 14.i.f4 lt:leS is
balanced. Perhaps White should
try:

7.�db5 ti'b8 8.'tYg3 d6

This move has occurred in only

one game, Vallejo Pons-Adhiban,
Caleta 2 0 14, but when a 2700 play­
er employs it, we should pay atten­
tion. There followed 6 . . . a6 7.lt:lxc6
�xc6 8.�g3 bS 9.a3 i.b7 10 .i.d3
lt:lf6 11.0-0 with a solid edge. Where
went Black so wrong? ! First of all,
capturing by queen on c6 is dubious.
In the event of 7 ... bxc6 8.�g3, White
has a clear extra tempo (spent on We know that the g3-queen is an
. . . a6) in comparison to line B. That obstacle to a kingside pawn storm
does not automatically promise him with g4-g5 :
an edge. In fact, this position of­
ten arises following another move 9.�e3 (9.i.f4 lt:lhS) 9 • • • a6
order. It is even considered to be 10.lt:ld4 e5 ll. �b3
roughly equal after 8 . . .�xg3 9.hxg3
E:b8. We should not avoid such a 11.lt:\xc6 bxc6 1 2 . 0-0-0 i.e6
structure at all costs, but I propose 13 .i.e2 \!;!!b4 14.a3 \!;!fb7 1S.@b1 i.e7
to get a better version of it by: 16.f4 E:b8 17.i.cl 0-0 18.f5 i.d7.

ll �e6 12.0-0-0 (12 .i.e2 �b4

• • •

13.E:c1 dS) 12 �e7 13.�e2 0-0

••.

Now 7.i.g5 a6 (7 . . . lt:lxd4 8.�xd4 14.�h6 �e8 15.�d5 @h8 = .

283
 Part S

D. 6.�db5 Vfb8 Black should try to benefit from the

tempo with 8 . . . ll'lf6.

8 . . . axb5 9 . �xb5 .ib4 10.c3

.ia5 11.�c7+ Vfxc7! 12 . .ixc7 .ixc7
13.Vfg4

7 .ie3
•

White can try to substantiate his

sixth move by 7.a4, making room
for the knight on a3. This varia­
tion is seldom seen, so the arising 13 ••. .ie5 ! ?
positions are unexplored. I think
that Black's safest way is to restrict This move casts a shadow of
White's knight with 7 . . . ll'lf6 8 . .id3 doubt on the whole White's set-up.
(note the trap 8 . .ig5 a6 9.ll'la3? 13 ... 1t>f8 hampers the normal
ll'lxe4 10.ll'lxe4 Yfe5+) 8 ... a6 9.ll'la3 development of Black's pieces, but
d5 10.0-0 .ie7 11.exd5 exd5= . it also has enough fans. The game
�. .ic5 i s too risky: 9 . 0-0 h5 Kornev-J. Geller, Moscow 2007
10.It>h1 a6 ll.ll'la3 ll'lg4 12 .f4+±. saw further 14 . .id3 ll'lf6 15.�e2 h5
16.0-0 g5 17.a4 b6 18 .b4 .ib7 with a
7. . . a6 lively game.

7 ... ll'lf6 8.f4 d6 is also playable, 14.f4 �f6 15.�f3

but I do not see any reason to avoid
the text move. 15.�xg7? fails to 15 . . J%g8 16.'\1�'h6
l'!g6 (16 ... ll'lg4) 17.�h4 l'!g4 18.�h6
8 .ib6
• l'!xf4 19 ..id3 l'!f2 ! +.

It is shameful to retreat back with 15 . . . .ic7 16 . .id3

8.ll'ld4, but this might be a realistic
approach. Then Black plays normal 16.e5 opens up the main dia­
Taimanov, enjoying an extra "half gonal in Black's favour: 16 . . . ll'ld5
tempo". If the queen returns to c7, 17 . .ic4 ll'lce7 (18 . .id3 0-0 19.0-0 b5
we'll have the usual variations, but 2 0 . .ixb5 l'!b8 2 1.a4 .ib6+ 2 2 .lt>h1

284
 Rare Lines on 5th and 6th Move

i.b7t ; 18.i.b3 0-0 19.0-0 b5 2 0 .i.c2 16 • • • e5!

i.b'Too) 18.g3 0-0 19.0-0-0, Savicevic­
Rajkovic Srebrno Jezero 2 013, 19 . . . In the current situation 16 ... b6
E:a5 ! intending . . . b5, . . . i.b7oo. runs into 17.e5 ll:\d5 18.i.e4 while
16.i.c4 provokes 16 . . . d5 ! , which 16 . . . d5 17.e5 ll:\d7 18.0-0 0-0 19.a4
is good enough - 17.exd5 exd5 is unclear.
18 .�e3 + ! i.e6 19.f5 dxc4oo. However,
16 . . . 0-0 17.e5 ll:\e8 18.0-0 f6 19.�h5 17.f5 0-0 18 .g4? !
g6 2 0.�h6 ll:\g7 was also pleasant
for Black in Alcazar Jimenez-Antoli White can prevent d7-d5 by
Royo, Mondariz 2 0 04. 18.0-0 E:d8 19.c4?, but then 19 . . .
i.b6+ 2 0 . @h1 i.d4 gives Black a to­
tal domination on the dark squares.

18 . . . d5 19 .g5 dxe4 20 . .ixe4

�xe4 2 1.ftxe4 g6+.

The bishop pair enters the play

with decisive effect. White certainly
can improve some variations in this
analysis, but I like Black's position.

285
Pa rt 8. Rare Li nes on 5th and 6th M ove

Com plete G a m es

12 . . . .b:d3 13.cxd3 0-0

48. Hou,Yifan-Dzhumaev
14.J.b2?!
Lumpur 11.04.2010

Hou is still hoping for - an at­

l.e4 c5 2.ttlf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4
tack with f4-f5. To be sure, 14.�e3
4. ttlxd4 ttlf6 5 .id3 ttlc6 6. ttlxc6
cS lSJ'kl \1t/b7 followed up by . . . a5-
•

bxc6 7.0-0 d5 8.ttld2 Y!lc7 9.f4

a4 is pleasant for Black, but at least
the bishop is not on the semi-open
b-file. It is instructive to watch how
helpless White looks in this struc­
ture.

14 . . . c5 15.'i!lhl a5 16.Y!le2 '&b6

17. tbd2 a4

Black can allow c2-c4 - 9 . . . �e7

lO .eS ltJd7 ll.c4 aS 1 2 . 'i!lhl g6 13 .b3
a4 14.�b2 0-0 lSJ:'kl '&b6+, Yap­
Andersson, Rome 1985, but the text
is perhaps more accurate.

9 . . . .ia6 10.e5 tbd7 11.tbf3 .ie7

12 .b3 White has made all the "pro­
grammed" moves . . . and has land­
White will have to play this move ed in a gloom position. The follow­
anyway so 12 .�e3 '&b7 would not ing display of activity is just a des­
change the character of the game. peration. Dzhumaev does not give
Besides, Black may trade the sec­ his very talented opponent any tac­
ond bishop, too, with 12 . . . �c5. tical chances.

286
 Rare Lines on 5th and 6th Move

18.f5 exf5 19,gxf5 a3 ! 20 . .icl transposing to the game) 9 ... tt:ld5

'We6 ! 21.gh5 g6 2 2 . gh3 'Wxe5. 10.0-0 0-0; 8 ... .id6 ! ? using that
The rest is agony. 23.'Wxe5 ti)xe5 White cannot answer 9.f4.
24.c!t:lfl .if6 25,gbl gfe8 26 .id2
•

ti)g4 27,gf3 .id4 28 .h4 ge2 9. 0-0? 9.exd5 ! cxdS lO .tt:lbS !

29.h4 gbs 3o .bs .ih2 3t.d4 �b8 ll.g3 eS 12 . .if4i. 9 . . . .ie7
c4 32 .ib4 ti)f2+ 33.<.t>h2 .ixd4
• 10.b3
34,gxa3 .ie5 + 35. <.t>gl ti)d3
36 .id2
• .id4+ 37.<.t>h2 ge4 This set-up is sluggish and gives
38. <.t>g3 .if2 + 39.<.t>f3 .ixh4 Black clear counterplay with a5-a4.
40.g3 .ie7 4l, ga7 .ic5 42,ga6 10.f4 0-0 n . <.t>hl )"!e8 12 . .id2 .ib7
ti)e5+ 43. <.t>g2 ge2 + 44.<.t>h3 13.)"!ael is more natural, although
tt)f3 45 ..ib4 ti)gl+ 46. <.t>h4 ge4+ the same plan as in the game works
47.g4 .if2 + 48. ti)g3 h5 49,gxgl fine : 13 . . . tt:ld7 14.e5 (14.tt:la4 ti)b6)
gxg4+ 50. <.t>h3 .ixgl 51.a4 ges 14 . . . ti)c5.
52 .id6 c3 53,gc6 gc4 54,gxc4
•

dxc4 55.a5 c2 56 .if4 .ie3 0-1

• 10 . . . 0-0 n . .ib2 ges 12.gael
.ib7 13.e5 ti)d7 14.ti)bl? !

49. Martin Perez-lllescas White is playing as if time in

Dos Hermanas 2004 chess were for nothing. b3 is com­
monly connected with 14.tt:la4,
l.e4 c5 2 . ti)f3 ti)c6 3.d4 cd4 when Black responds with 14 ... tt:l b6!
4.ti)d4 e6 5.ti)c3 'Wc7 6.ti)c6 bc6
7 .id3 ti)f6 8 .'We2 d5?
•
14 . . . ti)c5 15.ti)d2 ti)xd3
16.'Wxd3 (16.cxd3 aS+) 16 . . . a5
17.c4 a4 18,ge3 axb3 19.axb3
ga2+

Black's game is developing by it­

self. Mundane play led White to a
hopeless position thus early in the
battle.

2o .gh3 h6 2 t .ic3 gds 2 2 . �t

•

Black's last move is an instruc­ gda8 23.ti)f3 c5 24 .id2 dxc4-

•

tive mistake. All other reason­ + 25 .ih6 gal 26.�c2 cxb3

•

able continuations are better, for 27.�xb3 gxfl 28.<.t>xfl gxh6

instance 8 . . . .ie7! ? 9.e5 (or 9 . 0-0 29,gxh6 ga1 30. <.t>e2 .ia6 0-1

287
 Part S

�c5 15.gfel f6
50. Diez del Corrai-Korchnoi
Palma de Mallorca 1 968
By bolstering eS, Black prepares
dS.
l.e4 c5 2.�£3 �c6 3.d4 cxd4
16.�a5 Wc7 17.i.c4 i.c4
4. �xd4 e6 5. �xc6 bxc6 6 . .td3
tilf6 7.0-0 d6
17 . . .l'!ad8 ! 18 . .be6 lt:lxe6 would
have been fine for Black since
This move is no better than 7 . . .
19.c4? ! runs into 19 . . . d5 2 0 . cxd5
dS, but I suspect that i t may b e more
cxdS 21.exd5 lt:lf4+.
unpleasant to the opponent. Indeed,
White usually takes on c6 in order
to have a clear-cut plan of a king­
side attack. Instead, he will have to
brace himself for a positional fight
in the centre with the d6-pawn as
the prime target.

Now Black solves the problem of

his "bad bishop" with a little tacti­
cal trick:

8.b3 i.e7 9.i.b2 e5 18 . . . �e4 19.ge4 d5 20.gg4

dxc4 2 1.ti'h6 i.c5 22.Wf6 cxb3
Against other setups, Black could 23.axb3 ge7 24.ti'g5?
arrange his pawns differently, for in­
stance he could play . . . cS, followed White would have had suffi­
by the manoeuvre lt:lf6-d7-b8-c6. cient counterplay with 24.�f3 !!f8
Another possibility for Black is to 25.�e2 i.f2 26.�hl = . Black has an
delay disclosing his plans and com­ extra pawn, but the need of defend­
plete development first. Then . . . d6- ing it makes his major pieces too
d5 could be on the agenda again if passive. Instead, White suddenly
meanwhile White undertook some crumbles down.
dubious manoeuvre.
24 . . . gf8 25.gfl Wd7 26.gc4
10.tild2 0-0 ll.�c4 .te6 .tf2 27.�hl gef7 28.Wh5 Wd2
12 .e'e2 tild7 13.gadl ge8 14.§'d2 29.gc6 i.b6 0-1

288
 Pa rt 9

Ala pin 3.c3 d 5

289
Pa rt 9 . 3 . c3 d5

Main Ideas

Sveshnikov's pet line with c3 is de­ 3 . . . d5 4.exd5

servedly considered to be rather
timid. You'll hardly see a top-level 4.e5 li:lc6 S.d4 is a sideline of the
GM playing it regularly. The main French Defence. I analyse in "Step
lines are depressively equal and by Step" 4 . . . d4 S . .id3 .id7, planning
deeply explored. I have always had . . .ic6
this problem - how to beat 2 2 0 0-
2300 rated opponents after: 4 . . .Ybd5 5.d4 li:lf6

l.e4 c5 2.�f3 e6 3.c3

If White played 2 .c3, then both

2 . . . li:lf6 and 2 . . . d5 3.exd5 �xdS 4.d4
li:lf6 S.li:lf3 .ig4 would have offered
more chances to complicate White's
life. In the German league I even
played 2 . . . b6 and 2 . . . d6. On both
occasions I failed to equalise in the
opening, but I went on to win easily White has many different move
very instructive games. orders from this point. You should
In The Safest Sicilian, I proposed remember several important points :
my main repertoire with . . . li:lf6. It
1. When to take on d4;
is still a fine choice. After 2008, I
developed for my 1900-2300 stu­ 2 . When to play ... li:lc6 instead of
dents a repertoire, based on . . . dS. . . . .ie7;
It is easy to play against an isolated
3. When and where to retreat the
pawn. You can learn the basics very
queen from dS ;
quickly. True, there are a number
of drawish lines, but winning with 4. Where to develop the dark­
Black is not always obligatory . . . squared bishop.

290
 Alapin: 3.c3 d5

The following short lines an­ D. 6 . .ie2 ltlc6 7. 0-0 cxd4 ! 8.cxd4
swer these questions: .ie7 9.ltlc3 'Wd6

A. 6.l!)a3 ll:lc6 ! 7.ll:lb5 (7 . .ie2

'Wd8 ! ; 7 . .ie3 cxd4 ! ) 7 . . . �d8 8.dxc5
hc5

I would like to bring your atten­

tion to the following important line:
lO.ll:lbS 'Wd8 ll . .if4 ll:ld5 12 .i.g3 0-0
13.i.c4 a6 14.hd5 exd5 15.ll:lc7 :i!b8
16.ltle5 (which is allegedly better for
B. 6 . .ie3 cxd4 7.cxd4 .ib4+ !
White according to Sveshnikov)
8.ll:lc3 0-0 9 . .id3 b6

16 . . . .if5 ! = .
C. 6 ..id3 .ie7! 7.0-0 0-0 ! 8 . .ie3
cxd4 9.cxd4 b6 I did my best t o keep the "Step
by Step" chapter as succinct as pos­
sible. It will provide you with more
details on the plans of both sides.
Playing 3 .c3 d5 does not demand a
lot of theory, but you must be pre­
pared for long endgames or IQP po­
sitions. In short, the better players
are likely to prevail since it is rare
to meet crushing novelties.

291
Pa rt 9 . 3.c3 dS

Step by Step

l.e4 c5 2.�£3 e6 3.c3 d5 lLlxf3 + 12 .�xf3 lLlxc6 13.i.e4 �c8 =)

7 . . . lLl c6 8 . lLlf3 \Wc7 9.�e2? ! does not
keep the extra pawn because the cl­
bishop is hanging - 9 . . . lLlxe5 ! .
Even more interesting i s 6 . . . i.c6 !
(instead of 6 . . . cxd4). The i.d3 is
hanging so White has nothing bet­
ter than 7.0-0 = .

6.i.e4 i.c6

4.exd5

I suggest to meet 4.e5 by 4 . . . d4

since the rare French which arises
after 4 . . . lLlc6 S.d4 might be unfamil­
iar to you.
Our pawn on d4 is immune since
S.cxd4 cxd4 6.i.b5+ i.d7 7.lLlxd4? ! 7.d3
hbS 8.lLlxb5 a6 9.lLl5c3 lLlc6 regains
7.\We2 gives a tempo for devel­
the pawn with an edge - 1 0 . 0-0 (10.
opment - 7 . . . lLle7 8 .d3 (8.0-0 he4
\We2 \Wd4; 10.f4? \Wh4+ ll.g3 \Wh3)
9.�xe4 �dS ! lO.�xd5 lLlxd5 11.cxd4
10 . . . lLlge7 ll.lLla3 lLlxeS 12 .d4 lLl5c6
cxd4 ! 12.lLlxd4 lLlb4 13.lLlc3 lLld3 ! = )
13.lLlc2 g6 ! .
8 . . . he4 9.\Wxe4 dxc3 10.bxc3 lLlbc6.
Or S.lLla3 lLle7! 6.i.d3 lLlg6 7.0-0
i.d7. So White plays : 7 . . . lLle7 8.0-0. Black has two in­
teresting options here which need
S.i.d3, hoping for i.e4. I advo­
testing:
cate to anticipate this idea with :
a) 8 . . . lLlg6 9.cxd4 (9.i.g5 �d7
s . . . i.d7! when 6.cxd4 cxd4 10.cxd4cxd4 ll.lLlbd2 h6 12 .hg6
7.lLlxd4? ! (7. 0-0 ! i.c6 8.lLla3 lLle7 fxg6 13.i.h4 lLla6 14.a3 gS 15.i.g3
9.lLlc2 lLld7 10.lLlcxd4 lLlxe5 ll.lLlxc6 lLlcS) 9 . . . cxd4 10.�el i.e7 ll.lLlbd2

292
 Alapin : 3.c3 dS

0-0 1Vt:lb3 .be4 13.l'!xe4 tl:lc6 Sveshnikov mentions that the

14.�e2 l'!c8 ! ? delay of d4 "might" be in White's
favour after 6.i.e2 i.e7 7.0-0 0-0
8 .tl:lb5, but in fact it is the opposite.
Following 8 . . . �d8, White has no
other way to justify his strategy, but
play 9.a4 tt:Jc6 and, again, 10.d4 is
the only sensible continuation.

We'll sacrifice a pawn. The con­

trol of the c-file and our active piec­
es ensure sufficient compensa­
tion - 15 . .if4 �b6 16.tl:lbxd4 (16 .
.ig3 l'!fd8 17.h4 aS 18.h5 tl:lf8) 16 . . .
tl:lxf4 17.l'!xf4 tl:lb4 18.a3 tl:ldS (18 . . .
%!/a6 19.tl:le1 l'!c7 2 0 .l'!d1 tl:ldS 2 l . l'!g4
l'!fc8�) 19.l'!e4 l'!c7 2 0.%!/d2 E:fc8.

b) 8 ... .be4 9.dxe4 tl:lbc6 10 .�b3 White cannot prove in practice

�d7 ll.tl:lbd2 tl:lg6 12 .tl:lc4 i.e7 any advantage in this system so
13.l'!d1 0-0 14.i.e3 is difficult to as­ he has tried nearly all legal moves.
sess. I will focus on:
A. 6 . tl:l a3 ; B . 6.i.e3 ; C. 6.i.d3 D.
6.i.e2

Rozentalis also employs 6.a3

which is best met by 6 . . . tt:Jc6 7.i.e3
i.e7 8.i.d3 (8.dxc5 %!/xd1+ 9 . c;!{xd1
tl:lg4) 8 . . . 0-0 9.0-0 b6 10 .%!/e2
i.b7=, Rozentalis-Volokitin, AUT
2014. After ll.l'!d1, Black can isolate
the d4-pawn and follow the tested
Both 14 . . . d3 ! ? and 14 . . . tl:lh4 lead plans, or keep on the tension with
to dynamically balanced positions. ll . . . l'!fd8.

4 . . . �xd5 5.d4

5.tl:la3 tl:lf6 6 .d4 transposes. Less popular alternatives are:

6.tl:lb5 is dubious - 6 . . . �d8 7.d4 a6. a) 7.i.e3 cxd4

293
 Part 9

7. . . lt'lg4 is less explored. White 10 . . . i.e7

commonly prefers to keep the bish­
I do not like 10 . . .f6, but 10 . . . �b6 is
op - 8.i.g5 [8.i.c4 ! ? lt'lxe3 9.fxe3
a solid alternative. However, the po­
'\Mfd8 10. 0-0 i.e7; 8.lt'lb5 lt'lxe3
sition after ll.i.c4 ! i.c5 1 2 . 0-0 lt'lxd4
9.fxe3 '\Mfd8 10.d5 exdS 11.�xd5 i.e6
13.lt'lxd4 0-0 (13 . . .i.xd4 14.i.xd5)
12 .'\Mfxd8+ �xd8 13.0-0-0+ �c8
14.i.xd5 exdS 15.lt'lb3 i.e6 16.lt'lxc5
14.lt'lg5, Iordachescu-Potkin, Ser­
�xeS 17.i.e3, albeit drawish, leaves
pukhov 2008, 14 . . . i.xa2 ! 15.c4 i.b3
Black zero winning chances.
16J�ld5 i.e7) 8 . . . i.d7 9.lt'lb5 (9.h3
lt'lf6 10 .i.d3 cxd4 ll.lt'lb5 l'!c8 12.0-0 ll.lt'lxc6 bxc6 12 .i.xe7 �xe7
dxc3 13.lt'lxc3 '\Mfa5 14 . .txf6 gxf6 13.i.d3 (13 .i.c4 0-0 14.0-0 i.b7
15.l'!e1 i.e7; 9 .i.e2 cxd4 10.lt'lb5 l'!c8 15.l'!e1 l=!ad8 16.�c2 c5= ) 13 . . . 0-0
ll.cxd4 i.b4+ 12 .lt'lc3 0-0 13.0-0 14.0-0
'\Mfa5=) 9 ... l'!c8 10 .h3 lt'lf6 . Here ll.c4
'\Mre4+ 12 .i.e2 lt'lxd4 13.lt'lbxd4 cxd4
14.0-0 was equal in Tiviakov-Lenic,
Trieste 2008. ll.dxcS i.xcS 12 .i.e3
i.xe3 13.lt'ld6+ �f8 14.f:xe3 deserves
attention although Black neutralis­
es the initiative with 14 . . . l'!d8.

8.lt'lb5 '\Mfd8 9 .lt'lbxd4

Black has a good centre and an

excellent knight. He can follow up
with 14 . . . l'!d8 (14 . . . lt'lf4 ! ?) 15.�a4
l'!b8 16.l'!ab1 c5 when all his pieces
will be active.

b) 7.i.e2 �d8 ! 8.lt'lc2

9 . . . lt'ld5 ! (9 . . . lt'lxd4 10 .i.xd4 i.e7

ll.i.d3 is dangerous) lO .i.gS
10.lt'lxc6 bxc6 ll.i.d4 f6 12 .i.c4
i.d6 13.0-0 0-0 14.l'!e1 - Black con­
trols the centre. He has a number
of good options: 14 . . . �h8 ! ? 15.i.e3
'\Mfc7 16.'\Mfc2 l=!d8; 14 . . . �c7 15.i.b3
(15.'\Mfc2 �h8 16.l'!ad1 eS 17.i.e3 i.e6
18.i.cl l'!ad8) 15 . . . l'!d8 16.We2 eS ; 8.0-0 cxd4 9.lt'lb5 dxc3 ! (The
14 . . . e5 15.i.e3 i.e6. most testing. 9 . . . .tcs is balanced

294
 Alapin: 3.c3 d5

- 10.lt.Jbxd4 lt.Jxd4 ll.lt.Jxd4 0-0.) Sveshnikov wrote in 2010: 'White

10.�xd8+ �xd8 ll.lt.Jg5 �e7 has not found an advantage yet'. In
12.bxc3 h6 13.�a3+ (13J:'!d1 �d7 2 0 14, that is all the more true. The
14.lt.Jf3 a6) 13 . . . �e8 14.lt.Jc7+ �d8 latest top level game is Predojevic­
15.lt.Jxa8 hxg5. Carlsen, Lillehammer 2 013. It went:
8 . . . �e7 9 . 0-0 0-0 10.dxc5
10 .�g5 cxd4 ll.lt.Jcxd4 �d7
12 .Ele1 lt.Jxd4 13.�xd4 .ic6= .
10 . . . .ixc5 ll.'�xd8 (ll.�g5 e5)
ll . . . E!xd8 12 .�e3 .ixe3 13.ttJxe3 b6= .

7 Wfd8 8 . dxc5 hc5 9.Wfxd8 +

. . •

�xd8 10 .if4 •

a) 10 .b4 �b6 ll.lt.Jd6 (11.�f4

lt.Je4) 1 1 . . .�e7 1 2 .lt.Jc4 lt.Je4! 13.lt.Jxb6
axb6
Or 11.Eld1 + .id7
ll . . . �e7 12.lt.Jbd4 lt.Jxd4 13.lt.Jxd4
Eld8 14 . .id3 lt.Jf6 15.lt.Jb3 �d6= .
12 . .ie3 (12.lt.Jbd4 lt.Jxd4 13.lt.Jxd4
e5) 12 . . . .ixe3 13.fxe3 �e7 [13 . . . a6
14.lt.Jbd4 �e7 15 . .id3 li.Jf6 (15 . . . lt.Jd6=)
16.0-0 E!hd8 17.e4 lt.Jg4 18.Elfe1 f6= ,
Sveshnikov-Balogh, Warsaw 2005]
14.�d3 lt.JcS (14 ... lt.Jf6 15.0-0 lt.Jg4
14.b5 (14.�b2 Eld8 ! 15.a3 f6 was 16.Elfe1 lt.Jce5 17.�fl .ixb5 18 . .ixb5
slightly better for Black in Lastin Elhd8= , Schellmann-Kempinski,
-Krasenkow, Dagomys 2 008) Dresden 2 0 08) 15.�c2 lt.J e5 = .
14 ... lt.Jb8 15.a4 lt.Jd7 16.lt.Jd2 lt.Jxd2
17.�xd2 Eld8 18.�c2 lt.Jc5 19 .�e3 ll . . . tLlxg5 12 .hg5 + f6 13 . .ie3
Ela5 2 0 .�e2 e5= , Grekh-Kononen­ he3 14.fxe3 �e7 15.0-0-0 tLle5
ko, Odessa 2 008. 16 .ie2 .id7
•

b) 10 . .ig5 �e7 1l.Eld1 h6 12 . .ixf6+ Predojevic has ben following

(12 .�f4 lt.Je4) 12 . . . gxf6+, Landenber­ in the footsteps of Baklan (against
gue-Matlakov, Rhodes 2 013. Sutovsky, Plovdiv 2 003). In both
games White could not hold the bal­
lO • . . tLle4! ance!

295
 Part 9

B. 6.ie3 cxd4 7.cxd4 ib4 + ! placed on the left flanc. After 10 . . .

8.c!i:Jc3 0-0 hc3 + ll.bxc3 ib7 1 2 . 0-0 ttJbd7
13.gfb1 gfc8 14.�c2 �as 1S.id2
hf3 16.gxf3, Black obtained an at­
tack. His knight pair completes well
the queen - 16 . . . �hS 17.@g2 ttJdS
18.ia6 gc7 19.c4 ttJ7f6 2 0.a4 ttJe7,
Vlassov-Sutovsky, playchess.com
2003.

10 i.xc3 11.bxc3 ia6 12.ixa6

•••

lll x a6

9.id3

a) 9.ie2 is passive - 9 . . . �aS !

10.�b3 b6 11.ctJeS (11.0-0 ia6
12 .ha6 ttJxa6 13.a3 hc3 14.bxc3
gac8 1S.c4 ttJb8 is similar) ll . . . ia6
12 .ha6 hc3+ 13.bxc3 �xa6. The
hanging pawns are not dangerous
because Black has traded two minor
pieces. Thus White's chances for an
attack are minimal. Radjabov-Iv­ It is easy to play as Black here.
anchuk, Amber-rapid Nice 2009, White's pawn structure is really
went further 14.c4 gcs (14 ... �b7 "hanging". He should squeeze some
1S.O-O ttJc6=) 1S.O-O ttJc6 16.gfd 1 = . dynamic resources out of his piec­
b ) 9.a3? ! hc3 + 10 .bxc3 �aS es while we have the obligatory ma­
11.�c2 (11.�b3 b6 12.ttJeS ia6 noeuvre . . . ttJa6-b8-c6 and pressure
13.�b4 �xb4 14.axb4 hf1 1s.gxfl on the c-pawn. Although the en­
gcs 16.@d2 ttJc6) ll . . . b6 12.id2 ! gines assess the position as rough­
(12 .id3 ia6) 12 . . . ib7 is more tan­ ly equal, practical experience is in
gled, but White cannot complete Black's favour. Here are two exam­
development without concessions : ples :
13.id3 .bf3 14.gxf3 ttJc6 1S. O-O 13.�e2 ttJb8 14.c4 �e4 1S.ttJeS
eS; 13.c4 �hS 14.ie2 �g6 ! 1S.�xg6 ttJbd7 (1S . . . ttJc6=) 16.f3 �b7 17.ttJxd7
hxg6 16.0-0 ttJc6 = . ttJxd7 18.a4 gfc8 19.aS h6 2 0 J'Uc1
�c6 2 1.�d2 �d6 2 2 .if4 eS= , Ste­
9 ••. b6 10.0-0 vic-Grachev, Biel 2 0 1 1 ;
13 .�a4 ttJ b 8 14.c4 �d7 1S.�xd7
White can prevent . . . ia6 with ttJbxd7 16.a4 gac8 17.ttJd2 eS 18.aS
10 .�a4, but the queen will be mis- exd4 19 .hd4 gfe8 2 0 . axb6 axb6

296
 Alapin: 3 . c3 dS

21.E1fel = , Stevie-Wojtaszek, Porto ll.�e2 planning E1adl, J.cl is

Carras 2 01 1 . more popular, but Black gets com­
fortable play against the isolated
pawn - 11 . . . J.b7 12.E1adl �dS 13.J.cl
C. 6 . .id3 J.e7! 7. 0-0 0-0 ! �d7 14.a3 (14 . .ibl � 7f6 1S.�e4 aS
16.�eS J.a6 17.�xf6+ �xf6 18.J.d3
J.xd3 19.E1xd3 E1c8+, Pap-Zubarev,
Paleochora 2010) 14 . . . E1c8 1S.�e4
h6 16.�g3 E1e8 17.E1fel .if8 18.h4
J.d6 19.J.a6 .ixa6 2 0 .�xa6 J.xg3
2 1.fxg3 �c7 2 2 .g4 �c4+, Kalezic­
Malakhov, Budva 2009 .
ll.�eS J.b7 12 .�e2 is a modifi­
cation of the above line - 12 . . . �c6
13.E1adl �b4 14.J.c4 �bdS 1S.E1fel
E1c8 = .

Note that our best move or­

ll J.b7 12 .ibl �bd7 13.�e2
der here is slightly different from
.•• •

the other sixth moves. White de­

Or 13 .�d3 J.xf3 14.gxf3 �b8.
velops his pieces more aggressive­
ly so we must castle quickly. We are
13 ... �d5 14.J.d2 gcs 15.gfel
not afraid of the endgame after 8.c4
�d7! 9.dxcS E1d8 10 .J.c2 (lO.�eS
�d4 ll.�e2 �bd7 1 2 .�xd7 J.xd7
13 .J.e3 �eS 14.�c3 J.xcS= ) 10 . . .
�xd1 11.E1xdl E1xdl+ 12 .J.xdl �bd7!
13.c6 (13 .b4 aS) 13 . . .bxc6 14.�c3
J.b7 1S.b3 cS= . Potapov-Hammer,
Aix-les-Bains 2011, went on 16.J.f4
�e4 17.�xe4 J.xe4 18.J.e2 f6 19.E1dl
J.c6.

8 .J.e3 cxd4 9.cxd4 b6!

10.�c3 �d8 ! We have reached an IQP position.
The firm control of dS and comfort­
Another difference ! We are able development assure Black of an
planning . . . �dS so we should not easy game. Sooner or later we'll have
present a tempo on �e4 by retreat­ to define the pawn structure with
ing to d6. . . . �xc3. Perhaps we should not de­
lay this exchange - 1S . . . �xc3 ! ? . The
lU�cl only game in my database saw in-

297
 Part 9

stead 15 . . J%e8 16.!1cd1 (16.'119 d 3 ll:lf8

17.ll:le5 f6 18.ll:lf3 �d7=) 16 . . . ll:lxc3 ! ?
17.bxc3 .idS ! 18.�d3 (18 . .id3 �c7) a) 10.fi.g5 is a typical develop­
18 . . . g6 19.�e3 b5 ment when White has a bishop on
d3. 10 . . . 0-0 11.!1c1 (ll . .ixf6 .ixf6
1 2 .ll:le4 ti'f4 13.ll:lxf6+ ti'xf6 14.!1cl
!1d8 15.!1c4 .td7=) ll . . . ll:ld5 12.ll:le4
(12 . .ixe7 ll:lcxe7 13 . .id3 b6 14.ll:le5
fi.b7 15.ll:le4 ti'd8 16.!1e1 ll:lf4 17.fi.f1
ll:lf5 18.�g4 ll:lg6 = ) 12 . . . �d8 13 . .ixe7
ll:lcxe7 14.ll:le5 b6=.

b) 10 . .ie3 0-0 11.!1c1 !1d8

The transformation from an iso­

lated pawn to a hanging duo c3-
d4 is in Black's favour. The latter
structure is more passive and easy
to attack. 20.�f4 �c7 21.�g4 ll:lf6
(Black should seek to trade dark­
squared bishops in order to win the
c3-pawn. Perhaps more energet­
ic is 2 1. . . .id6 2 2 .h4 h5 23 .�h3 i.f4)
22 .�h3 .ixf3 23.�xf3 ll:ld5, Malak­
hov-Zhou, Rapid Ningbo 2 0 1 0 . White's bishops are not impres­
White cannot organise a dangerous sive. That give us time to complete
attack without a knight. development with . . . .td7-e8 or . . . b6,
. .. fi.b7:
b1) 12 .a3 b6 13.ll:lb5 (13 .ti'a4 fi.b7
D. 6 .ie2 ll:lc6 7.0-0 cxd4 (7 . . .
•
14.!1fd1 !1ac8 15.ll:le5 �b8 16.fi.f4
fi.e7 8.c4 �dB 9.dxc5 ! gives White a �a8 17.fi.f1 ll:lxe5 18.dxe5 ll:ld5
pull) 8.cxd4 .ie7 9.ll:lc3 ti'd6 19.ll:lxd5 .ixd5=) 13 . . . ti'd7 14.ll:le5
ll:lxe5 15.dxe5 ll:ld5 16.fi.d2 fi.b7= .

b2) 12.�d2 ll:ld5 ! 13.ll:le4 (13.

ll:lxd5 �xd5 14.fi.c4 ti'a5 15.�e2
.id7 16.!1fd1 .ie8 17.a3 !1ac8 18 . .ia2
fi.f6 = ; 13.!1fd1 fi.d7 14.ll:le4 'l!tfb8
15.ll:lc5 .te8 16.a3 b6 17.ll:le4 ll:la5
18.�c2 !1c8 19.�d3 !1xc1 2 0.!1xc1
b5) 13 . . . ti'b4 14.�c2 , Benjamin-Ye­
rmolinsky, Parsippany 1996, 14 . . .
�b6 ! threatening . . . e5 ! t .

298
 Alapin: 3.c3 dS

10 ••• �d8 ll.J.f4 axbS 1S.i.e4 has been extensive­

ly tested. It retains more pieces in­
1Llt'le5 is an older move which deed, but the hole on eS after 15 . . .
has drifted out of fashion. Black tt:lb4 16.'1We2 fS 17.i.b1 tLldS 18 .-tes
can be only glad to see its knight .id7 19.i.c2 .ic6 2 0.i.b3 �d7 is not
swapped because exchanges de­ to everyone's taste.
crease White's attacking poten­
tial and the pawn on c6 would bol­ 15.tt:lc7 (15.4Jc3 i.g4) 15 ••• gbs
ster the blockade of the isolated
pawn. 11 . . . 0-0 12 .i.f3 (1 2 _l[)xc6 bxc6
13.tLlc3 E!b8 14.tLla4 tLldS 15.�c2
i.d6 16.g3 �f6 17.E!d1 eS 18.dxe5
heSt) 12 . . . \Wb6 13.tLlxc6 (13.a4 a6
14.tLlxc6 bxc6 15.tLla3 i.b7 16.tLlc4
�c7 17.i.e3 tLld5 18.E!c1 !!feB 19.'1We2
cS= ) 13 . . .bxc6 14.tLlc3 i.a6 15.E!e1
!!adS 16.\Wa4 E!xd4 17.\Wxc6 �xc6
18.hc6 !!eSt.

ll .•• tt:ld5 12 .ig3 0-0 !

•

In my younger years, I played

against E.Sveshnikov 12 . . . a6 13.4Jc3 The c7-knight can also be saved
0-0, but there is no urgent need to with 16.�b3 i.d6 17.\WxdS hg3
flap the knight away - yet ! 18 .\Wxd8 !!xd8 19.hxg3 4Jxd4 and
16.E!cl i.g4 17.h3 hf3 18.\Wxf3 i.d6
13.J.c4 19.tt:lxd5 hg3 2 0.fxg3 4Jxd4 = .
Sveshnikov writes that Black is
13.E!c1 �b6 14.\Wd2 (14 . .ic4 i.d7 bound to struggle after the text, but
15.E!e1 E!fd8 16.tLlc3 4Jf6 17.4Ja4 the position is a dead draw, with op­
\WaS 18.tLlc5 �b6) 14 . . . E!d8 1S.E!fd1 posite-coloured bishops :
i.d7 16.4Jc3 (16.4Jd6 hd6 17.hd6
tt:lxd4) 16 . . . E!ac8 = ; 16 .•• J.f5 ! 17.tt:lxa6
13.4Je5 fS ! ? 14.h3 f4 with an ini­
tiative. 17.E!c1 4Jb4 18.a3 i.d6 19.�b3
i.c2 2 0 .�e3 hc7 21.axb4 heS
13 a6 ! 14.hd5 (14.4Jc3 4Jxc3
••• 22 . .txes E!c8 23 .�d2 .tfs.
1S.bxc3 bS 16.i.b3 i.b7) 14 exd5 ••.

17 gc8 18. tt:lxc6 gxc6 19.tt:lc5

.••

Entering a drawish line. 14 . . . hc5 20.dxc5 gxc5 21.J.e5 = .

299
300
 Part 10

King's Indian Reversed

l.e4 c 5 2 ./t)f3 e6 3.d3 .!ilc6 4.g3

The idea of 3 .d3 is to meet 3 . . . d5 by 4.4Jbd2. This move order allows White
to build a King's Indian set-up. In contrast, 3.g3 d5 forces White to take on
d5 and play against an isolated pawn. I consider this trendy line in Part 11.

301
Pa rt 10. Ki ng's I n d i a n Reversed

Main Ideas

The typical reasoning behind l.e4 Black's general aim is to get hold
c5 2 . �f3 e6 3.d3 �c6 4.g3 is: of the centre by . . . e6-e5 and proceed
"I'm playing the King's Indian De­ further with . . . f7-f5. At the same
fence where the pawn should stay time, he has not discarded yet plans
on e4 instead of e3. So I'll have prac­ with . . . d7-d5 which is keeping the
tically two extra tempi". It is com­ enemy in haze. White can expand
pletely wrong, because we'll not on the queenside by a3-b4 or gain
comply and will choose a Sicilian space in the centre by pushing d4 :
set-up ! If White stubbornly persists
in delaying d4, he could easily end
up with an inferior position right in
the opening.

A. 8.l:�el (threatening e5) 8 . . .

e 5 9.a3 d 6 10.b4 a6 !

4 .•• �ge7 5 . .ig2 g6 6.0-0

Black commonly meets h2-h4 by

. . . h6. This insertion is in Black's fa­
vour.

6 .•. .tg7 7.c3 0-0

302
 King's Indian Reversed

Do not allow b4-b5 ! It will be dif­ cxd4 in order t o keep c 3 unavailable

ficult to win such a position as White to White's knight.
can blockade the kingside, too. For
instance, when we push . . . f7-f5-f4, 9 .exd5
he will defend with h3, g4, lt:lh2.
Or 9.e5 �b6 10.lt:la3 (lO.dxcS
n. lt:lbd2 h6 12.gb1 J.e6 ! ? �c7 ! ) 10 . . . cxd4 ll.cxd4 f6 12 .Eiel
J.d7, see game 52 Bologan-Ivan­
Black has completed develop­ chuk, Moscow 1996.
ment and stands well in the centre.
9 ... lt:lxd5 10.dxc5 %Ya5
U.tl:lbd2 �xc5 12.tl:le4
B. 8.d4 d5 ! ?

12 ...�e7 13.c4 tl:lb6 14.c5 tl:ld5

The point here is to delay 8 . . . 15.gel �c7 16.gbl b6 = .

303
Pa rt 10. Ki ng's I n d i a n Reversed

Step by Step

l.e4 c5 2 . �f3 e6 3.d3 �c6 4.g3 restrict enemy's options in the cen­
tre and on the kingside by fianchet­
toing the dark-squared bishop.
4 . . . g6 is a reliable move order
which commonly transposes to our
main line. It allows two variations
of independent significance though :
5.d4 cxd4 6.lt:lxd4 i.g7! 7.lt:lb5 dS
8.exd5 exdS 9.'\WxdS Vfie7+ 10 .i.e2
i.g4 with full compensation for the
pawn ;
S.i.gS '\Wc7 6.i.g2 i.g7 7.c3 lt:lge7
4 .•• �ge7 8 . 0-0 0-0 9.d4 (9 .'\Wd2 dS 1 0 J:%el
f6 ll.exdS lt:lxdS 12 .i.h6 E:d8 with
White's insipid play also al­ a good control of the centre) 9 . . .
lows early flank activity like 4 . . . b5 cxd4 10.cxd4 d S ll.eS h6 1 2 .i.f6
S.i.g2 i.b7, but such treatment is hf6 13.exf6 lt:lfS 14.g4 lt:ld6 15.'\Wcl
not in the spirit of this book. Com­ '\Wd8 = .
mon sense and practical experience
show that central strategy brings 5.i.g2
better results, moreover, it is easier
to implement on the board. White may prevent 5 . . . g6 with
5.b3? ! , but on b2 the bishop stands
4 . . . d5 looks consistent. This set­ worse than on cl - S . . . dS 6 .'1We2
up has numerous adherents, but I (6.i.b2 d4 7.lt:lbd2 eS) 6 . . . g6 7.i.b2
do not approve of it. In my opin­ d4 when 8.e5 i.g7 9.lt:lbd2 0-0 10.a4
ion, White's play is too easy and loses a pawn to 10 . . . '\WdS ll.lt:lc4
straightforward after S.lt:lbd2 , fol­ lt:lxeS.
lowed by i.g2 , 0-0, E:el, eS, lt:lfl,
i.f4, h4, lt:lh2 (e3)-g4. It is safer to 5 ••• g6 6.0-0

304
 King's Indian Reversed

6 .d4 cxd4 7.ll:\xd4 i.g7 8.ll:\xc6 7J:�el d6 (or 7. . . e5! ?) 8.c3 eS!
bxc6 9 .�d6 is dubious owing to 9 . . . commits White's rook to el too ear­
fS ! ly. Basically it is better placed on fl.
7.ll:\bd2 0-0 8 .ll:\h4? ! dS 9.f4 can
According to Dvoretsky, it is still
quickly turn the tables in Black's
early for 6 .c3 i.g7 7.d4 cxd4 8.cxd4
favour because the only threat of
due to 8 . . . �b6:;:: .
White, g4, is easily parried by . . . fS,
6 .c3 i.g7 7.i.e3 ! ? is an inter­ while the queenside activity of Black
esting move order. Perhaps Black ( . . . b6, . . . as, . . . i.a6, . . J:�a7 or . . . gbs,
should accept the challenge by play­ . . . bS) should gradually prevail.
ing 7 . . . b6. Black is threatening . . . d7-
d5, so White must follow up with 7 • • • 0-0
8.d4 cxd4 (8 . . . d5 ! ? ) 9.ll:\xd4. This
position is still unclear: Black's general aim is to get hold
of the centre by . . . e6-e5 and proceed
further with . . .f7-f5 or . . . d6-d5. That
would be possible if White delayed
d3-d4, which is not dangerous, but
significantly changes the character
of play. Black is unable to prevent
the central break-through, but it is
up to him to decide what type of po­
sition to get after it.

Black has considerable counter­ If you are looking for clear

play after 9 . . . i.b7 see game53
- play with less risks, you better
Grigore-Itkis, Bucharest 2 0 0 0 . choose:
7 . . . e5 ! ? . Then 8.i.e3 d6 9.d4
6.h4 i s commonly met b y 6 . . . h 6
exd4 10.cxd4 i.g4 reduces the ten­
which i s a useful move anyway.
sion to a roughly equal position :

6 • • . ll:\ge7

ll.dxcS (ll.dS hf3 12.hf3

7.c3 ll:\d4:;:: , Filipovic-Markus, Zadar

305
 Part 10

2003) ll ... dxcS 12.l!Jbd2 (1Vt:'lc3 7 ... 0-0 is flexible, but allows
ltld4 ! ? = , e.g. 13.�a4 ltlec6 14.lt:'lxd4 White to seize and hold the centre.
cxd4 15.e5 dxe3 16.�g4 exf2 + The resulting positions are double­
17J3xf2 0-0=) 12 . . . b6 13 .Eib1 0-0 edged, with plenty of chances for
14.a3 ltld4 ! ? 1S . .id4 (1S.b4? ltlbS+) the better player. White's main con­
15 . . .cd4+ Koskela-Zhukova, Istan­ tinuations are :
bul 2003.

In his book How to Beat the Si­

cilian Defence, G. Jones actual­
ly shows how White can fight for
equality in this line. He suggests :
8.a3 (instead of 8 . .ie3) 8 . . . d6
9.b4 a6 10 . .ie3 b6 ll.ltlbd2 0-0
12 .Eib1 h6 13 .bxc5

A. 8.Eie1; B. 8.d4

He has also tried:

a) 8 . .ie3 b6 9.d4 is another ver­
sion of the plan of line B. White
wins a tempo on .ie3 , but on the
other hand, the bishop is not well
I reached this position in one
placed there. After . . . ltlfS, it should
of my games. Black pieces are well
move elsewhere because Black
placed, the centre is in my control,
would solve all his problems if he
but White can probably maintain
managed to trade it. Then . . . b7-b6
the balance after 13 . . . dxc5 (Jones
could turn to be just a present from
considers only 13 . . . bxc5 ? ! ) 14.ltlc4
White's side. 9 . . . d5 10 .e5 lt:'lf5 11 . .ig5
Eib8 (perhaps I should have tried
f6+.
the sharper 14 . . . b5 ! ? 1S.ltlb2 �d6
16.ltld2 ltlaS 17.f4 exf4 18.gxf4 .ib7 b) 8.ltla3 eS 9 .lt:'lc4 d6! 10 .a4 h6
19.e5 �c7 2 0 . ltl e4oo) 15.a4 and the ll . .id2 is extremely passive. In the
game Reyes Larena-Delchev, Beni­ game Sakaev-Rublevsky, St. Pe­
dorm 2007 ended in a draw after tersburg 2 0 0 1 , Black had the ini­
1S . . . .ie6 16.�c2 �c7 17.Eife1 Eifd8 tiative after ll .. .fS 1 2 .exf5 .ixfS
18.ltlfd2 bS 19.axb5 axbS 2 0 . ltlb2 13.'�e2 �d7 14.ltlh4 .ig4 1S.f3 .ie6
ltlaS 21.c4 bxc4 2 2 .ltlbxc4 ltlxc4 16.f4 exf4 17.gxf4 dS. Moutousis­
23.ltlxc4 .if8 24.Eixb8 Eixb8 25.'�cl Rogozenko, Debrecen 1992, also de­
.ixc4 26.�xc4 ltlc6 27.Eicl. · veloped in Black's favour after 11 . . .

306
 King's Indian Reversed

.ie6 12 .b4 �d7 13.a5 f5 14.�e2 cxb4 prevent it with ll . . . .ig4 12 .h3 .h£:3
15.exf5 .hf5+. 13 . .h£:3 �d7 14 . .ig2 f5 15.exf5 gxf5
with unclear position. All Black's
c) 8.ttlbd2 is similar to 8.ttla3.
pieces are well placed and co-ordi­
Black has many good possibilities.
nated. The more conservative ll .. .f5
He can choose the flexible 8 . . . d6,
yields good results, though.
planning . . . b5, . . . b4 and .. .f5 . My
9.tt:lbd2 d6 often transposes to
game Pace-Delchev, Lugano 2 007,
the other lines. In the game Udovcic­
went 9.�e1 e5 10.a4 h6 1U3b1 a6
T. Petrosian, Zagreb 1970, White at­
12 .b4 cxb4 13.cxb4 b5 . My pieces
tempted to hinder plans with . . .f5 by
are more active.
lO.tt:lfl h6 11 .ttle3 .ie6 12 .tt:lh4, when
12 . . . d5 ! 13.'?9f3 d4+ allowed Black to
gain space in the centre.

9 . . . d6
The only reason behind this
move is to provoke e5, which is on Another good plan is to prevent
Black's agenda anyway! I consider b4 by 9 . . . a5. White answers 10.a4
it in detail because it is surprising­ d6 ll.tt:la3 h6 and Black is ready for
ly popular. d5 or f5, for example, 12.ttlb5 d5= .

8 . . . e5 10.b4 a6 ! ?

10 . . . b6 allows 1l.b5 tt:la5 12.c4

with a closed position which would
be difficult to break. In the game
Grischuk-Najer, Moscow 2 014,
White chose the double-edged
ll.tt:lbd2 .ie6 12.ttlg5 .id7 13 .tt:lc4 h6
14.tt:lf3 .ie6 15 . .id2 b5 16.tt:le3 when
16 . . . �b8 would have equalised.

ll. �bd2 h6

9.a3 We can try a little provocation ­

ll . . . .ie6 ! . Then 12.tt:lg5 .ic8 13.tt:lc4
9.tt:la3 d6 10 . .ie3 b6 11.'?9d2 has b5 14.tt:le3 h6 15.ttlf3 .ie6 would be
been tested at highest level in Bru­ fine - 16.ttld2 a5 . However, White
zon-Topalov, Wijk aan Zee 2 0 05. can transpose to the main line with
White's idea is to trade dark­ 12J3b1 h6 ! ? .
squared bishops and open the cen­
tre with d4. Topalov decided to

307
 Part 10

Mladenov, Schwaebisch Gmuend

2 014;
10. lLia3 cxd4 11.cxd4 f6 1 2 . l"l:e1
!d7 13.l"l:b1 (13.exf6 hf6) 13 ... l"l:ac8
14.if4 fxeS 1S.dxeS l"l:f4 ! ? 16.gxf4
\!;lfb4 17.�b3 l"l:f8�, see game 52
Bologan-Ivanchuk, Moscow 1996.

9 ..ft:lxd5
• 10.dxc5 �as
lt.c�:lbd2

After this novelty, I d o not see l l .c4 runs into ll . . . lLidb4 12 .\We2
any sensible plan for White . 13 .i.b 2 l"l:d8 13 .i.e3 tt:l d3 14 . lLi c3 tt:lb2 !
(preparing d 4 ) 13 . . . b 5 14.tt:lb3 \Wb6
was pleasant for Black in Torre­
Gheorghiu, Manila 1973. 13.lLib3 c4
gives a good version of an open Si­
cilian while 13.\Wc2 l"l:b8 (or 13 . . . b6)
again passes the move to White.

B. 8.d4 d5 !

Practical experience has seen

Black struggling after 8 . . . cxd4
9.cxd4 dS 10.eS f6 ll.l"l:e1. White's
knight finds a good stand on c3, par­
rying enemy counterplay on the c­
file. The text is aimed against that
possibility. My suggestion from The Safest Si­
9.exd5 cilian, 2008 - 12 . . . �aS is still valid :
a) 13.�e2 \!;lfc7 14.l"l:d1 (14.c4
9 .eS \!;lfb6 hinders the normal de­
lLif6 1S.lLic3 eS 16.igS ie6=) 14 . . . b6
velopment of the enemy queenside.
1S.l"l:bl (1S.a4 ib7) 1S . . .h6 16.c4 h6
White has tried without success
17.b3 l"l:ad8 leads to double-edged
three moves here :
play (18.ib2 eS).
10.dxcS \!;lfc7! 11.if4 llJxeS
In 2 0 14, I can add that 13 ... �c7
12.lLixeS !xeS 13.heS �xeS= ;
could be saved - 13 . . . b6 ! ? 14.c4 ia6
10 .b3 id7 1l.ia3 cxd4 12.cxd4
1S.id2 �a4 16.b3 �a3 17.icl �e7
�Uc8 13.icS (13.lLic3 lLib4 14.\!;lfd2 aS
18.ib2 eS 19.l"l:adl l"l:ad8oo.
1S.l"l:fc1 if8 16 ..if1 lLifSt, Abergel­
Kveinys, Cappelle la Grande 2003) b) 13.igS h6 14.id2 \!;lfc7 1S.c4
13 ... \!;lfd8 14.l"l:e1 lLifS, Bravo Lutz-Sv. llJde7 16.llJc3 a6! 17.l"l:el l"l:d8 18 .�cl

308
 King's Indian Reversed

'it;h7= , Zhang Zhong-Rublevsky, Jones' statement must be a joke

Poikovsky 2 0 04. since Black has more pawns on the
kingside and only he can attack
G. Jones offers as an improve­ there. After 2 0 . . . .ie8 (ensuring the
ment 17.�cl 'it;h7 18 .�c2 gds d4-square), White's alleged attack
19.gadl .id7 2 0 .�e4 'and White can might be launched (and stopped)
return to attacking on the kingside'. with 21. �h4 ltJfS, or 2 1 .h4 'it;g8 ( 21. . .
gac8 ! ? wins a pawn - 2 2 .h5 ltJaS
23 .hxg6+ ttJxg6+).
Black has active play in this line.
In many variations, the queen re­
turns home so it may be a better
idea to put it there at once. The
game might continue :

13.c4 ltJb6 14.c5 ltJd5 15.gel

'ec7 16.gbl b6 = .

309
Pa rt 10. Ki ng's I n d i a n Reversed

Com plete G a m es

51. Kindermann-Volokitin White can castle short 11.0-0, when

Bundesliga 2003 ll . . .fSt earns Black the initiative,
despite the uncastled king.
l.e4 c5 2.c!i�f3 e6 3.d3 lDc6
4.g3 tDge7 5.J.g2 g6 6.h4 h6 7.c3 8 . • . e5
.ig7
8 . . . 0-0 might be even better.
Then 9.!!el (an attempt to improve
on Harikrishna-Navara, Dagomys
2008 which saw 9.d4 dS ! ) 9 . . . e5
10 .J.e3 b6 ll.�d2 @h7 12 .d4 exd4
13.cxd4 dS ! was slightly better for
Black in Maze-Navara, Caleta 2 0 14.

9.a3

8.0-0 Or 9.�e3 d6 10 .a3 ( 10 .�d2 J.g4

ll.lLla3 hS 12 .lLlc2 0-0 13.d4 exd4
The combination of 6.h4 with 14.cxd4 dS lS.exdS lLlxdS 16 . .ig5
8.0-0 looks strange. White only �d6 draw, Minasian-M.Gurevich,
weakens the g4-square and his New Delhi/Teheran 2 0 0 0 ) 10 . . . 0-0
castling position. I do not see what ll.b4 b6 12 .b5 lLla5 13.c4 .ie6 14.lLlc3
he achieves in return. Black com­ fSoo, Minasian-M. Gurevich, New
monly plays . . . h6 anyway. 8 . .ie3 d6! Delhi/Theran 2 0 0 0 .
9.�d2 is a more consistent attempt
to draw benefits from 6.h4, but 9 . . . 9 0 - 0 10 .b4 b6 ll.b5 lD a5
. • •

e5 10.lLla3 .ie6 leads White t o a n im­ 12.c4 d6 13.lDh2 !

passe. 11. 0-0-0 is rather risky (apart
from losing the a2-pawn). 11.d4 The break . . . t7-f5 is looming so
exd4 12.cxd4 dS+ is also d ubious so White tries to organise his king-

310
 King's Indian Reversed

side's defence. The march of the too. Perhaps 17 .. .f4 18.g4, counting
black f-pawn should be prevented on the closed character of the posi­
at all costs. tion, is the best practical chance, but
it is difficult to admit a mistake . . .
13 • . • �e6 14.h5
18.l;el d4 19.ltld2 J.-fl 2 0 .g4!±
�h8

14 • • • f5?

Every coach warns his pupils White launched a counter-at­

against hasty decisions and pre­ tack and his chances are clearly bet­
mature attacks. Black needed only ter. Now 21.'1Mff3 ! ? 'IM/e8 22 .'1Mfg3 �g8
one tempo to finish his preparation 23.�e5 would have beeen promising.
for a direct action. After 14 . . . �b8 ! ? The rest of the game is entertaining,
15.ltlc3 fS 16.hxg6 f4�, his position but irrelevant to the opening.
would have been very promising.
Instead, he sacrifices the exchange. 21.gxf5 ti'e8 22.ti'g4 J.h.S
The problem is that White's castling 23.ti'h3 l;f5+! 24.c!Oe4 �g6 25.lt:lg3
position cannot be seized by an as­ g-fl 26-l!�adl c!Of5 27.lt:le4 ti'e7
sault on the weakened light squares. 28.�cl? lt:lh4:ii 29.f4 J.h5 (Or
Black needs open files and rooks to 29 . . . exf4 30.ltlg4 lt:lxc4 ! 31.dxc4
use them. he4 32.�xe4 'IM/xe4 33 .'1Mfh4 'IM/g6
34.�hl f3+.) 30.l;d2 exf4 3U�f2
15.exf5 gxf5 16 .ixa8 ti'xa8
• f3? 32.�d2 ti'd8 33.J.xa5 bxa5
17.�b2 d5? ! 34.ltlc5± ti'g5 35.�hl ltlf5 36.ltle4
ti'h4 37.ti'xh4 lt:lxh4 38 .c5 J.g6
Black is nervous because the op­ 39.c6 J.e5 40.lt:lg4 .if4 41.l;c2
ponent is already threatening f4. ltlg2 42.l;xg2 fxg2 + 43.�xg2
However, this move only deprives gg7 44.�f3 gn 45.�g2 Sudden­
Volokitin of future counterplay ly White starts repeating the moves.
against the c4-pawn (and weakens 45.ltlef6 .ie3 46.@g3 is probably
eS) , so he should have kept it for winning, without risks at that.
reserve. 17 . . .'�e8 18.f4 .if7 19.ltld2 4s l;g7 46.�f3 gn 47.�g2
.••

.ihS 2 0 .'1MfeU is in White's favour, Draw.

311
 Part 10

16.gxf4 �b4 17.Vb3 lf!f8i

52. Bologan-lvanchuk
Moscow 1996

l.e4 c5 2.tl)f3 e6 3.d3 c!i)c6

4.g3 g6 5.i.g2 i.g7 6.0-0 c!i)ge7
7.c3 0-0 8.d4 d5 ! 9.e5 'M>6
10.c!i)a3 (10.dxc5 is met by 10 . . .�c7)
10 cxd4 ll.cxd4
••.

White is already on the defen­

sive. He should have avoided dou­
bled pawns by 18J"!e3. From now on
Black is in total control and does not
leave any chance to the opponent.

ll ••• f6 18 Vxb3 19.axb3 lf!xf4+ and

• • •

Black went on to win 50 moves lat­

lvanchuk is persistently rasp­ er 0-1
ing at the enemy centre. If he chose
a flank strategy like ll . . . ltJb4, . . . a5,
. . . .id7, he would risk to see his ini­ 53. Grigore-ltkis
tiative evaporate at some point. Bucharest 2000
Then White's supremacy on the
kingside might prevail. lvanchuk l.e4 e6 2.d3 c5 3.g3 c!i)c6 4 .ig2
•

prefers to fight for every inch of the g6 5.c3 .ig7 6 .ie3 b6 7.c!i)f3 ltJge7
•

centre. The mere fact that Black is 8.d4 cxd4 9. c!i)xd4 .ib7
able to choose between two tempt­
ing plans shows that he has solved
the opening problems.

12.lf!el .id7 13.lf!bl lf!ac8

14 . .if4 fxe5 15.dxe5 lf!xf4!?

15 ... ltJb4 16.�d2 a5 (16 ... ltJxa2?

17J"!a1 E!f4 18.gxf4;t) was a good op­
tion too, but Ivanchuk grasps the
chance of annihilating the enemy After 9 . . . .ia6 10 .�a4, the bishop
central pawns. should retreat to b7 anyway.

312
 King's Indian Reversed

10.f4 14.e5 tt:\f5 = ) 13 .he5 heS 14.fxe5

tt:\c6. The arising position is tan­
White could try to hinder the gled and double-edged. 15.�d6 :1!e8
opponent's development with 10.0- 16.tt:\a3 �a6 17.:1!f2 tt:\xe5oo.
0 0-0 11.tt:\xc6 hc6 12 .ygd6. Then
12 .. J!e8 13.tt:ld2 �b8 14.tt:\c4t main­ 1 2 .c!b a3 d6 13.ygd2 �xd4
tains White's spatial advantage.
In Nijboer-Sakaev, Elista 1998,
Black came to the plan with t7-f5,
but started with 12 . . . �e8 . It may
turn to be a waste of time since af­
ter 13.tt:\d2 fS 14.£3 Sakaev found
nothing better than repelling the
queen by 14 . . . tt:\c8. I suppose that
12 . . . tt:\c8 13 .ygd2 fS? should be bet­
ter. If White's leaved the d2-square
free for his knight with 13 .�d3 , then 14.cxd4?
13 . . . d5 equalises. 14.hd4 eS 15.fxe5 would have
been equal.
10 .•• 0-0 11. 0-0 �c8
14 £5+ 15.e5 .b:g2 16.ygxg2
•••

Black is playing by "general con­ �d5 17.J.f2 dxe5 18.dxe5 ygd7

siderations". That is not a priori 19.�acl �a4 20 .ygf3 g5 2 1.fxg5
bad, but he had a more concrete ap­ he5 2 2 .yge2 yge4 23 .�xe4 fxe4
proach like 11.. .tt:\xd4 ! ? 12 .hd4 eS 24.�c4 J.g7 25.a4 �b4 26.b3
(or perhaps 12 . . . hd4 13.ygxd4 dS � d5 27.�e3 0-1

313
314
 Pa rt 1 1

Ra re Lines on M ove 3

l.e4 c5 2 .ll:\ f3 e6

A. 3 .b4
B. 3.b3
C. 3.c4
D. 3.ll:\c3
E. 3.�e2
F. 3.g3

315
Pa rt 1 1 . Rare Li nes on Move 3

Main Ideas

In this chapter, I'll try to arm you A. 3.b4 cxb4

against different "rare" lines which
are not that rare at lower level. I'm
sure that any devoted Sicilian play­
er is only too happy to see White
deviating from the main lines. Still,
some variations could be tricky and
quite embarrassing if you do not
know how to face them. Another
problem when studying them is that
most of the games in the database
are between low rated players and If you feel unhappy to defend
only tend to obscure things instead with an extra pawn for some initia­
of providing a clue. I think that it is tive, you should look at game 57
unproductive to spend much time S.Williams-Delchev, London 2 0 13
on rare lines, so I'll choose for you which featured 3 . . . b6 ! ? . I recom­
some essential information which mend you to grab the gift, because
should be enough. Have in mind this version of the Sicilian Gam­
that in most variations Black has bit is not too dangerous for Black.
other good options (unlike in the White has committed his knight to
main lines where many moves are f3 and that deprives him of two im­
critical ! ) . If you are used to another portant attacking plans. The one
line and like it, stay with it. is linked with the exchange sacri­
I examine six different systems fice :ga3 which is pointless here. he
in one chapter, but the only thing knight is barring the third rank, it
that they have in common is that is pointless. The knight on f3 is im­
Black is fine without too much ef­ peding also his queen in its longing
fort. Otherwise they should be for the kingside and especially the
treated separately. square g4.

316
 Rare Lines on Move 3

4.a3 d5 5.e5 c!Oc6 6.axb4 6 .. .'�f6 ! 7.c3 .icS pinning the d4-
hb4 7.c3 i.e7 8.d4 i.d7 9.i.d3 knight.
�k8 10.0-0 a6
5 . . . 'i'c7 6.g3 c!Of6 7.e5 (7.lt:lc3
l"!b8 ! ? 8.i.g2 b5= ) 7 . . . c!Og4 8 .'i'e2
c!Oh6 9 . c!O a3 J.e7 10. c!Oc2 0-0
n.J.g2

You must watch out here for c3-

c4, for instance, meet ll.lt:lbd2 by
ll . . . lt:laS ! .

ll . . . b5! 12.0-0 bxc4 13.Ybc4

B . 3 .b3 a5 = .

C . 3.c4 c!Oc6

White hopes to gain a spatial

advantage by pushing eS. Anoth­
er idea is to swap the light-squared
bishop via bS and play a hedge­ White's "secret" thought is to
hog structure after c4. In that event enter hedgehog structures without
White's position would be very sol­ having to lose tempi on manoeuvres
id. I propose to deprive the oppo­ like lt:lf3-d4-b5-a3 as considered in
nent of both positional "threats". At Part 7. His "little" problem is that if
least he will feel unhappy . . . he does not push d4 at once, he'll
never be able to achieve it, because
3 • • • a6 ! ? 4.i.b2 c!Oc6 5.c4 ! ? we'll close the centre with 4 . . . e5 !
And if he does play 4.d4, the pres­
5.d4 cxd4 6.lt:lxd4 stumbles into sure on the e4-pawn will force him

317
 Part 11

to fetch another black pawn toward game 56 Leventic-Delchev, Zadar

the centre : 4.d4 cd4 5.llJd4 llJf6 2 004.
6.llJc3 �b4 7.llJc6 bc6 8.�d3 eS ! fol­
lowed up by . . . .ixc3 and . . . d6.
D. 3.lLlc3
4.llJc3 e5 !
This continuation is often used
This move challenges the fun­ by White to sidestep rare move or­
damental principle of quick devel­ ders, for instance 3.d4 cxd4 4.llJxd4
opment in the opening. It is all the 'l't!b6.
more provoking when played by the
second player who practically lags 3 • • • lLlc6 4 .ib5
•

two tempi behind the enemy. Yet

most good players prefer it ! There White's last move initiates a
are two reasons for that: strange hybrid between different
1. 4 . . . llJf6 5.�e 2 ! gives White systems, which is amazingly popu­
some initiative. lar lately.
2. 4 . . . e5 is not dubious at all ! In
positions with closed centre the only 4 • • • llJ d4 !
reasonable plan is a flank break­
trough and White's knight on f3 is
an obstacle before the f-pawn. That
allows Black to fight for the initia­
tive with an early . . .t7-f5. The aris­
ing positions are strategic and the
better player usually outplays the
opponent.

5.d3 d6
5.0-0
Or 5.�c4 llJf6 ! 6.0-0 a6 ! 7.a4
'l'tlc7. Black is following the nor­
mal Sicilian ways of development.
When White plays d3, he retreats
the knight to c6 with good play.

5 • • • a6 6 .id3 llJc6 ! ?
•

A funny position. Both sides have

Black pushes . . . fS and gets good lost tempi aiming mostly at hinder­
counterplay. He can develop the ing enemy's plans. It seems to me
dark-squared bishop to e7 or g7. See that White is outwitted. He cannot

318
 Rare Lines on Move 3

even transpose to the main open Si­ an early stage of development and
cilian lines because 7.�e2 could be there is not written theory so Black
challenged again by 7 . . . ll::l d 4 ! ? . is at his own. The only serious way
to exploit White's tricky move or­
der is:

The flank attack i s perfect­

ly grounded here. The rook move
prepared �fl and d4, but deprived
the f3-knight of any retreat square.
Black comfortably finishes develop­
ment after 8 .g3 d6 9 .b3 �g7 1 0 . .ib2
h6 ll.�fl ll:Jge7= , Souleidis-Bou­
sios, Halkidiki 2 0 0 2 .

3 d5 ! ? 4.exd5 (4.d3 dxe4)

E. 3 .'ee2 � c 6 4.c3 d5 ! · 5.d3
•••

4 exd5 5.d4 (S.i.g2 'ee7+ ! ) 5

••• • • •

�f6 6.g3 fi.e7 7.fi.g2 0-0 8 .0-0 �f6 ! 6.fi.g2 fi.e7 7.0-0 0-0 8 .�c3
b5 = .
8.i.e3 cxd4 (8 . . . .tg4 ? ! 9.dxc5)
9.ll::l xd4 i.g4 !

8 . . . �c6 9 .fi.e3

The c3-pawn provides a good

target to attack.

F. 3.g3 ! ?
9 fi.g4! 10 .h3 cxd4 ll.hd4
•••

This i s a very trendy line. I also fi.e6 12 .ge1 gc8 = , Chadaev-Ivan­

choose it occasionally. It is still at chuk, Olginka 2 0 1 1 .

319
Pa rt 1 1 . Rare Li nes on Move 3

Step by Step

l.e4 c5 2.�f3 e6 What can White really count on

by giving up a pawn? He does take
the opening initiative and he redu­
ces Black's control of the centre.
Chess Stars recently published
the 550 pages-thick Soloviov's in­
vestigations on the Sicilian Gam­
bit, The Modern Anti-Sicilian (via
the move order 2 . a3 ! ?) . The author
summarised his opinion for the
readers of this book in the following
way: 'My feeling is that White has
A. 3 .b4 compensation for the pawn, but not
B. 3.b3 more. For engines, Black has a nice
C. 3.c4 position. Over the board, it is the
D. 3 . ./Llc3 opposite. Perhaps it is a matter of
E. 3.�e2 taste. Defenders like Black, attack­
F. 3.g3 ers prefer White. ' A few months ago,
when I faced 3.b4 for the first time
A. 3.b4 cb4 in my practice, I decided to ques­
tion White's strategy by 3 . . . b6 ! ? .
See my annotations t o game 57
S.Williams-Delchev, London 2013.
After the game, I took my time to
make my homework and eventually
came up with the following sugges­
tion for more principled readers :

4.a3

4.d4 (4.�b2 ./Llf6) gives Black

additional possibilities as 4 . . . ./Llf6

320
 Rare Lines on Move 3

5.i.d3 dS 6.e5 lDe4. The knight hin­ lDa7! 16.lDc5 i.bS I do not see
-

ders White's development, for ex­ enough compensation after the ex­
ample, 7.0-0 lDc6 8.a3 (RlDbd2 change of the light-squared bishops.
lDc3 9.'Wel i.d7) 8 .. .f5 9.exf6 �xf6
b) 1l . .ia3 lDa7 12.i.xe7 lDxe'T+.
10.i.e3 i.d7 ll.axb4 i.xb4 12 .c3
lDxc3 13.lDxc3 i.xc3 14J!bl i.b4 c) ll.lDel lDa7 12.f4 lDh6 13.g4
15.lDe5 aS+, Zvjaginsev-Neverov, lDbS 14.f5 i.gS and it is unclear how
St. Petersburg 2 0 1 0 . to develop the attack. White should
G M Zvjaginzev i s the only top not forget that his king is also in
level GM who plays the gambit in danger. Look at the funny variation
classical time controls on a regular 15.f6 gxf6 16.i.xg5 fxg5 17.'Wf3 tbxc3
basis. He is some sort of the last of 18 .�h3 'Wb6 19.lDf3
the Mohicans.

4 d5 5.e5 tbc6 6.axb4 .ixb4

•••

7.c3 .ie7 8.d4 .id7 9.i.d3 �c8

10.0-0 a6

Black should be able to reach

this position against any White's
move order.

19 ... lDf5 ! 2 0 .gxf5 tbe4 2 l.�h6 g4

2 2 .'Wg7 l'!f8 23.�xg4 �b2 24.l'!a5
l'!cl 25.�g2 �xg2+ 26.@xg2 l'!g8+
27. @h3 l'!xfl 28.i.xfl exfS with a
mating net despite the trade of
queens.

u . . . tba5!

It is essential to prevent c3-c4 !

which would follow after ll . . . lDa7.
We'll wait for an opportunity to
develop our knight to h6. The cen­
12 .�c2
tre is closed so we can leave our king
there for a while and attack the c3- Or 12 .lDb3 lDc4 13.l'!el h5 14.lDfd2
pawn. i.b5 15.i.c2 lDb6 16.l'!e3 'Wc'T+.

U.tbbd2 12 • . • 'Wc7 13.J.b2

a) 11.lDfd2 lDh6 1 2 . lDb3 lDfS 13.i.xh7? 'Wxc3 14.'Wbl 'Wb4

13.i.a3 i.xa3 14J'!xa3 l'!c7 15.�e2 15.i.b2 tbh6 16.i.c2 0-0 was hop-

321
 Part 11

less for White in Zvjaginsev-Rod­ b) 5 . .ie2 d5 ! ? Black enters a fa­

shtein, Moscow 2012. vourable position with an isolated
pawn. Another decent solution is
1 3 �h6
•.• 14.gfcl .ib5 5 . . . lt:Jf6 6.e5 lt:Jd5 7.0-0 lt:Jf4 ! 8 J:%el
15.hb5+ axb5 16 .ia3 ha3 • d5 9.exd6 (9.-ifl g5 ! ?--+) 9 . . . .ixd6
17.gxa3 0-0 18.Wb2 �c4 19. �xc4 lO . .ifl 0-0 = . 6.exd5 exd5 7.d4 lt:Jf6
bxc4 20.gcal 8 . 0-0 .ie7 9 . dxc5 .ixc5= . Black's
plan is . . . 0-0, .. J%e8 , . . . .ig4, . . . lt:Je4.
It will be difficult to convert the He should only avoid exchanges.
extra pawn due to the activity of
c) 5.g3? ! (if White wanted to
White's heavy pieces.
fianchetto the bishop, 3.g3 ! would
have been the better choice) 5 . . .
d5 ! 6.exd5 exd5 7 . .ig2 (7.d4 lt:Jf6
B. 3.b3
8 . .ig2 '1We7+) 7 .. :�e7+ 8 .'1We2 �xe2+
9. c;t>xe2 .if5+.

Bl. 5.d4? ! cxd4 6. �xd4 �f6 !

3 .•. a6 ! ?

Alternatively, Black might ex­

plore 3 . . . �c6 4 . .ib2 lt:lf6.
I used to play before 3 . . .b6, but
By this original move, Black pins
then 4.d4 cxd4 5.lt:lxd4 '1Wf6 is quite
the d4-knight along the main diag­
risky. The text move is more useful.
onal. Soon the bishop will crucify it
on the other diagonal, f2-c5, forcing
4 . .ib2 �c6
c3. Evidently, White's strategy is a
failure.
White must define his plans.
Main continuations are :
7.c3 .ic5 8 .ie2 �ge7
Bl. 5.d4? ! ; B 2. 5.c4 !
•

This is a good and safe develop­

Other minor options:
ing move. However, if you feel like
a) 5.'1We2 ! ? d6 6.g3 lt:Jf6 7 . .ig2 grabbing a pawn, you can follow in
ie7 8.0-0 0-0 9.d4 cxd4 10.�xd4 my footsteps: 8 . . . '1Wg6 ! ? 9.0-0 �xe4
id7 with a pleasant open Sicilian. 10.lt:ld2 �f4 ll.g3 �c7 12.lt:lxc6 dxc6

322
 Rare Lines on Move 3

13.tt:le4 !i.e7 14.c4 tt:lf6 15.tt:lxf6 !i.f6 Alternatively: 7.tt:\c3 l'%b8 ! ?

16.!i.xf6 gxf6, Rivas Pastor-Delchev, 8.!i.g2 b5= ; 7.Y!le2 e5= ( 7. . . d6 ! ?) .
Benasque 2 0 05. However, White
has probably enough long-term 7. . . �g4 8.Y!le2 �h6
compensation. I encountered later
9.!i.f3?! tt:�es 1o. o-o tt:lf6 1l.tt:ld2 o-m=, I'm following the game Ro­
Paljusaj-Delchev, Sibenik 2 0 07. manov-Svidler, Sochi 2 0 1 2 , where
Black had a comfortable game. An­
9. 0-0 0-0 other option is 8 . . . !i.e7 9.!i.g2 0-0
10.0-0 f6.
The game is balanced, but White
should still make a couple of accu­ 9 . � a3 J.e7 10.�c2 0-0 ll . .ig2
rate moves. For instance, 10.tt:la3 ? !
i s not enough, owing t o 1 0 . . . d5
ll.exd5 exd5+.

B2. 5.c4 ! ? Y!lc7 (discouraging

6 .d4? in view of 6 . . . cxd4 7.tt:\xd4
Y!le5)

ll . . . b5 ! 12.0-0 bxc4 13.�xc4

a5 = .

C. 3.c4 �c6

6.g3

6.!i.e2 tt:lf6 7.tt:lc3 tt:ld4 8.d3 is too

modest. Perhaps simplest would be
8 . . . tt:\xe2 9.�xe2 d6= .
6.tt:lc3 tt:lf6 7.g3 (7.d4 cxd4
8.tt:\xd4 !i.c5) 7 . . J%b8 ! ? 8 .!i.g2 b5
9 .d3 !i.e7 1 0 . 0-0 0-0 1 U%e1 d6= .

6 . . . �f6 7.e5 Cl. 4.d4; C2. 4.tt:\c3

323
 Part 11

Cl. 4.d4 cxd4 5.�xd4 �f6 9 . . . hc3 is overoptimistic. White

6.<tlc3 can seize the initiative with 1 0.bxc3
d6 11.�a4 �c7 12 .c5 d5 13.exd5
6.<tlxc6 dxc6 ! ? ( 6 . . . bxc6=) is good ttJxd5 14.c4 ttJe7 15.�b2 0-0 16.l'!ae1
for Black f6 17.�c2 h6 18 .f4t.

6 •.. .tb4 7.�xc6 10 .ie3

•

Black can answer 7.f3? ! or Here is the best place for the
7.�d3? ! by 7 . . . 0-0, while 7.tLlb5 bishop. After 10 .!g5 h6 ll.!h4
could be faced by 7 . . . a6 ! ? 8.ttJd6 !c5 ! Black seizes the g1-a7 diago­
cJ;; e7 9.�f4 e5 10.ttJf5 'i!ff8 11.�g5 d5 nal. In the game Christiansen-Rib­
12.cxd5 !f5=, Lilov-Drenchev, Sun­ li, Deutschland 1992 White tried to
ny Beach 2007. attack firstly on the queenside with
12.a3? ! a5 13.'Wd2 d6 14.'i!lh1 !e6,
and then on the other wing -15.f4? !
exf4 16.l'!xf4 g5 17.l'!afl, but 17 . . . !d4 !
18.l'!4f3 ttJg4 ! 19.!g3 ttJe5 2 0.!e5
!e5+ proved to be in Black's favour.
This example shows that 1 0 .!d2
could turn out to be a waste of time.
Black answers .. !c5, . . . d6, . . . !e6.

10 • . • hc3

7 •.• bxc6 In his game against Kram­

nik, Kramnik-Kasparov, New York
It is widely believed that 7 . . . dxc6 1994, Kasparov played 10 . . . d6? !
8.�xd8+ 'i!ld8 is equal, but in my 11.tLla4 ! . In his comments he wrote
opinion 9.e5 ! ? gives White a lasting that Black should double the oppo­
initiative on the kingside. It could nent's pawns to achieve equality.
be developed with h4 and l'!h3 .
ll.bxc3 d6 12.h3 !e6
8 .id3
•

Or 8.e5? ! ttJe4 9.�g4 ttJxc3 10.a3,

when 10 . . . !f8 ! ? is the safest way to
get an edge : ll.bxc3 �a5 12.�g3 g6
13.!f4 !g7+, Alburt-Sunye Neto,
Wijk aan Zee 1980.

8 ••• e5! 9. 0-0 0-0

324
 Rare Lines on Move 3

13.f4cc

Game 54 Chandler-Emms,
Hastings 2 0 0 0 (see "Complete
Games") confirmed Kasparov's
evaluation. Black had everything
under control.

C2. 4.lilc3
I did not like 9 . 0 - 0 ! h4 (9 . . . .ih6
1 0.d3) lO.ltJhl .ih6 ll.d3 d6 12.f4
(12 . .ixh6 lt:\xh6 13.f4 .id7) 12 . . . exf4
13 . .ixf4 hf4 14.Elxf4 �gS lS.Wffl
.ie6 16.W/f2 0-0-0 17.Elfl h3 18.g3
�eS. White's pawn structure is
more flexible.

4 ... eS is a solid option which

brings excellent practical results.
Black is two tempi behind in a sym­
4 ••. e5 ! ? metric position, but he can push
.. .fS without any preparation.
Any move which hinders d4 White can develop his bishop to
should be a fair alternative. Still, e2 or g2 . The same is valid for Black.
4 . . . W/b6, played by Swiercz, Sakaev, White's play on the queenside
Movsesian, looks a bit too extrava­ can be slowed down with . . . aS. Look
gant to me. at the game Naiditsch-Perunovic,
4 ... lt:\d4 ! ? · is more logical as it Paks 2014:
solves the problem altogether! Its S.a3 aS 6 ..ie2 d6 7.d3 .ie7 8.4JdS
main advantage is that the arising fS 9.exfS .hf5 10.0-0 lt:\f6 ll.lt:\h4
positions are nearly unexplored. .ie6 1 2 .4Jxe7 W/xe7 13.f4 0-0 14.fxeS
dxeS
S.lt:\xd4
If White delays this exchange,
we'll get the possibility to save . . . e6-
eS - S.d3 lt:\e7 6.4Jxd4 cxd4 7.lt:\e2
lt:\c6 8.g3 bS ! ? with an initiative,
Dolzhikova-Muzychuk, Kharkov
2012.

S . . . cxd4 6 . lt:\ e 2 e S 7.lt:\g3 g6

8 . .ie2 hS
32S
 Part 11

Black's game is already slightly 4 . . . l!Jge7 is also frequently seen,

better. but it gives White a free hand in the
S.d3 d6 6 . .ie2 .ie7 7.0-0 f5 centre.
8.exf5 h£5 9 . .ie3 l!Jf6 lO.l!JgS 0-0
ll..if3 W'd7 12.l!Jge4 l'!ab8 13.l!Jxf6+
hf6 14 . .ie4 (Pridorozhni-Jakoven­
ko, Aix-les-Bains 2011) 14 . . . .ig4
1S ..if3 .ifS 16 . .ie4 �h8 = , Zhigalko­
Roiz, Olginka 2011 (16 . . . .ig4 17 . .if3
draw, Solak-Nikolov, Albena 2012).

White can also fianchetto his

bishop - S.d3 d6 6.g3 .ie7 7 . .ig2 fS,
see game 56 Leven tic- Delchev, Za­
dar 2004.
5.0-0

After S ..ic4 l!Jf6 ! 6.0-0 (6.e5

D. 3.lbc3 l!Jg4 7.l!Jxd4 l!JeS ! +) 6 ... a6 ! (beware
the trap 6 . . . d5? 7.exd5 exdS 8.l!Jxd4
This continuation is often used cxd4 9.l!Jxd5 ! l!JxdS lO .�hS--+)
by White to sidestep rare move or­ White's bishop is vulnerable on
ders of the opponent, for instance c4, for instance 7.d3 W'c7 ! ? 8 .l!Jxd4
3.d4 cxd4 4.l!Jxd4 W'b6. Nothing un­ cxd4 9.l!Je2 .id6 10 .h3 l!Jxe4 ! = . The
usual so far, we play: last move explains why Black has
been delaying b7-b5, which is also
3 .tbc6
••
good, by the way. Some players pre­
fer 7.a4 instead of 7.d3.
If your repertoire includes the
Kan, you should choose 3 . . . a6 !
when 4.d4 would lead to the most
pleasant version of the Kan - with
l!Jc3 - while 4.g3 bS is double-edged
and in any case not worse for Black.

4 . .!b5

White's last move leads to an

amazingly popular lately hybrid be­ Now 7 ... l!Je4? ! is dubious in view
tween different systems. of 8.l!Jxe4 dS 9 .d3 dxc4 10.dxc4 .ie7
11 . .ie3 l!Jxf3 12 .�xf3±, Carlsson­
Jansson, Stockholm 2 0 04.

326
 Rare Lines on Move 3

7 . . . d5 8.exd5 exdS 9 . .ta2 .tg4

10 .'�e1+ .te7 11.tt'lxd4 cxd4 12 .tt'le2
d3 ! ? gives Black full compensation
for the pawn after 13.cxd3 0-0 14.d4
l':l:e8 15.f3 .tfs 16 . .tb1 hb1 17.l':'i:xb1
Wffc 7 18.Wid1 .td6 19 .g3 l':l:e6�.
Perhaps the simplest solution
has been demonstrated by Kiril
Georgiev against Tissir, Gibraltar
20 05: 7 . . . Wffc 7!? 8.h3 (8.d3 tt'lc6 ! ? is
similar) 8 . . . .te7 9 .d3 tt'lc6 ! ? White
defended his bishop and the knight
retreats back. Dl. 7 . .te2 ; D 2. 7.l':'i:e1

Black has many good plans after Dl. 7 .ie2

•

5.a4. I propose 5 . . . a6 6 . .tc4 (6 . .td3

tt'l c6) 6 .. .'�f6 7.tt'lxd4 cxd4 8.tt'le2
·
In mathematics, you just write :
Wig6. Black's play is clear and easy. '7 . . ."Wc7 (or 7 . . . tt'lf6) 8.d4, transpos­
9 .tt'lg3 hS 10.Wfff3 tt'lf6 ll.h4 (ll .d3 ing to our main line Taimanov' and
.tb4) ll . . . .td6 12 .d3 tt'lg4 13 . .tf4. move on to other pending prob­
This position occuerred in Drago­ lems.
jlovic-Papp Zoltan, Szeged 1998.
Black could have gained the edge You should also consider 7 . . .
with 13 . . . .tb4 !+ . bS ! ? 8.d4 cxd4 9.tt'lxd4 .tb7 10.tt'lxc6
hc6, Andreikin-Caruana, Biel
The most consistent response 2010.
to S . .td3 is 5 . . . tt'lxf3 ! ? (S . . . tt'le7 Finally, 7 . . . tt'ld4 ! ? i s a capital
6.tt'lxd4 cxd4 7.tt'le2 tt'lc6= is a wor­ way of preventing d4. Perhaps it is
thy alternative) 6 .Wffxf3 a6 7.0-0 enough for equality, but you risk to
(or 7.b3 .td6 8 ..tb2 .teS= ) 7 . . .'�c7 be summoned by the chief arbiter
8 . l':'i:e1 .td 6 ! 9.g3 tt'lf6 10 . .tf1 .teS= for a booze control. . .
ll . .tg2 bS 1 2 . a4? ! b4+, Iordaches­
cu-Rublevsky, FIDE-Wch k.o. Trip­
oli 2 0 04. Black's play in this game D2. 7.gel g5 !
was clear and straightforward.

5 . . . a6 6 . .id3 ti)c6 ! ?

A funny position. Both sides

have lost tempi aiming mostly at
hindering the opponent's plans. It
seems to me that White has been
outwitted. He cannot even trans­
pose to the main open Sicilian lines :

327
 Part 11

The flank assault is perfectly target to attack. The Skripchenko­

grounded here. The rook move to el Koneru, blitz Moscow 2 0 1 0 , went
prepared .tfl and d4, but deprived on 9 .e5 �d7 10 .h4 b4 n . .tf4 bxc3
the f3-knight of retreat squares. In 12 .bxc3 .ta6 13.tt:lbd2 �a5 14.�fcl
practice White has tried : �ab8 15.ttlfl, when best would have
8.�fl .tg7 9.b3 g4 lO.tt:lel h5 been 15 . . . �a3 with a clear advan­
n . .tb2 d5 (it is better to keep the tage.
centre closed - ll . . . d6 ! ) 12 .exd5
exd5 13.tt:la4 hb2 14.tt:lxb2 tt:lge7oo
Safarli-Brunello, Khanty-Mansiysk F. 3.g3 ! ?
2010.
8.h3 h5 9.ttlh2 .td6 10 .b3 (10.
ie2? g4 11.g3 h4- + , Fruteau-Skrip­
chenko, Chartres 2005, 10 .g3? �c7)
10 . . . g4 11 . .tb2 .te5 ! ;
8.g3 d6 9.b3 .tg7 10 . .tb2 , Soulei­
dis-Bousios, Halkidiki 2 0 0 2 , 10 . . . g4
ll.tt:lh4 h5 ;
B.@hl - see game 55 Mark
Tseitlin-Avrukh, Tel Aviv 2002.

E. 3. '9e2 � c 6 4.c3 White avoids the risks o f the

open Sicilian and all the theoretical
White's queen does not fit in to overhead it involves. The play takes
the g3-design: 4.g3 tt:lge7 5 . .tg2 g6 a manoeuvring course without tac­
6.0-0 .tg7 7.c3 0-0 8.�dl e5 = . tical complications. This allows the
strategically-oriented players to im­
4 . . . d5 ! 5.d3 �f6 6.g3 ie7 pose their style which would be im­
7.i.g2 0-0 8.0-0 b5 = . possible after the sharp 3.d4 . Some­
times the surprise effect can bring
quick dividends. Look at my game
Delchev-Bagaturov, Edirne 2 0 1 3 :
3 . . . tt:lf6 ? ! 4.e5 tt:ld5 5 . .tg2 d6 6.0-0
tt:lc6 7.exd6 hd6 8.d4 0-0 9.dxc5
.b:c5 1 0 .'?9e2 V!fc7 ll.c4 tt:lde7 12 . .tf4
.td6 13 .hd6 V!fxd6 14.�dl V!ic7
15.ttlc3 a6 16.�d2 .td7 17.tt:lg5 �adS
18.�adl h6 19.tt:lge4 e5. I made all
the most natural moves and already
my advantage is decisive - 2 0 . �xd7!
�xd7 2 1 .tt:lf6+ gxf6 2 2 .�g4+ was
The c3-pawn provides a good winning.

328
 Rare Lines on Move 3

Black can prevent eS with 3 . . . b) S.d3 d6 6.0-0 i.e7

lt:lc6 4.i.g2 lt:lf6 which I analyse as
line F1, or he can attempt to exploit
White's tricky move order with 3 . . .
d S which i s line F2. The choice de­
pends entirely on your taste. Line F1
is closer to the spirit of the Sicilian
while line F2 offers active piece play.

Fl. 3 . . . �c6 4 .lg2 �f6

.

Both sides have an enormous

choice here. For instance:
7.c4 0-0 8 .lt:lc3 a6 9.d4 cxd4
10.�xd4 i.d7 followed up by . . . bS;
7.E:el 0-0 8.c3 i.d7 9.�bd2 '\Wc7!
(aimed against e4-eS) 10 .a3 E:ac8
ll.d4 cxd4 12.cxd4 eS 13.dS lt:lb8
14.lt:lf1 aS = , Van der Weide-Kemp­
inski, Groningen 1996;
7.lt:lgS h6 8.lt:lh3 eS 9.f4 i.g4
10 .�d2 �d4 11.lt:lf2 i.f3 .
5.'tYe2
5 • • . e5
a) s.�c3 indicates that White
intends to push d4, having side­ Fighting for every inch of the
stepped the Kan and a number centre. Black can also allow e4-eS af­
of other lines. The principled an­ ter s . . . d6 6.0-0 i.e7 7.c3 (7.E:d1 0-0
swer is S . . . d.S 6.exdS exdS 7.d4 cxd4 8 .d4 cxd4 9 .lt:lxd4 lt:lxd4 10.E:xd4
8.�xd4 i.g4 ! . I got this position i.d7 ll.c4 a6 12.lt:lc3 bS�) 7 . . . 0-0
against Malakhov. He chose 9.lt:lxc6 8.d4 (8.E:d1 dS ! 9 .eS lt:ld7 10.d4 aS
bxc6 10 .'\Wd4 i.e7 11.0-0 0-0 12.lt:la4 ll.i.e3 b6�) 8 . . . dS 9.eS lt:ld7
when best is 12 . . . E:e8 with an excel­
lent position.
Similar is 9.'\Wd3 i.cS 10 .i.e3
'tYb6 ll.lt:lxc6 bxc6 12.i.xcS �xeS
13.0-0 0-0.
The latest attempt to improve
White's play was 9.f3 i.d7 10 .i.e3
i.e7 11.0-0 0-0 12.E:e1 E:e8 13.lt:lb3,
Safarli-Tregubov, Loo 2 013, when
13 . . . i.b4 deserves attention.

329
 Part 11

This is the favourite set-up for 7. lLla3 0-0 8 . c3 d6 9.d3 ges

Black of my club teammate Gan­ lO.lLlc4 .if8 ll.lile3 h6
guly. He is Anand's second and one
of the world's most erudite open­ I'm following the game Nai­
ing experts. He always puts his ditsch-E.H ansen, Reykjavik 2 0 14.
queenside pawns on b6 and a5 : I'm not sure about Black's last
move. ll . . . l'!b8 planning . . . b7-b5-b4
10.j,e3 a5 ll.a4 b6 12Jk1 j,a6
is worth considering
13.�d1, E.Hansen-Ganguly, Lin­
ares 2013, 13 . . . b5 ! 14.axb5 hb5
t 2 . lLlh4 g6 13. Whl J.g7 14.Ad2
15.lLlbd2 l'!b8 ;
gbs = ts.gael
10.h4 b6 1l . .ig5 (1Lj,f4 a5 12.l'!e1
j,a6 13.�d1 l'!c8 14.j,fl hf1 15.Wxfl Obviously White's plan is f4 so it
b5 16.lLla3 �b6 17.h5 b4 18.lLlc2 would be good before moving the b­
bxc3 19.bxc3 �b2 2 0.h6 g6 2 l .�d2 pawn to defend the c6-knight with
cxd4 2 2 .lLlcxd4 �xd2 23.hd2 15 . . . j,d7! . Then 16.f4 would drop a
lLlc5+, Vea-Ganguly, Caleta 2 0 14) pawn after 16 . . . exf4 17.gxf4 lLlxe4.
ll . . . a5 12.l'!c1 j,a6 13.�e3 l'!c8 ! (13 . . .
b5 14.lLlbd2 �b6 15.he7 lLlxe7
16.dxc5=, Nitin-Ganguly, Kanpur F2. 3 • • • d5 ! ?
2014) 14.lLlbd2 l'!c7 (14 . . . l'!e8) 15 . .ifl
hf1 16.lLlxf1 b5+. The point i s that White cannot
enter King's Indian structure with
6.0-0 Ae7 4.d3 since 4 . . . dxe4 5.dxe4 �xd1 +
6.Wxd1 lLlf6 can be only in Black's
favour.

4.exd5 exd5 5.d4 (5.j,g2

�e7+ ! ) 5 lLlf6 !
• • •

White has not shown a convinc­

ing plan here. The most natural try
is 7.c3 0-0 8.d4, but 8 . . . cxd4 9.cxd4
exd4 10.e5 ltJeS ll.l'!d1 �b6 is good
for Black. Therefore, White should
develop in the King's Indian man­ I t i s better t o castle quickly than
ner: display activity with 5 . . . lLlc6 6.j,g2

330
 Rare Lines on Move 3

.ig4 7. 0-0 .ie7 in view of 8.dxc5 ! . 9.dxc5 hc5 i s equal ( 9 . . .d 4 is

a dubious attempt to play in the
6 .tg2 .te7
• Tarrasch style - 10.lL!a4 i.g4 11.h3
i.f5 12 .a3) 10.i.g5 d4 11.lL!e4 i.e7
6 .. .'�e7+ is a mistake. In Rabi­ 1 2 .lL!xf6+ hf6 13.i.xf6 1!;Yxf6 14.lL!e1
neau-Delchev, Fourmies 2 0 13, was i.f5 15.lLld3 lL!e5 16.lL!xe5 \Wxe5 = ,
7.'�e 2 ? ! \Wxe 2+ 8.'i!?xe2 lL!c6 and I Balogh-So, Saint Louis 2012.
was already better.
7.lL!e5 cxd4 8.0-0 \Wxe5 9J:�e1
lL!e4 10 . .if4 'I!;Yf6 11.f3 .ie7 is also
pleasant. White should answer:
7 . .ie3 ! lL!g4 8.0-0 · lL!xe3 9 .fxe3
lL!c6 1 0 .c4 ! and Black's centre is
crumbling down.

7.0-0 0-0 8 . lL! c3

8 . .ie3 cxd4 (8 . . . i.g4 ? ! 9.dxc5)

9.lL!xd4 i.g4 ! (9 . . . lL!c6 10.h3 ! was
9 . . .tg4 ! 10 .h3 cxd4 ll.hd4
slightly better for White in Adams­
.

.te6 12.l!el gcs =

Kryvoruchko, Tromso 2013, since
Black's bishop could not find an ac­
12 . . . h6 13.lL!e2 i.d6 14.hf6
tive stand) 10 .1!;Yd3 'I!;Yd7 11.c4 (11.
\Wxf6 15.lL!ed4 i.c5 16.c3 l!ad8
lL!c3 lL!c6 12 J'!fe1 l!fe8=) 11 ... lL!c6
was also balanced in Sadvakasov­
1 2 .lL!xc6 bxc6 13.lLlc3 = . If White at­
Khalifman, Liepaja 2 0 0 1 .
tempts to trick us with the move or­
der - 8.h3, we'll not take on d4 -
13.�e2 i. f5 14.c3 g e s 1 5 .te3•

8 ... lL!c6 ! 9.i.e3 \Wb6 10.lLlc3 \Wxb2

.ie4 16.�ed4 \Wd7 17.�d2 .tg6
11.lL!a4 'I!;Ya3 12.lL!xc5 b6+.
8.dxc5 hcs 9.i.g5 lL!c6 1 0 .lLlc3 Ivanchuk follows the rule to
i.e6= 11.lLld2 ? ! h6. keep more pieces when playing
with an isolated pawn, but 17 . . .
8 • . • lL!c6 9 .ie3
•
hg2 was also good. The game went
on 18.lL!xc6 (18 .\Wa4 a6) 18 . . . bxc6
9.i.g5 h6 10.i.xf6 i.xf6 11.dxc5 19.1!;Ya4 i.d6 with mutual chances,
hc3 12 .bxc3 1!;Ya5 = ; Chadaev-Ivanchuk, Olginka 2011.

331
 Pa rt 1 1 . Rare Lines on Move 3

Com plete Gam es

13 . . . exf4 14.hf4 tfb6 15.�hl

54. Chand ler-Emms
Vlfc5
Hastings 2000

l.e4 c5 2.�f3 e6 3.d4 cxd4

4. �xd4 �c6 5.c4 �f6 6.�c3 J.b4
7.�xc6 bxc6 ! 8.J.d3 e5 9.0-0 0-0
10.J.e3 hc3 (10 . . . d6? ! ll.tLla4 ! t)
ll.bxc3 d6= 12.h3 J.e6

White failed to achieve substan­

tial compensation for the split pawn
structure. Still, the bishop pair helps
him to hold on.

13.f4 Black improves his rooks before

eating the enemy pawns. 17 . . . J.xc4 is
If White seeks initiative on the about equal : 18 .i.e3 WfhS (18 . . . Wfa5?
queenside, the pawn on c4 could fall 19.l'%xf6 gxf6 2 0 .Wfg4 'it>h8 21 .i.d4)
quickly, as in the game Van Weer­ 19.i.d4� ll:le8 2 0 .J.xa7 dS 2 1.i.b6 = .
sel-Nill, Chisinau 2 0 05, 13.l'%bl
Wfc7 14.Wfd2 (14.Wfa4 ll:ld7) 14 ... ll:ld7 18.tfd2 ffc4?!
15.l'%fdl l':1fd8 16.l'%b4? c5 17.l'%b2 ll:lb6
18.Wfe2 f6+. Black has achieved perfect co­
Or 13.Wfa4 Wfc7 14.f4 exf4 15.J.xf4 ordination between his pieces. He
tLld7 16J"i:fdl cS+, Doell-Kovalev, could have displayed that by open­
Dresden 2010. ing up the centre : 18 . . . d5 ! Instead,

332
 Rare Lines on Move 3

he inexplicably decides to sacrifice 5 a6 6 . .id3 c!Llc6 ! ? 7.gel g5 !

• • •

the exchange accepting an inferior 8.'it>hl

position.

19 .ig5 c!Lle4
• 20 .ie4
• �e4
2 1 .id8 gd8 =
•

The a7-pawn is weak, but appar­

ently Black should be able to hold
the enemy to a draw.

2 2 . gd3 d5 2:tge1 �h4

24.gd4 �e7 25.�d3 �a3 2 6.�c2 8 • . • .ig7
gbs 27.ga4 �c5 28.�d2 V!/e7?
29.�d4 gb6 30.�e5? Avrukh should have tried to de­
White misses his chance to -reach velop his initiative by 8 . . . g4 ! ? 9.c!Llgl
a clear edge by 30 .V!/b6! ab6 31.gas h5 lO . .ifl (10.f4 .ih6 ! ) , when 10 . . .
V!Jf8 3 2 . gfs <i>f8 33.a4±. Now Black .id6 ! best fits i n the spirit o f the
gradually becomes better. Taimanov. Black's design is certain­
30 h6 31.ge3 'it>h7 32.gg3 f6
.•• ly not to mate the opponent, but to
33.�e3 V!/d7 34.V!Jc5 .if5 35.V!/a5 cramp him and prevent the freeing
gb7 36.gb4 .ie4 37 .gxb7 V!/xb7 d2 -d4
38.�d8 c5 39 .V!/d6 c4 40.'it>h2
a6 41.a3 a5 42.<i>hl a4 43.'it>h2 9 .ifl h6 10.d3 c!Llge7 ll.c!Lle2
•

�f7 44.ge3 f5 45.V!Je5 V!Jf8 46.ge2 d5? !

V!Jxa3 47.�e4 fxe4 48.�f5+ 'it>h8
49.V!/c8+ 'it>h7 50.V!Jf5+ g6 51.�f7+ Black is inconsistent. Firstly
'it>h8 52.�f6+ 'it>h7 53.�f7+ he refrained from g4, now he sud­
'it>h8 54.V!Jf6+ 'it>g8 55.�xg6+ denly opens up the centre. ll . . . tt:lg6
'it>f8 56.�xh6+ 'it>e7 57.V!/g5+ 1 2 .tt:lg3 0-0 13.tt:lh5 .ih8 = looks
'it>e6 58.�g6+ 'it>d7 59.�f5+ 'it>c7 preferable to me.
60.V!Jf7+ 'it>c8 61.V!Ie8+ 'it>c7 Draw.
12 .c3 dxe4 13.dxe4 V!/xdl
14.gxdl b6 15.c!Llg3 ggs
55. Mark Tseitlin-Avrukh
Tel Aviv 2002 15 . . . tt:lg6! 16.tt:lh5 0-0 would be
roughly equal.
l.e4 c5 2 . c!Llf3 e6 3.c!Llc3 c!Llc6
4.i.b5 c!Lld4 5.0-0 16.c!Lld2

5.tt:lxd4? cxd4 6.tt:le2 V!Jg5 is Black's awkward break-trough

sometimes seen in blitz . . . in the centre only lost his tempo-

333
 Part 11

rary initiative and activated the en­

56. Leventic-Delchev
emy pieces. Now 16.lLJh5 i.h8 17.h4±
Zadar 2004
would have underlined this fact, but
White sticks to routine manoeu­
l.e4 c5 2 . lLJf3 e6 3.c4 lLJc6
vring and again falls under pres­
4.lLJc3 e5 5.d3 d6 6.g3 .ie7 7 .ig2 •

sure. This time he gets into trouble

f5
because of his weak light squares.

16 lLJe5
.•• 17. lLJc4 lLJxc4
18 .hc4 .ib7 19.�gl? ! .ie5
20.f3 lLJc8 21.lDh5 �e7 22 .ie3 •

�d6 23.-ifl .ic6 24.gd2 .ib5+

25.gadl ga7

Black is behind in development

indeed, but the closed centre saves
him from trouble. Practice has
shown that White is unable to re­
fute Black's design.

8.exf5 hf5 9. 0-0 �d7 10. lDd5

26.b3? lLJf6 11. lDg5 lLJxd5 12 .hd5 hg5
Avrukh suggests 26.i.d3 as the
only move (26 . . . lLJc4 27.i.c4 i.c4 12 . . . h6 13.lLJt7? fails to 13 . . . gf8+,
28.b3 i.bS 29.a4 i.c6 30.a5±), but but 13.lLJe4 is probably equal .
26 . . . i.d3 27.gd3 gd7+ still leaves
Black with the better game because 13.hg5 .�b4 14 .ie4
• 0-0
of the ridiculous knight at the edge. 15 . .ie3 a5? !
26 .ifl 27.�fl f5 ! (winning
••.

a pawn) 28.ef5 lLJxf5 29.gd3 We all know the AB C book, but

hh2 30 .if2 g4 31.f4 ®f7 32 .g3
• somehow tend to forget about it
�g6 33.�g2 �xh5 34.�xh2 gc7 in the heat of the battle. 15 . . . .ixe4 !
35.gds gxd8 36.gxd8 gc6 37.a4 16.dxe4 �e6+ would have fixed the
a5 38.gbs �g6 39.gg8 + �f7 pawns in my favour because my
4o.gbs gd6 4t.gb7+ �g6 42.�g2 knight would be more mobile. Per­
hs 43.gbs �f7 44.gb7+ �f6 haps subconsciously I wanted to
45.gbs gd2 46.®fl gd3 47.gxb6 keep more pieces on the board.
�xg3+ 48.�g2 h4 49.hc5 gd2+
so.�gt �f5 st.gbs h3 s2.ghs . 16.a3 (16.f4 ! ?) 16 . . . lLJc6
gdl+ 53.�f2 h2 0-1 17 .id5+ �h8 18.f4
•

334
 Rare Lines on Move 3

3 • • • b6 ! ?

18 . . . .ie6

It would have been better to This move was proposed by Da­

open lines : 18 . . . exf4 ! 19.hf4 l!Jd4+. vid Bronstein in his book David
19 .'ea4 exf4 20 .bf4 �U5 •
Against Goliath. It may not be the
21 .ie4 gf7 2 2 .gael .ih3 23.gf2
•
most principled retort, but it is an
ges 24 .ie3 •
effective antidot to White's idea.
Black keeps control of the centre.
24.�dl ! wou ld have kept the bal­ My wife, WGM Djingarova, played
ance because 24 . . . .ig4 (24 . . J�ef8 = ; 3 . . . b6 back in 2 005 so I can say that
24 . . J'l:ff8 =) fails to 25 . .ixc6 ! gxel I was still in my preparation !
26.�xel �xc6 27.�e4 !±.
4.bxc5 bxc5 5.�a3
24 gxf2 25 . .ixf2 Y9f7 26.�dl
• . •

l!Je5 27 .id5 Wf6 28 .d4? (28.

•
White had tried 12 ( ! ) difer­
�d2+) 28 gf8- + 29 .ie3 �g4
••• •
ent moves, but the text seems to
30 .if4 g5 31.i.g2 gxf4 32 .ixh3
• •
be a novelty. The knight is head­
fxg3 0-1 ing for c4-d6. Muzychuk-Djingaro­
va, Nova Gorica 2005, saw the most
logical S.l!Jc3 l!Jc6 6.gbl .ie7 7.i.c4
l!Jf6 8.0-0 0-0 9.gel d6 10 .d4 cxd4
57. S.Williams-Delchev ll.l!Jxd4 l!Je5 12 .i.fl i.d7+ and Black
London, 12.12.2013 can be satisfied with his position.
She achieved a Scheveningen for­
l.e4 c5 2.�f3 e6 3 .b4 mation where white has weakened
considerably his queenside.
My first reaction to this move
was that I felt a bit scandalised and 5 • • • i.b7! 6.e5 �e7 7.h4?!
my ego was ofended. Then I came to
my senses and pondered rationally I could not understand this
over the situation. The truth was move. Instead of developing quick­
that I was not preapred against the ly in this semi-open position, White
Sicilian Gambit. So finally I replied: loses a tempo and weakens his

335
 Part 11

kingside. The natural continuation It was simpler to trade piec­

is 7J�bl �d5 (7 . . . �e4 ! ? 8.d3 hf3) es with ll.hf5 ltld4 12.\1;!fb7 l'!b8
8.�c4 a6 (preventing ltlb5) 9.0-0 13.�xa7 exf5 14.ltlb5 = .
ltlbc6.
l l . . . �fd4 1 2 .bd4 • cxd4
7 •.• �f5 8 .td3
• 13 .te4 gc8 14 .bc6 dxc6
• •

White's set-up is a total mess. He

has not any co-ordination between
pawns and pieces. The a3-knight is
exceptionally useless. With my next
moves I convert my strategic advan­
tage into a pawn.

15.�c2 d3 16. �e3 �d4 17.0-0

\1;!fxe5 18.gfel
8 •.• .td5
Or 18.ltlg4 \1;!fd4 19.l'!ael �d6
I didnt want to close the diago­ 2 0.l'!e4 \1;!fb2 2 1.\1;!fxd3 l'!d8 2 2 .�e2
nal to the bishop although 8 . . . ltlc6 0-0+.
9J:'!bl l'!b8 10.ltlc4 �a6 ! + would have
been fine. Another forcing contin­ 18 ••• .td6 19. �g4? !
uation is 8 . . . �d4 (removing a de­
fender of the e5-pawn and prolong­ This is a step in a wrong direc­
ing the scope of my bishop) 9.ltlxd4 tion. It was better to try 19.g3 0-0
cxd4 10.\1;!fg4 \1;!fa5 ll.ltlc4 \1;!fd5. 2 0 .ltlc2 WaS 2 1.�xd3 l'!fd8+ - the
pawns are equal, but all my pieces
9.c4 are active.

White creates a gaping hole on 19 \1;!fd4 20.c5 hc5 2 U : !acl

. . •

d4 and restricts his own pieces ltla3 �d6 22.ge4 tlli2 23.gcel 0-0
and �fl. Perhaps 9 .�5 maintained (Game over) 24.�xd3 gfd8 25.\1;!fc4
the balance. �xd2 26.h5 �d5 27.�e2 f5
28.�e6 fxg4 29.�xg4 i.f8 30.h6
9 ••• hf3 10.\1;!fxf3 �c6 gc7 31.g6e5 �xa2 32.�g5 gbs
n . .tb2?! 33.ges gxe8 34.gxe8 �al+ 0-1

336
Index of Branches

Taimanov l.e4 c5 2 )t)f3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.liJxd4 c!lJc6

5. tt:\xc6 278
5.c4 tt:\f6 324
5.tt:lb5 d6 6 ..if4 e5 7 . .ie3 a6 8.tt:\5c3 tt:lf6 9 . .ic4 249
9 ..ig5 250
9. tt:ld2 251
6.c4 tt:lf6 7.tt:l lc3 (7.tt:\5c3 252; 7.tt:ld4 253) 7 . . . a6 8.tt:la3 b6 (8 . . .
.ie7 253) 9 . .ie2 .ib7 10.0-0 .ie7 (10 . . . tt:l b 8 254) ll . .ie3 0 - 0 12.f4 255
12.�b3 257
12.f3 26 0
1 2 Jk1 262
5.tLlc3 �c7 (6.tt:ldb5 284; 6 .tt:\xc6 281)
6.�d3 283
6 . .ie2 a6 7.0-0 tt:lf6 8.a3 17
8.'it>hl tt:Jxd4 9.�xd4 .ic5 10 .�d3 b5 ll.f4 18
ll . .ig5 20
8 . .ie3 .ib4 9.tt:la4 .ie7 10 .c4 23
1 0 .tt:\xc6 25
6 . .ie3 a6 7. .id3 tt:lf6 8 . 0-0 tt:Jxd4 9 . .ixd4 .ic5 10 . .ie2 84
10 . .ixf6 85
10 . .ixc5 86
8 . . . tt:le5 9.tt:lf3 tt:Jeg4 89 (9 . . . d6 89; 9 . . . tt:Jfg4 89)
9.h3 .ic5 10.tt:la4 91
10 .�e2 93
10.'it>h1 94
7.�d2 tt:lf6 8.0-0-0 (8 .f3 ; 8.f4 53) 8 . . . .ie7 9.f3 (9.f4 54) 9 . . . b5
10 .g4 tt:Jxd4 11.�xd4 61
ll . .ixd4 .ib7 12 .g5 58 (12.�f2 57)
12 .'it>b1 6 0
12 . .id3 61

6.f4 a 6 7.tt:Jf3 128

7 . .ie3 129
7 . .ie2 133
7.tt:lxc6 �xc6 8 . .id3 b5 9.�e2 .ic5 137
9 . . . .ib7 139

337
6.g3 a6 7.i.g2 d6 8.0-0 i.d7 9.ll'lde2 163
9 .ll'lb3 164
9.i.e3 167
9.l'!e1 168
9.a4 169
9.ll'lxc6 i.xc6 10.l'!e1 170
10.a4 172
7 . . . h5 8 .h4 174 (8.i.g5 174)
B.h3 175
8.0-0 176

Kan l.e4 c5 2.ll'lf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.ll'lxd4 a6

5.i.e2 29
5.c4 ll'lf6 6.ll'lc3 i.b4 7.i.d3 2 0 6
7.�d3 ll'lc6 8 .ll'lxc6 dxc6 9.�xd8+ 2 0 9
9 .e5 2 0 9
7.�c2 21 0
7.�f3 212
5.i.d3 g6 6.ll'lc3 214
6.c4 216
5 . . . ll'lf6 6.0-0 Vffc 7 7.Vffe 2 d6 8.c4 g6 9.ll'lc3 i.g7 10 .l'!dl 222
10.ll'lf3 223
10.i.e3 224
5.�c3 Y!lc7
6.i.e3 ll'lf6 7.i.d3 i.b4 65 (7 . . . i.c5 ; 7 . . . b5 65)
6.i.e2 b5 7.0-0 i.b7 8.l'!el ll'lc6 9.ll'lxc6 dxc6 10 .e5 l'!d8 ll.i.d3 c5 1 2 .Vffh 5 33
emg
1 2 .Vffg4 35
6.i.d3 ll'lf6 (6 . . . ll'lc6 98) 7.Vff e 2 99
7.0-0 d6 8.a4 1 0 1
B.Vffe 2 1 03
B.f4 1 05
7.f4 107
6.f4 b5 7.i.d3 i.b7 B.�f3 143 (8 .�e2 153)
6.g3 i.b4 7.ll'lde2 179
7.i.d2 ll'lf6 8 .i.g2 ll'lc6 9.ll'lb3 0-0 181
9 . . . i.e7 182

338
Anti-Sicilian Systems
l.e4 c5 2 . �f3 e6
3.c3 d5 4.exd5 �xd5 5.d4 lt:lf6 6.lt:la3 293
6 . .ie3 296
6 . .id3 297
6 . .ie2 298
3.d3 lt:lc6 4.g3 .it:lge7 5 . .ig2 g6 6.0-0 .ig7 7.c3 0-0 8.l:!e1 3 0 7
8.d4 3 0 8
3.b4 32 0
3 .b3 a6 4 . .ib2 lt:lc6 5.d4 322
5.c4 323
3.c4 lt:lc6 4.d4 324
4.lt:lc3 325
3 .lt:lc3 lt:lc6 4 . .ib5 lt:ld4 5.0-0 a6 6 . .id3 lt:lc6 7 . .ie2 327
7.l:!e1 327
3.�e2 328
3.g3 lt:lc6 329
3 . . . d5 33 0

339
 Fo rward
Chess

Most Chess Stars books are also available in the interactive electronic for­
mat ForwardChess. It is a free application which presents the books as they
look in print. Furthermore, it also provides a board which displays the text
moves or your own analysis. Read more information about Forwardchess
at:
http : I I chess-stars.com/Forwardchess.html

Here is the link to the iOS version:

https :/ /itunes.apple.com/us/app/forwardchess/id5430 05909?mt=8

This is the Android version:

https : I /play .google.com/ store/ apps/ details?id=com.forwardchess

You can also use Forwardchess on Windows desktops and notebooks

through the Android emulation from http : / / www . bluestacks.com/

340