The complete Benoni - Psakhis

SAVE OFFLINE

THE

COMPLETE BENONI

Winning with Black is no easy matter, especially against a solid queen's pawn player. This is a problem Lev Psakhis faced in the last round of the 1980 Soviet Championship. He opted for the Benoni, and the rest is history! This dynamic defence is Qbout as close to total warfare as you get in modern chess. The likelihood of exchanges and a quick draw is minimized from the start; both players must carry out their plans with the utmost vigour, or risk being swamped.

•

Thorough, up-to-the-minute coverage of all the key lines

•

A deadly weapon for club players

•

Written by a leading exponent of the Benoni

Lev Psakhis is one of the world's leading grandmasters. He

has twice finished equal first in the super-strong Soviet Championship, defeating Garry Kasparov en route in 1981. His first book for Botsford, The Complete French, was a huge success and received outstanding reviews in the chess press: 'A rare treat ... this book will appeal to players of a wide Craig Pritchett, The Herald range of strengths.' 'All Botsford's The Complete... series are of a high standard and Psakhis' volume is no exception.'

James Plaskett, New Statesman and Society

Other openings books from Botsford include: The Complete French Lev Psakhis

The Complete Plrc John Nunn

The Complete Vi enna Mikhail Tseitlin and Igor Glazkov

The Complete Alekhine Graham Burgess

The Complete Semi-slav Peter Wells For a co.mplete list of these and other Botsford chess books please write to: B.T. Botsford Ltd

4 Fitzhardinge Street London WlH OAH

The Complete Queen's Indian Efim Geller

The Complete Benoni LEVPSAKHIS

Translated by Sarah J. Young

J'

B. T. Batsford Ltd, London

First published 1995 © Lev Psakhis 1995 Reprinted 1 996 ISBN 0 7 1 34 7765 2 British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, by any means, without prior permission of the publisher.

Typeset by John Nunn and printed in Great Britain by Redwood Books, Trowbridge, Wilts for the publishers, B . T. Batsford Ltd, 4 Fitzhardinge Street, London W1H OAH

A BATSFORD CHESS BOOK Editorial Panel: Mark Dvoretsky, Jon Speelman General Adviser: Raymond Keene OBE Specialist Adviser: Dr John Nunn Commissioning Editor: Graham Burgess

Contents Symbols Introduction 1

A60: Rare Moves

4 5

2

A61: 6lDf3 introduction

6 13

3

Fianchetto System: Introduction (A62)

33

4

Fianchetto with ...lDbd7: Introduction (A63)

48

5 6

Fianchetto Main Line (A64) 6 e4 Introduction (A65)

61 74

7

Mikenas Attack (A66)

105

8

Taimanov's 8 ..tb5+ (A67)

111

9

Four Pawns Attack without 9...l:e8 (A68)

129

Four Pawns Attack: 9 ...:e8 (A69) Modem Lines after 7lDf3 (A70)

138 162

12

7lDf3 ..tg7 8 ..tg5 (A71)

188

13

7lDf3 ..tg7 8 .i.e2 0-0 (A72)

194

10 11

14

Classical: Introduction (A73)

198

15

Classical: 9...a6 without 10.....tg4 (A74)

16

Classical: 9...a6 10 a4 ..tg4 (A75)

208 211

17

Classical: 9 0-0 :e8 10 'ii'c2 (A76)

225

18

Classical: 9 0-0 l:e8 10lDd2 (A77)

228

19

Classical: 9 0-0 ::le8 10lDd2lDa6 (A78)

243

20 Classical: 9 0-0 l:e8 10lDd2lDa6 11 f3 (A79) 246 Index of Variations 255

Symbols Check Double check Checkmate Slight advantage to White (Black) Clear advantage to White (Black) ±(+) +- (-+) Winning advantage to White (Black) /!,. Intending = Level position 00 Unclear position ! Good move ? Bad move !! Outstanding move ?? Blunder !? Interesting move ?! Dubious move Championship Ch Team championship Cht tt Team tournament Junior Event jr Women's event worn Rapidplay rpd World Championship Wch Zonal z IZ Interzonal Ct Candidates OL Olympiad Corr Postal game (D) Diagram follows +

++ # ;!; (+)

Introduction Winning with Black is no easy mat­ especially in this day of high level technique. Against 1 e4 there nrc options such as the Sicilian De­ fe nce, but what is it possible to do ngainst 1 d4? I faced this problem before the critical game with Yuri Balashov in lhe penultimate round of the 1980 Soviet Championship. I was fighting for the Soviet title and it seemed to me that my Queen's Indian Defence would bring a draw at best, and per­ haps only after a difficult defence. I eventually decided to play the Mod­ ern Benoni and the rest, as they say, was history. Despite its risky reputation, I can say that after 15 years' experience with this defence, it is certainly no worse than any other and has a defi­ nite plus in that it does not allow White an easy life. My own results have been exceptional: from over 60 games I scored 70 percent, losing only four games. Amongst my oppo­ nents were the likes of Gligoric, Khalifman, Polugaevsky, Beliavsky and Tukmakov, and those few de­ feats could not be blamed on my po­ sitions from the opening. For rating ler,

enthusiasts, my career Benoni per­ formance comes out at 2635, which with Black is quite a success. Recently White has favoured Tai­ manov's plan of 7 f4 and 8 i.b5+ (Chapter 8), against which I had not had the youthful enthusiasm to defend for some five years. These days I only play the Benoni after 1 d4 lLlf6 2 c4 e6 3 lLlf3 and now 3 ... c5, which cuts out this and other worry­ ing plans. Of course most players are now using the plan of i.d3 and h3 (Chapter 1 1 ), which has caused Black some trouble. But there are signs that the teeth are being drawn from this system, after which the Benoni may be set for a full-scale comeback. I hope that after reading this book you will be inspired to march into battle and fight to the death, in the style of Mikhail Tal and the other Benoni specialists. This is definitely not an opening for cowards. As the ancient Spartans ' wives used to say, as they marched to war with their shields in hand: "Either with it or upon it." Lev Psakhis Hertzliya 1994

1 A6 0 : Rare Moves 1 d4 2 c4 3 dS

lDr6 c5 e6

There are three principal ideas in this chapter: A) Lines without early �c3. B ) 4 �3: Early deviations. C) The 'Snake' Benoni (.. . i.d6). Firstly we should mention that White cannot to achieve an advan­ tage with 4 dxe6 fxe6 5 g3 (or 5 i.g5 d5 6 e4 h6 7 i.xf6 'ii'xf6 8 exd5 exd5 9 cxd5 i.d6 with compensa­ tion) 5 ... �c6 6 i.g2 d5 7 �h3 d4 8 �f4 i.d6 9 �d3 h6 10 e4 e5 Mocha­ lov-Tseshkovsky, Minsk 1 982.

A) Lines without early lDc3 4

g3

After 4 �f3 exd5 5 cxd5 (D) White has a few ideas to try to bene­ fit from delaying developing the knight to c3, for example:

a) For 5 ... i.d6, see C. b) White has an advantage after 5 ... g6 6 e4 ! ? �xe4? ! (for 6 ... d6 ! ? see 5 ... d6) 7 i.d3 �d6 8 0-0 i.e7 9 i.h6 f6 1 0 �c3 citf7 1 1 h4 �a6 1 2 'ii'd 2, Murey-Griinfeld, Jerusalem 1 986. c) White has a pleasant game af­ ter 5 .. . b5 6 'ii'c2 (6 d6 ! ?) 6 . . . i.b7 7 e4 'ii'e7 8 �bd2 i.xd5 9 i.xb5 i.xe4 1 0 �xe4 'ii' x e4+ 1 1 'ifxe4+ �xe4 12 0-0 �d6 13 i.a4 i.e7 14 .l:e 1 , Polugaevsky-Beliavsky, Las Pal­ mas 1974. d) 5 . . . d6 6 e4 (for 6 �c3 see 4 �c3) 6 . . . g6 7 i.d3 (for 7 �c3 ! ? see A70) 7 . . . i.g7 8 0-0 0-0 9 h3 (or 9 l::te 1 l::te 8 10 �bd2 i.g4 1 1 h3 i.xf3 1 2 �xf3 �bd7 1 3 i.f4 'ifb6 14 �2 �h5 1 5 �c4 'it'd8 16 i.h2 �e5 = Murey-Grtinfeld, Beersheba 1 985) and now Black has two reasonable methods: d 1 ) 9 ... c4 10 i.c2 �a6 ( 1 0 . . . b5 ! ? 1 1 a 3 a5 1 2 �c3 i.a6 1 3 �d4 b4 14 �cb5 �bd7 ao Razuvaev-Wahls, Berlin 1 987) 1 1 �c3 i.d7 12 i.f4 �e8 1 3 a3 �c5 1 4 l:le 1 b5 1 5 e5 dxe5 1 6 i.xe5 i.xe5 17 �xe5 �d6 = Lisik-Dukhov, Russian Cht 1 992. d2) 9 . . . b5 10 %tel and now Black should play 10 . . . c4 1 1 i.c2 (or 1 1 i.fl l:le8 1 2 a4 b4 1 3 i.xc4 �xe4 14 aS i.a6 1 5 'ii'c2 �c5 16 :xeS+ 'ii'xe8 17 �bd2 �bd7 = P.Cnimling­ Winants, Brussels tt 1 987) 1 1 . ..�a6

A60: Rare Moves 7 1 2 lLlc3 i.d7 1 3 a4 b4 14 lLlb5 i.xb5 1 5 axb5 lLlc5 with mutual chances in Van der Wiel-Winants, Dutch Cht 1 987. Instead the error 10 . . . i.d7 ? ! dooms Black t o a difficult defence after 1 1 a4 ! bxa4 ( 1 1 .. .c4 1 2 i.fl ! ) 1 2 i.f4 i.e8 1 3 lLlc3 a5 14 lLld2 lLlh5 1 5 i.h2 ± Zsu.Polgar-Romanishin, Bie1 1987 . 4 ... 5 cxd5

lLle5 with a complicated game; Sav­ chenko-G.Kuzmin, St. Petersburg 1 992.

w

exd5

This position often arises from the Catalan move-order 1 d4 lLlf6 2 c4 e6 3 g3 c5 4 d5 exd5 5 cxd5 . 5 .. .

b5 (D)

This move gives the game an original character. Alternatives: a) 5 . . . d6 6 i.g2 g6 7 e4 (7 lLlc3 ! ? i.g7 8 liJf3 0-0 merely transposes to A62) 7 . . . i.g7 looks reasonable: 8 li::\ e2 0-0 9 0-0 :es 10 lLlec3 b5 !? 1 1 li:'lxb5 ( 1 1 e5 ! ?) 1 1 . ..lLlxe4 1 2 l:te1 a6 1 3 lLl5c3 lLlxc3 1 4 AxeS+ 'ii'xe8 1 5 l.i:'lxc3 lLld7 with equality; Volzhin­ Tunik, Katowice 1 992. b) If however Black plays 5 . . . g6 6 i.g2 i.g7 7 lLlc3 0-0, then the cor­ rect move is probably 8 lLlf3 when 1Lb5 (for 8 . . . d6 ! ? see A62) 9 lLlxb5 'ii'a5+ 10 lLlc3 lLle4 1 1 i.d2 lLlxd2 1 2 lLlxd2 d6 1 3 0-0 lLld7 14 lLlde4 l:b8 15 'ii'c 2 ± Kakhiani-G.Kuzmin, Helsinki 1 992, favours White. In­ stead the ambitious 8 d6 creates no problems for Black, for example H ...lLlc6 9 lLlh3 (or 9 lbf3 l:b8 1 0 i.e3 b6 1 1 0-0 i.b7 1 2 'ii'd2 lLla5 1 3 i.g5 'ii'e 8 1 4 l:ad 1 lLle4 � Poluliak­ hov-Arkhipov, Moscow 1 992) 9 ... b6 I 0 0-0 i.b7 1 1 e4 lLle8 1 2 i.g5 f6 1 3 i.e3 'ii'b 8 14 lLlb5 �h8 15 lLlf4

6 i.g2 Black has no problems after: a) 6 e4 lLlxe4 7 'ii'e2 'ii'e7 8 i.g2 lbd6 9 i.e3 b4 10 i.xc5 Wxe2+ 1 1 lLlxe2 lLla6 12 i.d4 lLlf5 = Sosonko­ F.Olafsson, Wijk aan Zee 1 977. b) 6 a4 b4 7 f3 g6 8 e4 i.g7 9 lLld2 0-0 1 0 lLlc4 d6 1 1 i.f4 i.a6 ! 1 2 'ii'd2 (unfortunately 1 2 i.xd6 doesn't work because of 12 . . . i.xc4 1 3 i.xf8 i.xfl 14 i.xg7 i.g2 1 5 i.xf6 'ii'xf6 1 6 l:b1 i.xh 1 1 7 �f2 lLld7 18 lLlh3 l:e8 with a big advan­ tage to Black - Ftacnik) 1 2 . . . i.xc4 1 3 i.xc4 'ii'e7 14 l:c 1 lLlh5 15 i.g5 f6 16 i.e3 f5, Korchnoi-Timman, Tilburg 1987. 6 ... 7 b4! ?

d6

This is the only move which lays any claim to an advantage. White has also tried: a) 7 a4 b4 8 lLld2 (Black quickly gained an advantage in Beim-Dau­ tov, Berlin 1 99 1 , after 8 lLlh3 ? ! g6 9 0-0 i.g7 1 0 lLld2 lLlbd7 1 1 e4 i.a6

8 A60: Rare Moves 1 2 lle 1 0-0 1 3 f4 l:e8 14 �f2 c4 ! with initiative) 8 . . . g6 9 �c4 (Black need not fear 9 �gf3 .ta6 1 0 'ii'c 2 .tg7 1 1 �c4 0-0 1 2 0-0 l:.e8 1 3 �e 1 .txc4 14 'ii'xc4 �bd7 1 S a5 'ii'e7 1 6 �d3 �eS = Ragozin-Bot­ vinnik, Sverdlovsk 1 943) 9 ... .ta6 10 'ii'd 3 .tg7 1 1 'ii'e 3+ �f8 1 2 'ii'f4 .txc4 1 3 Vxc4 �bd7 1 4 aS ! �e8 = Henley-Seirawan, Indonesia 1983. b) 7 �f3 g6 (7 ... .te7 8 �fd2 0-0 9 a4 b4 10 � .ta6 1 1 �bd2 �bd7 1 2 b3 �b6 = Vanheste-Timman, Dutch Cht 1 987, is not bad either) 8 li)fd2 (or 8 0-0 .tg7 9 a4 b4 10 �bd2 .ta6 1 1 Vc2 �bd7 1 2 l:.e1 0-0 1 3 e4 li)g4 ! with the initiative to Black in Kouatly-Stean, Lucerne OL 1 982) 8 . . . �bd7 9 �c3 a6 10 a4 b4 1 1 �ce4 a5 1 2 Vb3 .te7 1 3 tl)c4 �xe4 1 4 .txe4 �b6 = Portisch-Korchnoi, Lucerne OL 1 982. c) 7 e4 .ib7 (7 ... g6 8 'it'e2 ! ? gives Black extra possibilities, for exam­ ple 8 . . . �bd7 9 f4 ! ? .tg7 1 0 eS 0-0 1 1 exf6 l:e8 12 fxg7 l:xe2+ 1 3 �xe2 'it'e7 1 4 'lii> f2 �f6 1 S .l:.e 1 .tb7 16 �a3 ! ;!; Plaskett-Groszpeter, Thessaloniki OL 1 984) 8 �f3 (or 8 a4 b4 9 �d2 g6 1 0 a5 .ta6 ! 1 1 .tfl .tg7 12 'ii'a4+ 'jj'd7 = Davies-Onish­ chuk, Budapest 1 993) 8 ... g6 (after 8 . . . �xe4 9 0-0 �f6 1 0 'it'e2+ 'fle7 1 1 'jj' x bS+ 'it'd7 1 2 �c3 �xdS 1 3 �d4 ! cxd4 1 4 'jj' x d7+ �xd7 1 S �xdS .txdS 1 6 .txdS llb8 1 7 b3 White has more than enough com­ pensation for the pawn - Ulybin) 9 0-0 .tg7 10 eS dxeS 1 1 �xeS 0-0 1 2 �c6 'ifb6 1 3 �e7+ 'ili>h8 14 �c3 �bd7 and Black had no cause for

alarm in the game Ulybin-Izeta, Mesa 1993 . d) 7 a3 a5 8 �c3 'jj' b6 9 �f3 .te7 1 0 0-0 0-0 1 1 e4 �bd7 1 2 lie 1 .ta6 1 3 .if4 ( 1 3 eS dxeS 1 4 �xeS �xeS 1S llxeS llfe8 16 .tgS h6 = Larsen­ Tal, Bled Ct (3) 1 96S) 1 3 . . . �g4 ! = Larsen-Tal, Bled Ct (7) 196S . 7

...

�a6 (D)

White has an easy and pleasant game if Black accepts the pawn sac­ rifice, for example 7 . . . cxb4 8 a3 bxa3 (8 ... b3 9 'ifxb3 a6 10 a4 bxa4 1 1 'jj' xa4+ �bd7 12 �f3 .te7 1 3 �d4 0-0 1 4 �c6 'it'e8 1 S .te3 ± Al­ burt-I.Ivanov, New York 1 983) 9 �xa3 'ii'd7 (9 . . . g6 1 0 �xbS .tg7 1 1 �f3 0-0 1 2 �fd4 .tb7 1 3 �c3 �bd7 14 0-0 �b6 1S e4 ;!; Agzamov­ Chernin, Riga 1 98S) 10 'ii' b3 �a6 1 1 'W'xbS llb8 1 2 'W'xd7+ .ixd7 1 3 �c2 �cS 14 lba7 .ie7 ( 1 4 . . . llb1 1 S liaS+ ! 9l;e7 1 6 .l:.a1 ) 1 S �f3 �xdS 16 �fd4 �c3 17 �c6 ;!; Sosonko­ Adorjan, Wijk aan Zee 1984.

w

8 9 10 11

bxc5

�f3 �d4 0-0

tl)xc5 g6 .tg7 a6

A60: Rare Moves 9 + Gurgenidze-Rashkovsky, USSR

12 liJc6

1 2 tL'lc3 0-0 1 3 tL'lc6 'flc7 14 .te3 .th7 15 .td4 l:lfe8 16 a4 ! ;!;; Kaspar­ ov-Korchnoi, London Ct ( 1 1 ) 1 983, is not bad either. 12 13 tL'lc3 .••

'ii'd7 0-0

Now White should play 14 .te3 ! ? .t i nstead o f 14 a4 ? ! tLlfe4 1 5 tL'lxe4

lf)xe4 1 6 .tf4 tL'lc3 with an unclear game in Gelfand-Chernin, Dort­ mund 1990.

B) 4 tDc3: Early deviations 4 ttlc3 5 cxd5 (D)

exd5

The other capture, 5 tL'lxd5 , is not dangerous for Black, for example .'i tL'lxd5 6 'ii'xd5 tL'lc6 7 tL'lf3 d6 8 e4 i.e6 9 'ii'd 1 .te7 10 .td3 0-0 1 1 0-0 nfi 1 2 .tf4 .tf6 = S.Nikolic-Rogers, Moscow GMA 1989. . . .

1 976, and 6 g3 g6 7 h4? ! .tg7 8 tL'lh3 a6 9 lL'lf4 h6 1 0 .tg2 0-0 1 1 .td2 b5 1 2 'ifc 1 b4 1 3 lL'ld l tL'lbd7 + S . Nikolic-Sax, Smederevska Fa­ lanka 1 982, don't deserve much at­ tention) 6 . . . g6 we find ourselves within the framework of A6 1 , whilst 6 . . . .te7 7 g3 (or 7 e4 0-0 8 .te2 tL'lbd7 9 0-0 a6 1 0 a4 b6 1 1 .tf4 .tb7 12 tL'ld2 l:te8 1 3 .tg3 .tf8 14 f4 ± Bilek-Korchnoi, Hamburg 1 965) 7 ... 0-0 8 .tg2 l:te8 9 0-0 .tf8 10 .tf4 (White also has an advantage after 10 tL'ld2 tL'la6 II ttlc4 l:tb8 1 2 a4 tL'lb4 1 3 e4 b6 14 .tf4 .ta6 15 b3 g6 1 6 l:t e 1 Chernin-Murey, Paris 1 989) 10 . . . tL'la6 II l:lel h6 12 e4 gS 1 3 .td2 g4 1 4 tL'lh4 c4 1 5 'ii'c l ! 'it>h7 1 6 'ii' b l ! ? 'it>g8 1 7 .tn ± A. Kuzmin­ Murey, Moscow 1989 is of very little interest from the theoretical point of view. 6 tL'lf3 .tg7 This attempt to omit . . . d6 is very risky. 7 d6! ?

5 5..

•••

g6

d6 will generally lead us into the main lines given later in this hook. After 6 tL'lf3 (6 h4? ! a6 7 a4 g6 H lDh3 .tg7 9 tLlf4 0-0 10 hS lDbd7 II hxg6 fxg6 12 f3 tL'leS 1 3 'it>f2 c4 ! .

7 .tgS h6 8 .th4 'ii'aS 9 tL'ld2 0-0 10 e3 'ii'b4 1 1 .tg3 tL'lhS 12 'ii'c 2 ;!;; also looks reasonable, and similarly 7 e4 0-0 8 .tgS (if 8 .te2 then the correct move would be 8 ... d6! ? - see A74 - whilst 8 . . . b5 9 e5 tL'lg4 1 0 .tf4 l:te8 II tL'lxb5 lDxe5 1 2 tL'lxeS .txeS 1 3 .txeS l:txeS 14 0-0 d6 1 5 l:tel a6 16 tL'la3 l:ta7 1 7 ttlc4 gave White a small but stable advantage in Bur­ ger-D.Gurevich, Reykjavik 1982) 8 ... l:te8 (8 ... h6 9 .th4 :e8 1 0 .td3 !?, but not 1 0 .te2 ? ! gS 1 1 .tg3 lDxe4 1 2 ttlxe4 .l:.xe4 1 3 0-0 d6 14 .td3

10

A60:

Rare Movt.�

l:.b4 15 b3 f5 ! + Polajzer-Djuric, Ljubljana 1981) 9 i.d3 h6 10 i.e3 d6 11 0-0 a6 12 a4 ltlg4 13 i.f4 'ii'f6 14 i.g3 ltld7 15 i.e2 'ii'e7 16 ltld2 ;!; Ko�ul- T.Horvath, Frankfurt 1990. 7 8 e4 •••

0-0 l:.e8

Or 8 . . . ltlc6 9 i.c4 b5 10 ltlxb5 ltlxe4 1 1 0-0 i.b7 12 lle 1 ;!; Alburt­ Kudrin, USA 1984. 9 .tc4

b5

9 . . . ltlxe4 1 0 i.xf7 + ! �xf7 1 1 'ii'd5+ �f8 1 2 ltlxe4. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

.tdS 0-0 ltlb5 ltlc7

�xn .txc6 ltlxe8 e5

ltlc6 b4 i.a6

.txn l:.c8 dxc6 1Vxe8

White wields the initiative; Va­ ganian-Suba, Kecskemet 1979.

C) The Snake Benoni 1 d4 ltlf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 e6 4 tLlc3

After 4 ltlf3 exd5 5 cxd5 i.d6 'White should generally continue with 6 ltlc3, transposing to the main line. Another possibility is 6 g3 0-0 7 i.g2 i.c7 8 0-0 d6 9 ltlfd2 a6 1 0 a4 ltlbd7 1 1 ltlc4 ltlb6 1 2 b3 l:.e8 1 3 ltlc3 l:.b8 1 4 h 3 .td7 1 5 .tf4 with a minimal advantage; Chuchelov-Ka­ linichev, Bundesliga 1993. 4 5 cxd5 .••

exdS i.d6 (D)

This strange-looking move is characteristic of the Snake Benoni.

6 lDf3

White must be careful, e.g. 6 e4 0-0 7 f4? ! ltlxe4 ! 8 ltlxe4 l:.e8 9 'ii'e2 i.f8 10 g4 ( 1 0 f5 'ii'h4+) 10 . . . d6 1 1 f5 .txf5 1 2 gxf5 'ii'h4+ 1 3 �d 1 l:lxe4 and Black gets a dangerous at­ tack; Hebden-Hector, Nantes 1 987. Another option for White is 6 g3. Then Black may try: a) 6 ... .tc7?! 7 d6 .ta5 8 .tg2 0-0 9 ltlh3 ltlc6 1 0 0-0 l:.e8 1 1 ltld5 l:.e6 1 2 ltlg5 ! favours White; Knaak-Hec­ tor, Kecskemet 1 987. b) In Nesis-Mojzic, Corr 1 992, White gained a winning attack after his opponent's mistake: 6 . . . a6 7 i.g2 0-0 8 ltlf3 b5 9 i.g5 'ii'e7? ! ( 9. . . l:.e8 ! ?) 1 0 ltlh4 ! c4 1 1 0-0 l:.e8 12 ltlf5 'ii'f8 1 3 .txf6 gxf6 14 ltle4 i.e5 15 e3! +-. c) 6 . . . 0-0 7 i.g2 l:.e8 (7 . . . a6 8 a4 i.c7 9 d6 .ta5 10 ltlh3 ! ltlc6 1 1 0-0 l:.e8 12 ltlf4 i.xc3 13 bxc3 b6 14 a5 ! b5 1 5 i.e3 i.b7 1 6 i.xc6 i.xc6 17 i.xc5 ± Tabatadze-Zaichik, USSR 1 988) 8 e3 i.c7 9 ltlge2 d6 10 0-0 a6 1 1 a3 ltlbd7 1 2 h3 b5 1 3 b4 i.b6 1 4 bxc5 i.xc5 15 ltld4 i.b7 = SakaevCatalan, Doha 1993. 6

•••

0-0

A60: Rare Moves 1 1 6 . . . i.. c 7 (D) is another possible move-order:-

Wxc3+ 1 2 ltld2 b 6 1 3 :te l 'ii'd4 ! ? (very likely stronger than 1 3 . . . 1t'g7 14 h4 ! i.. b 7 15 .l:th3 ltlc6 16 .U.e3+ Wf8 17 g3 .U.e8 18 .U.xe8+ Wxe8 1 9 i.. g 2 ;!;; Lalic-Hodgson, Sochi 1 987) 14 e3 'it'xd6 15 'ii'f3 ltlc6 16 i.. c4 with the initiative to White in a com­ plicated game; Eslon-Jacobs, Seville 1 986. 7 g3

a) White has a slight advantage after 7 e4 d6 8 i.. e2 0-0 9 i.. g5 l:te8 1 0 0-0 ltlbd7 1 1 ltld2 a6 1 2 a4 ltlf8 13 f4 h6 14 i.. h4 ltlg6 15 i.. g3 i.. a5 1 6 i.. f3 I.Ivanov-Allan, Chicago 1 989. b) 7 g3 d6 8 i.. g 2 a6 9 a4 ltlbd7 10 0-0 ltlf8 1 1 ltld2 ltlg6 12 ltlc4 i.. d7 13 i.. g 5 also suffices for an edge; Marin-Hauchard, Bucharest 1993. c) Black makes great gains in the event of 7 i.. g5 d6 8 e3 a6 9 ltld2 h6 1 0 i.. h4 ltlbd7 1 1 i.. e 2 ltle5 1 2 0-0 ltlg6 1 3 i.. g 3 0-0 14 a4 l::te8 1 5 'ii'c 2 h5 !? 16 h3 i.. a5 oc M.Gurevich­ Hodgson, Tallinn 1 987. d) 7 ltld2 (not so effective here) 7 . d6 8 ltlc4 a6 9 a4 ltlbd7 10 i.. g5 0-0 1 1 e4 ( 1 1 e3 ! ?) l l . ..l:te8 12 i..d 3 .l:tb8 1 3 ltle3 h6 14 i.. h4 ltle5 15 0-0 i.. d 7 1 6 i.. c 2 ltlg6 1 7 i.. g 3 b5 1 8 axb5 axb5 with equality; Portisch­ Benjamin, Szirak IZ 1 987. e) 7 d6 (the most principled move) 7 . . . i.. a5 8 i.. g5 'it'b6 9 i.. xf6 'iix b2 1 0 i.. x g7 i.. x c3+ 1 1 i.. x c3 . .

Black has no problems after the passive continuation 7 e3 a6 8 a4 l:te8 9 i.. e2 i.. c7 10 ltld2 d6 1 1 e4 ltlbd7 1 2 0-0 ltle5 1 3 h3 i.. d7 14 'ii'c 2 .l:tb8 1 5 f4 ltlg6 Vladimirov­ Gorbatov, Leningrad 199 1 . 7 i.. g5 i s significantly more dan­ gerous, for example 7 . . . .U.e8 (or 7 ... a6 8 a4 i.. c7 9 lLld2 d6 10 e4 l:te8 1 1 i.. e2 ltlbd7 1 2 0-0 h6 1 3 i.. h4 ltle5 14 f4 ;!;; Danner-Schussler, Vi­ enna 1 986) 8 e3 h6 9 i.. h4 a6 (9 . . . 'it'e7 1 0 i..c4 b6 1 1 'it'd3 a6 1 2 a4 g5 1 3 i.. g 3 Wg7 14 i.. x d6 'it'xd6 1 5 0-0 ± Lukacs-Fernandes, Almada 1 988, brings Black no relief) 1 0 a4 g5 (or 1 0 . . . i.. c7 1 1 i.. d 3 d6 1 2 0-0 ltlbd7 1 3 :te l i.. a5 14 e4 1t'b6 1 5 'ii'c 2 ltlh5 1 6 ltld2 ltle5 17 ltlc4 ltlxc4 1 8 i.. xc4 with a small advan­ tage for White in Dussol-Forintos, Val Maubuee 1 988) 1 1 i.. g 3 i.. x g3 12 hxg3 Wg7 13 d6! with the initia­ tive to White . i.. c7 7 Weakening the queenside with 7 . . . a6 8 a4 ! ? only plays into White's hands, for example 8 . . . i.. c7 9 d6 ! i.. a5 and now: a) 1 0 ltld2 b5 ( 1 0 . . . l:te8 1 1 i.. g 2 ltlc6 12 0-0 l:tb8 1 3 ltlde4 i.. x c3 14 .••

12 A60: Rare Moves tbxc3 b5 15 axb5 axb5 1 6 .i.g5 ± Beliavsky-Peresipkin, Kiev 1 978) 1 1 .i.g2 tbc6 1 2 0-0 l:tb8 13 tbde4 tbxe4 1 4 tbxe4 c4 1 5 axb5 axb5 1 6 'ii'd5 i s good for White; Vaiser-Griin­ berg, Tallinn 1 987. b) 10 .i.g2 is not bad: 10 . . . tbc6 ( 1 0 ... tbe4 is better for White: 1 1 0-0 tbxc3 1 2 bxc3 .i.xc3 1 3 .i.g5 .i.f6 14 'ii'd5 tbc6 15 'ii'xc5 b6 1 6 'iff5 .i.xg5 17 tbxg5 Simic-Aleksic, Yugoslavia 1 987, with an overwhelming advan­ tage) 1 1 0-0 J:.e8 12 tbh4 ! ? .i.xc3 1 3 bxc3 tbe4 14 'ii'd 3 c4 ! 15 'ii'xc4 b5 1 6 'ifd3 tbc5 1 7 'ii'c 2 tbxa4 1 8 tbf5 with initiative, Cebalo-Be116n, Biel 1 987. After 7 ... l:te8 8 .i.g2 .i.f8 9 0-0 d6 we find ourselves in the middle of the variation 5 . . . d6 6 tbf3 .i.e7 7 g3 (see the note to Black's 5th move in B). 8 9 10 11

.i.g2 0-0 a4 b3! ? (D)

d6 a6 l:te8

Black has no problems after 1 1 h3 lbbd7 1 2 .i.f4 tbf8 1 3 'ii'c 2 .i.d7 14 e4 b5 1 5 axb5 axb5 1 6 llxa8 'ii'xa8 17 .i.g5 .i.d8 18 J:.e1 tbg6 = Ulybin­ Hauchard, Oakham 1992. 1 1 tbd2 lbbd7 is less effective: a) Black equalizes with no prob­ lems after 1 2 h3 l:.b8 13 l:.b1 b5 ! ? ( 1 3 ... 'ife7? ! 14 'ii'c2 tbe5 1 5 b 3 .i.d7 1 6 .i.b2 h5 17 f4 ± Tukmakov-Or­ tega, Sochi 1 987), when 14 axb5

axb5 15 b4 cxb4 16 l:.xb4 is not very good on account of 16 . . . .i.a5 . b) White also has no success after 1 2 tbc4 tbe5 (the line 1 2 . . . l:tb8 ! ? 1 3 .i.f4 tbf8 also deserves attention) 1 3 tbxe5 l:xe5 14 h 3 l:tb8 1 5 .i.f4 l:te8 16 b3 .i.f5 17 l:tc 1 .i.a5 = Grigorian­ Ortega, Erevan 1986. c) 12 b3 l:tb8 13 e4 tbf8 14 h3 tbg6 15 .i.b2 .i.a5 16 f4 b5 17 axb5 axb5 with a complicated game; Dol­ matov-Hodgson, Moscow 1987.

11

.i.aS

Or 1 1 . ..tbbd7 ! ? 1 2 i.b2 llb8 1 3 tbd2 tbe5 14 h 3 .i.d7 1 5 f4 tbg6 1 6 e4 b5 17 axb5 axb5 1 8 e5 ! dxe5 1 9 f5 with initiative; Vokac-Danner, Pra­ gue 1986. 12 13 14 15

.i.b2 h3 g4 tbd2

.i.g4 i.hS .tg6

with a slight advantage for White; Razuvaev-Steinbacher, Bundesliga 199 1 .

2 6l'tJf3: Introduction (A61) 1 2 3 4 5 6

d4 c4 dS c!t)cJ cxdS 00

ti)f6 c5 e6 exdS d6 g6 (D)

One of the most important posi­ l ions in the Modern Benoni, from which perhaps the main variation of I he opening begins. Now 7 g3 is ex­ nmined under A62-A64, and 7 e4 leads us to A70-79, whilst within the hounds of this chapter White can rnntinue:

here, the knight completes its jour­ ney to c4; the so-called Knight's Tour Variation. Currently, this does not seem a problem for Black, pro­ vided he knows precisely what he is doing. The third is a poisonous little move, which aims to cause Black in­ convenience over the d6-pawn. The final line considered in this chapter is one of White's many lines in which the bishop comes to gS . Black must either cope with the pin on his knight, or else advance his kingside pawns.

A)

7 h3 ! ? 7

7 h3 7 ti)d2 (Knight's Tour) 7 i.f4 7 i.gS The ftrst often leads into the fash­ ionable lines of A70, but Black may wish to avoid this transposition. The second can also be transposi­ lional, but in the lines considered A) B) C) D)

...

a6

For 7 . . . i.g7 8 e4 0-0 9 i.d3 see A70. fke7 8 a4 9 i. gS (D) The most testing. White may in­ stead choose: a) 9 g3 i.g7 1 0 i.g2 ( 1 0 ti)d2 ! ?) 10 . . . ti)e4 ! 1 1 ti)xe4 fkxe4 1 2 ti)d2 'ile7 1 3 ti)c4 ti)d7 14 i.f4 ti)eS = Atalik-Ionescu, Mangalia 1992. b) 9 ti)d2 ti)bd7 1 0 e4 (or 10 tt)c4 ti)eS 1 1 ti)b6 l::tb 8 1 2 i.gS { 1 2 e4 i.g7 1 3 i.e2 0-0 14 0-0 ti)ed7 15 ti)xc8 l::t fxc8 1 6 i.f4 c4 = Shabtai­ Lev, Tel Aviv 1992, is not dangerous for Black } 12... h6 1 3 i.f4 i.g7 14 e3

14 6 t'i:Jf3: Introduction .i.f5 1 5 .i.e2 0-0 1 6 0-0 t'i:J fd7 with equality ; Salgado Allaria-Ionescu, Bucharest 1993) 10 . . . .i.g7 1 1 .i.e2 0-0 1 2 0-0 ltb8 ! (more precise than 1 2 .. J:te8 ? ! 1 3 f4 l:tb8 14 .:te l ! Gar­ cia-Magerramov, Nimes 1 99 1 ) 1 3 .l:.e 1 t'i:Je8, Magerramov.

B

13 o-o 14 t'i:Jd2

t'i:Jes

14 t'i:Jxe5 'ir'xe5 1 5 .i.g3 'ir'e7 =. 14 gS 15 .i.g3 .i.fS!? Giving better chances for a good game than 1 5 . . . t'i:Je8 1 6 'ir'c2 ! ( 1 6 a5 f5 17 .i.h2 .:tb8 1 8 t'i:Ja4 !Ld7 1 9 t'i:Jb6 .i.b5 = Stohl-Maus, Bundes­ liga 1 99 1 ) 16 . . . .f5 17 f4 ;!; Stohl, or 15 . . . .:te8 16 :tel ltb8 17 a5 .i.f5 1 8 e4 .i.g6 19 .:ta4 ! t'i:Jfd7 20 'ir'c2 again with a small advantage in Karpov-de Firmian, Biel 1990. •••

16 aS

16 e4 .i.h7. .:tae8 'ikc7 = Garcia Ilundain-Spraggett, Can­ das 1992. 16 17 :tel •••

9 ... 10 .i. h4

h6

1 0 .i.f4 also leads to an equal game: 10 ... t'i:Jbd7 1 1 t'i:Jd2 t'i:Je5 12 e4 .i.g7 1 3 .i.e2 0-0 14 .i.e3 g5 15 g3 t'i:Jh7 1 6 h4 g4 17 0-0 f5 = Dukhov­ Magerramov, Russian Cht 1 992 and 1 0 .i.xf6 'ifxf6 1 1 t'i:Jd2 t'i:Jd7 1 2 e3 'ife7 13 t'i:Jc4 t'i:Je5 14 t'i:Jb6 (or 14 t'i:J xe5 'ir'xe5 1 5 .i.d3 .i.g7 1 6 0-0 0-0 + Ziiger-Gavrikov, Suhr 1 99 1 ) 14 . . . .:tb8 1 5 a5 .i.g7 1 6 'fka4+ t'i:Jd7 with equality. 10 /Lg7 Black had an interesting game in J.Horvath-Suba, Debrecen 1 992: 10 ... g5 l l .i.g3 t'i:Jh5 12 .i.h2 .i.g7 13 e3 t'i:Jf4 ! ? 14 'ifc2 t'i:Jd7 15 t'i:Jd2 t'i:Jg6 1 6 t'i:Jce4 ;!;, which unfortunate I y did not lead to equality. t'i:Jbd7 l l e3 •••

12 .i.e2

0-0

B) Knight's Tour Variation 7 t'i:Jd2 .i.g7 This is generally considered the soundest move for Black. Others: a) 7 . . . t'i:Jbd7 8 e4 ! ? (B lack has no problems after 8 t'i:Jc4 t'i:Jb6 9 t'i:Je3 .i.g7 10 a4 .i.d7 1 1 g3 { or 1 1 a5 t'i:Jc8 12 t'i:Jc4 'ilke7 13 .i.g5 h6 14 !Lh4 0-0 15 e3 .:tb8 = } 1 1 . . .0-0 12 .i.g2 .:tb8 with approximate equality, Cope­ land-Thomas, British Ch (Swansea) 1 987) 8 ... .i.g7 9 .i.e2 (for 9 t'i:Jc4 t'i:Jb6 10 t'i:Je3 see A70) 9 ... 0-0 10 0-0 .:te8 and we have transposed to A77. b) 7 . . . t'i:Ja6?! gives White too much freedom, for example 8 t'i:Jc4 t'i:Jc7 9 e4 ! b5 10 t'i:Ja5 a6 1 1 .i.g5 .i.g7 12 'fi'f3 .i.d7 13 e5 ! dxe5 14 · t'i:Jb7 'ii'e7 1 5 d6 +- Sadler-Stratil,

6 lDf3: Introduction Oukham 1988. This is not forced, but II Is revealing enough .. c) Nor do I like 7 . . . a6, which

wcukens the queenside too soon. White can continue 8 a4 i... g7 (after H . . . lDbd7

White's simplest solution transpose after inserting the moves a6 and a4 to the not disad­ vuntageous Four Pawns Attack: 9 r4 !? i... g7 1 0i...e2 0-0 1 1 0-0 l:.e8 1 2 1'4, especially as 9 lDc4 lDb6 10 lDa3 J.d7 1 1 i... g 5 h6 1 2 i... f4 lDh5 1 3 J.d2 i... g7 1 4 e4 0-0 1 5 i...e2 lDf6 1 6 0-0 lDxa4 ! 1 7 lDxa4 b5 1 8 lDc3 b4 �:reates no problems for Black; Bcnjamin-Zaichik, Philadelphia 1990) 9 lDc4 0-0 10 i...f4 ( 1 0i... g5 ! ? J:c8 1 1 'ifd2 Lebredo-Gil. Garcia, Buyamo 1 983) 10 . . . lDe8 1 1 'ii'd2 ! Vuganian-Hai'k, Marseilles 1987 . In view of the d6-pawn and the b6square it is very difficult for Black to develop his pieces on the queenside. IN

to

. . .

8 lDc4

0-0 (D)

w

White faces a choice: he can rither put pressure on d6, or pin the knight, viz. 8 1 ) 9 i... f4 82) 9 i... g5

Bl)

9

15

i...f4

Black can defend the pawn with 9 . . . lDe8, as was played in the good old days, or sacrifice it in exchange for a couple of tempi. The latter plan can be executed in several different ways : 9 lDe8 We shall take this as our main line, since there is the largest body of theory on it. This is not to imply it is better then the more aggressive al­ ternatives. Here is what happens when Black decides to sacrifice the pawn: a) 9 . . . l:r.e8 ? ! 1 0 lDxd6 lDh5 1 1 lDxe8 i... x c3+ 1 2 bxc3 lDxf4 1 3 'ifa4 ! g5 14 e3 lDg6 15i... b5 a6 1 6 d6 ± I.Zaitsev-Lenchukov, Kirov 1 974. b) 9 ... lDh5 ! ? 1 0i... xd6 l:.e8 1 1 a4 lDd7 1 2 i... g 3 ( 1 2 lDb5 ! ?) 1 2 . . . lDb6 1 3 lDxb6 'ii'x b6 14 'ii'd2 f5 with suf­ ficient compensation in Lin Ta-Liu Wenze, China 1987. c) 9 ... b6!? 10i...xd6 l:.e8 1 1 i... g 3 lDe4 12 lDxe4 :xe4 13 e3 b5 14 lDd6 (or 14 lDd2 ! ? l:.b4 15 b3 c4 ! ? 16 ltc l c 3 with sharp play; Meduna­ Nunn, Biel 1 982) 14 ... .:r.b4 15i...e2 ! ? (15 i... xb5 i s interesting: 15 ...i... f8 1 6 i... c6 i... a6 ! 17 'ifd2 ! { but not 17 i... x a8? l:.xb2 1 8 'ifa4 'iff6 -+ Don­ ner-Planinc, Wijk aan Zee 1 973 } 17 ... lDxc6 1 8 dxc6 'iff6 19 'ifc3 'ife6 20 l:.d 1 is unclear - Kapengut) 15 . . i... . x b2 ! (White has a big advan­ tage after 15 ....:r.xb2?! 1 6 0-0 lDa6 17 i... xb5 lDb4 1 8 lDxc8 ltxc8 1 9 d6 ±) 1 6 0-0 c4 with chances for both sides. d) 9 ... lDa6 ! ? 10 e3 ( 1 0 'ii'd 2? only •••

16 6 l'Df3: Introduction places the queen under attack from 1 0 . . . b5 ! 1 1 l'Dxd6 { 1 1 l'Dxb5 l'De4 } 1 1 . . .b4 1 2 l'Dce4 l'Dxe4 1 3 l'Dxe4 f5 1 4 .i.g5 'it'b6 15 l'Dg3 c4 + Daue­ buler-Kindermann, Bad Worishofen 1 989, and an unclear game arises af­ ter 1 0 .i.xd6 .:te8 1 1 e3 { 1 1 .i.g3 l'Db4 ! } 1 1 . . .l'De4 1 2 l'Dxe4 .:txe4 1 3 .i.g3 b5 1 4 l'Dd6 l:tb4 oo ) 1 0. . . l'De8 and now: d l ) Surprisingly enough, the d6-pawn is again unassailable, and White cannot organize himself af­ ter 1 1 l'De4? b5 1 2 l'Dcxd6 l'Dxd6 1 3 l'Dxd6 .i.xb2. d2) 1 1 l'Db5 ? ! .i.d7 12 l'Dbxd6 b5 1 3 l'Dxe8 .i.xe8 14 l'De5 l'Db4 +. d3) I also like Black's position after 1 1 'it'd2 f5 1 2 l'Db5 ( 1 2 h4 l'Dac7 1 3 a4 b6 1 4 .i.e2 transposes to 'd4 ' ) 1 2 ...g 5 1 3 .i.xd6 l'Dxd6 14 l'Dcxd6 f4 1 5 l'Dxc8 fxe3 1 6 fxe3 'it'xc8 17 0-0-0 c4 ! with a good game in return for the pawn; A.Petrosian-Ermen­ kov, Riga 1 98 1 . d4) 1 1 .i.e2 f5 1 2 h4 l'Dac7 1 3 a4 b6 1 4 'ii'd 2 ( 1 4 'ii' b 3 l:tb8 15 l'Db5 l'Dxb5 1 6 axb5 .:tb7 17 l:td 1 h6 = Brisenko-Kapengut, Yaroslavl 1979) 14 . . . .i.a6 15 l:td 1 ( 1 5 .i.g5 'it'd7 1 6 0-0 l'Df6 � Nascimiento-Renet, Lu­ cerne tt 1 985) 15 . . . .i.xc4 16 .i.xc4 Dydyshko-Kapengut, Minsk 1 980, and 16 . . . a6 ! would have given ap­ proximately equal chances. 10 'ii'd 2 (D) Considered to be the most exact, as Black has no particular difficulties after 10 e3 g5 ! 1 1 .i.g3 f5 1 2 'ii'd 2 (or 1 2 f4 'ii'e7 1 3 a4 gxf4 1 4 .i.xf4 l'Dd7 15 .i.e2 l'De5 16 0-0 l'Dxc4 17 .i.xc4

l'Df6 is equal, ECO) 12 ... .i.xc3 ! ? (the line 1 2 . . . 'it'e7 1 3 .i.e2 l'Dd7 = is also possible) 13 bxc3 b5 14 l'Db2 'it'e7 1 5 f3 l'Dc7 1 6 a4 .i.b7 with mutual chances, especially as 10 l'Db5 ? ! .i.d7 1 1 l'Dbxd6 b 5 1 2 l'Dxe8 .i.xe8 13 l'De5 'ii'd6 14 l'Dd3 'ii'xd5 gives him a clear-cut advantage.

10

•••

b6

There are plenty of other moves : a) 1 0 . . . l'Dd7 ? ! (an unsuccessful pawn sacrifice) 1 1 l'Dxd6 l'De5 1 2 .i.xe5 .i.xe5 1 3 l'Dc4 ± (Hartston). b) 10 . . . f5 1 1 g3 "ile7 1 2 .i.g2 l'Dd7 13 0-0 l'De5 1 4 l'Dxe5 .i.xe5 1 5 .i.h6 .i.g7 1 6 .i.g5 .i.f6 1 7 h4 l'Dg7 1 8 l:tfe1 ;!; Anikaev-Chiburdanidze, Minsk 1983. c) 10 ... .i.xc3 ! ? is an absurd-look­ ing move, but it is not easy for White to gain an advantage: c 1) 1 1 'ii'xc3, which I believe has not been seen in recent practice, would be interesting to try again; one may continue 1 1 . . .b5 12 l'Dd2 f5 ( 1 2 ... b4? ! 1 3 'it'c2 'ii'e7 14 h4 ! ? l'Dg7 15 e4 f5 1 6 .i.g5 "ile5 17 0-0-0 fxe4 1 8 l'Dc4 ± Boleslavsky) 1 3 h4 'ii'f6 · . 14 "ilg3 !? with a small advantage.

6 lbf3: Introduction c2) 1 1 bxc3 b5 12 lbb2 (after the absurd 1 2 lba3 ? ! Black seizes the i nitiative with 1 2 . . . a6 1 3 i.h6 lbg7 14 h4 l:le8 15 i.xg7 c:i;xg7 16 h5 l:a7 ! + Giustolisi-Tal, Rome tt 1957) 12 . . . lbd7 (Black cannot equalize af­ ter 1 2 . . a5 1 3 e4 1le7 14 i.d3 b4 1 5 0-0 lbd7 16 lbc4 i.a6 17 llfe1 i.xc4 18 i.xc4 lbe5 19 i.fl ± Borisenko­ Tal, Riga 1955, or 12 ...f5 13 e3 g5 14 i.g3 flie7 1 5 i.e2 lDf6 16 f3 lbbd7 17 0-0 l:lb8 1 8 a4 a6 19 axb5 axb5 20 l:a7 ;!; Seirawan-D.Gurevich, Hol­ lywood 1 985) 1 3 g3 (Black has an excellent game after 1 3 e4 c4 ! 14 i.e2 lbc5) 1 3 . . . i.b7 1 4 i.g2 f5 15 0-0 ( 1 5 a4 ! ? a6 16 c4 is not bad) 15 . . . c4 !? (or 15 . . . 1le7 16 a4 a6 17 c4 !) 16 i.g5 ! ? 'it'c7 1 7 lbd 1 ! lbb6 1 8 l0e3 lbf6 1 9 'ii'd4 lDfd7 2 0 l:lfd 1 ;!;. .

11 a4 (D)

The pawn on d6 is unassailable: II lbb5 i.a6 12 a4 ( 1 2 lbbxd6? lll xd6 l 3 lbxd6 g5 ! 14 i.g3 f5 -+) 1 2 i.xb5 1 3 axb5 lbd7 ! 14 e3 ( 1 4 li'lxd6 lbdf6 15 lbxe8 llxe8 with enough compensation for the pawn) 14 . . . lbe5 15 i.xe5 i.xe5 16 lbxe5 d xc5 17 i.e2 lbd6 1 8 11c3 lle8 = Sliwa-Suetin, Polanica Zdroj 1957. . . .

11

...

17

i.a6

l l . . .lba6? ! 1 2 e4 'ii'e7 1 3 i.e2 lbb4 14 0-0 i.a6 15 l:lae1 l:ld8 16 'iti>h 1 lbc7 17 i.g5 i.f6 18 i.xf6 11xf6 1 9 l:ld l ! 1l g7 20 f4 and White's advantage was obvious in Agzamov-Gavrikov, Erevan 1 982. 12 e3 12 e4? ! 'ii'e7 13 1le3 lbd7 14 i.d3 i.d4 1 5 'ile2 i.xc4 16 i.xc4 lbc7 = . 12

•••

i.xc4

Or 1 2 . . . f5 1 3 h4 ! i.xc4 1 4 i.xc4 a6 15 11e2 ! lDf6 16 i.d3 ;t Kapen­ gut. 13 i.xc4 a6 White preserves his advantage af­ ter 1 3 . . . lbd7 14 0-0 lbe5 15 i.e2 f5 16 e4 a6 17 i.g3 ( 1 7 exf5 gxf5 1 8 i.g3 'ild7 1 9 f4 lbg6 = Donner­ Spassky, Leiden 1 970 is not as con­ vincing) 17 ... 1ld7 18 f4 ;!;. 14 0-0

lbd7

15 11e2! It's not worth White hurrying to push the e-pawn: 15 e4 1le7 16 .l:ae1 lbc7 17 i.h6 Ghitescu-Suetin, Sochi 1 979, and after 17 . . . i.xh6 1 8 'ir'xh6 b5 ! 19 axb5 lbe5 20 b3 lbxb5 2 1 lbxb5 axb5 2 2 i.xb5 .l:lfb8 Black has enough compensation for the pawn. 15 f5 ..c8 16 i.g3 11 :ret lbe5 18 l:lab1 lbc7 19 b4 White has an advantage - Ciocal­ tea. B2) 9 i.g5 (D) This move, which provokes weak­ nesses in Black's kingside pawn

18 6tiJj3: Introduction

structure, has recently enjoyed more popularity than 9 i.f4, al­ though play often develops along the same lines. 9

•••

h6 (D)

This is the most popular continu­ ation at the moment, but there are a number of reasonable alternatives for Black: a) 9 ... l:e8 10 e3 (10 tiJb5?! h6 1 1 i.f4 tiJh5 1 2 i.xd6 a6 1 3 tiJc7 l:.e4 1 4 e3 :a7 +) 1 0 . . . a6 ( 1 0 . . . b6? ! 1 1 tiJb5 i.a6 1 2 tlJcxd6 l:.e5 1 3 i.f4 l:xd5 1 4 'Wf3 tiJc6 1 5 i.c4 ±) 1 1 a4 'ilc7 1 2 i.f4 i.f8 1 3 a5 tiJbd7 14 tlJa4 and White's position is notice­ ably the more active. b) 9 . . . 'ild7 ! ? 10 a4 ( 1 0 i.xf6 i.xf6 1 1 tlJe4 i.g7 ! ) 1 0 . . . tiJa6 ! ? 1 1 e3 tiJb4 1 2 i.e2 'ilf5 1 3 i.xf6 'ilxf6 1 4 0-0 'ile7 and Black could look with hope into the future in Popov­ Romanishin, Stara Pazova 1988. c) 9 ... 'ile7 and White can now make use of the pin on the knight by means of 10 'ild2 or quietly continue his development with 10 e3 : c l ) 1 0 'ild2 b6 (not 1 0 . . . tiJbd7? ! 1 1 'ilf4 ! h6 1 2 i.xh6 i.xh6 1 3 'ii'xh6 tiJe5 14 e3 i.f5 1 5 l:r.d l ± Ftacnik-

P.Cramling, B iel 1 984) 1 1 'ilf4 and Black has a reasonable choice be­ tween the lines 1 1 . . . i.a6 ! ? 1 2tiJxd6 ( 1 2 'ilxd6 ! ?) 12 . . . h6 13 i.xf6 i.xf6 14 tiJde4 i.g7 1 5 e3 f5 1 6tiJd2 g5 17 'ila4 i.xfl 1 8 l:r.xfl tiJd7 with com­ pensation; Evdokimov-Suba, Stiges 1 992, and 1 t . . .:ds 12 tlJe4 (if 1 2 0-0-0 then 1 2 . . . i.a6 1 3 e4 i.xc4 1 4 i.xc4 a6 1 5 'ilh4 tiJbd7 1 6 l:[hel 'ilf8 1 7 �bl b5 1 8 .tn h6 1 9 .te l tiJb6 with an entirely decent game, Portisch-T.Horvath, Hungarian Ch 1 984) 1 2 . . . 11xe4 1 3 'ilxe4 tlJxe4 1 4 i.xd8 b 5 1 5 f 3 bxc4 1 6 fxe4 i.xb2 17 l:b1 c3 with compensation, Yusu­ pov. c2) 10 e3 and now: c21 ) 10 ... b6 is not bad, for exam­ ple 1 1 a4 i.a6 1 2 i.e2 (Black gets a good game after both 1 2 tiJb5 i.xb5 13 axb5 tiJbd7 14 i.e2 tiJe5 15 tiJa3 tiJed7 = Muse-Wahls, Bundesliga 1 986, and 12 l:r.c l tiJbd7 13 b3 i.b7 1 4 i.e2 tiJe5 1 5 0-0 h6 1 6 i.h4 l:.ad8 17 �h l i.c8 18 'ild2 l:fe8 Portisch-de Firmian, Tunis IZ 1 985) 1 2 ...h6 1 3 i.h4 g5 14 i.g3 i.xc4 15 i.xc4 tlJe4 1 6 tlJxe4 'ii'xe4 17 'ii'b 3 was Yusupov-Christiansen, Mexico 1980, and now 17 . . . 'ii'e7 = would have equalized according to Yusu­ pov. c22) 10 ... tiJbd7 ! ? 1 1 i.e2 (again, winning a pawn does not give White any advantage: 1 1 tiJb5 ? ! tlJe5 1 2 tiJbxd6 l:.d8 1 3 tlJxc8 l:r.axc8 1 4 d6 'ile6 with compensation. Black also equalizes after 1 1 a4 tlJe5 12tiJa3 h6 13 i.h4 g5 14 i.g3 tiJfd7 15 i.e2 f5 = Dlugy-Klinger, Sharjah jr 1 985)

·

6 lbf3: Introduction I I ...lbe5 1 2 lDxe5 (or 1 2 lbd2 h6 1 3 .ih4 g5 1 4 i.g3 lbh7 15 0-0 f5 with n good game in Inkiov-Palkovi, S tara Zagora Z 1 990) 1 2 . . . 'ii'x e5 1 3 .i f4 'ile7 1 4 0-0 i.f5 15 l:.c 1 a6 16 n4 l:tfb8 17 h3 i.d7 = Gulko-Wahls, Cironingen 1990. d) 9 . . . b6! ? 10 a4 i.a6 1 1 lbb5 .ixb5 12 axb5 lbbd7 ! ? 1 3 lbxd6 h6 14 .ih4 lbe5 1 5 lbe4 g5 16 lDxf6+ 'it'xf6 17 i.g3 lbc4 (Kapengut) with strong play for Black. c) 9 . . . lba6 10 e3 lbc7 1 1 a4 b6 1 2 .ic2 i.a6 1 3 0-0 h6 14 i.h4 'ild7 1 5 l:tb l l:tfe8 16 b3 lbh7 ! ? 17 llc 1 lbg5 Atlas-Hoeksema, Dieren 1 989. Of course, the last two variations need practical tests. -=

10 i.h4 (D) After 10 i.f4: a) Just as he can after 9 i.f4, Black is quite able to continue IO... b6, e.g 1 1 i.xd6 lte8 12 i.g3 ( 12 e3 i.a6 1 3 i.g3 lbh5 14 a4 f5 ! with compensation; Nenashev-Serncniuk, Riga 1 988) 12 . . . lbe4 1 3 lihc4 llxe4 1 4 e 3 b 5 ( 1 4 . . . i.a6? ! favours White: 1 5 'ilc2 ! 'ilxd5 16 l:[d I 'ile6 17 l:td8+ h7 18 lDd2 !

19

i.xfl 1 9 l:.xfl l:.b4 20 b3 with ad­ vantage - Cabrilo) 15 lDd2 ( 1 5 l2Jd6 l:tb4 16 i.e2 i.xb2 17 0-0 c4 gives Black an attack) 15 . . . :.b4 16 b3 c4 ! ( 16 . . . i.xa1 ? is significantly weaker, e.g. 1 7 'ii' x a1 'ilxd5 1 8 a3 l:.g4 { or 1 8 . . . .l:.xb3 1 9 l2Jxb3 'ilxb3 20 i.e2 ± } 19 i.e2 l2Jc6 20 i.f3 'ile6 2 1 i.xg4 'ii'x g4 2 2 0-0 i.b7 2 3 f3 ± T.Petrosian-Nunn, Hastings 1 977, or 16 . . . 'ii'a5? ! 17 i.e2 i.b7 1 8 0-0 i.xa1 1 9 'ilxa1 i.xd5 20 a3 l:ta4 2 1 bxa4 'ilxd2 2 2 i.xb5 +-) 1 7 bxc4 (but not 17 a3 ? ! l:txb3 1 8 i.e2 llb2 19 0-0 c3 20 l2Jf3 i.f5 � Chandler­ Denman, Brighton 1 979) 17 . . . bxc4 1 8 i.xc4 i.xa1 19 'ilxa1 l:txc4 20 l2Jxc4 'ilxd5 21 'ild4 i.e6 = Nunn. b) 10 . . . l2Jbd7 ! ? is also interest­ ing: 1 1 i.xd6 lle8 1 2 e3 ( 1 2 i.g3 l2Je4 13 l2Jxe4 lbe4 14 e3 l2Jb6 15 l:tc l l2Jxc4 16 l:.xc4 l:.xc4 1 7 i.xc4 b5 ! � Foisor-Ilijin, Romania 1 979) 12 . . . l2Je4 1 3 l2Jxe4l:he4 14 l:.c 1 b5 1 5 l2Jd2 Ab4 16 b3 'ila5 17 'ilc2 i.b7 with compensation; Andruet-Armas, Wijk aan Zee 1989. c) 1 0 . . .l2Je8 1 1 'ilc 1 g5 12 i.d2 l2Jc7 (or 1 2 . . .f5 13 h4 f4 14 hxg5 hxg5 15 e3 i.f5 16 exf4 'ile7+ Ftac­ nik-Podzielny, Trnava 1984, and af­ ter 1 7 'iti>d 1 ! White's chances are clearly better) 1 3 a4 l2Jba6 1 4 h4 f6 15 e4 l2Jb4 16 i.e2 'ile7 17 0-0 i.d7 with an unclear position; Portisch­ Spassky, Turin 1982. d) IO . . . l2Ja6!? and now: d 1 ) Complications which are good for Black arise after 1 1 'ild2 b5 ! 1 2 l2Jxb5 lbe4 1 3 'ilc 1 ( 1 3 'ilc2 i.f5 14 'ila4 l2Jb4 1 5 f3 a6 +)

20 6 li:Jf3 : Introduction

1 3 . . . li:Jb4 14 f3 Kaplun-Kapengut, Rostov 1 980, and 14 ... �d7 ! 15 a4 a6 + would have given Black an advan­ tage - Kapengut. d2) 1 1 �xd6 lle8 is dubious for White: d2 1 ) 1 2 �g3 li:Jb4 ! 13 e3 (or 1 3 li:Jd6 �f5 ! 14 li:Jxf5 { 14 o!Llxe8? li:Jc2+ 15 �d2 li:Jxd5 16 li:Jd6 li:Jxc3 17 bxc3 �xc3+! 18 �xc3 'ifa5+ and Black wins } 1 4 . . . gxf5 1 5 e3 f4 ! 1 6 �xf4 li:Jfxd5 +) 1 3 . . . �f5 14 l:.c 1 li:Je4 1 5 o!Llxe4 �xe4 1 6 a3 li:Jxd5 with a slight plus for Black; Petran­ Barczay, Hungary 1980. d22) 12 e3 li:Je4 13 li:Jxe4 l:[xe4 14 �g3 b5 ( 1 4 . . . �g4 ? ! 15 f3 b5 1 6 'ifd2 ! ) 1 5 li:Jd6 l:b4 1 6 �e2 �xb2 17 0-0 c4 with chances for both sides.

a slight plus for White; Danner­ Moskalenko, Dornbirn 1 989. It would be interesting to test 10 ... b6 1 1 e3 �a6 12 a4 'ife7, for ex­ ample 13 'ifc2 li:Jbd7 14 �e2 �xc4 15 �xc4 g5 1 6 �g3 li:Jh5 17 'ii'f5 ! ? li:Jxg3 1 8 hxg3 1.xc3+ ! ? 1 9 bxc3 'ife5 (Kapengut) with a reasonable game for Black. 11 �g3

Black has no problems after 1 1 a4 'ii'g4 1 2 �xf6 'ifxc4 1 3 i.xg7 cltxg7 14 a5 ! �d7 15 e3 'ii'b4 16 'ii'd 2 li:Ja6 = Makarychev. 11 12 li:Jxd6 13 li:Ja4

bS! b4

Or 1 3 li:Jce4 li:Jxe4 14 li:Jxe4 �xb2 15 l:[b1 �g7 16 :c 1 �b7 17 :xeS li:Ja6. 13 14 o!Lle4 •.•

li:JhS

The following variation holds no fears for Black: 14 li:Jxc5 'ii'c7 1 5 li:Jce4 li:Jxg3 1 6 hxg3 �xb2 1 7 l:[b1 �c3+ 18 li:Jxc3 bxc3 1 9 li:Jb5 'ii'a5 20 'ii'c2 �f5.

B

14 15 e3 16 hxg3

10

•••

fi'd7!?

After 1 0 ... li:Ja6 1 1 e3 li:Jc7 12 a4 b6 1 3 �e2 �a6 14 0-0 White holds the initiative after both 14 . . . �xc4 15 �xc4 a6 16 h3 ! 'ifd7 17 'ifd3 li:Jh7 18 f4 ! f5 19 e4 Ehlvest-Bell6n, Logrofio 1 99 1 , and 14 . . .'ifd7 15 b3 l:[fe8 16 'ifd3 l:ab8 17 �g3 �xc4 1 8 bxc4 li:Ja6 19 l:a3 li:Jb4 20 'ifb1 with

c4! li:Jxg3 'ife7

and Black had sufficient compen­ sation for the pawn in Gulko- Ro­ manishin, Biel 1 987. One might remark that Black can successfully deal with the difficul­ ties of the variation with 7 o!Lld2. C) 7 .i.f4 (D) This move initiates a system which has proved very dangerous for Black.

·

6 lDj3: Introduction 21

An attack on d6, linked with a distant check from a4, brings some discom­ fort into Black's position and de­ mands exact defence. Now 7 . . . lDh5 favours White: 8 .ig5 i..e7 9 i.. h6 lDd7 10 'ii'd2 lDdf6 II h3 lDg8 1 2 i.. e 3 a6 1 3 g4 lDhf6 14 a 4 lDd7 1 5 i.. f4 ;t Gaprindashvili­ Rajkovic, Tbilisi 1 987; and 7 . . . b6? is even worse: 8 e4 i.. g7 9 i.. b 5+ i.. d7 (9 . f8) 10 i.. x d6 i.. xb5 1 1 lDxb5 li.'lxe4 1 2 lDc7+ c;l;.>d7 1 3 i.. f4 +­ Lev-Karp, Tel-Aviv 1990. This leaves two moves worth con­ sidering in depth: C 1 ) 7 . . . a6 C2) 7 . . .i.. g7 . .

Cl)

7 8 a4 ..•

a6

Instead: a) 8 e4 ! ? b5 transposes to A65 . b) 8 lDe4 lDxe4 9 'ir'a4+ lDd7 1 0 .,xe4+ i..e7 !? 1 1 i.. xd6 lDf6 12 i.. xe7 .,xe7 1 3 'ir'xe7+ xe7 14 l:tc 1 ( 1 4 0-0-0 lDe4) 14 . . .b 6 15 lDe5 lDxd5 1 6 �3 i.. e6 and Black wields the initia­ tive; Dreev-Ivanchuk, Lvov 1 987. c) 8 lDd2 is often used by the Ar­ menian players:

c 1 ) 8 . . . i.. g 7? ! cannot be recom­ mended for Black: 9 lDc4 0-0 10 a4 lDe8 1 1 'ir'd2 lDd7 1 2 lDxd6 lDxd6 1 3 i.. x d6 :e8 14 e3 ± Vaganian­ Haik, Marseilles 1 987. c2) White also has a small plus after 8 . . . lDh5 9 'ir'a4+ ! 'ir'd7 (or 9 . . . b5? ! 10 lDxb5 axb5 1 1 Wxa81r'b6 1 2 i.. g 3 i.. g7 1 3 'ir'a3 0-0 1 4 e3 ± A .Petrosian-Cebalo, Sarajevo 1 986) 10 'ii'e4+ i..e7 1 1 i.. h 6 ! b5 12 'ir'c2 and at this point Black should try 12 . . . i.. f8 ! ?, which is stronger than 12 . . .f5 13 e4 ! ± A .Petrosian. c3) 8 . . . b5 9 a4 lDh5 (Fauland­ Wahls, Aosta 1 988, continued with the interesting 9 . . . b4 10 lDce4 lDh5 1 1 i.. g5 f6 12 i.. h4 g5 13 e3 lDg7 14 'ii'f3 i..e7 15 i.. g3 f5 1 6 lDxc5 g4 17 'ii'f4 dxc5 1 8 'ii'e5 �f8 19 d6 i.. f6 with wild complications) 10 i.. e3 b4 ( 1 0 . . . f5 is not enough because of 1 1 g4 ! fxg4 1 2 axb5 lDd7 1 3 lDc4 lDb6 1 4 i.. g5 ! 'flc7 1 5 bxa6 lDxc4 16 'Wa4+ rJJf7 17 'ir'xc4 i.. g7 18 e3 with an advantage, A .Petrosian-Foi­ sor, Moscow 1 987) 1 1 lDce4 lDd7 ! ? (again if 1 l . . .f5 then 1 2 g4 ! fxg4 1 3 lDc4 i.. f5 14 i.. g 5 'ilc7 1 5 'ir'd3 { or 15 1i'd2 rJJf7 1 6 i.. g 2 lDd7 17 lDg3 h6 18 i.. f4 lDdf6 with mutual chances in Lputian-Wahls, Alten­ steig 1 989 } 15 . . . h6 16 'ir'e3 rJ;f7 1 7 i.. f4 lDxf4 1 8 'ir'xf4 with strong pres­ sure in Dementiev-Minasian, Erevan 1983) 1 2 lDc4 lDdf6 1 3 lDxf6+ lDxf6 14 g3 aS ! 15 i.. g2 i.. a6 16 'ilc2 i.. g7 17 i.. f4 i.. xc4 1 8 1i'xc4 0-0 with an equal position; A .Petrosian-Gusei­ nov, Azov 1 99 1 . i.. g7 8 •.•

22 6 l0f3: Introduction

With 8 . ..'ir'e7 (D) Black is trying to hinder the move e4:

w

l:tb8 13 i.b2&0e8 14 :e1&0c7 IS e4 bS 1 6 axbS&OxbS 1 7&0 xbS axbS 1 8 l:a7 and White wields the initiative, Gurgenidze-Gorelov, Volgodonsk 1 98 1. 9 e3

9 e4 ! ? 0-0 10 &Od2 leads to A70, whilst both 9 h3 ! ? and 9 g3 !? deserve attention. 9

a) The problems facing Black are simplified after 9 g3 &Obd7 10 h3 ( 10 .tg2 .tg7 1 1 O-O l0g4 !) 10...l:.b8 1 1 a5 .tg7 12 i.g2 0-0 13 0-0 lObS 14 i.gS f6 1S i.d2 fS 16 Wc 1 &0eS 17 fOxeS 'ir'xeS = ROder-Gavrikov, Vienna 1 990. b) 9 e3 i.g4 1 0 i.e2 i.xf3 1 1 .txf3&0bd7 1 2 0-0 i.g7 1 3 'ii'c2 0-0 14 .te2&0e8 1S e4 l0c7 = Vyzhman­ avin-Ivanchuk, Lvov 1987. c) Black also achieves a decent game in the event of 9&Od2&0hS 1 0 .te3 fS l l&Oc4&0d7 1 2 'ii'd2 lOeS 1 3 &Ob6 :bs 14 i.gS &Od3+ ! 1S 'ifxd3 'ifx gS 16 g3 i.g7 17 i.g2 0-0 = Lpu­ tian-Pigusov, Irkutsk 1986. d) 9 h3 !? (White does not wish to see his opponent's bishop on g4 and in the meantime will keep his bishop on the important h2-b8 diagonal) 9...&0bd7 10 e3 (or 10 &Od2&0eS 1 1 .txeS ! ? 'ir'xeS 1 2 l0c4 'ii'e7 1 3 'i!fd2 hS ! 1 4 'ir'f4 i.fS I S e3 lidS 1 6 i.e2 &Oe4 17 0-0 i.h6 18 'ii'h 2 i.g7 = Browne-D.Gurevich, Los Angeles 1 987) 10 ... i.g7 1 1 i.e2 0-0 1 2 0-0

...

0-0 (D)

9 . . . i.g4 doesn' t look too bad either, as 1 0 'ifb3 ( 1 0 i.e2 0-0 leads to 9 . ..0-0) is not dangerous because of 10...i.xf3 1 1 gxf3 'it'c7 12 i.xd6 'ii'xd6 13 'ii'xb7 l0fd7 14 a5 (14 'ii'xa8 'ii' b 6 ! ) 14 ... 0-0 1 S 'ii'x a8 i.xc3+ ! 1 6 bxc3 'ii'f6 17 :c 1 'ii'xf3 1 8 Ag1&0eS 19 i.e2 'ii'e4 and Black had a strong attack in Gunawan-Hulak, Sarajevo 1 988.

10 h3

Black has no problems after 1 0 i.e2 i.g4 1 1 0-0 'ii'e7 1 2 'ii'b 3 'ii'c7 13 h3 i.xf3 14 i.xf3&0bd7 lS :tel l:.fe8 1 6 e4 l:.ab8 = Gunawan-Wed­ berg, Thessaloniki OL 1988. 10

...

lObs

10... 'ii'e7 is also quite possible, · for example l l &Od2&0bS 1 2 i.h2

6 tD/3: Introduction 23 1'.� 1 3 tDc4 ( 1 3 i.e2 deserves atten­ tion: 1 3 . . . f4 14 0-0 ! fxe3 15 fxe3

•xe3+ 1 6 �h 1 tDg3+ 17 i.xg3 •xg3 18 :xf8+ i.xf8 19 tDce4 Wh4 20 ._b3 tDd7 2 1 i.g4 with compen­ Nntion in Gunawan-Kovacevic, Vrn­ jncka Banja 1 988) 1 3 . . . f4 14 i.e2 fxc3 15 i. xh5 l:[xf2 1 6 i.g3 :xg2 17 'iff3 :xb2 ! with unclear compli­ cutions in Raicevic-Wojtkiewicz, A thens 1992. 11 i.h2

1 1 i.g5 !?. 1 1 ... 12 ..d2

rs

Or 12 i.e2 f4 1 3 e4 tDd7 14 0-0 �h8 15 'ith1 l:[b8 =. 12 13 14 15 16

i.d3 0-0 :ae1 ..c2

i.h6 f4 tDd7 l:[b8! �g7

With equality; Genov-Pigusov, Berlin 1992. C2)

7 8 ._a4+ .•.

i. g7

This is significantly more danger­ for Black than 8 e3 0-0 9 h3 : a) 9 . . . tDa6 1 0 i.c4 ( 1 0 i.e2 tDc7 1 1 0-0 l:r.e8 12 a4 a6 1 3 'ifb3 l:[b8 14 aS tDe4 = Gurgenidze-Zaichik, Tbi­ lisi 1 99 1 ) 10 . . . tDc7 1 1 a4 b6 1 2 0-0 :e8 13 :e1 i.f5 14 g4 ! ? i.c8 15 e4 with a small advantage to White, Lcrner-Agzamov, Tashkent 1 983. b) 9 ... tDe8 1 0 i.e2 tDd7 1 1 0-0 tDe5 1 2 i.xe5 dxe5 1 3 tDd2 f5 14 'ii' b 3 tDd6 was equal in Tal-Spassky, Leningrad 1 954. It is difficult to assess correctly nus

the unlikely complications which occurred in A.Petrosian-Psakhis, Erevan 1 988, after 8 tDd2 tDh5 (8 . . . 0-0 ! ? is quieter) 9 W'a4+ �f8 (the only move; 9 . . . i.d7 is bad be­ cause of 10 'ife4+ We7 1 1 i.xd6 +-) 10 i.e3 a6 1 1 Wb3 b5 12 a4 f5 ! ? 1 3 g4 ! c4 ! ( 1 3 . . .f4 14 i.xc5 !) 1 4 'ifb4 f4 1 5 i.c5 ! ? dxc5 1 6 W'xc5+ �f7 1 7 gxh5 i.f5 ! with an interesting game. 8 i. d7 Black cannot obtain a comfort­ able game with 8 . . . tDbd7? 9 i. xd6 'ii'b6 10 tDb5 a6 1 1 e3 axb5 12 'ifxa8 'ii'x d6 1 3 'ifxc8+ �e7 14 'ifxb7 +­ Benjamin-Kraidman, Jerusalem 1 986. White has a distinct advantage af­ ter 8 . . . �f8 9 e4 tDh5 (or 9 . . . a6 1 0 i.e2 i.g4 1 1 0-0 tDe8 1 2 i.g5 Wd7 1 3 'ii'c2 i.xf3 14 i.xf3 'flc7 15 l:[fe1 tDd7 1 6 i.e2 ;t Grigorian-Sandler, Belgorod 1989) 10 i.g5 Wb6 1 1 'ifc2 h6 1 2 i.e3 �g8 1 3 i.d3 ;t. •.•

9 'i+'b3

bS!? (D)

A critical position for the fate of the variation. The bold pawn move enjoys incomparably greater popu­ larity than the passive 9 . . . i.c8 1 0 e4 0-0 1 1 i.e2 a6 12 a4 'ife7 1 3 tDrl2 tDbd7 14 0-0 tDe8 15 l:[fe1 with a small but obvious advantage to White; Nestorovic-Nenadovic, Bel­ grade GMA 1988. You also see 9 ... 'ifc7, after which you may continue 10 h3 !? ( 1 0 e4 0-0 relates to A70 whilst 10 tDrl2 leads to a complicated game: 10 ... tDh5 1 1 i.g5 h6 1 2 i.h4 g5 1 3 i.g3 tDxg3 14 hxg3 a6 1 5 a4 i.f5 1 6 tDc4 tDd7 17 aS 0-0 1 8 tDa4 :ae8 Sturua-Eolian, Erevan 1 982) 10 . . . 0-0 1 1 e3 tDa6 1 2

24 6 &DJ3: Introduction &i:Jd2 l:tab8 (or 1 2 . . . l:tfd8 1 3 l:tc 1 l:tab8 1 4 a4 &i:Jb4 15 .i.e2 a6 16 0-0 b5? ! 17 axb5 axb5 1 8 &i:Jce4 ! &i:Jxe4 1 9 &i:Jxe4 .i.f5 20 &i:Jxc5 ! with advan­ tage; A .Petrosian-Gutierrez, Tunja 1987) 1 3 a4 &i:Jb4 14 &tJc4 &De8 15 l:td1 with a minimal advantage; Velichko­ Peresipkin, USSR 1 984.

.i.d4 bxc3 ! ? 14 .i.xb6 axb6, as seen in Cholushkina-Prudnikova, USSR 199 1 . 1 1 .i.eS It is obvious that 1 1 .i.g3 0-0 1 2 e3 c 4 1 3 'ii'd 1 b 4 1 4 &i:J b 1 .i.b5 1 5 a4 .i.a6 1 6 .i.e5 &i:Jbd7, Litinskaya­ Levitina, Tskhaltubo Ct 1 988, fa­ vours Black. 11 12 e3 •••

0-0 c4

Precisely this pawn ! 12 . . . b4 is bad: 1 3 &i:Jb 1 .i.b5 14 .i.xb5 'iVxb5 15 &i:Jc3 ! 'ii'a6 1 6 .i.xf6 'ir'xf6 17 &tJe4 with a big advantage; Khenkin­ Jaulin, Paris 1 99 1 . 1 3 'ii'd 1 (D)

Now White must chose between two continuations of approximately equal value: C2 1 ) 10 .i.xd6 C22) 10 &i:Jxb5 Instead 10 e3? ! creates no prob­ lems for Black: 10 . . . c4 1 1 'Wa3 0-0 1 2 &Dd4 'ir'b6 1 3 'ir'xd6 b4 ( 1 3 ... 'ir'a5 is not as convincing: 14 'ir'c7 'ir'b4 15 l:tb1 &i:Jxd5 16 a3 .i.xd4 17 axb4 .i.xc3+ 1 8 bxc3 &i:Jxc7 1 9 .i.xc7 ;!; Hertneck-Wittmann, Badenweiler 1 990) 14 &i:Jd 1 l:tc8 15 l:tc 1 'ir'a5 1 6 .i.xc4 b3+ and now the initiative be­ longs to Black; Gaprindashvili-Wi­ nants, Brussels tt 1987. C21) 10 .i.xd6

'iVb6

It would also be interesting to test 1 0 . . . c4 1 1 'ir'd 1 'ii'b 6 1 2 .i.e5 b4 1 3

13

••.

�6!

The most precise move. White is assisted by: a) 1 3 . . . l:td8? ! 14 a3 �a6 15 .i.e2 �c5 16 'ifd4 .i.f5 17 0-0 ;!; Timman­ Winants, Brussels 1986. b) 13 . . . b4? ! 14 �b1 .i.b5 1 5 �bd2 :c8 (nor can Black settle af­ ter 15 . . . �bd7 1 6 .i.d4 'ifc7 1 7 .i.xc4 .i.xc4 18 :c 1 �b6 19 .i.xb6 with a big advantage for White) 1 6 :c 1 c3 ( 1 6 . . . �bd7 ? ! loses : 17 .i.xc4 �xe5

6 lDf3: Introduction 25 tDxe5 i.xc4 1 9 lDdxc4 'ii'a6 20 +- Yakovich-Zelcic, Belgorod 1 99 1 ) 17 bxc3 i.xfl 1 8 �xfl bxc3 19 i.xc3 'ii' b 5+ 20 Wg1 'ii'xd5 2 1 i.xf6 l:xc 1 2 2 'ii'xc 1 i.xf6 2 3 g3 l,i)d7 24 c,jjlg2 llb8 25 'ii'c4 and Black faces a tough battle for the draw in YrjoUi-Winants, Dubai OL 1986. IX

0-0

14 'it'd4

The weakness of b3 becomes clear in the variation 14 a3 lDc5 1 5 _.d4 i.f5 1 6 lld1 i.c2 ! 17 lld2 i.f5 and White must play 1 8 l:d 1 =, but not 18 g4? ! i.e4 ! 19 lDxe4 tDcxe4 20 _.xb6 axb6 2 1 l:tc2 lDxg4 + Van der Sterren-Winants, Budel Z 1987. 14

•••

:reS!

14 . . . tDb4 ? ! turns out to be a lone shot, for example 15 l:.c 1 i.f5 1 6 _.xb6 axb6 17 a 3 tDc2+ 1 8 �d2 b4 19 axb4 lDxb4 20 i.xc4 l:fd8 2 1 �e2 ±. 15 16 17 18 19

l:c1 tDd1 tDxd4 i..xg7 i.. xc4

Matalascafias 1986 is not bad either) 1 2 . . . lDxd2 1 3 lDxd2 0-0 1 4 lDc4 'ii'c7 1 5 e3 lDa6 1 6 i.. e 2 l:.ab8 1 7 'ii'c 2 i.. f5 1 8 e4 i.. c 8 1 9 a 3 ± Zsu. Polgar-Renet, Paris m 1987 . The little-researched 1 0 . . . 0-0 ! ? deserves attention, for example 1 1 �c3 (or 1 1 �xd6 �a6 12 e4 l:b8 1 3 'ifd 1 :xb2 14 i.. d 3 'ifa5+ 1 5 i.. d 2 'ii'a3 with a complex game; Nasybu­ lin-Ulybin, Pavlodar 1 987) 1 l . ..�a6 1 2 i.. x d6 l:te8 1 3 e3 �e4 ! 14 i.. xa6 �xd6 15 'ii'a3 l:.b8 16 0-0 'ii' b 6 and here Black has sufficient compensa­ tion for the pawn; Ruzele-Gelfand, Kramatorsk 1 989. 1 1 'ii'xb5+ 12 i.. xd6 (D)

�bd7

Or 1 2 'ii'd 3 0-0 and 1 3 e4? �xe4 is bad.

b4 'ii'xd4 tDxdS 'iti>xg7

Black has a good game for the pawn after 1 9 l:txc4 tDc5 20 i.. e2 .l:ab8 21 0-0 aS. 19

.••

lDb6!

Again Black has sufficient com­ pensation for the pawn; Aleksandria­ Shabalov, USSR 1 989. C22) 10 lDxb5

i.. xb5! ?

White has a clear advantage after IO . 'ii'a5+ 1 1 tDc3 lDe4 1 2 i.. d 2 ! ? ( 1 2 lDd2 tDxc3 1 3 bxc3 i.. a4 14 'ii'a3 i.. x c3 1 5 l:c 1 i.. b 4 1 6 'ii' b 2 0-0 1 7 a3 i.. x d2+ 1 8 'ifxd2 Bell6n-Ochoa, . .

12 13 14 15 16 17

i.. e5 i..xg7 'ii'a4 'ii'xe4 tDd2!

liJe4 0-0 g1 l:ba2 28 l:e1 ;!;, but 1 9 . . . .1:8b4 20 e4 l:d4 deserves atten­ tion) 20 e4 .l:.bb2 and, in view of the fact that 2 1 i.c4 ? ! is not very good because of 2 l . . . .l:i.xd2 ! 22 l:xd2 .Ua1 +, one should prefer Black's po­ sition.

25 i.c4 26 'iixd7

l:f.ab2 'ii'xc4

with a small advantage to Black, Gaprindashvili-Bell6n, Biel 1 988.

D) 7 i.. gS h6 Matters turn out worse for Black if he fails to disturb the dark-squared bishop, for example 7 . . . i.g7 8 e3 0-0 9 t'iJd2 (D) and now:

8

19 'it'c4

White must be very careful, as 1 9 'ii'e5 ? loses; 19 . . . .l:i.xa2 20 e 3 l:e8 2 1 'it'f4 .Uxd2 22 :txd2 t'!Je4 -+ Barlov­ Zelcic, B iel 199 1 . 19 20 e3 21 i.d3

.l:i.xa2 .l:i.b8

Or 2 1 i.e2 .l:i.bb2 22 0-0 .l:i.xd2 23 .l:.xd2 'it'xd2, Khenkin-Arkhipov, Moscow 1989. 21 ... 22 0-0

l:.bb2

22 'ii'c l ? is not advisable for White: 22 . . . t'iJxd5 23 i.c4 l:f.xd2 ! 24 'it'xd2 .l:i.xd2 25 l:f.xd2 'ii'a 1 + 26 .l:.d 1 'it'c3+ -+. 22 23 d6! 24 'iVb5

l:f.xd2 t'iJd7 'iic3

a) White's chances are much preferable after 9 . . . b6 10 i.c4 ! ? t'iJbd7 1 1 0-0 h6 (or 1 l . . .'it'e7 1 2 a4 .l:.b8 1 3 i.e2 :te8 14 �h 1 h6 1 5 i.h4 g5 1 6 i.g3 t'!Je5 17 h 3 ;!; Psak­ his-Barczay, Dortmund 1 982) 1 2 i.h4 a6 1 3 a4 t'!Je5 1 4 i.e2 'ii'c 7 1 5 l:f.c 1 l:b8 16 h 3 with a small but tan­ gible advantage to White in Psakhis­ Karlsson, Dortmund 1 982. b) 9 . . . t'!Ja6 10 e4 :te8 1 1 i.e2 t'!Jc7 12 a4 a6 13 0-0 .l:.b8 14 a5 i.d7 15 f4 t'iJb5 16 i.d3 ;!; Psakhis-Suba, Las Palmas 1 982. c) 9 . . . a6 10 a4 t'iJbd7 1 1 i.e2 .l:i.e8 12 0-0 .l:i.b8 (or 12 ... li'c7 13 .l:i.c 1 !? b6 14 e4 h6 15 i.h4 g5 16 i.g3 t'!Je5 17 h3 ;!; intending f4 and kingside play)

6 lL!f3: Introduction 27 1 3 h3 ! 'fic7 14 �h l h6 15 .i.f4 g5 1 6 .ig3 ! ( 1 6 .i.h2 lLle5 17 f4 gxf4 1 8 cxf4 lLlg6 1 9 f5 lL!h4 ! Tukmakov) 1 6 . . . lLle5 17 f4 gxf4 1 8 exf4 lLlg6 1 9 f5 lL!e5 2 0 lLlde4 lL!xe4 2 1 lL!xe4 with an obvious plus for White; Tuk­ makov-Larsen, Las Palmas 1978. 8 .i.h4 After the illogical 8 .i.f4 Black quickly seizes the initiative: 8 . . . lLlh5 9 .i.g3 .i.g7 1 0 lL!d2 lL!xg3 1 1 hxg3 lL!d7 12 e3 0-0 13 .i.e2 lLle5 14 a4 b6 1 5 'fic2 'fie7 16 0-0 h5 ! Filip-Raj­ kovic, Smederevska Palanka 1978. 8

...

gS

I think this is a very precise move. The dark-squared bishop is an im­ portant piece and its destruction might be decisive in weakening the pawn structure. You also see 8 . . . .i.g7 (D):

w

a) 9 e4 ! ?, leading us to A7 1 . b) 9 lL!d2 g5 (it's not worth weak­ ening the queenside with 9 . . . a6? ! 10 a4 g5 l l .i.g3 lLlh5 1 2 lLlc4 lLlxg3 1 3 hxg3 .i.f5 14 e 3 0-0 15 .i.d3 .i.xd3 1 6 'fixd3 ;!; Vasiliev-Blekhtsin, Lie­ paja 1 974; White also has an advan­ tage after 9 . . . 'flie7 10 e4 lL!bd7 1 1

.i.e2 g5 1 2 .i.g3 lLle5 1 3 0-0 .i.d7 14 a4 ;!; Horvath-Garcia Palermo, Oak­ ham 1 986) 1 0 .i.g3 lLlh5 1 1 'ii'a4+ '1Pf8 1 2 e3 (or 1 2 e4 lLlxg3 1 3 hxg3 a6 14 .i.e2 lL!d7 15 'fic2 lLle5 16 0-0 h5 oo Popov-Kluger, Sofia 1 962) and now: b l ) 1 2 . . . a6 1 3 'fic2 b5 14 a4 b4 15 lLlce4 ! ? .i.f5 (or 15 . . . lL!xg3 1 6 lL!xg3) 1 6 .i.d3 lLlxg3 17 hxg3 lL!d7 18 0-0 ;!; Cebalo-J.Horvath, Zenica 1 987. b2) 1 2 . . . lLlxg3 1 3 hxg3 lLld7 14 'flic2 lL!e5 15 .i.e2 a6 16 a4 h5 ! ? (sig­ nificantly stronger than 16 . . . g4? ! 1 7 l:.h5 ! .l:.b8 1 8 a5 ± Spasov-Arnan­ dov, Bulgaria 1 972) 17 a5 ( 1 7 ltxh5 llxh5 18 .i.xh5 g4 and big problems with the bishop suddenly appear for White) 17 . . . g4 = Uhlmann-Espig, Raach 1 969. c) 9 e3 0-0 (for 9 . . . g5 10 .i.g3 lL!h5, see 8 . . . g5, and Black also has a reasonable game after 9 . . . a6 1 0 a4 .i.g4 ! ? 1 1 'fic2 .i.xf3 12 gxf3 lL!bd7 13 a5 0-0 14 f4 b5 15 axb6 'it'xb6 = Hartston-Bronstein, Tallinn 1 979, as well as after the rarely played 9 . . . 'fib6 ! ? 10 llbl .i.g4 1 1 .i.e2 .i.xf3 12 .i.xf3 0-0 1 3 0-0 lLlbd7 14 .i.g3 .l:.fc8 = Yuferov-Magerramov, USSR 1978) 10 lL!d2 and now: c l ) 1 0 . . . a6 1 1 a4 lL!bd7 1 2 .i.e2 'ile7 ( 1 2 ... .l:.e8 does not equalize, for example 13 0-0 'flic7 14 e4 l:tb8 15 f4 c4 1 6 '�Ph i b5 17 axb5 axb5 1 8 e5 ! dxe5 1 9 fxe5 with advantage; Csa­ bolcsi-Armas, French Cht 1 993) 1 3 0-0 .l:.b8 1 4 'ii'c2 l:td8 1 5 h3 ;!;, c2) 10 . . . lL!bd7 1 1 .i.e2 'ii'e7 (or l l . .. lLle5 1 2 lLlde4 ! ? 'fie7 13 0-0 a6

28 6 l'Df3: Introduction

1 4 a4 .l:te8 15 a5 with a small advan­ tage, but after 1 5 . . . .i.f5? Black loses quickly: 1 6 l'Dxf6+ .i.xf6 1 7 .i.xf6 �xf6 1 8 f4 ! l'Dd7 19 g4 .i.e4 20 .l:ta4 ! +- Lechtynsky-Bonsch, Halle 1 98 1 ) 1 2 0-0 g 5 1 3 .i.g3 l'De5 ! ? 1 4 a4 .i.f5 1 5 e4 .i.d7 and White should have played the simple 1 6 h3 ! ? instead of 16 .l:te1 ?! .l:tfe8 17 lLlfl h5 ! 18 f3 h4 19 .i.f2 l'Dh5 after which Black seized the initiative in Bjork-Ro­ manishin, Stockholm tt 1986. c3) 10 . . . tLla6 1 1 l'Dc4 (Black can achieve a satisfactory game with ex­ act play after 1 1 .i.c4 l'Dc7 12 0-0 a6 { or 1 2 . . . .l:te8 1 3 a4 .l:tb8 14 e4 g5 1 5 .i. g 3 a 6 1 6 a5 b 5 1 7 axb6 .l:txb6 1 8 .i.d3 ! l'Db5 19 tLlc4 ;l; T.Georgadze­ Dorfman, Erevan Z 1982 } 13 a4 .l:tb8 14 a5 b5 15 axb6 .l:txb6 was unclear in D.Gurevich-Wedberg, Helsinki 1 983) 1 1 . . . .l:te8 (White is a little bet­ ter after 1 1 . . .l'Dc7 12 a4 b6 1 3 i.. e2 .i.a6 14 tLla3 ! ? i.. xe2 15 'iixe2 g5 { 15 . . . 'ili'd7 ! ? } 16 i.. g 3 tLlcxd5 1 7 tLlxd5 l'Dxd5, Cebalo-Franco, Lu­ cerne 1 989, and White should have continued 1 8 tLlc4 ! ;l;) 1 2 .i.e2 tLlc7 1 3 a4 b6 14 0-0 .i.a6 15 'ii'b3 'ii'e7 16 .l:tfd 1 .i.xc4 Tukmakov-Lechtynsky, Vilnius 1 978, and I think that after 1 7 'ii'xc4 White's position is the more promising. 9 .i.g3 tLlhS (D) 10 e3

10 e4 l'Dxg3 1 1 fxg3 ( 1 1 hxg3 .i.g7 12 'ii'c2 a6 13 a4 tLld7 14 tLld2 tLle5 quickly leads to an equal line of A7 1 ) 1 1 . . . .i.g7 1 2 'ii'a4+ lLld7 1 3 .i.e2 0-0 14 0-0 'ii'e7 15 'ii'c2 l'De5 and it was already difficult for White

w

to equalize in the game Peev-Go­ chev, Sofia 198 1 . After the dubious 1 0 'fia4+? ! Black gets a wonderful game from both 10 . . . .i.d7 ! ? 1 1 'iie4+ 'ii'e7 1 2 .i.xd6 'i!Vxe4 1 3 l'Dxe4 f5 14 .i.xb8 .l:txb8 15 tLlc3 b5 Geller-Suetin, Mos­ cow 1960, and from the probably even stronger 10 . . . l'Dd7 1 1 'ii'e4+ 'ili'e7 12 i.. xd6 'ili'xe4 1 3 l'Dxe4 f5 14 i.. xf8 fxe4 15 .i.xh6 .l:txh6 1 6 lLlxg5 e3 ! + Shadursky-Suetin, Vladimir 1962. Finally, 10 l'Dd2 tLlxg3 1 1 hxg3: a) We have already seen many times that Black's activity on the queenside rarely pays him any kind of dividends, and this position is no exception: 1 1 . . .a6 12 e3 b5? ! 1 3 a4 b4 14 tLlce4 g4 15 lLlc4 f5 16 l'Ded2 ± Piket-Riemersma, Dutch Cht 1 987. b) Black played better in Ag­ destein-Ljubojevic, Wijk aan Zee 1 988: 1 1 . . .l'Dd7 1 2 tLlc4 l'Db6 1 3 e3 a6 14 a4 .i.g7 15 'ii'd 2 l'Dxc4 1 6 .i.xc4 .i.d7 1 7 a5 and after the simple 17 . . . b5 1 8 axb6 'ii'xb6 his chances would have been no worse c) l l ....i.g7 1 2 tLlc4 0-0 ( 1 2 ... a6? ! 1 3 a4 0-0 14 tLle4 ! ? tLld7 1 5 l'Dexd6

6 li)f3: Introduction 29 li)h6 1 6 a5 li)xc4 17 li)xc4 .td7 1 8 J:lu2 ;!;; Agdestein-Cebalo, Taxco IZ 1 985) 13 e3 and we find ourselves in I he variation with 10 e3 . Returning to the position after 10

d (D):

II

10

••.

li)xg3

If he wishes, Black can also play I O . . . .tg7, as he need not fear checks on either b5 or a4; indeed his king is quite comfortably positioned on f8 : a) 1 1 'iVa4+ .td7 1 2 '6'b3 li)xg3 1 3 hxg3 "fie? 14 li)d2 0-0 15 .te2 li)a6 16 0-0 l:tab8 + Zurakhov-Zhid­ kov, Kiev 197 1 . b) 1 1 .td3 0-0 1 2 '6'c2 (or 1 2 li)d2 li)xg3 1 3 hxg3 li)d? 1 4 li)c4 li)b6 15 li)xb6 'iVxb6 16 '6'c2 .td7 17 l:tb 1 f5 = Antoshin-Psakhis, Sochi 1 979) 1 2 . . . f5 1 3 .te2 li)a6 14 li)d2 li)xg3 15 hxg3 'iVe7 = Malaniuk-Van der Werf, Groningen 1 990. c) 1 1 .tb5+ and now: c 1 ) There's no point in Black ex­ changing bishops with 1 1 . . . .td7? 1 2 .txd7+ li)xd7 ( 1 2 . . . 'ii'xd7 1 3 li)e5 !) 1 3 .txd6 'ii' b 6 14 li)e4 f5 15 li)fd2 g4 1 6 'ii'a4 ! fxe4 17 'iVxe4+ ± Szil­ agyi-Sergian, Hungary 1977.

c2) l l . ..�e7?! is equally unsatis­ factory, for example 12 .i.d3 li)xg3 13 hxg3 .tg4 14 'ii'c 2 a6 1 5 li)d2 b5 16 a4 b4 1 7 li)cb1 l:te8 1 8 li)c4 �f8 1 9 li)bd2 ± Knezevic-Rogulj, Smed­ erevska Palanka 1 977. c3) 1 1 . . .�f8 with the branch: c3 1 ) 12 .te2 li)xg3 13 hxg3 li)d7 ( 1 3 . . . f5? 14 li)d2 li)d7 15 'ifc2 li)e5 16 f4 ! gxf4 17 exf4 ± Lerner-Io­ nescu, Moscow 1987) 14 'iVc2 'iVe7 15 l:tb1 li)e5 1 6 li)xe5 'ii'xe5 17 g4 .td7 18 a4 h5 ! 19 gxh5 g4 and Black already has better prospects; Spasov­ Hort, Slanchev Briag 1 974. c32) Black also has an excellent game after 12 'ifc2 a6 13 .td3 li)xg3 14 fxg3 b5 15 0-0 l:ta7 ! 16 l:[f2 li)d7 17 a4 b4 1 8 li)e4 li)b6 19 llaf1 a5 ! ? + Borges-Gavrikov, Tallinn 1 989. c33) 1 2 .i.d3 li)xg3 1 3 hxg3 ( 1 3 fxg3 'fie? 1 4 0-0! ? li)d? 15 .tf5 li)f6 1 6 li)d2 a6 1 7 'iff3 �g8 1 8 .txc8 l:txc8 19 l:tf2 :e8 20 llafl h5 = Yusupov-Gavrikov, Frunze 1 98 1 , is interesting, but not sufficient for an advantage) 13 ... li)d7 14 '6'c2 "fie? 15 .tf5 (castling too soon gives Black an object for attack: 15 0-0?! h5 ! 1 6 .tf5 g4 17 li)d2 h4 with initiative) 15 . . . :b8 16 a4 a6 17 a5 'iff6 1 8 li)d2 h5 = Antoshin-Psakhis, Mos­ cow 1 98 1 . 1 1 hxg3 12 .td3 ! ?

.tg7

Other moves: a) Again the check is superflu­ ous : 12 'ifa4+? ! li)d? 1 3 "fie4+ 'ife7 14 li)d2 and Black has a good game after both 14 . . . li)f6 ! ? 15 'ifxe7+ ( 1 5 "fka4+ .i.d7 1 6 .tb5 a6 = ) 1 5 . . . �xe7

30 6 &Df3: Introduction with equality, and 14 ... &DeS 1S .i.bS+ 'iii>f8 16 &Dc4 :b8 ! 17 &DxeS -*.xeS 1 8 .i.d3 fS with a n edge for Black; Gil­ Dolmatov, Barcelona 1 983. b) After 12 .i.bS+, the reply 1 2 . . . 'iii> f8 again seems best, whilst after 12 ... -*.d7 13 a4 0-0 14 'Wd3 ! fS 1 S &Dd2 a6 1 6 .i.xd7 &Dxd7 17 f4 White's position was preferable in Mi.Tseitlin-0' Shaughnessy, Hast­ ings 1992. c) 12 &Dd2 (D) enjoys notably more popularity, although in my opinion Black can achieve equality in various ways:

c 1 ) 1 2 . . . 0-0 1 3 &Dc4 'ile7 (the al­ ternative 1 3 . . . &Da6 ! ? deserves atten­ tion, for example 14 &DbS ? ! .i.d7 1 S a4 .i.xbS 1 6 axbS &Db4 1 7 .i.e2 fS = or 14 .i.e2 &Dc7 1 S a4 b6 1 6 e4 'fie7 17 'Wd2 .i.d7 1 8 eS !? -*.xeS 1 9 &DxeS 'ii'xeS 20 l:txh6 'Wg7 with an unclear game; Agdestein-D.Gurevich, Jeru­ salem 1 986) and now: e l l ) 14 .i.e2 l:td8 1 S 0-0 &Dd7 1 6 a4 &Des 1 7 &DxeS -*.xeS ( 1 7 . . . 'ii'xeS 1 8 a5 ! l:tb8 19 l:ta2 .i.d7, Botvinnik­ Tal, Moscow Web 1 960, and White could have played 20 .i.bS ! ? with a

small advantage) 1 8 'ii'c 2 fS with a level position . c 1 2) Black has no problems after 14 'ii'c 2 fS 1 S .i.e2 (greed is pun­ ished: 1S &DbS :f6 ! 16 &Dcxd6? .i.d7 17 'ii' b 3 l:txd6 1 8 &Dxd6 'Wxd6 1 9 'Wxb7 'Wb6 2 0 -*.a6 { 20 'Wxa8 'ii'xb2 -+ } 20 . . . 'ii'a5+ ! 2 1 'iii>d 1 -*.a4+ -+ Piket-Wahls, Adelaide jr Wch 1988) 1 S ... .i.d7 1 6 a4 &Da6 1 7 0-0 &Db4 = Smejkal-Ftacnik, Prague 1989. c 1 3) 14 .i.d3 &Dd7 (Black has a good alternative in 14 . . . &Da6 ! ? 1 S l:tc 1 &Dc7 1 6 a4 .i.d7 1 7 &De4 &DxdS 18 &Dexd6 &Db6 ! ? = B onin-D.Gure­ vich, B oston 1 988) 1S 0-0 (Black need not fear 1S &De4 &DeS 16 &Dexd6 -*.g4 ! 17 .i.e2 &Dxc4 1 8 &Dxc4 -*.xe2 19 'Wxe2 ii'e4 20 0-0 'WxdS = Bonin­ Psakhis, rapid 1 989) 1S . . . &DeS 1 6 &DxeS 'ii'xeS 17 l:te1 .i.d7 1 8 l:tb1 g4 = Germek-Tal, Bled 196 1 . c2) 1 2 ... a6 1 3 a4 &Dd7 14 &Dce4 ! ? (or 14 .i.e2 &DeS ! ? { 14 . . . b6 1S g4 ! ? } 1 S f4 ! ? { in K.Grigorian-Kasparov, Baku 1 980, Black easily achieved equality after 1S g4 0-0 16 0-0 fS = } 1 S . . . &Dd7 1 6 ii'c2 ii'e7 17 &Dc4 &Df6 1 8 a5 .i.d7 1 9 e4 with pressure on Black's position; Kraidman-Green­ feld, Israeli Ch 1 986) 14 ... &Df6 1 S &Dxf6+ ii'xf6 1 6 &Dc4 l:tb8 1 7 a5 .i.d7 1 8 l:La2 .i.bS 1 9 &Db6 ;!; B agi­ rov-Beliavsky, Vitebsk 1970. c3) 12 . . . &Dd7 13 'ii'c 2 (in the event of 1 3 &Dc4 complete equality can be achieved by both 13 ... &DeS 14 &DxeS -*.xeS 1 S 'Wc2 a6 1 6 a4 -*.g7 17 .i.d3 'We7 18 a5 0-0 Bagirov,Sa­ von, Moscow 1 973 and 1 3 . . . &Db6 14. &Dxb6 'Wxb6 1 S .i.bS+ �f8 16 'Wc2

6 lbf3: Introduction 31 'i'd8 17 i.d3 'ii' f6 1 8 f4 'ii'e7 1 9 � f2 i.d7 Naivelt-Moiseev, Voro­ nezh 1 98 1 ) 1 3 . . . li:)e5 ( 1 3 . . . 'it'e7 is

ulso interesting, for example 14 a4 l;)c5 1 5 i.b5+ ..tf8 1 6 a5 h5 ! 17 a6 h4 1 8 gxh4 gxh4 with good counter­ play; Karpov-Gavrikov, rapid 1 988) 14 i.b5+ i.d7 (14 ... �f8 ! ?) 15 a4 a6 ( or 15 . . . 0-0 1 6 i.e2 'ike7 17 l:la3 f5 = < icller-Malaniuk, Moscow 1 983) 1 6 .i xd7+ 'ikxd7 17 a5 0-0 1 8 0-0 'flic7 1 9 l:a4 b5 with an equal position; Mi. Tseitlin-Kaidanov, Cheliabinsk 1 980. li:)d7 12 ... Black experiences no problems u fter 12 . . . 0-0 ! ? 1 3 'ikc2 f5 (more i nteresting than 1 3 . . . lbd7 14 .l:.b1 'i'e7 15 i.h7+ ! ..th8 16 i.f5 li:)e5 17 .i xc8 l:axc8 18 'flif5 ! li:)xf3+ 1 9 g x f3 ;!; Yuferov-Sarbai, Minsk 1978) 14 lDd2 lba6 15 lbc4 ( 1 5 a3 ! ?) 1 5 . . li:)b4 1 6 'ifd2 li:)xd3+ (it is also possible to wait with this exchange: I li . a6 ! ? 17 a4 b6) 17 'ikxd3 a6 1 8 a4 hli = Lerner-Dolmatov, Kislovodsk .

. .

1 982. 13 'iVc2 (D)

In Tal-Tatai, Las Palmas 1 975, af­ ter 1 3 . . . li:)f6 1 4 li:)d2 0-0 1 5 li:)c4 'fie7 1 6 a4 i.d7 17 0-0 l:ab8 18 l:fe1 b6 White could have gained an ad­ vantage if he had played 1 9 i.f5 ! . Black may also try 1 3 . . . a6 1 4 a4 l:b8 (alternatively, 14 . . . 'fie7 15 i.f5 li:)e5 { 15 . . . li:)f6?! 16 a5 i.xf5 1 7 'ikxf5 .:tb8 1 8 li:)d2 0-0 19 li:)c4 is less successful; Groszpeter-Stajcic, Caissa KFT 1 993 } 16 a5 ! ? i.xf5 17 'it'xf5 li:)d7 { Black has a dangerous position after 17 . . . li:)xf3+ 1 8 gxf3 'ifd7 1 9 'ikxd7+ �xd7 20 li:)a4 ! } 1 8 li:)d2 b5 1 9 axb6 li:)xb6 20 g4 ;!; Groszpeter-Kindermann, Budapest 1 985) 15 0-0 (but not 15 i.f5 ? ! be­ cause of 15 . . . b5 16 axb5 axb5 1 7 l:la7 'it'b6 1 8 l:a2 b4 and Black al­ ready has the initiative; Yusupov­ Hulak, Toluca IZ 1 982) 15 . . . 0-0 1 6 l:ab1 and now 16 . . . 'ife7 ! ? should be compared with the main line, whilst after 16 . . . 'it'c7 ? ! White has an easy and pleasant game: 17 l:fc 1 l:e8 1 8 b4 cxb4 1 9 l:xb4 lbc5 2 0 i.h7+ 'iii>h 8 21 li:)d4 i.d7 22 i.f5 ± Fur­ man-Tal, Tallinn 1 97 1 . 14 a4 (D)

After 14 0-0? ! h5 1 5 i.f5 g4 1 6 li:)h4 ( 1 6 li:)d2 !?) 1 6 . . . i.f6 1 7 lbe4 i.xh4 1 8 gxh4 lbe5 Black seizes the initiative - Kapengut. He also has no problems after 14 li:)d2 lbe5 1 5 i.f5 i.xf5 1 6 'ii'xf5 'ii'd7 ! ? (but not 16 ... c4? ! 17 ..te2 ! 0-0 { 17 . . . 'ikd7 ! ? } 1 8 li:)ce4 b5 1 9 l:xh6 ! +- Psakhis-Gavrikov, Erevan 1 982) 17 li:)ce4 'iii>e7 ! .

II

13 . . .

'ike7

14 15 .:tb1

a6

32 6 tiJj3: Introduction

B

Again it's not worth White's while hurrying into castling: 15 0-0? ! h5 ! 16 .i.f5 g4 17 tiJd2 tiJe5 ( 1 7 . . . h4 ! ? 1 8 tiJe2 tiJe5) 1 8 .i.xc8 .:txc8 19 f4 gxf3 20 tiJxf3 tiJxf3+ 21 .:txf3 .:tc7 = B alashov-Kapengut, Baku 1 972. Also possible: 15 .i.f5 b6 !? (more circumspect than 1 5 . . . tiJe5 ? ! 1 6 a5 .i.xf5 1 7 'it'xf5 'it'd7 1 8 'ft'c2 0-0-0 1 9 tiJxe5 .i.xe5 20 tiJa4 b8 2 1

tiJb6 'ft'e7 2 2 g4 with an edge for White; Tukmakov-Agzamov, Ere­ van Z 1982) 1 6 tiJd2 .:tb8 and B lack has a reasonable game . 15 16 17 18 19 20

...

0-0 tiJxeS aS

.:tal axb6

0-0 (D) tiJeS! ? 'ifxeS l:lb8 bS l:lxb6 =

Hartston-Nunn, London 1 98 1 .

3 Fianchetto System : Introduction (A62) I d4 �f6 2 c4 c5 3 dS e6 4 �c3 exdS 5 cxdS d6 g6 6 .!013 i.g7 7 g3 8 i.g2 0-0 9 0-0 (D)

II

Occasionally White tries 9 �d2, when there can follow 9 . . . a6 1 0 a4 �bd7 1 1 �c4 (for 1 1 0-0 see A63) l l . . .�b6 12 �a3 i.d7 13 i.d2 �xa4 ! 14 �xa4 b5 15 �c3 b4 = Krasenkov-Tolnai, Budapest 1 989. On the ninth move Black has a fairly large choice of continuations, which we divide up as follows: A) Rare moves B) 9 ... .:es C) 9 ... a6 10 a4 .:es D) 9 ... �a6

A) Rare moves 9

The system in which the bishop is developed to g2 occupies a very im­ portant place in the Modern Benoni, nnd this variation has particular im­ portance as it can be reached by other move orders from the King's I ndian Defence. It is hardly the most dangerous system for Black. How­ ever, it is especially difficult for B l ack to achieve an active game, which, strictly speaking, is the aim of those brave souls who play the M odern Benoni. We shall examine �:oncrete variations as events de­ velop.

...

i.g4

Or: a) 9 . . . b6 (too slow, and besides the bishop on a6 has practically no function) 10 .:et .:es 1 1 i.f4 a6 1 2 e4 �g4 ( 1 2 . . . b5 1 3 e5 ! i s risky) 1 3 a4 lta7 1 4 h3 �5 1 5 i.xe5 i.xe5 1 6 �xeS dxe5 1 7 1i'b3 ;!; Zaitsev­ Rashkovsky, Sochi 1976. b) 9 . . . i.d7 10 i.f4 1i'e7 1 1 .:el �a6 1 2 h3 llfe8 1 3 e4 �h5 14 i.g5 1i'f8 15 g4 h6 16 i.d2 �f6 17 i.f4 with a small advantage to White; Ur­ ban-Anastasian, Debrecen 1992. c) 9 . . . 1i'e7 10 llel �bd7 1 1 h3 �e4 (or l l . . .llb8 12 a4 �4 1 3 lla3 ! ? �df6 1 4 �d2 �g5 1 5 �h2

34 Fianchetto System: Introduction ;t Razuvaev-Nikoloff, Saint John

1 988) 1 2 �xe4 'ii'xe4 1 3 i.f4 'ii'e7 14 'ii'd 2 Birnboim-Lobron, Biel 1 982, and even after the improve­ ment 14 . . . �e5 ! ? 15 �xe5 i.xe5 1 6 i.xe5 'ii'xe5 17 e4 White's position is preferable. 10 �d2

10 h3 is not dangerous for Black: 10 . . . i.xf3 1 1 i.xf3 (or 1 1 exf3 a6 1 2 a4 �bd7 1 3 f4 c 4 = ) 1 1 . . .'ii'd7 ! ? (more interesting than the traditional 1 l . . .a6 1 2 a4 �bd7 1 3 l:r.b1 'ii'c7 14 i.d2 l:r.ab8 1 5 i.g2 l:r.fe8 1 6 'ifc2 b5 17 axb5 axb5 1 8 b4 ;!;) 1 2 �h2 b5 1 3 a 3 'ii' b 7 1 4 i.f4 �e8 15 e 4 �d7 = Verat-Tatai, Cannes 1992. Black also has a decent game after 10 i.f4 �5 1 1 i.g5 'ii'd7 1 2 'ii'b 3 �a6. 'ii'd7 10 .••

1 1 a4

Or 1 1 'ii' b 3 �a6 1 2 lld 1 l:r.ab8 1 3 f 3 i.h3 14 i.xh3 'ii'x h3 = Furman­ Taimanov, USSR 1 96 1 . 11 i.h3 12 13 14 15 16

�c4 �:xg2

f3 i.f4 'ii'd2

i.:xg2 fle7 �bd7 �

with a small advantage for White; Makarov-Gufeld, Podolsk 1992.

B) 9 .:es (D) ••

10 i.f4

Without doubt the most popular move, but not for certain the best. White also has various other con­ tinuations, some of which offer hope of an adavantage:

a) Black has an easy game after 1 0 a4?! �e4 1 1 �xe4 l:r.xe4 1 2 i.g5 'ii'f8 13 �2 l:r.b4 14 l:r.a2 h6 15 i.e3 �d7 16 'ifc 1 b6 = Jukic-Shabalov, Geneva 1992. b) Chances for both sides arise after 10 l:.e1 �4 ! ? (White develops an initiative without any problems after the sluggish 10 . . . b6? ! 1 1 h3 a6 12 e4 l:r.a7 13 e5 dxe5 14 l:r.xe5 l:.ae7 15 i.f4 �bd7 1 6 l:.xe7 l:.xe7 1 7 i.c7 ! ± Sosonko-Ljubojevic, Reggio Emilia 1985) 1 1 �xe4 l:r.xe4 1 2 i.g5 'Wf8 13 �2 l:r.g4 14 i.f4 g5 15 i.e3 i.xb2 16 l:r.b1 .l:lb4 "" Razuvaev­ Chiburdanidze, Tashkent 1 980. c) Black has several ways to strive for a satisfactory game after 10 �d2, e.g. 10 . . . �g4 ! ? ( 1 0 . . . a6 ! ? 1 1 a4 �b d 7 reaches A64, and 1 0. . . �a6 1 1 �c4 �c7 transposes to variation 032; 10 . . . b6 doesn't look too bad either, and after the rough variation 1 1 �4 i.a6 12 'ii'a4 i.xc4 13 'ii'xc4 a6 14 a4 b5 ! 15 'ii'b 3 b4 Almeida­ Gonzalez, Barcelona tt 1 993, Black has nothing to complain about in the result of the opening) 1 1 �de4 a6 1 2 i.g5 f6 1 3 i.f4 �5 1 4 a4 �f7 1 5 �d2 g5 1 6 i.e3 �d7 17 �c4 �de5

Fianchetto System: Introduction 35 w i th an equal position;

Kharitonov1\gzamov, Sevastopol 1986. d) On the other hand, 10 h3 ! ? de­ Mcrves attention: l O . . . lDe4 1 1 lDxe4 J:hc4 1 2 i.g5 'ikc7 1 3 lDd2 l:.e8 14 .t f4 ! ? (after 14 lDe4, Black is able to �� xccute a rabid exchange sacrifice: 1 4 . J:Ixe4 ! 15 i.xe4 i.xh3 16 i.g2 .t xg2 17 c,ilxg2 i.xb2 18 l:.b1 i.g7 1 9 'ika4 lDd7 + G. Kuzmin-Tal, Riga IZ 1 979) 14 . . . lDd7 15 lDc4 lDe5 1 6 l,i)xe5 i.xe5 1 7 i.xe5 J:lxe5 1 8 e4 .td7 1 9 'ikd2 ;t G.Kuzmin-Bouaziz, J{ iga IZ 1 979. Returning to the position after 10 .t f4 (D): . .

lDa6 10 course, this position can be l'l�nched by a different move order 11 lba6 1 0 i.f4 Ae8. In practice B l ack has also tried: a) IO . i.g4 1 1 'ikb3 b6 12 h3 .t x f3 1 3 i.xf3 i.f8 14 a4 lDbd7 1 5 ,.4 ;!; Adorjan-Perenyi, Hungary tt •..

Of

. . .

.

.

I 11H7 . h) I O . . . b6 1 1 lDg5 (or 1 1 h3 ! ?) I I lDa6 1 2 lDge4 lDxe4 1 3 lDxe4 .t rH 14 'ikd2 lDc7 1 5 i.g5 i.e7 = . . .

Sosonko-Andersson, Tilburg 1977.

c) 1 0 . . . lL!e4 1 1 lL!xe4 J:lxe4 1 2 lDd2 l:.xf4 (an interesting idea was used in Alburt-Peters, USA Ch 1 98 1 : 1 2 ... l:.b4 13 a3 J:lxf4 ! ? 14 gxf4 i.xb2 1 5 J:la2 i.g7 1 6 e4 lL!a6 1 7 l:.e1 b 5 1 8 e 5 i.f5 with sufficient compensation; with a cunning ma­ noeuvre Black caught his opponent's rook occupying a passive position) 13 gxf4 i.xb2 14 J:lb1 i.g7 1 5 lDf3 (15 lDc4 b6) 15 . . . lDd7 with compen­ sation; Dam-Norwood, Groningen 1 988. d) 10 ... lL!h5 1 1 i.g5 : d 1 ) Black has a reasonable game after 1 1 . . .'ii'd7 1 2 a4 ( 1 2 e4 b5 1 3 l:.e1 b4 14 lDa4 lDa6 1 5 h 3 i.b7 1 6 a3 lDf6 = Sosonko-Smyslov, Tilburg 1 977) 1 2 . . . lDa6 1 3 Ae1 b6 14 e4 lDb4 1 5 i.fl i.a6 16 i.xa6 lDxa6 17 lDd2 h6 1 8 i.e3 lDc7 = Peicheva­ Maus, Copenhagen 1990. d2) 1 1 ...'ifb6: d21 ) 12 'ifd2 lDa6 ! ? (White's po­ sition is more active after 12 . . . lDd7 13 h3 a6 14 J:lac 1 lDe5 15 g4 lDf6 1 6 lDxe5 J:lxe5 17 b 3 i.d7 1 8 c,il h 1 J:lf8 19 f4 l:.ee8 20 e4 Sosonko-Timman, Tilburg 1 979, or 1 2 . . . i.g4 1 3 lDh4 ! { 1 3 h3 i.xf3 14 i.xf3 lDf6 1 5 e4 lDbd7 1 6 i.g2 a6 = Ligterink-Psak­ his, Plovdiv 1 983 } 1 3 . . . i.c8? ! 14 e4 lDd7 1 5 lL!f3 a6 1 6 llac l lL!e5 1 7 lDxe5 i.xe5 1 8 f4 i.d4+ 1 9 �h 1 with an edge for White; Ligterink­ Kudrin, Wijk aan Zee 1 985) 13 h3 f6 14 i.e3 f5 1 5 J:lab1 i.d7 1 6 i.h6 i.h8 = I.Ivanov-Kapengut, USSR 1977. d22) 12 'ikc 1 !? (possibly better than the line above) 1 2 . . . lDd7 (the

36 Fianchetto System: Introduction eternal choice of where to develop the knight, d7 or a6; this time it is better to decide in favour of d7 1 2 . . . llJa6 ? ! 1 3 .ih6 .ih8 14 lDd2 ! lDc7 1 5 .if3 lDf6 1 6 lDc4 'ila6 1 7 'ii'f4, with a big advantage t o White in Alburt-D.Gurevich, USA 1985) 13 a4 (or 13 .ih6 .ih8 14 h3 a6 1 5 g 4 lDhf6 1 6 llJd2 'ii'c7 17 f4 b 5 1 8 f5 .ib7 1 9 e4 llJe5 oo Alburt-Kudrin, Hastings 1 983) 1 3 . . . c4 14 .ie3 llJc5 15 llJd2 l:[xe3 ! (the only move, for example 15 . . .'ii'b4 ?! 1 6 .ixc5 ! 'ilxc5 17 llJce4) 16 fxe3 'ii'b4 17 llJa2 'ii'xb2 1 8 llJxc4 1i'xa1 1 9 'ii'a3 ( 1 9 'ii'x a1 .ixa1 20 :xa1 lDxa4) 19 . . . 'ii'x fl+ 20 'it.'xfl .if8 2 1 e4 f6 Birnboim­ Griinfeld, Munich Z 1 987. I suspect that White's chances could be better, but proving this will not be easy. 1 1 llel (D) White is promised little by 1 1 lDb5 .if8 1 2 l:[e1 llJc7 1 3 llJxc7 'ii'x c7 14 llc 1 a5 ! 15 b3 .id7 = Kai­ danov-Romanishin, Groningen PCA 1 993, or l l lDd2 lDh5 1 2 .ie3 llJc7 1 3 a4 b6 14 lDc4 .ia6 15 'ii'b 3 'ifd7 and the position is balanced; Kape­ lan-Davies, Vrsac 1989. Interesting possibilities arise for both sides after 1 1 h3 llJc7 1 2 a4 llJe4 (or 1 2 . . . b6 1 3 .l:te1 llJe4 14 lDxe4 .l:txe4 1 5 llJd2 .l:txf4 1 6 gxf4 'fi'h4 1 7 e3 and in this unclear posi­ tion the players agreed a draw in Fe­ dorowicz-D.Gurevich, New York 1 988) 1 3 lDxe4 l:txe4 1 4 lDd2 ltb4 1 5 b3 b5 ! ? (it is also difficult to as­ sess the position after 15 . . .ltxf4 ! ? 1 6 gxf4 .ixa1 17 'fi'xa1 1i'h4 1 8 1i'c3 'ilxf4 19 e3 1i'h4 20 e4 1i'f4 21 b4 !

Savchenko-Romanishin, Simferopol 1 988) 16 lta2 a5 17 'ii'c l .ia6 1 8 lDe4 lDe8 1 9 axb5 .ixb5 20 'ii'c 2 c4 and Black's chances are definitely no worse; Razuvaev-Romanishin, Palma GMA 1989.

B

11 .ig4 a) If 1 1 ...llJc7 then 1 2 e4 llJh5 (or 1 2 . . . .ig4 1 3 h3 .ixf3 14 .ixf3 1i'd7 1 5 e5 ! { 1 5 a4 h6 1 6 .ig2 lDh5 1 7 .ie3 b 5 1 8 axb5 lDxb5 1 9 'fi'a4 a6 = Barbero-Frias, Wijk aan Zee 1 99 1 } 15 ... dxe5 1 6 J.xe5 .l:tad8 17 1i'b3 ! ±) 13 .ig5 f6 14 .id2 b5 15 h3 J.f8 1 6 a3 a5 1 7 b4 ! Lahav-Griinfeld, Tel Aviv 1 988, leads to a clear advantage for White. b) 1 1 . . .llJh5 is also in White's fa­ vour; 1 2 .ig5 'fi'd7 1 3 e4 ! ? (or 1 3 'fi'd2 b5 1 4 .ih6 .ih8 1 5 llJg5 b4 1 6 llJd 1 lDc7 1 7 a3 ;t Sosonko-Ligter­ ink, Hilversum 1986) 13 ... b5 14 .ifl llJc7 15 e5 dxe5 16 d6 b4 17 llJa4 llJe6 1 8 .ic4 Scheeren-Ligterink, Hilversum 1 984. c) 1 1 . . . llJe4 deserves a great deal of attention: 1 2 lDxe4 ltxe4 1 3 llJd2 l:d4 ( 1 3 . . . l:xf4 ! ?) 14 a3 l:txf4 1 5 gxf4 .ixb2 1 6 lta2 .ig7 17 e4 b5 1 8 .•.

Fianchetto System: Introduction 37 c�

i.f5 gave rise to interesting play

In G leizerov-Moskalenko, Alushta

1 993. 12 h3

1 2 lDd2 ! ? may promise more, but n ftcr 12 e4? ! lDd7 ! 13 ._'b3 ( 1 3 i.xd6 ti' b6) 1 3 . . . i.xf3 14 i.xf3 lbe5 1 5 .lc2 l:[b8 Hausner-Razuvaev, Bun­ dcsliga 1 99 1 , White is the only one who may face problems. 12 13 .t:xf3 14 e4

.t:xf3 'ii'd7 l:[ad8

14 . . . c4 !?. 15 g2 16 .te3

c4 lbb4

1 6 . . . b6 !?. 17 i.xa7 18 lle2

lbd3 bS

with chances for both sides; Ador­ jnn-Romanishin, Debrecen 1990.

C) 9 a6 •••

10 a4 .:es (D) I O . . lbbd7 !? leads to A63. .

11 .tr4 (D)

logical move; White impedes 1 he development of the knight to d7, A

and, depending on the situation, can either increase the pressure on the d6 pawn, or try to organize a break­ through in the centre by advancing the e-pawn. We shall look at the pos­ sible events after other continu­ ations: a) 1 1 i.g5 h6 1 2 i.xf6 i.xf6 1 3 lbd2 lbd7 14 lbce4 i.e7 1 5 lbc4 lbb6 1 6 lbxb6 'ifxb6 17 'ifd2 h7 was level in G.Kuzmin-Moldobaev, Frunze 1987. Exchanging the bishop limits White's possibilities. b) 1 1 1t'c2 'ikc7 12 e4 lbbd7 1 3 i.f4 .l:.b8 1 4 l:[fe1 h6 1 5 h 3 g5 1 6 i. d 2 lDf8 17 a5 lbg6 1 8 lba4 ;! G.Kuzmin-Aseev, Tashkent 1984. c) 1 1 h3 lbe4 1 2 lDxe4 ( 1 2 l:[a3 lbd7 1 3 lLlxe4 l:xe4 14 ltld2 l:te8 1 5 lLlc4 lbe5 = Hubner-Tal, Montreal 1979) 1 2 . . . l:xe4 1 3 ltld2 ! ? (or 1 3 i. g 5 'ilc7 { 1 3 . . . 'ikf8 1 4 lLld2 l:[b4 15 lla2 ltld7 16 b3 b5 17 axb5 l:[xb5 1 8 lLlc4 ;! G.Kuzmin-Sideif Zade, Tashkent 1980} 14 'fid2 l:tb4 15 .l:.a2 lbd7 16 b3 l:[b8 17 a5 b5 18 axb6 lbxb6 19 'fic2 a5 = Sosonko-Galego, Novi Sad OL 1990) 13 . . .:b4 14 lla2 b5 15 axb5 lbd7 16 1t'c2 with a small advantage to White. d) 1 1 l:[e1 lbe4 1 2 lLlxe4 l:[xe4 1 3 'ifc2 ! ? ( 1 3 i.g5 'ii'c7 14 ltld2 llb4 15 lLle4 ltld7 = and immoderate opti­ mism led White to failure in lskov­ Karlsson, Esbjerg 198 1 : 16 i.e7? l:[xe4 ! 17 i.xe4 f6 1 8 i.g2 lbe5) 1 3 . . . lle8 14 e4 lbd7 15 i.f4 'fic7 1 6 l:[ad 1 llb8 1 7 b4 and White's pres­ sure is very unpleasant; Manor­ Levitt, Tel Aviv 1989, 11

...

lLle4

38 Fianchetto System: Introduction

By exchanging the knight, Black activates his rook and uncovers an attack on the b2-pawn, which is temporarily undefended. Others: a) 1 1 .. .h6 and now: a 1 ) 1 2 l::. e 1 is not convincing: 12 ... g5 ( 1 2 ... i.f5 is better for White: 1 3 'ifb3 �4 { 13 ... 'ifc7 ! ? } 14 tLlxe4 l:txe4 1 5 'ifxb7 tLld7 1 6 i.xd6 l:.b4 17 'ifc7 ! ± Gulko-Zakharov, Mos­ cow 1 976) 13 i.c l tL'lbd7 14 'ifc2 l:.b8 1 5 l::.b 1 b5 16 axb5 axb5 17 b4 cxb4 ! 1 8 l::. xb4 'ifa5 1 9 'iib 1 tLlc5 was unclear in Kharitonov-Mi.Tseit­ lin, Sochi 198 1 . a2) 1 2 'ifc 1 g5 1 3 i.d2 lL'lbd7 14 h4 g4 1 5 lL'le 1 h7 1 6 tLlc2 tLle5 1 7 tLle3 l::. b 8 1 8 b4 ! ? ( 1 8 l:r.b1 b 5 1 9 axb5 axb5 2 0 b4 ;!;; Gleizerov-Uly­ bin, Kursk 1 987, is also not that bad) 18 ... b5 ( 1 8 ... cxb4 1 9 'ifb1 +) 19 axb5 axb5 20 'ifc2+ c;l;lg8 2 1 l::. fb 1 with ad­ vantage for White; P.Nikolic-Kin­ dermann, Plovdiv 1 983. b) 1 l .. .b6 1 2 l::. e 1 ( 1 2 l::.c 1 l:.a7 1 3 tL'ld2 tLlh5 14 i.e3 f5 15 tLlc4 l::.b7 "" Vaulin-Kovalev, Katowice 1 990) 12 . . . l::. a7 1 3 e4 and B lack does not succeed in equalizing after either 13 . . . h6 14 'ifd2 l:r.ae7 (14 . . . g5 1 5

i.xd6 ! 'it'xd6 1 6 e5) 15 e 5 ± Kai­ danov-Ashley, New York 1 992, or 1 3 . . . l:r.ae7 14 tL'ld2 tLlg4 15 tLlc4 i.d4 16 :n tLle5 17 tLlxe5 i.xe5 18 i.g5 f6 19 i.e3 ;!;; Kaidanov-Vazquez, Andorra 199 1 . c ) 1 l .. .'ifc7 1 2 l:.c 1 ( 1 2 'it'c 1 i.g4 1 3 l:.e 1 i.xf3 14 i.xf3 lL'lbd7 15 b3 l:tab8 16 'ifa3 tLlg4 = Hulak-Akes­ son, Berlin 1988 does not create any problems for Black) 12 ... lL'lbd7 1 3 b4 ! lL'lh5 1 4 i.d2 l:1b8 15 .l:r.e1 b5 1 6 axb5 axb5 1 7 e4 and White pre­ serves his traditional advantage; Manor-Ward, Oakham 1990. d) 1 l ...i.f5 12 lLlh4 i.c8 13 'ifd2 'ife7 14 h3 'ti'f8 15 g4 tLlbd7 1 6 lL'lf3 tLle4 17 tLlxe4 l:txe4 1 8 e3 l:tb4 1 9 l:ta2 ;!;; Christiansen-Sax, Moscow IZ 1 982. e) 1 l . ..i.g4 12 'Wd2 i.xf3 1 3 i.xf3 'ifc7 14 l'Hc 1 ! tL'lbd7 15 b4 tLle5 16 i.xe5 l:txe5 17 bxc5 'ii'xc5 1 8 l:r.ab1 and again White's position is slightly better; Sosonko-Smejkal, Biel IZ 1 976. f) 1 l . . .tL'lh5 !? 12 i.g5 f6 (B lack's chances for an attacking game di­ minish after the dark-squared bishop is swapped; 12 ...i.f6 13 i.xf6 lLlxf6 14 lL'ld2 lL'lbd7 15 a5 l:tb8 16 h3 'fie? 17 'ifc2 h5 1 8 e3 ;!; Dautov-Brauner, Baden-Baden 1 990; White's chances are also better after 12 ... 'ifb6 13 'ifd2 lL'ld7 14 a5 'ifc7 15 l:tfc 1 l:tb8 16 b4 ! b5 17 axb6 'ifxb6 1 8 bxc5 tLlxc5 1 9 .l:.ab1 tL'lb3 20 'it'd 1 ;!;; Hausner-Dam­ ljanovic, Trnava 1982) 13 i.e3 f5 14 'ifd2 tLld7 15 i.g5 "ilc7 1 6 .l:.fe1 lL'ldf6 with equality; Parker-Levitt, Dublin 1 99 1 .

Fianchetto System: Introduction 39 12 l'Dxe4

Or 12 lla3 i.g4 1 3 h3 i.xf3 14 .t x f3 lDf6 1 5 'ii'c2 'ii'c7 1 6 lDb1 l;)hd7 17 b4 b5 ! = Kaminsky-Korch­ nni, Sverd1ovsk 1957. 12 13 lDd2

:Xe4 llb4 (D)

The premature standard exchange �ucrifice 13 ... llxf4 14 gxf4 i.xb2 15 J:l h l i.g7 1 6 lDc4 b5 1 7 axb5 axb5 I M llxb5 i.a6 1 9 lla5 gave White a hig advantage in Hulak-Bonin, New Ynrk 1989.

i.xh3 llxe4 17 a5 'ii'c7 1 8 'ii'c 2 Adorjan-Armas, Bundesliga 1 990, and now 18 ... lld4 ! ? 19 i.g2 b5 leads to an unclear game. 14

•••

'fle7

The difficulties Black faces are well illustrated in the following vari­ ation: 14 . . . g5 (or 14 . . . i.xb2 1 5 'it'c2 i.g7 1 6 lDc4 'Wf6 1 7 lDxd6 llxf4 1 8 lDxc8 lDd7 1 9 lDe7+ ! ? 'ii'xe7 20 gxf4 ± Rechlis-Plaskett, Netanya 1987) 15 i.e3 f5 16 lDf3 h6 17 •c 1 'ii'f6 18 h4 ! gxh4 ( 1 8 ... g4 1 9 lDd2 ±) 1 9 lDxh4 b5 20 axb5 llxb5 2 1 i.h3 with an advantage to White; Soson­ ko-Hulak, Indonesia 1982. 15 16 17 18 19

b3 i.xeS lDc4 e4 f4

i.eS 'fixeS 'fle7 lDd7

lDb6!? ;!; Gleizerov-V.Gurevich, Uzh­ gorod 1988.

D) 9 liJa6 (D) •••

14 lla2!?

14 e4 ! ? leads to an interesting ttnme: 14 . . . llxb2 ( 1 4 ... i.xb2 ! ?) 1 5 l,i)c4 llb4 1 6 llc 1 i.d7 1 7 lDxd6 .i xa4 18 'ii'f3 with initiative; Hof­ rnunn-Izeta, Benasque 1 993 . 1 4 lDe4 also deserves attention: 1 4 h6 15 lla2 ! (more exact than IS i.d2 llxb2 16 'it'c l llxd2 ! 1 7 • xd2 f5 1 8 lDc3 'ii'a5 1 9 llac 1 b5 w i th an excellent game for Black; S uvon-Tal, USSR 1 970) 15 . . . i.h3 ! ? ( B lack is left with just his pawn weaknesses after 15 ...f5 1 6 lDc3 'ii'f6 1 7 c4 lDd7 1 8 exf5 gxf5 1 9 i.d2 ;t 1\ dorjan-Marin, Szirak IZ 1 987) 1 6 . . .

We shall now examine three possi­ bilities in detail: 0 1 ) 10 h3 02) 10 i.f4 03) 10 lDd2 A better place than c4 will not be found for the knight, and with line 03 he will quickly make for there. It is a good plan, but naturally not the only one. Another good plan is linked with an attempted break­ through in the centre, principally considered in 01 and 02. Let us briefly examine other pos­ sibilities:

40 Fianchetto System: Introduction i.xa8 liJxf4 1 7 gxf4 lld8 1 8 e3 l:xd6 1 9 1i'e2 with advantage; Antic-Bar­ lov, Yugoslav Ch 1 99 1 ) 1 3 i.f4 lDe5 14 i.xe5 i.xe5 1 5 ltJxe5 ltxe5 1 6 e4. White's position is somewhat prefer­ able. 01)

10 h3 (D)

A useful move, restricting B lack's knight and bishop, and preparing to advance the e-pawn. a) 10 a4 b6 (1 0 ... �7 !? is not bad either; White's position is more promising after 1 0 . . . :e8 1 1 liJd2 liJb4 { or 1 1 .. . liJd7 1 2 h3 liJb4 1 3 liJde4 ! ? liJf6 1 4 .i.g5 .i.f5 1 5 g4 .i.xe4 1 6 ltJxe4 h6 17 .i.xf6 .i.xf6 1 8 liJxf6+ 'ifxf6 1 9 'ifd2 B aquero­ Garcia, Medellin 1 987 } 12 ltJc4 b6 1 3 .i.f4 .i.f8 14 'ii'd 2 .i.a6 15 b3 ;!; Hulak-Norwood, Toronto 1 989) 1 1 .i.f4 liJb4 1 2 'ii'd2 :e8 1 3 .i.h6 i.h8 14 .i.g5 'ii'd7 15 .J:[fe 1 .i.a6 = Chibur­ danidze-Winants, Brussels tt 1987. b) 10 e4 i.g4 ! ? (after 10 ... lte8 1 1 liJd2 ltJc7 1 2 a4 b6 1 3 :e1 ltJg4 ! 14 liJf3 ltJe5 15 ltJxe5 .i.xe5 1 6 h4, as in the game Moskalenko-Ehlvest, Hel­ sinki 1 992, Black could have had a promising position by continuing 1 6 . . . f5 !? 17 h5 'ii'f6) 1 1 h3 i.xf3 1 2 i.xf3 ttJd7 1 3 i.g2 c4 1 4 i.e3 ltJac5 with equality; Ghitescu-lonescu, Ti­ misoara 1 987. c) 10 :e1 :e8 1 1 liJd2 !? ( 1 1 .i.g5 'ii'b6 1 2 'ii'c2 liJb4 1 3 'ii'd 2 i.d7 is equal; Chernin-Lautier, Wijk aan Zee 1 99 1 ) 1 l . . .liJc7 ( l l . . .liJd7 ! ?) 1 2 ltJc4 ltJg4 (it i s difficult to recom­ mend 1 2 ... b5? ! because of 1 3 liJxd6 ! 'ii'x d6 14 i.f4 'ii'b6 1 5 d6 liJe6 1 6

10

...

:es (D)

Temporarily hindering the oppo­ sition's plans. Also possible: a) 10 ...i.d7 and now: a 1 ) Complex variations arise af­ ter 1 1 e4 l:e8 ( 1 1 ...'ii'c 8 is imprecise: 1 2 i.f4 ! { 1 2 'iith2 :e8 1 3 l:e1 c4 14 e5 dxe5 1 5 ltJxe5 i.f5 = } 1 2 ... i.xh3 1 3 i.xd6 .i.xg2 14 �xg2 .l:r.e8 1 5 l:e1 'ii'd 7 1 6 e5 ltJg4 1 7 ltJe4 .l:r.ad8 18 l:c 1 b6 19 e6 ! with a big advan­ tage; Alburt-D.Gurevich, USA Ch 1 989) 12 .J:[e1 b5 1 3 e5 dxe5 14 .J:[xe5 (or 14 ltJxe5 b4 15 liJb1 liJh5 1 6 �6 i.xc6 17 dxc6 i.d4 1 8 :xe8+ 'ii'xe8, with the initiative to Black; B irn­ boim-Blees, Tel Aviv 1 988) 14 . . . b4 15 ltJe2 ltJe4 16 :xe8+ 'ii'x e8 1 7

Fianchetto System: Introduction 41 li)f4 lld8 1 8 a3 ! ;!,; Urban-Panczyk,

Poland 1 992. a2) 1 1 .i.f4 also gives good chances for an advantage: 1 l .. .ll.e8 1 2 lLld2 ( 1 2 .txd6 .txh3) 12 . . . .tf8 ( 1 2 . . . lLlh5 1 3 .i.xd6 .i.xh3 14 .i.xh3 1ixd6 1 5 lLlc4 1fd8 16 'ilfb3 1fg5 17 .tg2 lLlb4, Kozlov-Agrest, USSR 1 988, is interesting) 13 e4 b5 14 l:e1 c4 15 a4 ! lLlc5 16 axb5 lLld3 17 lflxc4 ! lLlxe1 1 8 1fxe1 'flc7 19 'ilffl lflh5 20 .te3, with plenty of com­ pensation for the exchange; Korch­ noi-Honfi, Baden-Baden 1 98 1 . a3) 1 1 a4 ! ? lLlb4 ( l l . . .ll.e8 ! ? 1 2 ll.e I i s examined i n the notes to I O . :e8) 1 2 lLld2 lLle8 1 3 lLlc4 'fle7 1 4 e4 :d8 1 5 :e1 b6 1 6 .tf4 g5 1 7 i.e3 h 6 1 8 1fd2 ;!,; Birnboim-Gal­ lugher, Tel Aviv 1988. b) 10 ...11.b8 1 1 e4 :e8 1 2 ll.e1 b5 ( more precise than 1 2 . . . c4 1 3 e5 ! d xe5 14 lLlxe5 lLlb4 1 5 a3 :xe5 1 6 ll.xe5 lLld3 1 7 :e2 b 5 1 8 .te3 ± Schussler-Shirazi, New York 1986) 1 3 e5 b4 ! 14 lLla4 lLld7 15 exd6 ll. x e 1 + 16 'flxe1 .tb7 17 'fld 1 lLle5 I H .i.f4 1fxd6 1 9 'fle2 l:e8 with a double-edged game; Sosonko-Sy­ �ulski, Rotterdam tt 1 987. c ) 1 0 . . . lLlc7 allows White to de­ velop a steady initiative: c l ) 1 1 a4 b6 1 2 e4 lLld7 1 3 .tf4 1ie7 14 ll.e1 f6 15 'fld2 .ta6 1 6 h4 li�e5 17 lLlxe5 fxe5 1 8 .tg5 .i.f6 1 9 .t e 3 .tc8 2 0 lLlbl ! followed by t nmsferring the knight to c4; Goldin­ Bjcrring, Cappelle Ia Grande 1 992. c2) 1 1 e4 lLld7 (or 1 l . . .b5 1 2 e5 ! li�fc8 1 3 .tf4 .tb7 1 4 exd6 lLlxd6 1 5 li)c5 ll.e8 1 6 lLlc6 1fd7 1 7 ll. c 1 .ta6

1 8 b4 ! c4 19 .txd6 'flxd6 20 lLle4 ± Stern-Barlov, B aden-Baden 199 1 ) 1 2 .tf4 (in the classic encounter Korchnoi-Tal, Erevan 1 962, White was successful by another means: 1 2 :e1 lLle8 1 3 .tg5 .tf6 14 .te3 :b8 15 a4 a6 16 .tn 'fle7 1 7 lLld2 lLlc7 1 8 f4 b5 19 e5 ! dxe5 20 lLlde4 ±) 1 2 . . .'fle7 1 3 l:.e 1 f6 14 a4 ( 1 4 lL!h2 ll.b8 15 .i.e3 b5 16 f4 b4 17 lLla4 lLlb5 1 8 :c 1 ;!,; Korchnoi-Tringov, Lucerne OL 1 982, is not bad either) 14 . . . lLle5 1 5 lLlxe5 fxe5 1 6 .te3 b6 17 ll.b1 lLla6 1 8 lLla2 .td7 19 .tn lLlc7 20 b4 with advantage to White; Razuvaev-Romero, Palma 1 99 1 .

. .

1 1 l:.el 1 1 .tf4 is examined in the notes to the variation 9 ... 11.e8 10 .tf4 lLla6 1 1 h3. It is possible to transfer the knight to c4 right now, but it seems to me that including the moves 10 h3 :e8 then works to Black's advantage, for example 1 1 lLld2 !? lLlc7 and now: a) After 1 2 lLlc4? ! Black can ex­ ploit the position of the pawn on h3: 1 2 . . . . b5 ! 13 lLlxd6 1fxd6 1 4 .tf4 'ii'b6 ! ( 1 4 . . . 1fd7? 1 5 d6) 1 5 d6 lLle6

42 Fianchetto System: Introduction 1 6 i.xa8 li:)xf4 1 7 gxf4 i.xh3 1 8 i.f3 i.xfl 1 9 akov­ Nun, Pardubice 1 992) 1 3 �f4 'ii'd7 14 d6 lLle6 15 �xa8 lLlxf4 16 gxf4 'ti'g4+ 1 7 �g2 and now, rather than 1 7 ... �b7?! 1 8 e4 'Wxf4 1 9 'Wf3 ! 'ii'e5 ( 1 9 . . . 1i'xd6 20 e5 !) 20 'ifg3 +-, Black should continue 17 . . . 'ii'xf4 ! ?, when White 's chances are better, but Black is not deprived of counter­ play. c) 1 1 . . .l:.b8 1 2 �f4 lLlce8 1 3 a4 lLlh5 1 4 �d2 f5 15 l:.e1 f4 1 6 �f3 fxg3 1 7 hxg3 b6 1 8 lLle4 ± Gleiz­ erov-Czerniak, Wisla 1992. d) 1 1 .. .lLlh5 12 a4 b6 (or 12 ... f5 1 3 �f3 lLlf6 { 1 3 . . . f4 is too optimis­ tic: 14 lLle4 ! fxg3 15 hxg3 �h3 1 6 l:[e1 lLle8 17 lLlg5 was promising for White in Sosonko-Blees, Nether­ lands tt 1993 } 14 �f4 with unpleas­ ant pressure) 1 3 �d2 �a6 1 4 b3 f5 1 5 'ifc2. e) 1 1 .. .b5 (a move which was for many years considered to be a mis­ take, although it is not that simple) 1 2 lLlxd6 ! 'ifxd6 13 i.. f4 'ii'd 7 (bet­ ter than retreating the queen to b6, for example 1 3 . . . 1i'b6 14 d6 lLle6 ( 14 . . . l:.d8 15 dxc7 ! l:.xd 1 16 l:.fxd 1 i.. b7 1 7 i.. xb7 'ii'x b7 1 8 l:.d8+ lLle8 1 9 l:.ad 1 i.. d4 20 l:[b8 1i'c6 2 1 lLld5 +- is terrible } 15 �xa8 lLlxf4 1 6 gxf4 i.. h 3 1 7 i.. g 2 i.. x g2 1 8 �xg2 l:td8 19 e3 ±) 14 d6 lLle6 15 i.. xa8 tt'lxf4 1 6 gxf4 'Wg4+ ( 1 6 . . . b4 1 7 lLle4 lLlxe4 1 8 �xe4 1i'g4+ 19 �g2 i.. b 7 20 e4 'ii'xf4 2 1 'ifc 1 'it'g4 22 h 3 'Wh5 23 a3 ! ± P.Nikolic-Pliester, Lugano 1 986) 17 �g2 'ii'x f4 ! ? (a better chance than 17 . . . i.. b 7 1 8 e4

'ifxf4 1 9 'ii'f3 '6'e5 20 'ifg3 ±) 1 8 "ii'c 1 'ii'x d6 1 9 lLlxb5 'ii'e5 20 'ii'c 3 (20 lLlc3 ! ?) 20 . . .'6'xe2 21 lLlxa7 i.. e6 22 'ifxc5 lLld7 ! gave Black rea­ sonable chances for a draw in Uly­ bin-Tunik, Russian Cht 1 992.

12 a4

1 2 a3? ! is too passive after 1 2 ... b6 1 3 1i'c2 i.. a6 1 4 lLla2 ( 1 4 lLld 1 ! ?) 14 ... i.. xc4 1 5 '6'xc4 b5 1 6 'ii'c2 aS ! + Djuric-Suba, New York 1 987. Wild complications follow 1 2 i.. f4 b5 1 3 lLla5 b4 14 lLle4 i.. xb2 1 5 lLlc6 'it'd7 1 6 l:.b1 i.. g7 1 7 lLlxc5 ! dxc5 1 8 d6 lLle6 1 9 lLle7+ �h8 20 i.. c6 (20 i.. xa8 is no less interesting: 20 . . . lLlxf4 21 lLlxc8 '6'xc8 22 i.. f3 lLlh3+ 23 �g2 lLlf6 24 d7 lLlxd7 25 �xh3 lLle5+ with compensation) 20 . . . 1i'd8 21 i.. x a8 lLlxf4 22 gxf4 i.. h 3 23 i.. g 2 i.. x g2 24 �xg2 lLlxd6 with an unclear position; Alburt­ D.Gurevich, New York 1986. 12 13 'ifc2 ...

b6

This is not the only move: a) In Youngworth-Shamkovich, Lone Pine 1 978, Black quickly seized the initiative after 1 3 'ii'b 3

46 Fianchetto System: Introduction i.a6 1 4 lbb5 ? ! �d7 15 i.f4 lbxb5 1 6 axb5 �xb5 17 �xb5 i.x�5 1 8 .!bxd6 i.xe2 19 :re1 .!bxd6 20 i.xd6 :res 2 1 i.c7 i.b5 ! +. b) Black's problems are consid­ erably more difficult after 13 i.d2 ! ? (D), for example:

i.xe4 b5 1 9 i.b2 lbf6 20 i.g2 �d7 2 1 b4 ! ;!; L.Hansen-Sax, Polanica Zdroj 1993) 15 b3 �d7 (the prema­ turely active 15 . . . b5? ! 1 6 .!ba5 �d7 17 .!bc6 .:b7 1 8 axb5 lbxb5 19 lbxb5 l:.xb5 20 �a2 l:.b6 Sosonko-Lau­ tier, European Club Cup 1 99 1 , can lead Black into difficulties after 2 1 b4 !) 1 6 i.b2 f5 with chances for both sides. 13

b 1 ) 1 3 . . . :b8 14 �c 1 (the line 14 lbb5 lbxb5 1 5 axb5 .!bc7 1 6 �ba7 lbxb5 17 :a2 �c7 is equal; Tal­ Mnatsakanian, Moscow tt 1959) 14 ... i.a6 15 b3 �d7 usually leads to a transposition to 1 3 ... �d7. b2) 1 3 . . . �d7 14 �c 1 i.a6 1 5 b3 lbf6 ( 1 5 . . . llb8 16 :a2 i.c8 17 i.f4 a6 1 8 l:d 1 f5 19 e4 ;!; Kuligowski­ Shamkovich, New York 198 1 ) 16 h3 :ab8 17 :e 1 with a small advan­ tage; Lahav-Blees, Tel Aviv 1988. c) It has become very popular to employ 1 3 �d2 !?, introduced into tournament practice by S osonko. One may continue 1 3 . . . l:.b8 (or 1 3 . . . f5 14 b3 �d7 15 i.b2 i.b7 1 6 :ab1 .!bf6 1 7 i. a 1 i.a6 1 8 l:.fd 1 .!bg4 1 9 e 3 .!be5 oa Arkell-Quinn, British Ch 1 992) 14 l:.b1 i.a6 {the move 14 . . . i.d7 is more passive: 1 5 b 3 a6 1 6 lbe4 ! i.f5 1 7 .!be3 i.xe4 1 8

•••

fS (D)

White has transferred the knight to a strong position and is more ac­ tive. It is not easy for Black to equal­ ize, no matter what he plays at this point: a) 13 ... i.a6 14 b3 f5 15 i.b2 lbf6 ( 1 5 . . . �d7 1 6 l:.fe1 f4 17 .!be4 ! l:.d8 18 l:l.ad 1 i.xb2 19 �xb2 �e7 20 �c l ;!; Hulak-Damljanovic, Bel­ grade GMA 1 988) 16 l:.fe1 �d7 1 7 e4 fxe4 1 8 .!bxe4 .!bxe4 19 i.xe4 i.xb2 20 �xb2 with a small advan­ tage; Galliamova-Psakhis, Gronin­ gen 1993. b) 13 ... .!ba6 14 b3 lbb4 15 �d2 a6 16 i.b2 llb8 17 .!ba2 ! i.xb2 1 8 �xb2 lbxa2 1 9 .l:.xa2 i.d7 20 l:e1 ! f5 is Adorjan-Speelman, Lucerne 1989, and after 2 1 e4 ! White's posi­ tion is the more active. c) 13 ... l:b8 14 i.f4 ( 14 l:.b1 i.d7 15 b3 a6 16 .!be4 i.f5 1 7 .!be3 i.xe4 1 8 i.xe4 b5 = L.Hansen-Sax, Po­ lanica Zdroj 1 993) 14 ...�e7 1 5 l:fe1 a6 16 �d2 b5 1 7 .!ba5 i.d7 1 8 axb5 axb5 19 .!bc6 i.xc6 20 dxc6 b4 2 1 lbd5 and White i s again better; Glei­ zerov-Budnikov, Voronezh 1988. d) 1 3 ... �e7 ! ? 14 b3 (or 1 4 e4 !?) 14 . . . i.f5 ! ? 1 5 e4 i.xe4 1 6 i.xe4

Fianchetto System: Introduction 47 i.xc3 17 'ii'xc3 'ii'xe4 1 8 i.h6 lLlxd5 1 9 'ii' b 2 'ii'f3 20 llfd 1 lLldf6 led to complications in the game Saeed­ Agdestein, Taxco IZ 1985.

w

York 1 988, and it is no wonder, as the white knight has chosen too passive a role. Nor did Black expe­ rience any difficulties in Arkell­ Suba, London 1 99 1 : 14 e3 i.b7 1 5 lld 1 lLlf6 1 6 llb1 �h8 17 b 3 'it'd? 1 8 i.b2 llad8 19 l:[d2 'ii'f7 =. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

14 i.d2

Black equalizes without problems after 14 .l:.b1 i.a6 1 5 lLla2 ( 1 5 b3 b5 1 6 axb5 lbxb5 17 lbxb5 i.xb5 is also equal) 15 . . . 'it'd7 1 6 lld 1 i.xc4 ! 1 7 'iixc4 a6 = Drasko-Suba, New

llad1 i.f4 llfe1 _.d2 b3 lLlb1 ! ? e3 h4

i.b7 _.d7 l:[d8 _.f7 i.a6 i.b7 i.d4 i.g7

White has an edge; Scherbakov­ Emms, Hastings Challengers 1 993 . Given the permanent weakness on d6, it is difficult for Black to activate his pieces, and White can slowly in­ crease the pressure.

4 Fianchetto with l'iJbd7: Introduction (A63) ...

1 d4 ltlf6 2 c4 cS 3 dS e6 4 ltlc3 exdS S cxdS d6 6 ltlf3 g6 7 g3 J.g7 8 J. g2 0-0 a6 9 0-0

In the overwhelming majority of cases, Black combines . . . ltlbd7 with the moves 9 ... a6 10 a4, but occasion­ ally he tries to make do without them, viz. 9 . . . ltlbd7 (D) and now:

a) Black has no problems after 10 h3 a6 1 1 J.f4 'ike7 1 2 e4 ltlh5 13 J.g5 J.f6 14 J.h6 ltlg7 ( 1 4 . . . l:.e8 ! ?) 1 5 l:.el b5 = Vaganian-Sax, Rotter­ dam 1 989. b) In the event of 1 0 a4 it is best for him to settle on the fundamental variation 10 ... a6, as White will easily achieve a small plus after 10 . . . ltle8 1 1 J.g5 ( 1 1 e4 ltle5 1 2 ltlxe5 J.xe5

13 J.h6 ltlg7 14 'ikd2 b6 15 q.,h l J.a6 1 6 :tel :r.es = Sliwa-Spassky, Gothenburg IZ 1 955) l l .. .f6 12 J.f4 We7 1 3 l:.el b6 14 h4 ltle5 1 5 ltlxe5 fxe5 1 6 J.g5 ;!; Kuligowski-Spassky, Bundesliga 1 987. c) 1 0 J.f4 is played quite often, but Black usually manages to equal­ ize: 10 .. .'it'e7 ( 1 0 . . . ltle8 is not bad either: 1 1 'fld2 a6 1 2 :r.abl { 12 a4 ! ? } 1 2. . .b5 1 3 b4 cxb4 14 .l::.xb4 ltlb6 1 5 ltld4 ltlc4 = P.Nikolic-Shamkovich, Esbjerg 1982) and now: c l ) 1 1 'ikc2 a6 1 2 e4 �g4 1 3 l:.ad l b5 ( 1 3 . . . ltlde5 ! ? i s equal) 14 J.g5 Bonsch-T.Horvath, Lvov 1984, and now 14 . . . J.f6 ! ? would have equalized. c2) 1 1 h3 leads to a similar result: l l . . .h6 12 l:el g5 1 3 J.d2 ltlb6 !? 14 e4 ltlc4 15 J.c1 ltld7 16 J.fl �e5 = Poluliakhov-Ruban, Anapa 1 99 1 . c3) Black also h as n o cause for complaint at the outcome of the opening after 1 1 e4 ltlg4 ( l l . . . a6 1 2 l:.el ltlg4 1 3 J.g5 'ike8 1 4 e5 ! ? ltldxe5 !? 15 ltlxe5 ltlxe5 1 6 f4 ltlg4 ! 1 7 l:.xe8 l:.xe8 1 8 ltle2 ltle3 with wild complications in Ligterink­ Nunn, Marbella Z 1 982) 1 2 'ikd2 ltlge5 13 J.h6 ltlxf3+ 14 J.xf3 ltle5 with equality; Christiansen-Nunn; Hastings 1 979.

Fianchetto with . . . �bd7: Introduction 49 •

c4) 1 1 .:r.bt �g4 1 2 'ifd2 �de5 1 3 b4 b6 14 �xe5 �xe5 15 i.h6 i.xh6 1 6 'ifxh6 f5 = P.Nikolic-Sax, Niksic 1983. d) 10 �2 and now Black should place his rook on the e-file since it is not easy to equalize by other meth­ ods: d l ) 1 0 . . . �h5 1 1 �c4 ( 1 1 �de4 �df6 1 2 i.g5 h6 1 3 �xf6+ �xf6 14 i.d2 .:r.e8 1 5 h3 i.f5 1 6 We i h5 = Djuric-de Firmian, New York 1 986, is inoffensive) l l . ..�e5 12 �xe5 i.xe5 1 3 i.h6 .:r.e8 14 'ifd2 .:r.b8 1 5 a4 a6 1 6 .:r.abl b5 17 axb5 axb5 1 8 b4 ;!; Akopian-de Firmian, Moscow GMA 1 990. d2) White also has the initiative after 10 ...'ife7 1 1 a4 (or 1 1 .:r.et �8 1 2 e3 �c7 1 3 a4 �a6 14 f4 �b4 1 5 �c4 �b6 = Korchnoi-Kaplan, Hast­ ings 1 97 5 ; B lack also has quite a decent position after 1 1 h3 b6 { l l . ..�h5 ! ? 1 2 �h2 f5 1 3 f4 �df6 = } 1 2 a4 i.a6 1 3 .:r.et �e8 14 �b5 i.xb5 15 axb5 �c7 16 'Wb3 �f6 1 7 �bl .:r.fb8 1 8 �c3 a6 = Donner­ T.Petrosian, Gothenburg Z 1 955) l l . . .�h5 ( l l ...a6 ! ? leads to the line with 9 . . . a6) 12 e4 � 13 'ife2 f5 14 f4 �g4 15 �c4 fxe4 16 �xe4 i.d4+ 1 7 �h l with a small advantage for White; Hort-Nunn, Hastings 1 975. d3) I O ...:e8 1 1 h3 (everything is in order for Black after 1 1 �4 �b6 l 2 �xb6 'ifxb6 1 3 'ifc2 i.d7 1 4 .:r.bt 'ifc7 15 a4 a6 16 i.d2 .:r.ac8 = Goldin-Romanishin, USSR 1 986, and after 1 1 a4 Black is perhaps bet­ ter reacting with the standard 1 1 ... a6, as 1 1 . . .�5 leads to a game which

favours White, for example 1 2 h3 g5 ? ! 1 3 �de4 ! �xe4 14 �xe4 h6 1 5 f4 gxf4 1 6 gxf4 �g6 17 f5 ± Uhlmann-Larsen, Beverwijk 1 96 1 ) 1 1 ...�5 ( l l ...�b6 1 2 a4 i.d7 1 3 a5 �c8 1 4 �c4 'ifc7 1 5 e4 b5 1 6 axb6 �xb6 17 �a3 ;!; Capablanca-Mar­ shall, New York 1 927) 12 �de4 �df6 1 3 g4 �xe4 14 �xe4 f5 ! ? 1 5 �xd6 'ifxd6 1 6 gxh5 f4 1 7 hxg6 hxg6 with chances for both sides; Akopian-Shabalov, Minsk 1 990. 10 a4 �bd7 (D)

In this position, which is critical for the 7 g3 variation, White has a wide choice of continuations which allow him to aspire (not always suc­ cessfully) to gaining an advantage out of the opening. He must try to play on the queenside, where Black has weaknesses after 9 ... a6. He must create pressure on the d6 pawn which he can attack with the knight on c4 and the bishop on f4, and play in the centre of the board, where he already has a pawn more, but in none of these plans does Black remain an extra, and he can expect an active game.

50 Fianchetto with ... ll::.bd7: Introduction The main lines here are: A) 1 1 e4 B) l l ll:Jd2 C) 1 1 J.f4 Here are the less popular alterna­ tives: a) 1 1 'ifc2 ltb8 12 a5 b5 1 3 ax.b6 ll:Jxb6 1 4 ll:Jd2 ll:Jfd7 15 ll:Jb3 ll:Jc4 ! 1 6 ll:Je4 l:r.b4 = Rohde-D.Gurevich, New York 1 985 . b) l l lta2 ll:Jg4 ! ? 1 2 h3 ll:Jge5 1 3 ll:Jd2 f5 1 4 f4 ll:Jf7 1 5 ll:Jc4 ll:Jb6 1 6 ll:Jxb6 'ifxb6 17 a5 Wc7 with equal­ ity; Kharitonov-Psakhis, Sevastopol 1 986. c) l l ltel ltb8 (or 1 1 . . .1Vc7 1 2 ll:Jd2 ltb8 1 3 a5 b5 14 axb6 ll:Jxb6 1 5 lta2 ll:Jfd7 1 6 'ifc2 c4 = Alburt-Hjar­ tarson, Philadelphia 1986) 1 2 J.fl ! ? (Black has no problems after 1 2 J.f4 ll:Je8 1 3 e4 b5 1 4 axb5 axb5 1 5 e5 dxe5 1 6 ll:Jxe5 ll:Jxe5 17 J.xe5 J.xe5 1 8 ltxe5 ll:Jd6 = Csom-Pinter, Hun­ garian Ch 1 98 1 , or in the event of 1 2 a5 b5 1 3 axb6 ltxb6 14 J.fl lte8 1 5 ll:Jd2 l:.b4 Kouatly-Lautier, Mar­ seilles 1 988) 12 . . . ll:Jg4 13 ll:Jd2 b5 ( 1 3 . . . f5 1ooks quite tempting: 14 h3 ll:Jx£2 ! ? 1 5 xf2 f4 1 6 ll:Jf3 fxg3+ 17 �xg3 ll:Je5 with a massive initiative for the sacrificed piece) 14 axb5 axb5 1 5 e3 ! b4 1 6 ll:Jb5 ll:Jdf6 17 h3 Ligterink-Szalanczy, European Club Cup 1 987, and the game is promis­ ing for White, but complicated af­ ter 1 7 . . . ll:Je5 ! ? 1 8 f4 ll:Jed7 1 9 e4 (Ligterink). d) 1 1 ltb1 l:.e8 (in Korchnoi­ Kapengut, USSR 1 969, Black also equalized after l l ... l:.b8 12 l:.e1 { 1 2

b4 ! ? } 1 2 . . . 'ii'c 7 1 3 J.d2 ll:Jg4 ! 1 4 1Vc2 c4 1 5 b4 cxb3 1 6 '6'xb3 ll:Jc5 = ) 1 2 b4 1Vc7 ( 1 2 . . . ll:Jg4 1 3 1Vb3 cxb4 14 1Vxb4 ll:Jc5 15 J.g5 J.xc3 1 6 1Vxc3 ll:Je4 1 7 1Vc 1 ll:Jxg5 1 8 1Vxg5 1Vxg5 19 ll:Jxg5 l:.xe2 20 l:tb6 will not gladden Black, despite the extra pawn; Alburt-Sigurjonsson, Reyk­ javik 1 984) 1 3 J.d2 ll:Jb6 14 ll:Jg5 J.f5 15 bxc5 Wxc5 16 l:.c 1 ll:Jc4 with an unclear game; P.Nikolic-Velimi­ rovic, Yugoslav Ch 1983. e) 1 1 h3 (D) often transposes to other lines:

e 1 ) 1 1 .. . .l:r.b8 doesn't look bad, for example 1 2 J.f4 ( 1 2 a5 b5 1 3 axb6 ll:Jxb6 14 ll:Jd2 l:.e8 leads us to A64) 1 2 . . . ll:Je8 ( 1 2 . . . We7 ! ? will be examined under 1 1 J.f4 'ife7) 1 3 1Vd2 !? b5 1 4 ax.b5 axb5 1 5 ll:Je4 'ii'b 6 ( 1 5 . . . ll:Jdf6 1 6 ll:Jxc5 ! ll:Jc7 1 7 ll:Jd3) 1 6 l:.fe1 b4 17 'ifc2 Kaidanov-Er­ menkov, Calcutta 1 988, and now 17 ... J.a6 "" deserves attention - Kai­ danov. e2) White did not succeed in obtaining an advantage in Khalif­ man-Arnason, Groningen 1 990 after· 1 l .. .h6 1 2 l:.bl 'flc7 1 3 J.f4 l:.e8 1 4

Fianchetto with ... ljjbd7: Introduction 51 1fc2 l:tb8 1 5 l:fc 1 b5 1 6 axb5 axb5 17 b4 cxb4 18 l:txb4 /:jj h5, with mutual chances. e3) 1 1 . . .l:.e8 12 l:te 1 ( 1 2 /:jjd 2 leads to A64) 12 . . . /:jje4 13 /:jj xe4 l::. xe4 14 1fc2 ! ? ( 1 4 i.g5 1i'e8 15 l:.a2 h6 1 6 i.f4 "WWe7 1 7 b3 g5 18 i.c 1 c4 1 9 bxc4 l:txc4 20 /:jj d 2 l:tc7 21 i.b2 /:jj e5 led to a complex game i n Razuvaev-Romanishin, Novi Sad 1 982) 14 . . . l:e8 (or 14 ... "WWe7 15 i.d2 /:jj f6 16 /:jjh4 i.d7 17 i.c3 l:.e8 1 8 i.xe4 /:jj xe4 1 9 i.xg7 ciil x g7 20 l:.a3 "WWg5 and Black's compensation for the exchange is perhaps not quite sufficient for equality; Razuvaev­ Tal, Moscow 1 983) 15 i.f4 'flc7 1 6 /:jjd 2 /:jje5 1 7 b 4 c4 1 8 l::. a3 i.f5 1 9 e4 i.d7 2 0 i. xe5 i.xe5 2 1 "WWxc4 l:ac8 22 i.f1 1i'b6 and a strong dark­ squared bishop allows Black to look to the future with optimism; Smej­ kal-Grii nberg, Prague 1989.

Now Black has a choice of two rook moves: A I ) 1 l . . .l:b8

A2) l l ... l::.e8

Al)

11 12 l:.el •.•

l:tb8

A prophylactic move; White frees f1 for the bishop and prepares for Black's active play on the queenside. 12 a5 does not create big problems for Black, for example 12 . . . l:.e8 1 3 l:te1 b5 1 4 axb6 l::. x b6 1 5 i.fl l:.b4 ! 1 6 'ifc2 a5 = Winants-Pigusov, Dor­ drecht 1987. 12

...

b5 (D)

1 2 . . . ljj g4 is good for White: 1 3 ljjh4 /:jjge5 14 i.fl ( 14 f4 /:jjc 4 1 5 i.fl /:jja5 1 6 /:jj f3 l::. e 8 1 7 i.e3, Scheeren-Stoica, Thessaloniki OL 1 984, is less clear, e.g. 17 . . . i.xc3 ! ? 1 8 bxc3 l:txe4 is interesting) 1 4 . . .c4 1 5 f4 /:jj d 3 1 6 i.xd3 cxd3 17 i.e3 b5 18 axb5 axb5 19 1Wxd3 b4 20 /:jja4 l:.e8 2 I /:jjf3 ;!;; Sosonko-Cebalo, Reggio Emilia 1 985. 12 ... 'i!fe7? ! also favours White: 1 3 i.fl l:.e8 14 h3 /:jjh5 15 g4 /:jjhf6 1 6 .i.f4 h5 17 e5 ! dxe5 1 8 /:jjxe5. Soson­ ko-Nunn, London 1 980. There is perhaps only one conclu­ sion to be drawn from these two vari­ ations - don't play the Modern Benoni against Sosonko !

52 Fianchetto with ... (fjbd7: Introduction 13 ax:b5 14 .t.n

ax:b5

Or 1 4 i.f4 Cjje 8 1 5 e5 dxe5 1 6 Cjj x,e5 Cjj x,e5 17 i.xe5 i.xe5 1 8 l:xe5 Cjjd6 = . 14

•••

Cjjg4! ?

14 . . .b 4 also doesn' t look too bad; 15 Cjj b 5 l:b6 ! ? (White has strong pressure after 15 . . . Cjje8 16 Cjj a? ! i.b7 17 Cjjc6 i.xc6 1 8 dxc6 Cjje5 1 9 Cjj x,e5 i.xe5 2 0 i.c4 Cjj c? 2 1 :a? ;!; Sax) 1 6 i.f4 Cjje 8 1 7 'fi'c2 i.b7 1 8 l:a7 (White can run into difficulties after the overly active 1 8 Cjj a?? ! h6 1 9 i.b5 g5 20 i.e3 Cjjc? 21 i.c6 i.a6! 22 i.a4 i.b5 ! 23 i.xb5 Cjj xb5, as in Ree-Sax, Amsterdam 1 983) 18 ...Wb8 19 l:eal h6 with an unclear game, Sosonko-de Firmian, Tunis IZ 1 985. 15 Cjjd2 After some complications, Black achieves equality in the event of 1 5 Cjj x,b5 �e5 ! 1 6 h3 Cjjx,f3+ 17 'ii'xf3 Cjje 5 1 8 We2 (not 1 8 'ii'd 1 i.xh3 ! ) 1 8 . . . .:txb5 19 Wxb5 (jj f3+ 2 0 �h 1 Cjj x e1 2 1 We2 l:e8 22 Wxe1 f5 23 l:a8 l:xe4 = Scheeren-Van der Wiel, Hilversum 1 986. 15 ... 16 h3

b4 c4! lbxc4 �5 i.xh3 l:xb5 = Alburt-Sax, Subotica IZ 1 987. Cjjb 5 lbxc4 i.xc4 .t.n i.xh3

11 12 l:.e1 •••

l:te8 c4!? (D)

The passive 1 2 . . . 'ii'c 7 favours White; 1 3 i.fl Cjje5 ( 1 3 . . . Cjjg4 ! ?) 14 Cjj x,e5 .:txe5 1 5 i.f4 l:.e8 1 6 e5 dxe5 17 d6 'ii'c 6 18 i.xe5 ± Sosonko­ Rechlis, Jerusalem 1 986. 12 . . . Cjj g 4 has less clear-cut con­ sequences, for example 13 Cjjb 4 ! ? (jjf8 ! ? (this move looks unattractive, but it is stronger than 1 3 . . . Cjj ge5 14 f4 Cjjc4 1 5 Cjj f3 l:.b8 1 6 Wc2 Wa5 { 1 6 ... b5 1 7 axb5 axb5 1 8 Cjj xb5 ! } 1 7 l:.a2 ! which i s slightly better for White; Ligterink-Short, Plovdiv Echt 1 983) 14 h3 Cjje5 15 f4 �4 1 6 i.fl Cjja5 17 (jjf3 c4 ! ? 1 8 i.e3 i.xc3 19 bxc3 l:.xe4 with an unclear game; Ligterink-Franco, Amsterdam 1 983.

w

�e5

Or 1 6 Cjjx b5 'fi'b6 17 Cjjc4 Cjj x,c4 1 8 i.xc4 Cjje5 1 9 i.e2 f5 with compensation. 16 17 18 19 20 21

A2)

13 h3

1 3 i.fl leads to a double-edged position after 13 ... Wc7 ! ? (better than 1 3 ... �5 1 4 Cjjd2 Wc7 { 14 ... Cjjd 3 1 5 i.x,d3 cxd3 1 6 Cjj c4 i. h 3 1 7 Wxd3 ± Ligterink-Lobron, Wijk aan Zee 1 985 } 1 5 i.xc4 i.h3 16 i.fl i.xfl 17 �xfl l:ac8 18 l:e3 1i'd7 19 �g2 Cjj g 4 20 l:e2 and White's chances are preferable; Alburt-de Firmian,

Fianchetto with . . . t'bbd7: Introduction 53 USA Ch 1 985) 14 'ife2 t'Dc5 1 5 'ii'x c4 .i. g4 1 6 t'Dd2 (if 1 6 .i.g2 then 1 6 . . . l'Dfd7 17 .i.f4 l'Db6 ! with the idea of 1 8 'iffl .i.xc3 19 bxc3 t'Dxe4 with excellent compensation for the pawn; Piket-Winants, Wijk aan Zee 1 987). Black gains a slight advantage af­ ter 1 3 'ife2 t'Dc5 ! 1 4 'ifxc4 b5 1 5 axb5 ( 1 5 'iffl b4) 1 5 ... axb5 16 'ifxc5 dxc5 17 lba8 b4 (Ligterink). 13

•••

lDcs

1 3 . . . 'ifc7 14 'ife2 t'Dc5 15 'ifxc4 i.d7 Zihani-Franco, Lugano 1 989, is insufficient because of 16 aS !?. 14 15 16 17 18 19

lbd2

lle2 aS

t'Da4 l'Db6

t'Dd3 'fkc7 .i.d7

.i.bS l:r.ad8

"ii'cS = .l:r.a3 Brenninkmeijer-de Firmian, Lu­ gano 1989.

B) ll liJd2 :bS (D)

The other possibilities are : a) 1 1 . ..l:r.e8 - see A64. b) 1 1 . . .t'Dh5 ! ? 1 2 t'Dce4 ! ? (Black has no reason to worry after 1 2 t'Dc4

t'De5 1 3 t'De3 l:tb8 14 a5 b5 1 5 axb6 .l:r.xb6 1 6 h3 l:r.b4 = Youngworth-de Firmian, Lone Pine 198 1 ) 12 . . . l'Ddf6 1 3 l'Dxf6+ 'ifxf6 (probably more ac­ curate than 1 3 . . . .i.xf6 1 4 t'Dc4 .i.d4 15 e3 .i.g7 16 e4 .l:.e8 17 .i.d2 .l:.b8 1 8 a5 f5 19 exfS .i.xfS 20 lla3 ;!; P.Nikolic-de Firmian, Wijk aan Zee 1 986) 14 t'Dc4 .l:r.b8 1 S l'Db6 ( 1 S aS .i.d7) 1S . . . 'ii'd 8 1 6 'ifb3 J:r.e8 17 lle1 l'Df6 1 8 .i.f4 l'DhS 19 .i.d2 l'Df6 with equality; ReefschUiger-Kindermann, Bundesliga 1 984. c) 1 l . . .'ifc7 12 'ifb3 ! ? (standard play is not dangerous for Black: 1 2 t'Dc4 l'Db6 1 3 t'Da3 .i.d7 1 4 a5 { or 1 4 h3 llfe8 1 S 'ifc2 llac8 1 6 a5 t'Da8 1 7 t'Dc4 bS 1 8 axb6 l'Dxb6 = Podlesnik­ Danner, Ptuj 1989 } 14 ... t'Dc8 1 S t'Dc4 .i.bS 1 6 'ii'b 3 .i.xc4 1 7 'ifxc4 bS 1 8 axb6 l'Dxb6 1 9 'ilh4 l:lfb8 = Arkell­ Yudasin, Leningrad 1 989; you also see 12 h3 c4 13 a5 bS 14 axb6 l'Dxb6 1S t'Df3 .i.b7 1 6 t'Dd4 llfe8 17 e4 t'Dfd7 18 .i.e3 lbcS = Birnboim-Dan­ ner, Lucerne OL 1 982) and now in­ stead of the unsuccessful 1 2 . . . lbe8? ! 1 3 t'Dc4 .Z:.b8 14 .i.f4 b5? ! 1 S axbS t'De5 (or 1S . . . axbS 1 6 l'DxbS 'ilb7 1 7 liaS +-) 1 6 .i.xeS .i.xeS 1 7 b 6 +­ Ivanchuk-Yudasin, Riga Ct 1 99 1 , Black should play 1 2 . . . t'DeS ! ? 1 3 h3 l'DhS with counter-chances. d) 1 l . . .t'De8 1 2 t'Dc4 (Black has an easy game after 1 2 e4 l:b8 1 3 1i'e2 t'Dc7 14 a5 bS 1S axb6 l'Dxb6 1 6 f4 .l:r.e8 = Ilincic-Velimirovic, Arand­ jelovac 1 993, but 1 2 h3 deserves attention, for example 12 . . . llb8 1 3 t'Dc4 t'Db6 { or 1 3 . . .lbeS 14 t'Da3 fS 1 S f4 t'Df7 1 6 t'Dc4 .i.d7 17 a5 t'Dc7 1 8

54 Fianchetto with . . . Ci:Jbd7: Introduction lle 1 lieS 1 9 .i.d2 .i.b5 20 Ci:Jb6 } 14 Ci:Je3 .i.d7 15 lle 1 Ci:JcS 16 a5 Ci:Ja7 17 .i.d2 Ci:Jb5 1 S Ci:Jc4 Ci:Jd4 19 e3 with a small plus) 1 2 . . . Ci:Jb6 1 3 Ci:Jxb6 ! ? (promising more than 1 3 Ci:Ja3 .i.d7 14 a5 Ci:JcS 15 Ci:Jc4 .i.b5 1 6 'i!i'b3 .i.xc4 17 'i!i'xc4 b5 1S axb6 Ci:Jxb6 19 'i!i'd3 Ci:Jc7 = Shapiro-Browne, USA Ch 1 9SS) 13 ...'i!i'xb6 14 .i.d2 'flc7 15 llb1 .i.d7 1 6 'i!i'c 1 b5 1 7 axb5 axb5 1 S b4 c4 1 9 .i.h6 ;t Rohde-Browne, San Francisco 1 9S7. e) 1 1 . . .'ii'e7 12 h3 (the classic game Gligoric-Petrosian, Zurich Ct 1 953 continued 1 2 Ci:Jc4 Ci:Je5 1 3 Ci:Jxe5 'i!i'xe5 14 a5 lieS 1 5 .i.f4 'fle7 1 6 'i!i'b3 Ci:Jd7 1 7 llfe1 Ci:Je5 1 S Ci:Ja4 .i.d7 1 9 Ci:Jb6 lladS 20 .i.d2 .i.b5 2 1 .i.c3 ;t ) 1 2 . . . l:tbS 1 3 Ci:Jc4 Ci:Je5 1 4 Ci:Jb6 Ci:Jfd7 ( 1 4 . . . Ci:Jed7 !?) 1 5 Ci:JxcS l:tfxc8 16 a5 b5 17 axb6 l:txb6 1 S 'ifc2 Ci:Jf8 1 9 Ci:Ja4 llbbS 20 l:la2 and White preserved his opening advan­ tage in Stempin-Psakhis, Paris 1990. 12 Ci:Jc4

Ci:Je8 (D)

w

13 'ii'b3 !?

The Israeli International Master B irnboim plays this move fre­ quently and successfully, and it is

most likely the strongest in the posi­ tion. Others: a) 1 3 a5 Ci:Je5 1 4 Ci:Jb6 Ci:Jc7 (or 1 4 . . . Ci:Jd7 ! ? 1 5 Ci:JxcS l:txc8 1 6 .i.d2 Ci:Jc7 17 'ifa4 l:tbS 1S :ab1 b5 1 9 axb6 Ci:Jxb6 = Melnikov-Ulybin, Kursk 19S7) 15 h3 (White has no ad­ vantage after either 15 'ifb3 .i.d7 1 6 h 3 .i.b5 17 �h2 l:teS 1 S .i.e3 Ci:Jd7 1 9 Ci:Jc4 .i.xc4 2 0 'ifxc4 b6 = Kraidman­ Pein, Tel Aviv 1 9S9, or 1 5 Ci:Je4 .i.f5 16 .i.g5 f6 17 .i.d2 .i.xe4 1 8 .i.xe4 f5 1 9 .i.g2 Ci:Jd7 20 Ci:Jc4 Ci:Je5 = Smys­ lov-Pachman, Amsterdam OL 1 954, and the dubious 15 f4? ! gives Black the initiative after 15 . . .Ci:Jg4 16 e3 l:le8 17 l:le 1 Ci:Jb5 ! 1S Ci:Jxb5 axb5 +) 15 . . .f5 ( 1 5 . . . Ci:Jb5 16 l:la2 h5 1 7 Ci:Je4 ! ? .i.f5 1 S Ci:Jd2 .i.cS 1 9 Ci:Jdc4 ;t Scherbakov-Ruban, Voronezh 198S) 1 6 f4 Ci:Jd7 ! 17 Ci:JxcS ! ? 'ifxcS 1S e4 Ci:Jb5 Ross-Farago, Oberwart 1 9S7, and according to Farago White should have continued 19 exf5 ! gxf5 20 Ci:Jxb5 axb5 2 1 'iVe2 c4 22 'fle6+ �h8 23 'ifxd6 'ifc5+ 24 'fixc5 Ci:Jxc5, although Black has good compensation for the pawn. b) 13 .i.f4 Ci:Jb6 14 Ci:Ja3 .i.d7 15 a5 Ci:JcS 16 Ci:Jc4 .i.b5 17 'fib3 Ci:Jc7 ! ? ( 1 7 . . . .i.xc4 1 8 'ifxc4 'ti'd7 19 e4 Ci:Jc7 20 l:tfe1 :es 21 'ii'f l b5 = Maiwald­ Ree, Ostend 1 99 1 , is not bad either) 1 S l:lfe1 .i.xc4 19 'ii'xc4 b5 20 axb6 l:lxb6 21 l:ta2 l:.b4 22 'ii'd 3 Ci:Jb6 = ReefschUiger-Sax, Lugano 1986. c) 13 .i.d2 Ci:Je5 14 Ci:Jxe5 .i.xe5 15 .i.h6 Ci:Jg7 16 'ifd2 l:te8 (or 16 ... b5 17 axb5 axb5 18 f4 .i.f6 1 9 Ci:Je4 .i.e7 20 b4 ;t) 17 .i.g5 f6 1S .i.f4 .i.xf4 1 9 'ii'xf4 f5 2 0 b4 ;t Gutman-Griinfeld,

Fianchetto with ... �bd7: Introduction 55 Beersheba 1 982. White's chances urc somewhat preferable. .!Des 13 •.•

Black cannot manage to equalize ufter 13 .. .'ii'e7 either, for example 14 u5 �e5 1 5 �b6 �c7 1 6 e4 i.d7 1 7 f4 �g4 (after 17 . . . �d3, 1 8 i.e3 is strong, with the idea of 18 . . .f5 1 9 l:lad 1 fxe4 2 0 �xe4 i.f5 2 1 'iVxd3 l:lbe8 22 i.xc5 ! and White is clearly hctter) 1 8 e5 ! dxe5 19 h3 exf4 20 .ixf4 �e5 2 1 �e4 with a clear ad­ vantage to White; Birnboim-Rohde, Beersheba 1 987 . 14 �b6

fS

Or 14 . . . i.f5 15 a5 �c7 1 6 h3 g5 17 i.d2 g4 18 hxg4 ! ? �xg4 19 'iVa4 h5 20 i.f3 i.d4 2 1 e3 i.g7 22 �g2 ± Birnboim-L.Bronstein, Lucerne OL 1 982. i.d7 15 i. d2 16 11 18 19 20

f4 :ret aS

h3 e4

�g4 i.bS! liJc7 �6

White has the better game. Birn­ hoim-Bischoff, Munich Z 1 987.

These days this is the most popu­ lar move. Black usually defends the pawn with his queen, as the passive 1 1 . . . �e8 1 2 'ii'd 2 �b6 1 3 i.h6 �4 14 'Wc 1 �a5 15 i.xg7 �xg7 1 6 l:r.b1 i.g4 17 b4 cxb4 18 l:r.xb4 is better for White; Adorjan-Mascariiias, Bacolod 199 1 . Thus the material divides quite naturally: C 1 ) 1 1 . . .'ii'c 7 C2) 1 l . . .'iVe7 C1)

11 12 h3 •.•

"fkc7

A useful prophylactic move, pre­ venting Black from transferring his knight from f6 via g4 to e5. There are other approaches: a) Nikolic frequently uses 1 2 l:lc l , but without great success, as Black gets a good game after both 1 2 . . . l:e8 1 3 b4 �h5 14 i.g5 h6 1 5 i.e3 (15 i.d2 ! ?) 1 5 ... l:xe3 ! ? 1 6 fxe3 cxb4 1 7 �e4 'ii' b6 1 8 �d4 a5 1 9 'iVc2 f5 "" P.Nikolic-Hjartarson, Li­ nares 1 988, and the immediate knight move to h5: 12 . . . W 1 3 i.g5 h6 14 i.d2 'iVb6 15 'iVc2 f5 = P.Nik­ olic-Yudasin, Tilburg 1 993 . b) Black had no problems in P.Nikolic-Marin, Thessaloniki OL 1 988, after 1 2 a5 l:e8 1 3 �a4 h6 ( 1 3 . . . �e4 14 �2 �xd2 1 5 i.xd2 �e5 16 i.c3 ;!;) 14 'ii'd 3 g5 15 i.d2 �e4 16 i.e1 :b8 17 l:r.c 1 �df6 1 8 �d2 �xd2 1 9 i.xd2 i.d7 =. c) Major, unclear complications arose in Polugaevsky-Vaiser, Sochi 198 1 after 12 e4 l:r.e8 1 3 'Wc2 l:r.b8 14 a5 �h5 15 i.e3 b5 16 axb6 �xb6 1 7

56 Fianchetto with .JDbd7: Introduction h3 h6 1 8 g4 �f6 1 9 �d2 'ike7 20 :ael a5 ! ? ao. d) 1 2 'ikd2 is possible: 12 . . . :e8 1 3 :re t c4 14 �d4 ( 1 4 i.h6 ! ? i.h8 15 'ikf4 deserves attention) 14 ... �5 15 :a3 i.d7 1 6 a5 b5 17 axb6 'ikxb6 with equality; Bonin-Zaichik, New York 1 990. 12

...

:eS (D)

:xb6 23 :xc5 with a small advan­ tage to White (Kindermann). 13 l:tb8 1 3 . . . �h5 ! ? deserves attention: 14 i.d2 l:tb8 ! ? ( 1 4 . . . c4 is worse: 1 5 b4 cxb3 16 'ikxb3 �c5 17 'ikb4 �f6 1 8 .:ac l 'ikd8 1 9 a5 ;!; Razuvaev-Ben­ j amin, Paris 1 989) 15 a5 b5 16 axb6 �xb6 17 g4 �f6 1 8 e4 �4 19 i.cl �d7 with a good game for Black; Briickner-Wahls, Bundesliga 1 986. ...

14 e4

Chances are approximately equal after 14 a5 b5 15 axb6 �xb6 !, which is more precise than 1 5 . . . :xb6 1 6 �d2 ! ? :b4 ( 1 6 . . . �h5 ! ?) 1 7 �a2 ! l:tb8 1 8 �c4 i.f8 1 9 �c3 �h5 20 i.d2 �e5 2 1 �a5 ;!; G.Kuzmin­ R.Rodriguez, Riga IZ 1979. 14 �h5 (D) ...

13 :e1

Another plan linked with 13 l:tc 1 attempts to exploit the opposition of the rook and queen; this may con­ tinue 1 3 . . . .l:b8 (or 1 3 . . . �h5 14 i.d2 'ikd8 1 5 g4 ! ? �hf6 1 6 i.f4 'ike7 17 e4 ! ± Dzhandzhgava-Moldobaev, Pavlodar 1 987) 14 b4 ! ? ( 14 'ikd3? ! is significantly weaker: 14 ... c4 15 'ikd 1 �h5 1 6 i.d2 �c5 1 7 �a2 b5 1 8 axb5 axb5 and Black seized the in­ itiative in I.Sokolov-Ki.Georgiev, Reggio Emilia 1 988) 14 . . . �h5 15 i.d2 cxb4 ! ? 1 6 �e4 �c5 1 7 �xc5 dxc5 1 8 i.xb4 b6 1 9 a5 'ike7 20 i.d2 ! ? (White fell into a typical trap in Csom-Kindermann, Dortmund 1983: 20 i.a3? �xg3 ! 2 1 fxg3 'ike3+ 22 �h2 'ikxa3 23 axb6 :xb6 +) 20 ... 'ikxe2 2 1 'ikxe2 :xe2 22 axb6

w

15 i.e3

15 i.d2 b5 1 6 axb5 axb5 17 g4 �hf6 1 8 .tfl c4 ! 19 b4 cxb3 20 'ikxb3 �c5 21 'ikb4 �a6 22 �xb5 �xb4 23 �xc7 :xe4, Christiansen­ Mestel, Lucerne OL 1 982, leads to an interesting game with chances for both sides. b5 15 ·

••.

Fianchetto with ... .!Llbd7: Introduction 57 White has an advantage after both I S . . . .!tlhf6 1 6 .!tld2 bS 17 axbS axbS 1 8 .i.fl b4 1 9 .!tlbS 1i'b6 20 .i.f4, and 1 S ... c4 1 6 a5 bS 17 axb6 ltxb6 ( 1 7 . . . .!tlxb6 ! ?) 1 8 g4 .!tlhf6 19 .i.xb6 .!tlxb6 20 ...c2 .!tlfd7 21 .!tla4 ± Razu­ vaev-Senlkov, Sochi 1982. axbS 16 axbS �6 17 .i.fi! But not 1 7 . . . b4? ! 1 8 .!tlb5 ...b6 ( 1 8 . . . l:xbS 1 9 .i.xbS l:lxe4 20 1i'c2 ±) 19 .!tld2 ! .!Des 20 .!tla7 .i.d7 2 1 g4 .!tlf6 22 gS (stronger than 22 f4 .!tlexg4 ! 23 hxg4 .!tlxe4 24 .!tlc6 .i.xc6 2S l:la6 'flc7 26 l:lxc6 ...d8 27 .!tlc4 Wh4 2S .i.g2 l:laS with com­ plications in Razuvaev-Panchenko, Minsk 1 9SS) 22 . . . .!tlhS 23 f4 l:laS (the only move for Black) 24 fxe5 l:xa7 25 .!tlc4 'fibS 26 l:lxa7 'it'xa7 27 .!tlxd6 l:xeS 2S ...f3 ± Hernan­ dez-Vilela, Cuba 1993. 18 .!tld2 Black has no problems after I S .i.xbS .i.xc3 1 9 .i.xd7 .i.xd7 20 bxc3 l:lxe4 =, or IS .!tlxbS l:lxe4 19 .!tld2 ltb4. 18 .i.a6 19 l:lal :as 20 'ifa1 �7 21 .l:.aS 22 .!tla2 23 .!tlc3

c4 Wc7 �7

11

1i'e1 (D)

with equality in Razuvaev-Arna­ son, Jurmala 1 987. C2)

...

12 h3! ?

We have already seen the use of this strong prophylactic move many times. Other approaches:

a) 1 2 l:le1 h6 (White obtained a small advantage in Hort-Langeweg, Amsterdam 1 9S3, after 1 2 . . . .!tlg4 1 3 'flb3 l:lbS 14 .i.gS f6 IS .i.d2 b 6 1 6 h 3 .!tlh6 1 7 Wc2 .!tl f7 1 S b 3 b 5 1 9 axbS axbS 2 0 e4 ;!; ) 1 3 e4 .!tlg4 14 a5 .!tlgeS 1 S .!tla4 .!tlxf3+ 1 6 .i.xf3 .!tle5 17 .!tlb6 llbS I S .i.g2 .i.d7 = Borges­ Ruban, Santa Clara 199 1 . b ) 12 a5 and now: b 1 ) 1 2 . . . l:lbS 1 3 .!tla4 (alterna­ tively, 1 3 h3 h6 14 e4 g5 15 .i.c l { 15 .i.e3 ! ? } 1 5 . . .b5 16 axb6 .!tlxb6 1 7 .:t e l .!tlfd7 1 S .i.fl .!De s 1 9 .!tlxe5 'ifxeS 20 .i.e3 .!tld7 ;!; Savchenko­ V.Gurevich, Kherson 1 9S9) 1 3 . . . bS 14 axb6 .!tlxb6 15 e4 .!tlfd7 16 .!tlxb6 l:lxb6 17 .!tld2 P.Nikolic-Tal, Reyk­ javik 1 9SS, and even after the im­ provement 17 ... gS ! ? 1S .i.e3 .!tle5 1 9 .i.xgS ! ? 'ifxgS 2 0 f4 'ifh6 2 1 fxeS .i.xeS 22 .!tlc4 .i.d4+ 23 �h l White preserves an edge (P.Nikolic). b2) Nor does Black manage to equalize after 12 . . . b5 13 axb6 .!tlxb6 ( 1 3 . . . l:lbS favours White: 14 e4 ! l:lxb6 15 .!tld2 .!Des 16 .!tlc4 ± P.Nik­ olic-Cebalo, Brezovica 1 9SS) 1 4 e4 .!tlg4 15 h3 .!DeS 16 .!tlxe5 .i.xe5 (re­ taining more chances than 1 6 . . . dxe5

58 Fianchetto with .Ji),bd7: Introduction 1 7 i.e3 �c4 1 8 i.e 1 ± P.Nikolic­ Barlov, Zagreb IZ 1 987) 17 i.xeS ;!;. b3) 1 2 . . . �g4 ! ? 1 3 �a4 ( 1 3 i.gS does not lead to success: 13 . . .f6 14 i.d2 bS I S axb6 �xb6 1 6 h3 �h6 17 b4 cxb4 1 8 �a4 �xa4 1 9 l:.xa4 a5 ! 20 i.xb4 i.a6 ! with an equal po­ sition; Gleizerov-Shestoperov, Bu­ dapest 1 990) 1 3 . . . l:.b8 14 h3 ( 1 4 J:c l ? ! h 6 I S i.d2 b S 1 6 axb6 �xb6 with an edge for Black; Manor­ Wahls, Bern Z 1 990) 14 ... �geS I S �xeS �xeS 1 6 �b6 i.d7 = . c) 1 2 'ii'd2 �g4 13 h3 (a complex game which is sufficiently good for Black follows 1 3 .l:abl �deS 14 b4 b6 I S bxcS bxcS 1 6 h3 �xf3+ 17 exf3 �eS 1 8 Abel 'flc7 1 9 i.xeS i.xeS 20 l:txeS ! ? dxeS 2 1 f4 l:tb8 22 d6 'f/a5 23 fxeS i.e6 with an attack, Korchnoi-Hulak, Wijk aan Zee 1 98 3 ; nor does he have any prob­ lems after 13 l:tac l ?! l:.b8 14 h3 �geS IS �xeS �xeS 16 �e4 i.fS 1 7 b4 i.xe4 1 8 i.xe4 c4 :j: Cech­ Hort, Biel l 992) 13 ... �geS 14 �xeS �xeS 1S a5 i.d7 ( 1 S . . . l:r.b8 16 �a4 ;!;) 16 l::tfb l Smyslov-Grooten, Til­ burg 1 992, and after 1 6 .. .l:Ub8 ! ? 17 i.h6 i.h8 Black could have looked to the future with optimism. d) 1 2 'ii'c 2 �hS (after 1 2 . . . h6 1 3 J:abl J:e8 1 4 l:tfe l gS I S i.d2 �b6 16 'ii'b 3 ! �bd7 17 a5 l::tb 8 1 8 'ifa2 bS 1 9 axb6 l:txb6 20 �a4 J:b8 2 1 e4 White's position is preferable; Razu­ vaev-Ruban, Sochi 1 989) 1 3 i.gS f6 14 i.d2 fS. e) 1 2 e4 �g4 ! ? ( 1 2 . . . l:.b8 is not bad for Black either: 1 3 J:e l { 1 3 h3 ! ? takes us to 1 2 h3 } 1 3 ... �g4 ! 14

�d2 �deS ! l S �fl { or l S h3 gS ! 16 i.xeS �xeS 1 7 We2 i.d7 1 8 �fl c4 + Scheeren-Langeweg, Leeuwar­ den 1 980 } 1 S . . . �c4 1 6 'ii'e 2 bS 1 7 h 3 �geS and Black seizes the initia­ tive; Smyslov-Portisch, Hungary 1 978) 13 i.gS f6 14 i.d2 liJdeS I S llJxeS llJxeS = 1 6 f4? ! llJc4 1 7 i. e 1 fS =i= Bonsch-Ehlvest, Tallinn 1 983. Now we return to the position af­ ter 1 2 h3 (D):

12 l:tb8 (D) The most natural, preparing an ac­ tive game on the queenside, but it is far from being the only move. Also used: a) 1 2 . . . l:te8 1 3 e4 (nor is it easy for Black to equalize after 1 3 J:el �hS { 13 . . . 'f/f8 14 e4 �hS 1 S i.d2 �eS 16 �xeS i.xeS 17 'ifilh2 i.d7 1 8 f4 i.d4 ! ? Gleizerov-Magerramov, Pavlodar 1 987, and now 1 9 g4 ! ? ;!;; deserved attention } 14 i.gS i.f6 { or 14 . . . f6 IS i.d2 fS 1 6 e4 } I S i.xf6 'ifxf6 1 6 �d2 'ii'e7 1 7 �c4 �eS 1 8 liJb6 with an edge) 1 3 ... �hS 14 i.gS 'flf8 1S l:te 1 .l:b8 16 g4 �hf6 1 7 i.f4 b S (or 1 7 . . . �eS 1 8 �xeS dxe5 19 i.e3 'fid6 20 Wd3 b6 2 1 i.fl hS •.•

Fianchetto with ... liJbd7: Introduction 59 22 f3 ;;!; Lobron-Wahls, Dortmund

1 990) 1 8 axb5 axb5 19 e5 ! ;;!; Dra8ko­ Cebalo, Budvar 1986. b) 12 . . . h6 ! ? and now: bl) Black has no problems what­ soever after 1 3 l:.el l:.b8 (Black is also fine after 13 ... liJh5 14 .te l l::t b8 1 5 e4 b5 16 axb5 axb5 17 ..tn b4 1 8 li:)b5 ltJe5 1 9 l:.a7 l:.b7 Vanheste-Ar­ nason, Belgrade 1 988) 14 e4 ( 1 4 l:. b l b 5 1 5 axb5 axb5 1 6 b4 liJh5 1 7 ..td2 allows the standard combina­ tion 1 7 . . . ltJxg3 ! 1 8 lDxb5 { 1 8 fxg3 ..txc3 } 18 . . .llxb5 1 9 fxg3 cxb4 20 i.xb4 ..ta6 with advantage to Black; Csom-Sax, Hungarian Ch 1986) 14 . . . g5 15 ..te3 b5 16 axb5 axb5 oo Vanheste-Farago, Graz 1987. b2) 1 3 'ifc l ! ? deserves consid­ eration, e.g. 1 3 . . .'�h7 ( 1 3 . . . g5 ! ?) 14 e 4 g5 1 5 ..td2 l::tb 8 1 6 l::t b l l::te 8 ( 1 6 . . . b5 17 axb5 axb5 18 b4 ;;!;) 1 7 l:[el 'iff8 1 8 ,.c2 and White exerts unpleasant pressure; Scherbakov­ Palkovi, European Club Cup 1 993 . b3) 1 3 e4 lDh7 (White gained an advantage in Alburt-Fedorov, New York 1992, after 1 3 . . . g5 14 ..te3 { 14 ..td2 liJh7 15 1i'c2 l::te 8 1 6 l::tae1 'ii'd 8 Adorjan-Portisch, New York 1987 } 14 . . . l:.b8 { 14 . . . liJh7 ! ? } 15 a5 b5 1 6 axb6 .:.xb6 17 Wc2 liJe8 1 8 liJd2 l::tb4 19 liJb3 liJe5 20 lDa5 ;;!;) 1 4 'ifd2 g5 15 ..te3 liJb6 ! ? 1 6 'ifd l (or 16 b3 f5) 1 6 . . . liJc4 17 .te l f5 1 8 cxf5 ..txf5 = G. Kuzmin-Velimiro­ vic, Palma GMA 1 989. c) 1 2 ... lDh5 ! ? 13 ..tg5 f6 14 ..td2 f5 15 Wb3 (returning to g5 does not work in White's favour: 15 ..tg5 liJhf6 16 l:.b1 h6 17 ..td2 liJe4 1 8 =

li:)xe4 fxe4 1 9 lDe1 ltJe5 + Ulybin­ Hall, Oakham 1 992) 15 . . . ltJe5 1 6 ltJxe5 ..txe5 17 f4 ..tg7 1 8 �h2 lDf6 1 9 .l:be1 Wf7 = Browne-D.Gurevich, USA Ch 1 987.

w

13 l::t b l Instead: a) 1 3 a5 has also been tried, but Black can equalize by 13 . . . b5 (more interesting than 13 . . . liJh5 14 ..tg5 f6 1 5 ..td2 f5 1 6 :e 1 li:)e5 1 7 lDxe5 ..txe5 18 e3 b5 19 axb6 :xb6 20 ltJa4 l::tb 8 21 Wc2 with some advan­ tage; Savchenko-Ragozin, Lenin­ grad 1 989) 14 axb6 liJxb6 15 e4 liJfd7 16 :c t liJc4 17 b3 ltJce5 1 8 ltJxe5 ltJxe5 1 9 ..te3 c4 = Bonsch­ Griinfeld, Hertzliya 1 993 . b) 1 3 e4 gives Black significantly more problems: b 1 ) If 1 3 . . . liJe8 14 l:.e 1 ! ? ( 1 4 'ti'd2 b5 15 axb5 axb5 1 6 l:.a7 b4 1 7 lDa4 l::t b7 1 8 l::t xb7 ..txb7 = Bartels­ Dizdarevic, Berlin 1 988) 14 . . . b5 1 5 axb5 axb5 , then after 1 6 'ii'e2 we have reached a position examined in line 'b3 ' . b2) 1 3 . . . liJh5 14 ..tg5 ..tf6 1 5 ..txf6 'ifxf6 16 'ifd2 b5 1 7 axb5 axb5

60 Fianchetto with . . . Ci:Jbd7: Introduction 1 8 b4 ! cxb4 1 9 Ci:Je2 b3 20 g4 Ci:Jg7 2 1 Ci:Jed4 Dra8ko-Cebalo, Sarajevo 1 986, is not sufficient for equality either. b3) 1 3 . . . b5 14 axb5 (the immedi­ ate 1 4 :e l is interesting, for exam­ ple 14 . . . b4 { 14 . . . CiJe8 ! ? } 15 e5 ! bxc3 1 6 exf6 'ii'xf6 17 i.g5 c2 18 1i'xc2 'ii' x b2 1 9 'ii' x b2 i.xb2 20 l:labl l:b4 2 1 i.e7 ;!; Zaitsev-Abramovic, Moscow 1 982) 14 ... axb5 15 l:tel (15 l:a7 is not frightening: 15 ... Ci:Jh5 1 6 i.g5 i.f6 1 7 i.xf6 'ii'xf6 1 8 l:lel l:e8 ao Vanheste-Grooten, Dieren 1 988) 15 ... Ci:Je8 ! ? ( 1 5 . . . b4 16 e5 !) 1 6 'ii'e 2 l:b6 ! (the only move) 17 Ci:Jxb5 i.a6 1 8 l:xa6 ! :xa6 19 Ci:Jbd4 Ci:Jb8 ! 20 Ci:Jc6 l:r.xc6 2 1 dxc6 Ci:Jxc6 22 lid 1 ! ? (22 e5 Ci:Jxe5 23 Ci:Jxe5 dxe5 24 i.xe5 Ci:Jc7 ! 25 i.xg7 'ii'xe2 26 l:xe2 '.Pxg7 = led to a quick draw in Razuvaev-Psakhis, Irkutsk 1 986) 22 . . . Ci:Jd4 ! ? (a more exact move than 22 ... CiJe5 23 Ci:Jxe5 dxe5 24 i.e3 CfJc7 25 l:tc 1 Ci:Je6 26 'i!Vb5 ! ;!; Dra�ko­ Renet, Vrnjacka Banja 1 987) 23 Ci:Jxd4 i.xd4 24 i.h6 (by using a tac­ tical peculiarity of the position, Black gets a good game after 24 b4 Ci:Jc7 25 b5 l:lb8 26 l:tb l Ci:Jd5 ! = ) 24 . . . i.g7 25 i.e3 Ci:Jc7 26 'fi'd3 i.xb2 27 'Wxd6 'ifxd6 28 l:.xd6 Ci:Je6 29 i.fl , Dra�ko, and the assessment of the position lies somewhere be­ tween ;!; and =. 13 ...

liJhs

White makes no particular gains after 1 3 . . . l:.e8 14 l:.e l Ci:Jh5 15 i.g5

'Wf8 16 e4 b5 17 axb5 axb5 1 8 g4 Ci:Jhf6 = Hausner-Cebalo, Banja Luka 1 98 1 , and he preserves a minimal advantage after 13 . . . h6 14 e4 ! (but not 14 b4? ! Ci:Jh5 15 'We i { 1 5 i.d2? Ci:Jxg3 ! 16 fxg3 i.xc3 } 15 ... Ci:Jxf4 1 6 gxf4 l:te8 = Goldin-Yedidia, New York 1 993) 14 . . . Ci:Jh5 ( 1 4 . . . b5 1 5 axb5 axb5 1 6 b4) 1 5 i.d2 Ci:Je5 1 6 Ci:Jxe5 'Wxe5 17 f4 'ife7 1 8 h2 b5 1 9 axb5 axb5 2 0 b4 ;!; Dautov-Matthias, Lippstadt 1 99 1 . 1 4 i.gS f6 Exchanging dark-squared bishops eases White's problems: 14 ... i.f6 15 i.xf6 ! Ci:Jhxf6 ! ? (or 15 . . . 'ifxf6 16 'ifd2 lieS 1 7 b4 b6 1 8 l:.fel l:lb7 19 bxc5 bxc5 20 a5 ± Khalifman-Pe­ tran, Berlin 1 989) 16 l:.e l with a small advantage. fS 15 i.d2 16 'Wcl

1 6 b4? cxb4 17 l:.xb4 is bad be­ cause of 1 7 . . . Ci:Jxg3 ! ( 1 7 . . . Ci:Jc5? 1 8 Ci:Jd4 i.d7 Tukmakov-Ulybin, Sim­ feropol 1988) 1 8 fxg3 i.xc3. We have already seen this combination more than once. Black also has an excellent game after 16 i.g5 'ife8 17 'ii'd2 Ci:Je5 =, when 1 8 i.h6?! i.xh6 19 'ii'x h6 f4 gives him the initiative. 16 17 b4 18 l:lxb4 19 CiJd4

liJhf6 cxb4

Ci:JcS i.d7

with equality in Obukhov-Cher­ niak, Smolensk 199 1 .

5

Fianchetto: Main Line (A64)

d4 lilf6 2 c4 cS 3 dS e6 4 lilc3 exdS cxdS d6 6 ltlf3 g6 7 g3 J.. g7 8 J.. g2 0-0 9 0-0 a6 ltlbd7 10 a4 l::r.e8 (D) 11 ltld2 l

5

Now 1 2 h3 is the most frequently played and most promising move. 1 2 lilc4 i s also a popular move, and so the chapter is structured as follows: A) 1 2 ltlc4 B) 12 h3 Other continuations are not as dangerous for Black, although they do have their advocates: a) 12 .l:.e1 l::r. b 8 13 lilc4 ltle5 ( 1 3 . . . ltlb6 ! ?) 14 lilxe5 AxeS 15 a5 lieS (or 15 . . . b5 1 6 axb6 Axb6 17 e4 l:te8 1 8 h3 ltld7 = Jokic-Liu Wenze, Belgrade 1 988) 16 J.. f4 b5 17 axb6 Axb6 18 l:ta2 lilg4 = Grigorian-Polu­ gaevsky, Leningrad 1 974.

b) 12 l::r.b 1 l::r.b 8 13 b4 b5 14 axb5 axb5 15 J.. b 2 (Black was able to seize the initiative after 15 bxc5? ! b4 1 6 lilce4 lilxc5 1 7 lilxc5 dxc5 :j: Vaganian-Tseshkovsky, Leningrad 1 974) 15 . . . lile5 16 J.. a 1 J.. d7 17 h3 lilh5 1 8 lilce4 J.. f5 ac Smyslov-Ivan­ ovic, Bugojno 1 984. c) 12 a5 b5 13 axb6 lilxb6 14 lilb3 lilc4 ! (stronger than the old 14 . . .1i'c7 15 ltla5 J.. d 7 16 h3 { 1 6 1i'c2 lilg4 1 7 h3 ltle5 1 8 b 3 c4 = Granda-Wedberg, New York 1 988 } 1 6 . . . J..b5 17 J..e3 lilfd7 1 8 'ifb3 with a small advantage to White; Euwe­ Kotov, Zurich Ct 1 953) 1 5 Aa4 lilb6 (15 . . . lile5 1 6 lila5 J.. d7 17 Aa2 'ifc7 18 h3 �) 16 l::r. a2 lilc4 1 7 1i'd3 (the best solution was probably 1 7 l:ta4 ! ? with equality) 17 . . . %:tb8 ! 1 8 lild2 (obviously neither 1 8 lilal lile5 1 9 1i'd 1 lilh5 + L.Grigorian-Kapen­ gut, USSR 1 970, nor 1 8 1i'xc4 l:tb4 gives White anything) 1 8 . . . ltlxd2 1 9 J.. x d2 lilg4 with equality; Mas­ carinas-Franco, Medina del Campo 1982. d) 12 1i'b3 and now: d 1 ) 12 ... ltle5 is premature, and leads Black into unpleasantness : 1 3 f4 c4 (the only move - 1 3 . . .ltleg4 14 lilc4) 14 1i'a2 (but not 14 'ii'b 4? a5 15 1i'a3 'ii'b6+ 1 6 �h 1 lileg4; simi­ larly White cannot organize him­ self after 14 lilxc4 lilxc4 15 'ifxc4

62 Fianchetto: Main Line 'ii' b6+ 16 �h1 �g4 17 lbd 1 .td7 1 8 h 3 l:ac8 1 9 'ifd3 �f6 2 0 .te3 'ifb4 2 1 .td2 'ifc4 with compensation) 14 . . . 'ifb6+ 1 S 'ili>h 1 tl)eg4 1 6 tl)xc4 'ii'c S ( 1 6 . . . tl)f2+? 17 llxf2 'fixf2 1 8 .te3 l::t x e3 1 9 l::t f l and Black loses his queen) 17 .td2 tl)hS 1 8 e3 .tfS 1 9 b4 'ii'c7 20 l:tac 1 ! with the better game for White; Rogozenko-Giuru­ mia, Bucharest 1992. d2) 12 . . . llb8 ! ? 13 tl)c4 tl)eS 14 tl)b6 �fd7 (Black also has a reason­ able game after 14 . . . tl)ed7 1 S tl)xc8 'ii' x c8 16 a5 bS 17 axb6 llxb6 1 8 'ii'a4 Johansen-Rogers, Sydney 199 1 , and 1 8 . . . 'ii' b 7 ! ? 1 9 lla2 l:ta8 would have led to equality, Stohl; 14 ... tl)hS 1 S a5 fS 16 :ta4 .td7 17 tl)xd7 'ifxd7 1 8 'ii'c 2 J:lf8 = Karklins-Grigorian, Leningrad 1 990, is also possible) 1 S tl)xc8 'it'xc8 1 6 h 3 (or 16 aS bS 17 axb6 llxb6 1 8 'ii'c 2 c4, again with an equal position) 1 6 . . . bS ! 17 axbS axbS 1 8 .�:laS (Black has a mighty game after 1 8 tl)xbS c4 19 'ii' b4 .:b6 20 'ifaS 'ifb7 2 1 tl)c3 tl)cS) 1 8 . . . b4 1 9 tl)e4 'it'c7 + Sakaev-Anastasian, Frunze 1 989. e) 12 e4 (D) gives B lack a pleas­ ant choice:

e 1 ) 12 . . . llb8 1 3 �c4 tl)eS (the alternative 1 3 . . . tl)b6 also deserves attention : 14 �a3 tl)a8 I S lle1 �c7 1 6 .tfl bS ! 17 axbS axbS 1 8 tl)axbS tl)xbS 19 .txbS .td7 with compen­ sation) 14 tl)xeS l:txeS IS f4 l:te8 1 6 aS ( 1 6 eS ? ! favours Black: 1 6 . . . dxeS 17 fxeS tl)d7 1 8 e6 fxe6 19 dxe6 .td4+ ! 20 'iii' h 1 �eS +) 1 6 . . . bS 17 axb6 'fixb6 and Black's position is probably preferable already ; Som­ merfeld-Martin, Corr 1983. e2) Black has no reason to com­ plain at the result of the opening after 1 2 . . . 'ii'c7 ! ? either, e.g. 1 3 tl)c4 ! ( 1 3 'ii'e 2? ! i s weaker: 1 3 . . . tl)b6 ! 14 'it'd3 �g4 1S h3 tl)es 16 1Vc2 c4 17 tl)d l aS ! with a better game; Hort-Tim­ man, Montreal 1 979) 1 3 . . . tl)eS (not 13 . . . llb8 ? ! 14 .tf4 .tf8 1 S aS bS 1 6 axb6 tl)xb6 17 tl)a5 ;!;; Letic-Dun­ haupt, Corr 1 983) 14 tl)xeS l:txeS with an unclear game. f) 1 2 lla2 .l:tb8 ( 1 2 . . . hS 1 3 tl)c4 tl)eS 14 tl)xeS llxeS 1S .tf4 J:.e8 1 6 a5 bS 1 7 axb6 'ii'xb6 1 8 'it'a4 .td7 1 9 'ifaS l:teb8 = i s also sufficient; Hert­ neck-Kindermann, Munich Z 1 987) 13 aS (or 1 3 tl)c4 tl)eS 14 b3 bS 1S axbS axbS 16 tl)as b4 17 tl)b1 .td7 was a little better for Black; Tru­ fanov-Moiseev, Kemerovo 1 99 1 ) 1 3 . . . bS (Black held the balance in Roos-Dokhoian, Bonn 1993, after 1 3 . . . 1Ve7 14 'it'c2 tl)hS I S tl)c4 �eS 16 tl)xeS .txeS 17 tl)a4 .tg7 18 .:tel .td7 19 tl)b6 .tbS =) 14 axb6 �xb6 1S b3 with two interesting ideas for Black: fl ) 1S . . . tl)hS ! ? 16 .tb2 fS (better · than 16 . . . tl)a8 ? ! 17 tl)c4 tl)c7 1 8

Fianchetto: Main Line 63 lDa5 .i.d7 1 9 1i'd2 lDf6 20 l:td 1 1i'e7 2 1 e4 lDbS 22 lDxbS axbS 23 l:r.el ;!; Suba-Foisor, Romania 1 983) 17 e3 lDf6 1 8 .i.al 1i'e7 1 9 l:.e l lDg4 = Dautov-011, Kiev 1 984. f2) lS . . . hS !? 1 6 lDf3 .i.b7 17 .i.gS 1i'd7 with counter-chances; Shapiro­ Fedorowicz, Somerset 1986.

A) 12 lbc4 lbb6 After instead 12 . . . lDeS (D):

lDf6 1 8 h3 c4 19 .i.e3 ;!;;) 1 6 b4 cxb4 17 l:txb4 1i'a5 1 8 lDa2 bS with ap­ proximately equal chances; Marin­ Sax, Odorheiu Secuiesc 1 993 . b) 1 3 lDxeS l:txeS 14 .i.f4 (Kha­ lifman-Shabalov, USSR 1 986, con­ tinued in interesting fashion: 14 'ir'c2 l:.hS !? 1 S h4 l:.eS { the Moor has done its job and can retire } 1 6 l:tbl l:.e8 17 b4 cxb4 1 8 l:r.xb4 .i.g4 1 9 e3 l:tc8 20 .i.b2 l:tc7 with an unclear game) 14 . . . l:e8 lS 1i'c2 lDhS 1 6 .i.d2 l:.b8 ( 1 6 . . . fS 17 e 3 .i.d7 1 8 a5 bS 1 9 axb6 'ii'xb6 20 l:ta2 lDf6 2 1 l:tfal ;!; Ribli-Hertneck, Dortmund 1 986, or 16 . . . .i.fS 17 e4 .i.d7 1 8 l:.ab 1 l:tc8 1 9 b4 cxb4 20 l:.xb4 ;!;; Goldin-Bagaturov, USSR 1 986) 1 7 l:tabl ( 1 7 aS ! ?) 1 7 . . .b S 1 8 axbS axbS 1 9 b4 c4 20 l:ta1 1i'e7 2 1 l:.fe l fS 22 l:ta5 .i.d7 23 .i.f3 lDf6 = Kharitonov­ Psakhis, Irkutsk 1983. 13 lDa3

a) It's difficult for White to rely on having an advantage after 13 lDa3 lDhS 14 l:tbl ! ? (matters are even sim­ pler for Black after 14 h3 fS lS h l 'ikc7 =) 14 . . . tLlc8 I S tLlc4 bS 1 6 axb6 tLlxb6 17 tLla5 .i.e4 18 tLlxe4 tLlxe4 19 'ikd3 tLlf6 20 l:a2 'ikc7 2 1 b3 with a clear advantage to White; Ilic-Kudrin, Bor 1 984.

14 aS ! ?

White quite often tries to avoid altering the queenside pawn struc­ ture: a) 1 4 l:el 'ikc7 ( 1 4 . . . tLlxa4 ! ?) I S h3 tLlxa4 1 6 tLlxa4 b S 17 tLlxcS 'fixeS 18 'ikd3 b4 = Carlhammar­ lsaacs, StMartin 199 1 . b ) 1 4 h 3 tLlxa4 ! ? (we have al­ ready seen similar combinations, typical of this variation, more than once. B lack brought it about in an­ other fashion in the following game: 14 . . . 'ikc7 IS .i.f4 tLlhS ! ? 1 6 .i.d2 tLlxa4 ! 17 tLlxa4 bS 1 8 g4 tLlf6 1 9 tLlc3 b4 20 'ikc2 bxa3 2 1 l:xa3 .i.bS = Chianets-Pukshansky, USSR 1 978) IS tLlxa4 bS 16 tLlc3 b4 1 7 .i.d2 bxc3 1 8 .i.xc3 tLle4 1 9 .i.xg7 'i>xg7 20 'ikc2 fS = Akopian-Zelcic, Belgrade GMA 1988.

c) 14 .i.d2 .l:r.b8 (or 14 ... tLlxa4 ! ? IS tLlxa4 b S 1 6 tLlc3 b 4 17 lbc4 bxc3 18 .i.xc3 .i.bS 19 b3 tLlg4 20 .i.xg7 h2 f5 17 lle1 lLlhf6 1 8 lL!c4 lL!b6 = is not bad either) 1 6 fxe5 i.xe5 ! (in­ stead of the text move Kapengut sug­ gests 16 . . . lLlxfl 17 •xn b5 ! ? 1 8 axb5 axb5 1 9 lL!axb5 i.xe5 2 0 lla7 :b7 2 1 llxb7 i.xb7 22 i.f4 i.a6 +) 17 lL!c4 i.xc3 1 8 bxc3 b5 1 9 axb5 axb5 20 lL!e3 lLlxfl 2 1 lLlxfl ..,h4 + Donner-Ree, Amsterdam 1 979. c) 1 5 e3 f5 1 6 l:lb1 i.d7 17 b4 cxb4 1 8 l:lxb4 'ifa5 1 9 lLla2 b5 ! 20 i.d2 'ifc7 2 1 axb5 axb5 = Osnos­ Stein, Tbilisi 1 966. d) 15 i.d2 f5 16 e3 ( 1 6 l:r.b1 f4 ! ? 1 7 i.xf4 lLlxf4 1 8 gxf4 ..,h4 ! ? Kap­ engut) 1 6 . . . i.d7 = . e) 15 �h2 f5 (the overly active 1 5 . . . g5 ? ! draws Black into difficul­ ties: 1 6 lLlc2 g4 1 7 lLle3 f5 1 8 hxg4 fxg4 19 lL!e4 b5 20 l:h 1 ! h6 21 axb5 l:Xb5 22 'ifc2 l:lf8 23 'iti>g1 with ad­ vantage; Szabo-Christiansen, Hast­ ings 1 98 1 ) 16 f4 (Black would seize the initiative after the cautious 1 6 i.d2 i.d7 17 l:b1 b 5 1 8 axb5 axb5 1 9 b4 'ife7 20 l:e1 f4 ! ) 16 . . . lLlf7 ( 1 6 . . . b5 1 7 axb5 axb5 1 8 lL!axb5 lLlf7 1 9 lLla7 l:lb6 20 lL!xc8 'ifxc8 is also interesting, Schmidt-Rohrbach, Bundesliga 1 987) 17 e3 i.d7 1 8 'ifd3 lLlf6 = . 15 i.d7!? B lack did not arrive at this cun­ ning move, introduced into prac­ tice by Nunn, straight away, but ...

only after experiencing failures in other continuations. Let us examine them: a) 15 . . . c4? ! 16 i.e3 'ifc7 17 a5 ! 'ifxa5 18 lLlxc4 'ifc7 1 9 lL!xe5 i.xe5 20 'ifd2 i.d7 2 1 lLle2 with advan­ tage; Marovic-Soos, Rome 1 982. b) 15 . . . f5 1 6 exf5 i.xf5 1 7 g4 i.xg4 ! ? (White easily repulses the attack after 17 . . . lL!xg4 ? ! 18 hxg4 1Vh4 19 gxf5 i.e5 20 l:le1 'ifh2+ 2 1 �fl i.d4 22 l:lxe8+ AxeS 2 3 'ifg4 :f8 24 'iVh3 +-) 18 hxg4 'ii'h4 1 9 gxh5 l:l f8 20 h6 ! ( a brilliant move, as the pawn on h6 will greatly assist White's plans; 20 i.g5? is signifi­ cantly weaker in view of 20 . . . 'ii'x g5 21 lL!e4 1Vh4 22 ..,b3 l:lf4 with a strong attack; Kharlamov-Dvoirys, Cheliabinsk 1 980) 20 ... i.h8 (D) and now:

w

b1) 2 1 lLle4?! lL!g4 22 •xg4 'ifxg4 23 lL!c4 (or 23 lLlc2 l:lf3 ! 24 lL!g5 l:lf5 25 f4 'ii'e2 26 l':tf2 'iVd 1 + 27 'iii>h 2 l:txg5 !) 23 . . . b5 ! (but not 23 .. Jlbe8? 24 lLlcxd6 l':te5 25 l':ta3 l:txd5 26 l:tg3) 24 axb5 axb5 25 lL!cxd6 l:tb6 ! (25 . . . i.e5 ! ? leads to lin unclear game: 26 i.e3 { 26 l:a7?

Fianchetto: Main Line 71 'ii' h4 27 .l:tg7+ ¢>h8 28 f4 �d4+ 29 l:f2 'ii'x h6 -+ Akopov-K.Grigorian, USSR 1 977 } 26 . . . 'ii'h4 27 f4 l:lxf4 28 �xf4 �xf4 29 l:xf4 'ifxf4) 26 i.e3 �e5 27 l:la7 l:[xd6 ! 28 lbxd6 i.xd6 29 l:[g7+ �h8 30 l:la1 'ii'h4 and Black has an obvious advantage, Kivlan-Petkevich, Riga 1974. b2) 2 1 lbc4 ! (a beautiful move) 2 l . . .lbg4 (the variation becomes practically forced, and it is difficult for either side to diverge; both 2 l . . .'ii' x c4? 22 lbe4 and 2 l . . .lbxc4 22 'ii'd 3 ! are bad) 22 'ii'xg4 ! 'ii'xg4 23 lbxd6 �e5 (Black's situation is im­ proved by neither 23 . . . b5 24 axb5 axb5 25 lbdxb5 �e5 26 l:a4 'ii'h5 27 f4 ± V.Kovacevic, nor 23 . . . �d4 24 lbce4 l:[f3 25 :a3 ! l:bf8 26 :xf3 .I:Ixf3 27 l:le 1 ±) 24 lbde4 (Black's problems are eased in the event of 24 lbce4 'ifh4 25 f4 �d4+ 26 lbf2 g5) 24 . . . :.f5 (24 . . . :.f3 ? ! 25 lbg5 ! l:bf8 26 lbxf3 l:[xf3 27 :e 1 and White wins; V.Kovacevic-Nemeth, Kar­ lovac 1 979; and 24 . . . b5 is also bad in view of 25 axb5 axb5 26 d6 ! l:[f3 27 l:e 1 l:[bf8 28 lbd5 +-) 25 �e3 l:lbf8 26 f4 ! (it's still not too late to fall into a trap: 26 �xc5 ? l:[h5 27 f3 l:lh 1 + ! 28 'iii> xh 1 'ii' h4+ mating) 26 . . . �d4 (26 . . . l:.xf4 is not enough: 27 �xf4 �d4+ 28 lbf2 'ii'xf4 29 lbce4 l:.f5 30 l:a3 and all the white pieces meanwhile go to their mon­ arch's aid) 27 :ae 1 l:[xf4 28 ltxf4 'ii' xf4 29 �xd4 cxd4 30 lbd 1 'ifxh6 3 1 d6 g5 32 lDdf2 with an obvious advantage to White (analysis by Kapengut). c) 15 . . . l:f8 (D) and now:

w

c 1 ) 1 6 l:e 1 ? ! leads to unpleasant consequences for White: 1 6 . . . f5 (perhaps 1 6 . . . �d7 17 �fl f5 1 8 exf5 �xf5 with initiative, is no less pow­ erful, but 19 f4? ! lbxg3 20 fxe5 lbxfl 2 1 l:xfl 'ii'h4 -+ led White to catastrophe in Scholseth-Andonov, Saint John 1 988) 17 exf5 �xf5 1 8 l:.xe5 ? ! .ixe5 1 9 g4 b5 ! 20 axb5 axb5 2 1 lbaxb5 (or 2 1 lbe2? ! �xg4 ! 22 hxg4 'ifh4 23 .ie3 �h2+ 24 h2

�s li:!c4 'ii'x a1 ..i. d4+ :e7

Stronger than 22 . . . ..i.xc3 23 bxc3 'ii'x c3 24 :f3 'ii'd4 25 :d3 'ii'a4 26 'ii'd 2 ! 'ii' b4 27 'ii'e 3 c4 28 ..i.a3 'ii'a4 29 :c3 ± Heinbuch-Klinger, Bunde 1 985 . 23 'ii'f3 24 eS 18 gS

Wild complications with unclear consequences arise after the further moves 1 8 f4 lilexg4 ! ? 19 hxg4 li:!xg4 ( 1 9 . . . ..i.xg4 !?) 20 ..i.f3 h5 21 f5 ! 'ii'd 8 22 ..i.xg4 'ii' h4 ! 23 lilc2 'ii'g 3+ 24 'iii> h 1 ..i.e5 25 We2 hxg4 26 'ii'g 2

bS b4

and the mutual balancing act on a tightrope continues ; Hulak-Nunn, Toluca IZ 1 982. In resume, one may note that both 1 3 . . . li:!b6 and 1 3 . . . lile5 have equal rights to existence.

6 6 e4: Introduction (A65) 1 d4 lDf6 2 c4 c5 3 dS e6 4 lbc3 exdS 5 cxdS d6 6 e4 g6 (D)

I can honestly say that I can't imagine how you can play the Modern Benoni without the bishop on g7, but nevertheless you do see 6 . . . �e7 and then: 7 lbf3 (7 �d3 0-0 8 lbge2 lba6 9 0-0 lbb4 10 �b1 .:te8 1 1 lbg3 �f8 1 2 �g5 h6 13 �f4 ;;!; Khalafov-Osnos, Moscow 1 979) 7 . . . 0-0 8 �e2 lba6 9 lbd2 lbe8 1 0 lbc4 l:r. b 8 1 1 a4 ;;!; Manni-Gustafs­ son, Helsinki 1992.

w

Now after 7 lbf3 we arrive in the so-called Classical System (A70A 79), after 7 f4 the Four Pawns At­ tack arises (A66-A69), but in this chapter (A65) White usually em­ ploys one of three moves: A) 7 �f4 B ) 7 �d3 C) 7 f3

Before discussing these continu­ ations in detail , a few words about two continuations which aren't very popular: a) Quite rarely White plays 7 g3 and then 7 ...�g7 8 �g2 0-0 9 lbge2 a6 (or 9 . . . l:.e8 10 0-0 { 10 a4 ! ? ;;!; } 1 0 . . . b5 1 1 lbxb5 lbxe4 1 2 �xe4 l:lxe4 1 3 lbec3 l:.e8 14 �f4 �f8 1 5 'i!i'd2 a6 16 ltla3 lbd7 oo Murey-Quin­ teros, New York 1983) 10 a4 lbbd7 1 1 0-0 .:.e8 12 h3 ( 1 2 l:.b1 c4 ! ? 1 3 b3 ltlc5 14 bxc4 lDfxe4 15 lbxe4 lbxe4 16 �a3 'flic7 is also possible, with at least an equal game; Genov-Dzhan­ dzhgava, Antwerp 1992) 12 .. Jib8 1 3 a5 ( 1 3 g4 leads to an unclear game: 1 3 . . . b5 14 axb5 axb5 1 5 lbg3 lbe5 16 g5 lDfd7 17 f4 lbc4 Antoshin­ Korchnoi, Riga 1 970) 13 . . . b5 (after 1 3 . . . .!tle5?! 14 f4 ltled7 15 g4 the in­ itiative is safely in White's hands; Keres-Hromadka, Prague 1 937) 14 axb6 'jj'xb6 = ECO. b) Black has no problems after 7 �b5+, e.g. 7 . . . .!tlbd7 8 �f4 (for 8 lbf3 ! ? �g7 see A70) 8 ... lbh5 9 �e3 �g7 10 g4 ltlhf6 1 1 g5 .!tlh5 12 �e2 0-0 13 �xh5 gxh5 14 'ii'xh5 'jj'a5 with an excellent game for the pawn.

A) 7 �f4 a6 I cannot recommend 7 . . . lbh5 8 �e3 �g7 9 �e2 lDf6 10 lbf3 0-0 1 1

6 e4: Introduction 75 .!Od2 a6 1 2 a4 .!Obd7 1 3 0-0 l:.e8 14 'ii'c 2 ;!; Forintos-Szalanczy, Hungary 1 98 1 . After 7 .. ,j_g7 we very frequently transpose to other systems, for ex­ ample: a) 8 'ii'a4+ j,d7 (the overly ex­ travagant 8 . . .'ifile 7 ? ! leads Black into great difficulties: 9 lbf3 l:.e8 10 j,b5 .!Obd7 1 1 0-0 a6 12 l:.fe l lbb6 1 3 'ii'b 3 ! { stronger than 1 3 e5 ! ? dxe5 14 'ii'a3 �f8 1 5 j,xe8 exf4 16 'ii'x c5+ �g8 17 j,a4 lbxa4 1 8 lbxa4 lbxd5 with only a small advantage for White; Korchnoi-Ljubojevic, Bath 1 973 } 1 3 . . . axb5 14 lbxb5 ± Tal) 9 'ii'b3 'ilc7 1 0 lbf3 leads to A61 . b) 8 j,b5+ j,d7 9 i.e2 'ii'e7 (a better square for the queen than c7, for example 9 . . . 'ii'c7 10 lbf3 0-0 1 1 0-0 a6 1 2 e5 ! dxe5 1 3 lbxe5 'ii'd8 14 i.f3 i.b5 1 5 l:.el ;!; Geller-Suetin, Leningrad 1960) 10 lbf3 (or 10 'ii' b3 b5 ! = ) 10 . . . 0-0 1 1 0-0 j,g4 1 2 lbd2 i.xe2 1 3 'ifxe2 .!Oh5 14 i.e3 lbd7 leads to A72. c) 8 lbf3 relates to A70. 8 lbf3 bS Other moves do not guarantee Black an easy life: a) White preserves a small ad­ vantage after 8 ... i.g4 9 'ii'a4+ (Black has no problems after 9 j,e2 b5 ! ? { stronger than 9. . . .!Obd7 10 0-0 lbh5 1 1 i.g5 i.e7 1 2 j,h6 j,f8 1 3 j,g5 i.. e7 14 i.. e3 0-0 15 lbd2 i.. xe2 1 6 'ii' x e2 b 5 1 7 a4 b4 1 8 lbd 1 ;!; Tarjan­ Kudrin, USA Ch 1 983 } 1 0 e5 i.. xf3 1 1 j,xf3 dxe5 12 j,xe5 j,d6 1 3 i.. xf6 'ii'xf6 = Bell6n-Hulak, Indone­ sia 1 982) 9 . . . lbbd7 10 lbd2 b5 1 1

'ii'c 2 and Black does not achieve equality after either l l . . .lbb6 1 2 h3 j,d7 1 3 a4 bxa4 14 lbc4 'ii' b 8 1 5 lbxb6 'ii'x b6 1 6 lbxa4 'ii'b 8 1 7 j,c4 i.. g7 18 0-0 ;!; Mohr-Lobron, Bun­ desliga 1 987, or 1 l . . .lbh5 1 2 j,e3 lbb6 13 a4 ! ? b4 14 lbcbl j,g7 15 a5 lbc8 16 lbc4 ;!;, b) The risky 8 . . . 'ii'e7 can bring huge complications, for example 9 i.. e 2 lbbd7 10 0-0 b5 (or 1 0 . . . i.. g 7 1 1 lbd2 0-0 12 lbc4 lbxe4 13 lbxe4 'ii'xe4 14 j,xd6 :Z.e8 1 5 l:.el b5 1 6 i.. f3 'ii' xel + 1 7 'ii'xe l llxe 1 + 1 8 l:.xe l i.. d4 { but not 1 8 . . . bxc4 1 9 l:.e8+ i.. f8 20 i.. xf8 lbxf8 2 1 d6 l:.b8 22 d7 } 19 l:le8+ �g7 20 lba5 with an initiative; Braga-Manor, London 1 987) 1 1 i.xb5 ! ? axb5 12 lbxb5 'ii'd 8 1 3 j,xd6 ! ? ( 1 3 e5 lbh5 ! 14 exd6 f6 15 j,d2 �f7 Komarov­ Agapov, USSR 1 987, is unclear) 13 . . . i.. x d6 14 .!Oxd6+ �f8 15 lbxc8 l:lxc8 16 e5 and White has strong pressure. c) It is not easy for Black to equalize after 8 ... j,g7 9 'ii'a4+ ! ? (D):

B

c l ) 9 . . .'ltf8 1 0 i.. e2 'ii'e7 1 1 0-0 .!Obd7 12 lbd2 ! ? ( 1 2 l:.fe l doesn't

76 6 e4: Introduction look as convincing due to l 2 . . . lDg4 ! 1 3 'ii' b 3 h5 14 a4 ..tf6 1 5 a5 g5 ! 1 6 .i d 2 lDde5 = Zlatiliov-Fedorov, Pazardzhik 1 988) 1 2 . . . lDe5 1 3 ..tg3 g5 14 f4 with initiative - Kapengut. c2) 9 . . . lDfd7 leads to approxi­ mately the same result: 10 'ii'c2 "ile7 1 1 a4 0-0 1 2 ..te2 .l:e8 1 3 0-0 lDf8 14 llfe 1 lDbd7 1 5 a5 ;!; Dydyshko-Kap­ engut, Minsk 1978. c3) 9 ... lDbd7? is a serious error: 1 0 ..txd6 'ii'b 6 1 1 lDb5 ! axb5 1 2 'ifxa8 'ifxd6 1 3 'ii'x c8+ �e7 1 4 "ilxb7 lDxe4 15 ..txb5 +-. c4) 9 .. ..td7 10 'ii' b3 (D) (Black's problems are simpler after 10 "ilc2 'ii'e7 ! ? { 10 . . . ..tg4 1 1 lDd2 lDh5 1 2 ..te3 0-0 1 3 h 3 ..tc8 14 g4 ! lDf6 15 a4 ;!; Korchnoi-Cebalo, Titograd 1 984 } 1 1 a4 0-0 12 i.e2 .ig4 =). .

B

Now: c4 1 ) I O . . ..tc8?! 1 1 a4 0-0 1 2 .ie2 lDh5 1 3 ..tg5 f6 14 ..te3 f5 1 5 exf5 gxf5 16 lDg5 ! ± Tarjan-Agzam­ ov, Vrsac 1983. c42) 1 0 ... ..tg4? 1 1 "ilxb7 ! ..txf3 1 2 'iVxa8 (but not 1 2 gxf3 ? ! lDh5 1 3 .ig3 lDxg3 14 hxg3 lDd7 1 5 ..th3 lLle5 16 f4 lDf3+ 17 �fl 0-0 with .

compensation; Forintos-Szalanczy, Hungary 1 983) 1 2 . . . lDxe4 1 3 llc 1 ! and now: c42 1 ) 1 3 . . . ..td4 14 llc2 ! lDxc3 (14 . . . lDxf2 15 .l:lxf2 ..txf2+ 16 �xf2 ..tg4 17 .ib5+ ! axb5 18 l:te1 + �f8 19 ..th6+ 'iti>g8 20 .l:le7 ! +- Zsu.Pol­ gar-Hardicsay, Hungary tt 1 984) 1 5 gxf3 ! lDxa2 1 6 ..tc4 lDb4 1 7 lle2+ 'iti>f8 18 ..th6+ ..tg7 19 ..tg5 ±. c422) 13 . . . lDxc3 14 bxc3 ..te4 15 f3 ..tf5 1 6 g4 g5 1 7 ..txg5 'ii' x g5 18 'ii'x b8+ rJ/;e7 1 9 'ii'c 7+ ..td7 20 .l:lc2 and White can already take heart as he has a big advantage - Zsu.Polgar. c43) 1 0 . . . b5 1 1 ..txd6 b4 and now: c43 1) 1 2 lDa4? ! is rather dubious for White: 12 . . . lDxe4 1 3 'ife3 ( 1 3 i.xc5 ? ! lDxc5 14 lDxc5 'ife7+ 1 5 'ir'e3 ..txb2) 1 3 . . . ..txa4 1 4 "ilxe4+ rJ/;d7 and now neither 15 lDe5+? ! 'iti>c8 1 6 lDxf7 ( 1 6 ..txc5 ..txe5 1 7 llc 1 ..txb2 1 8 ..tb6+ ..txc 1 1 9 'ifc4+ 'iti>d7 20 ..txd8 .l:le8+ 2 1 ..te2 'it>xd8 22 0-0 ..td2 +) 16 . . . lle8 ! , nor 1 5 ..te5 .l:le8 1 6 b3 (Krasenkov-Shab­ alov, Tashkent 1 987) 1 6 . . . 'ife7 ! 1 7 0-0-0 i.xe5 1 8 lDxe5+ 'ifxe5 1 9 'ifxeS :xeS 20 bxa4 'iifd6 (Shabalov) can solve White's problems. c432) Huge complications which are not unfavourable for White fol­ low 1 2 e5 bxc3 13 exf6 cxb2 (prob­ ably more exact than 1 3 . . . ..txf6 1 4 bxc3 i.f5 1 5 ..txc5 !? lDd7 1 6 ..tb4 a5 17 ..td6 a4 18 'ifb4 'ifa5 19 l:c l 'iti>d8 20 ..tb5 .l:le8+ 2 1 rJ/;d2 'ii' b 6 22 lDd4 ± Flear-Lamoureux, Belfort 1988) 14 'ii'x b2 (but not 14 'i!le3 + i.e6 15 llb1 i.xf6 16 .ie5 'ii'xd5 ! 1 7

6 e4: Introduction 77 i.xf6 'fi'fS 1 8 i.d3 'ikxf6 1 9 i.e4 .l:.a7 20 'ii'x c5 .l:.e7 ±) 14 . . . i.xf6 15 i.e5 'fi'e7 (White also preserves his advantage after 15 . . ..ixe5 16 'ii'xe5+ 'ii'e7 17 0-0-0 'ii'xe5 1 8 lbxe5 0-0 19 i.c4 .ib5 20 .l:.he1 ;!; Flear-Stefans­ son, Hastings 1 987) 1 6 d6 (promis­ ing more than 1 6 0-0-0 .ixe5 17 'ii'xe5 'ii'xe5 18 lbxe5 i.a4 19 .l:.d2 lbd7 = Sosonko-Lobron, Bad Kis­ singen 1 98 1 ) 16 . . . .ixe5 17 lbxe5 1i'f6 1 8 0-0-0 0-0 19 g3 with a small advantage. c433) 12 lbd 1 !? lbxe4 13 'fi'e3 .if5 1 4 .ixc5 1fa5 ! ? (or 14 . . . 'ii'xd5 1 5 .l:.c l lbd7 16 ..txb4 'ifb7 17 .ia3 .if8 18 .ixf8 'it>xf8 19 'fi'd4 Moi­ seev-Efimov, Ulan Ude 1 988) 1 5 .id4 b3+ 16 lbc3 0-0 17 .ixg7 �xg7 1 8 'ifd4+ with a clear advantage to White. c44) 10 . . . 'ii'c7 1 1 e5 ! (in Korch­ noi-Suba, Beersheba 1 988, an un­ successful combination led White to defeat: 1 1 .ixd6?! 'iVxd6 12 'iVxb7 0-0 13 e5 .ic8 ! ! 14 'ii'x a8 'fi'b6 1 5 ..txa6 .ixa6 1 6 0-0-0 lbg4 and now Black is clearly better) 1 l . . .lbh5 ( l l . . .dxe5 ? ! 12 i.xe5 'ii'c 8 13 lbe4 lbxe4 14 .ixg7 .l:.g8 1 5 .ih6 ± Fe­ dorowicz-Seret, Cannes 1 987) 1 2 exd6 VaS (or 1 2 . . . 1t'c8 1 3 i.e3 0-0 14 a4 .ig4 15 .ie2 lbd7 16 0-0 lbe5 17 'ii'd l lbxf3+ 18 .ixf3 .ixf3 1 9 1fxf3 .l:.d8 2 0 lbe4 ± Fedorowicz­ Hjartarson, Reykjavik 1986) 1 3 .id2 'ii' b4 14 .ie2 ! ? 0-0 15 0-0 .l:.e8 1 6 .l:.fel a5 17 'ii'c2 with an obvious ad­ vantage for White; Ginsburg-Roos, Toronto 1 984. c45) 10 . . . 1t'e7 (D) and now:

w

c45 1 ) Matters are relatively sim­ ple for Black after 1 1 Wxb7 lbxe4 1 2 lbxe4 ( 1 2 0-0-0 i s dangerous for White: 1 2 . . . .ixc3 ! 1 3 bxc3 'iVf6 1 4 .i.d2 0-0 15 'ii'xa8 lbxc3 16 :tel .if5 with an attack - Suba) 1 2 . . . Vxe4+ 1 3 i.e3 'fi'b4+ 14 1i'xb4 cxb4 1 5 lbd4 0-0 1 6 i.c4 aS 1 7 0-0 lba6 1 8 b 3 lbcS = Eingorn-Psakhis, USSR Ch (Riga) 1 985 . c452) Black also has no prob­ lems after 1 1 e5 dxe5 1 2 .ixe5 0-0 1 3 i.e2 i.g4 14 d6 'ii'e6 15 'fi'xe6 ..txe6 1 6 lbg5 .id7 17 0-0 lbc6 with an equal position; Timman-Roman­ ishin, Brussels 1986. c45 3) 1 1 .ie2 (this quiet move presents Black with the biggest problems) l l . . . b5 12 0-0. Now there is a further branching-out: c45 3 1 ) Who would envy Black after 12 . . . b4? ! 1 3 e5 ! dxe5 14 .ixe5 bxc3 15 'ili'b7? c4532) 12 . . . 0-0 1 3 e5 ! dxe5 1 4 lbxe5 .if5 (14 . . . c4 15 'fi'd l b 4 1 6 d6 ! Ve6 17 ..txc4 1i'f5 1 8 lbe2 lbh5 1 9 g4 1t'e4 20 .idS +- Tarjan-D .Gure­ vich, USA Ch 1 984) 15 .if3 c4 1 6 Vd l ;!; Khalifman-Psakhis, Sverd­ lovsk 1 987.

78 6 e4: Introduction c4533) 1 2 . . . i.g4 ! ? (the least of the various evils) 1 3 e5 dxe5 14 lDxe5 (stronger than 14 i.xe5 ? ! 0-0 15 l:tfe 1 lDbd7 16 i.g3 c4 17 'i!fd 1 'ifc5 and Black seized the initiative in the game Pekarek-Romanishin, Tbilisi 1 986) 14 . . . c4 15 'iVc2 i.xe2 16 d6 'ifb7 17 'i!fxe2 0-0 18 h3 lDbd7 1 9 lDxd7 lDxd7 20 l:tfe1 with a small advantage. Now we return to the position af­ ter 8 ... b5 (D) in the main line:

9 'ife2!? (D) White has a large enough choice of continuations, but none of them except the text move aspire to an ad­ vantage, for example: a) 9 i.d3 i.g4 1 0 h3 i.xf3 1 1 'ifxf3 i.g7 1 2 0-0 0-0 1 3 l:tfe1 (or 1 3 e5 dxe5 14 i.xe5 lDbd7 = ) 1 3 ... lDe8 14 a4 b4 15 ltld 1 ltld7 16 'ife2 a5 17 i.c4 l:ta7 = Legky-Levin, Nikolaev 1 987. b) 9 'ii'c 2 i.g7 10 a4 ! ? b4 1 1 ltlrl 1 0-0 1 2 i.e2 'i!fe7 1 3 ltld2 l:te8 with equality; Kalantarian-Moldobaev, USSR 1 988 c) 9 lDd2 i.g7 1 0 i.e2 0-0 1 1 0-0 ltle8 1 2 i.g3 f5 1 3 exf5 i.xf5 14

i.g4 lDd7 = Safin-Gelfand, Krama­ torsk 1 989, is just as inoffensive. c) 9 e5, which is not dangerous for Black either, enjoys a great deal of popularity. A possible continu­ ation: 9 ... dxe5 10 ltlxe5 (or 10 i.xe5 i.g7 1 1 g3 0-0 1 2 i.g2 i.b7 1 3 0-0 ltlxd5 14 ltle4 ltle3 ! ? 15 'ifxd8 ltxd8 Zaichik-Lukin, Sochi 1 980, and White should have played 16 ltlxc5 ! with equality) 10 . . . i.d6 ( 1 0 . . . i.g7 ! ? i s not bad either, for example 1 1 i.e2 0-0 1 2 i.f3 g5 !? 1 3 i.g3 g4 14 ltlxg4 ltlxg4 15 i.xg4 i.xg4 16 'iVxg4 f5 1 7 'iff4 b4 1 8 ltle2 'it'xd5 19 0-0 ltlc6 and Black wields the in­ itiative) 1 1 i.e2 0-0 12 0-0 l:.e8 ( 1 2 . . . b4 is less successful: 13 ltlc6 ! 'Wc7 14 i.xd6 'i!fxd6 15 ltla4 lDbd7 16 i.f3 i.b7 17 'iVb3 ;!; Schiissler­ T.Petrosian, Tallinn 1 983) 13 lDc6 ltlxc6 14 i.xd6 'Wxd6 ( 1 4 . . . lDd4 ! ? 15 i.xc5 ltlxe2+ 1 6 ltlxe2 'iVxd5 is also sufficient for equality) 15 dxc6 'Wxd 1 16 i.xd 1 i.e6 17 i.f3 l:tac8 with an equal position; Yusupov­ Sax, Linares 1 983.

B

After 9 'ii'e2 Black has two principal choices:

·

6 e4: Introduction 79 A 1 ) 9 ... J..e7 A2) 9 ... ltlli5 Firstly, here are the other options: a) 9 ... J.. g7? 10 J.. xd6 'ii'xd6 1 1 e5 'ii'e7 12 d6 'We6 l 3 .!bg5 'Wg4 14 f3 ! 'ii'x g5 1 5 exf6+ f8 1 6 'We7+ h7 15 a3 lLlb5 ( 1 5 . . . b5 16 b4 ;!;) 1 6 lLlxb5 axb5 17 ltae1 ;!; Kasparov­ Morgulev, USSR 1 979. 12

•••

�a6

Black's position is already prefer­ able after 1 4 lLlb5 ? ! �xb5 1 5 axb5 lLld7 16 f4 a6 ! 17 bxa6 b5 1 8 e5 c4 19 �e4 lLlxa6 Knaak-Pokoj owczyk, E.Germany-Poland 1 980. 14 15 16 17 18

11 lL!g3 Thrusting the bishop forward is no longer dangerous: 1 1 �g5 h6 1 2 �h4 c4 ! 1 3 �c2 lLlc5 1 4 f3 �d7 1 5 �f2 lLlh5 1 6 �d4 �e5 1 7 b4 cxb3 1 8 axb3 a5 = Hai'k-Kasparov, Evry sim 1 989.

b6

White has a small advantage after 1 2 ... i.d7 1 3 i.g5 h6 14 �f4 'ii'e7 1 5 'ii'd2 'ii'f8 1 6 ltae1 lLlh7 1 7 �e3 ;!; Sadler-Prasad, London 1987. 13 lte1 14 f4!?

w

liJc7

It is not easy for White to gain an advantage after 1 1 . . .ltb8, for exam­ ple 1 2 a4 ( 1 2 f4 c4 ! ? 1 3 �xc4 b5 ! ­ Kapengut) 1 2 . . . lLlb4 1 3 �b1 ( 1 3 �c4 lLld7 ! ? 1 4 f4 'ii' h4 =) 1 3 . . .a6 1 4 f4 b5 1 5 axb5 axb5 1 6 'ii'f3 �b7 = Aaron-Stein, Stockholm IZ 1 962.

'ii'xd3 ltd1 e5 f5

�xd3 a6 lL!d7 dxe5

with sufficient play for the pawn; Markauss-Zaermann, Corr 1987 . B2)

9 10 a4 .••

a6

lLlbd7 (D) a) If 10 . . . b6, White gains control of the initiative very simply: 1 1 h3

6 e4: Introduction 87 �bd7 1 2 �g3 'ilc7 1 3 i.e3 c4 1 4 i. c 2 ltb8 1 5 f4 �c5 1 6 e5 ! �e8 1 7 'ifd2 with strong pressure. b) The position is also better for White after 1 0 . . . �g4 1 1 b3 ( 1 1 i.f4 ! ? �e5 1 2 i.c2 �bd7 1 3 b3 c4 14 b4 a5 15 l:.b1 l:.e8 1 6 'ifd2 axb4 17 .l:.xb4 l:a6 1 8 f3 ;t Miles-Lobron, Lucerne tt 1 985) 1 l . . .�e5 12 i.c2 �bd7 1 3 l:b1 (Black has good coun­ terplay after 1 3 b 3 ? ! c4 ! 14 b4 a5 ! 1 5 l:b1 axb4 1 6 l:xb4 �c5 17 i.e3 �ed3 Chekhov-Tseshkovsky, Vil­ nius 1 980) 1 3 . . . �c4 14 b3 �a5 1 5 i. e 3 l:b8 1 6 f4 'ilc7 1 7 e5 ! b 5 1 8 axb5 axb5 1 9 �e4 dxe5 2 0 f5 f6 2 1 �2g3 ± Ghitescu-Giurezu, Skopje 1 988. c) 1 0 . . .'.c7 usually leads to the main variation after a transposition of moves, but sometimes the game can follow an original route, for ex­ ample 1 1 b3 ( 1 1 h3 �bd7 leads to 1 0 . . . �bd7) 1 l . . .�bd7 1 2 �h 1 :e8 13 f3 l:lb8 14 a5 b5 15 axb6 �xb6 ! ? ( 1 5 . . Jhb6 1 6 i.d2 �e5 1 7 i.c2 ;t Miles-Griinfeld, Riga IZ 1979) 1 6 i.c2 �fd7 =. d) 10 . . . .l:.e8 gives White a choice between the safe 1 1 f3 ! ? ;t and 1 1 �g3 �g4 ! ? 1 2 h3 �e5 13 i.e2 'ii'h4 14 'ii'e 1 c4 15 f4 �d3 1 6 i.xd3 cxd3 17 'ii'e 3 i.xh3 ! Sideif Zade-Dumi­ trache, B aku 1 988, when the game should be a draw after 18 gxh3 i.d4 ! 1 9 'ii'xd4 'ifxg3+ 20 �h 1 "ii'x h3+. 11 h3

Others : a) Black has various ways to achieve a good game after 1 1 i.g5, for example:

a1) 1 1 . . . .l:le8 1 2 'ii'd2 'ii'c7 1 3 �h 1 .l:lb8 1 4 .l:lac 1 c4 1 5 i.c2 b5 1 6 axb5 axb5 17 f3 b4 1 8 �d 1 �c5 with a double-edged position; Razu­ vaev-Psakhis, Vilnius 1980. a2) 1 l . . .'ifc7 12 �h 1 ( 1 2 b3 �e5 1 3 i.c2 :b8 14 a5 b5 15 axb6 'ii'xb6 1 6 h3 a5 ! = Meulders-Griinfeld, Am­ sterdam 1 982) 12 .. Jlb8 ! ? 13 .l:lc 1 �e5 14 f4 �xd3 1 5 'ifxd3 b5 1 6 axb5 axb5 and Black i s close to capturing the initiative; Hartston­ Nunn, London 1 98 1 . b) 1 1 f4 cannot be recommended because of 1 1 . . .c4 ! ? 1 2 i.xc4 �g4 when Black holds the initiative. c) Black is also well in order after 1 1 �g3 'flc7 1 2 .l:le1 (or 1 2 'ike2 lte8 1 3 f4 �b6 ! ? { but not 13 . . . c4? ! 14 i.xc4 �c5 1 5 e5 ! dxe5 1 6 f5 e4 17 i.g5 'fle5 1 8 i.f4 ± Bilek-Stein, Amsterdam IZ 1 964 } 14 f5 c4 1 5 i. b 1 �bxd5 with a sharp game) 12 . . . c4 1 3 i.fl l:lb8 14 a5 .l:le8 1 5 i.e3 h 5 ! ? 16 f3 h4 1 7 �h 1 b 5 1 8 axb6 �xb6 1 9 �f2 �bd7 = Cam­ pos-Rivas, Leon 1989. d) White preserves good chances for a small advantage after the quiet 1 1 f3, for example:

88 6 e4: Introduction d 1 ) 1 1 . . Jle8 1 2 a5 lbh5 1 3 g4 ! lbhf6 1 4 lbg3 h6 1 5 .tf4 lbe5 1 6 .ie2 b 5 1 7 axb6 'ii'x b6 1 8 'ii'd2 ;!; Miles-Kestler, Baden-Baden 1 98 1 . d2) 1 l . ..l%b8 1 2 .ie3 l%e8 1 3 'ii'd2 lbe5 14 l:lfb1 lbxd3 1 5 'ii'x d3 lbd7 1 6 b4 with a slight plus for White; Renet-Hai'k, Clichy 1 986. d3) 1 1 . . .'ii'c7 12 a5 lbe5 (another idea is 1 2 . . . b5 ! ?) 1 3 .ib1 .id7 14 'ii'b 3 l%ab8 1 5 f4 c4 16 Wd1 lbeg4 17 'itrh 1 b5 18 axb6 'ii'x b6 1 9 'ii'e 1 ;!; Granda-Barlov, Zagreb IZ 1 987. 11

...

flc7 (D)

After 1 1 . ..l:r.e8 : a) 1 2 lbg3 : a 1 ) 1 2 . . . l:r.b8 1 3 a5 (or 1 3 f4 ! ?) 1 3 . . . h5 14 l%e1 !? (14 .ig5 b5 15 axb6 'ii'x b6 1 6 l%a2 lbe5 1 7 .te2 lbh7 1 8 .ie3 h4 = Pinter-Kasparov, French League 1 993) 14 . . . h4 15 tt:)fl lbh7 16 lbe3 ;!; Pinter. a2) 1 2 . . . h5 ! ? is interesting, e.g. 1 3 f4 h4 14 lbh1 c4 15 .ic2 lbc5 16 lbf2 lbh5 = Arkhipov-A. Kuzmin, Moscow 1989. b) 12 .ie3 leads to a complicated game: 1 2 . . . lbe5 1 3 .ic2 l:tb8 14 'ifb1 lbh5 1 5 f4 lbc4 1 6 .te l 'ii' h4 with an attack; Olafsson-Minasian, Mos­ cow 1989. c) White has recently success­ fully used 1 2 .ig5 ! ? llb8 (or 1 2 . . . h6 1 3 .i.e3 lbe5 14 .ic2 l:tb8 15 'ii'c 1 h5 1 6 .i.g5 c4 1 7 'ii'f4 b5 1 8 axb5 axb5 1 9 lbd4 with an obvious advantage; Korchnoi-Kamsky, Biel IZ 1 993) 1 3 �h 1 h 6 1 4 .ih4 lbe5 1 5 f4 ! ? lbxd3 16 'iix d3 .id7 17 e5 dxe5 18 fxe5 l%xe5 1 9 .ig3 ;!; Goldin-Pigusov, Novosibirsk 1 993.

12 f4 (D)

Wild complications arose in Zak­ harov-Psakhis, Volgograd 1 977, af­ ter 1 2 'itrh 1 l:le8 1 3 f4 c4 14 .ic2 lbc5 ( 1 4 . . . l:tb8 ! ?) 15 lbg3 l:tb8 1 6 e5 ! dxe5 1 7 fxe5 lbfd7 1 8 d6 'iic6 1 9 lbh5 ! b5 ! ! 2 0 axb5 axb5 2 1 lbxg7 .tb7 . Black must also play with preci­ sion after 1 2 lbg3 : a) 1 2 . . . l:te8, trying to hold back the opponent's onslaught in the cen­ tre, is not so effective. 1 3 f4 c4 1 4 .ic2 and now: a1) 1 4 . . . lbc5 1 5 'it'f3 ( 1 5 'ili>h 1 is less clear: 15 . . . h5 16 e5 ! dxe5 17 f5 lbd3 ! 1 8 fxg6 fxg6 19 .ixd3 cxd3 20 .i.g5 ! e4 21 d6 'it'xd6 22 .ixf6 'ii'x g3 23 'ii' b 3+ .ie6 24 'ii'xb7 Poluliak­ hov-Hever, Budapest 1992, and now 24 . . . .ih6 ! 25 lbxe4 'ii'b 8 26 Wc6 'ii'c8 27 'ii'd6 'ii'd7 would have given White a small advantage) 15 . . . lbfd7 16 .ie3 b5 1 7 axb5 l%b8 1 8 'ii'f2 axb5 1 9 e5 ! dxe5 ( 1 9 . . . b4 20 lbce4 lbxe4 2 1 lbxe4 dxe5 22 f5 lbf8 23 f6 ± Gheorghiu-Quinteros, Lone Pine 1 980) 20 f5 .ib7 21 l:tad 1 .ta8 22 ti)ce4 and White's initiative is not · easy to contain; at least Tal did not

6 e4: Introduction 89 manage to do so in Penrose-Tal, Leipzig OL 1 960. a2) 14 .. J:tb8 I S 'ii'f3 b5 16 axb5 axb5 17 i.e3 b4 1 8 :a7 'ii'd8 1 9 lL'la4 ! ? and White's position i s pref­ erable. b) 1 2 . . . :b8 ! ? (giving the impres­ sion of preparing for counterplay on the queenside is most important) 13 'ife2 (or 1 3 i.e3 c4 14 i.c2 lL'lc5 15 f4 lL'lfd7 16 i.d4 i.xd4+ 17 'ifxd4 b5 1 8 axb5 axb5 1 9 :ael f6 ! = Tour­ neur-Kovacevic, Paris Ch 1 992) 13 . . . l:e8 14 i.e3 ! ? h5 ! ? 15 f4 h4 1 6 lL'lh l lL'lh5 with mutual chances.

12 ... 13 i.e3

:bs

Black has a reasonable game after 1 3 lL'lg3 c4 14 i.c2 b5 1 5 axb5 axb5 1 6 i.e3 b4 (it is simple for White to act in the event of 1 6 . . . lL'lc5, for ex­ ample 17 e5 ! lL'le8 { or 17 . . . lL'lfd7? ! 1 8 e6 ! fxe6 1 9 dxe6 lL'lf6 2 0 f5 b4 2 1 lL'ld5 Ghitescu-Marasescu, Ro­ mania 1 983 } 1 8 �h l b4 1 9 lL'la4 1) 17 lL'lce2 (Black's house is also in or­ der after 17 :a7 'ikd8 1 8 lL'la4 l:b5 19 b3 c3 20 lL'le2 :a5 2 1 :xa5 'ifxa5 22 lL'ld4 :e8 "" Bertok-Portisch,

Stockholm IZ 1 962) 17 . . . lL'lc5 1 8 lL'ld4 i.b7 1 9 'ii'f3 Gess-Danner, Reggio Emilia 1 980, and by continu­ ing 1 9 . . . b3 ! ? 20 i.bl lL'lfd7 Black would have obtained equality. 13 14 lL'lg3 •••

:es c4

Not 14 . . . lL'lxe4 ? ! 1 5 i.xe4 f5 be­ cause of 16 i.xf5 :xe3 17 i.e6+ �h8 18 :f3 .l:.xf3 19 'ii'xf3 ± Knaak­ Rajkovic, Novi Sad 1 979. 15 i.c2

lL'lcS

Black should not hurry with 1 5 . . . b5 ? ! due to 1 6 axb5 axb5 1 7 :a7 'ii'd 8 1 8 'ii'd 2 lL'lc5? 1 9 i.xc5 . dxc5 20 e5 lL'ld7 2 1 d6 and White wins; Knaak-Berend, Thessaloniki OL 1 988. 16 i.d4 Or 16 'ii'f3 b5 ( 1 6 . . . lL'lfd7? ! 1 7 'it't2 b5 1 8 axb5 axb5 19 e5) 17 axb5 axb5 1 8 e5 dxe5 19 fxe5 :xe5 20 i.d4 .l:.g5 ! and a position arises which is also possible after 16 i.d4 with a transposition of moves. 16 17 axbS 18 fS!?

bS axbS

This apparently promises White more than the popular 1 8 e5, after which one may continue 1 8 . . . dxe5 19 fxe5 :xe5 ! 20 'ii'f3 and now Black can play: a) 20 . . . :g5 2 1 lL'lge2 ! (but not 21 lL'lge4 lL'lcxe4 22 i.xe4 lL'lg4 ! 23 d6 i.xd4+ 24 �h l 'ifxd6 25 'ifxf7+ �h8 -+ Timman-Ljubojevic, Am­ sterdam 1 975, or 21 i.xf6? l:xg3 22 d6 'ii'xd6 -+) 2 1 . . .lL'lh5 ! ? (2 l . . . i, fS is also not bad: 22 'ii'e3 i.h6 23 'iWeS I 'ii'xe5 24 i.xe5 i.xc2 !? 25 .txb8

90 6 e4: Introduction ltlxd5 with enough compensation in the game Piihtz-Goldberg, E.Ger­ man Ch 1 986) 22 .ixg7 �xg7 (22 . . . ltlxg7 ? ! 23 d6 'fi'b7 24 d7 ! 'fi'xd7 25 'ii'f4 +-) 23 d6 'it'xd6 24 'ii'xf7+ �h6 25 .l:.ad 1 , Knaak-En­ ders, E.Germany 1 982, and now 25 . . . 1i'c6 ! was possible. b) 20 . . . b4 2 1 .ixe5 'ii'xe5 22 .l:.ae 1 'ii'd4+ 23 �h 1 .ixh3 ! (not 23 ... bxc3? 24 l:.e8+) 24 ltlce2 'ifxb2 with an advantage to Black; Kaspar­ ov-Rachels, New York sim 1988. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

'ii'c 1

:rs b4

.ixf6

.ixf6

eS f6 :Xf6

.ixeS .ixf6 bxc3

'ii'h6 It is very possible that 9 . . . a6 pre­ sents White with too many attack­ ing chances, and Black must deny him their use, for example with 9 ... ltla6!?.

C) 7 f3 The system linked with this move is going through a period of renewal at the moment, and anybody who is go­ ing to include the Modern Benoni in their opening repertoire must study carefully the variations which arise. You must give particular importance to the positions which can easily be reached from the Siimisch variation of the King's Indian Defence. .ig7 (D) 7 Now there are three principal op­ tions for White: ••.

C 1 ) 8 ltlge2, delaying the devel­ opment of the bishop; C2) 8 .ie3; C3) 8 .ig5, the main line.

C1)

8 ltlge2 9 ltlg3

0-0

a6 You also come across: a) 9 . . .h5 1 0 .ie2 (alternatively, 10 .ig5 'ii' b 6 1 1 'ifd2 ltlh7 1 2 .ie3 ltld7 13 ltlge2 ltle5 14 lLlf4 a6 1 5 .ie2 'ffa5 1 6 0-0 b5 = Gulko-Sprag­ gett, Hastings 1 989) 10 . . . ltlbd7 (or 10 . . h4 l l lLlfl ltlh5 12 g4 !) 1 1 .ig5 'ifa5 ( 1 l . . . a6 ! ? 12 a4 'fllc7 deserves attention) 12 'flld 2 a6 1 3 0-0 ! b5 1 4 a4 b4 1 5 lLld 1 c4 16 l:c 1 ! c 3 17 bxc3 b3 1 8 ltlb2 with advantage; Spassky­ J.Polgar, Budapest 1 993. b) After 9 . . . ltla6 1 0 .ie2 ltlc7 , both 1 1 0-0 l:tb8 1 2 .if4 ! ? l:le8 1 3 'ild2 b5 1 4 h 1 h5 1 5 .ig5 'it'd? 1 6 l:ae 1 b4 1 7 ltld 1 , as in Christian­ sen-Nunn, Munich 1 99 1 , and 1 1 .ig5 b5 1 2 'ild2 .ia6 1 3 a3 ! 'ii'e 8 1 4 0-0 ltld7 15 .ih6, as in Gavri­ kov-B arlov, Oviedo 1 992, guaran­ tee White a small advantage. c) 9 . . . .id7 10 .ie2 h5 1 1 .ig5 'flieS ( 1 l . . .'fllb 6 ! ?) 1 2 'flld2 (more .

·

6 e4: Introduction 91 precise than 1 2 0-0 lDh7 1 3 .te3 b5 14 Wd2 h4 1 5 lDh 1 lDa6 = Chernin­ Stangl, Altensteig 1 99 1 ) 1 2 . . . tDh7 1 3 .th6, Chemin, and again White's chances are better. hS 10 a4 1 0 . . . b6 is too passive, and White has no problems in developing an in­ itiative: 1 1 .te2 l:a7 1 2 .tg5 h6 1 3 i.e3 lle7 1 4 Wd2 'i!i>h7 15 0-0 llfe8 1 6 .C.ab1 ;!; Gavrikov-Schauwecker, Swiss Ch 1 993. 1 1 .tel In Gulko-Chiong, Bern 1 992, Black equalized after 1 1 i.g5 Wa5 1 2 .te2 lDh7 1 3 .td2 'ii'd 8 14 .te3 li:)d7 15 0-0 li:)e5 16 Wd2 h4 17 li:)h 1 f5 1 8 li:)f2 b6 1 9 l:.ab 1 a5 ! ? 20 f4 li:)f7 2 1 l:tbe1 l:.a7 . 11 li:)bd7 1 l . . .h4 1 2 lDfl lDh5 1 3 g4 ! gives White the initiative. 12 .tgS After 1 2 0-0 a good reply is 12 . . . h4 1 3 li:)h 1 li:)h5 14 i.e3 .i.d4 ! ? 1 5 i.xd4 cxd4 1 6 'ii'xd4 'ii'g5 1 7 l:.ad 1 f5 with enough compensation; Spassky-J.Polgar, Budapest 1993. 'fkc7 12 li:)h7 13 'fkd2 Or 1 3 . . . c4 1 4 0-0 l:.b8 15 i.h6 h4 1 6 lDh 1 b5 1 7 axb5 axb5 1 8 lDf2 b4 with equality; Christiansen-Fedoro­ wicz, San Francisco 1 99 1 . 'fkd8 1 4 i.h6 15 i.xg7 �xg7 l:.b8 16 0-0 'ii'aS 17 l:.ab1 'ii'b4 = 18 llfd1 Akhsharumova-Xie Jun, Malay­ sia 1990. •••

•.•

C2)

8 i.e3

0-0 (D)

w

9 'fkd2

9 lDge2 leads to a very interesting game: 9 . . . a6 10 a4 lDbd7 1 1 li:)g3 li)e5 ( 1 l ...h5 !?; 1 1 ...l:.e8 12 i.e2 Wc7 1 3 0-0 l:.b8 14 'ii'd 2 Was 15 'ii'c 2 li:)e5 16 h3 1i'b4 1 7 li:)a2 1i'a5 18 b4 cxb4 19 l:.ab1 .i.d7 20 l:xb4 ;!; M .Gurevich-Tal, Jurmala 1 985) 1 2 i.e2 i.d7 (or 1 2 . . . l:.e8 1 3 0-0 h5 1 4 li:)h 1 li:)h7 1 5 lD f2 f5 1 6 'ii'd 2 g 5 1 7 exf5 i.xf5 1 8 l:.ae1 li:)f7 19 li:)ce4 h4 20 b4 ;!; Gavrikov-Yurtaev, USSR 1 983) and now: a) Both sides have rich tactical possibilities after 1 3 f4 ! ? li:)eg4 14 i.d2 h5 1 5 h3 li:)h6 (or the overly wild 1 5 . . . h4 ! ? 16 hxg4 hxg3 17 e5 dxe5 1 8 fxe5 l:.e8 ! 1 9 .i.f4 { 1 9 exf6 'ii'xf6 + } 1 9 . . . b5 ! 20 axb5 i.xb5 with an attack; Portisch-J.Polgar, Biel IZ 1 993) 1 6 e5 ( 1 6 0-0 lle8 17 i.f3 li:)fg4 ! ? 1 8 li:)ce2 f5 with initia­ tive for Black; Topalov-Romero, Mesa 1 992) 16 . . . li:)h7 17 O-O lle8 1 8 lDge4 li:)f5, with chances for both sides, according to Hazai. b) Incidentally, 1 3 h3 ! ? deserves a great deal of attention.

92 6 e4: Introduction c) 1 3 0-0 b5 and now: c 1 ) 14 h3 l:lbS 15 b3 (Black need not fear 1 5 l:lf2 �eS 16 'ii'd2 � 17 i.xc4 bxc4 1 S '1Ph2 f5 19 exf5 i.xf5 20 �xf5 l:lxf5 2 1 g4 :n 22 l:tc 1 �f6 23 i.g5 'ii'f8 Vyzhmanavin­ Hebden, Cappelle Ia Grande 1 992) 15 . . . �eS 1 6 l:lc 1 'ii' h4 17 �h 1 bxa4 1 S bxa4 l:lb4 with equality; Galla­ gher-Nunn, London Lloyds Bank 1 990. c2) Black has no problems after 14 'ii'd2 bxa4 15 �xa4 i.b5 1 6 :re t l:lbS 1 7 l:c2 �eS = Ziiger-Chiong, Switzerland 1 992. c3) Black has more than enough play for the pawn in the event of 14 axb5 axb5 1 5 l:lxaS 'ii'x a8 1 6 i.xb5 i.xb5 ! ( 1 6 . . . l:lbS 17 i.xd7 �fxd7 1 S 'ii'c 2 'ii'a6 Spraggett-Hazai, Szirak 1 9S6, is also reasonable) 1 7 �xb5 'ifa6 1 S �c3 ( 1 S �a3 l:lbS 19 '6'c2 �xd5 ! 20 exd5 llxb2 +) 1S ... l:tbS 1 9 'ii'c 2 'ii'd 3 2 0 'ii'f2 �c4 Nikolaev-Be· lov, Podolsk 199 1 . 9

...

White should play 12 a4 ! ?, but not 12 e5? ! �feS 13 exd6 �xd6 14 i.xc5 lieS+ 15 �f2 'ifh4 ! when Black has the initiative; Kem-Honfi, Corr 19S5 . c) 9 . . . l:eS is possible, for exam­ ple 10 �ge2 ( 1 0 h4? ! is too optimis­ tic : 10 . . . a6 1 1 i.h6 i.xh6 1 2 'it'xh6 b5 1 3 �ge2 �bd7 14 �f4 �e5 1 5 i.e2 c4 1 6 h5 lla7 + Kakageldiev­ Gufeld, USSR 1 9S2) 10 . . . �bd7 (or 10 . . . �a6 ! ? 1 1 �g3 �c7 1 2 i.e2 llbS 13 a4 a6 14 0-0 b5 15 axb5 axb5 1 6 i.h6 b4 with equality; Dam­ ljanovic-Ivanovic, Kladovo 1 990) 1 1 �g3 a6 ( l l ...h5 ! ?) 12 i.e2 b5 1 3 a4 bxa4 14 0-0 �b6 1 5 i.g5 i.d7 1 6 � h 1 'ife7 17 i.d3 and White has the initiative; Dydyshko-Ryskin, Kato­ wice 1 993. 10 a4 (D)

a6

Other moves: a) 9 ... b6 10 a4 �a6 1 1 �h3 �b4 1 2 �f2 l:teS 1 3 i.e2 i.a6 14 i.xa6 �xa6 15 0-0 �b4 1 6 i.g5 ;!; Serebri­ anik-Hebden, Vmjacka Banja 199 1 . b ) 9 . . . �a6 i s interesting but al­ most never seen in practice. White should probably continue 10 �ge2 ( 10 i.xa6 bxa6 promises hardly any­ thing, and now 1 1 i.h6? is unsatis­ factory: 1 l . . .�xe4 12 �xe4 'ii'h4+ 1 3 g3 "i!i'xh6 14 'ifxh6 i.xh6 1 5 �xd6 lidS 1 6 �e4 i.g7 17 d 6 i.b7 + Christofer-Tolnai, Novi Sad OL 1 990) 10 . . . �c7 1 1 �g3 l:tbS and

l:le8 10 1 0 . . . �bd7 allows 1 1 �h3 , mov­ ing the knight later to f2. l l ...�e5 is then possible (things turned out bet­ ter for White from the opening of Al­ terman-Fishbein, Beersheba 1 99 1 , after 1 1 . . .\lfaS 12 l:la3 c4 1 3 � f2 �e5 14 i.e2 'ii'c7 1 5 0-0 b6 1 6 l:c l •••

·

6 e4: Introduction 93 .l:tb8 17 b4 cxb3 18 .l:txb3 with initia­ tive, but it is worth looking at 1 1 . . . .l:tb8 1 2 tDf2 tDe8 1 3 i.e2 tDc7 14 a5 b5 15 axb6 tDxb6, Raicevic­ Hulak, Nis 1985 , and it is not easy for White to gain an advantage) 1 2 tD f2 .l:tb8 (or 12 ... i.d7 1 3 i.e2 b5 1 4 axb5 axb5 1 5 .l:txa8 'ii'x a8 1 6 tDxb5 i.xb5 17 i.xb5 .l:tb8 1 8 i.e2 tDfd7 1 9 tDd 1 'ii'a4 20 'ii'c 1 ;!; Seirawan­ Sax, Biel IZ 1 985) 1 3 i.e2 'ii'd7 14 0-0 b5 15 axb5 axb5 16 b3 b4 17 tDa4 'fic7 1 8 tDb2 and I prefer White's position; Cebalo-Velickovic, Vrsac 1 98 1 . 1 1 tDge2 1 1 .te2 h5 ! ? leads us to 8 i.g5, and 1 1 a5 presents Black with no danger, for example 1 l .. .b5 12 axb6 'ii' x b6 1 3 i.d3 tDbd7 14 tDh3 tDe5 15 tt)f2 tDxd3+ 16 tDxd3 a5 17 0-0 i.a6 + Kraidman-Har Zvi, Tel Aviv 1 99 1 . 11 tDbd7 1 2 lbd1 13 tDec3

tDes

i.d7 White has a small advantage after 1 3 . . . 'fia5 14 i.e2 ! ? (14 .l:ta3 tDfd7 ! ? 1 5 i.e2 f5 1 6 0-0 tDb6 17 b 3 fxe4 and Black has already seized the in­ itiative; Serebrianik-Hebden, Israel 1 992) 14 . . . b5 15 0-0 tDfd7 (B lack should consider 15 . . . i.d7 ! ?) 1 6 tDf2 b4 ( 1 6 . . . tDc4 17 i.xc4 bxc4 1 8 f4 .l:tb8 19 e5 ! dxe5 20 tDfe4 'ii'b6 2 1 f5 ;!; Meulders-Douven, Netherlands 199 1 ) 17 tDcd 1 tDb6 1 8 i.h6 ;!;. "ii'a5 14 i. e2 15 0-0!?

This is stronger than 15 l:[a3 'it'b4 1 6 a5 tDc4 1 7 .txc4 'ii'xc4 1 8 tDa2

i.b5 ! and Black's position is already preferable; Krutti-Szalanczi, Ko­ banya 1 992. After the text move we face a complicated game with chances for both sides. C3)

8 i.g5 (D)

B

The most popular move. White provokes . . . h6, hoping to make use of its weakness. 8

...

0-0

Black sometimes delays castling for a considerable length of time, for example 8 ... h6 9 i.e3 a6 (Black can­ not organize himself after 9 ... tDa6 1 0 'ii'd2 tDc7 1 1 i. d 3 llb8 1 2 a4 a 6 1 3 .l:tb1 b 5 14 b4 ! cxb4 1 5 lhb4 a5 1 6 i.xb5+ tDxb5 17 l:xb5 ± Rogers­ Danner, Lugano 1 989) 10 a4 tDbd7 1 1 tDh3 ! ? (Black's problems are simplified after 1 1 tDge2 'ii'e 7 1 2 tDc 1 tDe5 1 3 i.e2 and now both 1 3 . . . .l:tb8 14 0-0 0-0 1 5 h3 g5 1 6 f4 gxf4 1 7 i.xf4 tDg6 1 8 i.h2 b5 ! Yu­ supov-Lobron, SWIFT rapid 1 992, and 13 . . . g5 14 0-0 0-0 15 'ii'd2 i.d7 T.Georgadze-Psakhis, Vilnius 1 98 1 , are satisfactory for Black) 1 1 . . .tDe5

94 6 e4: Introduction 1 2 t0f2 1 2 ... gS (or 12 ... �d7 1 3 �e2 gS 14 'ii'd 2 'ii'e7 1S a5 l:[bS 16 t0a4 t0hS 17 t0b6 �bS 1S O-O O-O 19 b4 ! ;!; Gulko- Kasparov, Frunze 1 9S 1 ) 1 3 �e2 'flie7 1 4 h4 tOhS 1 S hxgS hxgS 1 6 'ii'd2 t0f4 17 l:[xhS+ �xhS 1 S �xf4 gxf4 1 9 'flixf4 t0g6 20 'iVh2 �d7 21 g3 ! ? 0-0-0 22 f4 ;!; Korchnoi-Lobron, Bad Kissingen 1 9S l . 9 'ii'd2 Quite often, especially recently, White has tried to get away without playing this queen move. Play might continue 9 t0ge2 h6 (or 9 . . . a6 10 a4 t0bd7 1 1 t0g3 'iVc7 1 2 �c4 ! tOes 1 3 �e2 c 4 1 4 �e3 t0fd7 1 S f4 t0d3+ 16 �xd3 cxd3 17 0-0 'iVc4 1S l:.c 1 ;!; Adorjan-Sax, Hungary 1 9S4) 1 0 �e3 (D) and now:

B

a) White has a pleasant game af­ ter the passive 10 . . . b6, for example 1 1 a4 t0a6 1 2 'Wd2 h7 13 tObS t/Jc7 14 t0ec3 tOfeS 1S �d3 fS 16 00 fxe4 1 7 �xe4 �fS 1 S �xfS .l:txfS 1 9 g4 .l:tf7 20 t0a3 ;!; Partos-Ziiger, Biel 19S l . b ) 1 0 . . . t0bd7 deserves attention, when Black should attempt to avoid

disturbing the queenside pawns, for example 1 1 t0c 1 (or 1 1 t0g3 tOes 1 2 �e2 h S 1 3 0-0 t0h7 14 'flid2 h 4 1 S t0h 1 rs 1 6 t0f2 'ikf6 1 1 f4 tO n 1 s �d3 �d7 1 9 a 3 :res 2 0 l:[fe 1 l:tacS with an equal position; Vyzhman­ avin-Belov, Moscow 1 9S7) 1 1 . . .hS 1 2 .ie2 t0h7 ! ? 13 0-0 'We? 14 t0d3 tOeS 1S t0f2 fS 16 'ifd2 a6 17 a4 gS 1S exfS �xfS again with equality; Dolmatov-Khalifman, Kiev 19S6. c) 1 O ... a6 1 1 a4 t0bd7 (in reply to 1 l . . .hS, 1 2 t0f4 looks reasonable, for example 1 2 ... t0bd7 1 3 �e2 tOeS 1 4 0-0 �d7 1S 'iVd2 l:.bS 16 a5 tOeS 1 7 t0a4 �xa4 1 S lba4 with a small ad­ vantage; I.Sokolov-Smirin, Elenite 1 993) 1 2 t0g3 (the most popular move, but perhaps not the best; 1 2 t0c 1 t0h7 1 3 �e2 :es 1 4 t0d3 tOeS 1S t0f2 fS leads to equality, and in Komljenovic-Pigusov, Alicante 1 992, the players agreed a draw) 1 2 . . . hS ! Uust in time ! White has still not castled and his knight will now not have the useful h1 square to retreat to) 1 3 �e2 h4 (the slow 1 3 . . . t0h7 is weaker: 14 0-0 .l:.bS 1 S 'iVd2 'iVe7 1 6 t0h 1 fS 17 tOt2 tOeS 1 S l:.ae1 'ii'f6 1 9 f4 t0g4 2 0 eS ! and White holds the initiative; Cebalo­ Thipsay, Yugoslavia-Asia 1 9S4) 1 4 tOn t0h7 1 S t0d2 (1S h 3 i s better for Black: 1 S . . . fS 1 6 exfS gxfS 17 �f4 tOeS 1 S t0d2 t0g6 1 9 �e3 l:.eS 20 t0c4 b6 2 1 'flid2 :a? ! Spassov-Be­ lov, Moscow 1 9SS, and only White can have problems after 1S g4 fS 1 6 gxfS gxfS 17 exfS { or 17 l:[ g 1 f4 1 S � f2 tOgS 1 9 t0d2 t0h3 + Danailov- · Marin, Zaragoza 1992 } 17 ... l:.xfS 1 S

6 e4: Introduction 95 llgl 'it>h8 1 9 'Wc2 'Wf8 20 f4 lDdf6 2 1 .i.d3 lDh5 ! ? I.Sokolov-Ki.Geor­ giev, Elenite 1 993) 15 . . . f5 ! (but not 1 5 . . . .td4 ? ! 1 6 lbc4 .txe3 17 lbxe3 'Wg5 1 8 'Wd2 lbdf6 19 a5 l:lb8 20 lbc4 ! 'Wxg2 21 0-0-0 ! ± Psakhis­ Ehlvest, S verdlovsk 1 984) 16 exf5 gxf5 1 7 f4 'fie7 18 .tf2 lle8 19 lDf3 h3 ! ? 20 gxh3 lbdf6 2 1 llg1 lbe4 and the time has come for White to think about defence; Bykhovsky-Gleiz­ erov, USSR 1 986. Returning to the position after 9 'ii'd2 (D) in the main line:

Now Black has two main options: C3 1 ) 9 . . . a6 C32) 9 . . . h6 Other moves have also been tried: a) 9 ... lba6 10 lbge2 (10 .tc4 ! ? is also interesting: 1 0 . . . lbc7 1 1 lbge2 and after the nervous 1 1 . . .b5 ? ! 1 2 .i.xb5 ! lbxb5 1 3 lbxb5 .ta6 1 4 a4 'Wd7 1 5 lbec3 .:tfb8 1 6 0-0 lbe8 1 7 .i.f4 White, i n Korchnoi-Shirazi, Lone Pine 1 98 1 , achieved a large ad­ vantage) 10 . . . .i.d7 (or 1 0 . . . l:le8 1 1 lbg3 lbc7 1 2 .te2 'We7 1 3 0-0 a6 14 .l:lae1 ! ? b5 15 .i.d 1 'Wd7 1 6 .th6

.i.b7 17 .i.c2 l:lf8 1 8 'Wf4 and now White's pressure is very unpleasant; Korchnoi-Garcia Padron, Las Pal­ mas 1 98 1 ) 1 1 lbg3 l:le8 (things are also unpleasant for Black after 1 1 . . . 'Wb6 1 2 .i.e2 .:tac8 1 3 0-0 �h8 14 l:.ae 1 lbg8 15 �h1 'ii'b 4 16 a3 'ii'd4 17 'ire 1 h6 1 8 .i.f4 ;!; Ubilava­ Kapengut, USSR 1 982) 1 2 .i.e2 l:lc8 13 .txa6 ! ? bxa6 14 0-0 :lb8 1 5 l:lab1 aS 1 6 h4 h 5 1 7 'Wf4 with a small advantage; Dorfman-Tolnai, Debrecen 1 988. b) 9 ... .td7 . Now 1 0 lbge2 lba6 1 1 lbg3 leads to 9 ... lba6 and 10 a4 is not bad either, for example 10 ... lba6 1 1 .i.c4 lbb4 12 lbge2 a6 13 a5 .i.b5 14 b3 h6 Ionescu-Wahls, Novi Sad OL 1 990, and now 1 5 .i.e3 ! ? de­ serves attention. c) 9 . . . l:le8 (this move rarely has independent significance and we usually come across it in the vari­ ations C3 1 and C32) 10 .i.e2 (or 1 0 a4 lba6 1 1 .i.b5 .i.d7 12 lbge2 .i.xb5 1 3 axb5 lbc7 14 0-0 a6 15 'ii'd 3 'Wd7 = Ionescu-Panno, Dubai OL 1986, whilst 1 0 lbge2 a6 { 10 . . . lba6 is examined under 9 . . . lba6 } 1 1 a4 brings us to 9 . . . a6) 10 . . . lba6 ! ? 1 1 g4 ! ? ( 1 1 .i.b5 .i.d7 1 2 lbge2 lbc7 1 3 .i.d3 b5 = Ilinsky-Dydyshko, Azov 1 99 1 ) l l . . .lbc7 1 2 h4 b 5 1 3 h5 b4 1 4 lbd l 'We7 15 lDf2 a5 1 6 n .td7 17 'il;lg2 lbb5 18 :lei ;!; Fedorowicz-Dam­ ljanovic, New York 1987 . C31)

9 10 a4 (D) ...

a6

It's not worth allowing Black to get active on the queenside: 10 lbge2

96 6 e4: Introduction b5 l l lbg3 lbbd7 12 .t.e2 l:e8 1 3 0-0 c4 (or 1 3 . . . 'ife7 14 .t.h6 and now 14 ... .t.h8?? is already losing after the deadly reply 1 5 lbf5 ! ; Chernin-Yer­ molinsky, Groningen PCA 1 993) 14 �h 1 ilc7 1 5 .t.h6 .t.h8 16 l:tac l lbc5 = Rajkovic-Cvitan, Yugoslavia tt 1989.

l:te8 10 Black is waiting for 1 1 lbge2 and only then does he wish to develop the knight. Also possible: a) 10 ... 'i!i'a5 1 1 l:.a3 'fic7 1 2 lbge2 lbbd7 1 3 lbg3 c4 14 .t.e2 lbe5 1 5 .t.e3 h 5 1 6 0-0 .t.d7 1 7 a5 ;!; Polu­ gaevsky-Nunn, London 1984. b) 10 . . . h5 1 1 lbge2 lbbd7 1 2 lbc 1 'fie? 1 3 .t.e2 c 4 14 0-0 l:.b8 15 .t.e3 b6 1 6 l:b1 b5 17 axb5 axb5 1 8 b4 ;!; Kelecevic-Stummer, Budapest 1 992. c) 10 .. .'jj' c7 1 1 .t.h6 lbbd7 1 2 .t.xg7 �xg7 1 3 lbh3 l:tb8 14 b 3 'ii'a5 1 5 l:b1 b5 1 6 axb5 axb5 1 7 lbf2 lbe5 18 .t.e2 b4 19 lbcd 1 ;!; Jakob­ sen-Mestel, Plovdiv Echt 1 983. d) 10 ... lbbd7 1 1 lbh3 and now: d 1 ) 1 1 ...l:b8 1 2 lbf2 ( 1 2 .t.e2 al­ lows 12 ... c4 ! ? 1 3 .t.xc4 lbe5 14 .t.e2 •••

.i.xh3 1 5 gxh3 'fic8) 12 . . . 'fic7 1 3 .t.e2 c4 1 4 lta3 ! ? ( 1 4 0-0 b5 1 5 axb5 axb5 1 6 b4 ! cxb3 17 lbxb5 'fib6 1 8 .t.e3 lbc5 led to great complications in Conquest- Larsen, Hastings 1 986) 14 . . . b5 15 axb5 axb5 16 b4 ;!; Ubi­ lava-Anikaev, USSR 1982. d2) 1 1 . ..l:te8 12 .t.e2 'ii'a5 13 0-0 h5 14 lbf2 l:b8 15 h 1 lbh7 1 8 �e3 llJeS 1 9 .:.ac i 'ii'd 8 ! ? with complications; Benjamin-Lar­ sen, Hastings 1 987) 1 2 .:.a3 'ii'c7 1 3 b3 liJbd7 1 4 lbh3 c4 1 5 b4 'ii'b6 1 6 lba2 with chances for both sides; Browne-Rogers, Bath 1983. 11 liJbd7 (D) •••

convmcmg: 13 .:.a3 llJeS 14 Ji.e2 'ii' b4 15 'ii'c 2 ! ? with a small advan­ tage, but an incorrect combination by Black quickly ended the game in Chandler-Barczay, Keszthely 1 98 1 , viz. IS . . . llJxdS? 1 6 .:.b3 'ii'aS 1 7 exdS c4 1 8 .:.a3 Ji.fS 1 9 'ii'd 2 lbd3+ 20 c;t>n +-) 13 �e2 'ii'c7 14 0-0 hS 15 �e3 lbh7 16 �f2 lDe5 17 h3 fS 1 8 a5 'ii'e7 1 9 .:.a2 'ii'f6 oo Ubilava­ Velickovic, Tbilisi 1983. b) 1 2 lDdl llJe5 1 3 lbec3 'WaS 14 .:.a3 hS 1 5 �e2 lbh7 1 6 �e3 �d7 17 0-0 'it'b4 1 8 'We i fS 1 9 a5 fxe4 20 lbxe4 lbf7 = Botsari-Veroci, Subo­ tica 1 99 1 . 12

'fiaS

•.•

Probably stronger than 1 2 . . . l:.b8 13 �e2 'it'c7 14 0-0 c4 1 5 �e3 bS 1 6 axbS axbS 17 b4 ! (17 :a? 'ii'd 8 1 8 b4 cxb3 ! 1 9 �xbS .:.e7 20 lbge2 llJcS 2 1 .:.xe7 'ii' x e7 22 lbd4 �d7 lets the advantage slip away ; Chernin­ Chekhov, USSR 1 984) 17 . . . llJf8 1 8 :a? 'ii'd 8 1 9 .:.ra1 ;!; Seirawan-Har­ dason, Reykjavik 1986. 12 . . . 'ii'c 7 also leads to an advan­ tage for White: 1 3 �e2 c4 14 0-0 llJcS (alternatively, 14 ... b6 1 5 l:r.fc l 'ii'cS+ 1 6 c;i;>h 1 lbe5 1 7 �.e3 'it'b4 1 8 lbb1 ! ± Toth-Gheorghiu, Biel 1 983) 1 5 �xc4 lbfd7 (15 ... lbcxe4? 1 6 fxe4 +-) 1 6 l:r.a3 lbxe4 1 7 lbcxe4 'it'xc4 18 �e3 'it'c7 19 llcl 'it'b8 20 �d4 ± Dorfman-Perenyi, Kislovodsk 1 982. 13 l:ta3

12 llJg3

Black's problems are solved after: a) 1 2 lbc l l:.b8 ( 1 2 . . . \i'aS is less

1 3 �e2 is more often played, but it should not yield an advantage: a) 1 3 . . . h5 is not bad: 14 0-0 lbh7 15 �e3 'ii' b4 ( I S . lbes is met by 1 6 h 3 'ii' b4 1 7 l:fc l h4 1 8 lDh 1 fS 1 9 .

.

98 6 e4: Introduction l£lf2 'ii'a5 20 lbb1 ! ? with a small ad­ vantage) 1 6 .:tfd 1 (or 1 6 l£lh 1 l£le5 1 7 l£lf2 i.d7 1 8 l:tfc 1 b5 19 axb5 axb5 20 lbxb5 l:hal 2 1 l:txa1 'ii'xd2 22 i.xd2 .:tb8 was equal in Adorjan­ Vukic, B anja Luka 1 983) 16 . . . ltle5 17 .!Llb1 h4 1 8 ltlfl f5 19 'ifxb4 cxb4 20 .!Llbd2 .!Llf6 = T.Georgadze-Oll, USSR 1 983. b) 13 ... b5 ! ? 14 0-0 b4 15 .!Lld l ! ? c4 ! ? ( 1 5 . . . .!Llb6 i s worse: 1 6 'iith l c4 17 'ii'e l l:tb8 18 i.d2 .!Llxa4 19 i.xc4 .!Lld7 { or 1 9 . . . 'ii'c 7 20 .:txa4 'ii'xc4 21 .!Lle3 'ii' b 3 22 l:txb4 .l:xb4 23 i.xb4 ± Dorfman-Chiburdanidze, USSR 1 982 } 20 Aa2 'ii'c7 21 .:txa4 'ii'xc4 22 .l:xb4 and White has an ob­ vious advantage; Li Zunian-Quin­ teros, Thessaloniki OL 1 984) 1 6 i.e3 (another possibility i s 16 d 1 .!De5 1 8 .i.d2 .!Dbd3 also leads to an un­ clear position.

17 18 'li>d1 19 .i.c4+ 20 l:el

.!Dc2+ tilxa1 �h8 a6

20 . . . .!Db6 21 tilxb6 axb6 22 l:te7 favours White, and 20 . . . tilf6? 2 1 tilc7 ! l:ld8+ 22 .i.d2 .i.h6 (22 . . . .i.f5 23 .!De6 .i.xe6 24 l:txe6 +-) 23 tile6 .i.xe6 24 l:txe6 gives White a big ad­ vantage; Lputian-Magerramov, Belt­ sy 1 979. tileS! 21 .i.e6 and the complications are not un­ favourable for Black.

B) 8 4Jfd7 ••.

9 .!DbS Black has less problems after: a) 9 exd6? ! 0-0 1 0 tilf3 .!Df6 1 1 .i.e2 .!DeS 1 2 0-0 tilxd6 with equal­ ity. b) 9 e6 fxe6 (9 . . . 'ii'e7? ! 10 .i.e2 fxe6 1 1 dxe6 .i.xc3+ 1 2 bxc3 'ii'xe6 1 3 tilf3 0-0 14 tilg5 'ii'f6 15 tile4 'ii'h4+ 1 6 g3 'ile7 1 7 .!Dxd6 .!Dc6 1 8 0-0 tilf6 1 9 .i.c4+ c7 1 8 0-0-0 +­ Mann-Kleinsorgen, Corr 1980) and now: a) 1 3 exd7 is weak because of 1 3 . . . .i.xc3+ (but not 1 3 . . . 'ii'h4+? 14

�d2 .i.xd7 1 5 .i.xd7 .l:r.ad8 { 15 . . . .l:r.f2+ 1 6 �ge2 .i.xc3+ 1 7 'ito>xc3 'ii' b 4+ 1 8 �c2 'ii'c4+ 1 9 b1 +- } 16 'ito>c2 .l:r.f2+ 17 �bl .i.xc3 1 8 Wg4 ! .i.f6 1 9 �h3 and White wins, Aleksandrov-Wojtkiewicz, Wisla Bes 1 992) 14 bxc3 'ifh4+ 15 'ito>d2 ( 1 5 g3 'ii'e4+) 15 ... .i.xd7 16 .i.xd7 .l:r.f2+ 17 �e2 :d8 18 �c2 'ii'e4+ 1 9 �b3 .l:r.xe2 +. b) 13 'it'd5? is also weak because of 13 . . . 'ii'e7 14 .i.xd7 .i.xd7 1 5 'ii'xd7 (15 .i.e3 .i.xc3+ 1 6 bxc3 .i.c6 17 'ii'xc5 'ii'xe6 wins for Black; Bert­ Poumart, Corr 1 985) 1 5 . . . .i.xc3+ 1 6 bxc3 'ii'h4+ and again B lack has an advantage. c) 1 3 �f3 ! .i.d4 ! ? (White has no problems achieving an advantage af­ ter 1 3 . . . �df6 14 'ii'x d8 :xd8 1 5 e7 .l:r.d6 16 �g5 ! .i.e6 17 0-0 a6 1 8 �xe6 axb5 1 9 �c7 .l:r.c8 20 �3xb5 ±, or 13 . . . .l:r.xf3 14 'ii'xf3 .i.xc3+ { 14 ... �e5 15 'ii'd5 Wh4+ 16 g3 'fie7 1 7 .i.g5 'it'xe6 1 8 'fid8+ .i.f8 1 9 0-0 �f7 20 .l:r.xf7 ! wins swiftly } 15 bxc3 �e5 16 'ife4 'iff6 17 e7 ! ? 'flxe7 1 8 0-0 .i.f5 1 9 'ii'd 5+ �g7 20 .i.g5 ! 'it'xg5 2 1 'ii'x e5+ �h6 22 .l:r.ae 1 ± Kapengut) and now: c 1 ) Everything is in order for Black after 14 �xd4 �e5 1 5 'ii' b 3 c:Ji;g7 16 'ifd5 'fih4+ 17 g3 'ii'xd4 1 8 'ii'xd4 cxd4 1 9 e7 llg8 20 e81V .l:r.xe8 21 .i.xe8 .i.h3, Martin. c2) It would appear that Black can support his position after 1 4 'ii'b 3 ! ? We7 ! 15 .i.e3 �e5 1 6 �xe5 .i.xe3 17 �d5 .i.f2+ ! ? ( 1 7 ...'fih4+ is considerably worse, and after 18 g3 .i.f2+ 19 �e2 'fle4+ 20 �e3 'fixeS

Taimanov 's 8 �b5+ 113 2 1 e7+ �e6 22 exfB'ii'+ l:xf8 23 'ii'xe6+ ! 'ii'xe6 24 �c4 White gained the advantage in the game Mestel­ Hodgson, British Ch (Southport) 1 983) 1 8 �e2 'ii'xe6 1 9 t[jc7 'ii'x b3 20 axb3 .i.d4 ! 21 t[jxa8 �xe5 22 l:xa7 �g4+ and Black has enough compensation for the exchange Martin. c3) 14 �c4 deserves close ex­ amination, and now not 14 .. .'ii'e7 be­ cause of 1 5 .i.g5 ! . c4) 1 4 exd7 �xd7 1 5 �g5 'ii'e 8 ( 1 5 . . . 1Vb6 doesn' t help either: 16 'ii' b 3+ .i.e6 17 �c4 :ae8 18 0-0-0 +-) 15 . . . 'ii'e8+ 1 6 �e2 ([jf4 17 �xf4 l:.xf4 1 8 t[jd5 l:.xf3 (the only move) 1 9 gxf3 'ii'e5 20 t[jc3 l:.e8 2 1 'ii'b 3+ h8 (2 1.. .�e6 ! ?) 22 :d 1 �f5 23 l:.d2 and White is winning despite all Black's tactical tricks; Emanuel Si­ moncini-Caruso, Corr 1 985. 12 g3 13 hxg3

�g3

1 3 tbf3 gives White nothing: 13 . . . �xc3+ 14 bxc3 'ii'e4+ 15 �f2 tbxh 1 + 16 1Vxh 1 fxe6 17 dxe6 0-0 18 exd7 �xd7 19 �xd7 l:f7 20 .i.b5 c4 2 1 �h6 'ii' h4+ 22 �g2 'ii'g4+ 23 �f2 'ifh4+ = Littlewood-Hartoch, London 1 984. 13 'ifxh1 13 . . . 'ii'x g3+? ! is bad because of 14 c2 'ii'xe6 1 8 'ii'xe6+ fxe6 1 9 .i.h6 with a big advantage; Fecht-Betker, Corr 1989. •••

14 .i.e3

This move promises White a small advantage, as does the alterna­ tive 14 exd7+ �xd7 (D) and now:

a) 1 5 'ii'e 2+ gives Black more chances for a good game: a1) 15 . . . 'iii> f8 (not so good) 1 6 .i.e3 l:.e8 ( 1 6 . . . �xc3+ 1 7 bxc3 �xb5 1 8 'ifxb5 'ii'xd5 19 l:d 1 'ii'e4 20 'ii'x c5+ 'iti>g7 2 1 'ii'd4+ 'ii'xd4 22 �xd4+ f6 23 g4 ! ;!;) 17 xd7 19 'ii'e6+ 'iti>d8 20 'ii'd 6+ 'ii? c 8 21 tbb5 +-) 18 'ii'f l fxg5 19 .i.xd7 ( 1 9 'ii'f7? puts the initiative straight into Black's hands: 19 . . . �xb5 20 tbxb5 �xb2+ ! 2 1 xb2 'ii'g 2+ 22 �c 1 'ii'x g3 23 d6 'ii'f4+ 24 'ii'xf4 gxf4 25 tbc7 'iii> d7 + Savchenko) 1 9 . . . 'iii>xd7 20 'ii'b5+ g2 lDf8 15 h3 lDbd7 1 6 .i.d2 l:[b8 1 7 :Z.b1 'ii'd8 1 8 .l:te1 with a small advan­ tage for White; Sergienko-Parkanyi, Nagykanizsa 1 993 .

'ii'h4+

. Black's problems are simpler af­ ter 1 0 c;t;>n , for example 1 0 . . . a6 ! ? 1 1 lDf3 'Wd8 1 2 .i.d3 (or 1 2 .i.c4 lDb6 1 3 .i.e2 .i.g4 14 lDd2 .i.xe2+ 1 5 'ifxe2 lD8d7 1 6 a5 lDc8 1 7 lDc4 0-0 = ) 12 . . . lDf6 13 h3 lDh5 14 cit;>f2 c4 ! 1 5 .i.xc4 'ii'b6+. 'ike7 10 10 . . . 'ii'd 8 does not equalise: 1 1 lDf3 0-0 1 2 0-0 a6 1 3 .i.c4 ! lDb6 1 4 .i.e2 .i.g4 1 5 lDg5 ! .i.xe2 1 6 'ii'xe2 'We7 17 a5 lDc8 18 .i.d2 lDd7 19 J:tae1 Olafsson-Psakhis, Moscow 1 989. •.•

1 1 ll:)f3 1 1 'ii'f3 is not so clear: 1 1 . ..lDa6 12 lDge2 lDb4 13 0-0 0-0 14 g4 lDc2 15 .l:.a2 lDd4 16 'it'g2 lDxb5 17 axb5 l:r.e8 with mutual chances; Hort-Hu­ lak. Indonesia 1 982.

13 .:tel !?

The game is unclear after 1 3 e5 dxe5 ( 1 3 ... lDb4?! is weaker: 14 lbe4 lDb6 { 14 . . . dxe5 1 5 d6 'ike6 16 lDeg5 'it'f5 17 lDxe5 ± } 15 lDxd6 lD6xd5 16 .i.d2 .i.g4 17 'ii' b 3 .:tad8 18 .i.c4 with a large White advantage; Bagi­ rov-Malaniuk, Baku 1 983) 14 d6 'ii'd 8 15 lDd5 e4 1 6 lDg5 (Black has no reason to fear the continuation 1 6 lDe5 �h8 17 lDe7 lDxe5 1 8 fxe5 .i.xe5 19 .i.f4 .i.g7 Kouatly-Hulak,

Taimanov 's 8 �b5+ 125 Toluca IZ 1 982) 1 6 . . . �d4+ 17 �e3 .txe3+ 1 8 lbxe3 lbf6 19 f5 . lbb4 13 ... 14 eS !?

14 'ii' b 3 is less dangerous in view of 1 4 . . . a6 15 J.fl b6 16 h3 J.b7 1 7 .t d 2 ( 1 7 J.g2? lbd3 1 8 lte2 b5 ! 1 9 axb5 c 4 2 0 'ii'c2 axb5 gives Black the initiative; Ree-Lobron, Paris 1 983) 1 7 . . . l:ae8 1 8 ltad 1 'ii'd 8 co Lobron. White also preserves a small ad­ vantage after 14 �fl :e& (or 14 . . . b6 15 �c4 �b7 1 6 'ii' b 3 ltae8 17 �d2 a6 18 lte2 ;!;) 15 lbb5 ! ? lbf6 16 e5 lbfxd5 17 lbxd6 ltd& 1 8 'ii' b3 �e6 19 �c4 Malaniuk-Yudasin, Moscow 1988. 14 1s �n 16 d6 17 fxeS

a6 dxeS 'it'e8

and Black faces a difficult de­ fence, Tal-Velimirovic, Moscow IZ 1982. 9 ... a6 (D) Black hasn' t dismissed all thoughts of the check, but first he wants to force White to fix a position for the bishop. 842)

10 �e2!?

Black equalizes in the event of 10 �d3 'ii'h4+ ! ? (White has an advan­ tage after 10 . . . 'it'b6 1 1 lbf3 0-0 1 2 lbd2 ! ? lbf6 1 3 lbc4 'f!ic7 14 0-0 lbbd7 15 �d2 lbb6 16 b3 ! lbg4 1 7 'ii'f3 f5 1 8 exf5 gxf5 1 9 h 3 lbf6 20 lbe1 ± Anikaev-Sideif Zade, Dne­ propetrovsk 1 980) 1 1 g3 'ii'd 8 1 2 lbf3 0-0 1 3 0-0 lbf6 1 4 �g2 (or 14 'ii'b 3 �h3 1 5 lte 1 lbg4 1 6 'ii'xb7 lbd7 17 a5 'ike? and after 1 8 'ii' b 3 ! the game is unclear, but 1 8 �xa6? l:tab8 1 9 'i//c 7 lbde5 ! ! loses quickly; Garcia Martinez-Pigusov, Moscow 1 987) 1 4 . . . �g4 1 5 h3 �xf3+ 1 6 'flixf3 lbbd7 1 7 �e3 'ili'a5 1 8 l:ae1 l:tac8 1 9 �g1 lbe8 20 �c2 ltb8 = Schwarz-Pigusov, Biel 1 989. 10

•••

'ii'h4+

10 . . . 0-0 1 1 lbf3 is examined under 9 ... 0-0 10 lbf3 a6 1 1 �e2. 1 1 g3

'ii'd8

It is difficult for Black to work things out after 1 1 ...'ii'e7 12 lbf3 0-0 (or 12 . . . �xc3+? ! 1 3 bxc3 'i//xe4 1 4 0-0 lbf6 1 5 c 4 �f5 16 lbh4 ± Kou­ atly-Tsuboi, Dubai OL 1986) 1 3 0-0 lbf6 14 e5 lbe8 1 5 e6 ! fxe6 1 6 �c4 lbc7 17 lte1 b5 1 8 axb5 �xc3 1 9 bxc3 axb5 20 ltxa8 lbxa8 2 1 �xb5 and it is not easy to defend Black's position; Petursson-Fries Nielsen, Nrestved 1 988. 0-0 12 lbf3 13 0-0 14 ct>g2

lte8

14 'ii'c 2 lbf6 15 �g2 �g4 16 h3 �xf3+ 17 �xf3 lbbd7 1 8 l:e 1 l:b8 19 a5 h6 20 lte2 'i//c7 21 �d2 ;!; Ce­ balo-Lobron, Reggio Emilia 1 985.

126 Taimanov 's 8 J.b5+ 14 :te l doesn't look bad either, after which B lack should continue 14 . . . �f8 1 5 J.fl J.g4 16 h3 J.xf3 17 'ifxf3 �bd7 18 J.d2 .l:.c8 1 9 b3 ;!;; , since accepting the pawn sacrifice by 14 . . . J.xc3 15 bxc3 .l:.xe4 1 6 c4 �f6 1 7 J.b2 J.g4 1 8 h3 ! J.xf3 19 J.xf3 .l:.xe l + 20 'ii'xel gives White more than enough compensation; Ark­ hipov-Sax, Hungary 1 984. Black has a reasonable game in the event of 14 �d2 J.d4+ ! ? 15 �g2 �f6 1 6 J.f3 'ii'd 7 de Firmian-Griin­ feld, Biel 1 986. 14 �f8 ...

15 eS!

Black's life is not as hard after 15 h3 �bd7 1 6 'ii'c 2 Ab8 17 J.d2 �f6 Flear-Kovacevic, Paris 1992. After the text move White also has a clear advantage in the event of 15 . . . J.g4 16 �g5 ! J.xe2 17 'it'xe2 f6 1 8 �ge4 dxe5 1 9 f5 ± Savchenko­ Pigusov, Alborg 1 992, as well as af­ ter 1 5 . . . dxe5 1 6 fxe5 �bd7 17 J.g5 'ii' b6 18 a5 'ii'xb2 19 �a4 ±. B43)

9

10 �f3

0-0 (D)

10 �ge2 is not worth serious at­ tention, as Black easily achieved an advantage after 1 0 . . . 'ii'h4+ 1 1 'itfl 'fie7 12 'itf2 �f6 13 J.d3 �g4+ 1 4 'itf3 'fih4 in the game Petrovic-Mi­ nasian, Novi Sad 1 988. 10 �a6 In Vaiser-Schalkx, Ostend 1 992, White easily gained an advantage af­ ter 10 . . . �f6 1 1 0-0 J.g4 1 2 .l:.e l ! ? ( 1 2 J.d2 �bd7 1 3 h 3 J.xf3 1 4 'ifxf3 a6 15 J.c4 �e8 1 6 .l:.ael �c7 17 'i'd3 ;!;; Poleksic-Martic, Corr 1 989, doesn't look bad either) 12 . . . �bd7 1 3 e5 dxe5 14 fxe5 �h5 15 J.xd7 ! 'it'xd7 16 h3 J.xf3 17 'ii'xf3. Nor can Black manage to equalize after 10 . . . a6 1 1 J.e2 ( for 1 1 J.d3 see 9 J.d3) and now: a) Life is not easy for Black af­ ter l l . . .�f6 12 0-0, for example 12 . . . .l:.e8 ( 1 2 .. .'ii' c7? ! 13 e5 �e8 14 e6 ! fxe6 1 5 i.c4 We7 1 6 dxe6 +­ Kasparov-Kuijpers, Dortmund jr Wch 1980; 12 . . . J.g4 1 3 e5 ! J.xf3 14 J.xf3 dxe5 15 fxe5 �fd7 16 e6 �e5 17 J.g4 with an obvious advantage; Semkov-Peev, Sofia 198 1 ) 13 e5 ! ? dxe5 14 fxe5 �g4 15 J.g5 f6 16 exf6 J.xf6 17 J.xf6 'ifxf6 1 8 d6 ! and White's threats are difficult to re­ pulse; Mestel-Littlewood, Hastings 1 982. b) l l .. .'ii'c7 leads to an advantage for White after 12 0-0 c4 1 3 �2 b5 14 axb5 �b6 15 �h l �bd7 16 e5 ! dxe5 17 �de4 J.b7 1 8 bxa6 .l:.xa6 1 9 l:txa6 J.xa6 2 0 f5 ± L i Zunian-Sax, Biel IZ 1 985. c) l l . . .l:te8 1 2 0-0 tLlf8 (Black cannot settle after 12 . . . b6? ! 13 h3 ...

Taimanov 's 8 i.b5+ 127 .ib7 14 i.c4 h6 15 l:.e1 c!Df8 16 e5 ± Littlewood-Vela, Barnsdale 1989, or 1 2 . . i.xc3 1 3 bxc3 .l:lxe4 14 i.d3 l:.e8 15 c4 with a strong attack for the pawn) 1 3 e5 ! ? (White also pre­ serves a small advantage after 1 3 h3 �bd7 14 l:.e1 'il/c7 1 5 i.c4 c!Db6 1 6 .i f l c4 1 7 i.e3 Hort-Tolnai, Dort­ mund 1 989, but the text move is sig­ nificantly more active) 13 ...c!Dbd7 14 �g5 dxe5 15 f5 �f6 16 g4 ! ? b5 17 axb5 c4 ( 1 7 . . .e4 1 8 d6 h6 1 9 �xf7 �xf7 20 i.c4+) 18 i.e3 h6 19 �ge4 �xe4 20 c!Dxe4 i.b7 2 1 .txc4 axb5 22 l:.xa8 'ii'x a8 23 i.b3 with a sig­ ni ficant advantage; Petursson-Per­ cnyi, Saint John 1 988. 1 1 0-0 (D) .

8

11 �b4 Where to place the knight is an eternal problem. Black quite often plays 1 1 . ..�7: a) Perhaps the most dangerous move for Black is 12 i.d3 ! ?, as ex­ amined under 9 i.d3. b) 12 l:.e1 c!Dxb5 13 axb5 l:.e8 14 h3 a6 1 5 i.d2 �b6 quickly works in Black's favour. c) 1 2 i.e2 is not dangerous, for ...

example 1 2 ... a6 13 c!Dd2 f5 1 4 �c4 i.d4+ 15 h 1 fxe4 1 6 c!Dxe4 �f6 17 �cxd6 �xe4 1 8 �xe4 �xd5 = SjOdahl-Atkinson, Arnhem 1 989. d) 12 i.c4 is possible: d 1 ) It is difficult for Black to achieve a good game after 1 2 . . . a6 13 .l:le 1 ( 1 3 'ii'e 1 .l:tb8 14 a5 b5 1 5 axb6 �xb6 1 6 .ta2 .tg4 17 'ii'g 3 .txf3 18 l:.xf3 �b5 = Holzi-Nunn, B aden 1 980) 13 . . . :te8 ( 1 3 . . . .l:lb8 14 e5 b5 15 e6 ! , and 13 . . . b5 14 axb5 �b6 15 i.fl axb5 16 l:.xa8 c!Dbxa8 17 c!Dxb5 c!Dxb5 18 i.xb5 'ii' b 6 1 9 i.c6 also favours White; Skembris­ Bell6n, Genoa 1 989) 14 e5 ! dxe5 1 5 d 6 c!De6 1 6 fxe5 c!Dd4 1 7 i.g5 ! ± Flear-Qei, Mondorf 1 99 1 . d2) 1 2 . . . l:.e8 1 3 .l:le 1 and now 13 . . . �b6 is quite possible, for exam­ ple 14 .tn i.g4 15 .td2 ( 1 5 h3? ! .txf3 1 6 'ii'xf3 �bxd5 !) 1 5 . . . i.d4+ 16 'iii> h 1 .tf2 17 .l:le2 i.xf3 18 gxf3 'ii' h4, or 14 i.b3 .tg4 1 5 i.d2 c4 1 6 .ta2 a5 ! ? = Malich-Bonsch, Berlin 1979. d3) 12 . . . c!Db6 ! ? 13 i.a2 ( 1 3 i.b3 changes nothing in principle, but 1 3 i.e2 i.g4 14 a5 �c8 1 5 �d2 .txe2 16 'ii'xe2 a6 leads to an equal game) 1 3 . . . i.g4 14 a5 (14 h3 i.xf3 1 5 'ii'xf3 a6 !?) 14 . . . �d7 15 i.c4 l:.b8 1 6 'ifd3 i.xf3 1 7 l:.xf3 a6 ! = Kaminik­ Urban, Katowice 1992. 12 .:.et !

Without any doubt the best move. White simultaneously frees the f1 square for his bishop and prepares a pawn breakthrough in the centre. The latter point also applies to other moves, but they don't create such big

128 Taimanov 's 8 i..b 5+ problems for Black, for example: a) 1 2 h3 a6 1 3 i.. e2 1:.e8 14 1:.e1 f5 ! 1 5 exf5 gxf5 1 6 i.. c4 Hort-Panno, Madrid 1 973, and Black could have played 1 6 . . . :xe 1 + 17 �xe 1 i.. d4+ 1 8 �h 1 'fi'f6 19 i.. d2 �b6 +. b) 1 2 f5, which is almost never seen in practice, deserves attention. c) 1 2 'ii?h 1 a6 1 3 i.. xd7 i.. xd7 14 f5 c4 ! 1 5 i.. g 5 i.. f6 1 6 'fi'd2 �d3 = Basin-Yudasin, Simferopol 1 988. d) 12 i.. e 3 a6 (stronger than 1 2 . . . b6 1 3 i.. f2 ! ? i.. a6 14 i.. h4 i.. f6 1 5 i.. xf6 'fi'xf6 1 6 i.. xa6 �xa6 17 e5 ±, or 1 2 ... �f6 13 h3 a6 14 i.. c4 �xe4 1 5 �xe4 l:e8 1 6 �e5 ! b6 17 �g5 dxe5 1 8 fxe5 with a large ad­ vantage; Soos-Povah, Birmingham 1 977) 1 3 i.. c4 ( 1 3 i.. e2 �f6 14 h3 l:.e8 1 5 e5 dxe5 1 6 i.. xc5 �fxd5 ! should not frighten Black) 1 3 . . . �b6 14 i.. e2 i.. g4 1 5 a5 �7 16 h3 i.. xf3 1 7 i.. xf3 .l:.e8 with equality. e) 1 2 i.. d2 a6 13 i..e2 (or 1 3 i..c4 �b6 1 4 i.. e2 i.. g4 ! ? = ) 1 3 . . Jle8 1 4 'ii' b 3 (after 14 i.. e 1 ! ? i t i s worth looking at 14 ... �b6 ! ? 1 5 a5 �d7 1 6 i.. h4 'ii'c 7 with an unclear game) 14 ... l:.b8 15 'ii?h 1 b5 16 axb5 axb5 17 e5 ! ? dxe5 1 8 fxe5 �xeS 1 9 i.. g 5 'ii'd7 20 :ad 1 with complications. 12

•••

a6 (D)

The passive move 12 ... b6? ! unties White's hands: 1 3 e5 ! Ve7 ( 1 3 . . . a6 14 e6 ! ) 14 e6 �f6 (Bendana-Paz, Corr 1992) 15 f5 ! ±. 13 i..n (D) 1 3 i.. c4? ! gives Black an impor­ tant tempo, and he can equalize after

1 3 . . . �b6 14 i.. e 2 i.. g4 1 5 h3 i.. xf3 1 6 i.. xf3 'ir'h4 17 �h2 1:.fe8 1 8 g3 'fi'd8 R.Watson-Nunn, London 1980.

13 14 h3 ••.

l:.e8 :bs

White has a clear advantage af­ ter 14 . . . �f6 1 5 i.. c4 ! ? �d7 1 6 i.. e 3 �b6 ( 1 6 ... i.. x c3 ? 17 bxc3 .l:he4 1 8 �d2 +-) 17 i.. f l i.. d7 1 8 i.. f2 l:c8 19 g4 c4 20 a5 ± T.Horvath-Bonsch, Kesthely 1 98 1 , or 14 ... b6 1 5 'ifb3 i.. b7 16 i.. d2 �f6 17 .l:.ad 1 1:.b8 1 8 i. e 1 �d7 1 9 i.. e 3 b5 20 axb5 axb5 21 i.. f2 i.. a6 22 e5 ! ± Lautier-Ham­ douchi, Manila OL 1992. 15 i.. e3

b6

Or 15 . . . �f6 16 i.. f2 �h5 17 g3 �f6 18 'ii'd2 �d7 19 g4 b6 20 l:.ac 1 i.. b7 21 i..c4 i.. a8 22 l:.cd 1 ;t Tataev­ Blodstein, Voskresensk 1 993. 16 17 18 19

'ii'd2

i.. b7

i..f2 fke7 i.. c4 'ii'f8 i..g3 ;t Black is restrained and it is diffi­ cult for him to organize realistic counterplay.

9 Four Pawns Attack without 9 l:.e8 (A68) ...

l 5

d4 ll'lf6 2 c4 cS 3 dS e6 4 ll'lc3 exdS cxdS d6 6 e4 g6 i.g7 7 f4 0-0 8 ll'lf3 9 i. e2 (D)

Black has no problems after 9 i.d3 i.g4 (9 . . . b5 ! ? is not bad either: lO e5 dxe5 1 1 fxe5 ll'lg4 with an un­ clear game) 10 0-0 a6 1 1 a4 ll'lbd7 1 2 h3 i.xf3 1 3 'ii'xf3 "iic7 14 i.d2 c4 = Ruf-Sher, Moscow 1990.

B

Now there are two main alterna­ tives to 9 . . . l:te8 (which constitutes A69 and so is the subject of the next chapter). They are: A) 9 . . . b5 B) 9 . . . i.g4 Other moves are either transposi­ tional, or give Black little chance of achieving a playable game:

a) 9 . . . b6? ! 10 e5 ll'le8 1 1 0-0 ll'la6 12 J.c4 ll'lac7 1 3 .:te l .:tb8 1 4 a4 a6 1 5 ll'lg5 ! b5 16 axb5 axb5 17 e6 ! ± Knezevic-Pithart, Olomouc 1 975. b) 9 . . . a6 1 0 a4 ! ? (10 0-0 leads to an unclear game: 1 0 . . . b5 1 1 e5 ll'le8 and now White should play Uhl­ mann' s recommendation 12 i.e3 ! ?; instead 1 2 e6 is weaker in view of 1 2 . . .f5 1 3 ll'lg5 i.b7 14 i.f3 'ii'e7 1 5 i.e3 h 6 1 6 ll'lf7 ll'ld7 1 7 l:.e l .:txf7 ! 1 8 exf7+ Wxf7 and Black already has an advantage; Monin-Uhlmann, Budapest 1989) 10 . . . i.g4 (10 . . . b6 1 1 0-0 l:.a7 1 2 ll'ld2 l1e7 1 3 i.f3 ll'le8 14 ll'lc4 favours White; Zamanov­ Grazman, Moscow 1 989) 1 1 0-0 ll'lbd7 1 2 h3 i.xf3 1 3 i.xf3 leads to 9 . . . i.g4. c) 9 . . .ll'la6 can be met by: c 1 ) 1 0 e5 ! ? dxe5 (or 10 . . . ll'le8 1 1 0-0 ll'lac7 1 2 a4 b6 1 3 l:r.el i.b7 14 i.c4 ±) 1 1 fxe5 ll'lg4 12 i.f4 l:le8 13 e6 fxe6 14 d6 i.d7 1 5 'ii'd 2 ( 1 5 h3 ll'lf6 1 6 ll'le5 ll'lb4 1 7 i.g5 h6 ! 1 8 i.xf6 Wxf6 1 9 ll'lxd7 'ii'h4+ allows Black an advantage) 15 . . . ll'lb4 1 6 0-0 with a better game. c2) 10 0-0 ll'lc7 1 1 .:tel ! is not bad either (Black equalizes after 1 1 a4 l1e8 1 2 ll'ld2 l1b8 1 3 ll'lc4 b6 14 i.f3 i.a6 1 5 'ii'b 3 i.xc4 16 Wxc4 a6 = ECO): 1 1 . . .l:.b8 12 e5 dxe5 1 3 d6

1 30 Four Pawns Attack without 9. . . .l:e8 lDe6 14 fxeS �g4 1S i.c4 ± Videki­ Hertneck, Kecskemet 1 990.

A) 9 ... b5! ? It i s significantly more difficult, if still generally possible, for White to gain an advantage after this thrust than after the moves we have just ex­ amined. Now a capture on bS by any piece does not pose Black any prob­ lems, for example 10 �xbS �xe4 1 1 0-0 a6 =, or 10 i.xbS �xe4 1 1 �xe4 'liaS+ 1 2 'iPf2 'iixbS 1 3 �xd6 'iib6 14 �c4 (14 .!Dxc8 l:txc8 1S �eS l:.d8 16 l:.e1 �d7 = ECO) 14 . . . 'iia6 1 S 'iie 2 i.d7 1 6 i.e3 i.bS 17 l:.hc 1 l:.e8 with good compensation. Therefore White should try : 10 eS Black must now choose one of three continuations. We shall take the traditional move as our main line, but this may not be Black's most promising. 10 dxeS Instead: a) 1 0 . . . �g4 ! ? 1 1 h3 �h6 1 2 i.xbS �fS 13 0-0 'iib6 14 i.c4 i.a6 1 S b3 �d7 1 6 �a4 'ii b7 17 i.xa6 'iixa6 1 8 l:.e1 �b6 19 �xb6 'iix b6 20 'iPh2, Skembris-Vuruna, Vmjacka B anja 1 989, and now Black should have played 20 . . . a5 ! ? with compen­ sation. b) 10 ... �fd7 ! ? is a comparatively new move, employed with success by the Ukrainian player Frolov. White's attempts to gain an advan­ tage have thus far not been crowned with success, for example:

b 1 ) 1 1 e6 fxe6 1 2 dxe6 �f6 1 3 �xbS dS 1 4 �gS 'iie 7 1 S fS a6 1 6 .!Dc3 gxfS 1 7 �xdS .!DxdS 1 8 'iixdS i.b7 1 9 'iic4 �c6 � Zakharevich­ Maksimenko, Moscow 1 99 1 . b2) 1 1 exd6 a6 1 2 fS �eS 1 3 fxg6 hxg6 14 0-0 i.fS 1 S i.f4 �bd7 with compensation, Frolov. b3) 1 1 �xbS dxeS 1 2 0-0 e4 1 3 �gS �f6 14 �c3 l:e8 1 S i.bS i.d7 16 i.xd7 �bxd7 17 l:.e1 �b6 18 d6 h6 19 �gxe4 �xe4 20 lbe4 i.d4+ 21 q.,h 1 �c4 with a good position; Feldmann-Frolov, S ibenik 1 989. b4) 1 1 i.xbS leads to equality: 1 l . . .dxeS 1 2 0-0 ( 1 2 fxeS �xeS = ) 12 . . . i.a6 1 3 i.xa6 �xa6 1 4 fS c4 = Berkovich-Frolov, Alushta 1 992. 10 . . . .!Dfd7 ! ? may be a stumbling block in White's attempts to achieve an advantage. .!Dg4 (D) 1 1 fxeS

w

..•

12 i.gS This is the only move which lays any claim to an advantage. Other moves are harmless: a) 12 0-0 �xeS 13 i.f4 �bd7 14 i.xbS 'iib 6 1 S .!DxeS �xeS 1 6 'iid2 a6 = is totally inoffensive for Black.

Four Pawns Attack without 9.. .ll e8 131 b) 12 �xbS �xeS 13 0-0 �bd7 1 4 .tf4 'ii'b 6 1S 'iii>h l a6 16 �c3

'i'xb2 17 �a4 'ii'a3 18 :c t �g4 = is ulso entirely harmless. c) Only White will have prob­ lems after 1 2 .tf4 ? ! b4 ! (stronger t han 12 . . . �d7 1 3 e6 fxe6 14 dxe6 :xf4 IS 'ifdS c.t>h8 16 'ifxa8 �b6 17 "ii'x a7 .txe6 1 8 0-0 �e3 1 9 Af2 b4 Kcres-Spassky, Riga Ct 1 96S, and White would have achieved an ad­ vantage after 20 �d l !) 1 3 �e4 (or 1 3 �bS a6 14 �d6 �xeS l S .txeS .t xeS +) 13 . . . �d7 14 e6 fxe6 l S dxe6 :xf4 1 6 'ifdS c;i;>h8 17 'ifxa8 lbb6 1 8 'ifc6 �e3 1 9 g3 ( 1 9 'ill> f2 ? loses; 1 9 ... .td4 20 �g3 l:tg4+ 21 �h3 'iff8 -+) 1 9 ... �c2+ 20 c.tfl (20 �f2? 'ifd4+ 2 1 'iPg2 'ifxe4 22 'ifxe4 :xe4 23 .td3 :xe6 -+ Martin-Bot­ tcrill, Charlton 1978) 20 ... l:tfS. 12

...

'ifb6

White easily achieves a better game after: a) 12 . . . 'ifa5 1 3 0-0 �xeS 14 d6 .te6 l S �xeS .txeS 1 6 .tf3 �d7 1 7 .txa8 :xa8 18 'ii'f3 :b8 19 l:tad 1 h4 20 �dS, Blokh-WeXler, USSR 1 978. b) 12 . . . f6 13 exf6 .txf6 14 'ifd2 ( 14 .txf6 is not bad either: 14 ...'ifxf6 1 5 'ifd2 ! ? l:.e8 { or 1 S . . . a6 1 6 0-0 'fke7 1 7 li:)gS ! l:.xfl + 1 8 l:hfl li:)e3 1 9 l:tf3 li:)fS 20 g4 li:)d6 21 l:te3 'ii'f8 22 li:)ce4 ± Avshalumov-N.Nikolic, Belgrade 1 988 } 16 0-0 a6 17 d6 lt:)e3 1 8 l:tfel ;!; Videki-Csuilits, Szek­ szard 1 989) 1 4 . . . :e8 ! ? (nor does 1 4 ... .txgS lead to equality: lS li:)xgS lLla6 16 h3 lLleS 17 d6 ± Blokh-Kras­ nov, USSR 1 986) I S 0-0 b4 1 6 li:)d l

.tb7 1 7 �f2 .txgS ( 1 7 . . . 'ifxdS ? ! loses to the continuation 1 8 'ifxdS+ .txdS 19 li:)xg4 .txgS 20 li:)xgS l:lxe2 21 �f6+) 1 8 li:)xgS ± Blokh­ Kitchev, Corr 1 99 1 . 13 0-0 (D)

8

13 li:)d7 Black's problems are not solved by any of the following: a) 13 . . . a6? ! 14 d6 c4+ lS 'iPh l .td7 1 6 li:)dS 'ii' b7 17 h3 lLlh6 1 8 li:)e7+ �h8 1 9 lLld4 ± Avshalumov­ Moracchini, Cannes 1 990. b) 1 3 ... li:)xeS 14 li:)xeS .txeS l S .te7 �d7 1 6 d 6 .tb7 1 7 �dS Wc6 1 8 .tf3 again with an advantage; Gorelov-Vasiukov, Moscow 1 98 1 . c) 1 3 . . . c4+ leads to the same re­ sult: 14 li'hl li:)xe5 lS li:)xeS ( l S .te7 i s weaker: 1 S . . . li:)bd7 1 6 d6 .tb7 17 li:)dS .txdS 18 'ifxdS li:)g4 with a complicated game; LutikovYurtaev, USSR 1977) lS . . . .txeS 1 6 .te7 l:te8 17 d 6 .tb7 ( 1 7 . . . .te6 1 8 li:)dS 'ifd4 1 9 li:)c7 �d7 20 .tf3 l:tac8 21 �xe6 ! fxe6 22 .tg4 ± Blokh-Bo­ brov, USSR 1 982) 1 8 li:)dS 'ii'd4 1 9 'ii'xd4 .txd4 20 li:)c7 li:)d7 2 1 li:)xb5 ± ECO. ...

132 Four Pawns Attack without 9... 1::te8 14 e6 15 dxe6

fxe6 c4+

White has a minimal advantage in the event of 1 5 . . . 'ii' xe6 1 6 .!Oxb5 .l:r.b8 ! ? (but not 16 . . . .ta6? 1 7 .!Oc7 .txe2 1 8 lDxe6 .txd 1 19 :fxd1 l::tf7 20 lDd8 ! +- Sosonko-Hug, Geneva 1 977) 17 lDfd4 'ii'd5 1 8 .txg4 'ii'xg5 1 9 .te6+. 16 h 1 17 e7 18 'ii'd4! ?

lDdt'6 :e8

Black can equalize with exact play after 1 8 a4 .tb7 ! 1 9 lDd4 ! 'ii'c5 ! ( 1 9 . . . lDe5? 20 a5 'ii'a6 2 1 .!0dxb5 ±) 20 .txg4 'ii'x g5 21 .tf3 .txf3 22 'ii' xf3 'ifg4 23 ..-xg4 lDxg4 24 lDc6 lDe5 ! (an improvement in compari­ son with Gorelov-Gleizerov, USSR 1 986, in which the following oc­ curred: 24 . . . b4 25 lDd5 :ac8 26 lDcxb4 ;!;) 25 axb5 lDxc6 26 bxc6 .txc3 27 bxc3 l::t xe7 28 :a4 :c8 29 l:xc4 l::te 6 = Gleizerov. 18 19 20 21 22 23

..-xb6! .!Od4 .txf6 .!OdxbS .txc4+

.td7 axb6 h6

lDxf6 l:xe7

with a small advantage to White.

B) 9 i.g4 (D) ...

A logical move, as Black is cramped, and so it is in his interest to exchange some pieces, but recently White, led in the first place by Vaiser, has managed to find the key to this vari­ ation. 10 0-0

w

Or: a) 10 h3 .txf3 1 1 .txf3 .!0bd7 1 2 a4 a6 1 3 g4 ( 1 3 0-0! ? i s stronger, and is examined under 1 0 0-0) 1 3 . . . h6 14 h4 lDh7 1 5 f2 c4 1 6 .te3 .l:r.c8 17 .td4 lDc5 with a better game; D.Gurevich-Gheorghiu, USA 1 98 1 . b) A complicated and interest­ ing game arises after 10 e5 !?: b 1 ) White has an advantage after 10 ... lDe8?! l l lDg5 ! .txe2 ( 1 l .. ..tc8 12 e6 fxe6 13 dxe6 lDc7 14 0-0 lDc6 15 f5 ! :xf5 16 .l:[xf5 gxf5 17 .tc4 ± Schon-Szymczak, Naleczow 1 988) 12 'ifxe2 'ii'e7 13 e6 f5 1 4 0-0 lDa6 15 .te3 .!0ac7 16 l:tfd 1 , Kozul-Dam­ ljanovic, Yugoslavia 1989. b2) 10 ... .!0fd7 1 1 e6 fxe6 1 2 lDg5 .txe2 13 lDxe2 ( 1 3 'ii'xe2 leads to roughly the same result: 1 3 ... exd5 14 'ii'e6+ { 14 lDe6? .txc3+ 1 5 bxc3 'ii'f6 with some advantage to Black } 14 . . . h8 1 5 lDxd5 .!Of6, Sutter­ Wojtkiewicz, Bern 1 99 1 , and now White should have continued 1 6 lDf7+ .l:[xf7 1 7 'it'xf7 ;!;) 1 3 ... exd5 1 4 'ii'xd5+ �h8 15 lDf7+ l:xf7 1 6 'ii'xf7 lDc6 17 0-0 and here White has a minimal advantage; SchOn-Wojt­ kiewicz, Naleczow 1988.

Four Pawns Attack without 9. . .1:e8 133 .

b3) 1 0 . . . dxe5 has unclear conse­ quences: 1 1 fxe5 li)fd7 12 i.. g5 ! ? 'Wb6 1 3 0-0 i.. xf3 ! ? ( 1 3 . . .'fi'xb2? ! 1 4 l,i)a4 'ii'a3 1 5 i.. c l 'ii'b4 16 i..d2 'ii'a3 1 7 l:.b 1 ! li)xe5 1 8 li)xe5 i.. xe2 1 9 'Wxe2 'ii'xa4 20 li)xf7 ! ± SchOn-Hel­ lcrs, Berlin 1 988) 14 i.. xf3 'it'xb2 1 5 i.. d 2 li)xe5 1 6 l:b1 'ii'a3 1 7 l:xb7 l,i)bd7 18 d6 and White has enough compensation for the pawn; Schon­ Maus, Bundesliga 1 989. b4) 10 . . . i.. xf3 1 1 i.. xf3 dxe5 12 fxe5 li)fd7 (White's position is more promising after 1 2 . . . l:te8 1 3 0-0 l:xe5 14 i.. f4 l:.e8 { 14 . . . l:e7 only strengthens White's initiative: 1 5 'ii' b3 li)bd7 1 6 d 6 l:e6 17 li)d5 li)xd5 1 8 i.. x d5 i.. d4+ 19 c;lilh 1 ± SchOn­ Cvitan, New York 1987 } 15 'ii'b 3 'Wb6 16 l:tfe1 li)bd7 17 d6 l:txe1+ 1 8 l:xe1 'ii'x b3 1 9 axb3 ltb8 20 li)d5 li)xd5 21 i.. xd5 with unpleasant threats) 1 3 e6 li)e5 14 0-0 (removing the tension from the centre favours Black: 1 4 exf7+ ltxf7 15 0-0 li)bd7 1 6 li)e4 li)xf3+ 17 ltxf3 ltxf3 1 8 'itxf3 li)e5 + Knezevic-Gligoric, Yugoslavia 1 970) 14 . . . li)xf3+ (you also come across 14 . . . fxe6 with the further possibility of 1 5 i.. e4 l:.xfl + 1 6 "ii' x fl 'ifilh8 1 7 i.. e3 exd5 1 8 i.. xd5 with reasonable compensation; Ha­ j cnius-Le Quang, Brussels Z 1 993) 15 ltxf3 fxe6 16 ltxf8+ 'ii'xf8 17 i.. e 3 ! (17 dxe6? ! is bad because of 1 7 . . . i.. d4+ 18 �h 1 li)c6 +) 17 . . . li)a6 ( 1 7 . . . exd5 ? ! 1 8 'ifxd5+ "ii'f7 1 9 "ii'd 8+ 'ii'f8 2 0 'flc7 favours White; Schon-Westerinen, Porz 1 990) 1 8 dxe6 'ii'e7 19 "ii' b 3 l:te8 = Schon­ Sherzer, New York 1 987.

Now we return to the position af­ ter 10 0-0 (D) in the main line.

B

10 li)bd7 Otherwise: a) 1 0 . . . lte8 1 1 h3 i.. xf3 12 i.. xf3 li)bd7 is examined in the notes to 10 . . . li)bd7 . b) The rare move 10 . . . li)fd7 ! ? de­ serves attention, as White has thus far not found an answer to it, for ex­ ample 1 1 li)g5 i.. xe2 12 'flxe2 h6 1 3 li)f3 lte8 14 'ii'c 2 li)a6 = Piskov­ Neverov, Podolsk 1 989 or 1 1 a4 li)a6 1 2 li)b5 "ife7 1 3 h3 i.. xf3 14 i.. xf3 li)b4 15 e5 dxe5 1 6 d6 'fih4 1 7 i.. xb7 ltab8 + Piskov-Itkis, Kastel Stari 1988. c) 10 . . . i.. xf3 1 1 i.. xf3 li)bd7 can­ not be the best solution; indeed White usually has to waste a tempo on moving the h-pawn in order to get this exchange: c 1 ) 12 a4 a6 13 i..e3 l:.e8 14 i.. f2 ltb8 15 g4 h6 16 h4 b5 17 g5 li)h7 1 8 axb5 axb5 19 'fle2 c4 led to equality in the game Zsu.Polgar-Fedorowicz, New York 1985 . c2) In Doroshkevich-Tal, Ere­ van 1975, B lack seized the initiative •••

134 Four Pawns Attack without 9... .1:r.e8 after 1 2 �h 1 a6 1 3 i.e3 ( 1 3 a4 ! ? is interesting) 1 3 . . . l:.e8 14 g4 h6 15 g5? ! hxg5 1 6 e5 gxf4 ! 17 exf6 J:.xe3 1 8 fxg7 �e5 . c3) 1 2 .l:.e1 ! ? �e8 (or 1 2 . . . l:r.e8 1 3 i.e3 a6 14 a4 1fa5 15 1t'c2 c4 1 6 i.f2 �c5 1 7 e5 with initiative for White; Buckley-Hennigan, Guild­ ford 1 99 1 ) 1 3 .l:.e2 a6 14 1t'e1 'fle7 1 5 a4 �c7 1 6 i.e3 .l:.fe8 1 7 l:.d 1 1t'd8 1 8 i.f2 ;t Vaiser-Maki, Helsinki 1 99 1 .

Damljanovic, Belgrade 1 989, White has achieved a clear advantage. 11 i.:xf3 12 i.xf3 (D)

B

1 1 h3

Instead: a) Only White has problems in the event of 1 1 i.e3 .l:.e8 12 �d2 i.xe2 1 3 1i'xe2 b5 ! 14 'iff3 b4 1 5 �d 1 'fie7 Kaidanov-Lerner, Norilsk 1 987. b) Black also has no difficulties after 1 1 �d2 i.xe2 1 2 'iVxe2 lle8 1 3 'fif3 a6 (White has a small advantage after 1 3 ... l:.c8 14 �h 1 c4 1 5 g4 ;t, but here 1 5 . . . �c5 ? ! allows White a real advantage: 1 6 e5 ! dxe5 17 fxe5 .l:.xe5 1 8 �xc4 �cd7 1 9 �xe5 �xe5 20 1i'g3 �exg4 21 i.f4 ± Nogueiras­ Cvitan, Novi Sad OL 1 990; 13 ... 'ife7 1 4 .l:.el �b6 ! deserves attention) 14 a4 'ifc7 1 5 �c4 �b6 16 �xb6 1i'xb6 with an equal position; Sutter-Ztiger, Switzerland 1 992. c) 1 1 .l:.e1 !? is a very reasonable move, and after the correct 1 1 ... l:r.e8 1 2 h3 i.xf3 1 3 i.xf3 we have reached the position examined in the notes to 1 1 h3 i.f3 12 i.f3 l:r.e8 1 3 .l:.e1 , whilst after 1 1 . . . a6? ! 12 e5 dxe5 1 3 fxe5 �5 14 e6 fxe6 1 5 dxe6 i.xe6 1 6 �g5 i.d4+ 1 7 � h 1 i.f7 1 8 �xf7 l:.xf7 1 9 i.c4, Kozul-

12 l:r.e8 White's position strikes me as be­ ing the more promising after 1 2 ... c4 1 3 i.e3, for example 1 3 . . . 'fla5 1 4 i.d4 (or 1 4 �h 1 ! ? .l:.fe8 1 5 l:r.e1 - see 12 . . . l:.e8) 14 . . .l:r.fe8 15 b4 ! ( 1 5 g4 meets the standard reaction 1 5 . . . h6 1 6 h4 g5 ! ? II:)) 1 5 . . . 'ilxb4 1 6 .l:.b1 'fla5 17 l:xb7 a6 1 8 �a4 ! ? �xe4 19 i.xg7 �dc5 20 'ifd4 �xb7 21 i.h6 f6 22 i.xe4 'ifxa4 Kouatly-Nunn, Cannes 1 992, and 23 f5 !? was possi­ ble, with initiative. You also frequently come across 1 2 ... a6: a) Black has plenty of chances for a good game after 13 a4: a1) 1 3 . . . c4 14 i.e3 Wa5 (the line 14 . . . llc8 15 i.d4 �c5 16 e5 dxe5 17 fxe5 �fd7 18 e6 �e5 1 9 i.xc5 i s unclear; Zsu.Polgar-Nunn, Hamburg 1985) 15 'ife2 l:ac8 1 6 �h 1 l:.fe8 17 'iff2 �c5 1 8 i.xc5 'flxc5 19 a5 .l:.c7 = Berkmortel-Ghe­ orghiu, Bad Worishofen 1 988. ..•

Four Pawns Attack without 9. . . l:.e8 135 u2) 1 3 ... l:.b8 is really not too bad rl ther: 1 4 l:.e 1 ( 1 4 a5 lL!e8 15 'ifc2 /i)c7 16 .td2 b5 17 axb6 lL!xb6 1 8 /i)c2 'ii'd 7 = Monin-Sergienko, Bu­ dapest 1 993) 14 . . . lL!e8 ! 15 a5 lL!c7 J fl 'ii'd 3 b5 17 axb6 l:.xb6 1 8 lL!a4 .. h4 ! 19 .te3 l:lb4 = Zlochevsky­ Schckachev, Moscow 1989 u3) 13 . . . "ii'a5 1 4 .td2 ( 14 l:.el ! ?) 1 4 . . . c4 1 5 �hl l:lfe8 1 6 'ifc2 l:lac8 17 lL!d l 'ifd8 1 8 .tc3 b5 1 9 axb5 u x b5 with equality; Djukic-Dam­ ljunovic, Yugoslav Ch 1 99 1 . b ) 1 3 g4 ! ? lL!e8 14 g 5 lL!c7 ( 1 4 . . . f5 does not lead to equality : 1 5 c x f5 gxf5 1 6 .te3 b5 1 7 'ifc2 lLlb6 I H l:.ae1 lL!c7 19 b3 'ifd7 20 l:.d l •n 2 1 .tf2 ;!; Bagaturov-Grigorian, Bclgorod 1 989) 1 5 .tg4 ( 1 5 h4 is worth testing, e.g. 1 5 . . . lL!b5 1 6 .td2 li:\d4 17 h5 f6 1 8 h6 .th8 19 .tg4 w ith a pleasant game) 15 . . . lL!b5 ! 1 6 c5 lLlxc3 ( 1 6 ... dxe5 1 7 f5 lLld6 1 8 f6 li)xf6 ! 1 9 gxf6 .txf6 also leads to an unclear game) 17 bxc3 dxe5 1 8 f5 ! c4 ! 1 9 f6 lLlxf6 ! 20 gxf6 .txf6 with mutual chances; N ogueiras-Velimi­ rovic, Reggio Emilia 1 986. c) 13 l:.el ! ? also deserves attenlion. 13 l:lel White is preparing a pawn break in the centre, as often played by Vaiser, the leading specialist in the Four Pawns Attack, and this may still be an excellent advert. You also see: a) 1 3 g4 h6 14 h4 and now: al) 14 ... lL!h7 15 g5 hxg5 16 hxg5 u6 (or 16 . . . f6 17 gxf6 'ifxf6 1 8 .te3 l:.e7 19 �g2 ;!; Arencibia-Gonzalez, Cuba 1 993) 17 a4 c4 1 8 .te3 l:.c8 19

.td4 (19 .tg4 is too adventurous : 1 9 . . . .txc3 20 bxc3 l:.xe4 2 1 'iff3 'ife7 22 .td4 l:.e8 co Stankovic-Paun­ ovic, Cetinje 1 992) 1 9 . . . .txd4+ 20 'ifxd4 lL!c5 2 1 l:ladl l:lc7 22 .tg2 ;!; Monin-Purtov, Budapest 1993 . a2) 14 . . . h5 ! ? 1 5 g5 ( 1 5 gxh5 lL!xh5 16 .txh5 gxh5 17 'ifxh5 b5 ! with compensation) 1 5 . . . lL!g4 1 6 .txg4 hxg4 1 7 l:le l (or 1 7 'ifxg4 .txc3 1 8 bxc3 l:lxe4 19 .td2 'ife7 20 l:.ael lL!b6 = ) 17 . . . c4 1 8 .te3 .txc3 19 bxc3 l:lxe4 20 'ifxg4 'ife7 = Kou­ atly-Kindermann, Tmava 1 987. b) 1 3 a4 (D) and now:

bl) 1 3 . . . 'ifa5 is worth testing. b2) 13 . . . h6 leads to huge complications : 14 �h l l:.c8 1 5 a5 c4 1 6 l:.a4 lL!c5 ! ? (stronger than 1 6 . . . b5? ! 17 lL!xb5 lL!c5 1 8 lL!xa7 ! lL!xa4 1 9 lL!xc8 'ifxc8 20 'ifxa4 lL!xe4 2 1 .txe4 l:lxe4 22 a6 ± Piskov-Velimi­ rovic, Kastel Stari 1 988) 17 l:.xc4 'ifxa5 18 b4 Wa6 1 9 .te2 b5, Piskov. b3) White preserves a small ad­ vantage after 13 ... a6 14 a5 ! ? (but not 14 �h l ? ! b5 ! 15 axb5 axb5 16 l:.xa8 'ifxa8 �) 14 ... c4 (or 14 ... l:.b8 15 �h i b5 1 6 axb6 l:.xb6 17 'ifd3 'ifc7 1 8

136 Four Pawns Attack without 9. . . l:e8 l:.a4 l:.a8 1 9 l:.d 1 l:a7 20 'ii'e2 'ii'b 8 21 l:.e1 ! ;!; Avshalumov-Dumitrache, B aku 1 988) 15 l:.a4 b5 16 axb6 lLlxb6 1 7 l:.a3 lL!fd7 1 8 .i.e3 f5 1 9 .i.d4 ;!; Michaelsen-Southam, Lyng­ by 1 990. b4) 1 3 . . . c4 ! ? 14 .i.e3 'it'a5 (Black cannot organize his position after 1 4 . . . a6? ! 15 a5 l:.c8 1 6 l:.e1 lLlc5 17 .i.xc5 ! :xeS 1 8 e5 dxe5 1 9 fxe5 lL!d7 20 e6 lLle5 2 1 exf7 + lLlxf7 22 l:.xe8+ Wxe8 23 d6 with an obvious advantage; Lukov-Grivas, Lenin­ grad 1 988) 15 .i.d4 l:.e7 ! ? 1 6 �h1 a6 17 g4 llae8 1 8 g5 lLlxe4 ! 1 9 lL!xe4 l%xe4 20 .i.xe4 l:.xe4 2 1 .i.xg7 �xg7 with excellent compensation for the exchange; Peev-Velimirovic, Sofia 1 972. Now we return to the position af­ ter 1 3 l:.e1 (D) in the main line:

Kindermann, Biel 1 99 1 ) 1 5 a3 lLlb6 and now White must play precisely: a1) 1 6 .i.f2?! lLlc4 1 7 'ii'c2 (or 1 7 b 3 ? 'it'xc3 1 8 bxc4 lLlxe4 ! 1 9 l:.c l lL!xf2 20 l:.xe8+ l:.xe8 -+ Kouatly­ Barcenilla, Doha 1 993) 17 . . . lLld7 1 8 .i.e2 (after 1 8 a4 b4 1 9 lLlb5 a6 20 'ifxc4 axb5 21 'it'xb5 'fi'xb5 22 axb5 .i.xb2 White's position is cheerless) 18 . . . l:.ab8 19 a4 b4, Kozul-Nunn, Wijk aan Zee 199 1 , and the variation suggested by Stohl - 20 lLlbS lLlxb2 2 1 lLlxd6 b3 22 'ii'b 1 lLlxa4 23 lLlxe8 .i.xa1 24 'it'xa1 llxe8 - does not offer White many chances for salvation. a2) 16 e5 ! lLlc4 (D) ( 1 6 . . . dxe5 ! ? is perhaps stronger: 1 7 fxe5 :xeS 1 8 .i.xc5 l:.xe1 + 1 9 'it'xe 1 lLlbd7 20 .i.d4 with only a small advantage to White).

8

13

•••

c4

Other moves: a) Huge complications begin af­ ter 1 3 . . . 1fa5 14 .i.e3 b5 ( 14 . . . l:.ac8 is weaker: 1 5 g4 h6 1 6 h4 b5 17 g5 hxg5 1 8 hxg5 lLlh7 1 9 .i.g4 :cd8 20 e5 ! dxe5 2 1 f5 and White 's attack develops with no problems; Vaiser-

17 exf6 lLlxe3 18 l:.xe3 ( 1 8 'it'c 1 ? .i.xf6 -+) 1 8 . . .l:xe3 1 9 fxg7 :ae8 ( 19 . . . �xg7 ! ? 20 f5 ! only strength­ ens White's attack) 20 f5 ! gxf5 (nor does Black have an easy life after 20 . . . �xg7 21 f6+ ! �xf6 22 lLle4+ l%8xe4 23 .i.xe4 l:.xe4 24 'it'f3+ 'ilte5 25 b4 ! ? with an attack, Glek, or 20 ... 'it'd8 2 1 'it'd2 'ifh4 22 lLlxb5 ± as

Four Pawns Attack without 9 . J le8 137 .

in Vaiser-Kruger, San Bernardino

I IJ90) 2 1 'ii'd 2 ! (the error 21 tLle2 handed the initiative to Black in ( i lek-Yurtaev, Moscow GMA 1989: 2 1 . . . 'ir'd8 ! 22 'ii'c2 l:8eS 23 a4 'ii'gS 24 �h2 b4) 2 l . . .b4 22 tLle2 c4 23 t'f)g3 c3 24 bxc3 bxc3 2S 'ir'c2 '6'b6 26 �h2 'ir'b2 27 .l:a2 and White has a distinct advantage; Vaiser-YrjOlii, Helsinki 1 99 1 . b ) There i s n o equality in evi­ dence after 1 3 . . . a6, for example 14 u4 (14 g4 h6 15 h4 bS 1 6 g5 hxg5 17 h xg5 lLlh7 18 'iPg2 tLlb6 1 9 l:[h 1 :.a7 oo Kouatly-Al Modiahki, Doha 1 993, is interesting) 1 4 . . . c4 (alter­ natively, 14 . . . .l:b8 15 g4 { 1S aS ! ? } 1 5 . . .h 6 1 6 h4 lLlh7 1 7 g S c4 1 8 .ie3 :.c8 19 .ig4 ;;!;; YrjoHi-Pedzich, Cap­ pelle la Grande 1 992) 15 .ie3 'i!ka5 1 6 �h 1 l:[e7 ! ? ( 1 6 . . . h6 17 .id4 tLlc5 ? ! 1 8 .ixcS 'ii'xc5 19 e5 dxe5 20 fxe5 lLld7 21 e6 tLle5 22 exf7 + �xf7 23 d6 ± Vaiser-Le Quang, Ostend 1 992) 17 .id4 !? with a small advan­ tage. c) White has a better game after 1 3 ... :c8 : c 1 ) InNogueiras-Kasparov, Bar­ celona World Cup 1989, the World Champion achieved equality after 14 .ie3 bS ! ? (14 ... c4 1 5 �h 1 tLlc5 16 .ixc5 .l:xc5 17 eS) 1 5 tLlxbS tLlxe4 1 6 .ixe4 .l:xe4 17 lLlxd6 l:txe3 1 8 .:.xe3 .id4 19 'ii'f3 l:[b8 20 �h2 lLlf6 2 1 tLlc4 .ixe3 22 'ii'xe3 'ii'xd5. c2) 14 �h 1 ! ? a6 15 a4 c4 16 .ie3 tLlc5 17 .ixcS :xeS 18 eS dxeS 1 9

fxeS lLld7 2 0 e 6 tLle5 21 exf7+ h2 i.c4 22 l:le 1 �xa2 and White faces a diffi­ c u lt defence; Panchius-Liberzon, I srael 1 984) 15 . . . �b4 ! 16 �xe8 �c2+ 17 f l i.h3+ = ) 20 . . . �b4+ 2 1 h 1 Other possibilities: a) 12 a4 �c7 (or 1 2 . . . �b4 ! ? 1 3 i.f3 b6 1 4 �c4 i.a6 1 5 'ifb3 l:lb7 ! ? with counter-chances) 1 3 'iti>h 1 a6 ( 1 3 . . . b6 is interesting: 14 i.f3 i.a6 A l l) 1 1 ...

140 Four Pawns Attack: 9. . J�e8 1 5 .l:lf2 tLld7 1 6 lLlfl �xf1 17 l:txfl a6 with equality; Ermenkov-Marti­ novic, Vrnjacka Banja 1 978) and now 1 4 a5 leads us to the variation with 1 2 'itr>h l . b ) 1 2 �f3 lLlb4 ( 1 2 . . .lLlc7 ! ?) can be met by 1 3 �e2, already inviting a repetition of moves, to which Black could agree, or else he could take a risk and go into an unclear game with 1 3 . . . c4 ! ? when White should prefer 14 'Wa4 ! ? to 14 �xc4? lLlg4 Topalov-Granda, Forli 1988. c) 12 .l:le1 lLlc7 (Black demon­ strated an interesting idea in the game Teichmann-Harts ton, London 1 984: 1 2 . . . h5 ! ? 1 3 h3 lLlc7 14 a4 b6 15 .l:lb1 �a6 =, and after the error 1 6 b 3 ? lLlg4 ! Black easily seized the in­ itiative) 1 3 a4 b6 and 14 �f3 brings us to A 1 2, whilst 14 .l:lb1 a6 15 'ii'c2 b5 1 6 axb5 axb5 17 b4 lLlfxd5 ! 1 8 exd5 �f5 1 9 lLlce4 lLlxd5 A.Zaitsev­ Vitolinsh, Leningrad 1 962, is not unadvantageous for Black. lLlc7 12 •••

13 a4

a6

White has a small advantage after the pretentious 1 3 . . . h5 14 f5 ! a6 1 5 a5 gxf5 (after 1 5 . . . �d7 1 6 lLlc4, the move 1 6 . . . lLlxe4 is unfavourable for B lack: 1 7 lLlxe4 .l:lxe4 1 8 fxg6 fxg6 1 9 lLlxd6 ltd4 20 Wc2 ±) 1 6 �xh5 lLlb5 ( 1 6 . . . fxe4 17 tLldxe4 ! ) 17 exf5 lte5 1 8 �f3 .l:lxf5 1 9 lLlc4 M.Gure­ vich-Smirin, Moscow 1988. 14 aS 15 �f3 (D)

�d7

Vaiser's idea deserves great atten­ tion: 1 5 e5 ! ? dxe5 1 6 lLlc4 �b5 17 d6 lLle6 1 8 fxe5 tLld7 1 9 �f4 lLlxf4

20 .l:lxf4 lLlxe5 2 1 lLlxb5 axb5 22 lLlb6 Vaiser-Ibragimov, Bern 1 992, but we will only know its true value after further practical tests.

8

tLlbS ! ? 15 1 5 . . . �b5 also looks quite reason­ able: 16 l:te1 (16 lLlxb5 axb5 17 ltb1 c4 18 .l:le1 tLld7 + Nemet-Gheorghiu, Biel 1 985, favours Black) 1 6 . . . �d3 ! 17 Wb3 Wd7 18 lLlc4 �xc4 19 Wxc4, Arakelian-lbragimov, Podolsk 1 993, and now 19 ... b5 ! ? 20 axb6 .l:lxb6 would have equalized. .•.

16 eS

White cannot organize himself after 16 lLlxb5 �xb5 17 .l:le 1 c4 1 8 .:ta3 l:tc8 1 9 lLlfl tLld7 + Toth-de Fir­ mian, Biel 1 986. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

fxeS lLlc4 lLle3 lLle2 g3 �xe4 lLlc4

dxeS l:lxeS :rs .1:114 ! :b4

lte4! lLlxe4

Or 23 lLlf4 tLld4 24 'ilr>g2 'We7 25 .l:le1 h5 with an attack; Ufimtsev-Tal, USSR 1967.

Four Pawns Attack: 9. . l:.e8 141 .

23

.

..

"ile7

tDt'6 24 � e3 with an edge for Black; Haba­ S m irin, Polanica Zdroj 1 989. One aa c t s the impression that White's fu­ l u rc attempts will be connected with I � c5 ! ? .

A l 2) 1 1 12 a4 (D)

0.c7

Black has no problems after 1 2 i. f3 l:tb8 1 3 ltJc4 (for 1 3 a4 ! ? b6

1 2 a4) 13 . . . b5 14 liJxd6 (White faces difficulties after 14 liJa5 ? ! �d7 1 5 e5 dxe5 16 fxe5 l:xe5 17 �f4 :.rs ! 18 �g3 b4 1 9 liJa4 { or 19 ltJc6 .ixc6 20 dxc6 bxc3 2 1 'Wxd8+ l:.xd8 1= Soos-Matulovic, Skopje 1 967 } 1 9 . . . liJfxd5 20 ltJxc5 �b5 + Zinser­ Evans, Venice 1 967) 14 . . .'ii'xd 6 1 5 c 5 'it'd8 16 exf6 'Wxf6 = Gligoric. sec

Black has quite sufficient compensa­ tion for the piece, a view to which I subscribe. 13 l:.el

Black has an easy game after 1 3 l:.b1 �a6 14 �xa6 ltJxa6 1 5 'iff3 'ife7 1 6 b3 liJb4 1 7 �b2 liJc2 (the move 17 . . . a6 ! ?, with the idea of 1 8 e5 ? dxe5 1 9 fxe5 liJfxd5 20 liJxd5 liJxd5 2 1 'ifxd5 l:tad8, is also not bad) 1 8 l:.bc 1 liJd4 19 'it'd3 a6 20 l:.ce 1 liJd7 with equality; K.Grigor­ ian-Suetin, USSR 1 975. Chances are equal in the event of 1 3 'ilfh 1 �a6 14 l:.e 1 (or 14 �xa6 ltJxa6 15 fi'f3 liJb4 1 6 liJc4 liJc2 = ) 14 . . . �xe2 1 5 l1xe2 liJg4 1 6 h3 fi'h4 17 fin �d4 ( 1 7 . . . f5? is weak: 1 8 liJf3 'ii'h 5 1 9 e 5 dxe5 2 0 fxe5 ltJxe5 2 1 d6 ± Savon-Beliavsky, Moscow 1 973) 1 8 liJf3 liJf2+ 1 9 �h2 liJg4+ with a draw. 13 . l:.b8 The line 1 3 . . . �a6 ! ? 14 �xa6 ( 1 4 �f3 �d3 ! ?) 14 . . . ltJxa6 15 ltJc4 liJb4 is unclear. ..

14 �f3

12 ...

b6

12 ... a6 is also interesting: 13 �f3 l:tb8 14 ltJc4 ( 1 4 e5 dxe5 1 5 fxe5 liJfxd5 1 6 liJxd5 liJxd5 17 liJc4 �e6 1 8 liJd6 �xeS is good for Black) 1 4 . . . b5 1 5 axb5 axb5 1 6 ltJa5 �d7 1 7 e5 dxe5 1 8 d6 e4 ! 1 9 dxc7 'ifxc7 20 �e2 c4 and, in Nunn's opinion,

�a6!?

Or 14 . . . a6 15 liJc4 b5 1 6 liJxd6 ! ? (stronger than 16 axb5 axb5 17 liJa5 { 17 liJxd6 ! ? } 17 ... �d7 1 8 e5 b4 ! 1 9 ltJa4 liJfxd5 2 0 ltJc4 �xa4 2 1 l:lxa4 dxe5 22 fxe5 liJb6 +) 1 6 . . . 'ii'xd6 1 7 e 5 'ii'd 8 1 8 d 6 ( 1 8 exf6 l:.xe 1 + 1 9 'ii'xel �xf6 = ) 1 8 . . . ltJe6 1 9 axb5 axb5 20 exf6 �xf6 2 1 liJd5 Kozul­ Marovic, Toronto 1990, and even af­ ter the improvement 2 l . ..�b7 ! ? 22 f5 !? (22 d7 l:.f8 23 liJxf6+ Wxf6 24 l:.a7 �xf3 25 'ii'xf3 ;!;) 22 . . . �xd5 ! 23 'it'xd5 liJd4 24 �f4 White pre­ serves the better chances, Kozul.

142 Four Pawns Attack: 9. . . l:e8 After 1 4 . . . h5 ! ?, 1 5 c!lJc4 Rogers­ Kristiansen, Thessaloniki OL 1 984, deserves study, and according to Ro­ gers 1 5 . . . c!lJg4 ! ? 16 i.xg4 i.xg4 1 7 1i'd3 i.c8 ! leads t o an unclear game. Instead, Black has a powerful game after 1 5 h3 liJg4 ! 1 6 liJfl i.d4+ 1 7 c!lJe3 'ii'h 4. 15 llJdb1

1 5 liJfl i.xfl 16 .l:.xfl a6 17 'iii>h 1 liJd7 1 8 1i'c2 b5 = Begovac-Wojtkie­ wicz, Bern 1 99 1 , creates no prob­ lems for the opposition, and 15 �h 1 i.d3 ! 1 6 liJfl c4, Garcia Muiioz­ Franco, Malaga 1 99 1 , gives the in­ itiative to Black. 15 16 liJa3 •••

llJd7

1 6 i.e3 leads to an even game with mutual chances: 1 6 ... c4 1 7 i.d4 i.h6 ! ? 1 8 g3 c!lJc5 = Lputian-Ca­ brilo, Manila IZ 1 990. 16 17 liJc2 •••

c4

After 1 1 . . .liJg4 White should probably react with the rare 1 2 c!lJc4 ! ? (Black has reasonable coun­ terplay after 12 .ixg4 'ii'h4+ 13 g3 'ii'xg4 14 'ii'xg4 .ixg4 15 'iii> f2 .id4+ { or 1 5 . . . f5 1 6 h3 .ixc3 1 7 bxc3 fxe4 18 hxg4 e3+ 1 9 'itif3 exd2 20 .ixd2 ± Yrjolii-Mamombe, Manila OL 1 992 } 16 'itig2 liJd7 17 h3 .ixc3 1 8 bxc3 .ie2 19 l:te1 i.d3 leading to an unclear position; Pomar-Szabo, Wijk aan Zee 1 967) 12 . . . .ixc3+ 1 3 bxc3 .l:txe4 1 4 0-0 f5 1 5 a5 liJf6 1 6 liJb6 l:ta7 1 7 .if3 with an advantage; Friedstein-Landraf, Corr 1 967 . The lack of practical tests of 1 1 . ..liJg4 makes it difficult to give a more pre­ cise evaluation. 12 0-0 (D)

B

Or 17 liJcb5 .ixb5 1 8 axb5 c3 ! 1 9 .l:. b 1 cxb2 2 0 .ixb2 i.xb2 21 l:xb2 'ii'f6 22 l:tc2 c!lJc5 with a slight plus for Black; Malich-Tringov, Sarajevo 1965. 17 18 19 20 21 22

liJb4

.ie3 c!lJc6 dxc6 .:.e2

c!lJc5 .ib7 c!lJ7a6 .txc6 liJd3 llJab4 ao

Miles-Emms, Ostend 1 992. In the variation with 10 . . . liJa6 White has thus far not had any success. A2)

10 11 a4

a6 liJbd7

Black generally plays either: A2 1) 12 . . .l:tb8 (restrained) or A22) 1 2 ... c4 (more forceful). A21) 12 13 'itfh1 .••

:bs

1 3 'ii'c2 is best met by 1 3 . . . b5 ! 1 4 axb5 axb5 1 5 .txb5 (or 1 5 lLlxb5 liJxd5) 15 . . . c!lJg4 ! with initiative for Black; Schinzel-Filipowicz, Poland

Four Pawns Attack: 9. .. l:e8 143 I '17 � . Instead White has a small ad­ YIIntage after 1 3 . . . b6 14 ..t>h 1 ! - this mudest king move abruptly curtails t he opposition's tactical possibili­ t lcll, and avoids the unclear game thnt ensues after 14 l:b1 c4 ! 15 lbxc4 ( 1 5 �h i ? ! b5 1 6 axb5 axb5 17 b4 �· xh3 1 8 llxb3 b4 19 lbb5 lbc5 20 l: x h4 lbxd5 ! + Hernandez-Velimi­ rnvic, Havana 197 1 ) 15 ... b5 16 axb5 nxh5 17 lbxd6 'iVb6+ 18 �h1 9xd6 l lJ c5 . 13 'flc7 (D) Continuing the waiting tactics. White achieves an advantage after t h e sharp 1 3 . . . c4 14 e5 ! ( 1 4 .txc4? ! �c5 1 5 'ii'f3 .tg4 1 6 9g3 b5 1 7 uxb5 axb5 1 8 .txb5 lbcxe4 1 9 ��dxe4 lbxe4 2 0 lbxe4 Axe4 2 1 ..,xg4 l:xb5 leads t o an equal posi­ t ion) 14 . . . dxe5 1 5 lDxc4 b5 16 axb5 uxb5, and now instead of 17 lbxe5? ! h 4 1 8 lbb5 (or 1 8 lbc6 bxc3 1 9 lL!xd8 cxb2 2 0 .txb2 llxb2 with more than enough compensation for the queen) 1 8 . . . lbxe5 1 9 fxe5 l:xe5 20 .tf4 lbxd5 ! with the initiative to B lack in Larsen-Lj ubojevic, Milan 1 975, White should have continued 1 7 lbd6 ! ±. ...

14 lla2!?

White once again has a large and difficult choice: a) 14 a5 b5 15 axb6 llxb6 16 .tf3 llb4 =. b) 14 9c2 c4 1 5 e5 ! (the c4 pawn is best not taken immediately: 1 5 lbxc4 b 5 1 6 axb5 axb5 17 lbxd6 9xd6 1 8 e5 'ii'c 5 is unconvincing, and 15 .txc4 b5 16 axb5 axb5 1 7 .td3 b4 1 8 lbd 1 'ii'xc2 1 9 .txc2 lbc5 gives Black superb compensation for the pawn) 15 . . . dxe5 1 6 lbxc4 b5 ( 1 6 . . . e4? ! 17 f5 ±) 17 axb5 axb5, Tukmakov-Arnason, Bor 1 983, and White could have gained a small ad­ vantage after 1 8 d6 ! 'ii'c 6 1 9 lbxe5 lbxe5 20 fxe5 llxe5 21 .tf4 .tf5 22 .tf3 ! (but not 22 9d2 llee8 23 d7 lbxd7 24 .txb8 llxb8 with compen­ sation) 22 . . . 'ii'b 6 23 'ii'd 2 - Tukma­ kov. c) 14 e5 ! ? dxe5 1 5 lbc4 l:a8 (bet­ ter than 1 5 . . . e4? ! 1 6 f5 ± Cserna­ Wegner, Berlin 1 983) 1 6 fxe5 lbxe5 17 .tf4 lbfd7 18 lbe4 'ii'd 8 19 lbcd6 llf8 20 'ii'b 3 ;!; Csema. 14

•••

hS

Black does not equalize after either 14 . . . lbf8 1 5 e5 , or 1 4 . . . b6 1 5 b 3 lbf8 Izeta-Femandez, Spain Ch 1 987, and the simple 16 .td3 ! ? un­ derlines the advantages in White's position. 1 4 ... c4? ! 1 5 e5 dxe5 16 lbxc4 e4 17 f5 ! leads to a very diffi­ cult position; Toth-Nunn, Reggio Emilia 1 983/84. lbh7 15 h3 lbdf8 16 .td3 17 aS ;!;

!zeta-Vehi Bach, Spanish Ch 1 986.

144 Four Pawns Attack: 9. . . .l:.e8 A22) 12

•••

c4 (D)

A typical idea in the Four Pawns Attack. By moving the pawn towards certain destruction, Black gains sev­ eral advantages, in the shape of the excellent cS square for the knight and the open g1-a7 diagonal for vari­ ous tactical operations. 13 g1 'ir'h2+ = Taimanov­ Tal, Sukhumi 1972. 13 14 e5 •••

lLlcS

14 .tf3 .td7 1S eS dxeS 16 fxeS l:xeS 1 7 lL!xc4 l:.e8 1 8 .if4 lLife4 1 9 lL!xe4 lL!xe4 = Ehlvest-Szekely, Tallinn 1 983. 14 15 fxeS

dxeS

Four Pawns Attack: 9. . l:le8 145 .

Black has no problems after 15 /;)xc4 exf4 1 6 i.xf4 lDfe4 17 lDxe4 /;)xc4 1 8 l:la3 i.d7 = Garcia-Tatai, ( 'uha 1 974. 15 16 lDxc4 (D)

l:xe5

16

.:Xe2!?

...

This may be the best solution. In practice the following moves have also been tried: a) 16 ....flf5 and now: a1) 1 7 i.f3 lDg4 ! ? 18 i.xg4 (bet­ ter than 1 8 lDe3 lDxh2 ! { 18 ... lDxe3? ! 1 9 i.xe3 t } 1 9 xh2 'it'h4+ 2 0 g1 l:lh5 ! 21 i.xh5 i.e5, when Black has a strong attack according to Byk­ hovsky) 1 8 . . . :xfl+ 1 9 'it'xfl i.xg4 20 i.f4 ! ? or 20 i.e3 l:tc8 = Byk­ hovsky-Mi.Tseitlin, USSR 1 982. a2) 17 i.f4 ! ? is a more promising alternative: a2 1 ) White will meet 1 7 . . . lDh5 ! ? with 1 8 i.e3 . a22) White has an obvious ad­ vantage in the continuation 17 ... g5? ! 1 8 i.e3 l:lxfl + 1 9 "ib n lDfe4 20 lDxe4 lDxe4 21 i.d3 lDd6 22 i.b6 'ii'd 7 23 l:le 1 Lukacs-L.Karlsson, Helsinki 1 983.

a23) 17 ... lDfe4 also does not lead to equality: 1 8 lDxe4 lDxe4 1 9 'ii'c 2 llJg5 20 a5 ! ± Farago-Bistric, Sara­ jevo 1983. b) 1 6 ... J:le8 1 7 i.g5 h6 (17 ... i.f5 1 8 d6 lDce4 1 9 lDxe4 l:lxe4 20 lDe3 i.e6 21 i.f3 J:lb4 22 i.d5 ! ± YrjOlii­ Teo, Dubai OL 1 986) 1 8 i.h4 lDce4 and now: b 1 ) White really cannot rely on having such a large advantage after 1 9 lDxe4 l:txe4 20 i.g3 ! , although several problems face Black: b1 1 ) 20 ... i.g4 21 i.xg4 l:txc4 (or 21 ...l:txg4?! 22 l:txf6 l:txc4 23 l:lxt7 ! �xfl 24 'ii'fl + wins) 22 i.f3 with an excellent game for White. b12) 20 . . . lDxd5 ? ! is even worse: 2 1 l:txt7 ! i.e6 (the choice is a small one, as both 2 1 ... �xt7 22 lDd6+, and 2 I . . ..l:[xe2 22 l:bg7+ �xg7 23 'ii'xe2 +- are terrible) 22 J:lxb7 �h8 23 'ii'c2 +- Yrjolii-Vaiser, Sochi 1 984. b13) Yrjolii suggests 20 ... h5 ! ? ;!;. b2) 1 9 d6 ! ? g5 (one cannot rec­ ommend 19 . . . lDxc3 20 bxc3 g5 2 1 i.f2 lDe4 2 2 i.b6 i.xc3 2 3 'ii'd 3 'it'd? 24 i.h5 lU8 25 i.d4 ! +- Dorf­ man) 20 i.e 1 i.e6 2 1 lDxe4 lDxe4 22 i.a5 with a large advantage for White in Beliavsky-Velimirovic, Moscow IZ 1 982. 17 lDxe2

1 7 'ii'xe2 i.f5 gives Black com­ pensation. 17 i.g4 lDce4 18 lDes 1 8 ... i.h5 19 00 t. 19 i.f4! Black has a wonderful game after 1 9 lDxg4? lDxg4 20 'ii'e 1 'ii'b 6. ...

146 Four Pawns Attack: 9... l:r.e8 The position after the 1 9th move was seen in Glek-Tseshkovsky, Bu­ dapest 1 989, and now by playing 1 9 . . . -ihS ! ? followed by 20 . . . 'Wxd5 Black could have had a reasonable game. A3)

10 11 0-0

ltlbd7 c4 (D)

12 �h1 White's attempts to gain an ad­ vantage with other continuations have not been crowned with success, for example: a) 1 2 .ixc4 ltlc5 1 3 e5 dxe5 14 fxe5 .:.xe5 1 5 lLlf3 .:.e8 1 6 �h l . lLlfe4 1 7 lLlxe4, Kallai-Foisor, Bucharest 1 983, and by continuing 17 ...lLlxe4 18 'Wb3 ltld6 Black could have equalized. b) 12 .if3 ? ! b5. c) 12 e5 dxe5 1 3 lLlxc4 lLlb6 ! 14 fxe5 (or 14 d6 ltlxc4 1 5 .ixc4 Wb6+ 1 6 �h 1 e4 +) 14 . . . lLlfxd5 1 5 ltlxd5 (White has too many weaknesses after 1 5 lLld6 lLlxc3 16 bxc3 l:r.f8 1 7 lLlxf7 { 17 .if4 'We7 + } 17 . . . 'ifxd 1 1 8 .ixd 1 .ie6 ! 1 9 lLlh6+ �h8 Kur­ tenkov-Ghinda, Primorsko 1985)

1 5 ... 'ibd5 16 'ii'xd5 lLlxd5 17 .if3 .te6 ! ? (17 ... lLlb6 ! ? is not bad either) 1 8 .ig5 h6 19 .ih4 g5 20 .ig3 .:.e7 = Sines-Ljubojevic, Yugoslavia Ch 1 982. d) 12 a4 lLlc5 13 .if3 ( 1 3 e5 dxe5 14 lLlxc4 exf4 ! ? 15 .ixf4 lLlce4 oo ) with the further possibilities of: d l ) 1 3 ... .ih6 14 'ir'c2 ltld3 (alter­ natively, 14 . . . .ixf4 15 lLlxc4 .ixc 1 1 6 .:.axe l ±) 1 5 lLlxc4 lLlxc l 1 6 'ifxc l .ig4 1 7 'ifdl ± Nunn. d2) 13 . . . 'ifc7 14 e5 dxe5 15 fxe5 'ifxe5 1 6 lLlxc4 'ii'b 8 17 .te3 b6 1 8 .id4 ± Padevsky-Peev, Varna 1968. d3) 13 . . . b6 ! ? 14 e5 dxe5 15 fxe5 .:.xeS 1 6 lLlxc4 and now: d3 1 ) The game is unclear after 1 6 . . . l:tf5 17 d6 .:.b8 1 8 lLlb5 ! ? (but not 18 lLle3 l:r.e5 19 ltled5 ltlxd5 20 .txd5 ltle6 + Ehlvest-Suba, Tallinn 1 983) 18 . . . .ie6 1 9 lLle3 .tb3, Zak­ harevich-Gleizerov, USSR 1 987, and now White must sacrifice the queen: 20 lLlxf5 ! .ixd l 2 1 lLle7+ �h8 when 22 l:txd l yields compen­ sation (Gleizerov); 22 ltlc6? is worse since 22 . . . .ixf3 ! 23 ltlxd8 .id5 leaves the knight trapped. d32) 16 ... l:te8 17 d6 (or 17 .ig5 ! ? .if5 oo ) 1 7 . . . .ie6 ! 1 8 .ie2 (it's not worth White's while chasing the rook, as after 1 8 .ixa8 .ixc4 19 .ic6 l:te6 20 .:.et l:r.xd6 Black has a better game) was played in Chernin­ Granda, Buenos Aires 1 992, when, according to Chernin, 18 . . . lLlh5 ! 1 9 g4 'ii'h4 would have led to an equal game . d4) 1 3 . . . .id7 ! ? 14 �h 1 (14 e5 is of approximately the same value as

Four Pawns Attack: 9... l:.e8 147 the text move, e.g. 14 ... dxe5 15 fxe5 J:txc5 1 6 lL!xc4 lle8 17 .ig5 h6 1 8 .1h4 .if5 with equality; Gutman­ l'etkevich, USSR 1 967) 14 . . . l:.c8 15 �� � d xe5 1 6 fxe5 l:.xe5 17 lL!xc4 l:.f5 , C. Hansen-Larsen, Nrestved 1 985, nnd it is important to note that White rnnnot play 1 8 lL!d6? ! because of I H .ixa4 ! . lL!c5 12 ..

. . .

•••

13 e5 1 3 'ii'c 2? ! lLlfxe4 14 lL!cxe4 .if5 1 5 .if3 'iie 7 1 6 l:.e1 .ixe4 17 .ixe4 1"5 is bad, whilst 1 3 .if3 b5 ! ? 14

li�xb5 lL!fxe4 1 5 lL!xc4 .if5 leads to n game with mutual chances. 13 dxe5 (D) •••

Now White must make a difficult choice. 14 fxe5

There is another move at White's d i sposal, which is of approximately the same value, viz. 14 lL!xc4 and n ow :

a) 14 . . .e4 15 .ie3 lL!d3 ( 1 5 ... b6? ! 1 6 lL!e5 .ib7 17 .ic4 ± Zaltsman­

Wedberg, Reykjavik 1 984) 16 .ixd3 ( 1 6 lL!xe4? lL!xb2 ! +) 16 . . . exd3 17 'ii'xd3 .if5 ( 1 7 ...b5 is interesting, but

not sufficient for equality: 1 8 lL!xb5 .ia6 19 a4 Dlugy-Suba, Tunis IZ 1 985, and according to Dlugy Black should have continued 1 9 . . . 'ii'xd5 ! ? 20 'ii'x d5 lL!xd5 2 1 .id2 ;!;; ) 1 8 'ii'd 2 l:.c8 19 lL!e5 ( 19 b3 ? ! b5 ! 20 lL!xb5 lL!e4 2 1 'ii'd 1 .ixa1 22 'ii'x a1 'ii'x d5 23 lL!xa7 l:.cd8, Zaichik-Velickovic, Tbilisi 1 983, and Black's position is preferable) 1 9 . . . lL!e4 ( 1 9 . . . b5 ! ? 20 d6 b4 2 1 lL!b5 has unclear conse­ quences, Dlugy-Fedorowicz, USA Ch 1 984; Dlugy suggests 2 1 . . .l:.c2 ! 22 'iixb4 llxe5 ! 23 fxe5 lL!g4 24 lhf5 ! ? { or 24 .if4 'ii'a8 25 l:.f3 lLlf2+ 26 �g 1 lL!h3+ 27 h 8 20 't!Vxa1 +- Toth-Popov, Budapest 1 96S . a2) White also has strong pres­ sure after 13 ... �xf3+ 14 i.xf3 c4 1S 'ffd2 i.fS 1 6 l:.ael . a3) 1 3 . . . i.fS does not lead to equality: 1 4 �xeS i.xeS 1 S 'ii'd 2 �d7 16 l:ad 1 a6 17 i.xeS �xeS 1 8 'Wf4 ;!; Vaiser-Renet, Brussels Z 1 993. a4) 13 ... �bd7 1 4 d6 with two possibilities: a4 1 ) 14 . . . �xf3+ 1 S i.xf3 �eS 16 �bS ( 1 6 i.dS ! ? i.e6 17 �e4 �d7 1 8 i.xe6 :xe6 1 9 �gS with compensation) 1 6 . . . i.fS ( 1 6 . . . l:.f8 solves no problems: 17 �7 .J:[b8 1 8 l:.e 1 �xf3+ 1 9 'ii'xf3 'ii'f6 2 0 �e8 ! 'ii'd4+ 2 1 i.e3 't!Vxb2 22 l:ab1 't!Vc3 23 �xg7 ± Balogh-Ribli, Hungarian Ch 1 972) 17 �c7 �xf3+ (Szabo suggests 17 ... �d3 ! ?) 18 'ii'xf3 .txb2 1 9 �xe8 i.xal 20 �7 i.d4+ 2 1 i.e3 l:c8 22 .txd4 cxd4 23 'ii'f4 with a big advantage; Szabo-Zuckerman, Las Vegas 1973.

150 Four Pawns Attack: 9. . . .l:.e8 a42) 14 . . . Wb6 ! ? 1 5 tLlxe5 tLlxe5 16 �xeS �xeS 17 d7 �xd7 18 Wxd7 �xc3 1 9 Wxt7+ 'ii?h 8 20 bxc3 l:.xe2 is unclear - Nunn. b) 1 2 �f4 tLlxe5 13 tLlxe5 (the stronger 1 3 0-0 ! ? transposes to vari­ ation 'a' ) 1 3 . . . �xe5 14 �xeS l:.xe5 1 5 0-0 tLld7 16 Wd2 Wg5 with an un­ clear game. c) 12 e6 fxe6 and the possibilities are: c 1 ) 1 3 d6 �d7 ( 1 3 . . . tLlc6? 14 0-0 tLld4 15 tLle4 tLlf5 1 6 �g5 Berkovic­ Shanal, Beersheba 199 1 ) 14 0-0 �c6 15 tLlg5 tLle5 1 6 �e3 b6 17 tLlge4 ttlbd7 and Black's chances turned out somewhat better in Udovcic-Ma­ rovic, Zagreb 1964. c2) 1 3 ttlg5 ? ! exd5 14 0-0 �d4+ 15 cJfh 1 l:.f8 ! 1 6 �f3 tLlc6 with a clear advantage; Pavlovic-I vanovic, Yugoslavia 1 970. c3) 1 3 0-0 exd5 ( 1 3 . . .l:.f8 is infe­ rior in view of 1 4 �c4 exd5 1 5 ttlxd5 cJfh8 1 6 �g5 'Wd7 17 h 3 b5 1 8 hxg4 bxc4 1 9 tLle5 ! 'it'e8 2 0 l:.xf8+ Wxf8 2 1 �e7 ± Sakharov-Nemet, USSR-Yugoslavia 1963, whilst after 1 3 . . . �xc3 14 bxc3 exd5 1 5 ttlg5 White has the initiative) 14 ttlxd5 (Black has an easy game after 14 �g5 Wd6 15 h3 { 1 5 tLlxd5 �d4+ ! } 1 5 . . . tLlf6 1 6 �xf6 �xf6 1 7 lLlxd5 'ii?h 8 18 lLlxf6 'ii'xf6 19 i.. b5 tLlc6 20 Wc2 �f5 = Klompus-Waagmeester, Corr 1990) 14 . . . �e6 and now: c3 1 ) Black seizes the initiative after 1 5 �c4 tLlc6 ( 1 5 . . . tLle5 ! ?) 1 6 �g5 ttlf6 17 ttle5 lLlxe5 ( 1 7 ... �xd5? 1 8 �xf6 �xf6 1 9 'ii'x d5+ 'ifxd5 20 �xd5+ �g7 2 1 tLlxc6 bxc6 22 �xc6

is clearly better for White) 1 8 �xf6 ( 1 8 ttlxf6+ �xf6 19 �xe6+ l:.xe6 20 �xf6 'ii'x d 1 +) 1 8 . . . ttlxc4 1 9 �xd8 l:.axd8 20 ttle7+ 'it>h8 21 tLlxg6+ hxg6 + Nunn. c32) 15 ttlf4 'ifxd 1 1 6 .l:.xd 1 �t7 17 ttlg5 ttle5. This complicated posi­ tion arose in Hodos-Portisch, Li­ petsk 1968, and White most likely should have continued 1 8 ttlxt7 ! ? ttlxt7 1 9 �c4 with enough compen­ sation for the pawn. Now we return to the position af­ ter 12 �g5 in the main line:

Now Black has two popular moves: B 1 ) 1 2 . . . f6 B2) 1 2 . . . 'ii'b6 Black may also try 12 . . . 'ii'a5 ! ?, a move which is seen very rarely, but which may be better than its repu­ tation: 13 0-0 ttlxe5 14 d6 �e6 ! ? (White preserves his advantage after both 14 . . . ttlbc6 15 ttld5 �e6 1 6 ttlc7 tLld7 17 'it>h 1 h6 1 8 �h4 l:.ac8 1 9 ttlxe6 ! l:.xe6 2 0 �c4 ± Petursson­ Thorsteins, Saint John 1988, ·and 14 . . . ttlxf3+ 15 �xf3 �xc3 16 bxc3

Four Pawns Attack: 9. . .l:e8 151 .

• "' c 3 1 7 �d5 �e6 1 8 l:.c 1 'it'b4

I IIL 'ir'd4+ loses immediately: 1 9 •"'d4 cxd4 2 0 �xe6 fxe6 2 1 l:.c7 1 - } 1 9 �xe6 l:he6 20 d7 .!bc6 2 1 IIH'ir'+ .!bxd8 2 2 �xd8 ± Lazic-Jo­ vunovic, Cetinje 1 992) 15 .!bd5 lhhd7 1 6 .!bc7 .!bxf3+ 17 �xf3 c4 ! ? I H .t e l ( 1 8 �e3 ? ! �xb2 1 9 �xb7 lluh8 20 'ir'f3 �xa1 2 1 .!bxe6 fxe6 22 'ir'f7+ ..th8 23 l:xa1 'it'c3 +) I H . . 'ir'b6+ ( 1 8 ... c3 19 bxc3 �xc3 20 .i.h6 ;!;) 19 ..th1 �e5 20 .!bxa8 l:txa8 w ith an unclear game in Kharkova­ ll ystriakova, USSR 1 989. The vari­ ution needs further tests. .

Il l)

12 13 exf6

f6 �xf6 (D)

a) 14 �xf6 'ikxf6 15 0-0 ( 1 5 'it'a4 ! ? �d7 1 6 'ir'b3 also deserves at­ tention) 1 5 . . . .!be3 1 6 'ii'd 2 .!bxfl 1 7 l:xfl �f5 1 8 �c4 .!bd7 1 9 d6+ ..tg7 20 .!bd5 'ir'xd6 2 1 'ir'c3+ .!bf6 22 g4 �xg4 23 .!bg5 �f5 24 .!bxh7 l:h8 ! (24 . . . �xh7 is weaker: 25 .!bxf6+ ..th6 26 'ti'c l + c/;g7 27 l:xf5 ! , with a strong initiative) 25 'ikxf6+ 'ii'xf6 26 .!bhxf6 l:.af8 27 l:.xf5 gxf5 28 .!bd7 l:te8 29 .!bxc5 b6 with totally unclear consequences; L .Grigor­ ian-Kupreichik, USSR 1 970. b) 1 4 .�f4 ! ? .!be3 15 �xe3 l:xe3 16 0-0 �g4 17 d6 .!bc6 1 8 .!bd5 l:.e6 19 .!bxf6+ l:.xf6 20 'it'b3+ �e6 2 1 'it'xb7 l:.c8 2 2 l:ad 1 with a clear ad­ vantage to White; Padevsky-Spas­ sov, Bulgaria 1 969. 14 �f4 needs further practical tests. �fS (D) 14 Black's task is not easier after other moves: a) 14 ...lbd7 15 0-0 lbde5 16 �xf6 'ikxf6 17 .!bg5 li'b6 1 8 .!bge4 c4+ 1 9 �h 1 �f5 2 0 d6 .!bd3 . Thus contin­ ued Peev-Donner, Cienfuegos 1 973, and according to Peev's analysis, White would have achieved a deci­ sive advantage after 2 1 d7 ! l:e5 22 �xg4 �xe4 23 l%ae1 ! 'ii'd4 24 l:xe4 l:.xe4 25 .!bxe4 'it'xe4 26 'it'g5 'it'd4 27 'ilie7 +-. b) 14 . . . .!be5 1 5 0-0-0 .!bxf3 1 6 �xf6 .!bxd2 17 �xd8 l:.xd8 1 8 l:.xd2 and White has a small, but quite tan­ gible advantage. c) 14 ... �xg5 15 'ilixg5 and Black must resolve the difficult question of whether he should exchange queens himself on g5, or await the exchange •.•

w

14 'ifd2

Probably the strongest move, and one which enjoys unstinting popu­ l arity amongst theoreticians and players alike. White even agrees to exchange queens, hoping for a strong passage for the pawn, on which all his hopes are based, and Black meanwhile cannot manage to gain reliable equality. White's other possibilities are:

152 Four Pawns Attack: 9... l:r.e8 on d8, despite the fac-t that White preserves the initiative in both cases. c 1 ) 15 . . . �e3 16 'ifxd8 l:lxd8 1 7 cRf2 �g4+ ! ? (or 17 . . . �f5 1 8 l:lad 1 �7 1 9 �e4 b6 20 g4 �6 2 1 g5 �f5 22 l:lhe1 �b7 23 �b5 ;t Blokh­ Fedorenko, Moscow 1 975) 1 8 cRg3 �3 1 9 l:lael �f5+ 20 cRf2 �d7 2 1 �e4 with unpleasant pressure by White in Forintos-Enklaar, Wijk aan Zee 1 974. c2) 15 . . .�e5 16 'ifxd8 (White can consider 16 0-0-0!?) 1 6 ... �xf3+ 1 7 cRf2 l:lxd8 1 8 �xf3 �7 1 9 Ahel �f6 20 l:lad l ;t Vaiser-Levic, Vm­ jacka Banja 1 986. c3) 1 5 ... �f5 1 6 h3 �5 17 'ifxd8 �xf3+ 1 8 cRf2 l:lxd8 19 �xf3 �a6 20 g4 �d7 21 Abel ;t Semkov-Strik­ ovic, Vmjacka Banja 1987. c4) 1 5 ... 'ifxg5 16 �xg5 and now Black has problems: c4 1 ) 1 6 . . . �e3 is insufficient: 17 cRf2 ( 1 7 cRd2! ? �f5 1 8 �b5 ! ? is also interesting) 17 ... �f5 (or 17 . . .�f5 1 8 �e6 ! ; i n Monin-Balogh, Budapest 1 992, Black continued 17 ... �c2 1 8 l:r.ac 1 l:r.f8+ 1 9 �f3 and now the move 1 9 . . . �d4 ! ? ;t deserved atten­ tion) 1 8 �e6 �xe6 1 9 dxe6 l:lxe6 20 �f3 �c6 2 1 �d5 ±. c42) 16 ...�f5 17 h3 and now: c42 1 ) 17 . . . �e3 is weak: 1 8 g4 ! ( 1 8 cRf2 �c2 1 9 l:lac l �d4 20 g4 �xe2 21 �xe2 �d7 22 l:r.xc5 �a6 = Ilic-Strikovic, VrnjackaBanja 1 987, is not as convincing) 18 ... h6 (Black has a difficult choice, as 1 8 . . . �d7? has even worse consequences: 1 9 cRd2 l:le5 { 1 9 . . . �g2 2 0 l:lhfl h 6 2 1 �ge4 cRg7 22 l:lf2 �4 23 l:lafl +- }

20 �ge4 +- Vaiser-Arizanov, Pula 1 988) 19 �f3 �d7 ± Vaiser. c422) White has an easy game after 17 ...�f6 1 8 0-0 a6 ( 1 8 . . . h6? 1 9 g 4 �e4 2 0 �gxe4 �xe4 2 1 �b5 :es 22 l:ael +-; 18 . . . �bd7? loses quickly to 19 g4 �e4 20 �gxe4 �xe4 21 �b5 +- Hausner-Jirovsky, Prague 1 993) 1 9 g4 �e4 20 �cxe4 �xe4 21 l:r.ael ±. c423) 17 . . . �e5 ! ? was recom­ mended by Nunn, but it has not yet been tested in practice. White's chances are preferable here as well, but it is without a doubt the least of the evils.

15 0-0

15 �f4 �d7 16 h3 �ge5 is equal, but 15 h3 !? deserves attention: a) An interesting, but very dan­ gerous game for Black arises after 1 5 . . . �e5 1 6 0-0-0 �xf3 1 7 �xf6 �xd2 1 8 �xd8 � 19 �xe4 �xe4 20 �h4 �xg2 21 l:lhel �xh3 22 d6 �d7 (22 . . . l:r.e4 is better for White: 23 �f3 ! Axel 24 l:lxel �c6 25 �d5+ ritg7 26 �xc6 bxc6 27 l:e7+ cRh6 28 �f6 ± Goczan-Spiriev, Bu­ dapest 199 1 ) 23 �c4+ cRg7 24 l:le7+

Four Pawns Attack: 9. . :e8 153 .

l xc7 25 dxe7 a6 26 i.el ! with com­ l'"nsution, Blokh. h) 15 . . . i.xg5 16 'it'xg5 .!De5 (or Hl 'ii' x g5 17 .!Dxg5 .!De3 1 8 r,j{f2 ±) 1 7 'ii' x d8 .!Dxf3+ 18 'iii> f2 lhd8 1 9 .1 x f3 .!Dd7 20 lthe1 with a small ad­ vuntuge to White. i.xgS 15 The very moment to hurry into l hc exchange; White can secure a dcur advantage after 15 ... .!Dd7: u) Vaiser-Thipsay, New Delhi I IJK7, featured 16 h3 i.xg5 17 .!Dxg5 /;)c3 1 8 ltxf5 .!Dxf5 19 i.b5, and now Black could have equalized by I IJ .!Dd6 ! 20 .!De6 'ile7 21 .!Dc7 l:uc8 22 .!Dxe8 l:xe8 (Vaiser). h) White preserves some pres­ ll u rc after 16 i.b5 ! ? a6 (or 1 6 . . . 'ii' b 6 1 7 i.xf6 .!Dgxf6 18 .!Dg5 l:e5 19 'ii'f4 l:ue8 20 g4) 17 i.xd7 'it'xd7 Arenci­ hiu-Paneque, Holquin m 1 988, and us Arencibia showed, White should h a ve continued 18 h3 ! i.xg5 1 9 l.i)xg5 .!De3 20 ltf3 .!Dc2 2 1 .l:afl l,i)d4 22 .l:3f2 with initiative. c) After 1 6 i.f4 ! .!Dge5, Arenci­ h i a-Paneque, Holquin m 1988, the l i ne 17 d6 .!Dxf3+ ( 1 7 . . . c4 1 8 .!Dd5 li)d 3 1 9 i. xd3 i.xd3 20 i.g5 !) 1 8 i.xf3 i.d4+ 1 9 �h1 .!De5 20 i.d5+ '.t.>h8 21 .!Db5 would have given White a clear advantage (Arencibia). .!Dd7 16 'ii'xgS 1 6 . . . .!De3 ? ! is bad: 1 7 'ii'h 6 ! 'fke7 ( 1 7 . .!Dxfl 1 8 .!Dg5 'it'e7 1 9 l:xfl ±) 1 8 i.b5 i.d7 1 9 .l:ae1 ± Peev-Jano­ �cvic, Ni§ 1 972. Great complications, which are not unadvantageous for White, arise after 16 . . . 'ilxg5 17 .!Dxg5 .!De3 1 8 . . .

•••

. . .

i.b5 ! .l:r.d8 1 9 .l:r.fe l ! .!Dc2 20 :e7 a6 (or 20 ... .!Dxa1 21 g4 ! ! a6 { 2 l . ..i.xg4 22 .!Dcc4 .l:f8 23 d6 +- } 22 gxf5 gxf5 ! { 22 ... axb5 23 .!Dce4 .!Dd7 24 f6 +- } 23 i.d3 .l:d7 24 .l:e8+ 'iii> g 7 25 i.xf5 ±) 21 i.c4 b5 22 :n ! bxc4 23 g4 .!De3 24 gxf5 ! +- Crandbourne­ Crespo, Corr 1 988. .!De3 17 h3 1s 'ii'h6 .!Dxn 19 .!DgS 'fle7 20 d6

'ii'g7!

20 . . . 'fle3+ 2 1 q.,xfl .!Df8 22 lld 1 with initiative; Szabo-Timman, Amsterdam 1 975. After 20 ... 'ii' g7 ! White must be satisfied with the draw, 2 1 i.c4+ 'iii>h8 22 lDf7+ 'iii>g8 = Szabo. We can most likely come to the conclusion that the move 1 2 . . . f6 fa­ vours White, although achieving an advantage from it demands very pre­ cise play. B2)

12

'iib6 (D)

. .

13 0-0

Black has no problems after 1 3 .!Da4 'fla5 + ! ? ( 1 3 . . . 'ilb4+ i s weaker: 14 i.d2 'ii'e4 15 .!Dc3 'ilf5 1 6 0-0

154 Four Pawns Attack: 9... .l:.e8 .i.xe5 17 h3 �f6 1 8 �g5 .i.d4+ 1 9 �h 1 'ife5 2 0 .i.f4 ± ) 14 .i.d2 'ii'd 8 with at least an equal game. However, the little-investigated 1 3 'ifd2 ! ?, often employed by one of the main connoisseurs of the Four Pawns Attack, Blokh, deserves at­ tention: a) 1 3 . . . �d7 ? ! is unsatisfactory: 14 e6 fxe6 15 dxe6 'ii'x e6 (things are even worse for Black after 1 5 . . . .i.xc3 1 6 bxc3 'ii'xe6 1 7 0-0 ! �df6 { 17 . . . 'ifxe2 1 8 l:tae1 'ifxd2 1 9 l:txe8+ � n 20 l:te7+ �f8 2 1 �xd2+ +- Blokh } 1 8 :tae1 'ii'c 6 19 h3 �e4 20 'iff4 h6 2 1 hxg4 hxg5 22 �xg5 �xg5 23 'ifxg5 �g7 24 .i.c4 ! +­ Blokh) 16 �d5 .i.e5 17 �xe5 'ii'xe5 1 8 .i.f4 ±. b) 13 . . .�xe5 14 0-0-0 �a6 ! ? (White has a small advantage after 1 4 . . . .i.f5 1 5 �xe5 .i.xe5 1 6 l:.he1 'ikb4 1 7 a3 'ii'b 3 1 8 g4 .i.d7 1 9 .i.f3 Blokh-Schneider, Corr 1989) 1 5 �xe5 l:txe5 16 l:the1 ( a possible im­ provement in comparison with Blokh-Lukin, Russian Cht 1 992, in which after 16 .i.f4 ? ! l:.e8 17 l:r.he1 .i.d7 White should have continued 18 g4 ! ? ac) 16 . . . �b4 17 .i.c4 ( 1 7 d6? l:.xg5 1 8 'ii'x g5 �xa2+ ! wins for Black) 1 7 . . . l:.xe 1 1 8 l:.xe 1 .i.f5 1 9 d 6 with sufficient compensation for the pawn. 13

...

lbxes

One cannot recommend either 1 3 . . . h6 14 .i.f4 ! ? g5 15 .i.c 1 �xe5 16 �xe5 .i.xe5 17 .i.h5 - analysis by Nunn - or 13 ... .i.f5 14 �a4 ! ? (14 e6 is not as convincing: 14 . . . fxe6 1 5 .i.b5 c4+ 16 �h 1 .i.d3 with huge

complications ; Littlewood-Mor­ due, British Ch (Eastbourne) 1 990) 14 ... 'ii'a5 15 �h4 �xe5 ( 1 5 ... .i.xe5? is far worse: 1 6 .i.xg4 { 1 6 �xf5 ! ? } 1 6 . . . .i.xg4 17 'ii'x g4 .i.d4+ 1 8 �h 1 '6'xa4 1 9 �f5 ! gxf5 20 l:r.xf5 h5 2 1 'ifg3 +- Semkov) 1 6 �xf5 gxf5 1 7 :txf5 �bd7 1 8 �c3 , Semkov-Api­ cella, Sofia 1 990. Black quite often tries 13 . . . c4+ 14 �h 1 �d7 (greed is not permissible: 14 ... �f2+ 15 l:txf2 'ii'x f2 16 �e4 'ii' b 6 17 �d6 :rs 1 8 .i.e7 .i.d7 1 9 �xc4 +-) and now (D) White has a choice between two pawn moves:

a) 1 5 d6? ! �f2+ 1 6 l:.xf2 'ii'x f2 17 �d5 ( 1 7 �e4 'iVb6 18 �f6+ �xf6 19 .i.xf6 .i.xf6 20 exf6 .i.e6 ac; 17 .i.xc4 ? ! �xe5 1 8 �e4 'ii'b 6 1 9 �xe5 l:txe5 20 �f6+ .i.xf6 2 1 .i.xf6 l:.f5 22 .i.e7 .i.d7 + Kouatly-Povah, Ramsgate 1 979) 17 . . . �xe5 1 8 �c7 ( 1 8 .i.e3? is weak: 18 . . . �g4 ! 1 9 �e7+ �h8 2 0 �g5 �xe3 2 1 'ii'g 1 'ii'x g1+ 2 2 �xg1 .i.e6 and Black wins - Nunn) 1 8 ....i.d7 +. b) 15 e6 fxe6 1 6 dxe6 �df6 1 7 h 3 (White will not get much j oy from the active 17 e7 l:txe7 1 8 �d5

Four Pawns Attack: 9.. :te8 155 .

�''"I� 1 9 'ii'xd5+ i.e6 20 'ife4 :n ! ? l lC I llc7 ! ? 2 1 .l:ad l .l:f8 + Jones­ l'uvuh, British Ch 1 979, also de­ .,rveH attention } 21 i.xc4 i.xc4 22 • u·4 ll'lf2+ 23 .l:xf2 'ii'x f2 24 :n .11 112 25 ll'le5 1fxe5 26 1fxt7+ 'iifih 8 Jl l vcs Black a slight plus; Semkov­ M u rey, Cannes 1 989) 17 . . . 1fxb2 1 1 7 ll'lf2+? 18 .l:.xf2 1fxf2 19 i.xf6 .i ll f6 20 ll'le4 ±; 17 ... ll'le3? 1 8 i.xe3 lhe3 19 i.xc4 ±) and now: h I ) The tempting 1 8 ll'la4 is re­ ru l ed beautifully by 1 8 . . . ll'lf2+ ! ! 1 9 l 11 1'2 ll'le4 20 :n ll'lg3+ 2 1 g8 22 :n +­ Arencibia-Martin del Campo, B ay­ amo 1989) 19 i.xe8 'ii'xc3 20 i.e?+ c,j;lxe8 2 1 'ilh5+ 'i&i>d7 22 'ii'xf5+ and White has a safe draw but could seek a route to a more pleasing result. a2) 1 6 . . . .l:.f8 ! ? 17 i.xt7+ (the move 17 lObS ? ! is interesting, but not sufficient: 17 . . . 1fxa1 1 8 'iff3 'ii' b2 19 i.xt7+ 'ili>g7 20 i.e? i.f5 2 1 i.xf8+ g7 ( 1 7 . . . .l:.xt7 ? 18 'i!i'd5 i.d4+ 19 �h l i.f5 20 .l:.ab 1 'ii'x c3 2 1 .l:xb7 ll'ld7

156 Four Pawns Attack: 9... :Z.e8 22 ltxd7 ltaf8 23 l:txf7 .:.xf7 24 d7 +-) 1 8 i.d5 ! (again the knight must not be put on b5 - 1 8 ltlb5? Wxa1 1 9 i.h6+ �xh6 2 0 'ii'd 2+ i.f4 ! 2 1 Wxf4+ g 5 - + Semkov, and 1 8 'ii'd5? is also unsatisfactory: 1 8 . . . Wxc3 1 9 :Z.ad 1 i.f5 and Black wins; Semkov­ Marin, Burgas 1 990) 1 8 . . . Wxc3 ( 1 8 . . . i.f5 1 9 Wc 1 ! Wxc3 20 i.h6+ �h8 2 1 Wxc3 i.xc3 22 i.xf8 ltld7 23 i.e? i.xa1 24 ltxa1 with com­ pensation; 18 ...:Z.xf1+?! 19 'ir'xf1 i.f5 20 lte1 Wxc3 2 1 i.xb7 i.xd6 22 i.xa8 ±) 19 l:xf8 �xf8 ( 1 9 ... Wd4+? is weak, as 20 ltf2 gives a big advan­ tage) 20 'ii'f l+ i.f5 2 1 l:ld1 ! ltld7 22 g4 rJ/;g7 23 gxf5 h6 ! (Black must play with the utmost accuracy, as 23 . . . 'ii'c 2? 24 l:d2 'ii' xf5 25 Wxf5 gxf5 26 i.e? i.d4+ 27 �fl is bad; Vaiser-Berthelot, France 1 992) 24 i.e? 'ii'c 2 25 'ii'f3 'ii' xh2+ 26 �fl gxf5 27 'ifxf5 Wf4+ 28 Wxf4 i.xf4 29 i.xb7 .l:tb8 30 i.c6 ltle5 = Elbi­ lia-Berthelot, France 1 993. b) 15 ... Wb4: b 1 ) 1 6 Wf3 i.f5 17 i.b5 ! ? ( 1 7 g4? i s bad i n view o f 17 . . . Wxb2 ! 1 8 ltle2 i.d4+, but note that 17 ... 'Wxc4? is wrong: 1 8 gxf5 f6 1 9 fxg6 hxg6 20 i.xf6 ltld7 2 1 i.xe5 ltlxe5 22 Wf6 Szabo-Pietzsch, Salgotarjan 1 967) 1 7 . . . l:f8 1 8 l:ae1 f6 1 9 a3 (Black's affairs are fully in order after 1 9 i.h6 i.xh2+ { 1 9 . . . 'ii' h4 2 0 l:txe5 } 20 xh2 'ii'h4+ 2 1 �g1 Wxh6 22 l:e7 a6) 1 9 ... i.d4+ 20 'ii>h 1 Wxb2 2 1 i.h6. Now White has a big advan­ tage following 2 1 . ..Wxc3 22 i.xf8 Wxf3 23 l:lxf3 �xf8 24 l:le8+ h 1 with an obvious ad­ vantage; Barlov-Fedorowicz, New York 1 985) 1 1 lDd2 (White also has a good game after 1 1 a4, for example 1 l . . .lbh5 1 2 i.. g5 f6 1 3 i..e 3 f5 14 exf5 i.. xf5 1 5 lbg5 ! tbf6 1 6 i.. c4 lbg4 17 tbe6 with strong pressure; Karpman-Efimov, Belgorod 1 989, or 1 1 l:te 1 lbh5 12 i.. g5 f6 13 i.. e 3 f5 14 e5 dxe5 15 i.. xc5 l:le8 16 i.. c4 ;t D.Bronstein-Vera, Rome 1 990) 1 1 . . .lbfe8 12 a4 f5 13 exf5 i.. xf5 . This position was seen in Plachetka­ C.Horvath, Stary Smokovec 1 99 1 , and 1 4 i.. g 3 i.. d4 15 lbc4 would have given White a promising game.

202 Classical: Introduction

Now 1 O ...l:r.e8 leads to A78, whilst there are two reasonably popular al­ ternatives: B 1) 1 0 ... �8 B2) 10 . . . liJc7 Before we investigate these possi­ bilities, here are two rarer moves: a) 10 . . . 1Ve7 1 1 l:r.e l ! ? ( 1 1 llb1 l:r.b8 1 2 l:r.e 1 li)c7 1 3 a4 b6 14 b4 li)g4 ! 15 J.xg4 J.xg4 1 6 1Vb3 cxb4 ! 17 1Vxb4 li)a6 = is less dangerous for Black, Polugaevsky-Psakhis, Mos­ cow rpd 1 982) 1 I . ..li)c7 12 a4 b6 (White has a small advantage in the event of 1 2 . . . li)d7 1 3 li)c4 �5 14 J.f4 J.d7 15 'ilr'd2 l:r.fe8 1 6 l:r.ad 1 li)xc4 1 7 J.xc4 J.d4 ! 1 8 J.g3 Pod­ gaets-Psakhis, Sverdlovsk 1 984) 13 a5 ! (a significant improvement over 13 h3 l:r.e8 14 li)c4 J.a6 15 J.g5 h6 1 6 J.h4 'ifd7 17 J.fl J.xc4 1 8 J.xc4 a6 oo A.Petrosian-Tal, Lvov 1 98 1 ) 1 3 . . . J.d7 14 J.f3 ! b5 15 e5 l:r.ae8 1 6 li)fl ! b4 1 7 exf6 'ilr'xe1 1 8 fxg7 �xg7 1 9 J.d2 ! 'ilr'xd 1 20 li)xd 1 with an advantage; Averkin-Psakhis, Sochi 1 982. b) 10 . . . l:r.b8 1 1 a4 ! ? ( 1 1 li)b5 is not dangerous for Black because of

1 I . . .li)c7 12 a4 { 1 2 li)xa7? J.d7 1 3 a4 l:r.a8 } 1 2 . . . a6 1 3 li)xc7 'ilr'xc7 14 a5 J.d7 with an equal p �sition; C .Hansen-H.Olafsson, Dortmund 1 988) 1 l . ..li)b4 1 2 li)c4 li)e8 1 3 J.f4 f5 (or 1 3 . . . a6 14 'ilr'd2 b6 1 5 e5 dxeS 1 6 li)xe5 J.b7 17 l:r.ad 1 li)d6 1 8 l:r.fe1 l:r.c8 1 9 J.g4 ! ± Pinter-C.Han­ sen, Dortmund 1 988) 14 'ilr'd2 ± M .Gurevich-Szalanczy, B alaton­ bereny 1 987. Bl)

10 1 1 li)c4 (D) ...

M

Black has no particular problems after 1 1 �h 1 f5 1 2 exf5 J.xf5 1 3 g4 J.d7 1 4 li)de4 1Va5 1 5 f4 c4 1 6 li)g5 li)c5 oo Schneider-Berelovich, Groningen 1 993. 1 1 l:r.e1 ! ? deserves attention, for example 1 1 . . .l:r.b8 1 2 �h 1 ( 1 2 J.fl f5 1 3 li)f3 fxe4 14 li)g5 li)ac7 15 a4 li)f6 1 6 li)gxe4 li)xe4 17 li)xe4 J.f5 1 8 J.g5 'ilr'd7 = Timoshchenko-Ro­ manishin, Belgrade GMA 1 988) 12 ... J.d7 1 3 f4 b5 14 a4 ! li)ac7 15 axb5 li)xb5 1 6 J.xb5 J.xb5 17 e5 and White's pressure is extremely tangible; Lukacs-Szalanczy, Debre­ cen 1988.

Classical: Introduction 203 n

...

rs

12 exfS

Undoubtedly the most popular move. Others: a) 1 2 'ii>h l liJac7 1 3 a4 .ixc3 1 4 hxc3 fxe4 15 liJd2 'i!ie7 1 6 c 4 with compensation for White; Paunovic­ D.Gurevich, New York 1 987. b) 12 f3 l:.b8 ( 1 2 . . . f4 13 h l l:.b8 14 a4 b6 15 liJb5 ±) 1 3 a4 liJb4 1 4 .ie3 f4 1 5 .if2 b6 1 6 'i!id2 a6 1 7 liJa2 ! ;!; Kamsky-Madl, Val Thorens 1 989. c) 12 .if4 ! ? also deserves atten­ tion, for example 12 . . . g5 ( 1 2 . . . fxe4 1 3 'ilid2 .ixc3 14 bxc3 .if5 1 5 .ig5 'i!id7 16 h3 with compensation) 1 3 i.d2 gives Black problems: c l ) 1 3 . . . fxe4 14 liJxe4 h6 15 a4 with a clear plus for White. c2) 1 3 . . .f4 14 liJb5 ! ? liJac7 15 a4 'i!ie7 1 6 .:tel .id7 ( 1 6 ... liJxb5 17 axb5 'ifxe4 1 8 liJb6 l:.b8 1 9 liJxc8 l:.xc8 20 .ig4 +-) 17 liJxc7 liJxc7 1 8 i. c 3 ± Lukacs-T.Horvath, Budapest 1 989. c3) 13 ... liJac7 14 a4 .id4 (14 . . .f4 1 5 .ig4 ±) 15 exf5 .ixf5 1 6 'ii'c 1 h6 1 7 liJe3 liJg7 1 8 l:.a3 ! with a promis­ ing game; I.Farago-Szalanczy. Vi­ enna 1 990. 12 13 .if4 (D) .••

.txrs

Black faces no problems after any of the alternatives : a) 13 a4 liJb4 14 liJe3 .id7 15 liJc2 tlJxc2 1 6 'ii'x c2 .id4 17 .if3 liJg7 = Dlugy-Kudrin, New York 1983. b) 1 3 liJe3 .id7 14 .id2 llb8 15 tlJg4 liJac7 1 6 a4 a6 = Lukasiewicz­ Foisor, Cannes 1990.

c) 1 3 a3 l:.b8 14 .if4 .id3 ! ? 15 .ig3 .ixc4 1 6 .ixc4 liJac7 17 l:.c 1 liJf6 1 8 .ie2 'ii'd7 = Chernin-Romanishin, Lvov 1987. d) He also has no cause for con­ cern after 13 .ie3 l:tb8 ! ? (it is less difficult to gain an advantage after 1 3 . . . liJac7, for example 14 a4 'ii'e7 !? 15 'ii'd 2 'iff7 1 6 l:.ad 1 lld8 1 7 l:.fe1 a6 18 liJb6 { 18 a5 liJb5 1 9 liJxb5 axb5 20 liJa3 b4 21 liJc4 liJc7 = } 1 8 . . . liJf6 1 9 .ig5 liJa8 20 liJc4 liJc7 2 1 'ii'f4 ;!; Damljanovic-Magerra­ mov, Palma de Mallorca GMA 1989) 14 a4 liJb4 15 l:.c 1 b6 16 'i!id2 .:tb7 1 7 .ig5 .if6 ! ? 1 8 .if4 a6 1 9 liJe3 .ig5 = M.Gurevich-Moska­ lenko, Belgrade GMA 1988.

13

.•.

bS

Of the alternatives, the first two do not manage to equalize, but 'c' and 'd' give Black greater grounds for optimism: a) 1 3 . . . l:.b8 14 .ig3 b5 1 5 liJe3 .id7 1 6 a4 liJac7 17 axb5 liJxb5 1 8 liJxb5 .ixb5 1 9 .ixb5 l:.xb5 20 l:.xa7 l:r.xb2 21 llJc4 l:[b4 22 'ii'e 2 Browne-D.Gurevich, Palma de Mal­ lorca GMA 1989.

204 Classical: Introduction b) 1 3 . . . ll:lb4 14 'ii'd 2 'ir'd7 (and not 14 . . . ll:lc2? 15 g4 ! ) 15 h3 b5 1 6 ll:le3 .i.d3 ! 1 7 .i. g 3 .i.xe2 1 8 'ii'xe2 :b8 19 a3 ll:la6 20 a4 Toshkov-Ro­ manishin, Jurmala 1987. c) 13 . . . .i.d3 ! ? 14 .i.g3 .i.xc4 15 .i.xc4 ll:lac7 16 'ir'd2 ! ? 'ir'd7 1 7 ll:le4 b5 1 8 .i.e2 and now not 18 . . . .i.d4? ! 1 9 l%ad1 ll:lxd5 20 .i.xd6 ! and White wins, Piskov-Yudasin, USSR 1989, but 1 8 ... l%d8 !?. d) 1 3 ... ll:lac7 14 a4 (14 'ir'd2 !? de­ serves attention, e.g. 14 . . . b5 15 ll:la5 Wd7 1 6 a4 b4 1 7 ll:lb5 with the in­ itiative; Baburin-Pigusov, Voronezh 1 988) 14 . . . .i.d3 ! ? (14 . . . g5 15 .i.g3 .i.d4 16 ll:le3 .i.g6 17 .i.d3 .i.xd3 1 8 Wxd3 favours White; Ftacnik-Kin­ dermann, Altensteig 1 987) 15 .i.g3 .i.xc4 16 .i.xc4 ll:lf6 17 .i.e2 ! ? l:te8 ( 1 7 . . . a6 is also reasonable: 18 'ir'd2 l%b8 1 9 .i.f3 b5 20 axb5 axb5 2 1 b4 cxb4 22 ll:le2 ll:lh5 ! with counter­ play; Vilela-Vera, Matanzas 1 989) 18 .i.f3 ( 1 8 'ir'd3 a6 19 l:tad 1 b5 ! 20 axb5 axb5 2 1 ll:lxb5 ll:lxb5 22 'Wxb5 ll:le4 23 .i.f4 .i.d4 + Karpman­ Moskalenko, USSR 1 988) 18 ... a6 19 'ifd2 'it'd? 20 'ir'f4 l:te5 ! 2 1 'ii'c4 l:tee8 with equality; Baburin­ Borovitsky, USSR 1988. 14 ll:le3 14 ll:lxb5 .i.d7 15 .i.xd6 .i.xb5 1 6 .i.xf8 .i.xf8 ! ? 1 7 'ifb3 l:tb8 1 8 d6 h 1 lLlf6 19 'ii'd 3 lL!d7 20 f4 with a clear advantage to White; Novikov-Fedorov, Kusadasi 1 990) 17 Aab1 f5 1 8 b4 i.d4+ 1 9 Wh 1 'ii'f6 with equality; Khalif­ man-Wojtkiewicz, Tallinn 1 993. c) 13 llb1 'ii'd7 1 4 i.d2 ( 1 4 b4 cxb4 1 5 lhb4 b5 !?) 14 . . . i.xc4 1 5 i.xc4 a 6 1 6 b4 b5 17 i.d3 (or 17 axb5 axb5 18 i.d3 c4 1 9 i.c2 llfe8) 17 . . . c4 1 8 i.c2 bxa4 ! 19 lLlxa4 llab8 20 lLlc3 lL!b5 = Tukmakov-Foisor, New York 1988. d) 13 i.g5 'ii'd7 ! ? (Black is close to equality after 1 3 . . . i.xc4 14 i.xc4 a6 15 'ii'e2 'ii'd7 16 f3 h6 17 i.d2 l:lfb8 1 8 �h 1 'ii'e 8 1 9 llfe 1 llb7 Kapengut, or 13 . . . .:tb8 14 b3 lle8 15 'ii'c2 'ii'd7 1 6 llae1 b5 17 axb5 lL!xb5 Lalic-Spraggett, Andorra 1 993) 14 b3 (or 14 'ii'd2 i.xc4 15 i.xc4 a6 16 llfe 1 { 1 6 'ii'd 3 lL!g4 ! } 1 6 . . .b5 1 7 i.fl l:fe8 1 8 f3 h5 = Wiedenkeller­ Hulak, Banja Luka 1 987) 14 . . . llfe8 ( 1 4 . . . l:lae8 ! ? deserves attention) 1 5 f3 ! ? (problems start appearing for White after 1 5 'ii'c 2? ! i.xc4 ! 1 6 bxc4 { 1 6 i.xc4 a6 1 7 'ii'd 3 lL!g4 } 1 6 . . . lL!xe4 ! ! 1 7 lLlxe4 'ii'f5 1 8 i.d3 i.xa1 19 lL!xd6 { or 19 lLlf6+ 'Wxf6 20 i.xf6 i.xf6 + } 1 9 . . . 'ifxg5 20 lLlxe8 lLlxe8 2 1 l:lxa1 'it'e5 with a small advantage to White; Dlugy­ Suba, New York 1 987) 15 . . . lL!g4 1 6 'ii'e 1 lLle5 17 'it'd2 f5 1 8 exf5 lL!xc4 19 i.xc4 'ii'xf5 = . e) 13 i.f4 i.xc4 (after 13 . . . lLlh5 the best reply would undoubtedly be

14 i.d2 !?, as 14 i.xh5 i.xc4 15 i.e2 i.xe2 1 6 'ifxe2 f5 17 e5 dxe5 1 8 i.xe5 lL!xd5 ! 1 9 llad 1 lLlxc3 20 'ii'c4+ lL!d5 2 1 l:xd5 'ife8 22 l:ld8+ 'ii'f7 23 lld7 ! i.xe5 ! 24 Axf7 l:lxfi Wilder-Suba, London 1 989, leads to approximate equality) 14 i.xc4 a6 1 5 l:e 1 l:e8 ( 1 5 . . . lLlh5 is also not bad, for example 16 i.d2 l:b8 17 i.e2 lLlf6 1 8 l:b1 b5 1 9 axb5 lL!xb5 1 with equality; Neverov-Kuschch, Smolensk 1 99 1 ) 1 6 'ii'd 3 lL!g4 17 'ifg3 lLle5 1 8 i.fl 'ifd7 1 9 h3 b5 20 i.d2 Barlov-Suba, Saint John 1 988, and a good move now would be 20 . . . f5 ! oo. f) 13 'ifi>h 1 llb8 14 i.g5 ( 1 4 f3 'ifd7 15 l:b1 i.xc4 16 i.xc4 a6 1 7 b4 b5 1 8 i.d3 c4 1 9 i.c2 bxa4 ! 20 i.xa4 lLlb5 = Schmidt-Wojtkie­ wicz, Polish Ch 1992) 14 . . . i.xc4 ! ? ( 1 4 . . . h6 1 5 i.h4 i.xc4 1 6 i.xc4 a6 17 i.d3 'ii'd7 { 17 . . . b5 1 8 axb5 axb5 19 f4 c4 20 i.b1 b4 2 1 lLle2 '6'd7 22 lLld4 ;!; Shneider } 18 f4 llfe8 1 9 i.c2 ! ;!; Schneider-Ciemniak, Gron­ ingen 1 992) 15 i.xc4 a6 1 6 '6'd3 ( 1 6 i.d3 ! ?) 16 . . . 'ife8 = Wojtkiewicz.

B

13 ...

l:lb8

Classical: Introduction 207 For 1 3 ... l:te8 !? see A79. 1 3 ... 'ii'd7 is also quite common: a) It's easy for Black to gain equality in the event of 14 .!Da3 .txe2 15 'it'xe2 :tfe8 16 'it'c2 'it'e7 17 .td2 .!Dd7 =. b) 14 .i.g5 ! ? is interesting, with I he aim after 14 . . . h6 of simply play­ i ng 15 .i.d2 and the h6 pawn does nothing for Black's position, rather !han 15 .i.h4 �h7 1 6 :e1 l:tfe8 1 7 'i'd2 .i.xc4 1 8 .i.xc4 a6 19 'it'd3 .!Dh5 ! ? 20 .t.f2 .!Df4 2 1 'it'n g5 "" Thomson-Foisor, Thessaloniki OL 1 988. Instead 14 . . . �h8 15 'it'd2 .txc4 1 6 .i.xc4 a6 17 'it'd3 .!Dg8 1 8 l:fe1 f5 1 9 exf5 :xf5 20 .i.h4 ;!; was Pares-Suba, Roses 1992. c) 14 .i.d2 .i.xc4 15 .i.xc4 a6 1 6 "ii'e2 :fb8 17 l:tfb1 'ii'e7 1 8 'i&?h 1 .!Dd7 1 9 f4 :e8 20 :e1 .i.d4 2 1 :ab1 ;!; Schmidt-Panczyk, Czestochowa 1 992. 14 .i.d2 15 .i.xc4

.i.xc4 a6

16 '6'e2

17 :ab1 18 f4!

'6'c8 .!Dd7 :eS

1 8 . . . 'ii'b7 !? 1 9 e5 dxe5 20 d6 .!De6 2 1 .i.xa6 .!Dd4 deserves attention. 19 e5 20 fS!

dxe5

20 d6 .!De6. 20 21 22 23 24

axb5 .!Dxb5 .i.xb5 .t.e3

b5! axb5 .!Dxb5

e4

Black's house is in order after 24 .i.c3 .i.d4+ 25 �h1 e3 . 24 25 .i.c6 •••

.i.d4 :b4!?

A little stronger than 25 ... :e7 ? ! 2 6 .i.xd4 cxd4 2 7 f6 :e5 2 8 'ii'd 2 ± Polugaevsky-Hulak, Moscow GMA 1 990, or 25 . . . :b3? 26 .i.xd4 cxd4 27 fxg6 hxg6 28 'ii'f2 ! . 26 �h1 :eS With chances for both sides; Polu­ gaevsky-Psakhis, Sochi 1 988.

15 Classical : 9 . . . a6 without 10 . . . �g4 (A74) 1 d4 lllf6 2 c4 cS 3 dS e6 4 lllc3 exdS S cxdS d6 6 e4 g6 7 ll!f3 .t g7 0-0 8 i.e2 a6 (D) 9 0-0

w

10 a4

Chances are approximately even after 1 0 e5 dxe5 1 1 lll xe5 lllbd7 1 2 lll xd7 i.xd7 1 3 i.g5 :c8 14 a4 l:le8 15 l:c l 'ifa5 Dorfman-Dolmatov, Moscow 1 98 1 . lllbd7 10 10 . . . b6? ! is too sluggish, and White has the opportunity to distrib­ ute his pieces undisturbed, for ex­ ample 1 1 i.f4 l:la7 1 2 llld 2 l:e7 1 3 i.f3 llle8 14 lllc4 with an advantage; Smyslov-Ragozin, Gagra 1 953. 10 ... i.g4 is significantly stronger, and is examined under A75. .••

1 1 i.f4

You also see: a) 1 1 i.g5 and now: al) l l . . .l:e8 1 2 lLld2: al l ) 12 . . . 'ifc7: al l l ) 1 3 'ifc2 is not convincing: 1 3 . . . l:r.b8 14 'iPh l ( 1 4 a5 b5 15 axb6 l:xb6 1 6 lLlc4 l:b4 1 7 i.f4 i.f8 18 f3 lllb6 1 9 b3 ;!; Ikonnikov-Emelianov, Budapest 1 99 1 ) 14 . . . b6 (the standard 14 . . . c4? ! is no good at this point: 1 5 i.xc4 b5 1 6 axb5 axb5 17 i.d3 llle5 1 8 llld l ! with an advantage) 15 f4 c4 ! ? 1 6 i.xc4 ll:lg4 ! 17 'ifd3 'ifc5 1 8 ll:ld l b5 with counterplay. a1 1 2) 1 3 f4 ! ? l:lb8 1 4 Wh l (a precise move; 14 'ifc2?! c4 ! 15 'iPhl { 15 i.xc4 b5 1 6 axb5 axb5 1 7 i.d3 b4 18 llla4 'ifxc2 19 i.xc2 lll g4 with more than enough compensation } 15 . . . b5 !? 1 6 axb5 axb5 allows Black to breathe easily) 14 . . . c4 15 i.xc4 ll:lc5 16 i.xf6 ! i.xf6 17 e5 ! ±. al2) White also has a preferable position after 1 2 . . . h6 1 3 i.h4 'ifc7 ( 1 3 . . . g5 14 i.g3 llle5 15 f4 ! gxf4 1 6 i.xf4 'ife7 1 7 Wh l lll g6 1 8 i.g3 ll!d7 1 9 lll c4 ll!de5 20 llle 3 i.f6 2 1 lLlf5 i.xf5 2 2 l:xf5 i.g7 2 3 h3 ± Vukic-Martinovic, Borovo 1 982) 14 'ifc2 (Black's problems are simpler after 14 f4 c4 ! ? 15 'ifc2 lLlc5, and in­ cidentally 15 i.xc4 ? ! is no go.o d because of 15 . . . 'ifb6+ 1 6 i.f2 'ifxb2

Classical: 9. . . a6 without JO ..tg4 209 ..•

1 7 ..td4 o!DxdS ! ) 14 . . . l:bS ( 1 4 . . . gS is good for White: 1 S ..tg3 .!DeS 1 6 .ixeS ! :xeS 17 o!Dc4 lteS I S f4 with u big advantage) I S h3 (the hasty l S 1'4 allowed Black to achieve a won­ derful game in Babu-D' Amore, Ma­ nila OL 1 992, after 1S . . . c4 ! 16 ..txc4 hS 17 axbS axbS 1S ..td3 b4 19 o!Dd 1 'i'xc2 20 .i.xc2 o!DcS) 1S . . . gS 1 6 ..tg3 lLleS 1 7 f4 ! ? gxf4 IS ..txf4 lLlfd7 1 9 lLlf3 o!Dg6 2 0 ..tg3 with a small but tangible advantage. a2) 1 1 . . .1i'e7 ! ? 12 o!Dd2 h6 1 3 i.b4 gS 14 .i.g3 .!DeS and now: a2 1 ) Black has no problems after l S .i.xeS ! ? 'ii'xeS 16 o!Dc4 1i'e7 17 eS lLleS ! ? 1 S exd6 o!Dxd6 1 9 l:.el .i.d4 Kapengut. a22) After lS 1i'c2 one may con­ tinue 1S . . . ..td7 (White preserves the initiative after 1S . . . o!Dfd7 1 6 .!Dd t lLlg6 1 7 .i.g4 ..td4 { or 17 . . . o!DdeS 1 S i.xcS l:.axcS 1 9 o!De3 hS 2 0 .!DfS 'ii'f6 2 1 l:.a3 with initiative; Vera­ Velasquez, Mexico 19SO } 1 S o!Dc4 o!DgeS 1 9 o!Dde3 ! ) 1 6 aS l:.aeS 1 7 o!Dd 1 o!Dg6 1 S o!De3 o!Df4 1 9 .t o hS with chances for both sides; Am.Ro­ driguez-Ortega, Bayamo 1 9S2. a23) 1S l:te1 .!Dfd7 (or 1 S . . . llbS 16 .i.n .!Dfd7 17 l:b 1 o!Dg6 I S o!Dc4 o!DdeS 1 9 o!De3 1i'f6 20 b4 ;t Grivas­ Doghri, Manila OL 1 9S2) 16 lLln o!Dg6 17 .i.g4 o!DdeS 1 S ..txcS l:.axcS 1 9 o!De3 and in view of the weakness offS , White's position is preferable; Averbakh-Tal, Portoroz IZ 19SS. b) 1 1 o!Dd2 and here: b1) For 1 l . ..l:r.eS ! ? see A77. b2) It is difficult for Black to equalize after 1 l . . .ltbS 1 2 o!Dc4 ( 1 2

'ifi>h 1 i s not bad either, e.g. 1 2 . . . 'ii'c7 1 3 f4 .!Des 14 o!Df3 c4 1S eS ! dxeS 1 6 fxeS o!DxeS 1 7 .i.f4 with excellent compensation for the pawn; I.Far­ ago-Damljanovic, Belgrade 19S4) 12 . . . o!Db6 13 o!De3 l:.eS 14 aS with a small advantage. b3) In the event of 1 l . . .o!DeS 1 2 .!Dc4 .!Des ( 1 2 . . . .!Db6 1 3 o!De3 .i.d7 1 4 ..td3 l:r.bS 1 S f4 .!DeS 1 6 a5 o!Da7 1 7 'ife2 ;t Marin-Stefanov, Romania 1 9SS) 1 3 o!De3 fS 14 f4 .!Df7 1S exfS gxfS 1 6 .i.d2 ( 1 6 �h 1 is also inter­ esting: 1 6 . . . o!Dh6 1 7 g3 b6 1 S h3 ! ? l:.a7 1 9 l:.gl with reasonable possi­ bilities for an attack; Inkiov-Pek­ arek, Warsaw Z 1 9S7) 1 6 . . . b6 1 7 l:.bl lta7 l S ..td3 o!Dh6 1 9 o!De2! �hS 20 .i.c3 Novikov-Kolev, Odessa 1 9S9, and White's position is prefer­ able. b4) l l . . .'ii'e7 1 2 lte l l:.bS (or 1 2 . . . gS 1 3 o!Dc4 h6 14 .ion .!Des l S o!Db6 l:tbS 1 6 lla3 ;t Yuferov-Mo­ chalov, USSR 1 9SS) 1 3 f4 (White played too academically in Mocha­ lov-Kapengut, Minsk 1 976: 1 3 h3 .!DeS 14 .i.fl o!Dc7 1S o!Dc4 .!DeS 1 6 o!De3 g S and Black managed to re­ build and could look hopefully into the future) 1 3 . . . b6 14 .i.f3 bS l S axbS axbS 1 6 l:.a5 with an advan­ tage; T.Petrosian-Kapengut, Mos­ cow 1972. 11

...

'fle7

Also possible is l l . . . o!DeS 1 2 .:tel l:tbS 1 3 'ii'd2 b6 14 .i.fl 1i'e7 1 S l:.ad1 ;t Lein-Hebert, Montreai 1 9S6. 12 .!Dtll

.!Des

White maintains an advantage after both 12 . . . o!DeS 1 3 o!Dc4 l:.bS 1 4

210 Classical: 9. . . a6 without JO. . . i.g4 a5 .!De5 1 5 .!Dxe5 i.xe5 1 6 i.xe5 'ii'xe5 1 7 f4, as in S ahovic-Djukic, Bor 1 98 3 , and 1 2 .. .l:tb8 1 3 h3 &!De8 14 i.h2 (14 :et g5 ! 15 i.g3 i.e5 1 6 .!Dfl .!Dg7 = Belotti-Schneider, Bu­ dapest 1 987) 14 . . . .!Dc7 15 .!Dc4 .!De5 1 6 &!Db6. 13 h3 (D)

Black has a good game after 1 3 l:.e1 :b8 14 h3 &!De8 15 i.e3 g5 ! 1 6 .!Dfl f5 aa , whilst 1 3 i.xe5?! 'ii'xe5 1 4 .!Dc4 'ii'e7 15 e5 dxe5 1 6 &!Db6 :b8 1 7 d6 'ii'd 8 1 8 a5 i.e6 Silman-Arda­ man, New York 1 987, already puts the initiative in his hands. 13 i.g3 deserves attention, for ex­ ample 1 3 . . . g5 ! ? 14 ·:e 1 ( 1 4 f4 gxf4 1 5 i.xf4 &!Dg6 1 6 i.g3 .!Dd7 1 7 i.g4 i.d4+ 18 �h 1 .!Dde5 = ) 14 .. J:tb8 1 5 'ii' b 3 .!Dfd7 1 6 &!Dd 1 ! ( 1 6 .!Dfl b 5 1 7 axb5 c4 !) 1 6 . . . b 5 1 7 axb5 axb5 1 8 .!De3 with a slight plus for White; Kozul-Renet, Marseille 1 989.

� h 1 .!Dg7 White's advantage still has to be proved. 14 i.g3

14 'ifc2 is less clear: 14 . . . f5 1!5 exf5 gxf5 1 6 l:tae 1 'iff6 and Black's position is not at all bad. With the text move White is pre· paring 15 f4, and in practice it forces Black to make serious weaknesses on the kingside . 14 15 f4 !? •••

Often the most straightforward play is the most correct. Black has fewer problems after 15 'ii'c2 :e8 1 6 :.a3 (or 1 6 llael .!Df8 1 7 .!D d 1 .!Dfg6 1 8 &!De3 .!Df4 19 i.xf4 gxf4 20 .!Df5 'ii'f6 2 1 g3 i.h6 aa Miralles-Renet, Cannes 1 987, and White also has no advantage after 1 6 a5 .!Df8 17 f4 gxf4 1 8 i.xf4 .!Dfg6 19 i.h2 l:.b8 20 lla3 b5 21 axb6 l:txb6 = Lalic-Sprag­ gett, Zagreb 1993) 1 6 . . . .!Df8 17 .!Dc4 .!Dxc4 18 i.xc4 .!Dg6 with equality; Burger-Spraggett, New York 1 983. 15 16 i.xf4 17 i.h2 18 h1

13 liJfd7 1 3 . . . .!De8 ! ? is interesting, and af­ ter, for example, 14 i.h2 g5 15 f4 gxf4 1 6 i.xf4 .!Dg6 1 7 i.h2 i.d4+ 1 8

g5

gxf4 .!Dg6 .!Dde5 f5

White has an overwhelming posi­ tion after 1 8 . . . i.d7 19 1i'c2 1Vh4 20 l:[f5 ! i.xf5 21 exf5 &!Dh8 22 .!Dde4 Dusart -Schuller, Corr 1 988, and the extra exchange provides little com­ fort for Black. 19 exf5 20 .!Dde4

i.xf5

White has a small advantage; Naumkin-Aseev, USSR 1986.

16 Classical : 9 . . . a6 10 a4 �g4 (A75) I d4 lLlf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 e6 4 lLlc3 exd5 5 cxd5 d6 6 e4 g6 7 lLlf3 j. g7 8 j.e2 0-0 9 0-0 a6 10 a4 j.g4!? (D)

Of these the fourth has the great­ est significance. Instead 1 1 l:e 1 has no inde­ pendent significance and usually, after a transposition of moves, we end up in the tracks of one of the more popular variations. 1 1 . . . lLlbd7 12 'ifc2 (or 12 j.f4 :e8 ! ? 1 3 lLld2 j.xe2 14 'ifxe2 lLlh5 15 j.e3 'ifh4 =) 1 2 ... l:te8 1 3 j.d2 'ifc7 14 l:ad1 :ab8 ( 1 4 . . . c4 ! ?) 1 5 b3 j.xf3 1 6 gxf3 c4 ! ? 17 bxc4 lLle5 with a good game for Black; Nei-Tal, Tallinn 197 1 .

A ) 1 1 .i.gS h6 My favourite weapon against the Classical System. By exchanging the knight on f3, Black reduces White's attacking potential, and gains the possibility of positioning his own pieces harmoniously, whilst the ab­ sence of the light-squared bishop is not too noticeable. Frequently, in or­ der to avoid this system, White plays the knight to d2 on move 7, 8 or 9. We shall consider four main replies for White in detail: A) 1 1 j.g5 B) 1 1 h3 C) 1 1 lLld2 D) 1 1 j.f4

The most popular reply to the bishop thrust. You also see: a) 1 1 . . .lLlbd7 (this natural move may not be best, as White manages to arrange his forces in comfort) 1 2 lLld2 j.xe2 1 3 'ifxe2 :es (the line 13 . . . 'ifc7 ! ? 14 f4 :ae8 deserves at­ tention) 14 f4 'ifc7 15 l:.ae1 (15 1t'f3 is also not bad, e.g. 15 . . . c4 1 6 cRh 1 :ab8 17 l:tae1 b5 1 8 axb5 axb5 1 9 e5 dxe5 20 f5 ! l:.f8 2 1 lLlde4 l:.b6 22 l:td 1 ;!;) 15 ... b5 (White also has the initiative after 1 5 . . . h6 1 6 j.xf6 j.xf6 17 e5 ! dxe5 1 8 f5 e4, Spassky­ Balashov, Moscow 1 97 1 , and now White should have continued 1 9

212 Classical: 9... a6 10 a4 i..g4 lbdxe4 �g7 20 1i'f3 with an attack) 1 6 axb5 axb5 1 7 1i'xb5 lleb8 !? (or 17 . . . l:ab8 1 8 'ii'c 6 ! ? 'ii'a7 19 .:at with an advantage) 18 1i'd3 ( 1 8 'ii'c 6 'ii'a7) l:xb2 1 9 lLlc4 l:[b3 20 i.. xf6 ! i.. xf6 2 1 e5 dxe5 22 d6 1i'a7 (22 ... e4 23 'ii'xe4 ! ±) 23 1i'c2 1i'b7 24 fxe5 lbxe5 25 lbe4 ! ± Pinter-Martin Gon­ zalez, Rome 1983. b) l l . . .i.. xf3 12 i.. xf3 lbbd7 1 3 'ii'd 2 (Black also has n o particular problems after 1 3 i.. e 2 .:es 14 'ii'c 2 'ii'a5 ! ? 15 b3 { 1 5 .:ret .:ac8 1 6 f4? ! c4 1 7 i.. h4 lLlc5 1 8 i.. f l 'ii'b4 19 h3 lbd3 ! gives Black the initiative; For­ intos-Bonsch, Cuba 1 979 } 1 5 . . . .:e7 1 6 i.. d 2 .:ae8 1 7 �h 1 'ii'c7 = ) 1 3 . . . .:e8 (or 1 3 . . . c4 14 i.. e2 'flc7 1 5 �h1 lLlc5 16 1i'e3 .:res = Stahlberg­ Spassky, Gothenburg IZ 1955) 14 a5 c4 1 5 .:a4 lL!cS ! ? (stronger than 15 ... 1i'c7 16 'ii'f4 h5 1 7 i.. e2 lbh7 1 8 i.. h 6 ;t; C . Hansen-Agdestein, Gj!ll­ vik 1 985) 1 6 l:lxc4 lLlb3 17 1i'f4 lLlxa5 1 8 l:b4 l:lc8 with a roughly equal position, C.Hansen. 12 i..h4 i.. xf3 It's essential to exchange the knight, as once again White has an advantage in the event of 1 2 . . . lbbd7 1 3 lLld2 i.. xe2 14 'ii'xe2 l:le8 15 f4 ! 'flc7 1 6 'ii'f3 c4 17 �h 1 l:lab8 1 8 i.. f2 ! ? b 5 1 9 axb5 axb5 2 0 l:a6 Schmidt-de Firmian, Smederevska Palanka 1 98 1 . lbbd7 1 3 i..xf3 .:es 14 i.. e2 15 ..c2 1 5 f4 'ii' b6 1 6 'ii'c 2 'flb4 1 7 i.. f3 c4 1 8 .:ae 1 b5, with equality, does not scare Black.

15 •as! 16 �h1 l:lac8 17 f3 c4 18 i.. e 1 1i'c7 = Beliavsky-Suba, Tunis IZ 1985 . 1 1 i.. g 5 does not pose any serious danger for Black.

B) 11 h3 This move is of course not bad, but as Black usually exchanges on f3 anyway, it is perhaps not worth los­ ing a tempo. 11 i.. xf3 12 i.. xf3 lLlbd7 (D)

13 i.. f4 Black's position has only one weakness - the d6 pawn - and White is quick to take aim at it. Black's problems are simpler af­ ter: a) 1 3 l:le1 J:b8 14 i..e 2 lLle8 1 5 i.. f l lLlc7 1 6 i.. f4 lbe5 1 7 aS b 6 1 8 axb6 l:lxb6 i s level; Bradbury-Pigu­ sov, Cappelle Ia Grande 1992. b) 13 1i'c2 lte8 14 i.. d2 ( 1 4 a:; 'flc7 15 .:a4 .:e7 1 6 i.. g5 h6 17 i.. e 3 .:ae8 18 b3 lLlh7 with a balanced

Classical: 9... a6 10 a4 i.g4 213 (IIISition; Larsen-Christiansen, Mar 1lcl Plata 198 1 ) 14 ... 'ii'c7 15 a5 (or 1 5 h:l c4 ! ? 16 b 4 l:le7 17 l:lfel ltae8 1 8 IZnc l h 6 1 9 a5 'ii'b 8 = T.Petrosian­

l vkov, Santa Monica 1966) 15 . . .lle7 1 6 l:ta4 llae8 17 b3 (nor does Black hnve any problems after 17 g3 c4 1 8 .l g 2 l:tc8 Kapengut) 17 . . . c4 ! ? 1 8 l;)d 1 �e5 1 9 bxc4 �ed7 ! 20 �c3 lik5 2 1 l:ta3 �fxe4 22 �xe4 �xe4 is equal. 'fic7 13 White has a small advantage after I : L. �e8 14 i.e2 'fie7 (or 1 4 . . . 'ii'c7 1 5 l:tc l ltb8 1 6 b3 �ef6 17 'ii'c 2 l:.fe8 1 8 i.h2 ;!;; Smyslov-Filip, Vi­ enna tt 1 957) 1 5 'ii'c 2 �c7 16 .l:[fel l:.ab8 1 7 i.fl l:tfe8 1 8 'ii'd 2 i.d4 1 9 �h 1 Polugaevsky-Vilela, Buenos Aires OL 1 978. However, 13 . . . 'fie7 ! ? deserves nttention, for example: a) Black need not fear either 1 4 'fic2 l:tab8 1 5 a5 �e8 1 6 l:tfel �c7 1 7 .ie2 .id4 ! 1 8 i.fl b5 19 axb6 l:txb6 is equal; Razuvaev-Tsesh­ kovsky, USSR 1 978. b) 14 1i'd2 c4 !? 1 5 l:tael �5 16 .ie2 l.tac8 17 i.g5 b5 ! 18 axb5 axb5 1 9 i.xf6 ( 1 9 �xb5 �xe4 20 i.xe7 lLlxd2 2 1 i.xf8 'it>xf8 22 �xd6 l.td8 ) 19 . . . 'ii'xf6 20 f4 �d3 ! = C.Han­ sen-Luther, Uzhgorod 1 988. c) 14 llel l:tfe8 15 1i'c2 (or 15 a5 l.tac8 16 l:a4 h5 17 i.e2 �h7 1 8 .ifl 'iff6 19 i.h2 i.h6 ! ? = Komljen­ ovic-Suba, Seville 1 993) 15 . . . h5 1 6 b3 �h7 1 7 i.d2 i.d4 with a good game for B lack; Velikov-Ivanovic, Belgrade 1 988.

Vaganian-Tal, USSR Ch (Lenin­ grad) 197 1 continued 14 'ifd2 llfe8 15 a5 llac8 1 6 g4 l:e7 17 l:lfe l �e8 18 i.g2 ltb8 19 i.g5 and Black could have played 19 . . . l:le5 ! ? 20 i.f4 (20 f4 l.txg5 ! ? oo) 20 . . . l:te7 with equality.

•••

=

14 'ii'c2 (D)

14

•••

:res

After 14 ... c4 !? 15 i.e2 (15 :ac t ? ! �c5 16 �e2 b 5 17 axb5 axb5 1 8 b4 cxb3 19 'ii'xb3 'ii' b6 =i= Malich-Nunn, Budapest 1 978) 15 . . . l:fe8 16 a5 we return to the main line. 15 aS

Black has an excellent game after 15 b3 c4 ! 1 6 b4 l:e7 17 l:tfet .:ae8, or 15 i.e2 l:e7 16 l.tfel llae8 17 i.fl �e5 18 .l:.ad l c4 = Podgaets-Zaid, Kharkov 1980. 15 ... 16 lta4

c4 �5! ?

The line 1 6 ... b5 17 axb6 �xb6 1 8 lla5 �fd7 1 9 i.e3 �e5 2 0 i.e2 �d3 !? 21 i.xd3 cxd3 22 'ifxd3 � 23 l:ta2 �xb2 = deserves attention. 17 i.xeS Or 17 i.e2 �fd7 1 8 i.xe5 �xe5 1 9 f4 �d3 20 i.xd3 cxd3 2 1 1fxd3 b5 22 l:taal ltac8 = Kasparov.

214 Classical: 9. . . a6 10 a4 .i.g4 17 18 l:td1 ! ? •••

l:txeS

After 1 8 �b1 l:ae8 ! 1 9 �a3 �xe4, Portisch-Kasparov, Tilburg 1 98 1 , Black seizes the initiative. 18 19 l:td4 20 axb6

�7 bS �xb6

with a complex game, Kasparov.

C) l l lDd2 �xe2 12 'ii'xe2

�bd7

1 2 . . . l:te8? is an error because of 13 �c4 ! .i.f8 (or 13 ... 'ife7 14 .i.f4 �xe4 1 5 l:tfe1 .i.xc3 1 6 bxc3 'ii'd 8 17 l:tab1 ±) 14 .i.g5 �bd7 15 a5 ± Namgilov-Psakhis, Rostov 1 977. 13 lbc4 1 3 f4 l:te8 14 'iff3 'ike? 15 g4 ( 1 5 a5 c 4 1 6 l:ta4 b 5 17 axb6 �xb6 = ) 15 ... c4 1 6 g5 �h5 leads to a roughly even position; Peev-Tringov, Plov­ div 1980. 13 14 �3 •••

17 18 .i.gS 19 .i.h4

l:ae8 h6

1 9 .i.d2 is effectively met by 19 . . . �fd7 !, when 20 f4? is no good because of 20 . . . �xb6 21 fe �c8 22 ed �6 with an advantage to Black. 19

•••

gS

19 . . .'ifc7 20 f4 �ed7 21 �c4 is not bad either, Kovacs-Nicevski, Decin 1 978, when the continuation 2 1 . . .�xe4 ! ? 22 �xe4 f5 23 �cxd6 'ifxd6 24 �xd6 l:.xe2 would have led to equality. 20 21 22 23

.i.g3 f4 �d7

�fd7 gxf4 �d7

l:.xf4 with an unclear game.

D) ll .i.f4 (D) This move is considered fundamen­ tal in official theory.

�b6

Black has no problems after 14 �xb6 'ifxb6 15 .i.e3 l:tfe8 16 f3 l:.ab8, or 14 �a3 l:e8 1 5 'ifc2 �h5 ! 1 6 a5 �d7 17 �4 �e5 1 8 �b6 l:b8 1 9 l:ta3 'ifh4 Lputian-Suba, Debre­ cen Echt 1 992. 14 15 aS 16 �c4 17 �b6

'flle7 �bd7 �eS

Or 1 7 �xe5 'ifxe5 1 8 f4 ( 1 8 l:ta4 l:.ae8 1 9 'ii'f3 �d7 20 .i.f4 'ife7 2 1 'ii' g 3 �e5 i s level; Renaze-Mager­ ramov, Chartres 1 990) 1 8 . . .'ife7 1 9 .i.d2 l:.fe8 2 0 llael �7 =.

We shall look at three moves in detail: D 1 ) 1 1 ...'ife7 D2) l l ... :es D3) 1 1 ....i.xf3

Classical: 9... a6 10 a4 .tg4 215 1 1 ...lbh5 is a rarer move: 1 2 .i.g5 (more active than 12 .i.e3 lDd7 13 h3 .txf3 14 .i.xf3 lbhf6 15 a5 'flc7 1 6 Wc2 llfbS 1 7 lla2 lieS ! ? 1 S .i.e2 l:.e7 = Gon.Garcia-Tal, Moscow IZ 1 9S2) 1 2 . . . .i.f6 (White has a small advantage in the event of 1 2 . . . 'flb6 1 3 'fld2 { or 13 'flc2 lbd7 14 h3 .i.xf3 1 5 .i.xf3 h6 1 6 .i.d2 lbhf6 17 .i.e2 l:.feS 1 S b3 ;t Magerramov-Kaspar­ ov, Baku 1979 } 1 3 ... lDd7 14 a5 'flc7 1 5 h3 .i.xf3 1 6 .i.xf3 lbhf6 17 'flf4 ! ? b5 1 S axb6 'flxb6 1 9 :a2 Zaid-Kas­ parov, Moscow tt 1 977) 1 3 .i.e3 ( 1 3 .th6 lieS 1 4 lbd2 .txe2 15 'flxe2 ltld7 1 6 �h 1 .td4 1 7 g4 lbhf6 0() Salov-Romanishin, Irkutsk 1 9S6) 13 ... lDd7 (in Beliavsky-Romanishin, Wijk aan Zee 1 9S5 White got the better of the game after 1 3 ... .txf3 14 .txf3 lbg7 1 5 .tg4 lle8 1 6 'ifc2 ltld7 1 7 aS lbe5 1 S .te2 l:lb8 1 9 ltlb1 ! ) 14 a5 b 5 15 axb6 'ifxb6 1 6 l:.a2 .txf3 1 7 .txf3 lbg7 1 S lba4 Wb7 1 9 'ifc2 l:fbS and Black was close to equality in Spraggett-Ro­ manishin, Wijk aan Zee 19S5. D1)

11 12 lbd2 •••

fle7

Black has a reasonable game in the event of 1 2 lle1 lbbd7 1 3 h3 .txf3 14 .txf3 lbe8 15 'ifd2 lbc7 1 6 i.e2 lltbS ! ? . 12 ... 13 'ifxe2

.txe2 lbbd7

This rare move strikes me as be­ ing more promising than 1 3 . . . lbh5 14 .te3 lbd7 when: a) The sharp 15 g4 gives Black good equalizing chances: 15 . . . lbhf6

(15 ... f5 16 exf5 gxf5 17 gxh5 .i.xc3 18 bxc3 f4 19 �h 1 ;t Sturua-Pigu­ sov, Vilnius 1 984) 16 f3 (or 16 h3 lbeS 17 a5 lbc7 1 8 l:a4 b5 19 axb6 lbxb6 20 :a2 llae8 = Lakic-Cebalo, Banja Luka 1 9S 1 ) 16 . . . lbe8 17 �h 1 lbc7 1 8 lbc4 ( 1 S a5 ! ?) 1 8 . . . b5 ! ? 1 9 lba5 b4 2 0 lbd 1 (20 lbc6 W'eS 2 1 lbd 1 lbe5 22 lbxe5 'ifxe5 does not frighten Black either) 20 .. .f5 21 gxf5 gxf5 22 llg1 �h8 and Black's posi­ tion is no worse; B onsch-Psakhis, Tmava 1988. b) 15 a5 ! ? (D):

b 1 ) 15 . . . l:r.ab8 1 6 l:.a4 lbhf6 17 .tg5 l:.fe8 1 8 f4 ;t Gligoric-Raj­ kovic, Yugoslavia 1 982. b2) 15 . . . lltb8 1 6 llfe1 b5 17 axb6 llxb6 18 lbc4 llbbS 19 g4 ! ? lbhf6 20 .tf4 lDeS 2 1 .tg3 ;t Gav­ rilov-Blokh, Moscow 19S2. b3) 15 . . . .te5 deserves attention, for example 16 g3 ( 1 6 f4?! .txc3 17 bxc3 ltlhf6 1 S .tf2 lbxd5) 1 6 . . . l:tae8 17 .th6 .tg7 1 8 .txg7 lbxg7 1 9 l:fe1 f5 = H.Olafsson-Tal, Reyk­ javik 1987. b4) 1 5 . . . .td4 1 6 lla4 ! W'f6 1 7 W'd3 lbe5 1 S .txd4 lbxd3 19 .txf6

216 Classical: 9... a6 10 a4 i.g4 lbxf6 20 lbc4 l:lad8 2 1 l:ldl lbb4 22 l:ld2 ! lbe8 23 l:lal and now after both 23 ... f6 ! ? 24 f4 lbc7 25 l:ad 1 rJ;g7 26 e5 Ghitescu-Stoica, Romanian Ch 1 983, and 23 . . . lbc7 24 l:e1 rJ;g7 25 b3, Kasparov-Suba, Lucerne OL 1 982, White wields the initiative. 14 lbc4

Or 14 a5 l:lae8 15 l:la4 lDe5 16 h3 lDfd7 17 i.h2 g5 ""· 14 lbe8 ..•

15 i.g3

Black also has no cause for con­ cern after 15 l:lfe1 l:lb8 16 a5 i.d4 ! ?, with a double-edged position. i.d4! 15 h5 = 16 l:fe 1 Ruban-Kapengut, USSR 1 985. •.•

D2)

11

•.•

l:e8 (D)

12 lbd2

In Uhlmann-Fischer, Palma de Mallorca IZ 1970, White fell into an elementary trap and had a lost posi­ tion after 12 h3? lbxe4 13 lDxe4 ( 1 3 hxg4 i.xc3) 1 3 . . . l:lxe4 14 i.g5 'ii'e 8 15 i.d3 i.xf3 16 'ii'xf3 l:.b4 17 l:ae1 i.e5 -+. White has no chances for an advantage after 1 2 'ii'c 2, for example

1 2 . . . 'Wc7 ( 1 2 . . . 'We7 is less convinc­ ing: 1 3 l:ae1 lDbd7 14 h3 i.xf3 15 i.xf3 l:lab8 1 6 i.e2 'cJi>h8 1 7 'ifd2 'ii'f8 1 8 i.c4 ;!; Schiissler-Lobron, Bochum 1 98 1 ) 13 l:lfe1 lDbd7 14 aS l:lab8 1 5 h3 i.xf3 1 6 i.xf3 b5 17 axb6 l:lxb6 1 8 l:la2 l:.eb8 1 9 i.e2 a5 1 = Tal-Stein, Moscow 197 1 . 12 13 'ii'xe2 ••.

i.xe2

lDh5 1 3 ... lbbd7? is weak because of 14 lbc4 (but not 14 i.xd6 lDb6 15 e5 lDfxd5 16 lbxd5 lbxd5 with an un­ clear game; Jasnikowski-Panczyk, Polish Ch 1 99 1). lDd7 14 i.e3 The initiative remains in White's hands after 14 ... i.d4 1 5 lDc4 i.xe3 16 'Wxe3 b6 17 f4 Gligoric-Petryk, Vienna 1982. Now White has two main continuations : D2 1) 15 a5 D22) 15 g4 !? After neither move is Black's de­ fence at all easy, and so both deserve a good deal of attention. Other moves are less trouble­ some: a) There is no danger for Black in 15 l:lae1 b5 16 axb5 axb5 1 7 lDxb5 ( 1 7 'Wxb5 .z:tb8 1 8 'Wd3 l:txb2 1 9 lDc4 lDe5 2 0 lbxe5 i.xe5) 17 . . . 'Wb8 18 l:lb1 l:la4 and 15 f4 f5 16 lbc4 lDdf6 17 exf5 gxf5 18 l:f3 lDg4 Bonsch-Wojtkiewicz, Stara Zagora z 1 990. b) 15 'iii>h 1 leads to an unclear game, for example 15 . . . lbe5 1 6 l:lg1 lDf6 17 g4 'Wc8 18 g5 lDfg4 1 9 f4

Classical: 9... a6 10 a4 .i.g4 2 1 7 li:)xe3 20 '*xe3 li:)d7 2 1 'ii'd 3 'flc7 Bell6n-Kindermann, Zurich 1985. .i.d4 (D) D21) 15 aS Alternatively: a) 1 5 . . . .l:lb8 16 :a4 ! '*f6 17 g3 'ike7 18 :c t llJe5 19 f4 llJd7 20 .tf2 ! ? ;!;, b) 15 . . ...c7 1 6 g4 ! ? (Black has a reasonable game after 1 6 h3 f5 ! 1 7 exf5 llJg3 ! 1 8 fxg3 llxe3 1 9 'ifg4 i.d4 20 Whl li:)e5, or 16 .J:r.a4 .i.d4 ! ? 1 7 llfal .i.xe3 1 8 1fxe3 lte7 Khen­ kin) 1 6 . . . llJhf6 1 7 h3 ! ? (Black's has fewer problems after 17 f3 b5 ! 1 8 axb6 llJxb6 1 9 Wh1 { 19 ltxa6? ltxa6 20 '*xa6 llJbxd5 } 19 . . . 'iVb7 20 lta2 li:)fd7 2 1 :rat .i.d4 L.Bronstein­ Tringov, Buenos Aires OL 1978) 17 . . h6 18 f4 with initiative. c) 15 . . . .i.e5 ! ? 16 f4 .i.d4 17 lla4 'ikf6 (not 17 . . . b5 1 8 axb6 llJxb6 1 9 .l:lxd4 ! ) 1 8 g3 b 5 1 9 axb6 llJxb6 20 .l:la3 .i.xe3+ 21 'ifxe3 'ii'd4 22 'ii'xd4 cxd4 23 llJe2 llJf6 =. This variation demands practical tests. d) 15 ... llc8 16 g4 llJhr6 17 f3 llJe5 1 8 �h l h6 1 9 g5 ! llJh5 (19 . . . hxg5 20 .i.xg5 'ii'd7 2 1 f4 llJeg4 22 h3 lDh6 23 'ii'f3 with an advantage) 20 f4 llJd7 2 1 gxh6 .i.xh6 22 llJc4 'ii'e7 23 :ae1 .i.g7 24 '*f3 ;!; Browne-de Fir­ mian, USA Ch 1 985. e) 15 . . ...h4: e 1 ) 1 6 llJc4 llJf4 ( 1 6 . . . .i.xc3? 1 7 hxc3 ltxe4 1 8 llJxd6 .l:le5 1 9 'ii'f3 ± Van der Vliet-Grooten, Amsterdam 1 983) 17 .i.xf4 ( 1 7 'ikf3 ? ! is weaker hecause of 17 ... llJe5 ! 1 8 llJxe5 .i.xe5 1 9 g3 'ii' h5 20 'ii'xh5 llJxh5 = Beli­ avsky-Kasparov, USSR Ch (Minsk)

1 979) 17 . . . 'ii'xf4 1 8 g3 'iff6 1 9 f4 'ii'e7 20 :ae l ;!; Plaskett-Pritchett, England 1983. e2) 16 :a4 ! ? llJe5 1 7 f3 ! ltab8 ! ? with a slight plus for White - Naum­ kin (but not 17 ...llJf4 1 8 .i.xf4 'ii'xf4 1 9 g 3 'ii'f6 20 f4 llJd7 2 1 e5 ! dxe5 22 llJde4 'ii'd 8 23 f5 ! ± Naumkin­ Minasian, Moscow 1 992).

w

.

16 lta4

After 1 6 g4 llJhf6 17 f3 Black gets a good game following: a) 1 7 . . . b5 ! ? 1 8 axb6 llJxb6 1 9 liJd1 : a1) 1 9 . . . h5 ! ? 20 h3 (not 20 g5? ! llJfxd5 ! ) transposes to 'b' . a2) 1 9 . . . llJbxd5 is also interest­ ing: 20 exd5 llJxd5 2 1 llJc4 f5 (2 1 ...'ii'g5 22 f4 ! llJxf4 23 'ii'f3) 22 f4 fxg4 23 lta3 with complications; Korchnoi-Nunn, London 1 980. b) 17 . . . h5 ! ? 18 h3 b5 ! ? 19 axb6 llJxb6 20 liJd l liJbxd5 (alternatively, 20 . . . hxg4 2 1 hxg4 llJbxd5 22 exd5 llJxd5 with compensation; Cabrilo­ Schmidt, Vrnjacka Banja 1 98 1 ) 2 1 exd5 llJxd5 22 llJc4 (22 .J:r.a3 :b8 23 llJe4 llJxe3 24 llJxe3 :xb2) 22 ... :b8 23 lta3 :b4 Rajkovic-de Firmian,

218 Classical: 9. . . a6 10 a4 �g4 Vdac 1 983, with a strong initiative for the piece. 'ii'f6 16 White has an advantage after 1 6 . . . tbg7 ? ! 1 7 �xd4 cxd4 1 8 Axd4 'ii' xaS 19 tbc4 'ii'c7 20 tbe3 bS 2 1 'ii'd 2 tbcs 2 2 tbg4 ! Ruban-S.Garcia, Santa Clara 199 1 . 1 6 . . . �xe3 deserves attention: 1 7 'ii'xe3 fS ! ? 1 8 f4 b S (or 1 8 . . .tbhf6 1 9 'it'd3 bS 20 axb6 tbxb6 2 1 l'laa1 fxe4 22 tbdxe4 lbbxdS 23 tbxdS tbxe4 24 fS with excellent compensation for the pawn, C.Hansen) 1 9 axb6 tbxb6 20 Aaa1 'ii'f6 = Ubilava-Anikaev, Minsk 1 983. 11 'ii'd3 tbes 1 7 . . . �xe3 gives White the initia­ tive: 1 8 'ii'xe3 bS 1 9 axb6 tbxb6 20 l:.a2 tbf4 21 Wf3 ;!; Griin-Cebalo, Plovdiv 1983. •.•

18 �xd4 19 �xf6 20 l'lb1 2 1 tbd1 22 f3

tbxd3 tbxf6 l'lad8 lbb4 tbh5 =

b1) 1 6 ... hS? ! 17 gS lbh7 1 8 f4 �d4 1 9 �h 1 ±. b2) 16 . . . 'ii'c7 1 7 �f4 lbb6 1 8 'ii'd 3 tbfd7 1 9 a5 tbc8 20 tbc4 tbe.s 2 1 �xeS �xeS 22 tbxeS (22 tba4 �d4 23 l:lab1 'ii'e7 was level in Tuk­ makov-Semeniuk, Tashkent 1 977) 22 . . . l:.xeS 23 f4 with an obvious ad­ vantage. b3) 1 6 ... l'lb8 ! ? 17 �f4 (Black has a simpler game after 17 a5 'ii'c7 1 8 g2 fta5 = Vukic-Suba, Tuzla 1 98 1 .

18 19 .i.xgS

25 lLlac4 26 ftb1 27 f4 ;t

bS! ? axbS 'ii'xa8 'ii'b8 'ii'xb2

12

•••

'ife7 (D)

I think that e7 is the best place for the queen in this variation. White's chances are preferable after other moves: a) 1 2 . . . l:.e8 1 3 l:.e 1 'ifc7 14 e5 ! dxe5 15 d6 'ii'b6 16 a5 ! 'ii'b4 17 .l:.a4 'ii' x b2 1 8 .i.d2 ± Gligoric-Cvitan, Yugoslav Ch 1 982. b) 12 ... 'ifc7 13 lle1 ( 1 3 a5 c!Llbd7 14 fta4 .l:.fe8 15 'ii'c2 h5 ! 16 lLlb1 ! ? b5 17 axb6 lLlxb6 1 8 .l:.a2 'ii'e7 1 9 lLld2 lLlfd7 2 0 llfal .i.d4 ! "" Skem­ bris-Psakhis, Novi Sad OL 1 982; 21 ftxa6? ! l:.xa6 22 l:.xa6 does not work because of 22 . . . g5 23 .i.e3 .i.xe3 24 fxe3 g4 25 .i.e2 lLlxd5 ! ) 1 3 . . . c!Llbd7 1 4 'ii'd 2 lLle8 15 .i.g4 ! lLle5 16 .i.e2 f5 17 exf5 gxf5 1 8 a5 ;t Naumkin-Ruban, Norilsk 1 987.

220 Classical: 9... a6 10 a4 Jl.g4 c) 1 2 . . . c!De8 1 3 'ii'd 2 (Black has a simpler game after 1 3 'ii'c 2 .!Dd7 1 4 Jl.e2 'ii'e7 1 5 a5 c!Dc7 1 6 .J:tfe1 :ab8 1 7 l:r.a4 b5 1 8 axb6 l:r.xb6 19 l:r.eal l:r.fb8 20 Jl.c l c!Db5 ! ? 2 1 l:r.xa6 c!Dd4 with compensation for Black; Vel­ ikov-Ermenkov, Albena 1 983, but 1 3 Jl.e2 ! ? deserves attention, e.g. 13 ...c!Dd7 14 Jl.g3 f5 1 5 exf5 gxf5 16 Jl.f4 ! c!De5 17 a5 with a small advan­ tage; Hjartarson-Lobron, Reykjavik 1 984) 1 3 . . . c!Dd7 ! ? (or 1 3 .. .'iVe7 14 Jl.g5 ! ? 'ii'e5 1 5 l:r.fe 1 c!Dd7 1 6 .J:tad 1 c!Dc7 17 Jl.g4 ! c!Db6 1 8 'ii'c 1 with in­ itiative; Gligoric-B arlov, Yugoslav Ch 1 982) 1 4 Jl.g5 ( 1 4 Jl.h6? ! l:r.c8 15 b3 Jl.xh6 16 'ii'xh6 'ii'a5 = Wag­ ner-Lobron, B ad Worishofen 1 989) 14 . . . Jl. f6 15 h4 ! ? (more interesting than 15 Jl.xf6 c!Dexf6 16 Jl.e2 :e8 17 f3 .z:r.c8 18 a5 c4 19 'iVd4 l:r.c5 ! 20 Jl.xc4 l:r.xa5 with equality ; Gligor­ ic-Hulak, Subotica 1 984) 1 5 . . . c!Dg7 1 6 Jl.g4 Jl.e7 1 7 Jl.h3 c4 1 8 'ii'd4 ! with initiative; ROder-Lobron, Vi­ enna 1 99 1 .

1 3 l:r.el The following continuations have also had practical tests:

a) 1 3 1i'c2 c!Dbd7 1 4 .J:tae 1 (nei· ther 14 b3 l:r.ab8 15 a5 l:r.fe8 1 6 :fe1 h6 ! ? 17 h3 g5 18 Jl.d2 .!De5 1 9 Jl.e2 c!Dg6 = Ksienski-Psakhis, Naleczow 1 980, nor 14 a5 .!De5 15 Jl.e2 .!Dfd7 1 6 Jl.e3 g5 ! ? 1 7 'ii'd 2 g4 1 8 �h l 'it>h8 1 9 f4 gxf3 20 gxf3 f5 Lukacs­ Groszpeter, Kecskemet 1983, cre­ ates problems for Black) 14 . . . c4 1 5 Jl.e2 l:r.ac8 16 Jl.g5 h 6 1 7 Jl.h4 g5 1 8 Jl.g3 l:r.fe8 with more or less equal chances; Agzamov-Psakhis, B aku 1 979. b) 13 'iVd2 lLlbd7 14 a5 (White has no advantage in the event of 14 l:r.ae1 c4 ! ? { 1 4 . . . lLle8 1 5 Jl.g5 ! Jl.f6 16 h4 lLlc7 17 Jl.e2 l:r.ab8 18 f4 with initiative; Rashkovsky- Kharitonov, Sochi 1 979 } 15 Jl.d1 l:r.ab8 1 6 Jl.c2 b5 17 axb5 axb5 1 8 Jl.h6 Jl.xh6 1 9 'ii'xh6 b 4 2 0 ltl d 1 'ii'd 8 = Torre-Dol­ matov, Manila 1 982) 14 . . . h5 ! ? (an important move, which has not yet been seen in any publications; Black also has a reasonable game in the event of 14 ... l:r.ab8 15 Jl.e2 lLle8 ! ? 1 6 l:r.a4 lLlc7) 1 5 h 3 l:r.ac8 ! ? ( 1 5 . . . .J:tab8 16 l:r.a2 lLlh7 17 l:r.e 1 l:r.fe8 18 l:r.e2 Jl.d4 ! 19 l:r.a4 lLlhf6 = Ruban-Emms, Hastings 199 1 ) 1 6 :fe1 c4 1 7 lLla4 ! ? ( 17 l:r.a4 c!De5 1 8 Jl.e2 lLlfd7 19 Jl.xe5 lLlxe5 20 f4 Jl.h6 ! with an unclear position) 17 . . . ltle5 1 8 Jl.xe5 'ii'xe5 19 lLlb6 c3 ! 20 bxc3 l:r.xc3 = Gaprin­ dashvili-Madl, Smederevska Palan­ ka 1987. c) 13 e5 (the most principled move, but not one which Black should fear, as with exact play he can even gain the initiative) 1 3 . . . dxe5 14 d6 'ii'e6 and now:

Classical: 9. . . a6 10 a4 .ig4 221 c 1 ) White is promised little af­ ter 1 5 .i.g5 lL!bd7 ! ? (not 1 5 . . . ltk6? ! 1 6 .i.xf6 ! .i.xf6 1 7 .i.xc6 bxc6 1 8 l£le4 l:Hd 8 1 9 'ii'e 2 with advantage; Alburt-Kudrin, USA Ch 1983) 1 6 .i.xb7 l:ta7 ( 1 6 . . . l:.ab8 i s also not bad : 17 .i.xa6 l:txb2 18 .i.b5 l:tb4 or 1 7 .i.d5 lL!xd5 1 8 l£Jxd5 l:.xb2 1 9 i.e7 l:tc8 ! 2 0 l£lc7 'ii'c4 ! "" Fedoro­ wicz- Psakhis, Chicago 1983) 17 .i.f3 h6 1 8 .i.e3 l:tb8 Nogueiras-Foisor, Tbilisi 1 983, and Black's position is at least no worse. c2) 15 l:.e1 lL!bd7 1 6 .txb7 l:.a7 ! ? (again 1 6 . . . :ab8 is not bad: 1 7 .i.xa6 l:txb2 1 8 .i.b5 and now 1 8 . . . l£lg4 ! with counterplay; is better than 1 8 . . J:td8 1 9 l:tc 1 ! W'f5 20 .te3 e4 2 1 .i.xd7 ! l:txd7 22 h3 c4 23 l:te2 ± Hjartarson-de Firmian, Reykjavik 1 984) 17 .i.c6 !? ( 17 .tf3 gives Black the initiative after 17 . . . :tb8 ! 1 8 lL!d5 "ii'xd6 19 .i.g5 ! l£Jxd5 20 .i.xd5 W'f8 + Browne-D.Gurevich, New York 1 984) 1 7 . . . l:tc8 ( 1 7 . . . l:tb8 deserves attention: 18 .i.g3 l:tb4 ! 19 lL!d5 l:td4 20 lL!e7+ 'it>f8 2 1 l£lc8 ! l:txd 1 22 :taxd 1 W'b3 23 lLlxa7 W'b6 24 .i.xd7 l£lxd7 25 lLlc8 'ii'c6 26 l£le7 W'xa4 + Huss-Kindermann, Beersheba 1985 or 18 'ii'd 2 l:tb6 1 9 lL!d5 l£Jxd5 20 .i.xd5 'ife8 21 .i.e3 'ifb8 22 l:tab1 a5 with mutual chances; C.Hansen­ Grtinfeld, Thessaloniki OL 1 984) 1 8 l£Jd5 l£lxd5 1 9 .i.xd5 W'f6 2 0 .i.e3 .if8 ! Browne. 13 lLlbd7 (D) ••.

14 aS

A logical move. White fixes the weakness of b6 and prepares to move the knight there. Black faces

no problems after 14 .i.g5 h6 1 5 .i.h4 lL!e5 1 6 .i.e2 g 5 1 7 .i.g3 lL!fd7 1 8 W'c2 l£lg6 = Christiansen-Per­ enyi, Saint John 1 988, or 14 h3 lL!e8 15 'ii'd 2 l£lc7 1 6 .te2 l:.fe8 17 .tn .i.d4 ! ? "" The only serious alternative to the text move is perhaps 14 W'd2 ! ?: a) 1 4 . . . c4 1 5 W'e2 l:tac8 1 6 'ii'e 3 Fedorowicz-D.Gurevich, New York 1 983, and now 1 6 . . . l£lc5 ! ? deserves attention, with an unclear game. b) 14 . . . :ac8 1 5 .i.e2 c4 1 6 .tfl l£lg4 1 7 h3 l£lge5 18 .i.g5 f6 (not 18 . . . .i.f6? 19 .i.h6 .i.g7 20 .i.xg7 c;J;; xg7 2 1 f4 +-) 19 .i.e3 lL!c5 20 .i.xc5 l::txc5 21 f4 lL!f7 22 g3 with an advantage; B onsch-Perenyi, Leip­ zig 1 988. c) 14 . . .l£le8 1 5 .ig5 ! .tf6 1 6 .i.h6 .i.g7 17 .i.xg7 c;J;;xg7 18 .i.e2 f6 19 f4 lLlc7 20 l::t ad 1 and White's po­ sition is again preferable; Browne­ Wedberg, New York 1 988. d) 1 4 ... l::t ab8 1 5 .te2 ! ? (playing 15 l:tab1 lets Black solve his prob­ lems: 15 . . . c4 ! 16 a5 l:.fc8 17 lL!a4 lL!e8 1 8 .i.e3 lL!c7 1 9 . l:.bc 1 l£lb5 20 .i.g4 c3 ! 2 1 bxc3 l:tc4 22 .i.xd7 l:.xa4 with reasonable compensation for ·

222 Classical: 9... a6 10 a4 iLg4 the pawn; Kallai-Hardicsay, Hun­ gary 1 985) and now Black can play 15 . . . .l:.fc8 ! ?, when for 16 a5 ltJe8 see 14 a5. Nor is it easy for White to gain an advantage after 1 5 . . . lL!e8, for ex­ ample 16 Ji.fl !? ( 1 6 Ji.g5 iLf6 17 h4 .i.xg5 { stronger than 17 . . . 'ii'e5 1 8 .l:.ad 1 lL!c7 1 9 'ii'c 1 ! .i.xg5 20 hxg5 'ikg7 2 1 f4 with initiative; Gavri­ kov-Cebalo, Vrsac 1 985 } 18 hxg5 f6 ! ?) 16 ... lL!c7 17 'iii>h 1 .l:.fc8 18 .i.g3 .i.d4 ! ? with quite a decent position. e) 14 . . ..l:.fe8 15 h3 c4 (or 15 . . . h5 16 .i.e2 lLlh7 17 .i.g3 .i.d4 = Mas­ carinas-Antonio, B acolod 1 99 1 ) 1 6 .i.e2 .l:.ac8 17 .i.fl lLle5 1 8 Ji.h6 .i.xh6 19 'ikxh6 'ikc7 is equal; Gli­ goric-Suba, Vrsac 1 983. f) 1 4 ... h5 ! ? 1 5 h3 (Black has no hint of a problem after 15 .i.h6 lL!e5 1 6 .i.e2 .i.xh6 17 'ii'xh6 lLlfg4 1 8 .i.xg4 { 1 8 'ii'f4 f5 ! } 1 8 . . . hxg4 S a­ hovic-Vera, Aosta 1 989) 15 . . . c4 1 6 .i.e2 .l:.ac8 1 7 a 5 ( 1 7 .i. f l .l:.fe8 1 8 .i.h2 lLlh7 = Gual-P.Crarnling, Bar­ celona 1 989) 1 7 . . . .l:.fe8 1 8 .i.fl lLlh7 1 9 .l:.a4 f5 ! 20 .l:.xc4 (20 .i.xc4 b5 2 1 axb6 lL!xb6 2 2 .i.xa6 ii.xc3 ! 2 3 bxc3 lL!xa4 24 .i.xc8 .l:.xc8 25 exf5 'ii'f7 26 fxg6 'ikxg6 27 .l:.e6 'it'b1 + 28 'iii>h2 lL!xc3 leads to unclear complica­ tions) 20 .. Jhc4 21 .i.xc4 g5 22 .i.h2 f4 Van der Sterren-Psakhis, Tallinn 1 987, and Black has quite enough compensation for the pawn. Now we return to the main line af­ ter 14 a5 (D) : 14

••.

h5! ?

This move instantly solves several problems, freeing h7 for the knight, from where it can spring onto g5 ,

8

and, very importantly, taking control of g4. You also come across: a) 14 . . . ltJe5 ? ! 1 5 .i.e2 .l:.fb8 (or 15 . . . .l:.fe8 1 6 .l:.a4 ;!;) 1 6 'ikc2 b5 17 axb6 .l:.xb6 18 .l:.a2 lLle8 1 9 .i.e3 g5 20 .:.ea1 lLlc7 2 1 'ii'd2 ! with a clear advantage for White, W.Schmidt­ Abrarnovic, Nis 1983. b) 14 ... .l:.fb8 15 lLla4 .l:.e8 (15 ... b5 16 axb6 lLlxb6 17 lL!xc5 ! ? dxc5 1 8 .i.xb8 .l:.xb8 1 9 e5 is unsatisfactory for Black) 16 .l:.e3 .l:.ab8 17 .l:.b1 lbe5 1 8 .i.e2 'ikc7 19 b4 cxb4 20 lLlb6 with an edge for White; B aburin­ Goldstem, Leukerbad 1 992. c) 14 .. J1fd8 15 ltJa4 .l:.ab8 1 6 .:r.b1 lLle5 1 7 ii.xe5 'fixeS 1 8 b4 ;!; Browne-D.Gurevich, Estes Park 1984. d) 14 . . . h6 15 lLla4 liJh7 16 .i.g4 ! (if only the pawn had been on h5 ! ) 1 6 . . . ltJe5 17 lLlb6 .l:.ad8 1 8 .l:.b1 .l:.fe8 1 9 g3 h5 20 .i.h3 ;!; Wojtkiewicz­ Velickovic, Komotini 1993 . e) 14 . . . lL!e8 1 5 'ii'd2 ( 1 5 lL!a4 ! ? also deserves attention: 1 5 . . . lL!c7 1 6 .i.g4 ! lLle5 1 7 lLlb6 .l:.ad8 1 8 .i.h3 lL!a8 19 .i.xe5 ! ii.xe5 20 lL!c4 with advantage; Ehlvest-Minasian, New York 1993) 15 ... .l:.b8 (or 15 . . . lL!c7 1 6

Classical: 9. . . a6 10 a4 .i.g4 223 i.g5 ! .i.f6 17 .i.xf6 'ifxf6 1 8 .i.g4 lbe5 19 .i.e2 g5 20 l:la3 ! and White's position is the more promising, Browne-D.Gurevich, USA Ch 1984) 16 .i.e2 lbc7 17 .i.g5 .i.f6 18 .i.xf6 lbxf6 19 .i.c4 ! b5 20 axb6 l:r.xb6 2 1 f4 with initiative; Christiansen-Ku­ drin, USA Ch 1984. f) 14 . . . :ac8 ! ? 15 'ifd2 (in Litin­ skaya-Madl, Thessaloniki OL 1988, the game equalized after 1 5 lba4 c4 1 6 l:lc l h5 ! 1 7 h3 lbh7 1 8 'ifd2 'iff6 = ) 1 5 . . . h5 1 6 h3 c4 1 7 lba4 lbe5 1 8 .i.xe5 'ifxe5 1 9 lbb6 c3 ! = Wagner­ Tolnai, Balatonbereny 1988. g) 14 ... l:r.ab8: g 1 ) After 1 5 'ifd2 Black usually replies 15 . . . l:lfc8 (White has a small advantage after 15 . . . lbe8 16 .i.e2 lbc7 17 .i.g5 ! f6 { 17 . . . .i.f6 ! ? } 1 8 .i.e3 b5 1 9 axb6 l:lxb6 20 l:la2 :tfb8 21 'ifc2 Gaprindashvili-Armas, Ber­ lin 1 988, but 15 . . . h5 ! ? deserves at­ tention) 1 6 .i.e2 lbe8 ( 1 6 . . . h5 is not bad here either, for example 17 .i.g5 'iff8 1 8 h3 lbe8 19 f4 .i.d4+ 20 'ith 1 lbef6 2 1 l:r.a4 l:le8 with mutual chances; Pavlovic-S. Kovaf8 24 'it'xh5 'fig6 + Ree-Tringov, Titovo Uzice 1 967) 1 9 . . . i.g4 20 'ifd2 h6 2 1 lDe6 .t xe6 22 dxe6 l:.xe6 with a more promising position for Black, Tatai­ B ouaziz, Siegen OL 1 970. 11 i.g4 Others: a) 1 l . . .liJb4 1 2 'it'b3 (for 1 2 'iib 1 .i.g4 1 3 i.f4 see note ' a ' t o Black's 12th) 12 ... .i.g4 13 .i.g5 ( 1 3 a3 is not dangerous : 1 3 . . . .i.xf3 14 gxf3 lDa6 15 'ii'xb7 lDc7 16 .i.g5 h6 1 7 .i.h4 g5 18 .i.g3 liJh5 with standard compen­ sation for the pawn) 1 3 . . . h6 14 .i.h4 g5 1 5 .i.g3 .i.xf3 1 6 .i.xf3 liJd3 ! ? 17 l:.e3 lDe5 1 8 .i.xe5 l:.xe5 19 'ii'xb7 l:.b8 20 'ii'xa7 l:.xb2 21 h3 ;!;. b) 1 1 . ..lDc7 12 .i.f4 ( 1 2 .tn ? ! .i.g4 =) 1 2. . .lDh5 1 3 .i.g5 f6 1 4 .i.h4 lDf4 1 5 .i.c4 'iid7 ! ? ( 1 5 ... a6 16 a4 g5 17 .i.g3 lDg6 18 a5 ± Portisch-Jano­ sevic, Skopje 1 968) 1 6 .i.g3 tL!h5 ! 1 7 a4 lDxg3 1 8 hxg3 a6 1 9 a5 llb8 leads to equality, Kapengut. 12 i.f4 (D) Black is fine after 1 2 a3 c4 ! 1 3 .i.e3 l:tc8 1 4 l:tad 1 llJc5, whilst 1 2 .i.g5 h 6 1 3 i.h4 .i.xf3 14 .i.xf3 c4 ! 1 5 .i.e2 l:.c8 gives himthe initiative; Kluger-Matulovic, Sombor 1968. •••

12

•••

c4!

An excellent move, freeing B lack from all his problems. Other moves are less convincing:

a) 12 . . . lDb4 13 'iib 1 lDh5 14 .i.g5 .i.f6 (or 14 . . . f6 15 .i.d2 ! f5 16 h3 fxe4 1 7 hxg4 exf3 18 i.xf3 .l:.xe 1+ 1 9 'ii'xe1 lDf6 20 g5 ± Filip-Jano­ sevic, Wijk aan Zee 1 970) 15 .i.e3 c4 1 6 a3 .i.xf3 17 axb4 .i.xe2 1 8 l:.xe2 a6 19 g4 ! llJg7 20 'iic 2 ± Nemet­ Doda, S tip 1 978. b) 12 ... liJh5 1 3 .i.g5 .i.f6 14 i.e3 ( 1 4 .i.d2 ? ! c4 ! 15 .i.xc4 .i.xf3 1 6 gxf3 .i.e5 + Bukic) 1 4 . . .c 4 (in the game Nemet-Rogulj, Yugoslavia 1 979, Black obtained a bad position after 14 . . .lDb4 15 'iid2 c4? ! 16 .i.xc4 .i.xf3 17 gxf3 lDa6 1 8 lDe2 ! ±) 1 5 liJd2 ! .i.xe2 16 .l:r.xe2 lDb4 1 7 'ii'b 1 ±. 13 .i.xc4 .i.xf3 14 gxf3 15 .i.g3 16 .tn

lDhs .teS

Or 1 6 i.xa6 bxa6 17 lDe2 'ii'f6 1 8 f4 lDxf4 1 9 lDxf4 .i.xf4 with an un­ clear position; Nemet-Gobet, Biel 1983. 16 'ii'f6 Nemet-Rogulj , Karlovac 1 979. Black has excellent compensation for the pawn. •.•

18 Classical with 9 0-0 %:.e8 10 'bd2 (A77) 1 d4 ltlf6 2 c4 c5 3 dS e6 4 ltlc3 exdS 5 cxdS d6 6 e4 g6 7 ltlf3 i.g7 8 i.e2 0-0 9 0-0 l:e8 10 ltld2 (D)

We have ascertained that 10 'ffc 2 is not dangerous for B lack. He is pre­ sented with much greater difficulties after the natural move 1 0 ltld2, which is the subject of the final three chapters of this book. White pre­ pares now to defend the e4-pawn permanently by moving the pawn to f3 . The knight is already prepared to move to c4, and it is far more diffi­ cult in this variation for Black to cre­ ate counterplay. 10

•••

ltlbd7 (D)

1 0 ... ltla6 is considered under sec­ tions A 78 and A79. The passive 10 . . . i.d7 ? ! allows White seizes the initiative without problems, for example 1 1 a4 ltla6 1 2

f3 ltlb4 ( 1 2 ... ltlh5 ! ?) 1 3 ltlc4 'flc7 14 i.f4 i.f8 15 g4 ! ± Polugaevsky­ Wedberg, Haninge 1 988. Black plays 10 ... b6 (or 10 ... a6 1 1 a4 b6 - see 'c3 1 ' ) noticeably more often: a) 1 1 f4 ! ? is not bad: 1 1 . ..i.a6 12 a4 i.xe2 1 3 'ii'xe2 a6 14 ltlc4 l:a7 15 'ii'f3 with a small advantage. b) 1 1 f3 00 ! ? (1 l ...i.a6 1 2 i.xa6 ltlxa6 1 3 ltlc4 'ii'd7 14 a4 ltlc7 15 i.f4 i.f8 1 6 g4 ±) 12 ltlc4 i.d4+ 1 3 �h 1 i.a6 14 g4 ltlg7 1 5 i.f4 i.xc4 1 6 i.xc4 a6 1 7 a4 g5 ! «> Tatai-Mari­ otti, Rome 1 977. c) 1 1 a4 with three options for Black: c 1 ) 1 1 . . .ltla6 does not lead to equality: 1 2 f3 ltlb4 1 3 ltlc4 i.a6 ( 1 3 . . . a6 14 i.f4 i.f8 15 g4 ! ;l;;) 14 ltlb5 ! ? i.xb5 1 5 axb5 ltlh5 1 6 g4 ! Lalic-Delmont, Belfort 1 989. c2) 1 1 . ..i.a6 1 2 i.b5 ! ? ( 1 2 i.xa6 ltlxa6 1 3 f3 is not bad either, but 1 3 l:te1 ltld7 1 4 a5? ! ltle5 1 5 axb6 Wxb6 = Schmidt-Romanishin, In­ donesia 1 983, is less convincing) 12 ... i.xb5 13 axb5 ltlbd7 14 'ii'c 2 ;l;; . c3) 1 1 ...a6: c3 1 ) 12 f4 ! ? leads to an interest­ ing game with possibilities for both sides, e.g. 12 . . . l:a7 ( 1 2 . . . ltlbd7 1 3 i.f3 l1b8 14 ltlc4 Wc7 1 5 'ii'b3 ±) 1 3

Classical with 9 0-0 .l:r.e8 10 &i)d2 229 i.f3 llae7 1 4 &i)c4 (if 14 lle1 then 1 4 . . . b5 ! ? is possible: 1 5 axb5 axb5 1 6 &i)xb5 �a6 1 7 &i)c3 �d3 with compensation) 14 ... &i)xe4 ! ? 15 &i)xe4 lhe4 1 6 �xe4 .l:r.xe4 17 'ii' b3 �g4 1 8 �e3 �e2 19 'ii'c2 llxc4 20 'ii'xe2 l:r.e4, Kapengut, with reasonable compensation for the exchange. c32) 1 2 'Wc2 &i)bd7 1 3 f4 ! ? (af­ ter 1 3 &i)c4 &i)e5 14 &i)xe5 ltxe5 15 �f4 :e8 1 6 h3 .l:r.a7 17 llae1 llae7 the position is equal, whilst 1 3 :a3 is examined via the move-order 10 . . . &i)bd7 1 1 a4 a6 12 :a3 b6 1 3 'ii'c 2) 1 3 . . . :b8 1 4 �h 1 (accuracy is demanded of White: 14 llb1 ?! c4 ! 15 �h 1 { 1 5 �xc4 b5 1 6 axb5 axb5 1 7 &i)xb5 :xb5 1 8 �xb5 'ii'b6+ } 15 ... b5 1 6 axb5 axb5 and Black is al­ ready better) 14 . . . 'ii'c7 1 5 �c4 ! ? &i)g4 1 6 'Wd3 �d4 1 7 &i)d 1 and White's position is preferable.

w

Now we shall focus on: A) 1 1 'Wc2 B) 1 1 h3 C) 1 1 a4 Other ideas: a) 1 1 f4 !? transposes to A69.

b) 1 1 'i&?h 1 &i)e5 1 2 f4 ( 1 2 h3 g5 is equal) 1 2 . . . &i)eg4 1 3 l:r.f3 ( 1 3 &i)c4? &i)xe4 ! and not 1 4 �xg4? �xg4 1 5 'ii'xg4 because o f 1 5 . . . l'i)f2+ and Black wins) 1 3 . . . &i)h5 14 'ii'e 1 f5, Zaltsman-Lobron, New York 1983, and Black has the initiative. c) 1 1 f3 a6 1 2 a4 ( 1 2 &i)c4 &i)b6 1 3 &i)e3 &i)h5 ! ? 14 f4 �xc3 ! ? 1 5 bxc3 l'i)f6 i s not dangerous for Black, Gligoric) and now: c1) 12 ... 'ii'c7 deserves attention, for example 1 3 'ii'b 3 ( 1 3 &i)c4 &i)b6 14 &i)a3 �d7 15 'ii'b 3 &i)xa4 ! ? 1 6 &i)xa4 b5 1 7 &i)c3 b4 = ) 1 3 . . . &i)e5 1 4 a5 llb8 1 5 &i)d 1 &i)h5 = Tukmakov­ Tal, USSR Ch (Moscow) 1 969. c2) 12 ... &i)e5 13 'ii?h 1 (Black has an easy game after 1 3 'ii'c 2 &i)h5 ! 14 f4 &i)g4 15 l'i)f3 f5 ! 1 6 exf5 �xf5 17 �d3 �xd3 1 8 fixd3 c4 1 9 'Wc2 b5 ! ::;:: Peev-Mi.Tseitlin, Pamporovo 1977, or 1 3 &i)c4 &i)xc4 14 �xc4 &i)d7 15 a5 &i)e5 16 �e2 b5 17 axb6 'ii'x b6 = Cuellar-Q.Garcia, Bogota 1979) 1 3 . . . llb8 14 &i)c4 (B lack also should not fear 14 lla3 �d7 1 5 llb3 fic7 1 6 &i)c4 &i)xc4 1 7 �xc4 !.Farago-Velimirovic, Banja Luka 198 1 , as now he could continue 17 . . . �xa4 ! ? 1 8 &i)xa4 b5 19 �e2 bxa4 20 llxb8 'ii'x b8 2 1 'Wxa4 &i)xd5 ! = ) 14 . . . &i)xc4 1 5 �xc4 &i)d7 16 �e3 f5 17 'ii'd2 &i)e5 1 8 �e2 l'i)f7 = J.Benjamin-Nunn, England 1 979. d) 1 1 .l:r.e1 &i)e5 12 l'i)fl (for 12 a4 see 1 1 a4 &i)e5) 1 2 ... a6 1 3 a4 h5 14 h3 ( 1 4 f4 &i)eg4) 1 4 . . . llb8 1 5 'Wc2 &i)h7 16 f4 &i)d7 1 7 &i)e3 'Wh4 was unclear in Bouaziz-Plaskett, Bahrain 1990.

230 Classical with 9 0-0 l:le8 10 �d2

A) 1 1 'ii'c2 lbe5 ! ? (D) Black also has reasonable counter­ chances after other continuations: a) 1 1 . ..�b6 ! ? can give Black in­ teresting play: a 1 ) 1 2 a4 �fxd5 ! 1 3 exd5 .txc3 14 bxc3 ( 1 4 i.b5 ? ! i.xd2 15 .txe8 .txc 1 16 .txf7+ �xf7 17 'ibc 1 �xd5 +) 1 4 . . . :Z.xe2 1 5 c4 Wf6 ! ? 1 6 i.b2 i.f5 1 7 Wb3 We7 1 8 Wc3 f6 is unclear. a2) 1 2 :e1 �g4 ! 1 3 �fl f5 ""· a3) 1 2 Wb3 ! ? .tg4 1 3 .tb5 .td7 14 a4 l:[bS 1 5 .te2 a6 16 :e1 'flc7 was unclear in Dydyshko-Kopion­ kin, Katowice 1 992. a4) 12 i.b5 i.d7 13 a4 .txb5 14 �xb5 ( 14 axb5 ! ?) 14 . . . a6 15 �c3 �fd7 16 a5 �c8, as in Polugaevsky­ Mecking, Lucerne Ct 1977, is equal. b) 1 l ...a6 12 �c4 (for 12 a4 !? see 1 1 a4 a6) 1 2 . . . �b6 1 3 �e3 :bs 14 a4 'fle7 1 5 f3 �fd7 1 6 :Z.e1 �aS 17 a5 �c7 = Goldin-Arbakov, Moscow 1 98 1 . c ) 1 1 . ..�h5 (an interesting idea, which became fashionable after Spassky-Fischer, Reykjavik Web (3) 1972) 12 .txh5 gxh5 and now: c 1 ) 1 3 b3 �e5 1 4 i.b2 i.d7 15 :Z.ae1 'it'h4 1 6 �d 1 (16 l:.e3 ! ? de­ serves attention, but 1 6 f4? ! is no good because of 16 . . . �g4 17 �f3 i.d4+ 1 8 �h 1 �f2+ 19 :xf2 'flxf2 20 'flb1 ! ? { 20 'flc 1 ? ! .th3 ! 21 l:lg1 �f8 + Polugaevsky-Nunn, Skara Echt 1 980 } 20 . . . .tf5 2 1 :n .txe4 22 �xe4 'flxb2 23 'fld3 with a small advantage to Black) 1 6 . . . 'flf4 1 7 .te l ( 1 7 g 3 ? ? 'flxd2 -+ loses, and

17 �e3 b5 ! 1 8 a4 a6 1 9 f3 �d3 1 20 'ii'x d3 .txb2 favours Black; Rajna· Flesch, Pees 1 980) 17 ... .th6 1 8 �b2 �h8 ! 1 9 f3 ( 1 9 �dc4? �f3+! -+) 19 ... l:.g8, Kapengut, and Black has a very active game. c2) 1 3 �c4 �e5 14 �e3 (14 �xe5 .txe5 1 5 f4 i.d4+ 1 6 �h i .td7 "") and Black faces an important decision: c2 1 ) White gains some advan­ tage after 14 . . . 'flh4 15 �e2 ! ? ( 1 5 i.d2? ! �g4 16 �xg4 hxg4 17 .tf4? 1 'iff6 1 8 g3? ! { 1 8 .tg3 ! ? } 1 8 . . . .td7 1 9 a4 b6 + Spassky-Fischer, Reyk· javik Web (3) 1 972) 1 5 . . . �g4 16 �xg4 hxg4 17 �g3 i.e5 1 8 i.d2 ;I; , c22) 1 4 . . . �g4 ! ? has not been seen since in practice, and deserves attention.

12 b3

1 2 a4 ! ? is probably stronger, and will be examined under 1 1 a4 �e5 12 'ii'c 2. On the other hand, 12 f4 is weak: 12 ...�eg4 13 �f3 �h5 14 h3 �h6 15 �h2 f5 16 e5 dxe5 17 fxe5 �g4+ ! 1 8 hxg4 fxg4 19 i.g5 .txe?+ with an advantage to Black. �fg4!? 12 ...

Classical with 9 0-0 :eB 10 lbd2 231 White's chances are better after 1 2 . . . 1t'e7 1 3 .i.b2 .i.d7 14 :ae 1 g5 1 5 .i.b5 lLlh5 1 6 .i.xd7 1t'xd7 17

lLld 1 ;!; Ftacnik-Tisdall, Arhus 1 9S3, hut 12 ... g5 ! ?, which is standard in such positions, deserves attention, for example 1 3 .i.b2 lLlg6 14 :ae1 lLlf4 1 5 .i.b5 :rs 1 6 a4 a6 1 7 .i.c4 l0g4 1 S lLle2 ! ? lLle5 = Lein-Plaskett, Hastings 1 9S2. 13 h3 14 f4

14 .i.b2 is met by 14 ... f5 . 14 ... 15 lLlfJ

lLleg4!

And not 1 5 hxg4? .i.d4+ 1 6 :f2 'ii'h4. 15 16 .i.d2 •••

The complications after 16 e5 .i.f5 1 7 'ii'd 2 ( 1 7 .i.d3 .i.xd3 1 S 'ifxd3 dxe5 ! 1 9 hxg4 e4) 17 ... dxe5 1 S hxg4 exf4 1 9 .i.b2 lLlxg4, as in Panczyk­ Kindermann, Polanica Zdroj 1 9S4, favour Black. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

.i.xe3 1i'xc3 :act :tc2 .i.xcS lhb2

lLle3 9xc3 .i.xc3 .i.b2 lbe4 dxc5 :xt4

and Black has a wonderful game.

B) 11 h3! ? White plans to answer the knight move to e5 by playing f4. 11

•••

g5

For 1 l .. .a6 12 a4, see line C 1 1 . 12 lLlc4

Or 12 a4 lLle5 13 lLlf3 lLlxf3+ ( 1 3 . . . g4 also deserves attention: 14 lLlxe5 l:lxe5 15 .i.f4 :es with an un­ clear game; Toth-Kindermann, Biel 1 9S6) 14 .i.xf3 and now: a) 14 . . . lLld7 ? ! is weak: 1 5 .i.g4 ! lLle5 1 6 .i.xcS :xeS 1 7 'ifh5 ± Hen­ ley-Griinfeld, Lone Pine 1 9S l . b ) 1 4 . . . l:le5 1 5 .i.e2 lLlxe4 1 6 f4 lLlxc3 1 7 bxc3 gxf4 1 S .i.xf4 :es (White also has the initiative in the event of 1 S ... 'ifh4? ! 1 9 .i.d3 .i.d7 20 'iff3 :rs 2 1 .i.xe5 .i.xe5 22 :ab 1 Van der Sterren-Griinfeld, Amster­ dam 1 9S2) 19 .i.d3 f5 20 'ifh5 :rs 21 :ae1 c4 ! ? 22 .i.xc4 .i.d7 23 .i.g5 ;!; McCambridge-Fedorowicz, New York 1 9S4. c) 14 . . . h5 15 l:lb1 (Beliavsky­ Gavrikov, USSR 1 97S) and after 15 . . . lLld7 ! ? the game is unclear. 12 13 lLlxe4 14 .i.d3

lLlxe4 :xe4

Black also has reasonable chances to equalize after 14 lLlxd6 :d4 1 5 1t'c2 :xd5 ! ? (White has a small ad­ vantage after 1 5 . . . lLlb6 16 lLlxcS :xeS 17 .i.e3 :b4 { 17 . . . :xd5 1 8 .i.f3 :d7? 1 9 .i.g4 } 1 S .i.g4 ! :xb2 { or 1S . . . :c7 19 .:.ad 1 .i.d4 20 b3 lLlxd5 21 .i.d2 l:lb6 22 .i.a5 Pod­ gaets-Zheliandinov, USSR 1 977 } 1 9 'ifc 1 :c7 2 0 .i.xg5 'ifxd5 2 1 :d 1 .i.d4 22 .i.e3 lLlc4 23 .i.xd4 cxd4 24 .i.f3 Lahav-Psakhis, Tel Aviv 1 990) 16 lLlxcS lLle5 17 'ifb3 :xeS 1 S 1t'xb7 :c7 1 9 1t'b3 lLld3 ao Kapen­ gut. :h4 14 The exchange sacrifice 14 . . . :d4 •••

232 Classical with 9 0-0 .:teB 10 lbd2 1 5 .i.e3 l:txc4 1 6 .i.xc4 .i.xb2 is in­ sufficient: 17 :b1 .i.g7 1 8 f4 ! 'ile7 1 9 'ild3 Raicevic-Dizdarevic, Yu­ goslavia tt 1 989. 15 lDxd6 16 lDfS

.!DeS

The game Langeweg-Psakhis, Sa­ rajevo 1 98 1 , ended unexpectedly quickly: 16 .!Dxc8? l:td4 17 'ile2 :xd3 1 8 f4 gxf4 -+. 16

•••

.!Dxd3!

Much stronger than 16 . . . .i.xf5 17 .i.xf5 'ilf6 1 8 'ilc2 g4 1 9 hxg4 lDxg4 20 .i.f4 .!De5 2 1 .i.g3 l:th5 22 .i.h3 .!Of3+ 23 gxf3 :xh3 24 fotg2 l:.h5 25 l:th 1 ± Rumiantsev-Peshina, Vilnius 1 979. 17 'ii'xd3

Black need not fear 17 .!Oxh4? ! 'ilxd5 1 8 lDf3 h6, with compensa­ tion. 17 18 'ilg3 •••

c4

1 8 'ilc2 is met by 1 8 . . . .i.xf5 1 9 'ilxf5 l:td4. 18 19 20 21 22

.i.xgS hxg4 gxfS fxg3

.i.:xfS l:tg4! 'it'xgS 'ii'xg3 .i.xb2

The chances are roughly even.

C) 11 a4 (D) The most popular move; White se­ cures the c4-square in anticipation of the knight's arrival there, and pre­ pares active play on the queenside. Black has investigated two moves intensively, both in theory and in practice:

C 1 ) 1 l . ..a6 C2) 1 l . . .lbe5 First we should investigate the possibilities after 1 l ...g5 : a) It is not easy for White to find an advantage after 1 2 h3 h6 1 3 f4 gxf4 14 :xf4 .!Oe5 15 l:.a3 .!Og6 1 6 .:. n b6 17 .i.b5 l:te7 1 8 'ilf3 a6 1 9 .i.e2 l:.b8, Magerramov-Kasparov, Baku 1979. b) 12 .!Dc4 ! ? .!Dxe4 13 .!Dxe4 .:txe4 14 .!Dxd6 (14 .i.d3 :h4 ! ? 15 g3 l:.d4 16 .i.e3 l:.xc4 ! 17 .i.xc4 .i.xb2 18 l:.b1 .i.g7 19 f4 gxf4 20 .i.xf4 'iff6 ! 2 1 c,th 1 b6 22 'ilh5 'ild4 gives Black the initiative; I.Farago-Suba, Belgrade 1 984) 14 . . . l:.d4 15 'it'c2 ! (a stronger move than 15 'ifb3? ! lDb6 16 a5 lDxd5 17 lDxc8 l:.xc8 18 'ii'xb7 l:.c7 19 'ilb3 c4 20 'it'g3 h6 =I= Bon­ chev-Mi.Tseitlin, Pamporovo 1 977) 15 . . . llxd5 ! ? ( 1 5 . . . .!Db6 16 .!Oxc8 l:txc8 17 .i.e3 l:tb4 18 a5 .!Dxd5 1 9 llad 1 .i.d4 2 0 .i.c4 Hernandez­ Stoica, Polanica Zdroj 1983, favours White) 1 6 .!Dxc8 .!De5 with an un­ clear game. c) 12 l:te1 !? .!Df8 1 3 .i.b5 l:te7 l 4 a5 ! ? (Black has a good game in the

Classical with 9 0-0 lle8 10 lbd2 233 event of 14 .!Llf3 g4 1 5 .!Llh4 a6 1 6 i.c4 ..e 8 1 7 ..d 3 .!Llh5 ! ? 1 8 .i.g5 l:te5 1 9 f4 l:txg5 20 fxg5 .!Llf4 Tuk­ makov-Suba, Las Palmas IZ 1 982, but 14 .!Llfl arouses interest, for ex­ ample 14 . . . a6 15 .i.d3 h6 1 6 .!Lle3 .!Dg6 1 7 .!Llc4 .!Llg4 1 8 .i.e2 ! ? .!D4e5 1 9 .!Llxe5 .i.xe5 20 .i.g4 ;;!; Pinter) 14 . . . a6 15 .i.d3 h6 1 6 .!Llc4 .!Llg6 1 7 .!Da4 ! l:tb8 1 8 .!Llab6 l:te8 1 9 .i.d2 with a small advantage; Pinter-Suba, Warsaw Z 1987. Cl)

11

•.•

a6

There are now three main lines: C l l ) 1 2 h3 C 1 2) 12 l:ta3 C 1 3) 12 ..c2 Other moves deserve attention too: a) 12 f4 transposes to A69. b) 12 a5 b5 13 axb6 .!Llxb6 14 f3 ( 1 4 l:ta3 c4 ! ? 15 l:le1 'flc7 16 'ifc2 .i.d7 17 .!Lln .i.b5 = Panno-Ljubo­ jevic, San Paulo 1 979) 14 ... lLlh5 1 5 f4 .!Llf6 16 .i.f3 l:tb8 17 .!Llb3 .!Llc4 ! 1 8 l:la4 ( 1 8 .i.e2 .!Llg4 !) 1 8 . . . .!Llb6 = Matveeva-Prudnikova, USSR 1 99 1 . c ) 1 2 l:te1 and now: c 1 ) White is slightly better after 1 2 ... b6 1 3 f4 l:tb8 14 .i.c4 ! ? lL!h5 1 5 .!Llf3 Zlotnik-Sulipa, Groningen 199 1 . c2) 1 2 . . . l:tb8 1 3 a5 .!Lle5 14 .!Llfl h5 15 f3 !? .!Llfd7 1 6 .!Lle3 ;;!;. c3) 12 . . .'flc7 deserves attention: 13 h3 ( 1 3 'flc2 l:tb8 14 .!Llc4 lLlb6 15 .!Lle3 .i.d7 16 .i.d2 lLlc8 17 a5 .!Lla7 = Grooten-Short, Lugano 1 983) and now 1 3 . . . l:tb8 ! ? gives an unclear game, but not 1 3 . . . g5? ! 14 .!Llc4 h6

because of 15 f4 ! .!Llxe4 16 .i.d3 .i.d4+ 17 'ith2 .i.xc3 18 bxc3 .!Lldf6 19 fxg5 hxg5 20 'iff3 ± Htibner-Gar­ cia Padron, Las Palmas 1986. c4) 1 2 ... .!Lle5 : c4 1 ) Black is fine in the event of 1 3 .!Lln l:tb8 ! ? 14 f4 .!Lled7 1 5 .!Lld2 ( 1 5 .i.c4 is met by 15 . . . b5 16 axb5 axb5 17 .i.xb5 .!Llxe4 ! , but it would be interesting to try 15 a5 !?) 15 . . . c4 ! 1 6 e5 ( 1 6 .i.xc4 .!Llc5) 1 6 . . . dxe5 1 7 .!Llxc4 b 5 1 8 axb5 axb5 1 9 .!Llxe5 b4 20 .!Lla4 .!Llxe5 2 1 fxe5 .!Llxd5 Van der Sterren-Chandler, Amsterdam 1 983. c42) 13 'flc2 l:tb8 14 a5 g5 ! ? is no problem for Black. c43) The thoughtless 1 3 f4? ! al­ lows Black to gain a big advantage: 13 ....!Lleg4 14 .i.f3 h5 15 lLlc4 .!Llxe4 ! 1 6 l:txe4 ( 1 6 .!Llxe4 .i.d4+ 17 .i.e3 lLlxe3 18 .!Llxe3 .i.f5 +) 16 . . . .i.d4+ 17 :xd4 cxd4 1 8 .!Lle4 'fih4 1 9 lLlcxd6 'flxh2+ 20 h 8 25 �h3 'ii'h4) 2 1 ...�a6 22 i.xa6 ! bxa6 23 h3 l:lae8 24 lbe2 ;t. d2 1 2) 17 ... i.d4 !? 18 :n 'ii'f6 1 9 'it.Jh1 i.d7 2 0 i.d2 �6 2 1 'ii'c 2 l:le7 is level. It is quite probable that White could improve his play some­ where, but in any case Black is not short of counterchances. d22) An innocent transposition of moves had huge consequences in

Toth-Matulovic, Hungary 1 972, af­ ter 1 5 f4 �f7 1 6 exf5 �h6 ! 17 fxg6? (this was the time to stop; 17 �h1 �xf5 1 8 �xf5 i.xf5 1 9 i.f3 would have led to an even game) 17 . . . i.d4 1 8 gxh7+ �h8 19 :n �g4 20 'tWd3 'ii'h4 21 h3 �xe3 22 :xe3 (22 i.xe3 l:.xe3 23 :xe3 'ii'xf4 24 �d 1 �xd5 -+) 22 . . . 'ii'xf4 23 �d 1 �xd5 and Black was winning - a beautiful idea. After 1 2 . . . b6, White has two seri­ ous options: A) 13 �h1 B) 1 3 �c4 Besides these natural moves, White may try: a) 1 3 i.b5 ? ! �xb5 14 axb5 �d7 15 �c4 �e5 16 �e3 'ii'h4 (or 16 . . . f5 ! ? 17 exf5 i.xf5 1 8 �xf5 gxf5 1 9 'ii'c2 'ii'd7 =i= Sarosi-Tolnai, Kec­ skemet 1 987) 1 7 g3 'ii'h 3 and Black has an excellent game. b) 1 3 �b5 a6 14 �xc7 'fixe? 1 5 �c4 �d7 ! =. c) 13 a5? ! b5 ! (refuting White's plan; 1 3 ... :b8 14 axb6 axb6 15 �b5 �h5 16 �xc7 'ii'xc7 17 g4 �f6 1 8 i.b5 i.d7 1 9 'ii'b 3 h5 ! also gives Black a reasonable game) 14 �xb5 �fxd5 ! 15 exd5 (or 15 �xc7 �xc7 1 6 lbc4 d5 17 exd5 i.d4+ 18 �h 1 �xd5 with an advantage) 1 5 . . . .ta6 1 6 �c3 i.xc3 17 i.xa6 i.d4+ 1 8 'iPh 1 �xa6 :j:. d) 13 'ii'c 2 l:[b8 14 �c4 i.a6 1 5 i.g5. Now 15 . . .'ii'd7 !? gives Black a reasonable position, but not 1 5 . . . h6 16 i.h4 'tWd7?, as now 17 �xd6 ! is possible: 17 . . ...xd6 1 8 i.g3 'ii'd7

Old Classical: 10 �2 �6 1 1 f3 249 ( 1 8 . . . l:r.e5 1 9 f4) 19 d6 c!De6 20 .t.xa6 Yailian-Peshina, Belgorod 1 989. e) 13 :Z.b1 �h5 (White has a small advantage in the event of 1 3 . . . l:r.b8 14 �c4 .t.a6 15 .t.g5 'ild7 1 6 b4 .t.xc4 17 .t.xc4 a6 1 8 b5 ! ) 14 �c4 f5 1 5 f4 .t.d4+ 1 6 �h 1 .t.a6 ! with possibilities for both sides. +-

A) 13 �hl This is the only serious alternative to bringing the knight to c4 immedi­ ately. 13

...

:b8

a) 13 . . . .t.a6?! 14 .t.xa6 �xa6 1 5 �c4 �c7 1 6 .t.f4 .t.f8 17 .t.g5 with a distinct White advantage; T.Petro­ sian-Hernandez, Banja Luka 1 979. b) 13 ... h6? ! 14 �c4 .t.a6 15 .t.e3 .t.xc4 16 .t.xc4 a6 17 'ild2 �h7 1 8 .t.d3 ! 'ild7 1 9 l:lab1 b 5 2 0 b4 c4 2 1 .t.c2 'fle7 22 .t.b6 :ab8 2 3 a5 l:r.bc8 24 f4 ± Simic-Kelecevic, Pernik 1 98 1 . c) 1 3 ... �h5 1 4 �c4 .t.a6 15 .t.d2 'ilh4 16 'ilel ! 'ile7 17 g4 �f6 1 8 'ilg3 ± Bangiev-Rajna, Budapest 1989. d) 13 .. .'it'd7 14 �4 .t.a6 15 .t.g5 .t.xc4 (or 15 . . . h6 16 .t.d2 .t.xc4 1 7 .t.xc4 a6 1 8 'ile2 'ile7 19 :ae1 �7 20 f4 ±) 1 6 .t.xc4 a6 17 'ile2 'ilc8 1 8 .t.f4 .t.f8 1 9 :ab 1 , and White has the initiative; Zaltsman-Hulak, New York 1 989. e) 13 . . . �d7 is more popular: 14 �c4 �e5 15 �e3 :bs ( 1 5 . . . f5 1 6 exf5 gxf5 17 f4 �f7 1 8 .t.d3 �6 1 9 'ilc2 :rs 2 0 .t.d2 a6 2 1 : f3 :bs 2 2 :g3 with initiative for White; Dydy­ shko-Lukov, Polanica Zdroj 1 983)

16 .t.d2 (complications follow 16 f4 �7 1 7 e5 !? dxe5 1 8 f5 e4 { 1 8 ... :f8 1 9 �g4 �f6 20 .t.g5 ± Benjamin­ Buzbuchi, New York 1 985 } 19 d6 �a6 20 c!Ded5 �b4) 16 . . . a6 17 f4 (or 17 l:r.bl b5 1 8 b4 ! ? c4 { 1 8 . . . cxb4 1 9 :xb4 a5 2 0 l:.xb5 ! with compensa­ tion } 19 axb5 axb5 20 :at f5 2 1 exf5 gxf5 2 2 f4 �fl "" Adorjan) 17 . . . �d7 1 8 �c4 and the advantage is on White's side after both 1 8 . . . �f6 1 9 .t.f3 h5 20 �xd6 ! 'ilxd6 2 1 e5 'ild8 22 d6 c!De6 23 exf6 .t.xf6 24 f5 ! , and 1 8 . . . �f8 1 9 .t.f3 b 5 2 0 axb5 �xb5 ! ? 2 1 �xb5 axb5 22 �a5 :as 23 �6 :xa1 24 'ilxa1 . 14 �4

After other continuations Black has nothing to fear: a) 14 �b3 ? ! a6 1 5 .t.g5 h6 1 6 .t.h4 g5 17 .t. t2 �h5 1 8 :et �f4 1 9 .t.n f5 2 0 � 1 b 5 + Taimanov­ Gheorghiu, Leningrad 1977. b) 14 �b5 ? ! a6 15 �a7 .tb7 16 �c4 'fle7 17 .tg5 (alternatively, 17 �xb6 �xd5 ! ) 17 ... �cxd5 ! 1 8 exd5 'ilxe2 19 �xd6 'ilxd l 20 :axd l �xd5 21 �xe8 :xe8 with an advan­ tage to Black. c) 14 �dbl a6 15 �a3 'ile7 1 6 .tg5 h6 1 7 .th4 g 5 1 8 .t f2 �d7 1 9 'ild2 �e5 20 :ae1 .td7 = . d) Black has an advantage after 14 :b1 a6 1 5 �c4 ( 1 5 'ilc2 b5 1 6 axb5 axb5 1 7 b4 cxb4 1 8 :xb4 �fxd5 ! 19 exd5 .txc3 20 1Vxc3 �xd5 2 1 'ifd4 �xb4 22 .tb2 :e5 23 1Vxb4 :xe2 24 � :xb2 + ECO) 1 5 . . . b5 1 6 axb5 axb5 17 �a5 .td7 1 8 �c6 .txc6 19 dxc6 :b6 20 b4 c4.

250 Old Classical: 10 liJd2 �6 11 f3 e) Black can equalize after 14 i.b5 ! ? l:r.fS (Black's position is too passive after 14 ... ltlxb5 15 axb5 'Ike? { 1 5 . . . l:r.b7 ! ? 1 6 ltlc4 l:td7 } 1 6 ltlc4 l:r.dS 1 7 l:r.e1 ltleS 1 S i.f4 i.e5 1 9 'ifd2 Pinter-Badii, French Cht 1993) 15 i.c6 a6 16 l:tb1 b5 17 b4 c4 1 S i.b2 i.d7 = Ogaard-Tisdall, Norway 19S7. i. a6 14 15 i.g5 Black has no difficulties after 15 l:r.b1 i.xc4 16 i.xc4 ltld7 17 'ifc2 a6 1 S b4 b5 Sygulski-Lukov, Polanica Zdroj 1 9S3. h6 15 It is too soon to exchange on c4: 1 5 . . . i.xc4 ? ! 1 6 i.xc4 a6 17 'lkd3 'ifcS 1 S i.f4 i.fS 1 9 l:tab1 ltld7 20 b4 cxb4 (20 . . . b5 2 1 axb5 cxb4 22 l:txb4 a5 23 l:tbb1 +-) 2 1 l:txb4 ltlc5 22 1i'd2 a5 23 l:tbb1 Neverov-Woda, Poznan 1 9S5, with a big advantage to White. White's position is also more promising in the event of 15 ... 'iWd7: 1 ) After 16 l:tb1 ? ! Black equal­ izes easily: 16 . . . i.xc4 17 i.xc4 a6 1 S b4 b5 19 i.d3 ( 1 9 axb5 ltlxb5 ! ) 1 9 . . . c 4 2 0 i.c2 bxa4 2 1 i.xa4 ltlb5 with a balanced position. 2) White has a more pleasant game after 1 6 'iWd2 i.xc4 17 i.xc4 a6 1 S i.d3 b5 19 axb5 axb5 20 b4 ! c4 2 1 i.c2 :as 22 l:txaS l:txaS 23 i.e3 l:r.a3 24 ltle2 'lieS 25 i.d4. 3) 1 6 b3 ltlh5 17 l:tc 1 (17 'lkd2 is insufficient for an advantage: 17 . . . f6 1 S i.h4 f5, and 19 g4? is no good be­ cause of 1 9 . . . fxg4 20 fxg4 i.xc3 2 1 'lkxc3 l:txe4; the same applies to 1 7 •••

•••

i.d2 ltlf4 ! ? 1 S i.xf4 i.xc4 1 9 bxc4 i.xc3 20 l:ta3 i.d4 = Burger-Quin· teras, New York 1 9S3) 17 . . . f6 (or 17 . . . i.d4 1 S g4 ltlg7 19 i.f4 i.xc4 20 bxc4 l:te7 21 i.d3 l:r.beS 22 ltle2 i.e5 23 i.d2 � Ivanchuk-Manor, Adelaide jr Wch 1 9SS) 1 S i.d2 ! ? (an improvement i n comparison with Portisch-Nunn, London 1 9S2, in which Black achieved a good game after 1S i.e3 f5 19 g4 { 19 f4 i.xc4 20 bxc4 ltlf6 } 1 9 . . . i.xc4 20 bxc4 fxg4 21 fxg4 ltlf6 22 i.f3 'ile7 23 i.g5 h6 24 i.h4 g5 25 i.e1 l:r.f8) 1S . . . f5 19 exf5 gxf5 20 l:r.e 1 f4 2 1 i.d3 � lvanchuk-Wahls, Adelaide jr Web 1 9SS. 16 i.e3 Black cannot complain at the out­ come of the opening after 1 6 i.h4 'ii'd7 1 7 b3 (or 17 'ii'd2 i.xc4 1 S i.xc4 a6 19 i.d3 b5 20 axb5 axb5 2 1 l:ta7 b4 22 ltld 1 :as =) 1 7 . . . ltlh5 1 S l:tc 1 ltlf4 1 9 i.g3 ltlxe2 2 0 ltlxe2 i.xc4 21 bxc4 a6 22 ltlc3 b5 =, or 1 6 i.d2 i.xc4 17 i.xc4 a6 1 S fie2 ficS 19 i.f4 ( 1 9 l:r.ab1 ?! ltld7 20 b4 cxb4 2 1 l:txb4 b5 ! 22 axb5 i.xc3 ! 23 i.xc3 axb5 +) 19 . . . i.f8 20 l:tfd 1 'ifb7 with a reasonable game. 16 ... 'ii'e7! Only this strong move, discovered by Kapengut, allows Black to look to the future with optimism; White's position is more promising after the alternatives: a) 1 6 ... fid7 17 "it'd2 i.xc4 1 S i.xc4 �h7 1 9 l:r.ab1 a6 20 b4 b5 2 1 i.d3 c4 2 2 i.c2 bxa4 !? 2 3 i.xa4 ltlb5 24 i.d4 � Polugaevsky-Martin, Seville 1 9S7.

Old Classical: 10 lbd2 lba6 J J f3 251 b) 1 6 ....txc4 17 .txc4 a6 1 8 "ii'd 3 'ii'c 8 (the pawn sacrifice 18 . . . b5? ! does not save Black from difficul­ ties: 1 9 axb5 axb5 20 l2Jxb5 l2Jxb5 2 1 .txb5 lte7 22 .td2 ! l:eb7 23 l:a5 l2Jh5 24 b3 l2Jf4 25 'ii'c4 ± Schmidt­ Filipowicz, Poland 1980) 19 .tf4 ! l:.d8 2 0 :ab 1 .tf8 2 1 b4 l2Jd7 22 'ii'd 2 �h7 23 .te2 l2Je8 24 b5 a5 25 .tg3 with a big advantage, because Black has absolutely no counter­ play; Polugaevsky-Bouaziz, Riga IZ 1979. 17 'ifd2 18 :ret

'it>h7

Chances are approximately even after 1 8 e5 ! ? .txc4 19 exd6 'ii'xd6 20 .txc4 l2Jd7. 18 19 l:.ab1 .•.

l2Jd7

1 9 f4 !?. 19 20 21 22 23

.txc4

.tn axbS lbd1

.txc4 a6 bS .!DxbS l:b6 =

Veremeichik-Kapengut, Minsk 1 982.

B) 13 ltJc4!? (D)

13 .. 14 .tgS (D) .

.ta6

This is the only move that lays claim to an advantage. a) Black has not even the slight­ est difficulty after 14 l:.a3 ? ! "ii'd 7 1 5 l:.b3 l:.ab8 1 6 l2Jb5 .i.xb5 17 axb5 a6! ?. b) 1 4 l2Je3 .txe2 1 5 'i\Vxe2 a6 is absolutely OK for Black. c) 14 .tf4?! l2Jh5 ! 15 .te3 ( 1 5 .txd6? .txc4 1 6 .txc7 .txe2) 15 . . .f5 1 6 l2Jd2 f4 17 .tf2 .tc8 1 8 tLlc4 l:tb8 1 9 'ii'c2 a6 =. d) 14 l2Ja3 ? fails to 14 . . . l2Jfxd5 ! 1 5 .txa6 l2Jxc3 1 6 'ii'd 3 l2Jxa4 1 7 .tb5 c4 ! - Janosevic . e) After the move 1 4 .te3, both 14 ... .txc4 ! ? 15 .txc4 a6 1 6 :e1 ( 1 6 'ii'd 3 l2Jd7 17 f4 f5 ! ao) 1 6 . . . l2Jd7 1 7 .tfl l:.b8 1 8 'ii'c 2 b 5 1 9 axb5 axb5 =, and 14 ... l:.b8 15 'Wd2 .i.xc4 16 .i.xc4 a6 17 l:ab1 ( 1 7 'ii'd 3 b5 1 8 axb5 axb5 19 .!Dxb5 .!Dfxd5 ! 20 .i.xd5 l2Jxd5 ao) 17 . . . l2Jd7 1 8 b4 f5 19 .i.g5 .i.f6 20 .txf6 'Wxf6 21 exf5 gxf5 22 'oti>h 1 'ii'h4 equalize (Kapengut). f) Black need not fear 14 l:lb1 .txc4 ( 1 4 . . . l2Jh5 ? ! 1 5 g4 .!Df6 1 6 .tf4 .txc4 1 7 .txc4 a6 1 8 'ii'd 2 h5 19 h3 'Wd7 20 'Wd3 ltab8 2 1 b4 is good for White; Chetverik-Ser­ gienko, Matra 1993) 15 .txc4 l2Jd7 16 l2Jb5 l2Jxb5 17 .txb5 ( 1 7 axb5 f5 ! ? 18 exf5 1i'h4 ao ) 17 . . . l:tf8 with equality. 14 ...

h6

White has a clear advantage after 14 . . . .txc4 1 5 .txc4 a6 1 6 'Wd3 , or 14 ... l:b8?! 15 b3 h6 16 .td2. Black quite often tries 14 ...'Wd7 :

252 Old Classical: 10 &txi2 �6 1 1 f3

B

a) 15 �h l is considered under 1 3 �h l 'ii'd7. b) Unclear complications arise after 1 5 b3 lDg4 16 "ii'd 2 .i.d4+ 17 �h l lDf2+ 1 8 :xf2 .i.xf2 1 9 .i.f6 .i.d4 20 e5 :xe5 (only he with iron nerves can embark upon 20 . . . .i.xc3 2 1 'ii'h 6 lDe6 22 lDxd6 'ii'xd6 23 dxe6 { 23 exd6 loses beautifully: 23 . . ..i.xf6 24 J.xa6 .i.xal 25 d7 lDc7 ! 26 dxe8'ii'+ l:.xe8 27 'ifc l and now 27 . . . .i.b2 ! -+ } 23 . . . "ii'f8 24 exf7+ 'ii'xf7 25 .i.xa6 .i.xe5 26 J.c4 .i.xf6 27 .i.xf7+ �xf7 "" Hug-Anka, Lenk 199 1 ) 2 1 lDxe5 (2 1 'ii'h6 lDe8) 2 1 . . . .i.xe5 (or 2 1 . . .dxe5 ! ? 22 .i.xa6 'ii'f5 23 d6 .i.xc3 24 "ii' x c3 lDd5 25 'ii'xe5 'ii'xf6 "" Huss-Mascarifias, Switzerland 1 99 1 ) 22 .i.xe5 dxe5 23 .i.xa6 lDxa6 24 "ii'e 2 lDb4 25 "ii' xe5 l:.e8 = Karpman-Andrijevic, Pan­ cevo 1 989. c) If 15 :bl then 15 ... h6 ! ? 1 6 .i.d2 ( 1 6 .i.h4?! .i.xc4 1 7 .i.xc4 :ab8 is equal) 16 ... b5 17 axb5 lDxb5 1 8 lDxb5 .i.xb5 19 lDe3 a5 equal­ izes, as does 15 . . . .i.xc4 1 6 .i.xc4 a6 17 b4 b5 1 8 .i.d3 ( 1 8 axb5 axb5 1 9 .td3 : a3 !? 20 lDe2 :ea8) 1 8 . . .c 4 1 9 .tc2 bxa4 ! (the capture i s forced;

otherwise White would play 20 a5 and his hands would be free to play on the kings ide) 20 .i.xa4 (20 lDxa4 ! ?) 20 . . . lDb5 2 1 'ii'd 2 (2 1 �h l ? ! "ii' b7 22 .i.xb5 axb5 2 3 .te3 lDg4 ! 24 .i.d4 lDe3 ! 25 .i.xe3 J.xc3 Beliavsky-Portisch, Szirak iZ 1 987, and the initiative is already firmly in Black's hands) 2 1 ...'ii'b7 22 .i.xb5 axb5 =. d) 15 l:.e l ! ? also deserves atten­ tion White is not hindering Black's active play on the queenside, and has freed f1 for his bishop in good time: 15 . . . l:.ab8 (or 15 . . . h6 16 .i.h4 l:tab8 17 'ii'd 2 .i.xc4 18 .i.xc4 g5 19 .tf2 a6 20 .tf1 lDh5 2 1 lDd l ;!; G.Garcia­ Gutierrez, Havana 1 988) 1 6 "ii'd2 .i.xc4 17 .i.xc4 a6 1 8 .i.fl h5 1 9 �h 1 l:.b7 2 0 e5 ! with an advantage; Vera-lonescu, Albena 1 989. e) 15 'ii'd2 .i.xc4 (15 ... l:.ab8? ! 1 6 b3 lDh5 1 7 g4 ! .i.d4+ 1 8 �h l lDg7 19 .i.e3 ±) 16 .i.xc4 a6 17 'ii'd 3 lDh5 (after 17 ... l:.eb8 White begins to play successfully in the centre: 1 8 f4 ! ? lDg4 19 e5 dxe5 20 f5 ± ; he also has an advantage after 17 . . . h6 18 .i.e3 'ii'c 8 19 .i.f4 ! .i.f8 20 :fbi 'ilb7 2 1 b4 cxb4 2 2 l:.xb4 Birbrager-Tal, USSR 1 955) 1 8 g4 .i.d4+ 1 9