Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
ttWH
Chess Stars
www.chess-stars.com
Current Theory and Practice Series
Printed in Bulgaria
ISBN: 978-954-8782-87-6
Contents
Foreword 5
Introduction 7
Part 1. Anti-QGA
l.lLlf3 d5 2.c4 dxc4 11
Part 4. Anti-Meran I
l.lLlf3 d5 2.c4 c6 3.e3! lLlf6 4.lLlc3 e6 83
Part 5. Anti-Meran II
4.lLlc3 e6 5.b3 lLlbd7 6.c2 .id6 7..ib2 with Ei:gl 95
Books
Electronic/Periodicals
Mega Database, Chess Base
Chess Informant, Sahovsky Informator
New in Chess Yearbook, Interchess
Chess Today
Internet resources
The Week In Chess (chesscenter.com)
10 Days (Chessmix.com)
Internet Chess Club (chessclub.com)
ChessPublishing.com forum
Chesspro.ru
4
Foreword
S
Foreword
fxeS 33J'!gd1 l'!cf8 34.l'!d7 'lWc6 Instead of the usual struggle for
3S.l'!xf7 l'!xf7 36.l'!d8+ l'!f8 37.l'!xf8+ gradual equalisation in the Classical
mxf8 38.'lWfS+ and a draw was Slav, Black has to solve urgent, very
signed 20 moves later. concrete problems - how to avoid
The Chinese super-GM who a debacle in the next 10-15 moves.
eventually won the tournament and Don't worry though, for less blood
the Grand Prix and went on to be thirsty players (of which I am one!),
come a World Champion, was vis I also cover the set-up with 8..ie2.
ibly nervous during the opening. This leads us to the question:
She had to find a series of accurate
moves over the board, spent a lot of For whom is this book written?
effort and, not surprisingly, com
mitted some serious mistakes in the Club players have probably noticed
middlegame, being short of time. that their opponents as a rule are
One final blow on move 28 or 29, well prepared against the central
and Stefanova would have won the openings l.e4/1.d4. If you are dis
tournament. appointed with your results, or just
This experience has convinced tired of endlessly studying the lat
me that in the computer era one est analyses in the most explored
might achieve better practical re variations, you'll find here a viable
sults with a flexible opening stra repertoire versus 1...dS. You might
tegy, based on understanding of the also use my suggestions as surprise
middlegames plans. weapons.
One year later I have decided to
Note, however, that my work
present my analyses to the reader.
has nothing in common with the
Many of them deal with positions
SOS-type articles. It was meant for
which are blank spots in opening
a top-level professional and this
theory. In my opinion, the most in
repertoire is designed to serve for
teresting section is about the bayo
many years. It is based on com
net attack, where Slav fans face a
plex positions without early pawn
head-on assault on their king after
clashes in the centre. This shifts the
l.tDf3 dS 2.c4 c6 3.e3 tDf6 4.tDc3 e6
focus towards middlegame plans
S.'lWc2 tDbd7 6.b3 .id6 7..ib2 0-0
and reduces the impact of home
8.l'!gl
brewed novelties. At the same time,
it is no less ambitious than the Si
cilian, or the Griinfeld, which were
the subject of my previous books.
Most of the material is fresh and is
not covered anywhere else.
Alexander Delchev
February 2012
6
Introduction
Reti was a universal player who To be sure, his ideas were swift
had been successfully opening with ly put under the microscope. Black
both l.d4 and l.e4, but in this game has since discovered some solid set
he placed his faith in a flank stra ups which has taken the sting out of
tegy. After the double fianchetto, he his system to some extent. How
continued his attack with pieces to ever, White has been struggling
7
Introduction
8
Introduction
We rule out the Noteboom and which will be good if Black advan
other "triangle" variations. ces his b-pawn to h4.
My proposed repertoire would
We can always transpose to
have been vulnerable to move or
some mainline Meran, but we
der tricks had not I devoted two
should do so only rarely, when the
sections to l.ttJf3 d5 2.c4 e6. Now
resulting position is known to be in
3.d4 c6 would have been awkward
White's favour. My repertoire hard
so I consider 3.g3, with the mai
ly requires any knowledge of the
branches 3...dxc4 4.\'tla4+! and 3...
Meran. I examine instead a kingside
ttJf6 4.i.g2 i.e7 5.0-0 0-0 6.b3!?
pawn storm with 1"lgl and g4, and, as
an alternative, quiet development
with i.e2 and kingside castling. In
both plans, the delay in playing d4
enables dangerous tactical blows,
based on the latent power of the b2-
bishop. In the latter set-up, White
commonly controls the centre with
f2-f4, leaving the long dark diago
nal open.
The delay in playing d4 is also I'm not against the Catalan, but
very useful versus the Queen's it has been heavily explored lately
Gambit Accepted: l.ttJf3 d5 2.c4 and the character of the game is
dxc4 3.e3! ttJf6 4.i.xc4 e6 5.0-0 a6 more suitable for Kramnik than for
6.\'tle2! c5 7.1"ldl! a club player.
9
Introduction
10
Part 1
11
Part 1
Main Ideas
12
1.tt:Jf3 d5 2.c4 dxc4
Points to remember:
13
Part 1
Step by Step
Alternatives are:
a) 3...b5?!
Black is unable to hold the gam
bit pawn s9 this move only wastes
time and create weaknesses on the
queenside: 4.a4 c6 5.axb5 cxb5 6.b3,
with an initiative.
b) 3...liJc6 4.i.xc4 e5
14
l.liJf3 d5 2.c4 dxc4
to c6 at the expense of ...d6. Thus the thematic pawn sac 6 ... ltJd7?
Black cannot castle now and 7...e7 does not work and Black must re
8.d5!t is gloom for him. Perhaps sort to the passive:
that is why Ivanchuk and other play
6.. :c8 7.d4 liJf6 8.liJc3 where
ers prefer:
White has the bishop pair and a
s...e4. Indeed, the position af strong centre. He could always
ter 6.liJfd2 \Wgs 7.g3 liJf6 8.liJc3 \Wg6 meet ...c7-c5 by d4-ds!, opening
9.ltJd5 liJxd5 1O.xdsfs, Drozdovs play to his favour. For instance:
kij-Ivanchuk, Odessa 2007, is un 8...liJbd7?! 9.e4 a6 1O.e3 b5 (10...
clear. However, White can hamper c5 11.d5) 11.xe6!? fxe6 12.' xe6+
Black's natural development by: e7 13.e5. White's attack is worth
more than a piece here. More cle
6.\Wb3!
ver is:
Now 6...\wf6 7.liJes liJxes 8.dxes
8...a6!, hoping for 9.e4?! bs
f5 9.g4! \wf3 lOJglt would give
1O.e2 cs!, but 9. ..Ike2! anticipates
White the upper hand so Black is
this idea (9...c5 10.d5). Play might
forced to concessions - the knight
continue 9...liJbd7 1O.e4 c5 11.ds!
must go to the edge of the board. Af
exds 12.liJxds liJxds 13.\Wxds \Wc7
ter:
14.e3 Eld8 (14...d6 15.0-0-0:1;)
6...liJh6 7.liJfd2 \Wgs (7...5 8.liJc3 15.0-0-0 ..Ike7. White can develop
.\kd7 9. ..Ike2) 8. ..Ikfl (This is only a his initiative with 16.4 0-0 17.e5
temporary retreat. The bishop will or 16.Elhgl g6 (16... 0-0 17. .\kh6 f6
return to an active position very 18.\Wd6) 17.4 0-0 18.es.
soon.) 8...fs 9.liJc3 liJb4 1O.liJbS,
White has the more active pieces. d) 3... e6
I.Sokolov has been testing this
c) 3...g4 4.xc4 e6 idea lately. Now 4.liJa3 c5 5.liJxc4
This is a clumsy attempt to liJc6 6.b3 liJf6 7.b2 g6= has no bite
transpose to the Romanishin Vari so White should go for the aggres
ation of the QGA. After s.\Wb3! ..Ikxf3 sive:
6.gxf3, 4.liJgs! ds s.e4!
fJ,/j /j /jfJ,/j
:ttJ'iV :
15
Part 1
5....ic6 4 . .ixc4 f6 5 . 0 - 0 e6
5...e6 should be met by 6.exd5
(6.d4 looks interesting, but af
ter 6....ic6 7..ixc4 .ie7! 8.h4 h6
9.tt:lxe6 fxe6 1O.h5+ i>f8 11..ixe6
e8 12.f5+ tt:lf6 13.d5 .id7 14.e5
.ixe6 15.dxe6 'l'tfh5 16.xh5 tt:lxh5
17.g4 tt:lc6! Black gains the initia
tive.) 6...xg5 7.dxe6 e5+ 8.e2
tt:lc6 9.exf 7+ i>xf 7 1O.i>d1! xe2+
1l. .ixe2 tt:le5 12.b3! (12.tt:la3? .ixa3
13.bxa3 tt:lf6 14..ib2 tt:ld3 was in
Black's favour in Panchenko-Ro
zentalis, Lvov 1987.) 12...tt:ld3 (or
12... cxb3 13.f4 tt:lc6 14. .ic4+ i>g6 6.'l'tfe2!
15.f5+ i>xf5 16J!1+ i>e5 17.tt:lc3
tt:la5 18.axb3 tt:lxc4 19.bxc4 i>e6 Note this fine point. We are fol
20.tt:lb5 i>d7 21.1'!f7+ tt:le7 22..ia3 lowing the typical QGA scheme of
c6 23.tt:ld4 i>e8 24JU2) 13J1 tt:lf6 development, but Black cannot do
14.bxc4 tt:lxcl 15.i>xcl. the same. His set-up is connected
with...b5 which would offer White
6..ixc4 e6 7.d3! a lever for a queenside attack with
Black's bishop is extremely a2-a4. The delay of d4 enables new
clumsy at c6. It takes the best place possibilities which face Black with
for the Queen's knight and rules out some problems.
...c7-c5 which is an essential move
for controlling the centre. White Now Black chooses between:
will comfortably complete devel A. 6...tt:lc6 and B. 6...a6.
opment and push d3-d4 to domi
nate the board, for instance, 7...tt:lf6 6...tt:lbd7 has never been tested
8.tt:lc3 h6 9.tt:lf3t. Instead, in Gran in this position. The knight is pas
delius-I.Sokolov, Stockholm 2010, sive on d7 and that could be un
Black made another mistake: 7... derlined with 7.d4 a6 8.a4!, for in
.ie7?! 8.g4! tt:lf6 9.h3! d7 (9...h6 stance:
1O.tt:lxf7 i>xf 7 11.xe6++-) 10.0-0 8...c7 9.e4! cxd4 1O.e5 tt:lb6
tt:la6 when 1l.tt:ld2! would have as 1l..ib3 tt:lfd5 12.tt:lxd4t;
sured White of a big advantage. The
knight is heading for e5. Besides, 8...cxd4 9.exd4 .ie7 (9....id6
after 1l.a3 b5 12..ia2 tt:lc5 13.tt:lc3 1O.tt:lc3 0-0 1l.tt:le5t) 1O.tt:lc3 0-0
as 14..ie3 h5 15.Ei:fd1, Black's king 11.Ei:d1 tt:lb6 12..ib3 tt:lbd5 13.tt:le5
would also be very vulnerable. .id7 14.Ei:d3!.
16
I.ltJf3 d5 2.c4 dxc4
A1. 10.exd4
10 . . tOd5!?
We have reached by transpo
sition the Steinitz Variation of the It is risky to divert the queen's
QGA. It has been unpopular late knight from the e5-square because
ly as it offers White a good version White will occupy it immediately:
of an IQP position. He has not lost
a) 1O...ltJb4 1l.ltJe5 ltJbd5 12.!!d3!
tempos on !i.d3xc4 like in the Nim
lifting the rook to the kingside.
zo, nor on a4 (this comes in a set
with a hole on b4), like in one of the b) 1O...ltJa5!? 1I..id3 b6 12.e5!?
main lines of the QGA. As a result, Avrukh's recommendation. It might
White usually achieves to relocate be insufficient for an advantage,
his queen to a more active place on but the other continuations have no
the kingside and gains a lasting in bite. The queen is heading for g3.
itiative. 12....id6 13.g5 g6! 14. g3. In my
opinion, Black can hold now with
9 cxd4
14...lt:lh5! 15.g4 ltJg7 16..ih6 !!c8,
followed by ...It:lc6 or ...e7. Then
After 9.. :c7 1O.dxc5! .ixc5 Black can defend with ...f6 or ...f5.
1l.a3! White is way ahead in deve- This idea is yet to be tested.
17
Part 1
c) 1O...a6 1l.a3 tLlaS 12.a2 tLldS Black's set-up is known from the
13.tLleS:!;. Semi-Tarrasch Defence. It is a bit
passive, but very solid. Black needs
11.a3 only to develop his Queen's bishop
and then he can think about play
11.b3 would not change Black's of his own. The game I.Sokolov
plan with 11...f6. Legky, France 2004, went further
13.d3 tLlg6 (13... g6) 14.d2 b6
11 . . .if6 IS.WEg4 b7 16.tLle4 Elc8=.
A2. 10.tLlxd4!
18
l.lLlf3 d5 2.c4 dxc4
7. . . b5
19
Part 1
20
l.LUf3 dS 2.c4 dxc4
21
Part 1
Complete Games
22
1.<'2lf3 dS 2.c4 dxc4
15..Jxf7 16.WI'xe61!9fB
10...ttJc6 11.<'2lbd2 c7
12.<'2lc4 ttJg4?!
2. Tomashevsky-Ganguly
Moscow 16.02.2007 Black's idea to exchange the
knights does not spare him from
1.<'2lf3 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e3 ttJf6 a kingside attack. He could have
4.ixc4 e6 5.0-0 a6 6.1!ge2 c5 tried 12....lie7 13.e4 0-0 14.aS (14.
7Jd1 b5 B..ib3 .ib7 9.a4 b4 10.d3 gS [gadS lS.\We3 <'2lhS; 14.h3 :8ad8
23
Part 1
24
Part 2
Reversed Benoni
1 . f3 d 5 2 . c4 d4
25
Part 2
Main Ideas
26
l.LUf3 dS 2.c4 d4
27
Part 2
28
Part 2
Step by Step
3...c5 or 3...g6 offer White more After the text, White should
chances to develop an initiative in undermine the opponet's centre
the reversed Modern Benoni. because slowplay with 7.tDa3 c5
would allow Black to consolidate
4 . .i.g2 eS s.o-o f6 6.d3 as! and keep his space advantage:
8.ttJd2 0-0 9.ttJc2 f5 lO.b3 Eie8
This is more accurate than 6... 11.1b2 e4+, Agrest-Salgado Lopez,
1e7 7.b4 ttJxb4 (or 7....i.b4 8.ttJxe5 Ourense 2009.
29
Part 2
B. 3.e3 c6!
30
l.tLlf3 d5 2.c4 d4
14...h5 15.h3
31
Part 2
8 .ie2 e4 9.c!lJfd2
.
5 ttJxb4
32
l . lDf3 dS 2 .c4 d4
33
Part 2
12...c!lJf6
Is . .ic3 !
12 . . . tLlxd4? fails to 13 . .ihs + g6
I have also analysed Is:a2 tLlg4 14.tLlxe4 ! .
16 . .it7+ @d8 17.gel .ih4 1 8 .g3 .igs
19.tLlfl gf8 2 0 . .ic4 ( 2 0 . .ihS tLlf6 13.d5 c!lJe7
2 1 ..ie2 tLlds+; 20 . .ib3 tLl as 2 1 .h3
tLlf6 2 2 .ds '!Nt7) 2 0 . . . tLlaS 2 1 .h3 13 . . . tLld4 is already possible,
tLlf6 2 2 .ds '!Nt7 2 3 . tLl bd2 tLld7 24.d6 but White retains the attack af
tLlxc4 2s.dxc7+ @xc7 2 6 . tLl xc4 .ie7 ter 14.tLlxe4 ! tLlxe2 Is.tLlxf6+ gxf6
27J;acl .ixcs where the pin along 16 .gel @t7 17.gxe2 '!Nf4 18.tLld2 .id6
the a2-g8 diagonal is clogging 19.tLlf3.
White's pieces. The text is slower,
13 ... tLlaS is more complicated.
but White keeps the extremely im
We continue with 14.tLlc3 .id7 (14 . . .
portant light-squared bishop. His
.id6 Is . tLl cxe4 ! ! + - fxe4 16 . .ihs +
superiority in the centre promises
l!?e7 17.gel '!Nd3 18.cS .ixcs I9 . .ixf6+
him full compensation for the pawn:
gxf6 2 0 .'!Ncl .ie3 2 1 . '!Nxc7+ .id7
Is . . . tLld8 16.a4 tLlg4 17.gel .igs 2 2 . tLlxe4 '!Nxe4 23.d6+ @e6 24 . .if3
18.tLlfl tLle6 1 9 . tLl a3 a6 2 0 .gadl .ih4 '!Nf4 2s.gadl --+) 15. tLl bs !
2Ule2 0-0 22 . .ib4 gd8 2 3 . ds @h8
24.ged2.
15 . . . 0-0-0
34
l . ctJ f 3 d 5 2 .c 4 d4
king will hardly find a safe haven. would have been gloom for him. I
The opposite coloured bishops hin prefer to complete development
der his defence. One of the many before targeting something in the
entertaining variations is 2 1 . . .h5 black camp.
22.E1f5 g6 23.E1xh5 e3 24.ctJf3 ctJc4
2S.d6! ctJxd6 2 6.d5 and Black is 16 lDf4 (16 ... a6 17.d4 id7
.
helpless. 1B.i'!adl)
,*J: 1. i.
.t..t..t. .t..t.
I,i) \\IV
tb1. f'::, .t.
f'::,$,.t.
jL f'::,t<:,
'iV M
White's attack is strong. Il
17Jxf4!
lustrative variations are: 1B . . . ieB
19.b3 b6 2 0 .c5 ; 1B . . . id7 19.ctJxb7!
17.ib5+ c6 1B.g3 cxb5 19.E1xf4
wxb7 2 0 .b3 + 'it>cB 2 1 .i'!ab1 ; lB . . .
h5 is unclear.
a6 19.i'!b 1 ctJxd5 ! ? (or 19 ... i'!d6
20.ixa7; 19 ... id6 2 0 .h3 ctJd7 2 1 .c5
17 Y;lfxf4 18.lDb5 e3 19 ..ixf6
e2 2 2 .c6! b6 23 .xe2 ctJbB
35
Part 2
have to regroup his forces in order in both variations, but only practice
to prepare for a further advance in can tell which is the best option.
the centre. I tried to investigate in
deep the possibilities of both sides. a) 9)lJbd2 (9 .b2 lLlf6) 9 .ig7 .
Black seems to hold, but only with 10.gb1.!Llf6 1l .id3 0-0 12.0-0
S.d5
36
l.ttJf3 dS 2.c4 d4
37
Part 2
3S
l . ttJf3 dS 2 . c4 d4
.t 'iV
Our plan has triumphed. One
last precise prophylactic move and
Black should be unable to defend :
12 .h4! 0-0 (12 .. .f6 13 .hS fxeS 17.mh1! xeS (17 . . .f6 1S.g4
14.,igSt) 13.hS-7. fxeS 19 .xe6+ mhS 2 0 . ,ixh6+-)
39
Part 2
3 .. f6!
40
l .lLlf3 dS 2 .c4 d4
4.bS cS
i i i ' i
gd6 17.lLldS gS . Here in Markus
Brkic, Banja Vrucica 2 0 0 9 , 1 8 . d4 ! !
i l!, i
would have come out of the blue.
l!, i
b) 3 . . . aS t::, tjj
l!, t::, t::, l!, t::,
Black aims to define the pawn tjj iV i. :
structure on the queens ide. That
would give him a free hand in the S . . .f6 !
centre where he has a space advan
S . . . g6 is known to be in White's
tage. He will try to put in both . . . cS
favour since the game Euwe-Ale
and . . . eS. Practice does not shed
khine, Amsterdam 1926, which
enough light on this variation. I
went 6.exd4 ig7 7.d3 cxd4 (7 . . .
would suggest to open the centre
ixd4? 8 . lLlxd4 xd4 9.1!tfc2 ! ,
quickly with :
Euwe) 8 .g3 lLld7 9.lLlbd2 ltJcS
4.1!tfa4 + ! id7 (4 . . . lLld7 or 4 . . . c6 1O .lLlb3 b6 11.lLlxcS 1!tfxcs 12 .ig2
should be met by S.ib 2 ) S .bS cS LDh6 13.0-0 0-0 14.a4 ! .
41
Part 2
42
l . lLlf3 ds 2 . c4 d4
S.eS
43
Now White's dark-squared bish f3.) 13.f3 f7 14.fxe4 fxe4 IS.bS and
op has not any prospects. After: the e4-pawn should perish after g3 ,
192 .
8.1a3 f5! 9.1e2 lLlf6 10.0-0 1e7
1l.d3 lLld7 12.lLlbd2 lLlxcS 13.c2
(13.,txcS ,txcS 14.bS 1b4 ISJiabl
1c3 16.lLleS a6 17.a4 bS 18.lLlxc6
bxa4 19.1Llxd8 @xd8 =) 13 . . . 0-0
14.lLlb3 lLle6 (14 . . . b6 IS.lLlfd2 1b7
16.1f3 lLle6 17.aeU) IS.he7 xe7
16.fel 1d7 17.1f1 d6, the game is
balanced.
8 .1d3 hcS 9.0-0 lLlge7 10 .1a3
b6 was also equal in Tomashevsky 8 .lLlxc6 bxc6 9 . f3 fS 1 O . fxe4 fxe4
Sakaev, Serpukhov 2 007. 1l.lLlc3 lLlf6 1 2 .g3 e7 13.1g2 1e6
14.a4 1d7 1S.0-0.
b) S.a3 cS 6.exd4 cxd4 7.d3 as is
fine for Black.
44
1.'Df3 dS 2 .c4 d4
worth two pawns. The blitz game b) 8.'Dxd4 'De7 9.'De6 he6
Kramnik-Aronian, Moscow 2009 1O.xe6 d3 11 .c1 d6 12.c4
saw the weaker 6 . . . dxe3 7.fxe3 axb4 'Dbc6 13.0-0 'Dd8 14.g4 dS
8.d4 'Dc6 9.0-0 'DaS 1O. 'DxeS 'Dxc4 1S.c2, Chuchelov-Schenk, Muel
11.lLlxc4 e6 12. 'Dbd2 'De7 13 .b2 heim 2010, when 1S . . . d6 ! would
d5 14.f3 bS 1S.cxb6 'Dxb6 have put White's compensation to
16.lLlxb6 cxb6 17.c6+ d7 18 .dS the test.
ie7 19.'Dc4 bS 2 0 . 'DeS+-.
7 exd4 8. 0-0
6 ... 'Dh6 ? ! is also dubious: 7.0-0
.
4S
Part 2
46
l.tLlf3 d5 2 .c4 d4
8 . . . e4
9.h3 hf3
47
Part 2
48
Pa rt 2
Complete Games
b) 13.dxeS ttJd7!
49
Part 2
50
l.ltJf3 d5 2 .c4 d4
51
Part 2
52
Part 3
Anti-Slav
Anti-Chebanenko
53
Part 3
Main Ideas
3 J.f5 4.b3 b6 (4 . . . c7
.
54
l.ctJf3 d5 2 .c4 c6 3 . e3 !
ti:J 6
'iV tLJ ::,
::, jj ::'
g :
1O.a4 e6 1 1 .e4;t.
A t least Black can argue here
Perhaps you should remember that he is exploiting White's 3 .e3.
that we meet any bishop sortie with I ndeed, the king's fianchetto is a
b3 , without exchanging on more popular weapon against the
dS. This m ight be useful i n some Stonewall. H owever, I adhere to
lines with . . . '!!1 c 7. Petrosian's view that the best ap
proach of White towards the Dutch
3 ...lLlf6 4.lLlc3 oig4 is an at is to not hamper the opponent to
tempt to improve on the previous play it! Black's dark squares are
line. 5.'!!1b 3 '!!1 b 6 6 . ctJe5 .ie6 7.d4 chronically weak and we should
underline that by trading dark
squared bishops.
55
Part 3
S6
l.tLlf3 dS 2 . c4 c6 3.e3 !
57
Part 3
Points to remember:
S8
Pa rt 3
Step by Step
A. 3 . . . ttJd7; B. 3 . . . g6 ; C. 3 . . . i.fS ;
D. Set-up with . . . i.g4 ; E. 3 . . . e6 fol
The only sensible way to stick
lowed by .. .fS ; F. Set-up with an
to our repertoire since S.b3 ? ! eS !
early . . . a6.
6.cxdS cxdS 7.i.b2 a6 is unaccepta
The main variation 3 . . . ttJf6
ble for White. The queen move pre
4.c3 e6 is subject of the next parts.
vents this variation in view of S . . . eS
6.cxdS cxdS? 7.ttJbS.
S9
Part 3
g6 1l.e4 ttJ5f6
60
l.ttJf3 d5 2 .c4 c6 3.e3 !
3 . . . f6
61
Part 3
7.d4
In this version of the Stone
Now the other bishop got stuck wall, White should trade dark
on f8 and should look for sideways. squared bishops and expand on the
queenside. Of course, he can play
7
. tLJbd7 d4 at any moment and transpose
to standard lines. Then he should
7 . . . g6 8 .i.d3 i.g7 9 . 0-0 0-0 is a follow the set-up of the game Ilin
rare line of the Schlechter system. cic-Kiroski, Belgrade 1995, which
After 1O .;Va3 dxc4 1l.LDxc4 ;Vc7 went 1.d4 d5 2 .c4 e6 3.LDc3 c6 4.e3
12 .i.d2 l'l:e8, Basagic-Ivacic, Slove f5 5.LDf3 LDf6 6.i.d3 i.d6 7.0-0 0-0
nia 1996, White has more space and 8.b3 LDe4 9.LDe2 LDd7 1O.a4 b6
good control of the centre. l1 .i.a3 i.xa3 1 2 . l'l:xa3 as 13.l'l:a2 i.b7
14.l'l:c2 l'l:c8 15.;Vb1 ;Ve7 16.l'l:fc1.
8. tLJxd7 J.xd7 (8 . . . LDxd7 9.cxd5)
9.tLJa4 W1xb3 1 0 . axb3 a6 1l . .id3
e6 12 . .id2 .id6 13 . .ia5 e7 14.c5
62
l . lLlf3 d5 2 .c4 c6 3 . e3 !
White has a slight pull here, but 1O .YlYc1 YlYc7 1l.hd6 YlYxd6
he lacks the thematic plan with h4. 12.YlYa3 xa3 13.xa3
I propose to rip benefits from hav
ing delayed d4 and c3 :
El. 8 eS? !
E2. 7 i.xa3 8. xa3 YlYd6
Taimanov-Persson, Stockholm
1994, saw 9.d4 i.xa3 1 O .lLlxa3 e4
11.ttJe5 0-0 12 Jcl a6 13 .YlYc2 lLlfd7
14.f4;!;, but the text is more straight
forward.
9 . . . . c6
63
Part 3
Game 4 Laznicka-Valeanu,
Herceg Novi 2 0 05 , is a model ex
ample how to exploit White's domi
nance by opening a second front on
the kingside.
64
1.tt'lf3 dS 2 .c4 c6 3.e3 !
S.d4 transposes to the exten long-term small edge with .ie2 , d4,
sively tested main line of the Che b3, .ib2 .
banenko System. Then S . . . bS 6.b3 is
still in course of development, but I 7.d4
find it difficult to recommend a line
against S . . . e6, followed by . . . c6-cS. The pure Reti approach 7.b3 ! ?
I play it successfully as Black. (delaying d2-d4) i s also a n option :
7 . . . g6 B . .ib2 .ig7 9 . .ie2 0-0 10.0-0
Apart from S:c2 , White has .ifS (1O . . . tt'lbd7 1l.tt'la4:t) 11.d3 Wfd6
also tested S.b3. He was slightly 1Voa4 tt'lbd7 13.cS Wfc7 14.f4,
better in Morozevich-I. Sokolov, Janssen-Svetushkin, Kavala 200B.
Sarajevo 2 0 07, after S . . . .ig4 6 . .ie2
e6 7. .ib2 tt'lbd7 B.h3 hf3 9.hf3 7 . . bd7
ib4 1O :'c2 0-0 11.0-0 Wfe7 12 J''!: a d1
gacB 13.g3 tt'leS 14 . .ig2 E:fdB 1S.tt'le2
llJg6 16.f4 tt'leB 17.fS exfS 1B.tt'ld4:t,
but S . . . .ifS 6 . .ie2 h6 7 . .ia3 tt'lbd7
8.0-0 e6 9.MB tt'lxfB 1O.d4 tt'lBd7
equalised in Radjabov-Vallejo Pons,
Porto Carras 2 011.
The queen move aims to impede
the development of Black's bishop.
8 . .ie2 !
6S
Part 3
F2. 5 . . . e6
b) 6 . . . lLlbd7 7 . .id2
Carlsen has crushed Nakamura
with this move in Monaco 2 0 1 1 .
Practice has seen Black gradually
equalising after 7.b3 .id6 8 . .ib2 0-0
9 . .ie2 eS 1O.cxdS cxdS 11.dxeS lLlxeS
1 2 . 0-0 .ig4 13.lLlxeS heS 14 ..ixg4
lLlxg4 lS.h3 lLlf6.
7 ... dxc4 8.a4 ! cS 9 . .ixc4 cxd4
1 O . exd4
66
l.tLlf3 d5 2 .c4 c6 3.e3 !
67
Part 3
68
l.lLlf3 dS 2 .c4 c6 3.e3!
F3. S bS 6.b3
69
Part 3
7 .. .!lJbd7 8.e2 1l . . . b4
e4. 8 .d3 b7 9.c5 also serves well gxa6 15.axb4 axb4 16 .!lJel YlYb8
this goal and gives White an edge, 17 .!lJd3 ga5 18.f3 gb5 19.gaeU
F4. 5 . g6 6.d4
70
1.ct:lf3 dS 2 .c4 c6 3.e3 !
71
Part 3
12 .cS;l;.
The bishop would be too dull on
b7, for instance: 1l.ttJxc4 b5 !
a) 8 . . . bS 9.b3 ttJbd7 1O.h3 The breakthrough . . . e7-e5 as
1O . .ib2 .ib7 1UUd1 (ll.cS eS) sumes that Black will part with the
11..Jc8 12Jac1 1!9c7 13.a3, with a bishop pair: 1l . . . ttJbd7 12 .h4 ! ixc4
small edge, is also possible, Akes 13.ixc4 e5 14.dxeS ttJxe5 15 . .ie2
son-Hammer, Gausdal 2 00S. 1!9d6 16.ab1 ad8 17.fd1 ttJeg4
1O ... .ib7 1l.cS as 12.a3 eS 18.g3;l;.
13.dxeS ttJe8, Chernin-Murey, Co
12 .ttJeS cS 13.dxcS 1!9c7 14.ttJf3
penhagen 1986. In these structures
1!9xcS 1S.ttJd4 .id7 16.h4
White can only gain an advantage
with the breakthrough e3-e4 and it In A.Maric-Zhu Chen, Moscow
is quite strong here. 2001, White became even worse af
ter 16.a3? ! ttJc6 17.ttJb3 1!9d6 18.ad l
b) 8 . . . ttJbd7 9.b3
ttJeS+.
Undoubtedly, 9.cxdS cxdS
10 . .id2 b6 (10 . . . bS 11.fcU) 1l.fc1 16 . . . 1!9b6 17.a4 ttJc6 18.ttJxc6
retains some pull: 1l . . . .ib7 12 .ttJe2 ixc6 19.axbS axbS 20.xa8 xa8
c8, Maiorov-Flachet, Sautron 21.c1, M.Gurevich-Van Haastert ,
2008, 13.1!9a4 !;l;. Belgium 2003. Here 2 1 . . . ttJg4 ! ?
9 ... e8 1O . .ib2 dxc4 1l.bxc4 22 .h3 ttJeS equalises.
72
1.1Of3 d5 2 . c4 c6 3 .e3 !
12 .td2 !
73
Part 3
74
Part 3
Complete Games
75
Part 3
The second stage of the game SO.fS exfS S1 . .txfS WdS S2 .We6+
begins. The question now is could 'it>fS S3.Wh6+ 'it>f7 S4 ..te6+ 'it>e7
White infiltrate his queen or king SS.WgS+ 1 -0
into the enemy camp.
40 . . .gS
76
1.4Jf3 dS 2.c4 c6 3.e3 !
1 5.a4?1 1 6.fxg5
77
Part 3
78
l.liJf3 d5 2 .c4 c6 3.e3 !
6. Postny-H ima ns h u
N e w Delhi 201 1
17 . . J:Uc8 ( 1 7 . . . e5 18.ii.c3) 1 8.
1 3 . . . 'lWxfS gc2
79
Part 3
1 8 . . . f8 1 9 .1Llf4
80
l.lLlf3 dS 2.c4 c6 3 .e3 !
81
Part 3
S2
Part 4
Anti-M era n I
1 . f3 d 5 2 . c4 c6 3.e3 f6 4 . c3 e6
83
Pa rt 4
Main Ideas
84
l.lLlf3 dS 2.c4 c6 3.e3 lLlf6 4.lLlc3 e6
8S
Part 4
The text gives White clear play See more about White's play in
without any risks. the annotated game 7 Delchev
Collutiis, Plovdiv 2010. I also con
7 exd5 8.d4 .id6 9 . .id3 .ib7
sider the same pawn structure in
1 0 . 0 - 0 0 - 0 1l .ib2
. Part 6, line A3. The only difference
is the white bishop staying on the
passive square e2, but that matters
only if Black pushes . . . cS-c5. If he
adopts a waiting strategy, White ex
ecutes the same manoeuvre - .if1-
g2 , the rooks go to el and dl.
Points to remember:
86
Part 4
Step by Step
1. 1tJf3 d5 2.c4 c6 3.e3 1tJf6 4.1tJc3 8.d4 cxd4 9.liJxd4 i.d7 10.0-0
e6 5.b3 ! ? i.d6
Or 1O . . . liJxd4 11.exd4 !J..e 7 12 Je1
0-0 13.ixd7 (13.'lWb3;!;) 13 .. .'xd7
14.i.g5 Elfe8 15.'lWb3 Elad8 16.Ele5;!;;
1O . . . Elc8 11.liJxc6 bxc6 12 .i.a6;!;.
11.liJf5 ixf5 12.'lWxf5 0-0 13.Eldl.
However, at this moment I
have not a decent recommendation
against:
5 . . . i.d6 ! 6.b3 (It is not late to
return to the common lines with
6.d4 ! ) 6 . . . 0-0 ! 7.i.b2 e5 ! 8.cxd5
cxd5 9.liJb5 liJc6 1O.liJxd6 'lWxd6
main line.
Black has tried 5 . . . c5 in only 2
games. After 6.cxd5 exd5, we can
lead our bishop to e2 or b5 and play
against the isolated d5-pawn :
a) 7.d4 a6 8.i.e2 liJc6 9.0-0 i.e6
This position is about equal :
lOJ!d1 cxd4 11.liJxd4 liJxd4 12J!xd4
ic5 13JldU. 11.d4 liJb4 12 .'lWd1 e4 13.liJe5 liJe8
14.a3 f6= , Grandelius-Al Sayed,
b) 7.i.b5+ liJc6
Bosna Open 2011;
White is interested in trading
the bishops with 7 . . . i.d7 8.ixd7+ 11.Elc1 i.g4 12 .'lWc5 'lWe6 13.'lWb5
xd7 (8 . . . liJbxd7 9.'lWb3) 9.d4 liJc6 Elab8=, Jakubiec-Jaracz, Czech Rep.
10 . 0-0 c4 11.e4;!;, with a lead in de 2011. So the queen on c2 is not use
velopment. ful against . . . i.d6, . . . 0-0 and . . . e5.
87
Part 4
a) 7 . . . dxc4 B.,ixc4 !
BB
l.lLlf3 dS 2 .c4 c6 3 .e3 lLlf6 4.lLlc3 e6
6.ti'c2
89
Part 4
90
1.4:lf3 dS 2 .c4 c6 3.e3 4:lf6 4.4:lc3 e6
g6 (maybe after i.h3 first) and he could refrain from wakening his
can even exert pressure on the c kingside by 9 . . . 0-0, but castling
file by 1=!cl. All the black pieces are under the fire of all White's pieces
passive. is also a risky decision. White can
try, for instance, 1O.gS lDe8 11.h4
eS 12 .i.d3 ! ? g6 (12 . . . e4 should be
B. 6 . . . b6 7.cxd5 losing to 13.lDxe4 dxe4 14.1xe4 g6
1S.hS+-.) 13.hS lDcS 14.i.e2 lDe6
I think that White should take 1S.0-0-0 'fffe 7 16.lDh4--+. The battle
the opportunity to alter the pawn is entirely on Black's territory.
structure in his favour since Black The text is more restrained and
cannot recapture by the c-pawn it gives White clear play without
(7 . . . cxdS? 8.lDbS). any risks.
If you like adventures, however,
7 exd5 8.d4 .td6 9 .td3 .tb7
you might prefer 7.i.b2 i.b7 8 .i.e2
. .
10. 0 - 0 0 - 0 1l .tb2
i.d6 (8 . . . i.e7 9.g4 ! ? or 9.1=!g1) 9.g4 ! ?
.
91
Pa rt 4
Complete Games
1 3 . . .YlYc7
92
l.ttJf3 dS 2.c4 c6 3.e3 ttJf6 4.ttJc3 e6
1 S .We 1
93
Part 4
94
Pa rt S
Anti - M era n I I
1 . tLlf3 d S 2 . c4 c6 3 .e3 tLlf6 4 . tLlc3 e6 S . b 3 tLl b d 7
6 .9c2 id 6 7 .ib2
95
Pa rt 5
Main Ideas
96
4.lLlc3 e6 S.b3 lLlbd7 6.c2 d6 7.b2
7 0 - 0 8.gg1 a6
16.f4.
7 0 - 0 8.gg1 e5 9.cxd5
97
Part 5
Analysis
98
4.ltJc3 e6 5.b3 ltJbd7 6.'I1;!fc2 .id6 7 . .ib2
Petkov- Friedrich
Cesenatico 201 0
Chadaev-Potapov
Russian ch. 201 1
99
Part S
Points to remember:
100
Part 5
Step by Step
101
Part 5
19 .c2 lLlh3 2 0 .l'Ui lLlxg5=t. How 2010 . The text, however, weakens
ever, 9 . . . h6 weakens the kingside the c6 square.
and makes future castling risky for
1l.h4 i.b7
Black. White can complete develop
ment with : 1l . . . b4 12.lLla4 !'igB 13.g5 hxg5
1 O . 0-0-0 ! e4 1l.lLld4 lLle5 12 .h3 14.hxg5 lLle4 15.cxd5 cxd5 16.c6
and hit in the centre, for example : !'ibB 17.i.xa6 cost Black a pawn in
Dobrov-Menadue, Caerleon 2007.
12 .g5 hxg5 13.hxg5 lLlgB.
The game Bogner-Ris, Neu
hausen 2007, continued here with
14.0-0-0;1;, but this might not be the
best option. If Black opens the b
file, White should be able to contest
it with !'ib1. Therefore,
102
4.lUc3 e6 5.b3 lUbd7 6.Wc2 d6 7.b2
9 . . . lUe8 ! ?
103
Part S
19 . .ixd7!
A solid positional solution.
19 .'lWe2 fxeS 20 . .ixd7 exf4 21 ..ibS
a6 22 . .id3 wins a piece, but com
pletely abandons the initiative to
the enemy: 22 . . . !'gae8 23.!'gg2 (23.
Despite the seemingly danger !'gfl 'lWxe3 24.ltid1 .ic8 2S . .ic1 'lWxe2+
ous attack of Black, White's threats 2 6 . .ixe2 .ixg4 27 . .ixa6 .ih3 = ;
are more substantial. Here are 23 .hS 'lWxe3 24.ltid1 'lWxe2+ 2 S . .ixe2
some crazy variations : .ixg1 26.ltJxg1 d41Xl 27 . .ic4+ ltig7
28 . .ixd4+ ltih6 29 . .ixb6) 23 . . . .ib4+
15.dxe5 .ie5 (1S . . . fxeS 16. 0-0-0 24. ltif1 fxe3 2S.ltig1 !'gf4.
exf4 17.cxdS and 17 . . :xe3+ fails to
18.'tt> b1+-) 16.exd5 exd5 17. lOb5 19 . . . 'lWxd7 20 . .id4 .ixd4
tOxb5 21.exd4 e7 22 .'lWd2 fxe5
23.tOxe5 xh4+ 24.\tldl gae8
17 . . . liJe6 18.''d2 .ib7 19.0-0-0 25.gel
fxeS is also possible, but now White
takes over the initiative with 20.fS The eS-knight is ruling over the
.ib4 (20 . . . ltJg7 21.ltib1) 21.'lWh2 a6 board, for instance, 2S . . . .ia6 26.fS .
2 2 .fxe6 'lWxe6 23.ltJgS 'lWe7 24.ltib1
axbS 2S . .ixbSt.
B. 8 . . . a6
18 . .ixb5 .ib7
This move has not been tried in
Or 18 . . . .ixe3 19 . .ic6 !'gb8 practice yet, but it is very consis
2 0 . .ixdS+ ltih8 21. ltifl fxeS 22 .fxeS tent. Black is aiming to open the
104
4.tDc3 e6 s.b3 tDbd7 6.'!Wc2 .id6 7 . .ib2
1l.h4! e5
12 .h5
105
Part S
106
4.tUc3 e6 5.b3 tUbd7 6.Wfc2 .id6 7 . .ib2
107
Part 5
108
Pa rt 5
Complete Games
1 4. a 3 ! 1
109
Part S
1 4 . . . .ig6 1 5.d3 f5
110
4.ttJc3 e6 S.b3 ttJbd7 6.Wc2 .id6 7 . .ib2
9. H a l kias-Haznedaroglu
Anta lya 2001
1 . f3 f6 2 .c4 c6 3 . c3 d5
4.e3 e6 5.b3 .id6 6 ..ib2 bd7
7 .V!Jc2 0-0 B ..ie2 V!Je7 9J:g 1
2 1 JxdB
111
Part S
dxc4 14.hc4 eS lS.dxeS ixeS 16.f4 Black has also tested 9 ... .ia3,
.if6 17Jdel ge8 18.lt>bl. I prefer but this exchange is only good if
to use the g-pawn for repelling White had already taken on dS. Af
the knight from f6 rather than for ter 1O .,ixa3 Wlxa3 11.g4 gd8 12 .gS
opening the g-file. ttJe8 13.h4 a6 14.hS bS lS . .id3 ttJf8
16.ttJeS !b7 17.ttJe2 Wld6 18.f4,
9 . . . e5
112
4.lLlc3 e6 5.b3 lLlbd7 6.c2 d6 7 . .tb2
20 . . JaeS
24.Y!Yb2?
113
114
Pa rt 6
Anti - M era n I I I
1 . tLlf3 d S 2 .c4 c6 3 . e 3 tLlf6 4 . tLlc3 e6 S . b 3 tLl b d 7
6.VNc2 J.d6 7 .J.b2 0 - 0 B .J.e2
115
Pa rt 6
Main Ideas
116
4.llJc3 e6 S.b3 llJbd7 6.\1;Yc2 ii.d6 7.ii.b2 0-0 B . .ie2 ! ?
117
Part 6
After 8 . . . E!e8 9.0-0 b6, I suggest Black has now two options: 9 ...
to define the pawn structure with bS or 9 . . . eS. Any delay would be un
10.cxdS exdS 1l.d4 i.b7 12.E!fdl Vlfe7 reasonable since White will favour
13 .g3 ! ably open the centre with e4: 9 . . .
Vlfe7 1O.0-0 b S 1l.e4 e S 12.cxdS cxdS
13.dxeS llJxeS 14.llJxdS.
8 . . . a6 9 .d4
IS.f4 !
118
4.lLlc3 e6 5.b3 lLlbd7 6.c2 d6 7.b2 0-0 B . .te2 ! ?
Points to remember:
119
Pa rt 6
Step by Step
A. 8 . . . Ei:e8; B. 8 . . . e7; C. 8 . . . a6
D. 8 . . . dxc4, E. 8 . . . b6.
120
4.lLlc3 e6 S.b3 lLlbd7 6.c2 i.d6 7.i.b2 0-0 8 .i.e2 ! ?
According to Dreev (The Meran 16 ..if3 eS? ! 17.fS, White was clearly
& Anti-Meran Variations, Chess better.
Stars 2011), Black has fair chances
after the flexible 11 . . . e7, keeping
open the option of . . . e4, or 11 . . . exd4 A2. 9 e5 lO.cxd5 xd5
12.exd4 lLlf8 .
1O . . . cxdS is typically bad if White
lO b5 has 11.lLlbS. The game Izoria-Perez
Rodriguez, Dos Hermanas Inter
10 . . . lLlb6 has been played in se net 2 006, went 11 . . . i.b8 12 .l'!ac1 d4,
veral games. Perhaps the best retort when best would have been 13.gS
is 11.i.d3 eS 12 .lLle4 lLlxe4 13.,txe4 h6? 14.lLlxf7 'it>xf7 1S . .ic4+ 'it>f8
g6 14.d4;!; exd4 IS.l'!ad1 although 16.i.a3 + .
11.d4 lLlxc4 12 .bxc4, as in Benko
Mednis, Pasadena 1978, is also in 1l.e4 .ic7
White's favour. Black cannot free
his play with . . . eS, while the other
break, 12 . . . cS 13.lLlbS cxd4 14.hd4
eS IS.lLlxd6 xd6 16.heS l'!xeS
17.l'!adl, is also horrible for him.
1l . .ie2 .ib7 12. g5 gc8
121
Part 6
122
4.ttJc3 e6 S.b3 ttJbd7 6:c2 .td6 7 . .tb2 0-0 8 . .ie2 ! ?
13.g3
123
Part 6
1l,. .i.a6 !
B. 8 , . .'?ffe 7 9. 0 - 0
1l . . . ib7 is too passive. The game
Moskalenko-Alsina Leal, Barcelona
2008, went 12 .iDxd6 '?ffx d6 13.l':!ac1
l':!ac8 14.'?ffb 1 a6 lS.Wa1 l':!fd8 16.h3
h6 17.lLleS iDe8 18.lLlxd7 Wxd7
19.i.d4 Wd6 2 0 .Wb2 l':!xc1 21.l':!xc1
l':!c8 2 2 . l':!xc8 .ixc8 23 .Wc3 .ib7
24.a4 f6 2S.f4.
12.fd4!
124
4.ttJc3 e6 S.b3 ttJbd7 6 .'!Wc2 .id6 7 . .ib2 0-0 B . .ie2 ! ?
12 . . . hb5
In Shulman-Grover, Reykjavik
2010, Black had to part with both
bishops after 12 . . . l'!fc8? ! 13.ttJc6! I have analysed in line A the
fB 14.ltlxd6 'lWxd6 1S.,ha6 l'!xc6 game Grischuk-Kramnik which
16.'lWd1 l'!c7 17.l'!c1 l'!d8 18 .'lWe2. reached the same position, only
with . . . l'!eB instead of . . . 'lWe7. This
13.xb5 gfc8 14.'lWdl Ae5 difference allowed Black to rede
15.d4 Ab8 16.gcU. ploy his d7-knight via f8-g6. In the
diagram position he can follow the
Black's queenside is weak. same routine:
12 . ge8
H2. 9 e5 10.cxd5 xd5
The alternative 12 . . . ltl7f6 allows
.
125
Part 6
B3. 9 . . . ge8
10 .d4 dxc4
Alternatively: 12 . .id3
a) 1O . . . b6 transposes to line A3 .
12 .i.e2 is more passive although
b) 1O . . . e5 1l.cxd5 lLlxd5 (11 . . . things are not too clear. I have
126
4.liJc3 e6 S.b3 liJbd7 6.%Vc2 .id6 7 . .tb2 0-0 S . .te2 ! ?
11.e4 e5
127
Part 6
128
4.1',c3 06 5.b3 1ilbd7 6."IIc 2 .t.d6 ..tb2 0-0 B . .t.02 ! ?
129
Part 6
tive anymore. Black is the first to Or 13 ... aS? ! 14.a3 V!:Je7 (14 . . . eS
start an attack. The game Fressi IS.tilxbS cxbS 16.c6 hc6 17.dxeS
net-Spoelman, Wattenscheid 2011, tilxeS 18.tilxeS heS 19 .heS xeS
seems to confirm such an assess 20.V!:Jxc6;!;) IS.fel eS 16.tilxbS cxbS
ment: 9Jgl bS 1O .g4 bxc4 1l.bxc4 17.c6 ; 13 V!:Je7 14.a4 eS IS.axbS
.
130
4.ttic3 e6 S.b3 ttibGr6.WI'c2 .id6 7 . .ib2 0-0 8.i.e2 ! ?
1 3 ttixe5
. 14.xe5 he5 12 i.e6
15.f4 i.e7
12 . . ..ig4 13.ttixeS heS 14.hg4
ttixg4 lS.h3 ttif6 exchanges more
pieces, but Black is playing for two
results only.
2011.
D. 8 . . dxe4
131
Part 6
132
4.lLJc3 e6 5.b3 lLJbd7 6.'?9c2 d6 7 . .ib2 0-0 B . .ie2 ! ?
9 .ib7
133
Part 6
13 . . . dxc4 10.g4 e5
Dreev improves on his game
Practice has also seen:
against Bischoff in Hastings 2000,
which saw 13 ... lLld6 14 . .id3 g6 1S.h5 a) 1O ... a6? ! is too slow. Petkov
lLlfS 16.cxdS cxd5 when 17 . .ixfS ! Friedrich, Cesenatico 2010, went
exfS 1S.lLlbS would have been clear 1l.gS tDeS 12 .h4 eS 13 .hS lLlc7
ly better for White. It would be also 14 . .id3 ! and the battle is over:
interesting to exchange immediate
ly on dS : 14.cxdS cxdS IS.lLld4 .ib7
16.lLlcbS lLlxbS 17.lLlxbS e7 18.c7
.ia6 19.d6 xd6 2 0 .lLlxd6 lLlcS
21..ixa6 lLlxa6 2 2 . @e2;!;.
The text fixes a target on c4 and
keeps the centre open. In Zvja
ginsev-Dreev, Poikovsky 2 0 0 2 ,
White recaptured 14.bxc4 lLld6
IS.hS .ia6 16.lLle4 lLlxe4 17.xe4
and was only slightly better. The 14 . . . e4 (or 14 . . . g6 IS.hxg6
exchange of the knights relieved fxg6 16.hg6 gxf3 17.hh7+ @fS
Black's defence. I think that White IS .if5) Here best is IS.lLlxe4 dxe4
has the better prospects after: 16 . .ixe4+-.
134
4.ttJc3 e6 S.b3 ttJbd7 6.1lNc2 .id6 7 . .ib2 0-0 8 . .ie2 ! ?
13S
Pa rt 6
Complete Games
1 4.a3 dS 1 S.c2 as
136
4.liJc3 e6 S.b3 liJbd7 6.'<!;Vc2 d6 7 . .ib2 0-0 B . .ie2 ! ?
1 1 . lonov-Yevseev
St. Petersburg 2 0 1 1
137
Part 6
1 5 . . .tyb6!
138
4.lLlc3 e6 5.b3 lLlbd7 6.c2 .id6 7 . .tb2 0-0 S . .te2 ! ?
139
Part 6
8 . . . b S 9 . .ie2
140
4.lLlc3 e6 S.b3 lLlbd7 6.Wc2 d6 7.b2 0-0 8 .e2 ! ?
141
Part 6
21 . . . tt:lxd5?
So he lived up to my expecta
tions and erred! The arrogant rook
is a challenging sight indeed, but
2 1 . . .l3e6 22 .l3g3 l3ae8 23.l3e5 ! (23.
l3d3 g6 24.h2 l3c8 25.tt:ld5 tt:le4oo)
23 . . . g6 24.tt:ld5 We1+ 25.h2
Now 21.l3xd5 xa2 2 2 .hg7 tt:lxd5 (25 . . . Wxg3+ 26.xg3 gxf5
does not win in view of 22 . . . l3g3 ! ' it 27.tt:lxf6+) 26.l3xe6 l3xe6 (26 . . . fxe6
is easy to miss such a move! 23.l3f2 27.l3xg6+) 27.xd5 l3xe3= or 21 . . .
Wxb3. White has sufficient com i.a3 2 2 .ha3 tt:lxd5 23.tt:lxd5 Wxa3
pensation for the pawn, but I could 24.l3g3 g6 25.tt:lf6+ h8 26.Wg5
not find anything decisive. g7= were keeping the balance.
Therefore, in the diagram posi
tion it is probably better to take a
small edge in the endgame after
21.Wxd5 Wxd5 2 2 . l3xd5 !i.c7 23.l3d7 A horrible move after which my
i.b6 24.h2 l3e2 25.l3xb7 i.c5 advantage slips away.
2 6.i.e5 l3xa2 27.l3d1 !i.f8 28.!i.b8;!;. 23.l3g3 ! should be winning.
Black has two defences:
20Jxd5! b5!
a) 23 . . . l3d8 24.h2 ! l3dd6 (24 . . .
l3xd5 25.xd5 Wxa2 2 6.!i.xg7 ! +
l3g6 27.!i.d4) 25.tt:lf6+ l3xf6 26.i.xf6
ge6 (26 . . . Wxa2? 27.gxg7+ !i.xg7
28.c8+) 27.Wg5 Wxa2 28.f5 gxf6
29.Wxf6 Wxb3 30.Wxa6+-.
144
4.llJc3 e6 S .b3 llJbd7 6.'\1;Ifc2 .id6 7 . .ib2 0-0 B . .ie2 ! ?
145
146
Part 7
Anti-Queen's G a m bit I
1 .f3 d 5 2 . c4 e6 3 . 9 3
147
Pa rt 7
Main Ideas
In Part 7 and 8 I examine the king's White takes over the initiative:
fianchetto against 2 . . . e6: a) 5 . . . b5 6.d3 ! ? cxd3 7.ttle5 ib7
8.a4 b4.
1.<:Jf3 d5 2.c4 e6 3.g3
148
l.llJf3 dS 2.c4 e6 3.g3
149
Part 7
12 gc8 13.h3 ! ?
went:
Or 8 .. .l:!b8 9.d4 .id6 1O.dxc5
7.b3 .ib7 8 . 0-0 gf6 9.ttJc3 ttJxc5 11.0-0; 8 . . . ga7 9.d4 b6
.ie7 1O .d3 0-0 11.a4 b4 10.0-0 .ib7 11.e4 ! ? (a natural move)
150
1.tt'lf3 dS 2 .c4 e6 3 .g3
id6 12.hd6 ti'xd6 13.!Udl 0 - 0 9.:gdl cxd4 10 .ig5 .ie7 1l. xd4
lSI
Pa rt 7
Step by Step
152
1.ttJf3 d5 2.c4 e6 3.g3
White can also follow the scheme Now Marin's method does not
with b3. work: 1O . .ig5 f6 1l . .id2 .ie6 ! when
12.1'xb7? b8 13 .Wla6 .ia5 14.ttJb5
A. 3 . c6 4 .tg2
.
.ic8 favours Black.
Al. 4 . . . dxc4 5. 0 - 0
5 ttJf6
5 . . . b5 is consistent, but is it
worth to be suffering the next 20-
30 moves for only a pawn ? ! Apart
A1. 4 . . . dxc4; A2 . 4 . . . ttJf6. from the thematic 6.a4, White has
6.d3 ! ? cxd3 7.ttJe5 .ib7 8.a4 b4.
4 ... .id6 should be met by 5.d4 !
for two reasons :
1. If White is afraid of the pas
sive, old-fashioned Stonewall that
arises after 5 .. .f5, he should not
play close openings at all.
2 . He has not a better alterna
tive, because 5.0-0 concedes the
centre to 5 . . . e5. Marin advocates
6.cxd5 cxd5 7.ttJc3 ttJe7 8 .b3 .ic7 White has two good options
9.d3, but now he considers only
here:
9 . . . 0-0 10 . .ig5 ttJbc6. Instead, 9 . . .
a) 9.ttJxd3 ttJf6 10.ttJd2 !e7
tUbc6 ! i s fine for Black: 1l.ttJc4 0-0 12 .Wlc2 .
b) 9.a5 ! ? (threatening a6 ! ) 9 . . .
ttJe7 10.ttJxd3 ttJa6 1l.Wla4 ttJd5
12 .dl Wlc8 13.e4, Pantsulaia-Ba
reev, Beersheba 2 005.
In both variations White has an
excellent game.
153
Part 7
6 . . . .id6
White will soon regain the pawn.
In practice, Black fails to neutralise After 6 . . . dxc4 7.a4 White re
successfully his initiative : gains the pawn in a favourable po
sition : 7 . . . ie7 (or 7 . . . aS 8.'I1*lc2 lLlb6
9 . . . 0-0 1O.'I1*lc2 lLldS 1l.'I1*lxc4 'I1*laS 9.lLlbd2 lLlfdS 10.lLlxc4 lLlb4 1l.'I1*lb3
12 .d4 lLlxa4 13 .id2 lLldb6 14.'I1*ld3 lLlxc4 12 .'I1*lxc4 ie7) 8.lLla3.
'I1*lhS 1S.'I1*lc2, Stocek-S.Movsesian,
Plzen 2 0 0 1 ; 6 ... ie7 leads to the main line
of the Closed Catalan. White has
9 . . . 'I1*laS 10J':l:b4 c 3 1l.dxc3 0-0 the initiative following 7.'I1*lc2 0-0
12 .'I1*lc2 lLldS 13.e4 lLle7 14.eS 'I1*lc7 8.lLlbd2 b6 9.e4 or 7.b3 0-0 8.lLlc3
1S.h4 lLldS 16.E!e1, Hillarp Pers b6 9.lLld2.
son-Dreev, Helsingor 2009.
154
l.liJf3 dS 2 .c4 e6 3.g3
8 . . . b6
155
Part 7
The d5-pawn is weak, Black's Cl. 4 ... i.d7; C2. 4 ... c6; C3 . 4 . . .
pieces lack coordination ; ltJd7.
Bischoff-Khenkin, Recklinghau
sen 1996: 1l . . . i.a6 12J%e1 d6 Ct. 4 . . ..id7 5.1Yxc4
13 .i.b2 h6 14.c2 E:acB 15.e4 i.b7
16.E:adl.
C. 3 . . . dxc4 4.1Ya4 + !
Cll. 5 . . . .ic6 6 . .ig2
Marin advocates 5.ltJa3 in
his repertoire trilogy, but I can
not agree with him. After 5 . . . ,ha3
6.bxa3, White practically plays
without a queenside. Therefore, he
should rely only on a kingside at
tack to win the game. Accordingly,
if Black is not superambitious, he
can quickly finish development and
castle. That would assure him of a
comfortable equality. For exam
ple, the game Dominguez-Meier,
Lubbock 2011, went on with 6 . . . b5
7.ltJe5 ltJd5 B.d3 (Marin's recipe)
B . . . cxd3 9.xd3 0-0 10.xb5 ia6
11.1Yb2 (or 11.b3 c5) 1l . . . c5 1 2 . 0-0 Black tries occasionally 6 . . . .id5
ltJ d7 13.ltJxd7 xd7 14.c2 l'!acB= . when 7.1Ya4+ d7 8.dl! ltJc6
Practical results confirm my opin 9.ltJc3 ltJf6 10.0-0 !J.e7 ll.ltJxd5 exd5
ion as 4.a4+ scores much better 12 .d3 0-0 13.id2 l'!feB 14.1Ya4 i.d6
than 4.ltJa3 . 15.l'!fel ltJe5 16.xd7 ltJexd7 17.b4
156
1.tt'lf3 d5 2.c4 e6 3.g3
is slightly better for White. I think The rook move is aimed against this
that 7.'1Wc2 tt'lc6 B.'a4 ! or 7.'d3 ! as you can see from the variation
may be even better, for example : 1O . . . bB 11.e2 tt'lc5 12.tt'le5 d4
7 . . tt'ld7 (7 . . . tt'lc6 B.tt'lc3 tt'lf6 9.0-0
. 13.tt'lxc6 bxc6 14.d3 - the d3 pawn
ie7 1O.tt'lxd5 exd5 11.b3 bB is protected and Black is unable to
1 2 .d3 d7 13 . .td2 0-0 14.acl;!;) prevent d3-d4, e.g. 14 . . . eS 15 . .te3
B .O-O tt'lgf6 9.tt'lc3 .tc6 1O .c2;!;. b4 16.d4 exd4 17.hd4 fdB
White will seize the centre with his 1B.a3. That's why in Schmidt
pawns while Black's counterplay Gdanski, Gdansk 1994, Black chose
with . . . cS would be hindered by the 10 . . . bB 1l.e2 b5, but now 12 .e5 !
bishop on c6. tt'ld5 13.tt'ld4 .taB (13 . . . tt'lxc3 14.dxc3
hg2 15.'k!?xg2) 14.tt'ldxb5 gave
7. 0 - 0 bd7 8.c3 J.e7 9.e4! White a clear edge.
1 0 .gdl!
157
Part 7
6 . . . .ic6 7.0-0 tOd7 B.tOc3 tOgf6 The text is more critical for the
9.e4 bS 10.tOxbS he4 11.d4 .idS, assessment of this line. Now B.d4
as in Stellwagen-Sargissian, Por bS 9.d3 cxd4 1O.tOxd4 tOxd4
to Carras 2011, should be met by 11.xd4 tOf6 12 . .igS (12 .xa7 .icS
12 .e2 .ie7 13.tOc3 .ic6 (13 . . . 0-0 13.b7 tOdS 14.hdS c7 is a draw ;
14.tOxdS tOxdS IS.dxcS hcS 16.b3) 12 .tOd2 .icS 13 .d3 0-0 14.tOe4
14.dxcS hcS IS . .if4. .ic6 IS.tOxf6+ xf6 16.hc6 xc6
17.xbS fcB) 12 . . . .icS 13 .h4
0-0 14.tOc3 h6 is about equal. The
plan with d4 is also insufficient af
ter B.tOc3 tOf6 9.d4 bS 1O.d3 cxd4
11.tOxd4 tOxd4 12 .xd4 .icS 13.d3
b4 14.tOe4 tOxe4 IS.he4 b6 16.a4
bxa3 17.bxa3 .ibS= . Perhaps White
can try to put pressure on cS with:
S.tOc3 f6 9.d3 a6
7. 0 - 0
ISB
1.lLlf3 d5 2 . c4 e6 3.g3
9 a6!
159
Part 7
160
l,lt:\f3 dS 2 . c4 e6 3.g3
161
Part 7
13 . . .'b6
13 .. .'c7 14.i.f4 i.d6 1S.axbS
axbS 16.E:a7, Andreikin-Grachev, Similar positions arise in some
Moscow 2 0 1 0 , is obviously unac lines of the QGA. White usually
ceptable, but 13 . . . ttJxeS ! ? 14.dxeS cannot make any progress from this
ttJdS 1S.ttJe4 cS (1S .. .'c7 16.i.gS) point.
16.axbS axbS 17.ttJc3 b4 1B.ttJe4 c4 b) 12 . .igS cS ! 13.axbS (13.ttJeS
19.ttJd6 hd6 2 0 .exd6 fS 21.i.f4 E:O hg2 14.xg2 cxd4 1S.ttJc6 eB
2 2 .i.eS is not so clear. 16.ttJe4 E:cB 17.axbS axbS 1B.E:fc1
After 13 .. .'b6, best is 14.ttJxd7! hB 19.E:a7 ttJeS 20.E:xe7 xc6
ttJxd7 1S.i.e3 ttJf6 (1S . . . cS 16.dS) 21.hf6 xc2 22.E:xc2 gxf6 23.E:xcB
16.ttJe4, with an edge. Instead, Giri E:xcB= ) 13 . . . axbS 14.dxcS hcS
Menezes, Vienna 2011, saw 14.i.gS 1S.E:xaB xaB 16.ttJxbS E:cB. We
E:feB? ! 1S.ttJxd7 ttJxd7 16.he7 E:xe7 see the same scenario as in the pre
17.b4. Black could have tried 14 . . . vious line.
ttJxeS ! ? with drawing chances i n the It seems that this method of
endgame arising after 1S.dxeS ttJg4 equalising against d4 works well if
16.he7 xf2 + 17.h1 cS 1B.ttJe4 Black has not lost a tempo on . . . E:cB.
xg2+ 19. xg2 ttJe3+ 20.f2
ttJxc2 2 1 .ttJxcS ttJxa1 2 2 .ttJxb7 E:feB 11 0 - 0 12.e4
23.ttJd6 ttJb3 24.ttJxcB E:xcB 2S.E:d6
bxa4 26.E:xa6 h6 27.E:xa4;!;.
11.d3 !
162
1.lt:lf3 dS 2 . c4 e6 3.g3
163
Part 7
13 . b6
164
l.ttJf3 dS 2.c4 e6 3.g3
12.ttJdl ! ?
The very interesting game
Svidler-Kramnik, Moscow 25.11.
2 011, saw 12 .ttJb1 ttJcS 13.Wfc2 eS ! ?
(or 1 3 . . . .idS 14.ttJbd2 b3 1S.Wfc3 gbB
16.ttJc4) 14 . .ie3 (14.ttJxeS? loses a
piece to 14 . . . i.xg2 1S.'it>xg2 WfdS+
16.ttJf3 ttJb3) 14 . . . e4 1S.hcS hcS
16.dxe4 l/Jxe4
16S
Part 7
9 . . . b6 1 0 . 0-0 .ib7
9. 0 - 0 !
166
l.ttJf3 dS 2 .c4 e6 3.g3
hg2 12.'i!.>xg2
167
Pa rt 7
Complete Games
1 4. Radjabov-Neg i
Kha nty- M a nsiysk 3 1 .08.201 1 This is an instructive positional
mistake. Black can accept this pawn
This game is a fine example of structure only if he had a concrete
how to exploit the weakness of the variation in mind. It is possible
c4-square in the typical pawn struc that Black will have to play it later,
ture with a backward black pawn on but only after White had put in a4.
c5. Even then, the concession of the
c4-square should be a major flaw of
1 . f3 f6 2 . c4 e6 3.g3 d5 Black's position, but at least White
4 . .ig2 dxc4 5.a4+ c6 6.xc4 b5 would not be able to open the a-file.
7 .c2 .ib7 8.0-0 bd7 9.c3 .ie7 1O . . . a6 also seems inaccurate
in view of 1l.d4 c5 12 .d5 exd5
13.xd5 xd5 14.exd5 0-0 15.d6
.if6 16.lDg5;!;. Perhaps Black should
have castled. Then 1l.d4 would
be no longer scary due to 1l . . . b4
12.lDa4 c5.
1 1 . a4 c5 1 2 .d3
1 0 .e4
168
l.tLlf3 d5 2 .c4 e6 3.g3
169
Part 7
want to alter it. This often slips a still owns the initiative, though,
great deal of the advantage. His mi thanks to his active rook. There
nor pieces are already perfect. He fore, Negi should aim to trade it
only needs to invade the opponent's and 33 . . . l"!a8 34.l"!ca1 ltJd4 served
camp with a heavy piece. Stayed his well this goal. However, he misses
pawn on a4, his edge would have his chance and his position deterio
been only little and he should have rates again.
sought to open a second front in the
centre or on the kingside. In the ac
tual position, however, he had the
obvious 26.axb4 axb4 27.l"!a6 l"!a8
28 .\I9a2, accelerating the pace of
the game.
26 . . . g 6 27 . e 1 fS 2S.e3
YlYdS 29.d5 e6 30.axb4 axb4
3 1 .l"!a7 i.d6 32.e2 f5 33.ee3
33 . . . d41! 34Jea 1 f41 35.e4
Things have changed. Black al f6 36J 1 a6 ge6 37.gxe6 xe6
ready have a gorgeous knight which 3S.ga6 geS 39.xf6+ YlYxf6 40 .J.xf4
counterbalances the d5-one. White YlYe6 41 . .ie3 .ifS 42 . a 5 1 -0
170
Pa rt S
171
Pa rt S
Main Ideas
I.IOf3 d5 2.c4 e6 3.g3 1Of6 4 . .ig2 l.1Of3 IOf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 b6 4.ig2
.ie7 5. 0 - 0 0 - 0 6.b3 ib7 5.0-0 .ie7 6.b3 0-0 7.ib2 c5
8 .e3 d5 9.lOc3 ;
l.lDf3 c 5 2.c4 lDf6 3.g3 b6 4 . .ig2
.ib7 5. 0-0 e6 6.b3 ie7 7.ib2 0-0
8.e3 d5 9.lDc3 .
You see that this set-up could b e
used t o avoid the Hedgehog and the
main lines of the Queen's Indian.
172
l.lLlf3 dS 2.c4 e6 3.g3 lLlf6 4.i.g2 i.e7 S. O-O 0-0 6.b3
White should not rely on the fact I believe that only this plan
that he has one or two extra tempos leaves White in the battle for the
compared to the Modern Benoni. opening advantage. See game 15
He has less space in the centre. If Sherbakov-Grigoriants, Mos
Black consolidates and carries on cow 1999 for more details.
. , .e6-eS, the i.b2 may turn into a It is also a good idea to trade a
really ugly piece. Look at the game pair of knights. This is especial
Obukhov-Kolomensky, Orsk 2 0 0 0 : ly true when . . . eS looms as after
10 . . .!!e8 1l.a3 ? ! a s 12 .d3 i.cS 1O .. .f6. Then best is 1l.lLleS! lLlxeS
13.lLleS lLlxeS 14.!!xeS 'lWd6 ! 1S.'lWe1 12.EixeS f6 13.Eie1 eS
i.d7 16.Eie2 eS 17.lLld2 i.fS 18.lLle4
lLlxe4 19.he4 he4 20.Eixe4 fS
21.Eie2 b6
opening moves t o get into a murky 9.c3 dxc4 10 .bxc4 i.b7 n:ee2
cramped position. And he has not
committed any apparent mistake !
The moral of this example is that
White should get rid of his restric
ted bishop at the first opportunity:
10 . . . Eie8 1l.d3 i.cS 12 .i.a3 !
173
Part 8
174
l.tDf3 d5 2 .c4 e6 3.g3 tDf6 4.i.g2 i.e7 5.0-0 0-0 6.b3
Note that engine's evalua 15" .J.a8 16.tDel and only now
tions may be misleading! 16". tDa7
175
Part S
Attacking G u ide
176
l.lLlf3 d5 2.c4 e6 3 .g3 lLlf6 4 . .ig2 i.e7 5.0-0 0-0 6.b3
Analysis
Sherbakov-Log inov
St. Petersburg 1 998
Kharlov-Kosyrev
20.g5 ! ! hg5 2 U '!xf8+ Wxf8 Samara 2000
2 2.lLle4 i.h6 23.a5 (or 23J'!f1+
c;t>g8 24.g4+- We7 25.lLlf6+ lLlxf6
2 6 .E1xf6 g6 27.E1xe6) 23 . . . bxa5
24.lLlxc5 1-0.
M a rkus-Peru novic
Su botica 2008
177
Part 8
A.Sokolov-Thesing
Berl i n 1 993
178
l.lLlf3 dS 2 .c4 e6 3.g3 lLlf6 4 . .ig2 e7 S.O-O 0-0 6.b3
Black opts for this variation 1S . . . . %1ffS (1S . . . %1fgS 16.h4 %1fh6
mainly in order to kill all the action 17.l'!cl) 16.e4 %1fgS 17.h4 %1fh6
(and trade as many pieces as pos 18 .c1 gS 19.hxgS %1fg7 2 0 .eS ! h8 !
sible), and dry up the position prac 2 1.if4 .ia3 2 2 .b4 ! ixb4
tically by force. It is a tough nut to
crack, indeed. We should be glad to This was Rath-G.Flear, Esbjerg
obtain even the slightest edge in the 1982. Marin points out here to
endgame after: 23.l'!c1 .icS 24.l'!c3, intending l'!d3,
and White is on top.
12 ... lLlM 13.lLlh4 %1fd7 14.dxcS
%1fxd1 1SJUxd1 ixg2 b) 8 tLlbd7 9.tLlc3 (9.%1fe2 as ! ?
179
Part 8
Points to remember:
180
Pa rt 8
Step by Step
181
Part B
A. 6 c5 7 .i.b2 c6
a) 1O ... lLleB, aImIng for . . .f6,
... eS, or b) 10 ... e8 followed up by a
If Black wants to play the re bishop's retreat to cS or f8 .
versed Modern Benoni, he com
A minor alternative is 1O . . . d3.
monly prefers to do it on the next
This move only opens the diagonal
move. There is no objective reason
to White's worst piece and invites
for this because after 7 . . . d4, White
1l.lLlc3 . Then the only consistent
has not anything better than B.e3
continuation is Tal's choice 1l . . . lLld7
c6. In practice, he also tries B.b4,
[or 1l . . . lLlb4 12 .c1 e8 (12 . . . lLlc2
but then B . . . aS should equalise.
13.f1) 13.lLleS lLld7 14.lLlxd7 xd7
1S.hS;!;] 12 .a3 as when 13.lLlbS lLlcS
8.e3 b6
14.lLleS gave White the more active
pieces in Andersson-Langeweg, Am
B . . . dxc4 9.bxc4 d3 does not
sterdam 1973 .
make much sense because trading
queens does not solve Black's prob
a) 1 O lLleB
lems with development: 1O .b3
. .
1B2
1.tt'lf3 dS 2.c4 e6 3.g3 tt'lf6 4 . .tg2 fie7 5.0-0 0-0 6 .b3
White's bishop on b2 is un
employed. The imminent break
through f2-f4 will increase its im
pact on the centre, but not enough
for a serious advantage. Play may
continue 16 . . . lDe6 17 . .tdS hB 1B.f4
lDcS 19.lDe4, with mutual chances.
1l . . . lDxeS 12.gxeS f6 13.ge1 eS
13 . . . lDc7 ! ? is a way to avoid the
sharp variation with f2-f4. White This crazy endgame occurred
should probably transpose to the in Kosten-Luther, Austria 2009.
main line with 14.i.a3. Wahls The only thing I can say is that it is
Chandler, Germany 2 0 0 2 , saw a totally unclear to me. Only a very
similar plan : 14.d3 gbB 1S.i.a3 deep computer analysis can shed
i.xa3 16.lDxa3 eS 17.vtId2 vtId6 some light on it, but I prefer to play
1B.lDc2 hB 19.b4 b6 20.f4;!;. chess and not to spend my time on
memorising long variation, where
even a considerably weaker oppo
nent might beat me thanks to a bet
ter computer assistance. This game
went further 22 . . . gdB 23.ge7 lDe6
24.lDc3 gB 2S.lDdS fB 26 . .ihS
(26.gxe6 i.xe6 27.lDc7 .ifS 2B.lDxaB
gxaB 29.i.xb7 gdB 30.i.dS)
26 . . . lDgS 27.gae1 i.d7 2B .d4 .teB?
(2B . . . gacB ! ) 29.,ixeB gxeB 30.gxb7
14.i.a3 !
gxe1 31.xe1 lDf3+ 3 2 . f2 lDxd4
I recommend this exchange 33.e3 lDfS+ 34.f4 lDd6 3S.gd7
in most branches of the reversed lDeB 36.cS gcB 37.b4 as 3B.a3 axb4
Modern Benoni. In my opinion, it is 39.axb4 hS 40.fS gaB 41.g6 1-0.
principally wrong to play with bad
pieces in one's camp. Tarrasch's 14 ... i.xa3 1S.lDxa3 lDc7 16.gc1
formula was : one bad piece equals gbB 17.cS
a bad game. To be fair, White has
also a tactical solution of that prob
lem. It cannot be a main repertoire
si nce Black can easily sidestep it
with 13 . . . lDc7, but at least it is fun :
14.f4 exf4 1S.vtIf3 fxg3 16.vtIdS+
hB 17.hxg3 vtIxdS 1B.i.xdS i.d6
19 . bd4 lDc7 2 0.i.f3 i.xg3 2 1.i.f2
.
1xf2 + 2 2 . 'it>xf2 .
1B3
Part S
13 . . . bxcS 14.tLle1 !
lS4
l.lLlf3 dS 2.c4 e6 3.g3 lLlf6 4.i.g2 i.e7 S.O-O 0-0 6.b3
18S
Part 8
186
l.ltJf3 dS 2.c4 e6 3.g3 ltJf6 4 . .ig2 ie7 s.o-o 0-0 6.b3
18.b4
1B7
Part 8
188
l.ltJf3 ds 2.c4 e6 3.g3 ltJf6 4 . .ig2 !i.e7 5.0-0 0-0 6.b3
pawn majority in the centre gives Loginov, St. Petersburg 1998, which
White a free hand on the kingside. followed the plan with a slower, but
better prepared attack:
In this set-up, the black queen
Is . . . .ixg2 16.ltJxg2 Wld7 17.g4
has no business on c7. After 12 .ltJel,
ltJe8 18.fs
best is probably 12 ... 'I1;Yd7 13.f4 E:fd8.
18 . . . !f6
Here 14.d3 and 14J!adl are
probably of equal worth. White's 18 . . . ltJd6 allows the bold sac-
chances are preferable. His plan is rifice 19.f6 ! ! [White has another
to push g4, fs. Be sure to look at the good continuation: 19.1tJf4 bs (19 . . .
detailed commentaries of game ltJc6 20.ltJhs g 6 2 1.ltJg3t) 20.axbs
16 Markus-Perunovic, Subotica axbs 21.cxbs ltJaxbs 2 Vt:lxbs ltJxbS
2008. 23.f6.] 19 . . . gxf6 (19 . . . .ixf6 20.E:xf6 !
gxf6 21.ttJf4 E:fd8 2 2 .ttJhs ttJe8
My main line 12.E:adl ! ? presents 23.ttJe4) 2 0 .ttJf4 bs 21.axbs axbs
a clever move order which discour 2 2 .d3 b4 23.ttJe4 ttJxe4 24.dxe4
ages 12 . . . Wld7 due to 13.d4 cxd4 Wlb7 2s.ttJhs es 26.gs+-.
14.exd4 i.b4 ls.ds ltJaS 16.ltJes;t. At
the same time, it leaves the other 19.fxe6 fxe6 20.gs ! ! .ixgs
rook on the kingside. That could be 21.E:xf8+ c.t>xf8 2 2 .ttJe4 6 23.as
crucial for the success of the immi (or 23.E:f1+ c.t>g8 24.Wlg4+- Wle7
nent march forward of the f-pawn 2s.ttJf6+ ttJxf6 2 6 .E:xf6 g6 27.E:xe6)
after ltJel as I have shown in line b. 23 . . .bxas 24.ttJxc5 and Black re
signed.
12 ltJa5
b) 13 . . . E:fd8 14.f4 a6 Is.fs (15.
189
Part 8
12.gfdl!
190
l.lLlf3 dS 2.c4 e6 3.g3 lLlf6 4 . .ig2 .ie7 S . O-O 0-0 6.b3
191
Part 8
IS.g4!
192
l.ltJf3 d5 2.c4 e6 3.g3 ltJf6 4.i.g2 i.e7 5.0-0 0-0 6.b3
12.gfdl a6
A flexible move. It effectively
takes the sting out of the plan with Play has transposed to line B 2 .
d2-d4 because 12.gac1 a6 13.d4
could be answered with 13 . . . ltJaS. A24. 1l ti'd7
a) 12.ltJbS looks like a loss of
This would be the ideal place
tempo since after 12 . . .'!WcS 13.gfd1
for the queen - it controls e6 and
a6 14.ltJc3 ltJaS the queen is not
f5 thus discouraging White's plan
worse on cS than on c7:
with f2-f4-fS. Moreover, it puts
lS.gab1 gbS 16 . .ia1 i.c6 17.e4 pressure on the d-file and supports
'!Wc7 the breakthrough . . . b6-bS. How
ever, all this is in conditional mood
since tactics works in White's fa
vour. Black stumbles into difficul
ties after:
193
Part B
(16 . . . exdS 17.lLJxdS lLJxdS 1B.cxdS) .icS 29.lLJa6 .id4 30.ga2 gfB 31.'i!fg2
17 . .ih3 .icS, when 1B.lLJbS ! a6 (lB . . . gf7 32 .gd6.
bB 19.1LJxf7) 19.1LJd4 ! (Marin)
would have given him an edge.
After the text, things are far from
clear:
194
l.lLlf3 dS 2.c4 e6 3.g3 lLlf6 4 . .ig2 .ie7 S.O-O 0-0 6.b3
10 .e2 d7 11.d4!
19S
Part S
196
l.lLlf3 d5 2 .c4 e6 3.g3 lLlf6 4 . .ig2 .ie7 5.0-0 0-0 6.b3
12 .hc3
197
Part 8
White is menacing .ib4. All his Or 11 ... .if6 12.cxd5 exd5 13.d4
pieces are active. e7 14.ac1 fd8 15.dxc5 ltJdxc5
16.c!ild4;!;.
12 .hc3 .if6 13.cxd5 hd5 14.d4
B2. 9 c5 9.c!ilc3 c!ilbd7 cxd4 15.ltJxd4 hg2 16.<;t>xg2 c8
17.acI.
9 . . . ltJc6 10.cxd5 is considered in
line AI.
1 0 .ti'e2 k8
Alternatives are :
a) 10 . . . ti'c7 1U!ac1 c8 (11 . . .
ad8 12.fd1) transposes t o the
main line. Perhaps White does
not even need ac1 and should try
White is slightly better and
11.ltJh4 immediately.
went on to win in Dizdar-Naum
kin, Voskresensk 1990. Black's
b) 1O . . . ltJe4 11.fd1 !
queenside pawns and the c6-square
11.cxd5 ltJxc3 12 .hc3 hd5 are sensitive.
13.e4 .ib7 14.fd1 ti'c7 15.ac1 ad8
16.d4 b8 17.d5 exd5 18.exd5 .if6 lUac1
19.1tJh4 is an important line.
11 .ltJh4 at once also deserves
consideration.
1l ti'c7
198
l.lLlf3 d5 2.c4 e6 3 .g3 lLlf6 4 . .ig2 .ie7 5.0-0 0-0 6.b3
12 . . . dxc4
If Black waits too long with this White has obtained a good ver
exchange, we could anticipate it sion of the pawn structure which I
by taking on d5 and c5. My game have considered in line A. The rook
Delchev-Cornilius, Benasque 2011, is useless on c8, but that is balanced
reached this position: by the equally misplaced c1-rook.
The d7-knight should loose time to
reach its best square c6. In Mala
khov-Potkin, Moscow 2010, Black
tried to save such a redeployment
with:
14 .'llY c6
.
199
Part 8
Pa rt S
Complete Games
200
l.ttlf3 d5 2.c4 e6 3 .g3 ttlf6 4.i.g2 i.e7 5.0-0 0-0 6 .b3
201
Part S
1 2 . e 1 ! ? (12J%adl ! ?) 12 . . .Wd7
1 3.f4 gfdS 1 4.d3
202
1.lt:lf3 d5 2.c4 e6 3 .g3 lt:lf6 4 . .ig2 i.e7 5.0-0 0-0 6.b3
2 03
Part S
20 . . . exf5
2 04
l.lLlf3 d5 2.c4 e6 3.g3 lLlf6 4.i.g2 !le7 5.0-0 0-0 6.b3
1 2. . .a5 1 3.e1
2S.Bf2 ? 1
205
Part 8
206
l.ltJf3 d5 2 .c4 e6 3 .g3 ltJf6 4.i.g2 i.e7 5.0-0 0-0 6.b3
allows ltJd2 instead of the common 25 . . . lLl bS? 2S.lLle4 lLl d 7 27Jg 1
ltJel. fS 2S.h5 gaS
2 07
Part 8
208
1.1Of3 d5 2.c4 e6 3.g3 1Of6 4.i.g2 i.e7 5.0-0 0-0 6.b3
and Tiviakov gets just enough coun 12 . . .l''! ad8 13.f4 lOb4 is also pos
terplay to maintain the balance : sible, but White has some initiative
after 14.Eif2 ! ? (14 . .ixb7 xb7 15.a3
lOc6 16.g4 lOe8 ! 17Jb1 1Od6 18 .i.a1
f5 turns the tables in Black's fa
vour.) 14 . . . .ixg2 15J'!xg2
1 3.f4 a 7 1 4.a4
209
Part 8
1 5 . . . 'llY c 6? !
210
Index of Variations
Part 1. Anti-QGA
Vlf3 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e3
3 . . . cS (3 . . . bS 14; 3 . . . lt'lc6 14; 3 . . . g4 15; 3 . . . e6 15) 4 . .hc4 It'lf6 5.0-0 e6
6.e2 a6 7J''l d l! 19
6 ... lt'lc6 7.!'idl e7 (7 ... a6 8 .d4 19) 8.lt'lc3 0-0 9.d4 cxd4 (9 . . :c7 17)
10 .exd4 17
1O.lt'lxd4 18
Part 4. Anti-meran I
1.lt'lf3 d5 2.c4 c6 3.e3 It'lf6 4.lt'lc3 e6
S.b3 (S .c2 87) It'lbd7 (S . . . d6 88; S . . . b6 89) 6.c2 e7 9 0
6 . . . b6 91
211
Part 5. Anti-meran II
1.c!ilf3 d5 2 .c4 c6 3.e3 c!ilf6 4.c!ilc3 e6 5.b3 c!ilbd7 6.YlYc2 i.d6 7 .ib2
6 . . . cS 7.i.b2 ttlc6 8.e3 b6 9.ttlc3 i.b7 10.cxdS ttlxdS 1l.ttlxdS xdS 12 .d4
gad8 185; 12 . . . ttlaS 186; 12 . . . ttlh4 186
9 . . . dxc4 10 .bxc4 i.b7 11.e2 gc8 187;
1l . . . a6 1 9 0 ; 1l . . . c7 193; 1l . . . d7 193; l1.. .ttlh4 194
9 . . . i.a6 195
6 . . . b6 7.i.b2 i.b7 B.e3 ttlbd7 9.ttlc3 (9.e2 as 196) 9 . . . ttle4 197
9 . . . cS 199
212
Part 6
142
4.lt'lc3 e6 S.b3 lt'lbd7 6.VBc2 J.d6 7.J.b2 0-0 S . .te2 ! ?
I already had this position last text is sharper, but the ensuing
year in the same team tournament complications favour White.
against Mchedlishvili, but this game
was not published in any database 1 8 .f41 .id6 1 9 Jtcd 1 1
so my opponent did not know it. The
idea of the queen move is to leave
the open c-file with tempo. Howev
er, the queen would probably stand
better on d3. For instance :
16.E!:ac1 ! E!:cS 17.E!:fd1 VBaS where
Black is playing for two results only.
The game J ovanic-Sedlak, Varazdin
20 04, went lS.VBd2 E!:fdS 19.1t'le2
xd2 20.E!:xd2 E!:xc1 + 2 1.hcU.
l S .VBd3 was stronger. 19.E!:fd1 is dubious due to 19 . . .
'\1;lfb6 ! 2 0 .lt'lxdS It'lxdS 21.E!:xdS
VBxe3+ 2 2 .'it>h1 '\1;lfxf4.
19.1t'la4 It'le4 2 0 .id4 looks at
tractive as the dS-pawn is weak.
Then mundane continuations as
20 . . .ifS are in White's favour:
21.E!:fd1 bS 2 2 .lt'lc3 g6 23.lt'lxe4 ! (23.
'\1;lfxdS E!:adS 24.lt'lxe4 E!:xdS 2S.lt'lf6+
'it>hS 26.lt'lxeS+ E!:xd4 27.exd4 ih6
2S.E!:cS hf4) 23 . . . gxfS 24.lt'lf6+
Now lS . . . hc3 19 .hc3 VBxa2 'it>hS 2S.lt'lxeS+ f6 26.lt'lc7 E!:bS
2 0.hf6 is clearly out of question, 27.E!:c2 . Most black pawns are weak.
so Black should probably concede However, the paradoxical 20 . . .
a small edge after lS . . . E!:fdS 19.a3 E!:adS ! maintains the balance. The
l'k6 2 0 .b4 VBc7 2 1.bS E!:c4 2 2 .bxa6 fine point of this move is seen in
bxa6 23.lt'le4 E!:xc1 24.lt'lxf6+ hf6 the variation 2 1.!b6 '\1;lfd2 2 2 .E!:d1
2 5. E!:xc1 VBb6 26.hf6 VBxf6 27.VBc3 '\1;lfe2 23.E!:de1 '\1;lfd2 24.hdS E!:xdS
Wd6 2S.a4 h6 29.aS;!;. It is not a fun and suddenly White has not a good
to defend this ending. defence against . . . bS.
143