offbeat !

lesser known tries to counter

this most popular of defences
First published in 2004 by Glouccstcr Publishcrs pie (form crly Kveryman Publishcrs
pie), Northburgh House, 10 Northburgh Street, Ixmdon E C 1 V OAT

Copyright © 2004 K rzysztof Panczyk and Jacek Ilczuk

T he right o f K rzysztof Panc/.yk and Jacck Ilczuk to be identified as thc authors o f

this work has been asserted in accordance with thc Copyrights, Designs and Patcnts
A ct 1988.

All rights reserved. N o part o f this publicadon may be rcproduccd, stored in a rctricval
system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnctic
tape, photocopying, recording or othcrwise, without prior permission o f thc publishcr.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication D ata

A catalogue record for this book is available from thc British Library.

IS B N 1 85744 361 6

D istributed in N orth Am erica by The G lobe Pequot Press, P .O Box 480,

246 G oosc Lañe, G u ilfo rd , C T 06437-0480.

A ll other sales enquiries should be directed to liverym an Chess, Northburgh 1louse,

10 Northburgh Street, London R C 1 V O A'f
tel: 020 7253 7887 fax: 020 7490 3708
em ail: info@ evcrym anchess.com
website: \v\w.even'mJ
anchcss.com

Iw erym an is thc registered trade mark o f Random House Inc. and is used in this
work under license from Random House Inc.

E v e r y m a n C h e s s S e r i e s (form crly Cadogan Chess)

C h ief advisor: G arry Kasparov
Com m issioning editor: By ron Jacobs

'Iyp esct and edited by First Rank Publishing, Brighton.

('o v e r design by M orado M ontcverde.
Production by N avigator Guides.
Printed and bound in thc U S by Versa Press.
1 d4 Í^f6 2 c4 g6 3 *hc3 & g 7 4 e4 d6

1 5 $ige2 7
2 5 Ad3
3 M akogonov System : 5 h3 70
4 A verb akli System w ithout ...c7-c5: 5 JLe 2 ()-() 6 ÍLg 5 103
5 A verbakh System w ith ...c7-c5: 5 0-0 6 ÍLg 5 146

Index o f Com plete G am cs 175

 BIBUOGRAPHy |

Books
lincydopaedia ofChess Openings vohmie B , 3rd Kdition (Sahovski Informator 1998)
S^üchy odA do X, W . Litmanowicx, J. (íi/ycki (Warsaw 1987)
.Stamindiyskaya ^asbcbita, K. G cllcr (Moscow 1980)
Staroiudiyskaya dlinoyn v %bi'%i, K. Gufcld (Moscow 1980)

Periodicals, Magazines and W ebsites

Chess InfomuUors
New in Chess Yearbooks
64 Sbakh/mitnoye Obospenye
Pn&g/ad S^acbony
MegaBase 2002
ChessBí/se Magatqtics
I he IVeek in Chess
Ajedre% de listiío
 INTROVUCTION \
The move l...£w *6 after 1 c!4 was mentioned
by K . Jaenisch in his A New A na/ysis as far
back as 1842/43. In 1848 a Germán chess
magazine, Deutsche Schach^eitun^ publishcd a
game startingwith 1 d4 and in 1875 pub­
lishcd a game beginning in this way which liad
been played by two Bralitnins (Sauncheri-
Moonshander). Menee the ñame o f the de-
fence, which was invented by Saviely Tarta-
kower in the 1920s.
In 1880 in an International tournament in
Wiesbaden the game A.Schwarz-L. Paulsen
went 1 d4 ¿hfd) 2 c4 g6 3 Í^c3 iÜLg7 4 g3 d6 5
A g2 0-0 6 ^ f3 & lx !7 7 0-0 e5 (pubüshcd by
I Deutsche.Schach^eitnng in 1881)
This is the fírst rime that this posilion, now
a common sight at all levcls, was seen.
The King’s Indian was used first by one o f
the best players o f this era in Leipzig in 1879
when the Germán player and theoretician
Ij Ouís Paulsen faced A d olf Schwarz in a
match. Towards the end o f the nincteenth
century Mikhail Chigorin ¡oined Paulsen in
employing the defence and, as the years
passed in ihe twenticth century, a number o f
the so-called hypcnruxlern school continued
the trend, w itli Tartakowcr, Nimxowitsch,
Réti, Grünfeld and Euw e among the recruits.
An important turning point in the devel-
opment and assessment o f new ideas, as well
as ilie crcation o f new systcms, carne with
analysis and tournament practicc o f the out-
standing Soviets grandmasters Boleslavsky,
Konstaniinopolsky, Bronstein, Geller, Yudo-
vich and otliers, all achieving veiy gocxl results
as Black. 'Ilie n Fischer made a further contri-
bution, playing the defence dynamically (for
example in his candidates matches against Tai-
nianov and Larsen in 1971) and earning vicio-
rics againsi a number o f the world's top play­
ers.
Toward the end o f the twentieth centur)'
the King’s Indian enjoyed more p<^pularity
llianks to Garry Kasparov’s use o f the defence
against Kaq>ov, although Kasparov was later
lo unexpectedly pul one o f his main weapons
on hold, perliaps influenced by his two defeats
to Kram nik (Novgortxl 1997 and ihe Moscow
blitz in 1998, both in the Classical System with
9 b4!). N ot surprisingly this led to the King's
Indian losing some o f its followers.
Opening trends in the míxlem game can be
influenced as much by fashion as hard evi-
dence, and the King’s Indian continúes to Ix: a
faiihful friend to a liost o f toda/s successful
players, among them Radjalx>v, Bologan and
Ye Jiangchuan, while Svidler, J.Polgar, Sliirov
and Movsesian (and - occasionally - Topalov
and Ivanchuk) are strong players for whom
the King's Indian fonns part o f their reper-
5
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
toirc, albcit not exclusively so.
Thcrc are two schools of playing chess,
each with fundamcntally different approaches
to the struggle. The first, ‘classicaP philosophy
assumcs diat Black should play rather carc-
fully, opting for defcnsive systcms that are
geared more towards cstablishing a inore or
less level foodng as the middlegame pilase
begins. 'Iliis involves minimal strategic risk
and revolves around staking some kind of
claim for a presence in the centre. The other,
modern attitude sees a delibérate ‘ncglccting’
o f thc centre, allowing White to set up camp
there provided that this sector can then Ix:
attacked. This kind o f thinking dearly brings
with it an element of risk and, not surprisingly,
tends not to lead to ‘level* positions — any
ecjuality would Ix* dcscrilxxl as dynamic rather
than static. These two trends predomínate
peritxlically, one after the other, and, for the
moment, classical chess is prevailing. We hopc
- it is high time - that the situation changcs.
'Ilie King’s Indian definitely belongs to the
nicxlern, more combative theory of playing
the game, White usually having some extra
space but his centre Ixing susceptible to at-
tack. Consequently many players - particularly
those with a more aggressive outlook - use
the King’s Indian regularly. Typical counter-
play after closing the centre, for example, of-
ten comes in the form o f thc no-nonsense
...f7-f5. Moreover the defence is also attractive
in that it is apparently simple to play —game
after game Black often employs the same se­
ries of moves such as ...íhfó, ...g7-g6, ....&g7,
...d7-d6, ...0-0 and ...e7-e5, after which a num­
ber o f plans, each with its own logic, is avail-
able. Ufe, o f course, is not that easy. White
has a choice of concrete set-ups that dcniand
accurate treatment from Black. It seems that
the main problem for Black is the Classical
System, cspecially the variation with 9 l>4
(Kramnik’s choice against Kasparov), al-
though this d(x*s not mean that the Classical
sccurcs White a guaranteed advantage. In fact
other types of position have become arcas of
6
discussion.
In the real world not cvcry player is ready
to dclvc into such systcms as the Classical or
Samisch, where it is quite normal for the real
battle to begin only around the twenticth
move (or later...). And herein lies the idea of
this lx>ok. W e are going to present a collection
o f seldom used systcms for White which can
surprise the opposition and which, impor-
tantly, can contain much venom. These are: 5
$^ge2, 5 &d3, S h3 (Makogonov System) and
5 $Lc2 followed by 6 Ag5 (Averbakh System).
Obviously the Averbakh is the most extensive
theme and will therefore Ix* afforded appro-
priate attention.
As for the playing strength of the reader,
the b<K)k is designed not only for club players
who do not have enough time to propcrly
prepare the ‘main’ lines, for more advanced
players can also benefit from the set-ups 011
offer, cspecially in view of the transpositional
possibilities. A g<xxl knowledge o f these sys­
tcms allows for a useful level of flexibility,
depending on circumstances.
'ITie nature o f the chess book means that
the vast amount of material from which to
make sclccdons has to Ix* considcrably con-
densed (we think that it is worth 2-3 books),
so it is not possible to provide a magical \vin-
ning’ recipe for every given move or situation.
Rather we have tried to demónstrate how to
treat this or that scenario, as well as what to
avoid. 'Iliis is not a compendium of knowl­
edge about all the systcms but a guide to the
ideas which may occur, a manual that explains
strategic principies and cases the journey
around tactical themes.
Note that we do not discuss transposidons
to thc Classical System (or other variadons
with £ iB ), the Samisch System, lines with g2-
g3 and the Modem Benoni unless specific
situadons are untypical or clearly advantageous
for eitlier side.
We encourage all players - cspecially thosc
who like non-standard play - to incorpórate
these systcms in their opening repertoire.
 CHAPTER ONE |
5 4£sge2
1 d4 '-if6 2 c4 96 3 C'lc3 ¿ g 7 4 e4 d 6 5
í^ge 2
'fhis move has lx‘cn playcd sincc as carly as
thc beginning o f thc 20 th ccntury, whcn I la-
kansson-Sjobcrg, Gothenburg 1919 and
Samisch-Schocnman, Berlín 1920 saw 5 #igc2.
I lowevcr, for a long time this developinent o f
the knight liad littlc independent significancc,
lx*ing used only as an introducrion to other
systcms, mainly thc Samisch or thosc systcms
involving a kingside fianchctto. ( )nly in the
1950s did a new idea conncctcd with the
transfer o f the knight to g3 appcar (Stciner-
Pcdcrsen, 1950 Dubrovnik Olympiad). Subsc-
cjucntly the variadon was analysed and popu-
lariscd by I fungarían players at thc beginning
o f the 1960s.
Nowadays it is not unusual for White to
throw in an carly h2-li4 in order to genérate a
kingside offensive. O f coursc thc knight’s
journey from gl to g3 takes time, and the new
post might even appcar a littlc unnatural.
Moreover, W hite also has to deal with the
sometimes annoying ...h7-h5-h4.
Apart from the I lungarian veterans I;orin-
tos and Kapos/tas tcxlay’s most notable fol-
lowers o f 5 £}ge2 are Scrpcr, Novikov and Ja-
kab, whilc wcll-known CiMs who occasionally
inelude the variation in their armoury are
I lort, I.Sokolov, Korchnoi and M.Gurevich.
Game 1
Serper-Dzindzichashvili
C m New York 1996
1 c4 g6 2 d4 & g7 3 e4 d6 4 <hc3 <hf6 5
í^ge2 c5
'filis tlirust is more usual after ...0-0 Ix:-
cause now Black must be prepared for a
cjucenless middlcgamc in which his king will
be deprived o f castling rights.
6 dxc5
6 d5 b5 lcads to non-standard positions o f
thc Bcnko Gam bit - 7 cxb5 and now:
a) 7...0-0 8 Í^g3 aó 9 .&c2 (9 a4 axb5 10
J&.xb5 jka6 11 0-0 was an edge for W hite in
Gralx>wski-Doda, Jachranka 1987) 9...axb5 10
& x b 5 <SV-8 (10...^a6 11 0-0 £ki7 12 H b l
ÍV 7 13 # V 3 slighdy favoured W hite in Ador-
jan-D(xla, Polanica Zdroj 1970 but was agreed
drawn) 11 0-0 £k:7 1 2 & c3 .& a6 13&g5<5\17
14 W d2 H c8 15 H ab í W b8 16 E f c l and
W hite retained a pulí in Kíüdanov-Gufeld, I-is
Vegas 2001.
b) 7...a6 8 ftg 3 h5 9 h4 (9 & e 2 h4 10 £>fl
was sccn in Poluljahov-Strclnikov, KrasiKxlar
2(K) 1, and now Christiansen’s 10...h3 is un-
clcar) 9 ...& lxl7 10 a4 0-0 11 & f4 (11 Ha3
Í^g4 12 ÍLc2 axb5 13 í^xl>5, or 11 W c2 or 11
ÍLc2 and in all variations Black must prove
7
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
that he has compensaron For the pawn)
1 L .W a S 12 Ba3 ^ 4 13 ÍLc2 Wh4 14 S i >3
Wd4 15 J&xg4 hxg4, Xueger-Christianscn,
Lúceme 1989. N ow 16 b6 woulcl have been
excellent for White.
6...dxc5 7 Wxd8+ &xd8 8 e5
A g(xxl altemative is 8 .&c3!?, with the fol-
lowing possibilities:
a) 8...&lxl7 9 B b6 10 0-0-0 #W8 11 g3 e6
12 £ h 3 !? <¿>e7 13 IX h fl $Lbl 14 f4 £>d6 15 f5
í^xc4 16 fxeó 4?\lc5? (16...fxe6 17 .&g5+ 4^f6
18 4 is verv poor for Black) was the course
o f Bcckwith-Nakamura, Southampton (U SA )
2003, when 17 Hxf7-H ^ x f7 1 8 H d 7 + & ft 19
Hxf7+ provecí tlecisive.
b) 8...£>fd7 9 0-0-0 1>6 10 h4 & a6 11 b3 h5
12 g3 £ k 6 13 ÍLh3 e6 14 Í4 A lió 15 Bd 3 sfce7
16 Sh ell Sad8 17 a3 and W hite liad an edge
in Lonm nek-Fedorowicz, Philadelphia 1992.
Ilow ever, this edge is rather symbolic as the
extra space and temporary control o f the d-file
are hardly significant. After 17...4hde5 18
Hxd8 Sxd8 19 Sxd8 sfcxc^ Black could have
been cióse to cc|uality.
8...£>fd7
'llie pseudo-active 8...íhg4 9 14 4?\i6 10 h3
& h 6 11 A e3 A d 1 12 0-0-0 & c8 13 & e4 b6
14 g4 A có 15 #>2c3 in D<x:hev-Spassov,
Bankia 1991 lecl to a clear advantage for W hite
due to the two misplaccd knights and W hite’s
considerable extra space.
9 f4 f6
\jct us assess the diagram posidon. Al-
8
tíiough White is unable to maintain his centre
his position nevertheless deserves prefcrence.
The most importan! factor here is that there is
no convenient home for Black’s king; the
point is not that it might come under attack,
rather it hampers development.
10 exf6 ftx f6
N obetteris I 0...exf6 ll .&d2&c6 120-0-0
f5 13 £k!5 with the better prosjxcts for
White.
11 g3 ¿Ld7 12 £ e 3 i¿.c6 13 0-0-0+ £>bd7
14 £g1 <&e8
Black plans to evacúate the king to f7. An-
other option is 14...d?c7, although this is no
better than the text.
15 g4
Another way o f developing an initiadve is
15 Ah3!? h5 (I5...b6 16 £k!5 £>xd5 17 cxd5
&a4 18b3ÍLb5 19 Ege 1 favours White, while
15...6.7 walks into 16 4£kl5) 16 Ugel b6 17
ÍV I5 and White has the upper hand.
15...<&f7?!
15..jffd8, deserves attention, defending the
d7-knight and preparing to meet 16 g5 with
16...ÍV4. After 16 h3 £k:4 17 £ixc4 ¿x c4 18
.&g2 ^.xg2 19 Hxg2 White has a small advan-
tage.
16 g5 £te8
16...6h5 17 Ah3 Hhd8 18 &g4 might Ix- a
lesser evil.
17 Ah3
Black must lose the c5-pawn.
17...£kJ6 18 ÍLxd7 &xd7 19 &xc5 £ac8
20 &xd6 exd6 21 <^e4
The sensible 21 b3 l<x>ks preferable in this
position.
21...5.c4+ 22 £>2c3 fíc7 23 &xd6+ & f8
24 Sd3?!
Again White can improve with the more
precise 24 & b l &xc3 (24...&e6 25 £k!5) 25
bxc3 h6 (25..Jttxc3 26 &xb7 ftc7 27 <?YI6) 26
c4 etc.
24...h6 25 fíg2?!
25 Sf1 hxg5 26 fxg5+ & g 8 27 keeps
White ahead.
25...hxg5 26 fxg5 &h3
 5 Chge2

26...&c5!? Icads to a draw after 27 Hc2 (27
Hf2+ &g7) 27...&f4+ 28 <&bl &xh2 29 H O
flxe2 30 #W*2 SÍ?e7 31 # W 4 <¿>xd6 32 Hd3+
sfee5 33 £ k g 6+ <&Í5 34 & f 8 & c 8 35 Sd5+
S¿>g4 etc.
27 Sf2+ <&g8 28 fíxh3 ilx h 3 29 £>e8
Üc5 30 <hxg7 <&xg7
W hite has no way to make the extra pawn
lell.
31 S f3 $Le6 32 h4 & xa2 33 b4 Hc8 34
sfcd2 & c4 35 S f4 &d8+ 36 <¿>c2 & e6 37
<^b5 a6 38 $M4 ilf7 39 5M3 He8 40 & c3
b6 41 & d4 Bd8+ 42 <&c3 Sc8+ 43 <¿>d3
Vi-Vz
Game 2
Miles-Romanishin
Tilburg 1985
1 d4 £tf6 2 c4 g6 3 <5^3 ilg 7 4 e4 d6 5
<^ge2 c6 6 £^g3
8 A h4 (8 S ic 3 m ee» with 8...#\i»4) 8...b5 9 f3
0-0 (9...bxc4!?) 10 g4 e5 11 & f2 as in Con-
quest-Ilebden, Clichy 2001, when ll...b4!
would have favoured Black. Nolice liere that
7...h6 was rnade |x>ssible by Black’s avoiding
aulornatic castling.
6...<^bd7 7 ¿Le2 h5
'Iliis tlirusi is a kev feature o f Black’s coun-
terplay.
8 J0Lg5 a6
8...h4!? 9 Wa5 is interesting, when *un-
clear’ is a fair assessment.
9 Wd2 b5 10 f3 0-0 11 Hd1 e5 12 dxe5
After 12 ilS l>4 Black intends to trade on d5
with equality (Miles).
12...dxe5 13 0-0 He8 14 a3
l4c5W a5! (Miles).
14...W c7 15 E c 1 ?
Better is 15 b4 16 W d 6 (16 Ad3!?)
16...Wa74 17 JSf2 (17 sfchl # k *6 is an edge for
Black) 17...£k6 18 A x f 6 Axfó 19 cxb5 cxl>5
20 <5VI5 J&g7 with the better prospecis for
Black, while 15 We3 16 ^ lil ÍV -6 17
^V2ÍV14 looks unpleasant for White.
15...£>c5

'Ilie most common treatment o f tliis sys-

lem in iiKKlern practice, although this does
not necessarily mean that the text is the best
move. In fact a transposidon to A g 2 systems
or the Samisch is worth consideradon. Not only ilid W hite lose a tempo after 15
Also possible is 6 .&g5, when Black has a B e l, but now tliere is the threat o f the fork on
plan involving ...a7-a6 and ...b7-b5, which is a b3.
remedy in various systems o f the King’s In- 1 6 »e1
dian. Note that Black often gets queenside 16 cxb5 4?M>3 17 We3 or the immediate 16
mobilisation under way before castling in or- We3 are preferable, but Black already has at
der to save a tempo, particularly if White has least a small advantage.
e4-c5. After 6...a6 play can continué 7 Wd2 lió 16...<^b3 17£d1 ie 6

9
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
Now or on thc ncxt move Black might
considcr 17...Wb6+ 18 Wf2 Wxf2+ 19 Hxf2
& e 6 20 cxl>5 axbS with a definite pulí.
18 cxb5 axb5
Pressure on the c4-pawn has induced an
cxchange on b5 which, from a strategic point
o f view, benefits Black. The point is that the
d5-scjuare is still protected by the c6-pawn,
while the d4-square is in Black’s hands.
19 &d3 Sad 8
I9...ÍV17!? looksgtxxl for Black.
20 Wf2 Sd7 21 &b1 ^ d 4 22 & a2 ¿x a 2
23 foxa2 24 ÍLe3 25 <5ta3?!
The more circumspect 25 í^b4 is called for.
25...£tfe6
Black is gradually increasing his advantage,
and White has nothing with which to counter
his opponent’s tightening grip.
26 ftge2 Sed8 27 <&h1 Wb7 28 Sd2 tflb3
29 Sxd7 Sxd7 30 f4
30 H dt 3xdt+ 31 ^ x d l Wd7 32 <5YIc3
<9\i5 is decisive (Miles).
30...exf4 31 ^xf4 £>xf4 32 £xf4 b4 33
axb4 Wxb4 34 ¿ g 5 £ta5 35 & f6 &xe4 36
Wf4?
36 #W *4 Wxe4 37 $Lxg7 Si?xg7.
36...Wd6 37 Wxd6 foxd6 38 &xg7 <&xg7
39 Sd1 Se7 40 *g 1 foi5 41 Sc1 <¿X6 42
b4 Se5 43 * f2 & e6 44 g3 foó4 45 £d1
fíf5+ 46 &g2 foc2 47 Sb1 foa3 48 &c1
focA 49 foe2 foe3+ 50 &g1 skd5 51
Íhf4+ &d6 52 foe2 Sd5 53 £>c3 &e5 54
<&f2 ^g4+ 55 <&g2 f5 56 h3 fo16 57 sirf3
10
<5te4 58 Bd1 +
58 £ke4+ Sxe4 59 S b l <&c7 60 b5 c5 61
1)6+* b 7 62 B b S c4 63 Bb4 c3 (Miles).
58...<&c7 59 foe2 fíb5 60 Ud4 <ftg5+ 61
&g2 £te6 62 S c4 Sd5 63 h4 <Á>b6 64 Sc3
Sd2 65 si^fl £vc7 66 <±>e1 Sd 6 67 £>f4
st>b5 68 <hd3 <?to6 0-1
Game 5
Poluljahov-Milov
AeroJIot Opc/i, Moscow 2003
1 c4 g6 2 d4 fo16 3 £lc3 &g7 4 e4 d6 5
<^ge2 Í^bd7 6 Í^g3 e5
Kxtrcmely coniplicated positions arise after
6...c5 7 d5 a6 (7...h5 8 h4 £k-5 9 ÍLe2 ÍLg4 10
f3 _$.d7 11 ÍLg5 a6 12 Wd2 ®a5 was unclear
in M.Ivanov-Jirctom, Reykjavik 2002) 8 a4 (8
$1x2 h5 9 h4 4&e5 10 0-0 #Mi7, intending
...ÍLf6 with counterplay, l;lear Makropoulou,
Manila Olympiad 1992) 8...h5 9 .&e2 h4 10
£>fl & h5 11 &g5 Wa5 12 Wc2 (12 Ad2!?),
Barczay-Ortega, Ivast Berlín 1968, and now
12..Xm f6 leaves the situation well balanccd.
7 d 5 h5
With the centre closed Black prepares the
thetnatic offensive on thc kingside. I le can
often cxchange his passive dark-squared
hishop by ...ÍLh 6.
An alternativo is 7...a5, when Nikolaidis-
I laritakis, Korinthos 1998 continued 8 h4 h5
9 Agí5 Íic 5 10 A c 2 A h 6l? 11 Axh 6 Hxh6 12
W d 2 S h 8 13 0-0-0 (13 f3 Ad7 14 <ftfl We7
 5 foge2

was ccjual iti Nikolaidis-Grivas, Acgina 1996) U ..JU Ü (11..A.H6 12 Axh 6 Sxhó 13 £ k !2
13...We7 14 & b t A d 7 15 f3 0 -0 -0 ?! (15...a4!? £tti5 makes more sense) 12 W c2 (12 ÍLg4
is unclcar) 16 ^ f l £}gS 17 b6 18 4he3 looks a shade better for W hite) 12...&Í8 (there
\S?b7 19 JÉLd3 Vz-Vz, although White has an is no other way to unpin, keeping the h4-
allx-it modest lead here. 8 Á c2 h5!? 9 Ag5 pawn) 13 #Mi2 JÍLc7 14 Jic 3 and W hite en-
Ü.I16 10 A x h 6 Hxh 6 11 4hfl! h4! 12 #Y12 was joyed the superior prospeets in Kovacevic-
Se rper-Bologan, Philadclphia 1999, when I lulak, Pula 2000.
12...6.5!? merits attention. l>2) IO...-ÍLI16 again comes into considera-
8& e2 tion. Prevenios-Bergami11i, Ivm ail 2000 led to
8 h4 can Ix: niel with 8...4hh7 when White chances for botli sides after 11 A x h 6 fixh 6 12
has to withdraw his knight in view o f the $\\2 a5 (12...£Mi5 13 b4 ÍV17 14 &xh5 Hxh5
threat to pick up thc h-pawn with ...A f6. After 15 0-0, Novikov-Gelfand, Uzhgorod 1987, is
9 £>gc2 a5 10 g3 ÍY 5 11 A e3 0-0 12 Ag2 given as slightly better for White by Novikov
ÍM '6 both sides liad chances in Mukhcrjce- in HCCf) 13 W c2g5 14 Ii3 flg 6 15 Sel Su\7.
Guizar, E-mail 1999. 9 iLg5 ¿Lh6 10 ¿Lxh6 Hxh6 11 h4 Bh 8 12
8...We7 £tf1
A new idea. 8...h4 is more popular, e.g. 9
ÍV I #V5 wirh the following position:

Black has realised his plan, albeit at the

I lere we have a typical struggle for this space and a slight initiative, although he must
structure in which the result will depend on
whether the h4-pawn is a strength or a weak-
ness.
a) 10 f3 a5 11 &g5 (11 & e3 A h ó 12 & x h 6
Sx h 6 13 W d 2 Sth 8 was unclear in Pottomyai-
Vigh, Budapest 1998) ll...W d7 1 2 £ kl2 & h 5
13 ÍLe3 £>f4 14 0-0 We7 (14...&h6!? 15 <&hl
We7 favours Black) 15 4?h 1 Wg5 16 Kf2
í^fd3, Nikolaidis-Mastrokoukos, Athens 1996,
when 17 .&xc5 # W 5 leaves Black with a pulí.
b) 10 Ü.g5 with a further brancli
b l) 10...a5 11 h3 (11 W c2!? ÍLÍK 12 b3 l>6
13 H gl _íLe7 14 A e3 4¿Mi5 15 g3 &g:5 was
interesting in Serper-Akopian, Moscow 1991)
price o f two tempi. White has some extra
Ix* careful not to Ix: left with the potentially
passive light-sejuared bishop (and therefore
weak on the dark sejuares).
1 2 ...6 c5 1 3 ^ d 2 ?!
More logical is 13 0 a5 14 #\e3 Ix c í tuse e3
is the appropriate square for the fl -knight.
Thcn I4...£>fd7 15 W«.I2 £>b6 16 0-0-0 ÍLd7
17 ‘¿«’b l ()-()-() is interesting, wliile 1 15
W c2 <¿?g7 16 0-0-0 £>fd7 17 g3 £ lb 6 18 f4
promises W hite some kind o f initiative.
13...a5 14 W c2 & f8 15 0-0-0
15 £*b3 £>fcI7 16 0-0-0 £ixb3+ 17 líx b 3
4£kc5 18 W c2 a4 19 '¿ '1)1 $ g 7 is another pos-
sibilitv.
0

11
O ff b e a t K in g 's Iridian
15...<&g7 16 f3
1 6 ...6 .7 ?!
Milov’s recommcnded improvement looks
preferable: 16...c6 17 4hb3 £W>! 18 #Wa5 (18
S¿?bl cxd5 19 cxd5 a4! with initiative) 18...cxd5
19 cxd5 ®fo4 20 \% 3 £>xa2+! 21 Wxa2 Wc7
with play for Black, although 17 Bd g l!? Jid 7
18 g4 a4 19 & b l Z?hc8 is complicatcd.
17 foi1 c6
One tempo too late! Now White's knights
will he on the right sejuares just in time.
18£>e3 cxd5?l
Black should have maintained the tensión
in the centre.
19 £texd5 £bcd5 20 ®xd5 Md8 21 f4
White might consider 21 £k3 with a view
to attacking the weak dó-pawn, e.g. 21..JBa6
22 S&bl Aeó 23 Wd2 Wc7 24 &b5 B d 8 25
We3 and the prospect of pushing the g-pawn
offers White the better chances.
2 1 ...6 .4 22 b3 ÍLc6 23 Shf1?
'I his time Milov proposes 23 fxe5 dxe5 24
® c3 W d 6 25 We3 #W 6 (‘unclear’), or 23 Í5
.&xd5 24 Hxd5 Wb 6 with countcrplay.
23...Wxh4 24 Wb2?
24 2 h l Wg3 is strong (Milov).
24...ftxe4 25 &b1?!
25 fxe*5 Wg5+ etc.
25...Hae8?
Milov gives 25...&xd5 26 Sxd5 ®g3 27
H ft £>xe2 28 Wxe2 exf4 29 Wl>2+ (29 Sxd6
She*8) 29...Wf6.
26 f5?
12
Black would have to settle for a slight lead
after 26 fxe5 Axd5 27 exd6+ f6 28 d7 He5 29
Sxd5 Hxd5 30 cxd5 Wg5 according to Milov.
26....£xd5 27 Sxd5 fog3 0-1
Game 4
Bertok-Tatai
Reggio I imilia 1967 / 8
1 c4 g6 2 d4 £tf6 3 foc3 &g7 4 e4 d6 5
&ge2 e5 6 d5
Closing the centre. In this game we are go-
ing to investigate themes for Black which are
based on cither delaying castling, or not cas-
tling at all. O f course diere is nothing to pre-
vent Black from entering more usual lines by
simply castling at some point.
White has a numlxr of alternatives to 6 c!5:
a) Nothing special is achieved by 6 &g5 h6
7 .&h4. Apart from 7...exd4 8 í?ixd4 0-0 9
ÍLc 2 4^1x17 10 0-0 c6 11Sfelil W b 6 which was
fine for Black in Ciarcia-Corradine, Bogotá
1990, there is also a different course in 7...g5 8
ilLg3 £Mi5, e.g. 9 dxe5 dxe5 10 Wxd8+ <*¿«18
11 0-0-0 + £k!7 12 £k!5 c6 13 ®e3 &c7 14
&f5. We are following Botvinnik-Smyslov,
Leningrad/Moscow 1941. Now 14...£Y\g3!?
15 ÍY*xg3 ÍLfH has Ixen suggested. Instead
the game continued 14....&fó 15 JIxd7+! &xd7
16 Axe5 f6 17 Ac3 * c 6 18 g4 £>f4
(18...£>g7!?) 19 &xf4+ gxf4 20 A d 3, with
sufficient compensation according to liC O .
b) Ilie trade 6 dxe5 dxe5 7 Wxd8+ s£i>xd8 is

harmless for Black, e.g. 8 Ü.g5 có 9 f3 (9 b4
ÍL c 6 10 £ k;l h 6 11 & d 2 #Mxl7 was cqual in
I \dery-Molinsky, Correspondence 1990)
9...<á?c7 10 £lg3 £>1x17 11 A e3 h5 12 h4 fofo
13 A d3 & e 6 with a ver)* good ending for
Black, I x>makina-Kadar, Zalakaros 1995.
6...c6
Altematively:
a) 6...£Mi5?! 7 h3 and W hite wants to play
g2-g4. Since 7...f5 runs into 8 exf5 gxf5 9 ÍV14
tfy¡() 10 £ie 6 Black has an unpleasant choice
10 make between losing two tempi or sacrific-
ing a pawn. 7...0-0 8 g4 í^f4 9 4hxf4 exf4 10
ÍLxf4 We7 11 W e 2 S e 8 12 S e l Axc3+ 13
fixc3 Wxc4 14 Wxe4 Sxe4+ 15 A c3, as in
I.Polgar-Portisch, Budapest 1965, is given as
an edge for W hite in HCO. The same evalua-
lion can be made o f 7...We7 8 g4 íhf4 9 4^xf4
exf4 10 & xf4 Axc3+ 11 bxc3 Wxe4+ 12 We2
Wxe2 <
* 13 $Lxc2y which was the course taken
in Kfimov-Pcdersen, Saint Vincent 2(KK).
b) 6...^bd7!? 7 .&g5 (7 4^g3 transposes to
Cíame 3) 7...h6 8 ÍLh4 0-0 9 f3 a6 10 g4 £>b6
II Wl>3 c6 12 & Í2 ¿h fd l was unclear in
S/.abo-Ciligoric, Buesum 1969.
c) 6...c5 7 h3 a6 (7...h5 8 a3, Bertok-Minie,
l.jubljana 1960, and now Minev - in liC X ) -
proposes 8...®h7, intending ...A f6, with an
assessmeni o f an edge for W hite) 8 a4 h5 9 g3!
A h 6 10 ÍLxh 6 S x h 6 I I Wd2 S h 8 12 a5
£Mxl7 13 .&g2 h4 14 g4, Korchnoi-Gheor-
ghiu, Badén-Badén 1981. Now 14...ÍMV7!?,
heading forg5, limits W hite to a modest lead.
ti) 6...í^a6 7 £}g3 h5 8 h4!? # k5 (Forintos-
Vigh, I Iungary 1995, went 8...£Mi7 9 ®\ge2
A f 6 10 g3 Ag7, when 11 Ag2!? should offer
W hite something) 9 &g5 Ü.h 6 10 -&xh6 2xh6
11 W d 2 (also promising is 11 l>4!?) 1l...S h 8 12
0-0-0 (12...®e7 followed by ...JÍLd7 and
...0-0-0 is unclear) 13 O a6 14 b4 £kxl7 15
^ b 2 á?g7 16 a3 a5 17 SÍrM axb4 18 axb4,
Krmenkov-Spasov, Sofía 1991. In l¿C O Spa-
sov gives 18...^b6!? 19 J&e2 JÍLcl7 20 S a l as a
shade preferable for W hite thanks to the terri-
torial advantage.
7 ?Ag3 cxd5
5 foge2
7...a6 8 jslc2 h5 9 A g5 cxd5 10 exd5! gives
W hite an edge (EC O ), as in Miles-Johansen,
lídinburgh 1985.
8 cxd5 a6 9 a4 h5 10 i ie2
10... a5
I0...h4!? 11 £\fl & h 5 12 £xh5 2Sxh5 is in­
teresting but we prefer W hite in this uncom
mon situation.
11 £>f1 foa6 12 A g 5 & h6 13 &b5+
Black is going to play anyway, so
more logical is 13 .&xh6 Kxh 6 14 J&.xa6!? (this
move is also good in the main line) 14...fixa6
15 £k*3 with a couple o f cxldly postee! rooks
and the more pleasant prospeets for White.
13...<&f8 14 £xh6+ Hxh6 15 ¿Ae3 ^ c 5
16 W c2 17 £>c4 f5 18 f3 £tf6 19
0 0-0
-
W hite mighi consider castling short, which
appears 10 offer chances of an advantage.
19...<&g7 20 b3 Hh8 21 <¿>b2 Hf8 22 Hdf1
W c7 23 We2 fxe4 24 fxe4 £ g 4 25 We3
á d 7 ?l 26 iLxd7 £rfxd7 27 & b 5 <^xa4+
28 & a3 Wc5+ 29 Wxc5 <ftaxc5 30 focxó6
Sxf1 31 Bxf1 S f8 32 2xf8 * x f8 33 b4
axb4+ 34<&xb4<^d3+?! V2 -V2
34 ...<¿?e7 is more precise, but the game
anyway ends peacefully.
Game 5
Korchnoi-Gallagher
Z onal I 'oumament, I)resden / 998
1 d4 £>f6 2 c4 g6 3 fac3 & g7 4 e4 d6 5
13
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
£\ge2 a6 6 g3!?
White steers thc game back to the -&g2 sys-
tcm, where the carly ...a7-a6 could prove to be
o f littlc use. If Black insists on cxccuting thc
plan with ...c7-c6 and ...b7-b5 it wiU be met
with Ag2 followed by c4-c5 with a nicc game
for White. On thc other hand, thc gl-knight is
scldom devclopcd on c2 in thc fianchctto linc.
Nevertheless, there is no clcar route to cquality
for Black. Incidcntally, 6 B makes sense,
tnmsposing to thc Samisch variation.
6 ...0-0
A dubious choice is 6...c5, e.g. 7 dxc5
Wa5?í (7...dxc5 8 Wxd8+ <&xd8 9 c5 £lg4 10
f4 £ k 6 11 ÍLg2) 8 cxdó # W 4 9 Wd5 £k:5 10
& c3 cxdó 11 Wxd 6 £>1x17 12 & g2 A eS 13
Wd5 0-0 14 0-0 and Black was in troublc in
Narciso Dublan-Matamoros Franco, l^in-
xarotc 2003.
7 ¿ g 2 ^bd7 8 0-0 e5 9 b3
9 dxe5!? #W*5 10 b3 is cnough for a plus
according to Korchnoi. transposes to 12...4?Y*5, above.
9...exd4 10 foxd4 Be8 11 &e3 Sb8 14 cxb5 axb5 15 Wxd6 b4 16 foa4 foxe4
This typc of position is quite unpleasant for
Black, despite thc fact that he has no wcak
points and faces no dircct thrcats. W hitc’s
extra space facilitates fluid dcvelopment and
therefore affords him a hcalthy mobilisation of
forces across thc board. With this in mind
Black is looking to genérate counterplay with
...c7-c*5 and ...b7-b5.
12£c1 c5
As subsequent events demónstrate, thc text
14
has no tactical justifteation. Perhaps Black
should have decided on a passive move such
as I2...c6, or Korclinoi’s I2...£k*5, when
W liitc must considcr a knight coming to g4 as
wcll as the ‘threatened’ ...c7-cS. Mowcver, after
13 Sc2! (Korchnoi) White remains on top, thc
point l>cing that after ...c7-c5 W hitc’s rook will
be ready to attack the d6-pawn by switching
files to d2 (of course thc safety of a rook on
dó should be borne in mind). Black is not
sufftcicndy prepared for thc complications
that result from 13...b5, e.g. 14 cxl>5 axb5 15
f4 £k*g4 16 4£teó ^xe3 17 W cl 4hxc2 18
Wxc2! Wd7 19 & xb 8 W d 8 20 £k :6 Wd7 21
£\xb5 Ü.a6 22 a4 and White has a safe extra
pawn. Ñor does 13...^fg4 or 13...4heg4 help
duc to the simple 14 ¿ e l. 'Iliis lcaves 14
£wie2 bS 15 cxb5 axb5 16 fid2 with dcccnt
pressure for White.
13 fode2 b5
13...£k*5 14 Hc2 b5 15 cxb5 axb5 16 Hd2
ló..Jk.b7 17 4£tocc5 4£lxc5 18 Axc5 ilx c4 19
Wxd8 fibxdB 20 £kl4 21 &xfó & x ft 22
S fd l docs not help Black, who is also withoul
compensation in thccvcnt o f 16...Se6 17 W d 2
4hxc4 18 J&xc4 Sxc4 19 í^xcS Sc7 20 #kl4.
17 Wd3?!
17 Axc4! Hxc4 18 £}xc5 improves, when
Korchnoi analyses the following. 18...Sc8
(18..JV7 19 &g5 f6 20 ÍLf4, 18..J2xc3 19 fxc3

W e8 20 ®>xd7 &xd7 21 W f4 and 18...&f8 19
Wd3 Sxe3 20 fxe3 .&xc5 21 Hxc5 .£La6 22
Wxa6 £\xc5 23 ®a7 are all awful for Black) 19
Hfd1 ÍL f 8 20 Wd4 £ix c5 21 Sxc5 with a big
advantage.
17...We7 18 foi4 &b7 19 <5^5 W e5?
I9...ü.xd5 20 #xd5 £lc3 21 <bxc3 bxc3 22
H fd l &cd 8 23 ilg-S $\(() 24 Wc4 Sxdl+ 25
K x ill h6 26 & f4 Sb4 27 Wxc3 £\15 28 W cl
^xl'4 29 gxf4 is a Icsscr cvil fhai rcstricts
White to a slight edge according to Korchnoi.
20 2fd1 Sbd8?
Now White is easily winning, although the
improvenients still leave Black struggling:
20...Axd5 21 Wxd5 Wxd5 22 Sxd5 £ klf6 23
ÍLxe4 £ke4 24 .&xc5 is simple, or 20...#klf6
21 £>xf6+ W xf6 (21...&xf6 22 &xc5 £ kc5 23
ÍLxc5 Sed 8 24 ® e3 Rxd 1+ 25 Sxd 1 Axg 2 26
^?xg2) 22 4^xc5 <Sl\c5 23 &xc5 Sed 8 24 Wc4
.&xg2 25 <
ái>
xg2 A h 6 26 Sx d 8+ Sxd 8 27 S e I
etc.
21 Wxe4 Wxe4 22 Ü xe4 Sxe4 23 ^db6
& d4 24 ^xd7 Sxe3 25 fxe3 Axe3+ 26
& f1 &a6+ 27 B c4 iLd4 28 Íhdxc5 1-0
Carne 6
Freise-Wiege
Correspondence 1998
1 d4 foi6 2 c4 g6 3 <^c3 &g7 4 e4 d6 5
4\ge2 a6 6 £>g3 Íto d 7 7 & e2
Rather prematuro is 7 a4?! when, according
lo Kasparov, 7...h5 8 J&c2 e*5 leads to compli-
cations that offer Black healthy counterplay: 9
ÍLe3 (9 d5?! a5) 9...exd4 10 &xd4 #W5 11 Ii3?!
(I l 0-0 h4 12 £\hl c5 13 Ae3 is unclear) and
now Black has two options:
a) 1l.Jtfe 7 ?! 12 f4 h4 13 £>fl £k :6 14 £kl5
W d 8 15 JÍ.c3 0-0 16 $V12, Yusupov-
Kasparov, Moscow 1994, favours White.
b) Ilie improvement is 1I....&I16! 12 0-0
(12 ®kI5 h4) 12...Af4!? (12...#k6).
7...h5 22 f5 ^ x f2 23 Sx f2 gxf5 24 exf5 & d5 25
A typical advance o f the h-pawn. ( )ihers: g4 £g8 26 Wxh3+ <&g7 27 We3 <&f8 28
a) 'lile ‘Benko’ gambit should not worry h3
W hite - 7...c5 8 d5 b5 9 cxb5 (Nikolaidis-
5 foge2
Mihelakis, Kavala 1999) is evaluated by Kas­
parov in iiC O as slightly better for White.
b) 7...e5, and after 8 d5 0-0 9 0-0 £>e8 10
JjLe3 O 11 exf5 gxfó 12 f4 Black’s ...a7-a6 liad
given W hite a very useful additional tempo in
Kaposztas-Manik, I llohovcc 1996.
8 £e 3
8 O e*5 9 d5 h4 10 £ ifl £Mi5 11 £*e3 & h 6
led to excellent counterplay for Black in Corral
Blanco-Pablo Marin, Barcelona 2000.
8...c6 9 f3 b5 10 c5
White wants space on the cjueenside.
10...h4
K)...dxc5 11 dxc5 Wc7 was not enough for
ec|uality in Seiper-Nikolaidis, St Petersburg
1993, which continued 12 0-0 h4 13 #Mil
£>Ii5 14 Wd2 e5 15 <5}f2 fofá 16 a4, although
I l...h4l? is w orlli investigating.
I I fon dxc5 12 dxc5 h3
'I’he long march o f the h-pawn has its pros
and cons. On the one hand ii disrupts White,
while 011 the oiher it will reejuire constant pro-
tection. I2...^c7 maintains the balance.
13 g3 0-0 14 foú2 foe5 15 W c2 ile 6 16
0-0 Wc7 17 ^d1 &h7 18 foi2 & h 6 ?
Black’s method o f trading bishops is bolh
unusual and suspicious. 'The simple I 8...fíad 8
offers Black adequatc prospeets.
19 &xh6 <¿>xh6 20 » c 3 Sad8 21 f4 £teg4
White is simply a safe pawn to the good.
15
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
28...Bh8 29 a4 b4 30 a5
O f course White can ncvcr take 011 a6 in
view of ...í^xg4.
3 0 ...5 .4 31 b3?!
Contributing nothing to the cause. In this
sharp position White should consider 31
Sa4!?, intending to meei 3l...fie8 (3l...$Wl7 32
JSlfl) with the strong 32 g5 0\c4? (32..//VI7 33
-S.fi) 33 Sxb4 etc.
31...Be8 32 Bh2 e6 33 Wf2 Bh 8 34 fxe6
Bxe 6
Black is gradually generating counteqjlay.
35 ¿ c 4 ? !
35 S e l is preferable.
35...±xc4 36 ^ x c4 4te4 37 We3 We7 38
Bd1 £*xc5 39 Wg3 £>e4 40 Wd3 Sta3 41
Wd8+ & g 7 42 Wd4+ f6 43 ^d 6 Se5 44
5tf5+
44 H fl £»b5 (44...fixa5? 45 Wxl.4 Wa7) 46
SÍvIi I) 45 4^xl>5 axl>5 is level.
44...Hxf5 45 gxf5 S'íxdl 46 Wxd1 Wc5+
47 S f2 Hg8 48 Wf3 &f8+ 49 -J?h2 Wxa5
50 Wf4 sfcf7 51 Wc4+ Wd5 52 Wxb4
We5+ 53 Wf4 Sb8 54 Wxe5 fxe5 55 fic2
Hb6 56 ¿g 3 ¿ f6 57 b4 <A>xf5 58 Hc4
¿/e6 59 <A>f3
Better is 59 h4.
59...<¿>d5 60 Bh4 B b 8 61 & e3 B f 8 62
ske2 Bf5 63 & e3 Bf1 64 <&e2 B g 1 65
<&d2 Hg2+ 66 &d3 JS-%
A sur|>rising decisión considering Black’s
iniproved prospeets.
Game 7
Novikov-Van W ely
I le lsin k i 1992
1 d4 ftf6 2 c4 g6 3 £ta3 Ü.g7 4 e4 d6 5
<^\ge2 a6
'Ilie actual move order in the game was
5...c6 6 £\g3 h5 7 JÜLc2 a6 8 0-01)5 9 e5 but we
have altered the scquence in order to more
conveniently Ick >k at alterna!ives.
6fog3
Black prepares action on the queenside
based on a timely push o f thc h-pawn. A l­
16
though this plan isn’t usually Black’s main
weapon it is occasionally used in various sys­
tems, often Ixing started l>efore castling. Cjen-
erallv White’s thetnatic reaction is e4-c5.
6...c6 7 ile 2
Alternatives:
a) 7 h4 h5 8 &g5 £llxl7 9 A e2 0-0 10 Wd2
1)5 II cxbS axb5 12 b4 #M)6 (1.iardet-
Gallagher, Geneva 1993) 13 S e l is given as
unclear in N (X ).
b) 7 f4. 'llie 1‘our Pawns Attack theme ap-
pears logical here, with Black having ‘lost’ two
tempi on the queenside. I lowever, White’s
knight on g3 is not ideally placed, añil this has
also taken time. Kliet-Petit, Montpellier 1991
saw 7...0-0! (rapid development is paramount)
8 e5 £Yd7 (8...dxe5 9 dxe5 W xdl f 10 íhxdl
Í V 8 11 Ü.e3 fó 12 exf6 4^x16 is equal) 9 jÍLe3
c5 and the challenge in the centre rcsultcd in
muddying the water.
c) 7 a4. 'Iliis advance has more appeal
when Black has already played ...£Mx17. A
typical reaction is 7...a5, freeing the a6-square
to make way for ...#to6-b4. Then 8 JÜLc2 0-0
leads to the following position:
9 f4?! gives the game a l;our Pawns flavour
that tastes nicer for Black thanks to White’s
vulnerable quecnsidc dark squares. 9...e5 10
dxe5 dxe5 11 Wxd8 Sxd 8 12 f5 £\a6 13 0-0
£\17 14 A c3 £klc5 15 fiad l £d7 (Mear-
Ciallagher, Broceo 1991) is a slvade favourable
for Black according to NCO. 9 h4 e5 10 <15 Ii5
11 ÍLg5 W b 6 12 Ha3 <SMxl7! 13 W c 2 £ic5 14

ÍL I7 15 # Y l SacB 16 <5VI2 W l,4 I7<5>a2
W l>6 was balanccd in Ionov-Bologan, Mos­
cow 1991. 9 0-0 c5 10 A e3 (10 cl5 & a 6 II
£ e3 £k:5 12 S e l h5 13 f3 Ii4 14 ®Mil ®»i5
15 4ftf2, Verdikhanov-Kruppa, Nikolaev 1993,
and now 15..JuLf6! continúes the fight for the
dark stjuares on the kingside - 16 $VI3 4^xd3
17 Wxd3 % 5 18 Á fl Axc3+ 19 Wxe3 with
an unclear position according tí) Verdikhanov
and Diafarov in HCO) 10...$W> 11 W d 2 (11
dxe5 dxe5 12 Wxd 8 BxdH 13 Had 1 Hxdl 14
) (xdl 6 with ctjuality in Amlerscn-Jaksland,
(iopenhagen 2004) 1L..$\g4 12 &xg4 -&xg4
13 B exd4 14 Axd4 J¡Lc() 15 H adl £V5 16
.£Lxg7 SÍ?xg7 17 á?h l f6 and Black was okay in
(íulko-Benjamín, Los Angeles 1991.
7...h5
Not surprisingly Black is free to adopt an-
other strategy:
a) 7...£Mxl7 8 ÍLc3 h5 9 B 1)5 10 c5 dxc5
11 dxc5 Wc7 (1 l...h4!? 12 $ \fl transposes to
(jam e 6) 12 0-0 h4 13 £ tfil ®Mi5 14 «Td2 c5
15 was the continuation o f Serper-
Nikolaidis, St Pctershurg 1993, the position
after the subseejuent I5...$_Y4 16 #YI3 ÍLU6 17
a l assessed as slighlly better for White by Ser-
per in I iCO.
b) 7...1)5!? and now:
b l) 8 cxb5 axb5 9 l>4 1)5 10 3 $\g4 11
.&xg4 .áLxg4 12 B .¿Le6 13 íT\ge2 J&c4 was
quite pleasant for Black in I lanks-L'ullcr, Ade-
laide 1990.
l>2) 8 0-0 bxc4 (8...h5!? 9 e5 dxe5 10 dxe5
W xdl 11 S x d l leads to the main game, but 9
a3 is interesting here) 9 J&.xc4 d5 10 ¿Lb3 dxe*4
I I £igxe4 (Novikov-Kruppa, Moscow 1991)
I I ...&xe41? 12 £>xe4 W xcI4 13 W B and White
has definite comjx-nsation for the pawn.
b3) 8 e5 dxe5 9 dxe5 W xdl+ 10 foxdl
<SVd7 11 f4 (I l...f6!?) 12 ®k?3 A e6 13
&d2 ^8d7 14 S e l JÍ.h6 left much lo play for
in ( íoormachtigh Watson, Brussels 1986.
8 0-0 b5
Also good is 8...4hlxl7, monitoring e5.
M.Ciurevich-Van W ely, Tastrup 1992 con tin-
ued 9 S e l b5 10 a3 0-0 11 &g5 & li7 12 Ü.c3
5 fa g el
S b 8 13 Wd2 e5 14 d5, when the position after
I4...cxd5 15 cxd5 h4!? 16 5 }fl f5 is far from
clear according to Cíurevich (I i(.O ).
9 e5 dxe5 10 dxe5 Wxd1 11 £xd1 <^g4
12 f4
A kev position. II Black fails to contest
W hite’s strong grip on the centre he will be
doomed to passivity.
12...g5!
Now or never. Black exploits the fací that
ihe capture on f4 comes with lempo, ensuring
sufficient c<umterplay.
13 h3 gxf4 14 A x f4 ÍLxe5?!
W ith the active I4...h4 15 .&xg4 Axg4 16
Iixg4 lixg3 17 Axg3 (Novikov) I7...#\17 I 8 e6
fxe6 Black would secure tleceni chances in ilie
ending.
15 £>xh5 ilx f4 16 <hxf4 foe3 17 Kdc1
17 Sd 2 e5 18 & h5 £>xc4 19 £}f6+ &e7 20
JÍLxc4 I>xc4 (I lunne-Nouro, linland 1993)
with compensaron according lo Novikov.
17...£>xc4 18 Jkxc4 bxc4 19 £ ^ 4 í^d7 20
Sx c4
I’lie transilion to an ending lias favoured
White. Black lias the weaker, vulnerable
pawns, while W hite’s are cjuite safe. Mean-
wliile, W hite also has the more active forces.
Nevertheless, such eiulings temí to reejuire
accurate play from the attacker, who must
consider the possibiliiy of allowing his oppo-
nent some kind o f counterplay as a result of
targeting and winninga pawn.
20...<5^5 21 Hc5 f6 22 fob6 Sb 8 23
17
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
£>xc8 Sxc8 24 2a5 Sa8 25 £d1
The apparently active 25 4üe6 <¿¿f7 26 ?V 5
is premature, and Black has no problems after
the simple 2(y..foc4 27 Sxa 6 Sxa 6 28 foxa6
£kb2, 26...Sag8!? 27 sfehl (27 & f l? foc4 28
Sxa 6 4^e3+ 29 sfefé ííxg2+ 30 á?xe3 Kxh3-t*
31 <á?c!4 e5+ 32 <¿>c4 Sc2+ 33 &b4 Hh4+ 34
&a5 fixc5+ 35 S^bó Ec2 and Black has seri-
ous winning chances) 27...#Y*4 28 Hxa6 fo e l
29 &gl Sg3 30 <&h2 Shg 8 31 b4 f5 or
26...Hh5 27 Sxa 6 Hg8 (Maki Duro-Salo, lel- I
sinki 1993).
25...sfcf7 26 b3 Shb 8
26...Hhd8!? (Novikov).
27 &d4 Hd8
27..JSb5 28 3da4 improves, with an edge
for White.
28 2xd8 )lxd8 29 Sxa6 Sd2 30 &h2?!
Novikov’s 30 a4!r>Sb2 31 S l >6 Sa2, with
compensaron, or 30 sS/fl offers superior
chances, although it is not easy to nvake the
extra pawn tell.
30...£tf3+ 31 * g 3 foel
Black has counterplay based on the weak
g2 pawn.
32 Sa7 f5 33 h4 & f6 34 foh5+ <Á>f7 35
fof4 <A>f6 36 foh5+ *Á>f7 37 foto %-%
Gante H
Yusupov-Shaked
I Jnares Open 1997
I d4 fo16 2 c4 g6 3 focZ ¿g 7 4 e4 d6 5
foge2 0-0
While delaying castling is quite reasonable it
is nonetheless the most popular continuation.
6 Ü.g5 h6
Black can also play 6...a6 7 Wd2 £Mxl7 8
£>g3 c6, e.g. 9 ¿ c 2 (I i<>rvath-Wang Rui, Bu­
dapest 2000) 9...b5! 10 0-0 (10 l>3 b4 11 fo.\4
c5! with counterplay) H)...l>4 11 fo-.i4 c5 with
chances for both sides. 9 ¿ h 6 e5 10 d5 cxd5
I I cxd5 ¿ x h 6 12 Wxh6 £\g4 13 Wd2 Wh4 14
h3 4hgf6 15 ¿d 3 ÍV 5 16 ¿ c 2 a5 was also
unclear in Kogan-Drozdov, Groningcn 1994,
while 9 a4 weakened the dark squares in
18
Chernin-Lautier, Paris 1989, both 9...a5 and
9...e5!? 10d5®lc5 appearing fine for Black.
I x:t us return to 6...I16.
llie bishop’s arrival on g5 is not unusual
for this and Samisch lines, but here the text
puts an awkward question to White in terms
of where to put the piece next.
7 ¿f4
Alternad ves:
a) 7 ¿.h4 tloes not íit well with any system,
e.g. 7...c5 8 f3 focG 9 dxc5 dxc5 10 Wxd8
Sxd 8 with good play for Black in Ivdery-
Demarre, Paris 1993.
b) After 7 ¿e 3 White invites 7...#\g4, e.g. 8
¿ e l e5 9 h3 (9 d5 f5 10 f3 fofa is a ver)- good
Samisch for Black) 9...#M’6 10 d5 4^1x17 11g4
with mutual chances in Breder-
KíxMterheinrich, 1996 Gemían LH 8 Champi-
onship, or 8...c5 9 d5 e6 10 h3 foc5 (I ,arsen-
Cíligoric, l^eningrad 1973) 11 í^lg3, given as
unclear by ( íligoric in liCX).
7...foc6
7...c5!? is an interesting option.
8Wd2
8 d5!? e5 (also good is 8...í\.*5 9 $\g3 c6
with chances for lK>th sides - liCX)) 9 ¿ c 3
fo e l 10 f3 c6 11 W d2 h5 (11...cxd5 12 cxd5
Ii5 and 12...SÍ/I17 are safer) and now White can
trv 12 dxc6 bxc6 13 S d l d5 14 cxd5 cxd5 15
exd5 when Black iloes not have full compen-
sation for the pawn. Instead Kohlweyer-
Scalcione, Ijd o lístensi 2(K)3 went 12 0-0-0
cxd5 13 cxd5 ÍU Ü 14 * b l 1>5 15 foc\ b4 16

# W *2 a5 with an interesting struggle ahcatl.
8...e5
8...6h7!? coinés to mind.
9 £xh6
Obviously not 9 dxe5? dxc5 10 ¿ x h 6? rooks on the b-file might be preferable.
11 ®xh6 18 £ c 2 a4 19 a3
(Shaked) with a winning
position for Black due to the threats of
12...6.c2+ and 12...#YI3. 19...Wb6 20 S e l Sfb 8 21 ¿d 1 Ha7 22
9 ...¿x h 6 S e3 Sab7 23 <hxa4 W c6 24 h5 g5 25
Black cannot play 9...cxd4? 10 ¿xg 7 dxc3??
due to 11W h 6 (Shaked).
10 Wxh6 £>xd4
10...exd4 11 £\1S # W 4 is risky as 12 f3 fol-
lowed by 0 -0-0 and launching the h-pawn
l<H>ks dangerous.
11 Wd2
Quite harmless for Black is 11 #kd4 exd4
12 4hd5 £\g4 13 W d2 c6 (Shaked) with the
slightly more pleasant prospecis for Black.
Now Black has a very solid position wilh a
great outpost for the knight on d4.
12 ^ g 3 a6 13 ¿ d 3
Shaked recommends 13 h4í? ^£7 14 h5
Hh 8 with an unclear game.
13...b5 14 h4?!
( )ne tempo too late! 14 0-0 ÍLcG 15 1)3, in-
teiuling Í2~f4, is proposed by Shaked.
14...1.e6 15 0-0-0?
The wrong decisión. 15 b3!? maintains the
balance.
15...bxc4 16 iL b l <fth7 17 <hf1?!
Again White has better, with 17 K d l 1 Wf6,
5 Zhge2
17 h5 Wg5 and 17 f4 exf4 18 Wxf4 W f 6 all
limiting Black to an edge according to Shaked.
17...a5
!7..J5b8!? followed by ...W l>6 and doubling
19 ¿x a4 !? is on hcrc.
í^g3
25 hó c3!?, or 25...Í5 (Shaked).
25...C3 26 faxc3 fixb2 27 »x b 2 Kxb2 28
si>xb2 Wb6+ 29 * c 1 £tf6 30 £tf1 Wa5 31
sfcb2 Wb6+ 32 s£>c1 Wa5 33 & b2 ftb5 34
<hxb5 Wxb5+ 35 &c1 Wc4+ 36 ¿ c 2
<^4 37 S f3 Wd4 38 £>e3 Wa1 +?!
Shaked gives 38...#W2 39 J5xf2 Wxc3+ 40
Hd2 c4 wilh a decisive lead.
39 &b1 Wxa3+ 40 i>d2 Wb4+ 41 &c1
« a 3 + ?!
41 ...4hxc3 42 Sxe3 c4 is simplcr.
42 <A>d2 Wb2+ 43 ilc 2 »d 4 + 44 <&e2
ftxe3 45 Sxe3 ¿c 4 + 46 & f3 f5! 47 g4
Wb2 48 &b1 ¿e 2 + ü 49 sfcg2 f4 50 Heh3
c4 51 h6 & h7 52 Sh5 Wd2 53 <¿/h3
Wc3 + 54 <¡bh2 W f3 55 Hg1 Wxf2+ 56
fíg2 We1 0-1
Game 9
Kakageldyev-Smirin
2002 B/ed O (y///piad
1 d4 <hf6 2 c4 g6 3 ^ c 3 ¿ g 7 4 e4 d6 5
í^ge20-06^g3
I he main choice. Ilie knight might appcar
awkwardly placed on g3, bul it has its uses -
both offensive and defensive. Apart from the
obvious support o f the advance o f the h-pawn
the knight also monitors O, facilitating an
attack on that jx>int should Black seek to gen­
érate aciivity with ...f7-f5, as well as introduc
ing ihe possibiliiy o f using h5 for lile knight in
ihe event o f ...f7-f5>e*4xÍ5, g6xf5 etc. ( )n the
downside, of course, White needs to keep in
mind the implications o f the advance ...Ii7-h5
h4.
19
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
6...h5
As we remarked earlier, (his move has l>oth
good and had factors. Sometimes thc pawn
might prove weak and, consecjucntly, Black’s
kingside weakened. 'This brings us to the alter­
nanves:
a) 6.jS¥d7 7 ÍLe3 e5 8 d5 aS 9 & c 2 £>a6
10 0-0 h5 II Wd 2 í^acS was okay for both
sides in Divc-Kid, Moscow 1994, while 9 ¿d 3
® a 6 10 a3 (Kurbetdin ov-( rolubka, Sirnfcr
opol 2003) I0...í^ac5 II ¿ c 2 £M>6 is also
interesting.
b) 6...$k*6 7 (.15 4?V5 (7...4^1)8 8 .¿Le2 c6 9
0-0 cxd5 10 cxd5 #>a6 II Ae3 ÍLd7 12 h3
W h 8, S'/abo-Wcstcrinen, I«eningrad 1967, and
now 13 & i , i 1>5 14 b4 is given by Minev in
I i(.() as favouring White) 8 j&e2 e6 (8...c6 9 f4
$\ed7 10 ¿ c 3 cxd5 11 cxd5 a6 12 0-0 b5 13
S e l ® b 6 14 b3 was excellent for White in
Malaniuk-Xagorskis, Swidnica 1997) 9 f4
£ kii7 10 tlxc6 f\c6 11 0-0 Wc7 12 ÍLc3 Icfi
Black still working to cc|ualisc in Forintos
Sxabo, I Iungary 1968.
7 & e2 h4
7...C-5!? 8 d5 and now:
a) 8...h4 9 £>fl Z£s\\l (9...^e8 10 g4 a6 11
¿e 3 c6 12 g5 1)5 13 a3 was a shade better for
White in M.lvanov-Mutschnik, Stutigart 2003)
10 h3 <5\17 (10...5ia6!? is worth a try) 11 ÍM i2
f5 12 ¿ c 3 £klf6 13 Ad3 fxe4 14 &xc4 £>h5
Vi-Vz* Narciso Dublan-Moreno damero, Bar­
celona 2000.
b) 8...£>a6 9 ¿g 5 W e8 10 £V5 11
20
ÍV I2 a5 12 0-0 £b\l 13 b3 £ih7 14 ¿e 3 ¿ Í 6
15 ÍLh 6 (15 a3!?, intending to expand by push-
ing the b pawn, looks good) 15...¿g7 16 jSLc3
(16 ¿xg7 < &xg7 17 a3 might be preferable)
1 6 ¿Lf6 17 ¿ h 6 Üg7 V*-1 /!, Novikov-
Ibragimov, Bled 1996.
c) 8...&IV7 9 £e3 G \\l (9...h4 10 ® tfl © a 6
11 #\12 helped White in Shemeakin-
Prokhorov, Yalta 1995) 10 0-0 h4 II íh b l f5
12 exf5 gxf5 13 f4 exf4 14 ÍLxf4 #W5 15 &\12
16 $ib5 Ü.f6 17 #V14 (Novikov
Cileizerov, Pavlodar 1987) is given as an edge
for White in HCO.
8 5M1
8...c5
a) 8...£k 6 9 d5 (9 ¿e3 !?) 9...ÍV5 10 h3
£Mi7 (Dive-Smart, Ijondon I994 saw White
emerge with the better prospeets after I 0...c6
11 ¿g 5 Wa5 I2 ?\I2 ) 11 f4 %\\7 12 ¿e 3 e5
V¿-V2, 1)ive* l )e ( >verly, N<>rwich 1994, but 13
f5, with the idea I3...gxf5 14 exf5 £k:5 15 g4,
¡ustiftes continuing the stmggle.
b) 8...4hh7 9 $Lc\ and now both 9...c6 10
ÍV12 e5 11 4hf3 exd4 12 4Üxd4,1 lort-Bouaziz,
Tunis 1985, and 9...£\17 10 Wd2 c5 11 d5 15
12 cxf5 gxf5 13 14, Reinlinger-Situru, Hono­
lulú 1996 were easier for White.
c) 8...e5!? and it is not clear whether White
has anything better than transposition to 7...c5
8 <15 h4 (see the note to Black’s 7th move).
9 d 5 b5
An original idea in the spirit of the Bcnko
Ciambit. We think, however. that it is a rather

interior versión for Black, and instead recom-
mend 7...c5 or 8...e5 (above). Both 9...Wa5!?
and 9...5M x 17!? lead to positions that are a
louch preferable for White.
10 cxb5 h3 11 gxh3 a6 12 bxa6 ilx h 3 13
2g1 ^xa6 14 S g 3 Wc8
Now the cjucen will be ticil to the h3-
bishop, which will have to withdraw sooner or
later anyway. Simply dropping to d7 (cvcn on
the next move) is sensible.
15 foe3 í^c7 16 f4 iLd7 17 f5 gxf5 18
£>xf5
White should play 18 £\c4, e.g. l 8...Wd8 19
ÍU 16 <5Vx-8 (I9...£u'c8 20 Wd2) 20 Wd2 with a
winning attack, or 18...fxc4 19 J2lh6 ^ c c 8 20
Wl>7 21 & xa 8 Wxa8 22 Wd2 etc.
18...ÍLxf5 19 exf5 Wxf5 20 lh 6 ftce8 21
Wd3
W'hite need not cxchange <.|uccns, and
inore consistent is 21 W d 2 intending 0 -0 -0,
Jld g l with a winning attack.
21 ...Wh7 22 We3 W c2 23 ¿x g 7 ^xg7 24
Wh6 Wh7 25 Wg5 $\d7?
Missing the last chance with 25...wg6.
26 0-0-0 f6 27 We3 S f7 28 fíd g l f5 29
We6 £te5 30 Sxg7 + Wxg7 31 8xg7 +
¿>
xg7 32 ilh 5 1-0
Game 10
I .Sokolov-Hjartarson
CJms@kel(itid- B, Kopavogur 2000
1 d4 4M6 2 c4 g6 3 ?Ac3 A g í 4 e4 d6 5
5 G\ge2
^Age2 0-0 6 <5^g3 c6 7 A e 2 a6
Once again Black eleets for action involv-
itig ...b7-b5, hoping to have at his disposal
lx>th ...b5-b4 and ...l>5xc4 followed by ...d6-d5.
8 ¿e 3
W hite has tried several otlier continuations:
a) 8 h4!? IvS 9 ile 3 (9 % S l»5 10 Wd2
#MkI7 II S e l W aS was Psaras-Szckcly, Ath-
ens 1997) 9...b.S (9...£>g4!?) 10 Wd2, Tuchcn
11agen-Tcm ir1>aev, Shenyang 1999, and now
Black can maintain the balance wilh
10...^g4!?.
b) 8 £ g 5 b5 9 cxb5 axl>5 10 a3 A h í 110-0
4^1x17 12 Wd2 W b 6 13 b4 W d 8 14 f4 (play on
the queenside is an<>ther (>ptic>n, e.g. 14 U le I !?,
intending a2-a4, or the immediate 14 a4)
14...h6 15 A M ^ 1)6 16 & h l A cH 17 ild 3 c5
was seen in Topalov-Spasov, Klenitc 1992,
when 18 fxc5 dxeS 19 ¿ x f 6 ¿ x f 6 20 ilS
would have led to an interesting struggle.
c) 8 a4 a5 9 0-0 c5 10 d5 4ha6 11 JyLc3 ( II
¿g 5 !? He 8 12 W d 2 £\c5 13 Sa3 was interest­
ing in Sale-S.Nikolic, Bclgradc 1989) 1l...íhc5
12 S e l h5 13 B h4 14 £>hl ®Mi5 15 $S<2.
Thus far we have been following Vcrdikha-
nov-Kruppa, Nikolaev 1993, and here Ver
dikhanov gives 15...¿f6! 16 £kl3 4^xd3 17
Wxd3 ¿g 5 ! 18 A(l ¿xe.3+ 19 #xc3 as un­
clear, Black having rid hiinself of the passive
dark-squared bishop.
d) After 8 0-0 4^1x17 9 ¿e 3 b5 W hile
seems lo be guaranteed an edge with either 10
cxl>5 axb5 11 a3 í^ l>6 12 1>3 A<¿6 13 f4 1)4
21
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
(Arkhipov-Schncider, Hungary 1992) 14 axb4
Sx al 15 Wxal ÉL\b3 or 10 b3 h.S II O
(Ratkovich-Kovalev, Minsk 2(X) 1) Il...h4 12
4&hl b4 13 4fta4. 'Iliis leavcs thc consistcnt
8...1>5, with thc following position:
Now Scrper-Schrocr, Philadclphia 1997
continucd 9 cxb5 axb5 10 l>4 4£Mx17 II a4,
when Black should have settled for a sliglit
disadvantage with ll...bxa4 12 Sxa4. 9 f4
4^1x17 10 c5 #Y *8 11 ¿ c 3 ÍL1>7 12 c5 £k:7 13
cxdó cxdó 14 cxdó €k!5 15 €W !5 cxd5 16 f5
was also gocxl cnough for a pulí in Miles-
Nunn, Anisterdam 1985.
1 lowever, the niost direct is 9 e5 4^fd7
(9...dxe5 10 dxc5 W xdl 11Bx d l £>g4 12 f4 fó
13 h3 4^1)6 14 exfó exfó 15 4^igc4 0$Í7 as in
Trcgubov-I lebden, Clicliy 2(K)1 when, accord­
ing to I la/ai, White should have playee! 16
c5!?> e.g. 16...Í5 17 4£kló íix d ó 18 cxdó or
16...£kl7 17 ¿ O f5 18 í\16 £kc5 19 ¿x có
S b 8 20 &c3, with an advantage for White).
After 9...#Vd7 White must decide what to
about his e5-pawn:
d i) 10 f4 bxc4 (10...b4 11 &ce4) 11 ÜLxc4
d5 (1 l...£>bó 12 &1>3 a5 13 « B a4 14 &c2
favoured White in Poluljahov-KXicorgicv,
Antalya 2(K)2) 12 ÍLc2 có 13 ¿c 3 a5 14 &a4
Aaó 15 B e l Wc7 16 flc3 S c 8 17 W c 2 ¿ x c 2
18 & x c 2 & l >6 19 S e 1 5ixa4 20 Wxa4 Baó 2 1
S lc 2 ¿ f 8 22 ftc l £\I7 23 #WI3 Wb7 24 S e I
Vz-’/2, Novikov AVojtkiewicz, New York 1993.
White has been in the lead throughout but
making progress is another matter.
22
d2) 10 cxdó cxdó 11 .&f4 12 cxb5
axb5 13 Wd2 í5 14 a3 (14 ¿ B l? ) 14...¿eó 15
S fe l ÍÜ 7 16 &g5 ¿ f ó 17 & x f6 Wxfó 18 Wf4
ÍV15 led to a level game in Naumkin-
Hvcnkilde, Copenhagen 1992, but 12 c5!?
dxc5 13 dxc5 Ü.xc3 14 bxc3 is worth investi-
gating, e.g. 14...í\a4 15 &dó 4hxc3 16 Wd2
4?W*2+ 17 #\xe2 when White has ai least
enough for the pawn, or 14...Wxdl 15 Sfx d l
16 ¿ h ó S e 8 17 #Y4 £kl7 18 ¿ B with a
dcíinitc plus.
8...b5 9 e5 tofd7 10 f4 bxc4
Worse are 10..jLb7 11 c5 # c7 12 0-0dxc5
13 dxe5 when Black was in trouble in Cíoor-
machtigh-Peelcn, Sas van Cient 1990, and
10...c5 11 ¿ B Sa7 12 dxc5 dxc5 (Palliser-
(¡liasi, I lalifax 2003), when 13 cxb5 axb5 14
4£lxb5 sees White nct lx>th a pawn and ihe
beiter position.
11 &xc4 QtaB
In general Black should keep the c!5-stjuare
for his pieces, I I...d5 12 ¿d 3 có 13 Ii4 f5 14
exfó Wxfó 15 Ii5, Novikov-Koxul, Tbilisi
1988, being a good example of what to avoid.
1 2 ¿b 3 a5
O r if instead 12...ÍVI5 tlien 13 #W I5 cxd5
14 S e l có 15 0-0 with better chances for
White.
I a*i us liavc a look at the position after
12...a5. White ccrtainly stands much better,
two important factors being his extra space
and attacking chances on the kingside involv-
ing the push of the h-pawn. Meanwhile, Black

has no genuino prospccts o f counterplay in the
near futuro. What Black should be concentrat-
ing on is W hite’s dark-scjuarcd hishop - if he
can managc to occupy d5 and block the posi­
lion with ...f7-f5, ihus acccntuating the passive
hishop, then he can al least make progress
awkward.
13 a3?!
13 S e l is more cffcctive.
1 3 ...¿a 6 14 h4 ¿ c 4
Kight stjuaro, wrong piece. 14...5V4 IS
¿x c 4 (15 ¿ e l £\d7 16 h5 c5) 15...¿xc4 16
S e l f6 is ihe appropriaie course.
15 ¿ c 2 f5
After 15...£kl5 16 &xd5 ¿x d 5 17 h5
White ueis to work on the kingside.
16 h5?!
White would do better to avoid ihe closing
of ihe centre with 16 exf6 exf6 17 Í5, provid
ing ihe aforementioned bisliop wilh some
brealhing space and intending 17...We7 (or
!7...Sc8) 18*12.
16...e6
16...$\l5 seems to limit White lo an edge.
17 W f3 0ld5 18 hxg6 hxg6 19 ¿ f2 ? !
19 b3! ¿ a 6 20 4^ge2 ¿x e 2 21 £}xe2 $\I7
22 ¿ f 2 is excellent for White.
19 ...fo n
19...a4 makes lifc more difficult for White.
20 £\ge2
Again 20 b3 comes to mind, when 20...¿a6
21 4^ge2 § W 3 22 £W\3 favours White.
20...Hb8 21 Sb1 <¿17 22 fc g l?!
Too passive. W hile has missed his chance;
22 ¿ Ii4 and 22 g4 are preferable.
22..fAxc3
'llie activo and consistent 22...dxe5!? 23
dxe5 S h 8 gives Black good play.
23 Wxc3 ÍLd5 24 ^ f3 ¿ x f3 ?
24...dxe5!? 2.5 dxe5 S li 8 is unclear.
25 Wxf3 d5?!
Taking away a potentially useful sejuare
can not l>e gocxl, although careless play has
sccn Black drift back into a poor position, e.g.
25..J5h8 26 S x li8 ¿ x h 8 27 g4! and Black is in
iroublc. Relatively Ixst is 25...dxe5 26 dxe5
5 $\ge2
#M>6 27 ¿ c 5 S h 8 28 Sx h 8 ¿ x h 8 29 g3 Wd5
30 Wxd5 4£lxd5, wilh a lead for White.
26 g4 2h8
N .B. On both the Intemet and C'hessBase
the gamo runs 26...Sg8 27 S I 18 SfH 28 S h l
S h 8 but ibis must be an error, so we have
correctcd it as follows:
27 Sg1 We7 28 W c3 Sbc8 29 Wxa5 c5
30 ¿ a 4 cxd4 31 gxf5 gxf5 32 Wa7 Shd8
33 Kd1 S a 8 34 Wxd4 Sh 8 35 Sd3 ¿ f 8
36 S c3 Wd8 37 ¿ c 2 ¿ e 7 38 Scg3
38 ¿x f5 ! wins at once.
38...¿h 4 39 Sg7+ <&>f8 40 »b 4 + ¿ e 7 41
Wb5 Sb 8 42 We2 Sxb2 43 Wh5 1-0
G aw e / /
Vladimirov-Gadjily
D u b ai 2001
1 d4 2 c4 g6 3 ^ 3 itg 7 4 e4 d6 5
t~Age2 0-0 6 £>g3 S\bd7 7 Ü e2 c6
Black prepares ...c7-c5. 7...a6 8 0-0 c5 9 d5
S b 8 10 f4 £ k 8 lielped only W hite in Rodrí­
guez Castelao-Gonzalez Blanco, (Jijó n 2002,
when 11 ¿c*3 securcs a defínite advantage.
8 0-0
( .astling is perfecily natural, bul ibero are al­
ternativos:
a) 8 Ii4!? h5 9 ¿o 3 a5?! 10 W d 2 S e 8 11 f4
e5 12 fxe5 dxo5 13 d5 14 0-0-0 ¿ f 6 was
(he course o f Vasiliou-Fixarchos, Ambelokipi
2002, and now 15 £ \fl, intending lo launch
the g-pawn, spclls irouble for Black. A 11 im-
23
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
provement is 9...a6 followed by ...b7-l>5.
b) 8 Ag5 h6 9 &c3 af> 10 #,12 li5 11 ÍL I 16
h4 12 &xj>7 13 £ ifl, I.Sokolov-Van
Wely, Akureyri 1994, is an edge for White
according to liC X).
c) Cornil Blanco-Illescas Cordoba, Cala
Cfalilana 1999 went 8 ¿ c 3 a6 9 Wd2 b5 10
Ü.I16 (10 f3 and 10 0-0 ljoth favour White)
and now 10...¿xh6!? 11 ® x h 6 1>4 12£\11 c5
is unclear.
8...e5
8...a6 transposes to Cíame 10, note lo
White’s 8th move (‘d’).
9d 5
Also good is 9 jfi.e3, e.g. 9...ÍV8 10 Wd2
Wc7 11 2ad 1 12 exft gxf5 13 dxc5 dxe5
Nickel I lueneburg, M V P 1996, when 14 f4 is
very good for White. Black should play 9...a6
10 dS cxd5 11 cxd5, transposing to Cíame 15.
9...c5
W
O í?
p
wTw±s
m&m •
.
'Iliis cannot be recommentled. Although
Black has closed the position and has no
weaknesses, in doing so he has also deprived
himself of any counterplay. Consccjuently
White Ivas a modest but long-term advantage
on both llanks. With this in mind Black has
9...cxd5, transposing to Cíame 15.
10 a3
In the event of 10 H bl Black should play
10 ...í^e8!?, intending ...f7-f5 and limiting
White to an edge. 'Iliis is certainly an im
provement on Kapos/tas-Kanya, Salgotarjan
1979, wlicre 10...a6 11 a3 S b 8 12 b4 Wc7 13
24
jfi.c3 b6 14 Wd2 was awful for Black.
10...&h8
l 0...^V*8 11 Ü.g4 $ il)6 12 ¿ x c 8 Hxc8 was
sccn in Bakros-I lailorn, Vannclo 1988, and
now 13 1)3 is cnough to sccurc a small advan-
tage.
11 iLe3 Í^g8 12 Wd2 h5 13 fia b l sfch7
hp
m
YAK
m a im
m
m
la1aIs' &
.......
m
Preparing a tratle o f the dark-sejuared bish-
ops, after which White - who will be left with
his lesser hishop - will not l>e so comfortable
on the dark separes. 'Hiere is also another
fcasible plan available in 13...h4 14 #Mil #Y7
15 13 17), when Black should be cióse to eejual
ity.
14 b4 Ah6 15 ^b 5 h4 16 <hh1 We7 17
m>e1 a6 18 ftc3 a5 19 bxa5
19 b5 is an option.
19...5.a5 20 Íhb5 fía6 21 Sb1 ^b 6 22
Sb3 iu e 3 23 ^xe3 ^h6 24 f4
'I bis thrust is connected with some kind of
strategic risk, which is why some players might
prefer the sater 24 O followcd by 4hí2.
24...exf4 25 Wxf4 <5W 26 & f2 fte 5 27
^ h 3 ¿x h 3 28 Exh3 g5 29 « f6 ?
Under no circumstances should White ex-
change tjueens, and now White’s future begins
to look rather bleak. lnstead 29 wf2 keeps the
game well balanced.
29...Wxf6 30 2xf6 2d8 31 g3 <Á>g7 32
&f1 hxg3 33 Sxg3 <Á>g6 34 ¿>f2 Sd7 35
Sfg1 f6 36 &e1 &g7 37 h4 g4 38 h5
*&h7 39 m 1 Sf7 40 Sg2 Í^g8??
It is difftcult lo understand how Black ar-

rivcd at this blundcr. After the simple 40...(5
II exf5 (41 2Zgf2 fxc*4 42 Hxf7+ #Mixf7 43
¿xg 4 ®g5) 41 .JSx f5 White would Ix* scri-
ously regretting his 29th move.
41 Ix g 4 ^ x c 4 42 <A>e2?
W hy not 42 ¿ e 6, winning material?
42...Ha5 43 ÍLÍ5+ *H 8 44 Sb1 Íhh6 45
¿ e 6 2e7?
45...fig7 puts up more resistance.
46 fíg6 £>f7 47 Sbg1 ^ ce5 48 Sg8+
hhl 49 ¿f5 + &h6 50 S lg 7 &xh5 51
fíg l 1-0
Garué 12
Poluljahov-Sale
A i X A ; Masters, A ba I V)ab¡ 2002
1 e4 g6 2 d4 ¿ g 7 3 c4 d6 4 £>c3 ¿hi6 5
ñge2 0-0 6 4hg3 c5
Black prepares to play in the style o f Mod-
ern Benoni Defence...
7 d5
Dnlike Cíame l, 7 dxc5 is harmless for
Black here as he has already castled, e.g.
7...dxc5 8 Wxd 8 fixd 8:
a) Black is fine after 9 £k!5 í^c 6 10 ¿Le3
<5\l4 ll 0-0-0 £tocd5 I2cxd5, Arbil -Cíoldfinc,
San Francisco 2002 - I2...c6 is equal, while
9...#WI5 and I0...e6 looks nice for Black.
b) Smirnov-Usov, 'lu la 2001 went 9 c5
ÍV -8 10 f4 11 ¿e 3 l>6 (I I...g5!?) 12 ¿Le2
<5\I4 13 ¿x d 4 , when 13...cxd4 is very pleasant
for Black. Perlvaps even better is 9...4&g4 10 f4
5 foge2
£ k 6 11 ¿Le2 g5 or 10 £<15 £k *6 11 f4 g5 with
excellent c<ninterplay.
7...e6
'I he standard plan, after which positions of
ten arisc that are similar to some lines o f the
Averbakh or the 5 h3 systems. After cxchange
on dS White can play the Modcrn Benoni or
exd5. In the latter case White usuallv j has a
small space advantage but Black’s position is
solid cnough. In comparison with the systcm
with h2-h3 White cannot advance his kingside
pawns as his knight stands on g3.
7...a6 8 ¿Le2 Wc7 9 0-0 h5 10 a4 b6 11 S e l
£>1x17 12 h3 Se8 13 ¿LÍA £ h 7 14 W d 2 Sb8
15 £ f l was an edge for White in Kapos/tas-
Nowik, Budapest 1998. Takcuchi-Clavton,
Corrcspondence 2001 went 7...e5 8 ¿Le2 #Y *8
9 h4 f5 10 cxf5 gxf5, when 11 #Mi5! would
have sccurcd White a lead. White could also
have emerged with the Ixttcr game after
7...£lxl7 8 ¿Le2 a6 9 h4 h5 10 J¿g5 Sb8 11
Wd2 ^V-5 in Behcshtacin-Ciulicv, Fajr 2(K)1
with 12 0 -0.
'I bis lcavcs 7... 8 ÍLc2:
a) 8...c6 9 0-0 £íc7
a l) 10 A f4 cxd5 (I0..X-5 II .&o3 Wi-7 12
Iv3 h6 13 W<I2 ‘¿ ¡h l 14 £ d 3 bí> 15 flac I la-
voured White in l lort-Duric, Antwcrp 1994)
11 cxd5 £ fe 8!? (intending ...f7-f5) 12 ^<12 f5
13 S fc l (13 a3!?) I3 ...¿f6 14 ¿Lh(> £g7 15
¿Li\3 S e 8 16 f4 ¿d 7 17 ¿g 5 saw White carn
a slight advantage in Pmsikhin-Madl, Hieden
1996, although after 17...Sxcl+ 18Sxcl Wf^
25
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
19 ÍLxf‘6 Wxf'6 20 £ V l Hl ,8 21 We2 £e8 thc
game was agreed drawn.
a2) 10 h3 cxd5 11exc!5 He8 (11Jttb 8 12 a4
1>6 13 ¿g 5 h6 14 ¿ c 3 £tti7, Hoffman-
Becerra Rivero, I lavana 1999 and now 15
Wci2 h5 16 ¿d 3 keeps White just ahead) 12
¿ g 5 h6 13 ¿ c 3 b6 14 Wd2 *h 7 was the
course of Mear-Botterill, Southampton 1986,
and now both 15 ¿d 3 and 15 ¿ f4 pnt the
onus on Black to work for etjuality.
b) 8...^c7 9 0-0 Eb8 (9...h5 and Black was
a shade worse after 10 f3 ¿d 7 11 a4 Sb8 12
JjLc3 b6 13 Wc2 in Korchnoi-Cíonzalcz, l.as
Vegas 1993) 10 ¿ c 3 SUM II a4 (11 e5!?)
11...1)6 (ll...a 6 12 a5 1)5 13 axb6 2xb6, Ru-
dolf-Kirichenko, Orsk 2002, and now 14 Sa2
retains White’s lead) 12 Wd2 í^g4?! 13 ¿xg4
¿xg 4 14 ¿ h 6 with trouble for Black in Bilck-
Yanofsky, Stockholm 1962.
8 ÍLe2
After 8 dxe6 Black is active, e.g. 8...¿x c 6 9
¿d 3 £ k 6 10 0-0 £}g4 11 ¿e 2 , Vincent-
Cjiiidez, Trance 1996, when ll...W h4!? 12
¿xg4 (12 h3? fox(2) 12...Wxg4 13 Wxg4
¿xg4 gives Black the hishop pair and the
better chances. 8...fxe6 9 jSi.c2 £k :6 10 0-0
We7 11 ¿g 5 h6 12 ¿ c 3 b6 13 Wd2 &h7 14
Had 1 Sd8 15 f4 d5 (Wallis-I ittlewood, Sun-
derland 1966) is given as unclear in ¡¿CO.
8...exd5 9 exd5
9...<^ifd7!?
Now Black has a wide range of continua-
tions.
26
a) 9..JSe8 10 0-0 £UxI7 ( 10...a6 II ¿ f4
#e7 12 S e l ^ Ik I7 13 Wd 2 $Y5 14 h3 W f8
15 ¿c 3 , Torintos-Ximtncnnan, I íungary
1998, with an edge for White) 11 ÍLf4!> a6 12
Wd2 £>c5 13 W l.6 (13...Wc7 14 a4 is
given by Seqxrr in liC O as slightly Ix-tter for
White) 14 a4 Wb4 15 S fe l ¿ f5 (not
15...$ixc4? 16 ¿x c4 Wxc4 17 ¿ x f 6 Sxe 1+ 18
Sx el ¿ x f 6 19 S c 8+ ^g7 20 5ice4 etc.) 16
gxf5 17 Wc2 £ W 4 18 ¿ x f 6 ¿ x f 6 19
Wxf5 and White liad tnanaged to retain the
lead in Serper-Van Wely, Knimbach 1991.
b) 9...<hlxl7 10 ,&f4 (10 0-0 £k;8!? 11 Atl2
Wh4 12 &gc4 h6 13 «3 #c7 14 f4 (5 15 & f2
&Sc7 16 a4 1)6 17 Wc2 #W> 18 JXacI a6 with a
level game in Hoffmann-Mohr, Klista 1998)
l()...^k:8 (lü .JS tó 11 0-0 h5 12 % 5 #1)6 13
Wb3 left Black slightly worse in Mear-Van
Wely, Mondorf 1991) II #<12 f5 (ll...a 6,
Danieli-Cébalo, Bratto 2003, and now 12 a4
<5Y-5 13 a5 favours White) 12 ¿ h 6 <5Y 5
(12...¿xh6!> 13 Wxh6 f4 14 ^ge*4 £W5 is
interesting) 13 ¿xg7 í?\xg7 14 f4 §\\1 15 0-0
4ftf6 (S'/.alx>-Ciolcaltea, Hamburg 1965) with
etjuality according to liC O .
c) 9...£>a6 10 0-0 (10 ¿ f4 <?Y7 11 W d 2 was
played in Serper- Kramer, St Paul 2000, when
11...b5 12 cxb5 ¿b 7 13 ¿g 5 should secure
White an edge) 10...¿?Y7 11 a4 (11 S e l S e 8
12 a4 ¿g 4 13 f3 ¿ c 8 14 ¿ f4 a6 15 Wd2 b6
16 ¿g 5 is another route to a modest lead)
11...Se 8 12 ¿ f4 We7 13 Wd 2 W f8 14 Sa3 (14
H fell?) \4 .A \\7 15 £>ge4 Vi-Vzy Comas
h’abrego-Silva, Klista 1998, although White
stands a littlc better here.
d) After 9...#Y*8 10 114!? White hopes to put
the fact that he has not castled to good use,
e.g. I0...S\I7 II h5 f5 12 hxg6 lixgó 13 A h 6
i.x h 6 14 Sxh 6 % 5 15 #,12 Wxd2i 16
<
¿i*xd2 &g7 17 Hahl and White liad the easier
game in Topalov-Danailov, Candas 1992.
Rcmlinger-Formanck, Philadclphia 1992 saw
Black prevent the further advance of White’s
pawn, but 10...h5 11 ¿g 5 f6 12 ¿ f4 5Y17 13
4V*4 We7 14 Wd2 £>c5 15 0-0-0 still fa-
voured White.

e) 9...a6 10 a4
e l) 10...£#xl7 11 0-0 £k *8 (1 1J£tó> 12 h3
<&e8 13 f4 #k!7, 'I eyss<ni-Ciarriga Nualart,
Monzón 1987, and now 14 a5 favours White)
12 JÍLo3 h6 (I2 ...B 13 Wd2 Wh4 14 ■kgS #<14,
I lermansson-l lansson, Reykjavik 1988, and
here 15 Wf4!? should kcep White ahead) 13
Wd2 SÉ?h7 14 f4 (14 a5!?) 14...f5 15 a5 with a
minimal pulí for White, Malaniuk Kaminski,
Koszalin 1996.
e2) 10..JHc8 11 A f4 (11 0-0 ^1x17 12 S e l
ÍV 5 was unclear in Kleiser-Manhardt, Austria
2001) 1l...Wc7 (1 l...íLg4?! was tried in Pyrich-
( imillas RíjxíII, Oorrespondcncc 1999, 12 f3!
íhh5 |12...¿c8 13 a5 is the lesser evil) 13
í^xh5 ÜLxh5 14 Wd2 f5 15 0-0-0 being grcat
for White) 12 Wd2 ^1x17 13 0-0 l>6 14 A h 6
& h 8 15 h3 ®Jc5 16 14 #Wd7 17 ÍLd3 with an
edge for White, Vaughan-Ramsden, Corre -
spondence 1987.
10&f4
10 0-0 f5 11 f4 ¿x c 3 (1 l...Se 8!?) 12 bxc3 29 S a l Sab8 30 Haa2 foeS 31 £>ge2 iLf6
fatty 13 h3 £>1x17 1 4 ¿d 3 (1 4 S b l!?) 14.J¡?a5
15 ¿ d 2 £}b 6 led to chances for both sities in
I lofftran-Barria, Cordoba 1998.
10...£>e5 11 Wd2 He8
I he immetliate 11...Í5 12 h4 helps White,
while ll...£>bt!7 12 h4 (12 0-0!?) 12..Jle8 13
sfcfl (13 0-0-0!?) was the course o f Maki Uuro-
Carlsson, Copenhagen 1998, when 13...h5
would have been unclear.
12 0-0 f5 13 ¿ g 5 Wb6 14 I2fe1 foa6 15
&f1 XLÓ7
5 Q\ge2
A typical set-up for Black, who has re-
stricted the scope o f the g3-knight with ...f7-f5
and achieved harmonious tlevelopment.
16 Sac1 <Ste7 17 b3 £tf7 18 & e3 Wa5
Black has gtxxl play on the tjuecnside.
1 9 ftb 1 ?!
19 a4 is better, with a level game.
19...Wxd2 20 &xd2 & f8 21 foc3 foeS
21...b5!? is an interesting and active possi-
bility, intending 22 cxb5 ¿x c3 23 ¿x c 3 #W15
with advantage to Black.
22 h3 Seb8 23 a4 a6 24 f4
After 24 S a l b5 25 axb5 axb5 26 cxl>5
Sx al 27 Sx a l iLxl>5 28 &xb5 &xb5 29
¿x b 5 Sxb5 30 Ha8+ *17 31 Sa7+ 32
S a 8 f the position is drawn.
24...£>f7 25 &d3 b5 26 a5?!
26 S b 1 improves.
26...ftd8 27 S c2 bxc4 28 bxc4 Sb3
Black has the superior prospeets but there
is no clear way of making progress.
32 £fc1 S3b4 33 &f1 &d4+ 34 <&h2 ¿ g 7
35 foó3 Sb3 36 £>c1 S3b7 37 <5tá3 ilf6
38 g3 £g7 39 &g2 foi6 40 £>f2 Sb3
Gante 13
Serper-Becerra Rivero
l 'oxwoods O/yen, Comiecticut 2000
1 d4 g6 2 e4 ¿ g 7 3 c4 d6 4 £\c3 £>f6 5
^ g e2 0-0 6 5^g3 e5
27
O f f b e a t K i n g 's Iridian
Black simply continúes in traditional King’s
Indian style, cffectively forcing White to cióse
the centre. 'I he point is that after d4-d5 Black
can employ the thetnatic thnist of the f-pawn
or place a knight on c*5. Another plan is to
cxchange pawns on d5 followcd by queenside
expansión. O f course these themes are not
exclusive to just one strategy.
7 d5 £>fd7
We should also consider the following, less
popular Black’s continuations, nonc of which
is enough for etjuality:
a) 7...h5 8 ÍLg5 W c8 9 ÍL \3 £ lh l 10 &e3
Ii4 11£>fl ?^a6 12 $\\2 15 13 f3 with an edge
for White in I lort-lJhlmann, Batí Neuenahr
1991.
b) 7...^g4 8 &e2 (8 B £fo 6 9 h4 f5 10 hS!?
f4 11 hxgíj hxgf) 12 4?}ge2 gS 13 4^gl g4 was
S/ekeres-Varga, llungary 1992, and now 14
g3! is strong) 8...Wh4 9 ®ib5! í^a6 10 Ad2 c6
( 10...&h 6 II Axhó &xh 6 12 0-0 favours
White according to NCO) 11 W cl! (11 dxeó
I>xc6 12 &xd 6 13 * x f 2 W f6+)
II.JM U 8 12 #Y*3 (1‘brintos-Sinkovics, Mun-
gary 1986) is given as slightly better for White
in neo.
c) 7...£>lxl7 8 h4 (8 a6 9 h4 h5 10 ÍLg5
• c -8 11 Wd2 fo h l 12 & I 16 £W > 13 Axg7
<
á?xg7 14 0-0-0 ÍLd7 15 Hdgl b5 is evaluated
as even in /iCO) 8...h5 9 &g5 W c 8 (9...2c8 10
$U2 11 Wd 2 £»h7 12 with a mod-
est plus for White in Scrpcr-Wallach, Oak-
brook 1996) 10 &c2 #W5 (10...a5 11 ®b5
W d 8 12 Wc2 leaves Black slightly worse) 11
1>4 £W> 12 a3 and Black was stmggling in
Mitchell-Komhauser, l^ansing 1988.
ti) 7...£W8
til) 8 A iI3 R (8...a5 9 0-0 £\a6 10 a3 Ad7
II á.c-3 £í(> 12 W(I2 kccps While ahcail) 9
exR gxfi 10 W c2 # f 6 11 0-0 6 was the
course of Krantz-Br/ozka, Correspondence
1972/81, when White’s Ijcst is 12 ¿Le2 & f 6
(12...F4 13 ±d3 # li 6 14 13 Í4 with a
definíte plus.
d2) 8 h4 h5 9 &c2 (W liite enjoyed the eas-
ier game after 9 -&g5 .&f6 10 Wd2 £)g7 11
28
Ad3 £k!7 12 £ige2 &c5 13 &c2 a5 14 0-0-0
in Remlinger-Belakovskaia, Philadelphia 1991)
9...ÍVI7 (9...ÍLf6 10 & h 6 5)g7 11 Wd2 Axh4
12 0-0-0 ±e7 13 <&bl $\I7 14 Axh5! is a
typical sacrifice in this system, and one worth
remembering 14...^xh5 I5í^xh5gxh5 16
Sxh5 and the clouds were gathering around
Black’s kingside in Kovacs-Haik, Reggio
lunilia 1977) 10 A g 5 Í.f6 11 Wd2a5 12 0-0-0
with a nice position for White, De Wachter-
Vinucrhocts, I luv 1992.
8 ¿Le2
Also gotxl is 8 h4, when 8...Í5? (IJngcr-
Kugelmann, Bayern 1997) nins into 9 exf5!
gxB 10 £>h5 ÍLh 8 11 & h 6 S e 8 12 g4 with a
strong attack. Instead Burgcrhoff-Bakkcr,
Vlissingen 2000 continued 8...h5 9 .&g5 $V 6
10 $Lc2 We8 11 Wd 2 &h7 12 ÍLh 6, when
Black is still struggling to eejualise.
I x:t us return to 8 & c 2:
8...a5
Black has also tried:
a) 8...£>a6 9 0-0 (9 h4!?) 9...h5 10 Ae3 h4
11 4 ih l f5 12 exf5 gxf5 13 f4 and White stcxxl
better in Divc-Britton, lx>ndon 1994.
b) 8...Í5 9 exf5 gxf5 (Mourot-I luisman,
France 1999) and now Seqxr gives 10 f4 as
favouring White.
9 h4 f5 10 exf5 gxf5 11 &g5 £>f6
11.jKfc8?? 12 Ah5 (Seqxír) is final, but
11...ü.f6 12 Wd 2 is cjuite playable, with an
edge for White according to Seqxrr.
12 fohS & h 8

Pcrhaps 12...Wd7 13 $^xg7 Wxg7 14Sgl is
;in improvemcnt on thc game for Black, al-
ihougli this also looks ilifficult.
13 g4ü
13...Wd7
I3...fxg4? loses due to 14 #Y-4 #Mxl7 15
Ü.xg4 etc. (Serper), while I3...f4 14 & h 6 S c 8
15 g5 £^xh5 16 j^xh5 appears hopeless for
Black.
14 H g l! f4
No better is 14...^xh5 15 gxh5 *17 16 h6!
S g 8 17 ±h5+ *1 8 18 Wc2 £ h 6 19 0-0-0
(Serper), when Black is doomed to waiting for
his cxecution.
15 &xf6 &xf6 16 g5 & g 7 17 &g4
White should avoid 17 ^ f 6+? & x f6 18
gxf6 t * h 8 19 Sg7 Wh3, which Serper judges
lo be unclear. Howcver, 17 j»Ld3 * h 8 18
ilxh7 *x h 7 19 #W>+ is nice.
17...Wd8 18<5te4<&h8
( )r I8...&xg4 19 Wxg4 W c 8 20 W tt etc.
19 ^xg7 *x g 7 20 £tf6 foa6?
A blunder in a lost position. Better was
20...Axg4.
21 &xc8 Wxc8 22 Wb1 Hh8 23 & h 5+
* f8 24 g6 Sg8 25 g7+ sfce7 26 Wxh7
Wh3 27 0-0-0
27 Wg 6! (Seqx-r).
27.„5\c5 28 Wg6 a4 29 Wf6+ & e8 30
<ftxf4 Wf3 31 Wg6+ * e 7 32 «g5+ * d 7
33 Wf5+
33 £Mi 5 is simple and effcctive.
33...<¿>e8 34 Wh5+ «x h 5 35 <?ixh5 <¿>f7
5 foge2
36 Sg4
36 f4!? exf4 37 fld fl.
36...a3 37 b3 e4 38 & c2 fíae8 39 fíf4+
* g 6 40 fod3 41 &g1 + * f7 42
£\xg8+ *x g 8 1-0
Gante ¡4
Lutz-Gelfand
Hoi'gen 1994
1 d4 fo16 2 c4 g6 3 foc3 Ü.g7 4 e4 d6 5
<^e2 0-0 6 í^g3 e5 7 d5 a5
'fhis themaric advance prepares lo rcin-
force Black’s control o f the c5-squarc\ which
is lx-ing prepared as an outpost for a knight.
8 ie 2
White continúes with standard dcvclop-
ment. By now it should also be natural for us
to consider starting immediate aggression 011
the kingside with 8 h4 followcd by h4-h5 etc.
Black must decide what to do i11 responsc to
this ‘threat* - ignore it or preven t it:
a) 8...<5Va6 9 h5 c 6 was Black’s rcply in Ser-
pcr-Watzka, I tupen 1994, when 10 hxg6 fxg6
11 B &Sc5 12 ÍLe3 favoured White. 'lilis ccr-
tainly looks better than 9...í'Y5 10 $Lc2 Í Y 8
11 ¿ c 3 f5 12 hxg6 hxg6 13 exf5 gxf5 14 #Mi5,
which saw Black in trouble in M.Ivanov-Chr/,
Schwabisch Gmund 1999.
b) 8...c6 9 h5! cxd5 (Bctancli-Van Delft,
Philadelphia 2(K)1) 10 hxg6! is an idea to keep
in mind, e.g. 10...fxg6 ( I 0...hxg6 11 cxd5 4ha6
12 % 5 W b 6 13 &l>5, 10...dxe4? 11 gxf7+
29
O ff b e a t K in g 's Iridian
Hxt7 12^gxc4 and 10...Ü4 11 gxh7+S*?h8 12
all fail to help Black) 11 íhxd5 Ü.e6 12
.ÍLg5 etc.
c) 8...h6 does address W liitc’s own h-pawn
bul rhc downside is that afrer h4-h5 Black is
forcee! to play ...g6-g5, thus leaving a gaping
hole <>n f5. ('onsetjucntly \ve woukl suggest
that White makes the consisten! advanee h4-
h5t either now or on the next move. White
vvaited a little longer in M.Ivanov-Stiefel, l'rie-
drichnxlaer 2(K)3: 9 2 10 .&e3 SÍ?h7
(10...c6 11 Wd2 &h7 12 B cxd5 13 cxd5 with
an edge, Kaposztas-Bednar, Slovakia 19%) 11
Wd2 ®k:5 (1 l...^g4 12 Üxg4 &xg4 13 h5 g5
leaves Black slightly worse) 12 h5 gS 13 .&xc5
dxc5 I4 ÍV I1 á e 8 15^e3?kl6 16 Wc2a4 17
-&g4! and White, who has been mcthodically
fíghting for control o f the f5-squarc, had a
(well deserved) big lead. 'Hiere followed
17....&d7 18 0-0 W c8 19 B S d 8 201>3& h 8 21
Wb2 1*6 22 l>4 c6?? 1-0 (23 &xd7 Hxd7 24
bxcS).
d) 8...h5 is - perhaps not surprisingly -
Black’s best. With this preventative measure
Black loses soitie potential influence over g5,
so a logical reaction from White is 9 Ag5.
I lien 9...#e8 10 &e2 ^h7 11 ÍLc3 We7 12
Wd2 5^6 13 0-0-0 Ad7 14 <¿>bl HfdS 15
Bdgl left White with a healthy iniliative in
Svendsen-Lakat, Budapest 2(M)2>which leaves
the immediate 9...4^a6 - 10 .&e2 W e8
( 10...Se 8? is careless because 11 .&xh5! gxhS
12 £kh5 £>c5 13 W B ^V\17 14 £kl1 - in-
tending #Y*3 - is dangerous, as in B.Vigh-
S/ittar, Hungary 1985, bul 10...Wd7 11 Wd2
£\c5 is quite playable, with just an edge for
White) 11 Wd2 and here:
d i) I 1...&h7 12 Ae3 (12 £ h 6!? &xh 6 13
Wxh6 We7 14 0-0-0 W f6 15 B A d 7 16 $Sñ
&ae8 17 g3 Wg7 18 Wd2 f5 19 <S_V3 slightly
favoured White in Ader 1lausman-Bolbochan,
Mar del Plata 1952) 12...&d7 13 a4!? We7 14
í^b5 f5!? 15 exf5 gxf5 16 Ag5 í^xg5 17 ®xg5
Wxg5 18 hxg5 c*4 19 0-0-0 Jixb5 20 axb5 #\c5
21 íhxh5 a4!? (M.Gurevich-Nijboer, Nether-
lands 1992) with compensation according to
30
Ciurevich in l iCO.
d2) 1l...ÍLd7!? 12 0-0-0 £V\5 13 Hdgl (13
4 b I ^h7 14 Ae3 b6 15 £ h 6 £xh 6 16 Wxh6
We7 17 £tf1 W f6 18 We3 Wf4, Ghaetn
Maghami Darban, Mumbai 2(X)3> with
chances for both sities) 13...a4 14 B £Mi7 15
J&h6 a3 16 b3 We7 17 Axg7 Vz-Vz, Novikov-
Tsarev, Tu/.la 1989.
8...^a6 9 h4
The sharpest continuation, preparing an at-
tack on the kingside.
a) 9 Ag5 h6 10 A e 3 h5! 11 ÍLg5 (11 B h4
12 £ lfl ÍV17 is unclear, as was Novikov-
I x>ginov, Tashkent 1986, which continued 11
Wd2 £\g4 12 ÍLxg4 &xg4 13 B Ad7 14 0-0 0
We7) ll...We8 (a standard idea in this struc-
ture, to play ...£Mi7 followed by ...h5-h4 and
...f7-f5) 12 W d2 (Vladimirov-'Iliipsay, Sangli
2(KK) saw chances for ljoth sides after 12 h4
Ad7 13 Wd2 £>h7 14 Ahí» Axh 6 IS Wx 1,6
Wc7 16 <SVl W f6) I2...£U,7 13 & l ,6 (13 .kc-3
gives White nothin^) 13...1,4 14 ^.xg7 < ¿í’x;;7
15 ^>('1 ?hc5 16 «3 Wc7 17 Wc3 i¿.(17 with ai,
interesting battle in pros|x:ct, Rohde-J.Polgar,
New York 1992.
b) 9 0-0
White settles for a traditional, sober set-up.
Now 9...c6 10 Ji.g5 h6 II ÍL c 3 h5 12 Ag5
Wc7 13 Wd 2 ^h7 14 Ae3 left White with a
modcst plus in lífitnov-Martinovic, IJdo
listensi 2(XK)>while 9...h5 10 A g 5 W e8 11
Wd2 <^h7 12 A e 3 We7 13 Bael Ad7 14
£>hl ÍL f 6 15 B Ag5 16 &\Í2 ¿hc5 17 €k!3

JÍ.xc3+ 18 Wxc3 # W 3 19 &xd3 also retaincd
ihe first playcr’s edge in Dcrjabin-Shulga, Sim­
feropol 2(M)3.
I lowevcr, Black should be consisten! and
hop inro c5. ( ¡iorgad/.e-Akopian, 'Ibilisi 1989
condnucil as follows: 9...4hc5 10 !>3 Ü.d7 11
H bl h5 12 & g 5 W e8 13 «U 2 Íhh7 14 & h 6,
when W hite’s decisión to trade these bishops
doesn’t look appropriate (14 A c3 is worth
considcring). White should not cxchange his
dark-sejuared bishop unlcss he has attacking
chances, as his piccc is clearly superior to its
oppositc number. After thc subsccjucnt I4...h4
15 £xg7 <&xg7 16 £ih I We7 17 fibe I Wg5 18
WxgS í^xgS 19 B f5 Black had assumcd the
advantage.
9...c6
Black should play 9...h5, when 10 -&g5
transposes to 8 h4.
10 h5 cxd5
Naturally Black can opt for thc immediate
10...#W5, but after 11 Ae3 he will have to take
on d5 sooner or later, transposing to the main
game. Chilingirova-G rabies, Timisoara 1993
went 11...*fb6 12 Wd2 a4 13 B b l cxd5 14
cxd5 with an edge for White, while Black
should avoid 11__¿Ld7 12 dxeó ÜLxc6 13 B
etc.
11 cxd5
'Ib is is thc most usual rccapturc, White in­
tending to complete developmcnt and then
combine play in the centre with an attack on
thc kingside. Nevcrtheless, 11 cxd5¡? is ccr-
tainly worth our attention. 'lilis approach is
known from previous games, but here White
has not yet castled, a differcncc that could Ik*
significan! in that Black’s kingside is more
likcly to come under attack. In fact Black must
l>e carcful lierc. ll...W l)6 12 £ta4! Wc7 13
.&e3 ÍY I7 14 hxgó hxg6 15 Wd2 f5 16 A h 6
(I la/ai) is what White is l(K)king for, while
11...£k-8 (intending ...f7-f5) meets with 12
Iixg6 hxg6 13 J-LI16 etc. Mcanwhilc 11...íhc5
12 ÍLe3 JwLd7 13 hxg6 fxg6 14 £xc5 dxc5 15
Wb3, with thc idea o f answcring 15...a4 with
16 Wa3, also favours White, as docs 11...Wc7
5 foge2
12 ÍLc3 £k:5 13 Wd2 a4 14 & h 6. This leaves
11 ...JuLcl7, when 12 hxg6 fxg6 13 J¡Lc\ as in
Klciscr-Müllcr, Vienna 2002 limits White to a
iiKHlest lead and looks likc the best that Black
can achievc. Noticc here that thc automatic
12...hxg6?! is dangerous due to 13 Üg5.
11...^c5
ll...& d 7 12 ÜLc3 S c 8 13 B left Black
slightly worse in Arkhipov-Círoszpcter, Kcc-
skemet 1992.
White has a number o f ways/ to mcct thc
arrival of the knight 011 c5.
12 iLe3
Moni torilig thc knight with a view to rc-
moving it under favourable circumstances
should the opportunity present itself. Alterna-
tivclv:
a) 12 hxg6 fxg6 ! 13 .ÍLc3 ^Ld7 14 B W b 6
15 Wd2 S fc 8 was handlcd well by Black in
Klciser-Raggcr, Staatsliga ‘B ’ 2(KK)/1.
b) 12 Ág5 a4 13 Wd2 Wa5 14 B (14 0-0
ÍLd7 is balanccd) 14...£d7 15 <Á>f2 (15 I16!?
.& I18 16 0 0 - intending B-f4 - is interesting,
16...b5 providing Black with counterplay)
15...b5 16 l>4 axb3 17 axb3 Wb 6 18 ÍLc3 M
with cxccllent play for Black, Novikov-
J.Polgar, Pamplona 1990.
c) 12 h6 JwLh8 13 ÍLg5 with a further
branch:
e l) 1.3....&d7 14 0-0 (White wants to play
S&hl followcd by launching the f pawn in
order to organisc a kingside offensive)
14...Wl>6 15 H b l a4 (15..JSfc8!? !6sS?hl £Y*8,
31
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
Kajx>sztas-( ír<>szpetcr, Sxcksxard 1994, might
Ix* worth another try) 16 Wd 2 (16 sfchl was
Whitc’s choice in Kapos/.tas-Kcrek, I ’lger
1995, aiul now 16...Slc8 looks like ihc lx*st
way for Black to maintain ihc balance)
16...5fc8 17 <&hl, Jakab-Berkes, l>;iks 1998,
and now I7...#V8 18 f4 f6 leaves Black fairly
S( >lid.
c2) Also fine is l3...Wb6 14 Wd2 &d7 15
0-0 a4!, e.g. 16 & h l (Jakab-Schumi, Budapest
1999) I6.j5\g4! 17 Habí (17 13 f6!) 17...Í6 18
Ü.xg4 jÍLxg4 19 Ae3 with ecjuality, or 16 & I 12
4^g4+ 17 sfchl, )akab-l;lumbort, Paks 1996,
wlien 17...I6 secures Black decent counteqilay.
d) 12 a4!? voluniarily weakens b4 and b3
luí! ibis advanee conld siill prove awkward for
Black. White gets control over the importan!
l>5-si|uare! Novikov-Cvitan, l ’orli 1993 is a
good example of how play might tinfold:
12...11d7 13 Ha3 (13 ÍLe3 Wl>6!? 14 <^l>5
Hfc8 was tried in Poluljahov-Nadyrhanov,
Krasnodar 2002, bu! ihen 15 hxg6 hxg6 16
S e l is excellen! for White) 13...Sc8 (l3.jHfb6,
intending 14 Ae3 Wl>4, is another candidate)
14 JjL\3 W b6 15 hxg6 fxg6 16 f3 (this position
is assessed as slightly better for W hite in /iCX),
while 16 4hb5 could itnprove) l6...Wxl>2!? I 7
Ü.xc5 Hxc5 18 Hb3 Wxc3+ 19 Hxc3 Sx c3 20
W a l (20 &b5!>; 20 W b l!?) 20...Sfc8 21 <&f2
h5 2 2 H b l M\(> 23 ¿h íl V2 -V2 .
12...Wb6
White has a small edge afíer boíh 12...a4 13
$Lxc5 dxc5 14 Í^xa4 Ad7 15 #Y*3 and
12....6d7 - Nunn (liC 'O ).
13 Hb1
C)nce again White is not without choice:
a) 13 0 -0!? A d 7! is unclear according lo
Nunn in I iCX), bu! l3...Wxb2? 14 juLxc5 dxc5
15 #\i4 spells ironble for Black.
b) 13 b3 Ad7 14 0-0 Hfc8 prompts an-
oiher unclear assessment from Nunn in IiCX >,
which leaves I4...'0rl>4!? and a furiher decisión
froin White:
b l) 15 A tl2!? Wd4?! (rejx-aiing ihe posilion
wiih 15...Wb6 16 £ ic3 Wb4 is preferable) 16
We2 and Black has problems in all variations.
32
e.g. 16...a4 (16...b5 17 A e 3 Wb4 18 H fb l, or
16...£>g4 17 &xg4 üxg4 18 £>b5 Wd3 19
Wxd3 £ixd3 20 &xd 6) 17 b4 <S\a6 18 a3.
I>2) 15 Wd 2 Hfc 8 16 a3! W l>6 17 Habí
W d 8, Korchnoi-Nunn, Wijk aan Zee 1992
(Nunn’s evalúation in /iCX) being unclear).
c) 13 Wd2 &d7 14 H bl a4 15 B Wa5
(15..JSfc8, I lerzog-Bucher, Swiizeríand 1997,
and now 16 b4!? axl>3 17 axb3 earns Whi!e a
plus) 16 h6 (16 jjlh 6 b5 17 hxg6 fxg6 18 ÍLxg7
<&xg7 19 W h 6 » <¿?g8 f;ivours Black according
ío I la/ai) l 6...J&h8 17 í^f5!? (this appears
rather cavalier but is in fact a typical inotif in
ibis situation) 17_¿Lxf5 18 ex 15 e4! 19 Ixg6
(19 j£.xc5 Wxc5 20 fxe4 Hfe8 wiíh iniiiative -
I lazai) I9...fxg6 20 0-0 exB 21 S x B , Bauer-
Degraeve, Marseilles 2001. After 21...ÍYd7
Black gets control over lx»th c5 and e*5 and
does not stand not badly, though with 22 4hb5
Wxd2 23 £xd2 &e5 24 Ae3 While is able to
obtain a minimal advaniage.
13...£d7 14<hf1
White sets in molion the transfer of the
knight to c4, via d2. Alteniacively:
a) 14 0 0 JXac8 (I lazai) wiíh chances Ibr
lx>ih sides.
b) 14 I16 A h 8 15 0-0 S fc 8 aiul there was
no reason for Black 10 feel uncomforiable in
W illiams-Doggers, I loogeveen 2003.
14...a4 15 h\62 Wa5
16 hxg6
No! 16 a3 í^fxe4!, bu! 16 I (Cíelfaiul) is
inieresting.

16...hxg6
I 6...fxg6 also looks pleasant for Black.
17 f3
(¡elfand’s proposed 17 * l 'l is better, or 17
#Y*4.
17...b5 18a3<5Mi5!
Black is gradually taking over the initiative.
19 g4?
(¿clfand offers 19 *£> 20 g3 5^fd3+
(wrong knight - after 20...$Yc!3+ White is
torced to capture with 21 .&.xd3 as 21 V&fl?
loses to 21 Jfoxb2 22 Wc2 H fc 8) 21 ÍLxd3
(missing 21 * g 2, e.g. 21../ftxb2 22 W c 2,
which is no problem for White, or 21...Í5 22
f t f l with an cxccllent position for White)
21 ...í^xd3» 22 *g 2 ((¡clfand gives 22 SÍ/e2
^ x l>2 23 W c 2 h4 24 axb4 W a 6 ») 22..JSfc 8 23
Wc2 1>4and White is in dire straits.
19...ÍM 4 20 ¿>f2 ÍLf6
Black wants control o f the h-flle. Another
plan is 20...ÍYd3M ? (after 20...#Vcl3+ 21 *g 2
the position is far from clear) 21 -ÍLxd3 £\xd3+
22 S¿> e2 #V41* 23 * Í2 S fc 8, intending ...1)5-
l>4, or at once 23... 1)4.
21 % 1 ¿ g 5
Obviously not 2 l...*g 7 ?? 22 g5 Ü.e7 23
ÜLxf4 exf4 24 Sh7+! (Gelfand) 24...&g8 25
Wh2 &xg5 26 e5 dxe5 27 £kx*4 £>xe4+ 28
#W*4 with mate to follow.
22 Wh2 dfcg7 23 Wh7 + ?
23 i¿xf4 &xf4 24 Wh7t- SÉ?f6 is a lesser
evil, with a very big advantage for Black.
23... A>f6 24 Í^a2?
24 * f l |x>slp<)>ic-s thc cih I, Icaving Black
with a strong cnough initiative.
24...<hfd3+ 25 ¿x d 3 ^xd3+ 26 s!e2
¿x e3 27 &xe3 £if4 28 Wh4+ g5 29
Wh6+ sfce7 30 Wxg5+ f6 31 Sh7+ Sf7
32 Sxf7+ '¿’x f? 0-1
Game 15
Munschi-S.Farago
Budapest ¡994
1 d4 & f6 2 c4 g6 3 £>c3 A g í 4 e4 d6 5
$\ge2 0-0 6 Í^g3 e5 7 d5 c6 8 ÍLe2 cxd5
5 foge2
Concentra ting on the c|ucens¡clc. The main
alternative is 8...a6, and now:
a) 9 a4H a5! is a tcxtbook positional theme.
llien play can continué 10 h4 h5 11 .&g5 (11
ÍLe3 #Ya6 12 W d 2 Wc7 was dynamically
y j
bal
anced in Storhaug-Wuerth, Norway Switzer
land ( lorrespondence Match 1994) ll...W l>6
12 Sa3 (12 ® c 2 £W>, )ac<>b-Sikiric, I lidden-
hausen 1996, and now 13 0-0!? - intending
S a d l - is interesting, with chances for both
sides, while 12 dxc6 also desenes attention,
e.g. 12...íhxc6 13 4?lb5 or 12...bxc6 l3Ü8rxd6
Wxb2 14 0-0) I2...£Mx17 (lonov-Bologan,
Moscow 1991) 13 0-0!? (Black cannot take the
b2-pawn anyway) I3 ...ÍY 5 14 ÍLe3 with an
interesting micldlegame in pros|x*ct.
b) 9 ¿g 5 !? h6 10 £ e 3 cxd5 11 cxd5 h5
( II ...b5 12 Wd2 & h7 13 h4 h5 14 B & g 8 was
Plachetka I Iausner, Marianske Lixne 1978,
with 15 1>4 securing White an edge) 12 -&g5
W c 8 13 W d 2 <hlxl7 14 a4 (14 S e l!?) I4...£>h7
15 ÍLh 6 & xh 6 16 Wxh 6 W d 8 17 h4 with a
slight plus for White, (Ponías 1‘ábrego-XieJun.
Pamplona 1999.
c) 9 h4, and now 9...b5 10 h5! cxd5 I I cxd5
£>1x17 12 A e 3 £ ll>6 13 b3 (Krmenkov-
Topalov, Sumen 1991) is given as slightly bet­
ter for White in fiC O , and 9...h5 10 Ág5 Wc7
(Tuchenhagen-Kitel, Germany 1995) also
leaves White with an edge in the case of 11
Wd2.
9 cxd5
9 exd5 provecí cjuite harmless for Black in
33
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
Aldag-llcck, Hcrmannen 1997 after 9...ÍV8
10 0-0 Í5 11 f4 £kl7 12sfch1 5\ef6 13 .&c3 a6,
although rccapturing with the c pawn looks
like the most appropriate course anyway, giv-
ing us the following position:
An important situation has arisen which re-
cjuires rather careful handling l>y Black, '[lie
cxchange on d5 is usually followcd by ...a7-a6
and ...l>7-b5, or ...a7-a5 and ...£kl7/a6-c5 with
counteq>lay on the c|ueenside. I lowevcr, Black
occasionally combines this with play on the
op|x»site flank.
9...£fod7
a) 9...h5?! l<K>ks out o f place here - 10 &g5
W b 6 (10...a6 11 0-0 W e8 12 Wd2 £ih7 13
ÍLe3 h4 14 íh lil f5 15 cxf5 gxf5 16 f4 was
p(x>r for Black in Kaposztas-Szicberth, Buda­
pest 1994) 110-0 (l I Wd2 £>h7 12 &c3 Wd 8
13 0-0 h4 14 £fol £ki7 15 B Í5 16 cxf5 gxf5
17 f4 and Kaposztas had another victim, this
time Gazik, Slovakia 2000) 11...£>1)7 (not
1 l...Wxb2? 12 £>b5!) 12 Ae3 W d 8 13 S e l
and Black was alrcady in trouble in Paehtz-
Bastian, Bad Wildbad 1993.
b) 9...£k-8 10 0-0 h5 11 Ii3 (11Ad3!? h4 12
£>gc2 £kl7 13 Ae3 f5 14 ex15 gxf5 15 f4 with
a plus for White, Carbonc-Szmetan, Buenos
Aires 1973) ll...£kl7 (11...H49? 12 © h l £kl7,
intending ...Í7-Í5, is worth investigating) 12
S e l -&f6 (12...h4 is still a preferable option,
although the knight can now retrcat to fl, 13
£>fl f5 leaving Black slightly worse) 13 j&.h6
£>g7 14 Wd2 *117 15 S e c l with a clear edge
34
(HC.O) in l'orintos-Suer, Atliens 1969.
c) 9...a5
e l) 10 &e3 <&a6 II 0-0 ÍV 5 (Il...h5 12
Ag5 $U\1 13 S e I W b 6 14 Wd 2 £lg4 15 £>h 1
ÍV 5 , as in l;orintos Bvrne, Monte (.arlo 1968,
is ecjual according to /iCO) 12 B h5 13 Wd2
h4 14 £>hl £>h5 saw a lot of knight moves in
|akab-l lorvath, Budapest 1998, when 15 £U2
woulcl have led to a complicated position fa-
vourablc to White.
c2) Matulovic-Bednarski, Palma de Mal-
lorca 1%7 wcni 10 h4 4?V> II h5 $V5 12
ÍLg5 (12 ÍLc-3!? JsLil7 13 a4! 14 Sa3 4¡V7
15 W<I2 was cnough for a sliglu pulí in I Ion-
Schocne, Bad Ncucnahr 1991, and this might
be White’s best) 12 JLd7 (I2...a4 13 Wd 2
Wa5 14 B JuLil7, Novikov-J.Polgar, Pamplona
1990, and now 15 Ii6!? .&I18 16 0-0 b5 is un­
clear) 13 Wd2 a4 14 0-0-0 Wa5 15 * b l b5
with an assessmcnt of unclear in l iCO.
d) 9...a6
ti 1) 10 0-0 b5P! might seem like a logical
follow-up to 9...a6, but White seetns to lx* ablc
to steer the game to his advantage, e.g. 11 1)4!?
4hlxl7 12 a4! bxa4 13 Wxa4 &b7 14 áU l2 h5
15 S fc l, Yurtaev-Monin, St Petersburg 1997
with a similar lead for White to that scen in
the main game. Black docs better to forget
about his b-pawn for thc time being,
I0...^lxl7!? 11 S e l h5 12 % 5 We8 13 W d 2
£>li7 14 &c3 leaving him only a littlc worse in
Kaposztas-Neuschmicd, Budapest 1993.
d2) 10 a4

Pushing the a-|>awn rules out ...b7-b5 hut
the main purpose is to gain space on the
ijueensiclc. 10...^1x17 11 h4 (only Black’s h-
pawn saw Service in 1narkiev-Agopov, lílista
1998, which went 11 ()-() # V 8 12 ÜLe3 h5 13
W d 2 h4 14 4bhl 15 15 exí5 gxf5 16 % 5 SLÍ6
17 J¡Lxi6 W xf6 18 f4 with the better game for
White) 1l...h5 (l I...a5 weakens the b5-scjuare
and after 12 h5 £ k5 13 & c3 «fb 6 14 £>b5
&d7 15 S e l Sac8 16 Sc3 White had a secure
lead in Remlinger-Dannevig, Cíausdal 1992)
12 Ag5 atul then:
d21) 12...Wl>6 13 a5 Wc7 (13..Sxb2 14
A d 2 j&.h6 15 JwLxh6 Wxc3+ 16 A d2 Wc7 17
0-0 and White had more tlvan enough conv
pensation for the pawn in Robbiani-Bigini, c
mail 1998) 14 Wd2 b6 (Black must be careful
here - I4...&h7 15 0-0 ® c5 16 Ba3 b6 17 1>4
€icd7 18 S e l, Gradl-Kiimek, Augsburg 1995,
and 14...£k\5 15 Ha3 b6 16 1>4, l'orintos-
Udovcic, U/ice 1966, are both to Ix* avoided)
15 axl>6 Wxb6 16 0-0 with an edge for White,
Muno/ Sotomayor-C¿arda, HCU 1999.
d22) 12...We8!? (intending ...&h7, ...We7
atul ..JL(6) 13 W d 2 (13 Ha3 ® h 7 14 A e 3
í>Ylf6 15 Wb3 Wc7, Forintos-Borocz, I lun-
gary 1993, and 16 a5 keeps W liite just in front)
I3...®Mi7 14 ÍLxh5 (14 ÍLe3!?) 14...gxh5
(I4...&xg5 15 Wxg5 ÍL f 6 16 W h 6 Ag7 17
Wg5 ÍL f 6 forces a draw and is therefore an
improvement) 15 5^xh5 and White had a
strong attack for the piece in Soman-
Saravanan, India 1994.
10A e3
An alternative is 10 Ag5 h6 11 J&c3 (note
that if Black decides to push to h5 the game
will transpose to l l...h5 in the note to Black’s
11th move) l l...a6 12 0-0 1)5 13 l>4 ^ b 6 14 a4
<5^xa4 15 í^xa4 bxa4 16 Sxa4 h5!, Szabo-
Yanofsky, Winnipeg 1967, and now 17 Ag5
seems to lx*nefit White. 12 Wd2 h5 13 Ag5
b5 14 0-0 W e 8 15 S fc l 4&h7 16 A c3 favoured
White in Cavril Renaud, Correspondence
1996, while 12 h4 £>e8 13 W d 2 h5 14 S e l
A f 6 15 Ü.g5 Axg5 16 hxg5 l>5 17 1)4 was
another postal game, l;rcisc-Bellmann, Corrc-
5 Q\ge2
spondence 1996, when 17...^g7 18 a4 bxa4
19 #ixa4 a5 20 b5 A b7 21 Wc3 would liave
left both sides with chances according to
Bellmann.
10...a6 11 0-0
Castling is the most accurate continuación.
11 l)4, on the other hand, is premature, l l...h5
12 0-0 (12 Ag5!?) 12...h4 13 £ fo l ® h 7 14 f3
A f 6 (Forintos-Sznapik, Ljubljana 1981) given
as preferable for Black in HCO. Ñ or does 11
a4 furnish White an advantage, I l...h5 12íhf l
£V5 13 ¿)\\2 % 4 14 ÍLx c5 dxc5 15 £k4 b6
giving Black as mucli to smile about as White
in Rodríguez-Vogt, ’Fhessaloniki 1988. 11
Wd2 b5 12 Í3 transposes to the Samisch Sys­
tem.
11...b5
'lilis thrust looks natural but is not without
a downside. Consecjucntly Black sliould con-
sider 11...h5, e.g.
a) 12 Ag5 W e 8 13 Wd2 (13 a4 & h7 14
$Lc?> h4 15 #Mil f5 16 exf5 gxf5 17 f4 and
White had a mcxlest advantage in Poluljahov-
Cíasanov, Krasn<xlar 2002) 13...^h7 14 .ÍLI16
h4 15 .&xg7 (15 £>hl Wfc7 16 &xg7 *xg 7
was unclear in Z.Polgar-Brustman, 'Iliessalo-
niki 1988) 15...&xg7 16 & h l f5 (16JÉfe7!?)
17 ex<5 gxf5 18 f4 and the trade on f5 fol­
lowed by pushing the f-pawn again afforded
White a definite plus, this time in Shemeakin-
Gaponenko, Alushta 1998.
b) 12 S e l allows 12...h4, when 13 4^tl
5Mi7 14 Wd2 Í5 15 exf5 gxf5 16 14 saw
35
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
W hite’s now familiar better game in Avrukh-
Van den Doel, Duisburg 1992. Black has also
playee! the deliberare but lengthy I2...shh7 13 Corresjxjndence 1988/90. Iliis leaves 16
£üfl & f 6 14 a4! .&g5, when in ( Ihekhov-Ye
Jiangchuan, Beijing 1991 White pressed on
with 15 a5 h4 16 b4!? f5. 'Ilie n Ye Jiangchuan b5 Sxb5 19 Ji.xb5 Ü.xb5 should end in a
gives 17 exf5 gxf5 as unclear in liC O but, in
our opinion, White has an advantage.
12b4£fo6 13a4
The point. Rather than allow Black free-
dom oti the queenside White has takcn ag-
gressive action of his own there, blockading
and then challenging the enemy dúo.
13...^xa4!
Not 13...£>c4?! 14 axb5 £tee3 15 fxe3 W b 6 24 ÉLíí6 Wxa7 25 Wxb4 he wins.
16 Wd3 (Sxabo-Byrne, I lavana Olympiad
1966) with a clear lead for White according to
liC O .
14 £ixa4 bxa4
Black’s position appears fairly solid (the
two potential weaknesses on a6 and d6 are
quite easy to defend) but as far as the future is
concemed there is nothing positivo to look
forward to. If White plays correctly there
should be no counterplay. I lowever, it is not
easy to actually engineer a decisive advantage
from White’s pluses.
15 Wxa4
15 Sxa4 is similar: I5...h5! and now 16 b5 gress in this position.
lets Black achicve counterplay, e.g. 16....&d7
36
17 Sxa 6 h4 18 £>hl £>xe4 19 W c 2 f5 with
chances for both sides in Hansson-Modig,
ÍLg5, and now:
a) 16..JSb8?! 17 ÍLxh5 (17 &xa 6 & d7 18
draw) I7...j£.d7 (after 17...gxh5 18Í^xh5 Black
has no good defence against Wf3 and í2-f4)
18 Sa3 Sxb4 19 A e 2 a5 20 W el W b 6
(20...Wl>8!? 21 & x f6 & x f6 22 Sxa5 and Black
has some compensation for the pawn) 21 Ü.e3
W b 8, Derjabin-Maximov, Dnepropetrovsk
2002, and now White could have won a pawn
with 22 Sxa5! as after 22...^xe4 23 J&.a7 Wl>7
b) 16...Wb6 17 l>5 was Kber-Polster, Corre -
spondence 1989. Then 17...ÍY17!? is interest-
ing, e.g. 18 ,ÍLe3 $Y5 19 j2Lxc5!? dxc5
(19...#xc5 20 W d 2 a5 21 S e l W b 6 22 S c 6
W d 8 23 b6 is awful for Black) 20 Ji.c4 h4 21
&Y*2 Sa7 22 bxa6 ÍLxa6 and Black is only
slightly worse.
c) 16_¿Lc!7 17 Ha3 (after 17 Sxa 6 Sxa 6 18
&xa 6 W l>6 19 *U 3 Wxb4 20 H bl #a5 Black
exchanges queenside pawns) l7...Wb6 ! 8 W d 2
with somefhing for White in Derjabin-
Kgorov, Dkraine 2002.
1 5 ...6 .7
Suba, in /iCO, prefers I5...h5!, with an as-
sessment o f unclear, e.g. 16 f3 JuLd7 17 Wc2
h4 18 & h l a5 19 bxa5 (19 1)5 ^ h 5 ) 19...Sxa5
20 W d 2 Sx al 21 Sx al with only a symbolic
advantage for White.
16 ^ a5
16 W c 2!? deserves a look.
16...Wxa5 17 Sxa5 Sfb8 18 Exa6?!
'Iliis leads to an immediate draw. Obvi-
ously White can liang onto 1)4 and a6, and
after 18 S b l _&c8 remains with some extra
space and the better dark-squared bishop.
Nevertheless, it is very difftcult to make pro­
18...fíxa6 19 ¿Lxa6 &xb4 20 f3 'A-'A
 5 *hge2

Summary
Black has a few intercsting ideas in this variación but, in our opinion, two in particular merit spe
cial attention. 'The first is ...c7-c5 followed by cxchanging on <15 with ...t^-eóxdS, leading to a
middlegame in which Black’s chanccs are certainly not worse (Cíame 12). The second concerns
developmcnt with ...e7*e5, ...a7-a5>...#Ya6-c5 and ...c7-c6xtl5. Note that if White begins active
play on the kingside with Ii4 Black should take measures to block with ...h7-h5. The besr cxamplc
o f this is Cíame 14.

1 d4 ^ f 6 2 c4 g6 3 & c3 &g7 4 e4 d6 5 <^ge2 (D )

5.. .0-0
5...c5 6 dxc5 dxc5 7 (Carne I)
5...c6 6 & g3 <?Mxl7 7 A c2 h5 {Carne 2)
5...#Mxl7 6 <S}g3 e*5 7 d5 h5 (Carne S)
5...e5 6 d5 c6 7 £\g3 cxd5 8 cxd5 (Carne 4)
5...a6 (D )
6 g3 (Carne 5)
6 ^g3 íhlxl7 ( ( ¡ame fí)
6 í^g3 c6 (Carne 7)
6 í^g3
6 ÍLg5 (Carne#)
6...e5
6...h5 (Carne 9)
6...c6 7 §Lq2 a6 (Carne Kf)
6...£>bd7 (Carne //)
6...c5 (Carne 12)
7 d5 (D )
7 ...^ fd 7 (Carne / J)
7...a5 8 ¿Lq2 $\\() (Carne 14)
7...c6 8 j&.e2 cxd5 (Carne 15)

5 §\ge2 5...a6 7 d5

37
 CHAPTER TWO ]
5 A d3
1 d4 <^f6 2 c4 g6 3 ftc3 ±g7 4 e4 d6 5
JÍd 3
5 ÍLd3 was playee! for ihe first time in
Schwar/.-L.Paulsen, Ix*ipzig 1879, although
there White developed the g1-knight to f3.
'Ilie idea of following up with 6 £igc2 was
found by KSámisch and played in his game
against Wagner (Wroclaw 1925).
5 j¡Ld3 has obvious advantages, both de bles the Samisch. 1lowever, here White has
veloping the bishop and affording W hile some
flcxibility. White plans to develop the king’s
knight on e2 (which is, in this scenario, more
convenient than f3) and, depending on how
Black reaets, adopt citlier a Samisch approach
wntli f2-f3 or the Makogonov with Ii2 h3.
The most well-known grandmaster playing
this variaüon regularly is Yasser Seirawan
(perhaps it would be a gcxxl idea to ñame this
variation after him...), while other followers of
this variation are Pinter, Skembris, Sagalchik
and Misanovich (occasionally this system ap-
pears in thegatncs of Bareev and Krasenkow).
I x:t’s see what attracts these strong players
to 5 Ad3.
Game 16
Hort-Kaplan
San Antonio 1972
1 c4 g6 2 d4 £g7 3 £>c3 d6 4 e4
38
&d3 0-0 6 £}ge2 £\c6
One o f the most logical moves. Black im-
mediately attacks the weakened d4 pawn.
7 f3
More llexible is 7 0 -0, retaining the option
o f gping with the f-pawn or the h-pawn until
later. After the text we have an original posi­
tion which, at first glance, ver)1closely resem-
played & d 3 and £\ge2 instead o f ÍL v 3 and
W d 2. ( )ne acIvantage o f this versión for White
is that Black cannot employ the typical plan
involving ...a7-a6, ...Sb 8 and ...b7-b5. On the
other hand, Black can rather easily genérate
counterplay in the centre and on the kingside...
7...e5 8 d5 ^ d 4 9 &e3
One drawback to 7 f3 is demonstrated in
the variation 9 £\xd4 exd4 10 ÍY 2 #\17 as in
such a position White often plays something
along the lines o f 11 0-0 c5 12 f4, but here this
simply loses a tempo compared with 7 0-0.
9...£>h5 10 Wd2 c5 11 dxc6
'Flie only way lo undermine the support of
Black’s knight.
11...bxc6 12 b4 f 5
A very committal advance with which
Black seems to lx* tryingdrum up counterplay
at any price. The result is a weakening o f his
position. A safer option is !2..JÍ.c6 with a
5 playable position.

13 exf 5 gxf 5
Consistan and equally committal. A vcry
interesting altcrnativc is I3...£V4, e.g. 14 £\xf4
(14 -&xf4 exf'4 15 fxg6 Wh4+ 16 * d l hxg6
with an unclear position) 14...exf4 15 .&xd4
(15 & Í2 fox(5 16 Axf5 Sxf5 17 ÍL I4 ÍLxd4
18 Wxd4 W lvH 19 SÍ?fl $Lc6 is equal, while
after 15 Ü.xf4?! ÍLxf5 16 ÍLxf5 £ixf5 17 H dl
Wh4+ 18 g3 Wh3 Black has a strong initiative)
l5...-ÍLxd4 16 fxg6 hxg6 17 H dl üLe3 with
more than sufficient compensaron.
Additionally, if Black is feeling more peace-
lully inclinod, there are 13...4!}xf5 14 -&g5 Wc7
15 S e l í ¥6 16 1)5 S l )8 17 h4 ÍLb7 18 h5
£ixh5 19 &xf5 and 13...Ax6 14 £xf5 £>xft
with a playable position in both cases.
14 0-0 <hxe2+
I4...&C6 15 lia d I W e8 I 6 fife l W l7 l<K>ks
effective, exerting pressure on White’s centre.
15 iLxe2 ftf4 16 Sfd1
5 ild 3
Although 16 ÜLxf4 (now or on the 17th
move) I6...exf4 splits Black’s pawns it would
be an error bccause Black’s dark-squared
bishop would then come alive, while ...Wb6 is
an example of how Black might exploit the
trade. I low should Black continué after the
arrival of the rook on d i? Some accuracv is
required.
16...£f6
Tliere is no olear route to equality.
a) I6 ...% 5 17 A fl & h3+ 18 sfehl f4 19
A g í íix g l 20 * x g l and White is ready to
assume control of key light squares, e.g.
20....fi.f5 21 .&d3 (21 Wxd6 e4 presents Black
with counterplay) 21...Sad8 22 Habí A e 6 23
ÍLe4 ÍLxc4 24 Ítx c 6 Wg6 25 Ü.d5+ etc.
b) 16...£\xo2+ might be Black’s best at-
tempt. 17 Wxe2 We7 18 Kacl ÍL c 6 19 b5 is
good enough only for equality, which leaves
17 £ixe*2, when I7...^Lo6 18 Hacl d5 19 cxd5
Wxd5 (19...cxd5 20 t‘4!) 20 a3 (20 W e! Wxa2
21 Kxc6 Hfd 8) leaves White having to settle
for an edge after eitlier 20...Sfe 8 or 20...^xd 2
21 Hxd2 flfc 8.
17 i l f l
'Ilio immediate 17 b5 £W*2+ 18 Wxe2
l(H>ks ven* good, e.g. 18...exb5 (18...Í4 19 A í2
is similar) 19 Üg5 W b 6+ 20 * h l He 6 21 £W15
Wb7 22 cxb5 and Black has problems.
17...5g6 18&h1 <hh5
White’s defensivo resources are too sound
to justifv a full offensive from Black. W ith this
in mind, before stepping up a gear on the
kingside, Black should concéntrate on devel-
oping the light-squared bishop in order to
proteet important squares:
a) I8...£b7 19 Habí & h5 (l9...Wh4 leads
to an advantage for White after 20 g3 Wh5 21
gxf4 exf4 22 &xf4 WxG+ 23 ÍLg2 Wxc3 24
Wxc3 ^¡Lxc3 25 A xd 6) 20 g4! fxg4 21 A d 3
W f6 22 &xg 6 hxg6 23 fxg4 W fH 24 Wg2
% 3 + 25 hxg3 Wxe3 26 £lo4 <¿>f7 27 W fl +
*e 7 28 S e l with a olear advantage for White.
b) I8...jid7 is different in that this time the
f5-square is protected. I lowever, 19 b5 gives
White a olear lead, e.g. !9...Wh4 20 g.3 Wh5 21
39
O ff b e a t K in g 's Iridian
gxf4 cxf4 22 A x í4 W x fH 23 &g2 Wxc3 24
Wxc3 ÍLxc3 25 Hacl etc. Note here that after
I9...4bh5 20 c5! we can sec a scrious drawback
to 18....&d7 - although it defends the c6-
sejuare the bishop now fmds itself unpro-
teeted!
19 b5 f4 20 &.12
20...£>g3+
Onward. Black eould keep the ‘seore’ level
with 20...cxl>5 but after the simple 21 exl>5
* h 8 22 4üe4 23 &c4 We7 24 JL I5 &b7
25 S a cl White has a clear advantage.
White can also takc control o f the light
squares after 20....&b7 (or 20....&d7), e.g. 21
Ad3 (21 ÍV-4 Wc7 22 £<13 <hf6 23 ÍLc2
4hxe4 24 .&xe4 Sf6 25 Wd3 cxb5 26 cxb5 is
also g<K>d) 2 I..JSh 6 22 bxc6 Ü.xc6 23 ü e 4
$}g3+ 24 iiLxg3 fxg3 25 h3 W<17 26 Hac 1etc.
An attempt to actívate Black’s dark-sejuared
bishop with 2()...e4 works only after 21 fxe4 in
view o f a well timed ...jS.eS, e.g. 2l...#\g3+ 22
-&xg3 fxg3 23 bxc6 Wh4 24 h3 Ü.xh3 25 gxh3
g2+ 26 -&xg2 Wg3 and Black is having all the
fun. I lowever, White has a strong response to
20...c4 in 21 £lxc4! .&xal 22 Hxa 1 J^.e6 23
bxc6 with a bie advan taire.
21 &x g3
21 hxg3!? fxg3 22 jiLxg3 Hxg3 23 Wxd6
Wh4+ 24 á?gl and White wins with ease.
21...fxg3 22 bxc6 « h 4
Perhaps 22...&c6, hoping for 23 Wxd6??
Wh4 24 h3 £xh3 25 gxh3 Sxd 6 26 fixd 6 e4,
but after 23 £Y*4 Wh4 24 h3! (24 4^xg3?? S h 6
40
25 Wxh 6 Wxh6) White enjoys similar play to
the main game.
23 h3 & f5 24 <^e4 Sc8 ?
The only wav to put up some sort of resis-
tance is with 24....&f8, although after 25 Habí
HcS 26 Hb7 White should win.
25 £ab1
Why not 25 í^x <!6 Hxd6 26 Wxd6 with a
winning jx>sition?
25....6xe4
25...&fó 26 Sl>7 leacIs us back to the note
to Black’s 24th move.
26 fxe4 We7 27 Sb7 We8 28 ^d5+ <A>h8
29 c5 A f8 30 c7
30 Sd7 S d 8 31 Hxa7 is more accurate.
30...Wd7 31 &b5 ^ e7 32 £f1 Sf6 33
Sxf6 Mxf6 34 ¿Lc4 Wg5 35 Wd1 We7 36
Wg4 1-0
G<w/c 17
I.Sokolov-Smirin
Pos I ¡entum as 2001
1 d4 <^f6 2 c4 g6 3 <^c3 &g7 4 e4 d6 5
iLd3 <hc6 6 <hge2 0-0 7 0-0 &d7
A ven- interesting position, Black electing
to makc a flexible move before embarking on
anv adventure in the centre. White musí now
é
decide on action of his own after taking into
consideration that Black, after 8...e5 9 <15, has
a lew possihtlitics - namely 9...í^l)4, 9...íhe7
and 9...ÍY14 (although we must remember
here that on <17 the bishop occupies a poten-

lially uscful stjuarc tur the f6 -kniglu).
Incidcntallv Black can also consider 7...a5,
e.g. 8 h3 c5 9 (15 ^ b 4 10 ÜLbl ÍLc)7 11 &c3
4!ih5 12 a3 £W> 13 ¿Lc2 # c 8 14 Hbl f5 with
chances for both sides in Sagalchik-
Wojtkicwicz, Boston 2001.
8 &c2
Reconnecting the c|uccn’s commnnication
with d4 at the cost o f a tempo (note that
White find himself moving this piece yet again
in the event <>f ...5il>4). 'I he text has been seen
only a few times in tournament praetice, so
ex|x*ct theory to develop along with the in-
creasing number o f high-level games.
A logical move is 8 f3, when plav can con­
tinué 8...c5 9 dS ¿-AM 10 J&.hl (intending a2-a3
Ibllowed by b2 l>4) 10...a5 11a3 (11&e3 Wc7
12 a3 #W> 13 ÍLc2 c5 14 iia4 ! is a tlíeme spe-
citic to the posting o f W hite’s bishop on d3,
the exchange of light-scjuared bishops work ing
in White’s favour with this structure, while the
awkward 14..~&c8 leaves White with an edge
after 15 Wd2) 1I...S\a6 12 ÍLc2 <5\-8 13 ÍLc3
and now:
;t) In the case of 13...f5 White should make
sure to trade with 14 cxf5, which is the the-
matic response in lilis kind o f position. Oth-
erwise Black can generate an initiative on the
kingside by simply advancing w iili ...f5-f4 and
...g6-g5 etc. After I4...gxf5 15 Wd2 c5 16 Ag5
Á í 6 17 & U 6 &g7 18 &g5 A í 6 19 A h 6 Ag7
20 &g5 Dokutchaev-I.Xaitscv, Chcrepovcts
1993 ended peacefully tlianks to a threefokl
repetition, but White has a deíinite improve-
ment in 19 1*4!?, e.g. I9...5f7 (19...e4 20 g4) 20 direct and therefore fits the bilí. After 12 JLc3
Axfó W xf6 21 fxe5 dxe5 22 £\g3 £¿16 23
<
5V‘e4 £\xe4 24 £W*4 Wg 6 25 £\g3.
b) 13...c5 and White stands better due to kingside with 12...Í5: 13 c5 dxc5 (13...Í4 14
his extra space, the poor a6-knight and Black’s
potential problems 011 the light sejuares. Ma­
tamoros Franco-davina Rossi, Ceuta 1995
coniinued 14 g4 J&.Í6 15 Wd2 í\u;7 16 £ig3
& h 8 I7 * h l A c7 18 & I 16 Hg 8 l9¡Kgl with a
comfortable advantage for White, although
the subsec|uent 19...ÍV7 20 a4 £ ke 8 saw tile*
players agree a draw.
5 Ad3
8...e5 9 d 5 ftb 4 10 &b1 a5
Black must prevent a2-a3 and b2-b4, when
White would have too big a share o f the
c|ueensitle and Black’s knight would Ix out of
p!ay.
11 f3
Compared with 8 f3, above, White has lost
a tempo. I lowcvcr, the significant factors of
the position remain the same, and White
should be the happier of the lwo. 'I'lie plan is
to continué with Jíc 3 and c*4-c5xd6, control-
ling the weakened gl-a7 diagonal - in particu­
lar the l>6 -scjuare.
11 ...Á>h8
Preparing the not uncommon idea ol
...£\g8 and ...J&.h6 with a view to a trade of
bishops that is favourable to Black. Unfortu-
nately the operation is time-consuming, and
Black might do better to look for an alterna-
tive strategy. I la/ai’s recommendation
l l...#k*8, utileashing the f-pawn, seems more
Black can address the ‘tlireat’ of c4-c5 with
12...&a 6!? or get 011 with business 011 thc
&\2 is a littlc better for W hile) 14 j¿.xc5 <5\16
and Black puts his hopes in ihe blockade 011
il6. Play might continué 15 a3 £Ya6 16 Ü.f2
(1 la/.ai gives only 16 Ü.c3 4hc4 17 A f2, when
Black has an cxccllent game aher l7...Wg5 18
A a2 <5V-3 19 _ÍLxe3 é x c lh ) 16...f4 17 ^1 3
and in our opinion White has chances of ob-
taining a small advantage, e.g. 17...Wg5 18
41
O f l b e a t K i n g 's i n día n
A llí I16 19 S o l n i. K 2<)Ei>l W f '6 21 j>3 I'xg3
22 E x g 3.
12 ií.e3 ¿Ag8 13 c5
Also ¿>ootl is 13 c ti!2, (lircctixl againsl
13..J¡Lh6. I lazai givcs 13...Wh4 with the forc-
inj» varia i ion 14 i¿i>5 jaLhfi IS i¿x h 4 A x d 2 16
£ l2 1,6 17 K tll % S IH a3 £to 6 19 ÍLc2 ,
evaluating the position as slightly lx.*tter for
W hite. In general Black should avoid exclvaiig-
ing tjueens in this kind o f position hecause the
strength o f his |x>tential counterplay decreases.
W hite has a veiy clear atul effective plan in
Ü.a4 (assutning control o f key light sejuares),
H ab í and 1)21)4, preparing c*4-c5. Indeed
Black has nothing constnictive in reply. W ith
this in niim l we prefer to choose from one o f
the following, although none guáranteos Black
ec|uality: 13...Í5 14 c5, I3...b6 14 a3 #Va6 IS
A c 2 and 13 ...ÍW ) 14 ¿Lc2.
13....6h6 14 &A2 We7 15 cxd6 cxd6 16
Ste4 f 5 17 fAb6
17...fxe4!?
White has a clear advantage, and after
'nornial’ moves Black’s weakened cjueenside
anyway confers White a clear lead (the aS
pawn and the b6 -sc]uare are the most obvious,
but White’s ‘control’ of c8 is ecjually annoying
for Black). l7urthermore the lioped for coun-
tcrplay with the f-pawn might result in a new
weak fS-pawn, e.g. l7...Hae8 (or l7...Had8) 18
a3 £Va6 19 exfS gxf5 20 ELcI 4hf6 21 £kl4.
Consec|uently Black decides to sacrifico an
exchange.
42
18 .&xe4
Obviously White declines the offer. After
18 íhxa8 I lazai mentions 18...exf3 19 £ib 6
fxe2 20 Wxe2 wiíh compensation for the
exchange. In our opinion White’s chances are
better after 21 ^Llv1 but it is alwavs wise to
J
play a position with a stable centre when the
opponent has no counterplay.
18.. Jía e 8 19&xd7
Black would have had serious problems af-
ter 19 a3 20 # c l ¿ I >5 21 a4 Axc2 22
Wxc2 #Y 6 23 £V4.
19...Wxd7 20 a3 4^6 21 We1! Wd8 22
í^c3 ^ f6 23 3d1 <Ad7?!
According to I lazai this move is weak and
allows White to exploit the light squares. I le
rccommends 23...¿ k 5 24 AxcS dxcS 25 d6
W l>6 26 We2, although White slill retains an
edge.
24 ÍLd3
White has a big lead.
2 4 ...^ c 5 25 ÍLb5 Se7 26 b4 axb4 27
axb4 <^b3
After 27...4ha6 White has a clear advantage
after both 28 J&xa6 bxa6 29 S a l and 28 #Y4
29 jSLxa6 bxa6 30 &h4 Wl>6+ 31 & h l
-&g7 32 JuLxf6. 'llie texl simply aims for d4,
which Black is interested in oven at llie price
of pawn, lioping for drawing chances in view
of the ending with opposite-coloured bishops.
28 ^ e4
Not had, bul two other continuations are
betier - 28 ÍV* 2!? (in order to take a pawn
wliile avoiding opposiie-coloured bishops)
28...£g7 29 ilxd7 Wxd7 30 Wc3 £kl4 31
í^xd4 exd4 32 jalxd4 Axd4+ 33 Wxd4t w iili
a puré extra pawn, or 28 j2.xd7!?, securing the
e*4-scjuare for the knight - 28...Hxd7 29 ÍV 4
and Black has problems.
28...5.6
Black should have decided on 28...£kl4!?
29 ÍLxd7 Hxd7 30 ÍLxd4 exd4 31 Hxd4 W b 6
32 Wf2 Hc7 with some compensation for the
pawn.
29 ¿^xf6 Sxf6 30 Wc3 ^d 4 31 Sxd4!
exd4 32 .&xd4 Ke5 33 ¿ x e 5 dxe5 34
 5 Ad3

Wxe5 £VI4 with the following position:

Despile collecting two pawns, winning this
ending is still problenvatic due to the opposite-
coloured bishops. Moreover, what is worse
from White’s point o f view is that Black’s
hishop is more active, and the prospect of
activity on the dark sejuares is ejuite real.
34...1f8 35 S b l £ d 6 36 W c3?!
I la/ai rightly recommends 36 Wd4! here.
36...6g7 37 ii.f1?
Again White has better, this lime with the
prophylactic 37 & h l.
37...Wb6+ 38<&h1 Wf2 39 We1 Vi-'A
After 39 S e l Wh4 Black also has to lose a
pawn: 40 g3 &xg3 41 Se7+ (á?h6 42 W d 2+ O f course White cannol play #\xd4, but
J¡L\4 with equality. I he final position is drawn, there is a way to address the new arrival,
ihe simplest being 39...Sxf3 etc. namely 9 ¿?}1>5!, which is White’s best chance
o f fighting for an advantage.
Carne 18 a) 9...íhxe2 gives White the better game af
Christiansen-Yermolinsky ter both 10 Wxe2 a6 11 $V3 0-0 12 0-0-0! f5
U SA Championships, Parsippany 1996 13 exf5 gxf5 14 g4 (14 14!? also looks enough
to retain a pulí) and 10 JwLxe2 0-0 II 0-0 15 12
1 c4 <5M6 2 foc3 g6 3 e4 d6 4 d4 Ag7 5 B a6 13 4?\c3 a5 14 a3 1)6 15 b4 *5V6 16 c5,
¿ d 3 ^ c6 Cílek -A.Kuzmin, Moscow 1991.
Black usually plays ...0-0 first, which makes !>) 9...£\xl>5 10 cxb5 0-0 (I0...£Y\5!?) 11 0-0
sense as castling tends to be almost mandatory ñ 12 B f4 13 & i2 g5 14 S e l Sf7 15 Sc3 is
in this line, and doing so early at least keeps slightly favourable for White due to the weak
Black’s options open. ness of c7.
6 £kje2 7 d5
A reasonable alternative is 6 <15, e.g. 6...£Y*5
(6...<5\I4 7 íhge2 e*5 8 í^x<l4 exd4 leads back
to the text). Notice that an albeit niinor differ*
ence here is that, with the usual move order of
5...0-0 6 4^ge2 #V*6, W liite could not now
retreat the bishop, but here 7 $Lc2 is |x>ssible,
as in Ramseier-Milov, Badén 1998. 'Ilie game
continued 7...c6 8 (8 f4 #k*d7 9 íh B
looks more logical, causing Black some incon-
venience) 8...¿\*d7 (8...< 5>W BH ? 9 JÍLxB £\I7
10 0-0 0-0 avoids the loss of a tempo) 9 j&.e3
0 O 10 Ii3&\c5 11 W c2ÍLd7 12 &xc5dxc5 13
g4 (13 0 -0!? f lazai) I3..JLc8 14 S d l £kl7 15
(¿t?fI Wc7 16 ^^2 £\c5 17 £^xe5 JuLxe5 and, 7...£>d4 8 ¿ g 5
according to I lazai, the position is unclear. ( )ther kleas are 8 íhx<!4 ex<14 9 ÍV*2 £k!7!?
6...e5 10 1>4!? a5 11 b5 $V5 12 ÍLb2, and 8 B c5 9
An original idea is 6...^\17 7 $Lc3 e5 8 <15 &g5 h6 10 ÍLe3 a6 II 0-0 ( II S b l!?)

43
O ffb e a t K in g 's /ndian
I ( II. ..<)-(>) 12 H bl ÍLl'6 13 b4, with a
small advantage lor \\ hile (Hort), I lort-
l Hilmann, Thessaluniki I98«S.
8...h6
Yennolinsky s 8...c6! deserves attention - 9
0-0 h6 10 Jkxfó Wxf6 (1 0 .JU f6 !?) 11 &xd4
cxd4 12 fr\c2 0-0 is Icvcl bul White has
chances lo fight for an advantage after 10
&c3!? £>g4 II A c l 0-0 12 B . Pcrhaps
I l...)Üfh4!? is the solution for Black, e.g. 12 h3
$Ví> 13 &xd4 extl4 14 <?V2 £\I7.
9 £ x f6
Alternatively:
a) 9 j&.c3? niakes no sense here as it invites
9...^g4, when White is made to regret the
bishop sortie. IOOOWh4 II h3 í?Y\c3 I2fxe3
Íixe2+ 13 Wxe2 seems lo lie White’s most
tenable continuation, with a slight edge lo
Black. This is ccrtainlv betier than 10 & d 2
Wh4 11 4ftg3 0-0 and White has problems
with development because 12 h3? is met bv
12...#W2 13 <¿>xl2 f5 14 exf5 &xf5 etc. Ñor
does 10 í^g3 offer any respire, as 10...0-0 fol­
lowed by ...f7-f5 is veiy nice for Black. Note
here that 11 h3? walks into I I...í^xe3 12 fxe*3
Wh4 13&12 f5 and Black wins (Yennolinsky).
b) 9 ÍLh4 0-0 10 0-0 c5 11 £>xd4 exd4 12
ÍV-2 W c8 13 & xf6 ÍLxf6 14 Wd2 £g7 was
eejual in Seirawan-Nunn, Oinnes 1992.
9...Wxf6
Also good is 9...jjLxf6 10 íhxd4 exd4 11 £k*2
c5, aiul Black stands well.
10 íhxd4
44
Yennolinsky gives 10 5ib5! ® d 8 ll
í^bxd4 exd4 12 0-0 but in our opinion Black
does not have any problems here. White could
couni on an advantage only if he managed to
win the (14-pawn, but this is impossible, e.g.
12...0-0 13 j&.c2 c.S 14 dxc6 bxc6 15 5ixd4
*1)6 16 #M>3 Axb2 17 H bl Ae5.
10...exd4 11 £>e2 h5 12 0-0 0-0
Inserting I2...h4 before castiing is logical.
'Then White can try 13 h3 with the idea of
meeting I3....&xh3 with 14 gxh3 Wf3 15 -&c2!
(any ollier moves lead - at least - to a peqx*t-
ual clieck due lo attacking possibilities ...Wli.^
...Sh5 and ...Ae5 etc.) l5...Sh5 16 % 3 W xdl
17 iLxdl Sg5 18 ü g 4 Iixg3 19 f4 Hh5 20
&xh5 gxh5 21 h4. Instead after 13 f4 h3 14 g3
0-0 White has weak light sejuares in his camp,
although the situation is raiher unclear.
13 Wb3 c6 14Sae1 ^d8
'llie game is well balanced.
15 Wa3
Both 15 Wa4!? c5 16 1)4 and 15 f4 can also
be considered.
15...5e8 16 f4 cxd5 17 cxd5 Wb6 18
&h1 ÍLd7 19 &g1 a5 20 £tf3 Wb4 21
Wxb4 axb4 22 e5 fíe7
22...Hxa2 23 e*6 Ji.a4 is interesling, with
chances for lx>ih sities.
23 e6
23 exd6!? Hxel 24 Hxel 25 £>e5 S d 8
26 Se4 should be enough lo keep White just
in front.
23...fxe6 24 dxe6 & e8 25 <^g5?
25 v¿Mi4! is the corred move, 25...Bxa2 26
£>xg6! 27 &xg6 Sxl>2 28 AxhS <13 29
g4 leaving White with the more ihreatening
pawns.
25...fíxa2 26 Sf2 Sa5 27 h4 &16 28
fíc2?!
28 &U2 with the idea of continuing lo h3
and g4 is level.
28...6g7 29 Sec1 & c6 30 He2 b3 31
S&H2 &b5 32 Sd1 d5
Yennolinsky gives 32...Sal!? 33 fixal
&xd3 34 Hd2 ¿ c 2 35 fiad l d3 36 Hxd3
ÍLxl>2 37 Sxb3! ÍLxb3 38 H bl Ü.xc6 39

ÍW 6 I Sxe6 40 Hxb2 and White should draw
che ending. Ilowever, in our opinion
V5...ü.xd l !? 36 Sx d l Sc7 deserves attention
as ii seems to present Black with winning
chances, e.g. 37 í?V*4 d5 38 #YI2 (38 £\x!6
S&XÍ6 39 Sxd4 S^xe‘6 40 Hd3 Sd7 41 SÍi> g3 d4
42 & B <&d5) 38...<&fK 39 £kb3 &e7 40
í^xd4 fic4 41 #Y*2 sfcxe6.
33 g4 hxg4 34 &g3 ÍLc4
34...Í¡La6! is the last chance to press for
more than a draw.
35 &xg4 Sa8 36 foi7 %ae8 37 Stá6 Sh8
38 <^xc4 dxc4 39 &xc4 £xh4+ 40 ¿tf3
Kh3+ 41 & e4 b5 42 &d5 fíe3+ 43 fíxe3
dxe3 44 &xe3 Axb2 45 &xb3 'h-'h
Game 19
Kasimdzhanov-Kozul
IHed Olympiad 2002
1 d4 ftf6 2 c4 g6 3 £>c3 iLg7 4 e4 d6 5
iúd3 e5
As in the previous game Black latches onto
a plan o f action before castling, although in
this particular case the push o f the e-pawn is
justifted in that the d3-bishop prevenís a trade
oí cjueens on the d-file.
Another possihility is 5...c5, e.g. 6 d5 e6
(6...#W> 7 h3 <?V7 8 ÍLe3 0-0 9 & B a6 10 a4
l>6 ll 0-0 e5 12 dxe6 £>xe6 13 Wd2 Vz-Vz,
Dorfman-Vasiukov, Volgodonsk 1981, but
White must be a little better) 7 h3 £ta6 8 5 iB
£V7 9 &g5 h6 10 &e3 exd5 (10...0-0 11 0-0
5 Ad3
S e 8 12 Wd2 with an edge for White) 11 exdS
b5? (according to lia/ai 11...0-0 has to be
played) 12 Wd2! and Black has serious prob
lems wilh his king. I ’or example 12...bxc4 13
&xc4 g5 (I3 ...& Í8 14 0-0 SÍ?g8 15 H fel &h7
limits White to an allxit comfortable advan­
tage) 14 h4! g4 I5 £ lg l £k!7 16íhge2£V*5 17
b3 f il )8 18 &g3 M>?\ (after I8...<hxc4 19
bxc4 Sb4 20 0 -0! Ha/ai gives only 20..JHxc4
21 We2! antl White wins, but 20...S&Í8 - de­
spite White’s obvious superiority - at least
keeps Black in the game) 19 S e l J&xh4 20
£\ce4 ÍLxg.3? (20...¿e7 21 Sxh 6 Sxh 6 22
Axltó) 21 Ág5! 1-0, Azmaiparashvili-llhlvest,
Pula 1997.
6 d5 a5 7 foge2
In Panczyk-Nowak, Po/.nan 1985 White
tried 7 h3, securing in some variations the e3-
stjuare for his bishop. 7...ÍYi6 8 £\ge2 £k:5 9
¿Le2 c6 10 Ag5 h6 II & e3 (ll...cxd5
improves) and now White should have played
12 dxc6 .&xc6 13 B with better chances in
view o f the weak d6-pawn.
7..//>a6
l.jA íiü 8 ÍLe3 0-0 9 0-0 £>a6 10 S e l
¿?Ylc5 11 A b l £d7 12 Wd2 f5 13 exB gxf5
14 f4 e4 15 jSLcl4 was a shade preferable for
White in lonescu-Socko, Istanbul 200(1, while
7...^h5 8 Ae3 £V> 9 B 5Y\5 10 & c2 f5 11
ex15 gxf5 12 Wd2 ÍLd7 13 0-0-0, Misanovic-
Petrovic, Zlatibor 1989, would have been only
slight worse for Black after 13...0-0.
8 0-0
45
O f f b o a t K i n g ' s I r i di an
l’rrpamig a Samisch set-up of Jt.e3 and
ÍÜM2 ri*4|iiircs Whilc to first addrcss the possi-
hility 'Ilius after 8 f3 í*\l7 we have:
a) 9 ÍU-3 J&.I16 10 Wd2 (10 ÜLxhó Wh4+)
I0...j&.xe3 II Wxc3 ()-()!? (Black was less care-
ful in Seirawan-lvanchuk, (¡roningen 1997,
I I...c6>! 12 Wh 6 £klc5 13 K d l W l>6 14 ilb l
*c 7 15 f4! giving White a very big lead ac­
cording to N i70) 12 0-0 ÍW 5 with chances
for both sides.
I>) With ‘a* m miiul there is the more ainbi-
tious looking 9 0-0 0-0 10 iÍLe3 4£lb6 11 l>3 c6
( 11...Í5!?) 12 ttc l Í5 13 Wí2 c5 14 exf5 gxf5
with an unclear game, Seirawan I.Ivanov, l/>s
Angeles 1991.
Mnally, Seirawan’s new ¡dea of 8 a3! de-
serves further investigation and is assessed by
him in liC O as slightly better for White. 'The
point is simply to expaiul on the cjueenside
with Hbl and b2-b4 etc.
Q..fA67 9 a3 <^iac5 10 &c2 ^b6 11 b3
0-0 12 Sb1 f5 13 exf5 gxf5 14 3 h4 h5 57 *d 2 Sg2+ 58 &c1 Hg6 59
14...^cd7
Black should trv for counterplay with
14...f4!? 15 .&xc5 dxc5 16 f3 Sf6 and ...Sh6.
15 f4
15 © g3 e4 16 & b 5 a4 17 £Mi5 axl>3 18
.Ílxb3 ü.e.5 19 _&h6 B f7 20 f4 with a mcxlest
plus for White.
15...a4 16 fxe5 axb3 17 &xb3 Axe5 18
<hb5 £>c5 19 £tf4 Jíd7 20 m 3
20 ÍLxc5 dxc5 21 Í\ I3 also l<K>ks awkward
for Black.
46
20...5.7 21 £*14
Both 21 » e 2 and 21 £ x c5 come ¡nto con-
sideration.
21...Wh4 22 Hh3 We7 23 ^ 6 Hxa3?
23...ÍLxe6 24 4hxe6 5xa3 was im|ierat¡vc.
24 Sg3+st>ti8 25 Wh5 Sf6 26 Wh4 ie 8
27 Sg7 Wxg7 28 4hxg7 st-xg7 29 Axc5
dxc5 30 ^le6+ A-g8 31 &xc5 ii.f7 32
<ftd3 ii.c3 33 Wg3+ i¿.g6 34 c5 &d4+ 35
si>h1 f4 36 d6+??
W liitc replaces the ver)- strong 36 'ürj>4!
with a blunder.
36...Bxb3! 37 We1 Hxb1 38 Wxb1 ii.xc5
Black has better in 38...O! 39 gxf3 (39 cxl>6
ÍLc4) 39...Hxf3 40 Wa2+ <&h8 41 cxb6 Ae4.
39 Wa2+ Ü.f7 40 W al Bxd6?! 41 ^xc5
Íhd5 42 <hxb7 Sb6 43 ^ c5 JÍLg6?! 44
Wa8 + <Á/g7 45 vt-gl ^<6?! 46 Wd8 Sc6
47 We7+ &f7 48 ^ 5 h6 49 Í1d3 Hc4 50
<^xf4 c5 51 ^d3 Hd4 52 ^xc5 Hd1 + 53
str>f2 2d2+ 54 '.t’e l Sxg2 55 <^e4 Hg6 56
^g5 J¿g8 60 We7+ Ah8 61 We5 &g7 62
&b2 sí/f8 63 Wd6+ si-e8 64 &a3 ild 5 ? 65
íMi7 <M7 66 Wc7+ •¿Je6 67 <hf8+ ^15 68
Wc8+ 1-0
Cierne 20
Sturua-Gutman
5/h Wichent Open 1999
1 d4 ¿?tf6 2 c4 g6 3 fac3 Ü.g7 4 e4 0-0 5
JLd3 d6 6 &ge2 ^ifd7

An interesting idea. Black wants to play
...c7-c5, the point being that after a subsccjucnt
c!4-cl5 there is ...£kr5, forcing the cxchange o f
W hite’s bishop, while thc text also serves to
gcncrally increase thc scopc o f the g7-bishop.
C)thcrs:
a) 6...c6 7 0-0 (W hite can also steer the
game into Samisch waters with 7 13, e.g. 7...a6
8 0-0 1)5 9 a3 £MxI7 10 & h l e5 11 cxb5 axb5
12 iLe3 Sb 8 13 1)4 & b7 and W hite liad thc
easicr o f it in líslon-Mednis, Amsterdam
1986) 7...a6?í (7...#Ya6!?) 8 f4! b5 9 e5! £lg4?
(9...£kr8!?) 10 h3 í^ h 6 11 g4 bxc4 12 ¿LxcA
sS?h8 13 4hg3 fó 14 _&.c3 and Black was alrcady
in trouble in Krasenkow-Kaminski, Poland
1996.
b) 6...a6 7 0-0 (7 Í3!? transposes to a versión
o f thc Samisch that is to W hite’s l>cncíit)
7...£>lxl7 (7...SVd7 8 A c2 c5 9 & c3 £k :6 10
h3 n i)8 11 a4 Wa5 was nuclear in l.l'arago-
Lanka, Rcgensburg 1996) 8 f3 c6 9 Üg5 (9
.&e3!?) 9 .J)5 10 & h l (10 a3) lo J& b 6
(I0...b4!? 11 £\i4 c5 is ecjual) 11 l>3 bxc4 12
bxc4 Q Sí(\l 13 f4 c5 14 d5 with an edge lor
White, Christiansen-Babula, ( ¡ermany 1995.
7 0-0 c5 8 dxc5 dxc5
After 8...#\xc5!r>Black has a pcrfcctly play-
ablc Marócxy position.
9 f4 £>c6 10 e5 f6
Black must do something about W hite’s
centre before thc space advantage is converted
into something concrete after J-Le3, wd2, j2Lc4
and Had l etc.
11 e6
11 cxf6 #ixf6 is nicc for Black, while l I 16 Sd1 Í^d6 17
ftg3 fxe5 12 f5 ® f 6 13 fxg6 Wd4+ 14 * h l
hxg6 15 Üxg 6 JÍLc6 and 11 A e 3 fxc5 12 (5
gxf5 13 -&xf5 #YI4 fail to cause Black any
inconvenience.
11...£\b6 12 f5
W hitc’s advanced pawns Ick >k verv strong
and scriously cramp Black, whose king is in
danger o f coming under fire, too. ( )n the
other hand W hite’s pawns might prove vul­
nerable should Black succccd in altacking
tliem. Consccjucntly it is imperative that both
5 &c/3
sities conduct the next pilase o f the game ac-
curatcly in order to maximisc their poten tial
advantages, and our analysis shows that White
is, in fact, in the driving seat.
13 ÍLc2 £>bxc4
I3...gxf5 14 4hf4 W xdl (I4...£ k6 15 Wh5
ÍV14 16 ¿Ld3 £W > 17 j2Lxf5 ^ 5 18 JÍLc2) 15
S x ill í^k:6 16 £kd5 íhxilS 17 Hxd5 iÜLh6 18
J2LxI"5 with an advantage for White.
1 4 íh f4 b 6
Trading cjucens docs not help Black, e.g.
14...Wxill 15 S x d l £ k 6 16 £>cd5 gxf5
(!6...íV le5 17 ÍLc3 1)6 18 ÍLa4 ¿Lh 6 19 lxi>6
Ü.xf4 20 4bxf4) 17 ÍLa4 £>4c5 18 ÍL-3 1)6 19
1)4 A lió 20 I>xc5 iÍLxf4 21 £ W 4 and White
tnaintaitis a lead.
15 We2 g5
Now Black has absolutely no counter-
chances, although after I5...gxf5 16 S il 1 ÍV I 6
17 .&xf5 White nevertheless has a strong ini-
tiative on the kingsiile.
?Ac6 18 & e 3 W e8
19 ^Ad5 2b8 20 a4
Attacking with 20 h4 looks interesting.
2 0 ...¿>h8 21 Wg4 Íhe5 22 Wh3 h6 23
Üxg5 fxg5 24 S'ixg? si>xg7 25 W c3 ^ d c4
26 b3 ¿>g8 27 bxc4 ® c 6 28 Wh3 1-0
Game 21
Seirawan-lvanchuk
World Cnf>, Reykjavik 199/
1 d4 £>f6 2 c4 g6 3 ^ c 3 ¿Lg7 4 e4 d6 5
47
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
¿Ld3 0-0 6 ©ge2 $Uxi7 7 £ c2
After 7 (15 £>e5 White cannot avoid cx-
changing his light-si|uarcd bishop. Panczyk-
Xhigadlo, Warsaw (rapidplay) 2(K)3 continued
7 0-0 c5 8 b3 a6 9 ÍLb2 Wa5 10 $V15 có 11
£V7» <&h8 12 £>xc8 Haxc8 13 ttc l Wc7 14
H dl b6 15 Wd2 Wb7 16 c5 dxe5 17 dxe5
®g4 18 Í4 Scd8 19 #\g3 with a clcar advan­
tage to White. Black conld have taken on d4
numerous times and should have done so.
Instead of 8 b3 White has 8 d5, when
8...í'V5 9 f4 £\xd3 10 ®xd3 leads to the fol-
loxving jxísition:
'Iliis position is difficult to assess. Black has
managed to remove the bishop but White
enjoys a territorial superiority, an imposing
centre and prospeets of an initiative on thc
kingside. Morcover, after ...e7-c6 (which looks
like the only possibility of gencrating any kind
of play) and dxc6 Black will face a serious
dilemma after...JL xcó White has thc aggres-
sive f4-f5 followcd by stcpping up the pres-
surc with J&g5, while ...f7xc6 leaves the d6-
pawn susceptible to attack. Thcrefbre Black
has to play accurately to emerge with a play-
able game.
a) In the event of I0...a6 White should
throw in 11 a4 because Black is happy to play
along thc lines of the Benko (íambit now that
Whitc’s light-scjuared bishop has left the arena.
Scirawan-Kamsky, Monte darlo 1994 went
II...b 6 12 h3 J?a7 13 Ae3 e6 (now Black is
well prepared for thc critical challenge in the
48
centre) 14 dxe6 fxe6 15 a5 bxaS 16 c5 and
now I6...dxe5! gives Black an attractive game,
e.g. 17 WxcIS HxdX 18 Axc5 Rl>7 19 fxe-5
£kl7.
b) llie immediate I 0...c6 fails to deliver in
our opinion: II dxe6 fxe6 (lI..J<Lxe6? 12 f5
was terrible for Black in Skcmbris-Bcllia, Arco
1999) 12 Hdl £ V 8 I3 e5 fif7 I4cxd6Hd7 15
#Y*4 b6 and although Scirawan (in liC O ) es-
timatcs this position as unclear we believe that
Black has problcms, e.g. 16 H bl Wh4
(16...JuLb7 17 Wh3 £xc4 18 Wxc6+ <&h8 19
Wxe4) 17 ¿L,12 ÍLI>7 18ilc3 etc.
7...a6
Black is not without altcrnalivcs:
a) 7...c5 8 d5 a5 9 h3 £\c5 10 Ag5 h6 11
.&c3 &d7 12 W d2 < á?h7 13 g4 (13 0-0!?)
13...£ig8 14 £>g3 &((> 15 0 0-0 itg5 16 & fl
-
*g 7 17 * b l W f6 with a level game in I lau-
chard-I’crreira, Porto 2000 .
b) 7...c5 8 d5 4?V\5 and now White has 9 b3
when, according to I la/ai, the sacrifice 9...b5 is
not entircly correct - 10 cxb5 a6 II f4 ( II
0-0!? axb5?! 12 £\xb5, intending a2-a4 and
<5Y*c\3, favoured White in Matamoros Franco-
Pccorclli Ciarcia, Santa (Jara 1996) 1l...#Vd7
12 ÍL<\3 axb5 13 ÍLxb5 £>b8 14 Ad2 e6 15
0-0 cxd5 16 cxd5 Scmkov-( íeorgiev,
Bulgaria 1992, and now 17 a3!?#V7!? 18 A c 6
Ha6 19 A e l Ad7 20 Üxcl7 Wxd7 gives Black
some compensation for thc pawn.
Ixrt us relurn to the position after 7...a6:
8a4
 5 &d3

A ficr 8 0-0 c 6 9 a4 a5 10 h3 c5 11& c3 (1 1 dxe5 24 d6 c6! 25 ±>h1 Vz-'A

ilS!?) Il...exd4 12 Axd4 White might have 'llie final position is rather messy and both
problems wiíh l>4 and c5, which are ideal sides liavc strengths and weaknesses to con-
spots for Black’s picccs. On the other hand sider, but they were probably not in a ftghting
White has a strong centre and prosjxcts o f a mood...
kingside attack with f2-f4, as well as pressure
against the weak d6 -pawn. Chances are ecjnal. Game 22
12...5.8 13 14 b6 was the cotirse oí Gcorgiev- Agdestein-Dolmatov
Dimitrov, Pamporovo 2001, when 14 Wd3!? T ilb tn v ¡9 93
looks interesting.
8...e5 9 d5 a5! 10 h3 1 d4 £tf6 2 c4 g6 3 ¿ftc3 iLg7 4 e4 d6 5
l() £ig3 $V5 11 h1 hS 12 Sa3 c6 with ex- iLd3 0-0 6 í^ge2 -5^6 7 0-0 faó7
cellent play for Black, Godard-Glek, Oer-
mont-l;errand 2003.
1 0 ...^ c5 11 & e3 £tfd7 12 0-0
12 Wd2 (5 13 exfS gxfS 14 f4 exf4 IS
&xf4!? is nuclear according to Seirawan.
12...^a6
I2...f5 13 exf5 gxfS 14 f4 with an edge for
White (Seirawan).
1 3 ^ a 2 ^ d c 5 14«fd2

mtm

ü m &m
* 1 a ¡
An interesting idea. Black refrains from an
immediate 7...eS, opting instead to exert fur-
tlier pressure on d4. White has tliree methods
ofdefetice but each h;is its disadvantages. First
m ■ there is 8 d5, allowing the exchange ol his
light-sejuared bishop after 8...vVe5. Secondly,
after 8 .&e3 eS 9 dS 4?YI4 White cannot takc
m ___ wm . on d4 with his e2 knight in view ol the fork.
I'inally, dropping the bishop back to c2
14...1.d7 doesn’t look appropriate in some variations.
14...b6! is given as eijual by Ivanchuk in 8 ¿Le3
neo. ( )thers:
1 5 ^ x a5 !? a) 8 dS #VeS 9 f4 í^xd3 10 Wxd3 and
15 1)3 1)6 is level. Black’s price for climinating the bishop is in
15...£ixe4 16 We1 4üf6 the form o f W hite’s extra spacc and presence
Seirawan gives ! 6...^gS?! 17 h4 (17 Wd2! in the centre, which makes counterplay awk-
£Y*c5!?) ¿?\f3+ 18 gxf3 Wxh4 with compensa ward to enginecr. Unfoitunatcly this position
tion. In our opinion I7...#Mi3!+ is an im- is very rare in tournament practice, but play
provement. can continué as follows: l()...®k:S (Kleissl-
17 b4 <5^5 18 f3 f5 19 Sb1 b6 20 £lac3 Neumeier, Austrian llague I999 saw Black
¿Lf6 21 Wd2 & h 4 ?! 22 f4 J&f6 23 fxe5 fail to e<.|ualise after I0...c6 II ÜLc3 Wa5 12

49
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
SU 14 £k*5 13 Wc3 ÍLxd4 14 £W I4 c5 15 fxc5
clxc5 16 & B ) II W B e6 (I l...c6!?) 12 Ae3
4hd3 13 b3 cxd5 14 cxd5 f5 x h-xh y Chatal-
bashev-C¡eorgiev, I‘Vendí Ix:aguc 2003 bul in
our opinion after 15 Sad 1 White would have
stood better.
I>)8üc2e5
b l) 9 dxe5 £\1xc5!? (9...dxe5 10 &e3 was
Nutu Ciajic-C ¡rigorinn, Moscow 1994, when
10...151. II cxR gxft 12 O &b6 13 W xJ8
ílxdX 14 15 c5 £k!7 16 <5\1.S 4hx;c5
17 £kc7 ñh8 looks cijual) and White lias le»
dcal wilh potcntial activity from ihe cnemy
Torces, 10 b3 15 II 14 4í>g4 12 exf5 j$.xt?>
(12...«xf5!?) 13 ¿Lx B gxf5 (13...Sxl5!?) 14
Wd5+ Ú?hX 15 h3 £>h6 16 ÍLc-3 securing him
an edge in Piskov-Atalik, Romanía 1993.
I>2) y ti5 £kl4 (9...4V-7 10 £%3 aS 11 _&c3,
Pinter-Dolmatov, Lyon 1994, and now
11...Í5!? offers Black counterplay) 10 £*xd4
exd4 11íhb5 í?V5 with a further branch.
1>21) 12 ÍLb3 is interesting, e.g. 12...c5 13
dxc6 and here Black should play 13...1>xc6 14
£W I4 A a 6, transposing to ‘b22’, below
b22) 12 £}xd4 # W 4 (12...c5 13 dxc6 bxc6
14 iü>3 ÍLa 6 15 S e l «1)6 16 &e3 c5 I7#\b5
ÍW 4 with eijuality, Hort Xie Jun, Roijuc-
brune 1998) 13 H bl S e 8 l4b3ÍV-5 15&b2
c6 16 dxc6 bxc6 was unclear in I laik-
Ctr<)S/|K*ter, ( ,'annes 1996.
8...e5 9 d5
9 J$.c2 exd4 10 #W14 £kle5 leaves White’s
pieces rather awkwardly placed, e.g. 11 &b3
50
£>a5 12 We2 c5 13 £klb5 a6 14 £to3 £k.*c6 15
Wd2 JjLc6 and Black assumed the lead in Sei-
rawan-J.Polgar, Monte Cario 1993.
9...íhd4
lx;ss promising is 9...®e7 10 Wd2 f5 11
exfS gxf5 12 f4 £¡g6 (12...e4!r>13 ¿Le2 <5V6 is a
shade preferable for White) 13 Sael Sf7,
Ix>rscheid-Koxul, Munich 1992/3, and now
14 fec-5!? £klxe5 15 itg5 ÍL f 6 16 ÍLxf6 W xf6
17 ®g3 should keep White’s advantage intact.
Anyway, it tnakes sense to senil the knight
intotl4 after so much preparation.
10 S c 1
Not surprisingly this is one of numerous
options.
a) 10 ®Jb5?! is inadvisable in this speciftc
situation. I0...4^xb5! 11 cxb5 f5 12 B añil n<>w
instead of I2...£if6 I3 * h l &x\7 14 Wc2 fxc*4
15 fxe4 í^g4 16 A g í with a plus for White in
Khlvcsf-Xic Jun, Tallinn 1998, Black should
play 12...14 13 ¿LÍ2 $V 6 14 S e l g5, when the
kingside was looking rosy for Black in ílleseas
Cordoba-Romero I lolmes, Ixon 1993.
b) 10 ,&c2 is harmless in view of 10...£ixc2
11 Wxc2 f5 12 exf5 gxf5 13 f4 ? V 6 14 h3
Ai17 15 Wd2 W e 8 16 a4 a6 17 £\g3 Wg 6 with
an excellent game for Black, Olafsson-
Khalifman, Wijk aan Zee 1991.
c) 10 d?hl c5 11 Wd2 a6 12 H abí, Cliris-
tiansen-Xie Jun, San I;rancisco 1995, and now
12...f5!? 13 exf5 gxf5 is unclear.
d) lO A b l is interesting. For the price of a
tempo (or even two) White wants to forcé

Black to exchange his well placed knight.
10...£ixe2+ 11 Wxc2 f5 (1 l...a5 12 £Lq2 4tk5
13 a.3 f5 14 exf5 gxf5 15 f4 c4 with chances
for both sities in Arbakov-Belov, Katowice
1990) 12 exf5 gxfS 13 B & h 8 14 & c2 £ Y 6 15
cS $Mi5 16 cxd6 cxd6 17 Wc4 I5g8 18 <¿?hl
Jim 19 f4 Wh4 20 f iG Wg4 21 « T i e4 22
V?.-V¿y I ¿tstin-C ¡alkin, Volgcxlonsk 1993.
10...C5 11 dxc6 bxc6 12 b4 f5
Another idea is 12.JÜV7 13 J&bl c5 14
bxc5 dxc*5 15 #YI5, when both sities have
outstanding outposts for their knights. In Pin-
ter-Sepp, Yerevan 1996 Black played
15...#M>6. Ilere MC.O gives 16 f4!? (instead of
16 Ad3, as played by Sepp) I6...exf4 17 2xf4!?
as favouring White. W e suggest that Black
should play I6...®lxd5!? 17 cxd5 (17 exd5
Wc7) 17...exf4 18 Í^xf4 W e7 with sufftcient
counterplay. Also interesting is the immediate
15...Í5, e.g. 16 f3 (16 ex 15 gxf5 is etjual) I6...F4
17 £\xd4 cxd4 18 &<\2 flf7 19 & d 3 $V5 20
ÍLb4 jwLfK with ccjuality, or 16 f4 -ílxdS 17
exd5 S e 8 with good play for Black.
13 exf5 gxf5 14 &xd4
In our opinion after 14 14!?, combining
threats o f b4-b5, c4-c5 atul in some variations
fxe5 to hit the 15 pawn, White has the advan­
tage, e.g. 14...Hb8 (14...ÍV‘6 151>5) 15 Wd2 (or
15 a3 a5 16 l>5) 15...SxIvl (15...a5 16 b5) 16
^b 5 £>c5 17 £>bxd4 exd4 18 ÍLxd4 Ub7 19
H b l with the better game.
14...exd4 15 ^8 4 Wg5 16 f4 Wg6 17 c5
According to Belov White has a clear ad-
5 jk d 3
vantage in the diagram position but in our
opinion Black is not doing t<x>badly.
1 7 ...6 .8 18 ^ g 3
Attacking the isolated pawn on f5. Accord­
ing to Agdestein (l:C (J) after 18 23f3 White
has a clear advantage duc to two threats: JiLbl
followed by í^xd4, and Hfl-0-g3-g5. Never
theless, I8...a5 l<K>ks effective, and earns Black
counterplay, e.g. 19 a3 (19 cxd6 axl>4 20
JIx c 6? A h í) I9...axb4 20 axl>4 ÍLa 6 etc. 18
cxd6 is worth testing.
18...#>f6 19 Wf3
19 cxd6l? #VI5 20 Wd2 Wxd6 21 Hc5, in
tending £ih5, S fc l (Agdestein).
19...d5 20 £fe1 ¿Ld7 21 ÍIe7 £ae8 22
Ece1 h5
Agdestein gives 22..J3xe7 23 Hxe7 S e 8 24
W e 2 as unclear lx.it we like 23...?Id8 w illi llie
¡dea o f following ti|> wiíh 24...‘5V4.
23 Hxe8 Sxe8 24 Exe8+ «x e 8 25 We2
Wb8
25...#gr»!? 26 We5!? 27 W l>81 <&h7 28
0\c2 (Agdestein) is nuclear.
26 <^ixh5 Wxb4 27 <^xg7
2 7 ...*x g 7 ??
’l'he only move is 27...í'Y:4ü witli a ilraw in
all variations - 28 4^xí5 (28 4^h5 Wxa4 29
£ ¥ 6 ^ x f 6 30 We7 W dl t 31 ii.fl ? V 8 32
Wxil7 tl.3 33 W xl5 J2 34 We.S-t-, or 28 A xe4
fxe4 29 WhS-t) 28....&xB 29 s4 (29 ÍLxc4
ilxe4 30 Wh5+ &h7 31 WeS+J 29...ÍLxK4 30
Wxj>4 W e I + etc.
28 \We7+ s¿-g6 29 h4M
51
O ffb e a t K ing 's Indian
Kffcctivcly sealing Black’s fatc.
29...Wxa4 30 ¿Le2! Wa3 31 h5+ * h 6 32
Wxf6+ &h7 33 We7 + <¿>h6 34 Wd6+ 1-0
G ¿iw e 2 ?
Nenashev-Yermolinsky
Parlo dar 1987
1 d4 fo16 2 c4 g6 3 foc3 ¿Lg7 4 e4 d6 5
¿Ld3 0-0
N.B. The game actually went 5...ÍV6 6
í?\gc2 c5 7 d5 Í\ I4 8 í^xd4 exd4 9 £V*2 0-0
l() 0-0 Hc8 but we have tweaked the move
order in order to more conveniently feature
alternatives.
6 9lge2 £>c6 7 0-0 e5
One o f the most common and direct
methods of concentrating on the slightly
weakened d4-point.
8d 5
White is forced to cióse the centre as 8
dxc*5 $ixc5 is good for Black, while attempts
to retain the tensión in the centre cannot he
recommended for White, e.g. 8 Ac2 exd4 9
4>WI4 íhxc4, or 8 juLc3 £lg4.
8...^d4
After the inconsistent 8...í?Y7 White has
two go<xl replies.
a) 9 £>g3 h5 (9 ...ÍV I7 l() & c 3 6 11 cxf5
íh x f5 I2 £ lx f5 gxf5 13 14 with the Ixrtter
chances for W h ite in Racasan-Petcoiu, I íforie
N o rd 1998) 10 B £ ih 7 I I f4 exf4 12 ÍLx f4
6 13 c5! £\g4 14 cxdó cxdó 15 Wd2! (Al-
brccht-Adam, Corrcsjx )ndcncc 1992) is
evaluatcd by Korchnoi in LiCO as favouring
White.
b) 9 Ac2 a5 10 Ag5 (10 &g3!?) I()...£ih5
1I £\g3, Alcksandrov-Ovscjcvitsch, Nikolacv
1995, and now 1l...^xg3!r' 12 hxg3 fó 13 &c3
h5 provides Black with counterplay according
to Dolmatov. Mowever, wc prefer 12 fxg3, e.g.
12...fó 13 & e 3 14 W d 2 H l7 15 exf5.
9 ^xd4
W h ite docs not want to sce thc intruder
stay rooted lo d4. O th er continuations fail to haps pressure thc e4-pawn. líven the occa-
offer thc first player anything concrcic.
52
a) 9 Ag5 hó (9...c5 10 Wd2 aó 11 £ixd4
exd4 12 ÍV 2 Wc7 13 Axfó Axfó 14 h4 bó
with equality in Seirawan-Nunn, Monte (/arlo
1994) 10 J&.h4 c*5 11 B ( II dxeó bxeó 12 1>4
K c 8 13 h5, Dzirulzichashvili-Bcnjamin, l.os
Angeles 1991, when 13...« a 5 would have
guarantced Black countcq>lay) 1l...g5 12 A c l
£>h5 13 £kd4 exd4 14 £>e2 #Y4 15 g4 .¿Le5
V2-V¿s loncscu-Sofronic, Bucharest 2002.
b) 9 J&c2. Despite its passive appcarance
ihe light-squarcd bishop performs an impor-
tant function, so its rcmoval can, in fact, help
Black: 9...&xc2 10 Wxc2 &Mi5 11 Ae3 15 12
cxf5 gxf5 13 f4 Ad7 14 Hacl Wh4 with
chances for both sides in Christianscn-Nunn,
San Francisco 1995. It is worth not ing that 9
ÜLbl deserves attention, thc }x>int being to
elimínate Black’s unruly knight with thc infe­
rior versión on c2.
c) 9 n c5 10 £\xd4 cxd4 11 £\a4 sees
White stari operations on ihe queenside.
11...Ad7 12 b4 a5 was ihe continuation of
Tunik Kempinski, Karvina 1994, 13 a3!?
jk.xa4 14 Wxa4 ÍV I7 looking nice for Black.
9...exd4
A key |)osition that has its pros and eons
whichcvcr side o f thc board wc are sitting on.
Black’s pawn has managed to cross into en-
emy territory, which is quite a rarity in the
King’s Indian. Consequently there is a semi-
open tile on which lo plant a r<x>k and per-
sionallv passive g7-bishop enjovs considerable

freedom, with the c*5-sc|uarc* within range
should the square play a part as the game un-
lolds. I lowever, if Black ftnds himself having
to come to the aid o f the lone d4-pawn with
...c7-c5, then his structure will 1k * static and
therefore susceptible to attack, while there is
fio guarantced countcrplay available iu the
shape o f ...b7-bS. Mean while, over on the
other flank, pushing the f-pawn won’t achieve
anything useful.
10 5te2
In addressing the attention being paid to d4
Black nearly alwavs adopts the formation with
pawns on d4, c5 and d6 against White’s on c4,
ilS and e4. Depending on further play White
can try to tnake things hapjx*n on both wings,
but Black’s position tenils to be rather solid.
10...He8
A sound ahernative is lO...#YI7!? II H bl
He8 12 O cS 13 b4 b6 (13...£W5 14 bxcS dxcS
is equal, but the subscijueni IS f4? Í^xd3 16
Wxd3 Hxc4 left White with insufficient coin-
pensaiion for the pawn in Yrjola-Rantanen,
l inland 1992, although a draw was now
agreed) 14 f4 4&f6 IS í^g3 (Piskov Nunn,
(íerm any 1992) 15...cxb4!? 16 Sxb4 §\\1 17
H b l £ k5 with a good game for Black. Note
that 1S bxcS is cqual here.
11 f3 c5
( >thers:
a) l l...c6 12 b3 (12 íLf4!?, or 12 dxc6 with
transposition to 11...cS 12 dxc6, below)
12...Wb6 V?.-Vz, Panc/yk-Schmidt, Cetnicwo
1991. Yennolinsky and Iivshitz give 13 J& J>2
-5VI7 14 <á?h 1 as a sliglu edge lo White.
I>) 11.J/W l 12 1,3 £ k5 I3.kb2
1.1) I3...R 14 ÍLxcl4 fxe4 15 fxe4 &xe4 is
given as ei|iial by Yennolinsky and livshitz
bul after llie forcing 16 -&xg7 < ¿i'xj>7 17 JÍxe4
Hxe4 18 &g3 Se5 19 Wd4 A i 17 20 Hf4 c5 21
W l2 White has a big advantage.
1.2) 13...Wg5 is interesting. After 14 14 W g I
15 Wc2 16 foxd4 £>xd3 17 Wxd3 fxe4 18
W e3a6 19 ÜLc3 and I4...Wli6 I5 £ k d 4 & x e4
16 We2 ÍLd7 17 Ji.xe4 Í5 18 £ k 6 ,&xe6 19
ÍLxg7 Wxj-7 20 ÍLf3 A f7 21 Wd2 Black is
5 ÍLd3
only slightly worse.
llie lext is quite different in that Black is
willing to fix his centre pawns.
12 Ja.g5
a) 12 dxc6 bxc6 13 1)4 cS 14 H b l (14 a3!? at
least keeps W hite’s pawns intact) I4...£kl7 IS
® g 3 cxl)4 16 Hxb4 £ V S was awful for White
in Marcinkowski-Sarwinski, Warsaw 1989.
b) W ith 12 &g3!? White wants to gei to
work on a kingside offensive with a build-up
along the lines o f &d2, Ii2-h3, 13 14, W c2/G,
Hael and a well timed c4-eS. 12...bS 13 b3
bxc4 14 bxc4 H b 8 IS Üd2 liS 16 Wc2 h4 17
5Mil í^ liS 18 f4 h3 was far froni clear in Ni-
kolaiilis-Makropoulou, I lania 1994, which
leaves 12...Hb8. Then 13 & d2 &d7 14 b3 bS
IS W c 2 bxc4 16 bxc4 Wc7 17 Hael Hb7 18
a h3 Heb8 19 A c l ÍL c 8 20 f4 <5\I7 21 Hb4
22 eS ilxeS 23 fxeS í^xeS 24 A f4 was the
ccnirsc o f Sek-C>reg<>rczyk, ( a >rrespcxulence
2000, and now 24...f6! 2S AxeS fxeS 26 d6
W d 8 is critica), when after both 27 Wf7-f atul
27 ÍM iS Black can ilefend with ‘only* moves.
12...Wc7
Ivcss natural is ! 2...Wb6 13 H b l íid 7 14
Wd2 HeS, Khalifman-Shirov, Moscow 1993,
when White should have played IS b4! with a
big advantage.
13 Wd2
13 <ftg3 í\17 14 f4 Ii6 IS & h4 bS! was
equal in Yudasin Tcmirbaev, Kujbyshev 1986.
13...£kJ7l?
'lilis is an improvement 0 11 a game between
53
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
thc same players a ycar carlicr (USSR): 13...a6
14 1>5 Í.S b3 B l >8 16 Hacl W l,6 17 J& M
and Black was in troublc.
14 f4 b5
Tcmpting White, who tends to politclv re
fuse the offer with the next rruxlest iiudge of
thc h-pawn.
15 b3
After takingon l>5 White merely invites his
opponcnt to utulcrmine the support of the e4-
pawn with, for example, a well time<l ...c5-c4.
There is no need to entertain such possil>ilities
when White is ahle to maintain his presente in
the centre.
15...bxc4 16 bxc4 Hb8
Black’s pieces have found decent posts in
relation to the pawn con figuradon. I he d7-
knight proteets c5 (guarding against e4-c5) and
the hH-rook is playing a part. Note that the
light-scjuared hishop must he ready to go to
a6. 'Iliis is another reason whv Black should
push the h-pawn without preparation (in other
words leaving out ...a7-a6), thus keeping the
a6-scjuare free, as well as saving a tempo.
'Hiere is also an argument for executing the
same tjueenside stnitegy with the rook still 011
ÍH rather than tnoving it to e8. I liis is hecause
White’s thetnatic e4 e5 tlóxcS, f4-f5 plan is less
of a prohlem for Black lxcause the 17 pawn
would tlien Ix* more secure.
Yermolinsky and Uvshitz give I 6...$!H‘6
wilh the idea of sending the knight into c3 via
g4. ( !onsct|ucndy 17 A x f6! is necessary, when
54
after !7...Axf6 18 #}g3 White continúes to toy
with e4 t-5, although we Ixlieve that after
18...Hb8 Black has sufficient defensive re-
sources tlianks to the hishop pair, the facility
to defend with ...Sl>6 and the general activity
on the queenside.
17 <^g3 Sb4
I7...^f6 once again deserves attention.
18 e5 dxe5 19 f5 Wb6 20 £>e4?!
Although ihe attraction of l9...Wb6 is iliat
it defends along the rank while simultaneously
intrcxlucing the possibility of ...Si>2 White
might he ahle to exploit the former factor with
20 Habí!?, taking charge of the b-file atul pre-
paring for aggressivc action 011 either side of
lile board. I ’or example c5 is a target, while
after the trade 011 l>4 White’s centre pawns
grow in strength, e.g. 20...f6 21 & I 16! í'Y tt 22
Sxb4 Wxb4 23 Wxh4 cxb4 24 J&d2 etc.
20...Í6 21 d6
21 fxg6? hxg6 and White will regret releas­
ing Black’s f pawn. After 21A li 6 Black enjoys
an edge.
21...kb2 22 Wc1
22...&b7
O f course the game is becoming rather
complex and, with it, the decisión making
process. I lowever, with 22...gxf5! Black can
find a route 10 a considerable advantage: 23
Sxf5 fxg5 24 Wxg5 Wd 8 25 Wh5 iü>7 and
the onus is 011 White 10 demónstrate compen­
sation for ihe losi piece.
23 fxg6?

The lesser evil is 23 A d 2!? gxf5 24 Sxf5
ÍLxe4 25 ,&xe4 S b 8 with a messy situation
ihai holds more worries For White tlvan Black.
23...hxg6 24 ilx f6 £lxf6
W hy not 24...J&xe4! 25 &xc4 5üxf6 with a
J
big advantage?
25 fíxf6 &xf6
25..JSLxe4! is again strong.
26 Wh6 Sf8
Yet again 26...Axe4! should net Black the
flull point - 27 JbLxc4 « x d 6 28 Ad5+ He 6 29
S fl e.g. 30 g4 S^e7 31 g5 JÜ.xg5 32
«g7+ (32 Wxg5+ S f 6) 32...*d8 33 Axe 6
¿.14 34 « g 8+ S¿>c7 and the king easily finds
sanctuary on the queenside, leaving Black to
push his centre pawns or even construct an
attack against the enemy king. Note that the
opposite-coloured bishops only help the ag
gressor in this kind o f scenario.
27 Wxg6+ Ag7 28 We6 + & h8 29 Wh3 +
A>g8 30 We6+ 1-0
Game 24
Krasenkow-Kempinski
Polish I ¿agite, I jibniemce 1995
1 d4 ÍM 6 2 c4 g6 3 ^ c 3 iig 7 4 e4 d6 5
£d3 0-0 6 í^ge2 foc6 7 0-0 e5 8 d5 ftd4
9 £*xd4 exd4 10 ftb5
This move is much more forcing (and
risky) tiran 10 sMc2. White threaiens to win the
114 pawn without obstructing the e-ftle, thus
enahling him to protect the e4-pawn with
5 ¿Ld3
S e l. On the downside, if White fails to
achieve his ohjective the knight will be forced
to retreat to the poor post on a3.
10...Se8
( )thers:
a) I0...«e7 11 S e l <^g4 12 h3 and Black
was aiready in trouble in Seirawan-C ¡clfand,
W ijk aan /ce 1992.
b) II & c2 £k.*5 12 Í^xd4 (12
Ab.3 c5 13 dxc6 bxc6 14 #W I4 ÍLa 6 trans­
poses to I lort-Xic jun - sce Game 22, note to
W hite’s 8th move, ‘1)22’) 12...íhxc4 13 S b l
&d7 14 b3 ®fo 6 15 ÍLc3 Sc8 (15...c5!? 16
dxc6 bxc6 17 « d 2 d5 gains a tempo) 16 Wd2
c5 17 dxc6 bxc6 18 S fd l d5 19 <5V2!?, Wu
Shaobin -Wang Pin, Beijing 2001, with an edge
for White.
c) 10...£k*8 has not been sufficiently tested
in tournament practice but is undoubtcdly
worth a lex>k. White has a few continuations.
e l) 11 1)4 a5 (I l...c6!? 12 dxc6 bxc6 13 ÍY i3
15 gives Black counterplay) 12 bxa5 c6 13 4?\a3
Sxa5 14 «1>3 (I la/ai prefers 14 # V 2 #V7 15
a4 Sa7) I4...SV7 15 A d 2 S a 8 16 <?V2 & a 6
and Black emerged from thc run-around with
a slight advantage in Barccv-Tkachicv, Cap
d’Agde 2002.
c2 II J0Lbl « f 6 12 a4 a6 13 £>a3 « h 4 14
ttd3 Íh f 6 15 « g 3 «xg3 16 hxg3 S e 8 17 13
#VI7 18 b4 £ib 6 19 a5 £to4 20 ÍLd3 15 led to
a level game in Knaak, Arkhipov-Yurtaev,
<)berwart 1991.
c3) II ¿L c2 W f6 12 f4 a6 13 e5 dxe5 14
fxe5 W b 6 15 ^xd4 Axe5 with chances for
both sides, (¡ofshtcin-Ballmann, Zurich 2000.
11 £e1 a6
I l..Jfc.g4?! 12 B ÍLil7 13 % 5 W b 8 14 ÜLfI
c5 15 a4 a6 16 Íia 3 h6 17 A d2 and, according
to HCX\ White has a big advantage. I lowever,
Marín-Raúl Cíarcia, Andorra 1992 went 17...b6
18 b4 Sa7 19 a5, when Black could have
played 19...bxa5!? 20 bxa5 Wc7 21 « e l &h7
with an ecjual |x>sition. But there is an interest-
ing altcrnative for White in 15 dxeó!? bxc6 16
ÍW I4 «x b 2 17 íhb3, when Black has prob-
lems with the d6-pawn.
55
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
Black can also sentí his knight lo g4
11...£\g4 12 Ii3 with the fe»llowing position:
%¡m * w "-
m, wk X
In order to avoid losing the d4-pawn Black
now has to niake a threat of his own and at­
tack White’s knight. In Milov-Sutovsky, Struga
1995 Black chose to use the a-pawn, but after
12...a6 13 hxg4 axb5 14 cxb5 W li4 15 Af4!
.&xg4 16 Wd2 had a poor posilion.
lilis brings us to 12...c6.
a) 13 dxc6 bxc6 14 Iixg4 cxb5 15 cxl>5 (15
g5!?) 15...Wh4 16 ÉLc2 (16 Wd2!? ÍLxg4 17
Wg5 Wxg5 18 ÜLxg5 seems to favour White)
16...d5 (1 6 ...A c5 17 f4 d3? 117...& g7!?| 18 Ü .G
i L 14+ 19 & e 3 &xb2 20 H bl &c3 21 & f2
We7 22 He3 Korchnoi-I jgterink, Amsterdam
1976 and, according to Knaak, White has a
clear advantage) 17 g.3! Wh3 18 ÍLf3 (18 exd5
jÍLxg4 19 .&xg4 Hxel+ 20 Wxel Wxg4 21 d6!
looks good) 18...dxe4 19 Hxe4 $xc4 20 .¿Lxc4
&xg4 21 W fl! and HCO evalúales ibis posi*
don as verv good for W liile. W e cannot agree
with ibis, for after 21...W xfl+ 22 Sfcxfl He8 23
f3 (Olafsson-Mortensen, I vspoo Zonal 1989)
23....6.6! 24 J¡¡Ld3 .§¿15 the ending is balanced.
b) It is surprising that the analogous line to
12...a6 has gonc practically untested - 13
Iixg4!? cxb5 14 cxb5 (14 g5 bxc4 15 .&xc4 also
looks pleasant for White) 14...Wh4 and now
White has better chances after both 15 J&f4
.&e5 16 ÍLxe5 dxe5 17 Á x 2 and 15 g3 Wxg4
16 Wxg4 &xg4 17 <&g2 (17 & f4 £c5 18 ÍU I2
6 19 Hael fxe4 20 kxc4) I7...I5 18 13 fxc4
(Ktchegaray Weindl, (/atines 1996) 19 j&xc4.
56
12^xd4 £\xd5 13 cxd5
Only this move, which gives White valu-
able extra space, offers chances o f fighüng for
an advantage. 13 ftc2?! is harmless: 13...4^1)6
14 #W3 -5VI7 15 13 ÍV 5 16 & c2 A e 6 left
Black active in Sulyok-h’reitag, Austria 1996.
1 3 ...6 .d 4 14 Wc2
14 #a4 ÍLe5 15 H b l (15 Wl>3 c5 16 dxc6
bxc6 w iili equality, V.C íeotgiev-Sxelag, C'ap-
pelle la Grande 1999) 15...&d7 I6 # h 4 c5 17
dxc*6 (17 Wxb7? ÍLa4! 18 b3 He7) \7..Axc6
was unclear in Damljanovic-Kozul, Pula 1990.
Black also has I4...c5!? 15 dxc6 W b 6 16 Jie 3
&xe3 17 Sxe3. 'Iliese positions rend to look a
lirtle better for White in view of the superior
pawn structurc, bul tournament practice in
recent years does not confirm this, perha|>s
because Black is sufficiently active - especially
the bishops on open diagonals —and ihere are
no knights with which to fully exploit weak
stjuares. Play has coniinued I7...bxc6 18 Wc2
ü e 6 19 b3 a5 20 Hael a4 21 &c4 '/í-1 /*, Zaja-
Stevic, Istanbul 2003. Pinally 14...&Í6 15 Wc2
Jí.d7 16 Ae3 c5 17 dxc6 A xc 6 18 Hadl pro-
duced another earlv draw in the game Stern-
Gruenenwald, Germany 1995.
1 4 ..JU J7
Noi l4...Wf6?! 15 Ae3 ilxb2 16 H abí, e.g.
16...ÍLe5 17 Wxc7, spoiling the pawn siruc-
ture, or 16...Ac3 17 Hecl jü.d4? 18 Wa4 and
White won in Nutu Gajic-Bobrowska, Timi-
soara Women’s Zonal 1993 .
15 & e3

1 5 ...6 .5 !?
Black should avoid thc bishop trade lor a
couplc o f rcasons - his bishop is thc more
active aiul, secondly, Black’s pawns would
prove more vulnerable in iis absencc.
a) 15..JÍ.xc3 16 2xc3 c5 17 Wc3 (Marin-
Timoshchcnko, Calimanesü 1992) 17...b5!? 18
b3 b4 19 Wb2 &b5 20 S a cl Wg5 is level. 17
dxc6 improves, with better chances for White.
b) 15....&g7 16 Sad 1 c5 17 ilxc6 was etjual
and agreed drawn in Seirawan-Benjamin, lx>s
Angeles 1991.
16 Wb3
It your opponent has wcaknesscs, attack
iheni. (iotnfortably defending 1)7 appcars to
be a problctn for Black as both 16...1)6 and
16...b5 compromisc thc cjuecnsidc, while
16...«c8 and l 6...Wb8 look awkward.
16...Hb8?
Now Black has lo play a difíiculi ending.
Kcmpinski must have overlooked a tactical
irick because he could have played I6...c5!
wilh ihe following posilion:
Now 17 Wxb7?? ÍLa4! iraps ihe t|uccn(l),
so ii is time for the solxr 17 dxc6. Then
I7...bxc6 IH Wc2 aS is etjual, which leaves
!7 ...A xc6. Again ibis is level after 18 Hadl.
Anyway, if White cannot take thc b7-pawn,
then 16 W l)3 is best avoided as thc c|ucen is
worse on b3 than c2. W ith this in mind 16
S a cl woukl have been preferable.
17 f4
Avoiding complications that follow 17 sL\l
5 $Ld3
S a 8 18 Wxb7 Wh4 19 g3 W f6 20 Ec3 jSLb5.
17...Ag7 18 & a7 Sa8 19 Wxb7 Wc8
Perlvaps Black should look for counterplay
with I9...&b5 20 ÍLxb5 axl>5 21 Sc2 f5.
20 Wxc8 Sexc8 21 ¿Lf2 Axb2 22 £ab1
& c3
( ihckhov recommcnds 22...Scb8!? 23 Se2
Ac3, but after 24 11x1)8+ (24 S e l!?) 24...Sxb8
25 &a7 Ha8 26 Sc2 & f6 27 Ac3 White has
an undcniablc advantage in the ending.
23 Se2 c6 24 m>7 i¿.g4 25 &c2 cxd5 26
exd5 a5 27 h3 Ad1 28 £c1 ¿La4 29 g3
£d 2 30 £cc7 Sxc7 31 Sxc7 &e8 32 8a7
2Ic8 33 Ha6 i167
33...Ab4 34 a3 S c K 35 <&h2 A c 5 36
A x c 5 H xc5 37 A e 4 j>ivus W hile too much
according to ( ihekliov.
34 Sxd6 itxh3 35 Hb6 JÍ.b4 36 Hc6
Sd 8 ?l
Chekhov gives as better.
37 Ji.c4 ÍLf5 38 J¿b6 Íie8 39 Ji.d4 ÜLf8
40 d6 Sc8 41 Hxc8 Jix c8 42 ice5 Ü.d7
43 s£-f2 i¿g7 44 áxg7 &xg7 45 s*;e3 <4^6
45...f6 puts up stilTer resistance.
46 •Á'd4 :¿:e6 47 Ü.d5 1-0
47 J2.d5 -&<I7 4K S&c.S.
Gawe 25
Korchnoi-Radjabov
Najdorf Memorial, Hítenos Aires 200!
1 c4 g6 2 e4 ¿g 7 3 d4 d6 4 ^ c 3 4tf6 5
id 3 0-0 6 í^ge2 & c6 7 0-0 &h5
57
O f f b e a i K in g 's Iridian
Continuing the now familiar theme with a
different recipe, this time Black mercases the
pressure against c!4 by sending his knight to
h5. The point in kxlging the knight on the
edge of the lx>ard is to accelerate any offensive
action in the event of the tra<litional ...e7-e5,
d4-d5 when f4 is better monitored, the knight
is closer to White’s king and - no less impor­
tan* - Black is free to continué with a more
fluid development.
8 ilc 2
White has a numlx.*r of perfectly satisfac-
tory alternatives:
a) 8 d5 is another cxamplc of gaining more
space in the centre in return for allowing the
exchange of the d3-bishop. I lowever, in this
case Black’s hS-knight might prove to lx* out
of play, although White constantly has to con-
tend with ...f7-f5. A typical continuation is
K...£V5 9 (4 &xd3 10 Wxd3, e.g. I0...CÍ* 11
■áx-3 £ d 7 12 -ÍUI4 K c 8 13 dxc6 bxeó 14
J&.Xj*7 ^xj»7 15 1>3 with an edge for White in
Bonsch-Maiwald, Cologne 2(K)3, while the
aggressive 10...f5!? 11 #V14 c5 I2dxc6 bxeó 13
&e3 .&d7 14 exf5 gxf5 15 c5 was not enough
to denv White a lead in Van der Werf- CJalla-
j
gher, Cannes 1997.
b) 8 -&e3 allows the knight to reach d4, e.g.
8...c5 9 d5 £YI4. Then 10 _&c2 &xc2 11Wxc2
f5 12 exf5 (B.Kovacevic /elenika, Pula 1999)
12...gxf5!? is unclear, while 10 Wd2!? c5 11
dxc6 bxeó 12 b4 Ac6 13 b5 B 14 Ag5 Wd7
15 bxeó £ k c 6 16 £\I5 f4 17 f3 & h 8 18 S¿>h1
h6 19 .&li4 left White with a pulí in Seirawan-
Kasimdxhanov, Bled 2(K)2. Meanwhile 10
®fo5 &xb5! 11 cxb5 f5 12 B f4 13 &¡2 g5 14
£k:3 £W> 15 ÍLe2 W e 8 (15...h5!?, intending
...g5-g4) 16 a4 Wh5 was the course o f Skcm-
bris-Dimitrov, Kavala 2001, when 17 W ell?
and 17 S e l offer White chances of obtaining
an advantage. Perhaps Black might try
16...Wg6!? here.
8...e5 9 d5
After 9 dxe*5 # W 5 10 b3 Wh4 Black was
active in Aleksandrov-Ciolubcv, Nikolaev
1993.
58
9...<he7
Now that White has a little more influcncc
over d4 tlvan in some earlier examples Black
does better to avoid temptation as 9...ÍVI4
runs into 10 £W14 exd4 11 í?M>5 c5 12 dxc6
bxc6 13 í^xd4 W l>6 14 £M>3 (or 14 4hf5)
14...Ae6 15 Wxd6 üLxc4 16 with a very
big advantage for White according to Piket.
I lowever, 9...v?M>4 1(1.&bl a5 is quite plavable.
10 a4
'lilis til rust is a g<xxl example of a dual-
purjx>se move - White liopes that the a4-
pawn will contribute to the cause on the
c|uecnsidc while the advance has also ititro-
duced the |>ossibility of Sa3 followed by
swinging over to the kingside. 'llie only clisad-
vantage of the text is that after I()...a5 the
pawn structure on the tjuccnside is less dy-
namic. I lowever, White has the inviting l>5-
sejuare for his knight.
( )tliers:
a) 10 Sfrhl f5 (10...c5 11 f4 f5 12exf5 A x B
13 J&xf5 gxf5 14 fxc5 dxe5 15 í^ g l, as in
Conquest-I lebden, Clichy 1997 is assessed as
a shade lxrtter for White in NCO) 11 exf5
gxf5, Atalik-Pol/in, Kallithea Halkidiki 2003,
and now 12 í^g3!? #M~6 13 4?Mi5 í^xh5 14
Wxh5 secures W hile a nagging pulí.
b) 10 H b l f5 11 cxf5 and White should
emerge with the Ixtter prospeets regardless of
how Black recaptures, e.g. 11...í^xf5 12 £V4
ÍL I16 13 &xh 6 ^ x h 6 14 Wd2, Delchev-
Rutkowski, Bad Wildbad 2002, or 11...gxf5 12

14 £\g6 13 fxc5 dxe5 14 c5 <&h8 (14...Í4 15
$V4! QSf(> 16 ®2c3) 15 1)4 f4 16 <&e4 &g4
(Pclciar-Gallagher, Pula 2(MX>), when 17 h3
ÍLt5 18 c!6 ® if 6 19 4ft2c3 favours White ac­
cording to Haxai.
10. ..f5
Black wastes no time.
a) I0...&H8 ll a5 ( ll fia3 15 12 exf5 gxí5
13 í^g3 í^xg3 14 fxg3 4?\g6 15 4fte2 A<.I7 16
11.c3 looked better for White in I.Sokolov-
Daviil, Bordeaux 2003) 11...15 12 exf5gxf5 13
<?.)g3 & f4 (13...&xg3 14 fxg3!) 14 £fo5 &xh5
15 Wxh5 and White was already fully in chargc
in Piket-Fcdorov, W ijk aan /.ce 2001.
h) 10...a5 11 Ha3 15 12 exl5 <ftxf5 13 £k-4
£W> 14 ÍLg5 WcH 15 £>2c3 <Üxc4 16 &xe4
íL f 6 17 A c l Wc7 18 £}1>5 (Bareev-Dolmatov,
I'.lista 1997) with thc better chances for White
according to liCX).
11 exf5 gxf5 12 fog3
12...5M4
!2...&xg3 13 fxg3 W e 8 14 £>b5 Wd7 15
ÍLc3 a6 16 5V:3 W c 8 17 c5 J&d7 was unclear
in Palliser-Nunn, Knglaiul 2001. White might
try 16 # W !? here instead of retreating to c3.
13íhh5!?
13 Ha3 $\eg6 14 ÍV e 2 was Pinter-Nataf,
Batumi 1999, and now 14...5ixe2+ 15 Wxc2
maintains the balance.
13...6xh5 14 Wxh5 <^g6 15 f4 exf4
Black can also permit the trade on e*5, the
point being to generate piece play (dark
sejuares) and use the e5-sijuare as a knight
5 iL d 3
outpost. I lowever, perhaps I5...e4!? is the best
o f the available options.
16 &xf4
C'hatalbashev-Isonzo, Cutro 2(K)2 demon-
strated White’s most promising course: 16
£>e2!? &d7 17 Ha3 &e5 (17...Wf6!? should be
tried, restricting White to a slight advantage)
18 £>xf4 & xf4 19 &xf4 W f6 20 Axc5 Wxe5
(20...dxe5 21 Hb3 is a lesser evil) 21 Hh3 etc.
16...Wf6 17 Sad1 & xf4 18 Sxf4 « h 6 19
Eh 4 Wxh5 20 £xh5 ÍLxc3 21 bxc3 ÍLd7
Black’s weak l5-pawn is easy to defend. A
means o f making progress for White is prob-
lematic indeed, particularly in view o f the fací
that White’s bishop longs for better times and
the c4-pawn could be a juicy target for Black
to aim at.
22 <&f2 Sae8 23 a5 He5 24 fíb l b6 25
axb6 axb6 26 S a l ÍLe8 27 &g5+ Ag6 28
&a7 Se7 29 sbf3 & g7 30 <&f4 h6 31 Hg3
& f6 32 iLd3 Sfe8 33 Sf3 <¿>g7 34 Sh3
£f7 35 Eg3 & f6 36 ¡113 Riel 37 &g3 Ef7
38 sfch4 &g7 39 S a l f4 40 Saf1 Ü.e4 41
He1 Sfe7 42 ££xe4 Hxe4 43 ii.xe4 Ilxe4
44 sfcg4 Sxc4 45 4 *5 b5 46 Sd3 Sa4 47
£d2 fíc4 48 Sd3 fía4 49 Sd2 S c4 % -%
Game 26
Sagalchík-Graf
Kemerovo 1995
1 d4 fo16 2 c4 g6 3 foc3 A g í 4 e4 d6 5
A ó 3 0-0 6 ¿)^ge2 e5 7 d5 c6
59
O f f b e a t K i n g ' s Iridian
Black decides to rnake an early challenge on
White’s centre, the point l>eing to open the c-
file, facilítate counterplay involving ...b7-b5
and then secure a stable knight outpost on c5
by placing the a-pawn on a5. O f course open-
ing the c-file is a double-edged strategy as
White might seek to control it. Mcanwhile,
with in the air, White’s light-squared
bishop might come to life.
8 0-0
W hite can also siake a claim for queenside
territoiy immediately with 8 f ib l. 'Ilie n 8...a5
9 a3 cxd5 10 cxdS £>h5 11 0-0 #kl7 12 & e3
f5 13 ex 15 gxf5 14 #\g3! ^ x g 3 15 fxg3 e4 16
A e 2 (Piskov-I lennesmann, Dortm und 1992)
favours W hite according to Piskov in IiCX), as
ilitl 8...cxtl5 9 cxd5 ^1x17 10 £»g3 h5 11 &g5
£ k 5 12 ÍLc2 a5 13 a3 Ag4 14 13 A iI7 15 Í>4
axb4 16 axlvt £W> 17 ^ 1 2 ¡n Pintcr-Kozul,
Pula 1996. Black’s lx-st sccms 8...£ilxl7 9 1>4
(I ledman-Shtyrenkov, Pardnbice 2(XK)) 9...a5!?
with chances for both sides.
8...£fod7
Retaining the tensión in the centre has its
advantages for Black, but by not trading im­
mediately lie must take into account the pos-
sibility that White might recapture on d5 with
the knight, or alter the flavour of the game by
throwing in d5xc6.
a) 8...cxd5 9 cxd5 &bd7 (9...£th5 10 &e3
f5 11 exf5 gxf5,Franz-Boca, Bayem 1998 and
now 12 í^g3!? seems to keep White slightly
ahead) 10 B £\c5 11 &c2 a5 12 &e3 ÍLd7 13
a3 $Mi5 14 iLxc5 dxc5 15 ÜLa4 (Rozentalis-
Yrloja, Voronez 1987) and, according lo
Rozentalis, White has an advantage due to
weakness of the b5-square.
b) 8...a5 9 a3 (9 B !? is interesting, while 9
&g5 h6 10 &d2 #Va6 II a3 Ad7 12 dxc6
bxc6 13 íha4 d5 was unclear in Skembris-
Collutiis, Cesenatíco 2(KH)) 9...^h5 10 J&.c3 15
11 exf5 gxf5 12 B (12 %3!> ) 12...c5 13 & h l
#Ya6 (Hhlvest-Cvitan, Biel Open 1997) 14
Wc2! with an advantage to White according to
I íhlvest.
9 A c2
60
Now White is able to occupy d5 with a
piece rather than a pawn.
9...cxd5
Black can also defend the d6-pawn with
9...We7, although in Matamoros Franco-
Perdomo Abad, Las Palmas 1995 White engi-
neered an advantage after 10 B a5 11 Ae3
-SY*8 12 Wd 2 15 13 exf5gxí5 14 f4.
10 £>xd5
10 cxd5 a5 ll B tends to lead to similar
positions to those after 8...cxd5 9 cxd5 #Mxi7
K) B , but White can leave his f-pawn alone
and instead try 11 #\g3, e.g. I l...#V:5 12 a3 (12
H bl 3Lí\7 13 Wc2 Wb 6 14 júLg5 Hfc8 15 #d2
£\i>4 16 ÍU\\ f6 17 &xg4 ÉLxg4 18 ÍU 16 Ad7
19 .&xg7 sfexg7 led to a level game in Illescas
Cordoba-Matamoros l;ranco, Lanzarote 2003)
12...üld7 13 ite3 £>g4 14 &xc5 dxc5 15 &a4
15 16 Ü.xd7 Wxd7 (Meleghegyi-Redolí!, Cor­
respondence 1995) 17 #Ya4!? with an edge for
White.
10...^xd5 11 Wxd5
11...£*c5
A surprising idea is l l...4hb6 12 Wd3 Wc7
13 b3 d5, when 14 cxd5 ^xd5 15 jSbti Hd8
16 Had 1 &g4 17 exd5 ± 6 18 #c3 Wxc2
secured White a minimal edge in Akhmadeev-
Chuprov, Novgorod 1999, but 15...He8!? 16
fiad l O lí6 17 ¿b 1 .&g4 appears to solve all
Black’s problems. White can avoid this with
13 #Y\3, which is certainly worthy of further
tests as 13...Wxc4 14 Wxd6 ^Le6 15 &b3 Wd4
16 ÍM>5 Wxd6 17 #W16 &xb3 18 axb3 looks

»|uik- awkward for Black.
12 b3 & e 6 13 Wd2 f5 14Sd1
Attacking the backward d6-pawn, but Black
li.is -i simple defence. Therefore White should
(onsider 14 ¿h c í followed by A b2 and S a d l
*
vu .
14...Hf7 15 Üb2
After I5 «x d 6 ?? Black alvvays has I5...fíd7.
15...Hc8 16 exf5 gxf5 17 f4?!
White unnecessarily allows tactics to de-
velop in the shape of the g I -a7 diagonal. 17
s'V3 is the correct course, with the superior
pawn structure and thc easier game for White.
17...íLxc4
Movszis/ian gives 17...«l>6 18 «x d 6 Hc6
19 Wd8+ but Black can try 17...#Y4!, e.g. 18
Íí.xe4 (18 « c 3 exf4 19 £ixf4 &xb2 20
W l6 21 ÍLxe4 .¿Lxal is nice for Black)
18...«b6+ After 19 & h l fxe4 20 h3 (20 «x d 6
.¿.g4 21 «x b 6 axl>6 22 S e l exf4 23 >ÍLxg7
'•'V\g7) 20...Sc8 Black has an excellent game.
18 ¿x e 5 !
Also cjuite playable is 18 bxc4 (or, in an-
othcr move order, 18 fxc*5 «1)6 19 bxc4)
18...«b6 19 fxe5! (Movszis/ian gives only 19
«xd6 Wxb2 20 H acl? Sd7 etc.) I9...«xb2
(I9...dxe5 20 JuLa3 $V*4+ 21 c5!, or 19...5M>3+
20 .&d4) 20 exd6 «1)6 21 H abí with a forcing
variation that leads to a drawn ending -
2L.®«x3+ 22 * h l &xd2 23 Sxb6 <&xc4 24
d7 Sd 8 25 Hxb7 <&c3 26 Hb8 A f 6 27 Hxd8+
jS.xcIH 28 Hd2 <&xc2 29 Hxc2 Hxd7.
18...11.e5
18...6xc2 19 «x c2 « c 8 20 Hxd6 $YI7 21
S a d l ? W 5 22 fxe5 Ü.xe5 23 H6d2 with a
level game is fine for Black, but the best con-
tinuation here is the unexpected 18...«b6 19
&xg7 Axe2 20 «x e2 (or 20 Ad4 A x d l 21
Wxcl l d5 with a plus for Black) 20...£kl3+ 21
& f! £>xf4 22 A d4 «x d 4 23 Hxd4 £>xc2 24
)1<I2 £V4 25 M 26 H adl ®k!5, when
Black is on top.
19 fxe5 Wb 6 20 & h 1 iLxe 2 21 Wxe2 S e 8
22 A x f5 Sxe5 23 Wg4+ Rgl 24 Wh3 d5?
24...«d8!? is only a shade worse for Black.
25 ñ a d
5 $Ld3
25 &xh7-f- Hxh7? 26 Wg3+ improves.
2 5 ...« d 6 26 b4 fte 6 27 Axe6 + H xe6??
28 Sc8+ & f7 29 H f 1 +
29 «15+ fif6 30 «h5+ Sfg6 31 Hxd5 is
simple and veiy strong.
2 9 ...*g 6 ? 30 Wf5+ & h6 31 S c3 1-0
(iam e 27
Reinderman-Movsesian
Dutch Vjeague (pl<iy-o[l) liresla 200!
1 c4 g6 2 ^ c 3 A g í 3 d4 d6 4 e4 5
&Ó3 0-0 6 t)\ge2 e5 7 d5 a5
Black secutes the c5-sc|uare for his knight.
'I he immediate 7../fta6 is also possil>le, e.g. 8
0-0 (8 O !? & c5 9 ÍLc2 a5 10 A c3 ®Ui5 11 0-0
15 12 exf5 gxf5 13 t4 wilh an edge for White,
Farago-Knoll, Aschach 1994) and a cross-
roads:
a) 8...#M)5 9 a3 (9 Ae3 f5 10 exf5 gxf5 11
f4 e4 12 ÍLc2 í¥ 6 13 h3 c5 14 a3 ÍLd7 with
chances for both sides, Chatalbashev-Janev,
Opatija 2003) 9...c5 10 dxc6 bxc6 11 & c 3
(I lappe-Poctzsch, Corrcspondcncc 1993) and
now 1I...Í5 12 « a 4 « c 7 13 cxf5 gxf5 sets up
a balancee! middlegame. 11 1)4 #Y:7 12 S b l f5
gives Black counterplay.
b) 8...4Y5 9 A c2 a5 101)3 ®Mi5 11 & c3 f5
12 cxf5 gxf5 with much to play for in
J.Christiansen-Josephscn, Dcnmark 1995.
c) 8J£ k l7 9 Üe3 15 10 ex 15 gxl5 11 f4
(Summerscale-( loleman, Norwich 1994) and
now 11.. <SV6 12 fxc*5 13 ¿L c l ifh 4 14
61
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
h3 $W*5 leads to a double-edgcd position.
d) 8...c6 9 a3 #k*5 10 Ac2 cxd5 11 cxd5 aS
12 &g5 h6 13 ¿Le3 14 ¿Ld2 B with
counterplay, Arkhipov-Gallagher, Kecskemet
1990.
8 a3
A natural altcrnativc is 8 0-0 £ia6 (8...#Mxl7
9 B <SY*8 10 A c3 B 11 exB gxB 12 f4 £idf6
13 h3 £Mi 5 14 #d2 c4 15 ÍLc2, Ionescu-
Vajda, Bucharest 1997, favours White) 9 B
a) 9...£>h5 10 Ae3 B 11 cxB gxB 12 a3
(12 f4 £tf6 13 h3 e4 14 A c2 c5 15 dxeó bxc6
16 Wd2 Sl>8 and Black enjoyed counterplay in
Kiselev-Bragin, Podolsk 1992) 12...Ad7 13
¿Le2 W e8 (Terrón Klena-Rubio Doblas,
Malaga 20(K)) 14 Aa4!? is g<xxl for White.
b) 9...c6 10 ¿Le3 4&h5 (10..JL17 11 <Sla4 c5
12 a3 Sl>8 13 S b l with an edge, Ijüíc-
Cheparinov, l^ausanne 2001) 11 Wd2 B 12
exB gxB and now 13 f4! e*4 14 ¿Le2 (Marín-
Bologan, Calimanesti 1992) is a standard route
to an advantage.
8 ...6 a 6 9 iLc2 £\c5 10 f3
If 10 S b l Black must advance with 10...a4
in order to address the threatened b2-b4, but
now the a4-pawn is vulnerable. 'Iliis was seen
in I leinimaki-Johansson, Turku 1997 - 11 0-0
¿LÚ7 12 B 4ie8 13 ¿Le3 B 14 exB gxB 15
¿LxeS dxc5 16 ÍLxa4 etc. However, Black has
a possible improvement in 12...We8.
10...£tfd7!?
'Iliis l<K>ks superior to 10...Ad7, which
failed badly in Feletar-Bilobrk, Pula 1999 after
11 ÍLe3 $Y-8 12 0-0 h5 13 1>4 axM 14 axl>4
#Ya6 15 S b l etc. 12...B!? looks like an im­
provement.
11 0-0 f 5
11...5ib6!? exploits the pin on the a file and
thus after 12 b3 B 13 exB gxB effectively
gains a tempo should play then follow the
same course as the main game.
12 exf 5
After 12 S b l f4 13 b4 £la6 14 ¿Ld2 (N o­
vikov -Belov, Volgograd 1996) 14...^b6!? 15
.&d3 axb4 16 axl>4 c5 Black has a good posi­
tion.
62
-------------------------------------------------------------- i
12...gxf5 13 S b 1 fob6
'I he key position. Black switches wings so
that the cjueenside is currendy the main arena,
exerting pressure on White’s pawns.
14 b4 axb4 15axb4 foa6 16iLd3 c5
'llie point — Black’s play thus far has been
geared to executing this rhematic break-
througli.
17 bxc5
17 dxc6 bxc6 merelv frees the excellent e6
sejuare for Black’s bishop.
17...£>xc5 18 &e3
Both sides have weaknesses and, conse-
c|uently, targets.
18...1d7
I8...^lxl7!? denies White his next possibil-
ity.
19 &xc5 dxc5 20 Wc2 S a 6 21 Rb3
'I’he immediate 21 íhg3!? looks fine for
White, meeting a subsequent 21...Wg5 with 22
®>b5.
21...Wh4
Attacking the c4-pawn and preparing of­
fensive operations on the kingside with ..JKf6-
h6. White must also keep an eye on another
standard tlieme here, namely the activation of
Black’s ílark-squared bishop with ...e5-c4 fol-
lowed by ...Ü.e5 or ....&d4 (should the e2-
kíiight move).
22 fífb l
White could address Black’s plan with 22
tfb l Sf6 23 W el.
22...6Í6 23 ^ 3 e4!

A lypical idea in the King’s Indian. Black
kills iwo birds with one stone, increasing the
mopc o í the dark-sejuared bishop while simul-
l.mcously denying White’s pieces access to the
potcntially useful e4-s<.]uare.
24 fxe4 f4
llie point, putting a difficult ijuestion to
llie knight. 'llie rather blunt looking 24...Sh6
is also effcctive, when 25 íh fl f4 transposes lo
24...Í4 25 $ }fl Bh6 (below) and 25...fxe4 26
#W*4 Aa4 keeps enough fuel in the tank for
hoth players.
25 <hf1 f3?
lilis time 25...Sh6 is the corred move, e.g.
26 íhl>5 á.e5 with chances for both sides, or
26 S^li 1 iile 5 followed by ...f4-B etc.
26 e5! Wd4+ 27 <&h1
27 Wxe5 28 £k*4 Itg6 29 W x B looks
simpler.
27...fxg2+ 28 Wxg2 Wxe5 29 <5te4 Bg 6
30 £>fg3 Wd4 31 <^d2 Sa2 32 & f3
After the simple 32 .&xg6 Bxd2 33 W gl
Wxc4 34 ,&e4 White should have won.
32...Wxd3
After 32...Wf4 White has a forcing variation
in 33 Wxa2 W x B l 34 Wg2 Sxg3 35 ^Lxh7+
d>xli7 36 B x B Bxg2 37 S¿xg2 # W 4 38 Sxb7
etc.
33 Sxd3 fíxg2 34 si>xg2 ÍLf5 35 Sdb3?
Missing 35 Sxb6 &xd3 36 Hxl>7 or 36 d6,
with winning chances for White.
35..Jbcb1 36 Hxb1 £ * c 4 37 2xb7 £te3+
38 <¿*2 £>xd5 39 £tf5 & f 8 40 <^e3 V\c3
5 $Ld3
4 1 í ^ c 4 S e 6 4 2 4 h fe 5 h 6 4 3 & e 3 & g 7 4 4
<& d3 4 M 5 4 5 <Á>e4 £ \ e 7 46 Rc7 £ ig 6 4 7
& xc5 ^xe5 48 í^ x e 5 Sxe5+ 49 22xe5
& x e 5 V2 -V 2
Carne 28
Panczyk-Kempys
Pohsh Championsbip, Cetniem 1991
Many of the notes to this game are from
our survey in N IC Ycatimk No. 66.
1 d 4 fA f6 2 c 4 g 6 3 f t c 3 i l g 7 4 e4 d6 5
&Ó3 0-0 6 ^ g e 2 e 5 7 d 5 ^ h 5
lilis move looks lógica1, Black wasting 110
time preparing an offensive 011 the kingsitle.
8 h 3 !?
'lilis the idea o f Polish correspe>ndence
master Xbigniew Sek. If Black fails to react
energetically he will lose two tempi after White
advances g2-g4.
8 &c3 (5 9 O $¥4!? 10 0-0 £>x<.I3 11 Wxd3
f4 12 A l2 <S\I7 13 2 fc l (Yakovicli-Temir-
bacv, Pinsk 1986) 13...£k:5 14 Wd2 a5 is quite
pleasant for Black, bul 8 0-0 is (obviously) a
feasible alternative. Then 8...c5 9 ^Le3 f5 10
ex Bg x B (Bouazix-Spisak, Oappclle la Cirande
1995) 11 ®g3!? and 8...4Y17 9 &c3 f5 10 exf5
gxf5 11 ^g3 (Marin, Aleksandrov-
Shchekachev, Junnala 1991) leave White with
the easier game, and 8...#\i6 9 a3 4hc5 10 $Lc2
a5 11 H b l B 12 exf5 A x B 13 b4 axb4 14
axl>4 ÍV17 15 .& xB gxB 16 f4 also favoured
White in Basagic-Spaete, Badén Badén 1988.
Most interest has been in 8...Í5, when 9
Í^g3 í^f4 10 ÍLc2 (Braumann-Kilic, Magde-
burg 1997) walks into K)...í^xg2ü and Black
has all the fun, e.g. 11 (»i>xg2 14 12 J¡L<\3 Wh4
etc.
'lilis leaves 9 exf5:
a) 9..J&xf5 10 ü .x B gxB 11 í^g3!? £lxg3
12 fxg3 (V.Georgiev-Ranva, Ourres 2001) and
now I2...£kl7!? 13 jÍLc3 a6 14 Wb3 b6 15 Wc2
Wf6 16 Hf2 Wg6 is a promising continuation
for Black, the idea Ixing 17 R ;ifl Sf6 18 H x B
BaíK 19 g4 Wxg4 20 Bxf6 Sxf6.
b) 9...gxB
63
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
Rccapturing with thc pawn is ihe more
consisten! choice, affording Black a rather
intimidating presence on ihe kingside. Consc*
«.juendy White must address the situation ac-
cordingly, otherwise Black will continué the
build-up. In fact White has three typical ap
proaches in the diagratn position. ( )ccasionally
we see In Í3, directed against ...e5-c4, while 10
f4 is another candidate. W ith this more aggrcs-
sive thrust White achieves two goals with one
move - blockading the f5-pawn and introduc-
ing the threat to take on c5 in order to bring
unwelcome attention lo the potcntially vulner­
able B-pawn. Thus after 10 14 Black some
times captures or allows f4xe5 so as to use the
tlark stjuares (such as c5 and g5) and take his
chances m an open position, but in most cases
l()...c4 is playee!, e.g. 11ÉLc2 Sf6 12 A e3 Hh6
13 W el <SV6 with chances for both sides in
Sjoberg-Xiegler, Cíothenburg 1997.
White’s strongest is 10 í^g3!, in rcply to
which Black has two typical responsos.
b l) After 10...£\xg3 11 fxg3 White moni-
tors the fS-pawn. I I...Wc8 12 Ac3 a5 13 Wd2
Íha6 14 IL(2 Ad7 15 fia fl Wg6 16 ÍLc2 led to
an edge for White in Sagalchik-1 Aiclvan,
Mineóla 1993, while 13 g4!? is possible.
b2) W ith 10...$M*4 Black is prepared lo ac-
cept a weakness on 14, putting ihe onus on
W hite t<>ftnd a route lo an advantage. 11í^h5
is often played but the real test has to be 11
jS_xf4 exf4 12 <&h5 &c5 13 Wf3 % 5 14
JSabl ^\!7(l4...Wg4!> 15 JuLe2) I5£ic2£xb2
64
(Sagalchik Shirazi, New York 1992) 16 Hxb2
£W5 17 Wh3 13 18 <5Y*f4 4?kd3 19 <hxc!3 with
a clear advantage for White. Note that aiier
I5...ttg4!? 16 ®hxf4 Wxí3 17 gxB $Y5 18
J&.C2 a5 die extra pawn would be difftculi lo
cc >nveri.
I am’s get back lo 8 Ii3:
8...Í5
8...Wt6H attempts to secure 14 but the idea
falls shorl:
a) 'l’lie immediate 9 g4!? looks simplest,
when 9...Wf3 is a serious error duc i<> 10 Hh2,
e.g. I0...ÍY6 11 Wc2 £tfd7 12 £Y4 exf4 13
ÜLe2 ÍY 5 14 1 and Black’s ijueen is
irapped in all variations, or I0...ÍV4 11 .Íí.xf4
exf4 12 # c2 £W> 13 £>gl #>1>4 14 £>x6
4hxc2+ 15 .&xc2 etc. Thcrcíorc Black has to
play 9...ÍY4 10 £>xf4 exf4 ll W ft <hd7 12
«x f4 , when there is no conipensation for thc
pawn.
b) 9 g3 #W> (9...Wf3 is again poor, as was
demonstrated in Seiniwan-l ishlxin, Scattlc
2002 after 10 Sh2 £to6 ll ÍLe3 f5 12 cxf5
I3.&xftgxf5 14 W b lP & fó 15g4#kr4
I6<hxe4 Wxc4 17 Wxe4 fxc4 I8<5Y3£M)4 19
S^cl2, intending í^xe4) 10 J&c3!? $Vc5 11 JiLc2
&d7 12 Wd2 a5 13 g4 ®>f4 14 <^xf4 exf4 15
J&xf4 favours White.
l;rom these cxamples we can see that Black
must citlier play a position a pawn down for
insufficicnt compensation or withdraw his
tjuecn and subsecjucntly lose additional time
with thc h5-knighi.
 ¡e- :$ =- 2_

11 hxg4 &xg4
5 X
» fr
r* ^
~ 5
w 1 5 ?
w rw
.{í w : ^ ¿ S Í J ■>%

llie kcy posilion.

^
0
_ ¡J * 5
r* CQ
—• ^ , r* r- 3 ^ r‘ n.
r. * 5- 3w5
n Ni — : r* ’rZ
vT J ^ ¥ - V- y* -

~ _ fcs> r, r -
n ,3
= - ^ vl s C; V *;
5i s % — •—
™• Ei —
12 Wc2 h6 13 ¿e3

* '/C
§ f 3- s & - • •k% i ^
*« m
mm

I * p 2 w ~ ^ &
“ =
^
= 5
= fO —r -£. T-
* --- 1% w ? f %
5* 8§* oo ¡v ^ C I ^
* & ^ 5 5 "' £
“S? " J 7
*7T lc> 75
= ^
r L DI,
•1 &. ÍL ^© 3 i. X
• *« O -n f •' nr- C r
oc 7T
| - 00 3 • s ^ íl "* r-
to X r. ^*
to */5 m
—* -
o cc .^n x X M•
7" o to c J2
f* + to g:
+ fo 7T_ -• ^ ^ 53*
•> %

=l. — — v» <} -• ?f 75 — 75 C *

are
r.
3 o -
•
• to

rÍT —i tO ->
U1 rSg- JLcs>
T*
0>c1 íi.d4

p •
» %
b3 ’&gS 35 £\f5 Hg2 36 £\g3 1-0

Jf Ss w) to ~* iXo ^
Q. O & vi -0 7 Oí m
• f

Q.
—»

CD 00 •Oj •
•
í: <5 1 = ^ r: o
N> 00 */ •
to
ro 05 NJ + |C* . •
> »

2 6
3“ • s^

^ oo ISJ to •y c 75
••
•
•
#

§■ &=' ó
1C^D a e -
0

2t
+ -Or í; c —
-rCL
£
O- X —
w
r -

fí 5: to X _ J
32 <^g3 ÍLg7

ro O- X fr
•
•
w . — g.
Q. =r Cv •o óc
3C 1X3 oc Oí
2$ s>
w CO W H ^
•

&* to r.
x s CD
í "3
Ir 75_ P x en
Q. ro <* X 00
•
> »

X L--
CO ^ N) (O ¡G* oc -j 75 2 ™ ^
4* v. X •w •-J
—
m & *j^J — 7T -7‘ c * 2 í ¿ s
00 =■ le­ ro C O w 3
c ^ =
1 x
-* O ) ■M• ■>* ■
y*. r.
O en £ 2t - ^* V.
33 <A>d2 £ e 8 34

v. X ~ r, 7 to ^*
1^ £ °> lo (ü Q.í '^n _
y. ñ‘ w 5.
* o n vi to -i
c —• --J id ^
P?
CO C J
1 C
O
<jy
'w
<“
<
** ^ -í^
00 ñ • r.
•>»
ro CS 9 y. s. —-** g - Jt3>
& “ ro -J
-t- % •—• r 3 Í.
rC*J M
W
X--a w
•
01 £ * ■
CO -S» <D <Q (O í 1^
—
A
^

7? v:«
« ro —
-* co ¿ CO 4^ ' j 7J i to c -4
 x
V-
■w ®
(2 X
sS* — r~ - fc> ^
? 71 u ? X <D
oc o X*
•3 i
= = :u üi
lo ~ to I©*
*
-n
s 3-5.
x '^rí s7r-T
í i=^
L^ ^
LH O _ ” '/
7T
É w ü^s.
' S 5! R» * '
J?5»~* *3s •7
5
*“ X
O — - ,
U Vi
a - !? I
’^í -fc.

52 w 0. s
qf to ~ c•n —• —
o
•
j
CO
^ -O» q — •
g. to ^ ’_2 r- iS?
m *

=. N> sC
w

Bs ^ £. 3 ~ s

- S s
•
• v

2 *^;c3> ¡e> £ te it ■> %

V

ñ ^ * X
£_ tO ^ E
” -
v. t'-í' S * rO» Zi ri
■■• •

m d

=: jt3> ~ B c
c

c ¿ jo
s — -A

C' to £
n

— Oí X w
m J
*^ *MM «
^ Xrj r--r a £>O t f q * *
v :

c ’ ’-h &
- £ ^ §■iS- X10-S-J c
n

•-«

~ -j
'r to r .
■■» • £

2
* /c

¿ ¡o 6: to W & g Oí
2É r* to ^ to
* ¡O |e>
^ 9£ c */C ^ r. Z < a
to ?C 3 'Oí “.^ n^ X * — Co
’-n OC ■ -r ri
W- 7.
r>
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
Game 29
Gulko-A.lvanov
¿Mosco»' Wtipidplaj 1992
1 c4 g6 2 d4 & g 7 3 e4 d6 4 & c3 c5 5 d5
e6 6 ÍLd3 $)f6 7 h3 0-0
'llie ¡Víodern Benoni treatment with ...e7-e6
is dcsigncd to offcr Hlack somc kind of activ-
iiy, rafhcr tiran drift into passivity or closc the
centre with the solid but rather lifcless ...e7-c5.
Black usually follows ...e7-e6 with ...c6xd5, and
after e4xd5 White has a bit more space and an
advantage that can be confusing because
Black, despite the ostensibly cramped situa-
tion, has practically no weaknesses to worry
alx)Ut. Therefore on hoth wings it is far from
easy for White to cngincer anything positive.
Note also that the existence of a solé open file
tends to induce the trade of heavy pieces.
8 $\ge2 ^bd7
8...exd5!? 9 exdS is cjuite typical. White
wants to increase his presence in the centre,
conirol important squares - especially c5 —
and, after developing his pieces (usually along
the linos o f A c 3/ il2, W il2/c2, H a d and (2
f4), step up a gear - often on the kingside but
occasionally on the other flank, too.
a) 9...He8 10 -&g5 transposes to Chapter 3.
b) 9...$\fd7!? is interesting. White took con­
trol of g4 but whv not jump into e5 via d7?
'llie point is that 10 f4 can be met with
10...Wh4+ 11 g3 We7 (1 L..&xc3+?! 12 <&£!).
66
Therefore White has to play 10 b3 He8 11
Ad2 (11Ü.e3?í Hxe3!? - P.Cramling) 1l...$k6
12 a.3 Wh4, when 13 0-0!? 4k\5 is eejual and 13
W cl (Sanniento Alfonso-Danailov, l-is Pal­
mas 1993) 13...£k*5! unclear.
9 f4 exd5 10 exd5 ^h5
Wisely refusing to hang around while
White completes development and uncorks
g2-g4 lo leave Black lacking counterplay. Posi­
tive action is called for, and the best recipe
features the f7 pawn. 'llie other way to clear
the path is 10...£k*8 11 0-0 f5, e.g. 12 J«Le3 (12
Ad2 £klf6 13 Wc2 £>c7 14 &h2 a6 15 a4 b6
16 £>gl Sb8 17 & f3 &<.\7 18 Habí He8,
Forintos-Matulovic, Sochi 1964, and now 19
H fel is eejual) 12...£klf6 13 Wd2 4hc7 14
Habí and now both 14...He8!? 15 a3 a5 16
Hbe1 a4 17 & Í2 & í \7 and 14..JLd7 15 a3
<
*t?h8 16 1>4 b6, Ivanov-Timoshenko, USSR
1976, leave much to play for.
11 0-0
Of course Black’s previous move seems to
add weiglu tog2-g4, but in this particular posi­
tion ihe attack is premature - 11 g4 J$.xc3H 12
l>xc3 Wh4+ 13 &d2 £\g7 14 &c2 (B.Schmidt-
Kassebaum, Cíermany 1994) and now 14...a6!?
gives Black an excellent game.
11...ff5 1 2 á e 3 S e 8
I2...£\lf6 13 Wd2 &x\7 14 Hael Wc7 with
a level game, makes sense.
13 &.12 Q\f3 14 ^d2 &d7 15 a3 ^ c7 16
b4 b6 17 Sab1 cxb4 18 axb4 a5 19 bxa5
bxa5 20 ^b 5 &xb5 21 cxb5 ^b7 22 b6

tx d 5 23 ¿hc3?
23 Sb5 W f7 24 S fb l and W hite is winning.
23...iLxc3 24 W xc3 Hac8 25 Wd4 W b7?
Missing the much less obliging 25...Wxd4
.'(> ÍLxd4 £\c6 27 A c3 S&>f7 (not 27..Hc3? 28
B le I Hxd3 29 b7 $Y6 30 Sc8 £k!7 31 Sxe84-
»t’í7 32 Sxe6 *x e6 33 1)8® £kb8 34 Sxb8
(*n.) 28 J jÜxS Se7 29 J&a6 Sb8 when White
lias good compensation for the pawn but
lioihing like the fun he has in the game.
20 ¿c 4 + <5te6 27 & d5 Wf7 28 iLxe6
Uxo6 29 b7 Sb 8 30 Efc1 See8 31 W c4
tlb 32 W c7 £tf6 33 Wxf7+ s£>xf7 34 & a7
5\d7 35 £xb8 Sxb8 36 S c8 a4 37 Sxb8
4\xb8 38 S a l & e6 39 Sxa4 skd6 40 <&f2
ic 7 41 Sd 4 <¿?c6 42 <¿>f3 &xb7 43 Sxd5
Ac6 44 Sd 8 1-0
Game 30
Haik-Gheorghiu
I hessaloniki O (y///piad 1984
1 d4 fo16 2 c4 c5 3 d5 d6 4 foc3 g 6 5 e4
i g7 6 iLd3 0-0 7 fr\ge2 e 6
Note ihat Black can transpose to the Oíd
Benoni with 7...e5, e.g. 8 a3 # W ) 9 0-0 í?Y7 10
Ubi <S\17 11 Wc2 b6 12 ÍLe3 ÍLa6 13 £>b5
^xb.S 14 cxl>5 and W hite had a definiré pulí in
B.Kovacevic-Kuljasevic, Zadar 2000.
8 0-0
Compared with the previous game White
lias saved time in not playing 112-113, bul this
ineans that Black’s knight can jump in to g4.
5 $Ld3
8...exd5
( )thers:
a) 8..JSe8!? 9 h3 exdS 10 exd5 £>fd7 11 f4
£Va6 12 f5 í^e5 13 fxgó hxg6 14 ^ g 3 (()ster-
gaard-Christensen, Festuge 1991) and now
14...15 gives Black a good game.
b) 8...£k6 9 13 £k7 10 .&g5 exd5 11 exd5
h6 (Arlamowski-Plater, Wroclaw 1955) 12
ÍLf4!? Sb8 13 Wd2 & h7 14 % 3 b5 15 Hael
favours White.
c) 8...£\g4 9 & c2 Wh4 (9...SY5 10 l>3 exd5
11 exd5 was seen in Seirawan-Dimirrov, Mos­
cow 1994, when 11...F5 12 f4 would have re-
stricted White to a slight edge) 10 h3 $V:5 11
dxe6 (11 1.1)3!?) Il...& xe6 (ll...fxe6l? 12 f4
í^i7 13 & c3 £W6 is interesting, although per-
haps not enough todeny White a modest lead)
12 f4 # W 4 , Knaak-Marin, Drcsden 1988.
Knaak evaluates the position after 13 J&b3 as
clearly better for W hite but after l3...We7 14
15 gxl5 15 ex15 4hc3 16 J&xe3 ÜLxb3 17 Wd2
Ü.c4 the position is unclear. In our opinion
after the best 13 15! and Wxd6 W hite has a
clear advantage.
9 exd5 4^g4
( )thcrs:
a) In the case o f 9...ÍV-8 White achieved
nothing special with 10 .&c3 #\17 11 $\g3
#Y5 12 ÍLe2 15 13 Wd2 $Y6 14 h3 )3e8 15
U fe I in Yoffic-Matulovic, Skopje 1969, while
10 h3 £wl7 11 f4 f5 12 A d2 ®klf 6 13 W c2
$\:7 was ecjual in Forintos-Matulovic, Sochi
1964.
b) 9...£>a6 10 h3 ® c7 seems to favour
W hile, e.g. 11 5 #d 7 12 a4 Hc8 13 # il2
‘á'hS (Willcnlx)ig-Unrath, Baunatal 19%) 14
£>g3, or 11 _&f'4 a6 12 S b l ShK 13 &g.3 b5
14 Wc2 bxc4 15 jixc4 , Marconiles <losar-
Baicxclli, Sao Paulo 1997.
c) 9...£>Ix I7 10 b3 £>e.S II ÍLc2 Sc8 12
H b l af> 13 Ag5 h6 14 ÍLh4 (Betkc-Illgcn,
Rostock 2(K)2) I4...b5! gives Black counter­
play, and 10 h3 ®ke5 11 &e3?! £Mi 5 was excel-
lent for Black in Staeblein-Karcevski, Bayern
1995. Perhaps White should consider 10 1*4!?
here.
67
O f f b e a t K i n g ' s Iri di an
Now back to the position after 9...íüg4:
Sending the* knight forward exploits the
fact that after 10 f4 Black will he ahle to focus Tringov, Ano I josia 1997.
on the e3-square.
10 h3
( )thers:
a) 10 f4 is clearly the most principled re-
sponse but, unfortunately for White, lie is not
able to keep control over e3. I;or cxamplc
after 10...He8 White cannot Ixr t<K>stubborn,
e.g. 11 H(3? Wh4 12 h3 &d4» 13 &xd4 and
While has to lose material, 13...SeH 14 Wxel
WxeH- 15 H fl We7 16 #V:2 £tfi6 spelling
doom for White in S.Kasparov-Berger, Par-
dubice 2(X)0 (White has little to show for the
lost material, although it is not a trivial win).
Instead II h3 ÍV 3 12 ÜLxe3 Hxc3 13 Wd2
He8, as in Seirawan-Wojtkiewic/, Tilburg
1992, has Ixxrn assessed as a little better for
Black by Seirawan.
b) 10 b3!? is given as inaccurate in liC O -
10...í\17 11 h3 #Mi6 (t 1...®ge5!? is unclear)
12 Ac3 £k-5 13 Wd2 £ f5 and HCO prefers
Black. I lowever, 14 Ae*4!? ,&xc4 15 4^xc4
16 -ÍLg5 seems to leave White with <^c7a
small advantage, while 14 .&g5 Wa5 (Borges
Mateos-Wojtkiewicz, Polanica VA roj 1988) 15 Wxb7 31 £tf3 h6 32 &d 8 £>b5 33 Wb3
Ac4!? also apjxrars favourable.
c) 10 Af4 <?Y-5 11 Wd2 4^1x17 12 l>3 1*5(in­
tending ...í^f7, ...$\le*5, ...g6-g5 - Tal) 13 Ag5
and now instead of 14 f4?! £\xd3 15
Wxd3 .&d7 with advantage to Black in Wie-
dcnkcller-Tal, Rockaden-Trud 1986, tlvanks to
68
thanks lo the weak jx>ints on e3 and c*4, White
should have played 14 B h6 15 Jie3 Ad7
with chances for both sides (14 £V4 h6 IS
ÍLxf6 Wxf6 is excellent for Black).
d) 10 &c2 is another way to avoid parting
with ihc light-sejuared bishop. 10...£W> 11 a3
(11 Af4!? V>b4 12 Áb\ Se8 13 Wd2 is less
clear) 1l...£V7 12Ubi a5?! (I la/ai gives 12...f5
13 f4 He8 with counterplay) 13 h3 £\e5 14 b3
15 (I .arsen-l loffman, Pinamar 2(K) 1) 15 f4!!>
wiíh a minimal advantage for White.
10...<he5 11 <^g3
11 f4 <Sxd3 12 Wxd3 £>a6 13 a3 15 14 Hbl
(14 l>3!? &d7 15 Í¡L1>2) 14...He8 left both play*
ers with decent pros|xcts in Karaftdis-
11...15
Or ll...£MxI7 12 (4 £lxd3 13 #xd3 a6 as
in Plachetka Abramovic, Champigny sur
Mame 1984, with ecjuality according to NCO.
12 f4 13 Wxd3 &e8
Another attractive plan is 13...í\a6!? intend­
ing ...j(.d7, ...tfoel and ...b7-b5, with gocxl play
for Black.
14 &d2 ^ a 6 15 a3 &d7 16 &h2 Wf6 17
&e 3
White must play 17 4^ce2 in order to neu-
tralise Black’s strong dark-st|iiared bishop.
Black should then avoid 17.jWfxb2? 18 Habí
Wf6 19 Ac3 in favour of the sounil 17...Hc7
18 J$.c3 Wf7 19 Hael with a level game.
17.J&C7 18& f2 b5
Black’s play, in the spirit of the Benko
Gambit, is fully justified as he must win back
the pawn s<x»ner or later.
19 cxb5 Heb8 20 a4 a6 21 fogel axb5
22 axb5 Hxa1 23 Sx al <hxb5 24 £a5
25 2ta7 ^ d 8 26 Wb1 Wc8 27 Wa2
Sb7 28 Ah4 & f 8 29 S\g1 Wb8 30 Sxb7
Wb8 34 A f 6 We8 35 ^xb5 &xb5 36 J¡Lc3
We2 37 ^h4?!
37 #Vl2 is better.
37...¿>f7 38 Wa3 Ac4?
38...We4! wraps up the game.
39 Wa7+ We7 40 Wa4 ix d 5 0-1
 5 Ad3

ttummary
hlm k can try to play ...c7-c5 followcd by ...c*7-c6 and ...cxd5, thc bcst cxampics being Cíamcs 29
¿C 10. I lowcvcr, a simplcr and more original method involves counterplay with ...vV6, ...c7-c5
•Huí, after closing thc centre, ...#VI4 in order to exploit thc weakncss o f the d4-scjuarc. This plan
mn be used both with (Cíamcs 23, & 24 are pariicularly good cxampics) or without (carlicr) cas
lllng.

1 (14 4\f6 2 c4 g6 3 <^c3 A g í 4 e4 d6 5 Ad3 (D )

5...0.0
5...$k6 6 í^gc2
6...0.0 {Carnes 16 <¿? 17)
6...e5 {Game IS )
5...c5 6 d5 aS (Game 1(J)
0 ÍMge2 e5
6...£>fd7 {Carne 20)
6...£Mxl7 {Carne 21)
6...£k:6 7 0-0
7...£\I7 {Carne 22)
7...e5 8 d5 Í\14 9 ÍW 1 4 exd4 (D ) {Carnes 21 & 24)
7...£>h5 {Carne 25)
6...C.S 7 d5 {Carnes 29 <& 30)
7 d5 (D )
7...c6 {Carne 26)
7...a5 {Carne27)
7 ..fA h S {Carne28)

5 Ad3 9...exd4 7 d5

69
 CHAPTER THREE
The Makogonov System:
5 h3
1 d4 ^ f 6 2 c4 g6 3 Íhc3 iLg7 4 e4 d6 5
h3
Dcspitc its rather ‘inactive’ appcaranee this
system is very flexible. 5 h3 was proposed by
Réti and analysed by IIG M V.Makogonov, the
first known game being Tartakower-
Tcichmann, Ostend 1907. 'lTie system was
also tried by Samisch and Tarrasch.
White prepares to secure the e3-stjuarc as
an outpost for his bishop by ruling out the
potentiallv annoying ...4^g4. 'Hiere is also thc
honus of facilitating active operations 011 the
kingside involving g2-g4. Ironically, White
very often develops his dark-sejuared bishop
011 g5, tempting Black into the automatic hit
with ...h7-h6, after which the bishop drops
back to c3, when Black can consecjucndy pay
thc price for slightly compromising his king
side because White is ablc to further dcvclop-
ment with Wd2, simultaneously hitting the h6-
pawn. Not surprisingly, then, Black should
resist the urge to chase the enemy bishop away
from g5.
Adherents of the Makogonov system in re­
cent years include Suba, I ^izarev, P.Varga,
Ksieski, Avrukh atul (lliernin. 'Pop players
who have included it in their opening rejxr-
toire are Bareev and Beliavsky, while it has
also lx*en tried by I.Sokolov, Dreev and even
Kasparov...
70
]
Game 31
Nikolaidis-Kotronias
Peristeri 1996
1 d4 <SM6 2 c4 g6 3 ^ c3 &g7 4 e4 d6 5
h3 0-0
'Ilie most natural move. Black must castle
anyway, so it makes sense to tío so immedi-
ately and await ilevelopments befóte decid ing
on the next step. I lowcvcr, there are alterna-
tives. 5...c5 6 d5 c5 7 ÍL I3 ®Ui5 8 <^ge2
(Zsu.Polgar-Ulilmann, Aruba 1992) 8...#W>!?
is a shade better for White, and 6 dxc.S Wa5 7
Ad3 <?Yd7 8 £\gc2 £>xc5 9 0-0 (Dzind/i-
chashvili-Byrnc, Bcrkclcy 1984) 9...í^xd3 l()
Wxd3 is given by Suba in liC O as favouring
White.
5...c5 can have indc|x.*ndcnt significance,
Black being willing to see his king displaced, as
in ‘a’, bclow.
a) 6 dxe5 dxc.S 7 Wxd8+ <¿^18 8 í^f3
£>1x17 9 ÜLc3! có 10 c\5!? ÍV-8 11 0-0-0 left
White with a nagging edge in Costa-llug,
Swit'/erland 1992. In fací this position looks
better for White iban a typical ending in thc
King’s Indian, with more tlian his usual (carly)
sharc of thc cjuccnsidc and an exccllent |x>st
for thc bishop in thc sliape of thc c4-scjuare.
Black is also a littlc passive and rather

rnimpcd, unablc to jump into c!4 with his
kniglu or exchange dark-st|uarcd bishops.
Nevcrthclcss, the svmmetrical pawn structure
*11uI lack of wcakncsses in Black’s camp, com-
hmed with the elosed character o f the posi­
lion, ai least makc W hite’s task o f finding
«ometliing tangible somcwhat problematic.
b) 6 cIS ^1x17 (6...a5 7 jSLd3 S\a6 8 £lge2
0 0 9 ÍLg 5 !? J&.d7 10 0-0 and now W h ite
emerges w ith a plus after 10...We8 11 H d
ÍV 5 12 jfc b l, C hernin-Brunncr, Buenos Aires
1992 or 10...&c5!? 11 & c 2 ). In Suba-Zapata,
N ew Y o rk 1988 W h ite ’s 7 A g S h6 8 ÍL e 3
Worked out w ell after 8 ...£ k 5 9 O a5 10 $\gc2
<?M.7 11 W d 2 A f6 12 g3! w ith a defm ite ad-
vuniage, but here 9 H d<x*s not fit w ell w ith
112 h3, and Black seems lo have improve-
ments in 10...^fd71? and I0...0-0!?.
7 Ji.d3 transposes lo the 5 ÜÉ.d3 system, h2-
113 here looking a little premature as well as
inflexible (it is not aKvays neccssary in this
system). Suba in I :('() evalúales the position
iifler 7...£V:5 8 ¿¡Le2 as slightly better for
White, but Black’s situation is, in fact, not that
lu.l, e.g. 8...a5 (8...0-0!?) 9 ¿ftgc2 0-0 10 Ag5
lif, 11 ÍLe3 -S¥tl7 12 Wd2 * h 7 13 g4 & b6
with g<xxl play for Black, Moranda-
1Aibczynski, Zagan 2002.
The main move is 7 A e3 $V5 8 W c2 with
llie followingposition:
b l) 8...a5 ‘sccures* the post o f the c5-
kniglit. 9 <5\gc2 & d7 10 f3 (notice the transpo-
siiional possibilities o f which White should be
The M a k o g o n o v S y s t e m : 5 h 3
aware - for cxamplc White could try 10 g3!?
and .&g2 here, with decent chances o f finding
an advantage) 10...h5 11 Wd2 h4 12 A g S (12
0-0-0!? ^ g 8 13 * b l A bó is ecjual) 12...Sh 5
13 4?Y*1 (13 ¿¡Lc?> £\g8 followed by ...JS.I16),
Slvabalov-Kveinys, U SSR 1987, and now
13...£tfxc4! I4¿.xd8<hxd2 IS ÍL x c 7 ^ x fI 16
& x fl!& c 7 1 7 ^ b 3 S c 8 i s given by Shabalov,
with the better game for Black in all variations,
e.g. 18 £fcc5 (18 ±1)6 S\!3! 19 &xa5 £>xl>2
20 c5 c4; 18 Axa.S £kl3 19 £kl2 .&h6 20
Í\ lc 4 (5 21 g4 lixg3 22 £>xg3 S¿>5 ctc.)
18...5.c7 19 £ W I7 vixc!7 20 £>a4 c4! ctc.
b2) 8...0-0 is the riskier option, and now:
b2l) 9 g4 c6 10 £igc2 cxd5 11 cxd5 Ad7
12 í^g3 (12 b4!? might well favour White)
12..JRc8 13 g5 #Mi5 (fhere is no rcason to
voluntarily damage the kingsiile stmeture, atul
after the simple I3 ...ÍV 8 !? 14 Wd2 f5 15 gxf6
í^xf6 Black could genérate good counterplay
without any risk, although the move chosen is,
neveriheless, probably the corred otie) 14
ftxh5 gxh5 15 Wd2 (15 ÍLe2 f5 16 gxf6 Wxf6
with good countcrplay for Black as 17 i5.xh5
Wh4 18 ÉLe2 b5 offers sufficient compcnsa-
tion) l5...Wa5! 16 H b l \% 4 17 a3 # b 3 18
$Lc2 f5 19 gxfó JSxf6 20 Jixh5 , ( irivas-Nunn,
Athens 1991, and now 20...Wc4! 21 J&.e2 (21
J&xc5 Wxc5 22 -$.g4 A h6 gives Black enough
play) 21...&xe4 22 Wc2 Wa2 23 Wfxe4 Hxc3
24 bxc3 ¿¡L(5 25 Wb4 Wxbl+ 26 W xbl JoLxbl
27 c4 b6 is etjual (Grivas & Nunn).
b22) 9 1)4 is awarded a T in /i(X ). Retreat-
ing llie knight loses Black two lempi, but the
tempüng - and typically King’s Indian -
9...#W*4? is definitely incorrect, e.g. 10 4^xc4
<hxc4 11 Wxc4 f5 12 Wc2 e4 13 0-0-0! f4 14
&d4 Axd4 15 Sxd4 ¿¡LÍ5 16 Wc3 (Bagirov-
Casper, Berlín 1979) is ver)' good, whereas
after 9...ÍVd7 the situation is by no means
simple. Black wants lo play ...a7 a5 atul tegain
the outposi on c5 for the tl7-knighl. More-
over, W hite’s forces are not well developed,
and he is not guaranteed to maintain his space
advantage on the cjueenside, with a concession
such as the c5-scjuare or the a-file likely.
71
Offbeat King's Indian
White’s most amhitious continuaiion is 10 a3
(10 c5 a5 11 c6 (loes not look dangerous for
Black, e.g. I l...l>xc6 12 dxc6 íhb6 13 b5 d5 14
juLxl>6 cxb6 15 cxd5 í^xd5 16 Hdl í^ M )
10...a5, and now 11 Sel 1 axb4 12 axl»4 4^h5
13 &c2 £>f4 and 11 Hbl c5 (1 l...£\h5!?) 12
dxc*6 bxc6 13 1>5 cxb5 are unclear. If White
wants to liang on to the a-file he must return
the two tempi with 11W dl or 11 W cl.
6 ¿)\ge2
6 A il3 c5 7 d5 e6 8 £>gc2 £>1x17 9 f4 exd5 followcd by ...c7-c5 or perhaps ...c6-c5 with
10 cxd5 ÍV 8 11 0-0 f5 was the interesting
course of Matisons-Kuwe, Karlsbad 1929,
while 8 &g5 exd5 exil5 Ii6 10 Ah4 Se8 < - 11 £g2 & e 6 12 Jixe4 &d5 13 ÍLxd5 Wxd5
£\»e2 ÍM h17 was also unclear in Martins-
(íuinvaraes, Bello I lorixonte 1997. 'I he aggres-
sive 8 g4 was tried in Milov-C ílicorghiu, Swit-
zerland 1999, when after 8...exd5 9 cxd5 5^fd7
10 f4 Black could Ivave secured an carly lead
wilh 10...#W>!? 11í^í3lXc8+.
6 ...c6
6...c5!r' 7 d5 e6 8 £>g3 cxd5 9 cxd5 leads to
the Modcrn Benoni, and 6...e5 usuallv steers
us to |x>sitions that will be discusscd later, e.g. initiative.
7 d5 c6 8 &c3 cxd5 9 cxd5 £*1x17 10 g4 &c5
11 íhg3 with a transposition to Cíame 33
(7...c6 8 g4).
7 g4 d5?!
Yet another in thc incrcasing number of
Black’s unorthodox treatments ol the King’s
Indian. Is this a hypcrmcxlcrn mixture of thc
King's Indian and thc (írünfekl? It is truc that
White’s two flank moves could provokc a
72
reaction in the centre (the thcmatic responso
in such a situation) but here White’s iníluence
over the e4 sejuare (Ag2!) makes the text
rather doubtful. Worse still is 7...b5? 8 cxb5
cxb5 9 c5 because the threat to cjuickly cxploit
the freshly opened long diagonal with Ag2 is
decisive, e.g. 9...dxe5 10dxc5 Wxdl + 11 sfcxdl
Hd8f 12 * c 2 Ab7 13 exfó A xhl 14 fxg7 l>4
15 ^)g3, with íV e4 coming. I lowcvcr, Black
(.loes have a worthy possibility in 7...£u*d7!?
chances of generating counterplay.
8 cxd5 cxd5 9 e5 £\e4 10 £>xe4 dxe4 11
14 0-0 $\c6 15 Wb3 We4 16 We3 Wc2
l6...Wd5!? - Kotronias.
17 £ d 2 ?l
Kotronias recommciuls 17 Í0c3! JXad8 18
S d l (threatening to capture the cjueen after 19
Kd2) 18...g5 19 l>3! f6 20 d5! (20 ¿La3 fxe5 21
Sa cl Wg6 22 d5 £kl4 23 Axc7 H B 24 Axd8
Hxe3 25 fxc*3 í^f3+ 26 *¿^2 í^h4+ with coun-
tcrplay) 20...í'W 5 21 .&a3 and W hite has an
17...Wxb2 18 Sfb1 Wc2 19 £xb7 Sab 8
20 Sxb 8
20 Bc7!? TLb2 21 Ac3 #xe2 22 Wxe2
Xtxc2 23 B xc6 S c2 24 f4 f6!? with counterplay
—Kotronias.
2 0 ...5 .b 8 21 Hc1 Eb 1 22 & g 2 B x c l 23
í"ixc1 e6
Black has com|x:nsation for thc pawn due
lo thc wcakncsscs 011 a2 and (.14, as well as the
light sigilares.
2 4 W d3 W xd3 25 Íhxd3 ^ x d 4 26 A e 3
<ftc6 27 f4 f6 28 exf6 ii.x f6 29 ¿4 3 ¿4 7
30 A e 4 h5 31 gxh5 gxh5 32 f5 exf5+ 33
¿/xf5 ¿ d 8 34 <5te5+
After thc superior .VI l5'W'4 h4 Black still has
problcms to solve.
34...<i'»(e5 35 sí;xe5 a6 36 ¿ 4 5 i¡.h 4 37
,¿g 5 Ü.e1 3 8 iL f6 iLd 2 39 iL h 4 Ü.e3 40
a4 .ú.d2 41 '¿ e 5 -Á>g6 4 2 Á d 5 d?f5 4 3
& c 6 ¿4 4 4 4 sJvb6 <¿43 4 5 ii.d 8 ¿vg2 4 6 h4
a5 4 7 ¿>a6 & e1 4 8 * b 5 \S43 4 9 ii.x a5
¿ x h 4 50 iL c 7 V i- / t

Game 32
Akopian-T emirbaev
I /.V.VK Chamfiionship, U^hgorod 19HH
1 cl4 ^ f 6 2 c4 g 6 3 £\c3 & q 7 4 e4 d6 5
h3 0-0 6 iLe3
Not surprisingly this posting fits in well h2-
h3. Rcmcmber that the mtxlcst looking nudge
of the h-pawn affords W hite some flexibility,
prcventing ...£\g4 on the one Ivatul while in-
iroducing - nsually after elosing the centre —
thc possibility o f going on the offensive with
g2-g4, often followcd by 4?W2-g3 in order to
damp down on thc f5-sijuarc as well as as-
snming a menacing stancc (h3-h4-h5 etc.).
6...c5
Instcad:
a) 6...c6 7 JL(I3 £\IxI7 (7...a6 8 c5 £>fc!7 9 Wl>6 13^gc2 15 I4 £ \ l5 # d 6 15 0-0-0 (Bagi-
cxdó cxdó 10 b5 11 0-0 4hl>6 12 b3
<?Wd7 13 a4 bxc4 14 bxc4 a5 15 &g5 $M'(> 16
OVA with an edge for W hite in Osnos-
l’olugacvsky, Ixrningrad 1963) 8 4ftgc2 c5!?
(Black can also push thc e-pawn, e.g. 8..JSc 8 9
0-0 c5 10 d5 cxd5 11 cxd5 £ k5 12 A c2 a5 13
;|3 4hh5 14 M axb4 15 axb4 Hxal 16 W xal
Vz-Viy Kroglu-Kugic, Rimavska Sobota
1996, although Black was still slightly worse in
thc final (xjsition) 9 0-0 b6 10 fie l (10 f4!? and
10 Wd2!? are worth a thought) I0...cxd4 11
Axd4 (11 &xd4 iü>7 is given as ci|ual in
!'.(.()) II...ÍU 16! (Círivas-Smirin, 'le í Aviv
1991) and now Smirin gives 12 f4 c5 13 A c3
The M a k o g o n o v S y s t e m : 5 h 3
ex 14 14 Axf4 juLxf4 15 $\xf4 as level in I iC O .
b) The flexible 6...#Mxl7 usually transposes
to one o f thc positions discussed in Cíame 33,
but occasionally has independent significance,
e.g. 7 ÍL i\3 c5 8 l>6 9 0-0 cxd4 10 Axd4
and Black has won a tempo compared with
Grivas-Smirin, alxwe — after the subsccjucnt
10...# V 5 11 JuLc2 ¿.1)7 12 S e l Hc8 Black was
doing well in the game Osnos Stcin, Kiev
1964.
7 dxc5
Quite different but e<.|ually soutul is 7 d5,
e.g. 7...a6 (7...e6 8 dxc6 &xe6 9 5^f3 Wa5 10
£kl2 £k:ó 11 A c2 a6 12 0-0 Hfc8 13 a3 Hab8
14 ÍV I5 Wd8 with chances for both sides,
Avcrbakh-Tal, Kislovodsk 1964) 8 Wd2 (8 a4
e6 9 4^Í3 cxd5 10 cxd5 4^1x17 11 .&e2 b6 12
0-0 We7 13 $V\2 & c8 14 fie l Hl>8 15 ÍLf1
ÍV 7 was balancee! in Taimanov-Suctin, Budva
1967) 8...Wa5 and now 9 .&d3 1x5 10 £ige2
(johannesscn-Bednarski, I lavan a Olympiad
1966) I0...bxc4 is ctjual while I0...M !? is un­
clear. W hite can try his luck with 9 a4!? 4^1x17
10 (10 & c2 b5 11 cxb5 Wb4 12 Í3 c4
gives Black compcnsation) 10...b5 I 1 cxb5
axb5 12 &xl>5 4^xc4 13 4^xe4 Wxb5 14 axb5
ílxal-l* 15 & c2 S x h l with an interesting
strugglc i11 prospect.
7 ...» a 5 8 & Ó 3 dxc5 9 e5 £tfd7
9...4'_Y,8 is believed to be inaccurate due to
10 f4 f6 11 exfó (1 1 #M3!?) I I...exf6 12 Wa4!
rov-Sibarcvic, Vrnjacka Banja 1974) with a
si/cable lead for W hite according to I i(70, but
Black can try I I...Sxf6! with chances for both
sides, e.g. 12 4^f3 Sd6! 13 W c2 4hcó or 12
Wa4 Wxa4 13 &xa4 Hcó 14 & (2 b6; 12 Wd2
<SV6 13 £V-4 W xd2f 14 Axd2 fffó 15 0-0-0
b6.
10 f4 S d 8
Black prepares to cause irouble on thc d-
lile with a view to pinning the bishop, thus
introducing a couple o f ‘tricks* for W hite to
mull over. l;or example White must chcck out
not only
«
...£W\5 followcd by/
..Ji.f5 but also
...4nbó with thc thrcat o f ...£ixc4 or ...4ha4.
73
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
If Black manages to break W hite’s strong
centre lie will have an cxcellent position. ( )ih-
erwisc W hite simply dcvclops his pieces bc-
fore going on lo exploit the extra space. Note
that we do not recommentl I0...f6 11 c6 #M>6
12 ÍLd 2 Wa6 (1 2 ...ÍV 6 13 a3! followed by
<5^.15 or íhb5 sjx’lls troublc for Black), and
now instead o f 13 15 S d S (unclear in l i ( X) ) y
Chcrnin-Giiburdanidzc, U SSR 1982, W hite
has the simple 13 ÍM )5 , forcing a favourable
gain o f material, e.g. 13...4ha4 14 A e2! .&xc6
(I4...£*xl>2 15 Wl>3) 15 l>3 (or 15#k7 W c6 16
5 k e 6 £>xl>2 17 W b3 W xc6 18 W xb2 15 19
& c3 ) 15... 15 16 H b l W c6 17 ¿.13 W d7 18
bxa4.
11 We2
Another way lo address W hite’s problems
is I I & I2 , e.g. I I J& c 6 (Il...£>b6!? 12 We2
ftc 6 ) 12 W e2 (12 £kI5 ^ b 6 13 & d 2 Íhb4 14
A xb4 cxl>4 15 4^xc7-f V&18 16 ® x c8 55axc8
with compensation) I2...#M)6 13 a3, Ivanov-
Cherniacv, Vladivostok 1995, although Black
should lx* quite contení with his lot after
13...f6. Also 13íhf3 16 is possible.
W hite can ignore Black’s threats with 11
íh f3 , with a choice for Black.
a) 1l...£k*6 12 0-0 (12 W e2 transposes to
the nvain line; 12 W b l!?) 12...^b4! 13 <SVI5
í^xd5 14 cxd5 ?M )6 leaves much to play for.
b) 1l...ÍM )6, intending ...$Ya4.
c) l;inally Black has 11...4^xc5 12 í^xe5
JaLxe5 (12...&I5 13 0-0 & xe5 14 fxe5 is a dif-
ferent move order) 13 fxe*5 .¿Ü5 14 0-0 ÍLxd3?
74
(Reicher-Ardcleanu, Romania 1984) 15 <5\15!
etc. Black should prefer l4...Hxd3 15 We2
$Y*6!, which keej>s W hite to a slight edge.
If these lines are not for you, then the
safety oriented 11 W b l deserves serious con-
sideration, after which Black has no tactical
tricks. In fací in our opinion this gives W hite
chances o f oblaining an advantage.
Passive play leatls to a cramped jx>sition for
Black, e.g. I l...íhb6 12 .ÍLd2 í?Y*6 13
12 fA13
I íxcellent countcrplay!
13 ^xd4
After 13 W fl f6 Black slvatiers W hite’s cen­
tre and immediaicly assumes the ai Iva ntage.
13...cxd4?
l ;or sonic reason missing 1 3 ...ÍW 5 ! and
W h ile’s pieces in the centre are hanging, e.g.
14 fxe5 cxd4 15 .&d2 dxc3 16 ÍLxc3 W b6 17
íXdl jlL c 6 and Black holds the aces.
14 .&xd4 <hc5 15 &xc5
'llie tlireat o f l5..A ib3 torces this ex­
change, with which W hite effectively surren-
ders the dark squares.
15...Wxc5
Black undoubtedly has countcrplay in view
o f the bishop pair, the potential targets on c4
and f4 and the dark squares. W hite, on the
other batid, has strong pawns in the centre
that lielp cióse out the g7-bishop.
16 0 0-0
-
It is natural to want to find a liaven for the

king, but White might consider leaving his
king in the centre a little while longer in order
lo castle short after cvicting the cncmy cjueen.
Ilierefore 16 H d ll? comes lo mind, with the
following position:
16.Jk.h6 (l6 .Ji.e 6 !?) 17 g3 (after 17 #W15
J5xd5! 18 cxd5 Axf4 HIack is doing fine)
17....6e6 18 b3 a6 19 & e4? (19 <5>a4! Wc7 20
We3 1)5 21 £k*5 and Black does not have
cnough for the pawn, while 19 £Y4 and 19
W f2 are also possible) 19..JSxdl+ 20 4£ixdl
JTd8 21 * f l h5 22 £k:3 bxc4 23 bxc4 Jld4 24
.&d5 &xd5 25 cxd5 Wc3 26 flh2? (26 W c l)
26..X(<13 27 Í\g4? W ell* 0-1, Uznanski-
Szczcsniak, (.<irrespondcncc 1995.
16...1¿e6 17 &b1 Hd4
Attacking two pawns, lint l7..JXac8, simply
introducing another piccc, also looks good.
18 Shf1 Hxd3 19 Sxd3 Jix c 4 20 Sfd1
ií.xd3+ 21 Wxd3
Black has regained thc pawn but White
Controls thc d-ftlc and has - for thc niomcnt,
at Icast - thc superior minor piccc. Morcovcr,
he now threatens to take the 7th rank. Consc-
t|ucnily White’s chances are better.
2 1 ..J¿f8 22 g4 S c 8 23 We4 b5 24 e 6
fxe6 25 Wxe6 + <Á>h8 26 Hd5 Wc4 27
We5+ &g7 28 Wxe7 i¡.xc3 29 Kd 8 +
Sxd 8 30 » x d 8 + sfcg7 31 We7+ & g 8 32
We 8 + & g7 33 » e 7 + & g 8 34 We 8 + 0-g7
35 Wd7 + & g 8 36 bxc3 Wxc3 37 Wxb5
After the stronger 37 W dSt & ÍX 38 Wa8+
* c 7 39 Wxa7 t <&f6 40 Wb6 l <Á>g7 41 Wxb5
The M a k o g o n o v S y s t e m : 5 h 3
W cl t 42 S*?c2 Wf2+ 43 -á>l>3 Wf3+ 44 &a4
Wxf41- 45 Wb4 White has a passed a-pawn.
37...Wxh3
A more stubborn defence rcsults from
37...W cl +!? 38 <&c2 W l2t 39 *1)3 lTc3+ 40
<&M W d 2 t, trying to take the a2-pawn.
38 Wb 8 + ¿Al 39 Wxa7+ & e 6 40 W a 6 +
&d5 41 Wb5+ <&d4 42 Wb4+ <&d5 43 g5
Wd3+ 44 &c1 Wf1 + 45 & c2 & c 6 46
We4+ & b 6 47 a3 Wf2+ 48 <A>b3 Wg3+
49 <Á>b4 W f2 50 H e 6 + <&b7 51 Wd5+
¿>b8 52 Wg8 + & b7 53 Wxh7+ & b 8 54
Wg 8 + &b7 55 Wd5+ & b 3 56 Wb5+ & a 8
57 « c 6 + & b 8 58 Wd 6 + &b7 59 & c4 1-0
G am 3 i
Knaak-Piket
SK A I hiwburg 1991
1 d4 2 c4 g6 3 £ic3 ÍLg7 4 e4 d6 5
h3 0-0 6 ile 3 e5
N .B. Tlie actual move order was 6... #Ya6 7
jyLd3 e5 8 d5 but we have made alterations in
order to accommodatc the examination of
ndditional variations.
7 d5 £ia 6
'lilis flexible fiank developmcnl has be
come parí o f numerous systems in ihe mod
ern treatment of the King’s Indian. I*rom a6
the knight is ready to go to c5 but - as op-
posed to d7 - does not obstruct the other
pieces. Apart from the obvious improvement
of the c8-bishop we should also note that with
75
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
the knight on a6 Black can play ...c7-c6 be-
cause the i!6-pa\vn is protcctcd by the cjueen.
I jct’s takc a look at the alternatives:
a) 7...®e8 8 g4 c6 9 £\gc2 cxd5 10 cxd5
£kl7 ll% 3 a 5 1 2 lU 2 £ k:5 13 le 2 Ad7 14
h4, as in Sokolsky-Cicller, USSR 1949, is given
as slightly better for White in liC O .
b) 7...4^1x17 is obviously similar to main line
but without the flexibility✓ of 7...4?to6. Plav*
might continué 8 ld 3 (8 Wc2 4&c5 9 ÍLe2 a5
10 g4 c6 11g5 #W8 12 0-0-0 with an edge for
White in Vorontscvich (írokhotov, Orel
1974) 8...&c8 9 g4 £k5 10 lc 2 f5 (I()...a5!?
11 £\ge2 ld 7 12 4&g3, Bcnesch-I ladorn,
World Team Championship 1994, and now
12...1f6 maintains the balance) 11 gxf5 gxfS
12 Wf6 13 h4 h6 14 Wc2 is given in I iCX)
as favouring White, I4...a6 15 0-0-0 l>5 16
cxb5 axb5 17 lx c 5 dxc5 18 Wxl>5 etuling in a
draw in C¡rivas-Nunn, Novi Sad 1990.
c) 7...c6 8 g4 (8 ld 3 cxd5 9 cxd5 & h5 10
£\>c2 f5 11 cxf5 Ix f5 12 g3 $VI7 with
chances for both sides, Gemscl-Schubcrt,
Germany 1982) 8...cxd5 9 cxd5 £W>
(9...®>bd7 10 ld 3 ®k:5!? 11lc 2 a5 is fine for
Black) 10 Í\ge2 5ic5 11 £\g3 Wa5 12 JÜLd2
ld 7 13 a3 «Te» 14 b4 £to6 15 le 13 Wc7 16
Wc2 Sfc8, Brinck Qaussen Tukmakov, Ybbs
1968, and now 17 g5 5Y*8 18 h4 puts Black in
scrious troublc.
d) 7...a5 is standard, preparing to place the
knight on a6 now that 1>2 1>4 has been pre-
vented.
76
d i) With 8 g4 White wants to restrict
Black’s countcrplay on both sides of the
board. 8...#W) (8...c6 9 a4 &a6 10 í^gc2 h5 11
f3, Shabalov-I ¿tnka, Riga 1988 and I l...£k51?
securcs Black a level playing ficld) 9 £\gc2 h5
(Black won't be dictated to, avoiding, for in-
stance, 9...&Y5 10 £\g3 #Y-8 11 Wc2, when
Dinstuhl I loffmann, Oastrop-Rauxel 1990
saw 1l...lf6 !? 12 Wd2 lh 4 13 H gl <?\g7 14
0-0-0 f6 15 A c2 £UÜ with a somewhat pas-
sive but s<>lid position) 10 f3#Mi7 (Black must
hurrv with this plan - 10...ÍY5 11 Wd2 í>Mi7
12 0-0-0 h4 13 Hgl a4 14& bl ld 7 I5 # k l
&((> I6g5 lc 7 I7#kl3£\xd3 18 lx d 3 c5 19
f4 exf4 20 ÍLxf4 with a plus for White in Slva-
balov-Ko'/.ul, Belgrade 1988) 11 Wd2 Wh4+
12 & Í2 Wf6 13 Ag2 h4 14 0-0 with a slight
advantage lo White in Alcksandrov-lü Taller,
New Dclhi/Tchran 2000.
d2) 8 ±(13 £W> 9 #Vc2 £>c5 (9...c6 10 a3
±17 11 ±c2! cxd5 12 cxc!5 l>5!? 13 0-0 Wc7
14 Wd2 fifcK 15 fifc l, Oicmin-Bcliavsky,
Portoroz 1997, is given as better for White in
liC O ) 10 A c2 c6 (10...4hfd7!?, intending
...£}b6 with countcrplay) 11 a3 cxd5 12 cxil5
ld 7 13 l>4 <5Ya6 (I3...axb4 14 axb4 fixal 15
Wxal Íia 6 16 Wa3, Todorovic-Antic, Tivat
1995 is assessed by l.Sokolov in íiC O as
slightly better for White) 14 H bl axl>4 15 axl>4
íhh5 16 £ia4! (Whitc’s knight is going to b6, a
more cffective continuation than 16 Wd2 5Xc8
17 0-0 £>f4 18 B fc l #h4 19 I d l &xg2 20
<&xg2 Wxh3+ 21 & g l f5 22 f4?, when
P.Cramling-Kindcrmann, Dorimuntl 1986
went 22...g5! 23 fxg5 f4 24 í^xf4 exf4 25 .&d4
% 3 + 26 <¿>hl ¿Lxd4 27 Wxil4 B 0-1, while
16 0-0 & f4 17 &a4 Ab5 18 ®iac3 ld 7 19
#\i4 lb 5 20 # W 3 was agreed drawn in Ku-
prijanov-'/huravlcv, Chercpovcts 2002)
16...4hf4!? (16...f5 17 cxf5, l.Sokolov-'Iliipsay,
Moscow 1994 and here 17...gxf5!? is unclear)
17 <5W4 exf4 18 Jlx f4 ll> 5 with compensa­
tion, B.Kovacevic-Zullc, Nova Gorica 2001.
8 ld 3 ^h5
Meading for f4. Othcrs:
a) 8...-SY5 9 lc 2 a5 10 Wd2 ld 7

(lO...Wc8!?, intending 11#V3$Yxc4 I24ftxc4
ÍW 4 13 Ü.xe4 15 14 4ftg5 f4 with chances for
Ix iih sides) 11 <5V8 12 g4 Wb8 13 a4 1)6
was unclear in Pribula-I lelbich, Slovakia 1997.
I>) 8...ÍY17!? 9 g4 (9 f5 10 0-0 f4 11
ÍLd2 £>ac5 12 ÍLc2 £M)6 with counterplay)
9,..£klc5 10 ilb l c6 11 a3 cxd5 12cxd5 f5 13
1)4 4?}xc4 14 £\xc4 fxe4 15 j&xc4 £k*7 atul
Black was fine in I lirt-Schenk, Rhein 1998.
c) 8...c6 9 £>ge2 cxd5 10 cxd5 £Y5 11 ¿Lc2
a5 (ll...#M i5 12 0-0 h6, 1jpnitsky-Cicller,
Moscow 1950 and now 13 Wd2 is very strong)
12 a3 ÍLd7 13 0-0 Sc8 14 Wd2 £lh5, Romero
I lolmes -Stcllwagcn, (¿roningen 2002, when
15 l»4 sccurcs White a lead.
9g3
( )r 9 £}gc2 #Y\5 10 ¿Lc2 f5 11 ex 15 gxí> 12 1)4
5W i 13H bl Wh4 I4 g 3 # e7 15 W d3ÍLd7 16
g4 #\f4 l7 Í¿.xf4 ex(4 with chances for both
sides, Rivas Pastor X.Polgar, Salamanca 1989.
9...^c5
9...c5 is less active and sccms inconsistent
wilh Black’s play thus far. Play can develop as
lollows: 10 & c2 £V7 (10...<5V6!? 11 Wd2 with
a sliglit advantage to White) 11 .&xh5gxh5 12
Wxli5 f5 13 9if3 is poor for Black, but inter­
esting is 9...We8 10 & c2 «MS 11 (1 1 h4!?)
I L .¿d 7 I2 £ kl2 c6 I3 * f l (13 g4!?) 13...We7
14 g4 <SY7 15 Sfcg2 c5! 16 S b l £>fe8 17 b4 l>6
18 bxc5 dxc5 19 a4 £kl6 20 a5 Sfl)8!, Vilcla-
Morcno, I lavana 1997 - both players give this
position as unclear in liCX).
10 i¿.e2
The M a k o g o n o v S y s t e m : 5 h 3
l;orcing the knight’s retreat, and more logi-
cal than 10 & c2 a5 11 We2 (11 £jf3 &d7 12
a3 W c 8 13 £\h4 4hf6 14 g4 c6 was fine for
Black in Cirishchenko-AIcksecv, Korolev
2(KK)) I \..Ai\7 12 0-0-0 a4 13 W c 8 14
Sd g l a3 15 1)3 £la 6, Wade CXafsson, f lastings
1953, when White was not better.
10...£*6
Black lost two tempi but White made two
moves with his light-scjuared bishop and
placed his pawn 011 g3. I lowever, W hite’s
game is the easier to play.
11 M c2 a5 12 0-0-0 a4 13 g4 foe8
13...£tfd7!? 14 *b 1 a3 15 b3 with a slight
advantage to White, or 13_¿Lcl7 14 g5 £V *8 15
h4 with initiative.
14 h4
'The prophylactic 14 S&bl a3 15 b3 isgood,
when W hile lollows up wilh Ii3-h4.
14...15 15 gxf5 gxf5 16 £tf3 a3
16...fxe4 17 £>g5 ÍY13+ 18 ÍLxd3 exd3 19
Wxd3 ÍU 5 20 £>ge4 with the more pleasani
game for While.
17 b4
17 b3!? looks more solid, wilh a slight ad­
vantage to White.
17...fxe4
17.JSW 4 18 £ke4 fxe4 19 <?VI2 ( 19 £>g5?!
ÍM ó 20 S h g l & I 18 21 li5 & I 16 wilh a good
game for Black) I9...c6 (I9 ...ÍW ) 20 Sd g l
¿ I 18 21 Ii5 with a plus for White) 20 íhxc4
cxd5 21 Sxd5 with a pulí for While.
18$^
77
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
W h ile wants to w in thc a3-pawn but thc
succcssful cxccution o f this plan takes consid-
crablc time, atul Black can gcncratc strong
counterplay. 'I lie so I k t 18 £\g5 £kl3+ 19
.ÍLxd3! (19 Exd3 cxd3 20 .&xd3 h6 is tempting
but leaves W hite with ¡nsufficicnt compensa
tion for thc cxchange) 19...exd3 20 Wxcl3 juLf5
21 #)gc4 $V6 22 h5 4hxc4 23 £lxc4, intending
Í2-Í3 followcd by doubling rooks on thc g-filc,
offers W hite better chances.
1 8 ...^ 6 19 Wb3 &f5 20 ¿)\c2 & h 8 21
í^xa3 <5^6
2 1_c5!? is a candidatc.
22 Shg1 Wd7 23 ^ab1
After 23 íhc2r' £>g4 Black Ivas strong coun-
terplay, 24 Í^xc4 £>xe*3 25 Wxe3 W a4 26 a3
A xc4 27 Wxe4 Ah6+ a good example of what
W hite has to cope with.
23...í^g4
23...cS! is more consistent and is g<xxl for
Black.
24 &xg4 j&.xg4 25 £de1 c5 26 dxc6?
Missing 26 bxc5! with a guarantccd advan
tage, e.g. 26...£>xc5 (26...dxc5 27 a3 .&f5 28
§ \ \ 2 A g 6 29 #Vlxc4) 27 JuLxc5 dxc5 28 < 5\xe4
with an cffective prcsence in the centre.
26...bxc6 27 ^xe4
N ow Black’s central pawn dúo plays a cru­
cial role.
27...d5 28 focS foxcS 29 ÍLxc5 &f3 30
Wc2 d4 31 £g3 £ f5
3 1...j3Lh6+ 32 & b 2 d3! 33 W c3 <12 wraps up 0 0 d5 10 cxd5 cxd5 11 e5 £>fc8 12 &e3 f6 13
thc full point immcdiately.
32 We2 Sxg3 33 fxg3 d3 34 Wd2?
34 W b2 e4 35 lfb 3 W c7! 36 & (2 W c5 in favour White after 10 d5) 8 d5 a5 (8...#Ya6,
tending ...Ah6 (Pikct).
34...We6 35 g4 Wxc4+ 36 Wc3 d2+ 0-1
A possiblc fmish is 37 &xc)2 Hxa2+ 38
* d 1 Wxg4+ 39 & c 1 ÍLh6+ 40 & c 3 W e4 etc.
Gazne 34
Mikhalevski-Timoshenko
París Cbawpiouship 2000
1 d4 Q\16 2 c4 g6 3 ^ c3 ÜLg7 4 e4 d6 5
h3 0-0 6 Üg5
78
'I liis bishop’s sally is directed against 6...c5
(7 dxe5 dxe5 8 Wxd8 Sxd8 9 #V15), but the
posting on g5 is anyway more active than 6
JÍ.e3 bccausc after the typical ...e7-e5 advance
the f6-knight will he pinned. If Black decides
to play ...h7-h6, tlicn after ÍLc3 the same posi­
tion will arise as with 6 Ü.c3 but with a |x>tcn-
tial target on h6 that White can exploit with
Wd2 (not forgetting the general structural
implications of ...Ii7-h6).
6...£>bd7
We don’t rccommend 6...£k*6, when 7 íh G
Ii6 8 Ac3 c5 9 d5 <5Y7 10 g4!> h5!? 11 ¿AU2 có
12 JwLc2 gave White a slight advantage in 1-iza-
rev Kummcrow, Recklinghauscn 1997. I low-
cver, 6...c6 is playablc, e.g. 7 J2LcI3 c5 (7...v\a6
provecí unconvincing in Solumunovic-
Reschkc, Gricshcim 20iH) after 8 Í\ge2 §\1 9
14 _ÍUi6 14 Wd2, while 7...Wb6 8 <hgc*2 Íhlxl7
9 JXbl e5, l,a/arcv-Kozul, Blexl 1994, should
transposing to 6...íVa6, is Ix-st) 9 £\gc2 ®a6
10 0-0 ÍLd7 11 ÍLc2 ÍY 5 12 a3 Wl>6, Neid-
hardt-Kachiani ( ícrsinska, ( íermany 2(X)1, and
now 13 ÍLc3!? cxd5 (I3...Wxl>2?? 14 Axc5
dxc5 15 Íha4) 14 cxd5 Hfc8 (14...Wxl>2?? 15
Axc5 dxc5 16 H bl Wxa3 17 Hb3) 15 H bl is
an exige for White.
7 Já.d3
7 g4 e5 8 d5 was Suba-I .anc, I ¿hkIoii 1988,
when 8...I16 9 Üe3 <?Y5 10 Wc2 a5 is given as
unclear by Suba in I i(X ). 7 Wd2 c6 8 £\ge2 1>5

9 ( xl>5 cxbS 10 Í3 1)4 II £ k ll a5 was also
mirrcsting in Suba-Martincz Martin, Dos
I In manas 2002.
7...c5
The other plan features 7...e.S (or 7,..h6 8
l e í c5 9 d5 a5 10 £}gc2 £te5 11 ilc 2 ÍL<I7
111...£tfd7!?, intending ...^b6) 12 W d2 'Á>h7
I ^ 0-00 a4 with play for both sides, Yer*
mnlinsky-Trcgcr, Washington IX ! 1997) 8 d5
wiíh a brancli:
0 8...c6 9 £>gc2 cxd5 (9...Wl,6 10 <$Yi4 cxd5 13 cxi!5 ld 7 with chances for both
W .o i 11 ÍLd2 Wc7 12 S e l H>8 13 Ivl a6 14
oo with a slight advantage to White in Barecv-
Mnrovic Fernandez, Cap d’Agde 2002) 10
$\xd5 It6 11 £>xf6i <SW6 12 J¿c3 1>5 13 ÍV 3
l>4 14 #V2 ÜLl)7 15 O a5 16 W<I2 <^h7 17
¿t.<2 (17 0-0 secures an edge) 17...Wh4+
(17...15!?) 18 ÍL Í2 % 5 19 Wxg5 £\xg5 20
0 0 0 with a plus for White, Chernin-
kasimdzlvanov, Bad (iodesberg 1999.
I.) K...$V5 9 & c2
9...a5 (9...c6 I()4bge2cxd5 11 exd5 Wl>6 12
1.1 J&d7 13 H b l a5 was unclear in ( ihristian
‘en Cíallaghcr, Reykjavik 1998)
1)1) 10 g4 c6 11 Wd2 (1 1 a3 cxd5 12 cxd5
Wl>6 13 £>ge2 Ü.d7 14 13 Hfc8 15 <¿>fl a4
wiíh an edge for Black, Mikhalevski-Maes,
(u n í 2(X) 1) ll...cxd5 12 cxiI5 a4 13 #}gc2
«a5 14 í3 b5 (14...a3 15 bxa3 «xa3 16 0-0
¿.(17 17 Habí Hfl)8 V¿-x/\ Vucicevici-I lar-Zvi,
Agios Nikolaos 1995) I5#V11 (15 a3!?) I5...b4
16 £W2 «1)5 (16...1a6!>) 17 0-0 la 6 with an
«•xtvllcni position for Black, Spraggett-Sion
The M a k o g o n o v S y s t e m : 5 h 3
( iast r<>,Seville 1993.
b2) 10 Wd2 c6 11 <SV*2 cxd5 12 cxd5 (12
l.x f6 lx f6 13 4^xd5 l-g5 is unclear, 12 cxd5
1.117, intending ...b7-b5, gives Black good
countcq)lay, 12 4hxd5 £fcxe4! 13 lx c 4 í^xc4
provides sufficient compensaron and
12...1.7 13 0-0 «1)6, Bazin-Fedorov, Kstovo
1994 is unclear according to liC O .
b3) 10 a3 c6 11 H b l a4 12 fo n (12 &ge2
sides, Buddc-Stocber, Cicrmany 1992, and 12
1x16 1x16 13 lx a 4 1)5! looks plcasam for
Black) 12...h6 13 lc 3 cxd5 14 cxd5 ld 7 15
« d 2 S¿^h7 16 g4, Barccv-Voitsekhovsky, Si
Pclersburg 1998, and now 16...íhe8! followed
by ...17-15 offers Black countcrplay (Barccv).
8 d5
Black has a good game after 8 #}f3 (or 8
8...cxd4 9 ÍÜxd4 «a 5 10 ld 2 £Y\5
(K )...«b 6 11 $\b3 £ íc5 12 lc 2 le 6 is also
good, while I()...4hc5!? is interesting) 11 le 2
« c 5 12 4^1)3 (Avrukh-Smirin, Israel 1999)
12...«c7!? 13 S e l (13 <?YI5 Wd8 is unclear)
13...a5 with a doublc-cdgcd strugglc in pros
pect.
8..MeS
9 Ctf3
After 9 le 2 Black should play in the spirit
o f the Bcnko (iam bit or llnd himsclf sevcrcly
crampcd (and losing a tempo) after f2-f4. In
fact after 9...b5 10 cxb5 a6 Black has a more
comfortable position than in the normal
79
O ffb e a t King's Indian
Bcnko, W h ite having lost time in making two
tnoves with his bishop and another one on
h2-h3. Additionally the position o f the g5-
hishop might well prove inappropriate, e.g. 11
bxa6 (1 1 £>f3 íhxf3+ 12 gxf3 axl>5 13 ¿ x b 5
h6 14 A c 3 e6 15 dxe6 A x e 6 16 W d2 * h 7 17
B e ll W a5 with com pensation in Costa-Ncm et,
Sw itzerlaiul 1993, o r 11 a4 W a5 12 juLd2 W b4
13 W c2 axh5 14 £>Í3, Slipak-R.Cíarcia, Trelcw
1995, when 14...£k*4 is prom ising for Black)
11...Wa5 12 .&d2 & xa6 13 W c2 Sfl>8 14 S b l
£>fd7 and the investm ent l<K>kecl sound in
Pinter-Tkachiev, Porec 1998.
9...£>xd3+ 10 Wxd3 a6 11 a4 £>h5
Better than ll...c 6 (or ll...c 5 ) 12 dxe6!
13 0-0 Ii6 14 .&f4 and W h ite had a
com fortable lead in Barccv-Svidlcr, Russian
G iam pionship 1997.
12 0-0
12 W d2 !? looks go<>d, after which W hite
stabilises the position o f the g5-bishop and
introduces -2.h6 as a viable possibility.
1 2 ...h6 13iLd2
13 ÍLe 3 1*5 14 exf5 .&xf5 15 W e2 ÍLd 7 16
S f e l £>f4 17 ÍLx f4 S x f4 and both sides could
Ix* fairly optim istic in Beliavskv-Sm irin, Bcl-
grade 1998.
13...e5 14 dxe6 Axe 6 15 Sad1
( )thers:
a) 15 £ k!5 S e 8 16 S a d l ÜLxd5 17 exd5
W d7 18 l>3 (18 a5!?) I8...b5 19 axb5 axl>5 20
cxb5 Sab 8 21 1>4 Sxl>5 with an exccllent posi­
tion for Black as the d5-pawn is weaker than
the il6-pawn. Nevertheless a draw was agreeil
here in M ikhalcvski-Sm irin, Rishon Ix: Ziyyon
1997.
b) 15 a5!? is directed against Black’s stan­
dard means o f counterplay (...W b6).
15...Wb6 16 £>d5 ilxd5
N ot l6...W xb2? I7 g 4 J&.xd5 1 8 e x d 5 ͥ 6 ?
(Black is in trouble, but this hastens the end)
19S b l W a 2 2 0 S a l W b 2 21 Sfi> l etc.
17 exd5 2Iae8
!7 ...Sfe8 look s m ore natural.
18 a5 Wc7 19 Sb1 £tf6 20 b4 V2 -V2
W hite has a modcst but definiré initiative
80
on the tjueenside.
Giwic i 5
Rogozenko-Ardeleanu
Cjtpci Dinamo, Iin/sor 1998
1 d4 £tf6 2 c4 g6 3 & c3 &g7 4 e4 0-0 5
ilg 5 d6 6 h3 c5 7 d5 b5
Black’s Benko approach is paríly justified
by W h ite’s \vasted’ Ii2-h3, although 4 e4
works in W h ite’s favour as the light sejuared
bishop is rcady to join the battle. I f we com ­
pare this game w ith l arago-Zaitsev (O iap tcr
5, Cíame 68), h2-h3 has here rcplaced ¿ e 2 ,
but in our opinion Black still has difficulty
solving the usual opening problems.
7...h6 8 JwLe3 e6 9 ¿ d 3 extl5 10 exd5 is
dealt with in the next main game, but 7...a6
has been played: 8 a4 W a5 (8...c6!? 9 & d 3
exd5 10 exd5 Se8+ 11 £ ig C2 £>Ik I7 12 0-0 h6
13 & f4 # V 5 14 £ig3 £>fd7 15 S e l £>xd3 16
Sxe8+ W xc8 17 W xd3 £>c5 18 W e2 A el7 19
£\gc4 Cíhitescu-Kviatkovsky, Romanía-
Bulgaria M atch 1956, and now I9 ...^ e7 20
S e Í S e 8 fave uirs Black) 9 ± d 2 c6 10 ¿Lil3
H c8 11 <5\ue2 ( I I 4 ^ 0 cxd5 12 íhxil.S W dH 13
4bxf6+ .S.xf6 14 Wl>3 ÍV 6 15 0-0 líh K w irli
chances for both sides, ( /aselas (/abanas-
I Icrraiz Ijopcz, C and e 1994) I I...W c7 12 0-0
cxd5?! (12...b6!? is given by Skem bris in liCX))
13 exd5 £>1x17 14 f4 1)6 (D okhoian Skembris,
Igalo 1994) 15 g4 with an edge for W h ite ac­
cording to Suba in liC O .

8 cxb5 a 6 9 a4
After 9 bxa6 Black has go<xl compensation
for the pawn in all variations: 9...Wa5 10 ld 2
(10 Wd2 ÍLxa6 II iL x a í^ W . 12 £lgc2 Sfl>8
I ^ 13 c4 14 ÜLc3 Wl>4 15 Sl> I <¡V5, Skembris-
Kostic, Vrnjacka Banja 1982, with compensa­
tion in liCO) I0...1xa6 (10...Wb4 II Wc2
lx a 6 12 lx a 6 ®ixa6, RashkovskvCíelIcr,
Sochi 1977, and then 13 5)gc2 Wc4 14 0-0
n ii)8 with cnough play according to (ícllcr)
II lx a 6 &xa6 12 ® f3 (12 &gc2 Wl>4 13
W l >I Hfb8 14 1)3 c4, Skenibris-Sznapik,
Vrnjacka Banja 1981, is given as good for
Black in liCO) 12...nfl)8 l3 0-0Bxb2 14^a4
Hxd2 15 4hxd2 #W*4 16 ÍV 4 Wb4 and once
again Black was happy in Shephcrd Bcntlcy,
Pon lírin 2003.
9...h6
( )ver the next lew moves a number o f scc-
narios rescmble those encountcred in Farago-
/.aitsev in Chaptcr 5 (Cíame 68), where vari-
ous themes are discussed.
9...Wa5 10 ld 2 and now 10...axb5 is lx*st
avoided, e.g. 11 lx b 5 l.a 6 l2Sa3!#M xl7 13
lx b 5 14 5üxb5 Wb6 15 Wc2 with a big
lead for White (liC O ) in Suba-Plachetka,
Moscow 1977. IO...Wb4 is correct - 11 ld 3
(11 f3 & fd7 12 W c2 c4 13 £ k l 1 Wc5 14 Wxc4
axb5 15 Wxb5 la 6 16 Wxc5 £>xc5 17 1x3,
l oisor-C íhitescu, Baile I lerculanc 1984 with
the more pleasant game for White according
to I i(.'O) and we have another similar position
to l'arago-Xaitscv, the only difference being
The M a k o g o n o v S y s t e m : 5 h 3
W hitc’s h-pawn (h2). Play has continned
11...c4 12 lc 2 Íifd 7 (12jW xb2 13 H b l «Ta3
14 b6 !b 7 15 £\ge2 Wc5 16 a5 with a pulí for
White, Peskov-Kmglyakov, Simfcro|X)l 2003)
13 & G ! axb5 (13...£k:5 14 0-0 & b3 15 lx b 3
cxb3 16 We2, Marin-Ardeleanu, Bucharest
1994, and 13...Wxb2 14 H bl Wa3 15 #V2
lb 2 I6 ^ e d 4 ^ c 5 l7 0-0fie8 l8H el,Shaw -
Vujadinovic, lí-mail 1998, are both excellent
for W hite) 14 &xb5 Wxb2 15 H b l Wa2 16
0-0 la 6 17 <hfd4 lx b 5 18 £kb5 #>a6 19
W cl and White was doing very well in Cílek-
Shchekachev, Moscow 1989.
10 le 3 Wa5 11 ld 2 e6
After ll...W b4 the position differs from
Cíame 68 only with the inserted moves Ii2-h3
atul ...h7-h6.
12 l c 4
12 !.d 3 axb5 (Bates-Cíufeld, I jondon 1994) 13
lx b 5 £to6!? gives Black sufftcicnt plav ac­
cording to ( íufcld in liC O .
1 2 ...W d 8
Rogo/.cnko gives I2...exd5 13 4^xd5 W í 18
14 £kf6+ Wxf6 15 I d 5 Ha7 16 b6 Hc7 17
l.c.3 % 5 18 lx g 7 *xg7 19 and id our
opinion W hite has a winning position. Better
is I2...axb5! 13 ^xb5 (13 lx b 5 transposes to
12 ld 3 ) 13...Wd8 14 dxe6 fxe*6 15 e*5 í^c4 16
£>0 d5.
13 dxe6 lx e 6
After I3...fxc6 14 e5! dxe5 15 4hgc2 (Ro-
go/.enko) Black is seriously struggling in view
o f the poor c8-bishop.
81
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
14 &xe 6 fxe6 15 e5!
'H k *most active and consisten! move.
15...<^5
15...dxc.S 16 5\i»c2 Í\d5 17 0-0 ccrtainly
docsn’t help Black, who is in big troublc ac­
cording to Rogo'/.cnko. After I7...axb5 18
5ixb5 £k*6 19 Wc2 Black’s pawn structurc is
scandalous.
16 £tf3
After 16 4ixd5?! cxd5 17 J&,xh6 dxc5 Ro-
go/.cnko evalúales the position as unclear.
I lowcvcr, 16 cxd6 45Yxc3 17 j&xc3 A.xc3+ 18
bxc3 Wf6 19 Wxc3+ 20 SÍ?f1 axb5 21
S e l Wf6 22 axl>5 is worthy of further investi-
gation, White appearing to have a slight lead.
16...axb5
In his efforts to restore material ecjuilihrium
Black pavs the price in the (terrible) shape of
his pawn structurc, thus affording White a
dcfinite advaniage. W ilh this in miiul Black
should prefer I6...£\xc3 17 Ü.xc3 il5 with
some counterplay for the pawn.
17 foxbS dxe5 18 Wc2 TlfS 19 0-0
Obviously not 19 Wxc5? c4 20 Wd6 (20
#Yd4 £ m*4) 20...Wxd6 21 4&xd6 exf3 and
Black has the uppcr hand.
19...£\c6
l 9...<
5\ i6 20 j&c3 ÍYab4 21 Wc4 with a
slight advantage to White (Marín).
20 Wxc5 e4 21 Wxc6
lilis move guarantccs White an advantage
but in doing so unnecessarily sharpens thc
play. ^)ne to avoid is 21 4¿Mi2 £Y\S! 22 $)g4
82
& f4 with a meiiacing conccntration of Black’s
forces on the kingside, e.g. 23 4>W5 Wxd2 24
Wc6 Saf8 25 4£}g4 c3 26 5ixc3 £k*2+ 27 SÍ?h2
(27 &h1 Wxc3!) 27...&C-5+ 28 &h1 Wxc3 29
Wxc6» <&h8 30 Wxf5 &g3+ 31 & g l
wilh perpetual check. After the simple 21 #Mi4
Wxh4 22 Wxc6 3 a ft 23 Wxc6+ &h7 Black is
in dire straits.
21...exf3 22 g4?
Marín points out the cffcctive 22 Wxe6+
*h 7 23 g3.
22...Wh4! 23 Wxe6 +
23 gxf5 «xh3 24 W x c6 f *h 8 25 Wxg6
transposes to the main linc.
23...<&h8 24 gxf5
Now 24 (á?h2 meets with 24..J¡Lc5+ (Ma­
rín).
24...Wxh3 25 Wxg6 Ae5!
25.JXg8 26 £kl6 A c5 27 & f7 mate (Ma­
rín).
26 Wxh6 +Wxh6 27 iLxh6 Ug 8 + 28 sfrhl
&g4 29 J3fd1 Sh4+ 30 *g1 A h 2+ 31
¿*1 ÍLf4 32 & g 1 Ah2+ 33 &f1 A f4 0-1
(I ame i6
Suba-Nunn
Dnbai O¡ympuul 1986
1 d4 £tf6 2 c4 g6 3 foc3 ¿Lg7 4 e4 d6 5
h3 0-0 6 ¿Lg5 c5 7 d5 e6
A standard, thcmatic strategy wilh lilis
structurc, Black lioping to point tí) Ii2-h3 as a
conccssion of some kind.

8 ild 3 exd5
Black can also inserí 8...h6, e.g. 9 JwLe3 (9
j£Lh4 exd5 10 cxd5 ÍU Ü 11 a4 12
( íoldin-Minasian, Paris 1994, and now
I2 .jib 6 ! 13 Wd2 £>1>4 14 0O! $ W I3 15
Wxd3 g5 16 Ag3 $Mi5, intending ...Wxl>2, is
unclear - Cíoklin) 9...exd5 (9...fie8 10 4hf3 a6
II a4 cxd5 12 exdS £»xl7 13 0-0 & e5 14
&xe5 Sxc5 15 « M 2 W f8 16 & f4 Ee8 17
H fel Ad7 18 A h2 Bxel+ 19 flx e l with a
sinall edge for White, Miiitelu-Marsalek, Ixn-
mgrad 1960) 10 exd5 a6 (10...4?Mxl7 11
Se8 12 Wd2 S¿?h7 13 (M ) favoured White in
(íacrtncr-W ildi, Xurich 1989) I I W d2& h7 12
a4 #Mxl7 13 £ \B ÍXe8 14 g4 $Y\5 1.5 £\xe5
Hxe5 16 0-0 ÍÍc8 17 * g 2 £kI7 18 f4 Q Sm 19
JSacl (19 g5!) 19...<
¿?g8 20 & (2 Vz-'/z, Bcngt-
son-Fenstcr, Philadelphia 1996.
9 exd5
W hite’s decisión is not easy bccause 9 cxd5
leads to a variation o f the Benoni where h2 h.3
simply does not fu in with the set-up. Ñor
d(x*s 9 4hxd5 achieve anything, e.g. 9...ÍLc6 10
<5V2 £>c6 II ü-0 -ÍLxdS 12 exd5 £V5 13 f4
^xd.3 14 Wxcl3 W b 6 with ecjuality, W'icsc-
I *r(>ehner, ( a >rres|xmdence 1991.
9...íhbd7
A sharp alternative is 9...Se8+, when 10
&>fl I16 II ÍLt'4 £Ui5 12 ÍLh2 (Dobosz-Pikula,
/.urich 1997) 12...'5\i6 is g<xkI for Black. In-
stead after 10 ^ge2 h6 II _ílh4 ( I I Ad2
£>1x17 12f4£>h7 13 g4^Vlfó l4 & fl,Sm irin -
Mohr, Pula 2000 and now 14...1)5!? 15 4^xb5
The M a k o g o n o v S y s t e m : 5 h 3
üxl>2 16 S b l ÍLg7 is tricky) I l...<hlxl7 12 f4
a6 13 a4 1)6 (1.3...Wc7 14 0-0 £)h7 15 Wd2 f5
with chances for both sides in Steinhoff-
Garber, Duisburg 1992) 14 0-0 Ka7
(14...Wc7!?, intending ...ÍLb7, ...Sc7, ...ÍXac8)
15 H B 16 # d 2 £>8h7 17 S a fl Hae7 and
both sides had to keep their eyes peded in
Panno-Rossctto, Buenos Aires 1996.
10
Once again W hite has to make a difficult
strategic decisión, the text surrendering cas­
tling rights. The ambitious 10 f4, taking chargc
o f the important e5-scjuare, leads to intense
complications:
a) l()...Wa5 11 Wd2 (l l &f2£>h5 I2 & g e2
f6 13 J¿h4 ÍLh6! 14 15 4T\c5 with chances for
both sides, Salceanu-Kazoks, Correspon
denccl990, or 11 a4 Wl>4 12 Wd2 £ft>6 13
^ b 5 fíe8 h l4<5V-2 Wxd2+ I5 & x d 2 &c4+ 16
* c 2 Q\(2 17 £ixd6 He3 wilh coinpcnsaii< >n,
Mclikhov Bazhin, Podolsk 1993) ll...a6 12
-5V'2 (12...b5 13 cxb.5 axb5 14 ÍLxb5
Sb8 I5a4£\xd5 16 0-0^71)6 1 7 Sfd l ^xc.3
18 bxc.3 f6 19 _ÍLh4 Sd8 20 We.3 with a plus
for White, 20...<¡S?f7?? 21 Sxd6 JÜLñ 22 Wxc5
1-0 ending in disaster for Black in Roze-
Bakulin, O >rrcspondcncc 1994) 13 0-0 (13 a4
He8 14 0-0 h6 15 & h4 16 g4 £V>h7 17 f5
g5 18 jSLel, Pohla leluashvili, Corrcs|x>n-
dence 1988, and now 18...Wc7 leaves both
sides with chances) 13...b5 14 b.3, Ksieski-
W olf, Bayern 1999, antl now 14...B4!? is un-
clcar.
83
O f f b e a t K i n g 's Iridian
b) I0...a6 11 a4 We8+ and Black unpins
with tempo. 12 4^gc2 #Mi5 13 #Y4 (13 0-0
Wc3+ 14 sfchl ?Y 5 ! is a typical lactical niotif,
15 fxc5 Wxg5 16 exd6 f5 as in Rapoport-
Mittelman, Rishon I a¿ Ziyyon 1997 being ex-
actly what Black is hoping for hcrc; 13SÍA12 f6
14 lh 4 lh 6 15 fifi 15 16*c2 ®klf6 17Hel
Wf7 with chances for both sides, KArulcrscn-
Quisi, Correspondente 1986) I3...Í6 14 lh 4
(14 £>xd6 ®c3 15 fia 3 Wc7 16 £>xc8 fiaxcS
17 !h 4 &xf4 18 0-0 £ixd3 19 Hxd3 ficc8 is
unclear) I4...£W'4 15í^xt4 f5 16ÍV*6fxe4 17
íhxíH ¿hxf* (I7...cxd3+ 18 4?Y6 4hb6, Tacu-
Marin, Predeal 1989 is given as unclear in
liCX), while 17...1x1)2!? was seen in I lacus-
sler-Lucucs, Correspondente 1993, 18 0 0!
leaving both sides with resourccs) 18
We2, Partos-( )stojic, Bucharest 1973, and
now 18...lxl>2!? 19 Sa2 lc3+ 2 0 * d l ?VI7
21 lx e 4 4hc5 is finely balanced.
10 ...£e 8 + 11 & f1 h6
I l...a6 12 a4 SY5 13 &xc5 fixe5 14 Wd2 (14
lf 4 Se8 15 Wd2 <fth5 16 lg 5 ffi 116...1f6!?|
17 le 3 f5 18 g3 We7 19 <&g2 ld 7 20 Shel
21 f4 He7 Vz-Vz, I.Botvinnik*
I Iristcxlorcscu, Drobeta 1993) I4...1f5
(!4...Wc7!?) 15 1x15 gxf5 16 Wc2 (16 O Wb6
with countcrplay) 16...Wd7 l7 g3, Kustano-
vich-Mittelman, Beer Sheva 1997, with
I7...-5V4 18 A f4 Ec7 19 jÜ.c-5 sccurinj.
ecjuality according to Miltelman in I i(X ).
12 l f 4
W hite does not achieve anything after ei- has an excellent refuge for his king on b3.
84
ther 12 le 3 a6 13 a4 (Oumitrescu-Negulescu,
Odorheiu Secuiesc 1993) I3...ÍY5 14 4hxc5
Hxe5 15 Wd2 WfK 16 lf 4 fieH, intending
...í\17 (evaluated as equal by Nunn in ii(X ))y
or 12 lh 4 Wb6 13 Wd2 (Rufener-Antognini,
Biel 2001) 13..Ah5, which is unclear.
12...£ie5 13 ^xe5 dxe5 14 &e3 b6 15
Wd2
15 a4 fails to troublc Black, e.g. I5...1d7
(15...a5 16 sí/el 4hh5 17 g4 4ftf4 with advan­
tage to Black in Avrukh Krakops, Bratislava
1993) 16 Wd2 (16 <&gl!?) 16...&h7 (I6...e4!?
17 !e 2 &h7 18 <&gl <?lg8 19 a5 5Y-7 20
ÍW -4 $Y5 with an edge for Black) 17 g4 4^\g8
18 SÍ?e2 f5 19 gxf5 !x f5 with a pulí for Black,
Suba-Spasov, Dcbrcccn 1992.
15...h5
Interesting was I5...e4 16 le 2 (16 !c 2 ?
Ia 6 17 b3? #W15) 16...< ái>
h7 with an excellent
game for Black.
16 a4 a5?!
After I6...4^h7|?, intending ...í7-f5, Black
can lx* contení with his lot.
17 *e1 e4
I7...4^h7 18 S&dl f5 19 15 wiíh an edge for
White (Nunn).
1 8 le 2
18 !c 2 ?! meets with I8...1a6! followed by
...<5\17-c5.
1 8 ...4 . 19 Á>d1
Black now pays the pricc for closing the
cjueenside with his 16th move, as White now

19...£ie5 2 0 & c 2 j£f5
Nunn reconimends 20...15, intending ...4^17
and ...Sa7 with chances for both sides. I low-
ever, after 21 14! ex O 22 gxf3 ÜLa6 23 b.3
24 fla e l White stands better.
21 & b3 Ha7
2I...W d7 22 &h(> ÍLh8 23 S a fl h4
(23..._ÍLl'6!? with a slight advantage to W hite)
24 S e l (now or on the next move White
should play 24 ÜLg.5 with a ver)- big lead)
24...Had8 (24...Í6!?) 25 Wf4 b5 (deftnitely too
optimistic!) was Suba-Cheparmov, Dos Her­
manas 2002, 26 £»xb5! netting White a pawn.
22 Hag1 h4 23 Ü.g5 69 Wh 8 + sfcg2 70 ® b 2 Wxb2+ 71 <¿>xb2
23 g4 hxg.3 24 fxg.3 £>G 25 ÍLxf3 ex 6 is g4 72 b4 axb4 V2 -V2
given as unclear by Nunn.
23...Ji.f6 24 iLxf6 W xf6 25 Wh 6 ?!
An improvement is 25 g4 hxg.3 26 fxg.3
27 ÍLxf3 ex O 28 g4 ÍLc8 29 g5 W f5 30
1)4 with advantage (Nunn).
25...^ d3 26 ií.xd3 exd3 27 fie l Hae7 28
Kxe7 Hxe7 29 S d l Wd4 30 Wd2 fie 8 31
<5lb5 W f6 32 W c3 Wd 8 33 2d2 f 6 34 d6
Af7 35 g4 hxg3 36 fxg3 He3 37 g4 ,&e4
38 h4 Hh3 39 g5 Ü f5 40 d7 fxg5 41
hxg5 41...W e7 42 ^ c 7
Taking no risks, although after 42 We-SIr1
Wxe.S (42...Wxd7>! 4.3 W f¿+ * g 8 44 Wxb6)
4.3 d8W Se.3 44 £kJ6+ * e 6 45 $Y8 Se2 46
<5)f6 Wd6 47 We8-t We7 48 # c6 White has
se>mething.
42...Wxg5 43 foób
Nunn gives 43 We5? Wxd2 44 dK#H ^?g8
45 We8+ * h 7 46 We7+ * h 6 47 £tt7 f * h 5
ele.
43...üxd7 44 fíxd3?!
44 4^x1>6 followcd by Wxa5 is unclear
(Nunn).
44...Hxd3 45 Wxd3 Wd 8 ?
Missing 45...Wg4!, when the ending after 46
<^xb6 (46 *1 2 k f5 47 Wb3 lfe 4 48 W\>5
W bl+ 49 *1)3 Wd.3-1- 50 * a 2 g5) 46...#h.3 is
difficult for White, e.g. 47 *c.3 (47 Wxh.3
ÍLxh.3 48 ®kl5 g5) 47...Wxd3+ 48 *xd.3 ÍLc6
49 b.3 * c 6 50 *e.3 * e 5 51-5V8 g5.
46 W f3+ ?l
The M a k o g o n o v S y s t e m : 5 h 3
46 £}f4 with advantage to White (Nunn).
46...ÍLf5 47 W f4 Wd7 48 We5 W e 6 49
Wc7+ * g 8 50 st,a2
50 Wd8+ (Nunn) here on the next move
leads to a cjuick draw. Instcad the game look a
while longer to reach the same result:
50...ÍLd3 51 ?Axb6 &xc4+ 52 £ x c4
Wxc4+ 53 b3 Wc2+ 54 <¿>a3 Wc1 + 55
& a 2 Wd 2 + 56 «A>b1 g5 57 Wxc5 & f7 58
Wf5+ <&e7 59 Wc5+ & e 6 60 W c 8 + & e5
61 We 8 + * f 4 62 » b 8 + 4>e4 63 W e 8 +
sfrf3 64 W c 6 + & g3 65 Wc7+ <&h3 66
Wh7+ & g 4 67 We4+ &g3 68 »e5 + & h3
Carne 37
Yermolinsky-Barcenilla
Chicago 2000
1 d4 £rf6 2 c4 g6 3 foc3 i¿.g7 4 e4 d6 5
h3 0-0 6 A g5 h6 ?!
For what should becomc the loss o f a
tempo later thanks to Wd2 Black is ahle to
play ...c7-c5.
7 ¿ e 3 e5 8 d5
An carly assessment here should give White
the advantage. 'I he ‘extra’ moves with the h-
pawns tavour W hite because his pawn pre­
venís an often annoying ...vig4 whereas ...h7-
h6 serves only to weaken the kingside as well
as invite the natural and effcctive Wd2.
8...a5
85
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
8...ÍV8 (8..x6 < >Wd2 cxc!5 I» cxd5 *h 7
was Laxarcv-Kuntzig, I lamburg 1993» and
now 11 g4 favours White according lo N C O )
9 Wd2 <&h7 10 ld 3 a5 (10...Í5 11 exñ 1x1*5
12 $\>c2 #V17 13 4hg3 lx d 3 14 Wxd3 with
the more plcasant game for White in Sulyok-
Meier, Vienna 2003) 11 íhge2 #W ) 12 g4 5V5
13 lc 2 b6 14 0-0-0 (14 4hg3 la 6 15 1x3lc 8
16 I d l ld 7 17 h4 Wc8 18 B Wd8 19 h5 g5
20 0-0 We7 21 le 2 with a pulí for White,
Prasxak-Dick, Prague 1990) 14...Wd7
(14...Wh4!?) 15 g5 h5 16 ^l>5 la 6 17 £V-c3
and Black was in troublc in Minogina-
Malashenko, Klista 1997.
9 Wd2
'llie most logical, although White has also
played 9 c5 #W> 10 cxd6 cxd6 11 lx a 6 Sxa6
12 Wd2 1)5 (unclear), Gochler-Kucypcra,
Gcrmanv *
1997 and 9 ld 3 . ’llien 9...4hfd7!?
10 4hge2 £W5 11 lc 2 ^1x17 (intending
...4hh6) provides countcrplay, while 9...íhh5 10
4^ge2 f5 (Dyhowski Pcdzich, Bydgoszcz
1990) 11 exf5! gxf5 12 g4 f4 13 l e í $Y6 14
B is slightly Ixiter for White. 'lilis leaves
9...^a6 10 <S)gc2 #\I7!? II Wd2 £klc5 12
I h l SÍ?h7 13 g4 Wh4 with ec|ual chances in
Kachur-Dobrowolski, Krakow 1998.
9...6H7
( )ihers:
a) 9...h5?! 10 B (10 c5!?) 10...£>a6 11 ld 3
ÍY17 12 g4 <5\lcS 13 0-0-0 (Ksieski gives 13
lc 2 !? 14 0-0-0 f5 15 gxf5 gxB 16 #\ge2
wiíh a slight advantage to White, but 14...h4
deserves attention) 13...Í5 (13...h4!?) 14 exf5
í^xd3+ 15 Wxd3 gxf5 16 í^ge2 (Ksieski
Zesch, I xripzig 1998) 16...®c5!? 17 Wd2e4 18
fxe4 fxg4 19 í¥ 4 We8 20 hxg4 lx g 4 21
Hdgl is unclear according lo Ksieski, but
White’s play can l>e improved here, e.g. I7
lx c 5 dxc5 18 gxh5 followed by H gl, when
Black has problems.
b) Black can iry 9...#W>1? with the idea 10
lx h 6 £ke4 11 4^xe4 Wh4 with chances for
lx>th sides. After other rcplics Black plays
...#V5 and wins a tempo, e.g. 10 Í3 ÍV 5 with
the same idea! 11 0-0-0 S&h7 (12-B looks out
86
of place here), or 10 4^ge2 <5Y5 and White has
to block his g-pawn with 11 í^g3, or again
play 11 f3.
10 g4
Por K) I d 3 $\\(> see 6...#W>.
10 ...^g 8
Vermolinsky gives the dcadlv variation
10...£\a6 11 g5! Í\r8 12ÍM3 (6 I3gxh6 lx h 6
14 h4 lg 4 15 4?ig5+, but Black has l l...hxg5
12 4hB Hh8 13 *4?\xg5+ < á> g8 which restriets
White to a more modest lead.
11 ÍLd3 ^ a 6
Black has a very passive position.
12 0-0-0
12 Í V ‘2 #V7 13 Hgl (13 <^g3 c6 14 B
ld 7 15 h4 wilh advantage, Mikhalevski-
lonica, Biel 2001) I3...í^l>4 14 I b l c6 15 a3
4ha6 16 íha4 with advantage to White in Po-
tapov-Stoumbos, Agios Kyrikos 2000.
1 2 ...b6?!
12...ÍV5 13 lc 2 ld 7 14 lx c5 ?l dxc5 15
í I6 c6 16 Wc3 1)6 is unclear according to Ver­
molinsky but While should play 14 £\ge2.
13 f3 ¿d 7 14 h4 ^ c5 15 &c2 ^e7 16
?Age2 a4 17 g5
White wants toget lo work on the kingside.
Another option is 17 h5 g5 18 vig3 when
White has an advantage across the whole
lx>ard, the logical follow-up lieing to regroup
and gradually prepare action on the «.jueenside.
17...h5 18 f4 exf4 19 ^xf4 ¿í.e5 20 &d4
<^c8 21 Hdf1 We8 22 Sf2 b5?!
After 22...1xd4 23 Wxd4 Wc5 24 Wxe5

<lxo5 25 £kl3 $kd3+ 26 ÍLxtl.3 White has a
beitcr ending (Yennolinsky).
23 cxb5 iLxb5?
23...®U/> 24 &xe5 £ k4 (24...dxe5 25 £kl3)
25 We2 £W*5 26 £\xh5! gxh5 27 Wxh5+ with
a dangert>us attack - Yennolinsky.
24 ilx e 5 dxe5 25 Ste 6 ?
White has an easy win with 25 íhxh5! (ibis
was also possible on the previous move)
25...gxh5 26 £>xb5 Kl>8 (26...Wxb5 27 g6H
wilh a winning attack) 27 #\i3 We7 28 We2
Hh8 29 #V4 ® d 6 30 B h fl etc.
25...4hxe6 26 dxe6 ¿ c 4
26...£kl6 27 ®kl5 Wc6 28 e7 Hfc8 29 & h l
lails to save Black, huí 26...J«Lc6 is worth a try.
27 #Vd5 ÍLxd5 28 exd5 fxe6 29 S x f 8
Wxf8 30 We2! Wg7 31 dxe6 <5te7 32 S e l
e4 33 Wxe4 Sa5 34 ÍLxa4 W f8 35 &b1
Uf5 36 itc 2 S f4 37 We5 c 6 38 Hd1
Hxh4? 39 W f6 * g 8 40 &xg 6 Wxf6 41
gxf6 Q\xg6 42 S d 8 + * h 7 43 el 1-0
Game 3K
Chernin-Cebalo
Sloveniau I ¿eitgue, liled 1999
1 d4 £tf6 2 c4 g 6 3 foc3 ¿ g 7 4 e4 d6 5
h3 0-0 6 ¿ g 5 W e 8
sejuares, and after 13 & d 2 5ifó 14 ® e4 4hxc4
15 ÍLxc4 t)\\7 16 £k:3 £ if 6 17
I his move unpins the knight and prepares staiuls hetter.
...c7-e5. Its gekkI point is that it does not
wcakcn Black’s kingside and may lx* used in
*<>n¡unction with difieren! plans.
/ ¿e 2
The M a k o g o n o v S y s t e m : 5 h 3
7 g4 c5 8 d5 e6 9 W tt &bd7 10 0-0-0 a6 11
W f4 e5 12 We3 l>5 saw Black generare coun-
terplay in Renct-Nataf, Clichy 2(X)l . Another
option that ...We8 even appears to invite is 7
c5 dxc5 8 dxe5 #tfd7 9 £\I5, when after
9../?W> the complications favour Black, e.g.
10 c5 4ftxc5 11 f4 f6 12 &xa6 fxg5 13 fxc5 e6
14 íhf6+ JwLxf6 15 exf6 l>xa6 with an edge, or
10 jSLxt-7 c6 11 JÍLxtX üLxfH 12 $Y\3 £*xe5 13
ÍLc2 A 15 with excelleni com|>ensation.
7 Üd3 is popular, when play tends to tic
velop 7...e5 8 d5 ÍM i5l? 9 4?}gc2 and ik >w:
a) 9...Í5 looks prematurc after 10 cxf5 gxf5,
when White can hope for an advantage with
11 Wd2 c4 12 ÍLc2 £\I7?! (I2...£ta6!?) 13
^1.5!, e.g. 13,..Wc5 M <hxc7 111)8 15 #Y4
# k l4 16 ÍLxí4 Wxl)2 17 S b l Wxa2 18 #V6
and Black was in trouhle in Wimmer Aleshnia,
Ivm ail 1998.
I lowcvcr, a more ihematíe and consisten!
treatment is 11g4!?:
•»
Noücc that the diagram position rescmbles
Panczyk-Kcmpys (Chaptcr 2, Cíame 28) and
the strategic plans and ideas are indeed similar.
I I...I16 12 .Slc3 and a further crossroads.
a l) 12...I4 chronically weakens the light-
White
a2) I2...fxg4 13 hxg4 Axg4 14 W c2 high-
lights an importanr diffcrcncc with Panczyk-
Kcmpys in that here 14...#to6??, which would
Ix* best with thc cjueen still at borne on (18,
87
Offbeat King's Indian
runs into 15 lh7+ AhS 16 lg 6 ctc. Thus
Black must seltic for 14...5V4, when 15 0-0-0
£>xd3+ 16 Wxd3 c4 17 Wd2 h5 18 ld 4 !
IxcM 19 4^xcl4 gives While a ilangcrous at-
tack atul 15...ÍLB 16 Hh2 £k6 (16...£>xd3+ 17
Wxd3 c*4 18 Wd2 l<K>ks promising for White)
17 ÍLxf4 Sxf4 18 &xf4 _&xdl 19 Wxdl exf4
20 Wg4 is prctiy awful.
a3) After \2.JAH we can again compare
with the aforcmentioncd game. Hiere are two
differences - White’s bishop stands on e3
(instead of e l) and Black’s cjuccn is on e*8 (in
stead of (.18) - which are tí) White’s advantage,
and after 13 lx f5 Axf5 14 gxf5 Sxf5 15
Wc2! White had already built up a hig lead in
Tyomkin Sasikiran, Biel 1999.
h) 'llie best, and rather cunning continua-
tion is 9...5\ i6!?, devcloping the knight. Now
White gets less than nothing after 10 g4?! 4 cjueen stands better 011 e8 or c!8. Morcover,
11 4^xf4 cxf4 12 Ix f4 f5 when Black’s cjueen
comes to life. Instead 10 0-0 f5 11 exf5gxf5 is
interesting, when Black had his play on the
kingside in Concjucst-Moreno ('amero, Pam­
plona 2002.
7...e5 8 d5
8 dxe*5 dxe*5 9 í^f3 poses Black no prob­
lems, e.g. 9...c6 10 Wd6 4^1x17 11 0-0 h6 12
&h4 *h 7 13 fiad 1 Sg8 14 8d2 Í^h5 15
S fd l í^f4 l6We7 Vi-Vz, Dydyshko-Shulman,
Ostrava 1998, or 9...5^1x17 10 0-0 ®k*5 II
Wc2 #W6 12 le 3 £}h5 with chances for both
sides, Cramling-Jonsson, Sweden 1994.
8...a5
88
'llie standard push o f the a-pawn in sucli
positions, preparing to senil a knight to c5. A j í
alternat ive is 8...ÍVa6 9 g4 atul now:
a) 9...wh8!? is interesting, makitig way for
...Í_\g8 followed by ...f7-í5.
b) 9...ÍV5 10 We2 c6 (I0...a5!?) 11 l>4
12 a3 cxd5 (I2...c5!? is unclear) 13 cxd5 ld 7
14 ftf3 Sc8 15 4^12 with advantage to White,
Poluljahov-'/ulfugatii, Swidnica 1999.
c) 9...1cl7 10 c 6 (10...4?V5!? 11 Wc2
a5) 11 Wd2 cxd5 12 cxd5 (12 ÍLxf6!? ¿Lxf6 13
4^xd5) 12...£k:5 with ccjuality, Agrest-
Arizmendi Martínez, Reykjavik 2(KH).
9 & f3
9 Ii4 might seem like an odd choice as
White has made a point of intnxlucing a line
that partly revolves around placing the pawn
on h3.1 lowever, it is not clear whether Black’s
the 8...a5 might prove irrelevant. Ix-t’s take a
look at how the game might continué -
9...#W> 10 Ii5 #V5 and now opening the h file
is premature due to 11hxg6 fxg6 12 Wc2 Wf7
with countcrplay 011 the f-file. White’s cjueen
should also keej> an eye 011 Ii5 as Black miglu
otherwise jtist take the pawn, 11 Wc2 4ftxh5!
12 Jk.xh5 gxh5 (intending ...I7 f5) 13 ÜLc3
14 Í\i»e2 Í5 being a g( xk I cxamplc, wh
Black has countcrplay.
'llie ap|>ropriatc follow-up is 11 iHf3, e.g.
a) Il...c6 12 ^ge2!? (12 Iixg6 fxg6 13
$\gc2, Kozul-Stevic, Solin/Split 2(K)1, and
now 13...l>5! 14 dxc6 bxc4 15 Wxd6 £kl34- 16
Sfcfl Ba6 with healtlnf compcnsation)
12...cxd5 (I2...b5!? with similar ideas) 13 Ü.xf6
&xf6 14 #W I5 Wd8 and the character of the
position is similar to that of l;arago-Rotstein
(Chapter l;our. Cíame 62), although this sce-
nario might be easier for White. Black is not
yet without prospeets of countcrplay as Ulere­
are chances on the dark sejuares, and the 0-
bisliop is prettv |x>or.
b) More tiniid but |>erhaj>s playablc is
11...£.<17, e.g. 12 &ge2 (12 .&e3!?) 12...£>xli5!
13 ¿Lxh5 gxliS 14 ¿.e3 (14 <5\i> 3 15 15 ex15 e4!
with countcrplay according to I lazai) 14...I5

I'. ÍLxc5 dxc.S 16 with thc casicr game
(or White.
0../^a6 10 ®g©2 &h8
Black prepares ...4hg8 atul ...f7-f5 or ..JÍU 16,
cxchanging dark-stjuarcd bishops. Another
plan involves
11 g4 /^g8 12 ite 3
Again White might consider 12 h4!? despitc
ihe lost tempo.
12...Í5 13 gxf5 gxf5 14 exf5 ?Ae7
Black has go<xl counterplay.
15 f6 & xf6 16 í^g3 fof5 17 ^xf5 SLx15
1 8 ¿e 4 Wg6 1 9 £ x f5
No better is 19 W b l j&lvf (Cébalo).
19...Wxf5 20 Wb1 e4
An ambitious move. An etjual position rc-
Milts after both 20....¿Lg5 21 Wxf5 Hxí5 22
tf/e2 Axe3 23 fxe3 £ k5 and 20...Wh5 21 We4
Hg8 22 #Y-2 H alX
21 <^xe4 fíae 8
2I...JuLg7 22<S\g5 and White inteiuls to boj)
into e6 ( ( ‘chalo).
22 £*xf6 Wxf6 23 * d 2 ? ?
I .osing. The only move is 23 Wc2:
a) 23...4hl>4 24 * c 3 ! Hc4 (24Jtx c3 + 25 #Mi5 9 4&cc2 f6 is dcfmitcly0 one that should
bxc3 %\2\ 26 * il2 £>xal 27 &d4+ He5 28
Sxal Cébalo - is decisivc, but 26...#W3 27
f\e * is just an edge for W hite) 25 Wxf6* Sxf6
26 (M M )H xc4+ 27 S&bl ^ g 8 (favouring Black
according to Cébalo) 28 a3 ® a6 29 JuLcl4 with
an edge to White. débalo also gives 27...4hc2
as l»etter for Black, but 28 Ü.d2 Ítxf2 29 JXhgl
Ii6 30 Sg6 Sfeh7 31 Htlgl is g<x k ! for White.
The M a k o g o n o v S y s t e m : 5 h 3
b) Better is 23...b5 24 We2 (24 cxb5 4^l>4
25 Wc3 Hc5 with initiative) 24...#ib4 (plan-
ning ...£k!3+) 25 0 0-0 (25 fid l? Hxe3ü 26
fxe3 Wh4+ 27 <&d2 Tl\2 is decisive)
25...^xa2+ 26 sfcbl £M>4 with ct|ual chances.
23...5xe3! 24 fxe3 Wf2+ 25 <¿d1 Wxe3
26 Wc2 Wf3+ 27 <Á>d2 Wg2+ 0-1
Game 39
Gy imesi-l. Bot vinnik
l e/ A viv 2001
1 d4 £>f6 2 c4 g 6 3 <hc3 Ag7 4 e4 d6 5
h3 0-0 6 iig 5 £la 6
lilis move is ven* popular nowadays in
many systems o f the King’s indian. Black’s
trump card is llcxihility, the a6 knight ahvays
ahle to lind a good posling when the situation
in the centre stabilises.
7g4
Iliis does not work propcrly with Ag5.
Ñor does adopting a l'our Pawns Attack ap-
proacli bother Black now that White has lost a
tempo on Ii2-h3. After 7 f4 W e 8 8 .&d3 (8 e5?
avoid, while 8 e5 9 I‘xe5 dxe5 10 dxc5!?
$YI7 II £kl5 £>xc\S! 12 &c7 c6 13 & xlX
W xl8 14 £k3 juLc6 offers Black ilecent com­
pensaron) 8...e5 9 fxe5 dxe5 10 d5 £}h5 I I
ftg c 2 15 12 W d 2 ÍV 5 with chances for both
sides, Arbakov Kurnosov, Alushta 2000.
7...c5
Black sceks to exploit White’s awkwardly
89
O ffbe a t King's Indian
placed pieces. Standard countcrplay in the
centre with ...c7-c5 Icads, not surprisingly, to
standard positions via a diffcrcnt move ordcr,
e.g. 7...c6 (7...c5 8 dS W e8 9 4^\ge2 - sec 7
& gc2 ) 8 W d2 (8 <5\ge2 9 d5 cxd.S 10 cxd.S
W Í)6 11 W d2 Víz-'/z, Ciyiinesi-KI Taller,
lauta 2(KH)) 8...c5 9 d.S 10 O cxd.S II
cxd.S a.S 12 <5\>c2 a4 13 £ ^ 3 £<17 14 £ c 2
W aS I S <5\ll! £ b 5 16 W xaS Sx aS 17 £<12
£xc-2 18 & xc2 with advantage to White*
Suba-Ubilava, Spain 1993.
8 d5 e6
O r 8 ..Jk S 9 ld 2 c6 10 ftge2 exdS II
^ x d 5 W d8 12 5 \lc3 #VI7 with an uncicar
situation in Agresr-I.avcryd, Swctlen 1998.
9 &d3
9...exd5
Also good are:
a) 9...^l>4!? 10 ! e 2 (10 I b l cxd5 11 cxd.S
He8+ 12 £ige2 with an excellent position for
Black) I0...cxd5 11 cxd.S W e8 12 B & d 7 13 a3
£W> 14 l f 4 W c7 with chances for hoth sities,
Suba-Kindl, I lospitalet 1994.
b) 9...£k:7 10 a4 h6 11 l e 3 exdS 12 cxd.S
13 He 1 íhb4 14 I b l 2 c8 with g<xxl play
for Black, (iyim esi-M .lvanov, Cíermany 1999.
10 exd5
'lilis position is similar to those discussed
earlier but instead o f 4^gc2 W hite has weak-
ened his kingside by pushing the g-pawn. A f­
ter 10 í^xdS le*6 Black is slightly Ixrtter.
10 ...We8 + 11 We2
After 11 $\ge2 Black has the manoeuvre
90
I I...ÍV I7 12 (4 ^ Iv l 13 £ h l W c3 with initia-
tive (I lazai).
11...^c7 12 0-0-0 b5 13 cxb5?
13 Wxe8 Jíxe8 14 4^13 bxc4 is the accurate
course, although Black’s position is nicer.
13 ..Jtb7?
I lazai j>ives the superior 13...4?lfxd5! 14
£VIS< ^xd.S IS £ c 4 £xl>2+! 16 * N|,2 We5+
17 <á?c2 £k.3 and 16 Wxl>2 Wxc4 17 £ h 6
Wc4+ 18 *<12 16 19 H c l £lb6 20 £xfH
W<1S(, with a practicalh' winning luail in hoth
cases.
14 íl c 4 a6?
14...5b8 l S W e3 a6 (I lazai) imptoves.
15 b6 fAb5 16 Wxe8 Ítfxe8 17 <^xb5
axb5 18 &xb5 &ec8
Black should try
J
l8...4hxd.S 19 lx e 8 Iíx c8
20 O £ .cS with some compensation because
W hite has problems devcloping the kingside.
19 &xf6 Ü.xf6 20 a4 8a5
20...£<I8 21 í\-2 £xl>6 22 £ k 3 (I lazai) is
a lcsscr, albeit uglv ovil.
21 <5tf3 ii.a 6 22 Ü.c6 Eb 8 23 g5 Ü d 8 24
Hhe1 Jix b 6 25 <5^2 c4 26 b4! cxb3 27
£>xb3 *g 7 28 <^xa5 á.xa5 29 S e 8 Hb6
30 &c2 ií.c4 31 Se3 1-0
Game 40
Suba-Motylev
[Kumaman I ¿agite, I iforic Non/ 2000
1 d4 <?>f6 2 c4 g6 3 ?te 3 Ü.g7 4 e4 d6 5
h3 0-0 6 ií.g 5 ^ a 6 7 ^ g e 2 !?

A liybrid, conibining different set-ups.
7...c6
( )íhcrs:
a) As usual W hite’s straille* set-up justiftes
sieering thc game to Modem Benoni territory,
e.g. 7...c5 8 d5 e6 9 $\g3 h6 10 Í jLc3 exd5 11
cxd5 ( I I cxd5 Hc8) 11..J3b8 12 & e2 SV 7
wilh an interesting stmggle ahead, Agrest
Sandstrom, Swedish Championship, I laninge
1997.
I>) 7...We8 8 <hg3 c5 9 d5 h5 10 & e2 ®Mi7
11 A e3 h4 12 íh fl 15 13 a3 $V5 14 £\12 Ad7
I S Wc2 #Va4 16 ® k lb l a6 17 £ka4 &xa4 18
h3 ÍLd7 19 £k;3 We7, as in Van Wely-
Damljanovic, 1'-lista 1998 is unclear according
io I la/ai.
c) 7...c5 8 lis 1)6!? (8...c6 9 W<I2 <5Y 5 10
exdS 11 exdS aS 12 A c2 a4 13 0-0 WaS
I I H fcl _0..(I7 IS f3 H fc« 16 0\\\ Wxd2 17
,Ü.\<I2 hS IK <?YI h4 19 % S £fo5 20 -5VI2.
Suba Nisipeanu, 'fusnad 1997, and now
20...jSLf6 21 Axf6 ftxf6 securcs ccjuality) 9
¿e 3 #k\5 10 Í3 (10 Í5g3 a5 11 A c2 h5 12
ÍLg5 Wc8 13 Wd2 ^ h 7 14 A c3 We7,
(»abriel-Jcimi, Xurich 1999, leads lo unclear
play) 10...a5 (I0...c6 11 Wd2 exdS 12 exdS
j^d7 13 g4, Agrcst-l-avcryd, Stockholm 1997,
and now I lazai recommcnds I3...a5 wilh
chances for both sides) 11 Wd2 c6!? 12 dxc6
bxc6 13 0-0-0 jüx6, Agrest-Sclimaltz, I lar-
plingc 1998, and now 14 Wxd6 #Vd7! 15
Wxc6 Jlc8 16 Wa4 ÍLxc4 is enough compen­
saron accordini* lo I lazai.
8g4
( )f course this is not thc only option avail
ahle lo White.
a) 8 £^ 3 1)6 9 ÍL-3 hS 10 -&c2 WaS 11 a.3
cS (given as unclear in I i(.O ) 12 .£¿13 cxd4 13
Ü.xd4 ÜLe6 14 l>4 Wc7 IS £kl5 ÍLxd5 'A-'A,
Aialik Van W ely, New York 1997.
1>) 8 Wd2 eS 9 13 W aS 10 d5 cxd5 11^IxdS
Wxd2+ 12 <&xd2 £ixdS 13 exdS t'6 14 ÍLe3
¿.(17 IS #V3 ^}\:7 16 a4 wilh a plus for W hile,
( ihernin-Zimmerman, 1lungary 1997.
8...e5 9 d5 cxd5
9...A i 17 | ( ) % ^ l ) 6 11 S b l exdS I2exd5
The M a k o g o n o v S y s t e m : 5 h 3
W aS 13 ¿Ld2 ^V-8?! 14 h4! fS IS hS fxg4 16
hxj>6 hxj>6 17 &d.3 and W hile hekl all the aces
in Atalik-Relangc, Cappcllc la Cirandc 1999.
10 cxd5
10...1.d7
Altcrnatively:
a) K)...Wc8 ll Í\g3 ÍLd7 (II.J? V 7 - ihe
c7-sejuarc is usually not thc Ixsi place for the
knight with this set-up - 12 W f3 £\I7 13 h4
b5? 14 £>xb5 &xb5 15 &xb5 Hl>8 16 ÍLc6
Hxl>2 17 Wa3 Sc2 18 Wxd6 wilh a big advan­
tage in Suba-Arakhamia Círant, Sevillc 1994)
12 A c3!? Wd8 13 a3 <&c7 14 H cl We7 15
A c2 Sfc8 16 h4, Suba Salamero Pelay,
Zaragoza 1997, wilh an initiative for White.
b) KL.bS 11 & g3 (1 1&xl>5? WaS+) I I...b4
12 £to4 W aS 13 b.3 j£d7 (I3...<5\-S 14 £ W S
W xcS IS H cl W»5 16 #13! was greai for
W hile in Suba-I'oisor, Rumania 1992) 14 í?M)2
Alalik-Peng, W ijk aan Zee 1997, and now
14...#\c5!? is unclear.
11 ^ g 3
Both sities have announced their plans.
White has gonc to great lengths to clamp
down on ...f7-f5 and he has buill a very strong
posilion in ihe cenire, while Black’s chances
are on thc t|ucenside.
1 1 ...W b 6
I l...Sc8 12 Wd2 <hc5 13 b4 <5\ i4 14 <^xa4
&xa4 15 ild 3 We8 16 0-0 A b5 17 H fcl W d7
18 * g 2 a6 19 a3 ^.xd3 20 Wxd3 S x c l 21
S x c l Hc8 Vi-Vzy Varga-Manik, Slovakia 1998.
12 Wd2 ^ c 5 13 & e 2 a5 14 0-0?!
91
O ffbe a t K ing's Indian
Black has an excellent position. 'llie more
flexible and superior 14 lc 3 is callcd for* the
point being that W liitc can sometimes use the
rook on the h-file. Gyimcsi-J.Ivanov, Andorra
2001 continued 14..JSfc8 15S e l (I5g5!?®ie8
16 h4 with an initiative) 15...a4 16 B Wa5 17
<¿¿{2 l>5 with chances for lx>th sides .
14...Efc8 15 l e 3 a4 16 Sfc1 Wa5 17 f3
b5 18 £>d1 «xd2 19 lx d 2 fte 8 20 &\12
ftc7 21 Sc2 TLab8 22 Sac1 b4 23 <hd3
b3 24 axb3 axb3 25 ^xc5?
25 Sc3 ®b5 26 Hc4 l í 8 is unclear accord­
ing to Motylev.
25...bxc2 26 &xd7 Sxb2 27 g5
Motylev gives 27 le 3 H bl 28 I f l Hxcl
29 Ix c l Hd8 30 &b6 Hb8 31 £k:4 S b l 32
ÍV 2 £M>5 with a big advantage for Black, who
plans ...£kl4.
27...<&e8 28 & f 1
28 £ ifl Se7 29 £>f6+ £>xf6 30 gxf6 lx f6
31 I d 3 with an edge for Black (Motylev).
28...5 . 7 29 SM6 + £>xf6 30 gxf6 l x f 6 31
ld 3 lh 4 32 Ste2 Eb3 33 lc 3 m>xc3 34
&xc3 Hxc3 35 &e2 Sa3 36 :Sxc2 h5 37
S c 6 Ea2+ 38 lc 2 &g7 39 *d 3 Ea3+ 40
&e2 fía2 41 <&d3 &a3+ 42 &e2 le 7 43
Sc7 lg 5 44 £ c 6 & e 7 45 Ec7 & f 6 46 h4
Sa2 47 &i2 l d 8 48 E c 6 &g7 49 &g3
la 5 50 Id 1 l e í + 51 &h3 lb 4 52 Sc4
& c5 53 Sc2 Ha1 54 le 2 Sh1+ 55 &g3
&b4? 56 S c 6 Sb1 57 <&h3 lc 5 58 S a 6
Sel
58...Sgl 59 &h2 S e l 60 Ha2 lf 2 61 *h 3
l e 3 62 wg2 is another very go<xl suggestion
froni Motylev.
59 Sa2 ¿ h 1 + 60 <&g3 le 3 61 S a 6 lf4 +
62 <&i2 Sh2+ 63 \frf1 Sxh4 64 Sxd 6 ?
fíh1+ 65 skg2 Sh2+ 66 <&f1 h4 67 Rd7
h3 68 d6 Exe2 0-1
Game 41
Psakhis-Hrbolka
C^ech Open, Pardnbice 2002
1 c4 <hf6 2 ftc3 g6 3 e4 d6 4 d4 lg 7 5
h3 0-0 6 lg 5 ^ a 6 7 iLd3
92
White’s niost natural and flexible move,
against which Black has a choice of plans.
7...We8
7...c5 is the subject of the remaining games
in this chapter.
8g4
Kmploying the stronghold on the kingside,
bringing to three the number of guards over
f5. I lowever, White usually plays the text after
the inclusión of ...e7-c5 atul d4-d5, when at
least the situation in the centre is more stabilc.
8...e5
With this particular move ordcr Black can
scriously consider switehing to 8...c5 9 d5,
when the g4 pawn appcars somewhat inap-
propriatc. Play can continué 9...e6 10 4^ge2
cxd5 II exd5 £kl7 12 f4 as in Tyomkin-
Vouldis, líuropean júnior Championship
1995, and now 12...h6 13 lh 4 í^b4 gives
Black an excellent position.
9 d 5 c6
Black wants to exchange pawns on d5,
place his knight on c5 and get the ball rolling
on the cjueenside with ...a7-a5 and ...b7-b5.
O f course, there are other moves here.
a) With 9...<á?h8 Black plans ...$^g8 fo
lowed by ...lh 6 and ...f7-f5: 10 4^gc2 4hg8 11
4^g3 (White should dcfinitcly keep the dark-
stjuared bishops on the l>oard, 11 Wd2 l>eing
enough togive White the more plcasant game)
11...F6!? 12 le 3 lh 6 13 lx h 6 &xh6 and
Black’s position is ven' difficult to break. 'llie
extra space does not play a big part here, and

White must Ik* careful as far as the dark
stjuares are con cerned. 14 J¡Lv2 Wc7 15 Wd2
S-^7 16 0-0-0 j&.d7 17 Sd g l 4hf7 was unclear
in Avrukh-Mohr, Pula 2000, while 14 Wd2
^ 8 15 4hb5 # c7 16 13 c6 17 <SV3 & b4 18
& b l cxd5 19 cxd5 a5 20 h4 Wd8 21 h5 g5 22
0-0 5V7 was ccjually interesting in Potapov-
Isupov, Russian Ijeaguc,Orcl 1996.
I>) 9...5VI7 10 £>Í3 Í5! 11 gxf5 gxf5 12 fig l
SÍ?h8 13 5Mi4 £VIc5 was fine for Black in
Paunovic-Kuprcichik, Cctinje 1992, while 10
a3 #klc5 11 ÍLc2 15 12 1)4 4£ixc4 13 4&xc4
Ixc4 14 &xc4 5}b8!, as in Shaw-Cherrington,
K-mail 1998 is unclear according lo N (70.
White should play 10 £ige2, when 10..¿?Vlc5
gives rise to ihe following oplions:
h l) 11 &g3 f5 12 gxf5 gxf5 13 &h\ (13
ex15 c4! or 13 # W 5 &xf5 14 ex15 e4, Kusla-
novich-Moskovic, Witley 1999, wilh an initia-
livc for Black in eilher case) 13...Wg6 14 ÍLc7
Sf7 15 exf5 Wh6 16 f6 &xf6 17 Áxf6 fixf6,
( ihcrnin-Tratar, Feldbach 1997, with chances
for both sides.
b2) 11& c2 f5 12gxf5gxf5 l .3Sgl <&h8 14
ÍLc3 W l7 with chances for both sides, Shcp-
herd-Stubberud, Port Hrin 2(K)3.
b.3) I lazai’s rccommcndation o f 11 j¿.b l!?
looks gcxKl, when W hite’s plan is lo follow up
with a2-a3 and l>2-b4 etc. After II...15 12
cxí5!? gxf5 13 H gl W fl an interesting middle-
gamc is developing.
10 foge2
10...^c5
The M a k o g o n o v S y s t e m : 5 h 3
An carly trade on d5 affords White more
possibilities,e.g. I0...cxd5 ll cxd5
a) Now after 11...5V5 White has 12 _5Í.b5!?
(12 A c2 a5 transposes to thc main linc), when
12...W c7!?, rc-entcring ihe pin is probablv thc
most circumspeci reply. Instcad 12...j2.d7 13
&xd7 was the course o f Solnikov-Gclman,
Russian júnior Championship, Moscow 1995,
when recapturing with the cjueen looks thc
most promising, e.g. 13...^xd7!? 14 f3 (14
#\g.3 a5 is fine for Black) 14...Sac8 15 Wd2
Wc7 (followcd by ...Wa5) 16 b4 #Vd7 and thc
knight is coming to b6.
b) 1 12 <S\g3 (12 .&xa6!?) 12...^c5
13 Ítc 2 a5 14 a4 Wd8 15 S b l Sc8 was un
clear in Cramling-Gallaglier, Biel 1994.
11 iLc2 cxd5 12 cxd5 a5 13 fog3
An alternalive is 13 a3 Jkd7 14 1)4 axb4 15
axb4 £to6 16 S b l Sc8 17 0-0 (17 &d3!?)
17...h6 18 JÍc 3 Sc4 with chances for both
sides, Soln-Bratovic, Blcd 2(K)2.
13...b5
I3...h6 is safer, and after 14 je.c3 (Sotnikov-
Provkin, Voronczh 1997) Black can then push
14...b5!?, with counterplay and similar play lo
thc main linc.
14 Wf3!
The point bchirul this blunt attack is that
Black has no good retrcat availablc for his
knight as I4...4ifd7 leaves thc b5-pawn unpro-
tecred.
14...b4 15 & x f 6 bxc3 16 &h5
After 16 bxc3 Black has some compensa-
93
O ffb e a t K in g 's ¡ndian
don for the pawn, e.g. l6.JKft>5 17 ,&xg7
&xg7 18 H bl Wc4 19 &b3 Wa6 20 Wc2 Hb8
21 Wxa6 J&xa6.
16...cxb2 17 Hb 1 £>e6 ?
A misiake in a complex position in which
Black should he doingokay.
a) 17—¿Lh6, and now 18 g5 (18 Hxb2 ÍLa6
19 % 3 We8 20 g5 &g7 21 &xg7 *xg7)
I8 .J% 5 19gxh6Wl>4f 20 sfcf1(20<&dl J¿a6
with an initiative for Black) 20...Wc4+ 21 We2
JbLa6 22 Wxc4 .ÍLxc4+ 23 ^g2 Hfb8 provides
cnough compensation.
h) 17...Wb5 is also effective, e.g. 18 -&xg7 have made alterations in ordcr to accommo-
Wl>4+ 19 * d l (19 St?f1 Wc4+ 20 &g2 Wxc2
21 .ÍLxí8 &xf8 and the investment is justified)
19...Wd4+ 20 & c l Ü.a6 21 Axfó H>4+ 22
4?d I Wd4+ etc.
18¿Lxg7
18 dxc6! fxe*6 19 4^xg7 is simple and
strong.
18...gxh5 19 & h 6
White has a very strong altcmativc in 19
&xf8 ÍV I4 20 W ft &xc2+ 21 &d2 *x fó 22
Wh8+ &e7 23 Wxc8+ *xe8 24 &xc2 etc.
19...£tf4 20 gxh5 <&h8 21 Sg1 &g8 22
<&d2 & a 6 23 £xg8 + ^xg 8 24 &xf4 exf4
25 Mc3+ % 7 26 h6 Wxc3+ 27 *x c3
S c 8 + 28 < &xb2 fíb 8 + 29 &c3 lxb1 30
&xb1 ií.b5 31 e5 dxe5 32 Af5 & g 8 33
d6 s*/f8 34 h4 & c 6 35 & c4 e4 36 &xh7
e3 37 fxe3 f3 38 ild 3 f2 39 <Á>d4 f5 40
<&e5 &a4 41 sW6 1-0
Can/e 42
Yermolinsky-Radjabov
h’ID B World Cup, / ¡yderabad 2002
1 d4 £tf6 2 c4 g6 3 Sta3 &g7 4 e4 d6 5
h3 0-0 6 A g S £>a6 7 ¿Ld3 e5
Normal and popular. By now it is clear that problems with the bishop and Black homed in
the challenge to the d4 pawn is dcsigncd to
gain control of the c5-sc¡uare for the knight,
while the possibility of secking activity on the ing Black with an excellent position. Perhaps
other flank with ...f7-f5 is another ingredient
to add to the mix.
( )ther continuations are:
94
a) White should emerge with an edge after
7...h6 8 Ae3 c5 9 d5 £k5 10 A c2 a5 i 1 Wcl2
st?h7 12 g4 c6 13 £>G £>g8 14 S g l <&e7 15
h4, Averbakh -Bondarevsky, USSR Champi­
onship 1951.
b) Again the M<xlem Benoni approach is
also possiblc, e.g. 7...c5 8 d5 e6 9 4ftG h6 10
JÜ.e3 #Y7 11 a4 Sc8, which was unclear in
Chernin-Barbero, San Bemardino 1994.
8 d5 Me8 9 Wd2
N.B. The actual ordcr of moves was 9 g4
£k:5 10 Ac2 a5 11 Wd2 Ü.d7 12 4^ge2 but we
date analysis of variations.
9 a3 is too slow, 9...5ih5 10 4hgc2 15 11
exf5 gxf5 12 00 < ár>
h8 sccing Black achieve
cijuality in Rapoport-Sollevcld, Apcldoorn
1999.
Instead White has 9 ^ge2, when Black has
thrcc knight moves.
a) 9...£k5 10 &c2 a5 II g4 ( II Wd2!i>)
11 ...£ttcl7 12 <&g3 &b6 13 We2 £d7 was
unclear in AgrestM il ov, l;rankfurt 20(K).
b) 9...#Mi5 and now instead of 10 g3 .&d7
II a3 f5 12 exf5 gxf5 (unclear), Potapov-
Stoumlxjs, Korinthos 2001 and 10 g4
(with compensation) White played 10 Wd2 in
Kozul Tratar, Portoro/ 1997. 'Hiere followed
10—f5 II exf5 (11 G Aú7 12 0-0-0 £>c5 13
$Lc2 f4 with mutual chances, Turna-Maslik,
Slovakia 1999) 11...ÍLxI5 I2ü-0®c5 13 A b l
a5 14 JjLc3 b6 15 g4 -ÍLxb 1 16 XXaxbl 5if4 17
£ixf4 cxf4 18 ÜLxf4 Jk.xc3 19 bxc3 í^e4 20
We3 &xf4 21 ttxf4 4ÉW3 22 We3 £>xbl 23
Hxbl Wxc3 24 fxc3 and the ending should
llave led to a draw.
c) 9...£wl7
e l) 10 0-0 is inaccurate, e.g. 10...1*5 11 exf5
gxf5 12 f4 e4 13 &c2 #h5! and White had
on d3 in Cramling-Gallagher, Bern 1992, 14
£k!4 Wxdl 15 fiaxdl $M>4 16 ü.bl £k5 leav-
14 Wd2 h6 15 £)g3 ®g6 16 ,&h4 is lxrtter.
c2) 10 a3 15 11 l>4 ( II G &ac5 12 ilc2
fxe4 13 fxc4 a5 14 b4 axl>4 15 axb4 Sxal 16

Wx:il #Yi6 with chances for both sides,
Kazhgalcycv-Sandc Ivdreira, üsbon 2000)
Il...f4 (I1...4hf6 12 W c2 c5 13 S b l, Ivanis-
cvic-Xic Jun, Belgradc 2(KK), and now 13...h6!?
14 j¿L12 f4 is unclear; 12 c5 mcrits attention)
12 O & f6 13 A xf6 & x f6 14 Wd2 » c 7
(I4...#A>8!?) 15 S e l (15 0-0-0, Ungurcanu-
Nevednichy, Curten tic Argcs 2002, should
luivc inet with 15...4£S>8 intending ...4ülxl7 antl
...a7-a5 with active play ilvat guaran tees at Icast
ct|uality) 15....&d7 16 #M)5 (16 íf\U followcd
by c4-c5 looks better) 16...ÍV8 17 Sc2 c5
(I7...c6 might be preferable) 18 tlxc6?í bxc6 19
)c3 Wh4+ 20 Sfcfl $Vac7 with an etlgc for
Black, Kazhgalcycv-Saravanan, Linares 1999.
I -ct’s rcturn to 9 Wd2
9...6d7
9...£kl7 is also tjuite playablc. Ilien 10
0 0 0 #\lc5 11#\gc*2 f5 was unclear in Casclas
Cañabas-Del Rey, Corunha 2<HX). This leaves
10 g4 ®klc5 11 & b\ ÍLtl7 12 &gc2 b5 13
cxl>5 .&xb5 14 ^xb5 Wxb5 15 £¿*3 with an
etlgc for Black in I jchmann-Nowicki, Ruhrge-
biet 1998/99. Note that 12...B 13exf5gxf5 14
Í\g3 here is tlubious for Black but I2...v^b4
followcd by ...a7-a5 with a further ...f7-f5
could be thc way to go as thc knight would be
difficult to tlrive away from l>4.
10 $\ge2 foc5 11 i ic2 a5 12 g4
I bis position can also arisc after 9 g4, thc
difference being that Black must also consider
W fí instead ofW d2.
12...b5
The M a k o g o n o v S y s t e m : 5 h 3
A theme that is charactcristic o f this set-up
with ...We8 and ...&tl7. After I2 ...*h 8 13 O
#\g8 14 ^ g 3 #V7 15 0-0-0 l>5 16 cxb5 f6 17
A e3 &xb5 18 h4 #>a4 19 ^xa4 &xa4 20 h5
&xc2 21 Wxc2 W hite achicvcd a slight etlgc in
Stcinbachcr-Piket, ( )stentl 1990.
13 cxb5 iLxb5 14<5^g3
( )thcrs:
a) 14 A c3 JLaú 15 ÍLxc5 tlxc5 16 & a4 We7
(I lazai) is unclear.
b) 14 íhxb5 Wxb5 15 $V3 Wxb2 16 S b l
Wa3 17 A e3 Sab8 antl again I lazai Ixlicvcs
both sities are tloing okay.
1 4 ..Jta 6 !?
15 0-0-0 £ifd7
Now W hite must address ...4hb6-c4.
16 iLh 6 f 6
I lazai pointsout that l6../ftb6? is a bluntler
tluc to 17 ÍLxg7 sfcxg7 18 4hh5H etc.
17 & x g 7 &xg7 18 h4 *hb6 19 g5 fxg5 20
Wxg5 Wd 8
20..JSxf2 2l h5 is dangerous for Black.
21 Sh 2
I lazai rccommcntls 21 ^f5+!, activating
thc passive g3-knight - 2l../á?h8 22 ^V*7 Sf7
23 £k:6.
21...Wxg5+ 2 2 hxg5 S f3 23 S d h 1 h5
Black parts with a pawn but all his pieces
will be veryy active antl his rooks will exert a
pressure <»n thc f-filc.
24 gxh6 + sí?h7 25 Hg1 S a f 8 26 4hd1
¿ b 5 27 £)f1 S 3 f4 28 <^d2 <5lc4 29 £fo1
Í^b 6 30 fAd2 Íie2 31 Hgg2 £ta4 32 Q\c3
95
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
¿d 3 33 £>xc4?l
After ihe superior 33 í^l>3 Black can retain
his slight edge wilh .33_Si.fl! 3-1ÍW S dxc.S 35
fig l HxG 36 Hxl2 K nI2 37 ÍV II Sf4 etc.
33...ílxc4 34 &d2 JÍ.Í 1 -+ 35 Itg 1 2xf2+
36 Hxf2 Hxf2+ 37 \Ve3 Exc2 38 2xf1
sí>xh6 39 Sf2 Exf2 40 -Á>xf2 Áh5 41 *e 3
g5 42 a3 a4 43 ^b5 g4 44 &xc7 g3 45
Áf3 <^lxe4 46 <^8 ¿h 4 47 <Á>g2 <5tf6 48
<^b6 st g4 0-1
Game 43
Ivanchuk-Kasparov
Novííorod 1994
1 d4 2 c4 g6 3 foo3 £g7 4 e4 d6 5
h3 0-0 6 ií.g5 c6 7 Ad3 e5 8 d5 foa6
Black has concernrnlcd on the cenire and
now prepares the slatulard ijucensidc counter-
play consisting o f cxchanging on dS followcd
hvy ...í'Y\5 and ...a7-aS ele.
9 £^ge2
9 a3 is desigtied lo ¡nconvcniencc ihe a6
knight hy expaiuling with l>2-b4. Chcrnin-
Kas|varov, Munich 1994 continucd 9...ÍVS 10
A c 2 cxd5 11 £>xd5 ÍW> 12 Ac3 (12
& xf6 13 ÍL I16 ÍLg7 14 £>xg7 15
j&.c6 with ccjuality) 12...ÍW15 13 cxd5 £M4 14
W B ? B 15 exf5 ¿.xf5 16 J&xB H xB (White is
alreadv in trouble here) 17 J¿.xf4r> ! ÍIx(4 IS
Wl>3 Wa5+ 19 * f | Safó 20 B e4 21 S e l
ii.d4 22 #Y*2 Wa6 0-1. Pcrhaps thc hest move
here is 14 T(h2 1>ut, if White has to go to such
96
*
leiigths, then he might have to consider play­
ing another variation.
9...^c5
Black has a wide range of continuations,
leading to some instructive ‘typical' situations:
a) 9...&M 10 A b l cxd5 11 cxd5 a5 12 a3.
#\i6 13 $Lc2 with a slight advantage to White,
who is rcady to push the h-pawn.
b) 9...cxd5 10 4hxd5 is of independen! sig-
nitlcance, 10 cxd5 #Y5 11 JuLc2 a5 transposing
to Kasparov-Kramnik, Cíame 45. Afier 10
#W I5 Wa5» 11A d 2 WdS 12 £>xfó+ & xf6 13
5V3 .¿Lg7 (Schulze-I^oukanov, lí-mail 2000)
14 0-0 White has a pulí, which leaves 10..¿?V5,
when 11 Jic 2 # V 6 12 J&c3 í^xd5 13 exdS
•5M4 14 í^xf4 ex!4 15 .Ílxf4 J$.xb2 was et|ual
in lile game Qicrnin-Zucger, Bern 1995.
c) 9...h6 10 ÍLe3 cxd5 (I0....&d7 II Wd2
&h7 12 0-0 #Ui5 13 ^g3 fo tt 14 &xf4 ex14
15 Wxf4 JÜ.e5 as in Jovanovic Watanabe, Bu-
dapesi 1996 provides enotigh compensation
according to Kramnik) 11 exd5. 'I he asyni-
metric recapture deserves attention and leads
to less tested and unclear positions. White can
play both 011 the cjueenside, trying to pul the
pawn majoriiv to l’ull use, and 011 the other
flank in order to generale an offensive against
Black’s king. Now I1...ÍVI7!? once again de
serves attention, but ksieski Cioemann, Bau-
natal 2001 saw insiead ll..JLd 7 12Wd2&h7
13 0-0 #k*5 14 JÜ.c2 a5 15 14 with the superior
prospeets lor White.
d) 9...Wl>6

d i) 1 0 ® k i4 *ra5+ 11 A d 2 W d 8 120-0 b5!?
I \ cxl>5 cxb5 14 &xb5 $Yxc4 15 & c3 fib B 16
#Vc3 (16 ÉLd3 5icc5 17 ¿.xaó ¿.xaó 18 4ftxc5
dxc5 with excellent play for Black) 16...^xc3
17 # kc3 0±c7 with a g(xxl game for Black,
Navrotcscu-Motylcv, Bucharest 2(X)1. White
has also done without castling, e.g. 12 ÍLg5 h6
13 Ü.c3 (Avrukh-Hcrraiz Hidalgo, Gala Cíal-
dana 1996) 13...cxd5!? 14 cxd5 £kl7 with
chances for both sides (,./uac5 is coming) or
12 b4 &\c7 13 g4 b5 14 g5 bxa4 15 gxf6 ® x f6
16 QScS cxd5 17 cxd5 A d7, Porat-Grigorc,
Budapest 2003, with a similar evaluation.
d2) lO S b l fa M I I 0-0 cxd5 12cxd5 A d7
13 & c4 Hfc8 14 b3 Wa5 15 a4 a6 16 S a l
Wd8 17 Wd2 with a pulí for White, Potapov-
/akharevich, Pcrm 1997.
d3) 10 b3 cxd5 11 cxd5 & c5 12 ÍLc2 Ad7
13 0-0 a5 14 a3 Sfc8 (Chemin-Poluljahov,
New York 1996) and now Poluljahov gives 15
JZbl! with an edge for White. Black also has
14...Wc7 15 a4 16 bxa4 &xa4, again with
a slight plus for White.
10 ÍLc 2 Wb 6
I0...a5 transposes to Bazhin-Fedorov, be
low (Cíame 44). K)...cxd5 I I cxd5 ( ll cxd5
steers us back to Kasparov-Kramnik) and it
sccms that this asymmctrical structurc might
again hold somc promise (sce the commcnts
t<> Ksicski-Cíocmann in note V to 9...h6,
above).
a) 11...a5 12 0-0 ÍL d l (12...Wb6 13 H b l
sfch8 14 a3 A d7 15 1)4 axb4 16 axl)4 &Ya6 17
( 5 with a slight advantage to W hite, whosc
pawn majority was starting to work in
Kazhgaleyev- Rclange, ( Lennon t-l;crrand
2003; I2...h6!? 13 .&c3 4ftfd7, intending ...í7-
15, is unclear) 13 £\g3 Wb6 (Kazhgaleyev-
/Ivang Xlumg, Shenyang 1999) 14 W f3!? with
the casier game for White. Instead 13...h6!? 14
ÍLe3 <5V8, unlcashing the f-pawn, looks likc
an improvement.
b) ll...W l)6 12 b3 & d7 (12...a5l? 13 a3
0M\I7 14 H b l 15 b4 £>aó and Black is do-
ing fine) 13 H b l a5 14 0-0 and now 14...Sfc8
15 ÍLe3 Wd8 16 Wd2 Wc8 17 a4 favoured
The M a k o g o n o v S y s t e m : 5 h 3
W hite in D/iuba-Blchm, Lubnicwicc 1998,
while 14...Wa6 was C^hristiansen-Cíallaghcr,
Reykjavik 1998. Then 15 a3!? a4 16 b4 ®Mx3
17 #ixa4 ¿.xa4 18 &xb3 J&xb3 19 Wxb3
Hfc8 20 & xf6 .&xf6 21 H fcl Wxa3 22 c5 is a
plus for W hite, with Christiansen evaluating
17 f4 cxf4 18 Hxf4 €ih5 19flh4 as balancee!.
11 0-0 cxd5
N ot ll...W xb2? 12H b l Wa3 13dxc6etc.
12 cxd5
12 jfcxfó Axfó 13 £>xd5 Wd8 14 1>4 (14
4^1xf6*- Wxf6 15 4/V'3 a5 wiíh a leve! game)
14...£W6 15 ®xf6+ Wxf6 16 Wd3 (Kasparov
gives 16 Wd2 1)6! with cquality in i¿CX\ but 16
W xd6??Hd8 spclls disaster) I6...fid8 17 Üa4!
W h4 (17..J¡Ld7 18 ÍLxd7 Hxd7 19 H fd l Had8
20 Hd2 Wc7 21 H adl b6 with a very slight
advantage to W hite) 18 a3 a6 19 H adl 1)5! 20
¿.1)3 (20 cxb5 -ÍLb7 followed by ...d6-d5 and
Black achievcs countcrplay) 2()...Ab7 21 f3
SLc() with chances for both sides in Sotnikov-
Motylev, I 7,katcrinburg 1996.
1 2 ...6 .7
I2...*fxb2!? 13 H b l Wa3 1 4 ^ b 5 # x a2 15
S a l (15 £ W I6 Wa6! 16 #M)5 Wa5 and W hite
does not have ful! compensation for the
pawn) 15...Wb2 16 H b l with ec]uality (Kas­
parov).
13 2b 1 a5 14 Wd2
Despite the numerous options the charac-
ter o f the position does not change:
a) 14 a3 (Cíaertncr-Neumeier, Cira/. 2002)
14...a4 is unclear.
97
O ffbeat King's indian
b) 14 <Á>h2 Sfc8 15 Wd2 ttdS 16 a3 a4 17
0 W ffi 18 g4 £ *8 19 &g3 #Y7 20 S g l &b5
with exccllent play for Black, Parkcr-
Timoscenko, Werfen 1995.
c) 14 1)3 Sfc8 15 a3 Wd8 16 l>4 axM 17
axl>4 £\i 6 18 ÍÍ..<I3 W<-8 19 Wd2 £Mi 5 2(1 H fcl
15 21 13 f4 22 ÍLh4 s5 23 Ü.I2 'A-Vz, Flcar-
Apicc-lla, Clichy 1995.
d) 14 ÍLc3 Sfc8 15 Í3 Wd8 16 a4 (16 a3
a4!? kecps White on his toes) 16...We8 17 j»4
l>5 18 axb5 ÍLxh5 19 Ht2 &.I7 20 4^3 Wd8
with j»<xxl play for Black, l> ctursson-Zuej>cr,
1lorien 1994.
14...s:fc8 15&h1 Wd8
Black wants to push thc h-pawn. Othcrs:
a) 15...A c8!? 16 f4?! cxf4 17 $3xf4 #tfd7
with advantage to Black (Kasparov), hut 16 f3
l<K>ks safer, with a level game.
h) 15...a4!? is interesting, when Black stands
no worse.
16 a3 a4 17 fíb el na 6 18 £>c1 Wa5 19
&b1
19 £Wa2 Bb6! 20 ^l>4 Sxb4 21 axl>4 in Neff-Secman, Tallinn 1997, when 17 Sa2
Wxl>4 with compcnsation according to Ras­
parov.
19...^h5
!9...ÍLb5 20 &xb5 (20 £kl3!?) 20...Wxl>5
21 ÍLd3 £kd3 22 í^xd3 Baa8 is assessed as
unclear by Kasparov.
20 Qiá3®b3 21 ^ e3 f6 22 &h 6 g5 23
ÍLxg7 <Á>xg7 24 <Á>h2 ® f4 25 h4 h6 26
£>b4 Saa 8 27 g3 <^g6 28 f4 Wc5 29 f5
V2 -V2
White could also try 29 We2!?, when Kas­
parov gives the position after 29...exf4 30 gxf4
&xf4! 31 Sxf4 gxf4 32 Bg1+ 33 «h 5
<5Yl2 34 Wxh6+ *e 7 35 Sg7+ *d 8 36 «xf6+
<á?c7 as unclear, while he considere 29 f5 Wxe3
30 Bxc3 í^e7 to be level.
Game 44
Bazhin-Fedorov
Kstovo 1994
1 d4 ¿A16 2 c4 g6 3 ^ c3 &g7 4 e4 d6 5
h3 0-0 6 &g5 £>a6 7 &d3 e5 8 d5 c 6
98
N.B. 'Pie actual move order was 8...£k:5 9
±c2 a5 K)Wd2 c6 ll ^ge2.
9 ÍAqe2 ¿Ac5 10 ilc 2 a5
Black rcinforccs the position of the c5-
knight, rctaining the tensión in the centre.
11 Wó2
O r ll a3!? cxd5 12 cxd5 (this time 12
5ixd5 is harmless, e.g. 12...ÍY-6 13 .&e3 ®xd5
14 cxd5 í^f4 15 5ixf4 ex14 16 Jwlxf4 Axb2 as
would have maintained the balance) I2...a4 13
ÍLxf6?! (13 0-0 transposes to the next main
game) 13...ttxf6 14 #\xa4 4^xa4 15 £ixa4
(Mikhalevski-Gulko, Beersheba 1993)
15...%5 16 g3 f5 17 <5Y3 fxe4! 18 &xc4
*M8! 19 ±c2 «b6! 20 Hbl 21 #e2
Bac8! 22 Ad3 Wd4 23 0-0 Axh3 24 B fd l
Wl>6 25 í^g5 with chances for both sides ac­
cording to Mikhalcvski in liCO . I lowcvcr,
22...Wa5+!? wins a pawn and looks lxMtcr.
11...cxd5
( )ther lines are also okay for Black.
a) I1...tfb6 12 0-0 Ad7 13 &c3 cxd5 14
cxd5 a4 15 Habí Bfc8 16 B ®fo5 17 *h 2
Wd8 18 a3 A fó 19 g4 £>g7 20 g5 Ae7 21
í^g3 V2-V2, johanscn-l -mka, Adelaidc 1990.
b) ll.Jk .d 7 12®g3cxd5 I3&xd5£lc6 14
4ftxf6+ jixf6 15 JLxf6 Wxf6 16 Wxd6 Hfd8
17 Wl)6 Wc7 18 Wb3 b5 with more than suf-
ftcicnt compcnsation for the pawn, Gcldyeva-
Kachiani Cíersinska, Istanbul 2000.
12 exd5!?
'I bis decisión to avoid symmedy is certainly

un interesting one. Ixrt’s have a look at the
plans available with this srnictiire. As was
memioned earlier W hite has two straiegies
here, namely cjueenside expansión or aggrcs-
KÍon 011 the other flank with f2-f4.
Note that 12 cxd.S j&d7 13 0 0 transposes
i<> the next main game, Kasparov-Kramnik,
uml 12 -&xf6 jlxf'6 13 & xd5 á.g5 14 W c3
ÍLc6 causes Black no problems. 12 íhx<l5 is
simply wronj» in view o f 12...£u'xc4 13 Axc4
#W 4 14 i.x d 8 ^ xd 2 15 & x il2 (15 & c7
$ W 4 16 ib c íS * x ffi with attractivc compen­
sation) l5..JSxd8 16 S h e l Í5 with an edge for
Black.
12...1.d7 13 0-0 Wb 6 14<¿>h1
W hite can also try:
a) 14 &g3?! Hfc8 15 A c3 Wa6 (l 5...a4!?) 16
Wc2 £Y*8 17 f4 fS 18 5üb5 (Bareev-Gelfand,
Linares 1994) and now 18...c4! 19 #YI4 $WI3!
20 1>3 (20 iLxd3 cxd3 21 Wxd3 Wxc4 favours
Black) 20...#M)4I? with the idea o f 21 ...£\d5! 22
cxd.S Ü.d4 or 21 ...a4, Gelfand preferring Black.
b) 14 H abí Wa6 followed by ...b7-b5.
c) Gelfand gives 14 -&e3 Wa6 15 b3 Hfc8
and the b-pawn is again ready for action.
1 4 ...^h 5
Black wants to play ...f7-f5 with a strong
centre. Obviously he cannot take on b2 as
14...Wxb2?? loses to 15 H abí Wa3 16 W el
$W> 17 A xfó A xfó 18 Hb3 » c 5 19 £>e4.
15 & e3
15 g4 £>f4 gave Black countcrplay in 26...fxe4 27 Hbg1?
Parker- Bjornsson, London 1994. After 27 Hxg7! < ¿?xg7 28 fxe5 fixc5
The M a k o g o n o v S y s t e m : 5 h 3
15...W a6?!
l5...Wl>4 16 1)3 f5 deserves a try, with an
excellent position for Black.
16 b3?!
W hite misses his chance, which comes in
the form o f 16 Axc5! dxcS 17 JÜLa4 with a
plcasant position, e.g. !7..JÍ¡Lxa4 18 í^xa4
Hac8 19 H adl with advantage to White.
16...Í5 17 f3 H ac 8 18 a4
18 g4 is preferable (on the next move, too),
e.g. 18...^f6 19 gxf5 gxfS 20 14 and the batdc
continúes with approximately ccjual prospccis.
18...b6
Right sejuare, wrong piece — l8...Wb6 is
corrcct.
19 H ab í H ce 8
Perhaps 19...f4 is an improvement, when
Black’s game looks the more comfortable.
20 g4 Ctf6 21 gxf5 gxf5 22 f4 ttc 8 23
H g 1 & H 8 24 Hg 2 £tfe4 25 £íxe4 £\xe4?
Melping only W hite. Black should play
25...fxc4 26 Hxg7 á?xg7 27 fice5 Hxe.S (not
27...dxc5 28 Ah6+ * h 8 29 % S Hf7 30 H gl
&15 3t &g7+ <¿>g8 32 H i6 ) 28 & d4, limiting
W hite to a mcxlest but dcñnitc Icad.
26 & xe4
'ITic exchange o f the passive light-squared
bishop for the c5-knight is advantageous to
W hite. Moreover the c5-knight defended the
d7-bishop, which is important in some varia­
tions.
99
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
(28...dxc5 29 &h6+ ¿h 8 30 % 5 2f7 31 S g l)
29 j¿d4 White regains the exchange and keeps
ihe initiative.
27...£g8 28 f5?!
White is in danger of paying the pnce for
his numerous inaccuracies. 'Iliis time hoth 28 cal structurc, ihus denying Black unnecessary
Sg3 and 28 .ÍLxl>6 retain the dynamic ecjuilih- counterplay. White maintains his territorial
rium.
28 ...6 .f5 29 &xb 6 &xh3 30 Hg3 £ef8
31 £}c3 Hf4 32 Ü.e3?
After 32 í^l>5 Black cannot play 32...Sh4
hecause 33 Wg5 Sh6 34 Wxh6 Axhó 35
Sxg8+ Wxg8 36 Sxg8l SÍ^xgS 37 Axa5 is
terrible, bul 32...Wd7 is a big improvement,
when White still has work to do.
32...fíh4- + 33 A g S £h5 34 &1g2??
I lastening the end, although 34 Wh2 e3 Ua6 16 Wa3 Í^f4!? 17 ?W 4 cxf4 with com­
followcd by ...e3-e2 should be cnougli lo de­
cide in Black’s favour.
34.. JLxg2+ 35 &xg2 WV5 36 We3 &h 6
0-1
Game 4 5
Kasparov-Kramnik
L as Palmas 1996
I d4 £tf6 2 c4 g6 3 ^ c3 & g 7 4 e4 d6 5
h3 0-0 6 &g5 foaS 7 &d3 e5 8 d5 c 6 9
^ge2 $\c5 10 $Lc2 a5
N.B. 'Flie game actually went K)...cxd5 11 12...1Ld7
cxd5 a5 12 0-0.
I I 0-0 cxd5
RemeirilxT that White can rccapture in
100
threc quite different ways from the diagram.
12 cxd5
'I he most popular and principlcd response,
the cliief aitu Ixring to retain what stability
there is in the centre by kccping the symmetri-
advantage and» by kccping his pawn 011 c4,
makes Black’s often dcsirablc ...f7-f5 difficult
to succcssfully achieve. O 11 the other hand,
Black has no weak poinis and can now look to
llic queenside for ideas.
a) After 12 £\xd5 4fic6 Black secks to un-
pin and tí» gain immediate counterplay. Win­
ning the d6-pawn promises W liiic nothing,
e.g. 13 4£lxf6+ iix fó 14 -&xf6 Wxf6 15 Wxdó
pcnsation according to I lazai. Instead White
should drop back to e*3: 13 Ac3 £\xd5 and
now 14 cxd5 ^V5 15 ?Y 3 b6 16 S e l J&d7 17
S e l 15 was unclear in Socha-Novacek, K-mail
1999, while 14 exd5 ftc5 15 Wd2 f5 16 Í3 b6
17 £k\3 f4 was good for Black in Cíaselas (Ca­
banas-Barón Rodríguez, l¿t Coruna 1996.
b) 12 cxd5 &d7 13 % 3 Wb6 14 b3 (14
S b l Sfc8 15 W tt #W8 is aboui even)
14...5fc8 15 S b l ÍV 8 16 Wd2 í5 17 &h(>
#V6 18 -&xg7 S&xg7 with exccllent play for
Black, Secl-Djukic, ( )ropesa del Mar 2001.
Black is looking to step up thc pace on ihe
tjuecnsidc with ...b5-b4. Other continuations:
a) 12...W1j6 l3 ± c3 (l3 Sb 1 - or 14 Sl>l -
leads us back to Ivanchuk-Kasparov, Cíame
43, above) 13_¿Lcl7 (not 13...Wxb2?? 1 4 ÍL xc5
dxc5 15 S b l Wa3 16Sb3) 14 a3 Sfc8 ((iraig-
Raijmaekers, Correspontlencc 1994/98) 15
S b l!? W i 18 16 b4 axb4 17 axl>4 £>a6 18 & d 3
We8 19 Wd2 ^ih5 20 H fcl f5 and Black has
counterplay. 'Iliis is the same idea as in I;lear-
Apicella in Ivanchuk-Kasparov (Cíame 43),
note V to White’s I4th move, but White’s
dark sejuared bishop stands on e*3, not the g5-
stjuarc.
b) I2...b5!? 13 &xb5 (13 a3 a4 14 Wd2
j¡Ltl7 with chances for both sides) 13...h6 14

\ (14 Axf6 Wxf6 with compensation)
I'!...í^fxe4 15 O Wb6 16 fxe4 Wxb5 and
Black has earned ecjuality.
13 a3
In thcevent o f l3SÍ?hl Black has 13...b5 14
I \ We8 15 a.3 b4* or 13...h6!? 14 A e3 1)5, with
hk\ play in either case. 13 a4 seriously com-
ptotnises the cjneenside dark scjuares* e.g.
K..W b6 14 *h 1 & h 5 15 g4 (Pyda-Socko,
Krvnica 1998) 15...h6! with an edge for Black.
15 H bl improves, with a level game.
13...a4
Directed against 14 l>4. Also possible is
I L.h6 14 & e3 a4 (I4...b5?! 15 M ) 15 Wd2
'M \l with chances for hoth sides.
14 Wd2
White has a wide rangc o f continuations:
a) 14 Í mc 1?! looks passive and therefore
gives Black nothing to solve, e.g. 14...h6 15
ÍLe3 Wa5 (15...1)5!? 16 Wd2 is interesting) 16
Ubi Kfc8 was Yennolinsky-Manion, Chicago
1995, given as unclear by Yennolinsky in
í .(.O. Black was also doing okay after
14...We8 15 #M c21)5 16&g3h6 17ÍLe3W b8
18 ^ a2 in Drecv-Kazhgaleyev, Lúceme 1997.
I)) 11 g4 is - for a change - unjustified here.
Potapov-Neumann, Pardubice 2002, contin-
ucd I4...H>6 15 Á e3 (15 * g 2 h6 16 Ae3
Wa6 with advantage to Black) 15...Wa6 16
í\g.3 JIfc8 with an edge for Black, while
14...h6!? 15 juLc3, RooboM^ane, Netherlands
.!(>1XI should also have favoured Black after
I r>...^h7.
c) 14 sfchl prepares a kingside attack. I lien
14...We8 15 Wd2 (Bareev-Arduman, I leraklio
1997) I5...^h5!? and l4...We7 15 Wd2 Hfc8
16 )3abl 1)5, Ivanisevic-Tratar, Istanbul 2003
are unclear, while 14...1)5!? 15 $\g3 h6 16 Ji.e 3
(Roos-Kilgus, Ansfelden 2003) 16...#Mi7 fol­
ieiwcd bv ...Wh4 looks nice for Black.
I lowever, the most popular choice is
14...«1)6 15 H b l and:
e l) l5..JSfc8!? 16 f4 exf4 17 í^xt'4 ÍV-8 and activity with (244 runs the risk o f neglccting
now instead o f 18 #Y13 with an advantage lo
W hite, Psakhis-Kuznctsov, St Pctcrsburg2(M)2
saw 18 « Í3 ?! f6!?, the forcing 19 #V13 í^xd3
The M a k o g o n o v S y s t e m : 5 h 3
20 &xd3 fxg5 21 Wf7> <&h8 22 Wxd7 £>f6 23
Wb5 « d 4 giving Black excellent countcq)lay
due to the threat o f ...#Mi5 and the weak dark
sejuares on the kingside.
c2) 15../&h8 16 ^Íg3 &g8 17 ÍLe3 Wa5 18
« i 12 (Psakhis-Movsziszian, Balaguer 1998)
18...b5 and 16 g4 £\g8 17 <S\g3 Wa6 18 h4
Wc4, Drcev-l;edorov, Maikop 1998 are lx>th
well balanced.
d) 14 f3 Wa5 15 g4 Ii6 16 &d2, Motoc-
Costantini, Plovdiv 2003 and now l6...Hfc8
with good play for Black.
1 4 ...«b 6 15 S a b 1 S fc 8
16 fAg3
In reply to 16 SÍ/hl Black plays l6...Ae8 to
facilítate ...^fd7/l1ien 17£h6<5Vd7 18^g3
Wd8 (18...ü.xh6 19 Wxh6 Wd8 is also okay)
19 &xg7 <&xg7 as in Mititclu-Planinec, Bath
1973 is given as ccjual in l:CX\ while 19 JÍLg5
«1)6 20 ÍU i6 ?! Wd8 21 % 5 A f6 ! 22 & c3
í^l)6 23 « e 2 -&g5! favoured Black in Yer-
molinsky-Kasimdzhanov, W ijk aan /ee 1999.
16...ttd8
16...H c7 17 Ae3 and the pin is unplcasant
(Kram nik).
17 ÍLh 6 & xh 6 18 Wxh 6 « f 8 19 We3 iLe 8
V2 -V2
Black has a good position with no weak
points, and an attempt by W hite to genérate
the dark sejuares after ...exf4. In fact this as-
sessment refers to all positions after W hite’s
I6th move.
101
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian

Summary
The Makogonov System should not cause Black any serious problems. Indeed Black has severa!
interesting plans available that can lead to complex play with mutual chances. In the case of ó
Jic 3 Black is able to drum up good counterplay wilh ...c7-c5 (Cíame 32). Meanwhile ...e7-e5
(Game 33) also merits further srudy. After 6 JÍ.gS both 6...#Mxl7 (Game 34) and the variations
involving ...c7-c5 followcd by ...c7-e6 and ...exdS (Cíame 36) are fine for Black, 'Flie most popular
plan is si ¡II ...£k6 followcd by ...c7-e5, which is discussed in Games 39-45.

1 d4 G)f6 2 c4 g6 3 foc3 ÍLg7 4 e4 d6 5 h3 (D)

5...0.0 6 iLg5
6 í^ge2 (Ga///e 3/)
6 Ae3
6...c5 (Gawe 12)
6...c5 (Gawe 13)
6 ...£)a6
6...®lxl7 (Gawe 34)
6...c5 7 d5
7...b5 (Gawe 35)
7...e6 (Gome 36)
6...116.{Cumie 37)
6...#c8 (Gawe 38)
7 ií.d3
7 g4 (Cerne 39)
7 ®ge2 có 8 g4 (Carne 40)
7...e5 (D)
7...We8 (Garn 41)
8d5 c6
8...We8 (Carne 42)
9 £}ge2 £>c5 10 ÍLc2 (O)
10...*b6 (Carne 43)
10...a5
11 Wil2 (Gawe -f'í)
11 0-0 (Gawe49)

5 h3 7 ...e 5 1 0 ...$ l c 2

102
 CHA PTER FOUR \

Averbakh System: 5 Jle2 0-0

6 Jlg5 without ...c5

1 d4 £>f6 2 c4 g 6 3 £>c3 ÍLg7 4 e4 d 6 5 cant practiiioners are Uhlnvann, I.Farago, Ka-

¿ e 2 0-0 6 iLg5 chiani (íersinska, Yakovich, Cs.l lorvath and
Although thegreat grandmastcr Yuri Aver- Pctursson (it was also played by Polugaevsky),
hakh’s contribution to thc dcvclopment o f while Bareev and Yusupov also tend to in-
nicas and analysis was undoubtcdly thc big- elude il in their armoury.
gcsi, thc variation namcd after him is not his In ibis chaptcr we w ill discuss those plans
invention. 'Ih e first game was li.Andcrscn- for Black that are not connecied with ...c7-c5
(iarls, I lamburg Olym piad 1930, but play (see Chaptcr 5).
iransposed to the M odcm Bcnoiii. Unfortu-
naielv this idea remained unnoticcd for over Game 46
iweniy years when, 1951, il appcared in two o f Yusupov-Tseshkovsky
Ivkov’s games. A fier his duel wilh W. Oviedo Kapidplay 1993
Niephaus (l;RCí-Yugoslavia Match), wherc
Ivkov met with some problems playing with 1 d4 f t f 6 2 c4 g 6 3 5}c3 iig 7 4 e 4 d 6 5
lilack, he used this system very succcssfully iLe2 0-0 6 ÍLg5
wilh W hite against Udovcic in the Yugoslav
championship.
The Averbakh System is dirccted against
Black’s counterplay involving ...c7-c5 and ..Al- ü ± ifi i u
15. In most variations in this system Black
m t
must refrain from the othcrwisc natural push
o f ihe e-pawn (6...c5? 7 dxe5 dxe5 8 Wxd8
XtxdS 9 ®kl5) or decide to inserí ...h7-h6, bul
lilis nudge o f the h-pawn serves to wcakcn
Black’s kingside and, after JaLf4/e3, W liitc can
slep up thc pressurc w ilh Wd2.
I he Averbakh has been much more popu­
lar than other systems discusscd in this book.
As for those strong players whosc relevant 6 ...^ c 6
gamcs are worth cióse study, the mosi signifi- 'lilis move is more typical o f systems such

103
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
as the Sámisch or thosc lines with ÜLg2 or
&d3. llie point is to cxploit the fact that
White’s bishop is alrcady committed and does
not protect d4. 1lowever, as we will see, Black
falls short of achicving his aim.
7 Wd2
7 d5 ¡s the knee-jerk rcaction to the arrival
of the knight on c6. After 7...£k*5 White has
tried more than one way of dcaling further
with the enetny knight. 'llie over-aggressive 8
f4 hits the knight again but is rather loosening,
and after 8...#Wd7 9 c6 Black obtains
countcrplay by attacking White’s exposed
centre. Occasionally the c3-si|uarc might
prove weak, e.g. 10 Wc2?! £\g4 with an edge
for Black in Ncyman-Tcichgracber, Cicrmany
2001. Another move is 8 ^12, e.g. 8...c6 9
^ xf3 f 10 A x B 11 0-0 a6 12 h3
Hc8 13 Hfd 1 cxd5 14 cxd.S b5 (Mirallcs-Pikct,
Carmes 1990) when 15 Hac 1!? is a shade Ix-ttcr
for White. l?inally therc is the immediate 8
íh G , when 8...í^xB+ 9 .¿LxB h6 10 .&c3 c6
11 0-0 (11 Wd2!? <&h7 12 h4 with initiative)
1l...Sc8 (Korchnoi-Kasparov, Madrid 1988)
12 Wd 2 favours White according to Ha/ai,
and «...1)6 9 J&.d2 £tfd7 10 Wc2 £lxO+ II
SV5 12 2 also failed to denv White
*
an edge in Delaunc-Karklins, Philadclphia
1992.
7 ...5 W
7...c5 is not to he recommended here lx--
causc after 8 dxcS Black has to takc with the
knight in ordcr to avoid 8...dxc5 9 Wxd8 Xíxd8
10 #V15, which saw Black doomed in Lundin-
Holst, Swcden 1999. Unfortunately for Black
after 8...£W*5 9 B d l White threatens c4-c*S.
I lowever, therc is a playablc altcrnativc in
7...h6!? 8 A c3 (8 ÍLxh6 &xh6 9 Wxh6 £kd4
is hannlcss for Black) 8...wh7 when ...c7-c5 is
then a gcnuinc possibility.
8 to3 a6?! 9 0-0 f6
Black’s posilion is rather passive.
10 .&h6 e5 11 &xg7 &xg7 12 £ad1 fíe8
13 We3 to a
13...cxd4 14 4^xd4 4^xd4 15 Wxd4 is
hardly promising for Black but at Icast White
104
has no direct threats.
14 dxe5 fxe5 15 c5
Only a bricf appraisal of the diagram |x>si-
tion is nccessary to cstablish that White has a
clear advantage, with more space, more active
pieces and the superior pawn structure.
15...6g4 16 cxd6 cxd6 17 Sd2 18
fífd l Sted4
Black is lacking one tempo in the ilcsirc to
successfully place a knight on d4.
19^xd4 exd4 20 % 3 ?«
20 Wd3 is stronger, when 20...jÍLc6 21 #Y15
K c8 sces Black struggling to hold on.
20...ÍLe6 21 ^d5 &f7 22 & f3 Se5 23 h4
d5 24 exd5 ¿V 7 25 &g4 Wb6 26 &e6
m s 27 b3 to5
27...4hxd5 28 Hxd4 Sxe6 29 Hxd.S securcs
a Icvel game.
28 ÍLxf5
28 Wg4!? l(H>ks preferable, with the more
pleasant game for White.
28...5exf5 29 Sxd4 Hxf2 30 Wxf2 £xf2
31 <&>xf2 h5 Vz-Vz
Carne 47
Eingorn-Chiburdanidze
USSR Cba///f)ionshipt Vallina 1980
1 d4 toe 2 c4 g6 3 <hc3 &g7 4 e4 d6 5
& e 2 0-0 6 &g5 c 6
Black wants to play ...a7-a6 and ...b7-b5
with the dual threats of chasing Whitc’s knight
away from the defence of the c4-pawn with
 A verbakh S ystem : 5 iie 2
Ye>u won’t be surprised lo see Black’s
counterplay in the diagrani position revolving
around the thrust of the b-pawn - the cjues
lion is when and how. In F.Porrisch-
Sinkovics, Hungary 1986 Black first inserted
8...116 9 .¿Lh4 before pushing: 9...b5 10 cxb5
aó, and now 11 axb5 12 e5 dxe5 13 fxc5
$\h7 is unclear. 8...Va5 9 W d2 a6 10 $Sf3 b5
(r’orintos-Stcin, Kapfenbcrg 1970) 11 W c2!? is
also interesting.
( )f course the meatv move is the immediate
j
H...l>5!?, jumping straight into Benko waters.
Noie that here Black’s approach appears en-
nrely justified thanks to W hite’s weakened
ilark st|uarcs caused by following up -&g5 with
ihe advance o f the f-pawn. Meanwhile W hite
musí also pay attention lo the defence o f e4.
Play has continued as follows - 9 cxb5 aó:
e l) 10 £>B axb5 11 e5 (1 1 1)5 &xe4 12
# W 4 Wa5-i- 13 £ k 3 Jk.xc3+ 14 bxc3 Wxb5 15
vV(2 16 jü.xf6 exfó with an edge for
Black) 11...1>4 12 £M>5 (Rugman-Sakaev,
HSSR 1987) 12...dxe5! 13 fxe5 ^ e 4 14 £ f 4
ÍM >6 isgreat for Black.
c2) 10 bxaó W aS 11 W d2 Axaó 12 ^ B (12
.¿Lxaó!? Wxaó with compcnsation) l 2...Hfe8,
Aguirre-Steinbaum, Villa Gesell 1971, and
now 13 ilx a ó Wxaó 14 V e 2 eó 15 Wxaó
Bxaó with exccllent compcnsation for thc
pawn. Black can also try l2...Sfb8!? here.
7...c6
An original plan. 'Iliis time Black prepares
lo push with ...dó-d5, not concerned about thc
0-0 6 iig 5 w ith o u t ...c 7 -c 5
reply e4-e5 because the knight can then jump
into e4, attacking two pieces. In the meantime
the text affords Black some flcxibility for,
depending on how W hite continúes, all o f
8...c5,8...Wa5 and 8...a6 will Ix- options.
Black has also played:
a) 7...c5 and now 8 4&B cxd4 9 ^ x d 4
10 B gives W hite the usual advantages associ-
ated with the Maróczy set-up, namely the
more solid pawn structurc and the greater
prcsence in the centre. 'Iliis tends to be
enough for a modest but long-term edge, e.g.
10...6 .-6 11 Ík-3 ^ x tl4 12 Ü.XÜ4 and now
12...^V-8 13 £Lxg7 ^xg7 14 0-0 favoured
W hite in Kramnik-Dcpner, Mainz 2001, while
12...ÜLcó 13 0-0 £k!7 (Kallai-Schiffer, Wics-
badén 1992) 14 ,&xg7!? <
á>xg7 15 f4 looks very
good for W hite.
b) 7...aó 8 S d l!? c5 9 & B cxd4 10 £tocd4
&V5 11 B #W 6 12 & c3 £ixd4 13 & xd4, Van
Beck-Ribshtein, Apeldoorn 1999 is similar,
again with advantage to W hite.
8
Continuing with development, W hite is
willing to allow Black his planncd advance in
the centre. A couple o f more aggressive
moves have been tried.
a) 8 f4?! proved unsuccessful in Colon-
Geller, I^is Palmas 1980 after 8...e5 9 fxe5
dxe5 1 0 d 5 £ k5 l l Ü .B W a 5 12S e l cxd5 13
cxd5 b5 14 JuLe3 b4 15 -ÍL\c5 W xcS and
W hite’s plan had seriously backfired. 9 dxe5!?
dxc.S 10 4hB improves.
b) After 8 h4 Black can transpose to
Browne-l'cdorowicx, Cíame 50 with 8...e5 9
d5 £ V 5 10 B 01* decide on 8...c5 9 d5 b5!?,
losing a tempo but judging that h2-h4 less
than helps W hite, e.g. 10 cxb5 aó (Nagl-Wahls,
Vienna 1991) 11 £ \ B Wa5 with compensa
tion. A 11alternative here is 9...h5.
8...d5 9 exd5
Taking this way is more flexible than 9
cxd.S cxd.S, when W hite has to take again bc-
cause 10 e5 #Y.*4 is fine for Black, e.g. 11 W e3
£>xg5 12 ^xg5 & b 8 (12...fó!?) 13 l>4 (13
0-0!?) 13...aó 14 0-0 £ k ó 15 a3 hó 16 V e 3
1 07
 A verbakh S ystem : 5 & e 2
huí lo cleny W hite a definile advantage.
I he picturc is also pretty grim for Black af­
ter l6...Wa7, when 17 S e l Sac8 18 W\>4 fol-
h»wed by $\c3 is very unpleasant for Black duc
lo thc problcms w ilh bis queenside pawns.
And 17 A bó! is even more effcctive because,
in cotuparison with 16 .ÍÜ 16, W hite can count
on a few tempi more! N ow l7..J¡Lxh6 is too
late, e.g. 18 W xlió #a5+ 19 & f l ! W d 8 20 <¿/g2
l>4 2l ^ e 3 B b 8 22 Bh 2 ! and W hite is ready
wilh S a lil, #M'l-g3, lixgó and g4-g5, a plan
against which Black has nothing uscful.
17..j&xg4!? 18 Axg7 <
¿>xg7 was Babu-
Thipsay, Indian Giam pionship 1987, and now
19 íhxg4! ^xg4 20 Wg5!, given by Thipsay &
Tilak, is strong.
17 &xd2 S fc 8 18 ¿hd3 &xd3+ 19 iLxd3
«3 20 Bb1 axb2 21 Sx b 2 ^ e 8 22 <&e2
22 £k\3 is strong.
22...f5 ?
( )pcning ihe g-llle is only grist to W hite’s
mili. After the superior 22...Sa3 (directed
against £>c3) 23 ÍU>4 Ka4 24 a3 A f 6 25 Bc2
Bxc2+ 26 A x c 2 B a 8 27 ÍLd3 & e7 28 <&c3
í V7 29 H c l S a 7 30 S b l a draw was agreed in
\Vagncr-Britton, I/m don 1994.
23 gxf5 gxf5 24 S g 1 <¿X7 25 <ftc3 £>f6 26
¿x b 5 H cb 8 27 h 6 i l f 8 28 Sgb1 fxe4 29
fxe4 ÜLxb5+ 30 Hxb5 fíxb5 31 Sxb 5 & g 6
32 Hb 6 S a 3 33 E c 6 ?!
A loss o f a tempo. W hite should play 33
&d3.
33.. J¿.x h 6 34 &xd 6 sfcf7 35 S c 6
35 S c6 meeis w ilh 35... ^Lf4 and Black has games, are:
counterplay, and 35 üLxhó Sx c3 36 Se6 E h 3
17 ¿U I2 £ixe4 ¡s unclear.
3 5 ...6 .d 2 36 & x d 2 h5 37 Sc7 + & f 8 38
ie 3 ? ! h4 39 <¿>f3 h3 40 d 6 ?
Missinj- 40 Ec8+ & e7 41 Hc7+ <¿*8 42
Hc6 í'ih.S 43 <
¿>’I2 £if4 with an cd¿»c for Black.
4 0 ...6 .8 41 He7+
II il7+ <&d8 42 S c 6 & h 5 ctc.
4 1 ...M 8 ??
So ncar and yet so far! 4 l...‘á?d8 42 Í5c7 Black should seek to exploil the disharmony
í'V-X ¡s decisivo.
42 S c 7 V2 -V2
0 - 0 6 SLg5 w i t h o u t . . . c 7 - c 5
Game 51
Korchnoi-Bologan
liri/isb I xagne, Wimingham 2002
1 d4 <5tf6 2 c4 g 6 3 & c 3 ilg 7 4 e4 d 6 5
iLe2 0-0 6 JÍLg5 h 6
Drivinj» axvay thc tlangcrous bishop is ob
viouslv
0 dcsirablc but o f coursc has its down-
side, most notably the fací that after a retreat
on the cl-h 6 diagonal W hite w ill doublc his
influcncc there with Wd2, attacking the I16-
pawn and causing a ccrtain amount oí poten-
tial inconvenience for Black in the proccss.
Additionally, the pawn cover in front o f
Black’s king has also been irrevocably - albcit
only slightly - damaged.
7 A e 3 fabó7
Altcrnativcs other than 7...c5?! and 7„.c5,
which are dealt with in the following main
a) 7...£>a6 8 W d2 <&h7 and now 9 h4!> is
rather blunt but quite interesting. A feasible
continuation is 9...c5 10 d5 íhg4 11 j$.xg4
ÍLxg4 12 O & d7 13 h5 g5 14 & g c2 £ k 7
(Moskalcnko-Volke, Círoningen 1990) when
15 Wd.3!? favours W hite, e.g. !5...Sb8 16 f4 g4
(16...gxf4 17 & x f4 & I 18 18 «fe3 <&>h7 19 c5)
17 0-0 b5 18 e5+ S&gS 19 l>3 bxc4 20 bxc4.
After ihe more consentí ive, unambitious 9 Ii3
o f W hitc’s forces wilh 9...e5 10 d5 ^ c5 !?, e.g.
II R as in Sanjuan Morigosa-Mozo Díaz,
113
 A v e rb a k h S y s te m : 5 A e 2 0 -0 6 iLg 5 w ith o u t ...c 7 - c 5
lie for a slight disadvantage in thc case o f
I l...*h 7 14 0-0 ¿Lb7 15 h3 &ge5 16 £>xc5
$W\5 17 A c3 S c 8 18 h3 b5 19 f4 or jump
ímo thc complex ilies o f 13...£ic5 14 c5 ÍL h l
ele.
I>) 13 A d4 and now 13...£\gf6!?, inducing
c4 c5 (scc thc notes lo W hitc’s 12th move,
nl)ovc), or 13...c5 14 J&c3 J&b7 15 0-0 £klfó
16 <5}cl £ ke3 17 Wxe3 with chances for lx>th
sides (Black has thc bishop pair in rcturn for
«lie wcakncss on d5).
13 & xh 6 £>c5
After both 13...#W 4 14 í^xc4 Axc4 15 h4
^16 16 h5 and 13..JLxe4 14 h4 S c 8 (14...&V5
15 Ii5 gxhS 16 g4) 15 h5 W hite has strong
ihrcatson thc kingside.
14 ií.xg7 <
¿>xg7 15 í^g5! <^cxe4 16
^cxe4 Axe4 17 $)xe4 ^ x e 4 18 Wd4+
Ít f 6 19 g 4 e 5
Black sacrifices a pawn in thc hope o f
diumming up an initiative in the ending. After
19...<á?g8 20 h4 W<I7 21 Ii5 W h ite has a clear
advantage.
20 Wxd 6 W xd 6 21 S x d 6 b5 22 h3 Hfd 8
22...Sfc8!r' 23 l>3 ^ e 4 looks preferable.
23 Hxd 8 Sx d 8 24 cxb5 axb5 25 Axb5
4ttJ5 26 a4 S b 8 27 <&d2 fac7 28 <¿>c3
4\xb5+ 29 axb5 Sxb5 30 b4 f5 31 H g 1
31 <
Á>c4 Sl>8 32 gxf5 gxf5 33 b5 is the sim­ dealt with in ihe nexi main game, Onischuk-
ples! roulc to thc full point.
31...5Ü6 32 <Á>c4 Hb 8 33 b5 e4 34 gxf5
gxf5 35 f4 ?!
Again missing thc casicsi continuation -
iliis lime 35 S b l stteS 36 l>6 wins very easily.
35...5c8-f ?!
Black must try/ 35...cxf3,9 when some accu-
raey is rccjuired o f W hite in order lo carn thc
win: 36 H fl & e 5 37 S x B & e 4 38 51I I f4 39
JLvS f3 40 b6 &e.3 41 <á?c6 Sc8+ 42 <¿?d6
H .IH i 43 *á?c7 S d 2 44 S b l Sc2 + 45 <&>d7
H .I2 I 46 * c 7 12 47 b7 f lW 48 H x fl S l.2 49
1)4 Hxl>7+ 50 ele.
36 Ú¿d5 S c 2 37 b6 Hd2+ 38 * c 6 Hc2+
39 Ad7 Hd2+ 40 * c 7 Hc2+ 41 ¿*b8 e3
42 h4 S c 4 43 b7 S x f4 44 h5 e2 45 * c 7
Ilc4 + 46 * d 6 S b 4 47 * c 6 Sb 3 48 h6
Sc3 + 49 ^ Hb3+ 50 si>c7 Sc3 + 51
<¿>d8 Sd3+ 52 * e 8 Hb3 53 h7 e 1 « + 54
Hxe1 ¿>g7 55 Se7 + <&h8 56 * d 8 f4 57
* c 8 f3 58 b8W 1-0
Gawe 52
Keene-Sigurjonsson
líaslings 1975176
1 d4 £if6 2 c4 g6 3 foc3 k.%1 4 e4 d6 5
& e 2 0-0 6 ¿ g 5 h6 7 ií.e3 c5 ?!
In reply to the pusli o f the c pawn d4-d5 is
a standard response, but the insertion o f 6 ...I16
and 7 ÍLe3 gives W hile two logical and strong
continuations in 8 dxc5 and 8 c5!, which is
Forstcr.
8 dxc5 Wa5
8...dxc5 and now 9 e5 W xdl H (9...£tfd7!?)
10 S x d l íhg4 11 j£.xc5 # W 5 12 £kl5 ^ lx :6
13 f4 &g4 14 h3 S¥ 6 15 & G & f5 16 £V2,
Kachiani Gersinska-l’eng, Azov 1990, and 9
Wxd8 Sxd8 10 &xc5 £fc6 11 b6 12 A a3
a5 (Yakovich Blccs, Ostend 1993) 13 c5! 4^g4
I4 ^ d 5 are gcx>d for White.
9Ad2
9 Wd2 dxc5 10 .&xh6 leads to sharp play
10...Sd8 11
with chances o f lx>th sides, e.g.
W c3 .&xh6 12 Wxh6 # W 4 13 Sel £k:6 14
^ f3 #VI4 15 h4, Scirawan-Timman, Tilburg
1990, which HCX) gives as unclear.
9...W xc5
Better than 9...dxc5 10 e5, and now:
115
 A v e r b a k h S y s t e m : 5 $Le2 0 - 0 6 $ L g 5 w i t h o u t . . . c 7 - c 5

Bl.u k should have played 23....&xc3! 24 Sxc3
flxc3 25 bxc3 Wxa3 26 Sxb6 W al+ 27 H fcl
Wxel + 28 ¿hxc\ $ic6 29 Sxb7 Ha3 with a
ph »bable draw.
1 1 ...<5^6
O r 1 L ..& X B (llJ£ flx l7 12 A e3 Wa5,
l Ihlinann-Boudy, Cien fuegos 1973, and now
I t h3!? ilx B 14 JÜLxB with advantage to
White) 12 ü .x B 4&có (I2 ...W xc4? 13 e5) and
n<»w:
;.) 13 A c2 W a 5 14 *|,1 (|4 £k!5!? Wd8 15
$W 6+ exfó 16 JÍLc3 looks strong) 14...n;ic8
15 fib1 (Petursson-Markzon, Linares 1994)
wilh a pulí for W hite - Gulko.
b) 13 b3 #M 4 (13...®Bi7 14 S e l with ad­ deserves attention, e.g. ló H a c l (16 S f c l £\g5
van iage to W hile) 14 Hcl £ ix B+ 15 W x G
Hle8 16 We2 (16 £kl5!? is good for W hite)
16...s&h7 (Petursson-L'edorowic/, New York
1992) 17 ¿k.15 with an edge for White.
12 ¿Le3 W a5 13 Wd2
13 #V I2 A x e2 14 V x e 2 S fc 8 15 S f d
(Tukmakov-Dam, Lugano 1989) 15...Wh5!
and Black does not have any problems.
13...5fc8
13...&1V7!? is obvious bul interesting, e.g. 14
HacI Sac8 15 b3 a6 16 h3 A x B 17 A x B b5,
oí 14 h3 A x B 15 & x B Hfc8 16 & e2 ®k?5 17
1)3 b5 as in Gmcnberg-Vogt, I jcipxig 1973,
with counterplay in both cases.
14 b3
After 14 JSi.xh6 Black easily regains the
pawn and obtains an excellent position, e.g.
14...6x B 15 A x B £ V 5 16 ÍLe2 €\xc4 17
.&xc4 Sxc4 18 S a e 1 ÜLxh6 19 Wxh6 Sac8
with chances for both sides. W hile should
definitely prefer this lo 15 gxf3 W h5 16 ÍLf4
£\:5 with compensaron, or I5..j£.xh6 16
Wxh6 4^V14 17 S f c l We5 with an initiative for
Black.
1 4 ...6 .f3
14...&IV7 15 fía e l a6 16 h3 ÜbcB 17 & x B
b5 18 e*5 dxe*5 19 $\\5 #xd2 20 £>xfó+ & xf6
21 Axd2 b4 Vi-lAy Rcxlriguez (Jarcia-M oreno
(harnero, Navalmoral de la Mata 2000.
15 & x f3 í^g4
HCO gives this position as ecjual bul mat-
ters are not so simple. Por example I5...4hh7!
17 &xg5 Wxg5 18 Wxg5 hxg5 19 S a b l £¿14
with advantage to Black ) 16...$lg5! 17 ÍLg4
(17 Ü.xg5 J&.xc3 18 Hxc3 Wxg5 19 Ífxg 5 hxg5
w ilh a level game, or 17...hxg5 18 S f d l ü e S
w ilh chances for both sides) 17...SfH (intend­
ing ...!7-f5) 18 B (18 &xg5 Wxg5 19 Wxg5
hxg5 wilh ec|uality) I8...Í5 19 exf5 gxf5.
16 & xg4 ÍLxc3 17 W c2?!
17 V d 5 l is awkward for Black, as was
demonstrated in (Jarcia Vicente-Kouvatsou,
Istanbul 2(H)0: 17.jft.xal (17..JSc7 18 ®xa5
íhxa5 19 S a d l) 18 J¡Lxc8 Sxc8 19 Wxa5
&xa5 20 S x a l £Y*6 (20...a6 21 J&.xh6 b5 22
cxb5 axb5 hardly helps the defender) 21 & xh6
and Black was in dire straits.
1 7 ..Jb ca1 18 A x c 8 S x c 8 19 S x a l $\e5
20 W e2 h5 21 h3
21 S d l !? a6 22 W b2 wilh a slight edge.
2 1 ...a 6 22 8d1 Wb4 23 iLd4 £>c6 24
Aa1 b5 25 Wb2 f 6 26 a3 W a5 27 cxb5
axb5 28 W e2 W xa3 29 Wxb5 W c5 30
W xc5 V2 -V2
Game 53
Onischuk-Forster
World U16 Champiomhipy Mama/a 1991
1 d4 £rf6 2 c4 g 6 3 £ic3 A g 7 4 e4 d6 5
& e 2 0-0 6 A g 5 h6 7 Ü.e3 c5 8 e5
W hite steers the game to an ending in
which he hopes to secure and improve an

117
 A v e r b a k h S y s t e m : 5 $Le2 0 - 0 6 & g 5
a) 13 £\f3 £ c 6 14 b3 S fd 8 15 0-0 Sd 7 16
0V<I A f5 17 & xc5 ÍLxe5 18 Hxd7 ÜLxd7 19
Ild l Hd8 20 £V15 with slightly better
chances for W hite, Petursson-Piket, W ijk aun
/.ce 1990.
b) 13 b3!? antl now 13..JÜLf5 (Seifert-l;eige,
Wmterberg 2<X)2) 14 ÍLxe7 Hfe8 15 A fó H a c S
16 J&xg7 <
¿*>
xg7 17 £\*3 is awful for Black and
besi replaced with 13...A có , e.g. 14 £fc7 (14
f'll? offers W hite chances o f an advantage)
M .JSad S 15 $Yxe6 fxe6 16 $ if3 1)6 17 J¿e3
(I7 ...^ b 4 18 0-0 with an edge for
W hile in Alburt-Tukmakov, Odessa 1974) 18
A.xO ÍLc3+ 19 * e 2 £kl4+ 20 &xd4 fixckt
itnd W hite did not even trv to realise his better
4
|>;i\vn structurc in Khalifm an-Yurtaev, Riga
l ’)KS, ilic players agreeinga draw.
13...£)g4
14 h3
( )r 14 A fB 15 £>c2 ( 15 h3!? # V 6 16 g4
ÍU 2 17 7Xd2 w ith a pulí for W h ite) l5 ..JSfd 8
(lux 15..JÜ.xb2? 1 6 H 3 & R » I7 fid 2 c tc .) 16 h3
17 * h 7 49 Ha8 Sc1 + 50 * h 2 * h 6 51 Hh8
% 3 (17 g4!? A c 2 18 <SW7+ £>xe7 19
SxdK-l- Hxd8 20 .&xe7 w ith a plus for W hite,
While 17 £lxe7+ 4^ xc 7 18 3xd8+ £ x d 8 19
,ÍLxe7 H e8 20 ÍLx f6 Íb c f6 21 b3 ¿.1)1 22 <Á>d2
ix a 2 23 <&cl iÜLbl 24 £ k l3 & x d 3 25 skxd.3
1)6 is only a shade worse for Black) I7 ...A c2
IK Hd2 (18 -SW 7+!? & x e 7 19 Sxd8+ &xd8
2()J2Lxc7) 18...A b I I9 b 3 ^ x d 5 2 0 cx d 5 ^ .c3
(IW eev-Yurtaev, M oscow 1990) w ilh ec|ualily
iiccording to /
14...<Af6 15 ÜLf3 ÍLf5
w ith o u t ...c 7 -c 5
Both I5...£\l7? 16 A xc7 He8 17 $ Y 2 and
15...6xd5 16 cxd5 & b 8 17 <?V-2 Mc8 18 ÍLa3
§X\1 19 <5\14 a6 20 Normantas-Strand,
Correspondence 1986/91, are much worse.
16^)e2
More effeclive than 16 ¿»4 $Lc2 17 S il2
£>c-4 18 Axe4 (18 É.x c7 !? £>xd2 19 *x d 2
A b l 20 iLxfó <á>xfó 21 & c3 ÍLxc3+ 22 * x c 3
with advantage to W hite) l8 ...Jlxc4 (Black has
obtained the two bishop pair) 19 K lih 2 S fd 8
(19...Sfc8!? with equality) 20 Sh e2 A b I (Bai
Min-Chen De, China 1987) 21 _&.xe7 with
chances for both sities.
16...11c2?!
16...5fil8 transposes lo 14 JÍLf3, above.
17 Hc1
17 Hd2 £>e4 18 ÍLxe7 <^xd2 19<¿?xd2 ÉLf5
20 g4? V2-V2, 1'.ngel Milvydas, Correspondcnce
1988/93. Instead the big improvement 20
JjLxf8 & xfft 21 b.3 puts the onus 011 Black to
justify ihe pawn sacrifice.
17..JiLd3 18 * f 2 <5te4+ 19 &xe4 ií.xe4
20 fag3 ii.d3 21 b3 Hfd8 22 £>xe7+
S W 7 23 Axe7 He8?!
23...5d7 is better.
24 ÍLc5 Sac8 25 i¿.e3 h5 26 Shd1 Scd8
27 Hd2 h4 28 ^ e 2 & e4 29 Sxd8 Sxd8
30 ftg l &b2 31 He1 ¿Lc3 32 Sf1 a5 33
$)f3 ÍLf6 34 S e l & c3 35 ÍLd2 & xf3 36
A xc3 A c6 37 Be2 a4 38 b4 b5 39 cxb5
J&.xb5 40 He5 Hd3 41 S c5 f5 42 & e5
ÍLd7?!
42..JSd2+!? is less accommodating.
43 b5 iLxb5 44 Sxb5 Hd2+ 45 *g 1
Hxa2 46 Hb7 a3 47 Ha7 S c 2 48 Sxa3
mate
Game 54
Yakovich-Zakharevich
Petror Memoria!, S t Petersburg 1998
1 d4 £)f6 2 c4 g6 3 £lc3 Ag7 4 e4 d6 5
¿Le2 0-0 6 &g5 h6 7 SLe3 e5 8 d5
I laving forcetl the bishop back to e3 and
achieved ...e7 e5 Black has liad to pay the
1 19
Offbeat King's indian
pricc of giving White the tempo-gaining Wd2
sooner or later. In the meantime a standard
King’s Indian central pawn confignration has
lieen crcated, and with the bishop no longer
011 gS Black can entertain the often thetnatic
...c7-c6 followed by the trade on d5 without
having to wcigh up the implications of White
recapturing with the knight.
White (dc|x,*nding on Black’s reaction) has
two different plans. ( )ne involves generating a
kingside attack by launching the ‘g’ and h-
pawns while the other is a case of stabilising
the situation on the kingside in order to step
up the pace on the cjueenside. I lowever, in
most instances Black is the one looking for
activity on the cjueenside.
Note that 8 dxe5 cannot be recommended
as after 8...dxe5 White gains nothing from
either keej'jing the tensión in the centre with 9
¿ftlx!7 10 5Y12 Se8 110-0 12 £ll>3
c6 13 Wxd8 Sxt 18 14 H #ie6 15 S fd l Se8 16
Sd2 h5 with a level game, Damljanovic-
Kljako, Trnava 1982, or heading for the end-
ing with 9 Wxd8 Hxd8 10 $k!5. '1‘hen Black
has two options. I0...íha6 11 0-0-0 (Agzamov-
Kuprcichik, Yerevan 1982) 11...ÍLe6!? looks
fine for Black because 12 ^xf6+ $Lx\6 13
ÜLxh6 can be met with 13...£k5 14 f3 g.S 15
h4 gxh4 16 ÜLc3 &.c7. 'Hiere is also I0...£txd5
11 cxd.S c6 12 JS.c4 cxd.S 13 _§.xd5 £k6 14
j*.xc6 bxc6 when the bishop pair% superior
development and the initiative on the cjueen-
side more than compénsate for Black’s worse
120
pawn structure. I;or example 15 H cl ii.e6 16
b3 a5 17 Sxc6 a4 was eejual in Cíarda-Barbera
Kstelles, Spain 1992, and I5í^f3.&c6 16#kl2
a5 17 <&e2 Sdl>8 18 b3 a4 19 Hhcl axb3 20
axb3 Sxal 21 Hxal ii.xb3 22 í^xb3 Kxb3 23
S e l was agreed drawn in Dokhoian-
Seredenko, Aktjubinsk 1985.
For 8...c6 see Campbell-Roach, Cíame 56.
9^d2
I;or 9 h4 see the next main game.
9 ..fA c 5
Note that this jx>sition could have arisen
after 8...í^lxl7 9 Wd2 í'Y.S. Other continua-
tions also fail to give Black ecjuality.
a) 9...h5 10 0£\h7 (10...&c5 11 l>4 4fta6 12
a3 $\h7 13 Hcl f5 14 ex15 gxf5 15 f4 was the
unfortunate course of Cíamota-Mirzoeva,
Moscow 1997, which shouldn’t be rejK-atecl by
Black) 11 0-0-0 Wc8 (11...Af6 12 g3 ÍV 5 13
h4 and the storm clouds already hovered over
Black in Berg-I lolst, Denmark 1991) 12 h4 f5
13 í^h3 f4 14 ÍL(2 with a big advantage to
White in Ryskin-Mrva, Bratislava 1993.
b) 9...&h7 10 f3 <5VS (10...£d7 11 g4 £k5
12 h4 Í^e8 13 h5 g.S 14 ?}h3 with advantage
to White, Santolini-Ccschia, Barcelona PG
1981) 11 iLcll a5 12 &c2 &cI7 13 £lgc2 We8
14 g4 and White was better in Polak-Kujiruks,
Stockerau 1992.
10 f3 a5
I0...£>h5 II 0-0-0 (II &d\ £if4!, or ll
JwLxh6? Wh4+ etc.) Il...&h7 12 g3 helps
 A v e r b a k h S y s t e m : 5 Sle2 0 - 0 6 & g 5
W hiic. l ;or example l2 .J* e 7 13 fie l a5 (Ubi-
liiva-Yermolinsky, Tela vi 1982) 14 J&xc5! is a
rharactcristic o f this kind o f position, afford-
Ing W hite an advantage in the centre after
14...dxc5 15 f4! @Sf(> 16 ^ f3 . 'Iliis theme also
emps up after 12...We8 13 S e l J&.d7 (Stuart-
(iollogly, New Zealand 1984) 14 Axc5! (14
¿.d i with advantage to W hite in Gaprindash-
vili-l jcvitina, Lvov 1983) 14...dxc5 15 f4 £kf6
|6 í^ B and 12...a6 13 A xc5 dxcS 14 f4 €if6
15 # IB , which was very poor for Black in
Liikin-Ignatiev, St Pctersburg 2<K)0. Linally
12...a5 (Ubilava-Tseidin, Telavi 1982) 13 f4
wilh an initiative for W hite.
11 0-0-0
11 «4!? Ii5 12 Ii3 £>Ii 7 13 h4 hxg4 14 fxg4
15 A g S 4£k:xe4 16 £ixc4 ^xc4 17 Ü.xd8
18 A xc7 £k-4 19 & G was bad news
Ibr Black in Serper-Novik, Si Petersburg 1993.
White can also play 11 Ii4, e.g. 1L..h5 12 #Mi3
#Mi7 (12..J&.xh3 13 Sxh3 with a slight advan-
lage to W hite in Seirawan-Balashov, Toluca
1982) 13 th(2 f5 14 exí5 gxf5 15 g4 e4 16
ffxhS 14 17 ÍLxc5 dxc5 18 £fcxe4 A d4, Seira-
wan-Kinley, Ijondon 1981 is given as unclear
In liC O , but in our opinion Black does not
have sufficient compcnsation for the pawns.
11...6.7 12 g4 Ii5 13 ()-()-() S h 8 (Benjamin-
KrXíeorgiev, Saint Jo h n Open II 1988) and
now 14 g5 Í^g8 15 £\1i 3 with advantage to
White. In S.Ivanov-Zakharevich, Kazan 1995
Black didn’t have a pawn’s worth o f compen-
naiion after I l...£ «i5 1 2 A x h 6 ^ g 3 L3Sh2.
1 1 ...*h 7 12 g4 Sh 8
Or l2...Ad7 (Popov-Bobotsov, Varna
I968) 13 h4 and W hite is in control.
13 h4 h5 14 ¿Lg5 hxg4 15 h5 & g8
15...g3!? is interesting.
16 fxg4 A d 7 17 A f3 W c8 ?
I liis is an obvious blunder but there is no move order is inaccurate, so 9 W d2 looks
olear way for Black to emerge from the pres-
Htire intact.
18 h6 ^ixg4 19 hxg7 Hxh1 20 iL x h l f6
21 A e 3 £>xe3 22 ® x e 3 <¿>xg7 23 A g 2
th 8 24 & h 3 & xh3 25 £ixh3 W h4 26 £tf2
Qh8 27 » h 6 28 Wxh6+ Hxh6 29
w ith o u t ...c7 -c5
<^xc7 & f7 30 ¿>d2 f5 31 £*>5 & e7 32
?Ac3 * f 6 33 <&e3 Sh 4 34 Sh1 Sxh1 35
í^xhl b6 36 £tf2 * g 5 37 Íhb7 38
* f3 1-0
Game 55
Yakovich-Sm irin
1sí I [¡tropean Ch., Saint Vincent 2000
1 d4 £>f6 2 c4 g6 3 ^ c 3 Ag7 4 e4 d6 5
¿Le2 0-0 6 i¿.g5 h6
N .B. The actual move order was 6...#Ya6 7
Ii4 e5 8 d5 Ii6 9 & e3.
7 A e3 e5 8 d5 9 h4
N ot too subtJe, perhaps, bul this sitnplistic
show o f aggression should by no means be
underestimated. W ith the centre closed and
stable W hite can lurn to the kingside, concen­
tra ting on opening the li-file and trading dark-
síjuared bishops in order to elimínate a key
defender. Mowever - perhaps not surprisingly
given that Black has thus far played only de­
cent King’s Indian moves - Black lias suffi-
cient resources with which lo counteract
W hite’s offensive. In fací Black’s treatment o f
the situation in this game suggests that this
preferable..
9 ...ftc5
9...c6 10 g4 Wa5 11 B h5 12 g5 £>e8 13
^h.3 A d7 14 W d 2 ^ V 5 15 S b l with an edge
for W hite in Babu-C íallagher, Kuala Lum pur
1992, while the immediate 9...h5 10 B c6 11
121
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
#}h3 cxcI5 12 cxd5 .&d7 13 0±(2 also Favoured
White in Alburi-I lort, \á\ Valetta 1980.
10 W c2
White finds himself posting the cjueen on
c2 rather than the usual cl2-scjuare because
now after l() B would have ...ínhS. Unfortu-
nately the c2-scjuare is not ideal. Apart from
not enabling White to exert pressure on
Black’s kingside (as is the case after Wd2), the
cjueen might also reejuire attention should
Black begin proceedings on the c-file.
1 0 ...c6
The logical response. In Layare! Pour Rali-
ñama, l;rance 1994 Black tried I0...#\g4 but
was punished after 11 ii.xg4 Ítxg4 12 f3 .¿U17
13 g4 a5 14 4?\gc2 1*5 15 gxf5 gxf5 16 ()-()-() f4
17 Á.Í2 with a big lead fot White. 10...H5 11 B
is playablc but not as accuratc as the text, e.g.
11...a5!? 12 &h3 Í^h7 13 <5^2, Dzuban-
M ajorovas, Moscow 1983, or 11...c6 12 b4
£to6 13 a.3 cxd5 14 cxd5 &d7 15 £fo3, Po-
lugaevsky-Donner, Amslerdam 1970, with a
pkis for White in both cases.
11 h5
White continúes the march of the h-pawn,
which is particularly important now that Black
is seeking to generate activity elsewhere. In-
deed the advance serves to keep Black on his
toes and tests out the waters in terms of how
Black responds to the challenge to the defen-
sive wall.
11...cxd5
Black is not j^hased by the intruder, calmly
122
getting on with his own aggressive strategy.
Instead after I I...g5 12 B a5 13 g4 the king-
side takes on a different simpe, when play
continúes as follows: l3..J«Ld7 14 4?Mi3 a4
(14...cxd5 15 cxd5 £>e8 16 ÍU>5 Ac8 17 0-0
§ \ ! with ecjuality in (jervasio-V.Cíurevich, Vjh.
Toucjuet 1996) 15 lfd 2 (15 ® f2 cxd5 16cxd5
Wa5 and Black prepares to pusli the b-pawn,
Bareev assessing the situation as level, Stettler-
I labermehl, Correspondence 1999) 15...cxd5
16 cxc!5 and While has bacl some kind of suc-
cess but without achieving too much. Then
!6...Wa5 17 <^bl Wxd2+ 18 ^xd2 b5 is eejual
according to Bareev, 19 H cl 53fe8 20 S&f2
A fó 21 <&>g2 #W8 22 $Lcl 23 H lidl Sc7
24 Hc2 agreed drawn in De Boni-Bcrdichesky,
Corrcspondcnce 1994. Much less clear is
17...^fxe4 18 fxc4 ^xe*4 19 Wxa5 Tlxa5 with
compensaron, as in Bareev -Kasjwov, Linares
1992, but if somebody wants to play this j^osi-
tion, he must Ix* Kasparov!
12 cxd5 ^a5!
Others:
a) 12...JjLcI7?! 13 b4! £W> 14 a3 leaves the
aó*knight out of play. Now Black has tried
!4...Hc8 (I4...g5 15 B gives White, wlio j^lans
to jxish the g-pawn, a commaiuling advantage
across the board, I4...í^xli5? 15 Axh5 gxh5
16 Hxh5 Hc8 17 &xh6 Axh6 18 Hxli6 <&g7
19 Wd2 |19..JRxc3?? 20 S h 11 is excellent for
White and 14...gxh5 |unclear according to
S.Ivanov in l i d ) | 15 Wd2 *h 7 16 B - in-
tending g2-g4 or Áxa6 (JÉLd3), #V2-g3 and so
011 - also looks very poor for Black) 15 Wd2
gxh.5 (15...Hxc3 16 Üíxc3 4hxe4 17 ® c4 and
15...g5 16 B are awful) 16 ^Lxh6! í^h7 17
JIxli5 Wf6 18 g4 Wg6 19 ÍL\g7 *xg7 20 B-
with a big advantage in Lugovoi-Degraeve,
Paris 1996. I
b) In the event of 12...g5 13 b4?! Black can
get away with I3...£\cxe4 14 < 5 W 4 íhxd5 15
Wd2 «&.e6 16 g4 a5 17 1>5 (Bonsch-Bielicki,
Ciennany 1993) 17...í^xe3 18 fxe.3 Wb6 with
compensation. 'Ilierefore White should play
13 B , e.g. 13...a5!? 14 g4 fíc8 15
Wd2 Wa5 16 H bl with a slight advantage to
 A v e r b a k h S y s t e m : 5 i i e 2 0 - 0 6 ¿Lg5 w i t h o u t . . . c 7 - c 5
White in Shercshcvsky-Gufeld, 1*bilisi 1974)
tiik I now instead o f 14 Ab5 as in Bellmann-
<»\vo/clz, Ivm ail 2(KK)>when 14...£V8!? fol­
lowcd hv ...£V7 would have left Black doing
linc, White has 14 $}b5, with an edge, or 14
f»4 wilh ihe following position:
Iliis situation is similar to the game De
Boni Berdichesky, mendoned in the note to
Black’s 11tli move, the only differcnce being
ihe trade on d5. Despite the fact that White
lias achieved nothing special in the games
played lluis lar, this factor is rather advanta-
f*cous for W hite because the bS-stjuarc is
íivailable.
I>l) 14.....6.(17 15 A b 5 (l5 Axc5dxc5 16 ÍLb5
#1,6 17 a4 c4, Magerramov-Chiburdanidxe,
Bakú 1980 is given as unclear in ¡¿CO )
I5 JH c8 was seen in I lutschcnreitcr-Koppe,
( iorrespondence 1987, and now 16 S e l!?
looks a shade l>etter for White.
b2) 14...a4!? 15 ¿Lb5 (15 4fc5!?) 1 5 .JL I7
lí) #\gc2 affords White an effecdve develop-
ment for his knight on e2, from where it can
luad for f5. The subseejuent 16...Wa5 17
ÍLxc5 dxc5 18 Axd7 4tixd7 was unclear in
I )/.iggel-I lesse, Correspondence 1995.
13 ild 2
Altematives fall short and even look fa-
vourable for Black. For example 13 S b l?
walks into 13...$kxc4 14 b4 Wc7, while 13
Wd2? 4!}l>3 14 axl>3 W xal+ was winning for
Black in Seifert-Balccrak, Oberhof 1999.
After 13 & f l £d7! 14 hxg6 fxg6 15 S e l
b5 is nice for Black, so preference has been
for 15 Axh6, and now:
a) 15...itxh6 16 Sxh6 <¿?g7 17 Sh 4 (17
S li l b5 18 -&B 1>4 19 ftcc2 Ü¡Lb5 is great for
Black) 17...b5 18 b4 (18 « fc l S h 8 19 Sxh8
Sx ii8 20 B SfH lookctl very gloomy for White
in Gyurkovics-Khamatgaleev, Gyongyos
1999) I8...#xl>4 19 S b l # a5 20 &xb5, Raet-
sky-Cíolubev, Lúceme 1994, and now 20...g5!
puts White in troublc.
b) 15...b5 leads to more complicated posi-
tions, e.g. 16 Wc1 (16 a3 1>4, or 16 ¿g 5 b4 17
^Lxfó Sx f6 18 £VU S f4 with serious prob-
lems for W hite) 16...b4 17 &xg7 SÍ?xg7 and
Black had the upper hand in M .I lansen-
( ícenen, ( ]orresp( mdence 1998.
13...£d7!
It is imperative that Black maintains his
presence on the queenside, although his liar-
monious forces should afford him good play
on both flanks in view o f the dark sejuares on
the kingside, the uncertain position o f W hite’s
king antl, unexpectetlly, the open h-file. After
13...g5 14 a3 White has a definite advantage,
while 13...4bxh5 shoultl have been punished in
Kachiani Gersinska-Volke, Germany 1997 by
the elever 14 a3! etc. Raetsky-Hitzgerova, Ba-
tlen 1998 went 13...a6 14 a3 Wtl8? ( I4...^c7 is
a lesscr evil) 15 b4 #Y*d7 16 hxgó fxg6 17
ÍLxh6 ÍLxh6 18 Sxh6 &g7 19 # tl2 antl
W hite was in the tlriving seat.
14 hxg6
A 11 alternative is 14 S b l, e.g. 14...Wb4 15
123
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
a3 Wb6 16 hxg6 fxgó 17 Ü.c3 (not 17 b4?
£kxc4 18 ®xc4 Sac8! ctc.) 17...Wc7 18 S e l
Bac8 19 W dl Wd8 20 B (20 J&.Í3 lias the
advantage of not compromising thc dark
sejuares - 20...a5 21 b4 axb4 22 axl>4 4?W> and
White’s chances are a littlc better) 20...£Mi5 21
b4 ¿h(4\\ 22 * f2 (22 bxcS?! &xg2+ 23 *12
4hxc3 24 &xc3 Sxc5 and now thc best con-
tinuation is given by I lazai - 22 ÍLx i4 exf4 23
bxcS Sxc5 24 ®d2 ®a5 25 4?kll Wxa3 with
compcnsation for thc sacrificcd piccc)
22...JÍLa4! 23 £lxa4 £lxc4+! 24 fxc4 Hxcl 25
A xcl £kl3+ 26 <¿>g3 27 * c l <&xhl+ 28
&h2 29 & B was Buhmann-Vouldis,
1•ucrtli 2002. 'flicn I lazai gives 29...í'\xc4 30
j&d3 í i f 6 31 ÍV 3 Wc8 with compcnsation.
Ovcrall wc suggest 14...Wb6l?, wlicn 15 1)4?
€k\xe4 16 í^xc4 Í^xc4 17 J¡Lc3 Wd8 18 hxg6
15 is an edge for Black, and 15 hxg6 fxgó will
transpose to thc main linc.
14...fxg6 15 f3
White lias two other logical continuations.
15 S b l Wb6 16 ÍLc3 a5 17 £ili.3 Sac8 18
Wd2 a4, I lauchard-l lebden, Cappcllc la
Grande 1998 is given as unclear in liCX). Thcn
there is 15 a3:
a) I5...tfb6 16 b4 £>a4 (I6...£Yxc4!? 17
^xc4 Wd4 18 <SY3 $}g4 19 0-0-0 ÜLB and
Black gets enougli play for his investment) 17
£ka4 JHxa4! 18 Wxa4 £ig4 19 0-0-0!? (19
#Mi3 foxí2 20 &xf2 Wxf2+ 21 * d l #xg2 22
S e l Wxc4 23 Wc2 is unclear) 19...í^xf2 20
£u*3 ftxc*4 21 Sí?bl!? í_\\d2H? (mucli better
than 21...%3 22 ÍLxh6 £kc2 23 Wc2 & Í4 24
ÍLxf4 Sxf4 25 Wxg6 ctc.) 22 £ixd2 S l2 23
Bhel Wd4 24 Wc2 e4 25 <&a2 and Whitc’s
chances are preferable.
b) 15...Wc7!? was Coathup-J^inc, Port Krin
2003. 'llicn 16 JÍLB *117 17 1>4 fta4 is un
clear, while 16...a5!? is interesting, with the idea
of continuing 17 j$.xh6 j&xh6 18 Sxh6 ‘á > g7
19 S h l Sh8 with more than ciiough compcn­
sation for thc pawn.
15...)lac8!
Black cannot afford to waste time defctul-
ing thc h6-pawn. For example after 15...£\h5
124
or I5...g5 White unlcashcs a trick on the other
flank with 16 l>4! Wxb4 17 ftl>5 Wa4 18 Wxa4
í?ixa4 19 4^xd6 £k5 20 ÜLc3 1)6 21 S b l í?if4
22 Jk.fl and the eiuling is cjuite unpleasant for
Black, Yakovich-Bekkcr Jcnsen, Gothenburg
2(HK). I lowcvcr, 15...Wl>6!? is worth a try as
long as Black is aware of 16 b4 Wxl>4? 17
4^1)5 etc. Instead after 16 1)4 there is 16...£ta4!
17 £>xa4 .&xa4 18 Wxa4 &xc4! 19 fxe4 Wf2+
20 Vbdl Wxg2 and White would rather start
again. Consecjucntly White has to play 16 W cl
£Mi 5 17 á.xh6 íhf4 18 Axf4 exf4 when Black
has compcnsation for thc pawn.
16 Sb 1
a) 'This time after 16 1>4 Wxb4 17
Black has a plcasant choice betwcen the posi-
tional cjuecii sacrificc 17...^xb5! 18 .&xb5
Üxb5 19 W bl & d 3! 20 Wb4 (20 V d l £>fxe4)
20...Aa6 21 * d l í\13 with a great game or
thc simple I7...#Y*xc4 18Wxc4 Wxc4 19 fxe4
íhxc4 20 J2lxli6 4^g3 21 í^xd6 í^xhl 22
4^xc8 JÍLxli6 with a clcar advantage in the
ending.
b) 16 Axh6 &xh6 17 Sxh6 <&g7 is Black’s
main ¡dea, after which he can cxploit thc fac-
tors mentioned in the note to Black’s 13th
move, e.g. 18 S h l (18 # tl2 ? £>j>8 19 S h l
£Mx3 and 18 W cl &a4 19 S h l £>xb2 20
Wxl)2 Sxc3 21 Wd2 fth.S are c|uitc |x>or for
White) l8...^hS! 19 iL fl ^ 3 20 Sh4 (20
Sh2? ^cxe4!) 2<I...WdK 21 Sl,2 etc.
c) 16 g4!? is cunning, when 16...g5 17 Ílh 3
followcd bv ^12 favours White. Instead there
s
 A v e r b a k h S y s t e m : 5 $Le2 0 - 0 6 $ Lg 5 w i t h o u t . . . c 7 - c 5
r.Id follow 16...h5 17 g5 & h 7 18 b4 Wxb4 19
^l>5 Wxb5 20 Axb5 Axb5 21 ttb l and
White has a much better position than is the
t.ise with 16 b4, above, as ihe h7 knight is
umporarily out o f play. I lowever, after
22 W d l &xe4! Black still has the
iidvantage, with two pieces, two pawns and a
nimng initiative for the cjueen.
1 6 ...» d 8 !
Noi I6J » c7 17 g4 h5 (1 7 Jü d 8 18 A e3
l)S 19 Wd2 b4 20 £ W I) 18 g5 £lh7 19 A e3
Wd8 20 Wd2, when W hite rearranges his
pieces in time.
17 i¿.x h 6
li W hile does not take this pawn he might 34 & c3
svell linel himself playing a similar position but
with eejual material. For cxamplc after !7 W d l
^\hS, homing in on f4, or 17 g4 h5 Black has a
Mrong initiative without any investment. 'llie
nnly decent alternativc is 17 W c l, although
17...g5 (1 7 j£ h 5 ! 18 Axhó £Y4 19 ÍLxf4 exf4
with good play for Black) 18 W d l (18 ÍLe3!?)
18...#c8 19 Á e3 ®>li5 gave Black a healthy
initiative in Felzmann-Utcsch, K-mail 2(K)2.
1 7 ...jix h 6 1 8 32xh6 * g 7 19 3 h 1 £>h5
19...5h8 20 Sxh8 Wxh8 deserves attention,
e.g. 21 & f l b5 22 a3 a5 23 *fe2 b4 24 axl>4
iixb4 25 & d l JXf8 with a strong initiative.
20 W d 2 S h 8 21 & f 1 W b 6 2 2 & g e 2
22 Wg5!? might be better.
2 2 . . . 4 . 2 3 S x h 8 £>cd3+
23...$tfd3+í? 24 tí?d l Sxh8 is unclear.
24 & d 1 H x h 8 2 5 f t x f 4 <»xf4
26 & c2
Smirin gives 26 g3 W g l 27 gxf4 W xfl+ 28
W xf3 29 fxe*5 dxe5 as unclear.
26...5h2 27 Sc1 &h3 28 £ * 4 Wd4 29
Wxd4 exd4 30 &b3 &xg2 31 £xg2 b5!
'Ilianks to this excellent move Black is re*
warded with a clearly better ending.
32 £lb6
W hite should probably try 32 .& fl!? bxa4+
33 &xa4 fíxb2, although Black still has a bet­
ter ending.
32...axb6 33 &f1 d3
33...5Í2!? 34 ÍLxb5 fíx B+ 35 S*?c4 d3
(Sm irin) puts W hite in serious troublc.
After 34 B d l H l2 35 Axd3 Bxf3 W hite
has the trick 36 J^ fl Hxd3+ 37 & c2 g.S
(37...&c3 38 Sx f4 g.S 39 Hg4 & g6 40 S&I2
fih 3 41 Eig2, or 3 7 .JÜ 4 38 Sx f4 g5 39 Sg4
<¿>g6 40 & c3 Sa4 41 b3 fixa2 42 <¿>b4) 38
Sxf4 Sxd5 39 Hf2 S c5 40 * d 3 &g6 4 1& I4
g4 42 Hd2 sfcg5 43 S¡t?c3 with drawing chances
in all variations.
34...5h1?
34...HÍ2! is strong.
35 Sd1 * f6 36 &d4 b4 37 Hb1
37 a3!? might improve.
37...£ie2+! 38 &e3 g5?
38...*e5!? 39 a3 b3 40 Hd l % 3 4 1 f4+
42 & Í2 £lxc4+ 43 S&g2 <.12 is strong (I la­
zai).
39 & f2 ?
39 a3 b3 (I lazai).
39...5Ü4?
39...6C5!? deserved serious attention, e.g.
4 0 *g 2 K g l+ 4 ! * f 2 g4.
40 * e 3 ¿Ae2 41 Hd1 £tf4?
Much stronger is 4l...£)g3! 42 *1 2 £bcfl
43 Sxfl Sxfl+ 44 * x f l * e 5 45 * e l * f4
atul Black is approacliing the finishing line:
a) 46 * f 2 b5 47 * c l (or 47 l>3 g4 48 fxg4
*x e 4 49 g5 * 6 50 * c 3 *x g 5 51 *xc!3 * 6
52 * d 4 * f4 ) 47...*xf3 48 e5 g4 49 e6 g3 50
e7 u2 51 c8 # glW + 52 *c!2 % 5 + 53 *x<.13
(53 * t l l We3) 53...Wxd5+ 54 * c 2 b.3-^ 55
axl>3 We4+ etc.
125
O ffbeat King's indian
b) 46 *d 2 <¿?xB 47 c*5dxe5 48 d6 c4 49d7 9 W d2
c3+ 50 *xd3 c2 51 d8W clW 52 «M5+ (52
#xg5?? #c2+ 53 <&d4 W c4 mate) 52...*g4
and Black should win thc queen ending.
42 8b1 d2! 4 3 & x d 2 fíh 2 + 4 4 <Á>e3 <&e5
45 & a6 ?«
After Ixxh 45 S e l and 45 a3 White has
good chances to equalise.
4 5 ...6 .2 + 4 6 <¿>d3 £>f4+
46...<&f4 47 Hgl Íie 3 (47...&xB 48 Bfl+
SÍ?g3 49 Hf6 with counterplay) 48 Bxg5! <¿?xg5
49 *xc3 Sxl>2 50 Ac4 Bc2 51 Í4+ * f6 52
ü.b.3 with equality (Stnirin).
4 7 & e 3 S h 3 48 H f1 ?
Ilie only move is 48 Hgl.
4 8 ...g 4 4 9 ¿ L e 2 7 ?
Disastcr - after 49 jÍLc8 Hh2 50 fxg4 Sc2+
51 * B Hxb2 a draw bcckons.
49...£>g2+ 50 & d 2 g3 51 Eg 1 E h 2 52
¿ L a 6 <¿14 53 e5 skxe5 0-1
Gcwzc 56
Campbell-Roach
Comspondcnce 1978
1 d4 ftf6 2 c4 g6 3 £>c3 ¿Lg7 4 e4 d6 5
¿ L e 2 0-0 6 ¿ L g 5 h6 7 ¿ L e 3 e5 8 d5 c6
Rather than commit his queen’s knight
Black gets to work on chipping away at thc
centre and opening thc c-file. TT»c text also
inrr<xkices the possibility of using thc c6 pawn h5 12 B a6 13 l>4 Wd8 14 4>h3, Alburt-
to push with ...b7-b5, but in the main such a
plan does not quite work.
126
.i
'llu : by now familiar, tempo-gaining devel-
opment of thc queen looks lx:st of White’s
available options.
a) Ijess ambitious is 9 dxc6 (which Black
could well lx* tempting White into by sclecting
the carly ...c7-c6), when Black has good play
after both 9...bxc6 10 Wd2 *1)7 11 Sel 1 (11
h3!? looks gocxl for White) ll...W a5 12 B
Bd8, which was unclear in McSwecny-Stables,
1xxidon 1993, and 9...$W>Í? 10 «Td2 (10 Í^ B
&g4; 10 h3 £kl4) 10...®kl4 11 Axd4 exd4 12
Wxd4 Sc8 13 Wc3 »a5 14 0-0-0 (14 B ?! d5
15 c*5 dxc4) I4...b5 (14...íhg4 15 .&xg4 .&xg4)
15 cxb5 # W 4 16 4?ixc4 J&.b7 17 B d5 with an
exccllent position for Black, Nizard*
Kmmcnccker, I;rancc 2(K)1.
b) 9 1)4 is interesting.
b1) 9...b5 10 cxb5 cxb5 (10...cxd5 11 cxd5
a6 12 h6 with a plus for White in Salvennoser-
Schneider, Gcrmany 1994, or 12 g4!? with
initiative) 11 a3 h5 (1 l...a6 12 g4 with an edge
for White, Bertuli Cordicr, Corrcspondcnce
1990) 12 £>h3 ÍLg4 13 £>g5 (13 .&xg4!? 4^xg4
14 JLj»5 wilh ilic more pleasant game for
White, while 13 O ÍLxh3 14 fixh3 a6 15 4ha2
is also enough for a slight edge) 13...i¿xe2 14
Wxe2 a6 15 R ^11x17, as in Mcduna-Barczay,
Trnava 1982, is given as unclear in l iCO.
12) 9...cxd5 10 cxd5 h5 (10...Wa5 11 «Td2
Mortcnscn, Luccrne 1982 and K )...£ M x I7 11
g4 & c5 12 B h5 13 l>4 £kd7 14 4bh3 a5 15
a3, Alhurt-Velasquez Ojeda, Santiago 1981
both favour White) 11 B £>1x17 12 »d 2 a6 13
£>1i3 &IV7 (13...b5 14 4^12 &b6 151>3Ad7 16
H cl and White stcxxl better in Agzamov-
Pachtz, Potsdam 1985) 14 #M2 !>5 (14...f5!? 15
ex15 gxf5 16 ¿LU6 with a plus for White) 15
® tl3 f5 16 ftb4 We8 17 #\c6, Lputian-
Uhlmann, Sarajevo 1983, is slightly Ixrttcr for
White.
9 ...cx d 5
9...h5 10 1)3!? cxd.S 11 cxd.S #11x17 12 3
&c5 13 Wc2 Wc7 14 S e l SUM 15 l>4 (15
W b l!?) 15...£to4 16«l)3<üxc3 17Hxc3Wd8
 A v e r b a k h S y s t e m : 5 $Le2 0 - 0 6 í i g 5
IK 4ftg5 a5 19 bS a4 20 W l)4 was agreed
drawn in Kallai-Gr<>s/peter, 1lungary 1992
bul, in our opinion, W hite has a clear advan-
tage. Note that 10...b5?! 11 cxb5 cxc!5 I2exd5
is not enough for the pawn, Gaprindashvili-
loseliani, Georgia 1990, and 10...a6 should
have been punished in Mohr-Uhlmann, De­
bí ecen 1989 by 11dxc*6 1 2 ^ B .&c6 13
0(1 cic.
10 0X05 ^ 7 11 h4
11... ^ g 4
l l...h5 12 £ iG (12 B a6 13 ® h 3 , Meins-
I «auzcnini>ks, Germany 2001 and 12 <5^h3!?
both seem to favour W hite) 12....&d7 13
0\i*5+ SÍ?g8 14 f3#Va6 15 0-0 was excellent for
White in Milov-Damaso, Mulhouse 1997.
12 &xg4 &xg4 13 h5 g5 14 Sc1
Black’s bishop must relocate s<x>n s o there
is no need to drive it away, e.g. 14 B JÜLd7 15
g4?! (15 &ge2!?) l5...Wf6 16 & e2 (16 £k:e2
Hc8 17 Í^g3 a5 18 <S}f5 is unclear) 16...Sc8
with a gtxxl game for Black, Alburt-Gligoric,
( >dessa 1975.
14...íha6
As ...#\I7 tlenies the bishop a retreat stjuare
Black must use a6.
15 <ftb5!
lnHicting upon Black long-term problems
tlue to his vulnerable tjueenside.
15...W e7 16 <5te2 £ d 7 17 a4 Hac8
I7...£V*5!? 18 .£Lxc5 dxc5 19 dó with advan-
tage to White.
18 Hxc8 Hxc8 1 9 ilx a 7 !
w ith o u t ...c 7 -c 5
Black does not have compensation for the
sacrificed pawn. I jess accurate but still leaving
W hite with an advantage is 19 ftxa7r>
!, when
Uhlmann-Gligoric, Vrbas 1977 continued
19...H c4 20 & c3 .&xa4 21 £ k 8! ftxc 8 22
Í^xa4.
19...5c4 2 0 í^ c 3 _&xb5
20...£k;5!? might put up more o f a fight.
21 axb5 ¿hc5 22 A xc5 Sx c5 23 0-0 S c8
24 2 a 1 Md8 25 Sa 7 «Íb6 26 We3 W c7 27
b6 Wd7 28 W e2 S c 5 29 W a6 Wg4 30
Sxb7 tf/f4 31 Rcl Wc1 + 32 » f 1 Wxb2
33 Sx c5 dxc5 34 Wb1 Wxb1 + 35 ftx b l
&1Q 36 ?Aa3 1-0
Game 57
Onischuk-Wegener
Botín 1993
1 d4 2 c4 g6 3 <ftc3 ÍLg7 4 e4 d6 5
& e 2 0-0 6 iLg5 £>a6
'The popular, modern approach.
7 h4
'llie direct approach, and one that - not
surprisingly - attracts those adventurous play-
ers not satislled with the standard strategy
beginning 7 Wd2 (see (¡am es 60-64). l;or 7
Wc2 see Bonsch-Gallagher, next, while 7 f4 is
the subject o f Sorin-boisor, Cíame 59.
7...c5
Following the recommended reci|>e o f an-
swering aggression on the flank with aggres-
sion in the centre. O f course the text both hits
127
O ffbeat K in g 's indian
d4 (aiul henee the dark squares) and fits in
with fnturc play on the queenside, thus in-
creasing the pressure on both sides. Conse-
qucntly Black’s approach, while logical, is also
a littlc risky in view of the complications that
can follow. Additionally, counterplay somc-
times comes at thc pricc of a pawn, and it is
not clear that White can be denied an advan­
tage. Thcrcforc, although 7...c5 might ap|xral
to aggressive players - provided that im-
provements are found - we recomtncnd 7...e5
or 7...h6 8 JÉLe3 c5. After 7...e5 8 d5 c6 9 h5
cxd.S 10 cxd.S <5Y\S 11 b4 ®k:d7 12 I16 A h 8 13
«1)6 14 a3 #\g4 15 0-0, Onischuk-
Dydyshko, Krfurt 1993, 9...Wl>6 (Obodchuk-
Broiv/nik, Bratislava 1992) 10 S b l!? and
9...Wa5 (A.Petrosian-Xie (un, Shcnzhcn 1992)
10 & xf6!? JuL\f6 11 a.3 White manages to stay
ahead, but 9...h6 l<x>ks okay for Black, e.g. 10
£ e 3 g5 11 g4 (11 Wd2!?) \ 12 O W h 8
(I2...C.S!? is unclear) 13 #Mi3 S c 8 with cqual
chances in I lorvath-Scres, Budapest 1996.
8d5
Now Black must decide whether to con­
tinué with thc plan ¡11 thc centre or to take
time out to address the threatcncd h4-h5 etc.
8 ...^ c7
Supporting both the desired ...l>7-b5 and
thc thematic ...e*7-e6, after which the subsc-
quent dxe6 can be met with ...®xe*6, attacking
the g5-bishop and monitoring the d4-sc|uarc.
Ncithcr move with the h-pawn is go<xl for
Black: 8...h6 9 _ÍLe3 e5 10 dxe6 -ÍLxe6 11 Wd2
h5 12 ¿ h 6 was an edge for White in Alter-
man-Xie Jianjun, Beijing 1997, and 8...h5 9
Wd2 He8 10 f3 Wa5 11&h3 Ad7 12 fa(2 lefi
White with an initiative in Bacr-Timpcl, Gcr-
many 2000.
Instead Black has 8...e6, when it is Whitc’s
turn to make a decisión:
a) 9 dxc6 is aimed at proving the now inap
propriate postingof the knight on a6. 9...&xc6
10 Wd2 ^l>4 11 h5 Wa5 12 £>h3 (12 S d l
secures White the advantage without risk)
12...Wa6 (Yakovich-Voitsekhovsky, Nizhnij
Novgorod 1998) 1.34hf4!? &xc4 (13...Sae8 14
128
hxg6 fxg6 15 íhxe6 Sxe 6 16 f3 £Mi5 17 Sh3
¿Le5 18 ÍV I5 with an edge) 14 ¿L\í(y ^Lxf6 15
í^fd5 with advantage to White. I lazai points
out that Black is in big troublc after 12...Ja.xh3
13Sxh3Sae8 14 hxg6 fxg6 15 f3 etc.
c2) Also ver)* gcxxl is 9 Wd2, e.g. 9...cxd5
10 exd5 (10 cxd5 leads to an unusual and in-
teresting Modern Benoni set-up, e.g. I0...Wb6
11 h5 S e 8 12 hxg6 fxg6 13 f3 with advantage
to White, Pietrasanta-Sorin, I ‘ranee 1998)
10...We8!? (IO...Se 8 11 h5 ÍU 5 12 sfcfl gxh5
13 #Mi3 Wd7 14 í?if4 wilh a slight advantage
to White, S.lvanov-IJkavsky, Cappellc la
Grande 2000) 11 & fl (11 h5!?) llJ? Y 4 12
í^xe4 Wxc4 13 S d l ¿ f5 with chances for
both sides, Lcrncr-GoI<xl,Tcl Aviv 2002.
9 Wd2
White can consider simply marching for-
ward: 9 h5 a6 (9...h6 10 ÍL c.3 g5 11 f4 gxf4 12
JuLxf4 with a plus for White) 10 hxg6 l’xgó
(10...hxg6 11 Wd2 and Black’s king was in fot
a rough ride in Stassen-Vollmar, Wallertheim
1992) I I a4 (11 14 l>5! eamed Black counter­
play in Shainswit-I learst, New York 1956,
while 11 í^f3!? is an edge for White) 1l...Sb8
(Vonk-Alxrls, Corrcspondcnce 1991) 12 a5
with advantage to White.
9...e6
In Salus-Daly, Clichy 1997 Black didn’t
bother with thc c-pawn and instead spent the
tempo on preparing the launch o f the b-pawn
— after 9...a6 10 h5 b5 11 & I 16 best scems
11...l>4!?, when 12 .&xg7 *xg7 13 íha4 íhxe4
 A v e rb a k h S y s te m : 5 & e 2 0 -0 6 ÍLg5 w ith o u t . .. c 7 - c 5
14 Wc3 4^16 15 hxgó Ixgó 16 g4 gives White
an initiative for the rnodest investment.
10 h5
White has two alternatives.
a) 10 e5dxe5 11 d ó & ce 8 1 2 Bd l (12 0-0-0
«fil7 13 h5 l>5! 14 cxb5 ÍLb7 15 hxgó fxgó
was unclear in Aiureasyan-Andersen, Cojx*n-
hagen 1994) 12...1U7 13 h5 l>5 (13...e4!? is
unclear) 14 cxb5 .£.1)7 (Zakharevich-
Dolmatov, Kazan 1995) and now 15 hxgó
fxgó 16 is given by Xakharevich in liC X)
¡is unclear, but perhaps 15 4bf3 is stronger.
I>) 10 dxe6 is believed to be incorrcct due to
10...4bxeó with an advantage for Black. Never-
iheless, this is rather difftcult to prove, e.g. I I
(i 0-0!?He 8 (11..Jía 5 12 A lió ÍLxh 6 13 Wxh 6
<?VI4 14 W f4 5 k 2 + 15 $igxc2, 11J& d 4 12
h5 A có 13 4&xe2+ 14 Wxe2 lió 15 & f4
¿?Ydi5 16 & xd 6 and I I...4£\xg5 12 hxg5 4^g4
13 4?lh3 Wa5 14 B ®kr5 15 ¿Y 4 ÍLe 6 16 W el
are all dismal for Black) 12 & d3 (12 J&.I16 4^.14
13 hS JÉLxhó 14 W xh 6 ÍL e 6 15 hxg6 fxgó 16
&d3 with a considerable advantage for White)
12...6b8 13 f3 a6 14 4bge2 &d7 15 ÍLc2 & có
16 w b l and White is well in control.
10...exd5 11 exd5 b5
Not Black’s only option.
a) lL.JScH 12 hxgó hxgó 13 0-0-0 b5 14
cxl>5 a6 15 A lió üLh8 16 bxa6 Axaó 17 &g5
Íí.g7 18 jjlxaó Sxa6 19 W f4 with a big advan-
iai»e for White in Bcrdichcsky-Pvrich, Iv-mail
* * / •
1997.
b) I l...Wd7 12 & hó Se8 13 &xg7 <&xg7
14 4&« l>5 15 cxb5 & b l 16 0-0-0 We7
(I6...4?k;xd5 17 hxgó <5\xc3 18 Wxc3 fxgó was
played in Yakovich-Dolmatov, 1{.lista 1996,
I >ut 19 Sxh7 H is final) 17 hxgó fxgó 18 4^g5!
looked very gcxxl in Alterman-Kindermann,
Bad I lomburg 1997.
c) 11...aó!? 12 W í4 4^ce8 13 hxgó (13
J&d3?!, as in Kekki-Yrjola, Finland 1994, walks
into 13...4^xh5! and White lacks sufficient
compensation) 13...fxgó 14 Wh4 Wbó 15
0-0-0 tta5 followed by ...b5 with countcrplay.
12 cxb5 &b7
I 2...aó 13 hxgó fxgó 14 bxaó He8 15 sfcfl
.áxaó 16 iix aó ííxaó 17 £ige2 left Black with
t(X)little for the pawn in Levin-Mellem, I lam-
burg 1999.
1 3 & f3
13 0-0-0! appears to 1x* strong, although
White continúes to prefer alternatives.
13...Wd7 14 foge2 faxb5 15 W f4 ^ x c3
16 & xc3 &fe8+ 17 sfcfl Wf5
I7...4bxh5!? 18 .&xh5 gxh5 is unclear.
18 Wxf5 gxf5 19 h6 .¿h8 20 Sh 4
I laving had some fun on the kingside
White now switches his sights to the other
flank, the point being to swing the rook over
to a4 to draw attention to the a7 pawn.
20...5ab8
( )thers:
a) 20...J&.aó+ 21 & g l 4hd7 22 Sa4 ÍLd3 is
okay for Black.
b) 20...£kl7!? 21 & c2 (21 flf4 &aó+ 22
& g l Ad4 with an excellent position) 21...4hbó
22 S d l ÜLxc3 23 bxc3 i£.xd5 24 g4 and White
has considerable activity for the pawn.
21 Sa 4 <fte4 22 ^ x e4 ?l
The superior 22 j¡Lxe4 fxe4 23 Ífc.f4 favours
White, but Black now latches on to the wrong
plan and even contrives to create gtxxl losing
chances.
22...fxe4 23 J&xe4 ilx b 2
23...a5! is equal.
24 Hb1 c4 ??
24...a5!? 25 ÍLd2 with a slight edge.
25 Sx b 2 Sx e4 26 &d2
26 H b l ! is more to the point.
129
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
26...c3 27 Hxb7 Sxb7 28 Hxe4 f5 29
Se6 cxd2 30 * e 2 Sb4 31 He7 Sd4 32
*d1 a5 33 Hg7+ ¿h 8 ?! 34 Sf7 ¿>g8 35
Hxf5 a4 36 f3 a3 37 g4 Sd3 38 g5 Sd4
39 f4 Ed3 40 Sf6 Hxd5 41 f5 Hd3 42 g6
hxg6 43 fxg6 Hh3 44 g7 1-0
G aw e 58
Bónsch-Gallagher
Vnindesliga G cm any 2 0 0 2 / 3
1 d4 2 c4 g6 3 £ta3 .&g7 4 e4 d6 5
¿Le2 0-0 6 &g5 <ha6 7 ^ c2
Uhlmann’s idea. 'I he ejueen turns down the
natural home on d2 in order to grant any ac-
tion on the d-file to the rook. I;or example
after ...e7-e5 White has dxc.S followcd by S d l.
7...h6
O f course this is not thc only replv to the
‘quiet* ® c 2.
a) 7...c5 8 d5 (8 dxc.S £kc5 9 £>B a5 10 0-0
Ad7 was unclear in Uhlmann-Klcbancr,
Naumburg 2002) 8...I16 9 .&c3 e6 10 dxeó
i.xc -6 11 S d l (l l Wd2!P) I l JHfo5 (l l...í^ 4 !?
should be okay for Black) 12 a3 S fc 8
(! 2...Sad8 13 h3 with advantage to White) 13
& B (13 Sxd 6!?) !3...Sad8 (13...^g4 14 ¿Li\2
with a plus for White) 14 0-0 Ag4 15 Sd2
with an exccllent game for White in Bischoff-
Machelett, Gcrnvany 1999.
b) 7,..c6 8 & B (8 S d l!? £>c7 9 £\B was
Bónsch-Kempinski, Gcrmany 2000, when
9...d5!? leaves White only a shade better) 8...I16
130
9 Ad2 #e8 10 S d l cS 11 dxe5 dxe5 12 0-0
5ih5 (heading for f4; I2....&g4 13 ¿Le3 with a
pulí for White) 13 W cl <&h7 14 £k-1 #U*4 15
jÍLxf4 exf4 16 Wxf4 15 17 We3 with the more
plcasant game for White in Uhlmann-Brcndcl,
Gcrmany 1995.
c) 7...e5 8 dxe*5 dxc5 9 S d l We8 10 $\\5
W c6 (10...£WI5 11 cxd.S 15 12 &xa6 bxa6 13
<?Y2 I16 14 .£d2 S b 8 15 1)3 f4 16 f3 and Black
was struggling in Uhlinann-I leissler, Gcrmany
1995) 1i ±xf6 ÍLxttt 12 &g4 Wc6 13 ¿Lxc8
Saxc8 14 1)4 We6 15 í^ B with a slight etlgc to
White, Uhlmann-Reschke, Cíermany 1995.
il) 7...Wc8 8 £>B e5 9 dxe5 dxc.S 10 c5
<5^b4 11 Wl>3 a5 12 0-0 favoured White in
Uhlmann-PíxI'/ielny, Gcrmany 1995.
8 & f4
A good continuation is 8 ¿Le3 e5 9 dxe5
dxe*5 10S d l Wc8(10..<S\17 11 c5c6 12-kxaó
bxaó 13 #}ge2 with a plus for White. Uhl-
mann-Voekler, Cíermany 1996) 11 #tt"3 #\g4
12 ¿Lc\ í5 13 0-0 <?M>4 14 Wb3 £lc6 as in
Uhlmann-Gallagher, Dresden 1998, when 15
c5+ SÍ?h7 16 ¿L\>5 secures White an edge.
8...c5
8...#M>4!? looks bizarre bul in fací offers
Black hcalthy counterplay, e.g. 9 W dl (9 Wb3
c.S, or 9 Wd2 e5 10 dxe5 dxe5 when 11JwLxe5?
runs into 11...Wxd2+ 12 *xd2 ÍW-4+) 9...e5!?
10 dxe*5 dxe5 11 Axe.S We7 12 J&.xf6 (12 #>B
S d 8, intending ...£\xe4) l 2...Wxf6 13 í^ B
¿Lg4 with compcnsation.
9 d5 e5 10 dxe6 iLxe6
 A v e r b a k h S y s t e m : 5 ¿¡Le2 0 - 0 6 $ Lg 5 w i t h o u t . . . c 7 - c 5
11 Sd1
11 0-0-0?! (Bagirov-Smirin, Batiimi 1999)
nlso brings the r<x>k to the el-file, but W hite
shouldn’t senel his king to the quecnsidc as
I L.#M)4! 12 W b l Wa5 is excellent for Black
¿mil 12 Wd2 4^xa2+ 13 ^xa2 # W 4 is even
more serious.
1 1 .Jftb 4 12 Wb1
12 Wd2 &e8 13 Axh6 &xh6 14 Wxh6
#V2+ 15 Sfefl Í\ I4 with play (1 lazai).
1 2 ...5 .8 ?!
The right place for this rook is d8! I lazai
rccommcnds !2...Wa5! 13 ^\<3 (13 &xd6
Hfd8! 14 £tf3 $ k8 with countcrplay) 13...^g4
14 0-0 (14 ¿x d 6 4hxa2!) 14...&c5 with an
¡issessmcnt o f unclear.
13 ibcd6?!
More reasonable was to finish the clevel-
opment. A threat is stronger than its exccu-
lion! 13 ^ í3 ! Icad to a very unpleasant posi-
non for Black where in most variations W hite
luis a small but long-term advantage without
any countcrplay. 13...£ixe4 (I3..j&.g4 14 0-0
CV6 15 &xd6 <S\I4 16 £kd4 cxd4 17 Hxd4
ÍW 4 18 3Sxe4 .&xc2 19 Hxc8+ Wxc8 20
í^xc2 Wxc2 21 b3 ^.(14 22 .&g3 with advan-
tage to White - Meyer) 14 4hxc4 .¿Lf5 15
0M\\2 d5 16 cxd5 &xd5 17 &g3 Wc7 18
JSl<I6!? Wc6 19 0-0 ÍLxe4 20 £ke4 Wxc4 21
Wxc4 J3xe4 22 J& B with a slight advan-
tage to W hite (Meyer).
13...W a5 14 a3 ?!
14 #M3 í^xc4! 15 # W 4 (15 Wxe4 £>xa2 16
0 0 ÜLxc3 17 bxc3 £>xc3 18 W c2 Sad8 19
ÍLc5 í^xdl 20 j&xd'l with chances for lx)th
sides) 15...&f5 (15...£kl3+ 16 sfcfl ^xb2 17
H cl .&f5 18 4bfd2 £íad8 19 A f4 is also un­
clear) 16 <SYd2 Hxc4 17 &xe4 ¿&c2+ 18 & f l
JÍ.xe4 19 ÍLd3 &xd3+ 20 fíxd3 Sc8 21 H d l
('V\4 with compensation (Meyer).
14...ftc6 1 5 & f3
15 Sd 2 makes sense, unpinning the c3-
knight.
15...^xe4!
I bis sacrifice has been hanging in the air
for some time.
16 Wxe4 & h3 17 ttd 3 ÍLxg2 18 Sg1
& x f3 19 Wxf3 £\d4 20 Sxd4 cxd4 21
& b 4 « c 7 22 £>e4??
A terrible blunder. After the forccd 2 2 # \ll
Wxc4 23 & f l y0/c2 Black is still better but at
least W hite is in the game and can hope to
mount some kind o f rcsistancc.
22...W c6 23 <¿11 Hxe4 24 Wd3 W e6 25
Sg 3 He8 26 & f3 f5 27 & d2 <¿>h7 28 c5
h5 29 b4 h4 30 Sh 3 & f6 31 &d1 Wd5 32
& f3 W a2 33 ¿?g2 &g4+ 34 £ x g 4 fxg4
0-1
Carne 59
Sorin-Foisor
O/oí 1992
1 d4 £tf6 2 c4 g6 3 Íhc3 & g7 4 e4 d6 5
& e2 0-0 6 & g 5 £\a6 7 f4
Another hyper-aggressive reaction to
Black>
s...\Oa6, W hite staking a further claini to
the centre. O f course the position now closely
resembles the Four Pawns Variation, but the
cjuestion is whom do ÍLg5 and $W> most
benefit. A brief appraisal o f the diagram posi­
tion suggests that the bishop looks more usc-
fi.il than the knight, occupying an active post
compared with the effectivcly intermediare
location on a6. On the other hand the bishop
might prove vulnerable in some circunv
stances, while W hite could also fmd himself
under pressure on the dark sejuares.
7...c6
131
O ffb e a t K ing's Indian
7...c5?! does not fit in well with ...ftió after
8 d5, e.g. 8...Wa5 9 Wd2 e6 10 dxc6 .&xc6 11
ÜLg4 12 0-0 and Black was aiready in
serious difficulties in Tu kmakov-Barbero,
Wijk aan /ce 1991.
7...Wc8 is a very logical move which Black
plans to follow up with ...c7-c5. After subsc-
cjuent exchangcs in the centre the c5-st|irarc
can lx- prepared for the knight. Meanwhile
White can suffer on the dark separes in some
variations, and Black can also look to ...f7-f5
to help the cause. I lere are some sample lines:
a) 8 Wd2 h6 (8...c5 9 fxc5 dxc5 10 d5 #Y5
11 ¿ B ! ? a5 12 #\gc2 #Yd7 13 ÍU )5 was very
poor for Black in Altcrman-Polgar, daifa
1998) 9 .&h4 e5 10 fxe5 dxe5 11 d5 £V17 12
g4 15 13 gxf5 gxf5 14 0-0-0 was unclear in
Mohr-Panzer, Gcrmany 1991.
b) 8 c5!? spoils Black’s plans. After 8...ÍV17
White is unable to maintain the formidable
look ing centre because ...c7-c5 is coming, but
Black’s picccs occupv awkward positions and
this important factor contributes to White’s
ultimate advantage, e.g. 9 # IB c5 10 0-0 (10
$\15!? l<H>ks good) I0...5ib6 (I0...cxd4 11
£kl5 f6 12 exf6 £>xf6 13 &xf6 &xf6 14
í^\xfó+ Hxf6 15 #\xd4 with a pulí for White,
Yakovich-Trygstad, Bergen 2000) 11 d5 ( II
£kl5!?) 11_f6 12 &h4 fxe5 13 fxe5 dxc5 14
ÍLg3 e4 15 í^xc4 .&xl>2, Grabuzova-
Umanskaya, Moscow 1992, and 16 S b l gives
White casily enough play.
c) 8 £>6
132
Now 8...c5 9 fxc5 dxc5 10 dxc51? £\g4 11
£kl5 £>xe5 12 & f6!? c*6 13 £V7+ * h 8 14
Wd6, I loang Thanh Trang-Szuk, I lungary
1998 is well worth remembering (and, for
Black, avoiding). Instead Black can preface thc
push o f the e-pawn with 8...116!?, when 9 JuLh4
e5 10 dxc5!? dxe5 11 &xc5 $Y5 12 £k!5!?
£lxd5 13 exd5 is a plus for White. A different
structurc results from 10 fxc5dxe5 11 d5í^g4
12 Wd2 15, e.g. 13 Ii3 <&f6 14 exí5 (14 0-0,
Yakovich-Van den Doel, Ijccuwardcn 1997,
and now 14...£W*4!? I5íhxc4 fxe4 I6 íh h 2 is
complicated) I4...e4 15 £id4 gxf5!? (I5...c3 16
Wc2 g5 17 A g 3 #U>4 18 Wb3 <?Y4 19 £ke4
Wxc4, Sorin-Xarnicki, Buenos Aires 2000,
when 20 0-0! would have kept White slightly
ahead according to 1laxai) 16 S f l (16 0-0-0!?)
16...c3 17 W cl &xd5 I8&xd5.&xd4 19Ae7
c6 20 AxfK WxíH with compcnsation (I lazai).
8 <^c7
Suddenly the knight looks useful, thc tlireat
Ixáng to jump across to e6 with a doublc at­
tack on thc bishop and the f4-pawn. Addi-
tionally the knight supports ...1)71)5 or ...d6-
d5.1 lowcvcr, two other continuations are also
worth investigating.
a) 8...ÍLg4!? 9 0-0 4£k7 10 c5 (Bagirov -Salc,
Abu Dhabi 2002) 10...4?Mi5! with chances for
both sides.
b) 8...b5!? (Korchnoi’s idea) 9 cxb5 cxb5 10
Axb5 Sb8 11 Wc2 12 &c4 d5 13 exd5
(13 &xf6!? exfó! 14 £>xd5 £>xd5 15 ÍLxd5 f5
16 ® c5 fxc4 17 £k6 Wd6 is unclear)
13...£k:xd5 14 Axf6 &xf6 15 0-0 £>h5 16
Sad l ^xf4 (16..J&.g4 17 g3 e6 with compen­
saron according to Cíulko in /¿CX)) 17 We4
&h5! 18 #W5 & f6 19 Wc2 £b7, Gulko-
Barsov, Montrcal 1992 (with an assessmcnt of
unclear from Cíulko in HCO).
9&h4
I .et’s see other continuations:
a) 9 d5 £>h5 10 Wd2 f6 11.&h4 &h6 12 g
e5 was the course of Chjunvachenko-Nady-
rhanov, Novorossijsk 1997, when 13 dxc6!?
bxc6 14 c5 cxf4 15 cxd6 £\e8 is unclear ac­
cording to I i(X ). I lowcvcr, after 16 S d l (pre-
 A v e r b a k h S y s t e m : 5 ¡ L e 2 0 - 0 6 $Lg5 w i t h o u t . . . c 7 - c 5

paring dó-d7 and £ie*5) Black appcars ro liavc

Kcrious problems. Black should prefer
9../¡W>!? 10 12 Wbó 11 H b l Hc8 12 a3
Hl>8 with countcrplay in Dcgcrhammar-
Nchcuermann, li-mail 2001, or 9...cxd5 10
cxd.S £>aó!? 11 <?YI2 #W8 12 H b l (12 H cl!?)
12...15 13 0-0 £ k5 14 exf5 ¿¿Lxf5 with a good
gíiine, Stunia-Kempinski, I j c o ii 2001.
I>) 9 Wd2 and now:
b l) 9...£g4 10 h3 & x G II A x B £>eó
(IL .í'Y IT 12 f5 with a hcalthy iniriadvc for
White in Ulic-McShanc, MiUfield 2(K)0) 12
ÍLh4 £k!7 13 £k2! c5 14 dxc5 dxc5 15 0-0-0!
$VI4 16 c5 and W hite could be confident of Another artempted justification o f Black’s
earning the full point in Yakovich-Xie Jun, set-up, and this one looks sound. I*or cxamplc
Moscow 1992. after 10 e5 1)4 11 exf6 bxc3 12 bxc3 exfó 13
I>2) 9...£k-6!? 10 0-0-0 (10 &h4!?) A h4 Wd7 Black was fine in Wang Ixá-Kova-
Il)...£kg5 11 fxg5 £kl7 12 h4 and now both levskaya, Shanghai 2001, and ñor did 10 cxb5
12...c5, Singleton-Mnnie, Correspondencc cxb5 11 e5 b4 12 exfó bxc3 13 bxc3 improve
1992, and 12 S h fl are unclear. W hite’s lot in Mcins-Reschke, Germany 1998.
I>3) 9...1re8 10 0-0 b5 11 e5 (1 1cxb5!? cxb5 'lilis leaves 10 A xfó, avokling the loss o f a
12 Hael with a slight advantage to White) tempo caused by an attack on the bishop (af­
11...b4 12 exfó (12 £ k ll!?) 12...exf6 13 & h4 ter ...e7xfó, above) by simplv removing the
I>xc3 14 bxc3! is ecjual according to NCX\ but problem piece. Then 10...exfó 11 cxb5 cxb5
in our opinion White has slightly the better 12 0-0b4 (Mirkovic-Brenjo, Kladovo 1994) 13
chances, e.g. 14...ÍÜ5 (14...Í5 15 H fe l, or £kl 1!? f5 leaves much plav, while l0...Axfó 11
l4.Ju.e6 15 H abí with the more plcasant e5 &g7 12 cxb5 cxb5 is more sober, with
game for W hite in either case) 15 Ad3 .&xd3 Black holding his ground after either 13 íhxb5
10 Wxd3 with advantage to White. Note tlvat 4^xb5 14 J jLx I)5 Wbó with play, or 13 0-0 1)4
14 Wxc3? Wxc2 15 H fel í^b5! 16Hxe2®xc3 14 £k*4 ÉLb l 15 ÍLd3 dxc*5 16 dxe5 4&eó 17
17 bxc3 (Yakovich-Atalik, Beijing 1997) fa- H adl ®1>(r\ 18 & h l Vz-Vzy Korotylev-
vours Black after I7...&CÓ 18 £k!2 Hab8. I jomineishvili, U K R 1999 (Black has an edge).
b4) 9...d5 10 A xfó exfó (10..JL x fiS 11 cxd5 9...d5
cxd.S 12 e5 &g7 13 h4 h5 14 Ad3 A hó 15 0-0
® có 16 g3 with a slight advantage to White,
Moskalenko-Zlochevsky, Alushta 1993) II
exd5 (11 cxd5!? cxd5 12 e5 Ü.g4 13 0-0 fxe*5
I I dxe5 f6 was Bursxtyn-Bolbochan, Nctanya
1993, when 15 H adl would have secured
White an edge) 1l...cxd5 12 c5 A fó!? 13 0-0
Ae4 (13...He8 14 H adl ®d 7 15 1)4 Vz-Vz,
Bekkcr Jenscn-Xcsch, Gelsenkirchen 2001) 14
l>4 $Jc6 15 H adl f5 16 £k*5 (Meins-
Kempinski, Groningen 1996) 16...Í6!? with
chances for both sides.
b5) 9...l>5

133
O ffbeat King's Indian
9...ÍY6 is again duhious: 10 Wd2 íhh5 11 g3
.ÍLh6 ( 1 1 2 c5 with advantage to White)
12 #lg5 <?Yg7 13 0-0-0 fó 14 * b l Wc7 15 d5
was crushing in Yakovich-Cílavina Rossi,
Oviedo 1991. But Black can try 9...b5 10 e5
í^gl! thanks to weakness of the c3-S(|uare
(Black wins a tempo), e.g. 11 Wd2 dxe5!? 12
®xc5 (12 dxe5 ÍY 6 13 h3 Wxd2+ 14 *xd2
1)4 15 ?Y4 Hd8+ 16 sfecl ÍV 3 17 Axc7 ?Y2+
18 *12 Bd7 19 Hacl Sxc7 with c<.|uality; 12
fxe5 f6 gives Black counterplay) 12...£)xc5 13
dxe*5 Wxd2+ 14 *xd2 l>4 15 Óc4 16 16 exfó
exfó and the game looks level. Indeed Sal-
ceanu-Jorgcnscn, R-mail 2(HX) continued 17
Hadl <5Yó 18 Hhfl <S\I4 19 ÍLd3 &g4 20
Hdel 1)3 21 h3 22 & (2 Hfd8 13 axl>3
^xb.3+ 24 *c2 Sab8 25 #Y5 Vi-'/a.
10 cxd5
Alternativos achieve nothing.
a) 10 Axfó cxf6! 11 cxd5 (11 0-0 dxe4 12
ÍW-4 ÍLg4 followcd by ...f6-f5 with advantage
to Black, or 11 extl5 cxd5 12 c5 Jig4 with
chances for both sides) I l...cxd5 12 e5 ÍL\\6
and Black is holding his ground well.
b) 10 e5 5ie4 (10...£>Ii5 11 g3 dxc4 12
$Lxc4 with a plus for White) 11?W 4 (110-0
f6 12 £W 4 dxe4 13 ÍY*1 ÍY 6 14 í?Y2 g5 15
fxg5 fxc5 16 Hxf8+ was seen in Illescas-
( lomas, Spain 2002, and now I6...&XÍB!? is
unclear) ll...dxe4 12 Í^g5 f6! 13 $^xe4 5Y*ó
14 d5 (14 exfó!? exfó 15 0-0 #}xd4 with a level
game) 14...cxd.S (14...^xf4!? 15 0-0 fxcS se­
cures an edge for Black) 15 exfó (15 cxd.S
Í^xf4 16 0-0 fxc5!? 17 <16 jiLfó! is given by
Cíolubev as unclear) I5...exfó 16 cxd.S (16
Wxd5 Wxd.S with an edge for Black) 16...5W4
17 0-0 g5 (17...£\xc2+ 18 Wxe2 WxdS 19
®\xf6+ '/a-'/j?, Cs.l lorvath Poldauf, Austria
1999) 18 Ac4 (18 Sxf4 gxf'4 19 dó sfchH with
compcnsation - Cíolubev in liCXJ) 18...Wc7
with much to play for in Wang Ixn-Yc Jiang-
chuan, Shanghai 2(KK).
10...cxd5 11 e5 ¿Ae4\ 12 Wb3 &h6 13 g3
13 Ag5!? &g7 (!3...ü.xg5 14 Clxg5 &xc3
15 Wxc3 fó 16 S e l fxg5 17 Wxc7 gxt'4 18
Hc3 ii.fS is a decent altcrnaüvc) 14 S e l 4hxc3
134
15 Hxc3 <5Vó with chances for both sities.
13...b6
I3...J&.H3!? is also possihle.
14 0-0 &b7 15 £ad1 ^e6 16 $Ae1 <^xc3
17 Wxc3 f6 18 Wd7 19 i¿.g4 Aa6 20
&fe1 f5 21 &f3 g5 22 fxg5 &xg5 23
ÍLxg5 ^xg5 24 e6
24 4Y4!? is another option.
24...Wd6
More accurate is 24...íhh3+ 25 * h l 4^12+
2 6 * g l £lh3+ with a perpetual check.
25 fíe 5?
Missing 25 í^f4! *5Y 4 26 Wl>3 with an edge
for W hite.
25...fth3+ 26 <Á>h1 ftf2+ 27 sfcgl £\xd1
28 &xd1 Sac8 29 Wd2 Wc7 30 Wg5+
*h 8 31 <hf4? ^c1 32 He1 Sf6 33 h4
Wxb2 34 £>xd5 Wxd4+ 35 C\e:3 fíg8 36
Wh5 Sxg3+ 37 &h2 Wf4 38 ^g2 Sxg2+
39 &xg2 Hg6 + 40 &h1 $Lb7+ 0-1
Gawe 60
Kachiani Gersinska-Kovalev
I le/sinki 1996
1 d4 <?^f6 2 c4 g6 3 ^tc3 ÍLg7 4 e4 d6 5
£e2 0-0 6 ¿g5 ^a6 7 Wd2
The most logical and flexible move, dcvcl-
oping thc ejueen actively by tcaming up with
the bishop.
7...e5
Black, too, responds in standard fashion,
staking a claim in the centre. O f course there
 A v e r b a k h S y s t e m : 5 ¡L e 2 0 - 0 6 $Lg5 w i t h o u t . . . c 7 - c 5
ure o ilier movcs available bul, unlcss Black is
Inicni on doing without ...c7-c5, lie might as
well play ii now.
a) 7...Wc8!? teruls to trans|X)se to lines cov-
uicd below after 8 Ii4 c5 9 c!5 or 8 f3 e5 etc.
b) 7...c5?! 8 c!5 e6 9 #M3 (9 dxc6!? -&xc6,
Solmajcr-Brcznik, Slovenia 1993 and 10 <£U3
liivours W hite) 9...excl5 10 cxd5 K c8 (10...JÍg4
11 W f4 with advantage to W hite) 11 0-0 W b6
12 J&d3 (12 Hac l is also good cnongh for a
plus) I2..j&.d7 (I2....&g4 13 Wí4) 1 3 h 3 ^ b 4
14 ¿ b l hS 15 a3 4ha6 16 A d 3 and Black was
Mmgglingin Barecv-I.Sokolov, Biel 1993.
c) 7...c6 8 13!? <5V7 9 0-0-0 (9 S d l!? )
9...1)5!? (9...£ic6 10 .¿Lc3 W a5 11 *1)1 is Ix'tter
for W hile) 10 cxb5 cxb5 11 .&xb5 (11 ^ x b 5
v^\b5 12 .&xb5 W\y(> with compcnsation)
11...#Y\I)5 12 $}xb5 ÉLeG with cnougli activity
lor ihe pawn. Black can also try 8...fib8!?, e.g.
9 g4 W a5 10 Ii4 (Sakaev-Motylev, Moscow
1998) 10_c5!? I I 4VI5 Wxd2+ 12 & xd2
$\xd5 13 cxd.S f6 with an interesiing position.
8 d5 W e8
Black wanis lo unpin iinmediaielv.
9h4
Iliis thmst is certainly a key theme in this
sysieni! 9 A d l is covcred in thc next main
game, while otliers are discussed below.
a) 9 (>-()-() £ k S (9...iLcl7 10 13 11g3 15
12 ÍLc3 13 ex 15 gxl5 was unclear in I ler-
liando Rodrigo- Barrero (jarcia, Barcelona
2000) 10 13 ^ h 5 11 b4 4Ya6 12 a3 $SÍ4 13
.¿.í I (13 g.3 # W 2 + 14 <?\gxc2 f5 with chances
lor both sides according to G o Iu Ik v in l i ( 'O)
13...f6 14 ÍLh4 & H 6 15 * b 2 f5 16 \fc2 fxe4
17 #W *4 A f5 18 .&12 $M)8 and both sides
could be reasonably contení in Ractsky-
( iolubev, Biel 1994.
b) 9 ¿h(?> £>h5!? 10 g3 (10 0-0-0 11
Ü.xf4 cxf4 12 H d el £ k 5 13 iL d l a6 14 & c2
b5 15 W xf4 b4! was fine for Black in D ao
'I’liien I lai-Paragua, Manila 2001, while Black
generated good play after 10 0-0 f5 11 £Y*1 f4
12 13 h6 13 $LM g5 14 ÍL f2 W g6 15 <5V I3 g4
in Pisulinski-Toc/ck, I Aibniewice 2002) 10...f5
11 exf5 ( I I ^ h 4 f4 12 g4 £tf6 13 f3 h5 14
gxli5 £ « i 7 15 #\xg6 4hxg5, Tisdall W atsoti,
O slo 1991, and now 16 Íi4!? £ih7 17
4&xf8 18 0-0-0 W xh5 19 fid g l keeps the fire
burning) 1l...gxf5 12 A lió f4 13 jiLxg7 4hxg7
with cc|uality, Gulko-Djurhuus, Manila 1992.
c) 91x13
e l) 9...£>h5 10 £\ge2 15 11 13 ( I I exl5
.£txf5 12 .&xf5 gxf5 failed lo troublc Black in
Baragar-Yoos, W innipeg 1997) ll...#k*5
(I I...P4 12 A h 4 g5 13 & i2 g4 14 0-0-0 * h 8
15 * b 1 ÍL f6 16 £ \cl gxf3 17 gxf3 W e7 18
#M>5 c5 19 dxeó bxc6 20 #Y*3 4?\g7!, as in Dao
'lliie n 11ai-David, W ijk aan /ce 1997, is un­
clear according to I lazai) 12 A c 2 a5 13 cxf5
gxf5 14 0-0 (14 0-0-0 & d 7 15 Ii3 f4 16 & h 4
a4 17 & (2 1)6 with chances for both sides,
Bekkcr Jcnscn-I lunt, W itley 1999) 14..J&.d7
(14...I4!?) 15 H a c l f4 I6 g4 fxg3 17 Iixg3 £>f6
with a balanccd middlcgamc, I lorvath-
Kindem iann, Austria 1997.
c2) 9../?\17 also releases thc f-pawn. In
I loang Thanh Trang-('olem an, Amsterdam
1996 Black should have met 10 #\ge2 with the
immediate 10...Í5!? 11 cxf5 gxf5 with healihy
counterplay. After 10 S d l £klc5 11 ÜLbl fó
12 ÍLe3 f5 13 13 .&d7 the tensión builds, while
10... 15 was the more direct course taken in
Najcr-Umanskaya, M oscow 1996, which went
I I £>ge2 f4 12 13 ÍL f6 (I2...li6 13 j2Lh4 £klc5
14 ü .b l A d 7 with chances for lx>th sides) 13
J&.xf6 Sx f6 , and now in l i ( X ) Umanskaya
gives 14 a3 c5! 15 dxc6 bxc6 16 b4 $ \'7 with
chances for both sides.
135
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
Ix t’s rctiirn to 9 h4, with the following po­
sition:
9 ...^ c5 !?
Black has also tried 9...4?Mi 5 10 J&.xh5 (10
£>h3 f6 II Ah6 &xh6 12 Wxh6 &xh3 13
.ÍLxh.S with a level game in SorinNadyrhanov,
Moscow 1994) 10...gxhS II 4hge2 f5 12 cxf5
& x 6 13 &g3 Wg6 14 <^xf5 W xft 15 0-0
#Y\5 16 13 and White stcxxl slightly Ixrtter in
l:it/.patrick-Cjuizar, ( >>rrcspondencc 1999.
10 Wc2
10 f3?! unnccessarily weakens the dark
squares - K)...^h5 ll g4 (l l b4 4?k6 12 a3 15
and Black is doing fine) ll...£\g3 12 5h3
$ixc2 13 4ftgxc2 (13 Wxe2 f5 with the usual
activity for Black in Borbjcrggaard-Sosnicki,
Koszalin 1997) I3...f5 aixl Black has no com-
plairus, Petran-Tratar, Austria 1996.
10...a5
I0...h6 II A c3 £>g4 12 &xg4 &xg4
(Tjiam-Pikct, I lolland 1996) is a trade that
deserves further tests.
11 h5
White presses on rather than take time out
to castle, which resulted in a complex position
in Niclsen-I.ambcrt, Correspondencc 1998
after 11 <)-<>-<>ÍLd7 12 £ih3 £>a4!? 13 Bd3 (13
I3...£>xc3 14 2xc3.
11...ftxh5 12 Axh5 gxh5 13 iLe3 Íha6
14 ^ge2 f5 15 f3 Wg6 16 Sh2 c6
Black should not open up the position. The
flexible l6...Ad7!? is preferable, with dynamic
cquality.
136
17 Wd2 fxe4 18 <^xe4 cxd5 19 cxd5 &d7
20 <teg3 &ac8 21 a3 £c4?!
21...£k5!? looks better.
22 b3 &xe4?! 23 £>xe4 £ f5 24 Sh4 &xe4
25 Sxe4 foc7 26 Sc1 Wf7 27 Ed1 $\eS
28 &g5 % 6 29 Sc1 &16 30 ile 3 &d8
31 Sec4 Pif6 32 Sc8 ?! e4 33 & h6?! exf3
34 % 5 ? ?
A serious mistake. Instead the cold-
blooded 34 gxf3 WgH- 35 s£?e2 He8+ 36 st?d3
Wg6+ 37 sfcc'4 is brutal.
34...f2+ ?
One mistake often scems to prompt an­
other in reply. 'lilis time therc is the simpler
34...fxg2 (or, with different move ordcr,
34...Wxg5 35 Axg5 fxg2) 35 &e2 Wxg5 36
&xg5 ¿l>6 37 HxfH+ 38 &xf6 g ÍW 39
Hxgl A xgl with which Black steers the game
to a winning ending!
35 <&e2 Wxg5?
I.uck goes in eyeles, and here ir smiles on
White, who woulcl only be ablc to claim a
modest plus after 35...Se8*í 36 < á?fl sfef7 37
Wxg6 J &xg6 38 A14 fte4 39 H 1c2.
36 ¿x g 5 ^ e4 37 Sxd8 £lg3+ 38 &d3
flW + 39 TLxf1 £>xf1 40 Sxf8+ &xf8 41
& f4 h4 42 itxd6+ &e8 43 a4 * d 7 44
& f4 &g3 45 *¿>c4 £le4 46 <Á>d4 £tf2 47
&e3 h3 48 gxh3 ^xh3 49 & c5 h6
49...h5 50 *l>5 *d 6 51 *xa5 *xd 5 52
tí?b6 is decisive.
50 &xh6 fo12 51 &b6 <5te4 52 *x a 5 £>f6
53 &b6 <¿>c8 54 d6 £>d7+ 55 <&b5 <Á>b8
56 & g 7 & c 3 57 b4 &b8 58 a5 & c8 59
<&c4 ftb8 60 b5 <&d7 61 <&d5 <&e8 62
&d4 &d7 1-0
Cuw/e 61
Leitao-Gormally
Memiüid lieach 1998
1 d4 £tf6 2 c4 g6 3 ^ic3 iLg7 4 e4 d6 5
& e 2 0-0 6 &g5 fta6 7 ^d2 e5 8 d5 We8
9 ÍLd1
Ai first glance a little strange, dropping the
bishop back to el l is in fact quite logical - and
 A v e r b a k h S y s t e m : 5 $Le2 0 - 0 6 & g 5 w i t h o u t . . . c 7 - c 5
very popular in modern practico. White wanrs
lo (I c I c ik I the c4-pawn with £ic2, while the
mifii tnanocuvre also frees c2 for the king’s
knight. Note the connection with positions in
the 5 ÍLci3 system (with Black’s cjueen on c*8
instead oi c!8).
9...SU15
Black’s justification for this radical response
is the ’gain’ o f a tempo and the fact that the
ijueen will offer protcction on the Ii5-c8 di­
agonal after the planned ...f7-f5 etc. I lowever,
this strategy is not without some positional
nsk and, consecjuently, is probahly not the
IK*st o f Black’s options, which we can take a
look at bclow.
a) 9...c6 10 í^gc2 cxd.S 11 Axf6 J&xf6 12
GWI5 Á M 13 0-0 A có 14 Wd8 15 g3
ÍLg5 16 f4 exf4 17 gxf4 with advantage to
White, Mascarenhas-Barkwcll, K-mail 1997.
I>) 9...£k:5 10 A c2 a5 I I &gc2 Ad7
(I I...£>h5?! 12 £lb5 Wd7 13 0-0-0 b6 14 Í3 a4
was tried in Seirawan-Pikct, W ijk aan Zec
1991, when Pikct suggests 15 j2.e3! followed
by #Y*c3 with a very big lead) 12 Í3 b5
(I2...<¿?h8 13 0-0 £>g8 14 Hael f6 15 Ae3 í5
16 ex(5 gxf5, Tisdall-Manninen, Gausdal 1991,
and now 17 c5!? dxc*5 18 £\cl b6 19 ®kl3
looks strong; 12...h5 13 Ae3 4hh7 14 0-0-0
|Pctursson-Djurhuus, Gausdal 1995) 14...a4!?
15 S&bl a3 16 b3 with a plus) 13 cxb5 Axl>5
14 ®xb5 Wxb5 (Valeriani-Stilling, Corrc-
spondence 1991) and now 15 H b l followed
bv 0-0, gives White an edge according to Pikct.
c) 9..JÜ.d7 is probably best. Tlien 10 Ii3
®k:5 11 $Lc2 a5 12 g4 b5 13 cxb5 ÍLxl>5 14
£\gc*2 Hb8 was good for Black in Cran-
bournc-Buraschi, Correspondence 1999, so
White should play 12 4üge2!? with chances for
both sides. Instead 10 £\gc2 #Mi5 11 £\g3
4bf4 12 0-0 £ic5 13 J¡Lc2 a5, when Yusupov
gives the following: 14 a4 Wb8 15 Habí
(Black is fine after either 15 J¡Lxf4 cxf4 16
# x f4 Wa7 or I6...c6) 15...Wa7 16 £igc2
$ixc2+ 17 Wxc2 Wb8 with ccjuality, Yusupov-
Nikolaidis, Ycrcvan 1996.
10 &xh5!
'lilis principled capture appcars cffective
but it is not W hite’s only promising continua-
tion.
a) 10 ®gc2 f5 11 exf5 gxf5 12 Í\g3 QSf(>
13 & c2 Wg6 14 O Ad7 15 0-0 Hae8 with
mutual chances, Ixitao-Marques, Sao Paulo
1997.
b) 10 &a4!? £d7 11 &xd7 Wxd7 12 ^gc2
f5 13 (3 & c5 (13...#lf6 14 £ icl £k:5 15 ®kl3
4&xd3+ 16 Wxd3 fxe4 17 ®xc4 $}xe4 was
agreed drawn in Sapis-Umansky, Ixgnica
1996, although White has the advantage here)
14 1>4 £to4 15 0-0 a5 16 a3 & f6 17 Habí
18 S W 3 with an edge for White,
4&xc3
I leinig-Schenk, Bad Wocrishofen 2001.
c) 10 Í3 f5 11 &gc2 Ad7 (I l...fxc4 12
5üxc4 ^ Í4 13 0-0, Ivanov-Sokolin, Russia
1992, and now !3 JW f7 14 & c2 h6 15 Ah4
g5 16 .&g3 favours White; 1I„.4ic5 12 1>4 fxc4
13 bxc5 cxf3 14 gxf3 Hxf3 would have led to
troublc for Black in Krizsany-Czcbe, Budapest
1993 had White found 15 #k:4!, clamping
down on Black’s King’s Indian bishop, so
Black should play 12...¿W> 13 Aa4 W f7 14 a3
with advantage to White) 12 a3 f4 13 ÍLh4
J&f6 1 4 A í2 *fe7 15J&.c2(15&a4!?) I5...iüi4
16 g3 A g 5 17 g4 £)g3 (Yakovich-
Nadyrhanov, Smolensk 1997) 18 H gl ®üxe2
(18...Axg4 19 Ii4!) 19 Wxe2 & h4 with a bal­
ancee! game according to Nadyrhanov in
liC O .
Returning to the |X )S Ítio n after 10 Axh5,
below, the recapture is not torced.
137
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
10...gxh5
Rather than the automatic recapture Black
can hopc for more with I0...f6, e.g. 11 .¿Üi6
Ü.xh6 12 HÍfxh6 gxh5 13 5\gc2 ®g6 14 Wd2
15 15 f3 1)6 16 exf5 .¿Lxf5, which is given as
ecjnal in I iCO. I lowcvcr after 17 Í\g3 j&.d7, as
in Pctursson-Grivas, Katcrini 1993, White
should play 18 0-0-0 with an edge.
11 £>f3!?
11 Í\ge2 15!? 12 cxf5 ÜLxtt 13 ©g3 e4
0-0 Wg6 15Ae3Sac8 (Pctursson-Glek, Bcl-
grade 1988) 16 &xf5 Sxf5 17*h1 with ¡2-tt
to follow, and White should he Ijcttcr here.
11 ...f5 12 exf5 &xf5 13 ^h4 ftc5 14
^ x f5 Hxf5 15 0-0 Wg6 16 & e 3 fíaf8 17
Sad1
Stronger is 17 ji.xc5 dxc5 18 £w*4, e.g.
!8...Kf4 19 4?\xc5 JXxc4 20 4he6 Sf7 21 Wc3
with an etlgc (I xñtao), or 18...h6 19 Wc2 ctc.
17...h4 18 i¿.xc5 dxc5
138
19 d6?!
Tcmpting, but more promising winning
prosjxcts are offered hy 19 ÍV 4 or 19 Wc2,
although after 19...h3 20 g3 Whitc’s potcnrial
prohlcms on thc light stjuares present him
with technical tlifficultics as far as convcrring
thc advantage is concernetl.
19...cxd6 20 Wd5+ &h8 21 Wxd6 Wxd6?
Missing 2l...c4! 22 í^xc4 JÍxb2 23 Wxg6
hxg6 with ctjuality.
22 £xd6 &14 23 fíd7?!
Preferable is 23 b3 e*4 24 #VI5 with a plus.
23.. .b6
After 23...Sxc4 24 Iíxb7 c4 25 Sxa7 Axc3
26 bxc3 Sxc3 Black should tlraw thc ending.
24 b3 e4 25 g3 hxg3 26 hxg3 Hg4 27
$\e2 a5 28 Sfd1 1-0
( )bviously White has a clcar advantage -
his active pieccs combinetl with the weakness
of Black’s pawn structurc will s<K>ncr or later
rcsult in the win of a pawn. I lowcvcr, Black
could still have put up a bit more resistance.
14
GíW/e 62
I.Farago-Rotstein
M aribor 1994
1 d4 #if6 2 c4 g6 3 <¡te3 A g í 4 e4 d6 5
XLe2 0-0 6 .¿Lg5 ¿fta6 7 Wd2 e5 8 d5 c6
More active than 8...Wc8, Black wastes no
time secking counterplay on thc tjucenside.
I lowcvcr, opening the c-ñlc is not aKvays ad-
vantageous for Black...
 A v e r b a k h S y s t e m : 5 & e 2 0 - 0 6 $ Lg 5 w i t h o u t . . . c 7 - c 5
BÁf3
I liis move has been popularised by G M
Ivan barago. ( )n 13 thc bishop protects thc e4-
|>ii\vn and frccs thc e2-sc|uare for thc knight,
while thc niain idea behind thc text is to cven-
lually larget Black’s backward d6-pawn. I low-
i ver, this is the seeond move with the same
piccc, and to a post that is far from perfect!
W ilh ibis in mind W hite should look elsc-
wlicre for more threatening continuations. 9
h'l and 9 13 are dcalt with in the next two main
filmes, while here are the other altcrnatives:
a) ') A c ll?! does not work out well for
While in this particular scenario, allowing
Black immediate counterplay, e.g. 9...cxd5 10
t xd5 (the key factor here is the unprotccted
l>5 st|uarc) I0...b5í? II a3 ( l l í^xlxS 01)6 is
okay for Black) 11J2 k :5 12 f3 a5 13 &xb5 a4!
I I ÍV '3 J&a6 (14...Wa5 with compcnsation -
Peiursson in HCO) 15 $Lc2 Wb8 16 £}gc2
«Kxb2 17 0-0 4¡}b3 18 &xb3 Wxd2 19 Axd2
uxb3 and Black had an exccllent position in
I jcitao-Sorin, Sao Paulo 1991.
b) After 9 $M3 <5Y\S W hite’s picces look
poorly placed, and iherc is no convenicnt way
lo defend the c4-pawn. Barccv-Kuxmin,
I ’SSR Championship 1990 went 10 j&xfó
ifx fó 11 b4 £>a6 12 a3 c5 13S b l Wc7 14 0-0
IS 15 «V-l, when Barecv gives 15...fxe4 16
ÍW 4 ÍLf5 17 JhL(3 b6 18 £kl3 Eac8 19 bxc5
J¿Lxc4 20 Axc4 QSxc5 as ecjual.
c) 9 A d3
Another move of the light-stjuarcd bishop.
lile diagram position is not unlikc those en
countercd in the 5 Ü.d3 variation, cxcept that
here W hite has lost a move. Nonetheless it is a
littlc more accuratc to prefer d3 over d i here.
9...£k5 10 ÍLc2 and now:
e l) I0...a5 11 íhge2 cxc15 12 exdS!? J bLcI7 13
0-0 Wc7 14 b3 E fe 8 was unclear in Bcttalli-
Pantaleoni, Correspondence 1992.
c2) lO Jtb ó 11 S b l W b 4 (1 l...a5 12#>ge2
with an edge for W hite) 12 Í^ge2 h6 (12...a5
13 a3 Wxc4 14 & xf6 ÍLxf6 15 b4 axl>4 16
axb4 cxd5 17 bxc5 and Black was on the
ropes in Pctursson Nunn, Reykjavik 1990) 13
a3 Wxc4 14 ÍLxf6 ÍLxf6 15 M Üg5 16 W d l
exd5 17 bxc5 c!4 18 #VI5 Wxc5 19 0-0 Ü.e6
and now an assessment o f unclear is given in
I ¿CO, but W hite is doing well, e.g. 20 ¿.1)3 (20
A d3!? is also interesting, 20....&xd5 21 exd5 f5
22 Wa4 Wc7 23 Wb3 Wg7 24 Wxb7 Wxb7 25
Sxb7 being exccllent for W hite) 20...Sac8 21
*h 1 #xa3 22 f4 & h4 23 f5 gxf5 24 exí5
A xdS 25 J jLxcIS Bc5 26 Sb 3 Wa5 (Silman-
lloot, California 1990) 27 .&xb7 with a slight
advantage to White.
c3) 10...cxd5!> 11 cxd.S (11 cxd5 a5 12
$}gc*2 leads back to I0...a5, but I l...W b6í? is
quite possible) 11...a5 12 íhge2 .&d7 (12...b5!?
13 íhxb5 h6 14 J&.xf6 j«Lxf6 15 h4 h5 was
unclear in Lyukmanov-Bcroun, Correspon-
denee 1990, and after 14 iLxh6 ^^cxc^l! 15
&xc4 & e 4 16 W c3 ÍLxh6 17 Wxe4 ÍLf5 thc
bishop pair gives Black good compcnsation
for the pawn) 13 13 b5 14 0-0 1)4 15 £ k ll $Lb5
(l5...W l)6 16 & e3 -kl>5 17 ¿h(2 Wa6 18 S fc l
Vz-Vz, Silman-Rey, San Francisco 1999) 16
B e l Wb6 with an interesting struggle in Cíis-
lason-Kilgour, Correspondence 1990/94.
9...cxd5
a) 9...We8 10 dxc6 Wxc6 11 S e l ÍLe6 12
b3 (12 £\ge2!? with advantage to W hite)
12...£k;5 13 £>gc2 h6! 14 & xf6 & xf6 15 S d l
Ag5 16 W c2 h5 was ctjual in Horvath-
Dyclyshko, I Iarkany 1991.
b) 9...Wa5 10 &ge2 cxd.S (10...£k:5 11 0-0
cxd5 12 í^xdS Wxd2 13 £taf6+ & xf6 14
ÍLxd2 with a pulí for W hite |l.l;arago in HCO]
139
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian

iu ('Virago-'Wells, I lungary 1995, when While 'The diagram position is what White was
had achieved his aim of reaching an ending looking for when he embarked on this line -
with the backward pawn) 11 cxdS! and Black Black’s d6-pawn is backward and the d5-
must justify sending the queen to a5. After square is a potential problem. But the price is
11...ÍV*5 12 H bl Black loses rime thanks to vulnerability on the dark squares and a passive
his awkward pieces, e.g. 12...01)4 13 0-0 Ad7 bishop, which now looks fairly lacking on B.
14 a3 Wl)3 15 íbel Wl>6 16 1>4with advantage Moreover, as for the d5-square, this feature is
to White. 'Iliis leaves I l...l>5 12 a3 Hb8 13 0-0 less worrying for Black than ii might first
b4 14 #1)6 15 £kl>4 £>xl>4 16 Ae3 Kb7 seem, for as soon White sentís the knight
17 axl>4 Wxl>4 18 #k*3 Wxb2 19 Wxb2 Hxl>2 therc Black will be reatlv J to remove it with
20 Hxa7 with advantage ro White. We can also ...Bxd5, leaving Black with the superior minor
consider 11 í^xdS Wxd2+ 12 Axd2 ®xd5 13 piece. Meanwhilc the t!6-pawn is easy it) de-
cxdS 14 0-0 Ad7 15 b4 ÍLbS 16 Hfel Sac8 fend. Consequen ily the game is well balanced.
17 ftc3 Acl3 18 a.3 fie 7, which was seen in 13...iLe6
I lort-Xie )un, London 1996, when the c-file Wasting no time in monitoring tl5. ( )thers:
played a parí: 19 Hael Bfc8 20 -&c2 Axc2 21 a) I3J5V-6 14 H cl Htl8 15 0-0 £>g5 16
íhxe2 Sc2 22 #\g3 fi8c7 23 b5 Hxc 124 fixc 1 He3 with the lxítter prospeets for White,
Hxcl+ 25 JjLxc 1£.V7 aiul a draw was agreed. I Virago-Deak, Mungary 1993.
10£>xd5 b) !3...Wh4 14 g3 We7 15 0-0 ilh 3 16
10 cxd5 is harmless: l()...Ad7 11 Hbl We8 Hfdl Satl8 17 £k:3 f6 18 We3 a6 19 Hd2
12 £\gc2 h5 13 0-0 fth7 14 Ah6 Axh6 15 £k*6 20 .&g2 .ÍLxg2 21 S¿> xg2 and Black has
Wxh6 We7 16 g3 Wg5 with equality, 13c- matle the mistake of trading bishops in Be-
liavsky, Bónsch-Maiwald, Dresden 2000. liavsky, 1*arago-( iroszpeter, /alakaros 1994,
10...^c5 being suitably punishetl with a disadvantage
I ( ) . . . . ll £le2 Stc8 12 £>xf6+ (12 b3 following the subsequent 21...Í5 22 exf5 gxf5
ÍL x iIS 13 ÍLxt'6 iLx ft 14 WxdS Sc5 15 Wd2 23 f4 Wc7 24 b3 Wc5 25 fie l Wxc3 26 Kxe3
bS with countcrplay in Rezsek-Grabies, I lun- e4 27 #YI5 etc.
gary 1995) 12...Axf6 13 &xf6 Wxf6 14 1>3 c) 13...b6 14 0-0 (14 b3 <¡Lbl 15 &c3
We7 15 0-0^1)8 16 H fdl Hfd8 17 Hael £ícó 16 0-0 £kl4 17 Wh4 '/2-Víí, IVirago-
with chances for both sides, 1Virago-Paehtx, Círos/peter, Budapest 1993) l4...Ab7 15®e3
Budaj>esi 1991 (this is similar to the main line, (l ;arago-Scres, Mungary 1994) 15...Hatl8 16
below). H fdl #b4 17 g3 (17 £k3 f5) 17...We7 and
I I &xf6 & X f6 12^xf6+ Wxf6 13 ®e2 Black has countcrplay in the form of ...f7-f5.
Another 1Virago game, Farago-Szuk, Mungary
1995, went instead 15 #k\3, when Black
should have continuetl 15..JSad8!? 16 Hadl
4hc6 with chances for both sities.
14 Sc1 Wh4!? 15 g3 We7 16 0-0 a5 17
b3 a4
Black has succeedetl in geñerating a level of
countcrplay to affortl him a level game.
18 Sb1 f5 19 exf5 &xf5 20 Hbd1 axb3
21 axb3 & e6 22 &d5 ^>xb3 23 &xe6+
^xe6 24 Wxd6 Wxc4 25 ^xe5 Hae8 26
^ c3 b5 27 Sd7 Sf7 28 Hxf7 <&xf7 29
^xc4+ bxc4 30 ?Ac3 Hd8 31 He1 Sd3 32

140
 A v e r b a k h S y s t e m : 5 $Le2 0 - 0 6 $Lg5 w i t h o u t . . . c 7 - c 5
Qe3 Sxe3 33 fxe3 * 6 6 34 & f2 & e5 35
JLe2 ^ c 5 36 <¿>f3 h5 37 h4 ^ e 6 38 g4
0\c5 39 gxh5 gxh5 40 ,¿ ’e2
40 £k-2 £>c4 41 £tf4 #W> 42 £k-2 ¡s cc|iial.
40...í ^ 6 41 W f3 ^ g 7 42 4?te8 43
^g3 £tf6 44 * e 2 * d 5 45 <¿>d2 ¿ c 5 46
Ac2 'h-'h
Gante 6 3
Yakovich-Beckhuis
1 d4 £>í6 2 c4 g6 3 4>c3 iLg7 4 e4 d6 5
¿ e 2 0-0 6 iLg5 4\a6 7 Wd2 e5 8 d5 c6 9
h4
(N .B. 9 Í3 cxd.S 10 cxd5 á.d7 11 h4 was thc
game’s actual move order)
I lere we go again! Kxpect to see W hitc’s g- 17 gxh5 with an advantage to White. Glek’s
pawn play a parí in this flank offensive sooner
•>r later.
9...cxd5 10 cxd5 &d7
O f course ihis is nol the only way to get
Black’s queenside counterplay rolling:
a) lO.-.WaS ll 6 ( II a3!?)
(I l...ÍLd7 - K)...^.d7) 12 «4
is Serpcr-Yc (iangehuan,
Jakarta 1994, when 14...£k5!? nvaintains the
balance.
l>) 10...We8 11 B A d7 1 2 g 4 (l2 ^ h 3 ^ c 5
I3g4 h5 14 í^f2, Ivanchuk-Topalov, Yerevan
1996, with a slight advantage to W hite accord­
ing to NCX); 12 h5!? í^xh5 13 &xa6 bxa6 14
g4 fo(4 15 Wh2 h5 16 & xf4 exf4 17 gxh5 is
another possibility, and one which l<x>ks quite
dangerous) 12...h5 13 &xf6!? Axf6 14 gxh5
(Á>
g7, Gaprindashvili-Makropoulou, Kuala
Lumpur 1990. I1k* evaluation o f this position
in NCX) is that there is compcnsation, bul
after 15 juLxa6!? I>xa6 16 hxg6 fxg6 17 Wg2 the
bishop pair is not enough for the pawn.
c) 10...ÍV5!? 11 B (11 h5 ftcxe4 12 £ke4
&xe4 13 &xd8 &xd2 14 & c l Se8 15 ÍLxd6
#V4 16 & a3 & d7 with a level game, De
I laro-Giaccio, Montevideo 2000) ll...W b6 !?
12 g4 h5 (12...ild7 13 h5 a5 14 S e l a4, Mike-
ivas Mickicwicz, Bydgos/cz 2001, and now 15
A e3 leaves bolh sides with something to aim
at) 13 A x fó i.x f6 14 gxh5 gxh5 15 íhh3
(Berkley-Garnett, ( !orrcspondcnce 2(KH))
15...ü.xh31? 16 Sxh3 S¿?h7 with equal chances.
I I f3
11 ÍLxa6!? might not be to cveryone’s taste,
bul perhaps parting with the bishop is the best
option. Ironically, presenting Black with the b-
file looks like the best chance for W hite to
undermine Black’s counterplay on the queen­
side because much o f ibis lies in the pieces*
harmony and dynamism. Additioivally, W hite
can also bring his knight to e2. After l l...bxa6
W hite has tried a couple o f moves.
a) 12 B and now I2...0b6 13 £ige2 Hal>8
14 H b l a5 gives Black something but proba-
bly not enough, e.g. 15 g4 h5 16 Jlx fó JwLxfó
assessment o f unclear after I2...Wa5 13 g4 h5
might need another look, as 14 & xf6 Axf6 15
gxh5 leaves Black with serious problems, e.g.
15...Wd8 16 hxg6 Ü.xh4+ 17 sfed! etc. Mean­
while I2...h5!? ¡3 ^ g e 2 W a 5 14 fie l £>h7 15
Il...£ ih5 .&c3 is an edge for White.
13 b) 12 hS Wa5 13 #\gc2 (W hite should prc-
fer 13 hxg6!? fxg6 14 B , as is the case on the
next two moves) 13...Sab8 14 B Wb6 15
Ae3?! (it makes no sense lo give up ihe pawn
- after 15 hxg6!? fxg6 16 b3 a5 Black is not
deprived o f counterplay but W hite’s chances
are better) l5...Wxb2 16 Wxb2 Sxb2 with a
complicaied, balaneed game in Moskalenko-
Glek, Odessa 1989.
141
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
£ixf4 &g7 39 £te6 iLxb2 40 £>xc5 dxc5
41 Hb1 c4+ 42 * c 2 c3 43 d6 & f7 44 e5
&e6 45 f4 h4 46 Sd1 &xa3 47 d7 1-0
Back to the position after 11 B .
11...Wb6
I l...®a5!? and now 12 4£ih3 Hab8 13 4^b5 kingside White rcinforccs the centre. O f
í^l>4 14 í?Ya3 Sfc8 was unclear in 1loang
Thanh Trang-Pintcr, Budapest 1998. 12 g4 h5
13 Axfó Axfó 14 gxh5 SÉ?g7 15 hxgó fxgó
cjuickly saw the kingside undergo alterations in
Gaprindashvili-loscliani, '11>ilisi 1991, Black’s
return for the pawn being enough according
to NCX). Mcanwhilc 12 ® k ll ®>l>4 13 4üc3
Vz-V¿y 1ícrraiz I I¡dalgo-Arizmcndi Martínez,
Ayamonte 2002 was not quite so exciting.
12 g4 h5 13 ile 3
13 Axfó &xfó 14 gxh5 ^g7 is fine.
13...ftc5 14 g5 £*e8 15 &H3 a5 16 Sc1
White achieved no more than approximatc
cquaüty with ló 4^12 £k7 17 0-0 in l)c Santis-
1lorvath, Budapest 1999.
16...€tc7 17 £tf2 £>7a6 18 *f1 Sfc8 19
<&g2 ÍLf8 20 Hhdl a4 21 H bl Hab8 22
H dcl Wb4 23 ftb5 &e7 24 £id1
24 í4!? is also possible.
24...1.xb5
li is ccrtainly not neccssary to makc this ex­
change, and Black wonld do better to maintain
a wair and-see policy, e.g. 24...Sa8!? with a
level game.
25 ^xb4 Íhxb4 26 ¿Lxb5 £tod3
2ó...4^xa2 27 Kc4 is futile.
27 Hxc8+ Hxc8 28 a3 £ic2 29 ÍLxd3
£te1 + 30 <&f2 £>xd3+ 31 &e2 £if4+ 32
&xf4 exf4 33 ftc3 f6 34 Hg1 fxg5 35
hxg5 b5 36 * d 3 Hc5 37 V\e2 & f8 38
142
GV////1 64
Kachiani Gersinska-Wang Pin
Si(botica Interina! (Wornen) 1991
I d4 & f6 2 c4 g6 3 <^c3 ilg 7 4 e4 d6 5
&e2 0-0 6 &g5 £>a6 7 Wd2 e5
In ordcr to better accommodate variations
we have altercd the actual move ordcr, which
was 7... có 8 B c5 9 ti 5.
8 d5 c6 9 f3
Before stepping up the pressure on tlie
course play can sometimes run along the lines
of the previous game, but therc are other in­
teresting avenucs. In this game, for cxamplc,
White uses the g-pawn only to address Black’s
desired ...f7-f5 advance.
9...cxd5
O r 9...Wa5 10 g4 (after 10 dxeó bxeó ll
Wxdó £ lM ! Black has more than enough
compensation for the pawn) I0...H5 and now:
a) 11 h3 cxd.S (11J& c 5 !? 12 0-0-0 cxd.S 13
Ítxf6 .&xf6 14 £>xd5 Wxd2+ 15 *xd 2 % 5 f
16 wc3 Ii4 with approximatc cquaüty, while
I I ...ÍLd7 12 0-0-0 cxd5 13 £>xd5 Wxd2+ 14
Sxd2 £>xd5 15 fíxdS ÍLe6 16 Sxd6 Sfc8 17
* h l gave White the more pleasant game in
Wang Yaovao-Smiriti, Beijing 199ó) 12 í^xd5
Wxd2+ 13 *xd 2 £lxd5 14 cxd5 f6 1S ÍLe3 15
was played in Yusupov-Smirin, Yerevan 1996.
Smirin considers this position to lx‘ unclear
but we think that it is better for White
b) 11 h4!? looks cffcctivc. Then 1l...£k\5 12
H bl Wc7 13 b4 £W> 14 a3 is nicc for White,
while 11...hxg4 12 Axfó Axfó 13 fxg4 £>c5 14
g5 ma:7 15 0-0-0 followed by pressing on with
the h4-h5 gives White a menacing initiative.
10 cxd5
10 4hxd5!? also looks favourablc for Whi
but the game is more simplifted, e.g. I0...#k5
11 j£d3 A có (11...&CÓ was Jordán-Wegener,
Schoeneck 1996, when 12 Ah4 Í^c7 13 #k*2
 A verbakh System : 5 & e 2 0-0 6 íig 5 w ith o u t ...c 7 -c 5
('V xilS 14 cxd5 would have secured White a
plus) 12 #V2 JuLxclS 13 cxd5 £\xd3+ 14 Wxd3
#b6 15 # d 2 £\I7 16 Ae3 Wa6 17 0-0 f5 18
$V3 F4 19 J&.Í2 Sac8 20 S a c l with an edge
lor White in Sxeberenvi-Berta, Budapest 1995.
10...iLd7
( )r l()...Wa5 11 g4 J&d7 12 4hh3 and now:
a) 12...S a l>8 13 4hf2 b5 14 £kxll Wxd2+
15 .&xd2 íhc5 16 b3 with a pulí for White,
Kaidanov-Ciallagher, Chicago 1999.
b) !2...Sac8 13#tf2£lc5 14 S b l Wc7 15
<
10¿A i4 16 í^b5 Wl>8 17 Wa5 with advantage
t«>White, DaoThien I lai-C )ral, S/eged 1994.
c) 12...£k5 13 S b l Wb4 (13...£Va4 14
ÍM>5! Wd8 15 %\(2 We7 16 b3 £\c5 17 ®fc3
Hfc8 18 0-0 with advantage to White, Lugo-
voi-Saulin, Kstovo 1994) 14 <5^2 (14 £ttxS!?
looks gocxl) 14...a5 15 J2Lc3 Wb6 (Pctursson-
I -me, ( ’appelle la C¿rancie 1993) 16 £kl3!? with
;i plus for White.
d) 12...Sfc8 13£tf2(13 0-0£*c5 14£tf2a6
15 S a b l Wd8 16 ÜLe3 with a slight advantage
lo White, Seirawan-Xic Jun, Ji Nan 2003)
I V..4hc5 14 S b l Wb4 (14...#Va4 walks into 15
#M)5!, while 14...Wb6 15 h4 <5^4 16 íh fd l
$ W 3 17 £>xc3 Ii5 18 Ae3 Wd8 19 g5 $\U7
20 ÍM )5 Í$Lxb5 21 ÍLxb5 was good for White
in Dao Thien Hai-Stocek, Budapest 1996, as
was 14...Wd8 15 h4 Sc7 16 h5 Sac8) 15 & b5
(IS h4¡? with advantage to White) 15...^íxd24-
16 ^xcté #W8 17 S h c l a6 18 #k:3, as in
IViursson-Kotronias, Reykjavik 1992, favours
White according to Petursson in /iCO.
11 g4
Not the only decent move.
a) 11 ÍLI>5 Axb5 12 &xb5 Wb6 13 £k3
£k\S and here 14 S d l a5 15 #\gc2 (Valdes-
Cabreja, Cuba 1995) 15...a4 is fine for Black
(Dolmatov), while 14 b3 4hh5, Petursson-
Dolmatov, Lúceme 1993 and 14 íftgc*2!? Sac8
15 S b l a5 16 .&c3 Wa6, Goriatchkin-
Ixrskinen, Orsk 2000, were unclear. 'This
leaves 14 S b l £lh5 (14...a5!?) 15 A e3 £>f4 16
g.3 &fd3+ 17 & f l Wb4! 18 &g2 Sac8
(18...a5!?) 19 £Mi 3 with chances for both sides
(HCO), Yusupov-Gelfand, Dortmund 1997.
b) In the event of 11 ÍLxa6 bxa6 the
evaluation o f the game depcnds upon which
factor has the most significance - Black’s
bishop pair or the structural damage. Obvi-
ously the situation is complex, but White
seems to be better, e.g. 12 í^gc2 Wb6 13 ÍL c 3
Wb7 14 0-0 and now Dolmatov analyses the
following: 14...íhh5!? 15 g4 í^f6 with chances
for both sides (15...Í.Y4 16 4^x14 exf4 17
ÍLxf4 with a slight advantage to White).
W ith 11 g4 (see diagram below) W hite’s
strategy o f containment serves to frústrate
Black, who needs to genérate some kind o f
activitv in order to avoid drifting into passivity.
11...Wb6
Stepping out of the pin and giving the
cjueen a clcar view o f the cnemy. Black has
also tried 11...h6 12 & e3 (12 &xh6? 4 W 13
®lxe4 Wh4+) I2...h5 (I2...£>c5 13 h4 hS 14 g5
<SV8, I «cw-Re>galewicz, ( a>rresp<>ndence 199(),
143
O ffbe a t K in g 's Indian
15 l>4!? £\i4 16 £}xa4 &xa4 17 H cl with an
wlgc for White) 13 g5 4bh7 14 h4 (14 £il>5
Wc7 15 h4 tr> 16 n i,2 fx¿;5, I leilman-
(¡oiv/alez, Budapest 1995, aiul here 17 hxg5
Ht'4! 18 &xf4 exf4 19 £fo3 &xh3 20 Hxh3
£\xg5 with an initiative - Cu.l lansen) 14...16
15 *5Mi 3 (15 gxf6l? with a plus for White, e.g.
l5...ÍLxf6 !6Axa6bxa6 17 Wf2, or I5...#xf6
16 í^b5) I5..»&xh3 16 Kxh3 fxg5 17 hxg5
(Váleles-Pu jío , Pinar del Rio 1997) 17...Bf4!?
18 itxf4 ex1*4 19 Wxf4 Ac5 20 ®d2 £>xg5 21
Hhl Wf6 with compensatiem (Cu.l lansen).
e) 13 h3
Now !3...Wb8 14 Ab5 «e8 15 &xd7
Wxd7 (Wagner-Xie Jun, Catines 1997) 16
4^ge2!? favours White, while l3...Wa5 14 a3
Sfc8 15 S b l Wd8 16 1)4 ®c7 17 ÍLd3 &h7
18 gxh5 Wh4l 19 Wf2 »xh5 20 h4 f5 21 exf5
gxí5 was unclear in Kaidanov-Fedorowicz,
Stratton tMountain 1999. Instead I3...£k5
looks logical, with the following possibilities:
el) 14 00-0 has met with three cjueen
moves. 14...WcH!? 15 *1)1 a5 16 Hcl was
played in I lauchard-Ye Jiangchuan, Belfort
1999, and now 16...Hc 8 is dynamically bal­
ancee!. l4...Wa5 15 sf?bl a6 16 Hcl b5 pro
vided Black with enough play in Schutt-
Uirsson, Correspondence 1999, and l4...Wb8
15 SÍ/b 1(Alterman-Xu Jun, Cap d*Agele 1994)
15_b5! is given as level by Altcrman (NC’O).
c2) 14 b4 £Yi4 15 í^xa4 Axa4 (S/eberenyi-
Kiss, Budapest 1997) 16S e l is (again) an edge
for White. Meanwhile 15 Í^b5 ¿Y tt 16 S e l f5
144
17 exf5 gxf5 18 Ag5 Afó, Scheffner-
Moigaclo, IKCG R-mail 2000 and 15 )lc l a6
16 £>xa4 ÍLxa4 17 &d3 Wd7 18 <5Y-2 ÍLb5 19
S a l (agreed drawn in Dao Thien I lai-Ye Ji­
angchuan, jodhpur 2003) are both interesting.
12^ih3 ^c5!?
Better than I2...h5?! 13 5^12 hxg4 14 fxg4
ftc5 15 &c3 a5 16 g5 Íbh7 17 h4 f5 18 gxf6
Sxf6 19 0-0-0 with a great |x>sition for White
in Gaprindashvili-Wang Pin, Subotica 1991.
13 a5 14 ite3
14 h4 h5 15 jü.e.3 Sfc8 was balancee! in Ko-
rotylev-Sotnikov, Moscow 1995, but White
has lx*tter with 15 Axf6 Ü.xf6 16 gxh5 etc.
14...a4 15 0-0^a5 16 ^b1
16 Í?Y13 #W I3 17 ÍLxd3 fifc8, Korotylev-
Beckhuis, Berlín 1995, and now 18 #Y*2 keeps
White just ahead.
16...Wd8 17 Sc1 h5 18 h3 £\h7 19 £ta3
f5
The situation is tense. Black is beginning to
look menacing on the kingside but White is
looking to the c4-scjuare for a source of influ-
enee, as well as pressure on the cjueenside.
20 gxf5 gxf5 21 exf5 .&xf5 22 b6
23 &h2 <&h8 24 £g1 &g8 25 £g2 ^e7 26
Eag1 &f6 27 £fc3 &h4 28 Ad1 Wd7 29
Sxg8+ Kxg8 30 &xg8+ skxgS 31 .kxc5
bxc5 32 ilxa4 We7 33 ftfe4 ^g5 34
£>xg5 SLxg5 35 % 2 &h8 36 ¿Lb5 &f4+
37 &g1 Wh4 38 &f1 We1 39 £te4 iLe3+
40 <&h1 &xe4?!
40..JiLf4!? with ecjuality.
41 fxe4 h4 42 b3 &H7 43 We2 ^g3 44
m s + <&g7 45 Wg4+ Wxg4 46 hxg4 &g6
47 &g2 &g5 48 <&f3 &d2 49 a4 &a5 50
&h3 ilb 6 51 &e2 s&f4 52 vi>d3 iLd8 53
g5 &xg5 54 <^c4 ^ 4 55 &f5 h3 56
ií.xh3 ^xe4 57 iLg2+ ^/e3 58 ^b5 e4??
After 58...^Al4! Black can easily draw, e.g.
59 SÍ?c6 (59 a5 A xa5 60 &xa5 e4 61 ^/l/)
&xd5 62 Vt>c7 c4) 59...*c3 60 <¿/xd6 *xb3 61
S^xc5 SÍ?xa4.
59 &c6 ^d4 60 ¿/xd6 ^c3 61 si/xc5
^xb3 62 \^b5 e3 63 il f l ^c3 64 a5 ilc7
65 a6 ÍLb8 66 d6 1-0
 A v e r b a k h S y s t e m : 5 $Le2 0 - 0 6 & g 5 w ith o u t ...c 7 -c 5

Summary
lllack’s best plan is definitely 6../£W> without ...h7-h6, dealt with in derail in (Jam es 57-64. Play
hccomes ver)* complicated and there are enough opportunities for both sides to creare interesting
scenarios. Not surprisingly this approach is becoming increasingly popular nowadays.

1 d4 2 c4 g6 3 ® c 3 iLg7 4 e4 d6 5 & e2 0-0 6 & g 5 (D )

6 ...^ a6
6...#V*6 (Game 46)
6...c6 (Game47)
6...£>lxl7 7 ® d 2
7...c6 8 £>B d5 (Game 4H)
7...e5 8 d5 ® c 5 9 B (Carnes 49 & 5(1)
6...h6 7 & e3 (D )
7...<5^1x17 (Game 5!)
7...c5 (Carnes 52 <¿r 53)
7...e5 8 d5 (Carnes 54-56)
7 Wd2
7 h4 (Game 57)
7 W c2 (GV/aw «0
7 i'4 (59)
7...e5 8 d5 c6 (D )
8...#e8 {Carnes 60 é r 6 !)
9 ¿ f 3 ( 6 V/w<-

9 h4 (Game 6 5)
9 f3 (Carne 64)

6 J¡Lg5 7 & e3 8...c6

145
 CHAPTER ElVE |
Averbakh System: 5 Jle2 0-0
6 Jtg5 with ...c7-c5
1 d4 V\16 2 c4 g6 3 V\c3 &g7 4 e4 d6 5
Ü.e2 0-0 6 &g5
l;or many years this treatmcnt was thc main
linc of thc Averbakh System, attracting atten­
tion amongst analysts and - pariicularly in the
1970s and carly 1980s - frcquently scen in
international tournaments. As a result many
lines have hccn so thoroughly investigated that
some fbreing variations Tinish’ after the thirty
move mark, in thc endgame phasc!
With a cjuick advance of the c-pawn Black
forces White to make a decisión about the
centre, and the only chance of obtaining an
advantage is by closing the position, after
which Black usually plays 7...h6 followcd by
8...eó. *rhen White can rctreat the bishop to c3
with more peaceful play, or to f4, hoping to
exploit the potential wcakncss of the back-
wartl dó-pawn.
Gawe 65
Schmidt-Sznapik
7 im avia 7 rnava 1984
1 d4 £>f6 2 c4 g6 3 £to3 Ag7 4 e4 d6 5
£ie2 0-0 6 &g5 c5 7 dxc5
'Iliis cjuiet continuation usually steers thc
game into Mará/.y territory. Although Black’s
position is solid White has more space and can
therefore hope to sccurc a long-tcrm advan­
146
tage. Black, for his part, might well be expect-
ing some kind of counterplay on the dark
stjuares. 'Ilie rest of the games in this chapter
are devoted to 7 d5.
7...Wa5
After the simple 7...dxc5!? it is difftcult to
find anything concrete for White. índeed
White must be carcful if he is to avoitl being
worse. After 8 WxtlH Sxd8 9 e5 4^fd7 White
has a number of continuations but none offers
an advantage, e.g. 10 f4 í^có II í^ B fó 12
exfó, Savchenko-Paasikangas Telia, Jyvaskyla
1991, when 12...£Wó!? is good for Black, 10
£kl5 <SVó 11 f4 fó 12 exfó exfó 13 ÜLh4 <5\14
with chances for both sides in Djurovic-
lmbert, Meudon 1992 or 10 ÜL\e7 ££e8 11
#\15 ÍLxe5 (I xívin-Beniard, I x*Toucjuet 2000)
12 íhf3 Üg7, again with no problems for
Black. Uhlmann evaluares the position after 10
®kó 11 0-0-0 as being slightly better for
White but in our opinion the position is un­
clear, e.g. 11...lió (Preinfalk-C íorsek, Corre­
spondence 1978) 12 j£.e3!? eó 13 £k*4 bó etc.
White can also try 10 eó. 'ITien 10...®fó 11
exf7+ ^ x f? 12 Ae3 í'.'kó 13 ÍLxcS bó 14 ii.a3
£\14 15 A d l &aó ló fo B £>xB+ 17 ÍLx B
Sac8 (Olafsson-Istratescu, Kuropcan Team
Championship, Debrecen 1992) 18 0-0 .&xc4
is given as ecjual by I lazai. In the case of
10...^.xc3+!? the doubled pawns and Black’s
 A v e r b a k h S y s t e m : 5 & e 2 0 - 0 6 ¿Lg5 w i t h . . . c 7 - c 5
KU|x*rior devclopmcnt will be at least sufficient
Compcnsation for thc bishop pair — 11 bxc3
f/W, 12 exf7+ (12 ÍU 3 fxc6 13 Á c3 , Poschcl-
Miomas, M onroc 1986, and now 13...c5 14
ÍLxc5 c4 with a good game for Black)
12...6.f7 13 A c3 (13 ¿ h fi £>c4, or 13 £ B
Hd6 |l xrvin-Scheblcr, Recklinghausen 2002]
M í^h3 £ Y ó with a complex position)
13...£kó!? 14 £ k ó 15 0-0 ^ g 7 with good
play for Black in I lorvath-Mrva, Krynica
1998.
8 ¿d 2
Preferable to 8 W d2?! dxc5, e.g. 9 í^ B £k:ó
10 0-0 (I Icidrich-Bisco, Ci crinan Correspon-
dencc ChampúMiship 1993/95) 10...Sd8! and
Black can be quite content with lite, or 9 e5
Kd8 10 W c3 & g4 11 ÍLxg4 &xg4 12 h3 A có
I ^ .&xe7 Sc8 14 Wxc5 W xc5 15 Ü.xc5 #VI7
wilh an initiative o f sorts for Black in Prins-
( ¡cllcr, Amstcrdam 1954.
8...Wxc5
Again Black can consider taking with the
pawn - 8...dxc5 - with thc following position:
'líie n 9 £>B £ k ó 10 0-0 ÍLg4 11 S e l <S\I7
12 h3 ü .x B 13 & x B £kle5 14 & e2 # d 8 15
üx*3 £V14 16 f4 $Wc6 lett both sides with
something upon which to build in Uhlmann-
( ílek, Bad Zwesten 2(K)0. 9 e5 is more dircct,
e.g. 9...£W8 (9...£>fd7 10 f4 W d8 11 & c3 f6 12
c6 #M>6 13 ^Íxd8 Sxd8 14 A xc5 ÍL xcó was
unclear in 1>ukin-Tseitlin, Daugavpils 1978) 10
14 (10 £kl5 W d8 11 ÍLg5 fó i 2 £>xfó+ £>xfó
13 exfó, Szczechowicz-Nurkiewic/., Krakow
1996, and now 13...exf6 is level) 10...£kó 11
^ B fó 12 0-0 (12 $\\5 W d8) 12...fxe5 13
£k!5 W d8 14 fxe5 £>xe5 15 £>xe5 S x f H 16
* x f l $Lxc5 17 ÍLg5 Wd7 18 &xe7+ <&g7 19
A B & xh2 20 & xc8 W f5 (2í)...Wxc8 21 # c 2
with advantage to W hite) 21 W d8 (21 W d5
Sxc8 22 S e l and W hite has an initiative)
21...5xc8 22 ®c7+ & h 8 23 S d l ÍLe5 24 Sd 5
W b l+ 25 S d l $?(5 26 Sd 5 and a draw was
agreed in Mortensen-Jakobsen, Aarhus 1976,
although W hite could have played for a win
after 26 Sd7. Perhaps 25 Sá?f2 is stronger.
9 £ tf3
9 h3 bó 10 £>B A b 7 11 A d 3 ^1x17 12 0-0
looks less natural and soon led to a draw in
Murshed-OII, IT mIísí 1983 after l2...Sad8 13
b4 Wxb4 14 £>a4 «/a-1
/*, while 9 l>4 ^ c7 10
S e 1 #Y*6 11 4hd5 Wd8 12 & d 3 £k.*5 was
go<xl for Black in Clarke-Battsctscg, N ovi Sad
1990.
9...1Lg4
Also possible is 9...£kó 10 h3 (10 jie 3
# a 5 11 0-0 £>g4 12 ÍLd2 £>ge5 13 £k!5 |Pa-
lus-Dawidow, Polanica Zdroj 1999| 13...Wd8!?
14 £W\5 .&xe5 15 ,áLc3 eó and 10 0-0 A g4 11
b3 4Tkl7 12 S e l W a5, Riemclmoser-Dcmuth,
Austria 1999, are both cqual) 10...#W5 11 S e l
£ ix B+ 12 A x B ®xc4 13 í'Y IS atul now
Olafsson-Po|x>vic, Groningcn 1976 went
13...#d3 14 &xe7+ <
¿>h8 15 A c3 # x d l+ 16
*x d 1 A c ó 17 £Yi5, given in H CO as a slight
advantage to W hite. O f course Black can try
his luck with 13...Wxa2!? 14 £ixe7-f ^ h 8 15
0-0 W eó (if you want to suffer, at Icast do so
for a pawn!), when W hite has obvious com-
pensation, but not more...
10& e3
O ther cxampics demónstrate typical ‘dark-
square* strategies.
a) 10 0-0 ÍL x B 11 & x B £ k ó 12 A c2
® d 4 !? 13 A e3 ttfxdl 14 S fx d l <S\I7 15 S a c l
£\c5 16 B Sfc8 17 b3 18 ÍL ñ & c ó 19
s£?f2 ÍLd4 with equality (l la/ai) in Pctursson
W ojtkicwicz, Kom otini 1993.
b) 10 h3 A x B 11 A x R £>c6 12 ÍLc2 W c5
13 W c2 <5V14 14 Wcl3 ÍV I7 15 S e l ^ c 5 16
147
O ff b e a t K in g 's Indian
We3 #W 2 17 Wxe2 f5 and Black was very
happy in Jelic-X.Nikolic, Belgrado 1989
10...Wa5 11 0-0
11.J&C6
Black has also played 11....&xB 12 ilx B
£k:6 13 S e l £kI7 14 a3 Wd8 15 Ac2 with an
edge for White, Aliñada Roselli, IJmgiiay
1988, while 1l...#M>d7 should leatl to the same
assessmeni, e.g. 12 a3 Sfc8 13 1)4 Wd8 14
Wl>3 a5 15 Hael axl>4 16 axl)4 Wf8 17 h3
jjLxf3 18.&XB, Bagirov Damljanovic, Batumi
1999, or I2...a6 13 1)4 Wc7 (Xcihscr-Van
Meggelen, ( a>rresp<>ndence 1984) 14S e 1.
12 a3
( )ther cominuations are:
a) 12 £k14 &xc2 13 Wxc2 (13 £klxc2 Sfc8
14 Wd2 a6 15 B 1)5 16 cxl)5 axbS with ecjual-
ity, Karason-Wessman, Reykjavik 1990)
13...Hfc8 14 Hael #K*5 (14...£kl7!? with
chances for both sides) 15 b3 #Y*g4 16 A d 2
Wc5 17 e*6 18 Hfdl with a pulí for White
in King-Berthelsen, Ivmail 1998.
b) 12 H cl £\I7 (12...Sfc8 13 1)3 $Y17 14
Ad2 #Y5 with a good game for Black, Wein-
stein-De birmian, I />ne Pine 1976) 13 #V12
$L\e*2 14 Wxe2 íbc5 15 a3 í^a4 16 í'Ylbl
<5\14 17 Axd4 Axd4 18 Hfdl ÍLg7 19 &xa4
Wxa4 20 í^c3 Wl>3 and Black was fine in
Moskalenko-I lazai, Budapest 1991.
c) 12 £kl2 &xc2 13 Wxc2 $\\7\? (13..Hfc8
14 Hael Wh5 15 B <5\17 16 £ll>3 a5, Ubilava-
Petrushin, Barnaul 1984, and 13...Wh5!? 14 B
£k!7 15 Hael f5, Milov-Solak, Saint Vincent
148
2000 are both unclear, and l3...Hac8 14 a3
Wh5 15 B ÍV17 16 Hael 1)6 17 sfchl &e5 18
g4 Wh3 was agreed drawn in Cíaprindashvili-
Macek, |ajee 1984) 14 í^b3 Wa6 15 Sacl
Hac8 16 a3 (16 f4, Petursson-I lazai, Valby
1994, and now 16...F5 l<K)ks fine) 16...b6 with
ec|uality« PoIovodin-( >11,Tallinn 1983.
12...¿fc8 13 b4
O r 13 ÍV I2 Wh5 (13...ÍLxe2 14 Wxc2 Wh5
with ei|ualily) 14 B _&e6 15 S e l Ah6 16 f4
í\g4 17 iLxg4 ÍLxg4 wiíh still much to play
for in Moskalenko Roos, Orange 1990.
13...Wd8
More risky is l3...Wh5 14 S e l &h6 15
Wd2 J&.xc3 16 Wxc3 a5 as in Rausis-Pedzich,
I xiewcnstcin 1997, when 17 l>5!? í&c5 18
^xe5 Wxe5 19 f4 would have secured White
an advantage.
14 Wb3
14 H cl deserves attention. 'Hien 14—aS?!
15 b5 .ÍLxB 16 gxB $V5 17 5Yi4 $Vd7 18 c5
dxc*5 19 4hxc5 ®xc5 20 Wxd8+ Hxd8 21
Hxc5 leads to a clear advantage for While in
the ending, and 14...WÍ8?! 15 Wd2 ü.xB 16
gxB! is ecjually poor for Black. When Black’s
cjueen is not on h5 White can take with his g-
pawn, 14...üxB 15 gxB £k*5 16 £kl5 £W15
(L.Bronstein CJarcia, Mar del Plata 1976) 17
Wxd5!?, with a slight advantage to White.
Black’s lx*st is 14...£kl7 15 Í\ I2 Axe2 16
Wxe2 (Poschcl-Bailey, Monroe 1986) 16...a5!?
17 b5 ÍV14 with chances for both sides.
14...Wf8
 A v e r b a k h S y s t e m : 5 $Le2 0 - 0 6 $ L g 5 w i t h . . . c 7 - c 5
In some variations Black Ivas ...i¿.h 6 (which
cannot Ix- parried by W d 2) bul the main pur-
pose o f the lext will be rcvcalcd later...
( )thers:
a) I4 ...ÍV I7 15 H ad l $\ce5 1 6 ^ x e5 ^ x c5
17 B & eó 18 £kl5 Üxd5 19 Hxd5! W e 8 20
S fd l was awful for Black in l^ilic-Krakops,
Linares 1997. 16...^Lxe2 17 4?W 2#W *5 18c5
is a lesser evil, with an edge for White.
b) l4...Wd7 15 H acl & x B 16 iL x B & c5
17 ÍL e 2 V e 6 18 £«>5 £k:ó 19 B £kJ7 20
K fd l with advantage to White» Adamski-
Pokojowczyk, Polanica Zdroj 1979.
15 h3
15 S a d l A lió (Sorin-Cativclli, Buenos A i­ 11 dxeó fixeó 12 j&xfó ü.xfó 13 í^WlS W d8 14
res 1999) 16 $ \I5 is a plus for W hite, but
15...a5!? is less clcar.
15..Jbcf3 1 6 & x f3 &d7
'I’his is better tlvan I 6 ...JLI16 17 £VI5, e.g.
17...4.xd5 (Braschi Vclasquez-Moreno, Lima
2000) 18 exdS #k*5 19 .&c2, or 17..«áxe3 18
# W 6+ exfó 19 Wxe3, Jelic-Arsovic, Belgrado
2003, with an edge to W hite in both cases.
17 Hfd1 <&ce5 18 i¿.e2 £lxc4 19 &xc4
£le5 20 &xf7+ Wxf7 21 Wxf7+ &xf7 22
£te2 V2 -V2
Game 66
Kunsztowicz-Raupp
ftnndes/iga 1982/3
1 d4 Q m 2 c4 g6 3 £>c3 &g7 4 e4 d6 5
ií.e2 0-0 6 ¿Lg5 c5 7 d5
Most games in this variation go down this
route, W hite simply claiming an advantage by
viriue o f his extra space. Thercforc Black must
look for something on the queenside.
7...W a5
( )ne o f five options discussed in this chap-
ter.
8 i¿.d2
W hite has also addressed the new arrival on
the el-a5 diagonal with 8 Wd2, when play
might continué as follows: 8...eó (the prepara-
tory 8...He8 was seen in Berriot-Menetrier,
Correspondence 1991, when Black’s experi-
ment failed miscrably after 9 í^ B eó 10 0-0 aó
W f4 etc.) 9 í^ B cxd5 10 exd5 -&g4 (10...Se8
11 0-0 Wb6 12 A d 3 , Castillo-Njirjak, Brati-
slava 1993, and now I2 ...£Mx 17 is just a slight
edge for W hite) 11 0-0 4^1x17 (Black should
avoid 1l...aó 12 W f4 _$.xB 13 jSlx B with a
poor position indeed in Vlaic-Babic, Kastela
2002) 12 h3 .& x B 13 ÍL x B and W hite enjoyed
a plus in Abramov-C ílyanets, Podolsk 1993.
8...e6
In the event o f 8...Wl>6 9 h3 Black cannot
play 9...Wxl>2?? as 10 S b l Wa3 11 £lb5 is
final, which leaves 9...eó 1 0 ^ iBex d 5 11 exd5
A f5 12 £Mi4 ÍLd7 13 0-0 with an edge for
W hite (H CO ) in Lputian-Savon, Ycrcvan 1982.
9 ^ if3
9 h3 keeps the g4-square out o f bounds for
Black’s pieces but spends a tempo in doing so,
and after 9...exd5 10 cxd5 Wd8 11 £ iB ^ a ó
Black was doing fine in Krizsany-Cxcbe, Bu­
dapest 1994, which went 12 0-0 £k*7 13 Ü.f4
Sl>8 14 a4 ^ a ó 15 A d 3 £M>4 16 & b l bó 17
H a3 '/2-'/2>while I2 ...Ü B !? 13 £Mi4 & d7 also
l<K>ks pcrfectly reasonablc.
9...exd5
Others:
a) 9...lTd8 10 0-0 exd5 11 exd5 (11 cxd5
with a plus for W hite) 1L.JiLg4 12 h3 ü x B 13
J ix B with the more pleasant game for W hite
in Uhlmann-Camara, Siegen 1970.
b) 9...Sc8 10 0-0 Wd8 11 W c2 exd5 12
cxd.S £W> 13 H fc l, Rubinetti-( /ampos I¿>pc%,
149
O ffbe a t K in g 's Indian
Buenos Aires 1973» and again While is to lx*
preferred.
10 exd5
Noi the only recapture:
a) 10 cxd5 and now 10..JÍ.g4 11 0-0 4^1x17
12 & (4 A x B 13 A x B #W8 14 W 1)3 b5 15
#xb5 -&xc3 16 Wxd7 ÍLxb2 17 Sabl Sd8
(jenscn-J.Chrísüanscn, Denmark Correspon­
dente 1994) 18 Wl>7 s|x*lls doom for Black.
'Hie alternative is to throw in I0...a6, e.g. 11
0-0 Wc7, when the game has transposed to
the Míxlern Benoni Defcncc, with both sides
losing a tempo. I lowever, therc is a small dif-
fcrence which benefits Black - c7 is a natural
position for the cjueen, whereas d2 is certainly
not an ajipropriate place for the bishop, which
also obstnicts the knight. A samplc line is 12
a4 He8 13 Wc2 &g4 14 h3 A x B 15 A x B
íhlxl7 16 a5 with a choicc for Black. 16...Se7
17 Sa4 Sae8 18 Ae2, Portisch-lvkov, Santa
Monica 1966, and 16...b5 17 axb6 Wxb6 18
Sa2, Rubinetti-Paiva, Sao Paulo 1972, both
favoured White, bul I6...c4 17 Sa4 (17 Áe3!?)
17...£W5 18 &e2 $Vd7 19 f4 #Y13 was less
clear in Donner-Ivkov, Amsterdam 1974.
b) 10 £\xd5!i> Wd8 11 Julg5 £>1x17 (the
move 11.Jl?a5+?!, as in Xavodny-Licman,
Ciargulakuv Memorial 1970, runs into 12 l>4!
etc.) 12 £V3 Se8 13 Wc2 h6 14 £h4 Wl>6 15
S d l with a slight advantage to White.
With 10 exc!5 (see diagram, bclow) While
aims to consolidare what he hopes is a irwxlest
but definiré IcacL
150
10...ÍLg4
Tile light-scjuared bishop can be a problem
piece occasionally, so Black seeks to riel him­
self of the potential liability before getting on
with other matters. An alternative is H)...Se8
II 0-0 ttfbó 12 h.3 (12 S e l £>1x17 13 Wb3
with a j->lus for White, Pachmann-Ujtelky,
Bratislava-Prag 1957) and now both 12...a6 13
Ü.d3 4hbd7 14 Wc2, l'orintos-Vclimirovic,
Batli 1973, and 12...#Y4 13 £>xe4 Sxe4 14
Ad3 Se8 15 S e l, (¡ruenlx-rg-Szymczak, Pra-
gue 1981, are easier for White. Instead of
11...Wl>6 Black drop back ro d8 with the
cjueen, although 11.JHM8!? 12 W c l!? 5\_‘4 13
4hxe4 2xc4 14 Ü d3 Se8 15 & c3 £ g 4 16
xg7 ( I I iskases-Re i111varclt, M ar del
.&xg7 (ȣ>
Plata 1958) 17 4bg5! favours W hite.
11 0-0 ^bd7
l l...Se8 12 h3 and then moving the light-
sejuared bishop docsn’t mean Black’s devel-
opment problems have been solved, with
White maintaining a definite pulí.
12 h3 &xf3 1 3 iU f3
'lilis is a standard position for this varía-
tic>n. Black has no serious weaknesses (the c!6-
pawn is quite casy to defend) and his pieces
are harmoniously developed. Therc are only
two tinv factors that leave him a bit worse:
é
White has the bishop pair and a bit more
space. Can tliesc play a significant role in prac-
ticc? It is cjuite surprising, but the answer must
lx* yes. White has a simple plan: trade olT all
the major pieces, jxish a4-a5 and then b2-b4.
 A ve rba kh S yste m : 5 & e 2 0-0 6 í l g5 w ith ...c 7 -c 5

After the cxchange on 1>4 (or c5) he places his

hishops on thc a3-f8 antl a4-e8 diagonals
(sometimos the knight might go to a4), usually
exerting pressure on thc d6-pawn. 'I he final
stage combines attack with advancing pawns
on the kingskle (in fact across the board). This
particular game is a good illustration o f the
exccution and realisation ofsuch a strategy.
13...Kfe8 14 W c2 Se7
14...a6 does not deny W hite the better
game, e.g. 15 H ael S x el 16 S x e l S e 8 17
Exe8+ & xc8 18 b3 W d8 19 .& d) W e7 20
We4 21 Hxc7+ Sfexc7 22 g4, Pctursson-
Vclim irovic, N ovi Sad 1990. W ith ...a7-a6 almost part o f the furniture in
15 Hfe1 these lines Black chooses to nudge the pawn
If 15 H ael ®Jc5 16 A e2 Hae8 17 a4 W hite now before committing himself.
lias an edge, Sapis Markowski, Poland 1993. 8a4
15...5ae8 16 Bxe7 Sxe7 17 S e l 8 «fd2 «fa5l? 9 ÍL I3 looks odd. After 9...b5
Also effective is 17 4?}|;>5 W b6 18 a4 £W5 10 #}gc*2 £MxI7 11 cxb5 £k?5 12 bxa6 Hb8 13
19 .&c2 a6 20 a5 W d8 21 ®lc3 with a slight H b l £W13+ 14 ®xd3 &xa6 Black has com ­
edge to W hite, Szabo-Panno, Portoroz 1958. pcnsation, so in Rashkovsky-lx>ginov, Svcrd-
17...Hxe1+ 18 iLx e l a6 lovsk 1987 W hite played 11 14, when there
18...^e5 19 $Lx2 b5 20 cxbS ®ixd5 21 followcd 1 l...bxc*4 12 & c2 Hb8 13 H b l Hc8
Wd2 '/a-'/z, Rost-Berclaz, ICCI* E-mail 1996; 14 0-0 W c7 15 h.3 c6 16 dxe6 Hxe6 17 £kI5
here 21...^xc3 22 bxc3 looks good for W hite. #}xd5 18 exd5 Hc8 19 f5, and now 19...ü.e5!
19 iLd2 Wd8 20 a4 £\e8 21 b3 would have given Black an exccllent game.
W hite has emerged from the opening with 8 ...W a5 9 ÜLd2
a definite advantage. After 9 W d2 e6 10 Ha3!? exd5 11 exd5 He8
21...6d4 22 £\e2 Ag7 23 g3 £>c7 24 12 & B &g4 13 0-0 Íhlxl7 14 W f4 ® b 6 15
^ c3 ild 4 25 <¿>g2 f5 26 fae2 &16 27 ®lf4 A d l & x B 16 Hb3 W c7 17 & x B He5 Black
We7 28 h4 £ d 4 29 ÍLd1 £>f6 30 £>e2 had achieved ec|uality in Boriscnko-Tarasov,
We4-f ?! 31 f3 Wxc2 32 c2 £ e 5 33 a5 Kharkov 1956, while 10 4&B invites 10...b5 11
'M 7 34 <&h3 h5 35 b4 cxb4 36 &xb4 cxb5 axb5 with thc following position:
<5\ce8 37 £ a4 <¿>e7 38 &c1 £ d 4 39 &d3
íLe3 40 £>e5 g5 41 hxg5 &xg5 42 f4
Ah6 43 í^ 6 + <¿>d8 44 £>h4 £>e4 45
^ xf5 & f8 46 A c2 £>8f6 47 * h 4 <&d7 48
_¿.xe4 £ixe4 49 stPxhS £tf2 50 <¿?g6 ii.e7
51 &xe7 &xe7 52 f5 1-0

Gawe 67
Portisch-Skem bris
7 'ilburg 1994

1 d4 £tf6 2 c4 g6 3 $te3 & g 7 4 e4 0-0 5

ile 2 d6 6 £ g 5 c5 7 d5 a6

151
O ffbe a t K in g 's Indian
Then 12 0-0 1)4 13 .&xf6 ÍLxl'6 14 4^1)5 led
to a short draw in I;arago-('vitan, l'orli 1992,
after the subsequent I4...exd5 15 £}xd6 dxc4
16 £kc4 $L¿! 17 fiael Wxa4, while 12 J&xf6
.&xf6 13 £>xbS exd5 14 exd5 (Shirov-Gligoric,
Moscow 1989) I4...üd7 15 0-0 Wxd2 16
£lxd2 &xb 2 is cven according to Shirov in
liCO.
The most interesting move is 12 ÍLxl>5,
with the following options:
a) Black cant play 12...£>xc4? duc to the
wcaknesscs of dark squares - 13 <5W4 WxbS
14 axl)5 Hxal+ 15 Hxhl 16 Ü.I16 cxd5
(16...ÍLb7 17 _ÍLxg7 <¿>xg7 18 Wc3+ f6 19
£>xd6 ±xd5 20 Wxc5) 17 &xg7 <¿?xg7 18
Wxd5 S e 8 19 <¿Al2 A e 6 20 Wxd6 £kl7 21
£>xcS í?W*5 22 WxcS etc.
b) !2...Aa6 13 0-0 (13 0a3 and 1.3 &xa6
have yet to l>e tested) l3...Axb5 14 £bcb5
£\xe4 15 WxaS (15 Wd3 £>xgS 16 £>xg5 exd5
17 Wxd5 £kl7 18 £lxd6 c4 with cquality)
!5...Sxa5 16 dxc6 fxe6 17 .&e7, and now Shi­
rov’s recommendation is 17...Se8 18 £>xd6
Sxc7 (18...£>xd6 19 Axd6) 19 &xe4 ÍLxb2?
20 Sabl Sb7 with cquality but in fact 21
£kl6! Sb4 22 Sxb2 Sxl>2 23 £>c4 Sxa4 24
£>xl>2 refutes this. Instead Black has 17...d5 18
Axfó S&xttt with compensation.
9...e6
Other moves are less cncrgctic:
a) 9...Wc7 10 g4!? e6 (I0...£ttxl7 11 g5 £>h5
12 f4 with a nienacing initiative) 11g.S £>e8 12
h4 and White was having more fun in Smol-
nyj-Asafov, Schule Ijeningrad 1956.
b) 9...c5 is illogical as Black deprives himself
of any countcrplay. White can casually genér­
ate a kingside attack, e.g. 10 g4! £>e8 11h4 (11
g5! is stronger, meeting I1...Í5, as in Sxabo-
Barc/ay> Budapest 1958, with the no-nonsense
12 h4) 11...Í5 (11 ...h6!?) 12 h5 f4 l3g.5Sf7 14
Ü.g4 with a strategically winning position in
the game Averbakh-Panno, Argentina-USSR
match, Buenos Aires 1954. 'filis was one of
the first games ever played in this system,
White’s famous victory popularising the varia-
tion.
152
After 9...e6 (see diagram, above) White has
two quite different responsos to the standard
challenge to the centre.
10 3
'llie ‘normal’ treatment, but a flank attack is
also possiblc in the form of 10 g4!?, when
10...exd5 (Cjolcaltea-Ciligoric, Moscow 1956)
11g.S! £k*8 12 £>xd5 Wil8 13 h4 is impressive
and earns White considerable powcr lo get
busy on the kingside. Note thai I0...h6 meets
with 11 h4 here.
10...Wc7
a) 10...#(18 II 0-0 (11 h3 cxd.S 12 cxd5
Hc8 13 0-0 .&I5 14 ÍÜ'4 Íhc4 15 -£>xc4 .&xc4
16 ÜUI3 «Tf6 17 iix G 18 &xf6 üxd I 19
Axg7 <¿>xg7 20 ¿Jaxdl ’/z-'/i, Shamkovich-
Schmidt, Polanica Zdroj 1970) ll...exd5 12
exdS Se8 13 ÍLd3 (13 S e l &g4 14 Wl>3 Wc7
15 h3 ÍLxf3 16 A x B £>1x17 17 Sxc8+ Sxe8
18 S e l SxeH- 19 & xcl &e5 20 &c.2 &h6
was a shade better for While in Kunsztowicz-
Cuartas, I lamburg 1980) 13..JÍ.g4 14h3A xB
15 W xB £>1x17 16 W dl with just an edge for
White, Moiscev-C iiinsav, Corrcspondence
1963/70.
b) K)...exd5 11 cxd.S ( II cxdS |sec ‘a’ in the
note to White’s lOth move in the previous
main game - Kunsztowicz-Raupp| H..jSLg4
12 0-0 Se8 13 Wc2 Wc7 14 Hfel £>1x17 with
chances for both sides, Donner-I lartoch, Am-
sterdam 1970, while II £>xd5 Wd8 12 .ÍLg5
|Balogh-Arnlind, (iorrespondence 1956)
 A v e r b a k h S y s t e m : 5 $Le2 0 - 0 6 $Lg5 w i t h . . . c 7 - c 5
12...v\lxl7 keeps thc game well balanced)
11....6g4 (after 11...Wc7 or ll...fie 8 Black
must play ...Ag4 anyway, with positions simi­
lar to thc msün linc) 12 0-0^11x17 13 fie 1 # c7
14 h3 ÍL x B 15 Ü.xf3 with play along the lines
ol thc main linc.
11 0-0
O r 11 a5 cxd.S 12 exd5 <^1x17 1.3 0-0 Hb8
14 h3 He8 with etjuality in Litinskaya-
( hiburdanidze,'11)ilisi 1979.
11 ...exd5 12 exd5 ií.g4 13 h3 £ x f3 14
¿x f3 ftbd7
White has a familiar small but long-term
advantage. If he realises his plan (outlincd in
ihe note to W hite’s I3th move in the main
game Kunsztowicz-Raupp, above) he can
ex|x:et a promising initiative. Note that spe
cific move orders are less important here than
appropriatc strategy.
15 W c2
a) 15 aS Sfe8 (15...*h8 16 Wa4 & g8 17
Sab l A lió 18 &xh6 # kh6 19 b4 with an
advantage to W hite in 1'arago-Andcrsson,
Cienfucgos 1977) 16 Wa4 fic7 17 S fc l £ic5
18 ÍLc2 Sac8 19 f4 £kxl7 20 ¿L B , as in Boris
enko-Yudovich, Gorky 1954, favours White
according to HCO.
I>) 15 S e l Sac8 16 W c2 & e5 17 ÍLc2 fic7
18 ja.fl Sfc8 19 f4 £ted7 20 Sxc7 Sxe7 21
R c l S x c l 22 A x c l with an etlge for White in
Tramalloni-Belotti, Milán 2001.
15...Sfe8
a) I5...ÍV*8 16 H acl J2Lc5 (l6...$V*5 17 j&.e2
í5 18 f4 & Í7 19 g4 & i\4+ 20 * g 2 &g7 21
A B with advantage to White, Horvath-Rohl
Montes, Budapest 1996) 17 ÉLc2 ^ig7 I8g4 15
19 f4 ¿(.14+ 20 & g2 fxg4 21 hxg4 with a plus
for W hite (HCO ) in Ag'/amov-Szekely, l;runzc
1986.
b) I5...fiac8 16 fia d h5 17 b3 fix c l 18
fix e l Se8 19 Sxe8+ Í^xe8 20 ÍV-4 #\e5 21
J3Lc2 and Black was worse, Zucchelli-Rgger,
Arco 2(MK).
16 Sfe1
16 fiael leads to similar play.
16...£\e5 17 &e2 %e7 18 f4 <5ted7 19
A f3
Also effcctivc is 19 Ü.d3 fiae8 20 Hxc7
Hxc7 21 S e l S x e l I 22 ÜLxcl with a pulí for
White, Nuncs-Scliipmann, Ivm ail 2000.
19...5ae8 20 Sxe7 Hxe7 21 S e l Sxe1 +
22 Axe1 Wb6 23 iLd2 £te8
24 g4
W hite accentuates his advantage by claim-
ing more territory but, alrcady better, such an
aggressivc antl committal thnist might be secn
as too risky. In Vioreanu-Djukie, Balatonlelle
2001 W hite employed thc plan highlighted in
the previous main game, prcxlueing a text-
book, meth<xlieal win: 24 b3 Wd8 25 W c4
£klf6 26 ®e1 (with advantage) 26...í^e7 27 a5
®kl7 28 & a4 J&.Ü4+ 29 * h 2 & a8 30 Ag4
£>1*6 31 A d l £k!7 32 «Tc4 ®>f6 33 W el £kl7
34 & c2 35 We2 Wb8 36 £ k3 b6 37 axb6
£Vaxb6 38 #V4 4hf6 39 í?^g5 We8 40 ttxc8+
&xc8 41 & G $Lb2 42 g4 <¿c7 43 15 ®Uíl7 44
153
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
g5 gxí5 45 .&xf5 £tfH 46 Ii4 £>1x17 47 Ii5 ÍLg7
48 &g3 J-l)2 49 <Á>f4 ÍLg7 50 <Á»c4 £.b2 51
&d3 ÜLi3 52 &c2 _kl>4 53 -&f4 £.a5 54 ÍLc4
¿Lc7 55 £lh4 fth 6 56 £>f5+ <¿Al7 57 ÍL B £lc 8
58 jÍLg4 *0 8 59 &d3 £kl7 60 £»g7+ <&d8 61
g6 hxg6 62 .&xd7 1-0.
24...h6 25 *g 2 Ü.d4 26 b3 Wd8
Skembris assesses this position as unclear.
The stmgglc revolves around the dark sejuares.
27 ¿?«2
[lie (cxircmcly) carclcss 27 SÉ?j>;3? Wh4+ 28
<S?xh4?? walks into 28...^.12 mate.
27.. JL f6 28 a5 g5 29 £lg3 <Mg7 30 £>e4
&e7 31 Wc1 gxf4 32 ií.xf4
After 32 &C.3! ÍV-5 33 Wxl'4 J.g5 34 &xg5
hxg5 35 Wc3 White’s pieces would have
dominated the whole board, Init in missing
ihis |x>ssibility White i Iritis into a very com-
plcx position, alljeit onc in which we believe
his chanccs are still bcticr.
32...Wxa5 33 Wb2
33 -ÍLx(16!r' Wa2+ 34 <ái>g3 xtlí>t .35 <5'lxd6
Wxl>3 36 Wxh6 a5 37 Wl4 f6 38 #V4 f5 with
initiative (Skembris).
33...<Fte8 34 Ü.d2 Wb6 35 Ü.xh6 Ste5 36
ü.e2 ¿ f8 37 iLd2 ií.g7 38 Wc2 Wd8 39
Ü.g5 Wd7 40 <?lg3 JÍf6 41 &c1 ^g6 42
We4 £>h4+ 43 &f1 Üe5 44 Ü.d3 £rf6 45
We3 £ig6 46 £te2 <Sih7 47 ÍLÍ5 Wd8 48
g5 ^hf8 49 Jic 2 b5 50 We4 Wd7 51 Ág2
bxc4 52 bxc4 Wb7 53 h4 <?id7 54 h5
<5^gf8 55 ^ g l Wb4 56 Stf3 a5
154
57 Ad2
57 h6! scems to do the trick:
a) 57,..í\g6 58 Wg4 *5Y It8 59 ,átxg6 fxgó
(59...£ixg6 60 £>xc-5 dxe5 61 W c8 l <A>h7 62
W f5 ) 60 £>xc 5 W c3 (60...dxc5 61 W c4 W c3 62
ÍLc.3) 61 W x cl 62 W c8 and h6-h7 is
coming.
b) 57...a4 58 ÍU I2 W>2 59 ÍLxa4 ÍL c3 60
Wc2 Wxc2 61 ¿Lxc2 &xd2 62 £ixd2 and
White should win.
57...6c3 58 A f4 &e5 59 ¿lxe5 &xe5 60
g6 fxg6 61 hxg6
Why nol takc the strong bishop? After 61
£ixc*5 dxe5 62 hxg6 Wd2+ 63 sfcfl the ending
is drawn, e.g. 63...1MY4+ (63...Wd4? 64 Wxd4
cxd4 65 d6) 64 Wxf4 cxf4 65 d6 *g 7 66 <¿H2
st?f6 (66...a4 67 Axa4 sfcxgft 68 d7 ^\-6 69
!.d l & f5 70 SLR #YI8 7l A g2 Sfcfó 72
with ccjuality) 67 S¿?f3 a4 68 g7 <
á?xg7 69 i&xa4
* f 6 70 d7 *0 7 71*x f4 £kd7 etc.
6l.Jfc.g7! with initiative is proposed by
Kx>tronias.
62 £>h2
62 We8! Wl>7 with an odgo for Black
(Skembris).
62...Wd2+?!
62...a4! is strong (Skembris).
63 &h3 ^h6+ 64 &g2 <&g7 65 5^g4
Wxg6
Skembris gives 65...Wg5!? followed by
...£>xg6.
66 ^xg6+ ftxg6 67 s^f3 £>e5+ ’/2-%
After 67...4he7 followed by ...í^c8-b6 Black
has winning chances.
Gci///e 68
I.Farago-Zaitsev
8 ib Montccatim I crwe 1999
1 d4 £if6 2 c4 g6 3 c3 ií.g7 4 e4 d6 5
iLe2 0-0 6 j^.g5 c5 7 d5 b5
Saving time by sitnply investing the pawn,
Black adopts the Benko treatment.
8 cxb5 a6
 A v e r b a k h S y s t e m : 5 $Le2 0 - 0 6 $Lg5 w i t h . . . c 7 - c 5
'Hiere are ilifferences in comparison with
ihe normal Benko Gambit, for example ihe
loeation o f W hite’s bishops. Although in some
cases the position o f the gS-bishop might
prove awkward or ineonvenient for White due
lo the weakness o f eertain dark scjuares (espe-
cially b2 and b4), the light-sc|uarcd bishop is
deímitely better placed on e*2 than in the
Henko - Black cannot liinder White’s kingside
developmenl. Consec|uently, given a choice of
parting with a pawn, we would rather do il
under normal Benko circumstances.
9 a4
( )iher moves are less popular:
a) 9 bxa6 Wa5 10 Wd2 (10 B £ilxl7 II
£>Ii3 ÍLxa6 12 0-0 S fl)8 13 S b l ^1>6 14
_ÍLxa6 Sxa6, Mort-Ragozin, Antwerp 1994,
and 10 A d2 iLxaó 11 £>B Wb4 12 ÍLxaó
^Axa6, Popov-Christiansen, Wijk aan Zee
1977 both providcd Black with hcalthy com-
jxnsation) I0...4hlxl7!? II íh B ¿x a ó 12
ÍLxaó (120-0 <5^xe4 13 #W*4 Wxd2 14 £Vxd2
_fi.xe2 was etjual in h'arago-Rashkovsky,
Dubna 1979) 12...Wxaó 13 We2 S 11)8 14
Wxaó Bxaó with enough play in Piache! ka-
|ai isa, I lavirov 1970.
b) 9 Wd2 axb5 (9...£>bd71? 10 B Wa5 11
#Mi3 c4 12 bxa6 $Lxaó 13 0-0 fifl>8 14 ¿■A\'2
4?Y\S IS S fc l Sb4 16 S a b l Wbó, as in I lort-
Westerinen, Helsinki 1979, is given as unclear
in HCO) 10 bS WaS II B (11 £>ge2 ¿ a ó
12 juLxaó í^xaó 13 0-0 Sfb 8 14 S a b l wilh an
edge for White, Bakalar/.-1 Jclx-rgesell, Ger-
many 1995) 1l...A aó (1 1...eó!? wilh advantage
to White in HCO) 12 Axaó £\xaó (12...Wxa6
13 ¿ lió ¿x h 6 14^x116^1x17 15 ^ge2 c:4 16
We3 S fl)8 17 S b l £V\S 18 0-0 and White
stood better in Ivasenko-Kolpakchi, Kharkov
2000) 13^ge2H fl)8 14 0-0<SV7 1 5 S(2 Sb 4
16 S e l with the more pleasanl game for
White, Skembris-T<xlorovic\ Tuzla 1990.
9 ...»a5
'Ilie less popular lines are worth a look:
a) 9...axbS 10 axbS (10 ¿x b 5 ¿ a ó is fine
for Black) lO .JSxal II W xal £llxl7 12 ^ B
ÍL1>7 (12...&Y8 13 0-0 £>bó 14 Wa5 í_¥ó IS
í\12 lió 16 .¿Le3 eó 17 dxeó ¿x e ó , Beliavskv-
Petrovie, Nova Gorica 20(K), and now 18 b4
looks like trouble for Black) 13 0-0 Wc7 14
« fc l eó IS dxe6 fxeó 16 eS (16 JOLhó!?)
16...dxe5 17 $k!2 with a slight advantage lo
W hile, Gaprindashvili-I jevitina, Belgrade 1992.
I») 9...li6 10 Ík12 c6 i 1 dxe6 ÍLxe6 12
íixbS 13 ÍLxb5 £>a6 14 0-0 £ k7 15 S e l (IS
J&e2!? antl Black must demónstrate fuil com­
pcnsation for the pawn) I5...4uxb5 16 í^lxb.S
d5 17 exilS £ W I5 18 £k-5 Se8 19 <SV4 (with
advantage to W liite according to Kas|)arov in
ECO) I9...H i4 20 $Vd6 Sed 8 21 Wc2 ^b 4
22 -&xl)4 Wxl>4 23 Sxe6 fxe6 24 Wxg6 S lB
25 «Íxe6+ <á>h8 26 S f l Sxa4 27 -5V3 Sa7 28
£ k8 Ha8 29 £k*7 S f6 30 WdS Sfa6 31 £ k ll
# b 6 (3 1...Wd4!?) 32 -5VS V2 -V2 , (iouw-
Schaper, 24th Neiherlands ( lorrespondence
( Jiampionship 1994/95.
10 & d2 Wb4
155
O ffbeat King's indian
ITic most principled responsc, leading to
cxtrcmcly complex positions. Black’s t|ueen
attacks white pawns but in some variations
might ron into serious troublc. Unfortunately
for Black, accuratc play from the opponent
leatls to a clear advantage for White. Black can
find consolation only in the fact that alterna­
tives also fail to ct|ualisc, e.g. l()...axbS
(10...£>bd7 11 íía 3! &l>7 12 £>B axb5 13
.¿Lxb5 ®c7 14 0-0, Kasparov-Spasskv, Tilburg
1981 is great for White) and now 11 £>xb5
Wb6 12 W bl e6 13 dxe6 fxe6 14 £>B tl5 15
exd5 exd5 16 0-0 £>c4 was unclear in Uhl-
mann-Sxell, Halle 1982, so much stronger is
11 ¿Lxl)5, with the following position:
a) 11...ÍLa6 12 £>ge2 £>1*17 (Black
shouldn’t repeat the ultimatcly very unpleíisant
12...Axb5 13 £>xb5 Wb6 14 £>cc3 £>aó 15
0-0 £tt>4 16 ÍLg5 Sfc8 17 #e2 Sa6 18 Sadl
Wl>7 19 l>3 etc., Seirawan-Youngworth, Pasa-
dena 1983) 13 0-0 Wb6 14 Wc2 £ k 5 15 b3
Sfc8 (15...£\c8 16 juLxa6 Sxa6 17 £M>5, Bagi-
rov-Jojua, Batumi 2002) 16 fiabl -&xb5 17
£>xí)5 c4 18 b4 £\d3 19 Ae3 Wa6 20 £iec3,
Damljanovic-Damaso, I jcoii 1997, with all
these lines simply horrible for Black.
b) 1l...£>a6 12 £\ge2 (12 £>B £>1)4 13 0-0
&a6 14 Ag5 h6 15 ÍÜ i4 Axb5 16 axb5 Wc7
17 Wd2 Hxa 1 18 Sxa I Sb8 19 h3 with advan­
tage to White (/ iCX)) in Yusupov-Vogt, Alten-
steig 1993) 12...£>b4 130-0ÍLa6 14 BW b ó 15
Ae3 £>c8 16 lTb3 Wl>7 17 Axa6 flxa6 18
£>a2!?, l)ao Thicn I lai-Morovic Fernandez,
156
Yerevan 1996 is very good for White.
11 &d3!?
White has numerous ways to defend c4.
a) ll W b l!? proteets the target pawns,
when play can continué as follows: ll...axl>5
( II. ..£>1x17 12 a5 axb5 13 B ) 12 a5! c4? 13
£>a4! c3 14 £>xc3 £>a6 15 B Wc5 16 £ixb5
£>1)4 (Malkias-Vajda, Varna 1994) 17 Sa4!
£>c2 H 18 & fl £>e3+ 19 &xe3 Wxe3 20 Ha3
and although White has some tcchnical prob­
lems he should win. Perhaps the only soluüon
for Black is 12...Sxa5 13 £>a2 Wa4 14 b3
Wxe4 15 ÍLxa5 iTxg2 16 & B #g5 17 Ac3
£>xd5 18 Axg7 <&xg7 with a craxy position
wliere Black has four pawns for the rook.
b) 11 B £>fd7 (I I...Wxb2?> 12 H bl £>xd5
13 exd5 ÍLxc3 14 Hxb2 is a disaster, 11...c4?,
as in Moskalenko-Pixa Cortixo, La Corona
1993, walks into 12 a5! and I 1...£Mx I7 12 a.5!
c4 13 1)6 was an unlucky thirtcen for Black in
Budnikov-KPortisch, Neuwied 1993) 12 We I!
c4 13 £kll (13 a5 axb5 14 £>a4 Wl>3! 15 S a l
bxa4 16 Sxh3 cxb3 17 j&c3 ÍLxc3+ 18 Wxc3
&a6, and B1ack was alrcady in hot water in
Sorin-Panno, Acasusso 1991) 13...Wc5 14 l>6
(the untcstcd 14 Axc4! seems to be trouble-
sotne for Black, e.g. 14_¿Lb7 15 ÉLc2 axb5 16
Wxc5 £>xc5 17 ¿x l)5 £a6 18 Ha3 Axb2 19
£>xb2 ÍLxb5 20 a5 etc.) I4...a5 15 Wxc4 with
chances for both sities in Uhlmann-Cíeorgiev,
Warsaw 1983. Kvcn here 15 Axc4!? merits
attention.
c) 11Wc2 axb5 12 Axb5 ÍLa6 13 B
 A v e r b a k h S y s t e m : 5 XLe2 0 - 0 6 $Lg5 w i t h . . . c 7 - c 5
e l) 13...4bfd7?! is poor, e.g. 14 ÍV ll ¿xl>5
I 5 Axl>4 cxl>4 16£V2<5Y5 I7axl>5fixal 18
11O £ttxl7 19 Wd2 b3 20 £k!4 ¿xd4+ 21
Wxd4, Heinig-Penzold, Gcrmany 1996, or
14...Wd4 15 ÍLc3 &xb5 16 ÍU d 4 cxd4 17
Ha3, Uhlmann-Szell, Zamardi 1980.
c2) I3...¿xl>5 14 £>xb5 #xb5! 15 axb5
Kxal+ 16 jyLcl 5MxI7 17 $V*2 Hb8 and, ac­
cording to NCX), Black has compcnsation, but
his situation is rather difficult, and he can
hardly count on a draw. I lowever, White has
considerable technical problems lo overcome
in order to realise his advantage. Baklanov-
V'.Andersen, KXH* K-mail 2000 continued 18
ftc3 (18 0-0!?) 18J¡Ü c8 19 0-0 &d4+ 20 & h l
ÍV 7 21 Wc2 with a clear advantage to White.
c3) 13...c4 14 £\gc*2 Wc5 15 W cl &xb5 16
& e 3 Wl>4 17 axb5 ¿h\x\7 18 0-0 £lc5 (with
compcnsation according to HCO) 19 Wc2
<?Yd7 Vi ‘/¿, Meduna-Gcorgicv, Plovdiv 1982.
I lowever, after 19 #YI4 it is not so simple to
prove the correaness o f the sacrificc.
11...C4
( )thers:
a) 11...axb5?? I2 ^ x b 5 ® x b 2 13 ¿c 3 .
I») l l...£Vd7 12 £>B c:4 13 & c2 Wxb2 14
) Sbl Wa3 15 $ \2 was clcarly better for White
in r.Portisch-Biro, Budapest 1999.
c) 11...£>g4 12 £>B c4 13 ¿ c 2 axb5 14
axl>5 Sx a l 15 W xal Wc5 16 0-0 <5^17 17 h3
í^gc5 I8ÍV14, l ;arago-Cíarcia Martínez, Home
1990, with a clcar lead for Whiic.
12 ¿ c 2 !
12...^bd7 1 3 ftg e 2 ^ e 5
O r I3 ...% 4 14 0-0 Wxb2 15 h3 ^ge5 16
S b l ^a3 17 b6 Sb8 (Sicgel-Schmczko, INis­
san 1994) 18 a5 and Black is struggling.
14 0-0 £\d3 15 b3
'Hie simplest is 15 £ta2!? Wc5 16 A e3 Wc7
17 ¿x d 3 cxd3 18 Wxd3 with a very promising
advantage.
15...<^g4 16 bxc4 Wxc4 17 &xd3 Wxd3
18 iLg5
18 b6 is clcarly better for White.
18...Wc4 1 9 ¿x e7 ?
19 b6 is again good.
1 9 ...6 .c3 20 S e l Wxe4 21 &xf8 ÍLe5 22
h3 £>h2 23 f4?
23 ¿h 6 ! í^ x fl 24 'á'xfl axb5 25 axb5 with
advantage to White.
23...£\xf1 24 Wxf1 Jid4+
24...¿b2!? with an edge for Black.
25 & h2 i¡.e3 26 A h 6 ?!
If 26 ik.xd6 -ÍLxcl 27W xcl (lien 27...Wxd5
(27...Wxc2?? 28 Wc6) 28 Wc6 ÍLh7 29 Wxd5
AxdS 301>6A l>7 is good for Black.
26.. J lxc 1 27 W x cl Jix h 3 ! 28 Wf1 WxdB?
28...axh5 29 <á?xh3 Wxtl.S ¡s strong.
29 gxh3 Se8 30 <5^3 Wd2+ 31 Wg2
Wxg2+ 32 &xg2 axb5 33 axb5 f5 34 ¿ Í3
Sb 8 35 & g5 <Á>f7 36 Q\e2 Hxb5 37 Stá4
Sa5 38 i£.h4 h6 39 M 2 g5 40 A e 3 & g6
41 <hc6 Hb5 42 4hd4 Hb4 43 si?g3 Ba4 44
£>f3 Ha3 45 ÍLc1 Hc3 46 ÍLd2 Hd3 47
Jic 1 ¿>h5 48 s£>g2?? Hc3 49 JÍd 2 Sc2 50
fxg5 hxg5 51 ‘¿ ’gS g4 52 hxg4+ fxg4 53
ü b 4 H c4
Not 53...gxf3?? 54 ÍLx<l6 f'2 55 <&g2 with
c«.|uality. White must avoid this idea on the
55th move, ton.
54 ¿x d 6 Sc3 55 & g2 Hxf3 56 iLc7 Kd3
57 ¿ e 5 ^ g 5 58 & f2 <±>h4 59 * g 2 Hd2+
60 ‘A’g l ¿ih3 0-1
Game 69
Pocero-Minguez Guinda
Correspondence 1992
1 d4 ^ f6 2 c4 g6 3 ±g7 4 e4 d6 5
157
O ffbeat King's indian
&e2 0-0 6 &g5 c5 7 d5 h6
Por many years this move order was the
main line of the Averbakh variation. Now wc
get to see where the bishop goes before em-
barkingon a strategy.
8 ¿ f4
'Iliis withdrawal looks the most logical be-
cause it addresscs Black’s desired plan of ...e7*
e*6. 8 ¿e 3 features in Games 72 & 73. The h4-
sejuare does not fit in well here - 8 ¿h 4 and
now:
a) 8...a6 apjxrars to guarantce Black coun-
terplay.
al) 9 £>B b5 10 £\12 b4 11 £>a4 ^ li7
(1 l...Wa5!? with advantage to Black) 12 0-0
C/Wl 13 Wc2 g5 14 Ag3 #W5 15 H acl, I lhl-
vest-Kasparov, Morgen 1995, and now
15...v\g6!? with an edge for Black according to
Dokhoian in HCO. Instead 15 a3 a5 is ap-
proximately ecjual.
a2) 9 a4 Wa5 10 ¿ d 3 (10 Wd2 4fMxl7, Kris-
tinsson-C )lafsson, Reykjavik 1966, and now 11
Ha3 is unclear) I0...g5 11 ¿g 3 #W 4 12 ¿xe4
¿xc3l- (12...Í5 13 ¿d 3 ¿xc3+ 14 bxc3
®xc3+ 15 <&fl f4 was equal in Dopino-
Muino, ( Correspondence 1980) 13 bxc3
#xc3+ M St»fl 15 15 #k-2 Wf6 16 „&c2 t'4 17
Ha3 fxj>3 18 Kf3 W g7 19 HxíHt *x fó 20
Í^xg3, Mirkovic-Poluljahov, Vrnjacka Banja
1996, with compcnsation (Mirkovic in HCO).
b) Also |x>ssiblc is 8...c6 9 dxe6 (9 ?^ B
exd5 10 exd5 #W> 11 0-0 g5 12 ¿ g 3 íhh5 13
§\\2 £\xg3 14 fxg3 f5 was far from clcar in
158
Puc-Ostojic, Yugoslav Championship 1965)
9...¿xc6 (9...fxe6!? 10 ¿ g 3 e*5 followcd by
...£V6-d4) 10 #>B £kó (HL.Wbó 11 S b l
Kozul Ixnic, Maribor 2003 and now
11J2tti5!? 12 ¿e 7 Hc8 13 ¿x d 6 Hd8 14 e5
& f4 is fine for Black) 11 0-0 He8 12 h.3 Wd7
13 Wd2 #Mi5 14 íhli2 (1’lockert-Woltcr, Ger-
many 1989) 14...#\14 with chances for lx>th
sides.
8..Mb6
'I he idea of this move is lo play ...e7-e6 or
...e7-e5 and, afler the trade on e6 and ¿xdó,
Black has ...Hd8. Unforiunately this plan is a
littlc too slow, which is why we see 8...e6
(C»ames 70 & 71). Black has also tried:
a) 8...#a5 9 Wd2 (better than 9 Su\2 e6 10
£\B exd5 11 ex<l5 ÍÜ 5!? 12 &h4 ¿d 7 13
W cl <&h7 14 0-0 Wd8 15 g3 ÍLh3 16 S e l
^1x17 with equality in Kaidanov-Gufcld,
Reno 1995) 9...&h7 10 ®>Í3 a6 11 0-0 #>1x17
(11_1>5 12 c5 dxc5 13 Íixe5 with a plus for
White, Rcwitz-I .ysdal Aarhus 1985) 12 a4 (12
e5!?) I2...£V-8 13 ¿g 3 $Y5 (Alburt-
B.Gurevicli, Parsipanny 2(K)2) 14 5 dxe5
15 f4 with a pulí for White.
b) 8...Sc8 9 Wd2 (9 £>B e6 10 dxe6 ¿xeó
11 ¿xd ó transposes to the next main game)
9../á?li7 and ík >w:
!>2l) 10 Ii4!? h5 11 aó (11...^1x17!?) 12
í^g5** (12 e5!? dxe5 13 &W\5 with advantage
to White) 12../¿?g8 13 B with a slight advan­
tage to White in Kaidanov-I lernandcz, Dallas
1996.
b22) 10 £>B aó (10...CÓ 11 dxeó ¿x có 12
¿xd ó #Y6 13 0-0 ¿ g 4 14 Hadl $\xe4 15
£\xc4 Iíxe4 16 ¿x c5 with advantage to
White, Jedrzejowski-Jasinski, ( Correspondence
1994/5) 11 0-0 eó 12 dxeó Hxeó 13 e5 ÍV-8
14 cxdó #kó, Ruzclc-I ¿tpicnis, lietuva 1994
and here 15 Had 1is an edge for White accord­
ing to Rir/.elc in HCO.
c) 8...£>bd7 9 £>g4 (9...aó 10 0-0 is
given by Yakovich in HCO as favouring
White, while 9...g5 10 ¿ e l ®Ui7 11 0-0 aó 12
a4 also left White wilh the more plcasant game
in Sarosi-Glatt, I lungary 1996) 10 0-0 4hgc5
 Averbakh System : 5 i le 2 0-0 6 iÍg 5
11 ÍY*1 (1 1Ok\2\? followed by .&g3 and f2-f4
looks good for White) l L..£ib6 12 b3 có 13
Hcl exdS 14 ÍW 1 5 í^xilS (14...15!? with coun-
lerplay) 15 WxdS We7 16 § \2 with advantage
in White, Volzhin-Vclikhanli, Abu Dhabi
2001.
I «et’s retnrn to the position after 8...Wb6:
9 Wd2
White should also emerge with a good
game after the alternatives.
a) 9 W cl is not without logic but is not as
active or natural as the text, e.g. 9...c6 10 4hf3
(Dorfman Rashkovsky, Lvov 1981) II
.&e3!?, or 9...&1V7 10& f3c5 II J¡Ld2&h5 12
g3 ± h3 13 14 Wc2 £>aó 15 a3,
Larago-Kindcrmann, Budapest 1987, with a
slight advantage to White in either case.
b) 9 Wc2!? c5 (9...c6 10 cxd5 11 cxd5
$-g4 12 0-0 £Mx 17 13 a4 aó 14 £k!2 with an
edge for White, Ijemer-OII, Ivano Frankovsk
1982) 10 & d2 & aó I I a3 ÍLd7 12 4^0 (12
Ii3!? followed by g2-g4 kx>ks promising)
12...£ic7 (12...£ih5!? followed by ...£H4 with
countcrplay) 13 0-0 a5 14 b.3 Wa7 15 Habí
Kfl)8 16 S f d with a pulí for White, Tukma-
kov-Murcy, Mastines 19«S2.
9 ...*h 7
Very dangerous for Black is 9...c5?! 10
ÍLxhó! ü.xhó 11 Wxhó ®xb2 12 S e l £ia6
(I2...B5 13 h4! b4 14#kl1 and 12...¿g4 13 h4
§\\(> 14 h5 jSLxh5 15 g4 are troublc for Black,
while 12...íhh7 13 h4 §W1 14 We3!, intending
H b l and h4-h5 also kx>ks quite unpleasant) 13
w ith ...c 7 -c 5
h4 with an initiative in Korotylcv-Kurnosov,
St Petersburg 20(K).
10 h4
White immediately begins active play on
the kingside. Also g<xxl is 10 4?}f3 c5 11 dxc6
J&xcó 12 0-0 (but here White should have
transposed to the main line after 12 b4!)
12...618 13 S a d l (13 h3 ® có 14 £kl5 A xdS
15 cxd5 £ld4 16 £>xd4 cxd4 17 & d3 £kl7 18
S f d He8 19 b4 a5 20 a3 axl>4 21 Sxe8 Sxc8
22 axl>4 ®ic5 23 JsLxeS J&.xe5 '/¿-V?., Cíhitescu
( jolcaltea, Bucharcst 1979) 13...#V6 14 £kl5
J&xd5 15 cxd5 £kl4 16 4hxd4 cxd4 17 ÍLd3
£k!7 18 fid c l Sc8 19Se2 £ ic5 20S fe l flxc2
21 Sxe2 a5 22 h4 h5 23 He7 &g8 24 S e l & fó
25 jS.fl V2 -V2, ( iufcId-Oiiburdanidzc, Bakú
1980.
10...e5
Othcrs:
a) IO...Wb4? was the faulty course o f Rcn-
scn-Martjukhin, Ivm ail 2000, when White
could have obtained a decisivc attack after 11
h5! g5 (l L..í^g8 12 hxg6+ fxgó 13 £Mi 3 with
stratcgically winning position for White) 12
&xg5! hxg5 13 hó Axhó (13..JLh8 14 JÜ.d3)
14 Wxg5 ^ g 8 15 &d3 16 ex 15 Hfó 17 H bl
#Y17 18 4hf3 and the g pawn is cotning.
b) 10..JLg4 ()edr/cjowski-Sapa, Corre-
spondcncc 1992/94) 11 Í3 Ad7 12 g4 h5 13
0-0-0 with advantage to White, who is ready
for I3...hxg4 14 h5 etc.
11 dxe6 ixe6 12 £ f3
12 h5 g5 13 J&xdó Scl8 14 Wc2 (14 0-0-0
159
O ffbeat King's indian
#\c6) 14...Sí?g8 15 ¿x b 8 Saxb8 16 Qsft ¿g 4
17 Ó\\2 ¿x c2 18 SÍ?xc2 #\g4 (unclear in
HCO) 19 B &c5 20 £wl5 Wa6! 21 a4 £k6 22
£ib3 Hxcl5! 23 cxd5 Se8+ with compcnsation
in Uhlmann-S'/napik, Zakopane 1980. Perhaps
19 £k!5 is an improvement.
12...£ta6
The move that Black would like to play, but
he mns the risk of coming under attack. ln-
steatl:
a) 12...®eB 13 0-0 £\c6 14 Sab l £tt'6 15
£V15 ¿x d 5 16 exd5 £kl4 17 &xd4 cxd4 18
¿d 3 a5 19 b4 a4 (19...fifd8 20 bxa5 »xa5 21
Wxa5 Sxa5 22 Sxl>7 with a technically won
position in Tukmakov-Gufeld, USSR 1981) 20
S fc l Wd8 21 ¿g 3 with a clcar advantage to
White in Jedrxejowski-Marcinkicwicz, Polish
(Correspondence Championship 1996/8.
b) 12j&h5 13 ¿x d 6 Sd8 14 e*5 ¿x c5
(14...£>c6 15 £kl5!) 15 ®>xc5 Sxd6 16 £k!5!
¿x d 5 17 cxd5 clcarly favours White, who
plans <5^x17 or £k4 (Uhlmann).
13^g5+ ! hxg5
Otherwise Black loses thc pawn: I3...< ¿?g8
14 4?W*6 fxe*6 15 ¿x h 6 ¿x h ó 16 Wxh6 Wxb2
17 Wxg6+ & I 18 18 W h 6+ <&>g8 19 S e l (or 19
W cl).
14 hxg5+ ^h5!
After l4...SÍ?g8 15 gxf6 ¿ x f 6 16 0-0-0 íhd4
17 JÍUÍ3 S fe 8 18 Sh2 in Uhlmann-Petrushin,
ljeipzig 1980, White liad an attack 011 the
kingside without any counterplay from Black.
15 g4 <5^d4! 16 gxh5 ¿x c4 !
An uncxpected tactical trick! After other
moves White should casily win, e.g. l6../?W 2
17 Wxe2 ¿xc3+? (l7...Sh8!? 18 0-0-0) 18
bxc3 S h 8 19 0-0-0 Wa5 20 W c 2 ¿x c4 21
hxg6+ &g7 22 S h 7+ Sxli7 23 gxh7 ¿x a 2
(23...<¿> xh7 24 e5+) 24 ¿x d 6! 1-0, iliomas-
Bart sch, ( a >rresp(mdcncc 1990.
17 hxg6+ <&g8 18 ¿x c 4
( )t liers:
a) Premature is 18 gxf7+ Sxf7 19 g6 (19
¿ d i Sxf4 20 Wxf4 Wxb2 21 H cl & 0 + 22
W xH W xcl and 19 ¿e 3 ¿xe2 20 ¿xd4
¿xd4 21 í\xe2 Sxf2 are both very good for
160
Black) I9...¿xe2 20 gxl7+ <¿?x!7 21 S li3 Sh8
(21...¿g4!?) 22 £>xe2 Sxh3 23 0-0-0 Wa6 with
equal chances in Ix:limaiin-Kckennann, ftast
Cíerman Correspondence Cup 1985.
b) 18 ¿e 3 earns White nothing, e.g.
18...5W2 (18...¿xe2 19 ¿xd4) 19 #>xe2 fxgó
20 £k3 Wa5 and Black was okay in lerch-
w
Van Willigen, Correspondence 1986.
18...£tf3+ 19 &e2
19 & d l!? is 110 worse than the text, e.g.
19...6xd2 20 ¿x d 2 d5 (20...Sfd8 21 ¿xf7+
22 ¿d 5 Se8 23 f4 Wb4 24 Sh7 Sac8 25
fó Sc7 26 f6 is very good for White) 21 £ixd5
W d6 22 <¿?c2 Sfe8 23 &iV> 24 ¿ c 3 etc.
19...^xd2 20 ¿xd2 £fd8 21 £>d5!
White has only a bishop and a knight for
the queen, vet with amazing calni he is niobi-
lising his pieces for an attack against Black’s
king. 'I he text is preferable to 21 gxi7-l 22
<5V15 Wxl>2, when 23 Sab l W<:2 saw Black
firmly in the driving seat in Necesany-Dotlacil,
(Correspondence 1983, while 23 íhf4 d5! 24
Sab l (24 ¿x d 5 Sxd5 25 #W15 Wc2 does not
save White) 24...#c2 25 ¿xd5 Sxd5 26 exd5
<
A> xf7 27 Hxb7+ £^8 28 Se7 Wxa2 is also
poor. 1lowever, after 23 13! White has still
attacking chances.
21 ¿xl7+ sfefH 22 ¿d 5 looks very good,
when White should win, e.g. 22...Wa6+ 23
& d 1 b5 24 f4 1)4 25 #Y2 c4 26 15 etc.
21...Wxb2 22 ^f6+! &i8 23 £ab1 Wd4
24 ¿d 5 ! Sab8 25 fíb3! ¿x f6
This loses immediatelv
0
but there are no
 A v e r b a k h S y s t e m : 5 !¡Le2 0 - 0 6 $Lg5 w i t h . . . c 7 - c 5
useful moves, e.g. 25...Wa4 26 Hh7 or 25...c4
26 H O ctc.
26 gxf6 Wxf6 27 g7+ •¿¿el 28 Sf3
28 H gl We5 29 Hf3 is more to the point.
28...Wxg7 29 ií.g5+ Ú¿e8
29...<
á?d7 30 Hxf7+ Wxt7 31 ¿x f7 Hh8 is
unplcasant bul ihe lesserevil.
30 &f6 Wg4 31 Hh4 Wg8 32 Sh8 Wxh8
33 &xh8 Hd7 34 &f6 Sc8 35 & c4 a6 36
a4 Sdc7 37 Hd3 Sc6 38 Sf3 S6c7 39
¿Ve3 <¿¿07 40 & c3 Á’e8 41 Hf6 Sd7 42 f4
Kdc7 43 f5 b5 44 axb5 axb5 45 iLxb5+
■¿¿e7 46 Sh6 Hg8 47 ilf6 + ¿¿i8 48 Sh1
Hb7 49 2a 1 1-0
Gam e 70
Nesis-Metz
Correspondence 19HH/ 95
1 d4 £>f6 2 c4 g6 3 £\c3 &g7 4 e4 d6 5
Ae2 0-0 6 Ü.g5 c5 7 d5 h6 8 ¿Lf4 e6
Black carries on regardless, apparently ig-
noring the fact that the il6-pawn is attacked.
llie ¡dea is lo generare Black considerable play
by activelv posting his forces. I a íss accurate is
8...e5 due to 9 ¿Ld2 (or 9 ÍLc3) 9...<5W> l() g'l
■5Y 8 II W e l *117 12 Ii4 f5?! 13 Ii5 Í4 14
Iixg6+ *xg6 15 w iili a clear advantage to
White in Pytel-Bellon, W ijk aan /ee 1974.
9 dxe6
White achieves nothing with 9 cxd.S 10
ex<l5 Hc8 11 0-0, e.g. 11,..^V4 12 <
Sixe4 Hxe4
13 Wd2 W ttt 14 % 3 Ag4 15 ÍLd3 (Pfleger-
I•llricli, Bad Pynnont 1963) I5..JX c8! 16 Hael
4üd7 with ecjuality.
9...^.xe6 10 ilx d 6
An alternative is 10 Wd2:
a) IO...Wa5 II ( I I Axh6 ,ÍLxh6 12
Wxh6 *$3xe4 13 H cl í^xc3! 14 Hxc3! Wxa2 15
W cl Wa5 was unclear in Sprenger-Halle A l­
lende, Correspondence 1975) 11. . . £ ) c 6 12 0-0
g5 (12...*li7 13 a3 <£kl4 14 £>xd4 Vz-'A, Klu-
ger-G.Andersson, liksjo 1977) 13 á_g3 HailH
14 h3 <?V14 15 £kd4 cxd4 16 4^bl # a6 17
W c2 Hc8 18^12 d5 19 exdS £>xd5 20 H fel
HfdS 21 W e4 <?Y6 22 W d3 £\I7 'A-Yz,Jedr/e-
jowski-Butzc, Correspondence 1995 (White
has a definite edge here).
b) !0...Wb6 11 &xh6 (11 £>f3 £ k6 12 0-0
#YI4! 13 !>3 £>xe2+ 14 Wxc2 & h 5 15 .&d2
Bfc8 16 Wd3 Had8 17 H fe l, l;arago-Mcnoni,
Bratto 1998, and now I7...<5V6 is eejual, or 1I
0-0-0 * h 7 12 h4 £ic6 13 <5\g4! 14 h5 g5
15 Jlg 3 , Rost-Iíberl, Correspondence 1998,
when 15...Wa5 is fine for Black) 11....&xh6 12
Wxh6 Wxb2 13 S e l íhc6 14 h4 with the fol­
lowing position:
A kcy position in which both sides have di-
rect threats. 14...£Mi 7 l 5 £if3 $YI4! I6íhxd4
cxd4 17 £il>5 Wxa2 18 &xd4 was l ’arago-
Warthmann, Bocblingen 1995, and now
18...*Ta5+ 19 Wd2 Wxd2+ 20 <&xd2 is given
as unclear by l.l;arago in i:C (\ but the posi­
lion looks nicer for White. After 14...< 5M)4
White has ro do something about l5../?V2t
and 15 J& g4 - 15 £ k ll Wd4 16 a3 £k!3+ 17
161
O ffbeat King's indian
¿xd3 Wxd3 18 13 ¿x c4 19 £>e3 ¿a(> 20 h5
#\15 21 &xd5 W fl + ctc. l;inally thcrc is
14...#\e5 15 íhh3 and now both 15...¿xc4,
when White must show compcnsation, and
15..J2ac8 deserve attention, while 15..JSfe8
has been played. Then 16 0-0!? ¿xh3 17 gxli3
S e 6 was unclear in Dziggel-Jung, (Correspon­
dence 1991, which leaves 16 h5:
b l) 16...¿g4?! 17 f3 led Black to a brilliant
victory in Obodchuk-Avdcev, (Correspon­
dence 1990: 17...£kc4! 18 <&xc4 (18 fxe4
¿xe2 19 £ke2 4íkl3+ with an attack)
18...6.f3+! 19 gxB (19 ¿ x B Sxe4+ 20 * f l
¿ x B 21 gxB We2+ 22 * g l # x B 23 Wh7+!
<¿?fó! 24 Wh6+ *c7 25 Se2 26 Sh2 gxh5
27 Wg5+ &d7 is very good for Black)
19..JKxe4 20 £\gl? (20 Sh2! maintains the
balance) 20...¿xB 21 Sh2 ¿xh5 22 * f l
Sae8 etc. I lowever, White has 17 hxg6! £kg6
(17...fxg6 18 B ¿x h 3 19 Sxh3 is poor for
Black) 18 ¿xg4 £kg4 19 #d2 lTxd2+ 20
<&xd2 ® f6 21 B with a slight edge to White.
b2) Black does not have a clcar route to
ccjuality after 16...¿xh3 - 17 hxg6 Í^xg6 18
Sxh3 áxe4 19 S b l Wc2 20 ttli7+ (20 Sxb7!
® f6 21 W l\2 with an edge lo White) 20...&ÍR
21 Sxb7 Wd2+ 22 SÍ?f1#cl+ 23®W ll Wxdl+
24 ¿x d l £ki2+ 25 <&>gl S e l»-26 *1)2 £>fl+
Vz-Vz,1 Aikacs-I lazai, Vrnjacka Banja 1988.
1>3) Black should play 16...£k*g4 17 Wd2
Wxd2+ 18 *xd2 gxh5 19 B Íie5 20 £fo5
Se7 21 <á?c3 wilh chances f<>r both sides.
10...6.8
162
11
'Iliis move is usually made automatically.
Nevertheless, White has two very interesting
alternatives which do not look worse.
a) 11 e5 £^4 (I l...£tfd7 12 f'4! f6, Caringa
Nualart-Deslandes, Olot 1994, and now 13
15!? is interesting) and here thcory gives only
12 ¿xl>8 Sxl>8 13 ¿xg4 ¿xg4 14 #xg4
¿xc5 15 #\ge2 ¿xc3+ 16 bxc3 flfd3 and
Black must sooner or later regain the piccc
wilh a winning position (Vaulin-Varavin,
USSR 1988). I lowever, after 12 ¿xg4! ¿xg4
13 Wxg4 Wxd6 14 f4 Wd4 15 Í\ge2 Wxc4 16
b3 Wb4 17 W B White’s position looks niccr.
b) 11 ¿xc5!? is liardly niel in the tourna­
ment praclice bul it undoubtcdly deserves
attention and further practica) tests: ll.JlV a S
(11...Wc8!? 12 ¿e 3 ¿xc4 13 B , Prokopowicz-
Klsness, Norway 1992, and now 13...¿c6!? 14
« e l *117 15 £fo5 Wd7 16 Wc7 £to(> 17
Wxd7 #W17 18 a3 with advantage to White)
12 1>4 #a3 (IZ Jftió 13 ¿d 4 ! ÍLxc4 14 e5
¿x c2 15 #\gxc2 í^g4 16 b5 W c6 17 f4 with a
clcar advantage for White in Khmrooth-
I larjunpaeae, (Correspondence 1988) 13 5ib5
Wb2 14 S b l Wxa2 15 ¿(14 and Black loses
the cjuecn without sufficient compcnsation,
e.g. 15.Jhcó 16 Sb2 Wa6 17 ¿h cl &xe4 18
£>xa6 ¿xd4 19 W cl bxa6 20 £>B ¿c3+ 21
* f I ¿xl>2 22 Wxb2.
11...£>c6
For a long time ibis move liad been the
main linc but it usually leads to endings in
 A verbakh S ystem : 5 & e 2 0-0 6 & g 5 w ith ...c 7 -c 5
which Black is a pawn down. Although Black
should draw thcrc are no winning chanccs.
I I...Wb6 features in the next main game.
12 0-0 £\d4 13 e5
Not 13 J&xc5? íhxc2+ 14 Wxc2 Wc8 with a
grcat position for Black.
13...£\d7 14£xd4
( )thcrs:
a) 14 H cl ÍL Í5 15 #W14 cxd4 16 Wxd4
£ixc5 with cquality in Uhlmann-Biclcxyk,
I)lan ica Zdrc)j 1975.
b) 14 & b5 & x B + 15 A x B &xe5 16 ÍLxb7
Hb8 17 &xb8 Wxb8 18 A d5 £lxc4 (l • ’arago-
Van I.aatum, Dieren 1990) 19 J§.xc6!? with
chanccs for lx>th sides.
14...cxd4 15 Wxd4
Much weaker is 15 £\b5 in view o f 15...
£\xc5 16 c5 d3!, e.g. 17 JlLxd3 Hc8 18 ÍLc2
$V4 19 b3 £lb2 20 Wd2? (20 W cl offers
some compensation) 20...Hxc5 21 Wb4 Hc2
(White is in troublc) 22 ild l ®k!3 23 Wa4
Hxf2 24 Hxf2 £\xf2 25 H cl Ík l3 0-1,
Uhlmann-Schmidt, Bmcnn 1975.
1 5 ...6 .e5 16 &xe5 Wxd4 17 &xd4 &xd4
18 Sac1
White has secured a comfortablc advan-
tage.
18...fiad8
18...A xc3 19 Hxc3 Had8 20 H fel & f5 2\
&C3 $Lc4 22 &xc4 Hxe4 23 H3c2 with a slight
advantage to White, l'arago-Uhlmann, Austria
1998.
19 b3
'íTie most popular continuation in the dia-
gram position involves an activation o f Black’s
forces at the cost o f surrendering the bishop
pair. If White fails to find gcxxl moves Black
can expeet to regain the pawn but, generally,
Black has enough play without a pawn to suc-
cced in reducing material, and most games end
in a draw. If Kasparov decidcd to play rhis
ending, then it must be drawn!
19...6xc3
Another strategy begins I9....&c5, Black
secking to cxploit his bishops. White should
ccrtainly avoid 20 H fd l? .&xc3 2l Hxc3
HxdH 22 >§.xdl ÍLxc4! (Uhlmann), so play
can continué 20 A G b6 (20...Hd3!? 21 ¿hbV.
1>622 Hfd 1Hcd8 23 &d5! Hxd l f 24 Hxd 1 b5
25 £Y12 bxc4 26 bxc4 &fH 27 €M>3 <&c*7 28
£\a5 - Uhlmann) 21 -ÍLc6 Hc7 22 £k!5 á.xd5
23 JÜ.xd5 (after 23 cxd51? White could have
tried to play for a win) 23...üLd6 24 H cdl Hc2
25 a4 <¿?g7 Vz-Viy Gralka-l7lis, Bydgoszcz 1978.
20 Sxc3 Hd2 21 & f3 Sxa2 22 &xb7 Sb8
23 & f3 !?
a) 23 Ac6?! Ba3 24 &b5 a6 25 ÍLa4 Hl>4
and the wcakncss o f the first rank plays a parí,
e.g. 26 H fel Jix cA 27 Hxc4 Hxc4 28 bxc4
Hxa4 29 c5 Hd4 V?.-V?.y Nvcman-I loffmann,
Drcsdcn 20(K) and 26 H ccl .&xc4 T I bxc4
Haxa4 28 c5 Hb7, which was cqual in Uhl­
mann-W.Schmidt, Polanica Xdroj 1975.
b) 23 &e4 Ha3 24 A c2 a5 25 f4 (25 He3
fía2 26 Ü.xg6 a4! 27 bxa4 Axc4 28 A b l Hal>2
29 jSLcl3 &xd.3 30 Hxd3 Ha2 31 h.3 Hxa4 with
an eventual draw [66th movc| in Uhlmann
Schmidt, Warsaw 1980) 25...a4 26 f5 Ü.xf5! 27
i¿Lxf5 gxf5 28 Hg3+ shf8 29 bxa4 Hxa4 30
Hc3 Hl>2 3 1Hxf5 Haa2 32 Hg3 Hc2 33 h3 (33
Hg4 h5!) 33...Hxc4 34 Hf6 h5 35 Sh 6 h4 36
Sg4 with a level game in Uhlmann-Schmidt,
I vast Ciermany- P<)land 1981.
23...Ha3 24 iL d l a5 25 2e3
( )r 25 H cl H c8 26 H c l a4 27 bxa4 Hxc4
28 Hxc4 ÍL\c4 29 ÍLc2 Ad5 30 h4 jfix6 31
Hd l Ha2 32 ÍLb3 Ha3 33 Hd6 Hxb3 34 Hxc6
Hbl+ 35 * 1 1 2 Sl>4 Vi-V?., Polugacvsky-
Kasparov, Bugojno 1982.
163
O ffbeat King's indian
25..JXb4
25...Sc!8!? 26 S fc l (26 Ac2?! Xtd2 27 ÜLxj-6
a4! was equal in Scliustcr- Kulc/.cwski, (Corre-
spondencc 1986/91) 26..JSd2 27 h4 a4 28
I>xa4 fixe3 29 fxc*3 ¿x c4 and Black should
draw.
26 h3 8a 1 27 & c2 J2a2 28 &xg6 a4 29
bxa4 Axc4 30 &b1 Sab2 31 £d3 ¿xd3
32 Sxd3 fíxa4 33 &g3+ &h7 34 %f3 &g7
35 fíc l m>6 36 He7 Ya-Ya
G aw e 7 /
Von Rein-Leconte
Comsfyondence 1999
1 c4 g6 2 <^c3 £g7 3 d4 d6 4 e4 £>f6 5
ile 2 0-0 6 ¿g 5 c5 7 d5 h6 8 ¿ f4 e6 9
dxe6 ¿x e6 10 &xd6 32e8 11 £rf3 ^b6
'The strongest move*. Black has very active
counterplay antl avoids the trade of queens.
12 -0.xb8
After the aggressive 12 e5 <5^1117 13 íhb5
&Y*6 14 $Y*7 Black has exccllent compensa-
tion for the exchange in all variations, e.g.
14...í'Vlxe5 15 # W 5 £ixe5 16 £}xa8 SxaS-
(l6...Wb4+, Petiko-Sfyrney, ( Correspondence
1989, and now 17 * f l! Í^xc4 18 ¿h cl Sd8 is
fine for Black) 17 ¿x c5 ¿xe5 18 0-0 ¿xb2
19 S b l ¿15 20 Wd2 A xbl 21 Sxbl ¿c 3 22
&xb6 ¿xd 2 23 &xb7 Se8 24 & fl a5 25 g3
26 a4 Se7 27 fixe7 *xe7 V?-V¿yYatneva-16 h3
PCrshova, Serpukhov 2003. Instead of sending
the knight into c7 White can play 13 0-0 #Y6
164
14 #ia4 Wa5 15 a3 í'YIxe.S 16 í^xe*5 Sixc5 17
l>4 cxb4 18 axl>4 Wd8 as in Schmidt-( ídanski,
Slupsk 1987, with an assessment of unclear in
HCO.
12...£axb8
1/,‘ss convincing is I2...£kl7 13 Wc2 Haxb8
14 í\12 Sbd8 15 0-0 with advantage to White
in Norri-Nouro, Vantaa 1991.
13 Wc2 ^h5 14 g3
14 0-0 & f4 15 H fcl £>xe2+ 16 Sxe2 (16
Wxe2 Wb4 17 ÍY15 Wxb2, Lputian -Peirushin,
Krasnodar 1980, and now 18 Wc3!? is unclear)
16...¿xc4 17 Hd2 ¿x c3 18bxc3Wc6 19 S e l
Se6 V2-V2, Ryskin-Sutovsky, Ljubljana 1994.
14...1.cc3+
After l4...JÜLh3 Black has good com|x*nsa-
tion for the pawn, e.g. 15 ÍV I2 (15 0-0-0 í^f6
16 Hd2 Wc6 wilh an edge for Black in
Szymczak-Sznapik, 1981) 15...¿xc3! 16 bxc3
(16 Wxc3 ¿g 2 17 S g l ¿xe4, intending 18
¿xh5 ÍL\5+ 19 Sfcdl gxh5) 16...^g7 with
compcnsation in Ixuner-l essling, (Correspon­
dence 1984.
15 bxc3
15 Wxc3 ¿ Ii3 16 c5 ¿g 2 17 S g l ¿ x B 18
¿ x B Wd6, Tukmakov-Gufeld, Moscow
1983, with equality according to HCO.
15 ...¿g4
15...&f6!? 16 §W2 ¿h 3 was interesting in
( ¡rivas-1 lowell, Sharjah 1985.
Iliis exchange helps White more than 16
£kl2¿xe2 I7*xe2,e.g. I7 j» e 6 l8 B& b d 8
 A v e r b a k h S y s t e m : 5 $Le2 0 - 0 6 i i g 5 w ith ...c 7 -c 5

19 B h fl Wh3 20 fif2 fó 21 Sel fxc4 22 fxc4 28 d5

Ke6 23 &d 1 24 e5 & g 4 25 Sfe2 Wh5 Neither 28 dxc5 líg4+ 29 sfcel Sxd2 30
and in this favourablc (for Black) position Wxd2 Wa4 with a very good game for Black,
( Chckhov took thc draw in Agzamov- ñor 28 Wxc5?? Wg4+ 29 See2 Sdc8 30
( Ihekhov, i cíavi 1982. Wxc8-f Sxe8, with a decisive advantage for
1 6 ...¿x f3 Black, can be recommended.
16...¿d7!? followcd by ...¿c6 looks okay 28...Wg4+ 29 See2 Sb4 30 a3 Sd4 31
for Black. Wxc5 Hxd2+
17 ilx f3 We6 18 0-0-0 3l...S8xd5 32 Wxd5! Hxd5 33 Sxd5 lTa4+
18 0-0 #xh3 19 S fc l & f6 20 c5 £>g4, 34 Sl?c1 Wxa3 is unclear, but 31...Sc4!? is in ­
Kummer-Stummer, Aschach 1992, and now teresting, when I «econte gives 32 f3 Bxc5 33
21 ¿x g 4 Wxg4 is a shade better for Black. fxg4 Sexd5 34 Sxd5 Bxd5+ 35 * c 2 S&íK 36
18...b5 19 ¿he1 e*6 f6 37 c7+ & c8 38 Bc6 Sg5 39 Sxf6 Sxg4
After 19 cxb5 Bxb5 Black has an initiative, with a big lead for Black.
but perhaps this is nevertheless W hitc’s best. 32 <&xd2 Sc8 33 We3
19...bxc4!? Not 33 Wxa7?? Wc4 and White comes un­
der heavy f1re.
33...Wc4 34 *e1 Wxd5 35 f3 Wa5+ 36
* f2 Sc3 37 Wxh6 Wxa3 38 W f4 Wc5+
39 &g2 Sc2 40 We4 Sxe2+ 41 Wxe2 a5
42 e6 fxe6 43 Wxe6+

G am 72
Alterman-Shirov
I ¿lisia O/y///piad 1998

1 d4 £tf6 2 c4 g6 3 £>c3 &g7 4 e4 d6 5

¿Le2 0-0 6 ¿g 5 c5
The actual move order (6...h6 7 ¿ c 3 4tMxl7
I9...b4 20 e5 Wa6, Yermolinsky-Kinder-
* j
8 ttd 2 c5 9 d5) has been altered in order to
mann, Groningcn 1997, and now 2l Sd 3 is better aecommodatc variations.
given as unclear in /¿CO. 7 d5 h6 8 ¿e 3
20 e5
20 ¿x h 5 gxh5 21 e5 Wa6 is complex,
White having problems with his king but at
least damaging Black’s pawn structurc.
20...Wa6 21 Sd2 ¿hg7 22 &d5 Sed8
Both 22...ÍV‘6!? and 22...Sl>6!? (intending
...Scb8) deserve attention.
23 &d1 #\e6 24 Se 4
Now an unpleasant surprise is awaiting
White...
2 4 ...ÍY I4 ! 25 ÍLxc4
25 ¿xf7-f SÉ?xf7 26 exd4 e3! with an attack
(Lecontc).
25...W xc4 26 cxd4 Wf1 + 27 B e l Wxh3 Í his move is apparcntly less aggressive than

165
O ffb e a t Kin g 's Indian
8 ji.f4. While does not attack the d6-pawn and
ihercforc allows Black to open the c-file.
I lowever, the situation can he tricky. White
still can press on the kingside and, after the
trade ...c6xd5, e4xd5 and a possible ...£W4
Black’s r<K>k does not attack the bishop (as
woukl happcn after jlf4 ).
8...£ibd7
Alternatively:
a) 8...b5 9 cxb5 a6 10 a4 and the position
rcscmbles I;arago-Zaitscv but with the pawn
on h6 instead of h7. l0...Wa5 (10...axb5 11
axb5 Hxal 12 Wxal e6 13 dxe6 .&xc6 14 £m3
He8 15 0-0 ^Ll>3 16 W cl with a clear advan­
tage to White, Kollbcrg-1 vspig, I;rank-
furt/Oder 1977) II $L<\2 axi>5 12 ÍLxb5 £>a6
(l2...Wb4 13 f3 is clearly better for White but
13...ÍU6?? 14 £ce2 Wxb2 15 Ac3 1-0 was all
over in Wagncr-Kunsztowicz, Corrcspon-
dence 1973) 13 £ B £ M 14 0-0&af> 15 H cl
(15 Axa6!? Hxa6 16 Wc2 with an edge for
White) 15...Wb6 (Deze-Benko, Novi Sad
1972) 16 Hc2 ün>8 17 Ha3 with the more
pleasant game for White.
b) 8...a6 9 a4 (9 Wd2 l>5 10 f3 b4 11 £kll
e*6 12 £lf2 exd5 13 cxd5 h5 14 £\gh3 a5 15
£\g5 16 .&xa6 £W 6, Maga-Wojtkiewicz,
Manila 1991 with cquality according to Byrne
& Mednis in ii(X \ but 10 cxb5 improves)
9...Wa5 10 .&d2 and we have a position that
can arise after 8 $L(4. Instead after 10 Wd2
<*li7 11 £>B Black has 11...b5 12 cxb5 axb5
13 ÍLxb5 as in Morchat-Dykacz, Mikolajki
1991, when 13...£W*4! 14 £\xe4 Wxb5 15
axl>5 Hxal + is very good for Black. Retuming
to 10&d2, Black has a couple of options:
b l) 10...c6 11 £ *B (11 dxe6 fxe6 12 £ iB
Wc7 13 £>Ii 4 Wf7 14 Ae3 g5 15 e5 dxe5 16
£\B £*1x17 17 0-0 with a slight advantage to
White in Bellmann-1 laag, Correspondence
|Gemían y| 1995) Il...exd5 12 exc!5 &g4
(I2...«c7!> 13 0-0 He8 14 W cl &h7 15 Ad3
£Ux17 16 h3 £\e5 17®>xc5dxe5 18Wc2£ih5
19 Hfel .&d7 20 a5 £if4 was unclear in Twar-
don-Pojcdzinicc, Lubniewice 1981) 13 0-0
Wc7 14 a5 £1x17 15 h3 A x B 16 A x B Hfc8
166
(I6...b6 17 axb6 Wxb6 18 £ia4 Wc7 19 Wc2
Hfc8 20 Hfel K x c H 21 Hxcl Hb8 22 j£td1
with advantage to White, Uhlmann-Vogt,
Zinnowitz 1971) 17 Wa4£ie5 18 &e2 He7 19
Hfel fiac8 20 ÍLÜ1 <&h7 21 He2 £\ed7 22
Hael (Uhlmann-Andcrsson, Skopje 1972)
with a plus for White in l iCO.
b2) After IO...Wc7 White can hardly
achieve even a minimal advantage, e.g. 11 £*B
(11 # d *h 7 12 h4 Ii5 13 B £>1x17 14 £ih3
£\e5 15 0-0 ÍLxh3 16 gxh3 £k:8 17 *h 2 ÍLf6
18 jSLg5 £kl7 19 .&xf6 V?,V?.y Sapi-Dely, Bu­
dapest 1970; 11 Be6 12 W cl <&h7 13 g4 exd5
14 cxd5 He8 with chances for both sides,
Prieto-Bibiloni, Buenos Aires 2(K)2) ll...ÜLg4
12 0-0 £Mx I7 13 Wc2 (13 a5, Reithcl-
Campbcll, ( Correspondence 1978, and now
l3...Hfe8 followed by ...e7-e6 guarantees coun­
tcrplay) 13...Hfe8 14 h3 ÍL xB 15 & x B e6 16
ÍLc2 exd5 17 exd5 He7 18 f4 Hae8 19 ÍLd3
£>m 20 Hael Hxel 21 &xel £lh5 22 £kr2 f5
23 Jltf2 '/2-'/>, Sanguinetti-Jones, Nice 1974.
'llie immediate 8...e6 is Black s choice in
the next inain game.
9 Wd2 SjWJ
Not 9..Jto5? 10 &xh6! ÍLxh6 11 Wxh6
£ixe4 12 H cl £klf6 13 h4! Wl>4 (13...£W\3 14
I>xc3 £W4 15 h5 was decisive in Petursson-
Demirel, Katerini 1993) 14 ÍL B iSlf5
(14...£\xc3 15 hxc3 Wxc4 16 h5 with a clear
advantage to While) 15 £gc2 Wxb2 16 h5
and While was well in control in I lorvath-
I lassan, Cairo 1997.
 A verbakh S ystem : 5 ¿ e 2 0-0 6 iÍg 5
10 h3»?
After 10 4ftf3 a6! 11 a4 Wa5 12 0-0 Black
has 12...£ig4, e.g. 13 ¿ f 4 (13 £\g5+ hxg5 14
¿x g 4 <5VS 15 j&Le2 g4 was ccjual in García
Vicente-Llaneza Vega, I ’lmpuriabrava 1997)
13...46.e5 14 W c2 (14 ¿W -5 #W*5 with ecjual-
ity in Avrukh-Krakops, Szegecl 1994)
!4 ...£ kB+ 15 ¿ x R <&e5 16 J&.c2 f5 17 ¿ d 2
14 18 B g S 19 S¿?h 1, Uhlmann-I^anka, Xillertal
1993 when 19...<á?h8 followcd by ...Wd8, ...e7-
e6 is enough for ecjuality according to l^mka
in HCO. ih e aggressivc I0g4 can be inet with
10...b5 11 exl>5 a6 12 B Wa5 13 a4 £>b6 14
ñ a 3 £Md7 with chances for both sides in Be-
liavskyNevednichy, I lerceg N ovi 2000. Black
also has 10...a6, e.g. 11 g5 hxg5 l2®M 3g4 13
% 5 + * g 8 14 h3 #k*5 which was unclear in
Uaeeanu-Istrate, Bucharest 2000.1lowever, 11
h4!? b5 12 g5 b4 13 £kl1 £>xe4 14 W c2 f5 15
gxhó ¿x h 6 16 4£tf3 looks like an improve-
inent, with a pulí for W hile.
10 ...b5
O r l0...Wa5 l l ¿h fí a6 12 0-0 b5 13 a3!
bxc4 14 ¿x c 4 , Bareev-Wahls, Gcrmany 1992,
given as slightly better for W hite in HCO.
11 cxb5 a6 12 £tf3
12 bxa6 W aS 13 l'4 can be messy, e.g.
13...¿xa6 14 ¿x a 6 Sxa6 15 ^ge2 Wb4 16
W c2 Sb 8 17 ¿ e l e4 18 0-0 <S\:5 19 e5, Tuk-
makov-Von Gleich, Bern 1992.
12...W a5 13 b6
After 13 bxa6 ¿x a 6 14 ¿x a 6 Wxa6 15
W c2 Sfb 8 Black has compcnsation for the
pawn.
13...£>xb6 14 0-0
Nothing is achieved by 14 S e l #Ya4 15
¿ d 3 4&xc3 16 bxc3 Sb 8 V2 -V¿> Luft-Roos,
(íerm any 2(KM), but 14 a3¡? deserves attention,
e.g. l4...#Yd7 (14...^a4? 15 b4 is dccisive) 15
W c 2 (l5 0-0^a4!) I5...£to4 1 6 ¿d 2 & x c3 17
¿x c 3 ¿x c3 * 18 bxc3 with an edge for White.
1 4 ...6 .4 ! 15 ¿ d 3
Black has g<x>d counterplay after both 15
£ k ll Wxd2 I6 & x d 2 £ k l7 17 S b l f5, Cvek-
( )ral, Usti ivad I ¿ilxrm 1996 and 15 W c2 4&xc3
16 bxc3 e6 17 c4 exd5 (17...Se8!? unclear) 18
w ith ...c 7 -c 5
cxd5 ¿ d 7 19 a4 £Mi 5 20 Sa2 15 with chances
for lx>th sides in Pctursson-Lanka, Debrecen
1992.
15...í?ixc3
An interesting continuation is I5...e4 16
¿x c 4 (16 <
5>\xa4 Wxd2 17 í^xd2 exd3 18 H acl
e6 with chances for both sides) I6...£\xc3 17
¿ d 3 Wa4 18 bxc3 ^ixe4 19 ¿x c 4 Wxe4 and
Black is holding his ground.
16 bxc3 ¿d 7 17 c4 Wxd2
l7...Wc7!? 18 H abí with advantage to
White.
18 ¿x d 2 ¿ a 4 19 S a b l Sfb8
Alterman gives l9...Sab8 20 ¿ a 5 Sfc8 21
£k!2 4£kl7 22 f4 with advantage to White.
20 Hxb8?!
Better are:
a) 20 ¿ a 5 £kl7 21 ¿ c 7 S M 22 a3 Sl>3 23
Hxb3 ¿xl>3 24 S b l Sa7 25 Sxb3 (25 ¿x d 6 ?!
¿ a 2 ) 25...Sxc7 with a slight advantage to
White.
b) 20 c5 dxc.S 21 £lxe5 £>xd5 22 £lxf7
^ c 3 23 Hxb8 Hxb8 24 S e l £üxa2 2.5 ÍXxc7
and again W hite stands better.
20...Hxb8 21 Sb1 Sxb1 + 22 ilx b l
'A-'A
Gawe 7 3
Snajdr-Nitsche
Correspondence 1987
1 d4 <5M6 2 c4 g6 3 £ta3 & g7 4 e4 d6 5
iíe 2 0-0 6 ilg 5 c5 7 d5 h6 8 ¿ e 3 e6
167
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
The most typical reaction. Black wants to
open the e-filc.
9h3
Sccuring the e3-stjuarc for the bishop.
( )ther eontinuations are:
a) 9 Wtl2 cxd.S 10 cxd5 atul now 10...£}g4
11 ¿.xg4 j$-xg4 12 .&xh6 He8+ 13 sl?fl .&xh6
14 Wxh6 £k!7 15 Wd2 Wf6 16 1>3 1)5 17 cxb5
c4 18 h3 JLf5 19 í^ B cxb3 20 axb.3 Hac8 21
#Y14 ÍV S V?.-V¿y Sorin-Barria, Cascavel 1996,
but 15 h3!? $L(5 16 í^ B is interesting, e.g.
16...&d3+ 17 sfcgl Axc4 18 h4 Wf6 19 h5
with an attack. Instead of ...í^g4 Black has
played 10...< áí>
h7. After 11 0-0-0 (Frcderiks
Fay, Corr. 1992) ll...b5! 12 ^xb5 <^e4 13
Wc2 a6 14 #Va3 Wa5 Black has enough activ-
ity. O r 11 h3 £>a6 (1 l...fic8 12 £>B ÍL B 13
.¿(13 ÍV*4 14 .&xc4 jS.xe4 15 £\xc4 Hxe4 with
etjuality in Bronstein Quinteros, Corrientes
1985) 1 2 & B A fS!? 13 A d 3 # d 7 14 0 ()2 fe8
15 H fel #M>4! 16 ÍLxf5 W x B 17 a3 £k2 18
ÍM i4 Wh5 19 Wxc2 Wxh4 20 í^b5 (|ohanscn-
I laugseth, Correspondence 1990) 20...Sed8
with etjuality, or 20 b3 with etjuality in Uhl­
mann-1 ’ischer, Siegen 1970.
b) 9 tlxe6 £xc6 10 Wtl2
b l) IO...Wb6 II 0-0-0! Wl>4 (otherwise
Black loses a pawn without any compensation
- I I...SÍÍh7 12 Wxdf>, or Il...£sg4 12 -&xS4
£ x g4 13 O ÜLc6 14 Axhó) 12 £xh6 ÍLxc4 13
1)4 (13 &xg7!? sí?x¿>7 14 a3 «1)3 15 Wxd6 aiul
While lias ihc iipjx-r liand) !3...¿Lxc2 14
£ltpíc2 ÍV 6 (I4...í}xc4 15 Í?>xc4 Wxc4 16 Ii5
168
with an attack) 15 h5 with an initiative in
Cirechkin-Seger, Correspondence 1970/73.
1>2) 10.„*h7 II h 3 ík 6 1 2 ^ W a 5 a n d :
1>21) 13 0-0!? (Saxs recommcndation)
13...ÍY14!? (neither l3...Sad8 14 H fdl a6 15
Wc2 #V8 16 £k!5, as in Portisch-Sax, Hun-
gary 1984 ñor 13...Hfd8 14 H fdl a6 15 Wc2
Hac8 16 a3 Hd7 17 Htl2 4üe5 18 Hadl # W 4
19 £ xc4 & xc4 20 e5 Íhe8 21 Wa4 Wxa4 22
4hxa4 -&b3 23 £M)6 A xtll 24 Hxtll Hctl8 25
#W17 Hxtl7 26 .&xc5, Uhlmann-Schmidt,
Warsaw 1983 is enough togive Black etjuality)
14 #W14 cxtl4 15 Wxtl4 £YI5 and accortling
to Sax the position is level. Nevcrthelcss after
ihe forcing variation 16 Wtl3 4bxc3 17 bxc3
Wxc3 18 Wxc3 i.xc.3 19 Hael &g7 20 H fdl
Hfd8 21 g4 White has the superior prosj>ects.
b22) 13 H tll #YI7 (13...a6 is perhaj)s the best
plan, e.g. 14 0-0 Hftl8 followetl by ...Hab8,
...b7-l)5 etc.) 14 Wxd6 Had8 15 0-0 Wb4 16
H bl Hfe8 with compensation in Portisch-
Nunn, Brussels 1988. !3...Hatl8!? 14 0-()Hfe8
15 A f4 £V5 16 b3 a6 (Ditt-Kotka, ( a >rrc-
spontlence 1972/81) 17 Wc2 $Vg4!, intending
18 hxg4 <hxB i 19 & x B itxc3.
1)3) IO...Wa5!?
Now II &xh6 ÍLxh6 12 Wxh6 was cov-
ered in our annoiations lo Nesis-Metz, Cíame
70 after 10 Wtl2 Wa5. Castling ‘into it' is not
the best ¡tica - 11 0 0-0 (Bukhman-I ,ukin,
USSR 1973) II. ..1)5! 12 ÍLxh6 b4 13 &xg7
*xg7 14 íhb5 Wxa2 15 4hxd6 4?Y*6 with a
tlangerous initiative, or 12 cxb5 Axa2 13 e5
 A v e r b a k h S y s t e m : 5 $ i e 2 0 - 0 6 $Lg5 w i t h . . . c 7 - c 5
dxc.S 14 1)4! cxb4 15 #Yxa2 4&a6! with ce>m-
pensation. 11 íh B # k6 12 0-0 #\g4 13 Jif4
g5 (13...£kl4!> 14 £kd4 cxd4 15 £k!5 Wxd2
16 Axd2 #ie5 is unclear) 14 &g3 ®¡gc5 15
í^xe5 dxcS was unelear in Rcjfir-Bobotsov,
Sarajevo l% 2 .
9...exd5 10 exd5 Se8
I0 ...¿f5 is provocative, e.g. 11 g4 ÍLc8 12
Wd2 hS!? 13 ¿x h 6 (13 cxbS!?) 13...l>4 14
ÍLxg7 *xg7 15 ÍV l 1#W4 16 flff4 S e 8 ,1lort-
Polgar, Munich 1991. In HCO I lort gives
Black compcnsation, but thus far no repeat
has been made o f this experiment.
11 ilf5 12 g4
( )thers:
a) I2 Ad3 <S\*4 13 #>xc4 &xc4 14 0-0
#V17 15 ¿xe*4 Exc4 16 Wc2 Ke8 with eejual*
ity, Wunsch-Ix*gahn, Gcrmany 1990.
b) 1 2 # d 2 & c4 ! 13^xe4Áxe4 14 ¿xh 6 ?!
¿x h 6 15 Wxh6 ¿ x B favours Black according
to Gufeld.
12...1.e4
Black also has good countcrchances after
12...ÍLcl7 13 W (I2 <&h7 14 ÍLd3 b5, e.g. 15
cxb5 a6 16 bxa6 £taa6 17 ‘A’11 £)b4 18 ¿ id
& c8 19 &g2 &b7 20 _ÍLc4 0k:4 21 &xc4
Sxc4, Afanasicv-Korotylcv, Moscow 1998.
13 Wd2
13 0-0 Axf3 14 A x B ^1x17 w í is eejual in exdS?? W f6 and 16 #W15?? £lxd5 17 cxd5
Avcrbakh-Gellcr, USSR 1974.
13...£fod7
14 0 0-0
- 18...#d7 19 f4 We7 20 #>e2
G M Gufeld’s idea. ( )ther moves are:
a) 14 E g l A x B (I4...b5!? 15 cxb5 #>l>6
with an edge for Black) 15 ¿ x B bS
(15...®\b6!? 16 b3 #\h7 17 ¿g 2 W f6 18 S e l
4hg5 was unclear in lx>rin-Cavril, Correspon-
dence 1995) 16 cxb5 (16 í^xbS #k*5 17 ÍL v 2
#V*4 is okav for Black) I6...a6 (16...#M)6!? with
chances for both sides) 17 bxa6 Sxa6 18 SÍ?fl
£V*S and Black had healthy compcnsation in
Mikenas-Plachctka, Lublin 1972.
b) In the event o f 14 0-0 g5!? Black clears
the way for ...JwLg6, 15 #lxc4 #W*4 16 Wd3
(16 Wc2 &g3) 16...Wf'6 sccuring equality.
14...¿xf3 15 ü .x B hS 16 g5 #lh7 was interest­
ing in Lputian-Gufcld, Moscow 1983.
14...#e5?!
Black wins the exchange but finds himself
under considerable pressure. i here are two
ver)' promising alternatives:
a) 14...1)5! 15 ¿x h 6 (15 cxbS a6 16 bxa6
Sb8 17 a7 Sb4 18 &xh6 &xh6 19 Wxh6
Wb6 looks go<k I for Black, while after 15
&xl>5?! #11)6 White has no good way to de-
fentl the c4-pawn, e.g. 16 ?\a3 #\xg4 17 hxg4
#a4 or 16 g5 ¿ x B 17 gxf6 j&xc2 18 Wxe2
Wxf6 etc.) I5...b4 16 ¿xg 7 SÍ/xg7 17 #>xc4
# W 4 18 W cl # a5 1 9 * b l Hab8 and ...Sb6
a6 is the plan.
b) 14...#lb6 15 b3 #Mxd5! 16 #lxc4 (16
Wf6 are disastrous) 16...#\xc3 17 Wxc3 dS 18
exdS &xd5 19 ¿l>5 (19 Hxd5 Wxd5 20 ¿ d 3
Wc6 with an edge for Black, and 19 4fd3?
runs into 19...Wa5) 19...#\\e3 20 ÍXxd8 £íaxd8
21 -&xc8 Sxc8 22 #kl6 Hc6 23 #\xb7 with an
exccllent position for Black.
15 £>xe5 £xh1 16 #>xf7 ¿>xf7 17 fixh l
JSh8?
If yon play the King's Indian you must
avoid takingeven one step back! Black should
opt for the aggressivc I7...b5 18 cxbS #Y4 19
#Wc4 Uxc4 20 a3 c4! with a veiy complex
position.
18 ¿d 3
Now White stands clcarly better.
i bis time White should be more active, 20
169
O ffbeat King's indian

H cl Hhe8 21 £M>5 22 15 promising n 8...exd5

clcar advantage. An alternative is 8...SSfa5 9 íh B a6 (9...ex<D
20...5.e8 10 exdS .&g4 11 0-0 4^1x17, Kachiani Gersin-
7’hc immediate 20...b5 looks effectivc. ska-Berger, Gcnnany 2001, and now 12 h3
21 &f2 b5 22 Wc2 Wf6 23 g5? juLxB 13 A x B favours White) 10 a4 exd5 11
Better was 23 cxbS. exdS &g4 12 0-0 £>1x17 13 h.3 A x B 14 .kxB
23...hxg5 24 &g1? Rfe8 (14...ÍV5 15 £ic2 Wc7 16 Sael was
24 cxb5!? gxf4 25 H fl ¡s very good for slighily Ixrtter for White in A mura-Chaves,
Black. Merida 1997) 15 Wc2 Wc7 16 Hfel Hxel + 17
24...bxc4 25 &xc4 Sab8 26 b3 gxf4 27 Bxel Hc8 18 Bxc8+ £xc8 19 juLe2 with ad­
&g4 4te5 0-1 vantage to White, Polak-Tesar, Czechoslova-
kia 1997.
Game 74 9 exd5 Wb6
Petursson-Larsen Black plays 9...He8 in the next main game.
Holstehro p ta jo jf 1989 Others:
a) 9...£>a6 10 £>B £>c7 (l()...Se8 II 0 0
1 d4 #rf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 d6 4 ?Ac3 g6 5 e4 Wb6 12 Hael iLg4 13 h3 A x B 14 ÍL xB with
& g l 6 áe2 0-0 7 &g5 e6 a slight advantage lo White in I lutchings-
Black does without ...h7-híi, getting straight Ojanen, Skopjc 1972) II 0-0 a6 (ll...ü.f5 12
to business in ihc centre. £h4 ^.(17 13 Hfel Se8 14 Wf4 was gtxxl for
8 Wd2 White in Kaidanov-Chudnovsky, Philadelphía
1993) 12 a4 Hl>8 13 Wf4 <SVe8 14 a5 with the
more pleasant game for While, Vaganian-
Velimirovic, Budapest 1973.
b) 9...a6 10 <&B (10 a4 fic8 11 & B Ag4 12
0-0 *c 7 13 h3 A x B 14 A x B ®1xl7 15 Hfel
h5 16 fixe8+ Hxe8 17 Hc l 18 A e2^h7
19 &e3 with a pulí for White in Portisch-
Istratescu, Budapest 1993) IO...Wc7 (10...b5 11
cxb5 axb5 12 ..ÍLxbS JuLa6 13 iuLxa6 Hxa6 14
0-0 £>1x17 15 Ah6 &xh6 16 »xh6 and
Black’s play had backfircd in Xhukhovitsky-
Dememiev, Voronczh 1971, while 10...Hc8 11
0-0 ÍLg4 12 Hael £>1x17 13 Wf4 A x B 14
( )thers are rare: j&xB was an edge for White in Ulms-
a) 8 dxc*6 J&xe6 (8...fxe6 9 í^ B !? 4^c6 l() Neumann, Schoeneck 1996) 11 0-0 &g4 12
0-0 Wl>6 11 Wd2 £k!4, Rasmussen-Jensen, h3 & x B 13 AxB£UxJ7 14 a4 b6 15 A d l (15
Denmark 1980 and now 12 Hadl with advan­ Hfel Hfe8 16 J&.f4 Hxel+ 17 Hxel ficB 18
tage to White) 9 £k6 l() 0-0 He8 11 #YI5 Hxe8+ £xe8 19 £W4 -ÍLd4 20 We2 with a
&xd5 12 exd5 <SY*5, as in Mirkovic-Xaichik, slight advantage to White, Chcrck-Fienseh,
Belgrade 1988 is unclear according to /iCO. Correspondence 1980) 15.já?h8 16 £íc2 £\g8
b) 8 h3 exdS 9 exd5 H6 10 ÍLf4 Se8 ll 17 Hael Hfe8 (17...£¡e5 18 b3 f6 19 A f4 fa­
Wd2 *h 7 12 0-0-0 (12 £>B &f5 13 0-0 with voured White in Méndez-Berdichesky, Corrc-
etjuality) 12...&Y-4 (12...l>5! with an initiative) spondenee 1983) 18 b3 with advantage to
13 #W*4 Hxc4 14 .¿d3 He8 was well balanced White, Polugaevsky-Shaw, Siegen 1970.
in Meyer- Rich, ( lorresponclence 1967. 10£>f3

170
 A v e r b a k h S y s t e m : 5 $Le2 0 - 0 6 i i g 5
10...ü.g4
I0...ÍL15 ll £ih4 <5V4 12 &xe4 Axc4 13
13 Wxl>2 14 S e l h6 (14..J&.B 15 S k f5 gxf5
16 Wxb2 .&xl>2 17 Hc2 ÍLc5 IH f4 ÍL I4 19
.S.d.3, Bukhman-Nezhtnetdinov, Daugavpils
1973 aiul 14...Wxd2+ 15 &xd2 jLxd5 I6cxd5
Se8 17 íll) I , I .purian-Yurtaev, Volgograd
1985 were both ver)' good for W hite) 15
ÍLxh6 #xd24- 16 Axd2 17 g3 Axh4 18
gxh4 ¿ í5 19 ¿ f 4 with an edge for White,
Boleslavsky-Balcndo, Minsk 1970.
11 0-0#bd7 12 Sac1
12 h3 is very good, e.g. I2 ...¿x f3 13 J& x B
or 12...¿f5 13 & h4 Hae8 14 #>xf5 gxí5 15
S a b l 4he4 16 W f4, Mohr-Larsen, Palma de
Mallorca 1989 with a modest lead for W hite in
either case.
12...5ae8 13 h3 £ f5 14 Hfe1 £>e4 15
#ixe4 & xe4 16 b3 a5 17 £>h2
17...W b4?
w ith ...c 7 -c 5
Now Black loses material, although he fails
to etjualise after both Yrjola’s recommenda-
tion 17...Í6 (intending ...g6-g5), e.g. 18 J&f4 g5
19 ¿ g 3, or 17...#le5!? 18 <5Vl A f5 19 A h 6
.&xh6 20 Wxh6 with a slight edge to White.
18 f3 ¿ d 4+ 19<á?h1 &i5
Black could have prolonged the resistanee
after l9...Wxd2!? 20 ¿x d 2 £tf6 21 Í^g4 (21
fxe4 #ixe4 22 # U i ®lxd2 23 £ixd2 Í 1(2 24
£>bl J&xel 25 S x e l with an excellent game
for W hite) 21...ÍLf5 22 £Mi6+ &g7 23 #W 5+
gxf5 24 ÍLd3 and W hite is clearly lx-(ter.
20 g4 f6
20...He5 21 Ji.l l ! (Petursson).
21 ¿h 6 Sf7
21...Wxd2 22 Jix d 2 ÍLxg4 23 hxg4 & Í2 is a
lesser evil, but the end is approaching.
22 1 Sxe1 23 Wxe1 ÍLb2 24 i.d 2
Petursson gives 24 Wxh4 axl>4 25 S e l.
24...Wa3 25 gxf5 J¿xc1 26 it.xc1 Wxa2
27 4hg4 4he5 28 ^h6+ *g 7 29 &xf7
£>xf7 30 fxg6 hxg6 31 We3 Wc2 32 JÍLd2
b6 33 & c3 5 34 f4 £tf7 35 ií.g2 g5 36
fxg5 1-0
Gawe 75
Polugaevsky-Uhlm ann
Awsterdaw 1970
1 c4 í^f6 2 ^ c3 g6 3 e4 d6 4 d4 Üg7 5
$Le2 0-0 6 &g5 c5 7 d5 e6 8 Wd2 exd5 9
exd5 Se8 10 3
1 0 ...¿.g 4
171
O ffbeat King's indian
Black has also tried:
a) 10...Wb6 II 0-0 £ g 4 12 h3 13
&xí3 £*1x17 14 S fc l a6 15 Eah l 2 x eI+ 16
Sxel S<-8 17fixc8+£ixe8 I8-5\I1 and White
was lxrttcr in Olivera-Donoso Velasco, Bue­
nos Aires 1978.
h) H)...We7 11O-Offó 121i3#a6 13 ¿t!3
¿<.17 14 a3 h6 15 ¿ f 4 and Black’s pieees oc-
cupied unnatural posts in Bareev-Dyachkov,
Azov 1996.
11 0-0 £^bd7 12 h3
( )ther moves do not alter the character of
the position, e.g. 12 fiael a6 13 h3 ¿x f3 14
¿x f3 Sxel 15 Sx el Wf8 16 ¿ f4 with an
edge for White, kozma-Stulik, Podebrady
1956, or 12 UfeI a6 1 3 h 3 ¿x B !4 ¿ x G Wc7
15 ¿ f4 h5 16 a3 4hli7 17 <?Y4 18 ¿c 2
Se7 19 ¿ f l Sae8 with a niggling pulí for
White, (fuellar Cíacharna-Reshevsky, Sousse
1967.
12...¿xf3 1 3 ¿x f3 a6
iliis stmeture is very similar to that dis-
cussed in Kunsztowicz-Raupp (Cíame 66), antl
indeed the plans for both sities are also similar
(see the annotation after White’s I3th move).
14 a4
I4 £.<-2 Wb6 15 « c 2 (15 Sa e l!? wilh a
plus) 15...h6 16 ,&h4 fth7 17 f4 £<141 18
<A>lil <?W6 19 £.<13 <á?g7 20 Kf3 Se3 aml
Istratescu in HCO evaluatcs this position as
eejual hut after 21 Sxe3 ¿xe3 22 S f l Se8
(Oral-Istratescu, Canakkale 1994) 23 £Y*2
W liite is better. Instead !5...Se7 16 f4 (I lort- (Morvath-Strikovic, Niksic 1991) 18 ¿d 2 is
172
I;ernantlez, Decin 1977) !6...Sac8!? looks fine.
14...We7
Black has also tried:
a) I4...#íe5 15 ¿e 2 Wa5 16 Wc2 h6 17
¿d 2 Wc7 18 f4 #etl7 19 Sael with a slight
advantage to White, CJuIko-Radjabov, Wijk
aan /ce 2001.
b) !4...Wa5 15 Wc2 Se7 (15...Sab8 16
¿tl2 Wc7 17 a5 Se7 18 H fcl Sbe8 19 Hxe7
Sxc7 20 #>a4 #e8 21 S b l ¿d 4 22 Iv4 with
the more pleasant game for White in
Olafsson-Peralta, Bletl 2lK)2) 16 ¿d 2 Wc7 17
Sael Sae8 18 Sxc7 Sxe7 19 S e l #Y*5
(19...SxeH 20 ¿x e l favours White) 20 ¿c*2
4he8 21 g3 15 22 14 with a slight etlgc to White
(HCO) in Mochalov-Vaganian, USSR 1973.
c) 14...Wc7 15 a5 (15 Wc2 Se7 16 Sael
Bae8 17 Sxc7 Sxe7 18 ¿c 2 h6 19 ¿d 2 #k*8
20 g4!, Polugaevsky-Cíufeld, Íl)ilis i 1966 and
15 Sael hS 16 Wc2 Sxel 17 Sxel £W*5 18
¿e 2 #h7 19 ¿d 2 followcd by launcliing thc
f-pawn, I lorvath-Ttxlorov, Val Thorens 1995
are both pleasant for White) I5...h5 16 Wc2
#Mi7 (l6...Sab8!? followcd by ...b7-b6 looks
okay) !7 ¿d 2 S e 7 (17...Wd8 18Sfel £\e5 19
¿e 2 f5, Lukacs-Velickovic, Belgratle 1984,
antl now20 ¿11 favours White) 18 ¿ t il Sae8
19 f4 ¿d4+ 20*111 witli a slight advantage to
White in HabermehI-Kratochvil, 0>rrespon-
tlence 1999.
d) !4...Wb6 15 Wc2
Now 15...Se7 16 Sael Sae8 17 Sxe7 Sxe7
 A v e r b a k h S y s t e m : 5 & e 2 0 - 0 6 $Lg5 w i t h . . . c 7 - c 5
enough ro secute White an advantage accord­
ing to Polugacvsky in /iCX), while 15..Jfie5 16
¿Lf4 Se7 17 A d 2 fíae 8 18 Hael h5 19 Hxc7
Hxe7 20 A d l was also a plus for White in
Pogorelov-Paunovic, Zaragoza 2<M) 1. 'Filis
leaves 1S...h5, e.g. 16 ÜLd2 (16 ¿Lc2 íhh7 17
& d 2 W d 8 18 Hael Wh4 19 Ad3 f5, Baga-
turov-Velickovic, Kavala 1998, atul now 20 f4!
looks good for White) 16...ÍMi7 17 Hael
&d4 (17...h4 18 Áx\\ £klfK 19 b3 with a pulí
for White, Alcksandrov-Damljanovic, I lerceg
Novi 2tX)1) 18 l>3 W d 8 19 Hxc8+ Wxe8 20 g3
(20 H cl!?) 20...Wfó 21 <Á>g2 He 8 22 & d l He7
23 H el Hxel 24 A xel and White had suc-
eeeded in hangingon to the lead in Petursson-
Vragoteris, Katerini 1993.
15 Sae1
15 H fel (15 a5 Hfffi 16 Habí 4üe5 17 A e 2 24 a5) 23...Wxc2 24 <
£kxl7 18 Ae3 ÍV 4 19 <5W4 Hxe4 20 Ad3
He7 21 1)4 with a slight edge lo White, Kin-
dermann-Karl, Zuricli 1984) 15...Wlft I 6 Hxc8
Hxe8 17 H el h6 18 Hxe8 £ixe8 19 &e3 (19
A f4!?) I9...f5 20 A c2 with the more pleasant
game for White, Kaidanov-I'cdorowicz, lx;x-
ington 1995.
1 5 ...W 8 16 iL d l
'llie bishop is going to the b 1-Ii7 diagonal.
White can play along the lines of
Kunsziowicz-Raupp (Cíame 66) or try to gen­
érate an initiative on the kingside, retaining at
least one pair of rooks and gaining space
through g2 g4 and f2-f4 etc. White often plays
16 a5 in order lo increase his stock on the
t|ueenside, e.g. I6...H xc 1 (I6...h5 17 A d l
Hxel 18 Hxel fle 8 19 Hxe8 Wxc8 20 & c2
with advantage to White in Damljanovic-
Popovic, Belgrado 1997) 17 Hxel He8 18
&<!! Hxel+ 19 W xel W d 8 (I9...<?V5 20 W c 2
W d 8 21 ¿?Y*4 with a small plus for White,
Pein-Paavilaincn, Helsinki 1990) 20 4ha4 and
White had something in Korchnoi Karl,
Lugano 1985.
16..J5xe1
I 6...I16 17 & f4 fo h l 18 &c2
(18...#Y*5 19 b3 15 20 Ag3 W f6 21 #W2 with
advantage to White, Yusupov-Zapata, Saint
John 1988) 19 a5 1>6 20 Hxe8 Hxe8 21
axl)6...^xb 6 22 1)3 and White stood better in
Bellmann-Da Silva Lilho, IC (!I; K-mail 1999.
17 Uxe1 Se8 18Sxe8
18 & f4 H xeH 19 W xel We8 20 ÍLd 2 * IH
21 WxcSt- # W ’8 with the well-know 11 Ixtler
ending for White in Chcrnin-Mohr, Portoroz
1997.
18...Wxe8 19& c2
19 ÍL(4 Wc7 20 Wc2 21 Wxc7+ *xe7
22 a5! ÍV-8 23 ,&il2 Ii5 24 *11 Ad4 25 1>3
and again Black is not t|uitc comfortablc
enough, Uhlmann-Cíligoric, I lastings 1971.
19...£\b6
( )t lier moves fall sliori o f etjuality.
a) I9...l>5 20 Ü.f4 (20 14!?) 20...®c5 21 Wc2
* h 7 22 ÍLd2 SY-d7 23 t'4 (23 Wxc8!> ÍW K
5'\xc2 w illi advantage lo
W liite, Doroshkicvich-Lilxrrzon, Riga 1970.
1>) 1 9 ...^ c5 2 0 W c2 ‘5V-i I7 2 I W xc8+ £> xc8
22 A d 2 Í V 5 23 1.3 £ \ I 7 24 g4 25 * j - 2
* c 7 26 f"4 J¡Ld4 27 *5Y4 l>5 and Black was still
worse in M olir Cíheorghiu, Switzerland 2000.
20 b3 Íhbd7 21 ilf4 ! We7 22 We2 «Á>f8
23 Wxe7+ ¿>xe7 24 a5 h5 25 iLd2 8
26 g3 ÍLd4 27 st/g2 £ig7 28 f4 to 5 29
£\d1 £ih6 30 si>f3 f5
Although ibis move crcatcs a new weak-
ness on g6 it is Black’s best try. Orherwisc
White simply gains space, e.g. 30...®g8 31 g4
hxg4+ 32 hxg4 Ag7 33 g5 etc. (Belov).
31 Ad3 *d 8 32 £e3 <&e7 33 t)\c2 iib2
34 <A>e3 to 6 35 £>e1 ild4+ 36 M 3 ÍLb2
37 £ig2 Q W 38 ?AM <£>f6 39 <*e3 ¿AH
40 & c 2 Aa1?
Now or 011 the next two moves Black
should have played 40...#Mi6 to addrcss the
advance o f White’s g-pawn.
41 &e2 $Lb2 42 ¿e1
Missing 42 g4! hxg4 43 Iixg4 fxg4 44 ^xg 6
4^h6 45 £Mi4 AcH 46 * f l w iili a decisive
advantage (Belov).
42...ÍLa1? 43 g4 hxg4 44 hxg4 fxg4 45
ftxg6 &g7 46 ^^h4 * f8 47 &f5 £ f6 48
ilc 8 £d8 49 to S £íh5 50 Ad2 iLd4 51
ftx d4 1-0
173
O ffbeat K ing's indian

Summary
The most interesting variations arisc after 7...h6 8 ¿ f4 (or 8 Ü.c3) 8...c6, with Black reacting
quickly in tlie centre. 8 .&f4 is the most demanding move because Black has to sacrifice the d(>-
pawn (otherwise he is too passive), leading to complicated situations that offer ilecent compensa-
tion for the pawn. ilie sc are encountered in ( íamcs 70 & 71, the latter being Black’s best. I low­
ever, it is important in these lines that both sides are well aequainted with the (very) long varia­
tions, and not cvcrybody likes starting the game around the thirtieth move! lilis is why numerous
other moves are played. 8 ¿e 3 shouldn’t be a problem for Black, as is demonstrated in Cíame 73.

1 d4 #if6 2 c4 g6 3 #>c3 Ag7 4 e4 d6 5 &e2 0-0 6 &g5 c5 (D)

7 d5
7 dxc5 (Cum/e 65)
7...h6
7...Wa5 {Cumie 66)
7...a(> {Cumie 67)
7.J>5 (Cumie 6S)
7...e6 8 Wd2 exdS 9 exd5 (Cumies 74 e> 75)
8 ÍLf4
8 ¿e 3
8...#lxl7 (Cumie 72)
8...e6 (Cumie 7J)
8...e6 (D)
8...Wl>6 (Cúmie 69)
9 dxe6 &xe6 10 ¿xd6 Se8 11 £tf3 (D)
11...£\c6 (GV////<? 70
1l...Wb6 (C,'ame 71)

r w m m m
ü ±
....., Ü J J i l É !
• * W

w .......................
r ¿ J .......

..c5 S...e6 11 Qsf3

174
 INDEX 0F_COMPLETE GAMES |

Agdestein-Dolm atov, Tilburg 1993......................................................................... 49

Akopian-Tem irbaev, U SSR Championship, Uzhgorod 1988.................................... 73
Alterm an-Shirov, 1Elista ( )lympiad 1998................................................................. 165
Bazhin-Fedorov, Kstovo 1994................................................................................9H
Bertok-Tatai, Reggio Kmilia 1967/8........................................................................ 12
Bónsch-Gallagher, Bundesliga Gcrmany 2(K)2/3.................................................... 130
Browne-Fedorowicz, USA 1984........................................................................... f 10
Cam pbell-Roach, Correspondence 1978............................................................... 126
Chem in-Cebalo, Slovcnian Jxague, Bled 1999..........................................................87
Cliristiansen-Yerm olinsky, USA Championships, Parsippany 1996.......................... 43
Eingom -Chiburdanidze, USSR Championship, Tallinn 1980................................. 104
Farago.I-Rotstein, Maribc>r 1994...........................................................................138
Farago.I-Zaitsev, 8th Montecatini Tcrmc 1999...................................................... 154
Freisc-W iege, ( 'orrespf>ndencc 1998....................................................................... 15
Gulko-Ivanov.A, Moscow Rapidplay 1992............................................................... 66
G yim esi-Botvinnik.I, Tel Aviv 2001........................................................................89
Haik-Gheorghiu, 'Ilicssaloniki ( )lympiad 1984........................................................ 67
Hort-Kaplan, San Antonio 1972.............................................................................. 38
Ivanchuk-Kasparov, Novgorcxl 1994 ...................................................................... 96
Kachiani Gersinska-Kovalev, I lelsinki 1996..........................................................134
Kachiani Gersinska-Wang Pin , Sulx>rica Intcr/onal (Womcn) 1991.......................142
Kakageldyev-Sm irin, 2002 Blcd Olympiad...............................................................19
Kasim dzhanov-Kozul, Blcd Olympiad 2002............................................................ 45
Kasparov-Kram nik, I <as Palmas 1996.................................................................... 100
Keene-Sigurjonsson, l lastings 1975/6...................................................................115
Knaak-Piket, SK A I Iamburg 1991...........................................................................75
Korchnoi-Bologan, British Ix*ague, Birmingham 2002.............................................113
Korchnoi-Gallagher, Zonal Tournament, Dresden 1998.......................................... 13
Korchnoi-Radjabov, Najdorf Memorial, Buenos Aires 2001..................................... 57
Krasenkow-Kcm pinski, Polish Ixaguc, Lubniewice 1995.........................................55

175
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian

Kunsztowicz-Raupp, Butulesliga 1982/3.......................................................... 149

Leitao-Gormally, Mermaid Bcach 1998............................................................. 136
Lutz-Gelfand, Horgen 1994..............................................................................29
Mikhalevski-Timoshenko, París Championship 2000.......................................... 7S
Miles-Romanishin, Tilburg 1985.........................................................................9
Munschi-Farago.S, Budapest 1994.................................................................... 3)
Ncnashev-Ycrmolinsky, Pavlodar 1987............................................................. 52
Ncsis-Mctz, ( ]orresp<>ndcnce 1988/95.............................................................. 161
Nikolaidis-Kotronias, Peristeri 1996...................................................................70
Novikov-Van W ely, f lelsinki 1992..................................................................... 16
Onischuk-Forster, World U16 Championsliip, Maníala 1991................................/17
Onischuk-Wcgener, Berlín 1993......................................................................127
Panczyk-Kempys, Polish Champíonship, Cetnicwo 1991...................................... 63
Petursson-Gallagher, San Bernardino 1992....................................................... IOS
Petursson-Larsen, 1Iolstebro playoff 1989.........................................................170
Pocero-Minguez Guinda, Correspondence 1992................................................/57
Polugaevsky-Uhlmann, Amsterdam 1970........................................................./7/
Poluljahov-Milov, Acroflot ( )pen, Moscow 2003................................................. 10
Poluljahov-Sale, ADC1; Masters, Abu Dliabi 2002 ................................................ 25
Portisch-Nunn, linares 1988...........................................................................106
Portisch-Skenibris, Tilburg 1994......................................................................151
Psakhis-Hrbolka, Czeeli ( )pen, Pardubice 2002...................................................92
Reinderman-Movsesian, Duteli llague (play-off) Breda 2001...............................61
Rogozenko-Ardeleanu, Cupa Dinamo, Brasov 1998.............................................SO
Sagalchik-Graf, Kemerovo 1995........................................................................59
Schmidt-Sznapik, Tirnavía Tmava 1984............................................................146
Seirawan-Ivanchuk, World Cup, Reykjavik 1991.................................................. 47
Serper-Becerra Rivero, Foxwoods ( )pen, Connecticut 2000...................................27
Serper-Dzindzichashvili, CITS New York 1996....................................................7
Snajdr-Nitsehe, ( a >rrcsp<mdcnce 1987.............................................................. 167
Sokolov.I-Hjartarson, Chess@iceland-B, Kopavogur 2000................................... 21
Sokolov.I-Smirin, Dos I lemianas 2001...............................................................40
Sorin-Foisor, ( )lot 1992.................................................................................. 131
Sturua-Gutman, 5tli Wieliem Open 1999............................................................46
Suba-Motylev, Rumanian íxague, liforie Nord 2(KM).............................................90
Suba-Nunn, Dubai Olympiad 1986.................................................................... 82
Vladimirov-Gadjily, Dubai 2001........................................................................ 23
Von Rein-Leeonte, (Correspondence 1999......................................................... 164
Yakovieh-Beekhuis, Berlín 1996......................................................................141
Yakovich-Smirin, Isr Kuropean Championship, Saint Vincent 2(K)0.......................121
Yakovich-Zakharevich, Petrov Memorial, St Petersbutg 1998.............................. 119
Yermolinsky-Barcenilla, ( Chicag<>2(HX)...............................................................S 5
Ycmiolinsky-Radjabov, 1;ID K World Cup (Group B) í lydcrabad 2002................... 94
Yusupov-Shaked, I jnares C)pen 1997................................................................. IS
Yusupov-Tseshkovsky, Oviedo Rapidplay 1993................................................. 103

176
offbeat
king's
Indian
The King’s Indian is one of the most exciting and com plex
d efences that Black can em ploy against the queen's pawn
opening. The main lines of the King’s Indian are very sharp
and tactical but they are also incredibly theoretical in nature
- it can be a full time job simply keeping up with the latest
developm ents and fashion. So it is unsurprising that m any
playing W hite choose to look elsew here for something
to counter this popular opening. In O ffb e a t King's Iridian
distinguished openings expert Krzysztof Panczyk studies
unusual and less theoretical system s for White, ones
that are tricky and are likely to throw the King’s Indian
player off his or her stride early on in the gam e. Variations
investigated include lines with an early Bd3, ones with
Nge2, and ones involving a swift Bg5. B y studying this
book, W hite players can arm them selves with a whole
new w eaponry of lines against the King’s Indian, while
those playing Black can look closely for the recom m ended
antidotes!

All unusual King's Indian D efence lines are covered

Strategies and tactics covered for both sides

Ideal for club and tournam ent players

Krzysztof Panczyk is an International M aster from Poland.

This is his second book for Everym an, having co-authored
A rc h a n g e l a n d N e w A rc h a n g e l with Jo h n Em m s.

J a c e k llc z u k is a noted theoretician, as well as being a

powerful correspondence player. He w as recently a semi-
finalist in the e-mail W orld Championship.

EVERYMAN CHESS
www.everym anchess.com
published ¡n the UK by Gloucester Publishers pie
distnbuted m the US by the Globe Pequot Press
JI9.9S