Beating Unusual Chess Defences: 1 e4

Andrew Greet

beating

unusual chess defences: 1 e4 dealing with the Scandinavian, Pirc, Modern, Alekhine and other tricky lines

EVERYMAN CHESS Gloucester Publishers pic www.everymanchess.com

First published in 2011 by Gloucester Publishers plc (formerly Everyman Publishers plc), Northburgh House, 10 Northburgh Street, london EC1V OAT Copyright© 2011 Andrew Greet The right of Andrew Greet to be identified as the author of this work has been as­ serted in accordance with the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British library. ISBN: 978 1 85744 621 0 Distributed in North America by The Globe Pequot Press, P.O Box 480, 246 Goose lane, Guilford, CT 06437-0480. All other sales enquiries should be directed to Everyman Chess, Northburgh House, 10 North burgh Street, london EC1V OAT tel: 020 7253 7887 fax: 020 7490 3708 email: [email protected]; website: www.everymanchess.com Everyman is the registered trade mark of Random House Inc. and is used in this work under licence from Random House Inc.

To Tori

Everyman Chess Series

Chief advisor: Byron Jacobs Commissioning editor: John Emms Assistant editor: Richard Palliser Typeset and edited by First Rank Publishing, Brighton. Cover design by Horatio Monteverde. Printed and bound in Great Britain by Clays, Bungay, Suffolk.

Contents

Bibliography

4

Introduction

5

1

Scandinavian Defence

7

2

Modern Defence

3

Pirc Defence

112

4

Philidor and Czech Pirc

157

5

Alekhine's Defence

195

6

Other Defences

262

Index of Variations

299

Index of Complete Games

303

66

Bibliography

Books

Timothy Taylor (Everyman Chess 2010) Opening for White according to Anand {Volume 4}, Alexander Khalifman (Chess Stars 2005) Opening for White according to Anand {Volume 5}, Alexander Khalifman (Chess Stars 2005) Play 1...b6, Christian Bauer (E veryman Chess 2005) Play 1.Jbc6!, Christoph Wisnewski (Everyman Chess 2007) Play the Alekhine, Valentin Bogdanov (Gambit 2009) Play the Scandinavian, Christian Bauer (Quality Chess 2010) San Luis 2005, Alik G ershon & Igor N or (Quality Chess 2007) Starting Out: The Alekhine, J ohn Cox (Everyman Chess 2003) Starting Out: The Scandinavian, J ovanka Houska (E veryman Chess 2009) The Modern Philidor Defence, Vladimir Barsky (Chess Stars 2010) The Philidor Files, Christian Bauer (E veryman Chess 2006) The Pirc in Black and White, James Vigus (E veryman Chess 2007) The Sniper, Charles Storey (Everyman Chess 2011) Tiger's Modern, Tiger Hillarp Persson (Quality Chess 2005)

Alekhine Alert!,

Electronic Resources

ChessPublishing.com (ChessBase) The Fighting Philidor, Viktor Bologan (ChessBase 2010)

MegaBase 2011

4

Preface

Greetings, dear reader! In this short introduction I will tell you a bit about the con­ tent of this book, although I imagine you will already have a fair idea after reading the catchy title. Why this subject?

I always thought there was a gaping hole in chess literature for a book of this type. If you play 1 e4, then you have to be ready for a wide array of defences. The Sicil­ ian, Caro-Kann, French, and 1 ... es are all huge topics, and you can find entire books (or in some cases, multiple volumes) dedicated to fighting against each one of them. But the 'big four' are not the only riddles with which the 1 e4 player finds h imself confronted; there are numerous other less common but still highly re­ spectable defences for which one must be prepared. The Alekhine, Modern, Pirc, Scandinavian, and others all require serious attention, but where can you find the information needed to meet each one effectively? There are individual books offering a complete repertoire after 1 e4, and while such works may have a lot to offer some players, it is hardly poss ible for the author to go into much detail, espe­ cially against these minor openings. Another approach would be to purchase specialist works on each defence. This enables you to obtain more detailed information, but buying separate books on each opening will hit your wallet where it hurts. Not to mention that a book about a particular defence is more likely to be written from Black's standpoint, which is hardly ideal for those looking for a path to an advantage for White. This book is intended to solve the said problem. In these pages I have laid out a comprehensive repertoire for White against each of the aforementioned openings, plus all other irregular defences after 1 e4 which fall outside of the 'big four'. Repertoire choices

My approach has been to meet each of these openings in a principled manner, choosing well-established main lines for White. Generally we will be looking to 5

Beating Unusual Chess Defences: 1 e4 seize space in the centre and pursue the initiative in whichever way best meets the demands of the position. Speaking from my own experience, there was a time when I used to feel apprehensive about meeting these unusual defences, but once I studied them properly and learnt how to confront them head-on, I began to rel­ ish facing them. I hope that after reaching the end of each chapter, the reader will feel the same way about the defence in question. Unlike my previous repertoire books on the Ruy Lopez and Queen's Indian, I de­ cided to cover the material using complete illustrative games rather than a tree of variations . I would love to tell you that this was due to some profound piece of creative insight, but the truth is I just thought it would be fun to do something different. At the start of each chapter you will find a plan describing which varia­ tions can be found within each game. Open theory is ever-expanding, and even casting aside the 'big four' defences, there was a lot of ground to cover in a single volume. I have endeavoured to cover the material pragmatically: you don't need 20 moves of hard analysis telling you how to refute a useless move that shows up on the database having once been tried by a 1400-rated player on the internet; however, you do have every right to demand detailed coverage of the most theoretically critical lines. This kind of s en­ sible balance is what I have endeavoured to provide. In each chapter I have started by analysing the most critical main lines, before gradually working backwards through the various secondary set-ups and sidelines.

I hope you will enjoy reading this book, and wish you every success in beating the unusual defences after 1 e4. Andrew G reet, Glasgow, September 2011

6

Chapter One Scandinavian Defence

1

e4 d 5 2 exds

From this, the basic starting posi­ tion of the Scandinavian Defence (I am disregarding White's various second­ rate options on move 2), Black has two options: 2 . 1Wxds , the subject of the first two sections of this chapter, and 2...lt:lf6, which will be s een in the third and final section. .

2

.

't't'xds

...

more interesting topic of study. Sec­ ondly, it is a genuinely good move which poses an interesting s et of prob­ lems for the opponent. I am generally not in favour of ' dodgy s idelines', but this move seemed to strike a sensible balance of avoiding the most theoreti­ cally-intensive variations while also being objectively strong enough to stand up to scrutiny. Black can choose to react either ag­ gressively or solidly, and I have organ­ ized the material accordingly.

Part 1- Set-ups with long castling after 2 'i!lxd5 ...

The first part of the chapter will deal with the most theoretically challenging lines in which Black castles on the queenside. 3 i.g4 ...

3 ltlf31?

I decided to advocate this move, in­ stead of the more traditional 3 ltlc3, for a few reasons. Firstly, it has received comparatively little attention in other theoretical manuals, which made it a

This is the soundest move order. Black can also play 3 ... lt:lc6, but G ame 7 makes a strong case against this move. 4 i.e2 ltlc6 5 d4 o-o-o 6 i.e3

This is where the theory begins to branch off. 7

Beating Unusual Chess Defences: 1 e4 available to Black from move 7 onwards. 11 tLlc3

6 es •••

This is Black's most popular and challenging approach. The most-common alternative is 6...tLlf6 7 0-0. From here 7 ...'ii'fs is G ame 4, while 7 ..e6 and other moves will form the subject of G ame s. G ame 6 deals with Black's remain­ ing options on move 6, with particular focus on 6...tLlh6!?. Returning to 6...es, the main line continues as follows:

From here Black normally chooses either 11...'ii'cs (Game 1) or 11...'ii'a6 (Game 2).

.

Part 2 Set-ups with short castling after 2 -'iWxds -

••

Things are a lot simpler here! G ame 8 will deal with the respectable 3 . .tLlf6 and Game 9 with the dubious 3 es?! . .

...

Part 3

7

2

lt:Jf6

•••

c4 'ii'a S+ 8 ii.d2 ii.b4 9 dS ii.xf3 10

ii.xf3 tt::ld 4

Game 3 will address 10 �xd2+ along with a number of deviations ...

8

-

Black can also aim to recapture on dS with the knight, leading to a differ­ ent type of fight.

Scandinavian Defence 5 d4 0-0-0

3 ltJf3 ttJxd 5

The soundest move. 3 ...�g4?! is mentioned in the notes to G ame 12. 4 d4

From here Black has three main moves: 4...g6 is the main line and will be considered in Game 10. The two bishop moves, 4...�g4 and 4.....U s, will be dealt with in Games 11 and 12 respectively.

Part 1 Set-ups with long castling after 2 Ji'xds -

••

Gamel S.Movsesian-J.Tomczak

Warsaw (rapid) 2009 We will jump straight in at the deep end, with a game featuring one of the most critical lines of the 3 ltJf3 system. It is fitting that we begin with a game by Sergei Movsesian, as the Slovakian Grandmaster is one of the most ardent supporters of White's opening system. 1

e4 d5 2 exd5 'ii'x d5 3 lDf3 .i.g4 4 �e2

tt'lc6

This is the most challenging re­ sponse to White's opening system. Black develops quickly, intending to castle and strike in the centre with ... es at an appropriate moment. Black can of course opt for a more solid handling of the opening by arranging short cas­ tling, for which see Game 8.

6 .i.e3

The main alternative is 6 c4, which more or less commits White to a pawn sacrifice. The critical continuation is 6...'ii'fs 7 �e3 .i.xf3 8 �xf3 ttJxd4! 9 .i.xd4 'ii'e6+ 10 �e2 'ii'e4 (10 ...c s ! ? is also interesting), when Black regains his piece while keeping a pawn in the bank. White has some compensation and the resulting positions may well appeal to some players, but overall it seems to me that Black is holding his own in this variation. 6 e5 ...

The immediate central strike has been Black's most popular choice, but he can also defer it for one or more moves. 6...ltJf6 is the subject of G ame 5 and Black's other options will be exam­ ined in G ame 6. 7 C4

7 ltJc3 is less ambitious and after 7 ...'ii'as (7 ...�b4 is also playable) 8 ltJxes �xe2 9 'ii'xe2 ttJxes 10 dxes 'ii'xes White has a minute edge at best. 7 ..'t!fa 5+ ....

9

Beating Unusual Chess Defences: 1 e4 Alternatives are clearly weaker- see the notes to G ame 3 for details. 8 �d2 �b4 9 d 5

A good rule of thumb for these posi­ tions is that White should almost al­ ways strive to meet ...es with the space­ gaining dS where possible. It is worth mentioning briefly that 9 4Jxes?? is a blunder due to 9 . �xe2 10 4Jxc6 l:.e8 ! ! when White suffers a fatal loss of ma­ terial. 9. �xf3 10 ..txf3 4Jd4 10 ...�xd2+ will be considered in G ame 3, along with Black's other devia­ tions between moves 7-9. .

gaining a tempo by attacking the c4pawn. The most popular move has been 11.. .'ii'a6. This will be considered in the next game, along with a few rare 11th­ move alternatives.

.

..

12 �e2

I consider this to be White's most promising continuation. The first player now has quite a serious posi­ tional threat of a3 followed by easy play on the queenside. The immediate 11 a3 is possible, but after 11...�xd2+ 12 4Jxd2 fS Black has enough counter­ play.

12 b3?! is inaccurate, as the queen on cs makes an inviting target for a quick a3 and b4. 12 ...4Jf6 13 0-0 The immediate 13 a3 can be met by 13.....txc3 14 �xc3 4Je4, but after cas­ tling White will be ready to begin his queenside attack. At this point Black must make an important decision. I cannot help but point out that at the time of writing White has made a frankly ridiculous score of 100% from the present position. While there is no doubt that this flatters his position somewhat, it also serves as a strong hint that it is the second player who faces the tougher practical problems.

u.

13 ....:the8

11 lLlc3

.

:ilt'cs

Black intends to transfer his queen to a more purposeful position while 10

Once again some other moves have been tried:

Scandinavian Defence a) The illogical 1 3...i.xc3?! was in M.Sanchez-D.Bescos Cortes, yed pla Aragon 1998 and now after the simple 14 .ixc3 White stands better and in some lines he will be virtually a tempo up due to the absence of a3. b) 13 ... c6 is a principled reply; Black risks exposing his king in order to open the d-file for his rook. After 14 i.gs (this seems like the most natural move, although 14 i.e3!? is also interesting; after 14...cxds 15 tt:'lxds tt:'lxds 16 cxds 'iVxdS 17 i.xd4 exd4 18 i.f3 White had reasonable compensation and went on to win in F.Hedke-J .Rudolph, Kiel 2009) Black has a few possible replies:

a) 14 ...'ii'as was Black's choice in S.Movsesian- I.Papaioannou, Bled Olympiad 2002, the only game to have reached this position thus far. In that encounter White chose to play 15 .ig4+ and eventually won, but improvements have been suggested for Black and the overall evaluation is rather cloudy. Instead it seems to me that the modest 15 l:.c1!? gives White the better

prospects. Here is an illustrative line: 1S ...'�b8 16 i.d3 .ixc3 17 bxc3! (in some variations White may prefer to avoid compromising his pawn struc­ ture with l:.xc3, but in the present posi­ tion White gains more by chasing the knight, especially as it can no longer exchange itself on e2) 17 ...tt:'le6 18 .ixf6 gxf6 19 dxe6 e4 20 'ii'g4 exd3 21 e7 l:de8 22 l:.cel 'ii'xc3 23 'ii'f4+ '1ii>a8 24 l:.e3 when Black's extra pawn is imma­ terial, but his problems are quite real due to the difference in quality be­ tween the respective passed pawns. b) 14 ... i.xc3! ? 15 bxc3 tt:'le6 16 .ie3 Was is a critical altern ative. Now both 17 l:b1 cxds 18 'ii'c 2 l:td7 19 l:tbs 'ii'a3 20 l:tb3 'ii'as 21 cs and 17 'ii'b3 cxds 18 cxds .l:.xds 19 c4 l:td7 20 cs l:te7 21 l:tfcl offer White promising compensation for the pawn, in view of his bishop pair and attacking chances. Returning to 13 ...l:the8:

14 l:tc1 The immediate 14 a3 also looks promising: for instance, 14 ...i.xc3 15 .txc3 'tlfd6 (1S ...c6 16 b4 'tlfd6 17 it.xd4 11

Beating Unusual Chess Defences: 1 e4 exd4 18 J..f3 cxds 19 Wxd4 gives White some advantage, as pointed out by Karolyi), as in J.Koscielski-K.Krug, Reck­ linghausen 2003. At this point the most purposeful move looks to be 16 l:.e1 tt::lxe2+ 17 Wxe2 with a typical edge for White, based on his superior minor piece and more mobile pawn majority.

going for complications at this stage. 22 ...l:e6 23 b5

The precautionary 23 J..e3 would also have been strong. 23 ...Wd7 24 J..e3 f5 25 Wc2 Wc7 26 l:fd1 J:de8 27 J..d 4

14 ... �b8 15 a3 i.xc3 16 i.xc3 tt::lxe2+

27 b6 axb6 28 Wa4+ 'it>b8 29 l:.d7 was also good, but Movsesian prefers to keep everything under control .

17Wxe2

27 ...f4 28 f3 tt::lc 5 29 J..f2 l:.e2

White has a pleasant position, again with the better minor piece and the more mobile pawn majority.

29 ...g6 would have been more resil­ ient, although there is no doubt that White should be winning with correct play.

17 ...c6?1

This only makes Black's situation worse. 18 b4Wd6 19 dxc6 Wxc6

19 ...bxc6 weakens Black's pawn structure and after 20 l:.fd1 he will still lose a pawn.

30Wxh7

White deposits a second pawn in the bank. 3o ...Wb6

20 J..x e5+ 'it>a8 21 Wb2

The threat of ...J:xf2 will be easily parried. 31l:c2

Black has absolutely no compensa­ tion for the missing pawn and the rest is not much more than a formality.

31 Whs and 31 J:e1 were also both good enough.

21. .tt::le4 22 J..d4

Allowing an instant kill, but Black's position was thoroughly lost anyway.

.

22 J..xg7! ? would have been tacti­ cally viable, but there was no point in 12

31 ... a5?

32 l::.Xe 2 J:xe2 33Wg8+ �a7 34 J:dB 1-0

Scandinavian Defence Our next game is a recent affair which eventually ends up in Black's favour, but the opening battle was definitely won by White.

played, but none of them are good enough to equalize: a) 11 .. .f5?! (this move has the poten­ tial to be useful, but at this stage of the game it should not be at the top of Black's list of priorities)

Game2 I.Snape-I.Rausis

Gatwick 2011 1 e4 ds 2 exds 'i'xds 3 tt::lf3 i.g4 4 i.e2 tt'lc6 s d4 o-o-o 6 i.e3 es 7 c4 'i'as+ 8 �d2 i.b4 9 ds i.xf3 10 i.xf3 tt::ld 4 11 "Llc3

So far everything has been the same as in the previous game, but now Black trie s a different queen move.

11 .'ilt'a61 ••

This has been Black's most popular choice and I believe it to be more prom­ ising than Tomczak' s 11...'i'c5. One ad­ v antage is that the queen is not a tar­ get for a quick a3 and b4. Also, the likely transfer of the queen to g6 can help to facilitate Black's kingside coun­ terplay. A few other moves have been

12 o-o tt::lf6 13 a3 i.xc3 14 i.xc3 'i'c5 15 i.xd4 exd4 16 'i'd3 tt::le4 17 b4 'ii'b6 was reached in D.Lardot-E.Marjusaari, Kokkola 2006, and now after 18 .l:tfe1 White is set to win a pawn in the near future. b) 11 ...tt::lxf3+ (Black should gener­ ally avoid making this exchange too early, unless there is a truly pressing reason for it) 12 'ilixf3 tt::lf6 13 o-o (White intends a3 followed by the usual queenside and central play) 13...'ilic5 (13.. J:�he8 14 a3 i.xc3 15 ..txc3 'ilia4 16 l:tac1 'it>b8 17 l:tfe1 is clearly better for White, as pointed out by Karolyi) 14 b3 'ilid4 was seen in V.Kuritsin-I .Shchedrin, Voronezh 2008, and now after 15 a3 i.e7 16 i.g5 White has an obvious advantage. c) 11...tt'lf6 12 a3 ..te7 13 o-o (the immediate 13 b4 can be met by 13

Beating Unusual Chess Defences: 1 e4 13 ...ttJxf3+ 14 .-xf3 ..ixb4, but after castling it becomes a serious threat) 13 ....-a6 14 ..ie2 (White avoids 14 b3 as the b-pawn might want to move two squares in certain positions) 14... c6 was M.Richter-F.Zipfel, German League 2007.

At this point I agree with Karolyi's suggestion of 15 i.e3 (15 l:.e1! ? also looks promising) 15...cxd5 (15...ttJxe2+?! 16 •xe2 cxd5 17 ttJb5! d4 18 ..ixd4 is very good for White, as indicated too by Karolyi) 16 ..ixd4 exd4 17 cxd5 �6 18 t:Lla4 when White keeps the advantage. Returning to 11 .. .'�a6:

12 b3

14

12 ..ie2 is an important alternative which I also spent some time analysing. The critical continuation is 12 ...ttJf6 13 a3 l:.he8! (13.....ixc3 14 ..ixc3 would be too compliant, as White is left with a pleasant edge with at least one domi­ nant bishop) 14 axb4! (14 0-0?! runs into 14.....ixc3 15 ..ixc3 ttJxe2+ 16 .-xe2 l:.xd5! when regaining his pawn to reach equality is about the full extent of White's ambitions) 14...•xa1 15 •xa1 ttJc2+ 16 'iiif1 ttJxa1 17 i.d1! c6! with a highly unclear endgame, S.Movsesian­ M.Petr, Czech League 2010. White is the exchange down, but he has some com­ pensation as the black knight is trapped on a1 with no easy escape route; on the other hand, White has no way to cap­ ture the knight at present. The position is fascinating, but overall it seems to me that it holds at least as many dangers for White as for Black. 12

..g6

...

Black sensibly transfers his queen to a more promising post. A few other moves have also been tried: a) 1 2 ...ttJxf3+?! (Black can make this exchange at more or less any point over the next few moves and he has little to gain from committing to it so soon) 13 .-xf3 _.f6 occurred in J .Mittermeier-H.Kunze, G erman League 1998, and now White could have ob­ tained a pleasant advantage by means of 14 'ife3 �b8 15 a3 i.xc3 16 ..ixc3 ttJh6 17 o-o l:.he8 18 l:.ae1 when he has the better minor piece and pressure against the es-pawn.

Scandinavian Defence b) 12 ...'�a5! ? 13 l:lc1 f5 14 o-o tt:'lf6 was played in P.Leko-V.Ivanchuk, 6th rnatchgame, Mukachevo (rapid) 2009. From this position I like the look of 15 a3!? as suggested by Tibor Karolyi.

pieces are uncoordinated and his king is less than secure. 13 0-0

13 tt:'lf6 ...

Black has a few possible replies: b1) Declining the pawn does not equalize: for instance, 15 .....td6 16 tt:'lb5 (16 tt:'la4! ?) 16...tt:'lxf3+ 17 gxf3 'ii'a6 18 �e3 (Karolyi's suggestion of 18 'ii'c2 g6 19 b4 also looks promising) 18...b6 19 a4 when White's queenside initiative is more signifi cant than his doubled f­ pawns. b2) 15 .....txa3 16 l:a1 'ii'c5 17 ..te3 a6 (if 17.....tb4?! 18 tt:'lb5 - Karolyi) 18 �xd4 'ii'xd4 (or 18...exd4 19 tt:'la4 �4 20 •xd4) 19 'ii'c2 ..tb4 20 'ii'xf5+ �b8 21 tt:'le2 and White's better pawn struc­ ture gives him a slight plus. b3) 15 ...'ii'xa3 16 tt:'lb5 tt:'lxb5 17 J:a1 �xa1 18 'ii'xa1 �xd2 19 cxb5 e4 20 l:d1 �b4 21 'ii'xa7! exf3 22 -.as+ �d7 23 �xb7 when White keeps the better chances, as pointed out by Karolyi. In material terms Black has more than enough pieces for the queen, but his

Once again there is no reason for Black to rush the exchange on f3: 13 ...tt:'lxf3+?! 14 'ii'xf3 f5 15 'ii'e3 �b8 was K.Bailey-D.Calvert, Coulsdon 2007, and at this point White could have ob­ tained a decisive attack with 16 tt:'lb5! ..txd2 17 'ii'xa7+ �c8 18 l:ad1 ..tb4 1 9 'ii'a8+ �d7 20 'ii'xb7 �6 21 d6! , as shown by Karolyi. 14 a3

Having completed his development White begins to drive his opponent backwards. 14 ..td6 ...

14 ...�xc3 is too cooperative and af­ ter 15 ..txc3 White has a comfortable edge with easy play in the centre. 15 g31?

A new and quite logical idea. White bolsters his kingside, anticipating the opening of the h2-b8 diagonal, and also prepares a retreat square on g2 for his bishop. This forces Black to consider 15

Beating Unusual Chess Defences: 1 e4 the future of the knight on d4 rather carefully. I checked a few alternatives, but found nothing special for White: a) lS :e1 fic2! 16 b4 (16 tUbs!? could be worth a punt) 16...ttJxf3+ 17 fixf3? (17 gxf3 was better, although White has no advantage here) 17 ...fixd2 saw Black win a piece and eventually the game in J .N ovkovic­ F.G rafl, Austrian league 2009. b) lS �e2 e4 16 .!:tel (I searched long and hard for a convincing improve­ ment here, but found nothing; the computer likes 16 �e3!?, intending to meet 16 ...ttJfs ! with 17 �xa7, but after 17 ... hs! Black's kingside counterplay is very real) 16 ...fifS (16...hS!? looks prom­ ising here too) , and White eventually prevailed in S.Movsesian-F.Grafl , Ger­ man league 2006, but Black had no reason to be dissatisfied with the out­ come of the opening.

1s fic2 ...

The same move worked wel l for Black against lS .:tel (see note 'a' to White's previous move), but here it 16

does not equalize, as we will soon see. The present position only occurred for the first time a short while before this book was finished, so it remains to be seen how Scandinavian players may strive to improve Black's play. Here are a coupl e of speculative lines: a) lS ... hS should be met by 16 h4: for instance,

16 ... ttJxf3+ (it looks prudent to ex­ change the bishop before it can retreat to g2) 17 fixf3 e4 18 fie3 �b8 19 tUbs b6 20 figs ! fixgs 21 hxgs ! ? (or 21 ..txgs �es 22 l:tadl) 21 ...ltJg4 22 ttJxd6 l:xd6 23 ..tf4 intending .:ael, with some initiative for White. b) 1S ... ttJxf3+ 16 fixf3 e4 (16 ... hs 17 h4 reaches the previous line) 17 fie3 'iti>b8 18 tUbs b6 19 ttJxd6 (19 figs would be less effective, as Bl ack can take back with the h-pawn) 19 ....:xd6 20 .:ael and White has the more com­ fortable game. 16 fixc2 ttJxc2 17 .:ta2 ltJd4 After the suicidal 17...ttJxa3? 18 ..tel ..ib4 19 lt:Je4 the knight on a3 is trapped.

Scandinavian Defence

18 i.dl

(Black cannot do without this move forever) 23 dxc6 t2Jxc6 24 i.. c2 lt:ld4 25 b4 and White maintains the better chances. 21 ...cs 22 dxc6lt:lxc6

White has the two bishops and a nice central pawn wedge. G iven time he will improve his coordination, per­ haps exchanging the strong knight on

d4, and then put the two aforemen­ tioned assets to good use.

18 a6 ...

Rather . slow. More purposeful is c6, although White keeps an edge after 19 .ltg5 cxd5 20 .ltxf6 gxf6 21 tL'lxd5 f5 22 f4! . 18

...

19 �g2 h6

19 ...b5 can be met by 20 �g5 or 20 cxb5!? axb5 21 b4, with good prospects for White in both cases. 20 f3 '>tb8 21lt:le2

I would prefer 21 lt:le4! with two main paths for Black: a) 21...t2Jxe4 22 fxe4 f6 23 b4 c5 24 ..th5! when White has the better pros­ pects thanks to his bishop pair and su­ perior pawn structure. Black has a lovely knight on d4, but White should be able to play around it. b) 21...i.. e7 22 i.. C3 (22lt:lf2! ? intend­ ing tLld3 is also promising) 22...c6

23 i..e 3

23 b4! would have maintained an edge for White. 23 ... l:.he8 24 �b6?1

Now the position starts to turn against White, who is wasting several tempi in order to make a positionally undesirable bishop exchange. 24 i.. c2 was better. 24 ... i..c7 2 5 i..xc7+?

White could still have kept a rea­ sonable position with 25 i.. c5 e4 26 lt:lc3. 2S ...�xc7

N ow Black has a clear advantage. The rest of the game is a sad story for White, but the opening was a success for him and the relevant improvements have been pointed out. 26 b4

26lt:lc1 was more resilient. 26 .. J�d3 27 i..a 4 .:r.ed8 28 �xc6 �xc6

17

Beating Unusual Chess Defences: 1 e4 29 l:tc1 g5 30 h3 e4 31 f4 g4 32 l:tcc2 h5 33 h4 'i;c7 34 a4 l:tf3

34... e3! would have won more quickly, but the text is also good enough. 35 l:!.d2? l:!.xd2 36 l:!.xd2 e3 37 l:.c2 l:!.f2+ 38 'itg1lbe4 39 lLld4 l:td2 0-1

In the next game we will conclude our coverage of the critical 6... e5 variation by reviewing the less common altern atives available to Black on moves 7-10.

doubled f-pawns can hardly make up for Black's one-pawn deficit) 9 i.xf3 'iWe7 10 o-o e4 11 'iia4!? (Karolyi points out the much simpler 11 i.e2 when White is clearly better) 11...exf3 12 dxc6 'iWe4 (or 12...a6 13 cxb7+ 'itxb7 14 g3) 13 cxb7+ 'iWxb7 14 lbc3 a6 15 l:!.fd1 l:txd1+ 16 l:.xd1 lbf6 was L.Urbanec­ D.Mlensky, Brno 2000, and now 17 lbd5! would have been winning for White. b) 7 ...i.b4+ 8 lbbd2 when Black has tried two moves:

Game3 A.Areshchenko-R.Aimond

Port Erin 2007 1 e4 d5 2 exd5 'iWxd5 3 lLlf3 i.g4 4 .te2 liJc6 5 d4 0-0-0 6 i.e3 e5 7 C4

7 ...'iWa 5+

Other moves are asking for trouble: a) 7...'iWd7?! has only been played once: 8 d5 i.xf3 (after 8...e4 9 dxc6 'iWxd1+ 10 i.xd1 exf3 11 lbd2 i.b4 12 cxb7+ 'iti>xb7 13 i.xf3+ i.xf3 14 gxf3 the 18

b1) 8...'iWe4 9 d5 lbd4 10 lbxd4 exd4 11 i.xg4+ f5 12 0-0 'iWxg4 13 f3 'iWh4 14 i.f2 'iWh6 15 lbb3 i.d6 16 g3 and Black is about to lose a pawn for no compen­ sation, S.Movsesian-A.Pakhomov, Par­ dubice 2010. b2) 8...'iWd7 9 d5 i.xf3 10 i.xf3 lba5 (10...lbd4 11 i.xd4 exd4 12 0-0 lbf6 13 lbb3 is good for White - Karolyi) was seen in the game V.Plhacek-R.Dolezel, Czech League 2006, and here Karolyi points out the simple continuation 11 'iWc2 b6 12 a3 with a clear advantage to White.

Scandinavian Defence move .....txf3 at a time when White has to recapture with the g-pawn) 10 gxf3 (White must recapture this way in or­ der to maintain the attack on the queen) 10 ...bs.

8 i.d2 ..tb4

This natural move has been by far the most popular choice, although two queen moves have also been tried. The first is simply bad, but the second is tricky and should not be underesti­ mated: a) 8 .. .'Wb6? 9 cs! ..txcs 10 dxcs 'ir'xb2 (or 10 ...'ir'xcs 11 0-0 and Black had no real compensation for the piece in N.Aliavdin-J .Jozwicki, Barlinek 2010). This was K.Skaperdas-A.Dounis, Athens 2008, and here White could have won a piece with 11 ..tc3! :xd1+ 12 'itxd1 'ir'xa1 13 ..txa1 when the endgame should not present too many chal­ lenges for him. b) 8...'ir'a6!? 9 cs! (this must be criti­ cal; instead 9 ds ..txf3 10 ..txf3 tt:'ld4 has proven to be quite reliable for Black) 9 .....txf3 (Black should take the oppor­ tunity to damage White' s pawn struc­ ture; in the event of 9 ...bs , as in M.Pap­ Z.Bogut, Bosnjaci 2009, I suggest a similar course of action with 10 cxb6 'ihb6 11 dxes I doubt that Black can hope to benefit from omitting the -

So far this position has only been reached in a single game, I.Dorfanis­ A.N ikomanis, G reek Team Champion­ ship 2008. Although this variation is not necessarily bad for Black, it is hardly surprising that players have not been queuing up to take on a position where the black king's shelter has been compromised so severely. In any case, in the event that you encounter this position over the board, I recommend the following improvement: 11 cxb6!? (it looks logical to open the position for the white bishops; the game continua­ tion of 11 dS tt:'ld4 was extremely murky, but not unfavourable to Black) 11...'il'xb6 1 2 dxes when the position is rather messy, but White's bishop pair is an important asset. Here are some illustrative lines: 12...'il'xb2 (perhaps Black should try 12...tt:'lxes, although I still prefer White after 13 tt:'lc3 �cS 14 19

Beating Unusual Chess Defences: 1 e4

o-o) 13 tt:Jc3! (White is clearly doing well) 13...l:.xd2?! (or 13.....tb4? 14 ..ta6+ �b8 15 l:b1) 14 ..ta6+!

b8?! (14...�d7 is the lesser evil, although after 15 'ili'xd2+ 'ili'xd2+ 16 'it.'xd2 White's extra exchange gives him a clear advantage in the endgame) 15 'ili'xd2 and White is winning, as 15...'ili'xa1+? 16 lt>e2 'ili'xh1 17 'ili'd5! forces mate, although it is not too late for White spoil everything with 17 'ili'd7? 'ili'xf3+! when Black survives. Returning to 8.....tb4:

9 dS ..txf3

9 ...e4? is just bad and after 10 tt:Jg5! ..txe2 11 'ili'xe2 l2Jd4 12 'iWd1 Black faces a depressing choice: a) 12... e3 13 fxe3 lDf5?! (13.....txd2+ 14 l2Jxd2 lDf5 is the lesser evil, although Black is still struggling after 15 e4!? tDe3 16 'ili'b3! ttJxg2+ 17 �d1, threaten­ ing both ttJxf7 and 'ili'h3+ picking up the knight) 14 o-o ttJgh6 and here in K.Kiik-H.Rasch, G ibraltar 2009, White could have increased his advantage with 15 ttJxf7! . b) 12...lZJh6 13 o-o ..txd2 14lZJxd2 e3 was tried in T.Tuominen-M.Grabics, 20

Warsaw 2001, and now White should have played 15 fxe3 lZJdf5 16 'iWe2 (16 lZJxf7! ?) 16... 'ili'b6 (or 16...l:.he8 17 lZJxf7 l:.xe3 18 'ili'f2) 17 l:.ae1! ? (17 lZJde4 is also good) 17 ...'ili'xb2 18 lZJxf7 lZJxf7 19 l:.xf5 lZJd6 20 l:.f2 when Black has the option of restoring material equality by taking on a2, but in that case White's strong and mobile central pawns will become the dominant feature of the position. 10 ..txf3

From this position the main line is 10 ...lZJd4, which was examined in the previous two games. Apart from that, Black has one respectable alternative and one dubious one. In the present game Black chooses the former: 10 ..txd2+ ...

Instead 10 ...e4?! is questionable. Af­ ter 11 ..tg4+ Black has two options, nei­ ther of which enables him to equalize: a) 11...�b8! ? is tricky but ultimately insufficient after 12 dxc6 lZJf6 13 lZJc3 when Black does not have enough for the piece: for instance, 13...l:l.d6 (if 13 ... .l:.d3 14 �e2) 14 a3! �xc3 15 bxC3

Scandinavian Defence �'!hd8 16 'Wb3! 'Wb6 17 'ir'xb6 axb6 18 �g5! and White keeps a material ad­ vantage, as pointed out by Karolyi. b) 11 ...f5 1 2 .txf5+ 'itb8 13 o-o lt::lf6 1 4 Lt:lc3 l:.he8 15 a3 .txc3 16 .txc3 'ir'c5 was C.Neethling-L.Fredericia, Bled olympiad 2002, and now after 17 'ir'e2 Black is a pawn down with a bad posi ­ tion. ulLJxd2 lt::ld 4 12 o-o

12 a3 reaches the note to White's 11th move in G ame 1. It seems clear to me that White can achieve more by castli ng and mobilizing his pieces be­ fore attempting to advance his queen­ side pawns.

thing else) 14 ...lt::le7 15 b4 'i'a6 was V.Repina-Z.Iordanidou, Sibenik 2007, and now both 16 'ir'c2 and 16 b5! ? look promising for White, who is clearly ahead in the race to create threats against the enemy king. b) 12 ...lt::lf6 13 lLlb3 lt::lxf3+ 14 'ir'xf3 'Wb4 15 .l:tac1 l:.he8 16 .::tfd1 'ir'e7 17 a3 e4 18 'i'e3 Wb8 (M.Heika-J .Dey, G erman League 2003), and here White coul d maintain a slight plus with Karolyi's suggestion of 19 h3! ? followed by lt::ld4. 13 ::te11

A few other moves have been seen, but to my mind this developing move is the clear favourite, especially as the b2pawn is poisoned. 13

...

f6

Two other options have been tried: a) Surprisingly when Almond reached the same position a year later, he chose to 'improve' with 13 ...'ir'xb2?! 14 l:.b1 'ir'xa2.

12 'i'b4 ...

This looks a littl e strange, but it has been Black's most popular choice. Black hopes to make a nuisance out of the queen before relocating her to a better square; we saw the same idea in both of the previous games. Two other moves have been tried: a) 12 ...lt::lxf3+ 13 lt::lxf3 f6 14 a3 (1 4 'i'c2!? is another idea, removing the queen from the d-fi le before doing any-

This was N .Rutter-R.Almond, Sun­ ningdale 2008, and here White could have obtained a serious advantage by means of 15 d6! c6 16 l:.xes. This was 21

Beating Unusual Chess Defences: 1 e4 suggested by Christian Bauer, who convincingly demonstrated Black's troubles with the following variations:

queenside initiative. Therefore the fol­ lowing invasion into enemy territory is critical, 1S ...'ii'c3!?.

a1) 16...tt:Jxf3+ 17 'ifxf3 'ifxd2? 18 'iffS+ �b8 19 'ifxf7 and Black can re­ sign. a2) 16 ...'ii'c2 17 'ii'xc2 tt:Jxc2 18 :tas l:.xd6 1 9 lt:Je4 followed by :txa7 with decisive threats. a3) 1 6...t'Llf6 17 .i.g4+ tt:Je6 18 .i.xe6+ fxe6 19 cs t'Lld7 20 :tgs ! when White keeps his cs-pawn and with it an over­ whelming advantage. a4) 16 ...:txd6 17 :te8+ �c7 18 cs l:.e6 (after 18 ...t'Llxf3+ 19 'ifxf3 :txd2 20 'ii'f4+ 'li>d7 21 :tbe1 White wins) 19 :tf8 'ii'c2 20 'ifxc2 tt:Jxc2 21 .i.g4! t'Llh6 22 .:xh8 tt:Jxg4 23 :txh7 and Black has only minimal chances to save the endgame. b) 13 ...t'Llf6! ? has only been played once, but may be Black's soundest move. After 14 b3 (14 :txes ?! is well met by 14 ...lt:Jxf3+ and Black is doing fine after 1S tt:Jxf3 'ifxc4 or 1S gxf3 'ii'xb2) 14...:the8 1S a3 if the queen re­ treats along the a3-f8 diagonal, White will play b4 with the makings of a

We have been following the game B.Predojevic-D.Sermek, Portoroz 200S. At this point White's best looks to be 16 .l:.a2! (16 :te3 can be met by 16...'ii'c2 or 16 ...'ifb2) 16 ... 'ii'd3 when Bauer evalu­ ates the position as roughly equal, but I decided to analyse a little further: 17 .i.e2! (I checked a few other continua­ tions, but it soon became clear that the text was the top choice) 17 ...'ifg6 (after 17 ...t'Llxe2+ 18 :txe2 White can aim for pressure on the e-file, so I prefer his position ever so slightly).

22

Scandinavian Defence Here it is worth mentioning a cou­ ple of ideas for White: b1) 18 lbf1 �b8 19 lbe3 leaves the gh kni t ideally placed. G iven time, White could continue to improve his pieces with moves like .l:.d2 and i.f1. Therefore 19 ...c6! looks critical when White should reply 20 dxc6! lbf3+ 21 �xf3 l:txd1 22 l:txd1 e4 23 i.e2 bxc6 24 �ad2, giving him good compensation for the missing queen, with the safer king and better-coordinated pieces, although it is hard to say if it adds up to a real advantage. b2) Another idea is 18 b4 e4 19 i.f1 (not 19 lbb3? lbf3+ or 19 lbf1? lbf3+ 20 �xf3 exf3 21 g3 .l:.xe1 22 ii'xe1 .l:.e8) 19 ...'it>b8 20 a4! ? with the idea of acti­ vating the rook along the third rank. Returning to 13 .. .f6:

behind his previous move. The d4knight is Black's best piece, but in the game it soon becomes a target. 1s ...gs

Black embarks on kingside play, but it will take a long time for him to gen­ erate any real threats in that area. 16 ii'c31 ii'xc3?

Black cannot resist the temptation of doubling his opponent's pawns, but he will never get a chance to attack them. 16 ...ii'd6 was better, although after 17 a4 lbhfS 18 as (Karolyi) White keeps the better chances. The d4knight is unquestionably a strong piece, but its colleague on fS lacks a useful role, and White is also ahead in the attacking race. 17 bxc3lbdf5 1Blbe4 .l:.hfB 19 i.b3

White finds an ideal role for his bishop. By defending the dS -pawn he prepares cs in the near future. 19...lbg8

Black has no immediate prospects for counterplay, so he decides to im­ prove his knight. 20 cslbge7

14 �cl

14 .:.c1 has been played too, but with the eS -pawn now defended Black can consider 14...�xb2!?, the conse­ quences of which are not at all clear. 14 ... lbh6 15 i.dll

Areshchenko reveals a second point 23

Beating Unusual Chess Defences: 1 e4 21 l:ted1l

26l2Jc3l2Je8 27 a41l2Jd6 28 as

21 l:tad1 would also have main­ tained a clear advantage, but Areshchenko has correctly judged that the rook has a brighter future on the queenside. 21 ...l2Jg7 22 J.c4 h6

Preparing ...fs , but White has just enough time to carry out a strong plan before his knight is driven away from the centre. 23 c61 b6

23...bxc6? would have been suicidal, in view of 24 dxc6 and with lL:Jcs com­ ing next, Black will either be mated or suffer fatal material losses. 24 ..ta6+

There was a strong alternative in 24 lL:Jcs ! ?, relying on the fact that 24 ... bxcs? 25 ..ta6+ �b8 26 l:tab1+ �a8 27 d6! is winning for White. 24 .....t>b8 2 5 C4

With this move White solidifies his pawn wedge and vacates the c3-square for his knight. 2s ...fs

Black might have offered more re­ sistance with 2S ...l2Jgf5, based on the principle of 'pieces before pawns'. The b est response looks to be 26 l:tdb1! l2Jd4 2 7 l:tb2, preventing any irritating knight incursions and preparing a4-as or tt:lcs . Black's position is so bad that the co mputer already recommends the rathe r desperate piece sacrifice 27. . . �'Jxds . when Black succeeds in pro­ longing the game, although ultimately he must be losing. 24

Black has found a nice blockading square for his knight and if he could magically remove all four rooks from the board he would be doing just fine. Unfortunately for him, the cold hard reality is that he is about to be annihi­ lated on the queenside. 28 ...e4 29 csl2Jdc8

29 ...bxcs 30 l:tab1+ �a8 31 l2Ja4! is crushing. 30 axb6 cxb6 31l2Jbs

Black could easily have resigned here, but he stumbles on for a few more agonizing moves. 31 ... l:.xds 32 c7+ ..t>a8 33 l:.xds

White has multiple wins at every turn, 33 l2Jd6 being one of the most effective. 33 ...l2Jxds 34 c6 l2Jxc7 35 l2Jxc7+ ..t>b8 36l2Jbs f4 37 c7+ �a8 38 ..txc8 1-0

That concludes our coverage of 6...es . We have seen that this move leads to rich positions, full of resources for both sides. At present it seems to me that White's chances are slightly

Scandinavian Defence high er in most variations, although the theoretical debate will surely continue we ll in to the future. We will now turn out attention to Black's altern atives on the sixth move, begin n ing with a natural knight devel­ opment.

been tried and they will be examined in th e next game. By the way, the actual move order in the presen t game was 2...lLlf6 3 d4 �g4 4 lLlf3 -.xds s �e2 tt'lc6 6 c4 -.fs 7 �e3 o-o-o 8 0-0, but I have shuffled it in or­ der to remain consistent with the pro­ posed repertoire. 8 c4

Game4 I.Aidokhin-D.Rodin

We are n ow officially back in Al­ dokhin-Rodin .

Voronezh 2009 1 e4 ds 2 exds -.xds 3 lLlf3 �g4 4 �e2 tt'lc6 5 d4 0-0-0 6 �e 3 lLlf6

While 6...es is arguably Black's most prin cipled and challenging option, it is by no means his only playable one. In ­ deed, there is a certain logic behind developing another piece and keeping th e pawn thrust in reserve. 1 o-o �fs B es .•.

The queen was vuln erable on ds, so sh e wisely sidesteps th e attack that would have resulted from c4. I con sider th is Black's most challen ging option, although n umerous altern atives h ave

Striking at the centre is Black's most active and thematic idea. The alterna­ tives are less challen ging: a) 8 .....txf3 9 i.xf3 tt'lxd4? (9 ...es 10 dS reaches the n ote to Black's 9th move in the main game) 10 �xd4 es ? (fun ­ nily enough Black could have kept him­ self in the game with 10 ...c6 when White cann ot escape th e pin alon g the d-file, but still after 11 -.a4! l:.xd4 12 'ilr'xa7 Black's vuln erable kin g gives h im problems) occurred in R.Stepp-l.Klin e, Stillwater 2010, and here White could h ave obtai n ed a decisive advantage by means of 11 "ifb3 ! l:txd4 12 �xb7+ 'it>d8 25

Beating Unusual Chess Defences: 1 e4 13 ltJc3. Black is busted as his king is too exposed. b) 8...e6 is playable but a bit passive after 9 ltJbd2 (I like the idea of reinforc­ ing the knight on f3 while breaking the pin along the d-fi le; 9 ltJc3 is also pos­ sible, after which the critical line con­ tinues 9 ...-tcs 10 'ifh3 .txd4 11 ltJxd4 %X.xd4! 12 f3 lies when Black obtained reasonable compensation for the sacri­ ficed exchange in J .G onzalez G ambau­ E.Palacios, Aragon 200S) 9 ....td6 (other moves have been tried, but the text seems like the most logical) 10 h3! when Black must make a difficult choice:

.txd4 exd4 should also be somewhat better for White) 12...ltJxe5?! (12 ....1i.xe5 was the lesser evil, although it is un­ derstandable that Black wished to pre­ serve this important bishop) 13 ltJh4! 'tWd7 14 hxg4 hxg4 1 5 g3 and Black did not have enough compensation for the sacrificed V.Malakhov­ piece in E.Senoner, Bled 2001. Returning to S ... es:

9 d 5 e4

bl) 10 ....txh3? is refuted by 11 ltJh4!. b2) 10 ...-ths is well met by 11 'ifb3! when Black has some problems, as a natural move such as ll ...gs runs into 12 .td3! lias 13 a3!? when the black queen is running short of squares. b3) lO ...hs 11 'ifb3 e5 (once again .1i.d3 was a troublesome threat, so Black feels compelled to take immedi­ ate action) 12 dxe5 (12 d5 ltJd4 13 26

The main line, but there is a signifi­ cant alternative in 9 ....txf3 10 .txf3 e4 (after 10 ...ltJd4? 11 .txd4 exd4 12 lWxd4 Black was a pawn down for nothing in A.Axelrod-R.G oldin, Haifa 2009) 11 .1i.e2 when Black has tried three moves: a) 11...lWes 12 ltJc3 ..ti>b8 (12 ....tb4? 13 lWa4 .td6 14 g3 ltJd4 was B.J unaidi­ A.Keiper, correspondence 2001, and now after 15 lWxa7 White is winning) 13 lDb5! a6 14 'ifb3 {the computer likes 14 'tiel! ? axb5 15 dxc6, but the text move leads to a clear advantage in a stable position) 14 ...ltJa5 15 lWc3 lWxc3 16ltJxc3 .tb4 17 %X.ac1 and in G .Melson­ A.Chernyak, correspondence 2001,

Scandinavian Defence White was cl earl y better thanks to his bishop pair and the mispl aced knight on as. b) 11...lLles 12 lLlc3 (12 ..txa7!? is also possibl e) 12...a6 transposes to variation 'c'. c) 11...a6 12 lLlc3 lLles 13 �c2 �g6 (13 ...lLleg4 14 ..txg4 �xg4 was played in T.Tamasanu-C.Ionesi, Eforie N ord 2001, and now after 1S ..td4 foll owed by l:tae1 White l ooks to be winning the e4-pawn) 14 �h1 when Black has tried two moves:

10 lLld4

10...lLlxd4

After 10 .....txe2 11 lLlxe2 lLles 12 lLlg3 �g4 13 �d4! White was clearly better in I.Bajo G utierrez-R.Lopez de Lerma, G ijon 19 99. 11 ..txd4 ..td6

c1) 14...lLled7 1S b4!? ..txb4 16 lLla4!? (the simple 16 l:1ab1 also l ooks good) 16... lLlg4? 17 ..txg4 �xg4 18 �3 �as 19 l:.ab1 (19 cs should also be enough to win) 19 ... b6 20 cs bs 21 lLlb2 lLles 22 �a3 l:txds 23 ti'xas �b7 24 lLla4 1-0, W.Pannekoek-M.Ibar, corre­ spondence 2004. c2) 14...h5 1S ..td4 lLleg4 was pre­ ferred in S.Teichmeister-P.Spitz, corre­ spondence 1999. N ow after the simpl e 16 l:tae1 White is the better mobil ized and the e4-pawn will soon come under fire.

Instead 11....txe2 12 �xe2 ..td6 13 l:1e1! (taking the sting out of any ...lLlg4 ideas; 13 lLlc3 transposes to variation 'b' in the next note, which is not advan­ tageous to White) 13...b6 (13...lLlg4?! 14 h3 gets nowhere for Bl ack, as the knight jump to h2 wil l not hit the rook) 14 lLlc3 cs 1S ..txf6 gxf6 16 lLlxe4 l eft Black a pawn down for nothing in J .Kap-P.Warkentin, Bad Ems 200S. 12lL:lc3

The position is rather sharp. White has the makings of a positional advan­ tage, as his ds -pawn is securel y de­ fended, whereas Black's e4-pawn does not enjoy the support of a fellow pawn. If White can compl ete his devel opment and place at l east one rook on the e­ fil e, then the e-pawn may become a long-term weakness. Furthermore, 27

Beating Unusual Chess Defences: 1 e4 Black must constantly be on the look­ out for a queenside pawn storm with c5-c6. On the other hand, Black enjoys fluid piece play on the kingside and White will have to be on guard against tactical ideas there, especially over the next few moves. 12 J�he8?l ..

This is natural and sensible, but it fails to put White under immediate pressure, unlike the following alterna­ tives which should be studied carefully: a) 12...i.h3!? has not been tested, but could easily cause problems for an unsuspecting player. The best response is 13 tt::lb5! 'ii'g5 14 tt:Jxa7+ 'it>b8 15 g3 .1xf1 16 .1xf1 when White has a pawn and great compensation for the ex­ change, as pointed out by Bauer. b) 12...i.xe2! is the most challeng­ ing move, after which it seems to me that a new approach is in order for White, with 13 tt:Jxe2! (so far only 13 "ii'xe2 has been played, but after 13 ...tt::lg4! Black is in no way worse), and here I checked the following replies:

�g1 tt::lg4 16 .l:.el 'ii'h2+ 17 'iti>f1 'ii'hl+ 18 tt::lg 1 tt::lh2+ 19 'ili>e2 'ii'xg2 20 'ili>d2 and White is winning, as the king es­ capes easily. b2) 13 ...tt::\g4?! 14 h3 tt::lh2 15 .:tel gets nowhere for Black, whereas in the analogous position with the queen on e2 instead of the knight, Black could safely check on f3 with the knight. b3) A waiting move such as 13 ...'it>b8 should be met by 14 'ii'e2 intending .l:.ael. b4) 13 ....l:the8 14 h3 !? (securing the kingside; if 14 'ii'c2 'ii'g6!?) 14...a6 (14...'it>b8 is similar) 15 'ii'c2 when White intends .l:tael and later "ii'c 3, with a slightly preferable position. 13 .l:tell

The mutual rook moves appear to be of equal value, but in fact it is White who has benefited more, as his rook is no longer tactically vulnerable. 13

b1) 13 ...i.xh2+? 14 'ltxh2 'ii'h5+ 15 28

...

i.es

In this position 13 ...i.xe2 can safely be met by 14 'ii'xe2 or even 14 l:.xe2!?, as the ...tt::\g4-h2 idea will not come with gain of tempo.

Scandinavian Defence

14 j_xes

14 .txa7! ? b6 15 a4 may also be good for White, but the text move maintains his advantage without al­ lowing the game to become too com­ plicated. 14 ... �xe2 15 'it'xe2 •xes 16 l:.ad1

This type of position is quite charac­ teristic of the whole opening. White enjoys a slight but risk-free advantage, due to the vulnerability of the e4-pawn and the mobility of his queenside

Black has no good defence and his position quickly collapses. 21 ... as 22 b6 'itcB 23 'ii'c s l::td 6 24 tl:lbs 'ii'xf4 25 bxc7 1-o

Our next game will deal with Black's alternatives after 6...tl:lf6 7 o-o.

Games M.Calzetta Ruiz-C.Philippe

Chambery 2008

pawns. 16 ... .l:e7 17 h3 a6 18 1t'e3 'itbB 19 f41?

1 e4 ds 2 exds -.xds

19 .:.d4 and 19 b4 were good alter­ natives. Instead White decides to gain some space on the kingside, while also freeing the f2-square for his king, which might prove useful in an end­ game.

Once again I have fiddled the move order. For readers who care about such things, the present game began with the sequence of 2...tl:lf6 3 d4 .tg4 4 tl:lf3 'ii'xd5 5 .te2 e6 6 �e3 tl:lc6 7 c4 'ii'a5+ 8 tl:lbd2 0-0-0 9 0-0 .tb4.

19 ...'ir'fs 20 b4

3 tl:lf3 .i.g4 4 �e2 tl:lc6 5 d4 o-o-o 6 �e3 tl:lf6 7 0-0

zo... hs?

Failing to appreciate the danger on the queenside. Black had to try some­ thing like 20 ...l:.g8 when the threat of 9 5 at least creates some distraction. ···

2 1 bsl

7 ... e6

This has actually been played more frequently than 7...'ii' f5, but both analy­ sis and practical results indicate that it is less challenging to White. In addition 29

Beating Unusual Chess Defences: 1 e4 to these two main moves, Black has three notable alternatives: a) 7...'ifd7 8 lZ:lbd2 lLld5 (Black se­ cures the advantage of the bishop pair, but it costs him valuable time) 9 c4 l2Jxe3 10 fxe3 e6 11 a3 g6 (11...�e7 is less accurate, as there is nothing to stop White from advancing with 12 b4 �f6, as in F.Rayner-S.Zeidler, Swansea 2002, and then 13 lLlb3 with some ini­ tiative) 12 'ii'c2! (it is important to avoid 12 b4 �h6 13 'ii' b3 l2Jxd4! , as noted by Bauer) 12 ...�h6 13 'ii'c3 'ii'e7 14 .l:f.ae1 �g7 15 b4 (only now, after first completing his development, does White begin his queenside advance) 15 ...�xf3 16lZJxf3lZJb8 17 C5 e5 18 �c4 left White clearly better in S.Movsesian-I.Rogers, Enschede 2005. b) Black would not usually exchange of f3 without provocation, but his idea with 7...�xf3! ? 8 �xf3 'ii'b5 is to inhibit White's attempts to castle while also facilitating a quick attack along the d­ file. White should react resolutely and 9 lLlc3! is the order of the day, after which Black has tried two moves:

b1) 9 .. 'ifc4 was seen in H.McAn­ drew-H.Mujica, correspondence 2003. At this point White could have ob­ tained a nice edge with either 10 �e2 'ii'e6 11 'ii'd2 followed by :ad1, or 10 'ife2 'ifxe2 11 l2Jxe2. In both cases his bishop pair gives him the upper hand. b2) 9 . 'ii'xb2 10 l2Je4 l2Jxe4 11 �xe4 'ii'c3 12 'ii'f3 'ii'c4 13 :ab1 gives White more than enough play for the sacri­ ficed pawn and after the careless 13...g6? 14 :xb7! '1txb7 15 �xc6+ '1tc8 16 �b7+ 'itd7 17 d5 he was already winning in B.De Schepper-V.Baci, corre­ spondence 2000. c) 7...'ifh5?! has been played in a number of games, but is excessively risky. White should react with 8 h3 e5 9 lZ:lbd2! when Black has tried several moves, none of which promise him sat­ isfactory play: .

.

.

c1) 9 ...exd4? is weak in view of 10 hxg4 l2Jxg4 11 �f4 when White is just winning, as noted by Bauer. c2) 9 . .h6 10 :e1 (10 hxg4!? l2Jxg4 11 l2Je4 should also be good for White) 10 ...if..d6? (10 ...if..xf3 was the lesser evil, .

30

Scandinavian Defence although after 11 i.xf3 it is obvious that Black's opening strategy has failed) 11 hxg4 tt:lxg4 12 tt:le4 tt:lxd4 13 i.xd4 exd4 14 tt:lxd6+ l:.xd6 15 tt:lh4 f5 1 6 g3 and Black had no real compensa­ tion for the piece in Ji.Houska-T.Le Duin, Montreal 2008. c3) 9 ...�b8 10 .:.e1!? (10 hxg4 tt:lxg4 11 tt:le4 is also promising according to Bauer) 10 .....td6 11 d5 tt:le7 12 c4 tt:lf5 13 hxg4 tt:lxg4 14 tt:le4 tt:lfxe3 15 fxe3 � 6 16 i.d3 and White soon won in O.Korneev-A.Femandes, Elgoibar 19 98. c4) 9 .....txf3 10 ..txf3 'ii'f5 11 ..txc6 exd4 was A.Magalotti-M.Van der Werf, Balatonkenese 1999, and now after 12 tt:lb3! bxc6 (12...dxe3? 13 ..txb7+) 13 tt:lxd4 White is clearly better, as pointed out by Bauer. c5) Finally, there is 9 .....td6

10 hxg4 (also after 10 d5!? tt:ld4 11 it.xd4 exd4 12 hxg4 tt:lxg4 13 g3 Black does not have enough compensation) 10 ...tt:lxg4 11 tt:le4 tt:lxd4 (11...exd4 12 tt:lxd6+ l:txd6 13 i.f4 was winning for White in L.Vigil Alvarez-F.Menendez Rey, Asturias 19 97) 12 ..txd4 exd4 13

tt:lxd6+ l:txd6 14 tt:lh4 f5, as in F.Agter­ D.Meijer, Hengelo 1997. At this point there was no need for White to rush to exchange on g4. Instead after the calm 15 g3! White should eventually be able to convert his extra piece. Returning to 7...e6:

8 C4

The following alternative is also in­ teresting: 8 tt:lbd2 'ii'h5 9 h3 ..td6, as in 5.Alonso-A.Cabanas J imenez, Madrid 2000. N ow 10 c4!? is recommended by Bauer, but matters are not so clear. I checked two replies for Black: a) The French Grandmaster rightly points out that 10 .....txh3 can be met by 11 tt:le5!. b) However, Black can do better with 10 ...g5! 11 c5 (or 11 .:.e1 ..txh3! 12 gxh3 g4) 11... ..tf4 12 i.xf4 gxf4 13 hxg4 tt:lxg4 intending ...:hg8 with promising counterplay. For this reason, I would urge the reader to stick with the move played in the game. s 'ii'a s ...

Once again Black has tried a variety 31

Beating Un usual Chess Defences: 1 e4 of alternatives: a) The most-common reaction has been 8 ...'ir'fs when 9 lt:lbd2 transposes to note 'b' to Black's 8th move in the previous game. b) 8 ...'ir'd6 9 lt:lbd2 h6 occurred in Y.Dembo-E.Titova Boric, Rijeka 2009. Here Dembo recommends the follow­ ing strong improvement: 10 cs! 'i'd7 (or 10 ...'i'ds 11 'i'a4) 11 b4 when White is doing well, as 11...lt:lxb4? is refuted by 12 'i'b3 lt:lc6 (12...lt:lfdS loses to 13 lUes) 13 lbb1 b6 14 'i'a4 and White is winning. c) J ust like on the previous move, S ...'i'hs should be met by 9 h3 ! when Black has tried two moves:

c1) 9 ...lt:lxd4? is simply unsound: 10 lt:lxd4 ..txe2? (10 ...l:xd4 is better, al­ though 11 hxg4 lt:lxg4 12 ..txg4 %:.xg4 13 lt:ld2 s hould win easily enough for White) 11 'ir'xe2 1-0, T.Ly-J .Davenport, Melbourne 2002. c2) 9 .....td6 10 lt:lc3 and once again White is doing well: for instance, 10 .....txh3 ?! 11 lUes! 'ir'fs 12 ..td3 ..tg4 and now in E.Abou Jawdeh-T.Moud32

allal, Beirut 2004, the most convincing win would have been 13 f3!, leading to heavy material gains. d) 8 ...'ii'd7 is more solid, although Black still falls short of equality: 9 lt:lbd2 ..tb4 10 lt:lb3 ! ..te7 11 a3 (intend­ ing lt:lbd2 and b4; 11 lUes ! ? looks like a sensible alternative, although after 11... lt:lxes 12 dxes 'ii'xd1 13 ..txd1 :xd1 14 .:tfxd1 i.xd1 1S exf6 i.xb3 16 fxg7 l:tg8 17 axb3 a6 White has only a mini­ mal advantage) 11... hs 12 lt:lbd2 gS was reached in M.Schurade-H .Cording, German League 19 92. From here White continued with 13 b4 and eventually won, although it is hard to s ay if his chosen move was the best. Instead 13 lt:lxgs lt:lxd4! leads to rather murky complications, but I would be tempted to consider 13 'i'b3 ! ? followed by l:tad1, switching to central play, which seems like a logical reaction to Black's kingside pawn advance. I definitely prefer White's position here, although the game is likely to become rather sharp. 9 lt:lbd2

Scandinavian Defence C almly developing another piece. Wh ite is now ready to start driving his opponent backwards with a3 and b4, perhaps fl icking in a timely h3 on the kingside. 9 ,j_b41? ..

Trying to develop the bishop ac­ tively, but now there is an obvious danger that a3 will come with gain of tempo. 9 ...�xf3 has been played in a few games, but it is hardly surprising th at this fails to solve Black's problems: for instance, 10 tLlxf3 h6 11 a3 'ilr'f5 12 b4 t2Jg4 13 b5 tLlb8 was S.Zojer­ M.Steinert, Austrian League 2010, and here I like the straightforward 14 h3 ! r:Llxe3 15 fxe3 when Black is under pressure on both flanks. 10

h3!

Posing a difficult question. 10

...

�xf3

13 d5! exd5 14 tLlb3 'ilr'a4 1 5 cxd5 tLle7 16 'ilr'd4 when White is clearly bet­ ter, as shown by Bauer. 11 tLlxf3

This position highlights the dangers awaiting Black in the event that he fails to conduct the opening in the most accurate manner. White has not done anything fancy, but already Black is threatened by a pawn avalanche on the queenside and his queen is becoming dangerously short of squares. u

...

es?

Black simply does not have time for this. 11...j_c5! was the only challenging move, although White remains on top after 12 'ilr'd3 ! �b8 (12 ...ttJxd4? 13 tLlxd4 j_xd4 14 �xd4 e5 15 'ilr'f5+ wins) 13 a3 !, as pointed out by Bauer. 12 a31

10 ...�h5 should be met by the reso­ lute 11 g4! (11 tLlb3?! 'ilr'f5 is unclear) 1 1 ...ttJxg4 (both 11 ...�g6 12 c5! and 11...j_xg4 12 hxg4 ttJxg4 13 c5! are noted as good for White by Bauer) 12 hxg4 i.xg4

12 ...exd4

There is nothing better, as bishop retreats would allow 13 b4, winning material. 13 axb4 'ilr'xb4 14 tLlxd4 tLlxd4 15 �xd4

Black is simply a piece down for no 33

Beating Unusual Chess Defences: 1 e4 compensati on and the game is soon over. 15 ... a6

Alternatively, 1S ...cs loses to 16 �g4+. 16 �c31

Escaping the pin and leading to an easy win. 16 .. .'i'cs 17 'ii'c2 l:theB 18 b4 'ii'e7 19 �f3 'ii'e6 20 �xf6 'ii'xf6 21 bS 1-0

The next game will address a couple of Black's rare but interesting 6th-move alternatives.

while also preparing t o eliminate the e3 -bishop at a moment's notice. Two other moves are worth men­ tioning: a) 6...e6 7 o-o tt:'lf6 transposes to the previous game. b) 6...�xf3 ! ? 7 �xf3 'Wbs is similar to the note to move 7 in the last game. Making the exchange a move earlier leads to some slight differences. Once again I recommend the principl ed 8 tt:'lc3 ! ? (8 b3 is playable, but the text must be critical), when Black has tested two replies:

Game 6 A.Greet-D.Bryson Glasgow 2011 1 e4 dS 2 exds 'ii'xd s 3 ll'lf3 �g4 4 �e2 tt:'lc6 5 d4 0-0-0 6 �e3

b1) 8 ...Wc4 9 'ii' e2!? (this is not the only route to an advantage, but it is certainly one of the safest ways) 9 ..'i'xe2+ 10 tt:'lxe2 and with two bish­ ops and a space advantage, White had a risk-free edge in D.Wichmann­ H.Ochs, German League 2006. b2) The more challenging 8 ...'ii' xb2 was seen in O.Korneev-O.Dolzhikova, Gjovik 2008. At this point I analysed a new and promising continuation for White in 9 tt:'la4! ?. Black has two possi ­ bl e retreats: .

6 ...tt:'lh61?

This is a rare move, but it is none­ theless quite a principled and challeng­ ing one. The knight is heading for fS, from where it will attack the d4-pawn 34

Scandinavian Defence b21) 9 . 'ii'h 4+ 1 0 c3 'W'c4 11 .ie2 (11 'Wb3! ? 'W'xb3 12 axb3 is also worth con­ side ring , with strong positional com­ pensation in the queenless middle­ game) ll 'W'ds 12 o-o when White's lead in development and the open b­ file add up to promising compensation for the pawn. b22) 9 . .'ii'bs should be met by 10 lt.Jcs when I analysed three tries for ..

...

and l:.hb1 coming, White has fine com­ pensation and will almost certainly regain the sacrificed pawn while keep­ ing some initiative. Returning to 6...lbh6:

.

Black:

7lbbd2

This flexible move seems like the most logical choice to me. 7 c4 has been played a few times, but after 7 ..it'a5+ I am not impressed with White's position: a) 8 .id2 was played in Y.G onzalez Vidal-R.Perez G arcia, Havana 2002. Here Black could have obtained a clear advantage with 8 ...it'fs ! 9 .ie3 .ixf3 10 .ixf3 lbxd4! 11 .ixd4 it'e6+ 12 .ie2 'tWe4. The position is the same as that from the 6 c4 pawn sacrifice variation mentioned in the notes to G ame 1, ex­ cept that Black has gained the free de­ veloping move ...lt.Jh6. b) 8 lbc3 is better, but after 8 ...lbfs 9 dS lt.Jxe3 10 fxe3 e6 White's dark squares were a bit loose in L.Dominguez Perez-A.Kogan, Havana 2002. .

b221) 10 ...b6?! 11 l:.b1 lt.Jb4 12 .ie2 �as 13 c3 lt.Jds 14 .ia6+ �b8 15 .id2 and Black is under pressure. b222) 10 ...'ii'h 4+ 11 'iii'fl when Black has a hard time dealing with the threat of �b1. b223)

10 ...e6 11 l:.b1 �c4 (or 12 .id2 l:.xd4 13 .ixc6 bxc6 14 .ixas �xd1+ 15 'iii' xd1 .ixcs 16 �e2 and White has the better endgame) 12 -ixc6 bxc6 13 lbd3 'tWc3+ 14 'tWd2! ? (af­ ter 14 .id2 'W'xd4 15 o-o Bauer assesses the position as unclear, which seems reasonable, althoug h it seems to me that Black's position is the more risky) 14...'ii'xd2+ 15 ..t>xd2 when with l:lb3 ll ...'it'as+

1

...

tt:Jts

35

Beating Unusual Chess Defences: 1 e4 7...es?! is worse: 8 c4 'il'as 9 ds ttJfs 10 a3 (10 ttJgs ! ?) 10 ...�xf3 11 �xf3 ttJcd4 and Black is a tempo down on the main game, which reaches the same position without White having played the useful move a3. After 12 �e4 'itb8 13 o-o White was clearly on top in Z.lzoria-J .Stopa, Richardson 2007.

had good counterplay in P.Scharrer­ A.Panjkovic, Trento 2008) 9 ... �xf3 10 ttJxf3 was K.Spraggett-R.Perez, Figueira da Foz 2008, and now after Bauer's suggestion of 10 ...e6 Bl ack has a decent position with strong pressure against the d4-pawn.

s 8 c31?

This was a novelty which I made up at the board. Having analysed it at home and compared it to the alterna­ tives, I still consider it an interesting attempt for an advantage. The other options include: a) 8 0-0 allows 8 ...ttJcxd4 9 ttJxd4 �xe2 10 1i'xe2 ttJxd4 11 �xd4 'ifxd4 when White should have just enough compensation for the sacrificed pawn, but no real advantage. b) 8 c4 has been tested in a few games, but I prefer not to rush this move as White is rather soft on the dark squares: 8 ...'ifas (Bauer's sugges­ tion of 8 ...'ifd6!? is also interesting) 9 o-o (or 9 dS �xf3 10 �xf3 ttJxe3 11 fxe3 tt:'les 12 o-o e6 13 tt:'lb3 1i'b6 and Black 36

...

es

This certainly seems like the most principled idea for Black. 9 C41

Ironically, after rejecting c2-c4 on the previous move, White plays it a full tempo down! I was quite proud of this novel idea. g 'Was 10 ds ...

The point, of course, is that with ...e6 no longer a possibility, White ob­ tains some much-needed stability in the centre. 10 �xf3 11 �xf3 ttJcd4 ...

A natural move, but it leads to a po­ sition with a stable advantage for White. The critical test of White's idea may well be 11...tt:'Jxe3 12 fxe3 �cs ! ? with extremely double-edged play; Black

Scandinavian Defence deve lops quickly and relies on tactics to keep his position together, although there is an obvious risk that if White man ages to achieve full coordination, a subse quent a3 and b4 could come with considerable force. Practical tests are neede d here, but it looks to me that 13 ·�b 3 ! (13 a3 ..txe3 14 b4 'ii b6 15 cs 'ii'a6 16 ..te2 b5 is messy, but overall Black seems to be at least equal here; also after 13 '1trf2 f5 14 tt'lb3 'iib6 15 tt'lxcs �xes 16 'iib3 tt'le7 Black is fine) 1 3 tt'le7 14 0-0-0 is the critical direc­ tion. ...

12 ..tg4

12 o-o is also good.

the superior minor piece. 17 ... 'ifb6 18 'ifd3 f6 19 lt:Je4 .:the8 20 a3

20 b4! would have been marginally more accurate, as taking the pawn would be much too risky for Black. Fol­ lowing 20 .....tf8 21 l:.b1 White has a slightly improved version of the game, as his rook is more useful on bl than e1. 20.....tf8 21 b4 'ii'e 61?

Bryson exploits the pin on the d-file to evacuate his queen from the danger zone. 22 l:.d1 'ifg4 23 tt'lf2 'ifg6 24 e4 c51?

Otherwise 25 cs would have been highly unpleasant for Black.

12 ... 'it>b8

25 1:.b1?1 13 0-0

13 a3 c6 14 b4 'ii'a6 is rather messy. 13 ...'ifb4

Black hastens to improve his queen before White has time for a3 and b4. 14 .ltxf5 lt:Jxf5 15 'ifc2 tt:Jxe3 16 fxe3 i.c5 17 l:.ae1

The opening has been a success for White, who has a slight lead in devel­ opment, more space in the centre and

Around here I lost the thread slightly. I should explain that this was a local league match with a time control of just one hour for the first thirty moves and I was running low on time. After the correct 25 'ii'e3! l:.c8 26 d6! Black would have been in serious trou­ ble. 25 ... l:.d7 26 tt'ld1 l:.ed8 27 'ii'f3 l:.c8 28 lt:Je3 jf_e7 29 il'f5 ii'xf5 30 l:.xf5 jf_ds 31

37

Beating Un usual Chess Defences: 1 e4 Wf1

It was worth considering 3 1 bS!? �as 32 'iP1'2 �c3 33 'it>e2 �d4 34 g4. intending a minority attack on the king side. 31 ...cxb41? 32 axb4 as!

Bryson takes the opportunity to clear some space for his rooks. I was a bit annoyed with myself for failing to make the most of my position, but for­ tunately even here White keeps a slight plus. 33 bxas �xas 34 �e2 �c3 35 �d3 �d4 36 lDc2 �cs 37 l:.ff1 .:td6 38 l:.b3 :a6 39 l:.a1 :xu 40 lDxa1 �c7 41 l:.bs �g1?

41...b6 was essential.

�c4 �el, although after 48 g4 White still has excellent winning chances. 44 l:.xb6 l:.a3

Black played his last move quickly, so perhaps in those brief few seconds he saw the reply 44...�xcs, but only then noticed the simple refutation, 45 .l:.c6+. 45 �c4 l:.a4+ 46 �bs .:xe4 47 d6+ �cB 48 'it.?c6 1-0

That concludes our coverage of the 3 ...�g4 system. Before moving on to lines with kingside castling, let us con­ sider a slightly different way in which Black may prepare for queenside cas­ tling.

Game l J.Anderson-A.Aasum

Correspondence 2000 1 e4 ds 2 exds 'ii'x ds 3 lDf3 lDc6

42 est

Presumably Black was expecting the lazy 42 h3 , but this pawn is irrelevant as the game will be decided on the queenside. 42 ...l:.a8

42...�xh2 43 d6+ �c6 44 �c4 is hor­ rible for Black. 43 li:Jb3 b6?

Black's last chance was 43 ...l:.a6! 44 d6+ 'itc6 45 l:.as �f2 46 l:.xa6+ bxa6 47 38

This time Black develops the knight before the bishop. The game actually started with the

Scandinavian Defence N imzowitsch Defence move order of 1...tt:'lc6 2 tt:'lf3 d5 3 exd5 'ii'xd5. I won­ dered about classifying it under that opening, but eventually decided that th e character of the game was more in keeping with th e Scandinavian.

to move at such an early stage) 5 ...'�'d8 6 d4 and Black h as tried th ree moves h ere, but none of them come close to equalizing:

4 tt:lc3

White steers th e game towards a main line (i.e. 3 tt:'lc3) Scandinavian in wh ich th e premature development of the knigh t on c6 gives Wh ite some ad­ ditional opportunities. 4 d4 is possible, but th en Wh ite must be ready for 4... e5 ! ? (rather than 4...�g4 5 �e2, transposing to th e first six games). 4 :iVas ..

Th e main line. Black h as tried sev­ eral oth er queen retreats, each of which h ave certain drawbacks, as sh own in th e following lines: a) 4...'ii'd8 5 d4 already leaves Black in some difficulties, bearing in mind th at 5...�g4?! 6 d5! tt:'le5? can be re­ futed by 7 lll xe5! �xd1 8 �b5+ c6 9 dxc6 with a winning position, F.Eid­ G .Wijesurija, Madras 19 95. b) 4...'ii'd6 5 d4 tt:'lf6 6 lll b5 !? 'ii'd8 7 c4 a6 8 tt:lc3 �g4 9 �e3 (9 d5 tt:Je5 10 .te2 is also a touch better for Wh ite) 9 ... e6 10 �e2 �e7 11 o-o o-o 12 h 3 �h 5 13 a3 left Black struggling for counter­ play in T.Airapetian-O.Yuzh akov, Vo­ ronezh 2009. See G ame 8 for more on positions of th is type. c) 4...'ii'h 5 5 tt:'lb5! (5 i.. e 2 is a good alternative, but it is h ard to resist the temptation of forcing the enemy king

c1) 6...a6 7 tt:'lc3 �f5 8 �e2 'ii'g6 was seen in H.Mecking-A.Fernandez, Las Palmas 1975 , and now th e simple 9 tt:'lh4! 'ii'f6 10 tt:'lxf5 'ii'xf5 11 �g4 'ii'g6 12 �f3 leaves Black in a depressing position. c2) 6...lll f6 is playable but uninspir­ ing. The simple 7 �e2 gives White an excellent position, wh ile Kh alifman's suggestion of 7 d5 ! ? is a promising pawn sacrifice. c3) 6...�g4 should be met by 7 �f4! when th e attack on c7 is awkward. Two replies h ave been tested: c31) 7...�xf3 8 'ii'xf3 'ii'xf3 9 gxf3 a6 10 lll xc7 l:tc8 11 lll d5 'ite8 (11 ...tt:'lxd4? 12 0-0-0 wins a piece) 12 o-o-o and Wh ite was a pawn up for no compen­ sation in R.Wittmann-G.Moser, Wuert­ temberg 2000. c32) 7...a6 8 d5 (8 lll xc7 l:tc8 9 d5 is also strong) 8 ...i.. xf3 9 gxf3 (White can even consider 9 dxc6+!? ..ltxdl 10 cxb7 39

Beating Unusual Chess Defences: 1 e4 ltb8 11 �xc7+ �d7 12 .i.xb8 with more than enough compensation for the queen) 9 ...lue5 10 lt:\d4 lt:\f6 11 'iWe2 lt:\g6 12 .i.g3 �c8 1 3 o-o-o and Black's position was a disorganized, underde­ veloped mess in S.Sop-E.Kaplan, Kayseri 2010. Returning to 4...'iWa5:

hopeless after 10 lt:\g 5 lt:\f6 1 1 'iWd1 axb5 12 lt:\xf7. 6 o-o a6

Instead 6...0-o-o 7 d4 (7 l:.e1 is a g ood alternative) 7 ... e6! ? (7...a6 8 .i.xc6 �xc6 9 lt:\e5 transposes to note 'b' to Black's 8 th move, below) 8 a3!? intends �e3 followed by b4, embarrassing the black queen. Black has attempted to thwart this plan with 8 ...i.b4 in a few g ames, but then the witty 9 l:.b1! i.xc3 10 bxc3 g ave White excellent prospects in V.Cotos-V.Mamonovas, correspon­ dence 2005. 7 i.xc6 i.xc6 8 d4

S �b SI 5 d4 can be met by 5...�g4 followed by castling with interesting play for Black, but White has a more promising way to target the knight on c6. s ..td7 ...

5....i.g4 6 h3 .i.h5 7 'iWe2!? (7 g4 �g6 8 lt:\e5 0-0-0! was somewhat better for White, but still not altogether clear in R.Garside-A.Stewart, correspondence 1988) 7 ... e6? (7... 0-0-0 is better, but 8 .i.xc6 bxc6 9 g4 �g6 10 lt:\e5 is still ex­ cellent for White) was seen in P.Gutierrez Castillo-V.Smirnov, Sydney 2007, and here White overlooked a nice shot: 8 'iWe5! o-o-o (White was threat­ ening to win the queen) 9 'iWxh5 a6 when Black narrowly avoids losing a whole piece, but his position remains 40

Black has the two bishops, but he is behind in development and the threat of lt:\e5 is not easy to meet. 8 f6?1 ...

Black resorts to drastic measures to stop his opponent's idea, but he is play­ ing with fi re, making such a move while behind in development. He should have tried one of the following alternatives, not that any of them look particularly appealing: a) 8 ...lt:\f6 is too sim plistic and 9 lLies

Scandinavian Defence is rather awkward for Black. b) 8 ...e6 9 tt::les �d6 10 tt::l xc6 bxc6 11 'lig4 tt::l e7 was seen in M.Rabrenovic­ V.Zolotukhin, Budva 2009. At this point it seems to me that White could have safely grabbed the g-pawn and, i ndeed, after 12 "ii'xg7 "ii' hs (or 12...l:.g8 13 'lixh7) 13 g3 l:.g8 14 "ii'h6 Black does not have enough compensation. c) 8 ..."ii'hs 9 dS o-o-o was tried i n R.Felgaer-N.Vlassov, Moscow 2004.

Now 10 "ii'd4! tt::l f6 (or 10 ...'it>b8 11 ..te3 b6 12 g4! when the black queen runs out of squares) 11 tt::l es tt::l xds 12 tt::lxc6 bxc6 13 "ii'a7 would have put Black in trouble. d) 8 ...0-0-o has been the most popu­ lar move, but Black has problems here too after 9 tt::l es �e8 10 b4! "ii'b6 (after 10...'lixb4 11 'lif3 'lixd4 12 l:tb1 c6 13 ..tf4 Whi te had a huge i ni ti ati ve i n A.Vunder-K.Alekseenko, St Petersburg 2 008) 11 �e3. Black has tri ed two moves here, but hi s problems are se­ vere i n both cases: d1) 11...f6 12 tt::l d3 'lic6 13 tbcs e6 was reached in S.Zei dler-M.Si mons,

British League 2007, and here White should have chosen either 14 'lie2 or 14 'lig4, wi th difficult problems for Black i n both cases. d2) 11... e6 was Black's choice i n the most frequently quoted game in this variation, whi ch continued as follows: 12 l:.b1 f6 13 tt::l c4 (13 ds and 13 'lif3!? both look promising as well) 13 ... 'lic6 14 tt::l as ! 'lixc3 15 l:.b3 �xb4 16 l:.xc3 �xc3. Black has suffi cient materi al for the queen and seems to be survi ving, but White's next move shatters any such i llusions.

17 tt::l xb7! Wxb7 18 'ir'h1+ (18 'lig4 and l:.b1+ was also crushing) 18 ...'it>a8 19 'irb3 �xd4 20 ..i.xd4 ..i.bs 21 c4 �c6 22 'lia3 �b7 23 'lies ..ti>b8 24 l:.b1 �c8 25 "ii'a7 1-0 J.Emms-L.Kri stensen, Esbjerg 19 96. Returning to 8 ...f6: 9 d 51

9 �e3 and 9 "ii'e2 both gi ve White some advantage, but the text move is by far the most energeti c continuation. Whi te gives up at least one pawn in order to i ncrease his advantage in de­ velopment. 41

Beating Un u s ual Chess Defences: 1 e4 9 ... 0-0-0 10 b41

11.....tbs?l

Allowing White to open additional lines on the queenside. 11.....td7 was a better try, although 12 'ir'e2! ? will leave Black hard-pressed to defend against the impending attack along the b-file, but 12 l:.b1 'ir'c4 is not so clear. 12 .:f.b1 'ir'cs 13 tLlxbs axbs

This is the key idea which justifies White's previous move. 10 .. .'�Wxb4

10 ...'�b6 is no better: 11 l:.b1 ..txd5 (the tactical skirmish will end in White's favour, but Black had no real choice as i.e3 was a terrible threat) 12 tbxd5 'ir'c6 13 c4 e6 (if 13 ...'ir'xc4 14 tLle3) 14 ..tf4! exd5 15 tbd4 'ir'd7 16 c5! and Black is a pawn up, but he is about to be annihilated on the queenside. 11 i.d2

Breaking the pin along the d-file while threatening to harass Black's queen.

14 a41

Beginning a cascade of sacrifices, which sees White losing all his queen­ side pawns but developing a crushing attack in the process. 14... bxa4

After 14...'ir'xd5 15 l:.xb5 White will soon break through on the b-file. 15 c41 'ir'xc4

At least Black is playing consis­ tently, grabbing every pawn in sight. 15...e6 was no better in view of 16 'ii'xa4 'ir'a3 17 'ir'c2 or 16 l:.b4! ? exd5 17 l:.xa4, with a decisive attack in both cases. 16 l:.b4 •xds 17 'ifxa4 es 18 l:.bsl

This clever move exploits the fact that the queen has no satisfactory es­ cape square. 42

Scandinavian Defence

Game S A.Grischuk-M.Feygin

European Club Cup, Ohrid 2009, 1 e4 d5 2 exd s 'Wi'xd s 3 lt::lf3 lt::lf6

3 ...es?! is a questionable sideline which will be examined in the next g ame. 4 d4 18... ..tcs

Losing without a fight, but the alternatives 18 ...1i'c6 19 l:r.cl, 18 ...1i'd6 19 i.b4, and 18 ...1i'e6 19 .l:.as were all equally hopeless. 19 ..te3 b6 20 ..txcs 1i'b7

Or 20...bxcs 21 l:r.fbl and Black can resign. 21 ..txb6 cxb6 22 �c1+ Wb8 23 1i'b4 1-0

A great g ame by Anderson. We will now tum our attention to s et-ups in which Black aims for solidity through short castling.

Part 2 Set-ups with short castling after 2 \i'xdS -

•••

So far we have focused on variations involving long castling from Black. This is certainly the most critical direction, but there are many players who prefer to avoid a sharp theoretical fig ht, in­ stead opting to defend a slightly worse position. In the next g ame a world­ cl ass player demonstrates how to make an opponent suffer in j ust such a s itua­ tion.

White's typical plan over the next few moves is un assuming but nonethe­ less quite promising : the bishop will go to e2 and the king will park itself on g1, while the c-pawn will advance to c4 and the knig ht will follow behind on C3 . It is at this point that the advantage of the present s et-up over the 3 ltJc3 Scandinavian becomes clear. In that variation the c3 -knig ht is poorly placed and White will often go out of his way to relocate or exchang e it. In the pre­ sent sys tem White takes his time, but ensures that when the knight does come forwards, it will be to a quality square. 43

Beating Unusual Chess Defences: 1 e4

Black has several ways of arranging his pieces. In the majority of cases White's next few moves will be roughly the same, as will his general strategy of developing soundly and maintaining his extra space in the centre. Here is a brief summary of the range of set-ups available to Black: a) 4...l2Jc6 gives White the option of 5 l2Jc3 'ifa5 6 ..tb5 transposing to Game 7. although 5 c4!? followed by a quick d5 may be an even better way of em­ barrassing the knight. b) 4...g6 5 c4 'ii'd6 (5...'ii'd8 trans­ poses to G ame 10, which reaches the same position via the move order of 2...l2Jf6 3 l2Jf3 l2Jxd5 4 d4 g6 5 c4 l2Jf6) 6 l2JC3 ..tg7 7 ..te2 o-o 8 o-o and White has the better prospects, as illustrated in the following two examples:

b2) 8 .....tg4 9 ..te3 a6 1 0 'ifb3 l2Jc6 11 l:tfd1 (11 l:tad1 is equally good) 11 ...l2Ja5 12 'ifa4 b6 13 c5! when White has some After initiative. inaccurate the 13 ...'ifd7?! 14 'ifxd7 l2Jxd7 15 l2Jd5 bxc5 16 h3!? ..txf3 17 ..txf3 .:ab8 of M.Godena-B.Kurajica, Solin 2007, fol­ lowing 18 l2Jxe7+ Wh8 19 b3 cxd4 20 ..txd4 Black faces a depressing end­ game. c) 4.....tf5 5 ..te2 e6 (5...c6 reaches the note to Black's fifth move in the main game; here we see Black attempt­ ing to save time by doing without this move, but to no great avail) 6 0-0 ..te7 7 c4 'ifd8 8 l2Jc3 0-0 9 l2Jh4 .i.g6 10 l2Jxg6 hxg6 11 i.e3 and White has a stable edge thanks to his bishop pair and cen­ tral control, W.Hoellrigl-K.Roos, Seefeld 1997. d) 4...i.g4

bl) 8 ... a6 9 h3 ..tf5 10 ..te3 l2Je4 11 l2Jd5 'ifd8 12 .i.f4 l2Jd6 13 l2Jc3 c6 14 l:te1 b5 15 c5 l2Je4 was M.Malloni­ N.N apoli, Rome 2009, and here 16 tLle5! intending ..if3 would have been nice for Whi te.

5 .i.e2 e6 (Black plays just as in the main game, but once again he hopes to gain time by omitting ... c6, perhaps aiming to play ...cs in one move) 6 0-0 .i.e7 7 c4 'ii'd8 8 l2Jc3 o-o 9 ..ie3 (White has no reason to alter his development)

4 c6 ...

44

Scandinavian Defence 9 .. lbbd7 10 'ii'b3! ? 'jWc8 (or 10 ... b6 11 .

_:ad1) 11 h3 i.. hs 12 l:.ad1 a6 13 'jWe2 (13 g4! ? i.. g6 14 tt:Jh4) 13...cs 14 ds exds 15 tt:Jxds tt:Jxds 16 l:.xds tt:Jf6 17 .l:!d2 ..C7.

We have been following the game J.Rowson-A.Martin, Southend 2002. Both sides have played consistently and at this point the most logical continua­ tion looks to be 18 tt:Jh4! ? i.. xe2 19 J:txe2 when White maintains slightly the better prospects. Return ing to 4...c6: 5 �e2 i..g4 The alternative bishop develop­ ment, s ...�fS, also falls slightly short of equality: 6 0-0 e6 7 c4 'jWd8 8 tt:Jc3 �e7 9 ti:Jh4!? (going after the bishop; 9 �e3 was a good alternative) 9 ...i.. g6 10 tt:Jxg6 hxg6 11 i.. e3 i.. d6. This position was reached in P.Dobrowolski-M.Stein, Zakopane 2000, and now 12 g3! would have been the right way to thwart the attack on the h-pawn whil e restricting Black's remaining bishop. 6 0-0 e6 7 c4 'jWd6

The queen can also go to d8, but the

general character of the game remains the same. Compared with the sharp lines in which Black castled on the queenside, here I see no great value in paying close attention to every possible set-up and move order, as the play is generally of a non-forcing character and White's general strategy remains the same in practically all lines. By now we have seen a good selection of illus­ trative game references, so from this point we will mainly focus on G ris­ chuk's instructive handling of the white position. 8 ti:Jc3 �e7 9 i..e3

This is White's typical scheme of de­ velopment. Over the next few moves he will place his queen on d2 (or perhaps b3), followed by the rooks on d1 and e1 in most cases. 9 0-0 10 ..d2 Another idea is 10 tt:Jes ! ? �xe2 11 'jWxe2 tt:Jbd7, as in M.Kalinina-O.Bulakh, Evpatoria 2007, and now 12 f4 would have been consistent, intending l:.ad1 with a slight edge to White. ...

10 �xf3 ...

45

Beating Unusual Chess Defences: 1 e4 I am not sure why Black chose to make this exchange at this particular moment. It would probably have been better to wait for a move or two, al­ though the general evaluation of the game remains about the same: White has a slight but pleasant edge and Black will struggle to generate coun­ terplay. Here are a couple of other practical examples: a) 10 ....:f.e8 11 .:tfd1 (11 .:tad1!?) 11...tt:Ja6 12 a3 ..txf3 13 ..txf3 tt:Jc7 14 g4! ? (14 ..tf4 �d7 15 ..te5 is a good al­ ternative)

Black had failed to equalize in any case) 13 tt:Jd5! 'ii'xd2 (the computer suggests the exchange sacrifice 13....:txd5!?, al­ though Black would clearly have been struggling here too) 14 tt:Jxe7+ �8 15 tt:Jg6+ hxg6 was the course of V.Lezhepekova-A.Rakhmangulova, Her­ ceg N ovi 2008. Here the most accurate continuation would have been 16 .:txd2 intending h3 when Black will be virtu­ ally forced to exchange on f3, leaving White with two bishops against two knights, which adds up to a substantial and risk-free advantage. 11 ..txf3

14 ... g6? (Black should have pre­ ferred 14....:ted8, creating an escape square on e8 for the knight) 15 g5 tt:Jh5 (1S ...tDd7?? 16 tt:Je4 traps the queen) 16 tt:Je4 �d8 17 ..txh5 gxh5 18 �e2 and Black was already busted in M.Pruja Ramirez de Cartagen-C.Coll Ortega, Vila Seca 2010. b) 10....:td8 11 .:tfd1 (11 .:tfe1 and 11 a3!? were decent alternatives) 11...�4 12 b3 (another idea was 12 tt:Je5!? ..txe2 1 3 �xe2 tt:Jbd7 14 f4! with a slight edge) 12...'1!Vas?! (slightly careless, but 46

White's bishop pair gives him a long-term advantage. 11 ... .:f.d8 12 .:tfd1 tt:Jbd7 13 .:tac1 �c7 14 �e2 .:te8

The rook is determined to maintain its distant observation of the white queen. 15 g3 .:tad8 16 ..tg2

There is no need for White to rush into a direct conflict, so G rischuk wisely spends a few moves tidying up his kingside.

Scandinavian Defence 16 ... a6

Black continues to wait. The at­ t empt to play actively with 16...es sh ould be met by 17 dS when White stands better - compare Game 39 in Chapter Five (Mamedov-Mirzoev) .

11 h3 i.d6 18 a3 e5

with the same general idea, but with­ out giving away any dark squares in the centre. 24 ... h6 25 f4 tZ:lg6 26 f5 lLle5 27 'ii'f2 l:.d8

Black could have minimized his dis­ advantage with 27...i.e7! intending ...i. d8 - C7. 28 'ii'd 2 i.e7 29 i.f2 .l:td7 30 'ii'e 2 'ii'c7 31 l:.xd7 ttJfxd7 32 i.g3 i.f6

It was worth considering 32...as ! ? to begin liquidating the queenside pawns, although Black's position would still remain somewhat unpleas­ ant. In the game we see Grischuk main­ taining control while gradually creep­ ing forwards: 33 ttJe4 'ii'd 8 34 ttJd6 b6 35 cxb6 'ii'xb6+ 19 c51

36 i.f2 'ii'b8 37 ttJe4 'ii'b 5 38 ttJxf6+

19 ds was a decent alternative, but th e text move is the strongest. White gains additional space and creates a dark-squared pawn wedge which re­ stricts the enemy bishop.

ttJxf6 39 'ii'x b5 axb5

19 ...i.f8 20 b4 exd4 2 1 :txd4 ttJe5 22 .l:tcd1 :txd4 23 l:.xd4 'ii'c 8

White has a clear strategic advan­ tage thanks to his two bishops and ex­ tra space. looking ahead to a future endgame, we may note that Black's queenside pawns have already been fixed on light squares. 24 g41?

For the time being it is diffi cult to i mprove White's pieces, so G rischuk decides that a kingside advance is the best way to make progress. It was worth considering 24 f4 tt:lg6 2 5 'ifd3

It is hard to say if this position is technically winning for White, but it is certainly not far off. This is not an end­ game book and I have no intention of discovering the ultimate truth of the position h ere, so I will keep the remain­ ing comments to a minimum. 47

B e a t i n g U n u s u a l C h e s s D efe n ce s :

1

40 �g3 tt::lfd7 41 ..W2 f6 42 �e3 �7 43 �d4 �e7 44 �e4 �d6 45 .tc2 c1iie 7 46 �d1 �d8

Presumably Black rejected 46 ...tt::l c4 on account of 47 a4 tt::lb 2 48 axbs tt:Jxdl 49 bxc6 tt::lb 6 so bs, which indeed looks extremely dangerous for him.

e4 Feygin has defended stubbornly, but he finally cracks. It was essential to play 77 ... tt::ld 3 or 77 ... tt::lf 3, both of which would have left White with plenty of work to do. 78 �b7 tt:Jde5 79 ..tf41

47 h4 �e7 48 ..tf4 �dB 49 g5 hxg5 50 hxg5 �e7 51 g61

When pressing in an endgame, it is almost always useful to establish a pawn so close to its promotion square. 51...�e8

Sl ... 'it>d8? can now be refuted by 52 ..th6, so Black's movements are even more limited than before. 52 ..tb3'i;e7 53 ..tgs tt::lf3+ 54 �e3 tt:Jfe5 55 'it>e4 ..Ws 56 .tb3 �e7 57 .te3 tt::lg4

Zugzwang.

58 ..tf4 tt:Jge5 59 .te6 �e8

79...We7

Despite his dominating position, White still has no immediate win, so Grischuk continues to wear his oppo­ nent down while gradually preparing to break on the queenside with a4.

There was nothing better: a) After 79 ... cs 80 bs the b-pawn de­ cides the issue. b) 79 ...tt::lf2 loses to 80 .txeS+ or 80 ..th6. c) 79 .. .'it'd7 So .te6+ �dB 81 �b6 tt::ld 3 82 ..td6 and White is winning: for instance, 82 ...tt:Jges 83 .tfS tt::ld 7+ 84 .txd7 'itr>xd7 85 �b7 'l;eS 86 .txg7 <J/;e7 87 .1h6 tt:Jxb4 88 .te3 when White picks up the c-pawn and Black is un­ able to sacrifice his knight for White's two remaining pawns.

60 ..te3 �e7 61 ..ta7 �d6 62 ..tf2 �e7 63 ..tg3 �e8 64 'itr>d4 tt::lf3+ 65 �d3 tt:Jfe5+ 66 �c3 �e7 67 .tf2 'itr>d6 68 ..te3 �e7 69 'itr>b3 tt::lg4 70 ..tg1 tt:Jge5 71 a4 bxa4+ 72'i;xa4 tt::ld 3 73'i;a5

White could have put the result be­ yond doubt by means of 73 .txd7! 'l;xd7 74 .1d4 (threatening to take on f6) 74 ... 'itr>e8 75 ..tcs when Black's king is paralysed by the need to prevent .tf8 and he has no good defence against �aS-b6.

so 1;c7 tt::lf2 81 .txe5 fxe5 82 'it>xc6

White finally wins a pawn and the passed b-pawn decides the game. 82...tt::ld 3 83 b5 e4 84 b6 e3 85 ..i.d1

n ...tt::l7 e5 74 .tb3 �d6 75 .te3 tt::lg4 76

lLles+ 86 d5 lLld7 87 b7 f6 88 'it>d6

.td2 lLldes 77 �b6 lLld7+?

lLlb8 89 .te2 1-0

48

Sca ndin a vi a n Defe n ce The following game is the last in the 2 .. .'ii'xd5 section. It features a dubious move order which is rarely played, but we should consider it anyway in order to inflict the maximum punishment on any opponent who dares to chance it.

Game 9 S.Lakatos-M.Marchisotti

Correspondence 2003 1 e4 ds 2 exds 'ii'x ds 3 tt:'lf3 es?l

Black plays the very move which White's third move was designed to prevent! (Compare the position after 3 d4, after which 3 ... e5 is quite respect­ able.) 4 tt:Jc3

order was 1 ... e5 2 tt:'lf3 d5 3 exd5 'ii'xd5 ?! 4 tt:'lc3. 4...'ii'e 6 5 ..te2

White is spoiled for choice with 5 ..tb5+! ? being a promising alternative. s ...csl?

another makes Black nondeveloping move in an effort to keep the centre closed. 5 ... tt:Jc6 can be a considered a re­ versed Centre Game (1 e4 e5 2 d4 exd4 3 'ii'xd4 tt:'lc6, etc) with a full extra tempo for White; a significant asset, considering his development advan­ tage and the awkward position of the enemy queen in the centre. Following 6 o-o ..td7 7 d4 exd4 8 tt:Jxd4 tt:Jxd4 9 'ii'xd4 White was clearly better in A.Kolev-J.Llacuna Roca, Salou 2005. 6 o-o tt:Jc6 7 ..tbs f6 8 d3 tt:Jge7

White has an improved version of a normal Scandinavian, as he can use the pawn on e5 as a lever to open up the centre and exploit his advantage in development. Just as in some other games, I have adapted the move order to fit our pur­ poses. In this instance the actual move

9 tt:'ld21

9 .:tel is a decent move, but White is playing with a clear plan of opening the f-file. g ...tt:Jfs 10 ..tc4 'ii'd 7 11 tt:Jde4 'itdS?I

Black's position was already diffi­ cult, but this was hardly the way to go 49

B e a ting U n u s u a l Ch e s s D efe n ces:

1

about improving it. 12 f41

Simple and strong. Black's play has not been of the highest quality, but when you have a difficult position as early as move 4 these things can hap­ pen. I will keep the remaining com­ ments fairly light. 12... hs 13 fxes tt:Jxes 14 i.f4 tt:Jg6

e4 Putting even greater pressure on the defender by threatening to open the centre. 24...l:le8 25 l:lad1 c4 26 lt:J2g3 ..tf8 27 tt:Jxhs

White picks up a pawn without re­ linquishing any of his other advan­ tages. Black fights hard, but eventually succumbs. 21 ...l:lc6 28 tllf4 tllxf4 29 'ilt'xf4 �d s 30

After 14...tllxc4 15 dxc4 'i'Vxd1 16 l:laxdl+ intending tt:Jbs Black has seri­ ous problems.

tt:Jcs l:lc7 3 1 c3 b3 32 a6 l:lc8 33 'ifg3

15 'i'Vd2 b6 16 i.ds

tt:Je4 'ilt'g6 37 'ifh 3 l:lcd8 38 tlld 2 <j;g8 39

16 l:lae1 ..ib7 17 tt:Jbs tt:Jxf4 18 'ilt'xf4 a6 19 i.e6! ? 'ilt'xbs 20 i.xfs was also strong.

tt:Jxc4 l:lxe1 40 l:lxe1 l:.e8 41 l:lf1 l:le2

'ilt'hs 34 �h1 <j;e7 35 l:lde1+ rJif7 36

16.....ib7 17 ..txb7 'ilt'xb7

18 a41

Black seems to have obtained some activity, but White has everything un­ der control. It is important that the knight can maintain its defence of the b2-pawn from a stable position.

White has done everything right so far and now he opens a second front of attack.

'ifxe4 l:lxe4 46 tt:Ja s l:le2 47 tt:Jxb3 l:lxb2

18 ...'ilt'd7 19 aS bS 20 'ilt'f2 ..ie7 21 ..ie31

48 tlld 4

Better than 21 tt:Jxcs ..txcs 22 'ilt'xcs 'ilt'd4+ 23 'ilt'xd4+ tt:Jxd4 which gives Black some chances to resist.

White remains two pawns up and the troublesome b-pawn has perished. The rest is easy.

21 ...lt:Jxe3 22 'ilt'xe3 b4 23 lt:Je2 l:lc8 24

48... l:.d2 49 l:.b1 ..tcs so l:.b7 .ltxd4 51 cxd4 l:.xd4 52 l:.d7 fs 53 �g1 f4 54 <M2

d41

50

42 �f3 'ife8 43 h3 'ife6 44 dS 'ife4 45

Sca n din a vi a n D efe n ce l:.d3 55 l:.xa7 llxds 56 l:.c7 lias 57 a7 'it>h7 58 �3 l:ta4 59 h4 �h6 60 �g4 1-0

With that final minor line out of the way, it is time to move on to Black's other significant second move.

Part 3

-

2

tt:Jf6

...

Game 1 0 K.Norchenko-K.Kmiecik

Correspondence 2010

point is that after 3 d4 Black has an interesting option in 3 ... �g4!?. This move is probably not entirely sound, but it forces White to learn another set of variations, which most of us would prefer to avoid if given the choice. Oc­ casionally Black chooses to meet 3 ll:lf3 with 3 ... �g4?!, but White can maintain an advantage by relatively simple means, as shown in the notes to Game 12. 3 ...ll:lxd s

Instead 3 ... 'ii'x d5 4 d4 was seen in Game 8.

1 e4 dS 2 exds ll:lf6

4 d4

Black intends to capture on ds with the knight, although occasionally he switches plans and reverts back to do­ ing so with the queen. He also tries to lure his opponent into grabbing a pawn with 3 c4, but such a course of action has never interested me. 3 lLlf3 Once again, a note about the move order. This game actually continued 3 d4 lLlxds 4 lLlf3 g6 5 c4, but I find the 3 lLlf3 move order more convenient. One

Broadly speaking, White's strategy will be the same as we saw in Game 8 and its accompanying notes. White will castle short and play c4 and lLlc3, in one order or another. However, the present variation differs in that Black has some significant ways to sharpen the game, so White must be prepared for a tactical fight should the position on the board demand it. 4 g6 ...

The main alternative of 4...�g4 is 51

B e a t i n g U n u s u a l C h e s s D efe n ce s :

1

e4

the subject of Game 11, while 4 .....i.fs and other alternatives will be consid­ ered in Game 12.

..i.a6! and White won material i n Kr.Georgiev-L.Pecot, Maromme 1994.

5 c41

8 ... c6 is less challenging and after 9 0-0 0-0 10 l:.e1 Black has a hard time, as demonstrated by the following exam­ ples:

The move order is important; in or­ der to achieve the set-up I have in mind, White must chase the knight from the centre before developing any more kingside pieces. s tt:lb6 s ...tt:lf6 is not a bad move, but the knight blocks the long diagonal and h ampers Black's counterplay, so this is rarely seen. After 6 tt:lc3 ..i.g7 7 h3!? (it is worth investing a tempo to prepare .ii.e 3 without allowing ... tt:lg4) 7 ... 0-0 8 .ii.e 3 White has a slight but stable edge and it is hard to suggest a way for Black to generate counterplay. ...

6 tt:lc3 ..i.g7 7 csl

The point of White's play is to de­ velop the bishop on the active c4square instead of e2. 7 tt:ld s ...

7 ... tt:l6d7 8 ..i.c4 0-0 9 0-0 gives White easy play: for instance, 9 ... b6 10 l:e1 �b7 11 �g s lLlf6 12 lLles l2Jc6? 13 52

8 ..i.c4 tt:lxc3

a) I encountered 10...tt:lxc3 in a blitz game a few years ago: 11 bxc3 bS?! (Black was worse anyway, but he should at least have kept the option of ... b6) 12 ..i.b3 ..i.g4 13 ..i.gs ..i.f6 14 ..i.xf6 exf6 15 h 3 ..i.fs 16 a4! as 17 'ir'e2 bxa4 18 l:txa4 when White had a huge ad­ vantage in A.Greet-H.Stefansson, Bei­ jing (blitz) 2008. I made a complete mess of the position, as can happen in blitz, but eventually picked up a 'right­ ful' victory after my opponent mishan­ dled a rook endgame while playing for a win. b) 10 .....i.g4 11 ..i.g s tt:lf6 12 h3 ..i.xf3 13 'ir'xf3 tt:lbd7 14 b4 h6 15 ..i.h4 e6 16 l:.ad1 and White was in full control in P.Smirnov-E.Prokopchuk, Nefteyugansk 2002. 9 bxc3

Sca n di n a vian Defe n ce lent chances) 16 ..txe6 fxe6 17 lLlf3 !? (17 dxc5 also gives White a clear plus) 17 .. .l::tf 6 18 lLlg 5 'ii'd 5 19 lLle4 Black faced insurmountable problems in Y.Quesada Perez-F.Rodriguez. Cuba 2000. 11 l:te1 ..tg4 12 ..tgs

The change in the pawn structure is not unfavourable to White, whose d4pawn enjoys secure protection. 9...0-0 10 0-0

Both sides continue to develop rap­ idly and the game is nearing its critical phase. 12 h61 ••.

10. .lLlc61 .

Playing for ... e5 looks like the most principled idea for Black. 10...b6 enables White to obtain g ood play as follows: 11 .l:.e1 ! ? bxc5 12 .ig5 �f6 13 �h6 �g7 14 �xg7 �xg7 15 lLle5 ! , which is a promising sacrifice. After 15 ... ..te6?! (Black immediately falters; 15 ... cxd4? 16 lLlxf7 and 15 ... c6 16 d5! were also difficult for him, so 15 ... e6 looks best, although 16 'ii'f3 c6 17 dxc5 'ii'e 7 18 'ii'e 3 gives White excel-

Time is of the essence! Indeed, 12 ...'ii'd 7 is too slow and White gains a comfortable edge after 13 h 3 ..txf3 14 'ii'xf3 e6 (also after 14 ... e5 15 d5 lLla5 16 c6 bxc6 17 dxc6 'ii'f5 18 'ii'xf5 gxf5 19 ..td5 Black has some problems) 15 .l:.ab1 l:.ab8 16 h4 h6 17 ..tf6 by when her advantage was becoming quite serious in J.Jackova-A.Koubkova, Kla­ tovy 1998. 13 �h4 g51

Once again Black has no time to lose. He must execute the intended ...e5 as quickly as possible and if he has to weaken his king side then so be it. 14 �g3 es

53

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess D efe n ces:

1

The consistent move. others: a) 14 ... e6? is too slow and after 15 .:tb1 the initiative is with White. b) 14...b6 is not a bad move, al­ though it seems less principled than the text. Here 15 h3 .i.h 5 16 .i.e2 e6 (16 ... bxc5 17 "ir'a4 lLlb8 18 .:tad1! gives White fine compensation, as pointed out by Donev) 17 "ir'a4 ltJe7 occurred in N.De Firmian-T.Thorhallsson, Akureyri 1994, and now 18 "ir'a3 ! ? looks logical, reinforcing the c5-pawn and keeping the more active position. 15 ds lLlas 16 ..tf1

We have reached a critical position, from which Black can try a few differ­ ent ideas. 16 Jie81? Apart from this sensible continua­ tion, we should also consider: a) 16 ... e4! ? is a reasonable move which has not yet been tested: 17 .:txe4 �xf3 (after 17 .. .f5 18 .:txg4 fxg4 19 tt:le5 White has great compensation for the exchange) 18 "ir'xf3 "ir'xd5 19 .:td1 "ir'xc5 20 .:td7 "ir'xc3 21 "ir'f5 lLlc6 22 Jl.xe7! and White keeps some initiative, as pointed ..

54

e4 out by Roiz. b) 16 ... c6 17 d6 f6 18 h3 .i.d7 was played in D.Lima-E.Scarella, Buenos Aires 2005. Now 19 tt:ld2! looks logical, intending lLlb3. c) 16 ...f6 17 h3 (17 �a4!? .i.xf3 18 gxf3 is also interesting; Black should respond with 18 ... b6!, rather than 18 ... c6 19 d6 b6 20 �h3 ! ) 17 ....i.h5

18 'ii'd 3! c6 was the course of A.Kovalev-D.Pluemer, Dresden 2009. At this point Watson points out the im­ provement 19 d6! when White has some initiative: for instance, 19 ...b6 20 'ii'f5 bxc5 21 .:tad1 with more than enough compensation. 17 'ii'a 41? White allows his kingside structure to be damaged, hoping to develop strong play on the light squares. 17 h3 ..th 5 18 'ii'd 3 looks like a sensible alter­ native, after which I also prefer White's position - compare note 'c' to Black's last move. 17 .i.xf3 18 gxf3 b6 ...

With the positional threat of ... tt:lb7, forcing the c-pawn to give way, after

Sca n d i n a vi a n Defe n ce which the knight can settle on the d6square. If Black can achieve this then he will stand better, so White must react energetically.

.l:.bd8 26 .l:.d4 •d6 27 .l:.e3

19 ..tbsl :fa

27...fs 28 .teal

19 ...l:.e7 looks more natural. Pre­ sumably Black was put off by 20 .l:.adl tLlb7 21 d6, although the position after 21 ... l:te6 is by no means easy to assess.

A remarkable i dea. The bishop does not really threaten anything, but it pre­ vents the enemy pieces from using the f7- and g6-squares. Furthermore, I can imagine this move having a strong psychological impact, as there is some­ thing unsettling about an enemy piece lodging itself deep in the innermost reaches of one's defensive fortress.

20 l:.ad1

The ds-pawn was en prise. 20...tt::lb 7

White's extra space and control over the e-file are more significant than his pawn weaknesses.

28 ...�h8 29 C4 .f6 30 .l:.d1 g4?1

Initiating a tactical sequence which favours White. 30 ... l:tg8 was better. In this case White retains the upper hand and could slowly aim to open the kingsi de, but the defender remains solidly placed for the time being. 3 1 fxg4 tL\e4 32 gxfS tLlc3 3 3 .l:.xc3 •xc3 21 i.c6l

This temporary pawn sacrifice en­ ables White to maintain the initiative.

Black has picked up an extra ex­ change in return for two pawns, but White's bishop has become powerful.

21 ... tL\xcs 22 •c2 l:tb8

34 i.g6 l:.d7

The exchange sacrifice 22 .. .f6 23 ii.xa8 •xa8 looks tempting; the bishop on g3 is entombed and if Black can find time to harmonize his pieces then he will stand better. Fortunately White can throw a spanner in the works with 24 •g6!, after which 24 ...•e8 25 •xe8 l:txe8 26 f4! liberates the bishop and thus gives White excellent winning chances in the endgame. 23 �xes �xes 24 .l:.xes •f6 2S 'ii'e 2 55

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess Defe n ces:

1

35 -.e31 Wxe3

Leading to a difficult endgame, but 3 S ... Wg7 36 'it>hl .:te7 37 •d2 intending l:tgl was also unappealing for Black.

e4 Black resigned as h e i s helpless against the plan of e6 and �d7.

Game 1 1 J.Noomen-T.Thomson

36 fxe3 .:te7

Alternatively after 36 ... 'it>g7 37 'it>f2 f6 38 Wf3 'it>es 39 .:td4! White drives the king away.

Correspondence 2004

37 Wf2 .:te4 38 Wf31

1 e4 d5 2 exd5 4Jf6 3 4Jf3 4Jxd5 4 d4

White can afford to let the c-pawn go - it is the central pawns which must be advanced!

i.g4

38 .. J1xc4

38 ... .:th4 39 e4 does not change much. 39 e4 'it>g7 40 e5 .:tc3+ 41 'ite4 l:tc4+ 42 'it>e3 l:tc5

42 ... l:d8 would have been met by 43 i.h s ! followed by f6+. 43 .:tg11

This is Black's second most popular reply, after 4 ... g6. Black develops the bishop actively in preparation for ... e6, but the downside is that the bishop may become a target, as occurs in the present game. 5 h3

Powerful play from Norchenko, who has seen that he can give up another pawn in order to continue advancing his two passers. 43 ....:txd5 44 f6+ 'ith8 45 'it>e4 l:td2 46 f7! .:txa2 47 'iW5 l:tf2+ 48 'Ot>e6 l:.b8 49 rt;e7 1-0

56

Generally it is useful for White to insert this move, in order to be able to throw in g2-g4 at a moment's notice. 5 c4 has certain advantages, though: for instance, after s ...4Jb6 6 cs tt:Jds (6...4J6d7 should have been pre­ ferred) 7 �3 b6?? 8 tt:Jes I picked up an easy point in A.Greet-Jos.Hall, Frome 2006, as the attack on the g4-bishop, combined with the threat of a check on

Sca n d i n a vi a n Defe n ce b5, meant that Black was losing a piece by force. s ... ..t h s 5 ...i.xf3 6 �xf3 is hardly worth ana­ lysing seriously. White has a space ad­ vantage and two bishops, which should be enough to ensure a lasting advan­ tage. 6 c4

Just as in the previous game, White should develop the queenside before deciding what to do on the king side. 6 .lbb6 ..

6 ...lbf6 is similar to the 2 ...�xd5 set­ up with short castling and could di­ rectly transpose to lines in Game 8 within a few moves. Alternatively, White can contemplate a timely g4 and 'Lle5, just as in the present game. 7 lbc3

b) The sharp move 7 ... e 5 ! ? demands an equally principled response: 8 g4! exd4 9 lbxd4 .i.g6 10 ..ig2 c6 11 0-0 i.e7 12 f4! h6 13 f5 ..ih7. From here White has a pleasant choice: b1} 14 c 5 ! ? is the most aggressive continuation: 14...lb6d7 (14...i.xc5 15 .:tel+ gives White promising compen­ sation after 15 ...�f8 16 i.e3 lba6 17 lbe4, or 15 .....te7 16 f6 gxf6 17 i.xh6) 15 g 5 ! ! when White obtained a power­ ful attack and won in fine style in P.Svidler-A.Dreev, Elista 1997. b2) For those who prefer a more straightforward approach, 14 b 3 ! ? 0-0 15 ..if4 gives White a stable positional advantage thanks to the rotten bishop on h7. B g41

This is the most ambitious and promising way of meeting Black's cho­ sen set-up. B ...i.g6 g tt:Jes

7 .. e6 .

Two other moves deserve attention: a} 7 ...'Llc6?! is premature: 8 d5 lbe5 9 g4 lLlxf3+ 10 �xf3 ..ig6 11 c5 lbd7 was seen in K.Szabo-J.Harmatosi, Zalakaros 2005, and here 12 .i.e3 looks simplest when White is in full control.

White has an active position and threatens h4, aside from the standard developing moves .i.g2 and .i.e3. 9 lLl8d7 •••

57

B e a ting U n u s u a l Ch e s s Defe n ces:

1

This has been the most popular re­ ply . The most-notable alternatives are: a) g ... tbc6 has been played in several games, but it is hard to believe that this can be a good idea: 10 tbxc6 bxc6 11 �g2 'ii'd 7 12 'ii'f3 o-o-o was A.Sokolov­ H.Ernst, Lenk 2000, and here Khalifman points out that 13 i.e3 would have given White a clear plus, since 13 ... tbxc4?! 14 'ii'e 2! is too risky for Black. b) 9 ... c5!? is more challenging and deserves serious attention despite the fact that it has not been played in many games. It is worth considering two responses:

b1) When I encountered this posi­ tion over the board I tried 10 i.e3 cxd4 11 'ii'xd4 'ii'xd4 12 i.xd4 tbc6 13 tbxc6 bxc6 and eventually went on to lose in A.Greet-D.Bryson, Glasgow 2010, al­ though at this stage 14 c5! would have given White some chances to fight for the advantage. b2) 10 ds! (I believe this is the strongest) 10 ... exds 11 lL:lxg6 hxg6 12 cxds i.d6 (after 12 ... �e7 White might 58

e4 consider 13 h4!? i.xh4 1 4 'ii'e 2+ �f8 15 i.g2 with a dangerous initiative for the pawn) 13 'ii'e 2+ �8 (not 13 ... 'ii'e 7?? 14 tbbs) 14 i.e3 tb8d7 15 o-o-o which has been reached in a couple of games:

b21) 1 5 ...tLle5 was Black's choice in V.Tasic-J.Febland, correspondence 2006. Here the calm 16 �b1 looks like a sensible way to preserve White's edge, although he can also consider snatch­ ing a pawn with 16 i.xc5!?. b22) 15 .. .'�e7 16 �b1 l:le8 17 'ii'c 2 (17 i.g2 ! ?) 17 ... a6 18 i.g2 tbc4 19 i.c1 b5 was M.Zavanelli-P.Spitz, correspon­ dence 2004, and now after 20 b3 (20 tbe4 also looks tempting) 20...tbcb6 21 l:lhe1!? 'ii'x e1 (or 2 1...'ii'd8 22 tbe4 with some initiative) 22 :lxe1 :lxe1 23 tbe2 ! followed by 'ii'd2 White emerges with a material advantage. Returning to 9 ...tb8d7: 10 lL:lxg6 hxg6 White's bishop pair gives him good prospects, but if Black is given time to organize his position he will not be do­ ing so badly. Thus White must strike while the iron is hot!

Sca n di n a vi a n Defe n ce 11 c51

Forcing the opponent to make a dif­ ficult choice. 11 lLlds ...

This leads to a disadvantageous po­ sition for Black, but at least it enables him to stabilize the situation in the centre. 11 ...l2Jc8?! is riskier: 12 'ifb3 l:.b8 13 i.e3 c6 (this leads to unfavourable complications, but it is hard to suggest a good alternative) 14 i.f4! e5 15 i.c4! ._f6 16 i.g3 (White has a powerful ini­ tiative) 16 ...'ii'f3 17 �d2 ! exd4 18 l:.ae1+ i.e7 19 l2Je4 -.xb3 20 i.xb3 l:.a8 2 1 l2Jd6+ �8 22 lLlxf7 l:.h7 was B.Kutuzovic-R.Zelcic, Pula 2000.

Up to this point White's play has been exemplary and he could have sealed his opponent's fate in beautiful fashion, with 23 l:.xe7!!. Now both cap­ tures lead to a hopeless situation for Black: a) 23 ... 'itxe7 24 l:.e1+ 'iWS (or 24...�6? 25 g5+ 'itf5 26 �e6 mate) 2 5 lLlg5 l:.h8 2 6 l2Je6+ followed by a lethal discovered check. b) 23 ...l2Jxe7 24 i.d6 :tea 25 l:.e1 l:.xh3 26 �e6! with a very aesthetic win, as 26 ...lLlf6 is met by 27 lLle5. 12 lLlxds exds 13 'ii'b 3 'ii'e 7+ 1 4 i.e3 0-0-0 15 0-0-0

Black has managed to survive the opening, but that is the end of the good news for him. He suffers from a lack of space and his bishop is badly restricted. Moreover, White's bishop pair is a useful asset and he can utilize his space advantage on the queenside to start an attack there at any moment. 1S l2Jb8 ...

The best chance. After 15 ... c6 16 l:.e1 White is in full control and will soon play 'ilt'a4 and b4 with a huge attack. 59

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess Defe n ces:

1

16 l:te1 'iWd7

16 ... lt:Jc6 17 �bS 'iWd7 18 �f4 leaves Black horribly tied up. 17 �g51

Provoking the following pawn move, which restricts Black's bishop even more. 17 ...f6 18 i.d2 a6

Preparing ...tZ:lc6 without allowing the pin.

e4 2 8 l:t7eS ! i s worse for Black than the game as his king is even weaker. 26 axbs tt:Jxd4 27 l:te7 'iWf6

After 27 ...'iWf8 28 c6! White has a crushing attack. 28 l:t7e51

Trapping the knight and thus forc­ ing Black's next. 28 ... 'iWxes 29 l:txes �xes 30 .ixgs

19 �g2

White finds a different role for his bishop. From this square it exerts con­ stant pressure against d S while con­ veniently keeping h3 defended. 19 ...tZ:lc6 20 'iWd3 g5 21 l:.e2 g6 22 l:the1 'iWf7

Black temporarily has a slight mate­ rial advantage of two rooks for a queen, but his loose pieces and unsafe king render his position close to being lost. 30...tZ:le6?1

2 3 b41

White has set up his pieces opti­ mally and the time has come to take decisive action. 23 ...�g7 24 a4 fs

Black seems to be beginning coun­ terplay in the centre, but White has evaluated the complications perfectly. 2 5 bSI axbs

2S ...lt:Jxd4 26 .:.e7 'iWf6 27 bxa6 bxa6 60

30 ...l:tde8 was a bit more resilient, although after 31 i.e3 tZ:le6 32 gxfs lt:Jf4 33 �xf4 �xf4+ 34 Wc2 Black will not survive in the long run. 31 i.xd8 lt:Jf4 32 'ji'a3 �xd8 33 'iWaB+ 1-0

Black resigned in view of 33 ...We7 34 'iWxb7, after which 34... lt:Jxg2 3 5 b6! wins easily. He can resist a bit more stubbornly on move 34, but at top cor­ respondence level his position is hope­ less.

Sca ndin a vi a n Defe n ce

Game 1 2 V.Topalov-G.Kamsky

Wij k aan Zee 2006 In this game, the last of the chapter, we will deal with Black's alternatives on moves 3 and 4. 1 e4 dS 2 exds lllf6 3 lllf3 lllx ds

Again, note that 3 .. .'ii'x ds trans­ poses to Game S. The only other noteworthy alterna­ tive is 3 ... .i.g4?!, but this move is too optimistic. After 4 .i.bS+! (the clearest route to an advantage) 4 ... lllb d7 5 h 3 Black faces a difficult choice:

a) s ... �h s 6 lllc 3 a6 7 .i.e2 ! rede­ ploys the bishop which has done its job on the queenside. From this position Black can regain his pawn easily enough, but he cannot equalize: for instance, 7 ... lllb 6 S d4 lbfxds (if s ...lllb xds 9 lllx ds 'Wixds 10 c4 with some initiative) 9 lLlxds 'Wixds 10 o-o e6 11 b3 i..e 7 (or 11...0-o-o 12 lLles i..g 6 13 i..b 2) 12 C4 'lidS 13 i..e 3 and White had a pleasant edge in B.Macieja-

A.Gershon, Paget Parish 2001. b) s ... a6!? is a tricky move which forces White to play accurately if he is to maintain his advantage: b1) 6 .i.e2 has been the most com­ mon reaction and has scored 100% for White, but my analysis indicates that it is not the most precise: 6 ....1xf3 (not 6 ... ..th s ? ! 7 c4) 7 �xf3 llle s (7 ... lllb 6 s d6!) S lllc 3 'iid 7 9 d4 lllxf3+ 10 'Wixf3 was M.Santo Roman-P.Dias, loures 1997, and here Black should have played 10.. J:�dS!, regaining his pawn and escaping with only a slight disad­ vantage. b2) 6 .i.a4! is stronger when Black has tried two moves, neither of which come close to equalizing:

b21) 6 ...�fs 7 lt:lc3 bs s llld4! i..g 6 9 lllc 6 'lieS 10 .i.b3 and White was clearly better in F.Hernandez Gallardo-J.Herms Agullo, Palma de Mallorca 2009. b22) 6 ... .i.xf3 7 'Wixf3 bs s �b3 lllb 6 9 lllc 3 when Black was a pawn down with weak light squares in P.Dias­ H.Guetas Sanchez, La Roda 2007. Returning to 3 . lLlxdS: .

.

61

B e a ting U n us u 1 °

Che ss D efe n c es :

1

4 d4

e4 s game which is slightly outside previ ou mmended repertoire, although o th e rec as reasonable chances to fight Wh ite h here too. dvantage for aT1 a d3 6 'ii'xd3 e6 7 o-o s ... ..t"

Whi te should not even think about paw11-grabbing with 7 'ii'h s +? lZ'lc6 8 'ii'xb 7, as 8 ... lZ'ldb4 gives Black too many threats .

Here we will deal with Black's alter­ natives to the two main lines of 4 ... g6 and 4...J..g4. 4.....tfs

This is by far the most significant of the said alternatives. Others do not demand much attention: a) 4...lZ'lc6?! is premature, as after 5 c4 lZ'lb6 6 ds the knight must go to an unfavourable square. b) 4... e6 and 4 ... c6 are rather pas­ sive, and in both cases White can ob­ tain a safe edge with 5 c4 followed by lZ'lc3, ..te2 and so on. 5 ..td3

Exchanging the opponent's active bishop is White's most straightforward course of action. I spent some time looking at 5 lZ'lh4!? which works well after s ... ..tg6 6 lZ'lxg 6 hxg6 7 g 3 ! when the two bishops give White a stable edge in a position. However, s ... ..tc8! ? is slightly trickier. The best continuation is probably 6 C4 l2Jb6 7 l2Jf3, but then 7 ... ..tg4 reaches a position discussed in the notes to the 62

7 ..lZ'lc61? Hoping to generate piece-pressure against White's centre. 7 ... c6 is more solid but rather pas­ sive an d White obtains a safe edge with the help of simple development: 8 c4 lZ'lf6 9 lZ'lc3 ..te7 10 ..tf4 o-o 11 l:.ad1 lZ'lbd7 12 'l'ke2 ! ? (12 l:tfe1 is also pleas­ ant for White) 12 ...:te8 13 l:td3 'ii'a s 14 l:.fd1 and White was in full control, O.Korn e ev-F.Carretero Ortiz, Seville 2011. .

8 c4 lLlb6 9 lZ'lc3 ..te7 10 J..f4 gs?

Too ambitious. Black should have played more solidly in order to keep his disadvantage within reasonable bounds, as in the following game: 10...0-0 11 :tadl "ii'd 7 12 tt::le4 tt::lb4 13

Sca n d i n a vi a n Defe n c e ir'h3lZ'lc6 14 lZ'lc5 ifc8 1 5 ifC3. although White remained on top in A.Dreev­ N.Vlassov, Internet 2001.

White could have obtained a stable edge by means of 13 l:ad1 c5 14 lZ'le2!, regaining his pawn while leaving plenty of problems for his opponent to solve. 13 ....i.xcs 14 l:ad1

With the threat of lZ'le4, winning a piece. 14 0-ol? ...

11 .i.g31

11 .i.e3 is possible, but Topalov has correctly judged that he can sacrifice a pawn for a powerful initiative. 11 ... g4 12 lZ'les lZ'lxd4

In the event of 12 ... ifxd4 13 'ii'e 2 "ii'c 5 14 lZ'le4 'ii'h4 15 lZ'lxc6 bxc6 16 .i.xc7 White regains the sacrificed pawn while keeping a strong initiative.

A risky decision, but it was arguably the best chance. Indeed, the alterna­ tives were unappealing, for instance: a) 14...lZ'lc6 15 'ii'e 2 �d6 16 lZ'lb5 ! and Black is i n trouble. b) 14...'ii'e 7 15 b4! o-o-o 16 bxc5 t2Jf3+ 17 gxf3 l:xd3 18 l:xd3 'ii'x c5 19 l:fd1 when White has too many pieces for the queen, as pointed out by Not­ kin. 15 l2Je4 .i.e7

16 lZ'lxg41

13 csl?

Topalov throws another pawn on to the fire in an attempt to increase his initiative.

More convincing than 16 'ii'xd4 "ii'xd4 17 l:xd4 f5 !, although even here White keeps a clear advantage after 18 l:c1! (18 lZ'lc3 ?! c5 19 l:f4 .i.g 5 lets some of White's advantage slip) 18 ...fxe4 19 l:!.xe4 - analysis by Notkin. 63

B e a t i n g U n u s u a l Chess Defe n ce s :

1

e4 Also after 17 ...lLlfs 18 _.f3 lLlds 19 bxcs Black is in deep trouble.

16...cs?

Supporting the knight is desirable in principle, but Black simply cannot afford the time for this. It must be said, though, that the alternatives were also highly unpleasant for him : a) 16 ...lLlfs loses to 17 .-c3 lLlds 18 �xds! exds 19 lLlef6+ followed by �es. b) 16 .. .fs 17 lLlh6+ 'lt>g7 18 ..tes+! 'lt>xh6 19 'ifh3+ 'lt>g6 20 .C.xd4 lLlds and now Notkin mentions 21 l:td3 as win­ ning, while the computer rates 21 g4! as even more conclusive. c) According to the machine, the best chance was 16 .. .f6 ! ? 17 .-xd4 .-xd4 18 l:xd4 fs, although Black faces a miserable endgame here.

18 bxcs

Again Topalov overlooks 18 �es! with an immediate kill. His position is still overwhelming though. 1s ...lLlfs 19 .-f3 :cs

17 b4?

This keeps a large advantage, but 17 ..tes! would have won in a few short moves: 17 .. .f6 18 lLlg s ! lLlfs (not 18 .. .fxgs? 19 lLlh6 mate) 19 lLlh6+! �h8 (if 19 ...l2Jxh6 20 .-xh7 mate, or 19 .. /�'g7 20 l2Jxe6+) 20 lLlgf7+ when White wins the queen and the game, as shown by Notkin. 11 ...lLlds

64

20 .i.d6

Notkin points out a strong alterna­ tive in 20 lLle3 ! ? lLlfxe3 21 fxe3, bring­ ing the f1-rook into the game and planning tt::ld6 next. 20 ...tt::lxd6

20 ... ..txd6 allows a neat refutation: 2 1 .:txd S ! ..txh2+ (or 2 1 ... exd5 22 tt::lef6+ 'it>g7 23 .-xfs) 22 �xh2 'ii'h4+ 23 � 91

Sca n di n a vi a n D efe n ce exd5 24 lL!ef6+ 'it>h8 2 5 'Wi'xf5 when White wins, as analysed by Notkin.

... and now 27 li'd4 ! ! seals White's victory.

21 cxd6 i.. h 4 22 d71

Despite a few previous inaccuracies, Topalov has done enough to maintain a winning advantage and this precise move practically seals Black's fate. 22 .. J:tc6

22 ... 1:tc2 is refuted by 23 lL!d6 !: for instance, 23 ... 'Wi'xd7 (23 ...�g 5 24 h4!) 24 lt:\h6+ �h8 (or 24...�g7 25 li'g4+) 2 5 lt:\hxf7+ l::txf7 26 lL!xf7+ �g8 27 lDe5, etc. 23 tLles l::tc 7 24 li'g4+ �hB 25 lLld6 1-0

After 25 ...l:.xd7 (25 ...'Wi'f6 26 'Wi'h 5 �g8 27 lL!g4 is crushing) White has a few ways to win, but by far the most attractive is 26 ::txd5! l:.xd6 ...

Conclusion The lion's share of this chapter has been devoted to the 2 ...'Wi'xd5 variation, specifically the branch beginning with 3 lDf3 �g4 intending long castling. Al­ though by and large the 3 tLlf3 system can be considered a low-maintenance option - at least by comparison to the sharp main lines which occur after 3 lt:\c3 - there is no denying that the first seven games contained a great deal of ideas and analysis to digest. Still, I find the overall picture quite encouraging for White and I would expect this varia­ tion to become more popular over time. The other two main branches (2 ...'Wi'xd5 3 tLlf3 tLlf6, intending short castling, and 2 ... lt:\f6) each hold their own challenges, but once again I have faith in White's position, and believe that the recommended repertoire en­ ables the first player to emerge from the opening with healthy prospects.

65

Chapter Two Modern Defence

1 e4 g6 2 d4 �g7

Part 1 - 3 d6 We will begin by examining 3 d6, Black's most popular move. Then after 4 f4 Black has several ideas: ...

...

3 lZ'lc3

This is my preferred move order. Against the majority of replies, I will be recommending an aggressive set-up with 4 f4, known as the Austrian At­ tack. I consider this the most principled set-up at White's disposal; since Black has chosen not to contest the central squares over the opening moves, White takes the opportunity to seize addi­ tional space, with the prospect of de­ veloping an attack later in the middle­ game. From here Black has a number of options: 66

Black's most frequently played op­ tion is 4...c6, which is usually a prelude to ... 'ifb6, although Black sometimes uses it to prepare queenside play with ... bs. After the natural reply 5 tZ'lf3 Game 13 features the main line of s ... �g4, while Game 14 deals with the tricky sideline s ...'ifb6, along with the rest of Black's 5th-move alternatives. In Game 15 we will look at 4 ... a6, in­ tending an early counterattack with ...bs. This is quite a challenging system

M odern Defe n ce which should be studied carefully. Af­ ter that we will turn our attention to 4... tbd7 which has the principal aim of preparing ...c5. This plan has fallen out of fashion and Game 16 gives an idea as to why.

Part 2 - Unusual third moves Next on the agenda are two slightly unusual third moves. In Game 17 we will address the ambitious 3 ... c5, while Game 18 deals with the even more eye­ catching 3 ... d5. Part 3 -The 'Modern Caro-Kann' The final part of the chapter will focus on a very different interpretation of the Modern, in which Black aims for a light-squared strategy based on an early ... c6 and ...d5. Game 19 shows how White should handle the blocked positions which arise after the sequence 1 e4 g6 2 d4 d6 3 tiJc3 c6 4 f4 d5 5 e5 h5.

no future on g7. Black can also play the position more dynamically and in Game 20 we will consider the system based on 2 ... ..tg7 3 tbc3 c6 4 f4 d5 5 e5 tbh6 intending a quick .. .f6. Finally, Game 21 deals with an un­ usual but slightly tricky move order with 2 ...c6, against which I recommend an 'Accelerated Austrian' with 3 f4.

Part 1 - 3

...

d6

Game 13 I.Giek-E.Cekro

Belgian League 2001 1 e4 g6 2 d4 ..tg7 3 ttJc3

It is worth mentioning that the im­ mediate 3 f4 allows Black a couple of attractive options in 3 ... c5 and 3 ...d 5 ! ?. We will see that both of these moves can also be played against 3 tiJC3, but White is better equipped to deal with them in this case. 3 d6 4 f4 c6 ...

As we will see, Black can and should aim to reach this position with his bishop still on f8, as it has absolutely

According to the database, this has been Black's most frequently played move here - with the exception of 4... tiJf6, which takes us into the next chapter. 5 tiJf3 ..tg4 By pinning the knight, Black contin­ ues his policy of fighting for the centre using pieces rather than pawns. This has been the most popular choice, al­ though several alternatives have been tried. These will be seen in Game 14. 67

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess Defe n ce s :

1

6 �e 3

White logically supports the centre. 6...'ii b6

This is the consistent follow-up to Black's previous move. Less forcing al­ ternatives such as 6 ...lt:Jd7 allow White to obtain easy play with 7 h3 �xf3 8 'iixf3 followed by castling and a subse­ quent advance in the centre and/or on the kingside. 7 'iid 2 �xf3 8 gxf3

White incurs a slight weakening of his kingside pawns. On the other hand, the bishop pair and open g-file are sig­ nificant assets, especially when one factors in White's lead in development 68

e4 and central domination. s ...'iia s This move order is slightly unusual, but we soon transpose back into a normal position. Alternatives include: a) 8 ...lt:Jd7 has been more popular. The black queen does not have to move immediately, but nor will she want to remain on b6 indefinitely. For instance, after 9 o-o-o o-o-o (9 ...'iia s is the main line, after which 10 �b1 transposes to the game) 10 �c4 Black is unable to play the natural move 10 ... e6? as then 11 ds is too destructive. b) It is worth mentioning that 8 ... 'iixb2 ? is a bad idea: 9 l:b1 'ir'a3 10 :txb7 (the exchange of pawns has clearly benefited White, whose rook stands proudly on the seventh rank) 10 ... lt:Jd7 (there is also 10 ... lt::\f6 11 �c4 when White is clearly better) 11 l:c7! cs? (the lesser evil would have been to jettison the c-pawn, not that Black could hope to obtain any compensa­ tion for it) 12 �bs l:d8 13 e s ! lt:Jh6 14 dxcs lt:Jfs 15 cxd6 and with :txa7 com­ ing next, White was already winning in M.Dimitriadis-J.Cobb, correspondence 1997. 9 0-0-0 lt:Jd 7 9 ... bs 10 �b1 lt:Jd7 leads to the same position. lO�bl White takes a moment to improve the position of his king and defends the a2-pawn in anticipation of ... bS-b4. At this point Black must make an impor­ tant choice.

M odern Defe n ce

1o... bs

Cekro elects to start an attack. The strategy entails some risk, as Black's kingside pieces are undeveloped and his king lacks a safe haven. On the other hand, if he plays more solidly he may find it difficult to obtain any ac­ tive play, as illustrated by the following examples: a) 10 ...4Jgf6 11 :tg1 o-o-o (11 ...4Jh 5 12 f5 0-0-0 13 .i.c4 .l:.df8 was played in B.Laursen-H.Madsen, correspondence 1999, and now after 14 f4! Black must pay serious attention to the retreat .i.e2, which might even be preceded by e5, taking away the h5-knight's retreat square) 12 f5 ike? 13 ikf2 :hg8 14 ..th 3 'it>b8 15 f4 4Jb6 16 .tel 4Jc4 17 e5 4Jd5 18 4Jxd5 cxd5 19 e6 ikb6 20 'ital fxe6 21 fxg6 hxg6 22 ..txe6 :hs 2 3 :xg6 .i.f6 24 i.xd5 sees White's strategy prevail. He has won a pawn and his light-squared bishop dominates the board, L.Kritz-V.Arapovic, Mallorca Olympiad 2004. b) 10...0-0-0 11 ltgl �b8 (for 11...tt:lgf6 12 f5 see variation 'a') 12 �c4!

(White has a couple of decent alterna­ tives available in 12 f5 and 12 :g 5 ikc7 13 d5, but I like this developing move the most) 12...e6 (12 ... d5 was played in J.Brueggemann-C.Meis, German League 1997. and now instead of the strange retreat to fl, White should have pre­ ferred 13 .i.b3 e6 14 f5 ! with a strong initiative, as pointed out by Khalifman) 13 f5 ! (once again this key resource en­ ables White to get his light-squared bishop working) 13 ... exf5 14 i.xf7 'De7 15 h4 :hf8 16 i.b3 when with two powerful bishops, a central pawn maj­ ority and a clear plan of attack on the kingside, White stood clearly better in I.Smikovski-A.Utkin, St Petersburg 2002. 11 h41

White begins to soften up his oppo­ nent's kingside . 11 4Jb6 12 h s l •.•

This method of handling the posi­ tion can be considered a near­ refutation of Black's opening system. In the past it was more common for White to play moves like 12 �d3 or even 12 b3 in order to prevent the black 69

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess D efe n ces:

1

knight from hopping to c4. Although these two moves are not bad and offer reasonable chances for an advantage, it turns out that White does have to worry about the knight invasion and can instead press on with his own at­ tack. The results have simply been overwhelming: according to the data­ base, White has scored a massive nine wins, with two draws and no defeats. 12 ... b4

In one game Black tried the tricky 12 ... l:tb8, but White's reaction was con­ vincing: 13 hxg6 fxg6 (perhaps Black should have considered 13 ...hxg6, al­ though here too after 14 l:txh8 ..txh8 15 'Wh2 ..tg7 16 f5 White's attack looks the faster) 14 �al (14 b 3 ! ?) 14 ... ltJa4 (after 14 ... ltJc4 15 ..txc4 bxc4 16 f5 'ii'b4 17 l:tb1 White defends his king easily, but the same cannot be said for Black) 15 ttJxa4 �xa4 (15 ...�xd2 16 l:txd2 bxa4 17 ..th3 is highly promising too) 16 f5 gxf5 17 �g2 ..tf8 18 e5 and White has a crushing attack, M.Pichler-A.Padros Simon, correspondence 1981. 13 ttJe2 ttJc4 14 �d3

70

e4 14...ltJxe3

Black can also try 14... d5, keeping his knight on c4. In such situations White's main concern will be defend­ ing against the plan of ...l:tb8 and ... tLla3+ (or ... tLlc3+ in related positions with the knight on a4). Fortunately he has enough pieces in close proximity to the queen side to deal with such 'cheap' tricks, and meanwhile his king side at­ tack will continue to fire on all cylin­ ders: 15 .tel l:tb8 16 hxg6 hxg6 17 l:txh8 ..txh8 18 f5 ! gxf5 19 tLlg3 ! and White has a powerful initiative, O.Korneev-K.Movsziszian, Berga 1996. 15 �xe3

White no longer has the advantage of the bishop pair, but on the other hand he still has the superior bishop, which forms the basis of a powerful light-squared attacking strategy. White's lead in development and extra space are also important factors of course. 15 ... �b6

This seems too slow to be effective, but it is doubtful that Black has a nota­ ble improvement - his position is sim­ ply bad by this stage. For example: a) 15 ... 0-0-0?! 16 'ii'h 3 ! e6 17 ..th3 !
M odern D efe n c e nent's kingside pieces cannot even move, V.Bologan-M.Todorcevic, Las Palmas 1993. 16 hxg6 hxg6 17 l:.xh8 ..txh8 18 fsl

20.....tf6

20 .. .fxe4?? loses instantly to 2 1 l:.g1. 2 1 'ii'g 3

2 1 'ii'h s ! ? is also dangerous. 2 1 ...es

White proceeds with the standard attacking plan. The preliminary 18 ..th 3 is also good.

White's last move was probably di­ rected against 2 l...e6, although this might still have been the lesser of the evils for Black: a) In the event of 22 'i'xd6+ lbe7 23 exfs l:.d8 24 'i'f4 (24 'ii'g 3 exfs) 24...ltJds Black gets some counterplay based on the theme of ... lDc3+. b) Instead White should prefer 22 exfs es 23 dxes dxes (if 2 3 ...-txes 24 f4 ..tf6 25 l:.xd6) 24 lbc1 when he keeps some advantage, but Black has some chances to resist.

1s ... gxfs 19 'ii'g s 'iWs

22 ..txfs lDe7 23 'i*'h317

19 ...lDf6 runs into 20 eS! when White wins material.

20 �h317

Not a bad move, but my recom­ mendation would be the straightfor­ ward 20 'ii'xfs which gives White a clear plus without allowing any real counterplay.

Glek decides to sacrifice a pawn. White's position is certainly strong enough to justify it, although simpler moves were possible as well. 23 ...exd4 24 f4

24 lDf4 also looks promising. 24...lDxfs 25 -.xfs ..tg7 26 -.g4 l:.e87

Under pressure, Black blunders. He 71

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess D efe n ce s :

1

should have preferred 26 .. .'11i'd8, or per­ haps the counterattacking 26 ... d 3 ! ? to activate his pieces. 27 .:tgl ..if6 28 lLlg3 1

Now Black's king is caught. 28 ...d3

If 28 ...'iiie 7 29 lLlfS+ 'iiid 7 (or 29 .. .'it>d8 30 lL:Jxd6) 30 lLlg7+ White wins easily. 29 lLlfs dxc2+ 30 'iiic 1 1-o

Game 14 I. Martin Alvarez­ K.Movsziszian

Pa m plona 2009 1 e4 g6 2 d4 �g7

The game actually began with the somewhat unusual sequence 2 ... d6 3 lLlc3 c6 4 f4 'ilfb6 5 lLlf3 �g4 6 �c4 lLlh6 7 ..tb3 ..tg7 8 ..te3 dS 9 1id2, but I will substitute the standard move order in order to demonstrate some of the other deviations available to Black. 3 lLlc3 d6 4 f4 c6 5 lLlf3

So far everything is the same as the previous game, but Black has a few 72

e4 other ideas at his disposal. s •b617 By shuffling his move order (com­ pared with the plan of s .....tg4 and 6 ...'ilfb6 as seen in Glek-Cekro), Black hopes to inhibit the development of the c1-bishop. The plan is interesting, but we will see that it has certain drawbacks. Before going any further, we should check some of Black's other options. Only the third of the following lines is of any real significance: a) s ... dS?! has been played in several games, but after 6 es Black has an infe­ rior version of Game 19, having already committed his bishop to g7. b) s ...lLld7 transposes to note 'b' to Black's sixth move in Game 16. c) s ...bs is possible, but the early queenside attack is unlikely to hurt White. The first player should develop quickly and look for an opportunity to attack. After 6 �d3 (6 ..te3 is not bad, but with Black's queenside advance already underway, it looks more logical to castle on the kingside), ...

M odern D efe n ce here are some lines to show how the game may develop: c1) 6 ... �g4 (a good rule of thumb is that queenside expansion with ...bs should generally not be combined with the development of the bishop to g4 the point is that after the probable ex­ change of this piece for the knight on f3, Black is liable to become weak on the light squares, as the advancing pawns will leave plenty of holes which can be exploited later on) 7 es!? (with this active move White wastes no time in opening the h1-a8 diagonal towards Black's weakened queenside; 7 �e3 is a reasonable but less incisive alternative) 7 .. .fS? ! (Black embarks on a blockading plan on the light squares; positionally it makes some sense, given that he is about to exchange his light-squared bishop, but as things turn out, Black is soon left in a passive position with no counterplay) 8 h 3 �xf3 9 'ii'xf3 ds 10 g4 e6.

This position was reached in K.Mal­ inovsky-J.Bernasek, Olomouc 2007, and here the strongest continuation looks

to be 11 gxfs 'ii'h4+ 12 'iii> e 2 gxfs 13 l:tg1 when White has numerous positional advantages and can develop his initia­ tive on either side of the board. c2) 6 ... ltJd7 7 o-o and now:

c21) 7 ... �b7 8 e s ! sees White's ini­ tiative running smoothly. c22) 7 ... 1i'b6 does not achieve much after 8 .i.e3: for instance, 8 ... es (8 ...ltJgf6 should be met by 9 h 3 !, guarding the g4-square) 9 fxes dxes 10 �f2 ! exd4 11 e S ! ltJxes ? (11...lLle7 was better, although after 12 ltJxd4 i.xes 13 ltJxc6 ! 'ii'xc6 14 .i.e4 White wins ma­ terial) 12 l:.e1 f6 13 ltJxd4 cS 14 �xbS+ 'lif7 1S .:txes fxes 16 .i.c4+ �e8 17 'ii'f3 cxd4 18 'ii'f7+ 'iii>d8 19 ltJds 1-0 T.Chua Zheng Yuan-Wong Meng Kong, Singa­ pore 2009. c23) 7 ...ltJb6 8 a4! ? (we will see the same idea working well in Game 1S) 8 ...b4 9 ltJe2 as (after 9 ...ltJf6 10 as ltJbd7 11 'ir'e1 the b4-pawn is weak) 10 c3 bxc3 11 bxc3 ltJf6 12 l:tb1 0-0 13 fS and White had a promising initiative in J.Degraeve-E.Cekro, Istanbul Olympiad 2000. 73

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess Defe n ces:

1

Returning to 5...�6: 6 �c41

e4 After 9 ... ..ixf3 ? 10 gxf3 e6 11 f5 tt:\g8 12 fxe6 fxe6 13 tt:\a4 1i'c7 14 tt:\c5 1i'f7 15 0-0-0 Black's position was already highly in G.Cools­ suspect R.Kasimdzhanov, Antwerp 1998. 10 tt:les

This seems like the most challeng­ ing response, although 6 h3 and 6 a4!? are also not bad. 6 tt:lh6 ••.

The main point of White's last move was to prevent 6 ... ..ig4? which now loses to 7 ..ixf7+!.

White's pawn sacrifice is likely to be temporary and all his pieces enjoy ex­ cellent prospects.

7 ..ib3

10 ..ic8?l

Covering the b2-pawn and thus fa­ cilitating the development of the other bishop.

It is hard to believe that Black can solve his opening problems by playing such a move. 10.....if5 is Black's best try according to both the computer and basic com­ mon sense. The position after 11 h3 f6 was reached in E.Andreev-A.Kornev, Tula 2001. At this point I agree with Khalifman's recommendation: 12 g4! fxe5 13 dxe5 'ir'd8 (Black had better take the opportunity to exchange queens, but even this does not guaran­ tee him an easy life) 14 gxf5 1i'xd2+ (14 ...tt:\xf5 15 tt:\xe4 'ir'xd2+ 16 ..ixd2 reaches variation 'b' below) 15 ..ixd2. Black has a few ideas here, but none of them are good enough to equalize:

7 �g4 ...

We are now directly back in Martin Alvarez-Movsziszian, which started with an unusual move order, as noted at move 2. s ..ie3 dsl?

This is practically forced, as if Black makes no attempt to fight for the cen­ tral light squares, he will have serious trouble justifying the position of the knight on h6. 9 "ii'd 21

An important move. 9 dxe4 ••.

74

•..

M o dern Defe n c e a) 15 ... gxfs?! 16 l:.g1 �f8 17 �e3 when Black's kingside pieces are al­ most stalemated and the b3-bishop is tremendously powerful. b) 15 ... tt:Jxf5 16 tt:Jxe4 tt::ld4 17 �e3 tt:Jxb3 18 axb3 tt::l a6 19 �e2 and White is strong in the centre, whereas Black's bishop is restricted and his queenside weak. c) 15 ... e3!? 16 �xe3 tt::l xfs 17 �f2 �h6 18 tt::le 2 leaves White clearly better thanks to his dominant light-squared bishop. This analysis, from 12 g4! onwards, is largely based on that of Khalifrnan.

somewhat better. 14 tt::lf2

14 tt:Jcs looks like a more active way to avoid the knight exchange. 14... as 15 a4 tt::la 6 16 h4 tt::lc 7?

Black should have preferred 16 ... 'ifb4, forcing a queen exchange. He is still worse here, but at least he is not about to be mated on the king side. 17 hs tt:Jds

17 ...'ifb4? 18 hxg6 hxg6 19 tt:Jxg6 wins a pawn. 18 hxg6 hxg6 19 tt::lfd3 :ds 20 o-o-o

Already it is doubtful that Black can defend.

11 tt:Jxe4 0-0

20...lt:Je4 21 'ir'h2 tt::lef6

12 h 3

22 :de17

This is a bit on the slow side. If I had this position over the board I would be more inclined to go for 12 0-0-0 or the direct 12 h4! ?.

22 fS ! would have been crushing: for instance, 22 ... tt:Jxe3 (22 ... gxf5 2 3 gxfs followed by :dg1 is terminal) 23 �xf7+ �f8 24 tt::lf4 and Black can re­ sign.

12 ...tt:Jts 13 g417

13 �f2 was fine, but White decides he does not need his bishop. 13 ...tt::ld 6

Also after 13 ...tL:lxe3 14 'it'xe3 tL:ld7 15 tLlxd7 �xd7 16 0-0-0 White is some-

22 ...�xg4

Now the game becomes unclear again. 23 tL:lxg4 tL:lxg4 24 'ir'h7+ 'itf8 25 tLles?l

This works out well in the game, but 75

B eating U n u s u a l Ch ess Defe n ce s :

1

objecti vely it was unsound. 25 �gl would have kept the game highly unclear. 2S ... "Llgf6?

e4 Karen Movsziszian i n control of the black pieces, but in this particular en­ counter he favours a different set-up involving a quick ... a6.

This proves to be the fatal error. After the correct 2 S ..."Llgxe3 ! 26 l:txe3 't!Vxd4! {26 ...lLlxe3?? 27 .txf7 wins) 27 l:tf3 e6 White is two pawns down and does not seem to have a convinc­ ing way through on the king side.

Game 1 5 J . Fernandez Garcia­ K.Movsziszian Mislata 2001

26 "Llxg6+1 fxg6 27 't!Vxg6 e6

From here White makes up for his earlier errors by finishing the game in style. 28 fs l "Lle7

Or 28 ... lLlxe3 29 fxe6 't!Ve7 30 l:txe3 't!Ve7 3 1 l:tf1 when Black has no defence against l:tef3.

1 e4 g6 2 d4 .tg7 3 lLlc3 d6 4 f4 a6

This move introduces a dynamic counterattacking system based on the moves ... bs, ....tb7, ...lLld7, and ... cs. Its greatest exponent is the creative Swed­ ish Grandmaster Tiger Hillarp Persson, who has played it for many years and wrote a book on the system. s lLlf3 bs 6 .td3

29 l:th8+1 lLleg8

29 ... .txh8 30 .th6+ is the end. 30 fxe6 'ikc7 31 l:tf1 1-0

That concludes our coverage of 4 ... c6. In my view the games and sup­ porting analysis indicate that White has every reason to feel happy here. Our next game once again sees 76

6 .te3 is possible, but I consider it more accurate to develop the light­ squared bishop first. Indeed, in the main game we will see the queen's bishop being left on cl for quite some time. 6 ...lLld7

M odern D efe n ce Usually Black chooses to develop this knight before the light-squared bishop, as it gives him the option of an early ... cs. 6...�b7 is also possible and indeed the two moves will often transpose. Here, though, is one independent ex­ ample: 7 a4 b4 8 lt:Je2 lt:Jf6 (8 ... lt:Jd7 9 0-0 reaches note 'd' to Black's 8th move in the main game) 9 lt:Jg3 0-0 10 o-o e6 11 c4!? (11 c3 is slightly better for White) 11 ...4Jbd7. This was T.Luther­ T.Paehtz, Stralsund 1988, and here I would suggest the active 12 e S ! ? in­ tending �e4 when White's position looks preferable, although Black's counterattacking chances should not be underestimated. 7 a41?

White borrows an idea from the 150 Attack. Hillarp Persson regards it as one of White's most promising tries for an advantage and having investigated several of White's options in some de­ tail, I am of the same opinion. The main alternatives are: a) White's most popular choice has been 7 es which can lead to ultra-sharp play, but having analysed the varia­ tions in some detail I do not find White's idea fully convincing. Further­ more, you can bet your opponents will have studied this line in detail and will be relishing the wild complications to which it can lead. b) 7 i.. e 3 is worth considering. The m ain line continues 7 ...i..b 7 8 'ilr'e2 cs 9 dxcs lbxcs 10 i.. xcs ! i.. x c3+! 11 bxc3

dxcs 12 es lt:Jh6 when White only has a small advantage.

7 b4 8 lt:Je2 ...

The knight drops back, intending to re-emerge on the kingside later. The other main point behind White's plan is that he can now meet ... cs with c3, maintaining a firm grip on the centre. 8 lt:Jds is possible, but after 8 ... as (8 ... c s ! ?) 9 o-o e6 10 lt:Je3 lt:Je7 the knight is not ideally placed on e3; it is nicely centralized, but it blocks the cl­ bishop. s cs ...

Movsziszian decides to strike at the centre without delay; a principled choice, although Black should take care not to open the game too quickly while behind in development. Several other moves are possible: a) 8 ...4Jgf6 9 o-o i..b 7 transposes to variation 'd'. b) 8 ... e6 9 o-o lbgf6 was played in E .Hermansson-T.Hillarp Persson, Swed­ ish League 2001. At this point Tiger states that 10 fs would have been problematic for Black, without offering 77

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess Defe n ces:

1

any further analysis. A plausible con­ tinuation is 10 ... exfs 11 exfs o-o 12 tt:'lf4 .1b7 13 c3 bxc3 14 bxc3 when White is somewhat better, although he should not underestimate the latent potential in Black's position. c) 8 ... a S ! ? has been played twice by Hillarp Persson. Black's idea is to vacate the a6-square in order to exchange the light-squared bishops. Here 9 0-0 .ia6 was S.Narayanan-T.Hillarp Persson, Reykjavik 2008, when I rather like Hillarp Persson's suggestion: 10 .ibs !? (10 c4! ? also looks quite promising) 10 ... e6 11 c4 (11 fs ! ?) 11 ...tt:'le7. The Swedish Grandmaster opines that White is a little better here and 12 ds looks like a sensible continuation, in­ tending tt:'led4 with a bind over the light squares. d) 8 ... .1b7 has been the most popu­ lar alternative to the main line. After 9 o-o tt:'lgf6 10 es Black has two main op­ tions:

e4 enburg 1997, and here Hillarp Persson points out that 15 tt:'lxh8 gives White a clear advantage. d2) 10 ...tt:'Je4 11 c3 cs 12 "ir'c2! (this seems to be strongest, although 12 .ixe4! ? .ixe4 1 3 tt:'lg s is also interest­ ing: for instance, 13 ...-ifs - not 13 ....ib7? 14 e6 - 14 tt:'lg3 h6 15 tt:'lxfs gxfs 16 tt:'lf3 when White's superior structure gives him some advantage) 12 .. .fs?! (12 ... ds looks better, although after 13 cxb4 cxb4 14 aS! White has an obvious advantage) 13 exf6 tt:'ldxf6 14 tt:'lg s and Black was already in trouble in V.Kotronias-V.Kotrotsos, Kalamata 2005. Returning to 8 ... cs: 9 C3

g e6?1 ...

d1) 10 ...tt:'lds is well met by 11 as! cs 12 tt:'lg s ! cxd4 13 e6 tt:'lcs 14 tt:'lxf7 "ir'c8, as in J.Hector-T.Hillarp Persson, Goth78

An unfortunate choice. Black wants to put his knight on e7 and castle, but in the present position he simply does not have the time for it. More solid is 9 ... bxc3 10 bxc3 e6 11 0-0 tt:'le7, as in N.Ravic-N.Ostojic, Obren­ ovac 2008. At this point White's best continuation looks to be 12 es! intend-

M odern Defe n c e ing ltJg 5-e4 or lt::lg 3-e4. Black can pre­ vent that plan with ... d5, but then he will have an inferior version of a French Defence, with his bishop poorly placed on g7. 10 cxb4 cxb4 11 ,.-b31 a s

11 .. J�b8 12 f5 does not really change anything. 12 fsl

Black can block the centre with 13 ... e5, but he will soon be murdered on the light squares: 14 lt::lg 5 ,.-e7 (or 14 ... lt::lh 6 15 ltJe4! with a strong attack) 15 ,.-d5 ! .:a7 16 lt::l e4 �f8 17 ..tb5 lt::lgf6 (17 ...�b7 18 ..tc6) 18 ,.-c6 ltJxe4 (if 18 ... wd8 19 i.g 5) 19 ..-xeS+ ..-ds 20 ..-c6 lt::lef6 21 dxe5 dxe5 22 i.g 5 il... e 7 23 ..txf6 �xf6 24 .:td1 .:e7 2 5 ,.-d6 and White is winning. 14 �c4 ,.-e7 15 o-o lt::l b 6 16 lt::lg 3

16 �b5+ followed by 17 lt::lg 3 was also good enough. 16 ...'1W8 17 �f4

17 ..tg5 is also horrible for Black. 17 .....t h6

After 17 ...lt::lf6 18 l:.ae1 lt::l e4 19 lt::l xe4 fxe4 20 .:xe4! ..-xe4 21 �xd6+ �e8 22 .:e1 Black's queen perishes and the king will soon join her. 12 ...gxf57

After this weakening move it will be almost impossible for Black to get his kir.g to a safe spot. Black's only chance was 12 ... exf5, af­ ter which White has a few tempting ideas: a) 13 exf5 lt::le 7 when Black is worse, but at least he manages to castle. b) 13 lt::lg 5 ! ? lt::lh 6 (13 .....-e7 14 exf5 lt::lgf6 15 o-o is dangerous) 14 exf5 lt::lf6 and Black survives, although the initia­ tive remains with White. c) 13 �c4! looks best: 13 .....-e7 14 exfs lt::lgf6 15 o-o o-o 16 fxg6 hxg6 17 lt::lf4 when the threat of tt::\x g6 is diffi­ cult to meet. 13 exfs exfs

18 .:ae1

18 .....-c77

In a wretched position Black blun­ ders. 18 .....-dS would have lasted longer, although Black's situation remains vir­ tually hopeless. The most efficient 79

Beating U n u s u a l Chess D efe n ces:

1

route to victory looks to be 19 t:Llh4! (19 �xh6+ t:Llxh6 20 �bs is also good enough) 19 ...tt'Jxc4 20 •xc4 when Black cannot even win an exchange with 20 ... �a6 due to 21 'ii'c 6! �xf1 (21...�xf4 22 .l:txf4 wins) 22 �xd6+ with mate to follow shortly. 19 �xh6+ t:Llxh6

e4 This move is not particularly fash­ ionable nowadays, but it is worth checking all the same. I should also mention that occa­ sionally 4 ... t:Llc6 is seen. After 5 �e3 Black doesn't really have anything bet­ ter than s ...t:Llf6 6 �e2 0-0 7 t:Llf3, trans­ posing to Game 27 in the next chapter. 5 t:Llf3

20 'ii'e 31 tLlgS

After 20 ... tt'Jg4 21 'ii'e 8+ 'itg7 22 t:Llh s+ followed by 23 'ii'xh8 White wins easily. 21 'ii'eB+ 'it>g7 22 t:Llhs+ 1-o

Overall I would say that the plan in­ volving an early a2-a4 gives White promising play and has the additional benefit of being relatively easy to learn, unlike some of the wild attacking lines at White's disposal.

Game 1 6 D.Strauss-J.Tisdall

Lone Pine 1976 1 e4 g6 2 d4 d6 3 t:Llc3 �g7 4 f4 t:Lld7

80

s ...cs

Black strikes at the centre, perhaps hoping for a transposition to a Classical Dragon. However, there is a good rea­ son why people generally aim to reach that opening via a Sicilian move order! Indeed, it soon transpires that with accurate play White will obtain excel­ lent chances to punish his opponent's risky opening system. Before going any further, let us check a few rare alternatives: a) s ...es?! 6 fxes dxes 7 dxes t:Llxes 8 'ii'x d8+ 'it>xd8 9 �g S + and Black is al­ ready in trouble. b) s ... c6 6 �e3 (6 �d3 is also fine) 6 ... es (6 ...t:Llgf6 reaches a Pirc in which Black has combined ...l2Jbd7 with the

M o dern Defe n ce passive ... c6 instead of the more challenging ...cs plan) 7 'iWd2 'ir'e7 8 0-0-0 when White has a lead in development and the makings of a promising initia­ tive, R. S chuermans-K.Houthoofd, Bel­ gian League 2002. 6 i.e31 tLlgf6 6 ... cxd4 is strongly met by 7 i.xd4!. An exchange of dark-squared bishops would clearly not be in Black's interest, so realistically he has two options:

P.Witzschel-M.Krause, correspondence 1998. Here White's most convincing route to an advantage looks to be 9 i.e3 tLlgf6 10 'ir'd6 ! ? when Black has trouble completing his development. b) 7 ...tLlgf6 8 es dxes 9 fxes tLlh s 10 e6! (10 'ir'd2 is also good) 10...fxe6 11 tLlgS es (no better is 11 ...tLles 12 i.bS+ tLlc6 13 i.xg7 'iWxd1+ 14 l:txd1 tLlxg7 15 i.xc6+ bxc6 16 0-0 and despite the ex­ tra pawn, Black faces a difficult ending due to his numerous pawn weak­ nesses) was P.Hrvacic-F.Ljubicic, S plit 1999. and here the simple retreat 12 ..te3 would have left Black facing awk­ ward problems. 7 dxcsl

a) 7 ... es is met by 8 fxes when Black must make a difficult decision: a1) 8 ...tLlxes? leads to serious prob­ lems for him: 9 ..txes! (9 ..tbS+ ..td7 10 o-o also puts Black in trouble) 9 ... ..txes? (9... dxes was better, although even here White has a pleasant choice be­ tween 10 'iWxd8+ 'ifi>xd8 11 ..tc4 and 10 ..ibs+ i.d7 11 i.xd7+ 'iWxd7 12 'iWxd7+ �Xd7 13 0-0-0+, with a clearly better endgame in both cases) 10 tLlxes dxes was J.Choyke-R.Moore, Detroit 1994, and here White could have obtained a huge advantage with 11 ..tbs+!, in­ tending to meet 11 .....td7 with 12 'iWd6!. a2) 8 ...dxes is the lesser evil, as in

7 ...'iWa s

Recapturing the pawn immediately fails to solve Black's problems: a) After 7 ...dxcs 8 es ttJg4 9 i.g 1 Black has a difficult position and in the following game he was swiftly crushed: 9 ... o-o 10 'ir'd2 'iWas 11 o-o-o (11 ttJds ! would have been even stronger) 11 ... a6? (11 ....i.h6 was better, although 12 h4! ltJdxes 13 ltJxes ltJxes 14 hs re81

B e a ting U n u s u a l Ch ess Defe n ces:

1

tains White's advantage) 12 'itb1 l:te8 13 h3 tt:'lh6 14 g4 �f8 1S tt:'lds '11i'xd2 16 .l:!.xd2 l:tb8 17 tt:'lc7 1-0 S.Mozaliov­ V.Panush, Serpukhov 2003. b) In the event of 7 ...4Jxcs White should not hesitate to cede the bishop pair with 8 �xes! dxcs 9 '11i'xd8+ 'it>xd8 when that minor concession is out­ weighed by Black's misplaced king. The position after 10 es tt:'ld7 11 tt:'lg s �e8 was reached in J.Hodgson-I.Jones, Gwbert-on-Sea 2001, and here White could have obtained an overwhelming advantage by means of 12 tt:'lbS ! (12 tt:'lds! leads to the same thing) 12 ...h6 (or 12 ...�f8 13 tt:'lc7 l:tb8 14 :d1 with a huge advantage) 13 tt:'lc7+ �d8 (after 13 .. .'it>f8 14 tt:'lxf7 'it>xf7 1S �c4+ fol­ lowed by tt:'lxa8 White will easily extri­ cate his knight) 14 tt:'lge6+! fxe6 1S tt:'lxe6+

e8 16 tt:'lc7+ �d8 17 tt:'lxa8 and White is winning. 8 '11i'd 2 tt:'lxcs 9 es

e4 tion, it is small wonder that his open­ ing plan is rarely seen nowadays . It was essential to choose one of the following two options: a) 9 ...4:'lg4 10 �bS+ (also good is 10 �d4 0-0 11 h3 tt:'lh6 12 exd6 �xd4 13 tt:'lxd4 exd6 14 g4! l:te8+ 1S �e2 when White has the better pawn structure and the h6-knight is misplaced) 10 ...�d7 11 b4! 'Wxb4 12 l:.b1 '11i'a 3 (or 12 ...'11i'x b1+ 13 tt:'lxb1 �xbs 14 �xes dxcs 1S 'ii'd s) 13 �xes 'ii'x cs 14 �xd7+ 'it>xd7 1S l:txb7+ �dB 16 tt:'lds when Black was under pressure and was un­ able to solve his problems in A.Vitolinsh-l.luckans, Daugavpils 1973. b) 9 ...4:'lfd7 seems to be Black's most resilient defence, although it is still insufficient to equalize: 10 tt:'lds '11i'x d2+ 11 tt:'lxd2 tt:'le6 (if 11...�d8 12 exd6 exd6 13 tt:'lc4) 12 exd6 exd6?! (12 ....txb2 was better, although after 13 l:tb1 �a3 14 fs ! gxfs 1S tt:'lxe7 Black is under pres­ sure) 13 tt:'lc4 o-o 14 0-0-0 and White i s about t o win a pawn while keeping a dominant position, S.Nurkic-O.Jovanic, Kastav 2000. 10 b41

9 ...dxes?

In a difficult position Black commits a fatal error. Given the ease with which he has slipped into a precarious posi82

This excellent move effectively ends the contest after a mere ten moves! 10 �bS+ tt:'lcd7 11 fxes tt:'lg4 12 tt:'lds '11i'x d2+ 13 �xd2 was also excellent for White in S.Voitsekhovsky-V.Filippov, Orel 1992, but the text wins material by force. 10...'ii'xb4 11 l:tb1 tt:'lfe4

In the following game Black lost even more quickly: 11...'ii'as 12 fxe s ! ?

M od e rn Defe n ce (12 l:[bs is also good enough) 12 ... 4Jfd7 13 :bs "ifa3 14 :xes! o-o (14...4Jxcs 15 ttJbs wins) 15 :bs 4Jb6 16 .i.cs 1-0 M.Smits-G.Mendosa, correspondence 1999.

who calls it 'The Sniper'.

12 :xb4 ttJxd2 13 'it>xd2

4 dxcs

According to the computer 18 ttJds was even stronger, but the text move was enough to force resignation.

This is arguably the most principled response, although should White wish it, he can transpose to a few other openings: a) 4 tiJf3 leaves Black with nothing better than 4...cxd4 5 ttJxd4, reaching a Dragon or Accelerated Dragon. b) 4 dS reaches a Schmidt Benoni, as the independent option of 4....i.xc3+?! 5 bxc3 is unattractive for Black. 4..."ifa s

We will now move on to Black's deviations on the third move.

4 ....i.xc3+ is a major alternative and is in fact the recommendation of Storey. After 5 bxc3

White is a piece up - there is not much more to say. 13 ... 4Je6 14 .i.bS+ .i.d7 15 .i.xd7+ 'it>xd7 16 ttJxeS+ �e8 17 :xb7 g5 18 g3 1-0

Part 2

-

Unusual third moves

Game 1 7

M.Ciarakov-B.Savchenko

Dagomys 2004 1 e4 g6 2 d4 i.g7 3 4Jc3 csl?

This respectable sideline is the sub­ ject of a recent book by Charlie Storey, 83

B e a ting U n u s u a l C h e s s Defe n ce s :

1

White's c-pawns are tripled, but for the time being he has an extra pawn, and perhaps more importantly his dark-squared bishop has tremendous potential. I would urge the reader to study the following analysis carefully, as the position is rather irregular and both sides will need to play accurately. Black has three main options: a) s ...lt'lf6! ? has hardly ever been played, but it is by no means bad. Fol­ lowing 6 e S ! (I prefer this over 6 ..th6) 6 ...lZ'le4 7 ..tc4 (7 'Wi'd4 'Wi'as ! seems okay for Black) Black has two main options: a1) 7...lt'lxcs (according to the data­ base this is the only move to have been tested) 8 lZ'lf3 'Wi'c7 9 o-o lt'le6 10 'Wi'e2 was D.Sadvakasov-M.Dougherty, Phila­ delphia 2006. White's bishop pair, supe­ rior development and safer king count for more than the doubled c-pawns. a2) 7 ...'Wi'as seems like the most natural move. Now White has a choice between two promising continuations: a21) 8 lt'le2 lt'lxcs 9 'Wi'ds e6 10 'Wi'f3 lt'lc6

and according to Storey Black is fine 84

e4 here, but I am not convinced as his dark squares are like Swiss cheese. After 11 o-o or 11 ..tgs I prefer White. a22) 8 'Wi'f3 ! ? also looks good: for in­ stance, 8 ...'Wi'xc3+ (after 8 ...0-0 9 ..th6 lt'lc6 10 ..txf8 lt'lxes 11 'Wi'xe4 'Wi'xc3+ 12 We2 'iti>xf8 13 lZ'lf3 'Wi'xc4+ 14 'Wi'xc4 lZ'lxc4 Black does not have enough compensa­ tion for his material deficit) 9 'Wi'xc3 lt'lxc3 10 lZ'lf3 lZ'le4 11 ..te3 when again I regard White's two bishops and devel­ opment advantage as more significant than his fractured pawn structure. b) The idea behind s ... lt'lc6 is to play ... 'Wi'as without allowing the reply 'Wi'd4. After 6 ..tbs ! (surprisingly this excellent move has hardly ever been played; Sto­ rey only mentions the natural 6 ..te3, which has been the most common choice) Black might try:

b1) The only game I found on the database from this position (W.Flecker­ O.Krassnitzer, Austrian League 1991) continued 6 ... es? 7 lZ'lf3 'Wi'as and now after 8 'Wi'd3 White has a large plus. b2) 6 ... 'Wi'as is the only sensible move, but after 7 ..txc6! dxc6 8 'ifd4

M odern D efe n c e lt'Jf6 (8 .. .f6 9 lLlf3 cannot be good for Black) 9 i.h6 White is a pawn up and has excellent dark square prospects. c) s ... 'it'as has been Black's most popular choice by far, but with the strong manoeuvre 6 'it'd4! lt:lf6 7 'it'b4! White can call his opponent's play into question. Three replies are possible: c1) 7 ...'it'xb4?! 8 cxb4 lLlxe4 9 i.b2 o-o 10 �d3 was clearly better for White in M.Petrov-L.Dembour, Charleroi 2004. c2) 7 ...lLlc6! ? has hardly ever been played, but it deserves close attention and is the recommendation of Storey. The position after 8 'it'xas lLlxas 9 i.d3 o-o was reached in C.Desmarais-J.Fang, Chelmsford 2001. With an extra pawn and two bishops, there is little doubt in my mind that White stands better. However, Black's counterplay con­ nected with the pawn sacrifice ... b6 should not be underestimated.

centre and maintains the better pros­ pects. White should endeavour to avoid exchanging on b6, as then Black's a­ pawn would come closer to the centre and his rook would become active on the a-file. Instead White should main­ tain the tension and wait for the ex­ change on cs, which will not offer his opponent the same benefits. c3) 7 ... 'it'c7 has been the most popu­ lar move in the position: 8 i.bs! (White should not allow ... lLlc6 to come with tempo; interestingly the text move has almost never been tested, though) 8 ...lLlc6 9 i.xc6 'it'xc6 (after 9 ... dxc6 10 lLle2 White's extra pawn may not be about to promote any time soon, but the tripled c-pawns help to control sev­ eral important squares; his pieces are also the more active, so overall he stands better) 10 f3 b6 was seen in E.Rozentalis-A.Payen, Paris 2008. Here White should have played 11 cxb6 axb6 12 lLle2 with somewhat better chances, although the position remains complex and double-edged. s �d2 'it'xcs 6 lLld s!

My suggestion is: 10 �a3 ! l:te8 (in the event of 10 ... b6!? 11 cxb6 lLlc6 12 bxa7 .:txa7 13 .i.cs Black does not have two pawns' worth of compensation) 11 lLle2 b6 12 f3 ! when White solidifies his 85

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess Defe n ces:

1

After this excellent move Black's queen suddenly finds herself in danger. The main threat is .tb4, meeting ... 'ii'c 6 with .tbs ! when the bishop cannot be captured due to the fork on C7.

e4 present position was reached in E.Rossell-F.Balza, correspondence 2000, and now Khalifman recommends the powerful improvement 10 .ic3 ! when Black has two options:

6...tt:'la6

Black has surprisingly few playable moves. Here are some examples: a) The natural developing move 6 ...tt:'lf6? does nothing to prevent 7 .1b4 'ii'c 6 8 .tbs ! winning the queen. One game continued 8 ... tt:Jxds 9 .1xc6 tt:Jxb4 10 .1a4 .ixb2 11 l:tb1 i.c3+ 12 Wf1 b6? (12 ...tt:'l8c6 is better, but White should have few problems converting his ma­ terial advantage after 13 tt:Je2) 13 tt:'le2 .ia6 14 l:.xb4 .txb4 15 'ii'd4 and Black resigned in H.Scholz-M.Kesik, Seefeld 2005. b) 6 .. .'it;f8?! has been played, but we hardly need to analyse this move seri­ ously. A possible continuation is 7 .tb4 (7 tt:'lf3 should also suffice for an advan­ tage, as 7 ... .txb2? 8 l:.b1 .ig7 9 .ib4 'ir'c6 10 tt:'ld4 is terrible for Black) 7 ... 'ii'c 6 8 tt:'lf3 d6 (8 ....txb2? 9 l:.b1 .ig7 10 tt:'ld4) 9 tt:'ld4 'ii'd 7 10 .tbs tt:'lc6 11 o-o tt:'lf6 12 tt:'lxe7! ! �xe7 13 es and White has a huge attack, as pointed out by Khalif­ man. c) 6 ...b6 creates an escape square for the queen on b7, but allows White to build a dangerous lead in develop­ ment, with 7 .1b4 'ir'c6 8 .tbs 'ir'h7 9 'ir'f3 ! .txb2 (taking the pawn was not forced, but if Black refrains from it then he has nothing to counter White's massive development advantage). The 86

c1) 10....txa1 11 .ixa1 f6 12 es and White has a huge attack. c2) 10....1xc3+ 11 'ii'x c3 f6 (or 11...tt:'lf6 12 ...e S !) 12 e s ! when White has a serious initiative, and this is much stronger than the greedy 12 tt:'lc7+. 7 tt:'lf31 .ixb2?1 This is a principled move, but ulti­ mately it is too risky. Alternatives in­ clude: a) 7 ...tt:'lf6? can be refuted as follows: 8 b4! 'ir'd6 9 .1f4 •e6 (9 ......c6? 10 bs) 10 tt:Jgs 'ir'c6, as in J.Sikora Lerch­ V.Peresipkin, Strbske Plese 1978, and several other games. Interestingly, no­ one seems to have played the strongest move: 11 .tes ! when Black has no good defence against 12 bs (but the imme­ diate 11 b S allows Black to keep him­ self in the game with 11 ...Wcs !}. b) The safest and most common

M odern D efe n ce move is 7 ... e6, but after 8 �c3 White has an obvious advantage. 8 :b1 �g7 9 �xa61

Khalifman provides lengthy analysis of 9 :bs ! ?. His analysis does look quite convincing, but I disagree with his as­ sessment of the text move as inferior. If anything, I would say that after the game continuation White's advantage is even greater while the supporting variations are much less complicated. 9 ... bxa6 10 o-o

would have been 12 'ii'd 2! when Black has no good defence against 'ii'x as, e.g. c1) 12 ... e6 13 tt:'ld4 �xd4 (or 13 ...�c4 14 tt:'lbS!) 14 �xd4 f6 1 S tt:Jxf6+ tt:Jxf6 16 �xf6 :fs 17 �g7 and Black will not survive for long. c2) 12 ...tt:'lf6 13 tt:Jes tt:Jxe4 (13 ...�d6 14 tt:'lc4 �c6 1 S tt:Jxas �d6 16 �f4 tt:Jxe4 17 �d3 wins) 14 tt:Jxc6 tt:Jxd2 1 S tt:'lc7+ 'it>f8 16 �xd2 dxc6 17 tt:Jxa8 when Black can resign. 11 �b4 �c6 11 ... �c4 12 �as 'iPf8 13 tt:'lc7 �xe4 14 tt:'ld2! reaches the note to Black's next move. 12 �asl

10... d6?1

This soon leads to trouble, but Black's problems were already border­ ing on insurmountable, as shown by the following variations: a) 10... e6 11 �e2 ! is strong, as pointed out by Erenburg b) 10 ...�f8 11 �e3 �c6 (11 ... 'ii'c4 12 'i'd3 !) 12 tt:'ld4 'ii'd6 13 'ii'd 2 and White has a massive position for a meagre pawn, the principal threat being Was. c) 10...as 11 �e3 'ii'c 6 was seen in E .Sveshnikov-E.Ghaem Maghami, Ste­ p anakert 2004. At this point the easiest route to an overwhelming advantage

12 . . .�d7?1

Black was already losing, but this is hardly the way to improve his situa­ tion. The toughest defence was 12 .. .'�f8 13 tt:'lc7 'ii'xe4, although after 14 tt:'ld2 ! 'ii'c 6 1S 'ii'f3 dS (otherwise White picks up the rook on a8 for nothing) 16 c4! White has a decisive advantage. 13 tt:'lc7

c4! ? is also winning, but the text move is simplest. 13

· -�

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess D efe n ces:

1

e4

13 ..Jifxe4

advantage could easily evaporate.

13 ... .i.b7 14 ttJxa8 .i.xa8 15 es is vir­ tually hopeless for Black.

4 exd5

14 'Wd3 'Wa4 15 'Wd5

According to the computer 15 �c3 ! was even stronger, although i t hardly matters.

Best, since 4 ttJxds c6 regains the pawn and gives Black good equalizing chances. 4...ttJf6 5 .i.c4

15 ... e6 16 'WxaB 'Wxa5 17 ttJeBI

This elegant move seals the result. 11... �fB 1B :bs 'Wc5

5 ...ttJ bd7

19 ttJes+l 1-o

This final flourish puts the exclama­ tion point on a crushing victory. And now for another exotic third move ...

Game 18 S.Karjakin-A.Rakhmangulov

Evpatoria 2007 1 e4 g6 2 d4 �g7 3 ttJc3 d517

This cheeky move is not as bad as it looks. White will obtain an extra pawn, at least in the short term, but if he fails to follow up correctly then his opening 88

Black had better not delay his at­ tempts to recover the pawn. s ...0-0 allows 6 ttJge2! intending to put the knight on f4 when Black may experience real difficulties regaining his pawn: 6 ...ttJbd7 7 �b3 ttJb6 8 ttJf4 as 9 a4 �fs (after 9 ...c6 10 dxc6 bxc6 11 0-0 Black had no compensation in B.Chatalbashev-P.Garcia Castro, Mon­ dariz Balneario 2002) 10 o-o h6 (or 10 ... 'Wd7 11 h 3 ! :ladS?, as in I.Sorkin­ A.Segal, Netanya 1993, and after 12 g4 gS 13 ttJg2 White is winning as the g S ­ pawn will drop) 1 1 :t e l 'Wd7 12 h 3 g S 13 ttJh s ttJxh s 1 4 'Wxh s .i. g 6 15 'Wd1 when Black has still not managed to regain his pawn and his weakened kingside is an additional source of worry, L.Yudasin-A.Vydeslaver, Beer­ sheba 1992.

M o de r n D efe n ce 6 'iff3 11

My attention was drawn to this move after a database search revealed that Karjakin and other strong players had used it, with excellent results over­ all. White's idea is to return the ds­ pawn and settle for a slight positional advantage, with more space in the cen­ tre and chances for a kingside attack. The main line is 6 .tg s lZ:lb6 7 .txf6 .ixf6 8 .tb3 with the idea of hanging on to the extra pawn. This should also be good enough for some advantage, although Black's bishop pair gives him a degree of compensation. To be hon­ est I was rather torn between these two lines, but eventually decided that it would be more interesting to examine the more modern and less thoroughly analysed option. It is worth mentioning that White can also can begin with 6 .tb3 lZ:lb6 (6 ... 0-o 7 lZ:lge2 reaches the note to Black's fifth move, above), and only then play 7 'iff3 to reach the same posi­ tion as in the game.

6 tt:Jb6 •••

Black needs to generate some piece momentum if he is to regain his pawn. 6 ...0-o? is too slow: 7 h 3 ! lZ:lb6 8 .tb3 .td7 (8 ... as 9 a4 does not change much), as in U.Atakisi-F.Aleskerov, Ku­ sadasi 2006, and now after the simple 9 lZ:lge2 c6 10 dxc6 .txc6 11 'ifg3 Black has no compensation whatsoever. 7 i.b3 .tg4 Black can flick in the moves 7 ... as 8 a4 either here or at virtually any point over the next few moves; the timing is unlikely to matter a great deal. s 'ifg3 .tfs

In one game Black tried 8 ...h 5?, but soon got into a mess: 9 h 3 h4 10 'ifd3 i.h s (10 ....tfs 11 'ifhS+! is awkward) 11 lZ:lf3 "iid 7 (11...lZ:lfxds 12 lZ:lxds lZ:lxds allows White to win a pawn with either 13 lZ:lxh4 or 13 'ifhs+), and now in K.Richert Goerttler-V.Hoehn, German League 1995, after the simple 12 lZ:les White's advantage would already have been decisive. g lZ:lf3 lZ:lbxds 10 lZ:lxds lZ:lxds 11 o-o o-o

The opening phase is more or less at an end. White has a small but definite 89

B e a ting U n u s u a l Ch ess D efe n ces:

1

advantage, with more space and the freer game. 12 :e1

12 'ir'h4 and 12 c3 have also been played. All three of these moves are likely to feature in White's plans at some point, although it seems correct to develop the rook first.

e4 1 6 i.d2 was a good alternative. 16 ...:b6 17 c3 i.e6

Black follows his plan. 1B lDes •cs

12... lDf6

After a move like 12 ...c6 White should play 13 'ir'h4 when the ideas of i.h6 and tt:Jgs are on the agenda.

19 b31?

White allows the bishop exchange, but only on his own terms. Another way to maintain the advantage was 19 i.bs ! ? when the rook on b6 is uncom­ fortably placed. 19...i.xc4 20 bxc4 13 .h4

13 c3 has also been played, but there is no real reason to destabilize the bishop on b3 just yet, especially as the moves ... as and a4 might be in­ serted at any moment. 13 ... as 14 a4 :a61?

Black finds a creative way to de­ velop his rook. 15 h3

Karjakin is in no hurry and settles for a quiet improving move. 15 ...•d7 16 i.c4 Black wants to simplify with ... i.e6, so Karjakin prepares a counter. 90

White's doubled pawns are not weak; on the contrary, they provide him with excellent central control. 2o :es ..•

The computer suggests the brave 20 .. J:tb3 ! ? intending 21 i.d2 :b2 or 2 1 :a3 :b1 when the rook has a certain nuisance value. This would probably have been a better practical attempt than the passive game continuation , although I still prefer White's position. 21 i.gs

21 'ii'f4! looks like a slight improve­ ment, centralizing the queen and pin­ ning the f6-knight. White can consider following up with cs or even g4! ?, gain-

M o dern D efe n ce

21 ...l:tb3 ! ? deserved attention once again.

while conveniently opening the fourth rank, defending the a4-pawn and cre­ ating new opportunities for the white queen.

22 lLlg4 f6 2 3 i.h6

28.....tg7?

in g more space. 21...lbd7

Black commits a tactical error in a difficult position.

23 ...i.h871

This looks a bit too slow. 23 ...l:tc6 and 23 ... e S ! ? were both more testing, although White should be a little better in both cases. 24 csl l:ta6 25 l:tad1

Black's position is becoming dis­ tinctly congested. 2s .. .fs

This creates further weaknesses, but Black had to do something to get his pieces working. 26 lbe3 lbf6 27 f31

Preventing Black's plan of ... lbe4 and .....tf6. 27 .. .'ili'd7

27 ... l:tc6 would have prevented White's next move, but after 28 i.f4 or 28 lbc4 the first player maintains a comfortable plus. 28 dst

Karjakin gains even more space

29 i.gs71

This maintains a dominant position, but Karjakin has uncharacteristically overlooked a forced win. A cleaner kill could have been achieved by 29 c6! bxc6 (29 ...1Wc8 30 cxb7 'ifxb7 3 1 lbxfs! is also crushing) 30 'ifc4! 'ifc8 31 d6+! Wh8 32 i.xg7+ �xg7 33 d7! lbxd7 34 l:txd7 'ifxd7 3 5 1Wxa6 when White emerges with an extra piece and an easily won game. 29 .'iti>h8 30 'ii'c4 h6 31 i. h4 gS71 Black's position was horrible in any case, but weakening the fS-pawn is unlikely to improve it. ..

32 ..tf2

White could have punished his op­ ponent's last move even more convinc­ ingly with 32 c6! 1Wc8 33 cxb7 'ii'xb7 34 .ltf2. The fS-pawn is mortally weak and 91

B e a t i n g U n u s u a l Chess Defe n ces:

1

if 3 4 ... f4 3 5 lLlf5 Black is toast.

32 ...:If8? 3 2 . .'Wc8 was the last chance to pro­ .

lo ng the game, although White re­ ma in s in total control. 33 c6! �c8 34 cxb7 'Wxb7 35 lLlxfs

Black loses an important pawns and his p osition is in ruins.

e4 with 5 ...l2Jh6, intending . . .f6 i n the near future. This approach is featured in Game 20. 2 e4 g6 3 lLlc3 c6 4 f4 d S I?

With this move Black loses a tempo ... but gains two in return ! The reason will be explained shortly. 5 es h5

35 . . .!U7 36 d6 1-o

Part 3 - The 'Modern Caro-Ka nn '

In the next three games we will deal with Black's set-up involving an early . c6 and ... d5, intending a light-squared strategy in the centre. ..

Game 19

Le Quang Liem-H.Danielsen

Dresden Olympiad 2008 1 d4 White opened with the queen's pawn in this game, but we will be back in e4-territory soon enough. 1 d6 Sometimes Black goes for the same kind of set-up using the move order 1 ... g6 2 e4 i.g7 (2 ... d6 3 l2Jc3 c6 reaches the present game) 3 l2Jc3 c6 4 f4 d5 5 e5, with two main possibilities: a) White should be happy to see 5 ...h 5 ? ! , for reasons that will be ex­ plained in the note to Black's fifth move below. b) In positions with the black bishop already on g7, it is more logical for him to concentrate on rapid development ...

92

This is the most common and con­ sistent move, and the one which pro­ vides the most justification for Black's decision to play ... d5 in two moves rather than one. The point is that with the centre blocked, Black's bishop has absolutely no future on g7 and in most games he will voluntarily retreat this piece to f8 where it will have better prospects. In other words, Black may have lost a tempo by playing ... d7-d6d5, but he has avoided losing two moves with ...i.f8-g7-f8. Before moving on, I should briefly mention that 5 ...l2Jh6 is occasionally played. Then after 6 lLlf3 we have: a) 6 ...i.g7? makes no sense, as after 7 i.e3 Black is a full tempo down on Game 20.

M odern D efe n ce b) 6 ... .ig4 is better. White's most energetic response is 7 h 3 ! (after 7 i.e3 ft6 8 l:.b1 ttJfs 9 i.f2 e6 10 .ie2 cs Black may not have equalized fully, but he has certainly gone a long way to­ wards justifying his opening play, S.Rublevsky-V.Bologan, Dortmund 2004) 7 ....ixf3 8 'ii'xf3 ttJfs (8 ... 'ii'b 6 should also be met by 9 ttJe2) 9 ttJe2 h6 10 c3 e6 (it is too late to restrain the g-pawn, as shown by 10 ... h 5 11 g4 tLlg7 12 ttJg3 with the better prospects for White) 11 g4 tLlh4 12 'ii'f2 .ie7 13 ct:lg 3 tLld7 14 .ie3 by when White has the bishop pair and a space advantage while the knight on h4 is misplaced, C.Casares Cabanas-M.Manolache, Vila­ garcia de Arousa 2006. 6 ctJf3

the position in exactly the same way, while feeling extra-confident in the knowledge that you will effectively be a tempo up on the present game, as the black bishop will usually retreat from g7 to f8 at some point. 6...ttJh6

6 ....ig4 hardly changes anything: 7 h3 .ixf3 8 'ii'xf3 e6 9 i.e3 h4 10 .id3 ttJh6 11 o-o and play will almost cer­ tainly transpose to the main game af­ ter a subsequent ...ttJfs and .if2. 7 .ie3 .ig4

Black prepares to swap off his light­ squared bishop, in preparation for completing his light-squared pawn chain with ... e6. Naturally there are a few other ideas available to him: a) A move like 7 ...ttJfs? makes abso­ lutely no sense, as after 8 .if2 Black is unable to exchange any pieces, and White will easily prepare a kingside expansion with g3, h3 and eventually g4. b) Some players have tried the dis­ ruptive move 7 ...'ii'b 6, but this also fails to equalize.

Regardless of whether the bishop is on g7 or f8, White has the better pros­

p ects, as demonstrated by the course of the main game along with the accom­ p anying notes. Should you reach the s ame position with the bishop on g 7 (via the move order given i n the note to Black's first move), you should handle 93

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess D efe n ce s :

1

Let us follow the instructive play of Karjakin for a model demonstration of White's chances: 8 lt:Ja4! 'ii'a 5+ 9 c3 .ig4 10 lt:Jc5 (White should avoid allowing ....ixf3 at a time when gxf3 would be forced, as his kingside pawns would lose their fluidity) 1o...'ii'c 7 11 h3 lt:Jf5 12 ii.f2 .ixf3 13 'ii'xf3 b6 (otherwise: 13 ...e6? 14 g4 gives White everything he could wish for; and 13 ...h4 14 e6! b6 15 exf7+ �xf7 16 lt:Jd3 gave White a obvious advan­ tage in M.Kuznecov-O.Efimova, Moscow 2006) 14 lt:Jd3 h4 15 e6! ! (this far-sighted positional sacrifice sets Black difficult problems, although the modest 15 .ie2 would also have given White a slight plus) 15 .. .fxe6 (after 15 .. .f6 16 0-0-0 'ii'd6 17 l:.e1 lt:Ja6 - 17 ...a5 18 g4 hxg3 19 .ixg3 lt:Ja6 20 .l:r.g1 lt:Jc7 21 .if2 lt:Jxe6 22 l:.xg6 is also very good for White - 18 'ii'g4 l:.h6 19 lt:Je5! fxe5 20 dxe5 'ii'xe6 21 .ixa6 White keeps a clear advantage according to Avrukh's analysis) 16 'Wg4 l:.h6 17 lt:Je5 lt:Jd7 18 .id3! ? (also promis­ ing is 18 lt:Jxd7 followed by .id3, intend­ ing to pile up on the e-file) 18 ... ii.g7 (the computer suggests 18 ... lt:Jxe5, but fails to recognize that after 19 fxe5 Black's bishop is in a cage and will have serious trouble getting into the game) 19 0-0 i.xe5 20 fxe5. In S.Karjakin-P.Kotsur, Chalkidiki 2002, Black's extra pawn was meaningless and White won smoothly after a timely c4 opened the way for his rooks and light-squared bishop. Returning to 7 ... .ig4:

e4 uninitiated it might seem like a posi­ tional error, as White allows his king­ side pawns to be fixed. The subsequent course of the game will show that this is of no great concern.

s tt:Jfs ...

8 ....ixf3 9 'ii'xf3 lt:Jf5 10 .if2 h4 11 .id3 e6 is just another route to the same position. 9 .if2 .ixf3 10 'ii'xf3 h4 I hardly need state that if Black al­ lows his knight to be driven back by g2g4, then his opening will have been an abject failure. 11 ..td3 e6 12 o-o

8 h31

This is a standard move, but to the 94

White has completed his develop-

M o dern Defe n c e ment and over the next few moves he will follow a standard plan which can be played against virtually anything Black might try. White will begin by retreating his knight to e2, which serves two purposes: a) The first is to open the way for c2c4, which will usually be supported by b2-b3. With these moves White begins to cramp his opponent on the queen­ side. Later he can bide his time before deciding whether to exchange with cxds or gain additional space with cs. b) White's second major idea in­ volves a regrouping of his kingside pieces with 'ith2, ltJg1, _.e2 and ltJf3. This will improve his general coordina­ tion while also developing pressure against the h4-pawn. This is all the more significant when one considers the possibilities of _.e2-e1 and ..txfs, which can be played at any moment White wishes. All in all, Black is rather passive and will have a hard time defending against the threats on both flanks. 12 as ...

Black anticipates his opponent's plan and hopes to benefit from the opening of the a-file. Black has a num­ ber of slightly different ways of han­ dling the position, but none of them really alter the general assessment of the position. A logical alternative is 12 ...ltJd7 13 lUe 2. Here are few examples to show how the game may develop:

a ) 13 ... ..ie7 1 4 b3 �B 1 S c4 '1ii>g 7 16 l:.fc1 _.as 17 a3 l:.hcB 1B b4 _.dB 19 cs _.c7 20 a4 (another highly promising plan was the kingside regrouping be­ ginning with 20 'it>h2 ! , intending ltJg1, _.e2 and ltJf3 when the h4-pawn will become seriously weak) 20...b6 21 bs ltJbB 22 'iii>h 2 _.dB 23 l:.c2 a6?! 24 cxb6 _.xb6 2 S as �7 26 b6 and White had a huge advantage in D.Schneider­ A.Kireev, Pardubice 2007. b) 13 ... bs 14 b3 b4 1S c4 bxc3 16 l:.ac1 �6 17 ..txfS! ? gxfs 1B ltJxc3 ..ia3 19 l:.c2 _.a6 20 ltJa4 l:.cB 21 l:.d1 ltJb6 22 ltJcs �s 23 ..e3 ltJd7 24 ltJd3 as 2 S _.e1 ..ie7 2 6 l:.c3 when Black was under pressure and the subsequent error 26 ... ..ib4? soon led to a losing position after 27 ltJxb4 axb4 2B l:.c2 'iii>dB 29 ..txh4+ rj;c7 30 ..te7 in A.David­ J.Kvamme, Berlin 1997. 13 ttJe2 a4

Let us see one more instructive ex­ ample of how to conduct White's posi­ tion. In the following game Black de­ veloped his knight in a slightly unusual way and he was again unable to solve 95

B e a t ing U n u s u a l Chess D efe n ces:

1

his problems: 13 . ..tba6 14 c3 !ii..e 7 15 �h2 ! (once more we see the same the­ matic regrouping) 15 ...'iPf8 16 b3 �g7 17 t:Dg1 t:Dc7 18 'iie 2 a4 19 tbf3 'iig 8 20 c4! (having arranged his kingside pieces in the optimal way, White switches back to the queenside) 20 ...'iih 7 21 c5 'iih 6 22 'iid 2 axb3 23 axb3 l:.hb8 24 l:.a4 'it>f8 25 l:.fa1 l:.xa4 26 1:1xa4 (26 bxa4!? is also promising, as Black will experience unpleasant pressure along the b-file) 26 ... 'it>e8 27 l:.a7 when White was in full control and went on to win in T.Michalczak­ U.Dresen, German League 2010.

e4 White is ready for c4 with the usual queenside pressure. b) White can also play the move 14 �h2, refusing to clarify the situation on the queenside just yet and instead planning the standard kingside re­ grouping. 14...'iia s 15 'it>h2! White gets back on track with a more purposeful move than his previ­ ous one. 15 ...t:Dd7 16 l:.ab1

Le Quang decides to build his posi­ tion on the queenside before returning to the kingside plan. 16 ...!ii..e 7 17 b3 axb3 18 axb3 'itfB

The question of where to put the king is a common problem for Black in this variation. If he wants to connect his rooks then he will have to put it on g7, but later it could become vulner­ able there, especially if the h4-pawn eventually falls. 19 C4

14 l:tfd1

I consider this move to be slightly inaccurate, although it does not jeop­ ardize White's advantage. It is hard to see the rook having much of a future on d1 and in any event I see no point in placing it there so soon, so I would in­ stead recommend one of the following alternatives: a) 14 b3 'ii'a 5 15 l:.ab1 axb3 16 axb3 when Black has obtained the use of the a-file, but he can do little with it, and 96

19 ...!ii.. b 4?1

Danielsen decides to activate his bishop, although there is an obvious

M o de rn Defe n ce risk of the h4-pawn becoming weak. 19 ... 'itg7 would have been a better try when White has a number of ideas: a) 20 ll:lg1 looks slightly inaccurate, as 20 .. .'ii'a2! inhibits the plan of'We2 for the time being. b) 20 c5 looks tempting, but after 20 ...b 5 ! Black has decent chances to hold. c) White should go for a more flexi­ ble option such as 20 l:tdcl, improving his position slightly and keeping all his options open. (Of course this under­ lines the fact that his 14th move was not the best.) Here 20 �ell? is also in­ teresting.

21 ... gxf5 22 'We3

22 cxd5 cxd5 23 .!:.bel also looks promising, as White takes over the c­ file. 22 ...�e8?!

Black decides the kingside is not such a safe haven after all. He is right, but still the text move does not make a good impression. 22 ...'ii'c 2!? looks more resilient, al­ though after 23 l:.dcl (23 cxd5 l:.a2 !) 23 .. .'�'e4 24 .l:.al followed by ll:lf3 Black is under pressure. 2 3 lLlf3 �e7 24 'ii'e 11

20 ll:lg1!

White continues his plan.

And just like that, the h4-pawn is a goner. 24...'ii'c2 2 0.. .'ii'a21?

Black anticipates the planned 'ii'f3e2, which would now allow a queen exchange and so ease Black's defence. 2 1 .tx1s1

Usually White would not make this exch ange so soon, but thanks to Black's l ast move, White needs to free a differ­ ent square for his queen.

Black cannot defend with 24 ... �b4 2 5 'ii'fl i.. e 7?? due to 26 .l:.al. 25 ..!:.all?

White could have simply grabbed the pawn with 25 cxd5 cxd5 26 i.. xh4, but he decides to take control over the a-file first. 2 s .....l:.b8 26 csl

The h-pawn is not going anywhere, so White takes a moment to seal off 97

Bea ting U n u s u a l Chess Defe n ces:

1

the queenside and restrict his oppo­ nent's pieces, especially the queen which is now noticeably short of squares. 26 .. ."�e4?

The queen makes an unfortunate step into an inescapable prison cell. 26 .. .'�xb3? was also hopeless due to 27 'it'd2 ! followed by l:.dbl trapping the queen. Black should have played some kind of waiting move, as White is not yet threatening to win the queen by force. Nevertheless, White is completely dominating and can improve his posi­ tion with b4, before deciding whether to collect the h4-pawn or continue with his queenside attack. 27 'it'd21

e4 This game and the accompanying examples shows that White has a rela­ tively easy time against the blocking set-up involving an early ...h s. In the next game we see a more challenging set-up, involving faster development and a rapid ...f6 from Black.

Game 20 D.Mastrovasilis-D.Svetushkin

Greek Tea m Championship 2004 1 e4 g6 2 d4 �g7 3 lLlc3 c6 4 f4 d s

There is one other version of the blocked pawn centre which deserves some attention, namely 4...'it'b6 5 lLlf3 ds ! ? (5 . d6 6 �c4 was covered in Game 14) 6 e s ! (after 6 exds �g4 Black has reasonable compensation) 6 ...�g4 7 �e2. ..

The door is locked on the wandering black queen. 27 ... b6 2 B l:.e1

Black's queen is trapped and the rest is easy. 2B ... bxcs 29 l:.xe4 fxe4 30 tLlgs cxd4 3 1 'it'xd4 �cs 3 2 1l'd2 �b4 3 3 'il'c2 l:.cB 3 4 l:.a6 cs 35 .l:!. a 7 l:.dB 36 'il'e2 1-0

98

Due to the presence of the queen on b6, White is more or less forced to put his bishop on this less than ideal square, unless he is willing to accept doubled f-pawns, which in my view

M od e rn D efen c e would be a far greater concession. Here are a few examples to show how the game may develop: a) 7 ....i.xf3 8 .i.xf3 e6 9 lL:\a4 'iWaS+ 10 c3 lL:\d7 11 b4 'iic 7 12 .i.e3 lL:\e7 13 o-o as 14 a3 o-o 15 lL:\cs axb4 16 axb4 bS 17 'iWb1 lL:\b6 18 l:.f2 l:.xa1 19 'iWxa1 �a8 20 :a2 l:.xa2 21 'iWxa2 lL:\ec8 22 g4 lL:\c4 23 .i.c1 'iia7 24 'iWxa7 lL:\xa7 2 5 �e2 and White kept some advantage in the endgame, A.Greet-P.Const­ antinou, British Championship, Tor­ quay 2009. b) 7 ...lL:\h6 gives White a couple of possibilities: b1) The rare 8 lL:\gs ! ? .i.xe2 9 lL:\xe2 should give White decent chances for an edge. b2) 8 lL:\a4 is the typical way to drive the queen away from b6, eliminating the pressure on the b2- and d4-pawns, and thus enabling White to complete his development. After 8 ...'iWaS+ (with 8 ...'iic 7 9 .i.e3 White develops smoothly and the knight is by no means badly placed on a4; White's plan involves b3, c4 and l:.ac1, and later the knight can swit ch to cs, c3, or possibly via b2 to d3) 9 c3 lL:\d7 10 o-o bs (another ap­ proach is 10 .. .f6 11 b4 'iic 7, as in M.Zumsande-J.Hodgson, German Le ague 2003, and now after 12 h3 �e6 1 3 g4 White's space advantage gives hi m a definite plus) 11 lL:\cs lL:\xcs 12 b4 'i'a4 13 bxcs 'iWxd1 14 l:.xd1 '>t>d7 15 a4 a6 16 h3 ..tfs 17 l:td2 t>b7 20 �f2 Black faces an un­ pleasant defensive task in this

queenless middlegame, S.Cicak, Stockholm 2007. Returning to 4 ...d5:

D.Howell-

s es

s lL:\h6 ...

s ...h S ? ! has been the most-common move, but to me it makes no sense in this position. Let me reiterate the point made in the note to Black's fifth move in the previous game: after 6 lL:\f3 Black is virtually a tempo down on Le Quang Liem-Danielsen, as following the stan­ dard continuation of 6 ...lL:\h6 7 �e3 .i.g4 8 h3 lL:\fs 9 .i.f2 .i.xf3 10 'iWxf3 h4 11 .i.d3 e6 12 o-o the black bishop has absolutely no future on g 7 and in most games it has retreated to f8 at some point over the next few moves. 6 lL:\f3 .i.g4 Black has a number of different move orders available. Should he try a different sequence, the best he can achieve is to transpose to the main game, whereas if he tries to deviate then he will soon find himself in a worse position. Here are some exam­ ples to illustrate this point: 99

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess Defe n ces:

1

a) 6...0-o 7 i..e 3 .ltg4 (7 .. .f6 is varia­ tion 'b3', below) 8 i.. e 2 ttJfs (8 ... f6 9 o-o transposes to the main game) 9 i..f2 f6 10 o-o reaches the note to Black's 9th move in the main game. b) 6 ...f6 7 .lte3 and now: b1) Black's soundest is 7 ....ltg4, which transposes to the main game. b2) 7 ...'Wb6 should as usual be met by 8 llla4! 'ilr'aS+ 9 c3 when Black's queenside demonstration has achieved nothing. b3) 7 ...0-0 is well met by 8 h 3 !. After this accurate move Black will pay the price for delaying the development of his light-squared bishop, which now lacks a decent square: 8 ...tDf7 9 llle 2! (White's number one priority is to sta­ bilize his centre; once that has been achieved he will easily catch up on de­ velopment, while Black will struggle to generate counterplay) 9 .. .fxes 10 fxes cs 11 c3 l2Jc6 12 'iWd2 cxd4 13 cxd4 i..fs 14 lllg 3 (14 lDC3 also looks good) and White has a comfortable plus, O.Korneev-E.Fernandez Romero, Alba­ cete 2001.

e4 7 i..e 3 This move is actually a slight inac­ curacy. Should you reach this position over the board, I recommend that you choose one of the following move or­ ders: a) If you are aiming for the position reached in the main game, then 7 i..e 2 is the best way, as it enables White to bypass the possibility mentioned in the note to Black's next move. For example: a1) 7 .. .f6 8 i..e 3 transposes to the game. a2) 7 ...t2Jfs 8 o-o (8 ttJg s ! ? is also in­ teresting) is safe enough for White, as 8 ...'iib 6 can be met by 9 l2Ja4!. b) Against the particular move order chosen by Black in the present game, White can consider 7 h 3 ! ? i.. xf3 8 'ilr'xf3 with good chances for an advantage. However, I do not want to dwell on this option too much, as Black can easily avoid it: for instance, with 6 ...f6 7 .lte3 .ltg4, transposing to the game without allowing White this extra possibility.

7 f6 7 ...ifb6 ! ? would have more or less ...

1 00

M odern Defe n ce forced the passive 8 l:tb1, as the gener­ ally desirable 8 tt::la4?! can be m et by 8 .. .'iiaS+ 9 c3 ..txf3 ! forcing the incon­ venient 10 gxf3. 8 i.e2 o-o In this position 8 .. .'ir'b6 can be met by the standard response of 9 tt::l a4! �aS+ 10 c3: for instance, 10...tt::l d 7 11 b 4 "iic 7 12 o-o o-o (O.Gutierrez Castillo­ M.Cabrera Peinado, Malaga 2000) 13 h3 i.xf3 14 i.xf3 tt::lfs 15 "iid 3 ! ? with a slight plus for White.

dxes l:ff8 17 g4 d4 18 lbe4 lbe3 19 ..txe3 dxe3 20 "iix e3 and White re­ mains on top. a2) After 11 ... exf6 12 lbh4! i.xe2 13 "iix e2 tbxh4 14 i.xh4 the point of White's idea is that Black has no good way of preventing f4-f5.

9 0-0

This is the key position of the varia­ tion, which can be reached via several different move orders. 9 tbd7 ...

The main alternative is 9 ... tbfs 10 ..itf2 ..th6 (10 ... ..txf3? ! 11 ..txf3 leaves Black virtually a tempo down on the game), when White has tried numer­ ous moves. In my view there are two m ain contenders: a) Khalifman recommends the in­ tere sting 11 exf6 when Black may try: a1) 11 ...l:xf6 12 'ii'd 2 lbd7 13 l:ae1 'ii'q 14 lbes �xe2 15 l:xe2 lbxes 16

However, it is not clear how big a problem this is for him: a21) Khalifman mentions the line 14....:e8 15 "iid 3 "iid6 16 fs l:te3 17 "iid 1 tt:'ld7 18 "iig 4 with some initiative for White. a22) A better try is 14...tt::l a 6! as played in A.Bezemer-R.Hartoch, Wijk aan Zee 2005. From here the most logi­ cal continuation seems to be 15 fS l:e8 (if 1S ..."iie 8 16 "iig 4) 16 "iig 4 ..te3+ 17 ..tf2 .i.xf2+ 18 l:xf2 "iid 7 when White's position is certainly a bit more com­ fortable, but I am not convinced that his advantage is anything serious. Black will block the kingside with ...g s at an opportune moment, and can double his rooks on the e-file to create counterplay and keep White from building a truly dangerous attack. 1 01

B e a t ing U n u s u a l Chess Defe n ces:

1

b) In view of the above, the more ambitious 11 ltJh4! ? is my recommen­ dation. White exchanges a pair of bish­ ops in order to relieve the pressure on his centre and maintain his space ad­ vantage. After 11 ...i.xe2 12 •xe2! (12 ltJxe2 has been played in a few games, but it turns out that White does not have to defend the f4-pawn and can instead play more actively) Black has tried three moves:

b1) 12 ... i.xf4?! was tried in M.Schuster-T.Baerwinkel, Binz 1995, but after 13 lt:\xf5 gxf5 14 exf6 Black is struggling. b2) 12 ...lLlg7 13 exf6 exf6 14 f5 ! (White has an improved version of variation 'a2' above) 14...l:f.e8 15 •d3 g5 16 •d2 ! ? b5 (16 ...lLld7 might be a slight improvement, but after 17 g4 intending ltJg2 the evaluation is about the same). This position was reached in M.Orlinkov-A.Gorbatov, Moscow 2000, and now after the logical 17 g4 lLld7 18 lLlg2 White is better. b3) 12 .. .fxe5 13 fxe5 ! (I checked the other recaptures as well, but in the end 102

e4 I strongly prefer this natural move which maintains White's space advan­ tage and creates some attacking chances on the f-file), and here I ana­ lysed the following possible continua­ tions: b31) After 13 ...lLlxh4 14 .ixh4 Black lacks counterplay and the pressure on the e7-pawn is annoying for him. b32) With 13 ... e6 14 lLlf3 ! White avoids exchanges and is ready to play g4 next. b33) 13 ...lLld7 14 lLlf3 when White consolidates his space advantage and keeps a slight edge. b34) 13 ...lLlg7 14 i.e3 i.xe3+ 15 'iix e3 lLld7 16 b 3 ! ? anticipates .. .'ifb6.

After 16 ...e6 17 l:f.xf8+ 'iixf8 18 g4! c5 19 lt:\e2 cxd4 20 tt:Jxd4 White keeps a slight plus thanks to the offside knight on g7. b35) 13 ...'ii'b 6 appears critical, but it meets with a convincing response: 14 lLlf3 ! 'ifxb2 (Black is not forced to take this pawn, but if he refuses then what was the point of putting his queen on b6 ?) 15 'ii'd 3 'ii'a 3 (after 1S ... lLla6 16

M o de r n D efe n ce l:lab1 -.a3 17 l:b3 -.as 18 g4 Black loses material) 16 l:ab1 (less accurate is 16 g4 lt:'!a6!) 16 .. .'ili'a6 17 -.xa6 bxa6 (if 17 ...lt:'!xa6 18 l:xb7) 18 lt:'!a4 when White has a promising initiative in the endgame and Black's extra pawn is virtually meaningless. Returning to 9 ...lt:'!d7:

White should recapture with the f­ pawn unless there is a truly compelling reason not to. 13 ...e6 14 ttJe2 1

White prepares to support his cen­ tre with c3. 14...-.gs

Perhaps Black should have consid­ ered 14....i.h6 15 -.d3 •gs 16 .i.g4 when a few moves have been tried:

10 h3 .i.xf3 11 .i.xf3 lt:'!fs

11 .. .fxes 12 fxes does not really change anything, as the knight has no better square than fs. 12 .tf2 fxes

a) 16 ...-.e7 was seen in D.Barria Zuniga-V.Komliakov, Internet (blitz) 2004, and now after 17 lt:'!g3 cs 18 c3 White keeps a slight plus. b) 16 ... :ae8 was played in O.Simon­ P.Petitcunot, French League 2008. At this point I think White should have played 17 'lti>h2 ! ? anticipating the fol­ lowing knight jump: 17 ...lt:'!e3 18 .i.xe3 -.xe3 19 -.xe3 .i.xe3 20 h4 and the weakness on e6 is slightly more signifi­ cant than the one on d4, although I would be the first to admit that White's advantage is not huge.

13 fxes

15 c3 l:f7

13 dxes has been tried successfully in a couple of games, but I believe

After 1S ... lL:le3 16 �xe3 ir'xe3+ 17 "'h l White no longer has the two103

B e a t i n g U n u s u a l Chess D efe n ces: 1 e4 bishop advantage, but he keeps a slight edge as his remaining bishop has bet­ ter prospects than its dark-squared counterpart. The former can attack the weak pawn on e6, whereas the latter is currently being shut out of the game by the d4-e5 pawn wedge. 16 'ii'c 1 'ii'e 7

After 16 ...-.xc1 17 t"Llxc1 ..ih6 18 t"Lld3 the knight finds an ideal square and White keeps a slight edge. 17 i.e31?

over the board, I would recommend 20 ..if4! as the most accurate continua­ tion. The logical response is 20 ... cs (20 ...g s ? ! just weakens the light squares, and White is better after both 21 ..ih2 and 21 ..ig3 ! ?) 21 i.g4 t"Llb6 when it is worth mentioning two ideas: a) Khalifman offers 22 ..txfs l:.xfs 2 3 t"Llg3 t"Llc4 2 4 'ii'c 1 l:.Sf7 2 5 b3 t"Llas 2 6 ..txh6 l:.xfl+ 2 7 t"Llxf1, but seems to overlook the riposte 27 ... l:.xf1+! when Black wins two pieces for a rook and reaches an unclear endgame. b) Instead I recommend the simple 22 b3! when White maintains control of the position and keeps a slight plus. 20 ... h5?1

This weakens the kingside need­ lessly. Black should have preferred 20 ... t"Llb6 or 20 ... cs, with a decent posi­ tion in either case. 21 ..tgs 'it>h7 Once again White is happy to allow the exchange of his dark-squared bishop for the enemy knight. 17 .l:l.af8 ..

In the event of 17 ... t"Llxe3 18 •xe3 l:l.af8 19 ..ig4 White keeps a slight plus. 18 ..tg 5 'ii'e 8 19 'ii'd 2 h6 Up to now both sides have played logically and consistently, with White maintaining a modest edge thanks to his space advantage. On the next move, however, both players go slightly astray. 20 i.e3

Should you reach the same position 1 04

22 l:.f2

It was worth considering 22 g4! ? hxg4 (22 ...t"Lld6 2 3 t"Llf4) 2 3 hxg4 t"Llg3 24 tt'lxg3 l:.xf3 2 5 l:.xf3 l:.xf3 26 �g2 l:.f7

Modern Defe n ce 2 7 t2Je2 with an edge for White. 22 ... �h6l 23 �xh6 t2Jxh6

Black should be okay from here. The rest of the game is not particularly im­ portant for our study of the opening, so 1 shall offer only light commentary.

the balance. After the text move White takes over. 39 'ikc31 'ii'd 7 40 'ikc5 ..ti>g7 41 b5 tLldB 42 'ikd6?

24 l:tafl 'ike7 25 g3 c5 26 �g2 l:.xf2 27

Correct was 42 ..ti>e3 ! ..ti>h7 (or 42 ... 'ike8 43 'ikc2 ! ..ti>h6 44 'ikc7!) 43 'ikc2 'ikf7 44 ttJxhS when White is winning.

ltxf2 l:xf2 28 ..ti>xf2 cxd4 29 cxd4 tLlbB

42 'ikxd6 43 exd6 'iW6 44 We3 tLlf7 45

30 a 3

d7 We7 46 t2Jxg6+ 'it>xd7 47 l2Jf4?

30 h4!? was worth considering. 30...t2Jc6 3 1 b4 tLlf5 32 h4?1

32 'ikc3 'ikf8 33 ..tel was better. 32 ... 'ikfBI 33 ..ti>g1 a51

Developing strong counterplay. 34 �h31

White correctly avoids the trap 34 bS? t2Jcxd4! 35 t2Jxd4 'ikcs.

•••

Better was 47 'iW4! t2Jd6 48 ..ti>es t2Jc4+ (not 48 ...t2Jfs? 49 t2Jf8+) 49 Wf6 'it>d6 and now the elegant 50 t2Jh8 ! should b e winning for White. 47 ...t2Jd6 48 t2Jxh5 tLlf5+ 49 ..ti>d3 b61

Now Black is okay and he succeeds in holding the draw. 50 t2Jf4 t2Jxg3 51 h5 tLlf5 52 t2Jg6 ..ti>eB 53

34 axb4 35 �xf5 'ikxf5

t2Je5

fB 54 t2Jd7+ ..ti>g7 55 'it>c3 t2Jd6 56

After 3 S ... exfs 36 axb4 'ikxb4 3 7 'ikc1 White has enough compensation for the pawn.

..ti>b4 tLlf5 57 'it>c3 t2Jd6 58 'it>b4 tLlf5 59

•.•

36 axb4 'ii'b l+ 37 'iW2 'ikf5+

3 7 .. .'ii'x b4?! 3 8 'ii'xb4 t2Jxb4 39 l2Jf4 can only be dangerous for Black. 38 l2Jf4

t2Jxb6 t2Jxd4 60 l2Jd7 t2Jxb5 Yz-Yz

In the next and final game of the chapter, we will consider a different way for Black to head for the same types of positions, by using a slightly tricky move order.

Game 21 N.Kosintseva-P.Biatny

Moscow 2004 1 e4 g6 2 d4 c61?

Here it is. Black hints at a ... ds set­ up without having committed his bishop to g7, while also avoiding the ... d6-dS tempo loss seen in Game 19.

3 B 'ikf7? . •.

38 .. .'iii> g 7

would have maintained

3 f41?

1 05

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess D efe n ces:

1

e4 3

Against the usual options of 2 ...i.g7 and 2 ... d6 I have recommended 3 tt::lc 3, but I have made an exception for the present move order. The point is that in the blocked positions resulting from ... d7-d5 and e4-e5, the white knight is not particularly well placed on c3 and the present game shows how White can deploy it in a more favourable way. In fact that is not the end of the story and after 3 tt::lc 3 d5 White has good chances to fight for the advan­ tage with the help of 4 h 3 !, the point of which is to prepare tt::lf3 without per­ mitting the reply ... .tg4. Although the theoretical picture is decent enough for White, I do not consider it to be an es­ pecially pragmatic choice, as the level of theoretical knowledge required is somewhat disproportionate to its low level of popularity. After pondering the various options available, I decided that the text move would be the best all-round solution. Let us now see how the game may develop and why I favour the early advance of the f-pawn. 1 06

•••

ds

The alternative is 3 ... �g7 4 lLlf3 when Black may play: a) 4 ... d5?! 5 e5 gives Black an infe­ rior version of the game, as his bishop has committed itself to the unfavour­ able g 7-square. b) 4 ... d6 5 lLlc3 transposes to Games 13 and 14. Alternatively, White could try to exploit his opponent's move or­ der with 5 �d3 ! ?, retaining the option of supporting his centre with c3. 4 e5 hS

If Black tries the alternative plan of ... i.g7. ... lLlh6 and .. .f6, White will have an improved version of the previous game, as his knight will have the op­ tion of going to d2 (and possibly recap­ turing on f3). instead of the undesir­ able c3-square. 5 tt::lf3 i.g4 5 ...tt::lh 6 6 �e3 i.g4 7 tt::lbd2 reaches the same position. 6 .te3 tt::l h 6 7 tt::l b d21

This is White's idea. It all makes sense when you think back to the re­ grouping manoeuvre seen in Game 19

M o dern D efe n ce (as well as several of the examples mentioned in the notes to that game). Recall how White would move his queen from f3 to e2, king from g 1 to h2, and his knight from e2 to g1, all so that the knight could finally re-emerge on the ideal f3-square. In the present game Kosintseva takes advantage of the much more direct route from b1d2-f3, thereby saving considerable time. Of course we should not forget that Black has saved some time by play­ ing ... d7-d5 in one move, while also avoiding the misplacement of his bishop on g7. Nevertheless, in the grand scheme of things, it is White who is making the bigger gain.

same path in the present game, per­ haps on account of the improvement 9 ii'c1! �h6 10 h3 �xf3 11 ttJxf3 when White consolidates his position and obtains a stable advantage. b) 8 ...�h6 ! ? is another interesting attempt, but in the following game White navigated the opening expertly: 9 h 3 ! (Black was hoping for 9 g3 h4! with counterplay) 9 ... �xf3 10 'Wxf3 (White has been prevented from recap­ turing with the knight, which would have been generally desirable, but on the other hand Black's bishop is not ideally placed on h6 in such positions) 10...'Wb6 (or 10...h4 11 �d3) 11 ltJb3 as.

1 ttJts ...

7 ... e6 8 h3 �xf3 was played in D.James-C.Majer, British League 2010, and now for some reason White re­ jected the logical 9 ttJxf3 which sup­ plies some advantage and can be com­ pared with the main game. 8 �f2 e6 Black is in danger of falling into a clearly worse version of Game 19, for reasons already explained. If he is to prevent this from happening, then he will need to find a way to disrupt White's smooth development over the next few moves. Blatny has a particular concept in mind, but there are a few other ideas to consider as well: a) Two years earlier he had tried 8 'Wb6 in R.Biolek-P.Blatny, Ostrava 2002. He was successful in that en­ counter, but chose not to follow the ...

Usually White castles short in these positions, but in this specific case going long works perfectly: 12 0-0-0! h4 13 �d3 a4 14 ttJcs ltJg3 ? (a mistake in a worse position) 15 �xg3 hxg3 16 e6! fS 17 'Wxg3 a3 18 b3 'Wb4 19 �e2 l:.g8 20 l:.hf1 when White has a winning posi­ tion and after the further mistake 20 ... b6? in B.Laurusaite-A.Balcaite, Panevezys 2009, he could have ended the game immediately with the cute 21 107

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess D efe n ces:

1

tbb7! followed by c3 trapping the black queen. 9 h 3 � xf3 10 tDxf3

e4 White some initiative. b) 12 ...lLlc6 can safely be met by 13 C3. as 13 .. .'ii'xb 2?! 14 :b1 is too risky for Black. c) 12 ... cxd4 was played in D.Moldovan-D.Suciu, Baile Tusnad 2000, and here my choice would be 13 �xf5 ! ? gxf5 14 l2Jxd4 i.c5.

1o .'iWb6l ..

This is the only way in which Black can attempt to justify his opening. The more sedate 10... i.e7?! 11 .i.d3 h4 12 0-0 lLld7 was played in S.Videki­ B.Vlaic, Pula 2000. At this point White should have played 13 b3! intending c4, just as in Game 19, except that here he already has his knight on the ideal f3-square. 11 i.d31 Kosintseva correctly sacrifices the b­ pawn, having seen that defensive moves on the queenside would be met by either a troublesome check or a quick ... c5 with strong counterplay. 11 .'�xb2 ..

Black snatches a pawn, although it is obvious that White will obtain prom­ ising compensation. The only other logical idea is 11 ... c5, which should be met by 12 o-o! and now: a) 12 ... c4 13 �xf5 gxf5 14 b3! gives 108

At this point there are two promis­ ing paths for White: 15 a4 looks like one sensible idea, intending to meet 15 ...l2Jc6 with 16 lLlb5 ! , and the aggres­ sive 15 c4! ? is also tempting. In both cases White keeps the better chances, thanks primarily to his safer king. And if Black makes it as far as the endgame, his broken kingside structure might come into play. 12 0-0

12 :b1 is a logical alternative which has been tested in a couple of games: a) 12 .. .'�xa2 13 l:txb7 'ii'a 5+ 14 '1ti>e2 �e7 15 g4 lLlh6 16 'ii'b 1 lLld7 was A.Popov-R.Sichinava, Voroshilovgrad 1989, and here both 17 t2:\g5 and 17 gxh s gxh5 18 'ii'a 1!? leave Black under unpleasant pressure.

M odern D efe n ce b) 12 ... 'ifc3+13 'ite2 bs 14 g4 ti:Je7 (perhaps 14...ti:Jg7 ! ? should have been preferred) 1S a4 ti:Jd7 (1S ... a6! ?) 16 axbs (16 l:.b3 'ifas 17 axbs cxbs 18 l:.xbs would have gained some extra time for White) 16 ... cxbs 17 l:.xbs as 18 'ir'a1 "Wxa1 19 l:.xa1 hxg4 20 hxg4 ti:Jc6 2 1 �b7 0-0-0 22 l:.ab1 .i.b4 23 .i.a6 ti:Jdb8 24 l:.7xb4+ ti:Jxa6 2S .:b6 ti:Jab8 was Radviliskis G.Piesina-G.Sarakauskas, 199S, and here the cute 26 i.e1! would have won the aS-pawn. I suspect that Black's play can be improved in both of the above exam­ ples. Nevertheless, as a general rule I believe that in all these lines White has full compensation for a mere pawn. 12 ...'ir'b6

Another idea is 12 ...'il'a3, hoping to block the queenside. Here I found a nice riposte: 13 'il'b1! bS 14 c4! dxc4 1 S �XC4 ti:Jd7 ( 1 S ...bxc4? 1 6 'if'b7) 1 6 i.d3 when White has succeeded in opening the position and Black has a difficult defence in store. 13 C41

White has a space advantage, the two bishops, and a lead in development. With her last move she ensures the clearing of additional lines for her at­ tack. 13 ....i.e7?

After this weak move White's attack quickly gathers huge momentum. More solid would have been 13 ...'ir'c7! ?, anticipating the impending attack on the b-file. Following 14 cxds (White can also consider 14 'il'b3 with­ out exchanging yet) 14... cxds 1S 'il'b3 White has promising compensation, but the position is not as one-sided as it becomes in the game. 14 cxds cxds

Forced, as 14... exds? 1S e6! fxe6 16 'ir'e2 is crushing. 15 .:b1 'ir'c7 16 'ii' b 3 b6 17 l:.fc1

Thanks to Black's inaccuracy, White has been able to bring all three of her heavy pieces into play with gain of tempo. 17 ...'il'b7 18 a4

18 .l:.c2 intending l:.bc1 was also highly unpleasant for Black. 18 ...Wf8

The king cannot remain on e8 for­ ever. One illustrative line is 18 ... ti:Jd7 19 as .:c8 20 a6! 'il'b8 21 .i.bs when the knight is trapped in a fatal pin. 19 a s Wg7 20 'ir'a41

In return for the sacrificed pawn,

White could have regained her pawn by means of 20 axb6 axb6 21 ifxb6 with a clear advantage, but it is even more unpleasant to set up a queenside bind. 1 09

B e a t ing U n u s u a l Chess D efe n ces:

1

e4 2 s ...gs1

Black was almost paralysed, so Blatny makes a final roll of the dice in an effort to activate his king side pieces. 26 fxgs tt:'lg6

White should still be winning this position, but Black continues to fight and later he almost manages to save himself. The rest of the game is not relevant to the opening, so I will keep the annotations fairly brief. 20...h4 21 a6 il'd7 22 il'xd7

27 'li>f1

White was spoilt for choice, with 22 .tb5 il'd8 23 l:lb3 being equally grim for the defender.

27 l:lb7 l:ldc8 28 l:lxc8 l:lxc8 29 l:lxa7 would have been good enough, despite Black's apparent counterplay: 29 ... l:lc1+ 30 Wh2 tt:'ld6 ! ? (or 30...l:lc2 31 .tel) 31 .id3 tt:'le4 32 .txh4 and White should win.

22 ...tt:'lxd7 23 l:lc7 l:lhd8

27 ... .ta3

After 27 ... tt:'lg3+ 28 �el .ib4+ 29 �dl tt:'le4 30 .ie3 Black's counterplay comes to an end. 28 l:l1c2 tt:'lg3+ 29 .txg3 hxg3 30 .ic6 l:lacB 3 1 .id7 .:f.xc7 32 l:lxc7 tt:'lf8 33 .tbs tt:'lg6

24 .tbs

This does not spoil anything, but the most effective route would have been 24 l:lb7! with the threat of l:lcl and l:lce7. Black is helpless: e.g., 24...l:lac8 (or 24...�8 25 l:lcl) 2 5 l:lxa7 l:lc3 26 .ib5 tt:'lb8 27 l:lal! and White is winning, such as with 27 ... l:lb3 28 l:lxe7, etc. 24...tt:lf8 25 l:tbc1

25 .:txe7! tt:lxe7 26 .txh4 looks to be winning.

110

34 tt:'le1?l The most

accurate

continuation

M o dern Defe n c e was 34 lha7 l:tc8 3 5 l2Je1 l:c1 36 'lte2 Cbh4 37 �e8 i.b4 38 l:.xf7+ �h8 39 t2id3 l:.c2+ 40 'ltfl! l2Jxg2 41 l:.f3! and White is winning.

4 1 l:txf7+1 lL!xf7 4 2 a 7 l:tb4 4 3 i.a6 l:.b3+ 44 'ith2 l:.a3 45 a8'ir' d4 46 'ir'b7 d3 47 'ir'xb6 d2 48 i.e2 l:.d3 49 'ir'xe6 dl'ir' 50 ..txdl .l:.xdl l-0

34...i.b2 3 5 l2Jc2?

Better was 3 5 l:.xa7 �xd4 36 l:.b7 Cbxe5 37 a7 .:taB 3 8 lL!f3 lL!xf3 39 gxf3. 35 ... l:.h8?

Black could have obtained serious counterplay by means of 3 5 ... l2Jf4! 36 Cbb4 l:.h8!, with the idea of 3 7 l:.xa7?? (37 l2Jd3 is necessary) 3 7...l:.xh 3 ! when it's Black who wins! 36 'lte2 l:.h4?1

36 ...l2Jh4 was a better try. 37 .l:txa7 l:te4+ 3 8 '1tf3

38 'iti>dl! would have been a bit more accurate. 38 ... �xd4 39 l2Jxd4 lL:Jxes+ 40 'ltxg3 .l:txd4

The time control has been reached and despite the mutual errors, White's advantage has just about remained intact. From this point on Kosintseva finishes the game efficiently.

Conclusion The foundation of this chapter has been the Austrian Attack with an early f2-f4. I believe this to an excellent choice for players at all levels; aside from being objectively strong, White's play is direct and easy to understand. The term 'controlled aggression' sums it up nicely: in many of the featured games we have seen White launching an attack from a position of strength, based on his space advantage and healthy central control. This was equally true in both the traditional Modern set-up with ...d6 and the blocked centre which results from the ... c6 and ... d5 plan. Black's unusual third moves lead to different kinds of struggles, but White has every reason to feel happy there too.

111

Chapter Three Pirc Defence

1 e4 d6 2 d4 tt'lf6 3 tt'lc3 g6

From here Black must make a fun­ damental choice: Part 1

-

s

...

o-o

The first part of this chapter will be devoted to the natural s ..0-0, after which I have chosen to recommend 6 .lte3, an aggressive option which is of­ ten associated with long castling. The material has been organized as follows: .

The Pirc Defence can be considered a close cousin of the Modern from the previous chapter. Again Black gives his opponent free reign over the centre, in the hope that his g7-bishop will help him to generate dynamic counterplay. 4 f4

Just as in the previous chapter, I am recommending the Austrian Attack, which is arguably White's most promis­ ing try for an opening advantage. 4...�g7

Black gains nothing from delaying the development of this piece. 5 lLlf3

112

Black's main line of 6 ...b6, intending to support ... cs at some point, is the subject of Games 22-24. A different way of preparing ... cs is 6 ... tt:Jbd7, which is seen in Game 2 5 . Another popular move is 6. . . c6, for

Pirc D efe n ce which see Game 26. 6 ...lt::lc 6 leads to a position that can also be reached via a Modern move order and is considered in Game 27. Finally, 6 ...lt::la6 will be considered in Game 28, along with the rest of Black's unusual 6th-move alternatives. Part 2

-

lt::lf3 o-o 6 .i.e3 b6

This is Black's most-popular and highest-scoring response to White's sixth move. The second player prepares to fianchetto the queen's bishop, while also facilitating ... cs to fight for the centre.

s ... cs a nd

ra re a lternatives

The second part of the chapter will concentrate on s ... cs, striking at White's centre immediately.

7 'iVd2 ..tb7

Black can also strike at the centre immediately with 7 ... cs, for which see Game 24. B est

White has a number of possible re­ plies, but my research has led me to the conclusion that the rarely played 6 dxcs 'it'as 7 'it'd4!? poses difficult ques­ tions, as shown in games 29 and 30. Part 1

-

s .0-0 ..

Game 22 A.Shirov-C.McNab

Gibraltar 2006 1 e4 d6 2 d4 lLlf6 3 lLlc3 g6 4 f4 �g7

5

White should not shy away from an immediate confrontation. The more reserved 8 ..td3 allows Black to obtain a satisfactory game after 8 ... cs or 8 ...lt::la 6. 8 .. lt::lg4 .

This is clearly the most natural move and the alternatives are almost never seen: a) 8 ...lt::le4 9 lt::lxe4 ..txe4 10 lt::lg s .i.fs (10... .i.b7 is well met by 11 e6) was seen in P.Craciun-A.Dragomirescu, Predeal 2006, and now 11 g4! would have forced the bishop to lose time retreating, as 11...�xg4? loses to 12 'it'g2 .i.d7 13 e6! (13 iVxa8? �c6) 13 .. .fxe6 14 J:.g1!, 113

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess Defe n ces:

1

threatening both 'ii'xa8 and ltJxh7. b) 8 ... dxes does not look so bad, al­ though I could only find one example of this move: 9 dxes! ltJg4 (after 9 ... ii'xd2+ 10 �xd2 ltJe4 11 ttJxe4 �xe4 12 0-0-0 White is more comfortable in this queenless position) 10 �d3 (10 h 3 ! ?) 10 ...ltJa6 11 0-0-0 (11 h3 ttJxe3 12 'ii'x e3 ltJb4 13 0-0-0 also looks decent) 11...ltJb4 12 'i!Ve1 ttJxd3+ 13 .l:!.xd3 'ii'c 8 was Z.Lanka-P.Jaracz, Bad Wiessee 2002, and now I would suggest 14 h 3 ! ttJxe3 15 'ii'x e3 when White's extra ac­ tivity and space outweigh the power of Black's bishop pair: for instance, 1S ....l:.d8 16 .l:.xd8+ 'ii'x d8 17 e6! and White retains some initiative. 9 0-0-0

e4 play. The main alternative 9 ... dxes will be considered in Game 23, along with a few minor options.

10 dxcs

This is the only serious way to chal­ lenge Black's set-up. White grabs a pawn and challenges his opponent to demonstrate compensation. 10... bxcs

We should also consider a couple of alternatives: a) In a couple of subsequent en­ counters McNab turned to 10...'i!Vc8? ! 11 cxd6 exd6, but with n o improve­ ment in the overall result on either oc­ casion:

White should not waste time re­ treating the bishop, as it is more im­ portant to focus on development. Be­ sides, an exchange on e3 will help to clear the d-file - a common theme in the 6 �e3 variation. 9 cs ...

This undermining move must be considered the critical test of White's 1 14

Pirc D efe n c e a1) The first encounter continued 12 h3 l2Jxe3 13 'ii'x e3 dxes 14 fxes l2Jc6 1S .i.bS ! (intending to re-route the bishop to b3, from where it will exert serious pressure against f7) 1S ... a6 16 �a4 ltJas. At this point in M.Mahjoob­ C.McNab, Turin Olympiad 2006, I like the following suggestion of Vigus: 17 tt::ld s! l2Jc4 18 'ife2 'ir'cs 19 b4! .i.h6+ 20 �b1 l2Ja3+ 21 �a1 (or 2 1 �b2 'ifc4 22 l2Jf6+ �g7 2 3 'ir'e1 as 24 .::td4) 21 ...'ifc4 22 'ifxc4 l2Jxc4 2 3 .i.b3 when White's endgame advantage should prove de­ cisive. a2) A year later McNab followed the same path, which suggests that he had an improvement in mind, although I have not been able to find anything special for Black in the above line. In any case, White deviated with 12 .i.g1 and once again obtained an excellent position: 12 ... dxes 13 h3 l2Jf6 14 fxes l2Je4 1S tt::lxe4 .i.xe4 16 .i.d3 (16 l2Jg s ! ?} 16 ... .i.xd3 (Black is not helped by 16 ....i.xf3 17 gxf3 .i.xes 18 f4 .i.f6 19 j(_e4 .l::.d 8 20 'ir'e2 .::tx d1+ 21 ii'xd1, win­ ning an exchange; his best chance may have been 16 ....l::.d 8 17 ii'e3 .i.xf3 17 ... .i.xd3 18 .::tx d3 l:txd3 19 ii'xd3 l2Jc6 20 .i.h 2 sees White retain his extra pawn - 18 gxf3 'ir'e6 19 b3 Wxes 20 �xes .i.xes 21 .i.e3 when Black has regained his pawn, but faces a difficult ending against the opponent's power­ ful bishop pair) 17 ii'xd3 l2Jc6 18 .i.h2 l:te8 19 .::th e1 ii'e6 20 ii'h3. This was G.Jones-C.McNab, London 2007, in which White had consolidated his extra

pawn and went on t o convert h i s ad­ vantage. b) Another second-rate alternative is 10 ... l2Jxe3?! 11 'ii'x e3 bxcs. This avoids any immediate loss of material, but enables the first player to start a ven­ omous attack by means of 12 h4! (12 .i.c4 is a good alternative, but there is no reason not to go for the jugular!}, when Black has tried a couple of ideas:

b1} 12 ... hs 13 fs! .i.xf3 (13 ... gxfs 14 'ifg s) 14 gxf3 l2Jc6 was seen in N.Yaremko-M�Kozakov, Lvov 2006, and now both 15 e6 and 1S f4! ? tt::ld4 16 fxg6 fxg6 17 .::tg 1 look tempting. b2} After 12 ...Wb6, the following game was pretty much a model attack­ ing effort from White: 13 hS .i.xf3 14 gxf3 (14 Wxf3 is also strong) 14 ... l2Jc6 1S hxg6 hxg6 16 ltJds ii'h7 17 c3 dxes 18 fxes l2Jd4 19 .i.c4 .::tabS 20 .::td2 ltJfs 21 Wg s .::tfd8 22 e6! fxe6 23 Wxg6 exds 24 'ifh7+ �f8 2S 'ii'xfS+ .i.f6 26 .::th 8+ �f7 2 7 .l::.h 7+ and Black resigned in T.Airapetian-V.Tarasova, Herceg Novi 2006, in view of 27 ... 'Wt>e8 28 'ii'g 6+ 'Wt>d7 29 "ii'xf6. 115

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess D efe n ces:

1

e4

Returning to 10...bxc5:

11 i.xcs ii'a s

Once again, this is certainly not the only playable move: a) 11 ...ii'c7 does not appear to have been tested, but it seems fairly sensi­ ble. Still, White should keep an edge: 12 i.d4 dxe5 (12 ...t2Jc6? 13 exd6 is no good for Black: for instance, 13 ...ii'xd6 14 i.xg7 ii'xd2+ 15 l:txd2 'itxg7 16 l:td7 with what should be a simple technical conversion) 13 t2Jxe5 t2Jxe5 14 l2Jb5 ! (winning a pawn, temporarily at least; both 14 fxe5 .:td8 and 14 i.xe5 i.xe5 15 fxe5 ii'xe5 are not so impressive) 14 ... ii'c6 15 i.xe5 i.xe5 16 fxe5 ii'e6 17 ii'c3 ! .:tc8 (Black is not helped by 17 ...ii'xa2 18 i.c4 ii'a4 19 e6 f6 20 b3 followed by tDc7) 18 lLJq ii'xa2 19 i.c4 ii'a1+ 20 'itd2 ii'a4 21 e6 f6 22 b3 ii'a3 23 t2Jxa8 when White still has some work to do thanks to his unsafe king, but overall I doubt that Black has enough for the exchange here. b) 11 ...l2Jd7! ?, as played in G.Figlio­ M.Umansky, correspondence 2003, de­ serves attention: 116

b1) A couple of games have contin­ ued 12 i.a3?! t2Jdxe5 ! (this is the clever point behind Black's last move) 13 fxe 5 i.h6 14 l2Jg 5 t2Jxe5 with good counter­ play for Black as ...f6 is on the way. b2) Therefore I agree with Vigus's proposed improvement of 12 i.g1!. The point is that if Black executes the same idea of 12 ... t2Jdxe5 ? 13 fxe5 i.h6 14 l2Jg5 l2Jxe5, the response 15 i.e3 spoils all of his fun. Therefore he must settle for something like 12 ... l:tc8 when Vigus opines that Black does not have quite enough for the pawn, although the position remains very complicated. A possible continuation is 13 h 3 l2Jh6 14 h4!? tDf5 15 .:th 3 h 5 16 i.d3 tDh6 17 l2Jg5 ii'a5 18 i.e4 i.xe4 19 t2Jgxe4 in­ tending ii'd5 when Black's compensa­ tion remains insufficient. 12 i.a 3 dxes 13 ttJd sl By forcing a queen exchange White has eliminated most of the opponent's counterplay. Furthermore, it is in the endgame that his extra queenside pawns will really come into their own. The alternative 13 h3 leads after

Pirc D efe n ce 13 ... �h6! 14 tt:Jg s exf4 15 tt:Jxf7 l:!.xf7 16 hxg4 �g s 17 tt::'le4 'it'xd2+ 18 tt:Jxd2 f3 to unclear complications. 13 ...1t'xd2+ 14 .:.xd2 �xd5 15 .:.xd5

15 tt::'le 3 ...

This has been criticized by some commentators, but it seems to me that Black's chances are worse after other moves too. That being said, in several lines White needs to play with great resourcefulness and precision, so I sug­ gest you pay close attention to the fol­ lowing alternatives, as well as the game continuation. a) 1S ... e4! ? is suggested by Vigus and also mentioned by Gershon and Nor in Sa n Luis 2005. White responds with 16 tt:Jes and now: a1) Vigus gives 16 ...tt::'le 3 17 .:.d4 tL'lxf1 18 ltxf1 f6 intending ...fs when Black seems to be doing fine. However, it turns out that White has a m ajor im­ provement available in 18 .:.xe4!, pick­ ing up the crucial e4-pawn while the knight on f1 remains trapped. Black has nothing better than 18 ...tt::'lxh2 19 .t1xh2, reaching an ending where White

enjoys a clear advantage despite the equal material. His pieces are much the more active and his three versus one majority on the queen side can advance much more easily than Black's four ver­ sus two on the kingside. a2) Best, therefore, is 16 ...tt::'lx e5 17 fxes tt:Jc6 18 i.bs tt:Jxes 19 .il... x e7 lUes 20 c3 as analysed by Gershon and Nor. The position is rather complicated, but I believe White's bishop pair ought to count for something. b) 1S ....il...h 6!? is another interesting move, and was tested in the game M.Perunovic-D.Leskur, Mataruska Banja 2008. Now instead of the game's 16 'it>b1, I recommend 16 i.xe7! i.xf4+ 17 'it>b1 .!:.e8 18 .il...g s tt::'le 3, reaching the following critical position:

Here I found a strong idea: 19 �bS ! (19 .:.cs has been suggested, but with­ out going into too many details, I think Black should be fine after 19 ...tt::'ld 7!}. The main idea of the text move is to avoid losing time moving the rook (for the moment at least), while preserving the important light-squared bishop, as 117

B e a ting U n u s u a l Ch ess Defe n ce s :

1

well as restricting the development of the knight on b8. Here are some lines I analysed: b1) 19 ...l:c8 20 l:d2 a6 (inferior are 20 ... h6 21 i.xf4 exf4 22 g 3 ! and 20 ... i.xg s 21 tt::lxg s fs 22 l:e1 f4 23 g3!) 21 .i.d3 with two possibilities:

b11) 21 ...tt::lc 6 22 l:e2 .i.xgs (or 22 ...h6 23 tt::lx es .i.xg s 24 tt::lxc6 l:xc6 2 5 .i.e4 l:cc8 26 h4) 2 3 tt::lxg s tt::ld s (if 23 ... tt::lfs 24 c3) 24 .i.c4 tt::lc e7 2 5 .i.b3 f6 26 l:d1 fxg s 27 :xes with an easily winning ending. b12) 2 1....i.xg s 22 tt::lxgs tt::lc4 23 .i.xc4 l:xc4 24 l:d8+ 'iPg7 2 5 tt::lf3 (if 2 5 l:hd1 l:g4) 2 S . ..f6 26 l:hd1 with a near­ decisive advantage due to the awkward pin along the eighth rank. b2) 19 ... tt::lx ds 20 .i.xe8 with a final split: b21) 20... e4 21 .i.xf4 exf3 (21 ...tt::lxf4 22 tt::lg s) 22 .i.h6 fxg2 23 l:g1 and with two bishops against two knights, White has excellent winning chances. b22) 20...tt::le 3 21 g3 .i.xg s 22 tt::lxgs fS 23 l:e1 f4 24 .i.a4 tt::la 6 2 5 tt::le 6 and White wins a pawn. 118

e4 b23) 20.. .
16 l:d2?1

Although this leads to success in the game, it is not the most accurate for reasons that will become apparent. If you reach this position over the board, I recommend the improvement 16 l:d3 !, as suggested by Gershon and Nor. I have found no fault with their analysis, so I will reproduce it more or less as it appears in their book: a) 16 ...tt::lxf1 17 tt::lx es! is clearly bet­ ter for White. b) 16 ...tt::lc4 17 .i.xe7 l:e8 18 l:d8 l:xd8 19 .i.xd8 with a favourable end­ game.

Pirc D efe n ce c) 16 ... exf4 17 i.xe7 l:.c8 (17 ... l:.e8 18 i.gs) 18 c3 tt:Jc6 19 i.d6 i.h6 20 l:.g1 and White will soon unravel his king­ side, after which his queenside major­ ity should be more potent than Black's kingside one. d) 16 ...tt:Jxc2 ! ? is perhaps the best chance to complicate the game, but White still keeps the advantage: 17 �xe7! (but not 17 'itxc2? e4) 17 ...l:.c8 18 �k3 ! tt::l c 6 (or 18 ...l:.xc3 19 bxc3 tt::le 3 20 tt:Jxes i.xes 2 1 fxes tt:Jxf1 22 l:.xfl and Black is clearly worse) 19 i.a6!. Black has two possibilities here, but neither is good enough to equalize:

d1) 19 ... tt::l 2d4 20 i.cs l:.e8 21 tt:Jxes and at this point 2 1...tt:Jxes? 22 i.xd4 le aves White with a healthy extra pawn, so Black is forced to play 21...�xes 22 fxes .:.xes, after which the two white bishops should outrun the enemy knights in the wide-open posi­ tio n. d2) 19 ...tt::l x e7 20 i.xc8 tt::lb4 21 i.b7 �b8 22 l:.c7 tt:Jeds 23 i.xds tt:Jxds 24 �d7 tt::lxf4 25 l:.hdl tt::le 6 when Black is by no means dead and buried, but at

the same time I find it doubtful that his compensation for the exchange can really be sufficient.

16 ...tt::lxf1?

With this error Black's position be­ comes critical. In theoretical terms, none of the following is relevant to us, since we have already seen the most accurate way for White to handle the position. However, it is still interesting to consider the following possibilities in order to appreciate the resources available to both sides: a) First, let us briefly note that both 16 ...e4 17 tt:Jgs fs 18 i.bs ! and 16 ...exf4 17 i.xe7 l:.e8 18 i.d6 are unsatisfac­ tory for Black, as pointed out by Ger­ shon and Nor. b) A year before the present game, a top-level encounter soon reached a similar type of ending to that seen in the main game: 16 ...tt::l c6 17 i.bs l:.fc8 18 i.xc6 l:.xc6 19 tt:Jxes i.xes 20 fxes tt::lc4 21 i.xe7 tt:Jxd2 22 �xd2 l:tb8. This was R.Kasimdzhanov-P.Svidler, FIDE World Championship, San Luis 2005. From this position several commenta119

B e a ting U n u s u a l Ch ess Defe n ce s :

1

tors have pointed out that the obvious 2 3 b3! would have given White excel­ lent winning chances. c) And now for the fly in the oint­ ment. The reason why it was necessary for White to improve on the previous turn is that Black has a serious im­ provement available in 16 ....th6!, which should enable him to solve all his problems.

For example, 17 .txe7 lZJxf1 18 l:txfl (with the rook on d3 White would just capture on f8 here) 18 ... .txf4 19 .txf8 �xf8 20 �d1 .txd2 2 1 �xd2 lZJc6 is equal, while after 17 �d3 lZJc6 18 .te4 .l:lac8 19 .txc6 l:txc6 20 lZJxes l:tc7 2 1 g 3 .l:lfc8 Black wins back his pawn by force, with at least equal chances, as pointed out by Gershon and Nor. Returning to the misguided 16 ...lZJxf1:

e4 20 .txe7

Winning a second pawn. True, White is about to lose the exchange, but his splendid bishop and powerful queenside majority should provide ex­ cellent winning chances. In view of the improvements noted previously, the remainder of the game is not so rele­ vant to our study of the opening, so I will limit myself to a few light annota­ tions. That being said, I would certainly suggest that you play through the rest of the game in order to observe Shirov's masterful endgame technique. 2o...l:tfbB 21 :tt2 :bs

17 l:txf1 lZJc6

17 ...exf4 18 .txe7 l:te8 19 .tg s wins a pawn. 18 lZJxes lZJxes 19 fxes .th6

After 19 ....txes 20 .txe7 l:tfe8 21 .td6 White is simply a pawn up. 120

22 .tf6

Pirc D efe n ce The bishop is perfectly placed on this square, from where it protects the eS-pawn, controls the dB-square, and restricts the enemy king. 22 l:d S 2 3 c4 l:c8 24 b3 .:r.c6 2S g4 •..

Threatening to break the pin with gs. 2s .l:txd2 26 l:xd2 �xd2+ 27 �xd2 Wf8 •.

Thi s game, along with the some­ times deep accompanying variations, showcased some of the most critical lines in the entire 6 �e3 variation. For­ tunately our next game is rather more digestible, while still providing an in­ structive example of how to handle Black's alternatives on the 9th move.

28 �c3

Intending b4. Game 23 K.Spraggett-OJakobsen

28 ... .:ta6 29 a4 �e8

The pressure against the a4-pawn prevents its neighbour from advancing, but the inconvenience is temporary.

Andorra 2007

30 cs �d7 31 'ii>c4 �c6 32 �e7 :as

1 e4 d6 2 d4 g6 3 lt:Jc3 �g7 4 f4 lt:Jf6 s

32 ...hs 33 gxh s gxh s 34 h4 changes nothing; Black will soon have to give way on the queenside.

lt:Jf3 0-0 6 ..te3 b6 7 il'd2 �b7 8 es lt:Jg4 9 0-0-0

33 gs .:ta6 34 �d6 :as 3S 'itb4 l:.a6 36 h4 '1t>b7 37 �bs l:c6 38 b4 a6+ 39 'ifi>c4 :c8 40 'ifi>ds

So far the opening moves have been the same as in Shirov-McNab. 9 dxes ...

All of White's pieces are optimally placed and Shirov wraps things up effi­ c iently. 40 ... :es 41 c6+ 'it'b6 42 �cS+ �c7 43 a s <;t>bs 44 �d6+ �a7 45 'Wt>cs l:te6 46 bs axbs 47 �xbs l:teB 48 c7 1-0

Apart from the main line of 9 ... cs, as examined in the previous game, we should briefly consider a couple of rare alternatives. The problem with both these moves is that they fail to put White's centre under any immediate pressure: 121

B e a ting U n us u a l Chess D efe n ces:

1

a) 9 ...lLld7 10 h 3 (10 j_g1 ! ?) 10 ... l2Jxe3 11 'ii'x e3 c5 was seen in A.Grischuk-G.Seul, Mainz (rapid) 2004, and now the simplest route to an ad­ vantage would seem to be 12 d5, in­ creasing White's space advantage and shutting the b7-bishop out of play. b) Occasionally Black has tried 9 ... Wc8?!, planning ... c5 while avoiding the pin along the d-file, but this plan turns out to be too slow: 10 j_g1 ! ? (10 h3 is also promising and after 10 ... lLlxe3 11 Wxe3 c5 12 d5 �a6 13 g4 j_xf1 14 .l:.hxf1 White had a clear initia­ tive in E.Paehtz-A.Dragomirescu, Dres­ den 2004) 10 ... c5 11 d5 dxe5 12 h3 lLlh6 13 fxe5 lLlf5 14 �h2 a6 15 g4 lLld4 16 lLlxd4 cxd4 17 Wxd4 by when White had an extra pawn and a dominant centre in J.Dworakowska-A.Borsuk, Bled Olympiad 2002. 10 lLlxesl It is important to recapture in the correct way. Instead 10 fxe5 c5! gives Black promising counterplay.

e4 simplest answer is 11 dxe5 'ili'xd2+ (or 11 ... lLlc6 12 Wf2 Wc8 13 h4) 12 l:.xd2, reaching a position in which his extra space, active pieces, and control over the open d-file add up to a stable ad­ vantage. One example continued 12 ...l2Jc6 13 �e2 j_h6 14 lLld5 l:.ac8 15 j_f3 j_as 16 l:.hd1, leaving White fully mobilized and firmly in control, M.Carlsen-K.Lahno, Wijk aan Zee 2004. 11 'ii'x e3 lLld7 The alternative 11 ... e6 has so far scored 100% for Black, but it is safe to say that this in no way reflects the true state of the position. Play continues 12 h4! and now: a) 12 ...lL:ld7 13 h 5 lLlf6 14 hxg6 fxg6 15 Wh3 'ii'e 7 16 j_c4 lLlh5 17 j_xe6+ �h8 was M.Mrdja-A.Dunnington, Cannes 1995. and now 18 lLld5 j_xd5 19 j_xd5 would have brought White a huge advantage. b) 12 ...'ii'e 7 13 h5 lLld7 14 j_d3 (14 hxg6 is also promising, but in some positions it might be useful to retain the option of advancing with h6) 14...l:.fd8 15 j_e4 lLlxe5 was seen in G.Kubach-Z.Nyvlt, correspondence 2002, and now 16 dxe5 would have maintained a pleasant advantage for White. 12 h4

1o l2Jxe3 ...

In the event of 10 ... lLlxe5 White's 122

Starting a dangerous attack, al­ though White arguably has an even more promising alternative available in 12 j_b5 ! ? lLlf6 (12 ... lLlxe5 13 dxe5 'Wb8 14 lLld5 j_xd5 15 l:.xd5 'Wb7 16 l:.hd1 is clearly better for White, as pointed out

Pirc D efe n ce by Belov) 13 ds! 'ii'd6 14 .:the1 with strong central pressure.

From here Black has tried: a) 14...l:.ad8 1S t:bc6 t:bg4 (15 ... i.xc6 16 dxc6 'ii'b4 17 .:txd8 .:txd8 18 a3 'Was 19 'ii'x e7 .:te8 20 'ii'x e8+ t:bxe8 21 .:txe8+ �f8 22 �b1! is a nice variation given by Vigus, the point being that Black must inevitably lose the queen: for instance, 22 ... 'it>g7 23 l:.xf8 �xf8 24 �a2 followed by b2-b4) 16 t:bxe7+ �h8 17 'ii'f3 t:be5 (17 ...t:bxh2 18 'ii'g 3) 18 fxe5 'ii'x e7 19 �g3 when White had an extra pawn and a positional advantage to boot, J.Stopa-M.Szczepinski, Koszalin 2005. b) 14... a6 15 i.c6 i.xc6 (or 15 ....:tab8 16 g4 with a clear advantage to White) 16 dxc6 'ii'e 6 17 'ii'f3 'WeB 18 t:bd7 saw Black getting completely smothered in D.Campora-E.Torre, Moscow 1994. The remaining moves were: 18 ....l:te8 (18 ...t:bxd7 19 cxd7 'ii'd8 20 'ii'c 6 is cle arly better for White) 19 g4 e6 20 g5 ttJhs 2 1 t:be4 as 22 tt::\g 3 t:bxg3 23 hxg3 �a6 24 'ii'e 2 .:ted8 25 c4 a4 26 a3 iVas 27 l:th 1 'ii'fs 28 �2 hs 29 gxh6 i.fB 3o 94 'Was 31 �4 1-o.

12 ...t:bxes

Black has also avoided the exchange with 12 ...t:bf6, as in A.Berelovich­ F.Cuijpers, German League 2001. At this point the most straightforward response seems to be 13 i.e2 intending hs (the game continuation of 13 h S t:bxhs gave White reasonable compen­ sation for the pawn, but nothing con­ clusive). Play might continue 13 ... hs (13 ...�xg2 seems too risky in view of 14 l:.h2 i.b7 1S hs with a venomous at­ tack) 14 �f3 i.xf3 1S 'ii'xf3 when White remains on top, thanks to his central control and attacking possibilities based on a timely g4. 13 dxes 'ii'c8 14 h S White's attack is already well un­ derway, while Black is struggling to coordinate his forces.

14...'ii'e 6 15 hxg6 hxg6 16 i.d3 l:.fdB

16 ...i.xg2 looks too risky. After the natural 17 l:th2 i.b7 White breaks through with 18 fs ! 'ii'x es (18 ... gxfs 19 l:g1) 19 'ifh3 l:!.fd8 20 fxg6. It is doubt­ ful that Black's exposed king will be able to survive from here. I analysed 123

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess D efe n ces: 1 e4 the following line, which illustrates his difficulties quite nicely: 20...l:td6 21 �bl! (White can afford to spend a tempo improving his king and avoiding any defences based on a check on e3, f4 or g5) 21 ... .l:!.f6 (21... �8 22 .:.f2 f6 may hold out for longer, but Black's position is grim nonetheless) 22 .l:!.e2 •f4 23 l:.xe7 fxg6 24 •d7 �6 (24...l:.f7 loses to 25 •e6 intending l:tfl or ..ltc4) 2 5 lt:Jd5 l:.f2 ( 2 5 ...J:.d6 26 'ir'xc7) 26 .l:!.xg7+! 'ir'xg7 27 lt:Je7+ and White wins. 17 'ir'g3 l:td4 18 l:.h3 l:tad8 19 l:.dh1 fS Black cannot do without this move for long, in view of the threatened .:th7 followed by 'ir'g 5 and l:txg7+. 20 •gs �7 21 l:.h7 :tg8 Black is making a reasonable at­ tempt to defend, but he is fighting a lost cause.

22 J:.g1 A more conclusive route to victory was 22 1:.1h6!, which virtually forces the desperate sacrifice 22 ... J:.xd3 (the threat was �e2 ! followed by J:.xg6 and/or �h 5) 23 cxd3 when White has an extra exchange as well as a domi124

nant position. 22 ...�e4 The threat was g4 and presumably Black found 22 ... ..1tc8 too depressing a move to contemplate. 23 .Jtxe4 fxe4 24 g4 �8 The best practical chance was 24... e3, although White keeps a big ad­ vantage here too: 2 5 :tel 'ir'c4 26 l:.h3 ! (26 f5 J:.xg4 27 fxg6+ �e6 is not quite so clear, although White must be doing well) 26 ...J:.gd8 (26 ...J:.xf4 27 lt:Jd5 ! ) 27 l:thxe3 l:txf4 28 lt:Je4 .I:tfl 29 b3 and Black remains under heavy pressure. 25 .l:!.h31? Having provoked a weakening of the enemy structure, White sets about rounding up the weak e-pawn. 25 ...J:.h8 26 .l:.xh8+ ..ltxh8 27 l:.e1 ..tg7 After 27 ...•c6 28 �4 ..tg7 29 � 3 the e-pawn i s a goner. 28 a3 •c6

29 'iti>b11 Preventing any counterplay based on ... e3. 29 ...a6 29 ... e3 30 J:.xe3 'iVhl+ achieves

Pirc Defe n ce nothing after 3 1 �a2. 30 f51 White must remain vigilant. Indeed, 30 �4? would have squandered a sig­ nificant part of his advantage after 30...e3!, with an awkward counterat­ tack against f4: for instance, 3 1 'ir'g3 'ir'c4!. 3 0...�xe5 31 fxg6 With an exposed king and loose pieces, Black's position is lost. 31...'ir'f6 3 1...�g7? 3 2 'ir'fS+ wins immedi­ ately. 32 'ii'h 6+ 'ir'g7 3 3 l:tf1+ �gs 34 'ir'g5 l:td6

the positions after 9 . dxes 10 tt:'lxes as distinctly favourable to White, who can quickly launch a powerful and easy-to­ handle attack. Our next game also features a dan­ gerous attacking scheme, although this time the play is rather more double­ edged as White must be willing to sac­ rifice some material. Fortunately the potential rewards more than justify the risk. ..

Game 24 J.Polgar-I.Smirin

Ista nbul Olympiad 2000 1 e4 d6 2 d4 tt:'lf6 3 tt:'lc3 g6 4 f4 �g7 5 tt:'lf3 o-o 6 i.e3 b6 7 'ir'd2 c5 7 ... �b7 was seen in the previous two games. The text move is an impor­ tant alternative, for which White should be well prepared.

35 tt:'ld5! This final tactical blow seals Black's fate. 35 ...!i.xd5 36 l:.f7 'ir'hB Giving up the queen would have led to a hopeless endgame, but the text is hardly any better. 37 'il*'xe7 'ir'h1+ 38 'it>a2 'ir'h6 39 'ir'e8+ 1-0 This was an excellent performance from Spraggett. Overall I would assess

8 0-0-0 This is the most interesting re­ sponse, although readers who find the game continuation too wild may wish 125

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess Defe n ces:

1

e4

to investigate 8 dS, which also offers good chances for an opening advan­ tage. 8 cxd4 9 i.xd41 9 l2Jxd4 is not a bad move, but the non-stereotypical move seen in the game is the best way to put the oppo­ nent under pressure.

11 ...l2Jxhs 12 i.xg7 �xg7} 11 ... dxe5 12 fxes l2Jg4 (also promising for White are both 12 ... lLlds 13 h s and 12 ... ttJe4 13 l2Jxe4 i.xe4 14 hs} 13 e6 lLldes (or 13 ... i.h6 14 lLlg 5 lLldes 15 '*'e2} 14 lLlxes lLlxes 15 h5 with some initiative for White. 10 i.xf61 i.xf6 11 h41

9 lLlc6 In the event of 9 ... i.b7!? (A.Ashton­ C.Beaumont, British league 2007}, the most consistent response is 10 h4! when possible replies include: a} The e-pawn is poisoned, as re­ vealed by the variations 10 ... i.xe4?? 11 i.xf6 i.xf3 12 i.xg7 i.xd1 13 i.xf8, and 10 ... l2Jxe4?? 11 l2Jxe4 i.xe4 12 i.xg7 i.xf3 13 i.xf8 i.xd1 14 i.h6 i.h 5 (if 14 ... i.g4 15 '*'d4} 15 g4! i.xg4 16 '*'d4 e5 (16 ...f6 17 '*'d5+} 17 fxe5, when White wins in each instance. b) 10 ... h5 weakens the kingside and 11 f5 ! offers White good attacking chances. c) 10 ... l2Jbd7 11 e5 (11 h S ! ? also looks interesting, although I was un­ able to find anything conclusive after

The point behind White's 9th move is revealed. It is worth 'sacrificing' the valuable dark-squared bishop for a knight in order to gain time for the at­ tack. 11 i.g4 11 ...h 5 ! ? was suggested by Polgar, but has not yet been tested. The strong­ est continuation looks to be Vigus's suggestion of 12 fs! when Black must tread carefully: for instance, 12 ... gxfs? 13 �6 fxe4 14 l2Jxe4 i.g7 15 '*'xhs '*'c7 16 i.d3 and White's threats are already unstoppable. 12 hs The most energetic, although the untested 12 lLld5 ! ? also looks interest­ ing: for example, 12 ... i.g7 13 lLle3 i.e6 14 h 5 ! ? (14 �b1 is of course not bad

...

...

126

. ..

Pirc Defe n ce either) 14 ... i.. xa2 15 hxg6 hxg6 16 'ii'e 1! with good attacking chances.

13 l:xhsl gxhs 14 'ii'd s White has sacrificed a considerable amount of material, but in return she has succeeded in wrecking the oppos­ ing king's protective barrier. Her last move win s a tempo to transfer the queen to the danger zone. 14 l:tc8?1 This natural move is not the best, so Black should investigate the second of the following alternatives: a) 14 ...'ii'c 8 15 'ii'xh 5 and now: ...

12 i..x hs This is the only move to have been tested; presumably most players would reason that if one is going to face a strong attack regardless, then one may as well grab some material and hope for the best. Other possibilities fail to equalize: a) Black is certainly not helped by 12 ...tLlb4?! 13 hxg6 hxg6 14 i.. c4 l:c8 15 .tb3 followed by 'ii'f2-g 3 with strong pressure, as noted by Finkel. b) 12 ...gxh 5 is not ridiculous, as the bishop on g4 helps to glue the black king side together. The line 13 tLld5 i.. g 7 14 i..b 5 was mentioned by Polgar, who presumably believes White is doing well here. Extending this line a little further, play might continue 14...l:c8 15 e 5 ! ? e6 (if 15 ...dxe5 16 i.. xc6 l:txc6 17 <1Jf6+) 16 i.. xc6 J:.xc6 and from here 17 <1Jb4 l:c4 18 b3 l:c7 19 'ii'xd6 'ii'xd6 le ads to a murky endgame, so 17 tLle3 ! looks like the right way t o preserve White's initiative. ...

a1) 15 ...i..x c3?? 16 tLlg5 1-0 was the embarrassing end to J.Van Mechelen­ N.Bernard, Belgian League 2001. a2) Instead of this unfortunate blunder, 15 ... i..g 7 was essential, al­ though 16 tLld5 maintains a powerful initiative for White. Please note that the natural 16 ... e6? loses by force after 17 tLlg5 ! h6 18 tLlf6+!

h8 (18 ...i.. xf6 19 'ii'xh6 i.. xg5 20 'ii'xg 5+ 'iti>h7 21 i..d 3 and l:.h1 leads to mate) 19 'ii'xf7! tLle7 20 l:txd6 and so on. b) 14 ... ..ixc3 ! ? looks like the best chance to make Black's opening viable: 15 bxc3 'ii'c 8 {Polgar mentions the line 127

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess Defe n ces:

1

15 ...lba5 16 1Vxh 5 f6 17 e5 1Ve8 18 'ifh4 which looks promising for White) 16 �xh 5 �e6 was seen in J.Copley­ D.Kraszewski, correspondence 2001. Now instead of the game's 17 f5, I rec­ ommend 17 i.b5 ! when Black has three plausible replies:

b1) With 17 ...lbd8? Black hopes to use the knight on the kingside, but this plan seems too clumsy. My main line runs 18 l:.h 1 'ii'g 6 19 'ifh4 f6 20 g4! 'iti>h8 21 f5 ! �g7 22 g5 fxg 5 23 tt:Jxg 5 h6 24 .!:tg1 l:tf6 2 5 lbh3 ! intending lbf4; it is doubtful that Black can defend. b2) 17 ...lLla5 18 l:th1 'ii'g 6 19 'ifh4 was mentioned by Polgar. Black's posi­ tion looks precarious: for instance, 19 .. .l:tfc8 20 l:.h3 'ii'f6 (2o ...�h8 21 f5 'ii'g 7 22 lbg 5 Wg8 23 l:tg3 Wh8 24 f6! exf6 2 5 lLlf3 wins for White) 2 1 l:.g3+ �h8 22 lLlg 5 'ii'g 7 23 tt:Jxh7! 1Vxh7 24 1Vxe7 l:tg8 25 l:th3 and White should win the ending. b3) 17 ...l:tfc8! looks best when White must make a tough decision: b31) The first point to note is that White definitely has at least a draw to 128

e4 fall back on: 18 l:td5 lbd8 (18 ...lLla5? is worse: 19 j,d7! �f6 20 l:.g 5+ Wf8 21 'iWxh7 e6 22 l:tg8+ <j;e7 23 j,xc8 Wxf4+ 24 �b1 and White is winning)

19 lbd4 (19 i.d3 l:txc3 seems okay for Black, who can always sacrifice on d3 if the bishop threatens anything terrible) 19 ...�xe4 20 l:tg 5+ 'iti>h8 21 j_d3 We1+ 22 'iti>b2 Wxc3+ 23 'iti>b1 'iWe1+ and the game ends in perpetual check. b32) There are other ways for White to play the position, but to tell the truth I have not found anything abso­ lutely convincing : for example, after 18 j,xc6 l:txc6 19 lbd4 Wxe4 (if 19 ...l:tc5 20 Wxc5 bxc5 21 tt:Jxe6 fxe6 22 Wd2) 20 Wg 5+ Wf8 21 tt:Jxc6 Wxc6 22 l:td3 it seems doubtful that White can hope for any more than a draw, as his ex­ posed king will be vulnerable to checks. b33) Another idea is 18 lbh4!?, which leads to unclear play after 18 ...'iWf6 19 lbf5 e6 20 ll:lxd6 Wxf4+ 2 1 'iii>b 2. I doubt that White is really better here, but the game goes on. In conclusion, it is possible that

Pirc Defe n c e Black can narrowly maintain the bal­ ance with precise play. Should this dis­ suade you from playing this line with White? It depends on your own out­ look, but unless your opponent is ex­ ceptionally well-prepared, I would say it is unlikely to matter much. Naturally too I would encourage the reader to conduct his own research and look for improvements in the above lines. If he is still unsatisfied, there are plenty of other ways to fight for the advantage, such as the untested 12 ltJdS ! ? as well as the earlier deviation 8 dS, both of which were noted earlier. We now return to 14...ltc8: 15 �xhs

Perhaps Black's most resilient de­ fence would have been 16 ...h6!?, al­ though he is clearly struggling here too: 17 lt:lh4! e6 18 l:.xd6 1l'e8 (18 ... 'i'e7? 19 lt:lds! is crushing) 19 i.bs. Polgar chose to end her analysis here, but I would like to extend it a little further: 19 ... a6 20 i.xa6 l:.d8 21 lt:le4 l:.xd6 22 lt:lxd6 'i'a8 23 ..ibs lt:le7 24 �b1 and Black is alive, but he is clearly struggling. 17 'i'h3 1 Sidestepping any defences based on .. .fs, which would have threatened a queen exchange. 17 ... h6 Black has no time for 17 ...dxes, in view of 18 lt:lgs ! h6 19 1l'fs ! hxg s 20 i.d3 with a mating attack. 18 i.d3 Threatening 1l'fs and mate. 18 lt:lb4 18 ...e6 does not solve Black's prob­ lems after 19 lt:le4 lt:lb4 (or 19 ... dxes 20 lt:lf6+! i.xf6 21 'i'xh6) 20 lt:lf6+ i.xf6 2 1 exf6 lt:lxd3+ 22 l:.xd3 'it>h7 2 3 ltJg S+ c.ti>g6 24 lt:le4 - analysis by Finkel. 19 i.e41 . ..

15 ..tg 7 This looks forced, as the threat was es followed by i.d3. It is worth noting that 1S ...i.xc3?? 16 lt:lg s ! wins at once, as pointed out by Fin kel. 16 esl The imminent i.d3 remains a seri­ ous concern for Black. 16 . ."ii'e8 ...

.

129

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess D efe n ces:

1

Naturally this valuable attacking piece must be preserved. 19 ... e6 Black needs to stop 'ii'f5 somehow. Hopeless are both 19 ... d5? 20 tt:Jxd5 tt:Jxd5 21 �f5 and 19 ... �d8? 20 �f5 :es 21 e6 fxe6 22 �xe6+ �h8 23 tt::\ g 5 with mate to follow shortly. 20 f51 The humble foot soldier charges to the front-line. 20...:xc3 Black desperately tries to distract his opponent from the attack, but to no avail. Instead 20... dxe5 21 f6! �xf6 22 �xh6 wins immediately and the other desperate attempt, 20 ... tt:Jxa2+, soon loses after 21 tt::\ xa2 �a4 22 :d4! �xa2 23 f6 �al+ 24

d2. 21 f61

e4 game in any case: a) 21 ...tt:Jxa2+ 22 'it>bl achieves noth­ ing. b) The best try was 2 1 ...�a4. but af­ ter 22 bxc3 tt::\ x a2+ 23 'itb2 tt::\x c3 (23 ...�xe4 24 �g3 �g6 25 �xg6 fxg6 26 fxg 7 wins, as pointed out by Vigus) 24 l:td4! Black has no good defence, as shown by Polgar. 22 �g3 1 1-0 Black resigned, as he will soon run out of checks after 22 ... :xc2+ 23 �xc2 tt::\x a2+ 24 'itd2 �4+ 25 'ite3 �c5+ 26 :d4. This was a model attacking display from Judit Polgar. Despite the im­ provement noted on Black's 14th move, I cannot imagine many Pirc players lin­ ing up to defend Black's position. Having devoted three games to Black's main line of 6 ... b6, we will now tum our attention to his other options on the sixth move, beginning with a logical knight development.

Game 25 T.Stoere-B.Hanison

Correspondence 1990

One cannot help but admire Pol­ gar's complete single-mindedness in executing her attack. 21...�bs? Not the most resilient defence, but there was little chance of saving the 130

1 e4 d6 2 d4 tt::lf6 3 tt::\c 3 g6 4 f4 i.g7 5 tt::lf3 o-o 6 ..ie3 tt::l bd7 This comes with Vigus's seal of ap­ proval. Just as with 6 ... b6, Black's main idea is to prepare ... c5, but this time he does so by developing a piece. In most lines of the Austrian Attack, Black

Pirc Defe n ce would be ill-advised to deploy his knight to this square, as the automatic response e4-e5 would leave the knight on f6 without a convenient retreat square. However, the fact that the bishop has already been developed on e3 means that Black will be able to gain a tempo with ...lt:Jg4, which makes the eS plan a lot less attractive for White.

7 �d2 Proof of the previous comment is seen after 7 es?! lt:Jg4 8 i.g1 cs when White is already struggling to hold his centre together. 7 cs B dxcsl? This is an important moment. The most popular move has been 8 o-o-o, but after 8 ...lt:Jg4! 9 i.g1 cxd4 10 tt:Jxd4 es Black has reasonable chances to equalize. The text move has not been as heavily investigated, but to my eyes it appears promising. B tt:Jxcs 8 ... dxcs? is never played; with good reason as Black is clearly struggling after 9 0-0-0. 9 eS ...

9 ...tt:Jfe4 This has been the usual choice, al­ though I also found a game featuring a different knight move: 9 ... lt:Jg4 10 �xes {10 i.g1 b6 11 o-o-o �b7 is unclear according to Vigus) 10 ... dxcs was tried in S.Dvoirys-G.Zaichik, Kharkov 1985, and here I believe White should have played 11 0-0-0 �xd2+ 12 l:hd2 when his lead in development looks more significant than Black's bishop pair. Play might continue 12 ... tt:Je3 {other­ wise tt:Jds may be awkward) 13 i.d3 i.g4 14 �e4 lt:Jc4 15 :e2 and White keeps a slight plus. 10 tt:Jxe4 tt:Jxe4 11 �b4

...

131

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess Defe n ces:

1

Now Black must decide how to deal with the threat to the knight. Note that the greedy 11 'ii'd s?! tt:\cs 12 �xes �e6 13 'ii'xb7 dxcs is not at all attractive for White. u . ds Two other moves have been tried: a) 11 ...tt:\cs 12 o-o-o 'ii'c7 13 exd6 exd6 14 �d4 gave White a pleasant edge in S.Dvoirys-G.laketic, Chelyab­ insk 1991. b) 11 ...�fs 12 �d3 ds 13 tt:\d4 e6 14 0-0 'ii'c 7 was seen in A.Bangiev-H.Jong­ man, correspondence 1987, and now after 15 c4!? dxc4 16 l:.ac1 White has a useful space advantage and the more active pieces, while the knight on e4 isn't very stable. 12 �d3 12 l:.d1! ? also deserves serious con­ sideration, intending c2-c4. 12 ... b6 13 o-o 'ii'c 7 ..

14 a41 Improving over a previous battle be­ tween two bigger names, which contin­ ued as follows: 14 l:.ae1 �b7 15 l:.e2 e6 16 �d4 �h6 17 'ii'e 1 "ilie7 18 tt:'ld2 l:.fd8 132

e4 19 �xe4 dxe4 20 ,.f2 �xf4 21 tt:\xe4 �xe4 22 l:.xe4 �h6 when White failed to achieve anything and the game was subsequently drawn, A.Khalifman­ Z.Azmaiparashvili, Kiev 1986. The idea of breaking up the black queen side is much more potent. 14...ttJcs 15 as �g4 16 tt:\d4 White should not allow this valu­ able knight to be exchanged for the much weaker enemy bishop. 16...tt:\xd3 Perhaps Black could have consid­ ered preserving the knight on cs, where it would at least help to shield the b6-pawn from diagonal attacks. Nevertheless, there is no question that the initiative lies with White. 17 cxd3

11 ... bxas Not an easy decision to make, but Black was probably worried about l:.fc1 with the idea of meeting ...'ii'b 7 with a6. 18 'ii'x as 'ii'b 7 19 b3 It was also worth considering 19 b4! ? intending bs, with an even more

Pirc Defe n c e powerful grip over the queenside. 19...f6 19 ...l:tfc8 20 l:tfcl maintains the pressure, so Black tries to fight back in the centre. 20 e6l Obviously White should avoid pawn exchanges, which would open the posi­ tion for the enemy bishops. 2o...fs Otherwise White have played either f5 or h3, leading to total domination. After the text move, however, the off­ side bishop on g4 remains a serious concern for Black. 21 l:tfc1 :ac8 22 h3 .ths 23 b4 .i.f6?1 23 ...a6 was essential, although Black is still in trouble. 24 bs Completing the bind over the queenside. Black has almost no active moves at all.

24 .lbc1+ 25 l:txc1 ._b6 26 ._xb6 ..

The computer wants to play 26 ._a4 in tending l:tc6, which is also more than g ood enough, but the ending is clearly Winning so there is no special reason to

avoid it. 26 ...axb6 27 l:tc6 :asl? Black abandons the b-pawn in a desperate bid for counterplay. 27 ... l:tb8 would have been met by 28 l:tc7 intending ltJc6. 28 l:txb6 l:ta3 29 l:tb8+ With this move White starts to make the winning process a little more complicated. 29 ltJc6! l:txd3 30 .i.c5 was more conclusive. White will win the e7pawn, after which the two passed pawns, combined with some possible threats against the black king, should make the win a formality: for instance, 30... .i.h4 (threatening ... .i.g 3) 31 ltJxe7+ �g7 32 .l:.b7 'itf6 33 ltJc6

33 ... �xe6 (not 33 ....i.g3 34 l:tf7+ �xe6 3 5 ltJd8 mate) 34 lDe5 l:tdl+ 3 5 �h2 (threatening mate on b6) 3 5 ... d4 36 l:td7 and Black has no defence against the threats of .i.f8 followed by l:!.d6 mate, and l:.d6+ immediately fol­ lowed by a discovered check. 29 ...'it>g7 30 b6 l:txd3 31 b7 l:.xe3 32 .l:.g8+ �xg8 33 b8._+ 'iti>g7 34 ._e8 Material is approximately equal, 133

B e a t ing U n u s u a l Ch ess Defe n ces:

1

but Black's weak e7-pawn and vulnerable king give him problems. The rema­ inder of the game is not so important for us, but White was eventually able to convert his advantage as follows. 34...'iti>h6 35 'ii'f8+ i.g7 36 lLlxf5+1 gxf5 37 'ii'xf5 ..tf6 38 g4 l:tg3+ 39 �h2 i..g 6 40 g5+ i..x g5 41 fxg5+ l:txg5 42 'ii'f8+ �h5 43 'ii'xe7

Black is unable to build a fortress. 43 ...l:te5 44 'ii'd 6 l:te2+ 45 'iti>g1 �h6 46 'ii'x ds l:te4 47 'ii'd 2+ 'it;lh5 48 'ii'd 6 'iti>g5 49 'ii'd 8+ 'iti>hS 50 e7 'iti>h6 51 'itf2 'iti>h5 52 'ii'd 5+ Wh6 53 'ii'xe4 1-o Overall it seems that the slightly unusual 8 dxcs!? is an excellent try for an advantage. We will now move on to a third option for Black on move six.

Game 2 6 D.Pavasovic-N.Mrkonjic

Croatian Team Cham pionsh i p 2010 1 e4 d6 2 d4 lt:lf6 3 lt:Jc3 g6 4 f4 i..g 7

134

5

e4 lLlf3 o-o 6 i..e 3 c6

This is the most-frequently played of Black's alternatives to 6 ... b6. Instead of aiming for ... cs, Black bases his coun­ terplay on ...bs or occasionally ... ds. 7 h31? I find this slightly offbeat move to be one of the most promising at White's disposal. The main idea is to prepare es without allowing the reply . .. l2Jg4. Here is a quick round-up of the alternatives: a) 7 'ii'd 2 is possible, although after 7 ... b5 Black's counterplay is already underway; he is threatening to win a pawn and his early queenside activity renders long castling unappealing for White. b) 7 i.d3 is a decent move, against which Black has numerous possible replies. One interesting game contin­ ued 7 ...lLla6 ! ? 8 i.xa6 bxa6 9 h 3 l:tb8 10 l:tb1 dS?! (Vigus recommends the im­ provement 10 ...l2Je8! ? intending .. .fs) 11 es lt:Je4 12 lt:lxe4 dxe4 13 lt:Jd2 when Black had too many pawn weaknesses and went on to lose in V.Kotronias-

Pirc D efe n ce V.Tseshkovsky, Vrnjacka Banja 2005. 7 bs Black has tried several other moves. Here is a summary of the most signifi­ cant ones: a) 7 ... ltJa6? ! 8 ..txa6 bxa6 9 o-o gives White an extra tempo over the Kotronias-Tseshkovsky game noted above. b) 7 ... ltJbd7 8 e5 dxe5 {8 ...ltJh 5 leaves the black knight in trouble after 9 ltJe2 or 9 �f2! ?) 9 dxe5 ltJd5 10 ltJxd5 cxd5 11 1i'd2 ltJb6 was A.Donchenko­ A.Gavrilov, Moscow 1995, and now af­ ter 12 b3 White has the better chances, as Black's minor pieces do not coordi­ nate very well. c) 7 ...1i'a5 8 ..td3 ltJbd7 9 o-o e5 10 1i'e1 and White has a slight plus, as he controls the centre and has good chances to develop a kingside attack.

steig 1994) 11 ..txd4 :e8 12 1if2 ltJc5 13 e5 ltJxd3 14 cxd3 dxe5 15 fxe5 ltJd5 16 ltJe4 ..te6 17 ltJfg5 1i'c7 18 ltJxh 7 ! ? {White could also have kept some ad­ vantage by calmer means with 18 ltJd6 followed by 1i'h4) 18 ...'itxh7 19 1i'h4+ 'itg8 20 ltJg 5 c5 21 l:tac1 b6 22 1i'h7+ �8 23 1i'xg6 1i'e7? (23 ...1i'd7! was the best defence, after which 24 :f3? runs into 24 ... ltJf6!) 24 :f3! cxd4 25 :cf1 'iti>g8 26 l:.xf7 ..txf7 27 :xf7 1i'xf7 28 1i'xf7+ �h8 29 1i'xd5 l:.ac8 30 ltJf7+ 'ifi>h7 3 1 e6 ..tf6 3 2 1i'h5+ 'iti>g8 3 3 ltJh6+ 'itg7 34 ltJf5+ 1-0 D.Pavasovic-A.Graf, Deizisau 2005. 8 e5 One of the advantages of delaying 1i'd2 is that Black does not have the option of meeting the text move with ... b4. s ltJds g ltJxds cxds 10 ..td3

Interestingly Pavasovic reached this position five years prior to the present g ame and won in fine style then too: 10 ...exd4 (10 ...ltJh 5 11 dxes dxe5 12 fs gave White a promising kingside initia­ tive in Y.Masserey-R.Schmaltz, Alten-

White's powerful central pawn wedge gives him the better chances. The tension between the pawns on e5 and d6 also favours the first player. If Black exchanges on es, then the reply fxes will open the f-file and the c1-h6

...

...

135

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess D efe n ces:

1

diagonal, both of which lead towards Black's king. If, on the other hand, Black leaves the pawns as they stand, he must constantly remain mindful of the possibility of exd6. 10...a6 In the following game Black also failed to solve his problems: 10 ...ltJc6 11 o-o (obviously 11 .i.xb5?? is impossible due to 11 .. .'�a5+) 11 .. .'ii'b 6 (11 ... a6 transposes to the main game) 12 1t'e1 f6?! (this creates too many weaknesses) 13 exd6! exd6 (Black would normally prefer to meet the capture on d6 with 13 ... e6, but having already played ...f6 the resulting pawn formation is rather soft and after 14 h4! Black is under pressure) 14 f5 ! .i.xf5 15 .i.xf5 gxf5 16 ltJh4 ltJe7 17 ltJxf5 ltJxf5 18 l:txf5 l:tae8 19 'ii'd2 and Black had too many weak­ nesses and soon went down in J.Aubel­ P.Van Hoolandt, Belgian league 1997. 11 o-o ltJc6

e4 Black decides to exchange it, although the weakening of his kingside carries an obvious risk. 13 ..txfs gxfs 14 :tae1 1t'as

A queen exchange would obviously suit Black. 15 C3 15 exd6! ? e6 16 ltJe5 also looks promising, as after 16 .. .'ii' xd2 17 .i.xd2 ltJxd4? 18 c3 .i.xe5 19 fxe5 ltJc6 20 .i.h6 Black's dark-squared weaknesses will prove fatal. 1S .. b4?1 This is too ambitious. Black should have settled for a defensive move such as 15 ... e6 when his position is some­ what worse, but still playable. White can choose between the solid 16 a3, followed by kingside play with .i.f2-h4, perhaps combined with a rook lift to g3, or the more aggressive 16 g4! ? fxg4 17 hxg4, with the makings of a strong attack. 16 exd61 White should only play this move when the circumstances are particu­ larly favourable, otherwise Black will .

12 'ii'd 2 12 'ii'e 1 is a decent alternative. 12 ..tts11 The bishop Jacked a useful role so ...

136

Pirc D efe n ce simply respond with ... e6 followed by rounding up the loose pawn. In the present position, Pavasovic has cor­ rectly judged that Black's poor coordi­ nation will prevent him from carrying out this plan in a satisfactory way. 16 ... bxc3 17 bxc3 e6 17 ... exd6 leaves the fs-pawn chroni­ cally weak and after 18 tZ::lh 4 tZ::le 7 19 i.f2 Black has a horrible position. 18 tZ::le s l:.acB Black is not helped by 18 ...l:.fc8 19 l:.bl when the vulnerability of the f7pawn might come into play. 19 l:.b11

more important d6-pawn can now be supported along the open d-file) 24 dS! exds 2 5 tZ::le s l:.xcl+ (2S ...l:.xd6 26 i.cs) 26 l:.xcl tZ::lxd6 27 i.cs and White will win the exchange for a pawn; com­ bined with Black's weak kingside struc­ ture, this ensures him of excellent win­ ning chances.

20 lLlb87 Black should have cut his losses with 20...ii'xd6 21 ii'xa6 when he may be a pawn down, but his pawn struc­ ture and piece coordination remain in reasonable shape. Best play looks to be 21 ... l:.a8! 22 ii'xc6 (22 fts l:.fc8) 22 ... .-ixes 23 l:.b6 ii'xc6 24 l:.xc6 i.f6 when White is still better, but it will not be easy to convert his extra pawn. 21 C41 f6 After 2 1 ...'W'xd6 22 cs "ii'c 7 2 3 l:.b6 White is in complete control. 22 cxdsl exds In the event of 22 .. .fxes both 23 dxes and 23 fxes leave White with a hugely powerful central pawn mass. ...

White takes advantage of his oppo­ nent's queenside demonstration by utilizing the recently opened b-file. 19 . .'ii'd8 20 ii'd3 There was an even stronger con­ tinuation available: 20 c4! dxc4 (after 2o ... tZ::lx es 21 fxes l:.xc4 22 l:.b7 mate­ rial is equal, but positionally Black is busted) 21 tZ::lxc4 lLla7 22 :tel tZ::lb s 23 tvb4 l:.c6 (or 23 ...tZ::lxd4 24 �h2 ! when the disappearance of the d4-pawn could prove helpful to White, as the .

2 3 li:Jf3

White could even have left the 137

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess D efe n ces:

1

knight en prise with 23 �d2 ! ? in order to prevent the capture on d6. 23 .. Jii'xd6 24 lt::lh 4 l::tc4 25 lt::lxfs

e4

Game 2 7 J.Aagaard-C.McNab

Oa kham 2000 1 e4 d6 2 d4 lt::lf6 3 lt::lc 3 g6 4 f4 �g7 5 lt::lf3 o-o 6 �e3 lt::lc6

Black is a pawn down, but that is the least of his worries. The knight on fs is exceptionally powerful. 2S .. .'i*'d7 26 l:.b6 There is nothing wrong with this, al­ though the direct 26 l::tf3 ! would have been even better. 26 .. JUc8 After the alternative 26 ...lt::lc 6 27 .l::.fb l Black has to worry about the sev­ enth rank. 27 �dl .l::.4c6 28 l:Ub1 l:lxb6 29 l::txb6 lt::lc6 30 .l::.xa6 Another pawn drops. Black strug­ gles on for a while longer, but his situa­ tion is hopeless. 30... �f8 31 l:.b6 'ii'c 7 32 .U.bs 'ii'd 7 33 'ii'b 1 lt::la 7 34 l:f.b7 l:.c7 35 l:txc7 'ii'xc7 36 'ii'b 3 'ii'c4 37 'ii'xc4 dxc4 38 lt::le 3 lt::l b s 39 lt::lxc4 lt::lxd4 40 �e3 lt::le l+ 41 �2 lt::lc 3 42 a3 fs 43 �d4 lt::la 4 44 lt::lb 2 lt::lx bl 45 �xbl <3;f7 46 g4 �C5+ 4 7 ..t>f3 �g6 48 a4 �b4 49 �d4 �as so 'iii>e 3 fxg4 51 hxg4 hS 52 f5+ 1-0 138

This move is slightly unusual but should definitely be considered, espe­ cially as it can be reached via a Modern move order, as was the case in the pre­ sent game. 7 �e2 The game actually began with the opening moves 1 .. g6 2 d4 d6 3 lt::lc 3 �g7 4 f4 lt::lc 6 5 �e3 lt::lf6 6 �e2 o-o 7 lt::lf 3, but I have taken the liberty of modifying the sequence to fit in with the present chapter. The development of the bishop on e2 appears timid and indeed it would not normally be our first choice, but this particular variation is a rare excep­ tion. White intends to meet ... es with dxes, so he avoids placing the bishop on the typically more desirable d3square in order to keep the d-file open. .

Pirc Defe n ce An example of a more energetic but not necessarily more promising ap­ proach is 7 e5 tt:'lg4 8 .ig1 dxe5 9 dxe5 f6 10 .ic4+ Wh8 11 h 3 tt:'lh6 when Black is okay.

tt:'lgxe5 (after 13 ... g 5 14 .ig3 tt:'lcxe5 15 tt:'lxe5 tt:'lxes 16 o-o fs 17 .txes .txe5 18 .ic4 �g7 19 exfs Black dropped a pawn for insufficient compensation in Baldizzone-Fiorentini, correspondence 1983) 14 tt:'lxes .txes.

7 e6 ...

Black reverts to a kind of Hippo formation. A number of alternatives have been tried, the most important being the following: a) 7 ....tg4 8 e5 dxe5 9 dxe5 tt:'ld7 (9 ...1i'xd1+ 10 l:txd1 tt:'lh 5 was K.Kopczynski-J.Blaszczyk, correspon­ dence 1991, and now 11 tt:'ld4! .ixe2 12 tt:'lcxe2 is good for White) 10 h3 .txf3 (in the event of 10 ... .tf5 11 g4 .ie6 12 tt:'lg 5 ! tt:'lb6 13 tt:'lxe6 fxe6 14 g5! Black is in trouble as his bishop is trapped in a cage) 11 .txf3 tt:'lb6 12 0-0 and with more space and a pair of great bishops, White has an obvious advantage. b) 7 ... e5 is playable, but it does not equalize: 8 dxe5 (8 fxe5 dxe5 9 d5 tt:'le7 is playable, but I prefer the text) 8 ... dxe5 (8 ... 4:'lg4 9 .ig1 reaches varia­ tion 'c' below) 9 'ii'xd8 .:xd8 10 fxes 4::'lg 4 11 .tgs .:d7 12 4::'ld s h6 13 .th4

This position was reached in A.Beliavsky-E.Cekro, Sarajevo 1982. Now Vigus points out the line 15 tt:'lf6+ .txf6 16 .txf6 :d6 when White is slightly better thanks to his powerful dark-squared bishop. A plausible con­ tinuation is 17 es :d5 (17 ...:d4 18 .if3) 18 .if3 :cs 19 .txc6 :xc6 20 0-0-0 when the opposite coloured bish­ ops certainly do not guarantee a draw for Black, and White can press for a win without taking the slightest risk. c) Black can also advance his e­ pawn after the preliminary knight lunge 7 ...4:'lg4: 8 .ig 1 eS 9 dxes (I prefer this to 9 fxes dxes 10 ds tt:'le7 11 h3 tt:'lf6) 9 ...dxes 10 h 3 tt:'lf6 (alternatively, there is 10 ... tt:'lh6 11 .tc5 :e8 12 1i'xd8 .:xd8 13 4Jds exf4 14 o-o-o .l::.d 7 15 lLlxf4 lL:les 16 g4 �h8 as seen in B.Naeter-K.Wal sh, correspondece 1998, 139

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess D efe n ce s : 1 e4 and now after 17 .:l.xd7 �xd7 18 .:l.d1 il.c6 19 tLld5 White keeps some initia­ tive) 11 'fixd8 .:l.xd8 12 fxe5 tLld7 (12 ... tLle8 13 �h2 ! tLlb4 14 �d1 �e6 15 a3 tLlc6 was R.Phetzschner-K.Piersig, correspondence 1990, and here I sug­ gest 16 �e2 when Black will not have an easy time regaining his missing pawn) 13 o-o-o (13 tLld5 ! ? tLldxe5 14 c3 also looks promising) 13 ...tLldxe5 14 tLld5 �e6 15 tLlxc7 (15 �h 2 has also been played, but I prefer the immedi­ ate capture) 15 ....l:.xd1+ 16 �xd1 .l:ld8 17 tLlxe6 �h6+. We have been follow­ ing the game A.Vitolinsh-I.Chikovani, Riga 1975. Now after the most precise 18 tLlfg 5! fxe6 19 h4 .:us 20 b3 .l:lf4 21 il.e3 �xg 5 22 hxg 5 .:l.xe4 23 .:l.h 3 we reach an endgame where White's two bishops are obviously superior to Black's knights. Returning to 7 ... e6:

8 'fid2 tLle7

Preparing to meet e5 with ... tLlfd5. The main alternative is 8 ... b6 9 o-o-o �b7 (9 ...tLle7 transposes to our main game), to which White should respond 140

with the direct 10 e5 tLlg4 11 h 3 (11 �g1? does not work here due to 11 ... dxe5 12 dxe5 �h6! with awkward pressure against f4 and e5) 11 ... tLlxe3 12 Wxe3. I only found one game from this position, which continued 12 ...tLle7 13 g4 f6 14 �c4 (14 exf6 and 14 h4! ? both deserve attention) 14...�xf3 (14 ... d5 was wiser, when Black is only a little worse) 15 �xe6+ 'iii>h 8 16 ii'xf3 fxe5 17 dxe5 ..txe5 18 tLle2 and White kept some advantage thanks to his kingside attacking chances and strong outpost on e6, J.Nunn-S.Kindermann, Wiesbaden 1981. 9 0-0-0 b6 McNab attempts to improve on 9 ... a6, which he had played eleven years earlier without success: 10 e5 tLlfd5 11 tLlxd5 exd5 (after 11...ttJxd5 12 h4 b5 13 h 5 �b7 14 hxg6 hxg6 15 tLlg5 Black was already facing strong kingside threats in A.De Vriendt-J.Voth, corre­ spondence 1990) 12 h3 f6 (the follow­ ing change in the pawn structure does not help Black, but he was worse any­ way) 13 exf6 .:l.xf6 14 g4 'iif8 15 .:l.de1 �d7 16 tLlh4 c5?! (in a difficult situa­ tion Black tries to change the course of the game, but only succeeds in worsen­ ing his position) 17 dxc5 .:l.c8 18 g 5 dxc5?! 1 9 gxf6 'fixf6 2 0 c 3 iixh4 2 1 �g4 �xg4 2 2 hxg4 'iif6 23 f5 and Black soon had to resign in P.Wolff-C.McNab, London 1989. 10 esl There is no reason for White to de­ lay his attack. The plan is simple: drive

Pirc D efe n ce away the defensive knight, then ad­ vance the h-pawn up the board.

1o... lbfds 10 ... lbg4 was played in I.Nataf­ F.Nijboer, Mondariz 2000, and here the simplest way for White to maintain an advantage is with 11 �g1, intending to play against the misplaced knight with h3 and g4. 11 lbxds lbxds 11 ... exds has been tried by a few players, including none other than McNab once again. Play continues 12 h3 cs (compared with the variation beginning with 9 ... a6 above, the pawn on b6 supports this undermining move; it does not solve Black's prob­ lems, though) 13 g4 when Black has tried two moves: a) 13 ...cxd4 was played in D.Bryson­ C.McNab, Troon 1982, and here the si mplest path to an advantage would have been 14 �xd4!, intending to meet 14 ... tt:lc6 with 15 e6! tt:lxd4 (15 .. .fxe6? l ose s a piece to 16 i.. x g7 �xg7 17 �C3+) 16 exf7+ l:.xf7 17 tt:lxd4 'iff6 18 .l:thf1 with a huge positional plus.

b) 13 ... dxes 14 fxe 5 'ike? 1 5 i..h 6 �e6 16 i..x g7 �xg7 17 'ikf4 and White kept a pleasant initiative in J.Gallagher-J.Hickl, Pula 2000. 12 h4

12 ...lbxe3 After 12 ... h s 13 lbg 5 (13 l:.hg1 ! ?) 13 .. .f6 14 exf6 'ikxf6 15 g3 �b7 16 �f2 a6 17 l:.he1 b5 18 i.f1 l:.ae8 19 �h3 �c8 20 l:.e4 White was in full control, I.Bardos-J.Long, correspondence 2004. 13 'ikxe3 �b7 14 hS dxes In the following game Black avoided this pawn exchange, but soon suc­ cumbed to a crushing attack: 14 ... 'ike7 15 hxg6 hxg6 16 lbg 5 ! �xg2 17 l:th2 (17 l:.h7 ! ?) 17 ... �b7 18 �d3 l:.fd8 (18 .. .f6? 19 'ikh3 wins) 19 'ikh3 dxe5 20 �xg6! fxg6 21 'ikh7+ �8 22 'ikxg6 'ike8 23 tt:lxe6+ r3;e7 24 'ikxg7+ 'itxe6 25 'ikxe5+ �d7 26 l:.h7+ 1-0 N.Fercec5 .Kosanski, Pula 1998. 15 dxes 'ike7 16 hxg6 hxg6 16 .. .fxg6 was possible, but the e6and h7-pawns are both weak, and White remains clearly better after 17 tt:lg5 h6 18 tt:le4. 141

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess D efe n ce s :

1

17 lL'lg5 l:r.fds 17 ... �xg2 18 l:r.h2 (18 l:r.h7 ! ?) 18 ... ..tb7 19 �d3 is similar to the note to move 14 above. 18 �d3 ltd7 19 lth4 f6 Unsurprisingly, the greedy 19 ... �xg2 meets with a swift refutation in 20 l:r.d2 �d5 21 'ifh3 'ii'c 5 22 l:th2 ! ..tr>f8 23 l:r.h7! when there is n o good de­ fence to l:r.xg7. 20 exf6 �xf6 20...'ii'xf6 would have lasted a bit longer, but after 21 'ii'x e6+ 'ii'x e6 22 lL!xe6 Black is close to defeat, as shown by Vigus with the following short varia­ tions: 22 ... �xg2 (or 22 ... �7 23 ..txg6+ �xe6 24 f5+ �e7 25 f6+) 2 3 lL'lxg7 l:xg7 24 ..tc4+ �8 2 5 l:r.g1 �b7 26 f5 ! and White wins. 21 l:r.h6

With the g6-pawn about to fall, Black's position is on the verge of col­ lapse. 21...�d5 22 l:r.xg6+ ..tg7 23 c4 Now the e6-pawn drops as well. White was spoilt for choice, though, as 23 :h1 was also devastating. 142

e4 2 3 ...�xg2 24 l:txe6 'ii'd 8 2 5 .:tg6 'ii'e7 26 lL'le6 l:r.e8 27 'ii'g 3 1-0 By now we have dealt with Black's four most important options on move six. In the following game, our last in the 6 ..te3 system, we will deal with the less common options at his disposal .

Game 28 P.Kotsur-A.Kakageldyev

Asian Cha mpionship, Doha 2003 1 e4 g6 2 d4 �g7 3 lL'lc3 d6 4 f4 lL'lf6 5 lL'lf3 o-o 6 �e3

6 ...lL'la6 Here is a summary of Black's re­ maining 6th-move alternatives: a) 6 ... lL'lg4?! is premature: 7 �g1 c5 (after 7 ...e5 8 dxe5 dxe5 9 h3 lL'lh6 10 'ii'xd8 l:txd8 11 lL'lxe5 ..txe5 12 fxe5 White had a big advantage in S.Maus­ J.Eriksson, Gausdal 1990) 8 dxc5 'ii'a 5 9 "ii'd 2 dxcs 10 lL'lds "ii'x d2+ 11 lL'lxd2 lL'lc6 12 h3 (12 c3!?) 12 ... lt:::lf6 13 �xes and

Pirc Defe n ce Black had no real compensation for the missing pawn in U.Goy-M.Pruess, Porz 1991. b) 6 ... a6 7 es (White might also con­ sider 7 h 3 ! ? by analogy with Game 26) 7 ...lt:Jg4 8 ..tg1 b5 9 1We2 c5 10 o-o-o (White concentrates on rapid develop­ ment, although the materialistic 10 dxc 5 ! ? also looks like a decent try for an advantage) 10 ... cxd4 11 lt:Jxd4 dxes was tried in A. Khalifman-P.Svidler, Moscow 1995, and here the strongest continua­ tion would have been 12 lt:Jf5 ! ..txfs 13 l:txd8 .:.xd8 14 h3 lt:Jf6 15 g4 with some advantage for White. With ..tg2 on the way, Black does not have sufficient compensation for the missing queen and he will have to worry about avoid­ ing further material losses. c) Finally, 6 ... c5 is not such a bad move, although it is not by accident that most experts choose to prepare it with one of the alternatives examined earlier in the chapter: 7 dxc5 'ii'a 5 (7 ... dxc5? 8 'ii'x d8 l:txd8 9 ..txc5 lt:Jc6 10 �b5 just leaves Black a pawn down for nothing) 8 ...t d 3 lt:Jg4 (in principle Black should generally try to recapture with the queen to reach a Sicilian structure; 8 .. dxc5 is playable, but White retains a pleasant edge with 9 ...t d 2, as well as the rare 9 lt:Jes ! ?) 9 �d2 'ii'x c5 10 'ii'e 2 lt:lf6 (10 ...lt:Jc6? is a blunder: 11 h 3 lt:Jf6 12 lt:Ja4 lt:Jd4 13 lt:Jxd4 'ii'xd4 14 c4! left Bl ack without a good answer to the threats of �c3 and �e3 in L.Erben­ L.Stemmler, Torgelow 2006) 11 o-o-o (11 �e3 it'a5 12 o-o transposes to a line .

of the Austrian that is usually reached after 5 ... c5, but castling immediately is undoubtedly better: the queen is mis­ placed on c5, so there is no point in driving it away).

Here we will consider two options for Black: c1) The problem with the queen's position can be seen after 11 ...lt:Jc6 12 lt:Ja4! lt:Jd4 13 'ii'e 3 (13 lt:Jxc5 lt:Jxe2+ 14 �xe2 dxcs 15 e5 also looks like an edge for White) 13 ... lt:Jg4 14 lt:Jxc5 lt:Jxe3 15 �xe3 dxc5 16 ...t xd4 cxd4 17 e5 and White has a good ending as the d4pawn is likely to drop, J.Timman­ R.Hartoch, Leeuwarden 1981. c2) 11 ......t g 4 12 h3 �xf3 13 'ii'xf3 lt:Ja6 (once again 13 ...lt:Jc6?? is a blunder in view of 14 lt:Ja4 'ii'h 5 , as in G.Quattrocchi-O.Thal, Correspondence 1996, and after 15 g4 White wins) 14 'Otb1 and White kept the better pros­ pects in A.Mikhalchishin-J.Rukavina, Hastings 1985/86. He has more space, a pair of bishops and promising attack­ ing chances. Returning to 6 ... lLla6: 143

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess D efe n ces:

1

1 e s tt::\g4 7 . .tt::\d 7 is rather passive and after 8 'ir'd2 cs 9 o-o-o White was the better mobilized in M.Paragua-A.Kakageldyev, Beijing (blitz) 2008. 8 �g11 .

On this occasion White should keep his bishop. One reason is that this piece will play a useful role in defending his centre after the imminent ... cs. More importantly, in this particular variation White has a strong plan involving h3, driving the enemy knight back to the passive h6-square, followed by g4, after which the knight will have a hard time finding its way back into the game. s cs 9 h3 White wastes no time in executing his plan. There will be time to catch up on development later. g cxd4 This is Black's usual choice, al­ though he sometimes prefers 9 .. tt::\h 6 10 g4 with two options: a) 10 ... cxd4 11 'ir'xd4 will closely re­ semble the game after White castles. b) The interesting 10 ...ft6! ? was ...

...

.

144

e4 played in V.Nevednichy-F.Manca, Kusa­ dasi 2006.

White responded with 11 l:.b1 and eventually won, but the game was not totally convincing, and it seems to me that the defensive rook move is a con­ cession, especially as White will no longer be able to castle on the queen­ side. There are a few ways in which White can sacrifice the b-pawn and obtain interesting play, but it is all rather murky. Having checked the vari­ ous options, my recommendation is the calm 11 a3 ! ?, protecting the b­ pawn indirectly and effectively asking Black how he plans to justify the posi­ tion of his queen, which is hardly ide­ ally placed in the firing line of the bishop on g1. 10 'ir'xd41 Naturally White recaptures with the queen in order to facilitate castling. 10 tt::\ h 6 11 0-0-0 11 g4!? is another valid move order, but since ... tt::\fs is not yet a genuine threat, most players have preferred to castle first. •..

Pirc Defe n ce

11 .i.e6 This is not the only playable move: a) ll ...lt:'lfs has never been tested, and with good reason. White should respond with 12 'ii'f2 !, covering the g3square, followed by g4 when the knight will be forced to retreat to its previous dismal post on h6. b) A more important alternative is 11...'ii'a s 12 g4 when Black has tried the following moves: bl) 12 ... .te6 13 'ii'a4! transposes to the note to Black's 12th move in our main game. b2) 12 ... dxes 13 fxes lt:'lb4 (B.Socko­ M.Dzhumaev, Istanbul Olympiad 2000) 14 a3 lt:'lc6 15 'ii'e 3 transposes to varia­ tion 'b4' below. b3) 12 ... .i.d7 13 lt:'lds ! ? (13 l:th2 ! ? is a sensible alternative) 13 ...'ii'x a2 14
met by 16 ... l:tac8! 17 lt:'lxc8 l:txc8 18 b3 l:txc3 19 bxa4 l:txf3 with a rather un­ clear endgame) 16 ... .i.e6 17 b3 when the position remains messy, but White's chances are higher. b4) 12 ... lt:'lb4 13 a3 lt:'lc6 14 'ii'e 3 (14 'ii'd 5 ! ?) 14... dxe5 15 fxes .i.e6 (15 ...lt:'lxe5?? loses to 16 l:tdS !) 16 .i.h 2 �h8 17 .i.d3 (17 �bl!? was worth con­ sidering, either here or over the next few moves) 17 ... a6 18 .i.e4 when White controls more space and his pieces are considerably more active, while the knight on h6 remains an ongoing prob­ lem for Black, G.Sigurjonsson­ W.Zbikowski, German League 1983. 12 g41

Aside from its primary purpose of restricting the enemy knight, this move fulfils a few other purposes. Firstly, it may facilitate the development of the king's rook via h2, as well as of the light-squared bishop to g2. Secondly, it sets up the tactical motif of fS, intend­ ing to meet ... gxf5 with g5 when the knight on h6 will be trapped. 12 l:c8? ...

145

B e a t i n g U n u s u a l Chess Defe n ces:

1

This overoptimistic move is refuted by White's accurate response. The best chance was 12 ... 'ili'as, al­ though after 13 'ii'a4! 'ii'xa4 14 tt:\xa4 practice has shown that Black does not equalize: a) 14...tt:\b4 15 a3 tt:\ds was S.Ali­ M.Saud, Abu Dhabi 1999, and here the most accurate continuation would have been 16 exd6 exd6 17 fS ! .td7 (17 ... gxfs? 18 gS) 18 .:r.xds i.xa4 (the evaluation is similar after 18 ....tc6! ? 19 l:td3 .txa4 20 f6!) 19 .tbs ! .txbs 20 .:r.xbs b6 21 f6! and White is winning. b) 14...dxes 15 fxes tt:\b4 16 a3 tt:\c6 17 tt:\cs i.c8 18 .te3 b6 19 .tbs ! tt:\xes 20 tt:\xes bxcs 21 tt:\c6 when White had a powerful initiative in E.Bareev­ M.Todorcevic, Marseille 1990. c) 14...:fc8 15 .txa6 bxa6 16 exd6 exd6 17 .td4 .txa2 ! ? 18 tt:\c3 .tc4 19 i.xg7 'iti>xg7 20 .:r.xd6 and White kept a clear advantage in V.Kotronias­ A.Kakageldyev, Bled Olympiad 2002. 13 'ii'xa71

13 ...l:.xc31? This sacrifice is not fully sound, but 146

e4 it was the best practical chance. Avrukh demonstrates that the following two alternatives are hopeless: a) 13 ...tt:\cs 14 i.xcs .:xes 15 'ii'x cs dxcs 16 .:r.xd8 l:r.xd8 17 tt:\gs and White's extra pawn should decide the endgame. b) 13 ...tt:\b4 14 a3 l:.xC3 (or 14...tt:\c6 15 'ii'x b7 'iii'as 16 .tb6! ) 15 bxc3 tt:\ds 16 fs ! gxfs 17 gS when the knight on h6 is trapped, and in the resulting position Black will be a rook down for insuffi­ cient compensation. 14 bxc3 'ii'a s 15 .txa6 bxa6 16 i.d41

From this square the bishop effec­ tively glues White's whole position to­ gether, by defending the c3-pawn, neu­ tralizing the bishop on g7, and blocking the d-file, thus allowing the king to shelter on d2. Black tries his best to create some attacking chances, but his position is already beyond salvation. 16...-tds 17 l:.hf1 dxes 18 tt:\xes 'ii'x a2 Avrukh mentions the line 18 .. .f6 19 tt:\d3 'ii'xa2 20 tt:\b4! when White wins. 19 l:.fe11 Preventing ...il.e4. Despite the

Pirc Defen ce slightly shaky appearance of his king's fortress, White is in no real danger and it is only a matter of time before he forces further exchanges. 19 ...l:ta8 20 'ti'b6 'ti'a3+ 21 'it>d2 'ti'a4 22 l:!.a1 'ti'es 23 l:.xa6 :cs Black is trying desperate to avoid simplification, but the white rooks will soon team up to hurt him. 24 l:ta7 l:tdS 25 'ti'c7 f6

26 lLlxg61 1-0 Black resigned in view of 26 ... hxg6 27 lhe7. It's worth noting too that since retreating to the h6-square on move ten, the black knight never got another chance to move. Part 2

-

s ... cs a nd

rare a lternatives

Game 29 A.Van Herwaarden­ C.De Saegher

Dieren 2006 Our two protagonists are not well

known; according to the database Black was rated a little over 2200 at the time of the game, while White was not even rated at all, although at the time of writing these words he has ascended to the 2100+ ranks. Despite the sub­ grandmaster pedigree of this game, it is of considerable theoretical impor­ tance, as the players followed what I believe to be a critical line for my rec­ ommended variation. 1 e4 d6 2 d4 lLlf6 3 lLlc3 g6 4 f4 ..tg7 5 lLlf3

5 C5 The immediate central strike is a se­ rious option, which has been seen in approximately half as many games as s ... o-o. Serious Pirc players rarely devi­ ate from these two main moves. Here is a brief summary of a few rare alternatives: a) After both s . tt:Jc6 6 ..te3 and s ..lt:Ja6 6 ..te3 it is doubtful that Black has anything better than 6 .. 0-0 trans­ posing to Games 28 and 27 respec­ tively. b) Following s . .�g4 6 h3 �xf3 7 •••

..

.

.

.

147

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess Defe n ce s :

1

ifxf3 White will continue with .te3 followed by castling and a timely es. c) s ... c6 6 .te3 b S (6 ...0-0 7 h 3 trans­ poses to Game 26) 7 es (7 .td3 should also give White an edge) 7 ...lL!g4 8 .tg1 is seldom played and I do not see much point in analysing it in detail, but rest assured White's chances are higher.

6 dxcs The big main line is 6 .tbS+ .td7 7 es (7 .txd7+ intending 8 ds is a decent alternative), but I believe that the text gives at least as many chances for an advantage without being anywhere near so theoretically demanding. 6 ...ifas Nothing else is playable. The endgame arising after 6 ... dxcs? 7 ifxd8+ 'it>xd8 is simply bad for Black: 8 es ttJh s 9 .te3 lL!c6 10 0-0-0+ 'it>c7 11 lL!dS+ 'it>b8 12 .txcs .tg4 was F.Winiwarter-J. Kurasch, Feffernitz 1996, and now after 13 ttJxe7 ttJxe7 14 .txe7 lL!xf4 15 l:td4 .txf3 16 .td6+ 'it>c8 17 gxf3 White should win comfortably. 7 ifd41? An important moment. By far the 148

e4 most popular continuation i s 7 .td3 'ii'xcs, but it seems to me that the text move poses more difficult problems for the defender. 7 dxcs This seems safest, although a few other options have been tried: a) The most principled move is ar­ guably 7 ... 0-0! ?, but as we shall see in Game 30, Black has his share of prob­ lems there as well. b) Black must definitely avoid 7 ... 'ii'x cs? 8 'ii'x cs dxcs 9 es lL!g4 10 lL!ds (Vigus), when his difficulties are already bordering on the insurmount­ able. c) The only other option worth con­ sidering is 7 ... lL!c6 8 .tbs with a choice for Black: ...

c1) 8 ... 'ii'xbs is strongly met by 9 'ii'xf6! .txf6 10 lL!xbs o-o 11 cxd6 exd6 12 c3 l:.d8, as in L.Milov-H.Henderikse, Haarlem 2004, and now 13 lL!c7 l:.b8 14 .te3 would have left Black a pawn down for very little. c2) 8 ....td7 9 'jj'a4! (9 .txc6?! �xc6 10 cxd6 exd6 11 0-0 0-0 gives Black ex-

Pirc Defe n ce cellent compensation), with a further division: c21) 9 ...ir'xa4 does not appear to have been tried. Here is my analysis: 10 .ixa4 l2Jb4 (if 10...dxc5 11 e5) 11 .ib3 dxc5 12 o-o c4 (otherwise White's strong centre and active pieces would guarantee a pleasant advantage) 13 �xc4 lbxc2 14 l:tb1 l:tc8 15 .ib3 lbb4 (15 ...lba3 ?! 16 bxa3 :xc3 17 e5 looks risky for Black) 16 .ie3 with a pleasant position for White. c22) 9 .. .'ii'c 7 10 lbd5 (10 cxd6 exd6 gives Black some compensation) 10...'ir'a5+ (trying to force matters with 10 ... lbxd5 11 exd5 'ir'a5+ is no better, as 12 �d2 'ir'xa4 13 .ixa4 lbd4 14 .ixd7+ �xd7 15 lbxd4 .ixd4 16 cxd6 �xd6 17 .ib4+ turns out badly for Black) 11 'ir'xa5 lbxa5 12 l2Jxf6+ (better than 12 lbc7+ �dB 13 lbxa8 .ixb5 14 e5 dxe5 15 lbxe5 .ie8) 12 ....ixf6 13 .ixd7+ �xd7.

This position was reached in C.Hanley-S.Detienne, Charleroi 2006. At this point 1 see no reason for White not to preserve his material advantage

with 14 cxd6 exd6 15 �e2 ! l:the8 16 �d3. The king does a superb job here and after 16 ... :ac8 17 ::tel Black does not have enough for the sacrificed pawn. c3) After 8 ... 0-0 9 'ir'a4! Black has tried two moves: c31) The pawn sacrifice 9 ...'ir'c7!? is interesting but probably not fully sound: 10 0-0 (White can also obtain a slight plus with 10 .ie3 intending long castling, as in D.Howell-M.Mitchell, Hastings 2009/10, but it seems safer for the king to go short) 10... a6 11 .ixc6 bxc6 12 cxd6 exd6 13 .ie3 c5 was T.Maslowski-A.Stolarczyk, Polish Team Championship 2007, and now after the natural developing move 14 l:tael I do not believe Black has enough compen­ sation for the missing pawn. c32) 9 ...'ir'xa4 has been more popu­ lar, but White is doing well here too. Indeed, after 10 .ixa4 Black faces a dif­ ficult task.

In the following lines, the absence of queens seems to favour the first player: 149

B e a ting U n u s u a l Ch ess Defe n ces:

1

c321) 10...dxc5?! loses a pawn: 11 e5 lbd7 (another game continued 11 ...lZ:le8 12 lLld5 e6 13 j.xc6 exd5 14 j.xd5 lLlc7 and now in V.Shapiro-W.Meissner, Troisdorf 2005, 15 j_e4 would have been clearly better for White) 12 lLld5 e6 was reached in P.Anisimov-A.Voinov, Krasnoyarsk 2007, and now 13 j.xc6 exd5 14 j.xd5 lZ:lb6 15 j_e4 leaves White with a clear extra pawn. c322) 10 ....�:Jd7 11 cxd6 j.xc3+ 12 bxc3 exd6 gives Black good chances to regain his pawn, but he has paid a high price in exchanging his prized dark­ squared bishop for an enemy knight. P.Garbett-A.Ker, Auckland 2008, con­ tinued 13 o-o .:te8 14 j.b3 lLlc5 (14...l:.xe4 allows 15 j_xf7+!) and now 15 j_a3 ! would have brought White an excellent game.

Black will regain his pawn, but he is still behind in development, and White's dark-squared bishop has enormous potential. Here are two pos­ sible continuations: c3221) In the event of 15 ...lZ:lxe4 White has the powerful riposte 16 150

e4 lLlg 5 ! lZ:lxg5 (or 1 6 ...%:.e7 1 7 j_xf7+! l:.xf7 18 lZ:lxe4 d5 19 lZ:ld6) 17 fxg 5 when Black will lose the d-pawn. c3222) Therefore 15 ...l:.xe4 looks like the best chance. Now White has several tempting continuations, of which the simplest is probably 16 j.xc5 dxc5 17 j.xf7+ 'Wt>g7 18 lZ:lg s l:.e3 19 j_d5 .:txc3 20 %:.ae1 with strong pressure: for in­ stance, 20... j_d7 21 .l:.f2 ! ? and Black still has plenty of problems in front of him. After that lengthy but necessary di­ version, let us return to the game con­ tinuation to see how White should fight for an edge against the straight­ forward recapture of the pawn on c5:

8 'iic41 Amazingly I was only able to find three games in which this promising move was played. Note that 8 j.b5+?! would be inef­ fective, as after 8 ...'iixb5 9 'iixf6 j_xf6 10 lZ:lxb5 lZ:la6 Black will be able to complete development without diffi­ culty, after which his bishop pair should come into its own. 8 0-0 ...

Pirc D efe n ce Two other moves have been tried: a) 8 ... a6 9 e5 i.e6 10 'iia4+ (10 exf6 ! ? i.xc4 11 fxg 7 .l:tg8 12 i.xc4 looks interesting, though hardly necessary) 10 ... 'iixa4 11 tLlxa4 tLlfd7 12 i.e3 b6 13 0-0-0 was E.Sharapov-E.Koscielny, Lubawka 2009, where White had ob­ tained an advantage which is rather typical for queenless positions with this pawn structure. He won easily, although the 500-point rating differen­ tial also probably had something to do with it. b) 8 ... tLlc6 was played in B.Lindberg­ T.Hillarp Persson, Stockholm 2007. Now instead of Lindberg's 9 e5, White should consider 9 'iib 5 ! ?, angling for a favourable queenless position (9 i.d2! ? is a decent alternative, but it seems to me that the main line should bring White a slight edge with little risk). Af­ ter 9 ...'iix b5 (9 ...'iic 7 10 'iix c5 is a safe extra pawn) 10 i.xb5 i.d7 11 i.e3 b6 12 0-0-0 White has a little more space in the centre and slightly the more ac­ tive pieces, so he can feel quite content with the outcome of the opening. 9 e5 9 'iib 5 ! ? could be worth a try. 9 tLlg4 The untested 9 ... i.e6 has been rec­ ommended by a few sources, but I doubt that it is sufficient to equalize. After 10 'iib 5 (10 'iia 4! ? 'iixa4 11 tLlxa4 lLlfd7 12 i.e3 looks interesting, but having analysed both moves I prefer the text) 10 ... 'iix bs I checked two moves: ...

a) 11 tLlxb5? tLld5 12 a3 a6 13 c4 axb5 14 cxd5 i.xd5 1 5 i.xb5 is appar­ ently analysis from Martin (cited by Vigus). I am not impressed by White's eleventh move. b) A clear and obvious improvement is 11 i.xb5 tLld5 12 tLlxd5 i.xd5 13 i.e3.

It seems to me that Black still has to work to equalize: b1) 13 ...b6 14 0-0-0 is excellent for White. Note that in the event of an ex­ change on f3, White's better develop­ ment and powerful light-squared bishop would more than make up for his weakened kingside. b2) Black is not obliged to play 13 ... c4 immediately, since i.xc5 can presently be met by ... .l:tc8 with an at­ tack on c2. Nevertheless, he will have to address the threat sooner or later, and the text looks like a principled attempt to question the placement of the bishop on b5. Following 14 .l:td1! ? (the more natural-looking 14 0-0-0 is not at all bad, but there is something to be said for short castling; the rook on f1 will guard against ... it.xf3 ideas, while 151

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess D efe n ces:

1

it could be useful for the king to avoid the c-file which might soon become open)

14... e6 (or 14.....txf3 15 gxf3 when in addition to the aforementioned factors regarding the exchange of bishop for knight, Black also has to worry about his c-pawn: for instance, 15 ... l:.c8 16 l:.d4 c3 17 bxc3 ! ? with some advantage for White despite his dodgy pawn structure) 15 b3 cxb3 16 axb3 tt:Jc6 (16 ...f6 17 exf6 ..txf6 18 0-0 is nice for White) 17 0-0 White has a pleasant ad­ vantage thanks to his extra space, more active pieces, and the useful pos­ sibility of c2-c4 at an opportune mo­ ment. Returning to 9 ...tt:Jg4: 10 h3 lZJh6 11 ..te3 tt:Ja6 12 1t'bsl There was nothing wrong with 12 o-o-o, but since the queenless position works well for White, it makes sense to force the issue. 12 ...1t'xbs 13 ..txbs b6 13 ...lZJf5 14 ..tf2 achieves nothing for Black just now. He still has to de­ fend his c-pawn and must now add the 152

e4 g2-g4 advance to his list of worries. 14 ..tc61? 14 0-0-0 was fine as well, but White instead decides to impede the devel­ opment of the enemy bishop to b7. 14...l:.b8 15 a31 Preventing Black from driving away the bishop with ...tt:Jb4. 1S ... ..tb7 16 ..txb7 l:.xb7 17 o-o-o f6

18 exf6 There is also 18 g4! ? fxe5 19 tt:Jxe5 tt:Jf7 20 tt:Jxf7 l:.xf7 2 1 tt:Je4 when White keeps a slight plus. 18 ...exf6 19 lZJds Another possibility was 19 l:.he1 when all five of White's pieces are more actively placed than their black counterparts, which ought to count for something. Play might continue 19 ... l:.e8 20 ..tf2 .:xe1 21 ..txe1 and White will follow up with g4 in the near future, with ongoing pressure. 19 ...lZJb8 19 ...l:.e8 may have been a slight im­ provement, although the general evaluation of the position remains the same.

Pirc D efe n c e 20 g4 'M7 21 .td2 The computer points out the inter­ esting possibility of 21 fS ! ? gxfS (other moves might be met by fxg6+ and .:thfl) 22 g S lL:\g8 23 h4!? with interest­ ing compensation. There is no particu­ lar need for such a speculative ap­ proach though. 21...l:td8 22 .tc3? 22 c4! would have preserved a sig­ nificant plus. 22 ...l:.bd7 23 lL:\e3 Now that the knight has been forced to retreat, Black is close to equal. 23 ...lL:\c6 24 l:.xd7+ .:txd7 25 l:.d1 l:.xd1+ 26 �xd1 lL:\g8 27 �e2 lL:\ge7 28 �d3 �e6 The remainder of the game is not so important. Suffice to say that, having failed to make the most of his trumps, White has very little advantage here. 29 b3 lL:\b8 30 .tb2 lL:\d7 31 C4 .th6 32 lL:\g2 f5 33 g5 .tf8 34 lLle3 lL:\c6 3 5 lL:\d5 �d6 36 .tc1 lL:\a5 37 �c2 b5 38 �c3 a6 39 i.d2 lL:lb8 40 i.e3 lL:\d7 41 lL:\h2 lL:\e5!? 42 lL:\b6 lL:\ec6

draw, but now an unfortunate blunder gifts Black the full point. 43 lLld5?? 43 lLlf3 would have kept the game equal. 43 ... bxc4 43 ... lL:\xb 3 ! ? may have been even stronger, with the point 44 'it>xb3 lL:\as+ followed by 4S ...lL:\xc4. 44 bxc4 lL:\xc41 This is the trick that White had over­ looked. 45 lL:\c7+ 45 'it>xc4 lL:\as+ would be hopeless for White. 45 ...i.xc7 46 'it>xc4 i.d6 4 7 lLlf3 47 ..txcs? .txf4 hardly helps White. 47 ... lL:\a5+ 48 �c3 'itd5 49 lL:\d2 i.f81 The 'Pirc bishop' returns to its fa­ vourite long diagonal, sealing White's fate in the process. 50 i.f2 .tg7+ 51 �d3 c4+ 52 'itc2 lL:\c6 53 i.b6 lL:\d4+ 0-1 The next game features a more combative approach from Black. This seems like a logical reaction to White's early queen sortie, but we will see that here too the second player has plenty of problems.

Game 30 G.Pilavov-Y.Zimmerman Soc h i 2007

The game seems to be heading for a

1 e4 d6 2 d4 lt::lf6 3 lt::lc 3 g6 4 f4 i.g7 5 lt::lf3 cs 6 dxcs 'ii'a s 7 'ii'd4 o-ol? 153

B e a t ing U n u s u a l Chess Defe n ce s :

1

This pawn sacrifice has been tested a few times. I doubt that it is com­ pletely sound, but White must be pre­ pared to react in a resolute way. In cer­ tain cases this may actually involve returning the material with interest, in order to develop a powerful attack. 8 cxd6! White must react in a principled way. Anything else would allow Black to solve his problems with ease. 8 ...tt'lxe4 This must be critical. Moreover, the alternatives are nothing to worry about: a) 8 ... tt'lc6 9 1Wd2 ! exd6 10 i..d 3 and Black does not have enough compensa­ tion. b) 8 ... exd6 does not seem to have been tried. It seems to me that the sim­ plest reaction would be 9 i..d 2 (9 1Wd2 has also been recommended) 9 ... tt'lc6 (9 . .l:.e8 10 ..td3 tt'lc6 11 1Wf2 is good for White) when White can either play 10 1We3, or even the computer-like 10 1Wc4! ? ..te6 11 fts ikc7 12 ..td3 (12 tt:Jg s ! ? is also interesting), intending to .

1 54

e4 meet 12 ... a6 with 13 'ii'g s, when the queen makes a safe getaway, or 12 ...h6 with 13 ..te3, so that the queen can go to b6 if attacked. 9 'ii'xe4 i..x c3+ Now if White were forced to play 10 'it>f2 his position would be a little shaky, despite the computer's confidence. For­ tunately there is a much stronger con­ tinuation. 10 bxc31 This exchange sacrifice effectively refutes Black's seventh move, unless a massive improvement can be found for the second player. 10...'ii'x c3+ 11 'it>f2 'ii'x a1 12 dxe7 l:.eB 13 i.c41

In this critical position White's tre­ mendous e7-pawn combined with his opponent's chronically weak dark squares outweighs the extra exchange. 13 ...1Wf6 This is the only way for Black to stay in the game. The point is that most al­ ternatives will allow a lethal sacrifice on f7, for example: a) 13 ...lt:Jd7? 14 il.xf7+! �xf7 15

Pirc Defe n ce 'ir'd5+ 'iii>g 7 16 �e3 is the end, as 16 ... 'ir'xh1 17 �d4+ tt:'lf6 18 'ir'e5 leads to mate. b) 13 ...tt:'lc6? 14 �xf7+! 'iitxf7 15 �c4+ 'itg7 (if 15 ...'it>xe7? 16 �a3+, or 15 ... .i.e6 16 lL'lg 5+) 16 'ir'h3 ! and there is no satisfactory defence against �b2+: for example, 16 ... .i.e6 17 .i.b2+ h6 (17 .. .tile5 18 "trc3) 18 'ir'b5 "ii'xb2 19 �xb2 and White is winning. c) Finally, please note that Black cannot defend f7 with 13 ... 'ir'g7? on account of 14 lL'lg5 .i.f5 15 'ir'e3 when his kingside collapses. 14 .i.a3 In this position 14 lL'lg 5?? is, of course, no good because of 14....l:!.xe7.

�xe4 22 'ir'xe4 he has good chances to win the ending. 1s lL'lgs �ts 16 'ii'd s

16 .l:!.xe7 Vigus points out the following in­ teresting line: 16 ...�e6?! 17 tt:'lxe6 fxe6 18 'ir'xe6+ 'ir'xe6 19 �xe6+ 'iii>g 7 20 .i.b2+ 'it'h6 21 .l:!.e1. Vigus ends his analysis here, pointing out the threat of .l:.e3 followed by mate on h3. Extend­ ing the line a little further leads to the following beautiful finish: 21 ...g 5 22 g4! (not the only way to win, but by far the most elegant and effective) 22 ... gxf4 (after 22 ... 4Jxe7 23 h4! gxf4 24 .i.f7 it is all over) 23 .i.f7 ! l:r.xe7 24 h4! !. ...

14 tt:'lc6 The other natural move is 14... �f5, but this also fails to solve Black's prob­ lem s: 15 'ir'e3 (15 'ir'xb7 is also quite decent, but in principle I would prefer not to be distracted from the kingside) 15 ...tt:'lc6 16 lL'lg 5 .l:.xe7 17 �xe7 tt:'lxe7 18 .i.xf7+ g7 19 .l:.e1 and White is a pawn up for nothing. After, for in­ stance, 19 ...tt:'lc6 20 �ds h6 21 lZ'le4 ...

155

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess Defe n ces:

1

Black must give up too much mate­ rial in order to avoid mate. 17 �xe7 l2Jxe7 18 ._xf7+ ._xf7 19 �xf7+ 'itg7 20 l:.e1 With an extra pawn and the more active pieces, White should win with­ out too many problems, notwithstand­ ing the split queenside pawns. 20...l2Jc6 21 �ds h6 22 l:.b1 There is nothing wrong with this, al­ though the computer's suggestion of 22 l2Je6+ 'ith8 23 c3 looks even more compelling. The rest of the game is not hugely important for our study of the opening, so I will limit myself to a few brief comments. 22 ...l2Jd8 23 l2Jf3 l:.c8 Black obviously did not like the look of 23 .....txc2 24 l:tc1 followed by l:tc7+. 24 l2Jd4 �6 25 l:.b2 b6 26 C4 White finds a way to put the iso­ lated c-pawn to good use. 26 ...l2Je6 27 l2Jxfs �xfs 28 g3 l:.cs 29 h4 l2Jc7 30 l:td2 bS 31 l:.d4 <M6 32 �e3 as 33 g4 b4 34 gS+ hxgs 35 hxgS+ �g7 36 �e4

156

e4 Pilavov has increased his advantage skilfully and is now set to win another pawn on the kingside. Combined with the threats to the black king, it is all too much for the defender to handle. 36 ...a4 37 l:.d7+ �8 38 ..txg6 l2Je6 39 l:.f7+ �g8 40 l:.b7 l2Jxgs 41 fxgs l:.xgs 42 ..te4 1-0 To summarize, it seems that the rarely played 7 'iid4! ? represents quite a potent threat to the s ... cs variation. Most of the lines mentioned have not yet received extensive practical testing, so it remains to be seen whether my evaluations will stand the test of time. For the time being though, all I can say is that the future looks bright!

Conclusion There is little doubt in my mind that the Austrian Attack is White's most principled attempt to fight for the ad­ vantage against the Pirc Defence. White's aggressive set-up leads to rich middlegame positions, with a diverse range of potential pawn structures and plans available to both sides. Some­ times a direct kingside attack will be the order of the day, while in other lines White will strive for an early queen exchange, relying on his space advantage to provide a positional ad­ vantage in the endgame. There are a number of sharp lines that need to be learned, but in my view the rewards are well worth the effort.

Chapter Four Ph i l idor and Czech Pirc

1 e4 d6

This move is not always the prelude to the Pirc or Modern, and there are a number of other important set-ups at Black's disposal. 2 d4 lL'lf6 The rare and unpromising 2 ... es is covered in Game 37. 3 lL'lc3

sent move order is the most fashion­ able way of reaching it nowadays (unless Black is specifically aiming for a line that can only arise via 1 e4 es ) . 4 dxes The largest theoretical branch of the opening lies with 4 lL'lf3 lL'lbd7, but I believe that the early queen exchange is promising for White. 4... dxes 5 '1i'xd8+ �xd8 6 ..tgs ..te6 The other main move is 6 ... c6, which has been favoured by numerous strong players. This will be considered in Game 33, along with a few other 6th­ move alternatives. 7 g31?

From this basic starting position I have divided the chapter into two. Part 1 - Philidor with 3 ... e s 3 . ..es

Although the Philidor is usually classified as a 1 e4 es opening, the pre157

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess Defe n ce s :

1

This venomous and slightly unusual move offers White good prospects. From here Game 31 deals with the main line of 7 ... 'it>c8, while 7 ... h6 will be covered in Game 32.

e4 Part 1 - Philidor with 3

...

es

Game 31 I.Khenkin-G.Lorscheid Bad Wiessee 2010

Part 2 - Other set-ups

Apart from the Modern Philidor, Black has a few other systems that we should consider. 3 ... c6 This variation is known as the Czech Pirc. 3 ... tt::lb d7 is another idea, playing for a Philidor without allowing an early queen exchange. This can be found in Game 36. 4 f4 Generally I favour this space­ gaining move whenever the opportu­ nity arises to play it. 4.. Ji'a5 5 ..id3 e5 6 tt::lf3 ..tg4 7 ..te3

From here the main line of 7 ... tt::lb d7 will be covered in Game 34, while Black's various alternatives between moves 4 and 7 will form the subject of Game 3 5 . 158

1 d4 d6 2 e4 tt::lf6 3 tt::lc 3 e5 4 dxe5 dxe5 5 'ti'xd8+ 'it>xd8 6 ..tg5 ..te6

7 g31? The vast majority of games have featured the natural 7 0-0-0+ and in­ deed who could possibly resist such a move? However, the problem is that the f2-square can become a target in some lines, so there is a good argu­ ment for postponing castling. The main theoretical lines feature a quick f4 from White after castling. Although this is a perfectly valid approach, the positions featuring an isolated e-pawn are not always easy to navigate. Overall I find the idea of supporting the f4-push with 7 g 3 to be just as challenging, and the fact that it is slightly unusual only in­ creases its effectiveness as a practical weapon.

Ph ilidor a n d Czech Pirc 7 �c8

This is the main line, although a number of alternatives have also been tested - see the next game for details. 8 f4 ..ib4 On his Philidor DVD Viktor Bologan recommends a different solution for Black, but I do not find it particularly convincing: 8 ... exf4 9 gxf4 ..ib4 10 ..ixf6 (this is certainly not forced and 10 ..id3 deserves attention too) 10...gxf6 11 tt:Jge2 l:.d8.

Black has tried two other moves from this position: a) 9 ... h6 was seen in A.Kornev­ Y.Shabanov, Moscow 2007. Here 10 ..ixf6 looks sensible and after 10 ... ..ixc3+ 11 bxc3 gxf6 12 tbf3 White keeps a slight initiative. b) 9 ... tbe8!? looks a little strange, but is not easy to refute. I.Popov-I.Khairullin, Ulan Ude 2009, saw 10 fxeS (this must be the critical test) 10...h6 11 ..if4 gS 12 ..ie3 tbd7 13 tbf3 ..if8.

Now Bologan gives 12 a3 i.f8 with a decent position for Black, but 12 .:lg 1 is a better move which keeps some initia­ tive for White. 9 �d3 In some games White has ex­ changed on f6, but I prefer to keep the tension for the time being. 9 tba61? Not a typical square for the knight i n this opening, but it seems to meet th e demands of the present position. The knight is heading for cs and the d7 -square was off-limits, as the bishop on e6 would have got trapped after fs.

An interesting situation has arisen. If Black is given time to play ... ..ig7 and tbxes then he will have no problems whatsoever. I think the right plan for White is to prod on the kingside, with 14 ..ie2! ? ..ig7 15 h4! g4 (after 1S ... gxh4 16 .:lxh4 the h-pawn will be an easy target) 16 tbd4 tbxes. Now I analysed the following line, which is obviously not forced, but represents sensible and consistent play from both sides: 17 tbxe6 fxe6 18 o-o-o tbd6 19 ..ics l:td8 20 hS! (fixing the g4-pawn as a weakness) 20 ... b6 21 ..txd6 l:.xd6 22 ..ta6+ 'it>d7 23 tt:lbs l:.xd1+ 24 l:.xdl+ q;e7 25 tt:\xc7

...

...

159

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess D efen ces:

1

and White has won a pawn. 10 tt:Jge2 Instead 10 fxes tt::ld 7 11 tt::lf3 ..ig4 is nothing for White.

e4 more or less forced to insert this ex­ change, as 12 l:lfd1 is met by 12 ... lt:Jxd3, or 12 ...lt:Jcd7 with ideas of a check on cs followed by ...lt:Jg4) 12...gxf6

10.. lt:Jc5 .

11 0-0 This natural move allows Black to equalize. Should you reach this position over the board, I suggest that you try the following continuation: 11 ..txf6 ! ? gxf6 12 fs (by blocking the centre, White creates an environment in which his knights will not be inferior to the en­ emy bishops) 12 .....id7 (12 ...lt:Jxd3+ 13 cxd3 ..id7 14 Wf2 is similar) 13 a3 (13 0-0-0 c6 14 a3 tt:Jxd3+ 15 l:lxd3 is an­ other idea, when the rook might swing to h3 later) 13 ...lt:Jxd3+ 14 cxd3 ..if8 15 'it>f2. Both sides have certain trumps here, but in this fairly blocked position I would take White's knights and supe­ rior pawn structure over the black bishops. 11 lt:Jg4 Black could have equalized by means of 11.. ..lth3 ! 12 ..txf6 (White is .•.

1 60

13 .:tf3 (otherwise, 13 .:!.f2 tt:Jxd3 14 cxd3 ..tcs 15 d4 exd4 16 lt:Ja4 ..ib4 17 tt:Jxd4 l:le8 is good for Black and 13 l:lfd1 ..ig4 leaves White with no real improvement over 14 l:lf1, repeating) 13 .....tg4 14 l:lff1 (if 14 .:tf2 ? ! tt:Jxd3 15 cxd3 ..tcs. while 14 .:te3 loses the exchange to 14...lt:Je6 or 14...lLld7 followed by ... ..tcs) 14 ... ..ih3. with a repetition. Obviously if White was feeling stub­ born he could avoid this with a move like 15 l:lfc1 (or 13 .:tfc1 earlier), but this is hardly an ideal solution and after 1S ... c6 Black should be fine. 12 f5 The bishop on gS was starting to run short of squares and in any case it is useful to gain space on the kingside. 12 .....td7 13 tt:Jds 13 ..ic4!? was an interesting alter­ native. Play might continue 13 ... ..ic6 14 ..ids ..txds 15 exds (not 15 tt:Jxds? lt:Jxe4) 1S ...h6 16 �cl, intending to

Philidor a n d Czech Pirc drive the black minor pieces away and mobilize the queenside majority with c4 and b4. Nevertheless, I prefer the game continuation overall. 13 ...tt:Jxd3 14 cxd3 ..tcs+ 15 �g2

The position bears a certain resem­ blance to that reached in the note to White's 11th move, although the ab­ sence of the ..i.xf6 exchange is of course a significant difference. White has 'sac­ rificed' a bishop for a knight, but in return he has established a powerful pawn chain from d3 to fS which re­ stricts Black's unopposed bishop. The rest of White's pieces enjoy an edge in terms of coordination and his king is slightly happier too. 1 S h6 16 ..i.d2 ..i.c6 17 .::r.a c1 ..i.f8? Black wants to keep both his valu­ abl e bishops, but he has overlooked his opponent's next move. 17 . ..i.xds was better, although after 18 .:xes ..i.c6 (18 ... ..txa2?? 19 .::r.a1) 19 tLlc 3 White keeps a pleasant advantage. 18 f6! After this powerful shot it is hard to fi nd a satisfactory defence.

1B .....txds Others are no better: a) 18 ... g6? 19 h 3 wins the knight. b) 18 ...tt:Jxf6 19 tt:Jxf6 gxf6 20 .::r.xf6 and Black will shortly lose a pawn on the kingside: for instance, 20 ... :th7 21 .l:Us followed by ..i.C3 if necessary. 19 fxg7 ..i.xg7 20 exds tt:Jf6 20 ...l:tf8 also fails to hold Black's po­ sition together: 21 .::r.c4! fS (2l ...tt:Jf6 22 ..i.xh6!) 22 tt:Jc3! �d7 23 h3 tt:Jf6 24 :txfs and the extra pawn should be enough to decide the game. 21 lt:Jc3 .l:td8 22 tt:Je4 22 :eel was also strong. 22...tt:Jxds 23 .::r.xt7

...

..

1 61

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess Defe n ces:

1

e4

23 i.f8?

5 'ii'xd8+ �xd8 6 �g5 �e6 7 g3 h6

23 ... l:f.d7 would have been more re­ silient, although there is no reason why White should fail to convert his extra pawn - that is, as long as he avoids 24 .:tcfl?? lZ:Jf4+! when suddenly the tables are turned.

This rather provocative move has been almost as popular as 7 ...�c8, but it has scored much worse: a mere two wins for Black, with nine losses and no draws. Three other moves deserve close attention too: a) 7 ...i.e7 8 f4 h6 9 0-0-0+ (9 i.h4! ? has been tried by Khenkin, but it leads to rather murky complications), and both king moves have been tested here:

•••

24 .:!.cf1

White could have wrapped up the game more efficiently with 24 lZ:Jf6 ! lZ:Je7 (24 ... i.d6 2 5 lZ:Jxd5) 2 5 i.b4, but the text move is good enough. 24...i.e7 25 lhf5 1-0

Perhaps it was a little early to re­ sign, but Black is about to lose at least one more pawn without gaining any counterplay whatsoever. In the next game we will look at Black's other options on move 7.

Game 32 R.Hasangatin-P.Neuman

Pardubice 2006 1 e4 d6 2 d4 ttJf6 3 ltJc3 e5 4 dxe5 dxe5

1 62

a1) 9 ... �e8 10 �xf6 gxf6 (10...i.xf6 looks more logical; now 11 lZ:Jb5 ! ? is interesting and after 11 ...i.d8 12 lZ:Jf3 or 11 ... lZ:Ja6 12 f5 i.d7 13 lZ:Jf3 White keeps some initiative) 11 lZ:Jf3 i.d6 12 f5 i.c8 13 lZ:Jb5 �e7 14 lZ:Jd2 i.d7 15 lZ:Jxd6 cxd6 16 lZ:Jc4 �c6 17 �g2 l:.d8 18 .:!.d2 b5 19 lZ:Ja5 a6 20 l:lhd1 and White obtained a commanding positional advantage in V.Malakhov-A.Miltner, Bad Wiessee 2002. a2) 9 ...�c8 10 �xf6 �xf6 11 lZ:Jf3 exf4 12 gxf4 �xc3 13 bxc3 g6 was J.Kountz-S.Schmidt Schaeffer, Hocken­ heim 1994. White has an advantage in development and he must put it to

Ph ilido r a n d Czech Pirc good use before Black can get coordi­ nated.

I think the right way is 14 lL:id4! �d7 15 e5! when White has various attack­ ing ideas based on �c4 followed by e6 and/or f5. opening the kingside and creating a target on f7 or g6. b) 7 ...�b4 should be met by 8 0-0-0+ when Black has tried two moves: b1) 8 ...�c8 9 �xf6 gxf6 10 lL:id5, which Khenkin has had in two games:

b11) The first continued 10 ...�xd5?! 11 exd5 �c5 and here in I.Khenkin­ K.Urban, Koszalin 1998, the most inci­ sive continuation would have been 12 �h 3+ 'it>d8 13 tt:\e2! with a clear advan-

tage to White, as 13 ...�xf2 14 l:.hf1 �e3+ 15 Wb1 �g 5 16 lL:ic3 gives him more than enough for a pawn. b12) In the second he faced 10 ... �c5. but after 11 lL:ixf6 �xf2 12 �h3 it was clear that White had won the opening battle, even though he eventually lost the war in I.Khenkin­ J.Koscielski, Bad Wiessee 2000. b2) 8 ... lL:ibd7 9 �xf6+ gxf6 10 lL:id5 �d6 (10... �e7 was played in A.JakabG.Lorscheid, Budapest 2003, and here 11 f4! looks like the right move) 11 �h3 l:.g8 (11 ... c6? 12 �xe6 fxe6 13 lL:ixf6 lL:ixf6 14 .l:.xd6+ �e7 15 .l:.d2 left Black a pawn down for nothing in V.Malakhov­ A.Gelman, Ekaterinburg 1996} 12 f3 �e8

13 �f5 ! (playing for domination on the light squares) 13 ... h 5 14 lLih 3 l:.c8 was the course of M.Zhai­ N.Unapkoshvili, Kerner 2007. So far White has done a nice job of building his position and at this point the right way to continue improving it would have been 15 l:.d3 !, not only planning to double on the d-file, but perhaps 1 63

B e a t i n g U n u s u a l Chess D efe n ces:

1

also to use the rook on the third rank to provoke additional weaknesses. c) With 7 ...tt:'lbd7 Black prepares to hit the bishop without incurring dou­ bled pawns. After three natural moves from both sides, 8 f4 h6 9 .i.xf6+ tt:'lxf6 10 o-0-0+ �c8, White must decide whether to pursue the advantage in an open or (semi-}closed position. The choice is largely a matter of personal taste, so we will consider both ap­ proaches:

c1) 11 tt:'lf3 exf4 12 gxf4 g6 13 f5 ! (White should undertake quick action before his opponent's bishop pair be­ comes a serious force) 13 ... gxf5 14 exf5 i.xf5 15 tt:'le5 .i.c5 (15 ... .i.e6 ?? 16 tt:'lxf7! �xf7 occurred in M.Santo Roman­ J.Chabanon, Nantes 1993, at which point Black resigned without waiting for 17 �h 3+ winning easily) 16 tt:'lxf7 l:.f8 17 �c4 tt:'lg4 18 .:.hfl �d7. We have been following the game E.Cosma­ T.Shumiakina, Timisoara 1994. At this point 19 .:.f3 ! would have maintained some initiative for White. The threat is lUd3 and 19 .. .tl'le3? runs into 20 tDe4! 1 64

e4 .l:r.e8 (20 ... tt:'lxd1 2 1 tt:'lfd6+ wins) 21 tt:'lxc5 tt:'lxd1 22 tt:'lxd7 �xd7 23 .:.d3+ when White should win the endgame. c2) 11 f5 .i.d7 12 .i.c4 tDg4!? (also after the continuation 12 ....i.e8 13 tt:'lf3 .i.d6 Black is just slightly worse) 13 tt:'lf3 .i.d6 (13 ...tt:'lf2? 14 .:txd7 �xd7 15 tt:'lxe5+ is too risky for Black, as is 13 ...tt:'le3? 14 .l:r.xd7).

Now in N.Matinian-S.Yudin, Saratov 2006, White should have played 14 .:the1! (the game continuation of 14 �xf7 ! ? tt:'lf2 15 .:.xd6 cxd6 16 .:.fl gave him sufficient compensation for the exchange, but nothing more) 14 ... .:.f8 15 h3 tt:'lf6 (15 ...lDf2? only leads to trou­ ble for Black after 16 .:.d2 tt:'lxh 3 17 .:th 1 tt:'lg 5 18 tt:'lxg 5 hxg5 19 �xf7! l:txf7 20 l:txd6} 16 .i.b5 ! ?, exchanging the better of his opponent's two bishops. Thus White keeps a slight edge thanks to his more active pieces and the possibility of a king side pawn advance. Returning to 7 ...h6: 8 0-0-0+

8 .i.xf6+ is likely to come to the same thing.

Ph ilidor a n d Czech Pirc doubt that it is enough, as White is ready to eliminate one of the danger­ ous bishops, either with tt:'Jxe6 directly, or ..i.h3) 11 gxf4

8 tt:'Jbd7?1 ...

This natural move leads to quite unpleasant problems for Black. 8 ...�c8 would have been preferable. The resulting position is somewhat similar, except that Black will not have to worry about his bishop being trapped after f4-f5: 9 ..txf6 gxf6

10 f4! {White follows the standard plan of playing on the kingside) lO exf4 (another game saw 10 ... c6 11 lt:Jf3 b5 12 fxe5 fxe5 13 tt:'Jxe5 ..tg7 14 lLld3 lt:Jd7, E.Vorobiov-D.Chuprov, Tula 1 9 99; Black has a degree of compensa­ tion for the sacrificed pawn, but after the accurate 15 tt:Je2 !
11 ... c6 (11...f5? is too ambitious and after 12 �h 3 ..i.d6 13 tt:'Jge2 l:.e8 14 exf5 �d7 15 l:.hg 1 Black was in trouble in E.Cosma-M.Sheremetieva, Timisoara 1994) 12 tt:'Jf3 'l!;c7 13 f5 ! (if White has to play 'anti-positional' chess to de­ velop his initiative, then so be it) 13 ... �d7 14 ..i.c4 ..i.e8 15 e5 {White is playing with a lot of energy, but Black's position remains sound despite the apparent awkwardness of his pieces) 15 .. .fxe5 16 tt:'Jxe5 tbd7 17 tt:'Jxd7 ..txd7 18 l:.hf1 �d6 {after 18 .. .f6 19 tbe4 �e7 20 l:.d2 ! l:.ad8 21 l:.g2 White keeps the advantage, as shown by Erenburg) 19 �xf7 ..txh2 20 lt:Je4 (20 ..te6! ? l:.ad8 2 1 tbe4 was also worth considering) 20 ...l:.hf8 21 ..tg6 and despite the sim­ plification, White kept some advantage thanks to his active pieces and more dangerous in pawn passed E.Prokopchuk-P.Kazakov, Nefteyugansk 2002. 1 65

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess Defe n ce s :

1

9 �xf6+ gxf6 10 f41

This thematic move creates real problems for the defender. The threat is simply f5, against which Black lacks an ideal solution. 10...exf4

10 ... �g4 11 �e2 h 5 was tried in G.Drzymala-R.Lubczynski, Krakow 2003, and here I would suggest the simple 12 h3 �xe2 13 tt::Jg xe2 when White keeps the upper hand. 11 gxf4 fS

Once again after 11 ...i.g4 12 i.e2 h5, as in J.Gomez-N.Nguyen, Kuala Lumpur 2006, I recommend the same solution, 13 h3 �xe2 14 tt::Jg xe2, with excellent chances for White, based on his development advantage, superior pawns, and the prospect of installing a knight on the dominating f5-square. 12 i.h31

e4 a) 12 .. .f6 was played in A.Zaharov­ M.Suleimanov, Kolontaevo 1997, and here the simplest route to a huge ad­ vantage would have been 13 tt::Jg e2! intending tt::Jd4 or tLlg3. b) 12 ...fxe4 13 f5 ! �c4 14 f6 �e6 15 �xe6 fxe6 16 tt::Jxe4 (the f6-pawn is huge, and Black quickly succumbs) 16 .. .'itt e 8 17 lLlf3 tLlc5? 18 f7+!
Not the only good move, but the simplest. The f5-pawn is now a chronic weakness, which White will capture with minimal fuss. 13 .. �c5 14 tt::Jge2 c6 .

Black's position is already rather unpleasant. 12 .. �d6 Black has tried three other moves, none of which come close to solving his problems: .

166

15 .U.hf1

By guarding the f-pawn White takes the sting out of ...�e3+, thereby facili-

Ph ilidor a n d Czech Pirc tating lZ'lg3. The idea is sensible enough, but the text move was not the best way of accomplishing the goal: a) White tried 15 lZ'ld4 in J.Lerch Gal­ lemi-J.Mellado Trivino, Spain 1992, but here 15 ... i.xd4 16 .l:f.xd4 cj;c7 would have given Black some chances to re­ sist. b) The strongest continuation of all would have been 15 '1t>b1!. This was a better way of pre-empting the bishop check, for reasons that will soon be­ come clear: 15 ...'1t>c7 (15 .. .f6 is impossi­ ble due to 16 lZ'le4!) 16 lZ'lg 3 f6 17 i.xfs i.xfs 18 lZ'lxf5 fxe5 19 lZ'lg7! and Black is in real trouble, as compared with the game continuation, he does not have the resource of ... i.e3+ and ... i.xf4. Therefore he has nothing better than 19 ... exf4 20 l2Je6+ '1t>c8 21 lhd7 (21 lZ'le4! ?) 21 ...'1t>xd7 22 l2Jxc5+, reaching an endgame with good winning chances for White.

will lose a pawn for nothing. 17 ..txfs ..txfs 18 l2Jxfs fxes

19 lZ'lg7

19 lZ'le4! would have been a bit more accurate. The threat is .l:f.xd7+, so Black is more or less forced to retreat with 19 ... i.f8, after which 20 fxe5 lZ'lxes 21 lZ'lf6 leaves White with ongoing pres­ sure, though admittedly no clear win. 19... i.e3+

This is the reason why the king should have gone to b1 on move 15! 20 '1t>b1 exf4 21 lZ'le6+ '1t>c8 2 2 lZ'le41

15 ...�C7

15 .. .f6 16 lZ'lg3 is similar. 16 lZ'lg3 f6

Black has to fight back, otherwise he

Despite a few inaccuracies White is still in the driving seat. He can win back his pawn at any point and Black must search for a way to bring his pieces into play, all the time while watching out for tactics based on knight forks. White was wise to resist the temp­ tation to regain his pawn immediately with 22 l2Jxf4 ..txf4 23 J:.xf4, after which 23 ... J:.h7! followed by ... <3/;c7 solves most of Black's problems. 22 ...J:.h7

Black could have got closer to a draw with 22 ... l2Jes ! ? 23 lt::ld 6+ �d7! 167

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess Defe n ce s :

1

(23 ... �b8 24 lLJxf4 �xf4 2 S l:.xf4 keeps some initiative) 24 lLJxf4 �xf4 2S l:.xf4 '3;e], although this would not have been easy to find over the board. 23 l:.d61

e4 2 5 l:.g41

Planning a deadly invasion on g8. 25 ... b6

Black had no choice, as 2 S ... l:.h8 26 l:tg7 was hopeless for him. 26 l:.xc6 tt::le 5 27 l:.gB+

27 tt:lxc7 tt::lx c6 28 tt::lxa8 �b7 29 lLJxb6 was also winning. 27 ...�b7 28 l:.xc7+ l:.xc7 29 l:.xaB

Preventing ...b6 and introducing the possibility of doubling on the d-file. 23 ...i.. b 6

Another idea was 23 ... aS!? 24 l:.fdl l:.f7 ! (24 ... a4? 2 S lLJf6!), although White maintains some pressure after 2 S lLJ4cS �xes 2 6 lLJxcs or 2 S l:.xc6+ bxc6 26 tt::ld 6+ 'lt>b8 27 tt::lxf7. 24 .l:.xf4 �c7?

Black has been under pressure for some time and it is hardly surprising that he eventually slips up. The right move was 24 ... as!, the main purpose of which is to create a square for the king on a7, although it is not impossible that Black might also seek to activate his rook by means of ... a4 and ... .:tas. From here a logical con­ tinuation would be 2S lLJf8 l:.e7 26 tt:lxd7 l:.xd7 27 l:.f8+ �d8 28 l:.h8 when White wins a pawn, although victory would still be a long way off. 168

29 ...l:.e7?

Losing immediately. 29 ...l:.c4! was essential, although after 30 lLJd6+ '3;xa8 31 tt::l xc4 tt::l xc4 32 b3 there is no reason why White should not go on to convert his extra pawn. 30 l:.e81 1-0

In the next game we will deal with the various alternatives to 6 ... i..e 6.

Game 33 I .Khenkin-F.Bellini

Bratto 2004 1 d4 d6 2 e4 lLJf6 3 tt'lc3 e5 4 dxe5 dxe5 5 1i'xd8+ �xdB 6 .i.gs

Ph ilidor a n d Czech Pirc

6 ...c6

This is the main alternative to 6 ... �e6 and the first choice of several Philidor connoisseurs. Naturally Black has tried some other moves as well: a) 6 ... lbbd7 7 0-0-0 will almost cer­ tainly transpose to a line considered elsewhere. For instance, 7 ... c6 8 lDf3 is the main game, while 7 ...�d6 8 lDf3 and 7 ... �e7 8 �c4 are respectively lines 'b' and 'c' below. b) 6 ... �d6 7 o-o-o lbbd7 (7 ... �e6? ! 8 f4! is strong) 8 lDf3 'it>e8 {8 .. .'ite7 9 lDh4! is strong) 9 lDbS ! (attempting to exploit the omission of ... c6) 9 ... a6 10 lbxd6+ cxd6 11 lDd2 h6 12 �e3 bs 13 f3 lDcs

14 lbb1! 'ite7 15 lbc3 �e6 16 g4 and White kept the upper hand in A.Timofeev-L.B.Hansen, Skanderborg 2005. Sooner or later he will drive the knight away from f6 and cement his control over the dS-square. Needless to say, the bishop pair is also an impor­ tant asset. c) 6 ...i.e7 7 0-0-0+ lbbd7 8 �c4 �e8 9 f4! ? (this aggressive thrust seems quite promising; 9 lDf3 can be com­ pared with the main game and might even transpose if Black follows up with the thematic plan of ... c6 and ... i.d8-c7) 9 ...h6 10 �xf6 i.xf6 and now:

c1) 11 lbf3 exf4? (taking the pawn is too dangerous; 11 ... c6! is the critical reply when Khalifman offers the line 12 fS bS 13 �d3 lbcs 14 g4 intending h4 with some initiative on the kingside, but Black is not without his trumps, boasting two bishops and a healthy position on the queenside) 12 eS �xeS?! (12 ... �d8 was the best chance, although Khalifman points out that after 13 e6 fxe6 14 �xe6 liJb6 15 �b3 �fs 16 .l:.he1+ 'lt>f8 17 ttJbs, intending 1 69

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess D efe n ces:

1

l2Jbd4 and l2Je5, White has more than enough for the sacrificed pawn) 13 :xd7 .i.xd7 (if 13....i.xc3 14 .:txc7 .i.f6 15 .:txf7) 14 tt::lx e5 .i.e6. We have been following the game A.Alekhine-A.Aviles, Nogales (simul) 1932, and at this point White could have secured a decisive advantage with the straightforward 15 i.xe6 fxe6 16 lZ:lb5 ! . c 2 ) Depending o n how one evalu­ ates the improvement noted in 'c1' (11 lZ:lf3 c6), 11 tt::ld 5!? could be considered a possible improvement. Khalifman then analyses 11 ....i.d8 12 lLlf3 c6 13 tt::le 3 i.c7 14 lLlf5 lLlb6 15 .i.b3 .i.xf5 16 exf5 exf4 17 .l:the1+ 'iti>f8 18 a4, conclud­ ing that White has a dangerous initia­ tive. He certainly has fine compensa­ tion for a mere pawn and a doubled one at that. Returning to 6 ... c6: 7 0-0-0+

7 lLlf3 could transpose after 7 ... lZ:lbd7 8 o-o-o, but Black has an addi­ tional option in 7 ... i.d6 ! ? intending ...'iti>e7.

7 ...tt::lb d7

1 70

e4 Alternatives have little independent value: a) 7 .. /i;c7? 8 .i.c4 .i.e6 9 .i.xe6 fxe6 is just bad for Black. Place his bishop on d6, king on e7, and pawn back on c7, and he would be doing fine. But in the absence of a magic wand, he is stuck in an inferior version of the thematic doubled e-pawn structure: 10 lLlf3 (10 f3 is also promising, intending tt::lh 3-f2d3) 10 ... tt:Jbd7 11 i.h4 and Black had a real problem with the e5-pawn in G.Mandelli-F.Franciosi, Bratto 2008. b) 7 ...'it>e8 is a popular alternative, but it usually just transposes to the main game: 8 lLlf3 �g4!? (a rare inde­ pendent alternative to 8 ...tt:Jbd7, which reaches the standard position for this line) 9 �e2 (White could consider the provocative 9 h 3 ! ? .i.xf3 10 gxf3 when one can argue that his bishop pair is more relevant than the fractured king­ side) 9 ...tt:Jbd7 10 h 3 �xf3 11 �xf3 �c5 12 .i.h4 �e7.

This position was reached in A.Scerbo-V.Georgiev, Cutro 2003. At this point I think White should have

Ph ilidor a n d Czech Pirc played 13 .1g3 in order to safeguard his bishop from being exchanged. Black's position is just mildly uncom­ fortable (remember he cannot castle!), and in the long run White can aim to put his bishop pair to good use. B lLlf3

tive and prophylactic ideas. The former include .1g 3 to attack the es-pawn and .1c4 followed by tt::Jg s to hit f7. The lat­ ter relates to the move ... ltJg4, which will no longer threaten f2. The follow­ ing game illustrates the last point: 9 .1c4 ltJg4!? 10 .l:f.hf1 f6 11 ..ih4, T.Lochte-O.Hirn, German League 1997. Now after 11...ltJh6 Black has suc­ ceeded in supporting the es-pawn; his knight will slot back to f7 and perhaps later d6, and the bishop lacks any real purpose on h4.

B 'iteB ...

Once again, this is the main line by a wide margin. 8 ...'itc7 is occasionally seen, al­ though most players prefer to keep the king close to the f7-pawn. Black has enough time to defend it, but still his set-up feels a bit suspicious. One game continued 9 .1c4 ..ib4 10 l:the1 (10 j{_xf7 l:.f8 11 .txf6 ltJxf6 12 ltJxes ltJd7 13 ltJxd7 .1xd7 gives Black enough co mpensation) 10 ... .1xc3 11 bxc3 l:tf8 and in H.Wirtz-H.Westenberger, Ger­ man League 1995, White's bishop pair and active pieces were more important than his damaged queenside structure. Here both 12 a4 and 12 .1h4 would have kept some advantage for him. 9 ..th41

This clever move combines both ac-

g....t b4

This active move has been Black's most popular reply, although we should also consider a couple of other bishop moves: a) 9 ... .1e7? is just a mistake, as 10 .1g3 leaves Black without a good way to defend es. b) 9....tcs is a reasonable alterna­ tive. The position after 10 .1c4 .1b6 11 l:td2 .te7 12 l:thd1 is rather typical for the whole variation. Black's position is sound and, given enough time, he should be able to unravel and equalize. 1 71

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess Defe n ces:

1

Nevertheless White's position is easier to play and Black has a smaller margin for error. One could argue that both players have reason to feel happy with the outcome of the opening.

Here are a couple of practical ex­ amples from this position: b1) The time-wasting move 12 ...h6? is a luxury that Black can ill-afford (re­ member the comment about margin for error?): 13 .i.xf6 gxf6? (missing White's next move; 13 . ..luxf6 was the best chance, although 14 lt:'lxe S ! .i.e6 15 �xe6 .i.xes 16 .i.d7+ �8 17 l:td3 still leaves Black in difficulties) 14 .i.xf7+! and White won material in V.Durnev­ Y.Sanotsky, lviv 2011. b2) 12 ...'ite7 is a better move. The following game featured pretty logical play on both sides: 13 a3 h6 14 b4 l:te8 15 ltJe1 'Llb6 16 .i.b3 gs 17 .i.g3 'Llh s 18 'Lld3 f6 19 lt:'lcs l:td8 20 l:.Xd8 .i.xd8 21 f3 and White's position remained a bit more pleasant, although Black eventu­ ally managed to hold the draw, V.Malakhov-B.Damljanovic, Chalkidiki 2002. 1 72

e4 10 .i.c4

White continues developing in an active manner. 1o .i.as The bishop transfer to c7 is a typical manoeuvre, which covers both the d6square and the eS-pawn. Two other moves have been tested: a) 10.. .'�e7 was played in R.londyn­ J.Pribyl, Prague 2006. Here I would sug­ gest the direct 11 a3 ! ? .i.xc3 (11 ... .i.as resembles the main game) 12 bxc3 when White's bishop pair counts for more than his damaged queenside. b) 10... .i.xc3 11 bxc3 bs (11 ... lt:'lxe4? 12 lt:'lxes is winning) 12 .i.b3 cs. This rather adventurous and risky plan was tried in I.Videnova-S.Bednikova, Dup­ nitsa 2010. ...

Here White could have obtained some advantage with the following resolute continuation: 13 c4! 'Llb6 (13 ...bxc4 14 .i.a4! is awkward for Black, while 13 ... a6 can be met by the calm 14 l:the1!? intending .i.g3) 14 'Llxes .i.e6 15 cxbs! c4 16 f3 cxb3 17 axb3. With three healthy pawns and the initiative

Ph ilidor a n d Czech Pirc in return for the piece, White is clearly better. 11 a 3

This often turns out to be a useful improving move in such positions. White creates an escape route for his bishop and may consider a queenside expansion with b4, as in the Malakhov­ Damljanovic game noted above. 11 .. h6 .

Black often plays this move at some point; the need for it is revealed by the first of the following variations: a) 11 ... 'it>e7?! is risky due to 12 tl:\g s ! when Black has a problem with his king side pawns. b) One of the few other games to have reached this position continued with 1l...i.c7, after which a couple of ideas deserve consideration:

b1) One logical idea is 12 l:td2 when 12 We7 13 l:thd1 transposes to note 'b2' to Black's 9th move, above. How­ ever, Black might be able to improve with 12 ...b s ! ? 13 ..ta2 as when the queenside counterattack gives him de cent prospects. ...

b2) In H.Jurkovic-Z.Jovanovic, Si­ benik 2005, White also borrowed a manoeuvre from Malakhov: 12 tl:\e1 'it>e7 13 tl:\d3 l:te8 14 f3 tl:\f8 and now 15 l:td2! looks like the most logical way to improve White's position; the rook va­ cates the d1-square not just for the other rook, but maybe even for the knight. For instance, after 1 S ... ..te6 (1S ... bs? can be strongly met by 16 ..txbs, and 16 tl:\b4! is even better) 16 ..txe6 tl:\xe6 17 tl:\d1! the knight is com­ ing to e3 and Black still has certain problems to solve. 12 ..txf61

White gives up one of his important bishops in order to damage the enemy kingside. This can often prove a rather double-edged idea, but Khenkin obvi­ ously decided that the potential reward justified the risk. Perhaps Black's last move had something to do with it; now if White can establish a knight on fS, it will tie one of the black pieces to the defence of the h6-pawn, whereas with the pawn on h7 this would not have been an issue for Black. 12 b4 gave White a tiny edge in S.Rosic-Z.Jovanovic, Neum 2005, but the text move is more interesting and it is definitely the one I would prefer. 12 ...gxf6

Forced, as otherwise the eS-pawn would hang. 13 tl:\e21

The knight had no future on c3, so Khenkin wastes no time in shifting it towards the key fs-square. 1 73

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess Defe n ce s :

1

e4 pawn will soon fall. b) 2o....:.gs 21 tt:lg7+ ri;e7 22 tt:lhfS+ ..txfs 23 ttJxfS+ and Black's position is unpleasant. 21 :xg8+ 'it>xg8 22 tt:le7+ �8 23 tt:lxc6

The pressure pays off and White deposits a pawn in the bank. 23 ... :a8 24 tt:lb4

13 ...b5 14 �a2 �c7 15 tt:lh4 tt:lb6 16 tt:lg3

One of the nice features of this structure is that White gets to play a number of easy moves: just send the knights towards fS and see how Black plans to solve his problems.

I am not sure why White rejected the simple 24 l:td1!, bringing his last piece into play. In that case he would have been in full control, with both a material and a positional advantage. 24 ... tt:lc4

24 ... as was a better try, although Black is still struggling. 25 ..txc4 bxc4 26 tt:ld 5 ..txd5 27 exd5

A nice way to deal with the tension on the diagonal.

Apart from his extra pawn, White has a strong passed d-pawn and a bind over the light squares. Bellini fights as best he can, but it is a losing battle.

11 ... h5

27 ... 'it>g7 28 l:%d1 �b6 29 lLlf5+ 'it>g6

16.....te6 17 �b3!

Preventing the knight from coming forwards. After 17 ...�xb3 18 cxb3 Black not only has a headache arriving on the fs-square, but might experience prob­ lems on the c-file as well. 18 tt:lgf5 :88 Black had to prevent the check on g7. 19 l:.d31

By bringing the rook into play, White creates a new set of problems for his opponent. 19 ... :d8 20 :g3 'iW8

Alternatives were also demoralizing for Black: a) After 20...l:.xg 3 21 hxg3 the h-

30 lZJe3

30 lZJe7+ �g s 3 1 d6 :ds 32 d7 ..td4 33 h4+! would have won fairly easily. 30 ... c31? 31 bxc3 �cs 32 ttJc4

32 d61 would have wrapped things

Ph ilidor a n d Czech Pirc up more quickly; the a3-pawn is not really relevant.

and the rest can pass without com­ ment.

32 ...e4 3 3 .C.d2 .C.dB 34 a4 fs 35 'itd1 f4

50 'ifi>e3 �c6 51 �xf3 'itb6 52 C4 �a5 53

36 �e2

c5 ..idS 54 �4 �xa4 55 �e5 �b4 56

36 lt:las! was a good move, intend­ ing lt:lb3 and c4-c5, and because 36 ... ..txf2? does not work due to 37 CZ'lc6.

�d6 a s 57 'itd7 a4 58 �xdB a 3 59 c6 a2 60 c3+ �b3 61 c7 alii' 62 cBir' ir'a s+ 63 �e7 1-0

36 ... �5 37 .C.d1 :gs 38 g3 f3+ 39 �e1

Part 2

White has not conducted the end­ game in an optimal way, but he has done just enough to maintain a win­ ning margin.

In the first two games of this section we will consider a defensive set-up based on 3 ... c6.

-

Other set-ups

39 ... h4 40 d6 hxg3 41 hxg3 �e6 42 d7 1L.e7 43 l:.d4 fs 44 g41

Game 34 Y.Yakovich-M.Romero Garcia

Seville 1999 1 d4 d6 2 e4 4:'lf6 3 l2Jc3 c6

This opening is known as the Czech Pirc. Black keeps a flexible position in the centre and waits for the enemy knight to come to f3 so that he may pin it with ... ..ig4. Depending on how White reacts, Black may challenge for the centre with ... es or ... ds. 44....l:Ih8?

4 f4

Losing quickly. 44.. .fxg4 45 :xe4+ �xd7 46 4:'les+ will take a while to win, but White should get there eventually. 45 gxf5+ �xf5 46 lt:ld6+ 'ite6 47 4Jxe4

We have reached something similar to the previous note, except that the d7-pawn is still on the board - quite a serious difference. 47 ....U.d8 48 <;t>d2 .C.xd7 49 .U.xd7 'it>xd7

The minor piece ending is trivial 1 75

B e a t i n g U n u s u a l Ch ess Defe n ce s :

1

Just as against the Pirc and Modem, favour this aggressive space-gaining move. 1

e4 tion, 1997.

S.Keskinen-J.Haanpaa,

Turku

4 :1Wa s ..

Black makes use of his previous move to attack the e4-pawn while pre­ paring ... es without allowing a queen exchange. 5 �d3 es 6 t"Llf3 ..tg4

Black usually makes this pinning move when permitted in the Czech Pirc; the bishop hardly has anything better to do. 7 ..te3 t"Llbd7

Once again this natural developing move has been the most popular choice by far. Of course a number of different ideas have been tried, includ­ ing 7 ...'Wb6?!, a risky attempt to grab a pawn. This move will be considered in the next game, along with all of Black's main alternatives between moves 4 and 7. 8 0-0 8 h 3 ! ? ..txf3 9 "1Wxf3 is another pos­ sible move order, which retains the op­ tion of long castling. Here 9 ...'Wb4? is certainly not an issue due to 10 a3! when 10... "1Wxb2? 11 �d2! leaves Black in serious trouble. A sounder reply is 9 .....te7 when 10 o-o transposes to the game, but White can also consider the more aggressive 10 0-0-0!?. So far so good, but there is a small drawback. Black has a more critical re­ ply in 8 ... exf4!? 9 ..txf4 ..txf3 10 "1Wxf3 'Wb4! when White must sacrifice a pawn for less than certain compensa1 76

8 i.e7 Black's main alternatives are all connected with the idea of attacking the b2- and d4-pawns, but none of them bring him much joy: a) 8 ..'Wb4? is useless in view of 9 a3! when the queen must retreat as 9 ... "1Wxb2?? 10 t"Lla4 leaves her trapped. b) 8 . .'Wb6 can be met by 9 "1We1 (an­ other equally strong reply is 9 t"Lla4!? followed by 9..."1Wc7 10 h3 or 9 ..."1Was 10 c4) 9 ...exf4 (9 ... ..txf3? 10 dxes) 10 t"Lla4! "1Wc7 11 ..txf4 when White stays in con­ trol. c) After 8 ... exd4 9 �xd4 Black has given up his foothold in the centre and 9 ...'Wb4 10 t"Lle2 keeps everything in order for White. d) Releasing the central tension only really makes sense if Black can mount a serious attack on the d4-pawn, but he is in no position to profit from 8 ... exf4 9 ..txf4: d1) 9 ...'Wb6 10 t"Lla4 (10 lt:Je2 is also good) 10.. .'it'as (or 10 .. .'iVc7 11 h3) 11 c4 ...

.

.

Ph ilidor a n d Czech Pirc lbb6? ! (this leaves both the queen and the knight misplaced after White's ob­ vious response} 12 lDc3 i.e7 was Z.Veroci-N.Hoiberg, Espergarde 1992, and here the most effective way of in­ creasing White's advantage would have been 13 .:!.b1 or 13 a3 with the unpleasant threat of b4. d2} With 9 .. .'ti'b4 10 a3 ! this time White makes a genuine sacrifice:

10 .. .'it'xb2 (1o ...'ifb6 is safer, but 11 lba4 just gives White a slightly im­ proved version of the previous varia­ tion} 11 ii'd2 'ifb6 12 l:.ab1 ii'c7 13 e5! lDh 5 14 exd6 i.xd6 15 i.xd6 ii'xd6 16 lbe4 ii'e7 17 lhb7 i.xf3 (17...0-0 18 lDe5 i.e6 19 ii'e2 ! g6 20 g4 wins a piece} 18 .:!.xf3 {18 lDc5 ! ? i.g4 19 lbxd7 is also devastating} 18 ... 0-0 was M.Gagunashvili-Z.Azmaiparashvili, lz­ mir 2002. Here White's simplest route to victory would have been 19 l:lf5 ! (now the knight is trapped, whereas the game continuation of 19 l:.h3 al­ lowed Black to resist with 19 .. .f5!}, since 19 ... g6 is refuted trivially by 20 l:.xhs g xhs 2 1 l:.xd7.

Returning to 8 ... i.e7: 9 h3 i.xf3

At first glance this seems like an automatic choice, but retreating the bishop is quite playable too: 9 .....th 5 10 ii'e1 (10 g4 exf4 avoids the loss of a piece} 10 ... i.xf3 (10 ... exf4 11 i.xf4 i.g6 is risky: 12 e5 dxe5 13 dxe5 lDd5 14 e6 'ifb6+ 15 'iii'h 1 fxe6 16 i.xg6+ hxg6 17 i.g 5 lD5f6 18 ii'xe6 ii'xb2 was W.Browne-J.Benjamin, Modesto 1995, and here 19 lbe4! lbf8 20 lbd6+ �d8 21 ii'f7 i.xd6 22 ii'xg7 would have left Black in a hopeless situation} 11 .:!.xf3.

The situation on the board resem­ bles that which occurs in the main game, but the position of the rook on f3 instead of the queen will lead to some small differences. After 11...0-0 12 a 3 ! ? (preventing any ...'ifb4 ideas while giving White the option of b4 in certain positions} here are three exam­ ples of how the game might continue: a} 12 ... c5 was played in D.Baramidze-D.Curic, Essen 2002. Here White could have put his last move to full use with 13 b4! cxb4 14 axb4 (14 1 77

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess Defe n ce s :

1

tt'lb5 is also promising) 14...1Wxb4 15 :ta4 'ilfb2 16 tt'lb5 and the black queen is in trouble. b) 12 ... tt'lh 5 is rather risky: 13 fxe5 dxe5 14 l:tf5 g6 15 l:txh 5 gxh5 16 ..th6 (threatening an immediate mate) 16 .....tf6 17 ..txf8 l:txf8 18 d5 when ma­ terial was equal, but Black had no compensation for his busted kingside, M.Gerzina-L.Cederloef, correspondence 1999. c) A more recent encounter contin­ ued 12 ...'Wc7 13 'ii'f2 exd4 14 ..ixd4 tt'lc5?! (allowing White to force a fa­ vourable change in the pawn struc­ ture) 15 ..txc5 dxc5 16 e5 tt'ld7 (after 16 ... tt'ld5 17 tt'le4 the evaluation is simi­ lar) 17 .!Lle4 b5 18 c4 f5?! 19 exf6 .!Llxf6 20 tt'lg 5 bxc4 21 i.xc4+ �h8 22 tt'le6 and White won an exchange and soon after the game, E.Sveshnikov-P.Toulzac, Malakoff 2009. 10 'Wxf3

10 ...0-0

In some games Black has tried 10 ... exd4, but after 11 ..ixd4 0-0 12 l:tae1 White has an obvious advantage. 1 78

e4 Instead 10...0-0-o is understandably rare and after 11 l:tab1, intending b4b5, Black will face a strong attack. 11 tt'le21

An important regrouping move. White prepares c3 to support the cen­ tre and the knight will be deployed on the kingside. u

...

cs

With 11...l:tfe8 12 c3 c5 Black's play is similar to the main game, but by waiting for c2-c3 he prevents the white knight from using that square as a springboard to get to d5 (note too that 12 .....tf8 should be met by 13 tt'lg3, in­ stead of 13 g4 which allows Black to obtain full counterplay with 13 ... d5!). Now 13 dxe5 dxe5 occurred in J.Chabanon-C.Bauer, Meribel 1998, when it is worth considering two paths for White: a) In the game White chose 14 ..tc4, but Black could have initiated a tactical sequence, with not unfavourable con­ sequences: 14...b5! 15 ..txf7+! �xf7 16 fxe5 .!Llxes 17 lli'hs+ '1t>g8! (Yudasin noted 17 ... ttJg6 18 es when White keeps

Ph ilidor a n d Czech Pirc some initiative, but Black does better to retreat his king to safety) 18 'if'xe5 'if'b6! when Black intends ...�f8 to win back his pawn, and White will be hard­ pressed to find a convincing counter. b) Instead I believe the most promis­ ing continuation to be 14 f5 ! intending a kingside pawn storm. The following illustrative line is mentioned by Yu­ dasin: 14 ... h6 15 g4 tt:lh7 16 'if'g3 'ir'd8 17 .i.f2 when Black fails to blockade the kingside and after completing devel­ opment with l:ad1, White will transfer his knight to f3, followed by h4 and g5. 1 2 dxes dxes 13 tt:lc3 1

The knight makes a hasty return, having become aware of some new and important business on the c3-square. 13 ... �d 6 13 ... :ac8 14 �b5 c4 (14 ... exf4?! 15 ..lixf4 tt:lb6 16 e5 tt:le8 17 'ir'xb7 was rot­ ten for Black in O.Renet-V.Moskalenko, St Martin 1991) 15 l:ad1 l:fd8 16 tt:ld5 tt:lxd5 17 l:.xds tt:lf6 was G.Flear­ C.Papatryfonos, Plovdiv 2003, and here 18 l:txd8+ l:xd8 19 �xc4 would have bagged a safe extra pawn for White.

14 fs tt:lb6 15 'it'e2

Maintaining the blockade. 15 tt:lb5 �e7 16 c4 a6 17 tt:lc3 tt:la4! is irritating, as a knight exchange would make it almost impossible for White to utilize the d5-square. 18 tt:ld1 ! ? is possible, but it feels a bit cumbersome. 15 .. l:fd8 15 ... :ac8 is well met by 16 tt:lb5 ! and with �d2 coming, Black has problems. 16 a3 Also interesting is 16 i.c4!? tt:lxc4 17 'ir'xc4 'if'b4 18 b3. 16 .l:.ac8 17 .i.c4 tt:lxc4 18 'if'xc4 .

..

18...a6

Interestingly Yakovich had reached the identical position five years earlier. That game continued 18 ...�f8 19 �g5 l:d4 20 'if'e2 tt:le8 21 .i.e3 l:d7 22 l:ad1 l:xd1 23 l:xd1 'if'b6 24 'if'b5 'ir'xb5 2 5 tt:lxb5 a 6 26 tt:lc3 and White kept a clear positional advantage, Y.Yakovich­ K.Mokry, Pardubice 1994. 19 �g51 Forcing a favourable minor piece exchange. 1 79

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess D efe n ces:

1

19... b5 20 'iWe2 j_e7 2 1 j_xf6 j_xf6 22 tt'ld 5

e4 not so easy for White to maintain full control over the queen side. 26 axb5 axb5 27 �h1

Yakovich points out that 27 l:.al gives Black the opportunity for 27 ...:txd5!? 2 8 exd5 'iWxd5 with some chances to hold. 27 ...l:l.a8

White has a permanent positional advantage thanks to the superiority of his dominant knight over the passive enemy bishop. 22 ...%:td6 2 3 l:.ad1 'iWdB 24 a4

The strong knight cannot win the game by itself, so White begins chip­ ping away at the queenside. 24 c4! ? was another way of doing so, which would also have been rather trouble­ some for Black.

Yakovich elects to keep the queen­ side closed, but it was also worth con­ sidering 28 b 3 ! ? when Black will be left with a weak pawn on c4 or b5.

24...C4

28...l:ta7 29 'iWg3 l:.a2 30 'iWf2 'iWcB 3 1

Shielding the b5-pawn while in­ creasing the scope of the bishop. After 24...bxa4 25 'iWc4 White will soon regain the pawn and Black's queenside has been damaged irrepa­ rably.

tt:'lb4

25 'iWg4

Taking on b5 first would have pre­ vented the next suggestion for Black. 25 ...'iW8

With the white queen far away on the kingside, it was worth considering 25 ...bxa4!? intending ...:lb8 when it is 1 80

28 C3

31 tt:'lxf6 ! ? l:.xf6 32 l:.d5 wins a pawn while keeping a positional advantage; on the other hand, it is never easy to bring oneself to exchange such a knight for such a bishop, so Yakovich continues manoeuvring in order to wear down his opponent. 31 ...:lxd1 32 :txd1 :as 33 'iWb6 'iWeB

3 3 ... %:tb8 34 'iWd6+ �g8 3 5 tt:'lc6 :as 36 tt:'lxe5 is a safe extra pawn. 34 tt:'lc6 :lc8 35 lDa7 l:r.bB 36 'iWc7 �g8 37 :ld7 b4 38 lDc6 :lc8 39 iVd6

Ph ilidor a n d Czech Pirc 39 ti:Je7+ 1Lxe7 40 .l:.xe7 followed by 'ir'xes wins a pawn, but Black may have some chances to hold the major piece endgame.

47 'ir'xes were both losing for Black, but both would have offered greater resis­ tance than the game continuation.

39...bxc3 40 bxc3 ::taB

44...'ir'b8 45 ti:Jxa8 'ir'hl+ does not work, as White has 46 'ir'dl.

Black should have preferred 40...h S to avoid meeting his end o n the back rank. 41 ti:Je7+ hB

41 ...1Lxe7 42 .l:.xe7 'ir'b8 43 'ir'xb8+ .l:i.xb8 44 l:.xes g6 45 .l:.cs leads to a rook ending with two extra pawns. The level of harmony in White's position is not ideal, but he should be able to win eventually. 42 CDds ..tgs

44 lDc7 l:.a1+

45 �h2 il..f4+

4S .. .'ir'g8 46 l:.d8 1Lf4+ 47 g 3 il.. xg 3+ 48 'itg2 wins. 46 g3 1Lxg3+ 47 �g2

And obviously not 47 xg3?? 'ir'g8+ when it is Black who wins. 4 7 ...l:.a2+ 48 Wf3 1-0

The next game deals with Black's early deviations in the Czech Pirc.

42 ...il..h 4 43 h2 prevents all coun­ terplay. Game 35 S.Karjakin-A.Ivanov

Russian Tea m Cha mpionship 2010 1 e4 d6 2 d4 ti:Jf6 3 .!Uc3 c6 4 f4 'ir'a s

43 f61

Having improved his position to more or less the maximum extent pos­ sible, the time has come for White to tak e decisive action. 43 ... gxf6?

Losing quickly. 43 ...'ir'f8 44 'ii'x es and 43 ... ..txf6 44 .!Uxf6 gxf6 45 'ir'xf6+ �g8 46 .l:.e7 'ir'f8

This is the main line by far, but three other moves deserve a mention: a) 4... g6 is just a Pirc where Black has committed himself to ... c6 prema­ turely. b) 4 ... 1Lg4 should be met by 5 'ir'd3 ! when the bishop will soon b e driven away, and the attempt to force matters in the centre backfires horribly: s ... dS?! (s...g6 and s ...ti:Ja6 are preferable, al­ though in both cases 6 h3 followed by i.e3 leaves White in control) 6 es ti:Je4? (6 ...ti:Jg8 7 h3 .i.d7 8 ti:Jf3 is obviously not good for Black, but this was the 1 81

B e a t i n g U n u s u a l Ch ess Defe n ce s :

1

lesser evil) 7 lZ:lxe4 ..tf5 ?? 8 lDd6+ and White wins a piece. c) 4.. ."ir'b6 should be met by the en­ ergetic 5 e5! with the following possi­ bilities: c1) 5 ... dxe5 6 fxe5 lDd5 7 lDxd5 cxd5 8 ..td3 when White is doing well, with an impressive central wedge and the open f-file. c2) 5 ...lDg4 6 h3 lDh6 7 g4 with a huge space advantage. c3) 5 ... ..tg4 can be met by 6 'ii'd 3 !? as in variation 'a' above, and 6 ..te2 ..txe2 7 'ii'x e2 lDd5 8 lDxd5 cxd5 9 e6!? is also interesting. c4) After 5 ...lZ:\d5 6 lZ:\xd5 cxd5 7 i.d3 (7 c3 ..tf5 is less accurate) 7 ... g6 (or 7 ...lbc6 8 c3) 8 c3 White's strong central pawn wedge is an important asset which promises him good chances.

Here are a few examples: c41) 8 ... ..tg7 9 'ii'f3 ! ? (9 lDf3 is also fine) 9 ... ..te6 10 lbe2 lDd7 11 'ii'g 3 (threatening f5) 11...i.f8 12 o-o ..tf5 13 ..txf5 gxf5 14 b3 and White kept a pleasant edge in G.Kaidanov-G.Zaichik, Connecticut 2003. 182

e4 c42) 8 ... ..tf5 9 ..txf5 gxf5 10 'ii'h 5 ! (1o lDh3 h 5 ! is not so clear) 10...e6 11 lDf3 lbc6 12 lDg 5 lDd8 13 g4! ..te7 14 gxf5 exf5 15 lZ:lxf7 lDxf7 16 e6 l:.f8 17 l:.g1 and Black was in trouble in P.Wells­ N.Rashkovsky, london 1990. 5 ..td3

s ... es

In the event of 5 ... ..tg4, White should once again avoid exchanges: 6 'ii'd 2! g6 (if 6 ... e 5 ? 7 dxe5 dxe5 8 f5) 7 h 3 ..td7 8 lDf3 and White has a clearly favourable version of a Pirc. Instead 5 ... d5!? 6 e5 lDe4 7 ..txe4 dxe4 leads to quite an irrational posi­ tion which deserves some attention. White has a strong centre and the e4pawn is weak, but the light-squared bishop is a significant casualty. After 8 ..td2 ! ? (8 'ii'e 2 has been much more popular, but I like the idea of playing dynamically and increasing White's development advantage more than the simple attack on the e-pawn) 8 ...ft6 9 lbge2 f5 White has two promising paths, leading to completely different types of position:

Ph ilidor a n d Czech Pirc a) 10 tt:'la4 'fkc7 11 c4 e6 12 l:.c1 gives a closed position with better chances for White, l.lbragimov-A.Young, Min­ neapolis 2005. Black is short of space and it is tough to suggest a useful role for his bishops. b) The more dynamic option is 10 exf6 exf6 11 tt:'lxe4.

Igor Glek has won two games from this position: b1) 11 ...'fkxb2?! (it is too risky for Black to worry about pawn-counting when he is so far behind in develop­ ment) 12 o-o i..e 7 13 fs tt:'la6 14 c4 'fib6 15 ..th1 0-0 16 l:.b1 'fkc7 17 l:.b3 l:.d8 18 �e1 i..f8 19 �4 'fkf7 20 l:.h 3 h6 21 !tg3 and White had built up a decisive attack by simple means in I.Glek-A.De Santis, Castellaneta 1999. b2) 11 .. .fs 12 tt:'lg s 'fkxb2?! (falling into the same trap as in the previous example) 13 0-0 i..e 7 14 l:.f3 ! 'fib6 15 � e3 (now Black's king will never escape th e centre) 15 ... cs 16 tt:'lc3 'ii'd 8 17 � 5 + g6 18 �6 'ii'd 7 19 �lae1 1-0 I. Gl ek-M.Scekic, Rethymnon 2003. 6 l2Jf3 �g4

Establishing this pin is a knee-jerk reaction for most Czech Pirc players, but there are two notable alternatives: a) After 6 ... exd4 7 tt:'lxd4 Black has two main ideas:

a1) 7 ...'ii'b6 8 i..e 2 sees both sides having lost a tempo, but the black queen is in rather an uncomfortable spot, and will have to move again after White arranges to put his bishop on e3: 8...tt:'lbd7 9 o-o! (this entails a pawn sac­ rifice which White should be delighted to offer) 9 ...tt:'lcs 10 i..f3 tt:'le6 11 i..e 3 'iixb2 (11 ...'iic 7 12 'iid2) 12 'iid2 'fih4?! (12 ...'iia 3 was better, although 13 J:tab1 still leaves White with excellent com­ pensation) 13 l:.ab1 Was 14 es and White had a huge initiative in Y.Dembo­ E.Kostopoulos, Korinthos 2004. a2) 7 ... g6 8 o-o i.. g 7 9 �h1 o-o 10 fs ! gives White the simple but effective attacking plan of 'iie 1-h4, i..h 6, and tt:'lf3-g5 mating. Here is one an example from grandmaster praxis: 10...tt:'lbd7 11 'ii'e 1 tt:'lcs 12 �4 'fib4 13 tt:'lf3 tt:'lxd3 14 cxd3 tt:'ld7 15 �h6 f6 16 �xg7 'itxg7 17 d4!? (17 l:r.f2 tlJes enables Black to sim1 83

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess Defe n ces:

1

plify, thus solving his problems to some degree) 17 ... ttJb6 (17 ... Wxb2 gives White full compensation after 18 .l:tfcl or 18 'Wel!? intending :bl-b3), L.Dominguez Perez-W.Arencibia Rodri­ guez, Havana 2005.

Call me boring, but I would prefer not to have to think about ... Wxb2 on every move, and so here I would rec­ ommend the calm 18 .l:.f2, guarding the loose pawn while preparing to double on the f-file. b) 6 ...ttJbd7 is a significant sideline which deserves some attention: 7 o-o il...e 7 8 ..te3 (8 'it>h l has been the over­ whelmingly most popular choice, but moving the king is not yet essential, and White may be able to do without it altogether) 8 ... 0-0 (8 ... tbg4 9 ..td2 is nothing to worry about) 9 'ii'e l tbg4 (alternatively: 9 ...l:.e8 10 tbd5 ! and White will eliminate the bishop on e7 to obtain a pleasant advantage, with or without queens; or 9 ...'ii'c 7 when it looks logical to play 10 .l:tdl, planning to meet ... tbg4 with .tel) 10 i.d2 exd4 11 tbd5 ! 'Wd8 12 ttJxe7+ 'ii'x e7 13 ttJxd4 1 84

e4 ttJc5 14 b4 ttJxd3 15 cxd3 and White kept the more active position in S.Beshukov-V.Bachin, Tomsk 2001. 7 ..te3

So far we have followed the same path as the previous game, which fea­ tured the main line of 7 ... ttJbd7. Now it is time to finish our round-up of the less common alternatives. 7 .'ii'b6 ..

Alternatively: a) 7 ... d5?! is too optimistic: 8 fxe5 ttJxe4 (after 8 ...dxe4 9 exf6 exd3 10 fxg7 il...x g7 11 Wxd3 Black's bishop pair is not enough to compensation for his missing pawn and damaged kingside) 9 o-o 4Jxc3 10 bxc3 tbd7 (10...'Wxc3 11 ii'hl ii'h4 12 tDg5 gives White too much activity for a pawn, while 10.....te7 is met by 11 'ii'e l tbd7 12 'ii'g 3) 11 ii'bl! ii'b6 12 'Wel! and White had a dangerous initiative, L.Ondok-J.Dostan, Hungarian league 2006. b) 7 ... exf4 8 ..txf4 and now Black has a couple of ways of targeting the d4pawn, but neither of them works well for him:

Ph ilidor a n d Czech Pirc b1) 8 .. .'ifb4? is just bad: 9 a3 'ifb6 (if 9 .. .'ii'xb2?? 10 lt::l a4, while 9 ... i.xf3 10 axb4 i.xd1 11 ..ti>xd1 was clearly better for White in R.Patterson-J.Simon, Ber­ muda 2002) 10 i.e3 ! and Black's open­ ing has been a failure; he has wasted time moving his queen around and the b2-pawn is still poisoned. b2) 8 .. .'ii'b 6 9 lt::le 2! (9 'i'r'd2 i.xf3 10 gxf3 'i'r'xd4 11 0-0-0 is a fairly promis­ ing pawn sacrifice, but the text keeps a pleasant edge while keeping White's important central pawns intact) 9 . i.xf3 10 gxf3 'i'r'xb2 (principled, but extremely risky) 11 l:.b1 'i'r'xa2 12 :xb7 gives White tremendous compensation for a pawn, A.Shirov-M.Rivas Pastor, Manila Olympiad 1992. c) 7 ... exd4 8 i.xd4 'i'r'b4 (8 ...lt::lb d7 9 o-o 'i'r'b4 10 lt::le 2 gives White comfort­ able play) 9 i.e2! offers a promising pawn sacrifice:

for the pawn in M.BrodskyA.Rakhmangulov, Nikolaev 1995. The game continuation, 7...'i'r'b6, is a slightly different incarnation of the attempted pawn-grabbing strategy. The evaluation is similar to most of the above lines - Black is risking too much and should not be wasting time mov­ ing his queen again. 8 fxesl?

Usual has been 8 'i'r'd2, but Karjakin decides he prefers the f-file open. s dxes 9 'ii'd 2 . ..

..

9 exd4 9 ... i.xf3 would commit Black to a queen sacrifice: 10 dxes 'i'r'xb2 11 :b1 lt::lxe4 (11 ...'i'r'a3?! 12 exf6 is horrible for Black) 12 i.xe4 'i'r'xb1+ 13 lt::l x b1 i.xe4 14 0-0 when Black has enough material for the queen, but he has a serious problem with his lagging development. ...

10 i.xd4 'jj'd S

9 ... lt::l xe4 (consistent but risky; even worse, though, would have been 9 . .'i'r'xb2? 10 lt::l d s) 10 o-o ds 11 a3 'ii'e 7 1 2 lt::lxe4 dxe4 13 lt::lg s (13 lt::le s is also g ood) and White had a strong initiative .

Otherwise, 10...cs? 11 i.bS+! fol­ lowed by i.xf6 is nasty and 10.. .'ii'as 11 es lt::ld s 12 lt::lg s ! ? is dangerous, as 12 ... h6 is met by 13 e6! with a serious attack. 1 85

B e a ting U n u s u a l Ch ess Defe n ces:

1

11 0-0-0 �xf3 12 �xf6 'ii'xf6 13 gxf3

Another game proceeded with 13 e s ! ? 'ii'h 4 14 gxf3 �e7 15 l:f.hg 1 tt:ld7 16 l:f.g4 'ii'h 6 17 'ii'x h6 gxh6 18 f4 hS 19 l:f.g7 �f8 20 l:f.gs and here the players agreed a draw in R.Haataja­ A.Kuzenkov, correspondence 2002, al­ though in the final position White is clearly better and is about to win a pawn.

e4 16 . 0-0 would have survived for longer, although Black is clearly skating on thin ice. .

.

17 Wxc3 "ii'xf4+ 18 'it>b1

Black's position simply looks ridicu­ lous and Karjakin makes short work of him. 18...l:f.f8

19 e61 fxe6 20 'ii'b 3 13 .....tb4

13 ...'i1Vxf3?? is of course suicidal and 14 ..tc4 is the easiest refutation. In­ stead 13 ...tt:ld7 ! ? looks like Black's best chance to survive the opening, intend­ ing to park the king on the queenside. 14 e5 'Wii'h 4?1

The queen would have been less ex­ posed on e7. 15 l:f.hg1 g6 16 f4?1

A small slip, as 16 l:f.g4 'Wii'e 7 17 l:txb4! 'i1Vxb4 18 1i.xg6! ike7 19 ..tfs would have been crushing. 16...�xc3?

It is surprising to see an experi­ enced grandmaster pawn-grabbing in such a naive way. 1 86

20 l:f.gfl 'ii'd6 21 'ii'g 7 l:f.xf1 22 l:f.xf1 was also devastating. 20...�e7

20 .. .'ii'f7 is met by 21 ..tc4 and �xe6 with annihilation on the central files. 2 1 Wxb7+ tt:\d7 22 �bsl l:f.fd8 2 3 ..txc6 :tabS 24 l:f.xd7+ �8 25 l:f.xd8+ l:f.xd8 26 a4 'itg8 27 'ii'x a7 1-0

A bad day at the office for Ivanov, but this kind of disaster is hardly an isolated occurrence when Black in­ dulges in an early bout of pawn­ hunting with ...Wb4 or ...Wb6. Having concluded our business with the Czech Pirc, let us now move on to a couple more variations of the Philidor theme.

Ph ilidor a n d Cz ech Pirc

Game 3 6 A.Dreev-A.Kveinys

Vienna 1996

promlSlng to prepare long castling with 9 .td2: for instance, 9 ....te7 10 g4! o-o 11 g5 lZ:le8 12 0-0-0 and White is clearly on top. s lLlf3 exd4

1 d4 d6 2 e4 lLlf6 3 lLlc3 lZ:lbd7

Black aims for a Philidor, without al­ lowing a queen exchange. Black would get his wish after 4 lLlf3 e5, but White can instead opt for a more aggressive set-up in order to question the position of the d7-knight. 4 f4

Sometimes Black leaves the e5pawn for the taking, but this is a risky business as the following lines demon­ strate: a} 5 ... .te7 6 dxe5 dxe5 7 fxe5 lZ:lg4 8 i.f4 .tc5 9 *'d2! ? when Black can in­ vade with either piece on f2, but nei­ ther one does him much good:

The other fashionable continuation is 4 g4! ? h6 5 h3 e5 6 .tg2, intending lZ:lge2 and later f4, when White's ex­ tended fianchetto offers him good chances. I would evaluate the two lines as equally promising, but eventually decided that the early f4 would be a more consistent repertoire choice, hav­ ing already recommended it against the Modern, Pirc, and Czech Pirc sys­ tems. 4 es .••

Black needs to secure a foothold in the centre while preventing e4-e5, which would embarrass the knight - a cle ar drawback of the early ...lZ:lbd7. 4 ... c5 is a riskier and less common way of challenging in the centre: 5 e5 cxd4 6 *'xd4 lZ:lg4 7 exd6 (White can als o consider 7 lLlf3 dxes 8 fxes lZ:ldxe5 9 ..,..x d8+ 'iti>xd8 10 lZ:lxes lZ:lxe5 11 .tf4 with good play for a pawn, V.Lupynin­ Y.Lavrentyev, correspondence 2006} 7 ... exd6 8 lLlf3 lZ:lgf6 was J.Randviir­ A.Peterson, Riga 1960, and here it looks

a1} In G.Malbran-M.Tempone, Bue­ nos Aires 1997, Black chose 9 ...lLlf2 10 1:tg1 lZ:lg4. In this position White chose 11 1:th1, after which Black spurned the repetition with 11.. ..tf2+ and went on to lose. See line 'a2' below for coverage of the bishop check - with the move number two behind of course. How­ ever, White can do much better than repeating moves in the first place: 11 0-0-0! i.xg 1 12 lLlxg1 gives White a huge initiative for a tiny material in­ vestment. Indeed, it is hard to suggest a good way for Black to get his pieces 187

B e a ting U n u s u a l Ch ess Defe n ce s :

1

out and make it through the middle­ game. a2) 9 .....tf2+ 10 'ite2 ..tc5 11 h3 lLlh6 was reached in the aforementioned game after the move repetition. At this point the best of several strong con­ tinuations would have been 12 lLld5 ! when the threats of ..tg 5 and e6 are too much for the defence. b) 5 ... c6 has been tried by a few strong players, but it leads practically by force to a queenless position where White enjoys a clear advantage in terms of development and mobility: 6 dxe5 dxe5 7 fxe5 l2Jg4 8 e6 fxe6 9 lLlg5 lLlde5 10 'ii'x d8+ 'itxd8 11 h 3 lLlh6 12 i.f4 lLlg6 (12 ...lLlhf7 is safer, although 13 0-0-0+ 'it>e8 14 lLlxf7 lLlxf7 15 ..tc4 gave White an ongoing initiative in A.Alpern-H.Perelman, Buenos Aires 1992) 13 0-0-0+ 'it>e8.

e4 19 ..td8+) 18 e5+ 'ite7 19 ..td6+ ..txd6 20 exd6+ 'it>f6 21 d7 l:.d8 22 dxc8'ii' .:taxeS 23 ..td7 and White h ad recouped the sacrificed material with interest in N.Ong-W.Oaker, correspondence 2004. From here the most resilient continua­ tion would have been 23 ... l:.c7, but then 24 .l:.df1+! 'it>e7 2 5 ..txe6 leaves White a pawn up and winning. Returning to 5 ... exd4: 6 'ii'xd4

Naturally White takes with the queen in order to take a step towards long castling. 6...c6

Now for a striking demonstration of the power of a development advan­ tage: 14 lLlbS ! ! (this spectacular lunge leads to a winning position by force) 14... cxbs 15 ..txbS+ 'ite7 16 ..tc7 'itf6 17 h4! ..tcs (or 17 ...lt:Jxh4 18 l:.xh4 'itxgs ? 1 88

Preparing ... d5 is the most dynamic and critical way for Black to handle the position. The most significant alternative is 6 ...lLlc5, but after 7 ..te3 Black has trou­ ble developing any counterplay, as the following examples demonstrate: a) 7 ... g6 is rather slow and allows White to launch an immediate attack: 8 es l2Je6 9 'ii'c4 l2Jg4 10 ..td2 c6 11 h 3 lLlh6 12 exd6 ( 1 2 g 4 dS 13 'ii'e 2 is also good) 12 ...tt:Jts 13 lt:Je4 lt:Jxd6 14 lt:Jxd6+

Philidor a n d Czech Pirc �xd6 15 o-o-o 'ii'f6 16 g 3 o-o 11 h4 h s 1 8 �c3 'ii'e 7 19 f S gxfs 20 .th3 when White was clearly better and went on to win in Sh redder-Komodo, Trier 2010. b) 7 ...il.. e 7 8 0-0-0 0-0 9 es l2Jfd7 (or 9 ...l2Jg4 10 .tg1 il..e 6 11 h3 l2Jh6 12 g4 fS 13 il..c4 'ith8, as in E.German-M.De Freitas, Fortaleza 1951, and now after 1 4 exd6 cxd6 15 g S lLlf7 16 il..f2 intend­ ing l:the1 White has an obvious advan­ tage) 10 lLlds dxes 11 l2Jxes

conducted the opening more timidly: 7 ... .te7 8 'ii'd 2!? (retreating the queen from the centre is a sensible prophylac­ tic measure) 8 ...0-0 9 il..d 3 l:te8 10 o-o-o 'Was 11 'iti>b1 il..f8 12 l:the1 and White had the better position, with healthy central control and all his pieces in play, K.Mokry-M.Mikas, Pardubice 1994.

B es

With this move White gains space in the centre and aims for a positional advantage, although sometimes he can play for an attack as well. It is worth mentioning that the game continuation is not the only good one and 8 exds !? deserves attention as well. One game continued 8 ...il.. c s 9 'ii'd 3 'ii'e 7 10 l2Jd4 lL:lb6 11 dxc6 o-o 12 0-0-0 bxc6 13 .tg 1 and Black had insuf­ ficient compensation, J.Polgar-M.Rivas Pastor, Dos Hermanas 1993.

11 ... il.. d6 (11 ...l2Jxes 12 l2Jxe7+ 'ii'x e7 13 'iit'x cs l2Jc6 14 'ii'x e7 l2Jxe7 15 .tcs is winning for White, as shown by Golubev) 12 l2Jc4 l2Je6 13 'ii'c 3 il..c s? (a mistake, but Black was already clearly worse) 14 fs il.. x e3+ 15 'ii'x e3 lLlecs 16 0..e 7+ 'ith8 17 lLles 'WeB 18 lLlSg6+! fxg6 19 0..x g6+ hxg6 20 'ii'h 3+ �g8 21 il.. c4+ .l:tf7 22 fxg6 lLles 2 3 gxf7+ l2Jxf7 24 �xf7+ 1-0 M.Feygin-M.Muse, German League 2009. 7 i.e3 dS

l:txg1 'ii'b 6

Several other moves have been tri ed, but the text is clearly the most ch allenging. Here is one example in which Black

The last few moves have been natu­ ral and logical for both sides, but now White must make an important deci­ sion.

8 lZJg4 9 il..g1 il..c s 10 'Wd2 .txg1 11 ...

1 89

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess Defe n ces:

1

e4

12 l2Ja41?

14... bs

I like this straightforward move, which steers the position towards a favourable endgame. Once again the decision is partly a matter of taste, so I will mention a couple of alternatives which may appeal to aggressively­ minded players: a} 12 h3 l2Jh2 13 l2Jd4 t2Jxf1 14 1:txf1 Wxb2 15 l:.b1 Wa3 16 l:.f3 with promis­ ing compensation for White, J.Palkovi­ A.Miltner, German League 1992. b) 12 o-0-0 l2Jxh2 13 l2Jd4 ttJxfl 14 l:.dxfl o-o 15 g4 l:.e8 16 lDf5 tiJf8 17 t2Jd6 .l:e6 18 g 5 and once again White's attack was quite venomous in M.Palas­ S.Schmidt, Munich 1992.

14...t2Jb6 was preferred in R.Alias Franco-F.Izeta Txabarri, Euskadi 1996. White responded by exchanging on b6 and although his position remained somewhat favourable, I see absolutely no reason to help Black by opening the a-file. Instead 15 l2Jc5 ! would have pre­ served a pleasant advantage without conceding anything.

12 ..Jie3+

12 ...Wc7 hardly solves Black's prob­ lems after 13 h3 l2Jh6 14 g4 when White's pawns are strong and the h6knight is misplaced. 13 Wxe3 t2Jxe3 14 i.d3

The queens are off, but Black is still some way from equality. White has better pieces and the more potent pawn majority. 190

15 t2Jc3 t2Jb6

Another game continued 15 ... l2Jc5 16 'it>d2 (16 'it>e2 is also good} 16 ... l2Jc4+ 17 .Jtxc4 dxc4 18 'it>e3 with an excellent endgame for White, A.Dobrowolski­ J.Orzechowski, Wroclaw 2007. The posi­ tion resembles something from the Berlin Defence, but White's coordina­ tion is excellent and Black's queenside has more holes than a doughnut shop. 16 a3 0-0 With the queens off Black would ideally prefer to keep his king in the centre, but it is hard to suggest a safe place for it there. 17 b3

Not a forced move, but certainly a

Ph ilidor a n d Cz ech Pirc useful one. 1 7 . J�d8ll .

It is hard to believe that this can be the way to solve Black's problems. 17 .. .f6 ! ? has been proposed, but af­ ter 18 �d2 lt::lfs (no better is 18 ...lt::l g 4 19 h3 lt::lf2 20 lt::ld4 fxes 21 fxes) 19 g4 liJe7 20 exf6 l:.xf6 21 fS .i.d7 22 a4! ? (22 l:!ae1 is also good) 22 ...b4 23 lt::l e 2 White stands clearly better; the plan is liJf4 and 1:tae1 when his pieces will start to look quite menacing. 18 liJd4 .i.b7 19 �2

Dreev refuses to take the bait - at least not in the way his adversary had hoped. 21 a41

Excellent! Now Black faces a crisis on the queenside. 21...lt::lb 2 This fails to offer much resistance, but it was hard to offer much advice by this stage: a) Chekhov points out the line 21 ... a6 22 aS lt::Jd 7 23 C3 lt::Jb 2 24 .i.c2 tOes 2S �e3 when Black loses as the knight is trapped. b) The only way to prolong the game was 21 ... bxa4! 22 bxc4 cs! 23 cxds .i.xds when, amazingly, Black avoids the loss of a piece. However, af­ ter the correct continuation of 24 ltJbs ! c4 2 S lt::lc 7 cxd3 26 ltJxa8 i.xa8 27 cxd3 l:.xd3 28 %:.gd1 White is the exchange up and should win the endgame with­ out much fuss.

19 liJec41l ...

Of course the knight is indirectly de­ fended here, but apart from that it ac­ complishes nothing and White can eas­ ily just ignore it. Chekhov mentions the alternative 19 ..ltJg4+ 20 �f3 ltJh6 (20 ... lt::lxh2+? 21 '>t>g3) 21 g4 when White dominates. .

20 ltJce2 g61?

Black renews the indirect defence, as bxc4 will now be met by ... bxc4 when the bishop is trapped. Kveinys seems eager to provoke some kind of disrup­ tion in the balance of the position, but

22 as I

22 axbs wins a pawn but the text does so in an even more favourable way which effectively shuts down 191

B e a t i n g U n u s u a l C h e s s D efe n ces:

1

Black's entire position. 22 ...tt:Jxd3+ 23 cxd3 tt:Jd7 24 a61 ..tc8 25 tt:Jxc6 l:te8 26 tt:Jc3 1-0

Faced with a miserable position plus the loss of another pawn, Black had had enough.

Game 3 7 M. Narciso Dublan­ P.Garcia Castro

Monda riz 2002 1 d4 d6 2 e4 e5

This move is rare, but it could be seen as another way of playing for a Philidor while inviting a slightly differ­ ent type of queenless middlegame from that seen in Part 1 of the chapter. 3 dxe5 dxe5

3 ... tt:Jc6? is just unsound and after 4 exd6 ..txd6 5 tt:Jc3 tt:Jf6 6 tiJf3 intending �d3 and o-o, Black has no compensa­ tion. 4 '1it'xd8+ 'it>xdB 5 i.c4

e4 White than the version we saw in Games 31-33, as the knight should be able to find a more purposeful square than c3. 5 ...f6

The position after s .....te6 6 ..txe6 fxe6 illustrates the previous point quite well. In the analogous position with the respective knights already on c3 and f6, the white knight does nothing useful and can often become target for Black's counterplay with ... bS-b4. However, in the present position White can obtain a nice advantage with 7 ..te3 tt:Jf6 8 f3 intending tt:Jh3-f2-d3 (or tt::le 2-c1-d3) and tt:Jd2-c4 when the knights will help to generate strong pressure against the es-pawn. 6 f4!

If Black is given time to catch up in development and exchange a few pieces, it is unlikely that he will have too many problems. Instead Narciso Dublan provokes an immediate con­ frontation in the hope of exploiting the opponent's slightly exposed king and backward development. 6 ... ..td6

would evaluate this queenless middlegame as more favourable for 192

With this provocative move Black tempts his opponent into luring his bishop into the centre. 6 ...tt::ld 7 is a safer alternative when play may continue 7 tt:Jf3 ..td6 8 fs (8 g 3 ! ? is a decent alternative, but gaining space on the kingside looks quite ap­ pealing) 8 ... c6 9 �e3 'it>c7 10 a4 tt:Je7. This was H.pfeil-L.Vogt, Neukieritzsch 1968, and here the most logical con-

Ph ilidor a n d Czech Pirc tinuation looks to be 11 g4 with some initiative for White. 1 fxe51

A good decision. White does not mind taking on an isolated pawn, as his active pieces provide more than enough compensation for it. This only works here because Black is forced to recapture with his bishop as opposed to a knight, which would have made a much better blockader on es.

9 ttJc3

A few other moves have been tried, but I like this flexible knight develop­ ment. It is useful for White to retain the option of castling on either side. 9 c6 10 lDe21 ...

7 i.xe5 8 tDf3 tDd7 ...

Black has tried two other moves, but his position remains unpleasant in all variations: a) 8 ...ttJc6 9 ttJc3 .i.g4 10 .i.e3 ttJge7 11 o-o-o+ weB 12 h3 i.hs 13 g4 .i.g6 14 lDbS ! (White hurries to create direct threats before Black can catch up on development) 14 ... a6 15 lbxes axbs 16 tt:lxg6 hxg6 17 .i.xbs .:.xa2 18 Wb1 .:.as 19 c4 Wf7 20 l:.d7 and Black was unable to solve his problems in D.Bronstein­ A.Beni, Munich Olympiad 1958. b) 8 ....i.d6 9 ttJc3 c6 10 eS! (10 .i.e3 would have given White a pleasant edge, but this energetic pawn sacrifice creates major problems for the de­ fence) 10 ... .i.xes (or 10.. .fxes 11 ttJg s lDh6 12 ttJce4) 11 lbxes fxes. This posi­ tion was reached in N.Fercec­ D.Vretenar, Rabac 2003, and here the m ost accurate continuation would have been 12 o-o! (better than the g ame's 12 .i.gS+ ttJf6 13 0-0, for rea­ sons that are about to become clear) 12 ...ttJf6 13 .i.h6 ! when Black has seri­ ous problems.

Preparing to deploy the knight on d4 or f4, or perhaps the bishop on f4. 10 ttJe7 11 ttJf4 ttJcs ...

11 ....i.xf4 12 .i.xf4 lbg6 13 .i.g3 .:.es was recommended as Black's best try by Andrew Martin, who mentions the continuation 14 ttJd2 when Black's po­ sition is indeed rather solid. However, White can do better by sacrificing a pawn with 14 0-0-0! %:.xe4 15 .i.g8 and here 1S ...h6 16 i.h7 %:.g4 17 .:.he1, 1S ...lbgf8 16 .i.d6, and 1S ...lbf4 16 .i.xf4 .:.xf4 17 l:.he1 all see Black facing se­ vere problems. 12 ttJxes fxe5 13 ttJhs

The opening has been a success for White, who has the two bishops and an ongoing initiative, and without suffer­ ing from an inferior pawn structure. 13 ....i. e6 14 �e31 This excellent move increases 193

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess D efe n ces:

1

e4

14...i.xc4 15 i.xcs l:.gB 16 o-0-0+ 'ot>e8

l:.ge8 when Black succeeds in holding his position together. However, White can do better with 21 i.gs! when the threat of l:.d6 is quite nasty.

17 l:.d2

20 l:.d6 i-f7 21 l:.d7 1·0

17 tLlg 3 ! would have been even stronger, the point being that the move ... ttJg6 can now be met by ttJfs. The game continuation is still tough for Black though.

The invasion on the seventh rank is absolutely crushing, so Black decided to call it a day.

17 ...ttJg6

Of the openings examined here, the Modern Philidor is arguably the most theoretically significant and robust. By taking on es and exchanging queens White makes no attempt to refute his opponent's play, but instead settles for a lead in development and a generally more comfortable game. Get to know this variation well and you should win more than you lose with it. The Czech Pirc is a decent system which has been tested in thousands of games. Still, White's three-pawn set-up provides him with a good deal of space in the centre, which can lead to promis­ ing attacking chances later in the game - especially if Black indulges in the kind of pawn-hunting we saw in Game 35. The 3 ...ttJbd7 Philidor has the benefit of preventing an early queen exchange for those that wish to avoid it, but committing the knight at such an early stage carries drawbacks as well, as was highlighted in Game 36 after the active 4 f4. Finally, 2 ... es isn't really a serious opening and after studying the example of Game 37 you should have no prob­ lems meeting it over the board.

White's advantage. He will no longer have the bishop pair, but he will have the superior bishop.

For the time being 17 ... l:.d8 would lose a pawn, so Black has to attempt to cover all the invasion squares along the d-file while gradually unravelling his pieces - not an easy task. 18 l:.hd1 i.e6

19 h3

Preventing ... J.g4. 19 tLlg 3 ! ? was once again a tempt­ ing alternative, intending ttJfs. 19 ...tLlh 8? Under serious pressure, Black allows an instant knockout. It was necessary to chase the bishop away with 19 ...b6 20 i.e3 cs, in order to meet 21 l:.d6 with 21 ...<;t'f7 22 i.g s 194

Conclusion

Chapter Five Alekh ine's Defence

1 e4 tt::lf6 2 e 5 tt:Jd 5

more or less taken over as Black's main line in recent times. The most impor­ tant continuation nowadays is: 5 c6 The provocative S ... tt::ld 7 is the sub­ ject of Game 43, while s ... g6 is consid­ ered in Game 42. ...

Rare alternatives will be considered in the final game of the chapter. 3 d4 d6

Black's entire opening is based around the concept of undermining this central pawn and since Black can hardly do without this move indefi­ nit ely, I will not waste time checking any offbeat alternatives. 4 tt::lf3

Now the most common continua­ tion is: 6 .tfs ...

From here the chapter will be di­ vi ded into three main sections. Pa rt 1 - 4

6 i.e2

...

dxe s 5 ttJxes

Th e immediate exchange on es has

Black can also challenge the knight immediately with 6 ...tt::ld 7, which can be found in Game 40. Alternatively 6 ... g6 is featured in Game 41. 7 0-0 lt:Jd7 8 lt:Jf3

195

B e a ting U n u s u a l Ch ess Defe n ce s :

1

Black has two main moves here: 8 ... h6 is the subject of Game 38, while 8 ... e6 can be found in Game 39. Part 2 - 4....1g4 This is the traditional main line of the Alekhine. It has lost some ground to 4 ... dxes in recent years, but it remains

e4 move alternatives is: 4...g6

The provocative 4...ltJc6! ? is the sub­ ject of Game 5 1, while 4 ... ltJb6 and other minor 4th moves can be found in Game 52. 5 ..tc4

a viable option. 5 ..te2 White should break the pin. 5 e6 ..•

This natural move is the main line, but Black has plenty of other options: s ... c6 is covered in Game 46, and s ...ltJc6 can be found in Game 47, while s ... dxes?! and Black's other minor lines form the subject of Game 48. 6 o-o ..te7 7 c4 ltJb6 8 ltJc3 o-o 9 ..te3

Now s ... ltJb6 is considered in Game 49 and s ... c6 in Game so. Finally, the quirky 2 ...ltJg8 will be analysed in Game 53 along with the dubious 2 ...ltJe4?!. Part 1 - 4 dxes 5 tt:Jxes We have a lot to get through, so with­ out further ado let's begin with our first game, an explosive encounter in which White introduced a venomous exchange sacrifice in a critical line. •••

From here the popular but inaccu­ rate 9 ... dS?! is covered in Game 44. The sounder 9 ... ltJ8d7 is considered in Game 45, along with Black's alterna­ tives between moves 6-9. Part 3 Other lines The most significant of Black's 4th-

196

Game 38 D.Smerdon-M.Grunberg Paks 2007 1 e4 ltJf6 2 es ttJds 3 d4 d6 4 ltJf3 dxes 5 ltJxes c6

A le k h in e 's Defe n ce It could be argued that this has taken over as the main line of the Alekhine in recent years. Black fortifies his position in the centre and prepares to challenge his opponent's strong knight with ...lZ:Jd7, without allowing any lZ:Jxf7 ideas. 6 �e2

This retreat may appear surprising, but we will see throughout the chapter that it is a standard idea. The reasoning is straightforward: Black has less space, so it follows that White should avoid exchanges where possible. 8 h6 8 . e6 will be considered in the next game. The text is something of a wait­ ing move, although it is also specifically directed against the impending c2-c4, which Black now intends to answer with ... lZ:Jb4. (We will see in the notes to Mamedov-Mirzoev that the same idea is less attractive in the position after 8 ... e6.) Unfortunately for the second player, White's play in the present game calls the whole plan into ques­ tion. ...

..

Several other moves have been tried, but this is the one I like best. It has a fine pedigree, having been used by several leading players including Anand. 6 �fs ...

This is the most frequent choice in the position, although 6 ... lZ:Jd7 is almost as popular, and 6 ... g6 has also been tried by some strong players. These moves will be examined in Games 40 a nd 41 respectively. 7 0-0 lLld7

There is no point in Black delaying this move. In the event of 7 ... e6 White can already consider 8 g4! ? �g6 9 c4 (9 f4! ?) 9 ...lZ:Jf6 (or 9 . lZ:Jb4 10 a3 ltJ4a6 11 lLlc3) 10 f4 with a strong initiative. ..

8 lLlf31

9 c417

It took a while before anyone real­ ized that this could be used to fight for an advantage. The critical continuation involves a promising exchange sacri­ fice, which was first played in the pre­ sent game. It should be mentioned that if 197

B e a ting U n u s u a l Ch ess Defe n ce s :

1

White is feeling less ambitious, he can aim for a slight plus with the more modest continuation 9 a3 e6 10 c4 tt::l 5f6 11 .tf4!? (preventing the enemy bishop from occupying its preferred square; 11 tt::lc 3 .td6 gives Black a rea­ sonable game) 11 ...tt::lh 5 ! ? (11 ... .te7 12 tt::lc 3 o-o 13 d5 ! ? gives White some ini­ tiative, as mentioned by Khalifrnan) 12 .te3 .td6 13 tt::lc 3 (White might also consider 13 l:te1!?, intending to meet 13 ... tt::lf4 with 14 .tf1, preserving the bishop pair) 13 ...tt::lf4 14 d5 tt::lx e2+ 15 'ii'x e2 cxd5 16 cxd5 e5 (16...o-o 17 tt::ld4 is pleasant for White, as pointed out by Khalifrnan) 17 tt::l d 2 by when White's strong passed pawn and active pros­ pects on the queenside counted for slightly more than Black's bishop pair in G.Kjartansson-D.Madsen, Hastings 2005/06. g, tt::lb4 ..

e4 10... tt::lc 2

Black has no choice - without this move his previous play would make no sense at all. 11 l:tb1 tt::lb4 12 .te31

Hitherto the only practical encoun­ ter had resulted in a quick move repeti­ tion after 12 l:ta1 tt::l c 2 and V2-V2 in H.Hoeksema-S.Loeffler, Hoogeveen 2004. Instead Smerdon simply allows the rook to be taken - a good decision, as White's initiative turns out to be quite potent. 12 ....txb1 13 ..Wxb1

Black is the exchange up with no weaknesses, but White has a serious lead in development. It is too early to give a definitive theoretical verdict, but practice has shown that Black faces the more difficult problems. 13 ...e6?1 10 tt::lc 31

White continues to develop his pieces towards the centre. 10 tt::le 1 is not completely stupid, but it is no­ where near as much fun as the text. 198

This has been Black's choice in the majority of games, but I find it hard to believe it can be the right move, as White gets an immediate chance to open the centre. Others: a) One recent game saw a new ap-

A le k h i n e 's Defe n ce proach in 13 ...g 5 ! ? 14 a3 tLla6 15 d5 (15 h4! ?) 15 ... c5 (15 ...i.g7 16 tLld4 looks promising for White). This was T.Baron­ L.Piasetski, Jerusalem 2009, and here it looks logical for White to continue with either 16 t2Je4 i.g7 17 tt::lg 3. intending tt::lf 5, or 16 h4 g4 17 tt::ld 2 h5 18 tt::lde4, with a strong initiative in either case. b) I find it surprising that no-one has tried 13 ... g6, which looks like the most logical way to go about complet­ ing development without giving White an easy way to open the position. The best answer looks to be 14 tt::lh 4!, creat­ ing an immediate threat before Black has time to castle.

preparing a timely opening of the posi­ tion with d5. Black is a rook for two pawns up, but his pieces are in utter disarray; I suspect that White is close to winning. b4) 14..."ir'c7 15 a3 tt::la 6 16 tt::l x g6 ! ? (once again this sacrifice looks promis­ ing, although the calmer 16 b4 also leaves White with a fine position, as Black will struggle to find a safe spot for his king) 16 .. .fxg6 17 'iix g6+ 'iti>d8. In this position both 18 tt::le4 and 18 c5 look excellent for White. There is no outright mating attack and we could spend pages analysing the various pos­ sibilities, but I think it is reasonable to stop here and say that Black faces an uphill struggle to survive. 14 a3 tt::la 6 15 dSI

In the absence of any practical en­ counters, I will mention a few sample lines: bt) 14...�g7? 15 tt::lx g6 fxg6? 16 1Vxg 6+ 'itf8 17 �h 5 "ir'e8 18 "ir'f5+ wins. b2) 14... g5 15 tt::lg 6 l:i.g8 16 tt::l xf8 tt::l xf8 17 d5 looks very dangerous for Black. b3) 14 .. .'.a5 is well met by 15 lt:lxg6 ! fxg 6 1 6 "ir'xg6+ �d8 and now 17 l:.d1!, calmly developing the last piece and

Here we see the problem with Black's 13th move. White immediately blasts open the centre before Black can complete development. 1s ... es

This is the only move to have been tested. The most natural alternative looks to be 1S ... cxds 16 cxds es, trying 199

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess D efe n ces:

1

to keep the centre closed. Here White has two ways to break the defence: a) The calm option is 17 i..b s i..d 6 18 'iifs 'iie 7 (or 18 ... g6 19 i.. x d7+ 'iix d7 20 'iif6 l:f.f8 21 tt:'le4 i..e 7 22 i.. xh6 ! i.. xf6 23 tt:'lxf6+, leading to an ending with at least one extra pawn for White) 19 tt:'le4 tt:'lc7 (there is nothing better) 20 'iix d7+ 'iix d7 21 tt:'lxd6+ 1;e7 22 i..x d7 1;xd6 23 i.. a4 tt:'lxds 24 l:f.d1 and White should win this ending without too much trouble. b) The flashier method is 17 tt:'lxe s ! ? tt:'lxes 1 8 .tbs+ tt:'ld7 (18. . .'ite7 19 i..d4 f6 20 f4 is crushing) 19 l:.e1 i..e 7 and now White keeps a big advantage with 20 i..g S ! hxg s 21 d6 tt:'lacs (or 2 1 ... 0-o 22 dxe7 'ili'c8 23 exf8'ii+ tt:'lxf8 24 l:.e8) 22 l:f.xe7+ 1;f8 (22 ...'iix e7 23 dxe7 should also be winning for White) 23 'iifs tt:'lf6 24 'iix cs, retaining a huge attack for a tiny material investment, with the principal threat being i.. c4.

e4 have given White a powerful initiative. 16 cs ...

Black is desperately trying to keep the position closed. 16 ... cxd5 is probably no worse than the text, although Black is still in trou­ ble after 17 tt:'lxds i.. c s 18 b4 i.. x e3 19 tt:'lxe3. 17 d61

17 g6 ...

After 17 ...ikb6 the strongest con­ tinuation looks to be 18 tt:'le4 0-0-0 (18 .. .fs is well met by 19 tt:'lc3 ! g6 20 tt:'lh4 l:.g8 21 tt:'lxg6!) 19 b4 with a con­ tinuing attack. 18 b41

Black is not given a moment's res­ pite. Now he must worry about the pawn advancing to bs. Three games have reached this position, with White scoring 100%. 1s .fs ..

16 l:.d1

Also not bad is 16 dxc6 bxc6 17 l:.d1 ikc7 as in W.Hendriks-A.Green, Hast­ ings 2008/09, and here 18 b4! would 200

A more recent game continued 18 ... l:.c8 19 ike4 i..g 7 20 ikxb7 tt:'lab8 2 1 tt:Jds l:.c6 22 tt:'lc7+ 'ito>f8 and here in A.Reshetnikov-Y.Prokopchuk, Moscow 2010, the simplest winning continua-

A le k h i n e 's D efe n ce tion looks to be 2 3 ir'xa7 intending bs when Black's position is hopeless. 19 bxcs ir'cB

No better is 19 ... e4 20 'ii'x b7 .i.g7 (20 ... ttJaxcs 2 1 .i.xcs ttJxcs 22 ir'c6+ c'Lld7 23 ttJes wins) 21 c6 o-o 22 cxd7 f4 23 ttJxe4 fxe3 24 'it'xa6 exf2+ 2 5 ttJxf2 1-0 G.Papp-S.Loeffler, Austrian League 2008.

ttJe7 .i.xe7 26 dxe7 ir'c6 27 g3 ttJaxcs 28 .i.xcs ttJxcs 29 'ii'x eS+ 'it>h7 30 l:d6 l:g s 3 1 'it'f6 'it'xd6 32 'it'xd6 :xhs 3 3 ir'd8 with an easily winning endgame. 23 ttJd S+ 'it>e6 24 .i.g4 1-o

A nice way to kick off the chapter! Let's now see a more recent example where Black played less provocatively.

20 tLlh41

Game 39 N.Mamedov-A.Mirzoev Baku 2010 1 e4 ttJf6 2 e s tLlds 3 d4 d6 4 tLlf3 dxes s ttJxes c6 6 .i.e2 .i.fs 7 o-o tLld7 8 tLlf3 e6

This is more solid than 8 ... h6. Black focuses on normal development, with­ out trying to be too clever. 9 C4

Having made inroads on the queen­ side, White now switches his attention to the kingside. A few simple sacrifices are all it takes to smash through Black's flimsy barriers. 20.. .'1t>F7

20 .. J1g8 runs into 2 1 ttJxg6 lhg6 22 .ih s. 21 tLlxg6

White could have won more quickly with 21 .i.h S ! , but the move played should not affect the outcome. 21 ...�xg6 22 .i.hS+ 'iW6?

The only chance to prolong the g ame was 22 ... 'li>g7, although it is clear that Black is on his last legs. My main line runs 23 'ii'xfs l:g8 24 �ds �h8 2 5

g ttJsf6 ...

9 ...�b4?! is risky and in fact White has more than one good answer: a) 10 �c3 ! ? ttJc2 was seen in R.Zelcic-E.Rozentalis, Dresden Olym­ piad 2008, and here White should have 201

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess D efe n ces:

1

played 11 :b1 lbb4 12 ..tg5! f6 (12 .....te7 13 ..txe7 'it'xe7 14 .:lc1 gives White a pleasant edge) 13 ..te3 ..txb1 14 'ii'xb1 with promising compensation for the exchange, as pointed out by Taylor. The situation is not entirely dis­ similar to that from the previous game. b) 10 a3 lbc2 11 :a2 and Black has tried two moves here: b1) 11 ... c5? was played in L.Vogt­ S.Loeffler, Austrian League 2002, and here White could have won more or less by force with 12 dxc5! lbxc5 (12 ... ..txc5 is met by 13 lbc3 intending b4, winning material; 12 ... lbf6 13 b4 'ii'x d1 14 ..txd1 lbxb4 15 axb4 ..txb1 16 ..ta4+ intending :d2 is winning for White, as pointed out by Khalifrnan) 13 b4 'ii'xd1 14 ..txd1 lbxb4 15 axb4 ..txb1 16 :d2 lbd7 17 ..ta4 0-0-0 18 :fd1 and wins - analysis by Khalifrnan. b2) 11 ...lbxd4 12 'ii'xd4 ..txb1 (12 ... c5 13 'ii'c 3 ..txb1 14 ..tg5 f6 15 :xb1 fxg 5 16 'ii'e 3 ..te7 was M.Carlsen-D.Madsen, Trondheim 2004, and now after the straightforward 17 'ii'x e6 Black is in a mess and will almost certainly have to shed a pawn) 13 ..tg5 f6 14 :xb1 fxg 5 15 %:td1 ..te7 was seen in T.Gharamian­ A.Barthel, Boblingen 2007, and here the simplest continuation looks to be 16 'ii'x g7 �f6 17 'ii'h 6 'iiie 7 18 lbd2 o-o-o 19 lbe4 when White benefits from a better structure and safer king, and will soon solve the problem of the wayward rook with b4 and l:td2. 10 lLlc3 �d6 11 ltJh41

Compared with the previous game, 202

e4 the absence of the move ...h 6 has cer­ tain drawbacks, most notably the lack of a retreat square for the light­ squared bishop.

11.....tg6 12 g3

White delays capturing, just in case Black gets any ideas about utilizing the open h-file for an attack. Besides, the text move will be useful in its own right as it helps to restrict what will soon be Black's sole remaining bishop. 12 0-0 ...

In another game Black tried to do without castling, with painful results: 12 ...ltJe4 13 ttJxg6 lbxc3 14 bxc3 hxg6 15 c s ! ? (it was possible to play more patiently with 15 .l:.e1, but there is no reason to refrain from the direct ap­ proach) 15 ... ..tc7 16 .l:.b1 l:tb8 (16 ... b6 17 �f3 is awkward) 17 ..tf3 'ii'f6?! (pre­ sumably Black found the prospect of 17 ...0-0 18 'ii'a4 unappealing, but the text move leads to even greater diffi­ culties) 18 h4 'ii'f 5? 19 �g 5 and in view of the threats to trap the queen, Black was forced to jettison material in N.Guliyev-S.loeffier, Vienna 2009.

A l e k h in e 's Defen ce 13 i.f3 a6?1

It is hard to guess the motivation for this time-wasting move. 13 ... es was more to the point, al­ though White still keeps an edge after 14 ct:Jxg6 hxg6 15 ds. 14 ct:Jxg6 hxg6 15 .i.g2 e5

Black needs to try and free his posi­ tion at some point. The other typical break for such a position would be ... cs, but here Black wants to restrict the bishop on g2. 16 d5

... tUes. Black has no real counterplay and White can take his time to prepare g4, with the ultimate aim of exploiting some of those juicy light squares. 2 1 l:.e2 4.J8h7 22 l:.de1 'ikd7 23 a4 g51?

Fed up with waiting passively, Black embarks on an active plan - an under­ standable though somewhat risky pol­ icy. 24 h3 g4 25 hxg4 'ikxg4 26 lbe4

Usually in positions with this mate­ rial balance, White would prefer to keep his remaining knight on the board, but otherwise here ... lbgs would have been mildly annoying. 26 ...lbxe4 27 'ikxe4

16 ...c5

16 ... cxd5 would open the diagonal for the unopposed bishop and after 17 tUxds .l:tc8 18 b3 White keeps an edge.

27 ...'ikxe4

17 .:!.e1 'ikc7 18 'ikd3 l:.fe8 19 .i.d2 l:.adB 20 l:tadl 'Llf8

This leads to a difficult ending, al­ though it is hardly surprising that Black was not attracted by the position re­ sulting from 27 ... 'ikd7 28 as, when the combination of pressure against the es-pawn and potential kingside threats involving the open h-file would spell serious problems for the defender.

Another natural-looking idea was 20 ...4.Jh7 intending .. .fs. Play might continue 21 'it>h 1 Uust about any rea­ sonable alternative is possible, but it is the next move that really matters) 21 ...fs and here it is essential for White to play 22 f3 !, preventing Black from freeing his position with ... e4 and

28 .i.xe4 g6 29 .i.c2 l:.e7 30 .i.c3 tt:lf6?

After this Black's position crumbles 203

B e a ting U n u s u a l Ch ess Defe n ce s :

1

to dust. The only chance to resist was 30 ....�)f8 3 1 f4 {31 �xes? l:tde8) 31...f6, not that this would have been much fun for Black either.

31 f4 :deS 32 fxes tt::ld 7 33 e6 fxe6 34 .l:lh2 1-0

34 ..txg6 would have been even stronger, but the move played was good enough to force resignation. The finish might have been 34... es 35 ..txg6 .l:lf8 36 ..te4 tt::lf6 37 l:.h6 when White keeps an extra pawn and full control over the position. In the next two games we will turn our attention to set-ups where Black delays the development of the c8bishop.

Game 40 Z.Efimenko-L.D. Nisipeanu

European Championship, Rijeka 2010 1 e4 tt::lf6 2 es tt::ld s 3 d4 d6 4 tt::lf3 dxes s tt::lx es c6 6 �e2 tt::ld 7

2 04

e4

This time Black knight immediately.

challenges the

7 tt::lf31

Once again we see this thematic re­ treat, avoiding exchanges for the time being. 7 ... g6

The kingside fianchetto is quite logical, although a few other ideas have also been seen: a) The rare 7 ... 'ilc7 8 0-0 e6 was seen in V.Anand-S.Mamedyarov, Nice {blind­ fold) 2008, and now 9 l:.e1 looks sensi­ ble, intending c4 and meeting a possi­ ble .. .'�Jf4 with ..tf1. b) 7 ...tt::l 7f6 is possible and after 8 o-o Black must decide where to develop his bishop: b1) 8 ....Us 9 tt::lh 4 {9 a3 intending c4 also looks good) when Black can play: b11) 9 . ..td7 10 c4 tt::lb 6 11 tt::lc 3 g6 was seen in V.Meribanov-D.Danilenko, Moscow 2009, and now the simplest route to an edge looks to be 12 h3 �g7 13 tLlf3 when Black's queenside pieces are less than ideally placed. b12) 9 . ..tg6 10 c4 lLlb6 11 tt::lc 3 e6 ..

.

.

A le k h i n e 's D efe n c e 12 g 3 i.e7 13 i.e3 flc7 14 lt:Jxg6 hxg6 1S 'irb3 l:.d8 16 l:.fd1 o-o 17 l:.ac1 sees White obtain a pleasant edge thanks to his space advantage and two bishops.

bishop pair gave White a slight plus in S.Karjakin-M.Carlsen, Nice (rapid) 2008) 9 ... ..ixe2 10 'ii'x e2 e6 11 c4 lt:Je7 12 l:.d1 lt:Jg6 13 lt:Jc3 flc7 14 g3 and now:

We will follow the game for a while longer, as Anand's play is highly in­ structive: 17 ... es (Black decides his best chance is to aim for counterplay on the dark squares) 18 dS (threatening d6, winning a piece) 18 ...lt:Jbd7 19 i.f3 i.cs 20 ..ixcs tt:Jxcs 21 fia3 b6 22 b4 e4 2 3 i.e2 lt:Jb7 ( 2 3 ...tt:Jcd7 i s well met by 24 d6 followed by cs, with a mighty passed pawn) 24 flxa7 (24 dxc6 flxc6 2S tt::ld s was also strong, but the text leads practically by force to a winning ending) 24...l:.a8 2S d6 .l:l.xa7 26 dxc7 .l:l.c8 D 27 cs! bxcs 28 bs cxbs 29 tt:Jxbs l:txa2 30 i.f1 and White had no prob­ lem converting his advantage in V.Anand-M.Carlsen, Nice (blindfold) 2008. b2) 8 ...i.g4 9 tt:Jes ! ? (this should leads to a slight edge; nevertheless, th ere was also nothing wrong with 9 h3 i.xf3 10 i.xf3 e6 11 C4 lt:Jb6 12 b3 il.e7 13 i..b 2 0-0 14 lt:Jd2 when the

b21) 14.....te7 1S h4 o-o 16 i.gs and White had a pleasant initiative in K.Sasikiran-E.Rozentalis, Warsaw 2008. b22) The untested 14...i.d6 !? seems like a more principled way to develop, although in his annotations Sasikiran shows that White keeps an edge here as well: 1S tt:Jxg6 hxg6 16 dS 0-0! (or 16 ... 0-0-0 17 i.e3 ! with some initiative for White) 17 i.e3 ! ? (17 dxe6 .l:l.ae8 18 exf7+ fixf7 offers Black some compen­ sation) 17 ... exds 18 cxds l:.fe8 (after 18 ...l:.ae8 19 dxc6 bxc6 20 fif3 .l:l.e6 21 l:.ac1 the c-pawn is a permanent weak­ ness) 19 dxc6 flxc6 20 fibs fixbs 21 tt:Jxbs i.es 22 lt:Jd6 l:.e7 (22 ...i.xd6 23 l:.xd6 lt:Jg4 24 i.d4 is a similar story) 23 tt::lc4 lt:Jg4 24 tt:Jxes l:.xes 2 S i.d4 l:.e2 26 h3 lt:Jf6 2 7 l:.ac1 and White's superior minor piece gives him the better chances in the ending. (This analysis is taken from Sasikiran's excellent anno­ tations.) 205

B e a ting U n u s u a l Ch ess Defe n ce s :

1

Returning to 7 ...g6: 8 0-0 �87 9 C4

e4 g 3 Black has real problems) 1 9 dxc6! (White can keep an edge with a simple move like 19 l:td2, but it is even better to open the position before Black catches up in development) 19 ... l:txd1 20 J:txd1 'ii'x c6 (if 20 ...bxc6 21 �cs)

9 .tt:J sf6 ..

9 . ..Ci'Jc7 has been played more fre­ quently, although it seems doubtful that Black can equalize here: 10 tbc3 0-0 11 �f4 tt:Je6 12 �e3 (White is happy to lose a tempo as the knight on e6 pre­ vents Black from freeing his game with ... es) 12 ...tbf6 13 h3 'fkc7 (in the event of 13 ... b6, as in C.Bauer-S.Mamedyarov, Merida 2005, I would suggest 14 'ii'd 2 followed by centralizing the rooks, with a typical slight plus) 14 'ii'd2 l:td8 1 5 :fd1 tt:Jh s 1 6 'fke1 tt:Jef4 17 �f1 h 6 . This position was reached in C.Lupulescu­ M.Grunberg, Bucharest 2008, as well as the subsequent game A.Bokros­ M.Grunberg, Austrian League 2009. At this point it looks quite promising for White to play 18 dS!. White increases his space advantage and sets up the threat of g4, intending to meet ...tt:Jf6 with d6, winning material. A possible continuation is 18 ... es (after the sequence 18 ... gs 19 �d4! g4 20 �es �xes 21 'ii'x es 'ii'x es 22 lt:Jxes gxh 3 23 206

2 1 tt:Jxe S ! (this small combination nets a pawn) 21 ... �xes (21 ... tt:Jxh 3+ 22 gxh 3 �xes 23 �xh6) 22 �xf4 �xf4 2 3 l:td8+ 'iii>h 7 ( 2 3 ...'iii>g 7? 2 4 'fke7 i s even worse) 24 'fke7 'fkf6 25 'ii'e 8 'ii'g 7 26 l:txc8 l:txc8 27 'fixeS when White has good winning chances in the ending. 10 tt:Jc3 o-o 11 �f4 tt:Jhs The bishop was rather irritating on the h2-b8 diagonal and I suppose Nisipeanu wanted to drive it away be­ fore White could secure its position with h3. 1 2 �gSI Provoking a barely perceptible weakening of the black kingside. 12 h6 ...

With the benefit of hindsight Black may have done better to refrain from this move, although in any case it is obvious that he has failed to equali ze

A le k h i n e 's Defe n ce from the opening.

19 gxh6 i..f6 20 tt:'Je4

13 i..e 3 'iWc7 14 'iWd2

Here we see the first benefit of White's 12th move: he wins a tempo for development. 14...'ii'h 7 15 l:.ad1 l:.dB?

As incredible as it may sound, this is already a decisive error! 16 g411

White could have maintained a pleasant edge with the straightforward 16 .:tfel, but the text move yields a huge advantage. 16 ...tt:'Jhf6 17 i..f41

Before cracking open the kingside, White first drives the enemy queen to an unfavourable square. 1 1.. 'iWb6 18 gs ttJhs .

18 ...hxg 5 19 tt:'Jxg S+ 'it>g8 is refuted by 20 cs! when it transpires that Black is in trouble on both sides of the board: 2 o ... 'iWas 21 b4! (21 tt:'Jds ! ? 'iWxd2 22 lUxe? + 'ii'f8 23 l:.xd2 is also strong, but the text should win outright) 2 1 ...'iWxb4 22 i.. c 7! And White wins, as apart from th e attack on the dB-rook, he also threatens to trap the enemy queen.

Threatening to carve open the king­ side with tt:'Jfg S+ followed by i.. xh s. 20...tt:'Jxf4 21 'iWxf4

The loss of the bishop pair is of no consequence, as White's attack is too powerful. 21 ...l:.f8 22 est

Making room for the bishop to join the action. 22 ... 'iWxb2

After 22 ...'iWb4 White might have in­ creased the pressure with 23 l:.fel or even 23 b 3 ! ?, intending i..c4. 23 i..c4 'ii'h B 24 tt:'JfgS i..x gs

Exchanging this valuable defender looks suicidal, but how else could Black attempt to defend f7? Instead 24 ... es 25 dxes 'iWxes 26 'iWxes tt:'Jxes 27 tt::lxf6 tt::lxc4 28 tt::lxf7+ forces mate. 25 tt::lx gs f6 26 tt::lf7+ 'it>h7 27 l:.fe1

After this move all five of White's remaining pieces are actively partici­ pating in the attack, not to mention the pawn on h6. Compare Black's scat­ tered forces, with the queen marooned on b2 and two of his queenside pieces 207

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess Defe n ces:

1

e4

having not even moved. It is hardly surprising that the game is soon over. 27 ... lie8 28 tt'lg5+ 'itr>h8

7 c4 tt'lc7

Highlighting one of the points be­ hind Black's fifth move. 29 tt'le6

8 tt'lc3 �g7 9 �e3 o-o

White could have crushed all resis­ tance immediately and in fine style with 29 'Wd6!, but the text move is good enough to get the job done.

Here White can try something a lit­ tle more adventurous than usual:

29 ... bs 30 �b3 as 31 tt'lc7 a4 32 �f7 es 33 'Wg3 1-0

Game 41 P Svidler A Baburin -

.

.

Bun ratty 2009 1 e4 tt'lf6 2 es tt'ld s 3 d4 d6 4 tt'lf3 dxes s tt'lxes c6 6 ..ie2 g6

This bears a close resemblance to the Kengis variation (s ... g6), which will be examined in the next game. Since the early ... c6 has rendered Black's de­ velopment a little slower than it would usually be in that line, White can con­ duct the opening more aggressively than normal. First he drives the enemy knight away from the centre. 208

10 f41?

White should never play such a move lightly against Alekhine's De­ fence, as committal, space-gaining moves can often overextend White's position and play into the hands of the defender. The present case is an excep­ tion and a good example of what I would call 'controlled aggression'. That being said, I should mention too that the quieter 10 o-o tt'ld7 11 tt'lf3 should also suffice for a slight plus. The position is the same as was reached in the note to Black's 9th move in the previous game, except that the black knight is on c7 instead of e6. Black has tried several moves here, but in most cases White keeps a pleasant edge with natural moves. The most principled option looks to be 11 es and now it seems promising for ...

A lekh in e 's Defe n ce White to try the untested 12 'ii'e 2!?, maintaining the central tension. Play might continue 12 ... exd4 (after 12 ... l:.e8 White can continue to strengthen his position with 13 .:tad1) 13 ttJxd4 intending l:tad1 when White keeps a slight pull. 10...ltJd7 11 0-0

l:.xc8 16 ..txd4 cxd4 17 'ii'xd4 'ii'c 7 Black regains his pawn with a reasonable game. 12 fxes

12 cs?l ...

11 ttJxes ...

11 . .ltJe6 should be met by 12 i.g4 when Black has tried two moves: a) 12 ...ltJb6 was seen in V.Durarbeyli-D.Bulanov, Sibenik 2007, and here White could have kept control with the simple 13 b3. b) 12 ...ttJxes was played in Y.Vovk­ E.Miroshnichenko, Cappelle la Grande 2009, and here the ambitious con­ tinuation would have been 13 fxes (the g ame continuation of 13 dxes f6 14 exf6 i.xf6 was not too dangerous for Bl a ck). Perhaps White was concerned about 13 ... cs, but it seems to me that after 14 ds (14 ..txe6!? ..txe6 15 d5 ..tf5 1 6 �f4 also looks pretty good) 14...tt::\d4 15 ..tf4! White keeps an edge. However, it should be noted that after 15 ..txc8 .

Undermining the centre is the pri­ mary strategic aim which underlies Black's whole opening, but in this par­ ticular position White's pieces are much better equipped to deal with the change in the position. Black could have minimized his disadvantage with one of the following alternatives: a) 12 ...f6 13 exf6 exf6 14 ds :es 15 'ii'd 2 cxds 16 cxds i.f8 was seen in Y.Vovk-H.Streit, Vlissingen 2009, and here 17 i.c4 ..td6 18 i.d4 would have given White a strong initiative. b) The safest continuation seems to be 12 ... i.e6 13 ltJe4 (13 'ii'd 2 also looks reasonable) 13 .....tfs (13 .. .f6 can be met by 14 exf6 exf6 15 ltJc5), as played in T.Stepovaia Dianchenko-T.Chekhova Kostina, Elista 1994. At this point White should have continued 14 ..tf3, main­ taining a slight plus. 13 dxcsl

209

B e a t ing U n u s u a l Chess D efe n ces:

1

13 dS ..txes 14 ..txcs was good enough for a slight edge, but Svidler's choice is more dynamic and just a stronger move. 13 ...i.xe5 14 -.e1

e4 lems after 16 l:d1 ..txe3+ 17 -.xe3 'ii'a s 18 c6 bxc6 19 ..txc6 l:b8 20 ttJds. 16 l:d1

From this point on, it is hard to offer much advice to Black. 16 ...a5?1

From here Black will have real trou­ ble coordinating his position. 14... ..td4?1 This exchanging manoeuvre costs valuable time. The best chance was 14...ltJe6 1S l:td1 -.as when White can choose be­ tween two advantageous though not yet decisive continuations: a) 16 ..tf3 ..txc3 17 bxc3 reac)1es a position in which White's bishop pair and active pieces are more relevant than his dubious queenside structure. b) After 16 ttJds -.xe1 17 tbxe7+ 'iitg 7 18 l:fxe1 ..txb2 19 i.f3 i.c3 20 .l:.e2 l:d8 21 l:xd8 ttJxd8 22 c6 bxc6 23 tbxc6 we have reached an ending in which Black will soon drop a pawn, al­ though the win is still a long way off for White. 15 ..tf3 e5 15 ... 4Je6 fails to solve Black's prob210

This slow move does not help, but even after the superior 16 ... 4Je6 White increases his initiative by simple means: 17 ttJbs (17 ..txd4 exd4 18 ttJds is also strong) 17 .....txe3+ 18 -.xe3 'ii'e 7 (now White wins a pawn with a forcing sequence) 19 tbd6 f6 20 c6 bxc6 2 1 ..txc6 l:b8 22 ttJxc8 l:fxc8 23 l:d7 -.cs 24 -.xes ttJxcs 2S ..tds+ 'itr>h8 26 l:xa7 fs 27 b3 and the endgame should be an easy win. 17 ..txd4 exd4 18 •es tbe6 19 ttJbs -.e7 20 tbd6

20 .'ir'c7 ••

After 2o ... 'ii'g s 21 'ii'x g s ttJxgs 22 l:xd4 White is a pawn up with a domi­ nating position. 2 1 ..td5 l:a6

21 ... 'ii'x cs is refuted by 22 ttJxf7!. 22 �h1

Black is virtually paralysed,

so

A le k h i n e 's Defe n ce svidler takes a sensible precaution be­ fore preparing a final assault. 22

...

h5 2 3 l:lf6 1-0

Black resigned as he is helpless against the simple plan of doubling on th e f-file. That concludes our coverage of the fashionable s ... c6 variation. We will now move on to some of Black's alter­ natives on the fifth move, beginning with the solid kingside fianchetto.

Game 42 G.Kasparov-M.Adams

Li nares 1997 1 e4 tt:lf6 2 es tt:ld s 3 d4 d6 4 tt:lf3 dxes s tlJxes g6

6 .tc4

This has been White's most popular choice, although there has been some debate as to his most promising con­ tinuation. The other move that I strongly considered recommending was 6 g 3. when the soon-to-be fi­ anchettoed bishop will help White to exert positional pressure. If the reader wishes to investigate this option in more detail, I will just mention that the most relevant high-level game, and the best starting point for any analysis, is the encounter V.Anand-M.Adams, Linares 1994. To be honest I consider 6 .ic4 and 6 g3 to be equally promising and the decision to recommend the former was partially influenced by the fact that the aforementioned Anand­ Adams game has been analysed in de­ tail by numerous other commentators, and it was tough to find anything new to contribute. 6 ... c6

This variation bears the name of the Latvian Grandmaster Edvins Kengis, Who used it with considerable success i n the 1990s. His games and ideas have Played an important role in shaping the modern-day understanding of the resulting positions.

This has been Black's choice in the great majority of games, although a few other moves have been tried. a) Black should certainly avoid 6 ... .tg7? 7 tt:lxf7 �xf7 8 'ii'f3+ �e8 (8 .. .<�e6? 9 ii'e4+ �f6? 10 ..txds e6 was K.Gentes-D.Herkert, Winnipeg 2005, and now 11 ii'f3+ �e7 12 ..tgs+ wins the queen) 9 ..txds l:lf8 10 ii'h3 c6 11 ..tf3 ii'xd4 12 0-0 when White had an obvious advantage in R.Ramesh­ M.Mishra, Jalandhar 2000. b) 6 ... it.e6 ! ? is playable, although the most likely outcome will be a transpo211

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess D efe n ces:

1

sition to note 'b' t o Black's 9th move in the main game. With 7 0-0 (White can also consider playing more aggressively with 7 lLic3 i.g7 8 lt:Je4, although with­ out going into too many details, I doubt that this is objectively any better than the calmer course of action I am recommending) 7 ... i.g7 8 .:tel 0-0 9 i.b3 White continues just as in the main Kasparov-Adams game.

e4 position, in which White's d4-pawn gives him slightly more space and cen­ tral control. In principle this should make his position a little easier to han­ dle. On the other hand, if he plays without conviction then the defender will have excellent chances to neutral­ ize his initiative by means of a well­ timed ... cs break, after which the g7bishop may come into its own. Experts such as Kengis have practically made a career out of executing precisely that type of strategy. In the present game and accompanying notes I will endeav­ our to show you how White can main­ tain control of the position and nurture his slight opening edge into a more tangible advantage. 9 �b3

I seriously doubt that Black can benefit from omitting ... c6 indefinitely, for instance: 9 ... lt:Jd7 (9 ... c6 is the aforementioned transposition) 10 lLif3 lLI7f6 (10 ... c6 11 lLig s is awkward), as in W.Hendriks-A.Matthaei, Munster 1993, and here White could have obtained some advantage by means of 11 c4 (11 l:txe6! ? fxe6 12 'fiel is also interesting; White should always keep an eye open for exchange sacrifices whenever the black bishop appears on e6) 11 ... lt:Jb6 12 l:txe6! ? (12 dS should also suffice for an edge) 12 .. .fxe6 13 'fiel with promis­ ing compensation. 7 o-o i.g7 8 l:te1 o-o We have reached a standard type of 212

White retreats the bishop from its slightly exposed position and waits to see how Black intends to arrange his pieces. 9 lt:Jd7 Here are a few other examples to show how the game might unfold: a) 9 ... as 10 c4! ? (in certain position s ...

A le k h i n e 's Defe n ce White may prefer to stabilize his centre with c3, but since Black's last move failed to develop a piece, the more ac­ tive approach does not look out of place) 10. ..lt:Jb6 11 ll'lc3 .i.e6! ? (Black is playing rather provocatively, but by no means badly) 12 ds .i.fs 13 .i.f4 cxds 14 cxds ll'la6 was seen in O.Wegener­ J.Palkovi, Budapest 2000. So far White's play has been absolutely logical and at this point it seems to me that the most principled approach would have been 15 g4! ? .i.c8 (1S ... .i.d7 16 .i.g s ! is awk­ ward for Black) 16 d6!? (White can also keep an edge through quieter means with 16 a3 tt:Jcs 17 .i.a2 when his active pieces are a more significant factor than his slightly loose kingside) 16 .. .'ii'xd6 (16 ... exd6? 17 ll'lxf7! l:txf7 18 i.xd6 is horrible for Black) 17 ._f3 ! (af­ ter 17 -.xd6 exd6 18 tt:Jxf7 l:.xf7 Black survives).

In this complex position White m aintains a dangerous initiative which easily makes up for the sacrificed pawn. The computer's main line con­ ti nue s 17 ... e6 18 lt:lc4 (but obviously

not 18 tt:Jxg6?? fxg6 ! when the bishop is pinned along the newly opened f-file) 18 ...-.d8 19 l:.ad1 ll'lds and at this point both 20 .i.d6 and 20 ll'le3 look excellent for White. b) According to Taylor 9 ... .i.e6 is Black's most precise move. He may well be right, although I doubt that the sec­ ond player can achieve full equality in any case. Black's main idea is to ex­ change the light-squared bishops, in order to rob the white position of some of its dynamism. This idea makes a good deal of sense, especially when we consider that Black's main strategic idea is to prepare ... cs. After 10 ll'ld2 I considered two branches of analysis:

b1) The immediate 10...tt:Jc7 should be met by either 11 ll'ldf3 or 11 ll'le4. Please pay attention to the following point: if Black wishes to exchange the light-squared bishops, then we should endeavour to make sure that the ex­ change takes place on the b3-square rather than e6. The subsequent axb3 will benefit White by opening the a-file for his rook, as well as subtly increasing 213

B e a t i n g U n u s u a l Ch ess Defe n ce s :

1

his central control by bringing the a­ pawn closer to that crucial area of the board. b2) 10... ttJd7

11 ttJef3 ! (as is customary for the Alekhine, White does not mind retreat­ ing his knight from the centre in order to avoid unnecessary exchanges, which would relieve the congestion in Black's position) 11 ... ttJc7 (11 ... a5 should be met by 12 c3 when White will soon be ready to start thinking about .l:.xe6 ideas; it is a little too early, though, for 12 .l:.xe6?! fxe6 13 ttJg 5 i.xd4 when White's compensation is questionable) 12 ttJe4 .txb3 (perhaps Black should have avoided this move, although the tension between the bishops was pre­ venting the c7-knight from moving, while the d7-knight was having to re­ main in place to prevent ttJe4-c5; the best response to 12 ... a5 is once again 13 c3 ! ensuring that any bishop ex­ change will take place on b3) 13 axb3 ttJe6 14 c3 .l:.e8 15 h4! ttJf6 16 ttJeg 5 ttJxg5 17 hxg 5 saw White has permit the exchange of a few pieces, but only 214

e4 on his own terms, with both exchanges helping him to improve his pawn structure. Black had failed to obtain any counterplay and was gradually outplayed in M.Adams-Tu Hoang Thong, Yerevan Olympiad 1996. Returning to 9 ...ttJd7: 10 ttJf3

10 ttJ7f6 ...

Another game continued 10....l:.e8 11 .tg5 ttJ7f6 12 ttJbd2 h6 13 .th4 .tg4 14 h3 ..txf3 15 ttJxf3 when White's bishop pair gave him a pleasant edge in L.Yudasin-Rasmussen, Calgary 1996. 11 c4 ttJc7 11 ... ttJb6 is also possible. Just as in the main game White should respond with 12 h3 when Black must decide how to develop the c8-bishop: a) 12 ....te6 rather invites the the­ matic sacrifice 13 .l:.xe6! ? (13 ttJbd2 and 13 'il'e2 are both decent alternatives) 13 .. .fxe6. Now Taylor mentions the plausible continuation 14 ttJc3 'ii'd 7 15 'ii'e 2 ttJh 5 16 'ii'e4 ttJf6 17 'ifh4 ttJh 5 18 .te3 when White maintains excellent compensation.

A le k h in e 's D efe n c e b) 12 ... .i.f5 13 ltJc3 'ikc7 14 .i.g 5 .i.e6 1 5 "ii'e 2 (Taylor notes that 15 l:txe6!? is p ossible here as well, but the game continuation demonstrates that White can also improve his position without the exchange sacrifice) 15 ... l:tfe8 16 �e3 ttJc8 17 ltJg5 l:tf8? (I am at a loss to explain this dreadful move; 17 ....i.d7 was necessary when White keeps a clear advantage after 18 l:tadl, but the win would be a long way off) 18 ttJxe6 fxe6 19 .i.g5 and White soon tri­ umphed in J.Gallagher-G.Lukasiewicz, Bern 1990. 12 h31

subsequently received a practical test in 2003: 13 ltJe5 (the computer sug­ gests 13 'ike2 .i.e6 14 ltJa3 bxc4 15 ttJxc4 .i.d5 16 ttJce5 with a plus for White; nevertheless, there is something appealing about forcing Black's light­ squared bishop on to the unfavourable b7-square) 13 ... .i.b7 14 lDC3 ltJd7 15 ltJg4! ? (15 .i.g5) 15 ... e6. This was J.Aguera Naredo-J. Rodriguez Fernan­ dez, Oviedo 2003, and at this point my own preference would be 16 c5!, secur­ ing an outpost on d6 and burying the b7-bishop for the foreseeable future. Alternatively 16 .i.h6 ! ? would force the exchange of Black's best piece while maintaining more fluidity in the cen­ tre. 13 ltJc3

13 dxcs and 13 dS were decent al­ ternatives, but Kasparov's choice works well. 13 ...cxd4 14 ttJxd4

It is useful to prevent ....i.g4. Com­ pared with the note to Black's lOth move above, the big difference here is that the d4-pawn can no longer be bol­ stered by c2-C3, so White should be careful about allowing the f3-knight to be exchanged. Now Black will have a hard time finding a meaningful role for hi s light-squared bishop . 12 cs 12 . . b5!? was mentioned as an in­ ...

.

teresting alternative by Psakhis and

The position resembles that from the next game, Lutz-Tischbierek. The pieces are arranged slightly differently on both sides, but the core characteris215

B e a ting U n u s u a l Ch ess D efe n ces:

1

tics are the same: the pawn structures are practically identical and, just as we will see in Game 43, White's active pieces enable him to make more effec­ tive use of his queenside majority.

e4 along the open a-file and lL:\bs was a constant worry. 2 1 �f41

14...lL:\e6

14...'ii'd6 fails to equalize after 15 �e3 l:td8 16 lL:\dbs lL:\xbs 17 lL:\xbs. as noted by Psakhis. 15 �e3 lL:\xd4 16 'ii'xd4 �e6

In the event of 16 ... 'ii'xd4 17 �xd4 Black faces a difficult defensive task.

With most of the action taking place on the queenside over the past few moves, it was easy to forget that the e7-pawn was also vulnerable. 21 ...1Wc6

Psakhis points out that 21 .. .'..d7? was unplayable due to 22 l:tad1 'ii'e 8 23 �d6 and White wins. 22 .l:.xe7 lL:\ds 17 'ii'h 41?

17 l:tad1 looks more natural, but it turns out that Kasparov has cooked up a typically imaginative way to utilize the rook's presence on the a-file. 17 ...'ii'a 5 18 csl �xb3

Perhaps this was too cooperative. Psakhis suggests 18 ... �d7! ? 19 �d4 l:Ue8 as an improvement, although White keeps an edge here too after 20 l:tad1 .:tad8 21 �c4. 19 axb3 'ii'c 7 20 b4 a6

This is rather slow, although Black was clearly worse in any case. The rook was exerting unpleasant pressure 216

This is the only decent attempt to stir up problems for White. 23 lL:\xds 'iix ds 24 'ii'g41

This excellent move is the best way for White to maintain control. It is in­ structive to observe how Kasparov is in no way desperate to preserve his extra pawn and instead focuses on improv­ ing his pieces, specifically by preparin g ideas such as .:td1 and/or 'ii'd 7. 24...l:tae8?1

This leads quickly to a lost endgame. Alternatives were: a) 24 ... �xb2 was also unsatisfactory due to 2 5 l:d1 when White's pieces are

A le k h i n e 's D efe n c e far too active and Black will soon be forced to shed material. b) A better chance was 24 ... .:tad8! ? (Psakhis), preventing White's two main threats of .:tdl and 'ii'd 7. From here a sensible continuation would be 2 5 ..td6 .:r.fe8 (or 25 ...i.xb2 26 .:tdl 'ii'c 6 27 l::tb l intending .:tc7) 26 .:txe8+ l::tx e8 2 7 'ii'd 7 �e4 28 f3 when White will pick up the b7-pawn and should ultimately win, but care would still be required. 25 'ii'd 71

could have resisted more stubbornly with 30 ... h 5 , although there is no ques­ tion that White's extra pawn should suffice for victory in the long run. 31 .:tc11 l:.xb4 32 c6

The rampant c-pawn, combined with the vulnerability of Black's pieces, is too much for the defender to bear. 3 2 ....:td4

Alternatives are equally futile, one example being 32 ...l:.c4 33 c7 Wg7 34 l:txC3, winning. 3 3 C7 1·0

A possible finish is 33 .. Jixd6 34 l:tb8 .:tc6 3 5 l:txc8+ Wg7 36 Wfl Wf6 37 We2 �e7 38 Wd3 �d7 39 l:.f8 etc. The next game features a notori­ ously provocative choice from Black.

Game 43 C.Lutz-R.Tischbierek

German League 1999

Now the win is relatively simple the queens are forced from the board, and the b7-pawn's days are numbered.

1 e4 t2Jf6 2 e5 l2Jd5 3 d4 d6 4 l2Jf3 dxe5 5

25 .. .'tWxd7 26 .:txd7 i.xb2

t2Jxe5 l2Jd7

26 ... ne4 loses even more quickly af­ ter 27 �d6 l:.xb4 28 c6! - Psakhis. 27 .:tad1

The computer prefers 27 l:.a2 !, keep­ in g the a6-pawn as a target. Neverthe­ le ss, the text move is still good enough. 27 ...Ae4 28 i.d6 l:.c8

Once again 28 ... l:.xb4 29 c6! is the en d. 2 9 .i:.xb7 �c3 30 l:.b1 l:.c4?1

This allows a tactical finish. Black 21 7

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess Defe n ce s :

1

This move is pretty rare, and with good reason. Black will have to memo­ rize a mountain of hard analysis to meet the infamous 6 l?Jxf7 sacrifice, but at the same time he will rarely get to use it as most opponents will avoid it anyway. There is also the issue of White having a forced draw available. 6 l?Jf31 This simple retreat should lead to a slight edge while demanding little theoretical knowledge, making it by far the most pragmatic choice for the great majority of players. Given the rarity with which you are likely to be confronted by this variation, I see no value whatsoever in attempting to re­ fute Black's last move with 6 l?Jxf7. I will say no more about this unfathom­ ably complicated variation here, apart from highlighting the important prac­ tical point that White can, if he wishes, force a draw after 6 ...'iti>xf7 7 'ifh5+ We6 8 'ii'g4+ {8 c4 is the big theoretical move, leading to massive complica­ tions and still no clear verdict) 8 .. .<�f7 {the attempt to play for a win with 8 ... Wd6? backfires after 9 c4 when Black will have to return his extra piece while remaining with a ridiculous king posi­ tion) 9 'ifh5+ with perpetual check. 6 e6 ...

This is the most natural and popu­ lar move, although a few alternatives have been tried from time to time. In general White's plan will remain more or less the same: c4, l?Jc3, �e2, and short castling, with a slightly easier 218

e4 position. For example: a) After 6 ... c6 White can choose be­ tween 7 c4 l?Jc7 8 l?Jc3 with a slight plus and 7 .ie2 transposing to Game 40 (which featured the move order 5 ... c6 6 .ie2 l?Jd7 7 l?Jf3). b) 6 ...l?J7f6 (it looks a little early to determine the position of this piece) 7 c4 l?Jb6 8 l?Jc3 .ig4 {Black's idea was to develop this bishop actively before playing ... e6, but White finds a convinc­ ing response) 9 h3 .ih5 10 g4! .ig6 11 l?Je5 e6 12 .ig2 •c8.

This was N.Ninov-J.Graf, Odessa 1990, and here White could have se­ cured a huge advantage with 13 g 5 ! l?Jfd7 ( 1 3 ...l?Jg8 14 c 5 ) 14 l?Jxg6 hxg6 15 c5 when Black must lose a pawn. c) 6 ... g6 7 c4 with two choices for Black: c1) 7 ... l?J5b6 8 l?Jc3 c6 {8 ... .ig7?? 9 c5) 9 .ie2 .ig7 10 o-o o-o 11 i.f4 was a little better for White in B.Proeschold­ A.Von Kap, Munster 1995. c2) 7 ... l?J5f6 8 l?J C 3 .ig7 9 .ie2 o-o 10 o-o c5 11 d5 and with more space in the centre and slightly the more har-

A l e k h i n e 's Defe n ce monious pieces, White stands a little better.

obviously

8 lLlc3 cs 9 i.e2

9 d5 also gives decent chances for an edge, in a different type of position. 9 cxd4 10 tLlxd4 ...

I found a couple of examples in the database: c2 1) 11 ... tLle8 12 i.g5 tLld6 13 :tel �xc3 ! ? (13 ... tLlb6 14 'ir'h3) 14 bxc3 f6 15 �f4 tLlb6 was D.Langner-B.Rasmussen, Manitoba 1996, and now after 16 tLld2 White's doubled pawns are less signifi­ cant than his bishop pair and Black's weakened kingside. c22) 11...a6 12 :tel tLlb6 13 i.e3 ikc7 14 'tid2 i.g4 15 i.f4 ikc8 16 b3 l:te8 17 h3 .tf5 was tried in D.Navara­ E.Siebenhaar, Mainz (rapid) 2009. So far White has built up a commanding position with simple developing moves and at this point the simplest way of increasing his advantage would have been 18 lbdl, developing the last piece While avoiding any trickery along the a 1-h 8 diagonal. 7 c4 lLlsf6

Th e bishop exchange does not alter the eval uation: 7 ... i.b4+ 8 ..id2 ..ixd2+ 9 ifxd2 tLl5f6 10 tLlc3 and White keeps a sli ght but definite plus.

10 i.e7 ...

This looks better than 10...i.b4 11 o-o o-o (11 ... i.xc3 12 bxc3 would leave Black too vulnerable on the dark squares) 12 1i'c2 when the following two games illustrate Black's difficul­ ties: a) 12 ... a6 13 a3 i.c5 14 l:td1 ikc7 15 b4 i.d6 16 h3 (16 g3 would have been my choice, but the text move had the merit of enticing Black into the follow­ ing unsound sequence ... ) 16 ... a5? 17 tLlcb5 i.h2+ 18 �h 1 'ir'b8 19 g 3 i.xg3 20 fxg 3 it'xg3 21 ir'd3 'Wh4 22 l:tg l tLle4 23 �h2 and Black had nowhere near enough for the sacrificed piece in E.Najer-D.Fridman, Internet (blitz) 2004. b) 12 ... e5 13 lLlf5 tLlc5 14 l:td1 ..ixf5 15 'tixf5 ikc8 16 ikxc8 l:taxc8 17 tLld5 ll:ixd5 18 J:r.xd5 e4 19 ..ie3 tLld3 20 ..ixd3 exd3 21 J:r.xd3 J:r.xc4 22 ..ixa7 and White eventually converted his extra pawn in 219

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess D efe n ce s :

1

J.Klovans-W.Pajeken, Pardubice 1995. 11 0-0 0-0

This seems like a good moment to assess the outcome of the opening. White's pieces are a little more actively placed, but the defining feature of the position is the presence of mutual pawn majorities. If everything else was equal, the structure would be slightly favourable to Black, as his extra central pawn has the potential to exert a greater influence on the game than White's c-pawn. For this reason, it would be unhelpful to make a com­ ment along the lines of 'White stands better thanks to his queenside major­ ity'. As a matter of fact I believe White does stand better, but only because his superior pieces allow him to make bet­ ter use of his majority than Black. 12 ..te3 a6

The black queen belongs on c7, but she does not want to be harassed by an enemy knight. 13 it'a41?

This seems like a rather odd choice. It works well in the game, but I have my 220

e4

doubts as to whether it i s really the strongest move. If I reached this position over the board, I would be more inclined to choose the natural 13 •d2! when White should preserve a slight edge.

Here are a few possible continua­ tions: a) 13 ...i.b4 should be met by 14 •c2, preventing ...ll:le4 and preparing to chase the bishop away with a3. b) 13 ...lLle5 14 .l:.fd1 i.d7 (14...ll:leg4 achieves nothing after 15 i.g5) allows White to choose between 15 ll:lf3 and 15 ll:lb3 ! ?, in both cases keeping the slightly freer game and a small but definite plus. c) 13 ....c7 14 ..i.f4!? (14 l:tfd1 is a good alternative) 14 ... �6 (14 ... e5 1 5 lLlf5) 15 a3 .:es (defending the bishop and thus threatening ...e5) 16 ll:lf3 when White intends to play .::tfd1 and perhaps later b4 when the time is right. In all these examples, it is notice­ able that Black is unable to utilize his extra central pawn in a constructive way.

A le k h i n e 's Defe n ce 1 3 ... lDes

defence of the c4-pawn.

13 ... lDcs would have been met by 14 �c2 when the knight is misplaced and will have to worry about being driven away by b4.

18 ...lDa s

1 4 h3 Wc7 15 l:tac1 ..id7 16 1kb3

Black would love to play 18 ... .1:.fd8, but obviously 19 .tb6 is a problem. Perhaps he should have considered 18 ... ..te8 or 18 ... Wb8, although in both cases his position remains uninspiring. 19 'WWb 61

16 ... lbc6?1

This passive move hands White the initiative. The natural 16 .. J:lac8 would have been stronger, developing another piece and making use of the knight on es . Black may have been concerned about 17 lba4, but after 17 ... lbe4! ? 18 lDb6 .:tcd8 19 lbxd7 .l:.xd7 20 Wc2 lDf6 his pieces are harmoniously placed and White's bishop pair is not really mak­ ing its presence felt. Black should be clo se to equal here. 1 7 lDf3 1

The knight exchange would have freed Black's position to some extent. After the move played, the d7-bishop remains a problem. 1 7....l:.ac8 18 l:tfd11

With this move, Lutz anticipates Bl ack' s next and sets up an indirect

19 .. .'.xb6

19 ... lbxc4 20 Wxc7 l::lx c7 21 ..ixc4 l:xc4 22 lbes wins material. 20 ..ixb6 lbc6

20...lbxc4 21 .txc4 l:xc4 22 lbes is similar to the previous note; in both cases Black must lose an exchange for insufficient compensation. 21 a 3

In some ways this queenless posi­ tion is pretty typical for this whole line. White has retained some initiative and I would advise the reader to pay close attention to the way Lutz improves his position. 21 ...-tds 22 .tcs l

Exchanging bishops would assist in the activation of the f8-rook, so White does better to retreat. 221

B e a ting U n u s u a l Ch ess Defe n ce s :

1

22 .. Jte8

22 ... i.e7 was also possible, although 23 i.xe7 (23 i.e3 ! ?) 23 ... ll:lxe7 24 l:td2 keeps a pleasant edge for White. 23 b4 i.c7 24 ll:ld2

24 i.d6 was also good for White, but Lutz prefers to avoid simplification for the time being in favour of transfer­ ring the knight to the queenside, while also clearing the f3-square for the bishop. 24...ll:le7 2 5 tLlb3 l:tcd8 26 i.f3

e4 able for Black) 3 3 ...i.g5 ! 34 l:tc2 ll:le7!. Black's position is grim, but there is no clear win for the time being. (But note that 34 ... ll:lxb6?! 3 5 cxb6 l:txb6 36 l:txc6 l:txc6 37 ll:lxc6 should win for White.) 3 3 ll:las

The clearest route to victory would have been 3 3 ll:lc4! l:tc8 34 ll:ld4 ll:ld5 3 5 ll:le5 i.g5 ( 3 5 ...ll:le7 36 l:td1 intending ll:ldxc6 wins a pawn) 36 l:tdl and Black has no good way to save the c6-pawn, as 36 ... ll:le7 37 ll:ldf3 i.f6 38 l:td7 in­ tending l:ta7 is winning for White. 33 ...i.xb6 34 cxb6

It seems that White must choose between two tempting continuations on every turn. On this occasion the al­ ternative was 34 ll:lxc6 l:tb7 (34 ... i.c7 3 5 ll:lxb8 i.xb8 36 a4 gives White excellent winning chances) 3 5 cxb6 l:txb6 36 ll:le5 Wf8 37 l:te7, winning a pawn. 34...l:txb6 35 l:txc6 J:txc6 36 ll:lxc6 26 ...i.c6?1

This allows a fracturing of Black's queenside structure. The lesser evil was 26 ... i.c8 27 l:txd8 i.xd8 when Black has an inferior but probably still defensible position. 27 %bd8 i.xdB 28 i.xe7 J.xe7 29 i.xc6 bxc6 30 ll:la4

White has a choice of good lines here, with 30 ll:la5 ltc8 31 .l:tdl also be­ ing tempting. 30 ...%:ta8 3 1 ll:lb6 %:tb8 3 2 c5 i.d8

A better chance may have been 32 ...tLld5 ! ? 33 ll:la5 (33 ll:lxd5 exd5 looks a bit unpleasant, but is probably ten222

39 ...ll:ld s

Knights are notoriously bad at deal­ ing with outside passed pawns, so this ending must be considered highly un­ pleasant for Black. It is hard to give a

A le k h in e 's Defe n c e definite verdict as to whether he can hold the position with perfect defence, and not especially relevant to our study of the opening. Therefore I will present the rest of the game with just a few light annotations.

any different i n the traditional main line.

37 �1 �8 38 �e2 �e8 39 tt::lb8 tt::lc 7

Game 44 I.Giek-A.Kertesz

Part 2 - 4 ... i.g4

40 'iti'd3 �dB 41 'it>c4 �cs 42 tt::lc6 tt::ld s

The alternative was 42 ...tt::lb s when 43 a4 tt::l d 6+ 44 �cs rj;c7 45 tt::le s main­ tains the pressure.

Bonn 1995 1 e4 tt::lf6 2 es tt::ld s 3 d4 d6 4 tt::lf3 .1g4

43 g3

Another idea was 43 tt::le s!? tt::lf4 (43 .. .f6 44 tt::ld 3 ) 44 tt::l xf7 tt::l x g2. Al­ though White keeps some advantage here, it should be remembered that every pawn exchange on the kingside will bring Black closer to a draw. 43 ...''iti'c7 44 tt::le s tt::lb6+ 45 rj;c3 f6 46 tt::ld 3 tt::ld S+

The best defensive chance looks to be 46 ...tt::ld 7! guarding the sensitive cs­ square. In that case it is not clear if White has more than a draw. 47 'iti'b3 'it>d6?

Having suffered for a long time, Black finally collapses. 47 ...'iiib 6 or 47 . .. 'iti'c6 would have kept the game alive. 48 tt::lc s Ci'Jc7

48 ... as 49 tt::lb 7+ wins. 49 �a4 1-0

Black resigned, as he must lose the a6 -pawn. That concludes our coverage of 4 ... dxes, and I like White's chances in e very variation. Let's see if things are

The old main line has become a bit less fashionable nowadays, but it is still a serious branch of theory which should be studied carefully. s �e2

White's first job is to break the pin. s ...e6

s ... c6 will be considered in Game 46, s ...tt::l c 6 in Game 47, and some unusual fifth moves will form the subject of Game 48. 6 0-0

Quite often White flicks in the move h2-h3 either here or over the next few moves. There are arguments for and against doing this, but I have chosen to 223

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess Defe n ces:

1

refrain from it for reasons that will be­ come apparent later in the present game. 6 ..te7 ...

This is the usual choice. Alternatives will we covered in the notes to the next game. 7 c4 tt::l b6 8 tt::\c 3 o-o 9 ..te3 d S?!

e4 a) 11 ...tt::\c4? 1 2 �xc4 dxc4 13 1i'a4 just wins a pawn. b) 11 ... tt::\6 d7 has been tried in a few games, but is generally considered less attractive as the knight will have a harder time finding a meaningful role in the game. White should respond with 12 f4 and continue in a similar fashion to the main game and subse­ quent notes. 12 f4

This thematic move has been the most popular choice for Black, but it is in fact a significant error. We will ex­ amine the alternatives in the following game. 10 cs ..txf3 This capture provides the main jus­ tification for Black's previous move. White must either compromise his pawn structure or allow the knight in to c4. 11 gxf31

11 �xf3 tt::\c4 12 b3 tt::\x e3 13 fxe3 may give White chances for a modest edge, but the text move is much more ambitious and forces the knight to re­ treat to a passive square. 11 tt::\c8 Alternatively: ...

224

This seems like a good moment to take stock of the position. White has two major trumps in his serious space advantage and the bishop pair. True, the e3-bishop may not be contributing much at present, but you never know when the position might suddenly open up; besides, there is clearly no denying the potential of the light­ squared bishop. Generally White will look to combine play on both flanks. He can gain some space on the queenside with b4-b5 to restrict the enemy pieces, although his long-term focus is likely to be on the kingside where he has good chances to develop an attack.

A le k h i n e 's Defe n ce Black, on the other hand, can point to the doubling of White's f-pawns as a significant achievement. (Just as well really, as if the f2-pawn stood instead on g2 then Black's position would be strategically dire.) The second player will aim to fix the front f-pawn on f4, usually with .. .f7-f5, although occa­ sionally he might forsake this move in favour of ... g7-g6 and a possible knight transfer to fs. Black will aim to keep the position closed for the time being, which should favour his knights over the enemy bishops. Eventually, after suitable preparation, he may attempt a kingside break with .. .f6, or if this pawn is already on fs, then ... gs. The present position (or something very close to it) has occurred in several hundred games, sometimes with the white h-pawn on h3 instead of h2 (due to the insertion of the moves h2-h3 and ... �g4-h 5 somewhere between moves 6- 9 ). Overall White has scored quite highly and this is especially true with the pawn on h2, as is the case here. As a matter of fact, nowadays most Alekhine experts will avoid this particu­ lar position like the plague. The main problem for Black is that with the pawn on h2, the white pieces will be able to m ake use of the h3-square for attack­ ing purposes. This may not seem like a h uge difference, but practice has dem­ on strated that it matters a great deal. u

...

the majority of games he will play it sooner or later in order to prevent the white f-pawn from advancing any fur­ ther. Here are a few examples to show how the game might develop after other moves: a) 12 ...i..h 4 13 i..d 3 g6 14 'ili'g4 '.ti>h8 15 b4 and White is in control on both sides of the board, R.Kapferer­ R.Babinetz, Seefeld 1997. From a posi­ tion like this his next few moves are likely to be 'ii>h 1 and l:.g1, perhaps fol­ lowed by l:g2 and tt::le 2-g 1-f3 to im­ prove the knight and drive the enemy bishop away from h4. b) 12 ... tt::lc 6 13 b4!. This move should almost always figure in White's plans at some point. Apart from the fact that it is generally useful to gain space on the queenside, White must also be mindful of the pseudo-sacrifice ... �xes, intending to meet dxcs with ... d4, regaining the piece and creating some breathing room for the black pieces.

fs

Strictly speaking Black is not forced to play this move just yet, although in

From here we will consider three continuations: 225

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess D efe n ces:

1

b1) After 13 ...lt:'lxb4?! 14 l:tb1 White will regain the pawn and Black will suf­ fer from weak light squares on the queenside. It should be noted that after 14 ... lt:Jc6 15 l:txb7, 15 ... ..txc5? does not work due to 16 dxc5 (16 fi'a4 is also good, but the text is even better) 16 ... d4 17 .i.f3 lt:'l8e7 18 'ii'a4 when White re­ mains a piece up. b2) 13 ...a6 is better, but after 14 l:tb1 .i.h4 15 ..td3 followed by �h1, l:tg1, and so on, White remains in control. b3) 13 ... .i.h4 14 l:tb1 lt:'l8e7 (by con­ trast with the main game, Black is try­ ing to do without .. .f5 and instead hopes to reserve that square for the use of his pieces) 15 .i.d3.

From this position I found a couple of practical examples: b31) 15 ... g6 16 fi'g4 lt:'lf5 17 ..txf5 exf5 18 fi'f3 lt:'le7 19 b5 when Black's pieces are tied up and 'it>g2-h3 is a seri­ ous threat. Still, there was no reason to self-destruct with 19 .. .f6?, after which 20 'iWh3 led to the win of material and soon after the game in D.Wagner­ T.Struening, Korbach 2007. 226

e4 b32) 1 5 ...lt:Jg6 was played in A.Groszpeter-P.Wells, Harkany 1993 , and now White could have obtained a clear advantage with 16 f5 ! ? (16 �h1 lt:Jce7 17 fi'f3 is a decent alternative, while the game continuation of 16 fi'g 4 is also not bad) 16 ... exf5 (after 16 ...lt:Jgxe5 17 b 5 ! lt:Jxd3 18 bxc6 Black loses a piece for insufficient compensa­ tion) 17 ..txf5 lt:Jgxe5 (I assume this was the reason why White rejected the ad­ vance of the f-pawn, but his fears tum out to be unjustified) 18 dxe5 d4 19 b 5 ! lt:'le7 (Black is not helped by 19 ...lt:Jxe5 20 .i.f4 or 19 ... dxe3 20 bxc6 ..txf2+ 21 �g2) 20 .i.xh7+! �xh7 2 1 l:tb4!? (21 fi'h 5+ �g8 22 l:tbd1 i s also good) 21 ... ttJf5 22 fi'h 5+ �g8 23 Wxf5 dxe3 24 fxe3 fi'g 5+ 25 l:tg4 fi'xf5 26 l:txf5 when Black faces a difficult defence in the endgame. Returning to 12 .. .f5:

13 � h1

White could also have flicked in 13 b4 first - the exact move order does n ot matter too much. 13 .i.h4 ...

A le k h in e 's Defe n ce The black bishop often comes here to make way for the knight to order in re - enter the game via e7. Unfortu­ n ately for Black, the bishop would be m uch happier in the position with a white pawn on h 3 , as in the present p osition a queen transfer to h3 could p rove troublesome. The following game also featured some instructive moments: 13 ... lbc6 14 b4 a6 (once again 14 ... lbxb4 15 :b1 does not help Black) 15 :b1 �h8 16 a4 (my personal choice would have been 16 �g1 followed by 'iih 5 o d i'f3-h3, but in this game White has decided to ex­ pand on the queenside first) 16 ...a5 17 b5 lbb4 18 :g1 :f7 19 �h 5 ! ? (White could also have opted for a more pa­ tient build-up with 19 l:tg 3) 19 ... g6 20 :xg6!? (objectively this sacrifice should not be sufficient to win the game, but it is not unsound and it creates serious practical problems for the defence) 20... hxg6 21 �xg6

�f8? (under pressure, Black falters; it was essential to play 2 5 ...�h4! 26 :g1 'ii'f8 when White lacks a knockout blow and must settle for either 27 'ii'x e6 lbe7 with unclear play or 27 'ii'x c7 'ii'e 7 28 b6 lba6 29 'ii'x e7 lbxe7 30 lbb5 when I would take White's position if given the choice, but I suspect Black should be able to hold) 26 :g1 �g7 27 :g 5 (the calm 27 'ii'x c7 would also have put Black in a hopeless situation) 2 7 ...�h7 28 lbe2 'ii'f8 29 'ii'x e6 lbe7 30 :h5+ �h6 3 1 lbg 3 (31 lbg 1! would have been the quickest route to victory) 31 ...:es 32 'ii'd 7 'iii>g 6 33 'ii'e 6+ �h7 34 l:txh6+ 'ii'x h6 35 'ii'f7+ 'ii'g 7 36 'iih 5+ 'iih 6 37 'ii'x e8 'ii'g 7 38 ._d7 (38 lbh5) 38 ...lbd3 39 lbxf5 lbxf5 40 'ii'xf5+ 'ii'g 6 41 'iih 3 + 1-0 M.Bjelajac-L.Popov, Novi Sad 1981. 14 l:.g1 g6 15 b4 :f7

16 bS!?

21...�g8! (Black begins by finding th e only correct defence) 22 'iih S+ l:lh7 2 3 .t xh7 "ir'xh7 24 "ir'e8+ ,.g8 2 5 ,.d7

White decides on a policy of aggres­ sive queenside expansion, which works to perfection in the game. A more patient alternative was 16 �d3 intending "ir'f3 . Once those pieces are in position, White can choose be227

B e a t in 9 Un iJ s ua / Chess Defe n ces:

1

e4

tween furth er queenside expansion and a direct kin gside attack. If he de­ cide s on the latter, then the typical plan of action will involve the moves 'ifh 3. l:.g 2, lLle2-g1-f3, and finally .:.ag l, by which tim e the black king is likely to be feelin g distinctly uncomfortable.

file , but 2 1...lbe7 22 'ii'h 3 forces the knigh t to take the rather hum iliating step back to c8.

16 ... lLld?

White has an absolutely dominant position, but there still remains a ques­ tion mark as to how he can execute the final breakthrough. Fortunately his ad­ vantage is based on static features of the position, so he can take his time to manoeuvre, whereas the opponent faces the thankless task of shuffling around on the back few ranks while attempting to anticipate where the next threat might be coming from.

16 ... a6 17 a4 does not help Black. 17 a4 lLlf8 18 'ii'f1

Here we see another route by which the queen can switch to the key h3square. 18 ... b6?1

This only presents White with a tar­ get, although it was difficult to suggest a constructive plan for Black. 19 as l:.b8

After 19 ... bxcs 20 dxcs White could add the use of the d4-square to his growing list of positional trumps. 20 axb6 axb6 21 c6

22 'ii'h 3 Ag7 23 .:ta4

23 tt:lbl was a good alternative, intending lbd2-f3 . 2 3 ... l:.g8

24 lbd1 i.e7 25 lDb2 'ii'e 8 26 .U.ga1 �g7

Black could have attempted a break for freedom with 26 ... g5, but after 27 fxg s i.xg s 28 f4 (28 i.xgs .l:.xg s 29 tt:ld3 is also good, but in principle I would prefer to avoid exchanges) 28 ... i.e7 29 tt:ld3 White remains in con­ trol and with the g-file open he may decide to switch his attention back to the kingside. 27 tt:ld3 h6

White seizes even more space, leav­ ing his opponent with almost no room to manoeuvre. 21...'it>h8

Black would like to contest the a228

With hindsight Black should proba­ bly have avoided weakening the g6pawn, although it must be said that his position was downright depressin g and it would have been practically im­ possible to avoid making a mistake at some point. 28 .U.g1 �h7 29 .U.g3 'ii'f7 30 tt:le1 <j;g7 31 l:.a1 ..ib4 32 tt:lf3 tt:le7 33 .U.b1 ..ic 3

A l e k h in e 's Defe n ce 3 4 l:i.b3 �as 3 5 �ell

After a period of manoeuvring White finds a way to improve another p iece. 35 ... l:i.a8 36 �a3

ing demonstration of why, in the line where White refrains from playing h2h3, Black should avoid the blocked posi­ tions which arise after 9 ... ds. In the next game we will examine his various alternatives between moves 6 and 9.

Game 45 T.Orai-S.Cicak

Czech League 2004 1 e4 lt::lf6 2 es lt::ld s 3 d4 d6 4 lt::lf3 �g4 5 �e2 e6 6 o-o �e7

Not only is the bishop generally active here, it is also perfectly placed to carry out the specific duty of eliminating the knight on e7, one of the key defenders of the vulnerable g6pawn, at a moment's notice.

The only significant alternative is 6 ... lt::lc 6, which is rarely seen but should not be underestimated. White should play 7 c4 when there are two moves worth considering:

36 ...'i'e8?

This loses immediately, although Black can barely move a piece and it is doubtful that he could have survived for much longer in any case. One of the many attacking plans at White's dis­ posal was l:i.g1 followed by lt::lh4, %:[bg 3, and perhaps even �hs, after which the 96-pawn would surely have met its m ake r. 3 7 'i'h4 lt::lc8 38 'ii'f6+ 'it>h7 39 lLlg5+ 1-0

Black resigned as it is mate next rnove. This game, along with those fea­ tured in the notes, provides a convinc-

a) 7 ...lt::lde7 8 exd6 'i'xd6 (8 ... cxd6 should be met by 9 dS) 9 lt::lc 3 and Black has tried three moves here: a1) 9 ...o-o-o? 10 lt::lg s �xe2 11 lLlxe2 lt::lxd4 12 lt::lc 3 ! and the impending fork on f7 proved decisive in D.Djaja­ D.Janosevic, Belgrade 1948. a2) 9 ...4Jfs?! 10 dS 4Jce7? was seen 229

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess Defe n ce s :

1

in W.Schoenmann-I.Engert, Altona 1932, and now 11 tt:lbs wins easily: for instance, 11 ...•d8 12 �f4 tt:ld6 13 dxe6 or 11 ...�6 12 dxe6 fxe6 13 tt:les l:.d8 14 •a4. a3) 9 ...�xf3 10 �xf3 tt:lxd4 (10 ...• xd4 11 tt:lbs and 10 ... 0-o-o 11 tt:lbs both give White a promising ini­ tiative as well) 11 �xb7 l:.d8 (or 11...l:.b8, as in V.Ciocaltea-M.Knezevic, Vrnjacka Banja 1975, and now 12 •a4+ c6 13 'ii'x a7 gives White a safe extra pawn, since 13 ...• c7?? is refuted by 14 �xc6+) 12 'ii'a4+ c6 13 �e3 'ii'c 7 14 'ii'x a7 es.

This position was reached in N.De Firmian-L.Shamkovich, USA 1994. and now after 15 �xd4 exd4 16 tt::\e4 tt::lg 6 17 'ii'a6 tt::le s 18 f4 l:.b8 19 fxes 'ii'xb7 20 'ii'xb7 (20 'ii'a4!?) 20 ...l:.xb7 21 b3 White should win the ending. b) 7 ...tt::lb 6 should be met by 8 exd6 cxd6 9 dS when Black can try two moves: b1) 9 ...�xf3 10 �xf3 exds 11 �xds �e7 12 �f4 0-0 13 tt::lc 3 and White had a slight but clear advantage in 230

e4 I.Svensson-N.Tagnon, Haifa 1976. b2) 9 ...exds 10 cxds �xf3 11 gxf3 ! tt::le s 12 �bS+ and now:

b21) 12 ...tt::le d7 13 ._d4 •f6 14 l:.e1+ �dB (14...�e7 15 'ii'xf6 gxf6 16 tt::l c 3 left Black facing a difficult defence in the queenless middlegame in L.Vogt­ D.Uddenfeldt, Skopje 1972) 15 'ii'd 1! when the unfortunate position of Black's king is more significant than the doubled f-pawns, T.Kroeger­ K.Junge, German League 1995. b22) 12 ...tt::lb d7 13 f4 tt::l g 6 (or 13 ...a6 14 fxes axbs 15 e6 tt::l c s 16 •e2 b4? Black cannot afford this loss of time, although his position was obviously difficult in any case - 17 'ii'h s +
A le k h i n e 's Defe n ce 1-0 M.Wahls-A.Ostl, German League 1989. Returning to 6 .....te7: l'Llb6 8 l'Llc 3 o-o 9 ..te3 c4 1

In the previous game we saw that forcing the issue in the centre with 9 ... d5 was a bad idea with the white h­ pawn on h2 instead of h3. Now it is time to turn our attention to Black's other options. 9... l'Ll8d7

A quick check of the database re­ veals that Black has tried a plethora of alternatives here. There is little point in attempting to cover everything, so I focused on a few of the more signifi­ cant options. a) 9 ... dxe5?! 10 l'Llxe5 ..txe2 11 'ir'xe2 gives White an easy game: for instance, 11 ... l'Ll8d7 12 l:tad1 c6 13 i..f4 l'Llf6 14 l!d3 when Black has a passive position with no counterplay and will soon have to worry about a kingside attack, V.Anand-E.Ubilava, Villarrobledo (rapid) 2001. b) 9 ... a6 is partially a waiting move, although it should be noted that Black

is also creating a positional threat of .....txf3, since the reply ..txf3 can safely be met by ... l'Llxc4 as the rook will no longer be trapped on a8. Therefore I suggest: 10 exd6 cxd6 11 'ir'h3 ! ? (11 b3 should also suffice for a slight plus; the text move is an interesting attempt to trouble the opponent by creating con­ crete threats) 11 ...l'Ll8d7 12 a4! ? ..txf3 13 ..txf3 'ir'C7 14 .:tfc1 l'Llxc4 (14 ...'ir'xc4 15 'ir'a3 ! would be too risky for Black) 15 l'Lld5 exd5 16 ..txd5 l'Lldb6 17 ..txc4 l'Llxc4 18 .:txc4 'ir'd7 19 l:.ac1 l:.ac8 20 d5 and White's control over the c-file gave him a slight but stable advantage, which he eventually converted to the full point in P.Blatny-K.Bischoff, Brno 1994. c) 9 ...l'Llc6 is arguably the most criti­ cal way for Black to try and exploit White's refusal to play h3. The critical continuation is 10 exd6 cxd6 11 d5 with two possibilities:

c1) 11 ... ..txf3?! 12 ..txf3 l'Lle5 13 dxe6 leads to a situation where Black will have no real compensation for the vul­ nerability of the d6-e6 pawn duo: for 231

B e a ting U n u s u a l Ch ess Defe n ce s :

1

e4

instance, 13 ...fxe6 (13 ...lt:Jxf3+ 14 •xf3 fxe6 15 •e4 l:tf6 16 b3 was a similar story in M.Abarca Aguirre-R.Vidal, Santiago de Chile 1980) 14 ig4 lt:Jxg4 15 'jj'x g4 :tf6 16 l:tad1 'jj'c 7 17 b3 and White enjoyed a stable advantage in M.Schlosser-Y.Schlueter, Muerren 1987. c2) Much better is 11...exd5 12 lt:Jxd5 lt:Jxd5 13 'jj'x d5.

sent chapter and White will have to play with great precision to secure an advantage. Therefore I would advise the reader to pay close attention to what follows. After 13 ...�f6 I spent quite some time analysing the differ­ ent possibilities and eventually con­ cluded that 14 .:.ad1!? was the most promising option.

In the analogous position which could have been reached with the moves h2-h3 and ... �g4-h 5 inserted, Black would stand significantly worse, mainly because he would have to spend an important tempo dealing with the attack on the h5-bishop. In the present position there is no such threat and in certain lines Black may also benefit from the option of dropping his bishop back to e6 to assist in the fight for the central squares. Despite these factors, I am still not convinced that Black can achieve full equality. At the very least, his margin for error will be somewhat smaller than White's. The present variation is one of the most theoretically critical of the pre-

Black has tried two moves from here: c21) 14...'jj'c 8 does not really chal­ lenge the white position: 15 b3 :td8 16 h3 ..te6 17 'jj'h 5 �f5 18 �d3 �g6 19 �xg6 hxg6 20 'jj'd 5 lt:Je7 was R.Winsnes-L.Liljedahl, Stockholm 1987, and now after 21 'jj'e4 White keeps an edge thanks to the isolated d-pawn. c22) 14 ... ixb2 is the critical con­ tinuation: 15 ft5 �f6 16 c5 d5 17 'jj'x b7 l:tc8. This position was reached in E.Liss-M.Shrentzel, Israeli League 1999. Material is equal, but it seems to me that White's chances should be some­ what higher, as the d5-pawn is slightly vulnerable and White's queen has a certain nuisance value on b7. At this

232

A le kh in e 's D efe n c e point I think White's most promising course of action would have been 18 h 3 !, forcing the bishop to make a deci­ sion.

I checked the following replies: c221) 18 ...-tfs 19 .i.d3 maintains an edge after 19 .....txd3 20 l:txd3 or 19 ... ..te6 20 ..tf4. c222) 18 .....te6 19 .i.f4 (19 ..tbs would be quite tempting, were it not for 19 .. .'�a5! intending to meet 20 ..txc6 with 20 ...l:.b8 when the queen is trapped) 19 ... ..te7 20 l:.c1 and White keeps an edge, with %Hd1 and ..tbs be­ ing two of the main ideas. c223) 18 ... -ths maintains the pres­ sure along the d1-h 5 diagonal, but the drawback is that the bishop can no longer be called upon to protect the d­ p awn via the e6-square: 19 .i.f4 .i.e7 (or 19 ...l:te8 20 i.a6) 20 'ir1>3 ! ? .i.xf3 21 ..txf3 ..txcs 22 l:.xds 'irb6 23 ii'xb6 axb6 24 l:Ud1 and White's bishop pair gives him an ongoing advantage despite the reduced material. After that long but important analysis, we can return to 9 ... lt::\8 d7:

10 exd6 cxd6 11 b3

White's extra space and harmoni­ ous development give him a slight but pleasant edge. It is not easy for Black to generate counterplay, especially with his knight misplaced on b6. 11...ltJf6 12 a41? as

Evidently Black found the prospect of as-a6 unappealing, but the text move is far from ideal, especially as Black's knights are in no position to take advantage of the hole on b4. 13 l:.c1 dS 14 ltJbs ltJes

I also checked 14.. Jk8 1S ltJes (15 cs ltJbd7 doesn't look so bad for Black) 1S ... .i.xe2 16 ii'xe2 dxc4 17 bxc4 ltJxa4 18 ii'a2 (18 cs!?) 18 ... ltJb6 19 ii'xas when White keeps an edge. 15 ii'd2 dxc4 16 bxc4 ..tb4 17 ii'a2 ltJc7 18 l:.fd1 ltJxb5

Black eliminates the annoying knight, but in doing so he allows White to improve his pawn structure. 19 axbs ltJcS?I

Black should have preferred some­ thing like 19 ... ii'c7, although there is no doubting White's advantage. 233

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess Defe n ce s :

1

20 h 3 �f5 21 d51

e4 move spoils nothing, as White's pieces are dominant while Black remains al­ most paralysed. 26 ...i..e 6 27 i..xe6 'ii'xe6 28 'ii'xe6 fxe6 29 i..e 5

Unleashing the potential of White's centralized pieces. 21 .. .'ii'e7

2l...exdS also fails to solve Black's problems: 22 l:txds ..,f6 23 g4! i.. e4 (23 ...�e6? 24 i..g s 'ii'g 6 25 lLlh4 'ii'e 4 26 f3 wins the queen) 24 g S -..g 6 2 5 l:.es �xf3 {the threat was lLlh4) 26 i..xf3 lLld6 27 cs lLlxbS 28 i..x b7 and the passed c-pawn will be hard to stop. 22 lLld4

22 cs exds 23 'ii'x ds i..e4 24 'ir'd7 also looks strong. 2 2 ... i..c 5 23 �f3 �xd4 24 i..xd4 exd5

24... es is refuted by 25 d6! lLlxd6 (2S ... 'ii'xd6 26 i..x b7) 26 i.. c s .:tfd8 27 -..a 3, winning. 2 5 i..x d5

The computer points out that 2 5 'ii'b 2! would have been even more ac­ curate, but the game continuation also leads to a huge advantage. 25 ...®hB 26 c5

There was also a tactical solution in 26 'ii'b 2 f6 27 :tel 'ii'd 7 28 "ii'a 3! .:td8 29 "ii'f3 ! l:tb8 30 g4! winning, but the text 234

White has an overwhelming posi­ tional advantage and the endgame is an easy win. 29...®g8 30 l:.d7 .l:.f7 3 1 l:tcd1 b6 32 l:.d8+ .:tfB 33 l:t8d7 l:tf7

Perhaps White was short of time and decided to repeat the position once in order to get closer to move 40. 34 l:td8+ l:tf8 35 l:txf8+ 'itJxf8 36 l:!.d8+ ®e7 37 .:txc81 l:txc8 38 cxb6 1-0

That concludes our coverage of s ... e6. We will now move on to Black's 5th-move alternatives, beginning with a different pawn move.

Game 46 J.Emms-G.Burgess

British League (4NCL) 1999 My thanks go to John Emms for

A l e k h i n e 's Defen ce sharing his thoughts on this game. 1 e4 lL'If6 2 es ttJd s 3 d4 d6 4 lL'If3 ..tg4 s ..te2 c6

The main purpose of this move is to fortify the h1-a8 diagonal in order to prepare an exchange on f3.

though after 7 .....txd3 8 ikxd3 the queen is slightly worse on d3 than e2 where Emms places it. b3) Finally, the aggressive 7 e6! ? fxe6 leads to a double-edged position where White has some chances for an edge, but ultimately I believe that the text move should lead to greater re­ wards while requiring less effort. 6...ltJ b6 This is generally regarded as the most challenging move. The main idea is that, by eyeing the c4-pawn, Black creates a significant positional threat in ... ..txf3. 6 ... lL'Ic7 is a playable though some­ what passive alternative.

6 C4

This is the move I like best, although there are a few other possibilities: a) Black's main idea is revealed after 6 o-o ..txf3 7 ..txf3 dxes 8 dxes e6 in­ tending ...lL'Id7, ...ike?, and later ...lL'Ie7g6 with an all-out assault on the g S ­ pawn. Actually White should b e able to fight for an advantage here as well, but I think it makes sense to avoid giving the opponent an easy plan involving a sequence of natural moves. b) The other main line is 6 ltJg S ! ? �fs ( 6.....txe2 7 ikxe2 would leave the queen ideally placed) when White's options include: b1) Firstly, it should briefly be noted that 7 c4? ! would be a mistake here due to 7 ... ltJb4!. b2) With the quiet 7 ..td3 White in­ sists on the exchange of bishops, al-

White has a few different routes to a slight plus. Perhaps the most straightforward is 7 exd6 when Black can try either recapture: a) 7 ... ikxd6 8 lL'Ic3 g6 (it is hard to believe that 8 .....txf3 ?! can be a good idea and after 9 ..txf3 es in A.Jackson­ C.Crouch, British League 2003, White could have secured an edge with 10 dS cxds 11 lbxds when his light-squared 235

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess D efe n ces:

1

bishop will be strong) 9 0-0 .tg7 10 �e3 o-o 11 'ii'd2 tt::lb a6 12 .:.ad1 and White kept a slight plus in S.Dolmatov­ T.Petrosian, Moscow 1981. b) 7 ...exd6 8 'Wb3 ! ? is an interesting attempt to inconvenience the second player. Note that the same idea would not have been available had the knight retreated to b6 instead of c7. Black can try: b1) 8 ... b6 seems like a questionable choice and after the further 9 t'Llc3 .te7 10 h3 .th s 11 �e3 'iic 8 12 o-o o-o 13 .l:tfe1 .:.e8 14 .:tac1 t'Lld7 15 �a4 Black's light-squared weaknesses meant he had failed to equalize in S.B.Hansen­ T.Hillarp Persson, Gentofte 1999. b2) 8 ...�c8 9 t'Llc3 il.. e 7 10 h3 �hs 11 o-o o-o 12 dS! cxds (12 ...tt::lba6 13 Ji..e 3 and 12 ...cs 13 .tf4 are both clearly bet­ ter for White according to Khalifrnan) 13 cxdS t'Lld7 was reached in K.Pytel­ R.Tomaszewski, Lubniewice 1981, and here I think the best way for White to complete his development would have been 14 .te3: for instance, 14 ... tt:Jcs (14 ... l:te8 15 l:tac1 keeps an edge, while 14 ... tt:Jes 15 tt:Jxes .txe2 can be met by 16 tt:Jxe2 dxes 17 l:tac1 or even 16 tt::lg 6 ! ? hxg6 17 tt::l x e2 when White re­ mains on top) 15 �c4 as and now both 16 l:tfe1 and 16 .txcs dxcs 17 tt:Jes give White a pleasant edge. 7 tt:Jgsl? The point of this move is to aim for an improved version of the 6 tt:Jg s varia­ tion noted earlier. The fact that the black knight has already been driven 236

e4 away from the centre makes a real dif­ ference in many lines.

I first became aware of this idea when researching the present chapter and initially viewed it with some scep­ ticism. If it really did lead to an im­ proved version of a main line, then why had it not usurped the main line in question? And why did it not feature in any of the Alekhine books I had checked? I do not know the answers to these questions, but what I do know is that, having analysed it in some detail, I have not found any reason not to play it. I even contacted the winner of the present game to ask if he had since become aware of any problems, but he also seemed happy enough with White's chances. In short, the system featured here really does seem like an excellent try for an advantage. 7 .txe2 7 ... -tfs looks dubious here due to 8 e6! (8 g4 should also give White th e better chances, but I think the text is even better) when Black faces a diffi ­ cult choice: ...

A le k h in e 's D efe n ce a) 8 ... �xe6 9 tt:lxe6 fxe6 was played in J.Morin-S.Schneider, Haninge 1997, and now after the simple 10 lLJd2 in­ tending tt:le4-g S and perhaps �g4, Black faces serious problems on the light squares. b) The position after 8 ...fxe6 should be compared with the variation 6 tt:lg 5 .1f5 7 e6! ? fxe6, as referenced in note 'b3' to White's sixth move in the pre­ sent game.

invasion on f7) 12 ...'ii'c 8 13 c 5 ! {White is playing with great energy to carve open the opponent's defences) 13 ...lLld5 (after 13 ... dxc5 14 dxc5 lLJxc5 15 b4! the opening of the d-file is too dangerous for Black) 14 'ii'f7+ �d8 15 cxd6 h6 16 lLJxe6+ �d7. This position was reached in R.Weis-U.Floegel, Ger­ man League 1989, and now after the straightforward 17 0-0 Wxd6 18 l:.e1 the black king's days are surely num­ bered. 8 'ii'xe2

In that particular line, the black knight would commonly retreat to f6 to defend the king side or perhaps even c7 to defend the e6-pawn. In the present position it is clearly misplaced on b6, where it contributes nothing to the defence and White can obtain an excel­ len t position as follows: 9 g4! �g6 (9 ....1xb1 10 l:.xb1 looks horrible for Black) 10 i.. d 3 i..x d3 11 'ii'xd3 lLJa6 (in the event of 11 ... lLJ6d7, as in T.B arendse-M. De Waal, Enschede 1992, both 12 lLJxh7 and 12 'ii'e 4!? look strong) 12 'ii'f3 ! (White is not con­ cerned about regaining the e6-pawn just yet and instead threatens a deadly

8 h6 ...

8 ... dxe5 9 dxe5 is unlikely to alter the position in any fundamental way, unless Black tries something rash like 9 ...'ii'd4?!, as occurred in the game E.Weinzettl-J. Lundin, Belgrade 2002. Here the strongest continuation looks to be: 10 e6! (the game continuation of 10 lLJd2 also sufficed for a pleasant ad­ vantage; the black queen has no busi­ ness lunging into the centre at such an early stage of the game) 10 .. .f6 11 tt:lf7 l:.g8 12 tt:la3 when Black will have a hard time completing development.

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess D efe n ce s :

1

Instead 9 ...h6 10 ltJf3 transposes to the main game, while 9 ... e6 10 o-o i.e7 11 ltJf3 leads to a similar position. It is not clear whether the developing move ... i.e7 is really more useful than ... h6, as the bishop might have better squares available to it. In any case, White keeps a pleasant advantage and can develop in a similar fashion to the main game and accompanying notes. g ltJf3 dxes

Black should not forget to include this exchange. After the careless 9 ... e6?? 10 exd6 �xd6 11 cs he lost a piece in E.Carl-W.Schley, German League 2000. 10 dxes e6 11 o-o ltJ Bd 7 12 ltJc3 ilic7 13 i.f4

White has almost completed devel­ opment and now intends ltJe4 and per­ haps a rook to the d-file, followed by a timely knight jump to the inviting hole on d6. 13

...

gsl?

Burgess, an Alekhine specialist, rec­ ognizes that he is quickly drifting into a difficult situation and attempts to ere238

e4 ate some counterplay. Here are a few other examples which illustrate White's chances: a) 13 ...0-0-0 14 a4! ? (the immediate 14 ltJe4 is also promising, but White decides to begin by provoking a potential queenside weakness) 14 ... as 15 ltJe4 fs? (Black had to try 1S ...'iti>b8 16 ltJd6 ltJcs, although after 17 ilie3 White has an obvious advantage) 16 ltJd6+ 'iti>b8 17 ltJf7 and White won the ex­ change and later the game in Y.Dembo­ H.Faber, Kavala 2004. b) 13 ... ltJcs 14 l:.ad1 as 15 b3 (White could even have been a little more pre­ cise with the immediate 15 ltJd2!) 1S ...�e7 16 ltJd2! 0-0-0 17 ltJde4 (we can see a pattern emerging: once a white knight establishes itself on e4, the threat of invading on d6 becomes highly unpleasant for Black) 17 ...�b8 18 ltJd6 and White was clearly better in R.Lau-G.Schroll, Vienna 1998. 14 i.g3 i.g7 Here is one more example to illus­ trate the difficulties faced by Black in this variation: 14...0-o-o 15 ltJe4 (White could also play 15 a4, a la Dembo) 1S ... �b8 16 l:.ad1 i.e7 17 ltJd6 :th7 18 ltJd4 ltJf8 19 b4 (19 ltJb3 ! ?) 19 ... h5 20 h 3 ltJg6 21 ilie4 :gs 22 .l:td3 h 4 23 i.h2 fs? (better was 23 .. J:thg7, although Black is still in deep trouble after 24 l:.b3 ltJf4 2 5 cs ltJd7 26 l:.c1 intending bs with a huge attack) 24 exf6 i.xd6 2 5 ltJxc6+ 'it>a8 (2S ...il/xc6 26 l:txd6!) 26 l:txd6 bxc6 27 l:txc6 ilib7. This was D.Vasiesiu­ M.Grunberg, Targoviste 2001, and here

A l e k h in e 's Defe n c e the most straightforward continuation would have been 28 'ili'xe6 when Black is unlikely to survive for much longer.

hard to suggest anything else. 18 tt::ld 6+ �8 19 tt::lx b7 'ir'xa2 20 tt::ld 6 'ir'as 2 1 'ir'e4

15 tt::le4

15 ...tt::lc 8ll

The computer prefers 15 . .0-0, but it goes without saying that this was not what Black had in mind when playing 13 ... g 5 . .

1 6 .l:!.ad1

Calmly bringing another piece into action. Black's position is already close to lost. 16 .'ir'a s ..

It is amusing to see the conse­ quences of 16 ... g4 intending to snatch the es-pawn: 17 tt::l d4 ..txe5 (if 17 ... h 5 18 tt::lf6+ or 17 ...ttJxe5 1 8 tLlc5 when the knight is trapped in a fatal pin, and Black has no good defence against l:.fe1 or tt::ld 3) 18 tt::lf6+! tt::lxf6 19 ..txe5 'ir'e7 (now White strikes the death blow with a simple but attractive combination) 20 tLlf5 ! exf5 21 ..txf6! 'ir'xe2 22 .l:.d8 mate. 17 'ii'd 3 tt::lc b6 This drops the b7-pawn, but it was

Defending es and attacking c6. White's play is absolutely logical and easy to understand. 21 ...'ir'cs 22 .l:.d2

Technically speaking White could have ended the game more quickly with 22 tt::l d4!, although from a practi­ cal perspective it is almost always bet­ ter to take the slow but certain win instead of the quick, flashy one. Here are the highlights anyway: 22 ...ttJxc4 (alternatively, 22 ... ..txe5 23 ttJxe6+! fxe6 24 ._g6 or 22 ...ttJxe5 23 ttJxe6+! fxe6 24 b4! 'ii'xb4 25 ..txe5) 23 tt::lxf7! (even better than 2 3 ttJxe6+ fxe6 24 ttJxc4) 23 ...�xf7 24 ttJxe6 �xe6 2 5 'ir'g4+ and the attack crashes through. 22 .. J�b8 23 .l:!.fd1 �g8 24 h41

Having improved his pieces to the greatest extent possible, Emms now turns his attention to carving open Black's fragile king side. 24...gxh4 25 'ii'x h4 tt::Jxes?

Losing

immediately,

although 239

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess D efe n ces:

1

Black's position was hopeless in any case. 26 ..ixes ..ixes 27 b41 1-o

Our next game features the black knight moving to c6 instead of the pawn.

Game 4 7 A.Ciabrielian-K.Sek

Ulan Ude 2009 1 e4 lLlf6 2 es ttJds 3 d4 d6 4 lLlf3 ..ig4 s ..ie2 ttJc6

e4 b) 6 ...lbb6 7 h 3 ..ixf3 8 ..ixf3 dxes 9 ..ixc6+ bxc6 10 dxes and Black has no compensation for his shattered queen­ side structure. c) 6 ... g6 tends not to combine well with an early ... ..ig4. Amongst several promising continuations, perhaps the most ambitious is 7 e6! fxe6 (after 7 ... ..ixe6? 8 c4 Black loses a piece) 8 ttJg s ..ixe2 9 ..-xe2 ttJxd4 (or 9 .....-d7 10 lbxe6 lbd8 11 ttJxf8 J:lxf8 12 c4 lbf4 13 ..ixf4 l:.xf4 14 ..-e3 :Z.fs 15 lbc3 and White had an obvious advantage in Dang Vu Quang-Nguyen Due Hoa, Ha­ noi 2002) .

This is not such a well-known move, but it features in over 800 games on the database and has been tested by some high-ranking grandmasters in­ cluding Avrukh and Zvjaginsev. 6 0-0

6 ... dxes

This is the consistent move, but it runs into a convincing reply. Alterna­ tives include: a) 6 ... e6 transposes to the note to Black's sixth move in Game 45. 240

This position was reached in F.Zita­ M.Vidmar, Karlovy Vary 1948, and here White should have played 10 ..,d3 ! (10 ..-e4 has been played in a few games, but lO... cs 11 c3 lLlf6 is not altogether clear; the text move is a definite im­ provement) 10...ttJc6 (lO ... cs 11 c3) 11 ttJxe6 lbdb4 12 ..-c3 'jj'd 7 13 :tel l:tg8 14 �3 when Black faces serious prob­ lems. 7 ttJxesl

Earlier in the chapter we saw some

A le k h in e 's Defe n ce examples where White went out of his way to avoid a knight exchange on this square, whereas now he is happy to encourage it. The apparent inconsis­ tency is justified by the specific fea­ tures of the position. Indeed, both prac­ tice and analysis have confirmed that White is doing well here. 7 i.xe2 ...

There is also 7 ... ttJxe5 8 dxe5 with two possibilities: a) 8 ... i.xe2 9 'ii'x e2 'ii'd 7 (or 9 ... e6 10 lfh5+) 10 c4 ltJb6 11 J:td1 with an obvi­ ous initiative for White. b) 8 ... i.f5 9 c4 ltJb6 10 'ii'b 3! e6 11 .i:.d1 'ii'c8 (Black was quickly crushed after 11 ...'ii'e 7 12 ltJc3 g5 13 .tf3 c6 14 tZ'lb5! in E.Alekseev-V.Kupreichik, Ekate­ rinburg 2002) 12 'ii'g 3 i.c2 13 J:td4 .tg6 14 h4 c5 15 J:td1 with a clear plus, O.Korneev-A.Panchenko, Berga 1996. 8 'ii'xe2 ttJxd4

Accepting the sacrificed is a princi­ pled but extremely risky endeavour. Instead 8 ... ttJxes 9 dxe5 transposes to variation 'a' in the previous note. 9 "tlr'c4

Attacking the knight on d4, while also eyeing f7 and preparing an awk­ ward pin on the d-file. 9 f6 ...

This leaves Black clearly worse, but he must already resort to drastic measures in order to survive the open­ ing. He has tried two other continua­ tions, neither of which come close to equalizing: a) 9 ...ltJe6 10 %:td1 c6 was seen in K.Ragsch-H.Liesenfeld, Goch 2004. At this point the strongest continuation would have been 11 ltJc3 ! (the game continuation of 11 ttJxc6 ! ? was enough to regain the pawn while keeping some initiative, but it turns out that White does not need to rush with this idea) when Black faces difficult problems, with one possible continuation being 11...ltJec7 (or 11 ... 'ii'a 5 12 ltJxc6 'ii'c 7 13 ttJxd5 'ii'x c6 14 'ii'e4) 12 ttJxc6! bxc6 13 'ir'xc6+ 'ir'd7 14 'ii'x d7+ �xd7 15 ltJxd5 and White should have no problem winning the ending a pawn up. b) 9 ... c5 10 i.e3 leads to a virtually forced sequence resulting in a hopeless position for Black: 10 ... a6 11 ltJc3 e6 12 i.xd4 ltJb6 13 'ii'b 3! cxd4 14 ltJa4! tt:Jxa4 15 'ir'xb7 'ii'd 5 16 'ii'xf7+ �d8 17 l:tfe1 (Black's extra piece is nowhere near enough to make up for his dreadful king position) 17 ...tt:Jc5 (17 ....tc5? led to an even quicker defeat after 18 c4! 'ii'd6 19 'ii'h7 1-0, O.Komeev-G.Rojo Huerta, Co­ runha 2000) 18 l:tad1 �c8 19 c3 d3 20 b4 d2 21 l:e2 tt::ld 7 22 tt::lf3 1-0 K.Thorsteins-Cu.Hansen, Reykjavik 1985. 241

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess D efe n ces:

1

10 'iix d4 fxe5 11 'iii'xes

White has regained his pawn to reach a position with a better structure and safer king - a pleasing outcome after just eleven moves. 11.. .'i!i'd6 12 'iie 2 o-o-o 13 lLla31

This excellent move forces Black to worry about possible knight develop­ ments to c4 and bS. White also strengthens the potential threat of l:.d1, which can no longer be met by any ...lL:lf4 trickery. 13 ...'iic6 14 lLlb5 'iib6 15 l:.d1 a6 16 c41

White continues to play energeti­ cally, creating plenty of problems be­ fore his opponent manages to catch up on development. 16 ... axb5

e4 game was 1 7...e s ! 18 a4! (after 1 8 'iix es ..tcs Black is a pawn down, but he can complete his development and create some counterplay against f2) 18 ... b4 19 as 'iia 6 (Black needs to block the a­ pawn) 20 'iix es when White's extra pawn makes him the strong favourite to win the game, but Black can still re­ sist for a while. 18 ..te3 'ir'a6 19 dxe6 l:.e8

No better is 19 ... ..td6 20 'ir'g4. 20 %bc11 l:.xe6 21 'ir'g41

White has returned the extra pawn in order to complete development and secure a deadly pin along the h3-c8 diagonal. 21... hs 22 'ir'fs ..te7

17 cxds

22 ... g6 loses to 23 'ir'ds (23 'ir'f7 is also good enough) 23 .. .'ifd6 (or 23 ....l:.d6 24 'iie s) 24 'iix bs, winning easily in a few more moves.

17 .l:txds bxc4 18 l:.xd8+ �xd8 19 'iixc4 also looks strong.

'iti>a7?

16 ...lL:lf6 is met by the simple 17 .l:txd8+ �xd8 18 ..te3 .

23 ..tf4 �bB 24 l:.xc7 �as 25 l:.dc1

Losing instantly, although the posi­ tion was hopeless in any case. 26 l:.xe7 1-0

In view of 26 ... l:.xe7 27 'iic S+.

17 ... e6?1

This allows White to obtain a pow­ erful passed pawn. The only chance to prolong the 242

In the next game, the last of this section, we will consider Black's 5th­ move alternatives after 4.....tg4 5 ..te2. The following encounter should not be taken too seriously, as the winner was rated 1922 and the loser just 1566 at the time. However, it still provides a spectacular example of how quickly things can go wrong for Black after just a small slip-up in the opening.

A l e k h in e 's Defe n c e

Game 48 M.Brenco-M.Menichini

Genoa 2007 1 e4 l'Llf6 2 es l'Llds 3 d4 d6 4 l'Llf3 .ig4 5 �e2

Black's dark squares were a source of concern in M.Mrdja-B.Joguet, Le Tou­ quet 2001) 8 'ili'f3 ! l'Llf6 (8 .. .f6? loses a piece after 9 lbe6 'ili'd6 10 'ii'x ds, as in E.Varnusz-A.Ponyi, Salgotarjan 1978) 9 dxes h6 10 l'Llxf7 'it>xf7 11 exf6 exf6 12 'ili'xb7. White had an extra pawn and the better position in V.Jansa-A.Haik, Kladovo 1980. 6 l'Llxes i..xe2 7 'ifxe2

s ... dxes?l

As we will see, there are good rea­ sons why this exchange usually takes place one move earlier, if Black plays it at all. Here are a few other minor op­ tions: a) s ...l'Llb6 6 h3 (6 0-0 is also fine) 6 ... �xf3 7 i.. xf3 l'Llc6 was seen in J.Olsar-V.Pacl, Czech League 1995. and here the simplest route to a white ad­ vantage looks to be 8 .ixc6+ bxc6 9 tLld2 when Black's weak queenside structure will be a long-tenn problem. b) 5 ... g6 allows White to choose be­ tween a few attractive continuations: 6 tLlg s ! ? (6 h 3 i.. xf3 7 i.. xf3 should also suffi ce for an edge) 6 ... ..txe2 7 'ili'xe2 dxe s ? ! (safer is 7 ... e6, although after 8 C4 l'Llb6 9 'ili'f3 ! 'ili'd7 10 lt:Je4 i..e 7 11 exd6 cxd6 12 lt:Jf6+ i.. xf6 13 'ii'xf6

Compared with the quite respect­ able variation 4 ... dxes 5 l'Llxes , Black's position is already precarious. 7 ... l'Lld7?

Losing immediately. Only the sec­ ond of the following alternatives could have given Black the slightest chance of reaching an acceptable position: a) 7 ... e6?! just loses a pawn after 8 'ii'h S + l'Lld7 9 'ir'xb7 l'Llxes 10 dxes i..e 7 11 'ili'c6+ 'itn8 12 o-o, as seen in E.Koster-D.McFay, East Lansing 1982. b) The best chance was 7 ...c6, al­ though White can still create problems with 8 ,..f3 ! lt:Jf6 9 'iib 3 and now: b1) 9 ... e6 10 'ili'xb7 •xd4 was played in M.Grishin-M.Gush, Serpukhov 2001, 243

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess D efe n ces:

1

and here the most accurate continua­ tion would have been 11 ifc8+ <J;;e 7 12 it'b7!+ (repeating the position, but eliminating any possibility of Black cas­ tling) 12 ... �e8 13 lLld3 il'e4+ 14 �e3 cs 1S it'c8+
e4 9 ... g6 1 0 ifxdS+ handed White a material advantage on top of his attack in J.Dos Santos-J.Rodrigues Neto, ldaial 2004. 10 C4

10 ...lLJ Sf6

8 lLlxf71

In the notes to Game 43, after 4 ... dxes s lLJxes lLJd7, I cautioned the reader against the notorious 6 lLJxf7 sacrifice. The present version of the sacrifice leads to an identical position except for the removal of both light­ squared bishops, which is enough to change the evaluation from 'somewhat promising, but unclear and generally impractical' to 'leads to a winning posi­ tion by force'! 8 .�xf7 9 ifhS+ �e6 ..

244

10...lLJb4 led to another massacre in the following game: 11 dS+ c6 16 �xes �xes 17 a3 lLJa6 18 b4 1-o correspondence W.Weiler-V.Markic, 2000. 11 d s+ 'itd6 12 iffsl

Here is where Black really misses his light-squared bishop. There is simply no satisfactory defence against the numerous threats. 12 ...'it>cs?

Black tries a desperate and rather comical attempt to escape with his king. According to the computer his only

A le k h in e 's Defe n ce chance to prolong the game was 12 ... c6 13 i.f4+ e5 14 dxe6+ 1;e7 15 exd7 'ir'xd7, with some vague hopes of scrap­ ing a draw in the endgame a pawn down. 13 ..te3+ �b4

13 ... �xc4 14 lLla3+ �b4 15 'ifd3 also leads to imminent mate. 14 'ir'd3 1-0

This is almost universally recog­ nized as White's most promising reac­ tion, although later on he will have to choose between a few contrasting ways of handling the position. s ...lLlb6

The less common but still quite re­ spectable 5 ... c6 will be considered in the next game. That concludes our coverage of 4 �g4. The remainder of the chapter will mainly be devoted to Black's 4th­ move alternatives, although the final game will cover a few rare options on move 2. ...

Pa rt 3

- Other lines

Game 49 P.Schneider-T.Nonnenmacher

Correspondence 1996 1 e4 lLlf6 2 es tt::Jd s 3 d4 d6 4 lLlf3 g6

This is the last of Black's big three lin es. 5 � C4

6 ..tb3 ..tg7

This natural move is the main line, although a few other moves have been seen from time to time: a) 6 .....tg4?? 7 i.xf7+ would be em­ barrassing. b) 6 ... d5 leaves Black passively placed after 7 h 3 i.g7 8 o-o o-o 9 l:.e1 intending c3, i.f4, and so on, with a slight but stable advantage. c) This leaves 6 ...tt::Jc 6 as the only se­ rious alternative worth considering, but here Black faces problems after 7 exd6: c1) 7 ...'ir'xd6 fails to equalize: for in­ stance, 8 o-o �g7 9 c3 o-o 10 tt::Jbd2 �f5 11 l:.e1 :ae8 12 lLle4 �xe4 13 l:.xe4 es 14 'ii'e 2 lLld7 15 �f4 l:te7 and now in 245

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess Defe n ce s :

1

J. Pribyl-L.Neckar, Czech League 2001, White could have posed his opponent awkward problems by means of 16 �g3 ! with the troublesome threat of l:.d1. c2) 7 ... cxd6 8 ds when Black has two sensible options:

c21) 8 ...�es 9 �xes dxes 10 o-o �g7 11 c4! (11 a4 has been played more frequently, but the black knight is misplaced on b6 so I see no reason to drive it to a better square) 11 ...�d7 12 �c3 o-o 13 �e3 b6 (13 ...fs 14 f3 pre­ vents all counterplay) 14 �a4 �a6 was G.Feher-P.Kindl, Zalaegerszeg 1993. Here the simple 1S b3 would have given White a pleasant edge. c22) 8 ...�as 9 _.d4! (the subsequent disruption to Black's development is more relevant than the loss of White's bishop pair) 9 .. .f6 (9 ...l:.g8 10 o-o �d7 11 l:te1 _.c7 was seen in M.Golubev­ S.Vanderwaeren, Leuven 2003, and here White should have played 12 �c3 as 12 ... �g7 13 �4 is strong) 10 �d2 ! (forcing an immediate exchange on b3 and thus activating the rook on a1) 246

e4 10...�xb3 1 1 axb3 �g7 1 2 �as! (White makes full use of the newly opened queenside) 12 ...�fS (12 ... �d7 13 �xb6 axb6 14 l:txa8 •xa8 1S •xb6 left Black without any real compensation for the missing pawn in A.Volzhin-N.Davies, Dhaka 2001) 13 c4 o-o 14 o-o _.c8 1S l:te1 and White had an obvious posi­ tional advantage in R.Ponomariov­ V.Pesotsky, Kiev 1997. Returning to 6 ...�g7:

7 exd61?

In the majority of games White has maintained the pawn on eS in order to preserve a space advantage and re­ strict the g 7-bishop. The text move may appear timid, but in reality it is decep­ tively dangerous and has been fa­ voured by Anand. 7 cxd6 ...

Instead 7 ... exd6 8 �gS is awkward. 7 ...•xd6 is almost never played. One game continued 8 o-o �e6 and now in S.Vajda-A.Sasu Ducsoara, Calarasi 199S. instead of taking on e6 I propose 9 �c3 ! or 9 lL:lbd2 !, encouraging Black to capture on b3 , after which the open

A le k h i n e 's Defen ce a-file will add to the defender's worries. 8 o-o o-o 9 l:le1

In principle, Black's extra central pawn gives him the makings of a good position and if he were able to play ... e5 without coming to any harm, he could easily aspire to an advantage. Fortu­ nately for us, this is easier said than done. g i.g4 Black is aiming for active play in the centre and is willing to part with a bishop in order to make it happen. The alternative is 9 .. .lt:'lc6 10 c3 with two main lines: ...

a) 10...i.g4 11 h3 i.xf3 12 Wxf3 transposes to the main game. b) After lO ...i.fs 11 i.gs White ben efits from slightly the easier devel­ opment and will gradually try to de­ velop an initiative on the kingside. Here is one recent example showing how the game may develop: ll ... ds (this was not forced, but Black obvi­ ou sly wanted to restrict the bishop on b 3 while also preventing any d4-d5 ideas) 12 tt:Jbd2 'ii'd 7 13 ltJf1 l:lfe8 14

tLlg3 i.e6 15 -.e2 tLlc4 16 ltadl b5 17 i.c1 i.g4 (presumably Black was con­ cerned about tLlgs and preferred not to weaken her kingside with 17 ... h6) 18 h3 i.xf3 19 Wxf3 as 20 tLlfl e6 21 a3 tLle7 22 tLlh2 tLlf5 23 tLlg4 f6 24 i.c2 tLlcd6 2 5 i.f4 tLlf7 26 We2 tLlsd6 27 h4 l:la7 28 hs and after obtaining the advantage of the two bishops, White had managed to build up some kingside pressure in N.Kosintseva-Pham Le Thao, Ningbo 2009. c) 10 ... e5 has seldom been played, but is possibly the most critical con­ tinuation. It is worth considering two replies for White: cl) Khalifman recommends 11 i.g s Wc7 12 tLla3, but now after 12 ... a6!, as played in J.Remicio Duque-O.Villa, Cali 2007, I do not see anything special for White. Black's 12th move is a signifi­ cant improvement over the previously played 12 ... i.g4 13 h3 (13 dxe 5 ! ? in­ tending tLlbs also looks interesting) 13 ...i.xf3 14 ...xf3 exd4 15 tLlb5 W'd7 16 tLlxd4 tLlxd4 17 cxd4 when White kept a slight plus in H.Vetter-Ziegler, German League 1984. c2) In view of the above, I propose the following solution: 11 dxeS! dxes 12 Wxd8 l:lxd8 13 i.gs l:le8 14 tLlbd2 i.e6 15 tLle4 i.xb3 16 axb3 fs. This po­ sition was reached in L.Cesarini­ N.Verrascina, Ostia 1996, and here White should have played 17 tLld6 l:leb8 18 l:ledl e4 19 tt:Je1 when he keeps the better chances. Black has made some progress in the centre, but 24 7

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess D efe n ce s :

1

he is less than comfortable on the queenside. 10 h3

Another possible move order is 10 c3 lbc6 11 h 3 �xf3 12 •xf3, transpos­ ing to the game. 10...�xf3 11 •xf3 lbc6 12 c3

e4 play 15 ...4Jxb3 1 6 axb3 l:.e8, but now 17 "ikxb7 simply wins a pawn for no compensation whatsoever. b) 14 ... 1ke7 15 lDd2 (15 .ltxb6! ? axb6 16 lba3 was possible, with a slight but definite edge) 15 ...lba5 16 .ltc2 lbbc4 17 lbxc4 lbxc4 18 �cl. This retreat was only temporary and White retained a classical advantage with the bishop pair in an open position, A.Smith­ S.Nilsson, Ballerup 2008. 15 lDa3 1

15 lbd2 should also suffice for an edge, but the text move poses Black more concrete problems.

12 ...es

In one game Black switched plans with 12 ... d5, but must soon have been regretting his decision: 13 .i.f4 f6?! (the start of a dubious plan; Black is playing far too optimistically, thinking he can seize the initiative in the centre having just relinquished the bishop pair) 14 �g3 e5 15 dxe5 fxe5 16 •g4 'ith8 17 lba3 and with l:.adl on the way, Black was under heavy pressure and he soon collapsed in G.Kuzmin-E.Solozhenkin, St Petersburg 1997. 13 dxes dxes 14 �e3 "ikc7 Alternatives also fail to equalize: a) 14...lba5? occurred in D.Marholev-P.Legrand, Le Touquet 2003, and now White could have won material immediately: 15 .ltc5 ! when the pressure against f7 forces Black to 248

15 ...a6

This seems bit slow. More challenging was 15 ... ltJa5, al­ though White still keeps an edge as follows: 16 lbb5 ! (White can also base his strategy on the bishop pair with 16 ..tc2 lbac4 17 lbxc4 lbxc4 18 .tel, with a slight edge, but I prefer the more dy­ namic approach) 16 ... 1kd7 17 'ii'e 2 a6 (this looks more or less forced, with l:.adl on the way and lbxa7 tricks also in the air) 18 l:tadl! (leading by force to

A le k h in e 's D efe n c e a superior endgame) 18 .. .'ti'xbs 19 �xbS axbs 20 ..txb6. Now Black must make a difficult choice between zo . .lt:\xb3 21 axb3 .l:.a2 22 l:te2 and 20 ... tt:lc4 21 i.xc4 bxc4 22 a3, both of which result in an unpleasant defen­ sive struggle for him.

Not a nice move t o make, but Black had to do something about the threat of ..td6.

16 i.cs l

19 ....l:.b8

Exploiting Black's temporary lack of coordination.

The queen sacrifice 19 ... as 20 l:td7 'i'xd7 21 i.xd7 axb4 22 cxb4 is also hopeless.

.

16 ...tt:le7

19 i.a41

Just a few moves out of the open­ ing, the game is already over as Black has no good defence against l:td7.

20 .l:.d7

Black cannot move the rook, as the reply 17 i.xb6 would draw the queen away from the defence off7.

Winning a piece. The rest can pass without comment.

17 i.b41

20... 'i'b6 21 ..txe7 tt:lxe7 22 .l:.xe7 'ti'xb2 23 tt:lc4 'ti'xa2 24 tt:lb6 1-0

Game 50 S.Tiviakov-N.De Firmian

Gjovik 2009 1 e4 tt:lf6 2 es tt:lds 3 d4 d6 4 tt:lf3 g6 s i.c4 c6

The configuration of White's queenside pieces is as effective as it is un orthodox. 17 .. '1t>h8?1 .

This looks too slow, although the position was probably already unten­ able. For instance, the more resilient 1 7 ... tt:lbc8 could be met by 18 tt:lc4 as 19 �xa s ! l:l.xas 20 tt:lxas 'ti'xas 21 'ti'xb7 Whe n the three queenside pawns sh ould ensure White of victory. 18 l:tad1 tt:lbc8

This time Black does not wish to re­ treat the knight from the centre. s ... dxes?! is not really a serious op­ tion, as after the natural sequence of 6 dxes c6 7 tt:lc3 ..te6 (not 7 ... tt:lxc3?? 8 ..txf7+) 8 tt:lg s ..tg7 9 tt:lxe6 fxe6 10 'i'g4 tt:lxc3 11 bxc3 tt:ld7 12 f4 White was clearly better in W.Browne-B. S perling, Fairfax 1976. 6 0-0

6 exd6 'ti'xd6 7 0-0 i.g7 is an equally valid move order. 6 ... ..tg7 7 exd6

Once again I have no qualm s about 249

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess Defe n ces:

1

e4

exchanging the advanced e-pawn, as White enjoys a pleasant edge in the resulting position.

tegically winning position, S.Tiviakov­ R.Vaganian, Moscow 2009.

7 .. ."ii'xd6

In his annotations Tiviakov men­ tioned 12 ...b S ! ?, securing the future of the knight on dS at the expense of some potential long-term weaknesses. In that case White should continue with something like 13 c3, intending .l:.e1, i.gs. and so on, keeping a slight advantage as is typical for such posi­ tions.

7 ... exd6?! is never played, as after 8 i.xds cxds Black's d-pawns are too weak. 8 h3

11 tt:'!c4 'ikc7 12 tt:lces i.fs

13 C4J

White takes the opportunity to gain some space and drive the knight to a passive square. 13 ... tt:lb6 14 i.f4 'ikd8 15 'ike2 tt:lfd7 16 l:tad1 tt:lxes 17 tt:lxes

Tiviakov immediately prevents his opponent from exchanging the c8bishop, which can become something of a problem piece for Black.

17 dxes 'ikc8 keeps White's advan­ tage within manageable boundaries. Tiviakov considers it more important to keep a piece outpost on es and I think he is correct.

8 ...0-0 9 tt:lbd2 tt:ld7 10 i.b3 tt:l7f6

Not long after this encounter, Tivia­ kov won another nice game against a high-ranking opponent. On that occa­ sion Black varied with 10 ... b6, but once again failed to equalize: 11 tt:le4 'ikc7 12 i.gs tt:l7f6 13 :e1 .taG 14 'ikd2 :ad8 15 tt:lxf6+ exf6 ! ? (other recaptures would leave White with a slight but persistent edge, so Black puts his faith in the dy­ namic approach) 16 i.h4 tt:le7 17 i.g3 'ikb7 18 c3 tt:lfs 19 i.f4 cs 20 i.c2 ! tt:ld6 21 dxcs tt:lc4 22 'ikc1 bxcs 23 b3 tt:ld6 24 c4 and White had skilfully defused his opponent's counterplay to reach a stra250

11 a s •..

Aiming for some queenside coun­ terplay. 17 ... tt:'ld7 is inadequate due to 18

A le k h in e 's D efe n ce g 4!? (even if this forceful move did not work, White could still keep a pleasant edge with the quiet 18 lDf3) 18 ... l2Jxes (o r 18 ... .i.e6 19 dS lbxes 20 dxe6 •as 21 .!:i:fe1) 19 dxes .i.d7 20 e6 fxe6 21 cs !:: xf4 22 .:txd7 when White keeps a cle ar advantage according to Tiviakov. 18 g41

Tiviakov points out that 18 a3 could be met by 18 ... tt:ld7!. Compared with the previous note, the inclusion of the pawn moves ... a7-a5 and a2-a3 helps Black after 19 g4 tt:lxes 20 dxes �6! when the defender is only marginally worse. 18 i..c8 ...

Black decides to keep the bishop well out of harm's way. 18 ...i..e 6 was possible, although White keeps a sizeable advantage after 19 a4, as pointed out by Tiviakov. 19 .!:i:fe1

White could have improved slightly with 19 a4! in order to keep his bishop on the a2-g8 diagonal. 19 . a4 20 i..c2 e6 ..

Black should have taken the oppor­ tunity to play 20 ... i..e 6! when White would at least have had to pay atten­ tion to the weak c4-pawn. After the passive game continuation he is able to build up the initiative at his leisure.

22 ....b6 23 .i.b1 tt:lf6 24 hs cs

Black has to do something before he gets smashed on the king side. 25 dxcs •xes 26 •f3 1

Apart from the minor inaccuracy on move 19, the present game is a model demonstration of how one may convert a normal-looking 'plus-equals' position into a serious advantage. With the text move White prepares .i.h4, driving an­ other enemy piece to a passive posi­ tion. 26 . ..:ta6 The c8-bishop cannot move, so Black has to resort to a more exotic method of activating his rook. .

27 i.. h 4 tt:le8 28 tt:ld71

The bishop may have been passive on c8, but its exchange will open up the seventh rank to the eager white rook.

2 1 ..ll.g 3 tt:ld7 22 h4

28 ... i..x d7 29 .:txd7 •xc4

By this stage White is not worried about his knight being exchanged, as the reply dxes will leave Black with a rotte n light-squared bishop and a gap­ in g hole on d6.

29 ... g 5 30 i..g 3 i.. xb2 is refuted beautifully by means of 31 .i.xh7+! {even stronger than 31 .:txb7 as men­ tioned by Tiviakov) 31...'it>xh7 {31...'it>g7 does not help due to 32 h6+!) 32 l:.xf7+ 251

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess Defe n ce s :

1

when Black has three different ways to lose: a) 32 .. .'�g8 is refuted by 33 l:.xf8+ 'Wxf8 34 'Wxb7, forking the rook on a6 and bishop on b2. b) 32 ...l:txf7 33 'Wxf7+ lt:Jg7 (33 .....tg7 34 'Wxe8) 34 h6! wins, as 34...'it>xh6 3 S �g2 is the end. c) 32 ... ..tg7 33 l:txf8 'Wxf8 (33 .....txf8 34 'Wxb7+) 34 'Wxb7 .l:.as.

e4 3 1 'Wxc6 bxc6 3 2 gSI?

White could also have defended the b-pawn with 32 l:tb7, but Tiviakov in­ stead aims to restrict Black's kingside pieces. 32 ...i.xb2 33 1:f.e3 lt:Jg7?

S omewhat more challenging would have been 3 3 ... .:tas, although White still keeps a decisive advantage after 34 l:l.f3 or 34 i.e4!?, as pointed out by Tivi­ akov. 34 i.xf8 'it>xfB 3 5 h6

In this position the computer's top choice is 3 S .l:txe6, but I cannot resist mentioning the following alternative winning line: 3 S h6 'iti>xh6 36 'ifh 1+! �g6 37 'We4+ 'it>h6 (37 ...�7 38 'Wxe6 mate) 38 'it>g2 ..tb2 39 .l:th1+ 'it>g7 40 'ifh7+ 'it>f6 41 l:th6+ and Black must give up the queen.

The advanced h-pawn, combined with White's extra exchange and active rooks, makes the win a formality. 3 s ...tt:Jfs

3 S ...lt:Je8 36 l:.f3 is the end. 36 i.xfs gxfs 37 .l:.ed3 :as 38 l:tb7 i.c1

30 i.e7

39 .l:tdd7 i.xgs 1-o

White 'cashes in' his initiative for an extra exchange, which should be enough to decide the game.

According to the game score, Black resigned here without waiting for 40 l:.xf7+.

30...'Wc6

Tiviakov points out that 30 ...lt:Jf6 31 l:txb7 �xg4+ 32 �xg4 lt:Jxg4 3 3 i.xf8 is just another way for Black to reach a hopeless endgame.

252

Overall it seems to me that White has good chances for an edge against 4 ... g6. We will now turn our attention to something more combative.

A le k h i n e 's Defe n ce

Game 51 B.Macieja-I.Chigladze

Athens 2007 1 e4 ttJf6 2 es ttJd s 3 d4 d6 4 lZ::lf3 ttJc61?

Black can avoid doubled pawns with 5 .....td7, but this fails to equalize after 6 c4 ttJb6 7 t:2Jc3, for instance: a) 7 ...ttJa5?! 8 ..txd7+ 'ii'xd7 9 b3 0-0-0 10 0-0 f6 was F.Zimmermann­ F.Eberhardt, St lngbert 1987, and here White should have played 11 exd6 exd6 12 d5 with a huge advantage. b) A better attempt is 7 ... a6 8 i.xc6 bxc6 (after 8 ... i.xc6?! 9 d5 i.d7 10 'ii'd4 Black is already in danger of being smothered) 9 b3 when the position re­ sembles the main game, except that Black's bishop has voluntarily moved to the passive d7-square. 6 i.xc6+ bxc6 7 h3

This provocative move remains somewhat controversial, a bit like the 4 dxe5 5 ttJxe5 ttJd7 line from Game 4 3 . Once again White can choose be­ tween a critical attempt at refutation and a far less theoretically intensive line, aiming for a positional advantage. ...

s �bs!?

Just as before, I have chosen to rec­ ommend what I consider the more pragmatic choice. 5 c4 ttJb6 6 e6 fxe6 is the sharp ap­ proach. The theory extends to some twenty-plus moves in several branches, and you can bet your bottom dollar that anyone playing this line with Black will have prepared for this in some de­ tail. The text move has not been played anything like as often, but I consider it a legitimate try for an advantage. s a6 ...

I think it is worth investing a tempo to prevent .....tg4. Now Black may have problems finding a useful role for his light-squared bishop. 7 g6 .•.

The fianchetto development looks sensible. Black hopes to exert pressure against the enemy centre and, in an ideal world, execute the undermining move ... c6-cS, solving the problem of his pawn weakness as well as liberat-

253

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess Defe n ces: 1 e4 ing the light-squared bishop. The alternative was 7 .....tfs 8 0-0 (8 tZ::lh 4!?) 8 ... e6, as played in P.German­ C.Paglilla, Acasusso 1994, and now White could have kept a pleasant edge with 9 c4 tZ::lb 6 10 b3 or 10 ..ig s ! ?. 8 o-o i.. g7 9 c4 tZ::lb6 10 b3 a s

Alternatively 10 ...0-0 11 l:.e1 h6 oc­ curred in D.Pribeanu-A.Smarandoiu, Eforie Nord 2009, and here the straightforward 12 tZ::lc 3 gives White a fine position.

12 ...'ii'x d1 13 l:txd1 tZ::ld 71

Black wastes no time improving his worst piece. 14 i..f4 tt:Jcs 15 tZ::ld 4 tt:Je6

15 ...l:r.a6 ! ? was worth considering. 16 tt:Jxe6 ..txe6 17 tLld2 .:r.b8 18 tZ::lf3 o-o

After 18 ... .:Z.xb3 19 tZ::ld4 .:r.b6 20 c5 .:r.b4? 2 1 tt:Jxc6 the bishop is untouch­ able due to mate on d8.

11 a4

This rather double-edged move fixes the as-pawn as a weakness, but also leaves b3 as a target. I would have been tempted to con­ sider 11 tZ::l c 3 ! ? a4 12 ..ie3, allowing Black to exchange off one weakness, but still leaving the problem c-pawns on the board. Meanwhile White has accelerated his development and in­ tends to exchange the dark-squared bishops with 'ii'd2 and ..ih6, which will rob the black position of much of its dynamic potential. Overall I slightly prefer this over the game continuation, so 11 tt:Jc3 would be my recommenda­ tion in the event that you reach the same position over the board.

19 tZ::ld 4

I also analysed 19 i..d2 ! ? llxb3 20 tZ::ld4 .:r.d3 21 tt:Jxc6 :as (21 .....txc4 22 ..ixa5) 22 tt::lx e7+ Wf8 23 tLld5 ..txd5 (if 23 ... ..txe5 24 i..h 6+ '1ti>g8 25 .:r.xd3 ..ixa1 26 i..f4) 24 cxd5 i..x e5 25 i..h 6+ We7 26 .:r.xd3 i..x a1 when White is marginally better, but Black should hold without too many problems. 19 ...cs 20 tt:Jxe6 fxe6 21 i.. h 2 .:r.xb3 22

11 ...dxe51?

l:.d7

Black could have developed pa­ tiently, but instead decides to force an immediate change in the position. In the event of 11 ...0-0 White should strengthen his position with 12 l:te1.

Despite his nominal material ad­ vantage, Black is under some pressure as his pawns are weak and his bishop is restricted.

12 dxes

After 23 �fl l:tbl+ 24 l:txbl l:txbl+ 25 'ito>e2 l:tb2+ Black should be okay.

12 tZ::l x eS c S ! was Black's idea. 254

22 ....:Z.fb8

23 l:te1

A l e k h in e 's D efen ce 23 ... '&W7 24 llxe7 ll8b4 25 llxes .:txa4 26 .i.f4 lle3

26 ....:ta2 ! looks more accurate. In y an case, I suspect that Black should h old the endgame, but I do not want to get too side-tracked so I will keep the analysis to a minimum from here.

tion), but after 38 ... .i.xes 39 llxe6+ .i.f6 40 .i.d4 l:td1 41 .i.xf6 exf6 42 l:texf6+ �g7 43 l:tf7+ �g8! 44 llf8+ �g7 White must take a perpetual. 38 l:ta8+ 'itd7 39 l:td4+ �e6 40 lla6+

�e7 40...�b7 41 ltd7+! wins nicely.

27 :e4 .:ta1+ 28 �h2 a4 29 .i.e3 .:td3 30

41 l:.a7+ �e8 42 l:.g4 .i.xe5+ 43 g3 .i.e7

AeB g5

44 l:.g8+ �d7 45 llgaB e5 46 e5 h5 47

Forced, as otherwise .:.f4+ would be devastating.

J:xa2

'it>g2 e4 48 .i.f4 llxes 49 .i.xe7 l:.xe7 50

31 .i.xgs a 3 3 2 .:taB

32 ... h6! 33 .i.e3 �g6 would have prevented the idea in the next note.

I am not sure if this endgame is technically a win for White or a draw, but in the game the problems were too much for the defender.

33 :a7

so....:td1

Best was 33 llf4+! 'it>g6 34 .i.xe7 h S (Blac k has t o prevent l:tg4+) 3 5 .i.d6 a2 36 lla7 :c2 37 l:tff7 .i.h8 38 l:tf8 l:tel 39 :g8+ �fs 40 lhh8 alii' 41 :xal l:txal 4 2 'ifi>g 3 .:txc4 43 l:.xh S+ 'it>g6 44 l:.h8 with excellent winning chances.

so...l:.xa2 51 .:txa2 'ite6 may have been a better chance to hold.

32 ...:e3

51 :e2 l:te4 52 :as h4 53 g4 l:.ee1 54 l:.xe4 l:.g1+ 5 5 '&W3 lle3+ 56 'itf4 l:.f1 57 l:.e2 'it>d6?

57 ...l:txh3 was the last chance.

3 3 ...'it>g6 34 .i.f4 .:.e2 35 .i.e3 a2 36

58 l:.a6+ 'it>ds 59 l:.es+ 'ifi>e4

�84+ '&W7 37 l:tf4+ 'it>eB?I

59 ...'it>d4 60 l:.a4+ �d3 61 l:.e3+ �d2 62 l:.a2+ .:tc2 63 llxc2+ �xc2 64 �3 is also hopeless for Black.

Black could have secured a draw with 3 7 .. .'�g6. He may have been afraid of 3 8 l:ta6 (38 l:tg4+ repeats the posi-

60 l:.e6+ �b4 61 l:.xe3 'it>xe3 62 �3 1-0

255

B e a t ing U n u s u a l Chess D efe n ces:

1

In the final two games of the chap­ ter we will consider some rare side­ lines. The following game will deal with some of the deviations which may oc­ cur on the fourth move.

Game 52 A.Heinz-N.To

Budapest 2009 1 e4 tLlf6 2 es tLld s 3 d4 d6

Black almost never plays anything else here, and I do consider it worth­ while to delve into any exotic alterna­ tives as in most cases White can just develop normally to obtain a safe ad­ vantage. 4 tLlf3

4 .lt:lb6 ..

This is a semi-respectable deviation. Black pre-empts any potential attacks on the knight and prepares to meet a quiet response such as 5 it.. e 2 with 5 ... g6, angling for a fianchetto variation having avoided White's most danger­ ous systems involving ..ic4.

256

e4 Here are a few other rare continua­ tions: a) 4 ...c6 isn't such a bad move. After 5 �e2 play usually continues with ei­ ther 5 ... dxe5 6 tLlxe5. taking us back into the realm of Games 38-41, or 5 ... i.g4, transposing to Game 46. In­ stead 5 ... g6 6 C4 ltJc7 (if 6 ... ttJb6 then 7 exd6 exd6 8 �g 5 ! �e7 9 �h6) 7 exd6 'ii'xd6 (7 ... exd6 is met by 8 �g5 !) 8 tLlc3 �g7 9 o-o o-o 10 �e3 �g4 11 'ii'd 2 tLle6 12 .l:tad1 left White with a typical space advantage and with possibilities for d4-d5 in J.Polasek-R.Antoniewski, Czech League 2006. b) 4... e6 is solid but passive, and af­ ter any sensible reply such as 5 �e2 or 5 c4 tLlb6 6 tLlC3, Black will have a hard time finding a useful role for the c8bishop. c) 4...�f5 is not bad, but is less ac­ tive than the normal 4...�g4. White should be able to obtain a pleasant edge with 5 it..d 3 (5 i.e2 is also not bad) 5 ... �xd3 6 'ii'x d3 tLlc6 (for 6 ... e6 7 0-0 tLlc6 - see variation 'b1' below) 7 o-o with two main possibilities for Black:

A l e kh in e 's Defe n c e c1) 7 ... e6 8 c4 lLlb6 9 exd6 cxd6 10 dS (White can also play more patiently with 10 lLlc3, but the text is direct and strong) 1o...lLles (if 10 ... exd5 11 cxds tt:les 12 .l:.e1) 11 lLlxes dxes 12 ii'e4 ii'f6 13 lLlc3 :c8 was F.Guido-R.Gervasio, St Lorrain 1999, and here it looks good to play 14 dxe6 ii'xe6 15 ii'xb7 (15 b 3 ! ?) 1S ...ii'xc4 16 i.e3 ii'c6 17 ii'xc6+ .l:.xc6 18 .l:.ac1 when Black faces a tough end­ game. c2) 7 ... dxes 8 lLlxes lbxe5 9 dxes "ii'd 7 (after 9 ... e6? 10 ii'hs+ Black was dropping a pawn in H.Momeni­ M.Yousefzadeh, Iran 1993) occurred in C.Kedziora-A.Panchenko, Essen 2000, and here I propose 10 .l:.d1 e6 11 c4 lLlb6 12 ii'e2 ii'c6 13 b3 with a modest but pleasant edge for White.

Before moving on, I will briefly note that 6 i.bS+ has been the most popular continuation, followed by 6 ... c6 7 i.d3 or 7 i.e2 with a slight plus to White. Also not bad is 6 exd6! ? aiming for a modest edge. The move I am recom­ mending is more ambitious.

5 a41

This is rather risky and Black should probably prefer one of the following alternatives: a) 6 ... i.g4 7 h3 i.h s 8 e6!? fxe6 9 i.e2 i.xf3 10 i.xf3 c6 11 ii'e2 and White had more than enough compen­ sation for the pawn in L.Christiansen­ L.Alburt, South Bend 1981. b) 6 ... g6 has been Black's most popular choice and looks to be his saf­ est continuation. Nevertheless, White still keeps an edge with 7 exd6 cxd6 8 i.bS+ i.d7 9 o-o 1Lg7 10 l:te1 o-o 11 i.g s, A.Sokolov-L.Krizsany, Lenk 2003.

White immediately targets the well­ travelled knight. s ... a s

Practice has shown that the inclu­ sion of the mutual a-pawn advances is more likely to benefit White, although there are a few different ways in which he can attempt to show it. 6 lLlc3!?

Usually the knight only comes to this square in the Alekhine after a pre­ lim inary c2-c4, but now that the black knight has retreated from the centre voluntarily, it looks like quite an attrac­ tive option. In certain positions the knight may even threaten to occupy the bS-square, which was slightly weakened by Black's last move.

6 ... dxes?!

7 lLlxes lLl8d7 B 1Lf41

Not only preparing to recapture on es with a piece, but also hinting at a possible lLlbs. 8...c6

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess Defe n ces:

1

Preventing the aforementioned idea at the cost of an important tempo. Here are a few other possibilities: a) 8 ... lLlxes 9 �xes c6 10 �e2 i.fs 11 g4! ? �g6 12 h4 h S (perhaps Black should have considered the more solid 12 ... h6, although the initiative is clearly with White in any case) 13 gxhs �fs 14 'it'd2 was M.Adams-S.Drazic, Koge 1997. White stands clearly better: his pieces are more active, the doubled h-pawns are not weak, and the open g-file is an important asset. b) 8 ... e6 9 'Wh s ! lLlxes (9 ... g6 10 •f3 �g7 11 0-0-0 0-0 12 h4! also looks troublesome for Black) 10 �xes ..td7 11 o-0-0! �b4 (there is no time for 11 ...lLlxa4? 12 lLlxa4 ..txa4 on account of 13 dS ! exds 14 .l:.e1 with a crushing initiative) 12 ds!. This powerful break­ through gave White a serious initiative in G.Guseinov-E.Janev, Istanbul 2007. 9 �d3 lLlf6 10 .f3 1 10 o-o would have given a slight plus, but White has something alto­ gether more aggressive in mind.

10... g6?1

258

e4 The greedy 10...'it'xd4? i s punished by 11 0-0-0 "irb4 12 lLlbS ! lLlbdS 13 ..tc4 with a crushing attack: for instance, 13 ... �e6 14 .l:.xds! lLlxds 1S ..txds and White wins. However, Black should have played 10 ... �e6 or 10 ... e6 to prevent the devas­ tating blow that occurs in the game. In both cases White keeps an ominous lead in development, but there is no clear breakthrough. 11 dSII

In one fell swoop, this lowly pawn morphs into a wrecking ball which de­ stroys the opponent's flimsy barri­ cades. 11 ...cxds?

Still reeling from the impact of the last move, Black immediately collapses. To be fair, the alternatives were less than appealing as well: a) 11 ... lLlfxdS runs into 12 lLlxf7! when Black's only defence is 12 ... �g4!, but even here after 13 'it'xg4 'iti>xf7 14 lLlxds lLlxds (14...•xds? 1S ..te3 ! ) 1S 0-0-0 ..tg7 16 .l:.he1 White has a huge initiative. b) The best chance was 11...lLlbxdS 12 lLlxds •xds (12 ... lLlxds 13 lLlxf7 i.g4 will transpose to variation 'a' above) 13 �c4 •xf3 14 �xf7+ 'iti>d8. White has regained the sacrificed pawn and can now choose between 1S lLlxf3, with an obvious advantage in the queenless middlegame, and the even stronger 1S gxf3 !, compromising the pawn struc­ ture in order to maintain the powerful position of the knight.

A le k h in e 's D efe n c e 12 �b5+

J.Fuksik-M.Manik, Prague 1995, 6 c4! looks like the strongest idea. 3 d4

12 tt:'lbd7 ...

12 ...�d7 is refuted by 13 tt:Jxd7 tt:Jbxd7 (13 ...tt:Jfxd7 14 tt:Jxd5 is the same) 14 tt:Jxd5 tt:Jxd5 15 "iix d5 when the pin on the d7-knight will prove fa­ tal. 13 tt:Jxds tt:Jxds 14 'ifxd s e6 15 'iff3 1-0 Black resigned as he will soon lose a piece: for instance, 15 ... i.d6 16 tt:Jxd7 Jl.. x d7 17 o-o-o i.xf4+ (or 17 ... ..txb5 18 .:lxd6) 18 'ifxf4 etc.

Game 53 J.Shaw-C.Rossi

British League (4NCL) 2000 1 e4 tt:'lf6 2 es

In this, the final game of the chap­ ter, we will consider Black's unusual s econd moves. 2 tt:Jg8 ...

2 ... tt:'le4?! is not really a serious op­ tion and White obtains a clear advan­ tage after 3 d3 (3 d4 is also good) 3 .. tt:Jcs 4 d4 tt:\e6 5 tt:lf3 ds and here in .

3

. ..

ds

The main alternative is 3 ... d6 when play usually continues 4 tt:'lf3 ..tg4 5 h 3 ..th 5. At this point White can put his opponent under unpleasant pressure with the thematic sacrifice 6 g4 ..tg6 7 e6!?, with two choices for Black: a) 7 ...'ifc8 8 ..tc4 fxe6 9 tt:'lg 5 d5 10 ..td3 ..txd3 11 'ifxd3 gave White prom­ lsmg compensation in J.Klinger­ S.Bi..i.cker, Buende 1985. Black will have a hard time developing his kingside pieces and White is risking very little as he should at the very least be able to regain the e6-pawn at some point. b) 7 ...fxe6 was played in L.Coelho­ E.Limp, Santos 2000. Here the most promising continuation looks to be 8 i.c4! 'ifd7 (8 ... d5 9 i.d3 is similar to the Klinger-Bueker game mentioned above) 9 'ife2 es!? (if 9 ... ds 10 tt:'le5 or 9 ...i.f7 10 tt:Jg s) 10 dxes ds 11 e6! (11 ii.bs ! ? followed by e6 also looks inter­ esting) 11 ... 'iVd6 12 i..b 3 when White

259

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess D efe n ces:

1

keeps some initiative in this somewhat irregular position. 4 c41?

e4 K.Naumann, German League 1995. 6 cxd5

White could also have played more aggressively with 6 tt::lc 3 e6 7 g4!? �g6 8 cxds exds 9 tt::lh 3 !. The plan is lt:Jf4 followed by either h4, to target the bishop on g6, or i.g2, ramping up the pressure against ds. 6 .. .'ili'xd5 7 tt::lc 3 ii'd7 8 tt::lf3 e6 9 �e2

Once again White could have con­ sidered playing more actively with 9 ..tbs or 9 .i.c4, but Shaw's more modest choice also keeps an edge. 9...tt::lg e7 10 o-o Black's opening is not particularly impressive; think of a Caro-Kann in which he has chosen to answer the well-respected 3 es with the illegal but in any case far from desirable retreat of the pawn from c6 to c7. It goes without saying that White could play just about any sensible move and reach an im­ proved version of that opening, and the text seems like one of the most ener­ getic and principled ways of doing so. 4.. .tt:Jc6

1o...tt::ld s?l

Black has tried a few other moves, but White keeps an advantage by sim­ ple means in all cases. If we come back to the Caro-Kann analogy, at least the text move makes some sense in that Black is attempting to derive some benefit from the absence of the move ... c7-c6.

This natural move is an error. 10 ... h6 would have better, in order to give the light-squared bishop an es­ cape square. Another idea was 10 ... 0-0-0! ?, al­ though after 11 ii'a4 Black risks falling under a dangerous attack.

5 �e3 �f5

The loss of the light-squared bishop will be painful for Black, as its counter­ part on e2 has enormous potential. 11.. .tt::lxc3

White is also comfortably better af­ ter the more passive s ... e6 6 tt::lc 3 tt::lg e7 7 tt::lf3 as occurred in C.Goralski-

260

11 tt::l h 41

A le k h i n e 's Defe n ce 11 ...�g6 is strongly met by 12 tt:'lxds, when both 12 ...exds 13 tt:'lxg6 hxg6 14 �g4 and 12 ...'ii'x ds 13 tt:'lxg6 hxg6 14 �f3 look highly unpleasant for Black. 12 bxc3 �e4 13 f3 �g6 14 tt:'lxg6 fxg6?1

I am not sure why Black felt the need to compromise his pawn struc­ ture like this, as it is hard to imagine him utilizing the open f-file in any meaningful way. 14...hxg6 was better, although White still keeps a clear advantage in much the same way.

2 3 ...tt:'lh4?

23 ... tt:'lh6 was necessary, although Black is strategically lost in any case. The problem with the text move is that, on top of his other problems, Black's knight becomes stranded. 24 �e4 l:.b8 25 �c6+ 'ft;f7 26 f41 h5

Losing quickly, although Black's situation was already hopeless with ds on the way. 27 �xh4 �xh4 28 g5

Having enticed the bishop into the jar, White closes the lid. 28 ....l:.bd8 29 d5 'lt;e7 30 .l:.h3 1-0

15 .l:.b1 .l:.b8 16 .l:.b3

White is spoilt for choice, as 16 'ii'a4 and 16 f4! ? are both strong as well. 16 ...tt:'le7 17 'ii'b1 b6 18 'ii'e4 'ii'd 5 19 c4 �b7

Black prefers to keep the f-file closed and 19 ...-.xe4 20 fxe4 tt:'lc6 21 i.g4 would indeed have been depress­ ing for him. 20 �d3 tt:'lf5 21 �f2 �e7 22 'iix b7 .l:.xb7 23 g4

Conclusion Phew! We have covered a lot of mate­ rial in this chapter. I was slightly taken aback when I counted the number of illustrative games I had assembled, but now that the work is over I feel happy with the results. Black has a plethora of options at his disposal in the Alekhine and it is worth playing through the games and notes carefully in order to understand the pros and cons of each one, and how White should alter his approach depending on the situation. Throughout the chapter (and the book in general) I have strived to recom­ mend strong moves which meet the demands of the position, whether that means embarking on a sacrificial at­ tack or attempting to squeeze the op­ ponent in the endgame.

261

Chapter Six Other Defences

This chapter is divided into two main sections.

along with Black's other unusual second moves. 3 d4 tt:Jf6

Part 1

-

Nimzowitsch Defence

1 e4 tt:Jc6

The dubious 3 .....tg4?! is considered in Game 57. 4 lt:Jc3 ..tg4 Occasionally Black steers the game towards an unusual kind of Pirc with 4 ... g6, for which see Game 56. 5 ..te3

This is the most significant of Black's irregular defences. 2 lt:Jf3

Overall I find this more convenient than 2 d4, although the choice may come down to one's repertoire choices i n other openings such as the French and 1 e4 e5. 2 d6 ...

Game 58 will deal with 2 . . tt:Jf6, .

262

From here the main line arising ter 5 ... e6 is the subject of Game while 5 ... e5 will be covered in Game along with Black's other 5th-move ternatives.

af­ 54, 55. al­

O t h e r D efe n ces Part 2

-

Miscella neous Defences

Pa rt 1 - Nimzowitsch Defence

1 e4 b6

Owen's Defence is the most signifi­ cant of the lines considered in this sec­ tion. Instead 1 ... a6 2 d4 bs is the St George, for which see Game 61. In Game 62 we turn our attention to the g-pawn with 1 ... g6 (l ... g s also gets a brief mention) 2 d4 �f6 ! ?. 2 d4 �b7 3 �d3 e6 4 �c3

I like this aggressive development, which tends to offer good attacking chances for White. 4...�f6 The important alternative of 4...�b4 is mentioned in the notes to Game 60. 5 �ge21

Game 54 M.Golubev-T.Markowski

Biel 199 5 1 e4 �c6

The game actually started with the sequence 1 ... d6 2 d4 �f6 3 �c3 �c6 4 �f3. but I have substituted the charac­ teristic move order for the Nimzowitsch Defence in order to lay out the various alternatives that will be covered over the course of the next few games. 2 �f3 The main alternative is 2 d4 when Black's main replies are 2 ... ds and 2 ... es. There are arguments in favour of either sequence, but the text move is the one I prefer.

From here s ... cs 6 dS! is a promising pawn sacrifice examined in Game 59, while S ... dS 6 eS gives White a promis­ ing version of a French, as shown in Gam e 60.

2 ... d6

Let us now begin with the most sig­ nificant of the openings covered in the present chapter.

According to the database, Black plays 2 ... es in just under 30% of all games. Most 1 e4 players will feel quite at home in the resulting position and

263

B e a t i n g U n u s u a l Chess Defe n ce s :

1

can happily proceed with their favourite Ruy Lopez, S cotch, or 3 i.c4 system. On the other hand, fans of the King's Gambit, Vienna, and other openings after 1 e4 e5 that do not involve 2 tt:'lf3 will have a problem. While I would love to be able to offer an anti-Nimzowitsch repertoire that caters for everyone, un­ fortunately I do not see how it can be done without using an inordinate amount of space, which would hardly be appropriate for a minority opening such as this. The proposed solution is one of the strongest available and it provides excellent chances to fight for an advantage against all of Black's al­ ternatives to 2 e5, while remaining compatible with the repertoires of the majority of 1 e4 players, who answer 1 ... e5 with 2 tt:'lf3. If your own pet system against 1 e4 e5 does not involve the move 2 tt:'lf3, then I'm afraid you will just have to find your own solution. Either learn a back-up line after 1 e4 tt:Jc6 2 tt:'lf3 e5, or investigate a different option after 1 e4 tt:'lc6, such as 2 d4 or perhaps 2 tt:'lc3. Before we move on, let me add that 2 .. ds 3 exd5 'if'xd5 transposes to Game 7 in Chapter One, while Black's less common second moves will be covered in Game 58. ...

e4 Golubev-Markowski.

4.....tg4

Once again this is Black's most con­ sistent continuation. His alternatives on both this and the previous move will form the subject of Games 56 and 57. 5 ..te3 e6

Black has tried a number of alternatives here, which will be considered in Game 5 5 .

.

3 d4 tt:'lf6

6 h3

This is the most natural follow-up, developing a piece and attacking White's centre.

I t is useful for White t o force the bishop to declare its intentions imme­ diately. The present position can be considered the main tabiya for the pre­ sent game, as well as arguably the

4 tt:'lc3

We have now transposed back to

264

O t h e r D efe n ces main line of the entire Nimzowitsch Defence. 6 .....t h s 6 .....txf3 is less common - hardly a surprising revelation, as Black relin­ quishes the bishop pair while helping White's development: 7 'ii'xf3 ds (7 ... ..te7 8 0-0-0 0-0 was E.Vasta­ L.Scalise, Mar del Plata 2002, and now after a simple move like 9 �b1 White clearly has the brighter prospects) 8 es tZ'ld7. We have reached an odd version of a French Defence, in which White's chances should be somewhat higher. The following game saw both sides play in a logical and consistent man­ ner: 9 'ii'g 3 (9 o-o-o is also promising) 9 ... g6 10 h4 tZ'lb4 11 o-o-o cs 12 hS cxd4 13 �xd4 J:tg8 14 hxg6 hxg6 15 l:.h7 �as.

At this point in B.Socko-J.Przewoz­ n ik, Lubniewice 2005, White could have obtained a strong initiative as follows: 16 "il'f4! l:.g7 17 l:.xg7 �xg7 18 tZ'lbs ! t2lxa 2+ ( 1 8...�f8 may b e objectively better, although after 19 a3 lLlc6 20 �c3 intending lLld6+ White keeps a

clear advantage at no material cost) 19 'ot>b1 ..tf8 20 ltJd6+ �xd6 21 exd6 ltJb4 22 ..tc3! 'ii'a 2+ 2 3 �c1 ltJc6 24 �bs when it is doubtful that Black can withstand the attack. 7 d51

7 .exds ..

Black is unlikely to benefit from omitting this move, although he does occasionally try one of the following options: a) 7 ... ttJes 8 g4 can be compared with the note to Black's 8th move in our main game. Here 8 ... ..tg6, attacking the e4-pawn, is the only serious reason Black might have to refrain from ex­ changing on dS on the previous move. correspondence G.Ottolini-J.Cobb, 1997, continued 9 ltJxes dxes 10 ..tbS+! (initiating a forcing sequence which highlights the drawbacks of Black's de­ cision not to exchange on ds) 10 ... ltJd7 11 dxe6 fxe6 12 �g S ! �e7 13 �xe7 'ii'x e7 14 'ii'x d7+ 'ii'x d7 15 ..txd7+ 'ot>xd7 and now after 16 'ot>e2 White has a slight but permanent endgame advan­ tage and can press for a win with no

265

B e a t i n g U n u s u a l Chess D efe n ces:

1

risk. Note that Black's bishop is severely restricted by the white pawns. The first player will solidify his pawn chain with f3 and can later manoeuvre his knight to an ideal outpost on d3, or possibly c4. Later too he can slowly look to ad­ vance his pawns on both sides of the board in order to create further weak­ nesses in his opponent's position. b) 7 . ..liJe7 should be met by 8 ii.b5+ c6 9 dxc6 when Black has two moves:

e4

c-pawns is offset by his excellent con­ trol over the important queenside squares. b22) 11...'iti>xd8 12 g4 ii.g6 was seen in H .Rittner-M.Zavanelli, correspon­ dence 2004, and here White should have continued with 13 0-0-0+
Now Black must decide what to do about his light-squared bishop. Usually he would prefer not to exchange it for a knight, but in the present position his bishop is liable to become a target for White's mobile kingside pawns. 8 ii.xf3 This seems safest. 8 ...tLle5 should be met by 9 g4! when Black has two options: a) After 9 ...l2Jxf3+ 10 1Wxf3 ii.g6 11 o-o-o ii.e7 12 1Wg2! White's strategy is simple: advance the kingside pawns and bulldoze his opponent. ...

b1) 9 .. bxc6 10 ii.a4 'iic 7 11 1We2 is pleasant for White, who has scored 100% in five games from this position according to the database. Black's bishop is misplaced on h5 and would be much happier on d7 or b7. b2) 9 ...l2Jxc6 10 e5 dxe5 11 'iix d8+ when Black has two options, neither of which is particularly appealing: b21) 11 ....:txd8 12 l2Jxe5 ii.b4!? was played in R.Felber-L.Noronha, corre­ spondence 2001, and here the simplest route to an advantage looks to be 13 0-0 ii.xc3 (or 13 ... 0-0 14 ii.xc6 ii.xc3 15 bxc3) 14 bxc3 0-0 15 ii.xc6 bxc6 16 c4! when the weakness of White's doubled .

266

O t h e r D efe n ces Here are a couple of practical ex­ amples: al) 12 ... h5 13 f4 ltJd7 was played in A.Dgebuadze-T.Slisser, Dieren 2002. At this point, out of several strong ideas, my preference would be for 14 :e1 with a big advantage. a2) 12 ...ltJd7 13 f4 f5 was reached in P.Kovacevic-N.Kostic, Bela Crkva 1990. Black has resorted to desperate meas­ ures to prevent the further advance of the f-pawn and in doing so he has cre­ ated a huge weakness on e6. Therefore the strongest response should be 14 4'lb5 ! o-o (alternatively, 14 .....tf6 15 g 5 or 1 4. ..fxg4 15 ltJd4!) 15 4'ld4 4'lc5 1 6 �c4 when White is i n full control and need not fear 16 ...fxg4 17 hxg4 ..te4, as after 18 'Wih 2 ! ..txhl 19 :xhl h6 20 g 5 h i s attack should b e enough t o decide the game. b) 9 .....tg6 10 ltJd2! and once again White threatens to roll the f-pawn down the board.

Here are a few illustrative exam­ ples: bl) 10...l2Jed7 11 f4 -.e7 12 lth2 !

o-o-o 13 :e2 leaves Black already in serious trouble and in the following game he resorted to a desperate piece sacrifice: 13 ...ltJxg4 14 hxg4 'Wih4+ 15 :f2 :e8 was J.Van der Veen-T.Slisser, Hoogeveen 2003, and now after 16 �e2 ltJf6 17 ltJf3 �xg4 18 0-0-0 Black has no compensation whatsoever. b2) 1o ... �e7 11 ..tg2 h 5 12 g 5

12 ...lDh1 (12 ...ltJfd7 13 o-o ..tf5? 14 4'lb5 4'lb6 15 i.xb6 axb6 16 f4 was a disaster for Black in S.Kaphle­ M.Gadschisade, Willingen 2007) 13 o-o ..tf5 (13 ... ltJd7 14 .:tel was nasty for Black in J.Magem Badals-AJerez Perez, Vendrell 1993). This position was reached in O.De la Riva Aguado­ K.Spraggett, Santiago 1995, one of the few examples in which a grandmaster dared to test the black side of this varia­ tion. Spraggett eventually prevailed, but White's play can easily be improved. In the present position the simplest way of doing so is 14 -.e2! (White can also ob­ tain a big advantage with the com­ puter's outlandish suggestion of 14 f4! ? lbg4 15 i.xa7! ltxa7 1 6 lte1) 14.. 0-0-0 .

267

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess Defe n ce s :

1

(White was threatening to win a pawn with 'in>5+) 15 lL'lb5 a6 16 lL'ld4 when White has more or less completed his development and will soon play f4 with a dominant position. Returning to the exchange on f3: 9 'Wxf3 lbes 10 'ii'e 2

e4 this point i n M.Apicella-T.Porrasmaa, Chalkidiki 2002, the quickest route to victory would have been 21 ..tf6 ! lbxf6 22 gxf6 l:.e3 23 fxg7 ..txg7 (or 23 ....:txf3 24 ..txh7+ and mate in two) 24 'ii'g 4 'ii'f8 25 'Wf5 .I:.xd3 26 lbd3 when White wins, as pointed out by Mueller. 11 o-o-o ..te7 12 f4 lL'lg6

Here is another game in which Black was swiftly annihilated: 12 ... lbed7 13 g4 g6 14 h4 b5 15 ..td4 o-o 16 h s b4 17 hxg6! bxc3 ? (17 .. .fxg6 was mandatory although White keeps a big plus after 18 lba4) 18 gxh7+ 'it>h8 19 g 5 cxb2+ 20 'it>b1 l:.e8 21 ..th 3 ..tf8 22 'ii'g 2 1-0 A.Hoffman-F.Fiorito, Villa Martelli 1996. 13 g4 lL'ld7 10...a6

This has been the usual choice, al­ though it is not strictly necessary to prevent 'Wh5+. 10.....te7 sees Black developing a lit­ tle more quickly, although the funda­ mental character of the game remains more or less the same. White has the makings of a large advantage thanks to his bishop pair, extra space and the automatic plan of pushing the kingside pawns. The following is a good exam­ ple of how he can increase his advan­ tage: 11 o-o-o o-o 12 f4 lbed7 13 g4 lbc5 14 ..td4 l:.e8 15 g5 ..tf8 16 'ii'f3 lbfe4? (this tempting move is a mis­ take; 16 ...lbfd7 was necessary, al­ though after 17 h4 White remains firmly in control) 17 lbxe4 lbxe4 18 ..tbs ! l:.e7 19 .:thg 1 a6 20 ..td3 -.e8. At

268

It is unfortunate for Black that his knights find themselves in the path of the advancing kingside pawns, forcing him to lose additional time. 14 gs o-o 15 h4 .:tea 16 h s lL'lgfs

There is no time to exploit the alignment of rook and queen on the e­ file: 16 ...lbxf4 17 ..txf4 ..txg s 18 'ii'd 2 and White is just a piece up for noth­ ing.

O t h er Defe n ces 1 7 'ii'd 21

Not only sidestepping the gaze of the rook on e8, but also setting up the deadly threat of 'ii'd4 followed by h6. 17...cs 18 dxc6

18 h6 g6 19 lLle4 was also extremely strong, but the text move was probably the best choice in a practical sense, as Black will be left with additional pawn weaknesses.

Black plans to trap the enemy queen, but White does not even have to prevent it. 26 .l:.xd61 l:te7 27 l:txd7

Golubev chooses the simplest of many possible wins; one which leads to a trivial endgame. 27 ....l:.xf7 28 l:txd8+ lLlxd8 29 1Lxf7 lLlxf7 30 i.. d4 �g8 3 1 1l.xf6 lLld6 32 l:.e1 1-0

18 ... bxc6 19 h6 g6 20 lLle4 ds 21 'ii'c 3 f6?

This leads to a fatal weakening of Black's kingside. 21...lLle6 was essential, although af­ ter 22 'ii'xc6 White wins material while retaining his huge positional advan­ tage.

Golubev's play certainly made for a powerful argument against Black's set­ up. Let us see if the second player might fare any better with a different approach on move s.

Game 55 N.Firman-A.Prihotko

Rodatychi 2006 1 e4 lLlc6 2 lLlf3 d6 3 d4 lLlf6

Golubev finishes the game with a stylish piece sacrifice.

Once again I have taken a slight lib­ erty with the move order, in order to emphasize what I consider to be the most accurate sequence for Black. The game continuation was 3 ... 1Lg4 4 1Le3 lLlf6 5 lLlC3, but I believe White's most accurate response against this move order to be 4 dS!. Further details on this can be found in Game 57.

22 dxe4 23 'ii'c4+ �h8 24 'ii'f7 lLle6 2 5

4 lLlc3 i..g4

iLc4

4... g6 is the subject of the next game.

22 'ii'xc61

...

Black is completely tied up, so there is no need to take the knight immedi­ ately. 2 S . �d61? ..

5 i..e 3

So far the opening moves have been the same as in Golubev-Markowski. The

269

B e a t i n g U n u s u a l Chess Defe n ces:

1

e4

present game will focus on Black's al­ ternatives to s ... e6.

s ... es

This is by far the most popular of the said alternatives, although plenty of other options have been tried. Here is a summary of the most important ones: a) It seems unnecessary to spend a whole tempo just to prevent ..tbs. After S ... a6 White should play 6 h 3 with two branches: a1) 6 ... �xf3 7 -.xf3 es 8 ds (8 dxe s ! ?) 8 ...tLlb8 (if 8 ...tLld4 White replies 9 -.d1) 9 g4 with an obvious initiative for White, A.Vajda-A.Zajarnyi, Bucha­ rest 1996. a2) 6 ... �h s 7 ds �xf3 (or 7 ...tLles 8 g4 ..tg6 9 tLld2 and with f4 coming next, Black's position was already un­ pleasant, S.Erendzhenov-M.Azahari, Elista Olympiad 1998) 8 -.xf3 tLles. This was G.Garcia-A.Miles, Wijk aan Zee 1996, and now 9 -.g3 intending f4 and long castling looks best. b) s ... g6 6 h3 ..txf3 7 -.xf3 ..tg7 8 0-0-0 0-0

2 70

9 g4! (with two bishops and a useful space advantage, White is ideally placed to start an attack) 9 ... es 10 dxes tLlxes 11 -.g2 a6 12 gs lLlh s 13 ..te2 fs? (this creates additional weaknesses, but Black's position was already un­ pleasant) 14 f4 tLlc6 15 exfs l:txfs (1S ... �xc3 16 �xh s gxh s 17 -.ds+ wins) 16 tLlds and White has a huge advantage, R.Htibner-K.Wockenfuss, German league 1986. c) s ... ds 6 h3 ..th s (6 .....txf3 7 -.xf3 e6 8 es transposes to the note to Black's sixth move in the previous game) 7 es tLle4 was reached in Z.Hagarova-E.Danielian, Batumi 1999, and a few subsequent games. Here the most convincing route to an advantage looks to be 8 tLlxe4! (in the aforemen­ tioned game White was successful with 8 tLle2, but the text move seems even stronger) 8 ... dxe4 9 g4. Now Black is clearly worse after 9 ... exf3 10 gxh s -.ds 11 c3 and 9 ... ..tg6 10 tLlh4 e6 11 tLlxg6 hxg6 12 ..tg2 -.ds 13 c3. In both cases White has a powerful pawn centre and a tremendous light-squared bishop,

O t h e r Defe n ces while Black must worry about defend­ ing a weak pawn in enemy territory. Returning to s . . eS: 6 d S tZ:lbB Black hopes to achieve a harmoni­ ous set-up with the knight on d7 and bishop on e7. 6 ...tZ:le7 is possible, but Black runs the risk of his pieces becoming con­ gested on the kingside. After 7 h3 i..d 7 (or 7 ...i.. xf3 8 'ii'xf3 when White will obtain a strong initiative with the easy plan of long castling followed by ad­ vancing the kingside pawns) 8 g4!? h6 9 'iid 2 I found three examples: .

a) 9 ...g 5 ? ! is too committal: 10 o-o-o tt':lg6 was L.Perez Rodriguez-J.Salgado Gonzalez, Vila de Padron 2000, and here I would suggest 11 tZ:le1! intend­ ing to regroup with f3 and tZ:le2-g 3. targeting the weak light squares. b) 9 ... c6 was played in R.Jones-F.Eid, Dresden Olympiad 2008. It seems a bit too early for Black to open up the cen­ t re and this could have been high­ li g hted by means of 10 g S ! hxgs 11 dxc 6! tt:Jxc6 12 tt:JxgS when White has

plenty of open lines along which to at­ tack. c) 9 ... tZ:lg6 10 o-o-o i..e 7 seems to be Black's most solid course of action and was played in M.Casella-T.Taylor, Los Angeles 2007. In this position I rather like the quiet 11 Wb1, patiently improv­ ing the king's position and emphasiz­ ing the fact that the black king lacks a safe destination. 7 h3

would advise the reader to re­ member the following rule of thumb, which seems to be almost universally true in Nimzowitsch lines in which the black bishop comes to g4. The rule is: as soon as the centre has been stabilized, White should play h2-h3 at the first opportunity in order to force the en­ emy bishop to declare its intentions. 7 �c81? ...

Having induced an earlier blocking of the centre, Black decides it is worth losing time in order to keep his bishop. This idea does not equalize, but the same can be said of Black's alterna­ tives:

2 71

Bea ting U n u s u a l Chess Defe n ces:

1

a) 7 .....txf3 8 .,xf3 ..te7 was seen in P.Bank-S.Nielsen, Aarhus 1993. and here I think 9 o-o-o! is the most accu­ rate move when White has an obvious initiative. (In all three of the games which I found on the database White preferred 9 g4, but this allows Black to make a favourable bishop exchange with 9 ... tt::lfd7! followed by ... i.g5 when his position is not so bad.) b) 7 ... i.hs should be met by the the­ matic 8 g4! ..tg6 9 tt::ld2 when Black has tried two moves:

e4 ..te2) 12 •f3 hxgs 13 hxgs ..te7 14 dxc6 bxc6 15 o-o-o i.xg5 16 tt::lc4. b14) 10 ... tt::lfd7 11 h4 h6 12 gxh6 gxh6 13 h5 ..th7 14 .:tg1. White has a large advantage in all these variations. b2) 9 ... ..te7 10 gS tt::lfd7 (the bizarre 10 ... tt::l x e4?? 11 tt::ldxe4 just left Black a piece down in A.Parry-E.Van Dijk, corre­ spondence 2003) 11 h4 f6 (White is also clearly better after 11 ... f5 12 h 5 �f7 13 exf5 �xg 5 14 tt::lde4 �xe3 15 fxe3) 12 'tig4 fxg 5 13 hxg 5 and Black was al­ ready under heavy pressure in L.Fressinet-G.Kovarcik, Montlucon 1997. 8 g41

b1) 9 ... c6 was played in V.Nevednichy-D.Nicolescu, Romanian Team Championship 1992, and here White could have obtained a serious advantage with 10 g 5 ! , as recom­ mended by Khalifman. I have nothing to add to his analysis, so I will repro­ duce it here: b11) 10 ... tt::lg 8 11 h4 h6 12 Wf3 hxg 5 13 hxg 5 .:txh1 14 'ii'xh1 tt::le 7 15 dxc6 b6 16 0-0-0. b12) 10 ... ..th5 11 ..te2 ..txe2 12 Wxe2 tt::lfd7 13 0-0-0. b13) 1o ... tt::lh s 11 h4 h6 (11 .....te7? 12

2 72

White has no reason to refrain from this thematic and energetic advance. 8 .....te 7 9 gS tt::lfd7 9 ... tt::lh 5 ? 10 tt::lx e5 wins a pawn. 10 •d2 o-o 11 o-o-o fs?l

Black tries to fight for space on the kingside, but only succeeds in weaken­ ing himself. He should have preferred some­ thing like 11 ... a6, although White en­ joys a clear head-start in the race be-

O t h e r D efe n ces tween opposing attacks. Out of many possible moves, my personal favourite is 12 lL'lh4! ? when Black faces an un­ pleasant choice between allowing the knight into fs and weakening his king­ side with ... g6.

.:txg1+ 18 .:txg 1 also gives White excel­ lent attacking chances in return for a mere pawn) 17 ... l:tg6 (if 17 .. J:tg s 18 'it>b1 l:.fs 19 i.g4) 18 lL'ld3 and White has a powerful initiative, with lL'lf4 coming next.

12 exfs

1s ...:es?

12 gxf6 would also have led to a clear advantage.

1S ...lL'lb6 ! would have kept Black in the game.

12 ...:x1s 13 lL'lh41

Firman correctly decides to offer a pawn in order to maximize his initia­ tive. 13 ...:xgs

After 13 ...:f8 14 i.e2 White has a huge lead in development and will pre­ pare to open the position with f4. 14 .te2

Threatening lL'le4. 14 ... e4 16 f41

White immediately makes amends for his previous inaccuracy. 16 ...exf3 17 lL'lxf3 .:txe3

Also after 17 ...l:.fs 18 lL'ld4 lH6 19 lL'le6 :xe6 20 dxe6 Black loses material under unfavourable circumstances and in the long run it is unlikely that he will survive. 18 -.xe3 lL'lf8 19 .i.d3 15 'it>b1?

Too slow. White could have fully j usti fied his previous play with the en­ ergetic 15 f4! when I analysed the fol­ lowing lines: 1S ... exf3 (or 1S ...l:tg3 16 lt'lts .:tg6 17 .ths) 16 ltJxf3 .:tg2 ( 16 ...l:tg6 17 .td3) 17 ltJe1 (17 .:tdg1

19 l:.hg 1 would have been slightly more accurate, but the route chosen by White in the game is more than good enough to secure victory. 19... lL'lbd7 20 .:tde1 .tf6 21 lL'le4 lL'lcs

Black gives up a pawn, although I am not sure exactly what he hoped to gain in return. His position would have

2 73

B e a t i n g U n u s u a l Chess Defe n ces :

1

remained depressing after other moves as well. 22 tt::lx c5 dxc5 23 Wxc5 b6 24 'ii'c4 'ii'd 6

24...Wh8 2 S tt::l e s is horrible.

25 tt::ld 4

2S tt::ld 2! was even stronger. 25 ...�b7

2S ... a6 would have resisted a while longer, albeit without threatening to alter the final result. 26 tt::lb 5 'ii'd 7 27 Wxc7 Wxc7 28 tt::lxc7

White has a huge material advan­ tage, and the remaining moves can pass without comment. 28 ...l:tc8 29 tt::leB ..ih4 30 tt::ld 6 .l::.c 7 3 1 .::i.eB ..ixd5 3 2 .l:.f1 ..ie7 3 3 tt::lb 5 l:.b7 3 4 tt::lc3 ..if7 3 5 ..ixh7+ 1-0

Game 56 M.Kozakov-A.Zajarnyi

lvov 1998 1 e4 tt::lc6 2 tt::lf3 d6 3 d4 tt::lf6

Here is a summary of Black's alter­ natives on the third move: a) 3 ... ..tg4 is considered in the next

2 74

e4

game. b) Occasionally Black tries 3 ... es when White's most ambitious response is 4 ..tbs !, transposing to the Steinitz variation of the Ruy Lopez, which fa­ vours White. Readers wishing to learn more about this variation are invited to check out a certain chunky orange book on the subject, written by an au­ thor whose name escapes me. Of course, if White does not wish to enter Ruy Lopez territory then he can always settle for 4 dxes, angling for a queenless position with a slight initia­ tive. c) Black's other main option is 3 ... g6 4 ds tt::lb 8 (4 ... tt::le s s tt::l x es dxes 6 i.bs+ �d7 7 ..txd7+ Wxd7 8 c4 gave White a pleasant version of a King's Indian in H.Lehmann-A.Pomar Salamanca, Spain 1968). In this position White has a pleasant choice between S c4 .ig7 6 i.e2 tt::lf6 7 tt::l C 3, with a favourable form of King's Indian, and S tt::lc 3 ..ig7 6 h3 tt::lf6 7 ..ic4, transposing to a line of the Pirc in which White stands slightly bet­ ter: for instance, 7 ... 0-0 (or 7 ... c6 8 a4) 8 o-o c6 9 a4 as 10 .:tel tt::lfd7 11 ..te3 tt::l a6 12 ..id4 with an edge to White, N.Praznik-A.Beliavsky, Bled 1999. 4 tt::lc 3 g6

With this move Black transposes to a sideline of the Pirc. At first glance this might be seen as a problem for our repertoire, as f2-f4 is no longer possi­ ble. On the other hand, Black has com­ mitted his knight to the c6-square much sooner than he would normally

O t h e r D efe n ces do in the Pirc, which gives us some ad­ ditional options. 4 ... es 5 ..tbs once again reaches a Ruy Lopez. 5 i.bSI

guard the g4-square in such positions. 8...0-0 8 .. i.b7 was Black's choice in correspondence C.Jaulneau-J.Bellec, 2007. In this case White could have tried 9 0-0!? to tempt his opponent with a pawn sacrifice, as after 9 ...b4 10 tt::ld s tt::l xe4 11 'ii'd 3 (or 11 :tel) 11 ... tt::lf6 12 tt::l xf6+ i.xf6 13 i.h6 White has promising compensation with the en­ emy king stuck in the centre. .

9 0-0

White immediately highlights the problem piece in Black's position. s ... a6

This is practically forced, as after s . i.d7?! 6 es dxes 7 dxes tt::l g 4 8 'ii'e 2 ..

..tg7 9 i.f4 a6 10 i.c4 Black was already in trouble in A.Wojtkiewicz-H.Stenzel, Nassau 1999. 6 ..ta41?

6 i.xc6+ bxc6 is a good alternative, but the Ruy Lopez approach is an in­ triguing alternative which has seldom been tried. My database only shows eleven games with this move, so there is little established theory. G b s 1 i.b3 ..tg7 7 b4 does not win a pawn, as after 8 tt::le 2 tt::l x e4?? 9 ..tds Black loses a piec e. •••

...

8 h3

This may not be strictly necessary at th is stage, but it is always useful to

9 e6 •••

In the event of 9 ... b4, as in A.Bivol­ Y.Voronov, Kiev 2010, White should play energetically with 10 tt::ld s! tt::l x ds (10 ... tt::lxe4 11 :tel tt::lf6 12 i.a4! wins material) ll i.xds i.b7 12 a3!, fighting for the initiative on the queen side. 10 a3

Safeguarding both the e4-pawn and the b3-bishop. 10...i.b7 11 .:tel tt::la s 12 i.a2 cs 13 dS es?l

Black opts for a Ruy Lopez set-up, but neither of his queenside minor pieces will be very happy with that!

2 75

B e a t i n g U n u s u a l Chess Defe n ces:

1

Presumably Black did not want to concede an outpost in the centre with 13 ... exd5 14 t2Jxd5, but in fact his posi­ tion should be fine here after 14... c4 or 14...t2Jxd5 15 i.xd5 i.xd5 16 Wxd5 l2Jc4. Objectively speaking, White should look for an earlier improvement; per­ haps 6 i.xc6+ is the way to go after all. Still, after witnessing White's fine mid­ dlegame play and fabulous winning combination, I decided to include this game even if his opening set-up was not strictly the best available.

e4 on the kingside ... 2 3 ...l:tfe8 24 .:tel 'jie7 2 S :eel i.fB 26 .:te3 'it>hB?

An unfortunate oversight. 26 ... l:tc7 intending ....:tbc8 would have kept Black's disadvantage to a minimum .

14 b41 exb4 1S axb4 We7

After 15 ... l2Jc4 16 i.xc4 bxc4 17 .ie3 Black's bishop pair is not doing much, but his weak pawns are certainly rele­ vant. 16 bxas Wxe3 17 i.d2 We7

27 ttJxesl

A lovely combination. 27 ...'ii'x es 28 :xes :xes 29 :xes 'ii'u+

Obviously 29 ... dxc5?? 30 i.c3 is no good. The queen check seems more troublesome, but Kozakov has it all worked out. 30 .:tel 'ii'x a2 31 'ii'a 71

Forking two pieces and obtaining a winning advantage. 3 1 ....:te8 18 e41 ltJd7

18 ... bxc4 19 l:tc1 is also pleasant for White. 19 .:tel ttJes 20 We2 :tabS 21 exbs axbs 22 i.b4 i.a6 23 We3

Another idea was 23 l2Jd2 intending lDb3, but as things turn out White must have been glad he left his knight

2 76

31 ....:te8? 32 'ii'xf7 wins immedi­ ately. 3 1 ....:td8 would have lasted longer, but after 32 'ii'xa6 White is a pawn up with a dominant position and should win comfortably. 3 2 l:txe8 Wal+

32 ... i.xc8 33 'jixf7 'jial+ 34 �h2 'jig7 3 5 i.c3 ! is another nice touch.

O t h e r D efe n ces 33 'it>h2 'ii'e s+ 34 f41

This final accurate move seals Black's fate. I wonder if Kozakov calcu­ lated all the way to here when contem­ plating his 2 7th move.

Black's third move in the previous game. 5 tt::\xesl

34 .. .'i'xf4+ 35 g3

The queen on a7 was not only fork­ ing two enemy pieces, but also moni­ toring the f2-square to prevent perpet­ ual. 35 ... 'ii'f3 36 llxf8+ 'it>g7 37 .tieS 'ii'e 2+ 38 'it.'g1 'ii'b 2 39 �e1 1-0

An excellent performance from White, although I will have to leave it to the reader to decide whether the Ji.bS-a4 plan is something to copy. The next game features a provoca­ tive and dubious set-up from Black, which gives White the chance to offer a queen sacrifice as early as move five!

Game 5 7 J.Palkovi-J.Brandics

This elegant queen sacrifice effec­ tively refutes Black's opening play. s ... �xd1 6 i.bS+ c6 7 dxc6 'ii'a S+

The only move. After 7 ... a6? 8 c7+ axbs 9 cxd8'ii'+ l:txd8 10 tt::l xf7 'it>xf7 11 �xdl Black was a pawn down with an inferior struc­ ture in A.Rosino-F.Amrehn, Hocken­ heim 2007. 8 tt::lc 3

H u ngarian League 1992 1

e4

tt::\c6 2 tt::lf3 d6 3 d4 i.g4

This is the last variation that we will consider after 2 ... d6 3 d4. 4

ds! tt::le s?l

This is the consistent follow-up to Black's last move, but we will see that it c arries great risk and is objectively du­ bio us. 4 ... tt::lb 8 is sounder, but after 5 h3 White may well be heading for an even more favourable version of note 'c' to

White is temporarily a queen for a piece down, but he has numerous threats. The bishop on dl will soon be

277

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess Defe n ces:

1

captured and Black's queen is also short of squares. 8 0-0-0 ...

Black tried 8 ... a6 in M.Duppel­ R. Schlindwein, German League 2000, but this move can be refuted by the following recommendation of Khalif­ man: 9 b4! axbs (not 9 ... 'i'xb4?? 10 cxb7+, while 9 ...'i'xb5? 10 tt::l xbs axbs 11 cxb7 l:b8 12 tt::lc 6 l:xb7 13 �xd1 is winning for White - Khalifman) 10 bxas bxc6 11 tt::l xc6 ..txc2 12 tt::lb 4! �a4 13 tt::lcdS ! l::tx as (13 ... l:c8 14 tt::lb 6 l:.b8 15 a6! wins) 14 tt::lc 6 l:a8 15 tt::lc 7+ �d7 16 tt::lxa8 'iti>xc6 17 �e3 tt::lf6 18 l:.cl+ �b7 19 tt::lb 6 tt::lxe4 20 tt::lxa4 bxa4 21 f3 and White is winning. 9 tt::lc41

e4 b) 9...'i'b4 was played in F.De Gleria­ M.Molinaroli, German League 2000, and here White should have played 10 a3 'i'cs 11 �e3 'i'hs 12 l:xd1 with a huge initiative. 10 tt::ld s ..txc2 This is Black's best chance to reach an acceptable position, although he will still be in trouble if White plays accurately. The alternatives are consid­ erably worse: a) 10 ...'i'b8? 11 c7 'i'a8 12 tt::lc b6+ axb6 13 tt::lxb6+ �xc7 14 tt::l xa8+ l:xa8 15 'ito>xd1 when White has an extra pawn and a positional advantage to boot, J.Ramirez Gonzalez-M.Mingo Fer­ nandez, Tarrega 1995. b) 10...�h 5 ? 11 tt::lx c7 rj;;x c7 12 cxb7 �xb7 13 ..te3 tt::lf6 14 f3 dS 15 0-0-0 and White has a huge initiative to go with his extra pawn, Y.Boidman­ F.Amrehn, Frankfurt 2008. c) 10 ...bxc6? 11 i.a6+ �b8 12 tt::lx c7 ..txc2 13 ..td2! ..txe4 was seen in J.Donaldson-F. S outh, S eattle 1988.

9 'i'c7 ...

There is nothing better: a) 9 .. .'ii'xc3+? 10 bxc3 i.xc2 was played in M.Gaggiottini- S .Giurato, Gubbio 1999. At this point I would sug­ gest 11 f3 bxc6 12 i.xc6 rj;;c 7 13 �d2 Wxc6 14 rj;; xc2 intending l:b1 and ..te3, with serious threats against Black's vulnerable king.

2 78

Here White could have refuted his opponent's play as follows: 14 f3 ! ids

O t h e r Defe n ces (if 14 ... �d3 15 tt:Jas) 15 .:tel! xes 19 .::txc6 and wins. d) 10 .....xc6?! 11 �xc6 bxc6 12 lLJb4 cS 13 lLJc6 �xc2 14 lLJxd8 �xd8 15 f3 �d3 16 b3 lLJf6 17 'iti>d2 �xc4 18 bxc4 and White easily won the ending in L.Bergez-P.Villalba, Creon 2000. 11 lLJxc7 'iti>xc7 12 cxb7 �xe4 13 i.e3

The material balance has more or less been restored, but White still has an overwhelming lead in development and Black's king is gravely exposed. Black may be able to grab a pawn or two, but there is little chance that this will save him. 13 ...'ihb7

Black should eliminate the danger­ ous pawn while he has the chance. 13 ...�xg2 runs into 14 tt:Jas ! Wb8 (14... �xhl 15 �xa7 wins) 15 �c6! when White has a huge initiative. 14 f3 �ds 15 tt:Jas+ wbs

drawback of his opponent's last move with 16 'ifi>f2, intending .::th dl and/or .::ta cl-c7 when Black has no good de­ fence. 16 �c6?

This was White's only significant inaccuracy of the game. The best move was 16 .:tdl! when Black faces an unenviable choice: a) 16 ... �a8 17 l:td3 lLJf6 18 0-0! (in­ tending .:tel and lLJc6+; 18 .:tb3 �ds keeps Black alive for the moment) 18 ...lLJds (or 18 ...lLJd7 19 .:tel lLJb6 20 lLJc6+) 19 .:tel lLJb6 (19 ...lLJxe3 20 �c6! wins) 20 lLJc6+ �xc6 21 �xc6 intending a4-a5 with decisive threats. b) 16 ... lLJf6 17 �c6 e6 (17 ... �e6 18 .::td4 transposes to the game having avoided the improvement noted on Black's 17th move) 18 �xds tt:Jxds 19 lLJc6+ (19 l:.xds is also reasonable, al­ though after 19 ... exds 20 lLJc6+ rj;c7 21 tt:Jxd8 'it>xd8 22 �xa7 �e7 23 �d4 'iti>d7 Black has chances to resist) 19 ... 'ifi>c7 20 tt:Jxd8 tt:Jxe3 21 tt:Jxf7 tt:Jxdl 22 tt:Jxh8 tt:Jxb2 23 'it>e2 and White should win the endgame. 16...�e6 17 .:d1 lLJf6?

The inferior 1S ... Wa8? was played in J.Friedel-M.Shibut, Philadelphia 2004. White could have highlighted the

Black could have resisted more stubbornly with 17 ...l:tc8!, intending to set up a defensive formation with the rook on c7 and king on c8. White re­ mains in the driving seat and is proba­ bly still winning with best play, but considerable accuracy will be required. After the move played, his path to vic­ tory is much more straightforward. 18 .l:td4 <j;c7 1 9 o-o l:tb8

2 79

B e a t i n g U n u s u a l Chess Defe n ces:

1

e4

19 ....i.d7 allows White a choice of winning continuations, the most effi­ cient being 20 �b7!.

Game 58 GJones-V.Smirnov

Sydney 2010

20 .l:tc1

1 e4 tt:Jc6 2 tt:Jf3

20 ... �d7

Unsurprisingly the desperate try 20 ....l:.xb2 loses pretty quickly: 21 �a4+ 'iti>d8 (21 ...'iti>b8 fails to 22 �b3 ! with the terrible threat of l:f.b4+) 22 .l:.d2! �d7 (or 22 .. Jhd2 23 tt:Jb7 mate) 23 .l:.xb2 �xa4 24 .l:.b8+ 'iti>d7 25 .l:.cc8 and White wins. 21 .i.b7+ 'iti>dB 22 .:tdc4

Black can do nothing about the threat of i.xa7. 22 ...d5 23 l:.4c3 e5 24 �xa7 l:.xb7 25 tt:Jxb7+

White is a full exchange up and eas­ ily simplifies to a trivially won end­ game. 25 ...'ite7 26 .i.c5+ 'it>e6 27 .i.xfB l:.xfB 28 tt:Jc5+ �5 29 tt:Jxd7 tt:Jxd7 30 l:.cB 1-0

In the next game we will conclude our coverage of the Nimzowitsch De­ fence by examining Black's 2nd-move alternatives to 2 ... d6.

280

2 ...tt:Jf6

Black plays for a weird kind of Alekhine. Objectively it is dubious, but it has some interesting points and should be studied carefully. Naturally there are a few other moves to consider as well: a) 2...e6 3 d4 (creative players may wish to investigate the quirky 3 tt:Jc3 dS 4 i.bS ! ?} 3 ... ds and we have reached a French Defence with an early ... tt:Jc6, which is a respectable sideline against most of White's main lines. Should the reader encounter this unusual move order, he can simply transpose back to his own favoured system against the French by means of 4 tt:Jc3, 4 tt:Jbd2, or 4 es. Each of these has amassed its own considerable body of theory, so I hope the reader will forgive me for a rare moment of evasiveness on this occasion .

O t h e r Defe n ces b) 2 ... g6 3 d4 �g7 4 ds L'Lles (4 ... L'Llb8 likely to transpose to note 'c' to Black's third move in Game 56) 5 lt:Jxes �xes and White's chances are higher thanks to the misplaced bishop: for i nstance, 6 c4 d6 7 �d3 L'Llf6 8 L'Llc3 0-0 9 �h6 :e8 10 ,.d2 when White obvi­ ously had the more pleasant position in Kladovo M.Matulovic-M.Stojanovic, 199 4. c) 2 .. .fs?! is too weakening, in view of 3 exfs ds 4 �bs ..txfs s lt:Jes. is

the following game Black soon fell into trouble: 10 L'Llc3 c6 11 l:le1 lt:Jxes 12 �xes •g6 13 dxcs �xc2 14 •d4 e6 15 :e3 •f7 16 %bel o-o-o 17 l:.c1 �fs 18 -.a4 �7 19 L'Lle2 and Black was soon crushed in H.Jonkman-J.Lutton, Port Erin 2004. c2) 9 ... lt:Jxes 10 �xes -.g6 (1o ... -.d7 does not change much and White re­ mains clearly better after 11 c4! ? or 11 L'Lld2) 11 c4 (11 L'Llc3 is also good) 11...�c2 (orr 11...:b8 12 cxds e6, as in H .Schneider Zinner-C.Marzano, Vienna 2009, and then 13 -.a4 exds 14 L'Llc3 with a clear plus for White) 12 -.d2 e6 13 cxds ..te4 14 f3 �xds 15 ..txc7 when White won a pawn and later the game in N.Sukhov-B.Hellbing, correspon­ dence 2004. Returning to 2 ... L'Llf6: 3 es L'Llg41?

The outpost on e5 is more or less permanent. After completing his de­ velopment White will usually aim to solidify his grip over the dark squares, alth ough in some cases he may be able to open the position with moves like C2-c4. I do not see much value in cover­ ing every possible sub-variation, so will just mention a few relevant games that h ave taken place. After s ....d6 6 d4 <1:lf6 7 o-o L'Lld7 (Black needs to chal­ l en ge the powerful knight) 8 �xc6 bxc6 9 �f4 Black has problems, as illustrated in the following examples: cl) 9 ...cS?! is too ambitious and in

This odd-looking move is what gives Black's pseudo-Alekhine Defence inde­ pendent significance. Instead 3 ...L'Llds 4 d4 d6 transposes back to the Alekhine see Game 5 1 in the previous chapter. 4 d4 d6 5 h3 L'Llh6 6 L'Llc3 1

281

B e a t ing U n u s u a l Chess D efe n ces:

1

White develops rapidly and flexibly. In certain lines he may wish to take on h6, but for the time being it is best to keep the opponent guessing. 6 a6 ..•

Controlling the b5-square is some­ what useful, but if this is the best Black can do ... The alternatives are uninspiring: a) 6...dxe5?! 7 d5 and according to my database Black has scored a grand total of 0/13 from this position. Here are a few examples: a1) 7 ... e4? 8 .i.xh6 lbb4 9 lbe5 when White is already winning, H.Krueger­ F.Van Herreweghe, correspondence 2008. a2) 7 ...lbd4? 8 tt:Jxe5 tt:Jhf5 9 .i.e3 c5 (or 9 ... tt:Jxe3 10 fxe3) 10 dxc6 'jj'd 6 11 tt:Jc4! '1We6 12 'ii'd 2 tt:Jxc6 13 tt:Jb5 '11r'd 7 14 o-o-o lbd6 15 tt:Jcxd6+ exd6 16 .i.f4 .i.e7 17 tt:Jxd6+ �xd6 18 .i.xd6 'ii'f5 19 g4 'ii'a 5 20 'ii'e 3+ 1-0 A.Lautenbach­ J.Yvinec, correspondence 2004. a3) 7 ...tt:Jb8 8 lLlxe5 lLlf5 9 'ii'f3 (there are many routes to an advantage, but this is the most direct) 9 ... g6

e4 10 tt:Jxf7! �xf7 1 1 g 4 .i.g7 12 gxf5 .i.xf5 was A.Romero Holmes-M.Narciso Dublan, Terrassa 1994. Now the most flexible approach looks to be 13 .i.f4 when White will castle long and then decide whether to put his bishop on d3 Or C4. b) 6 ... g6 7 .i.f4 dxe5 (7 ... .i.g7 was A.Areshchenko­ in played S.Kristjansson, Reykjavik 2009, and now the simplest route to a comfortable edge would have been 8 'ii'd 2 tt:Jf5 9 o-o-o) 8 dxe5 lLlf5 9 lbb5 a6? (9 ... .i.e6 was better, although after 10 'ii'x d8+ Wxd8 11 0-0-0+ �c8 12 .i.e2 the initia­ tive is clearly with White) 10 'ii'x d8+ Wxd8 11 0-0-0+ i..d 7 12 e6 fxe6 13 tt:Jxc7 :c8 14 tt:Jxe6+ We8 15 .i.c4 1-0 D.Hug hes-H.Renette, correspondence 1998. 1 ..tgsl

White continues to develop rapidly. 1 ....i.fs Other moves also fail to solve Black's problems: a) 7 ...g6 8 'ii'd 2 lDf5 9 g4 lbg7 10 exd6 'ii'xd6 11 ..tf4 'ii'd 8 12 ds lba7 13

282

O t h e r Defe n ces o-o-o and Black's position was already a disaster in R.Ferran Biosca-F.Zancas Vidal, St Cugat 199 5. b) 7 ...dxe5 8 d5 lLlb8 9 ltJxe5 g6 (9 ...lLlf5 10 .id3 g6 11 .if4 .ig7 12 o-o 0-0 13 :tel was also tough for Black in G.Deschamp-G.Cesbron, correspon­ dence 2002) 10 ii'd2 lLlf5 11 g4 lLld6 12 .1h6 lLld7 13 ltJxd7 .ixd7 14 0-0-0 and White was fully in control, T.Craig­ I.Schrancz, correspondence 1999. 8 lLlh41 it'd7

8 ... .ig6 9 e6! is unpleasant. 9 g41

In a previous game White was suc­ cessful with 9 exd6, but the text move is much more forceful. 9....ig6 10 d S I

of the opponent's structure. Another promising continuation was 12 it'e2 followed by long castling. 12 ...fxe6

12 ...ltJxe6 13 .ixh6 gxh6 14 f5 wins a piece, and 12 ...it'xe6? 13 lLld5 is just awful for Black. 13 ltJxg6 hxg6 14 .id3 ltJdf7

Giving up a pawn is hardly ideal, but Black was in trouble in all varia­ tions: a) 14...1i'f7 15 .ie4! threatens it'd3 and 15 ... d5 runs into 16 lLlxd5! exd5 17 .ixd5 it'd7 18 'iid 3 with a huge initia­ tive for the sacrificed piece. b) The best answer to 14.. .
White cleverly exploits the fact that capturing the e5-pawn would cost Black a piece. 10 ltJd8 11 f4 ...

Already White has an overwhelming sp ace advantage. Black's pieces are cramped and horribly uncoordinated. 1 1 e6 12 dxe6 .•.

Jones decides to force a weakening

17 ....i b4

17 ... .ia3 ! ? is a cheeky attempt to confuse the issue. The strongest an­ swer looks to be 18 ltJxd5 exd5 19 bxa3 �C3+ 20 �f2 �xh3 21 .ixf7+! 0Jxf7

283

B e a t ing U n u s u a l Chess Defe n ce s :

1

(21...'iti>xf7 22 'ii'x d5+) 22 :h1 when White is winning. 18 'ii'd 4 .i.xc3+ 19 bxc3 'iti>d7?

This allows a quick tactical refuta­ tion, but Black's position was rotten anyway.

e4 ous. One advantage is that the move ... c5 can often be met by d5, as we will see in the present game. 3 ..._tb7 4 _td3 lbf6 5 lbge21

20 fxe6+ 'ii'xe6 21 l:txf7+1 lbxf7 22 _tf5

Winning the queen. 22 ...lbxg5 23 o-o-o rj;e7 24 'ii'c 5+ 'iti>f7 25 .ixe6+ tt:Jxe6 26 l:tf1+ 1-0

Pa rt 2

-

Miscellaneous Defences

We will begin this section with Owen's Defence, which does not have the best of reputations. Nevertheless, White should prepare carefully in order to maximize his chances of achieving an advantage should he encounter this system over the board.

Game 59 I.Smikovski-V.Osipov

Omsk 2001 1 e4 e6

Black feints at a French. The move order should not matter much, as after 1 ... b6 2 d4 _tb7 3 lbc3 Black usually plays ... e6 within the next move or two. 2 d4 b6 3 fDc3

White often prefers 3 lLlf3 _tb7 4 _td3, delaying the development of the queen's knight in order to meet ... c5 with C3. This should also suffice for an advantage, but I find the set-up with the knight on c3 to be objectively just as strong and arguably more danger-

284

I find this move the most attractive. On a practical note, it is not really cov­ ered in Christian Bauer's Play 1 .. b6, which is likely to be a primary refer­ ence for many devotees of thi s open­ ing. A few brief comments about White's alternatives: a) 5 lbf3 _tb4 is one of the main lines of Owen's Defence. This variation has built up a surprisingly substantial body of theory and I would rate Black's chances of equalizing as higher than after the continuation seen in the pre­ sent game. b) I briefly looked at 5 'ii'e 2 with the idea of playing flexibly and leaving the way clear for the f-pawn to advance, but in that case Black can consider 5 ...l2Jc6! ? 6 l2Jf3 l2Jb4, which looks mildly annoying. .

5...c5

Black's alternatives on both this and

O t h e r Defe n ces the previous move will be dealt with in the next game. 6 dsl?

This pawn sacrifice is the most ag­ gressive and ambitious approach, al­ though it is worth mentioning two other ideas: a) Fans of the Open Sicilian can con­ sider 6 0-0 cxd4 7 tt:lxd4, with a normal­ looking position except that Black has committed his pawn to b6 instead of employing the more active set-up with ... a6 and ... bs. b) Another promising though barely tested continuation is 6 e S ! ? tt:lds 7

J.Speelman-M.Basman, Brighton 1984) 7 ...'�c7 (7 ...b5 should also be met by 8 tt:lg3) was W.Kelleher-P.Oliveira, Phila­ delphia 1993, and here the most logical continuation looks to be 8 tt:lg3 with some initiative for White. 7 exds tt:lxds 8 tt:lxds ..ltxds 9 o-ol

9 tt:lf4 is less accurate due to 9 ...'ir'e7+! (after 9 .....ltb7?! 10 0-0 White has tremendous compensation) 10 ..lte3 ..ltb7 11 o-o tt:lc6 12 tt:lds 'ir'es 13 c4 0-0-0 when the position was rather unclear in S.Nordfjoerd-L.Perea Mon­ tero, correspondence 2000. g tt:lc6 ...

tt:lxds .i.xds 8 tt:lf4 ..ltb7, as in A.Anderson-P.Blatny, Internet (blitz) 2004, and now 9 ds! exds 10 o-o gives White a strong initiative for the pawn.

9 ... .i.e6 10 tt:lf4 a6?! (10 ... tt:lc6 trans­ poses to the main game) was played in H.Baldursson-I.Johannesson, Reykjavik 2004.

6 exds

Here I would suggest 11 'iff3 (11 ..lte4 l:r.a7 12 'ir'd3 also looks promising) 11.. ..l:r.a7 12 'ir'g3 ! tt:lc6 (12 ... g6 13 ltJdS ! ) 13 l:r.e1 when White has excellent com­ pensation for the pawn and Black will have a hard time castling. 10 ltJf4 �e6 11 l:r.e1 Natural and good, but 11 ltJxe6! ?

...

Accepting the challenge. 6 ... a6 looks rather slow: 7 0-0 (there is also 7 a4! ? exds 8 exds tt:lxds 9 tt:lxds ..lixds 10 tt:lf4 �e6 11 .i.e4 l:r.a7 12 o-o ii.e7 13 l:r.a3 ! when White had utilized the move a2-a4 to good effect and went on to win in nice style,

2 85

B e a t i n g U n us u a l Ch ess Defe n ces:

1

serious attention too: deserves 11 ... dxeG (11 .. .fxeG?? loses to 12 1i'h5+) 12 i.f4. Suddenly Black has real trouble on the light squares, for instance: a) 12 ...llc8 13 .taG 'ifxd1 14 llaxd1 l:.d8 15 .ib5 (or 15 llxd8+ �xd8 1G l:.d1+ �e7 17 .ib7) 15 ...llc8 1G llfe1 and Black will have a hard time com­ pleting his development. b) 12 ....ie7 13 .ib5 llc8 14 .taG 'ifxd1 15 l:laxd1 lld8 1G llxd8+ <1Jxd8 17 .ib5+ Wf8 18 lld1 when Black is in trouble. c) 12 ... aG ! ? 13 "iVf3 'ifc8 (Black does not achieve much with 13 ... <1Jd4 14 'ifg3) 14 .ie4 <1Jd4 15 'ife3 lla7 1G c3 ttJcG 17 'iff3 and White's activity is worth more than a pawn.

e4 1 2 'ii'h 5 and 1 2 ttJxeG dxeG 1 3 'ifg4 (13 .if4!?) when Black has to resort to 13 ...'itif8, as 13 ...0-0?? 14 'ife4 wins a piece and 1 3 ...gG? 14 .ib5 also wins at least an exchange. 12 'iff3 White has a nice idea in mind, but it is not enough to prove a real advan­ tage. Therefore I would recommend one of the following alternatives: a) 12 .iaG ! ? is one interesting idea, when White maintains a promising initiative. b) A more forcing option is 12 ttJxeG!?, with two choices for Black: b1) After 12 ... dxeG?! 13 'iff3 llc8 (or 13 ...<1Jd4 14 ..tb5+!) 14 .ib5 'ilfd7 15 lld1 'ifb7 1G 'ifc3 llg8 17 'ifd3 Black has serious problems. b2) 12 .. .fxeG 13 'ifg4! with a final di­ vision:

11 g6 ...

Black decides that a fianchetto de­ velopment will help to fortify his king­ side, but it costs an additional valuable tempo. The alternatives were: a) 11 ... .idG 12 tLlh 5 ! is awkward for Black. b) 11 ... i.e7 is possible, although White has a pleasant choice between

286

b21) 13 ...'�e7 14 .ib5 l:tc8 15 .ia6 llb8 16 i.f4 e5 17 llad1 ..tg7 18 c3 and White has more than enough for a pawn. b22) 13 ... i.g7 14 llxe6+! dxe6 15 'ii'x e6+ �f8 (after 15 ....!be7? 16 i.g 5 !

O t h e r D efe n ces 'ii'e 7 21 'ilr'f3+ 'ii'f6 22 'ii'a 3 l:tdB

Black is busted) 16 'ii'xc6 l:tc8 17 'ii'f3+ 'ii'f6 18 'ii'g 3 when White has more than enough compensation for his modest material investment.

22 ...l:tf8 2 3 'ii'x a7+ �g8 24 .te3 'ii'xb2 is similar.

12 ....tg7 13 lt:\xe61 fxe6 14 l:txe6+ dxe6

'ilr'xc2?

15 .tb5

Better was 2 S ...'itbs ! 26 'ii'c 7 {26 a4 'ii'c 6) 26 ...l:td7 27 'ir'c8+ �7 28 h3 l:td6 when the queen comes back to c6 or d7, and Black should be fine.

23 'ii'x a7+ �gB 24 .te3 'ii'x b2 25 l:tf1

26 'ii'x b6 .tf6 27 'ii'xe6+ 'ittg 7 28 g41

White's temporary rook sacrifice is dangerous, but Black should be able to survive if he defends accurately. 15 ... l:tc8

The best defence looks to be 1 S ... .l:tf8! 16 .txc6+ (not 16 'ii'x c6+? 'it>f7) 16 ... 'it>e7 17 �g S + �f6 when I doubt that White has anything more than a draw, such as after 18 .th6 .tg7 19 �g S + �f6. The remainder of the game is not especially important for our study of the opening, as promising alternatives and improvements have already been noted at moves 11 and 12. 16 �xc6+ .l:txc6 17 'ii'xc6+ �7

After 17 ... 'ilr'd7 18 'ii'a8+ 'ilr'd8 19 �xd8+ "'xd8 20 c3 White has a tiny endgame advantage, although Black sh ould hold. 18 -.b7+ 'ike7 19 'ii'f3+ 'ii'f6 20 ir'b7+

Highlighting the weakness of Black's king. This factor, combined with White's extra pawn, is enough to win. 28...l:td1 29 l:txd1 'ii'xd1+ 30 'itg2 �d4 31 'ii'd 7+ 'it>gB 32 h4?

White misses an opportunity to end the game immediately with 32 .th6 'ii'e 2 33 'ii'd s+. 32 ...h5 33 gxh5 gxh5 34 'ir'd5+ �g7 35 'ir'b7+ �gB 36 'ii' b 3+ 'ii'x b3 37 axb3

White has not converted his advan­ tage in the most efficient way possible, but the bishop ending is still a fairly easy win. 37 ....tf6 38 .tg5 .td4 39 f4 �7 40 f5 .tc3 41 �3 .te1 42 �e4 .tf2 43 .tdB .tg3 44 'it>ds .tt2 45 'it>d6 .tg1 46 'itte s

287

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess D efe n ces:

1

�h2+ 47 'it>d5 i.g1 48 �e4 .th2 49 �3 �e5 50 .tg5 i.c3 51 i.e3 �e1 52 .txc5 �xh4 53 b4 i.d8 54 b5 Wf6 55 �e4 h4 56 'ittf4 .tc7+ 57 'it>g4 �e5 58 b6 1-0

Game 60 T.Orai-K.Gawehns

Hamburg 1999 1 e4 b6 2 d4 i.b7 3 i.d3

White can also play 3 tbc3 followed by i.d3; the move order is unlikely to make much difference. 3 ...e6

The actual sequence played in the game was 3 ...tbf6 4 tbc3 e6 5 ttJge2, but I have adjusted it in order to consider a few set-ups where Black delays or es­ chews altogether the development of the knight to f6.

e4 b) 4 .. .f5?! is risky: 5 exf5 (a safe al­ ternative is 5 'ii'h 5+ g6 6 'ife2) 5 ... .txg2 6 'ii'h 5+ g6 7 fxg6 i.g7 8 gxh7+ 'iitf8. This position was reached in W.Heimbrodt-5.Mueller, correspon­ dence 1978, and several subsequent games. So far nobody seems to have played the strongest move: 9 tbf3 ! tbf6 (9 ... i.xh1 10 tbe5 .txe5 11 'ifxe5 is winning for White) 10 1i'h4 .txh 1 11 tbe5 and Black is in trouble despite his extra rook. c) 4 ... g6 5 f4 i.g7 6 tbf3 tbe7 7 o-o d6 is a dubious incarnation of a Hippo and 8 f5 ! gives White a promising at­ tacking position. d) The most important alternative is 4 ... i.b4. Again with 5 tbge2 we see the knight avoiding the f3-square.

4 tbc3

4 tbf6 •..

Here is a round-up of Black's 4th­ move alternatives: a) 4 ... c5 5 d5 leaves the bishop on b7 misplaced. 288

Now Black has a couple of ways to strike at the enemy centre: d1) s ... d5 6 exd5! ? (6 e5 also gives White chances for an edge, but open­ ing the centre seems more ambitious) 6 ...'ifxds was K.Olsarova-V.Nedela, Os­ trava 2010, and now after 7 tbf4! fol­ lowed by castling White has a nice lead

O t h e r Defe n ces in development. d2) s ... cs 6 0-0 (this seems simplest, although White has a few other tempt­ ing options: 6 dS!? is a promising sacri­ fice which can be compared with the previous game; another possibility is 6 dxcs ! ? when after either recapture White will castle and look to exploit his lead in development, most probably by attacking on the kingside) 6 ... cxd4 7 t:Llxd4 and White has a promising ver­ sion of the Open Sicilian. Black's dark­ squared bishop looks strange on b4 and if it exchanges on c3 then White's bishop could become powerful on a3. Returning to 4...t:Llf6: s t:Llge21 d s Black opts for a kind of French set­ up, but this plan does not inspire con­ fidence. Instead s ... cs was seen in the previ­ ous game, while after s .....tb4 6 0-0 White enjoys easy and effective devel­ opment. 6 es

a) 6 ...t:Lle4 7 ..txe4 (7 t:Llxe4!? may be even better, since 7 ...dxe4 8 ..tbs+ t:Lld7 9 c3 leaves White obviously better) 7 ... dxe4 was seen in G.Rodriguez Re­ bull-A.Leiva Velasco, Barcelona 2004, and now after 8 ..te3 White is ahead in development and the e4-pawn is weak. b) 6 ...t:Llg8 ! ? is not as ridiculous as it looks. Now in C.Plock-M.Rist, Seefeld 1996, White should have considered the unusual idea 7 t:Lla4!?. White's main problem is that after ... cs the bishop on d3 will be short of squares thanks to the knight on e2. Therefore he moves the other knight out of the way to prepare c3, which will bring some harmony to his position (7 lLlb1!? is another way of implementing the same idea and even 7 ..tbS+!? could be considered). After 7 .....ta6 (or 7 ... cs 8 c3 when White is better and the knight on a4 will gradually make its way back into the game) 8 ..txa6 t:Llxa6 9 0-0 '6'd7 10 b3 White has a lead in development and can consider a timely opening of the queenside with c4. 7 t:Llf41

6 t:Llfd7 ...

Two other moves have been tried:

289

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess Defe n ce s :

1

By threatening lt'lxe6, White imme­ diately puts his opponent on the de­ fensive. He also frees a retreat square for his bishop, anticipating the threat of ... C5-C4. 7 .g6 Black has not fared any better with the alternatives: a) 7 ...iih4?! 8 o-o (8 lt'lb5 ! looks even better) 8 ... lt'lc6 9 g 3 'ike7 10 lt'lcxd 5 ! ? exd5 11 lt'lxd5 'ikd8 12 e6 ( 1 2 i.e4! ?) 12 ...lt'lde5 ? (Black could have kept him­ self in the game with 12 ...lt'lxd4 13 exd7+ 'iix d7 14 c4 0-0-0) 13 i.e4 (even stronger would have been 13 dxe5!) 13 ...lt'lg6? 14 exf7+ �xf7 15 'ikf3+ 'it>e8 16 l:l.e1 lt'lce7 17 lt'lxe7 1-0 Kolkata S.Satyapragyan-Z.Rahman, 2000. b) 7 ...�e7?! 8 'ikg4 g6 9 lt'lxe6! (White could have settled for a slight edge with 9 lt'lce2 c5 10 c3, but the sac­ rifice is much stronger) 9 ...fxe6 10 ..txg6+ hxg6 11 'iix g6+ �f8 12 i.h6+ l:l.xh6 13 'iix h6+ �7 (if 13 .. .'�g8 14 'iix e6+) 14 'iih 7+ �f8 (no better is 14 ... 'it>e8 15 'iig 6+ �f8 16 o-o-o). ..

e4 This position was reached in J.Solano Lasierra-A.Antonano Fernan­ dez, Zaragoza 2001. So far White has played perfectly and had he continued 15 lt'le2 ! he would have obtained excel­ lent chances to win the game, but in­ stead he settled for a draw with 15 iih6+ 'it>f7 16 il'h7+. 8 'ikg41 Threatening to take on e6 followed by g6, thereby forcing Black to make a difficult decision.

8...'ike7

Black fared no better in the follow­ ing game: 8 ...'ikc8 9 o-o �a6 10 �xa6 (10 lt'lxe6 ! and 10 lt'lcxd5 ! were even stronger, but the text is good enough) 10...lt'lxa6 11 lt'lxe6 ! lt'lxe5 12 'iie 2 'iixe6 13 'iixa6 lt'lg4 14 'ikb7 .:td8 15 �g 5 and Black's opening proved to be a disaster in D.Holemar-M.Zavadil, Brno 2008. g lt'lbsl

Black's position is already a mess. 9. lt'la6 10 b3 10 c3 is clearly better for White, but the text move creates a serious threat in �a3. ..

290

O t h e r D efen ces 10... 0-0-0

his bishop.

This loses a pawn, but it is hard to suggest anything else.

27 ...�xf5 28 �xf5 lLlxf5 29 �f4+ �b7 30 a4 c4 31 b4 d4

11 lbxa7+ �b8 12 lbb5 lbb4 13 o-o c5 14 c3 lbc6

14 ... lbxd3 15 lbxd3 leaves Black fac­ ing the threat of i.g s. 15 'ii'g 31

White is not only a pawn up, but he also enjoys a clear positional advan­ tage. With his last move he sets up a trick on the h2-b8 diagonal.

3 2 lbxd4?1

32 l:tad1! would have won more easily, as Black is almost paralysed. 32 ...lbxd4 33 cxd4 �xb4?

33 .. .l:txd4 would have offered much more resistance, although after 34 .ie3 l:th4 3 5 �g3 l:tg4+ 36 �3 �xb4 37 .:.ab1 �as 38 J.f4 White should still win. 15 ... 'ii'e8

34 ..te5 'itc6 35 'ite3 l:l.hf8 36 l:l.ab1 �d6

15 .. .'�a8 was worth considering, al­ though White remains in complete control after 16 �e3 or 16 lbe2.

37 �e4 l:tf7 38 l:tfc1 1-0

16 lbxd51 exd5 17 e6+ lbde5 18 exf7 'llt"xf7 19 dxe5

White emerges with a second extra pawn and is winning easily.

In the last couple of games we will address the more unorthodox options at Black's disposal, beginning with the St George Defence.

19 ... 'ii'e 6 20 f4 lbe7 21 'ii'g 5 h6 22 'ii'f6 'llt"xf6 2 3 exf6 lbf5 24 g4 lbh4

Or 24...lbd6 25 lbxd6 l:txd6 26 g S and White is winning comfortably.

Game 61 E.Gaisin-V.Serov

Correspondence 2002

25 'itf2 h5 26 gs �cB 21 fs l?

27 ..id2 was fine, but Oral prefers to give back one pawn in order to activate

1 e4 a6 2 d4 b5

Compared with Owen's Defence,

291

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess D efe n ces:

1

Black takes control of some extra space on the queenside at the cost of an addi­ tional tempo. White has a number of routes to an advantage, but I would generally recommend a policy of classi­ cal development combined with a timely a2-a4 to soften up Black's queen side. 3 .id3

White can also use the move order 3 lt:Jf3 i.b7 4 i.d3; it is unlikely to make a difference. 3 i.b7 4 lt:Jf3 ...

Compared with Owen's Defence, it makes no sense to put the knight on c3, so White should settle for classical de­ velopment. 4 e6 ...

The usual continuation, although a few others deserve a mention: a) With 4... g6? Black aims for a transposition to a Modern, having avoided the Austrian Attack. However, the problem is that his b5-pawn is an easy target, especially as the white knight has not yet gone to c3: 5 0-0 ..tg7 6 a4 (White has also done well

292

e4 with 6 c 3 intending a4 next) 6 ...b4 7 c3 bxc3 8 tt:Jxc3 d6 9 'ii'b 3 and White has a huge lead in development, N.Pogonina­ V.Kirillova, Voronezh 2004. b) 4 ...lt:Jf6 is slightly risky and gives White a couple of tempting options: b1) 5 tt:Jbd2 e6 6 o-o c5 7 dxc5 ..txc5 8 e5 lt:Jd5 9 lt:Je4 i.e7 10 a4 b4 and in this position White can obtain a prom­ ising initiative with Khalifman's rec­ ommendation of 11 c4! bxc3 12 bxc3. b2) 5 e5!? lt:Jd5 6 lt:Jg 5 ! forces Black to make a tough decision:

b21) 6 ... e6 7 'ilf'f3 f5 (7 ...'iie 7 8 c3 leaves Black awkwardly placed) 8 exf6 'ilf'xf6 9 ..txh7 'ilf'xf3 10 ..tg6+ 'iti>d8 11 tt:Jxf3 and White was a clear pawn up in E.Dearing-B.Tiller, British League 2010. b22) 6 ...lt:Jb4!? was played in V.Schulz-B.Schmitt, Baden 1997. Here White should settle for 7 ..te4 ..txe4 8 tt:Jxe4 with a pleasant positional edge, instead of the game continuation of 7 ..txh7 l:txh7 8 tt:Jxh7 which resulted in a quick win for White, but might have backfired had Black found 8 ....i.e4!.

O t h e r Defe n ces 5 a41?

The main line is 5 o-o cs 6 c3 tt:'lf6 7 1i'e2 when White's chances are some­ what higher. Still, I rather like the idea of targeting the bS-pawn. It has not been seen in many games, which makes it all the more dangerous as a practical weapon.

an improved version of an Open Sicil­ ian in J.Polgar-G.Kamsky, Monte Carlo (rapid} 1994. 6 axbs axbs 7 .:f.xa8 �xa8 8 dxcs �xes 9 0-0

g . b4 ..

s... cs

This counterattacking move is the most principled reaction. For the time being the bs-pawn is indirectly de­ fended, as taking it would cost White the e4-pawn. On the other hand, the opening of the queenside and centre should benefit White, who is the better developed. The alternatives are: a) s ...tt:'lf6 was played in S.Movsesian-V.Popov, Panormo (blitz) 2002. White replied with 6 1i'e2 which was enough for a slight edge, but both 6 es and 6 axbs look even more chal­ lenging. b) 5 ...b4 6 0-0 (6 C4! ? also looks promising) 6 ...cs 7 ltJbd2 cxd4 8 ltJxd4 tt:'lf6 9 es ltJds 10 ltJc4 and White had

A couple of other moves have been tried: a) 9 ... tt:'le7 was played by a certain junior in up-and-coming V.McCambridge-N.Short, Hamburg 1981. White chose 10 1i'e2 and eventu­ ally won, but there were two even more tempting continuations available in 10 tt:'lbd2 and 10 tt:'lg s ! ?. b) 9 ... 1i'b6 occurred in O.Mihok­ J.Poecksteiner, Austrian League 2007, and here I would suggest 10 1i'e2 tt:'lf6 (or 10...b4 11 tt:'lbd2) 11 tt:'lc3 �c6 12 es tt:'lds 13 tt:'lxds ..ixds 14 ..ixbs with an extra pawn for White. Black can dam­ age White's structure by taking on f3, but this will not provide enough com­ pensation. 10 tt:'lbd2 tt:'lc6?1

It looks somewhat safer to play 10...ltJf6 as in J.Rios-D.Orrego, Antio-

293

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess Defe n ce s :

1

quia 1995. Here the natural continua­ tion looks to be 11 es (I would guess that this pawn advance is the reason Serov rejected 10 ...tt.Jf6 in the main game) 11 ...tt.Jds 12 tt.Je4 Jie7 when 13 tt.Jfd2 ! ? looks quite attractive for White. The knight prepares to come to c4 while making room for the queen to go to g4 or h s.

e4 decision t o open the queen side. u ...JJ..c 7 14 tt.Je4 ...xd1 15 l:.xd1

11 e51

15 ...tt.Jf6??

Simply blundering a piece. 1S ...tt.Jge7 was mandatory. Follow­ ing 16 tt.Jd6+ JJ..x d6 17 l:.xd6 o-o White's bishop pair and active pieces give him a clear advantage in the ending, but the win is still a long way off. 16 ti.Jxf6+ gxf6 17 tt.Jd4 �d7 18 tt.Jxc6+

Even though this move does not at­ tack a knight. it is even stronger here than after 10...ti.Jf6. u

...

ds?l

The further opening of the position carries great risk for Black. The best chance may have been 11 ...Wc7 when the pressure on es prevents the white knight from coming to e4. Play might continue 12 tt.Jc4 (or 12 We2 tt.Jge7 13 ctJb3 i.b6 14 JJ..e 3 with an edge to White) 12 ... tt.Jas (12 ... tt.Jge7?! 13 Jie3 ! } 13 tt.Jxas Wxas 1 4 tt.Jg s ! ? (or 1 4 tt.Jd2} with some initiative for White. 12 exd6 i.xd6 13 JibS! This pin is highly unpleasant for Black and vindicates White's earlier

294

1-0

In the next and final game of the chapter, we will take a look at a few of Black's unusual set-ups involving an early advance of his g-pawn.

Game 62 J.Gdanski-L.Oisson

Swed ish League 2006 1 e4 g6

1 ... g 5 is the so-called 'Borg' Defence ('Grob' in reverse). I hardly need state that the early lunge with the g-pawn leaves Black with long-term kingside

O t h e r Defe n ces weaknesses, which White should look to exploit. With 2 d4 �g7 ! ? (2 ...h6 3 ll:!c3 �g7 4 �c4 transposes) 3 ll:!c3 (af­ ter 3 �xg5 c5 Black intends ... 1fb6 with counterattacking chances; White should be better here too, but it seems easier to avoid the whole issue) 3 ...h6 (3 ... c5!? 4 dxc5 'ii'a 5 was seen in M.Tscharotschkin-H.Mueck, Schwae­ bisch Gmuend 2008, and here the easi­ est route to a big advantage would have been 5 lLlge2 'ii'x c5 6 �e3 'ii'a 5 7 'ii'd 5! 'ii'x d5 8 exd5 h6 9 h4 g4 10 o-o-o when White enjoys a huge lead in de­ velopment) 4 �c4 White develops normally and should have no trouble developing a strong attack.

Here are a few practical examples: a) 4... c5 5 lLlge2 (5 �e3 is also good) 5 ... cxd4 6 lLlxd4 lLlc6 7 �e3 and Black had only succeeded in transposing to a highly dubious version of a Dragon in C.Carothers-A.pfeiffer, correspondence 2001. b) After 4... d6 5 lLlge2 White will castle and play f4, with a ready-made kingside attack. Here is one example:

5 ...lLlf6 6 o-o {6 h4!?) 6...c6 7 f4 (I would have preferred 7 �b3 first, intending to meet ... d5 with e5) 7 ... g4? 8 e5 lLlh 5 9 �e3 d5 10 �d3 f5 11 exf6 lLlxf6 12 �g6+ �d7 13 f5 'ii'g 8 14 �f4 lLla6 15 lLlc1 lLlc7 16 lLld3 'it'd8 17 lLle5 �d7 18 lLlf7+ and White won easily in R.Alvarez-F.Theunisse, correspondence 1992. 2 d4 lLlf61?

This is known as the North Sea De­ fence. It is rather obscure, but garnered some attention when Magnus Carlsen used it against Michael Adams at the 2010 Olympiad. He lost the game and has not tried it since. 3 lLlc3 This would be my recommendation in the unlikely event that you encoun­ ter the North Sea over the board. I find it the most pragmatic choice; Black must either transpose to a Pirc or ac­ cept an inferior position. If White is determined to try and re­ fute his opponent's opening, then 3 e5 is the move. After 3 ...lLlh 5 there are two options:

295

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess Defe n ces :

1

a) 4 t'Llc3 d5 transposes to the main game and was actually the move order that occurred. However, Black has an independent option available in 4... d6 ! ?, which is the is the reason why I consider it more practical to start with 3 t'LlC3. b) The really critical line is 4 �e2 when 4... d6! invites White to take on h5 in the hope of organizing a counterat­ tack in the centre. I suspect that White can obtain some advantage here, but in practical terms Black is getting what he wanted from the opening: an unclear, murky position which he is likely to un­ derstand better than his opponent. 3 ds ...

This is the consistent move which keeps us in North Sea territory. 3 ...�g7?! 4 e5 forces the knight to return to its original square, while 3 ... d6 transposes to the Pirc and is ob­ jectively Black's best option. 4 es t'Ll hs

e4

5 ..te31 White should resist the temptation to chase the knight. Compared with the Gurgenidze set-up examined in Chap­ ter Two, the knight has spent two moves getting to h5, instead of one move to get to the superior h6-square. It will almost always retreat to g7 at some point, thereby costing another important tempo. It follows that if White simply 'pretends' he is facing a Gurgenidze system and plays in a simi­ lar way to how he does there, he will achieve a nice advantage almost with­ out trying. 5 g4? is the last thing White wants to do and after 5 ... t'Llg7 Black is ready to hit back on the kingside with ... h5. Sud­ denly the knight on g7 is very well placed indeed! 5 �e2 is possible, but it is not clear how serious a threat �xh 5 really is. After 5 ...t'Llc6 the position is starting to become rather murky. s t'Llg7 Other moves have been tried, but Black has to bring the knight back into the game at some point. ...

6 f4

White gains space while creating a retreat square for the bishop. 6 ... h s

After 6...t'Llf5 7 ..tf2 h 5 8 t'Llf3 Black has only succeeded in committing his knight prematurely. The knight looks misplaced on h 5 and it is! - but White must exploit it in the correct way.

296

1 'ii'd 2 ..tfs

Another game continued 7 ... c6 8 lDf3 lDd7 and here in T.Todorov-

O t h e r D efe n ces M.Bonnafous, Toulon 1999. I like the look of 9 g 3 ! ?, setting the wheels in motion for h3 and a future kingside advance. 8 lt:lf3 e6 9 g31

pawn. 17 exf6 lt:\xf6 18 lt:lfxe4 tt:\xe4 19 lt:\xe4 dxe4 20 ..ltc4

The immediate 20 'ii'g 2 was also very strong. 20 ... 0-0-0 21 'ifg2 b3+ 22 C3 .Jtb41?

White wastes no time in preparing a thematic kingside expansion. 9.. c6 .

9 .....tb4 is not a real solution. White should play 10 l:.g1! intending h3 and g4. If Black exchanges on c3 at any point, his dark squares will be chroni­ cally weak. In any case his light­ squared bishop will not find peace on e4 with the move lt:lf3-g5 available.

In a desperate situation, Black comes up with a novel attempt to con­ fuse his opponent. 23 'iid 2

23 'ite2 ! was completely crushing and after 23 ....Jtxc3 24 axb3 'iib4 25 l:.a4 Black can resign. 2 3 .....1te7 24 ..txb3

It was well worth considering 10 a3 ! ?, preventing .....ltb4 ideas alto­ gether.

It would have been vastly preferable if White could have captured here with his a-pawn instead of the bishop (see the last note). He is still completely winning though.

1o JWa5 11 l:.g1 b5?

24 ...l:.h3

10 h 3

..

24... ..1th4+ 25 'it>d1 is nothing.

Too slow. 11 ... ..tb4 was the best chance, al­ though 12 a3 still works out in White's favour, as sooner or later g4 will hurt.

26 fxg 5?? l:.xe3 would have been embarrassing.

12 g4 hxg4 13 hxg4 b4 14 tt:\d1 ..te4 15

26 .. J:tf8 27 l:th1 llg3 28 l:1h7 gxf4 29

tt:\g5 tt:ld7 16 tt:lf2 fs

Otherwise Black simply loses a

25 0-0-0 g5 26 'it>b11

..ltxf4 l:.xg4 30 .Jtes i..f6 31 -.e2 l:.gs 32 .l:.f1

297

B e a ting U n u s u a l Ch ess D efe n ces :

1

e4 White i s the exchange up with a better pawn structure and the techni­ cal phase of the game is easy. 3S ...iVxe4+ 36 .:xe4 �d6 37 .:f4 �es 38 .:a4 .:f7 39 .:a6 .:c7 40 �c2 �d6 41 �d3 i.gs 42 i.a4 i.f6 43 b4 wd s 44 c4+ 1itd6 45 �e4 i.c3 46 cS+ 1itd7 47 1itd3 i.f6 48 �c4 i.es 49 .:h3 lLlfs so .:d3+ 1-0

Forcing the following desperate ex­ change sacrifice. 32 ... .:xes 33 dxes iVxes 34 .:e1 1ifc7 3 5 iVxe4

298

That brings us to the end of the game, the chapter, and the book! I hope you have enjoyed reading and I wish you all the best using the ideas pre­ sented in your own games.

Index of Variations

Note: Figures refer to page numbers of relevant games.

Scandinavian Defence 1 e4 dS 2 exds 'ii'xd s

2 ... �)f6 3 tt:lf3 tt:lxd5 4 d4 4... g6 - 51 4.....tg4 - 56 4.....tf5 - 61 .

3 tt:lf3 ..tg4

3 ...tt:lc6 - 38 3 ...tt:lf6 - 43 3 ... e5 - 49 4 ..te2 tt:lc6 5 d4 0-0-0 6 ..te3 es 6 ...tt:lf6 7 0-0 7 ...'ii'fs - 25 7 ... e6 - 29 6 ... tt:lh6 - 34 7 c4 'ii'a S+ 8 ..td2 ..tb4 9 ds ..txf3 10 ..txf3 tt:ld4

10 ... ..txd2+ - 18 11 tt:lc3

11 ... 'ii'c 5 - 9 11 ...'ii'a 6 - 13

Modern Defence 1 e4 g6 2 d4 �g7 2 . .. d6 2 ... c6

3 4Jc3 c6 4 f4 ds 3 f4 ds - lOS

-

92

2 99

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess Defe n ces:

1

e4

3 tt:lc3 d6

3 ... cs - 83 3 ... d5 - 88 3 ... c6 - 98 4 f4 c6

4 ... a6 - 76 4... lt:Jd7 - 80 5 lt:Jf3

s ... �g4 - 67 s ... 'iWb6 - 72

Pirc Defence 1 e4 d6 2 d4 lt:Jf6 3 lt:Jc3 g6 4 f4 �g7 5 lt:Jf3 o-o

s ... cs 6 dxcs 1Was 7 1'kd4 7 ...dxcs - 147 7 ... 0-0 - 1 5 3 6 �e3 b6

6 ...lt:Jbd7 - 130 6 ... c6 - 134 6 ...lt:Jc6 - 138 6 ...lt:Ja6 - 142 7 "iVd2 �b7

7 ... cs - 125 8 e5 lt:Jg4 9 o-o-o

9 ... cs - 113 9 ... dxes - 121

Philidor and Czech Pirc 1 e4 d6 2 d4 lt:Jf6

2 ... es - 192 3 lt:Jc3 e5

3 ... c6 4 f4 'tWas 5 1Ld3 es 6 lt:Jf3 1Lg4 7 1Le3 7 ... lt:Jbd7 - 175 7 ...1i'b6 - 181 3 ...lt:Jbd7 - 187 4 dxe5 dxe5 5 'ii'x d8+

xd8 6 1Lg5 1Le6

300

I n dex of Va ria t i o n s 6 ... c6 - 168 7 g3

7 .. .'it)c8 - 158 7 ... h6 - 162

Alekhine's Defence 1 e4 Q\f6 2 es Q\ds

2 ... Q\g8 - 259 3 es Q\ds 4 Q\f3 dxes

4...�g4 5 �e2 5 ... e6 6 0-0 �e7 7 C4 Q\b6 8 Q\c3 0-0 9 i.e3 9 ... d5 - 223 9 ... Q\8d7 - 229 5 ...c6 - 234 5 ...Q\c6 - 240 5 ... dxe5 - 243 4... g6 5 �c4 5 ... Q\b6 - 245 5 ... c6 - 249 4...Q\c6 - 2 5 3 4... Q\b6 - 2 5 6 5 Q\xes c6

5 ... g6 - 211 5 ...Q\d7 - 217 6 i.e2 �fs

6 ... Q\d7 - 204 6 ... g6 - 208 7 0-0 Q\d7 8 Q\f3

8 ...h6 - 196 8 ... e6 - 201

Other Defences 1 e4 Q\c6

1...b6 2 d4 i.b7 3 Q\c3 e6 4 i.d3 Q\f6 5 Q\ge2 5 ... c5 - 284 s ... d5 - 288

3 01

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess D efe n ces: 1 ... a6 - 291 1...g s - 294 l ... g6 2 d4 lt:Jf6 - 294 2 li:Jf3 d6

2 ...lt:Jf6 - 280 3 d4 lt:Jf6

3 ... i.g4 - 277 4 li:JC3 �g4

4... g6 - 274 5 i.e3

s ... e6 - 263 s ... es - 269

302

1

e4

Index of Complete Games

Aagaard.J-McNab.C, Oa kham 2000

138 Aldokhin.I-Rodin.D, Voronezh 2009 . . . . . . 25 Anderson.J-Aasum.A, Correspondence 2000 . 38 Areshchenko.A-Aimond.R, Port Erin 2007 . . . . . . . ... .... . . ... . . . . 18 Brenco.M-Menichini.M, Genoa 2007 . .. . 243 Calzetta Ruiz.M-Philippe.C, Chambery 2008 . . . . . . .... .... 29 Dreev.A-Kveinys.A, Vien n a 1996 . . . .. . . ..... . .. . . 187 Efimenko.Z-Nisipeanu.L.D, E u ropea n Championship, Rijeka 2010 . . . . . 204 Emms.J-Burgess.G, British League (4NCL) 1999 . . . ... ... .. 234 Fernandez Garcia.J-Movsziszian.K, Mislata 2001 76 Firman.N-Prihotko.A, Rodatych i 2006 . 2 70 Gabrielian.A-S ek.K, Ulan Ude 2009 . 240 Gaisin.E-S erov.V, Correspondence 2002 . . . 292 Garakov.M-S avchenko.B, Dagomys 2004 83 Gdanski.J-Oisson.L, Swedish League 2006 295 Glek.I-Cekro.E, Belgian League 2001 67 Glek.I-Kertesz.A, Bon n 199 5 223 Golubev.M-Markowski.T, Biei 199S 264 Greet.A-Bryson.D, Glasgow 2011 . . .. 34 Grischuk.A-Feygin.M, E u ropean Club Cup, Oh rid 2009, ......................................... ..43 Hasangatin.R-Neuman.P, Pa rdubice 2006 ...... . 1 62 Heinz.A-To.N, Budapest 2009 .. . . . . . 256 Jones.G-Smirnov.V, Syd ney 2010 . .. 281 Karjakin. S -Ivanov.A, Russian Tea m Cha mpionsh ip 2010 . . 181 Karjakin. S -Rakhmangulov.A, Evpatoria 2007 . ... 88 Kasparov.G-Adams.M, Linares 1997 . .. . 211 Khenkin.I-Bellini.F, Bratto 2004 . . 1 68 158 Khenkin.I-Lorscheid.G, Bad Wiessee 2010 1 05 Kosintseva.N-Biatny.P, Moscow 2004 .............................................................................

............ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .

...........................

.......

.....

.................

...........

....

.

....

.

.............

.

....................

.

..

.

.

.

...

.

.

......

.

...

.

..

.

.

.....

.

.

....

....

.

.

........

....

..

.

...

.

...

...

.............. .....................

.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......

.

.............

....

.

.

.

........

.....

...

..

...

.

...........

........

.

.

.

....

...............................

.................................. .....................

.............

.........

..................... . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.................................

...

..

. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ....

. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

................

..

...........

........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......

....................

....

.

.

.

. . . . ............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........

...

. . . . .. . . . . . .

........

................................

.

.

............

...............................

.............

..............

................

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......................

...................

....

...................................

......................................

.....................................................

.

..............

. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

303

B e a ting U n u s u a l Chess Defe n ce s : 1 e4 Kotsur.P-Kakageldyev.A, Asian Championsh ip, Doha 2003 Kozakov.M-Zajarnyi.A, Lvov 1998

.................................

..................... ..........................................................

Lakatos.S-Marchisotti.M, Correspondence 2003

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . ............ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Le Quang Liem-Danielsen.H, Dresden Olympiad 2008 Lutz.C-Tischbierek.R, German League 1999

.............................................

............ . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... . . . . . . . . . . . .

Macieja.B-Chigladze.l, Athens 2007 Mamedov.N-Mirzoev.A, Baku 2010

......................... . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................... ................

.............................................................. ..............

Martin Alvarez.I-Movsziszian.K, Pam plona 2009

.......................................................

Mastrovasilis.D-Svetushkin.D, Greek Team Cha mpionship 2004 Movsesian.S-Tomczak.J, Wa rsaw (rapid} 2009

..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . ....................

.......... . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Norchenko.K-Kmiecik.K, Correspondence 2010 Orai.T-Cicak.S, Czech League 2004

. . . . . . . . . ......................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................

Orai.T-Gawehns.K, Hamburg 1999

. . . . . . . . . . . . .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Palkovi.J-Brandics.J, H u nga rian League 1992

.......................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pavasovic.D-Mrkonjic.N, Croatia n Team Championship 2010 Pilavov.G-Zimmerman.Y, Sochi 2007

. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........... . ...............................

Schneider.P-Nonnenmacher.T, Correspondence 1996 Shaw.J-Rossi.C, B ritish League (4NCL) 2000

Snape.I-Rausis.l, Gatwick 2011

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........

...............................................................................

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... . . . . . . . .

Spraggett. K-Jakobsen.O, Andorra 2007

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Stoere.T-Hanison.B, Correspondence 1990 Strauss.D-Tisdaii.J, Lone Pine 1976

...............................................................

.................................................................................

Svidler.P-Baburin.A, Bun ratty 2009

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Tiviakov.S-De Firmian.N, Gjovik 2009

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................................

Topalov.V-Kamsky.G, Wij k aan Zee 2006

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..............................

Van Herwaarden.A-De Saegher.C, Dieren 2006 Yakovich.V-Romero Garcia.M, Seville 1999

304

. . . . . . .....................................

. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Smerdon.D-Grunberg.M, Paks 2007 Smikovski.I-Osipov.V, Omsk 2001

............................

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Polgar.J-Smirin.l, Ista n b u l Olympiad 2000

Shirov.A-McNab.C, Gibra lta r 2006

..........................

. . . . . . . ............ . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Narciso Dublan.M-Garcia Castro.P, Monda riz 2002 Noomen.J-Thomson.T, Correspondence 2004

142 2 75 49 92 217 253 201 72 98 9 192 56 51 229 289 2 78 134 1 53 125 245 259 113 196 285 13 121 130 80 208 250 61 147 1 75

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................

If you thought

EVE RY M A N C H E S S books were g reat . . . they are now coming t o life a s

BOOKS

Read the complete book, play through the games, a nalyse the moves using your favourite a nalysis engine. All fully interactive i n ChessBase format .

�

Quick and easy to buy

-

available for download within a few clicks.

I n less than a m i n ute you can be using the eboo k .

�

Special offers

�

Free samples of every book

- Buy 9 ebooks and g e t 1 ebook a bsolutely free. - we are giving away a sample of every

ebook we publish, so download one now and try before you buy.

G reat e b o o k s fo r a l l l e v e l s of p l ay e r s t a r t i n g from o n l y

S 1 9.95