How to Beat 1 D4: A Sound and Ambitious Repertoire Based on the Queen's Gambit Accepted

Author: James Rizzitano

219 downloads 1903 Views 4MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!

Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

How to Beat 1 d4 James Rizzitano

[e3Ah~IBIIT

First published in the UK by Gambit Publications Ltd 2005 Copyright © James Rizzitano 2005 The right of James Rizzitano to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. This book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, re-sold, hired out or otherwise circulated in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser. A copy of the British Library Cataloguing in Publication data is available from the British Library. ISBN 1 904600 33 6 DISTRIBUTION:

Worldwide (except USA): Central Books Ltd, 99 Wallis Rd, London E9 5LN. Tel +44 (0)20 89864854 Fax +44 (0)20 8533 5821. E-mail: [email protected] USA: Continental Enterprises Group, Inc., 302 West North 2nd Street, Seneca, SC 29678, USA. For all other enquiries (including a full list of all Gambit chess titles) please contact the publishers, Gambit Publications Ltd, 6 Bradmore Park Rd, Hammersmith, London W6 ODS, England. E-mail: [email protected] Or visit the GAMBIT web site at http://www.gambitbooks.com Edited by Graham Burgess Typeset by John Nunn Cover image by Wolff Morrow Printed in Great Britain by The Cromwell Press, Trowbridge, Wilts.

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Gambit Publications Ltd Managing Director: GM Murray Chandler Chess Director: GM John Nunn Editorial Director: PM Graham Burgess German Editor: WPM Petra Nunn

Contents

Symbols Dedication Acknow ledgements Bibliography Introduction

4 4

4

5 6

Part 1: Queen's Gambit Accepted 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

White's Third Move Alternatives Central Variation Mannheim Variation Two Knights Variation Furman Variation Classical Variation: White's Seventh Move Alternatives Classical Variation: 7 a4 Classical Variation: 7 i.b3 Classical Variation: 7 'iVe2 b5 8 i.d3 Classical Variation: 7 'iVe2 b5 8 i.b3 i.b7 9 a4 Classical Variation: 7 'iVe2 b5 8 i.b3 i.b7 9 Mdl

10 14 24 28 38 43 60 72 80 85 94

Part 2: Queen's Pawn Games (White plays without c4) 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Hodgson Attack: 1 d4 d5 2 i.g5 Veresov Opening: 1 d4 d5 2 ct:Jc3 ct:Jf6 3 i.g5 London System: 1 d4 d5 2 ct:Jf3 ct:Jf6 3 i.f4 King's Fianchetto: 1 d4 d5 2ct:Jf3 ct:Jf6 3 g3 Torre Attack: 1 d4 d5 2 ct:Jf3 ct:Jf6 3 i.g5 Colle System: 1 d4 d5 2 ct:Jf3 ct:Jf6 3 e3 Stonewall Attack: 1 d4 d5 2 e3 ct:Jf6 3 i.d3 Blackmar-Diemer Gambit: 1 d4 d5 2 e4

Index of Variations

103 112 125 132 136 141 152 155 158

Symbols

+ ++

check double check checkmate # !! brilliant move good move !? interesting move ?! dubious move ? bad move ?? blunder White is winning +± White is much better ;!; White is slightly better = equal position Black is slightly better =+= Black is much better + Black is winning -+ Ch championship Cht team championship Wch world championship Wcht world team championship

Ech Echt ECC Ct IZ Z

OL jr worn rpd tt sim corr. qual 1-0 liz-liz 0-1 (n) (D)

European championship European team championship European Clubs Cup candidates event interzonal event zonal event olympiad junior event women's event rapidplay game team tournament game from simultaneous display correspondence game qualifying event the game ends in a win for White the game ends in a draw the game ends in a win for Black nth match game see next diagram

Dedication To my Dad.

Acknowledgements Thanks to Joe Fang for access to his outstanding chess library. Special thanks to my wife Kim and to our children Jillian and Jay for their enthusiasm and support.

Bibliography

Books Aagaard, J. & Lund, E.: Meeting 1 d4, Everyman 2002 Adams, 1.: Richter Veresov System, The Chess Player 1988 Baburin, A.: Winning Pawn Structures, Batsford 1999 Bellin, R.: Queen's Pawn: Veresov System, Batsford 1983 Bronznik, Y.: The Colle-Koltanowski System, Kania 2004 Buckley, G.: Easy Guide to the Queen's Gambit Accepted, Cadogan/Gambit 1998 Burgess, G.: 101 Chess Opening Surprises, Gambit 1998 Burgess, G.: The Gambit Guide to the Torre Attack, Gambit 1999 Davies, N.: The Veresov, Everyman 2003 Dunnington, A.: Attacking with 1 d4, Everyman 2002 Flear, G.: New Ideas in the Queen's Gambit Accepted, Batsford 1994 Gallagher, J.: Beating the Anti-King's Indians, Batsford 1996 Harding, T.: Colle, London and Blackmar-Diemer Systems, Batsford 1979 Janjgava, L.: The Petroff, Gambit 2001 Khalifman, A.: Opening for White According to Kramnik 1 0.j3, Volume 4, Chess Stars 2002 Lane, G.: Blackmar-Diemer Gambit, Batsford 1995 Lane, G.: Ideas Behind the Modern Chess Openings, Batsford 2002 Lane, G.: The Ultimate Colle, Batsford 2001 Matanovi6, A. ed.: Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings C ('ECO'), 4th ed., Sahovski Informator 2000 Matanovi6, A. ed.: Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings D ('ECO'), 4th ed., 2004; 3rd ed., 1998; 2nd ed., 1987; 1st ed., 1976 (Sahovski Informator). Neishtadt, I.: Queen's Gambit Accepted, Cadogan 1996 Nunn, 1., Burgess, G., Emms, J. & Gallagher, J.: Nunn's Chess Openings (,NCO'), GambitJEveryman 1999 Palliser, R.: Play 1 d4!, Batsford 2003 Sakaev, K. & Sernkov, S.: The Queen's Gambit Accepted, Chess Stars 2003 Sawyer, T.: Blackmar-Diemer Gambit Keybook, Thinker's Press 1992 Varnusz, E.: The Queen's Gambit Accepted, Schmidt Schach 1997 Ward, C.: The Queen's Gambit Accepted, Batsford 1999 Watson, J.: 40.c3 Gambit in the Queen's Gambit Accepted and Slav, Chess Enterprises 1986

Electron ie/Period ieals ChessBase Mega Database 2004 ChessBase Opening Encyclopaedia 2002 Chess Mail MegaCorr3 2003 Jeremy Silman's website New In Chess Magazine New In Chess Yearbook (up to No. 74) Sahovski Informator (up to No. 92) Schipkov, B.: Queen's Gambit Accepted (CD), ChessBase 2002 The Week In Chess (up to No. 554 dated 20 June 2005)

Introduction

The goal of writing How to Beat 1 d4 is to provide the reader with a solid, dynamic opening repertoire versus 1 d4. There are no shortcuts or secret variations which enable Black magically to seize the initiative from White during the opening phase of the game - in order to beat 1 d4 we must fIrst neutralize 1 d4. Here are my criteria for selecting an opening: 1) The opening must be played with regularity by strong players. 2) The opening must have a healthy theoretical reputation. 3) The opening must be solid - the characteristic positions should not require the player to incur excessive risk (time loss, material defIcit, or space disadvantage). 4) The opening must be dynamic - the major variations should enable the player to develop active counterplay. If an opening passes the fIrst criterion above, then the other criteria often fall into place strong players prefer to play openings in which they have a reasonable expectation of achieving success. The highly-regarded Queen's Gambit Accepted (QGA) is the foundation of our opening repertoire versus 1 d4. The QGA has been played by all of the fIrst 14 World Champions recent titleholders Kramnik, Kasparov and Karpov have contributed to the development of several critical lines. Fischer and Spas sky had some topical QGA battles during their 1992 match. Other modem players including Anand, Ponomariov, Shirov, Ivanchuk, Kariakin, Rublev sky, Sadler, Short, and Seirawan have contributed to the development of QGA opening theory. The QGA is a suitable opening for all players, not just World Champions and worldclass grandmasters - one of the advantages for the club and tournament competitor is that the characteristic positions can be understood by players of widely varying ability. Black's opening strategy conforms to classical development principles because he fIghts for his share of the

centre and he can usually develop his pieces quickly and safeguard his king. Black usually does not have to worry about being overrun by a central pawn steamroller, he does not have to struggle with a bad bishop, and he does not have to embark on any complicated knight tours to complete his development. A classical opening can be a powerful and effective weapon in your opening arsenal, especially in view of today's increasingly faster time-limits. The QGA is difficult for a 1 d4 player to avoid if he wants to fight for an advantage because the opening arises after only two moves - you will be learning lines which you will actually have the opportunity to play! A black repertoire has also been provided to combat Queen's Pawn Games in which White plays without c4 - the result is a complete one-volume repertoire versus 1 d4. How to Beat 1 d4 is an opening repertoire book written from the perspective of the black player, though white players will benefIt from the objective coverage of topical lines and the numerous suggested improvements for both sides. The recommended lines against White's various options have been developed by carefully analysing the games and opening preferences of the world's best players. I have investigated all game sources at my disposal including correspondence and e-mail games. Correspondence chess plays an important role in advancing the theoretical knowledge of many sharp variations, particularly in lines that tournament players may be reluctant to try over the board. I have provided mUltiple solutions to combat White's main variations and within these lines some alternative options have also been examined. Many players will be content with learning a single variation, but it is useful to have alternatives ready in the event a particular line runs into some difficulty - it doesn't hurt to keep your opponents guessing either! Let's explore the main line of the QGA and investigate the alternative moves for each player.

INTRODUCTION

We shall also identify the specific variations which fonn the basis of our opening repertoire: 1 d4 The Queen's Gambit Accepted can also be reached by some other common move-orders: • 1 lLlf3 d5 2 d4lLlf6 3 c4 dxc4. • 1 lLlf3 d5 2 c4 dxc4 3 e3 (3 lLla3 is a Reti Opening and is outside the scope of this book) 3 ... lLlf6 4 ..txc4 e6 5 d4 c5. 1...d5 This move is necessary if Black wishes to playa QGA - after 1...lLlf6 2 c4, the opportunity has passed. 2c4 White has several alternatives at this juncture; some may transpose into a QGA (for example, 2 lLlf3 lLlf6 3 c4 dxc4), and some are truly independent openings if White decides to play without the c4 pawn advance (Part 2 of this book - ECO code range DOO-D05): • 2 ..tg5 is covered in Chapter 12: Hodgson Attack. • 2lLlc3lLlf6 3 iog5 is covered in Chapter 13: Veresov Opening. • 2lLlf3 lLlf6 3 ..tf4 is covered in Chapter 14: London System. • 2 lLlf3 lLlf6 3 g3 is covered in Chapter 15: King's Fianchetto. • 2lLlf3 lLlf6 3 iog5 is covered in Chapter 16: Torre Attack. • 2 lLlf3 lLlf6 3 e3 is covered in Chapter 17: Colle System. • 2 e3 lLlf6 3 i.d3 is covered in Chapter 18: Stonewall Attack. • 2 e4 is covered in Chapter 19: BlackmarDiemer Gambit. There are a couple of important points to remember about these openings: • Queen's Pawn Games in which White plays without c4 do not give White a theoretical opening advantage. • Queen's Pawn Games should be treated with the utmost respect. Of course this last statement can be made about all openings, but one of the challenges in facing these aggressive attacking lines is that your opponent is likely to be more familiar with the thematic positions than you are - in the hands of an experienced attacking player, they are extremely dangerous. With the exception of the Stonewall Attack and the Blackmar-Diemer

7

Gambit, these openings have frequently been employed by strong grandmasters with very good results - they can be used as an occasional surprise weapon or as part of an attacking repertoire. Our repertoire includes a solid response to all of these aggressive lines. 2... dxc4 (D)

w

This is the characteristic move of the Queen's Gambit Accepted (Part 1 of this book - ECO code range D20-D21 and D23-D29). Rather than bolster the centre by playing 2 ... e6 (Queen's Gambit Declined) or 2 ... c6 (Slav Defence), Black immediately exchanges his d5-pawn for White's c4-pawn. What is the strategy behind this move? Shouldn't Black wait until White has moved his light-squared bishop before capturing the pawn so as to gain a tempo? If only chess were so simple! One of the ideas behind the immediate pawn capture is to retain the possibility of playing the ... e7-e5 pawn-break in a single move (not possible in the Queen's Gambit Declined, although Black frequently plays a later ... e6-e5 advance to free his game) and also to retain the possibility of playing the ... c7 -c5 pawn-break in one move (not possible in the Slav Defence, although Black sometimes plays a later ... c6-c5 advance to free his game). The 2 ... dxc4 capture is flexible - White may lose some time recapturing the c4-pawn, and Black will gauge White's reply before deciding upon a response. Of course we cannot conclude that anyone of these openings is superior to another - they are simply different methods of working toward the common goal of developing Black's pieces. 3lLlf3

How TO BEAT 1 d4

8

This is the most frequently played move here - White prevents Black from playing ... e5. White has several alternatives: • 3 ~a4+, 3 tDc3, and 3 e3 are covered in Chapter 1: White's Third Move Alternatives. The move 3 e3 is the most important of these as it is sometimes used as a move-order finesse to bypass the ... .i.g4 variations. • 3 e4 is covered in Chapter 2: Central Variation. This is one of White's most popular and ambitious attempts to obtain an opening advantage because he immediately seizes the centre and prepares to recapture the c4pawn. Our repertoire response is the traditional counterstroke 3 ... e5, whereby Black immediately stakes his claim to the centre. 3 ...tDf6 Black continues his development and prevents White from playing e4. The minor alternative 3 ... a6 (Alekhine Variation - ECO code D22) is not part of our repertoire. 4e3 This is the most popular move here; White has a couple of alternatives: • 4 'iVa4+ is covered in Chapter 3: Mannheim Variation. Our repertoire reply is the solid

4 ... tDc6. • 4 tDc3 is covered in Chapter 4: Two Knights Variation. White continues developing and usually offers to make it a true gambit. Our repertoire reply is the traditional 4 ... a6 and includes both a solid and a sharp response to White's attacking ambitions. There are several alternatives here: a) 4 ... c5 is not part of our repertoire. b) 4 ... tDc6 transposes into the Queen's Gambit Chigorin Defence. c) 4 ... e6 usually transposes into the Queen's Gambit Vienna Variation after 5 e4 .i.b4 6 .i.g5. d) 4 ... c6 transposes into the Slav Defence see The Slav by Graham Burgess for coverage of this opening. 4••• e6 Black opens the diagonal for his dark-squared bishop and prepares to challenge White's d4pawn by playing ... c5. The alternative 4 ... .i.g4 is not part of our repertoire. 5.i.xc4 White recaptures his pawn. 5 .••c5 (D)

W

Black immediately challenges the white d4pawn - this is the starting position for the Classical Variation.

6 0-0 White continues his development by safeguarding his king. White has a popular alternative here: • 6 ~e2 is covered in Chapter 5: Furman Variation. White prepares to play dxc5 followed by a quick e4 pawn advance - the queen move avoids a potential exchange of queens. This attacking variation has been very popular over the past several years.

6..•a6 Black prepares to win a tempo by playing ... b5, kicking the white bishop away and clearing the b7-square for his own bishop. Many of the queen's pawn openings revolve around a battle for tempi involving the light-squared bishops. The older 6 ... cxd4 (Steinitz Variation) is not part of our repertoire. 7~e2

This is the main line of the Classical Variation. White has plenty of alternatives here: • 7 tDbd2, 7 tDc3, 7 e4, 7 dxc5, 7 b3, 7 a3, and 7 .i.d3 are all covered in Chapter 6: Classical Variation: White's Seventh Move Alternatives. • 7 a4 is covered in Chapter 7: Classical Variation: 7 a4. • 7 .i.b3 is covered in Chapter 8: Classical Variation: 7.i.b3. 7 ...b5 (D) Black follows through with the plan of queenside expansion. The alternative 7 ...tDc6 is also part of our repertoire and is covered in Chapter 5: Furman Variation - this position is frequently

INTRODUCTION

reached via the move-order 6 'i\Ve2 (instead of 6 0-0) 6 ... a6 7 0-0 lLlc6.

9

Now White has a choice between 10 e4 and 10 lLlc3 - these lines are covered in Chapter 11: Classical Variation: 7 'i\Ve2 b5 8 ..tb3 iLb7 9

%:tdl.

w

8..tb3 White has another bishop retreat: • 8 i..d3 is covered in Chapter 9: Classical Variation: 7 'i\Ve2 b5 8 ..td3. 8 •••i..b7 The light-squared bishop takes up a strong position on the long diagonal. 9.l:!.dl

The rook slides over to control a central file. White has a popular alternative here: • 9 a4 is covered in Chapter 10: Classical Variation: 7 'i\Ve2 b5 8 i..b3 ..tb7 9 a4. White immediately attacks the b5-pawn. 9 ...lLlbd7

I have spent the past year writing this book during the evening hours, and I want the reader to know that I have independently analysed every position in the book, and I have not quoted any author's analysis without independently verifying the variations on a board with my own eyes and with various chess engines. I have also concentrated on identifying and extending the theory of critical opening positions because I believe this is the extra value that a good author brings to a book. A detailed bibliography has also been provided to enable both the professional player and the ambitious amateur to keep the material current - as a long-time consumer of chess books, these are the things I look for in an opening book. Finally, I would like to thank the Gambit Publications team of Graham Burgess, Murray Chandler, and John Nunn for their great enthusiasm, helpful suggestions, and tremendous support for this project. I wish the reader luck in his or her own Queen's Gambit Accepted and Queen's Pawn Game adventures! James Rizzitano Southborough, Massachusetts 2005

1 White's Third Move Alternatives

1 d4 d5 2 c4 dxc4 (D)

w

In this chapter we shall consider White's third-move alternatives to 3 e4 and 3 4Jf3, of which the most important is Line B: A: 34Jc3 10 B: 3 e3 11 3 'iVa4+ 4Jc6 4 4Jf3 is rarely seen: a) 4 ... .i.g4 5 4Jc3 .i.xf3 6 exf3 e6 7 .i.e3 4Jf6 8 .i.xc4 a6 ("! =1=" - Schipkov, but apparently he overlooked White's next move) 9 d5! (stronger than 9I'i'dl4Jb4 = Rey-Baburin, San Francisco 1997) 9 ... exd5 (9 ... 4Jxd5 10 0-0-0 b5 11 ~xd5 exd5 12 I'i'c2 ;1;) 10 .i.xd5 4Jxd5 11 0-0-0.i.d6 12l:txd5 0-0 =. b) 4 ... 4Jf6 - 3 4Jj3 4Jj6 4 'iVa4 + 4Jc6 transposes into Chapter 3: Mannheim Variation. c) 4 ... a6!? (this is the most aggressive tryBlack gains time by hounding the white queen) 5 'iVxc4 .i.e6 6 ~d34Jb4 7 'iVdl4Jf6 84Jc3 and now 8... c5! gives Black a slight edge. This is more challenging than ECO's 8... 4Jbd5 =.

A) 34Jc3 a6 Also sufficient is the central thrust 3 ... e5 4 e3 (4 dxe5 I'i'xd1+ 5 'it'xdl .i.e6 =1=; 4 d5 c6 5 e4 4Jf6 =) 4 ... exd4 5 exd44Jf6 6 ii.xc4 i..d6 74Jf3

0-0 8 0-0 - 3 e3 e5 4 Lc4 exd4 5 exd4 ii.d6 6 4Jj3 4Jf6 7 0-0 0-0 8 4Jc3. 4e4?! This inaccurate move is frequently seen at club level. Alternatives: a) 4 a4?! e5 5 d5 (5 dxe5 'iVxdl+ 6 'it'xdl ~e6 was slightly better for Black in Capablanca-LRabinovich, Moscow 1935) 5 ... 4Jf6 6 e3 .i.b4 7 .i.xc4 c6 8 dxc6 'iVxdl+ 9 'it'xdl 4Jxc6 =1= Noble-Sadler, British Ch (Eastbourne) 1990. "The ceding of the b4-square leaves White with an inferior game." - Flear. b) 44Jf3 b5 (4 ... 4Jf6 - 34Jj34Jf6 44Jc3 a6 transposes into Chapter 4: Two Knights Variation) 5 a4 b4 6 4Je4 4Jd7 7 4Jed2 (7 'iVc2 was suggested by Portisch - 7 ... ii.b7 looks like an adequate reply) 7... c3 8 bxc3 bxc3 94Je44Jgf6 10 4Jxc3 e6 = Karpov-Portisch, Tilburg 1983. c) 4 e3 4Jf6 5 ~xc4 e6 6 4Jf3 c5 7 0-0 - 3 4Jj3 4Jf6 4 e3 e6 5 Lc4 c5 6 0-0 a6 7 4Jc3 transposes into Line B of Chapter 6 ('Classical Variation: White's Seventh Move Alternatives'). 4... b55 a4 b4 (D)

The white knight has difficulty finding a comfortable square. The key idea for Black is to break up White's pawn-centre as soon as possible. Now: a) 64Jbl .i.b7 7 f3 e5 8 dxe5 (8 d5 c6! + Korchnoi-Htibner, TV game 1984) 8.. :~xdl+

WHITE'S THIRD MOVE ALTERNATIVES

9 ~xdl lbc6 10 i.xc4 0-0-0+ (also strong is 1O.. J:td8+ I1lbd2lbxeS 12 i.b3 oltcs +Levacie-Semkov, Cannes 1989) 11 lbd2 lbxeS 12 i.e2 b3 +lRichardson-Baburin, British League (4NCL) 1999/00. b) 6 lbd5 e6 7 lbe3 i.b7 8 f3 lbc6 9 lbe2 lbaS + Polpur-Stiazhkina, St Petersburg worn Ch 2002. c) 6lba2 ..ltb7 7 f3lbc6 8 dS (8 olte3 eS 9 dS lbaS +) 8 ...lbaS 9 i.d2 (9lbxb4 e6 + Alterman; 9 Wilc2 b3 10 'tWc3 c6 11 dxc6 lbxc6 12 lbb4 lbd4 +) 9 ... lbb3! (9 ... e6 10 dxe6 fxe6 11 i.xb4 i.xb4+ 12lbxb4 Wilh4+ 13 g3 Wile7 is slightly better for Black, Alterman-Av.Bykhovsky, Israell994) 10 ..ltxc4lbxal I1lbxb4 "with compensation" according to Alterman, but I think White's position falls apart after l1...e6! 12 dxe6 fS! 13 Wilxal (13 exfS?? Wilh4+ relieves White of a bishop) 13 .. .fxe4 +.

B) 3e3 This move is sometimes employed as a move-order finesse to avoid the variation 3lbf3 a6 4 e3 i.g4 - the choice of 3 e3 is often a matter of taste as some players prefer not to allow the pin on the f3-knight. 3...eS (D) The central counterattack is the most challenging reply. The frequently played alternative, 3 ... lbf6 4 i.xc4 e6 Slbf3 cS 60-0 (6 ~e2 is covered in Chapter S: Furman Variation) 6 ... a6, transposes into the Classical Variation (Chapters 6-11).

4 i.xc4 exd4 5 exd4 i.d6

11

The immediate development of the bishop is generally considered to be the most precise move-order as the alternative 5 ... lbf6 gives White the additional option of playing 6 Wilb3!? (Black has nothing to fear here - the more frequently played 6 lbf3 i.d6 transposes into our repertoire line) 6 ... Wile7+ 7 lbe2 Wilb4+ (Black can avoid the exchange of queens by playing 7 ... lbbd7!? 8 0-0 lbb6 9 lbf4 lbxc4 10 Wilxc4 Wild7 11lbc3 .i.e7 12lbcdSlbxd5 13lbxd5 c6 {13 ... 0-0 14 lbxc7 :b8 IS i.f4 ±} 14 lbxe7 "Wixe7 15 d5 0-016 dxc6 i.e6 17 "Wie4 bxc6 18 "Wixc6 .l:tac8 with compensation for the pawn, Granda-P.Nikolie, Zagreb IZ 1987) 8 lbbc3 ~xb3 9 oltxb3 .i.d6 and now: a) 10 lbbS i.e6 11 i.f4 i.xb3! (11...i.xf4 12 i.xe6 a6! 13lbxf4 axb5 =Janosevie-Matulovie, Birmingham 1975) 12 axb3 .i.xf4 13 lbxf4 ~d7 14lbd3lbc6 IS 0-0-0 'iitc8 +Sakaev and Semkov. b) 10 0-0 a6 (1O ... i.e6 11 dS i.d7 12 l::tel 0-0 13 i.g5 ;1;) 11 lbg3 lbc6 12 l::tel + ~f8 13 lbge4 lbxe4 (13 ... lbxd4?? 14 lbxf6 gxf6 15 i.h6+ mates) 14 lbxe4 i.b4 (14 ... lbxd4?! 15 lbxd6 cxd6 16 i.f4 i.e6 17 i.xd6+ ~e8 18 i.xe6 lbxe6 19 f4 ;1;) 15 l::tdl oltf5 and now instead of 16 lbgS (Wirthensohn-Miles, Biel 1977) 16 ... .i.g6 =, Miles suggested 16 lbg3!? i..g6 17 i..f4, when I think Black can defend with 17 ... lbaS 18 ..ltxc7 lLlxb3 19 axb3 l::tc8 =. 6 lbf3 lbf6 7 0-0 0-0 (D)

8lbc3 (D) White can also play 8 i..gS h6 9 .i.h4 lbc6 (this position is classified as a Petroff Defence by ECO {code C42} - more about this in the note to Black's 8th move), and now:

12

How TO BEAT 1 d4

a) 10 l'2::lc3 iLg4 11 h3 ii.xf3 12 ~xf3l'2::lxd4 13 'iVxb7 l:tb8 14 'iVxa7 (14 'iVa6?! ':'xb2 is fine for Black) 14...:a8 (Black has no reasonable way to avoid the repetition; e.g., 14 .. J:Ixb2?! 15 l'2::ld5 ±; 14... l'2::lf5?! 15 .ixf6 ~xf6 16 l'2::le4 'iVxb2 17l'2::lxd6 cxd6 18 a4;!;;) 15 'iVb7l:Ib8 16 ~a7 .:I.a8 17 'iVb7 l:tb8 112-112 M.Gurevich-Azmaiparashvili, Valle d' Aosta 2003. b) 10 h3 g5 11 .ig3 ii.xg3 12 fxg3 l'2::la5 13 .id3l'2::lc6 14 .ic4l'2::la5 = Lautier-Anand, Monte Carlo Amber rpd 1999.

The Petroff by Lasha Janjgava (page 158) for detailed coverage of this variation, but I am analysing the positions which arise from the Queen's Gambit Accepted move-order here because they are an important part of our repertoire. 9 h3 Or 9.¥i.g5 h6 10 .i.h4 - 8 .ig5 h6 9 ii.h4l'2::lc6 1Ol'2::lc3. 9.•.h6 (D)

W

B

S•.•l'2::lc6 The plausible but inaccurate 8 ... .ig4?! has been played more than 80 times in my database - the tempting pin is premature because of 9 h3 ~h5 (the lesser evil is 9 ... .ixf3 10 'iVxf3 c6 ;!;;) 10 g4 iLg6 11 l'2::le5 c5 12 l'2::lxg6 hxg6 13 dxc5 .i.xc5 14 .¥i.xf7+!! rJ;;xf7 15 'iVb3+ rJ;;e8 16 ~e1 + .¥i.e7 17 'iVxb7 l'2::lbd7 18 g5 with a strong attack in Ulybin-Erykalov, USSR 1986 and many later games. The position after 8 ... l'2::lc6 is classified as a Petroff Defence by ECO (code C42), based upon the move-order 1 e4 e5 2 l'2::lf3 l'2::lf6 3 l'2::lxe5 d6 4l'2::lf3l'2::lxe4 5 d4 d5 6 .id3 ii.d67 0-0 0-0 8 c4l'2::lf6 9 l'2::lc3 dxc4 10 .ixc4l'2::lc6 - note that each side has played two extra moves here. The same position can also be reached from an Exchange French via the move-order 1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 exd5 exd5 4 l'2::lf3 ii.d6 5 c4 l'2::lf6 6 l'2::lc3 dxc4 7 .i.xc4 0-0 8 0-0 l'2::lc6. Sorry for the extended digression, but I believe it is important for the reader to be aware of this unusual example of opening convergence so as to facilitate his own independent research. I suppose I could take the easy way out and refer the reader to

White has two major options here and no clear preference has emerged: Bl: 10 ~c2 13 B2: 10 a3 13 Minor alternatives: a) 10 ii.e3 a6 11 'iVd2 (11 a4 .if5 12 l'2::lh4 .ih7 13 .i.d3 ii.xd3 14 'iVxd3l'2::lb4 15 ~d1':'e8 16 'iVf3 .if8 17 .!:!.adl l'2::lbd5 18 l'2::lf5 rJ;;h7 = Balashov-Morozevich, Samara 1998) 11...b5 12 .id3l'2::lb413 iLb1l:te8 14 a3l'2::lbd5 15l'2::lxd5 l'2::lxdS 16 'iVc2 l'2::lf6 17 l'2::le5 (Thesing-Glek, Netherlands 1999) 17 ....ib7 with equal chances according to Glek. b) 10 !tel ~e8 11 .ie3 .if5 and then: bl) 12 d5 l'2::le5 13 l'2::lxe5 .ixe5 14 .id4 (14 'iVb3!? b6 15 ~ac1) 14 ... .ixd4 15 'iVxd4 a6 with equality, Tyomkin-Estrade Nieto, Oakham 2001. b2) 12 a3 a6 13 l'2::lh4 .ih7 14 'iVf3 'iVd7 15 g4 (15 l':!.ed 1 l'2::le4 16 .id3 l'2::lxc3 17 iLxh 7 + rJ;;xh7 18 bxc3l'2::la5 = Mikac-Ulybin, Bled open 2002) and here: b21) 15 .. J:tad8 (so far this is Short-Bareev, Pula Echt 1997) 16l:tadl (=Bareev) 16... l'2::le4!? 17 l'2::lf5 .ixf5 18 gxf5 l'2::lxc3 (18 ... l'2::lf6!?) 19

WHITE'S THIRD MOVE ALTERNATIVES

bxc3 b5 20 j.a2 0,e7 21 f6 'iUf5 with equal chances. b22) 15 ... ~f8!? 16 .l:!.edl 0,e4 is unclearKorotylev-Fominykh, St Petersburg (Petroff mem) 2000.

13

l:te7 ~f6 {2l...~d5? 22 ~g4 ±} 22 ~c4+ 0,d5 23 Iie2 =) 17 ... 0,d7 18 b4 b6 =.

82) 10 a3 j.f511l:tel a6 (D)

81) 10 'iUc2 Directed against ... ~f5. 10.•. 0,b4 11 'iNbl j.e6! A common motif in such positions - Black accepts an isolated e-pawn in order to relieve the pressure from White's light-squared bishop. In return Black opens the f-file for his rooks and obtains the d5-square for his knights. 12 .i.xe6 fxe613 nel ~e814 0,e4 14 j.d2 0,bd5 (14 ...'iUf7!?) 151iVd31iVf7 = Tkachev-Golubovic, Pula 2000. 14...0,bd515 0,c5 .i.xc516 dxc5 (D)

B

Now Black has: a) 16 ... 0,d7?! 17 c6! (more incisive than 17 'iUc2 c6 = Ramirez Alvarez-Morozevich, Bled OL 2002) 17 ... bxc6 18 ~e4 with compensation for the pawn. b) 16... c6 17 a3!? (17 0,d4 'iNf7 "=1=" - Sakaev and Sernkov, but I think White can hang on with 18 l:txe6 0,d7 19 ~c2 0,b4 20 ~e2 0,xc5 21

w

12b4 Alternatives: a) 12 0,e5?! (a dubious but popular move) l2 ... j.xe5 13 dxe5 ~xdl 14 0,xdl 0,d7 15 e6 (15 f4 0,b6 16 j.a2 0,d4 17 0,e3 ~e6 =1= Lautier) and now: al) l5 ... j.xe6?! (Kotter-Baumhackel, Dortmund 2000) 16 :xe6 fxe6 17 ~xe6+ l:tf7 18 ~f4 = Lautier. a2) 15 ... fxe6 16 ~xe6 (16 .i.f4?! 0,b6 17 j.a2 0,d5 18 ~xd5 exd5 =1= Liogky-Lautier, French Cht 1996) 16 ... 'it>h8 17 :el 0,a5 (I think Black can also consider 17 ... 0,de5!? 18 ~f1 ~d3 =) 18 0,e3 l:tae8 19 j.d2 = Lautier. b) 12 j.e3 l:te8 13 Ikl ~d7 = HauchardSadler, Cannes 1996. 12.. J:te8 l2 ...~d7 13 d5 0,e7 14 0,e5 .i.xe5 15 l:txe5 0,g6 16 llell:tfe8 intending ... 0,e5 = Lautier. 13 .i.b2 liVd7 The chances are equal, Todorov-Stojanovic, Belgrade 2001.

2 Central Variation

1 d4 dS 2 c4 dxc4 3 e4 The characteristic move of the Central Variation - White immediately establishes a powerful central pawn duo. The traditional 3 ttJf3 was the automatic choice for many years - the widespread opinion was that White's first priority was to prevent Black from playing the freeing ... eS pawn advance. This opinion was gradually challenged and the number of games played with the Central Variation has steadily increased throughout the past decade - the line is rich in strategic and tactical complexity. 3... eS This is our repertoire move - the immediate central counterattack is the logical choice to exploit White's omission of 3 ttJf3. During the last two decades, 3... ttJc6, 3... cS, and 3 ... ttJf6 have proven themselves to be viable alternatives. 4 ttJf3 exd4 (D)

S~xc4

White has some minor alternatives here: a) S ttJxd4 .i.cs 6 .i.e3 ttJf6 7 ttJc3 ttJg4 and now: a1) 8 .i.xc4 0-0 9 0-0 'iUd6 10 g3 (Roc iusMikac, Aschach 1993) 10 ... ttJxe3 11 fxe3 ttJd7 =+=. Black has the bishop-pair and a juicy outpost on the eS-square. a2) 8 ttJe6! 'iVxd 1+ 9 l:txd 1 iLxe6 10 .i.xcs ttJd7 and then:

a21) 11 .i.d4 0-0-0 (l1...cS!? 12 ~xg71:tg8 {Haus-Neidhardt, Hessen Ch 1991} 13 ttJbS! ~e7 14 .i.c3 ttJgeS with roughly level chances) 12 f4 f6 with equal chances. a22) 11 ~a3 0-0-0 12 h3 ttJgf6 13 f4 gave White reasonable compensation for the pawn in Bischof-Huhndorf, Germany tt 200112. b) S 'iUxd4 'iUxd4 6 ttJxd4 ttJf6 7 ttJc3 ~cS and then: b1) 8 ~e3 ttJg4 and here: b11) 9 ~xc4 ttJxe3 10 fxe3 ttJd7 11 ttJdS 'it'd8 and now: b111) 12 ~d1 ttJeS 13 ~e2 iLd7 140-0 c6 IS ttJf4 ~c7 =+= The King-Yakovich, Oviedo rpd 1983. bl12) 12 b4 ~f8 13 bS ttJeS 14 iLb3 c6 IS ttJf4 ~b4+ 16 ~f2 ~e7 17 bxc6 bxc6 18l:tac1 .i.d7 19 l:thd1 l:thd8 20 h3 (Cifuentes-Bronstein, Oviedo rpd 1983) 20 ... aS =+=. b12) 9 ttJdS ttJxe3 10 fxe3 ttJa6 (10 ... 'it'd8!? is another idea for Black) 11 ~xc4 c6 12 .i.xa6 cxdS 13 iLbS+ ~d7 (13 ... 'it'e7 14 exdS iLxd4 IS exd4 liz-liz Mikhalchishin-Gulko, USSR Ch (Riga) 1985) 14 .i.xd7+ 'it'xd7 IS 0-0 .i.xd4 16 exd4 (Knezevic-Garcia Palermo, Havana 1985) 16 .. .f6 =. b2) 8 ttJdbS ttJa6 9 ..tf4 c6 10 ttJd6+ .i.xd6 11 iLxd6 iLe6 12 eS ttJd7 = Beliavsky-Ponomariov, Enghien-Ies-Bains 1999. S.•. ttJc6 6 0-0 6 'iUb3 iLb4+ 7 ~d2 'iUe7 8 iLxb4 'iUxb4+ 9 'iUxb4 ttJxb4 10 ttJxd4 cS 11 a3 cxd4 12 axb4 ttJf6 13 ttJd2 ~e6 14 0-0 ~e7leads to an equal position, H.Kramer-J.Szabo, Hamburg Echt 1965. 6••• iLe6 White has temporarily sacrificed a pawn and now he must decide whether to retain his lightsquared bishop for attacking purposes at the cost of losing a tempo (Line A), or exchange light-squared bishops and quickly recover the pawn (Line B): IS A: 7..tbS B: 7..txe6 19

CENTRAL VARIATION

15

A) 7 .i.b5 .i.c5 (D)

w

w

White has several possibilities here: AI: S b4 15 A2: S ~c2 16 A3: SltJbd2 16 Rarely seen is 8ltJg5 ~e7 (after 8 ... ltJe7?? 9 ltJxe6 fxe6 10 ~h5+ White wins the loose bishop; 8... ~d7 9 ltJxe6 ~xe6 10 .i.f4 .i.b6 = Krush-Bergsson, Reykjavik 2004) 9 .i.xc6+ (9 f4 .i.d7 leaves the g5-knight looking rather foolish) 9 ... bxc6 10 ltJxe6 ~xe6 11 ltJd2 J:1d8 12 ~c2 (12 f4!?) 12 ... .i.b6 13 ~d3 ltJf6 14ltJc4 ltJd7 (also possible is 14 ... 0-0 15 f3 ltJd7 and Black has a comfortable game) 15 b4 c5! (an instructive manoeuvre - Black liquidates his doubled c-pawns and strengthens his passed dpawn) 16 b5 c6 17 bxc6 ~xc6 18 .i.g5 f6 19 .i.h4 .i.c7 20 f4 0-0 21 l:tac1 l:tde8 + Vyzhmanavin-Rublevsky, Novosibirsk 1995. White has insufficient compensation for his pawn deficit.

AI) Sb4 This aggressive thrust should appeal to fans of the Evans Gambit. S...~b6 (D) 9.i.b2 Or 9 a4!?: a) 9 ... a5 (the drawback of this reflex move is that Black loses the ability to dislodge the b5bishop) 10 bxa5 l:txa5 11 ltJg5 ~d7 12 ltJd2

ltJge7 (lvanisevic-Sakalauskas, Baturni Echt 1999) 13 ltJxe6! and here: al) 13 .. .fxe6? is poor: all) 14ltJc4?! l:ta8 and now 15ltJe5 ~d6 16 ltJc4 'li'd7 repeats, while 15 .i.a3 gives White compensation according to Khuzman. a12) 14 ltJb3! (the knight protects the alrook and enables the a-pawn to advance rapidly) 14 .. J:ta8 15 a5 .i.a7 16 a6 - Ivanisevic, and indeed White has a crushing advantage after 16 ... bxa6 17 .l:!.xa6 .l:!.b8 18 ~d3 +-. a2) 13 ... ~xe6 14 ltJc4 lIxb5 (14 ... l:ta8 15 ltJxb6 cxb616 ~xd4 ±) 15 axb5 ~xc416 bxc6 ltJxc6 17 'Ii'g4! 0-0 18 .i.h6 g6 19 .i.xf8 'iiitxf8 20 ~c8+
16

How TO BEAT 1 d4

B

b) 13 ... ~d4! 14 ttJxd4 ttJxd4 15 i..xd4 ~xd4 "is unclear but at least Black is a pawn up" Sakaev and Semkov. I think White's attack peters out after 16 ttJa3 0-0 (16 ... a6!?) 17 ttJb5 ~d7 18 ~fd1 a6 and White's compensation appears to be insufficient. 10 ttJxd4 10 i..xd4 0-0 11 ~c5 (11 ~xb6 axb6 is fine for Black) 1l...~xc5 12 bxc5 a6 13 ~xc6 ttJxc6 14 ttJc3 i..c4! 15 .l:!.e1 (15 ~xd8 .l:.fxd8 16.l:!.fd1 ttJb4!? and Black has the initiative - Scherbakov) 15 ... ~e7 16 :tel ~xc5 17 ttJd5 b5 =+= Kanep-Mikha1chishin, Calvia OL 2004. 10..•0-011 ttJxc6 11 ttJxe6? ~xd1 12 .l:1xd1 fxe6 13 I1d2 :txf2! 14 .l:.xf2 ltf8 +. 11 ••• ttJxc6 12 ~xc6 Now: a) 12 .. :~xd1 13 l:txd1 bxc6 14 ttJd2 a5 (14 ... c5!?, to eliminate the doubled c-pawns, is worth trying) 15 a3 liz-liz Van Wely-Sermek, Biikfurdo Mitropa Cup 1995. b) 12 ...bxc6 13 ~c2 as = RakhmangulovSvetushkin, Alushta 1999.

A2) 8 ~c2 i..b6 9 a4 The flank thrust is the most frequently played move here, but it is uncertain which side benefits more from the advance of the opposing apawns. Similar positions arise after 9 i..xc6+ bxc6 10 ~xc6+ i..d7 11 ~c4 (11 ~c2 should be compared with 9 a4 a5 10 hc6+ bxc6 11 ~xc6+ i..d7 12 "Wic2 - the advance of both apawns does not fundamentally change the position) 11.. ..ie6 (Black can avoid the repetition

by playing the double-edged 1l...c5!? 12 ttJe5 .ie6 13 ~5+ \t>f8 14 ttJa3 ttJf6 with an unclear position) 12 ~c6+ i..d7 llz-lh KorchnoiPonomariov, Donetsk (4) 2001. 9•.•a510 .ixc6+ bxc611 ~xc6+ ~d7 (D)

12 "Wic2 12 ~c4 i..e6 13 ~b5+ (13 "Wic6+ is a repetition) 13 ... ~d7 14 ~d3 (14 "Wig5 f6 =+=) 14 ... ttJe7 15 ttJe5 ~d6 16 i.f4 "Wib4 (Tregubov-Yakovich, Novgorod 1995) 17 ttJd2 =. 12•.• ttJe7 13 ttJa3 13 ttJe5 0-0 14 ttJd2 ~e6 15 ttJdc4 ttJg6 16 ttJxb6 cxb6 17 ttJxg6 hxg6 18 .l:.a3 lh-lh SorinSorokin, Salta Clarin 1995. 13..•0-0 14 ttJe5 14 ttJc4 ttJc6 15 %1d1 (15 ~g5 "Wie8 16 i.f4 ttJb4 is also fine for Black; 15 ttJxb6 cxb6 =) 15 ... ttJb4 16 "Wib3 c5 17 ~d2 ~c7 18 i..xb4 .:f.b8 19 "Wic2 .l:.xb4 20 ttJce5 i.d6 =+= Van WelyAnand, Monte Carlo Amber rpd 1997. 14...ttJg6 Now: a) 15 ttJxg6 hxg6 16 ttJc4 i.e6 17 .i:!.d1 (17 ttJxb6 cxb6 =) 17 ... .ixc4 (17 ... c5!?) 18 ~xc4 ~h4 = Ward-LaW:, England 1998. b) 15 ttJac4 ttJxe5 16 ttJxe5 .i:!.e8 17 .if4 ~f6 (simplifying into an equal major-piece endgame; 17 ... ~c8!? is worth a look to retain the bishop-pair) 18 ttJxd7 'iVxf4 19 ttJxb6 cxb6 = Ibragimov-Makarov, Russian Ch (Elista) 1996.

A3) 8 ttJbd2 This is the most popular choice here. 8... ttJe7 (D)

CENTRAL VARIATION

w

Now: A31: 9 tbb3 A32: 9 tbgS

17

B

although White has some compensation for the pawn, Black's position is very solid. b2) 11 i.xc6!? tbxc6 12 ~xb7 ~d6 13 i.f4 'li'xf4 14 WIIxc6 i.b6 15l:tadl (";\;" - Khuzman, but I don't see it) 15 ... ~ad8 =.

17 17

A31} 9 tbb3 i.xb3 Or 9 ... i.b6, and then: a) 10 tbfxd4 i.d7 11 i.e20-0 12 ~e3 tbxd4 13 tbxd4 tbc6 14 tbc2 WIIe7 Ih-1J2 Tunik-Zakharov, Tula 2000. b) 10 tbbxd4 i.d7 (10 ... 0-0? carelessly concedes the bishop-pair after 11 tbxe6 fxe6 12 i.g5 ± Cavallieri-Uchoa, Brasilia 2002) 11 tbxc6 ~xc6 and here: bl) 12 WIIb3 0-0 13 i.g5 i.xb5 14 WIIxb5 ~e8 15 WIIb3 (15 a4?! ~xb5 16 axb5 tbg6 Sargisian-Kaidanov, Moscow 2005) 15 ... tbg6 112-112 Romanishin-Solak, Athens (Acropolis) 2005. b2) 12 WIIe2 0-0 13 i.g5 WIIe8 14 i.xc6 tbxc6 = A. Kuzmin-Rublevsky, Moscow PCA qual rpd 1996. 10 WIIxb3 (D) Now: a) 1O... a6!? deserves attention. 11 .txc6+ tbxc6 and then: al) 12 tbg5 0-0 13 'li'h3 h6 14 WIIf5 hxg5 15 ~xc5 g4+. a2) 12 WIIxb7 tba5 (12 ... tbb4!? 13 e5 c6 14 i.g5 {14 e6? ':a7 15 exf7+ 'itf8 16 .tg5J:txb7 17 i.xd8 'itxf7 +} 14 ... 'Ii'b8 15 WIIxb8+ l1xb8 =) 13 WIId5 WIIxd5 14 exd5 0-0-0 +. b) After 10 ... 0-0 we have: bI) 11 i.f4 i.b6 12 .l::i.fel (12 .l:!.fdl!? was suggested by Khuzman -12 ... a6 is an adequate reply) 12 ... a6 13 i.d3 tbg6 14 i.g3 WIIe7 and

A32} 9 tbgS WIId7 10 tbxe6 'li'xe6 11 tbb3 WIId6 (D)

w

+

Another crossroads. White can try: A321: 12 WIIg4? 17 A322: 12.tf4 18

A321} 12 ~g4? 0-0 13 i.f4 tbeS14 i.xeS WIIxeS1S f4 d3+ 16 'ithl 112-112 Dreev-Rublevsky, Elista (1) 1998. A premature ending to a very interesting game - I think Black has a clear advantage here. Now Rublevsky analysed:

18

How TO BEAT 1 d4

16•• :~xb2 17 .J:.abl 'iVe2 17 ... 'iVa3 18 e5 .i.b6 19 ~xd3 "with compensation" according to Rublevsky, but I think the black queen can continue swallowing pawns with 19 .. .'iVxa2 20 ~e4 a5 21 'iVh3 lZJg6 22 f5 lZJxe5 23 f6 lZJg6 +. 18 i'i'h3 ~b6 19 .i.xd3 'iVxa2 20 e5 Black is two pawns ahead and more importantly, the b6-bishop prevents the b3-knight from joining the attack. Now: a) 20 ... g6? 21 f5 gxf5 22 ':xf5! with an attack according to Rublevsky. b) 20 ... h6 (Rublevsky thought this was the only move) 21 ~a1 (21 f5!?) 21...'iWb2 22 ~fb1 WVf2 23 lIfl iilVb2 (23 .. .'~e3?? 24 ~f3 +-) 24 ':fbl =Rublevsky. c) 20 ... lZJg6 ("?" Rublevsky) 21 e6 fxe6! (I think this is stronger than Rublevsky's 21...'~a4) 22 WVxe6+ (22 .i.xg6 hxg6 23 'iYxe6+ .l:tf7 24 WVxg6 a5 +) 22 ... ~h8 23 ~xg6 .l::tf6 24 WVe4 ':xg6 25 iilVxb7 ':f8 +. Black has a solid extra pawn.

A322) 12 i.f4 WVxf4 13 lZJxc5 0-0 (D)

W

14 ':c1 White can boot the black queen immediately with 14 g3 ~h6 (l4 ... iilVd6 = was proposed by Dreev in 1999 - a possible continuation is 15 lZJxb7 i'i'b4 16 WVa4 ':ab8 17 ..\txc6 lZJxc6 18 WVxc6 ~xb7 19 WVxb7l:hb7 20 b3 c5 =) 15 lIc1 ':fd8 (Black should play 15 ... a6 - 14 ':c1 a6! 15 g3 WVh6) 16 lZJxb7 .l::tdb8 17 iilVa4 lZJe5 18 ':xc7 (Dreev-Svidler, Russian Ch (Elista) 1997) 18 ... lZJf3+! 19 ~g2 lZJh4+! 20 gxh4 (20 ~hl

lZJf3 =) 20 ... WVf4! 21 WVc2! (21 ':fc1 ':xb7 Khuzman) 21...'iVg4+ 22 hl WVf3+ 23 ~gl ~g4+, with a draw. 14••.a6! The alternatives 14 .. J:tfb8, 14 ... lZJe5 and 14... b6 have all been played, but I prefer this idea of Lithuanian 1M Vaidas Sakalauskas. 15 g3 Or: a) 15 .i.a4 b6 and then: al) 16lZJxa6 ~xa6 17 ~xc6 lZJxc6 18 ~xc6 iilVxe4 19 ':xc7 ~xa2 20 WVb3 WVe6 21 'iVxe6 fxe6 + Sakalauskas. a2) 16 ~xc6lZJxc6 17 lZJd7 ':fd8 18 lZJxb6 cxb6 19 ':xc6 WVxe4 20 .l:txb6 d3 +. a3) 16 lZJd3 WVxe4 17 .l:!.el WVd5 + MagaiGanguly, Calcutta 2001. b) 15 ~xc6lZJxc6 16lZJxb7 WVxe4 and here: b 1) 17 WVa4 lZJe5 18 l:txc7 WVf4 + YaceGandalf, Paderborn 2004. b2) 17 ':el WVd5 and then: b21) 18 iilVa4 ~fe8! 19 ':edl (19 ~xe8+? :xe8 20 h3 d3 -+) 19 ... l:re6 20 lZJc5 lIg6 21 g3 lZJe5 -+ Sakalauskas. b22) 18 .l::!.c5 iilVd7 19 'iVa4 ':fe8 20':fl (20 ~dl d3 21 lIc3 d2 22 ':'e3 .l:txe3 23 fxe3 iilVd3 -+) 20 ... .:a7 21 ':xc61hb7 + Sakalauskas. b23) 18lZJc5! (I think this is the best choice in a difficult situation) 18 ... a5 19 lZJd3 .l:tfe8 with just a slight advantage for Black. 15.••'iVh6 16 ..\te2 Or 16 ~xc6lZJxc6, and here: a) 17 f4 b6 18lZJd3 l:tfe8 19 e5lZJe7! (Sakalauskas only considered 19 .. J::tad8 with an evaluation of unclear - his analysis is also quoted in ECO; the knight redeployment is clearly stronger) 20 ':xc7 (20 ~f3 c6 +) 20 ... lZJd5 21 ':d7 lZJe3 22 WVb3 lZJxfl 23 iilVxf7+ ~h8 24 xfl 1:tf8 +. Black has a material advantage. b) 17 lZJxb7 ~ab8! 18lZJc5 (18 iilVa4lZJe5 19 'iVb3 WVh3 20 f3 c6 + Sakalauskas) 18 .. .lhb2 19 ':c2 (19 lZJxa6 lZJe5 -+) 19 ... .:xc2 20 'iYxc2 lZJe5 + Sakalauskas. 16.•..:fd8 16 ... a5 (l6 ... ~a7!?) 17 f4 b618lZJd3 l::tfd8 Diep-Gandalf, Maastricht 2001. 17f4(D) 17 lZJxb7 ':db8 18 lZJc5 ':xb2 ''+'' according to Sakalauskas, although White can hang on with 19 ':c2 .l:!.xc2 20 'iVxc2 a5 21 f4 Now Black has:

+

+.

CENTRAL VARIATION

B

a) 17 ... b6 ("!?" according to Sakalauskas) 18 l2Jd3 (18 l2Jb3 d3 +) 18 .. .'~e6 19 e5 (19 f5 ~d6 +) 19 ... l2Jd5 "+" according to Sakalauskas, but I think his assessment is too optimistic in view of 20 .i.n! l2Jce7 21 f5! ~d7 (not 2l...l2Jxf5? 22 .i.xdS l1xd5 23 l2Jf4 ~xe5 24 l:tel ~d6 {24 ... l2Je3 25 l2Jxd5 ~xd5 26 ~xe3 +-} 25 'iUn c6 26 l:Ixc6! ±) 22 f6, with good compensation for the pawn. b) 17 ... d3! (best) 18 i.xd3 (or 18 l2Jxd3 {G.Georgadze-Sakalauskas, Istanbul OL 2000} 18 ... ~e6 + Sakaev and Sernkov; indeed, 19 e5 ~xa2 20 i.f3 l2Jd5 is quite good for Black) 18 ... b6 19l2Jb3 l2Jb4 20 : n 'iUd6 +.

19

gxh3l:[xf8 +) ll...h6 12 'iUxd7+ l:txd7 13l2Je6 i.d6 + Herndl-Ibragimov, Vienna 1996. The passed d4-pawn is very strong. 8 ...'iUd7 9 'iUxb7 l:tb8 10 ~a6 White has recovered the sacrificed pawn at the cost of easing Black's defensive task. 10...l2Jf6 11l2Jbd2 Minor alternatives: a) 11 e5?! l2Jg4 12 l2Jbd2 (Xu Iun-Svidler, Bad Homburg 1995) 12 .. J::[b6 13 ~a4l:tb4 14 'iVa6l2Jgxe5 15l2Jxe5l2Jxe5 16 ~xa7 ~c6 +. b) 11 l:tel i.b4 12 i.d2 0-0 (12 ... i.xd2? 13 l2Jbxd2 l:txb2 14 l2Jc4 l:tb8 15 l2Jfe5 l2Jxe5 16 l2Jxe5 ±) 13 a3 and now 13. .. .i.e7! was fine for Black in Mikhalevski-Bosch, Hoogeveen 1998. Bosch points out that instead 13 ... i.xd2 14 l2Jbxd2l:txb2 15l:tac l1:[b6 16 ~a4 gives White compensation. c) 11 i¥d3 .i.d6 12 l2Jbd2 - 11l2Jbd2 i.d6 12~d3.

11..•.i.d6 (D) This is our repertoire move. 11.. .i.b4 is a sound alternative.

B) 7 .i.xe6 fxe6 (D)

w 12~d3

8 'iVb3 White cannot afford the luxury of 8l2Jg5?! (8 e5? 'tWd5 +) 8 ... 'tWd7 9 ~h5+ g6 10 ~h3 0-0-0 11 'iVxe6 (11 l2Jxe6 ~e8 12 l2Jxf8 ~xh3 13

The idea behind the queen retreat is to protect the e4-pawn and play l2Jc4. Alternatives: a) 12 .l:i.ell2Jg4 13 h3l2Jge5 14l2Jxe5 l2Jxe5 and then: al) 15 l2Jb3 c5 (15 ... 0-0 16 f4 l2Jg6 17 e5 i.b4 18 l:1dl {18 .l:.e4? ~d5 19 ~d3 c5 was good for Black in Zaja-Soppe, Istanbul OL 2000} 18 .. .'tWd5+) 16i.f4:b617~e2d3! 18 i¥dl (18 ~h5+ g6 19 ~g5l2Jf7 20 i¥g3 .i.xf4 21 'iVxf4 c4 + Khuzman) 18 ... 0-0 19 i.xe5 i.xe5 20 l2Jxc5 ~b5 21 l2Jxd3 (the passed dpawn is too strong) 2l....l:i.d8 22 l:te3 l:tbd6 23

20

How TO BEAT 1 d4

'iVg4 hS! (stronger than Khuzman's 23 .. Jhd3) 24 'iVg6 l:1xd3 2S 'ilKxe6+ ~h7 26 ~xd3 l:1xd3 and Black is much better. a2) IS tbc4 0-0 16 tbxeS ~xeS 17 '¥Vd3 cS (17 ... 'iiVbS!? was also a little better for Black in Pelletier-Rublevsky, Lucerne Wcht 1997) 18 b3 'ilKbS 19 'ilKxbS l:1xbS 20 ..id2 c4 liz-liz Gyimesi-A.Horvath, Hungarian Cht 2002. Black could play on; for example, 21 bxc4 ~b2 22 l:1ed1 nc8 with a faint edge. b) 12 eS!? and here: b1) 12 ... tbxeS 13 tbxd4 0-0 14 tbc4 tbxc4 IS 'iiVxc4 l:1b4 (1S ... l:1fe8!? also looks reasonable) 16 'ilKxe6+ 'iiVxe6 17 tbxe6 l:1e8 18 tbgS .:te2 with good compensation for the pawn, Ovseevich-Efimenko, Ukrainian Ch (Ordzhonikidze) 200l. b2) 12 ... ~xeS 13 l:1e1 (13 tbxeS tbxeS 14 'ilKxa7 0-0 is slightly better for Black, Khudaverdieva-Muhren, Calvia worn OL 2004; 13 tbb3 {Komljenovic-N.Guliev, Nice 2004} 13 ... l:1b6 14 'iiVd3 .td6 is fine for Black) 13 ... ..id6 14 'iiVc4 .l:.b4!? (14 ... 0-0 IS ~xe6 ~h8 was analysed by Khuzman - he didn't give an evaluation, but Black looks comfortable here as the passed d-pawn is strong) IS ~he6+ (IS 'iiVxe6+ 'ilKxe6 16 l:1xe6+ Wd7 17 l:te 1l:!.e8 +; the passed d-pawn is strong) lS ... ~f8 16 'ilKe2 tbd8 with a slight advantage for Black. c) 12 a3 0-013 b4 (13 'ilKd3 -12 'iiVd3 0-0 13 a3) 13 ... tbg4 14 'ilKa4 as IS bS!? (1S bxaS d3 16 l:1a2 l:!.a8 17 a6 tbceS 18 'ilKxd7 tbxd7 19 h3 tbgeS = Rogozenko-Ibragimov, Berlin 1995) lS ... tba7 16 h3 tbeS 17 'ilKxd4 tbxf3+ (not 17 .. .l::txf3? 18 'iiVxa7 l:!.ff8 19 a4 ±) 18 tbxf3 tbxbS =. 12•.•0-0 (D)

Now White has: Bl: 13 tbc4 20 B2: 13 h3 20 B3: 13 a3 22

81) 13 tbc4 tbg414 h3 .l:i.xf3 14 ... tbgeS!? IS tbfxeS tbxeS 16 tbxeS (after 16 'iiVxd4?? tbf3+ Black wins the queen) 16 ... .txeS 17 f4 ..if6 =. 15 'ilKxf3 tbh2 (D)

W

Now: a) 16 'ilKe2 tbxfl 17 'ilKxfll:tf8 18 il..d2 ~g3 19 .tel tbeS 20 tbxeS ..ixeS 21 'iiVc4 d3 with equal chances, Milton-Korchnoi, Krynica rpd 1998. b) 16 'iiVd3 tbxfl 17 ~xfl tbb4 18 'ilKb3 tbc6 = Topalov-Anand, Monte Carlo Amber rpd 1997.

82) 13h3 The pawn move is directed against the freeing manoeuvre tbg4-eS. 13•.• e514 tbc4 (D) Black has an interesting choice in this position: B21: 14••• tbb4 21 B22: 14•.• ~h8 21 Another idea is 14 ... h6 IS ..id2 'iiVe6 16lhc1 tbe7 ("unclear" - Khuzman) 17 b3 tbg6 18 tbxd6 cxd6 19 l:1c7 tbhS 20 l:1fc1 'ilKf6 with chances for both sides.

CENTRAL VARIATION

B

21

.l:!.xfl + 24 .l:!.xfl ~c6 =) 25 ... ~d6+! ! repeats the position. a2) 21 J::i.xf2! ~el + 22 'i.t>h2 ~xf2 23 ~xd5+ ~f7 24 ~xf7+ l:1xf7 25 b3 +-. b) 20 ... lDdc3 21 bxc3 ~xc4 22 'fIxa7 i. c) 20 ... lDb6 21 b3lDxc4 22 l::tel! i Cu.Hansen-Schandorff, Danish Ch (Arhus) 1999. d) 20 ... lDg3! 21 fxg3 l::txfl+ 22 ~xfl ':xc4 23 ~d3 c5 with compensation for the pawn.

822)

821) 14..•lDb4 15 ~b3lDbdS 15 ... 'i.t>h8 16 a3 (l6lDfxe5 .i.xe5 17 lDxe5 'fUe8 18lDd3lDxd3 19 ~xd3 ~xe4 20 :dl c5 is equal, Gyimesi-A.Horvath, Balatonlelle 2002) 16 ... ~e6 17lDg5 ~g8 18 .i.d2lDa6 19 ~c2 h6 20 lDf3 ~e6 21 lDh4 (21 l1fel I?) 2l...l:tfd8 with roughly level chances. 16 ~dl lDxe4 17 lDfxeS .i.xeS 18 lDxeS ~e6 19 ~xd4 l:1b4 20 lDc4 (D)

14...Wh8 A sensible move - Black removes his king from any potential danger along the a2-g8 diagonal. 15 iLd2 ~e6 16 .l:!.ac1 Another idea is 16 a3 lDd7 17 b4 .i.e7 with equal chances. 16... .i.b4 Black's plan is to exchange dark-squared bishops in preparation for placing a knight on the vulnerable f4-square. 17 a3 .i.xd218lDcxd2 (D)

B B

Now Black has: a) 20 ... lDxf2? and then: al) 21..td2? lDxh3+!! (this unexpected shot is considerably stronger than 21...lDf4? {"only move" - Khuzman} 22 ~xf4 .uxc4 23 ~xf2 l:lcxf4 24 ~xf4 ~xf4 25 ~xf4 ~e3+ 26 ~f2 when White is much better) 22 gxh3 ~g6+ 23 'i.t>h2 (23 'i.t>h 1 J::i.xfl + 24 l:Ixfl 'iVc6 is equal) 23 ... ~d6+!! 24 'i.t>g2 (24lDxd6l:txd4 25 .l:!.xf8+ 'i.t>xf8 26 l1fl + 'i.t>g8 27 .i.h6! =) 24 ... ~g6+ 25 'i.t>h2 (25 'i.t>hl .l:i.xfl + 26 lixfl ~c6 - 23 'i.t>hl

18...lDhS! Black initiates a kingside attack to exploit the weakness created by 13 h3!? - the knight manoeuvre is consistent with the plan initiated by 14...'i.t>h8!? and 16 ... .i.b4. Black should avoid the greedy 18 ... l:txb2? (an instructive mistake as it allows White to generate considerable pressure along the c-file) 19 ~c4! lDd8 20 ~xc7 lDf7 21 Wixa7 h6 22 l::tc7 lDh5 (Notkin-Makarov, Russian Clubs Cup (Maikop) 1998) 23 lDc4! .l:!.bb8 24 ~c5 l::i.be8 25 ~c6 with a neardecisive advantage according to Khuzman. I

22

How TO BEAT

have spent a considerable amount of time analysing 18 ... tDh5! and I believe that it rehabilitates the 14... <;t>h8 line. 19~c5

Or 19 'ilYc4 ~f6 20 b4 tDf4 with roughly level chances - the well-placed knight inhibits White's ability to build up along the c-file. 19•.. tDf4 20 'ilYc4 ~g6 21 g3 White has no time for 21 tDh4? tDxh3+ 22 Wh1 ~g4 with a crushing attack after: a) 23 gxh3 "iVxh3+ 24 <;t>g1 'iVxh4 25 J::txc6 .l:tf4-+. b) 23 tDhf3 tDf4 24 .l:!.g1 .l:!.xb2 25 .l:!.xc6 "iVh5+ 26 tDh2 .l:!.xd2 27 'ilYb4 'ilYe8 also wins for Black. 21 ••• tDxh3+ 22 <;t>h2 22 <;t>g2 tDf4+ 23 <;t>g1 ~b6!? (23 ... tDh3+ repeats) maintains the kingside pressure. 22.•.'ilYh5 Black's back rank becomes vulnerable and his king is flushed out after 22 ... tDg5? 23 tDh4 'ilYh5 24 .l:!.xc6 .l:!.xb2 25 .l:!.xc7 .l:txd2 26 .l:!.c8 l:te8 27 ifc6! lIg8 28 Ihg8+ <;t>xg8 29 'ilYc8+ <;t>f7 30 ifd7 + <;t>g8 31 <;t>g2 ±. 23.l:!.xc6 White may as well continue eating as Black has a perpetual check after 23 <;t>g2 .l:!.xf3 24 tDxf3 (24 'ilYe6?? loses to 24 ... tDf4+ 25 gxf4 J::txf4) 24 ... tDf4+ 25 gxf4 ~g4+ 26 <;t>h2 'tlVxf4+ 27 Wg2 ~g4+ 28 <;t>h2 iff4+ with a draw by repetition. 23 ••. tDxf2+ 24 <;t>gl tDg4 (D)

1 d4

a) 25 :bl 'ilYh3 26 'iVfl 'ilYxg3+ 27 'iVg2 'tlVf4 28 .l:!.xc7 ~e3+ and then: al) 29 <;t>fl?? .l:!.xf3+! 30 tDxf3 (30 ~xf3 tDh2+) 30 ...ifd3+ and Black wins. a2) 29 <;t>h 1 'ilYh6+ 30 <;t>g 1 'tlVe3+ with a draw by repetition. b) 25 ~e2 d3 26 ~xd3 (26 'ilYe1 'tlVh3) 26 ... "iVh3 27 'tlVe2 'tlVxg3+ and here: bl) 28 'iVg2 'ilYxg2+ 29 <;t>xg2 tDe3+ 30 <;t>g3 tDxfl + 31 tDxfl l:txb2 with an equal endgame. b2) 28 <;t>h1 ~h3+ 29 <;t>g1 ~g3+ with a draw by repetition.

83) 13 a3 tDg4 Now: B31: 14 b3 B32: 14 h3

22 23

831) 14 b3 tDce5 15 tDxe5 tDxe5! Rublevsky had played the weaker 15 ... .i.xe5? against Dreev earlier in the year - this was his improvement. 16 ~xd4 tDg4 (D)

W

White has an extra piece for a couple of pawns, but his knights are handcuffed together and Black is able to generate sufficient counterplay. Now:

17 e5! Black has several promising ideas after the weaker 17 g3?: a) 17 ... tDxh2 was suggested by Kochiev. White can then play: al) 18 e5 ~b5! (stronger than 18 ... tDxfl 19 tDxfl l:!.xb3 20 exd6 cxd6, which is unclear Kochiev) 19 exd6 'ilYxfl+ 20 tDxfl tDf3+ 21 Wg2 tDxd4 22 dxc7 l:tbc8 +.

CENTRAL VARIATION

a2) 18 :tel! ~b5 19 ~g2 is a mess. b) 17 .. .'iYe7 (suggested by Dreev) 18 'iYd3 .i.c5 =1=. c) 17 .. .'~b5 and here: c1) 18 ~c4? ~h5 19 h4 ttJxf2 20 ~xe6+ (20 llxf2 .tc5 -+; 20 Wg2 ~g4 21 e5 ~h3+ and Black mates) 20 ... ~h8 21 ~g2 ~e2 22 'iYc4 'iYg4 and Black has a decisive advantageRublevsky. c2) 18 i..b2 i..e5 19 'iYc4 i..xb2 20 'iYxe6+ .l:.f7 21 'iYxg4 (21 ~a2 'iYh5 -+) 2l....i.xa1 22 .l::!.xa1 ~d8 +. d) 17 ... ~f7! (this is the most accurate move) 18 h3 (18 ~c4 ~h5 -17... ~b518~c4? ~h5) 18 ... .i.e5 19 ~xa7 ttJxf2 +. 17...ttJxe5 18 .i.b2 .l::!.b5! This powerful centralizing manoeuvre demonstrates a fine understanding of the position the black pieces work together beautifully. 19 ~e4!? Alternatives: a) 19 ~a4 ttJd3 20 .td4 .i.xh2+ 21 ~xh2 ~f4 =1= Sakai-Bandiera, IECC e-mail 2000. b) 19 ttJc4 ~d5 20 ~e4 ttJd3 =1= GalliamovaRublevsky, Russian Ch (St Petersburg) 1998. 19...ttJd3 20 .td4 ~f4 21 ~a8+ 21 'iYxd3?? loses to 2l...~xd4!. 21 ...:f8 22 ~e4 White cannot afford the lUXury of 22 ~xa7? ~c6 23 ~e3 .t!.h5 24 h3 .te5 +. 22 .. JU4 The chances are equal according to Rublevsky.

832) 14 h3 ttJge5 15 ttJxe5 ttJxe5 16 ~xd4 (D) 16...~b5! Black seizes control of some important light squares and disrupts White's development. Black should avoid the tempting 16 ... ttJg4? (this move has been passed over with no comment by various sources, but it appears to be a serious error) 17 f4! (Black is left searching for

23

B

equality after this move; the weaker 17 ~h1? c5 was fine for Black in Bacrot-Waitzkin, Bermuda 1999) 17 ...~5 18 b4 and now: a) 18 ... .i.xf4 19 .l::i.xf4 .l::i.xf4 20 hxg4 .l:i.bf8 21 .i.b2 .l::!.xg4 22 ~e3 ±. b) 18 .. .lhf4 19 ~xf4 .i.xf4 20 ttJf3 .i.e5 21 ttJxe5 ~xe5 22 ~xe5 ttJxe5 23 .i.e3 ±. Black's pawns are weak. 17~c3

Less effective is 17 b4?! ttJc6 18 ~c4 ~e5 19 g3 (19 f4!? ~xa1 20 ttJb3 ~f6 21 ~xc6 g5 =1=) 19 .. .'~'xa1 20 ~xc6 (Nikolic-Anand, Monte Carlo Amber rpd 1999) 20 ... ~f6 =1=. 17...~e2 18 ~e3 White should avoid 18 b4?! ttJd3 19 ttJf3 :xf3 20 gxf3 ~xf3! (clearer than 20 ... .i.e5 21 ~d2) 21 .tb2 (21 ~a211f8 -+; 21 ~c4 'iYxh3 22 f4 ~f8 23 :a2 ttJxf4 -+) 2l....i.e5 22 'tWb3 .txb2 23 !lad1 ~d8 24 ~xe6+ Wf8 +. 18...~xe3 19 fxe3 ttJd3 20 l:rxf8+ .txf8! This is the correct way for Black to recapture - the bishop will be well-placed along the a1-h8 diagonal. Black runs into problems after 20 ... ~xf8 21 ttJc4 (Gormally-Krush, London 1999) 2l...~b3 22 .i.d2! (22 ttJa5 ttJxcl 23 l:txc1 l:txe3 gives Black a slight advantage) 22 ... ttJxb2 23 ttJxd6 cxd6 24 .l::!.b1 .l::!.b6 25 .i.a5 ~a6 26 .tc3 t. 21 ttJc4 g6 22 Wfl.tg7 23 ~e2 ttJe5 The chances are equal.

3 Mannheim Variation 1 d4 d5 2 c4 dxc4 3 ttJf3 ttJf6 4 ~a4+ The characteristic move of the Mannheim Variation. The idea behind the check is to disrupt Black's development and to recapture the c4-pawn with the queen. White will often follow up by playing e4 in one step - Black will counter by harassing the white queen with his minor pieces. The variation derives its name from the game Bogoljubow-Alekhine, Mannheim Wch (6) 1934; however, it was apparently first played in the game F.Brown-A.Mackenzie, London 1904. The line has never been very popular because there are several ways for Black to equalize. Polish GM Michal Krasenkow has played 4 ~a4+ several times and the check was a favourite of Swedish GM VIf Andersson during the 1980s. 4 .•.ttJc6 This is our repertoire move - the main alternatives 4 ... ttJbd7 and 4 ... c6 are also satisfactory. 5 ttJc3 ttJd5 (D)

A: 6~xc4 B: 6e4

24 26

A) 6~xc4

Now: AI: 6••• ttJdb4 A2: 6•.• ttJb6

24 25

AI) 6•.. ttJdb4 This move gives Black a satisfactory game, but the drawback is that White has the option of forcing a draw by repetition. 7 ~b3 ttJxd4 8 ttJxd4 ~xd4 (D)

w

w

The black knight manoeuvre is attributed to the 9th World Champion Tigran Petrosian. The resulting positions bear some similarity to Alekhine's Defence and to the Smyslov Variation of the Griinfeld Defence. Now White has the option of recapturing the pawn or building a big centre:

9a3!? This is an interesting untried suggestion from Sakaev and Sernkov. Many players avoid this line as Black because of 9 ~e3 ~e6 10 ~a4+ ~d7 11 ~b3 ~e6 12 ~a4+ ~d7 112-112 Andersson-Korchnoi, Johannesburg 1981 and many later games. 9••. ttJa6 Not 9 ... ttJc6? 10 ttJd5 ±. 10 e4!? 10 ~e3 ~f6! is "unclear" according to Sakaev and Sernkov, but I think this is risky for

25

MANNHEIM VARIATION

White after 11 l:.dl eS 12lbbS .i.d7 intending 13 lbxa7 lbcS t'. The text-move is my attempt to strengthen this idea. 10...lbcS11 ~c2 eS (D)

B

w

A21: 12•..exf4 A22: 12...i..d6

Now White can try: a) 12 lbdS i..d6 13 lbc3 i..f8! repeats the position - note that the careless 13 ... i..e7? allows the surprising shot 14 i..h6!! ± clearing the white rook's path to the d-file. b) 12 .i.e3!? 'ilk'd8 13 lbbSlbe6 14 J::i.d 1 i..d7 IS .i.c4 with compensation for the pawn.

A2} 6...lbb6 This is Black's best chance to create an unbalanced position. 7 'ilk'b3 The alternative is 7 ~d3 eS! (the thematic freeing move) and then: a) 8 dxeS ~xd3 9 exd3lbb4 10 'it>dl (10 'it>d2 .i.g4 11 a3 lbc6 12 ..te2 {Magula-Kuchyna, corr. 2000} 12 ... I1d8 =) 1O ... ..tfS Illbel 0-0-0 with compensation for the pawn, Goormachtigh-Velikov, Haifa Echt 1989. b) 8 lbxeS lbb4 9 'ilk'bl (9 ~dl ~xd4 10 ~xd4 lbc2+ 11 Wdl lbxd4 12 e3 lbe6 and a draw was agreed here in Davies-P.Stempin, Polanica Zdroj 1989) 9 .. :ihd4 10 lbf3 ~d6 11 e4.i.g4 12 a3 i.xf3 13 gxf3lbc6 14lbbS ~e7 with equality, Conquest-Dlugy, New York Open 1984. 7 .....tg4 8 dS i..xf3 9 gxf3lbd4 10 ~d1 eS 11 e3lbfS 12 f4 (D) Now Black has a choice:

2S 26

12 ... .i.b4 is also possible: a) 13 fxeS lbxdS 14 .i.d2 (14 ~3 c6 also leads to equality) 14 ... i..xc3 IS bxc3 Wie7 16 l:.bl c6 =. b) 13 e4lbd6 14 i..g2 (Bukal jr-L.Hansen, Sitges 1999) 14 ... fS IS O-O!? i..xc3 16 bxc3 lbxe4 17 i.xe4 fxe4 18 ~hS+ 'it>f8 19l:1d 1 with sharp play. c) 13 i.bS+!? (this disruptive check looks best) 13 ... 'it>f8 14 fxeS lbxdS IS ~b3 c6 16 i..d3 lbh4 17 .i.e4 ~e7 with equal chances.

A21} 12... exf413 e4lbh414 i..xf4 (D)

B

14...~f6 The immediate 14 ... .i.d6!? is a reasonable alternative. IS ~g4.i.d6

26

How TO BEAT 1 d4

Another idea is 15 ... h5!? 16 ~g3 g517 i.xc7 liJf3+ with initiative according to Sakaev and Semkov. 16 .llbS+ rJi;e7!? This is an ambitious move - Black prepares to castle 'by hand' with ...l:thd8 and ... rJi;f8. Sakaev and Semkov analysed 16.. .'~f8 17 i.xd6+ cxd6 18 .Jie2 hS with an unclear position. 17.JigS Or 17 i.e3 liJf3+ 18 rJi;e2 liJd4+ 19 rJi;dl h6 with sharp play ahead. 17.••liJf3+ 18 ~xf3 ~xgS The position is equal; Black has a firm grip on the e5- and f4-squares.

White should avoid 8 i.e3?! i.xf3 9 gxf3 e6 10 i.e2 "iUh4 '+= Cruz-Sanguinetti, Buenos Aires 1963. 8 ••• liJeS (D)

A22) 12••• .Jid6 13 ~gl exf4 14 e4 liJh4 IS ':xg7 liJg616 ~hS 'iVf617 l1xh7 (D) Now White has several moves of which Line B2 is the most important: Bl: 9 'iYd4?! 26 27 B2: 9 .Jif4 Rarely seen is 9 .Jie2 ~xf3 10 gxf3 e6 11 f4 liJed7 12 .lle3 exd5 13 liJxd5 c6 (13 ... .llcS!?) 14 liJxb6 (so far this is Djurkovic-Raetsky, Aschach 1995) 14 ... liJxb6 '+=.

B1) 9~d4?!

17.•• rJi;e7! I think this is stronger than 17 ... 0-0-0 18 l:txh8 l:txh8 ("with initiative" - Sakaev and Semkov) 19 'iVg4+ rJi;b8 20 h3 liJeS 21 "iUe2 with an unclear position. 18l:!.xh8 Black's king is safe after the reckless 18 e5? .Jixe5 19 liJe4 l:txh7 20 liJxf6 .l:!.xh5 21 liJxh5 liJxd5 =t. 18.••l:txh8 19 "iVe2 J::txh2 Black is slightly better. The material balance has been restored and Black has a strong outpost on the e5-square.

B) 6 e4 liJb6 7 "iVdl i.g4 8 dS

This relatively popular but dubious idea was suggested by Rajkovic - White offers a pawn in order to seize the initiative. 9••. tLlxf3+ 10 gxf3 i..xf3 lll:tgi Now: a) 11 ... e6!? (Neishtadt considered this move to be dubious, but the real mistake comes later) 12 ~e3 .llh5 13 "iUh3 g6 14 dxe6 (CrouchSadler, Hastings 1992/3) 14 ... "iUf6! IS .Jie3 ~xe6 16 "iVxe6+ fxe6 17 .lld4l:!.g8 18 i.xb6 axb6 19 i.xc4 We7 =t. b) 11...'iYd6! was Sadler's later preference, and gives Black a promising position: bl) 12 ~e3 .Jih5 13 .lld2 (13 f4 e6 =t Crouch-C.Duncan, Hampstead 1998) 13 ... e5 (the greedy 13 ... "iVxh2!? also favours Black) 14 dxe6 fxe6 =t Markus-Mannion, Calvia OL 2004. b2) 12 IIg3 e5 with the idea of ... .llhS was suggested by Neishtadt.

MANNHEIM VARIATION

b3) 12 a4 a6 13 eS 'iVd7 =+ Crouch-Sadler, Cappelle 1a Grande 1993.

82) 9 ..tf4 (D)

B

Now Black can retreat his knight or hold his ground in the centre: B21: 9...lbg6 27 B22: 9 •••..txf3!? 27

27

Petrosian won by a score of 1211z-9 11z; he played the black side of the Queen's Gambit Accepted seven times and drew every game. 10..•e5 11 dxe6 .i.xe6 12 'iVxd8+ ~xd8 13 ..txc7l::[d7! Stronger than the older 13 .. Jk8. 14 i..xb6 Relatively unexplored is the probing move 14 ..tb8!? .i.b4 IS a4 (Zagorskis-Hjelm, Copenhagen 1998) lS ... a5! 16 .i.a7lbc8 17 .i.e3 lbd6 18 lbgS lbeS with equal chances. 14•.. axb6 15 lbg5 lbe5! 16 f4 lbd3+ 17 .i.xd3 l:txd3 18 lbxe6 fxe6 19 l::[dl :xdl + 20 ~xdl ~d7 21 :n Another way is 21 ~c2 ~c6 = VAkopianBrunner, Lucerne Wcht 1993. 21 ••• ~c6 The endgame was balanced in KrasenkowKaminski, Polish Cht (Lubniewice) 1995.

822) 9..•..txf3!? The enterprising choice - Black prepares to implement a dark-square blockading strategy. 10 gxf3 'iVd6! (D)

821) 9.••lbg6 (D)

w

w

The solid choice, but it does not offer Black many winning chances. 10..tg3 This is more challenging than the stem game of this variation, Botvinnik-Petrosian, Moscow Wch (22) 1963, which saw 10 ..te3 e6 = liz-liz. This was the final game of the match which

Now Black is threatening ... lbd3+, so White must retreat his bishop: a) 11 ..te3 gS!? (the consistent move; the more restrained 11 ... e6 12 f4lbed7 is also possible, with roughly level chances) 12 ..txgS 'iVb4 13 l::[b1 ..tg7 with sharp play. b) 11..tg3 gS!? (the calm 1l...e6 gives Black a comfortable game) 12 h4 i..g7 (12 ... gxh4!?) 13 hxgS 'ieb4 14 ~b1 0-0-0 = Engqvist-Sadler, Isle of Man 1995.

4 Two Knights Variation

1 d4 d5 2 c4 dxc4 3 ttJf3 ttJf6 4 ttJc3 (D)

B

This position is the starting point for one of White's sharpest attempts to refute the Queen's Gambit Accepted. White offers a true pawn sacrifice and Black has the option of either retaining the gambit pawn or returning the booty in order to concentrate on completing his own development. The main lines in which Black attempts to hang onto the pawn (Line B) are among the most tactically rich variations in the entire opening and they require thorough preparation by both players. I have provided an alternative repertoire (Line A) for players who may prefer to avoid the complications. The Two Knights Variation has not been a popular choice during recent years - this may be due to the complexity of the lines or simply a whim of chess fashion. I expect the line to regain its popularity at some point as there are a lot of unanswered questions and interesting ideas waiting to be tried; there is plenty of fertile ground for independent analysis. As we shall see there are several points where White's attack can be strengthened, whereas in other lines Black's defensive resources appear to have been underestimated. Chess is ultimately a game of moves, not opinions, so in positions where I disagree with previously published analysis I have provided specific variations so

that the reader may compare and draw his own conclusions. 4... a6 Black has several alternatives here: a) 4 ... c5 is not part of our repertoire. b) 4 ... ttJc6 transposes into the Queen's Gambit Chi gorin Defence. c) 4 ... e6 usually transposes into the Queen's Gambit Vienna Variation after 5 e4 ..tb4 6 ..tg5. d) 4 ... c6 transposes into the Slav Defence. This last choice is popular among players who have both the QGA and the Slav Defence in their opening repertoire. 5 e4 The main alternative is 5 a4 (harmless, but popular at club level) 5 ... ttJc6 and now: a) 6 ~g5 h6 7 ..txf6 exf6 8 e3 ttJa5 9 ..te2 ..te7 10 0-0 0-0 +' LSokolov-Kramnik, Khalkidhiki 1992. b) 6 e4 ..tg4 7 d5 (7 ..te3 ..txf3 8 gxf3 ttJa5 +' Bajkovic-Djukic, Bar 2005) 7... ttJe5 8 ..te2 ..txf3 9 gxf3 e6 10 f4 (1 0 ~d4? ttJfd7! 11 ..te3 ..tc5 12 ~d2 exd5 13 f4ttJd3+ 14 ..txd3 cxd3 15 ttJxd5 c6 16 ttJc3 ..txe3 17 ~xe3 ~e7! + A.Ho-Adianto, Manila OL 1992) 1O... ttJd3+ 11 ~xd3 cxd3 12 dxe6 fxe6 13 ~b3 ~d7 14 ~xb7l:td8 15 ..td2 (Nadera-Ye Rongguang, Jakarta 1993) 15 ... ~c5 Ye Rongguang. 5...b5 6 e5ttJd5 7 a4 (D) <X)

TWO KNIGHTS VARIATION

Now Black has a major decision: A: 7 ...e6 29 B: 7 ...tiJxc3 30

A} 7...e6 This is a relatively quiet sideline for players who wish to avoid the complications of the main line 7 ... tiJxc3 (Line B). Black returns the gambit pawn and concentrates on completing his development. S axb5 tiJb6 (D)

w

British GM Tony Miles introduced this paradoxical knight retreat in 1995 - here is an instructive quote from his NIC Yearbook 38 article in which he describes the birth of the variation: "In the characteristic positions the doubled black pawns are no weaker than d4 and b2. In addition the black pieces - particularly the b7bishop - are all active and the c4-pawn, by preventing .i.d3, restricts White's kingside chances." Another idea behind the knight move is to protect both the a8-rook and the c4-pawn in preparation for the opening of the a-file. White has a wide choice here, with Lines A2 and A3 having emerged as the most topical: AI: 9 bxa6 29 29 A2: 9 i.e2 30 A3: 9 .i.e3 Minor alternatives: a) 9 tiJgS?! h6 and now: a1) 10 ~hS?! and then: all) 1O ... hxgS? (Miles wrote that he "got [his] lines crossed" here) 11 ~xh8 'iWxd4 12

29

.i.e2 with a clear edge in Kramnik-Miles, London rpd 1995 - this was the stem game of the variation. a12) 1O... g6! 11 'iWh3 (White's position collapses after 11 ~h4? .i.e7) 1l...~xd4 12 tiJf3 ~d8 13 .i.gS .i.e7 14 .l::tdl tiJ8d7 IS tiJe4 i.xgS 16 tiJfxg5 axb5 17 tiJh7 lhh7 (I think Black can also play 17 ... ~e7!? 18 'iWxh6 ~b4+ 19 ~d2 i.b7 20 tiJhf6+ We7 21 'iWgS Wf8 +) 18 tiJf6+ tiJxf6 19 ~xd8+ Wxd8 20 exf6 tiJdS + Va'isser. a2) 10 tiJge4 i.b4 11 ~g4 Wf8 12 i.e3 .i.b7 13 bxa6 hS 14 ~g5 ~xgS 15 tiJxgSl::txa6 16 Iha6 tiJxa6 =+= Deak-Schrancz, Hungary tt (Ostrava) 2000. b) 9 b3?! i.b4 10 .i.d2 i.b7 11 bxa6 (11 .i.xc4 i.xf3 12 ~xf3 ~xd4 13 ~e3 ~xe3+ 14 fxe3 a5 IS tiJe2 tiJ8d7 is much better for Black) 11 ... i.xf3 12 'iWxf3 'iWxd4 13 i.xc4 0-0 (stronger than 13 ... ~xeS+ 14 i.e2 tiJdS IS l:tc1 0-0 160-0.i.d6 17 g3 tiJxa6 {Maksimovic-Bojkovic, Split worn 1989} 18 tiJxdS exd5 19 ki.fel with some compensation for the pawn) 14 ~e3 ~xe3+ IS fxe3 tiJxc4 16 bxc4lixa6 and Black has a slight edge because of his superior pawnstructure, Ward-Ganguly, British Ch (Torquay) 2002.

AI} 9bxa6 The immediate exchange of pawns is slightly premature - White should wait for Black to commit his light-squared bishop before capturing. 9....l::txa6 10 I1xa6 i.xa6 This offers a clearer path to equality than 10 ... tiJxa6 11 .i.e2 i.b7 - 9 .i.e2 i.b7 10 bxa6 lUa6 11 Ilxa6 tLrta6. ll.i.e2 .i.e712 0-00-013 .i.e3 tiJc614 ~al 14 b3 (14 'iWd2!?) 14 ... tiJb4 IS .i.xc4 .i.xc4 16 bxc4 tiJxc417 .i.f4 cS liz-liz Ernst-Rotsagov, Stockholm 2002. 14... .i.b7 15 I1dl tiJb4 The game is level, Pecorelli-Zambrana, Havana 2004.

A2} 9 .i.e2 i.b7 (D) 10 bxa6

30

How TO BEAT 1 d4

W

10 0-0 axb5! (this seems clearer than the frequently played alternative 1O ... i.e7) 11 ':xa8 .i.xa8 12 ttJxb5 ~d7 13 ttJa3 i.d5 14 ~c2 (14 ttJd2!?) 14... i.xa3 15 bxa3 ttJc6 = P.H.Nielsen-Kumaran, Copenhagen 1996. 10....l:txa6 11.l:i.xa6 ttJxa6 120-0 .i.e7 Now: a) 13 ttJa4 ~d5 14 ttJel ~c6 15 ttJxb6 cxb6 16 i.f3 ~d7 = Van Wely-Miles, Matanzas 1995. b) 13 .i.xc4 ttJxc4 14 ~a4+ ~d7 15 ~xc4 ttJb4 16 :dl 0-0 with compensation for the pawn, Bacrot-Zilberman, Havana 1998. c) 13 i.e3 0-0 14 ttJd2 ~a8! (14 ... ~d7!? was suggested by Miles after he played 14 ... c5? 15 ttJxc4 ttJxc4 16 ..txc4 ± in Van Wely-Miles, London rpd 1995) 15 f3 .l:td8 and here: cl) 16 ttJxc4 ttJxc4 17 ..txc4 c5 18 ttJe2 cxd4 19 ..txd4 i.c5 20 ~hl (T.Nielsen-Vidal, IECG e-mail 2002) 20 ... i.xd4 21 ttJxd4 ttJb8 is equal. c2) 16 ~cl c5 17 dxc5 ttJxc5 18 ttJxc4 ttJxc4 19 i.xc4 ttJd7 20 i.d4 ~c8 = OrsagJackova, Ostrava 2000. d) 13 ttJd2!? (this continuation deserves attention) 13 ... ~xd4 14 ttJxc4 'i:lVxdl 15 .l:txdl ttJxc4 16 .i.xc4 O-O?! (16 ... ttJb4!?) liz-liz Tyomkin-Lesiege, Montreal 2000. White should play 17 .l:td7 with some advantage.

A3) 9 i.e3 This is White's most challenging continuation. 9...axb5 10 .l:txa8 ttJxa8 11 ttJxb5 ttJb6 12 ..te2

Or 12 ttJd2 i.a6 13 ttJc3 ttJc6 14 ttJde4 i.e7 15 ~g4 ~f8 16 ttJg3 ttJb4 = Nemtsev-Fominykb, Novgorod 1998. 12...i.e713 0-0 0-0 14 ~c2 ttJc6 (D)

Now White has: a) 15 ttJa3 ttJb4 16 ~c1 ttJd3 17 ~al (17 ~d2!?) 17 ... i.a6 = Campos Moreno-Magem, Spanish Cht (Barcelona) 2000. b) 15 ~e4 ttJb4 and then: bI) 16 ttJc3 ttJ4d5 17 i.d2 i.b7 18 ~g4 ~h8 =Porper-Mannion, Triesen 2004. b2) 16 ~g4 f5 17 exf6 i.xf6 and here: b21) 18 ttJe5 (Khuzman) 18 ... ttJc2! 19 ttJxc4 e5 20 ~e4 ttJxd4 = Sakaev and Semkov. b22) 18 ~dl ttJ4d5 19 ~e4 (Najer-Sulskis, Linares 2001) 19 ... ~e7 (19 ... ~d7 20 ttJc3 .i.b7 "with counterplay" according to Khuzman, but I think White can claim some advantage after 21 'ii'g4) 20 ttJc3 'ii'b4 with equal chances.

B) 7...ttJxc3 This is the main line and as we shall see it requires thorough preparation by both players. 8 bxc3 ~d5 Back in 1986, American 1M John Watson called this move " ... the most direct and logical way to contest the light squares." His opinion still holds true today. 9 g3 i.b7 10 ..tg2 ~d7 (D) White has several ways to develop his attack: Bl: 11 ttJh4 31 B2: 11 e6!? 31 B3: 11 i.a3 32

Two KNIGHTS VARIATION

31

13 ... bxc3!? is worthy of attention. After 14 ~e21Oc6 15 ~e3 e6 16 ~xc4 ~b4 17 lOf4 0-0

'+ Black will follow up with ... J:lfb 8 and ... 1OaS.

w

141Of41Oc6 (D)

w

White can also reach the same position as in Line B 1 by playing 11 0-0 e6 121Oh4 ~xg2 13 lOxg2 b4 - lllOh4 Lg2 12lUxg2 b4 13 0-0

e6.

BI} lllOh4 The idea behind this move is to exchange Black's only developed piece. Then the knight will usually make its way to the powerful f4square. 11 ...~xg2 121Oxg2 Now White is threatening to open the a-file. 12...b413 0-0 (D) White continues his development. Alternatives: a) 13 ~f3lOc6 140-0 e6 15 ~d2l:tb8 '+ Billion-Rantalainen, COIT. 1992. b) 13 cxb4 e6 140-0 lOc6 15 ~e3 ~xb4 is slightly better for Black.

B

Now: a) 15 ~e2 bxc3! 16 i.e3 lOaS 17 .l:f.ad1 c6 18 ~c2 ~b4 19 lOh5 0-0-0 20 lOf4 (Zakharevich-Yakovich, Russian Ch (Elista) 1995) 20 ... 'ii>c7! 211Oe2 .l:i.b8 221Oxc3 i.xc3 23 ~xc3 ~d5 + Nikitin. b) 15 i.e3 b3 16 ~e21OaS '+ Wendt-Melts, ICCF COIT. Wch 1989. c) 15 lOh5 bxc3 16 i.e3 lOb4 (16 ... lOe7!? with the idea 17 'iVg41Of5 '+) and then: c1) 17 ~e2 (Kremenietsky-A.Zakharov, Moscow Ch 1998) 17 ... lOd3 +. c2) 17 'iVg4 0-0-0 18 'iVf3 and here: c21) 18 ... ~d5 19 ~xf7 .l:i.d7 20 ~e8+ (White must allow the repetition as 20 ~f4? lOd3 21 ~h4 c5! is overwhelming for Black) 20 ... .l:i.d8 21 ~f7 .l:i.d7 =. c22) 18 ... c5! 19 dxc5 (the sucker check 19 ~a8+? loses to 19 ... ~c7 20 ~a7+ 'it>c6 -+) 19 ... ~b7 ,+.

B2}

13•.•e6

11 e6!? This aggressive pawn sacrifice has received very little attention and some of the previously published analysis on it is misleading. 11 ...'iVxe6+ 12 ~e3 ~c8 Black may wish to consider 12 ... i.d5!? here. 13dS White must act quickly to justify his sacrifice - too slow is 13 ~bl? lOd7 140-0 c6 151Og5

32

How TO BEAT 1 d4

(Rajkovic-Marjanovic, Yugoslav Cht (Budva) 2003) 15 ... tZJf6 16 tZJe4 tZJd5 +. 13••• tZJd7 14 0-0 tZJf6 15 tZJe5 e6 16 dxe6 fxe6 17 ~g5 (D)

B

17•.•..txg2 The alternative is 17 ... ..td6 ("! only move" according to Sakaev and Sernkov in 2003, but they appear to have been unaware of Ille;;cas's 1995 Infonnator notes which had been quoted by Neishtadt in 1997) 18 ..txf6 0-0 19 .ixg7 cj;;xg7 20 'iVg4+ cj;;h8 21 ..txb7 'iVxb7 22 'ii'xe6 and White had a slight edge in BeliavskyIllescas, Linares 1995. 18 ~xf6 White has no time for 18 cj;;xg2? ~b7+ 19 'it'gl .l:rd8 20 ~e2 i.e7 +. 18.•.h5 (D)

that it creates a gaping hole on the g6-square. This position has generally been considered advantageous for Black, but I believe White's attacking chances have been underestimated here - Black must play accurately to equalize. 19 'iVc2 This move takes aim at the weak g6-square. Two other moves are also quite playable: a) 19 'it'xg2 gxf6 20 tZJg6 .l::[h6 21 tZJxf8 cj;;xf8 ('T' according to Illescas, but I think White is doing fine here) 22 axb5 (another idea is 22 'iVf3!?) 22 ... axb5 23 'iVf3 ':xa1 24 lha1 'iVd7 25 1:td1 and White has some compensation for the pawns as it is difficult for Black to safeguard his king. b) 19 ~h4 ~d6 20 tZJg6 ~xfl 21 tZJxh8 'it'd7 (2l...i.d3 22 ~xh5+ 'it'd7 23 ~f7+ 'it'c6 24 ~f3+ cj;;b6 25 tZJf7 with compensation for the pawn) 22 tZJf7 ..td3 23 'iVxh5 with an unclear position. 19•.•gxf6! Stronger than 19 ... .l::th6 ("also good" according to Neishtadt, but he offered no analysis) 20 ..tg5 ..txfl 21 .l:txfl (21 'iVe4!?) 2l...~d6 ('T' according to Illescas in Infonnator, but I think White is doing fine here also) 22 ..txh6! ..txe5 23 .l:!.e1 gxh6 24 :xe5 and White has a slight edge as the black king has no shelter. 20 'iVg6+ 'it'e7 21 'iVf7+ cj;;d6 Illescas suggested this with no evaluation. 22 'iVxf6!? ~xfl23 :xfl i.g7! White has a mating attack after 23 ... l!h7? 24 .l:rd 1+ 'it'c5 25 ~f3 'it'b6 26 as+! 'it'xaS 27 :Ia1 + 'iitb6 28 ~c6+ 'iita7 29 ~xb5 +-. 24 ~xg7 Wc5 25 axb5 axb5 26 .l::rbl White has good compensation for the exchange and Black must defend accurately. 26 .••1:td8 27 'iVe7 + l:td6 Not 27 ... cj;;b6? 28 tZJxc4+ cj;;c6 29 tZJe5+ cj;;b6 30 c4 ±. 28 'iVg5 J::td5 29 'iVe7+ :d6 30 'iVg5 with a draw by repetition.

83)

"!!" according to Illescas - his astonishing idea appears to have prematurely extinguished interest in the 11 e6!? line. Although the hpawn thrust prevents ~h5+, the drawback is

ll..ta3 This is the most popular continuation - White deploys the bishop to a powerful diagonal and discourages the natural developing move ... e6. 1l... g6 (D) This move has replaced the older 11 ... e6.

Two KNIGHTS VARIATION

33

w

The most prominent exponent of this line is GM Ildar Ibragimov. The idea of playing l1...g6 had not yet been discovered at the time of John Watson's 1986 monograph on this variation. Now White must make a committal decision - play for an all-out attack or complete his own development: 33 B31: 12h4 B32: 12 0-0 35

831) 12h4 Black must decide where to put his king - he can continue his development at the risk of castling into a kingside attack, or he can focus on untangling his queenside pieces. B311: 12.•.i.g7 33 B312: 12.•.i.dS!? 34

hxg6 221:txe6 i.f6 23 g4 (23 J::tc6!? deserves attention - the idea is to answer 23 ... ttJb6 by 24 axb5 axb5 25 i.xe7! with an unclear position) 23 ... ttJb6 24 g5 ttJd5! 25 'it>g3 'it>f7 (25 ... i.g7!? 26 .l::i.xg6 ttJxc3 was unclear in Monacell-Nava, IEBG e-mail 2000) 26 .l:i.hel i.g7 with roughly level chances, Zakharevich-Ibragimov, St Petersburg 1994. IS ..•fxg6 15 ... hxg6!? looks risky but there is no obvious refutation. 16 ttJgS i.xg2+ 17 'it>xg2 h6 (D) Also possible is 17 ... 'iVd5+ 18 'it>gl (18 f3 h6 19 ttJh3 ttJc6 20 'iVe2 -17... h6 18 ttJh3 ttJc6 19 1i¥e2 'iid5+ 20 f3) 18 ... h6 19 ttJh3 ttJc6 (19 ... 1i¥f7!?) 20 ttJf4 "±" according to Sakaev and Semkov - now Black should play 20 .. :¥Ue4! with an unclear position instead of 20 .. Jhf4? 21 gxf4 .l::i.f8 22 .l:tM ± Sakaev-Ibragimov, Kherson 1991.

8311) 12••• i.g713 hS 0-014 'it>f1 i.dS (D) IS hxg6 The alternative is 15 ttJg5 i.xg2+ (15 ... h6 16 ttJh3 i.xg2+ 17 'it>xg2 ttJc6 18 hxg6 fxg6 15 hxg6fxg6 16 ttJg5 ..Lg2+ 17 'it>xg2 h6 18 ttJh3 ttJc6) 16 'it>xg2 1i¥d5+ 17 1i¥f3 (17 f3 h6 {l7 ... ttJd7!?} 18 ttJh3 {18 i.xe7? .l::i.e8 19 hxg6 fxg6 =+= Filippov-Ganguly, Shenyang tt 1999} 18 ... g5 with sharp play ahead) 17 .. :~xf3+ 18 ttJxf3 ~e8 (Black vacates a square for his darksquared bishop - the alternative is 18 ... ttJc6 19 h6 i.h8 20 i.c5 ;!; Mchedlishvili-Charboneau, Erevan jr Wch 1999) 19 e6 (another idea is 19 h6 i.f8 20 e6!? fxe6 21 ttJe5 with compensation for the pawns) 19 .. .fxe6 20 l:tael ttJd7 21 hxg6

18 ttJh3 Or 18 ttJe4 ttJc6 with unclear play.

34

How TO BEAT 1 d4

18•••liJc6 19 'iVe2 Another idea is 19 'iVc2 'iVd5+ (Black can play on with the double-edged 19 ... ~g4!?) 20 'it>h2 ~xe5 21 dxe5 l/Z-1f2 Simmelink-Cottegnie, IEBG e-mail 2000 - the finish would be 21...liJxe5 22liJf4liJf3+ 23 'it>h3liJg5+ 24 'it>h2 liJf3+ with perpetual check. 19.. JWdS+ 20 f3 b4 This is a useful trick to break up White's pawn-centre. 21 i.xb4 liJxb4 22 cxb4 'iVxd4 23 l:tadl 'iVxeS 24 'iVxc4+ So far this is S.lvanov-Degerrnan, Swedish Cht 2000. Now 24 ... 'it>h7!? 25 liJf4 'iVf5 is equal.

b) 16 ... liJb3! (this looks safer as the white rook is driven to an inferior square) 17 lita2 .i.xg2+ 18 'iitxg2 'iVd5+ (Van Dijk-Sukhov, IEBG e-mail 2002)19~f3.iVxf3+20.it>xf3 h5 =. 14.•.fxg6 15 0-0 .i.h6 16 e6 Stronger than the passive 16 liJh2 i.xg2 17 'it>xg2 0-0 Filippov-Flear, Reykjavik ECC 1999. 16...'iVxe617l:tel (D)

+

B

8312) 12.••i.dS!? (D)

W

The bishop overprotects the e6-square and blockades the d4-pawn in readiness for ... liJc6. 13hS 13 'iitf1 liJc6 14 h5 - 13 h5 liJc6 14 'iitf1. 13•.•liJc6 No one has tried the aggressive counterstroke 13 ... g5!? 140-0 g4 15 liJh2 .i.xg2 16 'iitxg2 l:!.g8 17 'iVc2, when White has good play for the sacrificed pawn. 14 hxg6 White can maintain the tension for another move by playing 14 'it>f1liJa5 15 hxg6 fxg6 16 liJg5. Then: a) 16 ... i.xg2+ 17 'it>xg2 ~d5+ 18 ~f3 'iVxf3+ 19 'itxf3liJb3 20 l:!.adl h5 (Lomineishvili-Flear, Tunis 2000) 21 liJe6 = Sakaev and Semkov.

Now: a) 17 ... 'iVc8? 18liJe5 .i.xg2 19liJxc6 i.xc6 20 lhe7+ 'it>d8 21 d5 (+- Sakaev and Semkov) 21...~e8 22 'tlYd4 11f8 23 d6 +-. b) 17 ... 'iVf6! (Flear) and then: bI) 18 liJh2 i.xg2 19 'it>xg2 (after 19 axb5 axb5 20 .i.xe7?? liJxe7 Black defends the a8rook) 19 ... ~f5 20 d5 0-0-0 favours Black White is two pawns down and his attack has evaporated. b2) 18 liJe5 i.xg2 and here: b21) 19liJxc6? 'iVxc6 20 l:!.xe7+ 'it>d8 (suggested by Flear - I don't see an effective follow-up for White) 21 d5 (21 axb5 axb5 22l:!.e5 .i.d5 wins for Black) 21...'ilVxd5 22l:!.e5 'iVxdl + 23 l:!.xd 1+ 'it>c8 24 'iitxg2 i.g7 and Black is much better. b22) 19 'it>xg2 (this move is White's best try) 19 ... liJxe5 20 l:txe5 O-O! (power castlingBlack safeguards his king and launches a counterattack against White's f2-pawn) 21 f4 l:tfe8 22 'iVf3 l:!.ab8 (22 ... c6 23 axb5 cxb5 24 .i.xe7 'ilVf7 with roughly level chances) 23 axb5 axb5 24 'ilVd5+ 'tlYf7 25 'ilVc6 .i.g7 26 l:!.xb5 l:!.xb5 27 'iVxb5 i.f6 with roughly level chances since Black's extra pawn is of little value.

Two KNIGHTS VARIATION

832) 12 0-0 $..g7 13 l:tel 0-0 (D)

w

Now: B321: 14 e6 B322: 14 i..cs

35

a2) 18 ... i..f3 19 '¥Vc2 (19 '¥Hbl I?) 19 ...'it>h8 20 i..c5 liJa5! (20 ... nb8 was played in LesiegeCharbonneau, Montreal sim 1999; now White should try 21 axb5 axb5 22 liJg2 ~b7 =1=) 21 i.xe7 l1e8 22 i..b4liJb3 23 l:ta2 c5 +LugovoiIbragimov, St Petersburg 1993 - White's kingside pressure has disappeared and Black still has an extra pawn. b) 17 ~d2!? and then: bl) 17 ... ~e8 18liJg4 (this was suggested by Ibragimov) 18 ... c6!? 19liJe3 $..f6 20 '¥Ve2 with sharp play ahead. b2) 17 ... liJd7!? 18liJg4 (the tempting sacrifice 18 i..xe6+? i..xe6 19liJc6 is considered decisive by some sources, but I have been unable to find anything convincing for White after the bold 19 ... 'it>f7! 20 liJxe7 ~b7 +) 18 ... c5 looks fine for Black. 17....l:.e818 $..gS (D)

35 36

8321)

B

14 e6 fxe6 ISliJeS ~c8 16 $..h3 White must retain the light-squared bishop for the attack as 16 i..xb7 ~xb7 17 ~g4 I:tf5 looks fine for Black. 16•••i..dS (D)

17 i..xe7 White recovers one of his pawns. Alternatives: a) 17 liJg4?! (this knight redeployment is too slow) 17 ... liJc6 18liJe3 and now: al) 18 ... ~d8 19liJxd5 exd5 20 i..c5 'it>h8 =1= Repasi-Vass, Fezesabony 2002.

In this position Black has two playable options: a) 18 ... c5 19 dxc5 '¥Vxc5 (19 ... liJd7 20 liJg4 with an attack - Ftacnik) 20 i..e3 '¥Vc7 21 i..f4 '¥Vb7 with sharp play in A.Shneider-Ibragimov, USSR Ch (Moscow) 1991. b) 18 ... liJd7 19 liJg4 Wj'b7 20 liJh6+ and then: bl) 20 ... 'it>h8 21 liJf7+ 'it>g8 22liJh6+ 'it>h8 23liJf7+ with a draw by perpetual check, Kantorik-Jurek, Prerov 2001. b2) 20 ... $..xh6!? (Black avoids the perpetual check at the risk of incurring some dark-square weaknesses) 21 i.xh6 b4 (2l...c5!?) 22 cxb4 ~xb4 23 J:tbl Wj'd6 (23 ... ~a5!?) 24 iVd2 ~ab8 (24 .. :tlVa3!?) was unclear in Arbakov-Mchedlishvili, 0hrid 2000.

36

How TO BEAT 1 d4

19... eS

8322) 14 ~cS ~dS1S ttJgS (D)

ECO ends its analysis here with an evalua-

tion of "unclear". 20 ttJe6 exd4 21 cxd4 (D)

B B

Black has the choice of either continuing his development or exchanging the light-squared bishops. The latter option is safer as piece exchanges reduce White's attacking possibilities. 36 B3221: IS••. ttJc6 37 B3222: IS ... i.xg2

83221) IS ...ttJc6 16 e6 ECO suggests 16 i..h3!? - play might con-

tinue 16 ... ~d8 17 e6 f6 18 ttJf7 ~e8 with an unbalanced position. 16...fxe617 'iVg4 ~xg218 Wxg2 ~dS+ (D)

19 f3 Another idea is 19 ~e4!? ~xg5 20 ~xe6+ ~h8 21 ~xc6 ~d2 22.l:!.fl with an unclear position.

21...:ac8 Also playable is 2l...b4 22 ttJxc7 h5 ("+" according to Sakaev and Semkov, but I think White is at least equal here) 23 ~xg6!? (23 'iVe6+ lWxe6 24 l:1xe6 ttJxd4 25 lhg6 ttJb3 26 i..xb4 ttJxal {Zakharstov-Ibragimov, Smolensk 1991} 27 ~c3! ~f6 28 .l:[xg7 + Wxg7 29 ttJxa8 ttJc2 30 ~f2 and White is certainly not worse) 23 ... ~xf3+ 24 ~gl ~f2+ 25 ~hl ~f3+ 26 ~gl WVf2+ with a draw by repetition. 22 axbS axbS 23 l:Ia6 IUS 24 ttJf4 So far this is Bacrot-C.Bauer, French Ch (Haute Vichy) 2000. 24...~d7! This move was suggested by Khuzman Black's position is very resilient. 25 dS! Khuzman only considered 25 l:te6 .l:!.xc5! 26 dxc5 ttJe5 27 "VJVg5 ~d2+, leading to a large advantage for Black. 2S ...eS (D) Now: a) 26 ttJxg6 .l:!.f7 27 ~xd7 l:txd7 28 lixc6 hxg6 =t. b) 26 dxc6 ~d2+ 27 .:te2 'iVdl 28 l:txe5! ~xe5 29 ttJxg6 'iVc2+ and then: bl) 30~h3hxg631 "VJVxg6+i.g7! (3l...~h8 32 'iVh6+ ~g8 33 ~g6+ repeats the position) 32 i..d4l:th5+! 33 ~xh5 'iVh7 34 ~xh7+ ~xh7 with a complex endgame in which White's extra pawn is offset by Black's advanced queenside pawns.

Two KNIGHTS VARIATION

b2) 30 .tf2 hxg6 (30 ... h5?? loses to 31 ttJe7++) 31 llVxg6+ .tg7 32 ~e6+ (32 g4?! l:tcf8 33 gxf51lVxf5 34 llVxf51hf5 +) 32 .. /~h7 33 ~xc8 ~d3 34 f4 ~d5+ 35 'it>gl (35 'it>h3?? l:th5+ 36 'it>g4 llVdl #; 35 'it>n? c3 +) 35 ... ~dl + 36 'it>g2 llVd5+ with a draw by repetition.

83222)

37

16...llVd5+ To check or not to check - that is the question. Black can also play 16 ... ttJc6 17 ~f3 b4 18 'ilVe4 bxc3 19 e6 fxe6 20 ttJxe6l:H5 21l:iac1 l:tb8 22 l:txc3 (so far this is Kogan-Lazarev, Quebec 2000) 22 ...:b2!? 23 l:[f3 l:txf3 24 'iUxf3 .tf6 with equal chances. 17 ttJe4 White can consider the queen exchange 17 1lVf3!? llVxf3+ 18 ttJxf3 ttJd7 19 .txe71He8 20 .tb4 ttJb6 with equal chances. 17...ttJc6 181lVf3 'it>h8 Another idea is 18 ... llVd7!? 19 h4 (D) NCO ends its analysis here with an evaluation of "White has enough compensation for the material". 19 ttJg5!? is another possibility for White.

B

15....txg2 This capture is the most conservative choice - White's attacking possibilities are reduced. 16 'it>xg2 (D)

19...b4! This is safer than 19 .. .f6 20 exf6 .txf6 21 ttJxf6 llVxf3+ 22 'it>xf3 ~xf6+ 23 'it>g2 with compensation for the material, Cebalo-Ibragimov, Bled 1996. 20 .txb4 ttJxb4 21 cxb4 ~xd4 22 ttJc5 c3 23 lite4 ~d2 24 l:re2 ~d4 25 lIe4 ~d2 with a draw by repetition.

5 Furman Variation

1 d4 dS 2 c4 dxc4 3 lDf3lDf6 4 e3 e6 5 iLxc4 cS 6 'ilVe2 This is the characteristic move of the Furman Variation. White's plan was popularized by the Russian GM Semion Furman, perhaps best known as the trainer of Anatoly Karpov. The idea behind the queen move is to play dxc5 followed by a quick e4 pawn advance. Less common is 6lDc3 a6, and now: a) 7 dxc5 ~xdl+ 8 ~xdl Jtxc5 9 jtd3 lDbd7 10 b3 b6 (Korchnoi-Karpov, Brussels 1987) 11 lDe4 = Karpov. b) 7 Jtb3lDc6 8 0-0 - 6 0-0 a6 7lDc3lDc6 8 ~e2 - Chapter 6. 6.•. a6 7 dxcS .i.xcs (D)

w

Black has an easy time after 10 lDc3 lDg4 11 0-0 lDge5 12 iLc2 (12 .l::[dl !?) 12... lDxf3+ 13 ~xf3lDd4 14 'ilVd3 0-0 =1= Dittmar-F.Levin, Bad Worishofen 1996. 10••• lDg4! A recurring theme in this line - a black knight will be well-placed on the e5-square. 11 0-0 lDgeS 12lDxeS lDxeS 13 ~c2 0-014 lDb3 i.b6 (D)

w

Now White has: A: 8 e4 38 B: 80-0 39

A} 8 e4 bS (D) White has a choice of bishop retreats: AI: 9 i.d3 38 39 A2: 9 iLb3

AI} 9 i.d3lDc6 10 lDbd2

ISl1dl 15 iLf4 lDg6 16 i.e3 iLxe3 17 'iVxe3 ~f6 (17 ... e5!?) 18 .l:!.abl (White doesn't quite have enough for the pawn after 18 e5!? ~xe5 19 i.e4 nb8 20 f4 ~d6 =1=) 18 ... e5 19 ~fdllDf4 20 ~d2 i.e6 =1= Van der Werf-Skripchenko, Cannes 1997.

39

FURMAN VARIATION

IS ...~h4! Khuzman's suggestion. Lputian-A.Horvath, Kallithea ECC 2002 saw the less aggressive 15 ... ~f6 16 .l:.bl ~b7 17 ~e3 i.xe3 18 ~xe3 l:!.ac8 19 i.d3 =. 16lbd4 16 h3 i..b7 17 ~e3 ~xe3 18 'ilVxe3 lbc4 =+= Khuzman. 16•.•i..b7 17 a4 !lac8 Black has the initiative - Khuzman. White is under a lot of pressure here; for example, 18 axb5 axb5 19 i..e3 (19 ~xb5?? .l::txc2! wins for Black) 19 ... ~xe4 20 i..xe4 ~xe4 21 ~xb5 lbc4 ,+.

11 ..•lbg4 12 0-0 lbd4 13 lbxd4 ~xd4 14 lbf3 (D)

A2) 9 i..b3 i..b7 10 lbbd2 Or: a) 10 e5lbg4!? (1O ... lbd5 11 0-0 lbd7 =) 11 0-0 lbd7 '+ Grosso-Morihama, CXEB e-mail 1999. b) 10 i..c2lbc6 l1lbbd2 ~c7 120-0 :'c8 is equal, Wells-Maksimenko, Copenhagen (Politiken Cup) 1996. 10...lbc6 (D)

Now Black has two options: a) 14.. :~e4 15 i.dl (15 'ilVxe4 i..xe4 16 i..f4 i..d3 =+= Sakaev and Semkov) 15 ... l:1d8 16 'ilVxe4 i..xe4 ,+. b) 14... i..xf3 15 'ilVxf3 0-0 16 ~g3 lbxf2!! (the temporary knight sacrifice is much stronger than 16 ... ~h8? = Rapoport-Mariasin, Beersheba 1998) 17 ':'xf2 f6! (this gives new meaning to the phrase 'castling into the attack') 18 ~f1 (18 ~xe6+ ~h8 -+) 18 ... fxe5 19 IH3 e4 20 1:(f4 i..d6 21 i..xe6+ ~h8 -+. Black wins material.

w A22)

White must decide whether to advance his e-pawn or continue with straightforward development: 39 A21: 11 eS?! 40 A22: 11 0-0

11 0-0 lbd4! This is an interesting untried suggestion from Sakaev and Semkov. 11...lbd7 is also sufficient: 12 i..c2 (Kempinski-Kharlov, Saint Vincent Ech 2000) 12 ... ~c7 13 lbb3 i.b6 (also worthy of consideration is 13 ... i..d6!? 14l:idl lbde5 =) 14 i..e3 0-0 15 l:i.ac1 (";1;" Khuzman) 15 ...:r.ac8 ("Black is very close to equality" Sakaev and Semkov) 16 .l::i.fdl ~xe3 17 ~xe3 ~fd8 =. 12lbxd4 'ilVxd4 13 ~c2 'ilVeS 14 a4 0-0 Black has equalized according to Sakaev and Semkov.

Islbf3

~hS

Black has a comfortable position.

A21) 11 eS?! This thrust appears to be premature.

B) 80-0 lbc6 (D)

40

How TO BEAT 1 d4

This position is often reached via the moveorder 6 0-0 (instead of 6 ~e2) 6 ... a6 7iVe2 ttJc6 (7 ... b5 is the subject of Chapters 9, 10, and 11) 8 dxc5 (White can also play 8 J::[dl or 8 ttJc3 here) 8 ... .ixc5. ge4 Alternatives: a) 9 a3 .id6 10 ttJbd2 0-0 11 i.d3 b5 12 ttJe4 ttJxe4 13 .ixe4 .ib7 14 .l:[dl (14 Viilc2? g6 15 .ixc611c8 + Topalov) l4 ... f5 15 .i.bl iVc7 16 a4 (16 .ia2 :f6 + gives Black the initiative according to Topalov) 16 ... ttJa5! (16 ... bxa4? 17 Iha4 ;t Topalov-Lautier, Amsterdam 1996) 17 i.a2 (17 axb5 ttJb3 + Topalov) 17 ... ttJc4 =+= Topalov. b) 9 ttJbd2 0-0 10 .i.d3 (10 a3 .td6 - 9 a3 i.d6 10 ttJbd2 0-0) 1O... i.e7 (another idea is 1O ... ttJb4!? 11 i.bl i.d7 12 ttJc4 .tb5 13 b3 "iiIe7 14 .i.b2 .l:[ac8 15 a3 ttJbd5 =) 11 b3 (11 e4 e5 also leads to an equal position) ll ... ttJb4 12 .i.bl b5 13 .ib2 i.b7 14 l:tdl l:tc8 15 a3 ttJbd5 16 ttJe4 ~c7 17 i.e5 "iiIb6 18 i.d4 ~c7 19 i.e5 Viilb6 = Astrom-Sadler, Erevan OL 1996. 9..• b5 (D) Now White has: Bl: 10 e5!? 40 B2: 10.ib3 41 Black has no problems after the quiet retreat 10.id3 ttJb4 (this is safer than 1O ... ttJd4?! 11 ttJxd4 i.xd4 12 a4 ;t as Black's queenside is weak) 11 .l:[dl Viilb6 (1 L.ttJxd3 1211xd3 iVb6, as given by Neishtadt, also looks fine for Black) 12 .ig5 .ib7 13 i.xf6 (13 ttJc3 ttJxd3 14l:!.xd3 = Tella-Dokuchaev, Imatra 1999) 13 ... gxf6 with equal chances.

81) 10 e5!? This aggressive advance has fallen out of favour, but there are several unanswered questions here and the move may be due for a revival. 10...bxc4 Black can also opt for 1O ... ttJd7 11 .ib3 (11 i.d3.i.b7 12 .te4!?) 1 L..tb7 12 l:tdl ~b6 13 ttJc3 (13 i.f4 ttJd4 14 ttJxd4 i..xd4 = IzetaGranda, Pamplona 1995/6) 13 ... ttJe7 with sharp play, Gelfand-Balashov, Minsk 1986. 11 exf6 gxf6 (D) 11 ... iVd3 is worthy of consideration. 12 fxg7 ng8 13 "iiIxd3 cxd3 14 .ih6 ttJd4 15 ttJxd4 .ixd4 16 ttJc3 and now: a) 16 ... ~b8 17 l:tadll::txb2 18 nxd3 .ixg7 19l:!.fdl (White can win the exchange with 19 :g3!? 'it>f8 20 l:tdl! i.xh6 21 nd8+ 'it>e7 22 J:Idxg8 ;t although Black has some counterplay because of his annoying bishops) 19 ... i.f6 20 ttJe4 i.e7 21 ttJd6+ 112-112 Yakovich-Kallai, Sochi 1989. b) l6 ... i.b7 17 lIadl :d8 1811d211d6 with equal chances, Gilbert-Frostick, COIT. 1998. 12.l:[dl Sharper than 12 Viilxc4 ~b6 13 ttJc3 (13 .te3!? was suggested by Shatskes - 13 ... i.xe3 14 fxe3 ttJe7 is an adequate reply) 13 ...Viilb4 and here: a) 14 Viile4 i.b7 15 ttJd5?! ttJd4! 16 ~xd4 (Riemersma-lonkman, Wijk aan Zee 1996) 16 ... iVxd4 17 ttJxd4 i.xd5 gives Black a slightly favourable endgame because of his bishop-pair. b) 14 "iiIxb4 i.xb4 15 ttJe4 i.e7 = Averbakh-Suetin, USSR Ch (Leningrad) 1960.

41

FURMAN VARIATION

c) 14 'iVe2 i.e7 IS h3 i.b7 16 a3 'iVaS 17 i.f4 .l:i.g8 = Furman-Suetin, Tallinn 1960. 12...'iVb613 CLJbd2! Neishtadt suggested this strong move in 1997, but he did not provide any further analysis. The alternative is 13 CLJc3 i.e7!? (13 ... i.b7 14 CLJdS 'iVd8 {Kachiani Gersinska-Danielian, Pula worn Echt 1997} IS 'iVxc4 :;t;) 14 "iYxc4 i..b7 IS i..e3 'iVb4 =. 13..•CLJa5 13 ... c3 14 CLJe4!? looks dangerous for Black. 14 CLJe4 i.e7 15 i..f4 SLb7 Black's king is too exposed after IS ... eS? 16 CLJxf6+! iLxf6 (16 ... 'iVxf6 17 i.xeS 'iVe6 18 CLJd4 is winning for White) 17 i..xeS 0-0 18 .l:!.d6 and White recovers the piece with a crushing attack. 16 CLJd6+ i..xd6 17 lIxd6 'ilVc5 18 .l:!.adl White has good compensation for the pawn.

l:tg8 17 i.h4 CLJe3 +) 16 ... hS tiative on the kingside.

+Black has the ini-

821) 12 CLJc3 'iVe5! 13 i..e3 Minor alternatives: a) 13 i..c2 i..b7 14 ~hl b4 IS f4 'iVhS 16 'iVxhS CLJxhS 17 CLJa4 i..d4 Ignacz-Vajda, Hungarian Cht (Budapest) 200S. b) 13 'it>hl i..b7 14 f4 'iVhS IS ~xhS CLJxhS 16 fS eS 17 i..dS .l:!.b8 18 SLxb7lhb7 19 CLJdS i..d4 = Korpics-Z. Varga, Hungarian Cht 1996. 13...i..xe314 'iVxe3 CLJg4 (D)

+

82) 10 iLb3 CLJd4! The familiar knight leap has replaced older 1O... eS. 11 CLJxd4 ~xd4 (D) Many games have demonstrated that centralized black queen is able to disrupt smooth development of the white pieces position is dynamically balanced. Now: B2l: 12 CLJc3 41 B22: 12 iLe3 42

the

the the the

The pawn advance 12 eS?! is premature. After 12 ... ~g4! 13 CLJc3 (Black wins a pawn after 13 'ilVxg4? CLJxg4 14 i..f4 i.d4 +) 13 ... SLb7 14 'iVxg4 CLJxg4 IS SLf4 gS! 16 SLg3 (or 16 i.xgS

15~g3

The exchange of queens can be delayed by playing IS ~h3 hS 16l:tael i..b7 17 'iVg3 (perhaps the originalidea was to play 17 i..dS!?, but 17 ... .l:!.b8 = is an adequate reply) 17 ... 'iVxg3 18 hxg3 CLJeS = I.Sokolov-Van Wely, Groningen 1995. 15.. :~Vxg3 16 hxg3

42

How TO BEAT 1 d4

Several games have demonstrated that Black has nothing to fear in this endgame. 16••. <;t>e7 Also possible is 16 ... i.b7 17 f3 ttJe5 18 l::tfdl <;t>e7 19 'iti>f2 h5 20 lId4 l:1ad8 21 ':'adl lIxd4 22 ':'xd4 M 23 gxM lIxM 24 J:td 1 g5 liz-liz Lerner-Y.Lazarev, Bad Zwesten 1997. 171Iac1 i.d7 (D) Another idea is 17 ... l:td8 18 !:tfdl llxdl + 19 ttJxdl 11z-1f2 E.Cosma-l.Ionescu Brandis, Romanian Ch 2000.

This is the most challenging continuation. 12..:~Ve5! The risky 12 .. .'~Vxe4?! 13 ttJd2 'iVf5 14 g4! has been played a few times - the complications favour White. 13 .i.xe5 ~xe5 (D)

W

18 ttJe2 Or 18 f3 ttJe5 19l:Hdl = Alterman. 18•..:ae8 19 ~fdllIhd8 19 ... a5!? was suggested by Alterman. 20a3 20 l:txc8 l:1xc8 21 f3 is slightly better for Black according to Alterman - presumably the idea is 2l...ttJe5 22l::td2 a5 and White is on the defensive despite the symmetrical pawn-structure. 20 ...i.e8 liz-liz I.Sokolov-Lautier, Wijk aan Zee 1997.

822) 12 i.e3

14 ttJe3 Alternatives: a) 14 e5 ttJd7 15 l:tel i.b7 and now: al) 16 ttJc3 b4!? (16 ... 0-0 171Iadl.l:.fd8 =) 17 ttJa4 'ilVb5 181Iac1 ~xe2 19 ':'xe2 We7 20 lIec2 lIhc8 21 ttJc5 = Khuzman. a2) 16 ttJd2 0-0 17 ~ac 1 ~b6 = Khuzman. b) 14 ttJd2 i.b7 15 e5 ttJd7 16l1fel (R.YeraLesiege, Montreal 2003) 16 ... 0-0 =. 14... .i.b7 15 :tac1 Sharper is 15 l::tadl!? b4 16 ttJa4 ~b5 17 'iVe3 0-0 18 ttJc5 (~ Khuzman) 18 ... lIfd8 (= Sakaev and Sernkov) 19 ttJxb7 'iVxb7 20 e5 ttJd5 21 'iVe4 l:rd7 =. 15...lIe816 ~d2 ~b4171Ifdl 0-0 18 f3 Or 18 e5 ttJe4 19 'iVf4 a5 20 ttJxe4 'iVxe4 21 'iVxe4 .i.xe4 =Khuzman. 18•..lIe7 19 ttJe2 'ilVxd2 20 lIxd2 lIxc1 + 21 ttJxc1lIe8 The chances are equal, Radjabov-Kasparov, Linares 2003.

6 Classical Variation: White's Seventh Move Alternatives

1 d4 d5 2 c4 dxc4 3 ttJf3 ttJf6 4 e3 e6 5 i.xc4 c5 60-0 a6 In this chapter we shall consider White's seventh move alternatives to 7 a4 (Chapter 7),7 i..b3 (Chapter 8), and 7 'iYe2 (Chapters 9, 10, and 11). Now: 43 A: 7 ttJbd2 B: 7 ttJc3 44 C: 7 a3 45 D: 7b3 46 E: 7 e4 48 F: 7 i.d3 51 G: 7 dxc5 54

A) 7 ttJbd2 (D)

This modest move started out as a quiet, non-theoretical response to the QGA. As often happens, the idea eventually became popular and developed its own body of theory. 7 ...cxd4 Black has some flexibility here: a) 7 ... ttJc6 8 dxc5 ..ixc5 9 b3 and now Black can play:

al) 9 ... 0-0 10 ..ib2 'iYe7 11 ~bl (11 a3 ..id7!? Ibragimov) 11...i.a3 12 i..xa3 'iYxa3 13 ttJe4 'iYe7 with equal chances, Atalik-Ibragimov, Ano Liosia 1995. a2) 9 ... b5 10 i..e2 ..ib7 11 ..ib20-0 12 'iYc2 i.e7 13 :adl 'iYaS 14 a3 ~ac8 15 ~bl b4 16 ttJc4 'iYc5 with equal chances, Ibragimov-Prasad, Linares 1996. b) 7 ... ttJbd7 8 b3 b6 9l:!.el (9 i..b2 ..ib7 10 ..ie2 i.e7 =) 9 ... ..ib7 10 e4 (10 ~b2 cxd4 11 ttJxd4 i.d6 =) 10 ... cxd4 11 e5 ttJd5 12 ttJxd4 with equal chances - this is stronger than 12 ttJe4? ttJc3 13 ttJxc3 dxc3 and Black is much better, D.Gurevich-A.Kaufman, USA Ch (Seattle) 2002. 8 ttJxd4 .i.d6 8... ttJbd7 looks fine also. 9 ttJ4f3 0-010 b3 b5 Black can also play the more restrained idea 1O ... b6 (l0 ... ttJc6 II..ib2 'iYe7!? was suggested by D.Gurevich) 11 ..ie2 (11 i.b2!?) 11 ... ttJbd7 12 ttJc4 ..ic5 13 ttJd6 (13 ..ib2!?) 13 ... ttJd5 14 ttJxc8 ttJc3 15 'iYc2 ttJxe2+ 16 ~xe2 ~xc8 17 i.b2 'iYb7 =Psakhis-Gulko, Mondariz 1997. 11 ..ie2 i.b7 12 ..ib2 12 a4!? 12... ttJbd7 13 a4 (D)

44

How TO BEAT 1 d4

13•. :~b8!? The idea behind the queen manoeuvre is to maintain the bS-pawn and prevent White from using the c4-square as a minor-piece outpost. Black can also consider 13 ... bxa4 14 liJc4 j.,e7 (14 ... iLb4!? is an idea ofD.Gurevich) IS bxa4 liJdS? (lS ... j.,dS!? was suggested by D.Gurevich - the position looks balanced) 16 l:b1 'JiIic7 17 'JiIid2! j.,c6 18 liJaS! ;!; D.Gurevich-Gulko, USA Ch(Modesto) 1995. 14 h3 i..d5 The chances are equal.

B) 7 liJc3 This natural developing move often transposes into other lines of the Classical Variation although there are some independent branches. The position after 7 liJc3 can also be reached via some alternative move-orders. For example: • Queen's Gambit Declined move-order: 1 d4 dS 2 c4 e6 3 liJc3 liJf6 4 liJf3 dxc4 S e3 (S e4 i..b4 6 i..gS transposes into the Vienna Queen's Gambit) S... cS 6 ii.xc4 a6 7 0-0 . • Semi-Slav and Slav move-orders: 1 d4 dS 2 c4 c6 3 liJc3 liJf6 4 liJf3 (or 4 e3 a6 S i..d3 dxc4 6 ~xc4 e6 7 liJf3 cS) 4 ... e6 S e3 a6 (S ... liJbd7 is more popular here) 6 i..d3 dxc4 7 iLxc4 cS 8 0-0 - note that each side has played an extra move here. 7...b5 (D)

8 j.,d3 Minor alternatives: a) 8 i..e2 iLb7 9 dxcS ii.xcs (9 .. :~xdl 10 .l::i.xdl iLxcs 11 a3 liJbd7 12 b4 .i.e7 13 .i.b2

0-0 14 l:tac1 l::tac8 IS 'it>f1 .l::i.fd8 16 h3 'it>f8 {Pomar-Spassky, Gothenburg 1971} 17 liJd4 = Polugaevsky) 10 'JiIixd8+ 'it>xd8 11 b3 liJbd7 12 iLb2 'it>e7 13 .l::i.ac1 1h- 1h Seirawan-Karpov, Bali 2000. b) 8 iLb3 .i.b7 9 'JiIie2 liJbd7 10 l:!.d1 transposes into Chapter 11: Classical Variation: 7 'JiIie2 b5 8 iLb3 i..b7 9 ':d1 liJbd7 10 liJc3. 8••. iLb7 9 dxc5 9 b3 (9 'JiIie2 liJbd7 10 e4 cxd4 11 liJxd4 liJcs 12 :dl b4 13 eS liJfd7 is fine for Black) 9 ... liJbd7 10 .i.b2 .i.d6 11 dxcS .i.xcs 12l:tc1 0-0 with equality, Andersson-Tarjan, Indonesia 1983. 9...iLxc5 (D)

10 'JiIie2 Alternatives: a) 10 a4?! b4 11 liJe2?! (White runs into trouble after this move, but 11 liJbl 0-0 12 'JiIie2 liJc6 is also comfortable for Black) 11...liJbd7 12 liJg3 hS! (Black's play is very energetic) 13 h4 ii.d6 (13 ... .i.xf3 14 gxf3 liJdS is also promising for Black) 14 liJgS liJcs IS ii.e2 j.,xg3 16 fxg3 'JiIixd117 .i.xdl as! =+= Hjartarson-Ehlvest, Reykjavik 1991. This endgame is very favourable for Black because of White's weak pawnstructure. b) 10 a3 liJbd7 11 e4 'JiIib8 12 'JiIie2 0-0 13 iLe3 .i.d6 14 h3 liJeS with equality, M.ROderPalac, Cannes 1998. 10•••liJbd7 11 e4 'JiIib8 12 a3 Another idea is 12 i..gS 0-013 .l::i.ac1 j.,d6 14 .l::i.fd1 iLf4 IS iLxf4 'JiIixf4 = Smyslov-Beliavsky, USSR Ch (Moscow) 1988. 12.•.0-013 j.,e3 (D) 13.•..i.d6

45

CLASSICAL VARIATION: WHITE'S SEVENTH MOVE ALTERNATIVES

B

Black can also swap bishops with 13 ... ~xe3 14 'iWxe3 lLlg4 IS 'iWe2 (1S ~gS fS 16 ~c2!?) lS ... fS (lS ... 'iWf4!?) 16 h3lLlgeS = Atalik-Lapshun, Philadelphia 2000. 14 ~d4lLlg4 15 h3lLlge5 16lLlxe5lLlxe5 The chances are equal, Epishin-Kramnik, Budapest ECC 1996.

lLlxdS (worthy of consideration is the bold pawn-grab 12 ... lLlxe4!?, when after 13 ~d4 lLldcS 14 'iWeS+ lLle6 IS l:td1 lLl4cS White does not have an effective follow-up) 13 exdS .i.e7 14 d6 .i.f6 IS :e1 + ~f8 with sharp play, Livner-Norqvist, Stockholm 1998. b) 10 ~e2 Wib8 11 e4 (11 :d1 ~d6 12 h3 0-0 13 dxcS lLlxcs 14 b4 {Wedberg-Agrest, Swedish Ch (Linkoping) 2001} 14... lLlce4 IS lLlxe4lLlxe4 16 i..b2 :c8 =) ll...cxd4 12lLlxd4 ~cS 13 lLlb3 (13 ..te3 0-0 14 llad1 lld8 = Kozul-Ibragimov, Graz 1994) 13 ... ..tb6 14 i..e3 .i.xe3 IS ~xe3 ~a7 16 'iWxa7 ltxa7 17 f3 We7 18 !tacl 112-112 Atalik-Lalic, Szeged 1997. 10•.• ~e7 Kozul was successful in the mid-1990s versus 1O... ~b8 with the highly speculative 11 e4 cxd4 12lLldS!?; however, we are going to sidestep these complications - interested readers are directed to the NIC Yearbook 41 Forum. 11 e4 (D)

+

C) 7 a3 White prepares a comfortable retreat for his light-squared bishop along the a2-g8 diagonal. This modest but potent move is a speciality of the Croatian GMs Zdenko Kozul and Miso Cebalo. 7...b5 8 ..ta2 ..tb7 9lLlc3lLlbd7 (D)

w Black must decide whether to advance on the flank or break up White's centre: Cl: 11 ... b4 4S C2: 11 ...cxd4 46 Both options are playable although Line C2 is the safer choice.

CI) 10l:tel Alternatives: a) 10 dS exdS l1lLlxdS c4!? (1l...~e7 12 .:tel lLlxdS 13 ..txdS i.xdS 14 ~xdS 0-0 = Kraai-Seirawan, USA Ch (Seattle) 2002) 12 e4

11 ...b412 axb4 cxb413 e5 bxc314 exf6 (D) 14..•lLlxf6 Alternatives: a) 14... cxb2? (the black king has no shelter after this move) IS fxg7 J::tg8 (White also has a strong attack in the four queens position arising

46

How TO BEAT 1 d4

16.•.i.xd517 'iVg4 .l:!.c818 .l::!.ad1 :c4 = Cebalo-Flear, Asti 1998.

0)

after 15 ... bxa1 ~ 16 gxh8~+ lZ'lf8 17 i.b3 ±) 16 ~xb2l:!.b8 17 d5! ±. b) 14 ... i.xf6 (the bishop is slightly misplaced after this recapture) 15 bxc3 0-0, and here 16 i.e3 (Cebalo-Flear, French Cht 1996) 16 ... ~c7 is about equal, whereas 16 i.f4!? looks advantageous for White as he can quickly mobilize his central pawn duo. 15 bxc3 0-0 16 lZ'leS l:i.c8 16 ... lZ'ld5 17 ~d3 ;I;; Kozul-Sermek, Bled 1999.

7b3 The fianchetto of White's dark-squared bishop appears logical. However, it is rather committal to play this move before the central pawn-structure has been stabilized. Black has a choice of either resolving the central tension with 7 ... cxd4 (Line Dl), or he can concentrate on quickly mobilizing his forces with 7 ... lZ'lbd7 (Line D2) - either continuation is sufficient to equalize: D1: 7•••cxd4 46 D2: 7 ••.lZ'lbd7 47

01) 7... cxd4 8lZ'lxd4 (D)

17~d3

17 c4!? lZ'ld7 18 i.f4lZ'lxe5 19 i.xe5 i.d6 20 i.xe5 2111xe5 ~f6 2211bl (;I;; Khuzman) 22 ... l1c7 looks about equal. 17.•.l1c7! 18 c4 18 i.c4lZ'ld5 =. 18•.. lZ'ld7 19 i..f4 lZ'lxeS 20 i..xeS i.d6 21 ~g3 i.xeS 22 ~xeSl1d7 The chances are equal, Serper-Kaidanov, USA Ch (Seattle) 2000. ~g4

C2) 11... cxd4 This is clearly the safest choice; it is interesting to note that in his second encounter with Croatian GM Miso Cebalo, British GM Glenn Flear switched to this move - he won both games. 12 lZ'lxd4lZ'le5 13 i.f4lZ'lg6 14 i.g3 0-0 14 ... ~b6!? with the idea of ... l1d8 also looks fine for Black. 15 e5 lZ'ldS 16 i.xdS 16 lZ'le4 lZ'ldf4 17 ~d2 lZ'lh5 18 l1ad 1 lZ'lxg3 (18 ... ~b6!?) 19 lZ'lxg3 ~b6 + Cebalo-Cvitan, Croatian Ch (Pula) 1998.

8...i.d7 8 ... i.d6 9 i..b2 0-0 10 lZ'ld2 i.c7 1ll:[c1 ~d6 12lZ'l4f3! (12 f4 b5 13 i..d3 i..b7 14 ~c2 i..b6 15 lZ'le4 i..xe4 16 i..xe4 l1a7 17 i.f3 'fJ.c7 18 ~e2 .l:!.fc8 = Miles-Ivanchuk, Moscow GMA 1999) 12 ... lZ'lbd7 13 ~c2 i.b8 14 i..d3 ± Hoang Thanh Trang-Krush, Calicut girls Wch 1998 White has a nice lead in development. 9 i.b2lZ'lc6 10 lZ'ld2 10 lZ'lc3 lZ'lxd4 11 'iYxd4 i..c6 =. 10••• i..e711 i..e2 0-0 (D) 1l...lZ'lxd412 i.xd4 i..c6 13 i.f3 i.xf3 (lh_lh Novikov-Ibragimov, Graz 1999) 14 ~xf3 e5 (14 ... ~d5 15 ~xd5 exd5 1611ael ;1;;) 15 i.e3 'fJ.c8 16 e4100ks a little better for White.

CLASSICAL VARIATION: WHITE'S SEVENTH MOVE ALTERNATIVES

47

D2}

w

7...'Llbd7 8 i.b2 i,e7 (D)

w

12'Llc4 12 ..tf3l:!.c8 13l:!.c1'Llb4 14'Llc4 (14 :xc8 ~xc8 {Botsari-Krivec, Leon worn Echt 2001} IS ~b1 !?; 14 i,xb7 l:!.xc1 IS ~xc1 ~b8 16 i.f3'Llxa2 is unclear according to Mikha1chishin - Black can also try 16 ... ..td6!? with a balanced position) 14 ... 'Llxa2 IS l:!.al bS 16 l:!.xa2 bxc4 17 bxc4 and now 17 ... l:!.xc4 112-1/2 was Spee1man-Mikha1chishin, Baturni 1999. 17 ... as!? was suggested by Mikha1chishin, when 18 ..te2 'Lle4 19 ~c2 looks roughly level. Another idea is 17 ... eS !? 18 'Llb3 i,e6 with sharp play. 12••• b513'Llxc6 ~xc614'Lle5 (D)

9'Llbd2 White can also play 9 dxcS i,xcs 10 'Llbd2 0-0 and now: a) 11 'LlgS bS 12 \\!Vf3 (12 i.d3 .i.b7 =) 12 ... .l:i.b8 13 ~d3 i,b7 14 'iVh3 h6 IS 'Llge4 'iVe7 =. b) 11 ~e2 b6! (ll...bS 12 a4;!; Sadler) 12 a3 i.b7 13 M ..td6 14 'Llc4 i,c7 IS ~d4 bS (this was Sadler's suggestion after he played IS ... ~e7!? = Rausis-Sadler, Enghien-Ies-Bains 1999) 16'Llcd2 (16'LlceS'LlxeS 17'LlxeS i,b6 also leads to an equal position) 16 ... eS 17 ~h4 'LldS =. 9•.•0-0 (D)

w

14.•• \\!Vxdl 14 ... i.dS IS i,f3 (1S f3 ~cS 16 i,d4 ~d6 also leads to equality) lS .. Jk8 16 a4 ~xf3 (16 ... b4!?) 17 ~xf3 ~dS 18 ~xdS 'LlxdS = P.Cramling-Arencibia, Spanish Cht (Ponferrada) 1997. 15l:!.fxdl i,d516 f3l:!.ac817 l:ac1 ~c5 1/2- 1/2 P.Cramling-Yakovich, Stockholm 2001.

10~e2

Another idea is 10 ~e2, and now: a) 1O... b6 11'Llc4 i.b7 12 Ii.c1 ~b8 (the alternative 12 ... l:!.c8!? looks reasonable) 13 dxcS

48

How TO BEAT 1 d4

~xc5

14 ttJfe5l:[d8 15 .id3 i..e7 (P.CramlingCu.Hansen, Malmo 1998) 16 ttJxd7 ttJxd7 17 'ifVh5 ;to b) 1O ... b5 11 a4 b4 12 ttJc4 i..b7 = Gorden1co-Kariakin, Evpatoriajr 2002. 10... bSll i..d3 cxd412 i..xd4 White can also play 12 ttJxd4 i.b7: a) 13 ':adl ~b6 14 i..bl ~fd8 = Al.Hoffman-Gomez Baillo, Argentine Ch 1995. b) 13 ~ac1 llc8 14 ~xc8 ~xc8 15 ~c1 ~a8 is equal, Garagulya-Donchenko, Russian Cht (Smolensk) 2000. 12....ib7 13 l:1fdl So far this is Tomashevsky-Sashikiran, Pardubice 2001. Now 13 ... i..d6 14 i..b2 ttJc5 is equal.

E) 7 e4 (D) The characteristic move of the Geller Gambit, first played by the Ukrainian GM Efim Geller. He later abandoned his namesake variation and switched to playing 7 a4 here. A famous 1982 Kasparov loss to Gulko left the variation with a somewhat dubious reputation, but during the late 1990s a new generation of aggressive players including GMs Yuri Shulman and Mark Hebden infused the line with some new ideas.

8i..d3 White must protect his e4-pawn as after 8 i..b3? ttJxe4 9 d5 c4 10 dxe6 i..xe6! (stronger than 1O ... cxb3? 11 exf7+ <j;e7 12 ~e2 ~d5 13 ttJc3 ~c4 14 ~e3 and White will recover the sacrificed piece with an overwhelming position) 11 ~xd8+ Wxd8 12 ..tc2 ttJf6 Black has won a pawn. 8... i..b7 (D) Black can safely bypass the main lines with 8... cxd4, and now: a) 9 e5 ttJd5 10 ttJxd4 i..b7 11 ttJd2 ttJf4 12 ttJ2f3 ttJxd3 13 ~xd3 ttJc6 = I.Sokolov-Yakovich, Leeuwarden 1997. b) 9 a4 bxa4 10 e5 ttJd5 11 ~xa4+ and then: bl) ll...ttJd7 12 ~xd4 (Lengyel-Gunnarsson, Vrnjacka Banja Z 1967) 12 ... ..tb7 =. b2) 1l...i..d7 12 ~xd4 ttJc6 13 ~g4 ttJcb4 14 i..e4 (14 ..te2! ?, Antic-Zontakh, Serbian Cht 2000) 14 ... i..b5 15 ~dl?? (15 i..g5!? is unclear) and now 15 ... h5?? = was played in ShulmanMirkovic, Belgrade 1998. Both players had overlooked the surprising 15 ... ttJf6!! 161:hd8+ ~xd8, when Black wins a rook because of the back-rank mate threat.

B

White must decide whether to protect, pin, or push: El: 9 i..gS 49 49 E2: 9 eS 7...bS! This is our repertoire move; Black immediately gains time by kicking the white bishop. The alternatives 7 ... cxd4 and 7 ... ttJxe4 8 d5 i..e7 are playable, but 7 ... b5! has emerged as the modem preference.

The quiet 9 ~el can be met by: a) 9... .ie7 and now: al) 10 a4 b4 11 ttJbd2 (112-112 AleksandrovPonomariov, Kramatorsk 2001) 11...cxd4 12 ttJb3 ttJc6 13 ttJbxd4 ttJxd4 14 ttJxd4 ~d7 is comfortable for Black.

CLASSICAL VARIATION: WHITE'S SEVENTH MOVE ALTERNATIVES

49

a2) 10 ~g5 h6 11 ~xf6 ~xf6 12 e5 .i.e7 13 dxc5 ~xc5 14 'Llc3 0-0 15 l::tc1 'Llc6 = Hebden-Krush, Hastings 200112. b) 9 ... cxd4 10 a4 bxa4 and then: bl) 11 .i.g5 .i.e7 12 lha4 'Llc6 13 'Llxd4 'Lle5! =Hebden-Tkachev, Hastings 1997/8. b2) 11 l::txa4 'Llfd7 12 'Llxd4 Ji.e7 13 ~c2 'Llc6 14 'Llxc6 (14 'Llc3 !?) 14 ... ~xc6 15 l::td4 .i.c5 16 l::td2 "fiIc7 = Portisch-Petrosian, Stockholm IZ 1962.

El) 9 Ji.gS ~e7 (D)

Black can also play 9 ... cxd4: a) 10 'Llxd4?! 'Llbd7 11 'Llc3 'Lle5 12 'Llcxb5?! (12 .i.e2 can be answered by Gulko's 12 ... ~e7 =+= or 12 ... Ji.c5 13 'Llb3 Ji.b6, when "Black has a good position" - Neishtadt) 12 ... 'Llxd3! 13 "fiIxd3 axb5 14 J:[fd1 ~e7! and White had inadequate compensation for the piece in Kasparov-Gulko, Kislovodsk tt 1982. After this devastating Kasparov loss, interest in the Geller Gambit waned until the late 1990s. b) 10 a4 and here: bI) 1O ... bxa4 11 ~xa4 ~e7 12 ~b3!? (this probing move was suggested by Shulman and Kapengut - it appears to be stronger than 12 I1xd4 'Llfd7 13 ~b3 ~b6 with equality, Shulman-Scherbakov, Kakhovka 1997) 12 ... .i.c6 13 .l:!.xd4'Llfd7 14 ~xe7 "fiIxe7 15 l:[c 1 0-0 (Berggreen-Schmeltz, ICCF e-mail 2000) 16 l::tdc4 with strong pressure along the c-file. b2) 1O ... b4!? (a suggestion of Shulman and Kapengut) 11 'Llbd2 (11 e5 h6 12 ..th4 g5 is fine for Black) 1l...h6 12 ~xf6 gxf6 and Black has a comfortable position, Neven-Koch, IECG e-mail 1998. 10 eS White has several options here: a) 10 l::te1 - 91J,.el ~e7 10 ~g5. b) 10 'Llbd2 cxd4 11 a4 b4 12 e5 'Llfd7 13 ~xe7 "fiIxe7 was fine for Black in KononenkoMatseyko, Ukrainian worn Ch (Alushta) 2004. c) 10 dxc5 and now: c1) 1O... 'Llxe4 11 ~xe7 (11 .i.xe4 ~xd1 12 llxd1 ~xe4 13 ~xe7 ~xe7 14 'Lld4 l::td8 {14 ... M15 a3 bxa3 16'Llxa3;t} 15'Llc3 ~b7 =) 11..:~xe7 12 M! (12 .i.xe4 ~xe4 13'Llc3 ~b7 14 J:[c1 0-0 15 b4 ~f6 =) 12 ..."fiIf6 13'Llbd2 ;t.

c2) 1O ... ~xe4 11 ~xf6 ~xd3 12 ~xe7 'it>xe7 (12 ... "fiIxd1 13 l::txd1 - 1O... lLlxe4 11 .i.xe4 'Wixdl 12 'f1xdl Le4 13 Le7) 13 'Llbd2 (13 'Lle5 "fiIxd1 14 l::txd1 .u.c8 is fine for Black) 13. .. ~xf3 (13. .. l:!.d8!? 14'Llxe4 "fiIxe4 15 "fiIc1 'Llc6 =) 14'Llxf3 "fiIxdl 15 l:!.fxd111c8 16 l:!.ac1 'Llc6 17 'Lld4 b4 = Shulman-Vaulin, Minsk 1997. d) 10 .i.xf6 .i.xf6 11 e5 ~e7 12 dxc5 'Lld7 !? (the safer alternative is 12 ... ~xc5 13 'Llc3 0-0 14 ..ie4 'Llc6 15 l::tc1 ..ie7 =) 13 b4 ~xf3 14 ~xf3'Llxe5 15 "fiIe4! 'Llxd3 (15 ... ~f6!? 16'Llc3 'Llxd3 17 l:tad1 0-0 18 ~xd3 "fiIc7 =) 16 l::td1 ~d5 17 "fiIxd5 exd5 181hd3 ..if6 19'Llc3 0-0-0 Shulman-Rublevsky, Ohrid Ech 2001. 10...'LldS Black can also consider 1O... 'Llfd7!? 11 .i.xe7 "fiIxe7 with equal chances. 11 ~xe7 'Llxe7 The alternative recapture 11..:~Vxe7 12 dxc5 'Lld7 also equalizes. 12 'Llbd2 cxd4 13 'Lle4 O-O! Safeguarding the king is more accurate than the nervous 13 ... ~xe4?! 14 ~xe4 ~a7 15 a4! :d7 16 axb5 axb5 17 'iVd3 ;t Loffler-Kariakin, Vienna 2003. 14'Lld6 The flank advance 14 a4 could be met by 14 ... 'Lld7, with a solid position. 14...~xf3 IS "fiIxf3'Lld7 The chances are equal.

=

E2) 9 eS'LldS 9 ... 'Llfd7 (D) is considerably less popular, but it appears to be quite playable.

50

How TO BEAT 1 d4

W

Now White has: a) 10 lbgS?! Ji.e7 (l0 ... cxd4? 11 lbxe6! ± NCO, but not Illbxf7?? 'it>xf7 12 'iUhS+ 'it>g8! -+) 11 ~hS g6 12 ~h6lbxeS (12 ... i.f8!? 13 'iVh3 cxd4 14 iLf4 Ji.g7 was evaluated as unclear by Semkov and Sakaev - White's attack is rapidly losing steam after IS .l:i.el i.dS 16lbd2 lbc6 +) 13 dxeS ~xd3 14 ~g7 .l:i.f8 IS lbxh7 lbd7 (IS .. :~e4?? loses to 16 ~xf8+ i.xf8 17 lbf6+) and then: al) 16 lbc3 ~fS 17 f3 (Muzychuk-Sarakauskiene, Chisinau worn Ech 200S) 17 .. :iilxeS 18 ~xeS lbxeS 19 lbxf8 i.xf8 and Black has good compensation for the exchange. a2) 16lbd2 'iVe2 17 a4 b4 18lbxf8 Ji.xf8 19 'iVh8 lbxeS 20 f3 0-0-0 and Black had strong pressure to offset his slight material deficit in Lautier-Arencibia, Spanish Cht (Salamanca) 1998. b) 10 lbc3 cxd4 11 lbe4 "with active prospects on the kingside" according to Neishtadt, but l1...lbc6 12 i.f4 i.e7 looks like an adequate reply. c) 10 a4 bxa4 lllbc3 cxd412lbe4lbcS (this demonstrates one of the ideas behind 9 ... lbfd7 - Black is able to challenge White's e4-knight; also possible is 12 ... lbc6!?) 13lbxcs i.xcs 14 .l:i.xa4 lbd7 was fine for Black in StefanovaGalliamova, Plovdiv worn Echt 2003. d) 10 i.gS ~b6 11 dxcS Ji.xcs 12 i..f4lbc6 13lbbd2 ':d8 14 ~e2lbd4 liz-liz Petrosian-Van Scheltinga, Beverwijk 1960. We now return to the position after 9 ...lbdS (D):

10 i.g5 Or: a) 10 a4!? and now:

al) 1O ... b4 11 lbbd2 cxd4 12 lbb3 lbd7 (12 ... lbc6!?) 13 ':ellbcS 14lbxcs (14 i.gS ~d7 Islbxcs ~xcS is fine for Black) 14 ... iLxcs IS lbgS lbe3 16lbxe6 fxe6 (16 ... ~b6? {Timperley-Owen, COIT. 1987} 17lbxg7+ 'it>f8 18 fxe3 ~g8 19 e4 ±) 17 fxe3 'iilgS 18 e4 ~xeS (Geller-Keres, Bled 1961) 19 !In with compensation for the pawn according to Polugaevsky. a2) 1O ... c4 11 i.e2 (11 i..e4 i.e7 12 lbbd2 lbc6 with equal chances, Sumrnerscale-Reefat, British Ch (Edinburgh) 2003) l1...lbd7 12 b3 ~c8 13 axbS axbS 14 bxc4 bxc4 (AstolfiVilleneuve, Cannes 1989) IS i.a3!? 'iVaS 16 lbel with sharp play ahead. b) 10 lbbd2 cxd4 11 a4 lbb4 12 lbe4 lbxd3!? (or 12 ... ~dS 13 .l::!.el lbxd3 14 ~xd3 lbc6 IS i.f4 {B.Maksimovic-Semkov, Iraklion 1993} Is ...lbb4! 16 'iild2 {16 ~xd4? loses to 16 ...lbc2} 16 ... d3 and Black has a clear edge) 13 'iilxd3 lbc6 and Black is better. 10..•~b611 dxc5 i.xc512lbc3 White can avoid exchanging a set of knights by playing 12lbbd2 h6 13 i.h4lbd7 14 lbe4 0-0 = lNilssen-Baburin, Torshavn 2000. 12..•h6 13 Ji.h4lbd7 14 a4 lbxc3 This was Baburin's suggestion after he played 14 ... b4?! IS lbe4 ;!; Avrukb-Baburin, Groningen 1995. Another idea is 14 ... 0-0!? IS Ji.g3 (";!;" Burgess) IS ... lbxc3!? 16 bxc3 bxa4 17 ~xa4 ~c7 18 ~g4 :fd8 with a balanced position. 15 bxc3 0-0 Black should avoid IS ... i.xf3? 16 ~xf3 .l:i.c8 (liz_liz Di Pietra-FouITage, COIT. 1999) 17 'iile2 ±, after which White has strong queenside pressure. 16 .l:i.el i.c6

CLASSICAL VARIATION: WHITE'S SEVENTH MOVE ALTERNATIVES

Baburin considered the chances to be equal here. 17 CiJd4 i..d5 18 axb5 axb5 19 1:txa8 .l::txa8 20 CiJxb5 :a2 Black will recover his pawn with a comfortable position.

F) 7 i..d3 (D)

The strategy behind this cunning manoeuvre is to position the bishop along the bl-h7 diagonal in anticipation of an eventual ... bS pawn advance by Black. In some variations, White has the option of responding to ... bS with an immediate a4 because his light-squared bishop is not under attack. Another idea is to counter Black's natural developing move ... i.e7 with the tempo-gaining dxcS followed by a quick e4 pawn advance, similar to the Furman Variation (Chapter S). Although White's bishop is now well-positioned to support the e4 pawn advance, the drawback is that 7 i..d3 is a committal move - White moves an already-developed piece and loses some influence over the key dS-square. The 14th World Champion Vladimir Kramnik and Russian GM Alexei Dreev are among the prominent exponents of this variation. 7••. CiJbd7 This is our repertoire move - Black develops his knight to a flexible square and counters one of White's main ideas - a dxcS pawn capture is now well met by ... CiJxcS. 8 Itel The most precise continuation. White has several harmless alternatives here:

51

a) 8 e4 (this advance is premature) 8 ... cxd4 9 eS CiJdS and now: al) 10 i..gS ~b6 11 CiJbd2 CiJcs 12 CiJc4 Wilc7 is comfortable for Black. a2) 10 i.e4 CiJcs 11 ~xd4 CiJxe4 12 ~xe4 bS =Lempert-Zakharevich, Moscow 1991. a3) 10 i..c4 CiJb4! and then: a31) 11 a3?CiJc612:tel (l2i..f4bS13i..a2 CiJcs -+ Lautier) 12 ... bS 13 i..f1 i..b7 14 CiJbd2 (thus far this is Lautier-Cu.Hansen, Malmo 1998; 14 i.f4 CiJcs IS CiJbd2 ~dS! -+ Lautier) 14 ... CiJcS! IS b4 CiJa4 16 CiJb3 ~dS 17 CiJbxd4 :td8 18 i..e3 CiJxeS 19 CiJxeS ~xeS -+ Lautier. a32) IIl:tel d3 12 i..gS (12 i..xd3? CiJcs 13 i..e2 ~xdl 14 .l::!.xdl {14 i..xdl CiJbd3 -+} 14 ... CiJc2 IS i..gS i..d7 -+ Lautier) 12... i..e7 13 i.xe7 filxe7 14 i..xd3 0-0 =. b) 8 ~e2 b6 9 Itdl i..b7 (D) and here:

bl) 10 CiJbd2 i.e7 11 CiJc4 bS 12 CiJceS CiJxeS 13 CiJxeS fildS with a balanced position, D.Paunovic-de la Villa, Aceimar 1995. b2) 10 dxcS i..xcs 11 a3 filb8 12 CiJbd2 0-0 13 b4 i.d6 14 i.b2 krc8 =L.B.Hansen-P.Nikolic, Wijk aan Zee 1995. b3) 10 CiJc3 Wilb8 and now: b31) 11 e4?! cxd4 12 CiJxd4 i.d6 13 h3 0-0 Tisdall-L.B.Hansen, Reykjavik Z playoff

+

1995.

b32) 11 a4 i.d6 12 h3 0-0 13 ~d2 Ite8! + Greenfeld-S.Loffler,IsraeI199S. b33) 11 dxcS i.xcs 12 b3 = Greenfeld. b34) 11 h3 ~e7 12 dxcS CiJxcs 13 i..c2 0-0 (l3 ... CiJfe4 14 CiJxe4 CiJxe4 IS lld4 fS 16 lIdl 0-0 17 CiJd4 {so far this is Gausel-Schandorff, Reykjavik 1997} 17 ... ~dS = Khuzman) 14 e4 l:td8 IS i.gS h6 16 i..h4 Itxdl+ 17 Itxdl ~e8

52

How TO BEAT 1 d4

with equal chances, Dreev-P.Nikolic, Linares 1997. c) S a4 b6 9lLlc3 .i.b7 10 'ilVe2 .i.d6 lll:.dl ~bS 12 h3 0-0 13 .i.d2 laeS 14 e4 cxd4 15 lLlxd4 .i.h2+ 16 'it'hl .i.f4 = Nogueiras-Arencibia, Spanish Cht (Ponferrada) 1997. We now return to S ~el (D):

W

15 ... h5 16 ~g3 l:tcS 17 .i.g5 ;t;) 16 .i.h6 ± Filippov-Donchenko, Smolensk 1997. 15 lLl2f3 'it'h8 16 lLlg5 h6 17 lLlgf3 a5 18 ~h5

Black must choose between taking a baby step or a giant step: Fl: 8 ... b6 52 F2: 8...b5 52

112-112 Kramnik-Kasparov, Linares 2003. This game was played in the first round and perhaps the two titans were just getting warmed up - a possible continuation is IS ...'it'gS 19 ..td2 (19 i.xh6?! gxh6 20 iYxh61IeS defends) 19 ... .:.cS with roughly level chances.

F2) 8... b5 9 a4 (D)

Fl) 8...b6 The idea behind this move is to fianchetto the bishop without giving White a queenside target. I anticipate further developments in this line because of Garry Kasparov's adoption of it during an important game versus Vladimir Kramnik. 9 e4 cxd4 10 e5 lLld5 lllLlxd4lLlc5 Black must avoid the careless 11.. ...tb7? (Piket-Lautier, Leiden rpd 1995) 12lLlxe6! fxe6 13 ~h5+ 'it'e7 14 ..tg5+ lLl7f6 15 id5! with a strong attack. 12 ..to .i.b7 (D) 13lLld2 13 a3 g6 (13 ... ..te7 14 b4lLld7 15 ~g4 g6 16 i.h6 is slightly better for White, RashkovskyNikitin, Tula 1999; 13 ... 'ilVh4!?) 14lLld2 b5 15 lLl2f3 .i.g7 with equal chances, Y.ZimmermanFancsy, Hungarian Cht 1997/S. 13....i.e7 14 ~g4 0-0 This move was Kasparov's improvement over 14 ... g6 15 lLl2f3 lLlb4?! (the safest choice is

B

9... bxa4 Liquidating some of the queenside pawns is safest here - White has good attacking chances after 9 ... b4 10 e4 cxd4 11 e5 lLld5 12 lLlxd4 ~c7 13 .i.g5 (Lautier-Markowski, Rethymnon ECC 2003) 13 ... lLlxe5 14 .i.e4 ..tb7 15 lLld2 with compensation for the pawn according to Lautier.

CLASSICAL VARIATION: WHITE'S SEVENTH MOVE ALTERNATIVES

10e4 White's harmless alternative is 10 liJc3 (10 ~xa4 ..tb7 11liJbd2 ..te7 =Khuzman) 1O ... a3! (an important idea to remember in such positions - Black conveniently closes the a-file) 11 bxa3 iLe7 = Khuzman. 10..•cxd4 11 e5liJd5 12lha4 iLb4 13 ..td2 iLxd2 13 ... iLc5!? awaits a practical test. The idea is to leave White with a logjam of pieces along the d-file and force him to expend several tempi to recover the d4-pawn. 14 b4 and now: a) 14 ...iLb6? (the wrong retreat, but the refutation is instructive) 15liJa3 (15 'iVe2 iLb7 16 iLxa6liJc7 17 b5 0-0 =) 15 ... iLb7 16liJc4 iLc7 17 liJxd4liJ5b6 (17 ... liJ7b6 18 liJa5 looks good for White) 18 'iVg4! (a promising rook sacrifice) 18 ... liJxa4 19 'ViIixg7 .l::!.f8 20 iLg5 liJf6 (20 .. .'~c8 21 liJxe6! with a mating attack) 21 liJxe6! fxe6 22 iLxh7 and White has a decisive attack. b) 14 ...iLe7 (the previous note clearly demonstrates the need for Black to defend the kingside) 15 liJxd4 ~c7 with sharp play ahead. 14 liJbxd2liJc5 (D)

53

=) 23 ... flie7 24 ~c4 112-112 Siegel-Karpachev,

2nd Bundesliga 1999/00. 17•••a5 Clearing the a6-square for the bishop - the alternative is 17 ... .u.b8 18 "fUd2 "fUe7 (18 ... f6 was suggested by Shariyazdanov and Lysenko; another idea is 18 ... iLd7!?) 19liJd6 ;j; Shariyazdanov-Feletar, Croatia 2000. 18~a3

The rampaging rook is back to bear down on the a5-pawn. 18•.. iLa6 19 liJd6 (D) This was Boris Avrukh's novelty, but it is still not clear which move is best - 1 think White's chances have been underestimated after 19liJxa5liJb4 20 flia4! (20 flixd8l:tfxd8 21 ~b3 l:tab8! = Shariyazdanov-Rublevsky, Russia 2002) 20 ... liJd3 21 :teal ~b6 22 'iVd4 (22 ~h4 nac8 23 b3 ~c5 =) 22 .. .'iVxd4 23 liJxd4 liJxe5 24 b4 ..tc8 25 liJac6 (I think White should play 25 'it>n ! with an advantageous endgame) 25 ... liJxc6 26liJxc6 iLb7 27liJe7+ 'it>h8 28 Iha8 iLxa8 29 l:i.a7 g5 with equal chances according to Khuzman.

B

w

15.l:!.xd4! Stronger than 15 iLb5+ iLd7 16 ..txd7+ liJxd7 (16 ... ~xd7 17 :xd4 ~b5 18liJc4 0-0 = Ruck-Zontakh, Koszeg 1999) 17 lhd4 0-0 18 liJc4 l::tb8 = Gelfand-Rublevsky, Polanica Zdroj 1997. 15.••liJxd3 161Ixd3 0-0 17liJc4 The knight can go the other way with 17 liJe411b8 18 ~d2 ~b4 19liJd6 iLd7 20 l:te4 (20 'iVc2!?) 20 .. Jlxe4 21liJxe4 h6 (21...'iVc7!?) 22 liJd6 iLc6 23 .l:i.d4 (23liJd4!? ..ta8 24 ~g4 "fUb6

19...f6!? The idea behind this move is to undermine the d6-knight - an alternative strategy is 19 ... ~b8 20 ~d2l:tb4 and now: a) 211:.ea1 "fUb8 22 ~xa5 (221:.1a2 iLc4 23 liJxc4 .l:!.xc4 24 .l::!.xa5 :i.fc8 25 h3 .l::!.c2 with equal chances according to Avrukh - a likely continuation is 26 "fUxc2 J::[xc2 27 :a8 .l:txb2 28 ':'xb8+ .l:!.xb8 =) 22 ... .l:txb2 23 "fUel iLd3 = Avrukh. b) 21liJg5! h6? (more tenacious is 21...~b6 22 flic2 g6 23 b3 ;j;) 22liJge4 flib6 23 l:tg3 and

54

How TO BEAT 1 d4

White had a strong attack in Avrukh-Rublevsky, Rethymnon ECC 2003. 20 WHd4 J:lb8 21 b3 White has a slight edge here according to Avrukh, but I think Black's piece activity should enable him to maintain equality. 21 .•.ttJb4!? 22 l:tc1 22 WHc3 ttJd3 is fine for Black. 22.•. .te2 23 ttJell:!.b6 24 ~e3 fxe5 25 ttJe4 .th5 26 ttJg3 .tg6 (D)

The position is balanced. Now: a) 27 lha5 e4 28 l:.a8 l:tb8 29 l:txb8 (29 l:ta7 ttJd5 30 WHd4 WHf6 also leads to an equal position) 29 ... WHxb8 30 ttJxe4 ttJd5 31 WHe2 (31 ~d4?? loses to 31...WHf4) 31...ttJf4 32 WHc4 ..txe4 33 ~xe4 WHxb3 =. b) 27 WHxe5 ~d2 28 WHe3 'ij'xe3 29 fxe3 1!.b5 is also equal.

G) 7 dxc5 (D)

This deceptively quiet continuation is often associated with the 10th World Champion Boris Spassky. The following 1992 NIC Yearbook 25 quote from Australian GM Ian Rogers still holds true today - "The problem with 7 dxc5 is that most players choose it only when they are happy with a draw. In fact the theory of 7 dxc5 is corrupted by many short and probably prearranged draws which add nothing to our knowledge of the line." The move was given a thorough workout during the 1992 Fischer-Spassky match Fischer uncorked the Queen's Gambit Accepted and Spas sky scored one win and three draws from the four games in which they contested this variation. The line gained a powerful advocate several years later - the 14th World Champion Vladimir Kramnik employed it in games versus Kasparov, Karpov, and Anand. Although most of these games were drawn, Kramnik sometimes succeeded in obtaining an opening advantage. Today interest in the 7 dxc5 variation has cooled somewhat as Black's defences have been improved, but the move demands respect as it is very easy for Black to slip into an inferior endgame. There are no categorical rules that can be applied to every situation, but here are some typical issues Black should be aware of: Issue #1: Should Black seize space on the queenside by playing ... b5, or is it better to play the more restrained ... b6? This is the classic giant step/baby step decision - if Black is behind in development, a premature ... b5 tends to leave him vulnerable to a quick a4 pawn advance, particularly when the white a-pawn is supported by a rook on al. If Black has already moved his queen's rook away from the a-file, then the a6-pawn is also vulnerable. Another theme to be aware of is that when White develops via ttJbd2 followed by ttJb3, the a5- and c5-squares can be vulnerable - this is less of a problem if White has fianchettoed his bishop via b3 and ..tb2, but even here Black must be wary of the manoeuvre ttJel-d3 taking aim at the c5-square. Issue #2: If Black has played ... b5 and White counters with a4, should Black advance with ... b4 or exchange pawns with ... bxa4? The problem with the ... b4 advance is that it usually concedes the c4-square to a white knight and leaves a black rook tied down defending the

ClASSICAL VARIATION: WHITE'S SEVENTH MOVE ALTERNATIVES

a6-pawn. Black usually does best to exchange a set of pawns with ... bxa4 as this helps to negate his slight space disadvantage on the queenside and the pawn trade also opens the b-file for a black rook. Issue #3: If the ... b5 pawn advance is dangerous because of a4, shouldn't Black just play ... b6 instead? Not necessarily - the b6-pawn does not control the c4-square, so White can often play liJc4 attacking the b6-pawn and pressuring the vulnerable d6-square. Another consideration is that the b6-pawn blocks a potential retreat path for the dark-squared bishop, particularly if Black has played ...'iile7. Issue #4: What should Black's strategy be as far as exchanging pieces? If White has already positioned a rook along the open c- or d-files, Black usually does well to counter by opposing rooks and trying to exchange one or both sets. Black is usually able to defend his weak squares on the queens ide with his minor pieces. Exchanging one or both sets of knights also tends to ease Black's defensive task because a white knight on c4 can infiltrate via d6 or a5. Black's first major decision is primarily a matter of taste and both moves are part of our repertoire. Black can either recapture the c5pawn or preface this with an exchange of queens: Gl: 7 ..•i..xc5 55 56 G2: 7 •• Ji'xdl The following minor alternatives avoid the exchange of queens, but they cannot be recommended because Black loses too much time. Let's take a brief look at them so as to understand why it is necessary for Black to allow or initiate a queen exchange: a) 7.. Y/lic7? 8 b4! b6 (8 ... a5 9 ~a4+ i.d7 {9 ... liJbd7 10 liJa3 ~b8 11liJb5 is much better for White} 10 b5 .ltxc5 11 ..tb2 gives White a large advantage as it is difficult for Black to unravel his queens ide) 9 Ji..b2 bxc5 10 i.e5 ~c6 11 .ltb3 liJbd7 (Lhagva-Thorsteinsson, Lugano OL 1968) 12 i..a4 ±. b) 7 ... ~a5?! 8 a3 ~xc5 9 liJbd2 b5 10 b4 ~b6 11 iLd3 iLb7 12 iLb2 ;!; Thuesen-Thorhallsson, Copenhagen 1997. Black has lost several tempi although he did manage to win this game in the end.

55

GI} 7 •••i..xc5 S ~xdS+ White can switch gears and play 8 ~e2, transposing to Line B of Chapter 5: Furman Variation - 6 ~e2 a6 7 dxc5 Lc5 8 0-0. Some authors recommend that Black play 7 ... ~xd1 (Line G2) instead of 7 ... Ji..xc5 to sidestep this possibility, but I don't think that Black has anything to fear in this line of the Furman Variation. Another consideration is that if White really wants to play the Furman Variation, he will probably play 6 ~e2 instead of 6 0-0. S•••'iilxdS (D)

w

9liJbd2 White has several alternative plans here: a) 9 a3 'iile7 10 b4 Ji..a7 11 Ji..b2 b5 12 ..te2 ..tb7 13 liJbd2l::[c8 14 a4liJc6 (liquidating the queenside pawns) 15 axb5 axb5 16 ..txb5liJxb4 17 z:tfb1 1/z-1J2 Spassky-Portisch, Lucerne Wcht 1985. b) 9 b3 liJbd7 10 Ji..b2 'iile7 11 ..te2 b6 12 liJbd2 Ji..b7 13 liJe1 b5 14 a4 ..tb4 15 liJdf3 bxa4 16l::[xa4 ..td6 = P.Nikolic-lvanchuk, Manila OL 1992. c) 9 Ji..e2 'iile7 10 Ji..d2 (10 liJbd2 - 9liJbd2 'iile7 10 Ji..e2) 1O ... Ji..d7 llliJe5 i..b5!? (a creative way to activate the light-squared bishop) 12l::[c1liJbd7 13 liJxd7liJxd7 14 Ji..f3l::[ab8 15 liJc3 Ji..d3 16 ..te4 Ji..xe4 17 liJxe4 l::[hc8 18 liJxc5 liJxc5 19..tb4 b6 20 l::[c4 a5 21 .lta3 'iile8 22 l::rac1 l::[d8 is equal, Kozul-Shirov, Sarajevo 2002. d) 9liJe5 'iile7 10 ..te2 and now: dl) 1O ... Ji..d7 11 ..tf3liJc6 12liJxc6+ Ji..xc6 13 ..txc6 bxc6 14 i..d2l::[hb8 15 lIc1 .ltd6 16

56

How TO BEAT 1 d4

~c3 ttJd5 17 1:tc2 lh-1f2 Kramnik-Kasparov, Linares 2004. d2) 1O... ttJbd7 11 ttJd3 (11 ttJc4 {Van WelyVan den Doel, Leeuwarden 2003} 11.. ..l:!.d8 12 ttJbd2 ~f8 13 ttJb3 iLe7 14 f3 ttJc5 with equal chances according to Sakaev and Semkov) 1l...iJ..d6 12 ttJd2 ttJc5 13 ttJc4 ttJxd3 14 iLxd3 iLc5 15 iLe2 ~d7 (two months earlier Shirov had played the less accurate 15 ... l:td8?! 16 b3 ~d7 17 ~f3 ttJd5 18 ~b2 f6 {Van Wely-Shirov, Wijk aan Zee 2003} and here Shirov recommends 19 .l:.fdl! t) 16 ~f3 ~b5 17 b3 iLxc4 18 bxc4.l:!.a7 19 ~b2 b6 20 l:tfdl .l:!.c8 21 g4 g5 (21 ... ttJe8 22 g5 f6 23 gxf6+ gxf6 24 Whl .l:!.ac7 25 l:tac1 ~b4 "and Black takes over the initiative" according to Sakaev and Sernkov, but I think White has at least equal chances after the rook-lift 26 IId4 b5 27 .l:!.h4 as Black's kingside pawns are vulnerable) 22 ~g2 ttJd7 (22 ...ttJe8!? 23 .l:!.ac1 ttJd6 24 M h6 25 hxg5 hxg5 26 .l:!.hl is unclear) 23 M gxh4 24 .l:!.hl ~d6 25 .l:!.xM .l:r.xc4 26 .l:txh7 = Van Wely-Shirov, Monte Carlo Amber blindfold 2003. We now return to the position after 9 ttJbd2

14 ttJd4 .l:!.hc8 15 l:tac1 'fJ.c7 = SharnkovichKeres, USSR Ch (Baku) 1961. lo.•.iLd7 Also possible is 1O... ttJc6 - 9... ttJc6 10 ~e2 ~e7.

11 ttJb3 White can vary with 11 b3 iLb5 12 ttJc4 ttJbd7 (12 ... ttJc6 13 ~b2 .l:!.hd8 = Mirzoev-Van den Doel, Brena Baja rpd 2005) 13 iLb2 ttJb6 14 .l:!.fc1 ttJxc4 15 iLxc4 .l:!.hc8 = Graf-Kaminski, Cappelle la Grande 1999. 11 ... iLb6 12 ~d2 ttJc6 13 iLc3 ~hgS 14 ~fdl l:.tacS The chances are equal, Kozul-Topalov, Sarajevo 2001.

G2) 7•. JWxdl This is the most popular move here. S .l:!.xdl iLxc5 (D)

(D):

Now White can fianchetto his bishop or continue his development: 57 G21: 9 b3 G22: 9 ttJbd2 58 9 .•. ~e7 Black can also complete his development with 9 ... ttJc6 10 ~e2 ~e7 11 a3 a5 12 b3 b6 13 ~b2 l:td8 14 ~fc1 iLb7 15 iLxf6+ gxf6 16 ttJe4 iLd6 17 ttJxd6 lhd6 18 .l:!.c3 f5 19 .l:!.ac 1 ~f6 20 ttJel ttJe7 21 ~f1 .l:!.ad8 = KarpovShirov, Linares 2001. 10~e2

Another idea is 10 b3 b6 11 ~b2 ~b7 12 iLe2 ttJbd7 13 ttJc4 (13 .l:!.fdl l:thd8 14 .l:!.ac1 l:!.ac8 = Andeer-Kolcak, corr. 2001) 13 ... ~d5

White has some minor alternatives: a) 9 a3 b6 10 b4 iLe7 11 iLb2 iLb7 12 ttJbd2 ttJbd7 13 .l:!.ac1 0-0 14 ~e2 .l:!.fc8 15 ttJc4 iLd5 16 ttJfe5 .l:!.c7 = Kurajica-Rublevsky, Bastia rpd 1999. b) 9 ~f1!? (a novelty designed to confuse the computer program) 9 ... b5?! (9 ... ttJbd7) 10 ~e2 iLb7 11 ttJbd2 ttJbd7 12 ttJb3 iLf8? 13 a4 (perhaps the computer was anticipating - do computers anticipate? - a repetition via 13

CLASSICAL VARIATION: WHITE'S SEVENTH MOVE ALTERNATIVES

ttJbd2? i.c5) 13 ... b4 14 ttJfd2;t Kramnik-Deep Fritz, Manama (2) 2002.

G21) 9 b3 ttJbd710 i.b2 (D)

B

57

i.d5 (15 ... a5!?) 16 ttJe5 ;t Spas sky-Fischer, Sveti StefanlBelgrade (6) 1992. 13 .:tact White should consider 13 a4!? bxa4 14 ':'xa4 .l:f.fc8 15l1dal ;t. 13.••.:tfe8 14 h3 'it>f8 15 Wfl 'it>e7 16 ttJel i.d6 17 a4 i..e6 Neishtadt recommends 17 ... bxa4! 18 ttJc4 i.b4 19 ttJd3 a5 20 bxa4 i..c6 21.l::i.al i.d5 with equal chances. 18 axb5 axb5 19 .l::i.e2 .!:i.e7 The chances are equal, Spas sky-Fischer, Sveti StefanlBelgrade (14) 1992.

G212)

Now Black faces the classic b-pawn giant step/baby step decision: G211: 10...b5 57 G212: 10..• b6 57 Both moves are playable although Line G212 is safer.

G211)

10••• b6 11 ttJbd2 This is more flexible than 11 ttJc3 i.b7 12 .l::i.ael i.e7 13 ttJd4 .l::i.c8 14 f3 (14 i.e2 0-0 15 i.f3 i..xf3 16 gxf3 was suggested by Seirawan - 16 ... .l::i.fd8 appears to be an adequate reply) 14... b5 (14 ... ttJe5 15 i.e2 0-0 16 'it>f2 llfd8 = Tamowiecki-Stigar, COIT. 1995-9) 15 i.e2 i.c5 = Spassky-Fischer, Sveti StefanlBelgrade (4) 1992. The position is balanced although Fischer later went astray and lost. 11 •••i.b7 12 i.e2 0-0 13 ttJe4 (D) 13 .l:f.acl :tfc8 14 ttJc4 .l:Ic7 15 ttJce5 J::lac8 = Tunik-Rublevsky, Russia 1996.

10.•. b511 i.e2 i.b712 ttJbd2 (D) B

B

12•.•0-0 Fischer's later preference - earlier in the match he played 12 .. .'it'e7 13 a4 bxa4 141ha4 (14 bxa4 i.d5 15 .l:f.dc ll:thc8 = Fridman-I.Benjamin, Mermaid Beach 1998) 14 ... .l::i.hb8 15 .:tel

13.••i.d5 Alternatives: a) 13. ..l:tfd8 14 l:tael 'it>f8 15 'it>f1 i.d5 = Bareev-Svidler, Russian Ch (Elista) 1996. b) 13 ... b5 14 ttJa5?! (14 ttJce5 = looks safer) 14 ... i.d5 15 ttJd4 l:tfc8 16 ~ael e5 =+= KramnikAnand, Monte Carlo Amber blindfold 1997.

58

How TO BEAT 1 d4

14 J:tac1 Very similar positions arise after 14lbfe5 b5 15 lbxd7 lbxd7 16 e4 i.xe4 17 .l:f.xd7 bxc4 IS ilxc4 l:tfcS 19 .l:!.adl (19 .l:i.cl would transpose into the main-line game Dautov-Kharlov below) 19 ... i.fS 112-112 Yermolinsky-Anand, Wijk aan Zee 1999. 14...l:.fc815lbfe5 White cannot make any progress after 15 lbel b5 16lbd2 i.b4 17lbd3 ~xcl IS i.xcl i.e7 = Almeida-Zambrana, Santa Clara 2004. 15... b5 16 lbxd7 lbxd7 17 e4 The position is also balanced after 17 lbd2 ilb4 = Kramnik-Lautier, Monte Carlo Amber rpd 1997. 17...i.xe4 18 ':xd7 bxc4 19 i.xc4 ilc6 The chances are equal, Dautov-Kharlov, Tripoli FIDE KO 2004.

G22} 9lbbd2 (D)

13 i.b2 - 9 b3lbbd7 10 i.b2 b611lbbd2 ilb7 12 i.e2 0-0 13lbc4. b) 12lbd4 ild5! 13lbb3 ile7 14 ild2 0-0 15 f3 lUcs 16 .:tacl e5 17 e4 ile6 IS i.e3 (Kantsler-Lautier, Ohrid 2001) and here Sakaev and Semkov recommend IS ...1:tc6 with equal chances. ll •.•i.e7 12lbfd4 ilb7 13 f3 0-0 14 e4l:lfc8 15 i.e3 'it>f8 (D)

B

Now Black has: G221: 9...lbbd7 5S G222: 9...0-0 59

G221} 9...lbbd710 i.e2 b6 (D) lllbb3 This knight deployment is more active than the older lllbc4 i.b7. Then: a) 12 b3 0-0 (Black should avoid 12 ... 'it>e7?! {an instructive mistake as the king blocks the retreat path for the c5-bishop} 13 ilb21:thdS 14 lbel! ;j; Kramnik-Karpov, Frankfurt rpd 1999)

Now: a) 16 'it>f2lbe5 17lbd2 l:tc7 lslb4b3 lIc6 19 J:tacl1:tacS 20 lhc61:txc6 21 h3 (21 g4 h6 22 h4 g5! 23 hxg5 hxg5 24 lbd4 {24 i.xg5? lbfxg4+ 25 fxg4 ilxg5 is good for Black} 24 ....:tc7 25 a3 lbfd7 =) 21...'it>eS 22 i.d4 lbfd7 23 ltcl ':xcl 24 lbxcl f6 25 a3 ild6 = Bareev-Rublevsky, Russian Ch (Elista) 1996. b) 16lbd2! (this was an important novelty) and then: bl) 16 ... lbe5 17 lb4b3 J::k6 (17 ... ildS ;j; Krarnnik) IS I;hcl l:tacS 19 lIxc6 .l:i.xc6 20 g4! h6 21 h4! ;j; Kramnik-Kasparov, London Wch

CLASSICAL VARIATION: WHITE'S SEVENTH MOVE ALTERNATIVES

(4) 2000. The subtle point behind Krarnnik's 16 ttJd2! is that 21...gS? as in line 'a' simply loses a pawn after 22 hxgS hxgS 23 ..txgS because White's king is still on the gl-square - Black cannot capture the g4-pawn with check. Kramnik later increased his advantage, but after some inaccurate play the game was eventually drawn. b2) 16 ... l:tc7 17 ttJc4l:tac8 18 b3 bS 19 ttJaS ~a3 and in his 2000 Infonnator notes, Kramnik suggested 20 ~xbS!? axbS 21 ttJxbS but didn't give an evaluation. I think Black should respond with 21...l::i.cS!? (21...i.b4 22 ttJxc7 i.xaS 23 ttJbS i.a6 24 ttJd6 ~c2 2S l::i.ac 1 looks a little better for White) 22 i.xcS+ i.xcS+ 23 'it>hl i.a6 24 ttJd6l::i.c7 2S ttJdc4 and White has a slight edge in this unbalanced endgame.

59

slight advantage for White, Spassky-Fischer, Sveti StefanlBelgrade (18) 1992. "In spite of the limited material and symmetrical pawns, White's position is preferable." - Neishtadt. b) 10 ttJb3!? ..te7 11 i.d2 (11 ttJeS ttJbd7 12 ttJxd7 i.xd7 13 e4 i.a4 = Krush-Baburin, Lindsborg 2003) l1...ttJc6 12 l:tac1 l::td8 13 i.e2 ttJe4 14 i.ell:hdl Isl:hdl (BerezovskyMeins, Bundesliga 200112) IS ... bS!? 16 i.d3 ttJf6 =. 10...l::i.d8 (D)

w

G222) 9••• 0-0 (D)

The safest choice - Black removes his king from the centre.

10..te2 Or: a) 10 a3 bS (1O ... ttJbd7 11 b4 i.e7 12 i.b2 b6 13 l:tac1 ..tb7 - 9 a3 b6 10 b4 i.e7 11 i.b2 ..tb7 12 ttJbd2 ttJbd7 13 l:tacl 0-0 =) 11 .te2 i.b7 12 b4 i.e7 13 i.b2 ttJbd7 14l::i.ac1 l::i.fc8 IS ttJb3 .l:!.xc1 16l::i.xc1l::i.c8 17 l::i.xc8+ i.xc8 18 ttJfd4 ttJb8 19 ..tf3 'it>f8 20 ttJaS! leads to a

White has a few alternative plans here: a) 11 ttJeS ..te7 and now: al) 12 ttJec4 ttJc6 (12 ... ttJbd7?! 13 ttJb3 b6 14 f3 as IS e4 i.a6 16 i.e3 ~ac8 17 .l:!.ac1 ;!; Chuchelov-Rublevsky, Silivri 2003) 13 ttJb6 l:tb8 14 ttJdc4 ltxdl+ IS i.xdl i.d7 16 i.f3 i.e8 17 b3 ttJd7 18 ttJxd7 i.xd7 19 i.b2 ~e8 20 l::i.c1 f6 21 a3 .l:i.d8 = Van Wely-Kharlov, Silivri 2003. a2) 12..tf3 ttJbd7 13 ttJxd7 ttJxd7 14 ttJc4 l:tb8 IS b3 b6 with equal chances according to Sakaev and Sernkov. a3) 12 b3 ttJdS 13 ..tb2 f6 14 ttJd3 ttJc6 IS e4 ttJb6 16 eS fS 17 l::i.ac1 .td7 18 ttJf3 1/2- 1/2 Krarnnik-Kasparov, Moscow rpd (1) 2001. b) 11 b3 b6 12 i.b2 i.b7 13 ltacl ttJbd7 14 ttJc4 l::i.ac8 IS 'it>f1 i.dS 16 ttJceS ttJxeS 17 ttJxeS bS 18 ..tf3 ..tf8 19 'it>e2 ttJe4 = KarpovIvanchuk, Moscow (Russia-The World) rpd 2002.

7 Classical Variation: 7 a4

1 d4 d5 2 c4 dxc4 34:Jf34:Jf6 4 e3 e6 5 i.xc4 c5 60-0 a6 7 a4 (D)

B

This is one of the most important lines of the Classical Variation because White prevents Black's plan of expanding on the queenside with ... b5 and ... i.b7. Another idea is to facilitate a future kingside rook-lift beginning with .l:ta3. The drawback is that a hole is created on the b4-square, but White is gambling that Black will be checkmated before this weakness can be exploited. 7••• 4:Jc6 Black continues developing and eyes the vulnerable b4-square. 8~e2

White clears the d-file for his rook; he can also play 84:Jc3 i.e7 (D). Now: a) 9 ~e2 cxd4 10 .l:rdl 0-0 11 exd4 - 8 ~e2 cxd4 9 'fJ.dl i.e7 10 exd4 0-0 1J4:Jc3. b) 9 d5 exd5 10 4:Jxd54:Jxd5 (10 ... i.g4!? 11 4:Jxe7 {II ~el4:Je5!?; 11 ~b3!?} 1l...~xe7 12 b3 .l:td8 13 'Vikc2 i.xf3 14 gxf3 ~e5 15 i.b2 ~g5+ 16 Whl ~h5 17 i.e2 4:Jb4 = KaemLipnitsky, Kiev 1939) 11 i.xd5 4:Jb4 12 i.b3 i.f6 = Shushpanov-Ibragimov, St Petersburg 1995. c) 9 dxc5 ~xdl 10 .l:txdl i.xc5 11 h3 (11 ~d24:Ja5 12 i.a2 b6 13 4:Je24:Jc6 14 a5 i.b7

15 'fJ.dc1 {15 axb6 i.xb6 16 i.c3!?} 15 ... 4:Jd7 = Smejkal-Chemin, Moscow GMA 1989) ll...b6 12 e44:Ja5 and then: c1) 13 i.a2 i.b7 14.l:tel (14 e5?! 4:Jd7 15 .l:tel {15 iH4 i.xf3 16 gxf3 4:Jc6 + Bareev} 15 ... i.xf3 16 gxf34:Jc6 Kolbus-Ganguly, Budapest 1998) 14 ... i.b4 (14 ... l:!.c8!?) with equal chances, Uhlmann-Galliamova, Aruba 1992. c2) 13 i.d3 4:Jb3 14 .l:tbl 4:Jxc1 15 ~bxc1 i.d7 = Bareev-Kasparov, Novgorod 1997. d) 9 4:Je5 cxd4 (9 ... i.d7!? 10 4:Jxd7 ~xd7 11 d5 exd5 12 4:Jxd5 .l:td8 = Kluger-Portisch, Hungarian Ch (Budapest) 1965) 10 4:Jxc6 bxc6 11 exd4 a5 12 ~f3 ~b6 13 .l:tdl 0-0 14 b3 .l:i.d8 15 ~f4 (15 ~e3 4:Jd5 = Pinter-Chemin, Budapest 1997) 15 ... ~a6 = Zviagintsev-Ibragimov, Russian Ch (Elista) 1996. 8... cxd4 This is our repertoire move - the major alternatives 8 ... ~c7 and 8 ... i.e7 are fully playable, but 8 ... cxd4 is the most direct attempt to exploit the weakness of the b4-square created by 7 a4. 9 l:tdl i.e710 exd4 0-0 U4:Jc3 (D) The older 11 ~g5 should be answered by 1l...4:Jd5 12 i.xe7 4:Jcxe7 13 4:Je5 b6 14 4:Jd2 (14a5 {Kotov-Petrosian,Moscow 1972} 14... b5 =) 14 ... i.b7 15 4:Je4 (so far this is Inkiov-Van der Sterren, Groningen jr Ech 1975/6) 15 ... 4:Jf5 with equality.

+

CLASSICAL VARIATION:

7 a4

61

'lift and shift' plan with one of his own rooks, so he must try to prevent it by controlling the possible entry points (for example, the a3- and d3-squares) with his minor pieces. Now let's examine some specific variations: AI: 12 iLg5 61 A2: 12 lbe5 65

Al) 12~g5 (D)

Now: A: 1l ...tbb4 B: 1l ...lbd5

61 67

A) Il.Jbb4 Black increases his control over the dS-square and also exerts pressure on the d3-square. This is very important because it prevents White's light-squared bishop from occupying the dangerous b1-h7 diagonal and it also stops a white rook from transferring to the kingside via the d3-square. The drawback is that Black loses control over the e5- and a3-squares, and if the white knights vacate the third rank (for example, by moving to the e5- and e4-squares), the attacking ideas l:!.a3-g3 or l:!.a3-h3 can be very effective. This is one of the classic Isolated Queen's Pawn (IQP) positions and it is helpful to perform a quick costlbenefit analysis of the IQP.The 'cost' to White is an isolated d4-pawn, whereas one of the 'benefits' is a slight space advantage - White has a pawn on the d4-square as opposed to Black's pawn on the e6-square. White has a little more space to manoeuvre, so if Black is not careful, a well-timed d5 pawn advance can break open the position and benefit White's better-developed pieces. One of the fundamental goals in chess is to transform one type of advantage into another, more significant advantage - here it is important to note that White has no pawns positioned along the third rank, so if White can use this advantage to lift and shift one of his rooks to the kingside, then the slight space advantage may escalate into a kingside attack. Black cannot counter this rook

White develops his last minor piece. Now Black has a choice of three reasonable continuations - the selection is a matter of taste: All: 12... iLd7 61 A12: 12••• lbfd5 64 A13: 12•. J::te8 65

All) 12•••iLd7 White must choose between breaking open the d-file or continuing to build up in the centre: Alll: 13 d5 61 A1l2: 13 lbe5 62

Alll) 13 d5 exd5 14lbxd5 lbbxd5 The weaker 14 ... lbfxd5? allows 15 iLxe7 lbxe7 16lbe5 with a clear advantage. 15 iLxd5lbxd5 16 .l:!.xd5 .txg5 17lbxg5 h6 (D) 18~d2

A relatively new attempt is 18 l:tad1 l:te8 19 fid2 hxg5 20 l:!.xd7 ~f6 21l:!.xb7l:i.ed8 22 ':d7

62

How TO BEAT 1 d4

lhd7 23 'iVxd7 'iVxb2 24 h3 112-112 Sundararajan-AIonian, Goajr Wch 2002. 18•.. hxg5 19 l'!.xd7 'iVf6 Black's gS-pawn is exposed after the careless 19 ... ~b6? 20 as ~b3 21 l'!.a3 ~e6 22 .l:!.e3 ~a2 23 h3 ± Finegerov-Makarov, Odessa Ch 1999.

b) 21 'iVb4 ~ac8 22l:tb6 ':'d4 231Ixf6l:!.xb4 24 ~xa61hb2 2S h3 lIcc2 26 ~f1 112-112 TellaHakulinen, Finnish Cht 1996. Black recovers the pawn with 26 ... l:i.a2 intending .. .lk4. 21 'iVc3 The stem game of this variation, BotvinnikPetrosian, Moscow Wch (10) 1963, saw 21 'iVaS ~d6 with compensation for the pawn. The game was eventually drawn. 21 •••'iVxc3 22 bxc3l:td3 23 ~a7l:tfd8 24 g3 lIxc3 25 l:!.xa6l:!.d2 26l:!.a5l:!.f3 27 l:tn .l:!.a3 28 .l:i.xg5 112-112 Pinter-Ribli, Budapest ECC 1991. After 28 ... l:!.xa4 the rook endgame with 3 pawns versus 2 pawns on the same side of the board is a theoretical draw.

Al12) 13liJe5 (D)

20~xb7 (D)

Another idea is 20 .l:i.dl ':'ae8 21 ':'xb7 .l:!.d8 22l:td7 .l:!.xd7 23 ~xd7 ~xb2 24 g3 l:tb8 and a draw was agreed here in Speelman-Miles, London 1984.

B

20•• J~ad8 The major-piece endgame has been contested in several high-level games and Black's position has proven to be quite resilient. Black can also consider 20 .. Jifd8. Then: a) 21 'iVe2 ~e8! (Black should avoid playing 2l...l:tac8? 22 lIel ~f4 23 g3 'iVxa4 24 ~hS g6 2S ~xgS, when White had a solid extra pawn in Lutz-Kraut, Bundesliga 199011) 22 ~d3 ~ad8 maintains the balance.

13•••l:tc8 The alternative is 13 ... ~c614liJxc6 bxc6 IS as! (";!;" - Sakaev and Sernkov; "It is important to fix the a6-pawn and to prevent ... as" - Baburin) IS ...'iVc7!? (White has scored well in a dozen or so games featuring IS ... liJfdS 16 iLxe7 'iVxe7 17liJa4;!; as Black's dark squares are vulnerable) and now: a) 16 .l:!.a4 'iVb7 (16 ... .l::i.fb8 17 g3 .l:.b7 18 ~f4 'iVd8 = Zarubin-Vasilev, Severodonetsk 1982) 17 ~xf6 ~xf6 18 liJe4 ~e7 19 liJcS ~xcS 20 dxcS liJdS = L.B.Hansen-Kornljenovic, Copenhagen 1989. b) 16~xf6i..xf617liJe4~e718~a3lHd8 19 'iHhSliJdS = Kononenko-Ir.Botvinnik, Izrnir worn Ech 2004.

CLASSICAL VARIATION:

Now White has: A1121: 14.l:i.el 63 A1122: 14 i.b3 64

7 a4

63

B

Al121) 14 ~el i..e8 Black should avoid the careless 14... i..c6?! (an instructive error) 15 tiJxf7! lhf7 (White wins after 15 ...~xf7? 16 i..xe6+ ~g6 17 i..xc8) 16 ~xe6 i..e8! (this retreat is stronger than Bareev's 16 ... .i.d5 17 tiJxd5 tiJbxd5 18 .i.xf6 l:txc4 19 i.xe7, which is winning for White) 17 'iIlxe7 ~xe7 18 l:txe7 :xc4 19 i..xf6 ktxe7 20 i..xe7 ~xd4 21 a5 and Black has insufficient compensation for his pawn deficit. 15 l:tadl tiJfd5 (D)

Korinthos 1998} 22 .i.xf7+! \th8 {22 .. Jhf7 23 tiJf3 +-} and now White 'strokes' the fl-a6 diagonal by 23 "VJJifl! 'iWd4 24 'iWd3 ±) 22 i..f5 'iIlxb2 with equal chances. 21 "VJJixc8 .!:[xc8 22 l:[xdl l:tb8 23 .l:.bl .l:.b4! (D)

This was Bareev's 1994 Informator suggestion and his improvement eventually received a practical trial. The stem game, Bareev-Ivanchuk, Linares 1994, continued with the careless 23 .. JIb3? 24 \tfl ±.

16 tiJxd5 16 i..xd5 tiJxd5 17 tiJxd5 i..xg5 18 tiJc3 i..f6! 19 d5 exd5 20 l:txd5 (20 tiJxd5? i..xa4! 21 l:td4 i.xe5 22 ~xe5 ne8 and Black has a decisive advantage - Bareev) 20 ... ~c7 =Bareev. 16•.. tiJxd5 Also sufficient for equality is 16 ... exd5 17 .i.xe7 "VJJixe7 18 i..b3 (= ECO) 18 ... i..d7 19 ~d2 (";t" - Khalifman) 19 ... i..e6 20 a5 ~d6 = P.Lukacs-Kiss, Hungarian Ch (Budapest) 1996. 17 i..xd5 .i.xg5 Not 17 ... exd5?? 18 tiJc6 and White wins. 18 i.xb7 i..xa4 19 'iIlxa6 i..xdl 20 i..xc8 (D)

20•. :iWxc8 Or: a) 20 ... i..b3?! 21 i..d7 i..f4 22 ~b5 ;t. b) 20 .. :~xd4! ("?" Bareev) 21 i..xe6.i.h5! (but not 21...'iWd2? {Gershon-Papatheodorou,

White has several options here, but Black has been able to maintain the balance: a) 24 l:tal h5 (24 ... h6 was played in Comet BlI-SOS, Brussels 2000 - now safest is 25 l:ta8+ \th7 26 tiJxf7 i.f6 27 .l:.h8+ \tg6 28 tiJe5+ 'itf5 =) 25 :a8+ ~h7 26 tiJxf7 .i.f6 = Bareev. b) 24 ~fl .i.f6 25 \te2 .l:.xd4 = Ravi-Ganguly, Indian Ch (New Delhi) 2001. c) 24 tiJf3 i..f6 25 ~fl g5! 26 g4 h5 27 h3 hxg4 28 hxg4 ~f8 29 ~e2 .i.xd4 =Bareev.

64

How TO BEAT 1 d4

Al122) 14 i.b3 ~c6 IS ttJxc6 Alternatives: a) 15 ttJxf7!? Itxf7 16 i.xe6 is unclear; this speculative sacrifice awaits a practical test. b) 15 i.h4 i.d5 16 ttJxd5 ttJfxd5 is equal, A.Schneider-G.Kallai, Budapest 1995. IS .. .l:1xc6 16 ~xf6 i.xf6 17 dS ttJxdS 18 ttJxdS exdS 19 i.xdS ':'d6 20 i.xb7 White has a slight edge here according to Khalifman. 20 .••aS (D)

This solid variation has recently been out of fashion. 13 ttJxd5 Or 13 i.xe7 ttJxe7 14 ~e4 ttJed5 15 ttJe5 b6 and a draw was agreed here in Tal-Hubner, Skelleftea. (World Cup) 1989. 13.•. ttJxdS (D)

14~xdS

Black has compensation for the pav.-n according to ECO. 21 i.f3 This is more accurate than 21 ':'xd6 'li'xd6 22 .l:i.c1 'li'b4 23 'li'b5 'li'd2 24 l:.n 112-112 IvkovGheorghiu, Hamburg Echt 1965. Sakaev and Semkov prefer White's chances after 21 i.f3 - "The bishops of opposite colour are a premise for an attack against the black king." I think Black should be able to hold this position despite his pawn deficit - the vulnerable f7 -square can be defended by transferring a black rook to the second rank. Let's continue with 2 l...:xdl + 22l:.xdl ~b6 (22 ... 'Ii'b8!?) 23 !:id5 'iVb4 24 b3 (so far this is A.SmirnovP.Anisimov, St Petersburg Ch 2002) 24 .. J:k8 25 g3 g6 26 .l:i.b5 'li'c3 27 i.d5 <J;g7 28 I:tb7 l:.c7 29 'iVb5 lIxb7 30 'iVxb7 'li'el + 31 'ii;>g2 'li'e7 with an equal position.

A12) 12...ttJfdS

White can also try 14 i.xe7 ttJxe7 15 'li'e4 ttJd5 ("Black takes measures against i.d3" Neishtadt) 16 ttJe5 ttJf6 17 'iVf4 ttJd5 18 'iVe4 ttJf6 19 'li'f3 (19 'iVf4 ttJd5 {Black's ninth consecutive knight move!} 112-112 Reshevsky-Petrosian, Siegen OL 1970) 19 ... .l:!.b8 20 .l:i.acl (so far this is Nejmet260-Comet BII, Brussels 2000) 20 ... 'Ii'd6 21 i.d3 i.d7 with roughly level chances . 14••• i.xgS IS i.e4 White obtains no advantage after 15 ttJxg5 'li'xd5 16 ttJe4 i.d7 = Bannink-Lendwai, Oberwart 2001. IS •.•i.f616 ttJeSl:ib817l:ia3 g6 (D)

CLASSICAL VARIATION:

Now White has tried: a) 18 M?! i.xM 19 .l:i.h3 (so far this is Raetsky-Videki, Kecskemet 1991) 19 .. .i.gS leaves White with marginal compensation for the pawn. b) 18 'iVf3!? <JiJg7 19 l:tc3 'iVd6 with equal chances. c) 18 g3 'iVd6 19 i.g2 1/2- 1/2 Tukmakov-Balashov, USSR Ch (Riga) 1985.

7 a4

65

B

A13} 12.. .l1e8 A prophylactic move aimed at inhibiting White's dS pawn-break. 13 ttJeSttJfdS14 i.xe7 .l:i.xe7 (D)

Both lines have held up well in practice, but 12 ... i.d7 is more solid. Black should avoid the careless 12 ... ttJbdS?! (this move relinquishes control over the critical d3-square) 13 .l:!.d3! i.d7 14 l:tg3! <JiJh8 IS1:1h3 with a strong attack in several games including Magerramov-Mirza, Abu Dhabi 2001.

A21}

The position is balanced. White has tried: a) IS ttJe4 i.d7 16 1:1a3 i.e8 = ConquestHeinbuch, Bundesliga 1986/7. b) IS i.b3 b6 16ttJxdS exdS 17 'iVf3 i.b7 = Kolbus-Raetsky, Bie12001. c) IS as i.d7 16 ttJxdS ttJxdS = MilovKariakin, Moscow rpd 2002.

A2} 12ttJeS (D) White centralizes his knight and seeks to exploit the sudden absence of Black's knight from the centre - the move also begins the process of clearing the third rank for a potential rook-lift to the kingside. Now Black must choose between occupying the dS-outpost or developing another piece: 6S A21: 12••• ttJfdS A22: 12•..i.d7 66

12.•.ttJfdS 13 ttJe4 Alternatives: a) 13 'iVe4 - 11...ttJd5 12 'Wie4 ttJcb4 13 ttJe5. b) 13 as i.d7 (l3 ... bS!?) 14 ~e4 i.e8 IS i.b3 1:1c8 with equal chances, Huss-Raetsky, Lenk200S. c) 13 'iVg4!? <JiJh8 (l3 ... i.d7?? loses to 14 i.xdS) 14 'iVf3 f6 (l4 ... <JiJg8 IS as ;l; KouatlyS.Marjanovic, Marseilles 1986) IS ttJg4 ttJc2 16 .l:i.blttJb6 17 i.d3ttJb4! (Kouatly only analysed the cooperative 17 ... ttJxd4? 18 'iVh3 fS 19 i.e3! with a crushing advantage for White) 18 ~e2 i.d7 =. d) 13 .l:!.a3 f6 14ttJf3 i.d7 IS i.d2 (lSttJe4 b6 - 13 ttJe4 b6 14 :a3 f6 15 ttJf3 i.d7) IS .. J::tc8 and now: dl) 16 as?! <JiJh8 (16 .. J:te8 also appears reasonable) 17 1:1b3 (17 .:tcll? seems safer) 17 ... .l:!.e8! 18 ttJM (so far this is VMilov-Xu Jun, Istanbul OL 2000) 18 ... i.d6! 19 i.xdS exdS 20 ~hS ~xaS and Black is much better according to Khuzman. d2) 16ttJxdS ttJxdS 17 1:1b3 l::tb8 18 as i.d6 = Khuzman. 13.•. b6 141:1a3

66

How TO BEAT 1 d4

Also possible is 14 as bS IS ~b3 ~b7 16 i.d2 .l:tc8 17 :ac1 ttJc6! = Flear-Kupreichik, Hastings 19841S. 14...f6 (D)

~7+ WxgS 28 'iVh6+ 'it>g4 29 ~4#) 23 ~e8+ ~f8

2411h8+ and White wins. b2) 19 ... ~xgS 20 ttJxg5 .l:!.xgS (20 ... ~f6?? 21 .l:!.h8+ Wxh8 22 ~h7#) 21 ~xgS e422llVh4 ttJf6 23 i.b3 with an unclear position. ISlith3!? This is a thematic piece sacrifice which needs more practical tests - Black has no worries after the quieter IS ttJf3 ..id7 16 ttJc3l!c8 = Garrido-Sadler, Cappelle la Grande 1992. IS ...fxeS!? Black can decline the sacrifice with lS ...'iUe8 16 ttJd3 .l:!.a7 (16 ... bS!?) 17 ttJc3 ;l; RaetskyN.Grigoriev, Cheliabinsk 1991. 16~hS h6! Black's king is too exposed after other moves: a) 16 ... exd4? 17 'iUxh7+ rJ;f7 18 i.h6 rJ;e8 19 .i.xg7 Wd7 20 ~xf8 ~xf8 21 .l:!.f3 ~d8 22 l:txd4 ±. b) 16 ... .l:!.fS? 17~xh7+Wf718litg3 ~g819 'iUg6+ Wf8 20 .i.h6 .l:!.f7 21 dxe5 ~h8 22 .i.gS ttJc6? (so far this is Toikka-Pukkila, Finnish Cht 2001) 23 ~xdS! exdS 24 ~xc6 and White has a decisive advantage. 17 ..ixh6 (D) Now: a) 17 ... 'iUe818'iUg41:tf719'iUg6!?(19~hS 1:H8 repeats) and now both 19 ... ~xa4 20 i..e2 and 19 ... .i.d7 20 dxeS give White a strong attack. b) 17 ... ~fS 18llVg6 (18llVg4 ~f8 and Black repels the attack) 18 ...'iUf8 (18 ... ~f6? loses to 19 g4! ttJf4 20 ~xf4 J::txf4 21 gS) 19 ~g5 and then: b1) 19 ... exd4? 20 .l:!.xd4 .i.cs 21 ttJxcS ~xc5 22 ~e2! l:txgS (22 ... ~xd4 23 ~h7+ Wf8 24 ~h8+ rJ;f7 2S ~hS+ g6 26 ~xg6+ Wxg6 27

A22) 12....i.d7 (D)

13dS This sharp advance initiates a series of forced moves leading to a level endgame. Alternatives: a) 13 .i.g5 - 12 i.g5 .i.d7 13 ttJe5. b) 13 ..if4 .i.e8 14 :ac1 (14 ~g5 ttJfd5 15 i.xd5 ttJxdS 16 ttJxdS ..ixgS 17 ttJc3 ~c6 18 ttJxc6 bxc6 19 as .i.e7 also gives White no advantage, Gligoric-Szabo, Hamburg Echt 1965) 14 ... ttJbdS IS 'iUf3 ttJxf4 16 ~xf4 .l:!.c8 17 i..a2 ~c6 18 ttJxc6 nxc6 19 ~f3 ~b8 20 dS exdS 21 ~xd5 l:tc7 with an equal position, LobronKallai, Wiesbaden 1990.

CLASSICAL VARIATION:

7 a4

67

13•• .tbfxd5 14 .i.xd5 lbxd5 15 lbxd5 exd5 16 :xd5 .i.g4! (D)

17~c4

White should avoid 17 lhd8?! .i.xe2 18 l:txa8 Iha8 =1= Khurtsidze-Galliamova, Istanbul worn Echt 2003. The equivalent moves 17 'iVd3 and 17 ~e4 have also been played several times - both moves transpose into the same position after 17 .. :~xd5 18 'iVxd5. 17...'iVxd5181lVxd5 'uad8191lVb3 l:tdl+ 20 ~xdl ~xdl 21 i..g5 White wisely eliminates Black's bishop-pair - too risky is 21 i..d2?! i..b3 22 i..c3l:[d8 23 as (so far this is Va'isser-Skripchenko, Paris 2003) 23 .. .f6 =1=. 21...~xg5 22l:txdll1c8 liz-liz Epishin-Vakhidov, Tashkent 1987. The endgame is equal although Black can claim the symbolic bishop-versus-knight advantage. Several games have continued beyond this point, but most have been drawn within another dozen moves.

B) 1l... lbd5 (D) This variation is closely related to Line A and in fact they can sometimes transpose into each other. Black immediately sets up a blockade on the d5-square and eliminates any possibility of a d5 breakthrough by White. The knight centralization also exerts pressure on the c3-knight, and this introduces the possibility of responding to White playing lbe5 with the simplifying manoeuvre ... lbxc3 followed by ... lbxe5. This mass exchange of knights typically favours Black

because it relieves the pressure on his kingside. The drawback of the knight move is that Black removes a defender from the kingside. White now has a wide choice: Bl: 12~d3 67 68 B2: 12 ~e4 69 B3: 12lbe5 B4: 12 i..b3 69 Minor alternatives: a) 12 .ia2lbcb4 13 i..b 1 -12 .id3lbcb4 13

.i.b1. b) 12 lbe4 lbc b4 13 lbe5 - 11. ..lbb4 12 lbe5lbfd5 13lbe4.

c) 12 .i.d2 and here: c1) 12 ... ~e8 13 ~ac1 lbaS 14 .i.a2 lbb4 = Dimitriadis-C.Koch, IECG e-mail 1998. c2) 12 ... b6 13lbe5lbxe5 14 dxe5 (so far this is Atalik-Slipak, Mar del Plata 2003) 14... lbxc3 15 ~xc3 ~c7 with equal chances according to Atalik. c3) 12 ... lbcb4 13l:tacl b6 (13 ... .i.d7 14lbe5 llc8 15 b3 .i.e8 = Groszpeter-Ricardi, Novi Sad OL 1990) 14lbe5 SLb7 15 SLb3 (15 lbe4 l:tc8 16 ~h5 ~e8 {16 .. .f6!? 17lbf3 ~d7} 17.i.b3 f6 18 'iVxe8 ~fxe8 = Kharitonov-Raetsky, Russian Cht (Moscow) 1994) 15 .. J:k8 16 lbxd5 lbxd5 17 l:txc8 1lVxc8 18 l:tc1 'iVa8 = KruppaRaetsky, Cappelle la Grande 1997.

B1) 12 .i.d3 (D) White immediately shifts his bishop to the bl-h7 diagonal. 12...lbcb4 13 SLbl b6 14 ~e4 White can also try 14lbe5 .i.b7:

68

How TO BEAT 1 d4

16...~f8 17 i.xf8 .l:.xf8 18 lZ'le4 lZ'lc6 19 ~g3lZ'lce7 20 lZ'ld6 112-112 Petrosian-Portisch, Rio de Janeiro IZ 1979. 20••. ~c7 The chances are equal.

B

82) 12 'iVe4 (D)

B

a) ISlZ'le4 ':'c8 16 .l:ta3 fS and here: al) 17lZ'lc3? lZ'lc2! (this trap has snared several victims) 18 l:!.a2 (18 .l:i.b3 lZ'lal 19 lZ'lxdS lZ'lxb3 and Black wins, Barlov-Djukic, Yugoslav Ch (Kladovo) 1991) 18 ... lZ'lxd4! 19 ~el and now 19 ... lZ'lb3 + Ki.Georgiev-Marjanovic, Yugoslav Cht (Cetinje) 1991, or 19 ... ~cS + Husemann-Wosch, ICCF e-mail 2000. a2) 17 lZ'lg3 J::rxc1 18 ':'xc1 lZ'lf4 19 ~c4 (thus far this is Naumkin-Sadler, London 1991) 19 ...iLxg2 =+= Naumkin. b) ISl:ta3 .l:!.c8 16 as bS 17lZ'le4 fS 18lZ'lcS ~xcS 19 dxcS .:!.xcS 20 l:tg3l:tc7 21iLgS with compensation for the pawn, Gligoric-Portisch, Pula 1971. 14... g615 ~h6l:te8 (D)

16~e5

Another way is 16lZ'leS i.b7 17 ~f3 fS 18 ~g3 (l8lZ'lxdS ~xdS 19 ~xdS i.xdS = PelusoS0gaard, COIT. 1996) 18 ... ~h4 19 ~h3 ':'c8 with equal chances, P.Nikolic-Petrosian, Vrsac 1981.

12..•lZ'lcb4 Black can try to determine White's intentions by playing 12 ... lZ'lf6 13 ~h4 (13 ~e2 repeats the position) 13 ... lZ'ldS. Then: a) 14 ~g4lZ'lf6 (Black can also try 14...'i!i'h8!? IS lZ'leS lZ'lcb4 16 ~h3 ~e8 with sharp play, Pinter-Chandler, Haninge 1988) IS ~g3 (IS 'ViiIh4 -14 ~h5lZ'lf615 ~h4) IS ... lZ'lhS 16 ~h3 (Polugaevsky-Hort, Manila IZ 1976), and now Hort recommends 16 ... g6!? with an unclear position. b) 14 ~hS lZ'lf6 IS ~h4 (1f2-lh Tal-Ehlvest, Reykjavik (World Cup) 1988) IS ... lZ'ldS 1/Z-1f2 Adorjan-Spraggett, Szirak 1986. 13 lZ'le5 ~d6 14 ~g4 14 i.d2 b6 IS lZ'lxdS lZ'lxdS 16 iLd3 fS 17 'ViiIe2 i.f6 18 l:tel l:te8 19 ':'ac1 i.b7 = VeraGarcia Palermo, Bayamo 1983. 14•..f5 15 ~e2 iLf6 16 ~b3 16 i.xdS exdS intending 17 iLf4 gS is given by ECO; 16 as ~d7 17 lZ'lxd7 ~xd7 18 lZ'la4 :ae8 is equal, Llanos-Slipak, Buenos Aires 1992. 16.•. ~d7 17 i.d2 i.c6 18l:!.ac1':'ac8 The chances are equal, S.Trofimov-Kupreichik, Kemerovo 1995.

CLASSICAL VARIATION:

7 a4

69

B3) 12 ttJe5 ttJxc3 13 bxc3 ttJxe5 (D)

w

w

B41: 13 ttJe5 B42: 13 h4!?

14 dxe5!? This aggressive recapture leaves White with two isolated pawns, but their vulnerability is offset by the cramping effect of the eS-pawn. The position is nearly identical to Line B41 below - the difference is that the moves .ltb3 and ... .l:i.e8 have not been played. White can also play the older recapture 14 ~xeS .td6 IS ~hS ~c7 16 .td3 (White should avoid the catastrophic blunder 16 .l:!.d3?? 'iYxc4 17 .l:!.h3 f6 18 ~xh7+ rJ;;f7 19 ~hS+ rJ;;e7 20 ~h7 ':f7 -+ Larsen-Spassky, Leiden 1970) 16 ... g6 17 'iYh4 ~xc3 18 .lth6 .l:!.e8 19 'iYf6 .ltf8 20 .ixf8 .l:i.xf8 21 .ie4 ~c7 with equality, Rufener-Giertz, Bie1 open 1998. 14•• :~c7 15 a5 b5! Black must act immediately to liberate his queenside - the passive lS ... i.d7? allows White to create a bind with 16 i.e3 .l:i.ac8 17 i.b6 ~c6 (17 ... ~xc4 18 ~xc4 .l:!.xc4 19 .l:!.xd7 .ltgS 20 g3 I1xc3 21 .l:!.xb7 ±) 18 l:tab1 .lte8 19 i.d3 ± Russ-Gurtner, Geneva 2001. 16 axb6 ~xb617 ~g4 IId818 .lth6 .l:!.xdl+ 19.1:!.xdli.f8 The chances are equal, Markus-Arnold, Paks 2001.

B4) 12 .tb3 l:.e8 (D) This is our repertoire move - British GM Matthew Sadler helped to popularize this move. Now:

69 70

Another plan is 13 i.d2 i.f6 14 ~e4 ttJcb4 IS ttJeS b6 16 ~f3 i.b7 17 ttJe4 ~e7 18 .l:!.ac1 .l:!.ac8 = Gelfand-Ivanchuk, Monte Carlo Amber rpd 2000.

B41) 13 ttJe5 ttJxc3 14 bxc3 ttJxe5 15 dxe5 ~c7 Black has simplified the position by exchanging both sets of knights - now he must carefully defend his kingside. 16 .l:!.d3 .ltd717 .l:!.h3 g6 (D)

w

18.lth6 Another idea is 18 ~e3!? i.f8 19 .lta3 .ltxa3 20 ':'xa3 .ic6 with roughly level chances. 18....l:!.ed8! This move prevents White from playing ~d2. Sadler had lost several months earlier after 18 ... bS? 19 ~d2 fS 20 .ltg7! .ltf821i.xf8 .i:[xf8

70

How TO BEAT 1 d4

22 J::td3 .i.c8 23 axb5 +- K.Mtiller-Sadler, Altensteig 1992. 19 'tWe3 White is hoping to play .i.g7 as in the previous note. 19...'Ii'c5 20 ~f4 White could avoid the complications by playing 20 ~xc5 .i.xc5 21 ~g5 l:tdc8 22 l::tdl .i.c6 20•.•.i.c6 21 l::tel 21 .i.g7?? g5! -+ (Flear); 21 .i.g5 .i.xg5 22 ~xg5 b5 =. 21...b5 (D)

.i.xe5 30 .i.xd8 l:txd8 31 ~6+ 'it>e8 32 'ili'e3

+-. al132) 25 ... fxg6 26 ~h4 h5 (26 ... ~xg5 27 'li'xh7+ 'it>f8 28 ~h8+ 'it>e7 29 .l:!.h7#; 26 ... 'it>f8 27 'ili'xh7 'it,(e8 28 'tWxg6+ 'it>d7 29 .i.xe7 +-) 27 ~xe7 'ilVxe5 28 f3 'li'c7 29 ~f6 and White has a decisive advantage. a12) 24 ... .i.xg5! 25 'i'j'xg5 'tWd5 26l:td3 h6!? (26 ... ~a5 27 l:th3 'i'j'd5 repeats) 27 ~g4 'i'j'a2 is at least equal for Black. a2) 23 ... 'Ii'a2! (as we saw in note 'al13' above, it is important to drive the white bishop away from the bl-h7 diagonal) 24 .i.dl :a7 25 .i.e3 (25 J::th4 l:tad7 26 l:td4 'li'al is also much better for Black) 25 .. J::tad7 26 .i.d4 b4 27 ~e3 .i.f8 +. b) 22 .i.g5!?, as suggested by Flear, looks like the best move here. Black can defend by continuing 22 ... .i.xg5 23 ~xg5 bxa4 24 .i.c2 f5 (24 .. Jhb8!?) 25 ~h4 (25 exf6?? ~xg5 would be unpleasant) 25 ... .!:!.d7 26 .i.xa4 .i.xa4 27 'i'j'xa4 .l:.d2 28 l:the3, with equal chances.

842} 13 h4!? ttJcb414 h5 b6 (D)

White must decide between continuing the attack or sounding the retreat: a) 22 .i.c2?! 'li'c4 23 'ili'g3 and now: al) 23 ... bxa4 24 ~g5, when Black must choose carefully: all) 24 ... ~c5? and then: alll) 25 l:txh7? 'it>xh7 26 'tWh4+ Wg8 27 .i.xe7 'li'xc3 28 .l:tfl (28 f3 l:td2 -+) 28 ... ~d4 29 ~h6 l:tg4! 30 f3 (so far this is Naumkin-Sadler, Os tend 1992) 30 ... .i.xf3! 31 J::txf3 ~xf3 32 g3 l1xg3+ 33 hxg3 'li'xg3+ 34 'it>hl (34 'it>fl ~xe5 wins for Black) 34.. J:tc8 35 ~d2 l:tc3 and Black has a decisive advantage. al12) 25 ~h4 ~xg5 26 'tWxg5 'tWf8! 27 'tWh4 ~g7 28 .i.xa4 with equal chances according to Flear. al13) 25 .i.xg6!!. This unexpected shot reverses the assessment of this line. Now Black has a choice of recaptures: all3l) 25 ... hxg6 26 'i'j'h4 'ili'xe5 27 'ili'h7+ 'it>f8 28 ~he3! (the point is that the black queen cannot maintain control over the h8-square) 28 ... .i.f6 (28 ... 'ili'g7? 29 .i.xe7+ +-) 29 llxe5

Now: B421: 15 ttJxd5 B422: 15 ttJe5

70 71

Another idea is 15 .i.d2 .i.b7 (15 ... h6!?) 16 h6 g6 = H.Stefansson-Izoria, Ohrid Ech 2001.

8421} 15 ttJxd5

CLASSICAL VARIATION:

Khalifman credits Russian GM Peter Svidler with this move. 15•.• ttJxd5 Black can also play 15 ... exd5 16 ttJe5 f6 17 ttJd3 (";1;" - Khalifman) 17 ... ~f5 18 ttJxb4 ~xb4 19 ~e3 ~d6 20 ~f3 ~e4 21 ~h3 h6! (opening a bolt hole for Black's light-squared bishop - Khalifman's variation continues with the weakening 21...g5(?) 22 f3, leading to an edge for White) 22 .l:[acl 'it>h8 with equality. 16 ttJe5 ~b7 17 .l:!.d3 f6 (D) Another idea is 17 ... lIc8!? 18 .l:!.g3 ~f6 with sharp play ahead.

18 ttJg4 White can also try the pseudo-combination 18 ttJc6. Then: a) 18 ... ~xc6(?) 19 ~xe6+ Wh8 20 ~xc6 ttJb4 21 'iVf3 ttJxd3 22 ~xd3 ~d6 23 ~e3 .l:!.e7 24 ~c2 ~g8 and "Black has a slight advantage" according to Khalifman, but 1 think White is doing fine here because of his powerful bishops and iron grip along the bl-h7 diagonal - the black queen is tied down defending the h7square. White should play 25 ~f5!? l1d8 26 ..te4 ~c7 27 h6, with good compensation for the exchange. b) 18 .. :~d6! (Black must retain his powerfullight-squared bishop) 19 ttJxe7+ l1xe7 and Black has a rock-solid position because of his strong knight outpost on the dS-square - White's dark-squared bishop is ineffective.

7 a4

71

18••• ~d7!? 1 think this is more logical than 18 ... ..td6 19 h6 g6 20 ~d2 ~c8 21 ~f3 ~f8 22 ttJe3 ~c7 (Black is losing too much time with this bishop manoeuvre) 23 .l:!.el ~d7 24 ttJxd5 ..txd5 25 ~xd5 exd5 26 .l:tde3 ;I; Khalifman. 19 l1g3 'it>h8 20 h6 g6 The position is balanced.

8422) 15 ttJe5 ~b7 16 a5 16 ttJe4 f5 (l6 .. J::tc8!?) 17 ttJc3 ~f6 with approximate equality, Lautier-Markowski, Ohrid Ech playoff blitz 2001. 16 ... b5 Khalifman evaluated this position as unclear; 16 ... l:i.c8!? was suggested by Schipkov. 17 h6 g618 ttJe4 (D)

The critical position. Now: a) 18 ... ttJc7 19 ttJc5 ~d5 with an equal position, Krarnnik-Kasparov, London Wch (6) 2000. b) 18 ... ttJc6 19 ~f3 f5! 20 ttJxc6 ~xc6 21 ttJc5 with an unclear position according to Kramnik. c) 18 ... .l:!.c8!? (I think this is the strongest move) 19 ttJc5 ..txc5 20 dxc5 .l:!.xc5 is "unclear" according to ECO, but after 21 ~e3 .l:!.c8, the onus is upon White to justify his pawn sacrifice.

8 Classical Variation: 7 i..b3

1 d4 d5 2 c4 dxc4 3liJf3liJf6 4 e3 e6 5 ~xc4 c5 60-0 a6 7 .i.b3 (D)

B

The prophylactic retreat 7 ~b3 is currently one of the most popular lines of the Queen's Gambit Accepted. The bishop voluntarily withdraws along the a2-g8 diagonal in anticipation of receiving a kick from Black's b-pawn. One of the ideas behind 7 ~b3 is to demonstrate that the ... b5 pawn advance is weakening and does not need to be prevented (for example, by playing 7 a4, covered in Chapter 7). This strategy is somewhat different from 7 .i.d3 (covered in Chapter 6, Line F) because there White intends to play dxc5 followed by a quick e4 pawn advance without allowing Black to exchange queens. White continues to exert pressure on the d5-square after 7 ~b3 - the drawback is that a tempo is expended moving an alreadydeveloped piece. Advocates of 7 ~b3 are willing to invest this tempo if they can inhibit Black from playing ... b5 and ... ~b7, as these are Black's natural developing moves. The 14th World Champion Vladimir Kramnik, the 13th World Champion Garry Kasparov, and Russian GM Vladimir Epishin are among the prominent exponents of this variation. 7 ... b5 This natural move is our repertoire choice Black continues the plan of queenside expansion

initiated by 6 ... a6 and prepares to develop his light-squared bishop on the long diagonal. Russian GM Sergei Rublevsky has played many games as Black in this line. S a4 White can transpose into the main line of the Classical Variation (Chapters 10 and 11) by playing 8 'ilVe2 - 7 'ilVe2 b5 8 ~b3. S... b4 (D)

The net result of this brief pawn skirmish is that White obtains the use of the c4-square for his pieces (primarily the knights), whereas Black's b4-pawn prevents White's bl-knight from developing to the c3-square. This tradeoff may appear to favour White as the blknight is bound for the c4-square, but Black also obtains a benefit as the manoeuvre liJbd2c4 decreases White's influence over the e4square. Now White has two major options: A: 9 e4!? 73 B: 9liJbd2 75 Alternatives: a) 9 'ilVe2 ~b7 - 7'Vi!Ve2 b5 8 .i.b3 ~b7 9 a4 b4 (Chapter 10). b) 9 a5 and then: bl) 9 ... ~b7 is the most popular move here, but I prefer to avoid 10 ~a4+ liJbd7 11 e4!?,

CLASSICAL VARlATION:

when White has attacking chances, AvrukhKariakin, Bie12003. b2) 9 ... ttJc6 and here: b21) 10 ttJbd2 and now: b211) 1O... cxd4?! (Kozul-Baburin, Istanbul OL 2000) 11 ttJc4!? (Baburin) 1l...~b7 (not ll...dxe3? 12 i.xe3 lWxdl {12 ... ~b7 13 ~a4 +-} 13 l':tfxdl ttJdS 14 i.a4 i.d7 IS ttJb6 ttJxb6 16 axb6 +-) 12 i.a4 l':tc8 13 ttJxd4;1;. b212) After 1O... i.b7 11 i.a4 i.e7 12 dxcS 0-0 13 ttJb3 "fiIc7 "Black has good prospects to equalize" according to Sakaev and Semkov. A possible continuation is 14 i.d2 l':tfd8 IS ttJfd4 ttJe4!? with a double-edged position. b22) 10 i.a4 i.d7 11 dxcS ~xcS = BetsSvetushkin, Bucharest 2002. b3) 9 ... i.e7 (this move has only been played a few times and it appears promising - Black prepares to evacuate his king from the dangerous a4-e8 diagonal) 10 i.a4+ ~d7 11 dxcS 0-0 12 ttJbd2 lWxaS 13 ttJb3 (13 c6? ttJxc6 is much better for Black) 13 ... i.xa4 14 ttJxaS i.xdl IS l':txdl ':c8 = VGeorgiev-Mikhalchishin, Varazdin 2003.

A) 9 e4!? cxd4 10 ttJbd2 White can also try the aggressive 10 eS ttJe4 11 ttJxd4 ttJcS (after 1l....ib7!? 12 ~e3 ttJcS 13 i.c2 lWdS 14 ttJf3 ttJbd7 {liz_liz ScherbakovSkripchenko, Groningen 1998} Black could play on; for example, IslWxdS ~xdS 16 ttJbd2 b3 17 ~bl ~e7 '+) 12 i.c4 i.b7 13 as (13 i.e3 {liz-liz Barsov-Volzhin, Dhaka 2001} 13 ... ttJbd7 14 f4 ttJb6 =) 13 ...~c7 14 ttJd2 (Black also has a comfortable position after 14 i.f4 ttJc6 IS ttJxc6 "fiIxc6 16 f3 l':td8 17 'iVe2 i.e7 =) 14 ... lWxeS IS ttJ2f3 lWd6 16 i.d2 ttJe4 (l6 ... ..ie7 17 i.xb4 ttJc6 18 ttJxc6 "fiIxc6 19 l':tel l':tc8 20 i.e2 {Harikrishna-Krush, Hastings 2001l2} 20 ... lWe4 21 .l:!.c4 l':td8 =) 17 ~a4+ ttJc6 '+ Sakaev and Semkov. 10.•.ttJc6 Black can also transpose into Line B by playing 1O ... i.b7 - 9 ttJbd2 i.b7 10 e4 cxd4. 11 e5 ttJd7 12 ttJc4 i.e7 (D) 13 ttJxd4 White sacrifices a pawn in order to try to exploit his slight lead in development. Alternatives:

7 .i..b3

73

w

a) 13 as ttJcS 14 i.a4 ttJxa4 IS lWxa4 i.d7 16 "fiIb3 0-0 17 l:tdl i.e8 = liz-liz ProkopchukVolzhin, Russian Cht (Tomsk) 2001. b) 13 i.gS 0-0 14 ~xe7lWxe7 IS l':tel ~b7 16 i.c2 l':tab8 17 ttJxd4 = liz-liz GleizerovSkripchenko, Saint Vincent 2001. c) 13 ~f4 ttJcS 14 ttJd6+ i.xd6 IS exd6 ttJxb3 16 ~xb3 0-0 17 .l::!.fdl lWf6 18 lWc2 ~d7 19 i.gSlWg6 20 lWxg6 hxg6 21 ttJxd4 ttJxd4 22 .l:i.xd4 f6 23 ~e3 as = Peng Zhaoqin-Skripchenko, Leon worn Echt 2001. 13••• ttJcxe5 14 ~f4 White can also try: a) 14 ttJxeS ttJxeS IS i.e3 i.f6 16lWe2 0-0 '+ Krush-Matveeva, Krasnoturinsk worn 2004. White has inadequate compensation for the pawn. b) 14 i.e3 0-0 IS ttJxeS ttJxeS 16 f4 ttJg6 17 lWf3 ~d7 =Bologan-Rublevsky, Poikovsky 2004. 14...ttJxc4 (D)

w

15 ttJc6

74

How TO BEAT 1 d4

White employs a zwischenzug to continue the attack. The alternative is to recapture the piece immediately with 15 .ixc4lLlb6 16 .ib3, and now: a) 16 ... .i.f6 17lLlc6 'iVxdl 18l:Hxdl 0-0 19 as lLld5 20 .ixd5 exd5 21 lLlxb4 .ie6 22lLlxd5 .ixb2 23 .:tabl (Lautier-Rublevsky, Poikovsky 2003) 23 .. J:tad8!? 24 .i.d6 (24 lLle7+ 'it>h8 25 .id6 .ib3 26 lLlc6 .ixdl 27 lLlxd8 Itxd8 28 ':'xb2 = Khuzman) 24 .. .l:He8 25 lLlc7 .i.f5 26 lLlxe8 .i.xbl 27 .l:!.xbl .l:!.xe8 = Khuzman. b) 16 ... .ib7 17 as lLldS 18 .i.a4+ 'it>f8 19 ~f3 .i.f6 (19 .. J~c8 20 .ic7! lLlxc7 21 'iVxb7 l:!.b8 22 'iVa7 l::ta8 23 ~b7 ~xd4 24 'iiixc7 .id6 25 ~c6 l:td8 26 ~adl 'iiie5 27 g3 = Khuzman) 20 .i.c6 .i.xd4 21 .ixb7 l:.a7 22 .i.xd5 'iVxd5 23 ~xd5 exd5 24 .l:tfdl .ixb2 25 .l:tabl .i.c3 26 .i.d6+ 'it>e8 27 .ixb4 .ixb4 28 ':'xb4 'it>e7 = Khuzman. 15•.• ~b6 Black should avoid 15 ... lLlxb2?! 16 ~d2 ~6 17lLlxe7 Wxe7 18 ~xb2 ("with compensation" - Khuzman) 18 ... lLlf6 19 as ~5 20 l:tfcl, when White has a strong attack for the two pawns. 16lLlxe7 'it>xe717 .ixc4 .ib7 (D)

18~d2

White prepares to build up along the d-file. Alternatives: a) 18.i:!.c1 l!hd8 19 ~h5 lLlf6 20 "iVh3 (the white queen is offside here) 20 .. J:tac8 (+ Khuzman), Chabanon-Skripchenko, French Ch (Aixles-Bains) 2003. b) 18 ~b3lLlc5 (18 .. J::tac8!? 19 l:.ac1 gives White compensation for the pawn according to Bologan; another idea is 18 .. J:thc8!?) 19 ~g3 and here:

bI) 19 ... ~c6?! 20 f3 (20 .id2 is also advantageous for White) 20 ...l:Ihd8? (Grishchuk-Rublev sky, Poikovsky 2005 - this game was played in the fourth round after Rublevsky had already faced 18 ~d2) 21 ~xg7 ±. b2) 19 ... lLle4! 20 ~h4+ (20 ~xg7? lIag8 21 ~h6 lLlf6 attacks the g2-square and wins for Black because of the additional threat of ..."iVc6) 20 ... 'it>e8 21 .i.e3 ~d8 with roughly level chances - White's two bishops compensate for the pawn. 18•..l:!.hc8 (D)

19 l:.ac1! Bologan annotated his second-round encounter with Rublevsky in New In Chess and he revealed that this novelty had been prepared more than six months prior to this game. An earlier game saw 19 l:.fdl (19 b3!?) 19 ... lhc4 20 ~xd7+ 'it>f8 21 a5 ~c6 22 .i.d6+ 'it>g8 23 'iiixc6 .ixc6 24 l:.ac1 = Alexandrov-Rublevsky, Russian Cht (Sochi) 2004. 19... 'it>e8 Bologan analysed 19 ... lLlf6? (he also suggested 19 ... l:td8!?) 20 as! ~xaS 21 'iVd6+ 'it>e8 22 .i.xe6 ~xc1 23 ~xc1 .l:td8 24 .ixf7 + 'it>xf7 25 ~c7+ l:Id7 26l:Ixd7+ lLlxd7 27 "iVxd7+ 'it>f6 28 h4! +-. 20 l:.fe1lLlf6! 21 b3l::td8 22 ~a2 (D) Now: a) 22 ... l:.ac8 23 as ~c6?! (23 ... ~d4! is better according to Bologan) 24 .i.n 'iiid7 25 "iVaI! gives White good compensation for the pawn, Bologan-Rublevsky, Poikovsky 2005. b) 22 ...'iiid4! 23 .ie5 and then: bl) 23 ..."iVd2 24 ~al (24 ~bl .ie4 25 ~al ~g5 26 .in .id3 leaves White with marginal

CLASSICAL VARIATION: 7 i..b3

75

This is an idea of Ukrainian GM Ruslan Ponomariov. 11 e5 ttJfd7 12 ttJc4 0-0 (D)

B

w

compensation for the pawn) 24 ... ~g5 25 .in with an unclear position. b2) 23 ... 'ilVg4 24 i.n l:.ac8 25 ~b2 (I think White should consider 25 1:txc8 1:txc8 26 ~al with compensation) 25 ... ~g6 26 ~e2 (White has compensation for the pawn according to Bologan) 26 ... ttJd5!?, with good chances for a successful defence. I expect we will continue to see further developments in this dynamic variation.

B} 9 ttJbd2 iLb710 e4 (D)

B

Now Black can maintain the central tension or exchange a set of pawns: Bl: 10...iLe7 75 76 B2: 10... cxd4

BI} 10..•SLe7

13 i.c2 Another idea is 13 ttJd6 iLxd6 14 exd6 cxd4 and now: a) 15 ~xd4 SLxf3 16 gxf3 ttJc6 is slightly better for Black. b) 15 ttJxd4 was suggested by Dautov. 15 ... ttJc5 is an adequate reply. c) 15 .ig5 iLxf3 16 ~xf3 ~xg5 17 ~xa8 ttJc5 18 ~f3 ttJbd7 19 l:tadl ttJe5 (+ Dautov), Dreev-Ponomariov, Panormo ECC 200l. 13•.•cxd4 This capture is more precise than 13 ... ttJc6?! 14 ~d3 g6 15 SLh6 :e8 (15 ... cxd4 16 .txf8 SLxf8 171:tadl ;!; Sarnraoui-Polaczek, IECG email 2001) 16 dxc5! (16 ttJd6 SLxd6 17 exd6 cxd4 18 ttJxd4 = Rogozenko-Mo1dovan, Romanian Cht (Tusnad) 2005) 16 ... ttJxc5 (IllescasKariakin, Dos Hermanas 2003) 17 ~e3! ttJa5 18 ttJd6 .txd6 19 exd6 'ilVxd6 20 l:tadl Wie7 21 ttJe5 and White has a clear advantage according to Kariakin and Borovikov. 14 ttJxd4 (D) White can also play 14 ~xd4 b3!? (an interesting pawn sacrifice to obtain squares for the knights - another idea is 14 ... .td5!?, GuninaMatveeva, Russian worn Ch (Samara) 2005) 15 SLxb3 SLxf3 16 gxf3 ttJc6 17 ~e3 ~c7 18 f4 ttJc5 (the immediate 18 ...1:tfd8!? is worthy of attention, to leave the a3-f8 diagonal clear) 19 i.d1 and now: a) 19 ... .l:i.ad8?! 20 1:ta3 ttJd4 21 ttJd6.txd6 (2l...ttJf5? 22 ttJxf5 exf5 23 litc3 ± DreevKariakin, Dos Hermanas 2005) 22 ~xd4 il.e7

76

How TO BEAT 1 d4

23 ~c4 a5 24 ~c2 ;to Black has insufficient compensation for the pawn. b) 19 .. JHd8 (the right rook) 20 l:ta3liJb4 21 i.d2 l:Iab8 and Black has good compensation for the pawn, Riazantsev-Rublevsky, Russian Cht (Sochi) 2005. I anticipate further developments in this line.

and White has a clear advantage (Kasparov) this is Kasparov-Piket, Tilburg 1997. White's total domination over the d6-square is frightening and Kasparov won in grand style. 12liJc4 (D)

B B

Now Black has two reasonable options: a) 14 ... i.d5 15 liJe3 (15 ~d3 g6 16 liJf3 liJc5 17 ~e2 b3 18 i.bl liJc6 19 i.h6 l:te8 = Galliamova-Matveeva, Russian worn Ch (Samara) 2005) 15 ... liJxe5 16 ~h5 liJg6 17 liJxd5 ~xd5 18 ~xd5 exd5 19 i..b3 i..f6 20 j,e3 nd8 21 l:tac1 liJe7! (Black protects the d5-pawn in order to develop his other knight to the d7square - this is Dautov's improvement over 2l...liJe5 22 nfdlliJc4 23 i.xc4 dxc4 24 ~xc4 ;t Dautov-D.Gurevich, Moscow (1) 2001) 22 nfdlliJd7 23 liJc6liJxc6 241hc6liJe5 25l:tc2 d4 26 i.xd4 lhd4 27 lhd4 liJf3+ 28 gxf3 j,xd4 29 ':c4 i.xb2 30 Itxb4 i.c3 31 l:tb7 l:[f8 with an equal endgame - Dautov. b) 14 ... ~c7 15 ~d3 g616 i.f4liJc6 17liJf3 k1fd8 18 ~e3 liJa5 19 liJxa5 ~xa5 (unclearECO), S.Emst-Krush, Bermuda 2002.

82) 10...cxd4 11 eSliJfd7 This is the correct square for the knight because it can move to the c5-square and pressure White's light-squared bishop. Black should avoid the superficially attractive 11...liJd5? (the knight is all dressed up with no place to go here) 12liJc4liJc6 13 i.g5 ~d7 14 nc1! h6 15 i..h4 i.c5 16 liJfd2 0-0 17 liJe4 i.e7 18 i..g3

Now Black has: B21: 12••. liJcS 77 B22: 12...liJc6 78 12 ... i.e7 is also seen. Then: a) 13 i..g5 0-0 14 i..xe7 ~xe7 = Sundararajan-Adianto, Doha 2003. b) 13 ~xd4liJc5 14 ~xd8+ 'it>xd8 15 i..c2 liJbd7 16 b3 i.d5 (16 .. .l::tc8!?) 17 liJfd2 and here: bl) 17 ...1k7 18 i.b2 IIhd8 19 nac1 (";t" Khuzman) 19 ... liJb6!? 20 liJxb6 (20 liJa5 is met by 20 ... i..xg2!) 20 ... 'it>xb6 21 i.d4 nac8 22 .l:i.fdl 'it>b7 =. b2) 17 .. .f6 18 exf6 (18 i.b2 fxe5 19liJxe5 liJxe5 20 i.xe5 i.f6 "'+" Khuzman; White's minor pieces are tied down defending the b3pawn) 18 ... i.xf6 19 nbl (Ki.Georgiev-Ibragimov, New York 1998) 19 ... 'it>e7 20 i.b2l:[ac8 21liJe3 i.xb2 22 nxb2liJe5 with an equal position. c) 13 liJxd4 0-0 (13 ... liJc5?! 14 ~g4 g6 15 i.h6 ± Tkachev-Sadvakasov, Moscow 2002) 14 'ilVg4 'it>h8 and now: c1) 15 i.f4 liJc6 16 liJxc6 i.xc6 17 liJd6 i.xd6 (17 ... liJc5!?) 18 exd6 (";t" Sakaev and Sernkov) 18 ... i.d5! 19 i.xd5 liJf6 20 ~g5 liJxd5 21 ~xd8 nfxd8 22 i.g3 'it>g8 23 nac1 \t>f8 =. c2) 15 .l::tdl liJc6 16 liJxc6 i.xc6 17 i.f4 i.d5 18 liJd2liJc5 19 i.c2 ne8 20 ~h3 112-112

CLASSICAL VARIATION:

Evseev-Feoktistov, Hammerfest 1999. White should play on as Black's dark squares are vulnerable after 20 ... g6 21lLlc4;\;.

821) 12.•.lLlc513 ~g5 (D)

B

13•• :~Vc7! This move deserves more practical tests. The alternative is 13 ... f6?, but Black should avoid this move, despite the fact that it has been the overwhelming choice here - the following lines demonstrate why it is dangerous for Black to open lines around his king while he is several tempi behind in development. 14 exf6 gxf6 (D) and now:

a) IS lLlfeS? hS and then: a1) 16 ~h4 ~dS! 17lLlf3 IIg8 18 'iith1 (18 ~g3 lLlxb3 19 "iYxb3 lLld7 + Gomez-Vilela, Cuban Ch semi-final 2000) 18 ... lLlbd7! with a clear plus for Black - Spangenberg.

7 iLb3

77

a2) 16 lLlg6 "iYdS 17 lLld6+ 'iVxd6 18 lLlxh8 lLlxb3 (also sufficient is 18 ... fxgS 19 'i!VxhS+ 'iitd7 20 ~c4lLlc6 21lLlf7 'i!Vf4 -+) 19 'i!VxhS+ 'it>d7 20 ~xf6lLlxa1! -+ Slipak-Spangenberg, Buenos Aires 1996. b) lSlLlxd4! and here: bl) IS ... ~dS 16 lLld6+! "iYxd6 17 WihS+ 'iitd7 18 ~xf6 lLlxb3 19 lLlxb3 ± GershonSvetushkin, Erevanjr Wch 2000. b2) IS ... hS 16 lLlxe6!! "iYxdl 17 .l:i.axd1. So far this is Goormachtigh-Jonkman, Gent 2001. Now relatively best is 17 ... lLlxb3 18 ~xf6 ':g8 19lLlgS! with the idea of lIfe 1+ ± according to Gershon. I believe this sacrificial idea has eliminated 13 ... f6? as a viable alternative. 14lLlxd4 White hastens to recapture the pawn as 14 .l:i.cl d3 keeps the d-file closed. 14•.•lLlxb3 15 lLlxb3?! Better is IS "iVxb3lLlc6 16lLlxc6 'i!Vxc6 17 f3 'i!Vc7 18l:tacl ~dS 19 ~d3 i.cS+ 20 'iith1 0-0 21 ':fdl 'i!Va7 =. 15.•• h6 (D) 112-112 Tregubov-Scherbakov, Russia Cup (Krasnoiarsk) 1998 - this was a team tournament which may explain the premature draw.

w

Now: a) 16lLld6+? ~xd6 17 exd6 (17 .!:!.C 1 hxgS 16':cl hxg5 17lLld6+ hd6 -+) 17 ... "iVc6 18 "iYg4 hxgS -+. b) 16:cl? hxgS 17 lLld6+ ~xd6 18 ':xc7 (18 exd6 'i!Vd8 -+) 18 ... i.xc7 19lLlcs ~dS -+. The rook and two bishops are too much for the queen. c) 16 i.h4 gS 17 l::tcl (17 lLld6+ ~xd6 18 l::tcl "iVd8 -+) 17 ... gxh4 18 lLlcaS (18lLld6+?

78

How TO BEAT 1 d4

i..xd6 19 I1xc7 i.xc7 20 ttJcS i..dS -+) and then: cl) 18 .. :~d7? 19ttJxb7 ~xb7 20 ttJaS 'IilVdS 21l:tc8+ We7 (2l...Wd7 22ttJc4 +-) 22 ~g4 "ii'xaS (22 ... ~xeS 231hb8 +-) 23 ~xh4+ 'it>d7 24 ~c4 ~xeS 2S lId 1+ 'it>e7 26 ':'cS +-. c2) 18 ... ttJc6 19 ttJxc6 i..xc6 20 "ii'c2 (20 ttJd4 .l:td8 +) 20 ... i..g7 21 ttJd4 (21 'IilVxc6+18... i..c6 19 ~c2 i..g7 20 lLlxc6 ~xc6 21 ~xc6+) 2l...i..xeS 22 ttJxc6 i..xh2+ 23 Whl i..d6 +. c3) 18 ... i.c6 19 ~c2 i..g7 20 ttJxc6 ~xc6 21 'ii'xc6+ ttJxc6 221hc6 i..xeS +.

822) 12...ttJc613 i..g5 'IilVc714 !!.c1ttJc5 (D)

W

In this position White has a choice of bishop retreats: B221: 16 i..f4 78 B222: 16 i..h4 79

8221) 16 i..f4 g5 17ttJd6+ 17 i..g3 -16 i..h4 g5 17 i..g3. 17...i..xd6 18 exd6 'iVb6 19 i..g3 This is "unclear" according to Bareev. 19...ttJe4 (D) 19 ... b3 20 i..b1 (20 as!? ~b4 21 i..bl is another idea) 20 ... ttJxa4 (20 ... ttJd7 21 :c4!?) 21 i..e4 with compensation for the material.

15 i..a2 Given a "?" by Bareev, but he did not propose an alternative. IS l:tel was suggested by Sakaev and Sernkov -lS ... d3Iooks like an adequate reply. Another possibility is IS i..c2!? as suggested by ECO. 15...h6 (D) Black should avoid the following weaker alternatives: a) lS ... ttJe4? 16 i..h4 gS 17 i..xgS (17 i..bl {Tregubov-Brynell, Poland 1999} 17 ... ttJc3 18 bxc3 gxh4 19 cxb4 i..xM 20 i..e4 ± Tregubov) 17 ... ttJxgS 18 ttJxgS 0-0-0 (Bareev-Timman, Sarajevo 1999) 19 ~f3! !!.d7 20 ttJd6+ i..xd6 21 exd6 +- Bareev. b) IS ... ttJaS?! (this move loses too much time) 16ttJxaS ~xaS 17 ttJxd4 ~xa4 18 ~xa4+ ttJxa4 19 'P.c7 h6 20 i..e3 i..dS 21 i..xdS exdS 22 e6 ±.

20 a5 20 ttJd2 is the alternative: a) 20 ... ttJxg3 21 ttJc4! 'ii'd8 (21..."ii'cS? 22 fxg3 :d8 23 'iVf3 :d7 24 ttJd2 g4 2S 'iVf6 "ii'eS 26ttJe4 with a crushing advantage) 22 fxg3 0-0 23 'iVd3 with an edge for White - Black would love to move his g-pawn back two squares!

CLASSICAL VARIATION:

b) 20 ... 'bxd2! 21 ~xd2 b3 22 ..tbl f5!? (a double-edged move - the idea is to make a stand in the centre of the board and frustrate the white bishops) 23 ~e2 ~d7 24 I:.fel I:.he8 25 ~xf5 (25 ..te5 1:tac8 26 i..g7 ~b4 27 ..txh6 g4 is unclear) 25 ... exf5 26 ~c4 f4 27 ~f7+ ~xd6 and now both 28 ..txf4+ gxf4 29 ~f6+ (29 ~xe8 I:.xe8 30 ~xe8 ~aS is fine for Black) 29 ... ~d7 30 ~f5+ and 28 ~f6+ ~d7 29 ~f5+ ~d6 30 ~f6+ end in a draw by perpetual check. 20.•• ~xa5 21'bxd4 (D)

7 iLb3

79

8222) 16 ..th4 g517 ..tg3'be4 "Unclear" - Bareev. 18'bxd4!? 'bxg3! Black should avoid 18 ... .lif.d8? 19 'bd6+! 'bxd6 20 exd6 ..txd6 21 ~h5! ~xg3 22 'bxe6 ..txh2+ 23 ~hl, when White has a decisive attack. 19'bxc6 (D)

B B

Now: a) 21...~xa2 22'bxc6 ..txc6 23 I:.xc6looks as though it should favour White because of his strong d-pawn, but Black's position is surprisingly resilient after 23 .. :~d5! 24 ~a4 0-0 25 I:.dl 'bc5 26 I:.xd5 'bxa4 27 :d2 I:.fc8: al) 28 ~c7'bb6 29 d7l:td8 30 I:.b7'bd5 31 ~e5

as +.

a2) 28 I:.xc8+ I:.xc8 29 ~fl 'bb6 30 I:.d4 'bd5 31 I:.c4 lId8 a3) 28 I:.dc2 l1xc6 29 I1xc6 ~f8 with approximately level chances. b) 21...'bxg3 22 'bxc6 ..txc6 23 hxg3 (23 .l::txc6? 'bxfl 24 d7+ ~e7 25 ~d6+ ~f6 26 ~xe6 ~e5 -+; 23 fxg3 ~b6+ 24 ~hl 0-025 ~h5 ~g7 =) 23 ... ~xa2 241:txc6 0-0 =.

+.

Now: a) 19 ... ..txc6 20 'bd6+ (20 fxg3!?) 20 ... i..xd6 21 exd6 O-O-O! (power castling!) and here: al) 22 ~d3l:txd6 23 ~xg3 - 22 ~g4 J:J..xd6 23~xg3.

a2) 22 fxg3 I:.xd6 23 ~e2 ~b6+ 24 ~hl :hd8 Black's d-file pressure and extra pawn more than offset his slightly exposed king. a3) 22 ~g4 I:.xd6 23 ~xg3 :hd8 =. Black has an extra pawn, but his king is slightly exposed. b) 19 ... 'bxfl 20 'bd6+ ..txd6 21 exd6 ~xc6 (White has a strong attack after 21...~d7? 22 'be5 ~d8 23 ~c7 0-0 24 l:txb7 ±) 22 ~xc6 ..txc6 23 ~xfl ~d7 =. The chances are balanced in this queen versus two rooks rniddlegame.

+.

9 Classical Variation: 7 ~e2 b5 8 Jid3

1 d4 d5 2 c4 dxc4 3 4Jf3 4Jf6 4 e3 e6 5 ~xc4 c5 60-0 a6 7 ~e2 b5 8 ~d3 (D)

w B

This move can transpose into 9 ... ~e7 (Line B) although there are some unexplored sidelines. White withdraws his bishop from the a2-g8 diagonal and takes aim at Black's kingside - the intent is to develop a rapid kingside attack. The disadvantage of the move is that White gives up control over the central d5-square. The alternative retreat 8 ~b3 (covered in Chapters 10 and 11) is more than twice as popular as 8 ~d3. However, even though this variation is out of favour at the moment, as we shall see there are some unexplored ideas in this line.

8•.•cxd4 Our repertoire move is the most popular choice here - Black exchanges central pawns and saddles White with an isolated d4-pawn.

gexd4 Black must decide which bishop to develop: A: 9...~b7 80 B: 9...~e7 81 The lines can transpose into each other, but there are some subtle differences to be aware of.

A} 9•.. ~b7 (D)

10a4 White can also play 10 4Jc3 ~e7, and then: a) 11 4Je4 4Jc6 12 l:.dl 4Jd5 13 4Jc5 ~xc5 14 dxc5 ~e7 15 ~e4 4Jd8 liz-liz GoletianiSkripchenko, Medellin girls Wch 1996. b) 11 ~g5 0-0 12 l:.ac1 4Jbd7 13 lHdl b4 14 4Je4 4Jxe4 15 ~xe7 ~xe7 16 ~xe4 4Jf6 = Socko-Galliamova, Istanbul worn OL 2000.

10...bxa4 Black can also try the relatively unexplored 1O ... b4. Then: a) 11 ~g5 4Jc6 (1l...~e7 12 4Jbd2 4Jbd7 13 l:.fc1 h6 14 ~f4 4Jd5 15 ~g3 0-0 = Shurniakina-Mamedova, USSR worn Cht (Azov) 1991) 12 .ixf6 gxf6 13 l:.dl 4Je7 14 4Jbd2 4Jd5 15 ~e4 ~e7 16 4Jb3 f5 with an unclear position, Khuzman-Lin Ta, Belgrade 1988. b) 11 4Jbd2 ~e7 12 as (12 4Jc4 as = Landau-Reshevsky, Kemeri 1937) 12 ... 0-0 13 4Jc4 (R.Bates-Mortazavi, British Ch (Hove) 1997) 13. .. 4Jc6 =. 11 ~c2!? Neishtadt considered 9 ... ~b7 inaccurate because of this idea - White tries to exploit

CLASSICAL VARIATION:

Black's inability to castle out of danger. The most popular move here is 11 ~xa4 iLe7 9... iLe7 10 a4 bxa411 'fha4 iLb7. 1l ••.iLe7 12 iLxa4+ (D)

7 Wie2 b5 8 .i..d3

81

W

B

Now: a) 12 .. .lbbd7?! 13 lbeS .l:i.c8 14 dS! with a strong attack for White, Endzelins-Szily, COIT. 19S9. b) 12... lbfd7 13lbc3 ("White stands better" - Neishtadt) 13 ... 0-0 14 .i.e3 lbf6 with a balanced position. c) 12... .i.c6 13 iLxc6+ lbxc6 14 ~xa6 lbxd4 IS lbxd4 .l:i.xa6 16 ~xa6 ~xd4 17 .i.e3 ("Black cannot take the b2-pawn and, with his passed pawn, White has the better chances" according to Neishtadt, but he did not offer any further analysis and it is difficult to mobilize the passed b-pawn) 17 ... ~d7 (17 ... ~xb2?? loses to 18 ~c8+ iLd8 19 ~c6+) 18 ~a8+ (18lbc3 0-019 l:td1 "fIc7 =) 18 ... ~d8 19 "fIc6+ (19 ~xd8+ cJi>xd8 =) 19 ... ~d7 20 ~a8+ ~d8 repeats the position.

B) 9••• iLe7 (D) Black prepares to castle kingside.

10a4 This is the best chance to fight for an opening advantage. The following lines demonstrate that White does not obtain any benefit by avoiding the a4 pawn advance: a) 10 lbc3lbc6 11 a4 bxa4 12 .l:[xa4lbb4 13 iLbl iLb7 14 iLgS as lSl:td1 0-0 16lbeSlbfdS 17 iLd2 fS was unclear in I.Sokolov-Cifuentes, Dutch Ch (Rotterdam) 1997.

b) 10 iLgS .i.b7 (Black must avoid 1O... 0-0?? 11 iLxf6 iLxf6 12 ~e4, spearing a rook) 11 lbc3 0-0 12 :ad1 (12 a4 bxa4 13 lha4 - 10 a4 bxa4 11 '1:xa4 iLb7 12 lbc3 0-0 13 iLg5) 12 ... lbbd7 and here: b1) 13 iLc1?! (Harmon-Leverett, USA COIT. Ch 1984) 13 ... b4 14lbb1 ~aS b2) 13 lbeS lbdS (13 ...lbxeS 14 dxeS lbdS IS fi.xe7 ~xe7 16lbe4lbf4 17 ~g4lbxd3 18 .i::!.xd3 iLxe4 19 ~xe4.i::!.ad8 = Yusupov-Rublevsky, Frankfurt 2000) 14 .i.d2lbxc3 IS .i.xc3 (1S bxc3 lbxeS 16 ~xeS iLf6 17 ~hS g6 18 ..wg4 iLdS 19 iLbl ~c8 Fradkin-Rublevsky, Kurgan 1993) ls ... lbf6 16 .i.b1 ~dS 17 f3 b4 18 iLel as 19 ~e3 (19lbc4 iLa6 20 b3 :ac8 =+ Simantsev-Voroviov, St Petersburg 2000) 19 ... l:tac8 + Yusupov-Shirov, Prague rpd 2002. b3) 13 iLbl b4 14 lbe4 (14 lba4? ~aS =+ Cifuentes) 14 ... lbxe4 IS iLxe7 ~xe7 16 iLxe4 iLxe4 17 ~xe4lbf6 18 ~d3 (18 ~e2 ~d6 19 .l:i.c1 .l:i.fc8 20 .l:i.c4 .l:txc4 21 ~xc4 as is slightly better for Black, De Sousa-Cifuentes, Linares 1997) 18 ... .l:tfc8 19.i::!.c1 ~b7 20 lbeS h6 21 g3 1/2- 1/2 Gofshtein-Flear, St Affrique 1999. Black could play 2l...lbdS with a slight edge. b4) 13 .l:i.fellbb6 14lbeS (14 .i.b1lbbdS IS lbe411c8 16 ~d3 lbxe4 17 ~xe4 g6 18 ~h4 :e8 = Gaprindashvili-Demina, Russian worn Ch (Elista) 1998) 14 ...:c8 IS fi.xf6 fi.xf6 16 lbe4 .i.dS 17 b3 iLe7 18 ~hS fS 19 lbg3 lbd7 with equality, I.Sokolov-Baburin, New York 1997.

+.

+

10...bxa4 (D) Black can also play 1O ... b4 11 lbbd2 (11 iLgS lbc6!?) 1l....i.b7 - 9... .i.b7 10 a4 b4 11 lbbd2 iLe7. lllba4

82

How TO BEAT 1 d4

W

One of the differences between 9 ... .i.b7 (Line A) and 9 ... i..e7 (Line B) is that 11 i..c2? has no point here as Black can simply castle out of danger. The alternative is 11 ttJc3 0-0, and now: a) 12 .u.xa4 i..b7 - 11 'fha4 .i.b7 12 ttJc3 0-0. b) 12 .i.gS i.b7 13l:txa4 -11 IDa4 J..b7 12 ttJc3 0-0 13 J..g5. c) 12 ttJxa4 ttJc6 13 :dl (13 .i.e3 ttJb4 14 .ic4 ttJfdS =Khurtsidze-Skripchenko, Istanbul worn Ech 2003) 13 ...ttJb4 14.i.bl (14 J..c4 .ib7 IS ttJeS .idS {liz-liz Tal-Zsu.Polgar, San Francisco 1991} 16 ~a3 .i.xc4 17 ttJxc4 ttJbdS = Supatashvili-Izoria, Georgian Ch (Tbilisi) 2000) 14 ... .i.b7 Is1h3l:tc8 16 ttJeS 'iVdS =LputianY.Meister, USSR Ch (Moscow) 1991. 1l...i..b7 (D) An alternative plan is 11.. ..i.d7 (11...0-0 12 ttJc3 J..b7 -1l. .. J..b7 12 ttJc3 0-0) 12l:tal as 13 ttJc3 ttJc6 14 l:tdl ttJb4 IS J..c4 0-0 16 ttJeS .ic8 17 .i.gS J..a6 = Korchnoi-Seirawan, Wijk aan Zee 1992.

12 ttJc3 Too quiet is 12 ttJbd2 0-0 13 ttJb3 .i.c6 14 l:!.al 'iVb6 IS ttJaS i..bS 16 ttJc4 ~b7 = BarczaKeres, Budapest 19S2. 12...0-0 13 .i.g5 (D) 13 l:tdl as 14 ttJeS (14 i..gS ttJc6 - 13 i..g5 ttJc6 14 ~dl a5) 14... ttJc6 IS i.gS ttJb4 16 i..xf6 (16 J..bl ttJfdS 17 .i.d2 fS was unclear in Darnljanovic-Rublevsky, Moscow OL 1994) 16 ... .ixf6 17 J..e4 J..xe4 (17 ... .l:.b8!? was suggested by Neishtadt) 18 ttJxe4 J..e7 (NogueirasEhlvest, Zagreb IZ 1987) 19 l:ta3!? (Neishtadt suggested this move to transfer the rook to the kingside) 19 ... ttJdS 20 ttJc6 'iVd7 21 ttJxe7+ 'iVxe7 =.

13... ttJc6 Black can also play 13 ... .i.c6!? (the idea is to drive the white rook away from the fourth rank and avoid any sacrificial ideas based upon the dS pawn-break followed by a rook-shift to the {IS kingside) 14 l:!aal (14l:!.c4!? J..b7 IS dS exdS 16 llh4 h6 defends} IS ... ttJbd7 16 ttJeS ;t Edighoffer-Halwick jr, IECG e-mail 1998) 14 ... aS IS l:Hdl ttJbd7 16 J..c2 (16 ttJeS ttJxeS liz-liz Reshevsky-Portisch, Santa Monica 1966) 16 ...:e8 17 ttJeS ttJxeS 18 dxeS ttJdS 19 ttJxdS (19 .i.xh7+? ~xh7 20 'iVhS+ ~g8 21 ttJe4 {Szabo-Portisch, Kecskemet 1962} 2l...'iVb6 +) 19 ... i..xdS 20 .ie3 'WIc7 =. 14:dl (D) White has a couple of alternatives: a) 14 i..xa6 .ixa6 IS :xa6 l:.xa6 16 'WIxa6 ttJxd4 17 etJxd4 'iVxd4 =Starck-Gotz, East German Ch (Aschersleben) 1963. b) 14 etJe4 etJxe4 IS 'iVxe4 g6 16 'iVh4l:te8 17 :el11c8 and now:

:c1

CLASSICAL VARIATION: 7

bl) 18 dS?! and then: b1l) 18 .. :iVxdS (not the best move, but it is an instructive example of White's attacking chances here) 19 1:[f4 'iVxd3 20 l:txf7! (this leads to a draw by perpetual check) 20 ... hS 21 i..xe7 Wxf7 22 'iVf6+ Wg8 23 'iVxe6+ Wg7 (the only move to avoid mate) 24 'iVf6+ (24 i..f6+? Wf8 -+) 24 ...Wg8 (24 ... Wh6 2S ~f4+ Wg7 26 'iVf6+ repeats) 2S 'iVe6+ 112-112 Lautier-Ivanchuk, Belgrade 1995. b12) 18 ... exdS! 19 l:tf4 (19 l:taa1 .i.xgS 20 l:txe8+ 'iVxe8 21 ttJxgS hS + Ftacnik) 19 ... hS (Ftacnik) 20 h3 'iVd6 leaves White with inadequate compensation for the pawn. b2) 18 i..xa6 i..xa619 i..xe7 (19 :'xa6 ttJxd4 20 ~xd4 i..xgS 21 :1d6 ~f6 22 ttJxgS ~xgS =) 19 ... ttJxe7 20 i::txa6 ttJfS ("with counterplay"Ftacnik) 21 'iVe4 .l:i.b8 22 1:[bll:tb4 23 'iVel 'iVe7 and Black can hold the balance despite being a pawn down.

"iie2 b5 8 .i.d3

83

Szmetan-Gomez Baillo, Argentine Ch (Buenos Aires) 1998. 15•• :~xd516 i..c4! (D) This aggressive idea has not yet been tested in practice. The position becomes too simplified after 16 i..xe7 ttJxe7 17 J:.dal ttJfS 18 'iVeS 'iVb3 19 i..xfS exfS 20 'it'xfS i..xf3 21 ~xf3 ~xb2 = Granda-Rublevsky, Oviedo rpd 1992.

B

16•• :~f5 16 .. :iWd7 is a good alternative. 17 dS exdS (17 .. Jbd8 18 J:!aal exdS 19 :xdS ±) 18 i..xdS i..xgS 19 ttJxgS 'WIfS 20 'WIhS (20 h4!?) 20 ... h6 21 .i.xf7+ Wh8 (2l...:xf7 22 ~xf7+ 'WIxf7 23 ttJxf7 ~xf7 24 l:td7+ ±) 22 f4 l:tad8 23 l:te1 ~cS+ 24 Whl :td2 and then: a) 2S 'WIg6 'WIxgS! 26 fxgS ttJeS 27 1:[f4 (27 'iVhS i..xg2+ 28 Wgl ttJf3+ 29 ~xf3 i.xf3 +) 27 ... ttJxg6 28 i..xg6l:Ifd8 +. b) 2S ttJe4 ~xhS 26 i.xhS l:txb2 =. 17 d5 (D) Black has a choice between blockading the dS-square or moving his a-pawn out of dangerboth moves are playable, but Line B2 is more popular: B1: 14•.• ttJd5 83 B2: 14•..a5 84

B

Bl} 14••. ttJd5 15 ttJxd5 This is more challenging than IS ttJe4 i..xgS 16 ttJexgS h6 17 ttJe4 ttJf4 (17 ... ttJcb4!? 18 i..b1 i.c6 19l:ta3 i..bS 20 ~ell:tc8 =) 18 'iVe3 ttJxd3 (18 ... ttJdS =) 19 'iVxd3 ttJe7 20 ttJcS i..c6 21 .l::ta3 (21Iha6l:!.xa6 22 ttJxa6 ~6 also leads to an equal position) 21...a5 with equal chances,

17•.•exd5

84

How TO BEAT 1 d4

17 ... i.xgS 18 i.d3liJd4 (l8 ... ~f6 19 ~e4 ±) 19 ~xd4 ~f6 20 liJxgS 'iYxgS 21 ~g4 ~f6 22 dxe6 fxe6 23 i.c4 gives White a slight advantage. 18 i.xe7 l:tfe8 19 ~xd5 ~c8 20 liJg5 l:txe7 21 'iWh5 21 'iWc2!? 21 .. J:tel+ 22.i.n liJe7! (D)

W

a2) 16 ~e4 g6 17 ~h4liJeS! 18liJxeS .i.xgS 19 'iWg3 .i.f6 Fang-Baburin, Las Vegas 2003. a3) 16 ~e4!? .txgS 17 ~xdS (17 liJxdS?! .i.h6! +) 17 ... exdS 18l:txdS 'iWe8 19 ~xe8l:tfxe8 20 .l:txgS l:f.ab8 =. b) IS liJeS liJb4 and here: b1) 16 ~xf6 .i.xf6 17 i.e4 .i.xe4 18 liJxe4 i.e7 = Nogueiras-Ehlvest, Zagreb IZ 1987. b2) 16 .i.b1 liJfdS 17 i.d2 fS 18 l:ta3 (18 l:ta1 l:f.e8 19liJd3 i.d6 = I.Sokolov-Cifuentes, Dutch Ch (Rotterdam) 1997) 18 ... .i.f6 19 liJa4 i.a6 20 'iVel l:te8 21 liJcs .i.bS = Damljanovic-Rublevsky, Moscow OL 1994. 15.•..i.xf6 16 d5 16 ~e4 l:tb8 17 dS exdS 18 liJxdS g6 19 liJxf6+ (liz_liz Dautov-Rublevsky, Budapest 1996) 19 ... 'iWxf6 =. 16..•exd5 17 liJxd5 g6 18 i.b5 Or: a) 18 l:tf4 'iWxdS! (stronger than 18 ... i.g7 19 i.c4 'iith8 = Donner-Van den Berg, Beverwijk 1966) 19 i.c4 (White's kings ide pawnstructure is ruined after 191hf6? liJd4 20 'iVd2 iVd8 +) 19 ... liJd4 20 .l:!.dxd4 ~c6 b) 18 i.c4 (liz_liz Neverov-Zontakh, Yugoslav Cht (Novi Sad) 2000) 18 ... .i.g7 =. 18...liJa7 19 i.c4liJc6 20 i.b5 liz-liz Ulybin-Rublevsky, Russian Clubs Cup (Maikop) 1998. Another idea is 20 liJxf6+ iVxf6 21 ~d7 ~ab8 with equal chances.

+

Now: a) 23 'iWxh7+? 'iitf8 24 :daS J::rxfl + 2S 'iitxfl ~c1 + 26 'iite2 'iWxb2+ 27 'iitfl 'iWc1 + 28 'it>e2 l:te8+. b) 23 'iWxf7+ 'iith8 24 'iWhS ~c2 2S :e4! ~xe4! (White wins a pawn after 2S ... .l::!.xfl + 26 'iitxfl h6 27 ~dl 'iWxdl + 28 l:!xdl .i.xe4 29 liJxe4 ±) 26liJxe4 i.xdS with a balanced queen versus two rooks middlegame. c) 23l:tdll:txd1 24 ~xdl h6 =.

82) 14.••a5 (D) 15 i.xf6 Alternatives: a) IS dS!? liJxdS and then: a1) 16 l:th4? g6 (or 16 ... i.xgS!? 17 liJxgS ~xgS 18 l:thS liJf4 +) 17 liJe4 liJd4 18 liJxd4 .i.xgS 19 liJxgS 'iWxgS 20 liJf3 'iWf6 + LputianTal, Erevan 1982.

+.

10 Classical Variation: 7 ~e2 bS

8 .i.b3 .i.b7 9 a4 1 d4 d5 2 c4 dxc4 3 liJf3 liJf6 4 e3 e6 5 ~xc4 c5 60-0 a6 7 ~e2 b5 8 .tb3 .tb7 9 a4 (D)

B

The Classical Variation with 9 a4 and the related move 9 .l:.dl (see Chapter 11) are the traditional main lines of the Queen's Gambit Accepted. One of the ideas behind 9 a4 is to attack the b5-pawn immediately with the aim of forcing Black to make a concession to defend the pawn. Black can respond by temporarily ignoring the attack and continuing his development (Line A), or he can relieve the tension by immediately advancing his b-pawn (Line B):

A: 9... liJbd7 B: 9...b4

85 90

The difference in strategy often revolves around the placement of White's queen's knight - in Line A Black usually plays ... b4 after the white knight has already been developed on the c3-square and White responds by playing liJb5, whereas in Line B the ... b4 advance takes away the c3-square from the white knight, so White responds by playing liJd2-c4. The white knight on the b5-square (Line A) is more of a threat to Black's king because it attacks the c7-square

and leaves the a2-g8 diagonal open for White's light-squared bishop - in combination with the move liJg5, this sets up various sacrificial possibilities on the e6-square. The risk for White is that the b5-knight can become stranded if a kings ide attack fails to materialize. East German GM Wolfgang Uhlmann was one of the early pioneers of the Classical Variation with 9 a4 during the late 1950s and early 1960s - his name is often associated with the variation. GMs Ivan Sokolov, Artur Yusupov and Robert Hubner (on both sides!) played some important games with the line during the 1990s and at the tum of the millennium Indian GM Krishnan Sashikiran picked up the gauntlet for White. The popularity of the variation has waned in recent years and interest from the white side has shifted to other lines, in particular the Central Variation (Chapter 2), the Furman Variation (Chapter 5), and the Classical Variation with 7 .tb3 (Chapter 8).

A) 9.•.liJbd7 Black continues his development and ignores the attack on the b5-pawn for a few moves. Now: AI: 10.l:i.dl 86 86 A2: 10 axb5

10 e4 cxd4 is rarely seen. Then: a) 11 e5? .txf3 (11...liJd5 12 axb5 d3! 13 'iVxd3 liJc5 14 ~dl axb5 =+= NCO) 12 gxf3 (12 'iVxf3 liJxe5 13 ~g3 .td6 -+) 12... d3 (12 ... liJc5 is also very strong) 13 ~xd3 liJxe5 14 'iVe2 liJed7 + Piket-Seirawan, Monte Carlo Amber blindfold 1994. b) 11 liJxd4 .tc5 12 -Udl ~b6 13 a5 'iVa7 14 ~e3 0-0 leads to equality, Guimard-Najdorf, Prague 1946.

86

How TO BEAT 1 d4

Al) 10~d1 ~b8

An important alternative is 1O ... b4 - 9 ... b4 10 .l:!.dl CiJbd7. 11 axb5 axb5 12 .l::l.xa8 .i.xa8 13 CiJc3 Black has no problems after 13 CiJbd2 i.d6 = Berberich-Raetsky, Lenk 1995. 13...b4 Now: a) 14 CiJbl.i.d6 15 CiJbd2 0-016 h3 cxd4 17 exd4 .tf4 Temirbaev-Vaulin, Russia Cup (Omsk) 1996. b) 14 CiJa4 .i.e7 (14 ... cxd4 15 l::txd4 .te7 {15 ... .td6!?} 16 e4 0-0 = Levitt-Baburin, Bunratty 2001) 15 e4 (15 dxc5 0-016 i.d2 CiJxc5 = Ftacnik) 15 ... cxd4 16 CiJxd4? (White should settlefor 16 kt.xd4 .i.c6 =) 16 ... CiJxe4 17 .tc4 0-0 (17 ... .i.d6!?) 18 CiJxe6 (18 CiJf5 exf5 19l:txd7 .td6! =+= Namgilov-Ibragimov, Russian Ch (Elista) 1995 - White has lost a pawn and his rook is trapped behind enemy lines) 18 .. .fxe6 19 .l:!.xd7 ~xf2 20 ~g4!? (20 .i.xe6+ 'it>h8 21 ~g4 ~b5 -+ Ftacnik) 20 ... ~f8 21 i.e3 .td5! and then: bl) 22 .l:!.xd5 exd5 23 .txd5+ 'it>h8 24 ~dl .l:!.d2 25 i.xd2 i.c5+ mates - Ftacnik. b2) 22 .l:!.xe7 .l::l.c2 23 ~d1 (23 i.xdS I1c1 + 24 .txc1 ~f2+ 25 'it>hl ~f1# Ftacnik) 23 ... i.xc4 24 Itd7 CiJf2 25 ~b1 (25 W!Vxc2 CiJh3+ mates) 25 ... b3 -+. c) 14 CiJb5 .txf3!? (14 ....te7 is unclear Ftacnik) 15 gxf3 cxd4 16 CiJxd4 .td6 with an equal position.

+

A2) 10 axb5 axb511 .l:!.xa8 ~xa812 CiJc3 b413 CiJb5 (D) Black must choose between saddling White with a set of doubled pawns or continuing his development: 86 A21: 13.•..txf3!? 88 A22: 13...~b8 Line A21 is an alternative variation that has recently been out offashion, whereas Line A22 is considered the main line. The older 13 ... ~a5 has been under theoretical pressure lately and I don't consider it as reliable as the two lines selected for our repertoire.

A2l) 13....txf3!? GM Yasser Seirawan introduced 13 ... .txf3!? in 1986 and his idea has been underestimated and just doesn't get any respect. ECO (2nd ed.) gave "13 ... .txf3!" a column, ECO (3rd ed.) gave "13. .. .i.xf3" a footnote, and ECO (4th ed.) doesn't even mention the move! During the 1990s the move 13 ... .txf3!? was played by some of the world's top grandmasters and the theoretically recommended method of dealing with it does not appear to be dangerous. Let's review some of the main ideas behind 13 ... i.xf3 !?: Black eliminates the dangerous f3-knight and saddles White with a doubled fpawn at the cost of conceding the bishop-pair. Black should concentrate on completing his development, even at the cost of a pawn, in order to avoid being overrun by White's bishops and central pawn cluster. White must be careful mobilizing his central pawns as a hasty advance could result in weak d5-, e5- or f4-squares. 14 gxf3 White can also head straight for the endgame by playing 14 ~xf3 ~xf3 15 gxf3 i.e7 (D). Several games have shown that Black has nothing to fear in this endgame: a) 16 CiJc7+ 'it>d8 17 CiJb5 'it>c8 18 .td2 (18 dxc5 CiJxc5 19 i.c2 :d8 20 CiJd4 'it>b7 = Dokhoian-Hiibner, Bundesliga 1994/5) 18 ... 'it>b7 19 dxc5 i.xc5 20 CiJd4 .l:!.d8 = Klimm-Brunner, Bundesliga 1993/4. b) 16 e4 0-0 17 i.e3 cxd4 (17 ... .l:!.b8!? 18 .tc4 'it>f8 also leads to an equal position) 18 CiJxd4 .l:!.a8 = Kiriakov-Donchenko, Moscow 1996.

CLASSICAL VARIATION: 7 fie2 b5 8 .i.b3 iJ..b7 9 a4

87

although it was not much of a test. The early draw strategy worked for England as they defeated the United States 2 11z-1 1/z. c) 15 f4.ie7 16 e4 (D) and now:

c) 16 .id2 0-0 17 .l:!.c1 (17 l:ta1l:tb8 18 .ic4 e5 19 dxc5 .ixc5 = Auger-Tait, COIT. 1996) 17 ... .:i.a8 18 dxc5 .ixc5 (18 ... liJxc5!?) 19 'it>n g6 20 'it>e2liJd5 21 .ixd5 (several months earlier, Yusupov played 21 e4liJ5b6 22 ..th6 {22 f4!? l:ta5 23 liJa3 ~g7 =} 22 ... l:ta5 23 liJc7 .if8 = liz-liz Yusupov-Htibner, Munich 1994) 21...exd5 22liJc7 .l:!.a2 23 liJxd5l:txb2 24liJf6+ liJxf6 25 .:i.xc5 ~f8 26 .l:.b5 b3 = YusupovLautier, Horgen 1994. 14•. Ji'b8 (D)

w

15l:tdl Alternatives: a) 15 e4?! (White should refrain from playing this move until Black has spent a tempo on ... .ie7) 15 ... cxd4 16liJxd4 .id6 = Turner-Baburin, Kilkenny 1999. Black has been able to develop his bishop directly to the d6-square and he is a tempo ahead compared to the main-line position after Black's 17th move. b) 15 ..td2 liz-liz Miles-Seirawan, Dubai OL 1986. This was the stem game of the variation,

c1) 16 ... liJb6 and then: c 11) 17 d5 c4 18 .ixc4 exd5 19 exd5 liJxc4 20 ~xc4 0-0 21 liJd4 (Djurhuus-Degerman, Reykjavik Z 1995 - ECO {3rd ed.} evaluated this position as "±" , but White's five isolated pawns do not inspire confidence) 21...'iYc8! 22 'iYd3 'iYg4+ 23 'it>hl ~d7 24liJf5 .l:!.d8 25 l:td1 .tf8 and Black has good play for the pawn. c 12) 17 dxc5 .ixc5 18 f5 0-0 (l8 ... 'iYe5!? 19 fxe6 fxe6 20 .ixe6l:tf8 is unclear) 19 fxe6 fxe6 20 .ixe6+ 'it>h8 gives Black compensation for the pawn. c2) 16 ... 0-0 and here: c21) 17 d5? exd5 18 e5 c4 +. c22) 17 e5 liJd5 18 f5 'it>h8 with equal chances. c23) 17 f5 cxd4 18liJxd4 (18 fxe6? d3! +) 18 ... e5 19liJc6 'iYd6 with a balanced position. 15.....te7 16 e4 cxd4 Black can also play 16 ... 0-0 17 e5 liJd5 18 .ixd5 exd5 19 dxc5 liJxe5 20 .if4 liJxf3+ 21 'iYxf3 ~xb5 = Piket-Lautier, Monte Carlo Amber blindfold 1995. 17 liJxd4 .id6 (D) 18 e5!? 18 h3 0-0 19 ~b5 (~ Anand) 19 ... 'iYxb5 (Plear suggested 19 ... .l:!.c8 "=", but White can play 20 ~xb8 .ixb8 21 .td2liJc5 {21.....td6? 22liJxe6! fxe6 23 ..te3 ±} 22 .ixb4liJxb3 23 liJxb3 ..te5 24liJa5!, preserving the b-pawn as 24 ....ixb2? loses to 25liJc4 +-) 20 liJxb5 .ic5 21 liJc7!? liJe5 (21...J::tc8? loses to 22 liJxe6!)

88

How TO BEAT 1 d4

W

22 'it>g2 .i.e7 (preparing to contest the d-file) 23 f4 lDg6 24 eS lDe4 with a balanced endgame. 18...~xeS 18 ... lDxeS? 19 f4 lDed7 20 lDxe6 fxe6 21 ~xe6+ i.e7 22 !:tel lDg8 23 .i.a4 '¥id8 (White wins after 23 ... 'iIla7 24 'ti'c6 lDgf6 2S 'iIlc8+ <j;f7 26 i.b3+) 24 i.d2 ± Ftacnik - despite his extra piece, Black is getting sliced and diced by the white bishops. 19lDxe6 fxe6 20 f4 (D)

'ti'fS (+- Ftacnik) 26 ... g6 27 'ti'dS .l::[h8 28 i.xh6 wins for White. b) 20 ... 'iitf7!? 21l:te1 Jtxf4! 22 'ti'xe6+ <j;g6 23 :e3!? (23 .i.c2+ 'iith6 24 'ti'h3+ lDhS {unclear - Anand} 2S ~xd7 Jtxc 1 261hc 1 .l::[c8 =) 23 ... l:tc8 (not 23 ... .i.xe3?? 24 i.c2+ mating) 24 ~g3+ (24 i'Wf7+ 'it>gS 2S ~xg7+ 'it>h4 leads to an unclear position) 24 ... Jtxg3 2S 'ti'f7+ 'it>fS 26 'iIle6+ 'it>g6 27 'iIlf7+ with a draw by perpetual check. c) 20 ... 'it>e7 21 'iIlc4lDdS! 22 fxeS 'ti'xeS = Yusupov-Anand, Las Palmas 1993.

A22) 13...~b8 The queen slide-step to the b8-square is one of the characteristic moves of the Classical Variation. Black exerts pressure on the bSknight and takes control of several key squares along the important h2-b8 diagonal. One of the ideas behind the queen move is to answer White's e4 break with ... cxd4, followed by ... i.d6 or ... i.cs, aiming all of Black's diagonal pieces at White's kingside. 14 e4 (D)

B

B

Now: a) 20 ... i.c7? (Black should not play this - it is helpful to understand why not for comparison with notes 'b' and 'c' below) 21 'ti'xe6+ Wd8 22 i.a4 ~c8 23 fS! h6 24 i.xd7! (24 i.xh6 ~xh2+ 2S 'it>f1 was implied by Ftacnik to be good for White, but after 2S ... .l:I.xh6 26 i.xd7 'ti'xd7!? {26 ...'ti'cS 27 J..c6+ <j;c7 28 ~d7+ lDxd7 29 'ti'xd7+ 'it>b6 30 ~b7+ 'it>a5 31 'ti'a8+ 'it>b6 32 'ti'b7+ with a draw by perpetual check} 27 .l::[xd7+ lDxd7 Black has a fistful of pieces for the queen) 24 ...ttJxd7 2S f6 l:!e8 26

14... cxd4 Black should avoid 14 ... lDxe4? lSlDgS i.c6 16lDxf7!! 'it>xf7 17 '¥ig4!! (+- NCO) 17 ... i.d5 (17 ... ~e8 l8lDc7lDef6 19 'iIle2 +-) 18 i.xdS exdS 19 'ti'xd7+ 'it>g6 20 f4 h6 21 fS+ 'it>h7 22 f6 +- Fages-Ginther, IECG e-mail 2002. 1slDbxd4 The alternative recapture lslDfxd4 JtcS was fine for Black in Chatalbashev-Kozhukharov, Bulgarian Ch (Pleven) 200S.

CLASSICAL VARIATION: 7

Now Black must decide where to develop his bishop: A221: 15...i.c5 89 89 A222: 15...i.d6

A221) 15...i.c5 (D)

'iVe2 b5 8 iLb3 iLb7 9 a4

89

c) 20 lLlg5 i.g6 21 i.h3 i..hS 22 lLlf3 lLlg4 23 i.xg4 (not 23 ~f1?? losing to 23 ... lLlxh2) 23 ... i.xg4 24 i.e3 i.xf3 2S gxf3 i..d6 26 h3 (Sashikiran-Barua, Guntur 2000) 26 ...:f6 with equal chances - White's crippled extra pawn is difficult to mobilize.

A222) 15...i.d6 (D)

w w

16.l:i.dl Alternatives: a) 16 eS lLldS 17 ~dl 0-0 and then: al) 18 lLlfS?! ':'c8 19 i.gS (Uhlmann-Golz, East German Ch (Schkopau) 19S8) 19 ... h6 20 ..txdS ..txdS +. a2) 18 ~c2 (Bandza-Labuckas, Lithuanian Ch (Vilnius) 1996) 18 ... l:tc8 =. b) 16 i..xe6 0-017 i.xd7 lLlxd7 and now: bl) 18 lLlfS!? l:re8 19 lLlgS with sharp play, Golz-Fred, Leipzig OL 1960. b2) 18 lLlb3 i.e7 19 lLlfd4 .l::!.e8 20 lLlf5 i.f8 21 f3 ~c8 22 ~f2 i..a6 23 ':'dl lLleS 24 i.e3 ~c4 2S lLlfd4 112-112 Nogueiras-Borges, Matanzas 1995. A possible continuation is 2s ... lLld3 26 ~d2 fS 27 exfS lLlxb2 28 ~xb2 ':'xe3 and Black's bishop-pair compensates for the pawn. 16...0-017 lLlxe6 White might as well grab a pawn as Black has a solid position after 17 eS lLld5 =. 17...fxe6 18 i.xe6+ Wh819 i..xd7 i.xe4 The chances are balanced in this sharp position. Now: a) 20i.h3i..xf321 ~xf3lLlg8(21...~eS!?) 22 ~c6 i.xf2+ 23 Whl ~eS = Barbero-Howell, Lazne Bohdanec 1995. b) 20 ~e6 ~xf3 (Sashikiran-Vladimirov, Asian Cht (Shenyang) 1999) 21 'iYxf3 ~eS =.

16 i.xe6 Alternatives: a) 16l:tdl 0-0 17 lLlxe6? (17 i..c2 ~c8 =) 17 .. .fxe6 18 i.xe6+ Wh8 19 ~d3 (19 i..xd7 lLlxd7 20 ~d3 :f6 -+) 19 ... lLlxe4 20 i.xd7 i.xh2+ (20 ... l:td8 is also strong) 21 lLlxh2 lLlxf2 22 ~d6 lLlxdl 23 ~xdl.l::!.d8 24 i.gS .l::!.xd7! 25 ~xd7 ~a7+ 26 i.e3 'iVxe3+ 0-1 Sutter-Raetsky, Bie1199S. b) 16 ~el i..xe4! (16 ... 0-0?? 17 eS costs Black a piece; 16 ... eS?! {an instructive mistake as the eS-square should be left vacant for Black's pieces - now the pawn-structure favours White's minor pieces} 17 lLlfS 0-0 18 lLlgS i.c5 19 ~c4 gave White a strong attack in HarikrishnaMurali Krishnan, Indian Ch (Nagpur) 2002) 17 ~xe6 lLlcs (17 ... fxe6 18 lLlxe6 i.xf3 19 ~xf3 i.xh2+ {19 ... lLleS 20 ~fS and White has the initiative - Sakaev and Semkov} 20 Whl i.eS 21 ~c6 We7 22 lLlgS ~e8 23 f4 Wf8 24 fxeS llxeS with roughly level chances) 18 i..fS 0-0 19 i..gS i.xfS 20 lLlxfS ~e8 21 ~f1 l:txel 22 ~xel lLlce4 = Sakaev and Semkov. 16...fxe6 17 lLlxe6 h6! This was Anand's improvement over the older 17 ... g6 - the idea of taking the gS-square

90

How TO BEAT 1 d4

away from White's knight is well-known from similar sacrificial lines in the Sicilian Defence, Najdorf Variation. 18 liJxg7+ 'it'f7 19 liJf5 i.xe4 20 liJxh6+ 'it'g7 (D)

that the a5-pawn can become a defensive liability.

B1) Now: a) 21 h3? .l;f.xh6 22 i.xh6+ 'it'xh6 + Kramnik-Anand, Mainz (5) 2001. Black's three minor pieces are stronger than White's rook and three pawns. b) 21 ~d2! 'it'f8 22 lIdl i..c7 23 'i1ke3! (White's kingside pawn-structure is shattered after 23 liJg4? i..xf3 24 gxf3 i..xh2+ 25 'it>g2 i.e5 +) 23 ... i.xf3 24 'i1kxf3 i.xh2+ 25 'it'hl (25 'it'f1? ~b5+ 26 ~e2 ~c6 +) 25 ... i.d6 26 'iitgl and now 26 ... i.h2+ repeats the position, whereas 26 ... .l;f.h7 27 g4!? gives White reasonable compensation for the piece.

10 liJbd2liJbd7 11 a5 11 l:[dl -10 :d1liJbd7 11liJbd2. 11 ..•i..e7 (D)

B) 9...b4 (D) This is the most popular move here - Black concedes the c4-square to a white knight, but he controls the c3-square and prevents White from posting a knight on the b5-square. White now has two options: Bl: 10 liJbd2 90 B2: 10 J:Idl 91 These two lines can easily transpose into each other; the lines typically diverge depending upon whether White decides to push his pawn to a5 or refrains from advancing the foot-soldier. The strategy behind an early a5 pawn advance is to control the b6-square and fix the a6-pawn as a potential target; the risk is

12liJc4 White has some minor alternatives here: a) 12 i.c4 0-0 13 b3 (Hebden-Flear, Hastings 199617) 13 ... cxd4 14 exd4 (14 liJxd4liJe5 =) 14 ... liJd5 =. b) 12liJe5 0-0 13 f4 'i1kc7 14liJdf3 i.d5 15 i..xd5 exd5 = Pelletier-Grishchuk, Biel2001. c) 12 e4!? cxd4 13 e5liJd5 14liJe4 0-0 and now: cl) 15liJeg5? liJc5 16 i.c2 h617liJe4 d3 18 i.xd3 liJb3 + (also strong is Korchnoi's idea 18 ... liJf4 f). c2) 15 i..c2?! :c8 16 i.g5? (16 i.d3 fJIc7 +) 16 ... liJxe5! (this is an important tactical idea

CLASSICAL VARIATION: 7

to be aware of) 17 tLlxeS ~xgS 0-1 Merino Garcia-Sulava, Ubeda 1998; White has no compensation for the lost pawns. c3) IS ~d3 Ik8 16 'i!Vxd4 (16 tLlegS!? g6 17 tLle4 {17 'i!Vxd4? ~xc 1 +} with compensation - Korchnoi, but I think Black can still play 17 .. ,l'hc1!? 18l:!axc1 tLlf4 19 ~d2 tLlh3+ 20 gxh3 ~xe4, with good compensation for the exchange) 16 ... tLlcs 17 tLlxcs (17 ~c2 fS! 18 exf6 tLlxf6 =1=) 17 ... l:txcS 18 'i!Vg4 'iith8 19 i.gS (Ioseliani-Korchnoi, Roquebrune (Veterans vs Ladies) 1998) 19 ... 'iVc7 20 'iVhS 'iitg8! = Korchnoi (20 ... i.xgS!? 21 tLlxgS h6 is also good). This type of pawn-structure is usually favourable for Black if he can exchange a couple of sets of minor pieces as White's eS- and aspawns are vulnerable. 12•.. 0-0 (D)

w

13 tLlfe5 Alternatives: a) 13 i:!d1 'Wic7 - 10 'g,dl tLlbd7 11 tLlbd2 ~e7 12 tLlc4 flic7 13 as 0-0. b) 13 i.d2 iYb8 14 .l:i.fc1 (14 tLlfeS cxd4 IS exd4 i.dS intending ...flib7 is equal according to Hiibner) 14 ... ~dS IS i.a4 ~b7! (preventing the e4 trick - IS ... 'g,c8? 16 e4! ~c6 {16 ... ~xe4 17 tLlfeS tLlf8 18 tLlb6; 16 ... ~xc4 17 'g,xc4 +Hiibner} 17 i.xc6 .l:i.xc6 18 tLlfeS tLlxeS 19 dxeS is much better for White, Hiibner-Rublevsky, Polanica Zdroj 1996) 16 dxcS (16 tLlfeS!?) 16 ... i.xcs 17 tLlceS tLlxeS 18 tLlxeS .l:i.ac8 19 f3 ~d6 20 tLlc4 i.xc4 (20 ... ~xh2+!? 21 'iitxh2 ~c7+ 22 'iitg1 i.xc4 23 ~e1 ~b7 24 ~xb4 l:Hd8 =) 21l:Ixc41Ixc4 22 ~xc4 'g,c8 23 ~e2 112-112 Ruck-B.Lalic, Bosnian Cht (Neum) 2004. 13...~c714 i.d2 ~d5! (D)

iVe2 b5 8 i.b3 Jib7 9 a4

91

This move was Lautier's improvement over 14 ... cxd4?! IS exd4 ~dS 16 i.gS ;!; YusupovGonzalez Garcia, Linares 1997 - White's darksquared bishop has been liberated.

15 tLlxd7 Black is able to force favourable simplifications after IS ~a4 tLlxeS 16 tLlxeS (16 dxeS? ~xc4 17 ~xc4 ~xeS + Lautier) 16 ... cxd4 17 exd4 ~b7 18 f3 ~ac8 =1= Csiszar-Gonzalez Garcia, Pecs 1997. 15•.• tLlxd7 16 e4 i.xc4 17 ~xc4 ~b7 White has temporarily obtained the bishoppair, but his centre is somewhat shaky. 18 d5 tLle5 19 ~e2 c4! 20 .txc4 tLlxc4 21 'i!Vxc4 exd5 22 exd5 The rook endgame is level after 22 'i!VxdS 'iVxdS 23 exdS 'g,fd8 24 'g,fe1 ~xdS 2S .l:he7 'g,xd2 = Lautier. 22•. .lUd8 23 .l:i.fc1l:txd5 The chances are equal, Yusupov-Lautier, Ubeda 1997.

82) 10 ~dl tLlbd7 11 tLlbd2 i.e712 tLlc4 (D) 12..•flic7 The alternative is 12 ... 0-0, and now: a) 13 ~d2 and then: a1) 13 ... 'i!Vc7 - 12... 'i!Vc7 13 .i.d2 0-0. a2) 13 ... aS!? (an interesting attempt to do without ... iYc7) 14 i:!ac1 ~b8 and here: a21) IS tLlfeS i.dS 16 tLlxd7 (16 e4? .i.xc4 17 ~xc4 tLlxeS 18 dxeS 'i!VxeS 19 i.e3 'Wixe4 gives Black a clear advantage, Llanos-Spangenberg, La Carlota 1995) 16... tLlxd7 17 e4 .i.xc4 18 .l:txc4 cxd4 19 l:txd4 tLlcs =.

92

How TO BEAT 1 d4

B

are more actively deployed, Obukhov-Thragimov, Ekaterinburg 1997. 14•.•l:tfd8 14... l:!ac8 15l:tac1 :fd8 -14...'f1Jd8 15l:tac1 l:Iac8.

15 l:tac1 (D)

B

a22) 15 ttJce5 ttJxe5 16 ttJxe5 l:td8 = Brynell-Sadler, Malmo 1995. b) 13 ~c2 (White prepares to support the c4-knight with his b-pawn) 13 ... 'iVc7 14 ttJfe5 lIac8 15 b3 cxd4 (Black hastens to exchange centre pawns before White has played .i.b2 now White must recapture with a pawn) 16 exd4 ttJdS 17 .i.d2 ttJxe5 18 dxe5 ttJb6! = Burmakin-Volzhin, St Petersburg 1998. The timing of Black's pawn and piece exchanges is instructive - White was denied the opportunity to utilize the d6-square for a knight. 13 .i.d2 White can also play: a) 13 as 0-0 14 i..d2 -13 iLd2 0-0 14 a5. b) 13 ttJfe5 0-0 14 aSl:tfd8 15 .i.d2 cxd4 16 exd4 ttJxe5 17 dxe5 ttJe4 18 .i.e3 ttJc5 leads to an unclear position, Levin-Maksimenko, Lvov 1995. 13... 0-0 14 ttJfe5 Alternatives: a) 14l:tac1 .l:i.ac8 (l4 ... aS 15 ttJfe5 ttJb6 16 ttJd3 ttJxc4 17 i..xc4 'iVc6 18 ttJf4l:tac8 19 .i.b5 112-112 Kallai-G.Lanc, Tbilisi 1987) 15 iLc2 cxd4 16 ttJxd4 ttJe5 17 ttJxe5 'iVxe5 112-112 MedunaMokry, Czech Cht 1995. Black has a slight edge in the final position. b) 14 ttJce5 ttJxe5 15 ttJxe5 .i.d6 (another idea is 15 .. J:tad816l:tac1 ~b8=) 16f4~d517 i..xd5 exd5 18 dxc5 ~xc5 19 b3 (FilippovYakovich, Russian Ch (Elista) 1995) 19 ... 'iVc2 20 'iVd3 'iVxd3 21 ttJxd3 as is slightly better for Black. c) 14 as .i.dS 15 l:ac1 'tlUb7 16 i..a4 l:tfd8 (16 ... cxd4 17 exd4 iLxf3 18 'iVxf3 'iVxf3 19 gxf3 .l:!.ac8 is unclear) 17 dxc5 i..xc5 (17 ... ttJxc5!? 18 .i.c2 'iVb5 +) 18 i..e1 'f1ac8 and Black's pieces

15•••a5 Black can also invite the white a-pawn to step forward by playing 15 ... l:tac8 16 as (White clears the a4-square for his light-squared bishop, but the advanced a-pawn can become vulnerable) 16 ... iLdS 17 ttJxd7 ttJxd7 18 e4 iLxc4 19 ~xc4 'iVxas 20 d5 (20 l:ta1 'WIc7 21 iLxa6 {21 dxc5? as is much better for Black, Keres-Reshevsky, Semmering 1937} 2l...l:ta8 22 .i.e3 = Ftacnik) 20 ... exdS 21 .i.xd5 ttJb6 22 .i.b7 l:tc7 23 'f1a1 'iVb5 24 .i.xa6 'iVxe2 25 .i.xe2 (Vorobiov-Leontiev, Moscow Ch 1999) 25 ... l:tcd7 =. 16 .i.el ttJxe5 Ftacnik suggested 16... .i.dS!? 17 ttJxd7l:txd7 18 ttJd2 =. 17 dxe5 17 ttJxe5 (liz-liz Kiriakov-Makarov, Russian Clubs Cup (Maikop) 1998) 17 ... iLd6 = Anand. 17..•ttJd7 18 f4 (D) 18•••.i.a6 Or 18 ... ttJb6!? 19 .uxd8+ 'iVxd8 20 l:td1 'iVc7 21 ttJxb6 (21 ttJd6 iLd5 =+= Khuzman) 2l...'iVxb6 22 f5!? (22 i..c4 l:td8 looks comfortable for Black) 22 ... ~a6 (22 ... exf5? 23 l:td7 l:te8 24 'iVc4 +- Anand) 23 Win .l:.d8 and then: a) 24 f6 .i.f8 25 .i.h4 g6 is slightly better for Black thanks to his extra pawn on the queenside . b) 24 fxe6 fxe6 25 l:txd8+ .i.xd8 26 ~c2 and then:

CLASSICAL VARIATION: 7

Wie2 b5 8 iLb3 iLb7 9 a4

93

B

w

bl) 26 ... c4 27 i..xh7+ 'iitxh7 28 \il¥h5+ \t>g8 29 \il¥e8+ Wh7 30 'iWh5+ with a draw by perpetual check. b2) 26 ... g6!? gives Black a slight pull due to his queenside pawn majority and White's doubled e-pawns. c) 24l:txd8+ .i.xd8 25 f6 .i.b7 26 ~g3 g6 27 ~dl (27 ~g5 ~c6) 27 ... c4 28 'ilVf4 'ilVc5 29 'iVh6 'iVf8 30 'iVf4 'ilVc5 with a draw by repetition. 19 'iVc2 ~xc4 (D) Now:

a) 20 'iVxc4?! lLlb6 21 ~xd8+ ~xd8 (alternatively, 2l....i:i.xd8 22 'iVb5 lLld5 23 ~f2 'ilVb6 =) 22 ~b5 (Yusupov-Anand, Dortmund 1997) 22 ... c4! 23 ~xc4 (23 i..dl 'ilVd5! 24 'ilVxd5 exd5 =+= Anand) 23 ... .:c8 24 b3 l:tc5 25 'iVa6 'VIIc7 =+= Anand. Now Khuzman suggested 26 e4 "! ;1;", but Black is fine after 26 ... lLlxc4 27 bxc4 (27 l:!.xc4? l:!.xc4 28 bxc4 b3 +) 27 .. ,lIc6 (27 ... b3!?) 28 ~b5 ~c5+ 29 ~f2 h6 =. b) 20 .i.xc4 (this is the safer way to recapture) 20 ... lLlb6 21 b3lLlxc4 22 'VIIxc4 with equal chances according to Anand.

11 Classical Variation: 7 ~e2 b5 8 ~b3 ~b7 9 Mdl

1 d4 d5 2 c4 dxc4 3 tLlf3 tLlf6 4 e3 e6 5 ~xc4 c5 60-0 a6 7 '¥Ve2 b5 8 .i.b3 ~b7 9l:!.dl (D)

The Classical Variation with 9l:tdl is one of the traditional main lines of the Queen's Gambit Accepted. White immediately occupies the d-file and prepares a possible d5 pawn advance. 9••• tLlbd7 10 tLlc3 An important alternative is 10 e4 (l0 a4 - 9 a4 tLlbd7 10 rJ.dI) 1O ... cxd4 (10 ... tLlxe4? 11 d5 ±; 1O....i.xe4!? 11 tLlg5 ~g6 12 d5 e5 13 tLle6 '¥Vb6 14 tLlxf8 Wxf8 was unclear in F.AdamHafner, German COIT. Ch 1992) 11 e5 (11 tLlxd4 ~b8 12 tLlc3 - 10 tLlc3 'WIb8 11 e4 cxd4 12 tLlxd4) and now: a) l1...tLld5 12 rJ.xd4 '¥Vc7 13 .i.d2 tLle7 14 tLlc3 tLlc6 (14 ... tLlg6!? Neishtadt) 15 rJ.f4 and then: al) 15 ... tLlcxe5 16 rJ.xf7 ~xf7 (16 ... tLlxf3+ 17 ':xf3 ~xf3 18 'WIxf3 with compensation) 17 tLlg5+, intending tLlxe6, with a strong attack. a2) 15 ... tLldxe5 16 tLlxe5 and now both 16 ...'WIxe5 17 ~e4 and 16 ... tLlxe5 17 rJ.el give White compensation. a3) 15 ... .i.e7 16litell:td8 (Pared-Vera, Manzanillo 1987) 17 ..tel tLlc5 18 ..tc2 b4 is unclear - Vera.

b) 1l....i.xf3 12 gxf3 tLlh5 13 f4 ~h4 (or 13 ... g6 14l:txd4 ~b6 {14 ... ..tc5 15 ':dl 'WIh4 = Anderton-Hempson, COIT. 1986} 15 'u'dl rJ.d8 16 tLlc3 {Timman-Seirawan, Indonesia 1983} 16 ... tLlg7! with an unclear position - Timman) 14l:txd4 ~c5 and here: bl) 15 i:1xd7 'it>xd7 16 ~f3 and now: bll) 16 .. .l:tac8 (the wrong rook) 17 tLlc3 f5 18 .i.xe6+ 'it>xe6 19 ~d5+ We7 20 '¥Vb7+ = Salov-Kupreichik, USSR Ch (Minsk) 1987. b12) 16 ... .:hc8! (the right rook) 17 tLlc3 f5 (17 .. Jlc6!? 18 f5l:tac8 19 fxe6+ fxe6 + AzamFedorko, IECC COIT. 1998) 18 exf6 (now 18 ..txe6+? has no point after 18 .. .'ihe6 19 '¥Vd5+ 'it>e7 20 '¥Vb7+ 'it>f8 -+) 18 ... tLlxf6 19 f5 ("unclear" - Salov, but I don't see it) 19 ... exf5 20 '¥Vxf5+ 'it>e8 21 ~e6+ 'it>d8 +. b2) 15 l:te4 tLlg3 (15 ... .i.b6!? with the idea of ... tLlc5 was suggested by Salov) 16 hxg3 '¥Vxg3+ 17 'it>f1 '¥Vh3+ 18 WeI (18 ~gl '¥Vg3+ 19 'it>f1 '¥Vh3+ 1/2- 1/2 Ligterink-Ree, Dutch Ch (Hilversum) 1987) 18 ... ~hl+ 19 'it>d2 ~xf2 intending ... tLlc5 with compensation - Salov. We now return to 10 tLlc3 (D):

Our repertoire consists of a choice between three black queen moves:

CLASSICAL VARIATION:

7 'iVe2 b5 8 i..b3 i..b7 9 ndl

A: 10•• :iNc7 9S B: 10..:iVb8 96 c: 10.. :~b6 98 These variations often come to the same thing if White plays an immediate 11 dS pawn advance (the common lines are considered in Line C), but there are some subtle differences between these moves and a careful study of them will benefit most tournament players. The typical club player may prefer to select Line C if his or her opening study time is limited.

95

Ftacnik) 21 fie2 (21 ~3 .l:tf6) 2l....i.xb3 22 .l:!.dc1 ~S+. a2) 17 l:[ac1 ~b7 18 h4 i.e7 19 ~g4 g6 with an unclear position, Levitt-Chernin, Moscow 1988. b) 13 f3 .i.e7 14 .i.e3 0-0 IS .:tac1 .l:l.ac8 16 .tc2 and here: bl) 16 ... ~b8 17 ttJb3 ttJxb3 18 .i.xb3 I1fd8 =Andersson-Ribli, Bayern-Lyon ECC 1991. b2) 16 ... .l:!.fd8 17 a3 fib8 18 ttJb3 ttJxb3 19 .i.xb3 .i.d6 20 g3 .i.eS = Salov-Chernin, Wijk aan Zee 1991.

A) 10•. :~c7 (D) B

White has two major options here: AI: 11 e4 9S A2: 11 d5 96 He also has some more minor moves: a) 11 h3 i.d6 12 a3 0-0 13 dxc5 ttJxcS 14 i.c2 ttJfe4 with a slight initiative, AnastasianWells, Budapest ECC 1996. b) II i.d2 i.d6 12 .:tac1 ~b8 13 h3 0-0 = Avrukh-Timoshenko, Erevan ECC 1997.

AI) 11 e4 cxd4 12 ttJxd4 ttJc5 13 .i.g5 (D) Alternatives: a) 13 eS ttJfd7 14 .i.f4 b4 IS ttJa4 ttJxb3 16 axb3 .i.dS and then: al) 17 ttJfS?! (Hoi-L.B.Hansen, Danish Ch (Randers) 1996) 17 ... ~b7 18 ttJd6+ .i.xd6 19 exd6 0-0 20 ~g4 fS! (this is stronger than 20 ... ttJf6 21 ~h3, which is unclear according to

13....i.d6 Black should avoid the greedy but fatal capture 13 ... ttJfxe4? 14 ttJxe4, and now: a) 14 ... ttJxe4? IS ttJxbS! axbS (lS ... ~b6 16 ttJc7+! ~xc7 17 .i.a4+ .i.c6 18 ~xe4 +-) 16 ~xbS+ i.c6 (16 ... ~c6 17 ~xb7 'ii'xb7 18 .i.a4+ .l:txa4 19l::td8#) 17 .i.a4l:.xa4 18 ~xc6+ ~xc6 19 .l:td8# Anand. b) 14 ... i.xe4 IS f3 ± Anand. 14 :tacl i.xh2+ 15 Whl i.e516 i.xf6 gxf6 Now: a) 17 'ii'hS 0-0-0!7+ Anand. 17 ... 'ii'e7!? also looks strong. b) 17 ttJcxbS! fie7 18 :xcS! (18 ttJc3 fS! + Anand) 18 ... 'ii'xcs 19 ttJxe6! fxe6 (19 ... 'ii'e7? loses to 20 ttJbc7+ .i.xc7 21 .i.a4+; 19 ... 'iVxbS? 20 ~hS We7 21 ttJc7 ~xb3 22 axb3 .txc7 23 'iVcS+ +- Anand) 20 'ilVhS+ We7 (20 ... Wf8 21 .:td7 'ii'c1 + 22 i.dl +- Anand) 21 .i.xe6! Wxe6! (2l...l:.af8?? 22 ~d7+ 'itxe6 23 fifS#) 22 fig4+ Wf7 23 .l:td7+ ~e7 24 fihS+ Wf8 2S 'iVh6+ Wf7 26 ':'xe7+ Wxe7 27 ~g7+ (White has run out of pieces to sacrifice, but his combination is good enough for a draw as the black king has

96

How TO BEAT 1 d4

no sanctuary from the checks) 27 ... We6 28 'iYg4+ We7 (28 ... Wf7 29 ~d7+ 'iiig6 30 'iYg4+ 'iiih6 31 'iYh3+ Wg7 32 ~d7+ 'iiig6 33 'iYg4+ 'iiif7 34 'iYd7+ '12-'12 Lazovic-Feletar, Croatian Cht (Pula) 1999) 29 ~g7+ 'iiie6 30 'iYxb7 axbS 31 'iYdS+ We7 32 'iYb7+ 'iiie6 33 ~dS+ '12-'12 Christiansen-Anand, Las Palmas 1993 - an entertaining and instructive tactical slugfest.

A2) 11 d5 c4!? This is one of the interesting ideas behind 10 .. .'*Wc7 - Black aims for a favourable Meran pawn-structure in which his queen is already situated on the optimal c7-square. Black can also play the conventional 11...ciJxdS 12 ttJxdS ~xdS 13 ~xdS exdS 14 l::txdS ~b7 - JO... 'Wib6 11 d5 lihd5 12 lihd5 bd5 13 bd5 exd5 14 l::txd5 'WIb7. 12 dxe6 fxe6 13 .ic2 ~d6 (D)

c3) IS e4 l::tae8 16 'iiihi (16 ~gS h6 17 ~d2 ~cS 18 .ie3 {Kraai-Acosta, Peoria 1991} 18 ... lId8 =+=) 16 ....tf4 (16 ... b4!?) 17 .ixf4'iiYxf4 18 'iYd2 'iYxd2 19 ttJxd2 ttJeS =+= Blocker-Shamkovich, New York 1985. d) 14 e4 0-0 IS .igS ~f4 16 i.xf4 ~xf4 17 ~d2 ~xd2 and then: d1) 18 l::txd2? ttJcS 19 eS ttJg4 20 ttJd4 ttJxeS is much better for Black, Grinshpun-A.Horvath, Budapest rpd 1992. d2) 18 ttJxd2 (Fochtler-Raetsky, Schwabisch Gmund 1992) 18 ... ttJeS =+=. e) 14 ~d2!? and then: el) 14 ....tcS IS ttJgS ~eS (IS ...'Wic6 16 f3 ttJdS =) 16 ttJce4 (16 e4?! 0-0 =+= Bechler-Stroeher, COIT. 2001) 16 ... .ixe4 17 ttJxe4 0-0 18

ttJxcS ttJxcS =. e2) 14 ... .ie7 IS ttJd4 ttJcS = SanfrutusHanison, e-mail 2002. e3) 14 ... 'iiie7!? IS e4 (Lputian-Vallejo Pons, Moscow tt 2004) IS ... b4 16 ~gS 'iiif7 with an unclear position. B)

W

10...'iYb8 (D)

White has a wide choice here and no clear preference has emerged: a) 14 ttJd4? (a tempting but ill-advised attempt to refute Black's set-up) 14 ... .txh2+ IS 'iiih 1 ttJcS 16 f4 .ig3 -+ Frias-Blocker, New York 1985. b) 14 11d4 0-0 IS l:th4 ttJcS gives Black a slight advantage, Granda-Magem, Pamplona 199112. c) 14 h3 0-0 and now: cl) IS ttJgS ttJcS 16 b4 cxb3 17 axb3 .ieS 18 l::td4 b4 + Grooten-Piket, Dutch Ch (Rotterdam) 2000. c2) IS .id2 b4 16 ttJa4 ttJe4 =+= SinkovicsCrouch, Krumbach 1991.

Black slides his queen away from the danger along the d-file. 11 d5 Or: a) 11 e4 cxd4 12 ttJxd4 (12 ':xd4 .ics 13 l:i.d3 ttJg4!? {13 ... 0-0 =Borges-R.Vera, Cuban Ch (Holguin City) 2002} 14 ttJdl ttJdf6 IS h3 hS =+= Kaunas-Pohla, Daugavpils 1979) 12 ... i.d6 and then: al) 13 .ixe6? fxe6 14 ttJxe6 and here:

97

CLASSICAL VARIATION: 7 "fie2 b5 8 Sl.b3 ii.b7 9 'ad]

all) 14... ~xh2+ IS 'It>hl (Shirazi-Seirawan, New York 1984) lS ... ~eS 16 CLlxg7+ 'iitf7 17 CLlfS CLlcS +. a12) 14 ... 'lt>f7 IS CLlgS+ 'iitg8 16 a4 (BeniFichtl, East Berlin 1962) 16 ... ..txh2+ 17 Wh1 h6 +. a2) 13 g3 b4 14 CLla4 ..txe4 IS f3 eS (after IS ... ..tg6 16 .ixe6 0-0 the position is also unclear) 16 CLle6 fxe6 17 fxe4 ~cS+ is unclear, Majchrak-Fichtl, Stary Smokovec 1972. a3) 13 h3 0-0 14 a3 :d8 IS ..tc2 ..th2+ 16 'It>h1 i.f4 = Reshevsky-Portisch, Amsterdam IZ Playoff (1) 1964. b) 11 CLle5 (D) and then:

We now return to 11 dS (D):

l1...exdS B

Alternatives: a) ll...eS 12 e4 ..td6 13 CLlh4 0-014 CLlfS g6 IS CLlh6+ 'It>g7 16 'iVf3 c4 17 ~c2 ..tc8 18 CLle2 b4 19 CLlg3 CLlcS 20 ..tgS CLle8 ;t Gil CapapeSadler, Benidorm 1991. b) 11...c4!? (the Meran System idea from Line A2 above - this move is a favourite of GM Ildar Ibragimov) 12 dxe6 fxe6 13 i.c2 .id6 14 e4 (14 'iVd2 ~xf3 IS 'iYxd6 ..txd1 16 'iVxe6+ Wf8 17 ~xd1 'iVeS +) 14 ... 0-0 IS h3 (1S ~gS CLleS 16 CLlxeS .ixeS 17 h3 'iVc7 ShvartsIbragimov, USSR Cht (Podolsk) 1991; IS a4 CLleS 16 CLlxeS .ixeS 17 axbS axbS 18 l:Ixa8 'iVxa8 19 h3 .ic6 Saga1chik-Ibragimov, Katowice 1990) lS ... 'iVc7. Black is a tempo down compared to Line A2, but his position is still satisfactory. Now: bl) 16 'It>hl.l:Iae8 17 i.gS h6 18 ~d2 ..tb4 Pakleza-Lipka, Czech Extraliga 2004/S. b2) 16 ..te3 l:tae8 17 l:tac 1 ..tb4 = PostlIbragimov, Graz 1995. b3) 16 .tgS .if4 17 .ixf4 'iVxf4 18 a3 CLle5 19 CLld4l:tae8 was unclear in Lugovoi-M.Makarov, Russian Ch (Elista) 1997. b4) 16 a3 l1ae8 17 ~e3 (17 CLld4 CLlcS 18 'It>hl i.eS = Bouaziz-Sashikiran, Dubai 2004) 17 ... CLleS 18 CLld4 CLlg6 Sashikiran-Cu.Hansen, Skanderborg 2003. c) 11...CLlxdS (this move-order attempts to avoid 11...exdS 12 e4!?, but gives White an alternative, though less explored, e4-based idea) 12 CLlxdS ..txdS 13 ..txdS exdS 14 e4!? (14 l:txdS 'iVb7 - 10... 'iVb6 11 d5 exd5 12 CLlxd5 CLlxd5 13 Ld5 Ld514 l:txd5'iVb7) 14 ... d415

+

b1) ll...CLlxeS 12 dxeS and here: bll) 12 ... 'iVxeS?! (this capture is dubious, but the refutation is instructive) 13 CLlxbS c4 14 ..txc4 axbS IS .ixbS+ 'It>e7 16 .id2 CLle4 (16 ... CLldS 17 e4 ± Bokan-Savic, corr. 1980) 17 i.e1 (Bokan-Kindjic, Serbian corr. Ch 1980) 17 ... Wf6 18 f3 i.d6 19 l:txd6 'iYxd6 20 fxe4 with a strong attack. b12) 12 ... CLld7 13 f4 i.c6 14 a4 c4 IS i.c2 'iYb7 16 axbS axbS 17 .l:!.xa8+ 'iYxa8 18 'iYd2 CLlcS = Barczay-Brilla Banfalvi, corr. 1981-4. b2) 1l.....td6 12 f4 (12 CLlxd7 CLlxd7 13 h3 0-0 = Neamtu-Breahna, Romanian Cht (Baile Herculane) 1994) 12 ... 0-0 13 ..td2 CLlb6 14l!ac1 cxd4 IS exd4 'iVe8 16 a3 .l:!.c8 17 .l:!.fl CLlbd5 18 f5 CLlxc3 19 ..txc3 ..tdS liz-liz Ubilava-Gulko, Tashkent 1984. c) 11 .ic2..td6 12 h3 (12 dxcS ..txcS 13 h3 0-0 14 e4l:te8 = Burmakin-Rublevsky, St Petersburg 1995) 12 ... 0-0 13 e4 (13 CLlgS .l::tc8 is comfortable for Black) 13 ... cxd4 14 CLlxd4 .l:!.c8 IS a3 h6 = Stigar-Flear, Copenhagen 1983.

+

+

=

98

How TO BEAT

b4 liJe5 16 bxc5 (16 ~f4!? liJxf3+ 17 ~xf3 'iib6 18 ~g3 c4 is unclear) 16 ... liJxf3+ 17 'iUxf3 SLxc5 18 'iUf5! SLe7 19 SLf4 (19 SLb2!?) 19 ... 'iVb6 20 'iUe5 (20 SLe5 0-0 21 .i.xd4 ~g6 = Khuzman) 20 ... ~f6 = M.Pavlovic-Drasko, Yugoslav Ch (Belgrade) 1998. We now return to 11...exd5 (D):

12liJxd5 White can continue in gambit style with 12 e4!? Then: a) 12 ... dxe4 13 SLc2 (13 liJg5 c4 14liJcxe4 liJxe4 15 ~c2 f5 16 ~xe4 fxe4 17 l:1.xd7 ~xd7 = Morovic-Marjanovic, Bor 1985) 13 ... ~e7 14 liJxe4 liJxe4 15 SLxe4 liJf6 16 SLf4 ~c8 17 SLxb7 ~xb7 18 SLd6 ~f8 19 a4 with compensation, Ribli-Marjanovic, Reggio Emilia 1985/6. b) 12 ... d4 13 e5 SLxf3 14 ~xf3 liJxe5 15 ~e2 SLd6 16liJd5liJxd5 17 SLxd5 0-0 18 SLxa8 ~xa8 19 a4 ~c6 20 axb5 axb5 21 f4liJg6 22 g3 c4 23 ~g2 ~b6 24 ~hl with an unclear position, lasnikowski-Meins, Cuxhaven 1993. 12... c4!? This is one of the interesting ideas behind 1O ... 'iVb8 - the move is possible here because the black queen is beyond the range of the white knight. Black aims for a Meran pawnstructure, similar to Line A2. Alternatives: a) 12 ... SLd6 13 e4 0-0 14 SLg5 liJxd5 15 SLxd5 SLxd5 16 nxdSliJb6 17l:tddl f6 18 ~e3 ~c7 =Lalic-S.Mirkovic, Bela Crkva 1985. b) 12 ... liJxd5 (the standard reply) 13 SLxd5 ~xd5 14lhd5 ~b7 - JO... 'ilb611 d5 exd5 12 liJxd5liJxd5 13 .Ld5 bd5 14 'fJ:xd5 'iIIb7. 13 e4! (D) This central thrust is more challenging than 13liJxf6+ liJxf6 14 SLc2 ~c5 and now:

1 d4

a) 15liJd40-0 16 a4 (16 e4? (lh-lh VelikovInkiov, Rijeka 2001} 16 .. .lId8 17 ~e3 .txe4 and Black has won a pawn) 16 ... SLd6 = Santos Ramos-Medina Cledon, COIT. 1986. b) 15 ~d2 0-0 16 .tc3 liJe4 17 SLxe4 ~xe4 =Clarizza-Cataldi, COIT. 1978.

13••• SLd6 The bishop is immune - 13 ... cxb3? 14 SLf4 SLd6 15 liJxf6+ liJxf6 16 SLxd6 gives White a large advantage. 14 SLc2 14liJxf6+ gxf6 intending ... ~c7 is unclear. 14... 0-0 15liJxf6+ liJxf616 .tg5liJg417 h3 liJe5 18liJd4 t[e8 The chances are equal, A.Gomez-Filipovs, ICCF World Cup COIT. 1990.

C) 10...'iUb6 (D) The traditional queen development has been Black's most popular choice in recent years.

CLASSICAL VARIATION: 7

C1: 11 a4 C2: 11 d5

"VlIie2 b5 8 i.b3 i.b7 9 'S.dl

99 101

Minor alternatives: a) 11 ~d2 j,e7 12 a4 c4 13 .ltc2 b4 14 as 'fIJc7 IS ttJa4 0-0 = Y.Popov-Y.Filippov, Russian Cht (Tomsk) 2001. b) 11 i.c2 :d8 12 a4 b4 13 ttJbl Wilc7 14 i.d3 cxd4 IS exd4 as 16 i.gS .lte7 17 ttJbd2 0-0 18 .l:!.ac1 Wilb8 = Benitah-Fressinet, Paris 2004. c) 11 e4 cxd4 12 ttJxd4 .i.cs 13 i.e3 ttJeS 14 B (14 a4 ttJeg4 = Korchnoi-P.Nikolic, Reykjavik (World Cup) 1988) 14 ... .l:!.d8 IS ttJc2 i.xe3+ 16 Wilxe3 Wilxe3+ 17 ttJxe3 ~e7 18 i.c2 gS!? = Vescovi-Spangenberg, Villa Martelli 1997.

99

shattered; 19 .l:!.g 1 .i.d6 - 18... .i.d6 19 'fI.g1 Wilh5) 19 ... .ltd6 20 f4 and then: b21) 20 ... ttJg4 21 f3 ttJh6 (after 2l...ttJxh2? 22 Wgl! {22 ~g2 gS 23 :hl g4 24 fxg4 Wilxg4+ 2S ~xg4 ttJxg4 26 ~B fS = P.Kukacs-Wells, Australian Cht 2000} 22 ... ttJxB+ 23 ~f2 Wilh4+ 24 ~xB ± Black has inadequate compensation for the piece) 22 Ugl 0-0 23 ~g2 g6 24 i.xa6 l:tc7 2S .ltd3 t. b22) 20 .. :~Vxe2 21 i.xe2 l:tc6 with equal chances. Now we return to 14 ... ~c8 (D):

CI) 11 a4 White seeks to exploit the slightly exposed position of the black queen. 1l...e4 12 i.e2 b413 a5 Wile7 14 ttJa4 .l:!.e8 Black can also play 14 ... WilxaS IS Wilxc4 (D) and now:

This position has been reached in only a handful of top-level games. Now: Cll: 15 e4 99 C12: 15 ttJb6!? 100

CII) 15 e4 b3 16 i.b1 'ilVxa5 17 e5 ttJd5 18 ttJg5 (D)

a) IS ... ~hS 16 'fIJe2 i.d6 17 h3 (17 e4?? i.xh2+ 18 ~f1 i.c7 + Berczes-Galyas, Budapest 2002) 17 ... ttJe4 =. b) IS ...lIc8 16 'fIJe2 i.xf3 17 gxB ~gS+ 18 ~hl and then: bl) 18 ....id6 19 .J:tgl ~hS 20 .l:!.g2 0-0 = Kurtz-Luers, ICCF COIT. Wch 1999. b2) 18 ...'fIJhS 19 .i.d3 (19 e4? .ltd6! 20 eS ttJxeS 21 i.f4 ttJc4 22 .ixd6 ttJxd6 23 ttJcS 0-0 is much better for Black, Lautier-Van Wely, Bundesliga 1997/8 - White's pawn-structure is

White has developed some kingside pressure at the cost of a pawn. 18.•.i.e7! Black defends the sensitive gS-square - this is safer than 18 ... i.b4 19 ~hS! (19 WilB l:tf8 was unclear in H0i-Sadler, Erevan OL 1996) 19 ... g6 20 Wilf3 0-0 (20 ... .l:tf8!?) 21 ~h3 hS 22 i.xg6 (22 ttJxe61:tfe8 {22 ... fxe6 23 ~xg6 with an attack - Dolmatov} 23 ttJgS .i.c6 24 e6 is also strong) 22 .. .fxg6 23 Wilxe6+ Wh8 (23 ... ~g7 24 'fIJxd7+ i.e7 2S ttJe6+ +-) 24 ~xg6 ttJ7f6 2S exf6 ttJxf6 26 'fIJh6+ Wg8 27 ttJe6 +-. 19 ttJe4!? 19 ~hS? g6 and then: a) 20 ~f3 i.xgS! 21 .ixgS .ic6 +.

100

How TO BEAT 1 d4

has weathered the storm and emerged with an extra pawn. b) 21...c3!? 22 bxc3ltJxc3 (22 .. J:tc4 is well met by 23ltJac5) 23ltJaxc3 ~xa1 24 Jl.g5 f5 25 ~xe7 Jl.xe4 26ltJxe4 fxe4 27 ~xf8ltJxf8 +.

B

C12)

b) 20 ~h6 (Agdamus-Pilnik, Buenos Aires 1972) 20 ... c3! 21 'ViIg7 ':f8 +. 19 ...0-0 Dolmatov wisely assessed this position as unclear. Black can also continue 19 .. .lt:J7b6 20 ~d2 ltJb4 21 ltJec5!? (a temporary sacrifice) 21...Jl.xc5 22 ltJxc5 'ViIxal 23 ltJxb7 ltJ4d5 24 ltJd6+ ~d7 25ltJxc8 ':xc8 =Beck-Degerman, e-mail 1997. 20~h5?!

The safest course is 20 ~g4!? g6 21 ~d2 W1c7 22 ~h6 .l:I.fd8 with roughly level chancesWhite has some kingside pressure in exchange for his pawn. 20 ...g6 21 ~h6 (D)

15ltJb6!? The knight leap vacates the a4-square for White's light-squared bishop. 15 ...b3 This pawn advance is necessary in order to bottle up White's queenside. 15 ... ltJxb6 is too risky, as after 16 axb6 ~xb6 17 ~a4+ ~e7 (after 17 ... ~c6 18 ~xc4 White wins a pawn) 18 ltJe5 'ViIc7 (18 ... Jl.d5? 19 f3 ± Horak-Manukyan, IECG COIT. 2001) 19 f3 White has good compensation for the pawn - Black's king is misplaced. 16ltJxd7 (D) Black's minor pieces are superior to White's rook and pawns after 16 ltJxc8 bxc2 17 l:td2 'i¥xc8 18 .l:hc2 .td6 19 ':xc4 ~b8 +.

B

B

Now: a) 21..JHe8 22 ltJac5!? ~b5 (the sacrifice must be declined - White wins after 22 ... 'ViIxal ? 23 ltJxd7 ~h8 24 ~g5 l:tg8 25 ~f6+ ~xf6 {25 ... ltJxf6 26 ltJg5 +-} 26 exf6 ltJxf6 27 ltJdxf6 ':g7 28 ltJg5 +-) 23 ltJxd7 ~xd7 24 ltJg5 ~xg5 25 ~xg5 f5 26 exf6 l:tf8 Black

+.

Black has several playable options: a) 16 ... ltJxd7 17 ~bl (B. Rasmusson-Brody, Warsaw OL 1935) 17 ....tb4 18 e4 JlxaS 19 d5 is unclear. b) 16 ... bxc2 17 ltJxf6+ gxf6 18 ~xc2 f5 (18 ... ~xf3 19 gxf3 ~d6 20 ~hl ;\;) 19 'ViIe2 (19 ~a4+ ~c6 20 ~xc4l:tg8 with compensation - Dolmatov) 19 ... ~d6 20 h3 .l:!.g8 and Black's powerful bishops compensate for his minus pawn. c) 16 ... ~xd7 17 i..bl ~d5 gives Black a comfortable position as White is hemmed in on the queenside.

CLASSICAL VARIATION: 7 "VJiIe2 b5 8 .i..b3 .i..b7 9 ~dl

C2) 11 dS tLlxdS 12 tLlxdS .txdS 13 .txdS exdS 14~xdS~b7

Another move-order is 14 ... i.e7 IS e4 ~b7 -14....~b7 15 e4 i.e7. IS e4 White obtains no benefit from the adventurous IS ~gS!? g6 16 e4 i.g7 17 eS tLlf8 18 a4 .l::i.b8 19 axbS axbS 20 e6 tLlxe6 21 ~xcS 0-0 22 .l:!.c2 b4 with equal chances, P.Nikolic-Seirawan, Manila OL 1992. lS .••i.e7 16 i.gS tLlb6 (D)

17 ~ad1 The most popular choice here, but there are alternatives: a) 17 ~fS f6 18 .th4 0-0 19 eS ~ae8 20 exf6 i.xf6 21 ~c2 i.xh4 22 ~xf8+ .l:!.xf8 23 tLlxh4 c4 +Ehlvest-Ivanchuk, Riga 1995. b) 17 .txe7 tLlxdS 18 i.xcs tLlf419 'iVe3 tLle6 20 i.d6 f6 21 eS!? (21 ~b3 \t>f7 22 eS l:the8 23 l:tel {23 exf6 gxf6 24 ~d3 \t>g8 += R.VogelGJacoby, Bundesliga 1984/S} 23 ... ~ad8 + Donner-Portisch, Varna OL 1962) 2l...~dS 22 ~el \t>f7 23 .l:!.dl (23 b3 .l::rhd8 24 ':dl ~c6 +) 23 ... 'iixa2 24 exf6 gxf6 2S ~e4 gave White compensation in Dao-Sadler, Budapest 1993. c) 17 l:tel 0-0 18 i.xe7 ~xe7 19 :eS ~c7 20 l:IhS (20 .l:!.gS f6 21 ~g3 .l:!.ae8 22 ~c2 112-112 Levitt-Murshed, London 1989; 20 ~c2 c4 is also equal, Meister-Schlemmermeyer, Berlin Ch 2004) 20 .. JIfe8 21 ~c2 tLld7 = TodorovicPeredy, Budapest 1995. 17..•f6 This move has replaced 17 ... h6 (Black must avoid 17 ... tLlxdS? 18 exdS f6 19 d6 fxgS 20 !tel

101

lid8 21 ~e6 with a decisive attack, NeronskyZhuk, COIT. 1966; 17 ... 0-0 18 i.xe7 ~xe7 19 l:td6 t Khuzman-lonkman, Leeuwarden 1993) 18 i.xe7 tLlxdS 19 i.xcS! and now: a) 19 ...tLle7? 20 tLleSl::[c8 (20 ... ~c7 21 tLld7! hS 22 i.d4! with a strong attack, DolgitserGordeev, COIT. 1981) 21.l:!.d7! (21 ~g4? 0-0 22 b4?! {22 i.d4!?} 22 ... l:.fd8 += Botterill-Speelman, British Ch (Brighton) 1984) 21..J~c7 22 lid8+ !! ~xd8 23 tLlxf7 + ~d7 (the lesser evil is 23 ... \t>e8 24 tLld6+ \t>d8 2S tLlxb7+ :xb7 26 'iUd2+ +-) 24 ~g4+ \t>c6 2S ~e6+ 1-0 Boleslavsky-Dzindzichashvili, Minsk 1967 - mate follows after 2S ... ~xcS 26 ~d6+ \t>c4 27 tLleS#. A brilliant game which had a mesmerizing effect - it took more than a decade for players to realize that Black's position was OK after 17 ... f6. b) 19 ... tLlf4! 20 ~e3 tLle6 21 i.d6 (Neishtadt described Black's game as "positionally hopeless", but matters are not so clear-cut) 2l...l:td8 22 tLleS (22 h3 f6 23 eS \t>f7 24 exf6 gxf6 with roughly level chances, PietrocolaPeddie, ICCF e-mail 1999) 22 ... hS (22 ... ~c7!? 23 'iUd3 'iUb7) 23 ndS J::rh6 with an unclear position. 18 i.f4 (D)

18...0-0 White's passed d-pawn is too powerful following 18 ... tLlxdS? 19 exdS 0-0 20 d6 i.d8 21 d7 i.c7 22 ~e6+ .l::i.f7 23 b4! ± VaganianGarcia Palermo, Reggio Emilia 1992/3. 19 :Sd2 Black completes his development after 19 .l:!.hS .l:tad8 =. 19•. JUe8

102

How TO BEAT 1 d4

Black can also play 19 ... .l:!.ad8 20 e5 (20 h4?! .l:!.xd2 21 l:txd2 {Christiansen-Hubner, Bundesliga 199112} 21...l:Ie8 =+= Hubner) 20 .. Jhd2 21 .l:!.xd2 lbc4 (liz_liz YrjoHi-Agzamov, Sochi 1984) 22 lid 1 fxe5 23 ~xe5 lbxe5 24 'ilVxe5 (24 lbxe5 .l:!.f4 =) 24 ... iH6 25 ~xc5 ~xb2 = Nimzo 8-Gambit Tiger, Cadaques 2001. 20 e5 (D)

20 ...c4! Black immediately mobilizes his queenside pawn-majority. Two other moves are also sufficient to hold the balance: a) 20 .. .fxe5 21 ~xe5 i.f8 22 ~g5 'V/ke7 (or 22 ... ~f7!? 23 b3 c4) 23 ~xe7 .l:!.xe7 24 b3 (lvanchuk-Seirawan, Tilburg 1990) 24 ... c4 25 i.e3 (25 ':d6 :e4 =) 25 ... lie6 26 lbd4 .l::tf6 with a level game. b) 20 ... iH8 211lVd3 lbc4! 22 .l:!.e2 fxe5 (Atalik-Topalov, Sarajevo 2001) 23 lbxe5 (23 ~xe5 lbxe5 24 lbxe5 c4 251lVf5 ~e7 =) 23 ... ..td6 24 .l:!.de1 ~xe5 25 ..txe5 J:.ad8 26 llVg3 lbxe5 27 .l:!.xe5 .l:!.xe5 28 ~xe5 llVd5 with equal chances according to Atalik.

Now we return to 20 ... c4! (D):

a) 21 exf6? ~b4 22 ..te3 i.xd2 23 ~xd2 gxf6 + Mosonyi-Radekker, ICCF COIT. 1994. b) 21 e6? ~b4 22 .l:!.d4 ~c5 23 .l:!.e4 (23 I:t4d2 ~c8 24 lbd4 ..txd4 {24 ...lbd5 also looks strong} 25 l:hd4 ~xe6 + Khuzman) and then: bI) 23 ... .l:!.ad8 24 .l:!.xd8 I1xd8 25 h4 ~d5 (25 ... lbd5 {"with counterplay" - Khuzman} 26 i.d2 .ue8 =+=; 25 ... lba4!? 26 i.el .l:!.e8 is also advantageous for Black) 26 i.c7 .l:!.e8 27 ..txb6 i.xb6 =+= Danner-A.Horvath, Hungarian Cht 2003. b2) 23 ...lbdS 24 i.d2 (24 i.g3 .l:!.ad8 25 lbd4 lbb4 intending ...lbd3 + Khuzman) 24 ...:ad8 25 J:.f1 (25 lbd4 lbe7 26 lbf3 {26 ..taS? ':xd4 27 .l:!.dxd4 i.xd4 28 lhd4 lbc6 -+ Khuzman} 26 ...lbg6 +) 25 ... .l:td6 26 a3 lbc7 27 e7 .l:!.d7 28 i.aS .l:!.dxe7 29 .l:!.xe7 .l:!.xe7 30 llVd2 lbe6 -+ Leitao-Ponomariov, Lausanne 2001. c) 21 ~g3 i.c5 (2l...i.b4 22 .l:!.d4 ~c5 23 :h4!? stirs up trouble on the kingside) 22 h3 :ac8 = lackelen-W.Watson, 2nd Bundesliga 199112.

12 Hodgson Attack: 1 d4 dS 2 JigS 1 d4 d5 2 ~g5 (D)

B

British GM Julian Hodgson was not the first player to dangle a bishop (the infamous Preston Ware played it in 1880), but his name is most closely associated with this variation because of his willingness to play it repeatedly against all levels of opposition. Hodgson's successful results with the opening can be attributed to several factors: • He continually developed the line by introducing new ideas in all of the sub-variations. • He was well-versed in the typical positions arising from the opening - this enabled him to play the characteristic middlegame positions with confidence. • He forged ahead regardless of the position on the board and he succeeded in creating imbalance in many objectively equal positions. These are all desirable attributes to have regardless of which opening you choose to play! Hodgson's fellow British GMs Michael Adams and Tony Miles also played the line with great success. The main idea behind 2 .Jtg5 can be summed up in a single phrase - to annoy and provoke. White hopes to annoy his opponent and provoke him into weakening his position by overreacting to the probing bishop. The current popUlarity of 2 ~g5 can be seen by looking at the number of

games played with it in recent years - my database contains 70 games with 2 ..tg5 prior to the year 1980, but since then more than 4,000 games have been played in this line! The explosive growth can be interpreted as a desire by many players to rebel against mainstream opening theory by playing a move which for years had been completely ignored by traditional theory. The nice thing about 2 ~g5 is that the move develops a piece and has a clear strategic plan associated with it - in the event of 2 ... lLlf6, White will create imbalance by capturing the knight with 3 i.xf6, and then he will play against the resulting doubled pawns. These variations are quite playable for Black, as are the lines arising from moves such as 2 ... c5, 2 ... g6, and 2 .. .f6!?, but we are going to follow a steadier course. 2•.. h6 This is our repertoire move - Black boots the bishop away from the g5-square with tempo. The h7-square has been freed up as a potential safe retreat-square for Black's light-squared bishop after a future ... ..tf5, and some luft has been created for the black king in the event of kingside castling. 3~h4

The bishop is slightly vulnerable here - in some lines after Black has played ... c6 and ...'iUb6, there is the possibility of playing the freeing ... e5 pawn-break as a dxe5 reply by White would be met by ... 'iVb4+, winning the h4-bishop. Also, Black has the option of playing a well-timed ... g5 pawn advance to harass White's dark-squared bishop. 3...c6 (D) Black bolsters the d5-pawn and prepares ... 'iVb6 to exploit the absence of White's darksquared bishop from the queenside. The 14th World Champion Vladimir Kramnik and the 12th World Champion Anatoly Karpov have both played this solid, reliable line. Now: 104 A: 4 lLlf3 B: 4 e3 106

104

How TO BEAT 1 d4

AI) W

These two lines can sometimes transpose into each other - the main difference is that Line A immediately protects the h4-bishop and avoids some ideas involving a quick ... e5 break.

A) 4 ttJf3 'iVb6 (D)

S b3aS Black has some other options here: a) 5 ... ttJd7 6 e3 e5 7 i..g3 (Adams-Lautier, Groningen 1995) 7 ... e4 8 ttJfd2 ttJe7 is unclear -Adams. b) 5 ... .if5 6 e3 -4 e3 'iVb6 5 b3 .if5 6 ttJf3. 6 a3 .ifS 7 e3 Or 7 c4 e6, and then: a) 8 e3 ttJd7 9 ttJc3 .i.e7 10 .i.xe7 ttJxe7 11 ttJa4 (11 .te2 0-0 12 0-0 lIfd8 =) 11...~a7 (11...~c7!?) 12 .td3 .ixd3 13 'iVxd3 'iVa6 14 0-00-0 = Beecham-Lennox, corr. 2001. b) 8 ttJc3 ttJd7 9 ttJa4 'iVa7 10 e3 .i.e7 11 .i.xe7 ttJxe7 12 .i.d3 .i.xd3 13 'iVxd3 0-0140-0 "li'a6 15 .l::!.fcl lIfc8 16 'iVfl b6 = HodgsonBaburin, Isle of Man 1996. 7•.• ttJd7 Black can also play 7 ... e6 8 .id3 .i.xd3 9 "li'xd3 'iVa6: a) 10 ttJe5 'iVxd3 (10 ... ttJd7!?) 11 ttJxd3 ttJd7 12 ttJd2 ttJe7 =Brumen-Begovac, Croatian Cht (Porec) 1998. b) 10 'iVxa6 ttJxa6 11 ttJbd2 ttJe7 = OrrBaburin, Kilkenny 1997.

Sc4 8 .i.d3 .i.xd3 9 'iVxd3 e6 10 0-0 ttJgf6 = Vinitsky-Golichenko, Kiev 2001. S...e6 (D)

W

Now:

AI: S b3 A2: S 'iVc1

104 105

Rarely seen is 5 ttJbd2 ttJf6 (5 ... 'iVxb2!? 6 e4 dxe4 7 ttJxe4 ttJf6 8 .i.xf6 exf6 leaves White with inadequate compensation for the pawn) 6 .i.xf6 exf6 7 'iVcl c5 8 e3 ttJc6 9 c3 .i.f5 10 .i.e2 (10 dxc5 .i.xc5 11 ttJb3 i..d6 =) 1O ... cxd4 11 ttJxd4 ttJxd4 12 exd4 i..d6 = Alburt-Hodgson, New York PCA 1995. I suppose it is difficult to avoid playing against your own opening when it arises after only two moves!

White has several options here: a) 9 c5 ~a7 10 ttJc3 b6 11 cxb6 'iVxb6 12 ttJa4 ~b7 13 .i.d3 .i.xa3! Hodgson-Kaidanov, Lucerne W cht 1997. b) 9 .id3 (= Kaidanov) 9 ....txd3 10 'iVxd3 !Ji.e7 11 .ixe7 ttJxe7 120-00-0 is equal.

+

HODGSON ArrACK: 1 d4 d5 2 Ji.g5

c) 9 ttJc3 ttJgf6 10 c5 'fiia7 11l:ta2 ttJe4 with equal chances according to Kaidanov.

A2) 5~c1.U5

I believe the typical club and tournament player should avoid playing the greedy pawngrab 5 ... g5!? 6 .i.g3 g47 ttJe5 ~xd4, which leads to messy complications. My database contains more than 30 games in this line and after a fair amount of analysis I have been unable to draw any definitive conclusions on the merits of this position for either side. This is exactly the type of chaotic mess White is aiming for in the Hodgson Attack - it is a good practical decision to avoid it because our repertoire move 5 ... .i.f5 is a solid and proven alternative. 6 c4 e6 7 ttJc3 (D)

B

7... .i.e7 A sound alternative is 7 ... ttJd7 8 c5 ~c7 (8 ... ~a5 9 a3 ttJgf6 10 e3 g5 11..tg3 ttJh5 12 b4 ~d8 with complex play, Agdestein-Skembris, Cappelle la Grande 2001) 9 e3 as 10 .tg3 ~d8 11 a3 ttJgf6 12 h3 a4 13 .te2 ..te7 140-0 ttJe4!? (14 ... 0-0 =) and now: a) 15 .i.d1!? ttJxg3 16 fxg3 'J/Iic7 with an unclear position, Bruzon Batista-Flear, Spanish Cht (Mondariz Balneario) 2002. b) 15 ttJxe4 .i.xe4 16 ttJd2 .i.f5 17 ~c3 b6 18cxb6~xb619l:tacl O-O! 20~xc6~xb221 WVxd7 'iVxd2 22 ~xe7 'J/Iixe2 with a drawish position because of the symmetrical pawnstructure and opposite-coloured bishops. 8 .i.g3 ttJf6 9 c5

105

White can opt for the modest 9 e3 0-0 10 .i.e2 (10 c5 ~d8 - 9 c5 'WId8 10 e3 0-0) 1O ... ttJe4 11 ttJxe4 .i.xe4 12 0-0 (so far this is HodgsonVescovi, Bermuda 1998) 12 ... i..xB 13 ..txf3 ttJd7 14 .l:!.dl f5 with an unclear position according to Vescovi. 9...~d8 10 e3 ttJbd7 Black can also play 10... 0-0 (D).

w

This move can transpose into the main line, but there are some deviations: a) 11 b4 ttJbd7 12 .i.e2 ttJh5 13 .i.e5 ttJhf6 14 .tf4 ttJh5 15 i..xh6 gxh6 16 g4 .i.h7 17 gxh5 ~h8 18 'iVd2 as 19 b5 e5 with a sharp struggle ahead, Hodgson-Grunfeld, Philadelphia 1991. b) 11 ..te2 b6 12 b4 as 13 a3 ~c8 14 ttJa4 ttJbd7 15 ttJe5 'iVb7 16 ttJxc6!? ~xc6 17 b5 'iVb7 18 c6 'iVa7 19 cxd7 ttJxd7 20 'iVb2 112-112 Hodgson-Chernin, Pardubice 1993. c) 11 h3 and then: c1) ll...b6 12 b4 as 13 a3 ~c8 14 .i.e2 ttJbd7 15 0-0 Wib7 16 WVd2l:Hc8 17 l:tfc 1 .i.d8 with an equal position, Hodgson-Bansch, Bundesliga 2002/3. c2) ll...a5!? 12 .i.e2 ttJbd7 13 ttJe5 ttJxe5 14 .i.xe5 ttJd7 15 .i.g3 b6 16 cxb6 ~xb6 170-0 l::tfc8 Barsov-Hector, York 2000. Black has a favourable Slav-style pawn-structure with pressure along the b-file supported by a strong lightsquared bishop. c3) ll...ttJbd7 -1O... ttJbd7 11 h3 0-0. 11 h3 0-012 b4 ttJe413 ttJxe4 ..txe414 ttJd2 Black has no problems after 14 ..te2 as 15 a3 ]:re8 =. 14.....tg6 15 'fiic3 (D) Black has tried several moves to prepare the ... e5 pawn-break:

+

106

How TO BEAT 1 d4

B

b22) 2l...~e4 22 ~b3 a6 =. c) lS ... i.f6 (the solid choice) 16 llJb3 l:te8 17 i.d3 .ixd3 18 ~xd3 eS 190-0 a6 20 a4 ~e7 with equality, Hodgson-Naumann, Bundesliga 2002/3.

B) 4 e3 ~b6 (D)

W

a) IS ... ~h4 16 i.d6l:te8 17 ~d3 i.xd3 18 ~xd3 -JS.. .'1J.e8J6 i.d3 .Ld3 17~xd3 i.h4 18 ~d6. b) IS .. J:te8 16 i.d3 ~xd3 17 ~xd3 and then: bl) 17 ... ~h4 18 ~d6 (18 ~xh4 ~xh4 =) 18 ... eS (18 ... ~e7!? 19 i.h2 b6) 19 0-0 exd4 (this is simpler than 19 ... a6 20 a4 t HodgsonM.Turner, Kilkenny 1999, or 19 ... i.f6 20 a4 t Hodgson-Thorhallsson, Istanbul OL 2000) 20 exd4 ~e7 21 ~h2 b6 =. b2) 17 ... i.f6 180-0 eS 19l:!.abl exd4 (Black can also try 19 ...1i¥e7!?) 20 exd4 ~e7 21 llJf3 (D) and here:

B

b21) 2l...~e2 221i¥b3!? (the white queen is well-positioned here to support the bS pawnbreak; less accurate is 22 ~fSllJf8 =Thorfinnsson-Hanley, Budapest 2002) 22 ... llJf8 (22 ... bS?! 23l:!.bc1 ~e4 24 :cel ~fS 2Sl:!.xe8+ l:!.xe8 26 ~a3, and her majesty infiltrates along the afile) 23 bS llJe6 24 bxc6 bxc6 2S ~a4 with a slight advantage for White.

Now: Bl: S ~c1 106 B2: S b3 109 Line Bl was the more popular choice during the formative years of the Hodgson Variation, but Line B2 was ultimately preferred by top players because they concluded that supporting the c4 pawn advance was more important than incurring a slight weakening of the dark squares. S i.d3?! is rarely played. S... eS! and now: a) 6 dxeS?? loses the bishop to 6 ... ~b4+. b) 6llJd2 exd4 (also strong is 6 ... e4 7 .te2 ~xb2 +) 7 exd4 ~xd4 8llJgf3 ~xb2 9 0-0 ~d6 10 :el + llJe7 and White has insufficient compensation for the pawns. c) 6 c4 ~xb2 7llJd2 (Brichard-Parmentier, Plancoet 2003) 7 ... exd4 8l:!.b1 ~a3 9l:!.b3 ~xa2 10 exd4 Ji.e7 +.

B1) S ~c1 (D) Now: Bll: S... eS B12: S...Ji.fS

107 108

HODGSON A1TACK: 1 d4 d5 2 i..g5

107

B

B

B11)

unclear position in Ovechkin-Lastin, St Petersburg 1998) 1O ... a6 11 h4 liJfS 12 i..f4 hS 13 "iiic2..\te7 14 g3 0-0 IS ..\te2 g6 and then: bl) 160-0-0 l::tfc8 17 ~bl "iiid8 and here: bll) 18 J::thgl bS 19 cSliJf6 '1= MiladinovicRublevsky, Yugoslavia 1995. b12) 18 liJdxe4 dxe4 19 dS cxdS 20 cxdS liJxe3 21 i..xe3 i.fS ("'1=" Rublevsky) 22 g4!? hxg4 23 hS liJeS 24 hxg6 i..xg6 2S i..d4 i.f6 (2S ... e3? 26 i.d3! ±) 26 ~c1 with an unclear position. b2) 16liJdxe4 dxe4 17 dS cxdS 18 cxdSliJf6 (l8 ... i..xdS 19liJxdS 'ilVa5+ 20 liJc3 i..f6 210-0 i.xc3 22 bxc3 liJcs with equal chances according to Rublevsky) 19 dxe6 "iiixe6 20 0-0 l::tac8 and Black has a slight edge because of his more active pieces. 8 i..g3 (D)

5.•. e5 The sharp choice - Black advances in the centre and frees his position. 6liJf3 White can also play 6 c3 (6 dxeS?? ~b4+ costs White his bishop) 6 ... liJd7 7liJf3 i..d6 8 .i.e2liJe7 9 i.xe7 'it>xe7 and now: a) 10 0-0 l::te8 11 liJbd2 (11 c4!? appears sharper so as to open lines against Black's overdeveloped king) 11...e4 12liJel "iiic7 and then: al) 13 f4? exf3 14liJexf3 ~f8 IS ~elliJf6 16 .id3 liJg4 17 e4 .ixh2+ 18 ~hl i.g3 -+ Adams-Rublevsky, Internet rpd 2004. a2) 13 h3 ~f8 14 c4 ~d8 gives Black a slight pull because of his bishop-pair and potential kings ide attack. b) 10 c4 e4 11 liJfd2 i.b8 is unclear, Chernin-Kramnik, New York rpd 1995. c) 10 dxeSliJxeS l1liJbd2liJxf3+ 12liJxf3 lIe8 130-0 .ifS 14liJd4 .tg6 = Adams-Speelman, Brussels rpd 1992. 6...e4 7 liJfd2 (D) 7....te7 Alternatives: a) 7 ... liJe7 8 c4liJfS 9 i..g3 liJxg3 10 hxg3 i.e6 11 liJc3liJd7 and now: al) 12 cxdS cxdS 13liJbS 'it>d8! 14 "iiic2 l:1c8 IS liJc3 liJf6 16 .te2 ..\td6 17 "iiib3 "iiixb3 (112-112 Meduna-Scherbakov, Decin 1996) 18 liJxb3 'it>e7 and Black has a slight endgame edge because of his bishop-pair. a2) 12 "iiic2 i.e7 (Miladinovic-Degerrnan, Malmo 1998) 13 O-O-O;l; Milov. b) 7 ... i.e6 8 c4 liJd7 9 liJc3 liJe7 10 i..g3 (10 f3 exf3 11 gxf3 gS 12 i.f2 i..g7 with an

8...h5!? This is a very interesting continuation - Black seizes some space on the kings ide before completing his queenside development. A sound

108

How TO BEAT 1 d4

and reliable alternative is 8 ... ltJf6 9 c4 0-0 10 ltJc3 i.e6 and now: a) 11 i.e2 ~d8 (1l...ltJbd7 12 c5 ~d8 13 b4 - 11 c5 'ilid8 12 b4 ltJbd7 13 i.e2) 120-0 a6 112-112 B.Knezevic-Im.Horvath, Budapest 1994 - not much of a test! b) 11 c5 ~d8 12 b4ltJbd7 13 i.e2 i.g4 14 ~dl i.xe2 15 ~xe2 and then: bl) 15 ... ltJh7 16 ltJb3 ltJg5 17 b5 ;!; Dishman-Law, British League (4NCL) 199617. b2) 15 ... ltJe8 16ltJb3 (16 O-O!? f5 17 b5 is slightly better for White) 16 .. .f5 17 f3 i.h4 18 ..txh4 ~xh4+ 19 g3 exf3 20 ~xf3 112-112 A.Martin-Burgess, British League (4NCL) 200112. b3) 15 ... b6!? 16 0-0 a5 17 a3 ~c8 with equal chances. 9 c4 9 h3 ltJh6 ('"+''' according to Milov, but this assessment is too optimistic) 10 c4ltJf5 11 i.h2 (11 cxd5ltJxg3 12 fxg3 f5 is unclear) 11 ... i.e6 12ltJc3ltJd7 with a balanced position. 9... h4 10 i.f4 gS 11 .teS f6 12 .txb8 .l::!.xb8 Black has obtained the bishop-pair, but his king is slightly exposed - the position is dynamically balanced. 13ltJc3 i.e6 14 ~c2 fS IS f3ltJf6 160-0-0 So far this is Milov-Mikhalevski, Biel1999. Now Black's safest course is 16 ... Wf7 17 i.e2 Wg7 18 Wbl ~bf8 with equal chances.

7 i.e2 The alternative is 7 c4 i.e7, and now: a) 8 .tg3 ltJf6 9 ltJc3 0-0 10 c5 ~d8 11 h3 a5 12 .te2 ltJbd7 13 ltJe5 ltJxe5 14 .txe5 ltJd7 15 i.g3 b6 16 cxb6 'iVxb6 17 0-0 lUc8 18 ~d2 a4 Barsov-Hector, New York 2000. b) 8 .txe7ltJxe7 9ltJc3ltJd7 10 i.e2 0-011 0-0 and then: bl) 1l....:!.ac8 12 b3 c5 = Kosic-Simic, Yugoslav Ch (Novi Sad) 1995. b2) l1...dxc4 12 i.xc4 c5 13 e4 cxd4 14 ltJa4 ~a5 15 exf5 ltJxf5 16 i.b3 l:tac8 17 ~dl b5 18ltJc3 dxc3 19 ~xd7 cxb2 20 llabll1fd8 21 ~b7 ltJd6 (112_112 Miladinovic-Lirindzakis, Ano Liosia 1997) 22 ~e7ltJf5 23 ~b7ltJd6 repeats the position. b3) 11...i.g4 and here: b31) 12 cxd5 cxd5 13 i.b5 ltJf6 14 ltJe5 .l:f.ac8 15 .td3 .tf5 = Rakhmangulov-Neverov, Nikolaev Z 1995. b32) 12 h3 i.xf3 13 i.xf3 (13 c5 ~a5 14 .txf3 b6 =) 13 ... dxc4 14 ltJe4 e5 (14 ... ~b4!? 15 a3 'iVa4 is unclear) 15 'ilixc4 exd4 16 exd4 l:tad8 = Rotshtein-Borgo, Cannes 1997. b33) 12 b3l:tac8 13 l:[dlltJg6 14 'iWa3 a6 15 l:rac1 ltJf6 16 h3 i.xf3 17 i.xf3 lIfd8 18 i.e2 ~c7 = Hodgson-Khalifman, Hastings 1995/6. 7 ... ltJd7 8 0-0 i.e7 9 i.xe7 ltJxe7 10 c4 0-0

+

(D)

B12} S....tfS The solid choice - Black develops his lightsquared bishop outside the pawn-chain before playing ... e6. 6ltJf3 e6 (D)

W

W

11ltJbd2 White can also play 11 ltJc3 - 7 c4 .te7 8 be7ltJxe7 9ltJc3ltJd7 10 i.e2 0-0 110-0. 11 ...aS 12 b3 l:tfc8 Now: a) 13 ~b2 ~d8 14 a3 (Gorbatov-Lastin, Vladimir 2004) 14 ... b5 =.

HODGSON ATTACK: 1 d4 d5 2 iLg5

b) 13 'iVa3 ~d8 14 !:tfel i..g6 IS 'iVb2 cS 16 cxdS lbxdS 17 dxcS .l:txcS 18 l1xcs lbxcs 19 WHd4 WHf6 20 }::tel 1h- l 12 Adams-Piket, Wijk aan Zee 1996.

82) 5 b3 (D)

B

Now Black has: B21: S•.•eS 109 B22: S•.. i..fS 110

109

was another Gelfand idea - a possible continuation is 14 lbc3 0-0 IS bS 'iVaS 16 ~3 lbf6 with equal chances) l3 lbc3lbf6 14 b4 0-0 IS }::tcl ~d8 16lbb3 b6 with equal chances, Adams-Gelfand, Belgrade 1995. 7 i..e2 White does not obtain any benefit from 7 h3 (after 7 dxeS?? i..xf3 8 ~xf3 WHb4+ Black wins the loose bishop) 7 ... i.xf3 8 WHxf3 exd4 9 ~g4 (threatening 'iVc8+) 9... lbd7 10 ~xd4 lbgf6 (l0 ... i..d6!?) 11 i..xf6lbxf6 12 'iVeS+ i.e7 with a balanced position, Gervasio-Velikov, Besanryon 2003. 7...e4 Black has no problems after the modest 7... exd4 8 exd4 i.e7 9 i.xe7lbxe7 10 0-0 0-0 11 c3 lbd7 12 lbbd2 lbg6 with equal chances, Lyrberg-Akesson, Swedish Cht 200112. 8lbeS!? This aggressive move is more in the spirit of the opening than the calm 8 lbfd2 i..xe2 9 WHxe2 i..e7 10 i..g3 (10 i..xe7lbxe7 =) 1O ... lbf6 11 0-00-0 12 c4lbbd7 l3 lbc3 ~aS 14 l:!fel i.b4 = Drazic-Skembris, Cesenatico 2000. 8.•. i..xe2 9 'iVxe2 (D)

821) B

S...eS The sharp choice. 6lbf3 White must avoid 6 dxeS?? WHb4+ 0-1 Vinitsky-Nogin, Kiev 2001. 6••. i.g4 Black has two sound alternatives: a) 6 ... exd4 7 exd4 i..e7 (Avrukh wrote that this is " ... the easiest way for Black to equalize in this variation") 8 i..xe7 lbxe7 9 i..d3 i.g4 (9 ... 0-0 10 0-0 112-112 Neiman-Velikov, Evry 2002) 10 lbbd2 0-0 11 0-0 lbd7 12 c3 i.fS 13 WHc2 i..xd3 14 'iVxd3 'iVc7 with equal chances, Timman-Gelfand, Amsterdam 1996. Black has a comfortable game in this line - similar positions arise from the Exchange French. b) 6 ... e4 7lbfd2 and now: bI) 7 ... i..e7 8 i..xe7 lbxe7 9 i.e2 ~e6 = Heyden-Fridman, Internet rpd 200S. b2) 7 ... lbe7 8 c4lbfS 9 i.g3lbxg3 10 hxg3 i.e6 11 i.e2 lbd7 (11...'iVd8!? was suggested by Gelfand) 12 a3 i.e7 (12 ... 'iVd8 13 b4 i.d6

Now: a) Not 9 ... i.d6?, which loses to 10 'iVg4. b) 9 ... lbf6 and then: bl) 10 i..xf6 gxf6 11 'iVhS!? (11lbg4lbd7 12 f4 cS l3 c3 0-0-0 140-0 l:tg8 =) 1l...~b4+ 12 lbd2 ~e7 l3 lbg4 lIg8 with roughly level chances. b2) 10 0-0 i..d6 11 c4 WHc7 and here: b2I) 12 i..g3?! lbbd7 and now: b211) 13 cS? i..xeS (l3 ... lbxcS 14 lbxf7 <;t>xf7 IS dxcS i..xg3! {IS ... i.eS 16lbc3 ~hf8

110

How TO BEAT 1 d4

+' Skembris} 16 hxg3 "fiIe7 +) 14 dxe5 ttJxe5 is much better for Black. b212) 13 ttJc3!? ttJxe5 14 dxe5 jLxe5 15 cxd5 ("with counterplay" according to Skembris, but White is struggling to equalize here) 15 ... jLxg3 16 hxg3 cxd5 17 J:tacl "fiIb6 +'. b22) 12 ~xf6! (the thematic continuation) 12 ... gxf6 13 ttJg4 f5 (Black should settle for 13 ... ttJd7 14 f4 t) 14 ttJf6+ <j;;e7 15 ttJh5 and White has a slight edge because of his superior pawn-structure and prospects for attacking the f5-pawn. c) 9.. ,vilc7 10 0-0 i.d6 11 "fiIg4 (11 f4!?) 1l...~xe5 12 dxe5 g5 13 i.g3 "fiId7 14 "fiIh5 ~e6 15 f3 exf3 16 .l::i.xf3 ttJd7 = Karlik-Chernikov, DeCin 1998.

822) S...i.fS The solid choice. 6 ttJf3 6 ..td3 ~xd3 7 ~xd3 e6 8 ttJf3 - 6 ttJf3 e6 7 ..td3 Ld3 8 'ilixd3. 6...e6 7 ..td3 i.xd3 8 ~xd3 ttJd7 (D)

b) 10 i.g3 ttJf5 11 i.f4 (11 0-0 - 10 0-0 ttJf5 11 ..tg3) ll...dxc4 12 ~xc4 "fiIb4+ 13 ttJbd2 g5 (Black has the initiative according to Karpov) 14 i.e5!? (an attempt to complicate the position) 14 .. :~xc4 15 ttJxc4 f6 16 g4!? jLb4+ 17 <j;;f1 fxe5 (17 ... ttJxe3+ 18 fxe3 fxe5 19 ttJfxe5 =) 18 gxf5 exf5 19 dxe5 ttJb6 and Black has a slight endgame pull. c) 10 0-0 ttJf5 and here: c 1) 11 i.g3 ttJxg3 12 hxg3 jLe7 (Karpov assessed this position as slightly favourable for Black) 13 ttJc3 0-0 and now: cll) 14 .l:i.fel llfd8 15 .l:!.c2 ~a6 16 ~e2 (Ngoc Truongson Nguyen-Muir, Budapest 2004) 16 ... dxc4 17 bxc4 c5 +,. el2) 14 e4 dxe4 15 ttJxe4l:tad8 16 "fiIc2 ttJf6 (16 ... c5 !?) 17 .l:!adl ~aS is slightly better for Black. c2) 11 ttJc3 (this looks safest for White) 1l...ttJxh4 12 ttJxh4 iJ..e7 13 ttJf3 0-014 .l:tfd1 (14 e4 dxe4 15 ~xe4l:.fd8 16l:!.adl .:I.ac8 17 .l:!.d3 ~a5 18 "fiIe2 b5 19 c5 "fiIc7 = DishmanRublevsky, Kallithea ECC 2002) 14 ....:.fd8 15 e4 dxe4 16 "fiIxe4 "fiIaS 17 ~e3 b5 18 c5 ~c7 = Hernandez Basante-Ganguly, Ca1via OL 2004. 9... i.e7 9 ... ttJe7 10 c4 - 9 c4 ttJe7 10 0-0. 10 i.xe7 ttJxe7 11 c4 (D)

W

90-0 White can also play 9 c4 ttJe7 (9 ... iJ..e7 10 iJ..xe7 ttJxe7 11 0-0 - 9 0-0 ..te7 10 be7 ttJxe7 11 c4) and now: a) 10 c5?! ~aS+ and then: a1) 11 ~d2 ~xd2+ 12 ttJbxd2 ttJf5 13 ..tg3 (13 .l:!.cl e5 +') 13 ... ttJxg3 14 hxg3 b615 b4 as +,. a2) 11 ttJc3 b6! 12 cxb6 (12 b4? ~xb4 13 0-0 ttJf5 14l:tfel bxc5 15 J:tab1 c4 16 ~c2 ~aS + Anand-Karpov, Lausanne FIDE Wch rpd (8) 1998) 12 ... axb6 +' Karpov.

11 ... 0-0 ll...c5 12 ttJc3 cxd4! 13 exd4 ~a6! 14 ttJb5 :c8 15 c5 0-016 J:tfd1 ttJc6 (Hodgson-V.Mikhalevski, Las Vegas 2000) 17 a4!? b6 18 ~c3! is unclear - Mikhalevski. 12 ttJc3 ~a6! (D) A common theme in this variation - the black queen exerts pressure on some of the

HODGSON ATTACK: 1 d4 d5 2 Ji.g5

111

squares weakened by the exchange of lightsquared bishops.

w

13 .l:i.fdl White can also try: a) 13 lIfc1 lIfd8 14 i1Wfl dxc4 15 bxc4 c5 16 a4 'iWc6 17 aSlitdc8 18litabl a6 19 i1Wdl cxd4 20 liJxd4 'fiIc7 = Hodgson-Akopian, Groningen 1996. b) 13 a4 ~fd8 14 lIfdilIac8 15 a5 (the advance of the a-pawn is somewhat risky - safer is 15 ~ac1 b6 16 e4 'iWa5 =) 15 ... c5 16 liJb5 (16 cxd5 'iWxd3 17 lIxd3 cxd4 18 exd4 liJxd5 19 liJxd5 exd5 =) 16 ... liJc6 17 'iWc3 cxd4 18 exd4 liJf6 19 'iWel liJe4 20 h3 dxc4 21 bxc4 liJd6 22 d5? (22 liJxd6 ~xd6 =) 22 ... liJxc4 23 dxc6 lIxdl 24 i1Wxdl i1Wxb5 + Rozentalis-Sulypa, Bad Wiessee 1999. 13••.lIfd8 (D) Black should avoid 13 ... liJb6?! 14 lIdc1 (14 'iWc2!? dxc4 15 liJe4 is worthy of investigation, seeking to exploit the suddenly vulnerable position of the black queen) 14 ... dxc4 15 ~fl liJd7 (15 ... cxb3 16 ~xa6 bxa6 17 axb3 t Hodgson - White will pick off Black's weak queenside pawns in the endgame) 16 bxc4 c5 17 d5 (t Hodgson) 17 ... lIad8 18 :abl exd5?! (18 ... liJc8 looks like a better try) 19 cxd5 t HodgsonAdianto, Amsterdam 1996. Several top-level games have proved that Black's position after 13 ... lIfd8 is rock-solid: a) 14 a4.l:tac8 15 l:i.ac1 b6 =. b) 14 cxd5 'iUxd3 15 !hd3 cxd5 =ParrottaLacrosse, Cutro 2005.

c) 14 .l:tabl b6 15 'iWfl l:i.ac8 16l:[d2 liJf6 17 liJe5 dxc4 18 liJxc4 (White should settle for 18 i1Wxc4 i1Wb7 =) 18 ... liJed5 19 1:!.c2? (after 19 liJxd5 cxd5 20 liJe5 i1Wxfl+ 21 'it>xfl liJe422 litdb2 ~c3 + the endgame is unpleasant for White, although he does retain some drawing chances) 19 ... liJxc3 20 l:!.xc3 c5 21 dxc5 (Morozevich may have overlooked Black's reply, but his position is also difficult after 21 ~d3 cxd4 22 exd4 b5 +) 21...b5! 22 liJe5 (22 liJd6 ~xd6 23 cxd6 .l:i.xc3 -+) 22 ... liJe4 (the knight fork wins the exchange) 23 l:i.d3 liJd2 24 ~xd8+ (relatively best is 24 'iWdl l:i.xd3 25 liJxd3 liJxbl 26 i1Wxbl l::td8 -+) 24 ... lIxd8 25 lIdl (White's weak back rank is fatal after 25 'iWel liJxbl 26 'iWxbl 'iWxa2! -+) 25 ... liJxfl 26 ':xd8+ Wh7 (one of the benefits of 2 ... h6 is tuft for the black king!) 27 c6 'iWaS 0-1 Morozevich-Kramnik, Astana 200l. Kramnik's play in this game is a model of precision - the great players always make it look easy. d) 14 l:i.ac1 and then: dl) 14 ... liJf5?! 15 'iVbl (15 e4!? dxe4 16 liJxe4 also gives White a slight advantage) 15 ... liJe7 16 e4 t Hodgson-Sergejev, Pula Echt 1997. d2) 14 ... l:i.ac8 15 'iWbl (15 cxd5 'iWxd3 16 .l:i.xd3 cxd5 17.i:!.ddl liJf5 18l:tc2 ~c6 19 .l::tdc1 :dc8 is equal, Gerber-Tukmakov, Geneva 1999) 15 ... b6 (15 ... liJg6 16 i1Wb2 liJf6 17 a3 b6 18 i1Wa2 l:tc7 19 liJd2 'iWb7 liz-liz Kudishevich-Av.Bykhovsky, Tel Aviv 2002) 16 e4 liJf6 17 e5 liJd7 with equality, VMikhalevski-Villamayor, Calcutta 2001.

13 Veresov Opening: 1 d4 d5 2 iDc3 iDf6 3 ..tg5

1 d4 d5 2lbc3lbf6 3 .i.g5 The Veresov Opening is an aggressive attacking line in which White aims for rapid piece development, often in combination with an early e4 pawn-break. The set-up is fairly popular at club level because it can lead to unconventional positions rich in tactical complexity. The opening has never been in fashion at the highest levels, although during recent years it has occasionally been employed by a handful of enterprising grandmasters as a surprise weapon. The distinguishing characteristic of the Veresov Opening is the unusual development of White's queen's knight in front of the c-pawn, rather than behind the c-pawn as in traditional queen's pawn openings. This structure enables White to develop his pieces quickly at the cost of limiting his ability to increase the pressure in the centre with his pawns. The Veresov Opening does not give White many chances to obtain an opening edge against a well-prepared opponent, but the opening is fairly dangerous and it will continue to snare unsuspecting victims. 3..•lbbd7 (D)

Black's f-pawns. moves: A: 4 e3 B: 4f3 C: 4lbf3

113 114 117

Minor alternatives: a) 4 f4?! (White aims for a Stonewall Attack after developing his dark-squared bishop outside the pawn-chain, but this move is too weakening and Black obtains a good game by exploiting the absence of White's bishop from the queens ide) 4 ... c5 5 e3 e6 and now: al) 6 a3 ~a5 7 lbf3? (7 ~d2 is necessary) 7 ... lbe4 8 dxc5 ..txc5 9 .i.d3 lbxc3 10 ~d2 ~b6 (1O .. .f6 11 .i.h4 e5 also does the trick) 11 'ilVxc3 f6 -+ Gueneau-Lane, Parthenay 1992. a2) 6lbf3 ~a5 7 ~d2 cxd4 (7 ... c4!?) 8 exd4 .i.b4 9 .i.d3 (9 ~xf6lbxf6 +) 9 ... lbe4 10 .i.xe4 dxe4 +Berkes-Medvegy, Budapest 1999. b) 4 e4?! (White plays a delayed BlackmarDiemer Gambit - the addition of the moves .i.g5 and ... lbbd7 favours Black) 4 ...lbxe4 (a sound alternative is 4 ... dxe4 5 f3 c6 - 4 f3 c65 e4 dxe4) 5 lbxe4 dxe4 6 f3 h6 7 .i.h4 c5 8 d5 ~b6 and now: bl) 9 'ilVcl g5 10 .i.g3 .i.g7 11 c3 lbf6 12 ~e5 0-0 + ReIea-BaIais, France 2001. b2) 9 .l:!.bI g5 10 .i.g3 .i.g7 11 c3 ~g6 + Gomes-Epishin, Las Palmas 1997. c) 4 ~d3 h6 5 .i.h4 e6 6 e4 dxe4 7 lbxe4 .i.e7 and then: cl) 8 lbxf6+ lbxf6 9 lbf3 0-0 is fine for Black. c2) 8 .i.xf6lbxf6 9 lbf3 0-0 10 lbxf6+ .i.xf6 11 ~e4 c5 120-0-0 cxd4 13 ..td3 g6 14 h4 .i.g7 Giannakoulopoulos-Korobov, Patras jr 2001. c3) 8 0-0-0 lbxe4 9 .i.xe7 lbxf2 10 ~f3 ~xe7 11 ~xf2 0-0 +Lalev-Espig, Varna 1983. White has insufficient compensation for the pawn.

+

This is our repertoire move - Black develops a piece and prevents White from doubling

Now White has three major

VERESOV OPENING: 1 d4 d5 2 0.c3 0.f6 3 i.g5

d) 4 'iVd2 h6 and now: dl) 5 .i.f4 a6 and then: dl1) 6 e4 t'bxe4 7 t'bxe4 dxe4 8 f3 (8'iVc3 c6 9 d5 ~b6 is fine for Black) 8... t'bf6 9 fxe4 t'bxe4 10 'iVe3 t'bf6 =+= Kongsted-Nilssen, Copenhagen 2002. White doesn't have enough for the pawn. d12) 60-0-0 e6 7 f3 b5 8 g4 (8 e4 b4 9 t'bce2 dxe4 10 t'bg3 exf3 11 t'bxf3 .i.e7 +' KongstedHusari, Budapest 2002) 8...t'bb6 9 e3 .i.b7 10 h4 .l:i.c8 11 i.d3 c5 12 dxc5 i.xc5 13 t'bge2 t'bfd7 +' Fornina-Timoshenko, Tallinn 2000. Black's queenside attack is faster than White's kingside attack. d2) 5 .i.h4 e6 and here: d21) 6 e4? t'bxe4 7 .i.xd8 t'bxd2 8 .i.xc7 t'bxfl 9 ~xfl b6 10 t'bge2 (10 i.f4 .i.a6+ 11 t'bce2 .i.e7 =+= Pruess-Roussel, Berkeley 2005) 1O ... .i.a6 11 .i.f4 ':c8 =+= Buhmann-Brenke, Lippstadt 2004. Black has two powerful bishops. d22) 6 e3 .i.e7 7 f3 c6 8 0-0-0 (An.Rodriguez-Rosselli, Uruguay Ch (Montevideo) 1992) 8.. :~a5 with equal chances.

A) 4 e3 e6 (D)

w

S.i.d3 This is the usual move, although White can also play 5 ~f3. British GM Nigel Davies recommended this creative move in 2004, but he was apparently unaware that it had first been played 35 years earlier - the curse of the Information Age! The idea is to castle queenside and attack on the kingside with g4, but the plan

113

appears to be a little slow as White has neglected the development of his kingside pieces. 5 ... c5 (5 ... .i.b4 6 t'be2 h6 7 .i.xf6 ~xf6 = Wisnewski-Aronian, Bundesliga 2004/5) 6 0-0-0 and now: a) 6 ... cxd4 7 exd4 .i.b4 = is one reasonable idea. b) 6 ... ~a5 7 ~bl .i.e7 8 g4 a6 9 .i.xf6 i.xf6 and then: bl) 10 g5? i.xg5 11 e4 cxd4 12 ':xd4 'iVc5 =+= Annoni-Quinn, Bergamo 2004. b2) 10 h4 (Wisnewski-Bischoff, Altenkirchen 2005) 1O... b5 11 g5 .i.e7 +'. Black's attack is faster. c) 6 ... a6 7 t'bge2 'iVa5 8 ~bl b5 9 e4 .i.b7 and here: c1) 10 exd5 b4!? (Black can also recapture the pawn with 1O ... t'bxd5 11 t'be4 ':c8 +') 11 dxc5 i.xc5 12 .i.xf6 t'bxf6 13 t'be4 t'bxd5 and Black has a favourable Sicilian-style position. c2) 10 e5 t'be4 (Black should play 1O ... t'bg8! with a solid advantage - White's king is vulnerable to attack and his pieces are poorly placed to support the e5-pawn) 11 t'bxe4 dxe4 12'iVh5 (12'iVg3!?) 12 ... 'iVc713t'bf4cxd414t'bxe6(l4 ':xd4? g6 15'iVh4 .i.g7 =+= Planinc-Bertok, Yugoslav Ch (Novi Travnik) 1969) 14 ... 'iVxe5 15 t'bxd4 t'bf6 16'iVh4 .i.e7 with a balanced position. S...cS 6 t'bf3 c4 This is our repertoire move - Black aims for a favourable French-type position. 7 .i.e2 .i.b4 8 0-0 .i.xc3 9 bxc3 ~aS (D)

10.i.xf6 White can easily run into difficulties here because of his weak c3-pawn. Alternatives:

114

How TO BEAT 1 d4

a) 10 ttJd2 ~xc3 and then: al) 11 a4 b6 12 ~c1 ~b7 13 a5 b5 14 f3 h6 15 ~a3 'ii'b4 =+= Kotronias-Anand, Dubai OL 1986. a2) 11 ~f4 'ii'a3 12l:tbl ttJb6 + SpeelmanS.Webb, British Ch (Morecambe) 1975. b) 10 ~bl ~xc3 11 a4 ttJe4 12 ~f4 ~a5 + B.Foster-Wirawan, COIT. 2001. lO .•.ttJxf6 11 'ii'el ttJe4 Black can also continue his development with 11...0-0 12 a4 ttJe4 (12 ... ~d7 is also good) 13 :a3 f6 14 ~al .id7 Sinka-Harding, COIT. 1995. 12 ttJd2 (D)

is that he weakens his kingside, neglects his development, and deprives his king's knight of a good square. There is no discernible appeal to 4 f3 - despite its popularity, the move has a feeble theoretical reputation and deservedly so. 4•.•c6 (D)

W

+

Black has several options here: a) 12 ... 'ii'xc3 13 ttJxe4 'ii'xel 14 :fxel dxe4 15 iLxc4 iLd7 16 .ie2lic8 17 c4 cj;;e7 = HoiLein, Copenhagen 1983. b) 12 ... ttJxc3 13 ~xc4 'WIc7 (White recovers his piece after 13 ... dxc4 14 ttJe4) 14 ~d3 ~d7 15 ttJf3 f6 with equal chances, Hoi-I.Fries Nielsen, Danish Ch (Tfunby) 1983. c) 12 ... ttJd6!? (this is the most effective continuation - Black avoids simplification) 13 e4 0-0 14 eS ttJbS 15 a4 and then: c1) IS ... ttJxc3 16 .i.xc4 dxc4 17 ttJbl recovers the piece with a reasonable position for White. Black has a favourable c2) IS ... ttJc7! French Defence style position.

+.

B} 4f3 White attempts to build a broad centre by preparing the e4 pawn advance. The drawback

This is our repertoire move - Black bolsters the centre in anticipation of playing ... e5. 5 e4 White builds a broad centre - he can also defer this advance and continue his development with 5 ~d2 h6 and now: a) 6 .i.h4 e5! (Black advances in the centre and frees his position - the vulnerable position of White's queen, bishop and f3-pawn gives Black good chances to obtain an opening edge) 7 dxeS (7 e3 iLd6 gives Black a comfortable game) 7 ... ttJxe5 and then: al) 8 O-O-O? ttJc4 9 'ii'd4 ~a5 10 iLxf6 i.c5 11 ~h4 (so far this is Aronian-Fressinet, Verdun U-14 Ech 1995) 11 ... ~b4 -+. a2) 8 e4? ttJxe4 9 fxe4 'ii'xh4+ 10 g3 'ii'e7 (10 ... ~g5 11 exd5 ~cS 12 ~xg5 hxg5 gives Black a slight advantage, Schoellmann-Uhlmann, Dresden 1994) 11 0-0-0 dxe4 12 ttJxe4 i.e6 -+ Brandics-Adamski, Berlin 1988. a3) 8 e3 ttJe4 9 ~xd8 ttJxd2 10 cj;;xd2 cj;;xd8 Braakhuis-Mascioni, IEBG e-mail 1999. a4) 8 'ii'e3 ttJg4! 9 ~xe5+ (9 fxg4? ~xh4+ 10 g3 ~gS 11 'ii'd4 ttJxg4 -+ Leder-Post, Germany tt 1995/6) 9 ... ttJxeS 10 i.xd8 cj;;xd8 11 e4 dxe4 12 ttJxe4 cj;;c7 13 0-0-0 .i.e6 14 a3 i.e7 15 ttJe2 :ad8 16 ttJd4 .i.c8 Vogler-V Gurevich, Mainz 1995. This endgame favours Black because of his two bishops. b) 6 iLf4 ttJh5 and here:

+

+

115

VERESOV OPENING: 1 d4 d5 2 0,c3 0,f63 .i..g5

bl) 7 e4? lLlxf4 8 ~xf4 eS 9 dxeS WVb6! 10 0-0-0 ..tcS + highlights White's dark-square problems. b2) 7 e3 lLlxf4 8 exf4 e6 gave Black a comfortable position in Sibilio-Bellia, Rome 1988. b3) 7 ..teS f6 and now: b31) 8 'iWd3 lLlxeS 9 dxeS lLlf4 10 ~e3 lLle6 11 0-0-0 'VJiIc7 +. b32) 8 ..tg3lLlxg3 9 hxg3 WVc7 (9 ... eS 10 e4 exd4 11 WVxd4 ..tcS 12 WVd2 {Veresov-Sokolsky, Minsk 1971} 12 .. :~e7 +) 10 0-0-0 WVxg3 11 e4 lLlb6 Manninen-Veingold, Vantaa 1998. White has marginal compensation for the pawn. 5 ...dxe4 6 fxe4 e5 (D)

7 .. :~a5 (D)

W

+

w

White has a choice of captures: Bl: 8 exf6 lIS B2: 8..txf6 116 White loses more time after 8 lLlf3 lLlxe4 9 ..td2 lLlxd2 10 'iWxd2, and then: a) 1O ...!ti.b4 11 0-0-0 0-0 12 a3 .i.xc3 13 ~xc3 ~xc3 14 bxc3 lLlcs IS :d4 (SahovicW.Schmidt, Vrnjacka Banja 1981) IS ... .i.fS Black has good chances to exploit White's shattered pawn-structure in the endgame. b) lO ... lLlxeS 11 0-0-0 (11 'VJiIe3 f6 120-0-0 .i.e6 +) ll...lLlxf3 12 gxf3 ..tb4 13 WVe3+ ..te6 14 .i.c4 .i.xc3 IS .i.xe6 (1S bxc3 0-0 16 ..txe6 fxe6 17 'VJiIxe6+ Wh8 +) IS ... 0-0 16 !ti.b3 !ti.f6 Black has a solid extra pawn.

+.

7 dxe5 White must also concede some central dark squares after 7lLlf3 exd4: a) 8 lLlxd4?! ..tb4 9 lLlfS 0-0 10 ..td3 lLleS 11 ..txf6 (11 0-0 ..txfS 12 .l:txfS ~d4+ 13 ~hl lLlfg4 14 ~e2 f6 IS ..td2 i:tad8 +) 1l...'iWxf6 12 0-0 .i.xfS 13 :xfS 'WIe7 + Schiller-Ligterink, Reykjavik 1986. b) 8 'iWxd4 and then: b1) 8... 'iWb6 9 'iWd2 'VJiIxb2 10 .l:i.bl ~a3 11 eS lLldS (1l...lLlg4 12 h3 f6 13 hxg4 fxgS 14 ..td3 with attacking chances) 12lLlxdS cxdS (Zhang Pengxiang-Benjamin, Cap d' Agde 2000) 13 WVxdS .i.b4+ 14 Wf2 0-0 with an unclear position. b2) 8... .i.cS 9 ~d2 h6 10 .i.h4 0-0 11 0-0-0 .l:!e8 (Gunoz-Schmidt, corr. 1997) 12 eS!? WVaS 13 ..tc4 lLlxeS 14 lLlxeS ltxeS IS 'iWd8+ ..tf8 (1S ... iNxd8 16ltxd8+ ..tf8 17 ltn bS 18 ..txf6 gxf6 19 ..td3 ..tb7 =) 16 ..txf6 gxf6 17 'iWxf6 .i.e6 18 .i.xe6 l:txe6 19 iNf3 !ti.g7 with equal chances.

+.

81) 8 exf6 ~xg5 9 fxg7 White's pawn-structure is compromised after 9 lLlf3 WVxf6 10 WVd2 (Sirin-Yagiz, Balatonlelle U-18 Cht 2002) 10 ... .i.b4 Black will follow up with ... ..txc3 and target White's isolated pawns. 9•.•.i.xg7 10 WVd2 WVxd2+ 11 ~xd2lLlc5 12 ..td3 ..te6 (D) Now White must decide where to develop his knight: a) 13lLlf3?! 0-0-0 14 ~e2l:[he8! (the bestknown game in this line continued 14 ... bS IS a3 as + Alburt-Tal, USSR Ch (Baku) 1972) IS ~hdl..txc3 (1 S... i.fS!? 16 ~n i.g6 +) 16 bxc3 lLlxe4 17 ..txe4 .i.dS + Gieruszynski-Grafka, corr. 1983.

+.

116

How TO BEAT

1 d4

b) 9 ... tLlxf6 10 ~d4 .ig7 11 0-0-00-0 and now: bl) 12 tLlge2?? tLlg4! -+. b2) 12 ~a4? "iYxa4 13 tLlxa4 tLlxe4 wins for Black, Philippe-Kennefick, Haifa OL 1976. b3) 12 ~d2 and then: b31) 12 ... li.e6 13 a31:tad8 14li.d3 tLlg4 15 tLlh3 .l::i.fe8 Black has strong pressure to compensate for the pawn. b32) 12 ... tLlxe4!? (suggested by Gallagher) 13 tLlxe4 ~xa2 14 ~f4 (14 c3 ~al + 15 'it>c2 "iYa4+ 16 'it>c1 ~xe4 =t) l4 ... 'iVxb2+ 15 'it>d2 .l::i.e8 16 l:.el (16 tLlf3 f5 -+) 16 .. .';t>h8 =t. White's king will soon perish in the centre of the board. The above examples demonstrate the manner in which Black is able to achieve a superior position through the utilization of his bishoppair and control over the e5-square . 9...fxe610 j.,c4 (D)

+.

b) 13 tLlge2.l:!.d814.l::i.adl i.c415 tLlg3! (15 'it>c1 ? .ih6+ 16 'it>bl tLlxd3 17 cxd3 li.xd3+ 18 'it>al 0-0 =t Juglard-Pannentier, France 1989) 15 ... tLlxd3 16 cxd3 l:txd3+ 17 'it>c2 .l::i.xdl 18 .l::i.xd 1 .ie5 19 tLlf5 J:i.g8 20 g3 .l::i.g6 Black has a slight pull because of his bishop-pair.

+.

82) 8 .ixf6 gxf6 (D)

ge6 After 9 exf6 Black has two strong options: a) 9 ... .ia3 and then: al) 10 "iYbl "iYb4 11 bxa3 "iYxc3+ 12 'it>dl tLlxf6 13 i.d3 l:tg8 =t. a2) lO"iYcl tLlxf6 and here: a21) 11 tLle2 j.,d6 12 "iYh6 .ie5 13 0-0-0 .ie6 14 a3 tLlg4 15 ~h4 "iYc5 is much better for Black. a22) 11 .id3 tLlg4 12 bxa3 "iYxc3+ 13 'it>e2 "iYd4 14 tLlh3 1:tg8 Brauer-Crosa, Mendoza 2004.

+

lO.•. li.a3! This bishop shot has flown under the radar of most opening books - the move exposes White's dark-square weaknesses and effectively puts the 8 j.,xf6 line out of business. The idea was first played in a little-known 1981 correspondence game. Two alternatives are also fine for Black: a) 1O... tLle5 and now: al) 11 .ib3? li.a3! 12 "iYbl J:.g8 13 tLle2 j.,c5 14 "iYdl (Williamson-A.Lewis, London 2000) 14 ... .l::i.xg2! 15 tLlf4 .l::i.g4 16 J::[fl .ia3 17 "iYcl "iYxc3+ 18 bxc3 .ixc1 19.1::i.xc1 'it>e7 -+. a2) 11 ~h5+ 'it>d7! (suggested by Davies an earlier game continued 11...'it>e7 12 li.e2 j.,d713 0-0-0 {Foetsch-Jacob, Oberhofjr 1998} 13 ... .l::i.d8 =) 12 0-0-0+ 'it>c7 13 ~e2 (13 .ie2

VERESOV OPENING:

1 d4 d5 2 0,c3 0,f63 JL.g5

..tb4 =1=) 13 ... ..tb4 (13 .. .'~Jxc4 14 Wixc4 Wigs+ IS 'it>b1 Wixg2 16 ttJge2 WigS 17 ttJd4 WieS 18 :hfl with reasonable compensation for the lost pawn) 14 ttJb1 (the only move to avoid a crippled pawn-structure) 14.. .l::tg8 IS ..tb3 ..td7 and Black has a slight pull because of his bishoppair and strong outpost on the eS-square. b) 1O ... ..tb4 (this has been the most popular choice by a wide margin) 11 ttJe2 ttJeS 12 ..tb3 i..d7 13 a3 i..cS! 14 ttJf4 0-0-0 =1= VieujotSchwicker, corr. 1983. We now return to 1O ... i.a3! (D):

117

d) l1...ttJeS 12 i..b3 .l::!.g8 13 ttJe2 .i.cs (White's king is stranded in the centre and he is unable to cope with Black's well-placed pieces - the finish is instructive) 14 'iVc1 l:txg2 IS ~f4 ttJg4 16 ~f3 .i.f2+ 17 'it>d1 ttJe3+ 18 .,g;,c1 ~gS 19 ttJf4 eS 20 ~hS+ ~xhS 21 ttJxhS i..h4 0-1 Pickard-Jabot, corr. 1994. 11•••Wib4! A collinear move to force White's bishop to an inferior square. 12 ..tb3 ~xc3+ 13 bxc3 ..txc114 .uxc1 ttJc5 15 e5 l::tg8 16 g3 fxe5 Black has a clear advantage.

C) 4 ttJf3 h6 (D)

w

11 'iVcl White can also defend his b-pawn with 11 'iVb1, when Black's only dilemma is deciding among several attractive options: a) ll...'iVgS (suggested by Davies) 12 ..tfl ~b4 13 ttJe2 ttJcS and Black has a large advantage. b) 1l...~b4 (this is also tempting now that White's queen has been lured away from the centre) 12 ~xe6 (12 ttJe2 'iVgS 13 g3 ttJeS 14 i.d3 'iVe3 +) 12... ~xc3+ 13 bxc3 ttJcS 14 ~xc8 'iVxc3+ IS 'it>fl :xc8 +. c) 11...ttJcS and here: c1) 12 ~d3 ~b4! 13 bxa3 ~xc3+ 14 'iitfl eS IS ttJe2 Wixa3 -+. White is a pawn down and has a horrible position. c2) 12 'iitfl (Dries-De Jong, Dutch corr. Ch 1981) 12 ... Wib4 13 i..b3 b6 (Black has a winning attack according to Jeschonnek - not a surprising verdict considering the poor position of White's queen) 14 ttJge2 .i.a6 IS 'iite1 .i.xe2 16 bxa3 (White's king is fatally exposed after 16 'iitxe2 ttJxe4 -+) 16.. :~xc3+ 17 'iitxe2 0-0-0

-+.

5 i..h4 Minor alternatives: a) S ~xf6 (White surrenders the bishop-pair to gain time for a central advance) S... ttJxf6 6 'fWd3 c6 7 e4 dxe4 8 ttJxe4 'fWa5+ 9 c3 (Shvidler-Gutman, Netanya 1983) 9 ... ttJxe4 10 'fWxe4 ..tfS with equal chances - Black has the bishoppair and no weaknesses. b) S i..f4 (this is somewhat artificial- after Black parries White's primitive threat of ttJbS, he will have achieved the useful move ... h6 for free) S... a6 and now: b1) 6 Wid3 and then: b11) 6 ... cS 7 e4 dxe4 8 ttJxe4 ttJxe4 9 ~xe4 ttJf6 10 'iVeS e6 11 dxcS (11 O-O-O!?) ll...Wia5+ 12 i..d2 Wixcs = B.Schneider-Chandler, Bundesliga 1985/6. b12) 6 ... e6 7 e4 dxe4 (7 ... ~b4!?) 8 ttJxe4 ttJxe4 9 ~xe4 ttJf6 10 'fWd3 ..td6 11 ttJeS ttJdS

118

How TO BEAT 1 d4

12 i.d2 (Biyiasas-Vranesic, Canadian Ch (Toronto) 1972) 12... c5 with equal chances. b2) 6 e3 e6 and here: b2l) 7 i.e2 i.e7 8 0-0 c5 9 h3 0-010 a4 b6 11 'ilYbl?! (Black has little to fear in this line if White has to resort to moves like this to complete his development) 11...i.b7 12 l:tdl ~c8 and Black is poised to take over the initiative on the queenside, Rossetto-Taimanov, Havana 1967. b22) 7 h3 c5 8 .!te2 b5 9 a3 .!tb7 10 0-0 .!te7 11 l2Je5 0-0 12 .!tf3 ~c8 and Black has completed his development with a comfortable position, Fomina-Sakaev, Kuopio 1995. b23) 7 .!td3 c5 8 0-0 .i.e7 9 ]:tel b5 (the problem for White is that the c3-knight is misplaced in front of the c-pawn - the horse would be better placed on d2 instead) 10 l2Je5 Si.b7 11 l2Jxd7 'iYxd7 (Black can also consider 11...l2Jxd7 =) 12 dxc5 i.xc5 13 .i.e5 'iYe7 with a balanced position, Mestrovic-Kovacevic, Nova Gorica 2004. S.•. e6 (D)

a22) 7 ... c4! 8 'iYd2 'iYa5 9 a3 (White must prevent.. .Si.b4) 9 ... b5 10 l2Ja2 (10 l2Je4? b4 -+) 10 ... 'iYb6 =t. Black has a ready-made queenside attack. b) 6 e3 Si.b47 i.d3 c5 8 dxc5 (8 a3?! .i.xc3+ 9 bxc3 'iYa5 Grasser-Rizzitano, Hartford 1982) 8... 'iYa5 and here: bl) 9 'iYd2?! l2Jxc5 10 i.xf6 gxf6 11 0-0 .i.d7 Rizzitano-I.Watson, Philadelphia 1979. The battle was eventually drawn after a wild time-scramble, but this was one of several games that eventually convinced me to abandon 4l2Jf3 - if Black plays solidly, it is difficult for White to generate any initiative. b2) 9 .i.xf6l2Jxf6 10 'iYd2 'ilYxc5 11 a3 Si.xc3 12 'iYxc3 'ilYxc3+ 13 bxc3 b6 gives Black a slight advantage. b3) 9 0-0 .i.xc3 10 bxc3 'iYxc3 11 l2Jd4 'iYxc5 12 ~c1 (Pereira-A. Fernandes, Honra 1994) 12 ... e5 13 ~el (13l2Jb3 'iYc3 +) 13 ... 0-0 14l2Jf5 'it>h8 +. White does not have enough for the pawn. We now return to 6 e4 (D):

+

+

B

6e4 This aggressive line is the Veresov Gambit; White has a couple of minor alternatives: a) 6 'iYd3 c5 and now: al) 7 e4 c4!? (7 ... cxd4 8 'iYxd4 .i.c5 =) 8 'iYe2 .i.e7 9 e5l2Jg8 10 i.xe7 (10 .i.g3 .i.b4 =) 1O... l2Jxe7 with roughly level chances, PryeorRizzitano, Framingham 1985. a2) 7 0-0-0 and then: a21) 7 ... cxd4 8l2Jxd4 i.e7 9 'iYf3 0-0 10 e4 dxe4 11 l2Jxe4 tiJxe4 12 .i.xe7 'iYxe7 13 'iYxe4 l2Jc5 is equal, Mestel-Plachetka, Lucerne OL 1982.

6 ..•gS This is Black's sharpest continuation - there are two calmer alternatives: a) Black can transpose into a line of the solid French Defence Bum Variation (ECa code ClO) with 6 ... dxe4 7l2Jxe4 i.e7 8l2Jxf6+ i.xf6 9 Si.xf6 'iYxf6 10 ~d2 0-0, and now: al) 110-0-0 e5 12 dxe5l2Jxe5 13l2Jxe5 (13 'iYd4l2Jg4 14 'iYxf6 l2Jxf6 15 i.c4 Si.g4 = Korchnoi) 13 ... 'iYxe5 14 .!tc4 Si.f5 = Hoi-Larsen, Copenhagen 1985. a2) 11 ~e3 (preventing ... e5) 1l...':'d8 12 0-0-0 b6 and then:

VERESOV OPENING:

1 d4 d5 2 CDc3 CDf6 3 .i.g5

a21) 13 ~e4 l::rb8 14 ..tb5 ..tb7 15 ..tc6 .ixc6 16 ~xc6 ~f4+ 17 Iit>b1 'iUd6 112-112 Van der Wiel-Nunn, Lugano 1987. a22) 13 .id3 .ib7 14 .ie4 .ixe4 15 ~xe4 c5 = Hector-Speelman, Roskilde 1998. b) 6 ... ..te7 and here: bI) 7 exd5 exd5 8 .id3 0-0 9 0-0 £re8 10 :leI c6 11 lLie5 (11 ~d2 lLif8 12 h3 i.e6 = Saigan-Averbakh, USSR Cht (Moscow) 1963) 1l...lLixe5 12 ':'xe5 .1i.e6 = Rizzitano-Curdo, Leominster 1980. b2) 7 e5 and now: b21) 7... lLie4!? 8 .ixe7 ~xe7 (Black should avoid 8... lLixc3? 9 .ixd8lLixd11O i.xc7! lLixb2 l1lLid2lLia4 {11...0-0 12 a4 strands the knight} 12 c4 ±, when White has a powerful bishoppair) 9lLixe4 dxe4 10 lLid2 and then: b211) 1O.. .f5 11 ~h5+ ~f7 12 ~xf7+ Iit>xf7 13 c3 ;to b212) 10 ... 0-0 11lLixe4 ~M+ 12 c3 ~xb2 13 1lVc1 1lVxc1 + 14l:txc1 b6 15 .id3 .ib7 ;to b213) 1O...~ 11 c3 ~xb2 12 lLixe4 (SeulSchlick, Wittlich 1985) 12 ... f5! 13 exf6 lLixf6 14 lLixf6+ gxf6 and in this sharp position the chances are balanced. b22) 7...lLig8 8 .ig3 (8 i.xe7lLixe7 9 i.d3 c5 10 dxc5 lLixc5 11 0-0 0-0 with equal chances) 8 ... c5 (8 ... ..tb4!? also looks reasonable - the position is a hybrid French Winawer) 9 i.e2 a6 10 0-0 b5 11 dxc5 .1i.xc5 12 i.d3lLie7 13 lLie2 lLic6 = Mikhailovsky-L.Vajda, Cala Galdana U-16 Wch 1996. 7 ..tg3 lLixe4 The acceptance of the pawn sacrifice is the only logical way to justify the weakening ... g5 advance. S lLixe4 dxe4 (D)

w

Now: Cl: 9lLieS C2: 9lLid2

119

119 121

el) 9 lLieS .ig7 (D) Black must avoid 9 ... lLixe5? 10 i.xe5 f6 11 ~h5+ 'i;e7 12 1lVg6! fxe5 13 dxe5 and White has a decisive advantage according to John Nunn's 1987 In/ormator notes - Black has no defence to parry the threat of'iUf6+, winning the rook.

w

10h4 10 ~e2lLixe5 11 dxe5 ~d5 12 ':'dl ~a5+ 13 c3 i.d7 14 ~xe4 0-0-0 15 ~b4 ~xb4 16 cxM .ic6 (Black's pressure continues into the endgame as it is difficult for White to unravel his kingside pieces) 17 h4 .:txd1+ 18 'i;xd1 :d8+ 19 'i;c1 (Spal-Folk, Czech Cht 1995) 19 ... g4 +. Black is threatening to play ... h5 and ... i.h6+, followed by a rook invasion. 10...lLixeS 11 .ixeS Black has no problems after 11 dxe5 ~xd1 + 121hdl i.d7 13 hxg5 hxg5 14l:Ixh8+ .ixh8 + Scherf-A.Peters, COIT. 1992. 11...i.xeSI2 dxeS i.d713 ~g4 (D) This move was first suggested by British 1M Robert Bellin in 1983. Alternatives: a) 13 1lVd2?! (this looks too slow) 13 ... gxh4 14 ~M (14 ~f4 ~g5 15 ':'xh4l:i.g8 +) 14... i.c6 15 i.b5 1lVd5 16 i.xc6+ bxc6 17 J:lxh4 e3 18 fxe3 0-0-0 19 ~c4 ~xc4 20 l::rxc4 l::rhg8 + Mestrovic-Bobotsov, Sarajevo 1971. b) 13 1lVd4 i.c6 14 ~xd8+ l:Ixd8 15 hxg5 lId5 16 ':'xh6 (16 gxh6l:he5 +Nunn) 16 .. Jhh6

120

How TO BEAT 1 d4

17 gxh6 l:txe5 18 ~e2 f8, and Black has a slight edge according to Nunn. I think White can hold the position by activating his king with 19 d2!? g8 (19 .. J:tg5 20 .l::!.h1 g8 21 .i.h5 is fine for White) 20 .l::!.h1 h7 21 e3 1:tg5 22 kh5, and White is able to maintain equality.

B

Another crossroads - Black has two promising options: Cll: 13.. J~'e7 120 C12: 13...kc6 120

CII} 13•. :~e7 14 0-0-0 Or 14 ~xe4 .i.c6 15 ~d4 l:td8 16 ~c3 gxh4 17 l:td1 ~g5 with a slight advantage for Black, Hector-Simon, Nrestved 1988. 14•.•0-0-0 15 ~xe4 ~c616l:txd8+ l:txd817 ~e3 gxh4 (D)

W

18 f4

Alternatives: a) 18 ~xh6? ~c5 19 ~f4 (19 ~xh4 ~xe5 +) 19 ... ~a5 (Nunn suggested 19 ... ~d5 +) 20 .id3 h3! +. Black homes in on the vulnerable e1-square. b) 18 ~xa7 ~g5+ 19 ~e3 .l:!.d4 20 ~xg5 hxg5 21 f3 .l:!.d5 22 f4 (so far this is the game Reynolds-Nunn, London 1987) 22 ... .l:!.d4! 23 fxg5 l:rf4 24 d2 h3! +. 18••. a6! This is a 2005 suggestion by Nunn. The older move was 18 ... ~b4 19l:txh4 ~a4 20 a3 ~e4, and now: a) 21 ~d3 ~xd3 22 cxd3 ~c6+ 23 b1 ~xg2 24 .l:!.xh6 gives White good drawing chances according to Davies. b) 21 ~c3 .l:!.g8 (Black has a slight edge according to Nunn's original analysis, although it appears White can hold with careful defence) 22 ~c5! and then: b1) 22 ... i.xg2 23 .ixg2 ':'xg2 24 ~f8+ d7 25 ~xf7+ d8 (25 ... c6?? loses to 26 ~e8+) 26 ~f8+ with a draw by repetition. b2) 22 ... b6 23 ~f2 (suggested by Aagaard and Lund) 23 ... b7 24 ~d2 !i.g3 25 ~f2 with equal chances. 19.1:!.h3 19 ~f2 (19 ~e1 ~c5 is much better for Black) 19 ... ke4 20 ~e2 (20 ~xh4? ~d7 21 ~e2 ~d5 -+ Nunn) 20 ... ~4 21 ~g4 ~c4 +. 19.•.f6 Black is slightly better, and White must struggle for a draw.

Cl2} 13.•.Jtc614 hxg5 Black's queen is well-placed after 14 l:td1 o/Iie7 : a) 15 hxg5 ~b4+ 16 ~d2 o/Iixb2 and then: a1) 17 gxh6 ~a1+ 18 .l:!.d1 o/Iic3+ 19 .l:!.d2 .i:!.d8 20 o/Iie2 l:txd2 21 o/Iixd2 o/Iia1 + 22 ~d1 o/Iixe5, and Black has a clear advantage according to Aagaard and Lund; White is a pawn down and half of his pieces are already set up for the next game. a2) 17 .l:!.xh6 ~a1+ 18 :d1 '¥Vc3+ 19 .l:!.d2 e3! 20 fxe3 o/Iixe3+ 21 ~e2 (21 ~e2 ~xe5 -+) 21...~g3+ 22 d1 e7 23 ~f2 ~xf2 24 .l:!.xf2 l:thg8 and Black has a clear endgame advantage because of White's five isolated pawns.

VERESOV OPENING: 1 d4 d5 2 ttJc3 ttJf63 .i.,g5

b) 15 c3 J:1.g8 16 hxg5 'iYxg5 17 'iYxg5 (after 17 'iYh5 e3 18 'ilYxg5 exf2+ 19 'it>xf2 l:!.xg5 20 l:!.xh6 'it>e7 -+ White's pawns are too weak) 17 .. .lhg5 18 J::txh6 'it>e7 14.•.'iYd415 c3 'iUxe5 160-0-0 'it>e7 (D)

+.

w

White's attack has run out of steam and Black is poised to take over the initiative. Now: a) 17 gxh6 :ag8 18 'iYh4+ 'iUg5+ 19 'iYxg5+ .l:!.xg5, and Black will emerge with an extra pawn after rounding up White's h-pawn. b) 17 l:!.xh6 :xh6 18 gxh6 l:!.h8 19 'iYh4+ 'iYf6 20 'iYg3 e5 21 'it>bl (so far this is MuratovKiselev, Moscow 1988) 2l...'iYf4! 22 'iUg7l:!.xh6 23 g3 'iYf6 White is clearly in need of some improvements in this line.

121

10h4 White can pause to fortify his d4-pawn by playing 10 c3 f5 11 h4 g4 12 i..c4 and now: a) 12 ... lLlf6 13 'iYe2 0-014 h5 lLld5 150-0-0 c6 16 f3 b5 17 i..b3 (A.Ignatiev-Rogovoi, Kolontaevo jr 1998) 17 ... gxf3 18 gxf3 e3 19 lLlf1 f4 20 i..h4 'iYe8 with a sharp, unbalanced position. b) 12 ... lLlb6! (I think this is the most precise response - Black protects his e6-pawn with tempo and leaves the f-file unblocked) 13 i..b3 0-0 14 'ilYe2 and then: bl) 14 ... a5 15 a3 'iYe7 160-0-0 l:!.a617 lLlc4 (17 lLlxe4? fxe4 18 'iYxe4 lLld7 19l:!.hel lLlf6 is much better for Black, H0i-Larsen, Danish Ch Aalborg 1989) 17 ... lLld7 18 a4, with compensation for the pawn. b2) 14... f4! (suggested by Davies) 15 'iYxg4 (White is compelled to sacrifice a piece as he is being pushed off the board after 15 i..h2 e3! 16 fxe3 'ilYxh4+ 17 'it>d 1 g3 18 lLlf3 'iUh5 -+) 15 .. .fxg3 16 'iYxg3 'iYd6 17 lLlxe4 'iYxg3 18 lLlxg3 i..d7 +. 10•.•.txd4 (D)

+.

C22) 9 lLld2 i..g7 (D) This solid development is our repertoire move - Black can also play the sharp 9 ... f5 here.

w

11 c3 11 lLlxe4 .txb2 and now: a) 12 hxg5 hxg5 13lhh8+ i..xh8 and then: al) 14 c3? i..g7 15 'iWb3 (15 'iWh5 lLlf6! 16 'iUxg5 lLlxe4 17 'iYxg7 'iYd2#) 15 .. .f5 -+ Mestrovic-Vukic, Yugoslav Ch 1974. a2) 14 .l:i.bl .tg7 15 .te2 b6 16 i..h5 (16 .tf3 .ta6 +) 16 ... lLle5 17 'iYxd8+ 'it'xd8 18 lLlxg5 'it>e7 19 f4 (Negri-Giordana, e-mail 1997) 19 ... lLlg6 +. b) 12 .l:r.bl lLlf6! 13 'iYxd8+ (13 .tb5+!? 'it>e7 +) 13 ... ~xd8 + Neukirch-Uhlmann, East Germany 1972.

122

How TO BEAT

1l •••i..e5 (D) Black must avoid the careless 11...gxh4? 12 ':xh4! i..f6 13 ~hS! ± Veresov-Zheliandinov, Russia 1969.

1 d4

a) 14 ~hS+? rj;e7 IS ~g6 (1S hxgS fxe4 +) IS ... ~g8 16 ~xg8 .l:!.xg8 17 ctJf2 g4 +. b) 14 ctJf2 g4 IS ~a4 c6 160-0-0 eS +. 1411xh4 ~e7 (D)

W

White has two options here; Line e22 is White's best chance to equalize. C21: 12 ctJxe4 122 C22: 12 i..xe5 123

e21) 12 ctJxe4 i.xg3 Black can also play 12 ... fS 13 ~hS+ rj;e7 14 0-0-0 ~e8 (White is able to open lines on the kingside after 14 ... f4?! IS i.h2 ~e8 16 ~e2 ~g6 17 g3;t) and now: a) IS .l::!.xd7+!? .txd7 16 ~xe8+ ':'hxe8 17 i.xeS fxe4 18 hxgS hxgS 19 .l:i.h7+ rj;d8 20 .tf6+ ~c8 21 Ji.xgS and White's powerful rook compensates for the loss of the exchange. b) IS hxgS ~xhS 16 .l:!.xhS and then: bl) 16... hxgS 17 .l::!.xh8 (17 ':xgS Ji.f6 18 ctJxf6 rj;xf6 19 f4 eS 20 i..e2 ctJcS =) 17 ... i.xh8 18 ctJxgS eS with equal chances. b2) 16 ... fxe4 17 .l::!.xd7+ Ji.xd7 18 i.xeS (so far this is the game Rizzitano-Stopa, Boston 1981) 18 .. J:thf8 19 i..f6+ ':'xf6 20 gxf6+ rj;xf6 21 ':'xh6+ rj;g7 with an equal endgame. 13 fxg3 White can keep his pawn-structure intact at the cost of losing some time after 13 ctJxg3 gxh4 14 ctJe4 ~e7 IS 'iWf3 fS 16 ctJd2 ctJeS 17 'iWhS+ ctJf7 18 ctJf3 ~f6 19 0-0-0 i.d7 13... gxh4 I think Black should consider 13 .. .fS! and then:

+.

A critical position - White has aggressively pursued his attack at the cost of allowing his pawn-structure to become compromised. 151Wd2 Or IS ~d4 eS 16 ~d2, and then: a) 16 ... ctJf6? ('!?' - Volzhin; "White is driven back" - Davies) 17 i.bS+!. I think this move turns the tables - Black is in big trouble: al) 17 ... rj;f8 18l:txh6 ctJh7 19 ctJf6 i.fS 20 0-0-0 ±. a2) 17 ... c6 18 ctJd6+ rj;f8 19 .l::!.xh6 .l::!.g8 (or 19 ... .l::!.xh6 20 ~xh6+ rj;g8 21 0-0-0 ctJg4 22 ~hS ctJf2 23 i..c4 i.e6 24 Ji.xe6 ~xe6 2S .l:!.d2 +-) 20 i..c4 i.e6 21 i.xe6 ~d8 22 ctJfS I:txd2 23 ctJxe7<3;xe7 24 <3;xd2 ±. a3) 17 ... ctJd7 18 0-0-0 c6 19 llc4 is also very good for White. b) 16 .. .fS! ('!?' - Volzhin) 17 ctJf2 1Wf6 18 ~d 1 ctJb6 19 ~e2 Ji.e6 20 ~hS+ ~e7 +. White is a pawn down and his doubled g-pawns do not inspire confidence. 15...f5! Now: a) 16 ctJgS ctJf6 170-0-0 Ji.d7 18 ctJf3 0-0-0 (also sufficient is 18 ... ctJg4 +) 19 ':xh6 ctJe4 20 ~e3 .tt.xh6 21 ~xh6 (White's attack comes up short after 21 'iilxa7 cS 22 Ji.a6 Ji.c6 -+ Volzhin) 21...ctJxg3 22 ~e3 rj;b8 + GalkinVolzhin, Perm 1997. b) 16 ctJf2 ctJf6 17 .l::!.xh6 .l::!.xh6 18 ~xh6 Ji.d7 19 ~h8+ 'iUf8 20 ~xf8+ rj;xf8 21 0-0-0 rj;e7 +Volzhin.

VERESOV OPENING:

1 d4 d5 2 ttJc3 ttJf6 3 iJ..g5

C22) 12 ~xe5 ttJxe5 13 ~a4+ Black retains his extra pawn and has no problems after 13 ttJxe4 ~xdl + 141:txdl g4 13••• ~d7 (D)

+.

w

Now: C221: 14 ~xe4 C222: 14 ~d4!?

123 123

123

16••• ~g5! This unexpected move enables Black to fight for an advantage -less challenging is 16 ... ttJxe5 17 ~xe5 1:tg8 18 .l:!.dl ~e7 19 V/iixc7 .tc6 20 ~xe7+ rt;xe7 (112-112 E.Otero-G.Camacho, Cuba (1) 1997) 21 f3, and White recovers his pawn with equal chances. 17 ttJxd7 Black will emerge with an extra pawn after 17 ttJf3 ~e7. 17•.. 0-0-0! Power castling! The white knight is pinned because of the mate threat on the d2-square. Now: a) 181:tdll:!.xd7 191:txd7 Wxd7 +. b) 18 ~xh4 ~xh4 19 l:txh41:txd7 20 ~b5 ~d6 +. Black has an extra pawn, but White has some drawing chances. c) 18 .ta6 1:txd7 19 ~xc6 ~d2+ 20 rt;n ~xb2 21 V/iixb7+ (21l:.el bxa6 22 ~xa6+ rt;d8 23 ~xa7 ~xc3 +) 2l...~xb7 22 ~xb7+ rt;xb7 23 1:tbl + (23 1:txh4 c5 +) 23 ... rt;c6 24 ~xh4 rt;c5 Black is a pawn ahead in the rook endgame, although again White has some drawing chances.

+.

C221) 14 ~xe4 ttJc6 15 ttJf3 White must act quickly to justify his sacrifice. Quieter play allows Black to consolidate his extra pawn: a) 15 hxg5 ~xg5 16 ttJf3 (G.Morris-J.Hansen, corr. 1998) 16 ... ~g7 17 0-0-0 (17 ~h4 ttJe5) 17 ... 0-0-0 +. b) 15 ~f3 ~e7 16 hxg5 'iYxg5 17 ttJe4 ~e5 18 0-0-0 0-0-0 +. 15 ...gxh416 ttJe5 (D)

C222) 14 V/iid4!? ttJg6 (D)

W

B

15h5 White has some alternatives: a) 15 ttJxe4?! i.c6! +Camacho. b) 15 hxg5 ~xg5 16 ttJxe4 ~e5 17 ~xe5 ttJxe5 18 1:th5 ttJg4 gives Black a slight advantage. c) 15 ~g7!? and now:

124

How TO BEAT 1 d4

c1) 15 .. .'it'e7!? 160-0-0 .ia4 17 b3 (after 17 ltJb3?? ~xd1+!! 18 Wxd1 ~ag8 19 ~d4 lid8 -+ Black recovers the queen and will emerge with a two-pawn advantage) 17 ... ..tc6 18ltJxe4 ~f8 19 ~f6+ We8 with an unclear position. c2) 15 ... ~e7! 16h5'iVf817'iYd4andhere: c21) 17 ... e5?! ("!" according to Camacho in his 1998 Infonnatornotes, but White's play can be strengthened) and then: c211) 18 ~xe4 ..tc6 19 ..tb5ltJe7 20 ~xe5 (the alternative 20 ..txc6+!? ltJxc6 21 ~f5 was suggested by Davies and looks dangerous for Black) 20 ... 0-0-0 21..txc6ltJxc6 22 ~f5+ Wb8 23 0-0-0 ~g7 = Camacho. c212) 18 ~c4! (this is an easy move to overlook - White declines to capture one pawn in order to attack a more crucial pawn; the idea works because the black knight is still under attack) 18 ... ltJf4 19 'iYxc7 'iYe7 (19 ... Jtc6 20 "iVxe5+ ltJe6 21 i.b5 ±) 20 'ilVxb7 0-0 21ltJxe4 ~fd8 22 g3ltJe6 23 'ilVd5 ;1;. White has emerged from the complications with an extra pawn, despite the odd statistic that more than one third of his moves have been with his queen! c22) 17 ... ltJe7 (the solid choice) 18 ltJxe4 0-0-0 19 ~xa7ltJc6 =Pommerel-Elburg, Dutch e-mail Ch 2000. c23) 17 ... ltJf4!? (the sharp choice) 180-0-0 ..tc6 19 ltJxe4 f5! and now: c231) 20 ltJc5 Wf7 21 ..tc4 (21 ltJd7 - 20 ltJf6+ Wf721 ltJd7) 21...'iVd6 22 'iYxd6 cxd6 23 l:txd6 .l:i.hd8 +. White's kingside pawns are vulnerable. c232) 20 ltJf6+ 'it'f7 21 ltJd7 Jtxd7 22 ~xd7+ 'ilVe7 23 c4 (23 ~b5 c6 24 ~e5 :hd8 +) 23 ... ltJd5! 24 'ilVb5 c6 25 'ilVb3ltJf6 The onus is on White to justify his pawn sacrifice. 15..•e5 (D) 16 'iYd5 Or 16 'ilVxe4 i.c6, and then: a) 17 Jtb5? ('!?, according to Camacho) and here: al) 17 ... Jtxb5? 18 hxg6 "is very dangerous for Black" according to Davies.

+.

W

a2) 17 ...tiJe7? 18 'ilVxe5 0-019 0-0-0 ~d5 = E.Otero-G.Camacho, Cuba (3) 1997. a3) 17 ... 'ilVxd2+!! (previous analysts have overlooked this tactical idea and some day this pseudo-sacrifice will prove to be a very satisfying novelty for someone!) 18 Wxd2 0-0-0+ 19 We3 i.xe4 20 'it'xe4 (20 hxg6 i.xg6 wins for Black) 20 .. .f5+! (more incisive than 20 ... ltJe7 +) 21 Wxf5 ltJh4+ 22 Wxe5 .l:i.hf8 23 g3 (23 l:!.xh4 gxh4 24 f4 l:td2 -+) 23 ... ltJf3+ 24 We4 c6 -+. Black wins a piece because attempts to save the bishop allow a mating attack; for example, 25 .\tfl ltJd2+ 26 We5 (26 We3 ~fe8#) 26 ... .l:i.d5+ 27 We6 ltJe4 28 We7 l:ldd8 (threatening ...:de8#) 29 ..th3+ g4! 30 ..txg4+ Wc7 (renewing the threat of ... .l:!.de8#) 31 ..td7 ltJg5 32 f41:1f7#. b) 17 'ilVe3 ltJf4 18 'ilVxe5+ 'iYe7 19 ~xe7+ 'it'xe7 20 f3 .l:i.ad8 gives Black a slight pull in the endgame, although White should be able to draw with careful defence. 16... c6 17 'ilVxe4 ltJf4 18 'iYxe5+ ~e7 19 ltJc4 Now: a) 19 ... 'iYxe5+ 20 ltJxe5 .l:i.d8 with equal chances. b) 19 ... Jtg4!? (the most ambitious move) 20 g3 ltJxh5 21 ltJd6+ 'it'd7 22 'iYxe7+ Wxe7 23 ltJxb7 ~ab8 24 ..ta6ltJf6 and Black has a slight pull because of his more active pieces.

14 London System: 1 d4 d5

2 tiJf3 tiJf6 3 Jtf4

1 d4 d5 2 ltJf3 White can also play 2 ~f4 ltJf6 3 e3 (3 ltJf3 2 ltJf3 ltJf6 3 ~f4) 3 ... c5 4 c3 (4 ltJf3 - 2 ltJf3 ltJf6 3 ~f4 c54 e3) 4 ... ltJc6 5 ltJd2!? (5 ltJf3 - 2 ltJf3 ltJf6 3 ~f4 c54 e3 ltJc6 5 c3) 5 ... ..tf5 6 'iVb3 'iUd7 7 ltJgf3 c4 8 ~dl e6 = S.KovacevicMoreno Trujillo, Lorca 2003. 2•..ltJf6 3 ~f4 (D)

B

Several British players including James Mason (he preferred 2 ~f4) and World Championship candidate Joseph Blackburne pioneered White's trademark piece set-up during the 19th century, but the opening derives its name from having been played several times during the great tournament of London 1922. The Croatian GM Vlatko Kovacevic is the leading modem exponent of the London System - he has employed it successfully in high-level games for many years. Several grandmasters trot out the London System as an occasional change of pace from the mainstream queen's pawn openings. The London System is popular at club level because it is relatively easy to learn, it can be employed against a variety of defences, and White can quickly develop a strong attack if Black defends indifferently.

3... c5 (D)

The London System features the early development of White's dark-squared bishop to the f4-square - the strength or weakness of this bishop posting is a key factor in evaluating many of the characteristic positions. White aims for rapid piece development without the c4 pawn advance, but unlike the Veresov Opening, White retains the ability to bolster the centre with his c-pawn and his queen's knight is usually developed via a3 or d2. Black's classical response is to play an early ... c5 pawn advance, followed by ...'iVb6 to attack the b2-pawn and exploit the absence of White's dark-squared bishop from the queenside. White usually counters by playing 'iVb3, and the royals typically stare at each other along the b-file for several moves to see who will blink first by exchanging or retreating.

Black immediately frees his position to counter White's grip over the e5-square. 4e3 White sometimes plays 4 dxc5 e6, and now: a) 5 e3 ~xc5 6 ltJbd2 (6 ~e2 0-0 70-0 ltJc6 8 ltJbd2 h6 9 h3 'iVe7 10 ltJb3 ~b6 11 ltJe5 .l::!.d8) 6 ... 0-0 7 i.d3 ltJc6 8 0-0 'iVe7 9 ltJb3 ~b6

126

How TO BEAT 1 d4

10 ctJbd4 ~d7 = Chepukaitis-Nataf, Internet FIDE Wch qual 2001. b) S b4 as 6 c3 axb4 and then: bl) 7 ~xb8 b3! 8 ~xb3 (8ctJbd2 b2 9.l:tbl .l:txb8 =+=) 8.. .lhb8 =+= Tobak-Sumets, Odessa Ch 2002. b2) 7 cxb4 b6 8 e3 bxcS 9 bxcS ~xcS = Czech-Van Damme, ICCF e-mail 2002. 4...ctJc65 c3 Black has no problems after other moves: a) SctJbd2 ~b6 6 dxcS ~xb2 7 ~d3ctJd7!? 8 l:.bl ~c3 (this is safer than the murky line 8 .. .'iha2 9ctJd4) 9 e4 dxe4 10 ~xe4 (10 J:Ib3? 'iVf6 11 ~gS 'iVe6 + Gara-P.Horvath, Harkany 2001) 1O ... ctJxcS =+=. b) SctJc3 cxd4! 6ctJbS iVaS+ 7 iVd2 iVxd2+ 8 ~xd2 dxe3+ 9 fxe3 ~d7! 10 .l:tdl e6 (T.RakicSr.Cvetkovic, Yugoslav Ch (Kladovo) 1991) 11 ctJc7 .l:tb8 (1l...eS 12ctJxa8! exf4 13 exf4 is unclear) 12ctJbS .l:ta8 = Sr.Cvetkovic. 5...~b6 (D)

ctJd7 IS .ig3 ctJaS = Berntsen-Summerscale, London 1994) 13 ... ctJxeS 14 .ixeS 0-0 IS a4 ctJd7 16 as ~d8 17 .ig3 a6 = Ghane GardehArlandi, Bled OL 2002. b) 6 ~c2 ~g4 (D) (Black should avoid the tactically unsound 6 ... ~fS? 7 dxcS ~xc2 8 cxb6 axb6 9 ctJa3 ~e4 10 ctJbS ± Sakri-Marciano, Tarbes 2003) and then: bl) 7 ~e2 e6 8ctJbd2 ~c8 = Gamero BranaMadera Fernandez, Gijon 2000.

W

W

If White meets this move passively, Black can often seize the initiative on the queenside. 6iVb3 Challenging the black queen is White's most popular choice here. Alternatives: a) 6 iVc1 (too passive) 6... ~fS 7ctJbd2 .l:tc8 8 dxcS iVxcS 9ctJb3 iVb6 and now: al) 10 ~d2 e6 11 ~d3 ~xd3 (1l....ie4 is also equal, Capablanca-Maroczy, New York 1924) 12 ~xd3 i.e7 13 0-00-0 = ReichgeldGrosshans, COIT. 1989. a2) 10 ctJbd4 i.e4 11 ~e2 (11 ctJxc6 bxc6 12 ~e2 e6 13 0-0 .ie7 was comfortable for Black in Steinhagen-Krallmann, MUnster 1996) ll...e6 120-0 .ie7 13 ctJeS (13 h3 0-0 14 l:dl

b2) 7 dxcS 'iVxcs 8 ctJeS ctJxeS 9 .ixeS ctJd7 10 .ig3 g6 11 iVa4.ifS 12ctJd2 ~g7 13 .ie2 0-0 14ctJb3 iVb6 IS 0-0 .l::tac8!? (IS ... ctJcS 16 ctJxcS ~xcS = Wirthensohn-Giertz, Swiss Cht 2001) 16 .l:tfdlctJcS 17ctJxcS (17 iVa3 ~e4 =) 17 ... ~xb2!? (17 .. J::txcS is level) 18 .id31:[xcS 19 .l:tabl iVxc3 20 i.xfS (20 .l:tb3? l:taS! +) 20 ... gxfS 21 iVxa7 (21l:hb7 .l:taS 22 ~d7 ~c2 is also level) 21..JHc8 22 ~xb7 e6 =. b3) 7ctJbd2 e6 and here: b3l) 8 ~e2 .l:tc8 9 0-0 i.e7 10 .l:tacl 0-0 11 ~1 a6 = Gonzalez Perez-Koglin, Baturni worn Echt 1999. b32) 8 h3 .ifS 9 iVb3 h6 10 ctJeS c4 11 ~xb6 axb6 12 a3ctJaS 13 f3 hS 14 ~f2ctJg8!? IS g4 hxg4 16 fxg4 i.h7 17 ~g2 f6 18ctJef3 ~d7 = Borbjerggiird-Hector, Stockholm 2002. b4) 7 ctJeS ctJxeS 8 dxeS ctJd7 9 c4 d4 10 exd4 cxd4 11 ctJd2 g6 12 ~b3 112-112 MilesFressinet, Mondariz 2000. c) 6 b3 i.g4 and now: cl) 7 .ie2 e6 8 0-0 .ie7 and then: c 11) 9 h3 ~hS 10 ctJbd2 cxd4 11 exd4 0-0 12ctJeS ~xe2 13 ~xe2 l:.ac8 14 iVd3 l:Hd8 = Schwaninger-Nickl, Austrian Ch (Oberpullendorf) 2002.

LONDON SYSTEM: 1 d4 d5 2 {:jjf3 {:jjf6 3 .i.f4

c12) 9 ttJbd2 0-0 10 ttJeS .i.xe2 11 'iYxe2 llfc8 12 .i.gS 'iYd8 = Schlindwein-Portisch, Hockenheim 1997. c2) 7 i.d3 and here: c21) 7 ... ttJhS 8 i.g3 ttJxg3 9 hxg3 g6 10 ttJbd2.i.g7 11nc1 0-0 120-0 eS 13 dxeS ttJxeS 14 i.e2 ttJc6 = Bayramov-Zulfugarli, Azerbaijan Ch (Baku) 2001. c22) 7 ... e6 8 0-0 .i.e7 9 h3 .i.hS 10 ttJbd2 l:!c8 11 a3 0-0 12 'iYc2 .i.g6 =Sidenko-Sander, IECG e-mail 2002. d) 6 ttJa3!? (D) is White's most interesting 6th move alternative. Now:

dl) 6 ... 'iYxb2 (this move is inappropriate if Black needs to play for a win because White has the option of forcing a draw) 7 ttJbS ttJe4 8 .i.g3 (C.Perdikis-Melas, Cyprus Ch 1998) 8 ... Wd8 9 dxcS (9 %Ibl ~xa2 10 lhl =) 9 ... e6 10 .l:lbl 'iYxa2 11 i.d3 with compensation for the pawn according to Kaidanov. d2) 6 ... a6 7 'iYb3 and then: d21) 7 ... ~a7 8 dxcS e6 9 .i.d6 i.xd6 10 cxd60-0 11 i.e2l:Id8 120-0 I1xd6 13 c4 ttJaS 14 'iYb4 'iYb6 IS ~xb6 .l:!.xb6 16 b3 dxc4 17 ttJxc4 ttJxc4 18 i..xc4 i.d7 with equal chances, H.Nielsen-l.Akesson, Copenhagen 2001. d22) 7 ... 'iYaS 8 dxcS e6 9 .i.e2 .i.xcs 10 0-0 0-0 11 c4 d4 12 exd4 ttJxd4 13 ttJxd4 .i.xd4 14 ttJc2 .i.eS IS .i.xeS ~xeS = Mi1es-Kaidanov, Chicago 2000. We now return to 6 'iYb3 (D): 6 •••c4 Black can also continue developing with 6 ... e67 ttJbd2 .i.e7. Now: a) 8 'iYxb6 axb6 9 i.c7 .i.d8 (9 ... ttJd7 10 .i.bS 0-0 11 0-0 ;!; Zanabili Al Sibbai-Garcia

127

B

Gonzalez, Asturias Cht 2000) 10 .i.xd8 Wxd8 11 i.bS .i.d7 12 i.xc6 i.xc6 13 0-0 We7 = Lee-Teichmann, London 1904. b) 8 .i.d3 c4 9 'iYxb6 axb6 10 .i.c2 bS = Midjord-Michel Yunis, Manila OL 1992. c) 8 h3 0-0 and then: c1) 9 ttJeS ttJxeS 10 i.xeS (Radnoti-Mi.Tseitlin, Budapest 1990) 1O... ~xb3 11 ttJxb3 ttJd7 12 i..f4 c4 13 ttJd2 bS and Black has a slight pull on the queenside. c2) 9 .i.e2 - 8 .i.e2 0-09 h3. c3) 9 g4 i.d7 10 ~xb6 axb6 11 .i.c7!? (this is more challenging than 11 a3 .l::i.fc8 = Manouck-Flear, Charlton 1983) 11...cxd4 12 exd4 bS with a balanced game. d) 8 .i.e2 0-0 (D) and here:

w

dl) 9 'iYc2 i.d7 10 l:!.c1 ~ac8 11 'iYbl cxd4 12 exd4 ttJaS 13 ttJgS h6 14 h4 i.bS IS i.xbS ~xbS 16 .i.eS .l::i.fd8 is slightly better for Black, Blatny-Plachetka, Czechoslovakia 1990. d2) 9 h3 .i.d7 10 0-0 .l:lfc8 11 'iYxb6 (11 ttJeS i..e8 12 .i.gS {Bohak-Khi1chenko, COIT.

128

How TO BEAT 1 d4

1993-8} 12... 'ik'c7 =) l1...axb6 = lirovsky-Movsesian, Czech Cht 2002/3. d3) 90-0 'ik'xb3 (9 ... ..td7 10 iYxb6 axb6 11 ..tc7 ..td8 12 j"d6 j"e7 13 ..tc7 .i.d8 14 ..td6 j"e7 and here a draw was agreed in MedunaHUbner, Bundesliga 1989/90) 10 axb3 (Wiekert-Frugah, Germany tt 1993/4) 1O ... b6 with equality. We now return to 6 ... c4 (D):

White is confronted with an important decision - exchange queens and give Black doubled b-pawns at the cost of opening the a-file for Black's rooks (Line A), or retreat his queen and concede a couple of tempi so as to relieve the pressure on his centre (Line B): A: 7 'ik'xb6 128 B: 7 'ik'c2 129

l1...ttJxf4! 12 exf4 bxc6 +V.Kovacevic-Ribli, Bugojno 1984. a22) 10 ttJd2 b4! (+ Ribli) and now: a221) 11 ttJxc6 bxc6 12 a4 c5 13 i.e2 cxd4 14 exd4 ..te7 = Shalumov-Oliveros, UECC email 1999. a222) 11 cxb4 .txb4 12 ttJxc6 (12 0-0-0 ..te7 Dupsky-Ciolac, Szeged 1998) 12 ... bxc6 13 ':c 1 .i.a5 14 f3 0-0 gives Black a slight pull. b) 8 .te2 .tf5 9 0-0 (9 ttJa3 - 8 ttJa3 .tj5 9 .i.e2) 9 ... e6 10 ttJbd2 h6 11 ttJe5 (11 h3 b5 12 a3 ttJd7 = Reuss-Senff, Bundesliga 2004/5) ll...b5 12 a3 ttJxe5 13 .i.xe5 ttJd7 14 .i.c7 .i.e7 = Eliet-Gachon, French Cht 1996. c) 8 ttJbd2 b5 and then: cl) 9 a3 - 8 a3 b5 9 ttJbd2. c2) 9 ttJe5 e6 10 a3 - 8 a3 b5 9 ttJe5 e6! 10 ttJd2. c3) 9 .te2 b4 10 0-0 bxc3 11 bxc3 .tf5 12 ttJe5 e6 with equal chances, Lange-Wronn, Germany tt 1993/4. 8 ...i.fS (D)

+

W

A) 7 'ik'xb6 axb6 8 ttJa3 The knight takes aim at the vulnerable b5square. White has several less challenging alternatives and the reader should pay close attention to move-order transpositions. Now: a) 8 a3 (this move is too passive to cause Black any trouble) 8 ... b5 and then: al) 9 ttJbd2 b4! 10 cxb4 ttJxb4 (+ Ribli) II ':cl ttJc6!? (11...ttJa2 12 kIal ttJb4 13 kIc1 Ih-1f2 Senk-Haag, Eisenberg 1998) 12 .te2 .tf5 13 0-0 e6 with equal chances, Hokkanen-Lipsanen, Finnish Ch (Helsinki) 1990. a2) 9 ttJe5 e6! and here: a21) 10 b4?! ttJh5 11 ttJxc6 (11 j"g5 ttJxe5 12 dxe5 h6 13 j"h4 g5 14 ~e2 gxh4 15 .txh5 llg8 +Mechkarov-Harding, ICCF COIT. 1988)

9 j"e2

Or: a) 9 ttJb5 kIa5 10 a4 (White should settle for 10 ttJc7+ 'it>d8 11 ttJg5 .tg6 = LuedersBrameyer, Berlin Ch 2000) 1O ... e6 11 .te2, and then: al) 11 ....tc2 12 ttJe5 ttJxe5 13 .txe5 .i.xa4 14 ttJd6+ .txd6 15 ..txd6 'it>d7 16 ..tb4 l:ta6 17 f3 .tb3!? (17 ... b5 112-112 Bohak-Hiltunen, COIT. 1993-8) 18 kIa3 i:ha8, with just a slight pull for Black. a2) 1l...'it>d7 12 ttJe5+ (safer is 12 ttJg5!? i.g6 =) 12 ... ttJxe5 13 dxe5 ttJe4 WiItonL.Hansen, Danish Ch B (Aalborg) 1994.

+

LONDON SYSTEM: 1 d4 d5 2 0,f3 0,f6 3 iLf4

b) 9 tLlh4 ~d7 and here: bl) 10 tLlb5 ~a5 11 a4 tLla7 12 tLlc7+ 'it>d8 13 tLla8!? (Prevenios-Musitani, ICCF e-mail 2000) 13 ... l:txa4 (13 ... tLlc8 14 ~c7+ 'it>e8 15 tLlxb6 tLlxb6 16 i.xb6 Iha4 17 ~xa4 ~xa4 =) 14 ~xa4 ~xa4 15 tLlxb6 ~c2 =. b2) 10 ~e2 tLle4 11 tLlb5 ~a5 12 f3 tLlf6 13 a4 (Dunworth-Tischbierek, Copenhagen 1990) 13 ... e6 =. 9•.• e610 tLlbS ~aS (D)

129

11 ....te7 Now: a) 12 tLlc7+ 'it>d7 '+ Duarte-Goncalves, COIT. 1996. b) 12 tLld2 i..c2 (l2 ... tLle4 13 f3 tLlxd2 14 'it'xd2 'it>d7 15 e4.tg6 16l::thel ~ha8 17 tLlc7 I:tc8 18 tLlb5 lka8 repeats) 13 .tdl .txdl 14 ~xdl ~d7 15 b4 cxb3 16 tLlxb3 l:ta6 with equal chances.

B) 7iVc2 White calmly retreats in the hope of demonstrating that Black's ... c4 pawn advance has prematurely released the pressure against White's d4-pawn. 7 ••• .tfS 8 iVc1 e6 9 tLlbd2 (D)

11 a4 Or 11 tLld6+ ~xd6 12 i..xd6 'it>d7 13 .tf4 (this is more accurate than 13 .te5 b5 14 tLlh4 ~g6 15 tLlxg6 hxg6 = Witkowski-I.Farago, Lodz 1979), and now: a) 13 ... b5 14 a3 b4? (l4 ... ~ha8 - J3. .. ~ha8 14 a3 b5) 15 tLle5+! (15 cxb4 tLlxb4 16 tLle5+ 'it>e7 =) 15 ... tLlxe5 16 cxb4 and White wins a pawn - this tactical idea demonstrates why it was important for White to avoid occupying the e5-square with his bishop. b) 13 ... l1ha8 14 a3 and then: bl) 14 ... ~b5 15 tLle5+ 'it>e7 16 0-0-0 (16 tLlxc6+? bxc6 17 0-0-0 tLle4 18 ~hf1 tLlxc3 19 bxc3 lha3 + Bancel-Palac, Cannes 1990) 16...tLle4 (16 ...tLla5? 17 b4! tLle418 'it>b2! leaves the black rook stranded on the b5-square) 17 g4 .tg6 18 tLlxg6+ hxg6 19 .tg3 tLlxc3 20 bxc3 ~xa3, and Black has good compensation for the piece. b2) 14 ... b5 15 tLlh4 b4! (Black must play actively as after 15 ... ~g6 16 tLlxg6 hxg6 17 ~d 1 ;t; White has successfully blockaded the queenside and Black's rooks are left biting on granite) 16 tLlxf5 exf5 17 cxb4 tLlxM 18 ltc1 tLlc6 with equal chances.

Black has tried several related moves here Line B3 is the most direct idea: Bl: 9...h6 129 130 B2: 9••. ~d8 B3: 9•.. ~e7 130

B1) 9•.. h6 Black pauses to create luft for his lightsquared bishop. 10 .te2 i..e7 11 h3l:!c8 120-00-0 13l:[el iVd8 (D) Now: a) 14 i..f1 b5 15 tLle5 tLlxe5 16 .txe5 .tg6 17 a3 i.d6 18 i..xd6 iVxd6 19 g3 .te4 20 iVd 1 a5 21 ~h2 ~fe8 = Petrovic-Markovic, Yugoslav worn Cht (Tivat) 1995.

130

How TO BEAT 1 d4

b) 1l....i.g6 12 e4 tDhS 13 i.g3 and then: bI) 13 ... tDxg3!? 14 hxg3 ~gS IS .l:!.h3 ~e3+ 16 ~e2 tDe7 17 ~c2 a6 with roughly level chances. b2) 13. .. ~e7 14 tDxg6 hxg6 IS ~f2 was played in the game Schlindwein-Pinter, Bundesliga 1997/S, and now lS ... bS equalizes. 10.•.h6 (D) 1O ... i.e7 11 0-00-0 12 tDeS tDxeS 13 i.xeS bS 14 f3 i.g6 IS g4 tDd7 16 i.g3 f6 BlatnyZso.Polgar, Brno 1991.

+

b) 14 tDeS tDxeS IS ~xeS bS 16 f3 as 17 a3 was fine for Black in Petrovic-StoisavIjevic, Yugoslav worn Cht (Niksic) 1997. c) 14 ~dl and now: c1) 14 ... tDe41S tDxe4 i.xe416 tDd2 i.d3 = M.Piket-Okkes, Dutch Cht 1993. c2) 14 ... bS IS i.c2 i.xc2 16 ~xc2 tDhS 17 i.h2 fS (a radical way of preventing White from playing the e4 pawn advance) IS tDeS tDxeS 19 i.xeS i.d6 20 i.xd6 ~xd6 21 b3 tDf6 = Hulak-Tischbierek, Novi Sad OL 1990. ~b6

B2} 9•• JWd8 (D)

W

10 i.e2 White can try to corral Black's light-squared bishop with 10 tDh4 ~e4 11 f3. Now: a) 1l...i.d3!? 12 ~xd3 cxd3 13 i.gS i.e7 with a sharp position - Black's vulnerable d3pawn is offset by the looseness of White's position.

11 tDe5 Alternatives: a) 11 b3 bS 12 0-0 i.e7 13 a4 a6 14 axbS axbS IS bxc4 bxc4 16 ~b2 0-017 :'xaS ~xaS IS lIal ~cS = Bagheri-Marechal, Belgian Ch (Geel) 2002. b) 11 0-0 gS 12 i.g3 tDhS 13 i.eS f6 (or 13 ... l:.gS!? 14 tDel tDf6 with equality) 14 tDh4 gxh4 (l4 ... tDg7 IS tDxfS tDxfS 16 i.hS+ 'i!td7 17 i.g3 ;1;) IS i.xhS+ 'i!td7 16 e4 (16 .i.f4!? .i.d3 17 e4 ~xf1 IS ~xf1 i.d6 19 i.xd6 'i!txd6 20 ~e2 gives White compensation for the exchange) 16 ... i.xe4 17 tDxe4? (17 .i.f4 i.fS =) 17 ... fxeS + Nalbandian-Y.Georgiev, Matinhos jr Wch 1994. 11•.•.l:!.c8 Also sufficient is 11...tDxeS 12 i.xeS i.e7 = Riff-Kiss, Basle 2001. 12 0-0 b513 b4 a514 a3 i.d6 The chances are equal, Meduna-Van Wely, Moscow OL 2004.

B3} 9 ..•i.e7 (D)

131

LONDON SYSTEM: 1 d4 d5 2 0.13 0.f6 3 i"f4

+

w

i.xg3 18 hxg3 bS 19 a3 as Wesseln-Chandler, Bundesliga 1999/00. 12...~d8 (D) Black prepares a queenside pawn advance. Another reasonable plan is 12 ... as!? 13 b3 cxb3 14 axb3 ttJb4!? (14 ... ttJe4 IS ttJxe4 ..ltxe4 =) IS ttJel ~c6 16 c4 bS 17 cS ttJd7, with sharp play ahead.

w Black continues developing and prepares kingside castling. This position is a typical Queen's Pawn Game in which the distinction between White and Black has become blurred"White is Black and Black is White". Both sides have made an equal number of moves, the pawn-structure and piece deployments are similar, yet Black has developed an extra piece. Black usually returns the tempo within several moves by relocating his queen in order to clear a path for the advance of the b7-pawn. 10 i.e2 0-0 Also possible is 1O ... ~d8 - 9... ~d8 10 i..e2 i..e7. 11 0-0 lIfe8 Black can chase down the white bishop with 11...ttJhS 12 ttJeS ttJxf4 13 exf4 ttJxeS 14 fxeS f6 (14 ... ~ac8!?) IS ttJf3 i..g416 ~d2 i.xf3 17 exf6 lhf6 18 i.xf3 i.d6 19 lIae 1 lIaf8 20 ..ltdl ~c7 21 g3 ~f7 22 Wg2 bS 23 ~e2 gS 24 iVd2 Wh8 2S f3 "fig7 26 Whl hS = AbildlundLindestf0m, Danish Cht 1993/4. 12h3 Minor alternatives: a) 12 ~el "fid8 13 ttJe5 ttJxeS 14 i.xeS bS 15 ~f3 ~d3 16 e4 b4 with equal chances, VKovacevic-Dizdarevic, Mravinci 1995. b) 12 ttJeS ttJxeS 13 i.xeS "fid8 (13. .. aS!?) 14 i.f3 i..d3 IS lIe 1 ttJe4 16 i.e2..ltM 17 i..g3

Now: a) 13 ttJh4 i.e414 f3 i..d3 IS i..xd3 cxd3 16 g4 ttJb4!? (16 ... ttJxg4 17 fxg4 i..xh4 18 ~bl i.f6 = Yedidia-Liogky, French Cht 1996) 17 ttJg2 ttJc2 18 ~bl iVas b) 13 i.dl bS 14 i.c2 (Mufic-Brumen, Croatian Cht (Opatija) 1995) 14 ... i.xc2 IS ~xc2 b4 +. Black has some queenside pressure. c) 13 g4 i.g6 14 ttJh4 i.d6 IS ttJxg6 hxg6 16 ~xd6 ~xd6 17 f4 bS 18 ttJf3 ttJe4 19 ttJeS ttJe7 Mufic-Mikhalchishin, Slovenian Cht (Bled) 2001. d) 13 ttJeS h6 (l3 ... bS 14 g4 ~g6 IS ttJxg6 hxg6 = Kljako-Brumen, Pula 2000) 14 .l:.el ttJxeS IS i.xeS bS!? (the queenside pawn advance is more ambitious than IS ... ttJe4 16 ttJxe4 i..xe4 =) 16 i.xf6 i.xf6 17 ~f3 i.d3 18 e4 b4 19 exdS exdS Arkhangelsky-Rublevsky, Aalborg 1993. Black eventually won by infiltrating along the b-file.

+.

+

+

15 King's Fianchetto: 1 d4 d5

2 ttJf3 ttJf6 3 g3

1 d4 dS 2 ttJf3 ttJf6 3 g3 The King's Fianchetto is often chosen by players seeking to steer the game into positions similar to the Catalan Opening. 3 ••• c6 4 .ig2 i.g4 (D)

This is our repertoire move - Black develops his light-squared bishop outside the pawn-chain before playing ... e6. The triangle defence (pawns on the c6-, dS-, and e6-squares) will blunt the range of White's light-squared bishop. S 0-0 White has several alternatives here; a couple ofthem transpose into the main line, but line 'c' tends to remain independent: a) 5 h3 ..th5 60-0 e6 7 ttJbd2 ttJbd7 - S 0-0 ttJbd76 ttJbd2 e6 7 h3 ..thS. b) S ttJbd2 ttJbd7 6 c4 e6 7 0-0 - S 0-0 ttJbd7 6 ttJbd2 e6 7 c4. c) S ttJeS .tfS 60-0 ttJbd7 7 c4 e6 and then: cl) 8 ttJc3 .i.e7 9 ~b3 (9 cxdS exdS 10 f4 0-011 h3 ttJe4 = Sprecic-I.Farago, Tuzla 1981) 9 ... ~b6 10 ttJxd7 ttJxd7 11 ~xb6 ttJxb6 = Sofrigin-N.Olsen, Lyngby 1990. c2) 8 cxdS exdS 9 ttJc3 ~e7 10 ttJd3 0-0 11 f3 cS 12 e3 I1e8 Viladiu Martinez-de la Villa, Sitges 1993.

=

c3) 8 ttJxd7 ~xd7 and here: c31) 9 b3 .te7 10 .tb2 0-011 ttJd2 as 12 a3 (12 f3 {And.Miiller-Ann.Miiller, Bundesliga worn 1997/8} 12 ... bS 13 e4 ..tg6 is fine for Black) 12 ... bS!? (12 ... ~fd8 13 f3?! cS Sharevich-Alexandrova, Dresden worn 2004) 13 a4 bxc414 bxc4 ~fb8 with a slight pull for Black. c32) 9 ttJd2 .te7 10 b3 0-0 11 .tb2 as with a balanced middlegame, Schultze-Bagirov, Bern 1995. S.•.ttJbd7 British GM Jonathan Speelman and Russian GM Valeri Yandemirov are among the white players of this variation - Hungarian GM Jozsef Pinter plays the line with the black pieces. All three of these players typically arrive at this position via the Reti Opening move-order: 1 ttJf3 d5 2 g3 ttJf6 3 .tg2 c6 4 0-0 .tg4 S d4 ttJbd7. 6 ttJbd2 e6 (D)

+

7 l:tel This is the most logical idea here - White prepares to open the centre with the e4 pawnbreak. Alternative plans allow Black to complete his development with no problems: a) 7 c3 ..te7 8l:tel 0-09 e4 dxe4 10 ttJxe47 ~el ..te7 8 e4 dxe4 9 0,xe4 0-010 c3.

KING'S FIANCHEITO: 1 d4 d5 2 0.f3 0.f63 g3

b) 7 h3 .ihS and now: b1) 8 b3 .i.e7 (8 ... aS!? is also playable, as in line 'c1') 9 ..tb2 0-0 10 c4 bS = Mozna Hojdarova-G.Finegold, Prague worn 1990. b2) 8 c4 ..te7 9 b3 0-0 10 .i.b2 as 11 a3 (A.Ivanov-Evseev, Russian Cht (St Petersburg) 1999) ll...bS =. c) 7 b3 .ie7 8 .ib2 and then: c1) 8 ... aS!?9ctJe1.ifS lOa3 0-011 ctJd3 h6 (11... bS!? was suggested by Polugaevsky and looks fine for Black) 12 c4 b6 13 ~c1 l::tc8 = Bilek-Polugaevsky, Budapest 1975. c2) 8 ... 0-09 .J::te1 as!? and here: c21) 10 c4 bS (10 ... a4!?) 11 e4 a4 12 eS ctJe8 = Cummings-Antunes, Pula Echt 1997. c22) 10 a4 ~b6 11 e4.l:!.fd8 12 h3 .ihS 13 eS ctJe8 =Csom-Dvoretsky, Frunze 1983. d) 7 c4 .i.e7 8 :tel 0-0 9 e4 dxe4 10 ctJxe4 ctJxe4 11 ~xe4 ctJf6 12 ne3 ~d7 = Miguel Lago-Estremera Panos, Mondariz 1995. 7.....te78 e4 White has some alternatives here: a) 8 c3 0-0 9 e4 dxe4 10 ctJxe4 - 8 e4 dxe4 9 lLJxe4 0-0 10 c3. b) 8c4-7c4.ie78.l:rel. 8 ...dxe4 9 ctJxe4 0-010 c3 (D)

Now we consider: A: 10...:e8 133 B: 10.. J!lVb6 134

A) 10...l:!.e8 11 ctJxf6+ 11 'iUb3 ctJxe4 12l':!.xe4 .ifS 13 .l:re1 ~b6 = Dizdarevic-Pal Petran, Lyons 1994. 11.•..ixf6

133

1l...ctJxf612 ~b3 ~b613 ctJeS (";1;" -Z.Almasi) 13 ... 'iUxb3 14 axb3 .i.fS IS b4 a6 with an equal position. 12h3 Or 12 ~b3 'iUb6, and then: a) 13 ~xb6 axb6 and here: al) 14 ctJeS .ixeS (14 ... ctJxeS IS dxeS .i.e7 16 ..te3 ..tcS 17 ..txcS bxcS liz-liz FahrbachNava, IECG e-mail 2000) IS dxeS ctJcSleads to equality. a2) 14 h3 .ifS IS ..tgS ..txgS 16 ctJxgS h6 17 ctJf3 (Vagle-Kann, ICCF e-mail 2001) 17 ...:ed8 18 a3 ~f8 =. b) 13 ..tf4 and now: b1) 13 .. .'iVxb3 14 axb3 .ixf3 IS .ixf3 (Maiwald-Brutus, Lippstadt 2003) lS ... eS 16 dxeS ctJxeS =. b2) 13 ... .ixf3 14 .i.xf3 eS IS dxeS ctJxeS 16 .ixeS .ixeS = Hug-Hubner, Garrnisch Partenkirchen rpd 1994. 12....ih5 13 g4 .ig6 14 .if4 h6 15 ..tg3 'iUb6 (D)

Now: a) 16 ~e2 cS 17 ctJeS (or 17 ~ad1 .l:rad8 {17 ... cxd4 18 ctJxd4 a6 19 ctJb3 .l:rad8 20 ~f3! ;I;} 18 dS eS {18 ... exdS 19 ~xe8+ .l:!.xe8 20 .l:rxe8+ ctJf8 21 ctJeS ±} 19 ctJh4 .ih7 with equality) 17 ... ctJxeS 18 dxeS .ie7 = StrikovicZ.Almasi, Cacak 1996. b) 16 \\!Vb3 ~xb3 (16 ... aS "!" according to Z.Almasi, but this may be too optimistic after 17 ~xb6 ctJxb6 18 ctJeS .ixeS 19 .ixeS ctJc4 20 b3 ctJxeS 21z:!.xeS a4 22 b4;1;, when Black's advanced a-pawn is vulnerable) 17 axb3 ~ed8 18 ctJeS ctJxeS 19 .ixeS ..te7 20 b4 a6 =. Black will follow up with ... z:td7 and ... nad8.

134

How TO BEAT 1 d4

B) 10..:ti'b6 (D)

d23) 13 ... a4 (this is the most consistent move) 14 'ti'xb6 tZJxb6 15 i.d6 l:tfe8 16 tZJd2 i.f5 = Yandemirov-Yakovich, Sochi 1997. e) 11 tZJed2 (D) and here:

W B

11 'ti'b3 White challenges Black's well-placed queen. Alternatives: a) 11 'ti'e2 (Prudnikova-Stiazhkina, Halle worn Ech 2000) 1l...tZJxe4 12 'i¥xe4 tZJf6 13 'ti'e2 h6 14 h3 j.f5 =. b) 11 a4 tZJxe4 12l:!.xe4 tZJf6 13 a5 'ti'c7 14 l:!.e11bd8 = Motwani-Ledger, British Ch (Scarborough) 2004. c) 11 h3 .th5 12 tZJxf6+ i.xf6 13 g4 (White seizes space on the kingside and attempts to show that Black's light-squared bishop is misplaced) 13 ... j"g6 14 h4 (14 g5 i.e7 15 tZJh4 i.d6 16 tZJxg6 hxg6 =) 14 ... h5 15 g5 (15 tZJg5 hxg4 16 'ti'xg4 i.f5 =) 15 ... i.e7 16 tZJd2l:!.ae8 (16 ... ~c7!? 17 tZJn c5 18 tZJg3 cxd4 19 cxd4 .tb4 20 i.d2 i.xd2 21 ~xd2 l:!.ad8 = Sandkamp-Kveinys, Vienna 1994) 17 ~f3 c5 18 tZJb3 (18 ~a4!? l:td8 19 d5 fic7 20 dxe6 tZJe5 and Black takes over the initiative) 18 ... cxd4 19 cxd4 i.b4 20 i.d2 i.xd2 21 'ti'xd2 e5 = Sandkamp-Winants, Bundesliga 1996/7. d) 11 tZJxf6+ i.xf6 12 ~b3 (12 h3 j"h5 -11 h3 i..h5 12 tDxj6+ Lf6) 12... a5 and now: d1) 13 tZJd2 a4 14 'ti'xb6 tZJxb6 15 tZJe4 i.e7 16 i.f4 tZJd5 17 i.d2 l:!.fd8 = SevostianovPonomariov, Ukrainian Cht (Alushta) 1998. d2) 13 i.f4 and then: d21) 13 ... i.f5 14 i.d6 .i:tfc8 15 tZJe5 gives White a slight advantage, Drasko-Blagojevic, Yugoslav Ch (Podgorica) 1996. d22) 13 ... i.xf3 14 i.xf3 a4 15 'i¥c2 ~fe8 16 i.e3 t Burmakin-Pilaj, Graz 2002.

e1) 1l...c5 12 tZJc4 'ti'a6 13 'ti'b3 (13 tZJe3 i..h5 leaves the chances roughly level as after 14 tZJf5 i.d8 the white knight is forced to retreat) 13 ... cxd4 and here White has a choice of recaptures: ell) 14 cxd4 l:.tac8 15 tZJfe5 b5 16 tZJe3 (16 tZJxg4 bxc4 17 tZJxf6+ tZJxf6 18 ~c2 l:!.fd8 = gives Black a solid grip on the d5-square) 16 ... i.h5 17 tZJxd7 tZJxd7 18 i.d2 i.f6 = Scherbakov-Burmakin, Omsk 1996. e12) 14 tZJxd4 tZJc5 15 'ti'b5 'ti'xb5 16 tZJxb5 tZJd3 17 .l:te3 and now: e 121) 17 .. J::tad8? C"+" according to Notkin, but I think this is the wrong rook) 18 i.xb7 i.c5 (after 18 ... tZJc5 19 i.c6l:!.dl+ 20 ~g2 tZJd3 21 l:!.xd3! l::txd3 22 tZJe5l::tdd8 {22 .. J::td1 ? 23 tZJxg4 tZJxg4 24 i.f3 +-} 23 tZJxa7 ± White has material equality and three dangerous connected passed pawns) 19 b4! i.xe3 20 i.xe3 t. White has good compensation for the exchange as Black's a-pawn will fall off shortly. e122) 17 .. JUd8 18 h3 (18 i.xb7 ~ab8 19 i.c6 i.c5 20 b4 i.xe3 21 ~xe3 a6 22 tZJbd6 tZJb2 with roughly level chances) 18 ... ~h5 19 tZJe5 tZJxe5 20 ~xe5 .l:td1 + 21 Wh2 l:td7 =. e2) 1l...'ti'c7 12 tZJc4 tZJd5 13 'ti'b3 i.xf3 (13 ... a5!?) 14 i..xf3 lUe8 = Strikovic-Mokry, Erevan OL 1996. 11 ...tZJxe4 Black exchanges a set of knights in order to ease his defensive task. 12 .l::txe4 i.fS13l:!.el as (D)

KING'S FIANCHETTO:

1 d4 d5 2 Ci'Jf3 Ci'Jf6 3 g3

135

w

w

Black expands on the queenside and forces White either to retreat or to exchange queens. 14CDeS a41SCDxd7 White can bypass the middlegame and head straight for the endgame via 15 'iVxb6 CDxb6 16 g4 .i.g6 17 i..f4 (17 f4!? lHe8 =) 17 ... CDd5 18 CDxg6 hxg6 19 i..xd5 (19 i..d2 l::tfd8 =) 19 ... cxd5 with roughly level chances, HugMiles, Biel 1986. Dolmatov assessed this position as slightly better for Black, but White should be able to maintain the balance with careful play. lS...'iVc7 (D)

Several games have demonstrated that the chances are balanced here: a) 16 i..f4 'iWxd7 17 'iVdll:tfd8 =. b) 16~dl 'iWxd717h4h618~f3l::ta51h-lh Speelman-Hubner, Bundesliga 199617. c) 16 ~c4 ~xd7 17 i..f4 h6 and then: cl) 18 h4 J::f.a5 19 b4 axb3 20 axb3 l:fa8 21 l:txaS lixaS = Konopka-Gyimesi, Balatonlelle 2002. c2) 18 b4 axb3 19 axb3 and here: c21) 19 ... i..d6 20 .i.xd6 ~xd6 21 b4;j; Yandemirov-Kolesnikov, Dagomys Cht 2004. c22) 19 .. .l:Hc8 20 b4 'iVd8 is equal.

16 Torre Attack: 1 d4 dS 2 ttJf3 ttJf6

3..tgS 1 d4 d5 2 tiJf3 tiJf6 3 iL.g5 The Torre Attack is named after the Mexican Master Carlos Torre Repetto - he won several games with his namesake opening at the Moscow 1925 tournament, including the famous 'windmill' combination versus the 2nd World Champion Emanuel Lasker. The traditional Torre Attack move-order features a pin on Black's knight after 1 d4 tiJf6 2 tiJf3 e6 3 iLg5 - if Black plays without ... d5, the opening can be found under ECD codes A46, A47, and A48. The Torre Attack with ... d5 is classified as ECD code D03, and this is the line arising from our black repertoire move-order. This particular line is ineffective for White because there is no pin on the knight and Black can gain a tempo by counterattacking the white bishop. GMs Gregory Kaidanov and Grigory Serper have both had good success on the black side of this variation - several of their instructive game fragments are included throughout this chapter. 3 .•.tiJe4 (D)

White has a choice of bishop retreats; Line B is the theoretically preferred move: A: 4 iL.h4 136 138 B: 4 iL.f4

A) 4i..h4 The stubborn dark-squared bishop remains on the h4-d8 diagonal at the cost of neglecting the queenside. Practice has shown that the bishop is ineffective and potentially vulnerable on the h4-square. 4 ••. c5 (D) A sharp alternative is 4 .. :~d6!? 5 tiJbd2 ~h6 6 ~c1 and now: a) 6 ... tiJxd2 7 'iUxd2 'iUxd2+ 8 'it>xd2 iLf5 (8 ... e6 9 e3 c5 10 c4 cxd4 11 tiJxd4 ;t SakuraiGrynszpan, Argentine jr Ch (Neuquen) 1986) 9 e3 e6 10 iLe2 and then: al) 1O ... iLe7 11 i..xe7 'it>xe7 12 tiJh4 ;t Yusupov. a2) 1O ... iLd6 11 i..g3 h6 (ll...iLxg3 12 hxg3 h6 13l:th4 with the idea of g4-g5 gives White a slight edge according to Yusupov) 12 iLxd6 cxd6 13 a4! with a slight endgame edge for White, Yusupov-Wirthensohn, Hamburg 1991. a3) 1O... c5 11 c4 dxc4 12 i.xc4 ;t Andersson-Hector, Ostersund 1994. b) 6 ... tiJc6 and here: bl) 7 tiJxe4 'iUxc1 + 8 l:!.xc1 dxe4 9 tiJd2 tiJxd4 10 tiJxe4 tiJf5 11 i..g5 e5 with equal chances in the endgame. b2) 7 c3 ~h5 8 h3 (8 tiJxe4?! dxe4 9 'iUg5 'iUxg5 10 tiJxg5 h6! 11 tiJh3 { 11 tiJxe4? f5 costs a piece} l1...e5 +) 8... h6 9 g4 'iUg6 10 b4 (10 i..g2!?) 10... a6 11 a4 h5 12 g5 i..f5 with sharp play, Loginov-Karpeshov, Volgodonsk 1983. 5 e3 This has traditionally been the most popular move here, but both of the alternatives appear to be stronger: a) 5 dxc5 and now: al) 5 ... 'iUa5+ 6 tiJbd2 tiJc6 7 c3 (7 e3!? e5!? was suggested by Burgess) 7 .. :~xc5 8 e3 and then:

TORRE ATTACK: 1 d4 d5 2 tbf3 tbf6 3 .i.g5

137

w

w

all) 8 ... ttJxd2 9 ttJxd2 (9 ~xd2 .i.g4 10 b4 ~d6 11 .i.g3 ~d8 = Rizzitano-Sulman, Atlanta 1980) 9 ... eS 10 ~b3 ~d6 11 .i.e2 ..te6 12 0-0 ~c7 (l2 ... ..te7?! {Knezevic-Vujosevic, Yugoslav Cht (Budva) 1996} 13 ~xb7 0-0 14 i.xe7 ttJxe7 IS ~a6 ;1;) 13 ..tg3 1:.d8 =.

2004) 7 ... ttJc6 8 e3 .i.fS 9 ttJc3 e6 =1= FantD.Madsen, Gausdall992. b32) 6 'iVb3 and here line 'b323' is Black's best chance to create imbalance - to understand why, it is helpful to review the alternatives briefly. Let's examine: b321) 6 ... c4 7 ~xb6 axb6 8 ttJbd2 i.fS 9 ttJxe4 ..txe4 10 ttJd2 ..tg6 (Black should avoid 1O... ttJc6 11 ttJxe4 dxe4 12 e3 ± KhmelnitskyWaitzkin, VSA Ch (Modesto) 1995) 11 e4 e6 12 ..te2;1; Holst-P.H.Nielsen, Lyngby 1991. b322) 6 ... ttJc6 7 'iVxb6 axb6 8 e3 ..tfS 9 ttJfd2 ttJd6 10 ttJa3 eS is equal, Antonov-Volkov, Antalya 2002. b323) 6 ... ~h6! (the queen shift to the kingside is a very promising idea) 7 e3 (D) (White should avoid 7 ~xdS?? ~c1# (0-1) EllingerLentrodt, Bundesliga 1995/6) and here:

a12) 8 ... ..tfS 9 i.e2 eS 10 0-0 f6 11 ttJxe4 dxe4 (1l.....txe4 12 ttJd2 i.g6 =) 12 ttJd2 (BergDanielsen, Danish Ch (Arhus) 1992) 12 ... hS!? 13 i.xhS+ (13 h3 0-0-0=) 13 ... g614 g4 ~e71S gxfS ~hhS 16 ..tg3 0-0-0 17 fxg6 J:tgS with roughly level chances. a2) S... ttJc6 6 ttJbd2 ttJxcS 7 ttJb3 ttJxb3 8 axb3 g6 9 e3 .i.g7 10 c3 0-011 ..te2 f6 12 ttJd4 eS 13 ttJxc6 bxc614 b4 (Gulko-Timoshchenko, Volgodonsk 1981) 14 ... gS!? IS .i.g3 fS 16 f4 l:!.e8 gives Black a comfortable game. b) S c3 gives Black a pleasant choice: bl) S... cxd46 cxd4 ~aS+ 7 ttJbd2 (7 ttJfd2 ttJc6 8 e3 eS =1=) 7 ... .i.g4 and now: bll) 8 e3 eS! 9 a3 (not 9 dxeS?? losing to 9 ... ttJxd2 10 ~xd2 i.b4) 9... exd4 10 exd4 ttJc6

B

b12) 8 ttJeS! .i.fS 9 f3 ttJd6 with equality. b2) S... ttJc6 6 e3 and then: b21) 6 ... 'iVb6 7 ~b3 c4 8 ~xb6 axb6 9 ttJfd2 i.fS 10 ttJxe4 ..txe4 11 ttJd2.i.g6 12 e4 e6 13 .i.e2 ..te7 (13 ... bS !? 14 exdS exdS IS ..tf3 i.e7 =) 14 .i.xe7 Wxe7 = Hennig-Jacoby, German V-18 Cht 1989. b22) 6 ... .i.g4 7 ttJbd2 cxd4 8 exd4 ttJxd2 9 ~xd2 i..xf3 10 gxf3 g6 11 .i.d3 .i.g7 12 f4 ~d7 13 fS 0-0-0 = Abdul Rahman-Tzekurow, Duisburg V -16 W ch 1992. b3) S... ~b6 (D) and then: b31) 6 'iVc 1 cxd4 7 cxd4 (7 ttJxd4? eS 8 ttJf3 ttJc6 9 ttJbd2 ..tfS + Baryshpolets-Perun, Kiev

b3231) 7 ... c4 8 ~bS+ ~c6 9 ~xc6+ ttJxc6 10 ttJbd2 (10 b3 bS with roughly level chances, Gelpke-Pieterse, Dutch Cht 1987) 1O ... i..fS 11 ttJxe4..txe4 12 ttJd2 ..tg6 13 e4 e6 =.

How TO BEAT 1 d4

138

b3232) 7 ... e6! (Black calmly protects his dS-pawn and prepares to complete his development - the black queen is very effective on the kingside because it exerts pressure on White's kingside pieces; meanwhile, the white queen is not accomplishing anything along the b-file) 8 ~bS+ ttJc6 9 0-0 (9 ttJbd2!? ttJxd2 10 c,t>xd2 i.d7 is fine for Black) 9 ... c4 (9 ... .i.d7!? also looks reasonable) 10 ~c2 .i.d6 11 .i.g3 ttJxg3 12 hxg3 0-0 +Wijesundara-Barsov, Dubai 1996. Black's king is safe and he has acquired the bishop-pair. 5•• Jl*'b6 6 ~c1 White also has problems after 6 ttJc3 ~xb2!: a) 7 ttJxdS ttJc3 8 ttJxc3 ~xc3+ 9 ttJd2 cxd4 + Jagubov-Vaulin, St Petersburg 1999. b) 7 ~bS+ i.d7 8 .ixd7+ ttJxd7 9 ttJxdS ttJc3 10 ttJxc3 ~xc3+ 11 c,t>e2 cxd4 12 exd4 l:tc8 Pospelov-Kallai, Kobanya 1992. 6... cxd47 exd4 (D)

8••. ttJxg5 Now: a) 9 ~xgS ~xb2 10 ~xdS ~el + (Burgess gives 1O... ~xal!? 11 ~bS+ i.d7 12 0-0 ~b2 +) 11 We2 ttJc6 12 ~c4 i.g7 + Houriez-Kallai, Dubai 1986. b) 9 ttJxgS ~h6 10 f4 (Legall-Prats Rodriquez, Cannes 2000) 10... f6 11 ttJf3 .i.xf4 12 ttJbd2 (12 ~xf4 'iVxb2 -+) 12 ... ttJc6 +.

B) 4.if4 This is the best choice; White's bishop keeps an eye on some important central squares. 4... c5 (D)

+

W

B

7 •.. g5! This aggressive thrust has scored well for Black - the more popular alternative is 7 ... ttJc6 8 c3 ~g4 9 ~e2 l:tc8 10 ttJbd2 g6 11 ~c2 (11 h3 .ixf3 12 ttJxf3 .ig7 Toh-Dreev, Moscow OL 1994) 1l...i.h6 12 ~b3 (I.Rogers-Sadvakasov, Bali 2000) 12... ~xb3 13 axb3 ttJxd2 14 ttJxd2 .i.xe2 IS c,t>xe2 i.f4 with a level endgame.

+

8~xg5

Or: a) 8 ttJxgS? ~h6 9 'iVf4 f6 10 ttJh3 .ixh3 11 ~xh6 ~xh6 12 gxh3 i.el + R.Phillips-Szabolcsi, Berlin ECC 1996. b) 8 .i.g3? g4 9 ~xb8l:i.xb8 10 ~f4 ttJd6 11 ttJbd2 gxf3 12 l:i.b1 ~fS 0-1 Mathieu-Skripchenko, French Cht 2002.

5 e3 White can also bolster his centre from the left with S c3 'iVb6 6 ~b3 cxd4. Now: a) 7 ttJxd4 and then: al) 7 ... ~d8 and here: all) 8 .ixb8 .l:!.xb8 9 ttJc6 (White wins material as pointed out by Burgess, but Black has some unexpected resources) 9 ... ttJcS! 10 ttJxd8 (10 ~bS? .id7 11 ~xcS bxc6 +; 10 ~b4 ttJa6 11 ttJxd8 ttJxb4 12 ttJxf7 c,t>xf7 13 cxb4 eS 14 a3 i.e7 and Black's bishop-pair compensates for the pawn) 1O ... ttJxb3 11 axb3 (11 ttJxf7 ttJxa1 12 ttJxh8 bS is a total mess) 11...Wxd8 12 J:i.xa7 i.fS 13 ttJa3 c,t>c7 and Black's bishoppair compensates for the pawn. a12) 8 e3 e6 (8 .. .f6? 9 .ibS+ c,t>f7 10 i.c7! +- Dizdar-Gelfand, Halle 1987) 9 ttJbS (9 .ixb8?! l:i.xb8 10 ttJc6 ~f6 11 ttJxb8 ~xf2+ 12 c,t>d1 i.d6 with a promising attack) 9 ... ttJa6 10 f3 ttJecS 11 ~d1 f6 with equal chances.

TORRE ATTACK:

1 d4 d5 2 t'iJf3 t'iJf6 3 i..g5

a2) 7 .. :~f6 and now: a2l) 8 i.e3 e6 9lbbSlba6 10 lbxa71:f.xa7!? (lO ... lbacS 11 'iVb6 lbd7 12 'iYbS lbd6, with compensation for the pawn) 11 ~xa7lbacS 12 i.xcs i.xcs (now that's pressure on the f2square!) 13 lbd2 ~xf2+ 14 ~dl lbxd2 IS ~xd2 0-0, and Black a promising attack in return for the exchange. a22) 8 e3 e6 9 i.bS+ lbd7 with equal prospects. b) 7 'iVxb6 axb6 8lbxd4 (8 cxd4lbc6 9 e3 lbb4 is fine for Black) 8 ... f6 9lbbS lba6 10 f3 lbecS with sharp play, Kotov-Law, London 1977. 5...~b6 (D)

w

139

Black can also continue developing with 6 ... lbc6 7 c3 i.fS 8 i.e2 e6 9 lbbd2 i.e7 10 0-0 0-0. Now: a) 11 h3 l:tac8 (liz-liz Gyorkos-P.Kiss, Budapest 1993) 12lbeS lbxeS 13 i.xeS f6 14 i.f4 (Agababean-Drazic, Novi Sad 1989) 14 ... ~c6 with equal chances. b) 11 lbeS lHd8 12 l:Iel llac8 13 lbxe4 i.xe4 14lbxc6 bxc6 (l4 .. :i!Vxc6 IS 'i!Vd2 bS!?) IS ~d2 J::td7 is equal, Richter-Tischbierek, Biel 1993. c) 11 lbxe4 ~xe4 12 ~d2 .l:[ac8 (lh-Ilz F.Portisch-Hajnal, Harkany 2000) 13 lbeSlbxeS (13 ... .l:tfd8 14 f3 i.g6 {14 ... .tfS!?} IS lbxg6 hxg6 = Soppe-Tempone, Cordoba 1990) 14 i.xeS lHd8 = B.Cetkovic-S.Cvetkovic, Belgrade 2003. 7 exd4lbc6 S c3 White should avoid 8 lbc3?! (H0i-Bang, Tastrup 1994) 8 ... ~fS 9 lbxe4 i.xe4 10 c3 i.xf3 11 gxf3 e6 +, when Black has the superior pawn-structure. S... i.f5 (D)

w

6~c1

White quickly runs into trouble after most of the alternatives: a) 6 i.xb8? ~xb2 7 dxcS llxb8 (TataevSerper, Kemerovo 1995) 8 lbbd2 lbc3 9 'iVc1 ~xc1+ 10 ':xc1 e6 +. b) 6 dxcS? 'iVxb2 7 .teS ~b4+ 8 lbbd2 lbc6 9 .l::i.bl ~a5 10 .tbS a6 11 i.xc6+ bxc6 is much better for Black, Bazan Solera-Llorente Fernandez, Asturias 2000. c) 6lbbd2? lbxd2 (6 ... ~xb2 7 ~bl ~xa2 +) 7 lbxd2 (White also loses a pawn after 7 ~xd2 'iVxb2 8 .l::i.dl c4 +) 7 ... cxd4 8 exd4 'iVxd4 9 i.xb8 .l::i.xb8 10 i.bS+ 'it>d8 11 0-0 e6 +ShternSerper, Dallas 1996. d) 6 lbc3 ~a5 7 .tbS+ lbc6 8 0-0 lbxc3 9 ~xc6+ bxc6 10 bxc3 ~xc3 White does not have adequate compensation for the pawn. e) 6 b3lbc6 7 c3 cxd4 8 exd4 .tg4 9 .te2 e6 10 0-0 .te7 =. 6 ...cxd4

+.

9.te2 9 lbbd2 llc8 and now: a) 10 .te2 - 9 ~e2 ~c8 10 lbbd2. b) 10 lbh4? i.d7 11 i.d3 eS! (Black develops a raging initiative after this move) 12 .txeS lbxeS 13 i.xe4 dxe4 14 dxeS i.e7 IS lbxe4 .l::i.c4! 16 ~f4 ~c6 l7 f3 gS + Mohr-Kaidanov, Balatonbereny 1987. c) 10 lbxe4 i.xe4 IllbgS i.g6 12 ~d2 e6 13 .te2 i.e7 140-00-0 = Kmiecik-De Groot, ICCF e-mail 1998. 9...l:tcS 10 lbbd2 e6 11 0-0 Alternatives:

140

How TO BEAT 1 d4

a) lllLlh4? lLlxd4 12 lLlxe4lLlxe2 -+ BenzKroencke, corr. 1988. b) lllLlxe4 ~xe4 12 "iVd2 ~e7 13 0-0-11 0-0 J..e7 12lZJxe4 Le4 13 'WId2. 1l •.. J..e7 (D)

W

b3) 12 ... 0-0 13 lLlxe4 J..xe4 14 "iVd2 (14 lLleS filc7 IS lLlxc6 'WIxc6 = Molina-Recoulat, Vicente Lopez 2004) 14... lLlaS ISlLleSl::tc7 with a balanced game, Cepon-Palac, Nova Gorica 1996. 12•.. dxe4 The solid choice is 12 ... J..xe4 13 "iVd2 0-0 with equality, J.Rodriguez Gonzalez-L.Perez, Madrid 2003. 13lLleSlLlxd4!? This move initiates some interesting tactical complications. Black can also play the conservative 13 ... lLlxeS 14 ..txeS 0-0 with equal chances. 14 J..hS! J..g6 (D)

W

12lLlxe4 White has some reasonable alternatives here: a) 12 l:tdl and then: al) 12 ... ~g4 13 'it>f1 ..tf6 14lLlxe4 dxe41S lLlgl J..fS = Blandnet-Summerscale, Orange 1993. a2) 12 ... 0-0 13lLlxe4 J..xe4 14 'WId2 IHd8 IS lLlgS ..tfS = Dzagnidze-Khukhashvili, Georgian worn Ch (Tbilisi) 2002. b) 12 J..e3 and here: bl) 12 ... 'WIc7 13 lLlxe4 J..xe4 14 J..f4 J..d6 IS J..xd6 'WIxd6 16 'WIe3 (16 'WIgS 0-0 17 lLld2 ..tg6 = J.McDonald-Nickoloff, Canadian Ch (Hamilton) 1994) 16 ... J..xf3 (16 ... 0-0 17 l:He 1 l:tfd8 =) 17 filxf3 0-0 with equal chances, Voloshin-Haba, Czech Ch (Zlin) 1998. b2) 12 ... lLlf6 (an interesting attempt to keep pieces on the board) 13 lLleS 'WIc7 14 lLlxc6 bxc6 IslLlf3 J..d6 16lLleS (16 h3!?) 16 ... 0-0 = Okrajek-Magerramov, Bad Worishofen 1993.

Now: a) IS J..xg6? lLle2+ 16 'it>hllLlxc1 17 J..xf7+ 'it>d8 18 ktd 1+ lLld3 19lLlxd3 l:tc6!! (-+ Kaidanov) 20 lLleS+ 'it>c8 21 ~e3 "iVc7 22 lLlxc6

filxc6

+.

b) IS ~dl ~xhS 16 ~xhS g6 17 'iVdl f618 cxd4 (18 ~xd4 ~xd4 19 cxd4 fxeS 20 J..xeS 0-0 =) 18 .. .fxeS 19 i.xeS 0-0 20 'WIg4 .l:!.c2 21 'WIxe4 l:txb2 with equal chances, Murshed-Kaidanov, Calcutta 1988.

17 Colle System: 1 d4 d5 2 '2Jf3 '2Jf6

3 e3 1 d4 d5 2 lDf3 lDf6 3 e3 e6 4 i.d3 The Colle System is named after the Belgian Master Edgard Colle. Although he was not the first to employ this development scheme, he deserves full credit for crafting the opening into a comprehensive system. Colle won many impressive games with his namesake opening during the 1920s, and a large number of these attacking gems retain their instructive value today. The traditional Colle System strategy for White is to develop his minor pieces quickly while erecting a c3-d4-e3 pawn wedge around the light-squared bishop (the 'Colle bishop'). After completing his development, White will work to maximize the range and power of the Colle bishop by playing moves such as lDe5, f4, ~f3-h3 or g4. If Black defends indifferently, he can quickly be overrun by a devastating kingside attack. An alternative strategy for White is to aim for a central e4 pawn-break to utilize his slight development edge; this is often preceded by the dxc5 pawn capture so as to avoid incurring an isolated d-pawn. Black's strategy is to neutralize the Colle bishop by quickly developing and aiming for the ... e5 pawn-break. This will enable Black to complete his development and nullify White's plans for controlling the centre. Black's goal is to contest the centre before White can initiate a kingside attack. White can play 4 c4, when 4 ... dxc4 5 i.xc4 c5 brings us back to QGA territory. 6 ~e2 is covered in Chapter 5 (Furman Variation), while 6 0-0 a6 is the Classical Variation (Chapters 6-

A) 5b3 This is the characteristic move of the Queen's Indian Attack. White's idea is to playa Queen's Indian Defence with an extra tempo. The Russian Grandmaster Artur Yusupov is the leading exponent of this line and he has contributed many innovative ideas to White's set-up. 5••.lDc6 6 i.b2 i.d6 7 0-0 0-0 (D)

11). 4••• c5 (D)

White must choose between the Queen's Indian Attack (Line A) or the traditional Colle System (Line B): A: 5 b3 141 B: 5 c3 143

SlDbd2 Alternatives:

142

How TO BEAT 1 d4

a) 8 liJe5 (White occupies the centre in anticipation of developing a kingside attack; however, Black is able to employ a standard equalizing manoeuvre) 8...'JJIic7 9 f4 cxd4 10 exd4 liJb4 11 liJc3 (the bishop is unable to retreat because of the pressure against the c2pawn) ll...liJxd3 12 'JJIixd3 ~d7 = I.Rabinovich-Bogoljubow, USSR Ch (Moscow) 1924. b) 8 c4 b6 and now: bl) 9 liJe5 ~b7 10 cxd5 exd5 (10 ... liJxd5!?) 11 liJd2 'JJIie7 = Model-Botvinnik, Leningrad Ch 1926. b2) 9 liJbd2 ~b7 10 ~e2 a5 11 l:tac1 a4 = Pira-Schekachev, Evry 2001. b3) 9 liJc3 ~b7 10 cxd5 exd5 11 liJe2 (11 dxc5 bxc5 12 :cl d4!? 13 liJb5 .i.e7 14 exd4 a6 with sharp play, Petrosian-Razuvaev, USSR Ch (Moscow) 1983) ll...liJb4 12 ~bl liJe4 13 a3 liJa6 with equal chances, Dizdar-Kovacevic, Croatian Cht (Pula) 1993. c) 8 a3 'JJIic7 9 c4 (9 dxc5 ~xc5 10 ~xf6 gxf6 = Kuijf-Borm, AmsterdamlArnhem 1984) 9 ... cxd4 10 exd4 e5 11 dxe5 liJxe5 12 liJxe5 ~xe513~xe5~xe514liJd2~g415:el ~c7

16 'JJIic2 dxc4 = Kurajica-Razuvaev, Oberwart

1991. 8... b6 9 liJe5 ~b7 10 a3 10 f4 cxd4 11 exd4 liJb4 12 ~e2l:tc8 13 c3 (or 13 c4 {Schinzel-Fronczek, Poznan 1965} 13 ... dxc4 14 bxc4 ~c7 =) 13 ... liJc6 14 ~d3 'fke7 15 a41k7 16 ~el ~fc8 = Yusupov-Chuchelov, French Cht (Evry) 2004. 10...liJe7 (D)

Or: a) 11 'JJIif3 and then: al) ll...a5 (the sharp choice, but it is safer for Black to stabilize the centre before beginning queenside operations) 12 'JJIih3 liJe4 (safer is 12 ... liJg6 13 liJxg6 hxg6 14 dxc5 bxc5 =) 13 dxc5! (13 f4 cxd4 {1f2_1h Vezzosi-Drasko, Arco 2003} 14 exd4 liJf5 with equality) 13 ... .txc5 (l3 ... bxc5 14 ~xe4 dxe4 15 liJdc4 is advantageous for White) 14 ':fdl with a slight advantage for White. a2) l1...liJg6 (the solid choice) 12 'JJIih3 cxd4 (12 .. :~Ve7!?; 12 ... aS -1l...a5 12 'JJIih3 liJg6) 13 liJxg6 hxg6 14 exd4 liJh5 15 g3 as (15 ... liJf6 16 lHel {Ortwein-Montalta, IECG e-mail 1998} 16 ... .:c8 =) 16 a4 ~a6 = Bagirov-Kochiev, Leningrad 1989. b) 11 'iVe2 'fkc7 and here: bl) 12 h3 liJe4 13 ~xe4 dxe4 14 liJec4 .th2+ 15 <;ith 1 b5 16 liJaS (16 liJe5? cxd4 17 liJg4 {17 exd4 ~xe5 18 dxe5 1i'xc2 +} 17 ... ~d6 18 exd4 f5 {18 ...'JJIixc2 is also strong} 19 liJe5 ~xc2 +Goletiani-Kaidanov, Philadelphia 2000) 16 ...1i'xa5 17 <;itxh2 cxd4 18 ~xd4 liJf5 with equal chances. b2) 12 c4 cxd4 13 exd4 liJg6 (13 ... dxc4!?) 14 f4 ~ad8 = Zsu.Polgar-Psakhis, Amsterdam 1990. b3) 12 f4 liJe4 13 ~xe4 dxe4 14 liJdc4 (Danner-Anka, Budapest 2004) 14... ~a6 with equal chances. 11 ... liJe4 (D)

W

Black repositions the knight for kingside defence. 11 f4

Now: a) 12 ~f3 f6 13 liJg4 1i'e8 14 ~h3 (Baltazar-Russek, Merida 2003) 14 ... cxd4 15 ~xd4 liJf5 and Black has a slight edge.

COLLE SYSTEM: 1 d4 d5 2 0:,f3 0:,f6 3 e3

b) 12 c3 f6 13lbg4 (Catteau-Vallin, French Cht (Noyon) 2001) 13 ... lbf5 14lbxe4 dxe4 15 i.c4 i.d5 with equal chances. c) 12 ~e2 f6 13 lbef3 ~c8 with equality, Bruzon-Timman, Cura~ao rpd (4) 2005.

B} 5 c3 This is the traditional Colle System move White reinforces his centre and prepares to complete his development. Note that White is actually playing the aggressive Semi-Slav with an extra tempo. 5•..lbc6 6lbbd2 i.d6 7 0-0 0-0 (D)

w

143

out into equality) 18 i.b2 i.f5 19 i.xf5 ~xf5 20 ~xd4 .l:!.e4 21 ~d3 llae8 =. a12) 9 ... dxe410lbxe4lbxe411 ~xe4f512 ~h4 (Mongeau-Leger, Quebec worn Ch 1993) 12 ... cxd4 13 cxd4 i.e7 =. a2) 9 h3 e5 10 dxe5 lbxe5 11 lbxe5 i.xe5 12lbf3 c4!? (12 ... i.d6 13 b3 i.e6 14 c4lbe4 =) 13lbxe5 ~xe5 14 i.c2 i.f5 and now: a21) 15 i.xf5 ~xf5 16 lld1 llfe8 is slightly better for Black since White has difficulty developing his dark-squared bishop. a22) 15 e4 (Dalponte-Khenkin, Arco 1998) 15 ... i.xe4! 16 f3 ~h5 17 g4 i.d3! (Black saves the piece and remains a pawn ahead) 18 i.xd3 cxd3 19 ~g2 ~e5 20 ~f2 ~fe8 =1=. a3) 9 dxc5 (this is White's safest choice) 9 ... i.xc51Oe4-8dxc5 hc5ge4~c710~e2. b) 8 e4 (Black is well-prepared for this opening of the centre) 8 ... cxd4 9 cxd4lbb4 10 i.b1 dxe4 11 lbxe4 i.e7 (D) and now:

w

Now White has several options, of which Line B2 is the most important. Bl: 8l:tel 144 145 B2: 8 dxc5 White has some minor alternatives: a) 8 ~e2 (White's queen tends to become somewhat exposed here) 8... ~c7 and now: a1) 9 e4 and then: all) 9... cxd4 10 cxd4 e5 11 exd5 (11 dxe5 lbxe5 12 exd5 i.g4 13 h3 i.h5 =1=) 1L..lbxd4 12 lbxd4 exd413lbe4lbxd5 (l3 ... i.xh2+ 14 ~h1 lbxe4 15 ~xe4 f5 16 ~xd4 i.e5 =) and here: all 1) 14 ~h5?! f5 15lbxd6 ~xd6 16 ~h4 (16 Ite1 i.e6 =1=) 16 ... lbb4 17 i.f4 ~d5 =1= RetiSpielmann, Vienna (3) 1921. White has insufficient compensation for the pawn. a112) 14lbxd6 ~xd615 ~e4lbf6 16 ~h4 (White has "some compensation for the pawn, but nothing more" according to Bronznik) 16 ... l:Ie8 17 b3!? ~d5 (now the position peters

b1) 12 a3 lbbd5 13 ~d3 (13 lbg3?! b6 14 =1= Vlatkovic-Perunovic, Sozina 2004) 13. .. lbxe4 14 ~xe4lbf6 15 ~d3 b6 16 i.g5 g6 =. b2) 12lbxf6+ i.xf6 13 a3 and then: b21) 13 ... lbc6 14 i.e3 ~d6 (14 ... ~d5!? 15 ~d3 ~h5 =) 15 i.e4 i.d7 (15 ... l:td8!? 16 ~c2 h6 17l:tfdllbe7 18 l:lac1lbd5 =) 16 ~c2 h6 17 l:tadl ':ac8 with roughly level chances, Khalifman-Yudasin, Tilburg 1994. b22) 13 ... lbd5 (this is more consistent with the plan initiated by 9... lbb4) 14 ~d3 g6 15 i.h6 i.g7 16 i.xg7 (16 i.g5 ~d6 17 :tel b6 = Cobb-B.Lalic, British League (4NCL) 1999/00) 16 ... ~xg7 17 i.a2 b6 = Borngasser-Beliavsky, Groningen jr Ech 1970/1. ~e2 i.b7 15 l:Idl ':c8

144

How TO BEAT 1 d4

B1) 8 .l:r.el e5 (D)

B

W

9 e4 Black has no problems after 9 dxeS t'bxeS 10 t'bxeS iLxeS: a) 11 ~c2 (Lane wrote "This seems to be the forgotten move of the line - and ensures that White is OK"; however, I think White's position is too passive because he has conceded the centre to Black) 1l...~e8 12 e4 c4! (this is an improvement over the cooperative 12 ... dxe4? 13 t'bxe4 t'bxe4 14 i.xe4 = Yabra-Ribeiro, Siegen OL 1970) 13 iLfl (13 i.e2 t'bxe4 14 t'bxe4 i.fS IS iLf3 dxe4 16 .i.xe4 iLxh2+ 17 Wxh2 ~h4+ 18 Wg 1 iLxe4 +) 13 ... t'bxe4 (13 ... .i.d6 also favours Black) 14 t'bxe4 .i.fS IS f3 dxe4 16 fxe4 filc7 =+=. White's kingside pawns are vulnerable. b) 11 t'bf3 i.c7 12 c4 and here: bl) 12 ... dxc4 13 .i.xc4 t'be4 14 filc2 (14 filxd8 .l:r.xd8 IS b3 .i.a5 16.l:r.fl .i.c3 17 .l:r.b1 i.g4 favours Black according to Lane) 14 ... ~e7 IS iLd3.i.fS 16 b3 I:!.ad8 17 iLb2 iLg6 18 .l:tedl .l:r.dS 19 filc4 (safer than 19 file2 ~hS with attacking chances for Black, Sarana HungelingMaksimenko, Miinster 1996) 19 ... .l:r.fd8 20 .i.e2 with equality. b2) 12 ... .i.e6 13 ~c2 iLg4 14 t'bgS!? h6 (14 ... fild6!?) IS t'bh7 t'bxh7 16 .i.xh7+ ~h8 17 iLfS iLxfS 18 ~xfS ~d6 =+= Metrangolo-Inkiov, Montecatini Terme 2001. 9... cxd410 exd5 t'bxd5 11 t'bc4 (D) 11 ... h6 Black can also play the greedy 11 ... dxc3: a) 12 i.xh7+?! ~xh7 13 ~xdS and then:

aI) 13 ... .i.b4? 14 t'bgS+ Wg6! (stronger than Lane's 14 ... Wg8? IS ~e4 g6 16 filh4 with a winning attack for White) IS t'bxeS+ t'bxeS 16 filxeS fild6 17 ~xd6+ iLxd6 18 bxc3 .i.fS with good drawing chances despite White's extra pawn. a2) 13 ... cxb2! (this move turns the tables) 14 iLxb2 i.b4 IS l:i.xeS (IS l:i.edl ~xdS 16 .l:r.xdS f6 -+) IS ... t'bxeS 16 ~xeS f6 17 iYhS+ Wg8 +. White has insufficient compensation for the exchange. b) 12 .i.e4 .i.e6 (D) and here:

W

bI) 13 i.xdS? c2 14 ~xc2 (14 ~d2 i..b4 +) 14 ... i.xdS IS t'bcxeS t'bxeS 16 t'bxeS .l:r.e8 gives Black the better chances according to Lane. b2) 13 t'bgS! cxb2 14 .i.xh7+ ~h8 and now: b21) IS filhS t'bf616 filh4 bxalfil 17 iLg6+ Wg8 18 .i.h7+ with a draw by perpetual check. b22) IS t'bxb2!? t'bf6 16 t'bxe6 fxe6 17 i.g6 with reasonable compensation for the pawn. 12 t'bfxe5 t'bxe5 13 t'bxe5 dxc3 14 filf3 t'bb4 15 i.c4 i.xe5!?

COLLE SYSTEM: 1 d4 d5 2 fijf3 fijf6 3 e3

This move introduces some fascinating complications that are favourable for Black. A safe alternative is IS ... i..e6 16 i..xe6 fxe6 17 'iVxc3 l:tc8 =1= Berg-de Firmian, Gausdal1994. 16lixeSliJc217l:!.blliJa3! (D)

145

B

w

B21: 10 exdS B22: 10 'iVe2

14S 147

821) 10 exdS exdSllliJb3 .tb6 (D)

Now: a) 18 lidS 'iVb6 -+. b) 18bxa3c219lial 'iVdl+ 20 i..f1 ~d421 i..b2 ~xb2 22l:[ee1 ~e6 -+. c) 18 i..xh6 and then: c1) 18 ... liJxbl 19 :gS and here: cll) 19 ... c2 20 lixg7+ ~h8 21 i..d3 c1~+ 22 i..xc1 ~xg7 23 ~g3+ ~h8 24 'iVeS+ ~g8 2S ~g3+ with a draw by perpetual check. c12) 19 ... ~xgS20i..xgScxb221 ~b3liJa3 22 i..d3 b1 ~+ 23 i..xb1liJxbl 24 'iVxbll1e8 is slightly better for Black, since his rooks are stronger than White's queen. c2) 18 ... liJxc4 19ligS ~h7 20 ~xc3 f6 also favours Black.

82) 8 dxcS The pawn exchange followed by a central advance has been established as White's most promising continuation. 8...i..xcs 9 e4 (D) Alternatives: a) 9 b4 .td6 10 .tb2 eS 11 e4 .tg4 = Sergejev-Sakaev, Tallinn 2001; Black can also consider 11....te6!? b) 9 'iVe2 'iVc7 10 e4 - 9 e4 ~c7 10 ~e2. 9•• :VJJic7 Now White has two options, of which Line B22 is the more critical:

W

12h3 This is a popular choice here, but most players would try something else ifthey were aware of Black's unexpected reply. White has some solid alternatives which will probably be more appealing to the Colle specialist. Let's examine: a) 12 .tc2 ~g4 13 'iVd3liJeS (13 ... l:1fe8!?) 14 liJxeS 'iVxeS IS liJd4 .llfe8 = Colle-Janowski, Ghent 1926. b) 12 J::te1.tg413 .te3life8 14 .txb6 'iVxb6 IS lixe8+ lixe8 16 h3 .thS 17 g4 i..g6 18 .txg6 hxg6 with equality, Drasko-Eingorn, Tallinn 1989. c) 12 liJbd4 i..g4 13 .lii.e2 liJxd4 14 liJxd4 i..xe2 IS ~xe2 .txd4 16 cxd4 ~c4 17 ~dl

146

How TO BEAT 1 d4

l:i.acS with equal chances, Lein-Eingorn, Moscow GMA 19S9. d) 12 ~c2 and then: dl) 12 ... ~g4 13 ttJh4 was played in ColleTarrasch, Baden-Baden 1925, and now Black can equalize by 13 .. J1acS. d2) 12... h6 13 .l:i.el i.g4 14 ttJfd4 (El GindyHalkias, Linares open 2003) 14 ... i..d7 =. d3) 12... ttJeS!? 13 ttJxeS ~xeS gives Black a promising kingside attack. e) 12 i.gS ttJe4 13 ~c1 i.g4 14 i.f4 ~e7 = Rygaard-Lugovoi, Kallithea ECC 2002. 12... i.xh3!? This piece sacrifice introduces some fascinating complications. Black has some safer alternatives which may appeal to more conservative players: a) 12 ... ttJe4 and now: al) 13 i..c2? i.xh3! (this is even stronger now) 14 ttJbd4 (the bishop is immune - Black wins material after 14 gxh3 ~g3+ IS 'it'hl ~xh3+ 16 'it'gl ttJg3 17 ttJh2 {17 i.xh7+ WhS -+} 17 ... ~c7 IS f4 ~b6+ 19 ttJd4 ttJxd4 20 cxd4 ~xd4+ +) 14 ... i.g4 + N.Cooper-J.Myers, Mingara 1999. a2) 13 ttJbd4 ttJxd4 14 ttJxd4 :eS -12. .. :e8 13 ttJbd4 ttJxd4 14 ttJxd4 ttJe4. b) 12 ... l:IeS 13 ttJbd4 ttJxd4 14 ttJxd4 ttJe4 (14 ... i.xd4 IS cxd4 ~b6 16 b3 i.d7 17 i.e3 i.bS =) IS ~e3 ~d6 with equal chances. Black will follow up with ... ~c7. 13 gxh3 ~g3+ 14 'it'hl ~xh3+ 15 ttJh2 ttJe5 16 ~e2 ttJf3 Black should avoid the weaker alternatives: a) 16 ... ttJe4? (Savova-Wiese Jozwiak, Balatonfiired worn Z 1987) 17 ~xdS! ttJf3 IS i.xf3 i.c7 19 ~hS +-. b) 16 ... hS? 17 ttJd4 (17 .tf4? {G.SzaboDonka, Debrecen 1999} 17 ... ttJg6! is good for Black) 17 ... ttJeg4 IS i.f4 l:IfeS 19 ~f3 ttJxh2 20 i.g2 (20 ~xh2?? ~c71eads to mate) 20 ... ~g4 21 i.xh2 ±. 17 i.f4 White must avoid 17 ~xf3?? ~c7 0-1 Woodhead-Down, COIT. 19S0. 17•.• ttJh418 i.f3 The only move as IS l:Igl? allows the crushing IS ... ttJe4 -+. 18... ttJh5 (D) Black has strong kingside threats, but White does have an extra piece. The key defensive

w

idea for White is to keep his bishop on the h2bS diagonal to prevent Black from creating a mating-net involving ... ~c7. 19.te5 This defensive resource was not mentioned by either Bronznik or Lane - I have been unable to find a clear win for Black. Other moves: a) 19 i..g3? gives Black a choice of strong replies: aI) 19 ... ttJxg3+ 20 fxg3 ttJfS 21 ttJd4 i.xd4 22 cxd4 CLlxg3+ 23 'it'gl ttJxfl 24 ~xfl ~fS -+. Black's rook and pawns are stronger than White's minor pieces. a2) 19 ... ~xg3 20 ~xdS ~f4 21 ~xhS ~c7 22 ttJg4 l:i.adS 23 ~xb7 fS (Lane) is crushing for Black. b) 19 .itd6 l:IadS and then: bI) 20 i.xdS? ttJf6 21 i.xb7 ~feS +. b2) 20 ~xdS? (Lane's analysis ends here with no evaluation, but I suspect this was an unfortunate typesetting issue) 20 .. J:!xd6 21 ~xhS (21 ~xd6 ttJxf3 22 :adl gS -+) 2l...l:Ih6 22 ~g4 ttJxf3 23 ~xh3 Ihh3 24 'it'g2 :xh2+ 2S 'it'xf3 J:[dS +. Black has a solid extra pawn. b3) 20 ~eS! -19 ~e5 l:Iae8 20 i.d6 l:Id8 21 ~e5. Note that each side has played one extra move via this last move-order. 19.. Jlae8 Not 19 ... l:IfeS? 20 .l:i.gl i.xf2 (20 ... l:IxeS 21 ~g4 +-) 21 ~xhS ~xgl (2l....l:IxeS 22 ~g4 ~xg4 23 ttJxg4 l:i.xhS 24 ttJf6+ 'it'fS 2S ttJxhS ~xgl 26l:i.xgl ttJfS 27 ttJd4 ttJxd4 2S cxd4;\;) 22 .txf7+! and then: a) 22 ... 'it>xf7 23 'iWhS+ g6 24 'iWxh7+ 'it'e6 2S l:Ixgl 'it'xeS 26 l:Ig3! ~fS (26 ... ~xg3 27 ~c7+ +-) 27 ~c7+ 'it'f6 2S ttJg4+ 'it'gS 29 ttJe3+ +-.

COLLE SYSTEM: 1 d4 d5 2 tDj3 tDf63 e3

147

b) 22 .. .';t>h8 23 ~g4 'iVxg4 24 tiJxg4l:te7 2S .l:ld8 26 c4 ±. 20 ..td6 (D)

~xdS

B

B221: 11 e5 B222: 11 h3

Now Black has two reasonable options: a) 20 .. J~d8 21 ~eS (the idea behind this move is to draw Black's king's rook away from the defence of his f-pawn; less effective is 21 .ltxdS? tiJf6 22 .ltxb7 .l:[fe8 with a strong attack) and now: a1) 21...J:tde8 repeats the position. a2) 21 ... .l:tfe8 22 .l:[gl! ~xf2 and then: a21) 23 ..txhS?! ~xg1 24 ~xf7+ 'it>f8 2S 'iVxg1 .l:[xeS 26 .l:i.fl tiJfS 27 'iVcS+ 'it>xf7 28 'iVc7+ 'it>g6 29 ~xeS tiJg3+ 30 'it>gl tiJxfl 31 tiJxfl ~g4+ 32 tiJg3 .l:[f8 +. Black's rook and pawns are more effective than White's knights. a22) 23"iWfl "iWxfl 24.l:[gxfl tiJxf3 2S tiJxf3 ~g3 26 ~d4 :e2 27 .l:[ab1 .l:[d6 28 .l:[fd1 tiJf429 .l:[d2 .l:[h6+ 30 'it>gl with roughly level chances in this complex piece versus three pawns endgame. b) 20 ... l:te6 21 ~xdS tiJf6 (21....l:[xd6?? 22 i¥xhS +-) 22 ~xf8 tiJxdS 23 'iVg4 (23 ..wxdS?? ..tc7 24 f4 .l:le2 -+) 23 ... ..wxg4 24 tiJxg4 'it>xf8 2S l::tadl tiJf4 26 tiJd4 l::tg6 27 liJh2 fS with a balanced position - Black has adequate compensation for his slight material deficit.

822) 10 i¥e2 h6 (D) This cunning pawn move has been played by several strong grandmasters - one of the ideas is to eliminate any attacking ideas for White involving eS, ..txh7+, and tiJgS+. Now:

148 149

White has some less critical alternatives: a) 11 ..tc2 ~b6 and now: a1) 12 exdS exdS 13 tiJb3 ~g4 14 ..wd3l::tfe8 IS tiJbd4 (Srivachirawat-Papaioannou, Calvia OL 2004) lS ... l:re4 (1S ... ..thS!?) 16 ~d2 l::tae8

=t. a2) 12 a4 a6 13 g3 (White should avoid 13 as? tiJxaS 14 eS tiJd7 IS l::ta4 tiJc6 16l::te 1 fS 17 exf6 tiJxf6 =t Gomez-Bluvshtein, Havana 2004) 13 ... ..td7 14 'it>g2 .l:!.ad8 gave Black a comfortable game in Mamedyarov-Volokitin, Calvia OL2004. a3) 12 h3 tiJhS 13 lld1 tiJf4 14 ..wfl ~d7 with equality, Roelvaag-Johannessen, Norwegian Cht (Oslo) 2000. a4) 12 Wh1!? (the idea behind this mysterious king move is to play h3 without worrying about the reply ... tiJhS-g3) 12 ... .l:[d8 13 h3 dxe4 14 tiJxe4 tiJdS =. b) 11 b4 ..td6 (D) and now:

w

148

How TO BEAT 1 d4

bl) 12 h3 and then: bll) 12 ... .i.d7 13 .i.b2 tDh5 14 11fel tDf4 15 ~e3 f5!? (15 ... tDxd3 16 ~xd3 dxe4 17 tDxe4 i.e7 with equal chances, Okuniewski-S.Ivanov, Polish Cht (Krynica) 1997) 16 exd5 (Black takes over control of the centre after 16 exf5? e5 +) 16 ... exd5 (16 ... tDxd5 17 ~e2 tDf4 =) 17 tDb3 ~ae8 18 ~d2 g5!? with sharp play ahead. b12) 12 ...tDe5 13 tDxe5 .i.xe5 14 .i.b2 dxe4 15 tDxe4 tDd5 = Pecot-Bujisho, French Cht 1999. b2) 12 .i.b2 (D) and here:

W

13 tDbd4 White is pinned and spinned after 13 iLf4?! f6:

b21) 12 ... e5 13 a3 :e8 14 c4 d4 15 c5 .i.f8 16 tDel (16 ':ac1 .i.g4 17 tDc4 tDh5 18 g3 ~d8 with a balanced game, Ree-Zso.Polgar, Amsterdam 1995) 16... i.g4 (16 ... a5!? {Bronznik} 17 tDc2 =) 17 f3 i.e6 =. b22) 12 ... i.d7 13 ':fe 1 dxe4 14 tDxe4 tDxe4 15 .i.xe4 f5!? 16 .i.xc6 i.xc6 17 ~xe6+ 'it>h7 was tried in Sosa Macho-Crosa, Uruguay Ch (Montevideo) 2003. Black's powerful bishops compensate for the pawn. b23) 12 ...tDe5 13 tDxe5 .i.xe5 and now: b231) 14 g3 i.d7 15l:tac1 .l:tad8 (l5 ... dxe4!? was suggested by Bronznik - one possible continuation is 16 tDxe4 tDxe4 17 ~xe4 f5 18 ~e2 iLd6 =) 16 .l:tfel (Maki Uuro-Puranen, Tampere 1996) 16 ... dxe4 17 tDxe4 i.c6 with equal chances. b232) 14 tDf3 dxe4 15 tDxe5 exd3 16 tDxd3 tDd5 with an equal position, Markus-Filippov, Bad Worishofen 2001.

8221) 11 e5 tDg4 12 tDb3 iLb6 (D)

a) 14 ':ael fxe5! 15 i.g3 (not 15 tDxe5?? tDxf2 16 ~xf2 ':'xf4 17 tDf3 0-1 WaagenerAbuchamala, Thessaloniki OL 1988) 15 ...~f7 (l5 .. :~e7!?) 16 tDh4 llVh5 (l6 ... tDf6 17 iLg6 {17 tDg6? loses to 17 ... e4} 17 ... Wb'd7 looks fine for Black) 17 h3 tDf6 18 tDg6 Wb'xe2 19 .l:txe2 e4 20 i.b5 tDh5 is much better for Black, DannerNovikov, Graz 1996. b) 14 tDbd4 tDcxe5 and then: bl) 15 tDd2 (A.Zhuravlev-Snatenkov, Russian U-14 Ch (Nizhny Novgorod) 1999) 15 ... g5! 16 i.g3 f5 17 h3 f4 +. b2) 15 h3 g5! 16 iLg3 tDxf3+ 17 gxf3 tDe5 + Callaway-R.Reynolds, COIT. 1982. 13...tDgxe5 Black should avoid 13 ... f6 14 tDxc6 bxc6 15 i.f4 fxe5: a) 16 i.xe5 tDxe5 17 tDxe5;t. "White's game is very pleasant" - Silman. b) 16 i..g3!? (Silman) 16 ... ~f7 17 tDxe5 tDxe5 18 iLxe5 ;to Black's backward e-pawn is weak. 14 tDxe5 tDxe5 15 iLf4 f616 11ael (D) 16..:iVf7 This is the sharp choice. Two alternatives deserve serious attention: a) 16 ... g5 (the solid choice) 17 .i.xe5 fxe5 18'!Wxe5 Wb'xe5 19 11xe5 .l:tf6 (the complications have given way to a balanced endgame) 20 ~e2 iLd7 21 tDf311af8 22 tDe5 .i.c8 23 tDg4 11f4 24 tDe5l:14f6 112_112 Pecot-Barlow, Argentina 1999. b) 16 ... i..c5!? 17 i.xe5 fxe5 18 ~xe5 (the complications following 18 tDb5?! ~b6 19 b4 .i.xf2+ 20 l:hf2 e4 favour Black) 18 ... ~xe5 19

COLLE SYSTEM: 1 d4 d5 2 t'jjf3 t'jjf6 3 e3

149

8222} B

l:txe5 i.d6 20 .l::th5 i.d7 gives Black a comfortable endgame. 17 i.xe5 fxe5 18 ~xe5 iLe7 19 .tg6! ~e7 20 Ii'h5 Now: a) 20 ... ~f6!? and then: al) 21 l:.e3 begins the rook 'lift and shift' manoeuvre. Here Black can try: all) 2l...i.d7 22l:.B 'ike7 23l:.el .l::txf3 24 lLlxB Ii'f6 with equal chances. a12) 2l...e5 22 1:.B ~e7 23 .u.xf8+ c;t>xf8 24 ltel Ii'f6 25 l:!.e3 e4 26 B i.xh2+ 27 ~xh2 ~xg6 28 fxe4 dxe4 29 "iYf4+ c;t>g8 30 "iYxe4 'ikxe4 31 l:.xe4 i.d7 =. a2) 21 f4!? iLb6 (21...i.xf4?! 22 g3 i.e3+ 23 Wg2 is favourable for White) nl:.d 1 (so far this is analysis by Silman) 22 ... iLd7 (Black's first priority is to activate his light-squared bishop) 23 iLc2 (23 c;t>h 1 .i.a4 24 ~d2 .lie8 25 .i.xe8 l:.axe8 is fine for Black) 23 ... .i.b5 24 l:If2 llac8 with equal chances. b) 20 ... .i.d7 and then: bi) 21 .:te2?! e5 22 f4 ~f6 23l:.ff2 exd4 24 ~xd5+ c;t>h8 25 "iYxd7 i.b6 (Silman) 26 :e6 l:.fd8 27 l:.xf6 1:.xd7 28 l:.xb6 axb6 =1=. White is struggling for a draw here. b2) 21 Ii'xd5 i.xh2+ 22 c;t>hl (22 c;t>xh2?? 'ikh4+ 23 c;t>gl exd5 -+) 22 ... i.d6 23 'ikh5 "iYf6 24 "iYg4 e5 25 'ikxd7 exd4 26 'ike6+ Wh8 27 'ikxf6 l:.xf6 28 i.e4 dxc3 29 bxc3 ne8 with an equal endgame. b3) 21lLlf3 'ikf6 22 i.d3 iLe8 23 'ikg4 i.f7 with equal chances. b4) 21 g3 .l:i.f6 (2l...'ikf6!?) 22 iLd3 ~c5 23 f4 b5 24 c;t>g2 b4 ("with mutual chances" according to Silman), Trapl-Orsag, Czech Cht 1997/8.

11 h3 lLlh5! 12lLlb3 (D) White has some inferior alternatives: a) 12 exd5? loses material after 12 ... lLlg3 13 'ikdllLlxfl 14lLle4 iLb6 15 dxc6lLlg3 :t. b) 12 ~el? lLlg3 13 ~dl 'ikb6 14 lLld4lLlxd4 15 cxd4 .i.xd4 16 lli'f3 lLlxe4 17 lLlxe4 dxe4 18 i.xe4 .l:i.d8 :t. Black has a solid extra pawn. c) 12 .l:i.dllLlf4 13 ~fllLlxd3 14 W!Vxd3 lId8 15 exd5 l:[xd5 =1= Lisakowski-Grott, Germany e-mail 2001.

B

12•.•lLlg3 12 ... i.b6 has scored well in a handful of games, but White's play can be improved. Let's examine: a) 13 ~c2 lLlf4 14 i.xf4 'ikxf4 15 ~d2 'ikxd2 16lLlbxd2 ~d8 =Stierle-Sermek, Passau 1998. b) 13 i.e3lLlf4 14 ~d2 (14 iLxf4 ~xf4 15 l::tadl a5 16 exd5 exd5 17 i.c2 a4 18 ~d3 g6 19 lLlbd4 =) 14 ....txe3 (14 ... lLlxd3 15 i.xb6 ~xb6 161i'xd3 dxe4 17lli'xe4 e5 =) 15 W!Vxe3lLlxd3 16 ~xd3 dxe4 17lli'xe4 b6 18 .l:i.adl i.b7 =. c) 13lLlfd4lLlf4 14 .i.xf4 ~xf4 15 exd5 (15 ~B Ii'g5 16 lLlxc6 bxc6 = Bachmann-Wells, Passau 1998) 15 ... exd5 16l:.adl .lid7 =. d) 13 exd5! and now: dl) 13 ... lLlg3 and then: dl1) 14lli'c2lLle5 (14 ... lLlxfl 15 dxc6lLlg3 16 c4! lLlf5 17 c5 i.a5 and after 18 ~c4! ± White is threatening to play ~e4 and Black's pieces are misplaced; 18 ~e2 transposing to line 'dI2' is also strong) 15 lLlxe5lli'xe5 16l:.dl (Black's advanced knight is suddenly vulnerable) 16 ... exd5 17lLld4lLle4 18 .lie3 t.

150

How TO BEAT 1 d4

d12) 14 ~dl l2Jxfl (I4 ... l2JeS IS d6 +-) IS dxc6! (IS d6?? ~d8 16 i.xfl eS =1= Van Laatum-lonkman, Groningen open 1994) IS ... l2Jg3 16 c4! l2JfS 17 cS i.aS 18 ~e2 ±. d2) 13 ... exdS 14 l:tel l2Jf4 IS i.xf4 (White must avoid IS ~dl?? l2Jxh3+ 16 gxh3 ~g3+ 17 c,t>hl ~xh3+ 18 c,t>gl i.g4 -+; this motif is known from certain variations of the French Defence) IS ... ~xf416 ~d2 'ifVf6 17l2Jbd4 i.d7 with equal chances. 13 ~c2 dxe4 Black can also play 13 ... l2Jxe414 i.xe4 dxe4 IS ~xe4 -13. .. dxe4 14 i.xe4l2Jxe4 15 filxe4. However, he should avoid 13 ... l2Jxfl? 14 l2Jxcs dxe4 (I4 ... l2JeS? ISl2JxeS ~xeS 16 ..txfl +-) IS l2Jxe4 fS 16l2JcS l2JeS 17l2JxeS "iVxeS 18 l2Jb3 'tWh2+ 19 c,t>xfl 'ifVhl + 20 c,t>e2 'ifVxg2 21 l2Jd4 ±. 14 i.xe4l2Jxe415 ~xe4 (D)

a) 16 ... eS 17 ..tcS ..txcS 18 l2Jxcs b6 19 l2Jd3 i.b7 with equal chances, Biaggi-Valerga, Buenos Aires 1995. b) 16 ... b6 (Black pauses to control the cSsquare and prevent White from exchanging dark-squared bishops) and then: b 1) 17 l2Jbd4l2Jxd4 18 i.xd4 (after 18 l2Jxd4 i.b7 19 "iVg4 fS 20 "iVe2 eS! 21l2JbS filc6 22 f3 i.e7 Black has the bishop-pair and a strong kingside pawn duo) 18 ... i.b7 19 ~e2 l:tfe8 20 Ostrowski-S.lvanov, l:!fel f6 21 i.e3 ~c6 Polish Cht (Mikolajki) 1991. b2) 17 Itadl i.b7 (I7 ... eS 18l2Jh4 Itd8 19 l2JfS i.xfS 20 ~xfS l2Je7 21 ~f3 lbc8 =) 18 ~g4 fS 19 ~c41:tfe8 gives Black a slight pull because of the bishop-pair. 16... l2Jxd4 (D)

+

+

W

B

Lane wrote that White "has a space advantage to make up for conceding the bishop-pair". However, I disagree with his assessment. There is no space advantage to speak of in a position in which neither player's pawns have advanced beyond the third rank, and any long-term advantage will belong to Black because he can utilize the bishop-pair to mobilize his extra centre pawn - White's knights have no central anchor points. Black has a large plus-score from this position and in a well-played game the best result White can hope for is a draw with careful defence. 15•.. i.d6 Black should avoid IS ... i.b6?! 16 i.f4 'tWe7 17 l:!fel ;\;. 16l2Jbd4 16 i.e3 is also possible:

17 cxd4 White can avoid an isolated pawn by playing 17l2Jxd4: a) 17 ... i.d7 and then: al) 18 a4 a619 as fS +Marciniak-ROder, Le Touquet 2001. a2) 18 :tel l:!ae8 (I8 ... a6!?) 19 'ifVe2 a6 20 'ifVhS ~cS 21 ~f3 ~c7 22 l:tdl fS 23 'ifVd3 (112_112 Markus-Muhren, Dieren 2000) 23 ...:d8 +. White will soon be driven back by a welltimed ... eS pawn advance - then Black's bishops will flourish. a3) 18 i.d2 a6 (18 ... .l:!.ad8!?) 19 l:tadl fS (19 ... l::tad8!? 20 l::tfel i.c8) 20 'ifVc2 .l:!.ae8 with roughly level chances, Chernin-Coelho, Brasilia 2002. b) 17 ... a6 18 i.e3 (18 .!::tdl!? fS 19 ~d3) 18 ... fS 19 ~h4 eS 20 l2Jb3 f4 21 i.d2 i.e6 + Kothe-W.Harris Jr, corr. 1991-3.

COLLE SYSTEM: 1 d4 d5 2 liJj3 liJf6 3 e3

17....i.d7 18 tbeS i.bS19 ~el f6! (D)

151

321Ixb6 .i.xb6 33 .i.c3 'it>f7 with an equal endgame) 27 ~b3 ~d7 with equal chances. a2) 20 ... fxe5! 21 axb5 (21 dxe5? loses to 21...i.c5) 21...exd4 (D) and then:

w w

Now: a) 20 a4? Lane wrote that this move "disrupts Black's set-up", but I think Black's play can be strengthened. Let's examine: al) 20 ... .i.a6 21 tbg4 ~c4 22 tbe3 ~b4 (D) (the position is unclear according to Sergei Ivanov's 1993 Infonnator notes) and then:

w

all) 23 tbxc4 i.xel 24 ~xe6+ 'it>h8 25 .i.e3 :fe8 26 ~d5 .i.b4 27 ~b5 .i.f8 +. Black's rook is stronger than White's knight and pawn. a12) 23 .l::!.dl f5 24 ~c2l:tac8 25 ~d2 .i.d6 (25 ... .i.xd2 26 ~xd2 i..b3 27 .l:1.dc1 ~d6 =) 26 I1dc1 i..a6 (26 ....i.d5 27 ~xc7 :xc7 28 .l::!.xc7 .i.xc7 29 tbxd5 exd5 30 ~a3 .i:!.f6 31 l:tb3 l:tb6

a2l) 22 b6 and here Black has two good options: a2ll) 22 ... ~f7 23 ~xd4 (23 ~xe6 a6 24 .i.d2 l:tad8 +) 23 ... .i.c5!! 24 ~xc5 axb6 25 ~xf8+ .l::!.xf8 26 .i.e3 e5 +. White's rook and bishop are no match for Black's queen. a2l2) 22 ... ~xb6 23 ~xe6+ 'it>h8 24 ~e4 (24 .i.xh6? l:H6 -+) 24 ...~b4 +. Black has a solid extra pawn. a22) 22 i.xh6 gxh6 23 ~g6+ (23 ~xe6+ l:tf7 -+) 23 ... 'it>h8 24 'ilVxh6+ ~h7 25 l:txe6 i..b4 +. a23) 22 ~xe6+ 'WIf7 23 i..d2 ~xe6 24l:txe6 i..c5 25 b4 .i.b6 +. The endgame is advantageous for Black because of his strong d4-pawn combined with White's vulnerable b5-pawn. b) 20 tbg6 l:lfe8 21 .i.f4 i.c6 22 ~e3 ~ad8 + D.Muse-S.Ivanov, Berlin 1993. White's d4pawn is vulnerable. c) 20 tbg4 'it>h8!?21 ~g6i.e822~d3~f7 (so far this is analysis by Sergei Ivanov) 23 ~b3 h5 24 tbe3 (after 24 l:txe6? i..a4! Black wins material) 24 ... .i.c6 and Black has a slight pull because of the strength of his bishop-pair combined with the weakness of White's d4pawn.

18 Stonewall Attack: 1 d4 dS 2 e3 'iJf6 3 .i.d3

1 d4 dS 2 e3 ttJf6 3 .1i.d3 Other moves usually transpose into lines covered in previous chapters: a) 3 c4 dxc4 4 .1i.xc4 c5 5 ttJf3 e6 transposes to the Queen's Gambit Accepted (Chapters 511).

b) 3 ttJf3 transposes into Chapter 17: Colle System. 3 .•. cS 4 c3 ttJc6 5 f4 (D) White can still transpose into the Colle System with 5 ttJf3.

B

White's potent set-up is fairly popular among low- to mid-level club players. The Stonewall Attack scores many points at the club level by inflicting a withering kingside attack upon unprepared victims, but a well-prepared defender has nothing to fear from this opening. S..•.1i.g4 This sensible move is the most popular choice here - Black develops his light-squared bishop outside the pawn-chain before reinforcing the centre with ... e6. Black can also close the dangerous bl-h7 diagonal with 5 ... g6 6 ttJf3 (6 dxc5!? e5 7 b4 .1i.g7 gives Black compensation for the pawn) 6 ... i.g7 7 0-0 0-0 8 ttJbd2 (D) (8 dxc5?! ttJd7 9 .1i.c2 ttJxc5 gives Black a slight edge as White's f4-pawn is misplaced) and now:

B

This is the characteristic move of the Stonewall Attack - White's pawn-formation establishes a tight grip over the e5-square at the cost of creating a gaping hole on e4. White's aggressive set-up was fairly popular during the early 20th century - the American champion Frank Marshall won several fine attacking games with this opening. The Stonewall Attack has a poor theoretical reputation because White's rigid pawn-structure restricts the scope of his darksquared bishop and enables Black to develop his pieces quickly to their optimal squares - the opening rarely makes an appearance in highlevel games. Despite these facts, it would be a mistake to ignore this attacking scheme because

a) 8 ... .1i.f5?! 9 .i.xf5 gxf5 and then: al) 10 ~hl?! (this plan is too mechanical) 1O .. :~d6 11 ttJe51Hc8 12 ,Ugl 'iVe6 13 g4 fxg4 14 ttJxg4 ~h8 with equal chances. a2) 10 dxc5! e6 11 ttJd4 'iVe7 12 b4 a5 13 'iVb3 and despite White's light-square weaknesses, Black doesn't quite have enough compensation for the pawn. b) 8... b6 9 ttJe5 'iVc7 and here:

STONEWALL ATTACK:

1 d4 d5 2 e3 0,f6 3 iLd3

bl) 10 'ilVf3 ~b7 11 llf2?! (11 g4 ttJe8 12 g5 ttJd6 =) 1l...11ad8 12 g4 (Giancotti-Ketzscher, Arco 2002) 12 ... ttJe8 13 g5 f6 14 ttJxc6 (14 ttJxg6? hxg6 15 ~xg6 fxg5 -+) 14... i.xc6 =/=. White's dark-squared bishop will have difficulty developing. b2) 10 'ilVel ttJd7 11 ttJxc6 'ilVxc6 12 ttJf3 ttJf6 (12 .. .f6? 13 e4! i.b7 {Dede-M.Braun, Hungarian Cht 2001l2} 14 f5 gives White a promising kingside attack) 13 ttJe5 'ilVd6 14 'ilVh4 ttJe4 with equal chances. 6 ttJf3 e6 7 0-0 i.d6 (D) This natural developing move also sets a positional trap.

153

of Stonewall Attack position that White should be very careful to avoid because his powerful light-squared bishop has been exchanged and his dark-squared bishop is a miserable piece. Black has a lead in development, a potential e4-outpost, and superior minor pieces. 8 ...0-0 Black can also play the immediate 8 ... i.f5: a) 9 ~e2 0-0 10 'it'hl (10 ttJe5 - 8... 0-0 9 ttJe5 if..f51O~e2) 1O .. :~c7!? 11 ttJe5 i.xd312 ttJxd3 ttJe4 =/= Gatt-Beliavsky, Groningen jr Ech 1970/1.

b) 9 i..xf5 exf5 10 ttJe5 0-0 - 8... 0-0 9 ttJe5 i.f5 10 .Lf5 exf5. c) 9 if..e2 ttJe4 10 ttJe5 0-0 - 8... 0-0 9 ttJe5 i.f5 10 J.e2 ttJe4. 9 ttJe5 i.f5 (D)

W

8 'ilVel White should avoid the careless 8 ttJbd2? cxd4! (this timely capture is an important motif to remember). Now: a) 9 exd4 (a speculative pawn sacrifice) 9 ... i.xf4 10 ttJb3 i.d6 (10 ... .ixcl!? 11 'ilVxc1 i.h5 =/= gives White inadequate compensation for the pawn; Black will follow up with ... i.g6 in order to neutralize White's light-squared bishop) 11 'ilVe 1 'ilVc7 12 'ilVh4 h6 13 ~g5 (Black has a solid extra pawn, so White is compelled to play aggressively) 13 ... ~xf3 14 if..xf6 (14 nxf3 ~xh2+ 15 ~h1 ttJh7 16 i.e3 {16 if..xh7 hxg5} 16 ... i..d6 17 :afl ttJf6 =t) 14... i.xg2 15 ~xg2 gxf6 16 llxf6 (16 'ilVxf6 :g8+ 17 ~f3 ~xh2 -+) 16 ... 0-0-0 =t. b) 9 cxd4 (a positionally undesirable recapture) 9 ... 0-0 10 'ilVel?! (relatively best is 10 a3 ~c8 11 ~e1 i.f5 12 'iVe2 ~b6 =/= BogachevSitnikov, Novokuznetsk 1999) 1O ... ttJb4 11 ~bl (Prystenski-Tener, ICCF COIT. 1976) 1l....l:.c8 12 ttJe5 ttJc2 13 i.xc2 llxc2 =t. This is the type

10 J.e2 One of the important Stonewall Attack themes is the following: if the light-squared bishops are exchanged and White is unable to achieve the central e4 break, then White's darksquared bishop is a bad piece because its mobility is severely restricted by the stonewall pawn triangle (pawns on e3, f4, and d4). In accordance with this theme, the bishop retreat is relatively best. Alternatives: a) 10 ttJd2 and now: a1) 1O ... if..xd3 11 ttJxd3 (Le Nineze-Delrieu, COIT. 1995) 11..:iVb6 =/=. a2) 1O... cxd4! 11 ttJxc6 (11 exd4 ~xe5 12 i.xf5 if..xd4+ 13 cxd4 exf5 -+) 1l...bxc6 12 i.xf5 dxc3 =t. b) 10 'ilVe2 i.xd3 11 'iVxd3 (Da Silva-Maia, COIT. 1998) 1l...'iVb6 12 'it'h11Hc8 is slightly better for Black.

154

How TO BEAT

c) 10 ~xf5 exf5 11 'ilVh4 (11 ttJd2 .l:!.e8 '+ Larrea Poladura-Muniz Rubiera, Norena 2001) ll...ttJe4 12 ~h3 .i.xe5 (12 ... ttJe7 also gives Black a slight advantage) 13 fxe5 f6 '+ Zichichi-Volzhin, Saint Vincent 2002. 10...Vi'b6 (D) Another reasonable idea is 1O... ttJe4 11 g4 ~xe5 12 dxe5 (12 fxe5 ~g6 '+) 12 ... i.g6 13 h4 f5 14 exf6 'ilVxf6 15 h5 ~e8 '+ Quizon-Marrero, Calvia OL 2004.

1 d4

fxe5 ttJxe5 15 'iitg2 ttJg6 16 h4 ttJe4 17 h5 ttJe7 18 i.d3 f5 =t. White has inadequate compensation for the pawn. 1l ...l:tfc812 ttJd2 a513 g4 (D)

W

ll~hl

White's attack runs out of steam after the reckless 11 g4?! i.xbl 12 .l:!.xbl cxd4 13 exd4 (13 cxd4l:!.fc8 is fine for Black) 13 ... ii.xe5 14

This is White's standard method for beginning a kingside attack. Now: a) 13 ... i.c2 14 g5 ttJe4 ,+. b) 13 ... i.e4+!? (a finesse to nudge White's king to a more vulnerable square) 14 ttJxe4 (14 'iitgl i.c2 '+) 14... ttJxe4 15 ii.d3 a4 ,+. Black is developing some pressure on the queenside, whereas White's kingside attack has yet to materialize and his dark-squared bishop will have difficulty finding an active role.

19 Blackmar-Diemer Gambit: 1 d4 d5 2 e4

1 d4 dS 2 e4 dxe4 3 ttJc3 The immediate 3 f3?! is inaccurate because of 3... e5! 4 dxe5 ~xdl + 5 ~xdl ttJc6 6 .if4 ttJge7 7 ttJc3 .ie6 +. 3 ...ttJf6 4 f3 The Blackmar-Diemer Gambit (BDG) is an opening enigma - Grandmasters and International Masters scoff at it, opening theoreticians ridicule it, and club players worship it. The BDG is supposed to be bad for White, but few players seem to know exactly why. Most of the published BDG games are of low quality because the opening has been played in just a handful of high-level games - the voluminous misinformation surrounding the BDG contributes to the confusion among club players. 4 •..exf3 (D)

w

The queen recapture is known as the Ryder Gambit and this reckless sacrifice clearly violates the laws of chess physics. A general rule of thumb applicable in many open games is that the attacker needs two or even three development tempi to justify the sacrifice of a pawn. The Ryder Gambit doesn't even come close to meeting this benchmark. S.. :~xd4 6 .ie3 The alternative bishop development 6 .if4 with the idea of ttJb5 was suggested by Bagirov in ECO (lst ed.), but this move is refuted by 6 ... e5! 7 ttJge2 ~c5 8 .ig5 i..e7 9 0-0-0 ttJc6 -+, when Black has a decisive material advantage. 6...~g4! Black must avoid the greedy 6 ... ~b4? 7 0-0-0 .ig4? 8 ttJb5! ±. This line is known as the Halosar Trap. Games featuring this sort of elementary tactical blunder are prominently featured and fawned over in BDG-Iand, but the Ryder Gambit quickly loses its appeal if Black plays a couple of accurate moves. 7 iYVf2 eS! (D)

w

White has a choice of recaptures - Line B is the more important. A: 5 ~xf3? 155 B: 5 ttJxf3 156

A) S~xf3?

Black controls the important f4- and d4squares and prepares ... .ib4. The problem for

156

How TO BEAT 1 d4

White is that he has obtained only a single tempo in return for his double pawn sacrifice. Black's advanced queen appears to be misplaced, but her majesty is often able to challenge White's queen or wreak havoc by shifting over to the queenside. Now: a) 8 .i.e2 'ii'fS 9 'ii'g3..tb4 10 0-0-0 ..txc3 11 bxc3 0-0 -+ A.Lane-T.Sawyer, BDG thematic COIT. 1997. b) 8 ..td3 ..tb4 9 lbge2 e4 10 ..tc4 ..te6 11 ..txe6 'ii'xe6 12 h3 lbdS 13 0-0 ..txc3 14 bxc3 lbc6 -+ A.Prins-T.Schneider, COIT. 1989. c) 8 a3 lbc6 9 lbf3 .i.d6 10 0-0-0 'ii'e6 11 lbgS Wie7 12 .i.c4 (12 'ii'h4 ..tfS 13 .i.c4 0-014 l:thfl .i.g6 =t) 12 ... 0-0 13 lbdS (13 lbce4 lbxe4 14 lbxe4 .i.e6 -+ Vermaas-Palezkis, COIT. 1983) 13 ... lbxdS 14 ..txdS h6 IS lbe4 (RebaudoSakai, Ryder Gambit e-mail 200 I) IS ... ..te6 16 'ii'g3 .i.xdS 17 .l:i.xdS fS 18 lbxd6 f4 19 'ii'g6 cxd6 -+. d) 8 lbf3 .i.b4 9 lbxeS (9 0-0-0 has been suggested as an improvement, but 9 ... .i.xc3 10 bxc3 'ii'a4 gives Black a decisive advantage) 9 ...Wie4 10 lbc4 i.xc3+ (lO ... lbdS is also strong) 11 bxc3 ..te6 ("White has nothing for the pawn" - Gallagher) 12 .i.d3 'ii'c6 13 'ii'e2 0-0 gives Black a decisive advantage. The Ryder Gambit is unsound and the reader should be extremely sceptical of any claims to the contrary.

B) 5 lbxf3 e6 This is our repertoire move - the solid Euwe Defence was analysed by the Sth World Champion and former FIDE President Max Euwe. Black prepares to liquidate the centre with a timely ... cS pawn advance. British GM Joe Gallagher recommended this line in Beating the Anti-King's Indians and he deserves full credit for developing several significant improvements for Black. 6i.g5 White also has problems after: a) 6 ..td3 cS (6 ... i.e7 7 i.gS - 6 .i.g5 i.e7 7 ..td3) 7 0-0 cxd4 8 lbe4 lbxe4 9 i.xe4 (Gramlich-Drabke, Internet rpd 200S) 9 .. .fS =t. b) 6 lbeS lbbd7 7 ~f3 i..e7 8 ..tgS 0-0 9 .i.d3 (Decleir-Viaene, Belgium 1988) 9 ... cS and now:

bI) 10 lbxd7 lbxd7 11 'ii'e4 g6 12 ..txe7 'ii'xe7 13 0-0 cxd4 14 ~xd4 ~cS IS 'ii'xcs lbxcS 16 .i.c4 b6 =t. White is a pawn down in the endgame. b2) 10 ~h3 g6 11 lbxd7 lbxd7 12 ..txe7 (12 i.h6 Ue8 =t) 12 ... 'ii'xe7 13 dxcS lbxcs 140-0 eS +. White has insufficient compensation for the pawn. 6....i.e7 (D)

W

7 'ii'd2 White has also tried the immediate 7 ..td3, when Black has two good options: a) 7 ... cS 8 dxcS 'ii'aS (8 ... ..txcS 9 ~e2 lbbd7 100-0-0 0-0 11 lbe4 gives White compensation for the pawn) 90-0 'ii'xcS+ 10 'iti>hl lbbd7 11 'ii'el (the queen-lift is too ambitious - White should prefer the more restrained 11 'ii'e2!? 0-0 12 lbe4 'ii'c7 13 l:tadl, with marginal compensation for the pawn) l1...a6 12 'ii'h4 'ii'b4! (this is an important defensive technique - the lateral queen opposition compels White to sacrifice another pawn) 13 lbd4 'ii'xb2 14 lbce2 lbeS (14 ... lbcs is also strong) IS a4 ~b6 16 l:txf6 and then: al) 16 ... lbxd3? 17 1:[ffl f6 18 i.e3 lbeS (18 ... lbcS? 19 lbb3 'ii'c6 {19 ... eS 20 'ii'f2 costs Black a piece} 20 ..txcS ..txcS 21 'ii'hS+ 1-0 Sneiders-Breunig, BDG thematic COIT. 1970-1) 19 lbfS ~c7 20 lbxg7+ d8 -+ Gallagher. b) 7 ... lbbd7 8 0-0 (8 'ii'd2 cS 9 0-0-0 cxd4 10 lbxd4 lbcs is advantageous for Black) 8... cS 9 dxcS lbxcs 10 .i.bS+ .i.d7 and here:

BLACKMAR-DIEMER GAMBIT:

b1) 11 iLxf6 iLxf6 12 'iVe2 (Lane quotes Leisebein's evaluation of equality here, whereas Gallagher points out that "White is completely lost!") 12 ... 'iVb6 13 .l:!.f2 0-0 -+. White does not have any compensation for the pawn. b2) 11 'iVe2 'iVb6 12 iLe3 (or 12 i.xd7+ ttJcxd7+ 13 iLe3 iLcs 14 iLxcs 'iVxcS+ IS 'it>h1 0-0 -+) 12 ... i.xbS 13 ttJxbS a6 14 ttJbd4 (ErtelSchuh, ICCF corr. 1998) 14 ... 'iVxb2 IS ttJfS i.f8 16 iLd4 'iWbS -+. 7... 0-08 i.d3 c5 9 'iVf4 White's queen continues her journey to the optimal h4-square - the trip comes at the high cost of three tempi. 9•.. cxd410'iWh4 (D) Weaker alternatives: a) 10 ttJxd4 ttJhS and now: a1) 11 i.xe7 ttJxf4 12 i.xd8 ~xd8 and Black wins. a2) 11 iVh4 i.xgS 12 'iVxhS g6 13 iVg4 eS and Black wins - Gallagher. a3) 11 'iVe4 fS 12 i.xe7 fxe4 13 i.xd8 exd3 14 i.gS dxc2 IS ttJxc2 ttJc6 + S.Gordon-Cody, corr. 1992. Black has a solid extra pawn. b) 10 0-0-0 dxc3 11 i.xh7+ ttJxh7 12 .l:!.xd8 cxb2+ 13 'it>xb2 i.xd8 14 i.xd8 .l:!.xd8 IS 'iVc7 (Brotherton-Barber, corr. 1992) lS ... .l:!.f8 is winning for Black as he has too many pieces for the queen. c) 10 ttJe4 ttJdS! 11 1lVh4 fS (1l...i.xgS 12 ttJexgS 'iVaS+ 13 'it>e2 h6 +Gallagher) 12 i.xe7 ttJxe7 13 ttJegS h6 14 ttJh3 ttJec6 is winning for Black.

B

1 d4 d5 2 e4

157

Now: a) 1O... h6?! (this is Black's least appealing option, but it is instructive to examine the move in order to gauge White's attacking chances) 11 .txh6! and then: a1) 1l...gxh6 12 ~xh6 ~a5 13 ttJgS dxc3 140-0 (14 i.h7+ 'it>h8 IS i.d3+ 'it>g8 is a draw) 14 ... ttJbd7 IS .l:!.f3 cxb2 16 .l:!.afl 'iVb6+ 17 'it>h1 b1'iW 18 .l:!.h3! "and mate follows shortly" Gallagher. a2) 1l...dxc3 12 i.xg7! 'it>xg7 13 iVgS+'it>h8 14 'iVh6+ 'it>g8 IS 0-0-0. "White has at least a perpetual and probably more" - Gallagher. b) 1O ... dxc3!? ("a little bit of fantasy" Gallagher) 11 i.xf6 'iVxd3 12 cxd3 i.xf6 13 'iVc4 cxb2 and here: b1) 14 .l:!.d1l:.d8 IS 0-0 b6 16 'iVe4 .l:!.dS 17 d4 ttJc6 18 ttJeS i.b7 19 ttJxc6 i.xc6 and Black had a slight edge in Van der Wijk-Sakai, IECC e-mail 2002. b2) 14 .l:!.b1 ttJc6 IS 0-0 (1S d4 ~d8 16 .l:!.xb2 ttJxd4 "is dangerous for White" - Gallagher) lS ... l1d8 gives Black compensation according to Gallagher. c) 1O ... g6! was recommended by Gallagher. Now White can try: c1) 11 ttJe4 ttJdS "when the possibilities of .. .f6 and ... fS should enable [Black] to defend his kingside with ease" - Gallagher. c2) 11 ttJxd4 (I think this is relatively best) ll...ttJdS (less effective is ll...eS 12 ttJf3 .l:i.e8 13 0-0-0 ttJbd7 14 .l:!.he1, with compensation) 12 .txe71lVxe7 13 'iWxe7 ttJxe7 't. White has insufficient compensation for the pawn. The widespread view among strong players is that any Grandmaster or International Master who even dreams about playing the white side of the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit should wake up and apologize. Despite its almost universal condemnation by titled players, the BDG continues to be strongly supported by a thriving community of Internet User Groups, magazine articles and e-mail theme tournaments. 1 don't know if these passionate gambiteers should be praised or condemned, but 1 do know they should be left alone.

Index of Variations Chapter Guide d4 1 2 c4 2 e4 - Chapter 19 2 e3 liJf6 3 .i.d3 - Chapter 18 2 .i.f4 - Chapter 14 2liJc3 liJf6 3 .i.g5 - Chapter 13 2 .i.g5 - Chapter 12 2liJf3 liJf6 and now: a) 3 e3 - Chapter 17 b) 3 .i.g5 - Chapter 16 c) 3 g3 - Chapter 15 d) 3 ..tf4 - Chapter 14 2 liJf3 3 3 liJc3 - Chapter 1 3 e3 - Chapter 1 3 e4 - Chapter 2 3 4 e3 4 ~a4+ - Chapter 3 4liJc3 - Chapter 4 4 ..txc4 5 6 0-0 6 'ilYe2 - Chapter 5 6 ~e2 7 7 liJbd2 - Chapter 6 7 liJc3 - Chapter 6 7 a3 - Chapter 6 7 b3 - Chapter 6 7 e4 - Chapter 6 7 .i.d3 - Chapter 6 7 dxc5 - Chapter 6 7 a4 - Chapter 7 7 ..tb3 - Chapter 8 7 S ..tb3 8 ..td3 - Chapter 9 S Now: 9 a4 - Chapter 10 9l::tdl - Chapter 11

B2: 10 a3 13 d5

dxc4

liJf6

e6 c5

2: Central Variation 1 d4 d5 2 c4 dxc4 3 e4 14 3 .•. e5 4 liJf3 exd4 5 .i.xc4 liJc6 6 0-0 .i.e6 14 A: 7..tb5157.....tc515 Al:Sb415 A2: S~c216 A3: SliJbd2 16 S•.. liJe7 16 A31: 9liJb317 A32: 9liJg5 17 9...'ilVd7 10 liJxe6 ~xe6 11liJb3 'ilVd617 A321: 12 ~g4? 17 A322: 12 ..tf4 18 B: 7 ..txe6 19 7 .••fxe6 S 'ilYb3 ~d7 9 ~xb7 IibS10 ~a6 liJf6 11 4Jbd2 .i.d6 12 ~d3 0-0 20 Bl: 13liJc4 20 B2: 13 h3 20 13.••e5 14liJc4 20 B21: 14... liJb421 B22: 14...'it>h8 21 B3: 13 a3 22 13...liJg4 22 B31: 14 b3 22 B32: 14 h3 23

3: Mannheim Variation a6

b5

..tb7

1: White's Third Move Alternatives 1 d4 d5 2 c4 dxc4 10 A: 3liJc3 10 B: 3 e3 11 3... e5 4 .i.xc4 exd4 5 exd4 ..td6 6liJf3 liJf6 7 0-0 0-0 S liJc3 liJc6 9 h3 h6 12 Bl: 10 ~c2 13

1 d4 d5 2 c4 dxc4 3 liJf3 liJf6 4 'ii'a4+ 24 4•.• liJc6 5 liJc3 liJd5 24 A: 6~xc424 AI: 6...liJdb4 24 A2: 6 .•.liJb6 25 7 'iYb3 .i.g4 S d5 .i.xf3 9 gxf3 liJd4 10 'ilYd1 e5 11 e3liJf5 12 f425 A21: 12... exf425 A22: 12 ... .i.d6 26 B: 6 e4 26 6...liJb6 7 'iVd1 ..tg4 S d5liJe5 26 Bl: 9 'ilYd4?! 26 B2: 9 ..tf4 27 B21: 9 ... liJg6 27 B22: 9 ... ..txf3!? 27

4: Two Knights Variation 1 d4 d5 2 c4 dxc4 3 liJf3 liJf6 4liJc3 28 4 ..•a6 5 e4 b5 6 e5 liJd5 7 a4 28 A: 7••. e6 29 S axb5liJb6 29 AI: 9 bxa6 29 A2: 9 .i.e2 29 A3: 9 ..te3 30 B: 7 ...liJxc3 30 S bxc3 ~d5 9 g3 .i.b7 10 .i.g2 ~d7 30 Bl: 11liJh4 31 B2: 11 e6!? 31

INDEX OF VARIATIONS

B3: 11 ~a3 32 11 ...g6 32 B31: 12h433 B311: 12... i.g7 33 B312: 12...~d5!? 34 B32: 120-0 35 12... ~g7 13 .l:!.e1 0-035 B32I: 14 e6 35 B322: 14 ~c5 36 14•.• ~d5 15 tbg5 36 B322I: 15 ... tbc6 36 B3222: 15 ... ~xg2 37

5: Furman Variation 1 d4 d5 2 c4 dxc4 3 tbf3 tbf6 4 e3 e6 5 i.xc4 c5 38 6 ~e2 a6 7 dxc5 ~xc5 38 A: S e4 38 S••. b5 38 AI: 9 i.d3 38 A2: 9 ~b3 39 9... ~b7 10 tbbd2 tbc6 39 A21: 11 e5?! 39 A22: 11 0-0 40 B: S 0-0 39 S.•. tbc6 9 e4 b5 40 Bl: 10 e5!? 40 B2: 10 ~b3 4110 ... tbd4! 11 tbxd4 ~xd4 41 B21: 12 tbc3 41 B22: 12 i.e3 42

6: Classical Variation: White's Seventh Move Alternatives 1 d4 d5 2 c4 dxc4 3 tbf3 tbf6 4 e3 e6 5 ~xc4 c5 6 0-0 a6 43 A: 7 tbbd243 B: 7 tbc344 C: 7 a3 45 7 .•. b5 S i.a2 i.b7 9 tbc3 tbbd7 10-Ue1 ~e711 e445 CI: Il...b445 C2: ll...cxd4 46 D: 7b346 Dl: 7 ... cxd446 D2: 7 ... tbbd7 47 E: 7 e4 48 7 ••. b5! S ~d3 i.b7 48 EI: 9 ~g5 49 E2: 9 e5 49 F: 7 ~d3 51 7...tbbd7 Sl:te151 Fl: 8 ... b6 52 F2: 8 ... b5 52 G: 7 dxc5 54 Gl: 7 .•. i.xc5 55 G2: 7 .. :iYxdl 56 Sl:txd1 i.xc5 56 G21: 9 b3 57 9••• tbbd7 10 ~b2 57 G211: 1O ... b5 57 G212: 1O ... b657 G22: 9 tbbd2 58 G221: 9 ... tbbd7 58 G222: 9 ... 0-059

7: Classical Variation: 7 a4 1 d4 d5 2 c4 dxc4 3 tbf3 tbf6 4 e3 e6 5 i.xc4 c5 6 0-0 a6 7 a4 60 7... tbc6 S 'iYe2 cxd4 9l:td1 i.e7 10

159

exd4 0-0 11 tbc3 60 A: 11 ...tbb4 61 AI: 12 ~g5 61 All: 12••• ~d7 61 AlII: 13d561 A1l2: 13 tbe5 62 13.. .l:tcS 62 A1l21: 14 ~el 63 A1122: 14 ~b3 64 A 12: 12...tbfd5 64 AI3: 12...l::teS 65 A2: 12 tbe5 65 A2I: 12 ... tbfd5 65 A22: 12...~d7 66 B: 11 ...tbd5 67 BI: 12 i.d3 67 B2: 12 ~e4 68 B3: 12 tbe5 69 B4: 12 i.b3 69 12...l:teS 69 B4I: 13 tbe5 69 B42: 13 h4!? 70 13.•• tbcb4 14 h5 b6 70 B421: 15 tbxd5 70 B422: 15 tbe5 71

8: Classical Variation: 7 iLb3 1 d4 d5 2 c4 dxc4 3 tbf3 tbf6 4 e3 e6 5 i.xc4 c5 6 0-0 a67 i.b3 72 7... b5 S a4 b4 72 A: 9 e4!? 73 B: 9 tbbd2 75 9•.• ~b7 10 e4 75 B 1: 10...i.e7 75 B2: 10•.• cxd4 7611 e5 tbfd7 12 tbc4 76 B2I: 12..•tbc5 77 B22: 12...tbc6 78 13 i.g5 Wlic7 141:tc1 tbc5 15 ~a2h6 78 B22I: 16 ~f4 78 B222: 16 i.h4 79

9: Classical Variation: 7 'iVe2 b5 8

i..d3 1 d4 d5 2 c4 dxc4 3 tbf3 tbf6 4 e3 e6 5 ~xc4 c5 6 0-0 a6 7 ~e2 b5 S ~d3 80 S••• cxd4 9 exd4 80 A: 9 ...i.b7 80 B: 9 ... ~e7 8110 a4 bxa411l:txa4 ~b7 12 tbc3 0-0 13 ~g5 tbc6 14 -Ud1 82 Bl: 14... tbd5 83 B2: 14... a5 84

10: Classical Variation: 7 'iVe2 b5 8 .tb3 .tb 7 9 a4 1 d4 d5 2 c4 dxc4 3 tbf3 tbf6 4 e3 e6 5 i.xc4 c5 6 0-0 a6 7 ~e2 b5 S ~b3 ~b7 9 a4 85 A: 9••. tbbd7 85 AI: 10 J:!.d186 A2: 10 axb5 8610.••axb5 11 J:!.xaS ~xaS 12 tbc3 b413 tbb5 86 A21: 13•.• ~xf3!? 86

160

How TO BEAT

A22: 13•. :i!Vb888 14 e4 cxd4 IS tUbxd4 88 A221: IS ... iLcs 89 A222: Is ... iLd6 89. B: 9•.• b4 90 Bl: 10 tUbd2 90 B2: 10 .!:.dl 91

11: Classical Variation: 7 'iUe2 bS 8 ~b3 iLb7 9 liIdl 1 d4 dS 2 c4 dxc4 3 tUf3 tUf6 4 e3 e6 S iLxc4 cS 6 0-0 a6 7 'ilfe2 bS 8 iLb3 iLb7 9 ~d1 949... tUbd7 10 tUc3 94 A: 10...fic7 95 AI: 11 e495 A2: II dS 96 B: 10.. :iVb8 96 C: 10...fib698 C 1: 11 a4 99 11 ... c4 12 .ii.c2 b4 13 as "Wic7 14 tUa4 l:tc899 Cll: IS e4 99 C12: IS tUb6!? 100 C2: 11 dS 101

12: Hodgson Attack: 1 d4 dS 2 iLgS I d4 dS 2 iLgS 103 2••. h6 3 iLh4 c6103 A: 4 tUf3 104 4•.•fib6 104 AI: S b3 104 A2:S'ilVcll05 B: 4 e3 106 4 .•. ~b6 106 B1: S ~c1 106 Bll: S... eS 107 B12: S... iLfS 108 B2: S b3 109 B21: S... eS 109 B22: S... iLfS 110

13: Veresov Opening: 1 d4 dS 2 ct:Jc3 ct:Jf63 iLgS 1 d4 dS 2 tUc3 tUf6 3 iLgS 112 3•.• tUbd7 112 A: 4e3113 B: 4 f3 114 4 .•.c6 S e4 dxe4 6 fxe4 eS 7 dxeS ~aS 115 Bl: 8 exf6115 B2: 8 iLxf6116 C: 4 tUf3 117 4 .•• h6 S iLh4 e6 6 e4 gS 7 .ii.g3 tUxe4 8 tUxe4 dxe4 119 Cl: 9 tUeS 119 9... .ii.g7 10 h4 tUxeS 11 .ii.xeS .ii.xeS 12 dxeS .ii.d7 13 ~g4 119 Cll: 13...~e7 120 C12: 13 ... .ii.c6 120 C2: 9 tUd2121 9•...ii.g710 h4 .ii.xd411 c3 iLeS 122 C21: 12 tUxe4 122 C22: 12 iLxeS 123 12... tUxeS 13 'ilfa4+ iLd7 123

1 d4

C221: 14 'iYxe4123 C222: 14 'ilVd4!? 123

14: London System: 1 d4 dS 2 ct:Jf3 ct:Jf63 i.f4 I d4 dS 2 tUf3 (2 iLf4 125) 2... tUf6 3 iLf4 125 3 ••. cS 4 e3 tUc6 S c3 ~b6 6 ~b3 c4 127 A: 7~xb6128 B: 7 ~c2 129 7 •.• iLfS 8 'i/Vc1 e6 9 tUbd2129 Bl: 9 ... h6129 B2: 9 ... ~d8 130 B3: 9 ... iLe7 130

15: King's Fianchetto: 1 d4 dS 2 ct:Jf3 ct:Jf6 3 g3 1 d4 dS 2 tUf3 tUf6 3 g3 132 3 ..•c6 4 iLg2 iLg4 S 0-0 tUbd7 6 tUbd2 e6 7 l:te1 iLe7 8 e4 dxe4 9 tUxe4 0-0 10 c3 133 A: 1O ... .l:!.e8133 B: 1O ... "Wib6134

16: Torre Attack: 1 d4 dS 2 ct:Jf3 ct:Jf6 3 iLgS I d4 dS 2 tUf3 tUf6 3 iLgS 136 3••. tUe4 136 A: 4 iLh4136 B: 4 iLf4138

17: Colle System: 1 d4 dS 2 ct:Jf3 ct:Jf6 3 e3 1 d4 dS 2 tUf3 tUf6 3 e3 141 3.•. e6 4 iLd3 cS 141 A: S b3141 B: S c3 143 S.•. tUc6 6 tUbd2 iLd6 7 0-0 0-0143 Bl: 8l:te1144 B2: 8 dxcS 145 8••..ii.xcs 9 e4 VJlic7 145 B21: 10 exdS 145 B22: 10 ~e2 14710.•. h6 147 B221: 11 eS 148 B222: 11 h3 149

18: Stonewall Attack: 1 d4 dS 2 e3 ct:Jf63 i.d3 I d4 dS 2 e3 tUf6 152 3 .td3 152 3 ...cS 4 c3 tUc6 S f4 152 5 ... .tg4 6 tUf3 e6 7 0-0 .td6 153

19: Blackmar-Diemer Gambit: 1 d4 dS 2 e4 1 d4 d5 2 e4 155 2 ...dxe4 3 tUc3 tUf6 4 f3 exf3 155 A: S "Wixf3? 155

B: S tUxf3 156