Winning with the Trompowsky (Batsford Chess Book)

Winning with the Trompowsky

Peter Wells

B.T. Batsford Ltd, London

@

First published in 2003 © Peter Wells 2003 ISBN 0 7 1 34 8795 X British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, by any means, without prior permission of the publisher. Printed in Great Britain by Creative Print and Design (Wales), Ebbw Vale for the publishers, B.T. Batsford Ltd, The Chrysalis Building Bramley Road, London, W I 0 6SP

Distributed in the United States and Canada by Sterling Publishing Co., 387 Park Avenue South, New York, NY 1 00 1 6, USA

To Melanie A member of ChrysalifBookS pic A BATSFORD CHESS BOOK

Contents Annotated Bibliography

4

Introduction

5

1

2...lLle4 Introduction and Minor Lines

13

2

2 ...lLle4 3 i.f4 c5 4 f3 'iVa5+ 5 c3 lLlf6 The Attacking Repertoire with 6d5!?

23

3

2... lLle4 3 .tf4 c5 4 f3 �a5+ 5 c3 lLlf6

4

The Solid Repertoire with 6lLld2

50

2...lLle4 3 i.f4 d5

74

Introduction and the Attacking Repertoire with 4 f3 5

2...lLle4 3 .tf4 d5

91

The Solid Repertoire with 4 e3!? 6

2...c5

120

Introduction and the Solid Repertoire with 3 j,xf6 7

2...c5

141

The Attacking Repertoire with 3 d5!?

8

2...e63 e4!?

173

9

2...d5 Introduction and 3 i.xf6

209

2...g6and Other Minor 2nd Moves

232

Index of Main Variations

239

Index of Games

240

10

Annotated Bibliography I have made considerable use of the customary general sources: ChessBase's MegaBase 2003 with its more than 2,300,000 games, including ChessBase Magazines up to CBM 91.

Informators 1 -84 The Week in Chess 1 -428. In addition I have used 5 principal specialised Trompowsky sources: 1.

Wolfgang

Gerstner.

Der Damen­

Trompowsky-AngrifJ im bauernspiel Schach-Profi-Verlag -

Dreier, 1 99 5 . This i s now a little dated, but an immensely detailed and painstaking piece of work based on the huge practical experience of the author. There were some lines, relatively neglected by the other books for which this was invaluable. 2 . Julian Hodgson. Secrets of the Trompovsky - Hodgson Enterprises,

1 997. This is of course also an invaluable source. Talk about the practical experience of the author! He is honest and entertaining, although at times his practical approach, guiding rather than risking too much detail, goes slightly too far. Also of course, the

book only covers 2 . . .'=tJe4 . It is a shame that Volume 2 never appeared. 3.

Joe

Trompowsky

-

Gallagher. The The Chess Press,

1 99 8 . Trying t o cover the whole opening in around 1 40 pages, the result is inevitably a little thin in places, but Joe is one of my favourite chess authors and always a good read. 4.

Rainer

Trompowsky

The Knaak. (CD)

Attack

ChessBase 1 99 8 . Also contains several thoughtful contributions from another strong Grandmaster practitioner.

5. Jesus De la Villa. EI Ataque EvaAjedrez 200 1 . My reservation about this is that it is a repertoire book with at times, a strangely restrictive repertoire. The ' attacking repertoire ' in Chapter 2 of my book is omitted, and the slightly obscure 3 tZJc3 is recommended against 2 . . . c5 (fortunately this can transpose to the Vaganian Gambit of which his coverage is helpful) . However, this is a relatively recent book, also written by a long-time Trompowsky player - indeed one of those who inspired Julian ' s interest in the opening and is in places impressively generous with original analysis .

Trompowsky

-

Introduction

'Knights before Bishops ' -

Emanuel Lasker.

1. Why another book on the 'non-theoretical' Trompowsky?

Without wanting to put words into the mouths of my readers, I can imagine a possible reaction along the lines of: "Why do we need a third book on the Tromp in the space of six years? After all, isn 't the whole idea of the thing that it is supposed to be 'non-theoretical?" Part of the reason is in recognition of a few realities. Success breeds success and one consequence of a successful chess opening, like it or not, is that it generates imitators . They in tum generate lots of games, and ipso jacto, a body of that dreaded impostor ' theory ' . Admittedly books can generate a bit of theory too, but even the most diligent and original authors can

hardly compete, for sheer volume, with the wealth of modem day practice. Statistics are not guaranteed to ensure everybody ' s trust these days, and I will endeavour to use them sparingly, but my database alone reveals around 7,500 new games played in the Tromp since 1 998, the date of the latest publication on the subj ect in the English language. That is a lot of chess, and it can reasonably be argued (at least, I might attempt to argue it) that the author is performing a valuable service, providing a means for normal balanced human beings to do continued battle with the database fanatics in this increasingly technological age. So, is it time for the hunters after originality to look elsewhere? The Tromp was fun, but has it now had its day, killed by the chess equivalent of ' commercialisation' ? T o m y mind, this i s categorically not the case. In any case, I think this 'avoiding theory ' thing needs a bit of clarification. I would say without hesitation that Julian Hodgson ' s long-time espousal o f and success with the Trompovsky has not just been a very valuable (and often wonderfully entertaining) creative exercise in itself, but also part of a of fine tradition English experimentation in the opening. The desire to seek new paths, and even on occasions to make a little tasteful

6 Introduction gesture of defiance against fashion and the ' theory establishment' has also been evident in the efforts of such well-rounded English talents as Jonathan Speelman, Mark Hebden, Nigel Short and above all the late, great and deeply missed Tony Miles. I may myself be positioned clearly in many peopl e ' s mind as in the ' theoretical camp ' , but I still hugely appreciate the positive influence of these players (and there are many others I could mention too) and I take my hat off to them and their daring approach. However, having said that, I do also believe that theory has its place. Although we do not all understand chess to the highest peak of perfection, and furthermore in many spheres of art and culture I reckon popularity is a pretty poor proxy for anything much, I do also believe that in general the popularity of chess openings does, over time, bear a reasonable relationship to their obj ective merits. Of course, it is not difficult to point to counter­ examples and some aberrations in which ' chess fashion' goes mad and objective merit is propelled from the window with great force, but I do not think it is really in doubt that the attempt to side-step theory on a permanent basis does require some sacrifice in terms of the obj ective merit of the openings we play. There is simply so much chess played these days that even openings which are not ' the very best' are difficult to play without a certain level of knowledge. For this reason the ' avoidance of theory' argument nowadays should really focus on two main areas, boiling down to the following advice:

1) Aim for pOSItIons in which understanding and an awareness of typical plans take precedence over knowledge of specific moves and variations. The latter can change by the week, but in fact the number of positions in which ignorance of the very latest wrinkles will spell disaster is probably rather smaller than the purveyors of theoretical journals would (for reasons of obvious economics ! ) have us believe. 2) Be the one who dictates the play. Put your personal stamp on proceedings at the earliest possible moment and do not permit your opponent the luxury of playing on ' his territory ' . It is here that the Trompowsky really comes into its own. You cannot ask for much more than an opening that, after the initial move 1 d4, can be played against Black' s clearly most popular response, and in addition is defined as early as move two . First of all, the mass of theory of the Nimzol Queen ' s Indian, King ' s Indian, Grunfeld, Benoni and so on is avoided. Secondly even in these times where the Tromp is finally treated with something approx­ imating to the respect it deserves and the 'underestimation dividend ' which certainly was available to the pioneers of the opening (at least at higher levels) is therefore no longer really in evidence, it is rare indeed to find someone playing Black who will have srudied the intricacies of the Tromp with the same intensity that he has devoted to the mastery of his pet Indian defence. So in this sense, the opening, while inevitably more ' theoretical ' than it used to be, still has great value to the player seeking to avoid a heavy theoretical tussle. Statistics suggest that a

Introduction 7 full-time ' Tromper' will get the opening in little short of 60% of his White games, and it will not normally take a vast amount of work (I would heartily and dispassionately recommend reading this book as the best way ! ) to be generally better prepared than your opponents in these games.

2. Some more good reasons for playing the Tromp hope I have shown that the avoidance of excessive theory, at least in the sense outlined above remains a powerful incentive t � consider playing this opening. However, there are others : Of course, some ' occasional ' exponents simply play the Tromp largely with surprise value in mind. This is a very valuable element in any armoury in the computer age. Playing the same systems again and again, as some very strong players such as the esteemed German Grandmaster Wolfgang Uhlmann basically have managed to do throughout there careers, used to be a viable option but these days it is asking for trouble. In principle, I think the Tromp is ideal for such surprise use. The levels of punch and required theoretical knowledge are both about right. Incidentally . Ra!ner Knaak makes the interesting pomt that the Trompowsky might even be more suited to 1 e4 players seeking an alternative weapon than to main line 1 d4 players. I think this is perhaps rather overstated. It is an advantage of the Tromp that 1 e4 players will feel the comfort of familiarity in many of the structures that arise, but I don't think there is too much danger of 1 d4 players

feeling stranded either. As regards its relationship with other mainstream openings it is interesting that the Trompowsky from time to time comes to bear a strong structural and thematic resemblance - French and Benoni style positions in particular seem to arise, often in quite unexpected contexts - but there are very few actual transpositions . This opening is a fiercely independent beast! One little caveat on ' surprise value ' . Nationality might be a problem, as I discovered when I tried to ascertain from Hichem Hamdouchi whether my second move had scored in this department. "Of course not" he replied. "The English are always playing the Trompowsky against me" ! Another advantage also relates to my comments above. Whilst it is true that the Trompowsky can be regarded as notable for the extraordinary range of positions to which it can give rise (Joe Gallagher effectively makes this point in the introduction to his book, presenting a series of positions bearing striking resemblance to respectively the Sicilian, the French, the Benoni, the English and the Blackmar-Diemer gambit which in fact all come from the Tromp) there are not only a very small number of direct trans­ positions to worry about, there is also a good deal of choice in the type of positions reached. See '3 ' below, for more on this point. I suppose there must be some bad reasons for playing the Tromp too. ' Don 't like bishops very much' is probably one of the worst, although I would say that a healthy respect for the merits of knights and an aptitude for handling them IS

8 Introduction probably actually rather a good one . The willingness of Trompowsky players to cede the bishop pair is even more sharply into focus since 2 . . . ctJe4 3 .l1.f4 dS 4 e3 ! ?

with the intention in many cases to play �d3 and .l1.xe4 has come to the fore. Should I summarise then by saying in good old hackneyed style that ' The Trompowsky has something to offer to players of all styles ' ? Quite aside from the cliche element, I have some mixed feelings about this one. Read on . . .

3 . A Flexible Repertoire Book Despite the considerable output of literature on the opening these days the different types of books on offer seem basically to be the product of two decisions by the author: Firstly, whether to aim for comprehensive coverage or on the other hand, to look at the opening specifically from one side ' s point of view, to select a repertoire and to provide only the required knowledge for adopting this (the latter describing the Classic Repertoire book) . Secondly, whether to present just 'theory' per se, or to place this in

the context of a collection of annotated complete games. I have been in practice rather an agnostic on the second issue, but this is my first stab at a repertoire book. On both dimensions, each system seems to have plusses and minuses . Complete games can be very useful for seeing plans and strategies through to their logical conclusion, but not all games fit this ideal, and it is incumbent on the author to employ ruthless brevity when their relevance is up. Repertoire books can be efficient in weeding out unnecessary clutter, but advocacy of an opening is a task which demands a measure of responsibility. It is necessary to be reasonably objective in one ' s bias, so to speak. There are certainly some openings where I simply wouldn 't feel comfortable with the task of promotion. Especially when the tag 'Winning with' is added on in conjunction with some lousy variation the author has an unenviable task indeed. However, while I certainly don 't have such problems here, I think there are still serious issues and it is these I have attempted to address by seeking to take the best from each model . I am fortunate here to have a large amount of space with which to put together a repertoire book. This I hope will enable me to avoid the following familiar scenario: The author, having scored his cliche points by declaring the opening ' s appeal t o players o f all styles then proceeds to construct a repertoire which so well reflects this admirable diversity, it pretty much ensures that players with anything other than the most well-rounded versatility will feel distinctly tentative about parts of it. In short, I hope to circumvent

Introduction 9 these difficulties by offering choices, and clearly labelled choices at that. In each of the main lines 2 . tDe4 and 2 . . . c5 - I will offer a selection of lines deliberately earmarked to cater for those seeking either a ' solid' or an ' attacking ' repertoire respectively. How else could I really hope with a clear conscience to include positions (both arising from 2 . . c5) such as: -

.

may sometimes be no way out. Hence, for example, still with 2 . . c5, the following position .

.

.

and

m the same repertoire book. Of course, life is in reality not susceptible of quite such neat compartmentalisation. Firstly, even having dictated the play at move two we cannot always entirely control the way it develops. If the opponent wants to complicate, there

finds itself somewhat incongru­ ously placed in the ' solid repertoire ' ! What can I say? If the possibility of excitement is to be ruled out altogether maybe try 2 c3 ! ? Equally, people' s styles are not really quite so easy to pigeonhole either, as many who have sought to bamboozle the likes of Karpov or Andersson in a tactical melee have found to their cost. Some might criticise the whole concept, but I think the practical advantages definitely outweigh the blurred edges and definitional grey areas. It goes without saying that the reader may opt to mix and match a repertoire from the various options, or switch back and forth within a section according to mood, and they can probably pat themselves on the back that their style will broaden as a consequence. Again Julian Hodgson provides a model . The lines which I will offer as ' solid' and ' attacking ' respectively against 2 . . tDe4 and 3 . . . c5 for example have both been enthusiastically employed by the world's leading Trompowsky player. It is true he has a well.

10

Introduction

rounded style, but it is also undeniable that this flexibility has made him much tougher to prepare for, and generally a much more difficult opponent. There are also instances where I will not offer a choice. The final three Chapters seem less susceptible to this stylistic dichotomy and since there is a lot of ground to cover, I have compromised at this level . This has little cost in Chapter 1 0 for example. After 2 . . . g6 I simply think there is little doubt about White ' s 'best' course o f action:- implement the ' Trompowsky threat' with 3 ..txf6, occupy the centre with 4 c4 and then play on the queenside combining the fiancheUoed king' s bishop with an advance of the b-pawn. This is tried and tested, and above all logical, and the choice of most leading Trompowsky players. In a sense it is a 'positional ' solution, but those who play the Trompowsky to feed their passion for wild, irrational positions may just have to grin and bear it. The position is by no means dull either. In any case this highlights an important point worth making in this regard. Almost no-one disputes the fun and games which can confidently be anticipated in the case of 2 . . . lLle4 and 2 . . . c5. However, after various other moves, whilst there is no obligation whatever to follow through the ' threat' of inflicting damage on Black's structure by capturing on f6 (I don't think you should exactly be accused of 'bluffing' if you opt for a less critical course ! ) it is quite important to the bite of the Trompowsky that we are not bluffing collectively. The repertoire will be based upon eschewing any such 'bluff' and it is in my view of

the greatest importance that the basic techniques of playing with the knight pair against Black' s bishops and compromised structure be learned. They are in any case instructive in general chess terms, not exclusively applicable within the Trompowsky setting. Again I want to stress that flexibility is the hallmark of what I am trying to do . In the interesting case of 2 . . . e6 while I will briefly consider alternatives, my treatment of the main line position arising after 3 e4 h6 4 ..txf6 �xf6

will again be rather different. In this fascinating variation, itself distinctive in that White cedes the for pair bishop dynamic (development/occupation of the centre) rather than structural compensation, the problem is quite the opposite of that with 2 . . . g6 . If I knew what was the best course, I might try to lay down the law, but while I have a pretty good idea of how White would like to proceed in principle, there are a number of specific inconveniences (notably 5 . . . d5 in reply to 5 c3 ; and 5 . . . ..th4 in reply to 5 lLlc3) which have thrown White ' s best course up for grabs. My treatment of this will still be in a repertoire book style, but it

Introduction 1 1 will be much more experimental, hopefully drawing the reader into the process of trying to sort out the way forward. One more note on the 'flexibility ' in the repertoire. I will in places give some coverage of lines which I do not recommend, generally because I think that they are useful aides to a wider understanding of more important lines . However, I will also label clearly where I do not feel the variation is honestly recommendable. I have introduced one further device which I hope will assist with the efficient presentation of material . Since my target audience is not primarily grandmasters (although I hope they will find material of value here too), I intend to put a primary emphasis on explanation, the description of plans and ideas etc . It is to this end that I have opted primarily for the approach of including complete games. However, again I do not want to be too dogmatic. I am less convinced of the merits of this approach where heavy theoretical sections, those particularly including extensive original analysis are concerned. These will be the exception here, but there will be a few, and for this reason I will include three ' Theoretical Articles ' in amidst the games, mainly for highly critical lines (primarily White ' s sharpest gambit lines, where the b2 pawn is sacrificed for attacking chances, and general pri nciples cease to be of any great use) .

4. Some Preliminary Strategic Issues to Bear in Mind One consequence of the genuinely diverse nature of the Trompowsky is that attempts to generalise into a ' strategic introduction' would be rather problematic. Rather I would like to raise very briefly a few questions, and invite the reader to have these in mind and consider them as and when they arise throughout the book. The various Section/Chapter Introductions will discuss them in more detail, but for the moment, just reflect on the following:

Compensation for the bishop pair

1.

Consider in each case when this is structural in nature or dynamic. How the knights can be enhanced, and especially the vexed question of how far to open or close the position to optimise such compensation. See especially the Strategic Introduction to 3 . . . h6 4 Sl.xf6 in Chapter 8 on this question. 2.

Compensation for the b-pawn

Bear in mind that b2 is the central weakness for White in the Trompowsky. Try to assess the basis

on which some b-pawn sacrifices (notably the Vaganian Gambit in Chapter 7) form an intrinsic part of the repertoire, while others (notably 3 . .lbe4 4 Sl.f4 �6 5 liJd2?! also in Chapter 7) just do not make the grade. Above all, always keep the implications of a quick . . . 'i'b6 in mind. .

J2

Introduction Missing the Tromp bishop - dark square weaknesses

3.

It is not just b2. Chapters 6 and 8 will help to get a feel of the potential dark-squared weaknesses that arise in the event that the Trompowsky bishop meets with the exchange which is already implicit in its early sortie. Do not become paranoid about this danger, but try to develop warning antennae which militate against creating any further weakness of the dark squares without very good cause. A

Final Note

No book can include everything, and despite something of a predilection for history in general, I will no doubt be accused of neglect in this area, perhaps with good cause. There have been probably two major periods crucial to the development of this opening. The 1 930s when the Brazilian Octavio Trompowsky fashioned the basic system (a large number of his opponents answered with 2 . . . d5, and the idea of 3 ..txf6 exf6 with a later c2-c4 dates from this time) ; and the period after 1 98 5 when Julian Hodgson was inspired by the efforts of Spanish Trompowsky players, Illescas, De la Villa and Romero Holmes, and thereafter made innumerable contributions which will be felt on almost every page. The number of very strong players who will also appear here is a testimony to the fact that we are now dealing with a major opening system with an ever growing reputation. Playing the Trompowsky

is fun. If reading this book helps you to add to the collection of entertaining, original Trompowsky games then it will have been worthwhile. Thanks are due to a few people. On the technical chess side, I am grateful to Luke McShane, who generously provided me with notes to his game with Wojtaszek in Chapter 2, and with whom I had the pleasure of analysing some other variations when I was his second for the recent World Junior Champion­ ship in India. As usual it was supposed to be me introducing him to new material, but his sharp insightful chess brain meant that a number of interesting ideas and assessments were immediately fired back my way. Thanks are also due to the Batsford team, and Roger Huggins in particular, who got the balance between laissezjaire encourage­ ment and necessary cajoling just about right. Also to Malcolm Pein who initially discussed the idea of the book with me, and who in a recent Daily Telegraph column when discussing the Trompowsky wondered "is there any defence to it" which (although there obviously is not ! ) can only be good publicity. On a more personal note, I would like to thank my parents whose support and on many occasions hospitality during the preparation of this book went well beyond the call of duty. Last, but certainly not least, I would like to thank Melanie Buckley who helps in so many ways and to whom this book is dedicated.

Chapter 1

-

2

. . .

tiJe4

Introduction and Minor Lines 2 .tbe4!? ..

-

Introduction

It is not too difficult to account for the popularity of 2 . . . l'Lle4. Black avoids the damage to his structure which his opponent has the option of inflicting after most other second move choices . Neither does he suffer the loss of time characteristic of the 2 . . . e6 3 e4 h6 of Chapter 8 . I n reality, of course, there i s a loss of time element to 2 . . . l'Lle4 . Black breaks the classical ' rules ' of opening play and moves his knight a second either before time developing or even preparing to develop any other piece. However, by answering arguable ' attack' with quite indisputable ' counter-attack ' , B lack virtually ensures that his adversary will have to mirror that tempo loss, usually with a bishop move, or more eccentrically with 3 h4 ! ?, which, whatever its merits, can hardly boast the enhancement of development near the top of its list.

As I discussed briefly in the introduction, and we shall see more of it, especially in Chapter 2, this all presages a 'balance of lost tempi' which can become quite a complex and radical business. Extraordinary variations ensue in which the players continue to trade ' time loss ' apparently with reckless abandon. These would not only have shocked the classicists, but still raise a few eyebrows even in today ' s more pragmatic and broad-minded times . As for White ' s reply, I strongly believe that 3 i.f4( ! ) is the best move, and to be honest this view is not very controversial these days. This will be the main repertoire recommendation in both its ' solid ' and ' attacking ' incarnations. It will also be the subject of chapters 2 to 5, as well as the remainder of this chapter. Here, my job is really to explain why this is the best move. Well, the best place to start is with 3 iLh4? ! , once the main line, but now rather discredited.

1 4 2 ..tiJe4 Introduction and Minor Lines .

The intentions behind the move are laudable - not least the fact that keeping the e-pawn pinned rather restricts Black's options. I think though that the drawback to the move is quite simple to understand too. 3 .th4 is in essence a poor preparation for combating Black's dark square strategy. The bishop ' s desertion of the queens ide, a charge which purists might indeed level at the Trompowsky as a whole, is here greatly reinforced. That this is a real rather than a merely academic issue will become clear later in chapter 2 . There, with the bishop preferring the f4 square, we shall become acquainted with quite the range of cases in which the weakness of b2 is covered by retreat from f4 to c l . That may be one of the develop­ mental outrages which so shocks the traditionalists, but as I shall hope to explain there are often very good grounds for this retreat. Of the alternative defences of b2, 'ic l often smacks of passivity and may trouble the d-pawn, while the weakening of the dark squares which the move b3 implies may often be more than White ' s position can comfortably stand. However, it is not just on the queenside that the dark squares may fall under a cloud of suspicion. To an extent dark square problems are also from White' s standpoint an almost Trompowsky-wide Achilles heel. Even after 3 .tf4, the move 3 . . . c5 ! ? targets these squares and makes a reasonable shot at it. However, after 3 .th4 ? ! this problem is magnified many times over because, very concretely after the logical and once-popular sequence 3 . . . c5 4 f3 g5 ! 5 fxe4 gxh4, Black has also succeeded in exchanging the Trompowsky bishop.

This account might seem at first a little inconsistent. Surely Black initially embarked on 2 . . . ttJe4 precisely to avoid a trade-off between gaining the bishop pair and suffering pawn weaknesses? Don 't the doubled isolated h-pawns momentous more represent structural harm than the doubled f-pawns which Black went to such trouble to prevent? Well, in isolation maybe, and it was this belief I suppose that Black' s kings ide damage was every bit as important as his opponent' s weaknesses i n the centre that resulted in this being an important line for many years. Gradually though, that assessment has changed. White ' s weakened dark squares in the centre, notably the e3 square which is done no favours at all by the move 4 f3 , have in fact been shown to be a serious problem. The fact that after the further moves 6 e3 .th6 ! White increasingly turned to 7 'itr>f2 ! ?, a developing move only in the very broadest sense of the word, served to highlight these problems. With apologies to 3 .th4 specialists, I have decided that since this is a repertoire book, and since there is a great deal of material now in the main lines crying out for detailed coverage, a further exposition of

2

. . .

why I believe this variation t o be inferior for White would be a bit superfluous . I am confident that a majority of readers will see the logic of this, and hopefully even some 3 .Jth4 players will be persuaded of the merits of the ' other' bishop move.

3 .tf4

-

Introduction

So, after 3 .Jtf4 we can usefully ask ourselves 'How is the battle of tempi unfolding ' ? To recap, Black has made a second move with his knight and virtually forced (with due apologies to the small but committed 3 h4 ! ? crew) White in tum to make a second bishop move. That though, is not the end of the story. Now Black needs to tum his attention to White's intention to establish a classical pawn centre, with gain of time by playing f3 and e4. If Black simply ignores this and proceeds for example in 'Pirc style' with 3 . . . g6 4 f3 lZJf6 5 e4, he may derive some measure of solace from the fact that f4 might not be the absolute square of choice for White ' s bishop in such a structure (e3 feels more natural, although some of that feeling might just be prejudice and crude 'pattern recognition'), but this will certainly not compensate for what is in essence a loss of tempo. Basically White has expended two moves to get his bishop to f4, but Black has taken a full three moves to reach f6 with his knight. Some compensation I suppose for those who will miss the role customarily played by reams of theory in bringing them towards the time-control !

lZJe4 Introduction and Minor Lines 1 5 It is because this outcome is none too satisfactory for Black that his basic choice here is between 3 . . . c5 (The remainder of this chapter and the next two) and 3 . . . d5 (Chapters 4 and 5). It is often (rightly) said that the Trompowsky has the virtue of forcing Black to face unusual problems from the very start. However, when we look at the nature of these moves it is striking that what Black really faces here is quite a familiar decision. He should decide between a dark-square strategy aimed in particular at the square d4, and a light square strategy contesting the e4 square. Sound familiar? Well, consider his defensive choices after the much more ' theoretical ' 2 c4, and you will see that they generally reduce to pretty much these two ! The rest of this Chapter will now deal with introducing 3 . . . c5 by way of the positions which occur when Black simply retreats his knight on move 4 rather than throwing in the more highly regarded 4 . . . 'ia5+( ! ) . Game 1 Adams Leko Cap d'Agde, Rapid 1 996. -

1 d4 lZJf6 2 .Jig5 lZJe4 3 .Jtf4 c5 Every author seems to have a brief word for the rather undeserving 3 . . . lZJc6?! so I shall maintain the tradition. The idea is that 4 d5 can be answered with 4 . . . e5, as so often when White' s bishop i s o n f4 . Again I think White has a pleasant choice between ' taking Black on' with 4 f3 ! ? e5 5 dxe5 g5 when 6 .Jic l looks eminently reasonable - why not invite the opponent to weaken

1 6 2 ..ciJe4 Introduction and Minor Lines .

himself in this way; alternatively 4 e3 and either 5 t!Dd2 or 5 i.d3 look fine. I am not convinced the knight really wants to be on c6 in this case. Hodgson also mentions 3 . . . e6 with the intention of answering 4 f3 with 4 . . . i.d6 5 i.xd6 t!Dxd6 "with a playable position". Well, I suppose it is, although that is the most generous I would go with my assessment. Black would like to follow up with . . . 0-0 and . . . f5 , but normal development with 6 t!Dc3 and preparing to advance the e-pawn in reply to . . . f5 looks quite OK for White too . Of course, if this does not appeal, 4 e3 is very solid, and quite likely to transpose into Chapter 5 after a later . . . d5 by Black. It is often worth bearing in mind that, 3 . . . c5 apart, the move f3 can be weakening and is rarely compulsory. 4 f3(!) 4 d5 is also a serious possibility for those intending to reach the ' attacking' repertoire. It leads to play with much similarity to the main lines of the next chapter, but there are arguments for both sides relating to lines avoided / lines encouraged and so on. My own view is that 4 f3 is preferable here, but in fact I will also cover the position after 4 d5 later in Games 3 6-37 and TA3 . In the case of the 2 . . . c5 move order White, if he wants to play the sharp 2 . . . c5 3 d5 ! ? has more limited choice since after 3 . . . ltJe4 it is difficult but to be sceptical as to the merits of alternatives such as 4 i.c 1 (? ! ) . More of that in Chapter 7 . 4 ltJf6 More popular, probably for good reason, is 4 . . . 'iWa5+, the subject of Chapters 2 and 3 . •..

5 dxc5 ! Clearly best in my view. White aims in most cases for a quasi-Sicilian position in which he is invariably about a tempo to the good compared with standard lines. The reason for this is partly the customary equation : - the knight has taken three moves to reach f6, the bishop only two to reach f4 . Collectively, of course, this represents quite shocking inefficiency ! What an argument for ' cooperative chess ' ! 5 . . JWa5+ Here is the second manifestation of Black's problem. The queen wastes a further tempo to recover the c5 pawn, while White can cover this check in a fashion which promotes his further development without the slightest inconvenience. No wonder Black has looked elsewhere - alternatives here are considered in Game 2 . 6 ltJc3 ? ! Strictly speaking this i s less accurate than 6 1i'd2 ! 'i!xc5 7 e4 etc although many games have also reached the same position in this way. The reason is given in the next note. Another point of possible interest is that with the superior move order after say 7 . . . d6, White can also consider a ' Mar6czy Bind'

2 tDe4 Introduction and Minor Lines 1 7 . . .

approach. For example in Kishnev­ Konietzka, Recklinghausen (op) 1 999 he tried 8 c4 ! ? tDc6 9 tDc3 .ltd7 1 0 l:c 1 'iWa5 1 1 tDd5 �xd2+ 12 'it'xd2 l:tc8 1 3 tDe2 with a reasonable endgame, although personally I think I would have kept queens on - perhaps the immediate 10 tDd5 ! ? in particular was worthy of consideration. However, since the main lines are quite rosy versions of the Sicilian for White, there is no need for this - it is just a question of taste.

positional compensation for the pawn, as in V.Kovacevic-Ftacnik, Hastings 1 982-3 . 7 e4

7 •••g6

'iVxc5? ! Neglecting t o question White' s move order. I t speaks volumes for the relative disregard for Trompowsky theory which I discussed in the introduction that a quality player and theoretical monster like Peter Leko would be unaware of such an important nuance as early as move 6. This would be almost unthinkable in his mainstream Two repertoire. apparently forgotten games from the early 1 980s suggest that after 6 tDc3 e6 ! ? Black has much better chances to equalise e.g. 7 i.d6 tDd5 8 e4 tDxc3 9 'iVd2 b6 1 0 i.xfS I:xfS 1 1 cxb6 axb6 1 2 'iVxc3 'iVxc3+ 1 3 bxc3 i.a6 14 i.d3 tDc6 15 tDe2 tDe5 1 6 'it>d2 tDc4+ 1 7 .ltxc4 i.xc4 with full 6

.. .

Black has tried a large number of set-ups here, of which the ' Dragon' is probably the most popular, not least because with White playing a quick 'iVd2 and 0-0-0, the ' Scheveningen' approach with . . . e6 is quite problematic to arrange. What can be said fairly categorically is that an early .. . e5 has a poor track record, frequently landing Black in difficulties. A case in point was the spectacular Landenbergue-Walther, Swiss (ch) 1 993 which continued 7 . . . d6 8 'iWd2 (interestingly also with 6 tDc3) 8 . . . a6 9 0-0-0 e5?! 10 .lte3 'iVc7 1 1 g4 h6 1 2 h4 i.e6 1 3 .lth3 tDc6 The game bears some resemblance to a Richter-Rauzer, but despite playing . . . e5 ' in one go ' Black is still tempi behind - the standard tempi trade-off between White ' s dark­ square bishop and Black' s king ' s knight i s a tie, but Black's queen also has some history. Time tends to increase in importance in sharp Sicilian structures, and the following breakthrough is, partly in consequence, very powerful.

1 8 2 .tlJ e4 Introduction and Minor Lines . .

1 4 g5 ! hxg5 ? ! 1 5 hxg5 �d7 1 6 g6 ! liJf6 (if 1 6 . . . fxg6 1 7 Sl.xe6 I;Ixh l 1 8 �d5 followed by 1 9 iVg2 is a massacre) 1 7 Sl.xe6 ! l:txh l 1 8 gxf7+ 'it>d8 1 9 Sl.b6 ! a very pleasing finish! 19 . . . iVxb6 20 'iWxd6+ Sl.xd6 2 1 f8='iV+ �e8 22 1:txd6+ ric7 23 �d5+ rib8 24 �xb6 I;Ixg 1 + 25 z:rd 1 1 -0 A very crisp attack indeed ! The blame, however, does not lie at the door of 8 . . . a6 per se. For example 9 0-0-0 (9 �ge2 ! ? �bd7 1 0 Sl.e3 'iVc7 1 1 �d5 �xd5 1 2 exd5 �f6 1 3 0-0-0 b5 14 h4 Sl.b7 1 5 �f4 ':'c8 1 6 'itb 1 g6 1 7 g4 gave White an excellent position where Black lacks any focus for her counter-play in the game S .Ionov­ Umanskaya, St Petersburg (op) 1 994) 9 . . . �bd7 ! ? (not 9 . . . g6? here since 1 0 e5 ! is very powerful) 1 0 �h3 ! ? ( 1 0 g4 ! ?) 1 0 . . . b 5 (in this case with White ' s knight heading to f2 there might have been more of a case for 1 0 . . . e5 ! ?) 1 1 �f2 Sl.b7 1 2 �d3 'iVc7 1 3 g4 .uc8 1 4 h4 e 5 1 5 Sl.h2 �b6 1 6 g5 �c4 1 7 'iVe l �d7 1 8 Sl.h3 �cb6 was Hodgson­ Vyzmanavin, Zaragoza (op) 1 99 3 . You get a certain feeling from Julian' s notes here that he was justly proud of his quite original handling of the position with �h3-f2-d3 , and hence all the more annoyed that he rushed things with 1 9 f4? ! when the patient 1 9 rib 1! and 20 Sl.g 1 would have consolidated his plus. Again White ' s set-up is instructive for the way it almost effortlessly restrains the opponent' s counterplay. 8 'ilVd2 d6 I once (and it will be only once ! ) tried to handle the Black pieces in this line. For some reason I preferred 8 . . . Sl.g7 9 0-0-0 �c6 1 0 .te3 ( 1 0 �b5? ! 0-0 1 1 �c7 1:1b8 1 2 �d5 �xd5 1 3 exd5 �e5 leads

nowhere special, although instead 1 1 Sl.e3 ! iVe5 12 Sl.f4 forces a draw) 1 0 . . .'iVa5 1 1 i.c4 d6 1 2 Sl.h6 (I mention this game mainly because I found this moment instructive. During the game I was pleased to see this, because I felt that the essence of Black's difficulties was development and both of the forthcoming exchanges actually win Black an element of valuable time. I was much more concerned about 1 2 �ge2 ! This i s a very good square in the Dragon when the bishop is occupying the b3-g8 diagonal and I think that White is again simply a tempo or more ahead on standard positions, with very good play)

12 . . . .txh6 ! 1 3 iVxh6 i.e6 ! 1 4 i.xe6 fxe6 1 5 �ge2 ? ! (The plausible looking development 1 5 �h3 can be met with 1 5 . . . .l:i.c8 ! and the customary Dragon exchange sacrifice on c3 is already in the air. Best is probably 1 5 rib l ! ?) 1 5 . . . b5 ! 1 6 'i'g5 �e5 ! 1 7 f4 b4 1 8 fxe5 bxc3 19 �xc3 I;Ib8 ? ! (Letting White off. Instead 1 9 . . . �d7 ! would be very fine for Black) 20 J:[d3 (Missing Black ' s idea. Defending the queen with 20 h4 ! would have forced Black to recapture on e5 with the pawn when he again has some problems) 20 . . . �d7 ! 2 1 .l:i.fl �xe5

2 liJe4 Introduction and Minor Lines 1 9 . . .

22 J:i.g3 h6 ! 2 3 'iVf4 �d7 (and the swung very initiative has dramatically to Black) 24 liJd l l:thc8 25 'iHd2 'ifa6 ! 26 .uf2 liJc4 27 'tWxh6?! 'iY'xa2 0- 1 Povah-Wells, Portsmouth (op) 2002. 9 0-O-0 .ig7 9 . . . liJbd7 ? ! 10 Sl.e3 'ifa5 1 1 �b l .ig7 1 2 g4 liJe5 1 3 g5 liJfd7 1 4 Sl.d4 ! all but forces 1 4 . . . 'if8 since 14 . . . O-O? loses to 1 5 liJd5 , and White ' s advantage is obvious in Dzindzichashvili-Tukmakov, USSR (ch) Leningrad 1 97 1 . In any case though, I assume that 9 . . . llJbd7 is based on the probably false assumption that 9 . . . i.g7 10 e5 is a big problem for Black (see following note) . Interestingly Julian Hodgson also suggested this to be the case, but I don 't think he is right on this occasion as the note below indicates.

10 i.h6 Spectacularly successful though this was on the day, I am not entirely convinced by it - when Black has castled, then by all means, but what is the rush? As I suggested above, 1 0 e5?! liJh5 ! only brought White trouble after 1 1 liJe4 'iY'c6 12 exd6 f5 1 3 liJf2 ( 1 3 dxe7 fxe4 1 4 'iYd8+ cJ;f7 leaves White struggling for a

follow-up) 1 3 . . . 'tWa4 ! II Landenbergue-Maksimenko, Bern (op) 1 994. I would prefer 10 liJge2 ! ? when 10 . . . liJc6 1 1 Sl.e3 'iYa5 1 2 liJd4 (the knight would be very good on e2 with the f1 bishop on b3 , but here the knight is probably better off centralised) reaches a position which could arise if Black essays the unlikely 8 . . . 'tWa5 ? ! in the Dragon. Such a move may have its validity in lines in which White has played Sl.c4-b 3 , but here it looks very suspicious indeed. Oddly this logical approach remains untested. 1 0 . . . 0-0? Sorry, but this really seems to be on the level of ' castling into it' made most famous from the classic game Fischer-Robatsch in the Scandinavian Defence. Here, as there, Black would be much better off exchanging on h6 and then developing his queenside with a view to scrambling his king over there with all possible haste. In this case his position seems quite playable. A poor move even for a rapid game, and a rare occurrence indeed from such a class act as Peter Leko, but again the marketer of the Tromp would have to point out that the opening does have a tendency to put opponents, even top quality ones, into unfamiliar territory ! 1 1 h4 i.e6 1 2 h5! liJxh5 13 Sl.xg7 'ixg7 14 g4 liJf6 1 5 'tWh6+ �g8 1 6 liJge2 ! White ' s attack almost plays itself. The text is much stronger than the rather over-direct 1 6 liJh3 ? since 1 6 . . . .uc8 1 7 liJg5 'tWe3+ would not be so clear. 1 6...'tWf2?

20 2. J?Je4 Introduction and Minor Lines A serious mistake, which loses immediately to a standard motif, but in fact the situation appears to be surprisingly hopeless anyway. De la Villa suggests 1 6 . . .'�Jbd7, but 1 7 g5 ttJh5 1 8 ttJg3 �e3+ 1 9 'it>b l leaves Black with little choice but to cling on by his fingernails with 1 9 . . . ttJdf6, and a more elegant version of the standard break 20 e5 ! dxe5 2 1 ttJxh5 ttJxh5 22 l:l:xh5 gxh5 23 �d3 will see him off.

offers a pawn (which is hardly ever accepted) in order to recapture on c5 and obtain a central majority, form a clear thematic family, and are simplest to treat together.

Position before 5 b6!? . . .

17 eS! Clearing the e4 square. Further resistance is symbolic only. 17 . .. l:l:c8 18 exf6 exf6 19 ttJdS �xdS 20 �xh7+ 'it>f8 2 1 �h8+ 'it>e7 22 �xc8 �xf3 23 l:l:h8 �e3+ 24 Wbl l-0 Game 2 Akopian - B.Socko Cappelle la Grande (open) 1 999 1 d4 ttJf6 2 �gS ttJe4 3 �f4 cS 4 f3 ttJf6 5 dxcS b6 ! ? I hope I will b e forgiven for a slight messing with historical accuracy in the interests of clarity. The actual move order of the game was 5 . . . ttJc6 6 e4 b6 7 ttJc3 bxc5 etc reaching the critical position at move 7. The point though is that the . . . b6 based systems, in which Black

Alternatives here include: a) 5 . . . ttJc6 as we have seen, does not yet fully reveal Black' s intentions. The move can b e employed t o transpose back into the main game as Socko used it here, or can instead be followed up with . . . �a5+ anyway to reach some positions from Game 1 . However, after 6 e4, Black has also tried 6 . . . e5?! although I am a bit sceptical about this. After 7 �e3 b6 8 cxb6 d5 9 exd5 ttJxd5 1 0 �f2 axb6 1 1 �b5 �b7 12 ttJc3 �b4 1 3 ttJge2 0-0 1 4 0-0 ttJxc3 1 5 ttJxc3 Black's compensation is decidedly suspect. Beshukov-Kochetkov, St Petersburg (op) 1 994 . b) 5 . . . ttJa6 actually seems to score quite well for Black, but a small to medium-sized investigation is all that is required to see that this should not be the case. The knight is frequently vulnerable on either c5 or its regular destination e6, as the better handled examples show: 6 e4 ttJxc5 7 ttJc3 g6? ! (7 . . . d6 8 �d2 ttJe6 9 �e3 g6 1 0 g4 �g7 was

2 lbe4 Introduction and Minor Lines 21 . . .

M.Gurevich-Yap, Jurmala 1 9 85, wh en I agree with De la Villa that 1 1 lbge2 followed by lbg3/h4 seems the best way to proceed with the attack, while the knight on e6 looks quite strange here) 8 ..Ile3 ! lbe6 9 eS lbhS 1 0 �d2 �aS 1 1 g4 lbhg7 1 2 0-0-0 'iUxeS 1 3 .i.bS �c7 1 4 lbdS �d8 IS �c3 f6 16 h4 <3;fl 1 7 hS gxhS 18 lbe2 d6 19 ..Ilc4 and Black is in really desperate straits. Beshukov-Shulman, Gausdal 1 994.

6 e4

6 cxb6 'ixb6 7 'ic 1 is possible, and De la Villa makes a reasonable case for it, but my instincts are that after 7 . . . dS Black should have healthy compensation, and since the main line looks promising, I do not want to go there. 6 bxc5 . . .

The alternative 6 . . . e6 looks strange and has only been tried once to my knowledge. White got in rather a pickle after 7 cxb6 �xb6 8 lbd2 dS 9 exdS ..IlcS in Knaak-Kempinski, Bundesliga 1 998, which might be theoretically unclear, but is tricky to handle in pra ctice. It must be right to play 7 ..Ild6 ! instead (just as S . . . e6? ! is well met by 6 ..Ild6 ! ) 7 . . . bxcS 8 lbc3 and I don 't see the point for Black since 8 . . . lbdS ! ? is countered

by 9 4JbS ! while the attempt to simplify with 8 . . . ..Ilxd6 9 'ixd6 'tlVb6 similarly runs into a 1 0 lbbS ! snag. 7 lbc3 lbc6

8 4Jb5 ! ? Once regarded a s a slightly problematic position, it begins to look as if White just has a fairly pleasant choice here. Only 8 eS?! is clearly inferior due to 8 . . . 'iVc7 . The original theory focussed on 8 ..Ilc4 with the game Hodgson-Shirov, Groningen 1 996 taking, unsurpris­ ingly, a very sharp course with 8 . . . g6 9 4JbS ! d6 1 0 eS dxeS 1 1 �xd8+ 'ixd8 when according to Julian himself, 1 2 O-O-O+? lbd7 ! was a mistake, and he should have preferred his original intention to play 1 2 ..IlgS threatening 4Jd6, when 1 2 . . . h6 1 3 ..Ilxf6 exf6 1 4 0-0-0+ gives "great compensation for the pawn". White is certainly doing OK, but 14 . . . ..Iid7 I S ..Ilxfl 4Jd4 ! ? looks playable enough for Black, which could be why Akopian decided to look elsewhere. Incidentally, Julian was worried about 8 . . . d6, believing that White had nothing much, but the game Kasparov-Reinderman, Hoogovens (blitz) 1 999 will probably have eased concern on this point. The solution comes in the

22 2. J i Je4 Introduction and Minor Lines form of a familiar breakthrough 9 e5 ! dxe5 1 0 'iVxd8+ 'It>xd8 1 1 0-0-0+ JLd7 1 2 JLbS ! exf4 l 3 JLxc6 l:tc8 1 4 JLxd7 lLlxd7 1 5 lLlh3 'It>e8 ( 1 S . . . g6? 16 lLlg5 ! ) 1 6 lLlxf4 g6 1 7 'it>b 1 with a very pleasant position for White since the embarrassment of his opponent' s king will be a n enduring source of initiative. There is even a positional option in the shape of 8 lLld5, since 8 . . . lLlxdS 9 exdS is a bit awkward, although the 8 . . . d6 9 lLlxf6+ gxf6 1 0 'iVd2 'iVb6 1 1 b3 fS 1 2 c3 i.g7 of Pomes Marcet - Oms Pallise, Spain (ch), Linares 1 99 8 does not look too bad for Black here, and has probably been judged harshly on account of Black blundering and losing a few moves later. 8 . . . d6 9 e5 ! Yet another incarnation of this now very familiar breakthrough. One advantage of this treatment as we shall see, is that the c4 square is left clear, and this can be very useful when White ' s knight must reposition itself. 9 . . . dxe5 10 'i!Vxd8+ 'It>xd8 1 1 0-0-0+ i.d7 1 2 i.g3 e 6 1 3 lLlh3 White' s treatment is rather patient. He retains the usual arsenal of shots such as lLlg5 (which Black now wisely takes steps to prevent), but also keeps in reserve the manoeuvre lLla3-c4 . This initiative seems particularly durable. 1 3 . . . h6 14 lLla3 lLld5 1 5 i.c4 ! ? 'ic8 I S . . . lLle3 does not help matters since 1 6 l:td3 lLlxc4 1 7 lLlxc4 threatens l:thd 1 and therefore leaves no time to defend the e-pawn, and if 17 . . . lLlh4 then 1 8 l:ta3 ! with the threat of lLlb6 opens a new front.

1 6 1Ihei f6 17 f4 ! lLlc7? After this White recovers his material with a clear positional plus. It must have been better to try 1 7 . . . exf4 ! 1 8 lLlxf4 lLlxf4 1 9 i.xf4 eS, when White still clearly has pressure, but it is not clear to me after 20 i.a6+ 'ic7 (20 . . . 'id8? 2 1 i.b7 ! ) 2 1 lLlbS+ 'It>b6 22 l:i.xd7 J:.d8 ! 23 l:tf7 ! ? 'It>xa6 24 lLlc7+ 'It>b6 2S i.e3 that this does more than provide adequate compensation in a tense struggle. 18 fxe5 f5 1 9 lLlf4 lLle7 20 i.f2 g5 2 1 lLld3 lLled5 22 i.xc5 The most indefensible of Black's weaknesses drops off, and the remainder does not place too many difficulties in White ' s path. 22. . .i.c6 23 i.xfS l:txfS 24 lLlc5 l:i.e8 25 i.b3 lLlb6 26 g3 f4 27 gxf4 28 l:i.f1 lLlcd5 29 l:td4 a5 30 c4 31 �fxf4 a4 32 i.dl J:.a5 33 lLle4 J:te7 34 lLld6+ 'It>c7 35 lLlab5+ i.xb5 36 lLlxb5+ 'It>b7 37 i.f3+ 'It>a6 38 J:.d6 1-0

Chapter 1

-

Conclusion

The main purpose of this Chapter was to set out the main contours of the impending rather weightier material, and to explain why 3 i.f4 and 4 . . . 'iVaS+ both have a strong claim to be regarded as 'best play ' . I hope this will have been convincing. The efficacy of the Sicilian-type positions for White should to an extent be clear from just counting tempi, but the S . . . b6 ! ? of Game 2 does lead to rather more distinctive positions. The key idea is the eS break, and though I am rather agnostic between 8 lLlbS and 8 i.c4, it is clear that Black is under pressure in these positions .

Chapter 2 - 2 ttJe4 3 �f4 c5 4 f3 "if a5+ 5 c3 ttJf6 The Attacking Repertoire with 6 d5 ! ? . . .

Game 3 Rowson - Hadzimanolis 4NCL, Birmingham 200 1

1'3

1 d4 liJf6 2 i.g5 liJe4 3 i.f4 c5 4 'i a5+ ! ?

The most frequently encountered and most respectable move here. The point is partly revealed by comparison with Games 1 -2 . White is all but forced to block the check with his c-pawn, removing the most natural developing square from his knight, and thus rendering at best harmless any attempt to simplify the play with a subsequent dxc 5 . In the bulk of this chapter where White proceeds after 5 c3 liJf6 with 6 d5 the impact of the move c3 is also significant. In the Schmid Benoni structure under consideration in this game it is by no means all bad (see the lengthy note to Black's 6th move), but it creates complications in lines where Black follows up

with 6 . . . 'ib6, not least by virtually ruling out any sacrifice of the b-pawn since the loss of the c-pawn would generally follow. 5 c3 liJf6 6 d5 d6 Since it is easy to get lost in the tense theoretical battles which take place after 6 . . ."iWb6 7 i.c 1 e6, I will endeavour at all stages of this chapter to give full coverage to Black' s attempts to just 'play the position' . Why in other words should he get involved in a theoretical tussle at all? What has White achieved if his opponent just reverts back to simple chess with . . . d6/g6 and so on?

This is a position which cries out for explanation in comparative terms, but is at the same time not so easily susceptible to it. The structure (once White follows up with e4) is faintly suggestive of a Schmid Benoni ( 1 d4 liJf6 2 liJf3 c5 3 d5 d6 4 liJc3 g6 5 e4 i.g7 and so on) but

24 2 tbe4 3 1;.f4 c5 4 j3 �a 5 + 5 c3 tbf6 6 d5 !? . . .

there are significant differences too - the f3 pawn weakens White ' s attempts t o break i n the centre with e4-e5 , but perhaps encourages other kingside enterprises; the bishop on f4 is therefore not always ideally placed, but may be en route for h6. Also the position of pawn on c3 is very significant. In the Schmid Benoni case, White makes in effect a clear decision that the pawn belongs on c2 rather than c4 (which would lead to other more familiar Benoni structures), but in the present case that choice is no longer present. The remaining options are still to organise its advance to c4, or to make a virtue of its position on c3 . Anybody who has ever played the White side of a Schmid Benoni which has gone wrong, will well appreciate why the pawn on c3, blocking the potentially malevolent dark square influence of the g7 bishop might be a very welcome player indeed. Furthermore, the effect of this pawn on Black's traditional queenside counterplay with . . . b5 is complex. In essence I would say it makes it more difficult to hold up, but considerably less potent when it arrives ! White himself often has to switch from the standard plan of effecting an e4-e5 break, but has additional options on both wings which Jonathan Rowson 's game well illustrates. Finally, there is the traditional Trompowsky ' tempo count' in all its splendour and complexity. If we were to kick off with the moves 1 d4 c5 2 d5 tbf6 3 f3 ? ! d6 4 1;.f4? ! there would be the distinct feeling that White ' s play was much stranger than his opponent's. However, not only is additional the of balance

4 . . JIVa5+? ! 5 c3 significantly in White ' s favour, there is another key difference between the diagram and this rather peculiar fictional sequence. It is White 's move! A final interesting twist on this position. I quote below Jonathan Speelman ' s game with this line from the recent Bled Olympiad. Despite the existence of around 1 00 games with either 6 . . . d6 or 6 . . . g6 which would seem to suggest a degree of intent, he seemed to assume that his opponent had simply neglected or even forgotten to flick in the move 6 . . .'tWb6. Ignoring the possibility 7 b3 for a moment, Jonathan was convinced that to play with . . . g6/d6 after the inclusion of the moves 6 . . . �6 7 1;.c l (see Game 6) was an unambiguous improvement for Black and he may very well be right, although I invite the readers to make their own judgement on this point too. As a postscript to the complexity of the Tromp ' tempo count' , I just want to throw in a cheeky and controversial thought. The queen might in many cases be better on d8 than either a5 or b6. It might ironically be precisely because 6 . . . 'i'a5-b6 is not a developing move that it was worth throwing in! More seriously a note is due on the differences between the text and the similarly motivated but significantly less frequently encountered 6 . . . g6. The two will often transpose, but Black should in general take note of the merits of White's most favoured kings ide development with tbh3-f2 and consider whether it is worth hindering this. The current moment

2 ..ti�e4 3 iLf4 c5 4 j3 'iVa5+ 5 c3 'Df6 6 d5! ? 25 .

is interesting since the merits of the . . . iVb6 debate above come into play. If White seizes the moment, meeting 6 . . . g6 with 7 'Dh3 ! ? he must reckon with the possibility that Black will try 7 . . . d6 8 'Df2 'iVb6 ! ? anyway. Julian once had one o f his most drastic reversals with the Tromp by answering this too optimistically. After 9 'iWd2? Black was able to play 9 . . . 'Dxd5 ! 1 0 �xd5 �xb2 1 1 iVb3 ..wxa l 1 2 e4 i.g7 1 3 iLc4 0-0 1 4 �d2 b5 ! 1 5 i.d5 iLe6 1 6 lIc 1 iLxd5 1 7 exd5 b4 1 8 'it'd 1 c4 0- 1 in Hodgson­ D.Gurevich, Europe v Americas, Mermaid Beach 1 99 8 . The queen emerges with the booty. Note that, however ghastly this experience may have been, Julian is quite consistent in effecting this 'D-h3-f2 manoeuvre as soon as the opportunity presents itself. So perhaps 9 iLc 1 ( ! ) anyway? To my mind this is a rather pleasant version of the material from Game 6, and compares quite acceptably with what is available here. In other words 7 'Dh3 ! ? is a perfectly viable choice if followed up judiciously. Incidentally, if White proceeds in ' standard' fashion, Black should not delay . . . d6 for too long. Black got into some difficulties after 6 . . . g6 7 e4 iLg7 8 'Da3 (8 'Dh3 ! ? is to my mind still the optimal development) 8 . . . 0-0?! 9 'Dc4 'iWd8 1 0 d6 ! e6 1 1 a4 'Dc6 1 2 iLg5 'iWe8 1 3 �d2 b6 1 4 'Dh3 iLa6 1 5 ltd 1 'iWc 8 1 6 'Df2 i.xc4 17 iLxc4 when she was much more passive than White was over­ extended. K. Georgiev-P. Cramling, Tarrassa 1 990. There is always a danger that a wedge like the white pawn on d6 will simply slice Blac k's position in two, massively

impeding the coordination of his forces. 7 e4 g6

S ..wd2 It is the set-up and plans which are important here rather than precise move order. Jonathan Speelman preferred 8 'Dd2 iLg7 9 'Dc4 iVd8 1 0 a4 0-0 1 1 iVd2 transposing to the game position. Putting the knight on c4 is clearly the logical and thematic way to make a virtue out of the pawn on c3, and to win a tempo by hitting the queen on a5 . In addition d2 looks sensible for the queen, still eyeing d6 in the event of . . . e6 breaks, and preparing iLh6 on the right occasion. Incidentally, in all of these cases there remains a suspicion that c7 might be a better square than d8 for Black's queen. For this reason Gerstner advocates 8 . . . 'Dbd7 against either 8 'Dd2 or 8 'Da3 because he is afraid of 8 . . . iLg7 9 'Dc4 ..wc7 1 0 e5. In fact though, I think this releases the tension too early and after 1 0 . . . dxe5 1 1 iLxe5 ( 1 1 'Dxe5 �d8 likewise) 1 1 . . .�d8 White lacks a convincing follow-up. This gives us an interesting general point. Yes, the e4-e5 break is an important plan for White, but as a

26 2 tbe4 3 �f4 c5 4 13 �a5+ 5 c3 tbf6 6 d5! ? . . .

long-tenn goal rather than a short-tenn threat. If it is rushed then the pawn on f3 suddenly looks very silly, and the central dark squares rather unsightly too. 8 �g7 9 tba3 0-0 1 0 tbc4 �d8 Though rarely played there must be some case for 1 0 . . . �c7 ! ? - see for example the Joel Benj amin game in the note to move 1 2 where the queen rapidly redeploys here in any case. 1 1 a4 . . .

A rather basic posItIon for this variation. I prefer White, since Black will not find it easy to make either of the thematic Schmid Benoni breaks . . . bS or . . . e6. Right now, Black needs to make some fundamental choices about how to develop his queenside. 1 1 tbbd7 In many ways this looks the natural development, but it has the drawback that it pennits White to put his knight on h3 - from where it is headed to f2, widely acknowledged (as I discussed in the note to 6 . . . g6) to be the optimal post in these kind of f3 Benoni positions. From there it can bolster the e4 and g4 squares, perhaps enabling White to play aggressively with f4, while at the same time not . . .

impeding or crowding out White ' s other pieces. Black can therefore try to avoid this scenario. One recent example: 1 1 . . . b6 12 tbe2 tba6 13 tbg3 tbc7 14 �e2 hS IS 0-0 .a:b8 16 .a:fd 1 a6 17 .a:a3 h4 1 8 tbhl !

White has been building slowly, ensuring that his pieces are optimally placed to respond to any attempt by the opponent to recover some space, rather than forcing the issue. So the knight turns out to be en route to f2 in any case. Those who know Jonathan Speelman will be aware in any case that knights in the comer seem to give him particular satisfaction - preferably the opponent' s comer, but his own will do ! 1 8 . . . b S . Thematic, but as so often the relinquishing of the c6 square which this involves is a good deal more than just academic . 1 9 axbS axbS 20 tbaS �d7 2 1 b4 ! A common response to . . . bS, it is this that involves notable considerably less preparative effort than in similar Schmid Benoni positions, a major plus point to having the pawn on c3 . As well as preventing further queenside strides by Black, White gains control of the d4 square virtually by force. 2 1 . . . c4 22 tbf2 and White has a very

2 ..tiJe4 3 .i.f4 c5 4 j3 'iWa5+ 5 c3 'Df6 6 d5! ? 2 7 .

pleasant posItIon. SpeelmanBratovic, Bled (01) 2002 . 1 2 'Dh3 b6? ! Heading for an inferior version of the above note. It seems more consistent to exchange some of White 's good pieces with 12 . . . 'Db6 ! ? (or 1 2 . . . 'De5) 1 3 'Df2 'Dxc4 14 .i.xc4 �c7 (but why not play here immediately?) 1 5 0-0 �d7 1 6 l:tfe l �fe8 1 7 h3 a6 1 8 a5 �b5 1 9 .i.b3 although White ' s patient build-up still looks promising. What Black did next in Benjamin - MChess Pro, Harvard Cup, Boston 1 99 5 was untenable: 1 9 . . . 'Dh5 20 .i.e3 .i.e5 2 1 g4 'Dg3 ? 22 c4 .i.d7 23 �g2 and the knight is not coming out again alive. 13 'Df2 a6 1 4 .i.e2 ctJe8 1 5 h4 ! ? h 5 1 6 g4 'Ddf6 1 7 .i.h6 .i.d7 1 8 �xg7 �xg7 1 9 a 5 b 5 2 0 'Db6 l:ta7

21 b4? ! Jonathan i s trying to play on the grand scale, emphasising that his space advantage in the centre enables him to play on both wings simultaneously. Well, maybe, but it seems to me that there is a time to recognise that a preponderance on one of the wings is such that attention should be focussed there. 2 1 O- O-O ! looks a good alternative,

when White ' s chances seem excellent. 2 1 . . . cxb4 22 cxb4 llc7 23 �d4 'it>h7 24 g5 ctJg8 25 �d2 ? ! This really seems t o b e pushing it a bit. It is not the king in the centre which is the problem so much as that after Black's reply it is difficult to reclaim control of the f4 square. Why not 25 f4 ! ? 2 5 ...e 5 2 6 dxe6 fxe6 2 7 :lac1 e5 28 "ilt'd5 ctJe7 29 �a8! 'i'xa8 30 'Dxa8 It seems that Jonathan Speelman is not alone in liking knights in the comer! 30 . . Jbcl 3 1 .l:Ixc1 .i.c6 32 ctJb6 'Dg7 33 ctJd3 'De6 34 'iSi>e3 As the smoke clears the balance of weaknesses is still very much in White ' s favour. The plan is slowly to prepare to play f4. 34 . . . 'Dd4 35 .i.dl 'De6 36 lIc2 �g7 37 J:d2 ctJc8 38 ctJxc8 l:i.xc8 39 f4 exf4+ 40 'Dxf4 ctJxf4 41 'it>xf4 Should be winning for White. The d6 pawn can scarcely be covered as 4 1 . . . l:i.d8 42 e5 wins all the dark squares. 4 1 . . JH8+ 42 �e3 lIe8 43 l:i.xd6! .i.xe4 44 �d4 .i.f5 45 .i.f3 l:tc8 46 .i.d5 �c2 47 l:i.xa6 lIh2 48 .l:Ia7+ �f8 49 a6 :'xh4+ 50 �e5 J:xb4 5 1 llf7+ �e8 52 a 7 l:!.a4 5 3 l:lh7 1-0 An interesting game, even if White was sometimes guilty of the potentially deadly sin of courting excessive complexity ! Game 4 Wells - Hamdouchi Pulvermuehle 2000 1 d4 ctJf6 2 .i.g5 'De4 3 .i.f4 c5 4 f3 �a5+ 5 c3 'Df6 6 d5 e6 ! ?

28 2. J i Je4 3 i.f4 c5 4 j3 �a5+ 5 c3 ti:Jf6 6 d5! ?

The main line i s 6 . . .'iVb6 (Games 6 and 7). The text passes up the gain of time available there, in order to aim for a different structure - an open e-file, and perhaps the hope of some exploitation of White 's weak e3 square - rather than the Benoni-type structure of Games 6 and 7. In fact we have to wait for the next game to check this out, since Hamdouchi 's unusual 7th move allows White to test yet another structure. 7 e4 d6? ! The slightly harsh marking is at least in part for the motivation behind the move. Black is hoping to avoid both 7 . . . exd5 8 e 5 ? ! or 8 exd5 d6 9 �e2+? ! , neither of which should hold any terrors for him, while doing nothing to hinder the line from the next game which he might feel genuinely nervous about ! Incidentally, anyone intending to venture this line with either colour simply must know that it is too late for Black now to switch to 7 . . . �6. The days when hitting the b-pawn forced concessions are over. White has 8 ti:Ja3 ! intending to meet 8 'i'xb2 with the rather devastating 9 ti:Jb5 . I was a little . . .

shocked to see that on my database, of the five games in which Black went for this dubious line, in only one did White know to punish him in the appropriate manner. Congratulations Mr Djurhuus . The others, don't worry, I will not mention any names ! 8 dxe6 ! I think Black 's 7th is a slip which is worth trying to exploit. Black 's d6 is a genuine weakness, albeit one that he is not about to lose. More to the point, the surrounding light squares are liable to suffer as we shall see. 8 i.xe6 9 ti:Ja3 ! The point. White has a n eye on either c4 or b5 according to Black's response. 9 ti:Jc6 Since 9 . . d5 1 0 i.xb8 l:i:xb8 1 1 i.b5+ looks very good for White. 1 0 ti:Jc4 i.xc4 1 1 i.xc4 i.e7 ! ? . . .

. . .

.

I am sure that White stands better here. Black doesn 't have so much to offer by way of compensation for the bishop pair, suspect light squares and a d6 pawn that might

2 0,e4 3 i.f4 c5 413 'iVa5+ 5 c3 0,f6 6 d5! ? 29 . . .

still prove problematic. O f course, since he has some lead in development it is possible to imagine a scenario in which White will have to exchange the f4 bishop for a knight on e5, but his oppo nent's embarrassment on the light-squares will outlive this. 12 'ib3 ! ? Trying to punish B lack, going for high stakes at increased risk. In fact I calculated as far as move 1 7 here. Firstly I was convinced that to get compensation Black must sacrifice a piece - for the pawn he will not get much. Secondly, it was necessary to see that the queen will not actually get trapped ! Still, I might have underestimated the difficulties that it would encounter even then. If I write that I think that obj ectively the move comes close to 'winning ' but that had I foreseen what was to come I might not have played it, then I will disgust any computers reading, but might find empathy from those who understand our human frailties. 1 2 ltJe2 ! ? would indeed likely be the choice of a more positionally­ minded individual, when White has some safe advantage based upon his light-square superiority. 12 0-0 13 'ixb7 .l:i.ab8 ! I was, and remain amazed that Hichem seriously contemplated 1 3 . JIfc8?! 14 0-0-0 i:'i.ab8 1 5 'i'a6 'fic7 . It seems to me that White has far too many positional trumps to be seriously troubled by Black's initiative. However, I am in no doubt that my opponent' s tremendous optimism when h e has dynamic compensation later benefited him greatly. 14 'iWxe6 l:!.xb2 15 .:tel ktb6 1 6 'iWe7 i.d8 1 7 iVe8 . . .

.

The only square, but in fact calculation rather than luck. Only now though did I see what was to come. I had been fixated on the unsophisticated trick 1 7 . . . 0,xe4? to which 1 8 'if5 is an ample response. Of course, it is rather more grown-up to open some files ! 1 7 . . . d5! 1 8 exd5 �a4 ! 1 9 �xe5 l:!e8+ I admit it - I did enjoy a little luck here ! I had failed to foresee that 19 . . . 0,d7 20 iVd4 i.f6 is met with 2 1 i.b3 ! without which White would suffer some embarrassment. 20 �f1 Guaranteeing a life-sentence in the centre in this way was not undertaken lightly. I just found 20 0,e2 J:xb2 2 1 i.g3 i.b6 22 �c6 iVa3 ! rather scary. Whatever the obj ective merits of this, the king 's escape from the line of fire is not imminent here either! 20 . . . 0,d7 2 1 �d4 ktb2 22 i.b3 �a3 23 0,h3 i.b6 24 'iWb4 ? ! White i s still better after this but 24 iVd l ! is much cleaner after which the only real problem is unravelling - his opponent's threats are coming close to being exhausted. 24 . . :iVa6+ 25 e4 Of course, with time-trouble fast setting in, I had missed that 25 i.c4

30 2. J i Je4 3 �f4 c5 4 13 �a5+ 5 c3 CDf6 6 d5! ? �c8 ! keeps Black very much i n the game. 25 . . . CDc5 26 J:e1 ? After this it is no long clear that White is winning. I managed to see that 26 z:rd l CDxb3 27 axb3 iVa2 could cause acute embarrassment, but I missed that 26 �c3 ! was a much better defence. 26 . . . �c8 ! A fine switch - not just defending the rook, but re-activating the queen. Both . . . CDd3 and . . . �f5 , and (if the rook leaves e l ) even �xh3 in some variations are added to Black's considerable armoury. 27 �g3 CDd3 28 �c3 CDxe1 29 �xb2 CDxf3 ! 30 d6? ! Easily recognisable as a time-trouble reaction. In fact 3 0 gxf3 'iVxh3+ 3 1 'iVg 2 �f5 3 2 �c2 �f6 3 3 �d l 'iVf5 34 �e l (a far from obvious move to find when short of time) might preserve some advantage but even then Black has 34 . . . �d3+ 35 �e2 �a3 . He will amass some pawns, but even more to the point White has the tricky task of developing and making progress. This position was far from easy to play even in the post­ mortem! 30 . . . �f5 ! 3 1 gxf3 ! �xf3+ 32 CDf2 �xf2 33 �xf2 �xh1 + 34 �g1 �f3+ 35 �f2 �h1 + 36 �g1 �f3+ YZ-YZ

Avoiding the draw is no longer a realistic option for either side. A fine example of what an attacker can achieve in practical play with theoretically inadequate compens­ ation, but the psychological plusses of sustained pressure, impressive self-confidence and the aura that he is very much e� oying himself!

Game 5 Hodgson - Wells Vikings, York 2000 1 d4 CDf6 2 f3 �a5+ 5 c3 exd5

CDe4 3 �f4 c5 4 6 d5 e6 7 e4

8 exd5 It turns out that 8 e5?! could be a bit of a paper tiger. The position after 8 . . . CDh5 9 �c 1 looks ridiculous indeed. White ' s pieces are all at home, Black has two developed but they might well wish they hadn't ventured into the wide world either. In fact returning home with 9 . . . �d8 ! seems to be the key . I don 't then see an advantage for White after e.g. 1 0 CDe2 ! ? ( 1 0 �e3 CDc6 1 1 g4? ! d4 ! 12 cxd4 cxd4 1 3 �xf4 CDf4 could well be very unpleasant for White, while 1 0 g3 d6 ! 1 1 f4 g6 1 2 �xd5 CDc6 intending to meet 1 3 �b5 with 1 3 . . . �6! also leaves White looking distinctly over-extended) 1 0 . . . d4 ! ? ( 1 0 . . . d6 1 1 �xd5 g6 is probably playable too) 1 1 cxd4 ! ( 1 1 g4 �h4+ 1 2 �d2 �f2 ! 1 3 gxh5 f3 ! is far too risky) 1 1 . . . cxd4 1 2 �xd4 CDc6 1 3 �d5 �b4+ and again Black looks fine. I am not saying that there is no scope for further investigation here.

2 ..tLJe4 3 i.f4 c5 4 j3 'iVa5+ 5 c3 CfJf6 6 d5 ! ? 3 1 .

Most o f this was my own analysis (largely based on what I had prepared for Julian at the time ! ) and comes with the customary caveats. Still at present I fundamentally b elieve Black 's position here. 8 d6 . . .

9 �d2! An important novelty which I just wished had been revealed at a different moment! In a sense the move is a great tribute to 4 . . .'it'a5+ ! A considerable body of practice revealed that without the availability of the move c4, White' s space advantage had a definite downside, and the ever pragmatic Hodgson sat down and solved this problem. Some early annotators awarded a ! ? marking, but I have no hesitation in being a bit more generous. I believe this to be the best move, and although some of my successors have handled the Black position with rather more tenacity than I did, I am in no doubt that White should be content to enter this variation. For comparative purposes, a brief survey of the alternatives : a) The tempting 9 'Wie2+? ! looks sup erficially strong, but is simply too treacherous . After 9 . . . i.e7 1 0 i.x d6 CfJxd5

a l ) 1 1 i.xb8 l1xb8 12 �e5 'ib6 ! (the key move - that b2 spot again ! ) 1 3 �xd5 (or the somewhat more resilient 1 3 �xb8 0-0 1 4 �e5 J:Ie8 ! when 1 5 'ixd5 i.h4+ 1 6 �d l 'ixb2 ! is crushing as Hodgson says, and even the tougher 1 5 g3 CfJc7 ! ? favours Black. White will get two rooks for the queen, but his development, weak squares and Black' s active bishop pair all add up to a serious initiative) 1 3 . . .'�xb2 1 4 �e5 0-0 1 5 'Wixe7 i.f5 1 6 'Wig5 i.g6 1 7 CfJd2 'Wixa 1 + and Black had an overwhelming position in V.Popov-Novik, St Petersburg (op-ch) 1 992. a2) 1 1 'Wie5 CfJc6 12 'Wixd5 i.e6 13 'Wixc5 �xc5 14 iLxc5 iLxc5 1 5 i.b5 0-0-0 with tremendous play for a pawn in Neihs - Cvitan, Oberwart (op) 1 99 3 . Note how the moves c3 and f3 spell trouble for White ' s king wherever it ends up. Whilst fighting for the initiative these moves are all very well, but they can be a strong argument against indulging in such bouts of materialism. b) 9 CfJe2 CfJbd7 10 CfJd2 CfJb6 1 1 b4 cxb4 1 2 c4 i.e7 1 3 CfJd4 iLd7, is interesting not least because Hodgson claims "It is now apparent that Black has won the opening battle; not only is he a pawn up, but he has also a lead in development", while Gallagher believes White has "excellent play". Such radically contrasting assessments are relative­ ly rare, especially from strong players with distinct stylistic similarities, and are probably a tribute to the rich originality of the position. While I rather more incline towards Gallagher' s view, I am going to be a cowardly fence-sitter and claim that White has ' reason­ able compensation ' based on the f5

32 2 ..ei:e4 3 jJ4 c5 4 j3 �a5+ 5 c3 ttJf6 6 d5! ? .

square, the chances o f causing embarrassment on the e-file, and the feel ing that Black lacks certain squares to try and reorganise his forces. Certainly after 1 4 ttJ2b3 'iVa4 1 5 jLd3 lic8 1 6 0-0 0-0 1 7 l:.c 1 ttJh5 1 8 jLd2 jLf6 1 9 g4 it was clear that White was doing fine in Gulko-Browne, USA (ch) 1 992. c) 9 ttJa3 jLe7 10 ttJc4 WIc7 1 1 a4 0-0 12 g4 ttJbd7 1 3 ttJe2 :re8 1 4 jLg2 jLf8 Pixton-Benjamin, World Open, Philadelphia 200 1 is fairly typical of White' s mainstream handling of this line. The move g4 is fine, and the best way to organise the pieces, but I still basically believe in Black' s chances on the central dark squares. In this case after 1 5 O-O? ! ttJb6 16 ttJxb6 'iVxb6 White faces a dual embarrassment to his b2 and d5 pawns. 9 jLe7 1 0 c4 'iVxd2+ 1 1 �xd2 . . .

I am always wary of a too mechanistic assumption that since queens are exchanged the king must belong in the centre. There is such a thing as the ' queen-less middle­ game ' and king safety is often by no means guaranteed. With this structure though, even with queens on the board the king often nestles

fairly comfortably on f2 and of course the task of preserving White ' s space advantage is also best served by the knight landing on c3 . Indeed this was a serious motivation behind White 's 'iVd2 + c4 plan. Having said all this, there are moments where the king can feel a little uneasy in the next note after 1 1 . . .b5( ! ) . This further goes to show that I think that is the best course, but I still feel that 1 1 ttJxd2 would be a serious concession, and I have seen nothing that persuades me that White needs seriously to investigate that road. 1 1 ttJh5 ? ! I did realise during the game that I was in danger of becoming cramped, and this does herald an attempt to win back some territory on the kingside, but the full extent of my problems only really clarified in my mind around move 1 5 . Otherwise I might have been more tempted by looking to the other wing for space with 1 1 . . .b5( ! ) . This I rejected because I felt that after 1 2 ttJc3 (not 1 2 b3? because 1 2 . . . ttJh5 followed by . . . .ltf6 would cause major embarrassment) 1 2 . . . bxc4 1 3 jLxc4 White ' s extra mobilisation would be as important as the long-term queenside chances Black might obtain. However, having analysed this in the light of a practical test the picture seems a good deal more complex. In fact after 12 . . . bxc4 White is well advised to throw in 13 l':te 1 �d8 and then faces a tricky but very important choice: a) 14 ttJe4 ? ! ttJxe4 15 fxe4 iLa6 16 ttJf3 ttJd7 17 e5 looks very plausible for White, but after 1 7 . . . ttJb6 ! there is no totally . . .

2. Ji'Je4 3 i.f4 c5 4 13 �a5+ 5 c3 l:i'Jf6 6 d5!? 33 convmcmg continuation. Pixton­ Browne, USA (ch) Seattle 2002 continued 1 8 exd6 i.f6 19 i.g5 �d7 20 g3 (20 i.xf6 gxf6 2 1 1:i'Jh4 looks a better try to me, but here too I have the feeling that it is already White on the defensive) 20 . . . l:i'Jxd5 2 1 l:i'Je5+ i.xe5 22 l:!xe5 �xd6 23 l:!xd5+ �xd5 24 i.g2+ �e6 25 .ltxa8 l:!xa8 and it is clear that White is fighting hard for a draw. It seems to me that 1 8 I:i'Jg5 ! ? would have created a lot more complexity, but I suspect this is not either e.g. a reliable route 18 . . . i.xg5 ( 1 8 . . . CDxd5 ? ! is also possible but 19 I:i'Jxf7+ �d7 20 exd6 ! [though not 20 e6+? ! 'it>c6 2 1 CDxh8 l:!xh8 when Black's bishop pair and pressure against b2 promise him ample counter-play] 20 . . J:thfS 21 CDe5+! 'it>xd6 22 I:i'Jxc4+ 'it>c6 23 g3 offers White chances of a safe positional edge) 1 9 .ltxg5+ 'it>d7 20 e6+ 'it>e8 ! 21 exf7+ (otherwise . . . f6 is annoying) 2 1 . . . 'it>xf7 22 l:te6 and White has some compensation for the pawn, but not enough to be really threatening. b) 1 4 i.xc4 ! ? I:i'Jbd7 1 5 b3 I:i'Jb6 1 6 I:i'Jge2 ! i.b7 1 7 CDe4 ( 1 7 CDg3 i.xd5 ! ) 1 7 . . . CDxe4+ ( 1 7 . . . .ixd5 1 8 .ixd5 I:i'Jfxd5 1 9 .ltxd6 should be worth an edge for White) 1 8 fxe4 f5 ! ? (otherwise White will consolidate and enjoy a distinct spatial pull) 1 9 exf5 (also 1 9 h4 ! ? to stop . . . g5, and then 1 9 . . . fxe4 20 CDc3 can be considered). 19 . . . l:i'Jxd5 20 .l:i.hfl ! and I somewhat prefer White who is well placed to contest the squares. central key Nonetheless, this is far from clear and to my mind clearly represents Bl ack ' s best against 9 �d2 . 1 2 i.e3 f5 13 CDc3

13 0-O ? ! I n view o f the really depressing passivity in which Black found himself just a couple of moves later, every move here is subject to question, and since castling is by no means essential this is another obvious place to try and prioritise other goals. In K.Berg-Tischbierek, Bundesliga II 2002, Black tried immediately to stake a claim to the dark squares with 1 3 . . . f4 1 4 .in CDd7 1 5 l:te 1 �d8 16 g4 CDhf6. ...

From the diagram he is a tempo ( 1 7 . . . l:i'Je5) away from the culmination of his blockading strategy, but for the moment the f4 pawn is vulnerable and White has to use this moment well. 1 7 CDh3 ? certainly misses the mark. The problem is that the respective

34 2 ..ti'Je4 3 !JLf4 c5 4 j3 �a 5 + 5 c3 Ci'Jf6 6 d5! ? .

h-pawns will play a key role in determining the kings ide initiative and after 1 7 . . . Ci'Je5 1 8 !JLe2 h5 ! 1 9 Ci'Jxf4 hxg4 20 fxg4 !JLxg4 2 1 b3 �d7 Black has no difficulties to say the least. Since Black' s strategy is very thematic and critical it merits a bit of sorting out. Best in my opinion is 1 7 Ci'Jce2 ! g5 1 8 h4 ! Ci'Je5 1 9 Ci'Jc3 . Forcing the move . . . g5 at a moment when White can undermine his opponent on the kings ide is well worth the loss of tempo involved in the manoeuvre Ci'Jc3-e2-c3 . After 1 9 . . . gxh4 20 !JLxh4 a) 20 . . . h5 ? ! allows the little combination 2 1 Mxe5 ! dxe5 22 d6 with clear advantage. b) 20 . . . Ci'Jg6 2 1 !JLxf6 !JLxf6 2 1 Ci'Je4 !JLe7 2 2 !JLd3 also favours White, as 22 . . . Ci'Je5 can be well met with 23 Ci'Jxc5 ! The altogether simpler 1 3 . . . Ci'Jd7 distinct also represents a improvement on the main game. Hodgson-Schandorff, Bundesliga 200 1 continued 14 J:e 1 rJi;f7 1 5 Ci'Jh3 Ci'Je5 16 Ci'Jg5+? ! !JLxg5 1 7 !JLxg5 h6 1 8 !JLe3 !JLd7 19 !JLe2 g5 20 g3 f4 Y2 V2

Instead I would suggest maybe 1 6 !JLe2 ! ? e.g. 1 6 . . . M fS 1 7 f4 Ci'Jg4 1 8 !JLxg4 fxg4 1 9 Ci'Jg5+ ! which looks potentially a bit awkward. Perhaps 1 6 . . . h6 ! ? is better in view of this. 14 !JLd3 Ci'Jd7 1 5 f4 ! Ci'Jdf6 1 6 Ci'Jge2 g5? A poor move born of desperation, but I am in little doubt that from the theoretical point of view the damage has already been done. If White reaches this structure and consolid­ ates in this way, he has won the opening battle. Tsesarsky calls 16 . . . Ci'Jg4 17 !JLg 1 a6 1 8 h3 Ci'Jhf6 1 9

!JLe3 ' reliable ' but I would say it is simply ' depressing ' .

1 7 h3 ! Of course, 1 7 fxg5 Ci'Jg4 at least offers the chance to make some mess. Julian' s rock solid reply reveals the folly of my last move, and I simply go into hari-kiri mode. 1 7 . . . gxf4 1 8 Ci'Jxf4 !JLd7 1 9 Ci'Je6! Strong, although Black' s position is a terrible eye sore anyway. 1 9 . . . !JLxe6 20 dxe6 !JLd8 ? ! 2 1 !JLh6 Me8 2 2 g4 ! Blasting open the king ' s position as well. With so many positional weaknesses, it is almost a relief to be getting mated too . 22 . . . fxg4 23 hxg4 Ci'Jg7 24 !JLxg7 �xg7 25 g5 Ci'Jg4 26 Mxh7+ rJi;g8 27 nh5 ! Ci'Je5 28 Mahl Ci'Jxd3 29 rJi;xd3 Mxe6 30 :h8+ rJilg7 31 J: l h7+ �g6 32 Md7 Me3+! ? The first o f two horrible losses to Julian mentioned in the book. Somehow in both I managed to show some warped humour at the end. There was a time when he never seemed to play the Trompowsky against me. His results have improved since he got over that ! 33 rJi;c2 1-0

2 ..tiJe4 3 �f4 c5 4.f3 l'Ua5+ 5 c3 ClJf6 6 d5! ? 35 .

Game 6 McShane - Wojtaszek World Junior (ch), Goa 2002 1 d4 ClJf6 2 �g5 ClJe4 3 �f4 c5 4

f3 l'U a5+ 5 c3 ClJf6 6 d5 �b6

7 �c1 ! ? O f course this outrageous un-developing move rarely passes without comment. The respected player and annotator Igor Stohl describes it as "An unbelievable line. White makes 3 moves out of 7 to return his bishop to its initial square, and doesn' t have a single developed piece." However, he adds "Despite this the position is unclear, as the misplaced queen on b6 will also cost Black time". At the risk of repetition, it is the failure of the moves . . . ClJf6-e4-f6 and . . . l'Ub6 in tum to promote harmony in the Black position which lie at the heart of White ' s conception. One of the most prevalent reactions to the Trompowsky these days seems to be a good deal of general sympathy, combined with an unease that these lines commencing after 6 . . . l'Ub6 are just a bit too strange - tempi apparently squandered, pawns grabbed or sacri ficed with a worrying lack of stylistic consistency and an

apparently perverse attitude to development and king safety, and so on. I think to an extent a little mystique these surrounding fascinating lines might do the opening no harm at all, but my priority is of course to shed some light on them, so here goes. I did once toy (thinking in particular of the large number of 1 e4 openings in which the light-squared bishop nestles happily back on the square fl after 0-0 and J:;te 1 have occurred) with writing an article advocating that, perhaps by divine intervention, minor pieces so often seem to be best placed on their starting squares. However, I think it would have been at least partly tongue-in-cheek! Neither do I go as far as Rainer Knaak who in effect says that f4 is a far from ideal square for the bishop and that 6 . . . �6 might be questionable since the queen is often poorly placed here, whereas the white bishop is really just as well off on c 1 . Of course in reality such a move as 7 �c l ! ? can only be fully explained in terms of the deficiencies of the alternatives. So what of them? One is easily dismissed, whereas my obj ection to the other is more complex but still quite specific: a) If 7 �d2? Black plays 7 . . ClJxd5 ! 8 l'Uxd5 l'Uxb2 and, whatever the mess along the way, the queen eventually should emerge unharmed, trumpeting a decisive material plus. b) 7 b3 ! ? is of course much more interesting, and a major line in its own right. I do not feel that I can recommend it though for the very concrete reason that after 7 . . e6 ! (Of course 7 . . . g6 ! ? is also a valid .

.

3 6 2 ..'De4 3 .i.f4 c5 4 j3 'iVa 5 + 5 c3 t'fjf6 6 d5! ? .

reaction to the weakening o f the c3 square) 8 e4 (8 c4? ! is bad due to 8 . . . exdS 9 cxdS c4 ! 10 t'fjc3 [ 1 0 e3 'iVaS+ ! ] 10 . . . .i.cs 1 1 t'fjh3 d6 1 2 t'fja4 "iVaS+ 1 3 i.d2 i.b4 1 4 .i.xb4 "iVxb4+ I S 'iVd2 'iVxd2+ 1 6 �xd2 .i.xh3 1 7 gxh3 cxb3 =+ and White ' s structure i s not for public display Dunworth-G.Buckley, 4NCL 200 1 ) 8 . . . exdS 9 exdS .i.d6 ! 1 0 i.gS ! ? ( 1 0 t'fjh3 0-0 1 1 �d2 l:te8+ 1 2 i.e2 c4 ! ? 13 .i.xd6 �xd6 14 bxc4 bS I S cxbS a6 1 6 c4 axbS 1 7 cxbS �eS 1 8 t'fjc3 t'fjxdS 1 9 'ixdS 'ixc3+ 2 0 �f2 .i.b7 ! 21 �c4 ! �e3+ 22 �g3 hS was fine for Black in I. Sokolov­ Smirin, Wijk aan Zee (op), 1 993) 10 . . . .i.e7 !

while I accept that White ' s space advantage can offer him rather pleasant prospects if he can mobilise and reach a ' normal position ' I do not see how he can do this without quite tangible inconvenience. Some examples : b l ) 1 1 d6? ! is unusual and interesting in the sense that after 1 1 . . .�xd6 1 2 �xd6 .i.xd6 1 3 .i.xf6 gxf6 while Black's structure is far from pretty, this is basically all White has for the pawn. It is quite rare to have an opening gambit which involves so little dynamic compensation. Since Black has not

just miserable f-pawns but also a backward d-pawn I suspect that it is just about sufficient but I would be very surprised if the defender will be unduly troubled. b2) 1 1 t'fja3 ( ! ?) is suggested by Gallagher as 'probably best' but remains untested to my knowledge. The critical reply should be 1 1 . . .'iVaS ! ? when 12 t'fjc4 �xc3+ 13 .i.d2 "iVd4 does not look quite enough for White. b3) 1 1 t'fje2 ! ? O-O? ! 1 2 c4 l:te8 1 3 t'fjbc3 d6 1 4 "iVd2 a6 I S .i.e3 t'fjbd7 16 t'fjg3 "iVb4 1 7 ..te2 bS 1 8 0-0 bxc4 1 9 bxc4 t'fjeS 20 a3 "iVaS 2 1 �c2 Hodgson-Shaked, Las Vegas 1 998 is pleasant for White, and an excellent example of the sort of position where he obtains the kind of pleasant trouble-free spatial plus to which I referred above. But what did Julian intend against 1 1 . . . �d6 ! ? This i s s o often White ' s dilemma. The dS pawn is weak, but the move c3 -c4 is weakening in the short term. Here White can try 1 2 t'fja3 ! ? "iVxdS 1 3 .i.xf6 �xd 1 + 1 4 ':'xd l .i.xf6 I S t'fjbS �d8, but again the nuisance to Black is relatively minor. It feels like the kind of sacrifice in which White gives up a pawn with not much greater perspective than to try and win it back again. b4) 1 1 c4 ! ? is the main line. What is interesting is that White is often allowed to settle to the task of building his desired structure utilising his extra space and eventually withdrawing his bishop from gS to prevent its exchange. My feeling though is that here too Black's ' disruption options ' are quite tempting. 1 1 . . . "iVc7 1 2 �e2 0-0 1 3 t'fjc3 d6 1 4 0-0-0 a6 I S �c2 t'fjbd7 1 6 ':'e l i.d8 1 7 i.d3 bS !

2. J i Je4 3 iLf4 c5 4 j3 Wlia5 + 5 c3 tiJf6 6 d5! ? 3 7 gave Black quite decent counterplay in Tumer-Nunn, Golombek (mem), Paignton 2000, but I am still more by the slightly intrigued crude-looking 1 1 . . .�d6 ! ? since 1 2 �e2 tiJc6 ! 1 3 tiJh3 tiJd4 looks awkward for White. Specifically after 14 Wlid2 �e5+ 1 5 Wfl Orr-Gillen, Belfast 200 1 , I doubt that White has full compensation after 15 . . . tiJxb3 ! 16 axb3 'ixal .

perhaps just the exchange on d5) in reserve? raises several This interesting questions, and I shall draw on various examples in a bid to answer them. First of all, what does the 'pure Modem Benoni ' case look like? Bundesliga Hodgson-Gallagher, 2002, is a fairly typical move order. Black played 7 . . . d6 and after S e4 g6 9 c4 iLg7 1 0 tiJc3 0-0 1 1 tiJge2 e6 1 2 tiJg3 exd5 1 3 cxd5

7 . . .e6 This, of course, is the main line here and can be a prelude to entering the heavy theoretical battleground covered in the last two items of this chapter. However, for the moment I want to assume that Black aims, as Wojtaszek presumably does here, to reach some Modem Benoni type of position. As I mentioned in my notes to Game 3 , it seems reasonable to assume that such a strategy of 'just playing chess ' would be more sensible now after forcing 7 iLc 1 than on move 6. However, there is still an important question of move order. Should Black, as here, first clarify the position in the centre, or would he be better off immediately developing, and holding . . . e6 (or

we arrive almost exactly at a position which can be reached from a Modem Benoni, with the single difference that the black queen is, in that case, still on dS. I have seen all possible views expressed regarding that difference. The queen can certainly cause some irritation down the b6-g 1 diagonal, but it also blocks . . . b5, and is likely to be targeted either by an advancing a-pawn, or by the g3 knight manoeuvring itself to c4 . I am a bit of an agnostic, but the Trompowsky version has certainly scored quite well for White in practice. Gallagher himself tried a radical approach here with 13 . . . tiJh5(? ! ) but after 1 4 tiJxh5 gxh5 1 5 iLe2 f5 1 6 f4 ! ? fxe4 1 7 0-0 h4 I S tiJxe4 iLf5 1 9 tiJg5 c4+ 20 �hl c3 2 1 bxc3 iLxc3 2 2 iLd2 iLxa l 2 3 �xa l

-

38 2. J I Je4 3 i.f4 c5 4 j3 'iVa5+ 5 c3 'Df6 6 d5 ! ? his weakened kings ide ensured that White would get good value for his material investment. The more standard approach is 1 3 . . . hS ! ? S .Agdestein-Djurhuus, Norwegian (ch) play-off 2000. Black wants to bother the knight on g3 and create critical play in which White will be inconvenienced by his bishop being tied to the defence of b2 . However, the knight can also head for e3 , and b6 is in other respects not the natural square for furthering ambitions on the kingside. After 1 4 i.e2 'Dbd7 ( 1 4 . . . h4 ! ?) I S 'iVc2 h4 1 6 'Dfl h3 ! ? ( 1 6 . . . 'DhS ? ! 1 7 g4 ! ) 1 7 gxh3 'DhS 1 8 'Dg3 'Ddf6 1 9 h4 i.h3 20 'Dd l ! l:tfe8 2 1 'Df2 i.d7 22 0--0 l:lac8 23 a4 c4 24 'it'g2 the play is very complex, but White seems to be faring quite well in the battle for squares. Another radical departure from standard patterns is worth a mention. In Knaak - Bekker Jensen, European Club Cup, Panormo 200 1 Black departed from the above with I S . . . 'Dh7 ! ? and we were treated to the notable phenomenon of White castling queens ide in a Benoni structure, and in the sharp battle which arose after 1 6 i.d2 a6 1 7 f4 "ilic7 1 8 0--0-0 bS 1 9 eS ! ? - a standard pawn ' anti-Benoni' sacrifice to gain control of e4 1 9 . . . b4 20 'Dce4 dxeS 2 1 fS White 's kingside chances look the more promising to me. Still, another question raised by 7 . . . d6. Should White necessarily handle the position with c4, rather than in the style of Game 3? I think the answer here is probably yes since otherwise the gain for Black in 6 . . :i'b6 7 i.c 1 seems the most ambiguous. As usual, 8 'Dh3 ! is a good reply to 7 . . . g6 though, and while I once received a good deal of criticism for trying 7 . . . d6 8 e4 g6 9

a4, I think that my idea of 9 . . . i.g7 10 i.bS+ might have been somewhat validated by answering 1 0 . . . 'Dbd7 with 1 1 'Dh3 ! ? Nonetheless, i f White really feels uncomfortable with the ' pure Benoni ' then I think he can nonetheless play 8 c4 and follow Luke 's example against an early . . . exdS, while perhaps try to arrange to recapture with the e-pawn if Black delays this . After 7 . . . d6 8 e4 g6 9 c4 i.g7 1 0 'Dc3 0-0 1 1 'Dge2 e6 either of these are worthy of attention:

a) 12 'Df4 ! ? exdS and now 1 3 'DfxdS ! ? 'DxdS 1 4 'DxdS 'it' as+ I S i.d2 'it'd8 1 6 ':'b 1 fS 1 7 i.d3 is also a bit better for White according to Finkel, although there is a suspicion that the check on as may have been a bit counter-productive. b) 1 2 g4 ! ? exdS 1 3 exdS J:te8 1 4 � f2 i s also a n interesting set-up, although it is obviously very double-edged. I am suspicious that White ' s play in Alburt-Browne, Santiago 1 98 1 , needs a little refining, since after 1 4 . . . 'Dbd7 ( 1 4 . . . 'Dfd7 is also interesting) I S 'Dg3 hS 1 6 gxhS 'DxhS 1 7 'DxhS i.d4+ 1 8 'ifi1g2 gxhS 1 9 'it'd2 'De5 20 'it'g5+ 'Dg6 2 1 f4 Black has the interesting possibility of 2 1 . . . i.f5 ! ?

2. Jbe4 3 i.f4 c5 4 13 'iN a5+ 5 c3 CiJf6 6 d5! ? 3 9 when White 's position looks a bit loose. Food for thought here nonetheless. It is also just worth noting that after 7 . . . e6 8 c4 d6 9 e4 g6, Levitina once played 1 0 CiJe2 ! ? and tZ'lec3, attempting to handle the position as Luke did, when Black still has to decide what to do if not take on d5. This might be yet another workable route to avoid the 'pure Benoni' . 8 c4 exd5 9 cxd5 d6 ! ? 10 e4 g6 1 1 tZ'le2 !

I like this very much since I am sure that White should in some way react to the position of Black' s queen o n b 6 , and try for more than the routine 1 1 CiJc3 . The queen ' s knight ideally belongs o n c 4 a t some stage. The issue though is timing. My 1 1 CiJa3 ? ! by contrast was just a bit too impetuous, a symptom perhaps of going into 'punishment mode ' as a reaction to Black' s modest 9 . . . d6 ! ? Having said this, I also think that the search for a very ambitious and concrete solution in Wells-Nunn, 4NCL, Birmingham 2002 was not so far wide of the mark, since any move which effectively rules out 1 1 . . . i.g7 here is worthy of consideration. Some of the descriptions I have seen of this

game make a very generous use of hindsight. After 1 1 . . . CiJbd7 1 2 CiJc4 'fIc7 1 3 a4 CiJb6 ! 1 4 CiJa3 i.d7 1 5 a5 CiJc8 1 6 CiJb5 �8 1 7 i.g5 i.g7 1 8 e5?! (Consistent, and perhaps that is precisely the problem ! Of course White can return to normal developing moves, but then it is clear that the whole concept was flawed. At the time Nunn was also far from certain as to the merits of the text) 1 8 . . . dxe5 19 d6 0-0 20 CiJc7 CiJe8 2 1 CiJxa8 CiJexd6 it becomes clear that White has overstretched, facing considerable active compensation for the material he has gained. The various insightful commentators who pointed this out have not been imparting any great revelation ! 1 1 ... i.g7 1 2 CiJec3 0-0 13 i.e2 CiJbd7 14 0-0 a6 15 a4 l:tb8 1 6 �hl ? ! Luke criticises this and suggests 1 6 CiJa3 instead intending to meet 1 6 . . . 'fld8 for example with 1 7 i.e3 lIe8 1 8 'iNd2 ! and the simple plan of :tab 1 and b4. In terms of a theoretical assessment, this seems to be an important vindication of White' s opening play. However, although he may have missed the moment in a sense, it was his restraint hitherto in precisely not rushing towards the c4 square with this knight that seems to have been a significant improvement on several previous handlings of the position. It is also instructive that later, as he points out, his king might have been more comfortable still on gl its new position merely encourages counterplay with . . . CiJh5 and . . . iVh4. 1 6 .. :ili'd8 1 7 i.e3 l:te8 ! 18 CiJa3 Anyway. The semi-waiting move on move 1 6 had been partly about

40 2 ctJe4 3 �f4 c5 413 iVa5+ 5 c3 ctJf6 6 d5!? . . .

wanting t o play 1 8 ctJd2 ? ! here, but this is well met with the trick 1 8 . . . bS ! 1 9 axbS axbS 20 ..txbS ctJxdS 21 ctJxdS l:i.xbS 22 ctJc4 ctJeS when Black is fine. 18 ... h6 19 iVd2 'it'h7 20 l:i.abl ctJh5 ! Both offensive and defensive, at least in the sense that the threat of 21 . . . iVh4 diverts White from his intended b4 break to make play on the other side.

21 g4 ! ? ctJhf6 22 h3 ctJe5 23 l:i.f2 ! ? Now Black gets t o play . . . g S and put in a claim on the dark squares, although this of course creates weaknesses at the same time. It is interesting that Luke regards Black's compensation after 23 f4 ctJexg4 ! 24 hxg4 ctJxg4 2S �xg4 �xg4 as not merely rather scary at the board, but as quite possibly theoretically adequate too, and the more I consider it, the more I applaud his judgement. 23 ... g5 24 f4 gxf4 25 ..txf4 b5 A fairly standard pawn sac in the Benoni, but the coming exchange of light-squared bishops also has the effect of rendering the fS square still

more of a problem. 2S . . . ctJg6 ! ? might b e a better try, but it seems sensible to avoid the wild tactics of 26 ctJc4 ktxe4 ! ? and settle for the sane and sober 26 ..tg3 ctJxe4 (26 . . . ktxe4 27 ..td3 );Ie7 28 ktafl ! ) 2 7 ctJxe4 l:i.xe4 2 8 �d3 :te7 2 9 ctJc4 which looks rather nice for White (rather than 29 ..th4 ? ! when I would suspect Black can give the exchange for reasonable play) . 26 axb5 axb5 27 ctJaxb5 ..ta6 28 ctJa3 �xe2 29 iVxe2 'Black has some compensation, and practical chances given the impact of the new time control, but it should not really be enough ' should be a fair summary of Luke 's thoughts at this point. 29 ... ctJfd7 30 ctJc2 ? ! c4 ! 31 ..td2 ! 'it'g8? 3 1 . . . ctJcS ! was a much better try . The text merely enhances the power of White ' s coming g4-gS resource. 32 l:i.f5 ! ctJc5 33 g5 hxg5 34 l:i.xg5 ? ! 34 ..txgS i s better, although after 34 . . . iVd7 3 S l:g 1 ctJg6 it is still a fight. 34 ... ctJg6 35 );Ig4 ctJd3 ? ! 36 ctJe3 ctJde5 37 :tg3 ..tf6 38 ctJf5 At last! A couple of rather passive decisions from Black and the long awaited fS square is reached. 38 . . . );Ib7 39 iVh5 :tee7 40 h4 ! ? Practical grounds i f nothing else suggest that in such positions keeping the initiative scores over cashing in. 40 ... ctJd3 41 iVf3 ..txc3 42 ..txc3 l:i.xe4 43 h5 :th4+ 44 ctJxh4 iVxh4+ 45 �gl ctJdf4 46 :tel l-0 Stopping the tricks on e2 and at the same time preparing a decisive

2. Ji:Je4 3 jJ4 c5 4 j3 �a 5+ 5 c3 C{jf6 6 d5!? 41 penetration on eS is sufficient to see some Despite off. Black inaccuracies, an entertaining game, and something of a model for handling the White side of the opening. Game 7 Hodgson - Turner British (ch), Scarborough 200 1 1 d4 C{jf6 2 ..tg5 ltJe4 3 ..tf4 c5 4

f3 'i' a5+ 5 c3 ltJf6 6 d5 �b6 7 ..tel e6 8 c4

8 . . . exd5 This and S . . . �b4+, the subject of the theoretical article that follows are clearly the most critical moves. In addition Black can also try to develop around White ' s centre and possibly even exploit the bS-h2 diagonal on which his opponent is momentarily vulnerable with S . . . ii.d6, although I am sceptical as to the merits of this. A couple of examples: a) 9 liJc3 might just complicate matters a bit, although this is certainly not due to 9 . . . 0-0 10 e4 ..teS ? ! 1 1 ..td3 ..txc3+ 1 2 bxc3 d6 13 liJe2 l:!eS ( 1 3 . . . liJbd7 1 4 dxe6 fxe6 1 5 f4 ! also looks unpalatable)

14 'i'c2 liJbd7 1 5 f4 exd5 16 exd5 'i'a5 1 7 0-0 a6 I S a4 C{jb6 1 9 liJg3 ..td7 20 ..td2 liJxa4 ! ? which was Knaak-Wells, Bundesliga 1 99 5 when I just had t o grit m y teeth and hope that he wouldn 't find 2 1 jU5 ! b 5 2 2 C{jh5 ! C{jxh5 2 3 ..txd7 l:.e7 24 ..tc6 .l:tbS 25 cxb5 axb5 26 c4 which would have been immensely unpleasant. Rainer Knaak was very generous in his notes about my original opening play, but it still looks to me just like a bad Nimzo-Indian, and it was probably original because others have had more sense ! Rather the play after 9 . . . 0-0 1 0 e4 l:.eS ! ? looks rather intricate. It is even possible that 1 1 f4 ! ? works here, but it is clearly not without risk. It is not clear that this is worth the effort with a good alternative available . . . b) 9 e4 ! ? looks quite appropriate to dealing with each of the various Black strategies here.

9 . . . 1te5 1 0 liJd2 ..td4 1 1 liJe2 e5 12 liJxd4 cxd4 13 liJb3 d6 1 4 ..td2 a5 1 5 c5 dxc5 1 6 liJxc5 0-0 1 7 C{ja4 �d6 I S 'ib3 was definitely a success for White 's opening concept in Summerscale-McShane, British (ch), Nottingham 1 996, while

42 2 . ..te4 3 �f4 c5 4 13 'i a 5 + 5 c3 0,f6 6 d5! ? 9 . . . 'ic 7 1 0 0,e2 ! exd5 1 1 exd5 ( 1 1 cxd5 ! ? also looks good) 1 1 . . .0-0 1 2 0,bc3 a6 1 3 �g5 1Ie8 1 4 �xf6 gxf6 1 5 WVd3 was awful for Black in Kanep-Jobava, World U- 1 8 (ch) 2000. 1 0 . . . �xh2 (and indeed on almost any other move) is successfully met with 1 1 f4 0,g4 1 2 'i'd3 , and hence Black' s whole concept looks distinctly ropey. 9 cxd5 c4 ! ?

1 0 e3 ! The first effect of 9 . . . c4 is to encourage this modest advance . Practice confirms what the naked eye suggests, that 1 0 e4? ! �c5 is just too risky for White. 1 0 . . . �c5 ! ? T o my mind this pawn sacrifice is the best way to make sense of 9 . . . c4 ! ? Alternatives d o not look entirely trustworthy: a) 1 0 . . :iVc5 ? ! seems simply inferior. There is no reason to commit the knight to c 3 , and no consistent follow-up for Black after the logical 1 1 e4 ! b) 1 O . . :Yi'a5+ 1 1 0,c3 b5 (but not 1 1 . . . �b4 12 �xc4 ! ? [Hodgson points out that 12 �d2 is a good option too] a strong tactical solution

based upon the undefended bishop on c8) 1 2 WVd4 �b4 1 3 'Yi'e5+ 'it>f8 ( 1 3 . . . 'it>d8? ! looks worse, since although it is obviously attractive that the rook on h8 can play, the undefended g7 pawn will imply an extra tempo for White. Hodgson gives 14 �d2 :'e8 1 5 'i g5 ! which looks good) 14 a3 and now :

b l ) 1 4 . . . �b7 ? ! 1 5 axb4 ! 'i!Vxa l 1 6 0,ge2 'ia6 1 7 0,d4 d6 1 8 'i!Vf4 'Yi'b6 was Hodgson-Stohl, Isle of Man (op) 1 995, when the simplest according to Julian is 1 9 0,dxb5 0,xd5 20 'i'xd6+ WVxd6 2 1 0,xd6 0,xc3 22 bxc3 which does indeed look like tremendous value for an exchange, pawns and a potentially dominating dark-squared bishop. b2) 1 4 . . . �c5 ! is a much more testing line. White should continue to play aggressively with 1 5 d6 0,a6 1 6 �d2 �b7 1 7 0,e4 ! ? (Julian considers 1 7 0,d5 instead, but 1 7 . . . 'Yi'd8 1 8 0,c7 l:rc8 does not look very special for White) 1 7 . . . �b4 ! 1 8 'i'e7+ 'ifi>g8 1 9 0,xf6+ gxf6 20 �xb4 ! (20 l:!.d l ? ! �xd2+ 2 1 .l:txd2 0,c5 gives strong counterplay) 20 . . . 00xb4 2 1 0-0-0 0,d5 (2 1 . . .0,a2+? 22 'it'b l 0,c3+ 23 bxc3 'it'xc3 24 l:td4 is good for White) 22 'i'xd7 'iWb6 ! ? (22 . . . 0,xe3 23 'Yi'xb7 lId8 24 �e2 0,xd l 25

2 'be4 3 il.f4 c5 4 13 �a5+ 5 c3 'bf6 6 d5! ? 43 . . .

�c 7?! �e l ! is problematic but the simple 25 il.xd l ! 1:xd6 26 'be2 lo oks sufficient) 23 l:Id4 'bxe3 24 'be2 and White has good chances to c onsolidate his advantage. 1 1 �f2 0-0 12 il.xc4

Rather a critical position for the variation. Black's compensation hardly needs describing. He can intensify pressure against e3 by means of Ii:e8, and his queens ide will normally enter the fray by means of . . . 'bd7-e5 when White needs to beware of ' " 'bg4+ motifs too. However, aside from his slightly over-active king, White ' s development i s not that bad. I t is very useful that he can make some mobilising moves with tempo �3 often threatens a queen exchange, and after 'bc3 Black must reckon with 'ba4 and the exchange of one of his best pieces. 1 2 . . . d6 12 . . . 1:e8 ! ? is the alternative, which used to be near enough dismissed on the grounds of 1 3 �b3 , but has now been somewhat rehabilitated by Black' s queen simply fleeing the exchange and regrouping. In practice some SUccess has been enjoyed with two queen moves:

a) 13 . . . �d6 looks unnatural, but does force White to keep an eye on h2 as well. V.Milov-Landenbergue, Swiss (cht) 2002 was an almighty mess that became quite uncomfort­ able for White after 1 4 'be2 'ba6 1 5 'bbc3 'bc7 1 6 J:d l b 5 1 7 'bxb5 'bxb5 1 8 il.xb5 1:b8 1 9 �d3 �xh2 ! with good attacking prospects. However, against such an artificial-looking set-up it is hard to believe that White cannot find a way to emphasise his positional plusses . What about 1 6 'ba4 ! ? and if 16 . . . b5 then 1 7 'bxc5 �xc5 1 8 .td3 'bfxd5 1 9 il.e4 and there are about still some solid White ' s game which must compensate for his slightly uncomfortable king. b) 1 3 . . .'iVd8 to my mind looks the most likely to prove a durable threat. In Mamedyarov-Sulskis, Euro­ pean (ch), Batumi 2002 Black generated quite dangerous play after 14 'be2 d6 1 5 lid l a6 1 6 a4 'bbd7 17 'bd4 'bb6 1 8 'bc3 'bxc4 1 9 �xc4 b 5 2 0 �d3 b4 2 1 'bc6 �c7 22 'be2 'bxd5 ! 23 �xd5 .te6 winning back the pawn and retaining a light initiative. I have a feeling that White should look to improve on move 1 5 . Maybe 1 5 'bbc3 a 6 1 6 a4 'bbd7 1 7 'bg3 'be5 1 8 .te2 offers White a more stable coordination of his forces. However, this is not clear, and the cleverness of Black ' s strategy is reflected in the slight awkwardness of White' s queen o n b3 . 13 'be2 'bbd7 14 'bbc3 'be5 ? ! 1 4 . . . �c7 i s well motivated b y a desire to avoid the forthcoming exchange, but it is a bit passive and White consolidated quite easily in Ward-Gormally, British (ch),

44 2 tDe4 3 iLf4 c5 4 13 �a5+ 5 c3 tDf6 6 d5! ? . . .

Millfield 2000 by 1 5 tDd4 iLb4 1 6 iLe2 a6 1 7 e4 iLxc3 1 8 bxc3 tDc5 19 l:!.e l iLd7 20 iLfl with a clear advantage. 15 tDa4! �b4 1 6 b3 !

A strong move which to my mind pretty much refutes this line for Black. The point is that as the position simplifies White will find himself in possession of a number of major positional trumps : an excellent square on d4 and above all the long black diagonal, on which Black is in no position to conduct much of a contest. 16 . . . tDxc4 17 bxc4 �xc4 1 8 tDxc5 �xc5 1 9 tDf4 g5 Amazingly this was the novelty( ! ) and even here it was a familiar idea In Hodgson-Wells, adapted. also Copenhagen 1 996 suffered, but achieved a modicum of counterplay after 19 . . . l:!.e8 20 l:!.e l g5 2 1 tDd3 �6 22 l\Vb3 �xb3 23 axb3 tDxd5 24 l:!.a5 iLe6 25 e4 tDe7 26 l:!.xg5+ tDg6 27 f4 f6 28 l:!.b5 l:!.ac 8 ! and somehow survived. I remember being very surprised by 22 �3 . To me 22 ii.b2 ! tDxd5 23 iLd4 looked and still looks very scary indeed. If Black eschews . . . g5 altogether, he simply has no compensation for the state of his position !

20 tDd3 �xd5 2 1 e4 �a5 22 iLd2 �b5 23 �e2 l:!.e8 24 a4 �b6+ 25 iLe3 �a5 26 h4 !

Black is so weak on the dark squares around his king that White has a range of options as to how to exploit it. How bad is Black' s position? I would say enough that the coming desperate piece sacrifice might have been the best practical chance. 26 . . . ii.g4 27 �b2 ! tDxe4+ 28 fxe4 l:!.xe4 29 �b5 �xb5 30 axb5 gxh4 31 l:!.xh4 h5 32 l:!.hhl l:!.ae8 33 l:!.hel ii.d7 34 tDf4 iLxb5 35 tDxh5 White is left with only one pawn, and I think Turner did well to reach this non-trivial ending. However I also know for a fact that Julian can mate with bishop and knight v the lone king ! 35 ... l:!.4e6 36 iLxa7 l:!.xel 37 l:!.xel l:!.xe l 38 '\t>xel �f8 The long ending which follows is beyond our scope. I suspect it is winning, albeit requiring both technique and patience. 39 tDf4 �e7 40 ii.d4 iLc6 41 '\t>d2 �d7 42 �c3 ii.e4 43 �c4 '\t>c6 44 iLe3 ii.bl 45 tDe2 ii.a2+ 46 �b4 iLbl 47 g3 iLd3 48 tDd4+ 50 ii.f4 �c5 5 1 '\t>d5 49 �c3 tDb3+ '\t>d5 5 2 b6 53 tDb7 f6

2 ..tDe4 3 �4 c5 4 j3 �a5+ 5 c3 0,/6 6 d5! ? 45 .

54 �b4 �f5 55 0,xd6 �d3 56 0,e8 b5 57 0,a7 �e4 58 0,xb5 i.d3 59 0, e7 + �d4 60 0,e8 f5 6 1 0,d6 �d 5 62 �e3 i.bl 63 0,e4 1-0

Analytical Article 1 The Pawn Grab 8

. . .

'iVb4+!?

1 d4 0,f6 2 �g5 0,e4 3 �f4 e5 4

f3 �a5+ 5 e3 0,f6 6 d5 'iVb6 7 �el

e6 8 e4 'ib4+! ?

For a long time this acceptance of White ' s gambit was barely taken seriously despite receiving a first outing as long ago as 1 982, ancient history in Trompowsky terms. It took a full 1 5 years for a reappearance, in the game Speelman-Kazhgaleyev, from the Luzem World Team Championship, and even this failed to ignite real enthusiasm, despite the fact that not much reading between the lines was required to understand that the notes of the victor betrayed a certain respect for Black' s bold greed. More recently there has been a resurgence of interest, perhaps aided by the rather shocking degree of scepticism displayed by the Ches sBas e on commentator Trompowsky affairs lIya Tsesarsky who at one moment plunged to the

extreme condemnation "8 c4? Losing or sacrificing a pawn - it' s not important. I n any case White hasn 't compensation . . . Better are all other continuations without material loss". Recently he seems to have recovered his composure a bit, and practical examples have also done their bit to re-emphasise that White has rich compensation for the pawn. Gradually there seems to be clarification that the most convinc­ ing is to try to interest Black in the b-pawn rather than the c-pawn, with positions analogous to the Vaganian gambit (see chapter 7) except that White ' s pawn is on c4 rather than c2. This can restrict the scope of his bishop, but is j ust as likely to promote his ambitions in the centre by facilitating the e5 breakthrough. a) 9 0,c3 'ixc4

1 0 e4 (It is possibly unwise to mention this, because I may have completely got the wrong end of the stick, but I recently had a rather random conversation with Jonathan Speelman about this gambit and I think he said he thought the general view was that White should play 1 0 �d2 here. It i s certainly true that 1 0 . . exd5 ? 1 1 e4 would be terrific for White, but the problem is that after 1 0 . . 'i' a6 ! I cannot see any .

.

46 2 . ..tDe4 3 i.j4 c5 4 f3 'i a 5 + 5 c3 liJj6 6 d5! ? independent significance since 1 1 e4 'ib6 leads back to the main line. apologies to Jonathan if I mis­ understood ! ) 1 0 . . . 'ib4 ! (10. . . 'iYd4?! 1 1 i.d2 ! would transpose to ' b 1 ' below) 1 1 i.d2 'ib6 1 2 i.c4

and now Black has a choice : a 1 ) 1 2 . . . exdS 1 3 liJxdS liJxdS 1 4 i.xdS liJc6 was Black's choice in the above mentioned Speelman­ Kazhgaleyev, World Team (ch), Luzem 1 997, when Jonathan points out that I S SLc3 ! was the most promising continuation. B lack ' s development here looks quite problematic, and he proposes to solve it in fairly dramatic style with l S . . . liJb4 16 SLc4 dS ! 1 7 exdS i.fS . This is indeed quite complicated, but I still like White after 1 8 g4 ! ? i.g6 (White' s idea i s in fact to rule out an irritating check on h6. 1 8 . . . liJc2+ 19 'iti>f2 'iVh6 ! ? 20 'iYe2+ is worse) 1 9 'iYa4+ ! ? ( 1 9 'ie2+ 'iti>d7 ! 20 0-0-0 SLd6 is less clear) 1 9 . . . 'id8 20 a3 liJc2+ 2 1 'it>f2 'id6 22 ::tc 1 liJd4 23 liJe2 with a rather obscure position in which both sides face unusual problems, but Black's seem rather more intractable. a2) 12 . . . d6( ! ) is maybe indicated, and it certainly makes sense to keep

the position blocked and prevent e4-eS ( 1 2 . . . g6? 1 3 eS ! is strong, since if 1 3 . . . liJxdS 1 4 SLxdS ! there is a crushing attack in the offing) 1 3 liJge2 ( 1 3 f4 might be playable, but 1 3 . . . SLe7 cannot yet be met with any convincing e4-eS breakthrough and Black will follow with a well-timed . . . exdS) 1 3 liJge2 eS 1 4 f4 liJbd7 I S 0-0 a 6 1 6 liJg3 and now:

a2 1 ) 1 6 . . . exf4? ! 1 7 i.xf4 g6 permitted White a rather elegant breakthrough with 1 8 eS ! dxeS 1 9 i.gS ! i.g7 2 0 d6 0-0 2 1 liJdS liJxdS 22 .l:xf7 ! 'ixb2? (22 . . . liJSf6 was compulsory but also pretty grim) 23 'ixdS 'id4+ 24 'ixd4 exd4 2S l:xd7+ and wins . Wells-Borriss, Austria League 200 1 . a22) 1 6 . . . g6 was discussed in the post-mortem, but I think that with 1 7 fxeS fxeS 1 8 i.gS ! 'id6 ( 1 8 . . . i.g7 1 9 d6 ! ) 1 9 'ia4 ! i.g7 20 liJbS 'ib8 ! (20 . . . 'ib6? 21 SLxf6 i.xf6 22 z:.xf6 ! 'ixf6 23 liJc7+) 2 1 SLxf6 i.xf6 22 ::txf6 axbS 23 'ixbS 0-0 24 J:1f2 White retains a reasonable initiative, a line which I hope justifies its place for some instructive hacking ideas. a23 ) 1 6 . . . 'id8 ! is a much tougher move with which Borriss improved

2 . . . CD e4

3 �f4 c5

his defence for the game Dunworth­ Borriss, European Club Cup, Panormo 200 1 in which White prosecuted his initiative much too slowly and had insufficent play after 1 7 a4 g6 1 8 l:Ia3 �h6 1 9 f5 �xd2 20 �xd2 Itg8 2 1 fxg6 fxg6 22 CDd l �f8 23 �aD CDg8 24 h3 .i:txD 25 1:i.xD CDdf6. My instinct was to look at 1 7 �a4 ! ? sacrifices and all, but after some analysis I have to say that I am pretty sure that 1 7 . . J�tb8 ! 1 8 fxe5 b5 1 9 CDxb5 axb5 20 �xb5 �6! falls short for White. It is still possible to handle the position more positionally by 1 8 .te2, provoking . . . b5 and then launching a second front with a later a2-a4 and so on, but I am now sceptical about all this. b) 9 i.d2 ( ! ) offers B lack a choice of pawns, but the key point is that the aggravation suffered by the Black queen if she opts for the c-pawn is that much more unpleasant. I shall consider b 1 ) 9 . . :�xc4 now looks very risky. After 1 0 e4 'i'd4 1 1 CDc3 exd5 12 CDge2 �e5 13 �f4 'i'e6 1 4 exd5 'i'b6

1 5 d6 ! gives back the c6 square, but prevents any ideas of . . . iLd6 .

'iWa5+ 5 c3 CDf6 6 d5! ? 4 7

After 1 5 . . . CDc6 1 6 'i'd2 CDd8 1 7 0-0-0 h6 White won quickly with 1 8 CDd5 in Pixton- Efimenko, World U- 1 6 (ch) 200 1 , but 1 8 iLe5 ! ? looks still more convincing as after 1 8 . . . CDe6 1 9 iLxf6 gxf6 20 CDd5 �d8 2 1 'i'c3 i.g7 22 CD2f4 Black must be all but lost. The fast improving young American Aaron Pixton gives the impression of having a very well thought through Trompowsky repertoire, and it is probably worth keeping an eye on his evolving choices. b2) 9 . . . 'i'xb2( ! ) is therefore critical. After 1 0 CDc3 'i'b6 practice has witnessed two plausible tries :

b2 1 ) 1 1 1:r.b l �d8 1 2 e4 d6 1 3 f4 e5 ( 1 3 . . .te7 ? ! 1 4 e5 ! ) 1 4 CDD CDbd7 1 5 .td3 iLe7 16 0-0 ( 1 6 f5 ideas are also possible here as in 'b2 1 ' below, but I am not sure why the insertion of 1:r.b l and 'ifd8 should be beneficial in this case) 1 6 . . . exf4 (After 1 6 . . 0-0 White has a choice between the closed treatment with 1 7 f5 ! ? or exchanging with 1 7 fxe5 CDxe5 1 8 CDxe5 dxe5 1 9 'i'D b6 20 'ili'g3 ! ? when he has reasonable play, but should beware of Black returning the e-pawn at a moment when he can construct a

48 2 ..'i'Je4 3 iJ.f4 c5 4 f3 'ika5 + 5 c3 CDf6 6 d5!? .

useful dark square blockade thereafter) 1 7 iJ.xf4 CDg4 1 8 CDb5 CDge5 1 9 iJ.xe5 CDxe5 20 CDxe5 dxe5 2 1 �h5 (The rather bizarre alternative 2 1 d6? ! iJ.xd6 22 iJ.c2 (22 iJ.e2 iJ.e7 23 �xd8+ iJ.xd8 24 CDd6+ <3;e7 25 CDf5+ �f8 26 CDd6 �e7 seems only good for a draw) 2 1 . . .0-0 22 'iYxe5 a6 23 d6 ! (23 CDa3 i.f6 is not in White ' s favour positionally - again the dark squares are the issue) 23 . . . iJ.f6 24 ':'xf6 ! axb5 (A pragmatic decision as 24 . . . 'ikxf6 25 'ikxf6 gxf6 26 CDc7 :'a7 27 CDd5 <j;g7 28 l:tfl looks to offer quite promising compensation for the exchange) 25 lIfl l:la6 26 cxb5 'ikxd6 27 �c3 1;2-1;2 Hall­ Berndt, Bundesliga, 200 1 . b22) 1 1 e4 ! ? d6

has curiously enough twice arisen from the move order 3 . . . c5 4 d5 'ikb6 5 iJ.c 1 e6 6 f3 'ika5+ 7 c3 CDf6 8 e4 d6 9 iJ.d2 'ikb6 1 0 c4 �xb2 1 1 CDc3 �6 - see also Chapter 7 for more on the intervening mischief. 1 1 e4 ! ? makes better sense to me, particularly in the context of the 'blocking' strategy since the queen is certainly not performing great duties on b6. 1 2 f4 CDbd7 1 3 CDf3 e5 ( 1 3 . . . iJ.e7? ! is well met by 14 e5 ! dxe5 1 5 fxe5 CDg4 1 6 l:tb I ! when

the possibility of d6 basically rules out the only normal retreat for the black queen) 14 f5 ! ? It is strangely difficult to find a good attacking alternative, but this does leave Black extremely short of air. 14 . . . g6 1 5 iJ.d3 'ikd8 1 6 0-0 gxf5 ? ! (This i s rather ugly, but 1 6 . . . iJ.g7 might even be answered with the very simple 1 7 fxg6 hxg6 1 8 CDg5 and Black will have huge difficulty unravelling) 1 7 exf5 h6 ( 1 7 . . . iJ.g7? ! 1 8 CDg5 ! h6 1 9 CDe6 i s a good illustration of what Black is up against here) 1 8 �h l iJ.e7 1 9 �c l b5 ! ? 20 CDxb5 ! A fine sacrifice, without which Black's last move would have been rather a decent bid for some freedom 20 . . . e4 2 1 iJ.f4 ! 'ikb6 (2 1 . . . CDb6 ! ? at least demands a very picturesque refutation by 22 iJ.xe4 ! CDxe4 23 f6 ! iJ.xf6 [or 23 . . . CDxf6 24 �e l 0-0 25 iJ.xh6 with a raging attack] 24 l:f.e l 0-0 25 l:lxe4 iJ.xa 1 26 'iYxa 1 and again White has tremendous attacking chances for a small material investment) 22 l:f.b l exf3 23 lie! ! fxg2+ 24 <j;g 1 <j;d8

25 lIxe7 ! Vyzmanavin ' s conduct of the attack is both vigorous and artistic. 25 . . . <j;xe7 26 CDxd6 'ia5 27 'iYe3+ <j;f8 28 l:te l <j;g7 29

2 . ..tije4 3 J.f4 c5 4 13 �a 5+ 5 c3 t'iJf6 6 d5!? 49 'tlt'g3+ 'it>h7 3 0 l:te7 ! J:!.g8 3 1 ltxt7+ 'it>h8 32 'ih4 l:tg4 33 J:rf8+ ! (but not 33 'ixh6+?? 'It>g8 and with no direct follow-up attention switches by magic to the white 33 . . . 1 -0 t'iJxf8 34 �xf6+ 'it>h7 3 5 Vyzmanavin- Ehlvest, USSR (ch), Lvov 1 984. One of the real Trompowsky attacking classics which cried out for inclusion in full .

8 . . . 'iVb4+

-

Conclusion

Black has sufficient resources in this 'pawn grab ' line that it is hardly surprising that its long period of neglect eventually came to an end. Indeed, although White has some interesting attacking ideas after 9 t'iJc3 which are worth studying for their own sake, in the specific line ' a23 ' with 1 6 . . . �d8 ! he is at present struggling for a convincing continuation. Therefore I think White should tum to 9 .i.d2( ! ) when he seems to get excellent attacking prospects whichever pawn Black decides to take, although I would be less surprised to see a strengthening of the defence after 9 . . . 1i'xb2 ! ?

Chapter Conclusion This was always going to be one of the toughest and most difficult chapters, although I tried to emphasise ways to play ' normal ' positions rather than just fixate on the latest theory. Of those, I think that the Schmid Benoni-style set-up of Game 3 can never hold out real hope of equality, but of course the Modem Benoni style of Game 6 will always have its supporters, even though from White ' s standpoint McShane ' s Luke handling was very heartening. It seems White can avoid the 'pure Benoni ' if he wants. the Of more typically Trompowsky material, both Games 5 and 7 contain some tense and critical moments . Black would do best to look at the note to 1 1 . . . b5 ! if he wishes to rehabilitate the Black position in the former, while the pawn sacrifice 1 0 . . . .lic5 ! ? in the latter retains some vitality. The line with 12 . . . l:te8 ! and 1 3 . . . 'id8 ! could well be the focus of future attention. I am also not entirely convinced that the strange 1 0 . . .'i'a5+ of Hodgson­ Stohl would not justify an even closer look - Julian' s own notes drop hints that it might !

Chapter 3 2 .tiJe4 3 �f4 c5 4 f3 "if a5+ 5 c3 l2Jf6 The Solid Repertoire with 6 l2Jd2 -

. .

As w e have seen, the lines with 6 d5 lead to enormously complex, challenging and sharp positions which can be great fun to play. However, the objection of some to 6 d5 is not hard to fathom. Moves like the retreat 7 j.c 1 are not to every­ body ' s taste. It may be desirable to maintain a spatial plus, but in the context of such ' un-development' it carries palpable risks. Hence the importance of a safe, structurally sound, developing alternative in the form of 6 tDd2 . The first point is that 7 tDb3 is threatened, and therefore 6 . . . cxd4 7 tDb3 is a virtually forced sequence. Then, however, Black has a serious choice of squares for his queen available. Game 8 examines 7 . . . 'iVf5 , by which Black secures the bishop pair but must cede an undeniable initiative to do so. At first sight the 7 . . . 'i'd8 of Game 9 would appear to be motivated almost entirely by

negative considerations. It seems intrinsically unlikely that d8 could be as effective a square as b6 for Black' s queen given the pawn structure with the open c-file and White ' s knight on b3 . Fear of the type of endings to be examined in Games 1 1 - 1 4 looks like the primary motivation. However, this move has recently been quite popular, and Black ' s ' achievement' of ensuring a middle-game, is bolstered by the fact that in the main line (8 . . . d5) White indeed needs to proceed quite adroitly not to be irritated to some degree by the dual possibilities of . . . j.b4+ and . . . tDh5 - the latter revealing a plus side to . . . 'i'd8, namely coverage of the d8-h4 diagonal. So on to the main line 7 . . . 'iWb6. Game 10 with 8 cxd4 does not form part of the recommended repertoire, but is usefully illustrative of why it is circumspect for White to prefer the exchange of queens here. Julian used to play this way, but Boris Gelfand' s novelty 8 . . . tDc6 ! has finally put him off a line which, in my opinion, was creaking a bit in any case. Game 1 1 , the final game with the ' c-file clearance ' structure shows quite how favourable this can be to White in the absence of queens. Games 1 2- 1 4 cover 8 ... tDc6, leading to the ending which will likely determine the ultimate efficacy of 6 tDd2 .

2 0:,e4 3 iLf4 c5 4]3 'ia5+ 5 c3 0:,f6 6 0:,d2 51 . . .

Game 8 Lomineishvili - Gruenberg Bundesliga II (South), 200 l . 1 d 4 0:,f6 2 iLg5 0:,e4 3 iLf4 c5 4

f3 'iVa5+ 5 c3 0:,f6 6 0:,d2 cxd4 7

0:,b3 'iVf5

This is ' critical ' in the sense that any answer to a ' zwischenzug' which itself contains a threat will tend to be. The tactical justification of White' s play is that 8 iLxb8 maintains material parity, and the attacking potential which he is subsequently able to generate to compensate for the bishop pair looks to the naked eye far in excess of the value obtained for this investment in many other lines of the Trompowsky. However since White' s trumps are almost entirely dynamic, and his opponent can claim some longer-term plusses, there are still those willing to champion the Black cause as this interesting game illustrates. Since 8 'i'xd4 0:,c6 is distinctly unpromising for White, the next few moves have a fairly forcing character. 8 iLxb8! �xb8 9 'i'xd4 b6 10 e4 'if4 1 1 0:,h3 ! There is now a fair consensus that this is the right way to gain further time on Black ' s queen. The fl

bishop is not blocked, and access to the g5 square can be important, as we shall see. Trying to manoeuvre this knight via e2 to c3 has also been tried, but is at best a bit ' fussy ' . White should aim to strike before Black can bring his forces out. 1 1 . . . 'i'c7 1 2 e5! 0:,g8

This is the key pOSItIon for an assessment of 7 . . .'ti'f5 . As I suggested above, White ' s lead in development looks quite awesome, and Black's attempt to get his own pieces out will entail playing . . . e6 after which the d6 square also gives some cause for concern. For all that, practice suggests that the defender has resources. Perhaps it is the sheer flexibility of his kings ide pawns. Nothing achieved, everything still possible ! 13 0-0-0 Natural and good, of course, but 1 3 0:,f2 ! ? might also be worth a closer look, trying to discourage . . . e6 by waving the prospect of an immediate 0:,e4 at Black. In this case 1 3 . . . g6? ! 1 4 e6 seems to run into trouble. Perhaps there is a case therefore for resorting to the immediate 1 3 . . . f5 ! ? 1 3 . . . e6

52 2. J i Je4 3 iLf4 c5 4 f3 jVa5+ 5 c3 CiJf6 6 CiJd2

14 CiJg5 ! ? I n a sense more ambitious, although also more committal than either: a) 14 iLd3 ! ? CiJe7 1 5 iLe4 CiJc6 1 6 i.xc6 jVxc6 1 7 CiJg5 iLe7 1 8 CiJe4 ..ib7 1 9 1:!.he l 1:d8 20 jVe3 White ' s play looks logical and methodical and Black's task rather toilsome. Nonetheless, it is also not obvious where White can improve, and it seems that a well timed . . . f6 will give Black just sufficient breathing space. It seems that with the knight pair against the bishops a good deal of compensation is required. 20 . . . 0-0 2 1 CiJd6 iLa8 22 'it'b l f6 ! 23 1:e2 fxe5 24 jVxe5 1:f6 2 5 1:!.ed2 l:i.g6 26 jVe2 jVc7 and Black is close to equalising, although even now this position would of course not be everybody ' s cup of tea. Moiseenko­ Svidler, Russia (chT) 2002. b) 14 f4 f5 ! ? 15 ..ie2 Salov also marvels at Black ' s resilience given his developmental woes, but identifies the key point that the well protected d7 is his only weakness. So he opens the kingside, but this is also not crystal clear. 1 5 . . . CiJh6 1 6 kIhg 1 iLe7 1 7 g4 fxg4 1 8 ..ixg4 0-0 1 9 jVd3 ! 'it'h8? ! ( 1 9 . . . b5 ! ?) 20 ..if] (Salov prefers 20 CiJd4, which indeed looks reasonable although it is not yet transparent to me where

the axe will fall) 20 . . . CiJf5 2 1 iLe4 b5 22 ..ixf5 exf5 (22 . . . 1:xf5 ? ! 23 CiJd4 1:f8 24 CiJg5 ! ) and again we have the knight pair doing battle with Black's bishops. V. Salov­ Nunn, Amsterdam, 1 99 5 . In this case given a mixture of good outposts and concrete attacking threats I fancy their chances. I must say I find this stylistically a strange opening choice for the Doctor! 14 . . . CiJe7 15 iLb5 ! ? This seems to b e a novelty and I like White ' s idea, even though its ultimate worth rests upon some quite intricate and unverified detail. Note for starters that if 15 . . . CiJc6 16 ..ixc6 jVxc6 she would find herself a full tempo up on Moiseenko-Svidler (note ' a ' above) . 1 5 . . . a6 16 jVf4 ! CiJf5 1 7 g4

1 7 . . . CiJh6 Rather a critical moment. It is definitely a concession to be driven back to this square, therefore 1 7 . . . axb5 ! ? 1 8 gxf5 f6 is highly critical to the assessment of White' s conception. Then 1 9 jVh4?! fxg5 20 jVh5+ 'it'e7 2 1 jVxg5+ f7! seems a good deal too speculative from White ' s standpoint as the king nestles happily enough on g8. Consequently the more positional

2 ..te4 3 .i.f4 c5 413 'iWa5+ 5 c3 t:"tJf6 6 t:"tJd2 53 .

1 9 fxe6 ! dxe6 20 t:"tJe4 "ixe5 2 1 'i'xe5 fxe5 22 l:f.hg l - or maybe even 22 a3 ! ? to prioritise the boxing in of the black bishops - is preferable, with perfectly fair compensation, but not, I would say, a clear advantage. 18 .i.d3 d6! There is not much to be done about h7, and the window of opportunity to effect this break could easily be slammed shut if Black delays. 19 t:"tJxh7 dxe5 20 �g5 .i.b7 2 1 liJd2 Itd8 ? ! Trying to muster some counterplay with 2 1 . . . b5 ! ? looks more precise based upon the idea that 22 �b l ? ! �d8 ! rather frees Black 's game. White should probably settle for 22 t:"tJxfS �xfS 23 �b 1 but with this releasing of the kings ide tension I think she would enjoy only a slight edge. 22 .i.c2 �d5 ? ! This also does not help, although e5 is a genuine problem and Black has no obvious means to free himself from White ' s rather novel and very effective bind on the kingside. 23 t:"tJxf8 ! A correct transformation of advantages . To save his e-pawn Black will be forced to throw in the move . . . f6 and this creates a new and decisive target in front of his king. 23 . . . �xf8 24 .te4 f6 25 "ig6 �d7 26 .i.xb7 ? ! A slight inaccuracy. The immediate 26 g5 ! would have precluded the following note, while op ening the f-file is hardly an option for the defender.

26 . . JlVxb7 27 g5 t:"tJf7? ! Failing to seize the last half-chance. 27 . . . t:"tJf5 28 gxf6 (28 t:"tJe4? t:"tJh4 ! ) �h6 ! staves off immediate disaster, although the defence is still very unpleasant. 28 t:"tJe4 f5 29 "YWxe6 .l:[xdl + 30 �xd l fxe4 31 l:f.d7 1-0 Even if White ' s system does not get the ultimate vote on the theoretical level, it was a very briskly conducted attack and a good demonstration of the development of this deficit characteristic variation really counting. Game 9 Grigore - Jianu Bucharest (open ) 200 1 1 d4 t:"tJf6 2 .tg5 t:"tJe4 3 .i.f4 c5 4 f3 � a5+ 5 c3 t:"tJf6 6 t:"tJd2 cxd4 7 t:"tJb3 'iWd8 ! ?

A t first glance this makes a rather negative impression, at least in the sense that the preference for this square over b6 is liable to be made on the basis of fear of the ending which arises in Games 1 1 - 1 4 rather than for the positive virtues of the queen ' s initial square. Having said this, both Gallagher and Hodgson seem a little too dismissive of a move which has recently enjoyed a

54 2 . . . 4:Je4 3 �f4 c5 4 j3 'iVa5+ 5 c3 4:Jf6 6 4:Jd2 surprising resurgence of interest. The square dS does have one positive virtue - White has to be aware of potential embarrassment arising from the harassment of his bishop by . . . 4:Jf6-h5 , and the game chosen is notable for a particularly radical response to this resource. 8 cxd4 ! This must be right now. Oddly, the Trompowsky specialist Igor Miladinovic tends still to proceed in '7 . . . 'iVf5 mode ' here with S �xbS?! l:!xbS 9 'iWxd4 . However, the justification for this in Game 9 was the gain of further tempi against both the black queen and remaining knight, whereas here Black has neither of these headaches to contend with and is well-placed to answer e4 with . . . d6 further dark-square his emphasising ascendancy in the centre. For example, 9 . . . a6 1 0 e4 (The attempt to grab a pawn with 1 0 'iVa7 "fic7 1 1 e4 e6 1 2 �xa6 Miladinovic-K.Georgiev, Skopj e (op) 2002 also backfires. Black recovers his material with ease and secures a position with the two bishops and an unbalanced pawn structure which gives him good prospects after 1 2 . . . �d6 1 3 �b5 �xh2 14 4:Je2 b6 1 5 "fixc7 �xc7 1 6 4:Jbd4 'it>e7) 1 0 . . . d6 1 1 f4 g 6 1 2 4:J f3 �g7 1 3 e 5 4:Jd7 1 4 0-0--0 dxe5 1 5 fxe5 "fic7 1 6 i.c4 e6 1 7 l:the l b5 I S i.d3 0-0 1 9 �b l a5 20 i.c2 b4 2 1 cxb4 ':xb4 and Black, since move ten, has consistently opted for the most ambitious deployment of his forces available, and he has got away with it and enjoys a great position. That was Miladinovic­ Kolev, Skopje (op), 2002. 8 . . . d5

Definitely the most reliable choice However, are there here. alternatives, two of them rather dubious, but two others sharp, ambitious and worthy of attention: a) S . . . g6? ! Joe Gallagher quotes a game with this move with a view to suggesting that 7 . . . "fidS "does not challenge the centre at all", but recent practice having revealed resources in the main line, it is rather against this lifeless fianchetto that the charge sticks. Strange that this too still crops up at a high level. De La Villa - lPolgar, Pamplona 2000 continued 9 e4 i.g7 1 0 4:Je2 0--0 1 1 4:Jc3 d6 12 �e2 a6 1 3 0-0 b5 1 4 a3 4:Jbd7 1 5 "fid2 i.b7 1 6 �e3 e6 1 7 4:Ja2 l:!bS I S 4:Ja5 �aS 19 .l:r.ac 1 'iVb6 when as Alterman points out, 20 b4 ! would have fixed the queenside pawn structure to White' s advantage e.g. 20 . . . l:f.fcS 2 1 4:Jc3 d5 2 2 e5 4:JeS 2 3 4:Jb3±. b) S . . . e6? ! was a misguided attempt at improvisation which I wheeled out some months ago in an Open tournament in Germany when caught, I am ashamed to say, somewhat unprepared for the Tromp ! My idea was that after 9 e4 d5 I would hope to get a French in which the bishop on f4 was rather misplaced and my chances to undermine White ' s pawn centre

2 .te4 3 i.f4 c5 4 j3 'ilVa5+ 5 c3 t'tJf6 6 t'tJd2 55 . .

thus enhanced. The move 10 i.xb8 ! was a rude awakening. After 1 0 . . Jhb8 1 1 e5 liJd7 12 f4 White has an impressive centre against which it is unusually difficult to generate play - Black profoundly misses the pressure his b8 knight customarily exerts when it arrives on c6. This should more than compensate for the bishop pair. c) 8 . . . t'tJc6 was recently tested by Nenad Sulava, a player whose careful opening preparation has a sufficient reputation that his choices almost automatic demand examination. This however looks a tad too provocative. As so often with the move . . . t'tJc6 in the i.f4 Tromp, Black has in mind to answer 9 d5 with 9 . . . e5, and in reply to 9 e4 is also intending the related counterblow 9 . . . e5 1 0 dxe5 t'tJh5 . The latter does indeed grant Black some active play after 1 1 i.e3 WUh4+ 12 i.f2 �g5 when White should probably get on with development with 1 3 t'tJe2, perhaps with a slight edge. However, I am more tempted by 9 d5 ! ? e5 1 0 i.g3 i.b4+ 1 1 �f2 and if now 1 1 . . .'ib6+ 1 2 e3 t'tJe7 1 3 i.xe5 t'tJfxd5 14 i.d4 White 's terrific square on d4 compensates, as we have seen in other lines in the previous chapter, for the slight inconvenience to his king. d) 8 . . . a5 ! ? Another attempt to Sulava to create speedy counterplay in this line. However after 9 e4 a4 1 0 t'tJd2 a3 1 1 bxa3 e6 Gonzalez De la Nava-Sulava, Lisbon (op) 200 1 I would be very comfortable with White ' s position provided he ensures against future development­ al log-jams by organising his forces with 12 i.b5 ! ? intending to meet

1 2 . . .'i 6 with 1 3 .l:tb l 'ilVxd4 1 4 t'tJe2 'iVa7 1 5 t'tJc4 and a strong attack, and otherwise to proceed systematically with 1 3 t'tJe21 1 4 0-0 and so on. It is not totally clear to me what Black's opening of files on the queenside has really achieved in this case. 9 e3 e6

10 g4 ! ? A n unusual and radical, but t o my mind rather attractive if risky solution to the problems associated with an early . . . t'tJh5 by Black. There are of course others : a) 1 0 i.d3 is perfectly reasonable, but in common with the other moves can result in very complicated positions. 1 0 . . . t'tJc6 1 1 t'tJe2 i.b4+ 1 2 �f2 and now: a l ) 1 2 . . . 0-0 1 3 g4 t'tJd7 1 4 'iVc2 g6 1 5 h4 e5 1 6 dxe5 �dxe5 1 7 a3 i.d6 (Kosi6 seems to suggest that 17 . . . i.e7 ! ? heading for the f6 square might have been more prudent) 1 8 h5 .l:e8 was D.Kosi6I.Sokolov, Bosnia 200 1 and now Kosi6 believes that simply 1 9 hxg6 followed by doubling on the h-file would have given quite a powerful attack, although I think he would

56 2. J { je4 3 Jif4 c5 4 j3 �a5+ 5 c3 4:f6 6 4:d2 agree that after 1 9 . . . fxg6 throwing in 20 'ig2 is for tactical reasons a wise precaution. It is a tense position, but full of potential for White. a2) 1 2 . . . 4:hS 1 3 .Jlg3 0-0 1 4 l:tc l fS I S 4:cS eS 1 6 dxeS 4:xg3 1 7 hxg3 4:xe5 1 8 a 3 .JlxcS 1 9 l:txcs with every promise of a solid albeit not immense positional plus . Zhao Zong Yuan - Lloyd, Australia (ch), Melbourne 200 1 . White ' s king looks so secure here, that I cannot help wondering if . . . .Jlb4+ is really worth throwing in at all. b) 10 l:tc 1 ! ? Hodgson seems to have a fondness for this move. 10 . . . 4:c6 1 1 .JlbS ( 1 1 .td3 4:hS ! looks OK for Black) 1 1 . . . .Jld7 1 2 4:e2 .tb4+ 1 3 � f2 'ilVb6 ( I suppose Black didn't care too much for 1 3 . . . 4:hS 1 4 4:cS) 1 4 .td3 0-0 I S g4 ! ? was the move order of Hodgson-Babula which transposes to the main game and is considered below. I mention it here because it might be quite a viable and less risky route than 10 g4 . It might also be that at move I S there are other viable plans too. What about I S a3 ! ? .Jle7 1 6 �c2 with 4:cS to follow. It will not set the world alight, but if the main game seems a little too ' tense ' then it might be a reasonable risk-free alternative. In general, the idea of provoking . . . 4:c6 in order to put the bishop on bS rather than d3 makes quite good sense to me. 1 0 . . . 4:e6 11 !:tel ! ? I quite like this, especially a s 1 1 .td3 4:d7 ! ? intending a quick . . . e5 might offer quite promising counterplay. This is of course, one of the consequences of 1 0 g4 which demands special care from White.

1 1 . . . .tb4+ 12 'if2 0-0 13 .Jlb5 .Jld7 14 4:e2 'iVb6 15 .Jld3

15 . . JIfe8? ! This variation does seem to have the habit of throwing up extremely double-edged positions, and every prospect of a good old kingside hack. The strength of White ' s coming concentration there suggests to me that a counter-punch in the centre is more likely to yield a dividend, and to this end I prefer Babula's IS . . . .u.fe8 ! ? In the aforementioned Hodgson-Babula, Bundesliga 2000 play continued 16 a3 ( 1 6 .teS ! ?) .tf8 1 7 .tgS 'iVd8 1 8 h4 e5 1 9 4:c3 .Jle6 ( 1 9 . . . 20 dxeS 4:xe5 l:tc8 23 'iVa4 21 .tbS 4:c6 22 h6 24 .tf4 'iVb6 2S 4:ce2 .td7 26 b4 a6 27 .txc6 bxc6 and White' s decision to play o n both sides o f the board has led to immense complications . Perhaps he should have tried 28 gS ! ? here since 28 . . . c5 can be met with 29 bxc5 i.xcs 30 'iVb3 ! ? but the whole business is very tough to assess. 16 h4 a5 1 7 a3 .JlfS 18 h5 ! ? a4 1 9 4:e5 .txe5 20 .l:!xe5 'iVxb2 21 g5 4:e8 22 1lb5 ! ? show White continues to admirable faith in the efficacy of his

2 . ..tije4 3 iLf4 c5 4 13 �a 5 + 5 c3 ti'Jf6 6 ti'Jd2 5 7 kings ide play, given which his queens ide pawns are viewed as expendable if time I S gained thereby. This makes for great entertainment, and if with the aid of computer analysis it is possible to point to question marks over its 1 00% soundness, I am not sure how tragic that really is. 22 . . .'iVxa3 23 'iVb l QJa5 ? ! I t i s here that I have had trouble re ally knocking 23 . . . QJd6 ! ? on the head. The point is that 24 iLxh7+ 'it;>h8 25 �b6 gives some counterplay after 25 . . . ti'Jc4 26 �xb7 e5 ! while 25 iLxd6 'iVxd6 26 h6 g6 27 iLxg6 hxg6 28 'iVxg6 'iVe7 is not quite convincing either. 29 QJf4 ! ? iLe8 3 0 �xb7 ! for example leads t o a very picturesque draw, but no more. Best is probably the simple retreat 26 iLd3 in this last line, but though White still has serious attacking prospects, there is all to play for. 24 iLxh7+ WfS 25 �b6 ! iLc6 26 iLd3 QJc4 ? ! 27 iLxc4 dxc4 28 h6! Now it clarifies nicely (from the Trompowsky player' s standpoint) into a rout. 28 . . . gxh6 There is nowhere to run. 28 . . . 'it;>g8 29 hxg7 'iVd3 30 �h8+ Wg7 3 1 �h l is even more devastating. 29 gxh6 'it;>e7 30 �xb7+! No respite in the centre either. The rest is fun, but quite self-explanatory! 30 . . . iLxb7 3 1 'iVxb7+ QJc7 32 iLxc7 'iVb3 33 iLb6+ Wf6 34 d5 e5 35 f4 l:Iab8 36 fxe5+ �xe5 37 'iVe7+ �xd5 38 'iVd7+ 1-0 A very entertaining attacking game. This line is clearly very

sharp. The notes at move 1 0 should be carefully scoured by those seeking a quieter life.

(Non-Repertoire For Illustration Only!) Game 1 0 Hodgson - Gelfand Groningen 1 996 1 d4 QJf6 2 iLg5 QJe4 3 iLf4 c5 4 f3 'iVa5+ 5 c3 QJf6 6 QJd2 cxd4 7 QJb3 'iVb6 8 cxd4 ? !

For a long time Julian' s main preference here, the text is now rather out of favour. Black has tended to switch from the rather static centre which arises from 8 . . . d5 towards more dynamic approaches which better serve to utilise the active position of the queen on b6. Gelfand' s novelty is the latest and most effective of these and bolsters my view that this certainly cannot be included in the recommended repertoire. 8 . . . QJc6 ! Julian describes this is "one of the most vicious novelties I have ever had to face in my chess career". Boris Gelfand sets out to show that the . . . ti'Jh5 theme can have a place

58 2. J i Je4 3 �f4 c5 4 13 'iVa5+ 5 c3 etJf6 6 etJd2 with the queen on b6 too. Since this seems to be ' the latest word ' I will mention just one other move. Black needs to play sharply to make a virtue out of the queen ' s position, and therefore 8 . . . d5 is essentially too static. Therefore, prior to Gelfand ' s inspiration, 8 . . . e6 ! ? had looked the best e.g. 9 �d2 (9 e3 is met with 9 . . etJdS ! whilst I suspect that 9 e4 as ! does not guarantee White a quiet life either) 9 . . . etJc6 1 0 e 3 as ! 1 1 a4 �b4 1 2 �b5 etJdS 1 3 'iVe2 0-0 1 4 etJh3 d6 1 5 etJg5 e S 1 6 .txb4 etJdxb4 1 7 dxeS and now in Hodgson-Suetin, Bern (op) 1 99 5 Black simply recaptured with 1 7 . . . dxeS with a pleasant enough position. Hodgson gives instead 1 7 . . . etJc2+ ! ? 1 8 'ti'xc2 'ti'xe3+ 1 9 'iti>f1 �xgS as leading to severe problems for White, but after 20 exd6 .tfS 2 1 'iVcS ! I am not convinced it is so terrible. 9 e4 As so often in similar positions, 9 d5? ! is well met with 9 . . . e5 ! when the weaknesses created by the pawn on f3 are brought into brutally sharp focus . Also 9 e3 d6 ! followed by . . . e5 looks very dynamic for Black. 9 . . . eS! 10 dxeS �b4+ .

11 �e2 ! ? Once or twice since, White has felt moved to repeat this line and try 1 1 .td2, but Black has very easy equality with 1 1 . . . etJxeS 12 �xb4 'iVxb4+ 1 3 'iVd2 when either 1 3 . . . 'iVxd2+ 1 4 etJxd2 dS ! I S f4 etJc6 1 6 eS etJg4 1 7 etJgf3 f6 with the idea to meet 1 8 exf6?! with D .Muse-Jurkovic, 1 8 . . O-O ! Croatia (chT) 1 998, or keeping middlegame tensions with the untested 1 3 . . . �e7 ! ? both look very viable . 1 1 . . . etJxeS ! Cleaner in my opinion than the complex 1 1 . . . etJhS 1 2 ii.e3 . 1 2 �d4 etJg6! 13 �e3 1 3 �xb6? fails to 1 3 . . . etJxf4+ 1 4 �e3 and a knight fork on d5 . 13 dS! 14 exdS 0-0 Black pursues his initiative with great vigour, and indeed he should, because if he loses his momentum it is still not impossible to arrive at an endgame with certain weaknesses. Now however, White should play I S 'iti>f2 when there seems nothing better than 1 5 . . J Wxd4 1 6 �xd4 etJxd5 and there is really nothing between the two sides . That is a familiar problem with chess. You can play very well indeed with Black, but it does not always suffice for a plus. I S a3 ? ! though, causes a slight weakness to the b3 square and grants Black some time to regroup. How often does the move preceding a draw offer betray a player' s slight uneasiness? IS a3? ! �xd4 16 �xd4 �e7 1 7 'iti> f2 etJxdS 1 8 etJe2 �e6 1 9 etJcS .

•. •

2 .tiJe4 3 i.f4 c5 413 'tIka5+ 5 c3 'tJf6 6 'tJd2 5 9 . .

This feels like the wrong ex ch ange in terms of the initiative. 1 9 i.c5 ! ? would lose less time. 19 . . . i.xc5 20 i.xc5 .l:f.fc8 2 1 .:te l ? ! 'tJe5 22 'tJ d 4 b6 2 3 'tJxe6 fx e6 24 .:tel 'tJxf3 ! 25 gxf3 .:txc5 2 6 .:txe6 Itf8! It is impressive how a few rather weak squares, plus the presence of a bishop of the wrong colour squares to defend them can add up to something significant even with reduced material. 27 .l:f.e4 .l:f.c2+ 28 Wg3 'tJf6 29 l:le2 'tJh5+ 30 �f2 lifc8 3 1 b3 Wf8 32 .l:Igl .l:I8c3 33 .l:g5 g6 34 l:.b5 ctJf4 35 .l:xc2 .l:xc2+ 36 We3 'tJe6 and White has a very difficult task ahead. To annotate the rest seriously would not be an efficient use of limited space. Black commits an inaccuracy on move 48 which gave several drawing chances, but in the ' second round' , the queen ending, Gelfand ' s technique was faultless. 37 i.c4 'tJc7 3 8 .l:e5 .l:f.xh2 39 a4 lihl 40 �f4 1Ih4+ 41 We3 l:thl 42 'itf4 as 43 Wg4 l:.gl + 44 �h3 l:.dl 45 f4 �d7 46 1,!e4 �g7 47 �g4 Wf6 48 Wf3 l:i.d6? 49 i.g8! h5 50 b4 lid3+ 5 1 Wf2 Itd8 52 lic4 'tJa6 53 J:tc6+ rJig7 54 lhb6 'tJxb4 55 .te6 'tJd5 56 .txd5 i.:txd5 57 �e3 h4 58 J:b5 J:xb5 59 axb5 a4 60 b6 a3 61 b7 a2 62 b8='iW al =iV 63 'it>f3 �c3+ 64 Wg2 Wh6 65 'tIkd6 'tIkg3+ 66 Whl 'tIkh3+ 67 Wgl �h5 68 �d4 'tIkf5 69 Wg2 'itg4 70 'tIkdl + �xf4 7 1 'tIkd2+ Wg4 72 'iWdl + Wg5 73 iVd8+ Wh5 74 �h8+ Wg5 75 'tIkd8+ �f6 76 'tIkd2+ Wh5 77 'tIke2+ �h6 78 �h3 �f4 79 Wg2 'i'g3+ 80 �h l 'iVh3+ 81 Wgl 'i'f5 82 �h2 g5 83 'tIke8 'iVf6 84 'tIkc8 'i'f4+ 85 �hl �h5 86 'tIke8+ Wg4 87 �e6+ 'i'f5 88 'i'c4+ 'itg3 89 �c7+ 'i¥f4 0-1

Game 1 1 Lputian - Mirumian Ankara (zonal) 1 995 1 d4 'tJf6 2 .tg5 'tJe4 3 i.f4 c5 4 f3 �a5+ 5 c3 'tJf6 6 'tJd2 cxd4 7 'tJb3 'i'b6 8 'i¥xd4 'i'xd4? ! 9 cxd4

This exchange leads to the same old structure with which we are becoming quite well acquainted. Nonetheless, there is a difference, and from Black' s point of view, I don 't like it at all. In essence it concerns the effect of simplification on White' s two key developed minor pieces-the bishop on f4 and the knight on b3 . The point is this. In a middle-game setting, both of these squares seem to carry some down-side. As Gelfand demon­ strated most graphically, the bishop on f4 can easily be vulnerable to a central break with . . . e5, and it might also be a target for the simple . . . 'tJh5 familiar from so many queen' s pawn openings. The knight on the quite unusual b3 square can also suffer if Black can organise counter-play based on a quick . . . a5-a4, perhaps in conjunction with a queen on b6. Without queens on the board, on the other hand, both squares start to look a lot

60 2. J i Je4 3 i.f4 c5 4 j3 'iVa5+ 5 c3 'Df6 6 'Dd2 rosier. Assuming Black wants to contest the centre with the move . . . d5 the knight suddenly has access to the c5 square for which in similar structures (the Exchange Slav for example) it is often worth manoeuvring at some length. The bishop on f4 also looks very good here and further impedes Black's attempts to defend his vulnerable queenside. Lastly, White is simply free to pursue his space advantage with much less regard to king safety. First to the c-file on the queenside, he can also have realistic and promising expansionary aspirat­ ions on the other wing. 9 . d5 In a sense it seems a shame to grant White the c5 square so lightly, but if Black does not contest the centre in this way he can expect a further range of difficulties . Again it is the c-file which is so significant, forcing Black to address the question of how to develop his queenside sooner than he might have preferred e.g. 9 . . . d6 1 0 e4 'Dc6 ( 1 0 . . . g6 1 1 lIc U ) 1 1 d5 'De5 12 i.b5+ 'id8 ( 1 2 . . . i.d7 looks like a lesser evil) 1 3 i.d2 i.d7 14 i.xd7 'Dfxd7 was Degraeve-Lane, Capelle La Grande 1 994, and now the simple 1 5 i.c3 ! ? should suffice to persuade Black not to repeat this approach. However, the attempt to reach a French-style position with the bishop sitting a little strangely on f4 was perhaps relatively better. In Lputian-Shipov, Belgrade 1 999 Black played for counterplay with 9 . . . e6 ! ? 10 l:!.c 1 ( 1 0 e4 d5 [ 1 0 . . . 'Dc6 ! ?] 1 1 i.xb8 ! ? l':txb8 1 2 e 5 'Dd7 1 3 f4 i s an interesting alternative) 1 0 . . . 'Dc6 1 1 e4 d5 1 2 e 5 'Dd7 1 3 i.b5 a 5 1 4 a4 ! 'Da7 1 5

'Dxa5 'Dxb5 1 6 axb5 but after 1 6 . . . 'Db6 1 7 i.d2 Black had little to show for the pawn. However with either 1 6 . . . 'Dc5 ! ? 1 7 dxc5 l:Ixa5 1 8 b4 l:txb5 1 9 i.d2 b6 ! 20 cxb6 i.a6 which Hertneck was generous enough to attribute to his Fritz or maybe even 1 6 . . . f6 Black would have secured a share of the dynamic chances . 1 0 e3 e6 1 1 g4 !

. .

1 1 ... i.b4+ This was suggested as a possible improvement for B lack following another beautifully thematic White win in this line. However, I suspect that it doesn 't really change the fundamentals. The oft-quoted game V.Salov-Akopian, Wijk aan Zee 1 993 is well worth re-visiting though, for White ' s patient treatment of his spatial plus . After 1 1 . . .'Dc6 1 2 i.b5 i.d7 1 3 a3 ! �d8 ( 1 3 . . . 'De7 ! ? - De la Villa looks like a better try although the basic assessment unaltered. remains White should play 14 i.d3 still enjoying a healthy spatial plus) 1 4 l:tc 1 'De8 1 5 ttJc5 i.xc5 (A trade of advantages . In exchange for his fine knight on c5 White wins not just the bishop pair, but the better half of Black' s pair) 1 6 �xc5 �e7 17 ttJe2

2. J i je4 3 i.f4 c5 4 j3 �a5+ 5 c3 0,f6 6 0,d2 61 0,d6 18 i.d3 l:.tac8 1 9 b4 b6 20 lIc3 a5 ? ! 2 1 b5 0,a7 22 a4 .l:txc3 23 0,xc3 l:tc8 24 'it'd2 0,c4+ 25 'ic2 f6

26 e4 ! (Encouraged by Black's threat of . . . g5 this is in any case a break central in well-timed principle. Note that in his attempts to promote queenside play Black has landed himself with a truly awful knight on a7, while White ' s control o f key squares o n the c-file ensures that he will never face more than minor inconvenience in this sphere) 26 . . . dxe4 27 fxe4 0,d6 (Still on the theme of trading advantages, White is ready to answer 27 . . . e5 with 28 �b3 ! which would in all likelihood return the bishop pair in exchange for a total domination of the light squares) 28 'i£tb3 0,fl 29 e5 ! (now though it is on the dark squares that White will appropriately enough emphasise his as cendancy) 29 . . . l:th8 3 0 0,e4 h5 3 1 g5 fxg5 32 0,xg5 0,h6 33 i.c l ! 0,c8 34 l:tfl h4 3 5 h3 lIg8 3 6 i.h7 l:th8 3 7 i.g6 i. e 8 3 8 i.a3+ 'it>d7 3 9 i.e4 0,e7 40 i.xe7 'i£txe7 4 1 J:t c 1 i.d7 42 l:lc7 'it'd8 43 J:tb7 1 -0 A sup erb technical display by White, a model handling of the bishop pair whic h reduced the defender to utter pas sivity.

1 2 'it>n rJi;e7 13 lIc1 .i.d6 14 .i.xd6+ rJi;xd6

Black has successfully organised a different exchange of pieces from that of dark-squared bishop for knight which left Akopian in such an unpleasant predicament in the last note. However, as we shall see White still enjoys a powerful pull, not just on the dark squares. Black' s king position i s also a serious issue, and this, along with the passivity of his pieces, prevents him from convincingly contesting White ' s expansion (see the note to Black' s 1 9th i n particular o n this point) . 1 5 0,e2 b6 1 6 g5 0,fd7 1 7 0,c3 a6? ! Of course this is not a decision that Black makes lightly, (the weakness created on b6 is much more than academic ! ) but his desire to put a stop to 0,b5+ once and for all is understandable. However, in view of the developmental log-j am which we are to witness shortly there was a case for 1 7 . . . i.a6 ! ? 1 8 e4 ( 1 8 i.b5 ! ? l:tc8 1 9 a4 ! ? is another valid approach) 1 8 . . . i.xfl 1 9 llhxfl a6 and although Black's king still looks quite uncomfortable, the range of the attacker' s tactical options has been somewhat

62 2 ..tl:Je4 3 iLf4 c5 4 j3 'iVa 5 + 5 c3 t/jf6 6 t/jd2 .

diminished by the reduction of material . 20 e5+ ! ? is nonetheless an interesting way to again pose the key question as to how Black ' s forces will emerge. 18 iLd3 iLb7 At first sight 1 8 . . . t/jc6 100ks more natural and 1 9 t/je4+ ! ? �c7 is more attractive than decisive - 20 1:.xc6+ ! ? �xc6 2 1 .l:i.c 1 +
2 2 iLxd7!
This is still the critical position for the assessment of 6 t/jd2 . As so often in the Trompowsky we have arrived at fascinating clash between static and dynamic elements. On this occasion though, it is Black who is looking to prove his dynamic accepted having credentials, structural weaknesses in exchange for free development, the half-open a-file and mobile centre pawns. So just how weak are the doubled isolated b-pawns? I think it would be fair to say that theory is replete

2 . . . !De4 3 iLf4 c5 4 13 'ilVa5+ 5 c3 !Df6 6 !Dd2 63 with examples of White coming to a sticky end when he tries to attack and remove them too quickly - on which level Julian Hodgson' s p es simistic remark that "Black i s far too active for White to exploit this factor" clearly makes some sense. However, if White concentrates on trying to catch up with his development and succeeds in mobilising his kings ide forces, then I think Black has to be really quite careful not to end up in a position where his initiative is exhausted and the b-pawns prove to be a static long-term embarrassment. Of course, he is also interested in trying to make a virtue out of these pawns, to advance the front b-pawn in a strange kind of minority attack for which the pawn on c3 can prove to be a target. White' s 1 0th moves will also be judged according to their ability to take the sting out of this intention. I do not know how much of an impact Julian ' s book had on the popularity of this line, but he was clearly feeling exceptionally bleak about it when he concluded "a computer program might feel comfortable playing White after 8 . .'� c6! but I doubt that too many humans would enjoy playing the White side". I note only that a year later he himself, that most non-computer like of chess-players, gave us the superb demonstration of White ' s resources that is Game 1 3 b elow ! 1 0 !Dd4 ! ? In my opinion this i s clearly the most promising for White, and for this reason it is the focus of attention for the remaining games of the chapter. Given what I said above about White ' s need to begin catching up in the development stakes, moving the same piece twice

might look like an odd way forward. However, the move improves a knight which can otherwise start to look rather misplaced in the new structural setting (vulnerable even, as some of the notes that follow will suggest) and in addition forces Black to reckon with the possibility of !Db5 . It again invites a full opening of the c-file, an invitation which once more it seems wise to politely decline, but in this case the move also scores in terms of restraining the b-pawn. I will cover alternatives in brief, but only to the extent that they throw interesting light on the nature of this complex position. a) 1 0 e4 has a rather dubious reputation, and there is obviously the danger that after 10 . . . d5 ! the opening of the position will only emphasise Black' s greater activity.

.

Bad for example is 1 1 exd5 !Dxd5 1 2 iLd2 e5 ! 1 3 a3 (not 1 3 iLb5 iLe6 14 !De2 as 14 . . . !Dc7 ! forces 1 5 iLxc6+ when Black has a glorious position) 1 3 . . . iLe6 14 c4 !Df6 1 5 iLe3 !Dd7 1 6 lIc 1 !Dc5 1 7 !Dxc5 i.xc5 1 8 iLxc5 bxc5 1 9 !De2 rJ;e7 20 !Dc3 lthd8 and Black has superiority in terms of both piece placement and structure - Rausis­ Muhutdinov, Moscow, 1 992.

64 2 . . . 'De4 3 .t.j'4 c5 4 13 'i'a5+ 5 c3 'Df6 6 'Dd2 However, White could at least try 1 1 i.e3 ! ? dxe4 1 2 i.xb6 when I do not see a better move than 1 2 . . . e5 transposing to a line to be considered under c), which, though not to my taste for White, is at least theoretically respectable. b) 10 a3 ? !

I think Jonathan Rowson would refer to this move as 'uni­ dimensional ' . Black has two principal sources of counterplay the advance of his b6-pawn and his lead in development. This addresses the one, but palpably ignores the other. Black can mobilise his centre and obtain good play with 1 0 . . . e5 ! ? ( l O. . .d5 1 1 i.xc7 e 5 1 2 i.xb6 amounts to the same thing. In this case White has the additional option of 1 1 'Dd4 ! ? but after 1 1 . . . e5 1 2 'Dxc6 exf4 1 3 'Dd4 w e reach the structure which is critical to the assessment of Games 1 3 and 1 4 . Black should b e quite happy t o have . . . d5 on the board [in my opinion his play in Game 14 is in principle ' tougher' than the . . . 'Dd5 approaches] and therefore the question arises as to quite what 1 0 a3 has achieved here) 1 1 i.e3 d5 1 2 i.xb6 d4 ! 1 3 cxd4 i.e6 1 4 d5 ( 1 4 'Dc5 'Dd5 1 5 'Dxe6 fxe6 1 6 i.c5 'Dxd4 17 i.xd4 exd4 1 8 %:te l i.d6

also clearly represented an utter failure of White ' s strategy. He has no compensation for his weak dark squares and the fact that his pieces have hardly ventured out beyond the front door. V.Kovacevic-Smirin, Zagreb (zt) 1 999) 14 . . . 'Dxd5 1 5 i.c5 which was Lesiege-Shaked, Bermuda 1 997 and now Black obtained very decent compensation after 1 5 . . . i.e7 1 6 c;i;>f2 f5 etc, but Julian seems to be to point out i.xc5 1 7 that 1 5 . . . 'Da5 ! 1 6 'Dxb7 i.e3 1 8 'Dd6+ cj;e7 1 9 'Dc4 l:hb8 giving a second pawn for a much tighter control of the dark squares leaves White desperately tied up. c) 1 0 i.e3 attempts to cause the b6-pawn immediate embarrassment, and is without much doubt the second most significant choice. Its drawback is of course that it further blocks the development of the White kingside. My view is that Black has a choice of very reasonable ideas here, the second of which is again the advance of the centre pawns, sacrificing the b6 pawn to emphasise his active forces:

c l ) 10 . . . b5 ! ? 1 1 'Dd4 1 2 a3 [ 1 2 e4 b4 is comfortable for Black, liquidates his only

( 1 1 i.d2 e5 also quite who easily weakness]

2 . . . lDe4 3 iLf4 c5 4 J3 '1Wa5+ 5 c3 lDf6 6 lDd2 65 1 2 . . . d6 1 3 e4 iLe6 and the poor knight on b3 will cost White further time - another argument for 1 0 lDd4 ! ) 1 1 . . . lDdS ( I I . . . lDxd4 1 2 iLxd4 e6 1 3 e4 b4 1 4 iLbS is sli ghtly better for White according to Vadim Milov) 1 2 iLf2 lDxd4 ! ? ( 1 2 . . . lDc7 has always been played here, but it looks a little passive) 1 3 iLxd4 eS ! ? is a radical attempt I dreamt up some time ago to solve Black's problems by means of a different pawn offer. This is based upon the very direct threats posed after 14 iLxeS (It seems the offer pretty much has to be accepted since if 14 iLf2 b4 ! I S c4 lDc7 followed by . . . lDe6 and . . . iLcs is an optimal formation for Black) 1 4 . . . lDe3 I S 'It>f2 ( 1 S llc 1 lDc4 wins back the pawn with active play) I S . . . lDc2 1 6 l:rc 1 ( 1 6 l:td l .i.cS+ 1 7 iLd4 iLxd4+ ! ? 1 8 cxd4 l:txa2 might be a safer option, but it does not put Black under any pressure) 16 . . . iLcS+ 1 7 c;t>g3 lDe3 and White ' s king position looks decidedly awkward. So far as I can see, this well deserves a practical test from Black. c2) 1 0 . . . dS 1 1 i.xb6 eS 1 2 e4 ! ? (There is quite a widespread feeling that if White does not thus return the pawn, there is a very real risk that his pieces might be murdered in their beds. Some Canadian players seem to have started to look at 1 2 .i.f2 but after 1 2 . . . d4 1 3 e4 .i.e6 1 4 lDd2 .i.cs ( 1 4 . . . dxc3 I S bxc3 l:txa2 is less ambitious, but also looks sufficient) I S a4 0-0-0 1 6 lDc4 i.a7 White has trouble putting any more pressure on d4 to challenge B lack' s dark square bind. E.Lawson - Gormally, Hastings Challengers 2003 . 1 2 . . . i.e6 (if 1 2 . . . dxe4 then 1 3 iLc4 is supposed to be good) 1 3 i.bS ( 1 3 exdS? ! lDxdS 1 4 iLcs

lDxc3 I S i.xfS l:!xfS 1 6 lDcs lDd4 ! ) 1 3 . . . dxe4 ( I am also quite in sympathy with 1 3 . . . lDd7 ! ? 1 4 iLf2 dxe4 ! I S lDd2 exf3 1 6 lDgxf3 iLe7, when I am not sure what headway White can make if Black follows up with . . . f6, while even the more ambitious . . . fS and . . . e4 might be possible too) 1 4 lDcs ( 1 4 lDaS iLd7 ! I S lDc4 l:rc8 leaves White ' s forces looking a little tangled) 14 . . . iLxcs I S i.xcs :'xa2 16 ':xa2 iLxa2 and now if 1 7 .i.d6 �d8 ! ? 1 8 iLxc6 bxc6 1 9 iLxeS lDd7 20 iLd4 cS looks fine for Black, while after the 1 7 lDh3 of Berend-Polzin, European Club Cup, Panormo 200 1 1 7 . . . lDd7 was sufficient, but I am also not sure what White has after simply 17 . . . exf3 1 8 gxf3 iLdS 1 9 �f2 lDd7 20 .I:.a l lDd8 2 1 .i.d6 f6 when there are a lot of good things about the Black position once he succeeds in freeing himself.

l O l:!a5 ? ! The best move is almost certainly 10 . . . eS (see Games 14 and I S) . Still, this does involve a further compromising of Black's pawn structure and the search for alternatives is understandable. The text move aims at stopping lDbS and threatening a more ' aesthetic' version of . . . eS. Other tries in brief: . . .

66 2 . ..tiJe4 3 i.f4 c5 4 j3 fia 5 + 5 c3 t"iJf6 6 t"iJd2 a) If 1 0 . . . t"iJdS ? ! then 1 1 t"iJbS ! is strong. There can hardly be any plausible exchange sacrifices since the doubled pawns ensure an easy route back out from the comer. Rausis-l.Ivanov, Riga 1 993 was striking as after 1 1 . . . J:f.a4 (If 1 1 . . . eS? 12 e4 ! is very strong, while 1 1 . . .J:f.aS ? ! 1 2 t"iJc7+ t"iJxc7 1 3 i.xc7 eS 1 4 e3 is a case where the b-pawn grab comes with no real drawbacks) 1 2 .i.d2 t"iJaS White played the very calm and very strong 1 3 O-O-O ! and had a wonderful position very quickly after 1 3 . . . d6 14 e4 t"iJf6 I S �b 1 t"iJc4 1 6 i.c l t"iJeS 1 7 .i.e3 . Of course it is 1 3 . . . ::'xa2 which is critical to the assessment, but 1 4 �b l I:ta4 I S e4 d6 1 6 b4 ! t"iJb3 ! ? 1 7 i.gS ! just wins since the tricks are exhausted and the b3 knight remains trapped. b) 1 0 . . . t"iJxd4 1 1 cxd4 leads to a similar open c-file structure to those of which we have already seen a good deal. This, although the doubled b-pawns are in themselves no great target, looks like another fairly good version for White. 1 1 . . . dS 1 2 e3 ! (I think Gallagher is right to claim that White should not get involved in the greedy 1 2 i.c7?! e6 13 i.xb6 �d7 ! e.g. 1 4 .i.cs i.xcs I S dxcS �c6 ! 16 b4 d4 ! ? and there are good prospects that White ' s pieces are going to continue to get familiar with their starting squares for a while yet) 1 2 . . . i.d7 1 3 i.d3 i.c6 1 4 t"iJe2 e6 I S �d2 �d7 1 6 a3 i.d6 1 7 b4 .i.xf4 1 8 exf4 �d6 1 9 t"iJc3 l:thc8 20 a4 t"iJe8 2 1 h4 h6 22 g4 .i.d7 23 hS �e7 24 .!:the l �f8 2S fS and whilst I would not deny that the defence could have been improved, we again have the welcome sight in this line of White prosecuting his initiative on all

fronts. Timman-Rochev, Kilkenny 1 999. 11 t"iJb3 .!:ta8 1 2 t"iJd4 J:a5 13 b4 ! After a little orientating repetition, White hits on the right plan. Again the move t"iJbS will be strong enough to outweigh any queenside weakness this creates. 1 3 .. J!a4 If 1 3 . . . t"iJxd4 1 4 cxd4 .!:ta8 (forced, since otherwise the c-file and the bishop on c8 become an issue) then simply I S e4 e6 16 .i.d2 results in a very pleasant position for White. 1 4 t"iJb5 g6 1 5 e4 .i.g7 1 6 t"iJe7+! WfS Neither does 16 . . . 'id8 17 t"iJbS t"iJhS ! ? 1 8 .i.c7+ 'ie8 suffice for Black. The simplest is probably 1 9 l:rd l ! ? intending to answer 1 9 . . . 'uxa2 with 20 g4 t"iJf6 2 1 .i.c4 with tremendous play. White has a lot of leeway as a result of his knight' s almost untouchable status on b S . 1 7 i.b5 .l:.a3 1 8 t"iJe2 t"iJ h 5 1 9 i.el ! ':'xe3 Even if Black foresees the fate of his rook he really has to try this otherwise White simply has a tight structure and much the better pieces. 20 i.b2 ':'e2 21 i.xg7+ �xg7 22 t"iJd5 e6 23 t"iJe3 .l:.b2 24 a3 !

2. J i Je4 3 iLf4 c5 413 iVa 5+ 5 c3 CiJf6 6 CiJd2 6 7 How the mighty are fallen. After m aking more than a third of his mo ves so far, it becomes clear that the active rook has been lured into an elaborate trap, and that White has cle verly exchanged off the only piece which either supported the counterplay, or could have come to its assistance. Of course Black can extract some concessions as a price for the exchange, and his knights find some squares, but the remainder of his forces and his weakened structure strongly suggest that this will not be enough. 24 . . . d5! A better try than 24 . . . CiJe5 25 0-0-0 lIb3 26 CiJc2 ! and the rook is not long for this world. 25 CiJd1 De la Villa suggests 25 exd5 ! ? exd5 first and only then 2 6 CiJd 1 . I think he is probably right, although it is not so trivial a task to neutralise the extra initiative this grants Black after 26 . . . lIxe2+ 27 iLxe2 CiJf4 28 i.fl .l:.e8+ 29 �f2 (29 �d2 ! ) 2 9 . . . d4 when White, although he must stand better, still has to show how the rest of his pieces will come into play. 25 .. .lbe2+ 26 iLxe2 CiJd4 27 tLJe3 CiJf4 28 iLfl dxe4 29 fxe4 e5 30 g3 CiJfe6 3 1 0-0-0 b5 Black has done a good job of minimising his difficulties . His knights are well placed, and his b-pawns now look less of a problem than the White e-pawn. 32 Wb2 iLd7 33 i.h3 iLe6 34 i.xe6 CiJxe6 35 CiJd5 CiJd4 36 lIhel h5 37 h4 .l:.e8 38 CiJe3 lIe6 39 lIn f5

Is it now Black playing for more than the draw? I do not really see a

clear breakthrough plan for White in any case. 40 .l:.de1 Wf6 4 1 �e3 �e7 42 �fe1 fxe4 43 CiJxe4 iLxe4 44 lIxe4 �d6 45 �e3 �d5 46 �d3 CiJf5 47 J:!.c1 b6 48 'u'e8 CiJxg3 49 �d8+ We6 50 �e1 e4+ 51 �e3 CiJf5+ 52 �f4 e3 53 lIel + Wb7 54 �d7+ �b8 55 .l:.d8+ The draw is now inevitable. Black' s e-pawn is too dangerous for White to play for a win, while any . . . �a6?? begets instant punishment with mate along the 7th rank. 55 ... �b7 56 lId7+ Wb8 57 �g5 e2 58 lId8+ �b7 59 �d7+ Wb8 60 lId8+ �b7 YZ-YZ Game 1 3 Hodgson - Sutovsky Vikings, York 1 999 1 d4 CiJf6 2 iLg5 CiJe4 3 iLf4 e5 4 f3 iVa5+ 5 e3 CiJf6 6 CiJd2 exd4 7 CiJb3 iVb6 8 iVxd4 CiJe6! 9 iVxb6 axb6 10 CiJd4 e5! 1 1 CiJxe6

1 1 ... exf4 It is clear that the further structural concessions that Black is making are far from trivial either. Still, the prize of the dark squares, and the apparently gaping hole on

68 2 ..tiJe4 3 �f4 c5 4 f3 �a5 + 5 c3 tiJf6 6 tiJd2 .

e3 in particular, look at first sight to represent substantial compensation. there another is However, possibility here, the pawn sacrifice 1 1 . . . dxc6 ! ? which hit prominence at home when Mark Hebden used it to defeat Tony Miles in the British Championship in 2000. When I first saw this, I found it scarcely credible that Black's extra development could provide sufficient play, but White does need to take the inconvenience to his king seriously, and the extra punch with which Black's 'minority attack' tends to arrive. After 1 2 �xe5 �e6 ( 1 2 . . . b5 gave White more respite and the opportunity to return the pawn with interest after 1 3 e4 .Jie6 14 �d3 ! ? tiJd7 1 5 .Jid4 �xa2 1 6 �xa2 �xa2 1 7 'it'f2 .Jic4 1 8 �c2 �c5 1 9 b3 �e6 20 tiJe2 when he will be first to the a-file and has rather the better chances Collier-Ahn, European Club Cup, Halkidiki 2002)

White has: a) 13 e4 a less effective attempt to return the pawn since after 1 3 . . ..lha2 1 4 l:!.xa2 �xa2 1 5 tiJh3 tiJd7 16 �d4 f6 1 7 �e2 �d6 1 8 'id2 �e6 1 9 tiJf2 'ie7 20 tiJd3 J:Ia8 Black has gained time by omitting . . . b5, is first to the key file and

White has nothing. Marzolo-Pujos, French (ch), Marseilles 200 1 . b) 1 3 a3 b 5 1 4 e4 b4 1 5 cxb4 �xb4+ 1 6 'it'f2 �c5+ 1 7 'ie l �b4+ 1 8 'ie2 �a5 ! ? 1 9 tiJh3 .Jib3 20 tiJf4 0-0-0 2 1 �c3 �b6 22 'it'e 1 l:!.he8 23 .Jie2 tiJxe4 24 fxe4 l:!.xe4 25 g3 g5 26 �f6 l:!.g8 ! was Miles-Hebden, British (ch), Millfield, 2000 when Black is winning back his material with a tremendous initiative. There are various places where possible improvements suggest themselves. De la Villa has his eye on king-safety and wonders about 1 4 e3 ! ? but h e admits that flicking in 14 . . . tiJd7 here is irritating since there is no safe retreat to d4 in answer. Later on 1 9 J:Ic I ! ? and 20 �c3 or if 1 9 . . . 0-0-0 then perhaps 20 b4 might be possible. Also, what of 1 9 b4 �b6 20 'it'd2 ! ? 0-0-0 2 1 We I followed by 2 2 tiJe2 . In all of these cases I realise that Black has some play for the pawn, but while the compensation can prove a l ittle insidious, it is at this stage not obvious that it suffices. c) 13 �d4 ! ? another suggestion from De la Villa. His intention is that after 13 . . . b5 14 a3 b4 1 5 cxb4 �xb4+ 1 6 'if2 White ' s king should be shielded from danger in comparison with 'b' below . The only practical test so far did not work out so well after 16 . . . 0-0 1 7 e4 .l:tfd8 1 8 �e3 ? ! �d2 1 9 tiJe2 lId3 20 �xd2 .l:txd2 2 1 b4 �c4 when Black was very active in Elguezabal Varela - Fernandez Garcia, Spain 200 1 , but 1 8 ltJe2 ! ? looks better. White ' s development is still an issue, but the idea certainly looks worth further consideration. 12 tiJd4

2 . . .ciJ e4 3 iLf4 c5 4 j3 'it'a5+ 5 c3 CiJf6 6 CiJd2 69 entire strategy in need of some repair given the very elegant treatment that we are about to witness. Only in line ' b ' below to my mind is White ' s advantage still to any degree in question: The other is 12 . . . CiJdS which is probably best met with 13 g3 ! ( 1 3 e4 ! ? i s also interesting, but perhaps less effective in the case of 13 . . . CiJe3 ! ? with the bishop not yet committed to cS) and now: Quite possibly the critical position for the assessment of 1 0 CiJd4, and perhaps therefore for the entire chapter. The players have done wonderfully well at producing imbalance. Black has only two pawns which are neither doubled nor isolated. The b-pawns have been effectively immobilised for the moment, and the isolated d-pawn can prove a very serious liability in the context of these other structural defects . However, the advanced f-pawn is quite another matter. It spearheads Black' s compensation which consists primarily in the restraint of natural White ' s development, the distinctly shaky e3 square and chances to utilise the bishop pair to emphasise more general potential difficulties on the dark squares. The position carries a few nuances too. As a warning to Black I would say that the evidence suggests subtlety is the order of the day. An excessively direct approach backfires. Indeed I am rather persuaded that 1 2 . . . dS ! ? - the subject of Game 14 - might be Black' s best move here. 1 2 iLc5 This I would classify as one of the two moves which are quite brazen in their desire to exploit the e3 s quare, and which represent an . . .

a) 1 3 . . . gS ? ! is too ambitious . White has too many options for trying to break the bind over e3 for such a direct approach to succeed. It was powerfully met by 14 e4 ! CiJe3 ( 1 4 . . . fxe3 I S iLc4 is worse than in the main game to approximately the degree that . . . gS is an ugly weakness) I S iLbS ! ? iLg7 16 CiJge2 �f8 17 �d2 and to have compensation for such structural difiiculties Black would need dangerous and direct threats, which he has clearly failed to generate. Soffer-Mikhalevski, Israel (ch), Tel Aviv, 1 994 and an important forerunner of Julian' s play in the main game. b) 1 3 . . . iLcS ! ? 1 4 gxf4 CiJe3 I S �d2 CiJxfl + 1 6 nxfl ':'xa2 1 7 �c2 d6 1 8 e3 ! ? (I once played 1 8 e4 here, but the text keeps an even

70 2. J i Je4 3 iLf4 c5 413 'iVa5+ 5 c3 tDf6 6 tDd2 on the key d4 more solid square) 1 8 . . . 1 9 tDge2 r:3;e7 20 �a l Itha8 2 1 ':xa2 �xa2 22 llg l and although it is still a tough fight, I rather prefer the knight pair here. Berkes-Sevo, Paks 1 99 8 .

14 e4 ! A fine extension of the ' Soffer idea ' above. Not even the weakness caused by the move . . . g5 is required to justify the idea, so long as White is in time to control the d5 square. 1 4 . . . fxe3 I S iLc4 tDc7 It looks at first sight tougher to try 1 5 . . . tDb4 ! ? still looking to tactics to mask his various positional difficulties . However, after 1 6 cxb4 ! iLxd4 1 7 0-0-0 iLf6 ! (not 1 7 . . . b 5 ? ! 1 8 �xd4 bxc4 1 9 a3 0 - 0 20 tDf4 and 2 1 .l:!.he 1 with tremendous control of key squares) 1 8 tDf4 ! (otherwise a well timed . . . d5 really confuses the issue) 1 8 . . . iLg5 1 9 �d4 ! (note on how many squares White' s pieces enjoy virtually untouchable status by virtue of Black's many damaged pawns) 1 9 . . . 0-0 20 h4 iLh6 2 1 g4 ! White should recover his pawn with an excellent position. 16 tDf4 ! 0-0

It might seem tempting to try to disturb White ' s pawns a little too with 1 6 . . . iLxd4 1 7 cxd4, but after for example 1 7 . . . g5 ! ? (otherwise just 1 8 'ie2 and :thc 1 will be very awkward) 1 8 tDd5 tDxd5 1 9 iLxd5 f5 20 f4 ! Black' s position remains a grand collection of weaknesses. 1 7 0-0-0 bS! The best try. Black ensures the exchange of some of his less healthy pawns, although the resulting ending is still clearly in White' s favour. 18 tDxbS tDxbS 19 iLxbS .l:!.xa2 20 r:3;b l l:ta7 21 iLxd7 bS 22 iLxc8 .l:txc8 Black will experience problems with his e3 and b5 pawns even with the reduced material. It is interesting to watch how the lack of any real contest on the light squares enables White to go about exploiting this in a very unhurried manner. 23 ':dS llb7 24 .l:!.hdl g6 2S Itd8+ �xd8 26 ':xd8+ r:3;g7 27 .l:!.dS iLa7 28 'ic2 'if6 29 'id3 gS? ! 30 tDe2 h6 31 tDd4 b4 32 c4 iLb8 33 g3 It is effectively all over. The e3 pawn is dropping and Black has next to no counterplay whatsoever. From Julian, both a notable opening idea and a ruthless technical conversion. 33 . . Jle7 34 r:3;e2 .l:.c7 3S l:td6+ 'ieS 36 �dS+ 'itf6 37 b3 1:[a7 38 tDc6 .l:.a2+ 39 r:3;xe3 iLc7 40 .l:!.d2 iLb6+ 41 'it>e2 1:1.a3 42 tDxb4 i.gl 43 r:3;n i.cs 44 tDdS+ r:3;eS 4S b4 iLf8 46 �e2+ 'ifS 47 r:3;g2 lld3 48 h4 Itd4 49 hS g4 SO f4 1-0

2 . . . CD e4 3 i.f4 c5 4 j3 li'a5+ 5 c3 CDf6 6 CDd2 71 Game 1 4 Rogers Ftacnik (rapid match) Znojmo 1 999 -

1 d4 CDf6 2 i.g5 CDe4 3 i.f4 c5 4

13 li'a5+ 5 c3 CDf6 6 CDd2 cxd4 7

CDb3 �6 8 �xd4 CDc6 9 �xb6 axb6 10 CDd4 e5 1 1 CDxc6 exf4 1 2 CDd4 d5 ! ?

The more modest and realistic of Black' s 1 2th move options. He prevents CDh3 and keeps his options open as to the best square for his dark-squared bishop. Note for example that the option . . . i.d6 is more likely to raise questions about the strength of the freeing move g3 which emerged rather unscathed from Game 1 3 . One alternative which can lead to related play is 1 2 . . . g6? ! 1 3 g3 ! i.d6 14 CDbS i.eS I S gxf4 i.xf4 1 6 e3 similar to Turner-Ftacnik below, except for a suspicion that . . . g6 has been revealed as little more than a tempo loss. 1 3 e3 ! ? This i s a moment o f fundamental decision for White. The text move aims at the cleanest structural contrast - 3v3 on the kingside, and White' s sound queenside pawns pitted against Black's various weaknesses. The drawback is that

after . . . fxe3 , this pawn is almost bound to need to be recovered by the king, not necessarily a safe task given open diagonals, the e-file and other dangers. There is also a concern that the time spent safely regaining the pawn might afford Black the chance to initiate some counterplay, the b-pawn advance again being one of the most plausible. Incidentally De la Villa suggests that there might be a case for preparation of the e3 idea by first playing 1 3 'itf2 ! ? One point would be in response to 1 3 . . . i.cS , to keep the option open of playing 14 g3 ! ? This has not been tested, but I am inclined to wonder whether Black should not seize the moment to play 1 4 . . . bS ! ? since 1 5 gxf4 b4 1 6 e3 bxc3 1 7 bxc3 i.d7 might be decent compensation for a pawn. Again this serves to reintroduce into the discussion the importance of this . . . b5-b4 idea. The main alternative is to head for a more obscure structure by exchanging the g-pawn for B lack's front f-pawn. This also deserves attention, for example 1 3 g3 ! ? i.d6 14 CDb5 (or 1 4 'it'f2 ! ? h5 ! ? 1 5 gxf4 i.xf4 when 1 6 h4 0-0 1 7 e3 i.h6 seemed to be OK for Black, since the bishop sits fairly happily on h6, preparing to embarrass the e3 pawn - Liang Chong-Stellwagen, Wijk aan Zee (op) 200 1 . However, why not immediately 1 6 e3 ! ? and if 16 . . . i.h6 1 7 i.b5+ White has gained time over the game in the event of 1 7 . . . 'it'd8, while against 1 7 . . . i.d7, exchanging bishops and occupying f5 looks a reasonable plan) 14 . . . i.eS 15 gxf4 i.xf4 1 6 e3 i.e5 1 7 i.h3 i.e6 ! It is important to encourage the dragging of pawn support to the d-pawn in this way,

72 2 Ci'Je4 3 iLf4 c5 . . .

'ifa5+ 5 c3 Ci'Jf6 6 Ci'Jd2

otheIWise the reduction in material will favour White, and the exchange of light-squared bishops highlights further weakened squares. 1 8 iLxe6 fxe6 19 f4 ! ? iLb8 20 Ci'Jf] �d7 ? ! 2 1 Mg l g6 2 2 a 3 Me8 2 3 0-0-0 e 5 24 fxe5 iLxe5 . We have been following Tumer-Ftacnik, Hastings Premier 2000 in which I think White could now have created some quite testing problems with 25 Mgfl ! iLd6 and now 26 Ci'Jd2 is solid, perhaps meeting 26 . . . iLe7 with 27 Ci'Jc4 . However, it may already be possible to strike with 26 e4 ! ? iLf4+ (26 . . . Mxe4 27 Ci'Jxd6 �xd6 28 Ci'Jg5 also favours White) 27 �b l Mxe4 28 Ci'Jd2 iLxd2 29 Mxf6 with enduring pressure. However, I also do not much like 20 . . . �d7? ! . lt seems more logical to me to play 20 . . . O-O ! ?, which gains a tempo, and maybe more, by keeping an eye on the g7 pawn. White probably has to switch plans in this case since 2 1 a3 Ci'Je4 ! ? 22 Mg l ? ! e5 ! would give Black active counterchances. In general pros­ pects seem well balanced in this case. 1 3 . . . fxe3 14 �e2

14 ... iLd6 This looks slightly strange to me. lt feels like the bishop should make

more impact on c5, where the pin can gain time to pursue other plans. 14 . . . iLc5 ! ? 15 �xe3 and now :

a) 1 5 . . . 0-0 is perhaps best answered by 1 6 iLd3 ! ? iLd7 (or 1 6 . . . Ci'Jd7 1 7 Ci'Jge2 Ci'Je5 1 8 b3 and the presence of light-squared bishops clearly favours White) 1 7 �d2 ! when I prefer White. D e la Villa draws attention to the instructive game BOIWell-Glaser, corr. 1 994, which went instead 1 6 iLb5 iLd7 1 7 iLxd7 Ci'Jxd7 1 8 Ci'Jge2 Ci'Je5 1 9 b3 but this seems to merely encourage Black's counterplay as 1 9 . . . Ma3 ! 20 Ci'Jf4 Me8 2 1 �f2 Ci'Jc6 22 Mhd 1 g5 ! ? 23 Ci'Jh5 Me6 resulted in an early draw. lt is increasingly clear that the question of who benefits from an exchange of light-squared bishops is both from and significant, far straightfoIWard. Whilst often the effect is to free up squares for the white knights, here it was Black's this which and benefited, encouraged the creation of a weakness sufficient to hold the balance. b) 1 5 . . . iLd7 ! therefore looks to be a more consistent execution of the 'minority attack' idea. Although White got an edge in the game Chakov-Kir. Georgiev, Bulgaria (ch)

2 . ..ti:Je4 3 �f4 c5 4 J3 'iVa5+ 5 c3 ctJf6 6 ctJd2 73 1 995 after 1 6 �d3 b5 ! 1 7 ctJge2 b4

I S cxb4 iLxb4 1 9 l:f.hc 1 0-0 20 �c7 l:tfe S+ 2 1 'it'f2 l':.abS 22 l:td 1 iLa5 23

l:tc2 �b6 24 Wfl l:taS 25 a3 .l:tedS 26 �b5 ! iLcs 27 ctJc3 it feels that Black should have been quite OK somewhere in there, perhaps with 2 1 . . . b6 ! ? and . . . iLc5 . In any case though, from a certain perspective it is encouraging that Black can dissolve one of his key weaknesses, thereby further activating his bishops, but the White position is still quite playable. 1 5 �xe3 0-0 1 6 'itJf2 I find this a bit passive. 16 iLb5 ! ? i.d7 1 7 ctJge2 looks worth a try. 16 . . . iLd7 17 iLd3 iLc6 18 ctJge2 tbd7 19 a3 ctJe5 20 l:.adl .l:tfe8 2 1 g3 g6

An useful moment to take stock, if only because both sides have made a series of very plausible moves, and Black has shown a willingness to simply 'play the position ' rather than trying to force some early freeing manoeuvre. Also, White needs to find a plan here, but in the game the move chosen lost control and ceded Black far too much counterplay. 22 ctJf4 iLc5 23 �g2 iLxd4 24 cxd4 ctJxd3 25 .l:txd3 g5 26 tbh5

l:.e2+ 27 �h3 f5 28 f4 h6 29 g4 fxg4+ 30 �xg4 gxf4 3 1 ctJxf4 l:te4 32 'itJg3 'itJh7 33 J:.f3 l:i.xd4 34 ctJd3 l:tg8+ 35 �f2 .l:!.dg4 36 l:i.g3 d4 37 l1hgl .l:tf8+ 38 �e2 .l:te8+ 39 �d2 l:.xg3 40 .l:!.xg3 f!e4 4 1 tbf2 l:tf4 42 tbg4 h5 43 tbe5 .l:tf2+ 44 �d3 l:.xh2 45 'it'xd4 l:i.xb2 46 ctJg6 l:[f2 47 ctJe5 .l:tf4+ 48 Wc3 h4 49 .l:tg5 �h6 50 .l:tg6+ �h5 51 J:tg7 1:I.f5 52 l:i.h7+ 'it'g5 53 tbc4 .l:tf3+ 54 �d2 h3 55 ctJe5 J:.g3 56 .l:tg7+ Wf4 57 ctJd3+ .l:txd3+ 58 �xd3 h2 Yz-Yz

Chapter 3

-

Conclusion

As a practitioner (hitherto ! ) of the ' attacking ' repertoire in the case of 3 . . . c5, I have to say that I am pleasantly surprised about how attractive much of the material of this chapter actually looks. The early deviations for Black 7 . . . 'iVf5 and 7 . . . 'tlV dS are both quite interesting, but neither look likely to suffice for real equality. The former in particular gives White a broad and pleasant choice. 1 3 ctJf2 ! ? for example, slightly hidden in the notes certainly might repay a visit. Game 10 fully deserves to be 'non-repertoire ' - S cxd4 seems to be effectively dead - but I am giving the S 'tlVxd4 ! endings a much cleaner bill of health than Julian afforded them in his book. Of course S . . ctJc6 is critical, and alternatives to 1 0 ctJd4 ! seem to be asking for trouble, but sticking to the main lines of the repertoire looks promising. Black's best set-up is to be found in Game 1 4 . Pay especial attention to his attempts to play a quick . . . b5. However, this is a part of the book where the theoretical status of the ' solid repertoire ' is overall quite encouragmg. .

Chapter 4 2 'De4 3 �f4 d5 Introduction and the Attacking Repertoire with 4 f3 -

Throughout much of the book, I have tried so far as possible to guide the reader by offering sets of alternatives categorised according to their ' sharpness ' . Out there in the hurly-burly of over-the-board chess, of course, the opponent gets to make a few choices too. This 3rd move decision is a significant one. If we were in tum to categorise Black's responses into ' solid' and ' attacking ' then there would be little doubt here. 3 . . . d5 is the safe move, aimed primarily at frustrating White ' s rather classical intention of occupying the centre with pawns. This is the light-square approach, and with his knight already occupying e4 there is really no time to control this square with pieces. Therefore if Black wants to control e4 it must be with pawns. In other words, there is no reasonable ' Queens-Indian-style ' approach, hence the ' Queen ' s Gambit-style ' text.

. . .

In keeping with this solid image, it seems likely that the play will be less forcing than that seen in the previous chapter. The key question is: How can White best exploit the position of Black's knight on e4? There are broadly three possible approaches: a) 4 liJd2, seeking to exchange the piece off, aims at rather modest gains in terms of development and possible queenside play. This was once considered a main line, but was none too exciting at the best of times and is now under something of a cloud due to the sharp reply 4 . . . c 5 . I will give one game in this line for illustrative purposes, but it will not form part of the recommended repertoire. b) 4 f3 ! ? declares that White still regards the direct battle for the e4 square very much alive. After the standard 4 . . . liJf6 White can proceed with two approaches 5 liJc3 and 5 e4 ! ? The latter is the ultra-sharp gambit treatment, which can result, if Black accepts, in positions similar to the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit with the difference that White enjoys the extra tempo i.f4 . This is perhaps not the ideal square (the bishop would normally prefer g5 in a perfect world) and probably not the ideal gambit either ( ! ), but with this extra move the positions are very interesting and unclear, and for the attacking-minded I certainly

2 CDe4 3 ..if4 d5 Introduction and 4 j3 75 . . .

intend to give a detailed enough treatment of this possibility. On one p oint I am in no doubt. 5 e4 ! ? is the crit ical attacking choice, not just because it might be fun if Black takes up the challenge, but for the concrete theoretical reason that the kind of French positions which tend to ensue when Black declines are hugely more promising for White if his knight is not yet committed to c3 . This view is not entirely universal perhaps, but with the evidence from Game 1 9 the argument seems a very powerful one indeed. c) 4 e3 ! ? is the move I will be recommending for less reckless souls and the one I have played myself in practice. As a move, it looks far from startling of course, but as part of a wider plan to ' attack' the e4 knight with pieces it packs a surprising amount of punch. This is really the discovery of the last 5 years or so, and has in my view played one of the most significant contributions in re­ energising the entire Trompowsky. This is the subject of Chapter 5 .

a public service ! Perhaps it is not just the obj ective merits of the thing, but the feeling that if even such a solid move does not guarantee White a quiet life there must be something wrong. My lack of enthusiasm for 4 CDd2 goes somewhat deeper though. I understand that some players of the White pieces like to use the advantage of the first move not to achieve anything concrete, but just to ease the task of reaching some sort of a playable position, and I am not intrinsically unsympathetic towards this. However the kind of positions which White is aiming for, which most typically materialise against the main alternative 4 . . . ..if5 (4 . . . CDxd2 is similar) strike me as just a bit too sterile e.g. 5 e3 CDxd2 6 Wixd2 e6 7 CDf3 CDd7 8 c4 dxc4 ! 9 ..ixc4 CDb6 (this simplifiying manouevre is worth remembering. The liquidation counts against the d4/f4 formation serving to keep Black cramped) 1 0 ..id3 CDd5 1 1 0-0 ..ixd3 1 2 �xd3 CDxf4 1 3 exf4 Wid5 1 4 �fe l ..id6 1 5 f5 0-0 with full equality in V.Salov-Van der Sterren, Biel (izt) 1 993 .

4 ttJd2 (Non-Repertoire ­ For illustration only) -

Game 1 5 Mikhalevski - Mark Tseitlin Beersheba 1 996 1 d4 CDf6 2 ..ig5 CDe4 3 ..if4 d5 4 CDd2 c5 ! ? This interesting reply to White 's unpretentious 4th move seems to be a major influence in turning White away from this course, and I have to admit that if is the case then to my mind it is performing something of

5 CDxe4 ? ! This leads White into difficulties remarkably quickly. Therefore

76 2 ttJe4 3 j.,f4 d5 Introduction and 4 j3 . . .

Julian Hodgson suggests that S e3 is better, but the line he gives commences with S . . . ttJxd2 ? ! which looks a bit too sluggish. S . . . �6 ! is more to the point when if White wants to avoid slipping into passivity 6 dxcS looks indicated. Then V.Milov-Avrukh, Israel (Tch) 2000 continued fairly sedately with 6 . . . ttJxcS 7 ttJb3 e6 8 ttJf3 ttJc6 9 .te2 j.,e7 1 0 0-0 0-0 1 1 c3 ttJe4 1 2 �c2 j.,d7 1 3 j.,d3 ttJf6 1 4 l:tfd l when White certainly has nothing special. However, it is Black who could choose to play much more sharply with 6 . . :iVxb2 ! ? 7 ttJxe4 (If 7 l:f.b l �c3 ! ? 8 j.,xb8 �xb8 9 j.,bS+ 'id8 I also feel that Black has gained a lot in positional terms to make up for the inconvenience) 7 . . . dxe4 8 �d4 �a3 ! 9 j.,xb8 �aS+ 1 0 c3 l:txb8 1 1 l:Id l (threaten­ ing a very nasty 1 2 j.,bS+) 1 2 . . . a6 and again Black has to soak up some pressure, but I don' t see anything very concrete for White, and the long-term prognosis is good for the defender especially on the dark squares. 5 . . . dxe4 6 dxc5 6 c3 can hardly be an improvement. 6 . . :�'b6 7 j.,c 1 (not the move which is sometimes was in Chapter 2) 7 . . . cxd4 8 �xd4 (8 cxd4 eS ! 9 dxeS .tb4+ 1 0 j.,d2 e3 ! ? gives Black good play according to Gallagher) 8 . . :iVxd4 9 cxd4 ttJc6 1 0 e 3 eS ! 1 1 j.,bS exd4 1 2 exd4 j.,d7 1 3 ttJe2 ttJb4 14 j.,xd7+ 'it>xd7 and Black has a straightforward positional plus based on both pawn structure and superior minor pieces in Landenbergue-Vaganian, Biel 1 994. 6 . . .�a5+ 7 c3 �xc5 8 "iVd4 Again alternatives inspire still less confidence e.g. :

a) 8 j.,xb8 l:Ixb8 9 �a4+ bS 1 0 "iVxe4 b4 ! (Gallagher) gives Black excellent play. It is one thing for the bishop to be missed from the dark squares, but quite another when Black has such an automatic initiative there. b) 8 �a4+ �c6 9 "iWxc6+ ttJxc6 10 f3 eS 1 1 j.,e3 j.,fS and Black' s doubled e-pawns have represented not a weakness, but a ready-made space advantage and the chance for free development. Tunik-Avrukh, Beersheba 1 996( ! ) . 8 . . . �xd4 9 cxd4 ttJc6 1 0 0-0-0 Since 1 0 e3?! eS ! is far worse with the king stuck in the centre. 1 0 . . . e5 !

Again it is very striking that in what is supposed to be a safe, solid variation for White, his opponent is continually able to sharpen the play and deny his opponent any rest. White probably thought that castling has taken the sting out of this break, but his king is revealed to be pretty vulnerable in his new home too . 1 1 dxe5 It looks tempting to try and exchange some material instead with 1 1 j.,xeS? ! but it turns out that Black ' s attack after 1 1 . . . ttJxeS 1 2

2 ttJe4 3 .if4 d5 Introduction and 4 j3 77 . . .

dxe5 e3 ! 1 3 fxe3 .lif5 i s vastly stronger even than in the game. 1l . . . .ie6 12 c,t>b l ? ! This, however, i s a serious error as Avrukh points out. Perhaps as a result of his opponent' s bishop apparently settling for the e6 square, White 'takes his eye off the ball ' for a moment and forgets the potency of the . . . e3 and . . . .if5 motif. It was necessary to cover the b4 square, with 12 a3 ! when Avrukh gives 12 . . . .lib3 1 3 1!d2 l:f.c8 14 c,t>b l i.c5 ! 1 5 e3 �e7 ! ( 1 5 . . 0-0 1 6 .lib5 ! is worse) with compensation. In fact it seems to me that with best play the position is liable to clarity into early equality after 1 6 ttJe2 .l:.fd8 1 7 l:f.xd8 k'lxd8 1 8 ttJc3 l:!d2 1 9 .ie2 i.b6! 1 2 . . . e3 ! 13 .ixe3 Criticised by A vrukh, but I do not find the choice between the text and the profoundly un-aesthetic 1 3 fxe3 i.f5+ 1 4 'ia 1 ttJb4 15 a3 ttJc2+ 1 6 �a2 .lic5 a simple one by any means . 13 ttJb4 14 .l:.c l .lif5+ Avrukh gives 1 4 . . . ttJxa2 ! ? 1 5 .!:td l ttJb4 as stronger, but 1 5 :r.c7 ! ? looks trickier since then the c 1 square is then not necessarily out of bounds for White ' s king. 1 5 'ia l ttJc2+ 1 6 ':'xc2 .lixc2 1 7 ttJ f3 .lie4 Black's advantage has clarified his opponent' s compromised structure ensures that the two pawns do not provide full compensation. However, the task of conversion is far from simple. I will give only very light notes from here. There are several errors to come, but the play has limited relevance for the opening phase. .

. . •

18 g3 b6 19 .lih3 .lic5 20 .lixc5 bxc5 21 llf! 'ie7 22 ttJd2 .lid5 23 �bl 1!hd8 24 �c2 ? a5? Repaying compliment. the 24 . . . .lixa2 ! was very strong in view of 25 b3 a5 26 .!:ta l a4 27 l:f.xa2 axb3+ with decisive simplification. 25 ':'al l:.ab8 26 e4 i.c6 27 f3 .!:tb4? Another important opportunity missed. Returning the exchange with 27 . . . .l:xb2+ ! 28 'ixb2 I:rxd2+ 29 'ic3 l:.xh2 would have resulted in a decisive rounding up of White ' s kingside pawns. After the text move it is scarcely even clear who stands better any more. 28 .if! .l:.bd4 29 ttJc4 .lib5 30 ttJd6 .lid7 3 1 'ic3 .l:.b8 32 ttJc4 a4 33 ttJe3 .lie6 34 .ic4 .lixc4 35 ttJxc4 'ie6 36 1:.el l:f.bd8 37 ttJd6 f6 38 ttJb7 Itd3+ 39 'ic2 l:.d2+ 40 �cl 1!8d4 4 1 ttJxc5+ 'ixe5 42 f4+ �d6 43 e5+ �xc5 44 e6 a3 45 b4+ �xb4 46 e7 1!b2 47 e8=" Itc4+ 48 �dl I:!.d4+ VI-VI

Attacking Repertoire

-

4 f3!?

Game 1 6 Jansa - Sosonko IBM, Amsterdam 1 975 1 d4 ttJf6 2 .lig5 ttJe4 3 .if4 d5 4 f3 ttJf6 5 e4 ! ?

78 2 tiJe4 3 j.,f4 d5 Introduction and 4 j3 . . .

5 dxe4 6 tiJc3 exf3 Clearly in one sense the acid test of any gambit is its acceptance. In effect Black is putting in the claim here that the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit is bad enough that an extra developing tempo Ji.f4 is not sufficient to justify White ' s play. There is no definitive theoretical verdict on this, but I think the evidence of this and the next game is that White' s initiative is considerable and that the defence requires extremely careful handling. This kind of material grab is of course very much to some players ' taste, but I would at the very least say that in Game 1 9 we shall see some other options which give Black prospects of a rather easier life. 7 tiJxf3 . . .

7 e6 Passive, but not without logic. I like Joe Gallagher ' s description of Black's set-up in this game as "curling up like a ball," and clearly the defender is willing to accept a fair degree of passivity if he can thereby avoid making tangible positional concessions. Unfortunate­ ly, in endeavouring to thus blunt White ' s initiative there is a strong implicit priority given to preventing ...

pawn breaks, and on this level it has to be said that Black' s strategy fails rather spectacularly on this occasion. Of the alternatives, Game 1 7 will consider 7 . . . g6, but there is a third major possibility in 7 . . . Ji.g4 ! ? still intending an . . . e6/c6 formation but with the bishop outside the pawn chain e.g. 8 h3 and now: a) 8 . . . Ji.h5 ? ! is perhaps asking too much. White gains time for moves which fit in well with his attacking aspirations with 9 g4 Ji.g6 1 0 Ji.g2 c6 1 1 tiJe5 tiJbd7 1 2 'i'e2 tiJxe5? ! ( 1 2 . . . e6! should b e preferable. The imperative to keep such a position as closed as possible is a powerful one. Still I like White) 1 3 dxe5 tiJd7 14 e6 ! fxe6 1 5 0-0-0 e5 1 6 j.,xe5 'tWa5 1 7 j.,g3 0-0-0 1 8 lli'e6 lli'g5+ 1 9 'i¥tb 1 'iWf6 20 tiJb5 ! (attractive and strong, although the prosaic 20 'iWe3 would also be tough to meet) 20 . . . cxb5 2 1 i.xb7+ �xb7 22 l:.xd7+ l:.xd7 23 lli'xd7+ 'i¥ta6 24 'iVc8+ 'iti>a5 25 i.c7+ 'i¥ta4 G.Meszaros-F.Lengyel, Hungary (Tch) 1 998, when 26 i.d8 ! clearing the c-file for White 's queen would have won immediately. b) 8 . . . j.,xf3 ! ? 9 lli'xf3 led to a crushing and sweetly conducted attack in the game S-B .Hansen­ H.Olafsson, Reykj avik (zt) 1 995 after 9 . . . c6 10 0-0-0 e6 1 1 j.,c4 Ji.e7 12 'i¥tb l ! O-O? ! 1 3 h4 tiJd5 1 4 tiJe4 b5 1 5 Ji.d3 tiJd7 ? ! 1 6 tiJg5 tiJ7f6 1 7 Ji.e5 a5 1 8 ladfl a4? 1 9 Ji.xh7+ tiJxh7 2 0 lli'h5 1 -0 All good entertaining stuff, but it seems to me to raise quite a few questions . Why does Black feel the need to castle into it? Baburin proposes instead 12 . . . tiJd7 ! ? and this makes a good deal of sense. There is also 1 5 . . . tiJxf4 ! ? 1 6 'iVxf4 tiJd7 . I don 't

2 liJe4 3 .tf4 d5 Introduction and 413 79 . . .

deny that White can still get a lot of mileage out of pushing 17 g4 ! and continuing the pawn storm, but I do think that the exchange of the bishop must dark-squared significantly assist Black's efforts at survival. One more thought. Having examined a number of games in which White plays an early .tc4 and later switches it back to the d3 -h7 diagonal, I wonder if there is not a case for delaying the development of this piece. The problem will relate to a quick . . . liJdS . Perhaps 1 1 �b l .te7 1 2 g4 ! ? deserves consideration. S .tc4 c6

strange. White ' s intention to sacrifice on f7 is clear enough, but Black parries this without undue difficulty. Perhaps 20 .te3 ! ? is a better version of the same idea since if Black answers in the same manner 20 . . . fS 2 1 .tc4 .tgS 22 l:td6 the fact that White ' s queen will recapture on e3 leaves his major pieces looking distinctly more harmonious than in the game. Whether this really adds up to any advantage is another question) 20 . . . f5 2 1 i.c4 .tgS 22 l:tfe l .txc 1 23 l:.xe6 'it>g7 24 l:.xe8 'i'xe8 2S ::'xc 1 'ili'eS and the price for regaining his pawn has been that White ' s serious attacking chances are a thing of the past. There is already a feeling in the air that in terms of the centralisation of his forces Black's prospects are slightly preferable. 9 liJbd7 Sosonko ' s idea of putting a knight on dS looks the sensible way to handle the position, but his method allows White quite a serious tactical shot. Perhaps 9 . . . i.e7 and if 1 0 immediate 0-0-0 then the 1 0 . . . liJdS ! ? ( 1 0 . . . 0-0 is also possible) should be preferred. 1 1 i.d2 is playable, but doesn 't look especially incisive, while the critical 1 1 i£.xdS cxdS 1 2 i£.xb8 ! ? lIxb8 l 3 'iWeS can be met with l 3 . . . 1i'd6 ! 1 4 'ili'xg7 'iWf4+ I S b 1 .tf6 when 1 6 liJe2 .txg7 1 7 liJxf4 looks about equal. White has some decent squares for his knights while the enemy bishops slightly lack targets, but I would be surprised if Black is seriously in trouble. 1 0 0-0-0 liJb6 ? ! This move inevitably stands or falls entirely according to its capacity to effect a blockade on the . . .

9 'iWe2 ! Playing through a number of examples from this gambit, I am gaining a clear impression that White ' s chances more look convincing with long castling pretty much regardless of the set-up which Black adopts. Still, 9 0-0 still has a certain following and the game Barbero-Magerramov, Cattolica 1 994 offers an interesting illustration of the possibilities after 9 . . . .te7 1 0 liJeS 0-0 1 1 'it>h l liJbd7 12 .td3 cS ! ? l 3 liJxd7 .txd7 1 4 dxcS .txcS I S .tgS .te7 1 6 'i'f3 i.c6 1 7 'i'h3 1 8 %lad l liJd7 1 9 i.h6 l:.e8 20 1 (This looks a bit

80 2 ..tiJe4 3 i.f4 d5 Introduction and 4 j3 .

d5 square. Since it appears that the following fine breakthrough works quite effectively, it must be judged harshly. De la Villa considers 1 0 . . . i.b4 but this still allows 1 1 d5 ! liJxd5 when 12 i.xd5 i.xc3 is messy, but 12 .I:txd5 ! looks quite strong as neither 1 2 . . . cxd5 1 3 liJxd5 nor 1 2 . . . i.xc3 1 3 .I:txd7 i.xb2+ 1 4 �xb2 i.xd7 really solve Black' s difficulties. Therefore I feel that 1 0 . . . i.e7 ! ? and only then . . . liJb6 must be better, when of course White has compensation but Black keeps his solid structure intact.

1 1 dS! A brilliant breakthrough, based on the weakness of c7 - a great triumph for the benefits of the extra i.f4 tempo. 11 . . . liJbxdS 1 2 i.xdS liJxdS 13 ':'xdS ! cxdS 1 4 liJbS f6 l S liJc7+! ? This does not spoil anything yet, although it could be interpreted as psychologically a step in the wrong direction. Julian criticises the move and proposes instead 1 5 lUI ! ? giving for example the variation 1 5 . . . e5 16 liJxe5 fxe5 1 7 �xe5+ as crushing, which it almost is, although with mechanical help it

turns out surprisingly that 17 'Yi'h5+! 'it'd7 18 'iVxe5 is a good deal more so, as 1 8 . . . 'it'c6 1 9 �c3+ �xb5 20 a4+ results in much more substantial gains . It is also true that 1 5 . . . i.d7 1 6 liJc7+ 'it'f7 1 7 liJe5+ ! 'it'g8 1 8 liJxd7 'Yi'xd7 1 9 liJxa8 is one occasion on which taking the material does look very promising indeed. However, strangely, moving the king onto the newly occupied file with 1 5 . . . 'it'f7 ! does not seem to leave White with any better than 1 6 liJc7 ! transposing into the next note. l S . . �t7 .

1 6 liJxa8(? ! ) This however does, technically speaking, j ettison most of White' s advantage. However, while i t i s true that the annotator unlike the player has always had the luxury of criticising with the j oint benefits of time and hindsight there used to be a sense in which we could at least say most of the time that the player ' ought to have' ; or 'might have' seen the proposed line. Computers occasionally bring us to a new dimension of analysis where I think any sort of criticism is rather misplaced. The truth on occasion may be simply ' beyond human calculation' , and I think this is a good case in point. I would also

2 tiJe4 3 ..tf4 d5 Introduction and 413 81 . . .

l o ok first at the best move 1 6 .l:[fl ! h ere since the urge is deeply rooted to intensify the attack rather than snaffle the material. The problem is to foresee that 1 6 . . . ..td6 1 7 'it>g8 1 8 tiJgxe6+ ! ..txf4+ ( 1 8 . . 1 9 ..txd6 �xd6 20 tiJf4 ! ! ':'b8 2 1 tiJfxd5 is an incredible ' twin line ' and also seems very good for White) 1 9 tiJxf4 ! !

There is nothing better, but this does not prevent the knight from being trapped. Instead it sells itself at the price of entry into the position for the White rook which secures the draw. 22 . . :iVd6 23 tiJc7 "iVxg3 24 hxg3 a6 25 l:i.el �d6 26 l:i.xe6+ �xc7 27 l:i.e7+ Yz-Yz A fascinating battle, and one where I think that all but the most hardened Luddite would have to concede that the computer can enhance rather than detract from our enjoyment and appreciation. Game 1 7 Hodgson - Panchenko Bern 1 994 f3

1 9 . . . l:i.b8 20 tiJfxd5 and the knights dominate the position, covering key squares and making a slightly rude gesture to those who say that knights are not well employed defending each other! White threatens 2 1 "iVc4 followed by deadly discovered checks. Black can try 20 . . . b5, but 2 1 'i'd3 seems strong meeting 2 1 . . . f5 with 22 g4 ! and the attack rages on. To my mind a fascinating line, but one which I would suspect that hardly any human player would expect to find and correctly judge. 16 . . . .td6 17 ..txd6 De la Villa gives ' 1 7 'i'e3 ! ' instead, but if Black replies accurately with 1 7 . . . e5 1 8 tiJxe5+ fxe5 1 9 ..txe5 l:tf8 ! White ' s chances do not seem better than in the game. 1 7 . . . 'i'xd6 1 8 l:i.f1 ..td7 19 tiJe5+ �e7 20 "iVg4 :g8 21 tiJxd7 'i'xd7 22 "iVg3

1 d4 tiJf6 2 ..tg5 tiJe4 3 ..tf4 d5 4

4 ... tiJf6 4 . . . tiJd6 ! ? is a relatively rare alternative, which looks strange but definitely merits a look. Black' s idea is t o answer a quick e5 with . . . tiJf5 and a timelier one with . . . tiJc4 . I think White should castle short and avoid the frequently tempo losing "iVd2 (two precautions which would already place him in a small minority of the prudent

82 2. J i Je4 3 iif4 d5 Introduction and 413 among players handling this position ! ) e.g. S ct:Jc3 e6 6 e4 c6! (only keeping the centre solid in this way makes any sense) 7 .\td3 .\te7 8 ct:Jge2 0-0 9 0-0 bS ! ? and now 1 0 eS ! ? ct:Jc4 I I �c 1 followed by 1 2 a4 is one way when I slightly prefer White. Still this is an interesting line - it is not a trivial task to translate lead II numerical White ' s development into something more concrete. S e4 dxe4 6 ct:Jc3

6 ... exf3 One alternative which does not really fall into the category of ' gambit declined ' and which fits our . . . g6 theme here is 6 . . . cS ! ? This seems a bit strange since after 7 dS (7 dxcS ! ? also looks interesting) 7 . . . exf3 8 ct:Jxf3 while it is true that Black can argue that he has ensured that the c4-f7 diagonal will not cause its customary problems, in other ways White ' s space advantage seems merely to have been Hertneck-Gavrikov, enhanced. Bundesliga 1 994 continued 8 . . . g6 9 ct:JbS ! ct:Ja6 1 0 .\tc4 .\tg7 and now in contrast with most of the lines we are seeing in this gambit it seems White should castle short (logical perhaps with the d-pawn' s advance guaranteeing space, but also

opening the long diagonal). Gavrikov was concerned about 1 1 0-0 0-0 1 2 d6 ! and indeed Black 's task seems pretty tough here. The knight on a6 is very unfortunately placed for competing for the dark squares in the centre. Perhaps 8 . . a6 ! ? is a better bet. I am sure White should try 9 �e2 ! and after, for example 9 . . . g6 1 0 0-0-0 .\tg7 1 1 d6 e6, either 1 2 ct:JeS ! ? ct:JhS 1 3 �d2 0-0 ( l 3 . . . �xd6 14 �gS ! ) 14 g4 or simply 1 2 �gS should offer good play for the pawn. 7 ct:Jxf3 g6 ! ? 8 �c4 �g7 .

9 �e2 ! In his notes to the Hertneck game above Julian Hodgson makes the intriguing observation "in principle I prefer to castle kings ide when the opponent has a bishop on g7". Well, here I think he is right to break his principles although of course since his breakthrough still involved the move dS, the consequences for the king on b 1 do need to be taken seriously. The more cautious 9 0-0 0-0 10 �d2 cS 1 1 dS ct:Jbd7 was played in I. Sokolov-Hellers, Malmo 1 997. However, after 1 2 1:Iae l ct:Jb6 l 3 b3 White ' s compensation is already looking pretty tenuous . Maybe 1 2 d6 ! ? should be tried. If

2 'LJe4 3 Jif4 d5 Introduction and 4 f3 83 . . .

then 1 2 . . . e6 1 3 Jih6 ! ? looks decent i s more enough, but 1 2 promising for Black. If 1 3 dxe7 'WIxe7 1 4 Jid6 'LJxc4 1 5 Jixe7 'LJxd2 1 6 'LJxd2 J.f5 ! ? 17 J.xf8 'ixf8, White is probably not ' theoretically' worse, but it is hardly the sort of position for which one gambits a pawn on move 5. In short, long castling looks the right way here ! 9 . . . 0-0 1 0 0-0-0 c6! Stohl suggests instead 10 . . . J.g4(? ! ) when Hodgson proposes 1 1 d5 ! targeting e7 before Black can even dream of some kind of light-square blockade. Neither is it easy to set up something on the dark squares. 1 l . . . 'LJh5 looks critical, but 12 J.g5 ! works well, while the routine 1 l . . . 'LJbd7 1 2 J:e l 'LJb6 1 3 Jib3 J:e8 1 4 h3 is just very pleasant for White. It is instructive quite how enduring is the cramp which Black suffers here.

1 1 d5! That breakthrough again. Black ' s development is too slow for the White king to be in serious danger, while White ' s superior pieces crave open lines. Easy to explain thus, but to make such practical decisions takes excellent powers of judge­ ment.

1 1 ... cxd5 1 l . . .'WIb6 is well met by 12 d6 ! when 1 2 . . . exd6 1 3 Jixd6 J:e8 1 4 J.xf7+ 'ixf7 1 5 'LJg5+ 'ig8 1 6 'WIc4+ 'LJd5 1 7 J:he l ! , (but not 1 7 J:xd5 ? cxd5 1 8 �xd5+ J.e6 ! 1 9 'LJxe6 'WIe3+ -+) gives White a decisive onslaught. 12 'LJxd5 'LJxd5 13 J:xd5!

13 ... 'WIb6? ! I n my view this i s perhaps the critical mistake. Black simply had to try the developing 1 3 . . . 'LJd7 ! 1 4 J:!hd 1 and now instead o f the 1 4 . . . 'WIb6 1 5 c3 'LJf6 1 6 J:b5 'WIc6 1 7 'LJe5 �e8 1 8 g4 ! given by Hodgson, I think 14 . . . e6 ! 1 5 J:d6 'WIf6 ! poses more questions. The strange 1 6 i:t6d4 ! ? �d8 1 7 'LJe5 'WIf6 ! 1 8 'LJg4 ! ? might represent White ' s best try (rather than 1 8 'LJf3=), since 1 8 . . . 'WIxd4 1 9 'LJh6+ 'ih8 20 J:xd4 Jixd4 2 1 Jid6 looks promising, but after 1 8 . . . 'WId8 ! ? although White has enough compensation, Black is very much fighting. 14 J:b5! 'WIc6 15 'LJe5 'WIe8 16 h4 ! Black is so passive now that he has little to offer against opening a new front. As we shall see, g6 is chronically weak and will be the focus of numerous tactics .

84 2 lDe4 3 i.f4 d5 Introduction and 4 j3 . . .

1 6 . . . lDc6 1 7 h5! g5? This loses by force, albeit very elegantly. Black should probably have tried 1 7 . . . e6 ! ? with some chances to cling on. 18 lDxc6 'ixc6 19 .l:r.xg5 �f6 20 'ie5 !

An elegant solution after which Black has a choice of broadly disastrous ways to pick up the exchange, but no acceptable defence. 20 . . . h6 Julian was hoping for the more natural 20 . . . 'it>h8 against which he had prepared 2 1 h6 ! 'ixe5 22 bxg7+ 'ixg7 23 l'.Ixg7 'ixg7 24 i.h6+ 'ig8 with the very sweet 25 l'.Ih5 ! ! to finish off. Black will be mated after for example 25 . . J ld8 26 l'.Ig5+ �h8 27 i.xf7. Vintage Hodgson! 'ixg6 22 hxg6 ..txe5 23 21 i.xe5 This leads to a desperately uneven contest between White ' s two awesome bishops and a hapless black rook. Still, the only argument for 23 . . . e6 24 g7 ! would be brevity. 24 ::'xh6 f6 25 ..txe6+ 'it>g7 26 i.f4 l'.Ih8 27 l'.Ixh8 .u.xh8 28 c4 �xg6 29 g4 l'.Ih3 30 'it>d2 a5 31 c5 a4 32 b4 axb3 33 axb3 1-0

One of the classic attacking Hodgson games in the Trompowsky which demands inclusion in any collection. Game 1 8 Moiseenko - Romanishin Ukraine Team Championship 2002 Generally speaking I may have felt moved to jot down a few words to justify my choice of games, but only to explain why I find them important or instructive. Here though, I must admit I feel a little bit guilty about this one . I would have preferred not to show a hugely talented personable and Grandmaster, whose career has made a tremendous and very original contribution to chess, having such a miserable off day. My excuse is that while Black ' s move 6 alternatives to acceptance of the gambit are both important and interesting, they do seem to have thrown up a curious paucity of quality games, and in particular the encounters between strong players have tended to result in a spineless and premature sharing of the honours. So, with apologies, this game, which at least is instructive in terms of the methodical way White builds up his attack. 1 d4 lDf6 2 ..tg5 lDe4 3 ..tf4 d5 4 f3 lDf6 5 e4 dxe4 6 lDc3 e3 ! ? Having seen that acceptance of the gambit is really a much more treacherous course of action than in Blackmar-Diemer the related Gambit, it is natural to tum attention to ways of declining the challenge. The idea of bypassing the f3 pawn with 6 . . . e3 is known from various related openings. Black is really saying that while f3 makes perfect sense if he cooperatively takes and

2. " c De4 3 iJ.j'4 d5 Introduction and 4 j3 85 invites White 's king' s knight to develop to its optimal square, the move is a bit thin on secondary ideas. Indeed it can be argued that not only does it contribute little to getting White ' s pieces out, it even slightly weakens the dark squares and blocks development to f3 . In the present case there is an additional justification for 6 . . . e3 - since White ' s bishop is already on f4, the capture of the pawn will not be a developing move either. However this is not the only option for Black which merits serious attention here. I shall two other moves . consider Particularly interesting is ' b ' which both Hodgson and Gallagher curiously neglect to consider. Although theory is at a rather early stage of development, the initial impression it makes is not at all bad: a) 6 . . . ..tf5 is interesting, since Black will still by and large net a pawn, and he develops a piece into the bargain. The merit of the move will be determined by whether the bishop and/or the b7 pawn can be shown to be vulnerable. White has three consistent approaches:

a l ) 7 g4 ! ? is a radical attempt to demonstrate that 6 . . . ..tf5 merely renders this player the target of

attack. After 7 . . . White must be precise. 8 ..tg2?! and 8 h4? ! h5 ! (Gerstner) 9 g 5 ttJd5 both look distinctly ropey. However, that still leaves Julian Hodgson ' s suggestion of 8 fxe4 ! ? ttJxe4 9 ..tg2 ttJxc3 1 0 bxc3 after which he assesses White ' s development and queenside pressure as "well worth a pawn". I am not quite so sure, since I think White should pay serious attention to the possibility of Black attempting to drum up counterplay with a quick . . . e5 (perhaps 1 0 . . . ttJd7 ! ? returning the pawn even comes into consideration) . The expansion with g4 has both a plus and a minus side, but there is clearly food for thought here. Incidentally, I think it is this position which is critical to the assessment. De la Villa rejects Julian' s line due to 9 . . e5 ' ! -+ ' but I think that after the clever 1 0 �e2 ! exf4 ( l 0 . . . 'iVh4+ 1 1 'it'f1 does not necessarily help Black since the queen will be out of play) 1 1 ..txe4 ..txe4 1 2 O-O-O! we reach a position in which the type of players to opt for 4 f3 and 5 e4 would be quite in their element. a2) 7 ..tc4 is suggested by De la Villa who, if I understand him correctly, points out that the analogous approach scores well in the Blackmar Diemer gambit. He gives 7 . . . e6 8 fxe4 ttJxe4 9 ttJxe4 ..txe4 10 �e2 . White ' s develop­ ment is certainly harmonious here, and 1 0 . . . '1Wxd4? does indeed lose a piece to 1 1 c3 . This could be worth testing. a3) 7 fxe4 ! ? ttJxe4 (if 7 . . . ..txe4 ? ! 8 ttJxe4 ttJxe4 Hodgson suggests that either 9 'iVd3 or 9 c3 ( ! ) offer good play. I would prefer the latter which keeps the centre solid and forces Black to reckon with 1 0 '1Wb3 too) 8 �f3 ttJxc3 9 bxc3 'iVc8 .

86 2 tDe4 3 .§if4 d5 Introduction and 4 j3 . . .

(9 . . . c6?? 1 0 iLxb8 ! ) 1 0 l:tb l c6 1 1 i.d3 ! ? is Hodgson ' s recipe here, although in practice players have tended to prefer 1 0 i.c4 and so on. I like the idea of exchanging bishops on d3 . It forces Black to address the problem of fl, and indeed Julian' s variation l 1 . . .iLxd3 1 2 cxd3 e 6 1 3 tDh3 ! iLe7 1 4 WUg3 looks quite tricky to meet. One possible complication though is that Black can try 10 . . . wge6+ ! ) 1 1 �f1 iLe4 . Now 1 2 iLc4 for example 1 2 . . . i.xf3 1 3 iLxe6 iLc6 is not very convincing for White. So perhaps we have to do without the rook move at this stage and opt straight for 1 0 i.d3 ! ? This should be fine, but it is true that after for example 10 . . . i.xd3 1 1 cxd3 e6 Black will often have the option of . . . tDc6 in reply to a leter l:tb l . Still, I do not think this invalidates Julian' s interesting plan, even though the detailed execution seems to require some finesse. b) 6 . . . tDd5 ! ? looks logical and has the appeal that it seeks to make White' s extra iLf4 tempo over the Blackmar-Diemer look like a liability rather than an asset. To the extent that theory has a recipe for White here, after 7 tDxd5 wgxd5 there seems to have been a bit too much credence given to the continuation . . .

8 c4(? ! ) wga5+ 9 iLd2 WUf5 1 0 f4? ! based o n a n old Hungarian game succeeded White where in generating very decent compens­ ation after 1 0 . . . e6. However, it all looks rather unlikely. I rather like Black' s treatment in Barnard-Vigus, British (ch), Swansea 1 995, blockading on the light-squares with 1 0 . . . wgg6 ! ? 1 1 i.e3 tDd7 1 2 WUa4 c6 1 3 0-0-0 tDf6 1 4 h3 h5 1 5 tDe2 and then returning the pawn for excellent positional compensation with 1 5 . . . b5 ! 16 cxb5 tDd5 17 �3 iLd7 1 8 bxc6 i.xc6 and a lovely position. Sensing that White ' s 1 0th move makes a very strange impression, both De la Villa and Gerstner consider instead 10 wg e2 ! ? However, while it is quite believable that White ' s development after 1 0 . . . exf3 1 1 tDxf3 might constitute sufficient compensation, 1 0 . . . tDc6 ! ? complicates matters e.g. 1 1 fxe4 ( 1 1 iLc3 e5 ! looks fine for Black since if 1 2 fxe4, Wif4 ! pressures White o n the dark squares) 1 1 . . .wgf6 1 2 tDf3 ( 1 2 e5 wgh4+ 13 g3 wgxd4 1 4 iLc3 WUg4 ! does not really convince either) 1 2 . . . i.g4 ! ( or 1 2 . . . tDxd4 1 3 tDxd4 wgxd4 1 4 iLc3 Wid6 ! ? (it could be worth a tempo to prevent long­ castling) 1 5 l:Id l WUg6 1 6 wgd3 but here White ' s attack looks more plausible) 1 3 iLc3 tDxd4 1 4 iLxd4 i.xf3 1 5 gxf3 ( 1 5 �f2? e5) 15 . . . WUxd4 16 l:[d l wgf6 17 Wid2 WUc6 and White clearly has some pressure for the pawn but Black will play . . . e6 next and it is unclear how tangible trouble can be caused. Maybe White should check his play a little further back. Notwithstanding that it might go against the grain a little to permit the exchange of queens in such a

2 lL'le4 3 .if4 d5 Introduction and 4 j3 8 7 . . .

po sition, 9 'iVd2 ! ? 'iVxd2+ 1 0 'it>d2 m ight generate serious play if Black were to react passively. However 1 0 . . . lL'lc6 ! is interesting, intending to meet 1 1 d5 ? ! with 1 1 . . . e5 ! 1 2 .i g3 e3+! when 1 3 'it>xe3 lL'ld4 1 4 .i d3 i.c5 i s very pleasant for Black, while even 1 3 'it>c 1 lL'le7 14 .ixe3 c6 ! 1 5 ':'d l cxd5 1 6 cxd5 .id7 him very decent sec ures counterplay. The other alternative is to settle for 8 .ixc7 ! ? This is definitely the safe move, and it is not entirely without perspective since this structure can prove rather pleasant for White if he can proceed undisturbed. Berkes-Buzas, Szeks­ zard (op) 1 998 was a good example of the kind of pleasant position White can aspire to against cooperative play after 8 . . . lL'lc6 9 c3 exf3 ? ! 1 0 lL'lxf3 .ig4 1 1 i.e2 �d7 12 .ig3 e6 1 3 0-0 and I prefer White, although the further careless 13 . . . i.d6? 14 .ixd6 'iVxd6 1 5 lL'lg5 ! invited a completely unnecessary catastrophe. However, Black can erect far greater obstacles with 9 . . . i.f5 for example, keeping the tension, and as usual somewhat stymieing White ' s development. After 1 0 i.e2 Black then played the rather interesting 1 0 . . . e5 ! ? in Djurhuus-Elsness, Gausdal 1 99 5 . H e clearly obtains some positional compensation in the form of the bishop pair and the weakness of White ' s extra pawn following 1 1 .ixe5 ( 1 1 dxe5 �c5 ! ) lL'lxe5 1 2 dxe5 �xe5 1 3 'iVa4+ i.d7 1 4 �xe4 "i'xe4 1 5 fxe4 0-0-0 1 6 0-0-0 and this was duly converted by a mini-combination 1 6 . . . i.c5 1 7 lL'lf3 i.c6 1 8 i.d3 ':'xd3 ! 1 9 l:Ixd3 i.xe4 into a dead equal ending. This all looks like a very tempting approach for Black, not least because I would

be very surprised if our gambiteers would temperamentally feel comfortable on the White side of this kind of a tussle. 7 i.xe3 With this move, the regular Trompowsky tempo battle so familiar throughout the 2 . . . lL'le4 variation ends here, for the moment, in a tie. This bishop and the knight on f6 have both expended three tempi to reach their rather unexceptional locations and the result is a direct transposition to the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit declined. However, White is not absolutely forced to acquiesce in this outcome. Joel Benjamin did once try to preserve his bishop ' s active posting on f4 by capturing e3 with his queen, commencing 7 'iVd3 ! ? e6 8 'iVxe3 .ie7 9 0-0-0 0-0 1 0 'it>b l (Hodgson suggests the more direct 10 .id3 . In this case Black should probably 1 0 . . . c6 and . . . lL'ld7 11 lL'lb4 1 2 .ig3 etc) 1 0 . . . b6 1 3 a3 lL'lbd5 14 lL'lxd5 but the queen is not ideal here either, and White had nothing special. Benjamin-Yermolinsky, USA (ch) Modesto 1 99 5 . 7 e6 ...

8 �d2

88 2. Ji'Je4 3 iLf4 d5 Introduction and 413 Alternatively White can take matters on the kings ide at a more leisurely pace, concentrating first on development. Still, putting the g l knight o n e4, as in the following example, takes 3 tempi, and I am not quite convinced that it is worth it 8 ltJge2 ltJbd7 9 ltJg3 iLe7 1 0 'l'd3 0-0 1 1 0-0-0 a 6 1 2 ltJge4 ltJd5 1 3 h4 b6 1 4 ltJxd5 exd5 1 5 ltJg5 ltJf6 1 6 i.f4 c 5 1 7 dxc5 Y2-Y2 was V.Milov-Gelfand, Biel 1 99 5 . Hodgson says that h e likes White here at the end after 1 7 . . . bxc5 1 8 iLe5, but I ' m not sure why since 1 8 . . . c4 ! 19 'ilVc3 'i!Vb6 leaves Black in my view with play on the b-file to match anything that his opponent can hit him with on the kings ide. 8 ... i.e7 9 0-0-0 0-0 1 0 g4 ltJe6 ? ! I think that I would have considered either . . . c6 or . . . ltJbd7 during any of the last few moves, and here too that would be my preference. There is nothing intrinsically wrong about the c6-b4 route to d5, but here it does seem to presage a rather ambitious and misplaced plan of action on the queenside. 11 'it>bl ltJb4 12 h4 as? ! 13 ltJge2 a4 14 a3 ltJbdS I S gS! Perhaps this is what Black underestimated. The e3 bishop simply is not integral to White ' s plans i n lines like 1 5 . . . ltJxe3 1 6 'i'xe3 ltJd5 1 7 ltJxd5 exd5 1 8 ltJf4 followed by lIe 1 and a pleasant bind on the kings ide and a superiority on the only open file into the bargain. IS . . . ltJxe3+? ! 16 ltJxe3 ltJdS 1 7 ltJxdS 'ilVxdS 1 8 i.d3 ! Without knights Black is strangely impotent to offer any sort of counterplay on the queens ide. White ' s victory on the kings ide is

pretty much automatic here, and he even passes up along the way an exchange sacrifice which has dejection written all over it. 18 . . . 'I'aS 1 9 e3 Iia6 ? ! 20 'iVe2 :tb6 21 'it>al J:tb3 22 i.el 'ih8 23 iLxh7 i.xa3 24 bxa3 l:lxe3 2 S 'iVbl l:lb3 26 iLh2 bS 27 iLe2 l:1xf3 28 l:1df1 1-O

Game 1 9 Benj amin - Malisauskas Olympiad, Moscow 1 994 1 d4 ltJf6 2 i.gS ltJe4 3 iLf4 dS 4 f3 ltJf6 S e4 e6 This attempt to reach a kind of French Defence is not bad in itself, but it seems to me to vindicate massively White ' s 5th move choice. Although the most common motivation for preferring 5 e4 over 5 ltJc3 is almost certainly the love of a good gambit and its hacking potential, I am convinced that the contrast between the two sets of French-type positions - those with ltJc3 , and those without - is so strong in favour of the latter that all efforts should be made to make 5 e4 work for precisely this reason hence the repertoire ! To be able to put the bishop on e3, and defend the d4 pawn with c2-c3 is quite luxurious for White. 6 eS ltJfd7 7 i.e3 ! Of course the moves f3 and i.f4 appear far from optimal in a French this Defence setting, but reorganisation is strong, and in terms of tempi, justified as so often by the wanderings of Black's king' s knight. 7 . . . eS 8 e3 ltJe6

2 CLle4 3 jif4 d5 Introduction and 413 89 . . .

The alternative plan 8 0 0 .b6 is also known from the Tarrasch French, but White ' s development feels too flowing here to pennit such p o sitional niceties. In Hodgson­ Benj amin, Las Vegas (op) 1 995 White got a clear advantage after 9 f4 ii.a6 1 0 ii.xa6 CLlxa6 1 1 CLlf3 ii.e7 12 0-0 0-0 (De la Villa suggests 1 2 0 0 . 'iVc8, but 1 3 fS ! ? - anyway ! 1 3 0 0 . exfS 1 4 ..tgS ! should dangerous play) 1 3 fS ! exfS 14 CiJc 7 I S 'iVxfS and White has a spatial plus and fair prospects on the kingside. It is curious indeed that the master of the White side in this line should want to have a go at the defence ! 9 f4

9 . . . cxd4 My feeling is that Black ' s only hopes of equalising must involve ruffling his opponent ' s feathers a little here, and that after the text move White ' s build-up seems a little too smooth. Perhaps 9 . . . 'iVb6 is a better shot. De la Villa commends Black's play in Moreno Ruiz-Mitkov, Mondariz, 1 999 1 0 'iVd2 as ! ? 1 1 CLlf3 a4 1 2 ii.d3 cxd4 1 3 cxd4 ii.b4 1 4 CLlc3 a3 I S b3 'iVas 16 J:.c l CLlf8 17 0-0 ii.d7 but although the pin against c3 is a bit annoying, strengthening it is not

a straightforward task (especially given the nice circumstance that 1 8 J:.c2 ! ? J:.c8 1 9 J:.fc l CLle7? ! can be well met by 20 CLlbS ! ) and elsewhere White still seems to hold the ascendancy. 1 0 cxd4 'iVa5+ I am sure Malisauskas also felt the need to disrupt the flow of White ' s game, but the impact o f having to move the king seems quite containable. However, another game of Joel Benjamin ' s from the same event seems to confinn that there is no easy way to make trouble. In Benj amin-Popovic, Moscow (01) 1 994 Black tried 1 0 0 0 . CLlb6 but after 1 1 CLld2 ( 1 1 b3 ! ?) 1 1 . . . as 1 2 a3 a4 1 3 ii.d3 ii.d7 14 CLle2 CLlaS I S 0-0 g6 16 g4 ii.c6 1 7 CLlg3 CLlbc4 1 8 CLlxc4 CLlxc4 1 9 'iVe2 bS 20 fS ! White had achieved the key breakthrough without undue difficulty. Later Black' s king was able to escape to the queenside, but the domination of the open f-file still gave White a considerable advantage. 1 1 'it>f2! CLlb6 12 b3 ! ii.d7 13 CLlf3 .l:Ic8 1 4 a3 CLla8 A recognition of her maj esty ' s discomfort o n the 'wrong side ' of the other Black pieces. 15 J:.a2 CLle7 1 6 ii.d2 'ib'b6 1 7 CLlc3 CLlf5 1 8 b4 ! A strong move. Covering cS indirectly defends d4 since 1 8 0 0 . CLlxd4 1 9 ..te3 wins material. 1 8 . . JWd8 1 9 g4 CLlh4 20 CLlxh4 'iVxh4+ 21 'it>g2 CLlb6 22 ii.el 'iVd8 23 ..td3 CLlc4 24 'iVf3 I do not think it would be too unfair a caricature of this variation to say that Black often manages to find a strong square or two, but it is much easier for White to find a

90 2 ..'i:e4 3 i.f4 d5 Introduction and 413 .

plan. Again the advance of the f-pawn when it comes, will carry some force. 24 . . . iLe7 25 �f1 ? ! 25 t2Je2 ! was more precise. I n the next few moves Black is able to make some exchanges to arrive at an ending in which White clearly holds the initiative, but there are chances to defend. 25 . . . iLh4 ! 26 t2Je2 i.xel 27 !bel a5 28 f5 axb4 29 axb4 h5! 30 gxh5 'it'h4 31 �g3 �xh5 32 'it'xh4 ':'xh4 33 'is;g3 .l:th6 34 fxe6 i.xe6 35 t2Jf4 t2Jb6 36 l:[c2 l:[xc2 37 iLxc2 g5 38 t2Jxe6 fxe6 39 i.d l �h7 40 i.g4 %lc7 ! The start of a very active defence which comes very close to saving the game. 4 1 i.xe6 �c4 42 l:i.dl rJite7 43 i.f5 t2Ja4 44 ..tg4 t2Jc3 45 l:i.d3 t2Je4 ! Superb. After the routine 45 . . . t2Jb5 46 l:[h3 ! Black's king finds himself in some trouble. The text, however, should hold in view of the variation 46 i.xe4 dxe4 47 l:i.d 1 ..te6 48 d5+ ..txe5 49 d6 .l:tc8 50 d7 .ud8 (close to ' mutual zugzwang ') 5 1 b5 b6! 52 h3 e3 53 ..tf3 ..te6 54 ..te3 ':'xd7 and the pawn ending is drawn - Benj amin. 46 'itf3 t2Jc3 47 rJitg4 t2Je4 48 ..th5 ! ? .u.xb4 49 rJitg6 l:i.b6+ 50 e6 l:i.b2 51 ':'h3 l:i.f2? Rather sad after such a dogged defence. 5 1 . . . t2Jf6 52 ':'c3 ttJe8 ! would have kept White out. 52 lIh7+ ..te8 53 l:i.h8+ rJite7 54 'uh7+ rJite8 55 i.xe4 ! dxe4 56 d5 %ld2 57 rJitf6 1-0 A tough struggle, but sufficient evidence that this particular French-like position leaves White rather in the driving seat.

Chapter Conclusion I will probably not be revealing a huge secret if I confess that my personal sympathies are on this occasion more with the ' Solid' Repertoire of Chapter 5 than they are with the Pseudo-Blackmar approach covered here. However, I certainly have not found anything that looks like a refutation of White ' s gambit and given White ' s possibilities in Game 1 9 I am confident that I selected the right ' attacking repertoire ' . It is in addition undoubtedly a lot of fun, no small element in the equation. The gambit accepted in particular would be very effective against the right opponent. It also gives terrific opportunities for creative play. On specifics, I suspect that a few bad results have led commentators to relatively neglect the 7 . . . iLg4 ! ? and 8 . . . i.xf3 covered i n the Notes to Game 1 6. That game itself also raises questions as to exactly how to play White ' s attack if Black avoids the quick d5 break that gave White all his fun. There is always ' compensation ' but exploiting it requires some attacking virtuosity . However, if I was playing Black I think I would probably decline �hite ' s generous offer. My analysis II Game 1 8 is quite important. 6 . . . e3 I find quite hard to judge, but 6 . . . t2Jd5 ! ? really deserves much more recognition than it has received hitherto, and if I were going to venture the gambit with White I would put considerable effort in trying to kick this into touch.

Chapter 5

-

2

. . .

l2Je4 3 .tf4 d5

The Solid Repertoire with 4 e3 ! ? Game 20 Win ants - Wiedenkeller European Club Cup, Neum 2000 e3

1 d4 lLlf6 2 i.g5 lLle4 3 i.f4 d5 4

4 i.f5 This was once the most popular, but provided that White takes a broad view in his attempts to show that the piece is a target. (see the note to 6 c4), I am sceptical about it as, incidentally, is Julian Hodgson. First though, two other developing moves deserve a mention here. 4 . . . lLlc6 looks rather suspicious, but should probably be met either in the customary manner with 5 i.d3 or perhaps even the simple 5 lLld2, rather than 5 f3 ? ! g5 ! when its main point is revealed. As usual, the move f3 has a detrimental effect if White is likely to have to give up his dark-squared bishop for a knight in any case. .•.

It is also possible to play the slightly odd-looking 4 . . . lLld7 to ' defend' the knight, or perhaps more precisely to defend the pawn structure from the i.xe4 idea which will dominate much of this chapter. However, there is a distinct suspicion that the knights, to say the least rather tread on each others ' toes after 5 i.d3 lLldf6 6 f3 ! lLld6 7 lLlc3 e6 8 e4 lLlh5 9 i.e3 i.e7 1 0 g4 ! dxe4 1 1 fxe4 i.h4+ 1 2 'it>fl f5 1 3 e5 14 'iYxg4 0-0+ 1 5 'it>e2 lLlf5 16 and Black is losing a piece for very little. Hodgson­ Paunovic, C acak 1 996. 5 f3 Best. Since I will be advocating a plan involving the inherently risky business of expansion on both wings, I think it is important to stress getting the order right! Absolutely not 5 c4? first (although the Tromp expert Romero Holmes was among those to once go down this road, and get away with it! ) due to the strength of 5 . . . e5 ! . This reveals rather drastically a plus side to the knight' s presence on e4. With due apologies to White, the game Karhanek-Bartos, Ostrava (op) 2002 ended rather abruptly with 6 dxe5 i.b4+ 7 cJi>e2 �4 8 g3 'i'h5+ 9 f3 dxc4 1 0 g4 'i'h4 1 1 lLlh3 i.xg4 1 2 'iYa4+ lLlc6 1 3 i.g3 'ili'h5 1 4 fxg4 'il¥xg4 mate, which does at least provide a most graphic warning on this point!

92 2 tUe4 3 �4 d5 4 e3 . . .

Other moves like 5 i.d3 and 5 tUd2 are not of course so fatally flawed, but if play proceeds quietly then the logical development of the bishop to f5 eases Black's play, whereas the move should really herald a possibility for active expansion. 5 . tUf6 The obvious retreat, and the most common one. For 5 . . . tUd6 see Game 2 1 . 6 c4 ! I like this. White confidently looks at gaining space on both wings. Why? Because he can! Of course there might be a danger of overstretching resources, but prac­ tice suggests that if, alternatively, White merely concentrates on the kings ide then Black' s chances of developing really significant play on the queenside are not at all bad here. It is by no means unique in opening theory for the king to be safer castled on a wing where the player is himself expanding rather than waiting for the opponent to seize the initiative there. The King ' s Indian Defence is riddled with such examples, and I am impressed by the logic here too. By way of contrast, in Hodgson-Nunn, Bundesliga 1 995, (and many others) White immed­ iately committed wholesale to the kingside with 6 g4 i.g6 7 h4 h5 8 g5 tUfd7 9 tUc3 c6 1 0 i.d3 i.xd3 1 1 �xd3 g6 ! ? 1 2 e4 e6 1 3 0-0-0 i.e7 1 4 !:te l tUa6 1 5 a3 tUb6 1 6 i.e5 0-0 and interestingly without the option of a pawn-stonn (he has in a sense already exhausted this resource) it is relatively harder for him to make any impression against the black king. . .

6 . . . c6 This, or 6 . . . e6 which usually amounts to the same thing after 7 tUc3 c6, seem modest, but are probably best. Two others merit a mention: a) 6 . . . c5?! once became rather high profile due to a game in which Mickey Adams, usually merciless in the technical phase, won a piece but failed to convert. The ' tactical refutation' is 7 cxd5 tUxd5 8 i.xb8 ! ':xb8 (8 . . . tUxe3 9 i.b5+ i.d7 1 0 i.xd7+ �xd7 1 1 �e2 tUxg2+ 1 2 �xg2 ':xb8 1 3 dxc5 + - was the course of Adams-Van Wely, Tilburg 1 996. Black can generate some practical 'mess ' for the piece, but theoretical too not much compensation; while 8 . . . �a5+ ! Adams - also falls short after 9 �d2 tUb4 when Hodgson 's 1 0 e4 ! ? is interesting, but 1 0 tUc3 tUc2+ [or 10 . . J:lb8 1 1 i.b5+ tUc6 12 d5 a6 1 3 dxc6 axb5 1 4 �d5 ! ] 1 1 'it> f2 tUxa l 12 i.b5+ looks the most straightforward. White has a tremendous attack) 9 e4 tUe3 1 0 exf5 ! (That good old b5-e8 diagonal again) 10 . . . �a5+ ! 1 1 �d2 tUc2+ which was played in Bombek­ E.Pinter, Slovak (ch) 2000 . Now instead of 12 �d l �xd2+ 1 3 tUxd2 tUxa l 14 i.b5+ �d8 1 5 tUe2 g6 1 6 �c l i.h6 1 7 ':d l gxf5 1 8 'it>b l cxd4 1 9 'it>xa 1 e6 when the rook and

2. . . lLle4 3 i.f4 d5 4 e3 93 p awns have a reasonable shot a gainst White ' s two minor pieces, White should have played 12 c;t>f2 ! 'i'xd2 1 3 lLlxd2 lLlxa l 1 4 i.b5+ �d8 1 5 i.d3 ! followed by lLlh3 with a clear advantage. In the second case White ' s position coordinates beautifully, while Black's is frankly rather a mess! b) 6 . . . i.xb l is relatively safe, but rather pliant. I prefer White ' s position i n Adams-Emms, British (ch) Hove 1 997 after 7 lIxb 1 c6 8 i.d3 e6 9 lLle2 i.b4+ 1 0 c;t>f2 i.e7 1 1 g4 dxc4 12 i.xc4 0-0 1 3 e4 . Note that as so often in the Trompowsky, especially where White is expanding on the kings ide, his king settles fairly comfortably on f2 . 7 lLlc3 e 6 8 iVb3

Good to see it is White giving the b-pawn some hassle for a change ! Again we are concerned with plans more than move order. 8 g4 is also quite valid. White ' s 8th, 9th and 1 0th are fairly interchangeable with the important structural proviso that g4 should precede h4 ! 8 b6 This is something of a positional concession of course, although its . . .

importance will depend upon where White chooses to press his initiative. But alternatives are no bed of roses either: a) 8 . . . 'ilid7 9 g4 i.g6 10 h4 h6 1 1 c5 i.e7 1 2 lLlb5 ! (a notable trick, based upon the iLxb8 motif which is a regular visitor in the Tromp, particularly indeed later in this chapter) 1 2 . . . cxb5 1 3 i.xb8 a6 1 4 i.g3 0-0 (I notice with some incredulity that Slobodan Kovacevic recently decided to play this position a second time as Black. He is by no means lost, but I do find the judgement implicit in this decision rather curious. It seems to me that White can claim an obvious spatial plus and a promising kingside attack. ) 1 5 lLlh3 ( 1 5 lLle2 was also good) 1 5 . . . iVc6 16 lLlf4 i.h7 1 7 i.d3 iLxd3 1 8 lLlxd3 += Miles­ Kovacevic, Benasque (op) 1 997. b) Neither does 8 . . . 'itb6 look especially appetising. White has 9 c5 iVxb3 1 0 axb3 with a structure well-known from other d-pawn openings in which the open a-file helps White secure further benefits from the b4-b5 break which, owing to the pinned a-pawn will not be hindered should Black opt to play . . . a6. This should secure White a definite initiative. 9 g4 i.g6 10 h4 h6 n lLlh3 iLe7 An attempt to improve upon 1 1 . . . dxc4 which cedes the centre still further in return for a shade more space for the Black pieces. This led to one of the reat Trompowsky classics after 1 2 xc4 lLld5 1 3 0-0-0 i.d6 ( 1 3 . . . lLlxf4 would remove the e6 pawn ' s shield, and leave it hugely vulnerable to either a sacrifice or a d4-d5 breakthrough) 1 4 iLxd6 iVxd6 1 5 e4

J. •

94 2 ..tiJe4 3 .i.f4 d5 4 e3 .

lDxc3 1 6 'ixc3 lDd7 1 7 h5 ! .i.h7 1 8 c;to>b l 0-0-0 1 9 c;to>a l ! (As we have seen, issues of where to press home the initiative in this line are inextricably linked with the question of king placement and king safety. Here Stuart wisely invests time in tucking the king into the comer, as he has his own sights on the queenside now that Black's king nestles there) 1 9 . . . 'ib8 20 lDf2 f6 2 1 .i.a6

A strong move in itself, this bishop sortie also embodies a strategic lesson in itself. White emphasises how the black bishop is shut out, biting only on the supremely well-guarded e-pawn, while his own bishop can adopt a threatening posture on the other wing. To cap it all, its own influence is a direct consequence of its adversary' s difficulties. 2 1 . . . c 5 ? ! (2 1 . . . r;£j>a8 += keeps White' s advantage within bounds) 22 'i'a3 'ig3 23 Ithfl cxd4 24 lDd3 lDe5 25 .l:.c 1 Ilhe8 26 'ia4 ! (still infiltrating the deserted light squares) 26 . . . l:!.e7 27 'i'xd4 ! ned7 28 'i'c3 and mate on c8 cannot be prevented at acceptable cost, therefore 1 -0 . Conquest-Xie Jun, Hastings 1 996, a model of patient attacking build-up from Stuart.

1 2 0-0-0 as 13 cxdS exdS 14 .i.d3 This is OK, but I would prefer 1 4 lDf2 in order to recapture on d3 with the knight. 14 . . . i.xd3 IS .l:.xd3 lDbd7 1 6 Ilddl lDh7 I suppose Black is trying to predict a menacing g5-g6 advance. The problem is that White has a very flexible formation in the centre anyway, and this gives grounds for extra optimism regarding any coming central breakthrough. 17 e4 dxe4 1 8 lDxe4 ! Eyeing both the d6 square and the g5 break, as well as ensuring that . . . .i.xh4 will not confuse the issue. 1 8 . . . lDdf6 19 gS lDdS Opening the h-file would provide no respite. After 1 9 . . . hxg5 20 hxg5 lDd5 , Luc Winants himself gives 2 1 i.e5, but 2 1 g6 fxg6 22 lDhg5 ! looks considerably more incisive. 20 gxh6 gxh6 21 .i.xh6 i.xh4 22 lDf4

This game is a model for the kind of momentum which plays a maj or role in the concept of the ' initiative ' . Black is given no pause for thought before facing a further barrage - his best pieces are

2 lLle4 3 i.f4 d5 4 e3 95 . . .

likewise given no time to settle. Since d5 is a good square, pester th at knight ! 22 . . . a4 With the next couple of moves Black loses the exchange and the remaining difficulties can be classified in the traditional manner as ' technical ' . It is a tribute to the power of White ' s play that Fritz seems to suggest that this unfortunate scenario was Black coping as best he could! 23 llVc4 1:!.c8 24 l'Llxd5! cxd5 25 l'Lld6+ 'it>d7 26 'ixc8+ 'i'xc8+ 2 7 l'Llxc8 .uxc8+ 28 'it> b 1 i.f6 29 i.g7! Further exchanges ensure an easy win. 29 l:1.g8 30 l:Ixh7 l:.xg7 31 l:txg7 ..txg7 32 'it>c2 �e6 33 �d3 �f5 34 l:tcl ..tfS 35 .l:i.c8 i.b4 36 ktc6 .lta5 37 .l:i.d6 f6 38 l:xd5+ 'it>f4 39 l:1.b5 1-0 . . .

Game 2 1 Lputian - Z.Ilincic Yerevan (zt) 2000 1 d4 l'Llf6 2 .ltg5 l'Lle4 3 .ltf4 d5 4 e3 .ltf5 5 n l'Lld6 ! ?

Having witnessed above the force of the c2-c4 plan, it is under­ standable that some players felt

encouraged to check out this alternative. There may be an almost automatic suspicion of a certain artificiality attached to such a retreat. However, it has some solid qualities. Aside from preventing the move c2-c4 for the moment, c4 is an important square to keep an eye on anyway, and the knight is also spared being a target for White ' s g4-g5 aspirations. Here I a m much more agnostic than in the last game about whether White should still play for c2-c4, or just play in the centre and on the kings ide. However, I still have a sneaking respect for the quiet approach which White adopts in the game, backed by an enormous respect for 5mbat Lputian' s chess understanding in general. 6 l'Lld2 ! ? This of course signals White ' s determination t o press o n in ' Queen' s Gambit' mode with c4 . In this position though it is quite reasonable that the knight' s position on d6 rather than f6 should encourage White to hit in the centre with e2-e4, which will put greater than usual pressure on d5 . In my view though, Black has reasonable compensation for this. If White castles long for example, the knight on d6, keeping contact with the important c4 square, can be rather a potent attacking piece. Some examples: 6 lLlc3 e6 and now: a) 7 g4 ! ? (anyway! ) 7 . . . ..tg6 8 i.d3 ! ? (8 iVd2 ! ?) 8 . . . lLlc6 9 lLlge2 .lte7 1 0 llVd2 a6 1 1 i.g3 b5?! To my mind this is a rather instructive moment. It is not such a bad move, but there is a question of timing that deserves a mention. The problem is that White, for all his kings ide

96 2 ..tiJe4 3 Jif4 d5 4 e3 .

commitment is still reasonably flexible. Such a move is more appropriate when White has really no more possibility to switch back and start examining the undeniable weaknesses on the c-file that such a pawn break entails. The next few moves demonstrate that this is not the case here. 12 h4 b4? ! 1 3 liJa4 liJb 7 14 h5 .lixd3 1 5 cxd3 ! both covering the c4 square (I think this recapture has been in White ' s mind for some moves here) and opening the c-file for operations. What about White ' s king? It went to d2 and looked reasonably comfortable with the fact. Moreno Camero - Cao, Collado Villalba (op) 2000. b) 7 'ife2 .lig6 ! (Better I think than 7 . . . .lie7 8 e4 when Black is forced to capture. Despite the fact that after 8 . . . dxe4 he has a neat avoids being trick which immediately flattened in the centre (9 fxe4? liJxe4 ! 1 0 liJxe4 �xd4 with a spot of embarrassment on White ' s 4th rank) after 9 0-0-0 exD 1 0 liJxD 0-0 1 1 h3 h6 1 2 g4 .lih7 1 3 h4 White had oodles of compensation in Efimov-Olivier, Monaco Masters 2000) 8 0-0-0 (Now on the other hand, ' exploiting ' the pin on the by 8 e4 c6 9 exd5? ! cxd5 1 0 liJc6 1 1 0-0-0 ':'c8 ! invites serious counterplay) 8 . . . .lie7 9 e4 c6 1 0 'ilVe l ( 1 0 h4 ! ?) 1 0 . . . 0-0 1 1 h4 h6 1 2 .lid3 ( 1 2 g4 b 5 1 3 g5 h5 ! also gives Black decent counter-chances, as Avrukh shows. The knight' s absence from f6 has the up-side o f complicating the process o f opening files against the black king) 1 2 . . . b5 1 3 .lixd6 ! ? .lixd6 14 e5 .lixd3 1 5 Zlxd3 .lie7 1 6 f4 �a5 1 7 'it'b l c5 ! 1 8 dxc5 liJc6 with a hugely complicated race between the

respective attacks in which I think Black should have adequate resources. Leko-Krasenkow, Polan­ ica Zdroj , 1 99 8 . Clearly it' s not just English 2700 players who play the Tromp from time to time ! 6 . . . e6 7 c4

7 ... liJxc4 To my mind it is slightly strange to capture in this way. Is Black afraid of 7 . . . dxc4 8 e4 ! ? I doubt if it is too scary since after 8 . . . .lig6 White has nothing better than 9 liJxc4 in any case. In fact, the resulting positions are all fairly similar anyway (as coaches like to say, learn the structure not the moves, and there is something in this advice ! ) but it is worth mentioning that the possibility of which Lputian decided to avail himself in the game is created by Black ' s move order. In order to get a feel for the positions, here is the Julian himself behind the wheels. 7 . . . dxc4 8 liJxc4 liJd7 9 l:tc 1 liJxc4 1 0 .lixc4 .lid6 1 1 liJe2 0-0 1 2 e4 .lig6 1 3 0-0 e5 1 4 dxe5 i.xe5 1 5 'i!Vb3 .lixf4 1 6 liJxf4 liJb6 1 7 'i!V e3 It is interesting that White does not fear the coming exchange. 1 7 . . . liJxc4 1 8 l:lxc4 c6

2 tiJe4 3 ..ltf4 d5 4 e3 97 . . .

1 9 J:.d4 �6 20 'lif2 was Hodgson­ He rtneck, Bundesliga 2000. It may not look that much, but the contrast in the respective minor pieces is actually quite serious . It is very hard to bring the bishop back from the doldrums of g6 without granting the knight and rooks key squares. Julian was duly able to convert this advantage. 8 tiJxc4 dxc4

9 e4 ! ? This i s the additional option which I explained above. It enables White to play with his king on g l rather than f2 , and whatever the relative merits, it is understandable that some might feel more comfortable with this option. In Winants-Van Haastert, Netherlands (tch) 200 1 , White preferred 9 Sl.xc4 ..ltb4+ 1 0 <;t>f2 . This is important since in the event of 7 . . . dxc4 he would be obliged to go down this route anyway. After 1 0 . . . Sl.d6 1 1 tiJe2 h6 1 2 'lib3 Sl.xf4 1 3 tiJxf4 tiJd7 ! 1 4 :!:i.ac 1 0-0 1 5 J:.hd 1 tiJb6 1 6 Sl.f1 �d6 1 7 <;t>g l e 5 1 8 dxe5 'lixe5 1 9 'Iic3 'lixc3 20 l:.xc3 g5 White was unable to win, although he did make some serious headway with what at this stage is just a miniscule

nibble. The problem? Basically Black' s bishop was allowed time to rejoin the action in contrast with the other games in this section. The reason for this? I think 1 2 �3 makes limited sense if he is unwilling to follow through by snaffling the b-pawn. White could have considered 1 2 e4 ! ? Sl.h7 1 3 J:.c 1 for example when I still prefer his chances. 9 . . . ..ltb4+ 1 0 ..ltd2 Sl.xd2+ 1 1 'lixd2 Sl.g6 1 2 Sl.xc4 0-0 1 3 tiJe2 'lie7 14 0-0 tiJd7 15 l:.ac1 c6 1 6 :!:i.fd l <;t>h8 Hugely exciting it is not, but the examples already given in the notes do assist in our understanding of the basic point. The bishop on g6 is passive, and Black has precious little by way of compensation for this. Note that either attempt to strike back in the centre ( . . . c6-c5 or . . . e6-e5) can be forcefully met with d4-d5 . In most cases an opening of the centre which still leaves the e4 pawn as a rock-like presence will only serve to highlight the absence of the g6 bishop from the main action. I mentioned earlier that White is sticking to ' Queen ' s Gambit' mode and the position to me greatly resembles a Slav defence which Black has rather mishandled. 17 tiJf4 J:.fd8 1 8 l:.c3 tiJb6 1 9 Sl.b3 l:.d7 Perhaps 1 9 . . . e5 now, if ever, but after 20 tiJxg6+ hxg6 any ensuing freedom would come at the price of a weak f7 pawn. These are typical dilemmas. When playing against such a bishop re-capturing space often involves enhancing the opponent' s minor piece. 20 l:.d3 l:.ad8 21 'liaS ! tiJc8 22 g3 l:.d6 23 <;t>g2 f6? !

98 2 ..tiJe4 3 �f4 d5 4 e3 .

52 <s;xg6 1:Ig3+ 53 <S;h7 :a3 54 <S;g8 1-0 Not a pleasant experience for the defender, although towards the end one which he could have shortened with a clear conscience ! Game 22 Akopian - Mohandesi Elista (01) 1 998

Definitely an impatient move, but doing nothing is one of the hardest things in chess, and finding intelligent moves over a period of time when there is no real plan has been the speciality of only a select band of defenders . The temptation is always to make the position ' critical ' again, in the sense that White must adjust to finding accurate moves rather than building at his own pace. Black ' threatens ' to use his g6 bishop once again. Here the weak e6 pawn and the increased vulnerability of Black's king are too high a price to pay. hxg6 26 24 e5! fxe5 25 'iYxe5 ltJb6 27 lie3 28 ll+'a5 ltJb6 29 l:te4 ! Lputian denies his opponent any respite. Black I guess hoped for 29 W1ixa7 c5 when he could at least play some chess again. 29 . . . ltJd5 30 W1ixa7 'i/Vg5 31 l:tdel b6 32 W1if7 W1if6 33 'iYxf6 gxf6 34 1:Ixe6 The rest is easy. 34 . . . ltJb4 35 l:txd6 lixd6 36 a3 ltJd5 37 �xd5 l:txd5 38 1:Ie6 l:txd4 39 l:txf6 <s;g7 40 lhc6 l:i.d2+ 4 1 <S;h3 l:i.xb2 4 2 a 4 �h6 4 3 f4 �g7 44 �g4 1:Ixh2 45 l:txb6 l:i.hl 46 a5 :al 47 a6 �a3 48 l:tb7+ <S;f6 49 a7 <s;e6 50 <s;g5 lIxg3+ 5 1 <S;h6 l:ta3

1 d4 ltJf6 2 �g5 ltJe4 3 �f4 d5 4 e3 e6 At first sight a little passive, there is actually a certain amount of respect knocking around for this unpretentious move. The main point is that Black can rapidly aim to question the Tromp bishop with the move . . . i.d6. As we shall see, it is also a choice that can work in conjunction with an early . . . c5 . This seems like a reasonable moment to consider another simple developing move. 4 . . . g6 5 �d3 ltJd6 (looks a bit passive. 5 . . . i.g7 looks better, but after 6 �xe4 dxe4, whether White plays 7 ltJc3 or tries to keep his centre tighter with 7 ltJd2 and c3, Black will need the . . . c5 break and we will be highly likely to transpose to Game 26 note to Black's 7th) 6 h4 ! ? An enterpris­ ing effort to punish Black ' s caution which works a treat here 6 . . . �g7 7 ltJc3 c6 8 h5 W/ib6 9 �e5 ! �xe5 1 0 dxe5 ltJc4 1 1 hxg6 fxg6 1 2 �xg6+ <S;d8 1 3 ii'd4 with clear advantage in Lputian-Ashley, Las Vegas (op) 200 1 . 5 i.d3 As usual there are also playable quiet moves, but I can only reiterate that I think the �d3xe4 idea has added hugely to the punch of the Trompowsky, and poses Black tricky and un-stereotyped problems.

2 ctJe4 3 .tf4 d5 4 e3 99 . . .

5 . .td6 This makes the most sense. The simplicity of White ' s ' capture on e4 and then harass the e-pawn' plan comes under fire. The possibility of capture on f4 in tum forces White to reckon with some new structures. Of the others, aside from 5 . . . c5 which I will touch upon in the notes to Game 26, one other possibility deserves a mention, if not intrinsically then necessarily because of the significant outing that was its debut. In Hodgson­ Yermolinsky, Hastings, 1 995 Black chose 5 . . . b6 ! ? 6 .txe4 (Of course 6 ctJd2 is also legitimate here if White wants a quiet and safe life. I am trying on the whole to avoid the quiet and frankly slightly dull Torre Attack!3 .tf4 type positions, but it might be an encouragement to some that B lack' s development pattern is already determined. Also I would consider 6 ctJe2 ! ? with a quick c4 to follow) 6 . . . dxe4 7 ctJc3 .tb4 ! ? (7 . . . .tb7 8 �g4 �d7 ! ? 9 0-0-0 ctJa6 was Hauchard-A. Sokolov, France (Tch) 1 998, when I would suggest 1 0 f3 exf3 1 1 ctJxf3 with good development to compensate for the bishop pair) 8 �g4 ! ? (8 ctJge2 looks a sensible ' safe option' ) 8 . . 0-0 and now Julian went badly wrong and was quickly worse with 9 �g3 ? . .

.txc3+ ! 1 0 bxc3 ctJc6 1 1 ctJh3 ( 1 1 ..Itxc7? ! �d5 1 2 �d6 �c4 l 3 ctJe2 .tb7 leaves White desperately weak on the light squares) 1 1 . . ...Ita6 ! The key question revolves around the attempt to win material with the superior 9 .te5 ! f6 1 0 �xe4 fxe5 1 1 �xa8 exd4 1 2 0-0-0 when Julian does not trust Black' s compen­ sation, and indeed 12 . . . .txc3 1 3 bxc3 �d6 1 4 Mxd4 �a3+ 1 5 �b l looks safe enough for White, but 1 2 . . . .td7 ! ? is interesting since l 3 1:.xd4 .txc3 1 4 bxc3 'Yi'e7 ! 1 5 �xa7 ( 1 5 'Yi'e4 .tc6 also carries dangers) 1 5 . . . ctJc6 wins back the exchange and matters seem far from clear. For this reason, I think White would be better off opting for one of the early deviations. 6 ctJe2 ! I like this. There are a number of games in which White plays 6 ..Itxe4 .txf4 ! 7 exf4 dxe4 but this structure does not inspire confidence. After 8 ctJc3 ctJc6 ! 9 ctJge2 f5 for example, it might seem superficially attractive to possess the knight pair given the weak dark squares, but in fact they lack access to any convincing posts. Neither is 6 .txd6 the answer either 6 . . . �xd6 or 6 . . . ctJxd6 look quite adequate.

.

6 . . . ctJd7

1 00 2 ..'i:Je4 3 kf4 d5 4 e3 .

The more I look at the diagram position the trickier it looks for Black. White has two familiar enough strategies - to capture on e4 and try to round up the e-pawn, or to play with c4 which is liable to lead to either a good Queen ' s Gambit, o r a very healthy Dutch, depending on Black' s attitude to his e4 knight. One example of this latter White plan: 6 . . . 0-0 7 0-0 (7 c4 ! ? immediately might be still more to the point) 7 . . .'iJ d7 8 c4 .l:.e8 ? ! (Already we see how Black ' s pieces might feel a little awkward. 8 . . . c6? would be the ' nonnal ' move, other things being equal, but they are not, since it can be met with 9 kxe4 kxf4 1 0 kxh7+ winning a pawn) 9 1i'c2 lLldf6 10 cS kxf4 1 1 exf4 ! (revealing further embarrassment for Black's knights) 1 1 . . . lLld7 1 2 i.xe4 dxe4 1 3 �xe4 lLlf6 1 4 1i'c2 and Black should not have enough for a pawn in Szymanski­ Jakubowski, Poland (U- 1 8ch) 200 1 . 7 i.xe4 ! ? Again 7 c4 ! ? i s an interesting option. 7 . . . dxe4 8 lLld2 ! f5 9 lLlc4 'ilie7 10 1i'd2 i.xf4 Positionally, this very much clarifies things in White' s favour. White is better on the dark squares, and has tremendous knights. Black ' s difficulties are compounded b y the fact that 1 0 . . . O-O? fails to 1 1 kxd6 ! cxd6 1 2 'Vib4, but he might have better seized the moment to play 1 0 . . . bS ! since 1 1 lLlaS?? loses to 1 1 . . . i.b4, while if 1 1 lLlxd6+ cxd6 he can reclaim control of eS, although after 12 'iWb4 e5 13 kg3 I still somewhat prefer White ' s tidier structure.

1 1 lLlxf4 0-0 12 0-0-0 lLlf6 13 h 4 The immediate 1 3 lLle5 ! ? woul d also be possible, since . . . gS is hardly a threat. 13 . . . b5 14 lLle5 kb7 15 h5 kd5 16 l:h3 �d6 17 g4 ! lLlxg4 18 lLlxg4 fxg4 1 9 .l:.g3 �a6 20 a3 l:tab8 2 1 �b4 �d6 22 ':'xg4

This moment should be the culmination of White ' s strategy. He seems to have everything: Chances on the g-file; a solid position and control of key squares on the queen ' s wing; as well as the better minor piece (although it is fair to say that Black has made the best of his once rather questionable bishop) . It seems surprising that a player of Akopian' s considerable class did not put Black away here. Still, al l is not quite as straightforward as it might appear. The main difficulty is that the knight, for all its undoubted qualities, is also charged with ' shielding ' the weak f2 pawn. This job it perfonns well, but only if it stays put. Black's next two moves also herald a good makeshift solution to the problems on the queenside. In fact, the position might be no more than slightly favourable for White.

2 ctJe4 3 iif4 d5 4 e3 1 01 . . .

22 . . JlVxb4! 23 axb4 1:.a8! 24 l:dgl kIn 25 Wd2 Neither is 25 b3 a5 26 bxa5 l:xa5 27 'it>b2 b4 ! an automatic route to success. If White can penetrate to b4 and c5 it all looks much more promising (his rook is happy enough moving to c 1 to keep Black out) but it is hard to organise. 25 . . . a5 26 bxa5 J:xa5 27 kIg5 c6 28 'it>c3 kIa4 ! 29 b3 b4+! 30 'it>b2 J:a8 31 kIal Probably necessary to prevent counterplay along the a-file, but the main danger has clearly passed. An undoubted achievement for Black ' s defence. 3 1 . . . l:xal 32 'it>xal J:a7+ 33 �b2 'it>n 34 ctJe2 'it>f6 35 kIg4 e5 36 dxe5+ 'it>xe5 37 ctJf4 'it>f5 38 kIgl 'it>e5 39 kIg5+ 'it>f6 40 kIgl �e5 41 c3 bxc3+ 42 'it>xc3 kIb7 43 b4 �f5 44 kIdl iLn 45 kIgl 'it>f6 46 J:al 'it>g5 47 kIa5+ 'it>g4 48 �e5 Wf3 49 l:tf5 Wg4 YZ-YZ An instructive example of the dangers of ' assessment at first glance ' .

Game 23 Romero Holmes - Garcia Luque Spanish (ch), Linares 1 998 1 d4 ctJf6 2 iLg5 ctJe4 3 iLf4 d5 4 e3 c6 "This move does not look a particularly inspired choice" declares Hodgson, and I must say I see where he is coming from. Still, it has been played at a high level and virtually obliges White to play quite critically to demonstrate an advantage. 5 iLd3

5 ...�6 The first of a series of related but subtly different attempts to grab the b-pawn which will provide this chapter with some of its top notch entertainment. Sometimes looking at all this consumption of poisoned wares, it is tempting to wonder "will Black never learn"? In fact though, while White tends to win the most publishable games in such positions, the theoretical status of these gambits is often ' interesting but unclear' or as Julian likes to put it "well worth a punt", but not necessarily more. Don 't forget either, in the earlier chapters we have seen key positions where I was unable to recommend a gambit, and White was forced to go passive in defence of his brittle b-pawn. Not here. In this particular case I am no great fan of Black's approach. The reason? I guess because 4 . . . c6 does little more than prepare this sortie. Of course, it might be argued that the move has the advantage over 4 . . . c5 that it keeps the position closed, surely a more logical prelude pawn-grabbing. to Moreover it denies the squares b5 and d5 to White ' s knights of source potentially a embarrassment when the queen is away from home. Well, maybe, but

1 02 2 .,tiJe4 3 �f4 d5 4 e3 .

there is also an issue of ' active v. passive' . My feeling is that the positions in which Black revels in his greed and just sits back to take the punishment work in general less well than those in which some pressure is applied to White ' s centre, even i f this means opening some lines for the White pieces. In this specific case, White is not even gambling too much, since part of his compensation comes in the form of a black e-pawn which is very hard to defend ! So, can Black eschew the b-pawn and handle the position more quietly? Well, he can, but I believe he cannot ultimately escape the lack of counterpunch otherwise inherent in his fourth move. Two examples : a) 5 . . . ttJd7 6 �xe4 ! dxe4 7 ttJc3 ttJf6 8 ttJge2 i.f5 9 ttJg3 e6 1 0 �g5 ( 1 0 0-0 i.b4 1 1 ttJxf5 exf5 12 ttJe2 also looks worth considering) 1 0 . . . �b4 1 1 0-0 i.xc3 1 2 bxc3 h6 1 3 �xf6 'ixf6 14 f3 gave White some initiative in Zaichik-Anand, Coimbatore 1 987 (a strange line to choose against Zaichik who at that time was regularly wheeling out the very indifferent 5 f3 ?! against the more active c-pawn move ! ) . Julian Hodgson Incidentally suggests 7 ttJd2 ! ? which would usually be much more to the point, targeting Black' s weak e-pawn without allowing the resource of the . . . �b4 pin, but in this odd case, it seems that another pin 7 . . . 'ia5 ! ? is rather better than it looks. Lines such as 8 c3 e5 9 ttJc4 'it'b5 1 0 ttJxe5 ttJxe5 1 1 �xe5 'ixb2 1 2 ttJe2 �g4 might offer a degree of attacking chances but are by no means clear. b) 5 . . . ttJf6 6 h3 g6 7 ttJf3 �g7 8 0-0 0-0 9 c4 ttJbd7 1 0 ttJc3 dxc4 1 1

i.xc4 ttJb6 1 2 �b3 a5 1 3 l:tc l ttJfd5 1 4 ttJxd5 ttJxd5 1 5 �g3 += was Tu Hoang Thong-Juswanto, Sea Chess (chT), Kuala Lumpur 200 1 . Of course in this type of Grunfeld-Slav position White has some extra space and the easier position to handle, and here he also enj oys the customary tempo gain which . . . ttJf6-e4-f6 tends to imply. It is clearly often worth forcing this without playing f3 if the option is available. We shall see various instances of the retreat 5 . . . ttJf6. To my mind, it seems to represent some sort of moral victory for White ' s opening. White ' attacks ' the knight on f6 - it runs. He ' attacks ' it on e4, it runs again. Black seems to hold the bishop pair in about as much regard as his opponent does !

6 i.xe4 ! To my mind a fully justified gambit. I mention the alternative 6 'it'c 1 ? ! (which at least really threatens i.xe4 now) only because I find Black ' s retort 6 . . . 'it'a5+! rather instructive. Black forces c3 to weaken the d3 bishop . After 7 c3 i.f5 8 f3 ttJd6 (of course 8 . . . ttJf2? would send the knight to its doom, whatever your Fritz tells you) 9

2 ctJe4 3 i.f4 d5 4 e3 1 03 . . .

i.xf5 ctJxf5 1 0 e4 ctJh4 1 1 i.g3 ctJg6 12 ctJe2 e6 1 3 ctJd2 i.e7 1 4 0-0 0-0 1 5 �c2 ctJd7 1 6 ltae l l:tac8 with a position in which White has succeeded in the goal of creating an unusual and original position, but not really in obtaining an opening in Adams-Leko, advantage Groningen 1 99 5 . 6 dxe4 In this case it makes little di fference whether Black plays the ' zwischenzug' 6 . . . �xb2 or not, as White ' s knight is going to d2 anyway. 7 ctJd2 ctJd7 ? ! Again 7 . . �xb2 ! ? i s more usual. In his notes to his game with Leko quoted above, Mickey Adams then gives the line 8 ctJxe4 1Itb4+ 9 c3 �a5 1 0 ctJf3 ctJd7 1 1 0-0 g6 as unclear, which is what presumably put him off the gambit. More recent experience seems to confirm that e2 is probably a superior square for White ' s king ' s knight. Perhaps we can assume that Black, in playing the text move, would have welcomed a passive response such as 8 .l:Ib l or 8 �c l ! ? Theoretically, I think these (probably the latter) should have been considered. Black ' s e-pawn is very fragile, and his compensation for this far from clear. 8 ctJe2 �xb2 ! At last! 9 ctJxe4 I am not quite sure about the order of Julian ' s 1 996 games in this line. I believe that he played this first, but then graduated later to the more ambitious 9 a-a ! ? which he then discussed in his book saying that "White ' s lead in development easily compensates for the pawn deficit". . . .

.

As usual his opinIOn should command at least prima facie respect. After 9 a-a ! ? ctJf6 10 c4 ! �a3 1 1 ctJg3 g6 1 2 i.e5 ! i.g7 1 3 ctJgxe4 ctJxe4 1 4 i.xg7 ctJxd2 1 5 �xd2 I:tg8 1 6 i.e5 f6 1 7 i.g3 b6 1 8 e4 c5 1 9 d5 Black's position makes a terrible impression although he went on to hold the draw in Hodgson-Hjartarson, Politiken Cup Copenhagen 1 996. There is nothing wrong with the immediate re-cooping of material on move 9, but it would appear that exercising a little extra patience might enable White to extract still more positional concessions. 9 ctJf6 An interesting attempt to improve on the 9 . . . g6 of Hodgson- Smejkal, Bundesliga 1 996. One of Julian' s specialities - which goes a fair way to explaining his prowess as a Trompowsky player - is the deft handling of a space advantage in combat against the bishop pair. This was a true model . 1 0 0-0 i.g7 1 1 �d3 �b6 1 2 a4 ! 0-0 1 3 a5 �d8 1 4 'iYc3 ! (prophylaxis of course against . . . e5, but also containing ideas of a6 to undermine Black's queens ide) 1 4 . . . a6 1 5 1:tfd l h6? ! 1 6 l:tab l ctJf6 1 7 ctJxf6+ exf6 1 8 �a3 . . . .

1 04 2 t'i:,e4 3 i.f4 d5 4 e3 . . .

A quite masterful demonstration of how to make the bishop pair look at best irrelevant, at worst ridiculous, achieved against a player whose own chess understanding is of the highest calibre. 1 8 . . . Ite8 1 9 c4 i.f8 20 c5 g5 2 1 i.g3 f5 22 t'i:,c3 'ili'f6 2 3 i.e5 Ihe5 (What else? Other things being equal such a sacrifice might greatly ease Black' s problems, but as it is he has the back rank weakness and a huge square to contend with on b6 which together finish him off. ) 24 dxe5 'iVxe5 25 l:.d8 <J;g7 26 t'i:,a4 i.e7 27 l:te8 'iVc7 28 t'i:,b6 l:[b8 29 t'i:,xc8 J:xc8 3 0 'ilib2+ i.f6 3 1 l:txc8 'ili'xc8 32 'ili'xb7 'ilt'e6 3 3 'ilt'xa6 �a2 34 �d3 1 -0 Another Trompowsky classic from Julian. 10 t'i:,xf6+ exf6 1 1 0-0 i.e6 ? ! The motivation for this serious error of judgement is not so hard to fathom. Inviting White ' s rook to b7 when your development is suffering always involves risks, but the precise way in which this can be exploited was quite easy to overlook. 1 1 . . . i.e7 would have been much safer, when De la Villa gives 12 'iWd2 (since 1 2 �d3 is met with 12 . . .'iVa3 ! ) 1 2 . . . �6 1 3 a4 +=, although I think I might prefer to kick off with 1 2 a4 ! ? and still put the queen on d3 . In either case, White has chances on the queenside and space in the centre, while Black ' s bishops still lack real scope. 12 l:tbl 'ilt'xa2 13 ':'xb7 'ilt'a6 14 �1 This idea of leaving the e2 knight unguarded could well be what Black underestimated when embarking on his incautious 1 1 th move. 14 . . . i.c8

Of course not the immediate 14 . . .'ihe2? as 1 5 .l:f.b8+ ':'xb8 1 6 �xb8+ 'it'd7 1 7 .l:tb 1 wins outright. 15 J:b8 .l:f.xb8 16 'iVxb8 i.e7 1 7 i.d6 !

This second incarnation of the sacrifice on the other hand, is both much more subtle and instructive. I would have loved to have known this example when I recently wrote an article on ' the initiative ' since such a move all but exemplifies the concept in one go . The main point from the attacker' s point of view is the priority afforded to preventing castling. Positionally it is important that the exchange of bishops is such a boon to the White cause that the piece offer can scarcely be satisfactorily declined. Relevant from the practical standpoint is that White ' s ' gamble' is kept within bounds as it is not hard to calculate that his control of the black squares is sufficient to secure perpetual check if Black accepts the offer. It is possible, in other words to play this with nothing more firm than the 'probability' that there will tum out to be more. Lastly, but crucial from the standpoint of ' initiative ' White keeps the momentum. Dealing with the threat to the knight would lose

2 t{je4 3 i.f4 d5 4 e3 1 05 . . .

Preventing Black from time. attending to king safety wins it, heap s of it. 1 7 . . . i.xd6 18 iVxd6 WiVxe2 1 9 iVxc6+

1 9 ... We7 It would be safer to stay closer to home. 1 9 . . . �d8 ! would have put greater pressure on White to prove more than the draw which 20 iVd6+ would secure. Since trying to bring in the rook generally requires expending a tempo to prevent back rank embarrassment, it seems that pushing the two passed pawns is rather the key. Therefore I like 20 iVd5 ! + (20 iVd6+ �e8 2 1 iVc7 iVg4 22 l:tb 1 iVd7 is not fully convincing) 20 . . . �e8 2 1 c4 iVb2 ! (to try to exclude White ' s rook from the action) 22 iVc6+ Wd8 23 iVd6+ We8 24 c5 and I am reasonably optimistic about White ' s compens­ ation given Black ' s problems either developing or competing for the dark squares. However, this would still have meant a tougher fight. 20 iVc5+ �e6 ? ! Really too risky . 20 . . . � d 8 2 1 c4 ! is an improved version for White of the above note, but should still have been tried.

2 1 c4 ! iVa2 22 iVc7 j.a6? The final and decisive mistake which scarcely challenges White ' s intention t o weave a mating net. After the more gritty 22 . . . j.d7 23 d5+ �e7 White has a choice. He can go all in with 24 d6+ �e6 25 f4 ! f5 26 iVc5 iVb2 27 g4 ! Wf6 28 WiVc7 which wins back the piece and retains an attack, although after 28 . . . iVc3 29 iVxd7 iVxe3+ Black can at least slightly disturb the white king in tum. Alternatively assuming he trusts the kind of initiative outlined in previous notes, he can opt for a still better version with the more solid 24 iVc5+ �e8 25 d6 (De la Villa) 25 . . . Wf8 ! 26 iVc7 iVa4 27 iVd8+ j.e8 28 �b 1 and it is difficult to see Black escaping from his cage. 23 e4 ! j.xc4 24 f4 ! f5 25 d5+ j.xd5 26 exf5 ! + 1-0 as mate in two follows after 26 . . . Wxf5 27 iVe5+ Wg6 28 iVg5 mate. Game 24 Adams - Xie Jun Hastings 1 996 1 d4 t{jf6 2 j.g5 Cbe4 3 j.f4 d5 4 e3 c5 ! ?

Since Black gets whipped in this game, it is worth reminding

1 06 2 0,e4 3 iLf4 d5 4 e3 . . .

ourselves that this is a very respectable move, arguably the best. 5 iLd3 ! We are becoming used to this move increasingly replacing the alternatives. The older move 5 f3 ? ! '1Wa5+! 6 c 3 0,f6 7 0,d2 cxd4 8 exd4 looks distinctly unattractive for White. The move f3 makes a very poor impression in an Exchange Caro-Kann structure. 5 . . ,'iY'b6? ! The evidence suggests that this ambitious queen sortie is probably asking just a bit too much. I have already had occasion to refer to the scepticism of 1M Ilya Tsesarsky who writes on Trompowsky topics for ChessBase Magazine, and seems to have particularly little sympathy with a number of those cases where the White cause has to take on a gambit element. This is a case II point as (admittedly in 1 997) he attached the highly optimistic marking '5 . . .'iY'b6=+ ' .

6 .txe4

6 ... dxe4 No ambitious soul has felt moved to check out the immediate capture on b2 here. 6 . . . '1Wxb2 ! ? is far from ridiculous and raises two questions :

Can White sacrifice the exchange here? If not, is it clearly the better move (as De la Villa implies it would be) or might White ' s knight actually be just as happy to head for d2 as c3? In fact I am not certain about the soundness of the 7 iLxd5 'ixal 8 0,f3 which was originally mentioned by Mickey in his notes and which just about everyone quotes without elaboration. It would give good prospects for creating mess of course and scenarios like 8 . . . e6 9 iLc4 'ifVb2 1 0 0-0 iLe7 1 1 d5 ! ? exd5 1 2 iLe5 'iVb6 1 3 0,c3 ! ? would b e enough to scare off opponents against the right kind of attacking player. But pause for thought and try to assess the superior 1 1 . . . O- O ! 1 2 iLxb8 (what else) 1 2 . . ..lhb8 1 3 d6 iLf6 ! 14 d7 b5 1 5 dxc8='i .l:!.fxc8 and it is difficult to avoid feeling that Black ' s problems have been turned into assets at a rather acceptable material price. I suspect that the sacrifice is what puts Black off in practice, but the real theoretical point might be that 7 0,d2( ! ) dxe4 8 0,e2 is similarly promising compensation to that found in the main line. Black has better chances of surviving the quick knockout, but every chance of emerging without an e-pawn and with less space, much as in the notes to game 23 . Replacing . . . c6 with . . . c5 gives Black's pieces a bit more breathing space, but still no very good squares to settle on. 7 0,c3 'ixb2 It is at this juncture that Tsesarsky gets excited about Black's prospects after 7 . . . cxd4 ! ? which he hails as a major improvement. I am sceptical if only because White can now play

2 CLJe4 3 i.f4 d5 4 e3 1 0 7 . . .

8 �xd4 ! �xd4 9 exd4 i.f5 (9 . . . f5? ! 1 0 f3 CLJc6 1 1 0-0-0 exf3 1 2 CLJxf3 ± was Hodgson-A.Jackson, Southend ( op) 1 998 and is worth a mention because if you are interested in the 'dream position' for White in this opening, here it is ! ) 1 0 CLJge2 e6 1 1 0-0-0 CLJc6 and now the tempting 1 2 d5 exd5 1 3 CLJxd5 0-0-0 looks tolerable for Black but the equally direct 12 CLJg3 i.g4 1 3 1:td2 looks hard to meet satisfactorily. If we compare the note to 7 �xd4 in Game 26, even though White might have preferred d2 to c3 for his knight so that he can securely bolster his d-pawn with c3, it is hardly surprising that the tempo Black has wasted playing . . . �b6 before exchanging on d4 counts for much more. However, we should also discuss 8 cxd4 here, because the position can also arise from the more sensible move order 5 . . . cxd4 6 i.xe4 dxe4 7 cxd4 �b6 ! ? 8 CLJc3 .

Now Black has a choice: a) 8 . . . �xb2 has never been te sted, but does look like some i mprovement on Xie Jun ' s play. As we shall see, when she eventually did take on d4, White had a strong zwischenzug available, which here,

of course, i s not. I suggest 9 CLJge2 i.g4 1 0 O-O ! ? �xc3 1 1 CLJxc3 i.xd l 1 2 1:tfxd l CLJd7 1 3 J!ab l b6 1 4 CLJxe4 when White ' s active play seems to outweigh his slight structural defects on the queens ide. One clear illustration of this is that 1 4 . . . 1:tc8 can probably be answered with 1 5 c4 ! ? relying on the fact that opening a file with all the other boys at home by 1 5 . . . lIxc4 16 l:!.dc I ! is asking for trouble. Still, this is an unexplored and far from stupid approach for Black, provided he comes from the 5 . . . cxd4 move order. b) 8 . . . CLJc6 ! though looks like the more critical move. Now White has to decide how to deal with the threat to his e-pawn.

b 1 ) Twice in practice White has opted for the calm, purposeful but not perhaps entirely watertight 9 �d2 ! ? but the offer has both times been declined. Black should really test the soundness of this. Best is 9 . . . �xd4 ! (9 . . . i.g4 1 0 h3 i.h5 1 1 g4 .tg6 1 2 d5 looks promising for White) 1 0 'iWxd4 CLJxd4 1 1 0-0-0 CLJe6 ! 12 i.d2 ! ( 1 2 i.e3 f5) 1 2 . . . b6 ! ? (now the risky 1 2 . . . f5 1 3 f3 exf3 1 4 CLJxf3 ought to give White enough play since his development is so smooth while his opponent' s is distinctly awkward)

J 08 2. J i Je4 3 .i.f4 d5 4 e3 1 3 4:Jxe4 .i.b7 1 4 Me l and White may have just enough piece play to compensate for the bishop pair, but I think the defender' s game is at the same time fundamentally sound, and he has long-term trumps if he can develop satisfactorily. b2) 9 4:Jge2 ! ? (9 d5 ? ! e5 ! ) is therefore perhaps more plausible, e.g. 9 . . .i.g4 10 0-0 1 ( 1 0 4:Jxe4 ? ! 'sd8 ! [but not 1 0 . . . .i.xe2 1 1 �xe2 4:Jxd4 1 2 �d3 which looks grim for Black. Compare the Hodgson-Wells note to move 9 of Game 26.] 1 1 .i.e3 e5 and White ' s position is starting to creak) with a further subdivision: .

b2 1 ) 1O . . . 0-0-0? ! looks risky for example 1 1 .i.e3 ! ? ( 1 1 �c 1 is a viable and solid option too) 1 1 . . . e5 ( 1 1 . . .�xb2 1 2 ,Sb l .i.xe2 1 3 �d2 ! ) 1 2 d 5 �xb2 1 3 ,Sb l 'i'xc3 1 4 4:Jxc3 .i.xd l 15 dxc6! iLxc2 1 6 1hb7 with a dangerous initiative. b22) 10 . . . 'sd8 ! is the way to pressure the d-pawn and retain greater solidity. However, having once been a bit sceptical about White 's position I am now some­ thing of a convert. He seems to get very acceptable play, and even has a choice of ways of going about it, e.g. 1 1 'i' c I ! ? (This looks the most

solid when Black ' normalises ' the play by recognising that all of White ' s offers come at a price. 1 1 'i'e l also seems to work very well if Black gets greedy. For example 1 1 . . .'i'xb2? ! 12 d5 ! seems really awkward as the superficially plausible 12 . . . iLxe2 13 dxc6 ! .i.xfl 1 4 'sb 1 just wins for White; 1 1 . . . 4:Jxd4 1 2 4:Jxd4 'i'xd4 1 3 4:Jb5 is as usual too dangerous as well. 1 1 . . . iLxe2 has an added twist this time since after 12 'i'xe2 4:Jxd4 1 3 'i'xe4 White has to reckon with 13 . . . 'i'xb2. Still, 14 4:Jd5 Mxd5 ! ? 1 5 'i'xd5 4:Je2+ 1 6 �h l 4:Jxf4 1 7 'i'c4 e5 1 8 Mad l also offers a very dangerous initiative for the material while it is nice in addition that White again has a ' safe option' in 1 2 4:Jxe2 . However after the modest and sensible 1 1 . . . e6 ! 1 2 ,Sb l (The sacrifices are no longer convincing) 1 2 . . . iLxe2 1 3 'i'xe2 4:Jxd4 14 'i'xe4 'i'c6 I think Black can just about claim equality) 1 1 . . . e6 ! (Again sol idity is the order of the day. 1 1 . . . .i.xe2 1 2 4:Jxe2 4:Jxd4 is possible, but 1 3 4:Jxd4 'i'xd4 1 4 iLe3 'i'e5 1 5 'sd l ! draws attention to the possibility that the d-file might become an important factor while Black's pieces are not yet up and running) 1 2 .i.e3 (The advantage of the queen on c l . When Black plays safe, White does not have to expend a tempo worrying about the b-pawn) 1 2 . . . 'i'a5 1 3 4:Jg3 This looks worth an edge for White, since as the position quietens down we return to old questions about the e-pawn' s viability. All in all, this line, which I once held to be rather problematic, now looks decidedly promising for the attacker.

2 tLle4 3 �f4 d5 4 e3 1 09 . . .

8 tLl ge2 ! 8 tLld5 tLla6 is, as Mickey Adams points out, not so convincing. 8 ... J.g4? ! Mickey gives this a ' ? ' and it is true that it doesn 't really succeed in its main goal. However, I find it more evident how Black can improve both before and after, rather than at this moment. 9 tLlxe4 9 0-0 again allows 9 . . . 'iYxc3 . This should be quite playable here too for White, but Mickey ' s route is much nastier for the defender. With Black' s rather modest development the desirability of playing with queens on the board hardly needs to be explained. The fact that Black can force his opponent' s king to e2 hardly impacts on this assessment at all. 9 ... J.xe2 10 Wxe2 exd4? ! Black should have insisted on a queen exchange before it was too late with 1O . . . 'iYb5+ ! 1 1 'iYd3 'iYxd3+ and now I rather like the idea of playing with open b and c- files by 1 2 cxd3 cxd4 and now instead of 1 3 :tfc 1 tLlc6 1 4 :tab 1 e5 when White would like to have 1 5 :txb7? but has to consider 1 5 . . tLld8 ! , I would suggest the .

immediate 1 3 :tab 1 with continuing p ressure. 1 1 'iYd3 ! This seems to be what Black overlooked, or at least under­ estimated. By denying Black' s queen the b5 square, White a t a stroke creates huge embarrassment in the opposition camp . I don 't know if Xie Jun simply assumed that Adams would recapture, but if her calculations fell down for this reason she would find herself part of a very long illustrious tradition ! Assumptions of recaptures have been responsible for some memorable mistakes at absolutely all levels. 1 1 . . . fS ? ! 1 2 tLlgS tLle6 1 3 tLle6! :te8 14 l:l.hb l 'iYe3 1 5 'iYxe3 dxe3 16 l:l.xb7 Wf7 1 7 tLld4 Wf6

1 8 J.e7! As usual it is the sheer simplicity of Adams ' solutions which is so striking. It is easy to understand that if White has the e5 square on which to nestle his bishop then the ' stay-at home ' Black kingside will render him quite lost. However, to move from this realisation to this move which ' attacks ' the c6 knight in a most unusual way seems to be, for many, not quite so automatic.

1 1 0 2. Ji:Je4 3 j.f4 d5 4 e3 18 . . . lbxd4+ 19 exd4 a6 20 .:I'.a7 e6 21 .:I'.bl j.e7 22 j.e5+ 1-0 White wins the bishop by doubling on the 7th in conjunction with .i.d6. Game 2S Speelman - Y.Wang Beij ing (op) 1 997

1 d4 lbf6 2 j.g5 lbe4 3 j.f4 d5 4 e3 c5 5 .i.d3 lbc6 This looks logical enough, and if White' s very critical response in the game was to be found wanting it would probably be declared the best move by a broad consensus. As it is, White can push forward ambitiously in the centre, and the current theoretical view seems to be that Black's hyper-modernism, intent­ ional or otherwise, is just a shade too provocative. 6 j.xe4 ! dxe4 7 d5 White is basically committed to this very aggressive approach. 7 c3 would be rather passive, and 7 . . .'i'b6 8 'ib3 j.e6 ! would punish this quite efficiently. 7 . . . lbb4 This seems the most logical . Black would like to show that the space which the d-pawn' s advance has forged comes at a price - the weakness of that pawn. At this stage of historical development we can say ' classic hypermodernism' without being accused I hope, of a contradiction. However, there is another equally ambitious method of handling the Black position. By playing 7 . . . eS 8 j.g3 lbe7 9 lbc3 f6 Black endeavours to render White ' s remaining bishop - the Tromp bishop no less - a problem piece,

albeit at the expense of further time. In K.Berg-Navara, Morso 2002 White began appropriately combat­ ive counter-measures with 1 0 'i'hS+ lbg6 ( 1 0 . . . g6 ! ? looks a little anti-positional, but this may be a bit of an illusion. It loses a pawn after 1 1 'i'h4 but 1 1 . . .lbfS 1 2 'i'xe4 lbd6 does offer Black some positional compensation. Still I suspect White, who can look to break out with e4 and f4 must stand somewhat better) 1 1 0-0-0 'i'aS (how else to defend the e-pawn even indirectly?) 1 2 f4 ! ( 1 2 'ib 1 ! ? 'ib4 1 3 a3 would also be worth investigating were it not for the strength of the text move) 12 . . . exf3 1 3 lbxf3 'iIc7 (to meet the threat of lbh4 amongst others)

and now White tried 1 4 lbbS 'i'd7 I S lbh4 when the young Czech talent showed his considerable under- standing by giving a piece temporarily to reach a comfortable ending with I S . . . 'ilg4 ! 1 6 lbc7+ 'if7 17 'i'xg4 j.xg4 1 8 lbxa8 j.xd l 1 9 .:I'.xd l lbxh4 20 j.xh4 j.d6 2 1 e4 .:I'.xa8 22 .:I'.fl bS 23 g4 h6 24 j.g3 as 2S 'id2 c4 26 a3 a4 27 c3 .:I'.h8 28 h4 gS Yz-Yl I would prefer the apparently rather more subtle 14 .:I'.hfl ! to check out just how Black intends to strengthen (or even stabilise) his

2 lDe4 3 i.f4 d5 4 e3 1 1 1 . . .

choose the words position. ' app arently subtle' because the move has some pretty brutal sting to it to o. For example the plausible 1 4 . . a6 is very strongly met with the immediate sacrifice 1 5 i.xe5 ! fxe5 1 6 lDh4 with a huge attack. Attempting to duplicate Navara ' s app roach with 1 4 . . :i'd7 also falls victim to a similar assault as this time 15 i.xe5 ! fxe5 1 6 lDxe5 �d6 1 7 lDfl is very powerful. I think us hackers always enj oy a little 'schadenfreude ' when a sophistic­ ated idea which trades time for structure suffers at the hands of caveman tactics which indeed blow that very structure apart. Black' s idea i s i n need of repair. S lDc3 e6! Continuing to lure the d-pawn forward is a much more thematic test of White ' s play than 8 . . . i.f5 ? ! 9 a3 lDa6 1 0 f3 ! exf3 1 1 lDxf3 g6 12 e4 i.d7 1 3 �d2 h6 14 e5 g5 1 5 e6 ! gxf4 1 6 'i'xf4 fxe6 1 7 lDe5 ( 1 7 'ilYe5 ! ?) 1 7 . . :,c7 1 8 d6 exd6 1 9 'ilYfl+ 'i1td8 2 0 'i'f6+ 'i1tc8 2 1 'iVxh8 with decisive advantage in Komev-Prokopchuk, Russia Cup Nefteyugansk 2002 . 9 d6!

The only way to keep the black bis hop pair under wraps . If this

fails, White needs a whole new strategy. 9 . . . lDc 6 Black can also take pains to try and preserve his e4 pawn ' s existence. A s is s o often the case when the white knight is on g 1 , 9 . . . f5 ? ! 1 0 f3 looks rather grim for Black, but 9 . . :1' a5 ! ? 1 0 lDge2 i.d7 1 1 0-0 f5 makes much more sense. White enjoys the temporary advantage of better development, but is faced with potential long-term problems if he loses the initiative. His d-pawn can be weak, and the bishop pair is not without prospects. In Hodgson - Ma. Tseitlin, Ischia 1 996 Julian showed his customary virtuosity for handling the initiative by playing 1 2 a3 lDc6 1 3 b4 ! but after 1 3 . . . cxb4 1 4 axb4 'i'b6 he slightly lost his way and had to resort to highly speculative means to keep the momentum. As Greenfeld points out, with 1 5 'iVd2 ! lDd8 (or 1 5 . . . g5 1 6 i.xg5 lDxb4 1 7 i.e7 ! ?) 1 6 lDa4 White ' s advantage would be incontestable. 10 lD xe4 f5 Speelman criticises this, but has little to offer by way of advice for his adversary. His variation 1 0 . . . e5 1 1 i.g5 �6 12 �d5 ! answering 1 2 . . . 'ixb2 with 1 3 l:Id l and, much more spectacularly, 1 2 . . . i.e6 with the crushing blow 1 3 lDxc5 ! scores on aesthetics but will not generate adherents of the Black position in their droves. It is somewhat better after 1 0 . . . e5 to answer 1 1 i.g5 with the time-gaining 1 1 . . .'i'a5+ 1 2 c3 i.e6. However, 1 3 i.h4 ! followed by 1 4 lDf3 and so on, still leaves Black headache definite a concerning how to recover his pawn.

1 1 i.g5 'i'b6

112

2

.

..tiJe4 3 iLf4

d5

4 e3

19 ... l:c7 20 'ibl i.d6 2 1 :dl i.e5 22 ttlxe5+ ttlxe5 23 iLf4 1-0 Game 26 Gallagher - Rytshagov Elista (01) 1998 1 d4 lLJf6 2 iLg5 ttle4 3 i.f4 d5 4 e3 c5 5 i.d3

12 ttlf6+! If White wants to prioritise the initiative over material he can play 12 d7+ i.xd7 13 ttlxd6+ i.xd6 14 'ixd6 as Speelman mentions. However after 14...'ib4+ 15 c3 'ti'xb2 it is not clear that he has full compensation. The text must be stronger. 12 .'�f7 ••

Of course 12 ...gxf6 13 'ih5+ �d7 14 'iWf7+ doesn't bear thinking about. 13 ttlxh7 l:xh7 14 d7 iLe7? This, however, certainly does deserve criticism. When faced with such a position Black must look to cause whatever disruption he can. This rather irrelevant developing move really invites White's smooth development, whereas 14 .. :iVb4+! 15 c3 'ixb2 16 llb1 'if'xc3+ 17 �f1 'if'c4+ ISlLJe2 'if'd5 (18...�g8!?) 19 'if'xd5 exd5 20 dxcS="iW :xc8 21 l:[xb7+ is given as better for White by Speelman, but he acknowledges that there is still a good deal of fight here. 15 ttlf3! 'ixb2 16 0-0 'i\Vb6 17 dxc8='ik l:xc8 18 .l:tbl 'i\Va5 19 ztxb7 White is a pawn up and retains a strong attack. Black survives just a few more depressing moves.

5 ...cxd4!? Almost by a process of elimination Black came by the idea of first trying to clarify the centre. In my opinion this is his best. Whether he wants to play in a manner analogous with the last two games (with ...'iWb6 or ...ttlc6 respectively) or attack the centre in other ways such as ... g6, the exchange on d4 helps him. Of course White also has the option (after first exchanging on e4) of recapturing on d4 with the queen, but there are some question marks over the efficacy of this strategy too at present. I am in some doubt as to exactly White's best course, but I do not wish to paint too bleak a picture. I am still quite happy to play this position with White. I should first just mention 5...e6 although it appears both more passive and less flexible. If Black is embarking on a strategy of ...cxd4

2 lDe4 3 .tf4 d5 4 e3 1 1 3 . . .

and . . . lDc6 there may be some superficial attraction to holding up White' s coming d4-d5 advance, but it would seem to be more important to keep options for the c8 bishop. 6 i.xe4 ! dxe4 7 lDc3 cxd4 8 'ixd4 (8 exd4 ! ? also looks tempting. The plausible S . . . lDc6 9 lDge2 .tb4 1 0 0-0 .txc3 1 1 lDxc3 'ixd4 feels very dangerous for Black although I can't really find a knockout. However, 1 2 lDb5 ! ? 'ixd l 1 3 lDc7+ ctie7 1 4 l:taxd l l:!bS 1 5 .td6+ would probably suffice to make me unenthusiastic for the Black cause) 8 . . . 'iVxd4 9 exd4 .tb4 10 lDge2 f5 1 1 0-0-0 lDc6 was K.Berg­ Prusikhin, Morso 2002. White ' s plan o f 1 2 l:lhfl and f3 was positionally quite reasonable, but did afford Black some respite to catch up in development. The immediate 1 2 d5 ! ? looks more to the point, and retains a serious initiative.

6 .txe4 ! ? This interesting zwischenzug has been the most popular move, but it only really has something concrete to add to White ' s case if he intends to follow up by capturing on d4 with the queen. It was initially my intention to recommend that and this would have added significance

to the note that follows on 6 . . . 1Ii'a5+ ! ? I am now less sure, but would like to remain vaguely agnostic between 7 exd4 and 7 'ixd4 and hence I have kept in much of my analysis in both this note and the next. What might be less controversial I think is the claim that if White intends to keep queens on in any case then there is at the very least an ' economy of effort' argument for the immediate 6 exd4 ! ? In this case after 6 . . . lDc6 he would do well to have the transpositional 7 .txe4 ( !) in mind, since 7 c3 .tf5 was comfortable for Black in Timman­ Van Wely, Breda (m) play-off 1 99 5 . However, i t i s not inconceivable that White might have extra ideas against other 6th moves? For example the position reached after 6 . . . g6 (thinking a little off the top of my head, I also wonder whether he could consider the unusual idea of meeting 6 . . . 1\i'b6 with 7 lDc3 ! ?) 7 .te5 ! ? f6 8 .txbS lhbS 9 lDe2 .th6 ! (denying f4 to White ' s knight is an important indirect defence of the key d5 point) 1 0 c4 0-0 1 1 0-0 .te6 is quite strategically rich enough to be of interest. In the game Akopian-Herrera, Linares (op) 200 1 after 1 2 .txe4 dxe4 l 3 d5 .tV 1 4 lDbc3 f5 1 5 b4 "fIc7 1 6 c 5 'ie5 1 7 1\i'b3 f4 play had degenerated a little into a race in which Black has quite potent counter-chances against the white king, but White ' s pressure against the centre could be exerted with greater delicacy by 1 2 l:le l ! ? after which I think Black must tread with real care.

6 ... dxe4 A simple automatic recapture. Or is it? I am often struck by how many important novelties are simply

1 1 4 2 ..tiJe4 3 .i.f4 d5 4 e3 .

overlooked unless they are played in really top flight events. Even now that databases routinely include even tournaments of a very modest level it is still possible to strike gold with a little careful research. Do we have a case in point here? I was surprised to stumble across an encounter which, for all its brevity is extremely rich in implications . In Staufer Lomineishvili-Jobava, (open) 200 1 Black flicked in the check 6 . . :iWa5+ ! ? here, and play ended abruptly after 7 'iVd2 'iVxd2+ 8 tUxd2 dxe3 9 .i.xd5 exd2+ 1 0 .i.xd2 tUc6 and a draw was agreed. Interestingly, when I showed 6 . . . 'iVa5+ to Luke McShane, his reaction to this final position differed markedly from my own. I found it rather lifeless for White, but he wanted to put the bishop on c3 and the knight on e2, with options to hassle the bishop when it comes to f5, and also with the lever £2 -f4 to dissuade Black from putting his e-pawn on e5 . I think he was basically right. This is certainly enough to keep the discussion here very much alive. However, by this stage I had already set my caveman-like instincts to work, with their tendency, when faced with some kind of resource such as a zwischenzug which is itself inherently tactical, to examine the very sharpest ideas. I was attracted by the idea 7 c3 ! ? dxc3 8 b4 ! (if 8 tUxc3 dxe4 then White ' s attempts to generate compensation for the pawn always seem to show quite how badly he misses the light-squared bishop ) 8 . . . 'iVxb4 9 .i.c2 suggests itself. Black should then go for the material with 9 . . 'iVb2 1 0 'iVxa l when I believe that further emphasising the imbalance .

in development with 1 1 O-O ! is White ' s best course.

The problem of course, is that White tends to be really quite a lot of material to the bad - a couple of pawns in addition to the exchange on average. Black has no real structural weaknesses (as tends to be the case when he has hardly moved anything ! ) , but the lack of mobilisation would be a serious source of worry for many. Black faces a pretty fundamental choice to attempt to catch up in development with all haste, or to concentrate first on getting his queen out safely. A much summarised version of my analysis follows : a) 1 1 . . :iVxa2 looks risky, 12 tUbxc3 'iVa5 1 3 tUb5 ! tUa6 1 4 'iVd8 1 5 1fVe4 f5 1 6 .i.a4 ! ! <j;f7 1 7 J.b3+ and I would not happily take on Black's defensive task. b) 1 1 . . . 'iVb2 1 2 tUbxc3 e6 1 3 e4 ! and Black will face serious threats in the centre. c) 1 1 . . . tUc6 1 2 tUexc3 ! e5 1 3 tUb5 ! .u.b8 1 4 J.g3 and I believe the coming tUc7+ will give the attacker dangerous compensation. d) 1 1 . . . e6 12 e4 ! and now 12 . . . dxe4 1 3 tUexc3 a6 14 J.a4+ J.d7 1 5 J.xb8 ! b5 1 6 J.e5 ! is

2 lLle4 3 .tf4 d5 4 e3 1 1 5 . . .

awkward for Black, as is 1 2 . . . �e7 13 exd5 O-O? ! 14 �xh7+ ! 'it>xh7 1 5 �c2+ 'it>gS 1 6 lLlbxc3 and after 16 . . :�Wxf1 + White will retain the initiative for the tiniest of material deficits. Of course these lines are by no means exhaustive. It may very well be that Black can improve. My aim was to illustrate with maximum economy that White has a fair arsenal of attacking ideas here which may well add up to full compensation.

7 exd4 As I mentioned above I had been recommend the to intending alternative recapture 7 Wkxd4 ! ? as I felt that the exploitation of Black ' s weak e-pawn i s likely t o be cleaner in the endgame after e.g. 7 . . :�'xd4 S exd4 lLlc6 9 c3 b6 (Or 9 . . . e6 when Romero Holmes - Gulbas, European Club (ch) Halkidiki 2002 went 10 lLld2 f5 1 1 f3! e5?! 1 2 �xe5 lLlxe5 1 3 dxe5 .te6 1 4 lLle2 exf3 1 5 lLlxf3 g6 1 6 lLlfd4 with clear advantage. I had been intrigued by the idea of making use of the undefended g2 pawn to recover a little space with a timely . . . g5. However l l . . .g5 ! ? 1 2 .txg5 Iig8 1 3 .tf4 .l:!.xg2 14 fxe4 fxe4 1 5 tLJxe4 J:txb2 in this case also looks

better for White after 1 6 lLlf6+. Perhaps the immediate 9 . . . f5 is more to the point) 1 0 tLJd2 .tb7 1 1 lLle2 0-0-0 1 2 lLlg3 h6 1 3 h4 ! Simple. Of course not 1 3 lLlgxe4? g5 1 4 .te3 f5) 1 3 . . . g6 1 4 lLldxe4 .tg7 1 5 0-0-0 f5 1 6 lLld2 e5 1 7 dxe5 lLlxe5 I S .txe5 �xe5 1 9 lLlf3 �f6 and Black has enough considerably to compensation complicate the technical task, but he is clearly on the defensive. Lputian-Rytshagov, Istanbul (01) 2000. The problem is that Black can simply play 7 . . . lLlc6 ! an important novelty from Swiss 1M Claude Landenbergue who we are more accustomed to seeing on the White side of a Trompowsky. The game Gilles-Landenbergue, Bern (op) 2000 continued S WkxdS+ 'it>xdS 9 lLlc3 e5 1 0 0-0-0+ 'it>eS 1 1 �g3 �f5 12 lLlb5 .l:!.cs 13 lLle2 �g4 ( 1 3 . . . f6 ! ?) 14 .l:!.he l f6 1 5 h3 .th5 1 6 a3 a6 1 7 lLlbc3 .tg6 and Black is very comfortable. The doubled pawn on e4 is tremendously assisted by the presence of a white pawn on e3 rather than d4, both in the absence of frontal assault on the e-file, and because after 9 . . . e5 the bishop is very badly placed on g3, hindering White ' s attempts to organise any attack against e4 . There have been many 7 Wkxd4 games since then and I am enthusiastic indeed to know quite what White has in mind. Taking the pawn seems to be fraught with risk - S �xe4 can be answered variously either s . . :iVa5+ 9 c3 (9 lLlc3 seems to run into a later . . . .ta3 in too many lines) 9 . . . e5 (or 9 . . . .tf5 ! ?) 1 0 .tg3 and now maybe simply 1 0 . . . f6. when White ' s structure is rather lifeless; or just 8 . . .'iVb6 ! ?

1 I 6 2. Ji'Je4 3 iLf4 d5 4 e3 It is cl ear that for the moment 7 . . .'�Jc6( ! ) is chief prosecutor in the case against 7 'iVxd4.

7 0,c6 7 . . . g6 is also interesting here. Again White has in principle a choice between keeping his centre super-solid and playing c3/0,d2, or playing 0,c3 and endeavouring to cover d4 just with his pieces. In practice he has always opted for the latter e.g. 8 0,c3 iLg7 9 0,ge2 iLfS (If 9 . . . 0-0 ! ? 1 0 0-0 fS as in Atea-Visser, Cairo 2002, I would be tempted to keep very principled and tight on the dark squares with 1 1 Wic 1 ! ? 0,c6 1 2 J:d l with iLh6 to follow if possible) 1 0 0-0 0-0 ( 1 0 . . . 0,c6 1 1 dS 0,eS 12 0,g3 0,c4 was Hodgson-Leitao, Europe v Americas, 1 99 8 when simply 1 3 0,cxe4 ! ? looks sensible, since now the threat to capture on fS becomes a much weightier one, and if 1 3 . . . iLxe4 14 0,xe4 0,xb2 I S 'iVf3 White enjoys a handy space advantage) 11 0,g3 0,c6 ! ? ( 1 1 . . .'ifxd4 1 2 0,xfS gxfS 1 3 'ifhS looks promising for White, who also threatens 14 0,bS) 12 dS eS t ? 1 3 0,xfS gxfS 1 4 dxc6 exf4 I S cxb7 J:b8 16 'ifhS ! 'iVf6 1 7 0,dS 'ifeS 1 8 'ifxfS 'ifxfS 1 9 0,e7+ Wh8 2 0 0,xfS iLxb2 2 1 J:ae 1 and since the critical . . .

position at move I S White has played with admirable actively . p:eventmg Black from exploiting hIS long-term promise, and stands clearly better. Pixton-Kudrin ' Philadelphia 200 1 . 8 0,e2 iLg4 9 0,bc3 'iVa5 ! ? Preparing to add further pressure to the d-pawn with . . . 0-0-0, as indeed does 9 . . . 'iVb6 which was analysed in some detail in the note to Black ' s 7th in Game 24. The modest 9 . . . e6 is also possible. In view of what happened later in the game, it is a bit confusing to recall that I was probably doing OK in Hodgson-Wells, Oxford GM 'A' Oxford 1 998 after 1 0 h3 iLhS ! (A nice point. If 1 0 . . . iLxe2 1 1 'iVxe2 0,xd4 12 'ife4 ! White has a nice position. This e4 square needs to be occupied before Black can embark on this exchange, hence the game continuation). 1 1 0,xe4 iLxe2 1 2 'iVxe2 0,xd4 1 3 'ifd3 0,c6 1 4 0-0-0 'iVxd3 I S J:xd3 0,b4 ! 1 6 J:b3 0,dS and this fine knight should give Black a stable enough position. Unfortunately after 1 7 iLg3 b6 1 8 J:d l J:c8 1 9 Wb l I ruined everything with the ridiculous 1 9 . . . J:c6? (Losing critical time. Development was called for - such a tricky concept! Simply 1 9 . . . iLe7 20 J:d4 0-0 is fine) 20 J:d4 ! iLe7 (20 . . . fS 21 c4 ! ) 2 1 c4 0,f6 22 0,d6+ iLxd6 23 iLxd6 0,d7 24 J:g3 ! (Rather rubbing in Black's plight on the dark squares) 24 . . . g6 2S J:gd3 f6 26 iLe7 ! (An artistic touch and the best move to boot ! ) 26 . . . 0,eS 27 J:a3 ! 0,xc4 28 J:xa7 eS (Retaining a sense of humour?) 29 J:d8+ Wf7 30 iLb4+ 1-0 A superb example of Julian ' s flair once he establishes the initiative but one I would have preferred t�

2 lLIe4 3 .if4 d5 4 e3 1 1 7 . . .

have read about in a book. As for 9 e6, it is not such a bad move. 10 h3 .ih5 1 1 0-0 0-0-0 Given that the king is not always so happy on the queens ide, it is natural to consider 1 1 . . . .l:.dS ! ? as well. Then 12 �e l lLIxd4 l 3 lLIxd4 l:i.xd4 1 4 lLIxe4 �xe l 1 5 l:tfxe l ..\ig6 looks barely more than equal, while 1 2 g4 .ig6 l 3 d5 e6 1 4 lLId4 ! could be a lot more fun, but of course carries some risks too . . . .

12 d5 e6

13 dxc6 ! In a sense this is a matter of already having said ' a ' . In any case in the critical position at move 1 5 , White seems to have a good deal of initiative, and the whole thing seems quite promising. 13 . . . .u.xd l 14 cxb7+ c;itxb7 1 5 ki.fxd l .ib4 White has only a rook and two knights v. queen and bishop, but nonetheless his chances look quite reasonable. The concrete task of preventing a rook invasion which will harass the a-pawn and cause Black's king further anxiety is not an easy one. However, since in 7 moves time White is able to liquidate to a terrific ending, this

indeed looks like a moment where Black could seek to improve. It is tempting to think that Black might wait for the g4 move and try to exploit he weakness of White ' s kings ide, but faced with a fierce initiative it does not seem to work like that. Therefore maybe better to commence with 1 5 . . . .ixe2 1 6 lLIxe2 e 5 1 7 .ie3 and now: a) 1 7 . . . �c7 I S lLIc3 ..Itc5 1 9 ..Itxc5 �xc5 2 0 .l:f.d5 'iVc6 2 1 :ad l and it is hard to assess whether White actually stands better, but I am confident he has full value for the queen. b) 1 7 . . . ..Itc5 ! ? I S b4 ! ? .ixb4 1 9 J:.d7+ \itlaS 2 0 l:txa7+ �xa7 2 1 .ixa7 \itlxa7 2 2 �d l ! when White might retain slight winning chances, but Black's queen has certainly sold her life a good deal more dearly than in the game.

1 6 g4 ! ..Itg6 1 7 :d7+ �a8 1 8 ..Ite3 .ic5 IS . . . a6 19 J:.a7+ 'ibS 20 lLId4 ! :cS 2 1 lLIb3 ! ? �e5 22 l:lxa6 does little to stem the flow. 1 9 lL1d4 ! .ixd4 20 ..Itxd4 .l:tb8 ? ! Black i s already i n trouble. 20 . . . a6 21 b4 ! would give White a fierce attack. A quick glance at the relative prospects of the knight on c3 and the bishop on g6 should help to explain why I concentrated on their exchange at move 1 5 ! 2 1 l:lxa7+ 'iVxa7 2 2 ..Itxa7 \itlxa7 23 b3 e3 24 fxe3 ..Itxc2 25 l:tc1 ..Itg6 26 'if2 Gallagher' s Although Joe reputation tends to b e built first and foremost around his attacking play, I have often been impressed with his clinical finishing in the technical phase. For obvious reasons, what

1 1 8 2 ..tLJe4 3 i.f4 d5 4 e3 .

follows has limited relevance to our theme. Suffice to say that I would normally have expected him to convert this advantage. 26 . . . h5 27 'it>O hxg4+ 28 hxg4 .l:!.h8 29 'it>g3 .l:.d8 30 .l:[d l ? ! Was this really necessary? Pushing White ' s queenside looks simpler with rooks on. 30 .. Jhdl 3 1 lLlxd i 'ib6 32 'it>f4 f6 33 e4 'ie5 34 'ie3 e5 35 lLlb2 'it>b4 36 lLle4 ..te8 37 lLld6 ..td7 38 lLlf5 'ita3 39 'ito g6 40 lLle7 'it>xa2 41 lLlxg6 'itxb3 42 lLlrs i.e8 43 lLlh 7 'it>e4 44 lLlxf6 I expect Joe assumed this would be winning, but in fact it may be impossible to make any progress. 45 'ite3 'ite5 46 'itd3 44 . . . 'itd6 47 'it>e6 48 'ie3 i.h7 49 'ito i.g6 50 lLlb6 i.e8 5 1 g5 i.h5+ 52 'it>g3 i.g6 53 lLla4 'id6 54 'io i.h5+ 55 'ie3 'ite6 56 'it>f2 'it>f7 57 'it>g3 'ig6 58 'ith4 i.d l 59 lLle5 i.e2 60 lLld7 i.xe4 6 1 lLlxe5+ 'it>g7 62 'ig4 i.e2 63 g6 '/z-'/z A bit sad, but a very instructive queen sacrifice and an impressively forceful handling of the opening from White. Game 27 Summerseale - Hermansson Oxford GM ' B ' 1 99 8

1 d 4 lLlf6 2 i. g 5 lLle4 3 i.f4 d5 4 e3 e5 5 i.d3 lLlf6 In general I have been quite harsh on the various attempts to avoid a fight by this retreat which have cropped up every so often throughout the chapter. Not because I think Black is somehow morally obliged to engage in a good scrap, but rather because I feel that White should generally be doing well if

not even the slightly weakening move f3 is required to induce this. 6 dxe5 ! I am convinced this is the critical move, as I wrote back in 1 999 for ChessBase, and while De la Villa agrees, it has found only a limited following in practice. Of course White can instead continue with ' normal ' chess with lLlf3/c3 and so on. My feeling is simply that this leads to the kind of position in which time is not the critical factor, and that Black should rather be punished for his loss of tempo. I think Aaron had done his homework rather well !

6 . . :iVa5+ I had reached this position just a couple of days before and had wanted to capture on c5, but was concerned about 6 . . . lLlc6. The problem is that 7 lLlf3 i.g4 is since White has awkward, insufficient to offer against the freeing move . . . e5. In my original the variation 8 i.b5 notes I 'i'a5+ 9 e6 1 0 'ilVd4 (or 1 0 a3 lLle4 1 1 i.xc6+ bxc6 1 2 b4 lLlxc3 13 �d3 'iVb5 14 �xc3 i.xf3 ! 1 5 gxf3 a 5 with serious counterplay) 1 O . . . i.xf3 1 1 gxf3 lLld7 1 2 i.xc6 bxc6 13 b4 'ilVa3 14 0-0 i.e7 with good compensation, and this looks

2 lLle4 3 i.f4 d5 4 e3 1 1 9 . . .

equally problematic now as it did th en. Rather I think 7 i.b5 ! is the key. White avoids the irritating pin on his f3 knight. All similar positions are hugely more favourable for White with the knight and Black ' s light-squared bishop still o n the board since the contest is really about the dark squares. After 7 . . 'iVa5+? ! 8 lLlc3 a6 (8 . . . e6 9 a3 ! ) 9 i.xc6+ bxc6 1 0 'iVd4 iLf5 l l lLlf3 ! ? i.xc2 1 2 0-0 with a fantastic dark square bind. Perhaps Black would be better off with 7 . . . a6 8 i.xc6+ bxc6 9 b4 a5 1 0 c3 lLld7, but full compensation it is not. 7 lLle3 e6 8 a3 ! Forcing recapture by the queen rather than the bishop. 8 . . :iVxe5 9 lLlb5! The queen is afforded no peace. This expansion is known from the another English so-called ' Barry Attack' (3 d5 4 i.f4) against the King' s Indian. Black' s knight is ' dragged' to a6, which markedly reduces Black ' s control o f the key centre squares. 9 . . . lLla6 1 0 b4 'iVb6 11 lLlf3 i.d7 12 'iVe2 i.e7 13 i.e5! .

A very powerful redeployment of the Trompowsky bishop. The respective levels of activity of the two side ' s pieces pretty much tells the full story.

13 . . . 0-0 14 i.d4 'tWe6? Whether or not White can capture on a7 and emerge in tact after 1 4 . . . 'iVd8 , it had to be tried. The only raison d 'etre of the text move is to ' prepare' a terrible blunder! 1 5 0-0 b6?? 1 6 i.xf6! i.xf6 1 7 lLlbd4

Netting a piece and the game. 1 7 . . . 'iYa4 18 i.xa6 b5 1 9 i.b7 l:tab8 20 i.e6 i.xe6 2 1 lLlxe6 i.xal 22 lLlxb8 i.e3 23 lLle6 a6 24 e4 dxe4 25 'iVxe4 h6 26 lLlfe5 f5 27 'iVd3 'iVxa3 28 'iVd6 'iVa2 29 h4 1-0 I am very surprised that the take up rate on 6 dxc5( ! ) has been so low, since so far as I can see it should come close to winding up the debate on the passive 5 . . . lLlf6.

Chapter Conclusion This chapter has been quite a long haul, in part for the good obj ective reason that Black' s multifarious replies result in a rich variety of positions, but perhaps also because I have a thinly disguised affection for White' s plan of e3 and i.d3 . It was preparing to face Julian in this variation which rekindled my interest in the whole opening back in 1 99 8 . A s for the detail, Black seems to be really struggling in the ' old main line ' 4 . . . i.f5 - White ' s plan in Game 20 is so automatic that I think the 5 . . . lLld6 ! ? of Game 2 1 might be a better bet just to mix it up a bit. None of Black' s other 4th move alternatives to 4 . . . c5( ! ) really look scary either. The really critical material of the Chapter can be found in Game 24 (the note to the line with . . . cxd4 and . . :iVb6) and Game 26 which is quite unclear. The common denominator is 5 . . . cxd4( ! ) and I am absolutely convinced that it is here Black must look if he is to reach fully satisfactory play. In short, this is one of the Chapters that leaves the Trompowsky looking like a very good opening !

Chapter 6

-

2 . . . c5 Introduction

and the Solid Repertoire with 3 iLxf6 2 . . . c5 Introduction

2 . . . c5 is a challenging dark­ square based response, which in my opinion leads to some of the most challenging and strategically complex positions in the entire Trompowsky. It is interesting that it has not enjoyed quite the popularity of either 2 . . . lLIe4 or 2 . . . e6. Perhaps the contrast between the types of position arrived at after White' s two main responses is just too great, Black ' s complicating from standpoint the task of learning the system. As I have hinted at before I still have the impression that ma�y 1 . . . lLIf6 defenders find the notion of preparing the Trompowsky an irritating encumbrance, very much an addendum to the main task of honing their pet defence to 2 c4. From the perspective of the Tromp player this has the not insignificant advantage that obj ective merit might tum out to be not the only criterion

with which Black has selected his response. However, it may simply tum out to be the material of this chapter, the thematic reply 3 J.xf6 which is the most feared. I am convinced at least that the popularity of 2 . . . lLIe4 and 2 . . . e6 is no coincidence. These are the only two moves which avoid the possibility of White inflicting the dreaded doubled f-pawns, and, whatever the specific verdict of theory in a given case, I think many players are just not comfortable handling these. I described 2 . . . c5 as a ' dark­ square ' response, and as I have stressed throughout, it is on these squares that White is potentially vulnerable in the Trompowsky. This is most evidently true once the g5 bishop has been traded for a black knight, but there is in any case a weakness on b2, and it is this that 2 . . . c5 seeks to highlight, with a limited emphasis on disguise. This directness also rather limits White' s options. H e has in fact only three main approaches, one of which I view with great scepticism and will not be covering in the book and the other two which divide with some neatness if a little approximation into the solid and attacking options : 1 ) 3 lLIc3(? ! ) is an astonishingly aggressive invitation to a Sicilian structure. White will meet 3 . . . cxd4 with 4 'iVxd4, then send the queen to

2 c5 Introduction and 3 Lf6 1 2 1 . . .

h4 and follow-up with e4 and 0-0-0 and a good old hack. It has enj oyed a certain following among the Sp anish anny of Trompowsky devotees, and is consequently given a thorough treatment in De la Villa ' s book. According to one example there, even Julian Hodgson entered into the spirit when playing in Matalascanas in 1 990. I have no evidence that he repeated the experience and I suspect there are solid reasons for this. The Sicilian type set-up is quite fun, but I think its potency is greatly reduced if Black gives due consideration to king-safety by refusing to commit it to the kingside too early. There is also the issue of 3 . . . d5 transposing to the Veresov, and while I would be the first to admit that 3 . . . c5 might be one of the Veresov lines which holds out the best promise of general entertainment, I personally would not view this variation as a plus point either. Finally, Black can also choose 3 . . . 'ib6 which after 4 d5 transposes to the Vaganian Gambit which I cover in the next chapter. All in all though, I cannot recommend 3 etJc3 and since the two main lines give more than enough food for thought, I have decided to dismiss it without further ado. 2) 3 d5 makes one dark-square concession (in general these squares would be tighter if White could strong-point his d4 pawn, or perhaps even capture on c5 rather than advance it) but of course at the same time White does retain the bishop pair. As I suggested above the main bone of contention in this line is the b2 pawn. The most graphic illustration of this is the Vaganian Gambit 3 . . . 'ib6 4 etJc3 'ixb2 5 i.d2 and so on. Black has refined

his defence to this considerably since the 1 970s when Vaganian verily stonned through the opposition with a series of sparkling attacking games, but of the various b2 pawn grabs to which the Tromp gives rise, this one still has rather a sound reputation. The other serious option for Black is 3 . . . etJe4 meeting 4 ..tf4 with either 4 . . . e6 or 4 . . . 'i¥b6, the latter of which all but forces 5 i.c 1 . It is interesting that Hodgson, a long-time devotee of 3 i.xf6, has switched back to this line, perhaps as he became more sympathetic to the virtues of the i.c 1 retreat elsewhere too . All these complex questions will receive full coverage in Chapter 7. 3) 3 ..txf6, the subject of the remainder of this chapter to which I shall tum in just a moment. First a word on one other minor idea 3 dxc5 . Joe Gallagher suggests that this has "more bite than one would suspect", which is certainly tme if Black tries to get too clever, but the unpretentious 3 . . . e6 ! looks quite satisfactory often reaching the sort of rather bland positions I tend to associate with the generic Pawn ' Queen ' s description Opening ' e.g. 4 etJd2 ..txc5 5 e3 ..te7 6 etJgf3 0-0 7 i.d3 etJa6 (setting up a more standard Hedgehog with the s imple . . . d6 and . . . etJbd7 is of course a very viable approach too) 8 c4 b6 9 0-0 ..tb7 1 0 ktc 1 l:l.c8 1 1 etJd4 d5 1 2 ..te2 etJc5 13 b4 etJce4 14 etJxe4 etJxe4 1 5 ..txe7 'ixe7 with rather sterile equality in Miladinovic-Tzoumbas, Ano Liosia (op) 1 99 5 . Incomparably more entertain­ ingly, but not necessarily with more convincing logic, the amazing Hector-De Finnian, Copenhagen

122 2 c5 Introduction and 3 Lf6 . . .

2002 continued instead 4 e4 ! ? i.xc5 5 i.d3 �6 6 lZ'lh3 d5 (6 . . .'iWxb2 ! ?) 7 exd5 'iWxb2 8 lZ'ld2 'it'e5+ 9 �f1 exd5 1 0 lZ'lf3 'it'd6 1 1 'it'e2 + �f8 1 2 l:!.e l i.xh3 ( 1 2 . . . i.g4 ! ?) 1 3 i.xf6 i.xg2+ 1 4 �xg2 gxf6 1 5 'it'e8+ �g7 16 lZ'lh4 ! J:Ixe8 17 J:Ixe8 'iWf8 1 8 lZ'lf5+ 'itg8 1 9 lZ'lh6+ �h8 20 lZ'lxf7+ 'itg7 2 1 l:!.xf8 i.xf8 22 lZ'ld8 lZ'lc6 23 lZ'le6+ 12-12 I don 't think my failure to recommend this approach will be widely regarded as irresponsible ! O n t o the main business.

2 c5 3 iLxf6 - The Solid Repertoire

weaknesses) . On the other hand, White still has the threat to d4 and the issue of b2 to consider. It is the need for White to make further concessions on his already compromised dark squares which gives this version of the ' Trompowsky exchange ' its special and double-edged flavour. In effect, both sides make larger concessions than usual . Still, given the wild hacking of much of Chapter 7, and the essentially positional and heavily ' structure dependent' nature of much of the play here, the choice of this for the ' solid repertoire ' , was largely automatic.

. . .

3 i.xf6 is the consistent attempt to 'punish ' 2 . . . c5 by executing the Trompowsky 'threat' to Black's structure. The resulting positions are really very rich and complex strategically - Black in most cases recaptures for good reason with the g-pawn, which, for all that it admirably follows the very familiar 'towards the centre ' rule, does have implications for both king safety and general kings ide structure (the h-pawn and/or the h5 square, might, for example also tum out to be

Game 28 Hodgson - Kotronias Belgrade 1 993

1 d4 lZ'lf6 2 i.g5 c5 3 i.xf6 gxf6 This is the almost universal choice, at the higher levels. In contrast with many lines of the Trompowsky in which capturing with the e-pawn is to my mind often the sounder option 3 . . . exf6? ! makes a rather ugly impression in conjunction with 2 . . . c5, weakening the square d5, and in all probability the d-pawn too.

2 c5 Introduction and 3 Lf6 123 . . .

However, the move should not be completely ignored, and the lack of guidance from ' theory' may account for some pretty ad hoc solutions having been adopted over the board. The weakness of the square dS leads me to believe that to continue as in th e main lines with 4 dS ? ! lets Black off the hook to say the least. He can organise his forces logically with d6/ . . . g6/ . . . .1i.g7/and . . . fS (with or without . . . �6) and his position looks quite tidy, while White will rather miss the light-square kings ide weaknesses (such as hS) which are customary targets after 3 . . . gxf6. It is curious to say the least that a number of quite strong players have elected to go down that road. I would like to mention three other, more attractive ideas : a) 4 c3 is plausible. The kind of positions which typically arise after 4 . dS S e3 ctJc6, for example 6 tiJd2 .1i.e7 7 dxcS .1i.xcs 8 ctJb3 .1i.b6 9 ctJe2 0-0 1 0 ctJf4 .1i.e6 1 1 .1i.e2 �d7 12 0-0 l:.ad8 13 �d2 ctJeS 1 4 l:.fd l a 6 I S ctJd4 Grigore-Gheng, Bucharest Juventus 2002 I would assess as, at the very least, easier for White to play. Black's pawn formation is static, and White ' s knights have n o trouble finding good squares. However 4 . . . �6 ! is rather disruptive. After S �d2 dS 6 e3 .1i.e6 7 ctJf3 ctJc6 8 .1i.e2 .1i.e7 9 0-0 0-0 the queen on d2 blocks further development, and the time which White will consume in unravelling will clearly ease Black's task. b) 4 e3 �b6 S ctJc3 ! ? is tempting (certainly S b3 ? ! constitutes a weakness of the dark squares which would render 4 e3 unappealing) . Neither S . . . �xb2 6 ctJdS ! .1i.d6 7 dxcS .1i.eS 8 l:.b 1 followed by 9 f4, nor S . . . cxd4 6 �xd4 �xd4 7 exd4 . .

.1i.b4 8 ctJge2 really looks satisfactory for Black. The critical line is probably S . . . cxd4 6 �xd4 �xb2 ! ? 7 l:.b l �a3 . Now perhaps 8 ctJdS ! ? �xa2 ! ? (a kind of gambling mentality. White has excellent play for own pawn, so Black should justify his bad ways by carrying on ! ) 9 �e4+ 'ltd8 1 0 c3 is critical. I would not say that White has cast iron assurance of sufficient play, but I don ' t think players will arrive to defend Black's cause in their droves either. c) 4 ctJc3 ! ? and Black can choose between: ci) 4 . . . cxd4 S �xd4 ctJc6 6 �e4+ .1i.e7 7 e3 0-0 8 .1i.c4 a6 9 ctJge2 bS 10 .1i.b3 .1i.b7 1 1 0-0 g6 12 l:.ad 1 fS 1 3 �dS d6 1 4 ctJf4 ctJaS I S �d3 ctJxb3 1 6 axb3 .l:Ie8 1 7 ctJcdS .1i.f8 1 8 !Ife 1 .1i.g7 1 9 c3 Chandler-Knott, British ch, Millfield 2000. Black ' s pawn weaknesses are not only problematic in themselves, they also provide the knights with excellent squares which in tum adversely affects the efficacy of the bishop pair. cii) 4 . . . dS ! ? reaches a Veresov theoretically somewhat favourable to White (since after 1 d4 dS 2 ctJc3 ctJf6 3 .1i.gS cS 4 .1i.xf6 Black is again advised by the experts to play 4 . . . gxf6 ! ) . Still, this looks a better chance for Black. One, rather old but still instructive example is S e3 ctJc6 6 ctJge2 .1i.e6 7 g3 cxd4 8 exd4 .1i.d6 (8 . . . �b6 ! ? is critical, but after 9 .tg2 �xb2 1 0 .l:Ib l �a3 1 1 lhb7 ! .1i.b4 1 2 0-0 .1i.xc3 1 3 l:.b3 �xa2 De la Villa - I like White' s compensation after either 1 4 ctJxc3 �aS I S f4 fS 1 6 g4 ! ?, or even 1 4 l:.xc3 ! ? e.g. 1 4 . . . l:tc8 I S J:Ics ctJe7 16 J:Ixc8+ ctJxc8 1 7 ctJf4 0-0 1 8 l:.e 1 with enduring pressure for the

124 2 c5 Introduction and 3 Lf6 . . .

pawn) 9 i.g2 0,e7 1 0 0-0 a6 1 1 0,c 1 h5 1 2 Ite 1 �f8 1 3 0,d3 Itc8 14 0,e2 g5 15 0,c5 :'c7 Smyslov­ Bobotsov, Sochi 1 963 , and now 1 6 0,c3 'iVc8 1 7 0,3a4 ! ? looks a promising intensification of White ' s pressure. To my mind ' b ' is fun, but ' c ' alone should provide a sufficient argument against Black' s un­ aesthetic recapture.

4 d5 I firmly believe the advance 4 d5 (the subject of Games 28-32) to be the best move. However, at the same time I do also regard it as something of a positional concession, and therefore felt it would be useful background to mention briefly why attempts to construct a structure more obviously suited to the possession of only a light-squared bishop appear to fall short. For I time I toyed with 4 dxc5 since it is easier to place pawns on c3 and e3 with a view to 'blunting ' Black' s dark-squared bishop if there is no d5 pawn to worry about. However, I have had to concede that Black' s solid centre majority and bishop pair give him very reasonable chances. After all, his weaknesses are not that severe.

Take for example Teske-Gallagher, Bundesliga 2002. After 4 . . . 0,a6 which seems best, 5 0,d2 0,xc5 6 g3 f5 7 c3 i.g7 8 i.g2 d5 9 0,gf3 e6 10 0-0 0-0 1 1 0,d4 i.d7 1 2 e3 l:tc8 White has achieved the appropriate structure for blunting Black' s dark-squared bishop, and his pieces look reasonably well placed. The question is, What to do next? I have seen several examples of this kind of structure, and the dominant impression is that White ' s set-up i s essentially designed to contain Black, and it is very difficult to find a constructive plan. Pawn breaks risk reactivating Black' s forces. The next few moves confirm this : 1 3 �e2 �6 1 4 0,2b3 0,e4 1 5 l:tfd l a5 1 6 Ii.ab l l:tfd8 1 7 i.fl 0,d6 1 8 0,d2 and now it was already Black who felt justified in modifying the structure in an attempt to seize the initiative. My feeling after the further 1 8 . . . e5 ! ? 1 9 0,c2 i.e6 2 0 0,f3 i.f6 2 1 0,a3 �h8 22 l:tbc 1 :'g8 23 i.g2 'ilVc5 24 0, e l b5 i s that his optimism i s justified. 4 i.g7 As Gallagher writes it is a "relatively small school of thought" which doesn't find the inclusion of 4 . . . �6 5 'ilVc l in Black's interest. Presumably the idea is to keep the b-pawn unblocked, but White ' s queen i s undeniably better placed on dl than c l , and the general view is that this factor is of greater relevance. See the note to White ' s 6th i n Game 30 for an attempt at direct comparison. The conclusion is that the attack on White ' s b-pawn remains the more respectable choice and will be the subj ect of Games 29-3 2 . 5 c3 In common with the main line White faces a principled choice . . .

2 . . . c5 Introduction and 3 hf6 125 be twe en thus seeking to contain the d ark- squared bishop and playing 5 which looks seriously c4 ! ? co nc essionary on the dark squares, but on the other hand gives much firmer support to the d5 pawn, and p ermits White a more natural development of his knight to c3 . I will not give this alternative in dependent coverage here since the c4 lines which I cover in the notes to Game 29 are fairly similar. I have a suspicion that 5 c4 may be a less impressive of exploiting the absence of . . . but this I must admit I have not checked out in detail. 5 . . . d6 If now 5 . . . 'Y!IYb6 then 6 Wkc2 looks like the right square. 6 e3 f5 7 liJe2

It is interesting that when . . . 'Y!IYb6 is omitted White almost invariably adopts this formation rather than the fianchetto of his king ' s bishop . I assume that this has to do with a consensus that White should attempt to keep the lid on Black ' s queenside expansionary aspirations and that the bishop is therefore needed to cover b5. At this moment White is safe enough on this front, since Black needs to bring his knight over

immediately to cover the threat of liJf4-h5 . 7 . . . liJd7 Stohl suggests an alternative development 7 . . . liJa6 ! ? 8 liJf4 liJc7 with the intention to play . . . e6. Laudable enough in itself, but I cannot help feeling that Black will suffer for not covering h5 . The tempting 9 'iVh5 .i.e5 ! is not too convincing, but 9 liJh5 .i.h6 and now maybe even 1 0 c4 ! ? looks quite promising. 8 liJf4 liJf6 9 .5tc4 Not just strong-pointing the crucial d5 pawn, but also hindering a potential . . . e6 break which always needs to be borne in mind in this variation. 9 . 0-0 10 a4 b6 1 1 liJd2 a6 1 2 liJf1 ! ? I like this move, which gives priority to probing Black ' s weaknesses, both the f5 pawn and in particular the h5 square, over automatic mobilisation of the forces. Interestingly, Kotronias must have been reasonably content at this stage because he was willing to repeat these moves two years later. Although I prefer Julian ' s treatment, the continuation of that game was quite instructive too. White chose simple, perhaps overly routine development with 1 2 'iVe2 .l:l.e8 1 3 0-0 e5 ! ? (rather than 1 3 . . . e6? ! , after which no exchange on d5 is threatened, and since the bishop is needed on c8 to protect the e-pawn, no pressure can really be added to d5 either) 1 4 liJh5 liJxh5 1 5 Wkxh5 �f6 1 6 f4 exf4 1 7 exf4 .i.d7 (Black is probably OK here because his counterplay with . . . b5-b4 needs to be addressed, while his own weaknesses are not especially easy .

.

126 2 c5 Introduction and 3 Lf6 . . .

to access) 1 8 .1I.d3 ( 1 8 .l:i.fe 1 .l:i.xe 1 1 9 .l:i.xe 1 bS ! is similar, and more convincing than 1 9 . . . .1I.xa4 ? ! 20 .1I.d3 .i.d7 2 1 ct:Jc4 with some real pressure to compensate for the pawn. This reminds us that although the bishop has performed useful work on c4, it has also occupied a square on which the knight could have been a potent force) 1 8 . . . bS 1 9 l:t f3 c4 20 .1l.fl WUh6 2 1 WUxh6 .1I.xh6 22 �f2 .i.g7 23 l:ta2 .i.f6 24 l:te3 l:tec8 2S .1I.e2 .1I.d8 and Black has manoeuvred his bishop pair intelligently and is certainly not worse. Minasian-Kotronias, Ankara (zt) 1 995. 1 2 . . .1I.d7 13 ct:Jg3 b5 1 4 .1I.b3 ! Stohl also mentions the more obvious 14 .i.d3 e6 I S ct:JghS but if I S . . . ct:JxhS 1 6 WUxhS Black will get quite decent play with 1 6 . . . c4 1 7 .1I.c2 b4, while the more natural 1 6 ct:JxhS .1I.eS also looks playable for Black. The point is precisely that from a defensive perspective the black queen stands well on d8 since . . . �h4 will be such a valuable resource in many positions - not least as an answer to the otherwise interesting 17 f4 .1h8 1 8 WUf3 . For this reason White should probably settle here for the more restrained 1 8 0-0 with a very sharp and unclear position, but there is no denying Black's share of the chances. Julian's move has the concrete purpose of preventing . . . e6 for the time being, and of forcing Black to consider the possible vulnerability of his d6 pawn when White attacks fS from c2 rather than d3, as well as the practical advantage that Black ' s moves are less forced, and he h a s to make tricky decisions about how to further his counterplay. 14 . . . �6? ! •

I don't like this for precisely the reason outlined in the last note. The queen deserts the kings ide and thereby makes the building of White ' s attack that much more straightforward. My hunch is that it was probably here that Kotronias was subsequently looking to improve. However, this is not so easy since 1 4 . . . c4? ! I S .1I.c2 e6 1 6 dxe6 fxe6 1 7 WUxd6 leaves Black short on compensation. The best bet would seem to be 14 . . . b4 ! ? I S cxb4 l:tb8 ! since 1 6 bxcS WUaS+ looks very risky. Still, the move . . . b4 has general drawbacks too. Firstly it enables the bishop to remain on the a2-e6 diagonal, and secondly, since there is no . . . c4 resource any more White has the additional possibility of harassing the fS pawn with WUd3 . I S c4 comes into consideration, but best of all might be to permit Black a measure of counterplay while putting faith in his own attacking chances with I S O-O ! ? bxc3 1 6 bxc3 �aS 1 7 WUd3 when the play is very sharp but I would prefer White . 15 as WUc7 1 6 .1I.c2 e6 1 7 ct:Jgh5 ct:Jxh5 18 ct:Jxh5 ! Clearly better than 1 8 WUxhS when 1 8 . . . b4 ! is irritating. In any case, as I discussed above, with Black ' s queen o n c 7 the plan of g 4 to support a knight hS is in general quite potent.

2 c5 Introduction and 3 Lf6 1 2 7 . . .

18 . . . .l:tae8 1 9 g4 ! 'it>h8 20 gxf5 exf5 2 1 lLlxg7 This was criticised by Stohl and it does indeed seem a rather strange exchange to hurry, especially from a player who has such a flair for maintaining the tension. Nonethe­ less if followed up correctly, the text appears to be by no means inferior to the more natural 2 1 'iVf3 J:tg8 ! 22 .i.xf5 iLxf5 23 'iVxf5 J:te5 24 �f3 J:tg5 ! when although I prefer White, Black ' s occupation of the g-file complicates the task of his further developing an attack. White has also received a timely reminder that there are safety issues regarding his own king too. 21. 'it>xg7 22 �f3 ? ! This seems to b e the more clearly questionable decision. It was better to give a second dimension to the attack with 22 'iVh5 ! which forces Black to address not just the removal of the f5 pawn, but the possibility of invasion on the h6 square too. After 22 . . . 'i¥i>h8 23 �6 f6 24 llg l Sl.c8 25 0-0-0 Black' s defensive task looks very problematic. 22 . . . 'i¥i>h8! 23 Ji.xf5 Sl.xf5 24 'iVxf5 f6! Suddenly, with his king still in the centre, White looks a little over­ extended. 25 :!gl J:e5 26 'iVf3 f5 27 J:tg5 b4 28 c4 'ike7 29 h4 'iVf6 30 0-0-0 Yz-Yz A fair decision. The moment when the initiative has switched hands, even in exchange for a slight material gain, is a good one for calm realistic appraisal . After 30 . . . .l:e4 3 1 'iVe2 f4 Black' s compensation, which could well include a psychological element by now, looks very reasonable.

Game 29 Hodgson - Van der Wiel Netherlands (op ch) 1 994

1 d4 lLlf6 2 Sl.g5 c5 3 Sl.xf6 gxf6 4 d5 'tlVb6 ! 5 'iVcl Ji.h6?!

•.

Of course it is known that the bishop is immune since 6 'iYxh6? �xb2 leaves White with no reasonable follow-up, but still it strikes me as a little odd to play this here. The reason is that after 6 e3 f5 if White chooses to clamp down on the f4 square then, the bishop ' s role on h6 looks a bit of a mystery. Having said this, Julian had previously followed this logic in the game Hodgson-Peelen, Leeuwarden 1 993, choosing 7 g3 ! ? but he found that Black' s play in this case is not entirely without point. Gallagher explains that after 7 . . . iLg7 8 c3, White ' s extra tempo (the pawn is usually on e2 in this position) does not benefit him too much. Indeed in the event of the rather direct 8 . . . lLla6 ! ? 9 lLld2 lLlc7 1 0 Sl.g2 'iVd6 there is even a case for claiming that the lack of e3 square for the knight hinders White. The analogous position with the pawn on e2 has indeed been reached and in that case White continued with 1 1 (or in reality 1 0) lLlc4 'iVa6 1 2 'iVf4 ! with

128 2 c5 Introduction and 3 Lf6 . . .

tDe3 to come and a pleasant position. With a pawn on e3 his course of action is less clear. Julian chose 1 1 e4 ! ? fXe4 1 2 tDxe4 �g6 when 13 d6? ! f5 ! brought him nothing special. However, what about the ' materialistic ' 1 3 liJxc5 ! ? d6 1 4 tDb3 .Jli.f5 instead? Gallagher notes that Black' s bishop pair has come to life, which is true so far as it goes, but after 1 5 �e3 ! (it is important to stop . . . i.e4) followed by 16 liJe2 he should be able to weather the storm, indeed it is not to clear to me that there will be much of a storm to cope with . For those a bit squeamish about pawn grabbing element to 1 3 liJxc5 ! ?, winning the d4 square also offers a positional justification ! If this is all just a bit too complicated, I would suspect in addition that 9 .Jli.g2 liJc7 1 0 liJh3 might also be a valid move order for White. For the perfectionist, it still seems a shame not to find a 7th move which prevents 7 . . . f4, but has no concomitant drawback. Whilst I make no claims for the quality of Black's defence in the following example, I do find White ' s set-up quite appealing. 7 tDe2 ! ? d6 8 c4 liJd7 9 liJbc3 liJe5 1 0 liJf4 i.d7 1 1 �c2 a6 1 2 tDh5 �a5 1 3 f4 tDg6 1 4 i.d3 from Vigus - De Vreugt, Glomey Cup, 1 996 looks quite harmonious and certainly offers food for further thought. All in all, I wouldn't be surprised if logically Black should really wait for c4 before venturing . . . i.h6 (see the note to 5 . . . f5) although undeniably with all those tempting dark squares on the long diagonal, this also has its element of paradox. Of course, it may simply be that the main game is very strong for White

and that the entire . . . i.h6 project might be open to severe question. Since Games 30-32 wil l concentrate on the c3/g3 approach, this seems like an opportune moment to examine the c4 based system in general terms as the very sharp, exciting but rather specific events of the main game throw but limited light on these. This is most normally introduced by the moves 5 . . . f5 6 c4 ! ? iLg7 (6 . . . iLh6 7 e3 f4 is the normal, and in my view more logical route to Hodgson-van der Wiel) 7 liJc3 d6 (or 7 . . . �b4 8 e3 d6 9 f4 ! [This I find rather instructive. White fixes the f5 weakness and tries to capture back control of at least one important central dark square.] 9 . . . liJd7 1 0 liJf3 tDb6 1 1 liJd2 i.d7 1 2 iLd3 iLxc3 1 3 bxc3 �a5 14 a4 ! tDxa4 1 5 �c2 �xc3 1 6 l:lxa4 �xc2 1 7 i.xc2 i.xa4 1 8 i.xa4+ with some advantage for White in Hodgson-P .Schlosser, Horgen 1 994) 8 e3 tDd7 (8 . . . e6 ! ? 9 liJge2 liJd7 1 0 tDf4 tDf6 1 1 i.e2 i.d7 12 0-0 0-0-0 13 dxe6 fXe6 1 4 l:. d 1 l:!he8 1 5 l:t b 1 i.c6 1 6 a 3 liJe4 1 7 liJxe4 i.xe4 1 8 i.d3 i.c6 1 9 b4 gave White chances on the queenside in Kharitonov-Rozentalis, Sverdlovsk, 1 984 although I must admit I do not really understand Black ' s 1 4th move)

2 c5 Introduction and 3 Lf6 129 . . .

and now White has quite an interesting choice: a) 9 ctJge2 ? ! ctJf6 ! 10 ctJg3 (This gets nowhere fast, but White was prob ably afraid of 10 ctJf4 ctJe4 ! 1 1 ..t d3 'it'xb2 ! when I don 't see full co mpensation for a pawn) 10 . . . hS 1 1 i.d3 e6 12 'it'c2 i.d7 13 ctJge2 0-0-0 14 z:tb I ctJg4 ! ? when Black looks very active in M.Gurevich­ Alterman, Haifa 1 99 5 . White ' s knight simply lost tempi here. This suggests either that it headed for the wrong square, or that it would be a better idea to develop his kingside p ieces 'the other way round ' . b) 9 ctJ f3 ctJf6 ! 1 0 .Jid3 ctJe4 1 1 ..txe4 (It is interesting that Kanstler gives 1 1 'ilVc2?! ctJxc3 as unclear, but when Lputian tried this Black revealed the 1 1 . . :iVxb2 ! trick, and to my mind White again does not get full value) 1 1 . . . fxe4 1 2 ctJd2 fS 1 3 0-0 .Jid7 was Faerman- Kanstler, Beer Sheva 1 998 and now instead of 14 l:tb I ? ! hS I S a3 h4 1 6 b4 h3 1 7 g3 'ilVa6 when if forced to choose I would probably take Black, I would suggest 14 f3 ! ? exf3 I S l:hf3 with a very interesting and unusual struggle ahead. Black's main weakness - the fS pawn - is not really vulnerable exactly, but it does at least tie his pieces down to its defence to a degree. c) 9 'ilVc2 ! ? followed by i.d3 looks the most logical, and it is rather curious that it has not been played more often. Romero Holmes - Reinaldo Castineira, Spain (ch) 1 997, for example was very quickly favourable for White after 9 . . . ctJf6 1 0 i.d3 ctJe4 1 1 ctJxc3 1 2 bxc3 ! ? e6 1 3 0-0 1 4 dxe6 ! fxe6 I S e4 0-0 ( I S . . . 'ilVgS ! ? might be a bit 1 6 exfS exfS 1 7 ctJf4 'ilVgS 1 8 with serious positional trumps. In such a position

the c-pawns are scarcely a problem at all, indeed they control very vital squares. I suspect Black should prefer 9 . . . ctJeS . There is little practical experience with this, but I would like to kick this beast away, and wonder whether 10 h3 ! ? is asking too much. Lines like 1 0 . . . l:t.g8 1 1 f4 ctJg6 1 2 ctJf3 ! eS ! ? 1 3 dxe6 fxe6 1 4 i.d3 followed possibly b y I S g4 look quite interesting. 1 0 . . :iVa6 ! ? is an interesting try to disrupt White ' s plans, but 1 1 'iVb3 i s quite playable. Food for thought here. Incidentally, Black can also choose to put a distinctive stamp on the play by means of the immediate S . . . e6 ! ? If White plays 6 c4 we are highly likely to reach the note to 8 . . . e6 ! ? given in the discussion above. Also interesting is 6 e4 ! ? (6 ctJc3 and g3 is also quite playable) 6 . . . .Jig7 (6 . . . i.h6 ? ! 7 'it'xh6 ! 'iWxb2 8 ctJe2 'ilVxa l 9 ctJec3 'ilVb2 1 0 i.e2 ! Casagrande-Banas, Mitropa Cup I 99S gives White a terrific attack; while 6 . . . fS ! ? 7 exfS exdS is more interesting, but White still has decent prospects with 8 ctJc3 ! ?) and now maybe 7 ctJc3 ! ? 0-0 8 ctJge2 followed by g3 , again with a good deal of appeal for those seeking an unusual struggle. 6 e3 f5 7 c4 ! ? Accepting the challenge. As discussed in the note to Black' s Sth, 7 g3 ! ? or perhaps even better 7 ctJe2 ! ? might have come into consideration. However, the game is still critical for anyone who wishes to play an early c4 since Black can then approach this position by means of S . . . fS . Others could minimise their learning at this point, but what is to come is a lot of fun !

7

. . .

f4 ! ?

1 3 0 2 c5 Introduction and 3 bf6 . . .

Having said ' a ' , Black really must say ' b ' . There is little other positive idea attached to . . . i.h6. 8 exf4 i.xf4

17 0-0 lLlb4 1 8 lLla3 'iNxfl + 1 9 i.xfl ':xa3 is insufficient in view of 20 'iNb2 ! ) White has two plausible tries :

9 �xf4 ! Taking up the challenge, and indeed, if this fails White must reconsider his strategy at an earlier stage, since 9 'ili'c2 i.e5 is certainly not acceptable given Black' s command o f the central dark squares. 9 . . .'ili'xb2 10 lLle2 'ili'xa l l l lLlec3 'ili'b2 ? ! Until now the play has been quite forcing. However, understandable though John Van der Wiel ' s desire was to release his ensnared queen without delay, it is here that other players wishing to venture down this risky road have chosen to deviate. In the game White gets a very powerful attack. After the alternative 1 1 . . . d6 ! ? the focus is much more back to the usually more mobile of Black's monarchs, and the question is simple enough. Can she escape? After 1 2 'iNd2 ! J:tg8 ! ? ( 1 2 . . . a6 does not seem sufficient either. The point is that after 1 3 i.e2 b 5 1 4 cxb5 axb5 1 5 i.xb5+ i.d7 16 i.d3 ! White still has time to round up the queen and 16 . . . lLla6

a) 1 3 g3 ? ! is the only move to have been seen in practice. The problem is that 1 3 . . . a6 ! is now much stronger. Aleksandrov­ Zhelnin, St.Petersburg (op) 1 994 was good for Black after 14 'iVc2 ? ! 'it' f8 1 5 l\Vb3 lLld7 1 6 i.e2 b5 1 7 cxb5 axb5 1 8 i.xb5 lLl e 5 1 9 i.e2 c4 20 l\Vb6 i.f5 2 1 0-0 lIxa2 22 lLlxa2 'ili'xa2 since there is only one major dimension to the position, and the queen is out! However even the apparently more promising 14 i.d3 b5 1 5 cxb5 axb5 1 6 i.xb5+ i.d7 1 7 i.d3 ! ( 1 7 i.xd7+? ! lLlxd7 1 8 0-0 lLle5 looks fine for Black) meets with the interesting manoeuvre 1 7 . . . i.h3 ! ? 1 8 'ih6 i.g2 1 9 :g l i.f3 ! when it is difficult for White to strengthen his encirclement of his opponent' s queen. 20 'ixh7 'if8 2 1 'ili'h6+ �e8 2 2 'iVh7 forced a draw, but I do not see better here. b) Joe Gallagher' s 1 3 i.e2 ! therefore looks a far more promising choice. White sacrifices the g-pawn, banking on the idea that �e2 and kIc 1 is to all intents and purposes as efficient as castling. The critical line seems to be

2 c5 Introduction and 3 iLxf6 1 3 1 . . .

1 3 . . J ohg2 1 4 i.f3 J:tg6 ( 1 4 . . . i.h3 1 5 iVh6 "iVb2 1 6 i.xg2 ! .txg2 1 7 ,Ug l is very awkward for Black) 1 5 �e2 ! and now: b l ) 1 5 . . . b5 1 6 cxb5 a6 1 7 b6 ! llJd7 1 8 �c 1 llJxb6 1 9 llJa3 Gallagher - is good for White. There is not too much compensation in this case. b2) 1 5 . . . .tg4 ! ? 16 J:tc l ! ( Strangely, Joe Gallagher whose analysis was otherwise excellent, gives 1 6 i.xg4? ::txg4 1 7 'uc 1 here which allows 1 7 . . . l:td4 ! 1 8 Wi'c2 �xc4 wmnmg for Black) 1 6 . . . llJc6 ! ? 1 7 dxc6 'ue6+ 1 8 c;f;f1 .i.xf3 1 9 cxb7 %:.b8 20 llJa3 'ilixc 1 + 2 1 iVxc 1 %:.xb7 and while I prefer White here too on material grounds (queen and two knights v. two rooks, a bishop and two pawns) Black does have rather more counterplay this time. The white king is not entirely happy and if Black can activate the rook on b7, he has reasonable chances to generate annoying threats.

1 2 d6! This is the problem of course. The queen' s escape has been secured at the price of terrible threats around the black king, and pretty grim development perspectives to boot.

1 2 . . . llJc6 1 3 i.d3 exd6 1 3 . . . e6 1 4 0-0 f5 1 5 1i'h6 ! �f7 1 6 i.e2 ! is also crushing. The detail of analysis which was required in the case of 1 1 . . . d6 would be super­ fluous here. It is clear that Black ' s pieces are i n n o state t o come to the king ' s assistance. Once White safely castles it is a matter of time. 1 4 0-0 llJe5 1 5 iVf6! 0-0 1 6 llJd5 l:.e8 17 iVg5+ llJg6 17 . . . �h8 1 8 llJf6 ! llJxd3 19 'iWh6 is also hopeless. White ' s attack has been nicely conducted, but it is no surprise that 1 1 . . . d6 has not been repeated . 1 8 llJf6+ 'ifS 19 �h6+ 'ie7 20 ttJd5+ �d8 2 1 i.xg6 hxg6 22 ttJbc3 1-0 Game 30 Adams - Lautier PCNIntel Rapid, Paris 1 995

1 d4 ttJf6 2 i.g5 c5 3 i.xf6 gxf6 4 d5 'iWb6 5 "iVcl f5

6 c3 Quite aside from the c4-based systems which I briefly examined in the previous game, White has quite a bewildering array of set-ups available in this complex position. I

1 32 2 c5 Introduction and 3 hf6 . . .

have decided to be quite selective in my coverage, and while I shall make passing reference to others where I believe this will contribute to a general understanding of what is going on, I have decided to concentrate on a detailed survey of the lines where White plays in some order g3/c3 lDd2 and lDh3 . To my mind this gets the balance between solidity and a bit of punch about right, and has the endorsement of several of the Trompowsky ' s leading exponents . The next three games will examine this set-up in some detail . As we shall see, there is no very clear consensus on the best move-order to reach the basic position, nor I suspect on whether this really even matters very much. Certainly this is more a position for concentrating on understanding ideas than learning moves, but I shall make some observations on move order as we come across them. For the moment, I think I would just observe that 6 g3 seems to be perfectly valid here too, and might even be preferable depending on the evaluation of the note that follows to Black's 6th. Before getting stuck into this main discussion, I would like first, partly by way of analogy to take a look at one possible approach with 6 e3 which aims at reaching the formation of Hodgson-Kotronias (Game 28) only with the inter­ polation of the moves 4 . . . 1Wb6 5 'it'd . A good example of this was seen in Bellon Lopez- G.Hemandez, Las Palmas (op) 1 995 which continued 6 e3 iLg7 7 c3 d6 8 lDh3 ! ? lDd7 9 tbf4 lDf6 1 0 iLc4 ( 1 0 lDd2 ? ! e5 ! i s fine for Black) 1 0 . . . iLd7 1 1 a4 0-0 1 2 0-0 (Clearly there is no time for Hodgson ' s lDfl -g3 manoeuvre in this version -

. . .'iWb6 has assisted Black' s development and a 1 2 lDd2 l:tae8 1 3 lDfl ? e5 ! would b e very satisfactory from Black's standpoint) 1 2 . . J:tae8 ! (I reckon this is rather more to the point than the slower 1 2 . . .';ih8 . However, some record seems vital of James Vigus ' admirable bravery in becoming, so far as I can see, the first player ever to venture a against Julian Trompowsky Hodgson in a serious game. Of course, the maestro ' s choice of variation is not without interest either, but my feeling was at the time that after 1 3 l:f.e l J:.g8 14 'iWc2 �ae8 1 5 a5 'it'd8 1 6 �3 'it'c8 1 7 'it'd l iLh6 1 8 lDa3 ! J:.g4 1 9 g3 z:i.eg8 White had shown a pretty good feel for the position and that the exchange sacrifice that ensued with 20 iLe2 iLxf4 ! ? 2 1 iLxg4 i.xg3 22 hxg3 z:i.xg4 should not have fully sufficed, although Julian did later carry home the full point and indeed the title. Vigus-Hodgson, British Championship, Millfield 2000) 1 3 a5 'it'c7 1 4 'iWd l 'it>h8 1 5 tbd2 �g8 16 lDh5 e6 ! 17 lDxf6 i.xf6 1 8 g3 J:!g6 19 .l:Ie l 'it>g7 20 f4 b5 2 1 axb6 axb6 22 e4 e5 23 exf5 iLxf5 24 fxe5 :'xe5 25 l:txe5 i.xe5 and Black has perfectly respectable counterplay. In fact it seems to me that this is a good illustration of how much Black gains from 4 . . . �6 if White adopts 6 e3 . Bellon Lopez actually handled the position rather deftly but still achieved nothing concrete. 6 iLg7 There might be a case for playing the immediate 6 . . . e6 here. However, capturing on d5 is but rarely acceptable positionally, and this affords White time and some choices. I quite like his set-up in Tchemyi-Sakaev, Pardubice (op) 1 997. 7 g3 lDa6 8 iLg2 lDc7 9 . . .

2 c 5 Introduction and 3 Lf6 1 3 3 . . .

ttJh3 ! ? ttJxd5 (If 9 . . . 'ifd6 then maybe 1 0 ttJd2 ! ? to meet 1 0 . . . ttJxd5 with 1 1 ttJc4) 1 0 .Jtxd5 exd5 1 1 ttJf4 .Jth6 led to a position which I think has considerable attacking potential for White. Why not 1 2 'ife3+ 'it> f8 1 3 ttJd2 ! ? I f Black does nothing special then I think his weaknesses will be problematic in the long term. However, 1 3 . . . d4 1 4 cxd4 'i'xb2 looks very risky too. One possible line 15 ttJb3 ! c4 16 �e5 ! �g8 17 O-O ! cxb3 18 ttJh5 threatening 19 'i'f6 and a very powerful onslaught against Black ' s king. 7 g3 Having rejected c2-c4, White is obliged to set his mind to providing the d5 pawn with the requisite protection, and the text is the most respectable way of doing this.

7 d6 Best in my view. There are good sound reasons for Black' s knight to head for the kingside. It is also possible to put it on c7, but I prefer White after e.g. 7 . . . ttJa6 8 .Jtg2 ttJc7 9 ttJd2 (9 ttJh3 ! ? also looks logical, trying to reach something like Tschemyi-Sakaev from the note to 6 . . . e6. If 9 . . . �d6 ! ? White could even consider 1 0 ttJa3 ! ? b5 1 1 � g5) 9 . . . e6 10 ttJc4 �a6 1 1 'i'f4 0-0 1 2 ...

harmonious a with ttJe3 organisation of White 's pieces. Dumitrescu-Shishkov, European (ch), Tallinn 1 997. 8 .Jtg2 ttJd7 9 ttJh3 It cannot really be over­ emphasised that f4 is absolutely the optimal square for the knight in this line. It provides helpful back-up in the ongoing bolstering of the d5 pawn, it plays a role in trying to restrain Black's centre pawns, whether Black has his sights set on . . . e6 or . . . e5, and last but not least keeps an eye on the h5 square, a key Black weakness as we have discussed. It is also a useful post from which to harass Black's dark­ squared bishop and try to drum up some kingside play.

9 ttJf6 Covering h5 and preparing to develop his queens ide too. Also interesting was the attempt to cut across White ' s intended deployment with the radical 9 . . . e5 ! ? the price of which, of course, is a still weaker f5 pawn. V.Popov-Yemelin, St Petersburg (op), 1 994 continued with the very committal 1 0 f4 (Instead, I think White could consider 1 0 ttJd2 �a6 1 1 �c2 ! ? 'ifa6 1 2 ttJfl and if now 1 2 . . . .Jth6 then 1 3 f4 ! ? e4 14 ttJe3 would in my view be a much improved version of Popov ' s idea) 10 . . . ttJf6 (The decision to ' exchange ' squares in such a position requires consider­ able positional acumen. My hunch though is that 10 . . . e4 ! ? was possible here e.g. 1 1 ttJa3 ttJf6 1 2 ttJc4 'iVa6 1 3 ttJe3 h5 ! 1 4 ttJf2 .Jtd7 and B lack is ready to meet 1 5 .Jth3 with 1 5 . . . ttJg4 ! when Black' s position looks very healthy. In essence, my objection to 1 0 f4 is that it actually makes Black' s most . . .

134 2 c5 Introduction and 3 iLxf6 . . .

significant weak spot - the fS pawn - easier to cover! ) 1 1 CDd2 CDg4 1 2 CDc4 �a6 1 3 CDe3 .ltd7 1 4 �d2 0-0-0 I S 0-0 hS 1 6 CDgS lIdf8 1 7 fxeS CDxe3 1 8 �xe3 .ltxeS 1 9 .lth3 and Black's pawn weaknesses have become a more pressing issue than White ' s slightly vulnerable king. 9 . . . hS ! ? is dealt with in Game 32. 1 0 CDd2 0-0 Natural enough. 1 0 . . . .ltd7 ! ? is the subject of Game 3 1 . 1 1 0-0 e6 The standard way to create maximum tension in the centre. It is far from obvious, but part of Black' s motivation for this is prophylactic. It may be useful to be ready to counter White attempts at breaking in the centre with e4, with the move . . . eS when capturing ' en passant' is no longer an option ! An example where Black focuses on the queens ide will illustrate this point. Hernandez - Martin Gonzalez, Benasque (op) 1 997 reached (by transposition) 1 1 . . . .ltd7 1 2 �c2 �c7 1 3 lIad l bS 14 CDf4 :tab8 I S e4 �c8? ! ( 1 S . . . .lth6 ! ? would still be interesting. I suspect 1 6 lIfe 1 .ltxf4 1 7 gxf4 CDhS 1 8 exfS favours White, but the position is very complex indeed) 1 6 1:He l lIe8 1 7 .lth3 fxe4 1 8 .ltxd7 'ilkxd7 1 9 CDxe4 with good play in the centre. 1 2 CDf4 Best I think. I was guilty of an instructive misconception here in Wells-Popovic, Austrian League 2002 with the somewhat premature release of the tension 1 2 dxe6 and was rather let off by the continuation 1 2 . . . .ltxe6 ? ! 1 3 CDf4 dS 1 4 c4 ! �ad8 I S 'ilkc2 d4 1 6 a3 .lth6 1 7 CDd3 'ih8 and could have consolidated a tidy plus with the

simple 1 8 b4 ! intending to meet 1 8 . . . cxb4 1 9 axb4 .ltxd2 with 20 cS. Strange things happen in these leagues on the Sunday morning unfamiliar territory for many a chess-player. The rationale for my 1 2th move? I seem to recall fondly imagining that after 1 2 . . . fxe6 ! 1 3 e4 fxe4 1 4 CDxe4 Black' s centre pawns would be fairly static and I could set about attacking them, and also making some gestures against the h7 pawn into the bargain. However, I failed to reckon in this case with 1 3 . . . eS ! ? which could create a situation of acute embarrassment for the knight on h3 . 1 4 �c2 for example could be met with 1 4 . . . fxe4 I S CDxe4 h6 ! ? while, whatever the theoretical verdict, 14 . . . f4 ! ? I S gxf4 .ltxh3 1 6 .ltxh3 CDhS would be quite scary to meet in practice. However, it is not as bad as all that. After 1 2 . . . fxe6 White has to settle for the more modest 1 3 CDf4 ! d S 1 4 c4 and I think the position is still quite playable. If 14 . . . d4 I S CDd3 there is every chance that the e-pawn can be blockaded.

1 2 .lth6 The real difficulty in trying to discuss this variation lies in confronting the question: 'What are the respective sides ' plans?' This is ...

2" . c5 Introduction and 3 Lf6 135 very hard to answer. It is easier to speak in terms of moves which represent some improvement of the pieces, since early breaks in the c entre with e4 (still a possible long-term option) do not look very likely here. Any of the moves Md l la4/ttJc4 with arguably 'iVc2 as well, are, in some order likely to feature. At some point Black will be forced to confront the issue of his d-pawn, and this is likely to lead to a clarification of the central pawn structure, at which point it becomes easier to talk in terms of plans. The timing of the move . . . e5 is immensely difficult. We have already considered it when the knight was still on h3 . Black could consider it here too, although d3 is not a bad square for White ' s knight. Eventually Black opts for . . . e5 as a reply to 1 4 i:[d l , and of course this makes some sense as the rook would not choose this square with an already closed centre. 12 . . . .i.h6 itself also invites comment. Is Black keen to provoke e3 because he is also concerned that the white queen could also find a role on the c I -g5 diagonal? As for an assessment, I think it would be optimistic to speak of a White advantage as such, but I would personally feel more comfortable playing on this side. 'A matter of taste ' seems a very fair comment here. I am for example not at all surprised to see Mickey Adams handling the position so consummately. The kind of manoeuvring required is absolutely his forte, the ability to sense good squares without the aid of very concrete planning. It is my hope that players attracted to the ' solid' repertoire will feel at home here too . 13 e 3 .i. d 7 1 4 Md1 eS ! ?

Probably sooner o r later this ought to come anyway. The alternative here would be 14 . . . 'iVc7 and now for example 1 5 iVc2 J:Iae8 16 a4 ! ? and again, the way forward without . . . e5 is unclear. I suspect that White need not feel too fearful of his opponent turning greedy here. 1 6 . . . .i.xf4 1 7 exf4 ttJxd5 1 8 .i.xd5 exd5 1 9 ttJfl ! I like for White, despite the potential danger on the light squares around his king. The positional prize on offer is pretty substantial. 15 ttJe2 MaeS 16 iVc2 iVdS 1 7 ttJc4 iVe7 I S a 4 b6 1 9 M e l 'it'hS 20 Ilad1 J:IgS 21 ttJc1 ! Typical Adams. Rather than rush with his queenside aspirations, he takes a prophylactic time-out to reduce Black ' s potential. This takes the sting out of . . , f4 based ideas in particular. The knight is also better placed on d3 from the offensive standpoint. If instead 2 1 b4 Black could even consider 2 l . . . cxb4 22 cxb4 .uc8 ! ?

2 1 . . . l:i.g6 2 2 ttJd3 IlegS 2 3 b4 ! ttJhS 24 bxcS bxcS 25 I:tb 1 .i.cs 26 iVd1 I:tg4 2 7 ttJaS f4 2S exf4 ! White ' s queens ide position is strong enough that he should concentrate his efforts there and stay solid on the other wing. 28 h3 ? ! Ilh4 ! i s the kind o f complication to avoid especially in a rapid game. It would result in Black suddenly getting quite a fierce attack. 2S . . . ttJxf4 29 ttJxf4 .i.xf4 30 ttJc6 'YWf6 31 I!.bS! Threatening 32 I!.xc8. Black' s kings ide initiative has entirely evaporated. 3 1 . . . .i.fS 32 .uxgS+ l:i.xgS 33 ttJxa7 iVg6 34 ttJc6 iVgS 35 as hS 36 h4 !

1 3 6 2 c5 Introduction and 3 Lf6 . . .

The final blow. It is pennitted to weaken the kings ide structure when the result is such decisive simplification ! 36 . . .'VWf6 37 'YWxh5+ �h6 38 liJe7! 1-0 Game 3 1 Akopian - G.Hernandez Merida 2000

1 d4 liJf6 2 � g5 c5 3 �xf6 gxf6 �g7 7 c3 4 d5 'li'b6 5 'iVcl f5 6 d6 8 liJd2 liJ d7 9 liJh3 10 � g2 � d7 A sensible developing move with a little hint of poison. It is of course far from exceptional that the timing of tucking away the king should be significant, and Black is hoping to punish an over-casual 1 1 0-0 with 1 1 . . . h5 ! and fair attacking chances. 11 'iWc2 ! ? None o f the pieces are susceptible of particularly easy handling in this complex position. It is not out of the question for example that if Black takes premature action the queen could find a role on the c 1 -g5 diagonal. However, I think there is a case for saying that the queen is generally better placed trying to bolster light-square activity and that nonnally c2 is the appropriate square for this. This move is also often linked to the idea of improving the queen' s knight by the manoeuvre liJc4-e3. Black' s reply would seem to indicate that he regarded this as worth avoiding especially since the other possible rationale for his next move would have been trying to grab the e-pawn and this he in fact abstains from. 1 1 :i*'a6 It is interesting to speculate on whether this was really necessary. ••

For example if 1 1 . . . O-O ! ? 1 2 liJc4 'YWa6 1 3 liJe3 e6 14 0-0 l:tfe8 1 5 ]:tfd l there could be a feeling that the knight on e3 helps to compromise Black ' s flexibility. Nonetheless, as so often White still has to reckon with 1 5 . . . �h6 ! and the position remains very complex since 1 6 f4 would again leave the h3 knight a little uncomfortable. 1 2 0-O ! ? This game i s fascinating for the degree to which intricate manoeuvring suddenly gives way to a fierce tactical exchange despite Black ' s apparent desire to decline this initial challenge.

1 2 ... 0-0 Black, probably rightly, decides against the pawn grab . White ' s possibilities after 1 2 . . :i'xe2 ! ? are quite instructive. When White ' s pieces spring into life, his opponent' s weakened kingside can become quite a serious factor e.g. 1 3 :tfe l 'i'a6 1 4 �fl ! ? - Wells 1 4 . . . 'i'b6 1 5 liJc4 'iVc7 1 6 liJe3 0-0 1 7 liJxf5 liJxd5 1 8 liJxe7+ ( 1 8 liJg5 is nothing special in view of 1 8 . . . �xf5 19 'i'xf5 liJf6) 1 8 . . . liJxe7 1 9 lhe7 lUe8 ( 1 9 . . . .l:.ae8?? 20 liJg5 ! ) and now violent solutions fall short, but the simple retreat 20

2 c5 Introduction and 3 .\txf6 1 3 7 . . .

l:!ee l ! ? followed by ttJf4 looks very pleasant for White. 13 e4 ! ? to determination White ' s complicate matters makes for a lot of fun, but is at the same time a little curious since Black seems thereafter to be able to ensure that the conclusion of the tit-for-tat is that White is obliged to take a perpetual check. In view of this, for most occasions the more patient 1 3 ttJf4 ! ? suggests itself with definite similarities to Adams-Lautier. As usual 1 3 , . . e5 loses some of its appeal when White can retreat to d3 . 13 ... fxe4 14 ttJxe4 ttJxd5! This time boldness is called for. 1 4 , . .ttJxe4? ! 1 5 'iVxe4 is just not very comfortable for Black since 1 5 , . . e5? fails of course to 16 dxe6 fxe6 1 7 ttJg5 . 1 5 ttJhg5 ! i.f5 Pretty well forced, as 1 5 , . .f5? fails to 16 ttJxc5 dxc5 17 .ltxd5+ e6 in view of the pleasing follow-up 1 8 'iWb3 ! 1 6 l:.adl

16 . . . e6 This is OK, but there are alternatives which need to be checked out.

a) Against 1 6, . .ttJc7, Finkel indicates that White can build a formidable attack with 1 7 g4 ! i.g6 1 8 f4 f5 (maybe 1 8 , . . d5 ! ? is better since after 1 9 f5 dxe4 20 fxg6 'iVxg6 2 1 h4 White again with good play, although 2 1 . . .'if h6 ! ? may offer chances to defend) 1 9 ttJg3 ! fxg4 20 f5 .lte8 2 1 f6 .ltg6 22 i.e4 ! ':'xf6 23 llxf6 i.xf6 (23 , . . exf6 24 .ltxg6 hxg6 25 'iVxg6 ! fxg5 26 ttJf5 Finkel) 24 ttJxh7 i.xh7 25 .ltxh7+ 'ith8 26 'ig6 with very strong threats. b) 1 6, . .'iWxa2 ! ? 1 7 �al 'ic4 and now White should probably settle for 1 8 l:!fc 1 ! ? ttJb6 ! 1 9 ttJxd6 .ltxc2 20 ttJxc4 ttJxc4 2 1 llxc2 when White has light-square based compensation for the pawn, but can hardly claim to stand better. The problem is that White is really courting danger after either 1 8 b3 ? ! 'ixc3 ! 1 9 ttJxc3 .ltxc2 2 0 ttJxd5 i.xa l 2 1 l:.xa l e6 ! when White is really facing a fearful mass of pawns, or 1 8 l:.a4 'iWb5 ! 19 c4 'ixb2 20 'it'xb2 .ltxb2 2 1 cxd5 b5 ! when likewise, Black's queenside runners look quite a menacing prospect. So while White gets excellent play after the passive 1 6 , . . ttJc7? ! the apparently risky 1 6 , . . 'ifxa2 ! ? is probably actually a simpler route to an acceptable position.

1 7 llxd5! exd5 18 ttJf6+ .ltxf6 1 9 'it'xf5 .ltxg5 20 'it'xg5+ So far so forced. It seems almost inconceivable that White could try 20 i.xd5 , but in fact although 20, . . .ltf6 ! 2 1 'ixf6 'id3 leaves White short of full compensation, it is at the same time striking that he must try this as 20, . . i.d2 2 1 .lte4 is really quite dangerous . 20 ... 'it;>h8 2 1 'it'f6+ �g8 22 �dl ! ?

138 2 c5 Introduction and 3 Lf6 . . .

White teases a little before acquiescing in the inevitable draw.

22 . . JIae8 23 .i.f1 'iVc6 24 'iVg5+ 'it'h8 25 'iVf6+ 'it'g8 26 .i.h3 'iV a4 This will do fine, but the task of finding a move which obliges White to force the issue was not so difficult. 26 . . J:te6 27 f4 Me2 ! or even 26 . . . d4 27 .i.f5? d5 ! would also have sufficed. 27 'iVg5+ '/z-'/z Some imperfection, but as so often the errors made for an especially entertaining struggle. Game 32 Sargissian - Frohlich Linares Open 200 1

1 d4 lbf6 2 .i.g5 c5 3 .i.xf6 gxf6 4 d5 'iVb6 5 'iV c1 f5 6 g3

6 . . . .i.g7 7 c3 d6 8 .i.g2 So what of the validity of . . . h5 in response to the ' Akopian move order' S lbd2? On the face of it this would seem to prevent any such complications since S . . . h5 could be neatly countered with 9 lbf3 . However, an interesting question then arises as to quite how inappropriate this square might be with the bishop still on f1 , since Black has 9 . . lbf6 1 0 lbf4 e5 ! 8 . . . lbd7 9 lbd2(! ?) For a time I thought that this was the preferable move order in terms of the opportunities it afforded for dealing with a quick . . . h5 . I that somehow White ' s felt opportunities were expanded by luring the black knight to f6 before venturing lbh3 . Now though I suspect that White is pretty much able to react ' Sargissian-style ' in any case. In fact it is against 9 lbh3 (the order of Adams-Lautier) that 9 . h5 ! ? has been most often tested. A few typical examples after 1 0 lbd2 h4 : .

. .

As I indicated above, my aim in adding in a brief coverage of this game is to discuss the efficacy of Black' s plan of a quick h-pawn advance in response to lbh3 in various positions. As I indicated above, I am sympathetic with White ' s move order. I can find no argument against this approach of commencing with the fianchetto and adding c3 only according to need.

a) 1 1 lbf3 ? ! hxg3 1 2 hxg3 lbf6 (better than 1 2 . . . lbe5 1 3 lbf4 lbxf3+ 1 4 .i.xf3 Mxh l + 1 5 .i.xh l .i.h6 1 6 'iV c2 .i.xf4 1 7 gxf4 .i.d7 I S 0--0--0 0--0-0 1 9 .l:Ig 1 i:IhS 20 ..Itf3 which though clearly draw ish,

2 c5 Introduction and 3 Lf6 1 3 9 . . .

might still offer White chances for an edge Amura-Paunovic, ' Super­ stars' Benidorm 2002) 1 3 lDh4 .lid7 1 4 'ic2 lDe4 ! (The key move. It is going to be difficult for White to get organised without ceding another 'bishop for knight') I S lDf4 0-0-0 1 6 .lixe4 fxe4 1 7 0-0-0 'iYa6 1 8 'I1tb l 'iVa4 1 9 'iVd2 .lif6 and the position is customarily complex, but if I had to choose I would be inclined to put my money on Black' s bishops. K.Georgiev­ Marinkovic, Cacak 1 996. b) 1 1 lDc4( ! ) 'iVa6 12 lDe3 lDf6 1 3 'iVc2 and White has successfully transposed back into the main game, which I find considerably more interesting and promising for White. 9 lDf6 1 0 lDh3 hS 1 1 'ic2 'it'a6 12 lDf1 h4 13 lDe3 e6 14 dxe6 fxe6 I S g4 l:.tg8 . • .

16 gxfS The text leads to an interesting version of the typical heavy positional battles associated with this variation, with both sides forced to nurse a number of vulnerable weak spots. I just wonder whether there might have been some mileage here in very direct assault with the pieces instead. 16 gS ! ? lDd7 ( 1 6 . . . lDhS 17 .lin lIh8 1 8 lDg2

looks rather unappealing for Black. If 1 8 . . . .lieS White has the idea to break in the centre with 1 9 e4) 1 7 O-O-O ! when neither 1 7 . . . 'iWxa2? ! 1 8 lDxfS ! or 1 7 . . . dS 1 8 .lixdS ! exdS 1 9 lDxdS ! 'iaS 2 0 1lt'xfS lDeS 2 1 'iVh7 �f8 22 f4 +- look especially unappetising for the defence. 16 . . . .lih6! 1 7 .l:r.gl .lixe3 1 8 fxe3 eS Still giving priority to positional over material considerations. However, in this case there might have been a case for 1 8 . . . exfS ! ? 1 9 lDf4 .lid7 2 0 'id3 ! ? (20 0-0-0 'ixa2 2 1 .lixb7 l:.txg l 22 lIxg l l:.tb8 23 .lidS is also positionally complex, but I could not claim an advantage for White) 20 . . . O-O-O! (but not 20 . . . 'ixd3 2 1 exd3 0-0-0 22 �d2 when White has a clear plus in terms of both structure and excellent minor pieces) 2 1 'iWxa6 bxa6 22 0-0-0 �c7 when again both sides have a liberal sprinkling of weaknesses, but White' s e-pawns look scarcely less vulnerable than anything he can point to on the other side. 1 9 O-O-O ! �xa2 ! ?

At worst understandable and very probably even the correct decision. If White can thus castle with impunity then his extra pawn and

1 40 2 c5 Introduction and 3 iLxf6 . . .

dynamic possibilities must give him the advantage, certain less than beauteous positional features notwithstanding. The text again leads to forcing play which very radically changes the nature of the position. 20 .ltd5 ! �a1 + 21 'it>d2 .l:!.xgl 22 l:lxal khal 23 �b3 ct:Jxd5? A very serious but instructive mistake. Black probably became too wrapped up in his whole concept of returning some material in order to stem White ' s initiative. However, realising that White is not obliged to accept the coming sacrifice he should have stepped back and seen that in terms of the dynamic values of the pieces this exchange must be wrong. It doesn't take many more moves to show that this knight was Black' s best piece and that it is also White ' s knight which is the pride and joy in tum of his attack. Black had to try 23 . . . l:lb8 ! instead when 24 .ltc6+ 'it>e7 (24 . . . 'it>f8 25 ct:Jg5 is not too healthy, while the fact that 24 . . . 'it>d8 25 "iVf7 ! ? bxc6 26 �xf6+ 'it>c7 27 �e7+ .ltd7 2 8 ct:Jg5 .l:!.xb2+ 29
26 'it>e8 27 ct:Jg5 'it'd8 28 �xb7 .l:tc8 29 ct:Jf7+ 'it>e8 30 ct:Jxd6+ 1-0 . . .

Chapter Conclusion This turns out to be another ' solid repertoire ' chapter where it is difficult not to feel sympathetic to White ' s cause. In effect, despite the heavy emphasis on the system covered in Games 30-32, two approaches are considered here. I had expected to be sceptical towards systems involving a quick c4, but very specifically, 9 �c2 ! ? consider­ ed in the notes to move 5 in Game 3 1 looks a very valid option and means that not all hangs upon sympathy with the c3/g3/ct:Jh3 set-up. The latter is admittedly very diffi.cult, alth �ugh I find the play partIcularly nch and instructive. Special emphasis should be given to Adams-Lautier (Game 30). Most sources suggest that White is slightly better, which I believe he is but it is an advantage whic h demands a lot of patience, and to understand this game would place a player at a great advantage over the board. Specific problems? I am concerned that there is something rather tactical and specific about White ' s success in Game 32, and furthermore would have been pleased to find a more generic ans,w er to the advance of the h-pawn WhICh retains its vitality. Also, take another look at 9 . . e5 ! ? in the notes to � ame 30. I am not saying that WhIte has problems, but this does introduce a whole new set of strategic problems and a careful study would be advisable before tackling this from either side. .

Chapter 7

-

2 . . . c5

The Attacking Repertoire with 3 d5 ! ?

As I explained in the introduction to 2 . . . c5, this is the really sharp way to tackle Black's challenging second move. The dark squares are to some extent weakened, but at the same time the Trompowsky bishop lives to fight another day. Black has two main options : 3 . . . 'iWb6, which virtually obliges a pawn sacrifice (Games 34-35 and TA 2) and 3 . . . lbe4 which bears strong similarities with Chapter 2, and which could usefully be considered in conjunction with it (Games (36-37 and TA 3). The sharpness of the play is reflected in the theoretical articles, which seemed a useful vehicle for dealing with some of the material where more than usually precise and intricate theory is called for. First though some minor moves, which are also not to be underestimated. Game 3 3 Gallagher Knott British (ch), Scarborough 200 1 -

1 d4 lbf6 2 i.g5 c5 3 d5 d6

This could of course presage a simple fianchetto, but Simon Knott has his own pet idea in mind. Aside from the main lines of Games 34-37, a couple of others merit attention here too : a ) 3 . . . g 6 4 lb c 3 i. g 7 5 e 4 and now: a l ) 5 . . . h6 6 i.f4 d6 7 h3 'ib6 8 i.b5+ lbfd7 9 .l:.b l 'i'a5 1 0 i.d2 0-0 1 1 lbf3 a6 1 2 i.e2 lbf6 1 3 0-0 �d8 14 a4 e6 1 5 dxe6 jLxe6 1 6 i.e3 lbc6 1 7 'i'd2 �h7 1 8 .l:.fd l gave White a pleasant positional edge in Hodgson-P.Cramling, Bern Cup 1 996. a2) 5 . . . d6 ! ? looks much more sensible. White can try many approaches. 6 lbf3 0-0 7 lbd2 is reasonable, as is 6 'iVd2 ! ? although White has to take account of the possibility 6 . . . a6 7 a4 'iVa5 8 f3 b5, when I think 9 lbd 1 !? is worth investigation. Not to be recom­ mended though is the previously highly regarded 6 f4? ! for the quite concrete reason that 6 . . JlVa5 7 'i'd2 �b4 is very hard to meet. Iceland Thorhallsson-Hardarson, (ch), Arborg 1 998 continued 8 i.b5+ jLd7 9 i.d3 c4 ! 1 0 i.e2 �xb2 1 1 .l:.b l lbxe4 ! 1 2 l:txb2 i.xc3 13 'iVxc3 lbxc3 14 l:txb7 f6 1 5 i.h6 lbxd5 and White had nothing for the two pawn deficit. b) 3 . . . �a5+ 4 jLd2 (4 c3 �6 5 jLxf6 ! ? �xf6 6 e4 is also possible) 4 . . . 'i'c7 (4 . . . 'i'b6 5 lbc3 has similarity with note ' a ' to Black' s 4th i n Game 34) 5 lbc3 g 6 6 e 4 d 6 7

1 42 2 c5 3 d5 . . .

liJf3 i.g4 8 h3 ! ? i.xf3 9 'iVxf3 i.g7 1 0 i.e2 0-0 1 1 0-0 liJbd7 12 'iVg3 a6 13 a4 l:Iab8 14 as l:Ife8 I S l:tfe l b S 1 6 axb6 l:Ixb6 1 7 b 3 and White enjoys the bishop pair and the better structure in Gelpke-Bosboom, Netherlands (chT) 1 994. 4 liJc3 h6! ? 5 i.xf6 exf6

Black's play looks very strange at first glance, but in fact by expending just one tempo on 4 . . . h6 he has succeeded in arriving at a structure which is otherwise very difficult to attain without undue cooperation. As I pointed out in the notes to Game 28 in the previous chapter, Black would very much like to recapture with the e-pawn after 1 d4 liJf6 2 i.gS cS 3 i.xf6 if he thought White was going to block the centre with 4 dS? ! , but the risks to the health of his d-pawn if White replies more appropriately are generally deemed unacceptable. Knott ' s idea is clever - once the committal 3 dS is on the board he reasons, the potential play on the dark squares and the gains in terms of structure and kings ide safety which . . . exf6 represents over . . . gxf6 should justify a lost tempo. He might even want to make a purist case against 4 liJc3 which might be seen as further enhancing the scope of the g7 bishop, since

White can no longer try and blunt this piece by playing a pawn to c3 . So, what are the objections? To some extent I think Joe Gallagher's excellent handling speaks for itself, but my general feeling is that if White sets about trying to extract a reasonable price for Black ' s execution of h i s essential freeing move . . . fS , then he has good prospects of looking every bit as healthy on the light squares as his opponent does on the dark squares. Incidentally, I think our purist might have a word or two to say about 4 . . . h6 too. It is just a little bit more than a tempo loss, and there are some positions in which the weakening of the g6 square which this move entails seems to be of more than academic interest. 6 e4 For the reasons outlined above this must be correct. By contrast if Black is allowed to play . . . fS unchallenged, for example with 6 g3 g6 7 i.g2 i.g7 8 e3 fS 9 liJge2 bS ! ? 1 0 liJxbS i.xb2 1 1 J:b l i.g7 1 2 0-0 0-0 Povah-Knott, 4NCL 2000, it all looks a little too easy to create play. 6 . . . g6 The immediate 6 . . . fS ? ! is no panacea either. Indeed it is possible that 7 i.b5+ ! ? is very awkward. Still, it is useful that there is a solution also applicable after for example 6 . . . a6 7 a4 f5 . White can simply play 8 exfS i.xf5 9 i.d3 ! which forces either an exchange rendering the fS square an obvious target, or a very awkward retreat. In the latter case Black can hardly even fianchetto his bishop without complications on the e-file.

7 i.d3 i.g7 8 liJf3 0-0 9 0-0 liJd7 10 liJd2 a6 1 1 a4 liJe5 12 .i.e2 f5

2 c5 3 d5 1 43 . . .

13 exf5 ! So Black has achieved his freeing break, but it is now clear that it will come at the cost of definite pawn weaknesses. l 3 . . . .ixf5? is imposs­ ible due to 14 f4 lbd7 1 5 g4 netting a piece. Having said that, it is true that the weak f5-pawn does perform a valuable role in controlling both e4 and g4 . The latter of course has the value of obliging White to take . . . lbg4 into account after the move f4. Indeed, this happens in the game. 13 . . . gxf5 14 as! b5 15 axb6 �xb6 16 l:!a2 l:e8 17 �hl �d8 1 8 f4 ! Well judged. After the coming exchange White ' s knights will have good targets in the f5 pawn and the b6 square, while it is precisely something concrete to aim at which the Black bishop pair seems to miss. Even for an opening in which White implicitly expresses a willingness to part with the bishop pair, I am surprised both by the number of examples in the book in which White ends up with just a pair of knights battling against the Black bishop pair, and by quite what a good account they give of themselves, always in return for some compensation, but frequently not of the self-evident type

characteristic the of worst textbooks. 18 . . . lbg4 1 9 .ixg4 fxg4 20 lbce4 f5 It would appear to be worth Black ' s while to try and force the move c2-c4 to take this square away from White ' s knight, even if this cost a tempo or two. Therefore 20 . . . .ib7 ! ? came into consider­ ation. If White does acquiesce in 2 1 c4 f5 22 lbg3 �d7 2 3 �c2 .ic8 then although Black is rather tied down to the defence of his f-pawn, it is significantly more difficult for White to activate his queen ' s knight. Neither does 2 1 �xg4 .ixd5 22 lbg3 �f6 ! look very promising as the position becomes open to an unacceptable degree. However, it seems that White has direct attacking chances by way of 2 1 �xg4 .ixd5 22 f5 ! ? although 22 . . . h5 ! 23 �g3 .ixe4 24 f6 .ig6 is not so clear either. All in all, this looks like a tangible improvement for the defence. 2 1 lbg3 l:a7 22 lbc4 l:f7 23 �d3 .if8 24 l:!aal �f6 25 c3 �g6 26 l:!fel l:!xe 1+ 27 l:xel h5

An instructive case in which the two knights utterly dominates the bishop pair. Black is tied to weaknesses on d6, e6, and f5 , but is

1 44 2 c5 3 d5 . . .

also vulnerable on b6, the entry will break the camel ' s point back. With reference t o the note on the possibility of 20 . . . �b7 ! ? the importance of the knight on c4 and of the c-pawn restricting Black' s dark-squared bishop and denying access to the d4 square hardly need further elaboration. 28 'hb6 ..tb7 29 S:e6 �h7 30 'it'gl h4 31 'hn �h5 32 'he3 ..th6 33 g3 Joe ' s handling of the remainder of the game rather bears out this decision, but it was also possible to play 33 �fl and conduct the matter without permitting any weaknesses at all. 33 . . . hxg3 34 hxg3 �f8 35 'hg2 ! ..te7 36 �e3 �h7 37 'it'f2 �g7 38 �d3 �h7 39 �e3 �g7 40 �d3 �h7 41 �dl 'it'g7 42 �a4 ! A nice change of direction. Now the bishop on b7 can itself be categorised as a weakness too ! 42 . . . �h8 43 �d7 �d8 44 �xb7 �f8 45 �c6 1:i.c7 46 �e8 1-0 Game 34 Vaganian - Kupreichik USSR (ch), Leningrad, 1 974

1 d4 'hf6 2 ..tg5 c5 3 d5 �b6

4 'hc3 ! �xb2 The most principled of course, although taking the pawn is not compulsory. There are two reasonable ways to decline: a) After 4 . . . h6 Gallagher points out that while many moves have been tested, the most logical is 5 ..td2 ! when the b-pawn will clearly be immune. However, Black's move retains some validity since d2 is perhaps not the ideal square for the bishop. It is interesting to see how in Hodgson-T.Piihtz, Bundesliga 2002, faced with a ' Czech Benoni' structure, White manoeuvred his knight to e3 despite the standard route via d2 being blocked off. Of course this is only one of several valid treatments : 5 ..td2 e5 ! ? (or 5 . . . d6 6 e4 g6 7 f4 'hbd7 S lL'lfJ ..tg7 9 �d3 0-0 1 0 'ha4 ! �c7 1 1 c4 when White has a very promising Four Pawns Attack. Chepukaitis­ Ignatiev, St.Petersburg (op) 1 995) 6 e4 d6 7 lL'lge2 ! ? a6 S a4 �c7 9 a5 'hbd7 1 0 'hg3 g6 1 1 ..te2 h5 1 2 'hfl ! �h6 1 3 �xh6 J:i.xh6 1 4 �d2 J:i.hS 1 5 'he3 �f8 1 6 0-0 �g7 1 7 'hc4 b 5 I S axb6 'hxb6 1 9 'ha5 and with f4 to come, White enjoys good play. b) 4 . . . d6 5 e4 g6 (5 . . . a6 ! ? reintroduces the possibility of . . . �xb2. White should probably either settle for 6 J:i.b 1 or try the ambitious 6 a4 �xb2 7 ..td2 �6 S f4, although the insertion of the a-pawn moves may have implications after S . . . e6 ! ?) 6 �b5+ ..td7 (6 . . . lL'lbd7 ! ?) 7 a4 ..tg7 S lL'lfJ 0-0 9 lL'ld2 h6 10 ..th4 a6 1 1 a5 �dS 1 2 ..te2 �b5 1 3 0-0 'heS ( 1 3 . . . ..txe2 ! ?) 14 J:i.e l 'hc7 1 5 f4 'hd7 1 6 �g4 ! lL'lf6 1 7 �fJ S:eS I S e5 ! with an excellent active position for White in Kashtanov-Bratchenko, St. Petersburg, 1 999.

2 c5 3 d5 1 45 . . .

5 .i.d2

I have already discussed how one obj ection to the possible Trompowsky lies in the bishop ' s desertion of the b 2 pawn. This, as we have seen, has the consequence of introducing a plethora of possible gambits. In the context of a repertoire book I have been fairly ruthless in excluding several of the more suspect of these. This, however, the Vaganian Gambit, named after the highly respected Armenian Grandmaster who strung together a series of convincing wins with the line as early as the 1 970s, unquestionably earns its place. I think the appeal is largely that White' s development, for all that the Tromp bishop is obliged to make a tactical retreat, remains so harmonious. This tends to bring into sharp focus the tempi expended on tracking down the b-pawn. In addition, while the loss of the b-pawn does of course engender some weaknesses - the d2 bishop needs to take care that its future wanderings will not leave the knight on c3 too vulnerable - the central pawn structure fixed as early as move three is in some ways quite beneficial to White. The contest between White' s attempts to push

through in the centre with e4-e5 and his opponent' s queens ide aspirations are a typical 'Benoni ' theme, but here, while White ' s preparations are already at quite an advanced stage by the time we reach the next diagram position, the open b-file can often be gainfully employed to ensure that the majority of damage to White ' s queenside has already been inflicted. In other words Black can have real problems creating In case, counterplay. any Vaganian' s convincing play has put the attempt to mirror 'routine ' Benoni development under a fairly thick cloud. First things first. The queen should not ' hang around' on b2 ! 5 "iVb6 6 e4 d6 . . .

The two e-pawn moves are the subj ect of the Theoretical Article 2 below. 7 f4

7 g6? ! As I said above, I am sceptical that Black can enter Benoni territory quite so nonchalantly. Aside from striking back in the centre with 7 . . . e6, the subj ect of Game 3 5 , the only other moves which seem to make much sense are the queen retreats : . . .

146 2 c5 3 d5 . . .

a) 7 . . . eS is an uneconomic move order for Black in terms of learning time since in addition to a transposition into the Theoretical Article 2 below, White has the option of capturing en passant 8 dxe6 ! ? leading to note ' b ' to White ' s 8th in Game 3 S . However, if it turns out that 8 . . . .i.xe6 renders the latter questionable, there can be no objection to Black giving his opponent a chance to play a less than optimal line. b) 7 . . . a6? ! fails to address the eS break which in most cases, including this one, Black would do well to regard as a threat. Vaganian-Passerotti, Rome 1 977 was a typically crisp attack following 8 eS ! dxeS 9 fxeS ltJg4? ! 1 0 e6 ltJf6 1 1 exf7+ �xf7 1 2 ltJf3 g6 13 i.c4 'iVd6 14 0-0 bS I S ltJe4 ltJxe4 (A nice variation could run l S . . . 'iVd8 1 6 ltJfgS+ �g8 1 7 .l:[xf6 ! 1 8 d6+ ! bxc4 1 9 i.aS �xaS 20 but it must be said all White ' s opening goals were attained with such ease that combinations are highly likely to flow in this way) 1 6 ltJgS+ �g8 1 7 ltJxe4 'ilVe S 1 8 � f3 .i.fS 1 9 i.d3 c4 20 .i.c3 �c7 2 1 g4 cxd3 22 gxfS ltJd7 23 fxg6 1-0. Devastating stuff, and little wonder that the gambit started to be taken very seriously indeed. c) The logic behind 7 . . . i.g4 ? ! does not impress either. White can play 8 i.e2 (8 'iVc 1 ! ? also has the virtue of leaving the bishop stranded, while even 8 � 1 ! ? - De la Villa - is interesting, not least the fact that Black ' s best might be 8 . . . i.c8 ! ?) 8 . . . i.xe2 9 'ilVxe2 when the exchange seems merely to have enhanced White ' s chances of breaking through in the centre e.g. 9 . . . a6 (9 . . :i'd8 10 ktb I ! ) 10 .l:tb l "ilc7 1 1 eS dxeS 1 2 fxeS ltJfd7 1 3

ltJf3 e6 1 4 0-0 exdS? ! I S e6 fxe6 1 6 "ilxe6+ i.e7 1 7 ltJxdS 'ilVd6 1 8 ltJgS ltJc6 19 ltJc7+ "ilxc7 20 "ilf7+ 'itd8 21 ltJe6+ 'itc8 22 ltJxc7 'itxc7 23 i.f4+ 1-0 Hodgson-R.Pert, British (ch Rapid) Bradford, 200 1 . d) 7 . . . "ild8 at least holds White up a bit, and like ' e ' below has scored well in practice. 8 i.c4 (logical as Black is targeting dS rather than eS in his efforts to prevent White ' s central expansion. 8 ltJf3 i.g4 ! ?) 8 . . . a6 (8 . . . ltJbd7 9 a4 ! ? ltJb6 1 0 i.bS+ .i.d7 1 1 "ile2 ! looks good for White) 9 a4 g6 (9 . . . i.g4 ? ! 1 0 'iVb 1 ! - De la Villa ­ is strong. As we have seen in note ' b ' above, there is little to be said for . . . i.g4 unless it pins a knight) 1 0 eS ltJfd7 1 1 "ile2 dxeS ? ! (de la Villa prefers 1 1 . . . ltJb6 ! ?, but after 1 2 i.a2 White threatens 1 3 as and it is still far from clear how Black solves his considerable development problems) 1 2 fxeS .i.g7 1 3 ltJf3 0-0 14 0-0 ltJb6 I S i.a2 i.g4 was Fink-Formanek, Philadelphia (op) 2000, when I would probably choose 1 6 i.f4 ! ? and White has a good deal of initiative for the pawn . e) 7 . . . "ilc7 ! ? might be the most testing of the minor moves.

Black prevents eS while waiting for . . . i.g4 to pin a knight which, of

2 c5 3 d5 1 4 7 . . .

course has much more impact upon the battle for key centre squares. I astonishingly have only 5 games on my database with this move of ' which two went 8 ttJf3 it.g4 and quickly looked pretty lifeless for White. More promising alternatives are: e l ) 8 it.b5+ ttJbd7 ! ? (I like 8 . . it.d7 9 'ie2 ! ? for White as a quick e5 looks pretty hard to fend off, including after 9 . . . it.xb5 1 0 ttJxb5 'i'd8 1 1 c4 ! ?; also 8 . . . ttJfd7 seems to offer White a wider range of choices. Perhaps 9 it.e2 a6 1 0 a4, although I admit it is not ideal to block the e-file in this way) 9 ttJf3 a6 1 0 it.xd7+ ttJxd7 1 1 0-0 was reached in Palos-Bachler, Graz (op) 1 996 when 1 l . . .b5 was reasonable but 1 l . . . g6 ! ? also looks natural : when White' s best might be 1 2 ttJe2 it.g7 1 3 �c3 , but while practical chances there surely are, I would not claim full compensation in theory. e2) 8 �c4 ! ? is suggested by De la Villa, and I think it is probably best. He gives the line 8 . . . a6 9 a4 g6 1 0 'i'e2 ! it.g7 1 1 e 5 (once this is achieved at no special cost I am rarely fearful for the value of White ' s compensation) 1 1 . . . ttJfd7 1 2 exd6 'i'xd6 1 3 ttJe4 �6 1 4 a5 'ikb2 when in fact 15 .:ta2 ! 'ib l + 1 6
kingside after a typical transfer of the queen to h4 in conjunction with a well-timed f5-but the position is by no means clear.

.

8 e5 ! 90% o f the time White should make this break if Black has failed to take steps to prevent it. 8 . . . dxe5 Opening up lines in this way looks like it should make matters worse, but 8 . . . ttJfd7 9 ttJf3 �g7 1 0 .l:tb 1 'i'd8 1 1 e6 fxe6 1 2 ttJg5 ! ttJf8 ( 1 2 . . . ttJf6 ! ? 13 it.b5+ 'it>f8 14 dxe6 "fIc7 1 5 it.c4 ! ? also looks very strong) 1 3 it.b5+ it.d7 1 4 dxe6 it.xb5 1 5 ttJxb5 'i'c8 1 6 O-O ! was equally devastating in Vaganian­ Jansa, Kragujevac 1 974. The game continued 1 6 . . . a6 1 7 it.c3 ! axb5 (If 1 7 . . . it.xc3 , then 1 8 ttJxc3 h6 1 9 ttJfl Ith7 20 f5 ! is crushing) 1 8 �xg7 lIg8 1 9 �xf8 lIxf8 2 0 ttJxh7 ng8 2 1 f5 gxf5 22 "fIh5+
1 48 2 c5 3 d5 . . .

1 3 . . . liJe5 1 4 .ib5+ �f8 1 5 0-0+ g8 1 8 liJd5 ! liJxd5 1 9 �xd5 axb5 20 l:Ixb5 ! are also hopeless. 1 8 'ilVd3 ! 'it> g8 19 �xg6 .lxe6 20 liJxe6 l:Ih7 2 1 l:Ixf6 liJd7 22 .lxd7 1-0 A superb demonstration of White' s attacking potential if Black fails to deal with the e5 breakthrough. Game 3 5 Chepukaitis - Yemelin St. Petersburg 1 996

1 d4 liJf6 2 .ig5 c5 3 d5 'ili'b6 4 liJc3 'ilVxb2 5 .ld2 'i!Vb6 6 e4 d6 7 f4 e6 Compared with some of the less combative lines from the previous game this has the advantage that White ' s centre is challenged before he can organise the potent e4-e5 break. On the other hand there is an obvious danger that such a fluid centre can still be blasted open to the detriment of the side whose development lags behind. This is a rather confusing variation to write about, since the main line 8 . . . 'iVd8

has produced a series of fine and rather spectacular games and looks immensely dangerous for Black, but the very logical alternative 8 . . . 'iIi'c7 has generally produced little analysis from the commentators, and a good deal of muddle from the practitioners .

8 l:rbl (! ) This is very much the main line. It is not so much about driving the queen back, as prefacing a check on b5, preparing to answer . . . ..td7 with dxe6 . There are other moves, but the merits of variation ' b ' are closely intertwined with those of the main line, but in general I find the immediate exchange on e6 less flexible: a) 8 liJf3 , played here recently by England' s top young talent Luke McShane looks a little strange. Of course Luke often very effectively goes his own way, but here after his opponent' s very thematic antidote it is already not easy to suggest any improvements. I did not much care for the compensation after 8 . . . exd5 9 e5 (9 liJxd5 liJxd5 1 0 exd5 .le7 1 1 l:.b l �d8 12 .ld3 liJd7 should not be quite sufficient either) 9 . . . dxe5 1 0 fxe5 liJe4 1 1 liJxd5 'iVd8 12 c4 .lg4 (I don't know what Luke intended after the simple

2 c5 3 d5 1 49 . . .

1 2 . . . llJxd2 1 3 �xd2 llJc6 . It doesn 't look especially promising to me) 1 3 1ltb l ! llJxd2 1 4 1lt'xb7 llJxf3+ 1 5 gxf3 Sl.xf3 1 6 llJc7+ cJi;e7 1 7 llJd5+ WeS I S llJc7+ 'i;e7 19 llJd5+ �eS 20 llJc7+ liz-liz McShane - Ni Hua, Bled (01) 2002. b) S dxe6 ! ? is also a respectable option, closely related to the main line, and one which of course can also arises if Black chooses 7 . . . e5. The assessment of Black's two possible replies IS already complicated by some strange choices in practical play, again linked to the issue of the relative merits of the dS and c7 squares for Black' s queen. I consider: b l ) S . . . fxe6 has generally been answered with 9 �b 1 , when 9 . . . 'tidS transposes to Golubenko-Sepp (see the note to White' s 9th below) . To my mind, given the potency of the whole e4-e5 break there is a strong prima facie case for 9 . . . 'ilVc7 ! ? This is also transpositional, leading to the note to Black's Sth. If this prevention of e5 does tum out to be annoying then the question naturally arises, why not try 9 e5 ! ? immediately? In Arduman-Gombac, Nova Gorica (op) 200 1 White quickly gained a strong initiative after 9 . . . dxe5 1 0 fxe5 llJd5 1 1 Sl.d3 g 6 1 2 'tig4 Sl.d7 1 3 .l:i.b l WIc7 1 4 llJf3 llJxc3 1 5 Sl.xc3 Sl.e7 1 6 0-0 llJc6 which was quickly converted into a material advantage that should prove decisive by 1 7 llJg5 0-0-0 I S llJxe6 llJxe5 1 9 'tie4 Sl.xe6 20 Sl.xe5 'tid7 2 1 Sl.xh S . b 2 ) S . . . Sl.xe6 ! ? seems more problematic. Now I am not convinced that White has full compensation whether with or without throwing in ktb 1 . The problem is what to do when Black

holds back the move . . . llJc6, preparing to answer any subsequent push of the f-pawn with the manoeuvre . . . Sl.-d7-c6. For ex­ ample Black has problems after 9 llJf3 llJc6? ! 1 0 i:tb l 'tic7 1 1 f5 Sl.d7 12 Sl.c4 a6 13 llJd5 ! llJxd5 14 Sl.xd5 Sl.e7 1 5 Sl.c3 with strong pressure. However, I am less sure about 9 . Sl.e7 ! 1 0 .i:i.b 1 WIc7 1 1 f5 Sl.d7 1 2 Sl.c4 ( 1 2 Sl.f4 should not distract Black from his plan either: 1 2 . . . Sl.c6 ! 1 3 e5 dxe5 1 4 llJxe5 llJbd7 looks fine for Black since the queen is heading for a5 in most sharp lines) 12 . . . Sl.c6 13 0-0 llJbd7 14 Sl.f4 a6 1 5 a4 0-0 16 'tie2 .l:r.aeS M.Piket-Blees, Netherlands (chT), 1 996 and White has more space, but it does not really look worth a pawn. S . . . WldS This is the big decision. It boils down to this. The text move prioritises placing the queen on the least vulnerable square, but on the other hand it neither deals with the prevention of the e5 break, nor the defence of b7. As we shall see later in the game, both of these are of very great significance. .

.

S . . : �c7 ! ?

on the other hand better serves both of these goals, but leaves the queen

1 50 2 . . . c5 3 d5 potentially vulnerable to tLlb5 ideas, and in addition - although the significance of this is far from self-evident - fails to cover the d5 square. My strong hunch is that this is the better move. However, enough generalities, on to some (albeit rather tentative) analysis. As in the main line, White can try: a) 9 dxe6 fxe6 (9 . . . i.xe6 ! ? was dealt with in the note to 8 dxe6, and seems eminently reasonable. I would recommend it here too) 1 0 tLl f3 a6 (I think that 1 0 . . . tLlc6 would be possible if 1 1 e5 turned out to be a problem, but if White is pursuing the plan we witness in this example then it makes little difference) 1 1 a4 tLlc6 1 2 i.c4 ! and one of the slight drawbacks of . . . "fic7 is revealed - Black cannot play . . . d5, and White has a reasonably potent plan of playing f4-f5) 1 2 . . . tLld4 1 3 0-0 i.e7 14 f5 exf5 1 5 tLld5 tLlxd5 1 6 i.xd5 f4 1 7 tLlxd4 cxd4 1 8 �xf4 i.f6 1 9 "fih5+ g6 20 "fie2 i.e5 21 nf2 i.d7 Puschmann-Adzic, Hungary (chT2) 1 994 and the black king has no safe place to go. b) 9 i.b5+ tLlbd7 ! ? (9 . . . i.d7 also has some logic since the plan of dxe6 and i.c4 from the main game makes little sense with b7 defended. Therefore I suggest 10 'i' e2 ! ? since the position of the queen on c7 renders 10 . . . exd5 ? ! a very risky business in view of 1 1 e5. Therefore in Palos-H.Nagel, Vienna (op), 1 994 Black preferred 1 0 . . . a6 [If 1 0 . . . i.e7 1 1 dxe6 fxe6 12 e5 still looks quite dangerous] 1 1 i.xd7+ 'i'xd7 12 dxe6 fxe6 1 3 e5 dxe5 1 4 fxe5 tLld5 1 5 tLlh3 ! ? tLlc6 1 6 0-0 but White retains a good deal of activity for the pawn) 1 1 tLlf3 a6 1 2 i.c4 tLlb6

1 3 .uxb6 ! ? A hugely thought­ provoking sacrifice, and actually quite critical to the assessment of 8 . . . 'ikc7 . It is at least easy to see that retreating the c4 bishop does not look very promising. 1 3 . . . "fixb6 1 4 e 5 and now b l ) 14 . . . dxe5 is critical since the conduct of White ' s attack requires some precision. However, the position still looks very dangerous for Black after 1 5 fxe5 tLld7 1 6 O-O ! and now both: b 1 1 ) 16 . . . i.e7 1 7 i.g5 i.xg5 1 8 tLlxg5 tLlxe5 1 9 'i'h5+ g6 20 'i'h6 'i'd8 2 1 fig7 'i'd4+ 22 �h l tLlxc4 23 'i'f7+ 'itd8 24 �d l when White recoups most of his material and keeps a dangerous initiative. b 1 2) and 16 . . . "fic6 1 7 tLlh4 ! g6 ( 1 7 . . . b5 1 8 'i'h5+ 'itd8 1 9 i.d3 ! ) 1 8 i.g5 ! leave Black with a serious defensive task. b2) 14 . . . d5 1 5 exf6 gxf6 was Mamedyarov-Aroshidze, European U-20, Baku 2002. White, not liking the look of the imposing pawn phalanx which his opponent would enjoy if he retreats his bishop, decided to sacrifice it instead with 16 i.xd5 ? ! but after 1 6 . . . exd5 1 7 tLlxd5 'i'e6+ 1 8 i.e3 'i'd6 he was clearly struggling to prove anything. However, I think another sacrifice

2 c5 3 d5 1 5 1 . . .

offers much better prospects. White has 1 6 lbeS ! ! when 1 6 . . . fxeS 1 7 "ihS+ �d7 1 8 "ixeS J:g8 1 9 lbxdS ! exdS 20 "ixdS+ .i.d6 2 1 "ikxg8 yields a decisive advantage since 2 1 . . ."ikb l + 22 �t2 "ixh l 23 'ie6+ �c6 24 .i.dS+ �c7 2S �aS+ b6 26 �xb6 ! + �xb6 27 'ixd6+ is a mating attack. This long and complex line could be of great theoretical value, and strongly suggests that 9 �bS+ is the way to press forward White 's attack.

9 �b5+! ? As we shall see, this leads to very interesting complications, but with the queen already committed to d8, the case for 9 dxe6 is enhanced since recapture with the bishop is effectively ruled out. Moreover, after 9 . . . fxe6 1 0 eS ! White seems to get dangerous play e.g. : a) 1 0 . . . lbdS 1 1 i.d3 ! lbxc3 1 2 .i.xc3 dS 1 3 'ihS+ �d7 1 4 fS ! �c7 ( 1 4 . . . "ike8 leads to a glorious variation given by Golubenko. After I S fxe6+ �d8 1 6 lhb7 ! ! .i.xb7 [ 1 6 . . . 'ili'xhS 1 7 i.aS+ �e8 1 8 i.bS+ lbd7 19 exd7+ wins trivially] 1 7 i.aS+ �e7 1 8 "ikh4+ �xe6 1 9 lbf3 he gives simply ' clear advantage ' , but in fact in the event o f 1 9 . . . i.e7

this only becomes really after the far from obvious 20 [20 'if4? ! "ikhS 2 1 g4 11f8 ! ; and 20 .i.fS+ �f7 ! ! are not so good] 20 . . . �f7 2 1 0-0 �g8 22 lbd4 ! i.f8 [22 . . . i.gS 23 'ixgS cxd4 24 e6 followed by l:[f7 is very strong for White] 23 i.fS hS 24 .i.e6+ 'lith7 2S 'Y/NgS i.e7 26 l';H6 ! ! �xf6 27 exf6 g6 28 .i.d2 'if8 29 lbfS with a winning attack) IS lbf3 lbc6 was Golubenko-Sepp, Eesti 1 996 when 1 6 fxe6 gave reasonable chances, but Golubenko now prefers 16 f6 ! intending to meet 1 6 . . . d4 with 1 7 i.d2 gxf6 1 8 exf6 �xf6 1 9 0-0 and an enduring initiative. b) 10 . . . dxeS ! ? might be better 1 1 fxeS lbdS 1 2 i.d3 lbxc3 1 3 i.xc3 'Y/NgS (If 1 3 . . . g6 14 lbf3 i.e7 I S h4 0-0 1 6 hS gS 17 �e2 I agree with Golubenko that White has good compensation) 14 'ilVe2 lbc6 I S lbf3 "ikhS 1 6 i.e4 ! ? and now if 16 . . . lbd8? 1 7 .i.xb7 ! .:r.b8 1 8 i.c6+ lbxc6 1 9 l:txb8 lbxb8 20 'ibS+ lbd7 21 'ilVc6 �d8 22 0-0 lbb6 23 i.aS i.d7 24 i.xb6+ axb6 2S l:[d l and lbgS is devastating, but De la Villa seems right to point out 1 6 . . . .i.e7 ! is critical when 1 7 i.xc6+ bxc6 1 8 1i'e4 0-0 1 9 1i'xc6? allows Black a strong counterpunch in 1 9 . . . �h4+ ! , but just 1 7 0-0 0-0 and now either 1 8 a3 ! ? or 1 8 i.xc6 bxc6 19 'ilVe4 i.a6 20 l:tfd l maintain sufficient pressure for the pawn.

9 ... i. d7 1 0 dxe6 fxe6 1 1 �c4 The more direct alternative is 1 1 eS ! ? dxeS 1 2 fxeS lbdS 1 3 �g4 lbxc3 when 1 4 'ilVxe6+?! Wie7 I S i.xd7+ lbxd7 1 6 �xe7+ i.xe7 threw away White ' s initiative in Kolev-Dochev, Bulgaria (ch) 1 994, but simply 1 4 i.xc3 ! looks quite dangerous for Black.

1 52 2 . . . c5 3 d5

1 1 . . . ltJc6 ? ! A very understandable mistake, but probably a mistake nonetheless. However, Black' s other options are not entirely convincing either. De la Villa gives 1 1 . . . ..tc6' ! ? ' 1 2 ..txe6 ltJxe4 1 3 ltJxe4 'ile7 as unclear, but it seems that in the battle for the e-file White can neatly tum the tables with 14 ltJxd6+ 'ilxd6 1 5 �e2 ! ..te7 1 6 f5 with good attacking chances. That may only really leave 1 1 . . . ..tc8 ! ? when De la Villa gives 12 e5 dxe5 1 3 fxe5 ltJd5 14 ..td3 ! ? again giving the assessment ' unclear' . There are two interesting things about this. One is that the retreat 14 ..td3 looks a bit strange but I think he is probably right that there is no real way to use this piece more effectively on c4. The other is that we have in fact transposed into note ' b ' to 9 dxe6 which I think is somewhat favourable for White, but indeed one of Black ' s toughest defences. 1 2 l:!.xb7! ltJaS 1 3 l:!.xd7! 'ilxd7 Neither does 1 3 . . . ltJxd7 14 ..txe6 look tenable. The loss of this pawn spells light-square catastrophe. 14 ..tbS ltJc6

IS eS! dxeS 16 ltJ f3 ! 0-0-0 1 7 'ile2 ! ? A n admirably ambitious move maintaining the momentum of White ' s initiative. It was possible to cash in with 1 7 ltJe5 'ilxd2+ 1 8 'ilxd2 l:!.xd2 1 9 Wxd2 ltJxe5 20 fxe5 ltJg4 2 1 ..tc4 ! �d7 22 l:!.e 1 but this leads to only a small advantage, although certainly enough to offer a default vindication to White ' s entire approach. 17 . . . 'ilc7 1 8 0-0 ltJdS Again White retains good chances after 1 8 . . . ltJd4 19 ltJxd4 cxd4 20 ..ta6+ Wb8 21 l:!.b 1 + Was 22 'ilf3+ ltJd5 23 ltJxd5 l:!.xd5 24 fxe5 . The whole concept is both very original and highly effective. 19 l:!.b l ltJb6 20 ..txc6 'ilxc6 2 1 ltJxeS 'ilc7 ? ! I t was better t o try 2 1 . . . 'ilb7 but 22 a4 ! still guarantees a strong attack. 22 ltJbS 'ilb7 23 ..taS c4 24 ltJxc4 24 ltJc6 ! was even stronger. 24 . . . ..tcS+ 2S Whl l:!.d7 26 'ilxe6 ltJxc4 27 'ilxc4 'ilc6 28 h3 .i:.b7 29 l:!.b3 Again White could have wrapped things up more clinically with 29 ltJxa7+! .i:.xa7 3 0 l:!.b5 and there is no defence.

2 c5 3 d5 1 53 . . .

29 �b8 30 .i.e3 I:te8 and now the database (as well as Joe Gallagher' s book) gives the game continuation as 3 1 JLxg7?? but since this loses immediately to 3 1 . . . 1:te l +, while 3 1 .i.e5+! instead seems to decide matters fairly convincingly, I shall put simply 1-0. There seems little purpose to struggling on with dubious historical record. White ' s excellent play in the early stages of the game makes a lasting impression nonetheless. . . .

Analytical Article 2 Vaganian Gambit with 6 . . . e5 (or 6 . . . e6)

Fascinating and critical though the diagram position is, I am going to come clean right away. A part of the motivation for treating this as an analytical article, quite aside from a fair degree of original analysis, is the complete lack of games which could really be described as 'models ' ! Even though the position has, according to my database, been known for virtually three decades, one or other of the players with a few honourable exceptions generally appear to be very much at sixes and sevens here.

One point to note, I have headed the article 6 . . . e5, but in practice the key position after 7 f4 d6 also often arises from a 6 . . . d6 move order. The difference of course is that in this case White can capture en passant, returning to material covered in Game 3 5 . I have included 6 . . . e 6 too, which also, thanks to De la Villa' s analysis, i s at a far more advanced stage in its theory than in practice. This is a relatively recent addition to Black' s repertoire, and on the basis of what I can see, its career could prove to be rather a short-lived one. A) 6 . . . e6? ! 7 f4 ! has, so far as I can see, only occurred once in practical play. However I think De la Villa is correct to identify it as the most promising course. After 7 . . . exd5 (7 . . . d6 returns to Game 3 5 ) 8 e5 there are three plausible moves :

A I ) 8 . . d4? ! 9 exf6 dxc3 1 0 .i.xc3 'ie6+ (after either 1 0 . . . g6 or 10 . . . gxf6, White ' s compensation following 1 1 i.c4 looks very considerable) or 1 1 'it>f2 gxf6 1 2 'i'h5 ! ? ( 1 2 �d2 - D e l a Villa - is also rather hard to meet, but the text seems quite sufficient) 12 . . . i.e7 1 3 Ire l � 6 (or 1 3 . . . �6 1 4 tiJh3 followed by i.c4 . It is under.

154 2 c5 3 d5 . . .

standable that Black wants the possibility of moving the d-pawn) 14 .lic4 d5 1 5 'fi'xd5 ? ! (Presumably White was concerned by 1 5 .lixd5 ! c4+, but 1 6 J:te3 followed by liJf3/�d4 and 'uhe l just looks devastating) 1 5 . . . �e6 1 6 �e4 �c6 1 7 'ie2 'id6 1 8 �xe6 fxe6 1 9 'fWh5+ � f8 2 0 iih6+ � f7 2 1 liJf3 liJc6 22 liJg5+! with a winning attack which White duly converted in Navarro Cia-Vehi Bach, Andorra (op) 2002. A pretty convincing demonstration of the deficiencies of 8 . . . d4? ! A2) 8 . . . 'Y!IVe 6 9 liJ f3 liJe4 ! (The only serious move, as White can otherwise deploy a rather varied battery of liJb5/liJg5 and even f5) 1 0 liJxe4 dxe4 1 1 liJg5 'i'd5 ! 1 2 .lic3 ! ? (De l a Villa gives either this or 1 2 �e3 a s similar. This i s basically true, although the text gets my vote. It seems a more purposeful square as the variation comes to a close) 12 . . . 'iWxd 1 + 1 3 �xd l �e7 1 4 liJxe4 b6 1 5 iLe2 ! ? (de la Villa prefers 1 5 liJd6+ [admittedly after 1 2 �e3] which is also good for an edge, but I find it easier to foresee an effective plan for White in this way) 1 5 . . . �b7 1 6 iLf3 liJc6 1 7 f5 with a very workable initiative. A3) 8 . . . liJe4 9 liJxd5 �d8

and now De la Villa gives 10 iLe3 (If 10 liJf3 liJc6 ! 1 1 .lie3 [Perhaps 1 1 'ie2 ! ? liJxd2 12 liJxd2 is more interesting] 1 1 . . . Wia5+ is incon­ venient) 1 0 . . . d6 1 1 �d3 f5 1 2 liJf3 but I am not fully convinced that White has enough after 1 2 . . . liJc6. The main problems that Black faces in the diagram position after move 9 are the rather stranded knight on e4 and the fact that the necessity of defending it with . . . f5 can lead to problems on the e-file. This leads us to the paradoxical 1 0 �c 1 ! ? which, odd though it may seem in the context of sacrificing a pawn for better development, promises, I think, much more concrete compensation e.g. 10 . . . d6 ( 1 O . . . 'Y!IVa5+ 1 1 c3 liJc6 1 2 .lib2 ! still leaves the knight on e4 in trouble) 1 1 iLd3 ! (Better than 1 1 'iVe2 ? ! .lif5 ! when a t last the possibility of . . . iih4+ actually counts for some­ thing in the position) 1 1 . . . f5 1 2 exf6 liJxf6 1 3 .lib2 ! Another significant advantage of �c 1 is revealed - this diagonal is optimal for reinforcing White ' s hold on d5 and consequent kingside play 1 3 . . . �e7 ( 1 3 . . . liJxd5? 1 4 �h5+) 14 �c4 �e6 1 5 liJf3 and Black has no obvious way to challenge White's coming reinforcement of his play on the e-file and the long black diagonal. This quite neatly seems to complete the impression that Black is struggling after 6 . . . e6. B) 6 . . . e5 ! ? is a much more serious proposition. In essence White has two possible strategies after 7 f4 d6: Either to try to keep the position open and rely on superior development and piece play, or to block the centre and attempt a pawn storm on the kings ide, claiming that

2 c5 3 d5 1 55 . . .

B lack' s extra pawn in this case is less relevant than his lack of counterplay. The first of these can take various forms, but practice little more than provides fragmentary evidence as to which approach is the most effective.

I think the best way to get a feel for the position is to take a quick look first at two scenarios which White should definitely steer clear of. The first arises from delaying too long the exchange on eS. The possibility of a timely . . . exf4 should be taken very seriously indeed e.g. S tLlf3 tLlbd7 9 a4? ! exf4 ! 1 0 as 'i¥dS 1 1 i.xf4 i.e7 1 2 tLld2 ? ! 0-0 1 3 tLlc4 tLleS 1 4 tLlbS ? a6 I S tLlbxd6 .ixd6 1 6 tLlxd6 tLlxd6 1 7 i.xd6 'i¥h4+ I S i.g3 'i'xe4+ 1 9 'i'e2 �xdS with a winning advantage. Sahovic-Ribli, Vrbas (7), 1 977. Advancing the a-pawn to take away the b6 square from the knight is too great a luxury. The second relates to a set of exchanges which should clearly be avoided. Soos-Leko, Budapest First Saturday 1 993, gave an indication of the complexity of the position arising after S fxeS dxeS 9 tLlf3 tLlbd7. White proceeded thematic­ ally enough with 1 0 i.c4 .td6 1 1 0-0 0-0 1 2 tLlh4 'i'dS ! 1 3 tLlfS but

after the simple 1 3 . . . tLlb6 ! 1 4 .te2 i.xfS I S ':'xfS tLleS ! , Black already had his eyes on a firm blockade of the d-pawn, while the exchange on fS is quite destructive to White ' s attacking potential. I will start the more positive search for solutions from here. Two questions spring to mind. Could White have saved a tempo by delaying castling? Is c4 the best square for the bishop anyway? After S fxeS dxeS 9 tLlf3 tLlbd7 1 0 i.c4 .td6 the immediate 1 1 tLlh4 ! ? seems rather more to the point. However, the essence of Black' s defence i s still valid I think since after 1 1 . . . 0-0 1 2 tLlfS tLleS 13 0-0 �dS, although White has a lot more choices than in Soos-Leko, it is still not clear what action should be taken against the 'threat' of . . . tLlb6 and . . . i.xfS . B 1 ) So what about putting the bishop on bS . I started with the notion that there might be some perspective in the idea S tLlf3 tLlbd7 9 i.bS ! ? and indeed Marcelin­ Hartereau, Creon (op), 1 999 was very encouraging 9 . . . �c7 1 0 0-0 i.e7 1 1 fxeS dxeS 1 2 tLlh4 a6 1 3 tLlfS :gS ? ! ( 1 3 . . . i.fS is relatively better) 1 4 d6 was great for White and after 14 . . . i.xd6 I S .tgS axbS 1 6 tLlxbS 1lVc6 1 7 tLlfxd6+ 'it>fS I S 'ins already 1 -0 . However, maybe 9 . . . a6 is better, and if then 1 0 i.xd7+ tLlxd7 1 1 0-0 i.e7 1 2 J:b l I would be happy if I could somehow reach the position after 1 2 . . :iWdS 1 3 fxeS fxeS 1 4 d6 ! i.xd6 I S i.h6 ! which seems to give terrific play since I S . . . i.fS 1 6 tLlgS ! is very strong, but in general, regardless of move order, either . . :ilic7 instead of the retreat to dS, or . . . tLlxeS instead of the pawn recapture scuppers

1 5 6 2 . . . c5 3 d5 these plans. I am therefore still intrigued by i.bS ideas, but sceptical as to whether they really provide the answer. B2) I may therefore have to conclude that 8 fS( ! ) looks like the best practical bet. The plan is simply the advance of the kings ide pawns, and the extra justification is that White ' s extra space on the queen­ side additionally serves critically to hold up Black ' s counterplay there. Astonishingly limited practical experience is nevertheless quite suggestive of real problems for Black here. One fine example of the plan is Emms-C.Franklin, British (ch) Swansea, 1 987, when after 8 . . . lZ'lbd7 9 g4 h6 1 0 h4 a6 1 1 �f3 Wlic7 12 a4 l:tb8 1 3 i.c4 lZ'lb6 1 4 i.e2 i.e7 I S gS lZ'lg8 1 6 lZ'lh3

White clearly has a dream pOSItIon with excellent attacking prospects. The question is what can Black do? All the ' counter-examples ' until now have somehow featured White failing to follow through his plan consistently. Radically preventing g4 by means of 8 . . . hS looks unlikely - this h-pawn will still be targeted with i.e2/lZ'lh3/0-0 and so on, and Black will still have troubles with committing his king to the

kingside. De la Villa considers the defensive plan 8 . . . i.e7 9 g4 h6 1 0 h4 �d8 1 1 �f3 lZ'lh7 but simply 1 2 �g3 followed by lZ'l f3 obliges . . . f6 after which the passivity of Black' s game just looks ridiculous . I think it is fair to say that the onus is very much on Black to show a viable defensive set-up after 8 fS( ! )

Conclusion to Vaganian Gambit 6 . . . e6/6 . . . e5 The conclusion of the Theoretical Article has to be that the Vaganian Gambit is still alive and well, at least in the case of the main lines. De la Villa ' s analysis of 6 . . . e6 was a very useful starting point, and in the critical line B3, the strange­ looking 1 0 i.c ! ! ? may deal it a further hefty blow. I strongly suspect that after 7 f4 ! the 'best move' is really 7 . . . d6 leading back to Game 3 S . 6 . . . e S holds up much better when White attempts to rely on piece play, but as yet Black has failed even to give a clue as to what a viable set-up against 8 fS( ! ) would look like. I think it is quite possible that the only barrier to White scoring very heavily here is the or gambiteer' s psychological stylistic aversion to this type of blocked position !

3

• • •

l2Je4

Game 3 6 Savchenko - Golubev Luzem (op) 1 994 1 d4 lZ'lf6 2 i.g5 c5 3 d5 lZ'le4 4 i.f4

2 c5 3 d5 1 5 7 . . .

(The actual move order in the game was 2 . . . t2Je4 3 ..tf4 c5 4 f3 t2Jf6 5 d5 e6, but for clarity ' s sake I have taken a slight liberty with this) 4 e6! ? This i s both potentially highly transpositional and relatively infrequently encountered. Perhaps this is in part because the view I expressed in Chapter 1 that 4 f3 ! ? is a more reliable handling of the 2 . . . t2Je4 Trompowsky than 4 d5 is quite widespread, and therefore a move, one rationale for which could be to force White into the more highly regarded version, has limited appeal. Still, quite aside from the fact that Black has a very interesting independent system here in 5 f3 ..td6 ! ? the existence of this move is important. Firstly, unless they are hugely impressed by 5 dxe6 below (which I am not) advocates of 4 d5 really do have a tough job explaining their preference. The usual argument runs something along the lines of OK 4 d5 allows Black the extra option of 4 . . . 'iVb6 5 ..te l g6 ! ? (see the Theoretical Article at the end of the chapter) but at least it cuts out the line 4 f3 'VWa5+ 5 c3 t2Jf6 6 d5 e6 (4-5). ' I was never terribly impressed by this, since I did not see the latter as a maj or problem at all, but until I worked on this book I at least thought the argument to be interually consistent. It may seem strange but some quite illustrious Trompowsky practition­ ers have put it to me in these terms. They are simply mistaken. Note ' b ' t o Black' s 5th move below (on 5 . . . 'VWa5+) shows that after 5 f3 there is nothing to stop Black heading to the material of Games 4-5 at all and the only remaining . . .

'

question i s why h e would want to to cut down on learning I suppose would be the best reason. I am not sure why this fact is so little appreciated, but not least because Gallagher and Hodgson were both so seduced by the charms of 5 . . . ..td6 ! ? it is true that theory has been a bit neglectful.

5 f3 This still looks like the most logical continuation to me, although clearly the verdict of theory will be based upon quite specific analysis rather than visual impression . White 's most serious alternative is 5 dxe6, and while I do not intend to advocate it for all, I recognise that it has to be considered by two groups : Those who wish t o play 4 d5 after 2 . . . t2Je4 3 ..tf4 c5 and who are determined to avoid transposition back into the 4 f3 of Chapters 1 -2, as well as those who, like Hodgson and Gallagher back in 1 99 8 , are impressed by 5 . . . ..td6 ! ? (Note ' c ' to Black' s 5th below). The two key variations after 5 dxe6 fxe6 6 e3 are : a) 6 . . . 'VWf6 sharp and creative, but probably rather questionable too. 7 c3 ..td6 8 t2Jd2 t2Jxd2 9 ..txd6 t2Jxfl

1 58 2 c5 3 d5 . . .

and now 1 0 c,t>xfl b6 1 1 ttJf3 .tb7 12 h4 ttJc6 1 3 .i:th3 ttJe7 14 ttJeS ttJfS I S ttJg4 'fifl 1 6 .tf4 worked out well for White in Adams­ Adorjan, Manila (01) 1 992, but 1 6 . . . 0-0-0 would have been quite unclear, a very sharp position in which neither king can feel too relaxed about his security. In view of this, the safer option 1 0 'ihS+( ! ) has understandably been suggested, the first point being that 1 0 . . . g6 is well met with 1 1 'ixcs, while 10 . . .'iWg6 1 1 'ixg6+ hxg6 1 2 c,t>xfl b6 is assessed as being a better ending for White. Unfortunately, in the only recent example of this, Rey-Kriventsov, USA (ch), Seattle 2002, White showed that he was taking the ' safety first' angle a step too far by immediately agreeing to a draw here ! In fact I think White is significantly for preference. This is not so much because the d6 bishop might prove a thorn in Black' s side, but even more because there is the possibility of clamping down in the centre with e4 and f3, before turning to harassing the g-pawns with his knight from the vantage point of well-covered black squares. b) 6 . . . dS ! ? looks more solid 7 .td3 ttJf6 8 ttJf3 ttJc6 9 0-0 .td6 ! (There is a certain variety of move order available to both sides here an earlier c4 by White for example, or 6 . . . ttJc6 first by Black), but I think the key point is that this exchange eases Black' s position and gives him reasonable counter­ chances 1 0 .txd6 'ixd6 1 1 c4 0-0 1 2 ttJc3 T.Schwarz-Mik.Tseitlin, Werther Schloss (op) 200 1 and now I think Black would best emphasise his active pieces by 12 . . . ttJeS ! ? after which he has quite acceptable play.

5 ttJf6 This retreat is by no means automatic here. Alternatives have already been touched upon at the conceptual level, but it is time for some detail : a) S . . :iWf6? ! should not be sound. After 6 i.xb8 ! 'ixb2 7 fxe4 'ixa l 8 .tg3 'ixa2 White must be doing very well so long as he can get his pieces making threats before Black' s queenside pawns can start motoring. In Nikolaev-Kopasov, St Petersburg 2002, White achieved this fairly effortlessly up to a point with 9 e3 bS 1 0 ttJf3 .tb7 1 1 .te2 "iaS+ 1 2 ttJbd2 exdS 1 3 O-O ! f6 1 4 exdS 'ib6 but then spoiled his excellent build-up to some extent with I S e4? ! which I do not like at all, mainly because e4 is such a great square for the pieces to attack from. I S c4 ! looks much better, keeping maximum dynamism in the White position, and ensuring an advantage. b) S ... "iaS+ ! ? was discussed at length above. It is significant because it virtually obliges 6 c3 and with it a direct transposition back into Chapter 2. 6 ttJd2 ? ! is not a serious option. Summerscale­ Wojtkiewicz, Oz. com (qual) blitz, 2000 was very good for Black after 6 . . . ttJf6 7 dxe6 fxe6 8 e4 dS 9 exdS . . .

2 c5 3 d5 1 5 9 . . .

exd5 1 0 tLJe2 tLJc6 1 1 tLJc3 i.e7 1 2 tLJb3 'iVd8 1 3 i.b5 0-0 1 4 0-0 d4 as he is considerably the more active. I feel a little guilty including such a blitz game, especially when Aaron had demonstrated in previous slow games that he was someone who appreciated that 6 c3 was the right response, but the game nonetheless illustrates fairly efficiently quite why Black's position is so good if his opponent gets it wrong. c) 5 . . . i.d6 ! ? as I mentioned above, is given by both Gallagher and Hodgson as an argument against 5 D .

After 6 i.xd6 tLJxd6 there i s an important choice: a) 7 dxe6? ! dxe6 8 c3 0-0 9 e4 tLJc6 1 0 tLJa3 �e7 was very pleasant for Black in Weindl-Gutrnan, B iel 1 994. I mention it only because it is given by both Gallagher and Hodgson as their basis for rej ecting 5 D, and if this was really the main line White would indeed have a problem. b) 7 e4 ! ? is a better try (as Julian does admit it might be). However, I still find 7 . . . 'iVb6 ! quite annoying. White could probably feel quite happy answering this in classic Trompowsky gambit style with 8 tLJc3 'ixb2 9 tLJge2 were it not for

the move 9 . . . tLJb5 ! when Black transforms his potentially problem piece into really rather an irritating one. Stuart Conquest played 1 0 'i!Vb l here, which cannot really be enough, and which I take to be a sign of discontent with the alternatives, although 1 0 tLJxb5 'ixb5 1 1 'id2 does look a somewhat better try. However, Winants is probably right to suggest that 8 b3 is the right move here. A lot revolves around the position of the knight on d6. It can prove to be awkward but it might equally be able to support pressure on the centre with . . . 0-0 and . . . f5 . However, this also needs careful execution as the very direct 8 . . . 0-0 9 tLJc3 f5 1 0 e5 tLJf7 1 1 f4 d6 1 2 tLJD looks fine for White who has an ambitious centre to sustain, but pretty active development with which to do it. c) 7 'id2 ! ? though rather strange looking, also has its appeal. However, it can become rather complex. White got a really fantastic position in Stefanova-Van Elst, Montpellier ( op ) 2000 after 7 . . . 0-0? ! 8 e4 exd5 9 'ixd5 'iVb6 1 0 'iWb3 'iVa5+ 1 1 tLJc3 tLJc6 1 2 0-0-0 tLJd4 1 3 'iVd5 'ic7 14 tLJge2 tLJxe2 1 5 i.xe2 tLJe8 16 e5. In fact the European Women' s Champion has twice reached the position after move ten, and 1 0 . . . 'ixb3 1 1 axb3 f5 1 2 tLJc3 tLJc6 1 3 0-0-0 tLJe8 1 4 exf5 l:hf5 1 5 i.c4+ Stefanova­ Hagarova, European (chT) Batumi 1 999 re-emphasised quite how grim the defence ' s cause is here. However, Black has two more disruptive options: c 1 ) 7 . . . 'iWh4+ 8 g3 'iWd4 is an interesting bid to cause trouble, but White ' s position seems strangely promising after 9 'ixd4 cxd4 10 c3 !

1 60 2 c5 3 d5 . . .

e.g. 1 0 . . . liJfS 1 1 cxd4 ( 1 1 'itf2 is also interesting) 1 1 . . . liJxd4 1 2 liJa3 exdS 13 lId I or i O . . . liJa6 1 1 'itf2 and now 1 1 . . . exdS 1 2 cxd4 leaves Black with relevant pawn weaknesses, while 1 1 . . . dxc3 1 2 liJxc3 emphasises that the knight on d6 is not so happy. c2) 7 . . . liJc4 ! ? looks like a more refined version of this idea. After 8 'iVc3 'ikh4+! 9 g3 'ikd4 1 0 e4 liJe3 Black probably has sufficient play to hold the balance for example 1 1 .lid3 exdS 1 2 'ikxd4 cxd4 1 3 exdS liJxdS 1 4 liJa3 liJc6 I S liJbS a6+ ! 1 6 liJd6+ rj;e7 1 7 liJfS+ �f6 1 8 liJe2 liJdb4 with approximate equality. Still, I see S . . . .lid6 as another interesting move, rather than an especial problem.

6 e4 I see no real reason to avoid the structure that occurs in the game, and although 6 liJc3 looks a perfectly reasonable alternative, it affords Black the opportunity to give an original twist to the play with 6 . . . liJhS ! ? (6 . . . exdS 7 liJxdS liJxdS 8 'iVxdS 'iVf6 9 .lieS �e6 1 0 0-0-0 Rogers-Miezis, Japfa (op) 2000 looks structurally worth an edge for White) 7 .lie3 d6 8 'iWd2 ! ? (The less restrained 8 Sl. f2 Sl.e7 9 g4 liJf6 1 0 e4 0-0 1 1 h4 a6 1 2 a4 'ikaS

1 3 l:a3 exdS 14 exdS liJbd7 I S Sl.e2 liJb6 16 �fl c4 17 Sl.xb6 'iVxb6 1 8 Sl.xc4 liJd7 1 9 .i.e2 liJcS gave Black reasonable play for the pawn in Lputian-Kharitonov, USSR (ch), 1 984) 8 . . . Sl.e7 9 .lif2 0-0 1 0 e3 liJf6 1 1 .i.c4 [ 1 1 e4 exdS 12 exdS liJa6 12 liJge2 liJc7 1 3 e4 exdS 1 4 exdS a6 I S a4 b 6 1 6 liJf4 .lid7 1 7 h4 b S and Black has staked his territorial claim and has no real in problems lPiket-Shaked, Hoogovens, Merrillville 1 997. 6 . . . exd5 7 exd5 d6 7 . . . liJhS now makes little sense. 8 "iVe2+ "iVe7 9 .ligS ! looks a convincing answer. S liJc3 It is a bit strange how rarely White has handled this position so simply. If we compare this to the related structure which arose with Black' s queen on as and White ' s pawn o n c3 (Game S) i t should be remembered that the difficulty which White encountered in playing his queen ' s knight to its natural square was his Achilles Heel . S . . . .i.e7 Quite aside from the fact that the open e-file militates against fianchettoing this piece, it is probably better anyway both to protect the d-pawn, and to avoid running into a quick 'iVd2/.lih6. 9 'iVd2 0-0 10 O-O-O ! ? Inevitably this involves a serious sharpening of the position, opening up the prospect of serious counterplay too. It might be tempting to try 1 0 g4 ! ? perhaps subsequently putting the king on f2 . 1 0 . . . a 6 l l liJge2 b 5 1 2 liJg3 c4 ! White had prepared to answer 1 2 . . . b4 with 1 3 liJce4, but this

2 . . . c5 3 d5 1 61 keeps Black' s aggressive pawn mass nice and flexible. 13 .i.e2 lbbd7 Golubev marks this ' only move ' without further explanation, and it is not totally clear to me how he means this. In the sense that it is hard to develop further without this move at some point, I understand, but the timing is not so clear. Perhaps he is concerned that 1 3 . . . :re8 14 l:the l does not help the cause because of potential embarrassment on the e-file. In any case, Black undeniably misses his dark-squared bishop in what is to come. 14 lbf5 lbe5 1 5 lbxe7+ 'fixe7 1 6 :hel Wic7 1 7 .i.g5 lbfd7 Perhaps, in view of what is to come, Black might have considered 1 7 . . . lbbd7 ! ? 1 8 .i.e7! l:te8

1 9 .i.xc4 ! A nice tactic, not so much for the basic point (that 1 9 . . . bxc4 20 .i.xd6 'fid8 is met with 2 1 .i.c7) as for the exchange sacrifices implicit within it. 1 9 . . . .i.b7 Probably the best reaction. Clearly it cannot be right to

exchange off key defenders for a small material gain and indeed 1 9 . . ':'xe7 20 1:lxe7 bxc4 is much too risky as 2 1 'iWf4 ! will give White a decisive attack. Also, White ' s compensation for the exchange after 1 9 . . . lbe5 20 ':'xe5 ! dxe5 2 1 d6 compares well with that in the main line. 20 .i.b3 f6 21 .l:te6! lbxe6 22 dxe6 lbe5 23 .i.xd6 lbxb3+ 24 axb3 The smoke clears and White not only has two pawns for the exchange, but one of them is a healthy, protected passed pawn deep in the Black camp which guarantees a big advantage. 24 .. :iYe8 25 e7 'fie6 26 �bl .l:tae8 27 b4 'iWe4 28 lbe2 l:te6 29 lbf4 'iWf7 30 b3 When measuring compensation for an exchange, it is always a good idea to check out the mobility and effectiveness of the rooks of the side that enjoys an ' extra' one. Black' s queen ' s rook occupies a half-open file, but it has absolutely no back-up as the remaining major pieces are coping with the e7 pawn. It is understandable that Black lashes out, even though his next move really just serves to create more weaknesses. 30 . . . g5 31 lbe2 'fie6 32 lbg3 }:tee8 33 .i.e5 a5 34 l:tel 'iWa6 35 'iWd6 White already had the luxury of choosing whether to win in the middle-game or the endgame. 3 5 lbh5 was also very effective, but the text also affords Black no counterplay. 35 . . . 'iWxd6 36 .i.xd6 l:tc6 37 .i.e5 .lie8 3 8 lbe4 axb4 39 lbd6 :xd6 40 .lixd6 .i.f5 41 .i.xb4 �f7 42 .l:tdl 1-0 .

1 62 2 c5 3 d5 . . .

A fine display of controlled aggression from White. Game 3 7 Stefanova - Panchenko Barbera (op) 1 999 1 d4 liJf6 2 Sl.g5 liJe4 3 Sl.f4 c5 4 d5 'iWb6

The main line. A word is due though on the ' other queen move ' 4 . . . 'iWa5+ which is quite interesting, particularly given that according to Julian Hodgson, the stem game against Mickey Adams arose from Black confusing it with the 4 f3 lines of Chapter 2 ! In fact it is perfectly viable to play 5 c3 here (as in practice White generally does) when Black has the customary range of choices for transposing into parts of that chapter, only 5 . . . 'iWb6? ! is highly illogical since 6 liJd2 covers everything. However, while I have suggested already that White should feel little reticence in general in permitting a transposition from here to Chapter 2, it still might be fun to try 5 liJd2 ! ? in order to challenge Black's idea. I do not want to give this too much coverage. Suffice to say that of the ideas mentioned by Hodgson, 5 . . . e6 6 c3 ! ? exd5 7 liJxe4 dxe4 8 'iWd5 appeals, although

I have to admit that 8 . . 'iWb6 ! 9 'ifxe4+ 'ie6 does limit White ' s edge. H e should exchange queens and play 1 1 e4, but how much theoretical plus that is worth is unclear. 5 Sl.cl To those who have read the Introduction and/or Chapter 2 this retreat will hopefully no longer appear so shocking. Similar arguments apply here - White loses time, but so will Black ' s knight, and the placing of his queen on b6 is by no means invariably a happy one. Here it is again the main move. Two others are worth a mention. The first is probably weaker, but the second merits a qualified commendation: a) 5 liJd2 ? ! is a sacrifice towards which I share Julian Hodgson' s scepticism. O f course 5 . . . liJxd2 ? ! 6 Sl.xd2 'ifxb2 7 e4 could be expected for sure to compete well along-side the standard fare of Trompowsky b-pawn offers . The problem is the already well-known tactical solution 5 . . . 'iWxb2 ! The compensation after 6 liJxe4 'ib4+ 7 'iWd2 'iWxe4 is questionable especially in those lines for example 8 e3 'ib4 ! , where the queen scrambles back to the queenside. For this reason I have decided to exclude it from the repertoire. b) 5 'ifc l ( ! ?) is fairly consistently castigated by all authors on the Trompowsky. Nonetheless, I decided that a slightly closer look was justified when I noticed that in a recent game Joe Gallagher elected not to follow his own prescription. In fact, though I do by any means advocate this slightly passive queen move, I do not think it has been rather unfairly dismissed. As usual, if advocating that the Trompowsky .

2 c5 3 d5 1 63 . . .

bishop should expend another tempo to return home, I am keen to are that alternatives ensure genuinely inferior! Black has a choice:

b l ) 5 . . . e6 ! ? might tum out to be very sensible, as the 6 f3 ctJf6 7 e4 exd5 8 e5 ctJh5 9 ctJe2 d6 10 ctJbc3 i.e6 1 1 g4 dxe5 12 i.xe5 ctJc6 of Hodgson-B.Lalic, St Helliers (op), 1 997 looks at best terribly random. I think Julian was rather lucky to come away with a swift half. White should probably settle for 6 c4 e.g. 6 . . . i.e7 7 ctJd2 ctJxd2 8 i.xd2 exd5 9 cxd5 i.f6 1 0 i.c3 0-0 1 1 e3 i.xc3+ 1 2 �xc3 d6 with some sort of a playable Nimzo­ Indian type position in which Black successfully got his bits out in Casagrande-Titz, Austria (chT) 200 1 . b2) Also 5 . . . g6 is as usual playable, though not perhaps so critical . Again I mention it with a specific purpose in mind. Eschewing some less convincing recent treatments, and delving back a little into history, I very much l ike White 's idea in Timman-Torre, IBM Amsterdam 1 977 of not rushing to play f3 (indeed maybe even avoiding it altogether) . Play continued 6 c3 d6 (I guess that the

natural 6 . . . i.g7 7 ctJf3 ! ? 0-0 8 ctJbd2 ctJxd2 9 �xd2 could be one idea, when White can follow up with e4, and, having controlled e5 enough times, he is unlikely to be hit with . . . f5) 7 ctJa3 ctJf6 8 e4 ! and finally f3 proves altogether unnecessary. White had a pleasant edge after 8 . . . 9 i.d3 'VlHd8 1 0 ctJe2 0-0 1 1 0-0 1 2 h3 i.d7 1 3 ctJg3 kIb8 1 4 ctJc2 b5 1 5 b4 ctJe8 1 6 'VlHa3 ! ? and even managed to make a virtue out of the move 'VlHc l . Of course 8 . . . ctJxe4(? ! ) 9 ctJc4 'VlHc7 1 0 'VlHe3 looks pretty risky for Black, although a little part of me is intrigued to know what cold­ blooded contemporary chess might make of 1 0 . . . g5 here. Still, obj ectively White must enj oy some advantage. b3) 5 . . . c4 ! ? is generally given as the 'refutation ' , but there are a few points in the story that arouse my suspicion. After 6 e3 'VlHa5+

White has a choice: b3 1 ) 7 ctJc3 ! ? ctJxc3 8 'VlHd2 'VlHxd5 (What of the widely touted 8 . . . e6 ! ? 9 bxc3 exd5 which both Gallagher and Gerstner give as '=+'? Well, it may be that 1 0 e4 dxe4 1 1 i.xc4 ctJc6 1 2 ctJe2 offers just enough play to be off-putting. What about 9 . . . �xd5 ! ? though? 1 0 'VlHxd5 exd5

1 64 2 c5 3 d5 . . .

1 1 l:td l b5 ! 1 2 l:txd5 a6 looks at least equal to me) 9 'ixc3 ttJc6 1 0 ..txc4 'ia5 ( I O . . . 'ihg2 1 1 0-0-0 e6 ( l l . . .'ixh I 12 ..td5 ! ) 12 ttJe2 d5 1 3 l:thg I 'ixf2 I 4 l:txg7 ! ? d4 1 5 ttJxd4 ! ..txg7 1 6 ttJxc6 0-0 1 7 ..te5 f6 is far from clear but a fun line which looks like the sort of thing that Joe would enjoy more with White than Black ! ) 1 1 'ixa5 ttJxa5 1 2 i.e2 d6 was Sarthou-Gallagher, France (chT) 2002 when 1 3 e4 ! ? looks logical, and perhaps slightly more pleasant for White. b32) 7 c3 ! ? 'ixd5 8 f3 ttJc5 9 e4 has the nice point that 9 . . ttJd3+ 1 0 ..txd3 'ixd3 1 1 ttJh3 ! is shockingly strong. Black's queen is suddenly in very hot water. 9 . . . 'iVc6 is much better, when 1 0 i.xc4 ttJe6 ! indeed wins the bishop pair, 1 1 i.d5 not withstanding, due to the resource 1 1 . . . ttJxf4 ! when 1 2 'iVxf4 'ig6 looks quite nice for Black. He will follow-up with . . . e6 and . . . i.c5 to emphasise his healthiness on the dark squares. b33) 7 ttJd2 c3 8 bxc3 and now theory tends to endorse 8 . . . ttJxc3, although after 9 d6 ! ? ttJe4 10 ttJgf3 ! ttJxd6 1 1 i.xd6 exd6 1 2 'i¥b2 ! ? I rather like White ' s compensation. Hodgson suggests that instead 8 . . . 'ixd5 ! ? is stronger, remarking "it is clear that White does not have enough compensation for his ruptured queenside". I must say I ' m rather surprised b y this. After 9 ttJxe4 'ixe4 1 0 ttJf3 it really is quite a lead in development, and I think many of Julian' s fans would expect the White cause to quite appeal to him. I have definitely seen him conjure something out of less I promising compensation! understand what he is getting at White' s initiative is in some danger of drying up when Black gains a

foothold in the centre with . . . d6 and e5. However, I think that concretely 10 . . . d6 1 1 i.d3 'iVc6 1 2 'ib2 ! ? ttJd7 1 3 0-0 should offer sufficient dynamic chances to compensate . After this long, but I hope rather interesting diversion, back to the main line 5 ..tc l .

.

5 . . . f5 A rarely played but not uninteresting attempt to restrain White in the centre. Important alternatives: a) 5 . . . e6 is the main line, 6 f3 and now : ai) 6 . . . ttJf6 7 c4 which directly transposes to Chapter 2, Game 7 and TA 1 . aii) 6 . . . 'ia5+ ! ? 7 c3 ttJf6 8 e4 is a strange ' cousin ' line of that examined in Games 4 and 5 of Chapter 2. The tirst point is that throwing in the extra moves . . . 'iVb6 .te l might look an unambiguous gain for Black, but he immediately finds that in contrast with the analysis of 7 . . . exd5 8 e5?! at the beginning of Game 5, the bishop is considerably better positioned in the current case since 8 . . . exd5 ? ! 9 e5 ! ttJg8 - what else? - 1 0 'iVxd5 ttJe7 1 1 'ie4 is very pleasant for White.

2 c5 3 d5 1 65 . . .

Therefore it is necessary to play 8 . . . d6 (or 8 . . . 'iVc7 9 c4 i.d6 which was also covered in Game 7, but is not especially good) when I think that 9 i.d2 ! preparing to support the centre with the move c3-c4 is clearly White ' s best move, and 9 . . . exdS 1 0 c4 ! ( 1 0 exd5 tiJxdS 1 1 c4 tiJb4 courts unnecessary complication) looks quite promising as, while queen retreats to the safety of c7 or d8 are not disastrous, any subsequent attempt to reach a Benoni-style formation must reckon with the move i.d2-c3, while grabbing the pawn here is partic­ ularly treacherous ; also 9 . . . �6 1 0 c4 ! 'it'xb2 1 1 tiJc3 was the actual move order of the fierce attack covered in note 'b22 ' in TA l (see Chapter 2). b) S . . . g6 6 f3 and now 6 . . . tiJd6 ! ? i s considered i n some detail in the Theoretical Article at the end of this chapter, and is in my view clearly Black ' s most important alternative to S . . . e6, and therefore his most important independent idea after 3 . . . tiJe4 . 6 f3 tiJf6 Another of Stefanova' s opponents tried 6 . . . tiJd6 with rather similar ideas to those we shall see more of in TA3 , except that with . . . fS already played rather than merely an available lever, the case for avoiding/delaying e4 seems to be strengthened. White ' s strategy seems admirable in Stefanova­ laksland, Dos Hermanas (op) 2002. After 7 a4 g6 8 as 'it'b4+ 9 c3 'it'h4+ 1 0 g3 'it'f6 1 1 tiJh3 tiJa6 1 2 i.g2 i.g7 1 3 0-0 tiJI! 14 e4 d6 I S f4 i.d7 1 6 i.e3 0-0 1 7 tiJd2 l!fe8 1 8 �3 l:tab8 1 9 tiJc4 she has much greater piece activity and at the same time there is little in the position for Black to aim at.

7 tiJc3 e6 8 e4 fxe4 9 fxe4 exd5 10 tiJxd5 tiJxd5 11 'iVxd5 �e6 1 2 i.c4 There is also a case for 1 2 i.f4 ! ? after which recapturing on d S with the d-pawn becomes a more enticing option. However, the potential weakness of White ' s e-pawn notwithstanding, her desire to keep the strong bishop on dS is very understandable. 1 2 . . .'iVxd5 13 i.xd5 tiJc6 14 c3 tiJe5 15 i.e3 tiJg4 16 i.f4 tiJf6 1 7 i.b3 ! ? tiJxe4

1 8 0-0-0 ! ? This has the obvious emotional appeal of the sacrifice, and does lead to an ending in which White enjoys a slight edge. However, when we stop to consider quite how difficult life could be made for the knight on e4 and Black's king, the move seems guilty in effect of initiating exchanges. The problem of the knight on e4 is solved by the capture of a rook! I assume that White miscalculated how comfort­ ably the advanced Black knight will re-emerge, otherwise she might have preferred 1 8 tiJf3 ! i.e7 1 9 0-0 l:tf8 20 i.eS tiJf6 (20 . . . i.f6? 2 1 .:tfe 1 ) 2 1 l:tae 1 'it>d8 22 tiJgS ! dS 23 i.c7+ 'it>xc7 24 l:1xe7+ which looks very promising.

1 66 2 c5 3 d5 . . .

19 . . . lL'lf2 1 9 lL'l0 lL'lxh1 20 �el+ 'it>d8 2 1 lL'lg5 d6 22 lL'lf7+ cj;e7 23 lL'lxh8 There is no particular mileage in 23 1:[xh l g5 24 i.g3 l:.g8 25 lL'lxd6 i.xd6 26 i.xd6+ 'it>xd6 27 i.xg8 i.f5 with equality. 23 . . . lL'lf2 24 i.e2 i.d7 25 h3 It might have been better to try 25 .i.xh7 lL'lg4 26 JLd3 JLc6 27 lL'lg6 when the bishop pair will ensure White an edge. 25 . . . e4 26 .i.xh7 JLe6 27 i.g3 lL'ld3+ 28 i.xd3 exd3 29 lL'lg6 JLxg2 30 h4 'it>d7 31 cj;d2 i.d5 32 b3 i.f7 33 lL'lxfB+ IixfB With opposite coloured bishops, White cannot even claim a nominal advantage, and inevitably the game winds down. 34 J:tfl 'it>e6 35 liO d5 36 lhd3 i.g6 37 .l:Id4 i.e4 38 e4 :to 39 exd5+ i.xd5 40 lig4 cj;f7 VI-VI

Theoretical Article 3 : 5

. . .

g6 6 f3 ttJd6!?

1 d4 lL'lf6 2 i.g5 e5 3 d5 lL'le4 4 i.f4 �b6 5 .i.cl g6 6 0 lL'ld6 ! ?

This rather striking knight retreat burst into the limelight in the 1 98 8 Oxford G M tournament when Julian

Hodgson was confronted with it and managed to emerge with only two short (albeit highly thought­ provoking) draws. I note though that the earliest known example on my database was from 1 987 when the Peruvian Grandmaster Julio Granda Zuniga, better known for his rich natural talent than his contributions to opening theory, tried it with success. Since 1 99 8 the Black cause has had many imitators, and although White has wheeled out quite a variety of ideas, there is little consensus as to the best approach. Indeed despite the potential awkwardness which the knight on d6 might involve for the development of Black ' s queenside, the evidence suggests that the power of the bishop on the long diagonal combined with the possibility of creating play with . . . f7-f5 (especially in reply to White occupying the centre with e4) offer Black very reasonable counter­ chances. The . . . f5 plan, targetting the f2 square, useful given that White is some way from the safety of castling, gains further credit for trying to make a virtue out of the often ambivalent position of the queen on b6. I think we can best categorise White ' s options as follows : 1 ) Going for the ' Full Monty' White plays both lL'lc3 and e4 as he normally would and soaks up the extra play which both the . . . f5 break and the strong bishop afford his opponent. This is the most ambitious and will be examined under 'A' . 2) White compromises in one way or another: either by settling for a more modest advance of his e-pawn (from e3 it will not be attacked by

2 c5 3 d5 1 67 . . .

. . f5 , and also a certain claim is again laid to some of the vulnerable c entral dark squares) - this is examined under ' B ' ; or by still playing e4, but avoiding lLlc3 thus retaining the option of putting a pawn on this square, which may help to contest the key d4 square and also to blunt the influence of the sweeping g7 bishop. This IS considered as ' C ' . A) 7 lLlc3 .i.g7 8 e4 ! ? i s the uncompromising and fearless reaction. Black can now choose between the immediate strike at White ' s centre, or waiting to see first how White intends to bring his kingside pieces into play. I shall consider: A I ) 8 . . . f5 . The best place to start consideration of this combative move is with the game which did so much to bring 6 . . . lLld6 ! ? to general attention. Of course, short draws fall into many categories, including all too frequently the simply dull and lifeless, but Hodgson-Nunn, Oxford (GM) 1 99 8 is one of those in which the players seem almost deliberately to tease the crowd with a series of bold imaginative decisions followed by a peace settlement just as the battle is really hotting up. Play continued 9 exf5 lLlxf5 1 0 g4 ! (Described by Hertneck as ' typical Hodgson' and of course it is easy to see what he means. However, it is also useful to appreciate that there is probably not much choice. It is not just that the knight on f5 is a good piece but that if White waits, it is difficult to imagine even vaguely constructive moves which would not assist it in later settling on d4, whereas immediately heading forwards is somewhat problematic­ see below) ·

and now: A l l ) 1 0 . . . lLlh6 1 1 d6 ! e6 ( 1 1 . . . lLlf7 1 2 dxe7 �e6+ 1 3 �e2 .i.xc3+ 14 bxc3 �xe7 1 5 .i.f4 is also quite a mess but again White ' s active pieces will always guarantee a share of the chances) 1 2 lLlb5 lLla6 1 3 .i.e3 ( 1 3 h4 ! ? looks more to the point - perhaps White wanted to stop any 1 3 . . . c4 nonsense, but this is not so urgent - then even 1 4 .i.xh6 .i.xh6 1 5 �d4 looks quite promising) and the players agreed a draw. White must reckon with one or two irritating resources - after 1 3 . . 0-0 he is often threatening . . . lLlxg4 followed by either . . . �c6 or even J:xfl +. This is why I prefer the very direct 1 3 h4 . It would be fair to say that the positions in this line bear only a passing resemblance to normal chess, and are hence that much harder to assess. As the whole thing was new to both players it is not surprising that they felt rather cautious. A 1 2) So, what of 1 0 . . . lLld4?! The problem is that White can play 1 1 lLle4 ! threatening to hassle the poor beast further with 12 c3 lLlb5 and maybe 1 3 �3 . The knight on e4 is itself very well posted and 1 1 . . . e6 can be well met by 1 2 .i.c4 ! ? This looks good for White. .

1 68 2 c5 3 d5 . . .

A 1 3) 1 0 . . . liJd6 is possible, on the other hand, but the best perspective is probably f7 for this piece anyway. One example 1 1 h4 ! ? liJf7 (If 1 1 . . . 0-0 12 hS gS 1 3 h6 ! ( 1 3 liJh3 h6 14 f4 gxf4 I S gS f3 is rather too double-edged) 1 3 . . . .i.eS 14 'iVe2 ! .i.g3+ I S 'it'd i a very sharp position arises, in which king security is of overwhelming importance and I prefer White 's) 1 2 liJe4 ( 1 2 hS ! ?) 1 2 . . . d6 13 c3 liJa6 was Poland Orzechowski-Wismont, (Tch) 1 998 when 14 hS ! looks quite promising for White. A2) 8 . . . 0-0 ! ?

i s a flexible alternative. Black would like to exploit the circumstance (touched upon in the note to 1 0 g4 in A l above) that his opponent has no good developing move which retains the option of answering a subsequent . . . fS with the Hodgson formula of exfS and g4 . Therefore White is forced to set about trying to bolster his e4 pawn instead. First, an example of what I believe he should avoid. S.Kovacevic-B .Lalic, Navalmoral ( op) 1 999 saw Black quickly attain a promising position after 9 liJh3 fS 1 0 liJf2 fxe4 1 1 liJfxe4? ! liJxe4 1 2 fxe4? .i.xc3+ ( 1 2 . . . .i.d4 ! ? also looks pretty tempting - f2 is

seriously vulnerable ! ) 13 bxc3 'iVf6 1 4 'iVd3 'iVf2+ I S 'it'd i d6 1 6 h3 liJd7 17 'i e3 'iVxe3 1 8 .i.xe3 liJf6 1 9 .i.d3 c4 20 .i.xc4 liJxe4 =+. Allowing the full opening of the f-file looks decidedly risky and therefore 1 1 liJcxe4 ! is the obvious place to improve (since in my view against 1 1 liJfxe4 Bogdan could have considered other moves such as 1 1 . . .liJfS ! ?) . The first point to note is that captures on b2 fail miserably. Still, Black can also look to improve. There was nothing compulsory about 1 0 . . . fxe4 . 1 0 . . . .i.d4 is plausible and consistent with the whole . . . liJd6 and . . . fS schema, but after 1 1 exfS liJxf5 ( 1 1 . . JhfS 1 2 liJg4 ! looks a bit awkward to meet) 1 2 liJce4 ! ? liJe3 (Again 1 2 . . . .i.xb2 runs into problems 1 3 �b l 'iVaS+ 1 4 .i.d2 and I S c3 ! will be very strong against either 14 . . . 'iVxa2 or 14 . . . 'iVa3) 1 3 .i.xe3 .i.xe3 1 4 d6 ! (a useful motif throughout this section. The pawn can prove a very useful wedge, and ensure that Black' s development difficulties will not be so short term) 14 . . . liJc6 ( 1 4 . . . e6 I S liJg4 ! ) I S dxe7 liJxe7 1 6 'iVd6 ! White has promising play. Maybe 10 . . . c4, but this pawn can of course become quite weak, and Black needs to generate some quite tangible trouble to compensate for this . White can try 1 1 'iVe2 ! ? ( 1 1 exfS lIxfS 1 2 liJg4 liJa6 1 3 .i.e2 liJb4 seems to give Black reasonable play against White' s d-pawn) 1 1 . . . .i.d4 (If 1 1 . . . liJa6 12 eS ! ? liJf7 1 3 f4 then although White might appear a bit overextended, Black cannot really open the centre and his c-pawn is still an issue; and 1 1 . . . fxe4 1 2 liJfxe4 liJxe4 1 3 'iVxe4

2 c5 3 d5 1 6 9 . . .

also favours White as c4 will drop off for minimal compensation) 1 2 exfS (also 1 2 'bcd 1 ! ?, though a bit passive, initiates a regrouping which is worth remembering. Playing c3 after the move of the queen' s knight is an important instrument for temporary Black' s limiting initiative) 1 2 . . . 'bxfS 1 3 'bfe4 and again I like White. I suspect therefore Black should go still further back in re-examining his play. Strangely, perhaps even 9 . . . fS should be shelved in favour of 9 . . . c4 ! ? The position arising after for example 1 0 ..te2 'ba6 1 1 'bf2 is typical of the whole section in that neither side can exactly develop freely. The position is unusual, and deserves practical tests. B) 7 'bc3 ..tg7 8 e3 ! ?

This unassuming move was the natural try once Black's . . . fS based counter-attack was found to pack a certain punch. It is interesting that in practice Julian turned to this only after the hyper-tension of the Nunn game, whereas he had already recommended this course of action in his book a year before. However, I am far from convinced that 8 e3 is any panacea, and recently it is White who has been experiencing some difficulties from the diagram.

The main problem seems to be that the dS pawn can become rather vulnerable to attack (with the manoeuvre . . . 'ba6-c 7 suggesting itself as the way to exploit this) and further counterplay based on . . . 'bfS and . . . c4 is not implausible either. In a way this is logical. White may be wary of putting a pawn on e4 in view of the . . . fS pawn lever, but somehow, from the point of view of restricting the knight on d6 it looks a bit strange to refrain too ! 8 . . 0-0 9 'bh3 .

and now Black has quite a wide choice: B 1) 9 . . . 'bfS contains more than a drop of poison, and in Helbig-Thiel, Bundesliga 1 997 White drank most of the glass with 1 0 g4? allowing 1 0 . . . 'bxe3 1 1 ..txe3 �xb2 1 2 'bbS a6 1 3 1:.b l 'i!VeS 14 �f2 axbS I S ':xbS d6 and he is in a terrible mess on all fronts . However, White should fare better with 10 e4 'bd4 ( 1 0 . . . 'be3 ? 1 1 ..txe3 �xb2 1 2 'bbS is now a very different story with the e-pawn on the board) 1 1 'ba4 ! (Again that strategy of playing for c3 . It makes one wonder about the e4+c3 system examined under ' C ' ! ) 1 l . . .�aS+ 1 2 c 3 d6 1 3 i.d2 'bxf3 + ! 1 4 gxf3 bS I S b4 ! ? cxb4 1 6 axb4 �xa4 1 7 'iWxa4 bxa4 1 8 l1c 1 and

1 70 2 c5 3 d5 . . .

White has some compensation for sure, I would suspect probably enough. B2) 9 . . . c4 1 0 tbf2 e6 (I think I am not crazy about the move . . . e6 in general for Black in this variation, since . . . exdS is rarely a good idea, and the knight on d6 can be weakened somewhat. However I would be the first to admit that the positions are so idiosyncratic that it is quite doubtful how much we should speak of "in general" at all ! ) 1 1 iLe2 tbfS 1 2 'iYd2 tbxe3 1 3 'iYxe3 iLd4 1 4 �d2 ! (A brave decision, and a better try than 1 4 tba4 iLxe3 I S tbxb6 iLxb6 1 6 iLxc4 exdS 1 7 iLxdS tbc6 1 8 c3 tbe7 19 iLb3 dS when Black has good pieces, and the isolated queen' s pawn will not mean too much) 14 . . . iLxf2+ I S 'it'fl d6 1 6 iLxc4 iLh4 1 7 tbe4 exdS 1 8 iLxdS iLe6 19 b3 (Or 1 9 iLxe6 fXe6 20 lWxd6, but White has nothing special in view of 20 . . . 'iYxd6 2 1 tbxd6 .l:d8 22 iLf4 ? ! gS ! ) 1 9 . . . J:.e8 20 iLxe6 �xe6 2 1 g3 iLf6 22 tbxf6+ l:lxf6 23 �g2 'i' c6 24 l:tfl tbd7 2S iLb2 tbeS 26 iLxeS Yl-1Iz Rowson-Lalic, Glasgow (op) 1 999. B3) 9 . . . 'i1Ic7 ! ? 10 a4 b6 1 1 tbf2 fS 12 iLe2 e5 13 e4 f4 1 4 a5 iLa6 1 5 0-0 �7 liz-liz Hodgson-Turner, Oxford (GM) 1 99 8 . I have to say that having been at the post-mortem to this game didn't really help me to understand it. I am not sure why blocking the position with 1 2 . . . eS should really be necessary, but the feeling at the end was certainly that Black has found a way to develop and that it is not easy for White to undertake too much. B4) 9 . . . tba6 ! ? makes little attempt to disguise the coming attack on the d-pawn, and is, I

suspect, the most testing of all. After 1 0 iLe2 c4 1 1 'it'f2 'iY c5 1 2 a4 b6 1 3 'i'd2 iLb7 1 4 l:i.d l tbb4 1 5 �fl l:tad8 1 6 tbf2 fS 1 7 e4 as ! 1 8 l:f.a3 fXe4 1 9 tbfXe4 tbxe4 2 0 tbxe4 'iYxdS 2 1 'i'xdS+ iLxd5 White has no tangible compensation for the pawn. Real improvements are needed for ' B ' to remain viable. Ward-Chandler, Redbus (KO) Southend, 2002 . C) After 7 e4 iLg7, alternatives to 8 tbc3 come in a variety of forms. I will just give a brief survey:

C l ) 8 c3 ! ? 0-0 9 tba3 f5 1 0 exf5 ( 1 0 tbc4 ! ? is worth a look. If 1 0 . . . tbxc4 1 1 iLxc4 the threat of d6+ wins a useful tempo, while 10 . . . 'iYa6 1 1 iVb3 fXe4 12 iLe3 ! is an unusual temporary pawn sacrifice, which sets some slightly awkward questions. 1 2 . . . b5 1 3 tbxd6 'i'xd6 1 4 'i'xb5 looks a shade better for White) 1 0 . . . tbxf5 1 1 iVb3 'i'f6 1 2 tbh3 'ih8 1 3 iLg5 �f7 1 4 tbbS tba6 I S 0-0-0 d6 is Miltner-Lanka, Bundesliga 1 996, routinely given as favourable for Black, but in fact after a sensible, neutral sort of move like 16 l:te l ! ? I find his position rather harmonious. C2) 8 tbd2 is another move played with similar aims in mind. White retains the option of closing

2 c5 3 d5 1 71 . . .

the diagonal while developing a piece. This has worked out quite well in practice after e.g. 8 . . . 0-0 9 f4 ! ? Julian suggests that this "looks far too ambitious with White so underdeveloped", but the results command attention. Stefanova­ Roder, Barbera (op) 1 999 continued 9 . . . e6 1 0 eS tbfS 1 1 tbc4 'iVd8 1 2 tbf3 ! b S ? ! (Rotstein prefers 1 2 . . . d6 1 3 dxe6 Jt.xe6 14 tbxd6 tbxd6 I S 'iVxd6 �xd6 1 6 exd6 .:re8 1 7 'if2 tbd7 which does indeed look quite active) 1 3 tbe3 Jt.b7?! 14 tbxfS exfS I S d6 Jt.xf3 1 6 'i¥xf3 tbc6 1 7 c3 'iVb6 1 8 Jt.e3 l:Iae8 1 9 Jt.e2 gS 20 g3 with a total bind. However, to be honest I cannot see a convincing answer to 8 . . . e6 ! ? The knight on d2 means that for once Black really means business with . . . exdS and if 9 c4 0-0 followed by . . . fS the g7 bishop is a fine piece. C3) White can also go back to move 7 and examine 7 a4 c4? ! (7 . . . Jt.g7 8 as �c7 9 e4 0-0 1 0 c3 fS looks OK for Black) 8 e4 Jt.g7 9 c3 0-0 10 tba3 fS 1 1 exfS tbxfS 1 2 tbxc4 �cS 1 3 g4 tbd6 1 4 Jt.e3 �c7 I S tbxd6 �xd6 1 6 tbh3 b6 1 7 tbf2 Jt.b7 1 8 Jt.c4 �f6 was Rabinovich­ Sax, European (ch) Saint Vincent 2000 and now 1 9 0-0 was a bit too modest. The more ambitious 1 9 f4 eS 20 tbe4 �h4+ 2 1 i.f2 is simply very strong.

6 . . . ttJd6!? Conclusion Though certainly one of Black' s richest options against 3 d S , I cannot help feeling that practice so far and the score which Black has achieved flatters a little. It is interesting that White moved swiftly from the ambitious tbc3/e4 approach, and chose in many cases

to settle for 8 e3 instead. In my opinion this is probably the worst of the three systems outlined, since the dS pawn simply becomes too much of a target. I would prefer either sticking with 'A' (my analysis of 8 . . . 0-0 in particular became increasingly encouraging as I went along - initially sceptical I was quite converted by the end) or switching to ' C ' , since . . . fS really does not seem such a challenge when White competes for the long diagonal and the d4 square in particular. All in all, another interesting battle-ground rather than a serious problem for White.

Chapter Conclusion 3 d5 seems very much alive ! I began with two major concerns: 1) That the Vaganian Gambit might be a great deal of fun if Black reacts too passively, but that the systems with a quick . . . e5 could cast doubt on its ultimate soundness. I am now fairly satisfied that, whatever the truth about the ' piece play' approaches, the blocking 8 fS( ! ) followed by a kingside pawn storm is sufficient to deny Black an easy life in this case. I was glad when I saw that De la Villa ' s book broadly concurs with that conclusion. Indeed, 7 . . . e6 also retains great complexity which is not all one way traffic, and Black may decide in addition to investigate the logical 7 . . . fkc7 ! ? which, whatever the ultimate verdict, does seem to have been strangely neglected. 2) That the impressive results recently put together by the 3 . . . tbe4 and 6 . . . tbd6 ! ? system might reflect some fundamental vulnerability in

1 72 2 c5 3 d5 . . .

the White position. As I concluded above, I now think that White probably even has a choice of viable set-ups here. The line is appealing for its rich strategic content, but it represents no refutation of White ' s play. As in previous chapters, some of the minor lines also raise interesting questions. As usual, early . . . g6/d6 lines tend to have a basic playability. Again as in Chapter 2, a certain understanding of the Schmid Benoni is useful. In this case, the bishop development on g5 may not be entirely typical, but of course White can be quite comfortable with

these posItIons too. On White ' s behalf too, I have t o say that while 5 'iVc l ! ? in Game 37 does not feel quite in the spirit of the attacking repertoire, and I am a long way from advocating it, it does seem to have been rather unfairly maligned. More importantly, while I am reasonably happy that my analysis of 4 . e6 5 f3 i.d6 ! ? commends White a playable enough system I make no grand claims for its exhaustive nature, and Gallagher was probably right to identify this as an area which Black could fruitfully investigate further. .

.

Chapter 8

-

Introduction

The apparently modest 2 . . . e6 can be seen as the move by which Black seeks both to maintain his structure intact and to ensure that complications are kept within manageable limits. An under­ standable caution about entering complications on the attacker' s 'territory ' inevitably ensures that 2 . . . lbe4 and 2 . . . c5 are not everybody ' s cup of tea. When we take into account that accepting structural weaknesses might not make for an easy life either, then it is not hard to account for the popularity of 2 . . . e6 which according to my database is the 2nd most frequent response to the Trompowsky. Moreover, I think it would be fair to say that the reputation of Black' s resources in the main line which arises after 3 e4 h6 4 .ltxf6 'iVxf6 are on something of a high at the time of writing.

2

. . .

e6 3 e4 ! ?

Of course, such an unpretentious move as 2 . . . e6 cannot in itself be a special problem for White, and does not oblige such critical play. White clearly has the option of playing conservatively with such moves as 3 e3, 3 c3 or even 3 lbf3 which transposes directly to the Torre Attack. However, with apologies to devotees of such a quiet approach, I find it both rather insipid, and of limited theoretical interest. For the most part, to be honest, those who wish to play such positions can probably do so without the assistance of a book. Joe Gallagher also makes the interesting observation here that precisely the kind of players against whom such a deliberately uncomplicated approach might be effective (the lovers of a sharp scrap) are unlikely to be found playing 2 . . . e6 in the first place. Of course if you find known King ' s Indian fanatics wheeling out 2 . . . e6 on a regular basis then it might be worth just checking out the breadth of their understanding, but I suspect this will be a pretty rare event. All in all, I therefore hope the reader will agree that in a repertoire book there is a strong case for restricting my attention to the much more interesting 3 e4 ! ? which is in any case very clearly the move in the spirit of the Trompowsky. I firmly believe that if 3 e4 ceases to be regarded as a viable approach then the Trompowsky would be

1 74 2 . . . e6 3 e4 widely viewed as just that little bit less scary. I am also reasonably confident that this will not happen ! The most critical lines of this chapter (and certainly far and away the most popular) arise when Black forces the gain of the bishop pair with 3 . . . h6 4 .txf6 'it'xf6 (Games 3 9-45). In my opinion this results in one of the most fascinating conceptual battlegrounds in the entire Trompowsky and is worthy of study not just by those intending to play the position, but by anyone interested in such key strategic issues as the importance of the bishop pair, how best to handle it and how to play against it. As I mentioned right back in the Introduction, I will in the remaining chapters dispense with the customary division into ' stylistic repertoires ' . Despite a lot of study, I am myself still trying to work out the approach to this position which best suits me personally, and I would like to encourage the reader to join me in exploring a number of possibilities and to draw his own conclusions . I am in any case confident that while there is inevitably a 'dynamic' feel to White' s play in a position where he has space and development as compensation for the bishop pair, there is enough flexibility in the position to be able to appeal too to those seeking a more solid flavour (for example Adams ' s very thought-provoking strategy with 7 g3 ! ? [see the note to game 4 1 ] as a case in point) . I will return later to a detailed strategic introduction to 3 . . . h6. For the moment there is other pressing business. Black has viable third move alternatives too, and it is to these that we should now tum.

Game 3 8 Tregubov - Shulman Gausdal 1 994 1 d4 tLlf6 2 .tg5 e6 3 e4 d5 Black attempts to steer the game directly into French Defence channels. I would like to deal with three other alternatives here. The first two might aspire to claim the virtue of flexibility, but can equally easily come across as merely passive, whereas the third can be an introduction to great complications, although I think White is not necessarily obliged to ' play along ' with that intention: a) 3 . . . .te7 is solid and enjoys a considerable following among those seeking a simple unpretentious defence to the Tromp. Black keeps the option of entering French structures after first asking how his opponent intends to support the e-pawn:

a 1 ) The first point is that 4 tLlc3 ! ? in addition to inviting a direct transposition to the Classical French, also offers a pawn by allowing 4 . . . tLlxe4, and although after 5 .txe7 tLlxc3 6 i.xd8 tLlxd l 7 .txc7 tLlxb2 8 .td6 tDa4 9 c4 tLlc6 10 tDf3 White has compensation

2 e6 3 e4 1 75 . . .

based upon his excellent bishop on d6 and the considerable awkward­ ness that it causes, De la Villa ' s suggestion o f 1 0 . . . b6 ! ? looks sensible since the natural 1 1 .lid3 .lia6 12 .i:c 1 will now be irritated by 12 . . . tiJb2 1 3 .lie2 tiJaS . I considered instead 1 1 lIc 1 ..ta6 1 2 lIc2 lIc8 1 3 .lid3 tiJaS 1 4 tiJd2 but this also gives Black time for 14 . . . bS ! It seems that this excellent plan is sufficient to take the edge off White ' s initiative. a2) I am unenthusiastic about 4 eS tiJdS S ..txe7 �xe7 6 c4 tiJb6 7 tiJc3 d6 8 tiJf3 tiJc6 which seems to me to be quite playable for Black. a3) 4 .lid3 ! ? is a natural development, but Black can try 4 . . . cS ! ? (4 . . . dS S eS tiJfd7 6 ..txe7 �xe7 7 c3 cS 8 tiJe2 looks like a pleasant French) S dxcS (or S eS ! ? tiJdS 6 ..txe7 �xe7 7 dxcS although then 7 . . . tiJf4 must be reckoned with) S . . :it'aS+ (S . . . tiJa6 ! ? feels as if it should be interesting, since ..td3xa6 is a tempo loss. However Black needs to improve his follow-up after 6 .lixa6 bxa6 7 tiJd2 ..tb7 8 �e2 lIc8 9 tiJgf3 l:txcS 1 0 c4 �aS of Aleksandrov-I.Zaitsev, Moscow 1 996 since White missed the brutal shot 1 1 b4 ! winning significant amounts of material ! ) 6 �c3 tiJxe4 7 ..txe7 tiJxc3 8 �d2 �xe7 9 tiJe2 'it'xcs 10 tiJxc3 �eS+ 1 1 ..te2 tiJc6 12 0-0-0 dS 13 f4 'ilc7 1 4 .l:the l although White has quite dangerous compensation for the pawn. Rossetto-Migliavacca, Buenos Aires, 1 977. a4) 4 tiJd2 ! ? has both flexibility and Garry Kasparov on its side, although White has to be a little wary of early . . . 'ib6 sorties if he handles the consequent French structure too routinely. 4 . . . dS (4 . . . cS?! S eS tiJdS 6 .lixe7 'ilxe7 7

tiJe4 is just bad for Black) S eS tiJfd7 6 ..txe7 'it'xe7 7 f4 ! ? cS 8 tiJgf3 tiJc6 9 .lid3 is an interesting treatment known from the Tarrasch French, albeit with dark-squared bishops still on the board. If 9 . . . cxd4 1 0 0-0 White has time to round up the d4 pawn, and chances on the kingside. Still, this is better than 9 . . . tiJb4 1 0 ..te2 f6 1 1 c3 tiJc6 1 2 0-0 0-0 1 3 a3 llb8 14 b4 b6 I S .lid3 with a lot of extra space in Kasparov-Centea, Deurne (simul), 2000. b) 3 . . . d6 is more committal in terms of the centre pawns and therefore perhaps still more subj ect to the charge of negativity.

After 4 tiJc3 .lie7 (4 . . . h6 gives White a pleasant enough choice. He can exchange on f6, returning the play to Games 3 9-4 1 , without the headache of the . . . i.b4 lines. However retreating also looks quite viable. In Gil Gonzales-Gonzalez Velez, Spain (ch) 1 997 White played S ..te3 tiJbd7 6 h3 a6 7 a4 cS 8 dS exdS 9 exdS g6 1 0 tiJf3 ..tg7 1 1 'it'd2 hS 1 2 ..te2 0-0 1 3 0-0 b6 14 i.h6 which must be worth at least an edge) S f4 ! ? h6 6 ..txf6 ..txf6 7 'it'd2 a6 8 0-0-0 bS 9 tiJf3 ..tb7 1 0 �d3 b4 1 1 tiJe2 as 1 2 'it'b l tiJd7 1 3 eS ..te7 1 4 fS exfS I S ..txfS

1 76 2 e6 3 e4 . . .

(Keeping a sufficient hold on the dark squares while seeking to generate attacking chances on the more promising territory of the light squares will constitute a pretty text-book strategy for White throughout the chapter. This is an excellent exposition from Grand­ master Tolnai) 1 5 . . . tDf8 1 6 'iVe3 .lig5 1 7 'iWf2 g6 1 8 h4 ! .lie7 1 9 .lih3 d5 20 �hf1 �h7 2 1 tDf4 with a strong attack in Tolnai-Fogarasi, Hungary (ch) 1 99 5 . I am a bit sceptical in general about White 's ability to generate as much play when the bishop recaptures on f6 rather than the queen, but I wouldn 't want to be too dogmatic on this point. Here with the f4 advance in place, and Black expending a tempo on h6, it seems well justified. c) 3 . . . c5 ! ? is a much more ambitious approach.

c 1 ) 4 d5 d6 ! (4 . . . h6 5 .lixf6 'it'xf6 6 tDc3 looks good for White to me. Black will have problems getting mobilised which will count for much more than White ' s slightly suspect dark squares; 4 . . . 'iWb6 5 tDc3 [or 5 .lixf6 gxf6 6 'it'c 1 which was covered in Chapter 6] 5 . . . Wixb2 6 .lid2 Wib6 7 f4 leads to either Game 35 or Analytical Article 2 from Chapter 7) 5 tDc3 .lie7 6

.lib5+ (6 tDf3 is also possible, but nothing special) 6 . . . .lid7 ! (6 . . . tDbd7? 7 .lixf6 ! is great for White) 7 dxe6 fxe6 8 e5 !? (otherwise . . . tDc6 follows with reasonable play for Black) 8 . . dxe5 9 'iVe2 and now even 9 . . . .lixb5 1 0 Wixb5+ Wid7 1 1 .l:[d l tDd5 1 2 tDxd5 exd5 1 3 'iWxd7 tDxd7 14 .lixe7 <:J;xe7 1 5 l:txd5 does not look like a real advantage for White. c2) 4 e5 ! ? was described by Gerstner in his 1 995 book as unambitious, but a year later, perhaps through discovering 8 'iVg4 ! ? he had apparently revised his view. At the time of writing I think this would be my preference. After 4 . . . h6 5 .lic 1 ! Black can try: .

c2 I ) 5 . . . tDd5 6 c4 tDb6 (or 6 . . . tDe7 7 dxc5 tDbc6 when 8 tDf3 ! ? tDg6 9 .lie3 tDgxe5 1 0 tDxe5 tDxe5 1 1 tDc3 which looks more comfortable for White to me) 7 dxc5 i.xc5 8 'iWg4 ! ? (I like this . It is significantly more energetic than 8 tDf3 d5 9 exd6 'iYxd6 1 0 'ixd6 .lixd6 1 1 tDc3 tDc6 1 2 i.d2 tDd7 1 3 0-0-0 We7 1 4 tDb5 which does not seem to give White much. Indeed Soffer-Yudasin, Israel (ch) 1 994 was agreed drawn right here) 8 . . <:J;f8 (8 . . . .lif8 is playable, but passive) 9 a3 tDc6 (9 . . . f5 ? ! 1 0 Wid l .

2 e6 3 e4 1 77 . . .

'iWh4 1 1 'iVc2 a5 1 2 tDf3 'iVe4+ 1 3 'iWxe4 fxe4 1 4 tDh4 r:Ji; f7 1 5 tDc3 i.d4 16 tDxe4 ii.xe5 17 tDf3 ii.f6 1 8 tDxf6 gxf6 1 9 ii.e3 led to a fantastic position for White in Gerstner­ Ksieski, Bundesliga II 1 996) 1 0 tDf3 filc7 1 1 'iVe4 d 5 1 2 exd6 ii.xd6 1 3 tDc3 a6 14 b4 tDe5 1 5 c5 tDxf3+ 16 'iVxf3 ii.e5 17 ii.b2 tDd5 1 8 l:l:dl tDxc3 19 ii.xc3 ii.d7 20 'iVe3 i.xc3+ 2 1 �xc3 and Black still has a number of problems to solve in getting his forces coordinated. Povah-Wu, 4NCL Birmingham, 2002. c22) 5 . . . tDh7 ! ? was proudly awarded an ' ! ' by its originator B .Certic in Informator 69, and De la Villa seems broadly persuaded that this is a problem for 4 e5. I am still sceptical. If White can get the handling right and render the idea . . . tDg5 irrelevant, then the move can look quite odd. 6 d5 ! ? (6 dxc5 tDc6 7 tDc3 ! ? is also interesting, but 7 . . . i.xc5 8 tDf3 d5 ! 9 exd6 'ilUxd6 is a rational and safe response) 6 . . . d6 (6 . . . exd5 7 'ikxd5 tDc6 8 tDf3 'iVe7 9 i.e3 ! The key move. The e-pawn needs to be unpinned. 9 . . . tDb4 1 0 'iVb3 tDg5 1 1 tDbd2 tDxf3+ 1 2 tDxf3 b6 1 3 0-0-0 and I like White ' s position i n M.Muse-Zeicic, Croatia (chT) 1 997) 7 i.b5+ ! ? i.d7 and now what about the untested 8 ii.c4 ! ? I do not see a simple defence here as both 8 . . . exd5 9 'ikxd5 and 8 . . . dxe5 9 tDf3 'ilUf6 1 0 tDc3 ! look quite dangerous for Black. If White can open the position quickly it is quite easy for the knight on h7 to look somewhat ridiculous. 4 eS Of course 4 tDc3 is a direct transposition into main lines of the French, while if 4 tDd2 h6 ! is a

good answer since 5 ii.xf6 'iVxf6 6 e5 is likely to be similar to Game 45 and satisfactory for Black. 4 . . . h6 5 ii.e3 tDfd7 6 f4 As with the pseudo-French positions which arose when Black declined White ' s gambit in Chapter 4 (see Game 1 9) I think this is a formation, a kind of Tarrasch with the . bishop already developed to e3 , WhICh does not arise normally in the French not because White does not want it, but because he cannot attain it. 6 . . . cS 7 c3 tDc6 8 tDf3

8 . cxd4 The plan of . . . cxd4/ . . . tDb6/ . . . ii.d7 is known from the Tarrasch French too, but I think that i.e3 is a useful development for speeding up White ' s play, the only possible drawback of which is its weakening of b2. For this reason I would first look at 8 . . JWb6, when in G.Grigore-N .Grigore, Bucharest Juventus 2002 White countered with 9 'iVc l ! ? in a sense the most ambitious move (9 'iVd2 is perhaps more modest), intending to continue with smooth development by tDd2 and so on. Play then took a very sharp tum with 9 . . . g5 ! ? 10 'iVd2 g4 1 1 tDg 1 f5 1 2 h3 gxh3 1 3 :xh3 . .

1 78 2 e6 3 e4 . . .

cxd4 1 4 cxd4 'i¥b4 1 5 lDc3 a6 1 6 a3 'i!Va5 and White presumably stands well. I would want to look at 1 7 Wid 1 ! ? lDd8 and now 1 8 .lte2 ! ? having ruled out for the moment the manoeuvre . . . lDd7-b6 and therefore freeing this bishop to cause damage on the kingside. 9 cxd4 lDb6 1 0 lDbd2 i.d7 1 1 i.e2 a5 1 2 0-0 a4 13 lDel ! Eyeing both kingside expansion, and the c5 square. Already there is a suspicion that in the forthcoming race White ' s aspirations are the more focused. In analogous lines in the French, one of White ' s headaches i s usually how t o develop his queen' s bishop, but here that began to be solved on move two ! 13 . . . i.e7 1 4 lDd3 0-0 1 5 l:!c1 lDa5 1 6 lDc5 i.xc5 17 dxc5 lDbc4 1 8 lDxc4 lDxc4 1 9 i.d4 ! Not the usual destination for the Trompowsky bishop, but a very satisfactory one. The solid defence it provides the e5 pawn is an excellent basis for the action on the kings ide that follows. 19 . . . i.b5 In the context of the coming storm on the other side, the exchange of light-squared bishops is something of a positional nicety. 20 J:[fJ �d7 21 l:tg3 lDa5 22 f5 i.xe2 23 'ir'xe2 �h7

24 l:lxg7+! Not a difficult combination, but a pleasing one. The wayward Black pieces cannot even dream of covering the two key squares h6 and g7. 24 . . . 'ihg7 25 f6+ 'ith7 26 �d3+ �h8 27 �h3 'i.t>h7 28 i.e3 1-0 White mates in a couple more moves.

3 h6 4 i.xf6 'i¥xf6 Strategic Introduction . . .

As I mentioned above, the diagram posItIon is the key battleground for the remainder of this chapter and one of the most for positions important Trompowsky theory. Before getting stItck into too many specifics it cries out for some strategic overview. The trade-off between the bishop pair and some compensating advantage is of course one of the dominant imbalances which enrich modem opening play. We are especially accustomed from the classics to seeing the compensation in terms of structItral weakness (doubled pawns in particular), or the setting up of a fixed pawn structItre which enhances the scope of the remaining bishop, and at the same

2 e6 3 e4 1 79 . . .

time seeks to restrict the opponent' s bishop pair (e.g. some lines o f the Nimzo-Indian where Black puts his centre pawns on c5/d6/e5). Another common idea is the creation of a dominant outpost for a knight - I expect the nurturing of the d5 square in the Sveshnikov and other Sicilians is generally hardly even perceived in terms of ' compensation for the bishop pair' . However, there is another whole range of positions in which the compensation is in terms of better development, a space advantage, occupation of the centre and so on. These need not of necessity be ' intangible' compared with those already discussed, but they are generally factors which need careful cultivation - with reckless handling they can be easily dissipated, and for this reason they tend to be classified as ' temporary' - in need of transformation into something more permanent. White ' s compens­ ation in the diagram is rather of this kind. He is occupying the centre with pawns which give him a good deal of space, and since the position of the queen on f6 is rarely ideal in the longer run, Black usually feels the need to conduct some re-organisation which will cost further time. One of the fascinating conundrums which such cases throw up (especially as here when the structure is still very fluid - basic decisions remain for both sides as to how to handle their centre pawns) is the question of opening the position. To whose advantage will it be if the position blasts open? The traditional answers would be: i) The player with the advantage in terms of space and time; ii) The player with the bishop pair.

However here that is White in the first case and Black in the second, so we are denied the luxury of an automatic answer. In fact modem theory abounds with situations in which the player opposing the bishop pair opens the position both to create good squares for his knights and to feed his initiative so much so that the highly respected positional thinker John Watson even coined a ' rule ' that "time favours the bishops". However, the position should be opened keeping in mind a healthy respect for key squares and colour complexes . In the current case, White should think long and hard, ensuring that the counter­ vailing advantages are very significant before he considers enhancing his opponent' s dark­ squared bishop by advancing his d-pawn. The central advance of preference will tend to be e4-e5 of course, and in several cases we shall see White trying to give his own pieces more space while at the same time restricting his opponent' s in precisely this way. Game 44 for example is very much about a successful case of this, and the most basic choice that shapes this chapter is that while I have considered 5 ltJc3 , 5 'iVd2 and 5 c3 , I have rejected 5 ltJf3 since I cannot conceive that the solution to White ' s problems will l i e i n blocking the very f-pawn which is so pivotal to effecting the sought after e5 advance. In short, while White will often try to drum up play on the light squares (see especially game 3 9 where this i s even a necessary response to Black's ability to dictate the pace on the dark squares), there is generally speaking a ferocious battle for the dark squares

180 2 e6 3 e4 . . .

throughout. I would like to finish this preamble with one classic example in which White ' s premature e4-eS advance comes unstuck in the face of Black' s ability t o undermine its pawn Las support. Adams-Karpov, Palmas 1 994 went: 1 d4 tLif6 2 i.gS e6 3 e4 h6 4 ..txf6 'iVxf6 S tLic3 d6 6 Wid2 gS ! ? 7 0-0-0 i.g7 8 eS ? ! - this is now believed to be premature. If the supporting f4 pawn can itself be bolstered by the g-pawn then this pawn wedge has a valuable space-gaining role to play, but here it proves vulnerable 8 . . . dxeS 9 dxeS 'iVe7 1 0 f4 tLic6 1 1 ctJf3 ..td7 12 h4 gxf4 l 3 �xf4 0-0-0 14 ctJe4

With the battle for colour complexes in the centre very much in mind, we move on to the main course. Game 39 Hodgson - Magem Badals Linares (zt) 1 995 1 d4 lLlf6 2 ..tg5 e6 3 e4 h6 4 i.xf6 �xf6 5 lLlc3

5 d6 The other main line S . . . i.b4, is the subject of Games 42-43 . In addition, the apparently rather passive retreat S . . . �d8 ! ? is also worth mentioning here. Black' s thinking i s that since h e i s likely to have to lose some more time with his queen at some juncture he can gain a measure of flexibility by an immediate retreat which will keep White guessing whether he intends to head for a . . . d6/eS structure or for a . . . dS French-type structure. The latter can be a strangely effective way of fighting for the dark squares. For example after 6 'iVd2 dS ! ? 7 0-0-0 i.e7 (7 . . . c6 intending . . . ..tb4 might be interesting too) 8 �b 1 I became intrigued by quite how White would build up his attack in the event of ...

14 . . . tLib8 ! The move which justifiably gets so much attention. Adams probably felt that for all its formal isolated status, his e-pawn is difficult to get at. This super reorganisation gains space for the currently passive d7 bishop, and indeed soon enables it to be exchanged for a knight which is the lynchpin of the e-pawn' s defence. I S tLif6 i.c6 1 6 ..te2 ctJd7 17 ctJhS ..txf3 1 8 ..txf3 ..txeS and Black has won the battle for the dark squares in the centre, and along with it a critical pawn and later the game.

2" . e6 3 e4 1 81 Black keeping the centre very tight with 8 . . c6 ! ? and then later expanding with . . . b5/ . . . liJd7/ . . . 'iWa5 (of course watching out for liJxd5 tricks if he has castled) . It is annoying for White that he can but rarely consider advancing his e-pawn to e5 because the undermining . . . c5 break which follows packs a certain punch - as we shall see in Game 45, even without the slightly clumsy knight on c3 , the Advance French structure is not great for White in the absence of a dark-squared bishop. recently when Therefore, confronted with this idea, I decided to settle for an apparently more modest development with 6 .i.d3 ! ? .

This was primarily a prophylaxis against 6 . . . d5 which I planned to answer with the slightly inelegant but fairly effective 7 exd5 exd5 8 'iVe2+ ! iLe7 (8 . iLe6? ! 9 .i.f5 ! ) 9 'iVe5 . Then after, for example, 9 . . c6 10 'iVxg7 iLf6 1 1 'ig3 iLxd4 1 2 liJge2 I definitely prefer White, since the damage done to Black's kings ide structure can be quite significant, with or without queens . It is worth noting that if Black tries 1 2 . . . iLxc3+ intending 13 liJxc3 .

'YWg5 , White might do well to consider 1 3 bxc3 ! ? since this is more likely to result in a useful c4 lever with which to attack Black' s centre than i n a weakness. For this reason 6 . . . .i.e7 looks preferable, when adventures such as 7 'ig4? ! 0-0 8 e5 should be avoided since Black is happy to play 8 . . . d5, keeping the defensive resource . . . f5 in reserve for whenever the going gets tough. However, White can still plausibly castle on either side, and elect to play f4 or not. I would say only that against restrained development such as 7 liJf3 Black is well advised not to play for the French type positions as White ' s space/development advantage is generally too great if he sub­ sequently captures on e4 . Better 7 . . .d6! 8 0-0 0-0 9 'tWd2 liJd7 and now 1 0 liJe2 ! is important, to be ready to support the centre with c3 in the event of 1 0 . . . e5, and maybe in response to . . . c5 ideas too. In this case White keeps hold of his extra space, contains the bishop pair, and still poses the question as to how Black proposes to complete development. 6 'id2

.

.

6 ... c6 ! ?

1 82 2 e6 3 e4 . . .

An important and critical idea. Black wants to cover the dS square as preparation for playing . . . eS, fighting very directly for the central dark squares. Having chosen this approach, it is important to set about it immediately, before White can either castle, or establish a wedge in the centre with the moves f4 and eS. 6 . . . ctJd7 ? ! 7 f4 c6 8 eS for example favours White as his opponent enjoys limited potential for undermining him on these key squares. 7 f4(!) Playing like this before castling carries a certain risk (see the note to Black's next move, and also Game 40) However, in this particular case I think it is almost certainly best, as whilst 7 0-0-0 should be playable, and has been tested by some strong players, my instinct is that after 7 . . . eS ! Black has already staked his claim to key squares, has no immediate problems on the d-file, and therefore must be OK. One example: 8 ctJf3 (8 dS? ! carries the nice point that 8 . . . Sl.e7 ? ! 9 dxc6 bxc6 1 0 ctJdS ! favours White. However, 8 . . . ctJd7 ! looks logical and the positional foundation of White' s play looks less secure than the tactical tricks) 8 . . . Sl.e7 9 h3 (9 'litb l is possible since 9 . . . Sl.g4 ! ? 1 0 dxeS dxeS 11 Sl.e2 Sl.e6 [ 1 1 . . . ctJd7 ? ! 12 ctJxeS ! ] 12 l:r.hg l ctJd7 1 3 Sl.c4 ! ltd8 1 4 Sl.xe6 �xe6 looks about equal. I rather get the feeling that 1 3 Sl.c4 ! was an ' equalising resource' though which is not a ringing endorsement of White' s opening) 9 . . . ctJd7 1 0 'litb l 0-0 1 1 'iVe3 :Le8 1 2 dS Sl.d8 1 3 Sl.c4 cS - looks like a concession, but closing the centre enables Black to tum more purposefully to the queens ide - 14 ctJh2 a6 I S ctJg4

'ifg6 1 6 'iff3 bS and Black had very play. Hall-Glek, reasonable Bundesliga II 1 997.

7 e5 Consistent, but Black has an interesting alternative in 7 . . . gS ! ? here, a closely related idea to that in Game 40, indeed on the face of it likely to be somewhat more promising since the move 6 . . . c6 puts paid to most ctJdS-based nonsense, whereas the contribution of 6 . . . a6 in the analogous game is less clear. It is important to establish whether ' theory ' , in adopting a sceptical tone towards this sharp move has really been guilty of 'judgement by results ' or whether the pawn sacrifice 8 fS ! ? is genuinely strong here. The 'result' in question was David-Daly, Linares (zt) 1 99 5 in which an almighty attack ensued after 8 . . . exfS 9 0-0-0 fxe4?! 1 0 ctJxe4 'iVg6 1 1 Sl.d3 fS 1 2 .l:re l ! fxe4 1 3 Sl.xe4 �f6 1 4 Sl.xc6+ 'litd8 I S 'iWaS+ b6 1 6 'iWc3 and White is already winning. Improvements are clearly required at move 9 . Gallagher mentions 9 . . . f4, but 1 0 eS ! ? �d8 1 1 exd6 Sl.xd6 1 2 Sl.c4 looks like a pretty good King' s Gambit. Again i n keeping with Game 40, 9 . . . Sl.g7 seems best, when I think White does best to handle the position in line with my ...

2 e6 3 e4 1 83 . . .

recommendation there, and play 1 0 exf5 Ji.xf5 1 1 .i.d3 ! Ji.e6 ! 1 2 tDge2 with undeniable compensation for the pawn. S dxe5 dxe5 9 f5

In this particular position it might be quite hard to suggest an alternative, but as part of a general plan of campaign, White 's play is noteworthy. Rather than trying to compete on the dark squares (a battle which would not look very promising given Black's fairly single-minded opening strategy to control these) the text move sort of concedes control of them in exchange for further enhancing on the White' s prospects light-squares, not least by trying to shut the c8 bishop out of the game. The question is How much can Black make the dark squares count? 9 :iVd6 This very reasonable attempt to improve the position of the queen may well be best, but others also merit attention: a) 9 . . . 'i'd8 is instructive for trying to measure the amount of concessions which the defender has to make for White to become interested in exchanging queens. This is reckoned to just about cross . .

the threshold, but after 1 0 "i!Vxd8+ �xd8 1 1 .i.c4 �e8 12 tDf3 tDd7 1 3 0-0-0 Ji.c5 1 4 �b 1 b5 1 5 Ji.b3 clte7 16 g4 Rabinovich-Belichev, Euro­ pean (ch u-20) Tallinn 1 997 I think Black should ' go active ' on the queens ide with 1 6 . . . a5 1 7 a4 i.b4 ! when White has the edge, but at least he cannot cultivate it gently without distractions. b) 9 . . . 'i' g5 ! ? is suggested by Hedman, but after 1 0 'i'xg5 hxg5 1 1 tDf3 ! f6 1 2 0-0-0 the light squares look more likely to be the big issue, and these are clearly White ' s domain. c) 9 . . . tDd7 1 0 tDf3 tDb6 ! ? was an unusual attempt to organise the pieces to predict White ' s potential for kingside expansion and facilitate an early evacuation of the king to the other wing. It worked out well in Povah-Ansell, 4 NCL, 1 997 but I think that after 1 1 0--0--0 i.d7 a chance was missed to embarrass Black with 1 2 tDa4 ! ? (Freeing up a lot of squares for the queen, including c3 itself) 12 . . . 0--0-0 1 3 tDxb6+ axb6 1 4 'i'c3 i.c5 ! ? 1 5 .i.c4 (but not 1 5 'i'xe5 'i'xe5 16 tDxe5 i.xf5 ! ) 1 5 . . . �he8 1 6 g4 and I feel that the exchange of knights has somehow clarified the position in White ' s favour. d) 9 . . . g6 ! ? is clearly very combative. White should answer with 1 0 Ji.d3 (tactically defending the f-pawn since 1 0 . . . gxf5 ? ! 1 1 exf5 Ji.xf5?? 1 2 'iYt'l wins a piece) and now after 1 0 . . . tDd7, Gallagher gives the straightforward 1 1 0-0-0 h5 1 2 �b 1 as better for White and this looks credible since the move . . . Ji.h6 has lost its chief irritation value. However, White can also consider settling for short castling. In Gabriel-P. Schlosser, Bundesliga

1 84 2 e6 3 e4 . . .

1 997 he quickly attained the upper hand after 1 1 ttJf3 h5 1 2 fxg6 fxg6 1 3 0-0 .th6 14 �e l 0-0 1 5 .tc4+ -J;>g7 ? ! 16 ttJd4 ! although 1 5 . . .'.ih7 ! 1 6 lId l ttJb6 looks less clear. This might be significant as Igor Glek recently refined Black's play with the immediate 1 0 . . . h5 ! ? which of course cuts out the Gallagher recipe. 1 0 .td3

1 0 ... .te7 In Engqvist-Hedman, Stockholm, 1 996 Black played a very interesting pawn sacrifice which certainly merits a mention. At first sight 10 . . . b5 ! ? looks distinctly rash since after 1 1 a4 (not compulsory, but very thematic) 1 1 . . . b4 1 2 ttJd 1 ttJd7 1 3 ttJe3 it appears that Black has still further compromised himself on the light squares for not much in return. However, the well motivated offer 13 . . . b3 ! puts all this in a different light. After 14 cxb3 llb8 1 5 .tc2 'iff6? ! 1 6 0-0-0 .th4 1 7 'iff2 .ta6 1 8 ttJf3 Wie7 1 9 ttJg4 ! White consolidated and started to build his own threats based upon a similar ' clearance ' pawn sacrifice with f5-f6, but Engqvist believed 1 5 . . . 'ifxd2+ 1 6 -J;>xd2 .th4+ 1 7 \t>e2 .ta6+ 1 8 � f2 f6 followed by . . . ttJc5 to be much tougher. I am sure White is OK here too, but

whether he himself can undertake anything positive is not so clear. In short, an interesting pawn offer which White would do well to have covered. 1 1 ttJf3 ttJd7 1 2 a4 ! It is not difficult to see that . . . b5 is worth stopping, or that c4 might be a good square to preserve for the bishop. However, the fact that 1 2 . . . ttJc5 for example can be answered by 1 3 .tc4 ! and White has no reason to fear the exchange of queens, this is something of a key insight. Note that in comparison with the endgame considered in note ' a ' to Black's 9th above (with 9 . . . 'iVd8) White has time to play a4 here because in order to arrive at the ending Black has to block his f8 bishop, thus ruling out the possibility of . . . .i.h4 . It is this detail which really renders the ending viable for White, and 1 2 . . . CtJc5 ? ! something o f a clumsy move. 12 . . . a5 13 g4 'iWc5 14 'iVf2

14 . . . 'iVxf2+? ! By general agreement this understandable liquidation was a step in the wrong direction. By playing 1 4 . . . Wib4 ! 1 5 0-0-0 .i.c5 Black would have maintained his

2 e6 3 e 4 1 85 . . .

share of the chances in a very complicated middlegame. It is easy to see his reservation - Black 's king is not entirely happy, and on the kingside there is a ready made pawn roller. Still, 16 'iWe l �d4 gives a fair share of the chances, while 1 6 'iWg3 �e3 + ! ? 1 7 �b l �f4 i s also none too clear, although in the former case, 1 6 . . . .id4 1 7 CLlxd4 exd4 1 8 CLlb l ! ? 'ili'xa4 1 9 e5 ! might rather illustrate the dangers Black still faces. On a more general note, I recently wrote an article on space advantages, and during the preparation of it I was struck by quite how often the exploitation of a spatial plus is in fact facilitated by a queen exchange. This is especially noteworthy because it goes against the basic rule of thumb about the player with the advantage keeping material on the board in such situations. The key point seems to be that the kind of spatial plus which White has here, requiring an expansion of the kingside pawns is greatly hampered if there are outstanding issues of king safety. The queen exchange can assist in this, no matter on which wing the king is residing. 15 �xf2 .id6 16 .ic4 CLlf6 1 7 l:f.ad l ! ?

1 7 ... �c7 It is not clear to me that it was entirely necessary for White to present his opponent with this opportunity to complicate the struggle over again, but since he did, I feel Black should probably have tried 1 7 . . . CLlxg4+ ! ? 1 8 c;t>e2 .ltc5 1 9 l:.d2 (otherwise . . . CLle3) 19 . . . 0-0 20 h3 CLlf6 21 CLlxe5 .ltxf5 ! (De la Villa) 22 CLlxf7 .ltg6 with approximate equality since White lacks a really juicy discovered check. Admittedly this is not so easy to spot, but I nonetheless sometimes get the feeling there is a kind of 'Hodgson dividend' whereby Julian' s fearsome reputation in complex positions encourages opponents to try and keep things simple when in fact the more double-edged path offers better chances of survival. 18 g5 ! ? A striking decision. Rather than trying to arrange a traditional pawn storm with h4 and g5 etc, White advances immediately to obtain a quite superb knight on g5 . 1 8 . . . hxg5 19 CLlxg5 1:[fB 20 CLle2 .ltd7? This is the most important missed opportunity on the strategic front. Black simply had to try to challenge White ' s cramping f5 pawn with 20 . . . �e7 2 1 CZSg3 g6 ! when after 22 h4, White still has a nice position, but not the easy, uncontested domination he enjoys in the game. After the passive text, Hodgson is able to fix the Black g-pawn too, and create another target for his operations. 2 1 h4 c;t>e7 22 h5! .lte8 23 1:[d3 1:[h8 24 CLlg3 1:td8 25 l:f.b3 l:.b8 26 J:[d l 1:th6 27 �f3 CLlh7 28 c;t>g4 CLlxg5 29 �xg5 f6+ 30 �g4

1 86 2 e6 3 e4 . . .

Black's rather passive play has left us with a model restriction of the bishop pair. Moreover both knight' s pawns still look like serious targets. Shortly Black hastens the end by accepting a thematic pawn sacrifice which illustrates yet another technique for combating the bishop pair - the exchange of bishops leaving the knight dominat­ ing the remaining bad bishop. 30 . . . .td7 3 1 .tn �hh8 32 �bd3 .l:.bd8 33 .te6! .txe6 ? ! 34 fxe6 �xd3 35 l:xd3 �xe6 36 lbf5 �g8 37 .l:tb3 b6 38 .l:tc3 �d7 39 �h4 ! Black no longer has the appropriate forces to mount a defence of his various weaknesses. It is a nice irony that as soon as he is able to advance his backward g-pawn he resigns, for although a weakness, this pawn was also performing the crucial task of holding his opponent' s passed h-pawn ! 39 ... g6 40 �g3 g5+ 4 1 �g4 �e6 42 lld3 1-0 Game 40 Wells Britton British Rapidplay 2002 -

1 d4 lbf6 2 .tg5 e6 3 e4 h6 4 .txf6 'iYxf6 5 �d2 ! ?

5 . . . d6 Consideration of the special implications of White ' s unusual move order might seem to be jumping ahead a bit, but it is not hard to imagine that it is all about avoiding 5 lbc3 .tb4 ! ?, the subject of Games 42 and 4 3 . Here, Black acquiesces in the transposition back to main lines, but 5 �d2 does suffer from a certain undeniable in­ flexibility, and therefore raises special issues too. Black has various ways to try to inject an independent flavour into the proceedings : a ) 5 . . . e5 6 dxe5 (or 6 lb c 3 .tb4 7 dxe5 which comes to the same thing) 7 . . :i'xe5 7 lbc3 .tb4 8 lbge2 ! and now: a l ) 8 . . . c6 is too risky. 9 0-0-0 0-0 1 0 �b l �d8 1 1 f4 Wile7 1 2 a3 .ta5 1 3 lbg3 d6 1 4 .li.e2 .tc7 1 5 �hfl b5? A blunder, but Black' s position i s already very susceptible to attack. 16 .li.xb5 ! cxb5 17 lbd5 �d7 1 8 Wilc3 .tb6 19 lbf5 f6 20 lbxb6 axb6 21 �xd6 1 -0 OIl-De long, Wijk aan Zee (op) 1 997. a2) 8 . . . d6 ! is much sounder. 9 f4 'iYf6 1 0 O-O-O ! ? 0-0 ( 1 0 . . . .tg4 - is given by De la Villa, but I like 1 1 e5 dxe5 12 fxe5 'Wie7 1 3 'iWf4 ! and if 1 3 . . . .txe2 then 14 lbd5 ! ) 1 1 �b l ! ? (threatening lbd5) 1 1 . . . lbd7 1 2 a3 .ta5 13 'Wid3 offers fairly balanced chances, but I quite like this treatment for White who has reasonable hopes to create play on the kingside. b) 5 . . . c5 ! ? is a good candidate for the move most likely to cause trouble. Such a direct attack on the centre severely curtails White ' s options.

2 . . . e6 3 e4 1 8 7

b l ) 6 c 3 ? ! makes little sense. After 6 . . . d5 ! Black achieves the French structure which we shall see is perhaps the most effective antidote to the 5 c3 system (see Games 44 and 45) only with the addition of what here is a frankly absurd position for the white queen. b2) 6 e5 is therefore all but forced when Black again has a choice: b2 1 ) 6 . . J Wh4 ! ? is recommended by De la Villa as a virtual refutation of White ' s play on the basis of the game Condie-Grant, Scottish (ch) 1 995. It is true that the move effectively obliges White to sacrifice a pawn. However, after 7 lbf3 1IVe4+ 8 i.e2 cxd4 9 0-0 (9 c3 d3 ! offers no advantage) 9 . . . lbc6 1 0 i.d3 1IVg4 instead of 1 1 h3 ? ! White could try 1 1 c3 ! ? dxc3 1 2 lbxc3 with quite promising play. b22) After 6 . . .'i'd8, it would seem slightly surprising if 7 d5 (7 dxc5 i.xc5 8 lbc3 d5 ! ? ) 7 . . . exd5 8 'i'xd5 were good for White, since the queen has required 3 moves to get to d5. Still Froehlich-Delchev, Metz (op) 2002 showed that Black's task should not be underestimated. He got in quite a mess after 8 . . . lbc6 9 lbc3 d6 10 i.b5 lib6 ( 1 O .. :tic7 1 1 0-0-0 i.e6 12 i.xc6 ! + bxc6 1 3 lbb5 ! also looks dangerous) 1 1 exd6 i.e6 1 2 i.xc6+ bxc6 1 3 'iVe5 when =

he felt moved to sacrifice a piece with 1 3 . . . i.xd6 which should certainly not be sufficient. The critical try would seem to be 8 . . . 'i'b6 ! ? since if 9 lbd2 'iYxb2 1 0 .!:Ib l 'i'd4 I would b e sceptical as to whether White has full value for the pawn. This awaits further tests. c) 5 . . . d5 ! ? is also well worth considering, the rationale being that against other attempts by Black to reach French structures (e.g. 5 lbc3 �d8 ! ? and . . . d5) I have argued that d2 is not always the optimal square for the white queen. (See the note to S . . .'i'd8 in Game 39 above) . 6 lbc3 a6 This has rather the appearance of a waiting move, although Black can sometimes have . . . b5 in mind. Having said this, the by no means minor list of victims of a quick lbbS in these lines, along with those who have found the i.bS pin an irritation will well understand the motivation. 7 f4 As usual this and long castling is the plan, the main issue is timing. In contrast with the previous game, 6 . . . a6 carries no immediate ' threat' , and therefore White has a little more time. Thus a case can be made for 7 O-O-O ! ? A few illustrations : a) 7 . . . g5 in contrast with Game 4 1 , allows White time to get in 8 g3 and f4 . Of course this is playable too, but I like White in such cases. b) 7 . . . bS 8 e5 ! 'iWd8 9 i.d3 b4 1 0 lbe4 lbc6?! 1 1 lbf3 dS 1 2 lbg3 g6 1 3 lbe2 h5 14 h4 led to an unusually pleasant looking French for White in Romero Holmes - Zlotnik, Ceuta, 1 993 . c) 7 . . . 'ie7 8 f4 g6 9 lbf3 i.g7 1 0 i.d3 lbd7 i s one of several plausible move orders to reach a position that

1 88 2 e6 3 e4 . . .

has occurred in a surprising number of high level games.

All the discussion so far would lead us to think that White should have good chances by setting up the dark square pawn wedge with 1 1 eS (De la Villa describes this as the ' ideal formation ' ) 1 1 . . . dS and now de la Villa suggests 1 2 h4 ! when 12 . . . cS 1 3 dxcS CDxcS 14 hS gS I S fS ! indeed looks very grim for Black. He must rather play 1 2 . . . hS, when White can either set about organising a timely g4, or even try to create play with the pieces e.g. 1 3 CDgS ! ? c S 1 4 llde l ! ? when 14 . . . cxd4?! is probably already too risky with the sacrifice I S CDxdS ! in the air. Interestingly, a couple of strong players have rather been enticed by the murkier pleasures of 1 1 fS ! ? As a move in this position I do not really think it can compete, but to illustrate White ' s possibilities in the position I think it is worth a look. Pomes Marcet - B .Lali6, Manresa, 1 995 continued 1 l . . . 0-0 ( 1 1 . . . eS ? was ripped apart by 1 2 CDdS 'ilfd8 1 3 dxeS CDxeS 1 4 llhfl c6 I S CDe3 0-0 1 6 CDxeS jtxeS 1 7 CDg4 1-0 i n Benjamin-Yermo linsky, USA (ch) playoff 1 994. Ouch ! ) 1 2 g4 ! ? ( 1 2 lldfl looks more solid since the text has serious implications for the long white

diagonal, but I suppose 1 1 fS ! ? is not the choice for a solid mood. In any case, the speed and force of White ' s no holds barred build-up in the game is the feature of this that I found instructive) 1 2 . . . bS 1 3 h4 cS 1 4 gS cxd4 IS CDe2 exfS 16 exfS .ib7 1 7 f6 (the more restrained 1 7 llh3 ! ? looks reasonable too) 1 7 . . . CDxf6 1 8 gxf6 'ilfxf6 1 9 lldfl llae8 and now sadly White blundered with 20 CDfxd4 allowing 20 . . . llxe2 ! Instead with the rather passive-looking 20 CDeg l followed by llh2-f2 . White might have had hopes of a successful reorganisation, although I would not try to argue that his advantage is easy to handle. 7 g5 ! ? Striking back on the dark squares before White can consolidate. While it may look as if 6 . . . a6 is going to find limited relevance in the ensuing kings ide and centre dominated contest (this is certainly how I viewed it during the game) in fact there is a lot to be said for thus ' striking while the iron is hot ' . This is not least because in general once the White king is safely tucked away, g3 might be a very decent, solid reply, bolstering the f-pawn, but here 8 g3 ? would of course fail to the disruptive 8 . . . gxf4 9 gxf4 'ilfh4+. . . .

2 e6 3 e4 189 . . .

8 f5 ! ? An interesting pawn sacrifice, and a noteworthy and instructive idea, which we have already encountered in Game 3 9 . I have to take issue though with those commentators who give the impression that from here on Black is in very hot water. With correct play White has undeniable compensation, but the precise assessment is very much up for grabs. What I would say, however, is that if this sacrifice should be found wanting, White might have to go back and re-consider 7 O-O-O ! ?, as other moves here do not really impress e.g. 8 'Dh3 gxf4 9 'Dxf4 h5 ! ? 1 0 .ic4 'Dc6 1 1 'Dce2 .ih6 where White ' s position should be just OK dynamically, but Black has sufficient counter-chances on the dark squares. 8 . . . exf5? ! Simply too dangerous. It is understandable that Black is afraid of the consequences of his opponent being able to support his light-squared pawn wedge, and it is far from obvious over the board that acceptance of the gambit is better timed once White has castled but in fact 8 . . . .tg7 ! first is a great improvement. The point is that after 9 0-0-0 (releasing the tension with 9 fxe6 fxe6 1 0 'Dge2 0-0 1 1 0-0-0 'Dc6 looks fine for Black) acceptance of the pawn sacrifice becomes a rather different ball game since f6 square is covered, and the black king has a flight square on fS . Therefore 9 . . . exf5 ! ? 1 0 'Dd5 ? ! �d8 1 1 exf5 .ixf5 ! no longer looks like full compensation although the 1 2 �e3+ .te6 1 3 'Dxc7+?? �xc7 1 4 d 5 .te5 ! 0- 1 o f P .Huber-Ksieski, Schwaebisch Gmuend (op) 1 99 8 was hardly necessary either !

However, I think White, with a little more restraint, can still get very decent play. I would prefer 1 0 exf5 ! (Of course 1 0 e5 ! ? �d8 1 1 exd6 �xd6 1 2 J:e l + �fS offers some sort of compensation too, but I am sceptical if it suffices since it will also be necessary to keep an eye on the d4 pawn) intending to meet 1 0 . . . .txf5 with the positional 1 1 .td3 ! (threatening J:fl ) and now for example after 1 1 . . . .te6 ! 1 2 'Dge2 0-0 1 3 J:hfl �e7 1 4 d5 ! ? .ic8 1 5 'Dg3 White clearly has development and attacking chances for the pawn, but I could not claim a 'clear advantage' here. There is of course a very close parallel with this in my analysis of Alberto David' s pawn offer (see the note to move 7 of Game 39). I strongly suggest analysing these two in conjunction. 9 'Dd5! Now this is best. It is all about the f6 square ! 9 . . . �d8 1 0 exf5 c6! The best fighting chance. 1 0 . . . .txf5 1 1 �f2 ! is awful for Black. In Akopian-Iljushkin, Novgorod (op) 1 999, only another ten moves were required to see him off after 1 1 . . . c6 12 �xf5 cxd5 1 3 0-0-0 'Dc6 1 4 .td3 .te7 1 5 'De2 �d7 1 6 �f2 'Dd8 1 7 'Dc3 �c6 1 8 J:de l 'De6 1 9 �f5 J:d8 20 'Dxd5 �a4 2 1 J:xe6 ! 1 -0. 1 l 'De3 ! The queen does not belong on the e-file, and I rightly decided that 1 1 �e2+?! �d7 would only hinder my own development. 1 1 . . . .tg7 12 0-0-0 'Dd7 13 h4 ! ? I t i s important to ensure that the kingside remains an uncongenial

1 90 2 e6 3 e4 . . .

territory In which to shelter the king. If Black could play . ' . liJf6/ . . . dS and 0-0 without special difficulty his position would be very comfortable. 13 . . . gxh4 ? ! 14 liJf3 i.f6 15 Wbl J:tg8? Even though I realise that it was more on the grounds of keeping files closed than out of misguided materialism, I was a bit surprised by my opponent' s pawn grab, since it is difficult thereafter to develop his remaining pieces. The text move however, is a serious mistake. Preventing liJg4 is a nice bonus, but it should be well down Black ' s check-list o f priorities. 1 6 liJc4 d5 17 �e1+ �f8 18 'ixh6+ J:.g7 1 9 liJd6 i.e7 20 .l:.xh4 ! A nice solution, although not too difficult to spot. Black is completely tied up. 20 . . . liJf6 Missing White ' s little combin­ ation, but it is too late to offer much constructive advice.

2 1 liJxf7 ! <j;xf7 22 liJe5+ 1-0 If 22 . . <j;g8 23 1i'h8 is mate, while 22 . . <j;f8 23 liJg6+ is also quite brutal. .

.

A fierce demonstration of White ' s attacking possibilities if Black somewhat mis-timed his compet­ ition for the dark squares. Game 4 1 Shereshevsky - Kolev Elenite 1 994 1 d4 liJf6 2 i.g5 e6 3 e4 h6 4 i.xf6 1i'xf6 5 liJc3 d6 6 1i'd2 g5

Perhaps the move with the most pedigree in this position, the choice of amongst others Karpov, Leko, and Topalov. Whatever fun we may have seen emanating from the strategy of provoking the move f4 and then attacking it with . . . gS, a decent proportion of the enjoyment has always been White ' s and simply preventing the advance of White' s f-pawn with this ' extended fianchetto ' bears the mark of common sense. Of course, it is not all roses. Here too competing for dark squares involves weakening some light ones - White can hope to exploit the ' hole' on hS, and of course, more often than not the advance . . . e6-eS is now ruled out if only on aesthetic grounds. Moreover, White can try to target gS itself, as his next move illustrates.

2 e6 3 e4 1 91 . . .

Nonetheless, in my view this is clearly the right way to fianchetto. 6 . . . g6? ! holds out little better prospect than the kind of thankless task for Black which we saw in Note ' c ' to White' s 7th move in Game 40 above. 7 h4 ! ? An interesting addition t o White ' s arsenal . The idea o f 0-0-0 and h4 has long been familiar, but the immediate pressuring of g5 does contain some independent features. White has a number of quite contrasting strategies at this juncture though and I shall try to deal thoroughly with the more promising of them: a) 7 0-0-0 has long been the main line but White' s strategy only really becomes defined with the further parting of the ways after 7 . . . �g7 : a 1 ) 8 e5 has already been chapter the in considered introduction. The problem of course is the difficulty of supporting this pawn with f4 such a contested square. In addition to Karpov ' s sophisticated recipe, Black can even try 8 . . . dxe5 9 dxe5 'iUf4 ! ? 1 0 �xf4 gxf4 1 1 t2Jf3 �d7 1 2 �b5 a6 1 3 �xd7+ t2Jxd7 1 4 l:the 1 l:i.g8 1 5 lId4 �h8 1 6 g3 fxg3 1 7 hxg3 rj;e7 with full equality in Mamedyarov­ Jobava, European (ch) Batumi 2002. Further evidence that this is a little too committal for White. The e4-e5 advance remains an aspiration, but requires more careful preparation. a2) 8 g3 ! ? This is as much designed to support the advance of the f-pawn as it is to prepare a fianchetto. This might well be the other critical line, and has been Hodgson' s choice both times that he was confronted by this position. Still, Black' s reply 8 . . . t2Jc6 ! hits the

nail on the head by targeting d4 and now:

a2 1 ) 9 t2Jb5 'iUd8 (After 9 . . . 0-0 ! ? decided understandably Julian against 1 0 t2Jxc7 Mb8 when 1 1 t2Jb5 a6 1 2 t2Jxd6 t2Jxd4 would give Black some serious play on the dark squares. However, his 1 0 f4 ! ? in Winnipeg Hodgson-Vukadinov, another revealed 1 997 (op) dimension of White ' s strategy. The sensible 1 0 . . . a6 1 1 e5 "fiIe7 1 2 t2Jc3 would give White fair attacking chances - castling short is a mixed blessing with such a structure) 1 0 d5 ! ? (This always involves a degree of risk given White ' s vulnerability on the dark squares in general, and his king sitting at the end of the long diagonal. It is possible of course to play 1 0 c3 ! ? in the style of Adams ' idea in note ' c ' ) 1 0 . . . exd5 ! 1 1 exd5 Garcia was �g2 12 t2Je7 Paolicchi-David, Linares (zt) 1 995 when I quite like simply 1 2 . . . .ltd7 ! ? for Black. a22) 9 .ltb5 ! ? I prefer this. 9 . . . .ltd7 (De la Villa has praise for 9 . . . 0-0 ! ? 1 0 �xc6 bxc6 1 1 f4 c5 ! ? and Black could well be first with the serious hits in the battle of opposite side castling, although 1 2 dxc5 ! ? i s not clear at all. However, I do not really see an objection to 1 0

1 92 2 e6 3 e4 . . .

liJge2 ! ? and 1 1 f4) 1 0 liJge2 a6 ( 1 0 . . . �xf2? is asking for trouble. 1 1 lldfl 'YWg2 12 h4 ! takes away the queen ' s last flight square and threatens for example 'YWe3/�fg l , or �e l lJ:i.f2) 1 1 iLxc6 .ixc6 12 f4 0-0-0

1 3 �e3 ! ? ( 1 3 .l:!hfl �e7 ! ?) 1 3 . . . �b8 1 4 J:i.hfl ( 1 4 �b l ! ? looks worth considering as leaving the rook on the h-file brings h-pawn moves into consideration. If White wants to encourage Black to capture on f4, then h2-h4 can be a useful lever) 14 . . . 'iWg6 (again I suspect that 14 . . . �e7 ! is stronger, with a tense equilibrium. Either side will be punished here for premature action - Black risks weakening squares for his opponent' s knights, while White must weigh the consequences of any advance in the centre for opening either the g7-b2 diagonal, or the d-file) and now maybe I S g4 ! ? intending to meet I S . . . hS with 1 6 fS and I slightly prefer White in this very finely balanced contest. b) 7 .ic4 ! ? was a quite original take on the position which was essayed in Anand-Karpov, World (ch final k.o) Lausanne, 1 998 and which Anand attributes to Yusupov who was on his team for the match.

It is actually a precursor of rather sharp play, since in all probability the players will castle on opposite sides .

In the game White got fair attacking prospects after 7 . . . liJc6 8 liJge2 i.g7 9 J:i.d l i.d7 1 0 0-0 0-0-0 1 1 liJbS a6 1 2 liJa3 g4 1 3 f4 gxf3 1 4 J:i.xf3 'iWe7 I S c3 hS 1 6 l1dfl lIdfS 1 7 b4 liJ a7 1 8 liJc2 . However, the manoeuvre liJbS-a3 , which we shall revisit in ' c ' below, while necessary here to provoke a target for White ' s queenside operations feels somehow more suited to a slower positional struggle rather than the kind of attacking contest that has an element of a race about it. Indeed the view now is that Black can strike back a little more directly with 1 2 . . . 'YWg6 1 3 J.d3 fS ! ? ( 1 3 . . . liJxd4 ? ! 1 4 liJxd4 J.xd4 I S J.xa6 ! ) 1 4 exfS exfS I S c 3 d S 1 6 b4 'iWd6 as in Sarthou-Marciano, Montpellier (op), 200 1 . White should try 1 7 bS ! ? liJa7 1 8 'iVb2 as ! which looks like a sharp position with well balanced chances. c) 7 g3 ! ? J.g7 8 liJbS 1i'd8 9 c3 a6 1 0 liJa3 is a much more positionally motivated idea, and rather typical of the very pragmatic Michael Adams. I suppose the argument would be in effect that S liJc3 has done its job by

2 e6 3 e4 1 93 . . .

provoking the weakening 6 . . . g5, and that this justifies expending some time to bolster up the dark squares. The idea worked rather well in its debut Adams-Leko, European (ch) Rapid, Cap d'Agde, 1 996 when after 10 . . . b6 1 1 i.g2 i.b7 12 lDc2 lDd7 13 lDe3 'fie7 1 4 lDe2 0-0-0 1 5 0-0-0 'it'b8 1 6 'it'b l lDf6 1 7 �c2 h5 1 8 e5 liJd5 1 9 i.xd5 i.xd5 2 0 liJxd5 exd5 2 1 f4 White had the much pleasanter position. However, not only does the whole thing suit Mickey' s style perfectly, I also have the feeling that Leko ' s reaction did not take the play onto the right kind of battle ground either. Maybe it was possible to play instead 8 . . . �e7 9 c3 and now either 9 . . . c6 1 0 liJa3 d5 1 1 e5 f6 ! ? or even 9 . . . a6 1 0 liJa3 f5 ! ? Whatever the answer, White' s position remains solid, and it seems Adams ' sophisticated solution is here to stay as a reliable option. 7 . . . i.g7 8 hxg5 hxg5 If 8 . . . �xd4, simply 9 'fixd4 i.xd4 1 0 liJb5 ! is embarrassing. 9 lhh8+ i.xh8

shocking 1 0 liJD ! ? does indeed look by far the most interesting of various bids for a quick knockout. The point is to answer 1 0 . . . g4 with 1 1 e5 ! after which White won a super game in Schlenker-Pfrommer, Waldshut 2002 following 1 1 . . . 'fig7 1 2 liJg5 dxe5 1 3 d5 ! f6? ! (Weak, but nothing else looks much good either for example 1 3 . . . 'iWh6 1 4 dxe6 i.xe6 1 5 liJd5 with strong threats. From time to time it is handy not yet to have castled queenside in this line ! ) 14 i.b5+ ! ? c 6 1 5 liJxe6 i.xe6 1 6 dxe6 cxb5 1 7 liJxb5 liJc6 1 8 'ikd6 .l:tc8 1 9 lId l liJd4 20 liJxd4 exd4 2 1 .l:txd4 :a8 22 l:hg4 ! although I think it is true that the more prosaic 1 4 liJxe6 was also strong. It was 1 1 . . . 'ile7 which I had expected to leave White rather loose, but after 1 2 liJb5 ! , I cannot now see any way to prove this for example 1 2 . . . gxD 1 3 'iWh6 i.xe5 ! 1 4 dxe5 d5 1 5 0-0-0 (but not 1 5 �h8+ �d7 since the resource . . . �g5 is likely to prove embarrassing at some level) 1 5 . . . a6 1 6 liJd4 ( 1 6 liJc3 liJc6 looks about equal) 1 6 . . . fxg2 1 7 i.xg2 and White has quite dangerous compensation, indeed if 1 7 . . . c5 White already has the option to force a draw with 1 8 liJf5 ! ? exf5 1 9 i.xd5 lDd7 2 0 i.xf7+, but may well play for more with 1 8 liJf3 ! ? Black can of course try to avoid these complications, but both 1 0 . . . a6 1 1 e5 dxe5 1 2 liJxe5 ! ? and perhaps more surprisingly 1 0 . . . liJc6 1 1 liJb5 �e7 12 'fixg5 'fixg5 1 3 liJxg5 liJxd4 1 4 liJxc7+ �d7 1 5 c3 ! look quite promising for White. 1 0 liJc6 As usual Black can alternatively take precautions against the pin, but 1 0 . . . i.d7 1 1 liJf3 liJc6 1 2 d5 ! liJb4 1 3 i.c4 b5 1 4 e5 ! (An unusual . . .

10 0-0-0 Clearly the main line. However, whilst I started out deeply sceptical, I have to admit that the rather

1 94 2 e6 3 e4 . . .

example of the dual advance of the centre pawns) 1 4 . . . �f4 1 5 �xf4 gxf4 1 6 lLlxb5 iLxb5 1 7 iLxb5+ �e7 18 dxe6 fXe6 19 exd6+ cxd6 20 c3 was very good for White in Lputian-Tukmakov, Tilburg (blitz) 1 994.

11 i.b5 ! ? This looks more dependable than 1 1 lLlf3, another attempt to blast Black from the board, but one which wobbles a little on closer examination. Tsesarsky in his notes for ChessBase Magazine was understandably unhappy with the position he obtained as Black after 1 1 . . .�f4 1 2 �xf4 gxf4 1 3 i.b5 iLd7 14 lLle2 e5 1 5 l:!.h l 0-0-0 1 6 d5 'De7 1 7 iLxd7+ �xd7 in Chemiak Tyomkin-Tsesarsky, (mem), Ramat Aviv 2000, when I agree with him that 1 8 g3 ! (and if 1 8 . . . f5 19 c4 ! fxe4 20 'Dg5 with advantage) would have been the most convincing route to emphasise White ' s superiority on the light squares. However, he says that he could not make the more natural 1 1 . . . g4( ! ) work, but in contrast with the analogous note to move 1 0 above, I am less convinced by White ' s attack here after 1 2 lLlb5 �e7 ! 1 3 �h6 ! (Better than Tsesarsky ' s recommended 13

'Dh2 ? ! a6 1 4 �h6? iLf6 1 5 'Dxc7+ when I hardly see a way to even struggle on after the simple 15 . . . 'it>d8 ! ) 13 . . . i.f6 when I think he should bail out with a draw by means of 14 e5 dxe5 1 5 dxe5 'Dxe5 16 'Dxc7+ ! "V/ixc7 17 �xf6 gxf3 1 8 iLb5+ i.d7 1 9 "V/ih8+ �e7 20 �h4+ etc. and Black cannot escape the checks at an acceptable price. 1 1 . . .i.d7 1 2 'Dge2 0-0-0 13 "iHe3 �b8 14 f3 The rather forcing nature of the further course of the game encourages the thought that maybe the immediate 1 4 g4 ! ? could have been considered here. 1 4 . . . iLg7 1 5 g4 ! ? An interesting twist. Rather than the g3/f4 formation which we saw in note ' a ' to White ' s move 7, in which the aim was to time appropriately an opening of the position, here White hopes to pursue a traditional, thematic light-square strategy by keeping the position rather closed, and trying to direct a knight to the weakened square h5 . The idea demands an energetic response to maintain the balance, and is an important addition to White' s armoury. 15 . . . l:!.h8 16 'Dg3 "iHf4 ! 17 "V/ixf4 gxf4 1 8 iLxc6

2 e6 3 e4 1 95 . . .

1 8 fxg3 ! An important tactical resource. Permitting White to fulfil his plan with 1 8 . . . .1i.xc6 1 9 ttJh5 would be rather unpleasant to defend since the bishops really lack perspective. 1 9 .1i.xd7 .1i.h6+ 20 'ioti>bl .te3 2 1 ttJe2 g 2 2 2 .1i.a4 ? ! This leads t o a forced draw, a s the g-pawn costs White precisely his extra piece. It was possible at least to try 22 c3 ! ? preparing 'ioti>c2, since 22 . . . c6 can be answered by 23 d5 and the bishop lives to fight another day. However, whether this would be enough to seriously trouble Black is doubtful. 22 . . . .1i.xd4 23 c3 .1i.e3 24 'ic2 . . .

YZ-YZ

(Non-Repertoire Mainly For Illustration) Game 42 Hodgson - Rowson Vikings, York 2000 1 d4 ttJf6 2 .1i.g5 e6 3 e4 h6 4 .txf6 'iVxf6 5 ttJc3 .1i.b4 ! ? A s far a s I can see i t i s this pin which has caused a certain crisis of confidence in 5 ttJc3 in recent times. This game I am discussing is by no means for imitation by White. Quite the contrary, it is a fairly clean example of Black' s model strategy in action. Rather it can be seen as a starting point for deciding whether 5 . . . .1i.b4 can be tackled, or whether it must be somehow avoided. 6 'i¥d2 c5! This is the real challenge. White must react at once to the threat to take on d4.

However the more modest 6 . . . d6 ! ? is not without point either. Examples of White trying to blast this away (for example with 7 a3 .1i.a5 8 f4? ! which allows 8 . . . .1i.xc3 ! 9 bxc3 e5 ! and an early dose of embarrassment for the attacker, and one of several such motifs where the possibility of . . . 'i¥h4+ plays a maj or role) lead me towards the belief that a more modest approach is in order. After 7 a3 .1i.a5 ! ? (7 . . . .1i.xc3 8 'iDxc3 ttJc6 9 ttJf3 0-0 1 0 .1i.d3 'iDe7 1 1 e5 ! f6 1 2 exd6 cxd6 1 3 0-0 f5 1 4 Itae 1 'iVf6 1 5 b4 a6 1 6 a4 l:.d8 1 7 b5 axb5 1 8 axb5 ttJe7 1 9 l:Ia l ttJd5 20 'iVb3 gave White a pleasant initiative in Gelfand-Rozentalis, Tilburg (rapid), 1 992. This should generally be the case after the exchange as long as White successfully anticipates Black's intention to find a painless moment to play . . . e5 himself) White should probably settle for either:

a) 8 ttJge2 c6 ! ? (I prefer this to 8 . . . e5 9 b4 .1i.b6 1 0 ttJd5 'iDd8 1 1 lId 1 exd4 1 2 ttJxd4 0-0 1 3 .1i.e2 l:Ie8 when although sceptical of the pawn offer played in the game with 14 0-0 lIxe4 1 5 ttJb5 Romero Holmes - Van Beek, Sonnevanck

1 96 2 e6 3 e4 . . .

1 998, I quite like White ' s spatial pull after simply 14 'i!Vf4 ! ?) 9 b4 �c7 ? ! (9 . . . �b6 ! looks more active, and 1 0 e5 dxe5 1 1 �e4 'i!Ve7 1 2 dxe5 0-0 should b e nothing to fear particularly) 1 0 a4 O-O?! ( 1 0 . . . a5 ! ? looks better, to win some dark squares in exchange for White ' s coming light-square superiority in the centre) 1 1 a5 e5 1 2 d5 �d7 1 3 �g3 'i!Vg5 1 4 �xg5 hxg5 1 5 dxc6 bxc6 16 b5 with another model demonstration of containing the bishop pair by ensuring that the light squares are the crucial battle ground. Knaak-Enders, Bundesliga 1 99 8 . b ) 8 �f3 ! ? a modest development which I have not tended to endorse elsewhere, but which with the bishop on a5 gains considerably in force. 8 . . . �d7 9 �e2 0-0 1 0 0-0 c6 1 1 b4 �c7 (Nothing is gained by 1 1 . . . �b6 here as 12 �a4 �c7 1 3 c4 fits in fine with White ' s plans) 1 2 .:Ife l e 5 1 3 d5 c 5 1 4 �a4 g 5 1 5 'it'd3 ! ? �b6 1 6 �b2 �g6 1 7 bxc5 dxc5 1 8 'ie3 f5 Soffer-Rapoport, Rishon Le Zion 1 997, and now 1 9 �c4 ! ? looks promising for White. This could well be White ' s best, and also seems to be broadly applicable in the analogous case after 6 'ilVd3 ! ?

Position after 6 c5 . . .

7 a3 Securing the return of the bishop pair, but only at the cost of some structural damage. It is difficult to avoid the recognition that this must rather go against the grain for a Trompowsky player. Still, the doubled c-pawns are not in themselves disastrous news. If White could organise a central break with f4/�f3 and e5 then his light-squared bishop would have promising scope and his kings ide prospects would represent very reasonable compensation. It is rather the fact that Black appears to be able to set up a blockade on the dark central squares in 'Nimzo-Indian-like ' fashion which is really off-putting from the White side. Alternatives? Well I shall briefly consider two, but the first though clearly not refuted looks intrinsically a little unlikely, while the second seems to have such a clearly definable flaw, that the attempt to overcome this has been the inspiration for the refinement in White ' s set-up which I shall examine in Game 4 3 . a ) 7 dxc5 ! ? might actually b e the best move in the position.

2 e6 3 e4 1 9 7 . . .

Black has two reasonable approaches - to try and show that the ' opening up ' of the dark squares is to his advantage, or to give up a pawn to shatter White ' s structure. The evidence to some extent sanctions the latter course: al) 7 . Ji'Jc6 8 f4 g5 ! ? 9 ctJge2 gxf4 10 ctJxf4 1I.xc5 1 1 1I.e2 was Kurajica-Razuvaev, Zaragoza (op) 1 996, and a very unbalanced position which is hard to assess, not aided either by the fact that the record of the game seems to be faulty. I think White ' s attacking chances should probably compen­ sate for Black' s superiority on the dark squares. It is not too clear what Black should play either. He would like to keep . . . 11.b4 in reserve as an answer to 0-0-0, but would fear short castling if he plays it IS immediately. 1 1 . . . i.d4 interesting, intending to meet 1 2 :If! with 1 2 . . . i.xc3 ! ( 1 2 . . . 'Yi'h4+? ! J 3 g3 'Yi'xh2 1 4 ctJh5 ! ) 1 3 bxc3 'Yi'g5 ! with good defensive prospects . However, 12 ctJb5 ! ? i.xb2 l 3 :Id l i.e5 1 4 0-0 looks a better bet to keep maxImum dynamic chances . a2) 7 . . . 0-0 ! ? 8 f4 i.xc3 9 bxc3 b6 (9 . . . e5 ! ? might be worth consider­ ing too) 1 0 cxb6 axb6 1 1 ctJf3 ( 1 1 i.d3 1I.b7 1 2 ctJe2 ! ?) 1 1 . . . i.b7 1 2 1I.d3 :Ia4 1 3 0--0 1I.xe4 1 4 ctJe5 'Yi'e7 1 5 c4 and now perhaps the simple 1 5 . . . 1I.b7 ! ? was an interesting alternative to 1 5 . . . d6 1 6 ctJg4 d5 although in any case I think Black is doing fine. Schlindwein­ Lutz, Bundesliga 2000. b) 7 e5?! is to my mind the way White would wish to play, and looks promising if (but sadly only if) Black answers too routinely. Indeed it has been tried in a handful of

games and Black has in general been rather compliant. De la Villa also examines the move, but suggests 7 . . . 'Yi'd8 ? ! which to me seems quite OK for White. The problem rather is very concrete. If Black finds the slightly awkward­ looking, but very effective 7 . . . 'iWf5 !

there seems to be no way for White to prevent serious damage to his centre e.g. 8 ctJf3 (Insipid, but probably less harmful than 8 a3 cxd4 9 axb4 dxc3 10 'Yi'xc3 ctJc6 1 1 ctJf3 'Yi'e4+ 1 2 i.e2 'Yi'xb4 l 3 'Yi'xb4 ctJxb4 when there is very little to show for the pawn. By the way, Fritz 7 finds the White position here satisfactory, final proof for me that caution should be exercised regarding his judgement of pawn sacrifices. He tends to let his optimism run away with him ! ; or 8 1I.d3 'Yi' g4 ! ; or 8 f4? cxd4 9 'Yi'xd4 ctJc6 1 0 'Yi'd2 g5 ! and in all cases Black is clearly better) 8 . . . cxd4 9 'Yi'xd4 ctJc6 1 0 'Yi'd3 'Yi'xd3 1 1 i.xd3 and Black can choose between 1 1 . . . i.xc3+ or even 1 1 . . . f6 as routes to a slight plus. Awareness of this irritating hitch will help to explain the otherwise rather perverse-looking 6 'Yi'd3 ! ? of Game 4 3 . 7

. . .

i.xc3 !

1 98 2 e6 3 e4 . . .

This is the structure which best hinders dynamic White ' s possibilities . 7 . . . cxd4 ? ! 8 axb4 dxc3 9 bxc3 0-0 10 ttJf3 ttJc6 1 1 b5 ttJe5 12 ttJxe5 'i¥xe5 1 3 'i¥d4 ! was good for White in Hodgson-Pritchett, European Club Cup, London 1 996. 8 bxe3 d6

had reached this unpromlsmg position. 13 . . . b6 14 Ji.c4 Ji.g4 Yl-Yl Hodgson - De Firmian, Donner (mem) Amsterdam 1 996 also sums up quite well the potential in White ' s game. I suspect Jonathan was already playing for more. 14 'iVxe5 };tfe8!

9 ttJf3 Given the ease with which Black is able to block his opponent' s play in the centre after this, it is no surprise that 9 f4 has also been tried. As usual White would be fine if he could advance his e-pawn to e5, but as again seems customary in this variation, he does not get the chance. Indeed 9 . . . e5 1 0 Ji.b5+ Ji.d7 1 1 Ji.xd7+ ttJxd7 12 ttJe2 'ili'h4+ 13 g3 'i¥e7 14 fxe5 dxe5 1 5 d5 ttJb6 1 6 a4 0-0 1 7 0-0 c4 1 8 'ig2 'i¥d7 1 9 a5 ttJc8 2 0 ttJg l ttJd6 Schirbel-Rowson, Bundesliga 200 1 was pretty much a model for everything White should avoid positionally. It is true that 1 1 l:tb l ! is a considerable improvement, but still 1 1 . . . exd4 ! 1 2 cxd4 cxd4 1 3 ttJ f3 ttJc6 1 4 0-0 0-0 does not look very exciting for White. 9 . . . 0-0 1 0 Ji.e2 ttJe6 1 1 0-0 e5 1 2 dxe5 dxe5 13 'i¥e3 Ji.g4 ! ? Perhaps surprisingly, this was actually the second time that Julian

1 5 'iVe3 'iVf4 ! ? A good solution for ensuring that Black can still press with minimum risk. Black adds the e5 square to his assets, and ensures that he will make the ' right' exchange, leaving his promising knight against a rather restricted bishop. 1 6 'i'xf4 exf4 1 7 .l:tabl Ji.xf3 1 8 gxf3 b 6 1 9 ltb5 ttJe7 ? ! I d o not fully understand this. Jonathan must have had his reasons for rej ecting the natural 1 9 . . . ttJa5 ! ?, but I cannot work out what they were. In any case, from our standpoint the message is clear. White is on the defensive, and the variation from 7 a3 onwards at least has no place in the repertoire. 20 e4 l:te7 2 1 l:d l .l:i.ae8 22 a4 'ifS 23 'it;g2 g6 24 ktd6 Yl-Yl White has covered his key weaknesses, and his rooks are active enough to hold the balance.

2 e6 3 e4 1 99 . . .

Game 43 Wells - Seel Hastings Challengers 2003 1 d4 tLif6 2 �g5 e6 3 e4 h6 4 �xf6 jyxf6 5 tLic3 �b4 6 jyd3 ! ?

W e are s o used t o employing the queen to wield whatever influence she can manage over the dark squares that this move makes a very odd impression. Concretely, it also blocks the fl bishop and fails to customary defend the £2 , preparation for castling long here. To make a case for it, there certainly need to be major plus points ! I am coming to believe more and more strongly that there are. The two main ideas are: i) Covering the f5 square in readiness for playing 7 e5 ! in response to 6 . . . c5 . This is a very specific argument, and I refer you to 7th move notes in this and the previous game for details. ii) Leaving the knight ' less pinned ' ! Yes, a strange concept maybe, but White now only needs to play 0-0-0 and the knight can be on its way again. Again, this will be seen to play a key role in the game. In addition another point:

iii) The claim the queen may head for g3 on occasion is rather l ess proven, but not totally implausible. 6 ... c5 Continuing in the same vein as he would have against 6 jyd2 . However, whilst the jury is still very much out in what follows, there is a prima facie case for suggesting with ' normal play' d3 might be a less convenient square than d2, and therefore that alternative moves might come into their own here. 6 . . . d6 is the most obvious of these. However, I suggest that White should play quietly with 7 a3 ..lia5 8 tLif3 as in note ' b ' to Black' s 6th move in Game 42, and in this case, it is even possible that d3 has advantages (Indeed, White actually played jyd2-d3 on move 1 5 there ! ) . 7 e5 ! Good or bad, the fact that having the f5 square covered enables this move is one half of what 6 jyd3 is all about. 7 . . . jye7 Looks natural, but since Black has to reckon with a quick a2-a3 , there might be a case for d8 as a square, preparing to meet such a challenge to the bishop with the irritating pin . . . jya5 . In the case of 7 . . . jyd8 ! ? however, White has an extra option too in 8 dxc5 ! which is almost certainly best. There is no practical experience here, but I would be happy to play White after for example 8 . . . jya5 9 tLige2 tLic6 ! 1 0 f4 ..lixc5 1 1 0-0-0 and now 1 1 . . . tLib4 is simply met with 1 2 JYc4 while against others, there are tLie4 and �g3 to come with a promising attacking position.

200 2 e6 3 e4 . . .

8 0-0-0 ? ! Not very well thought through. I had got as far as realising that the pin must be broken, and that Black probably should capture on c3 ' uninvited ' after the text, and therefore it seemed like it must be the right move, gaining the better part of a tempo over 8 a3 ! ? What I had failed to appreciate is that useful though 8 0-0-0 is in general terms, the specifics of having the king on c l will work to Black' s favour i n a moment, and that this probably overrides the tempo gain. In other words, 8 a3 ! ? �xc3+ (8 . . . .taS ? ! 9 0-0-0 �xc3 [9 . . cxd4 1 0 ltJe4 0-0 1 1 'ifg3 ! ? ltJc6 1 2 ltJf3 �b6 1 3 �d3 also looks quite promising for White] 1 0 iVxc3 ltJc6 1 1 dS ! - enabled by the coverage which a3 affords the b4 square - is better for White too) 9 'ifxc3 seems rather more awkward for Black, who is all but forced to play 9 . . . b6. 8 ... .txc3 It is quite striking that the threat of ltJbS is strong enough to induce this exchange, and quite a feather in 6 'iYd3 ' s cap in general terms. The point is that 8 . . . cxd4 is very dubious in view of 9 ltJbS 'iV gS+ 1 0 'otb 1 'iVxeS 1 1 ltJf3 'iVcs 1 2 a3 .

winning a piece for clearly insufficient compensation. 9 iVxc3 ltJc6! 10 dxc5 It is no longer really an option to play 10 dS in view of 10 . . . exdS 1 1 IhdS ltJb4 ! 1 0 . . . iVg5+ 1 1 �bl 'ifxe5 1 2 ltJe2 ! ? Making the best o f it, but already I felt that any endgame advantage would be minimal . 1 2 . . . b6! 13 cxb6 axb6 1 4 f4

14 ... 'i'a5 ? ! Quite a momentous decision which my opponent made very quickly. Of course, the actual theoretical assessment of the hugely double-edged text move would probably lie somewhere deep in the notes to Black's 1 8th. What is not in question is that such moments when the character of the play can swing from dullish ending to extremely sharp tense middle game occur just once or twice at the most in the game and usually merit careful consideration. I must say I was delighted by my opponent' s bravery. An analysis of 1 4 . . . 'iVxc3 ! largely bears out this emotion. After I S ltJxc3 �e7 1 6 .tb5 .ta6 ! 1 7 �xa6

2 . . . e6 3 e 4 201 Iha6 1 8 'uhe 1 l:i.d8 1 9 f5 I think there is enough pressure on the Black position to prevent him even really considering the exploitation his slight structural plus (the extra centre pawn). However, I think it is very hard to increase this from irritation into something more tangible. 1 5 'iWxg7! 'iWxa2+ 16 <;t;?c1 %:tf8 17 ttJc3 ! 'iWa1+ 1 8 'it>d2 'iWxb2? Black continues to underestimate his opponent' s attacking resources. It was necessary to play 18 . . . 'iWa5 ! 1 9 .i.d3 and now maybe 1 9 . . . 'i!¥b4 (directed against 20 l:i.a l , since ' winning' two rooks for the queen could entail serious risks for the defence) 20 g3 i.b7 and Black seems to be OK. 1 9 l:i.bl 'iWa3 20 ttJb5 'iWa5+ 2 1 'it>dl 'iIa2 2 2 <;t;?c1 l:i.a4 2 3 f5 ! It is not so much that White had some great array of attacking ideas, so much as that this one main idea is very hard to meet. Opening the e-file is out of the question, and otherwise the arrival of the pawn on f6 portends serious danger. Black decides to sacrifice a piece, probably a wise practical decision, especially with my clock starting to play an unwelcome role. 23 ttJd4 ! ? Not 23 . . . ttJb4 2 4 l:i.xb4 ! .l:xb4 2 5 ttJd6+ rtle7 26 f6+ �xd6 2 7 'iIxf8+ and wins. 24 ttJxd4 'iVa3+ 25 'it>d2 'iWd6 26 'it>e3 ! f6 27 ttJf3! The advanced White king is strangely safe after this, and Black could find nothing better than to drive it back again. 27 . . . 'iWc5+ 28 'it>d2 'iWa5+ 29 'it>cl .l:a l 30 ..td3 'iWa2 ? !

This makes it easy, since by returning material White in tum gets a decisive attack. Still, any improvement would already be at best in the realm of seeking practical swindling prospects. 3 1 l:i.xal 'iWxa1+ 32 �d2 'iWxhl 33 fxe6 dxe6 Or 33 . . . f5 34 i.b5 . Black ' s decision t o play o n here should be something of an embarrassment to the Hastings Tourist Board. 34 .i.b5+ 'it>d8 35 'iWxf8+ 'it>c7 36 'iVe7+ 'it>b8 37 'iWd6+ 'it>a8 38 i.c6+ i.b7 39 'iWd8+ 'it>a7 40 'iWc7 'iVxg2+ 41 �c3 1-O Game 44 Hodgson - Rowson Oxford 1 998 1 d4 ttJf6 2 ..tg5 e6 3 e4 h6 4 ..txf6 'iIxf6 5 c3 ! ?

. •.

I suppose i t was just a logical matter of evolution. As White became disillusioned with the pin 5 . . . i.b4 against 5 ttJc3 (for I am sure it was this rather than Games 3 9-4 1 which was the area of discontent) and as the lack of punch inherent in 5 ttJf3 became more overt, so White sought a system

202 2 e6 3 e4 . . .

which kept both his c and f-pawns flexible. Keep those knights at home - they only block your pawns up ! With the move S c3, which made its very first appearance as late as 1 994, White seeks to bolster the d-pawn (at times a vulnerable spot in the systems with S lbc3 as we have seen) and prepare to develop with i.d3/lbe2/0-0/f4 etc. In this game White is able to implement that full plan, and though there was no unanimous verdict that this necessarily suffices for an advantage, I am increasingly of the view that I would play White every time here if I thought I would be allowed this set-up. S d6 Once the almost automatic reply, there is now a clear and probably justified movement towards S . . . dS ! ? - see Game 4 S . Another alternative is S . . . cS but White is solid enough on the dark squares to be able to make a slight concession there in the interests of trying to hamper Black's free development. With 6 lbf3 lbc6 7 dS ! lbeS 8 i.e2 lbxf3+ 9 i.xf3 White should be a little better although Black' s eccentric­ looking strategy in V.Milov­ Macieja, European (ch), Batumi 2002, 9 . . . eS 1 0 a4 g6 I 1 lba3 d6 1 2 i.e2 h S 1 3 i.bS+ rj;e7 1 4 a s 'it'h4 I S 'it'e2 fS is worthy of attention, since it is not so easy for White to find targets to attack. 6 i.d3 g6 An indication that Black is not afraid of White 's planned build-up. However, there is an interesting alternative which seeks to disrupt White' s plans in 6 . . . 'iWgS ! ? White has two plausible tries : . . .

a) 7 g3 represents to my mind a moderately serious concession. In Karttunen-Relange, European Club Cup, Halkidiki 2002 after 7 . . . eS 8 lbd2 g6 9 lbe2 i.g7 1 0 f4 'WIe7 1 1 0-0 i.h3 1 2 1:.£2 lbd7 a position was reached comparable with those seen in the discussion of 6 . . . eS below, with the exception that the inclusion of . . . i.h3 and .l:t£2 seems to create difficulties for White' s smooth organisation. b) 7 lbf3 ! ? is the move I would like to make work, the only one which could cast real doubt upon Black's idea. The problem is that after 7 . . . 'it'xg2 8 �g 1 'it'h3 for all White 's development advantage, Black has no real weaknesses, and it is not a trivial task trying to make an impression. The best chance seems to be to play against the still rather exposed queen. Perhaps 9 lbbd2 'it'hS 1 0 lLlfl ! ? is best, when B lack should probably lose more time with 10 . . . 'it'aS ! ? ( 1 0 . . . lbd7 1 1 eS ! dxeS 1 2 lbg3 'it'h3 1 3 'iWe2 ! ? looks dangerous to me. Black's king will have trouble finding peace either in the centre or on the kings ide) 1 1 lbe3 ! ? and now perhaps 1 1 . . . c6 is prudent. Attitudes to such a position will always be heavily determined by style - it is I think, genuinely a

2 e6 3 e4 203 . . .

matter of taste. Black is still very challenged in the developmental stakes, and White can consider either central break, d4-d5 or e4-e5 in a bid to make trouble. I am aware that many players would not feel entirely comfortable with White ' s compensation here, but I can imagine many more would be put off by the prospect of defending Black. Another major idea is to stake a claim to some dark squares with 6 . . . e5 ! ? which might well be the most promising option after 5 . . . d6.

The problem is that White 's c3 move gives him sufficient hold of the dark squares that he can calmly apply further pressure to Black's e-pawn by proceeding with his original plan. However, just how dangerous this should be is open to doubt too. Problems seem to ensue when the defender feels the need to clarify the centre, but if he too sits tight he may have few worries. Examples: 7 t2Je2 g6 8 0-0 �g7 9 f4 and now: a) 9 . . . exd4 1 0 cxd4 t2Jc6 ( 1 0 . . . �g4 ! ? is tougher. 1 1 'iVa4+ ! ? ( 1 1 e 5 i s not the desired route to a bind in view of 1 2 . . . dxe5 1 2 dxe5 'iVb6+) 1 1 . . . t2Jd7 1 2 t2Jbc3 0-0 1 3

e5 dxe5 1 4 fxe5 worked well for White after 1 4 . . :ikg5? ! 1 5 t2Jf4 in Wells-Fish, Bundesliga 11, 2002, but 1 4 . . . 'iWd8 ! ? eyeing tactics against the bishop on d3 , and intending a quick . . . c5 is still very complex and unclear) 1 1 e5 'iWd8 1 2 t2Jbc3 0-0 1 3 J:c l dxe5 1 4 dxe5 g5? ! (If my obj ection to . . . exd4 and . . . t2Jc6 is that they permit White to establish the d4/e5/f4 pawn wedge already discussed at several points through the chapter, the charge here is even more serious. Well motivated positionally, asking for trouble with the king on g8 ! 1 4 . . . i.e6 is more circumspect) 1 5 t2Jd5 gxf4 1 6 t2Jexf4 t2Jxe5 1 7 J:xc7 �g4 1 8 �e2 'iYg5 19 �xg4 t2Jxg4 20 h3 t2Je5 2 1 t2Jh5 J:ad8 22 t2Jxg7 'iWxg7 2 3 t2Je7+ 'it>h8 24 'iWc2 and even after some simplification the f5 square repres­ ents a gash in Black's kingside which is likely to have very adverse Hodgson-Ward, consequences. British (ch), Millfield 2000. b) 9 . . . 'iWe7( ! ) looks calm and quite sound. It is not clear how White should intensify the pressure, while simply switching to the direct light square attack with 1 0 dxe5 dxe5 1 1 f5 0-0 1 2 t2Jg3 t2Jd7 1 3 t2Jd2 t2Jf6 1 4 'iWe2 h5 1 5 t2Jf3 �h6 16 h3 �d7 was not especially White impressive in for Summerscale-Levitt, Redbus (KO) 200 1 . Bringing the queen' s knight to f3 instead of rushing with 1 0 dxe5 would keep the tension, and force Black to address the development of his queenside pieces in that context, but still I have a feeling this is one of the best lines for the defence. 7 t2Je2 �g7 8 0-0 0-0 To some extent this is another variation in which the general plan

204 2 . . . e6 3 e4 is of far greater importance than precise move order, but nonetheless, play took a series of very instructive and notable turns in Hodgson­ Ivanov, World (op), Philadelphia 2000, after 8 . . . CDd7 9 f4 'V/ie7 l O eS b6 1 1 ..ie4 ! ? A very interesting idea, modifYing the structure. For the follow-up it is important that White ' s knight has not yet been committed to d2 . 1 1 . . . dS 1 2 ..id3 hS. With a closed centre, Black clearly felt uneasy about the possibility of a quick g4) 1 3 c4 ! ? A nice twist to the light square strategy. I have seen games in this line in which surprisingly strong players sought as Black to exchange light-squared bishops, presumably to take the sting out of White ' s kings ide attack, but positionally this should suit White down to the ground.

1 3 . . . .ib7 14 cxdS ..ixdS I S CDbc3 .ib7 16 .ie4 ! .ixe4 17 CDxe4 0-0 1 8 lIc 1 l:Iac8 1 9 CD2c3 a6 20 'V/i a4 ltJb8 2 1 dS ! with a real positional triumph on the light-squares. The ideas in this game would repay study, and greatly enrich White ' s strategic arsenal . 9 f4 CDd7 1 0 CDd2 'V/ie7 1 1 'V/iel More recently Julian has switched to advancing his e-pawn pretty

much as soon as Black retreats his queen to e7. I assume this reflects the prevalent respect for the system discussed above in note ' b ' to Black' s 6th, which after the text move Black could still reach a respectable version of with 1 1 . . . eS . 1 1 . . .b6 1 2 'V/ig3 .ib7 13 e5!

13 . . . l:!.ad8 Another game from Julian featured an instructive positional error here. In Hodgson-Saint Amand, World (op) Philadelphia 2000, Black played 13 . . . dxeS?! but after 1 4 fxeS 'V/igS?! I S 'V/ixgS hxgS 1 6 .ie4 .ixe4 1 7 CDxe4 ..ih6 1 8 g4 it is again revealed that this whole line is as much about light-square based initiative as it is about trying to mate Black. White has a distinct positional advantage here too. 14 CDe4 b5 ! ? 1 5 l:!.ael b4 1 6 h4 ! bxc3 1 7 bxc3 �h8 18 h5 ! ? I t i s not strictly necessary t o play this position with anything like the flamboyant aggression that Julian shows over the next few moves, but when he is in the mood there is really no stopping him. It is probably true, as De la Villa suggests, that the modest 1 8 l:!.b 1 is worth an edge. Still, in the game extremely precise defence is also

2 e6 3 e4 205 . . .

required - as so often there is a strong practical element to Julian ' s j udgement. 18 . . . gxh5 19 �h3 h4 20 exd6 exd6 21 f5 ! ? Right or wrong there i s an elegant consistency to White' s blasting through on the White squares. For that reason I am sceptical about the claim that 2 1 . . . ..txe4 next would have improved Black's defence. The opposite coloured bishops might only serve to magnify control. White' s light-square Black' s mistakes definitely come later. 2 1 . . .d5 22 f6 'Llxf6 23 'Llxf6 ? ! This feels wrong, since drawing out the bishop in this case makes it easier to defend key squares on the kingside. 23 'Llc5 ! was better, when 23 . . . 'Lle4 ! 24 ..txe4 dxe4 25 'Llxb7 �xb7 26 �xh4 �d5 27 'Llg3 f5 2 8 'Llh5 should muster sufficient threats to hold the balance, but I would be surprised is Black is really at risk. 23 . . . ..txf6 24 'Llf4 l:td6 If 24 . . . ..tg5 White has 25 l:txe6 ! �d7 26 l:te5 �xh3 27 'Llxh3 with reasonable activity, but 24 . . . 'it>g8 ! leaves no obvious attacking follow­ up. 25 ..te2 l:tg8 26 'Llh5 ..tg5 27 �d3 f6 28 'Llxf6 ..txf6 ? Only now does Black really spoil his defensive efforts. 28 . . . l:tg7 ! was still quite playable, as 29 'Llh5 ..ta6 is certainly not worse for Black. 29 l:txf6 �g7 30 �f3 In the absence of the excellent defensive bishop, White ' s maj or pieces flood in, and there is no defence.

30 . . . l:te6 3 1 l:tf7 lIxe3 32 .l:rxg7 .l:rxf3 33 l:th7 mate. An interesting game, despite errors from both attack and defence. However, the positional treatments to be found in the notes might throw a greater light upon the 'theoretical truth ' of the position. Game 45 Dishman - Ward 4NCL 200 1 1 d4 'Llf6 2 ..tg5 e6 3 e4 h6 4 ..txf6 �xf6 5 e3 d5 ! ? Black radically alters the flow of the play with a move which at first severely dampened my enthusiasm for 5 c3 . I was sceptical about this French structure for White in the absence of a dark-squared bishop, but now I have to say the situation is still very unclear.

6 e5 Perhaps due to my initial scepticism regarding the pseudo ' Advance French ' it took me a while to realise that 6 'Lld2, the ' Tarrasch without the dark-squared bishop ' is most likely more feeble. Perhaps not surprisingly, it is the

206 2 . . . e6 3 e4 . . . c5 lines with their consequent Isolated Queen Pawn positions in which the bishop pair enhances the dynamic qualities in Black' s compensation. Therefore after 6 . . . c5 ! (6 . . . dxe4 7 ct:Jxe4 does seem promising for White - opening the position brings his superior develop­ ment to the fore) 7 exd5 (or 7 ct:Jgf3 ct:Jc6 [7 . . . cxd4 is also quite play­ able] 8 i.b5 cxd4 9 ct:Jxd4 ..\td7 1 0 0-0 ..\te7 1 1 l:e l [ 1 1 exd5 ! ? exd5 1 2 'ib3 might be slightly better, although after 1 2 . . . 'iVd6 Black is still very solid] 1 1 . . . 0-0 1 2 ct:J4f3 a6 1 3 i.f1 &tfd8 1 4 e5 'iVg6 1 5 ct:Jb3 f6 1 6 exf6 'Vi'xf6 was fine for Black in McDonald-S .Buckley, British (ch) 2002) 7 . . . exd5 8 ..\tb5+ ..\td7 9 ..\txd7+ ct:Jxd7 1 0 ct:Je2 ( 1 0 ct:Jgf3 looks more natural, but 1 0 . . . 'Vi'e6+ ! 1 1 'ie2 ..\td6 is very annoying) 1 0 . . . 0-0-0 1 1 ct:Jf1 cxd4 1 2 ct:Jxd4 ..\tc5 1 3 ct:Je3 i.xd4 1 4 cxd4 i¥a6 1 5 b4 ct:Jf6 1 6 'iVe2 Y2-Y2 Wells-Ward, Redbus (KO) 2002 . White has absolutely nothing here. 6 . . . i¥dS 7 ct:Jf3 c5 S dxc5 !

White has effectively conceded the bishop pair for some time, and this is the best way to try and keep a degree of momentum. Attempts to merely defend d4 will leave b2 a serious issue.

S . . i.xc5 A more ambitious plan involves trying to recapture this with the knight, but in this case White has chances to retain the pawn when the compensation is not entirely uncontroversial. Epishin has tried this twice, but on neither occasion was it so convincing: 8 . . . ct:Jd7 9 b4 and now a) 9 . . . g6 10 ct:Jbd2 ..\tg7 1 1 ..\tb5 0-0 12 ..\txd7 ..\txd7 1 3 0-0 'Vi'c7 1 4 &te l b 6 1 5 ct:Jb3 ..\ta4 1 6 'iVd4 &tfc8 1 7 .l:Iac 1 'iYb7 1 8 ct:Jfd2 and Black is some way from the clean return of his pawn in V.Milov-Epishin, Lost Boys (op), Amsterdam 2000. b) 9 . . . ..\te7 10 ..\td3 'Vi'c7 1 1 'Vi'e2 a5 1 2 0-0 0-0 1 3 ct:Jbd2 b6 14 cxb6 ct:Jxb6 1 5 l:Ifc 1 ..\td7 1 6 c4 dxc4 1 7 ct:Jxc4 ct:Jxc4 1 8 .l:Ixc4 'iVb7 1 9 ct:Jd4 &ta7 20 b5 ..\txb5 2 1 ct:Jxb5 'Vi'xb5 22 &tg4 'Vi'd5 23 i¥e3 ! and there is a distinct feeling that the ' improve­ ment' has been even worse. I.Rogers-Epishin, Bundesliga 200 1 . That a player of Epishin ' s class should appear to be so determined to avoid 8 . . . ..\txc5 is interesting and rather encouraging to White ' s cause. 9 ..\td3 ct:Jc6 Sensible, but there is a case for throwing in 9 . . . 'ib6 just to check out White ' s plans for bringing his queen' s knight into the play. Hodgson-Rowson, Redbus (KO) Southend 200 1 , continued 1 0 'Vi'e2 ct:Jc6 1 1 0-0 ..\td7 1 2 b4 i.e7 ( 1 2 . . . i.f8 ! ? could also be considered if . . . g5 is coming) 1 3 ct:Jbd2 :rc8 1 4 a3 (preparing c4) 14 . . . g5 1 5 ct:Jb3 a5 16 &tac 1 ( 1 6 i.b5 ! ?) 1 6 . . . a4 1 7 ct:Ja l g4 1 8 ct:Jd2 i.g5 1 9 J:tc2 .l:!.g8 and Black looks very active, but 20 b5 ! ? ct:Je7 2 1 c4 still offers White counterplay. .

2 e6 3 e4 207 . . .

1 0 0-0 It is interesting just to make some moves such as 1 0 'iY'e2 .ltd7 1 1 tDbd2 O-O ! ? 1 2 tDb3 ii.b6 when we reach by transposition the game De La Villa Garcia-Garcia Ilundain, Pamplona 1 992. This is significant, not for the precise move order, but because elsewhere there seems to be an assumption that Black should avoid castling short, but here with after 1 3 0-0 playing a quick 1 3 . . . f6 ! he seems to be OK, even though the continuation 1 4 c4 fxe5 1;2-1;2 was not in itself very enlightening. 10 . . :i!Vc7 1 1 'i!Ve2 a6 1 2 tDbd2 g5 13 �fel g4 14 tDd4 ! .l:[g8 15 tDxc6 bxc6 1 6 c4 !

As usual this break is a legitimate source of play for White, and the structure with . . . bxc6 seems to increase its force. The whole plan with . . . g5 requires delicate handling, and here I have the suspicion that Black rushed at the further advance to g4 . White ' s tDd4xc6 effectively ruled out the queenside as a haven for Black' s king and finding cover is now a very tricky business. 1 6 . . . �g5 17 cxd5 cxd5 1 8 �ac1 �b6 19 tDb3 ii.b4 20 J:fl ii.b7 2 1 �hl :Id8 2 2 a3 ii. f8 2 3 tDd2 .l:[d7 24 f4 !

Another consequence o f . . . g4, this positionally almost painless opening of the f-file implies further woe for Black' s king in the centre. 24 . . . gxf3 25 tDxf3 l:!.g4 26 h3 �f4 27 tDh2 27 b4 ! ? might have been worth a look too, trying ultimately to embarrass the bold black rook. 27 . . . �xfl+ 28 l:!.xfl l:tc7 29 tDg4 .ltg7 30 tDf6+ I wonder whether 30 'iY'd2 ! ? might have been better. It is just that every exchange offers solace to the black king, until eventually when the queens are traded it appears to be Black in the driving seat. 30 . . . Sl.xf6 31 exf6 'iY'd4 32 ii.xa6? ii.xa6 33 'iY'xa6 �c4 34 'iVxc4 l:txc4 35 :If2 �d7 36 g4 e5 Black' s rook, king and mobile centre pawns combine to give more than sufficient compensation for the pawn minus. I suspect White' s defence can be strengthened, but the rest has no bearing upon our theme. 37 �g2 �e6 38 �g3 d4 39 h4 .l:.c8 40 g5 hxg5 41 hxg5 .l:.g8 42 �g4 e4 43 �f4 e3 44 �g2 �d5 45 �f3 lIe8 46 �e2 �c4 47 �g4 �h8 48 g6 1:i.h2+ 49 'ifl 1:i.f2+ 50 �gl fxg6 5 1 l:lxg6 l:lf5 52 f7 l:lxf7 0-1

Chapter 10

-

Conclusion

From the start of the chapter I made no efforts to disguise that this is positionally quite complex, difficult material with few clear answers to come at the end of it. I began fairly agnostic between 5 lbc3 and 5 c3, and both moves have survived close examination pretty much in tact, but the j ourney has challenged a few of my initial assumptions.

208 2 e6 3 e4 . . .

On 5 lDc3 I think I was probably right to be most concerned about 5 . . . ..tb4 . Game 42 remains unsatisfactory for White (probably including 7 dxc5 which is a shame, although aesthetes might celebrate) . However, I am now persuaded that the apparent artificiality of 5 'id2 matters (either 5 . . . c5 ! ? or 5 . . . d5 ! ? could b e a problem) but 6 'id3 ! ? seems to hold up better. The survey though has increased my respect for the old main line with 5 . . . d6. I found Game 3 9 of particular interest positionally - Black ' s ambitious dark-square strategy should be treated with respect - and 6 . . . g5 is of enduring merit. Unless I have miscalculated and severely over­ estimated the idea, I expect practice will soon reveal a lot more about 1 0 lDf3 ! ? to be found i n the notes to Game 4 1 . This is new, original and fascinatingly Also sharp . Shereshevsky ' s positional treatment

is noteworthy - take a look at 1 4 g4 ! ? All in all, I like 7 h4 ! ? in preference to the g3/f4 approach which has been hitherto popular. What of 5 c3? Well, I had assumed that 5 . . . d5 was the problem (indeed as a player rather than an author, it was this that led to my re-examination of 5 lDc3). However, I now have to say that I find Game 45 and the notes surprisingly acceptable for White not a clear advantage, but positions that can be played with perspective. The other area of concern is now the 6th move options for Black in game 44. I do not really anticipate that 6 . . . �g5 will be an enduring problem (even if my recommend­ ation is a bit controversial), but it is the good old dark squares again that will decide. If you are happy against 6 . . . e5 ! ? with 9 . . . 'fiIe7 then by all means give 5 c3 a try !

Chapter 9 2 d5 Introduction and 3 i.xf6 -

The move 2 . . . dS ! ? has managed to acquire a very solid reputation despite permitting White to see through his intention of exchanging on f6 and inflicting doubled pawns. Indeed I come into contact every now and again with an apparent school of thought among Russian players that this is simply "the equalising line" against the Trompowsky. In my opinion the respect afforded to this move is well deserved, but at the same time the idea that White can scarcely hope to play for the advantage is a considerable overstatement. In comparison with the minor lines to be examined in the next and final chapter (2 . . . g6 in particular) 2 . . . dS has the advantage that it prevents an automatic execution of a White plan involving the exchange on f6 followed by for example c4, g3 , it.g2 and a queen­ side advance. In other words in the 3 it.xf6 exf6 lines White does not

. . .

necessarily get the advance c4 unchallenged. On occasions Black can keep a foothold in the centre, but more often, and of considerable strategic note is that Black can sometimes get a reasonable position by exchanging on c4 at some point, playing in fact with no centre pawns. Much more on this later on though. I feel that I am in danger of falling into a common trap and talking about the positions after 3 it.xf6 as if the re-capture away from the centre is the only option. In fact the alternative 3 . . . gxf6 ! ? is double-edged, ambitious and its relative neglect does not really seem to be founded on any sound theoretical basis. It is also a pretty good practical weapon especially at lower levels. My database indicates that White is well over 3 times as likely to follow-up with 4 e3 as with the more critical 4 c4 . This at least facilitates the task of equalising even with relatively limited knowledge. Before getting into the main body of 3 it.xf6 theory, a word on alternatives. There is no denying that several of the leading Trompowsky players have recently shown an inclination to settle for the unpretentious 3 e3 ! ? - a flick through the database will reveal quite an illustrious group taking the White side here: Lputian, Stefanova, Kasparov in his many simultaneous

2 1 0 2 d5 3 Lf6 . . .

outings, Speelman, Adams, Knaak and of course Hodgson himself have all favoured 3 e3 at some time in the last couple of years . The question for the author is how much valuable time to devote to this. Throughout the book I have tried to treat the most Trompowsky in its characteristic and critical form, and while I am much more inclined to the modest approach after 2 . . d5 than after for example 2 . . . e6, I have decided that there is still enough bite in the White position after 3 i.xf6 ! ? and sufficient stylistic variety that I would like to concentrate on that. Just a few thoughts on 3 e3 which hopefully will be of interest, not only for those who have reservations about the material in the main body of this chapter: i) No worries on 3 . . . ltJe4 which transposes to Chapter 5 and was dealt with in particular detail there. I think it was the vitality of White' s position i n this case which played a key role in rendering 3 e3 a fully viable option. ii) 3 . . . e6 is a solid if none too exciting move. White can of course continue in Torre Attack mode, or can try to set up a kind of Stonewall with the bishop outside the pawn chain on g5. However, I suspect that the theoretically best course might be 4 c4 ! ? with which it seems White has every chance of turning play back into an Orthodox Queen' s Gambit. But i s this why we play the Tromp? iii) 3 . . . c5 ! ? is the reply which would cause me the most headaches . This to me highlights my main reservation about 3 e3 . It is not just about finding a flexible move, awaiting Black's response and then .

always having the option of playing in 3 i.xf6 style against everything except 3 . . . l2Je4 and 3 . . . l2Jbd7 . The point is that after 3 . . . c5 4 i.xf6 gxf6 ! we find ourselves in the note to 4 e3 from Game 47 and a position describes Julian which as ' extremely dynamic for Black ' . In fact I think that 5 c4 is still playable, but that is not the main point. It already feels a bit like Black is dictating the play. iv) The real point is much the same as that I made at the beginning of Chapter 8. If you think you have an opponent who is in a sense bluffing - who is attracted to the dynamic unbalanced positions which arise after the exchange on f6, but who would be utterly turned off by, and out to sea in the rather amorphous manoeuvrings of a Torre Attack style position then by all means head for 3 e3 . However, for everyday use, I hope the reader will agree with me that 3 i.xf6 still has a lot to offer.

3 i.xf6 gxf6!? In Chapter 6 I already discussed a similar choice of whether to capture with e- or the g-pawn after 2 . . c5 3 i.xf6. Some (but only some ! ) of the same points apply here. With 3 . . . gxf6 Black accepts further weaknesses, a certain looseness on the kings ide - the h5 square in particular - and does not gain the easy development which flows from the 'tempo-gain' which 3 . . . exf6 effectively is. Here 3 . . . exf6 (Games 49 and 50) is much stronger than in Chapter 6 - since Black is not obliged to follow up with . . . c5 and hence it does not involve an automatic weakening of his d-pawn. .

2 . . . d5 3 hf6 2 1 1 However, there are still key . . . cS issues at work. The point of 3 . . . gxf6 ! ? is precisely to keep a tight pawn mass in the centre and to follow up with . . . cS attacking White ' s centre and trying to create play on the dark squares. As I said before, I think this line has a good deal of potential and should be on a short-list of Black' s best answers to the Trompowsky. Game 46 Plaskett J.Cooper Hastings (op) 1 993 -

1 d4 ct'lf6 2 ii.g5 d5 3 ii.xf6 gxf6 ! ?

4 c4 The best in my opinion. After the natural 4 e3 Black has a good reply in 4 . . . cS ! but due to its strong thematic links with the play in Game 47 I would prefer to deal with it there. Incidentally I have had to fiddle the actual move order here not for the first time. Plaskett in fact did play 4 e3, and only after 4 . . . ii.fS did he continue with S c4 c6 and so on. 4 . . . c6 To my mind this is too passive, and allows White quite a wide

choice o f ways to build up an initiative. Better the 4 . . . dxc4 ! of Games 47 and 4 8 . 5 e 3 i.f5 The most popular way to develop here. One alternative is to set-up a kind of Pseudo-Stonewall, but while the doubled f-pawns have one clear advantage in this regard - it is possible to play . . . fS without weakening the castled king 's position in general and e6 in particular - they do afford White a plan of attack too - using the g4 lever. This is well illustrated by S . . . e6 6 ct'lc3 f5 7 ct'lf3 ii.g7 8 �c2 ct'ld7 9 h3 ! ? (Positionally, the exchange on dS would also be reasonable, but Julian has a more aggressive plan in mind for which the queenside is better left closed) 9 . . . dxc4 ? ! (9 . . . ct'lf6 allows 1 0 ct'leS, but the text is still rather too accommodating) 1 0 i.xc4 �c7?! 1 1 0-0-0 b S ? ! 1 2 i.b3 ii.a6 1 3 g4 ! f4 and now despite having made very substantial positional gains, White opted for a very effective and elegant tactical solution with 1 4 ct'lgS ! ? ct'l f8 I S ct'lce4 h 6 1 6 ct'lxfl �xfl 1 7 dS ! ii.eS (To defend eS. 17 . . . ii.xb2+ ! ? looks a plausible try , 18 'it>xb2 'ifeS+ 19 �b l cxdS but again there is a very aesthetic solution in 20 llxdS ! exdS 2 1 exf4 �xf4 22 i.xdS+ and the attack rages on) 1 8 dxe6+ 'it>g7 1 9 'ifcs ii.c8 ? ! ( 1 9 . . . .l:f.h7 is better, but also fails to the spectacular 20 lld6 ! ! ) 20 .:td7+! 1 -0 in Hodgson-A.Martin, British (ch) Plymouth, 1 992. Another for the collection of Julian' s attacking classics in the Trompowsky. 6 ct'lc3 e6

212 2 d5 3 1Lxf6 . . .

7 ltJf3 ! ? Not the most critical move, but one which, if followed up judiciously certainly limits Black' s the counterplay. However, alternative 7 ltJge2 ! ? is quite attractive and now: a) 7 . . Sl.d6 8 ltJg3 Sl.g6 9 'iVb3 �6? ! (Better 9 . . . b6 ! ? lO cxd5 cxd5 1 1 �c 1 a6 which should be somewhat favourable for White, although the 12 ltJa4 Miladinovi6Grund, Cappelle la Grande 1 995 does not impress after 12 . . . ltJd7 ! Instead 1 2 �a4+ ! ? for instance looks promising) 1 0 c5 �xb3 1 1 axb3 Sl.c7 1 2 b4 e5 1 3 b5 gave White terrific play on the queenside in Zlochevskij-Leoncini, Forrnia (op) 1 994. The position is typical albeit very pleasant - of many similar queen' s pawn openings except that here the doubled e-pawns substantially hamper Black' s hopes of counterplay in the centre. b) 7 . . 'iVb6 ! ? therefore looks worth throwing in. After 8 �d2 dxc4 ! ? 9 ltJg3 Sl.d3 ! ? l O Sl.xd3 cxd3 1 1 0-0-0 ltJd7 12 �xd3 0-0-0 1 3 �c2 White had only a slight edge in Polovnikova-Kovalevskaya, Russia (women ' s wch) Moscow 1 999. .

.

7 . . . Sl.e7 Again 7 . . . 'iVb6 ! ? might be while considered, somehow 7 . . . ltJd7 first also looks more natural. 8 c5 ! ? Committal, but not without merit. Plaskett has found a very rational plan, and though his execution at this point arguably gives the impression more of resolution than finesse, it is not easy to counter. 8 Sl.d3 looks more flexible, and if 8 Sl.g6 then 9 c5. Of course he would also have to reckon with 8 . . . Sl.xd3 9 �xd3 dxc4 1 0 �xc4, but I would prefer White ' s space and knights in that case too. 8 . . . b6 Logical enough. Usually such a c5 advance is countered either in this way, or by an advance of the e-pawn in the centre, and here the effect on the f-pawns and the f5 square militates against the latter course. 9 b4 bxc5 9 . . . a5 lO ltJa4 ! works well for White. 1 0 bxc5 �a5 1 1 �d2 ltJd7 1 2 Sl.d3 Sl.xd3 13 �xd3 �b8 1 4 0-0 f5 1 5 h3 0-0 1 6 'Othl ! ? . . .

2 d5 3 Lf6 2 1 3 . . .

In a sense a declaration that Black has done enough by getting first to the b-file to render problematic White ' s task of pressing home his advantage on the queens ide alone. The advance of the g-pawn again, as in the note to move 5 , an instructive method of play against the doubled f-pawns, but of course less ' clean-cut' in front of a castled king ! 16 . . . �h8 1 7 .l:.gl ..\tf6 1 7 . . . .l:.b2 ! ? was well worth considering. 18 .l:.ael .l:.g8 1 9 .l:.e2 'i'a3 20 CLld2 ..\td8 2 1 g4 fxg4 22 CLldbl 'i'a5 23 hxg4 'i'e7 It looks more sensible to be first to the h-file. However, after 23 . . . .l:.g6 ! ? 24 f4 .l:.h6+ 25 .l:.h2 .l:.xh2+ 26 �xh2 it is equally true that the exchange of a pair of rooks is no panacea. 24 f4 CLlfS 25 CLld2 f6 26 CLlf3 .l:.g6 27 .l:.h2 �g8 28 g5 ! White seems to have reached pretty much his optimum formation and effects the breakthrough. 28 . . . fxg5 29 CLle5 Perhaps 29 fxg5 ! ? was also worth considering. After 29 . . . 'i'g7 it is possible to play 30 e4 to meet 30 . . . ..\tc7 with e5 and then try to manoeuvre a knight to f4 . However, to advance the e-pawn in this way is positionally hugely committal, and Plaskett ' s approach is very understandable, and also strong. 29 . . . .l:.g7 30 f5 exf5 3 1 'i'xf5 'i'e8 32 'i'f3 A wise retreat. The immediate 3 2 e 4 'i'xf5 3 3 exf5 ..\tf6 34 CLlxc6 l:1c8 35 CLlxd5 ! ? Ihc6 36 .l:.h6 CLld7 leaves Black rather tired up, but

there i s n o clear way to strengthen White' s position. 32...'i'e6 33 e4! CLlg6 34 CLlxg6 The immediate 34 exd5 ! ? was also strong since 34 . . . CLlxe5 35 dxe5 'i'xe5 36 .l:.e2 looks embarrassing, e.g. 36 . . . 'i'f6 37 .l:.e8+ �f7 3 8 'i'xf6+ �xf6 3 9 .l:.f1 + �g6 4 0 .l:.e6+ �h5 4 1 ktxc6 with very dangerous united passed pawns. Still, again Plaskett' s move should suffice. 34 . . .'i'xg6 35 exd5 ..\ta5 36 CLle4 .l:.fS 37 'i'e2 exd5 38 CLlxg5 h6 39 CLlf3 'i'e4 40 .l:.xg7+ �xg7 41 'i'g2+ �f7 42 ktxh6? Sometimes time trouble can be sensed even when the moves are not especially bad. I suspect as much here. Otherwise White would surely have headed for 42 CLle5+ �e6 ( 42 . . . \t>e8 43 'i'xe4 dxe4 44 .l:.xh6 and the resource .l:.e6+ will ensure that the e-pawn does not embark on a major new career) 43 .l:.xh6+ .l:.f6 44 .l:.xf6+ \t>xf6 45 'i'xe4 dxe4 46 CLlc4 ! ensuring the survival of his strong pawns, and with it victory. 42 . . . \t>e8 43 .l:.h3 ..\te7 44 a3 ';2-';2

Black has a strange bind here which renders any further progress highly problematic. Game 47 Galyas - R.Ruek Elekes (mem), Budapest 2000 1 d4 CLlf6 2 .\tg5 d5 3 ..\txf6 gxf6 ! ? 4 e4 In keeping with the battle for the initiative, White gets his strike in the centre in first. As I mentioned above the alternative 4 e3 risks yielding the initiative when Black counters with 4 . . . c5 !

2 1 4 2 d5 3 Lf6 . . .

Then White has a choice, but even the best line offers Black at the very least a transposition back into the game, and probably more: a) S dxcS is very insipid. It was already established, nearly 30 years ago in Lombardy-Ivkov, Amster­ dam, 1 974 that by simple means 5 . . . e6 6 c4 dxc4 7 'ixd8+ 'it>xd8 8 i.xc4 i.xc5 9 lbc3 'it>e7 Black would reach a very comfortable position. In that case after 10 :c 1 i.d7 1 1 i.b5 ! ? (some apprehension regarding the bishop pair seems reasonable here) 1 1 . . . .l:tc8 1 2 i.xd7 lbxd7 1 3 lbge2 lbeS 14 0-0 a6 1 5 lba4 i.d6 1 6 l:txc 8 ? ! :xc8 1 7 :c l :d8 ! it was already White trying to fully equalise. b) S c4, though a little late, still looks best, but after S . . . cxd4 (S . . . dxc4 6 i.xc4 lets White off the hook a little, returning to the main game. Useful though for proving that even if he is able to clean up the next couple of notes there are no grounds for actually preferring 4 e3 and 5 c4) 6 exd4 (6 'ixd4 dxc4 7 �xd8+ 'it>xd8 8 i.xc4 e6 is safer, but offers no advantage) and now: bi) 6 . . . 'iVb6 7 lbc3 'it'xb2 8 lbxd5 i.f5 9 'it'c 1 (If 9 lbc7+? 'it>d8 1 0 lbxa8 'ic3+ 1 1 'it>e2 i.h6 ! the threat of . . . i.c2 just seems to win outright) 9 . . . 'ixc 1+ 1 0 :xc 1 lba6

1 1 cS ( 1 1 lbe3 ! ?) 1 1 . . . i.h6 1 2 lbe3 lbc7 1 3 i.c4 i.e4 14 lbe2 was Anastasian-Leko, FIDE (Wch) Moscow 200 1 and now 14 . . . e6 would have been about equal. bii) 6 . . . lbc6 ! ? 7 lbc3 ! (7 cxdS 'ili'xd5 8 lbf3 i.g4 9 i.e2 i.xf3 1 0 i.xf3 'it'e6+ ! was good for Black in Winants - Glavina Rossi, France (Tch) 200 1 ) 7 . . . dxc4 (7 . . . i.e6 is also playable) 8 d5 lbe5 9 i.xc4 lbxc4 10 'ia4+ i.d7 1 1 'ili'xc4 ':'c8 was Bigg-Summerscale, Ron Banwell (mem) 2002 when after the correct 12 'iVb3 ! White ' s space might just about compensate the bishop pair, but not more.

4 . . . dxc4 The best move in my view, more active than 4 . . . c6, since saddling White with an isolated d-pawn always holds the promise of some counterplay, even if there is a certain soaking up of pressure required first. Black has also sometimes tried the rather audacious 4 . . . c5 with similar ideas. He would like after 5 e3 ? ! to transpose back into the notes above to 4 e3 c5. It is important therefore that 5 cxd5 'ili'xd5 6 lbf3 cxd4 7 lbc3 achieve something. Fortunately, after 7 . . . 'id8 (7 . . :iWa5 8 lbxd4 i.d7 9 'iVb3 ! ?) 8 lbxd4 e6 9 e3 a6 1 0

2 d5 3 Lf6 2 1 5 . . .

iVh5 ! ? i.b4 1 1 �c 1 iVa5 as played in Hodgson-Lukacs, Kesckemet 1 988, the simple 1 2 iVxa5 ..txa5 1 3 t'Llb3 is pleasant for White, indeed I even suspect that 1 3 . . . i.xc3+ is advisable, otherwise 1 4 t'Lle4 will create more problems. 5 e3 c5 White ' s 5th move looks to me too solid to justify 5 . . . �g8 (in contrast with Game 48 where the analogous idea has much more bite). I find plans involving the fianchetto attractive here. Either 6 t'Llc3 c6 7 g3 ! ? b5 8 i.g2 or even 6 g3 ! ? - De la Villa - look worth a try. 6 i.xc4 cxd4 7 exd4

7 ... i.g7 Black has also tried 7 . . . t'Llc6 a few times here when play has usually continued as in the main game. I am also tempted to look at 8 d5 ! ? t'Lle5 9 i.b5+ since the exchange of light-squared bishops feels like definite progress in positional terms. However, there is an element of assisting Black to develop quickly about this, and 9 . . . i.d7 1 0 i.xd7+ 'iWxd7 1 1 t'Llc3 :g8 ! ? 12 f4 t'Llc4 1 3 iVe2 iVc7 does indeed lead to a very complex position. Nonetheless I am a little surprised no one has thought fit to venture this.

Adventures initiated by Black again fail to impress. 7 . . . J:.g8 8 'ilkh5 e6 9 t'Lle2 �xg2 1 0 t'Llbc3 l:!g5 1 1 'iWxh7 'iWc7 was lanse-Van Delft, Utrecht (op) 2000 when I think White should continue 1 2 h4 ! ? l';Ig7 1 3 iVd3 when his opponent' s development looks very ungainly for such an open position. 8 t'Lle2 The standard way to develop here. Is it just me though, or could White consider something a little more aggressive at this stage? I feel drawn to at least check out 8 'iWh5 ! ? Black' s kings ide after castling doesn't look that secure, and that would seem to offer good compensation for the weakening of d4 and b2 which such a sortie clearly entails. At the very least, I am surprised that nobody even mentions the possibility. A few sample lines:

8 . . . 0-0 (After 8 . . . e6 even 9 t'Llf3 ! ? comes into the reckoning. Pawn grabbing with 9 . . . 'ilfb6 1 0 0-0 'ilkxb2 1 1 t'Llbd2 then looks a distinctly risky business, and 9 . . . t'Llc6 1 0 t'Llc3 t'Llxd4? 1 1 O-O-O ! still more so) 9 t'Llge2 (I am less inclined to venture 9 t'Llf3 t'Llc6 here as 1 0 t'Llc3 t'Llxd4 could well work for Black) 9 . . . t'Llc6 (after 9 . . . 'ilfb6

2 1 6 2 d5 3 iLxf6 . . .

1 0 tZ:\bc3 'ixb2 1 1 0-0 'ic2 ! is unclear, but 10 O-O ! ? �xb2 1 1 SLd3 ! h6 1 2 tZ:\bc3 makes a good impression) 10 tZ:\bc3 tZ:\xd4 1 1 l:td l e5 1 2 tZ:\xd4 ! ? exd4 1 3 0-0 f5 1 4 tZ:\e2 looks well worth investigating since the positional rewards for success would be quite high. 8 0-0 9 tZ:\bc3 . . .

9 f5 This complicated and strategically rich position is much more about ideas than precise theory and move orders. I will consider at this point a game in which 9 . . . tZ:\c6 was played, but in fact the Black set-up is fairly clear - it is White who has a major decision to be made whether to try and keep his d-pawn covered on d4 - under fire, but at least staking some sort of claim to the dark squares in the centre - or to advance it, a riskier option, but one promising still more spatial gains . Anastasian-Tiviakov, European (chT) Batumi 1 999 was an interesting test of the latter course after 9 . . . tZ:\c6 1 0 d5 ! ? ( 1 0 'id2 should transpose to the main line) 10 . . . tZ:\e5 1 1 SLb3 f5 1 2 0-0 'ili'd6 1 3 tZ:\d4 tZ:\g4 (I wonder whether Black can consider 1 3 . . . f4 ! ? in such a position. Of course it renounces control of the important e4 square,

but the threat of . . . f3, with the menace of . . . .ltg4 to consider, is not to be underestimated) 14 tZ:\f3 SLd7 1 5 h3 tZ:\e5 16 l:te l tZ:\g6 17 'id2 b5 1 8 tZ:\e2 a5 1 9 11ad l a4 20 .ltc2 .l:i.fc8 2 1 tZ:\g3 .ltxb2 22 .ltxf5 .ltc3 23 �6 SLxf5 24 tZ:\xf5 �f6 25 g4 .ltxe 1 26 l:txe 1 l:ta 7 27 tZ:\g5 'ih8 28 �h5 when White actually had very good compensation for the exchange. However, my feeling is that Black was doing OK earlier - it is hard to believe with attacking f5 almost the exclusive string to White ' s bow that he should be able to pose really serious difficulties. 1 0 �d2 tZ:\c6 11 Itdl

...

11 :V/Vd6 Similar play can result from 1 1 . a6. Again the really decisive choices are White 's. The problem is how to construct a plan without pushing in the centre. The evidence from Romero Holmes - I.Farago, Rome 1 986 was not particularly encouraging on this point although White ' s build-up with: 12 a3 'iVd6 1 3 0-0 .ltd7 14 .lta2 Itac8 1 5 'ili'e3 ? ! tZ:\a5 16 'ili'd3 b5 was rather ponderous . I mention it largely as a reminder of the importance of the c4 square, here without White even having played d4-d5 . However the main game ..

. .

2 d5 3 Lf6 2 1 7 . . .

makes a rather better shot at this as perhaps did Romero Holmes­ A.Rodriguez, Medina del Campo, 1 986, although after 12 �f4 il.d7 1 3 0-0 �b8 1 4 �h4 �d6 it is still not entirely clear where White is going. So what of advancing in the centre? Another example was 1 2 0-0 �d6 1 3 d5 ! ? tLJe5 1 4 il.b3 tLJg4 ( 1 4 . . . il.d7 ! ?) 15 tLJg3 il.d7 ( 1 5 . . . f4? ! 1 6 tLJge4 �h6 17 h3 tLJe5 1 8 f3 ! now looks secure enough for White, whereas his opponent has to be constantly watchful of a d5-d6 break) 16 h3 il.h6 ! ? ( 1 6 . . . tLJf6 1 7 �d3 might b e an edge for White) 1 7 �e2 tLJe3 1 8 fxe3 �xg3 1 9 l:If3 �e5 Galyas-Naiditsch, Elekes (mem) Budapest, 2000, and now 20 il.c2 and 2 1 �f2 looks the best way to pester the f5 pawn, when I slightly prefer White. 1 2 0-0 �d8 13 �fe1 �b4 ! ? 1 4 il. d 5 e6 1 5 il.xc6 bxc6

16 a3 Black's very aggressive and forcing 1 3 th move sought to in effect punish White for his determination to keep his d-pawn on d4. The result is yet again further pawn weaknesses and a pure clash knights against bishops. White would like to explore whether

Black' s queen is rather guilty of deserting the kingside, but unfortunately 1 6 �g5 ! ? il.a6 1 7 tLJg3 h6 ! 1 8 �e 3 l:Ixd4 1 9 tLJh5 l:Ixd l 20 �xd l f4 ! 2 1 �f3 il.e5 does not look quite sound. 16 . . . �e7 17 �e3 il.a6 18 tLJf4 �g5 1 9 tLJd3? I do not like this move at all . It seems very negative, at a time when I still think there is a good deal of life in White' s position. 1 9 tLJa4 ! looks indicated, when White ' s blockade o n the dark squares offers him perfectly satisfactory play. 19 . . .�xe3 20 fxe3 il.xd3 2 1 l:Ixd3 f4 ! 22 exf4 l:Ixd4 2 3 l:Ixd4 il.xd4+ 24 �f1 l:Ib8 25 l:Ie4 c5 Once White ' s d-pawn was undermined it was clear that the dark-squared bishop would become an impressive sight. The contrast between the respective minor pieces tells the full story. White wisely gives up a pawn and enjoys some drawing chances based upon his more active rook. 26 tLJd 1 ! il.xb2 27 tLJxb2 l:Ixb2 28 l:Ic4 l:Ib5 29 �e2 �f8 30 a4 l:Ia5 31 l:Ie4 �e7 32 f5 �f6 33 fxe6 fxe6 34 l:Ih4 �g6 35 l:Ig4+ �f5 36 l:Ih4 �g6 37 IIg4+ �f5 38 l:Ih4 �e5 39 l:Ixh7 l:ha4 40 �c7 c4 Maybe 40 . . . �d5 ! ? here. After the text I do not see a win, and although far from our main focus of interest, White ' s defence in the rook ending has been impressively active and resilient. 41 h4 �e4 42 h5 l:Ia2+ 43 �f1 �d3 44 h6 l:Ial + 45 �f2 l:Ihl 46 h7 c3 47 l:Id7+ �e4 48 l1xa7 c2 49 l1c7 �d3 50 l:Id7+ �c3 51 �c7+ �d2 52 .i;Id7+ �c1 53 .i;Ic7 �d2 YZ-YZ

2 1 8 2 d5 3 Lf6 . . .

Game 4 8 Hodgson - Sonntag Benidorm (op) 1 98 9 1 d 4 lLlf6 2 i. g 5 d5 3 i.xf6 gxf6 4 c4 dxc4 5 e4 ! ?

This i s a radical departure from the game above, a move which gives a slightly anti-positional impression, further gambling with the dark squares for the sake of rapid development and dynamic chances. In particular I suppose the hope is that the highly desirable move . . . f5 will not be effected so effortlessly. I am not sure that I quite believe it, but it is relatively unexplored (perhaps in part because several of the existing examples feature players of the White pieces merrily motoring in self-destruct mode). Since it might offer more promising territory for those who find the plan of action in Game 47 rather intangible, I thought it merited brief coverage. Inevitably for such unexplored terrain, I will be giving pointers to further research rather than trying to unearth ' the truth' . 5 . . . lLlc6 The attack on d4 is easily parried but Black has his sights set on the

other bishop too. However, this concedes further space and in the resulting position the knight pair has quite acceptable squares and therefore reasonable potential, while the bishops can easily find themselves shut out. I think some alternatives could cause more worry: a) 5 . . . b5 led to an absolute catastrophe for White after 6 a4 iLb7 7 f3? c6 8 axb5 cxb5 9 b3 e5 ! 1 0 bxc4 i.b4+ 1 1 'i£;>f2 i.c5 ! and the rest has been censored in the public interest, Gerstner-Voekler, Germany (ch) Binz, 1 99 5 . Sorry to present a normally highly competent Tromp­ owsky practitioner and the author of a good book on the subject in this uncharacteristic light, but the lesson of quite how awful the move 7 f3 ? can be i s a n important one. There are just some things which the overall distribution of force on the dark squares should rule out absolutely, and this is one of them! However, from the theoretical angle 5 . . . b5 does not cause great distress. After 6 a4 i.b7, 7 axb5 ! is a considerable improvement 7. . . i.xe4 8 lLlc3 i.d5 (If 8 . . . i.b7 9 i.xc4 ! is strong, intending to answer 8 . . . i.xg2? with 1 0 i.xf7 ! �xf7 1 1 'ih5+ picking up the bishop on g2 - De la Villa) 9 'iVa4 ! - De la Villa - and now the most testing 9 . . . i.b7 ! ? results in a right old mess after 1 0 b6+ ! lLlc6 1 1 bxc7 'ixd4 1 2 i.xc4 'iVe5+ 1 3 lLlge2 'iVxc7 14 lLld5 when I rather fancy White ' s attacking prospects. b) 5 . . . f5 ! ? is interesting. White can consider 6 i.xc4 (6 e5?! i.e6 7 lLlc3 c6 8 lLlh3 i.d5 does not look sufficient) 6 . . . fxe4 7 'iVh5 e6 8 lLlge2 (Though not 8 'iV e5 :g8 9 'iVxe4 'ig5 ! ) 8 . . . lLlc6 9 lLlc3 lLlxd4

2 d5 3 i.f6 2 1 9 . . .

1 0 0-0-0 lLlxe2+ 1 1 �xe2 �g5+ 1 2 �b 1 , although o f course the resulting attack comes with no guarantees. Perhaps better is the fractionally more subtle 7 ttJc3 ! ? i.g7 8 �h5 0-0 9 ttJge2 when White doesn 't get to force . . . e6, but has better chances of holding the d-pawn. This looks more sensible. After all, . . . e6 is not such a bad defensive move here anyway. c) 5 . . . :tg8 ! ? also poses unusual problems.

unlikely to find a secure haven without a real struggle. However, this line is interesting, and the level of irritation caused by Black' s occupation o f the g-file may prove to be the biggest single question mark over 5 e4 ! ? 6 d 5 ttJe5 7 f4

7 lLld3+ I think I prefer De la Villa ' s suggestion o f 7 . . . ttJg6 ! ? 8 g 3 b5 ! and up to a point I cannot fault his analysis either. He continues 9 a4 f5 ! 1 0 axb5 fxe4 but now his 1 1 �d4 seems counterproductive after 1 1 . . . f5 ! ? when 1 2 i.xc4?! is met with the embarrassing 1 2 . . . e5 ! 1 3 fxe5 i.g7 when Black's play on the long diagonal has been enhanced rather than held back. The more modest 1 1 i.xc4 i.g7 12 ttJc3 looks safer, although here too the position is immensely unusual and unclear. Scope for future tests here as well ! 8 i.xd3 cxd3 9 �xd3 'i'd6 This looks a little strange. Despite the risks of opening the position when behind in development, there would seem to be a case for 9 . . . c6 ! ? to stake some sort of a claim to the centre. However, after 1 0 lLlc3 cxd5 1 1 exd5 ! ? the weak squares on f5 ...

Simply fianchettoing the king ' s bishop n o longer looks s o tempting with the pawn on e4 . 6 11Va4+ c6 7 especially since �xc4 is 7 . . . �6 8 should generate reasonable compensation for a pawn. More ambitious is 6 lLlc3 c6 7 i.xc4 ! ? �xg2 8 ttJge2 (8 �h5 is met with 8 . . .1.1g7 and the irritating threat of . . . i.g4) with compen­ sation, although I am not certain how much. In Ennsberger-Troyke, Passau (op) 1 998 Black played 8 . . . b5(? ! ) , but I do not really see a convincing answer to 9 lLlxb5 ! cxb5 1 0 i.d5 as 1 O . . . e5 1 1 �d3 ! seems to secure White' s king, with good prospects. In all of these positions after 5 . . J �g8 White does enjoy the long-term solace that Black's king is

220 2 d5 3 LJ6 . . .

and h5 in conjunction with White ' s space advantage still suggest no easy time for the defender. 10 liJe2 f5 ? ! Hoping t o lure the centre pawns forward to prove them vulnerable, but somehow Sonntag ' s moves seem to mix rather strangely here. 1 1 e5 �b6 1 2 liJd2 ! e6 Of course 1 2 . . . �xb2 would be ridiculously risky, although the line 1 3 l:.b l 'i'xa2 14 liJc3 'i'a6 1 5 liJb5 is a nice illustration of how well White ' s knights cooperate here. 13 liJc3 �b4 1 4 liJc4 'i'a6

1 8 . . . l:tc8?? Which Black somehow manages to overlook! I think that if Black had found 1 8 . . . '�c6 ! he would have achieved his best position since about move 1 0. White needs to break the pin and defend g2, hence 1 9 l:td2 is indicated, but 1 9 . . . �xc3 20 bxc3 'i'e4+ 2 1 liJe3 'i'xd4 22 l:.xd4 keeps White ' s advantage within acceptable bounds. 19 �f6 ! If 1 9 . . 'it> f8 2 0 liJe5 confinns the misery. A shocking denouement one move away from a playable position. 1-0 .

3 i.xf6 exf6

15 d6! ? This looks fairly fonnidable, but Black has chances to blockade the centre, when his bishops can ' l ive around ' the big d-pawn. There would seem to be a strong case for keeping greater fluidity, perhaps even with 1 5 0-0-0 �xc3 1 6 'i'xc3 iVxa2 (If 1 6 . . . exd5 1 7 liJe3 �e6 1 8 �xd5 ! looks strong) 1 7 d6 c5 1 8 'it>c2 ! 'i'a4+ 1 9 b3 'i'c6 20 'i'g3 ! with an enduring bind. 15 . . . cxd6 16 exd6 �d7 17 'i'd4 J:tg8 18 .i:f.dl With a very powerful threat . . . .

The more solid move, keeping a tighter structure on the kings ide and also gaining time for development. Here this recapture makes considerably more sense than in the case of 2 . . . c5 as there are no special implications for the weakness of the d-pawn either. Black will sometimes follow up with . . . c5 here, but this is very much the exception. White has several plans from the diagram, but most of them involve either quickly

2 d5 3 Lf6 221 . . .

playing or slowly preparing the move c4 to challenge Black ' s d-pawn. Again, the logic o f a repertoire book, and the desire to treat in some depth dictates that I should be quite selective and in this chapter I have decided to be rather more ruthless than usual . This is in part because I am rather unconvinced as to the chances of obtaining an advantage in some of the more traditional variations, and also due to the appeal of a system which is almost universally applicable against Black ' s various 4th moves. Its endorsement by a number of very strong players does no harm either. I would like to restrict coverage to those lines in which White fianchettoes his bishop - in general following up with c2-c4, and ultimately some kind of minority attack on the queenside. In essence, this is the same plan which we shall see in the final chapter against 2 . . . g6 too, but the opponent' s pawn presence in the centre of course has an impact on proceedings. Again it is not just the familiar trainer' s mantra to declare plans and ideas more important than precise move orders. This is true to an unusual degree here, as Black ' s choices i n the next few moves have a relatively limited impact upon the execution of 'the plan ' . The main decision White has to make is whether he is content to recapture on c4 with a piece and can thus make this advance without further ado, or whether he would like to be able to take back with a pawn and must therefore play b3 . This is roughly the division of material between Games 49 and 50. In the latter White prepares c2-c4, but here he just gets on with it.

Game 49 McDonald - Lukacs Budapest First Saturday, 1 995 1 d4 tiJf6 2 iLg5 d5 3 iLxf6 exf6 4 e3 This is virtually the only move played here. It is of course quite consistent with the intention to fianchetto because the e2 square is needed to develop the knight.

4 c6 This together with 4 . . . iLd6 is far and away the most popular move, but there are others. a) 4 . . . iLe6, interestingly, was once apparently described by Hodgson as the most accurate since it holds up 5 c4 . However, this was presumably at a time when he regarded that as White ' s most dangerous line. More recently he tended to graduate towards g3 systems anyway. After 5 g3 the independent significance is determined by the degree to which . . . iLe6 features in Black's optimal set-up. Two thoughts : The first is that Black should probably not delay . . . iLd6 too long. In Banikas-Veingold, Dos Hermanas (op) 2000 he seemed to suffer a • • •

222 2 d5 3 i.f6 . . .

little for this after 5 g3 c6 6 �g2 ltJd7 7 ltJd2 f5 8 ltJe2 ltJf6 ? ! 9 ltJf4 .Jtd6 1 0 ltJh5 ! ? 0-0 1 1 ltJxf6+ 'ili'xf6 1 2 0-0 %:tac8 1 3 �e2 b6 1 4 Itfd l and there i s a distinct suspicion that the exchange of knights is helpful to the White cause. I think the fact that Black's knight often has good squares on either e4 or d5 , and that White ' s two knights can on occasion give the impression that they are struggling not to impede his major pieces accounts for this. Banikas here chose a very ambitious version of the plan from the next game, by arranging most intricately for c4, with b3 and ltJb 1 , so much so that Black got impatient and himself played . . . c5. I suspect that 1 5 c4 ! ? immediately would have been good enough for an unpretentious plus. The second is that if Black routinely castles, I quite like White, either with, for example 5 g3 c6 6 ltJd2 �d6 7 ltJe2 0-0 8 .Jtg2 f5 9 0-0 lle8? ! 1 0 c4 ( 1 0 b3 ! ?) 1 0 . . . dxc4 1 1 �c2 ltJd7 ( l 1 . . .b5? ! 1 2 b3 gives White strong positional compen­ sation) 1 2 ltJxc4 .Jtf8 1 3 ltJf4 g6 1 4 ltJxe6 fxe6 1 5 b4 ! .l:[b8 ( 1 5 . . . �xb4? allows 1 6 kIth l Wie7 1 7 a3 .Jtd6 1 8 .l:[xb7) 1 6 'i!i'b3 'it'h8 1 7 l:.fd l 'ili'e7 1 8 a3 and an agreeable pull in Benj amin-Shapiro, Long Island, 1 995; or perhaps after 9 . . . ltJd7 ! ? then 1 0 b3 ! ? Again the key test is ' Can Black answer the coming c2-c4 break with . . . dxc4, and after bxc4 play . . . c5T The position of the bishop on e6 pretty much guarantees that this will be answered in the negative, and also 10 . . . ltJf6 1 1 c4 c5 Little-Stone, Canada (ch) 1 995 can be met with 1 2 dxc5 .Jtxc5 1 3 ltJf4 with some advantage based on the light squares and every chance of a great long

diagonal. Otherwise White can reach the Ward-Akesson formation (see the note to Black's 1 0th) which I will tend to regard as a kind of generic success for White in this line. b) There is little doubt that d6 is the right square for the bishop. 4 . . . �e7 ? ! leaves the bishop more passive, and takes a natural square away from the major pieces too.

It was found wanting in Hodgson-Upton, Moscow (01) 1 994 which continued 5 g3 0-0 6 �g2 c6 7 ltJd2 �e6 8 ltJe2 ltJd7 9 0-0 f5 1 0 c4 ltJf6 1 1 ltJf4 �d7 1 2 ':c l g5 (a rather reckless weakening when there are few causes for optimism, but it is difficult to play with the white knight ensconced on f4. Hence . . . .Jtd6 ! ) 1 3 ltJd3 ltJe4 1 4 ltJe5 �d6 1 5 f3 ! ltJxd2 1 6 �xd2 �f6 1 7 f4 with a tremendous knight on e5 the standard bearer of an excellent position. Another example with 4 . . . .Jte7 is worth mentioning, since it introduces us to an early and well conducted version of the plan of including b3, which we shall examine more closely in Game 50. After 5 g3 0-0 6 �g2 c6 7 ltJd2 .Jte6 8 ltJe2 ltJd7 9 0-0 l:le8 White opted for 1 0 b3 ! ? in Shereshevsky-

2 . . . d5 3 Lf6 223 Ilinsky, Spartakiad US SR, 1 979. Play continued 10 . . . f5 1 1 c4 ctJf6 1 2 a3 ! ? dxc4 (In general I think this exchange is more permissible for Black when the White queen' s knight i s n o longer coming t o c 3 see the note on 1 0 b3 ! ? below. However, this is not a hard and fast rule. Black's piece formation hinders the organisation of any quick . . . c5 move, and it is primarily when that is available that this argument comes into force) 1 3 bxc4 �a5 ? ! 14 �c2 .l:!.ad8 1 5 l:tfb l �c8 16 c5 !

(A model set-up for White takes shape. Further weaknesses will be forced on the Black queens ide, and it scarcely matters that the c6 pawn blocks the g2 bishop - White has enough alternative fire power in this zone) 1 6 . . . �c7 1 7 ttJc4 g6 1 8 �a4 ! a6 1 9 .l:!.b2 ctJd5 20 .l:!.ab l �g5 2 1 �xd5 ! cxd5 22 ctJd6 with a winning advantage already. A nice illustration of the strategy of this line, in spite of Black' s sup-optimal formation. Another move which is played surprisingly often, albeit not at the highest levels, is 4 . . . �f5 . This is sufficient to encourage White to change plans, since the exchange of light-squared bishops is likely to be

quite helpful for White therefore 5 �d3 ! is indicated.

and

De la Villa quotes the game Shereshevsky-Barkovsky, Minsk, 1 98 1 in his strategic introduction and it does indeed illustrate some key ideas rather nicely. However, I am not sure he is right to criticise 5 . . . �g6 ! ? since the immediate exchange looks quite cooperative too. It is rather after 6 ctJe2 iLd6 7 0-0, that 7 . . . ttJc6?! looks a bit odd and 8 �b5 ! ? is a principled response placing a serious premium upon pawn structure. White was clearly better after 8 . . . 0-0 9 �xc6 bxc6 1 0 ctJbc3 J:b8 1 1 b3 �c8 1 2 ctJf4 l:i.d8 1 3 ctJa4 ! '¥Wf5 1 4 ctJxg6 hxg6 1 5 �d3 since his plan of playing c4 will highlight Black' s weaknesses, while there is little to face in the way of counterplay. Shereshevsky, the writer of fine works on endgame strategy, gave a serious insight into the quality of his strategic planning in these two examples . The move which really places a distinctive stamp on the play is of course 4 . . . c5. The general feeling is that Black should not have full compensation for the isolated queen' s pawn in the . . . exf6 formation, but White should beware

224 2 d5 3 iLxf6 . . .

of reacting too passively and assuming that the pawn weaknesses will somehow do the job automatically.

�xb5 ! 1 -0 in Palma de Mallorca (GMA) 1 989 was at least partly of Black' s making !

5 dxc5 (5 4:Jc3 ! ? was covered in Chapter 6 and was also quite good for White, but the text looks more natural here 5 . . . i.xc5 6 4:Jc3 ! ? (I rather like this, although 6 c3 is of course legitimate too. Mikhail Gurevich gives 6 . . . 4:Jc6 7 4:Jf3 0-0 8 i.e2 i.f5 as ' unclear' presumably with the idea of popping the bishop to e4) 6 . . . i.e6 (6 . . . ..Itb4 would be well met by 7 i.b5+ 4:Jc6 8 4:Jge2) 7 i.b5+ 4:Jc6 8 4:Jge2 0-0 9 0-0 4:Je5 (attempting to leave the b5 bishop looking rather ' stranded ' Black merely encourages it to a good square. 9 . . . a6 ! looks better) 10 4:Jf4 a6 1 1 ..Ita4 ! 4:Jc4 (The knight on f4 serves to discourage Black from playing l l . . .d4 which would leave him weak on the light squares, specifically 12 4:Je4 ..Itb6 13 4:Jxe6 fxe6 14 exd4 �xd4 1 5 �xd4 ..Itxd4 16 c3 i.b6 1 7 ..Itb3 with clear advantage) 1 2 i.b3 ! 4:Jxb2 1 3 �e2 l:rc8 1 4 4:Jcxd5 i.xd5 [ 1 4 . . . b5 1 5 4:Jxe6 fxe6 1 6 4:Jf4±] 1 5 4:Jxd5 b5 16 c3 i.a3 17 l:tab 1 4:Jc4 18 l:tfd 1 and White has a clear plus in the centre, although the abrupt finish with 1 8 . . . �d6? 1 9 ..Itxc4 ! l:rxc4 20 4:Jb6 ! �xb6 21 �xc4 �xe3 22

This is a common reaction to 4 . . . c6, among those wishing to enter the g3 systems. However, while there are virtually no games with 5 g3 ! ?, my general enthusiasm for b3 systems makes me at least curious as to whether 5 . . . �6 6 b3 is really so bad for White. The only move I can see to make trouble would be perhaps 6 . . . ..Itf5 (6 . . . a5? ! 7 a3 ! ) trying t o answer a casual 7 ..Itg2 ? ! with 7 . . . ..Itb4+. In this case though, I would be willing to switch back with 7 i.d3 ! ? forcing Black to expend another tempo with his bishop . In this case g3 does not seem a fatal weakening, while . . . �6 looks a little ill-directed. Similarly in the position after 5 g3 5 . . . ..Itd6 De la Villa is concerned by 6 i.g2 �6' ! ' but again the logic escapes me, and again I would respond happily enough with 7 b 3 . 5 ..Itd6 6 g 3 0-0 Game 50 will examine the whole question of Black delaying castling, which is in my view one of the most significant in the position.

5 4:Jd2

. . .

2 d5 3 Lf6 225 . . .

7 i.g2 f5 8 ttJe2 ttJd7 The plan of . . . fS and the manoeuvre of this knight to f6 seems the most reliable to me. White has to ensure that the knight will not simply nestle down comfortably on e4 . Also, as we shall see, this move order leaves Black well-placed to face the b3 idea, once the white knight is committed to d2 . 9 0-0 ttJf6 1 0 c4

The standard break. The problem is that Black gains reasonable piece play after the clearance of his remaining centre pawn, mainly due to the possibility of utilising the dS square. There is quite a tricky balance to all this. As we have seen White is often quite pleased to se� the exchange of light-squared bishops, but he does have to feed into the equation the potential vulnerability of his kings ide. Black will tend to respond to his opponent' s minority attack by hurling his own h-pawn down the board to create kings ide weak­ nesses. Incidentally De la Villa gives the insightful note 10 b3 'iVe7 ! 1 1 c4 dxc4 1 2 bxc4 cS ! which although not so bad for White - he can still play for example 1 3 'ub I ! ? causing some irritation to Black ' s plans for queens ide development -

is fru � trating in that he wants to put a kmght on c3, and this risks counterplay based on . . . cxd4 and . . . f4 . Again this should be compared with various notes to Game SO, Ziegler-Akesson II particular. 1 0 . . . dxc4 ! I feel sure this is right in principle here. There is no clear consensus about the blocked positions which can arise from 1 0 . . . i.e6 1 1 cS ! ? , but I am rather optimistic about them even though stylistically such things do not always appeal. A typical example is W ard-Akesson, Isle of Man (op) 2000 in which White did not finally succeed in breaking through, but I am sure Black had some rather moments after 1 1 . . . i.e7 1 2 b4 as 1 3 a3 axb4 14 axb4 bS IS 'i¥'b3 'i¥'c7 16 'ua3 'ua7 17 :rfa 1 'ufa8 1 8 'uxa7 J:txa7 1 9 J:Ia3 �7 20 'iVa2 J:txa3 2 1 'iVxa3 i.d8 22 ttJf3 i.c8 2 3 ttJeS ttJd7 24 ttJxd7 i.xd7 2S ttJf4 i.c8 and there is still a good deal of passive defence to undertake. My game with Jonathan Parker also has similarities, although there the issue of counterplay against the white king complicated the equation. I am not surprised that on the whole Black tends to avoid this structure. 1 1 ttJxc4 i.c7

226 2 d5 3 Lf6 . . .

12 �c2 ! ? A nice refinement to White ' s play from Neil McDonald. White ' s formation looks more purposeful than that of the extraordinary England-Hungary match duo, where two boards of the same match proceeded in tandem right up to 1 2 ctJc3 .ie6 1 3 'iVe2 'iVe7 1 4 a 3 .l:i.ad8 1 5 b4 a6 ! 1 6 l:rab 1 l:rfe8 but in both Black looked very comfortable. In Adams-Z.Almasi, Moscow (01) 1 994 Black even enjoyed a light initiative after 1 7 l:i.fc 1 h5 ! ? 1 8 ctJd2 h4 1 9 ctJf3 hxg3 20 hxg3 ctJd5 ! 2 1 .l:i.b2 a5 ! 22 ctJxd5 .ixd5 2 3 'iVd2 axb4 24 axb4 when 24 . . . .ie4 ! ? looks interesting. Since 2 5 b 5 .id6 ! only serves to embarrass White ' s rooks, Black's kings ide efforts look the more likely to cause problems. Hodgson-Leko, Moscow (01) 1 994 went instead 17 a4 ctJd5 1 8 ctJxd5 .ixdS 1 9 'iVc2 .ixg2 20 �xg2 I;1dS with rather easy equality, although again Black could have looked at 1 7 . . . hS ! ? The queen on c 2 keeps a n eye on f5, and reserves the possibility to put the knight into eS.

1 2 . . . .ie6 Natural enough, but once White ' s plan is revealed the move starts to

look a bit more questionable. In Hennig-Kveinys, Bundesliga 2000 Black chose 12 . . . 'iVe7 ! ? 13 a3 .ie6 14 1:rac 1 Mad8 I S ctJd2 ? ! g6 1 6 .l:!.fd 1 .l:i.fe8 1 7 ctJb3 hS 1 8 ctJc5 .ic8 19 b4 h4 20 ctJd3 hxg3 2 1 hxg3 .id6 and the position starts to look rather similar to those reached by Hodgson and Adams in the last note, and which fail to impress particularly. However, it seems to me that White could still find mileage in the 14 ctJeS ! ? idea here. 1 4 . . . .ixeS I S dxeS ctJg4 1 6 �c3 does not seem to be a problem, and again the threat to f5 prevents . . . .idS and gives White the time to follow up with f4. In view of all this, perhaps Black should look at 1 3 . . . g6 ! ? 13 ctJe5 ! ctJd5 ? ! 1 4 ctJd3 g 6 1 5 ctJc5 An excellent and notable manoeuvre which really gives White' s coming minority attack an extra dimension. 15 . . . .ic8 16 ctJc3 ctJf6 17 b4 ! Compared with the 1 2 ctJc3 couplet discussed above, White' s plan i s much more clear-cut, and his opponent has not even begun to address the question of what he might be able to achieve on the other wing.

2 d5 3 Lf6 22 7 . . .

1 7 . . . a6 1 8 a4 .Jtd6 1 9 b5 axb5 20 axb5 ':xal 2 1 !hal "iJic7 22 bxc6 bxc6 23 �a4 ctJd7 24 ctJa6 .Jtxa6 25 "iJixa6 ctJb8 26 "iJic4 h5?! Maybe not bad as a move per se, but as part of a plan it merely draws attention to Black ' s passivity. If you take a step back and look at the two sides ' pieces, the fact that ultimately it is White who will benefit from the opening the h-file is scarcely a surprise. 2 7 ctJa4 h4 28 ctJc5 hxg3 29 hxg3 �c8 30 l:tbl "iJie7 31 �b7 "iJie8 32 e4 ! ? .Jtxc5 33 dxc5 ? ! I t i s not clear that White was obliged to open a ' second front' but it is only here that I really have to take issue with his method. He was probably afraid of 33 "iJixc5 fxe4 34 l:te7 "iJif8, when 35 .Jtxe4 l:te8 ! looks a shade too drawish. However by first playing 35 "iJie5 ! I think he would maintain the bulk his considerable initiative. 33 . . . fxe4 34 .Jtxe4 ctJd7 35 J:a7 ctJe5 36 "iJic3 J:d8 37 l:tc7 "iJie6 38 <Jtg2 �d7? ? White ' s last few moves have the slightly directionless feel which is often an indicator of some time-trouble, but this is an outright blunder just as Black's disadvantage was becoming manageable. 38 . . . J:e8 ! ? for example looks fairly playable. 39 �c8+ <Jth7 40 �al ! �dl 41 "iJixdl "iJixc8 42 "iJih5+! 1-0 A slightly messy finish, but White ' s plan was important and represents the state of the art for handling this variation without the double-edged refinement to which we now turn.

Game 50 Wells - Parker 4NCL, Telford 2003 1 d4 ctJf6 2 .Jtg5 d5 3 .Jtxf6 exf6 4 e3 .Jtd6 5 g3

5 ... c6 Whilst the primary focus of this game is to explore whether the refinement the of adding preparatory move b2-b3 really represents a major strengthening of the whole plan, there is an important sub-plot too. This is the question of when and how Black should commit his king. I was faintly aware before the game that the idea of holding back . . . 0-0 was not completely innocent, but the very real complexity of the play if Black is persistent in his readiness to answer castling by White by launching a kings ide attack with a quick . . . h5 was something of a revelation. At this moment I think I would almost go as far as to depict an early . . . 0-0 by B lack as something of an inaccuracy. As we shall see, some . , . h5 by B lack even comes into consider­ ation before White is committed to the kingside. However 5 . . . h5 I find

228 2 d5 3 .Lf6 . . .

rather over-exuberant. White is probably well justified in playing 6 h4 and seeing what else Black wants to throw at him. In Nataf-Rigo, Paris (op), 1 995 Black tried to bash away at a rather wide front with 6 . . . c6 7 ttJd2 'ifb6 8 !Ib l ..if5 but I quite like 9 ..ih3 ! ? ..ig6 1 0 ttJe2 'iVa6 1 1 ttJf4 ttJd7 12 a3 ttJfS 1 3 ttJxg6 fxg6 1 4 c4 ! dxc4 1 5 'iVc2 b5 16 0-0 f5 17 e4 ! and White clearly has a dangerous initiative now. Of course this is only one example, but the down-side of 5 . . . h5 is certainly there for all to see. 6 ..i g2 f5 7 ttJe2 ttJd7 !

I think this could well be Black ' s optimal move order, and hence the critical position, interesting if true for the fact that I have only three games with it on my database ! White is kept guessing as to whether a decision to castle will be placidly responded to in kind or will be met with some serious aggression on the h-file. My feeling is that the latter should be treated with some respect. 8 b3 ! ? A difficult and unfortunately rather time-consuming decision based upon two factors :

i) A concern about (for which read ' fear of' ! ) 8 0-0 h5 ! ? The only example I have of this is rather curious . After 9 c4 dxc4 1 0 ttJd2 ttJb6 1 1 ttJc3 i.b4 1 2 l:te l 'ifS 1 3 a3 ..ie7 1 4 ':c l h4 1 5 ttJe2 hxg3 1 6 hxg3 ..ie6 1 7 ttJf4 i.d5 1 8 ttJxd5 cxd5 White has insufficient comp­ ensation for a pawn in Karttunen­ Sammalvuo, Helsinki 2002, although this is a world away from the ' getting mated' scenarios which were occupying my mind. I guess that the pawn sacrifice was a desire to act fast before 9 ttJd2 h4 kicks in, but I now think that, sitting at the board, I probably exaggerated the danger of this. 1 0 c4 hxg3 1 1 hxg3 ttJf6 (adventures with the queen leave the centre too vulnerable, as White can play !Ie 1 often with ttJf4 to follow) 1 2 ttJc3 ! dxc4 1 3 ttJxc4 and now I like 1 3 . . . ..ic7 14 d5 ! for White, although 1 3 . . . ..ie6 ! ? is still quite unclear. S.Buckley-Krupenski, European Junior (Ch) Baku, 2002, was also relevant in this regard. This actually began 8 ttJd2 ttJf6 9 0-0 (It is interesting that the Hodgson-Leko game discussed in the notes to Game 49 took this move order, and Black decided not to check out the sharp option) 9 . . . h5 ! ? 1 0 c4 dxc4 1 1 ttJxc4 ..ic7 12 'iWc2 h4 1 3 lIfd l hxg3 1 4 hxg3 g6? ! 1 5 ttJe5 'ifS 1 6 ttJf4 'ig7 1 7 b4 'Wie7 1 8 'ifb2 when White enjoyed both acceptable safety levels on the kingside, and an initiative elsewhere, but 14 . . . ..ie6 ! ? might have been more testing. This whole idea adds a challenging dimension to the play, rather, I think than the major problem which I perceived when facing it for the first time.

2 d5 3 L[6 229 . . .

ii) A desire to retain the option of playing CLlc3 rather than settling for the more ' convenient' 8 CLld2 ! ? The reason for this i s probably best explained by the example which was in my mind at the time, namely Ziegler-Akesson, Excelsior Cup Gothenburg 1 99 8 By transposition it would have been possible, for example, to reach this by 8 b3 O-O? ! 9 0-0 l:te8 1 0 c4 ! when the usual recipe 1 0 . . . dxc4 1 1 bxc4 c5 1 2 CLlbc3 ! looks much healthier than usual for White. This is the ideal square for the queen ' s knight here. 1 2 . . . CLlf6 1 3 l:tb l WIe7 14 WIc2 CLle4 ? ! 1 5 CLld5 WIe6 1 6 dxc5 CLlxc5 1 7 CLld4 WIg 6 1 8 CLlb5 gave White very fluid play in the centre and on the queenside. 8 CLlf6! 9 c4 ! ? ...

risky consciously Another decision, but I really think that 9 0-0 might be a bit suspect now, as 8 b3 can be quite unhelpful if Black attacks hard with 9 . . . h5 . 9 CLld2 ! ? is possible again, but as explained I regarded it as a concession ! 9 �e6 ! ? Naturally enough I had devoted most attention to various checks . I was fairly happy that 9 . . . Wla5+ 1 0 CLld2 i.b4 1 1 a3 i.xa3? 1 2 0-0 would be suitably awkward for . . .

Black, but 9 . . . i.b4+ ! ? is a much more complicated business after 1 0 CLlbc3 WIa5 when 1 1 l:tc 1 i s probably best ( 1 1 WIc2 CLle4 1 2 l:tc 1 i.e6 ! ? 1 3 c 5 i.a3 gives Black at least the option to force an immediate draw) 1 1 . . . �xa2 ! ( 1 1 . . . dxc4 ? ! 1 2 bxc4 i.e6 1 3 Wlib3 CLle4 14 i.xe4 fxe4 1 5 0-0 0-0 1 6 CLlxe4 b5 1 7 d5 bxc4 1 8 l:txc4 cxd5 1 9 CLlf6+ ! ) 1 2 0-0 � a5 1 3 cxd5 cxd5 14 WId3 0-0 1 5 Ita l WId8 1 6 �b5 ! ? i.xc3 1 7 CLlxc3 offers White just about decent compensation, but more than that I could not claim. 10 CLld2 The concession arrives anyway ! Since White settles for advancing the c-pawn anyway in a few moves, it is at least arguable that 10 c5 ! ? would have represented a very rational economy of effort!

10 h5 ! ? Black's aggressive intentions are clarified, although without castling by White, this is primarily positional . White ' s advance of the h-pawn in tum, renders the black knight much more secure when it arrives on e4 . Interestingly, we had transposed to Hodgson-Tiviakov, Groningen, 1 994, but Jonathan declined to go down the very critical road which . . .

230 2 . . . d5 3 Lf6 Black selected there with 1 0 . . . ..tb4 ! ? (Tiviakov also mentions 1 0 . . . lLle4 ! ? 1 1 cxd5 cxd5 as being unclear. The claim that the good knight on e4 compensates for the further pawn weaknesses is an interesting one, rich in implications, but I think I would have been happy with this. Anyone who disagrees could consider 1 1 c5 ! ?) 1 1 O-O ! ? (Typical Hodgson! 1 1 cxd5 ..txd5 does not look especially promising as Black' s possible resources include . . . ..txd2 and . . . lLle4-g5) 1 1 . . . i.xd2 ( 1 1 . . . dxc4 was also possible, as White is obliged to recapture with the knight, although the bishop is a bit strange on b4 here) 1 2 'ixd2 ! ? dxc4 1 3 lLlf4 ! cxb3 14 lLlxe6 fxe6 1 5 l:i.fb I ! 0-0 1 6 1:Ixb3 llVd7 1 7 'iVb4 and White has reasonable compensation for a pawn, but the Black knight on d5 will be a very solid influence, and I would be surprised if he were worse. 11 b4 lLle4 1 2 e5 ! ? Anyway. I t i s not obvious how else to push forward. 12 . . . i.e7 13 b4 g6 14 a4 �f8 1 5 'iVe2 rJ;g7 1 6 iVb2 ..td7 1 7 lLlf4 l:i.b8 1 8 l:i.a3 ! ? llVe7 1 9 lLlf3 a6 20 lLle5 i.e8 2 1 lLled3 f6

22 b5? !

At last, the shadow boxing draws to a close. White ' s problem throughout has been that Black' s admirable single-mindedness in fixing the kings ide and then keeping his rook permanently fixed on h8, has ensured that castling has never been a risk-free option for White. Still, the text is a bit impatient, and arguably involves excessive risk too. The impact of timetrouble on both sides in what is to follow could scarcely be overemphasised ! 22 . . .i.a5+ 23 lLlb4 g5? Weakens squares and allows White to consolidate. I had seen that 23 . . . b6 ! ? was a problem, but I have to confess that I did not see much of what could follow. In fact White might be doing OK after 24 0-0 axb5 25 lLla6 ! b4 26 Itb3 and now 26 . . . l:i.a8 can be met with 27 lLlc7, or even 27 lLlxb4 bxc5 2 8 lLlxd5 ! cxd5 29 �b7 ..td7 30 ..txe4 fxe4 3 1 dxc5 and it is strangely difficult to meet White ' s threats. 26 . . . bxc5 ! ? is better, but 27 lLlxb8 c4 28 l:Ic 1 ! llVd6 29 lLla6 is hugely unclear. 24 lLld3 ..tg6 25 0-0 llVd7 ? ! 26 hxg5 lLlxg5 27 J:i.b3 axb5 28 axb5 h4 29 J:i.al ..txb4 30 l:i.xb4 hxg3 3 1 fxg3 Black's counterplay should have run its course. Without the factor of time the exploitation of White ' s various positional plusses should not be too problematic. 3 1 . . . 'iVe7 32 lLlf4 llVe7 33 llVb3 ..te8 34 bxe6 i.xe6 35 l:i.a7! l:i.he8 36 Irb6 'iVe7 37 lLlxd5?? I think I can get away with using the word 'tragedy' here. Just as White ' s advantage becomes decisive, his hanging flag leads him to throw everything away. 37 . . :�xg3 38 lIxe6 lLlf3+ 0-1

2 d5 3 hf6 231 . . .

Chapter Conclusion The solid reputation of 2 . . d5 the unsurprisingly survives microsope in this chapter. I have given rather more coverage than is customary to 3 . . . gxf6 ! ? because I think that Black ' s dynamic idea (with 4 c4 dxc4 ! ) represents a serious challenge. Game 47 is clearly playable for White, and highly complex, but some strong Trompowsky players have come unstuck here, and I do have the feeling that the level of accuracy required renders this main line problematic. Hence my enthusiasm for early deviations in particular my idea of 8 �h5 ! ? which I hope will get an outing soon. 5 e4 ! ? is of course another matter. It is .

immensely entertaining, but a convincing answer is needed to 5 . . . l:.g8 ! ? especially. 3 . . . exf6 is also not easy to play although I am rather enthusiastic for the g3 approach I have advocated. The key questions remain: Should White add b3 to his plan, and how should White react if Black delays castling? My inclination is to answer yes to the first question, but White probably needs to improve on the move order I played against Jonathan Parker' s rather precise opening play. One further issue arises . How important is it to retain the option of tLlbc3 which I was so fixated on? If the answer to this is ' not crucial ' then the building blocks for an optimal solution might be in place.

Chapter 1 0

-

2 . . . g6 and Other Minor 2nd Moves

Game 5 1 Aleksandrov - Janev European (ch) U-20, Sas van Gent 1 992 1 d4 ttJf6 2 ..tg5 g6 Whether in all cases by design, or whether in some cases by a failure on the part of King ' s Indian players to take on board the full strategic implications of 2 ..tg5 ! this appears relatively often. From our point of view it has the additional importance that it enables White to carry out a particularly methodical and logical plan to which I have alluded at various junctures already. This game I hope will be instructive as a very ' clean ' example of this. Of the other moves which Black can try here, I think it is fair to say that several are quite analogous with those covered elsewhere in the book (2 . . . d6 for example is very likely to be similar to 2 . . . g6, while 2 . . . h6? ! will lead to familiar positions just with Black suffering by about a tempo) and can be negotiated on the basis of what we have already seen. Two others though merit particular mention: a) 2 . . . c6 might pose questions for some Trompowsky players, but for those who follow the repertoire here which shows a good deal of faith in the main ' threat' 3 ..txf6, this holds no difficulties. After 3 . . . exf6 4 c4 ! ? I would b e happy with the structure arising after 4 . . . d5 5 cxd5 cxd5 6

ttJc3 , while 4 . . . 'iWb6 5 'id2 seems to involve no real inconvenience. The most challenging could be 4. . . ..tb4+ 5 ttJd2 d5 but in Bundesliga 1 999 with 6 e3 7 cxd5 ..txd5 8 a3 ..td6 9 e4 ! ..te6 1 0 ..tc4 ! ..txc4 1 1 ttJxc4 0--0 1 2 ttJe2 l:te8 1 3 'iVc2 ..tc7 14 0--0 ttJd7 15 l:tad l ttJb6 1 6 ttJe3 'iVe7 1 7 ttJc3 l:tad8 1 8 f4 White got a nice position by simple, direct means. It is all possible to play 3 . . . gxf6, but after 4 c4 ! there seems to be no better move than 4 . . . d5 5 e3 directly transposing to Game 46. b) 2 . . . b6 ! ? poses some slightly unusual problems, especially for a repertoire in which systems with g3 play a significant role.

Unusually, I am none too impressed by 3 ..txf6 here since after 3 . . . exf6 (3 . . . gxf6 is much easier - 4 e4 ! ..tb7 5 ttJc3 e6 6 ttJge2 ! d6 7 ttJg3 was Zlochevskij ' s tidy solution) I am not quite sure

2 g6 and Other Minor 2nd Moves 233 . . .

how to The system with for example seems e3/CDD/ rather insipid when Black plays with . . . g6. 3 c4 ! ? might be quite appropriate for those with a more general d-pawn background. Black should probably play 3 . . . .lib7 4 CDc3 e6, when 5 CDD transposes to main­ stream things. Also 5 e4 h6 6 .lixf6 'iYxf6 is interesting, but White ' s dark squares are potentially a little more vulnerable than in Chapter 8 due to the inclusion of c4, and I can understand this might not be to everybody' s taste. 3 CDd2 is of course solid, and after 3 . . . i.b7 4 CDgD e6 White can reasonably venture 5 e4 ! ? since 5 . . . h6 6 i.xf6 'iYxf6 7 .lid3 with a perfectly decent version of the Chapter 8 type, since it is not clear to me that . . . b6 systems (although they have been played enough it is true) fit so well here. However, for those seeking something a little different I am tempted by 3 CDc3 ! ? .lib7 4 still intending to meet 4 . . . e6 with yet another version of this familiar 5 e4 h6 6 i.xf6 'iVxf6 routine, but one which looks quite pleasant to me. Of course, Black can try other 4th moves. The most notable was 4 . . . g6 5 d5 ! ? Reinaldo Castine ira-Castaldo, European U20 (ch) Aviles 2000 which after 5 . . . iJ.g7 6 e4 d6 7 'iVd2 0-0 8 .lih6 :le8 9 .lixg7 <j;xg7 1 0 0-0-0 rapidly reached an original and rather appealing position. 3 i.xf6 ! exf6 4 g3 Roughly I would like to use this game to consider White ' s overall scheme, and the following game to consider move-order issues and early complications.

4 . . . i.g7 5 .lig2 f5 6 c4 c6 As I said I want to postpone a serious consideration of early detail. Just to note that 6 . . . c5 ! ? looks a bit problematic and might lead to the endorsement of a different move order for White ! 7 e3 d6 8 CDc3 CDd7 9 b4 0-0 1 0 CDge2 CDf6 Instead 1 0 . . . a5? ! is a very strange idea, designed to force the b-pawn forward at a moment when the c-pawn can still be harangued by . . . CDb6. Black held a draw in Lputian-Kveinys, European Club Cup, Budapest 1 996 but the pawn sacrifice 1 1 b5 CDb6 ( 1 1 . . .c5 1 2 l:!.c 1 CDb6 1 3 dxc5 dxc5 1 4 'ixd8 l:txd8 1 5 CDd5 also looked nice for White in Wang Yue-Pashikian, World U- 1 6 Heraklion 2002) 1 2 bxc6 bxc6 1 3 .lixc6 l:!.b8 1 4 i.b5 ( 1 4 kIb l ! ?) 14 . . . .lib7 1 5 0-0 i.D 1 6 'i'd3 h 5 1 7 h4 i.f6 1 8 e4 certainly does not look full value. 1 1 0-0 A certain similarity between White ' s set-up and that examined in Games 49-50 is evident, but it makes a significant and in my opinion favourable difference that Black has not occupied the centre with a pawn and must now address the question of how to tackle the increase in the scope of the

234 2 g6 and Other Minor 2nd Moves . . .

fianchettoed bishop which the queenside pawn stonn has every hope of engineering.

1 l .. :i¥e7 Other moves: Azmaiparashvili recently tried 1 1 . . . i.e6 here and was successful in provoking 12 dS? ! which looks to me like an instructive error - the right way to make some waves on the light squares here is only with b4-bS , not to concede a load of dark squares in tum. In I.Rogers­ Azmaiparashvili, Europe-Asia Rapid, Batumi 200 1 , after 1 2 dS cxdS 13 cxdS i.d7 14 'i!i'b3 'i!i'b6 I S 1:tac l lbg4 ! I already prefer Black. The right way must be simply 1 2 'i¥d3 , when Black has tended to reply 1 2 . . . dS, but either 1 3 cxdS , or perhaps better 1 3 cS ! ? lbe4 14 bS gS IS .:tab 1 hS 16 1:Lb3 h4 17 f3 lbxc3 1 8 'ifxc3 hxg3 1 9 hxg3 'if6 20 f4 Kozul-Bukic, Slovenia (chT), Bled 2000, with a position still more reminiscent of the last chapter, but a version in which White has already achieved quite a lot. It is also none too clear what the bishop is expecting from life on g7 . It is really helpful here that the repertoire already gave us considerable insights into the

treatment of the light-squared fianchetto against Black's dS pawn. 1 1 . . J le8 has also been tried. Hodgson-Strikovic, C acak, 1 996 was not entirely convincing for White after 1 2 a4 ( 1 2 'id3 ! ? is also sensible trying to keep the knight back from e4) 1 2 . . . lbe4 1 3 'ilid3 i.e6 14 as .l:.c8 I S .l:.fc l dS 1 6 cxdS cxdS 1 7 a6 b6 1 8 lbf4 'id7 and the game was drawn a few moves later. Even though it might look to the naked eye as if White has made some inroads on the light squares it is not so clear where to go from here. The obvious question is why not 14 bS ! ? instead? If 14 . . . cxbS I S axbS 'ic7 ! ?, then 1 6 lbdS ! ? i.xdS 17 cxdS looks like a safe route to a small plus, while 1 6 l:ta4 l:tec8 1 7 i.xe4 fxe4 1 8 lbxe4 dS ! ? could be risky try for more. Perhaps 1 4 . . . cS ! ? was a concern, although after I S lbxe4 ! ? fxe4 1 6 i.xe4 i.xc4 1 7 'iVxc4 �xe4 1 8 'iVdS ! ? I still prefer White. 1 2 b5 lbe4 13 'iVd3 l:te8 14 l:[ab l i.e6 1 5 bxc6 bxc6 1 6 lbxe4 fxe4

1 7 i.xe4 ! A powerful and well judged exchange sacrifice. White will get two pawns for the exchange and his bishop will be a monster on the light

2 g6 and Other Minor 2nd Moves 235 . . .

squares, whereas Black will have trouble, as so often in this line, finding a convincing role for his. Incidentally 17 'iVxe4 .i.xc4 1 8 Vixe7 lixe7 1 9 .i.xc6 lic8 20 .i.O .i.xa2 is certainly comfortable for White as the bishop on g7 is in no fit state to support the a-pawn, but it is difficult to make real inroads. 1 7 . . . d5 Or 17 . . . .i.xc4 1 8 Vixc4 'iVxe4 1 9 Ii.b7 when Black really i s obliged to play 1 9 . . . lif8 to defend f7 which hardly inspires confidence. 1 8 cxd5 cxd5 19 .i.f3 .i.f5 20 'iVd2 .i.xb1 21 lixb1 .l:!:ab8 A recognition that attempting to defend the d-pawn would be futile White has two minor pieces which can hit it, his opponent has none for the defence. 22 .l:txb8 .l:xb8 23 .i.xd5 .i.h6 24 'iVd3 lib2 When judging any exchange sacrifice, the quality of the minor piece usually gets a lot of attention, but sometimes the scope of the major pieces rather less so. Here Black' s rook looks superficially healthy enough, the problem is rather in the sphere of cooperation with the other pieces. There are scarcely any entry points into the White position, and he can moreover mobilise his extra pawns at leisure without creating any. 25 .i.b3 'iVf6 26 �g2 a5 27 h4 a4 28 .i.xa4 lixa2 2 9 .i.b3 lib2 30 .i.c4 'iVe7 ? ! 3 0 . . .'�c6+ ! ? looks a slightly better attempt to provoke some chink in White ' s armour since 3 1 e4 I;Id2 offers a morsel of hope. 3 1 e4 'iVb4 32 .i.d5 �g7 33 e5 .i.d2 34 'iVf3 'iVe7 35 .i.c4 .i.e1 36

�f1 lib1 37 �g2 lib2 38 �f1 .l:tb1 39 .i.d3 l:ra1 40 'It>g2 I;Ia2 4 1 h5 The then rather young Aleksandrov' s entire handling of this ending shows an admirably mature patience. Now though he is ready for the direct assault which proves decisive. 4 1 . . . .i.d2 42 'iVe4 .i.e1 43 .i.c4 .l:tb2 44 d5 'iVc5 45 'iVf4 �b4 46 e6 f5 47 'iVe5+ �h6 48 4Jd4! l:rxc4 49 4Jxf5+ gxf5 50 'iVf6+ 'It>xh5 5 1 'iVxf5+ �h6 5 2 'iVf6+ �h5 5 3 'iVf5+ 'It>h6 54 'iVf6+ �h5 55 'iVf7+ 'It>h6 56 e7 l:re4 57 'iVf6+ �h5 58 'iVf5+ 'It>h6 59 'iVf8+ �g5 60 f4+ �g4 6 1 'iVg8+ �f5 62 'iVg5 mate White' s conduct of the final attack was both forcing and faultless. Game 52 I.Sokolov Har Zvi Wijk aan Zee (op) 1 993 -

1 d4 4Jf6 2 .i.g5 g6 3 .i.xf6 exf6

4 e3 In addition to a clear outline of White' s plan and where he should put his pieces there is the additional question of move order which, if botched, might reveal itself to be

236 2 . . . g6 and Other Minor 2nd Moves not quite so subsidiary. There are two possible issues - whether to permit Black a foothold in the centre with . . . d5, and in which positions it is necessary to worry about a strike back with . . . c5 (this game being an illustration of just such a ' disruption strategy ' by Black) . I began with the idea that it would be nice to prevent 4 . . . d5, although I think that this is in a sense the ' luxury ' side of the question. Having examined the material in Chapter 9, I have to say I would be quite happy to play those positions with Black committed to the move . . . g6, the relevance of which is going to be questionable, and is certainly never optimal. Having said that, a part of me does want to 'punish' Black for playing 2 . . . g6, and since 4 c4 is Hodgson ' s regular choice, it is fair to assume that there is some way to neutralise the ' . . . c5 problem' . I think there probably is, but it requires some accuracy. I am unsure for example about 4 c4 i.g7 5 lbc3 f5 6 g3 0-0 7 i.g2 c5 ! ? since I suspect that Black' s play in Kosten-Rozentalis, Belfort, 1 997 could be improved. After 8 dxc5 lba6 9 l:.c 1 lbxc5 10 e3 what about the immediate pawn sacrifice 1 O . . . d5 ! ? since 1 1 cxd5 'iVb6 1 2 b3 f4 looks dangerous, and even 1 1 i.xd5 ! ? f4 ! 1 2 b4 ! ? lba6 1 3 a3 fxe3 14 fxe3 lbc7 looks like a fair degree of unnecessary hassle. Therefore, I like the look of 4 c4 i.g7 5 lbc3 f5 6 e3 0-0 7 lbge2 and only then 8 g3 which gets my final vote. Alternatively, as I suggested above, permitting . . . d5 is also legitimate. One final thought. For those who are unconcerned about . . . d5 ideas, but are unenthusiastic about the current game there is the

interesting move order from Knaak-Tabatt, Germany (ch) Bremen 1 998, which went 4 e3 i.g7 5 g3 0-0 6 i.g2 d6 7 lbe2 c5 8 0-0 f5 and now the point of delaying c4 was revealed as having provoked . . . c5 White preferred 9 lbbc3 ! ? lbd7 1 0 'iWd3 lbf6 1 1 �fd l 'iWe7 1 2 a4 i.e6 1 3 lbf4 with a very harmonious position. 4 . . . f5 5 lbe2 i.g7 6 g3 0-0 7 i.g2 d6 8 c4 c5 ! ?

Despite the apparently convincing and undeniably swift nature of White ' s success in this game, this is one of the more thematic . . . c5 based attempts to gain counterplay, which deserves serious attention. 9 lbbc3 cxd4 9 . . . lbc6 ! ? is an interesting alternative.

2 g6 and Other Minor 2nd Moves 23 7 . . .

Its relative popularity increases my suspicion as to whether Black really gets to create enough 'mess ' in the main game continuation . White can try: a) 1 0 dxcS ( 1 0 .I1i.xc6? ! cxd4 ! ) 1 0 . . . .I1i.e6 ! ? ( l O . . . dxcS results in really quite severe structural defects, and White also gets to simplify; 10 . . . llJeS seems to have been rather pragmatically met in Pixton­ Kriventsov, USA (ch), Seattle 2003 by I I .I1i.dS ! ? dxcS 12 llJf4 gS?! 1 3 ctJd3 'iV as 1 4 0-0 .I1i.e6 I S ctJxeS .I1i.xeS 1 6 'iVhS with advantage) I I cxd6 ! ? (De la Villa claims that after I I .I1i.xc6 bxc6 1 2 'iVxd6 'iVaS 1 3 0-0 .I1i.xc4 Black enj oys good compensation for the pawn, and I am inclined to believe him) 1 1 . . . .I1i.xc4 1 2 0-0 'iVb8 ! ? 1 3 'iVa4 i.xe2 14 llJxe2 'iVxd6 I S gfd l and Black still cannot claim full equality. Of course Black has other possibilities on move 1 2 , but nothing obviously stronger. b) 1 0 O-O ! ? avoids this early clarification of the position, while also averting the complexity of Har Zvi ' s pawn sacrifice to which 1 0 'iVd2 can lead. In Speelman-Poldauf, European Club Cup, Slough 1 997 Black reacted much too passively with 1 0 . . . Sl.d7 and quickly stood somewhat worse after I I 'iVd2 gb8 1 2 gad l cxd4 13 llJxd4 llJxd4 1 4 exd4 .I1i.c6 I S llJdS . Perhaps 1 0 . . . cxd4 1 1 cxd4 f4 ! ? makes more sense, although the bishop pair does not fully compensate for Black's weaknesses after the simple 12 ctJxf4 ctJxd4 13 ge l (De la Villa). 10 exd4 Ivan has opted for this recapture twice, but on the basis of the improvement to Black' s play which has been suggested at move 1 2 (see

the note below) I have to wonder whether White should give the alternative 1 0 ctJxd4 ! ? a little more consideration. This will if anything heighten still further the contest 'dynamic ' between Black' s aspirations on the dark squares in general (especially the long diagonal), and White ' s hopes to exploit his opponent' s weakened structure and suspicious light squares (most obviously dS) . Black has limited options to try and mix it, as the key retreat ctJde2 seems to me broadly to hold the position together, in which case keeping the d-file half-open has useful ' positive ' virtues, as well as the ' negative ' virtue of avoiding Black' s pawn sacrifice. Neither 1 0 . . . llJc6 I I llJde2 ! .I1i.e6 1 2 b3, nor 1 0 . . . 'iVb6 1 1 b3 ctJc6 1 2 llJde2 make much impact. This deserves a practical test. 10 llJc6 1 1 'iVd2 f4 ! . . .

Without this resource, Black' s position i s really lacking i n dynamic possibility, but I actually find this sacrifice quite promising. 12 gxf4 Taking up the challenge. 1 2 'iVxf4 ? ! is well countered by 12 . . . 'iVb6 but I suppose 12 0-0 is legal, although it would also be an

238 2 g6 and Other Minor 2nd Moves . . .

admission that 1 1 . . . f4 is a considerable achievement for Black. 12 . . . 'it'h4 13 dS tDe7 14 0-0 tDfS 15 tDg3 tDh6? A mistake which seems to reflect an overestimation of Black' s attacking chances. The simple pursuit of his development and influence on the centre with 1 5 . . . 'it'f6 1 6 tDxf5 .txf5 would have yielded quite reasonable compensation as Ivan Sokolov himself acknowledged. 16 tDce4 tDg4 17 h3 tDf6

After this Black is lost. 20 . . . 'i!i'h4 still puts up a fight. 21 �g3 ! It is quite a rare treat to see a king emerge to help trap a queen. Black is quite helpless. A dramatic turn of events indeed ! 2 1 . . . f6 22 .tf3 1-0

Chapter 10

Conclusion

Of Black ' s minor second moves, only 2 . . b6 ! ? has the independent merit possibly to distract White from the customary Trompowsky plan commencing 3 .txf6. 2 . . . g6 retains a considerable following, but in fact the conduct of White' s plan here is arguably in its purest form. There are interesting questions of move order, although if White is happy to permit 4 . . . d5 then there is a lot of leeway. An early . . . c5 by Black certainly creates the most critical positions, but if my suggestion of 1 0 tDxd4 ! ? holds up in Game 50 then the most celebrated of these fails to dent the general optimism which pervades the whole chapter. .

1 8 tDgS! Oops ! Suddenly it becomes clear that the main issue is not the white king at all, but the black queen ! 1 8 . . . tDhS 1 9 tDxhS 'ixhS 20 �h2 .th6?

-

Index of Main Variations Chapter 1: 1 d4 ttJf6 2 �gS ttJe4 3 �f4 cS 1 5 4 f3 ttJf6 S dxcS 1 6 S .. :1WaS+ 1 6 5 . . .b6 ; 5 . . . ttJc6; 5 . . . ttJa6 2 0 Chapter 2: 1 d 4 ttJf6 2 �gS ttJ e 4 3 �f4 c S 1 5 4 f3 �aS+ S c 3 ttJf6 6 d S �b6 6 . . . d 6 23; 6 . . . g 6 25; 6 . . . e 6 28-3 0 7 �cl 7 b3 35 7 . . . e6 7 . . . d 6 3 7 8 c 4 3 9 8 . . :�·b4+ 4 5 8 . . . exd5 3 9; 8 . . �d6 41 .

Chapter 3: 1 d4 ttJf6 2 �gS ttJe4 3 �f4 cS 4 f3 'iWaS+ 5 1 S c3 ttJf6 6 ttJd2 cxd4 7 ttJb3 'ti'b6 7 . . :�f5 51; 7 ... 'ti'd8 53 8 'ti'xd4 8 cxd4 57 8 ... ttJc6 8 .. :�·xd4 59 9 'ti'xb6 axb6 10 ttJd4 63 10 e4 63 ; 10 a3 64; 10 �e3 64 10 ... e5 10 .. Jb5 6 7 1 1 ttJxc6 67-71 Chapter 4 : 1 d4 ttJf6 2 �gS ttJe4 3 �f4 dS 4 f3 4 ttJd2 75 4 ... ttJf6 81 S e4 7 7 5 ... dxe4 5 ... e6 88 6 ttJc3 e3 6 ... exf3 82 ; 6 ... .i.f5 85; 6 ... ttJd5 86 7 .i.xe3 87 Chapter 5 : 1 d 4 ttJf6 2 �g5 ttJe4 3 �f4 d S 4 e3 9 1 4 . . .�f5 5 f3 ttJ d 6 5 . . . ttJf6 9 2 6 ttJd2 6 ttJc3 95 4 e6 S �d3 99; 4 ... c6 S .i.d3 �b6 1 01 ; 5 . . . ttJd7, 5 . . . ttJf6 1 02 6 .i.xe4 1 03 4 ... c5 1 06 S �d3 ttJf6 5 . . . �6 1 06; 5 . . . ttJc6 1 1 0; 5 . . . cxd4 1 1 2 6 dxcS 1 1 8 •..

Chapter 6: 1 d 4 ttJf6 2 i.gS c S 3 .i.xf6 3 ttJc3 1 20; 3 d 5 1 2 1 ; 3 �xf6 1 2 1 3 ... gxf6 122 3 . . . exf6 122 4 d S 'ti'b6 4 . . �g7 124; 4 . . . i.h6 1 2 7 5 �c1 fS 6 c3 1 3 1 6 g3 1 3 6 6 ... .i.g7 7 g3 1 3 3 - 1 38 .

Chapter 7: 1 d4 ttJf6 2 .i.gS cS 3 dS 3 .. :tlVb6 3 . . . d6 4 ttJc3 h6 5 .i.xf6 exf6 1 42 4 ttJc3 'iVxb2 5 i.d2 1 45- 1 58 3 ... ttJe4 4 �f4 156 4 .. J1Vb6 4 . . . e6 1 5 7 S .i.c1 5 ttJd2 1 62; 5 'ti'c 1 1 62 S ... fS 5 . . . g6 6 f3 ttJd6 1 66 6 f3 ttJf6 1 65 Chapter 8: 1 d4 ttJf6 2 �g5 e6 3 e4 1 73 3 ... h6 3 . . . d5 1 74; 3 . . . i.e7 1 74; 3 . . . d6 1 75; 3 . . . c5 1 76 4 �xf6 'ti'xf6 1 78 S ttJc3 5 �d2 186- 1 90 5 ... �b4 5 . . . d6 1 80 6 'ti'd3 1 99 6 'iVd2 1 95 S c3 201 5 ... dS 2 05 5 . . . d6 202 Chapter 9: 1 d4 ttJf6 2 �gS dS 3 �xf6 3 ... gxf6 2 1 0 4 c4 2 1 1 4 ... dxc4 2 1 4 4 . . . c6 2 1 1 ; 4 . . . c5 2 1 4 5 e3 2 1 5 / S e4 218 3 . . . exf6 2 2 0 4 e 3 c 6 22 1 ; 4 . . . �e6 22 1 ; 4 . . . i.e7 222 ; 4 . . . �f5 223 ; 4 . . . c 5 2 2 3 4 . . . �d6 22 7 5 ttJd2 224 Chapter 1 0: 1 d4 ttJf6 2 �gS g6 2 . . . c6; 2 . . . b 6 232 3 .i.xf6 exf6 4 g3 233 /

4 e3 235

Index of Games (numbers refer to pages) Adams-Lautier Adams-Leko Adams-Xie Jun Akopian-Hernandez Akopian-Mohandesi Akopian-B. Socko Aleksandrov-Janev Benjamin-Malisauskas Chepukaitis-Y emelin Dishman-Ward Gallagher-Knott Gallagher-Rytshagov Galyas-R.Ruck C'rrigore-Jianu Hodgson-Gelfand Hodgson-Kotronias Hodgson-Magem B adals Hodgson-Panchenko Hodgson-Rowson 195, Hodgson-Sonntag Hodgson-Sutovsky Hodgson-Turner Hodgson-Van der Wie! Hodgson-Wells Jansa-Sosonko Lomineishvili-Gruenberg

131 15 1 06 136 98 20 232 88 148 205 141 1 12 213 53 57 1 22 1 80 81 20 1 218 67 41 1 27 30 77 51

Lputian-Z.Ilincic 95 Lputian-Mirumian 59 McDonald-Lukacs 22 1 McShane-Woj aszek 35 75 Mikhalevski-Mark Tseitlin Moiseenko-Romanishin 84 21 1 Plaskett-J.Cooper Rogers-Ft