First published in 2003 © Richard Palliser 2003 ISBN 0 7134 8809 3
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book 1s
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, W10 6SP
An imprint of Chrysalif Books Group plc
Distributed in the United States and Canada by Sterling Publishing Co., 387 Park Avenue South, New York, NY 10016, USA
For My Parents
Trang 410 1] 12 Index of Complete Games Preface Bibliography The Slav
Trang 5Index of Complete Games
Trang 6Many players stick to slightly offbeat lines as White in a bid to avoid having to learn too much theory, but then soon discover that Black can comfortably equalise in some way or another At this moment it is all too easy to switch to an alternative unusual system only to find, after some initial success at the local club, that opponents will come up with an antidote to that as well! Instead White can issue a greater challenge by adopting broader based and slightly more ‘theoretical’ systems which offer every possibility of obtaining an enduring positional advantage and/or attacking
prospects
By commencing with 1 d4 and 2 c4, White presents a _ direct challenge to Black and yet play does not have to be too theoretical In fact throughout the book, the emphasis of the notes is on highlighting key plans and structures so that White players can quickly understand the arising positions as well as, if not better than, their prospective opponents The lines given are all sound, but are not at the cutting edge of theory and so one /nformant novelty will not refute a whole variation
overnight! Coverage at times is quite detailed but this is to provide the stronger club player with enough theory to employ these lines with confidence, whilst at the same time illustrating several examples of typical themes in each variation
As I have discovered in my own games, the weapons presented here are quite easy to understand but they are by no means innocuous! Indeed I believe the repertoire as a whole will enable readers to gain good practical results
This work has been an enjoyable, albeit quite long, process and could not have been completed without some much appreciated help from my editor Jimmy Adams I was also grateful, at some time or other, to the following for their thoughts and advice: Paul Hopwood, Malcolm Pein, Mike Twyble, Sam Collins, Peter Wells, James Vigus, Angus Dunnington, Kieran Smallbone, John Emms, Jonathan Smith and Chris Ward
So, on with our journey through the openings — and good luck playing 1 d4!
Richard Palliser
Trang 7Bibliography
Aagaard, Jacob: Dutch Stonewall (Everyman, 2000), Queen's Indian Defence (Everyman, 2002) and, with
Esben Lund, : Meeting | d4 (Everyman,
2002)
Baburin, Alexander: Winning Pawn
Structures (Batsford, 1998)
Beim, Valeri: Understanding the
Leningrad Dutch (Gambit, 2002) Burgess, Graham: The Slav (Gambit, 2001) and, with Steffen Pedersen, The Queen's Gambit for the Attacking Player (Batsford, 1994) & Beating the Indian Defences (Batsford, 1997)
Davies, Nigel: The Grunfeld Defence (Everyman, 2002)
Geller, Efim: The Complete Queen's Indian Defence (Batsford, 1992)
Gufeld, Eduard: The Art of the King’s
Indian (Batsford, 2000)
Jacobs, Byron & Kinsman, Andrew: The Benko Gambit (Batsford, 1999)
Janjgava, Lasha: The Queen’s Gambit & Catalan for Black (Gambit, 2000)
King, Daniel: English Defence (Everyman, 1999)
Kinsman, Andrew: Modern Benoni (Everyman, 2000)
Kramnik, Vladimir & Damsky, lakov: Kramnik: My Life and Games (Everyman, 2000)
Lali¢, Bogdan: The Budapest Gambit
(Batsford, 1998), Queen’s Gambit Declined: &g5 Systems (Everyman, 2000) & The Queen's Indian Defence (Cadogan, 1996) Lane, Gary: The Ultimate Colle (Batsford, 2001) Motwani, Paul: COOL Chess (Batsford, 1997)
Nunn, Burgess, Emms & Gallagher:
Nunn s Chess Openings (Everyman,
1999)
Nunn, John & Burgess, Graham: The Main Line King’s Indian (Batsford, 1996) & The New Classical King’s Indian (Batsford, 1997)
Nunn, John & McNab, Colin: The Ultimate Pirc (Batsford, 1998)
Orlov, Georgi: The Black Knights’
Tango (Batsford, 1998)
Pedersen, Steffen: The Dutch for the
Attacking Player (Batsford, 1996), The Gambit Guide to the Bogo-Indian (Gambit, 1998) & The Gambit Guide to the Benko Gambit (Gambit, 1999)
Pinski, Jan: (Everyman, 2002)
Psakhis, Lev: The Complete Benoni
(Batsford, 1995)
Rowson, Jonathan: Understanding the Grunfeld (Gambit, 1999)
Sadler, Matthew: Queen's Gambit Declined (Everyman, 2000) & The Slav (Chess Press, 1997)
Speelman, Jon & McDonald, Neil: Modern Defence (Everyman, 2000)
Stohl, Igor: Instructive Modern Chess Masterpieces (Gambit, 2001)
Summerscale, Aaron: A Killer Chess
Opening Repertoire (Everyman, 1998)
Ward, Chris: The Queen's Gambit Accepted (Batsford, 1999) & Unusual Queen's Gambit Declined (Everyman,
2002)
Watson, John: The Gambit Guide to the Modern Benoni (Gambit, 2001)
YrJưlä, Youni & Tella, Jussi: An Explosive Chess Opening Repertoire for Black (Gambit, 2001)
Dutch Classical
Electronic: I was ably assisted by a
Trang 81 d4 d5 2 c4 cĩ 3 ¿f3 ¿f6 4 e3
32w
The Slav remains a popular and dependable choice for Black, whilst
after the main choice of 4 @c3,
White must be prepared for the sharp Semi-Slav with 4 c6, the fashionable 4 a6!? and the Slav proper with 4 dxc4 4 e3 aims to cut across all these variations, although 4 a6 remains possible as we shall see in the notes to Game 3 However, the lack of a knight on c3 takes the sting out of .b5, which often leads Black to omit that move entirely
The apparent downside to 4 e3 is that it allows Black to actively develop his light-squared bishop to f5 (Game 1) or to g4 (Game 3), but
in return White can immediately target the resulting weakness of b7 The attempt to reach a Semi-Slav
after 4 e6 is well met by 5 Abd? as
Miles demonstrates in Game 2, whilst he was also at his best in
Game 5, where we round up Black’s
alternatives to 3 Af6 Finally the
often poorly documented, but very Solid and flexible, 4 g6, leading to
a type of Slav and Grinfeld hybrid, 1s covered in Game 4 Game | Hebden - Arkell Game 2, Match, London, 1999 1 d4 d5 2 Af3 2f6 3 c4 c6 4 c3 f5 2X hy ‘Om Se 4 2 ⁄ 4 4 | lâm UAT fate = giá 2 BỊ
In The Slav Sadler awarded this an exclam and commented that ‘3
Af3 Ao 4 e3 Âf5 is nothing for
White” Needless to say I am not
convinced as 4 8f5 does have one downside, which White now immediately aims to exploit
5 cxd5
It is important to make the exchange now before Black has
time to fortify his centre with .e6, and then recapture with the e-pawn
Trang 98 The Slav
gain pressure down the c-file in some lines
5 cxd§
After 5 axd5?! it is hard to
believe that the threat of e4 will not give White something tangible and yet this recapture was quite popular for Black, even in top level tournaments, back in the 1920s and
the 1930s 6 Ac3 e6 (or 6 0b4?!
when 7 e4 &g4 8 Wb3! — again this
move more than saves the day — 8 c6 9 a3 &xf3 10 gxf3 A4a6 11 Wxb7 won a pawn in Piantoni- Zurla, Robecchetto 1994) 7 Wb3! (threatening both 8 e4 and 8 Wxb7) 7 Wb6 § &c4 Wxb3 9 Rxb3 Rd3
(ensuring that the bishop isn’t blocked out of play on g6 after e4, but still White has a free rein in the
centre) 10 AeS a6 11 e4 Af6 12 &f4 Abd7 13 Ac4! (using his extra
space to ensure that any exchanges are ones that favour White)
13 2)bĩ 14 Ad6+ Rxd6 15 Rxd6 đ%c4 16 Rxc4 Rxc4 17 0-0-0 Bd8 18 2a3 Ag4 19 Hd2 e5 20 d5 and
White had converted his impressive centre into a useful passed d-pawn in Ibragimov-Varga, Budapest 1995, whilst a later f4 opened up key lines for the rooks Also possible, but not really recom-
mended for Black, is 5 &xb1?! 6 Exbl Wxd5 7 a3 transposing to 3 8.f5 4 cxd5 Rxbl 5 xb1 Wxd5 6 e3 ¿f6 7 a3 (see Game 18)
6 b3 We7
The most popular and probably the best way of defending b7, but other methods have been tried:
6ĩ Wbĩ?! 7 Wxb6 axb6 8 Ac3
grants White a long term structural edge He should now develop his bishops to b5 and d2, connect the rooks and then begin to target the black queenside
A) A good example of the above plan is Hebden-Crouch, 4NCL
1998: 8 cĩ 9 &b5+ Afd7 (9 Ac6
is perhaps more natural, but then 10
Rd2 Ad7 11 Se2 Rd6 12 Khel
Be7 13 Had Hac8 14 c3 Bc7 15
Hacl Hhc8 16 Dh4! âg4+ 17 S&h5 18 g4 saw White also taking
the advantage on the kingside in Panchenko-Varga, Budapest 1991) 10 De5 Rd6 (10 f6 appears irritating, but now Burgess’ suggestion of 11 g4 is probably good; following 11 2g6 12 Axg6 hxg6 13 h4!, preventing .g5 from fixing the white h-pawn, Black’s light-squares are quite vulnerable Indeed he must watch out, after
&d2 and @e2, for White aiming to
exploit this by advancing his
kingside pawns) 11 @xd7 @xd7 12
¿d2 d8?! 13 0-0 Afe 14 f3!
(keeping the black knight out of e4, whilst the e4 and g4 pawn breaks may later prove useful for White)
14 2¢6 15 Hfcl Ae8 16 Bad!
(tying down the black pieces and clearing room to improve the
d2-bishop and the rooks) 16 8c7 17 &b4 £5 18 f4! BhS 19 Hc2 and
Trang 10solid for Black in Salov-Tukmakov,
Leningrad 1987, but the simp-
lification has not been _ too unfavourable for White He still possesses the better structure and
will try to advance on the kingside
so as to create play for the bishop on
both sides of the board; 6 Wc8 7 $d2!? (waiting for .Ac6 or .e6
before checking is sensible, as otherwise Black can block with
d7) 7 Ac6 (instead 7 c6 8 âb5+ Ac6 9 0-0 Bd6 10 &b4 We7, Zagorskis-Kolesar, Sala 1994, leaves White a useful tempo up on the main game after 11 2xd6 Wxd6 12 Hcl 0-0 13 &xc6 bxc6 14 Gbd2) 8 Ae5S! (8 Rb5 Rd7! is less
promising) 8 e6 9 &b5 2d6 10
&b4! (exploiting the pins to
exchange off the bad bishop)
10 2xb4+ 11 Wxb4 Ad7 12 Rxc6 bxc6 13 Axd7 Wxd7 14 “c3 was a dream position for White in
Hebden-BJưrnsson, Kopavogur 1994 The black bishop lacks a good role, whilst White can build up against the black queenside at his leisure
7 2d2 Ac6
7 06 8 &b5+ @bd7!? is much
less common, but also quite playable, when Palliser-J.Houska, 4NCL 2003, continued 9 0-0 a6! 10
Rxd7+ Dxd7 11 Ded! (Black has
the bishop-pair and so White must
act quickly to exploit his lead in
development) 11 2c8 12 Ac3 Rd6
13 Hacl Ac5!? 14 dxc5 Rxe5 15 f4
Rf6 16 De2 0-0 17 c3 which
favoured White due to his
dark-squared bind and the superior- ity of the knight to the f5-bishop
8 2b5 e6
Black usually aims to develop his kingside as quickly as possible like
this, but it is also possible to first
break the pin with 8 2d7 Note
though that 8 a6?! only helps White who intends to capture on c6 at some point anyhow After 8 2d7, 9 0-0 e6 10 Hcl Rd6 11
Êxc6 Bxc6 12 Bb4! 0-0 13 Ac3
Sxb4 14 Wxb4 @d7 15 a4 saw
White’s queenside pressure give him an edge in Bonsch-Petursson, Bad Worishofen 1991, which was later converted after White advanced on the queenside with b4 Se Ee fiw 242 moet n ⁄ “a ik a z Ae DEG Oe - lat Ất RA Ni & 9 0-0!
The most testing move-order for Black and one that surprisingly wasn’t covered by Burgess in his
The Slav More common is 9 8&b4, but now after 9 2xb4+ 10 Wxb4 We7 11 &xc6+ bxc6 12 Wxe7+
$xe7 13 Ac3 Ad7 14 Da4 Ehc8
15 Hcl Se4! White hasn’t really
got anything The black bishop, compared with the main game, is quite active, his centralised king should prove useful defending c6 and White will struggle to prevent Black from breaking with .e5
9 52.d6 10 2b4
Trang 1110 The Slav
Now that the pin has been broken White immediately exchanges on c6, hoping to later prove that his knights are better than the black knight and light-squared bishop Exchanging first on d6 1s very similar and is also playable when 11
Rxd6 Wxd6 12 &xc6 bxc6 (12 Wxc6 13 DeS We7 14 Ac3 Eac8 15 f3! gave White a slight
edge due to his well placed steed on e5 and the e4 break, in Bonsch- P.Nikolic, Bundesliga 2000) 13
G\bd2 should transpose to 11 &xc6 after 13 2\d7, but not 13 c5? 14 Wa3! (winning a clear pawn)
14 Bfc§ 15 Efcl De4 16 Axed
dxe4 17 Bxc5 Exc5 18 dxc5 Wd5
19 @Ad4 Hd8 20 Wce3! (the queen
will defend the kingside whereupon White can simply push the c-pawn)
20 2¢4 21 b4 g5 22 Wel e5
(Palliser-D.Buckley, Yeovil Open 2002) and now simplest was 23
GNb5 £5 24 Dd6
11 bxc6
11 2xb4!1? 12 Wxb4 Wrxc6 is
also possible if Black doesn’t want to be saddled with a backward c-pawn, although even here White retains a pleasant slight initiative
After 13 ®e5 We7 14 Ad? (the
knight will be well placed on b3, eyeing up the c5 square) 14 a5?! (in his bid to gain some play and not be subjected to a queenside bind, Black lashes out; this is quite a common state of affairs in this line as many players do not like simply
having to sit tight and wait) 15 Wb5 Efc8 16 Ab3 a4 17 Hacl Wd8 18 \c5 We8 19 Wh6 it was clear that
the a-pawn’s advance had only further weakened the black queenside in Rotstein-Van der Werf, Wyk aan Zee 1993 12 Dbd2 foe 3⁄ “ny 7° Tt ey 12 2fb8
One of several options for Black here and yet the general theme 1s similar after each of them White will aim to tie Black down to cĩ, after which he is free either to try to engineer a queenside breakthrough or to open up a second front on the kingside, as Hebden manages in the
main game: 12 Hab8 13 &xd6
Wxd6 14 Wce3 @d7 15 Hacl Hfc8 16 De5 DAxeS5 17 dxe5 Wh4 18
Wxb4 Exb4 19 b3 c5 20 Hc3 dd!
gave Black good counterplay in Hebden-Palliser, Kenilworth Open 2001, but the post mortem
suggestion of 15 Hfcl! is a better
try for the advantage Compared
with 15 Hacl, 20 d4 is no longer so good as after 21 exd4 Xxd4 White has 22 “c4 and the knight
cannot now be exchanged off by
22 8.d3 as the rook is not on fl
Instead 12 2fc8 13 Bfcl Ad7 14
$.a3!? a5 15 We3 a4 16 Rxd6
Wxd6 17 b4! axb3 18 @xb3!
showed that even the positionally desirable advance of the a-pawn isn’t always so good for Black, Hebden - San Segundo, Escaldes
zonal 1998 Following 18 4a3 19
đ\e5! #Z)xe5 20 dxe5 We7 21 Wd4
h6 22 Wb6 &d3 23 Hxc6 the
c-pawn had fallen and Hebden’s
fine technique later brought home
Trang 1213 &xd6 Wxd6 14 Wc3 Wh4 15 Wxb4 Bxb4 16 b3 Ad7 17 Hfcl
Hb6 18 Hc3 a5! 19 a3!
Preventing the annoying 19 a4, although now b3 remains weak
19 f6 20 Hacl
With his next White in this challenge match, Hebden deviated
here with 20 ®h4 and after 20 824 21 h3 Re2 22 Hel a6 23 e4! Hc8 24 f4 g6 25 Dhf3 c5 26 exd5 exdS 27 He7 Bd6 28 dxc5
&xc5 29 b4 axb4 30 axb4 had again
obtained a fairly large advantage (Hebden-Arkell, Game 4, London 1999) Once more Arkell clung on to draw, but again it was no easy task for him A strong positional
player like Arkell might be able to
defend these endings, albeit after much suffering, but just think how a technically less competent player will fare White’s better placed pieces do normally enable him to advance in either the centre or on the kingside, generating quite heavy pressure in the process Perhaps objectively Black can draw with accurate play, but it’s hardly the tactical fight that those hoping to indulge in the Semi-Slav or one of
the sharper main lines of the Slav
were looking for 20 2c8
21 Dh4!
With all Black’s pieces quite passively placed it makes sense to try to overstretch his defences by Opening up a second front on the kingside
21 2¢4 22 f3 Bh5 23 g4 Šf7 24 £4 h6 25 Ahf3 Sf8 26 e4
Having gained some useful space and pushed the black bishop to an even more passive square, it is now time to advance in the centre
26 g5!
Arkell correctly fights for some space on the kingside, whilst he has realised that although 27 exd5 exd5 28 {5 horribly clamps his kingside, White will then really struggle to break through anywhere
27 exd5 exd5 28 Hel gxf4
Preventing the knight from coming to c5 and also hoping that his counterplay down the g-file will be enough to save the game
29 Dd3 Se7 30 Axf4 Bes 31 Eg3 d;d6 32 2 fI!
Hebden continues to make excellent use of his pieces and yet even the arrival of a knight on f5 is not enough to win the game
32 226 33 Axg6 Hxg6 34 Ae3
M8 35 2)f5+ {d7 36 c5 Hab 37
Ecc3 HAe6 38 h4 Ag7!
Arkell continues to just about hold on
39 Ecf3! Axf5 40 gxf5 Bxg3+ 41
fixg3 Hb6 42 f2
Even after two exchanges Hebden grinds away and now threatens to walk his king to c2 before invading with the rook
42 2b8! 43 hS He8 44 Eg7+ %d6 45 Bf7 Hed 46 Bxf6+ Ld7 47
Trang 13I2 The Slav
The black king and rook are just well enough placed to halt the white passed pawns and a draw is now likely 49 Sg3 Sf6 50 Bf8+ Yg5 51 f6 Mgá+ 52 $f3 Eh4 53 f7 Sf6 54 $e3 lxh5 55 d4 Eh3 56 Hc8 Sxf7 57 Hc7+ Se8 58 Axc6 4-1/4 Game 2 Miles - I.Rogers Melbourne Masters, 1992 1 d4 d5 2 Af3 Af6 3 c4 c6 4 e3 e6
Black’s best attempt to reach a sharp position, but White doesn’t have to acquiesce err : iat matte ae mz? ý eam 5 “bd?!
Instead 5 4\c3 would transpose
into the Semi-Slav, one of the sharpest openings around Indeed, a very complex position isn’t far away after something ‘normal’ like
5 Abd7 6 Rd3 dxc4 7 Rxc4 b5 8 Rd3 &b7 9 0-0 a6 10 e4 c5 11 d5
Not only is this very unclear, but it also requires a large amount of theoretical knowledge as White
With 5 Abd2 White aims to deny
Black his fun whilst reaching a position with good chances of a
kingside attack himself The plan is
to fianchetto the queen’s bishop, place the other bishop on d3 where it is aimed at the black king, and
then to sink a knight into e5 which also usefully prevents Black’s freeing .dS break Then ideas of £4 and Äf3-h3 are on the cards, whilst Black squirms about in a passive state Sounds familiar? Well it is, since White is basically playing along the lines of the Colle-
Zukertort (1 d4 d5 2 AB Af 3 e3
c5 4 2d3 Dc6 5 b3 Rd6 6 Kb2), but with one important difference Here Black’s c-pawn is only on c6 and not cS, meaning that his counterplay is slower than normal 5
G\bd2 is also a dangerous move in
that those players accustomed to their Semi-Slav counterplay with dxc4 and .b5 will suddenly find themselves left to their own devices as there is no longer a knight on c3 to be hit by .b4 Moreover White’s position most certainly does not lack bite and good results by Grandmasters such as Hebden and Miles have shown that it is not
inferior to 5 %\c3 Meanwhile, at
club level, the fact that White’s position is rather easier to play should further tip the scales in his favour
5 2)bd7
Still hoping to transpose into a
Semi-Slav of sorts (after 6 2d3 Rd6 7 e4) is the most common move here 5 &d6 6 b3 “Abd7
transposes back to the game but Black does however have plenty of other options of which 5 c5 is considered to be theoretically best
A) 5 2e7 6 b3 0-0 7 2b2 should
lead to similar positions to the main game, albeit with the black bishop less actively placed on e7, but in Sawalani - Nay Oo Kyaw Tun, Yangon 1998, Black tried the very
ambitious 7 Wa5?! 8 a3! @bd7
when Tsesarsky’s suggestion of 9
Trang 14White a pleasant edge; the e4-break is still in the air, whilst White can also consider playing on the
queenside with c5 and b5
B) 5 c5
6 cxd5 exd5 (6 Axd5, aiming to
avoid the IQP, allows White to
advance in the centre by 7 e4 @f6 8 e5 Ad5 9 dxc5 Rxc5 10 Ae4 Re7 11 Re2!, but not 11 2d3 Ab4!, and
gives White good attacking chances; the primary aim is to castle, play the bishop to the more aggressive d3 Square, and then to direct attention towards the black king) 7 b3 (probably best as White always wants to be able to recapture on d4 with a piece, thereby emphasising
the weakling on d5) 7 Ac6 8 &b2 ecxd4 9 4xd4 d6 10 Hcl! (improving the position of the rook
with gain of tempo, whilst White is still not sure on which square to develop the fl-bishop; on d3 it
helps Black’s counterplay by being
hit by ®e5, as Kramnik showed
against Nenashev in the Alekhine Memorial, Moscow 1992, but then again d3 is a more active square
than e2) 10 Axd4 (10 8d7 11 Re2 0-0 12 0-0 He8 13 A2f3 Hc8
14 a3 reaches a typical IQP position
in which both sides have their chances Providing White takes care
on the kingside he should have slightly the better chances, whilst
piece exchanges should generally speaking help him It is important to realise that the dS pawn is not usually weak enough to win until the ending, but White can instead make use of his full control of d4 Often b4 will gain useful space and squares and allow White to consider
the @d4-b3-c5 manoeuvre as well
as exchanging on c6 Though this
trade appears to strengthen d5 (after bxc6), it enables White to target
c6 and a7 and also to play &d4-c5,
swapping off the dangerous black
dark-squared bishop.) 11 S&xd4 0-0
(Brenke-Ka.Miller, Lippstadt 1999)
12 2d3 He8 13 0-0 leaves White with his standard edge 2a3 is now met by Hc2, whilst 13 2xh2+
is not yet possible as the knight will defend everything from f3
C) The alternative 5 Ae4!? 6 &d3 f5, reaching a_ reversed
Stonewall, seems fairly logical when White should immediately take advantage of the weakened
e5-square with 7 “e5 and now:
C1) 7 Wf (Black often con-
tinues by moving his queen to the kingside, either to f6 or h4, but it is hard to believe it is good) 8 0-0
G\d7 9 £4 (Black’s last avoided the
Trang 1514 The Slav
should Black instead have preferred
7 \Wh4, then again 8 0-0 and 9 f4 is the correct plan) 9 2d6 10 c5!? (10 Wb3 aiming to hinder Black’s
development was also possible)
10 2c7 11 b4 gave White a strong
queenside initiative in Przepiorka- Asztalos, Debrecen 1925 Rather than get squashed Black now tried
11 Axe5 12 fxe5 Whé6, but after 13 @%xe4! dxe4 14 &c4 2d7 15 a4 it
became clear that it was much easier for White to open the queenside than for Black to generate any play on the other flank C2) 7 0d7?! 8 Wh5+ 26 9 Axg6 ‘\df6 10 Wh4 Hg8 11 Axf8 Sxf8 12 £3! Axd2 13 Rxd2 Hxg2 14 0-0-0 gave White a strong attack in Botvinnik-Mukhin, St Petersburg 1926 D) 5 dxc4 6 &xc4 b5 7 &d3
&b7 8 0-0 a6 9 a4! highlights the
advantage of the knight being on d2 as opposed to c3 White’s queenside pressure prevents the liberating .c5
break, whilst he intends We2,
followed by a queenside fianchetto, after which e4 will emphasise his very pleasant position 6 b3 stare" | Uy, 2 | 0, O oF YRYING / 7 5 Cane - 6 d6
Agam there are some reasonable
alternatives: 6 2b4 7 &b2 De4 8 a3! (8 &d3 £5 leads to a reasonable
Stonewall for Black, so instead
White pursues exchanges) 8 2a5 9 b4 Axd2 10 Wxd2 &c7 11 &d3 and
White had a useful space advantage in Pilnik-Liebstein, Mar del Plata
1944, whilst 6 2\e4!? (again White
must meet this active try accurately)
7 Dxe4 dxe4 8 Ad2 f5 9 Rb2 Af 10 £3! exf3 11 Wxf8 2b4 12 2d3 e5 13 We2 was messy in Hebden-
Handoko, Dhaka 1995, but White’s strong centre should give him the advantage
7 &b2 0-0
Instead 7 We7 8 Ae5 (naturally
not allowing Black to break out with
8 e5) 8 2a3?! (too ambitious; instead 8 0-0 9 &d3 transposes to
7 0-0 8 &d3 We7) 9 2xa3 Wxa3
10 &d3 c5!? 11 cxd5 exd5 12 0-0 0-0 13 Wc2 saw White beginning to
increase the pressure against Black’s weak pawns and_ poor development In Porrasmaa- Valkesalmi, Finland 1999, whilst
7 Ae4 8 Axe4 dxe4 9 Ad? f5 10
c5! (gaining the useful c4-square for
his pieces) 10 &e7 11 f3! (freeing
his position and preparing to increase his central control)
11 exf3 12 Wxf3 Af6 13 &c4 0-0
Trang 168 8?!
Criticised by Rogers for being too slow, although the alternatives are
also pleasant for White: 8 b6 9 0-0 ậb?7 10 Ø5 c5 (10 Xe§ 11 Wf -
as there is no need yet for f4, Miles first gets his queen into the attack —
11 We7 12 Hadi Af8 13 Wh3 c5 14 cxd5 exdS 15 &b5! Hec8 16 4\df3 gave White strong pressure in
Miles - Arakhamia Grant, Miinster 1993) 11 @xd7!? (The positional
approach More natural was 11 f4
when White intends to gain, a la the Colle-Zukertort, a strong kingside
attack beginning with Hf3-h3
However, note that White must
usually exchange on d5_ before
playing Zf3, so as to avoid walking
into .dxc4.) 11 Axd7 12 cxd5
exd5 13 dxc5 bxc5 14 Hcl He8 15
Mf GAf6 16 lc2 saw White
beginning to target the hanging pawns in Hebden-Lesiége, Cuba
1993 Meanwhile 8 We7 9 De5 Ra3 (9 dxc4 10 Aexc4! Bc7 11 0-0 b5 12 AeS Axe5 13 dxe5 Ad5
14 Wh5 gave White a huge kingside
initiative in Hebden-Summerscale, Upminster Open 1993, and indeed soon Summerscale was seen on the
White side: 9 %d8 10 0-0 Afs 11
We2 A6d7 12 Hadi a5 13 £4 a4 14
e4! and White’s play in the centre and on the kingside far outweighed Black’s small amount of queenside
activity in Summerscale-Salo,
European Club Cup, Bratislava
1996) 10 &xa3 Wxa3 (the exchange
of bishops is often thought to free Black’s position but here this is
simply not the case) 11 @xd7!
Rxd7 12 c5 b6 13 Wel (Rogers)
has been considered very good for White due to the dreadful bishop on d7 However, after 13 Wa5!?
things are not quite so simple
Nevertheless by means of the
accurate 14 £4! (preventing
14 bxc5 15 Wxc5 Wxce5 16 dxc5 e5) 14 Ag4 15 Be2 bxc5 16 h3 G\f6 17 Wxc5 White retains a large
advantage with his knight coming to d4 should Black exchange on cS
Finally 8 dxc4 9 @xc4 Rb4+ 10 @fl! is similar to the main game
White will advance in the centre with e4 and then launch a kingside attack
9 Ae5 dxc4!?
Attempting to free his position which would not have been easy
after 9 Wc7 10 f4 Then Black
does retain the option to block out the d3-bishop in some lines with Ae4, but 10 0f8 11 0-0 We7 12
c5 &c7 13 b4 DGd7 14 Wh3 f6 15
@%ef3 Sh8 16 Hael! b5 17 e4 saw
Black being squashed in Basagic-
Krmelj, Ljubljana 1993 9 Af8 is
also rather passive and the young German star punished it in E.Paehtz
-Hauer, Germany 1996: 10 0-0 Ag6
11 £4 cS 12 We2 b6 13 Adf3 @Ad7
14 Wr2 (14 @g5! was even more
direct and logical when 14 f6?! 15
G\ef7 We7 16 Axd6 Wxd6 17 Axg6
hxg6 18 S&xg6 wins _ easily)
14 2xe5 15 fxe5 Hf8 16 h4! f6 17 cxd5 exd5 18 e6 and Black’s pieces were being fatally pushed back ⁄ Z 2 TT poop ZENG £ 2 ° Bit 22-12 urea’ 4 Qn Ve 10 Adxc4!
Trang 1716 The Slav
co-ordinated pieces easily outweigh his inability to castle On the other hand White loses his advantage after
10 bxc4?! @xe5! 11 dxe5 Rxe5
(Lane) 10 2b4+
10 Axe5 11 dxe5 2b4+ didn’t
help Black in Monakhov-Kadimova, Cappelle la Grande 1995, as again White had a strong attack after 12
Be2 Ad5 13 We2 h6 14 h4 Re7 15 a3 &d7 16 g4!
11 Sfl 2f8 12 Wr
This position must have been
horrible for Rogers as all he can do
is wait for White to crash through
on the kingside White’s king is not
misplaced at all, whilst the hl-rook
can join in the attack from h3
12 Axe5 13 Axe5 2d6
So good is White’s position that even a Grandmaster has to resort to cheap tricks and exchanges in a bid to somehow save his position But Miles retains control well
14 Hdl &xe5 15 dxe5 Ad5 16 \WŒc4 g6 17 h4!
Having forced a weakness in the black kingside pawn shield, White now levers open the h-file 17 c5 Or 17 h5?! 18 g4 hxg4 19 Wxg4 and again where are the black king’s defenders? 18 h5 Wg5
Finally Black has managed to bring out a piece to help try to defend on the kingside, but
unfortunately for him White can
still double on the h-file
19 W3
19 Ge2? 2d7 20 Hh3 Rc6
prevents White from doubling his
rooks on the h-file and so Miles has
to settle for bringing his queen over instead 19 2d7 20 Wh3 He7 BY, Ue werd HE HH, Be eat at TP 0) 21 Sgl!
Described by Rogers as “a truly Grandmasterly method of prosec-
uting the attack” Moreover the ever
alert Miles avoids a cheapo; 21 hxg6 fxg6 22 f4 was the obvious
continuation but allows 22 Wg4!! 23 Wxg4 Axe3+ with reasonable
defensive chances One should never forget about the opponent’s resources, in this case the d5-knight, especially when one’s own king is exposed
21 Ef8 22 hxg6 fxgĩ 23 f4 Wh5
24 Wxh5 gxh5 25 Gf2
Covering e3 and thus emphasising his huge advantage It may appear that White has ‘failed’ by not mating the black king but that was never going to be easy after Rogers’
accurate defence with .Af8-e8-e7
Instead Miles has _ correctly
converted his attack into an
excellent ending Black’s king remains weak and his bishop tied to defending the h5-pawn Meanwhile White will tur the screw by exploiting his bishop-pair and
Trang 1825 2.e8 26 Âe2 Hd7 27 g3 226
98 &b5 Hc7 29 Sf3 265!
Continuing to conjure up tricks,
but even getting his bishop to g4
won’t save Black
30 Hd2!
Avoiding 30 &xh5?? &2g4+! 31 éxg4 Dxe3+ when an exchange
drops off
30 8.94+ 31 Sf2 a6 32 Re2 b5
33 e4!
With the black queenside weakened and the light-squared
bishops coming off, now is the time
to make use of the d2-rook
33 Ab4 34 2c3! Ac6 35 Rxg4
hxg4 36 HXd6 c4 37 bxc4! b4 38
Ral Aas 39 Hh4 Exc4 40 Exg4t+ @h8 41 Exe6 He2+ 42 SF3 Hxa2
43 Rd4
Black has finally gained some
play, but it’s far too late as White’s
attack and passed e-pawn prove
decisive 43 21b3
43 4\c4 would at least have
prompted White to find the pretty finish of 44 Axa6!! Bxa6 45 e6+
44 203 a5 45 He7 Hh2
Preventing mate beginning with
Eh4, but now 46 cĩ, 47 Hf7 and 48 e7 wins 46 e6 1-0 Game 3 Hodgson - Crouch Southend Open, 1998 1 c4 c6 2 Af3 d5 3 e3 Afé 4 d4 Rg4
4 a6!? is currently very fashionable but then White can
exploit the fact that he is not committed to “c3 by playing 5 ¿d3 with the following options: 12 A _ eri a ha RAG ety A) 5 e6 6 b3 Abd7 7 0-0 b5 8 G\bd2 &b7 (Now White could play
a la the Colle-Zukertort as against 4 e6, but here Black has more play on the queenside and so the talented Izoria prefers to immediately open
the centre.) 9 e4 dxe4 10 @xe4 and now:
Al) 10 c5!? is the active try when White should respond with 11
Qxf6+ Wxf6 12 cxb5 axb5 (after 12 2xf3 13 Wxf Wxf8 14 gxf3 axb5 15 &xb5 cxd4 16 Rb?2, d4 is very weak) 13 @e5! and Black has
problems defending everything 13 c4 is then quite interesting, but it appears that White retains the
advantage after 14 bxc4 @xe5 15 dxe5 Wxe5 16 Hbl! 2d6 17 g3 bxc4 18 Bxb7! cxd3 19 Wxd3 Wce5 20 Hdl Wc6 21 Wb3 when Black finds himself still under heavy pressure; A2) 10 Axe4 11 &xe4 ALE?! 12 2g5 h6 13 2xf6 Wxf6 14 c5! is
excellent for White, whose minor pieces occupy far better squares than their passive Black
counterparts;
A3) 10 2e7 11 c5 Axe4 12 Rxe4 AG 13 Rc2 AdS 14 Hed gave White an edge in Izoria-
Trang 1918 The Slav
B) 5 b5 now gives White a target
on the queenside which he will aim to undermine with a4 6 cxd5 (6 b3 is also possible, but here Black can develop his bishop more actively to
24.) 6 cxd5 7 0-0 e6 (7 224 is
more ambitious, but does leave the black queenside very exposed; after
8 a4 b4 9 a5! Qxf3 10 gxf3! e6 11
d2 Re7 12 Ab3 0-0 13 We2
&\fd7 14 f4 White was better in
A.Shaw-Ippolito, Connecticut 2000, due to his queenside pressure, which
will be increased by &d2 and Hacl,
and because he can expand in the
centre with f3 and e4) 8 Ae5 &b7 9 a4 Wa5 10 @d2 “c6 11 Ab3 (once
again the arrival of a knight on b3 highlights Black’s weaknesses)
11 WWbĩ 12 axb5 axb5 13 Hxa8+ Rxa8 14 We2 b4 15 Qd2 and, with both Hal and b5 on the cards,
Black found himself under pressure in Jelen-Stojnic, Bled 1994;
C) 5 dxc4 6 &xc4 e6 (After
6 65 White can again capitalise on
his knight not being on c3 by 7 &d3
e6 8 a4 b4 (now White will be able to post a knight on c4, but Black hopes that .c5 will free his
position) 9 0-0 c5 10 We2 2b7 11 Hdl Abd7 12 Abd2 Re7 13 a5
cxd4 14 exd4! 0-0 was seen in N.Pert-Vigus, Witley 2000, when
15 “c4 should give White a small
edge It may seem strange that White should accept an IQP, but here this helps his pieces The cl-bishop is no longer blocked in,
whilst 2d2, @AfeS5 and Hacl will
further increase the pressure on the slightly cramped Black position.) 7
We2! when 7 c5 transposing to the
QGA (see the next chapter) may well be Black’s best;
D) 5 2¢4 6 Wb3 Once again
White immediately responds to Black’s development of his queen’s
bishop by hitting b7 Black can counter with:
#e§° Bhs 6 Wc7 7
(retaining the bishop is best; instead,
after 7 e6?! 8 Ac3 Abd7 9 #\xg4
G\xg4 10 h3 Agf6 11 0-0 Re7 12 We2 0-0 13 e4, White was able to
DỊ)
put his bishoppar to good attacking use in Zagorskis-Sotnikov,
Pardubice 1995) 8 cxd5 cxd5 9 Ac3 e6 10 &d2 (here there is no need to
castle just yet; instead Khenkin immediately uses his small lead in development to attack on_ the queenside) 10 Ac6 11 Hcl 2d6 12 @xc6 bxc6 13 Aad Rg6 (swapping off his bad bishop) 14 2xg6 hxgố6 15 Wbĩ Gd7! 16 Wxc7+ Ẳ©xc7 17 Ãa5+ b7 18 $e2
and White had only a very slight advantage in both Khenkin- Morozevich, Bundesliga 2001, and In Supatashvili-Zhukova, Batumi 2002 Black has defended against
the threat of Wb6 well, although
White’s better structure gives him
hope that Hc3, h3 and hcl will
still cause Black some defensive problems;
D2) 6 b5 has yet to be played, but was analysed by Burgess in The Slav After 7 cxd5 his idea was
7 2xf3 8 gxf3 Wxd5, but it is not
clear that this position is so bad for
Trang 20White can again undermine the
Black queenside after 9 e6 10 a4; D3) 6 2xf3!? 7 gxf3 (7 Wxb7 is
mentioned by Burgess, but appears
rather risky after 7 2xg2 8 Hgl dxc4 9 Wxa8 2d5) is critical:
D3a) 7 4a7!? (Making use of a6
like this is a typical idea and has been employed by Morozevich
Now 8 4c3 e6 9 We2 Re7 10 Rd2
0-0 11 c5! has been recommended in several sources as an
improvement on the game Anand-
Morozevich The position 1s complex, but the White side may well be easier to play He will clamp down on e5 by f2-f4 and quite possibly leave his king on e2 if the kingside appears to be too weak Black will probably have to break on the queenside with .b6 quite quickly, for otherwise a4 and b4-b5 is coming, when White should capture on b6 and then play against the weakened black queenside However, instead 11 0-0-0?! @bd7 turned out well for Black in Anand-Morozevich, Dortmund 2001, whilst 11 dxc4 12 &xc4 b5 13 Re2 c5 is also at least equal for Black; D3b) 7 Wc7 8 Ac3 e6 9 Rd2
(The position is rather unclear, but White should not be in a hurry to break in the centre by e4, since practice has shown that Black gains adequate counterplay after .b5 Instead it seems preferable to build
up some queenside pressure.)
9 dxc4 (alternatively 9 a\bd7 10
Hcl Hc8 11 cxd5 cxd5? 12 @xd5! Wxcl+ 13 &xcl Hxcl+ 14 Se2 Exhl 15 Axf6+ Axf6 16 Wxb7 and
the white queen was simply too powerful in Khenkin-Sebag, Valle
d’Aosta 2002) 10 xc4 b5
(10 c5!? is also possible when Van
Wely-Bacrot, Bled Olympiad 2002,
continued 11 dxc5 &xc5 12 Wed! &xe4 13 fxe4 0-0 14 Hcl Hd8 15
@e2 with a quite unclear position,
but White’s bishops and attacking chances should not be under-
estimated) 11 Re2 c5 12 Bcl Abd7 13 a4! c4 14 Wc2 Wb7 15 Bgl and
Black still had some problems to solve in Izoria - Le Roux, Patras 2001 White soon increased the
pressure by @e4 and f4, before later
winning an excellent game with a rook invasion down the a-fie, whilst his king remained very safe on e2
5 Wb3
Once again immediately breaking the pin and hitting b7 ⁄ ? ⁄ YSZ 4 ‘it AE Y GAY Ẫ 22 + Z 27 „ 27 LY ⁄ 5 Wb6
Black’s standard response, but he has various plausible alternatives:
A) 5 Wc7 6 DeS5 and then: Al) 6 2f5 7 cxdS @xd5 (7 cxd5 8 Ac3 cĩ 9 Rb5t+ is awkward for Black) 8 @d2 Re6 9 e4 Ab6 10 We2 A8d7 11 @d3 and
White’s pieces were on the better squares in Koksch-Milller, Pocking 1996;
A2) 6 2e6!2? 7 Fc3 dxc4 8
2xc4 Bxc4 9 Wxc4 e6 10 0-0
Gbd7 11 £4! gave White a pleasant
space advantage in Efimov-Boudre, France 2001, with the option of
SONY eS
Trang 2120 The Slav
increasing the pressure in the centre with e4;
A3) 6 e6!? 7 cxd5 exd5 8 2)xg4! Ø%xg4 9 #\c3 DLE 10 &d2 Abd7 11 $d3 was unbalanced in Kogan-
Meduna, Lazne Bohdanec 1996 Black is very solid, but White possesses the two bishops and so should aim to open the position The best way of doing this is probably to play aggressively, as Kogan did, with g4 and 0-0-0
B) On the other hand 5 2.xf3?!
is a little too ambitious after 6 Wxb7
when:
Bl) 6 2g4? aims to trap the
white queen, but White just has time
to play Sa6 7 Wxa8 We7 8 Ac3 ‹%fd7 (or 8 e6 9 cxd5 exd5 10 2a6) 9 c5 e5 10 a6 and the white
queen will emerge from the corner, leaving him an exchange ahead;
B2) 6 2xg2 7 &xg2 Dbd7 8 &\c3 e6 9 0-0 Hc8?! (If 9 Wc§
White could consider Wb3 and then
playing for e4, but even better is 10 Wxc8+ Exc8 11 c5!, intending a rapid b4-b5 with strong queenside
pressure) 10 Wxa7! &d6 11 f4 h5
12 c5! left Black with no compen- sation for the pawn in Fernandez Aguado - Cots Paltor, Berga 1995;
C) 5 Wc§ 6 AeS f5 7 cxd5 cxd5 8 @c3 left Black already under
pressure in P.Cramling-Hernandez Basante, Istanbul Olympiad 2000
After 8 e6?! the energetic 9 2b5+
Gfd7 10 e4! dxe4 11 g4! Rg6 12 h4 left White with already a near decisive advantage
6 AeS Zeb
A solid retreat, but other moves
are more natural: 6 2f5 is best met
v the accurate sequence 7 cxd5
xb3 8 axb3 @\xd5 9 “d2 and now
9 f6 10 Ad3 Rg6 11 Af4 RE7 12
e4 Ac7 13 Ac4 Ad7 14 Re3 a6 15
f3 saw White’s strong centre and space advantage prove more
important than his doubled b-pawns
in Neverov-Ehlvest, Tallinn 1986,
whilst 6 e6 7 Axg4 Axg4 8 Wadi!
đf6 9 Ac3 Abd7 10 c5! We7 11 b4 e5 and, despite having achieved e5, Black was still much worse in Rashkovsky-Nenashev, Barnaul
1984 after 12 Re2 g6 13 0-0 Rg7
14 b5 0-0 15 a4 Bfe8 16 a5 Had8 17
a6! Finally 6 Wxb3 is probably a
little premature as White gains immediate and strong queenside
pressure; 7 axb3 &f5 8 b4! 2xbl 9 Exb1 e6 10 c5 left Black struggling in Mach-Knuth, Germany 1992 Note that after 10 a6 11 Hal! forces through bố T7 ¿c3 7 2)bd7
This is assesed a little prematurely, as ‘=’ in NCO and whilst the position does remain quite balanced, White appears to have a small initiative
8 “@xd7! 2xd7 9 Dad We7 10
“\°5 c8 11 cxd5 Axd5 12 e4 “Nb6
12 Af6 might well be more
accurate when 13 f3 (13 e5! @d5 14 ¿c4 e6 15 Wg3 was assessed as ‘+’
Trang 22really worse Perhaps Burgess is
correct and yet the position is surely
easier to play as White whose pieces
are all well placed, with the pressure
on g7 being especially annoying Black must also watch out for
B\e4-d6t+.) 13 e5 14 Re3 was
immediately agreed drawn in Lalié-Velicka, Andorra 2000, although White could certainly play on 13 Re3 13 a4!? eS 14 aS Dd7 15 @Axd7 Wxd7 16 dxc5! Wd4 17 Rc4
Wxe4+ 18 &e3 Weg6 19 0-0 was
also better for White in M.Gurevich - Hauchard, Belfort 1998 13 e6 14 2e2 Ve7 15 0-0 Ad7 aeons ‘a aa et oe Se đi 20/1A ma 7 7S | 16 Ad3
Not letting Black free himself with exchanges White has a
pleasant edge and must now try to
Create some weaknesses
16 0-0 17 Hacl e5
Freeing his position at the cost of a very weak c-pawn
18 d5 2\f6 19 f3 Bd7 20 AcS
c8 21 dxc6 bxc6 22 Wc3 Ad7 23
“\b3! 2b7 24 Dad Hac8 25 bá Wb8 26 Hfd1 2a8 27 a3
_Hodgson has impressively
improved all his pieces and now
again refuses to rush needlessly
Just compare the activity of the two
sides’ pieces! However 27 Hxd7? was imprecise due to 27 2xb4 28 Bxa7 B2xc3 29 Bxb8 Bb?2, whilst
in the game Black’s weaknesses aren’t going to run away
27 Äc7 28 Ac4 Hb7 29 He2 c5?
Crouch makes use of his rook manoeuvre to shift his c6-weakness, but White still retains all the trumps and soon invades down the d-file
30 b5! Ab6 31 Hed2 f6 32 a4 đ)c8 33 d7
This is good enough, although it was also possible to pick up the
c-pawn after 33 Aa5 Hc7 34 Db3
33 Ec7 34 Wb3 Gh8 35 Exc7 Wxc7 36 a5 Hd8 37 Hxd8+ 2xd8
After having accurately defended his passive position and patiently tried to break out, Crouch finally succeeds in exchanging off all the rooks—and yet still his pieces remain in a defensive huddle
38 Wa3 2e7 39 Wad Wd7 40
Wb3 h6 41 &f2 Web 42 Ad2 Wd7 a WY = Pe ‘Y tf ý đy Z _Ø mie “yy be Co oO os Sas WD ⁄ 7 JU 43 Sel!
Improving the position of the king in readiness for a queenless ending Meanwhile all Black can do is still sit and await his fate
43 2h7 44 Wd3 We7 45 We3
Trang 2322 The Slav
Finally a pawn drops off, but that would have also happened after 45 Wd7 46 Db3 46 Wxc5 Wxa5 47 Wxa7 Winning a pawn and soon the game 47 Wxa7 48 &xa7 &g8 49 Db3 Sf7 50 Sd2 Ve8 51 Rd3 $©d8 52 Rb6+ Sc8 53 Rc5! Sc7 54 Sc3 h5 55 Sb4 2d8 56 Da5 DAc8B 57 “\c4 g5 58 Q2c2!
Hodgson continues to bring his men to their best squares 58 2b7 59 2b3 De7?! Dropping a piece but 59 2e7 60 e3 Bxc5+ 61 @xc5 ADb6 62 $.d5+ was also crushing 60 Ad6+ Sb8 61 Af7 1-0 Game 4 Kharitonov - Crouch Berlin Summer Open, 1995 1 d4 d5 2 Af3 2)f6 3 c4 cĩ 4 e3 NGA, at na tt tất Ẫ 5, Bạn nhu” 1 `
The dependable = Schlechter variation of the Slav remains popular at all levels and yet is often poorly covered by theory Works on the Slav may not even mention it at all since the position after move six is classified as a Griinfeld (D94) because it can also arise from | d4
46 2 c4 26 3 Dc3 d5 4 DB Rg7 5
e3 0-0 6 &d3 c6 However Griinfeld
books also frequently neglect the move, usually because nowadays the position arises far more often from a Slav (in the Grinfeld move-order, Black should prefer the more active 6 c5!)
5 Nc3 Be7 6 Bd3
6 Se2 is also popular and yet it
makes sense to develop the bishop as actively as possible, whilst it is not at all clear that White needs to prevent the f3-knight from being pinned by .2¢4 6 0-0 7 0-0 BA 1⁄1 “âm” wat 18 rụ 1% 7.1.24
The most solid move and yet Black has a whole host of other options:
A) 7 Abd7 blocks up Black’s
position a little and this can be exploited by 8 cxd5! @xd5 (8 cxd5?! 9 Wb3! gives White some useful queenside pressure Following 9 Ab6 10 d2 2f5!? 11 &xf5 gxf5 12 Hfcl e6 13 Dad! G\xa4 14 Wxa4 Gh8 15 Bb4 He8 l6 c2 Black remained on the defensive in G.Flear-Vallepin, St
Chely d’Aubrac 2002.) 9 e4 (White can now carry out this advance as Black’s pressure on the centre is weaker than in a normal Grinfeld)
Trang 2414 d5! blocking out the b7-bishop
and preparing “d4-c6, then after
14 He5 15 AxeS Rxe5 16 £4
White’s central control gave him the better chances ¡in Browne- Ardiansyah, Surakarta 1982.) 11
2g5! (preparing to swap off the irritating g7-bishop) 11 Wa5 12 Wel! exd4 13 cxd4 c5 14 £h6 (the
centre couldn’t be held, but now White intends to attack the weakened black kingside) 14 cxd4
15 &xe7 Sxg7 16 DAxd4 He5 17 Wb2! turned out well for White, who intends e2 and f4, as in Meulders-Bierenbroodspot, Holland
1991;
B) 7 a6!? 8 a4 (preventing 8 b5 and threatening to fix the black ueenside with 9 a5) 8 a5 9 h3! bab 10 e4 (now that Black’s queen’s knight cannot easily come to f6, Fta¢nik advances in _ the
centre) 10 Ab4 11 e5 De8 12 cxd5 cxd5 13 &e3 and White had a
useful space advantage in Ftatnik- Hort, Bundesliga 1994;
C) 7 2£5 8 &xf5 (not only to
slightly weaken the black structure
but mainly to prepare to attack on the queenside) 8 gxf5 9 cxd5 cxd5 10 Wb3! (forcing Black to weaken
his queenside and also tying the
f6-knight to the defence of d5, thereby holding up the intended
red) 10 b6 11 2d2 Ac6 12
Rfcl Bc8 13 #c2 Z3a5!? (aiming to slow down White’s queenside play, but White will easily be able to evict the knight from c4) 14 Wb5 e6 15 acl “cd 16 Wa6 %4 17 Rel
Wd7 18 b3 cd6 19 We5 and White
had enduring queenside pressure in
Lalié-Velicka, Groningen 1991; D) 7 e6 8 b3 (posting the bishop
On a3 is the best way to exploit
Black’s passive 7 e6; instead 8 e4
dxe4 9 Axe4 #Z)xe4 10 Bxe4 Wc7,
followed by .c5, would give Black good chances to fully equalise)
8 Abd7 9 a3 He8 10 Hcl bé 11 We2 &b7 12 Hfdl (Bagirov) should
give White a comfortable edge, as Black lacks a good pawn break, whilst White can push forwards with e4;
E) 7 dxc4 8 &xc4 &g4 (Black’s main alternative to 7 8&g4 and note
that this position can also arise after
6 &e2) 9 h3 (immediately breaking
the pin, but now play assumes quite
a sharp character) 9 2xf3 10 Wxf3 Gbd7 11 Hdl! (Getting ready to
advance the d-pawn The game now becomes a_ little — theoretical, although White’s plan of pushing the d-pawn and trying to develop his queenside is quite obvious.)
11 e5 (11 %c7?! is too slow: 12 e4 e5 13 d5 Ab6 14 2b3 cxd5 15 exdS De& 16 Re3 Ad6 17 Ded &bc8 18 Hacl Wd8 19 Šc5 and
White soon broke the blockade of the key d-pawn in Cvetkovic- Hartoch, Liege 1984)
0.7
„` - BOR) ⁄
12 dS e4!? (a pawn sacrifice with hopes of exploiting White’s lack of
development) 13 @Axe4 Axed 14 Wxe4 Db6 15 Hb1!? (15 2b3 is the
main move, but the text, preparing to develop the queenside, appears
Trang 2524 The Slav
18 d2 with the two bishops and
pressure against d5 is White’s idea, when he has a comfortable edge as in Dokhoian-Samaritani, Aarhus
1991) 17 2b3 Had8 18 &d2 #)xd5 19 Wc4 Wxc4 20 &xc4 and the
bishop-pair gave White an edge in Muresan-Semenova, Bad Kissingen
1983;
F) 7 b6?! prematurely weakens the queenside and White can exploit this with 8 cxd5! when 8 cxd5 9 b3
%6 10 Ra3 &b7 11 Hcl a6
reventing a potentially annoying b5 at the cost of weakening b6)
12 @a4 gave White some useful
early pressure in Kotov-Levenfish, USSR Ch (Moscow) 1949;
G) 7 c5!? transposes into a line of the Griinfeld a tempo down, but as it’s a line in which Black is very comfortable, White cannot do that much with the extra move 8 dxc5! (the critical continuation) 8 dxc4
(8 2a6!? 9 cxdS @xd5 has been recommended, but after 10 @Axd5 Wxd5 11 S&xa6!? Wxdl 12 Exdl bxa6 13 @d4! it is not clear that
Black’s bishop-pair fully compen-
sates for the pawn) 9 &xc4 Wa5 10 G\b5! (holding on to the pawn for
the time being as 10 a6 is well met
Đi 11 2d2) 10 Ae4 11 Wd5 a6 12 xe4 axb5 13 &b3- and White
remained a pawn ahead in Korchnoi
-DJurié, Titograd 1984;
H) 7 2e8 8 h3! (as in the
Ftatnik-Hort game above, White aims to hinder Black’s develop-
ment) 8 A\bd7 9 cxd5 (the plan is
the same as after 7 2\bd7) 9 cxd5 10 Wb3 e5!2 11 dxe5 DxeS 12
Se2! (intending to capture on e5
and then pressurise dS with the
bishop from f3) 12 A@c6 13 Hdl
and Black lacked any activity to
compensate for his IQP in Ivkov- Rossolimo, Novi Sad 1972
8 h3
Again it makes sense to break the pin immediately before Black slots in .@\bd7, threatening .e5 8 2.xf3 9 Wxf3 za oe eae od a, N HN, SP miata Rae J BENZ Mm WY Yas 27 2⁄2 VẢ NON Z ⁄ Be 9 e6
The most popular choice, but here Black can also transpose into the sharp 7 dxc4 by 9 dxc4 or try
9 4#d6, intending = 10 Abd7
and e5, which has been played quite often—White should again respond with the prophylactic 10
Edl, defending d4 so that e4
becomes’ possible and also discouraging .e5 due to the pressure against d5 after dxe5 Now
10 Abd7 11 cxd5 cxd5 12 Rd2 is
probably the best way of developing and also preparing to play against the IQP After 12 e5 13 dxeS @xe5
14 We2 “@xd3 15 Wxd3 We5 16 Sel White had reasonable pressure
against d5 in Legky-Barbero, Belgrade 1988 He should now aim
to tie Black down to d5 with WbS, Ed3 and Had1 when he may then be
able to turn his attention to
activating the bishop, for example by “e2 and &c3
An immediate 9 e5!? has also
Trang 26cxds AxeS 12 Wal! cxdŠ (2 &)xd3 13 Wxd3 &xc3 14 bxc3 cxd5 15 b1! doesn’t solve Black’s problems either.) 13 e2 resulted in
a doomed d-pawn in_ Kotov- Ragozin, USSR Ch (Moscow) 1948 10 Bd Dbd7 11 2d2!? YUyy ay ; TH et SA 3A 12 Đệ N MS Tu ng ® ⁄/ Sanwa 2 oS “ar a WSS LIS Aft ol ke 2H22 a, S2
This move isn’t even mentioned in ECO or NCO and yet has scored well and been played by some quite
strong players, such as Kholmov, Chernin’ and Andersson (who
utilised it to defeat a young Anand)
Compared with the main line of 11 b3, the bishop takes up a less active post on el, waiting for the mnght moment to return to the game
Meanwhile this oddly placed bishop doesn’t appear to be a problem and
is in many lines better placed on el
than b2, as there White’s protection
of the c3- -knight is weakened by the advance of his b-pawn
11 We7
Preparing to develop the f8-rook and to support e5, but other plans
are also possible:
A) 11 e8 is natural when White
Should delay &e1 for a move, just
iM case Black captures prematurely
0n c4 12 Hac] We7 (12 dxc4?! 13
Âxc4 e5 14 2b3 exd4 (not really
What Black wanted, but 15 d5 was
threatened) 15 exd4 (White has an
excellent IQP_ position; his dark-squared bishop will soon find a good square, when Black must watch out for the key d5 push, opening up all White’s pieces)
15 Db6 16 Rg5 Wd6 17 Rl4 Wd7 18 2e5! Dbd5?! 19 Rxf6! Axf6 20
d5! and White had _ thematically opened up the position in S.Ivanov- Hasangatin, St Petersburg 1999
Black’s queen lacks a good square,
whilst a light-squared disaster is
imminent.) 13 We2 Had8 14 Rel a6 (or 14 dxc4 15 &xc4 Ab6 16 &b3 e5 17 dxeS Wxe5 18 Hxd8 Exd8 19 Hdl EExd! 20 Wxdl and _ the
bishop-pair promised White a small pull in Matlak-Oliwa, Augustow
1996.) 15 WWc2 (the queen is coming
to b3, but attacking on the queenside with 15 cxd5!? exd5 16 b4 was an alternative _ plan) 15 dxc4 (finally Black goes in for the thematic exchange, but, as 15 65 would merely give him queenside weaknesses, there wasn’t
a good alternative) 16 &xc4 e5 17 dxe5 @xe5 18 Re2 Hxdl 19 ŠxdI Hd8 20 Hxd8+ Wxd8 21 Wdl! and
White had a small edge in Shipov-Gretarsson, Groningen 1993 His pieces may currently appear not particularly active, but the black knights lack good outposts and Black can do little as White slowly unravels White’s plan should be to slowly and carefully launch a minority attack with b4,
&\a4-c5 and a4, whilst if the
e5-knight can be driven backwards then the light-squared bishop can come to f3;
B) 11 dxc4 12 &xc4 e5 was
tried in Kholmov-Panov, Skopje
1967 Now after 13 e1?!, the
bishop was a little misplaced for an
IQP position Thus 13 &b3 is more
Trang 2726 The Slav
&\b6?! (there isn’t time for the knight to reach d5, but 15 &g5
would have put him under pressure
in any case) 15 &g5 and Black is
stuck in a very awkward pin This is one of those positions where the IQP is most certainly a strength as White can quickly open up the
position for all his pieces with a
timely d5 break;
C) 11 Ab6 12 We2! (refusing to
either break the tension in the centre or to weaken c3 by changing tack
with 12 b3) 12 dxc4 13 &xc4 &xc4 14 Wxc4 @d5 was Anand’s
choice against Andersson (Cannes 1989) Black has managed to hold
up e4 (15 e4? @b6), but remained under pressure after 15 Hacl He8 16 Ae4! (the knight is coming to
the cS outpost in a bid to provoke b6, weakening c6) 16 e5!? 17
dxe5 &xe5 18 2c3 We7 19 Qxe5 Wxe5 20 d4 He7 21 Hcd1 Hae’ 22 b4!
12 Bel Hfd8 13 We2 dxc4 14
Rxcd4 e5
14 Èb6 15 &b3 e5 16 dxe5
would lead to similar positions to
Shipov-Gretarsson (see 11 Be8
above), and was the alternative M7 1 HH, 2 a “4 0 Oi 7` a đã Ki 15 d5!? cxd5?!
Now White will gan the
bishop-pair on an open board and so 15 Aab6 16 dxc6 bxc6 17 &b3 e4!
was better Black’s queenside is now weakened, but this isn’t so easy to exploit here, whilst White must be careful about a black knight reaching e5 With accurate play White should be slightly better, but with a harder task than in the game
16 AxdS @xd5 17 Bxd5 e4 18
Hacl Ab6é 19 2b3 Exdli 20 Exdl Hd8 21 Hxd8+ Wxd8 22 We2
Black has managed to force exchanges, but now has a long defence ahead of him Kharitonov proceeds to gives a model example of how to use the bishop-pair as he weakens the black queenside Meanwhile Crouch never really has any active counterplay due to his weak king position; for example
22 Wd3?! 23 Wc7! is awkward
22 We7 23 a4! Qe5 24 a5 Ad7
25 Wc8+ Af8 26 Bd5 Bxb2 27
&xb7 2a3
Now White’s bishop gets on to the long diagonal, but it was already virtually impossible to defend both a7 and e4
28 &c3 Wd6 29 Axed! Wdl+ 30 $h2 2d6+ 31 £4 We2
Trang 28BAA woe ae WAT) li ee we A7 3 dxc4!?
Along with the attempt to force an Abrahams-Noteboom with 3 e6
(which is dealt with in Chapter 3 under 2 6 3 @f3 cĩ) this ¡is Black’s best alternative to 3 2f6
A) 3 8.£5?! is natural and even quite popular at club level, but simply leaves b7 and d5 too weak — factors = which White can
immediately exploit 4 cxdS and
then:
A1) 4 cxd5 5 Wb3 Wc7 (5 &c8 6 Ac3 AL6 7 #4 e6 § e3 left Black
tempi down on an_ Exchange variation in Rossetto-Martinez, Santa Clara 1968, when the attempt
to prevent @b5 with 8 a6 should have lost a clear pawn to 9 &xb8! Exb8 10 &xa6, whilst 5 b6?! 6
“c3 e6 7 e4! exploited Black’s
chronic light-squared weaknesses in Finge-Leistenschneider, Germany 1988, when 7 dxe4 8 &b5+ &e7 9 “Ne5 a6 10 &c6 was superb for
White) 6 Ac3 6 7 &f4! Wbĩ
(7 We7 8 a3 a6 9 €3 Ac6 10 Dad!
Save White a large positional
advantage in the game Rychagov-
Kadiltzoglou, Korinthos 2001) 8 Wxb6 (Burgess prefers 8 AbS!? but
Matters are not so clear after, say,
8.46 9 Wad 2b4+ when 10 c3+?! Sf8 sees White having Problems defending the b2-square
Us it seems best to take the large
positional advantage on offer and to follow Sadler’s advice) 8 axb6 9
e3 A 10 âb5+ Abd7 11 $&e2
¿c7 12 Hhcl when White will invade down the c-fle, whilst
Black’s queenside weaknesses will
not run away;
A2) 4 2xb1 5 Exbl Wxd5 is
similar to the Baltic Defence (1 d4
d5 2 c4 Šf5 3 cxd5 Rxbl 4 Exbl Wxd5), dealt with in Chapter 4,
except that here Black is already committed to .c6 After 6 a3 @f6 7 e3 e6 8 Wc2 Re7 (or 8 Abd7 9 £d3 Wh5 10 b4 a6 11 e4 and again White was much _ better’ in Krivoshei-Z.Basagi¢, Bled 1999) 9
&d3 Wd8 10 e4 White had a very
comfortable edge with control of the centre and the two bishops in U.Andersson-Renman, Sweden
1996;
B) 3 52247! is also very good for White 4 AeS BFS (4 2h5 5 cxd5 cxd5 6 Wb3 and now Black must
defend a worse position after 6 Wc8 7 Ac3 e6 8 Rf4 as 6 Ac6? sees Black again lose on the light-squares after 7 Wxb7 @xd4 8 e3) 5 cxd5 cxd5 6 “c3 was unpleasant for Black (White intends a formation such as Wb3, 2f4, e3 and Hcl) in Matamoros Franco-
Madikwe, Lucerne 1982, but Black now walked right into it with
6 e6?? when 7 Wa4+ ¿d7 § e4!
was decisive 4 e3 bŠ
The very ambitious 4 2e6 has
been championed by Rausis, and also played by Hiibner, Lali¢ and Ivan Sokolov, but it is hard to
believe that Black can quite get
away with playing like this, unless
Trang 2928 The Slav
A) 5 c5 6 Ac3 Af is a position normally reached via 5 Af6 6 @c3
c5, as after 5 cS White may well
have an immediate 6 AgS Now 7 {g5 Red 8 f3 Ld7 (after 8 2h5, played in Levitt-Baburin, 4NCL 2001/2, White continued to vigorously pursue the initiative by 9 d5 h6 10 Ah3 g5 11 Bxc4 Dbd7 12 e4 a6 13 Re3 Âg7 14 Af2 HeS5 15 Se2 Dfd7 16 h4! when he had an excellent position) 9 &xc4 (Instead
9 d5 h6 was rather unclear in Polak-Varga, Austria 2000.) 9 e6 10 d5!? gives White an edge after
the best defence of 10 Axd5 11 &®xd5 &c6! 12 Axf7! Sxf7 13 DAf4 Wxdl+ 14 Sxd1 2d7;
B) 5 2f6 6 Ac3 g6 (6 h6 7 Be5 Abd7 8 Axc4 KES was tried in
Topalov-I.Sokolov, Sarajevo 1999,
but now, instead of 9 Wb3 Wc7 10
f3 eS! which was fine for Black, 9 f3 should promise White an phe,
whilst 6 2d5 is well met b
G\d2! as given by Burgess) 7 des
Rd5 8 f3!2? h6 (In CHESS,
November 2001, I suggested as a
possible improvement 8 5297, but
it’s hard to believe that White isn’t
doing well after 9 e4 h6 10 Ah3 Re6 11 Af4.) 9 Dh3 g5 10 e4 Reb 11 Af2 Rg7 12 a5! Đa6 13 2e3 đ%c7 14 g3 bŠ 15 f4 with excellent
compensation in J.Horvath-Varga, Budapest 2000
5 a4 e6
The only move mentioned by Graham Burgess in his monograph
The Slav and yet other moves are possible, although White can usually then just win back his pawn with interest with a timely b3 5 b7 6 axb5 cxb5 7 b3! is one example, whilst 5 a6?! 6 axb§ cxb5 7 b3 cxb3 8 &xb5+ &d7 9 &xd7+ Wxd7 10 Wxb3 e6 11 0-0 d6 12 Dc3 left White better in Orth-Kwapinski, Dortmund 2000 He enjoys better central control, whilst the vulnerable a6-pawn will be easily targeted
6 axb5 cxb5 7 b3 2b4+
7 Af6 8 bxc4 bxc4 9 Rxc4 Le7
is quite a typical scenario in this line Black hopes to castle, after which, free from trouble along the a4-e8 diagonal, he can restrain the
white centre with .&b7
Unfortunately for him, White can play a few moves first, for example Kramnik, against Hubner, (Biel Interzonal 1993) continued very
energetically with 10 ®e5 0-0 11 Wh 4\d5 12 Ac3! Rb4 13 Rd2 b7 14 ADAxdS Rxd2+ 15 %xd2 Rxd5 16 &xd5 exd5 and was
rewarded with a large advantage after 17 Hhbl, since all of White’s pieces stand on good squares, ready
to target the weak black structure
§ d2 Rxd2+ 9 DAbxd2 a5 10 bxc4 b4
Typically, Hodgson has managed to unbalance the pawn structure, but White is now able to make good use of his centre and better development to restrain the dangerous connected flank pawns, whilst retaining his
Trang 30Vi, 4, AA Y Y pe: ⁄ 2 ZG] me: 4 % + TT yy le 755, Tổ
11 AeS! Af6 12 Wa4+
Accurately played Now the white
queen blockades the black pawns,
whilst White will further increase
his bind by c5 and bringing a knight
to c4 12 Afd7
Instead 12 A\bd7?! 13 Ac6 We7 14 “xa5 simply won a pawn in
Gonzales-Remon, Mexico City
1991 (as .@\c6 is no longer legal), whilst 12 2.d7 13 Axd7 Abxd7 14
c5 should also favour White 13 c5 0-0 14 Dec4!
Correctly keeping pieces on the
board so as to make it harder for
Black to free himself 14 @dc4
@\xe5 15 Ø\xe5 &b7 16 cĩ Ra6 17
xa xa was much more
comfortable for Black in Adams-
Rausis, Erevan Olympiad 1996 14 2)f6
14 2b7!? was perhaps a better
try for counterplay when Miles gave
15 Ad6!? Bc6 16 &b5! Bxg? 17 gl as giving White compensation Indeed White may simply be doing
well here since the bishop cannot retreat along the long diagonal (17 2d5 18 e4) and so is forced to
the less desirable square of h3
€anwhile 14 e5?! appears to be a
Natural attempt to break the bind,
but after 15 c6! Db6 16 Axb6 Wxb6 17 d5! (Miles) all Black has
done is help White to advance his
pawns
15 Qe2
Perhaps White could have got away with capturing on a5 here, but Miles wants to maintain his positional advantage and in fact steadily increase it
15 0d5 16 2f3 2d7 17 We2 2b5 18 2)d6 2a6
This was criticised by both
players, but after 18 2c6 19 0-0
c3 20 e4 White has begun to set his own pawns rolling forwards
19 D2c4 DAc6 20 0-0 We7 21
Efcl 2xc4
Now a5 becomes rather weak, but Black had to respond somehow to
the direct threat of 22 &xd5 and 23 &b6
22 Axc4 Ace7 23 Wh3 Ha7 24
g3!
With the black pawns securely blockaded, White takes the time to improve his king position and it is not long before he is able to exploit his king’s departure from the back rank
24 Eb8§ 25 Sg2 h6 26 He2
G3?!
Black was struggling to defend a5, but this allows a neat finish
27 Hxa5! Äxa5 28 AxaS Wxa5
29 Exc3 bxc3 30 Wxb8+ Gh7 31
Wb7 f5 32 Wxe7!!
Even an extra queen won’t be enough to save the black king!
Trang 312 The Queen’s Gambit Accepted
1 d4 d5 2 c4 dxc4 3 ¿f3
Accepting the gambit 1s quite an uncompromising choice from Black who usually intends to quickly unbalance the struggle He has several options here (as we shall see in Game 9), but play most frequently continues with 3 2)f6 4 e3 e6 5 Axc4 c5 when I’m advocating the Furman variation with 6 We2 a fae At
As Jan Timman and Ivan Sokolov show (in Games 6 and 7) this is quite easy to play and it is common for White to quickly gain a strong kingside attack, after having pushed e3-e4-e5 following 6 a6 7 dxc§ Black can also afflict White with an isolated queen pawn (IQP) by preferring 6 cxd4, but, as Game 8 shows, this is quite a favourable version for White and not one that even positional players should shy away from Game 6 Timman - Lautier Ubeda, 1997 1 d4 d5 2 c4 dxce4 3 AB Af6 4 e3 e6 5 &xc4 c5 6 We2
White moves the queen in preparation for exchanging pawns on c5 and then advancing the e-pawn Should the pawn reach e5 then White can use his extra space to launch a kingside attack, whilst it is also often possible to undermine Black’s queenside, following an early .b5, with a4 6 a6 7 dxc5 &xc5 8 0-0 “a “yy Ha 288 ý NT YAS 4 a iM
Black now has four main moves In this game we will consider lines in which he develops the knight to cĩ, either before or after .b5, whilst
in Game 7, 8 Z)bd7 and 8 Wc?
will be examined 8 Z)c6
8.b5 9 d3 and only then
9 4\c6 is also often seen Black
does however have some other
options apart from just 9 abd7,
Trang 32A) 9 0-0 10 c4 e5 prevents White from creating a bridgehead
with e5 and then launching a strong attack, but now White turns his
attention to the other flank 11 a4! (exploiting the way in which the white queen and lightsquared bishop line up ready to pressurise both h7 and the black queenside)
11 bxa4 (or 11 b7 12 axb5 axb5
13 Hxa8 Rxa8 14 2g5 h6 15 Bh4
Wd6 16 Hdl when b5 remained weak, whilst White had _ useful
pressure against f6 and down the
d-file in Ehlvest-Illescas, Pamplona 1991/92, but even worse Is 11 b4?!, ceding the c4-square to a white knight and then 12 e3!? (further weakening the black
queenside, although 12 “xe5 was also possible) 12 2xe3 13 Wxe3
®c6 14 Abd2 Ah5S 15 g3 (wisely
preventing any counterplay with
Of4) 15 M/f6 16 Hfcl Hd8 17 BoA Re6 18 Bxe6 Wxe6 19 Hc5 was rather pleasant for White in
Izeta Txabarri-Yilmaz, European
Team Ch., Pula 1997) 12 @xeS!
(brave, but strong; White
immediately makes use of his control of c4) 12 Xe8§ 13 2f4 2d6 14 Axf7! | rợn a sứ Pans ry SH, YU) 721% 7i 7 A ae WY, 78st 5 09 em ne 14 2xf7 15 2c4+ Yf8 16 Hdl € point as White now regains his piece) 16 2¢4 17 2xd6+ Wxd6 18 xd6 Rxe2 19 Bxe2 Axe4 20 nm ae _
Ed1! and White went on to convert his large positional advantage in
Hebden-Howell, British Ch (Plymouth) 1992;
B) 9 2b7? is the natural move, but walks into 10 &xb5+! After
10 e7 11 &2d3 We7 12 e4 DAg4
Black, who threatens 13 2)xf2, has
some compensation, but accurate
defence should leave White much
better, for example 13 &g5+! f6 14
Sh4 2d6 15 Qg3 (blunting Black’s
y down the diagonal) 15 h5 16
D2 &\c6 17 Hacl &xg3 18 hxg3 h4 19 @d4! (starting to exploit the
positioning of Black’s forces)
19 Age5 20 A2f3! (returning the
pawn in return for a long-term
advantage) 20 hxg3 21 #Àxe5 gxf2+ 22 $xf2 fxe5 23 Axc6t+
Sxc6 24 We3 and White had the
better structure, and now also the safer king, in Schandorff- Thorhallsson, Reykjavik 1997; C) 9 2d7?! is a rather mysterious move, which was exploited by 10 e4 Dc6 11 e5 Ad5 12 c3! Axc3 13 bxc3 (the
c3-pawn is currently a strength as it prevents Black from freeing his
position with .Ad4) 13 2e7 14
We4 (thematically taking aim at the
black kingside, whilst Black struggles to find some counterplay)
14 2)a5 15 Wg4 Sf8 16 Dgs 2xg5 17 Âxg5 Wc7 18 Eadl #\c4
19 &xc4! bxc4 20 Hd6 and White
was in full control in Wohl-
Supatashvili, Erevan Olympiad
1996;
D) 9 2\c6 is the most common
Trang 3332 The Queen s Gambit Accepted tal a y 177 1C 7 aa as 4 gon Vi DI) 10 2b7 11 b4 Se7 (or 11 2d6 12 b2 0-0 13 Abd2 We7 14 Hacl Hfc8 15 &xf6! (exploiting
the fact that 15 Wxf6 runs into 16
&xh7+! &xh7 17 Wd3 gs 18
Wxd6 and White emerges a pawn
ahead) 15 gxf6 16 Wed Ad8 17 &\d4 when White had the better
structure and two active knights, although Black remained solid and possessed the two bishops, in Khalifman-Kharlov, | Novosibirsk
1995) 12 &b2 0-0 13 Abd2 (the
knight avoids blocking the path of the b2-bishop, whilst it is also en
route to either e4 or b3) 13 Wb6 14 Efcl Hfd8 15 Ded! (with the black
queen committed to the queenside, White makes use of his two raking bishops to begin a strong attack)
15 Axe4 16 Bxe4 Hac8 17 há! (intending @Ag5 or h4-h5-h6 to
weaken the black monarch’s defences) 17 h6 18 h5 (usefully ruling out .g6 once and for all)
18 a5 19 @d4! and White, who
intends to bring his queen into the attack on g4, was doing very well in Ulibin-Karpatchev, Russian Ch (St Petersburg) 1998;
D2) 10 0-0 11 b4 2b6?! leaves
the black dark-squared bishop
looking a little misplaced providing
White doesn’t advance the e-pawn
After 12 2b2 &2b7 13 Abd2 We7 14 Hacl Hac8 15 @b3 (once again
simple chess gives White a good
position) 15 e5?! (lashing out, but weakening more squares in the
process) 16 &f5 Hc7 17 Ac5 Bxc5
18 Hxc5 and the e-pawn soon dropped off in Dzagnidze-
Danielian, Batumi Open 2001;
D3) 10 Wc7 11 b4 2d6 12 2b2 &\g4!? is quite an aggressive set-up,
but White shouldn’t mind exchanges as he controls c5 in the
long-term 13 h3 AgeS 14 Axes
âxe5?! 15 Bel! Rxb2 16 Wxb2 Wes 17 WxeS @Axe5 18 Be4 Eb§
19 Ad2 0-0 20 f4 Ad7 21 Hc7 gave
White strong endgame pressure in Spangenberg - Gonzalez Garcia,
Elista Olympiad 1998;
D4) The prophylactic 10 2d6 is
quite common and flexible, when White should follow Malaniuk’s
example (although 11 Gbd2 and 12
b4 is also perfectly playable) with
11 &dl Now White meets 1 1 Ẳc?7 with 12 “c3, threatening 13 &xb5 and also to simply push the e-pawn, whilst 11 2b7 12 b4 Wc7 13 2b2
đ%e5!? 14 2xe5 (simpler than 14
Gxe5 Bxe5 15 Rxb5+?! when
15 8e7! 16 Ba4 Qxh2+ 17 Shi
Re5! is fine for Black who now meets 18 Hcl with 18 Wxcl+!) 14 2xe5 15 Axe5 Wxe5 16 Ad2 (homing in on c5) 16 0-0 17 Ab3 2d5!? (Instead 17 0d5 18 Ac5 2c6 19 Wd2! (covering b4 and preparing to gain some play down the d-file) 19 a5 20 Hacl axb4 21
axb4 Hfd8 22 Rfl g6 23 e4 Af 24
&\d3! (the black queen is too active
for White’s rooks to deal with after
24 Wxd§+ Hxd8 25 Zxd§+ &g7
and 26 Ag4 is already threatened)
24 Wc7 25 f3 Wh6+ 26 W2! (more simple chess — Malaniuk continues to exchange off Black’s
active pieces) 26 Wxf2+ 27 &xf2
Ha2+ 28 @e3 gave White an
Trang 34Malaniuk-Kupreichik, Sverdlovsk 1987
White’s king is well placed, he has a
space advantage and b5 is starting to
look rather weak.) 18 Ac5 a5 19 f4!
(pushing back the active black
veen) 19 Wc7 20 &xb5 (20
faci! also deserved attention) 70 axb4 21 axb4 Hxal 22 Exal Bb8 was agreed drawn in Malaniuk-Vladimirov, Tashkent 1987, but in Informant 44 Malaniuk acknowledges that White should have continued with 23 Hb1 which he assesses as being slightly better for White Certainly the onus is on
Black to regain his pawn or to find enough compensation for it;
Meanwhile 8 0-0?! is quite rare as Black does not want to allow the White e-pawn all the way to e5
After 9 e4 @c6 (or 9 e5?! 10 Axe5 Wd4?! 11 Axf7! Bxf7 12 Be3 Wes 13 &xf7+ @xf7 14 We4+ Qe6 15
Wxc5 Wxb2 16 Ad2 and White was
already the exchange up in Socko-Zaksaite, Warsaw 1999, whilst 9 b5 10 &b3 &b7 11 Abd2
We7 12 eS Afd7 13 Hel (over-
protecting e5 and now White
threatens to gain a strong attack with &c2 and Ae4-g5) 13 Ac6 14
c2 De7? walked into a typical
sacrifice when 15 &xh7+! @xh7 16
đ\g5+ Se8 17 WhS &xf2+ 18 eh
We2 19 Ade4! 2xe4 20 Hxe4 was
decisive in Gleizerov-Ganguly, Calcutta 1999) 10 e5! d7 (10 A\d5 has also been tried, but then 11 d1 2e7 12 We4 b5 13
Rd3! (avoiding the greedy 13 &xd5
exd5 14 Hxd5, which backfires after
14 2f5!, and instead provoking a Weakness around the black king) 13 p6 14 Bh6 He8 15 Abd2 Acb4
16 Qfl 2b7 17 We4 Hc8 18 Ded
(Nogueiras hasn’t rushed to bring
the knight to its dream square, but
how Black is under heavy pressure)
18 %c2 19 a3 @c6 20 Habl a5 21 2d3 Hc7 22 h4! and White had a
strong attack in Nogueiras-Ricardi,
Buenos Aires 1991.) 11 f4
(correctly developing the bishop first so that the bl-knight can now
come to e4 via d2) 11 b5 12 2d3
g6 (preventing the Greek gift, but now the black kingside is riddled
with holes) 13 Abd2 &b7 14 Hfdl!
(as Black often attempts to free his
position with .2\d4, the presence
of a rook on dl will give him more
problems to solve due to the
potential tactics against his pieces
down the d-file) 14 2d4 15 #)xd4 2xd4 l6 e4! (swapping off
Black’s best piece and also enabling his knight to reach e4 without being
exchanged) 16 Ea7 17 &2xb7 Exb7
18 Ae4 Wh6 19 Hacl! and White
had an_ excellent position in Ehlvest-Lin Weiguo, Beijing 1998 The black kingside remains weak, whilst the white knight may also leap into d6
9 e4 b§
Immediately aiming to fianchetto his queen’s bishop, but Black has many other options However, 9 0-0?!, transposing to 8 0-0, cannot be recommended, whilst 9 e5?, aiming to prevent e5 and to increase his control of d4, 1s
premature due to 10 &xf7+! &xf7
11 Wc4+ Instead:
A) 9 Ag4 and, although White’s
play, be it on either side of the board, is usually very logical in the Furman variation, there are a few times when the tactics really do flare up and here is one Black is now intending to take control of the
position with 10 Wc7, not just
threatening the winning 11 2d4,
Trang 3534 The Queen s Gambit Accepted taking on Black’s strategy when Black has two ways of playing on the dark-squares: EuAven a:@ tam +A amit a a ⁄ 7 % os SE \ ene „8A7 Z2 Bon Masa a WEN YA sy | 4 ⁄ hit
A1) 10 4%/c7 targets e5, but then II &f4 f6 12 Abd2 (rapidly
completing his development before aiming to win back the pawn, then leaving Black with a backward
e-pawn) 12 Agxe5 13 @xe5 fxe5
(13 Axe5?! is not so good as then
14 Hacl! We7 15 &xe5 fxe5 16
Wxe5 0-0 17 DAe4 bĩ 18 Ags
won the e-pawn in Komarov-
Todorov, Cappelle la Grande Open 1997) 14 2g3 0-0 15 acl!
(creating an X-ray down the c-file ts probably the most problematic
move for Black to face) 15 We7
(Moving the bishop to d4 or e7 is
simply met by 16 @f3, but Black
can also defend the bishop with the
ueen from b6 Then 15 Wb6 16
d3 2d4 17 WhS!? (if 17 Wh5
only leads to a draw, then White
should consider Stohl’s 17 #Àc4 We7 18 Hoel 2d7 19 We2! when
he regains his pawn with a good
position) 17 g6 18 &xg6 hxg6 19
Wxg6+ Ph8 20 Af3! HFS (logical,
but this doesn’t appear to save
Black, whilst 20 %b4 runs into 21 Bcd! We7 22 Dxd4 exd4 23 EHxc6!,
and so Black should consider returning an exchange’ with
20 2xf3) 21 Bfel Wb4 22 Hed and
White had a winning attack in Dao
Thien Hai - Fancsy, Budapest 1996)
16 We4!? (not hurrying to win back
the pawn, but instead preparing to increase the pressure and his bind)
16 2d4 17 b3 &d7 18 AP Wee 19 2d3 g6 20 h4! left White in
control in Kempinski-Meins, Groningen 1998;
A2) 10 Ad4!? is sharper, when
after 11 Axd4 Wxd4 12 Dd2 Axes
(12 b5? 13 2d3 Axe5 14 Red! EHb8 15 Ab3 Wh4 16 2f4 left Black
in huge trouble in Kallai-Gyimesi, Hungarian Super Ch 1995 when 16 f6 17 &xe5! fxe5 18 Wh5+ Sf8
19 Wf3+ Se7 20 a3 trapped the black queen) 13 “b3! Wxed 14 Wxe5 2f8 EEimST are {itt lý Ote o” “ Yi, 2st" mg E z Oe a “yw BER BG ƠN ene
White must find a way to quickly make use of his initiative Now 15
2e3 Wd5 (One of several
possibilities, although overall practice has shown that White has good compensation Also possible is
15 f6 when 16 WWh5+ gĩ 17
Se7 18 Hacl WdS 19 Wrxd5!
(White retains the initiative even after the exchange of queens, whilst now he 1s almost certain to regain
the pawn) 19 exd5 20 Bfel 2d8 21 2b6+ $f7 22 Rxd& xd§ 23 Ec7+ saw Black remain under
heavy pressure in Lerner-Sorokin, Alekhine Open, Moscow 1992, but
Trang 36fd! S06 17 23d4!.) 16 p3 2d6!
(aiming for active counterplay after
17 Wxg7 2e5) 17 #4! gives White
excellent compensation Gelfand-
Salov, Madrid 1996 continued 17 We4 (or 17 0-0 18 Hfdl Wc6 19 Hac! Wd7 20 Ac5 We7 21 e4 and again Black continues to suffer)
18 Had1 e7 19 f5! (aiming to
create serious trouble down the
efile) 19 exf5 (or 19 2h4 20 Wh3 2f6 21 2c5! e5 22 Ad4! when White finished in style with 22 b6 23 Hfel Wf4 24 g3 Wh6 25 We2 Hb8 26 Wc6+ 2d7 27 Dc6! and 1-0 in Krasenkow-Adianto, Koszalin 1998) 20 Hfel Wg4 21 We7 &e6 22 Hd4! (driving Black’s
only active piece to a _ passive
square) 22 W/g6 23 Wxb7 Hc8 24 Rf4 and White’s position continued
to improve;
B) 9 %c7 also fights for the
eS-square when after 10 e5 (again
White should bravely push on in the centre) 10 Ad7 (instead 10 Ag4 transposes to 9 3g4 10 e5! We7) 1] Rf4 Ad4 (or 11 b5 12 2b3 Rb7 13 Ac3 He7!? 14 Hed Age 1S g3 Bxe4 16 Wxed when, despite having removed the e4-knight, Black was still quite a lot
worse in Ehlvest-Zilberman,
European Club Cup, Eupen 1997, as White threatens to simply weaken
the black kingside by advancing his h-pawn) 12 @xd4 &xd4 EST S87 T92 252 2 : 2 WNZ my Tử
13 Hdl! (sacrificing the b-pawn,
but saving the e-pawn, as now
13 2xe5? loses to 14 xd7!) 13 2xb2 (13 We5?! is a little too
greedy due to 14 @d2! b5 (or
14 Axe5 15 Hacl and Black is in
big trouble) 15 Ae4 Wh6 16 Ad6+
and White won quickly in Socko -
Danielian, Women’s Olympiad, Erevan 1996) 14 Wxb2 Wxc4 15 Hdd Wb5 16 Wd2 0-0 17 a3! Wc5 18 “@c4 White’s bind gave him
more than enough compensation for the pawn in Wolff-Rachels, USA
Ch 1992;
C) 9 2d4 is a little too ambitious
when 10 @xd4 Wxd4 11 @d2!
(preparing to gain time by hitting
the black queen) 11 We5 12 2d3 b5 13 AS We7 14 Rg5 Rb7 15 Racl Wb6 16 a4! (as Black isn’t
hurrying to castle, White decides to cause him problems also on the
queenside) 16 0-0?! 17 a5! Wa7 18
xf6 gxf6 19 e5! gave White a crushing attack in
V.Zaitsev, Moscow 1999 10 2b3
The correct retreat as 10 &d3 &\d4! removes a potentially strong attacking piece Korobov- E78UG7- ye its ae 2 ‘y 10 2)d4
Again Black has a wide choice:
A) 10 e5 is again possible but then 11 &e3! gives White good
Trang 3736 The Queen’s Gambit Accepted
Al) 11 Wb6 12 @c3! B2xe3 13 fxe3 Re6!? (13 0-0 14 Ad5! - ensuring that the doubled e-pawn
becomes a strong passed d-pawn —
14 Axd5 15 exd§ 2)a5 16 #)xe5 Ø%xb3 17 axb3 f6 18 ¿c6 He8 19
d2! 2b7 -— swapping queens
would merely make the d-pawn
stronger and a6 weaker — 20 Wd4 Wxd4 21 exd4 worked out well for
White in Nogueiras-Spraggett, Szirak 1986, as the knight does a superb job of defending the
d-pawns.) 14 Ad5 Bxd5 15 exd5 Ba5 16 Axe5 Axb3 17 axb3 Hd8 18 Hadl 0-0 19 “c6 and this
unclear position was actually agreed drawn here in Gleizerov-Jonkman, Leeuwarden 1997 White could though certainly continue and after
19 de8, one possibility is 20
Exf6!? gxf6 21 d4! Wce5 22 Wl!
when the strong knight, passed d-pawn and the exposed black king add up to grant White good compensation for the exchange;
A2) 11 2xe3 12 Wxe3 0-0 13 Gbd2! (not blocking the c-file so
that White can exploit the weakened
c5-square) 13 2b7 14 Hacl We7 15 Bc5 Hfc8 16 Bfcl Ad7 17 H5c2 and White had an edge in Gleizerov-Degerman, Stockholm 1996, 10 59b7 is also possible when 11 e5 @g4!? (or 11 Ad7?! 12 c3 c7 13 &f4 g5!2 14 2xg5!
— best as now 14 Acxe5 runs into
15 R2xe6! fxe6 16 Axe6 We6 17
&d5! — 14 ad4 15 Wh5 0-0-0 and now 16 @xf7? Wc6 17 Wh3 Hdfs
gave Black good counterplay in R.Vera-Rechlis, West Berlin 1988, but instead Vera’s suggestion of 16
@hl! is less materialistic and better
White can always now blunt the diagonal with f3, whilst Black must
watch out for Hacl and @ce4.) 12 Gc3 (12 h3 is also met by 12 h5!)
12 h5! 13 Ded Ad4 14 Dxd4
Wxd4 15 @xc5 (White’s only hope
of an advantage is to use the
bishop-pair) 15 xc5 16 Hel Wc6 17 WfI c5 18 h3! (avoiding the
draw as White can trap the black
king in the centre) 18 @xe5 19 Se3 We7 20 Hacl (lining up &c5) 20 Ag6 21 f3 Hd8 22 Phi left
White with good compensation, due to the uncastled black king, in Cosma-Bistric, Subotica 2002;
B) 10 c7?! 11 e5! though gave
White a dream position after 11 Ag4 12 Rf4 f6 13 DAbd2 Agxe5 14 Hacl Wb6 15 &xe5 fxe5 16 @g5 0-0 17 Ade4 &d4 18 WhS! in Davies-Hartman, Wrexham 1995, when 18 h6 was met by the strong 19 Weg6! 11 2xd4 Wxd4 12 2e3!
12 e5 wasn’t possible due to
12 We4!, but this sacrifice is much
stronger than the 12 @c3 WeS5! 13 Se3 Rxe3 14 Wxe3 Agd 15 Weg3
Wxg3 16 hxg3 @e7 of I.Sokolov-
Lautier, Wijk aan Zee 1997, when Black was very comfortable
12 Wxe4!?
12 WeS5 was safer, but then
White can force through e5 when 13
2xc5 Wxc5 14 e5 Ad7 15 Hel 42zb7 16 #Àc3 0-0 17 Had1 looks like
a small edge as the d6-square remains weak and an_ inviting outpost for a white knight or rook
13 Ad2 WFs
Already Black has to defend
accurately as 13 We5? 14 Wp 2d6 (otherwise, if the rook moves, White has 15 Wc6+ and 16 Wxc5)
15 g3! Dd5 (or 15 Hb8 16 &f4
Trang 38gxd6 Wxd2 19 Hdl Wgs 20 2xfs dbxf8 21 2xd5 Been _ 1 "Â H5 Sb _⁄2 058 _ 14 g4! Energetically continuing to pursue the initiative 14 We5
14 Axg4!? was later tried by the
normally well prepared Irina Krush
when 15 &xc5 &b7 16 fel Hd8
17 DFl Wxc5 18 Wxg4 Wc6 19 BB
Wxf3 was fine for Black, who has three pawns for the piece although
the position remains unclear, in Lesiége-Krush, Bermuda 2002 However, White’s 16th and 17th moves were perhaps a little too
defensive and instead 16 Hacl!? is very interesting White doesn’t fear the discovered check after 16 Wg6 17 f3 as then 17 0e3+ 18 @hl Axfl 19 Wxfl, leaves the black king stuck in the centre, although objectively the position is again quite unclear Fritz’s 17 Had1!? also
deserves serious attention with the
Idea 17 Wg6 18 2xe6!
15 2\3
Now 15 Wf3 2d6 is awkward as 16 g4-g3 is illegal and so White
must find a different way to pursue
€ initiative However, he has
Gained the move g4 and, providing
ite is careful, the threat of g5
Should prove more irritating for
Black than the resulting kingside hole will for White
15 We4
Neither would 15 Wdĩ have defused the pressure due to 16 Efd!
We7 17 &xc5 Wxc5 18 Hacl We7 19 g5 Dh5 20 WeS5 and the arrival
of the white rook on c7 will maintain the pressure
16 Ags Wc6!
Continuing to tread a tightrope
Instead 16 Wc5? 17 Wf! was again strong as now 17 2d6 runs into Khuzman’s 18 Efdl! Wxh2+ 19 &fl when 19 2b8 20 Wc6+ @e7 21 Hxd6! wins a piece
16 Wb4?! is a better choice than
16 We5?, although again 17 Wf3! is good Then 17 &xe3 (17 2b8
18 Wcĩ+ Ad7 19 Lxe6! exploits
the position of the black king in style, and again after 19 0-0 20
Q\xf7!) 18 Wxa8! (Black does now
gain some counterplay, but White can defend and emerge material
ahead) 18 Wxg4+ (or 18 2xg5 19 Wxc8+ Se7 20 Wc7+ Se8 21 Hfdl Wxg4+ 22 Sfl and the checks will
soon run out when the black king perishes) 19 @hil 0-0 20 Hgl! defends when White remains material ahead 17 Hacl 2b7 18 f3 2xe3+ 19 Wxe3 Wd6
Despite having exchanged off his problem bishop on c5, Black remains under pressure due to White’s strong initiative against his
uncastled king Instead 19 Wd7
also allows White to sacrifice with
20 #%xe6 fxe6 21 Rxe6 We7 22
Efel with a strong attack, whilst
19 d5 20 Wd4 Wb6 21 Wxbĩ
Qxb6 22 @xf7! Sxf7 23 Hc7+ Sf6 24 Hxb7 gives White a much better
ending due to his better structure and the superiority of the bishop over the knight
Trang 3938 The Queen’s Gambit Accepted With Black just a move away
from castling, and meeting 20 Hfd1 with 20 Ad5, White must act
quickly to maintain his initiative 20 fxe6 21 2xe6 SF8
It was best to move the king
immediately as 21 We7? 22 Hfel
will force it to move soon in any case
22 Efd1 We7 23 g5!
All of Timman’s pieces currently
stand on good squares and so he prefers to use his _ remaining attacking unit, the g-pawn
23 He8
23 2d5? was not such a good defence as then 24 gxf6 Wxe6 25 fxg7+ Sxg7 26 Hc7+, Khuzman,
26 8g8 27 Wd4! is crushing 24 gxf6 gxf6
The best way of returning the
piece as 24 Wxe6 25 fxg7+ Yxg7 26 Hc7+ would have left the black
king without a good square since b7 drops off, whilst 24 \@xf6 runs into 25 Wa3+! We7 26 c7! b4 27 Wxb4! (Cifuentes) 27 Wxb4 28 Ef7+ Sg8 29 Hf6t+ Hxe6 30 Hd8+, forcing mate on f8 WE men ) H ose 1 a ass ti Mi) CA, aie 1 4, Ks 25 Wh6+?
Lautier’s very accurate and impressive defence now pays off as Timman wrongly seeks _ simplif-
ication True White does now win a
pawn, but Black is able to gain a
reasonable amount of activity in return Thus White should have
preferred 25 Hel! when 25 2g8+ 26 @f2 Hg7! (the most sensible square for the rook as 26 2g¢5?! 27
Wd We7 28 2g4! allows White to
swap off a pair of rooks and then to invade down the d-file with
28 ge5 29 HxeS HxeS 30 Hd!
when Black’s king will surely soon
perish) 27 Wf4 (Khuzman) 27 Wd§
28 HcS sees White continue to
increase the pressure, although Black is still just about clinging on in an inferior position
25 Wg7+ 26 Wxg7+ Gxg7 27
Ke7+ Sh6 28 Hd6 Rc8! 29 Axc8
Forcing simplification, but the rook ending is only better for White and not winning Perhaps Timman should therefore have tried 29
f7? (Khuzman) when after 29 Be2 30 f4 Ef§ 31 Exf6+ Yg7 32 Šđh5+! $xf6 33 Bxe2 he has
managed to keep on an extra pair of pieces, which should help to prevent the black king from becoming too active
29 oxc8 30 Bxf6+ g5 31 Bxc8
Rxc8 32 Äxa6
Winning a second pawn, but now Black is too active to lose
32 c2! 33 b4 Sf4 34 Hro+ $e3 35 a3 Ha2 36 HFS Hxa3 37 $p2 Hb3 38 He5+ {f4 39 Med+ LES 40 S93
Timman has done his best to drive the black king backwards, but Lautier’s rook remains active and he now comfortably held the draw
Trang 40ðd4 Ẳ%c5 49 đế+ $f6 50 EZf4+ $26 51 Hd4 h5+ 52 &g3 f7 53 “DF Sf6 54 Se3 $¿e5 55 f4+ Leb 56 Sd3 Hdl+ 57 Sc3 Hel+ 58 $d2 Xbl 59 Ye3 Hel+ 60 Sd2 Efi 4-12 Game 7 LSokolov - Van Wely
WIjk aan Zee, 1996
1 d4 d5 2 c4 dxc4 3 ¿f3 ¿f6 4
e3 e6 5 Âxc4 c5 6 We2 a6 7 dxc5 2xc5 8 0-0 Abd7
As was indictated earlier, apart from the text move, which aims not
to block the path of the b7-bishop, 8 Wc7 ⁄ 27 AV ae a eos A THỊ, BE a aa
is Black’s final choice here This
was for a while considered dubious
as it was thought that White could force through e4-e5 anyhow, but Some very detailed analysis,
Principally by Stohl, has shown that
matters are not so clear:
A) White isn’t committed though
to the critical line and instead 9 bd2 also offers good chances of
an edge e4-e5 is abandoned for the
time being, but White hopes to
show that Wc7 may not be such a
Useful move in a slower
Manoeuvring game After 9 2\c6 10 2d3 (sensibly dropping the
bishop back and preparing b3)
10 b65 (Instead 10 8e7 allows
White to fianchetto and then 11 b3
0-0 12 2b2 2d7 13 Hacl Hfc8 14
23)e4! — exploiting Black’s cramped
set-up to begin a kingside attack —
14 0d5 15 DeS e§ 16 Axc6 &xc6 17 We4! forced Black to
seriously weaken his kingside with 17 g6 in Salov-Ivanchuk, Tilburg
(rapid) 1994.) 11 @b3! (White had
previously played 11 a3, preventing
an annoying .Ab4, but the text
appears to be stronger) 11 2b6 12
Rd2 2b7 13 Hfcl (beginning to exploit Black’s huddle of pieces on
the queenside) 13 We7 14 a4 b4 15
Hc4! b4 was weak and White
simply intended to double on the c-file with a pleasant edge in Ehlvest - Zsu.Polgar, Pamplona
1991/2;
B) 9 e4!? Ag4 10 e5! is critical
when Black can transpose into the notes to Black’s 9th move (with
9 23g4) in our previous illustrative game after 10 Ace but 10 2)xf2 is critical as 11 Hxf2? allows 11 2xf2+ 12 @xf2 b5 Then 11
b4!? (A very creative try from
Lputian, whilst Ivan Sokolov’s 11 G\c3 was also considered strong, but
again Black can walk a tight-rope to
equalise: 11 0e4+ 12 Shi Axc3!
13 bxc3 Ad7! 14 AgS Wxe5 15
Wh5 g6 16 Wf3 We7 17 Axf7 0-0 (Ryan-O’Cinneide, Dublin 1995)
and White has no more than a draw
with 18 Ah6+ Sh8 19 Af7+.) and
Black finds himself at a_ tricky crossroads to negotiate as
11 0d3+? loses to 12 bxc5 Wxc5+ 13 &e3! Wxc4 14 Hcl That leaves:
B1) 11 5a7 is very complex and 12 2e3! Rxe3 13 Wxe3 (so that
again 13 Wxc4 runs into 14 Wel,
whilst now 14 Wf4 is threatened)
Đ »x ARN RNY > $ v
VAS ể SSF ẩ ể = Si NK