Professional Documents
Culture Documents
For further details of Chess Press titles, please write to The Chess Press
c/o Cadogan Books pIc, 27-29 Berwick Street, London W 1 V 3RF.
Chess Press Opening Guides
The Semi-Slav
Matthew Sadler
ir
rnm
Distributed by Cadogan Books pIc, 27-29 Berwick Street, London WIV 3RF
A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN 1 90 1 259 08 0
1 d4 d 5 2 c4 c 6 3 ttJf3 ttJf6
4ctJc3 e 6
Bibliography 8
Introduction 9
5 .1l.g5
1 Botvinnik Variation: Main Line with 15 . . . b4
(5 ... dxc4 6 e4 bS 7 eS h6 8 .1l.h4 gS 9 ttJxgS hxgS 10 .1l.xg5 ttJbd7
1 1 exf6 i.b7 12 g3 cS 13 dS 'iib 6 14 .1l.g2 0-0-0 15 0-0 b4) 12
2 Botvinnik Variation: Black's 13th Move Alternatives
(S ... dxc4 6 e4 b5 7 e5 h6 8 .1l.h4 g5 9 ttJxgS hxgS 10 .i.xgS ttJbd7
1 1 exf6 .1l.b7 12 g3 cS 1 3 d5) 31
3 Botvinnik Variation with 1 1 g3
(5 ... dxc4 6 e4 bS 7 eS h6 8 .i.h4 g5 9 ttJxgS hxg5 10 .1l.xgS ttJbd7
1 1 g3) 41
4 Botvinnik Variation: Early Deviations after 5 .i.gS dxc4 54
5 Moscow Variation with 7 e3 (5 . . . h6 6 i.xf6 �xf6 7 e3) 64
6 Moscow Variation: White's 6th and 7th Move
Alternatives (5 . . . h6) 77
Books
Encyclopaedia o/ Chess Openings vol.D, Sahovski Informator, 1987
The Complete Semi-Slav, Peter Wells (Batsford, 1994)
D44, Alexander Beliavsky and Adrian Mikhalchishin (Sahovski Informator,
1993)
Period i cals
In/ormator
ChessBase MegaBase CD-R OM
New In Chess Yearbook
British Chess Magazine
Chess Monthly
INTRODUCTION
1D
In tro duc t i o n
11
CHAPTER ONE
12
B o t vin n ik Va ria tio n : M a in L in e w i t h 1 5 . . . b4
the piece. This move also blocks the intending the central break ... c6-cS,
h4-dS diagonal so that a retreat of the which will attack the two points most
bishop with 9 .ll g3 can be met by weakened by White's tactical efforts to
9 . ttJdS, leaving Black a pawn up.
.. maintain the pin on the knight on f6:
Therefore White strikes with Black's light-squared bishop now at
9 ttJxg5 hxg5 1 0 i.xg5 tacks g2, which would usually be
shielded by a knight on f3, and the
pawn on cS attacks d4 which now
lacks the support of the knight on f3.
White also needs a safe place for his
king: he would like to castle kingside,
but with the removal of the h- and g
pawns, Black has two half-open files
against the white kingside. Thus
White usually plays
1 2 g3
13
Th e S e m i- Sla v
14
B o t vin n ik Va ria tio n : M a in L in e w i t h 1 5 . . . b4
idea o f . . . dS-d4, once h e has taken the d4. White's plan is less obvious and
pawn on dS with his e-pawn. requires some thought:
Question 2: Why does Black wish to 1) White wants to make it hard for
play . . . dS-d4? Black to achieve his own plan. For
Answer: The advance ... dS-d4 acti example, he may blockade the d-pawn
vates Black's pawn mass, which is his by occupying d4 either with his
major positional trump. It also invites bishop or queen. (Note that after . . . ds
the exchange of light-squared bishops, d4, the black queen on bS will attack
which generally weakens White's the bishop on gS.)
kingside more than Black's queenside. 2) White can try to take advantage
(See Game 3 for a graphic illustration of Black's weak dark squares: his cen
of this.) tral structure leaves the dark squares
17 dxe6 is discussed in Game S. around it rather weak, while the f6-
1 7 exd5
. . . pawn takes control of e7 and g7 away
The text wins back the sacrificed from Black's pieces.
pawn as 18 .i.xds is impossible due to 3) White can open up the black
18 ... tLleS ! 19 .ixb7+ 'i'xb7 20 'i'e2 queenside with b2-b3.
tLlf3+ 21 <iith1l:lxh2+ mate. 4) The f6-pawn provides two out
17 . . . ttJeS and 17 . . . tLlb8 (which may posts for the white pieces: g7, and
transpose to one another) are the sub most usually, e7. By placing a rook on
ject of Game 4. e7, White occupies the seventh rank
18 axb4 cxb4 from a central position, giving him
targets on both wings. This move is
often played as a sacrifice, offering to
trade the rook for Black's dark
squared bishop on f8 . After . . . .li.xe7,
f6xe7, White gets a passed pawn on
the seventh rank, just one step away
from queening, and removes the black
piece best suited to defending his weak
dark squares: the dark-squared bishop.
S) The black king looks quite safe
on c8, but if the knight were diverted
from d7, the king could be caught in
Black has regained the pawn that he an unpleasant crossfire with a bishop
sacrificed on the kingside by taking on f4 taking b8 from the king and a
the white central dS-pawn. This has queen on g4 or a bishop on h3 deliver
resulted in a lopsided pawn structure: ing a nasty check. Note that, for now
White has a 4-1 kingside majority and at least, the rook on h8 prevents
a useful passed h-pawn, and Black has .li.h3+.
a 4-1 queenside majority and a passed 6) Finally, the most important tar
d-pawn. Black's plan is simple: ... ds- get for White: the a7-pawn. This pawn
15
Th e S e m i- S la v
is a very useful defensive unit, cover A rather awkward check since the
ing b6 and therefore helping to stop natural 2o ... �b8 21 "i'd4! It:'Jxa4 22
White's knight from becoming active. "ii'xa7+ and 20 . . . "ii'd7 21 'i'xd7+ ltJxd7
It allows Black's knight to move from 22 l:tfd1 ltJxf6 23 i.xa7!, intending
d7 when it desires and also provides a i.d4 and It:'Jb6+ (Agzamov) are both
haven on a8 for the black king. How dodgy for Black. However, 20 . . . �c7!
ever, it is also a natural target for was suggested by Ivanchuk. Black is
White's pieces: White can play the threatening simply . . . It:'Jxa4, so White
positionally desirable moves 'ii'd4 or must react rapidly. Then 21 i.f4+
i.e3, preventing . . . dS-d4 and at the conceals a cunning trap: 21. . .i.d6
same time attacking a key black defen blocks the check, but 22 It:'Jxcs 'ii'xcs
sive unit. Black will nearly always seek 23 i.e3! wins the a-pawn. So 21. . .'it>c6!
to shield it from attack or defend it, as is best.
moving the a-pawn weakens another
dark square: b6.
1 9 �e3
The major continuation. On gS all
the bishop seemed to do was defend
the f6-pawn, whereas on e3 the bishop
attacks the a-pawn and helps to pre
vent the . . . dS-d4 push. For 19 :e1 see
Game 3 .
1 9 lLlc5
. . .
16
B o t v in n ik Va ria tio n : M a in L in e w i t h 15 . . . b4
'
Black has a queen for knight and
bishop. However, the a7-pawn is
likely to fall, while the rook on d7 can
be attacked further by a bishop on h3,
so White will gain further material for
the queen. Several positional factors
are important:
1) White has a passed h-pawn.
2) White's king is very safe whereas 26 . . . 'it'xd4 27 l:[fd 1 'i6'xb2 28 lLld6+
Black's is not. ,.pb8 29 l:[db 1 ! 'i6'xg7
3) White can blockade the d-pawn Ivanchuk points out that 29 . . . 'i'd2,
with .td4, which stops Black from attempting to keep hold of the b4-
activating his queenside majority and pawn, is cleverly met by 304Jxc4 'ii'c 3
leaves him with a passive bishop on 31 :a4! b3 32 4JaS! b2 33 :b4+!, pick
b7. ing up the b-pawn, as 33 . . . 'i'xb4 loses
Question 4: What should Black do? the queen to 34 4Jc6+, forking the
Answer: Black wants to play . . . dS-d4 king and queen.
17
Th e S e m i - Sla v
30 l:txb4+ �e7 3 1 l:ta6 l:tb8 32 and correct - the best sort o f move!)
l:txa7+ �xd6 33 l:txb8 �g4 34 l:td8+ 27 ttJb6+ Wb8 28 ttJd7+ \t>c8, as
�e6 3 5 l:ta 1 1 -0 27 ... Wd8 allows a lovely mate in two:
A magnificent game! 28 .tf6+ We8 29 �a8 mate.
Ivanchuk also mentions 24 .th3 f5!
Game 2 25 .txf5 d4! (seizing the opportunity
lalic-J. Wilson to open the a8-h 1 diagonal) 26 �xd4
London 1 996
then �xg7.
24 . . .1 5 25 �h3?
The bishop on d4 is White's most
important piece; and removing the
23 . . . l:txg7 24 �d4 bishop from the h 1-a8 diagonal allows
In the notes to his game against Shi Black to dislodge it by playing a major
rov, Ivanchuk mentioned 24 l:txa7, piece to e4. 25 ttJxd7 l::txd7 26 �xa7
but now Lalic's 24 . . . d4!! seems good. was better, with a mess, although it
For example: may be a little easier for White to play
a) 25 �xb7 'iNxc5! this position than Black.
b) 25 �xb7+ litxb7! 26 ttJxb7 The game illustrates what I mean by
(threatening to fork king and queen this. Although Black gets a good ver
with ttJd6+) 26 .. :iVb6!! Now after 27 sion of this line, he still has to be accu
.1t.xd4 'iixd4 28 �fa1 �g6! the white rate or his weak king and vulnerable
knight on b7 is very short of squares. pawns will lose him the game. As we
c) 25 ttJxd7 .txg2 26 .txd4!? just shall see, the pressure very quickly
leads to a draw after 26 ... .1t.xfl! (greedy became too much for Black.
18
B o t vin n ik Va ria tio n : M a in L in e w i t h 15 . . . b4
Game 3
Stean-Rivas
Marbella 1982
19
Th e S e m i - Sla v
d7 to the king, and threatening 'iix f6. pawn can go 'all the way' with the
22 .. J:td6 23 liJc5 support of the rook on d6j and sec
The next few moves are critical. ond, the advance activates the bishop
Black is threatening to unpin with on b7. From f3, it can remove a
. . . 'itt b 8, solving all his problems, so blockader on d1, and from e4 it can
White must take purposeful action. prevent the passed h-pawn from ad
23 . . :�i'b6! vancing to h7. White cannot hold d4
Black does not mind losing the ex by doubling rooks on the d-file, as
change on two conditions: Black will just create another passed
1} He can keep his other rook on pawn either on the c-file { . . . c4-c3} or
the board to help push his own pawns the a-file { ... a5-a4-a3}j and he cannot
and stop White's outside passed pawn. support the rook on d4 with his king
2} He can exchange queens to re on e3, since Black will just check and
move the last piece capable of actively drive it away. White's task is the more
blockading the d-pawn. difficult, particularly in a practical
24 %:ted 1 game. Passed pawns win endings and
24 :te7, to increase pressure on d7, White has just one while his opponent
should be met by 24 . . . lii'c7 intending, has several!
yes you've guessed it, 25 . . . 'itt c 6, un
pinning and putting pressure on the
c5-knight. Remember that this knight
cannot capture on d7 while the queen
on d4 is unprotected. Now 25 J..xd7
:8xd7 26 lhd7+ l:txd7 26 'if e5+ I:td6
27 'i'e7+ lii'c 6! {27 . . . <it>c8 28 tDxb7 :d7
29 "ile8+ wins} gives Black a good po
sition, while 25 l1d1 , defending the
queen on d4, is met by 25 . . . J..c 8, when
Black is a little tied up but after 26
:xf7 'itt c 6 27 tDe6 'i'xd4 {27 .. JlJce6 28
'i'xd5+} 28 tDxd8+ 'itt c 5 29 ':xd4 {29 28 h4 �c6! 29 h5 �c5 30 %:th4 l::t h 6!
tDe6+ :xe6! 30 lhd4 l::[e 1+ wins} Necessary to prevent h5-h6.
29 . . . 'ittxd4 30 tDe6+ 'itt d3, he escapes! 31 g4 d4 32 g5 l::t h 8 33 l::tx a7
24 . . . �c7 25 �xd7 l:t8xd7 26 liJxd7 33 :a5+ �b6 34 :f5 litd8! 35 'itt f 1
'ii'x d4 27 l:txd4 �xd7 c3 36 bxc3 b3! is very good for Black.
Such unbalanced material endings 33 . . . �c6 34 l:ta5+ �b5
are very typical of the Semi-Slav. After the text move the game
Black will try to create a passed pawn quickly peters out to a draw. Black
on the queenside by playing his king could still have played for a win with
to c5 to chase the rook from d4. This 34 . . . 'itt b 6!?
will allow the black d5-pawn to ad 35 l:txd4 �xd4 36 l::t x b5 l::tx h5 37
vance to d4 with two effects: first, the l:txb4 %-%
20
B o t v in n ik Va ria tio n : M a in L in e w i t h 15 . . . b4
This position can also be reached Quite superb, bringing the bishop
via a different move order: 17 . . . tDb8 round to the sensitive d6-square via a3.
18 axb4 cxb4 19 "iVd4 and now 28 . . . c3 29 i.a3! 'ii' c4 30 i.d6+ �d7
21
Th e S e m i - Sla v
Game 5
Nikolic-Shirov
Wijk aan Zee (match) 1993
22
B o t vin n ik Va ria tio n : M a in L in e w i t h 1 5 . . . b4
bishop does not block the rook's path . . . c5xb4. White players may like to
on the d-file. On d4 the rook defends investigate Shirov's suggestion of 23
c4, leaves the d3-outpost free for the :e2 'i'ld5 24 1I'f5+ rt;c7 25 life l (25
knight, and prevents White from us �f4 :e8 is unclear) 25 . . . lLld3 26 'iixd5
ing e4 for his queen to trouble Black's �xd5 27 :e7+ .llxe7 28 lhe7+ 'ottc6 29
queenside light squares. White cannot :'xf7 with a mess, as 23 a3 does not
win a piece with 22 f4 due to the un seem to work.
pleasant 22 . . . 1I'd5+! 23 . . ...d5
22 h4 Centralising and increasing Black's
Stopping Black from playing influence along the d-file, while eyeing
. . . 'i'h3+, but weakening the g3-square. the f3-pawn.
22 . . . �d6 24 'iVf5+ �c7 25 :e2 �c6 ! !
Eyeing g3 and completing Black's
development.
23 a3
This was Nikolic's improvement
over the stem game Rublevsky
Savchenko, Helsinki 1992, where 23
�e3? showed another brutal point to
Black's set-up: 23 .. J:tdxh4!! 24 gxh4
:xh4
23
Th e S e m i- S la v
40 . . . %:I.g8 4 1 %:I.g4 �e5 0-1 from the black king - it does leave the
After 42 ... 'itf5, Black will win both f6-pawn unprotected, enabling Black
the g5- and f6-pawns. to recapture on f6 put extra pressure
on the d5-pawn. Ionov-Bjerring, El
Game 6 Vendrell 1996, continued 18 dxe6 fxe6
Ivanchuk-Shirov 19 .ixb7+ �xb7 20 'iYg4 �h6 21 .id6!
Novgorod 1 994 'i'c6 22 llfd1! with an initiative for
White.
1 d4 d 5 2 c4 c6 3 lLlc3 lLlf6 4 lLlf3 1 7 a3 �xd 5 ! ?
e6 5 �g5 dxc4 6 e4 b5 7 e5 h6 8 This imaginative idea i s attributed
�h4 g 5 9 lLlxg5 hxg5 1 0 �xg5 to Alexander Shabalov.
lLlbd7 1 1 exf6 �b7 1 2 g3 c5 1 3 d5 1 8 �xd5 lLle5 1 9 '§e2 %:I.xd5 20 axb4
�b6 14 �g2 0-0-0 1 5 0-0 b4 1 6 cxb4 2 1 lLlc3 "c6! ?
lLla4 "a6 There i s another interesting idea
here, which Piket played in a TV
game against Lutz in Germany:
2 1 . . J:ta5!? After 22 l:txa5 'i'xa5 23
ttJe4, Piket played 23 . . . ttJd3 24 b3
'ilfe5!? (Lutz mentions 24 . . . �f5!?, aim-
ing for h3), when 25 I,ic 1? ttJxc1 26
'iVxc4+ was easily countered by
26 .. .'iVc7 27 'iVxc1 'ili'xc 1 28 �xc 1 as
with a clear advantage to Black. This
so impressed Lutz that when he got
the chance a little later against
Korchnoi, he decided to play it as
On a6 the queen attacks the knight Black (Horgen 1994) . Unfortunately, •
on a4, keeps in touch with the bishop he was once again on the wrong side
on b7 and hence the a8-h 1 diagonal, of the board! Korchnoi found the
and protects the pawn on c4. In con much stronger 25 :td1 ! , and sacrificed
trast to 16 . . :VWb5, this move also keeps a piece for a vicious attack after
in touch with e6 so that after d5xe6 or 25 . . . ttJc5 26 'ii'xc4 'ii'xe4 27 'i'b5!, aim
. . . e6xd5 the queen can transfer to e6, ing for the e8-square .
eyeing h3 and the white light squares 22 lLlxd5 "xd5
on the kingside. The drawback is that Threatening . . . ttJf3+.
a3xb4, opening the a-file, will be more 23 f3 �c5+ 24 'it>g2 lLld3
dangerous as the queen is in the line of Unfortunately, as Kharitonov
fire of the rook on a 1 . points out, the lovely 24 . . . ttJg4 25 h4
16 . . .'iVd6!? 1 7 �f4 'iWa6 aims for a 'ii'xg5, to meet 26 hxg5 with 26 . . . .:.h2+
16 . . :ii'a61ine with the white bishop on mate, fails to simply 26 fxg4!
f4. Although f4 is a more attacking 25 h4 �b7!
post than g5 - taking c7 and b8 away The active king again! Black's idea is
24
B o t vin n ik Va ria tio n : M a in L in e w i t h 15 . . . b4
t o play . . . �b6 and allow the a-pawn to gains a tempo to put his bishop on the
join in the fun with . . . a7-aS. safe b6-square.
2S l:ta2 c3 29 l:td 1 l:tdS 30 h 5 ! a5 3 1
g4 lLlf4+ 3 2 �xf4 'ii'x d 1 3 3 �xd 1
l:txd 1 34 h6 �a6?
A blunder. 34 . . . eS! 3S h7 (3S .i.xeS
�d2+ 36 \t>h3 �xa2 37 h7 c2 38 i.f4
i.c7! wins, as 39 i.e3 c1 'ii 40 i.xc1
llh2 is checkmate) 3S .. Jld8 36 i.xeS
.l:th8 would have favoured Black ac
cording to Shirov. Suddenly, White is
wmnmg.
35 g5 l:tdS 36 �f1 �d4 37 �e2 e5
3S �e3 �b5 39 h7 l:thS 40 �xd4
26 l:ta5 exd4 41 g6! fxg6 42 f7 �c6 43 �d3
The right idea but not the best exe �d7 44 l:te2 a4 45 l:teS axb3 46
cution. White's idea is to challenge the l:txhS b2 47 l:tdS+ 1 -0
knight on d3 by undermining its sup Now we move on to the other
port with b2-b3, attacking the pawn branch of the main line: 16 �b l .
on c4. After Black has taken on b3 or
played . . . c4-c3, White has two ways to Gamel
put pressure on the black position: Topalov-Kramnik
1) a:fd l , attacking the knight on d3 Dortmund 1996
which is pinned to the queen on dS.
2) lIaS, attacking the bishop on cS 1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 lLlf3 lLlf6 4 lLlc3
which is pinned to the queen on dS. e6 5 i.g5 dxc4 6 e4 b5 7 e5 h6 S
In a later game Kharitonov �h4 g5 9 lLlxg5 hxg5 1 0 �xg5
Sabanov, Moscow 1995, White played lLlbd7 1 1 exf6 �b7 1 2 g3 c5 1 3 d 5
the immediate 26 b3! , which seems to �b6 1 4 �g2 0-0-0 1 5 0-0 b4 1 6
give Black a lot of problems. In the l:tb 1
game, Black chose 26 . . . c3 27 l:tfdl �d8 By placing his queen's rook on the
28 �aS! (threatening 29 �xcS 'iVxcs 30 b-file, White meets the threat of
�xd3, winning a piece) 28 .. st>b6 and 16 . . . bxc3, as 17 bxc3 'ii a6 18 Iixb7!
now instead of the violent 29 lIxcS, 'iix b7 19 dxe6! is clearly better for
Kharitonov claims an initiative with White.
29 'ifia2!, and this does indeed seem Question 5: Why does White want
very strong for White. If Black wishes to keep his knight on c3?
to try this line, he therefore must find Answer: By holding his knight on
an improvement on this game - which c3, White maintains his support of the
is beyond me for the moment! dS-pawn, blocking Black's play along
26 . . :�d4 27 b3 �b6! the d-file and the a8-h 1 diagonal.
In comparison with 26 b3, Black White avoids committing his knight
25
Th e S e m i - Sla v
to the rim, and hopes to transfer it and hoping to play the queen to c6
later to a central post such as e4 or dS. and deliver mate on g2 or h I . Peter
1 6 . . :�a6! Wells considers that 19 lbdS 'i'b7 20
Black renews the threat of ... b4xc3, exfs'i' �hxfs 2 1 lbe7+ cJ;;c7 22 .tf4+
as b2xc3 will now not come with gain lbe5 23 .txeS+ �b6 24 f3! (prevent
of tempo. He wants to force matters ing . . . 'iWg2 or . . :i!Vh 1 mate) 24 . . .l:hd1 25
and not to let his opponent consoli l:tbxd1 is fairly promising for White
date behind the barrier on dS. and I am in full agreement. Cenainly,
After 16 . . . .th6 17 .txh6 �xh6 18 none of the top players have tried this
b3! cxb3 19 lba4 'iWbS 20 axb3 exdS 2 1 for Black.
:c 1 Black's position was very loose in 1 9 'ii'd 5 ! ?
Piket-Illescas, Dos Hermanas 1985. An astonishing idea o f Yermolin
1 7 dxe6 �xg2! sky's. White, a rook and a piece down,
17 ... fxe6 1 8 lbe4! (centralising the ignores the material on offer and in
knight) is good for White, while stead creates another threat: 20 'ii'a S+
17 .. :�xe6 allows 1 8 .txb7+ �xb7 19 lbbS 21 exdS'ii' + �xdS 22 'i'xbS+.
'i'f3+ with dangerous play against the 19 Wxfl is considered in Games 9
black king. Kramnik's move exploits and 10.
the fact that 1 8 exd7+ loses to 1 9 . . . �xe7!
18 .. .Ihd7, attacking the white queen A typical idea, lessening the impact
on d 1 , while after 18 'it>xg2 Black can of 'i'aS+ by defending the back rank.
play 18 . . :�'xe6, threatening both 20 fxe7
19 . . . bxc3 and 19 . . . 'iWh3+. Black has protected the back rank
1 8 e7 ! with gain of tempo: now 2 1 'i'aS+
lbbS 22 exdS'fI + l:hdS 23 .txd8 will
win material, but will create no threats
against the black king. Black can.
therefore use his 'spare move' before
this happens to attack the white rook.
20 . . . �d3!
This also gives Black the threat of
. . . b4xc3, which will no longer open
the b-file, as Black can then take the
rook with . . . .txb 1 !
In fact 20 . . . .td3! was Kramnik's
remarkable improvement on his own
An amazing intermediate move, 20 . . . �dgS (see the next game) .
forking the rook on dS and bishop on 21 lLle4
fS . Since 2 1 'i'aS+ lbbS and 2 1 .tf4
1 8 . . . �xf 1 (threatening 22 'iWa8+) 2 1 . . :i'b7!
Black can also play l S . . . i.aS, keep achieve nothing, White must bring
ing the bishop on the h 1-aS diagonal another unit into the attack. From e4,
26
B o t vin n ik Va ria tio n : M a in L in e w i t h 1 5 . . . b4
22 l:txf 1 ? !
23 �f4!? �b6! Natural, but as Kasparov shows, he
Avoiding the discovered check. missed an opportunity to win bril
24 ltJxc4+ �b5 25 ltJd6+ �b6 26 liantly here: 22 'iWaS+ lbbS 23 .l::lx fl ,
exd8�! ? l:txd8 27 ltJc4+ �b5 28 when 23 . . :iVc6 24 �dl ! ! 'iVxaS 25
ltJd6+ �b6 :dS+ �c7 (25 . . . \t>b7 26 lihhS .l::le 6 27
Neither side can avoid the draw by lbxc5+ followed by lbxe6 and e7-eS'iY
27
Th e S e m i - Sla v
wins) 26 Jtf4+ Wb6 27 nxh8 l:te6 28 the black queen along the a8-h 1 di
e8'i' l:txe8 29 �xe8 wins for White - agonal while preventing White from
he will pick up the knight on b8, leav doing the same. 19 ... bxc3 20 bxc3!!
ing him with too much material for leaves Black helpless, as 20 .. :i'c6 (to
the queen. stop 'i'dS) is met by 2 1 l:ib8+! !, when
22 . . Jli'c6 23 ili'xc6+ 11xc6 24 %:td 1 both 2 1 . . .ltJxb8 and 2 1 . . .<it;xb8 lose to
!:te8 25 lbd6+ !:txd6 26 l:bd6 f6 27 22 exd8'1W + !
�xf6? The alternative 19 . . . Jtxe7 is consid
As Kasparov points out, 27 Jte3, to ered in the next game.
push the kingside pawns, was much 20 exd8i1i'+ �xd8 21 lbd5 !:txh2! 22
stronger, as with the minor pieces on, �g 1 11h8
Black's queenside majority has a much
harder task advancing.
27 . . .'3;c 7 28 !:te6 lbxf6 29 !:txf6
l:txe7 30 �f1 !:te4
Threatening the unpleasant . . . c4-c3.
31 11f4 l:txf4 32 gxf4 �d6 33 'iPe2
a5 34 a4 c3! 35 bxc3 b3! V2 - V2
After 36 '.t>d2 c4, White's king can
not leave the queenside due to Black's
protected passed pawn, while White's
kingside pawns restrict his opponent's
king to the kingside after 37 h4 �e6
38 hS <it;fS 39 <it;c 1 <it;f6! Here is where the mastery of such
sharp systems lies. First, it is necessary
Game 9 to calculate the initial flurry of tactics;
K ramnik-Shirov but the real skill lies in playing the
Monaco (blindfold) 1996 extremely unbalanced positions - that
then arise. Material is now equal: the
1 lbf3 d 5 2 d4 lbf6 3 c4 c6 4 lbc3 f6-pawn is no longer an extra pawn,
e6 5 �g5 dxc4 6 e4 b5 7 e5 h6 8 and with . . . 1:.xh2, Black has eliminated
�h4 g 5 9 lbxg 5 hxg5 1 0 �xg5 White's passed h-pawn. White's king
lbbd7 1 1 g3 �b 7 1 2 �g2 �b6 1 3 is rather weak as only the knight on
exf6 0-0-0 1 4 0-0 c5 1 5 d 5 b4 1 6 dS prevents Black from giving mate on
%:tb 1 ili'a6 1 7 dxe6 �xg2 1 8 e7 �xf1 h 1 . However, Black also has his prob
1 9 �xf 1 ! lems: his loose c4-pawn, inappropri
The only winning attempt. This ately centralised king and inactive
quiet move prevents the light-squared bishop.
bishop from causing a nuisance and 23 �f4!?
intends �ds. This prevents the knight from mov
1 9 . . . �c6! ing to the dangerous eS-square.
An extremely fine move, activating 23 . . . �d6? !
28
B o t v in n ik Va ria tio n : M a in L in e w i t h 1 5 . . . b4
29
Th e S e m i - Sla v
Summary
Against 16 ctJa4, 16 .. .'Yi'bS is my recommendation for Black players, meeting the
main line, 17 a3 exdS 18 axb4 cxb4 19 �e3 ctJcS 20 �g4+, with either 20 .. J l
and Ivanchuk's untried 20 . . . �c7. In fact, this is also my recommendation for
White players as my analysis shows there is plenty of scope for both sides!
16 l:Ib 1 'ilia6 17 dxe6 �xg2 1 8 e7 �xfl 19 'ilidS is best met by 19 . . . .i.xe7 20
fxe7 .td3! , as in Kramnik-Topalov, while 19 'it>xfl leads to a balanced position
after 19 ... �c6 20 exd8'iV + �xd8 2 1 ctJds lhh2 22 �gll:rh8 23 �f4 �c8! How
ever, White should try this: although he is not better there is still plenty of play!
1 7 a3 23 lLlxc5
30
CHAPTER TWO
31
Th e S e m i- Sla v
32
B o t vin n ik Va ria tio n : B la c k 's 1 3 th M o v e A l t e rn a t i v e s
Game l3
Kasparov-Ivanchuk
Linares 1 994
33
Th e S e m i - Sla v
34
B o t v in n ik Va ria tio n : B la c k 's 1 3 th M o v e A l t e rn a t i v e s
35
Th e S e m i - Sla v
36
B o t vin n ik Va ria tio n : B la c k 's 1 3 th M o v e A l t e rn a ti v e s
venting Black's next, would have Now Black is ready to meet 20 gxh6
given good winning chances (Bareev) . with 20 ... ltJxc3 and 2 1 . . . .txh 1 .
33 . . . .Jtf3 34 ttJd5 �xd5 35 'it'f6+ 2 0 ttJxb5 ttJb4
<l;; c 7 36 'it'xf3 '1Pc6 37 h7 %:e8 38 Threatening ... ltJxa2 mate.
'i'xb3 �e 1 + 39 'it'c2 �e2+ 40 'it'b1 21 ttJc3 �xh 1 22 gxh6
:h2 41 �a4+ �b6 42 �b3+ % - % Razuvaev considers this position to
be slightly better for White and I see
Game 15 no reason to disagree with his assess
Razuvaev-Filippov ment.
Russian Championship 1995 22 . . . .Jtf3?
22 . . . .tdS was necessary according to
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 ttJf3 ttJf6 4 ttJc3 Razuvaev.
e6 5 .Jtg5 dxc4 6 e4 b5 7 e5 h6 8 23 %:e 1 .Jtd5 24 a3 a5 25 %:e5 �g 1
.Jth4 g 5 9 ttJxg5 hxg5 1 0 .Jtxg5 Now White elected to repeat with
lLlbd7 1 1 exf6 �b7 1 2 g3 c5 1 3 d5 26 1:e1 ? 'it'g6 % - %
�h6 14 .Jtxh6 lbh6 1 5 'it'd2 �xf6 This is quite a surprising draw as in
1 6 0-0-0 '1Pf8 1 7 h4! ? fact White has a forced win! Razuvaev
This interesting move aims to make realised after the game that the not so
use of White's kingside pawns to at difficult 26 h7! 'ii'x f1+ 27 l1e 1 1tJd3+ 28
tack Black's exposed and hence vul '5t>b 1 would have won for White.
nerable major pieces on f6 and h6. Thi3' line with 17 h4 is definitely the
1 7 . . . ttJb6 1 8 g4 most dangerous for Black to face at
Threatening to fork the queen on f6 the moment and he needs an im
and the rook on h6 with g4-gS. provement in order to play this line
1 8 . . . ttJxd 5 ! ? with confidence.
18 .. .l:hh4 19 g S 'ii f4 2 0 �xh4 'iixh4
21 dxe6 and 1 8 . . . l:.h8 19 gS 'iVg7 20 Game 16
lLlxbS are both good for White accord lonov-Popov
ing to Razuvaev. St Petersburg Open 1995
1 9 g5 �g6
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 ttJf3 ttJf6 4 ttJc3
e6 5 .Jtg5 dxc4 6 e4 b5 7 e5 h6 8
�h4 g5 9 ttJxg5 hxg5 1 0 .Jtxg5
ttJbd7 1 1 exf6 .Jtb7 1 2 g3 c5 1 3 d5
�h6 14 �xh6 %:xh6 1 5 'it'd2 'it'xf6
1 6 ttJe4!?
This is the most direct attempt to
refute 1s .. J W
attacks the queen on f6 and aims for
the d6-square. Peter Wells was panicu
larly keen on this move in The Com·
plete Semi-Slav, but it has only recently
37
Th e S e m i - Sla v
38
B o t vin n ik Va ria tio n : B la c k 's 1 3 th M o v e A l t e rn a t i v e s
39
Th e S e m i - Sla v
S u mmary
All these systems are worth a go on an occasional basis, but as main defences
they seem a little too risky to place too much reliance on. 13 . . . tDxf6 14 .ig2
.th6!? looks interesting, while 13 ... .th6 continues to survive. However,
13 . . . tDb6 seems to be pretty much busted and 13 .. .'�Je5 devotees need an answer
to 16 'iff3 .
1 3 . . . lLlxf6
13 . . . .th6 14 .ixh6 �xh6 15 'ilVd2 'i'xf6 (D)
1 6 0-0-0 �f8
17 f3 Game 14
-
17 h4 Game 15
-
1 6 tDe4 Game 16
-
13 . . . tDe5 Game 1 8
-
1 9 lLlc4 Game 11
-
40
CHAPTER THREE
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c 6 3 lbf3 lbf6 4 lbc3 ing the bishop early to the long diago
e6 5 i.g5 dxc4 6 e4 b5 7 e5 h6 8 nal, White makes it harder for Black
.ih4 g5 9 lbxg5 hxg5 1 0 �xg5 to achieve . . . c6-c5.
tLlbd7 1 1 g3 Question 2: What's the downside?
As the alert reader will have spot Answer: By cutting down on some
ted, Ivanchuk and Kasparov always options, you give Black other possi
prefer the 'standard' move order of 1 1 bilities. The main alternative is
exf6. However, Kramnik has consis I l . . J;rg8 to break the pin by sacrificing
tently chosen to play 1 1 g3 and in this the rook for the bishop on g5.
chapter we shall look at the differences If Black wants to play the main line
that this move order makes. The first with 13 . . . 'i'b6 against 1 1 exf6, then he
point to note, however, is that 1 1 g3 can transpose back into Chapter 1 by
.tb7 12 �g2 'i'b6 13 exf6 0-0-0 14 0-0 following Timman-Tal. However, 1 1
c5 15 d5 b4 simply takes us back to g3 avoids all the main line alternatives
the main line position discussed in the in Chapter 2, so Black advocates of
first chapter. these variations will need a separate
With 1 1 g3 White delays the cap line against 1 1 g3 .
ture of the pinned knight in order to
develop his bishop on the hl-a8 di Game 19
agonal one move earlier than usual. Timman-Tal
Question 1: Why is this important? Hilversum (match) 1988
Answer: After 1 1 exf6 i.b7 12 g3,
Black can play 12 . . . c5 opening the at 1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 lbf3 lbf6 4 lbc3
tack of the bishop on b7 on the rook e6 5 �g5 dxc4 6 e4 b5 7 e5 h6 8
on h I . However, after 1 1 g3 .tb7 12 �h4 g5 9 lbxg5 hxg5 1 0 �xg5
.tg2, 12 ... c5 is impossible as the lbbd7 1 1 g3 �b7
bishop is en prise on b7. By develop- Threatening the typical . . . c6-c5
41
Th e S e m i - Sla v
42
B o t vin n ik Va ria tio n w i t h 1 1 9 3
fxg6 3 9 l:td 1 1 -0
White has too many pawns for the
exchange.
This game is all that the main line
Black player needs to know in order
to meet 1 1 g3 with confidence.
Game 20
Yermolinsky-Kaidanov
USA Championship 1993
43
Th e S e m i - Sla v
44
B o t v in n ik Va ria tio n w i t h 1 1 9 3
and possession of the bishop pair, but tempi towards development of his
it is really Black's queenside which is queenside, but of course it keeps the
his major strength. It may seem that material balance in Black's favour
Black can easily destroy White's cen (knight and bishop vs. rook) .
tre with . . . c6-c5, but this weakens the
support of the knight on d5, which
requires the support of both e6- and
c6-pawns. Therefore Black often plays
... lDxc3, preventing lDe4-d6, and creat
ing a new pawn base on c3 which
Black can then attack with . . . b5-b4
before following up with . . . c6-c5.
1 S �g4 �e7
15 . . :tWa5 has been practically re
futed, as shall see in Game 25.
16 i.g2!
16 nh8 and 16 ft'xg6+ are less pre 1 8 lbxbS cxbS 1 9 i.xa8 lbb6 20
cise - see Games 23 and 24. i.e4
1 6 .. :ii'f7! 1 7 i.e4! Shirov prefers White here and I feel
Attacking the weak g6-pawn .. that he is right, although it must be
1 7 . . . lbe7 said that this position, with its very
White must now activate his rooks lmusual material balance, is so rich in
on the h-file and invade on the sev possibilities that there is still plenty of
enth or eighth ranks (or both) ! Black's scope for experimentation on both
main aim is to bring his queenside sides. Indeed, a little later Shirov of
pieces - the rook on a8 and bishop on fered this line against Khalifman - as
c8 - to active squares and move his Black!
king to safety there. It may seem 20 . . . i.d7!
strange to discuss positional factors Shirov praises this improvement
when White can simply win the ex over Kramnik's suggestion of
change and a pawn with 1 8 lDxb5 2o . . . lDbd5, when Shirov proposes 2 1
cxb5 19 .llx a8, but in fact they are ex �h8! , intending 2 2 f3, 2 3 �f2 and 24
tremely relevant here. As Julian lhh1 , when 'White is clearly on top'.
Hodgson once remarked to me in a 2 1 l:th8 i.c6 22 f3!
similar position, by taking the rook Now Black will think twice about
on a8, White has 'developed' this piece exchanging bishops with . . . .llxe4 as
for Black since he no longer needs to f3xe4 will 'fill in' the hole on d5 and
worry about it! This manoeuvre also give White a massive centre.
gives Black two tempi ( . . . lDb6 and one 22 . . . lbbdS?
other) to carry out his queenside aims. A serious mistake which gives
The popular 1 8 klh8 (see the next White the time to carry out his ideal
game) by contrast gives Black no plan. Shirov analyses 22 . . . 'itd7 23 'ite2
45
Th e S e m i - Sla v
(not 23 �f2 �xe4!, when White can 4 1 g4+ will be the end.
no longer recapture on e4 with the
pawn) 23 . . . �g7! (evicting the rook Game 22
from the eighth rank) and claims a Kalantarian-Yegiazarian
small advantage for White after 24 A rmenian Championship 1 994
l:Ih7 CDbd5.
Black's dark-squared bishop IS 1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 lLlf3 lLlf6 4 lLlc3
pinned to the queen on f7 and re e6 5 �g5 dxc4 6 e4 b5 7 e5 h6 8
stricted by the white pawns on d4 and �h4 g5 9 lLlxg5 hxg5 1 0 �xg5
e5 . Moreover, the black queen is tied lLlbd7 1 1 g3 l:tg8 1 2 h4 l:txg5 1 3
to its protection and thus prevented hxg5 lLld5 1 4 g6 fxg6 1 5 "iUg4 'iVe7
from becoming active. Black has two 1 6 �g2 'iVf7 1 7 �e4 lLle 7 1 8 l:th8
plans: to attack d4, probably with
. . . CDf5, and to expand on the queenside
with . . . a7-a5-a4 and . . . b5-b4. Obvi
ously, White must keep pounding the
kingside since the open h-file allows
him to use his big advantage: the pair
of rooks. The main idea is l:Ih6, at
tacking g6, and iVg5-h6 is another
plan.
23 Wf2 lLlb4
As Shirov points out, 23 . . . �d7 now
allows 24 l:Iah 1 �g7 25 � 1h7! ! with
great play for White. 1 8 . . . lLlb6! 1 9 We2!
24 a3! lLld3+ Freeing the path for the queen's
24 . . . �xe4 25 axb4 .tf5 26 iVg5 CDc8 rook to come into the action with
27 'iVh6! �e7 28 iVh4+! �d7 29 'iVf6! is l:Iah 1-h7.
even more horrible according to Shi 1 9 . . . b4?
rov. This seems to be a mistake. Ak
25 �xd3 cxd3 26 l:td 1 'iVf5 27 'iVxf5 opian suggests 19 . . . �d7 20 a4 b4 2 1 as
gxf5 28 l:txd3 CDbd5 (2 1 . ..bxc3 22 axb6 cxb2 23 l:Ixa7
Shirov comments here that 'two l:Ib8 24 b7 �d8 25 'iVg5! is unpleasant
rooks and two extra pawns are too for Black) 22 CDa4 with an unclear po
much for three minor pieces' and in sition.
deed he makes the win look easy from 20 l:tah 1 Wd7
here. Akopian suggests instead that
28 . . . i.d5 29 l:tc3 lLlc6 30 We3 Wf7 20 . . . bxc3 2 1 :lh7 'iVxh7 22 :xh7 cxb2
31 l:th7+ �g7 32 l:th2 Wg6 33 l:thc2 23 'iVf3 �b7 24 �xg6+ �d7 25 'iVa3 is
lLla5 34 l:tc7 a6 35 l:ta7 lLlc4+ 36 unclear, but the threat of 'iVd6+ looks
We2 a5 37 b3 lLlxa3 38 l:tc8 �h6 39 unpleasant for Black.
l:tg8+ Wh5 40 l:th 7 1 -0 21 l:t8h7! 'iVg8
46
B o t vin n ik Va ria tio n w i t h 1 1 g 3
Game 23 23 . . . �xa3?
Khalifman-Shirov The decisive mistake according to
Pardubice 1994_ Khalifman. 23 . . . 1i'b 1 would have been
better, when 24 �d6 �e4+ 25 �d1
1 d4 d 5 2 c4 c6 3 lbf3 lbf6 4 lbc3 'i'g4+!? (25 . . . �b 1+ secures a perpetual)
e6 5 -tg5 dxc4 6 e4 b5 7 e5 h6 8 26 l':te2 �g7 27 �xc6 is unclear!
�h4 g 5 9 lbxg5 hxg5 1 0 �xg5 24 �c2 �c7 25 �h7 ! b4 26 �a2
lbbd7 1 1 g3 �g8 1 2 h4 l:txg5 1 3 b3! ? 27 �xa3 c2 28 �a4 c 1 � 29
hxg5 lbd5 1 4 g6 fxg6 1 5 'ii'g4 'ii'e 7 �c4 1 -0
16 l:th8 ? ! The threat against c6 forces Black to
give up his queen (again) and
29 . . . 'i'xc4+ 30 'ti'xc4 b2 3 1 �a2 :b8
32 'i'b 1 �a6+ 33 <it>d2 �xf1 34 e6 �b3
35 .l::[xd7+ <it>b6 36 e7 �xe7 37 l:txe7
.1l.d3 38 Ite3 wins (Khalifman) .
Game 24
Mecking-San Segundo
1 6 . . . lbxc3! 1 7 bxc3 'ii'a 3! ! 1 8 'ii' x g6+ Linares Open 1995
18 �xe6+ <it>d8 is clearly better for
Black according to Khalifman. 1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 lbf3 lbf6 4 lbc3
47
Th e S e m i - Sla v
e6 5 �g5 dxc4 6 e4 b5 7 e5 h6 8
�h4 g 5 9 tZJxg5 hxg 5 1 0 .lixg5
tZJbd7 1 1 g3 �g8 1 2 h4 �xg5 1 3
hxg5 tZJd5 1 4 g6 fxg6 1 5 'iVg4 'iVe7
1 6 'iVxg6+ 'iVf7 1 7 'iVxf7+ \t>xf7 1 8
�g2
If White tries to avoid the exchange
on c3 with 1 8 ttJe4, then Black has
1 8 . . . i.b4+ followed by . . . c4-c3 with a
messy game.
1 8 . . . tZJxc3 1 9 bxc3 �b8 20 f4
20 �xc6 �b7 occurred in the game
Shirov-Stisis, London (Lloyds Bank Black should not really lose this po
Masters) 1990, which continued 2 1 sition but he nervously ran himself
�h7+ �g6 2 2 .l:lxd7 i.xc6 2 3 �xa7, into time-trouble with disastrous re
and now 23 . . . b4 would have given sults.
Black a good game according to Wells. 33 . . . <.t>g6 34 g4 �h4 35 \t>e4 .lig3
The text supports the white eS-pawn 36 f5+ <.t>g7 37 g5 �h4 38 g6 c4 39
in anticipation of the pressure that �d4 .lig3 40 e6 �d6 41 a4 �f6 42
Black is going to exert on d4 and c3 . �xc4 a5 43 <.t>b5 .lib4 44 \t>c6 1 -0
20 . . . b4 2 1 \t>d2 c5! After the game, when San Segundo
was discussing the game his opponent
1 heard him say, 'I think 1 was better,
perhaps 1 could have won somehow.'
Mecking, an extremely devout Chris
tian who credits God's intercession for
his recovery from a usually terminal
disease abruptly replied that 'God
would not have let it happen!'
Game 25
Knaak-Van der Wiel
Lugano 1989
22 d 5 tZJb6! 23 dxe6+
23 d6 is critical, when Black can try 1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 tZJf3 tZJf6 4 tZJc3
23 . . . ltJds or 23 . . . ttJa4, putting pressure e6 5 .lig5 dxc4 6 e4 b5 7 e5 h6 8
on the c3-pawn. �h4 g5 9 tZJxg5 hxg5 1 0 �xg5
23 . . . �xe6 24 �e4 �d8+ 25 \t>e3 tZJbd7 1 1 g3 �g8 1 2 h4 �xg5 1 3
tZJd5+ 26 �xd5 �xd5 27 �hd 1 �xd 1 hxg5 tZJd5 1 4 g6 fxg6 1 5 �g4 �a5?
28 ttxd 1 �f5 29 \t>d2 �e7 30 a3 This aggressive counterattack
bxc3+ 31 \t>xc3 �d3 32 �xd3 cxd3 against the knight on c3 seems to lose
33 \t>xd3 by force after White's splendid reply.
48
B o t vin n ik Va ria tio n w i t h 1 1 g 3
Game 26
Oll-Kaidanov
Kuibysev 1986
49
Th e S e m i- Sla v
Game 27
Mecking-Matsuu ra
Sao Paulo Zonal 1 995
1 4 . . . 0-0-0 1 S b3
Rather risky; this gives Black an ex
tra means of opening up the queens ide
while White's king is in the centre.
15 iLe3 is the most dangerous move,
when Hertneck-Mueller, German
Bundesliga 1989, continued lS . . . 'iVdS
16 Ae2 i.b7 17 ltJgS! cS 18 'iVxds
.i.xdS, and now 19 0-0 eS 20 dxcS
would have given White the advan
tage, according to Hertneck. 1 4 . . . l2Jb6
1 S . . . l2Jb6! 14 . . . 0-0-0 is considered stronger, as
The text hits the d4-pawn, by un 15 'iVc2 ltJb6 16 .i.e3 eS! 17 dxeS 'iVxeS
masking the attack of the rook on d8 . gave Black good play in Khenkin
1 6 l2JeS? Feher, Cappelle la Grande 1992.
16 i.e3 .i.b7 17 i.g2 (17 bxc4 b3+!) 1 S bxe4 l2Jxe4 1 6 �b3 �dS 1 7 f3
17 . . . cxb3 1 8 'iVe2 (18 0-0 bxa2) looks iLbS 1 8 l:te 1 l2Ja3 1 9 �xdS exdS 20
very dodgy for White. l2Jd2 iLd6 21 �f2
1 6 . . . �bS! White is slightly better.
Protecting the pawn on c6. 21 . . . �xf1 22 l2Jxf1 l2JbS 23 '1t>e3
1 7 �e3 l:tdS ! 1 8 a4 bxa3+! 1 9 iLd2 '1t>d7 24 h4 l:tae8 2S l:txe8 l:txe8 26
�xd2+! ! 20 �xd2 iLxeS 21 bxe4 hS l:te3+ 27 '1t>f2 l2Jxd4 28 h6 l:te8
l:txd4+ 29 l2Je3 as 30 iLf4 a4 31 iLxd6
The rest must have been very pain �xd6 32 f4 b3 33 axb3 axb3 34 g4
ful for White. b2 3S l:tb1 l:tb8 36 l2Jd 1 eS 37 l:txb2
22 �e3 l2Jxe4 23 �xe4 l:txe4+ 24 l:th8 38 gS exf4 39 l2Je3 l2Je6 40
'1t>b3 l:tb4+ 2S �e3 l:tb2 26 l:tab 1 l:tbS d4 41 l2Je4+ �e6 42 l:teS d3 43
iLb4+ 27 �d4 eS+ 28 �eS l:te2+ 0-1 l:txe6+ fxe6 44 g6 l:txh6 4S g7 1 -0
29 �d6 ':d2+ 30 �eS ':dS+ 31 �e4
i.c6 wins according to Kaidanov. We shall now consider less precise
50
B o t vin n ik Va ria tio n w i t h 1 1 g 3
1 3 �f3
This move attacks the point most
weakened by the light-squared
bishop's unusual development on a6
rather than b7 - the pawn on c6 - and
also prevents Black from castling
queenside immediately. By moving
the queen off the d-file White also
prevents his opponent from using a
pin on the d-file to transfer the knight
Piket suggests that IS . . .'i'f5 19 f3 to d3 via e5 or c5. Moreover, the
ttJb6 is worthy of attention. queen supports the knight if it goes to
1 9 ttJc5! �xc5 20 dxc5 ttJd5 2 1 'iVd4 e4, protecting the bishop on g5 after
l:tc8 22 l:tab 1 �a6 23 l:tfc 1 �xc5 24 . . . b5-b4.
�xc5 llxc5 25 l:tb8+ �c8 26 �e3 The alternative 13 a3 is sometimes
ttJxe3 27 fxe3 0-0 28 l:txc3 �a6 29 seen, but Black can then use the pin
nxf8+ �xf8 30 g4 �g8 31 �f2 �h 7 on the d-file with 13 . . . 0-0-0 14 ..1g2
32 h4 'ito>g6 33 g 5 �f5 34 �g3 �b5 lDc5 15 0-0 lDb3 with an acceptable
35 �d3+ <t>e5 36 �c2 'itid6 37 'itig4 game.
nd5 38 h5 l:td3 39 l:txd3+ cxd3 40 1 3 . . . l:tc8
.td 1 1 -0 Black's only reasonable choice here
is to transpose the line 12 . . . b4 13 lDe4
Game 29 �a6 14 �f3 (Game 26) with 13 . . . b4 14
K ramnik-Ehlvest lDe4. White cannot play 14 'ili'xc6 as
Riga 1995 both 14 . . . ItcS 15 'iWa4 'iWxa4 16 lDxa4
�b7 17 �gl �hh2 and 14 . . . �b7!? 15
1 ttJf3 d5 2 d4 ttJf6 3 c4 c6 4 ttJc3 'tixb7 ItbS! 16 ii'xbS+ {the only move:
51
Th e S e m i- Sla v
52
B o t vin n ik Va ria tio n w i t h 1 1 g 3
Summary
1 1 g3 is my recommended move order for White players, when 1 1 . . .�b7 12 �g2
'i'b6 13 exf6 0-0-0 14 0-0 cS! is the best reply, leading to the main lines after 15 dS
b4 since Timman's 15 dxcS does not seem to be dangerous. The lines with
1 1 . . .'fiaS are still quite unexplored, but 12 exf6 b4 13 ttJe4, to meet 13 . . . �a6 with
14 'fif3, and Kramnik's 12 exf6 �a6 13 'ii'f3 seem very good ways to counter it.
1 1 . . .i.b7
1 1 . . .l1g8 12 h4 l:IxgS 13 hxgS ttJdS 14 g6 fxg6 15 'ii'g4 (D)
1S . . . 'iVe7
16 �g2 'ii' f7 17 �e4 ttJe7
18 ttJxbs Game 21
-
1S .. :ilaS Game 25
-
1 1 . . .b4 Game 30
-
1 5 dxc5 Game 19
-
53
CHA PTER FOUR
54
B o t vin n ik Va ria tio n : Ea rly D e via tio n s a f t e r 5 i. g 5 dx c 4
55
Th e S e m i - Sla v
56
B o t vin n ik Va ria tio n : Ea rly D e via tio n s a f t e r 5 jL g 5 dx c 4
1 9 lbxb5 i.b4+ is clearly better for keeps e4-e5 in reserve and attacks b5
Black according to Antunes. instead. Black cannot protect the b
1 9 . . J�g8 20 ..t>h 1 'il'f4 2 1 ttJe4 h3! pawn with 7 . . . a6 due to 8 axb5 cxb5 9
22 ttJc5 �xc5 23 dxc5 hxg2+ 24 lbxb5!
.txg2 1:[g5 25 'il'b6 "fic7 26 'il'a7 'il'e7 7 . . . �b7
27 b4 cxb3 28 'il'a3 'il'xc5 29 'il'xb3 By protecting the rook on a8, Black
'i'c4 30 �a3 b4 31 'il'f3 �xf 1 +?? threatens . . . a7-a6, supporting the b5-
Oh no! ! Virtually anything would pawn. Note that the seemingly natural
win here, but not this! 7 . . . iLb4 can be met by 8 e5 h6 9 exf6
32 .txf 1 c5 33 .ta6! hxg5 10 fxg7 l:!g8 (the g-pawn isn't
Ouch! defended any more!) 1 1 h4! with a
33 . . . .txa6 34 "fia8+ ..t>d7 35 'il'xa6 promising position for White. Black's
�e7 36 'il'c8 ..t>f6 37 "fih8+ ..t>g6 38 other alternatives here are discussed in
'i'g8+ �f6 39 �h8+ 'Ot>g6 40 'il'g8+ Games 36 and 37.
YZ - YZ 8 axb5
Black's position was s o good that 8 e5 is considered in the next game.
even after blundering his queen, he 8 . . . cxb5 9 ttJxb5 �xe4
could still hold the draw! In this line The alternative 9 . . . 'iWb6 10 'iWa4 was
he has a fortress position that White played in P.Cramling-Galliamova,
cannot break down. In my opinion, Tilburg Women's Candidates 1994,
this idea marks the end of the road for and now 10 . . . i.c6 1 1 'iWxc4 lbxe4 is
this interesting variation. the critcial continuation. The immedi
ate 9 . . . i.b4+ 10 lbc3 will most likely
Game 34 transpose to the game after 10 . . . i.xe4
D . G arcia-K ramnik 1 1 i.xc4.
Pamplona 1 992 1 0 �xc4
57
Th e S e m i - Sla v
58
B o t v in n ik Va ria tio n : Ea rly D e via tio n s a f t e r 5 Jt. g 5 dx c 4
18 . . .f5 19 exf6 �xf6 2 0 .ta2 �ad8 13 . . . cxd4 14 'i'xd4 .tb7 Black has rea
21 �fe l e5 22 .ta5 �d7 23 ttJd2 'ith8 sonable chances according to Lukacs.
24 ii.b l ttJf4 25 �a3 gave White a 1 3 . . . .ltb7 1 4 ttJb3?
slight edge in Maksimenko-Pinter, This is too risky. 14 0-0 ttJd7
Copenhagen 1995. (14 . . . ttJf4!?) 15 ttJb3 ttJxc5 16 ttJa5
19 axb5 cxb5 20 c6 �c8 2 1 .ltxa5 �fd8 is fine for Black according to
%:txa5 22 c7 %:txa 1 23 cxd8'iV %:txd8 Lukacs.
24 'iVb2 %:ta8 25 %:te 1 b4 26 .lte4 �b7 1 4 . . . ttJf4 1 5 'i'd6
27 h3 l:tab8 % - % 15 0-0 ttJxg2 16 'itxg2 'i'g5+ 17 'ith 1
Black is actually better here: White �d8! 18 'i'e2 �g4! wins according to
has few targets, while Black can try to Lukacs.
push his b-pawn. 1 5 . . . ttJxg2+ 1 6 We2 �xf3+ 1 7 <ot>xf3
'iWg5 1 8 l:thg 1 l:td8 1 9 l:txg2
Game 36 A sad necessity. Lukacs shows that
Kallai-lukacs 19 �c7 ttJd7! 20 �xg2 ttJxe5+ 2 1 'ite2
Budapest 1995 �xg2 22 'i'xe5 'i/ig4+ wins for Black,
picking up the bishop on c4.
1 d4 ttJf6 2 c4 e6 3 ttJf3 d5 4 ttJc3 1 9 . . :�f5+ 20 <ot>e3 l:txd6 21 exd6
c6 5 .ltg5 dxc4 6 e4 b5 7 a4 b4! ? ttJd7 22 l:tag 1 'iWe5+ 23 Wd3 'iVxb2
24 l:txg7+ Wh8 25 We3 ttJe5 0-1
An attractive and theoretically im
portant game.
Game 37
Bellon-Antunes
Platja d'Aro Barcino 1994
59
Th e S e m i- Sla v
60
B o t v in n ik Va ria tio n : E a r l y D e via tio n s a f t e r 5 � g 5 dx c 4
61
Th e S e m i- Sla v
Game 41
Cebalo-Palac
Croatian Ch., Slavonski Brod 1995
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 CLlf3 CLlf6 4 CLlc3 The passed c-pawn is now ex
e6 5 .ltg5 dxc4 6 a4 �b4 7 e4 tremely dangerous.
�xc3+ 8 bxc3 �a5 9 e5 CLle4 1 0 28 g3 c3 29 �f3 l:[c7 30 l:[a8+ �g7
.ltd2 �d5 31 �e4 CLlb4 32 l:[a3 l:[c4 33 ri;g2 c2
Defending the extra c4-pawn, but 34 l:[c1 l:[xd4 35 �e3 l:[d 1 36 l:[aa 1
after 10 . . . cs 1 1 .txc4 cxd4 (1 1 . . .lLlc6 12 �c6+ 37 �h3 l:[xc 1 38 l:[xc 1 ttJa2
ds lLlxd2 13 'iYxd2 exds 14 .txdS 0-0 39 �d4+ �g8 40 �d8+ ri;g7 4 1
15 0-0 .tfs 16 'i'f4 .tg6 17 c4 was bet �d4+ e5 4 2 'iVxe5+ f 6 4 3 �e7+ �g8
ter for White in McCambridge 44 'iVd8+ �g7 45 'iVe7+ ri;g8 46
Kaidanov, Las Vegas 1993) 12 cxd4 �e8+ �g7 47 'iVe7+ Y2 - Y2
62
B o t vin n ik Va ria tio n : Ea rly D e via tio n s a f t e r 5 iL g 5 dx c 4
Summary
6 a4 and 6 e4 b5 7 a4 are quite worth a try in the odd game, as they are quite
tricky in places. However, none of the other lines here really inspire much con
fidence.
6 e4
6 a4 ..tb4 7 e4
7 . . . c5 8 �xc4 cxd4 (D)
9 .ib5+ ttJc6 10 ttJxd4
10 . . . 0-0 Game 38
-
10 . . . ..td7 Game 39
-
9 ttJxd4 Game 40
-
6 b5 7 e5
. . .
7 a4
7 . . . ..tb7 (D)
8 axb5 Game 34 -
8 e5 Game 35
-
7 . . . b4 Game 36
-
7 . . . 'i'b6 Game 37
-
9 exf6 Game 33 -
9 hxg5
. . .
9 . . . ttJd5 Game 32 -
8 . . . cxd4 9 tDxg5
63
CHA PTER FIVE
64
M o s c o w Va ria tio n w i t h 7 e 3
available on the a3-f8 diagonal. How playable. White has no concrete tar
ever, on b4 it is vulnerable to attack, gets to aim at since Black is developing
while on e7 it blocks the retreat of the only on his first three ranks, out of
queen and on d6 it is vulnerable to e3- the range of White's pieces and pawns.
e4 or perhaps lbe4 (if Black plays Black reasons that if White opens up
... dSxc4) . On g7, the bishop is out of the position, then although it may
range of White's knight on c3, sup cause him some danger, it will also be
ports . . . e6-eS, while it does not block to the advantage of Black's two bish
the retreat of the black queen. How ops. If White decides to build up care
ever, apart from the time involved, the fully before opening the position, then
placement of the bishop on the al-h8 this gives Black extra time to develop
diagonal further weakens the d6- his pieces and prepare his position
square and slightly weakens the black both to carry out his own breaks and
kingside. Furthermore, after h2-h4-hS, to anticipate White's actions.
Black will have to play ... g6-gS as White has three basic approaches in
hSxg6 is an unpleasant threat. this variation:
1) Central systems
2) Manoeuvring systems
3) Queenside systems
Central systems
First we shall examine White's plans
involving the natural central push e3-
e4, starting with the immediate 10 0-0
�g7 1 1 e4.
Game 42
Khalifman-Akopian
Having seen this pOSItion many Yerevan 1996
times in tournament games, I have
accepted it as normal play. However, 1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 liJc3 liJf6 4 liJf3
looking at it afresh, I am struck by e6 5 �g5 h6 6 �xf6 "it'xf6 7 e3 liJd7
how strange and amateurish Black's 8 �d3 dxc4
position looks. If you were to just see Black usually elects to capture on c4
this position without any knowledge either here or on the next move, since
of the opening, you might think that a after 8 . . . g6 9 0-0 �g7?! he has to
beginner was handling the black pieces reckon with 10 e4 dxc4 1 1 eS! 'ii'e7 12
- why has Black made all these pawn �xc4, when White has achieved his
moves instead of developing his pieces desired advance in the centre and
and why is the black queen on f6? Black is somewhat passively placed.
In fact, despite his seemingly eccen 9 �xc4 g6 1 0 0-0 �g7 1 1 e4 e5
tric opening, Black's position is fully This is almost a reflex response to
65
Th e S e m i - Sla v
66
M o s c o w Va ria tio n w i t h 7 e 3
1 1 l:tc 1
This is White's most non-committal
move. After 1 1 . . .0-0 he retains the op
tion of playing in the centre (Games
45-48) , manoeuvring with ttJe4 and
.i.b3 (Game 50) or playing b2-b4
(Games 53-54) .
Freeing the c-file for White's major 1 1 . . .0-0 1 2 l:te 1 'iVe7
pieces and supporting the e4-pawn A typical move, pulling the queen
from d2. back to a 'holding position' on e7
1 8 . . . f5 1 9 lLlbd2 fxe4 20 lLlxe4 �d5 where it supports either . . . c6-c5 or
21 lLlfd2 h 5 22 l:tcd 1 l:tbe8 23 �d3 . . . e6-e5. However, as we shall see in
h4 24 h3 :f4 25 l:tfe 1 l:tef8 26 f3 Game 47, 12 . . . !td8 is more accurate.
lLld7 27 lLlf2 lLlc5 28 �c4 �h7 29 1 3 e4 l:[d8
lLlde4 lLlxe4 30 lLlxe4 �xe4 31 l:txe4 13 . . . e5 is seen in the next game.
67
Th e S e m i- Sla v
68
M o s c o w Va ria tio n w i t h 7 e 3
move order to the previous game, but 1 7 ... �g4! 1 8 ttJd2 h5!, to activate
the resulting position is the same. the dark-squared bishop with . . . �h6,
1 1 .!:te 1 0-0 1 2 :e1 �e7 1 3 e4 e5 would have been stronger according to
Preventing White from playing his Piket.
desired e4-e5. 1 8 h3!
1 4 d5 lLlb6 1 5 dxc6 ! ?
Piket suggests that 15 �b3! would
have been slightly better for White
here.
69
Th e S e m i- Sla v
Game 47
Timman-Gelfand
Yerevan Olympiad 1 �96
70
M o s c o w Va ria t i o n with 7 e 3
71
Th e S e m i - Sla v
72
M o s c o w Va ria tio n w i t h 7 e 3
.ic2+ �c4 60 .Jtb3+ 'it>d3 6 1 .Jtc2+ .Jtd4 3 2 lLlxa5 exd5 33 .Jta2 l:.xb2 34
�e2 62 l:txb4 'it>xf2 63 .Jtd 1 'it>xe3 64 l:.xb2 .Jtxb2 35 l:txe5 d4 36 lLle4
�c2 'it'f2 65 .Jtxh5 'it>xg3 66 .Jtd 1 e3 .Jte 1 37 lLle5 .Jtxa3 38 l:te7 �f8 39
67 'it'xc3 f4 68 l:tb6 l:td5 69 .Jte2 f3 lLlxf7 l:ta8 40 lLlxh6 .Jtd6 41 l:.e2 d3
70 .ixf3 'it>xf3 7 1 l:txf6+ ..t>g2 72 42 l:td2 .Jtb4 43 l:txd3 l:txa2 44 lLlg4
1:e6 'it'f2 73 l:tf6+ ..t>e 1 74 'it>c2 0-1 .Jte6 45 lLle3 l:te2 46 l1d 1 .Jte5 47
'it>f1 .Jtf3 48 l:te 1 l:ta2 49 h4 �g7 50
Game 52 l:te 1 .Jtb6 51 l:.b1 .Jtd4 52 l:te 1 'it>h6
Bareev-Dreev 53 l:tb 1 .Jtxe3 54 fxe3 l:tg2 0-1
Wijk aan Zee (match) 1995
Queenside systems
1 d4 d5 2 e4 e6 3 lLlf3 lLlf6 4 lLle3 In the next four games we consider
e6 5 .Jtg5 h6 6 .Jtxf6 �xf6 7 e3 lLld7 ideas for White involving b2-b4. This
S .id3 dxe4 9 .Jtxe4 g6 1 0 0-0 .Jtg7 move stops Black from playing . . . c6-c5
1 1 'i'e2 0-0 1 2 lLle4 �e7 1 3 .Jtb3 and gives White the opportunity later
:dS 14 l:tad 1 to open up the queenside with b4-b5.
14 l1ac1 would have transposed to
Game 50. Game 53
14 . . . a5 1 5 a3 l:ta6 1 6 l:td2 lLlf6 1 7 Beliavsky-Dreev
lLle5 l:ta7 1 8 lLle5 Novosibirsk 1995
Finally, Black can also consider the
very solid option of developing his 1 d4 d5 2 e4 e6 3 lLlf3 lLlf6 4 lLle3
bishop to the solid square e8, and e6 5 .Jtg5 h6 6 .Jtxf6 �xf6 7 e3 lLld7
avoid weakening the queenside with 8 .Jtd3 dxc4 9 .Jtxe4 g6 1 0 0-0 .Jtg7
... b7-b6. 1 1 b4
73
Th e S e m i - Sla v
74
M o s c o w Va ria tio n w i t h 7 e 3
75
Th e S e m i - Sla v
S um mary
The central lines considered in Games 41-49 offer White quite good chances of a
small structural edge in positions where e3-e4 . . . e6-e5, d4-d5 and then d5xc6 oc
curs. White can also play in manoeuvring style {Games 50-52} but he must be
careful that he does not allow a quick . . . e6-e5 by Black; 1 1 l:!c1 0-0 12 ttJe4 'i'e7
13 i.b3 {Game 50} seems the best try. If White plays on the queenside with 1 1
�c1 0-0 1 2 b4, then Black should be fine as long as he adopts the . . . a7-a5 plan of
Games 53-54. 8 a3 {Games 55-56} does not seem dangerous with careful play.
1 3 . . . �g4 - Game 42
76
1 d4 d 5 2 c4 c6 3 lDf3 lDf6 4 lDc3 vided little compensation after 1 1 . ..f5!
e6 5 �g5 h6 12 4Jd2 (12 4Jg6 'ilig4+!) 12 . . . 'ilixd4 13
In this chapter we consider ways in 4Jdf3 'iixc5 14 4Jg6 �g8 15 4Jxe7
which White can avoid the main line 'iWxe7 16 g3 e5!
of the Moscow variation, either by
playing for an early e2-e4 after 6 .lixf6
'i'xf6 (Games 57 and 58) , fianchettoing
(Game 59) or by gambitting the c
pawn with 6 .lih4 (Game 60) .
Game 57
Timman-Gelfand
Belgrade 1995
77
Th e S e m i - Sla v
78
M o s c o w Va ria tio n : Wh i t e 's 6 th a n d 7 th M o v e A l t e rn a t i v e s
�f3 �g4 23 .i.g2 .i.h3 24 �f3 % -% bakov in Niksic 1996. Sherbakov sug
gests 12 axbS cxbs 13 dS tDcs 14 tDd4.
Game 60 1 2 e5! lLlh5
T opalov-Gelfand 12 ... bxc3 13 exf6 cxb2 14 l:tb l c3 IS
Dortmund 1996 'ilfb3 with an edge (Gelfand) .
1 3 lLle4 c5 1 4 lLlfd2 lLlxg3 1 5 fxg3
1 d4 d 5 2 c4 c6 3 lLlf3 lLlf6 4 lLlc3 �e7 !
e6 5 �g5 h6 6 �h4 dxc4 7 e4 g5 8 IS . . . cxd4 16 i.hS! tDxeS 17 tDxc4!
�g3 b5 tDxc4 18 !:txf7 wins for White! This
Frustrated by the Black's solidity in shows how White can strike seem
the 6 i.xf6 lines, White players have ingly from nowhere in this line.
recently turned back to this venerable 1 6 lLld6+ �xd6 1 7 exd6 c3 1 8 bxc3
gambit, the only way for him to ob bxc3 1 9 lLlc4 0-0 20 .tIc 1 f5 21 dxc5
tain sharp play against S . . . h6. .tIc8 22 �f3?
As compensation for the pawn,
White has a strong pawn centre and
chances against the enemy king
(Black's . . . g7-gS has weakened f6 and
makes kingside castling a fraught af
fair) . If Black develops his dark
squared bishop to g7, then the d6-
square is extremely weak.
9 �e2 �b7
9 ... b4 is rather loosening but breaks
up the white centre: 10 tDa4 tDxe4 1 1
.txc4!? (1 1 i.eS tDf6 1 2 i.xc4 tDbd7
13 0-0 i.g7 14 'i'e2 tDb6 IS i.b3 0-0 16 Missing Black's next. 22 .l::txc3 �xcS
tDcs gave White good compensation was unclear according to Gelfand.
in Relange-Giorgadze, Ubeda Open 22 . . . �a6 23 c6 �xc4 24 c7 �f6 25
1997) 1 1 .. .tDxg3 12 hxg3 tDd7 13 0-0 .tIe 1 lLlc5 26 l:te3 lLle4 27 h3 �d5 28
�g7 14 lie l 0-0 IS 1Ic1 , and now �xe4 fxe4 29 l:texc3 l:tf7 30 'it>h2
Korchnoi's Is . . . tDb6! would have �e5 31 l:tc6 e3 32 �e2 �xc6 33
equalised in Korchnoi-Timman, Wijk �xc6 �d5 34 �a6 l:tff8 35 l:tc3 ..tg7
aan Zee 1997. 36 l:td3 �e4 37 �xc8 l:txc8 38 d7
1 0 0-0 lLlbd7 1 1 a4! ? l::t x c7 39 d8'it' l:tf7 40 �d4+ �xd4
Also possible is 1 1 ds cxdS 12 exdS 41 l:txd4 l:tb7 42 l:te4 ..tf6 43 l:txe3
tDxds 13 tDxbS, opening the centre. .tIb4 44 l:tf3+ ..te7 45 l:tc3 l:txa4 46
1 1 . . . b4 l:tc7+ ..td6 47 l:th7 a5 48 l:txh6 l:tc4
Mikhail Gurevich preferred 1 1 .. .a6, 49 l:th8 a4 50 h4 g4 5 1 h5 ..te7 52
keeping the queenside solid, and ask h6 ..tf7 53 l:te8 l:tc5 54 l:ta8 l:th5+
ing White to make further efforts to 55 ..tg 1 l:txh6 56 l:txa4 l:tg6 57 ..tf2
find some compensation, against Sher- 'it>g7 58 �f1 % - %
79
Th e S e m i - Sla v
S u m mary
It seems that Black has few problems in the offbeat lines after 6 �xf6. Only
Yermolinsky's 7 'iVc2 looks like it is worth further analysis. However, if you
like gambits and fancy having a go at Black's position, then the 6 �h4 line may
be for you, as it drags Black out of the solidity of the main line Moscow lines.
6 �xf6
6 �h4 Game 60
-
7 g3 Game 59
-
7 dxc4 Game 57
. . . -
5 . . h6
. 6. . . 'iixf6 7 'iVb3
80
CHAPTER SEVEN
81
Th e S e m i- Sla v
smoothly and is on the verge of play 1 1 . . .exd5 is a huge risk. After 12 exd5
ing e3-e4. Invariably Black now plays tDxd5 13 !!e 1+ ii.e7 14 'i'e2! Black
6 . dxc4 7 �xc4 b5
. . cannot castle due to 15 tDxd5 ii.xd5 16
Question 2: What's the point? 'i'xe7 winning a piece.
A nswer: This marks the beginning Since 1 1 . . .exd5 is too dangerous,
of Black's plan to deal with his Black usually plays
blocked-in bishop on c8. With 1 1 . . . c4 1 2 �c2 'fic7
. . . d5xc4, Black removes one of his reaching the starting position of this
pawns from the a8-h 1 diagonal, and chapter.
allows Black to follow up with . . . b7-
b5, freeing the b7-square for the light
squared bishop. All Black has to do
after . . . ii.b7 is play . . . c6-c5 and the
bishop will be free!
Now after
8 �d3
returning to support the push e3-e4,
Black usually puts his bishop to its
best square with
8 . . . �b7
and after
9 0-0 Question 4: Why does Black need to
Black can protect the pawn on b5 play 12 . . .'i'c7 here?
with Answer: White's attacking plan is to
9 a6
. . . play d5xe6 . . .f7xe6, and then e4-e5!
Black is now ready to break against 12 . . .'i'c7 anticipates this thrust by pro
the white centre with . . . c6-c5, attack tecting the e5-square.
ing the d4-pawn and opening the a8-hl The critical position after 12 . . . 'i'c7
diagonal for the light-squared bishop. has developed very logically from the
White must therefore take the centre plan that Black selected on his sixth
with move. By exchanging his d-pawn for
1 0 e4 c5 1 1 d5 White's c-pawn, Black simultaneously
This move has a nice logic to it: obtained a queenside pawn majority
now that Black's light-squared bishop and removed the barrier to its expan
has finally found a good post on b7, sion - the white pawn on c4. How
White sets up a central pawn wedge ever, the price of this queenside initia
on e4 and d5 to block the diagonal! tive was a loss of central influence. By
Question 3: Doesn't White just lose relinquishing his pawn attack on e4,
a pawn after 1 1 . ..exd5? Black freed White to play e3-e4. A
Answer: By taking on d5, Black similar conflict was evident after
opens the e-file. With his king on e8 10 . . . c5: although this move gained
and no immediate chance of castling, queenside space, it also loosened
82
M e r a n Va ria tio n : M a in L in e
Black's grip on the d5-square, allowing opened for Black's rooks. The d-file is
White to increase his central territory particularly valuable, since with the
with 1 1 d5. help of a rook on d8 Black can estab
After 12 . . .'I'c7 Black's queenside lish a knight on the strong d3-outpost
pawns on a6, b5 and c4 restrict provided by the pawn on c4.
White's light-squared bishop on c2, The strength of d5xe6 is that by
which is White's problem piece in this creating an isolated pawn on e6, White
line. These queenside pawns are also loosens the protection afforded to the
extremely hard to dislodge - for ex black king. This gives him the chance
ample, 13 b3 loses a piece to 13 . . . cxb3, to cause Black some discomfort by
while 13 a4 b4 does not help White's attacking e6 with liJg5 or liJd4, and
cause either. Once Black has com also furnishes him with the dangerous
pleted his development and put his idea of e4-e5, attacking the knight on
king to safety, he will use his queen f6. If Black captures this pawn on e5,
side initiative to cripple White's cen this will allow the white major pieces
tre, chasing the white knight from c3 to directly attack the e6-pawn in front
with . . . b5-b4 and thus weakening of the black king. On the other hand,
White's support of e4 and d5. White if Black moves his knight, then Black's
must act in the centre while Black's kingside becomes vulnerable. The
king is uncastled and his lead in devel white bishop on c2 attacks g6 and h7
opment can make a difference. along the newly-opened b1-h7 diago
The first two of White's major nal, while the white queen can now
plans in this position are introduced check the black king from h5.
by playing 13 dxe6 fxe6. Incidentally, 1 1 d5 does rather
'wrong foot' Black, since an irony of
these lines is that Black would almost
rather have his bishop back on c8,
defending the weak pawn on e6!
We shall now (finally!) examine the
specific ways in which White has
sought to attack the black position.
The first four games in this chapter
deal with 13 dxe6 fxe6 14 liJd4, while
13 dxe6 fxe6 14 liJg5 is considered in
Games 65-69. Finally, the immediate
13 liJd4 is seen in Games 70-73.
The exchange on e6 is a double
edged decision, as it increases the po Game 61
tential activity of Black's pieces. Lautier-Gelfand
Black's light-squared bishop has one Amsterdam 1996
less pawn to bite against on the a8-h 1
diagonal and the d- and f-files are 1 d4 d 5 2 c4 c6 3 ttJf3 ttJf6 4 ttJc3
83
Th e S e m i - Sla v
84
M e r a n Va ria tio n : M a in L in e
85
Th e S e m i - Sla v
However, Gelfand intends to first sof g4 42 lLle5 g3+ 43 'itg 1 .lig8 44 lLlf5
ten up the queenside with a2-a4 . . . bS 'ite7 45 lLlxh4 'itb6 46 lLla4+ 'ita5 47
b4, and then play tt:Jds . In this case, lLle3 �b4 48 lLlf5 'itb3 49 lLld 1 lLle6
the a-file will remain closed, so there is 50 �g2 Sl.e6 5 1 lLlfe3 lLld4 52 �h5
no point in keeping a rook on a l . The e3 53 bxe3 lLlb5 54 e4 .lixe4 55
sacrificial 1 8 tt:JdS is the subject of the 'itxg3 lLle3 56 lLlf2 lLld5 57 lLlf5 lLlf6
next game. 58 �d 1 + 'itb4 59 lLle3 'ite5 60 �e2
1 8 . . . Sl.d6 1 9 a4! lLld4 'itd4 61 �f3 Sl.d5+ 62 �e2 �e4+ 63
19 . . . b4 20 tt:JdS tiJxdS 21 exdS is 'itd2 �e6 64 Sl.g6 lLld5 65 lLle2+
clearly better for White, according to 'ite5 66 lLld3+ �f6 67 .lie4 lLle7
Gelfand. %-%
20 .lixd4! exd4 2 1 lLlxd4 The next game shows a crazy alter
This unstereotyped capture on d4 native path for White. I really don't
has given Black enormous problems: feel that it is necessary to play like
the bS-pawn is attacked and the fork this, but it made for a great game!
tiJe6 is threatened.
21 . . . .lixh2+ 22 'ith 1 �f4 23 g3 Game 63
.lixg3 24 fxg3 �xg3 25 lLlf5 �e5 26 K rasenkov-Schandorff
�h2 �xh2+ 27 'itxh2 'itb8 28 axb5 Copenhagen (Politiken Cup) 1 996
1 d4 d5 2 e4 e6 3 lLle3 lLlf6 4 e3 e6
5 lLlf3 lLlbd7 6 �d3 dxe4 7 �xe4 b5
8 Sl.d3 Sl.b7 9 0-0 a6 1 0 e4 e5 1 1 d5
e4 1 2 Sl.e2 �e7 1 3 dxe6 fxe6 14
lLld4 lLle5 1 5 Sl.e3 0-0-0 1 6 �e2 e5
1 7 lLlf3 lLle6 1 8 lLld5 ! ?
86
M e r a n Va ria tio n : M a in L in e
Game 64
Krasenkov-Oll
Polanica Zdroj 1996
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 lLlc3 lLlf6 4 e3 e6
5 lLlf3 lLlbd7 6 i.d3 dxc4 7 i.xc4 b5
8 i.d3 i.b7 9 0-0 a6 1 0 e4 c5 1 1 d5
c4 1 2 dxe6 fxe6 1 3 i.c2 �c7 14
lLld4 lLlc5 1 5 i.e3 e5
A mistake according to Krasenkov
who prefers 2S . . . l::.c 8 26 �dS 'ifd6 27
.ixc4 with compensation for the sacri
ficed material.
26 l:txc4 �d6 27 i.xc5 lLlxc5 28
l:txc5? !
An exchange sacrifice too far! 28
:txb4+ �c8 (28 . . .Wa7 29 'ii'e 3 wins) 29
'i'e3! lid7 30 lbxe5! liie 7 (30 .. :iVxeS 3 1
.ib7+ wins) 3 1 f4 would have given
Black terrible problems according to
Krasenkov.
28 . . :ii'xc5 29 ii'xa6 r3;c7 30 lLlg5 Black chases the knight from d4
�d7 3 1 ii'e6+ '1t>c7 32 'it'a6 �d7 33 immediately.
..-b7+ '1t>d6 34 lLlf7+ r3;e6 35 lLlxd8+ 1 6 lLlf5
l:txd8 36 'it'xh7 l:tf8 37 ii'xg6+ r3;e7 Black wants to develop his dark
38 �g5+ l:tf6 39 ii'g7+ l:tf7 40 ii'g5+ squared bishop and then put his king
l:tf6 41 ii'd2 l:td6 42 �e2 ii'c 1 + 43 to safety. However, 16 . . . .ie7 leaves g7
'1t>g2 l:td2 44 ii'h5 �xb2 45 ii'g5+ hanging, while 16 . . . g6 is met by 17
�e6 46 'i6'f5+ r3;e7 47 'i6'g5+ '1t>e6 48 lbh6, stopping the black king from
-.f5+ r3;e7 49 h4 �d4 50 a5 b3 5 1 castling kingside. Although the knight
a 6 b 2 5 2 �h7+ '1t>d6 5 3 a 7 b 1 -. 54 would then be precariously placed on
87
Th e S e m i- Sla v
h6, it does have a strong move back l::txc7 25 i.. xf8 .txc2 draws and 2 1
wards to g4, removing the knight on ctJh6+ 'it>h8 2 2 i..xc5 .txc5 2 3 i.. xe4
f6 and thus increasing the strength of gxh6 is nice for Black) 2 1 . . .i.. xf5 22
ctJd5. i..xd6 �xd6 23 'iVxe5 :d7! holds for
1 6 . . J:td8! Black. 20 i.. xe4 by contrast is met by
16 ... ctJcxe4 17 ctJxe4 ctJxe4 18 a4 20 . . . ctJxe4 2 1 ctJxe4 :xf5! with a good
'iVc6 19 axb5 axb5 20 Iha8+ i.xa8 2 1 position for Black.
'iVg4 gave White good attacking So it seems that 18 . . . 0-0 is sufficient
chances in Lautier-Kramnik, Monaco Gust!) for Black.
(rapidplay) 1996. 1 9 iLld5! iLlxd5 20 iLlxd6+ l::t x d6 21
1 7 'iVf3 �d6 1 8 l::t a d 1 �c8? 'iWh5+!
This rather timorous move leads di A very uncomfortable move to face.
rectly to disaster. The only consistent 2 1 . . .g6 10ses to 22 'iVxe5+.
move in this position is 1 8 . . . 0-0, when 21 . . . l::t g 6 22 exd5 iLld3
Krasenkov suggests 19 'iVg3, putting Forced, to block the bishop's attack
extra pressure on g7 and threatening on the rook on g6.
20 llxd6! �xd6 2 1 i.xc5 winning eve 23 �xd3 cxd3 24 l::t c 1 'it'b8 25 �a7 !
rything, as 2 1 . . .'iVxc5 loses to 22 1 -0
'iVxg7+ mate. However, as Krasenkov A nice finish! Krasenkov shows that
points out, Black can play 19 . . . ctJfxe4! 25 . . . 'iVa8 loses to 26 'iVxe5+ .te6 27
here. :c6! (White must be careful; 27 dxe6
loses to 27 . . . 'iVxg2+ mate!) 27 . . . 0-0 28
.l:ixe6.
Game 65
Karpov-Kramni k
Linares 1 994
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 iLlf3 iLlf6 4 iLlc3
20 ctJxe4 is met not by 20 . . . ctJxe4, e6 5 e3 iLlbd7 6 �d3 dxc4 7 i.xc4
when 2 1 i.xe4 i.xe4 22 ctJxd6 l:1xd6 b5 8 i.. d 3 a6 9 e4 c5 1 0 d5 c4 1 1
23 'iVxe5 i.d3 24 i.c5! �d7 25 'iVxc7 dxe6 fxe6 1 2 i.. c 2 �b 7 1 3 0-0 'iVc 7
l1xc7 26 i.. xf8 i..x fl 27 .l:id8 wins for 1 4 iLlg5 iLlc5 1 5 e5!
White due to the double threat of 28 The plan with 14 ctJg5 demands
.td6+ and 28 'it>xfl, but by 20 . . . .txe4! much more urgency from White than
(Krasenkov) , when 2 1 i.. x c5 (not 2 1 14 ctJd4, since after 14 . . . ctJc5, Black is
ctJxd6 i.xc2; while 2 1 .l:ixd6 l:1xd6 22 already threatening to neutralise
�xc5 i.. x f5! 23 'iVxe5 .l:id7 24 'iVxc7 White's pressure on e6 by chasing
88
M e r a n Va ria tio n : M a in L in e
away the knight with . . . h7-h6. Kar closer analysis reveals that Black's
pov's idea forces the game into a com pieces lack coordination; it is hard for
plicated endgame. Black to generate any activity. For
example, the bishop on cS attacks f2,
but Black is unable to utilise this:
... ttJg4 was prevented by 22 h3!! and
Black is unable to bring a rook to the
f-file. Moreover, by removing the e6-
pawn, White has Black's outpost on
dS, leaving the black knight stuck on
f6.
Question 6: Why does this matter?
Answer: This is the genius of Kar
pov's concept. 22 h3 prepares g2-g4-gS
to drive the black knight away from
1 5 .. .'iVxe5 1 6 l:te 1 'iVd6 1 7 �xd6! f6. If the knight can be forced to a pas
.ixd6 1 8 .ie3 sive or wayward square, then White
IS ttJxe6 ttJxe6 19 �xe6+ '1t>d7 is will be able invade the seventh rank
harmless for Black, who is ready to with l1d7 or play ttJdS, bringing
take advantage of his queenside pawn Black's position to breaking point.
maJonty
1 8 . . . 0-0
Karpov dismisses IS . . . ttJd3 due to 19
.ixd3 cxd3 20 �ad l , but in Kramnik
Kuczynski, German Bundesliga 1994,
Black held the position quite easily
after 20 . . . 0-0 2 1 �xd3 .idS 22 ttJxe6
.ixh2+ 23 '1t>xh2 .ixe6 24 l:1d6 �feS. I
have not seen this idea repeated since.
1 9 l:tad 1 !
Gaining a tempo on the bishop on
d6.
1 9 . . . .ie 7 20 .ixe5 .ixe5 21 liJxe6 22 . . . .if8? !
IUe8 22 h3! ! Although the text is solid, it does
At first sight, White's play seems nothing to interfere with White's
unimpressive. Although he has some plan. 22 ... 1:abS is considered in Games
activity - his two rooks occupy the 66-6S.
open central files, and the e6-knight 23 g4! h6 24 f4!
attacks the bishop on cS and the pawn Reinforcing the threat of g4-gS.
on g7, while covering the dS-square - 24 . . . .if3 25 l:td2 .ie6
Black has the two bishops and a men To give the knight a square on d7
acing queenside majority. However, a after White attacks it with g4-gS.
89
Th e S e m i - Sla v
90
M e r a n Va ria tio n : M a in L in e
with a rook on a8, but before he can disrupts the coordination o f White's
do this, he must move his bishop from rooks.
b7. Unfortunately, the natural and 24 %:td2 %:te8 ! ?
desirable 28 . . . .id5 loses a pawn to 29 A new idea. Black accepts that his
ttJa6! !:ta8 30 lbxb4! knight will be driven to the side after
Black should therefore have played g4-g5. However, by pinning the
Yagupov's 26 . . . a5, protecting the b4- knight on e6, he hopes to be able to
pawn and intending to drive the rook activate the knight with . . . lbf4.
from b6 with . . . lbd7. Yagupov gives The alternative 24 . . . b4!? 25 lba4
27 lie7 lbd7 28 l'lbe6 lbf8 29 .l::I b 6 lbd7 �a7 26 g5 lbd5 has been the subject of
with a draw by repetition. intensive high-level testing. After 27
27 nxb5 axb5 Y2 - Y2 g6! h6 (27 . . . hxg5 28 lbg5!) 28 lbd4 c3!
Now we turn our attention to the 29 bxc3 bxc3 30 �d3 lbb4! 31 �xf3
most aggressive and consistent idea for .txd4 32 .tf5 �c7 33 a3 lbc6 34 \tg2
White, 23 g4. (and not 34 :f4?? �e5 when Black
was winning in Nikolic-Shirov, Hor
Game 67 gen 1994) 34 . . . lbe7 35 �c2 �f6, as in
G reenfeld-Av. Bykhovsky Alterman-Akopian, Haifa 1995, 36
Beersheva 1996 1:idl Wf8 37 l'le3 would have kept a
small edge according to Alterman.
1 d4 d 5 2 e4 e6 3 lLle3 lLlf6 4 e3 e6 25 �d 1
5 lLlf3 lLlbd7 6 .Jtd3 dxe4 7 �xe4 b5 The calmest approach. 25 �fl .tb4!
8 �d3 .Jtb7 9 0-0 a6 1 0 e4 e5 1 1 d5 26 a3 (26 g5 lbd5! is good for Black)
c4 1 2 dxe6 fxe6 1 3 .Jte2 'fie7 1 4 26 . . . �xc3 27 bxc3 �b6! 28 lbf4 (28
lLlg5 lLle5 1 5 e 5 'ii'x e5 1 6 l:te1 �d6 lbg5+ .tg2+! wins the exchange)
1 7 'fixd6 �xd6 1 8 .Jte3 0-0 1 9 %:tad 1 28 . . .l::txe l+ 29 <it'xe l g5! presented
�e7 20 �xe5 �xe5 2 1 lLlxe6 %:tfe8 Black with no problems in Filgueira
22 h3! ! %:tab8! 23 g4 Sorokin, Villa Balester 1996.
25 . . . �xd 1 26 l:tdxd 1 %:tbe8 27 g5
lLlh5 28 lLld5 �d6 29 l:td4 %:te6 30
%:tde4 %:tb8 31 h4 b4
White has an impressive looking
position, but it is not easy to do much
with it whereas Black has the simple
plan of creating a passed c-pawn.
32 %:te 1 %:te8 33 'it>f1 �f8 34 %:tee 1 e3
35 bxe3 bxe3 36 lLld4 %:txe4 37
lLlxe6 %:txh4 38 'it>e2 l:te4+ 39 lLle3
lLlf4+ 40 �f3 lLld3 41 <;t>xe4 lLlxe 1
42 lLld4 �e5 43 lLlb3 �a7 44 f4 e2
23 . . . �f3 45 f5 .Jib6 46 lLld5 �e5 47 lLlf4 .Jta3
This annoying intermediate move 48 lLle2 .Jie 7 49 f6 gxf6 50 gxf6
91
Th e S e m i - Sla v
92
M e r a n Va ria tio n : M a in L in e
93
Th e S e m i - Sla v
94
M e ra n Va ria tio n : M a in L in e
19 :�xf7 !
. . A magical game!
This is best and almost forced, as
19 ... 'it>xf7 is unpleasantly met by 20 Game l3
'iYh5+ g6 2 1 �h3 ! Tkachiev-Handoko
20 f3! �h5! 2 1 g3 Jakarta (match) 1996
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 lLJc3 e6 4 e3 lLJf6
5 lLJf3 lLJbd7 6 �d3 dxc4 7 .i.xc4 b5
8 �d3 .tb7 9 0-0 a6 1 0 e4 c5 1 1 d5
c4 12 �c2 �c7 13 lLJd4 lLJc5 1 4
'i'f3! ?
21 . . . 0-0!
Kramnik states that 2 1 . . .lbxg3!! 22
hxg3 (22 �e 1+ lbe4 23 .ua2 0-0 gives a
virulent attack) 22 . . . 0-0! 23 kla2 .ixg3
24 ltg2 �e5 25 lbc5 �ad8 26 .ie3 .ic8
was Black's best chance, when White
can only save himself with 27 f4! White suppons d5 and prepares to
'iYxdl 28 �xdl .ixf4 29 .ixf4 �xf4 30 put extra pressure on e6 by 'iWh3.
�gd2 with reasonable drawing 14 . . . .td6
chances. The rest of the game is thus 14 . . . 0-0-0 is interesting, looking to
not theoretically imponant, but play win the d5-pawn without giving up
through it - it has to be enjoyed! the light-squared bishop.
22 fxe4 �h3! 23 lLJf3? .i.xg3 24 1 5 'i'h3 b4 1 6 lLJa4 lLJcxe4 1 7 dxe6
lLJc5 l:txf3 25 l:txf3 �xh2+ 26 �f 1 0-0 1 8 f3 �e5 1 9 �e3 lLJg5 20
�c6! exf7+ l:txf7 21 'i'h4 l:td8 22 lLJf5
This is what Kasparov had missed lLJe6 23 .tb6!
when calculating his 23rd move. Winning the exchange and essen
27 �g5 .i.b5+ 28 lLJd3 l:te8 29 l:ta2 tially the game.
'i'h 1 + 23 . . . 'i'b8 24 �xd8 lLJxd8 25 l:tad 1
Winning, but as Kramnik shows, .i.d5 26 lLJe3 'i'a7 27 'i'f2 b3 28
29 . . . it.xd3+ 30 �xd3 "i'h 1 + 3 1 'it>e2 axb3 cxb3 29 lLJxd5 bxc2 30 lLJxf6+
�xg2+ 32 �e3 lixe4 was checkmate! .i.xf6 31 'i'xa7 l:txa7 32 l:td2 l:tc7 33
30 �e2 l:txe4+ 31 �d2 'i'g2+ 32 l:tc1 l:tc4 34 b3 l:tb4 35 l:td3 lLJe6 36
�c 1 'i'xa2 33 l:txg3 �a 1 + 34 �c2 l:txc2 lLJf4 37 l:tc8+ �f7 38 l:td7+
'ii'c 3+ 35 �b1 l:td4 0-1 �g6 39 l:tc4 1 -0
95
Th e S e m i - Sla v
S u m mary
I would recommend the 13 dxe6 fxe6 14 liJd4 line to White players since it com
bines solidity and aggression and does not require the refined endgame skills de
manded by Karpov's 14 liJg5 'i'xe5 15 e5. Tkachiev's 13 liJd4 liJc5 14 'i'f3 is also
worth a try. For Black players, I would suggest that 13 dxe6 fxe6 14 liJd4 is best
met by 14 . . . liJc5 1 5 iLe3 e5 .
13 . . . liJc5 (D)
14 b4 cxb3 15 axb3 b4 16 liJa4
16 . . . liJxa4 Game 71; 16 . . . liJcxe4 Game 72
- -
14 'i'f3 Game 73
-
1 3 . . . fxe6 1 4 1Od4
14 liJg5 liJc5 15 e5
15 . . . 'i'xe5 16 �e 1 'i'd6 17 'i'xd6 .txd6 18 i.e3 0-0
19 �ad1 .te7 20 .i.xc5 .i.xc5 2 1 liJxe6 �fc8 22 h3 (D)
22 . . . ..tf8 Game 65
-
22 . . . �ab8
23 liJxc5 Game 66; 23 g4 Game 67; 23 a3 Game 68
- - -
15 . . . 'i'c6 Game 69
-
1 8 lOxe4 Game 61
-
13 . . . lOc5 22 h3 1 7 1Of3
96
CHAPTER EIGH T
Meran Variation :
Move Orders and Sidelines
97
Th e S e m i- Sla v
can delay or avoid . . . c5-c4 or, via the b5 8 iLd3 iLb7 9 0-0 a6 1 0 e4 c5 1 1
8 . . . a6 move order (Games 74-78) , d5 "VtIlc7 1 2 dxe6 ! ?
Black can delay or avoid . . . .tb7 A committal decision. The prophy
(Game 79) . lactic 12 i.c2 is considered in Games
The rest of this chapter is devoted 75-77 and 12 b3, preventing . . . c5-c4, in
to systems in which Black plays an Game 78.
early . . . e6-e5 (Games 80-8 1) or takes 1 2 .. .fxe6 1 3 iLc2
the white bishop on d3 in response to
d5xe6 (Games 82-83) .
98
M e r a n Va ria tio n : M o v e O r d e rs a n d Side lin e s
Game 75
• Lautier-Dreev I find this exchange sacrifice hard to
Linares 1995 believe for Black, but it has caused
White serious problems. Although
1 d4 d 5 2 c4 c6 3 liJc3 liJf6 4 e3 e6 White's material advantage should pay
5 liJf3 liJbd7 6 �d3 dxc4 7 �xc4 b5 in the end, by winning the rook on h8
99
Th e S e m i - Sla v
for his king's knight, he has given up a 27 'iVg3 l:th5 28 �f4 lZlf5 29 'ii'e 1 c4
very valuable piece for attacking the 30 �h 1 �h4 3 1 'iVd2 'fie7 32 l:tg 1
black position. In the short term he g5 33 �g3 lZlxg3+?
now has no real way of creating play A blunder according to Dreev who
against the black position, and thus he claims a win with 33 . . . liJde3, with the
will have to take on the chin whatever idea of 34 ... .ixe4 35 fxe4 'iWb7!
Black can throw at him. Black will 34 lZlxg3 l:th8 35 lZlf5 exf5 36
have to make the most of a mixture of �xd5+ �g6 37 �xb7 'ii'x b7 38
factors: the half-open h-file; pressure 'iVd6+ �h5 39 l:taf1 g4 40 'ii'e 6 l:tf8
against the e4-pawn; and the vulner 41 l:txg4 �g5 42 l:tg3 1 -0
able white queen.
1 9 'it'h4 Game 76
To stop the black rook from com L. B . Hansen-lII escas
ing immediately to the h-file. Moscow Olympiad 1924 @
1 9 . . . lZle5 20 f4
20 l:td1 is considered in the next 1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 lZlf3 lZlf6 4 lZlc3
game. e6 5 e3 lZlbd7 6 .id3 dxc4 7 .ixc4
20 . . . gxf3 2 1 gxf3 lZlg6! 22 'iVg5 b5 8 .id3 a6 9 e4 c5 1 0 d5 'it'c7 1 1
22 'i6g3 is met by 22 . . . i.d6 accord 0-0 �b7 1 2 dxe6 fxe6 1 3 �c2 �e7
ing to Dreev. 1 4 lZlg5 'iVc6 1 5 'iVf3 ! ? h6!? 1 6 'iVh3
22 . . J:th8! 23 e5 lZlh4! hxg5 1 7 'iVxh8+ �f7 1 8 'it'h3 g4 1 9
"h4 lZle5 20 l:td 1 ! ?
1 00
M e r a n Va ria tio n : Mo v e O r d e rs a n d Side lin e s
1 5 . . . h6
lS ... 0-0!? is interesting, as 16 eS fails
to 16 . . . 'i1Vxg2+ mate!
Aah!! 1 6 ttJf3 0-0-0 1 7 'ii'e 2 l:[hf8
23 'iix h8 ttJg6! Dreev suggests 17 . . . wb8 here.
Suddenly the queen is trapped and 17 . . . b4 18 eS bxc3 19 exf6 �xf6 20
White is in trouble! bxc3 ttJb6 21 �d2 ttJdS 22 'ii'e l is then
24 'ii'd 8 �xd8 25 l:[xd8 b4 26 ttJe2 slightly better for White according to
liJxe4 27 l:tcd 1 ttJe5 28 l:[b8 ttJf6 29 Gelfand.
liJf4 g5 30 l:[xb7+ 'ikxb7 31 ttJd3 1 8 e5 ttJd5 1 9 ttJxd5 "Vixd5 20 a4 b4
liJxd3 32 �xd3 ttJe4 33 l:tc 1 a5 34 21 �e3?!
g3 'i'd5 35 �xe4 �xe4 36 l:txc5 2 1 l:td I ! 'Wc6 22 as! gS 23 fxgS hxgS
'i'b1 + 37 �g2 a4 38 l:txg5 'ike4+ 39 24 �xgS �xf3 (24 . . . �xgS 25 ttJxgS
'Otg 1 e5 40 l:th5 'ii' b 1 + 41 �g2 �xb2 ttJxeS 26 �e4) 25 �xe7 11g8 26 �d6
42 l:[h7+ <;t>e6 43 �c5 �c2 44 l:th6+ 'iWc7 27 �e4 ttJxeS 28 l:[xe6 is given by
<j;f7 45 �d6 �c6+ 0-1 Gelfand as clearly better for White.
21 . . . ttJb6 22 ttJd2 'i'c6 23 ttJb3?
Game ll ttJc4 Y2 - Y2
Gelfand-Dreev A strange draw offer as Black has a
Biel 1995 wonderful position!
101
Th e S e m i - Sla v
1 2 . . . 1i.e7
Game 78 Kozul-Lalic, Croatia 1995, saw the
Kozul-Beliavsky risky 12 . . . c4 13 bxc4 bxc4 14 dxe6 fxe6
Slovenia 1995 15 .tc2 i.b4, which seemed okay for
Black after 16 i.d2 (16 ctJa4!?)
1 d4 liJf6 2 c4 c6 3 liJc3 d5 4 e3 e6 16 . . . i.d6 17 ctJd4 ctJc5 18 f4 e5 19 ctJf5
5 liJf3 liJbd7 6 �d3 dxc4 7 �xc4 b5 0-0 20 'i'e2 ctJd3 2 1 i.xd3 cxd3 22
8 1i.d3 a6 9 e4 c5 1 0 d5 �c7 1 1 0-0 'i'xd3 .tb4.
iLb7 1 2 b3 1 3 �g5
The more testing 13 a4!? was played
in Krasenkov-Timman, European
Team Championship, Pula 1997. Af
ter 13 . . . exd5 (13 . . . c4!? 14 bxc4 bxc4 15
.tc2 0-0 16 ctJd4 lUe8 17 dxe6 fxe6 18
ctJxe6 'i'e5! was unfathomable in Kra
senkov-Se.Ivanov, Augustow 1996) 14
ctJxd5 ctJxd5 15 exd5 0-0 16 axb5 axb5
17 l::tx a8 i.xa8 18 �xb5 ctJf6 19 .tb2
ctJxd5 20 l::te 1 White was a little better.
1 3 . . . 0-0 1 4 1:1c1 1:1ad8! 1 5 �xb5! ?
A very clever spot as 15 . . . axb5 16
I have changed the move order of ctJxb5 'i'b8 17 d6! nets a pawn
this game slightly (the actual sequence (Beliavsky) . However, by eating up
was 1 1 b3 .tb7 12 0-0) to get a conven White's centre, Black finds his way to
ient diagram! This move has two main achieve even a slight edge.
points: it ensures that a future . . . c5-c4 1 5 . . . exd5 1 6 iLd3 dxe4 1 7 liJxe4
by Black will split his queenside �xe4 1 8 �xe4 liJe5 1 9 �e2 liJxe4
pawns after b3xc4 . . . b5xc4, and by 20 iLxe7 liJxf3+ 2 1 gxf3 �xe7 22
thus discouraging . . . c5-c4, it maintains �xe4 �g5+ 23 �g4 �d2 24 1:1xc5
the white bishop on d3 and prevents �xa2 25 �a4 �e2 26 �e4 �d2 27
the active deployment of the black 1:1 a 1 1:1fe8 28 1:1e5 1:1xe5 29 �xe5
king's bishop to d6. �d3 30 �e4 �b5 3 1 �a4 �g5+ 32
However, by spending a tempo on �g4 �f6 33 1:1c 1 h5 34 �xh5 g6 35
this consolidating move, White is �g4 1:1d4 36 �c8+ �h7 37 �h3+
turning his back on the plan which �g7 38 1:1c8 �g5+ 39 �g3 �f5 40
best suits his position: the central at 1:1e8 1:1f4 41 �g2 g5 42 1:1e3 �g6 43
tack via pressure against e6. Although 1:1e8 % - %
White intends instead to soften up the
black queenside with a2-a4, Black has Black avoids o r delays . . . i. b 7
such an obvious and easy target in the Question 6: Why delay . . . ..tb7? I
d5-pawn that I don't believe that thought the whole point was to get
White can be successful. the bishop active on the long diagonal!
1 02
M e r a n Va ria tio n : M o v e O r d e rs a n d Side lin e s
1 03
Th e S e m i - Sla v
1 04
M e r a n Va ria tio n : M o v e O r d e rs a n d Side lin e s
The ideal time for this move. By releasing the central tension here
Black's bishop is well placed on c8, instead of playing the main line
covering the exposed f5-square and 12 . . . 'i'c7, Black accepts that his light
White's queen is somewhat in the way squared bishop will not find activity
on e2, blocking the idea of liJe2-g3 . on the a8-h 1 diagonal. He reasons that
14 ttJh4? ! the piece activity that d5xe6 concedes
A mistake according to Ivanchuk. to him weighs less than the benefits it
14 liJdl was better, preparing b2-b3. provides White: the target of the e6-
14 . . . 0-0 1 5 'it>h 1 �d4! 1 6 ttJf5?! pawn and the potential e4-e5 break.
ttJc5 1 7 �f3 �xf5 18 �xf5 �c8! 1 9 By closing the centre with . . . e6-e5,
'i'f3 'it'g4 20 �xg4 ttJxg4 2 1 ttJd 1 f5! Black removes the point of tension
Ivanchuk already claims a winning that was the basis of White's attacking
advantage here! ambitions, forcing White to search
22 exf5 ttJf6 23 ttJe3 l:tad8 24 a4 elsewhere for activity.
ttJxd5 25 axb5 axb5 26 l:ta5 ttJc7 27 1 3 ttJe2!
�d2 l:ta8 28 g4 e4 29 'it>g2 ttJd3 30 The structure is similar to that of
l:tb 1 �xe3 3 1 fxe3 1:txa5 32 �xa5 the Chigorin Ruy Lopez (minus
ttJd5 33 �d2 l:ta8 34 <t>g3 b4 35 White's c3-pawn and Black's d6-pawn)
�xd3 cxd3 36 l:tc1 l:ta2 37 l:tc5 and there are positional motifs com
lixb2 38 l:txd5 l:txd2 39 'it>f4 l:tc2 40 mon to both: the transfer of the
�e5 b3 4 1 l:td8+ 'it>f7 0-1 queen's knight to f5 and the under
mining of the black queenside with
Game 81 b2-b3 and even a2-a4. The text pre
Podgaets-Muhametov pares b2-b3 without allowing . . . b5-b4
Moscow 1995 and . . .c4-c3 with tempo, while taking
the knight towards the f5-square that
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 ttJc3 ttJf6 4 ttJf3 was exposed when Black went . . . e6-e5.
1 05
Th e S e m i - Sla v
1 06
M e ra n Va ria tio n : M o v e O rd e rs a n d Side lin e s
A preventive move such as 24 . . . h5 and can also emerge with effect either
doubles the strength of 25 �h6, while to g4 or, after a black queenside pawn
after 24 . . . �e7 25 h5 l::rc S 26 l:txcS+, advance with . . . a6-a5 and . . . b5-b4, to
White can seek to implement the a6. The most effective version of the
above ending with the annoying h5 . . . e6-e5, for Black can be achieved via
thrust as a bonus. It thus seems that S . . . a6 9 e4 c5 10 d5 c4 1 1 .tc2 e5.
Podgaets's assessment is justified. Question 9: Can't White just avoid
22 d6! �d8 23 b4! . . . e6-e5 by taking on e6 as soon as
Freeing b3 for the light-squared Black plays . . . c5-c4?
bishop from where it attacks the sensi Answer: Aha! Read on!
tive f7-pawn. 23 . . . 'ii'b 6 24 i.b3! lIcdS
24 . . . l:txc1 25 l:txc 1 lbxe4 26 lbxe4 Black takes the bishop on d 3
.1xe4 27 lbg5 .taS 2S l:tc7 gives White
excellent compensation according to Game 82
Podgaets. Cu . Hansen-Chernin
23 .. :i6'b6 24 .Ji.b3 l:tcd8 25 l:te 1 ! Taastrup 1992
Calmly reinforcing the e4-pawn and
regrouping his rooks to active squares. 1 c4 c6 2 lbc3 d5 3 d4 lbf6 4 e3 e6
25 . . . lbe8 26 l:tad 1 lbdf6 27 lbxe5 5 lbf3 lbbd7 6 .Ji.d3 dxc4 7 .Ji.xc4 b5
lbxd6 28 'it'f4 �g7 29 l:td3 lbc4 30 8 .Ji.d3 a6 9 e4 c5 1 0 d5 c4 1 1 dxe6
.ixc4 bxc4 31 lbf5+! cxd3
A key resource if Black was hoping
to meet 1 1 �c2 with the blockading
1 1 . . .e5 rather than the main line
1 1 . . .i.b7 12 0-0 'ilVc7.
1 2 exd7+ �xd7 1 3 0-0 .Ji.b7
107
Th e S e m i - Sla v
1 08
M e ra n Va ria tio n : M o v e O r d e rs a n d Side lin e s
Summary
Dreev's queenside castling plans (Games 75 and 77) are particularly worthy of
attention, while 8 . . . a6 9 e4 c5 10 d5 c4 1 1 .i.c2 e5!? may also be worth a try if
Black wishes to establish a blockade in the centre.
8 .i.b7
. . .
8 ... a6 9 e4 c5 10 d5 (D)
10 . . . 'i'c7 1 1 0-0 c4 12 .i.c2 .i.c5
13 dxe6 - Game 79; 13 'ii'e2 - Game 80
10 . . . c4 1 1 dxe6 cxd3 12 exd7+ 'i'xd7 13 0-0 .i.b7 - Games 82 and 83
(by transposition)
9 0-0 a6 1 0 e4 c5 1 1 d5 'iic 7
1 1 . . .c4 (D)
12 .tc2 e5 - Game 81
12 dxe6 cxd3 13 exd7+ 'ifxd7 14 �e 1 .i.e7 15 e5 ttJd5
16 ttJe4 0-0 17 'i'xd3 'i'g4
1 8 ttJg3 - Game 82; 18 ttJfg5 - Game 83
1 2 dxe6
12 .i.c2 .i.e7 13 dxe6 fxe6 14 ttJg5 'i'c6 (D)
15 'ii f3 h6 16 'i'h3 hxg5 17 'i'xh8+ 'itt f7 1 8 'i'h3 g4 19 'i'h4 ttJe5
20 f4 - Game 75; 20 .l:td1 - Game 76
15 f4 - Game 77
12 b3 - Game 78
1 2 fxe6 - Game 74
. . .
1 0 d5 1 1 . . . c4 1 4 . . 'ii c 6
.
1 09
, CHAPTER NINE
1 10
M e r a n Va ria tio n w i t h 8 . . . i. b 7 : Wh i t e A l t e rn a t i v e s
his pawn on eS, which attacks Black's kept his pawn on a2 and the black a
weakened central dark squares and pawn has not moved.
provides an outpost for a white knight Question 4: Wow! Big deal!
on d6. This pawn also gives White A nswer: This may seem insignifi
attacking chances on the kingside, as it cant, but it plays a major part in every
takes away the defensive square f6 single variation. White gains the pos
from the black knights: thus g4 and hS sibility of a2-a3 to attack Black's
are free for the white queen, while h7 queenside, while the absence of a
also lacks its usual protection. If White pawn on a6 gives White .tbs to attack
plays on the kingside with lbgS and the knight on d7 or embarrass the
'iWhs (attacking h7 and f7) he may be black king on e8.
able to cause Black grave danger. Now it's time to get down to spe
However, White can only divert his cific moves. We shall first of all con
pieces to the wing if his centre is abso sider the main line, 12 0-0 (Games 84-
lutely secure. Black must therefore 88) before moving on to 12 lbxcs
keep the pressure on White's central (Game 89) and 12 dxcS (Game 90) .
pawns. Thus his cS-pawn is very im
portant: Black can play . . . cSxd4, de Game 84
stroying the base of White's pawn Yakovich-Giorgadze
centre and preventing lbgS due to the Yerevan Open 1996
loose pawn on eS.
Question 2: What are Black's aims? 1 d4 dS 2 c4 c6 3 lLlc3 lLlf6 4 e3 e6
A nswer: Black's wants to develop S lLlf3 lLlbd7 6 .id3 dxc4 7 .ixc4 bS
without allowing White to whip up 8 .id3 .ib7 9 e4 b4 1 0 lLla4 cS 1 1
kings ide play. If he is successful in this, eS lLldS 1 2 0-0 a6?
then White's centre will switch from We examine this inferior line to
being an attacking weapon to an easy show the power of White's play if left
target for Black's pieces. An interest unchecked. The correct 12 . . . cxd4 is
ing feature of this line is the position considered in Games 8S-88.
of the pawn on a7. 13 lLlgS ! cxd4 14 lLlxe6! fxe6 1 S
Question 3: Well, what about it? �hS+ <;; e 7 1 6 .igS+ lLlSf6 1 7 l:tfe 1 !
A nswer: Black's queenside structure �e8 1 8 exf6+ gxf6 1 9 :txe6+! !
with the b-pawn on b4 is common in <;;x e6 20 �g4+!
queen's pawn openings, but usually it 20 lite 1 would have been met by
arises after Black has played . . . a7-a6 20 . . . lbeS. The text forces the king to
and . . . b7-bS and White undermined move farther afield.
the queenside with a2-a4. Black never 20 . . . �d6
normally plays . . . bS-b4 on his own 20 . . .�f7 21 �c4+ Wg7 22 �d2+
initiative without provocation by a2- 'i'g6 23 'i'xd7 wins, as Yakovich
a4. Here, Black does have the com shows.
pensation of having forced the white 21 'it'xd4+ �c7 22 l:tc1 + ..t>b8 23
knight offside to a4, but White has .if4+ lLleS 24 lLlb6!
111
Th e S e m i- Sla v
1 12
M e ra n Va ria tio n w i t h 8 . . . iL b 7 : Wh i t e A l t e rn a t i v e s
of the queen sacrifice, which Piket A nswer: Since Black is putting his
assesses as slightly better for Black. bishop on the hS-al diagonal, White
20 .. :�xd5 21 'ii' x d5 exd5 22 .if6 attacks the pawn whose protection the
bishop will abandon: the b4-pawn.
22 . . . lLlxe5! !
Quite amazing! After 23 ':xe5, 1 4 . . . i.g7 1 5 .ib5!
Black stresses the weakness of White's This move marks the start of a very
back rank with 23 .. J�acS!! 24 i.xg7 sharp tactical plan which pushes
':xc6 25 i.xh6! (stopping . . J�c1+) Black's position to the limit. Again,
25 . . . g5! 26 i.xg5 f6! 27 llxd5 fxg5 2S White uses the fact that Black's dark
l1xg5+ '\th7 29 f3 �dS, when despite squared bishop is not covering the fs
White's temporary material edge, a3 diagonal any more: by pinning the
Black has the better prospects due to knight on d7 to the king on eS, White
White's rather sad knight on a4. All threatens to dramatically activate his
this analysis is by Piket. knight on a4 with ltJc5!
23 i.xe5 l:tae8! 24 f4 f6 25 lLlb6 1 5 . . . a6! 1 6 lLlc5! axb5 1 7 lLlxb7
fxe5 26 lLlxd5 exf4 27 l:txe8 l:txe8 -.b6 1 8 lLld6+ �e 7 !
28 J:[xg6 �h7 29 l:txa6 l:te2 30 'it>f1 The best choice, as I s . . . 'iit fs 19 ltJg5!
l:txb2 3 1 lLlxf4 Y2 - Y2 ltJxe5 20 l:txe5 i.xe5 (20 .. :i'xd6 2 1
'i'f3! i.f6 22 �xd5 exd5 2 3 i.b4! wins)
Game 86 2 1 ltJdxf7 is rather grim for Black, as
Alterman-Dreev Stohl points out.
Manila Olympiad 1992 Question 6: I'm sorry, but even after
IS . . . 'iite 7 this position looks losing!
1 d4 d 5 2 c4 c6 3 lLlf3 lLlf6 4 lLlc3 A nswer: Stay calm! The knight on
e6 5 e3 lLlbd7 6 .id3 dxc4 7 .ixc4 d6 is a dangerous piece, but it is not
b5 8 .id3 i.b 7 9 e4 b4 1 0 lLla4 c5 secure - Black is threatening to de
1 1 e5 lLld5 1 2 0-0 cxd4 1 3 l:te 1 g6 stroy its support with . . . ltJxe5. White
14 i.d2! ? also has few pieces in this attack - lit
Question 5: This looks rather tle else apart from the knight and the
strange! What's the point? pawn on e5 - and not much time to
1 13
Th e S e m i - Sla v
1 14
M e ra n Va ria tio n w i t h 8 . . . 1J.. b 7 : Wh i t e A l t e rn a t i v e s
1 15
Th e S e m i- Sla v
Game 88
Wells-Kaidanov
Dublin 1991
1 16
M e r a n Va ria tio n w i t h 8 . . . iL b 7 : Wh i t e A l t e rn a t i v e s
23 lLlxe6 fxe6 24 l:txe6 -.fS 2S 'it'xfS castle. However, the key thing about
gxfS 26 l:txdS �xdS 27 lLlb6+ 'it>b7 Black's position is its solidity, espe
28 lLlxd S l:td8 29 :LeS i.f8 30 i.gS cially in the central area: it will take
h6 31 h4 hxgS 32 lLlxc7 l:td 1 + 33 something special to break past the
'1t>h2 i.d6! 0-1 knight on dS, supported by the bishop
on b7 and the pawn on e6. White also
Game 89 has no pieces in the attack: there is the
Bareev-Kramnik bishop on bS, and . . . nothing else! In
Dortmund 1 995 fact the bishop is simply loose on bS,
and Black threatens .. :iVb6, hitting the
1 d4 d S 2 c4 c6 3 lLlc3 lLlf6 4 e3 e6 bishop and the f2-pawn. White has
S lLlf3 lLlbd7 6 �d3 dxc4 7 �xc4 bS only a temporary initiative; Black will
8 �d3 �b7 9 e4 b4 1 0 lLla4 cS 1 1 soon play . . . h7-h6, to stop anything
eS lLldS 1 2 lLlxcS coming to gS, play his king's rook to
With this capture White rids his po dS and then slip his king back to fs
sition of the offside knight in a4, while and absolute safety. Since White has
clearing away some of the defences no body of pieces to support his one
around the black king. However, check, his temporary initiative IS
these exchanges free Black's position. doomed to slip away without trace.
1 2 . . . lLlxcs 1 3 dxcS �xcS 1 4 0-0 1 4 . . . h6!
Question 8: Wait! Are you crazy? Black must be very careful. As
White can play 14 .ibS+ here!! Kholmov demonstrates, 14 . . . 0-0 is ask
A nswer: Aha, and now 14 .. .'�e7. ing for disaster: 15 .ixh7+ �xh7 16
lbgs+ Wg6 (16 . . . �gS 17 'ii'h S l:.eS IS
see follo wing diagram
'Wxf7+ �hS 19 'WhS+ �gS 20 '6'h7+
Question 9: Yes, but I've forced the �fs 2 1 'iVhS+ �e7 22 'iVxg7+ is mate)
black king to move! It's exposed, in 17 'Wc2+ fs 1 S exf6+ �xf6 19 'WxcS
the centre, vulnerable to attack . . . !ics 20 'WxfS+!! 'iWxfs 2 1 lbh7+ neatly
Answer: At first sight it feels bad to finishes Black off. Consequently, with
move the king and lose the right to his calm move, Black prevents .ixh7+
117
Th e S e m i - Sla v
1 d4 d5 2 e4 c6 3 tbe3 tbf6 4 e3 e6
5 tbf3 tbbd7 6 .ltd3 dxe4 7 .ltxe4 b5
8 i.d3 i.b7 9 a3
As we know, Black ideally wants to
play . . . c6-cS, but first he has to protect
bS with . . . a7-a6 or try . . . bS-b4. 9 a3 is
directed against both of these two
ideas. White will meet 9 . . . a6 with 10
b4, clamping down on cS; while by
attacking b4, he also hopes to make
. . . bS-b4 a little less tempting, since by
This used to be considered a tricky delaying e3-e4, he reserves the e4-
move order, but it seems now to make square for his queen's knight.
1 18
M e r a n Va ria tio n w i t h 8 . . . iL b 7 : Wh i t e A l t e rn a t i v e s
1 19
Th e S e m i - Sla v
White a slight edge due to Black's ex the Semi-Slav tradition not to mind
posed queenside. 16 . . . exdS 17 exdS losing the right to castle. However,
l:ie8 18 ..1bS! and 17 . . . ..1f6 1 8 ..1f4! l:ie8 this is usually done when White has
19 'i'c2 ..1xds 20 �xh7+ <;ith8 2 1 played e4-eS and Black has blocked the
l:ixe8+ 'i'xe8 2 2 l:ie l both favour central files with an immovable knight
White according to Greenfeld. on ds. Here, with the e4-pawn re
stricting the knight on f6, Black's task
is much more difficult.
1 20
M e ra n Va ria tio n w i t h 8 . . . Jt.. b 7 : Wh i t e A l t e rn a t i v e s
12 1
Th e S e m i - Sla v
Summary
At the moment Black seems to be holding his own quite comfortably after both
9 e4 b4 10 lDa4 c5 and 9 a3 b4! 10 lDe4 lDxe4. One thing, however: don't touch 9
a3 b4 10 lDe4 a5 .
9 e4
9 a3 b4 10 lDe4
10 . . . lDxe4 Game 91
-
10 . . . a5
I 1 lDxf6 lDxf6 12 e4 i.e7 13 'iYe2 (D)
13 . . . lDd7 Game 92
-
- 13 . . . c5 Game 93
1 3 . . . 'iYb6 Game 94
-
-1 1 0-0 Game 95
9 . b4 1 0 liJa4 c5 1 1 e5 liJd5 (D) 1 2 0-0
. .
1 2 . . cxd4
.
12 . . . a6 Game 84
-
1 3 ];tel
1 3 lDxd4 lDxe5 14 i.b5+ lDd7 15 lIe 1 �c8 16 'iYh5 g6
17 'iYe2 Game 87; 17 'iYe5 Game 88
- -
1 3 . . . g6 (D) 1 4 �g5
14 iLd2 Game 86
-
1 4 . . :�a5 Game 85
-
1 3 'ike2 11 . . . liJd5 13 . . . g6
1 22
1 d4 d 5 2 c4 c6 3 lZJf3 lZJf6 4 lZJc3 10 cxd4
. . .
e6 5 e3 lZJbd7 6 �d3 dxc4 7 �xc4 Black counters the threat against his
b5 8 �d3 a6 9 e4 c5 1 0 e5 knight on f6 attacking White's knight
The variation with 9 e4 cS 10 eS is on c3. 1 1 exf6 bxc3 gives Black a good
the most aggressive way for White to game. Usually, White replies with
play, and is a direct attempt to refute, 1 1 lZJxb5
or at least exploit the inconveniences
of, Black's move order with 8 . . . a6.
Question 1: How is that?
A nswer: With 8 . . . �b7, Black only
plays . . . c6-cS once he has placed his
bishop on the a8-h 1 diagonal. Conse
quently Black always has piece cover
of the dS-square; e4-eS can never really
inconvenience him since he can al
ways play his knight to dS without
any bother. However, in the 8 . . . a6 9
e4 line, Black has to rush . . . c6-cS
without first developing his light Question 2: Why?
squared bishop. When White plays 10 A nswer: Rather than allow Black
eS attacking the knight on f6, 10 . . . ttJdS just to take White's knight on c3 ,
is poor since after 1 1 ttJxdS Black must White makes a 'desperado' sacrifice to
recapture with a pawn on dS, blocking get as much as he can for the knight
the a8-h 1 diagonal and leaving him before it succumbs to the inevitable.
with a rather shaky position. Now things can get a little confus
Black's only chance is to fight fire ing. The main line here has histori
with fire and play cally been 1 1 . . .ttJxeS, while both
1 23
Th e S e m i - Sla v
1 1 . . .CLlg4 and 1 1 .. .axb5 12 exf6 'ii'b 6 this variation. Alterman showed the
have also had a lot of theory devoted way to play against 13 . . . iLb7 in a game
to them. However in the last couple against Har Zvi in Israel 1993: 14 iLe3!
of years, there have been virtually no (White's idea is not to castle, but to
games played with these lines, since a develop by playing the king to e2.
completely new main line has This avoids giving Black any counter
emerged. It is so new in fact that Peter play against the white king by pressur
Wells' magisterial The Complete Semi ing g2 after castling) 14 ... .i.xg2
Slav (published in 1994) contains vir (14 .. J�g8 is simply met by 15 'ii'h 5!
tually no mention of it! .l::[xg2 16 �e2! with a clear advantage
Consequently, I have concentrated for White according to Alterman) 15
almost exclusively on this new line 1:lg1 �d5 16 �xb5 'ii'c7 17 'ii'd3 'ii'x h2
and will just give a summary (almost a 18 �xd7+ �xd7 19 'ii'b 5+ �d8 20
history lesson!) of the other lines. CLlc6+ �c7 2 1 iLb6+ with a very big
1 1 axb5 1 2 exf6 gxf6 ! ?
. . . attack. White developed his play so
12 . . . 'ii'x f6?? ( 1 2 . . . CLlxf6 13 �xb5+ quickly in the game above because he
followed by 14 CLlxd4 or 'ii'xd4 wins a was able to maintain his knight on d4,
pawn) 13 .ig5 traps the queen. where it is is ideally placed on d4 be
Question 3: I can see that 13 �xb5 cause it attacks all the loose light
loses a piece to 13 ... 'ii' a 5+, but can't squares in Black's position: it can
White simply play 13 CLlxd4, regaining threaten a sacrifice on e6, and it sup
his pawn and leaving him with a ports iLxb5.
clearly better pawn structure?
A nswer: This is a crucial question.
Let us take a look at the stem game for
this line.
Game 96
Altermari:' Chernin
Qroningen (PCA Qualifier)l993
1 d4 d 5 2 c4 c6 3 ti::l c 3 ti::l f 6 4 e3 e6
5 ti::lf 3 ti::l b d7 6 �d3 dxc4 7 �xc4 b5
8 �d3 a6 9 e4 c5 1 0 e5 cxd4 1 1
ti::l x b5 axb5 Chernin's 13 ... 'ii'b 6 puts pressure on
Black's alternatives here are consid the knight and intends to increase this
ered in Game 100. by playing . . . �c5, which forces White
1 2 exf6 gxf6 to take early measures to bolster his
The old 12 . . . iLb7 is the subject of knight. The second and very crucial
Game 99. point is that by leaving the light
1 3 ti::l x d4 �b6 ! ! squared bishop on c8, Black robs the
The key move that has revitalised force from iLxb5. In the 13 . . . �b7 line,
1 24
M e r a n Va ria t i o n w i t h 8 . . . a 6 : O ld M a in L in e - 9 e4 c 5 1 0 e 5
once the black queen left d8, ..txbs shunned 13 lbxd4 in favour of 13 0-0,
threatened ..txd7+, drawing the black putting the king into safety first!
king into the firing line of the white
queen. Here i.xd7+ is simply met by Game 97
the recapture on d7 with the bishop. Gelfand-Shirov
13 .. :i!fb6 thus destabilises White's , Linares 1997
strength (his d4-knight) and neutralises
one of his major threats (i.xbS, aim 1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 l2Jc3 l2Jf6 4 l2Jf3
ing for .1i.xd7+) . Coupled with the e6 5 e3 l2Jbd7 6 �d3 dxc4 7 �xc4
open lines this enables Black to b5 8 �d3 a6 9 e4 c5 1 0 e5 cxd4 1 1
quickly whip up a ferocious initiative. l2Jxb5 axb5 1 2 exf6 gxf6 1 3 0-0
14 �e3 'it'b6!
14 .1i.xbS is met by 14 . . . .1i.b4+ 15 At the cost of a pawn and his pawn
�fl eS! 1 6 i.xd7 .1i.xd7 with a strong centre, White has greatly loosened
initiative, while 14 ..te4 is met by the Black's structure - e4-eSxf6 has dou
surprising 14 . . . �a4! 15 .1i.e4 .1i.cs with bled Black's f-pawns, while lbxbS has
compensation according to Chernin. reduced Black's queenside to an iso
Finally, 14 lbxbs i.b7 15 0-0 lilg8 lated b-pawn. Black's king, in contrast
gives a huge attack. to White's, lacks a haven on either
14 . . . �b4+! 1 5 'it>f1 �c5! 1 6 �xb5 wing and will have to take its chances
e5 1 7 �xd7+ �xd7 1 8 �f3 �a6+ in the centre behind the f7, f6, e6 clus
1 9 l2Je2 l::t g 8!? 20 �xc5 �c6 21 �h5 ter. Due to his large range of weak
�xg2+ 22 '1t>e 1 �xh 1 23 'it'xh7 O-O-O! nesses, it is difficult for Black to con
solidate his extra pawn, so he should
seek instead to generate activity.
1 4 �e2!
Attacking the pawn on bs. 14 .1i.e4
..tb7 15 ..txb7 'i'xb7 16 lbxd4 1.ig8 17
f3 lbeS 17 ... lbeS 1 8 'iWe2 ..tcS 19 i.e3
lid8 20 :ad 1 lbc4 21 .1i.f2 'i'b6! was
equal, Kamsky-Kramnik, Linares 1994
1 4 . . . �a6
Black's wants to keep hold of some
queenside light squares by keeping the
b-pawn on bS. The alternative 14 . . . b4!
Black is just winning but the finish is seen in the next game.
is very nice! 1 5 l:td 1 !
24 l:tc1 �b8 25 'it'xf7 �d5 26 �h5 This move has been causing Black
�d3 27 'it'h4 �c4 0-1 problems. White's removes the rook
28 'ii'xc4 'ifd2+ 29 �fl 'ii'd 1+! ! 30 from the fl-a6 diagonal and takes the
�xd 1 �xd 1 + is mate! sting out of Black's idea of . . . lbxd3.
Consequently, White players have 1 5 . . . �c5
1 25
Th e S e m i - Sla v
126
M e r a n Va ria tio n w i t h 8 . . . a 6 : O l d M a in L in e - 9 e4 c5 1 0 e 5
even more, but by occupying b4, he at The greedy 15 .1i.xb5 tDc5 16 .if4
least creates the chance of defending e5!? 17 .1i.g3 tDe6!, intending . . . e5-e4,
the d4-pawn with . . . .1i.c5 without hav gave Black good compensation III
ing the bishop driven away. Sakaev-Belikov, USSR 1990.
1 S l:td 1 �cS! 1 6 �f4
16 .ixh7 .1i.a6 (16 . . . llxh7 loses the
exchange to 17 'iVe4!) 17 .1i.d3 e5!? is
extremely murky. Black will retreat
the bishop to e7 and attack the light
squares with . . . tDc5. White should
stop this by transferring the king's
knight to b3 or e4 via d2.
1 6 . . . �b 7 1 7 .i.bS l:td8 1 8 l:tac 1 l:tg8
1 9 .i.g3 Wf8 20 'ilVc4 .i.dS 21 'ii'd 3
.i.xf3 22 gxf3 tLle5 23 'ii'e 2 d3 24
.i.xd3 tLlxd3 25 l:txd3 .i.xf2+ 26 Wg2
.i.d4 27 l:tc4 eS 28 'ii'd 2 fS 29 Wf1 1 S . . . tLlcS ! ?
l:ta8 30 l:txb4 �a6 3 1 'ii'e 2 f4 32 15 . . . 'iVb6 16 �e 1 .1i.d5 17 h4!, in
.i.f2 �g6 33 l:tbxd4 exd4 34 .i.xd4 tending h4-h5-h6, was dangerous for
l:te8 35 .i.c5+ Wg7 36 'ii'd 2 �fS 37 Black in Shabalov-Kishnev, USSR
l:tdS 'iVh3+ 38 �g2+ �xg2+ 39 1988. The text is often dismissed as
Wxg2 Wf6+ 40 Wf1 l:ta8 41 a3 �e6 bad, but it is not quite clear.
42 l:td6+ We5 43 l:td2 'h - 'h 1 6 �xh7+! Wxh7 1 7 tLlg5+ Wg8! ?
We shall now take a rapid look This is the point! 1 7 . . .';t.tg6 1 8 'iNg4
through the older lines that used to f5 19 'iWg3! wf6 20 'i'e5+ Wg6 2 1 �xc5
fashionable in this variation. is very unpleasant for Black.
1 8 'iVh5 l:te8 1 9 'iVxf7+ �h8 20 l:te5?
Game 99 This is not the best. Unfortunately
Csiszar-Sploshrov for Black, White seems to be able to
Budapest Open 1996 obtian an advantage with 20 b4! 'iVd5
21 f3, when 2 1 . . .d3 22 bxc5 d2 23
1 d4 d S 2 c4 e6 3 tLlc3 c6 4 e3 tLlf6 �xd2 'iYxd2 24 'iVh5+ �g8 25 :tad1
S tLlf3 tLlbd7 6 .i.d3 dxc4 7 .i.xc4 bS 'i'c2 26 �d7! "iixc5+ 27 'iti>h 1 is very
8 .i.d3 a6 9 e4 c5 10 eS cxd4 1 1 dangerous for Black.
tLlxb5 axb5 1 2 exf6 �b7 ! ? 20 . . . �e7 21 'ii'h S+ �g8 22 'iVh7+
A n interesting little idea. Wf8 23 tLlxe6+ �xe6 24 l:tfS+ ji'xfS
1 3 fxg7 2S �xf5+ Wg8 26 .i.f4 l:tac8 27 h4
Very natural, but I wonder if 13 d3 28 h5 .i.e4 29 'ii'g 4 Wh7 30 f3
tDxd4 is possible here, hoping to trans 1:[g8 31 �h3 .i.xf3 32 g4 .i.xb2 33
pose to Alterman-Har Zvi in the notes l:tf1 'h - 'h
to Game 96 after 13 . . . gxf6 14 .1i.e3! On move 41 after a time scramble
1 3 . . . .i.xg7 1 4 0-0 0-0 1 5 l:te 1 that left both score-sheets illegible!
127
Th e S e m i - Sla v
The final idea is a line that theoreti Wd6 26 l::ra6+ \t>d5! 27 h4 'i'b 1+ 28
cally always seems to be doing fine, Wh2 'i'b8+ and now White should
but is rather difficult to handle. have played for the draw with 29 Wgl .
1 7 b3 lDd5
Game 100 17 ... We7 was rehabilitated by Byk
Bareev-Yusupov hovsky against Greenfeld in Kfar-Sava
Linares 1993 1995, when 18 a4 'i'd5 19 0-0 llhc8 20
b4 ctJe4 2 1 b5 llc4! 22 b6 ctJxd2 23
1 d4 d 5 2 e4 e6 3 lDe3 lDf6 4 e3 e6 'i'xd2 I!axa4 24 llxa4 llxa4 25 �b 1
5 lDf3 lDbd7 6 i.d3 dxe4 7 i.xe4 b5 fla8 26 'i'c2 'i'd6! 27 'iVxh7 flb8 29 b7
8 �d3 a6 9 e4 e5 1 0 e5 exd4 1 1 'iVd5 gave Black a fine game.
lDxb5 lDxe5 1 8 a4 'iVd3
By eliminating White's pawn on e5, To stop White from castling. 19
Black makes sure that he keeps his �b4+ fails because of 19 . . . ctJxb4.
kingside pawn structure intact. 1 9 'iVe2 'iVxb3 20 0-0 'tir'e2 21 life 1
1 1 . . .ctJg4 12 ctJd6+! i.xd6 13 exd6 d3 22 'iVe 1 'iVb2 23 lie4? !
'i'a5+ 14 iYd2! iYd5 15 iYg5! 'i'xg5 16 23 as would have been better ac
.txg5 ctJc5 17 �e2 f6 18 �d2 e5 19 0-0 cording to Yusupov.
was good for White in Greenfeld 23 . . . lib8 24 a5 �e7 25 a6 lib5? !
D.Gurevich, Beersheva 1994. 25 . . . 11hc8 26 �xc8 llxc8 27 a7 :ta8
1 2 lDxe5 axb5 1 3 i.xb5+ i.d7 1 4 28 1:tb 1 'i'd4 29 �b7 wd6! would have
lDxd7 'iVa5+ 1 5 Si.d2 'iVxb5 1 6 lDxf8 given Black a clear advantage accord
�xf8 ing to Yusupov.
26 liee1 'iVd4 27 lieb 1 lixb 1 28
'iVxb 1 Ub8 29 'iVe 1 lia8 30 lia5 lia7
3 1 'tir'a3+ �f6 32 lia4 'tir'b6 33 'tir'xd3
g6 34 .th6 �b2 35 h4 �e7 36 g3
'iVe3 37 'iVb5 �e7 38 �b2 lia8 39
a 7 f6 40 .tf4 lDxf4 41 l:lxf4 e5 42
lia4 �f7 43 'iVd2 �g7 44 'iVe3 �b7
45 'iVe5 lid8 46 lia 1 lia8 47 �h2
�g8 48 g4 'iVe4 49 lia4 �b7 50 g5
fxg5 5 1 hxg5 h6 52 gxh6 �h7 53
lia3 �f7 54 �e3 �b7 55 �g3 'iVe7
56 lia6 �f7 57 �h2 �b7 58 lia5
Still the most popular, although "ile7 59 lia6 'iVb7 60 'iVd3 'iVf7 6 1
Lukacs's 16 .. Jixf8 deserves a mention "ile3 Y2 - Y2
and brought him a good win against White's main alternative to the cra
Ibragimov in Budapest 1992 after 17 a4 ziness of 1 1 ctJxb5 is to play instead 1 1
'i'c4 1 8 b3 'i'd3 19 'i'e2!? 'i'xb3 20 0-0 ctJe4, an old move that was recently
lha4 2 1 'i'e5 ctJd7! 22 iYxg7 �xa1 23 resurrected by the Spanish player Pa
�xa1 'iWb2! 24 lla8+ We7 25 �g5+ blo San Segundo.
1 28
M e ra n Va ria t i o n w i t h 8 . . . a 6 : O ld M a in L in e - 9 e 4 c 5 1 0 e 5
1 29
Th e S e m i - Sla v
Sum mary
If you don't mind unbalanced pawn structures then this chapter is for you!
Black is not doing badly at all in general, but it obviously takes a special type of
player Oike Shirov!} to thrive in this sort of situation. The older lines with
1 1 . . .liJxeS are theoretically healthy, although it can be a little daunting in a prac
tical game to face two connected passed pawns!
1 1 axb5
. . .
1 3 tDxd4
13 0-0 'iWb6 14 'iWe2 (D)
14 . . . .ta6 Game 97
-
14 ... b4 Game 98
-
1 3 . . . �b6 Game 96
-
1 2 exf6 1 4 �e2
1 30
CHA PTER ELEVEN
131
Th e S e m i- Sla v
White from pushing e3-e4. Moreover, have forced 17 'iVdl cS! with a slight
by forestalling tLlxf6+, Black keeps his edge for Black.
queen's knight on d7, where it sup 1 6 .ixb4 lLlxe4 1 7 !iLxe7 �xb2 1 8
ports the . . . c6-cS break. The drawback l:tf 1 a5? 1 9 l:tc2 �b5 20 �a3 �d5
of the exchange is that it brings the 21 l:tfc 1 l:tc7 22 !iLe5 !iLe8 23 lLle5
white bishop to the hI-aS diagonal, f6 24 lLlc4 lLlxe5 25 lLlb6 �e4 26
making it less easy for Black to lLlxa8 l:ta7 27 lLlb6 1 -0
achieve . . . c6-cS quickly. More often than not Black plays
this line with the immediate S ... b4.
Game 103
Ya kovich-Sveshnikov
Yerevan Open 1 996
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 lLlc3 lLlf6 4 e3 e6
5 lLlf3 lLlbd7 6 !iLd3 dxc4 7 !iLxc4 b5
8 !1J.. d 3 b4 9 lLle4 lLlxe4
9 . . . .i.b7 10 tLlxf6+ gxf6!? 1 1 e4 cS 12
i.e3 'iVb6 13 �c 1 O-O-O!? 14 0-0 �bS
was the rather outrageous attempt in
1 1 . . . .ie7 1 2 �a4!? �b6 1 3 �d2? ! Yakovich-Filippov, Perm 1997. After
After this, White has no advantage. 15 'iVe2 �gS 16 �fdl fS!? 17 il.f4+ i.d6
During the postmortem, I was rather lS i.xd6+ 'iVxd6 19 dxcS tLlxcs 20
confused as I had seemed to get noth il.b l Black's position was very loose.
ing whilst playing the only moves! Black's other alternatives, 9 ... cS and
Then Peter Wells showed me 13 tLld2! 9 . . . it.. e 7, are considered in Games 104-
The knight is headed for c4, and as a 105 and 106-109 respectively.
bonus, it will arrive with tempo by 1 0 !1J.. xe4 �b6!?
attacking the queen on b6. Moreover,
after . . . tLlf6, the bishop on e4 can re
treat to f3 and maintain White's pres
sure along the h I-aS diagonal. White
will then develop his dark-squared
bishop on b2-b3 and .i.b2, making
sure of course that his queen does not
get trapped on a4! In fact, tLld2 would
also not be bad on the 12th move as
well.
In the game, I was struggling.
1 3 . . . 0-0 1 4 l:tfc 1 l:tfc8 1 5 l:tc4 lLlf6?!
A slightly nervous move. l S ... aS 16 10 ... .i.b7 11 0-0 would have trans
�ac1 'iVa7!, threatening . . . tLlb6, would posed to the game above, but by using
1 32
M e r a n Va ria tio n : S ys t e m s with a n Ea rly . . . b 5-b4
1 33
Th e S e m i - Sla v
Trying to drive the white bishop Neither side can avoid the repeti
from the long diagonal. 13 .. J�b6!? is tIOn.
also possible.
1 4 d5 Game 105
On 14 ctJe5, 011 gives 14 . . . �g7 15 Akesson-Ingbrandt
iLxd7+ �xd7 16 ctJxd7 �xd7 17 dxc5 Stockholm (Rilton Cup) 1997
�xd1+ 1 8 �xd1 �c8 19 .td2 as with
equality. 1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 tiJf3 tiJf6 4 tiJc3
1 4 . . . .lig7 1 5 e4 fxe4 1 6 l:te 1 ! ? e6 5 e3 tiJbd7 6 !JLd3 dxc4 7 .ltxc4
An interesting idea. Lugovoi b5 8 !JLd3 b4 9 tiJe4 c5 1 0 tiJxf6+
Sveshnikov, Novgorod Open 1995, gxf6 1 1 e4! ? cxd4 1 2 tiJxd4 !JLc5 1 3
continued instead 16 ctJg5 0-0 17 �xd7 !JLe3! ?
�xd7 18 ctJxe4 c4! 19 �e 1 llb5 20 This i s very risky. Black has not yet
�h6!? �xh6 2 1 ctJf6+ 'it>g7 22 �d4 committed his light-squared bishop,
'it>g6 23 h4 �f4! 24 h5+ 'it>g7 25 ctJe8+ which detracts from the strength of
'it>g8 26 ctJf6+ 'it>h8 27 �xf4 �xf4 28 �b5. 13 ctJb3 would have been safer.
ctJxd7 �d8 29 dxe6 fxe6 and Black was 1 3 . . JWb6! 1 4 i.c2!? .lia6
winning. I think he always had that Stopping White from castling king
one under control! side.
1 6 . . . exd5 ! 1 5 .lia4!
16 . . . 0-0 17 �xe4 exd5 1 8 iLxd5 with Now the fun begins! White's first
�f4 to follow is very good for White threat is 16 �xd7+ 'it>xd7 17 ctJb3+
. . .
1 6 . . . 0-0
White threatened 17 �xc5 �xc5 18
1 7 . . . 0-0 1 8 '1ifxe4 l:tb6 1 9 .lta4 l:te6 ctJc6! �c4 19 ctJxd8 0-0 20 �g4+ \t>h8
20 i.f4 l:txe4 21 .1i.xc7 l:txe 1 + 22 21 iLh6! �g8 22 ctJxf7+ mate. 16 . . . b3!?
l:txe 1 .ltxb2 23 i.d6 l:td8 24 !JLc7 (intending . . . �b4+) is tempting, to
l:tf8 25 i.d6 Yz - Yz meet 17 l:lxc5, not with 17 ...�xc5
1 34
M e r a n Va ria tio n : S ys t e m s w i t h a n Ea rly . . . b 5-b4
when 1 8 tbc6 �c4 19 axb3! is strong, Well it worked, but it certainly was
but with 17 . . . bxa2!? risky! There is still plenty of life in
After 1 8 tbc2 'iix b2, I really don't this system for Black!
know what is going on!
1 7 i.xd7 l:txd7 Game 106
Or 17 . . . b3!? 18 �xc5 'iixc5 Lautier-Piket
(18 . . . bxa2!?) 19 'iVg4+ �h8 20 tbxe6!, Leiden (match) 1995
and now 20 . . :iYb4+ 2 1 .td2 fxe6!? (to
stop 'ti'g7+ mate; 2 1 . . :iixd2+!? 22 �d2 1 d4 tbf6 2 c4 c6 3 tbc3 d 5 4 tbf3
:xd7+ 23 \tie l seems better for White) e6 5 e3 tbbd7 6 i.d3 dxc4 7 i.xc4
22 .txb4 bxa2. Here 23 'iWdl fails to b5 8 i.d3 b4 9 tbe4 i.e 7
23 . . .lhd7 24 'iVaI �fd8, when 25
'iVxa2 �dl+ is mate, but 23 \t>d2
�xd7+ 24 �c3! (24 Wc2 .td3+ 25 �b3
.ib 1 ! ! followed by . . . a2-al'iV!)
24 . . . :c8+ 25 �b3 .tc4+ 26 Wa3 does
the trick for White.
1 8 l:txc5!
It took me a while to believe that
18 . . :iYxc5 loses to 19 'ii' g4+ Wh8 20
tbxe6! Black has no checks and cannot
deal with the double threat of 'i'g7+
mate and .ixc5.
1 8 . . . f5 This quiet move introduces the
Black's last chance was 18 ... b3. main line of the 8 . . . b4 variation.
1 9 exf5 �xc5 20 �g4+ �h8 21 1 0 tbxf6+ tbxf6 1 1 e4 i.b7 1 2 "e2!
tbxe6! �e5 22 tbxf8 l:td8 23 tbd7 ! It is now time to discuss move or
1 -0 ders! Black players who play the main
line of this variation usually prefer to
reach it via 8 . . . .tb7 9 0-0 b4 10 tbe4
.te7 1 1 tbxf6+ tbxf6. The flexibility of
8 . . . b4 is of no use in the main line,
since Black wants his bishop on b7 in
all cases. Moreover, 8 . . . b4 9 tbe4 .te7
10 tbxf6+ tbxf6 1 1 e4 .ib7 gives White
the possibility of delaying castling
with 12 'ife2!
Question 3: Can't Black just castle
here?
Answer: 12 . . . 0-0 13 e5! tbd7 14 'iVe4!
23 . . .lhd7 10ses to 24 f6!, threatening (14 h4!?) 14 . . . g6 15 .th6 �e8 is not
'i'xd7 and 'iVg7+ mate. pleasant for Black after 16 h4!? or the
1 35
Th e S e m i - Sla v
more sober 16 0-0. Black must there lost a pawn to 20 ... ttJxb2! 2 1 ':xb2
fore play 12 . . . ttJd7 to anticipate 13 eS. llxdl+ 22 'iiVx dl ltxc4.
However, after 13 0-0 0-0, Black has 20 . . . l:txdS 2 1 l:tc 1 h6 22 h3 lLib6
lost all chance of playing the lines that Regrouping the knight now that it
arise after 12 0-0 0-0 13 'iWe2 cst? has done its duty.
Question 4: How does the 8 ... .ltb7 23 iob3 lLid5 24 iod2 'i'b6 25 l:tc2
move order help? a5 26 'i'c4 iofS 27 'i'g4 lLie7 ! 2S
A nswer: After 8 . . . .1b7 9 0-0, White i.e3 �b5 29 l:tc5 �e2 30 l:txa5 lLif5
has already castled. Consequently, 31 �b6 l:tcS 32 Wh2 l:tc 1 33 ioe3
after 9 . . . b4 10 ttJe4 .1e7 1 1 ttJxf6+ l:ta 1 34 lLid4 'i'f1 35 lLixf5 exf5 36
ttJxf6 12 e4, he cannot play 'iiVe2 be i.xf7+ WhS 0-1
fore Black castles, and after 12 . . . 0-0 13 A nice game from Piket.
'iiVe 2, Black can play the most active
lines with 13 ... cS. Game 107
1 2 . . . lLid7 1 3 e5?! Levin-Antunes
This, however, tries for too much. Seville Open 1 994
13 0-0 was better - see the next game.
1 3 . . . c5! 1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 lLic3 e6 4 lLif3
Preparing castling by preventing lLif6 5 e3 lLibd7 6 �d3 dxc4 7 �xc4
'iiVe 4. b5 S i.d3 b4 9 lLie4 �e7 1 0 lLixf6+
1 4 dxc5 0-0 1 5 O-O? ! lLixc5 1 6 �c4 lLixf6 1 1 e4 iob7 1 2 'i'e2! lLid7 1 3
l:tcS 1 7 i.f4 lLia4! 0-0 0-0
1 36
M e r a n Va ria tio n : S ys t e m s with a n Ea rly . . . b 5-b4
137
Th e S e m i - Sla v
no easy matter to win this position Defending the bishop to allow ... c6-
since Black is so solid. cS.
23 .td7 .!:tdS 24 .!:tad 1 ttJf5 25 .ta4 1 5 �e2
.!:txd 1 26 i.xd 1 .td4 27 b3 �e5 2S The ECO recommendation of 1 5
.tg4 ttJe7 29 i.f3 ttJd5 30 �h4 ttJe3 �c2 i s rather mystifying here! How
31 �dS+ '&t>g7 32 �f6+ '&t>gS 33 ever, 15 �e3 seems very sensible.
�dS+ % - % Jelen-Furlan, Bled 1992, continued
Like the other seven games in this IS ... cS 16 �xb7 l:txb7 17 d5. White
match, the game was drawn! had a slight edge after 17 . . . exd5 1 8
'i'xdS 'i'b6 19 �g5 �e8 2 0 �xe7 l:txe7
Now the most aggressive try for 2 1 l:tac1 �c7 22 �fdl ttJf8 23 ttJd2.
White, and the one favoured by most 1 5 . . . h6 1 6 i.e3 e5! 1 7 i.xb7 l:txb7
of the top players: 13 eS. 1 S dxe5
Gelfand has suggested that 18 'i'e4
Game 109 'i'a8 19 l:tfdl is slightly better for
Beliavsky-Anand White here, but it's not that much.
\ Reggio Emilia 1 991 Instead 1 8 l:tfdl 'i'c8 19 dxcS ttJxcS 20
Iiac1 �d8 ! 2 1 'i'c4 (2 1 l:txd8 iYxd8 22
1 d4 d5 2 e4 e6 3 ttJe3 ttJf6 4 e3 e6 �xc5 l:tc7! is equal according to Gel
5 ttJf3 ttJbd7 6 .td3 dxe4 7 �xe4 b5 fand) 2 1 . . .l:txd 1 22 l:txd 1 as 23 l:tc1
S i.d3 .tb 7 9 0-0 b4 1 0 ttJe4 .te 7 �d7 was level in Karpov-Antunes Til
1 1 ttJxf6+ ttJxf6 1 2 e4 0-0 1 3 e5 burg 1994.
ttJd7 14 i.e4 1 S . . . ttJxe5 1 9 .!:tfd 1 �bS 20 �e4
Preventing . . . c6-cS by pinning the 20 i.xcs l:tc8 21 i.xa7 l:txc2 22
pawn to the bishop on b7. .ixb8 llxb8 23 llab 1 11a8 24 ttJd4 Itcs
1 4 . . . .!:tbS 25 l:tal g5 gives Black good compensa
tion for the pawn according to Anand,
who is a frequent advocate of the
Semi-Slav.
20 . . . ttJd7 21 �e4 .!:teS 22 .!:td2 .!:tbe7
23 .!:tad 1 .!:te4 24 .!:td4 ttJb6 25 �g4
'&t>fS 26 �e4 '&t>gS 27 �g4 .!:txd4 2S
.!:txd4 'Ot>fS 29 �h5 �e7 30 h4 i.e5
31 .!:td2 .txe3 32 fxe3 ttJd5 33 'Ot>f2
'iVe5 34 ttJd4 ttJf6 35 �f3 �xe5 36
.!:td 1 'Ot>gS 37 �f4 'iVd5 3S .!:ta 1 e5 39
�f5 l:te4 40 b3 exd4 0-1
1 38
M e r a n Va ria tio n : S ys t e m s w i t h a n E a r l y . . . b 5-b4
Summary
These systems are still quite fresh and unexplored and they could well prove to
be a nasty surprise for an unprepared White player.
8 �b7
. . .
8 . . . b4 9 ltJe4
9 . . . ltJxe4 Game 103
-
1 1 e4 Game 105
-
13 e5 Game 109
-
1 0. . . gxf6 1 2 . . lbd7
. 12 . . . 0-0
139
CHA PTER TWEL VE
M e ran Variation :
Odds and Ends
1 10 and 1 1 1) and 8 �b3 (Game 1 12) . .ie7 1 S ltJeS 'iVc7 16 .iO .ib7 17 �b 1
We then move on to a discussion of �a7 18 0-0 c5! 19 ..if4 'iVc8 20 dxcs
Black's solid 6 . . . ..id6 (Games 1 13-1 16) . ..txcS and Black was fine. 13 0-0 is
considered in the next game.
Game 1 1 0
Aleksandrov-Yagupov
. 'Russia 1996
1 d4 d 5 2 c4 c6 3 liJc3 liJf6 4 e3 e6
5 liJf3 liJbd7 6 �d3 dxc4 7 i.xc4 b5
8 �e2 a6 9 e4! ?
Piket's 9 0-0 worked successfully
against Kaidanov in Groningen 1993
after 9 ... cS 10 ds exdS 1 1 ltJxds ..ib7
12 ltJxf6+ 'iVxf6 13 a4 b4 14 e4 h6 15
.ic4 ltJb6 16 eS 'iVg6 17 �d3 with a
slight initiative for White. The idea of 1 3 . . . i.d7 1 4 liJe5 c5! 1 5 liJxd7
9 0-0 is to avoid the lines in the game, �xd7 1 6 �xd7+ �xd7 1 7 i.f3 l:tab8
meeting 9 . . . ..tb7 with 10 e4 and 1 1 eS. 1 8 dxc5 �xc5 1 9 �f4 l:tb6 20 0-0
9 . . . b4 1 0 e5 bxc3 1 1 exf6 liJxf6! liJd5!
1 40
M e r a n Va ria tio n : O dds a n d En ds
Game 1 1 1
Gabriel-Slobodjan
Bad Homburg 1996
14 1
Th e S e m i - Sla v
1 6 iLe2 �b7 1 7 f5 exf5 1 8 iLxf5 9 ... .i.b4+ is seen in the next game
lLlb6 1 9 �e2 g6 20 �h3 1;1e8 21 and 9 ... h6! in Game 1 15.
1;1ad 1 'iid 5 22 lLlf3 .lie6 23 b3 e3 24 1 0 0 - 0 �e7 1 1 iLe2! b6? !
lLle5 �b7 25 a3 a5 26 axb4 axb4 27 1 1 . . .0-0 was safer, but then perhaps
lLld3 'iVb5 28 lLle5 iLd5 29 i.g5 12 dxc5 to meet 12 . . . lbxc5 with 13 b4
1;1xe 1 + 30 1;1xe 1 1;1e8 3 1 �e 1 lLle4 32 and 14 c5, gaining queenside space.
lLlxe4 1;1xe4 33 1;1xe4 iLxe4 34 'iVf4 1 2 d5! e5 1 3 1;1e 1 0-0 1 4 lLlg5 lLlf6
�e8 35 'iVd6 lLld5 36 �d7 'iVa8 37 1 5 iVd3 g6 1 6 �f3 'iVe 7 1 7 �e3!
f3 �d3 38 h4 e2 39 i.e6 �a 1 + 40 Fine play by Lalic: the black posi
�h2 e 1 'iV 4 1 i.xe 1 �xe 1 42 i.xd5 tion is now ripe to be opened by f2-f4
�e 1 43 �b8+ �g7 44 iVe5+ �xe5+ 1 7 . . . lLlh5 1 8 f4 f6 1 9 fxe5 fxe5 20
45 dxe5 f6 46 f4 fxe5 47 fxe5 g5 lLle4 iLf5 21 �g5 iVd7 22 i.a4 �xa4
48 �g3 �g6 49 �f3 �f5 50 e6 iLb5 23 lLlxd6 e4 24 i.e7 1;1fe8 25 lLlxe8
51 hxg5 �xg5 52 �e4 1 -0 1;1xe8 26 d6 lLlf4 27 'iVe5 lLld3 28
'iVd5+ �g7 29 1;1xe4 'i'e2 30 1;1f1 1 -0
!, Carne 1l3
Lalic-Nogueiras" Came 114.,
. Moscow Olympiad 1994'1 lII e scas-Prie "
7 e4! ?
Critical. A n early e3-e4 forces Black
to play lines involving the capture on
e4 and denies him the variations aris
ing from 7 0-0 0-0 8 e4 dxc4 9 .i.xc4 e5
(Game 1 16) , as 7 e4 dxc4 8 .i.xc4 e5 9
dxe5 lbxe5 10 lbxe5 .i.xe5 1 1 'i¥xd8
'it>xd8 12 .i.xf7 is good for White. This is nice for White: he has a large
7 . . . dxe4 8 lLlxe4 lLlxe4 9 �xe4 e5!? spatial advantage and a passed d-pawn.
1 42
M e r a n Va ria tio n : O dds a n d En ds
143
Th e S e m i- Sla v
Sum mary
S .te2 may be worth an occasional try as a surprise weapon, while Black players
in a solid mood may wish to give 6 ... �d6 a whirl.
6 . . . dxc4
6 . . . i.d6
7 e4 dxe4 S liJxe4 liJxe4 9 �xe4 (D)
. . 9 . cS Game 1 13
-
9 . . . h6 Game 115
-
9 �xe4 7 . . . b5
1 44
CHA PTER THIRTEEN
6 'iVc 2 ..td 6 :
7 ..te2 and 7 ..td3
1 45
Th e S e m i - Sla v
1) He can release the central tension Question 3: Too subtle for me!
with . . . d5xc4 and then play . . . e6-e5, A nswer: White has spotted that
opening the c8-h3 diagonal for his when Black tries to develop his bishop
bishop. The rook on e8 supports the with 10 . . . b6, then 1 1 e4! is possible as
e-pawn's advance to e4, attacking 1 1 ...dxe4 12 lbxe4 lbxe4 13 'Wxe4 e5 is
White's knight on f3 . no longer a solution as c6 is hanging!
2) He can fianchetto the bishop Question 4: Can't Black just play
with . . . b7-b6 and . . . �b7, and then 13 ... �b7 with good chances?
open the long diagonal with . . . c6-c5. Answer: White would have an edge
Note that 8 ... dxc4 9 .txc4 trans here as Karpov proved against Kam
poses to the line 7 �d3 0-0 8 0-0 dxc4 sky in their match in Elista 1996. Af
9 �xc4 considered in Games 120-124. ter 14 .tf4! .txf4 15 'Wxf4 c5 16 'Wc7!
9 l:td 1 !:tab8 17 b4! we can see that a2-a3 also
By putting the rook on the d-file helps support this space-gaining push.
opposite the queen on d8, White dis Karpov assesses the position after
suades Black from playing . . . d5xc4 and 17 . . . 1;!ec8 18 'Wf4 i.xf3 19 i.xf3 cxd4
. . . e6-e5. (19 . . . cxb4 20 axb4 !:txc4 2 1 1lxa7 !:td8
9 . . . 'i'e7 22 b5 'Wb4 23 i.c6 lbf6 24 'iKc7 is
$0 Black removes his queen from clearly better for White according to
the d-file and supports . . . e6-e5 again. Karpov. Fine preparation!) 20 'Wxd4 as
1 0 a4 slightly better for White.
Question 5: Right, so Black should
break with 10 ... dxc4 1 1 i.xc4 e5 then?
A nswer: Wrong! Then 12 lbg5! is
annoying. But now you can guess why
Black plays his next move!
1 0 . . . h6! 1 1 h3
Question 6: Not again! Why?
Answer: Again White is anticipating
Black's plan: after ... d5xc4 and . . . e6-e5,
. . . e5-e4 unleashes the attack of the
black dark-squared bishop on the h2-
pawn. 1 1 h3 protects White's kingside
Question 2: What is White trying to and so draws the attacking potential
do here? from Black's plan. Remember that the
A nswer: White cannot play 10 e4 inclusion of h2-h3 and . . . h7-h6 does
because of 10 . . . lbxe4 1 1 lbxe4 dxe4 12 not help Black to play . . . b7-b6!
'iVxe4 e5, so what is he to do? Think 1 1 . . . dxc4!
of what I said earlier: that this system No more subtlety: Black goes for
often seems more concerned with an his plan!
ticipating Black's development than 1 2 �xc4 e5 1 3 lbh4!
furthering White's own. A typical idea. White tries to exploit
146
6 'W c 2 iL d 6 : 7 iL e 2 a n d 7 iL d 3
14 7
Th e S e m i- Sla v
148
6 W c 2 iL d 6 : 7 iL e 2 a n d 7 iL d 3
i.b3 i.c7 2 1 i.e3 lLlc6 22 .1cS! wins a �g3 �d6+ 37 �f2 �d2+ 38 �g3
pawn as Sokolov shows) 19 i.b3, �d6+ 39 �f2 Yz - Yz
White simply had an extra pawn in We now turn our attention to the
the ending. lines after 8 . . . dxc4 9 i.xc4. The fol
1 6 . . . g5! ! lowing game is a classic for this line
and shows the dangers that Black can
face.
Game 120
Karpov-Shirov
Biel 1992
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 lLlc3 lLlf6 4 e3 e6
5 lLlf3 lLlbd7 6 �c2 -td6 7 i.e2 0-0
8 0-0 dxc4 9 i.xc4 b5
With this move Black frees b7 for
the light-squared bishop with gain of
An outrageous reply that defies cal tempo. In typical Meran fashion he
culation. Suddenly, White has prob will play his bishop to the long a8-h 1
lems with his bishop on h7 as the diagonal and seek to quickly achieve
threat is . . . �g7 and . . . lLlf6! . . . c6-cS to activate it fully. This is the
1 7 h4 most aggressive system against the 6
17 i.e3!? is met by 17 . . . �g7 1 8 "iVc2 i.d6 7 i.d3 systems. The main
i.d4+ f6 19 'iWe6 i.b8! with the threat drawback of 9 . . . bS is that Black weak
of . . . lLleS and . . . gS-g4. ens his queenside squares - cS in par
1 7 . . . lLlb6 1 8 "Wi'f6+ �xh7 1 9 �xd6 ticular - a couple of moves before he
-tg4 20 lLlh2 l::t a d8 21 �b4 -tf5 22 is ready to repair the damage with
hxg5 lLlxd5 23 �xb7 hxg5 24 �b3 . . . c6-cS. White's general strategical aim
l::t h 8 25 �f3 g4 26 "iVg3 lLlf6 27 f3 must be to prevent . . . c6-cS in order to
l::t d 3 28 lLlxg4 -txg4 29 fxg4 "iVg6? keep the light-squared bishop passive
The first mistake according to behind the c6-pawn. White has five
Kramnik. 29 . . . "iVcS+ 30 'i'f2 'it'xf2+ basic ways of achieving this:
was better, when the game Grabli 1) To establish a knight on e4 via
auskas-Fridman, European Team lLlgS-e4, attacking cS.
Championship, Pula 1997, finished 3 1 2) To clamp down on cS by playing
l:xf2 lLlxg4 3 2 lIf3 lIdl+ 3 3 l:tfl .l:tdS b2-b4.
34 b4 lh-1h . 3) To keep attacking the bS-pawn,
30 �c7 'itg8 3 1 -tf4 meeting ... a7-a6 with a2-a4 so that
3 1 gS would have been clearly bet . . . c6-cS loses the bS-pawn.
ter for White according to Kramnik. 4) To play b2-b3 and .1b2 so that
31 . . Jlh4 32 -tg3 l::t x g3 33 �xg3 after . . . c6-cS, White can activate his
�h6 34 �f3 l::t h 1 + 35 �f2 �d2+ 36 dark-squared bishop against the black
1 49
Th e S e m i - Sla v
1 50
6 'fi c 2 i. d 6 : 7 i. e 2 a n d 7 i. d 3
151
Th e S e m i - Sla v
Game 124
Ruzele-Cifuentes
Groningen Open 1 996
1 d4 d 5 2 c4 c6 3 tbc3 tbf6 4 e3 e6
5 tbf3 tbbd7 6 'iVc2 .i.d6 7 i.e2 0-0
8 0-0 dxc4 9 iLxc4 �e7 16 'it>h2 .1d7 17 b4!? was played in
Ruzele-Cifuentes, Groningen 1996,
and now 17 ... 'fIic8 18 lbxa7 �xa7 19
fxeS .1bS 20 .1e3 'fIixc4 2 1 'fIixc4 .1xc4
22 .1xa7 was slightly better for White
according to Ruzele.
1 6 . . . iLd7 1 7 b4 'iVc8 1 8 tbxa7 l:txa7
1 9 fxe5 iLb5 20 iLe3 'iVxc4 21 'iVxc4
i.xc4 22 iLxa7 iLxf1 23 l:txf1 tbxe4
24 l:tc1 h5 25 b5 l:td8 26 a4? !
26 'it>h2! first was better according
to Ruzele, when 26 .. J!d2 27 a4 h4 28
as gS 29 l:le 1 lbc3 30 a6 is very good
9 . . . 'fIie7 is a flexible move. Although for White.
its main purpose is to support . . . e6-eS 26 . . . h4! 27 \t>h2
followed by a quick . . . eS-e4, Black 27 l:lc4 �dl+ 28 'it>h2 l:ie l 29 as gS
retains the option of using queenside 30 a6 lbg3 is not very pleasant!
plans instead. 27 . . . g 5 28 l:te 1 tbc3 29 .i.e3 tbxa4
1 0 h3 30 iLxg5 l:td4 3 1 l:tc1 l:tb4 32 iLf6
This is the most critical test of b6 33 l:tc8+ ..t;h7 34 l:th8+ ..t;g6 35
Black's plan. l:tg8+ \t>h6 36 l:th8+ ..t;g6 37 l:tg8+
Question 8: Why can't Black just \t>h6 38 l:tg7 tbc3 39 l:txf7 tbd5 40
play 10 . . . eS? l:tf8 tbxf6 41 l:txf6+ ..t;g7 42 l:txe6
Answer: Then 1 1 .1b3 is awkward l:txb5 43 l:te8 l:tb4 44 \t>g 1 l:tf4 45 e6
as 1 1 . . .e4 loses a pawn to 12 lbgS!, l:te4 46 e 7 ..t>f6 47 l:tb8 l:txe 7 48
while 1 1 . . . h6 12 lbh4!, intending lbg6 l:txb6+ ..t;g5 49 l:tb5+ ..t;g6 50 ..t;f2
and lbfS, contains unpleasant threats. l:ta7 5 1 l:te5 l:tf7+ 52 \t>e3 l:tf6 53
1 0 . . . c5!? 1 1 dxc5 .i.xc5 1 2 e4 .i.d6 l:te4 ..t>g5 54 l:tg4+ \t>h5 55 l:tf4 l:tg6
1 3 tbb5! tbe5 1 4 tbxe5 iLxe5 1 5 f4 56 J:tf8 J:tg3+ 57 ..t;f4 \t>h6 58 J:th8+
�c5+ 1 6 ..t;h 1 ! ? ..t;g7 59 l:[xh4 1:txg2 60 1:tg4+ Y2 - Y2
1 52
6 � c 2 iL d 6 : 7 iL e 2 a n d 7 iL d 3
Sum mary
7 .i.d3 0-0 8 0-0 is the most critical test for Black after 6 �c2 .td6. If Bacrot's
8 . . . h6 does not fulfil its early promise then 8 . . .d.xc4 9 .i.xc4 bs is looking very
sound at the moment.
7 .id3
7 .i.e2 0-0 8 0-0 (D)
8 . . J�e8 - Game 1 1 7
8 . . . d.xc4 9 bxc4 - Games 120-124 (by transposition)
7 0-0 8 0-0 dxc4
. . .
8 . . . eS - Game 119
9 i.xc4 (D) b5
9 . . 'il.ie7 Game 124
. -
1 0 i.e2 l::t e 8
10 . . . .i.b7 (D)
1 1 :dl - Game 121
1 1 .td2 Game 122
-
1 1 a3 Game 123
-
1 53
l_
CHA PTER FOURTEEN
1 54
O dds a n d En ds
1 55
Th e S e m i - Sla v
light-squared bishop on c8 .
1 S tiJxe6 lU6 1 6 iLc 7 'i¥b4 1 7 tiJd4?
17 4Jg5 was better according to
Kramnik, when 17 .. :iWxb2 18 'iYxb2
4Jxb2 19 f4 with e4-e5 to follow leads
to an unclear ending.
1 7 . . . �cS 1 8 tiJc2 �xb2 1 9 tiJd 1
'i¥b3 20 tiJde3 tiJ7eS 2 1 h3 �e6 22
�h2 l:th6 23 l:tab 1 �g4! !
8 a3
8 il.g5 4Jbd7 9 e3 a6! 10 il.e2 c5 1 1
0-0 il.e7 was just equal in Karpov
Timman, World Championship, Ja
karta 1993.
8 . . . a6! 9 e3
After this, Black has no problems. 9
e4 c5 10 e5 is clearly better for White
according to Karpov, but I see no
24 tiJxg4 tiJxg4+ 2S 'i¥xg4 'i¥xc2 26 problems for Black after 10 . . . cxd4 1 1
�gS tiJxf2 27 l:txf2 'i¥xf2 28 l:tf1 4Jxb5 4Jfd7!? 1 2 4Jbxd4 4Jxe5! 13
'ii'd 4 29 �eS 'i¥d7 30 'i¥c 1 'i¥e6 3 1 4Jxe5 'iYa5+.
.ltxg7 �xg7 3 2 'i¥gS+ l:tg6 3 3 'i¥xcS 9 . . . cS 1 0 dxcS SLXCS 1 1 �xd8+
'i¥d6 0-1 �xd8 1 2 SLd2 �e 7 1 3 SLd3 tiJbd7 1 4
One of Karpov's favourite standby �e2 iLd6 1 S l:thd 1 l:tac8 1 6 l:tac 1
ideas against the Semi-Slav has been 5 tiJb6 1 7 �e 1 tiJc4 1 8 l:tc2 �xf3+ 1 9
'iYb3 . However, Kasparov's treatment gxf3 tiJeS 20 h3 tiJxd3 2 1 l:txd3
in the next game seems very efficient. l:thd8 22 l:tcd2 SLc7 23 l:tc2 SLb6 24
l:txd8 �xd8 2S l:td2+ �e7 26 l:td 1 g6
,� Game 128 27 f4 l:tc4 28 f3 tiJd7 29 b3 l:tc6 30
Karpov-Kasparov tiJe4 l:tc2+ 31 l:td2 l:txd2+ 32 .i.xd2
Las Palmas 199� �cS 33 tiJxcS tiJxcs 34 iLb4 �d6 3S
�d2 as 36 .txcS+ �XCS 37 �d3 f6
1 d4 tiJf6 2 tiJf3 dS 3 c4 e6 4 tiJc3 38 h4 �dS 39 b4 axb4 40 axb4 h6
e6 S 'ii' b 3 dxc4 6 �xc4 41 e4+ �d6 42 �e3 eS 43 fxeS+
The actual move order in the game fxeS 44 �f2 �e6 4S �g2 Yz Yz -
1 56
O dds a n d En ds
Sum mary
All these systems are in need of new ideas for White. For the moment, Black is
happy to face them!
5 e3
5 g3 Game 127
-
4 . . . e6 7 . . . �b4
157
Akesson-Ingbrandt, Stockholm {R ifton Cup} 1997................................................... 134
Aleksandrov-Yagupov, Russia 1996 ......................................................................... 140
Alterman-Chernin, Groningen {PCA Qualifier} 1993 ............................................ 124
Alterman-Dreev, Manila Olympiad 1992 ................................................................ 1 13
Alvarez-Antunes, Mondariz Balneario 1996 .............................................................. 55
Atalik-Bacrot, Wijk aan Zee B 1997 ............................................................................ 78
Azmaiparashvili-Akopian, Yerevan Olympiad 1996 ............................................... 92
Bareev-Dreev, R ussia 1996 ......................................................................................... 121
Bareev-Dreev, R ussian Ch., Elista 1996 ...................................................................... 98
Bareev-Dreev, Wijk aan Zee {match} 1995 .................................................................. 73
Bareev-Filippov, Russia 1995 ....................................................................................... 35
Bareev-Kramnik, Dortmund 1995 ............................................................................ 1 1 7
Bareev-Yusupov, Linares 1993 .................................................................................. 128
Beliavsky-Anand, Reggio Emilia 1991 ...................................................................... 138
Beliavsky-Dreev, Novosibirsk 1995 ............................................................................. 73
Beliavsky-Illescas, Linares 1994 ................................................................................... 39
Bellon-Antunes, Platja d'A ro Barcino 1994 ................................................................ 59
Cebalo-Palac, Croatian Ch., Slavonski Brod 1995 ...................................................... 62
Csiszar-Sploshrov, Budapest Open 1996 ................................................................... 127
Dautov-Dreev, Reggio Emilia 1995 ............................................................................ 71
Dautov-Dreev, Yerevan Olympiad 1996 .................................................................... 72
Dautov-Shirov, German Bundesliga 1996 ................................................................ 147
De Sousa-Eliet.N, French Championship 1996 ........................................................ 126
Demirel-Fridman, European Junior Ch. 1992 ........................................................... 54
Ehlvest-Kharlov, Novosibirsk 1995 ............................................................................. 71
Gabriel-Slobodjan, Bad Homburg 1996 ................................................................... 141
Garcia.D-Kramnik, Pamplona 1992 ........................................................................... 57
Gavrilov-Novikov, R iga Open 1995 ......................................................................... 121
Gelfand-Akopian, Yerevan Olympiad 1996 ............................................................... 85
Gelfand-Dreev, Biel 1995 101
...........................................................................................
1 58
In d e x o f C o mp le t e G a m e s
159
In d e x o f C o mp le t e G a m e s
1 60