• •

A Dangerous Weapon
against the ueen's Gambit

•
uc enrlS
 I

Jean-Louis Marchand Editions

Rue de Belle Vue, 60

6-1000 Bruxelles - Belgium

info@marchand. be

www.marchand.be

Copyright 2013 © Jean-Louis Marchand

ISBN: 2-9600247-4-5
fAN: 9782960024746
9782960 024746
 , ,

, ~. ,.
, ,;.

Foreword 6

History 8

Introduction & plans 12

Symbols 16

PART ONE: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ctJf3 ctJ c6 5.a3 17

Chapter 1 5 tt:Jge7 18
Chapter 2 5 ie6 52
Chapter 3 5 ig4 76
Chapter 4 ot her lines 11 4

PART TWO: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ctJf3 ClJc6 5.g3 128

Chapter 5 5 ttJge7 129

Chapter 6 5 ie6 6.ttJbd2 Wld7 7.ig2 202
Chapter 7 5 ie6 ether lines 266
Chapter 8 5 ig4 6.ct:Jbd2 303
Chapter 9 5 ig4 6.ig2 336
Chapter 10 ether lines 374

PART THREE: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ClJf3 ClJc6 5.ctJ bd2 406

Chapter 11 5 ti:J ge7 407

Chapter 12 5 ig4 419
Chapter 13 other lines 430

PART FOUR: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 (3.de5 d4 4.ClJf3 ClJc6) 460

Chapter 14 3. de5 d4 4. ttJ f3 (tt:J c6) 461

Chapter 15 4.a3, 4.a3, ether lines 489
Chapter 16 3.cd5, 3.ttJc3, 3.e3 548

Index of variations 566

Index of games 586

Index of p layers 599

..
Bibliography 614
,...
 .~: .

.. .. ,

When building one's own opening prepared to sacrifice material in return

repertoire, one has to decide to for attacking chances. Positions resulting
concentrate on popular main-line from the Albin Counter-Gambit can
openings, or attempt avoiding theory by become extremely complex, particularly
ernploying little-known sidelines. Each in those lines involving castling on
approach has its own advantages. opposite sides.

Avoiding main-line opening theory and -rhere is no doubt that such an approach
instead playing offbeat openings has the can prove effective, even up to master
great merit of avoiding one's opponent's level.
theorical knowledge and thus throwing him
much more on his own resources. Is the Albin Counter-Gambit a serious
opening?
With the Albin Counter-Gambit, Black
avoids his opponent's normal queen's pawn There is a strong belief among players
opening, he also himself dictates the that rarely played openings are not too
choice of opening and tries to wrest the good. But D'Kelly used to say that the
initiative from White right from the very question whether agambit is correct or
first moves in the opening. not is academic as long as it records
success!
Dur gambit also suits quite well the
requirements for the more and more Max Euwe said "the ALbin Counter-Gambit
popular rapid-play tournaments or is one o[ those openings which are
lightning games. With such limited probabLy not [uLly correct, but its cLear
reflection-time it is hard for the opponent re[utation is unknown. "
to find over the board an adequate reply.
But one has to admit that the Albin
In addition, at club level, gambits usually Counter-Gambit is a rather risky opening.
lead to the kind of exciting open play that And in such positions, the cost of a single
many players find attractive. Moreover error 1S therefore very high.
many pLayers find it uncomfortabLe to -rhat is the main reason why not many
defend against an opponent who is Grandmasters had been willing to take the

L
 Foreword
-
risk of playing such a garrlbit during a long numerous former analyses.
time.
My aim has been to give the reader the
But then suddenly Alexander Morozevich chance to acquire certa"in skills in the
started using the gambit with great Albin Counter-Gambit by presenting
success. He would shortly be joined by a analyses of typical manreuvres and set-
good number of very strong players, ups. -rhe lines that I have analysed are
namely Rustam Kasimdzhanov and Hikaru either typical for that variation - and
Nakamura amongst others. therefore it is important to know
something about .. or they are in my
The CD-ROM on the Albin Counter-Gambit I opinion Black's best defence.
wrote for ChessBase in 2003 contained
3.600 games. My current database includes My book is intended not only for the
now more than 8.500 games! average club and tournament player. There
is something in it for the master as welle
The interest for the gambit has never been
so high. I hope this book will make it possible for
the reader to play his own games with his
My book gives an excellent overview of the own ideas and maybe help developing the
latest theoretical developments of the Albin Counter-Gambit even further.
gambit. Many of the games given in the
book have been played in very recent I wish you a lot of pleasure while playing
years. the Albin Counter-Gambit!

In the theoretical texts and the annotated Luc Henris

games I have tried to remain as objective
as possible.

Without prejudice, this thoroughly

research work provides detailed caverage
of alt variations and includes many new
personal ideas and the reappraisaL of

7
 I

Origins of the gambit works from Italy concluded that Serafino

Although the Queenls Gambit was first
mentioned by Polerio as long aga as the
end of the sixteenth century, the move
2... eS did not appear until as late as the
second half of the nineteenth century.
Dubois (1817-1899) first alluded to the
gambit long before Cavallotti played it.
In 1872 the second volume of Dubois's
work, Le Principali Aperture dei Giuoco
degli Schacchi, was published.

The origins of the Albin Counter-Gambit The Italian chess historian Adriano Chicco
(1.d4 dS 2.c4 eS) are still uncertain. And claimed that Dubois was the first who
the debate over its origins is still open. mentioned the counter-gambit in his 1872
work.
According to most sources the Albin
Counter-Gambit was tested for the first Certainly, this voids any real claim trom
time in 1881 on the occasion of the game Cavalotti, since Dubois's work from 1872
between Carlo Salvioli and Mattia originated the idea. But was Dubois the
Cavallotti played in Milan during the only one who thought about or made
Italian championship. allusions to this counter-gambit? Alb'in's
contemporary chess editors were not
But others mention the game Keresev - Urs aware of Dubois's claim; Cavalotti's being
played as early as 1864. the one that monopolized the disputes.
Albin wrote a few articles to defend his
Today's opinion is that Adolt Albin (1848- ideas, for instance in Neue Hamburger
1920) introduced the gambit in masters' Zeitung's chess column in 1904 and his
practice. fearless, and sometimes ruthless, attitude
made him a difficult master to deal with.
-rhe Albin Counter-Gambit was made
popular by Albin, when he employed it Albin's Romanian manual also appeared in
, against Emanuel Lasker in 1893 at the New 1872, which might challenge Dubois's
York tournament. But he was not its claim. The Viennese chess columns from
creator. the 1870s and early 1880s likely contain
Aseries of historical and biographical some very early games of Adolf Albin that

8
--------------------------------------,
History

might confirm it; however, an earlier content to follow the recommendations

game of Albin's still needs to be from a chess book. He created it and
recovered. radicalized it. He was the passionate type,
living the game as he thought was
Adolf Albin interesting and treading his own path. His
chess games and chess words contain a
Adolf Albin was born in Bucharest in 1847. deep sense of originality, passion to play
Later he moved to Austria, living in the game along non-conventional lines and
Vienna. A chess journalist by profession, trying to put up a good fight against any
he achieved his best result in New York in opponent.
1893, coming second to Lasker, ahead of
Pillsbury and Showalter. From this perspective, Albin is among the
first who gained a deep grasp of using an
Albin was a very dangerous opponent for opening surprise to create a psychological
his contemporaries and was able to impact upon the opponent. His perpetual
support his opening ideas with his hunt for new ideas, against the
unarguable playing strength. He inflicted mainstream, places Albin among the
defeats on almost all of the great masters pioneers of original style of play in chess.
of his time: Alapin, Blackburne,
Charousek, Gruenfeld, Janowsky, Marco, Yet is he the real father of the Albin
Marshall, Mason, Mieses, Pillsbury, Reti, Counter-Gambit?
Schiffers, Schlechter, Showalter, Steinitz
and Tarrasch. At this date there are no games to
compellingly confirm this hypothesis, but
Albin's opening philosophy was strongly most of the evidence points in that
connected to his personal character. He direction. A simple piece of the puzzle is
was often described as nervous and hot- missing: an Albin Counter-Gambit game
tempered, lacking patience and highly played by Albin prior to 1881, if such a
active. game exists. Dubois's claim seems valid
enough but any claim of a monopoly on the
Such an agitated master, living on the birth of the gambit is unjustified. It is
edge of chess theory, would not be absolutely conceivable that Dubois and

9
 2
1
History

Albin independently discovered the same players later made significant

idea around the year 1872. contributions to the development of the
gambit.
Albin was an edgy master who combatively
injected tension in his games and was A clash of titans occured when the young
extremely dangerous with the initiative. Alexander Alekhine played the Albin
Therefore he would try to snatch the Counter-Gambit against Emanuel Lasker
initiative through every means (a sudden during the tournament of St Petersburg in
kingside attack, sacrificing pawns, or 1914 (Lasker, E - Alekhine ,A).
maximizing the pressure in the centre).
Secondly, Albin was a gambler both in life The Albin Counter-Gambit's vogue lasted
and over the board. As opposed to until 1914.
Dubois's prudence, Albin would bet his
savings to defend his eccentric ideas. It When the hypermoderns arrived, many
takes a gambler to concoct agambit. were still afraid of it, to such an extent
that often White preferred to avoid it by
History of the gambit preventing it with 2.CtJf3.

The first games between two masters The Albin Counter-Gambit went through a
occured when Albin played it aga'inst long period of time of disfavour between
Emanuel Lasker, the future world the two world wars. -rhen players like Paul
champion, in New York in 1893 (Lasker,E - Keres, Mikenas, Kostic, Forintos,
Albin,A) and against Mikhail Chigorin in Kupreichik and Adams adopted it. Boris
Nuremberg in 1896 (Chigorin,M - Albin,A). Spassky also gave it a try.
Thereafter the Albin Counter-Gambit was
launched, and discussed 'intensely, during In more recent times, the Albin Counter-
the famous tournament of Munich 1900. Gambit has been a very rare guest at
master level. But Grandmasters like
It was adopted systematically by attacking Speelman, Mestel, Simagin, Westerinen,
players as Marshall, Mieses and Renet, Ljubojevic, Krasenkow, Handoko
Tartakower. The theory of the opening used the gambit regularly or from time to
was still at an embryonie stage. But these time.

10
---------------------------------------,
History

Modern gambit And at the present day, one is far from

being able to consider the Albin Counter-
In 2001, a thematic tournament was Gambit as having been refuted.
especially dedicated to the Albin Counter-
Gambit. The organizers secured an Currently the first player is in search for
interesting invitational group, which lines where he has good chances to obtain
included Tiviakov, Van der Wiel, Ligterink a somewhat better position.
and Brenninkmeijer.

If the games did not do very much to

improve the gambit's reputation,
however, they offered a number of fresh
theoritical insights into several lines of
the opening, including possible
improvements for Black.

In recent years the opening has undergone

a quite remarquable renaissance thanks to
the efforts of the inventive Russian
Grandmaster Alexander Morozevich who
unexpectedly began to play the Albin
Counter-Gambit at the highest level and
breathed new life into the almost-
forgotten opening.

And since 2005 the statistics also show

that the results have been quite
acceptable for Black. 2...e5 started to be
played regularly. World champion Rustam
Kasimdzhanov and super Grandmaster
Hikaru Nakamura have played the gambit
more than once.

11
 1.d4 dS 2.c4 eS

3.de5 d4

The aim of the Albin Counter-Gambit is probably inspired from the idea of the Falkbeer
Counter-Gambit of the King's Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.f4 d5 3.ed5 e4).
Let's compare the two following positions:

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 1.e4 e5 2.f4 d5 3.ed5 e4

12
_.--------------------------------------1
Introduction & plans

The side who declines the pawn on offer, decides to sacrifice one himself. In return, he
hopes to be able to develop swiftly and easily, whilst also restraining the opponent's
development.

4.l2Jf3 l2Jc6

This is the basic position of the Albin Counter-Gambit. Both sides have a pawn wedge in
the opponent's position, but White is a pawn up. The struggle usually centres around
these pawns and the basic strategies can be summarised as follows:

Plans for White

1. White plays a3, with the idea of expanding on the

queenside with b4. The manCEuvre l2Jbd2-b3, together with
ibb2, threatens to win the d4-pawn.
This is one of the most fashionable variations at the moment.
For example: 5.a3 4:Jge7 6.b4 4:Jg6 7.ibb2 (D), as in Karpov,A-
Kasimdzhanov,R, Tallinn (rapid), 2006.

2. White plays g3, ibg2 and 0-0 followed by expansion on the

queenside with a3 and b4 or a more direct attack with \Wa4

13
\; i
,
Introduction 8: plans

and ttJbd2-b3: 5.g3 ~g4 6.~g2 W'd7 7.0-0 0-0-0 8.a3 ttJge7 9.b4 tiJg6 10.W'a4, as in Molina
Mansilla,R-Fluvia Frigola,J, Catalunya, 2000.
The plan with g3 and 6.~g2 used to be the main line and still remains important for the
theory of the opening.

3. Sometimes White prefers to delay CLlbd2 and complete the

kingside development. White can play Wfb3, attacking b7 and
putting indirect pressure against the d4 pawn: 5.g3 ig4
6.ig2 ~d7 7.0-0 0-0-0 8.~b3 ~f5?! 9.gd1 CLlge7 10.C21a3 ttJg6
11.C21c2 (0) 11...ic5 12'c2lfd4! id4 13.C21d4 gd4 14.gd4 CLld4
15.~b7, with a very strong attack, as in the game Lazarev,V-
Meszaros,G, Kecskemet, 1993.

4. A plan involving C21bd2, a3, b4 and ib2, backed up by CtJb3,

if necessary, is also possible. The pressure on the d4 pawn
will often force Black to give one or both bishops, unless he
gets counterplay in the centre or on the kingside: 5.a3 ig4
6.CtJbd2 ~e7 7.h3 ih5 8.~a4 0-0-0 9.g4 ig6 10.b4 ~b8
11.ib2 (0), as in Brunner,N-Bergez,L, Cannes, 2005.

5. An early e3, liquidating the irritating d4 pawn, usually with

a preparatory a3 to prevent ... ib4, often clarifies the
situation in the centre. This often results in an exchange of the queens, as in the game
Van der Wiel,J-Ligterink,G, Groningen, 2001: 5.a3 ie6 6.e3 de3 7.~d8 gd8 8.ie3,
reaching a very important position for the gambit.

6. Often, after Black has played ...ih3, White has the typical
push e6, giving back the pawn to slow down his opponent's
attack or to free the e5-square for his knight: 5.g3 ig4 6.ig2
~d7 7.0-0 0-0-0 8.~b3 ih3? (0) 9.e61 ie6 10.CtJe5 ~d6
11.CLlc6 bc6 12.~a4+-, SpasskY,B-Forintos,G, Sochi, 1964.

14
 i

Introduction & plans

Plans for Black

1. The approach, which has originated the renaissance of the Albin Counter-Gambit,
popularised by Morozevich, is to regain the pawn with ... ct:Jge7-g6: 5.g3 lLlge7 6.~g2 lLlg6
(Gelfand,B-Morozevich,A, Monte Carlo, 2004).

2. Black can also respond to the plan g3, ~g2 with ... ~g4 (or
... ~e6), followed by Vl1d7 and ... 0-0-0 and then attacks
down the h-file with h5: 5.g3 ~g4 6.~g2 Vl1d7 7.ct:Jbd2 0-0-0
8.0-0 h5 9.a3 h4 (0), Bendl,H-Hajek,L, Czech Republic, 2010.

A quick ... ~h3 is also interesting: 5.g3 ~g4 6.~g2 Vl1d7

7.lLlbd2 ~h3 8.0-0 h5 9.Vl1a4 ~g2 10.cj;Jg2 h4, as in Danner,G-
Kekelidze,M, Batumi, 2002.

3. Another thematic plan for Black is to play ... ~c5, followed by ... a6 or ... a5: 5.a3 a5
6.e3 ~c5 7.ed4 ~d4 8.~e2 lLlge7 9.0-0 0-0, as in Bareev,E-Morozevich,A, Russia, 1997.

4. Black often develops quickly his queenside (... Vl1e7

followed by ...0-0-0) and tries to break through on the
opposite side: 5.lLlbd2 ~g4 6.a3 Vl1e7 7.h3 ~h5 8.Vl1a4 0-0-0
9.b4 cj;Jb8 10.g4 ~g6 11.~g2 h5 12.~b2 hg4 13.hg4 :gh1 14.~h1
ct:Jh6 (0), with counterplay, as in the game Gaal,A-Hedrera,M,
corr., 1995.

5. Black can sacrifice a pawn with ... f6 and hope to gain

active play on the e-file: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.cd5 Vl1d5 4.de5
Vl1d1! 5.cj;Jd1 ct:Jc6 6.f4 ~f5 7.ct:Jc3 0-0-0 8.~d2 f6!?, Li Zunian-Wang Hao, Suzhou, 2006.

6. An important theme frequently encountered in the Albin Counter-Gambit is the break

in the centre with ... d3: 5.g3 ~e6 6.b3 Vl1d7 7.~g2 ~h3 8.0-0 ~g2 9.cj;Jg2 0-0-0 10.~b2 h5
11.h4 ttJge7 12.ttJa3 lLlg6 13.ct:Jc2 Vl1g4 14.Vl1d2? d3! (Kursova,M-Kosintseva,T, Oropesa del
Mar, 1998), with the idea 15.ed3 :gd3-+.

15
 +- White has a decisive advantage
+ White stands clearly better
-+ White stands slightly better
-- the position is balanced
the position is unclear
-+ Black stands slightly better
-+ Black stands clearly better
-+ Black has a decisive advantage
-c-o with compensation for the material
with counterplay
i with initiative
with attack
C development advantage
$ time
o zugzwang
# mate
o better is
inferior is
11 with the idea
1-0 White wins the game
0-1 Black wins the game

"
•• a brilliant move
1
• a good move
D only move
17
•• an interesting move
71
•• a dubious move
7• a bad move
n.. a blunder
N theorical novelty
corr. correspondence game
simul. simultaneous game

16
 1.d4 d5 2.c4, e5 3.deSd4 4.~f3 ~c6 5.a3
. . ., .- '. ' . .. ',,, -, . .

L-- ~_~ ~~~_~_~ ,"_ , .._._ .

The continuation 5.a3 was played for the

first time by Emanuel Lasker in his game
against Adolf Albin in 1893.

White definitively prevents ... tb4, while

preparing the queenside expansion with b4.
In addition the manCEuvre ttJbd2-b3,
together with tb2, threatens to win the d4-
pawn.

In the search for an opening advantage,

White has returned recently to this system
and these days it has become more
fashionable than the traditional 5.g3.

After 5.a3, I shall analyse the following continuations:

- Chapter 1: 5 ttJge7
- Chapter 2: 5 te6
- Chapter 3: 5 tg4
- Chapter 4: other lines

17
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ltJf3
ltJc6 5.a3 ltJge7 (D)

! '

,
,
,
i The most topical continuation nowadays.
I'

6...ltJg6
Black aims at regaining his pawn with the
standard manceuvre ... tLlg6-e5. If White simply 6... ~e6 and 6... ~g4 (---t game 9).
develops, Black will regain his pawn with a
level game. The knight also retains the option 7..ib2
,
of going to f5 in order to protect the d4-pawn.
I
, This plan of bringing the knight to g6 (or f5) 7.b5 and 7.~g5 (---t game 9).
I
,1
has been increasingly popular thanks to the
1I

I efforts of Grandmaster Alexander Morozevich 7...aS!

who likes to play this move on 5.g3 and
5.tLlbd2 as well. In order to provoke 8.b5 before capturing the
White has now three main moves: 6.b4, 6.e3 central pawn.
and 6.tLlbd2. Black can also take the pawn immediately with
He also has 6.~g5 and 6.g3 which are worth 7...lLJge5 (7... ~g4 and 7... ~e6 ---t game 9).
considering (---t game 16). Then usually play goes on with 8.CiJe5 CiJe5, after
Some minor variations for White, after which, White has different continuations: 9.e5,
5... tLlge7, are also examined (---t game 16). 9.id4, 9.lMrd4 and the main move 9.e3 (---t game
9) .
After 9.e3 ie6 (9 ... e5 ---t game 9), White can
6.b4 (D) secure a clear advantage with 10.id4 (---t game

18
 ---------------------------------------,
.....

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ctJf3 ctJc6 5.a3 ~ge7

9); 10.c5!? is not so strong (~ game 9). 14... ~d5 (~ game 1).

S.b5 15.g3 ~h3!

8.Wfa4 is interesting too (~game 1). 15...Wfh5, allowing White to castle, is

clearly weaker (~ game 1).
S...etJce59.etJe5 15...Wfh3! is best (~ games 2 and 3).

White has two other replies:

The move 9.Wfd4!?, recommended by 6.e3 (D)
Kiril Georgiev, is not without venom and is
analysed in details (~ game 7).
Interesting also is 9..id4 (~ game 8).

9...etJe5 10.e3

10..id4 and 10.Wfd4 (~game 1).

10....ie6 11 ..id4 ttJc4 12.~c2 ttJd6

12... ~b6 (~ game 1) and 12...WfdS (~ game 6)

are inferior.

13..id3 ~g5 White immediately forces his opponent to

declare his intentions in the centre.
13....ie7 and 13...Wfd7 (~game 1).
6....ig4
14.14
The most natural way to protect the pawn.
White also has 14.0-0 (~ game 4). Black can also respond to 6.e3 with the
The recent try 14.~c3!? is interesting dubious 6... de3 (~ game 10).
too (~ game 5). He can also defend his d4-pawn with
6... ~f5. After 7.e4, 7.b4 or 7.ed4 (~ game 13),
14... ~h4 Black has good counter chances in both cases.

19
Til i

Chapter 1

7.~e2 White threatens ltJb3, winning the d4-pawn.

6.~g5 deserves attention (~ game 16).
7.ed4 deserves attention (~ game 12). Black usually replies with 6... h6, questioning
The alternatives are also covered (~ game 10). the bishop (6,..~g4 and 6,. .~e6 are worth
considering too).
7...de3 After 7.~h4 g5 8.~g3 ttJg6 (or 8,..ttJf5!?), Black
has a dynamic position, typical of the Albin
Black clarifies the situation in the centre. Counter-Gambit.
7...d3 (~ game 10) and 7... lLlf5 (~ game 11) More logical is 7 .~e 7 ~e 7, with chances for
are inferior. both sides in an unbalanced position.
6.g3 is a fexible option which often
8.VMd8 transposes to the 5.g3 line.
After 6... ttJg6, White has 7.~g2, 7.~g5 and
8.~e3 is also examined (~ game 10). 7 .~f4 (~ game 16).

8.. J!d8 9..te3 6...lLlg6?!

Black has an equal game. See game 10 for the Black decides to counterattack in the centre.
analysis of this line. But this idea is doomed to failure.
Instead he should prefer to overprotect his d4-
pawn with 6...lLlf5 (~ game 14).
6.ctJbd2 (D) Play could then follow with 7.ttJb3 ~e7 (7,..~e6
transposes to chapter 2 - variation 5,..~e6!?
6.ttJbd2 ltJge7 7.ttJb3 ttJf5).

7.ctJb3 ctJgeS

The alternatives 7...~e6, 7...~g4 and 7... ~e7

are also covered (~ game 15).

8.ctJeS ctJeS

And now the following continuations 9.e3,

9.ltJd4 and 9.~d4 are interesting (~ game 15).

20
r-------------·--------------------------.,
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.lDf3 lDc6 5.a3 llJge7

Game 1 10..id4 ltJc4 11.e3 will probably

Topalov, Veselin (2757) transpose to the main line after 11...i.e6
Morozevich, Alexander (2741) 12.Wfc2, although Black has the additional
Monte Carlo (rapid), 2005 options of 11 ... ltJd6 12.~d3ltJf5 or 12...Wfg5.
1.d4 dS 2.c4 eS 3.deS d4 4.tLlf3 Harmless is 1O.Wfd4 Wfd4 11.~d4 ltJc4:
tLlc6 S.a3 tLlge7 6.b4 tLlg6 7.ib2 a) 12.e3 ~e6 13.~e2 a4 14.0-0 ltJa5 15.ltJd2 f6
as! (0) 16.Ei:fc1 md7+± Mikhalevski,V·Kriventsov,S,
Schaumburg, 2006.
b) 12.e4?! ~e6 13.f4? (unnecessarily
weakening the centre) 13 ...0-0-00 14.~f2 ltJa3
15.ltJa3? ~b4 16.me2 ~g4 0-1 Bounya,M-
Camelin,G, Issy les Moulineaux, 2010.

10...ie6 11.id4

11.c5? does not work because of

It's quite useful! for Black to force the move
b4-b5 before regaining the pawn on e5. In
some variations the white b-pawn will be left
unprotected. Moreover, Black gains control of
the important c5-square.
8.bS
8.Wfa4 ~g4 9.b5!? (9.ltJd4 ab4 10.ltJc6 Ei:a4
11.ltJd8 md8 CXl ) 9... ~f3 10.ef3!? ltJce5 11.ltJd2
(lkeda,J-Yu, R, Parramatta, 2008) 11 ...ltJf4 is
already better for Black.
8...tLlceS 9.tLleS tLJeS 10.e3
11 ... ~c5! 12.ed4 ~b6 ~13.de5?? ~f2-+.
The continuation 11.Wfd4 ltJc4 12.~c4
Wfd4 13.~d4 ~c4 would be very comfortable for
Black.
1Vi:ld2!?:
a) 12...tLld6!? 13.~e2!? (13.~d3 Wfg5
14.Wff3;!; Henris) 13...ltJf5 14.~b2;!; Vorobiov,E-
Van der Raaf,E, Leiden, 2012.
b) 12...tLld2 13.Wfd2 Wfd5! (:S;13 ...\Wg5
14.\Wc3, and White would have some control of
events - Flear,G) 14.\Wc3 was played in
KrivosheY,S-Lorenzo de la Riva,L, Balaguer,
2006. Here 14...Ei:d8!? looks good enough for
Black - Davies; 14...\Wb3!? seems also possible -
Henris.

21
 Chapter 1

12...l2Jd6 iWc4 (18... iWd7!?) 19.E1fd1 0-0-000) 15...iWb3

16.iWf2! ttJf5 (16 ... 0-0-0 17.0-0 «17.~e2 iWe4
12...c!Llb6?! (Black's knight is poorly 18.E1b1 ttJf5 19.~b3 iWd3 20.~e2=) 17".ttJb5
placed here) 13.ttJd2! (13.~d3 ~e7 14.0-0 ~f6 18.~b5 (18. !::lab 1 iWe3 19.~e3 ttJe3) 18".!::ld4
15.~f6 iWf6 16.ttJd2 O-O-O! gives Black some play) 19.ed4 iWc3 20.f5 ~d5 (20... ~d7 21.!::lfe1 iWb3
13".iWd7 (13".~d5 14.ttJe4!) 14.~d3 ~e7 15.0-0 22.iWf4 e6 23.~e6 ~e6 24.!::lab1 - 20... ~d5)
~f6 16.~f6 gf6 17.ttJf3 0-0-0 18.ttJd4± Avrukh. 21.!::lfc1 iWb3 22.iWf4 c6 (22... e5 23.iWe5!+-)
12...iWd5?! (~ game 6). 23.~c6 ~c6 24. l'.'lab1 iWd5 25.!::lc6 iWc6
26.!::lc1 +-) 17.~f5 ~f5 18.e4 (18.0-0 0-0-0
,
,'I
Iii 13..id3 VNg5!? 19.e4 - 18.e4) 18".0-0-0 19.0-0 (19.ef5?
~c5-+) 19...iWc4 (19 ... b6? 20.~b6!+- Henris)
13... ~e7?! 14.ttJd2 (S14.~g7?! l'.'lg8 20.ttJd5! !::ld5 (20 ...iWb5 21.ttJc7! \ttc7 22.!::lab1
15.~e5 ~f6t) 14".~f6 15.~f61Wf6 16.0-0± Avrukh. iWa6 23.~e5 ~d6 24.iWc5 \ttb8 25.!::lb6+-;
13...iWd7?! 14.ttJc3 ttJf5 (Stathopoulos, 1- 20 ~e4 21.ttJb6! cb6 22.!::lac1 +-) 21.ed5 iWb5
Goumas,Ge, Peristeri, 2011) 15.ttJe2! ~d6 (21 iWd5 22.b6!+-) 22.!::lfc1 iWd5 23.~e5 ~d6
(15".ttJd4 16.ttJd4 ~d6 17.~e4 l'.'lb8 18.0-0 g6 24.!::ld1 iWc5 25.~d6 iWf2 26.\ttf2 cd6 27.!::ld6+-
19.f4t) 16.0-0 0-0 17.~b2± Avukh. Avrukh.

14.f4 15.g3

Definitely the most ambitious move. White 15.iWf2 iWf2 16.r;%;f2 ttJf5=.
feels obliged to fish in troubled waters as
14.0-0 can be met with the cheeky 14".ttJb5! 15...VNh5?!
(~ game 4).
It is tempting to hit the b5-pawn but this
14...VNh4 continuation allows White to castle. After
15...iWh3, it starts to look nice for White.
Black is in trouble after 14...iWd5?! 15.ttJc3! Correct is 15...iWh3! (~ game 2).
(15.0-0 ttJf5! (S15... ttJb5 16.~b5 iWb5 17.f5)
16.~f5 ~f5 17.iWf2 (17.iWc7 !::le8 18.iWa5 16.l2Jc3
(18.ttJe3 iWg2 19.\ttg2 !::le7 20.e4 !::le4! 21.l'.'lfd1
~e5) 18.,,!::le2 19.!::lf2 (19.ttJd2 b6 20.iWb6 l'.'ld2 16.iWc7?? walks into 16."l'.'lc8.
21.iWb8 r;%;d7 22.!::lf2 !::lf2 23.\ttf2 ~e5! 24.iWh8 But interesting is 16.0-0!?, with a
~d4) 19."l'.'le1 20.!::lf1 !::le2=) 17...iWb5 18.ttJc3 dangerous advance of development.

22
 1

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.lLlf3 lLlc6 5.a3 llJge7

16... ttJf5!?

The alternatives do not solve the problems:

16 .ie717.e4.
16 a4 17.0-0 (17.tiJa4 tiJb5) 17....ib3
18.'lWg2 0-0-0 19.b6 c6 20.!'1ac1.

17.0-00-0-0?

A questionable choice. But the other options

are not satisfactory either:
Not 17...ttJd4? as then White has a
powerful continuation 18.ed4 0-0-0 (:518 ....id6 A great move stopping Black's king seeking
19.f5 .id7 20.!'1ae1 cj;Jf8 21.ttJe4±; 18...g6 19.f5 security in the corner and threatening the
gf5 20.d5 .id7 21.!'1ae1 cj;Jd8 22 ..if5±) 19.f5 .id7 deadly 19.tiJa4.
20.tiJd5 (20.!'1ac1) 20 ....id6 21.ttJc7! cj;Jb8 Getting rid of Black's troublesome knight with
(21 ....ic7 22.!'1ac1) 22.ttJa6! ba6 (22 ... cj;Ja8 18..if5!? ~f5 19.'lWa4 b6 20.!'1ad1 is nothing
23.~e4; 22 ...cj;Ja7 23.b6! cj;Jb6 24.'lWb2 cj;Ja7 special for White as Black's light-squared
25.!'1ab1 +-) 23.ba6 cj;Ja7 24.'lWg2 ~c8 influence would then be important.
25.!'1ab1 +-.
17....id6 18.~f5 ~f5 19.e4 ~h3 18...'IWg4?!
(19 ... ~e6 20.!'1f2!? (20.f5!? ~c4 21.e5; 20.~g7!?
!'1gB 21.~d4) 20 ...a4 21.e5 (21.b6!?) 21 ... ~e7 Trying to create threats of his own before his
22.'lWe4±) 20.e5 ~e7 (20 ... ~f1 21.ed6 ~h3 king becomes even more vulnerable.
22.'lWe4 ~e6 23.dc7 0-0 24.'lWb7+-) 21.tiJd5 ~d8 18 !'1d3 19.'lWd3 tiJd6 20.'lWc2!?±.
22.!'1f2 0-0 23.f5± Vlassov. 18 b6 19.~b6! «19.tiJa4 ~c5) 19 cb6
17...~e7 18.tiJd5! ~d5 19.~f5 0-0 20.e4 20.tiJd5 ~c5 21.ttJb6 cj;Jb8 22.Wc5 tiJg3 (22 !'1d3
c5 21.~e5! (21.~g7 cj;Jg7 22.ed5 ~f6 - Vlassov) 23.!'1ac1) 23.Wh5 tiJh5 24.~c4+.
21 ... ~e6 22.~e6 fe6 23.'lWc4 'lWh6 (23 ... Wt?
24.!'1ad1± Bronznik) 24.!'1ad1± Avrukh. 19.ttJe4?
17.. J'~d8 is also tame as White has
good chances after 18.~f5 'lWf5 19.e4 - Flear,G. Tempting but Topalov should have gone the
other way.
18.~a711 (D) 19.ttJa4! would have decided the game:

23
 Chapter 1
,
,

a) 19...E!d6!? 20J=I:ac1 c6 21.bc6 At first sight this seems as it must be good for
(21.ibc5?? ttJg3) 21 .. J"1c6 22.iWd2+-. White; after all, he is a piece up. But the
b) 19...E!d3 20.ttJb6 ~d8 21.iWd3 ttJd6 bishop on a7 does not have a great future, and
(21...~e8 22.ttJd5 (the aesthetic 22.ttJa8! ibd6 Black meanwhile has got bishops ...
23.e4 is also possible) 22 ...ibd6 (22... ttJg3
23. ttJc7 ~e 7 24.ibc5 ~f6 25. ttJe8#) 23.e4+-) 24.lLie5
22.ibb8! (22.e4+-) 22 ...iWf5 23.'Wd2 iWb5
,I
24.ttJa8!?+-. 24.a4 2:d1 25.2:d1 ~b7 26.f5 ~c5
!
I
c) 19...E!e8 20.ttJb6 ~d8 21.~b8 ~d6 27.~g2 ~a2 28.~e4 ~a7 29.ttJe5=.
(21 .. .'£1,e7 22.~e2 iWh3 23J"1ad1 ~e8 24.~c7+-) 24.~e4 2:d1 25.2:d1 ~a3 26.~g2 ~d7
22.~c7 ~c7 23.~f5 iWf5 24J"1ad1 ~e7 25.'Wc7 27.2:d5 f5! 28.~f5 ~f5 29.2:f5 ~b2.
~f6 (25 ... ~f8 26.2:d8) 26.e4 iWe4 27.2:fe1 'Wf5 24J~d7 ~d7 25.~e4 ~c5 26.~g2 ~b5.
28.2:e5 iWg4 29.ttJd7 ~d7 30.2:d7+-.
24.. J:!:d1 25.:Bd1 ia3 26.15 ~a2
19.. J~d7 20J~fd1?! 27.:Ba1?

This all looks very natural but the position 27.lt.'lc6 2:e8 28.~g2 ~b7oo.
j:, suddenly explodes in White's face. 27.f6 gf6 28.ttJc6 2:e8 29.~h7 ~b7=.
,
I
I The advantage could have been preserved with o27.@g2 2:e8 28.ttJc6 ~c4 29.~a4 ~b2.
one of the following continuations:
20.ibe2 'Wg6 21.2:fd 1. 27 ....ic5 28.c;tJf1 :Be8! 29.:Be1?
20.lt:lf2 iWg6 (20 ...iWf3? 21.~f5) 21.2:fd1.
20J~fc1. The decisive mistake.
Better was 29J~a2 2:e5 30.2:a1 (30.2:a4? ~b4;
20 .. ",Wf3! 21.lLig5 30.f6 gf6 31.~h7 ~b7 32.~b6 ~b6 33.~d3+)
30 ... ~b4 (30 ... ~b7 31.2:e1 =) 31.2:d1 ~b7
21.'Wf2? iWf2 22.~f2 would be hopeless due to 32.2:d7 2:b5 33.~e4 (33.2:f7 2:c5+) 33 ... ~a7
22 ... b6. 34.2:c7 ~b8 35.2:f7 a4+.

21 ... ttJe3! 22.lLif3 29 ...16 30.ttJd3 :Be1 31.c;tJe1 id6-+

32.ttJc1 id5 33.ib3 ie4 34.ib6
22.'Wd2 2:d3! 23.ttJf3 2:d2 24.2:d2 b6+. cb6 35.~e6 c;tJc7 36.c;tJe2 ie5
37.lLid3 c;tJd6 38.c;tJe3 .id5
22 ...lLic2 23.~c2 b6'" 0-1

24
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.tLlf3 tLlc6 5.a3 lLlge7 1

Game 2 18.Wb2!? (18.We7 me8 19.e4 'gad8!:j: Lopez

Popov, Valerij (2585) Senra (after 19.. .a4 20. Wc2 'gedBoo, Black gets
Potapov, Pavel (2427) nice compensations for the sacrificed pawn -
Rijeka, 2010 Bronznik)) 18... f6 19.'gae1 'gae8 20.!lf1 Wh5°o
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.1L1f3 21.!le2!? !lg4 22.~b3 Wh8 23.'ge5?! ctJf5
lLlc6 5.a3 lLlge7 6.b4 lLlg6 7..ib2 24.!lg4 ~g4+ 25.'ge4 Wh3 26.'gee1?! ctJd4?!
a5! 8.b5 lLlce5 9.ttJe5 lLle5 10.e3 27.ed4 !ld6!? 28.ctJe4? !lf4+ 29.'ge3 !lh6
.ie6 11 ..id4 lLlc4 12.Wc2 lLld6 30.We2 'ged8-+ Van Hoolandt, P-Henris, L,
13..id3 Wg5!? 14.14 Wh4 15.93 Namur, 2012.
Wh3! (D) The interesting alternative 16.ctJc3!? is
seen in game 3.

16... ~d8!

16...0-0-0 is inferior because of 17.ctJd2!:

a) 17...ctJe4? 18.'ge1! (Avrukh) 18... 'gd7
19.!le4 !la3 20.'ga1+- Bronznik.
b) 17...ltJb5?! 18.!lb5 'gd4 19.'ge1 e5
(19 ...e6? 20.!le6+-; 19...!ld6 20.ctJf3 !lb3
21.Wb3 Wg2 22.ctJd4 Wh1 23.!lf1 We4 24.ctJe2±)
20.ctJf3 'gd8 21.'gb1!t (± Avrukh) 21 !ld7
(21 ...!ld6 22.~b2! !lf4 23.~f2+-; 21 !le7
22.!la4! We7 23.Wb2 !le8 24.Wb6 Wb8 25.ctJe5
This is the improvement of Black's play from 'gd6 26.ctJe6 'ge6 27.!le6+-) 22.!le4 !le6 23.ctJe5
Russian Grandmaster Nikolai Vlassov. 'gd6 24.!lf7+ Bronznik.
c) 17...ltJc4?! 18.!le4 (18.ctJe4? 'gd4
16.e4!? 19.ctJa5 ~h5 20.'ge1 ~e5 21.We5 !le5 22.'ge5
'gd3 23.b6 e6 oo ) 18...'gd4 19.!lf1 Wh5 20.!le2
16-'Wc7?? Wg2 or 16.. J::1e8 win. ~h3 (20 ...!lg4? 21.'ge1 !ld6 22.e5 !le2 23.ed6
16.@f2!? !le7 (16 ... ctJf5 17.ctJd2 ctJd4 e6 24.be6 !ld3 25.eb7 Wb7 26.~e7 Was 27.~e6
18.ed4 !ld6 19.ctJe4 !ld5 (19... 0-0-0 20.'gac1; Wa7 28.ctJf3+-) 21.~e3! 'gd7 (21...'gd8
19... 0-0 20.ctJg5) 20.ctJd6 ed6 21.'gae1 WfB 22.'ge1 +-) 22.f5+- Bronznik.
22.!le4 'ge8 23.Wd3 !le4 24.~e4 g6, with d) 17...Wfg2 18.'gg1 Wh2 19.b6 e6
approximate equality - Watson) 17.ctJd2 0-0 20.~e3 (L},~a5~) 20 ...!lg4 (20 ...a4? 21.ctJf3

25
 ,
Chapter 1

~h5 22.ttJe5+-) 21.e5 (21.~a5 Wd7 CD

) 21 ...ttJf5 ~g4 27.i.f2±) 26.1::1ae2 l"1b1 27.l"1b1 (27.i.g1!?
22.i.f2 l"1d5 23.ttJf3 ~h6 24.ttJg5t Bronznik. l"1e1 28.l"1e1 ~g4 29.i.c5t) 27... ~b1 28.i.c1
ttJd4 (28 ... 0-0? 29.i.d3+-) 29.~d4!? (29.l"1e7
17.f5 ~e7 30.i.d3 ~b3 31.~c7 ~e8 32.~c8 ~e7
33.~c5 ~e8 34.~d4 ~d1 35.~f2 ~c1 =)
17.ttJc3 ttJe4!. 29 ... ~c1 30.\t>g2 ~a3 31.~g7 l"1f8 32.~h7t
17.if1 ~h5 18.i.e2 i.g4!+ Lopez Senra Bronznik.
(18... ~h3 19.ttJd2 i.g4 20.i.g4 ~g4 21.b6 c) 22 ...<!Llf5!? 23.~c3 ttJd4 (23 ... ~e4?! 24.l"1f1 +)
(21.~c7 i.e 7= Lopez Senra) 21...c6 - Avrukh). 24.\t>f2 i.c5 25.l"1e1 0-0 26.\t>f1 ~e4 27.i.g1
~h 1 28.l"1f2± Bronznik.
17....ic4! Maybe Black can improve his play
somewhere in these variations.
17...<!Llf5? would be weaker: 18.ef5
I
I
, l"1d4 19.fe6 ~e6 20.i.e2 l"1e4 21.ttJc3 l"1e3
I

22.l"1d 1 ~c4 23.l"1d3 ~d3 24.~d3 l"1d3 25.i.d3

i.a3 26.i.e4 i.b4 27.\t>d2 b6 28.\t>c2± Henris (± 18.i.c4? ttJc4 19.~c4 ~g2, and Black regains
Bronznik). his piece with advantage.
17...<!Lle4!? is more interesting: 18.fe6
~e6 19.i.c4 ~e7 (19... ~g4?! 20.l"1f1! l"1d4 18...c5?
21.l"1f4±) 20.i.e3 ttJd6!? (20 ... ttJg3? 21.hg3 ~e3
22.~e2 i.c5 23.~e3 i.e3 24.l"1a2 0-0 25.l"1f1 Already the losing move.
l"1d4 26.l"1c2 g6 27.l"1f3 i.g5 28 .i.b3~ Avrukh) ~18 ...i.d3?! 19.~d3 i.e7 (19 ... ~g2
21.\t>e2 ~e5!? (21 ...g6 22.l"1e1 i.g7 23.\t>f1 0-0 20.l"1f1 ~h2 21.l"1a2 ~h6 22.ttJd5--t Bronznik)
(23... i.a1? 24.i.g5 ~e1 25.\t>e1+-) 24.i.d4 ~g5 20.ttJd5! ~g2 21.0-0-0 i.g5 22.\t>b1 0-0 23.f6
25.i.g7 \t>g7 26.~c3 \t>g8 27.l"1a2 ttJb5 28.~e5 l"1fe8 24.l"1he1! (24.h4 (t Avrukh) 24 ...c6! 25.hg5
~e5 29.l"1e5 ttJd6 30.i.b3~) 22.l"1a2: (25.ttJe7 l"1e7 26.fe7 i.e7 CD ) 25 ...cd5 26.ed5
a) 22 ...<!Llb5?! 23.\t>f2 i.e7 (23 ... ~f6 24.\t>g1 g6 CD
) :

ttJd6 25.\t>g2 i.e7 26.l"1f1 ttJc4 27.~c4 ~e6 a) 24 <!Lle4?? 25.ttJe7+-.

28.~e6 fe6 29.l"1e2+) 24.i.b5 ~b5 25.l"1b2 ~d5
26.l"1e1 0-0 27.~c7 l"1fe8 28.~b7 i.b4 29.l"1b4
ab4 30.~d5 l"1d5 31.ab4+ Bronznik.
b) 22...i.e7 23.l"1e1 ttJf5 24.~c3 ~e4 25.\t>f1
l"1d1 (25 ... ttJe3 26.l"1e3 ~b1 27.~g2 \t>f8 28.l"1e7!
~e7 29.l"1e2 ~d7 30.i.d3!+-; 25... 0-0 26.i.g1
b) 24 l"1e4 25.ttJe7 \t>f8 26.b6! cb6 (26 ...c6
27.fg7 ~e7 28.i.c5+-) 27.fg7 \t>e7 28.i.b6+-.
c) 24...c6 25.ttJe7 l"1e7 (25... \t>f8? 26.fg7 \t>e7
27.i.b6! f6 28.i.d8 l"1d8 29.e5+-) 26.fe7 i.e7
27.i.b6 l"1e8 28.i.c5 ttJc8 (28 ... l"1d8 29.e5+-)
29.i.e7 ttJe7 30.l"1e2 ~h3 31.~d7+-.

26
 1
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6 5.a3 ~ge7

Correct is 18....ie7! (D), a strong • 21.l'~a3!? .ia3 22 ..ig7 2:d5 23.ed5 (23 ..ih8??
novelty suggested by John Watson in his review 2:c5-+) 23 ...2:g8 24.~c7 (24 ..ie5 .ib4 25.\t>f2 2:g5
of Avrukh's book Grandmaster Repertoire - l.d4 26.~c7 2:f5 27..if4?! 2:d5 28.~b17! ~f5+)
(2009). Here are his analyses completed by 24 ....ib4 (24 ... 2:g17? 25.~c8 \t>e7 26.f6+-)
those from Jose Lopez Senra published in New 25.ic3 ic3 26.~c3 \t>d7 27.~f3 2:g5i Watson.
In Chess Yearbook 105 (2012): c) 19.f6! (D):

a) 19.ig7? id3 20.~d3tLJf5-+ Lopez Senra. c1) 19...if6 20.if6 id3 21.~d3 gf6 22.tLJd5 0-0
b) 19.ic4 19... tLJc4 20.tLJd5tLJa3: 23.tLJf6 \t>h8 24.2:a2 tLJe4! 25.~e4 2:d6!
• 21.tLJc7 \t>f8 22.2:a3 (22.~c3 2:d4) 22 ...ia3 threatening ...2:f6 and ...2:e6, with ... ~e6 if
(White has enough for the exchange, but no White's queen strays - Watson.
more) 23.tLJd5 \t>g8 (23 ... h5 24.ig7 (24.~c7 2:eB c2) 19...gf6!?:
25.ig7 \t>g7 26.~c3 f6 27.~f6 \t>gB=) 24 ... \t>g7 • 20.tlJd5 id5 21.ed5 2:g8 22.0-0-0 2:g5
25.~c3 \t>h7 26.tLJf6 \t>h6 27.~a3 ~g2 28.~c1 23.iWa2 (23.iWb3 \t>f8:;:) 23 ... tLJf5 =/:;:.
\t>g7 29.~g5 \t>f8 30.tLJh7 \t>e8 31.tLJf6 \t>f8= • 20.0-0-0!? ~g4!?:
Lopez Senra) 24 ..ig7! (24.f6 ib4 25.\t>f2 g6 - 21.~he1 tLJb5!+;
(25... gf6 is less ambitious, and level) 26.tLJe7 - 21.a4 c6!? 22.bc6 bc6:;:;
\t>f8) 24 ...ib4 (or 24 ... \t>g7 25.~c3 \t>g8 26.~a3 - 21.~b2 0-0:;: (21 ... c6!?:;:);
~g2 27.tLJe7 \t>f8 28.tLJd5, etc) 25.\t>f2 (25.tLJb4 · 21.h4 tLJf5! 22.ic4 (22.ef5?! ia3 23.\t>b1
\t>g7 26.tLJd5 2:d5 27.~c3 f6 28.~c7 \t>h6 29.~f4) 2:d4+) 22 ....ia3 23.~b1 tLJd4:;:;
25 \t>g7 26.~b2 \t>g8 27.tLJf6 \t>f8 28.tLJd7 2:d7 - 21.~hf1 tLJb5! 22.tLJb5 ~g5 23.2:d2 ~b5
(28 \t>g8 29.tLJf6) 29.~h8 \t>e7 30.~e5=; 24.~b5 (24.2:f5 ~d3 25.iWd3 iWg4+) 24 ... ~b5

27
 Chapter 1

25.flf5 ~a3 «25 ...e5? 26.~e5 fle8 27.~e7 ~f5 Game 3

28.ef5 ~e7=) 26.~d1 ~e6:j: (26 ... ~b4!?). Hsu Li Yang (2350)
• 20.~c4 tiJc4 21.tiJd5 tiJa3! 22.~e2!? (22.We7 Humeau, Cyril (2203)
leads to equality after 22 ...fld5 23.ed5 O-O! Costa Serena, 2009
24.We7 tiJe2 25.~f2 ~f5=) 22 ... ~b4!? (Black 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.CLlf3
can also play 22 ...:gd5!? 23.ed5 O-O! 24.0-0-0!? CLlc6 5.a3 CLlge7 6.b4 CLlg6 7.~b2
I', :ge8 25.:ghe1!? (25.~c5 Wf5! 26. ~b2 ~fB! as! 8.b5 ct:Jce5 9.CLle5 CLle5 10.e3
27.WeB Wc2 2B.~a3 Wc3!=) 25 ...Wf5! ~e6 11.~d4 CLlc4 12.Wfc2 ct:Jd6
26.Wd3!? (26.~b2 Wd5 27.Wg4 ~fB 2B.:ge7! 13.~d3 Wfg5!? 14.f4 Wfh4 15.g3
Wb5 29. ~a3 Wb4=) 26 ...Wd7 27.d6!? iid6 Wfh3! 16.ct:Jc3!?N (0)
28.iif6 oo ) 23.tiJb4 ab4 (and not :523 ...:gd4?!
because of 24.tiJd5!!) 24.iif6 :gg8! (with the
I
I threat 25 ...:gg3!; 24 ... 0-0!? 25.iid8 :gd8ii5)
25.:gf1 (:525.iid8?! :gg3!) 25 ...:gd7!? 26.:gf5
:gg6! 27.Wb2 (27.b6!? c5! 28.iiM (2B.:gc1 Wh6
29.:ge5 ~fB 30.:gcc5 :gf6 31.:gcB ~g7 32.Wg4
:gg6 33.Wd7 We3=) 28 ... ~f8 29.:gc5 :gd4
30.We3 :ggd6 31.Wf4 h6! 32.:gac1 ~g7 33.We5
~h7 34.:gc8 :gd1 !=) 27 ...:gf6!? (27 ...Wh6!? is
also possible) 28.:gf6 :gd4! 29.:gf4 (29.We2
Wd7!oo) 29 ... tiJb5!? 30.:ga8 ~d7 31.:gf7 ctfc6
32.:gf6 ctfd7= Lopez Senra.
This is a fascinating line, if only because it
demonstrates how difficult it is to get the This continuation is quite interesting. White
advantage against even 'marginal' openings such does not want to have his centre exposed as
as the Albin Counter-Gambit. it's the case after the main continuation 16.e4
After the unfortunate continuation 18...c5? which leads to a very complicated and double-
chosen by Black in the game all is quickly over edged situation.
for him.
16... ~e7! 17.ct:Je4
19.bc6 bc6 20.~c4 CLlc4 21.CLle2+-
CLla3 22.Wfc6 :8:d7 23.@f2 ~d6 17.e4!? looks more challenging. With the
24.~g7 :8:g8 25.~f6 following options for Black:
1-0 a) 17.. .f6 18.f5!? ~f7 19.~f2 0-0

28

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.lLlf3 lLlc6 5.a3 lLlge7
20.liJe2!? t.liJf4t Bronznik.
b) 17.. J"~d8!? 18..ig7 :1'1g8 19..if1 Wh5
20 ..id4 :1'1g3= Lopez Senra.
c) 17...0-0 18.f5 .ic4! - Lopez Senra;
this is much better than :518 ....id7?! 19.f6!? .if6
(19 ... gf6 20.cLJd5+) 20 ..if6 gf6 21.liJd5 t2le8
22.t2lf4 Wh6 23.0-0ai which would give White a
promising compensation for the pawn
Bronznik.
17...0-0 18.~f2 Y:Yh5 19.Y:Yc7
~fe8 20.0-0 ~b5 21 ..ib5 Y:Yb5
22.~fb1 Y:Yh5 23.~b7 ~ac8
Black misses the strong 23....ia3!; which
offered him the better chances.
24.Y:Ye5 Y:Ye5 25..ie5 .ia3= 26.~d3
Of course 26.:1'1a3?! would be weaker because
of 26 ...:1'1c1 27.t2ld1D (27.mg2? .id5) 27 ... :1'1d1
28.mf2 f6:j: Henris.
26....if8 27 .~a5 f6 28..id4 ~c2
29.~b2 ~ec8 30.~c2 ~c2 31.~a8
@f7 32.e4 .ih3 33.~a7 @g8
34..if2 ~d2 35.~a8 ~d3 36..ic5 h5
37..if8 ~d1 38.@f2 ~d2 39.@e3
~h2 40..ib4 @h7 41.~a7 ~g2
42.@f3 ~c2 43..if8 .ig2 44.@e3
~c3 45.@f2 ~c2 46.@g1 .ie4
47.~g7 @h8 48.~e7 f5 49.@f1 .if3
50..ig7 @g8 51 ..id4 .ig4
1
Game 4
Gelfand, Boris (2736)
Kasimdzhanov, Rustam (2690)
Moscow (blitz), 2007
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.~f3
~c6 5.a3 ~ge7 6.b4 ~g6 7..ib2
a5! 8.b5 ~ce5 9.~e5 ~e5 10..id4
. ~c4 11.e3 ie6 12.Y:Yc2 ~d6
13..id3 Y:Yg5 14.0-0I?
In practice White also has tried this idea with
success; but it does not seem convincing enough
if Black plays accurately.
14... ~b5 15.~c3!?
15..tb5 Wb5 16.Wc7, with the
following possibilities:
a) Black experiences serious difficulties of
development after 16... :1'1c8?! 17.Wg3t h5!?
(17 ... Wd3 18.t2lc3! Wg6 was played in Gonzalez
Garcia,J-Arias Boo,G, Barcelona, 2007 (18...
29
r--·---------------·------,
Chapter 1

E1c3? 19.E1fd1). White could have now obtained Wearker is 16...0-0-0?! 17.E1ab1 E1d4 18.4:Jb5 E1d7
a clear advantage in the endgame with 19.4:Ja7 Wb8 20.4:Jc6 Wc8 (20 ...Wa8 21.~e4!+-)
19.E1fb1! mrg3 20.hg3 E1c7 21.E1b5±) 18.4:Jc3 mrc6 21.~a6+.
(Yakovich,Yur-Vorotnikov,V, Moscow, 2007)
19.e4! h4 20.WIg5 h3 21.g3± Henris. 17.E:ab1?!
b) Better is 16...WId7! 17.WIb6 (17.E1c1 E1c8
18.mrc8 WIc8 19.E1c8 ~c8=; 17.WIg3 f6 .M8... ~d6, 17.lLle4 WIh4!? 18.4:Jd6 cd6 19.WIa4 Wf8
19 0-0 - Avrukh). And now, instead of 20.E1ab1 ~d5 21.E1fe1 g6 co Henris.
17 ~e7!? 18.4:Jc3 0-0 19.E1fb1;1;, as in Sands,D- 17.d5 ~d7 (17 ...WIh5 18.g3 ~h3
Walton,Al, Sunningdale, 2010, Black could 19.E1fe1 Wf8 20.E1ab1!? E1b8 21.4:Je4; 17... ~d5
have achieved equality with 17 ...E1a6 18.WIb2 18.4:Jd5 WId5 19.E1fe1 c;t>f8 20.~e4; 17... ~g4!?)
~c4 19.E1c1 E1g6 20.4:Jd2 ~d5 21.f3 ~e7 22.e4 18.E1fe1 c;t>f8 19.4:Je4!? WId5 20.4:Jd6 WId6
~e6 23.4:Jc4 ~c4 24.E1c4 b5 25.E1c2 0-0= Henris. (20 ...cd6!? 21.~e4 WIc5) 21.~e4 ~c6 22.E1ad1
c) 16...WIc6!? is also possible: 17.E1c1 WIc7 WIf6 23.WIc5 c;t>g8 24.~c6 WIc6 25.WIe7 h6
18.E1c7 E1c8= Lopez Senra. 26.E1c1 WIg6 27.WIc7 c;t>h7 28.WIb7=
Another interesting continuation is Kasimdzhanov.
15.~b2!?, as in Peralta,Fe-Amura,C, San Luis,
2006. Now Black should react with one of the 17....~:Vh6 18.g3 0-0 19.E:b7 .ia3~
following options: 20.ltJbS .ib4 21.E:c7 E:ac8 22.,te4
a) 15.. J~d8 16.E1d1 c6 co seems fine for Black. E:c7 23)l)c7 ,th3 24.E:b1 E:c8
b) 15...0-0-0 16.a4 (16.E1c1 c6 co or 16...E1d7!? 2S.,tb7 E:b8 26.,te4 '?Hd6 27.ltJdS
17.4:Jc3 4:Jc3 18.~c3 a4! 19.~d4 ~b3 20.WIc3
mrd5!?= Lopez Senra) 16... 4:Ja7 17.~e4 f5 18.~f3 27 .~h7 Wh8:j:.
~b4!?co.
c) 15...c6!? 16.4:Jd2 (16.4:Jc3 4:Jc3 17.~c3 27...g6 28.ltJb4? E:b4 29.E:b4 '?Hb4+
E1d8!?=) 16...WIc5!? 17.WIc5!? ~c5 18.~g7 E1g8= 30.'?Hd1 a4 31.,tg2?
Lopez Senra.
31.id5 a3+.
1s... lLld4
31 ...,tg2 32.@g2 a3-+ 33.dS a2
After the weaker 15...4:Jc3? 16.WIc3, Black 34.d6 '?Hb7 3S.@h3 '?Hb1 36.'?Ha4
would be under serious pressure. a1'?H 37.'?He8 @g7 38.d7 '?HfS
39.@g2 '?HdS 40.@h3 '?Had4
16.ed4.id6 0-1

30

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ctJf3 ctJc6 5.a3 ttJge7
Game 5
Gelfand,Boris (2738)
Morozevich,Alexander (2770)
Astana (blitz), 2012
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.lLlf3
lLlc6 5.a3 tLlge7 6.b4 lLlg6 7.ib2
a5! 8.b5 lLlce5 9.lLle5 lLle5 10.id4
tLlc4 11.e3 ie6 12.Wc2 tLld6
13.id3 Wg5!? 14.lLlc3?!N (D)
Is this new idea from World Championship
Challenger Boris Gelfand the result of some
home preparation or a discovery made over the
board? If the Israeli Grandmaster decides to
play 14.ttJe3!?, does it mean that he does not
believe in the alternatives 14.f4 and 14.0-0 we
have seen before?
The fact is that this innovation does not seem
to give White the chance to get any hope of an
advantage.
14...Wg2
1
If he wants Black can already make an easy
draw with the somewhat surprising reply
14 c5!? 15.f4 (:515.be6?! iWg2 16.2:f1 iWe6:j:)
15 IWh4 16.g3 iWh5 17.~e2 (17.~e5? iWf3+)
17 IWf5. Now obviously White has no other
choice than to repeat the moves with 18.~d3
iWh5 19.~e2=, as the alternatives are weaker:
18.e4?! ttJe4!:j: and 18.iWf5?! ttJf5 19.~e5 ttJe3:j:
Henris.
15.0-0-0
In exchange of the sacrificed pawn White has a
lead in development. But he must have some
very serious worries about the vulnerable
situation of his king on the opened queenside.
That is the reason why, I think, Black's chances
should be preferred.
15...Wh3!?
This is not the only possible reply for Black
here. He also has other very interesting and
promising continuations. Here are some of
them. In all cases, Black has clearly the better
prospects:
15...c5!?:
a) 16.~c5!? iWg5 17.~d4 ttJf5 18.Wb2 ttJd4
19.ed4 2:e8 20.iWa4 ~d6!?:
• 21.~e4 IWh4!? 22.b6 (22.2:he1 0-0 23.~b7
2:e4 24.iWa5 2:d4+) 22 ... Wf8 23.2:he1 iWd8:;;
• 21.ttJe4!? iWd5 22.ttJd6 IWd6 23.~e4 0-0+;
• 21.2:hg1 iWf4 22.2:g7 IWf2 23.ttJe2 b6:j:;
• 21.b6 Wf8! «21 ... We7?! 22.2:hg1 iWf4
31
 Chapter 1

23.:8ge1 oo (S23. tiJe4?! :8hd8+)) 22.tiJe4 Wfd8! 19... llJb5 20..tb5 Vlfb5; 21.c;!?a1?1
23.tiJd6 Wfd6+.
(0
b) 16.:8hg1 Wfh2 17.:8h1 (17.~g7!? ~g7 18.:8g7 ) 21.~b2 had to be played, leaving Black slightly
17...Wfh1!? (17 ...Wfg2 18.:8hg1 (0) 18.2:h1 cd4 better after 21 ... ~b3!? (21 ... ~b2 22.~b2 f6!?)
19.ed4 2:c8 20.Wb2 g6 21.Wfd2 ~g7 22.~f4 O-O! 22.ctJc5!? ~c5!? 23.~c5 2:c8+ Henris.
23.ctJe2 (23.~d6!? 2:fd8+) 23 ... ctJc4+.
15...f6!? 16.~h7 0-0-0 17.b6 ~c6 21 .. J!c8?!
18.bc7 2:d7 19.~d3 ctJc4i-.
15...a4!1+ looks also a bit better for In this sharp position Black misses the
I,,
Black - Henris. opportunity to gain a clear advantage with
Even 15...0-0-0!? looks good enough 21 ...~b3!+ Henris.
for a decent game - Flear,G.
I hasten to add that obviously all this requires 22.Vlfb2 Vlfb2!?
further analyses.
Again 22... ~b3 23.~b3 ab3 had to be
16.c;!?b1 a4 17 .tlJe4!? considered - Henris.

17 .ltJa4!? 23..tb2 E:c6

17...Vlfh5!? 23...f6!? 24.ctJd6 ~d6 25.2:d6 Wf7 does not

17... ~b3? 18.~c7 ~d1 19.ctJd6 ~d6 20.~d6 ~f3
21.2:g1 2:d8 22.~f4±. Of course, Black cannot
neglect his development like that - Henris.
18.Vlfc7?!
18.ltJc5!? ~d5 would be unclear - Flear,G.
18...Vlfd5 19.Vlfc2?!
It looks preferable for White to play 19.1tJd6
~d6 20.~c2 ~a3 21.~g7 2:g8+, even if Black
still retained the better chances - Henris.
seem to offer more than a draw - Henris.
Now Boris Gelfand successfully proceeds in
removing all the rooks from the board in order
to reach a simple drawn endgame with bishops
of opposite color.
24.E:d4 b5!? 25.E:hd1 ie7 26.tlJd6
id6 27.E:d6 E:d6 28.E:d6 0-0
29.E:b6 ic4 30.i.e5 f6 31.i.d6 E:d8
32.E:b8 E:b8 33.ib8= c;!?f7 34.@b2
@e6 35.e4 id3 36.f3 ie2 37.14
i.d3 38.e5 f5 39.@c3 i.c4 40.@d4
h641.h4

32
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.lLJf3 lLJc6 5.a3 lLJge7

Game 6 \&e4 18.ClJe4 ~b5=; 17.\&c6? '@fc6 18.bc6 E1d6,

Tratar, Marko (2480) and Black regains the pawn; but 17.~e5!? is
Lyell, Mark (2245) interesting) 17 ... ~a3 18.~g7 E1d 1 19.cj;>d 1 E1g8
Palma, 2009 20.~d4 (20.'@fa8? md7 21.'@fa5 (21.'@fg8? '@fg4
1.d4 dS 2.c4 eS 3.deS d4 4.ct:Jf3 22.cj;>d2 (22.cj;>e1?? ~b4-+) 22...'@fg2 23.E1e1
ct:Jc6 S.a3 ct:Jge7 6.b4 ct:Jg6 7.~b2 '@ff2 24.CiJe2 (24.E1e2 '@ff1!-+) 24... ~4-+)
as! B.bS ct:JceS 9.ct:JeS ct:JeS 10.e3 21 ... ~c5 22.~d4 ~b3+) 20 ... cj;>d7. The
~e6 11.~d4 ct:Jc4 12.'1Wc2 'lWdS?! (D) situation is not so clear as White can not
castle.

14..ic4!

Even stronger than 14.f4!?, proposed by Boris

Avrukh, which still gives the advantage to
White:
a) 14...1Mfg4 15.~c4 ~c4 16.'@fe4 ~e7
17.cj;>f2±.
b) 14...1Mfg6 15.i,d3 f5 16.0-0 '@ff7
17.E1fc1 (with the idea 18.CiJe2; 17.e4 CiJa3
18.'@ff2 i,c4!) 17 ... CiJa3 18.'@fe2 i,b4
(18 CiJc4 19.CiJa4 CiJd6 20.CiJc5 i,d5 21.e4±;
12... mrd5?!, recommended in Nigel Davies' book 18 E1d8 19.CiJa4 ~b4 20.CiJc5 0-0 21.CiJe6
Gambiteer 1/, is paradoxal and unnatural as it '@fe6 22.E1c7 E1f7 23.E1f7 mf7 24.'@fh5 '@fg6
gives White two additionnal tempi for free. 25.'@fh3±) 19.'@fb2 '@fe7 (19 ... CiJc4 20.'@fb4+-)
20.CiJa4 E1d8 21.E1c3±.
13.ttJc3 'lWgS!? c) 14...%Ve7:
• ~15.f5 ~f5 16.iWf5 ttJe3 17.iWd3 ttJc2 m ;
Maybe better is 13...mrd7!? 14.~c4!? ~c4 • 15.lLld5 ~d5 16.~c4 iWe4 17.'@fe4?! ~e4
15.mre4: 18.cj;>f2;!; Krantz,(-Brustkern,J, Sweden, 2013;
a) 15... ~e7? 16.~g7 E1g8 as in Ashwin,J- • 15..tc4! ~c4 16.'@fa4 ~e6 (16... ~d3 17.E1d1
Ferreira,Alex, Paleochora, 2011. Now White ~e4 18.0-0+-) 17.0-0 (17.b6 c6 18.f5! - Aagaard)
wins with 17.mrb7 E1d8 18.E1d1+- Henris. 17...f5 18.e4 O-O-O?! 19.ttJe2!? fe4 20.E1fc1+.
b) According to Pantaleoni, better is
15...1Mfe6!? 16.'@fb7 E1d8 17.E1d1!? (17.'@fe4? 14...'lWg2

33
 ,
Chapter 1

14....tc4 15.1We4 .te7 16.1Wb7+. Game 7

Khoroshev, Nikita (2318)
15.~e6 Wfh1 16.@e2 Wfa1 Potapov, Pavel (2473)
17.ttJb1 !? Tashkent, 2012
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.tDf3
17.tLld5 ~a3 18.~h3 is also good for White. ttJc6 5.a3 tDge7 6.b4 ttJg6 7.~b2
", I a5! 8.b5 tDce5 9.Wfd4!?
17...Wfb1
I,
,
,

17...W'd4 18.ed4 fe6 19.W'e7 ~e7 20.~b7 ~f7

21.tLld2 gad8 22.liJe4, and White is winning.

18.~f7 @f7 19.Wfb1 +-

The white queen is much stronger than the

Black underdeveloped pieces.

19... ~e7

19...!!e8 does not solve Black's problems:

20.\Wf5 ~e7 21.\Wd5 b6 22.~e5 ge8 23.~g3 h6 An interesting idea from Anatoly Karpov. Black
24.~h4 g5 25.\We4 ~d8 26.~d4 ~e8 27.~g5 must be very careful in the endgame as it
hg528.\Wh8+-. offers White good chance for an advantage.

20.Wfb3 @f8 21.Wfc3 @f7 22.Wfc4 9... ~d4 1O.~d4 tLlc4 11.e3
@g6 23.Wfc7 ~f6 24.~f6 gf6
j:
25.Wfb7 a4 26.Wfe4 @g7 27.@f3 11.tLlfd2!? liJd6!? (11...liJd2 12.liJd2 ~d7 13.e3 f6
~he8 28.Wfb7 @g6 29.h4 h5 14.~e2;!; Georgiev,Ki) 12.a4 liJf5 13.~e3 ~e5
30.@f4 ~ab8 31.Wfg2 @h6 32.Wfc6 14.e3 0-0 (14 ... ~e6!? 15.~e4 O-O!? 16.~e6 fe6,
@g6 33.Wfc2 @h6 34.Wfa4 ~e5 when Black's slightly inferior pawn structure is
35.Wfa6 @g6 36.a4 ~f5 37.@g3 compensated by his lead in development -
~g8 38.Wfe6 @h7 39.Wfg8 @g8 Flear,G) 15.liJb3 ~b6?! (o15 ... ~b4 16.~b4 ab4,
40.b6 and White's advantage is reduced to a
1-0 minimum) 16.liJ1d2 liJd6 (16 ... ~e6 17.liJe4 ~e4

34
 1
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ct'lf3 ct'lc6 5.a3 tbge7

18..ic4, with the bishop pair) 17.ctJc4 ctJc4 15.0-00-0, transposing to the main game, is best.
18..ic4;!; :ge8 19.0-0 ctJe5 (19....ie6 20 ..ie6 :ge6 b) 14.~d3 .ie7 (14 ... .if5!? 15..ie2!? ltJe4? 16.g4
21.:gfd1 +) 20 ..ie2!? (20 ..id5!? .ie6? as in ItJd2 17.gf5 ItJb3 18.fg6 ctJa1 19..ia1 +- was
Sarkar,J-Nikolayev,l, USA, 2008. Now 21 ..ib7! Stojanovic,Mih-Tadic, B, Vrsac, 2007. But instead
:gab8 22.ctJd2+) 20....ie6?! (o20 ....if5, with near 15... b6 16.'gc1 'gc8 17.0-0 ItJb7 18..ic4 .ia3
equality - Flear,G) 21.ctJa5! (21.ctJd4 .ic4) 19.'gcd1 'gd8 20.e4 .ig4 21.h3 'gd4 22.ltJd4 .id1
21 ...:ga5 (21 ....ia5 22 ..ie5+) 22 ..ie5 .ib3 23 ..if4? 23.'gd1 lLlc5 looks reasonable for Black; 14 c6!?
(White wins a pawn with 23 ..id1!: 23 .ic4 is also interesting) 15.0-0 (15.'it'e2!?) 15 0-0!?
(23....ia4 24..ic3; 23... 'ge5 24..ib3; 23 .id1 (15 ...c6!? and 15...1L1f5 16..ic3 b6 Li... O-O-O are
24.'gfd1+) 24..ic3 .if1 25 ..ia5 .ia5 26.'it'f1 'gd8, worth considering) 16..ic3 (16.'gfd1 'ii,fd8 (16... c6
with drawing chances) 23 ...'ga4 24.'ga4 (24.'gac1? 17..ic5 Li... cb5? 18..ig6 hg6 19..id6 .id6
'gf4+) 24 ....ia4 25.'ga 1 .ib3= Karpov,Ana- 20.ltJe4+-) 17.'gac1 'gac8;!; (17...c6 18.ltJc4 cb5
Kasimdzhanov,R, Tallinn (rapid), 2006. 19.ctJb6! 'gab8!? 20..ig6 (20.ctJd7 'gd7 21.ab5+)
20... hg6 21.'gc7±)) 16....ie6 17..ic2 'it'h8 18.'gfe1
11 ... ~d6 'gfc8 19.1tJd4 .id7 20.lLj4b3 b6 21.ltJe4 'ge8
22.ctJd6 .id6 23.ltJd4 .ie5 24.'gac1 'gad8 25 ..ib3
11 ....ie6? is of course bad because of 12.ctJg5. .id6 Y2-Y2, NoglY,C-Saptarshi,R, Rethymno, 2009.

12..ie2 12....id7 13.a4 f6

12.a4 f6 13..id3 .ie6 14.'it'e2 .ie7
15.h4!? .ig4 was about equal in Sieciechowicz,
M-Barski, R, Karpacz, 2010.
12.1L1bd2 .id7 13.a4 f6?! (Li14 ....ie7;
more dynamic is 13... ctJf5 14..ib2 .ib4 15.'gc1
0-0-0 - Flear,G) is similar to the game:
a) 14..ie2 .ie7 (recentralizing the knight is rather
time consuming: 14... ctJe7?! 15.0-0 ctJd5 16.'gfc1
c6 17.bc6 .ic6 18..ic5 ctJf5 19.1tJb3C, Peralta,Fe-
Perez Candelario,Man, Ayamonte, 2006;
14 ltJf5!? 15..ic3 (or 15..ib2 .ib4 16.0-0 0-0 or
16 0-0-0 - Flear, G) 15....ib4 16..ib4 (16Jk1
'it'e7!? 17.0-0 c6= Avrukh) 16...ab4 17.0-0 ItJge7
18.'gfb1 c5 19.bc6 ItJc6 20.ltJe4± Georgiev,Ki)
After 13...1L1f5!? 14..ic3 .ib4 15.0-0 c6 16..ib4
ab4 17.ltJbd2 'it'e7!? 18.ctJc4!? cb5! 19.1tJb6!?
(19.ab5 'ga1 20.'ga1 .ib5) as in Georgiev,Ki-
Bontempi,P, Arvier, 2010, 19...'ga4!? is unclear.
14.0-0 .ie7 1S.~bd2 0-0 16.~b3
.ie6 17 .~fd2 l:!fc8 18.l:!fc1 .if8
19..ic3 ~e4 20.~e4 .ib3 21.~d2
.idS 22.~c4 b6 23.l:!d1 .ie6 24.l:!ac1
l:!d8 2S..id4 .ib4 26. <j{f1 l:!d7
27.~d2 l:!ad8 28..ic4 ~f8 29.~b3
<j{f7 30.<j{e2 .ia3 31.l:!c2 .ic4 32.l:!c4
~e6 33.l:!d2 .ib4 34..ic3 l:!d2

35
 Chapter 1

Game 8 with extra material after 19.ttJf3 - Flear,G).

Matlakov, Maksim (2484) b) 10...1L1d6 11.ttJbd2 ie6!? (11...ttJf5
Chuprov, Dmitry (2577) 12.ic3 id6 13.ie2 (13.h4!?) 13... 0-0 14.0-0
Novokuznetsk, 2008 We7 15.\Wc2;!; Avrukh) 12.Wc2 \Wd7 13.h4!?N
1.d4 dS 2.c4 eS 3.deS d4 4.lLlf3 (13.a4 L2Jf5 14.ic3 ib4 15.:gb1 \We7 16.id3
ltJc6 S.a3 ltJge7 6.b4 lLlg6 7.ib2 L2Jfh4!? as in Moranda,W-Fridman,Da, Warsaw
as! 8.bSltJceS 9.id4 (D) (rapid), 2008, with a complex position) 13... h6
(13 ...1L1b5 14.ib5 \Wb5 15.h5 L2Je7 16.h6 f6
17.hg7 ig7 18.\Wc7t) 14.h5 L2Je7 15.L2Je5, and
White was much better in Potapov,Alexa-
Svoboda,V, Pardubice, 2009.

10.gf3!?

The obvious drawback of this recapture is that

Black's pieces gain access to the h4-square.
10.ef3:
a) 10...ie6 11.L2Jc3 (11.ie2 LtJf4)
11...ie7 12.ig7 :gg8 13.id4 (13.\Wd8 :gd8
14.ih6 LtJh4~ (14... LtJe5!?; 14 if6!?)) 13 ... L2Jh4
9...ltJf3!?N 14.\Wd3 (14.g3?? \Wd4-+) 14 L2Jg2 15.ig2 :gg2
16.LtJe4 :gg6~ Kritz.
This unexpected exchange promises Black b) Black gets good play for the pawn
interesting compensations for the pawn. after 10...YNe7!?:
9... 1L1c4 is the logical move here. But after • 11.YNe2 \We2 (11...ie6 Ll...O-O-O - Davies)
10.e3 (or 10.h4!?), the following continuations 12.ie2 LtJf4 13.g3 LtJe2 14.We2 ie6~ Avrukh;
are promising for White: • 11.ie3 \We5 12.\Wd4 \Wd4 13.id4 if5
a) 10... ie6!? 11.\Wc2 L2Jd6 12.id3t L2Jh4 Ll...O-O-Of!;
(12 ...\Wd7 13.ttJc3) 13.L2Jh4 \Wh4 14.0-0 ie7 • 11.ie2? is problematic: 11...L2Jf4 12.g3 ttJg2!
15.ttJd2!? (15.\Wc7! a4 (15... 0-0?? 16.g3 \Wg5 13.Wf1 ih3 14.Wg1 0-0-0+.
17.f4+-; 15... Ek8? 16.\Wa5) 16.ttJd2+) 15...0-0
16.f4+ LlttJf3, Sargissian,G-Slobodjan,R, Dresden, 10...ie6 11.ltJc3
2007 (16.\Wc7 is again tempting e.g. 16...:gfc8
17.\Wb6 id8? 18.\Wd6 ic7 and White emerges 11.e3 YNh4 (11... LtJh4!? is worth considering

36
------------------------------------,
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6 5.a3 ttJge7
too) 12.CiJe3 0-0-000. White's position
dangerous, despite the extra pawn.
11...~c4 12.e3 ~f1 13.@f1 Vffd7
14.h4 ~e7 15.Vffb3 Vffe6?!
A strange decision. With the white
exposed, Black should have kept the the queens
on the board. 15...'I&f5 was a good option.
16.Vffe6 fe6 17 .~e5 0-0-0 18.h5 ~f5
19.@e2 ~d6 20.14 ~d7 21.~d6lDd6
22.~hd1 ~f8 23.~d4 ~f5 24.a4
~h5; 25.~ad1 ~c5 26.~4d3 b6
27.e4 ~d8 28.f3 ~h5 29.~d4 lDb7?!
o29 ..J:!:h2+ offered more chances of success.
30.~d8 ~d8 31.@e3 ~b7 32.~e2
g6 33.~d4 ~d8 34.f5!?
White doesn't want to defend patiently.
34...gf5 35.ef5 ef5 36.@f4 @b7
37.~g1 ~h4 38.@e5 ~f7 39.@d5
lDd6!? 40.~g8 f4 41.~c6 ~h5
42.@d4 lDb5 43.ab5 ~b5 44.lDd8
@a6 45.lDe6 ~b4 46.@e5 @b5
47.~c7 @c4 48.~c8 @b3 49.~d5
~b5 50.~c3 @b2 51.~c4 h5 52.~f4
@b3 53.~h4 a4 54.14 a3 55.~h3
@a4 56.@d4 ~b2 57.lDc3 @b4
58.lDd5 @a4 59.lDc3 @b4 60.~d5
is Game 9
Navrotescu, Catalin (2432)
Goldsztejn, Gildas (2415)
France, 2009
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.lDf3
~c6 5.a3 ~ge7 6.b4 ~g6 (0)
king
The logical follow-up, but not the only option
here.
White wins the d4-pawn after 6....ie6?
7..ib2 .ie4 8.CiJbd2 .ia6 (8 ....ie6 9.b5± llCiJd4,
and White remains a pawn up) 9.CiJb3 d3
(9 ...CiJd5 10.CiJbd4 CiJd4 (10... CiJdb4 11.e6±)
11 .CiJd4± leaves White with one pawn more
(11.Vf1d4 is also good)) 10.CiJe5!? (10.ed3)
10...de2 11 ..ie2 .ie2 (11...\Wd1 12..id1) 12.\We2
b6 13.!::1d1 \We8 14.CiJd7!± Avrukh.
After 6....ig4?! 7..ib2 CiJf5, White has
two good continuations:
a) 8.CiJbd2 \We7 (8 g6 9.b5!) 9.h3 (9.\We2!? g6
10.h3 (;I; Stoical 10 .if3 11.CiJf3 h5 12.b5 CiJe5
13.CiJd4 CiJd4 14..id4 .ig7 15.\We3 !::1d8 16.!::1d1
37
 • : :

~
", I

'i'
, Chapter 1
iI

,
,
,
,'
0-0 17.e3 (17.f4?! liJf3 18.Wf3D ~d4+) quickly crushed after 7,..liJce5 8.liJd4 il.c5!
17,..gd4!? (17,..c5 18.~e5 gd1 19.Wd1 ~e51i5 9.il.b2 (9.liJb3?? il.f2-+; 9.e3 il.g4!? 10.'lWd2D
Bronznik) 18.gd4D c5 19.ge4 liJf3 20.'tt>e2 (1O.f3? Wh4! 11.g3 liJf3 12.liJf3 'lWf6-+) 9,..IWh4!?
,
,
,,
(20.'tt>d1?? IWe4-+) 20,..IWe4 21.gf3 IWbH (o9 ... liJc4!) 10.e3 (10.g3?? IWe4 11.f3 IWe3
, Henris) 9...il.f3 10.tiJf3 0-0-0 11.IWd3!? g6 12.g4 12.il.g2 il.f5!-+) 10 ...il.g4 11.IWc2 0-0-0 12.il.e2?
"

liJg7 13.il.g2!? (13.e3) 13... tiJe5 14.tiJe5 IWe5
15.IWf3 c6 16.b5± Nyback,T-Vihmand,A,
Harjumaa (rapid), 2010.
b) 8.IWd3 (Black's minor pieces on g4 and f5
seem rather precarious and need support)
8...g6 (8,..IWd7 9.IWe4 il.f3 10.gf3 Avrukh):
• 9.IWe4! il.f3 (9 ...h5?! 10.tiJbd2! il.g7 11.b5 tiJa5
12.tiJd4 tiJd4 13.IWd4+-) 10.ef3! (10.gf3 il.g7
I
(o12.tiJd2! !:lhe8 13.tiJ2b3) 12,..il.e2 13.IWe2 il.d4
14.il.d4 (14.ed4? tiJf4!) 14,..!:ld4! 15.ed4 IWd4
(M6.!:la2 liJf4 17.IWc2 (17.IWd2 IWe4-+; 17.IWf1
!:leB-+) 17... tiJed3 18.'tt>f1 IWe4-+) 0-1
7.il.gS!? is worth considering.
7...CLlge5?!

1
11.f4 IWh4 12.liJd2±) 10...il.h6 (10 ...il.g7 11.f4 0-0 7...liJeeS?! transposes to the main
I
12.tiJd2 ge8 13.0-0-0±) 11.f4 0-0 12.c5 (12.tiJd2 game after 8.tiJe5 tiJe5.
f6 13.tiJf3 fe5 14.fe5 IWe7 15.c5 ~il.c4, e6± 7...il.g4?! 8.tiJd4 tiJge5 (8...tiJce5
Avrukh; 12.il.d3!?) 12,..ge8 13.tiJd2 il.g7 9.IWb3) 9.tiJc6 IWd1 10.'tt>d1 tiJc6 11.tiJd2 0-0-0
14.il.b5± Godat,T-Belanoff,S, corr., 2009; 12.f3 il.e6 13.e3± Avrukh.
,
I':r I • 9.e6!? is interesting too: 9...il.g7!? (9,. .fe6 7...il.e6?! 8.tiJd4 tiJge5 9.tiJe6 IWd1
I
,
I 10.b5 il.f3 11.IWf3 tiJe5 12.IWb7 il.g7~) 10.ef7 'tt>f7 10.'tt>d1 fe6 11.e3 0-0-0 12.'tt>e1! tiJg4 13.il.e2±.
11.liJbd2 ge8. And now, instead of 12.g3? which White has the advantage of the bishop pair and
I' the better pawn structure, L'Ami,E-Kuipers,S,
,I
,
allows 12...tiJe3!, as in the game Babula, V-
"
Banikas,H, Turin, 2006, White can take a clear Leiden, 2007.
advantage with 12.h3 il.f3 13.tiJf3± Henris; 7.. .as! is stronger (-t games 1 to 8).
• Also tempting is 9.bS e.g. 9...il.f3 10.IWf3 tiJe5
11.IWb7 il.g7! (11,..tiJd6?! 12.IWd5 tiJdc4 13.IWd4 8.ltJe5 ltJe5 9.e3
leaves White a pawn up and Black hasn't such a
lead in development) 12.liJd2 0-0, and Black has 9.eS!? tiJc6 (9,..il.e6?! 10.IWd4 tiJc4 11.e3
superior development for his pawn - Flear,G. tiJb2 12.IWb2 il.e7 13.tiJc3±; 9...a5?! 10.e3 ab4
,
11.ab4 !:la1 12.il.a1 tiJc6 13.il.d4 tiJb4 14.tiJc3+
I::
7.i.b2 Henris) 10.tiJd2 a5! 11.b5 tiJa7~ Avrukh.
9.il.d4 is not really dangerous: 9,..tiJc4
In the game Gordon,S-Berg,E, Hastings, 10.e3 tiJd6 11.il.d3 IWg5!? 12.IWf3 il.f5 13.il.f5!?
2009, White played the hasty 7.bS? and got 'lWf5 14.IWf5 tiJf5, and Black had equalized in

38
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ctJf3 ctJc6 5.a3 ~ge7
Rezende,G-Carvalho,Gu, Montevideo, 2011.
Black has no problem to solve after
9.\Wd4 ~d4 10.~d4 tLJc4 11.e4 ~e6 12.tLJd2
0-0-0 13.~c3 tLJd2 14.~d2 ~d6, Pokorny,P-
NovotnY,Vi, Czechia, 2010.
9...ie6
The following amusing miniature has been
played between two renowned Grandmasters:
9... c5? 10.ed4 (10.bc5 ~a5 11.~d2 (11.tLJd2
de3) 11...~d2 12.tLJd2 de3 13.fe3 (13.ieS ed2
14.r;%;d2 ics 1S.ig7 'ii,gB 16.ih6 if2=) 13...f6
(13... tLJd7?! 14.tLJe4 (14.tLJb3) 14... tLJcS 1S.tLJcS
ics 16.ig7 'ii,gB 17.id4±) 14.ie5 fe5 15.tLJe4
ie6 (1S...ifS 16.tLJd6 id6 17.cd6 'ii,cB 1B.'ii,d1
r;%;d7 19.'ii,dS (19.ie2 ie6 20.'ii,f1 'ii,c6=) 19... ie6
(19... 'ii,heB 20.cS) 20.'ii,eS r;%;d6 21.'ii,e4 'ii,cS
22.ie2) 16.id3!? 0-0-0 17.0-0-0 ie7 18.'ii,hf1
r;%;c7 co ) 10...ig4!? 11.f3? (11.ie2! would have
refuted the move 9...c5?: 11...tLJc4 12.ig4 tLJb2
13.~e2 ~e7 14.dc5+) 11 ... ~h4! 12.r;%;e2?
(12.g3? tLJf3; o12.r;%;d2 ~g5 13.r;%;e1 (13.r;%;c2 if5
14.r;%;b3 0-0-0 15.d5 ~e3 16.ic3 (16.tLJc3 tLJc6)
16... bS 17.tLJd2 tLJd3 co) 13... ~h4=) 12 ... tLJf3-+
13.gf3 if3 14.r;%;f3 ~h5 15.r;%;f2 ~d1 16.ic3 cd4
17.id2 ~c2 18.'ii,g1 ~b2 19.c5 ~a1 20.ib5 r;%;d8
0-1 Avrukh,B-Karjakin,S, Internet (blitz), 2005.
10.id4!
10.c5!? is not so strong. In Marzano,C-
Bontempi,P, Split, 2011, Black got a good game
after 10 ... tLJc6 11.ed4 (11.e4!?) 11...ie7!N 12.b5
(12.~e2?! ~f6, and Black regains the pawn with
dividends) 12 ... tLJa5 13.tLJd2 ~g5 14.tLJf3
(14.tLJe4 tLJb3 15.'ii,b1 id5!?&; Avrukh; 15... ~d5!?
is also good) 14... 0-0 15.id3 ib3 16.ic2!?
(16.~b1) ic4 17.id3 ~e8 18.r;%;f1 ~b5.
11,ti:ld2 is less challenging: 11. .. tLJd2 12. iMfd2
iMfd5!, and Black has decent play.
11 ... ~d6
11...tLlb6 12.tLJc3 c6 13.id3 (13.'ii,d 1I?) 13... ~c7
14.0-0 0-0-0 15.'ii,fc1 ± Avrukh.
12.i.d3 YMd7 13.0-0
13.tLld2 tLJf5 14.tLJf3.
13.tLlc3 tLJf5 (13 ...ie7 14.0-0 if6 15.if6
gf6 16.tLJe4 tLJe4 17.ie4 0-0-0 18.'ii,ac1±)
14.0-0-0! id6 (14 ... tLJd4 15.ed4 c6 16.d5! id5
(16 ...cd5?? 17.ib5) 17.'ii,he1 ie7 (17 ...ie6
18.ic4 ~e7 19.~b3+-) 18.ib5! 0-0 19.tLJd5 ig5
20.f4+- Avrukh) 15.if5 if5 16.e4± Bronznik.
13... h5 14.~c3 ~f5 15'!!ad1 id6
16.if5 if5 17.e4 i.g4 18.f3 i.e6
19.i.g7 !!g8 20.i.f6 YMc6 21.e5 ie7
22.YMh7 c;tJf8 23.~e4 as 24.YMh5 ab4
25.i.e7 c;tJe7 26.YMh4 c;tJf8 27.ab4
YMb6 28.~c5 i.f5 29.e6 i.e6
30.!!fe1 !!e8 31.c;tJh1 !!g6 32.!!e6
1-0
39
 Chapter 1

Game 10 7.h3!? ~f3 8.~f3 ~d7! 9.tt'ld2 0-0-0

Parker, Jonathan (2509) (Appeldorn, D-Leisebein, P, corr., 2000), and
Pert, Nicholas (2503) Black has no problem at all.
Swansea, 2006 7.e6!? fe6 B.!e2 is harmless for Black:
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ltJf3 B...de3 9.~dB gdB 10.!e3 tiJf5 11.!g5 !e7 12.!e7
ltJc6 5.a3 ttJge7 6.e3 (0) \t>e7= Mastrovasilis,A-Rychagov,A, Poros, 1998.
7.ed4 (---+ game 12).

7...de3!

7...d3? B.~d3 Wd3 9.!d3 !f3 10.gf3

tiJe5 11.!e2+.
7...tt'lf5?! (---+ game 11).

8.'1Wd8

8..ie3 Wd1 9.!d1 tt'lg6 (9 ... 0-0-0 is possible

too) 10.0-0 0-0-0 11.!g5 geB 12.tt'lc3 h6
13.!d2 tiJge5 14.tt'le5 tiJe5 15.!g4 tiJg4=
This position can be reached via the move Kobylkin, E-Malaniuk, V, Belorechensk, 2005.
order 4.a3 tt'lc6 5.e3 tt'lge7 6.tt'lf3; or even from
the Chigorin Defence: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 tt'lc6 3.e3 8.. .:13d8 9..ie3 9..if3
e5 4.de5 d4 5.a3 tt'lge7 6.tt'lf3.
Black could also try 9...lt:\g6!?
6....ig4
10..if3ltJe511 ..ib7
6 de3? 7.~dB \t>dB B.!e3 tt'lg6 9.tiJc3±.
6 lt:\f5 (---+ game 13). 11 ..ie2 tiJf5t 12.tiJc3 tt'le3 13.fe3 !c5=i=
Jehnichen, G-Barnstedt, D, Germany, 1992.
7..ie2
11...ttJc4 12..ia7 ltJa5 13..if3 ltJb3
7 .~a4?! (Chatalbashev,B-Jedryczka, K, 14.:13a2 ttJc1 15.:13a1 ltJb3 16.:13a2
Figueres, 2006) 7...de3! B.!e3 (B.fe3 tiJg6) ltJc1 17.8:a1
B...!f3 9.gf3 tiJf5:t Henris.

40
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.llJf3 CLlc6 5.a3 ltJge7

Game 11 9.gf3 ct:Jfd4 t.... ~h4, ... 0-0-0.

Simantsev, Mikhail (2558)
Chetverik,Maxim (2296) 9...Wfd4!?N
Pardubice, 2011
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.~f3 ~c6 9... ~fd4 10.~d5± Hort,W-Sommer, Ja, carr., 2002.
5.a3 ~ge7 6.e3 ig4 7.ie2 ~f5?! (0)
10.ic6 bc6 11.0-0

o11.~e2!? i.e7 12.CiJc3 l::ld8 13.0-0 0-0 14.l::leH.

11 ...0-0-0

11 .. :~c4 12.CiJd2 iWe6 13.CiJf3 i.e7 14.i.g5±.

12.Wff3

12.Y!Yd4l::ld4 13.CiJd2 i.e7 14.b4l::lhd8.

o12.CiJd2!? iWe5 13.l::le1 iWd4 14.lMff3
lMff6 15.CiJb3t Chetverik.
8.ed4!
12...Wfe5 13.Wfc6 ~d4!
8.e4?! d3! 9.i.d3 (9.ef5? de2 10.lMfd8
(10.lMfe2 CiJd4) 10.. J:ld8+; 9.lMfd3? lMfd3 10.i.d3 13...i.d6 14.g3 CiJd4 15.iWa8 ~d7 16.iWg2+.
i.f3 11.gf3 CiJfd4 12.CiJd2 CiJe5+ Henris) 9...i.f3
10.gf3?! (10.lMff3 CiJe5 11.lMff5 CiJd3 12.~e2 lMfd4 14.Wfa8 ~d7 15.Wfd5
13.CiJc3 CiJe5ii5 Henris) 10...CiJe5 11.0-0?! (11.i.e2
CiJd4+) (Tot,B-Petrovic, Yugoslavia, 1967) 15.~a7? i.d6 16.g3 CiJf3 17.\t>h1lMff5-.-+ Chetverik.
11 ...lMfd3 12.lMfd3 CiJd3 13.ef5 0-0-0+ Henris.
8.CiJd4!? i.e2 9.lMfe2 CiJfd4 10.ed4 CiJd4 15...Wfd5 16.cd5 ~b3 17.~a2 ic5
11.iWd3!;!; (11.lMfd1 lMfh4 12.0-0 0-0-0ii5) 18.ie3 ie3 19.fe3 f6 20.~c3 ~he8
11...iWh4!? (= Davies) 12.CiJc3 0-0-0 13.CiJd5;!; 21.e4 ~b8= 22.h3 ~c5 23.b4 ~e4
Henris. 24.~a4 ~b5 25.~c1 ~d5 26.~ac2
~c8 27.lLlb2 f5 28.~c4 g6 29.~e3
8...if39.if3

41
 Chapter 1

Game 12 9.ttJc3
Baranov,Jury (2150)
Chirpii,Alexandru (2007) White also has a number of different
lIichevsk, 2008 possibilities at his command at this junction,
1.d4 dS 2.c4 eS 3.deS d4 4.~f3 but none of them really guarantees him an
~c6 S.a3 lDge7 6.e3 ig4 advantage:
7.ed4!? (D) In Brunner,N-Daurelle,H, Paris, 2005,
White decided to give back the pawn
immediately with 9.e6!? in order to get the
better pawn structure. But Black's pieces were
active enough to compensate for the
structural deficit after 9...0-0-0!? (9... ~e5
10.~e2 ~e6 11.~e3=) 10.~e2 (10.ef7 tlJe5
11.~e2 ~d7 (11 tlJc4? 12.tlJc3±) 12.~f4
(12.~g5? ~e6) 12 tlJ7g6 13.~e5 tlJe5 14.tlJc3
~f7 15.!'Id1 ($;15.~e3? ~c5! 16.~c5 !'Ihe8-+)
15... ~c5 16.tlJe4 !'Id1 17.Wd1 !'Id8 18.Wc2
~g6-+ Henris) 10.. .fe6 11.tlJc3 tlJf5 12.0-0 ~d6
13.tlJb5 ~f6 14.tlJd6 !'Id6 15.~c3 tlJcd4 16.~d1
!'If8 17.~e3 ~g6 18.~d4 !'Id4 19.~c2 !'Ifd8
20.!'Ife1 ~g4 Yz- Yz.
7...if3 8.Wf3 Wd4 9.Wff4 ~e5 10.~e5 tlJe5 11.tlJc3 0-0-0
12.~e3 tlJ7c6= Flear,G.
After 8...ltJd4?! 9.~d3!?, Black has more 9.~e2 ~e5 10.~e3 (10.tlJc3 transposes
difficulty getting his pawn back: 9... ltJec6 to the main game) 10... ~e3 11.~e3 tlJf5
10.~e3 ~c5 11.tlJc3 (11.b4? ~b4!) 11...tlJb3 12.~f4!? tlJcd4 13.~d1 ~d6 14.~d6 tlJd6 15.tlJd2
(11 ... tlJe5 12.~e4 0-0 13.0-0-0±) 12.tlJd5! 0-0-0 16.0-0 !'Ihe8+ Moravec,M-MoznY,M,
(12.!'Id1 ~d3 13.!'Id3 tlJe5 14.!'Id5 tlJd7) Czechoslovakia, 1990.
12... tlJa1 13.~c5 b6 14.~e3 tlJe5 15.~e4
(15.~c3) 15...0-0 16.~e5 tlJc2 17.We2±. 9...WeS 10.ie2
Despite White's messed-up development, Black
will soon find himself two pieces for a rook 10.Wfe3 0-0-0 11.~e5 tlJe5f±.
down and with the clearly inferior position -
Flear,G. 10... ~fS?!

42
------------------------------------1
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6 5.a3 lLlge7

After 10...tLlg6 11.ii.e3 ii.d6 12.:8dH Game 13

White's advantage of the bishop-pair is likely to Tregubov,Pavel (2596)
be significant. Kasimdzhanov,Rustam (2672)
10...tLld4!? (gambiting the b-pawn Bastia, 2006
seems to offer Black the best chances for 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.~f3
counterplay) 11.~b7 :8d8 12.f4 lWe6 13.cj;>f2 ~c6 5.a3 ~ge7 6.e3 ~f5!? (D)
tUec6 14.b4 ii.e7 15.~d3 0-0. Black obtains
reasonable chances in the complications,
although White is in no immediate danger.

11.if4 ~fd4 12.ie5!? ~f3 13.if3

~e5 14.0-0-0?

o14.~b7 :8b8 15.0-0-0 :8b7 16.:8he1±.

14... ~f3 15.gf3 c6 16J::!:he1 ie7

17.~e4 0-0 18J::!:d7 E:fe8 19.@b1
E:ab8 20.~g3 @f8 21.b4 g6
22.E:e2 ig5 23.E:e4 h5 24.@c2
E:e7 25.E:ee7 ie7 26.~e4 @e8 Less popular than the move 6... ~g4, this active
27.E:d3 E:d8 28.c5 f5 29.~d2 b5 leap is more ambitious but also riskier.
30.cb6 ab6 31.~c4 c5 32.b5 E:d3
33.@d3 id8 34.h3 @e7 35.a4 7.e4!?
ic7 36.~e3 @e6 37.@c4 g5
38.~d5 id8 39.a5 ba5 40.@c5 a4 7.b4 seems more critical. And now:
41.~c3 a3 42.@b4 ie7 43.@b3 a) 7... de3!? 8.lWd8 tUd8 9.fe3 a5 10.b5 tUe6
ic5 44.~a4 if2 45.b6 g4 46.b7 11.tUc3 ~e7 12.~d3 tUc5 13.~c2 ~e6 14.tUd5
ig3 47.fg4 hg4 48.hg4 fg4 ~d8'" 15.tUd4 tUh4 16.0-0 tUg6 17.tUe6
49.~c5 @e7 50.~e4 ib8 51.@a3 (17.~b2!? ~d5 18.cd5 tUe5 19.tUf5!? (19.tUc6
@e6 52.@b3 @f5 53.~f2 g3 tUc6 20.bc6 0-0 21.cb7 tUb7 22.~d4+) 19... ~f6
54.~h3 @g4 55.~g1 g2 56.@c4 20.~d4 b6 21.:8ad1+) 17...fe6 18.~g6 hg6
@g3 57.@d5 @f2 58.~h3 @f1 19.tUf4 :8h6 20.~b2 g5 21.tUe2 ~e7 22.:8ad1 ±
59.@c6 Conquest,S-Acher,M, Noyon, 2008.
b) It's useful to delay a little this exchange:

43
 -.-2----1
Chapter 1

7....te6 8.b5!? de3 9.~d8 ttJd8 10Je3 .tc5. After 21.E1e1±) 15.rj;Jf1 0-0-0 16.~c2 ~f4 17.ttJf3 l2lg4
... b6 and ...ttJb7, the knight comes back to life. 18.g3?? (18.~c3 E1he8 19.E1e1 E1e3~;
, 7..te2 forces Black to enter a slightly o18.~c1!? ~e4oo) 18... l2le3 19.rj;Jf2 ~f3 20.i1,f3
,I
inferior endgame after 7...de3 8.~d8. Now: l2lc2+ Vareille,F-Goldsztejn,Gi, France, 2008.
a) After 8...ttJd8 9.fe3 ttJc6 10.ttJc3 i1,e6 11.ttJdS c) 8.ltJd4 ~d4. White has now:
0-0-0 12.b4 h6 13.i1,b2 gS 14.0-0± • 9.ltJc3!? Wid 1 (9 ...WieS 10.~e2=) 10.0,d1 0,eS=;
(Grabuzova,T-Muzychuk,M, Dagomys, 2008), I • 9.~e2!? ig4!? 10.f3 ifS 11.l2lc3 O-O-O!?
don't see how Black can regain his pawn. (11...~eS=) 12.0,bS? ~d7!? (12 ... ~h4 13.g3
b) 8...@d8!?N 9.i1,e3!? (:59Je3 ttJaS!? 10.id1 ~e7+) 13.i1,e3!? l2leS! 14.l2la7? (14.E1d1 0,d3
(10.e4!? 0,b3 11.ets 0,a1 oo) 10...0,c4 11.e4 0,e7 oo ) 1S.E1d3 i1,d3 16.~d3 Wid3 17.id3 E1d3 18.rj;Je2
,,
9... 0,e3 10Je3 g6!? (10...icS 11.@f2 E1e8 12.E1d1 E1b3+) 14...rj;Jb8 1S.~f2!? (1S.E1d1 l2ld3 16.E1d3
id7 13.b4 if8 14.E1a2 @c8 1S.E1ad2 ig4 16.0,c3±) Wid3 17.~d3 i1,d3 18.i1,d3 E1d3 19.rj;Jf2 E1e3-+)
11.0,c3 ie6 12.0-0-0 @c8 13.0,dS!? as (13 ...ig7?! 1S i1,cS!! 16.i1,cS (16.i1,e2 l2ld3! 17.i1,d3 ~d3-+)
14.0,f4 0,eS 1S.0,eS ieS 16.0,e6 fe6 17.ig4 E1e8 16 E1he8 17.i1,e3 (17.i1,e2l2ld3) 17...l2ld3 18.id3
18.E1hf1±) 14.M!? h6 1S.0,f4 ics= Henris. Wid3 0-1 Farago,S-Lyell,Ma, Budapest, 2009;
After 7.ed4 ltJfd4, White has: • 9.~d4?! l2ld4 10.E1a2?! (10.rj;Jd1?? 0,b3 11.E1a2
a) 8.i1,e2 l2lf3 (in Jorczik,J-Deglmann,L, Bad i1,fS 12.l2lc3 0-0-0-+) 10...i1,fS 11.l2lc3 0-0-0--+.
Woerishofen, 2006, Black also had a good game
after 8...ifS!? 9.0,d4 l2ld4 (:59...Wid4 1O.~d4 0,d4 7...ltJh48..if4
11.id1 i1,d3 12.b3 0-0-0 13.ib2'!) 10.id3 l2lf3?
(10... ~e7 11.it4 0-0-0 00) 11.~f3 Wid3 12.igS? 9.ltJbd2!? .
(12.~b7±) 12...icS 13.0,c3 0-0 14.Wid3 id3
1S.b4 Y2-Y2) 9.if3 ~d1 (9 ... 0,eS 10.Wid8 @d8 8....ig4!
11.ie2 i1,cS=) 10.rj;Jd1 0,eS 11.E1e1 f6 12.if4 id6
13.cS i1,cs 14.ieS feS 1S.E1eS ie7= Henris. I also like 8...ltJf3 9.Wif3 gS!?: 10.ig3 ig7
b) 8..te3!? i1,g4 (8 ...i1,cS!?) 9.l2lbd2!? (9.i1,d4 11.0,d2 Wie7 12.Wid1 (12.Wib3!?) 12...ie6 13.id3
i1,f3 10.~f3 ~d4 is about equal, even if the 0-0-0 14.b4 hS 1S.h4 ltJeS?! (more promising is
position is easier to play for Black) 9...i1,cS!? 1S...g4 Ll...l2leS:;:) 16.ieS ieS 17.0,f3 ig4
10.i1,e2 l2lf3 11.i1,f3?! (11.l2lf3 i1,e3 12.fe3 if3 18.Wia4? (o18.hgS fS! 19.efS if4 20.rj;Jf1 (20.Wie2
13.~d8 E1d8 14.gf3 l2leS=) 11...i1,e3 12.i1,g4 Wid 7) 20 ...igS:j:) 18...if3 19.9f3 Wif6!+
(12.fe3 l2leS) 12 l2leS 13.ie2 (13.fe3 ~h4 GormallY,D-Radovanovic,J, Coulsdon, 2005.
14.g3 ~g4:j:) 13 i1,f2?!! (o13 ...i1,d4:j:) 14.rj;Jf2 ~8 ...a5 9.l2lbd2 a4 10.l2lh4 ~h4 11.i1,g3
~h4 (14 ... ~d4 1S.rj;Jf1 0-0-0 16.l2lf3 l2lf3 17.i1,f3 ~d8 12.f4 i1,cs 13.i1,d3 0-0 14.0-0 - Manninen,
~c4 18.~e2 ~e2 19.i1,e2 E1d2 20.b3 E1e8 Ma-Groenroos,M, Helsinki, 1996.

44
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.tLlf3 tLlc6 5.a3 ~ge7
9.ctJbd2 lDg6 1 0.~g3 V!fe7 11.h3
~h5 12.V!fa4 0-0-0 13.~d3 @b8
14.0-0 ~f3!?
14...ttJge5 15.lIJe5 lIJe5 16.~e5 \We5 17.f4 \We7
leaves Black perilously close to losing material.
But White can not rush with 18.g4?! because of
18.. \Wh4 19.2:t3 (19.gh5?? \Wg3; 19.~g2? ~g4
20.hg4 \Wg4 21.~h2 g5--+) 19... ~g6
20.f5? h5, with a dangerous attack - Henris.
15.eDf3 h5 16J~ad1 h4
eDgeS 18.lL\e5 eDe5 19.~e5
After 19J'1fe1 Black could consider 19...2:h6!?
19...Wfe5 20.f4 Wfe8!? 21.Wfe8 :Be8
22.e5 as
White's central pawn front can cause little
damage as Black has a compensating grip on
the flank pawns due to his h and a-pawns.
'?'IS al
22 ...g 5 .. so'mterestmg.
.
23.:Bde1 i.c5 24.:Be4 :Bh6 25.f5 :Bb6
26.:Bf2 :Bb3 27.:Bd2 c6 28. ctJf2 ctJc7
29.ctJe2 :Be7 30.ctJd1 a4 31.ctJc1 b5!
32.cb5 cbS 33.ctJc2 ctJb6i 34.ctJd1
b435.i.c4?
This leads to the loss of a pawn.
o35.ab4! ~b4 (or 35 2:b4) 36.~c4 2:e3 37.2:e2
(37.2:dd4 ~c5!) 37 2:e4 38.2:e4 ~d6 39.~f7
~e5= Henris.
35.. J3e3+ 36J~e3 de3 37J3d5 ba3
38.ba3 ~a3 39J~b5 @c6 40J;~a5
~c5 41.e6?
Better is to get rid of one of Black's passed
pawns with 4U%a4 2:e5 42.~d3, with
reasonable chances for a draw despite the
pawn less - Flear, G.
(LL.h5)
41...fe6 42.fe6 a3 43.@e2??
17.~h2 43.E:a6 ~b7+.
43...:Bb7-+ 44.:Ba6 ctJc7 45.e7 i.e7?
o45...E:b2! 46.~d3 2:d2 47.~c3 (47.~e4 e2-+)
47 ... ~e7 48.2:a7 ~d8 49.2:a8 ~d7 50.2:a7 ~d6
51.2:a3 ~f6 52. ~b4 2:b2 53.2:b3 e2!-+ Henris.
46.ctJe3 :Bb2?
46... ~d6 is still clearly better for Black.
47.ctJf3?
47J~a7 ~d8 48.2:a8 ~d7 49.2:a7 ~d6 50.2:a3=.
47...i.c5+ 48.i.d5 :Bd2?
Blundering away the advantage but fortunately
at least not losing the game.
Vz-Vz
45
 Chapter 1
•

Game 14 7....teG transposes to chapter 2: 5.a3 .te61? • •

Sokolov,lvan (2685) 6.LtJbd2 LtJge7 7.LtJb3 LtJf5.

Morozevich,Alexander (2741)
Wijk aan Zee, 2005
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ltJf3
ltJc6 5.a3 ltJge7 6.ltJbd2 (D)

8.g3

8.g4 tLlh4 9.LtJh4 ~h4 makes White's

kingside vulnerable.
S.tijbd2 tLlge7 6.a3 is another move order. 8.Wd3. And now:
a) Black got active counter chances after
6...ltJf5 8...0-0 9.~f4 gS!? 10.g4 LtJg7 11.~g3 ~g4
12.0-0-0 ~fS 13.Wd2 LtJe6 14.tLlfd4 LtJed4
Black also has 6...lLlg6 (---+ game 15). 1S.tLld4 tLleS 16.We3 ~g6 17.tLlb3 tLlb3 18.Wb3
6...a5 transpose to chapter 4 (---+ game 44). We8 19.~g2 Elb8 20.e4 %-% Mareco,S-Disconzi
da Silva,R, Sao Jose dos Pinhais, 2010.
7.ltJb3 (D) b) More ambitious is 8...a5!? 9.h4 a4 10.tLlbd2
ElaS 11.g3 tLle5 12.tLleS EleS 13.tLlf3 EleS 14.~d2
Actually, the move order of the game was ~e6 1S.Ele1 tLld6 16.tLld4 ~e4 17:~e3 0-0 18.~b4
S.tLlbd2 tLlge7 6.tLlb3 tLlfS 7.a3. (18.tLle6?! fe6 19"~eS tLle4 20"~e3 (20"~a5 b6)
7.lLle4!? tLlh4!? 8.~gS (or 8.~f4) 8... ~e7 9.~h4 20 ~eS 21.1!~e4 ~f2 22.lt>d1 ~dS 23.1&a4 ~h1+)
~h4 10.Wd3!? 0-0 11.g3;1; Stoica. 18 EldS 19.~g2? (19.~d6 1&d6 20.Ele4 ~f6)
19 eS-+ Meessen,R-Braun,Christi, Eupen, 2007.
7...i.e7 8.e4!? de3 9.1&d8 id8 10.fe3!? (10.ie3!?

46
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6 5.a3 lLlge7

C2le3 11.fe3 0-0 12.0-0-0 Ele8 13.h3!? if5 13.C2le4 C2lh4!? 14.ie6 C2lf3 15.iWf3 fe6 16.C2lf6
14.C2lbd4 ie4, and Black will soon regain his if6 17.ef6 ~d7 (17 ... cj;Jf7!? is probably better)
pawn) 10...g5!? (probably a safer path to equality 18.ig5 :9:a5 19.h4 was pretty messy in Bets,A-
is 10... C2lh4!? 11.C2lbd4 C2lf3 12.C2lf3 ig4 13.b3 Kachur,A, Ternopil, 2006.
if3!? 14.gf3 C2le5 15.ib2 if6 16.0-0-0 C2lf3 17.if6
gf6°o Henris) 11.C2lbd4 C2lfd4 12.ed4 g4 13.d5 gf3 12...h4?
14.dc6 bc6 15.gf3 ih4 16.cj;Jd2 f6 17.ef6!? (17.f4
if5 18.cj;Jc3 0-0-0 19.ie3 fe5 20.fe5 Elhe8 21.if4 012...C2lh4! 13.ic8 (13.gh4 ih3) 13... C2lf3
if2) 17...if5 was very unclear in Avila Jimenez,J- 14.iWf3 :9:c8 15.if4 0-0 (15 ... ~d7 16.0-0-0 ~e6ii5)
Perez Candelario,Man, La Massana, 2008. 16.0-0 :9:e8 b,17...iWd7 and 18...id8 - Davies.

a... aS! 9.VNd3 13.~f4?

9.ih3 C2lh4. 013.g4 C2lg7 14.id2lDe6 15.0-0-0.

9...a4 10.CDbd2 hS!? 13...hg3 14.hg3 CDg7

10... h5 rules out g3-g4 by White, whilst The knight gives space for the bishop. Inferior
preparing eventually ... h4. is 14...C2lg3?! 15.id7 (or 15.fg3 :9:h3 (15...ih3
10.. J:~a5?! is a bad idea: 11.b4! (11.ig2 16.lDeg5) 16.0-0-0) 15... Wd7 16.:9:h8 ~h8
C2le5 12.C2le5 Ele5) 11...ab3 12.C2lb3 lDe5 17.lDg3 cj;Je8 18.0-0-0. Material balance is
(12 ...Ela8!?) 13.lDe5 Ele5 14.ih3!± (14.if4!? restored but at the price of the king's safety.
:9:e6 15.ih3!? :9:b6 16.c5 iWd5 (16... :9:f6?
17.ig5!?±) 17.cb6 ~h1 18.Wd2 ~d5 19.e4 de3 1S.~g2?
20.fe3 ~d3 21.Wd3 cb6;!;) Henris.
10...ie6!? deserves attention. By exchanging rooks, Sokolov makes his
opponent's defencive task easier.
11.~h3 Of course bad is 15.id7? Wd7.
Better was 15.C2lf6! Wf8 «15 if6
11.C2le4!? 16.ef6 lDe6 (16... ~f6? 17.id7+-; 16 lDf5
17.C2le5 ~f6 18.C2lc6 ~c6 19.0-0-0+) 17.~e4 ~f6
11...g6 12.CDe4 18.0-0-0±) 16'lDh4 C2le5 17.ie5 :9:h4 18.gh4 if6
19.if6 ~f6 20.ic8 :9:c8 21.:9:c1 c5c;;. Black has
12.0-0 ie6 (12 ...0-0 is a sensible alternative) dangerous attacking chances for the exchange.

47
 Chapter 1
15.. J'gh1 16.~h1 i,f5= 17.ltJfg5?!
17.0-0-0!? lUe6! e.g. 18.lUfd2 (18.~g2? lUeS)
18... gS!? - Flear,G.
17... ttJa5!
17... ~g5? 18.~gS ~e4 19.%'d2!±.
18.~f3?!
18.ltlh7 lUe6 19.cj;>f1 e620.2=1d1 co •
18... ctJe6
Not 18...ltlc4? in view of 19.1Uf6! ~f6 20.ef6
Wf6 21.Wb7 2=1d8 22.WbS+-.
19.ctJh7?
Obtaining the bishop pair but this leads to the
knight getting out of touch.
After 19.1tle6 ~e6 20.eS play remains unclear.
19...ie4 20.~e4 c6
Black's knights are the superior minor pieces as
they have great hopping potential. The extra
pawn is irrelevant as White's pieces and pawns
are so clumsily placed.
21.e3??
21.0-0-0!? lUe4 22.We2 2=1aS!+.
48
21.'it>f1 lUe4 (21...%'b6 22.%'e2 O-O-O'i=)
22.l=!c1 lUaS+.
21 ... ttJb3 22J'gd1 ~a5 23.c;t>e2 ttJec5
23...lUbc5 24.%'f3 d3 2S. cj;>f1 gS-+.
24.Y;Vc2 d3 2S.2=1d3 lUd3 26.cj;>d3 0-0-0-+.
24... ~a6-+
Even better is 24...d3! 2S.cj;>f1 lUd2 26.cj;>g1 lUe4.
25. c;t>f1
25.ed4 ~e4 26.We3 (26.We1 CiJd4) 26 ...CiJe1 27.~f3
(27.~f1 ~b3) 27...CiJSd3-+ Ll...CiJe1 or 27...0-0-0-+.
25...~c4 26.c;t>g1 ~c2 27.~f3?
027.Y;Vf1; but White is still lost after 27 ...d3.
27...d3 28.i95 4Je4! 29.ie7 4Jf2 30.Wf2
3o.id6 ~d1 31.Wf2 ~e2 32.Wg1 d2 33.CiJf6 Wd8-+.
30 ... ~d1 31.c;t>g2 ~c2 32.id6 0-0-0
32...d2-+.
33.c;t>g1 ~f2 34.c;t>f2 ~h8
0-1
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.tDf3 tDc6 5.a3 lLlge7

Game 15 8.ttJe5 ttJe5 9.~d4!

Chatalbashev,Boris (2507)
Czakon,Jakub (2484) 9.e3?! d3°o 10.ClJd4 ~c5!? (10 ... c5
Castelldefels, 2006 11.lIJf3 ~g4 12.Wa4 ~d7 13.iWd 1 ~g4=)
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 11.~d3?! (0 11.ClJf3 ~g4 12.iWa4 ~d7 13.iWa5!?
~c6 5.a3 ~ge7 6.ttJbd2 ~g6?! (D) (13.iWd1 ClJf3 (13 ... ~g4=) 14.iWf3 (14.gf3?! iWf6!
15.id3 O-O-OC) 14...ic6 15.Wg4 O-Ot) 13 ClJf3
14.gf3 id6 15.id3 ic6~ Henris) 11 id4
12.ed4 Wd4 13.ie2 iWd1 14.eJld1 (Schuil,J-
Haast,M, Vlissingen, 2006), and now 14...if5!
enables Black to keep a dangerous initiative.
On the other hand, 9.ClJd4!? is
unpleasant for Black: 9... c5 10.ClJb5 a6!? 11.Wd8
(11.if4!? Wd1!? 12.l"ld1 ab5 13.ie5 bc4°o
Csizmadia, Las- Horvath, Kar, Hungary, 2010)
11...eJld8 12.ClJc3 ClJc4 13.e4 ie6 14.if4:!: Henris.

9... ~d410.~d4 ~c411.e4

Black's counterattack in the centre is doomed
to failure, as we shall see.
7.ttJb3 ttJge5
Things went quickly wrong for Black in
Von Herman,U-Krasenkov,M, Baden-Baden, 2007,
after 7...ie6?! 8.ClJbd4± ic4 9.Wa4 id5 10.e4!
ie4 11.ib5Wd7 12.ie3l"ld8 13.0-0-0! 1-0.
7...ig4?! is also inadequate: 8.ClJbd4 if3
(8 ...ClJge5 9.ClJe5 ClJe5 (9...Wd4 10.ClJc6 Wd1
11.eJld1 bc6 12.f3 ie6 13.e4±) 10.h3 id7 (10... ih5
11.Wa4 c6 12.ie3 ie7 13.g3 0-0 14.ig2±)
11.e3±) 9.ClJf3 Wd1 10.eJld1 ClJce5 11.ClJe5 ClJe5
12.e3± (12.eJlc2 ClJc4 13.e4;1; Rogozenko).
In this endgame White has the initiative thanks
to the possibility of playing a quick ClJb5,
producing discomfort in his opponent's camp.
White's chances are also clearly preferable
after 11.ClJbS!?
11 ... ttJd6
11 ...ttJeS does not bring Black much joy because
of 12.ClJb5! eJld8 13.if4± (13.f4 ClJg4 (13... 0,g6
14.ie3 c6 15.l"ld1 id7 16.ic4 ie7 17.ClJd4 l"lfB
1B.ClJf3±) 14.h3 ClJf6 15.e5 ClJd5 16.ic4 c6
17.id5 cd5 18.ie3±) according to Rogozenko.
12.e5 ttJf5

49
 Chapter 1
-
12...ttJe4 13.tiJb5 Wd8 14.i.e3 a6 Game 16
15.Eld1 i.d7 16.i.d3! ab5 17.i.e4 We8 18.i.b7 De Blecourt,Sandra (2077)
Wb7 19.Eld7± Watson & Schiller. Stock,Lara (2200)
12...c5 13.ed6 ed4 14.i.f4+ Rogozenko. Turin, 2006
, 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.CLJf3
,
I,
,,
13.CLJb5 @d8 14.i.g5 i.e7 15J3d1 CLJc6 5.a3 lDge7 (0)
i.d7 16.~d3 ~b5
I

I ,
I

,tLJ "
16...g6 17.i.f5 (17.~f4!?t) 17...gf5 18.~f4 Ll... e6 'r;tfJ'
''/~
"
;,',/
.~
,.!y,.:)%!
;,;;

19.1Lle7! Ele8 20.e6 fe6 21.ltJe6 We8 22.ltJg7

g;,d8 23.0-0t Rogozenko.

17.~b5 g;,c8 18.h4± ~g5 19.hg5

19.i.d7 g;,b8 20.hg5± Rogozenko.

,I 19...c6 20.~c4 :1!e8 21.14

ill
I
"

II 21.g4 Ele5 22.Wf1 ltJe7 23.Elh7 g;,e7 24J'~g7 i"lh8

'1,1
I

25.g;,g2 i"le4 26.~f7 i"lg4 27.g;,f3+- Rogozenko.

•
We shall look here at different mmor
alternatives for White after 5... ltJge7.
21 ...CLJe3 22.~f7 :1!e7 23.g6 hg6
24.:1!h8? 6.~g5

I Letting Black off the hook. A developing move.

I Better is 24J=1d2±. White has a great variety of options:
,I
I
I
6.g3 ltJg6 (6 ... ~e6!?):
,

24...@c7 25.:1!a8 CLJd1 26.~g6 lDb2 CD a) 7.~g2 ltJge5!? is confortable for Black.
,
,,
27.:1!a7?? @b8! 28.:1!a5 b6 29.@d2 b) 7.~g5 iWd7 8.e6!? fe6 9.iWe2 e5 10.ltJbd2 iWf7
11.~g2 h6 12.~h4 ~f5 13.ltJe4 ~d6 14.0-0 0-0=
29J3a6 g;,b7-+. Cherednichenko,S-Koziak,V, Mielno, 2006.
c) After 7.~f4, Black can develop his pieces
29...CLJc4 30.@d3 lDa5 31.@d4 lDb3 before considering eventually taking on f4:
0-1 7... ~e6 8.IWa4 IWd7 9.ltJbd2 i.e7 10.Eld1 0-0, etc.

50
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6 5.a3 ~ge7

6.h3 is very slow: 6...1i.e6 (6 ... CiJg6 7.e3
de3 8.~d8 Wd8 9.1i.e3 CiJgeS is a slightly better
for White due to the position of the black king in
the centre) 7.b3 ~d7 8.e3 de3 9.~d7 1i.d7
10.1i.e3 tlJg6 11.1i.e2 tlJgeS, and Black has no
problem at all, Nasri,A-Abbasov,F, Urumia, 2008.
6.b3!? is very interesting. White
threatens to win the d4-pawn after 7.ib2. I
recommend now 6 tlJg6 7.ib2 ig4! 8.tlJbd2
(8.tlJd4?? icS-+) 8 tlJge5= Henris.
6.if4 tlJg6 7.ig3 would bring us to
positions very similar to those obtained after
5.if4 and analysed in chapter 13.
6... h6
The second player also has 6...ie6 or 6...ig4,
followed by ... ~d7 and ... tlJg6.
again, and does not fear a capture on b7, which
would only invite the Black rook into b2 - Tisdall.
b) 9.tbbd2!? g4 10.ttJe4!? gf3 11.ttJf6
We7 12.ttJd5 We6!? (12 ...We8 13.tlJf6=), with
wild complications.
7...fie78.CLlbd2
In case of 8.g3, Black may consider playing
8...ie6 (or 8 ...ig4) 9.ttJbd2 Vf1d7 10.ig2 0-0-0
11.0-0 g5, with sufficient counter chances.
8...fig4 9.Wc2 Wd7 10.0-0-0 We6!?
11.Wb3?!
11.tbb3 if3 12.ef3 Vf1e5 13.id3 0-0-0=.
11...0-0-0 12.e3!? ic513.ed4?!

7.fie7 13.e4 d3! 14.id3 if2:j:.

7.ih4!? g5 8.ig3 tlJg6 (8 ... tlJf5!? and 8 ...ig7 13...CLld4 14.CLld4 ~d4+ 15.f3 fif5
are possible too): 16.ie2?!
a) 9.e3!? ig4 (9 ...de3 10.~d8 Wd8
11.fe3 ig7 12.tlJc3 tlJce5= should be fine for 16.f4!? m4 17.ttJf3 f6+.
Black, though he may have been uneasy about
his uncastle-able king - Tisdall) 10.ie2 (after 16...We5 17.CLle4 ie4 18.fe4 We4
10.ed4 if3 11.~f3 tlJd4 12.~d3 (12.~e4 tlJb3oo) 19.fid3 Wg2 20.~hg1 Wh2 21.~g7
12... ig7~ Black has plenty of targets and a Wf4 22.\!ib1 Wf6 23.~g2 ~hd8
dangerous lead in development - Tisdall) 24.~f1 ~f4 25.~f4 Wf4 26.Wc2 \!ib8
10...de3 11.~d8 :§:d8 12.fe3 if3 (12 ...ic5!? is 27.if5 a6 28.~g4 Wf1 29.\!ia2
interesting too) 13.if3 (13.gf3 ics 14.tlJc3 ie3 ~d1-+ 30.~g8 \!ia7 31.fig4 ~c1
15.tlJd5 if4!? 16.tlJc7 Wd7 17.tlJdS ie5:j:) 32.ie2 ~c2 33.if1 id4
13...CiJceS!t is fine for Black who has plenty to hit 0-1

51
, -" - ",.': - , ' -

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.lLlf3 White challenges the d4-pawn.

lLlc6 5.a3 .ie6!? (0)
6...de3

6... ~g4? is clearly weaker (---+ game 17).

7.Wfd8 gd8 8..ie3 lLlge7

The two minor alternatives 8... h6?!

and 8...ltJh6!? are also examined. See game
22.

9.lLJc3

The main continuation here.

After 5... ~e6!?, White has two main options: The other tries 9.ltJbd2, 9.~g5, 9.~f4,
6.e3 and 6.ltJbd2. 9.~e2, 9.ltJg5 and 9.~d2 are also analysed (---+

The following alternatives 6.b4!?, game 22).

6.1Mfc2, 6.b3 and 6.e4 are also covered (---+
game 26). 9...lLJf5!?

6.e3 (0) The most active move in the position.

Black also has 9...a6!? and 9...ltJg6!?,
analysed in game 21.
After 9.. ,ctJf5!?, White has a lot of
different moves at his disposal: 1O.~f4 (---+
game 18), 10.~e2 (---+ game 19), 10.~g5 (---+
game 20). 10.E\d1!? and 10.ltJb5 are seen in
game 17.
We shall see that in these lines, Black often
suffers from a slight weakness, an isolated
pawn on e6, in the middlegame and in the
ending. But this weakness is usually not enough
to give White real chances of success against

52
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ltJf3 ltJc6 5.a3 .te6

correct play from Black. The assessment of the
positions varies between = and ;1;. This means
that with accurate play Black should not have
too much trouble to hold.
White also has 7.g3. The position after
7...tLlg6 8.~g2 ~e7?! (-t game 26) is inferior.
Best is 8...'Wd7!, transposing to chapter 6
(variation 5.g3 ~e6 6.tLlbd2 'Wd7 7.~g2 tLlge7
8.a3 tLlg6).

6.CLibd2 (D) 7...CLifS

Bad are 7...lLlg6? (-t game 23) and

7...ic4? (-t game 25).

8.V:Vd3

The most fashionable line at the moment.

But White also has other interesting
continuations: 8.g4!?, 8.ig5!?, 8.'Wc2!? and
8.h3!? (-t game 24).
8.g3!? also deserves attention as it is
critical too (-t game 24).

Defending the c4-pawn and also preparing 8...aS

ct:lb3, immediately or after b4.
The alternatives (-t game 23) are weaker.
6...CLige7
9.i.f4.
6...'Wd7?!, 6...a5?! and 6...f6?! (-t
game 26) are clearly insufficient. This important novelty has been introduced by
the Israeli GM Boris Avrukh.
7.CLi b3 The hasty 9.g4!? is not so good (-t game
23); but 9.ig5!? comes into consideration.
White attacks directly the d4-pawn one more After 9.if4 play becomes very
time. complicated. Black seems to get enough
The replies 7.b4 and 7.'Wb3!? are also counterplay as my analyses show (-t game
analysed (-t game 26). 23).

53
 Chapter 2
.....

Game 17 7.~d8 E:d8 8.~e3 llJge7

Agrest,Evgenij (2605)
Sadler,Matthew (2626) See game 22 for the marginal alternatives
Bremer, 2003 8... h6 and 8...ttJh6.
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ltJf3
CLlc6 5.a3 ie6!? 6.e3 (D) 9.ltJc3 (D)

I
It is important to note that the position can be This position is an important tabiya for the
reached via the move order 4.a3 cuc6 5.e3 ~e6 openmg.
•

6.CUf3 which was actually used in our game.
White attempts to gain a slight endgame
advantage.
6...de3
6... ~g4? (playing twice the same piece so early
in the opening can not be good, of course)
7.~e2 d3 (7 ...de3 is also insufficient: 8.Wld8 (or
8.~e3) 8... ~d8 9.~e3 ~f3 10.~f3 cue5 11.~b7
~b8 12.~a6 ~b2 13.0-0 f6 14.f4 cug4 15.~a7±
Lainburg,V-Hermanowski,M, Essen, 1997) 8.Wld3
~d3 9.~d3 ~f3 10.gf3 cue5 11.~e2±.
Beside the main continuation, White also has a
good number of other tries here: 9.ttJbd2,
9..ig5, 9..if4 (--t game 22).
I shall also deal with the following minor
alternatives 9..ie2, 9.ttJg5 and 9..id2 (--t game
22).
9...ltJf5!? (D)
The most active move in the position. Black
aims at exchanging off the bishop or forcing it
to move away, or seizing the d4 square.
In practice Black also has tried 9...a6 and

54
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6 5.a3 J.e6

9...ttJg6 (--t game 21). 11.E:d1?!

After this, Black does not have any problems.

More critical was 11.ia7!? cua7!? (11 ... b6
12.cuc7!? (12.'ik1) 12... l'lc7 13.ib6, with lots of
pawns for the piece) 12.cua7 c6 13.cuc8 cud4
14.l'lc1 cuf3 15.gf3 l'ld4! 16.CUd6 id6 17.ed6
\tJd7iii5 LL .l'le8 - Sadler.

11...ltJe3 12.fe3 g6

12...ic5?! seems less accurate: 13.l'ld7

(13.CUbd4!?) 13...\tJd7 14.\tJf2 l'le8 15.id3 ig4
16.b4 its 17.h3 if3!? 18.if5!± Arnason,T-
10.ltJb5!? Finegold, B, Reykjavik, 1990.

An interesting move which banks on the usefulness 13.ltJbd4 .ig7 14.ltJe6 be6 15..ie2
of the d4 square being worth more than doubled e5! 16.<j;>f2 a5!
e-pawns and the loss of the bishop pair.
White also has other moves at his disposal: Fixing fixing White's queenside pawns. White
10.if4 (--t game 18). has to bail out now. If he carries on for too
10.ie2 (--t game 19). long, he could easily get worse.
10.ig5 (--t game 20).
10.E:d1!? cue3 1Ul:d8 ~d8 12.fe3 g6 17.b3
13.ie2 ig7 14,ctJd4!? (14.CUg5) 14... cue5!?
(14 ...id7!?; 14.. J:i:e8!?) 15.cue6 fe6, and the After 17J''!d7 \tJd7 18.id1 \tJe7 19.ia4 h6!?
position was already a bit more comfortable for (19 ...l'ld8) 20.h4 g5!?, the draw was agreed
Black in Pert,N-Rogers,Jo, Birmingham, 2006. here in Grabliauskas,V-Vaznonis,D, Plunge,
2009. The two bishops gave Black sufficient
10... E:d7 counterplay.

10...<!L)e3? is a mistake because of 11.cuc7! ~d7 17...<tt>e7 18.llJg5 E:b8 19.1lJe6 fe6
12.cue6 cuc2 13.~d2 (13.~d1? cua1 14.CUd8 20.E:d7 <tt>d7 21.E:d1 <tt>e7 22.E:d3 ie5
~d8) 13... CUa1 14.CUd8 \tJd8 15.\tJc3±.

55
 Chapter 2

Game 18 21.Jtd3+, as in the game Simchen,L.

Babula,Vlastimil (2515) Schwarz, W, corr., 1988.
Krasenkov,Michal (2595) Babula points out that after
Brno, 1994 10...tLJcd4?! 11.ct:ld4 1'o:d4 12.g3, it would be
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ctJf3 unwise to regain the pawn with 12...i,c4?!
ctJc6 5.a3 i.e6!? 6.e3 de3 7JWd8 because of 13.i,e3! i,f1 (13 ... ct:le3 14.fe3 1'o:g4
gd8 8.i.e3 ct:\ge7 9.ctJc3 ct:\f5!? 15.h3) 14.i,d4 i,g2 15.1'o:g1 ct:ld4 16.0-0-0 ct:lb3
10.i.f4 (D) 17.\t>c2 i,f3 18.1'o:d3.

11.h4!?

After 11.h3, the h-pawn is less of a

target here than on h4, but Black still has a lot
of counterplay:
a) 11...tLJcd4 12.ct:ld4 1'o:d4 13.i,d2 i,c4 14.i,e3!
i,f1 15.i,d4 i,g2 16.1'o:h2 ct:ld4 17.0-0-0 ct:lb3
18.\t>c2 i,f3 19.1'o:d3 ct:la1 20.\t>b1 ct:lb3! 21.\t>c2
ct:la 1= Sadler.
b) 11...95!? seems also playable: 12.i,h2 ct:lfd4
13.ct:ld4 1'o:d4 14.ct:ld5!? i,d5 15.cd51'o:d5.
After Flear's suggestion 11.tLJd5, Black
in this way, White avoids the deterioration of has a couple of options which give him quite
his pawn structure and keeps his bishop in reasonable chances:
order to defend one more time his e5-pawn. a) 11 ...95!? 12.ct:lc7 \t>d7 13.ct:le6 \t>e6 14.i,g3
(14.i,d2?! g4ai) 14... ct:lg3!? «14...g4 15.ct:ld2
10... h6!? ct:lg3 16.hg3 ct:le5 17.i,e2 f5 (17... i,c5?! (fl.. .f5)
18.ct:lb3±; 17 h5 18.0-0-0!) 18.0-0-0±) 15.hg3
Black is aiming to expland on the kingside with i,g7ai fl ... g4, i,e5; fl ... ct:le5 - Sadler.
...g5. b) 11...i,d5!? might also be just about OK:
1O...tLJfd4? is clearly a mistake: 12.cd5 1'o:d5 13.i,c4 (13.e6!? - Babula) 13...1'o:c5!
11.ct:ld4 ct:ld4 (11 .. J''\d4 12.i,e3 Llf4±) 12.1'o:c1 (13 ...1'o:d7 14.i,b5! - Flear) 14.i,d3 ct:lfd4 15.ct:ld4
(12.0-0-0 i,f5 13.b4±) 12... ct:lb3 13.1'o:d1 1'o:d1 ct:ld4 16.0-0 ct:le6 17.i,g3 g5 - Sadler.
14.ct:ld1 ct:la5 15.ct:le3 i,c5 16.ct:ld5 \t>d7 17.b4 c6
18.ct:lc3 i,d4 19.ct:le2 ct:lb3 20.ct:ld4 ct:ld4 11 ...i.e7?!

56
,
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.tLlf3 tLlc6 5.a3 ~e6

11 ...ttJfd4 is not enough to equalize: 16.0-01±

12.ttJd4 (weaker is 12.0-0-0 ttJf3 13.Eid8 <;t>d8
14.gf3 il.cs 1S.il.g3 il.d4, with counterplay) 16.b4?! ab4 17.ab4 ct:Jb4 18.g4 bS (18 ...ttJh4?
12...Eid4 13.il.e3 1"1d7 14.f4. 19.ct:Jh4 gS 20.il.e3) 19.il.e2 1"1c1 20.il.c1 ttJc2
Best is 11 ...ttJcd4!?, with unclear play: 21.Wd1 ttJfd4=.
12.0-0-0 (12.ttJd4 Eid4 13.g3 il.c4 14.il.e3 ttJe3
1S.fe3 1"1g4) 12 ttJf3 13.1"1d8 (13.gf3 1"1d1 16...@f8
14.@d1 il.cS! (14 il.e7!?) 1S.ttJe4 il.d4 16.@c2
@e7ff> Sadler) 13... Wd8 14.gf3 il.e7~ (or t.17 ... ct:Jh4; M7...gS.
14...c6). Babula also gives:
16...ttJh4? 17.ct:Jh4 gS (17 ...il.h4?
12.tlJd5!? .id5 13.cd5 !!d5 14..ic4! 18.il.f7) 18.il.e3.
!!c5!? 16...g5?! 17.hg5 hg5 18.ct:Jg5 il.g5
(18 ct:Je5? 19.il.eS 1"1e5 20.ct:Jf7) 19.il.gS t.ct:Je5?
The following alternatives are inferior: (19 1"1e5? 20 .il.f6) 20 .il.f7 .
14.. J3d7?? 1S.e6. 16 0-0 17.e6±.
14.. J3d8? 1S.e6±. 16 b5 17.il.d3! (17.il.b5?! 1"1b5 18.1"1c6
14.. J3a5? 1S.1"1d1 t.g4±. 1"1b2 19.1"1c7 0-0 20.1"1a7 il.a3 21.1"1a5;!;) 17... ct:Jcd4
18.ct:Jd4 ct:Jd4 19.il.e3±.
15.!!c1
17.e6!? g5?!
t.b4.
17 fe6?118.il.c7.
15...a5? 17 ttJh4?! 18.ct:Jh4 il.h4 19.il.c7.
17 b5?118.il.b5 1"1b5 19.1"1c6.
15...ttJa5? 16.il.d3± t.1"1c1 17.il.c1 ttJb3? 17...id6!? 18.il.d6 ct:Jd6 19.il.a2±.
18.il.fS ttJc1 19.il.c2+-.
15...b5!? would have maintain White's 18..ic7
advantage to a minimum: 16.il.bS (16.il.d3
ttJfd4;!;) 16...1"1bS 17.1"1c6 1"1b2 18.1"1c7 (18.g4?! 18.hg5?! hgS+±.
1"1b3! t.19.We2?? (19.ttJd2 t.Eia3) 19 ... Eif3!)
18 ...il.a3 19.0-0 (19.Eic8?! Wd7 20.Eih8 1"1b1 =; 18...g4 19.tlJd2
19.1"1a7?! Eib1 20.<;t>e2 Eih1 21.1"1a8 <;t>e7 22.Eih8
ct:Jh4=) 19... 0-0 20.Eia7 il.cS±. 19.ttJh2±.

57
 Chapter 2
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.......
19... llJcd4 20 ..ib6 ~c6 21 ..ia5!? 40 ... b4~ 41.ltJa4

21.i.d4 tLJd4 22.ef7 b5 23.i.d3 !:l:c1 24.!:l:c1 \flf7 41.~a2?! ba3 42.ba3 !:l:a6=.
25.!:l:c7 !:l:d8±. 41.~b1?! ba3 42.ba3 !:l:b2iil.

21 .. .fe6 22.g3± cJlf7 23..id3 ~hc8

"I
.,

23.. J~d6!? 42.i.d3 Ei:e5! (42 ...Ei:a5? 43.ct:lb6± Llba3 44.ct:lc4)

43.ab4? Ei:e1! 44.Ei:b1 ct:lb3!.

I
24.~c6 ~c6 25.~e1 .if6 26..ie4 ga6
'I .
I, 27..ic3 b5 28..id3 gd6 29 ..ib1 gc6

29...llJf3?! 30.ct:lf3 i.c3 31.bc3 gf3 32.i.e4 Ei:a6 43...We8? 44.ct:lb6! ba3 45.i.g6 cJif8
i ;!
I
I
,
,
33.Ei:a1. 46.!:l:f7 Wg8 47.ct:ld7 Ei:f5D 48.!:l:f5 ef5 49.ba3±.
,

,
,

I
43 ...Wf8= Ll44.!:l:c8 cJif7 (4 ... We7!?)
,
30 ..ie4 gd6 31.cJlg2 gd8 32.~b1 45.Ei:a8? !:l:e5!.
I"
I"
gc8 33.~a2 gc6 34.Cl:le4 Cl:lf3
; :1

,I ' 35.gd1 ~c3 36.Cl:lc3 llJ5d4 44.Cl:lb6 ba3 45.ba3 ga3 46.gh7
"I
I'.
,
,
,,
,
37 .cJlf1 ?!~
:!i'IT
!II '
!'I I
I'll .
" I
I i Time control is approaching and White is
;' II'
. , ,
'.1'
"" I::,
I
starting to lose the thread of the game . 46... llJf5=
37.i.b1± would have maintained the
advantage. 46...We5?? 47.ct:lc4.

i ;' 37 ... llJh2?!~ 47.Cl:ld7 cJlg6 48.llJf8

,I,

I"
I
I! ,:
,
37..,l'!b6 (LL.b4) 38.i.b1 b4 39.ct:la4 Ei:b5 40.i.d3 48.:B:e7 Ei:a1!? 49.Ei:e6 (49.ct:le5? cJif6!) 49 ... cJig7
: I
Ei:a5 41.ct:lb6 ba3 42.ct:lc4±. (49 ...cJif7?! 50,m6 cJie7 51.i.f3 gf3 52.<fff3)
I
50.i.f3 gf3 51.cJih2 (51.cJif3?? ct:ld4; 51.cJih3?!
38.cJlg2 Cl:lhf3 39.~b1 ~b6 40.~e4? h5) 51...m1 =.

II, , ..t..-
" I In time trouble, White loses his advantage. He 48 ... 8f649.Cl:ld7
would have preserved it with 40.~a2±. Y2- Y2

58
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6 5.a3 .ie6

Game 19 12...gd7?! seems too slow to me: 13.CUbd4

Fuhrmann,Daniel (2300) CUd8 14.ct?f2 .!g7 (Walter,S-Perez Mitjans,O,
Marchio,Enrico (2272) Barcelona, 2008) 15.b4±.
Germany, 2004
1.d4 d5 2.c4 ~c6 3.e3 e5 4.de5 d4 13.~c7 rtle7 14.~e6 fe6 15.~b1
5.a3 J\e6!? 6.~f3 de3 7.'1Wd8 ~d8 ~e5 16.0-0
8.J\e3lLlge7 9.lLlc3lLlf5!? 10.J\e2 (D)
Others tries also fail to give something concrete:
16..!Lld4 .!h6.
16..!Lle5 .!e5 17..!f3 (17.c5 E1d5)
17,..E1d3 18.ct?e2 E1hd8=.
16.b4!? .!Lld3 17.\tJf1 E1hf8 18.E1d1!?
CUe5 19.E1d8 E1d8 20 ..!Lle5 .!e5 21.\tJf2 E1d2;;;.

16... b6!?

16....!Llf3 17..!f3 E1d3 18..!b7 E1b8 19..!c6 E1b2=.

White gives preference to the development. 17.b4 .!Llf3 18.E1f3 E1d2 19.E1bf1 E1f8 20.E1f8 .!f8
Black is struggling to regain the pawn. 21.ct?f2 E1a2=.

10... ~e3 11.fe3 g6!? 17...J\e5 18.~fe1 ~d2= 19.b4 J\b2

20.a4 ~hd8 21.J\f3 ~c2 22.c5 bc5
11 ....!e7?! 12.CUb5 E1d7 13.CUbd4± 23.bc5 ~dd2 24.c6 h5 25.~ed1
Petkov, Vl-Chatalbashev, B, Sunny Beach, 2005. ~d1 26.~d1 rtlf6 27.~d3 J\e5
After 11....!Lla5?!, as in Opocensky, K- 28.~d7 as 29.~a7 J\c3 30.rtlf1 J\b4
Pelikan,J, Prague, 1933, I don't see any 31.~d7 J\c5 32.~d3 J\b6 33.rtle1
compensation for the pawn for Black if White J\c7 34.rtld1 ~c4 35.h3 ~a4 36.~d7
plays now 12.CUb5 E1d7 13.E1c1±. J\e5 37.rtld2 ~c4 38.~a7 a4 39.rtld3
11 ....!c5 12.\tJf2 a5 13.E1hd1 :t. ~c3 40.rtld2 a3 41.J\e4 ~c4 42.J\d3
~c6 43.~a3 J\b2 44.~a4
12.lLlb5 J\g7!?

59
 Chapter 2

Game 20 12J:!c1 E1he8 13.~e2 ttJfd4 14.4Jd4 l"1d4= Flear,G.

Lillevold,Frode (2154)
Helbig,Mark (2337) 12... ~d1 13.~d1 ~d8 14.ie2!?
Hammelburg, 2009 ~a5!?
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.~f3
ltJc6 5.a3 ie6!? 6.e3 de3 7.V:Vd8 ~d8 14... ~fd4t.
8.ie31tJge7 9.ltJc31tJf5!? 10.ig5 (D)
15.~d2 ~c6 16.f4!? ~cd4 17.id3
~b3!?

17... ~f3 18.ttJf3 E1d3 19.c5!? ~d5 20.E1f1 E1d1

21.c;t>d1 ttJe3 22.~e2 ttJf1 23.c;t>f1 ~f3 24.gf3
c;t>e6 25. c;t>e2 c;t>d5 26.b4 c;t>d4:j: Henris.

!
:1 18.if5?!

o18.~f2;!;.

18... ~d2 19.ie6 <;!;>e6 20.0-0 hS

21.~f2?! ~b2!?
10...ie7!
21 ... ~f5!t.
Black is fine after 10.. J':!:d7!? 1U'l:d 1 h6!?
12.E1d7 c;t>d7 13.~d2 g5 14.ttJe4 ~g7 15.ttJc5 22.~d3?!
c;t>e7 16.ttJe6 c;t>e6 17.g4 ttJfd4 18.ttJd4 ttJd4
19.~g2 (Pushkov,N-Poddubnyi,V, Elista, 2001) o22.f5CD •
19... c6!? 20.h4 h5!co or 20 ... ~e5 21.hg5 hg5
22.E1h8 ~h8 23.~g5 ttJb3 24.c;t>d1 ttJa5= Tisdall. 22..J!a2 23.f5 <;!;>e7 24.ltJf4 h4!?
25.ltJd5 <;!;>d7 26J3e1!? ltJd4 27 .~e4?
11.ie7
27J~~d1 c5 28.tiJc3 E1c2 29.tiJb5 E1c4 30.tiJd6 E1a4+.
11.~b5 E1d7 12.E1d1 a6= Flear,G.
27... ~f5-+ 28.~e3?? ~e2
0-1

60
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.Ct:Jf3 Ct:Jc6 5.a3 .ie6

Game 21 13.~a7!? b6 14.~b8 ~d5 «14... ~d6 15.c5! bc5

Van der Wiel,John (2498) 16.~b5 c6 17.~d6 f1d6 1B.ttJc7 etJe7 19.ttJe6
Ligterink,Gert (2391) cb5! 20.ttJg7 f1d1 21.f1d1 f1gB 22.ttJf5 ~e6
Groningen, 2001 23.ttJe3 c4 24.f1d5±) 15.cd5 ~d6 16.~b5 ~e7°o
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ltJf3 Henris) 11.cd5 ttJce5!? (11 ... f1d5!? also gives a
ctJc6 5.a3 ie6!? 6.e3 de3 7.~d8 ~d8 slight edge for White: 12.~c4 f1a5 13.e6 fe6
8.ie3ltJge7 9.ltJc3ltJg6!? (0) 14.~e6;!;) 12.ttJe5 ttJe5 13.~b5 ~e7 14.d6?!
(o14.0-0-0!±) 14...cd6!? (14 ...f1d6 15.~c5 ~f6
16.~d6 ~d6±) 15.~a7 f1c8 16.0-0 g5 17.f4?!
(17.~d4 ~g7 18.f1feH) 17...gf4 18.f1f4 f1c2 YZ-YZ
Cebalo,M-Gruber,F, Pula, 1971.
10.ttJg5 ttJge5 11.ttJe6 fe6 12.ttJb5!?
(12.f1d1 f1d1 13.ttJd1 ttJa5!? 14.~d4 ttJec4
15.~c3 b5 16.~a5 ttJa5 17.~b5 c6 18.~d3 c5;!;/=)
12...a6!? (12 ...f1d7 13.f1d1 ttJg4 14.f1d7 ~d7
15.~f4 (15.ttJa7?! ttJa7! 16.~a7 b6 17.b4D ~cB
1B.~e2 ttJe5) 15... ~c5 16.~g3 a6 (16... f1fB!?
17.f3 ttJe3) 17.ttJc3 ~d4!?=) 13.ttJc3?! (13.ttJc7
~f7! (~13 ... ~d7?! 14.~6) 14.b4 (14.f4 ttJd3
15.~d3 f1d3 16.~e2 f1b3~) 14... ~d6 (14 ... f1d7
Less ambitious than 9.. .ctJf5!?, but quite 15.b5 (15.~b6? ttJb4! 16.ab4 ~b4 17.~e2 ttJc4+)
playable. 15... f1c7 16.bc6 f1c6 17.f1b1 oo ) 15.~b6 (1S.ttJa6!?
Another interesting possibility is g...a6!? Black ba6 16.cS ~e7 17.~a6 f1aB 1B.bS (1B.~b7?!
wants to prevent the manceuvre ttJb5-d4. It ttJb4! 19.~aB ttJc2 20.~e2 ttJa1!? 21.~b7 ttJb3
looks a bit slow but Black seems OK. One 22.f4 ttJc4 23.c6 ttJbaS+) 1B... ttJbB!? (1B... ~cS!?
example: 10.ttJg5 ttJe5 (10 ... ~c8!?) 11.ttJe6 fe6 19.~b7 ttJd4 20.~aB f1aB 21.0-0 ttJc4 22.a4 eS oo)
12.f1d1 f1d1 13.ttJd1 (Agrest,E-Glenne,B, 19.~b7 f1a5~) 15... f1c8!? (1S... ttJd7!? 16.cS ~eS
Bergen, 2001) 13...ttJf5!? M4.~f4 ~d6=. 17.0-0-0 ttJb6 1B.f1dB f1dB 19.cb6 f1d6t) 16.ttJa6
ba6 17.c5 ~e7 18.~a6 f1a8:;:) 13... ttJa5:;: 14.~f4
10.ltJb5 ttJac4 15.~e5 ttJe5 16.f1d1 f1d1 17.~d1 ~c5
18.ttJe4 ~d4 19.etJc2 ~e7 20.~e2 c5 21.f1d1
White has a couple of alternatives: ttJc6 22.f3 b5 23.~f1 f1b8 24.b3 f1c8 25.f1c1 h6
10.ttJd5!? ~d5!? (10 ...f1d7!? is probably 26.f1d1 ~e5 27.f4? ttJd4 28.~b1 0-1, Veech,J-
more accurate: 11.0-0-0 ttJge5!? 12.ttJe5 ttJe5 Vergilesov,A, Saint Louis, 2011.

61
 Chapter 2
....

10.. J~d7 11.tDbd4 14J~d1 gd1 15.~d1 tUg4=.

14.b4!? is worth considering too.
Amongst the other possible replies for
White, 11.,ia7!? seems critical: 11 ... tUge5!? 14....te7!?
12.tUe5 tUe5 13.,ib8 (13.b3!? b6 14.,ib8 ,id6
15J=J:d1 clJe7 16.gd6D ed6 17.Jie7 tUe6 14...lLld3 15.~d3 gd3 16.~e2 gd8 (16 ... gb3!?)
18.Jib6 gb8 19.Jie3 tUa5 20.e5 (20.tUd4 ge7) 17.ghd 1 (17. b4 gave White a somewhat more
20 ... de5 21.Jie5 clJd8~; 13.Jid4!? f6 14.f4 e6 pleasant ending in the game Lazarev,Y.
15.tUe7! ge7 16.fe5 fe5 17.Jie5 ge7 18.0-0-0 Barsky,V, Moscow, 1994) 17... ~e7 18.b4 a6::
(1B.Jid6!? gd7 19.JifB gfB 20.b3 gf4 19.~f4 ~d6 20.~g5 ~e7 21.gd8 ~d8 22.~d8
(20...Jig4!?) 21.ga2 b5!?;;t.) 18...Jie4 19.Jig7 ~d8 23.gd1 ~e7 24.~e3 gf8 25.f4 e5! Y2-h
gg7 20.Jie4 gg2= Henris). And now Black Farago,I-Mestel,J, Beograd, 1982.
could have obtained an equal game with
13...Jie4 14.tUe7 clJe7 15.Jie4 (15.tUb5 tUd3 15J~d1 !!d1 16.i>d1 i>f7 17.i>c2
16.Jid3 Jid3 oo ) 15 ...tUe4 16.tUb5 tUb2 17.0-0 !!d8 18.!!d1 !!d1 19.i>d1 .tf620.b4
clJf6=. In the game Jiretorn,E-Rewitz,P, b6 21.i>c2 ~c6 22.b5!?
Arhus, 1995, Black played the weaker
13... clJd8?!, after which White had the strong 22.~d3 was a better option, not allowing the
14.gd1! clJe8 15.gd7 clJd7 (S15 ...Jid7 knight to settle to the central d4-square and
16.Jie7±) 16.f4!, with a lasting initiative - enabling White to preserve his two bishops.
Henris.
22... ~d4 23.i>d3 ~b3!?
11 ...tDge5
23 ... c5!? .
11 ...lLld4? 12.~d4±.
24..td1 ~c5 25.i>e2 .te5 26..tc2
12.~e5 ~e5 13.~e6 fe6 g6 27.a4 .td6 28.f4 i>f6 29.g4 e5
30.f5 gf5 31 ..tf5 h5 32..tc5 .tc5
As often in this line, the assessment of the 33.i>f3 h4 34.h3 i>g5 35. i>e4 .td6
position varies between = and ;1;. This means 36..tc8 i>f6 37..td7 i>g5 38..tf5
that with accurate play Black should not have i>f6 39.i>d5 i>g5 40. i>e4 i>f6
too much trouble to hold. 41.i>d5 i>g5 42.c5 bc5 43.a5 .tf8
44. i>e5 c4 45.i>d5 .tb4 46. i>c4
14..te2

62
•

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ct:Jf3 ct:Jc6 5.a3 ~e6

Game 22
Biriukov,Oleg (2379)
Matiakov,Maksim (2440)
St Petersburg, 2007
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ltJf3
lLlc6 5.a3 .ie6!? 6.e3 de3 7.'Wd8 gd8
8..ie3 ltJge7 (D)

9.~g5 poses no problems for Black:

9... h6 10.~e7 (10.~h4 Ct'Jd4 11.Ct'Jd4 !"i:d4 12.~g3
~c4=) 10... ~e7 (10 ... ~e7!? 11.Ct'Jbd2 g5
12.0-0-0 ~g7 is also quite good) 11.Ct'Jbd2 0-0:
a) 12.~e2 Ct'Jd4 13.Ct'Jd4 !"i:d4 14.f3 !"i:fd8= Ten
Wolde,B-Burton,R, Guernsey, 1991.
b) 12.0-0-0 Ct'Jd4 13.~d3 ~g4 14.h3 ~f3 15.Ct'Jf3
Ct'Jf3 16.gf3 ~g5 17.lt>c2 !"i:fe8 18.!"i:he1 ~f4
8...h6?! is too slow: 9.Ct'Jc3! a6 (9 ... g5 19.!"i:e4 g5 20.!"i:de1 !"i:e6 21.h4 !"i:de8 22.hg5 hg5
10.Ct'Jb5 !"i:d7 11.Ct'Jbd4 Ct'Jge7 (11 ... Ct'Jd4 12.Ct'Jd4±) 23.!"i:g1 It>f8 24.b3 c5 25.!"i:e2 a5 26.a4 !"i:e5 Yz-1;2
12.0-0-0 ~g7 13.~e2±; 9... Ct'Jge7 10.Ct'Jb5 !"i:d7 Nielsen,Bo-Okland,S, Helsingor, 2011.
11.Ct'Jbd4±) 10.Ct'Jd5! ~d5 11.cd5 !"i:d5 (11 ... Ct'Jce7 9.~f4!? Ct'Jg6 (9 ...h6!? 10.h3 g5 11.~h2
12.d6! cd6 13.~b6 (13.0-0-0) 13...!"i:d7 14.!"i:c1 !+) Ct'Jg6 12.Ct'Jc3 ~g7t; 9... Ct'Jf5!?) 10.~g3 h5!:
12.~c4 !"i:a5!? (12 ...!"i:d8 13.lt>e2 Ct'Jge7 14.!"i:hd1± a) 11.h4 Ct'Jd4!? 12.Ct'Jd4 !"i:d4 13.Ct'Jd2 ~e7!
or 14.!"i:ac1 Ct'Jg6 15.e6 fe6 16.~a6±) 13.lt>e2! 14.~e2 (14.Ct'Jf3 !"i:e4 15.lt>d2 ~c4=) 14... Ct'Jh4
Ct'Je5 14.b4 Ct'Jc4 15.ba5 Ct'Ja5 16.!"i:ab1 !+- (14 ... ~h4!?) 15.0-0-0 Ct'Jf5 16.~h2 ~g5:j: (!:l
Taimanov,M-Mikenas,V, Moscow, 1949. ...It>e7, ...!"i:hd8) 17.lt>c2 ~d2 18.!"i:d2 ~c4!
But 8...lLJh6!? is worth considering. 19.~f3?! (o19.!"i:d4 Ct'Jd4 20.lt>c3 ~e2 21.lt>d4
It>e7+) 19...c6 20.!"i:hd1 !"i:d2 21.!"i:d2 lLJe7+
9.ltJbd2!? (D) 22.g3?! ~d5 23.~e2 g5! 24.!"i:d4 g4 25.~d3 It>d7
26.f4 gf3 27 .~g 1 !"i:g8 28.~f2 !"i:g5 29.!"i:h4 !"i:e5
White plans the manreuvre lLJb3-d4. 30.g4 hg4 31.!"i:g4 f5 32.!"i:d4 It>e6 33.lt>d2 b5

63
 Chapter 2
...

34 ..ig3 ~e4! 35 ..ie4 fe4 36.b4 CLlf5 37 ..if2 ~e5

38.~c3 e3 0-1 Simonson,A-OpocenskY,K,
Folkestone, 1933.
b) 11.h3 (Minev) 11...h4! 12..ih2 ~h5 (12 ....ic5
13.CLlc3 CLld4 CXl ) 13..ie2 ~f5= 14.CLlbd2 (14.0-0
CLlce5 15.~e5 CLle5 16.CLlh4 ~f4+) (Brix,G-
Kleinschroth,R, Mannheim, 1990) 14... CLlceS
1S.~eS ttJeS 16.ttJh4 E1f4 (16 ... ~f2!? 17.~f2
~d2ii1i) 17.ttJhf3 ttJf3 18.ttJf3 ~c4= Henris.
9.~e2!? ttJg6 10.0-0 ttJgeS= 11.ttJeS?!
(o11.ttJbd2) 11...ttJeS=i= 12.ttJd2 ~e7 13.~ac1 0-0
14.E1fd1 cS 1S.b3 b6 16.ttJf3 ~f6 17.~d8 ~d8
18.a4 ttJf3 19.~f3 ~d3 20..id1 ~d8 21.~e2 ~fS The following alternatives are also satisfactory
22.~f1 ~d3 23.~d3 ~d3 24.E1b1 ~eS 2S.h3 fS for Black:
26. ~e2 ~d6 27.g3 mf7 28.mf3 h6 29.g4 mf6 9...ttJf5!? 10.~gS:
30.aS gS 31.ab6 ab6 32.me2 f4 33.~d2 f3 a) 10....ie7 11.~e7 \t>e7 12.0-0-0 ~d7 13.~e2
34.me1 ~d3 3S.b4 ~d4 36.bcS ~cS 37.~b4 ~d4 ttJfd4 14.ttJd4 ttJd4 1S.~d3 ~hd8 16.~he1 a5
38..if8 mg6 39.~c1 ~c3 40. mf1 hS 41.cS bcS 17.~e4 a4 18.h3 hS 19.f4 c6 20.~f1?? CLle2
42.~cS hg4 43.hg4 \t>f6 44.mg1 ~d4 4S.~b4 21.mc2 ttJd4?? (21 ...E1d4!-+) 22.mc1 ttJe2
meS 46.E1c4 ~d1 47.\t>h2 mdS 48.~c2 ~eS 0-1 23.mc2 Yz-Yz Morrison,G-Bjerke,S, Sunningdale,
Damen,O-Onwezen,E, Vlissingen, 2000. 2012.
9.tt:lg5!? ttJfS (9 ... ~g4!?CXl; 9... ~fS!?) b) 10...E:d7 11.h3 h6 12.~f4 ttJcd4 13.0-0-0 ttJf3
10.ttJe6 fe6 11.~gS (11.~f4 ~e7) 11...~e7 14.ttJf3 ~cS 1S.~d7 ~d7 16.g4 ~c6 17.gfS ~f3
12.~e7 me7 13.ttJd2 ttJeS 14.ttJb3 ttJd4 1S.ttJd4 18.E1h2 ~e4 19.~g2 ~fS 20.~b7 gS 21.~d2 ~d4
~d4+ Sbarra,M-Marchio,E, Corse, 1996. 22.f4 ~g8 23.fgS hgS 24.~c6 mf8 2S.~g2 ~eS
9.~d2!? (in order to overprotect the 26.~gS ~gS 27.~gS ~h3 28.~e3 a6 29.~b7 as
e5-pawn with ~c3) 9... ~g4 10.~e2 ~f3 11.~f3 30.a4 ~d7 31.~d2 Yz- Yz Wiedenkeller,M-
ttJeS 12.~b7 ~b8i Lehtiranta,J-Manninen,Ma, Engqvist,T, Vesteras, 2011.
Helsinki, 1987. 9...tt:lg610.ttJgS:
a) 10....if5?! 11.f4 (11.e6 fe6 12.~e2 ttJd4
9... h6!? (D) 13.~d4 ~d4 14.g3 ttJeS 1S.0-0-0 ~e7 16.ttJgf3
CLld3 17.~d3 E1d3 18.~de1 0-0 19.ttJeS ~d6 20.f4
Black avoids any CLlgS. He may also consider h6 21.h4 ~fd8 Yz- Yz Di Berardino, D-Matsuura, E,
continuing with ...gS and ....ig7. Rio de Janeiro, 2011) 11...ttJd4 12..id4 E1d4

64
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.tLJf3 tLJc6 5.a3 .leG

13.g3±, and Back has nothing concrete to show Game 23

for his missing pawn. Kuljasevic,Davorin (2551)
b) 10...tLlge5 11.tLle6 fe6 12.h3 tLld3 13.~d3 Hrabusa,Matej (2296)
E1d3 14.<j;Je2 E1d7 15.b4 tLld4 16.~d4 E1d4 Pardubice, 2010
17.E1ac1 ~e7 18.ltJf3 E1d8 19.E1hd1 E1d1 20.E1d1 1.d4 dS 2.c4 eS 3.deS d4 4.ttJf3
~f6 21.ltJd2 E1f8 22.ltJe4 ~e7 23.E1d3;!;/= Leitao, tlJc6 S.a3 .ie6!? 6.ttJbd2 (D)
Ra-Mekhitarian,K, Mario Covas Santos, 2006.
White has the somewhat more pleasant play.
But the only weakness in the black side should
not be enough to give White real chances of
success against correct play from the second
player.

10.tlJb3 g5!?

10...ltJf5?! does not lead to full

equality: 11.~d2!? (11.~e2 g5 12.E1d1 E1d1
13.<j;Jd1 ~g7 14.ltJfd4 ltJe3 15.fe3 ltJe5 16.ltJe6
fe6 17.E1f1 <j;Je7= Bareev,E-Morozevich,A,
Moscow, 2006) 11 ... ltJfd4 12.ltJbd4 ltJd4 13.ltJd4 6... tlJge7
E1d4 14.~e3 E1e4 15.~d3 E1e5 16.0-0-0
(16.<j;Jd2?! ~c5 17.~f4 E1h5 18.f3 ~d6 The alternatives 6... ~d7?!, 6...a5?! and
(18... <j;Jd7!?) 19.~d6 cd6= Collett,P-Kelfve,M, 6...f6?! are not satisfactory (-t game 26).
Stockholm, 2009) 16... ~d6 (16 ... ~c5? 17.~f4
E1h5 18.~c7 ~f2 19.~e2±; 16... ~e7 17.<j;Jc2;!;) 7.tlJb3
17.~d4 (:517.~f4 E1c5 18.~d6 cd6=) 17 ...E1g5
18.g3;!; Henris. White also has 7.b4, 7.g3 and 7.~b3 (-t game
1O... tLlg6!?, never played before, is 26).
also worth considering.
7...tlJfS
11.tlJfd4 tlJd4 12.tlJd4 .ig7 13..ie2
.ieS 14.0-0-0 tlJfS 1S.tlJfS .if5 7 tLlg6? 8.ltJbd4+.
16.gd8 7 ~c4? is also clearly weaker (-t
game 25).

65
 ----------------------,
"'~i

Chapter 2

8.Wfd3 (0)

(11.liJc6 1Wd3 12.ed3 liJf3 13.me2 ~g455) 11...fe6

12.liJd2?! (o12.1Wd8 2:d8 13.i.g5! i.e? 14.i.e?
See game 24 for the other possibilities for me? 15.liJc5) 12 ...Wld3 13.ed3 liJe5=, and Black
White. was by no means worse as he regained his pawn
quickly in Pavlidis,Ana-NabatY,T, Kemer, 2007.
8...a5 9.i.g5!? comes also into consideration.

The following options are inadequate: 9...a4 10.'tJbd2

8...i.e7?! 9.g3 (9.g4 liJh4 10.liJfd4 WId?
11.liJe6 Wle605 Davies) 9... h5 10.h4 (10.~h3!?
WId? 11.~g5 ~g5 12.liJg5 liJe5 13.Wle4 liJg4 14.f3
liJf6 15.Wle5± Avrukh) 10.. .Wld? 11.~f4
12.0-0-0+ Benkirane,A-Poulain,A, La Fere, 200?
8... h5?! 9.h4 i.e? 10.i.g5 f6 11.ef6 gf6
12.i.f4± Claverie,C-Spitz,P, France, 2005.
8... 1Wd7? 9.g4! liJh6 10.h3+ Hendriks,P-
Woudt,E, Hoogeveen, 2005.
9.i.f4! (0)
This is an important improvement from
Avrukh over 9.g4!? liJh4 10.liJfd4 a4 11.liJe6?!
.6g3, i.g2 (or i.h3), 0-0.
Much worse would be 10.94?! liJh4 11.liJbd4
a5 liJf3 12.liJf31Wd3 13.ed3 i.g4 14.i.e2 0-0-0, with
some compensation - Avrukh.
10...i.e7
.6... g5.
10... h6!? 11.h4 (11.0-0-0 g5 12.g4 liJh4
13.i.g3 i.g4 14.liJh4 gh4 15.i.f4 WId? 16.i.g2±
Avrukh) 11 ...g6 (11 ...i.e? 12.g3 0-0 13.i.g2±)
12.liJe4 i.e? 13.2:d1 liJh4 14.liJh4 i.h4 15.e3±
Grandelius,N-Smith,Ax, Copenhagen, 2009.

66
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.tDf3 tDc6 5.a3 i.e6

10...i.c5?! (the bishop is exposed here) 16... 0-0-0 17.!:k1 (17.0-0-0 CLJa5) 17... CLJa5
11.g3!? CLJfe7 12.CLJe4 .itb6 13..itg2 CLJg6 18.CLJd2 (D)
(Nielsen, PH-Tikkanen, H, Sweden, 2009) - -----r nr"7t
14.0-0-0±.

11.h4!?

11.g4!?, proposed by Kiril Georgiev, is quite

interesting and also leads to major
complications after 11 ... 4Jh4 12.4Jh4 .ith4
13..itg2 IWd7 (13 ....itg4?! 14.~g1 IWd7 15..ite6
be6 16.4Je4±) 14.h3 0-0 15..ite4 f5 16.ef6!?
(16.gf5 .itf5 17.CLJf3 .ite7 18.0-0-0 ~ad8oo)
16... ~f6 17.e3 (:517 ..ith7?! ~h8) 17 de3 18..ith7
~h8 19..ite3 IWf7 20 ..ite4 ~d8 (20 .itf2?! 21 ..itf2
~f2 22.0-0-0±) 21.IWe2 CLJd4+± Henris. The position deserves a diagram.
The Israeli GM Boris Avrukh, in his outstanding
11 ... h6?! book Grandmaster Repertoire - l.d4, stops
here his analyses by concluding that he does
11...h5?! 12.g3 0-0 13..itg2 ~a5 14.0-0 not believe that Black has sufficient
IWd7 15.CLJe4± Avrukh. compensation for the two pawns. He thinks
o11 ...ttJh4!? 12.4Jh4 .ith4 (12 ...g5? that White is much better. International
13.CLJf5 gf4 14.4Jf3! IWd7 15.4Jg7 ~f8 16.~h7 Masters Maxim Chetverik and Valeri Bronznik
~g8 17.~h8 ~h8 18.4Jh5±) 13.4Jf3 .ite7 agree with him.
(13 g5? 14..itd2) 14.~h7 (14.e3!? (Avrukh) But in my opinion, things are not so clear at
14 de3 15.IWe3 .itf5 16.~d1 \We8°o Henris) all. White has fallen behind in development,
14 ~h7 (14... ~g8 15.e3!±) 15.IWh7: while all the black pieces are already in play.
a) 15....ic4?! 16.\Wg7 .if8 (16 ...IWd5 17.IWh8 Moreover the king of the first player is still in
(17.e6!? IWe6 (17.. .fe6? 1B..ic7) 1B.IWhB .ifB the centre. The following analyses show that
19.CLJd4 CLJd4 20.IWd4±) 17....if8 18..ih6±) Black can create dangerous counterplay.
17.IWh8± (17.IWf6!?)). After 18...IWe6!?, play becomes extremely
b) 15...IWd7 16.IWg7 (16.e3!? de3 17..ie3 0-0-0 complicated. Then White has three interesting
18.IWe2 CLJa5 19.CLJd4 .ie5 20.CLJe6 IWe6 21 ..ie5 continuations:
CLJb3 22.~d1 CLJe5 23.~d8 ~d8 24.f4 f6 oo ) b1) 19.93?! IWb6 (19 ... b5!?).

67
 Chapter 2

b2) 19.Wh7!? b5!? 20.Wc2 (20.c5!? CLlc4 21.1"i:c2 17.Wc3 1"i:d8;; b.... Wc6, ...b5; 15.e4 de3 16.fe3
~e5"'; 20.e3 d3!"') 20 ... bc4 21.e3 d3 22.We3 1"i:d81i!i) 15...c5 16.~b1 b5! 17.cb5 c41i!i;
WbS', • 14.~b1 ~c5 15.Wc2 b5! 16.cb5 Wd51i!i;
b3) 19..ig5 igS 20.'lWgS b5!? (20 ...'lWb6 is also • 14.h5 bS!? 1S.cbS cS 16.'lWe4 1:%c8!? 17.g4
possible: 21.1:%e2 CLle6!? 22.'lWf6 'lWeS 23.CLlf3 'lWb6 CLlh4 18.CLlh4 ~dS! 19.Wc2 ~h4 20.f3 CLlb3
(or 23...ig4"')). 21.~b1 ~gS 22.~gS WgS1i!i.
Now White can try: b) But instead of 13.0-0-0, White can improve
• 21.e3 d3 22.'lWe7 be4 23.'lWb4 CLlb3!? with 13.g4! 13... CLlh4 14.CLlh4 ~h4 1S.CLlf3 gS
(23 ...'lWb6!? 24.'lWb6 eb6) 24.CLlb3 ab3 2S.~d2 (1S... ~e7 16.~h6! ~e4 (16... gh6 17.1:%h6+-)
'lWdS 26.'lWe3 1:%h8"'; 17.'lWe4 gh6 18.1:%h6 ~g7 19.1:%e6 be6 20.CLld4
• 21.f4 CLlb3 (21 ... CLle4!? 22.fS idS 23.e4!? ~gS 21.CLlfS ~g8 22.We3 'lWd7 23.e3+-) 16.1:%h4!
(23.CLlc4 ic4 24.'lWf4"') 23 ... de3 24.CLle4 ie4 gM 17.~h6 ±/+- Bronznik.
(24 ... bc4!?) 2S.'lWe3 'lWdS 26.ie4 be4 27. ~f1 12...1:%a5!?, followed by ...1:%eS, is a
'lWbS!? (27...'lWd3 28.'lWd3 cd3 29.g4 1:%d4 30. ~f2 somewhat better option.
i, 1:%g4 31.~e3 1:%g3 32.~e4 d2 33.1:%d1 1:%g2
"
,
34.~e3 1:%g5 35.1:%d2 1:%f5 36.~e4 1:%f1 37.1:%d4 1:%f2 13.ltJe4 ltJa5 14.ltJfd2 c5 15J!c1
38.1:%a4 1:%b2) 28.'lWe3 1:%h8 29.1:%e1 1:%hS 30.f6 1:%fS ltJc616.ltJf6!?
31.~g1 'lWb6 32.'lWe3 1:%eS 33.'lWb6 1:%e1 34.~f2
eb6 3S.~e1) 22.CLlb3 ab3 23.fS (23.1:%d1 'lWeS! b. 16..ig2±.
24.ebS?? d3!-+) 23 ...ic4 24.'lWf4 'lWdS!?f±.
16...if6 17.ef6 ~f6 18.ltJe4 ~d8
12.g3 g6?! 19.ig2 i>f8 20.~d2 ~a5?! 21.g4!?

12...0-0?! : After 21.'lWa5 1:%aS 22.ic7, Black's position falls

a) Avrukh suggests here 13.0-0-0!? and ends apart.
his variation with 13...f6 14.ef6 if6 1s.ih3±.
But unfortunately for White Black has a much 21 ...ltJfe7 22.~a5 E:a5 23.~c7 E:a8
stronger move, namely 13... CLlaS!, intending to 24.g5 hg5 25.hg5 E:h1 26.~h1 E:c8
become active on the queenside by means of 27.ib6 ltJf5 28.ltJc5 E:e8 29.ltJb7
...cS, ... bS or ... c6, ... bS. According to ltJe5 30.ltJa5 d3 31.~c7 ~d7 32.e3
Bronznik's analyses Black's chances for a ltJ h4 33.i>d2 ~f5 34.~e5 E:e5
dangerous itiniative should really not be 35.ltJc6 E:c5 36.ltJd4 ~c8 37.f4 ltJf5
underestimated: 38.ltJf5 if5 39.id5
• 14..ih3 'lWe8!? 1S.ig2 (15.if5 if5 16.'lWd4 cS 1-0

68
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.lLlf3 lLlc6 5.a3 i.e6

Game 24 b) 8 a5?! 9.j,h3:

Sturt, Raven (2231) b1) 9 ~d7 10.j,f5 j,f511.ltJbd4 0-0-0 12.~e3:
Bae,Torstein (2414) • 12 j,h3? 13.~b3 t.0-0-0±;
Paleohora, 2011 • 12 ~e4 13.ltJc6 (13.0-0? ~h3) 13... ~c6
1.d4 d5 2.c4 eS 3.de5 d4 4.lDf3 14.~b3± Henris;
ttJc6 5.a3 .te6!? 6.lDbd2 lDge7 • 12... ~c5 13.ltJf5 ~f5 14.~b3 ltJe5 15.~c5 ltJf3
7.ttJb3 ttJf5 (0) 16.~f3 ~c5 17.0-0±.
b2) 9...tL:lh4 10.gh4 ~h3 11.liJbd4 ~d7 12.~e3
t.~c2; t.iWa4, 0-0-0.
b3) 9...a4 10.~f5 ~f5 11.ltJbd4 ~e4 (11...~h3
12.~g5 ~e7 (12... ~d7 13.ltJb5±) 13.liJc6 bc6
(13 ... ~d1 14.~d1 bc6 15.~e7 me7 16.liJd4
(16.md2!? t.~ab8 17.mc1±) 16... ~a6 17.c5±)
14.~d8 ~d8 15.~e7 me7 16.liJd2!±) 12.0-0±.
c) 8 ~d7?! 9.~d3 0-0-0 (9 ... a5 10.g4! liJh6
(10 a4 11.gf5 ~f5 12.e4+-) 11.~h6 gh6
12.0-0-0±) 10.~g2 h5 11.~f4 h4!? 12.liJg5±
Rogozenko.
d) 8...i.e7! is best (D).

A part from 8.~d3, seen in game 23, White

also has various other options in this position
that we shall see now.

8.g4!?

8.93!? (t.~h3) is a very interesting idea

from Rogozenko, not yet tried over the board.
Again play becomes very complicated. Now
Black has the following replies:
a) 8... ~c4? 9.e4 ~f1 10.mf1 ltJfe7 11.mg2!?
(11.ltJbd4±) 11 ... ltJg6 12.ltJbd4 ltJd4 13.ltJd4
ltJe5 14.~f4 ltJg6 15.~e3 ~e7 16.~b3 0-0 I give you here some variations showing the
17.~hd1 ~c8 18.ltJf5 j,f6 19.~ac1t. resources of Black's position:

69
 I""'--------~--~-- --- -- --
l'
,,
Chapter 2
,
d1) 9.i.h31? Wid7 10.i.f5 .if5 1UDbd4 ~d8
I
12.~e3 ~e4 13.0-0 Wih3 14.Wia4 h5 15.md1 h4
16.lOc6 ~c6 17.~d8 ~d8 18.Wic2 g5~.
d2) 9.h4!? as!? 10.ih3 (10.Wid3 a4 11.lObd2
~a5 12.Wie4 ~c5!?) 10oo.Wid7 11.ig5!? (11.if5!?
i.f5 12.lObd4 ~d8 13.ie3 ie4; 11.Wid3 a4
12.lObd2 ~a5 13.Wie4 ~c5!?) 11 ...lOh4!?:
• 12.gh4 ih3 13.lObd4 (13.ie7 ig2 14.~g1 if3
15.ic5 ih5oo) 13oo.ig5 14.lOc6 (14.hg5 0-0-0
15.lOc6 Wic6 16.Wic2 ig2 17.~h4 if3 18.Wif5
@b8 19.Wif3 Wig6oo) 14oo.Wic6!? 15.hg5 (15.~h3
~d8 16.Wib3 if4! (16oo.i.h6 17.Wib5 Wib5 1B.cb5
~d5 19.a4 if4 20.~d1 ~c5 21.lOd4 ~e5 22.lOb3
b6 23.~hd3 0-0 24.e3) 17.e3 ie5! 18.lOe5 Wie6!
(1B...Wig2? 19.c5 0-0 20.~f3! (~sfle2) 20.ooWih1
21.@e2 Wia1 22.lOf7+-) 19.Wib5 c6 20.Wib7 0-0
21.lOc6 ~d7oo) 15oo.ig2 (S15.ooie6 16.~h4)
16.~h4 if3 17.ef3 Wig6 (17oo.~d8!? 18.Wib3 b6)
18.f4 ~d8 19.Wia4 (19.Wif3 0-0 00 ) 19...c6 20.c5
0-0 00 ;
• 12.ih4 ih3 13.lObd4 (13.ie7 ig2 14.~h4
Wie7 (14oo.if3!?) 15.lObd4 0-0-0 (15oo.~dB?
16.Wia4) 16.Wid3 (16.Wic2 lOd4 17.lOd4 g5oo)
16oo.if3 17.Wif5 @b8 18.lOf3 h6oo) 13...ih4
14.lOc6 ig3 15.lOcd4! (15.fg3 bc6 (15oo.ig2!?
16.~h2 if3 17.ef3 Wic6 1B.Wid5 Wig6 19.0-0-0
0-0)) 15oo.if4 16.e3 ih6 17.Wib3 0-0 18.0-0-0 c5
19.e6! Wie7 20.~h3 cd4 21.lOd4 fe6 22.Wic2
~ac8 23.f4 e5 24.lOf5 Wie6 25.lOh6 gh6 26.~g3
sflh8 27.~d5 ef4 28.~d7 ~f5 29.Wic3 ~f6 30.ef4
Wic4 31.~d8 ~d8 32.Wic4 ~c6=.
d3) 9.~d3 as 10.ih3 (10.g4!? lOh4 11.lOfd4
Wid7!? 12.lOe6 (12.lOc6 Wic6 13.~g1 ic4 14.Wic3
.ib3 15.Wib3 0-0 00) 12oo.Wie6 13.lOd4 lOd4
70
(13.JiJe5?? 14.Wig3+-) 14.Wid4 ~d8 15.Wie4 0-0
16.~d2 Wib6 17.0-0-0 ~d4 18.Wic2 Wic6 19.e4
lOf3 20.~e3 ~d1 (20... ~e4 21.~d3 ~g4 22.i.h7
sflhB 23.~d3 lOe5oo) 21.Wid1 lOe5 22.Wid5 lOg4ao)
10...Wid7 11.~g5 (11.~f4 a4 12.lObd2 h6) 11...a4
12.~e7 ab3D 13.ig5 b5!? 14.if5 (14.cb5?!
lO b4 15. Wi e4 lO c2 16.sfld2 ~a4oo) 14... ~f5
15.Wib3 bc4 16.Wic4 ie4 17.0-0 0-0 18.if4!?
Wih3! 19.b4 ~ae8 (S19...g5?! 20.b5 lOa5 21.Wid4
if3 22.ef3 ~fd8 23.Wie4 gf4 24.Wif4±) 20.Wic5
(S20.~fc1?! g5! (20... lOe5!? 21.ie5 ~e5 22. Wic7
~feBt) 21.b5 gf4 22.bc6 ~e5 23.Wid4 i.f3 24.ef3
~h5~) 20oo.f6!oo.
The other alternatives are less critical:
8.ig5!?:
a) 8... ~d7? (Gagarin,V-Tikkanen,H, Stockholm,
2009) 9.g4! lOfe7 10.lOc5 Wic8 11.Wia4! ig4
12.lOd4 lOg6 13.lOb7 id7 (13.ooWib7? 14.Wic6
Wic6 15.lOc6+-) 14.lOc6 Wib7 15.ig2 Wib2 16.0-0
ic5 17.Wib5± Henris.
b) 8...ie7! 9.i.e7 Wie7 10.Wid3 O-O-O~ .
8.~c2!? as!? 9.ig5 Wid7!? (9oo.ie7
10.ie7 Wie7 11.~d1 ~d8 12.Wie4 0-0 13.g4!?
lOh6 14.lObd4 ic4oo) 10.e4!? (10.0-0-0 a4
11.lObd2 h6 12.if4 g5 13.lOe4 ie7~) 10oo.de3
11.~d1 (11.fe3!? a4 12.lObd2 h6 13.i.f4 g5!?)
(Molina,Rob-Lapertosa Viana,J, Varginha, 2009)
11...ef2! 12.Wif2 Wic8=.
8.h3!? h5 (8oo.ic4? 9.e4) 9.ig5 ie7
10.ie7 Wie7 11.Wid3 0-0-0 12.h4 (Napier,W-
Tarrasch,S, Monte Carlo, 1902) 12oo.lOh6!
~13oo.if5.
8...ttJh49.ttJbd4
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.'t:Jf3 't:Jc6 5.a3 i.e6

The following alternatives are weaker: 12.J.f4!? J.c5!? 13.E&g1 h5!? (13 ...J.f3!?)
9.llJfd4?! ~c4 10.~c2 ~d5!?t. 14.E&g2 O-O-O!? 15.~c2 E&he8 16.b4 (16.E&d1!?
9.llJh4?! ~h4: E&d1 17.<;t>d1 a5) 16... ct:ld4 17.ct:ld4 ~d4 18.E&d1
a) 10.llJd4? 0-0-0 11.e3 ~c5+. ~e5 19.E&d8 <;t>d8 20.~e5 E&e5 21.e3= Henris.
b) 10.h3?! h5!? (10 ...0-0-0 11.~f4<Xl (11.~g2!? 12.J.e3!? ~f3 13.ef3 ct:le5= Alber,H-
4Je5)) 11.~g2 hg4 12.~c6 bc6 13.~d4 gh3+. Kleinschroth, R, Kassel, 1994.
c) 10.J.g2 E&d8 (10 ... 0-0-0!?) 11.h3 4Je5!?t.
9.J.f4?! (as in the game Maros,M- 12...,ic5!?
Csonka,At, Slovakia, 2006) 9 ...J.c4!?
10.ttJbd4 (10.ttJfd4?! ttJg6 11.J.g3 ~d5 12...0-0-0 13.<;t>c2 (:513.<;t>e1?! ~b4!? (13 ... ~f3
12.E&g1 ttJd4 13.ttJd4 0-0-0 14.ttJf3 ~a5 14.~f3 4Je5~) 14.4Jd2 (14.ab4 ct:lb4+)
15.ttJd2D ttJe5~; 10.ttJh4!? ~h4 11.E&c1 ~g4 14 ... ct:ld4~) 13... ~f3!? 14.~f3 ct:le5~ Henris.
12.E&c4 ~f4 13.J.g2 ttJe5ex» 10... ttJd4 11.ttJd4
~d5 12.ttJf3 (12.f3?! 0-0-0 13.E&c1!? (13.ttJf5? 13J:!f1 ?!
~a5! 14.J.d2 ~b6 1115.ttJh4? J.c5-+)
13... ttJg6+) 12...0-0-0 (12 ... ~e4?! 13.ttJh4 13.<;t>e1.
~h1 14.ttJf3i55) 13.~d5 (13.4Jh4 ~h1 14.~c2
J.e6 15.E&c1 E&d7+) 13...J.d5t Henris. 13...0-0-0 14.@c2 .if3!?

9... ~f3 10.lLlf3 VNd1 11.@d1 .ig4 14...E&he8;.

11 0-0-0 is also possible: 12.<;t>e1 ~c4?! 15.,if3 lLle5 16..id2!?

(12 ~g4 13.~f4 ~f3 14.ef3 ~c5t; 12 ... ~b4!?
13.4Jd2 (13.ab4? 4Jb4+; 13.~d2 ~d2 14.4Jd2 16.~d5 c6 17.f4 cd5 18.fe5 dc4 19.E&f7 E&he8
4Je5t) 13...4Jd4 14.E&b1 ~d2 15.~d2 E&d7!?t) 20.E&g7 E&e5~.
13.~g5 E&d7!? (13 ... ~e7 14.~e7 (14.~f4 ~d5<Xl)
14... 4Je7 15.e4 ~f1 16.E&f1 4Jg6 17.E&d1 E&he8 16...lLlc4 17.,ic3 ,id4 18J~ad1 ,ic3
18.E&d8 <;t>d8 19.<;t>e2 4Je5 20.E&d1 <;t>c8 21.4Je5 19.@c3 ~e5 20.,ie4 g6 21.h3 c6
E&e5 22.<;t>e3=) 14.e4 ~e6!? (14 ... ~f1) 15.E&g1 22.b4 rJdc7 23.e3 f5 24.,ic2 ~hf8+
4Jd4!? 16.4Jd4 E&d4 17.f3 <;t>b8?! 18.~e2 h5 25.~d8 ~d8 26.h4 ~d6!? 27.h5 ~g4
19.~e3 E&d7 20.g5± Ernst,Mi-Spanton,T, 28.hg6 hg6 29.,id1? ~f2 30.~f2
Triesen, 2010. ~d1 31.~h2 ~d7 32.~h6 ~g7
33.@d4 @d6 34.e4 @e6+
12..ig2?! 0-1

71
 --------------------,
Chapter 2
I •
,
1

Game 25 9.CLlc6!? ~d1 10.~d1 tLlc6 11.id2±

Ivanisevic,lvan (2664) Grabarczyk,M-Hnydiuk,A, Koszalin, 2009 or
Khenkin,lgor (2655) 11.~c2 O-O-O!? (after 11...idS!?, suggested by
Subotica, 2008 Glenn Flear, there is no compensation for the
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.llJf3 pawn after the simple 12.if4 - Henris) 12.e4 if1
llJc6 5.a3 ie6!? 6.llJbd2 llJge7 13.:t'lf1 ics 14.if4 h6 1S.ig3 gS 16J''lad1±
7.llJb3 ic4? (0) Henrich, T-Marchio, E Germany 2000.

I
I

9...0-0-0 10.e4 tLld4 11.tLld4 ~d4 12.ic4 ~eS

I
I!
13.f4 (13.ie3!? fS 14.0-0! fe4 1S.:tUd 1 tLlc6
16.:t'ld8 tLld8 17.EJ:d1 id6 18.g3± 8toica; 13.if7!?
II
I',I
"
is possible too) 13.. .'~WhS 14.0-0 tLlc6 1S.b4±.

10.llJd4 ~d4 11.e3 ~e5 12.ic4±

With two fine bishops and asymmetric pawns

the opening has clearly panned out in White's
favour.
This is inferior to the move 7... tLlfS seen earlier.
12... ~g6 13.id2! id6 14.ic3 ~g5
15.ig7! gg8 16.~e4 llJeS
17.~b7±1+- @e7 18.ie5 ~e5 19.93
8...CLld4 is also unsatisfactory: 9.CLld4 (~~a4; gab8 20.~f3 gg7 21.0-0 ~b2
9.~d4 ~d4 10.tLld4 0-0-0 11.e3±) 9... ~d7 22.~e4 ~eS 23.~e5 ieS 24.gad1
(9 ... ~dS 10.~c2 transposes to the main game id6 25.gd5 ia3 26.ga1 id6 27.ga7
after 8... ~dS) 10.b3 (10.~c2 ia6 11.ie3 CLldS gg6 28.ga2 h6 29.@g2 gg5 30.gd4
(11...CLlg6 12.tLlf3+ followed by 13.g3) 12.id2 gb4 31.ge4 @f6 32.gc2 ga5 33.f4
tLlb6 13.ic3 tLldS 14.0-0-0 CLlc3 1S.~c3±) ga1 34.ge8 gab1 3S.e4 g4b2
10...ia6 11.ib2 tLlg6 12.tLlf3± Gilbert,Ja- 36.gb2 gb2 37.@f3 ics 38.geS id4
Sweetland,G, Sunningdale, 2007. 39.gfS @g6 40.if7 @g7 41.h4 gc2
42.id5 c6 43.ie6 cS 44.@g4
1-0

72
•
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6 5.a3 i.e6
Game 26
Noteboom,Daniel
Helling,Karl
Berlin, 1931
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.~f3
~c6 5.a3 .te6!? (0)
6.~bd2
White has various alternatives at his disposal:
6.b4!? i,c4 7.CUbd2 i,e6 8.CUb3 (8.b5
CUa5 9.i,b2 c5 10.bc6 CUc6 11.iWa4 (11.g3
CUh6"') 11...i,c5~ Avrukh):
a) B.. "'~·dS 9.CUbd4 O-O-O? (o9 ... CUe5!? 10.CUe5
iWe5 11.i,b2 i,d6 12.iWc2 CUf6 13.e3 0-0 14.CUb5
iWg5 15.CUd6 cd6;!; Henris) 10.e3!? (10.i,b2!
t. ...CUe5 11.CUe5 iWe5 12.CUc6!! Eld1 13.Eld1 iWd5
14.Eld5 i,d5 15.CUa7 I!?d7 16.CUb5± Avrukh)
10... CUge7 (10 ...CUe5 11.CUe5 iWe5 12.iWa4 ~b8
13.i,b2±) 11.i,e2!? (11.i,b2±) 11...CUe5 12.iWa4
CU7c6 13.0-0± CookseY,P-Lyell,Me, Coulsdon,
2007.
b) 8...d3!? 9.i.b2 (9.ed3 iWd5!; 9.Elb1 de2
10.iWe2 a6"') 9... de2 10.i.e2 iWd1 11.i,d1 0-0-0
12.i,c2 CUh6 Avukh.
6.iWc2!? CUge7 7.e3 CUg6!? (7 ... CUf5!?)
8.iWe4 de3 9.i,e3 1!!id7 10.CUc3 i,f5 11.iWd5
0-0-0= Meissner, CIa -Hoerig, D, Germany, 1997.
6.b3!? iWd7 7.e3 de3 8.1!!id7 i,d7 9.i,e3
CUge7 10.CUc3 CUg6 11.CUd5 0-0-0 12.i,e2 CUge5
13.CUe5 CUe5 14.f4 CUg6= Henris.
6.e4 de3 7.iWd8 Eld8 8.i,e3 CUge7
transposes to the variation 6.e3.
6... ~ge7 (0)
6.. ",Wd7?! 7.b4 CUge7:
a) B.bS! CUa5 9.1!!ia4 b6 10.i,b2±.
b) B.CUb3!?N CUg6 (8 ...i,c4!? 9.CUc5! (9.CUbd4
EldB (9... 0-0-0 10.i,b2±) 10.i,b2 CUg6 11.Elc1
t.CUge5? 12.CUe5 CUe5 13.f4+-) 9...iWcB (9...iWd5?
10.e4! t.de3 11.i,c4 ef2 12.~f2 iWc4 13.iWd7#)
10.e6! (10.CUd4!? CUe5 11.f4 b6 12.fe5 bc5
13.bc5) 10...i,e6 11.CUd4 CUd4 12.iWd4 CUc6
73
 ,..-_.---_.. _. _. _.......... ..
Chapter 2
,
"
,
II! 13.'~fe3;1;) 9.ttJbd4 i.c4 (9...ttJge5 10.ttJe6
(10.ttJe5? ~d4!t) 10 ...ttJf3 11.gf3 ~e6 12.~d5±)
10.ttJc6!? ~c6 11.i.b2!? (11.e3 i.f1 12.\tJf1 a5"')
11...a5!? 12.ttJd4! (12.1'k1 ab4 13.e3 (13.liJd2?
ba3! 14.'fl,c4 ~c4! 15.liJc4 ~4 16.liJd2 ab2-+)
13 b5 14.,ic4 bc4 15.0-0 ba3 16.,ia1~)
12 ~a6 (12 ... ~d5 13.~c2! Lle4+-) 13.b5!
(13..ic3?? ab4 14.ab4 ~a1-+) 13...,ib5 14.'fl,cH
Volzhin,A-Rewitz,P, Aarhus, 1997.
c) 8..ib2, transposing to the main game, would
be weaker.
6...a5?! 7.liJb3!?:
a) 7...Y!fd7 8.e3 (8.liJbd4 0-0-0 9.e3 ic5 10.ie2
liJd4 11.ed4 ,id4 12.liJd4 ~d4 13.~d4 'fl,d4
14.f3± Avrukh) 8...de3 9.~d7 id7 10.,ie3±
Griffin,J-Smeckert,O, Lansing, 1993.
b) 7...ic4 8.liJbd4 ,ic5 (8... ~d5?! 9.liJc6 ~c6
10.id2±; 8...liJd4 9.liJd4 (9.~d4!?) 9... ~d5
10.if4 0-0-0 11.e3 ,if1 12.'fl,f1 ~g2 13.~c2±)
9.,ie3 (9.e3!? if1 10.m1 ~d7 11.liJb5!± Henris;
9.ig5!? is also good) 9... liJge7? (9 ... ~d5
10.liJc6 (10.liJc2!?) 10...ie3 11.liJcd4± Henris
(11.fe3?! ~c6 12.'fl,c1 'fl,dB!? - Shakmatny
Listok)) 10.liJc6+- ~d1 11.'fl,d1 ie3 12.liJe7
rJde7 13.fe3 'fl,hd8 14.'fl,c1 b5 15.e4 'fl,d7 16.e3
'fl,b8 17.liJd4 'fl,b6 18.b3 ,if1 19.1'%f1 1-0
Schlechter,C-Reggio,A, Monte Carlo, 1903.
, 6...f61! 7.ef6 ~f6 (7...liJf6 8.b4!? Watson
I
& Schiller; ± Bronznik) 8.b4!? d3 9.'fl,b1 ± (9.'fl,a2)
I
or 8.liJb3!? Wfe7!? 9.~c2! (9.liJbd4?! 0-0-0 10.e3
liJd4 11.ed4 ic4 12..ie3 .if1 13.rJdf1 liJf6~)
9...0-0-0 10.ig5liJf6 11.0-0-0± Bronznik.
7.b4
74
-
7.93 liJg6 8.i.g2:
a) S....ie7?! does not seem to lead to equality.
Two examples:
• 9.b4 0-0 10.0-0 (or 10.ib2 liJge5 11.'fl,c1 .if6
12.liJe5 liJe5 (Kekki,P-Westerinen,H, Finland,
2002) 13.,ib7±) 10...'fl,b8!? 11 ..ib2 liJge5 12.b5
liJf3 13.liJf3 liJa5 14.liJd4 liJc4 (14 ...ic4?!
15.~a4±) 15.liJe6 ~d1?! (15...liJb2?? 16.~d8+-;
o15.. .fe6 16.id4 (16..ic1 ~d1 17.'fl,d1 'fl,bdB)
16...liJa3 17.,ia7 ~d1 18.md1 'fl,bd8 19.b6~)
16.'fl,fd1 fe6 (Johannessen,L-Hector,J, Sweden,
2005) 17.'fl,d7!±;
• 9.0-0 0-0 10.liJb3 ic4 11.liJbd4 liJd4 12.liJd4
liJe5 13.ib7 'fl,b8 14.ig2!? if6!? (14...,ic5 15.liJf5
(15.liJc6 liJc6 16.ic6 ~f6) 15...Wfd1 16.'fl,d1 ie2
17.l'%e1 liJf3 18.,if3 ,if3 19.ie3 ib6~) as in Vera
Gonzalez Quevedo,R-Bauer,Christi, Lugo, 2009.
Now White can take the advantage with 15.b4!
l'%b6 (15 ...Wfd4? 16.Y!fd4 liJf3 17.if3 id4 18.l'%b1
ia2 19.,ib2 ,ib1 20.,id4 .if5 21.ia7±; 15...a5
16.,if4 ab4 17.l'%c1 ia6 18.ab4 'fl,b4 19.ie5 ,ie5
20.liJc6 Y!fd1 21.l'%fd1 'fl,b5 22.e4±) 16..ib2 c5
17.liJf5 Wfd1 18.l'%fd1 cb4 19.ab4 ie2 20.l'%e1 liJf3
21.,if3 ,if3 22.,if6 gf6 23.b5 'fl,d8 24.l'%a7 l'%b5
25.liJh6 rJdg7 26.liJf7 l'%a8~ Henris.
b) 8...Y!fd7! would transpose to chapter 6
(variation 5.g3 ,ie6 6.liJbd2 Y!fd7 7.ig2 liJge7
8.a3 liJg6).
7.Y!fb3!? l'%b8 is also interesting.
7...c!iJg6 8..ib2 ~d71 (D)
The actual move order of the game was
6...Y!fd7?! 7.b4 liJge7. But there is a problem
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6 5.a3 .te6
with this move order because now, instead of
S.ii.b2, 8.b5!, seen already before, is stronger.
Regaining the pawh immediatly is not good:
8....!t:\ge5?! 9.bS CLlf3 10.ef3!? (10.CLlf3 CLlaS
11.CLld4 CLlc4 (11 ...ii.c4? 12.Vffa4 b6 13.'i1,c1±)
12.ii.c3 Vfff6!? 13.e3 (13.Vffb3? CLld2! 14.CLle6
CLlb3 15.ii.f6 fe6 16.'i1,b1 gf6 17.'i1,b3=) 13... CLld6
14.ii.d3 ii.dS 1S.0-0;l;) 10... CLlaS (10 ... CLleS 11.f4
CLlg6 12.Vfff3) 11.ii.d3 cS 12.Vffc2 Vffc7 13.0-0 ii.d6
14.g3 0-0-0 1S.CLle4 ii.e7 16.ii.c1!± Brilla
Banfalvi,S-Muir,W, carr., 1958.
9J3C1 !?
More critical is 9.Vffa4 'i1,dS 10.bS!? CLlceS. Black
must play accurately in order to maintain as
small as possible White's advantage. And now:
a) 11 ..!t:\d4!? ii.cs 12.e3 ii.d4 13.ed4
(13.ii.d4!? cS! 14.bc6 (14.ii.c3?? CLld3 15.ii.d3
Vffd3 16. 'i1,c 1 CLlh4-+) 14... CLlc6 1S.CLlf3 0-0;;;)
13... 0-0 14.f3!? (14.CLlb3!? ii.g4! 1S.f3 (15.h3?!
Vfff5! 16.hg4 CLlg4-t) 1S... CLlf3 16.gf3 ii.f3 17.'i1,g1
'<MffS 18.c;t>d2 '<Mff4 19.c;t>c3 '<Mfe3 20.j,d3 liJeS
21.'i1,ad 1D (21.de5? 'i1,d3 22. c;t>b4 c5!-+;
21.'i1,gd1? ii.e2 22.ii.c1 '<Mff3-+) 21 ...liJd3 22.'i1,d3
'<Mfg1 23.m3 CXl ) 14...ii.fS 1S.0-0-0!? (1S.Vffb3 liJf4
16.tLle4 ii.e4 17.fe4 Vffg4 1S.Vffc2 tLld7! 19.93!?
Vfff3 20.gf4D Vffh1 CXl ) 1S...tLld3 16.ii.d3 ii.d3 17.g3
'i1,feS 1S.'i1,de1 c6 19.Vffb3 ii.fS CXl •
b) 11.ii.d4 cS!? 12.bc6 (12.ii.c3!? ii.e7
13.CLleS tLleS 14.'i1,d1 CLlc4!? 1S.e4 tLlb6 16.Vffa7!?
ii.g4! 17.Vffb6 (17. 'i1,c 1 ii.f6!) 17...ii.d1 1S.ii.c4
(18. c;t>d1 ii.f6+) 1S...ii.f6 19.ii.aS 'i1,aS! 20.VffcS
'i1,aS 21.c;t>d 1 ii.c3! 22.ii.f7 @f7 23.Vffc3 'i1,bS+)
12... tLlc6 13.ii.c3 (13.e3!?) 13...fS 14.e3 ii.d6
1S.ii.e2 0-0 16.Vffb3 (~16.0-0 f4 M7.e4 tLld4)
16 Vffe7 17.0-0 f4 1S.tLle4 (1S.e4 tLlgeS)
1S ii.bS;;; Henris.
9.. J3d8
9....!t:\ge5? 10.bS± (10.ii.d4?! tLlf3 11.tLlf3 as+i).
10.b5?!
10.g3 as 11.bS tLlceS 12.tLld4 ii.a3!+i.
10...ClJce5 11.ClJd4 i.a3! 12.i.a3
Wd4+ 13.i.b4 ClJc4 14.ic3 Wb6
15.e3 O-O!?
15....!t:\d2 16.ii.d2 0-0+.
16.Wc2? ttJe3! 17.fe3 We3 18.i.e2
ttJf4 19.We4 ClJd3
0-1
75
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.lLlf3 for Black, as the analyses show us (--t game
lLlc6 5.a3 ~g4?! (D) 41 ).
On the other hand, the move 6.~b3 (--t
game 42) certainly poses more serious
problems to solve to the second player. Albin
players should definitely be prepared for this
line.
6..ig5 and the following minor
I'.1
'I alternatives 6.b4, 6.h3, 6.e3, 6.~a4 should not
I worry Black too much (--t game 43).

6...We7

The main line. Black, after castling long, is

simply aiming straight at the e5-pawn .
•
•

"i
1
This will be our starting position for the The following alternatives are all clearly
I,
present chapter. inferior:
, Here Black chooses g4 instead of e6 as a home The move 6...lLlge7?! is covered in
,
il
Ii,. for his bishop. White no longer has to worry game 38.
,,
, about defending his c-pawn. But he does now See game 39 for the continuation
have to consider the pressure on his knight and 6... ~d7?!.
the e-pawn. 6... a5?! (--t game 40).
Most of the time Black plays his queen en e7
and castle long before regaining the e-pawn. 7.h3!
The lines from this variation are really
fascinating. But unfortunately the variation is 7.b4, 7.g3 and 7.~a4 (--t game 37) are
currently experiencing a serious crisis. also worth mentioning, even if Black is okay as
these options are less critical than 7.h3!.

7... ~h5!?
Instead of this natural continuation, defending
the knight on f3, White also has several 7.. ..if3?! is the subject of the famous
interesting alternatives at his disposal: encounter between Lasker and Alekhine (--t
",
6..if4 does not seem too troublesome game 36.

76
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.tDf3 tDc6 5.a3 i,g4

8.Wa4! trying to regain the e5-pawn, Black prefers to

8.g4!? ~g6 9.~g2 is less precise as it
gives Black some extra options (---t game 32).
8.b4 (---t game 33).
8.g3 (---t games 34 and 35).
open up the game to take advantage of the
weakening of his opponent's position.
12.tLle5 We5 13..ig2! (0)

8...0-0-0 9.b4!

9.g4 ~g6 10.~g2 will most probably transpose /

to the game 32 after 10... h5.

~.",')~
9...'it>b8

9...tt:Je5?! (---t game 27).

10.g4

10..tb2 LtJe5 (10 ...f6!? ---t game 31) 11.LtJe5 ~e5 The position still looks rather complicated but
12.g4 ~g6 13.~g2 would be a transposition to in fact Black is already in trouble.
the main game. 13.ttJf3?! (---t game 28), played in the
game Goldin,A-Mengarini,A, New York, 1991,
10...ig6 11 ..ib2! was regarded for a long time as the refutation
of the variation. But in the game Brunner,N-
11.~g2!? (---t game 30) used to be the main Bergez,L, Cannes, 2005, Black introduced a
line in this variation. Then play becomes very wonderful novelty: 13... ~e4 14.~d4 Eld4!
complicated after 11 ... h5 12.~b2 (12.g5!? is 15.LtJd4 LtJf6!, after which he had a nice
worth considering too) 12.hg4 13.hg4 Elh1 compensation thanks to his better
14.~h1 LtJh6. development and the weakened position of his
opponent.
11 ...ltJe5 But after the precise 13.~g2! (---t game
27), Black's situation is most precarious as the
The very interesting idea 11...f6!? (---t game 29) keystone of his position, the d4-pawn, is about
offers a very different approach. Instead of to fall.

77
 Chapter 3

Game 27 7... ~f5 8.g4 ii,g6 is identical to the main game.

Nielsen,Peter Heine (2625)
Rasmussen,Karsten (2505) 8.'~·a4!
Silkeborg, 2008
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttlf3 With this obvious move White prepares the
ttlc6 5.a3 i.g4?! (D) attack on the queenside.

8...0-0-0 9.b4!

White starts the attack on the king and at the

same time he prepares to develop his queen's
bishop.
9.g4 ~g6 10.~g2 will most probably transpose
to the main game.

I,
,
,i

9...lLJe5?! 10.CLJe5 We5:

a) 11.ib2 (White delays the g2-g4
push, depriving Black of the ... h7-h5
resource) 11...a6!? (11...cttb8 12.g4 ~g6
, ·1,
!
The most natural reply. It should be mentioned 13.ig2 transposes to the main game) 12.g4
II that this position can be reached via the move ~g6 13.ig2 (13.b5 EJ:d6!?) 13...c5!? (13 ...CLJf6
I
order 5.lt'lbd2 ~g4 6.a3. 14.l2lf3 ~e4 15.b5t Sherbakov) 14.bc5 ~c5
I

,,
15.l2lb3 ia7 (15 ... ~e4!? 16.ie4 ~e4 17.0-0-0!
iI
6.. .'l1*fe 7 ia7 18.e3! f6 19.CLJd4±, and Black does not
have sufficient compensation for the pawn -
The most frequently played move. Sherbakov) 16.ib7!? (16.~a5 ~a5 17.l2la5t)
16... ct?b7 17.CLJa5 ct?c8 18.CLJc6 ~d6 (18 ... ~e6
I' 7.h3! 19.~a6 ct?c7 20.~a7 ct?c6 21.id4±) 19.EJ:d1!

I
cttb7 20.l2ld8 ~d8 21.e3!? (21.0-0!? is also
The most critical continuation. possible) 21 ... l2lf6 22.~d4 ~d4 23.EJ:d4 ~b6
24.0-0 h5 25.EJ:fd1 ~c5 26.f3 hg4 27.hg4 ct?a7
7...i.h5!? 28.~b4 ~c7 29.EJ:d6 EJ:b8 30.~c3± Bronznik.

78
,

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.lLJf3 lLJc6 5.a3 .ig4

b) 11.94! is even stronger than 11.i.b2:

11 ...d3 (11 ...i.g6 12.ctJf3 ~e4 13.~a7 d3
14.i.e3± Ftacnik) 12.Ela2 i.g6 13.~a7 de2
14.i.e2± Buenjer,C-Riepe,B, Internet, 2001.

10.g4 ig611.ib2! (0)

The alternatives are unfortunately no better:

13....id3 14.0-0! (14.e3 ~e7 15.0-0-0
de3 16.fe3 a6!? would have been unclear, as
17.b5 can be met by 17... ~e8 - Flear,G)
14....ie2 15.Elfe1, with a deadly pin.
13... h5 14.ctJf3 ~e4 15..id4 a6
(15 Eld4 16.ctJd4 ~g2 17.~e8#) 16.0-0 hg4
White delays the development of his kingside, (16 Eld4 17.ctJd4 ~d4 18.Elfd1+-) 17.ctJe5 ~d4
depriving Black of the ... h7-h5 resource. 18.Elad1 +-.
11 ..ig2!? allows 11 ... h5, with counterplay (---+ 13...c5!? 14.bc5!? (14.W!b5 ~c7
game 29). 15.bc5±) 14....ic5 15.~b5 ~c7 16.ctJb3 b6
17.ctJa5 ctJe7 18.0-0? (Juhasz,A-Torok,T,
11 ...ltJe5 Budapest, 2011) 18.ctJb7±.
13... ~e6!? is an interesting but
Also interesting is 11 ...f6!? (---+ game 28). unsatisfying attempt from Black to improve
over the main game:
12.ltJe5 Wfe5 13.ig2! (0) a) 14.0-0!? h5!? (14 ... ctJe7 15.ctJf3+; 14... ctJf6
15.ctJb3+) was played in the game Tjiam,D-
13.ctJf3?! is considerably weaker as we shall Bontempi, P, Schwarzach, 2011. Now White
see (---+ game 28) .. could have taken the advantage with 15.g5!?
ctJe7 (15 ...c5 16.bc5 i.c5 17.ctJb3±) 16.ctJf3 c5!?
13"'ltJf6!? (16 ... ~e2? 17.ctJd4+-) 17.bc5 ctJc6 18.~b5 i.e4

79
 Chapter 3

19.:1'Ud1 a6 20.~b6 ~e7? 21.~d4!+- Henris. Game 28

b) 14..id5 ~e8 (14 ... ~b6 15.tt'lb3 ~e2 16':;k1 Brunner,Nicolas (2288)
(:516.~f7?! ~f6 17.~d5 e6 18.~f3(l)) 16... ~b3 Bergez,Luc (2371)
17.~b3 tt'lf6 18.e5± (18.if7!?) Henris) 15.~e8 Cannes, 2005
El:e8 16.id4± Vogel,Joe-Grewenig,R, Saarlouis 1.d4 d5 2.e4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.~f3
Steinrausch, 2005. ~e6 5.a3 .ig4?! 6.~bd2 ffe7 7.h3!
ih5!? 8.ffa4! 0-0-0 9.g4 ig6
10.b4 c;!;>b8 11.ib2! ~e5 12.~e5
ffe5 13.~f3? (0)
Black is not to be envied either after 14.. .'~e4
15.0-0 M5 ... ~e2?!:
a) 16.llJd4 ~b2 17.~b5 ltJe4 (17 ...ie4
18.tt'le6 \fIe8 19.1tJa7 \fIb8 20.ltJe6 \fIe8 21.ltJd8
\fId8 22.ie4 ltJe4 23.~b7+-) 18.ltJe6! \fIe8
19.tt'la7 \fIb8 20.ltJe6 \fIe8 21.ltJd8 ltJd6 (21 ...\fId8
22.~b7+-) 22.~a5\f1d8 23.e5+- Bronznik.
b) 16.id4 a6 17.b5 ie2 18.~a5 ~e4
19.El:ae1 ~a4 20.~e3+-.
,
, i
15.0-0± h5?!

This loses on the spot. But in any case the

position can not be saved. 13...ffe4
15....ie4? 16.id4! if3 (16 ... El:d4
17.e3+-) 17.~a7 \fIe8 18.ie3!? (18.El:fd1+-; 13 ~e6? 14.ltJd4 (14.id4!?) 14... ~e4
II,
,
!
18.if3+-) 18... ~e5?! 19.ef3!? e6 20.f4+- ~e6?? (14 ~e4?? 15.e4+-) 15.El:d1?! (15.El:g1!±)
21.~a8 \fIe7 22.ib6! \fIb6 23.~a5# 1-0 15 ie7 (15 ... ltJe7) 16.El:g1 ~f4 17.e3+- ~h6
,
,'I
Kratochvil,Milo-Janecek,Jo, Czechia, 2005. 18.ig2 1-0 Thomas,Mi-Kish,J,corr., 1998.
15...c5 16.e3! M6 ...de3?? 17.ie5.
14.id4 ~d4!N
16.id4! ~d4 17.e3 ffd6 18.c!lJd4 hg4
19.~fd1 !+- gh3 20.c!lJe6 be6 21.~d6 A big improvement over 14...c5? 15.ie5 \fIa8
'I'
id6 22.ic6 ~h5 23.e5 h2 24.c;!;>h1 16.ig2 tt'lf6 17.0-0 ~e4 18.El:fe1 ~e6 19.be5+-
'II
1-0 Goldin,A-Mengarini,A, New York, 1991.

80
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.lDf3 lDc6 5.a3 .ig4

15.ltJd4ltJf6! (0) .if2 (Ll21.'ttf2 ctJe4 22.lte1 ~g1+-) 0-1

Lauferon,P-Philippe,C, Val Thorens, 2006.

17...,ie5!?

o17...ib4 18.ab4 a6+ Henris.

18.be5 a6 19.1lJd4?!

19.ctJc3 h5 20.g5 ctJe4+;

o19.~a5!? Wh2 (S19 ...ab5 20.cb5)
20. ctJc3.

19...llJe4 2o.Wfb3
The point of the exchange sacrifice. Black has
a nice lead in development while his 20.c6?? ~g 1-+ or 20.ctJf3? ctJc3-+.
opponent's position is significantly weakened.
Of course if 15... ~h1??, then 16.We8#. 20...ltJe5 21.Wfe3 h5 22.ltJf3?! hg4
23.hg4 b6 24.Wfe7?!
16J~d1 ?
24.ctJe5 ie4+.
16.lt:\f3 is much better: 16... ~c4 17.tlJd2
(17.~d1?! ~c3 18.~d2 (18.tlJd2 ic2) 18 ie7 24...ltJd3 25.ed3 Wff3 26.Wfe2 Wfe6
19.ig2 tlJe4 20.0-0 (20.~c2 ~a3) 20 tlJd2 27.Wfb2 ge8 28.c,!;ld2 Wff3
21.tlJd2 ~d8 (21 ... ~d2?? 22.~b5+-) 22.tlJf3
c6+} 17... ~c3 18.~d1 (Colson,A-Henris,L, 28... ~c5 29.d4 Wg5.
Nancy, 2007) 18... tlJe4 19.Wc1 (19.~c1? Wa3
20.tlJe4 ib4 21.tlJd2 ~d8-+) 19...Wf6 20.tlJe4 29.'?Md4 i>e8 30.:ae1 :adS 31.'?Me3 '?MeG
(20.tlJf3 id6 21.ig2 ie5 22.~a2 ic3 23.ltf1 32.i>e3 '?MdG 33.:aa1 ,id3! 34.i>b2
~d8iii) 20 ...ie4 21.g5 ~f5 22j~g1 id6;;; Henris.
34.id3 ~f6-+.
16...Wfh1+ 17.llJb5
34...Wff6 35.i>a2 Wfe3 36.,id3 :ad3
17.lt:\c6? bc6 18.:t'ld8 Itb7-+ 19.c5 ic5! 20.:t'lh8 0-1

81
 --
Chapter 3
,I

,
Game 29 not yet found a satisfactory way to solve all his
III
, '
Swapnil,Sunil Dhopade (2425) problems after this move: 12 ... h5!? (12 ...i.e8?!
Thejkumar,MS (2435) 13.b5 tLle5 14.~d4±) 13.g5!?:
Jalgaon, 2010 a) 13... ~e5 14.i.d4±.
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 b) 13...d3!? 14.e3 ~e8 15.ef6 gf6
lLlc6 5.a3 .ig4?! 6)lJbd2 'ffe7 (Gupta,M-NabatY,T Plovdiv, 2010) 16.b5 tLle5
7.h3! .ih5!? 8.'ffa4! 0-0-0 9.g4 17.gf6 tLlf3 18.~f3 tLlf6 19.~b7!+- Henris).
J.g6 10.b4 c.!;>b8 11.J.b2! f6!? (0) c) 13...fg5 14.b5!? (the alternative

1111'
14.tLlb3 , is also advantageous for the first
player: 14... ~c2 15.:1'i:c1 ~b3 (15...d3 16.ed3)
16.lMrb3 tLlh6 17.b5 tLle5 18.ttJd4±; 14.:1'i:d1±)
I I
14 liJe5 15.liJe5 (15.~d4? tLld3 16.<;tJf1D tLlc5)
'I I: I ' 15 lMre5 16.~b7! ~d3 (16 <;tJb7 17.lMra6 <;tJb8
,
18.lMrg6±) 17.~f3 :1'i:h6 (17 g4 18.0-0-0 gf3
'II
19.ed3±) 18.0-0-0 ~f5 19.e3 lMrd6 20.tLlb1 lMrc5
II
I 21.:1'i:d4 :1'i:hd6 22.:1'i:d6 :1'i:d6 23.~d4 :1'i:d4 24.ed4
,
I lMrd4 25.b6 cb6 26.lMrc6 1-0 Sakai,K-Choroba, V,

IIIII1
email, 2002.
,

III
,
, I 12...ttJf6 13.i.g2
" II
,

II II
1 A very interesting idea. Instead of regaining 13.b5?! would be clearly weaker:
"
the e5-pawn immediately, Black tries to open a) 13... ~e5 is possible and gives Black
, I1'1

, up the position. a good game:

III 11 h5?! is not good enough: 12.g5 tLle5 a1) 14.~d4? would be a terrible blunder
(12 h4 13.~g2±; 12.. .f6 13.ef6 gf6 14.h4!?±) because of 14...:1'i:d4!-+.
13.tLle5 lMre5 14.tLlf3 lMre4 15.~d4 (15.~g2!?) a2) 14.0-0-0:
15...a6 16.:1'i:d1± Henris. • 14... ~e4 15.tLle4 ~e4 16.~d4 :1'i:d4! 17.:1'i:d4
tLlf3 18.ef3 ~f3 19.~g2!? ~g2 20.:1'i:hd1 a6!+
12.ef6!? (20 ...lMra3? 21.Wb1 +-; 20 ...<;tJc8? 21.lMra7!
(21.:1'i:dB? lMrdB 22.:1'i:dB <;tJdB 23.1lfffa7<r> Raetsky ft
An obvious move. But in view of the attractive Chetverik) 21 ...lMra3 22.Wc2 ~c5 23.lMra3 ~a3
main game continuation, however, it seems 24.:1'i:a 1+-);
preferable to continue with 12.ig2. Black has • 14...tLlf3! is the best way to proceed: 15.tLlf3

82
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.tLlf3 tLlc6 5.a3 i,g4

(15.ef3ltJd7+ (15...1Jf1d6!?)) 15...1Jf1e4+. Game 30

a3) 14.ltJe51Jf1e5 15.ltJf31Jf1e4 16.~g2 d3:;:. Jorczik,Julian (2207)
b) 13...tL\d7!? 14.~g2D (14.bc6? is of NabatY,Tamir (2424)
course impossible because of 14 ... tL\c5-+) Batumi, 2006
14... ltJc5 15.1Jf1d1 ltJd3 16.Wf1 ltJb2 17.1Jf1b3 ltJe5 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3
18.1Jf1b2 ltJf3 19.1tJf3 iWf6 20.E1d1 ~c5:;: Henris. llJc6 5.a3 ig4?! 6.ttJbd2 ~e7 7.h3
ih5 8.~a4! 0-0-0 9.b4 i>b8 10.g4
13... h5!? ig6 11.ig2!? (D)

13...d3?! is not sufficient because of

14.e3!± (and not 14.0-0 de2 15.E1fe1 ltJd7
n16 ... ltJb6 co Raetsky & Chetverik).
But 13...tL\e4!? is worth considering:
14.ltJe4 ~e4 15.0-0 h5 16.E1fd1 hg4 17.hg4 1Jf1f6
18.ltJd4 (18.b5 ~f3) 18... ~g2 19.1tJc6 (19.Wg2?
E1h2 20.Wh2 1Jf1f2 21.Wh1 ~d6-+) 19... ~c6
20.iWc6D E1d1 21.E1d1 bc6 22.~f6 gf6 23.E1d8
Wbn Henris.

14.b5 llJe5 15.id4 ttJd3 16.i>f1

ttJc517.ic5!?
11 ... h5
17.1Jf1b4 is somewhat better and gives White a
small advantage: 17... hg4 18.hg4 E1h1 19.~h1 11...d3?! 12. ~b2! (12.ed3?! ltJe5 (12... ~d3?!
ltJg4 20.~c51Jf1c5 21.1Jf1c5 ~c5 22.e3;!;. 13.~2 f6!? 14.0-0-0 fe5 15.E1he1 ltJf6?? 16.b5
1-0 Rachela,M-Balogh,Em, Szombathely, 2004)
17.. :~c5 18.llJb3 ~b6 19.1lJe5?! 13.0-0 ltJd3 co ; 12.e3!?) 12...f6 13.ed3!± LlO-O-O
~d6 20.f4 llJe4 21.c5?? Henris (13.0-0 h5 14.ef6 gf6 co Raetsky &
Chetverik).
With this blunder, White overlooks the
coming mate: 21.c5?? 1Jf1d1 22.E1d1 E1d1#. 12.ib2
21.e3 had to be played. Then the
position would have remained unclear. 12.gh5?! E1h5 co gives Black too much
0-1 counterplay.

83
 ,

Chapter 3

I However, 12.95!? has to be taken into 12... hg4 13.hg4 ~h1 14.~h1
serious consideration as Black must now play lLlh6 (0)
accurately in order to keep the balance. Let's
analyse Black's different possible
continuations:
a) 12... h4? 13.ib2 f6?! 14.ef6 gf6 15.0-0!?±
ie8? 16.b5 tLJe5 17.id4+-.
I'; , b) 12...d3?! 13.ib2 f6 14.e3! tLJe5 15.tLJe5 fe5
'I,
I',
16.ib7! ~b7 17.~b5 ~a8 18.~c6 ~b8
19.~g6+- Henris.
,

I'
c) 12...f6?!:
! II,
,
, • 13.gf6!? gf6 14.ib2 ih6!? (14".d3? 15.e3
1,1

,I, 'I' tLJe5 (15".ig7!?) 16.tLJe5 ie8 (16.. .fe5?

, 17.~b5+-) 17.tLJc6 ic6 18.ic6 bc6 19.~c6+-;
:1,
14".ie8?! 15.ef6 tLJf6 16.b5±) 15.E1d1
I

(15.0-0-0? ~e6!+) 15".ie8 16.ef6 tLJf6 17.b5

II ,I
14...f6?! 15.0-0-0 tLJe5 (15."ie8!? 16.~c2±
E1g8 18.bc6 ic6 19.~b4 ~e8 20.E1g1 id2 (16.ef6 tLJf6 17.b5 ct:lg4!? 18.bc6 ic6 19.~b3
21.~d2 tLJe4 22.~c1 (S22.~e1? tLJc3!) tLJf2 20.E1f1 tLJh1 21.E1h1 ~e2 22.E1e1 't'ffif2 23.E1f1
22".tLJf2°o Henris; ~g2 24.id4 b6'J; Raetsky & Chetverik)) 16.tLJd4
• 13..ib2! transposes to the previous game, at (16.id4±) 16".ie8 17.~b3 tLJh6 18.g5 fg5
White's 12th move 12.ig2. 19.~e3± Henris.
d) 12...tDe5! seems to be the only good move
for Black:
,, I

,
• 13.tDe5 ~e5 14.tLJf3 (14.ib2!?) 14".~e6
I,,
15.c5 (15.0-0 ie4 16.ib2 ic6 17.~a5 if3 The alternatives are less critical:
18.if3 ~h3 19.~b5 ~c8 20.E1fd1 tLJe7! 21.id4 15.b5? tLJe5 16.id4 E1d4! 17.tLJd4 tLJd3
I,
,I, : a6 22.~a4 tLJf5f±) 15".tLJe7 16.b5 d3 17.0-0 de2 18.~f1 0 ~h4! 19.ed3 id3!? (19".tLJg4!-+
18.E1e1, as in the game Grotars,G-Le Nineze,H, Henris) 20.~e1 (20.~g1 tLJg4-+) 20".'t'ffih1
corr., 1992. Now Black keeps things unclear 21.tLJf1 ~f1?! (o21...~e4! 22.ct:le3 ~d4-+
with 18".tLJf5!oo Henris;
,,
; ,

I
Henris) 22. ~d2 't'ffia 1 23.b6! ~b2 (23".ab6??
• 13.0-0!? d3 14.ed3 (14.e3? ct:lf3 15.ct:lf3 ie4) 24.'t'ffie8 ~a7 25.tLJb5 ~a6 26.~a8#; 23 ...cb6??
14".ct:ld3 15.ct:lb3 We8 16.b5 ic5 17.ct:lc5 ct:lc5 24.~e8 ~c7 25.tLJb5# Renet) 24.~d3? (24.~d1!
18.Wb4 ct:ld3 19.Wc3 ct:le7 20.E1d1 ie4 21.ct:le5 ig2 ie2! (24".if5!? 25.tLJf5 (25.~a7? ~c8 26.~a8
'I
I
"
22.1':1d3 1':1d3 23.Wd3 ct:lg6! 24.ct:lg6 ie4 co Henris. ~d7 27.tLJf5 tLJf5; 25.~e8? ic8 26.bc7 ~c7

84
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6 5.a3 i.g4

27.tiJb5 c;f;b8-+) 25...cb6 (25... ab6 26.~e8 c;f;a7 c) 16.llJbd4 ie4 (16 ... ttJge5 17.ttJe5
27.~a4=) 26.Vf1e8 c;f;c7 27.~f8 VfIe5 28.ttJe3+) ttJe5 18.Vf1b5+) 17.E1d1 ttJd4!? (17 ... E1e8 18.ttJe6
25.ttJe2 (25.c;f;e1 ig4 26.~e8 (26.~a7 c;f;e8 ie6 19.Vf1e2 g6 20.~d3 b6 21.b5 ib7 22.~d7
27.~a8 c;f;d7-+) 26 ...ie8 27.be7 c;f;e7 28.ttJb5 VfId7 23.E1d7 ie7 24.e3+) 18.E1d4 E1d4 19.id4 b6
Wb8-+) 25 ...eb6 26.~e8 c;f;e7 27 .Vf1f8 ~f6 28.f3 20.e5 VfId8!? (20 ... g6 21.Vf1b5 ig7!?!) 21.ig2
~d6 29.Vf1d6 Wd6+ Renet) 24 ... ~a3 0-1 ie7 22.Vf1b3 id5 23.~d3 g6 24.ie3 ib7?!
Paalman,H-Snuverink,Joc, Deventer, 1998. (24 ... ttJh2!?!) 25.~e4+ ttJh6 26.e6!? id5
15.0-0-0?! ttJg4 16.ttJb3 ttJf2 17.ttJbd4 27.~d3 ie6 28.ttJe5!? (28.ttJd4 id5 29.id5
ie4 18.ttJe6 ie6 19.E1d8 VfId8 20.b5 ie4 21.id4 VfId5 30.~b5±) 28 ... ~d3 29.ttJe6 We8 30.ttJa7
(21.ig2 ie5-+) 21...ttJh1-+ 22.~a7 We8 23.e5 Wd7 31.e6 Wd8 32.ed3 ttJg4 33.ttJb5 ih4
if3 24.e6 ie6 25.be6 be6 26.Vf1a6 Wd7 27.~d3 34.id4 f5 35.if3 ib3 36.ttJe3 ig5 37.id5 ie2
We8 28.e6 ~d5 29.ef7 Wf7 30.e4 ia3 31.~a3 38.We2 if4 39.ie3 ie5 40.d4 ttJe3 41.fe3+-
~d4 32.~f3 We7 33.~h1 VfIa1 0-1 Khodos,G Gaal,AI-Hedrera,M, eorr., 1995.
-Mosionzhik, I, Novosibirsk, 1962.
16J~c1 ib3 17.Wb3 ttJg4 18.c5?!
15...ic2
White keeps a small advantage with 18,l':id1. In
15...llJg4!? also deserves attention: Suetin,A-Mosionzhik, I, Leningrad, 1962, Black
a) 16.llJc5?! was played in Frank,M- managed to maintain the balance after
Colombo Berra,F, corr., 1995: 16... ttJee5! 18...ttJge5!? (18 ...E1e8!? 19.b5!?!; 18...g6!?
17.ttJb7 (17.E1d1 ttJe4 18.id4 ttJb6+) 17 ttJd3 19.b5!? ttJee5 20.id4~) 19.ttJd4!~ ttJd4 20.id4
18.Wf1 ttJb2 19.ttJd8 (19.~b5 e6) 19 ttJa4 VfIh4!? (20 ...E1e8 21.Vf1e3!?~) 21.ia7! Wa7
20.ttJe6 We8 21.ttJe7 ie7+ Henris. 22.Vf1a4 Wb8 23.E1d8 VfId8 24.Vf1b5 e6 25.Vf1e5
b) 16.llJfd4 ~h4 (16 ... ttJee5 17.Vf1b5!±) ~a7?! (25 ...id6 26.Vf1g7 VfIh4 27.if3 VfIe4
17.0-0-0!? (17.ttJe6? be6 18.id4 E1d4 19.ttJd4 28.Vf1b2 ~/= Henris) 26.Vf1e3 ~b8 27.Vf1e5 ~a7
~f2-+) 17... ~g5 (17 ...ttJf2?! 18.ie6! ~g5 28.if3 f6 (28 ...g6!?) 29.Vf1e3 ~b8 30.e5 g5
(18... ~f4 19.E1d2) 19.ttJd2) 18.e3 (18.ttJd2 (30 ...g6) 31.a4 VfId7 32.Vf1e3 ie7 33.Vf1e4 VfIf5
ttJd4-+; 18.E1d2 ttJf2+) 18 ... ttJf2 19.ttJe6 (19.ie6 34.~f1 VfIe5 35.Vf1b3 ~a7 36.a5 f5 37.~b1?!
~e3-+) 19... be6 20.E1d8 ~d8 21.id4! (21.ttJa5? (37.Vf1d1 !?+) 37...g4 38.ig2 ih4~ 39.e3 f4
ttJd3 22.Wb1 ttJb2 23.c;f;b2 ~d2-+) 21 ... ttJh1 40.ef4 VfIf4 41.Vf1b2? (41.Vf1e2 VfIb4 42.ie6!=)
22.~a6 e5 23.ie5 (23.be5? ~h4-+; 23.Vf1b5?! 41...g3+ 42.f3 if6 43.~e2?! (43.Vf1e2 VfIb4+)
We8 24.~a6 Wd7 25.~a4 e6~; 23.ttJe5!? ie5D 43 ...Vf1b4?! (o43 ...id4!) 44.ih3!? id4 45.c;f;g2
24.ie5 ttJg3 25.ia7 c;f;a8 26.id4 Wb8 27.ia7=) VfIe1?! (o45 ...ie5+) 46.f4 VfIg1 47.c;f;f3 VfIe3
23 ...ie4D 24.ia7 c;f;a8 25.id4= Henris. 48.c;f;g4 ie5 49.Vf1e4 VfId4? 50.Vf1d4 id4 51.c;f;g3=.

85
,.r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,
,
Chapter 3

18... CLlge5!? Game 31

Shtyrenkov, Veniamen (2460)
18... .!tJce5 and 18...d3!? are worth considering Chetverik,Maxim (2300)
I ,
as well. Karvina, 1998
,
, ,'
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3
19.b5? llJc6 5.a3 ig4?! 6.llJbd2 VNe7 7.h3
I :
ih5 8.VNa4! 0-0-0 9.b4 @b8
19J3d1, with an unclear position, was 10.ib2!? (0)
preferable.
I 'I'" ,j
, I,
,

19...llJa5 20.'lWd1 llJf3 21.if3 d3!?

o21 .. .'IWg5.

22J:!:c3?!

White could have limited the damages with

,
22.'it>f1+. J,
••' '0
i w,,'
" '

i
'! I ';
,
•
. •
'
"
•

""" ,x, , ,,~.,~. .:.' .,'

II
"I ,i
22...d2 23.@f1 VNg5 24.b6 ab6?!
,'I " ,
, "

I"
'II

'i'l 24...ic5 and 24... c6 were better. Another interesting approach. White avoids
II
,I, weakening his kingside with the move 10.g4
I'i' ;

i"
25.cb6 cb6 26.gd3?! ttJc4 27.ic3? and instead wants to castle queenside
ic5-+ 28.gd8? VNd8 29.ig7? quickly.
:i
I
'1 i
VNg5?! 10.g3?! poses absolutely no problem to Black:
' 'I I
I ,
.,, i '
I
10... ltJe5 (10 ...d3?!, as in Nupponen,T-
Somewhat better were 29...if2-+ and Makela, Ra, Helsinki, 1993, is weaker because
29... ie3-+ . of 11.ib2 de2 12.ie2 f6 13.0-0-00) 11.ltJe5
We5 (Ll... d3) 12.Wb5 f6!? 13.We5 fe5 14.ltJe4
30.VNa1 VNg7!? ig6 15.ig2 ie?= YZ-YZ Schiller,G-Erbe,H,
corr., 2003.
30... if2 was also winning for Black.
0-1 10...16!?
i,

86
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ct:Jf3 ct:Jc6 5.a3 .ig4

10...tt:\e5 does not seem to solve Black's 11...~g6

problems:
a) 11.tt:\e5 V!1e5 12.g4 (12.CLlb3!? Henris) 11...fe5? 12.b5 e4 13.be6 ef3 14.V!1b5
12... ~g6 13.~g2 transposes to the main b6 15.~a6+-.
variation starting with 10.g4. 11...tt:\e5 12.Ct'ld4±.
b) 11.0-0-0!?: 11...a6 12.e6! (12.b5 ab5 13.eb5 V!1e5
• 11 ... c5 12.e3 f6!? (12,..CLlf3 13.'iJf3 de3 14.V!1e4 Ct'le5 15.~e5 ~e5 16.'iJb3 ~b6 17.'iJfd4
14.Ei:d8 ~d8 15.~e5 \t>a8 16.~e2!C) 13.ed4 Ct'le7t) 12,..V!1e6 13.b5±.
'iJf3 14.'iJf3 eb4!? (Julia,E-Sagalchik,O,
Buenos Aires, 2003) 15.ab4 ~b4 (15... ~f3 12.e6!?
16.gf3 ~b4 17.~b4 ~b4 18.~d3;!;) 16.~b4 ~b4
17 .~d3;!;; 12.b5!? Ct'le5 13.Ct'ld4 'iJd7!?
• 11 ... ~f3 12.CLlf3 (12.ef3!? e5 13.'iJb3 eb4
14.ab4 V!1b4 15.~b4 ~b4 16.~d4± 12...a6?
NavarovszkY,L-OrendY,E, Budapest, 1961)
12,..e5 13.be5 'iJf3 14.gf3 ~g5 (14 ... ~e5 12 ...'%Ve6!? is better. But anyway, Black is still
15.e3±) 15.f4! V!1f4 16.e3 ~f3 (Baranov,J- struggling after 13.b5 'iJe5 14.Ct'ld4 ~b6
Krektun,D, Alushta, 2006) 17.~d4! V!1h1 18.~e5 (14,..V!1e8 15.g3±) 15.Ct'l2b3±.
\t>e8 19.~d3+- Henris.
13.b5 ab5 14.cb5 '%Yc5 15)tJc4+-
11.0-0-0I? ~e5 16.e3!? ~f3 17.gf3 d3
18.'%Yb3
11.ef6!? (Furman,Bo-Pokorna,Reg, Pardubice,
2005) 11...'iJf6 12.g4 ~g6. Now wrong would be o18.~d4! Ei:d4 19.ed4 ~d4 20.~b3 would have
13.b5?!: won on the spot.
a) 13...tt:\e5:
• 14.~d4?? Ei:d4!-+; 18... ttJe7?
• 14.0-0-0?! 'iJf3! (14 ...'iJe4 15.Ct'le4 ~e4
16.~g2 (16.~d4?! Ei:d4 17.Ei:d4 'iJf3 18.ef3 ~f3 o18...Wff5.
19.~g2! ~g2 20.Ei:hd186) 16,..g6! 17.~d4 V!1a3
18.~a3 ~a3 19.~b2 Ct'le4 20.~a3 CLla3+) 15.ef3 19.~d4 ~d4 20.ed4 '%Yd4 21.i.d3
(15.CLlf3 ~e4+) 15,..Ct'ld7 16.CLle4 ~f7+; '%Yf4 22.c;f{b2 '%Yd4 23.c;f{b1 '%Yf2
• 14.tt:\e5 V!1e5 15.CLlf3 ~f4CXl. 24.i.g6 hg6 25.~d8 ttJc8 26.'%Ya4
b) 13...tt:\d7! M4.be6? Ct'le5-+. 1-0

87
 Chapter 3

Game 32 Stockerau, 2006) 15...\Wb6 16.e3 (16 ..td5 e6)

"
Boecker,Hans Christian 16...e5 17..td5 ed4 18.Wd4"'.
Loeffler,Markus c) 10.95 0-0-0 (10 ... h4!?) 11.b4 (11.Wa4
Lauda, 1986 'it'b8 12.b4 - 8.Wa4) 11 ...liJe5 (11 ...d3? 12..tb2 de2
':
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.tLlf3 13.We2 id3 14.We3, and Black's king position is
tLlc6 5.a3 i94?! 6.tLlbd2 fJe7 7.h3 under pressure) 12.liJe5 We5 13.ib2 Wg5 14.liJf3!?
.1h5 8.94!? .196 9..192!? (D) (Eingorn,V-Vion,J, Metz, 2002) 14...We7!? 15.id4
I,
(15.liJd4 ie4~) 15... ie4~ Henris.

I 10.fJb3!?

10.b4!?:
!'
a) 10...h5!? 11.g5 (011.\Wa4!? - 8.Wa4)
,
I"
11...liJe5 12.liJe5 We5 13.liJf3 \We6 14.if4 id6
15.id6 Eld6 16.e5 Eld8 17.liJd4 We5 18.e3 ie4!iii

'I,,'
Kaminsky ,O-Mosionzhik, I, Leningrad, 1971
(18...\Wg5? 19.\Wf3 e6 20.liJe6!+- Suetin).
b) Black is OK after 10...tiJe5 11.liJe5 We512.ib2
(12.liJf3 We6f±) 12...e5!? 13.Wb3 We7 14.0-0-0
,

II
,
,
liJf6 (Amstadt,A-Farkas, Ric, Budapest, 2010).
Black had enough play after 9.liJb3!? 0-0-0 e) 10...f6!? is worth considering.
(9 ....te4!?) 10.ig5 f6 11.ef6 liJf6 in Megias 10.0-0!? h5 11.g5:
Chafer,A-Lopez Duran,J, Valencia, 1998. a) 11 ...h4?! 12.b4 f6!? (12 ... liJe5 13.liJe5
(13.Wa4~) 13 ...\We5 14.liJf3 \We6 15.liJd4 We4
9...0-0-0 16.ie3±) 13.ef6!? (13.\Wa4 'it'b8 14.ef6 gf6
15.ib2± Henris) 13...gf6 14.liJb3 liJe5 15.liJe5
I 9...h5!? is also quite interesting: \We5 16.f4± Mikenas,V-Mosionzhik,l, Riga, 1968.
'I

a) 10.Wla4!? 0-0-0 11.g5 a6!? 12.b4 liJe5 b) 11...liJe5 12.liJe5 \We5 13.liJf3 \Wd6?
13.b5 liJd3 14.'it'f1 liJe5 15.Wb4 We6 16.ba6 Wa6 (13...We8 14.if4 ie4 (14,..f6 15.Wd2) 15.\Wd2
17.ib2!? liJe6!? 18.Wb5 f6 19.Wa6 ba6 20.gf6 id6 16.id6 Eld6 17.\Wf4 f6 18.h4 f5 19.1iJd4!?
gf6 12-12 Vesely,Mi-Pospisil,VI, Brno, 2003. (19.Elad1 liJe7 20.Eld4 Eld4 21.liJd4 liJg6 22.\We3
b) 10.tiJb3!? 0-0-0 11.if4 hg4 12.hg4 .tg2 23. \WeB EleB 24. Wg2 liJh4 25. Wh3 liJg6
Elh1 13.ih1 We6 14.liJbd4 liJd4!? (14 ...\Wg4!? 26.b3 liJf4 27.Wh2 g6=) 19,..Eld4 20.f3 liJe7
, 15.e3 ie4) 15.liJd4 (Zetthofer,G-Sadilek,M, 21.fe4 fe4 22.Elad1± Henris) 14.Wa4 Wb8
I,
,I

BB
 1
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ct::lf3 ct::lc6 5.a3 .ig4

15.ct:ld4!+ 5zwier,E-Zimolzak,P, Warsaw, 2000. 18...i.h3? 19.ct:le5! (19.ct:lc6? iWg4 20.ct:le1 ~g2
10.1oWa4 - 8.iWa4. 21.ct:la7 mb8 22.ct:lg2 h3! 23.iWg3 iWc4!i=)
19...ttJe5 20.~h3 f5 21.iWb3 b6 22.Ei:d1 +-
10...h5 Henris.

10...f6!? deserves attention. 19.Y;Va5 ,ih3 20.Y;Va7 Y;Vg4 21.ltJh4??

11.g5 21.iWa8 md7 22.Ei:d1 id6 23.Ei:d6! cd6 24.iWb7

md8D 25.iWb8 md7 26.iWb7= Henris.
1UlJf1!? hg4 12.hg4 Ei:h1 13.ih1 (Mohandesi,S-
Henris,L, Namur, 2006) 13 ...\We6! 14.g5 ic5 21 ..'!!h4??
(14 ... ct:lge7!?) 15.if4 ct:lge7f± Henris.
21...ig222.ttJg21d6-+.
11 ...h4 12.0-0
22.Y;Vb7 <i!?d8 23.Y;Va8 <i!?d7 24.Y;Vc6
12.e3!? de3 13.iWe3 \We6 14.b4 ct:lge7 <i!?d8 25.Y;Va8 Y;Vc8 26'!!d1!? ,id6
15.ib2 id3 16.ct:ld4!? (as in Arnaudov,P- 27.Y;Vc8 <i!?c8 28.gf6??
Kostopoulos,E, Athens, 2008) 16... ct:ld4!?
17.id4 ic4 (S17 ...ct:lf5 18.iWd3 Ei:d4 19.iWe2) 28.ih3 Ei:h3 29.b4+.
18.ct:lc4 iWc4 19.ia7 ct:ld5 20.id5 Ei:d5 21.Ei:c1
\Wb5 22.f4 ie7 23.mf2 Ei:hd8 24.Ei:c2 c6ex> Henris. 28..'!!g4-+ 29.f7 !!g2 30.<i!?h1 !!f8
12.ltJf1!1 (Nedela,V-Chetverik,M, Moravia, 31.fg8Y;V !!fg8?
1996) 12 ...\We6!? 13.1f4 (13.e3 de3 14.1e3 ct:lge7
15.ct:l1d2 (15.CiJd4 \We5ex» 15...CiJf5 16.1f4 1c5~) Certainly Black was in time trouble here. This
13...CiJge7 14.CiJ1d2 mb8 Ll...CiJc8-b6. is why he missed several times checkmate.
31...:Bh2 32.mg1 Ei:g8 33.ig5 Ei:g5#
12...f6! 13.ef6 gf6i 14.e3 de3
15.'~e3 Y;Vd7!? 32.,ie3? ,if5?

15...iWe3!? 16.fe3 1e7!? (16 ...ig7!?) 17.b4 32 ...:Bh2#.

(5uvrajit, 5-1 uldachev, S, Bhubaneswar, 2010)
17...fg5 18.1b21f6 19.if6 ttJf6ex> Henris. 33.,id4 !!2g4? 34.,if6 !!Sg6 35.f3
!!g3 36.,ih4 :Bh3#
16.ltJb3 ,if5 17.ltJa5 13eS 1S.VNc3 ltJa5 0-1

89
 Chapter 3

Game 33 9..tb2 tDeS!?

Graf,Alexander (2656)
Barua,Dibyendu (2539) 9...f6?! 10.ef6 CiJf6:
Tripoli, 2004 a) 11.bS CiJe5 12.CiJe5 \We5 13.g4 ~g6
1.d4 dS 2.c4 eS 3.deS d4 4.lLlf3 14.CiJf3 \Wf4 15.\Wd2 \We4 16.~g2 d3 17.:tk1 ~c5
lLlc6 5.a3 ig4?! 6.~bd2 Wfe7 7.h3! 18.e3 \We700 Lueckerath,K-Balduan,M, Germany,
ih5 (0) 1994.
b) 11.\&b3!t Dautov.

10.Wfb3! ig6

10...CiJf3 11.CiJf3 d3 12.0-0-0 de2 13.:rld8 IWd8

14.~e2± Dautov.

11.lLle5 Wfe512.g3!

t.~g2, IWf3.
12.0-0-0? IWf5--+.
12.CiJf3!? \We4 13.:rldH Dautov.

8.b4!? 12...Wfe6?!

I shall have a look here and at the next game 12 CiJf6 13.~g2;1;.
at two interesting alternatives to the two main 12 CiJe7 13.~g2 CiJf5 14.\Wf3 c6
moves 8.\Wa4 and 8.g4 already examined: 15.b5±.
8.b4!? and 8.g3!? Black should have reduced the pressure
With 8.b4!? White wants to shake up Black's on d4 with the manreuvre 12 ~e4!? 13.CiJe4
queenside with the siege of the d4-pawn. lWe4 14.:rlg1!? (14.\Wf3 IWf3 (14 \Wc2 15.~g2 c6
16.~c1 \Wc4 17.0-000) 15.ef3 c5 16.b5=) 14... CiJf6
8 ...0-0-0 15.~g2 \We6 16.0-0-0;1; Dautov.

8...CiJe5?! 9.CiJe5 \We5 10.lWa4 c6 11.~b2 is 13.Wff3!

better for White, Wegner,Ha-Pflantz,M,
Hamburg, 1992. t.~g2.

90
-----------------------------------,
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.4:Jf3 4:Jc6 5.a3 .ig4

13...d3!? Game 34
Papin, Vasily (2462)
13 .!fJf6 14.~g2 c6 15.b5± Dautov. Popov,lvan (2568)
13 h5 14.~g2 c6 15.b5 CiJe7 16.a4 h4 Voronezh, 2009
17.g4 f5 18.a5 ~e8 19.a6;t Henris. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.~f3
'Llc6 5.a3 ig4?! 6.~bd2 '?;Ve7 7.h3!
14.e3 '?;Vf5 15.ig2 '?;Vf3 16.~f3± ih5 8.g3!? (D)

White is much better: he has the bishop

pair while Black's d3-pawn is weak and will
be lost soon.

16.. .f6 17.0-0 ~e7 18J!fd1 ~c6

19.~ac1 ie7

19...~e4 20.CiJd4±.

20.'Llh4 d2

20...~f7 21.~e4±.
A restrained method of development. But this
21.~c3 ib1 22.id51 ~b4? normal-looking move actually involves a
23.~b1 I? devilish trap, and into which Black soon falls!

23.ab4!. 8...0-0-0

23...'Lld5 24.cd5 ~d5 25.~d1 +- 8.. .16!? 9.ef6 CiJf6 10.~g2 d3 11.e3 0-0-0
~hd8 26.~f3 ~b5 27 .~c2 ~a5 12.0-0;t Taras,lu-Ardelean,G, Eforie Nord, 2009.
28.~d4 ~d7 29.~b3 ~b5 30.~d2
a5 31.~f1 ~bd5 32.~e2 ~d3 9.ig2 ~e5?
33.~dc1 ia3 34.~c4 ib2 35.~b2
~b8 36.'Lla5 b6 37.~c6 ~b7 The inclusion of the moves h2-h3 and ... ~g4-h5
38.~a2 ~3d6 39.~a7 ~c8 40.~c2 allows White a cheeky tactical point.
1-0 Black should have played the thematic Albin

91
 Chapter 3

thrust 9...d3!? Now: 10.0-0!7 ttJe5: 10...\We511.f4IN

a) After 11.g4 Black has several good
moves, including 11 ... ttJg4 (or 11 ... ttJf3!7=; A very strong novelty in this well known
11 ...ig6=) 12.ed3 ttJe5, with decent practical position! Black's bishop on h5 is amazingly lost.
chances - Flear, G. So far White had only played the obvious move
b) 11J~e11? de2 12.iWa4 (Heinrich- 11.liJf3 in this position. See next game.
Eisinger,M, Villingen, 1937) 12 ...ttJd3!? 13.iWa7
Wic5 14.Wic5 ic5 15.Ele2 ttJf6 16.if1 (:516.b4? 11 ... ~d6
Elhe8 17.Ele8 if2:t) 16...ttJf2!? 17.b4 (:517.Elf2?
if3 18.ttJf3 l2le4:t) 17... l2lh3 18.~g2 l2lg1 After 11 ... ~e7 12.g4 l2lh6 13.gh5 (13.0-0 ig4
19.ttJg1 (19.bc5 ttJe2 20.ie2 Elhe8t) 19...ie2!? 14.hg4 l2lg4 15.l2lf3 l2le3) 13...iWh4 14.~f1 l2lf5
20.ttJe2 ie3 21.ttJf3 ic1 22.Elc1 Elhe8~ Henris. 15.l2lf3 iWh5 Black has some play, but it does not
c) 11.ttJe5!?N de2 (11 ...Wie5? 12.Wib3 really compensate for a whole piece - Flear,G.
c6 13.ed3± Mirzoev,A-Bentivegna,F, Milan,
2012) 12.Wib3 c6 (:512 ...ef1Wi? 13.l2lf1 c6 (13... c5 12.g4
14.if4!+- I1ttJc6) 14.if4!+- I1ttJc6) 13.Ele1 Wie5
14.ttJf3 Wie4 15.l2lh4!? Wid 3 (15 ...Wie6!? Winning a piece!
16.ie3;!;) 16.Wid3 Eld3 17.ie3 ie7 18.if3 if3
19.ttJf3 if6 20.Ele2 ttJe7 21.~g2 a5, and White's
advantage is almost insignificant - Henris.
A useful intermediate move.

13... ~e5 14.gh5 f5 15.~f2 ~f616.~d3

10.0-0? ttJf6 11.ttJe5 Wie5 12.l2lf3 (12.Wib3!? c6):
a) 12 Wia5?! 13.if4 Wia6 14.b4±. The rest of the game is simple, White avoiding
b) 12 ~e6?! 13.if4 ttJe4 14.l2ld4 iWb6 any tricks, Black has very little for his bishop.
15.ie4±.
c) 12..if3 13.ef3! M4.f4;!;. 16....id6 17.~f3
d) 12... ~e8 13.ig5 (13.l2ld4 l2le4!
(13...ic5?! 14.iWb3 l2le4 15.e3 id4 16.ed4 Eld4 Or 17.b4I1ib2, 0-0-0 - Flear,G.
17.ie3±) 14.b4 (14.Wic2 ig6a» 14...c5
(14... l2lc3?! 15.Wic2 l2le2 16.l2le2 Wie2 17.Wif5 17... ~e4 18.~e4 fe4 19.~e4+· ~g3
~b8 18.if4+-) 15.bc5 ic5 16.ib2 l2lg3!?a» 20.c;t>d1 \Wb3 21.~c2 \Wg3 22.\Wf5
13...ig6 14.b4 d3a> Raetsky Ii Chetverik. 1-0

92
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.tDf3 tDc6 5.a3 i.g4

Game 35 14.~b3! d2 15.Wd1 - Rybka.

Ding Liren (2660)
Lin Chen (2446) 14...lLJf6 15.e3 ~d7 16.~b3 c6
Beijing, 2012 17.~a4 id6!
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.lLJf3
lLJc6 5.a3 ig4 6.lLJbd2 ~e7!? 7.h3 A practical choice, sacrificing a pawn to catch
ih5 8.g3 0-0-0 9.ig2 lLJe5 10.ltJe5 up in development. The influence of the
~e5 11.lLJf3!? (0) passed d-pawn now becomes more of a factor.
If 17...a6 18.b4!? is the way forward - Flear,G.

18.id6 ~d6 19.~a7 ~he8 20.b4!

ltJe4 21.b5 f5 22.bc6 ~c6 23.~a8
@d7 24.~a5 g6 25.~fd1 @c8
26.~ab1 ~a6! 27 .~b4 ~d7 28.c5
@b8 29.ie4!?

29J'~b3!?;t, with the idea of trading off the d-

pawn, when White's pieces would then be able
to concentrate 'all-out' on an attack - Flear,G.

29... ~e4 30.~c3 ~c4 31.~e5 @a7

Continuing prudently instead of trapping the
bishop with 11.f4!? as in the previous game.
11...if3?!
Giving up the bishop pair is surely unwise here.
Black is fine after 11 ...iWa5 12.~d2 iWa6 13.0-0
ctJf6 14.b4 ctJe4 15.~e1 (15.c5 d3 16.e3 f5 17.a4
iWh6= Niemela,I-SpasskY,B, Riga, 1959) 15.. .f5
16.iWd3 iWf6 17.c5 ~e7= Portisch,L-Forintos,G,
Budapest, 1964.
12.if3 d3!? 13.if4! ~d4 14.0-0
32.~e8?
o32J'~b4 d2 33.iWb2 Ei:b4 34.ab4 iWe2 35.iWb3 is
quite promising for White, as he can use his
queenside majority to create opportunities
against the black king. The d-pawn is a
nuisance, but White can live with it - Flear, G.
32... ~c6! 33.~b6 ~a4 34.~d2 ~c1
35.@g2 ~e4 36.~e4 fe4 37.~b4
~c2 38.~d1 ~f7! 39.~f1 ~d7 40.~d1
~f7 41.~f1 ~d7 42.~d1

93
•

Chapter 3

Game 36 the better chances: 9... ~b8 (9 ... h6?! 10.b4

Lasker, Emanuel (10.1lf4 g5 11.fih2 fig? 12.0-0-0) 10... iob8
Alekhine,Alexander 11.fif4 g5 12.b5!+) 10.fig5 f6 11.ef6:
St Petersburg, 1914 a) 11 ... ct:lf6!? 12.0-0-0 h6 13.fif6 (13.fih4? g5
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.lLlf3 14.fig3 ct:le4; 13.fid2!? ct:le4 14.fie1) 13 ...\Wf6
lLlc6 5.a3 ig4?! 6.lLlbd2 VIie7 7.h3! (14.2:d3!?;!; Suchin,D-Ernst,Math, Berlin, 2003)
if3?! 14.g3 fic5 (14 ...g5!? 15.fig2 fig7) 15.fig2 2:he8
16.2:d2 ct:le5 17.2:hdH.
Exchanging the bishop on f3 means agreeing to b) After 11 ...9f6!? 12.fid2 fih6 (Marshall,F-
a permanently worse position. Janowski, D, Biarritz, 1912) 13. O-O-O;!;, Black
does not have enough compensation for the
8.lLlf3 0-0-0 (0) pawn.
9.93!? ct:le5 10.ct:le5 \We5 11.\Wd3
(11.fig2 d3) 11 ...f5! (11...ct:lf6!?) 12.fig2 ct:lf6
13.0-0:
a) 13...96?! 14.b4± fig7 15.c5! 2:he8 16.2:e1
(16.fib7? iob7 17.\Wb5 ioc8 18.\Wa6 iod7-+)
16... ct:le4 (16 ...c6? 17.b5!+- (17.fic6!? bc6
18.\Wa6 iod7 19.fif4 \We7 20.fid6! \Wfl 21.b5
ioe6 (21...cb5?! 22.\Wb5 ioe6 23.\Wc4 ct:ld5
24.e4+- de3 25.2:e3 iof6 26.\Wd4 iog5 27.\Wh4#
Lilienthal) 22.bc6 \Wg8 23.\Wc4 ct:ld5 24.e4+-);
16 ... ct:ld5?! (t:. f4 Harding) 17.c6+ (17.fig5 fif6
18.fif6 \Wf6 19.2:acH)) 17.fif4 \We6 18.c6! bc6
19.2:ac1 iob7 (19 ... iob8 20.\Wa6±; 19 ct:lc3
20.\Wa6!+- (20.fif3 iob8 21.\Wa6+-); 19 iod7
20.\Wa6!) 20.b5! c5 21.2:c5 2:d7 22.\Wc2 2:ee7
23.2:c1 Wf7 24.\Wa4 iob8 25.b6! (t:.25 ... ab6
Lasker's move which guarantees White an 26.2:a5! ba5 27.Wb5+-) 1-0 Malich,B-Mueller,Kl,
advantage. White defends indirectly the e- DDR, 1972.
pawn as 9... ct:le5 allows 10.\Wf5 ct:ld7 11.ct:ld4. b) o13... ct:le4 14.b4 fie7 (14 ...g5 15.fib2;!;)
The following alternatives are also interesting: 15.fib2 fif6°o.
9.'?Na4, the best move according to 9.fif4!? is less chalenging and gives
Avrukh and Bronznik, also offers White clearly Black more play.

94
 ,
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.'tJf3 'tJc6 5.a3 i.g4

9... h61? b3) 12....!l:\c5 13.~e3 ~g7 14.0-0-0+.

The following recent try fails to give
Black stops ~g5 and ensures that he can regain Black equality: 9...Wb8!? 10.~f4!? (10.~g5!?)
the pawn with ... g6 and ... ~g7. 10... h6 11.g4!? (11.b4 g5 12.~h2 (12.b5 gf4
Black also has played 9....!l:\e5!? 10.Wf5 13.bc6 b6 m) 12... ~g7 13.e5 ~e6 (13,..lUe5?
(10.lUe5?! ~e5 11.g3 f5!? lL.lUf6-e4 - Henris) 14.~e5 ~e5 15.c6!±) 14.b5 lUe5 15.~e5 ~e5
11...lUd7 11.lUd4 g6: 16.e6 b6 Henris) 11...g5 12.~g3 ~g7 13.~g2
a) 12.Wa5?! (Lilienthal,A-Hildebrand, Uppsala, ~e6 14.b4 lUge7 15.b5 lUa5 (15,..lUe5??
1964) 12 ... lUe5! 13.e3 (13.Wa7? lUd3 14.Wd2 16.lUe5 ~e5 17.~e4+-) 16.Ei:e1 e5!? 17.h4 gh4
lUf2 15.~a8 Wd7 16.Wa4 e6 17.Ei:g1 ~h6 18.Ei:h4 Was 19.~h3 lUg6 20.Ei:h5 Ei:de8
18.We3 (1B.We1 ~c1 19.1Ub3 lUd3-+) 18... ~e1 (Mohota,N-Tania,S, New Delhi, 2009) 21.Wf1+
19.Ei:e1 We3 20. We2 Wd4-+; 13.~e3 lUe4 Henris.
14.Wa7 lUe3 15.Wa8 Wd7 16.Wb7! We8 m)
13... Ei:d4 14.Wa7 lUd3 15.~d3 Ei:d3 16.Wa8 Wd7 10.9 3 9 6
17.Wb7 ~g7m Henris.
b) 12.Wc2 (Euwe): After 10...g5!? 11.~g2 ~g7 12.0-0 lUe5
b1) 12....ig7!?: 13.lUe5 ~e5 14.b4 lUf6 15.a4+, White's attack is
• 13..!l:\f3 lUe5 14.e3 f5 15.~e2 lUf6 16.0-0 lUfe4 developing swiftly while Black has no
(as in the game Goransson,B-Jonasson,S, counterattack: 15,..e6 16.a5 ~e6 17.a6 b6
Uppsala, 1964) 17.Ei:bH; 18.b5 e5 19.f4 gf4 20.Wf3 We7 21.~a8 ~b8
• 13.lUb5!? lUe5 14.lUa7? (14.e3 e6 15.lUe3 22.~f4 Ei:d6 23.~b7 1-0 Nikitin,A-Kupreichik,V,
f5~; o14.~e3 e6 15.lUe3 lUf6;!; Henris) 14 Wb8 USSR, 1968.
15.lUb5?? (15.~e3 Wa7 16.b4 b6+) 15 lUd3 10....!l:\e5 is also insufficient: 11.lUe5!?
0-1 Wallinger,M-Jaschke, corr, 1975. (11.~f5!? lUd7 12.~g2 g6 13.~a5 is also good
b2) 12....!l:\e5!? 13.~e3 (13.e3? Ei:d4!-+) 13... ~h6 for White - Henris) 11 We5 12.~g2 lUe7 13.0-0
14.~h6 Ei:d4 (14 ... lUh6 15.0-0-0±) 15.~e3 Ei:e4 g5 14.f4!? (14.b4) 14 gf4 15.~f4;!; Verlinden,M-
16.Wb3± ~e6 (16 ...a6 17.Ei:d1± (17.f4? Wh4 Beutel, H, corr., 1998.
1B.~f2 (1B. Wd1?? lUf6! 19.fe5 (19.~d2 lUe4-+)
19... Ei:dB 20.~d2 lUe4-+) 1B... ~f4 19.e3 Ei:e4:i-) 11.i9 2 i9 7
Henris) 17.Ei:d1 lUe6 18.g3 lUf6 19.~g2 lUe4
20.0-0 h5 21.Ei:e1 lUa5 22.~b5 b6 23.b4 Ei:e1 11 ....!l:\e5 12.lUe5 ~e5 13.0-0 is similar to the
24.Ei:e1 lUb7 25.~f4 e5 26.Wa6 f5 27.~e4 ~e4 game.
28.be5 It>d7 29.e6 1-0 Klemm,H-Brauchart, E,
corr, 1996. 12.0-0 tlJe5 13.llJe5 ie5

95
 ---------------------------:.--az-----~
III!
Chapter 3

Black would be happy if he could play .. .f5 and 19.a4 ttJc3 20.a5 i.g7 21.b6 'Mfe2 22.i.f4! l"1d7
... ttJf6-e4, closing the long diagonal h1-a8. But (22 ...i.e5 23.i.e5 iWe5 24.'Mfa6) 23.l"1fd 1 iMfd3
this is too slow; White attack is qUicker. 24.i.c7+-.

14.b4 f5 18.. J~d6

14 ttJf6? 15.f4 Jid6 16.c5+-. 18...f4 19.9f4 Jif4 20.iWe4 iWe4 (20 ...iWd6?
14 Jig7?! 15.c5 c6 16J::1b1!± tDf6 17.b5 21.E!fd1 ±) 21.Jie4.
cb5 18.iMfb5 ttJd5 19.c6 tDb6 20.cb7 1-0
!I
, Klochan-Costain, corr., 1960.
I,
"I
"
" :I
"
I
!
15.c5 White prepares to target the c7-pawn and defers
making a choice between pushing the queenside
15.Jib2!? (Lemonier) is also good for White. pawns and trying to win the d-pawn. In his
I

I otherwise excellent annotations to the game

15...We6 Soltis is under the impression that the exchange
of queens leads to a favourable ending for
15...c616.b5!. White. So he prefers 20.Y;Yc4 iMfc4 (20...tDd5?
I

21.Jid4) 21.l"1c4 ttJd5 22.l"1fc1 ttJc3 23.<j;Jf1. But

16.c6!± CfJe7 this fails to 23... ttJe2! 24.<j;Je2 d3 25.<j;Jd2 Jib2.

Black's intent is to allow cb7 with the hope 20...f4!

that the pawn will get in the way of White's
attack. 20...tlJd5? 21.Jid4! tDb4 22.Jia7 <j;Ja7 23.iWe3
16...bc6 17.Jib2 ttJe7 18.Ei:ac1 Ei:d6 (18 ... ttJd5 Jid4 24.iWe6 Ei:e6 25.ab4+-.
I, 19.iWa6 <j;Jd7 20.b5!? cb5 21.iWb5 <j;Je7
22.Ei:c6+-) 19.iWa6 <j;Jd8 20.iWa7 g5 21.b5+- 21.gf4 if4 22J~d1!?
Reinfeld & Fine.
22..ic1!? Jie5 23.Jih6 ttJd5 24.Jid2 ttJc3.
17.cb7 @b8 18.ib2?! 22.Y;Ye4 Jie5 23.f4 Jif6 24.iMfe6 Ei:e6.

o18.b5 (~a4-a5 - Fine) 18... ttJd5 (18 ...Ei:d6 22... CfJf5

19.a4 l"1hd8 20.a5 ttJd5 21.Jia3 Ei:6d7 22.i.c5 g5
23.b6 cb6 24.ab6 ttJb6 25.iWa6 <j;Jc7 26.iWa7) 22...tlJd523.Jid4!.

96
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6 5.a3 .tg4
23.J.c1 ?I
23.'~e4 ~b3 (23 ...ie5 24.l"Ic5) 24.ic1 d3!?
(24 l"Ie6? 25.if4! l"Ie4 26.ic7 ~b7 27.ie4+-;
24 ic1? 25.l"Idc1 l"I6d7 26.~f4 ~f7 27.b5±)
25.l"Id3 ~c2 26.if4 l"Id3 27.ed3± ~d3??
28.ic7! ~c7 29.b8~+-.
23...tlJe3! 24J;~c5!
24.fe3? de3 25.Elc6 Eld3 26.Eld3 ~e7 27.Ele6
Eld3 28.Ele7 Eld1 29.if1 Elc1+.
24...VNf6!?
24.. )iJd1? 25.if4 tDc3 (25 ...tDb2
26.id6!) 26.id6 Eld6 27.e3.
o24...c!Llg2!? 25.~g2 g5 (25...ic1 26.Eldc1
El6d7 27.~f3 Elf?; 25...Elf8!?) 26.if4 gf4 27.EldcH.
25.VNe4!
25.fe3?? de3 26.Eld5 Eld5 27.id5 ~h4-+.
25J~e1? tDg2 26.~g2 Elf8+!.
25...tlJd1
25.. J~e6?1 26.~f3 ih2 27.~h2 ~f3
28.if3 tDd 1 29.if4±.
25 lLlg21? 26.~g2 g5 27.if4 ~f4.
25 .ih2!? 26. ~h2 tDd 1 27.if4 tDf2
28.id6! ~d6 (28 ...tDe4?? 29.ic7 ~b7
30.ie4+-) 29.~e5 d3 30.ed3 tDd3 31.~d6 Eld6
(31 ...cd6!?) 32.Elc4 g5=.
26..if4 lLlc3?
Losing. Black had two good alternatives at his
disposal which would have enable him to reach
a level position:
26...c!Llf2! :
a) 27.@f2? d3!! (27...g5? 28.Elf5) 28.mg1 ~f4!
29.~f4 d2 30J':'lc1 (30.~d2) 30...dc1 ~ 31.~c1 Eld 1.
b) 27 .~f3 d3! 28.id6 Eld6 29.ed3 tDd3.
c) 27.id6 Eld6! 28.~e8 (28.~e5 d3! 29.~f6 Elf6
30.ed3 (30.Eld5 Eld6! ll31.Eld6? cd6 32.~f2 d2)
30... tDd3 31.Eld5 Eld6 32.Eld6 cd6 ) 28 ... Eld8
29.~e5 ~e5 30.Ele5 d3 31.ed3 tDd3=.
26.. J:!6d7! 27.~f3!? ~f8=.
27.i.d6! VNd6
27 cd6 28.~c6!+-.
27 lLle4 28.ic7 ~b7 29.ie4 ~c8
(29 ... ~a6 30.Ela5#) 30.ie5+-.
28.VNe5 VNb6 29.VNe7
29J:!c6 ~b7 30.~f6+- (30.Elc3?? dc3 31.ib7 c2
32.~b5! c1~ 33.~h20)).
29...VNd6 30J~e5 d3 31.ed3 VNd3
32J~e3 VNd1 33.@h2 ctJb5 34.ge6
tlJa3 35.gf6
~gf8
1-0
A great game between the World Champion
and the World Champion-to-be.
97
 1
Chapter 3

Game 37 10.ct:Je5 Wfe5 11.h3 Wfh5! (not 11...th5?! 12.g4

Iskusnyh,Sergei (2471) tg6 13..ig2, and White would have transposed
Shukan,Alexander (2187) favourably to the game 27).
Novokuznetsk, 2009
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.llJf3 7...0-0-0
tLJc6 5.a3 ig4?! 6.llJbd2 Vf!e7
7.b4!? (D) 7... ~e5 8.ttJe5 We5 9.tb2 (9.Vfia4 td7) 0-0-0
transposes to the game continuation.

8.i.b2 tLJe5

In this position Black also has the interesting

, idea 8...f6!?, trying to open lines and speed up
his development:
9.h3!? tf3 10.gf3!? (10.ef6 ttJf6 11.ttJf3
,
,,
1"1
ttJe4ii5 Henris) 10...ttJe5 co Farago,I-Prohaszka,P,
,
Balaton, 2007.
,

I" i
The following two alternatives are also worth
mentioning:
I 7.93 O-O-O!? 8.tg2 ttJe5 (8 ... g5!? 9.0-0
tg7 10.Wb3 h6 11.e3 de3 12.fe3!? (12. We3 Vfie6
'I
13.b4 ttJge7 co) 12...te5 13.ttJe5 Vfie5 co Yakhijev,
T-Reprintsev,A, Belgorod, 1989) 9.ttJe5 Vfie5
10.ttJf3 Vfie8!? 11.0-0 (Ramlow,M-Chetverik,M,
Gyongyos, 1996) 11 ...ttJe 7 co.
After 7.Vfia4!? 0-0-0 8.b4, 8... ttJe5?! is
bad because of 9.ttJe5 We5 (Allies-Lasker,Em,
Manchester (simul.), 1908) 10.f3!± (10.Wa7
d3+) Henris. Black should go for 8... ~b8. Play
would then come back to the main game (note
of Black's eleventh move) after 9.tb2 ttJe5
9.Vfia4 ~b8 10.ef6 (10.0-0-0!?, as in the
game Kropff,R-Delgado Ramirez,N, La Pergola,
2011, is also interesting) 10... ttJf6 11.0-0-0 ttJe4
12.ttJe4 Vfie4 13.Vfic2 (13.b5 Vfif4 14.~b1 tf3
15.ef3 ttJe5) 13 ...Vfif4 14.Vfid2 (14.e3 de3 15J''ld8
ttJd8 16.fe3 We3 17.Vfid2 Vfie8) 14 ...Vfif7 15.ttJd4
(15.Vfic2 Vfif4 16.Vfid2 Wf7 17.Wc2 Wf4 18.Vfid2
Y2-Y2 Cori Tello,D-Calle Soto,M, Lima 2004)
15...te7!. With the following possibilities for
White:
a) 16.~c6? bc6 17.Wc2 (17.Wc3? tg5 18.~c2
Eld1 19.~d1 Eld8 20.~c2 (20.~e1 Wd7-+)
20 ...tf6 21.Wb3 tf5 22.~c1 Wd7-+) 17...Eld1
18.Wd1 (18.~d1? Wf2-+) 18 ...Eld8 19.Wc2 tg5!
20.e3 (20.~b1 Eld2 21.Wc3 (21.Wc1 tf5 22.~a1
Elb2-+) 21 tf5 22.~a2 Elb2 23.Wb2 Wc4 24.Wb3
tb1-+) 20 Eld1 21.Wd1 td1 22.~d1 Wf2-+.

98
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.tLJf3 tLJc6 5.a3 ~g4
b) 16.~e1 iWc4 (16 ... CiJd4 17.gd4 gd4 18.i.d4
iWc4 19.iWc3 iWa2 20.f3 (20.i.g7? i.g5 21.e3 gdB
22.i.d3 iWf2+) 20...i.g5 21.e3 i.f5 22.iWb2 iWe6
23.iWc3 iWa2=) 17.iWc3 i.g5 18.Wb1 (18.Wc2??
ttJd4-+) 18...i.f5 19.Wa1 iWf7 20.e3 (20.ttJc6?
bc6:;:) 20 ... ttJd4 21.ed4 (:S;21.gd4 if6) 21 ...ie6
22.f3 i.f6t.
9.'~je5 ~e5 10.h3 ~h5!N
The other continuations are certainly not
sufficient:
1o...ih5?! 11.g4 (11.1&a4!) 11...ig6
12.ig2 ttJf6 13.ttJf3 1&e8!? (13 ...iWf4 14.iWa4!
(14.id4 c5 15.bc5 ic5 16.e3 iWc7 17.1&84 Wb8
18.0-0 h5 19.95 ttJd7 20.gad1 f6 21.gd2 ie4
22.gfdH) 14... Wb8 (14 ... h5 15.g5 CLJe4 16.1&a7
c5 17.gd1±) 15.0-0±) 14.CLJd4!? h5 (14 ...c5!
15.bc5 ic5t, with excellent compensation for
the pawn) 15.1&b3 hg4 16.hg4 gh1 17.ih1 ttJe4
18.iWe3 1&e5 19.f4 1&e7 20.0-0-0± Gelfand,B-
Radjabov,T, Almaty (blitz), 2008.
1o...if5!? 11.CLJb3 CLJf6 (11...ie4 12.id4
iWf5 13.ga2! CLJf6 14.e3 id6 15.f3! ig3 16.Wd2
iWh5 17.Wc1+) 12.id4 iWe4 (12 ...iWf4 13.e3 iWg5
14.1&f3 ie7 15.ie2±) 13.e3 ie7 14.iWf3 iWc2
(14 ...1&e6 15.ie2 ie4 16.iWg3±) 15.gc1 iWb3
16.iWf5 Wb8 17.gc31&b2 18.iWc2± Avrukh.
11.~a4 d3?!
11 ...a612.b5!.
Black should have continued with
11...Wb8! 12.i.d4 (!+ Avrukh) 12... gd4 13.iWe8
I
(13.hg4 iWg4 14.iWe8 We8 15.Wf7 co ) 13...i.e8
14.iWf8 iWe5! 15.CiJf3 (15.gb1 gd2 16.Wd2 Wd4=;
15.gd1 gd2 16.gd2 Wa1=) 15...1&f6 with the
following continuations for White:
a) 16J'~c1 gd6 17.iWe8 ttJe7! (17 ... ge6?! 18.iWa4
(18.1&f8?! gd6 19.iWe8 Bronznik) 18...iWb2
19.iWc2 iWa3 20.1&c3;!;) 18.iWh8 1&b2 19.9d1 1&c3
20.CLJd2 :8d2 21.gd2 iWc1 22.gd1 iWc3= Henris.
b) 16.ttJd4 iWd4 17.gc1 (17.ga2 iWc4 18.gd2
1&c1=) 17...iWb2 18.Wd1 (18.:8d1 iWc3) 18... ttJf6!
19.1&h8 ttJe4 20.iWd8 iWb3 (20 ... CLJf2!? 21.We1
ttJe4!? (21 ... CLJh1 22.1&d2 Wf6 23.e3 Wh4
24.Wd1 if5 co ) 22.Wd1 (22.gd1 iWc3 23.gd2
iWc1 =) 22 ... ttJf2= Henris) 21.We1 iWa3 22.gd1
iWb4 23.gd2 iWb1 24.gd1 iWb4= Bronznik.
12.e3 .1e2?! 13.~a7!?
13.94 ig4 14.iWa7 deserves attention.
13....1f1 14.g4! ~h6 15J~f1+- ~h3
16.0-0-0!?
16·g9 1+-.
16... ~g2 17.f3 h5 18.~a8 <i!?d7
19.~b7 ~h6 20.c5 h4 21 ..1e5 ~c6
22.~h1 .1c5 23.~h2 ~h2 24..1h2
.ib4 25.~c6 <i!?c6 26.ab4 <i!?b5
27.~e4 <i!?b4 28.<i!?d2 f5 29.gf5 ~h6
30..1c7 ~d7 31.~b1 <i!?c4 32..1a5 h3
33.~b4 <i!?d5 34.~d4 <i!?c6 35.~d7
<i!?d7 36.~f2 h2 37.e4 ~g8 38..1c3
1-0
99
 Chapter 3

Game 38 • 8... ~e7 9.tt:ld4 tt:ld4 10.~d4 0-0-0 11.lLlb3

Burkov,Dmitry (2170) tt:le5 12.~c2+ Henris;
Adamson,Garry (2097) • 8... tt:lge5 9.b5 ~e7!? 10.~c2 fld3?! 11.~c3±
Odintsovo, 2008 Henris.
1.d4 dS 2.c4 eS 3.deS d4 4.lLlf3 b) 8.h3 ~f3 9.tt:lf3 lLlge5 10."Lle5 "Lle5 11.~b2?!
lLlc6 S.a3 ig4?! 6.lLlbd2lLlge7?! (0) (11.c5 ~d5?! (11... ~h4!? - Henris) 12.e3! 0-0-0
13.~d4?? lWb3!-+ Siomos,N-Katsouris,G,
Athens, 2006; 011.e3 de3 12.~e3 ~f6!?
(12... lWd1 13.EldH) 13.~e2 "Llc4!? 14.~d4 "Lle5
15.~d2 0-0-0 16.Eld1~ Henris) 11..."Llc4!
(11...c5!? 12.e3! (12.~a4 "Llc6 13.Eld1 ~d6=)
Henris) 12.~d4 (:512.~d4?! ~d4 13.~d4 "Lla3+)
12 ... c5? (012 .. ,c2Ja3!:j:) 13.e3 cd4 14.~c4± ~e7
15.~a4 r;t>f8 16.0-0 g6 17.Elad1 r;t>g7 18.Eld4
~e8 19.Eld7 Elf8 20.Elfd1 ~f6 21.~b3 b5 22.~b5
lWe5 23.~c4 Elac8 24.~f7 Elc3 25.~e6 lWg5
26.~g8 1-0 Nyback, T-Vihmand,A, Puhajarve
(rapid), 2011.
c) 8.~a4!? a5 9.b5 "Llce5=.
The Morozevich manreuvre does not work with 7.g3 "Llg6:
the inclusion of 5... ~g4. a) 8.~g2 lWd7 9.b4 (9.h3!?) 9... ~h3!? 10.e6!
~e6 11.~a4 ~h3 (11 ...d3!?) 12.~h3! lWh3
7.h3 13."Lld4 lWg2 14.Elf1 ~e7 15."Llc6 bc6 16.~b2!?
(16."Llf3) 16 ... 0-0 17.h4 Elfe8 18.h5 "Llf8 19.h6!±
White also has the following interesting Spassov,L-Gaulin,B, Rohde, 2010.
continuations: b) 8.lWb3!? ~e7 (8 ..."Lla5 9.~a4 (9.lWb5!? c6
7.b4lLlg6: 10.lWa4!) 9... "Llc6 10.~g2!) 9.lWb7 ~d7 10.lWb3±
a) 8.~b2: Onat,I-Schwab,P, Haifa, 1989.
• 8... ~d7?! 9.h3!? (9.lWa4!? is also worth 7.~b3!? ~d7!? (7 ...Elb8 8.g3+) 8.~b7
considering) 9... ~f3 10.lLlf3 0-0-0 11.lWa4 r;t>b8 Elb8 9.~a6 "Llg6 10.g3! ~e7 (10 ...Elb6 11.lWa4
12.Eld1 lLlce5 (12 ... lLlb4? 13.Eld4!+- Henris) "Llge5 12.~g2 ~e7 13.0-00-0 14.b4± Fuderer,A-
13.lWd7 Eld7 14.lLle5 lLle5 15.e3± c5 16.ed4 cd4 Toth, Sarajevo, 1951) 11.~g2 0-0 12.lWa4
17.~d4+- Weinmann Musset,M-Lotzwick,H, (12.0-0 "Llge5 13.b4 d3 14."Lle5 (14.e3 ~f3
corr., 1973; 15."Llf3 "Llf3 16.~f3 "Lle5 oo) 14... "Lle5 15.e3 c5!+:!

tOO
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.4:Jf3 4:Jc6 5.a3 .ig4

Henris) 12... ctJge5 13.ctJe5 ctJe5 14.lWd7 ctJd7 15.~g2 (15.tLlf3 iWb5 16.~g2 ctJc6 17.0-0 iWe2
15.b4;1; KhamitskiY,S-Wodzynski,Mic, Gdansk, 1B.tLld2 lWd3) 15... tLld5 16.~d5 iWd5 17.0-0;1;)
2010. 14.~d2 'Wb6 (Burg, T-Pruijssers, R, Venlo, 2009)
7.lLlb3 ctJf5 (7... ~f3?! 8.ef3 tLlg6 9.f4±) 15.tLlb3±.
8.lWd3 (8.g3 ~f3 9.ef3 tLle5; 8.~f4 a5 9.'Wd3 a4 7 ih5? 8.b4±/+- Henris.
10.tLlbd2 ctJfe7 11.e3 tLlg6=) 8...'Wd7 9.~f4 7 if5? 8.tLlb3+-.
(9.'We4 ~f3 10.ef3 O-O-O+!) 9...0-0-0 10.tLlbd2
tLlfe7 11.h3 ~f5 12.e4 de3 13.'We3 (13.'Wd7 1'%d7 8.~f3 ~g6 9.~b3! (0)
14.~e3 tLlg655 Tisdall) 13... ~g6 14.~e2 tLlf5
15.'Wc3 tLlfd4 16.~d1 (16.tLld4 ~d4 17.'Wd4 tLld4
18.~d1°o Tisdall) as in Bilobrk,F-Levacic,P,
Bibinje, 2001. And now 16... ~c5!? 17.b4 tLlf3
18.tLlf3 ~d4 19.tLld4 'Wd4iiii Henris or 16...tLle6+!
Tisdall.

7...if3

Withdrawing the bishop is out of the question:

7... ~e6?! 8.tLlb3 ~c4 (8... tLlf5? 9.g4)
9.tLlbd4:
a) 9...tLld4 10.~d4 (10.tLld4!? 'Wd7 11.~c2 'Wd4
12.e3 ~e5 13.~c4 tLlc6 14.~d2 0-0-0 15.~c3± White also has other favourable options
Avrukh) 10...'Wd4 11.tLld4;1; tLlg6 12.f4 0-0-0 here:
13.e3 ~d5 14.~d2 f6 15.ef6 gf6 16.~c3 ~c5 9.e3 de3 10.~e3 (also better for White
(Alekseev, An -Korzubov, P, Belorussia, 1987) is 10.~d8 1'%d8 11.~e3 ctJge5 12.ctJe5 tLle5
17.1'%d1 tLlh4 (17 ...1'%d7 18.rj{f2 1'%e8 19.~d3 tLlh4 13.1'%dH Bertamini,A-Popovic,Draga, Ceriano
20.1'%hg1 1'%de7 21.1'%de1 rj{b8 22.1'%e2±) 18.rj{f2 Laghetto, 2003) 10...tLlge5 11.tLle5 tLle5 12.iWb3±
1'%hg819.1'%gH. Carneiro,Ca-Santos,Jose Al, Portugal, 2005.
b) 9...'Wd5 10.~e3 (o10.'Wc2! ctJd4 (10... 0-0-0 9.'Wa4!? iWd7 10.e3 0-0-0 11.ed4 ctJd4
11.e4 tLld4 12.tLld4 'Wd4 13.~c4 'We5 14.0-0;1;) 12.'Wd7 1'%d7 13.tLld4 1'%d4 14.~e3 1'%e4 15.0-0-0
11.tLld4 'Wd4 12.e3 'We5 13.~c4;1;) 10...0-0-0 1'%e5?! (15 ... tLle5 16.~d4±) 16.~d4 1'%e8!? 17.g3!?
(o10 ... ctJe5 11.tLle5 (11.'Wa4!?) 11 ...'We5 12.1'%c1 (17.~a7?! b6 18.c5 rj{b7D (1B ~c5 19.~a6#;
~d5 (12... ~d5 13.tLlb5 c6 14.~d4±)) 11.1'%c1 ~a6 1B...bc5 19.~a6#) 19.cb6 cb6 (19 1'%e7? 20.1'%dB
12.iWc2 1'%d7 13.g3 iWa5?! (13 ... tLle5 14.tLle5 'We5 cb6 21.~B±) 20.1'%d7 rj{c6 21.1'%d4 ~c5

101
 Chapter 3
(21 ... ibe7 22.g3) 22.l''1c4 ge7 23.b4 ga7 24.bc5
bc5 25.gc3 ct:lf4't Henris) 17...f6 18.h4!?
(18.iba7!? b6 19.ibg2 ibc5 20.ibc6 ge2 21.f4±;
18.f4±) 18... h6!? 19.ibh3+ Hartl,Al-Zauner,J,
Bayern, 1994.
9.g3 ct:lge5 10.ct:le5 ct:le5 11.ibg2 c6
12.0-0 ct:lc4 13.IWd3 CLlb6 14.IWe4 ~e7 15.gd1
0-0 16J=1d4± Freise,E-Visser,J, corr., 1977.
9.Wfd3!? ~e7 (9 ... CLlge5? 10.CLle5 CLle5
11.IWe4 Wie7 12.IWb7±) 10.Wie4 0-0 (Steiner,B-
Foldes,G, Temesvar, 1912) 11.e3! de3 12.~e3
Wic8!? (12 ...ge8 13.e6! fe6 14.l'~d1! Wic8
15.~d3±) 13.~d3 ge8 14.e6 Wie6 15.Wie6 fe6±
Renet.
9...:Bb8
9...Wfd7 10.g3 (after 10.Wib7 E1b8 11.Wia6 ~e7,
Black had some counterplay in Neuman,P-
Konrad,Ed, Aschach, 2012) 10... 0-0-0 11.~g2
Wif5 12.0-0 CLlge5 13.CLle5 Wie5 (Black has
regained his pawn, but the bishop pair is going
to make the difference, as it will be very hard
for Black to thwart the initiative of the first
player on the queenside) 14.~f4 Wif6 (14 ...Wie2
15.Wia4 Wie6 16.b4 d3 17.gfe1 Wif6 18.gad1 mb8
19.~d5±) 15.gad1 g5 16.~c1 h6 17.Wia4 Wie6
18.b4 Wic4 19.9d2!± 1l~b2, gc1 - Avrukh.
10.e3!
An important move. In some variations Black's
pawn on a7 will be hanging.
10.~g5!? is not so strong: 10... ~e7 11.~e7 Wie7
102
12.gd1 0-0 13.ct:ld4 (Machalova,E-Farkas,Ga,
Kaskady, 2002) 13... CLlce5 14.g3 (14.e3 CLlh4 CXl )
14... gfd8 15.~g2 IWc5 16.e3 c6!? 17.0-0 Wic4
18.IWc4 CLlc4 19.b3 CLla3 20,ga1 c5 21.ga3 cd4
22.ed4 a6 23.gd 1;!; Henris.
10...a6
10 ic5? 11.Wib5!.
10 c!Llge5 11.CLle5 CLle5 12.ed4 IWd4
13.~e3 Wfe4 14.0-0-0 ~e7 15.gd4! (15.~a7?!
~g5 16.~e3 ~e3 17.Wie3 Wie3 18.fe3 me7~)
15...Wic6 16.gd5 CLld7 17.~a7 ga8 18.~e3±
Avrukh.
10...i.e7 11.~e2 CLlge5 (11...0-0 12.0-0
CLlge5 13.CLle5 CLle5 14.ed4 Wid4 15.i.e3 Wie4
16.i.a7! Wfe2 17.~b8 E1b8 18.gae1 Wih5 19.94
CLlg4 20.Wff3!±, and White is an exchange up -
Avrukh) 12.CLle5 CLle5 13.ed4 Wfd4 14.~e3 Wie4
15.0-0 c5 (15...0-0 16.~a7 . 11 ...0-0; 15...a6
16.f4 CLlc6 17.~f3 Wig6 18.gad1 0-0 19.9d7±)
16.Wfb5 Wic6 17.E1ad1± Bronznik.
11.YHa4 d3 12.id2 YHd7 13.ic3 b5
14.cb5 ab5 15.YHe4 b4 16.id2 ba3
17.ba3 :Bb3 18.CLld4 CLld4 19.ed4
ia3 20.id3 0-0 21.ic4 YHa4
22.ib3 YHb3 23.YHe3 YHe3 24.fe3
ie7 25.c;te2 c5 26.:Ba7 :Bd8 27.:Ba4
f6 28.ef6 gf6 29.dc5 ic5 30.:Bc1
ie7 31.:Ba7 id6 32.:Bc2 :Be8
33.:Bb7 f5 34.:Bc6 if4 35.c;tf2 lLle5
36.:Bcb6 lLlc4 37.ef4
1-0
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.tLlf3 tLlc6 5.a3 .ig4

Game 39 8... ~e6 (8... ~f3 9.tiJf3 0-0-0 10.b5 tiJa5 11.~d3+)
Lupik,Marina (2101) 9.b5 tiJa5 10.~a4 b6 11.~b2 (11.c5 LiJg6 12.c6
Fedorova,Anna ~d5 13.tiJd4 ~c5 14.ib2 LiJe5 15.tiJe6 ~e6 16.e3
Salekhard, 2003 0-0 17.ie2 Elfd8 18.~c2±) 11 ... c5 12.bc6 ctJec6
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.~f3 13.ctJd4± Farago,I-Bukal,V, Austria, 2008.
~c6 5.a3 i.g4?! 6.~bd2 ~d7?! (D) 7..,l'!d8 8.ib2 ctJge7 9.b5 ctJa5 10.1Mfa4+
Koltanowski ,G-Steckel, W, Hazelton, 1940.
7...d3? 8.ib2 de2 9.ie2 +/+- Arkell,K-
Schmid,M, Saas Almagell, 2005.

8.i.b2 ~e6 9.~b3

Again 9.h3!? is interesting.

9...i.f3?!

9 lt:lge7 10.b5 ctJe5 11.ctJd4±.

9 f610.ef6 ctJf611.0-0-0+.

6...1Mfd7?! allows White to expand freely on the 10.~f3 ~e5

queenside. .
10... lt:lh6 11.g3 ctJe5 12.ctJd4 1Mfc4 13.Elc1 1Mfb3
7.b4 14.ctJb3± Bronznik.

7.h3 if3!? (or 7...ih5 8.g3 (B.b4!?) 8 ... 0-0-0 11.~d4 ~c4? 12.~h3!
9.ig2) 8.LiJf3 0-0-0 9.g3 LiJge7 10.ig2 LiJg6
11.0-0 LiJce5 12.LiJe5 LiJe5 13.1Mfb3;!; Moheni,A- ~12.e3 ~b3 13.ctJb3 f6 14.ie2 id6 15.0-0 ctJe7
Ho Yin Ping, Thessaloniki, 1984. 16.lt:ld4;!; Monin,N-Czebe,A, Zalakaros, 1991.

7...0-0-0 12...@b8 13.e4+- i.b4 14.ab4 ~b4

15.i.c3 ~c5 16J!a5 ~b6 17.~b5
7...lt:lge7 8.h3 (8.b5 ctJa5 9.~a4 b6 ~g6 18.~e5 f6 19.~b5 ~e4 20.~e3
10.ib2 (10.c5!?) 10...c5 11.bc6 ctJec6 12.ctJd4 ~e3 21.fe3
ctJe5 13.~d7 id7 14.e3 Elc8 15.Elc1± Bronznik) 1-0

103
,.--,-----------------------------------~
Chapter 3

Game 40 10... ~a7 11.c5 ~e4! 12.0-0 i.f3 13.i.f3 a4:::

Dus Chotimirsky, Fedor Ivanovich Meinsohn; 9... ~f3 10.lIJf3 0-0) 10.0-0 h6!
Marshall,Frank James 11.lIJe4 ~a7 12.Vf1d3 lIJg6 13.i.f4 Wie7!+! 14.~h2
Hamburg, 1910 (14.Vf1b3 )"1b8 Ll...O-O) 14... )"1d8 15.Vf1b3 ~c8
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.CLlf3 16.e6!? (16.Vf1b5 0-0 Ll... )"1fe8) 16 ...fe6?! (16 ...f5
CLlc6 5.a3 ,ig4?! 6.<!tJbd2 as?! (D) 17.lIJed2 lIJf4 18.gf4 Vf1e6 19.Vf1b5 0-0 20.lIJe5:::;
16...0-0!? 17.efl )"1fl~; 16... lIJf4 17.gf4 Vf1e6~)
17.~d2 0-0 18.lIJe1 b6! 19.1IJd3 lIJce5 20.f4?!
lIJd3 21.ed3 e5! 22.)"1ae1!? ef4 23.gf4 Wih4
24.lIJg3 c5! (24 ... lIJf4!? 25.E1e4 g5 (25... ~h3?
26.)"1ef4 ~g4 27. ~g1 Wig3 28.c5+-) 26.~f4 gf4~)
25.)"1e4 ~b7 26.)"1e2 ~g2 27.)"1g2 lIJf4+ Toth,Bel-
Balogh,Ja, Budapest, 1964.
7.Vf1b3!? lIJge7 (also interesting is
7...a4!? 8.Vf1d3 lIJge7 Dancevski,O-Krstev,E,
Struga, 2011) 8.e3!? a4 9.Vf1d3 de3 10.Vf1e3 lIJf5
11.Vf1e4 lIJfd4 12.lIJd4 Vf1d4 13.Vf1d4 lIJd4 14.~d3
0-0-0, and Black had a good position in the
game Rodriguez Vignote,J-Salgado Lopez,O,
This position may also be reached by the move Madrid,2009.
I

I order 5.a3 a5 6.tl::lbd2 ~g4 or 5.lIJbd2 ~g4 6.a3 7.c!Llb3?! ~f3 8.ef3 (8.gf3 a4 9.c!Lld2l1Je5=)
a5. 8...a4 9.ClJd2 ClJe5 10.f4 ClJc6 11.~d3 Wie7 12.~f1
ClJf6 13.g3 Wid7 14.~g2 ~e7 15.ClJf3 (Alapin,S-
I,
6...a5?! is really too slow to be good.
Marshall,F, Monte Carlo, 1901) 15...0-0=.
7.h3
7...,ih5
For the sake of completeness, it should be said
that the exact move order of the game was 7... ~f3 8.lIJf3 ~c5 transposes to the
6.h3 ~h5 7.a3 a5. variation 5.lIJbd2 ~g4 6.h3 ~f3 7.lIJf3 ~c5 8.a3
The alternatives do not seem as strong as 7.h3: a5 (chapter 11).
7.g3!? ~c5 8.~g2 lIJge7 9.h3 (9.0-0 0-0 7... ~e6?! 8.lIJb3!?:
10.b3 lIJg6 11.~b2 Vf1e7 12.h3 ~f3 13.lIJf3 )"1ad8= a) 8... ~c4 9.lIJbd4 lIJd4 (9 ...Vf1d5 10.lIJc6 Vf1c6
Blumin,B-Adams,We, New York, 1941) 9... ~e6 11.~d2±; 9... ~c5 10.~g5! (10.e3 ~f1 11.)"1f1 Vf1d7
(9 ... ~f5 10.lIJb3 (10.0-0 Wid 7; 10.g4 ~e6) 12.lIJc6 Vf1c6a» 10...Wid7 11.lIJc6 Vf1c6 12.Vf1c2±

104
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.CtJf3 CtJc6 5.a3 J.g4

Henris) 10.tLJd4 'Wd5 (10 ... ~c5 11.~e3+) 11.~f4 10...a4 11.b4 ab3 12.tlJb3 ~e4 13.~g2 f6 14.0-0±.
0-0-0 12.e3 ~f1 13J:lf1 (13.Wg4 \t>b8 14.B:f1±)
13...Wg214.'Wc2+. 11.llJb3± a4!?
b) 8...Wd7 9.e3!7 (9.tlJbd4 ~c4 10.Wc2±)
9... 0-0-0!7 10.tlJbd4± Rallsjo,A-Trybom,M, 11 :gd8 12.tlJc5.
carr., 1994. 11 ~e4 12.tlJc5 ~f5 13.g4 ~g6 14.tlJh4!.

8.'1Wa4!

8.Wb3! is also very promising: 12.lt'lbd4? B:a5! 13.~b7 B:a7! (13...4:Jd47 14.~b8
a) 8...Wd7 would transpose to the main game tlJc8 15.tlJd4 ~e4 16.f3! (16.tlJf3 ~f3!? (16... B:a8
after 9.~b5. 17.e6 ~e6 18.~b5 c6 19.~h5) 17.ef3 B:e5 18.~e2!±
b) 8.. .1:!a6 9.~b5 B:b6 10.Wd5 a4 11.e6 tlJf6 (18.~e3!? ~c5 19.B:d1 ~e6 20.B:d3'!)) 16...2:a8
12.~d8 \t>d8 13.g4 ~g6 14.tlJg5±. 17.~b5 c6 18.e6! fe6 19.~e5+-) 14.~b5 B:a5=.
c) 8...We8 9.Wb5 a4 10.b4 (10.e677 B:a5-+)
10...ab3 11.tlJb3 ~f3 12.ef3± ~b477 13.ab4 1-0 12...W!c8 13.id2!
Plischki,S-Hrtanek,J, Orlova, 2010.
8.g3!? (Panov): 13.lLlb7? B:b8.
a) 8.. .f6 9.~a4 B:a6 (9 ...Wd7 10.e6 We6 13.Wb7? Wb7 14.tiJb7 tlJc8.
11.tlJd4+-) 10.~g2±.
b) 8...Wd7 9.~g2 0-0-0 10.0-0 d3 11.B:e1±. 13... b6 14.llJd4!+- bc5 15.ltJc6 ie4
8.g4 ~g6 9.~g2 is also good for White.
15...Wd7 16.~g2.
8.. .'IWd7
16.llJe7 @e7 17.f3 @e6 18.fe4! c6
119 tlJe5. 19.W!b6 ga6 20.h4! gb6
8 ~g6 9.g3 tlJge7 10.~g2 ~f5 11.tlJb3±.
20 .. .f5 21.ef6 \t>f6 22.Wd8 Wd8 23.~g5+-.
9.W!b5! ig6 10.g3
21.ih3 @e5 22.ic8 @e4 23.0-0
10.Wb7? B:b8 11.Wa6 B:b6=. id6 24.if5 @d4 25.gac1 gb3
10.tlJb3± Avrukh. 26.e3 ge3 27.ie3 @e3 28.gce1
@d4 29.ge4
10...llJge7 1-0

105
 Chapter 3

Game 41 a) 12.~c2?! 0-0 13..id3 CUh5 14.c5 ~h6 15.h3

Vasilchenko,Oleg (2455) cuf4 16.0-0-0 (Hilse,W-Hartlaub,C, Breme ,
Biro,Sandor (2335) 1916) 16....if3 17.gf3 (17.CtJf3 CtJd3) 17... CtJe5+.
Kecskemet, 1991 b) 1V~'b7!? Elb8 13.c5 iWc5 14.iWc7 O-Oc
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.lDf3 15.id3 if3 16.CtJf3 Elf7 17.~f4 (17.~g3 CtJh5
lDc6 5.a3 .ig4?! 6..if4!? (0) 18.iWg5 CtJf4 19.ia6 CtJg2 20.iWg2 ~a5 21.CtJd2
iWa6+) 17... CtJe4 18.~h4 (18.iWc1!? iWa5 19.~f1
Elf3! 20.ie4 (20.iWc6?? Elf2 21.~g1 Elg2 22.~g2
iWg5 23. ~f1 Elf8-+; 20.gf3? CtJd2 21. ~e2 Ele8
22.ie4 d3! 23.~d1 CtJe4) 20 ... ~b5 21.~g1
Elf655) 18 ... g5! 19.iWh5 ~a5 20.~f1 CtJd2 21.CtJd2
~d2 22.ih7! Elh7 23.~g6 Elg7 24.~e6= Henris.
6...if3!? is rare but quite interesting:
a) 7.ef3 ~e7!? (7 ...g5!? 8.ig3 ig7) 8.ie2 0-0-0
9.0-0 g5 10.ig3!? h5 11.h3 (Pudovkin,D-
BratkovskiY,D, Krasnodar, 2004) 11 ...ig7, with
a good game for Black - Henris.
b) 7.gf3 shows more respect to the passed d-
pawn but has drawbacks of its own - it is quite
Here the bishop is exposed to attack by hard for White to develop naturally: 7... ~e7!?
... CtJge7 and ... CtJg6. (again, 7...g5!? 8.ig3 ig7 is interesting too)
8.ig3?! (8.~a4!? 0-0-055) was played in
6...lDge7 Bosch,Joac-Lagache,Y, Bethune, 2005. Now,
after 8... CtJe5 Black is OK - Henris.
This is Black's most logical move. 6... ~e7!? 7.CtJbd2 h6 8.h3 if3 9.CtJf3 g5
Other continuations met in practice are: 10.ig3 ig7 11.iWb3 0-0-0. And now, instead of
6...f6!? 7.ef6 (7.CtJbd2!?) 7... CtJf6 12.e4?! de3 13.~e3 f5! 14.ef6 ~e3 15.fe3 CtJf655,
(7 ... ~f6? 8.ic7±) 8.CtJbd2 id6 9.id6 (9.ig5 h6 as in the game Izmestiev,A-Shukan,A,
10.ih4 (10.if6 ~f6 11.CtJe4 ~e7 12.CtJd6 ~d655) Novokuznetsk, 2010, White had 12.0-0-0, with
10...g5 (10 ~e7!?) 11.ig3 ~e755 (11 ig3?! a clear advantage - Henris.
12.hg3~)) 9 ~d6a; 10.~b3 a5!? (10 0-0-0) 6... ~d7?!, played a few times, seems
11.e4 (11.~b7?! Elb8 12.~a6 (12.c5 ~c5 13.~c7 too slow to me because of 7.CtJbd2 0-0-0 8.b4.
0-0) 12... Elb2!:j: (12... 0-0!? 13.c5 ~c5 14.~c4
~c4 15.CtJc4 Elfe855)) 11 ...a4?!:

106
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.4:Jf3 4:Jc6 5.a3 j,g4

7.~b3!? iWd7 (7 ... ttJg6!? 8.iWb7!? ttJa5 a) 9.h3 iif3 10.ttJf3 iie5 11.iWd3 (11.iWb3 iib6!?
9.~e4 (9.~b5 c6 10.iWa4 ttJf4:f Korn 1952; (11 ... 0-0!?"" Henris) 12.e6 f5!? 13.e5!? a4
9.~a6 c6 10.iig5 ~c7"") 9...ttJb3"") 8.ttJbd2 14.~d3!? iia5 15.ttJd2!? (15. ~d1 f4 16.iih2
(8.~b7?! !':1b8 9.e6 iWe6 10.iWe7 !':1b2 11.ttJbd2 ~f6"" Henris) 15.. .f4 16.iih2 ~d5+ 17.~f3 ~e5
ttJg6;) 8... ttJg6 9.iig3 0-0-0 10.0-0-0 f6!? 11.ef6 18.iif4 0-0 19.93 d3 20.iie3 iid2 0-1
gf6~ 12.e4 iih6!? (o12 ...de3!?) 13.~b1 d3!? Rodriguez,Jorge-Abreu Suarez, I, Grand Canaria,
14.h3 ttJd4? (14 ...iie6) 15.~d3? (15.~b4; 1993) 11 ...0-0 (11...~e7 12.~f5 0-0 13.h4 f6
15.~e3) 15... ~a4!+ 16.iie2? ttJf3 0-1 Jurisic,N- 14.ef6 !':1f6~ is also quite playable) 12.h4 ~e7
Majstorovic,L, Yugoslavia, 1949. 13.~f5 f6!? (13 ...Elae8 14.e6!? (:514.h5?! lIJge5:f
After 7.h3 iif3 8.ef3 lIJg6 9.iig3 lIJge5 1115.lIJg5? g6 16.hg6 fg6 17.~h3 lIJd3 18.~d2
10.f4 lIJg6 11.iid3 iid6 12.0-0 0-0, Black had a (18. ~d1 lIJf2 19.iif2 Elf2-+) 18... lIJf2! 19.iif2
good game in Arbinger,R-RaetskY,A, Biel, 2002. (19.~h7 ~h7 20.Elh7 (20.lIJh7 lIJe4) 20...iie7-+)
19... Elf2 20.~h7 (20.lIJh7 Elfl-+) 20 ~h7
7...lLlg6 8.193 21.Elh7 (21.lIJh7 Ele5I1Elfl-+) 21...Elf5-+) 14 fe6
15.~e4 Elf5 (:515... e5? 16.lIJg5---+; 15... ~f6!?)
8.g3!? ~d7 9.h3 lIJf4 10.gf4 iih5!? 16.h5 lIJf8 17.h6 g6"" Henris) 14.ef6 (14.e6
(10 ...iif5 11... iie7, h6, ...g5) 11.iig2 ~f5 lIJge5:f Henris) 14...Elf6 15.~d3!? (15.~d5 ~h8
12.~a4 0-0-0 (12 ~f4? 13.lIJd4) 13.b4 16.h5 (16.iic7? lIJb4'+) 16 lIJf4 17.iif4 !':1f4
(13.lIJh2!? ~f4 14.iie6 be6 15.~e6 ~e5 16.lIJhf3 18.~g5 Elf6:f Henris) 15 lIJge5 (15... Elaf8
~a5"") 13... ~b8 14.b5 lIJe7 (Almeida Saenz,A- 16.0-0-0 a4 17.h5 lIJge5 18.lIJe5!? lIJe5 19.iie5
Fontaine,R, Las Vegas, 2006) 15.e5 lIJg6 16.b6 ~e5:f Henris) 16.lIJe5 lIJe5:f Pillsbury,H-
eb6 17.eb6 ab6 18.lIJd4 ~d7 19.~d7 !':1d7 20.e3 Mieses,J, Monaco, 1902.
lIJf4= Davies. I have to mention that the move b) 9.Y!1fb3 ~d7 10.e6!? (10.0-0-0 a4 11.~d3
order of the beginning of this game was 5.a3 (11.~b7 Ela7 12.~b5 Ela5= Henris) 11 ...iie5
ttJge7 6.g3 lIJg6 7.iif4 iig4 8.lIJbd2. 12.lIJe4 b6!? 13.lIJeg5!? iif5!? (13 ... h6 14.e6
White gains nothing from 8.igS iie7 iie6 15.lIJe6 ~e6 16.iic7 O-O~ Henris) 14.e6!?
9.iie7 ~e7 10.~b3 0-0-0. fe6 15.e4 iig4 16.h3 iif3!? 17.lIJf3 e5!? 18.h4
0-0= Manzone,A-Jimenez,Joaquin R, Chaco,
8.. .'~e7 2002) 10...iie6 11.~b7 Elb8 (11...Ela7!? 12.~b5
a4 11... Ela5= Henris) 12.~e7 ~e7 13.iie7 Elb2~
Black attacks one more time the e5-pawn and Van Espen,E-Wilms,W, Leuven, 1994.
at the same time prepares castling long. 8...VNd7?! seems too slow: 9.~e2!? 0-0-0
He also has a couple of interesting alternatives: 10.0-0-0;t Bosboom ,M- Piceu, T, Netherlands,
8...aS!?: 2005.

107
 Chapter 3

9.~b3!? 15.E1d8 ~d8 16.gf3 (~16.ef3 ~c5) 16... ~c51ii

Henris) 14... ~h4!? (14 ~f6! 15.'iJf3 ~c5t
9.h3: Henris) 15.g3 ~e4?! (o15 ~f6! 16.f4 ~c5 17.e3
a) 9...i.f3!? 10.tt'lf3 0-0-0 11.'!ffc2 (11.~a4 'it'b8 ~g6!:;: Henris) 16.Elg1!? (16.Elh2 ~e7 17.e3
12.0-0-0 tt'lge5 13.~e5 tt'le5 14.tt'ld4?! ~f6! ~g5-+ Henris) 16... ~e7?!:j: (16 ...g6!+ Henris)
,
'I 15.tt'lb5? Eld1 16.'it'd1 ~c5, and Black is close to Shkliarevsky-Reprintsev,A, USSR, 1987.
,
"I' winning) 11 ... tt'lge5 12.~f5 (12.~e5 tt'le5 13.~f5 b) 10...f6!? 11.ef6 gf6 12.h3 ~f5 13.tt'lh4!? tt'lh4
I,

.,:·1' , tt'ld7 14.tt'ld4 g6 15.~c2 tt'lc5 16.0-0-0 ~h6 14.~h4 ~h6:j: 15.g4?! ~g6!? (15... ~e4!+ Henris)

!
17.'it'b1 (17.e3 ~e3!) 17... ~e4!+ Henris) 16.~g2 ~e2 17.~f6? (17.~c6 bc6+ Henris)
" 12... tt'ld7 13.~f4 tt'lc5 14.tt'le5 ~e6?! (14 ...tt'le5 17... ~f4!-+ (17...~d3? 18.g5 - Henris) 18.~b3
11'1
,
15.~e5 tt'le4+ Henris) 15.tt'lf7?? tt'ld3 0-1 ll:\a5 19.~a2 ~d3 0-1 UjtelkY,M-Puc,S,
•

Koehler,Be-Stroup,A, Hagenbach, 1998. Yugoslavia, 1948.

b) 9...i.f5!? is probably not sufficient:
" II .
• 10.~a4!? 0-0-0 (Hanks,J-Mescher,M, 9...0-0-0 10.0-0-0
I, I'l Toowoomba, 1986) 11.0-0-0 h5 12.tt'lb3!? h4
"1,1 13.~h2 ~d7 14.c5!? ~e8 15.e4 de3 16.Eld8 ~d8 10.e3?! tt'lge5 11.tt'le5 tt'le5:j: 12.~e5?! !We5+
17.fe3 ~e7 18.'it'b1 'it'b8 19.~e4 f6!? (19... ~d7?! 13.h3?? de3! 14.!We3 ~b2-+ Hochstein,U-
: 1'1

, . 20.~c4 Elh5 21.tt'lbd4 tt'lce5 22.tt'le5 tt'le5 Mueller,HansGe, Bochum, 1991.

III
23.~e2 Elg5 24.~f4±; 19...Elh5?! 20.~e2 ~d7
21.tt'lfd4 Elg5 22.~f4 tt'lf4 23.ef4 Elg3 24.~f3±) 10...c!lJge5 11.c!lJe5 c!lJe5
,
'I,
20.e6 tt'lge5 21.~e5 (21.tt'le5!? fe5 22.~c4
(22.~e5? Elh6!+) 22... ~g5 23.'it'a2 ~g6 24.~f3 Black has already a very comfortable position.
~e7 25.~d5 Elf8 26.~e2;!;) 21 .. .fe5 22.tt'le5
(22.~c4?! ~f6) 22 ...tt'le5 23.~e5 Elh5 24.~d4 12.h3 .it5 13.'?lVb5 c5 14..ie5?!
,
~e6 25.~c4 ~g6 26.'it'a1 ~e7 27.EldH Henris; ~e5+ 15.g4 .id7 16.~a5 .ic6
II,
,,
• 10.ll:\b3 0-0-0 11.~d2 ll:\ge5 12.tt'le5 tt'le5 17J~g1 .id6
1:1

13.~a5 tt'ld3 14.'it'd1 tt'lc5 15.'!ffa7 (Lomakina,G-

I ,
Biro,S, Keszthely, 1995) 15...tt'lb3! 16.~a8 'it'd7 o17...YlYh2! 18.Elg3 id6+ Henris.
II 17.~a4 'it'c8 18.~a8 (~18.~b3 '!ffe4C) 18...'it'd7
19.~a4= Henris. 18..1g2 .1g2 19J~g2 '?lVe2
9.~a4 0-0-0 (9... h5? 10.tt'ld4! id7 11.e6
I, ,
ll:\d4 12.ed7 ~d7 13.~d7 @d7 14.0-0-0+-) 10.0-0-0: 19...@b8+.
a) 10...'it'b8!? (~ ...tt'lge5) 11.h3 ~f3 12.ll:\f3
tt'lge5 13.~e5!? tt'le5 14.tt'ld4?! (o14.Eld4 tt'lf3 20.~a7 .1t4 21 J~gg1!?

108
:,

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6 5.a3 i.g4
o21.ffc5 ~b8 22.ffb4 E:he8+
21 .. .'~c4 22.@b1 ~d3!?
22...ffb5!?+.
23.@a2 .id2?
o23...Wfb5+.
24J~~g3 ~c4 25.:ab3 .ib4 26.ab4
cb4?! 27.~a4?
27.~b1! Wb3 28.E:c1 ~d? 29.Wd4 ~e8 30.E:e1
Wfe6 31.E:e6 fe6 32.Wg1;!;.
27...d3! 28.@a1?
28.Wfb4 Wb4 29.E:b4 E:he8+.
28...~c2?
28.. J~d4-+.
29.:ab4 ~a4 30.:aa4 b5? 31.:aa5
31.E:a7.
31..J~he8 32J':~b5ge2 33.@b1 gf2
34J3C5 @b7 35.gc3 gf3 36.h4 gg3
37.g5 gg4 38.gcd3 gd3 39.gd3 @c6
40.gh3 f5 41.gf6 gf6 42.@c2 f5 43.@c3
h5 44.gf3 f4 45.@c4 gh4 46.b4
•
Game 42
Golod,Vitali (2589)
RaetskY,Alexander (2423)
Biel, 2007
1.d4 d5 2.ltJf3 ~c6 3.c4 e5 4.de5
d4 5.a3 .ig4?! 6.~b3!? (D)
It's quite logical to attack the b?-pawn as the
bishop does not defend it anymore. Moreover,
sometimes White will play e3 and then take on
e3 with the queen in case of exchange.
6...:ab8!?
The exceedingly rare 6...lt:\ge7!? is
maybe the best option available for Black in
the position:
a) After 7.Wfb7 E:b8 8.Wa6 Wd? 9.b4 ct'Jg6
10.ct'Jbd2 fie?, the situation is very unclear.
Black's lead in development compensates for
the missing pawns.
b) 7..ig5 Wd? 8.ct'Jbd2 ct'Jg6! 9.e3 h6 10.fif4
109
 Chapter 3

0-0-0= Henris. 9.~f4 g5 10.~g3 ~g7 11.0-0-0!?±.

c) 7.lLlbd2 IWd7 8.\Wb7 2"1b8 9.IWa6 lLlg6 10.b4 - c) 7... ~e7?! 8.~f4.
7.IWb7!? 7.~f4!? ttJge7 8.ttJbd2 ttJg6 9.~g3 ~e7
Black may also decide to play (9,..IWe7?! 10.e3! ttJge5 11.~e5 ttJe5 12.ttJd4±
6...IWd7?! 7.IWb7 2"1b8 8.IWa6 f6!?: Reinemer,F-Schmidt,Oli, Baunatal, 2002) 10.e3
a) 9.e6!? IWe6 10.ttJbd2 ttJge7 11.IWa4 mf7 0-0 (Nunez Portabales,M-Ayza Leon,D,
12.h3 (12.b4 ttJg6 (12... h5?! 13.b5! (13.h3!? ~f5 Barcelona, 2002) 11.0-0-0;1; Henris.
I
II
14.~b2±) 13. .. ~f3 14.ttJf3 ttJe5 15.ttJe5 IWe5
,
" 16.~b2± (:5.16.IWa7 ttJg6)) 13.IWb3 (13.e5!? a5!? 7... ~ge7 8.h3
14.b5 ttJee5 15.IWd4 ~e5! 16.\We3 2"1hd8+t)
11 '
II 13...a5 14.b5 ttJf4 (6.... a4) 15.c5 IWb3 16.ttJb3 Less critical would be 8.g3 ttJg6 9.~g2 ~e7:
',
'I
II
I
ttJe6 17.e3 ~f3 18.gf3 a4 CD Henris) 12... ~h5 a) 10.h3 ~e6 11.e3 ttJge5 12.ttJe5 ttJe5
13.g4 ~g6 14.~g2 (14.b4!? - Henris) 14,..~d3!? 13.IWb5 ttJc6 14.ed4 (:5.14.~c6?! bc6 15.IWc6 ~d7
(14,..h5 15.g5 ~d3 (15,..h4 16.b4±) 16.IWd1 - 16.IWf3 de3) 14,..0-0! 15.d5 ttJd4 16.IWa4 ~f5
Henris) 15.0-0 ~e2 16.2"1e1 d3 17.ttJe4!? 17.0-0?! (17.~e4?! ~c5!+; o17.ttJe4 CD ) 17... ~d3
(o17.b4±) 17...mg8? (17 ...IWd7) 18.ttJg3 h5 18.IWa7 ~f1!? 19.mf1 b6!? 20.IWa4 f5!? 21.ttJf3
19.9h5!? 2"1d8 20.ttJe2 de2 21.IWc2!?± (21.~e3±) ttJf3 22.~f3 ~d6 23.IWc2 f4 24.g4 ~e5 25.~d2
Bogoljubov,E-Helling,K, Berlin, 1937. IWh4= Koelbach,R-Sykula,A, corr., 1998.
b) 9.lLlbd2!? 2"1b6 10.IWa4 ~f3 11.gf3!? (11.ttJf3) b) 10.0-0 0-0 11.h3 ~e6 12.IWa4 a6
il , 11,..fe5 12.c5! ~c5 13.ttJc4 ttJf6 (13 ... 2"1b8
"

13.mh2!? ttJce5 14.ttJe5 ttJe5 15.f4 (15.b3 c5)

II;1 , 14.~h3!? IWd5 15.ttJe5 IWe5 16.IWc6 mf7 17.~e6 15... ttJc4 16.ttJc4 b5 17.IWa6 ~c4+ Sterk,K-
IWe6 18.IWc5±) 14.b4 ~b4 15.ab4 2"1b4 16.IWc2 Merenyi,L, Temesvar, 1912.
IWd5 17.e4+- de3 18.ttJe3?! (o18.fe3 IWf3

, ,
19.2"1g1 +-) 18...IWf3? (18... ttJd4 19.ttJd5 ttJc2 8...if5
20.md1 ttJd5 21.mc2+-) 19.~g2 1-0 Atalik,S-
'I ,
,
,Ii

Vlahos,G, Chalkida, 1998. 8...if3 9.ttJf3 ttJg6:

c) 9.ef6!? is also plausible - Henris. a) 10.e3 ~e7 (Rost,M-Dravnieks,O,
corr., 1989) 11.ed4 ttJd4 12.ttJd4 IWd4 13.~e3
IWe5 14.IWb5 \Wb5 15.cb5 2"1d8 16.2"1c1 ~d6
I
17.g3;1; Raetsky & Chetverik.
7.~g5!?: b) 10.~g5 ~e7 11.ie7 We7 12.0-0-0 0-0
a) 7...f6!? 8.ef6 (Bellon Lopez,Ju-Pergericht,D, (12 ...ttJge5 13.ttJd4 ttJd4 14Jld4 0-0 15.e3;1; Henris)
Brussels, 1987) 8,..ttJf6!? 13.4Jd4 4Jce5 14.e3 c5 15.4Jb5 (Kunz,Ko-Puetz,L,
b) 7...IWd7?! 8.ttJbd2 h6 (8 ... ttJge7 9.0-0-0) Bad Wiessee, 2009) 15...a6 16.4Jd6 b5f± Henris.

110
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.tLlf3 tLlc6 5.a3 i.g4

9.e4 Game 43
Hodges,Albert
9.e3 would have ruled out a bishop move. Lasker, Emanuel
Cambridge Springs, 1904
9... de3 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.lLlf3
ct:Jc6 5.a3 ig4?! 6.ig5!? (D)
On 9oo.ie6, there would follow 10.ct:lg5 ct:lg6
11.ct:le6 fe6 12.c5 - Raetsky &. Chetverik.

10.'I&e3 ig6

10oo.ct:lg6 11.g4 ie6 12.b4 ie7 13.ib2±

Raetsky &. Chetverik.

11.g4!?

11.e6!? fe6 12.'&e6 '&d7 13.'&d7 md7 14.ie2±

Raetsky &. Chetverik.

11 ...h5 12J3g1 hg4 13.hg4 'l&d7 I shall consider here the minor alternatives to
14.b3 l3d8 15.ib2 id3!? 16.lLlg5!? the main continuations 6.ct:lbd2, 6.if4 and
6.'&b3 seen before:
16.0-0-0 if1 17.:1:1df1 '&d3 18.'&d3 :1:1d3 19.mc2 6.b4:
:1:1d7 20.e6!? fe6 21.:1:1e1 ± Raetsky &. Chetverik. a) 6oo.We7! 7.'&a4 O-O-O!? (7 ...if3!? is also
quite interesting: 8.gf3 '&e5 9.ib2 ie7 10.M
16oo.if1 17.ct:Jf1 lLld4 18.0-0-0 c5 if6:i= Balogh):
19.f4 lLlec6 20.f5!? 'l&e7 21.l3e1! • 8.if4 if3 9.gf3 ~b8 10.ct:ld2 ct:le5 11.'&b3
@d7? ct:lf6!? (~ .. .ltJh5 - Euwe; 11 ...lLlg6 12.ig3 f5 13.f4
ct:lf6 14.'&d3 ct:le4 15.ih3 ct:ld2 16.md2 ct:lf4?!
o21 ...lLlb3 22.~b1 ct:lbd4 23.f6 '&d7 24.ct:lg3 ct:le6 (16... ct:lh4!? ~ ... g6; 16...'&f7! 17.c5 (17.if5 id6;
25.ct:le6 '&e6 26.fg7 ig7 27.ct:lf5 ~f8 28.ct:ld6±. 17.'&f5 '&c4) 17... ct:le7+ Henris) 17.if4 g5
18.ic7 '&c7= Petrosian,Tigran V-Porreca,G,

22.lLlf7! Belgrad, 1954) 12.ie5!? '&e5 13.'&d3!? ie7!?

1-0 (13 ... ct:lh5!+ Henris) 14.0-0-0!? ct:lh5 15.'&e4 '&f6

111
 Chapter 3

16.Wb1 :8he8 17.~c2 lUf4!? (17...d3! 18.ed3 1S.~d3 «1S.1Le6!? :8e6 16.~d4 :8d6 (16 ... ~d4?
~a6 19.~b3 lUf4+ Henris) 18.lUb3 ~a6! 17.1Ld4 a4 18.1Lf6 19.1Uc3±)) 1S... ~d6
:8f6
19.1UaS!? cS 20.~fS lUg6!? (20 ...lUe6-+) 21.:8d3 16J~e8 ~e8 17.lUd2 1Lf4 18.1Le6 :8e6 19.'&d4±
- I

eb4 22.:8b3 we7 0-1 Rufu,R-Beacon,R, email, Henris.

2002; b) 7.gf3 lUeS 8.f4 (Lasker,E-Albin,A, New York,
• B.b5?! ~f3 9.gf3 (9.be6 ~c6 10.'&a7 '&eS+) 1893) 8... lUg6! 9.~g2 (9.'&b3 :r'1b8) 9... e6 10.0-0
9... lUeS 10.'&a7 lUd3 11.lt>d2 (11.lt>d1 lUf2 lUf6:;: Reinfeld & Fine.
12.lt>e1 (12.lt>c2 '&e6-+; 12.lt>d2 '&e3 13.lt>c2 6.e3 de3 7.'&d8 :r'1d8 8.~e3 1Lf3 9.gf3
d3-+) 12...'&h4 13.~gSO '&gS! 14.lt>f2 '&h4 lUeS does not cause any serious problems for
1S.lt>g2 Eld6-+) 11...tUf2 12.'&a8 (12.:8g1?? '&e3 Black.
I, 13.lt>e2 d3-+) 12...lt>d7 13.'&b7 '&gS (13 ... lUh1 6.~a4!? is worth considering and is

,I
14.'&c6 It>e8 1S.'&a8=) 14.lt>e1 (14.lt>e2?? '&g6) likely to transpose somewhere into one of the
14 ...tUd3! 1S.ed3 '&e1 16.lt>f2 '&b2 17.~e2 lUe7 variations seen before.
18.f4 hS!+.
b) Winning back the pawn hands White a 6....te7!?
magnificent bishop: 6...if3?! 7.ef3 tUeS
8.:8a2!? (instead of the more conventional but 6...Wd7!? 7.lUbd2 h6 8.~h4 gS 9.~g3
also good 8.f4 tUg6 9.g3 lUf6 10.~g2 as in the ~g7, followed by ... lUge7-fS, is also quite
game Ovod,E-shurygin,s, St. Petersburg 1997) playable for Black.
8... ~e7!? (8...'&f6!?) 9.f4 tUg6 10.g3 tUf6 11.~g2 For the more enterprising of you, there
e6 12.:8d2±. is 6...f6!? 7.ef6 gf6!? 8.~f4 '&e7 Ll...O-O-O -
c) 6...a5?! 7.bS ~f3 8.ef3 tUeS 9.f4! tUg6 Henris.
10.:8a2!? (again this original idea) 10... ~eS
11.fS tU6e7 12.'&g4±. 7..te7?!
6.h3!? ~f3:
a) 7.ef3!? lUeS 8.f4: This only helps Black develop.
• B...tUg6! 9.~e2 (9.i.d3!?) 9...'&f6 10.0-0?! Better is 7.i.f4 gS!? 8.~g3 lUh6!? 9.lUbd2
(better is 10.g3) 10 ...tUf4 11.~f3 0-0-0 lUfS~, as in the game schone,C-Diaz Huizar,A,
12.lUd2 gS:;: 13.'&a4 \t>b8 14.'&bS c6 1S.'&aS sautron, 2009.
:8e8+ Marshall,F-Mieses,J, Monte Carlo,
1901 ; 7...Vf!e7 8.lLlbd2 0-0-0 9.Vf!a4 @b8
• 8...tUc6!? 9.~e2!? as!? 10.0-0 lUf6 11.~f3 10.0-0-0 f6!?
:8a6 12.b3 ~e7 13.~b2 0-0 (Bitan,B-
Thejkumar,M, New Delhi, 2012) 14.:8e1 :8e8 Very ambitious! Black could have obtained a

112
I
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.lDf3 lDc6 5.a3 .tg4

small advantage with the simple and logical
10...ttJe5!? 11.ttJe5 iWe5 12.ttJf3 i.f3 13.ef3
lLJf6:;: .
24.ttJc5!=.
11.ef6 ttJf6 12.h3 i.hS 13.g4 i.e8
14.'1Wb3 tl:ld7 1S.tl:le1 tl:lcS 16.'lWg3
CLleS+ 17.tl:ld3 tl:led3 18.ed3 i.a4
19.i.g2 'lWe2 20.gde1 tl:ld3?!
o20 ...Wld3 21.i.e4 lLJb3 22.lLJb3 Wc4+. 0-1
21.'l'Nd3 'l'Nd3 22..ie4 'l'Ne4 23.ttJe4
ghf824.gh2
24...gde8 2S.c;!;>d2 i.c6 26.tl:lg3 ge1
27.c;!;>e1 i.f3 28.tl:lfS cS 29.tl:lg7 gg8
30.tl:lfS ge8 31.c;!;>d2 ge2 32.c;!;>c1 d3
33.tl:le3 d2

113
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ltJf3 unfortunately hanging. See game 48 for
ltJc6 5.a3 as?! (D) detailed analyses.
The idea of the Nowegian 1M Rojan
5...f6?! is an important theme frequently met
in the Albin.
But with accurate play, however, it does not
prove quite sufficient as the analyses given in
the game 49 show.

6.lLlbd2!

Threatening already to play 7.liJb3, winning

the d4-pawn.
Statistically this line scores extremely well for
the first player.
This continuation seems quite logical. Black White also has a good number of other moves
prevents the plan of b4-b5 and in certain at his disposal:
circumstances he will post his black-squared 6.e3 is often played here. It will be
bishop on c5. examined in chapter 15 via the move order
But such a slow move has its drawbacks. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.a3 liJc6 5.e3 a5
Unlike in the position without the moves a3 6.liJf3.
and ...a5, the b5-square is now weakened and 6.g3 is interesting (--+ game 46).
thus in some variations White has at his 6..ig5 and the minor alternatives
disposal the important idea Wd1-b3-b5. 6..if4, 6.b3, 6.h3 and 6.Wd3 are worth
Also Black loses the possibility of castling considering (--+ game 47).
queenside.
Instead of 5...a5?!, Black also has two other 6...lLlge7!?
interesting possibilities here.
With the move 5....if5?!, Black intends 6....ic5!? is an important alternative
to play ...We7/d7, followed by castling long. (--+ game 45).
But after 6.e3! de3 7.Wd8 Eld8 8..ie3 liJge7 After 6....ic5!? White has two continuations
9.liJc3 liJg6 10.liJb5 (10.liJd5!? is also good for which seem to give him an advantage:
White) 10...Eld7 11.liJbd4!, White has clearly 7.4:Je4 ila7 8.h4!? liJge7 9.h5!? (or 9..if4!?),
the advantage as the bishop on f5 in and Black doesn't have sufficient compensation

114
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.lLif3 lLic6 5.a3 other lines

for the pawn. 8..tf4!? is also favourable for

White.
After 7.ttJb3 .ta7, White can maintain his
advantage with the following options: 8..tg5
'lWd7 (8 ...ttJge7 9.e3) 9.c5!, 8.c5!? or even
8.e3!? .
6...ie6 transposes to the variation
5.a3 .ie6!? 6.ttJbd2 a5?!; see game 26 (chapter
2).
6...ig4 - 5.a3 .ig4 6.ttJbd2 a5?! (~
game 40 . chapter 3).

White has won the important central d4-pawn

and thus has a clear advantage (~ game 44).
7.g3!? is also well worth considering (~ game
44).

7...ttJf5

7...ttJg6?! is weak because of 8.ttJbd4±.

8..ig5!

8.e3!? or 8.e4 (~ game 44) are also

good for White.
On the other hand, 8.g4 is not so clear
(~ game 44).

8... ~d7 9.g4 ttJfe7

Black does not solve his problems with 9...h6

(~ game 44).

10.ttJbd4± (D)

115
1'1""
Chapter 4

Game 44 IWd4 11.CL:Jd4:!: Henris) 10.,,~c5 11.~e3 CL:Jg4!?

Astrom,Robert (2445) (11".lWe7<x> Henris) 12.ltJc6!? \Wd1 13.E1d1 id6
Engqvist,Thomas (2362) 14.c5!? (14.ig2 CL:Je3 15.fe3 ~d7~ Henris)
Vesteras, 2011 14".CL:Je3 15.fe3 (Bertrem,S-Dal Borgo,A,
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.tDf3 Belgium, 2009) 15".id7 16.CL:Ja5 ic5 17.CL:Jb7
tDc6 5.a3 a5?! (0) ia3! 18.ba3 ic6<x> Henris.
b) Black equalized after 7...a4!?N 8.ig2
(8.b4!? is worth considering) 8".CL:Jg6 9.0-0 CL:Jge5
10.CL:Je5 CL:Je5 11.CL:Jf3 CL:Jf3 12.if3 ic5= Le Quang,
Li-Morozevich,A, Astana (blitz), 2012. Note that
the move order of the opening was 5.a3 CL:Jge7
6.CL:Jbd2 a5?! 7.g3!? I wonder what Morozevich
has in mind against 7.CL:Jb3!.
c) 7...c!t:Jf5!?

, '

7... tDf5

7...c!t:Jg6?! 8.CL:Jbd4+.

6.tDbd2! tDge7!? 8..ig5!

It must be mentioned that the actual move A suggestion from Boris Avrukh.
order of the game was 5.CL:Jbd2CL:Jge7 6.a3 a5?!. White also has the following two continuations:
6 ic5!? is also interesting (~ game 45). 8.e3!? (or 8.e4) is also better for
6 a4?! is refuted by 7.b4! ab3 8.CL:Jb3± White: 8".de3 9.lWd8 ~d8 (9".CL:Jd8 10.fe3 ie7
Dyachkov,S-Kanep,M, Moscow, 2005. 11.id2 CL:Jc6 12.CL:Jbd4 id7 13.id3 CL:Jh4 14.0-0
CL:Jf3 15.CL:Jf3 ie6 16.ic3 ic5 17.~f2;t) 10.fe3 a4
7.tDb3 11.CL:Jbd4+ Molina,Rob-De Lima,C, Maceio, 2011.
The tempting 8.g4 CL:Jh4 is not so clear:
7.g3!?: a) 9.,tf4!? (Kakkanas,E-Papathanasiou,Al, Greece,
a) 7...c!t:Jg6!? 8.CL:Jb3: 2011) 9".CL:Jf3 10.ef3 a4 11.CL:Jc1 ic5!?~ Henris.
, ,
"
• 8...a4 9.CL:Jbd4 CL:Jce5 10.ig2 ic5!? 11.CL:Jb5 c6 b) 9.c!t:Jbd4?! CL:Jf3 10.CL:Jf3IWd1 11.~d1 ig4, and
12.lWd8 md8 13.CL:Jc3CL:Jc4 ce Henris; Black was certainly not worse in De Rooij,R-
• 8".CL:Jge5!? 9.CL:Je5 CL:Je5 10.CL:Jd4?! (o10.lWd4 Brandenburg, D, Netherlands, 2006.
I,I
II,
116
I
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ct:Jf3 ct:Jc6 5.a3 other lines

c) 9.ltJfd4?! ltJe5+. Game 45

Farago,Sandor (2252)
8...Wd7 Chetverik,Maxim (2316)
Budapest, 2002
The alternatives do not bring any relief: 1.d4 dS 2.e4 eS 3.deS d4 4.lDf3
8 .ie7!? 9..ie7 Vjje7 10.ltJbd4 (10.g4!? lDc6 S.a3 as?! 6.l2Jbd2 ieS!? (0)
ltJh6 (10 ltJh4 11.ltJh4 Vjjh4 12..ig2± Bronznik)
11.h3 0-0 12.ltJbd4 ltJe5 13.ltJe5 Vjje5 14.Vjjd2±
Henris) 10... ltJfd4 (10... ltJcd4 11.ltJd4 Vjje5 12.e3
0-0 13.ltJf5 .if5;!;) 11.ltJd4 Vjje5?! (011...ltJe5
12.e3 0-0 13..ie2 1'1:a6!? 14.Vjje2;!;/± Henris
(14.0-0 1'1:h6 15.g3;!; Bronznik)) 12.e3 0-0
13..ie2+ Kondrin,A-Kozlov, K, Cheliabinsk, 2009.
8...f6 9.ef6 gf6 10..if4 a4 11.ltJbd2±
~g3, .ig2, 0-0 - Avrukh.

9.g4 lDfe7

9... h6 10.~e1 a4 11.gf5 ab3 12..ih3 1'1:a5 13.~d2

1'1:c5 14.Vjjb3?! (014.e6!) 14 ... ltJe5 15.ltJe5 1'1:e5 This plan of overprotecting the cramping d4-
16.0-0-0+ ClerY,N-Chetverik,M, La Fere, 2006. pawn is one of Black's more interesting ideas.

10.lDbd4± 7.l2Je4

White clearly has won the opening battle. 7.ttJb3 .ia7 is also good for White:
a) 8.,ag5:
10...lDd4 11.Wd4 Wg4 12.0-0-0 ie6 • 8...Wd7 (Kunz,Ko-Chetverik,M, Ditzingen,
13.Wg4 ig4 14.lDd4 O-O-O?! 1S.gg1 2009) 9.e5! h6 10..if4ltJge7 11.ltJbd4± Henris;
id7 16.ie7 ie7 17.gg7+- ie8 • 8...ttJge7 (Showalter,J-Cohn, W, Munich,
18.e3 @b8 19.id3 hS 20.ie2 @a8 1900) 9.e3 de3 10.Vjjd8 ltJd8 11 ..ie3 (=
21.gdg1 if8 22.gg8 gg8 23.gg8 id7 Schiffers) 11.. ..ie3 12.fe3± Henris.
24.gh8 @a7 2S.ghS @b6 26.gh7 b) 8.c5!? ~g4 9..ig5!? (9.ltJfd4±)
eS 27.lDe2 ie6 28.b3 a4 29.lDf4 9...Vjjd5?! (9 .. .f6 10.ef6 gf6 11 ..if4 .if3 12.ef3+)
1-0 as in Burn,A-Halprin,A, Munich, 1900. Now

117
 Chapter 4
•

10.ti:Jfd4! \We5 11.ti:Jb5+ Henris. o13.\Wf4 0-0 14.e4;1; Raetsky & Chetverik.
c) 8.e31? de3 (8...ti:Jge7?! 9.ti:Jbd4±)
9.\Wd8 ti:Jd8 10.~e3 ~e3 11.fe3±. 13...de3 14.We3 We8 15.~e7!?
I

" 7.../ia78./ig5!? 15.fe3 0-0"'.

8.h41? (Bronznik) 8.. .ti:Jge7 9.h5!? (or 15...li!?e7!?

9.~f4!?), and Black does not have sufficient
compensation for the missing pawn.
8.if41? liJge7 (8 ...ig4!? 9.h3!?) 9.h4!? if5
10.liJg3 ie6 (Nogareda Estivil,A-Carol Querol,Sa,
Catalunya, 1994) 11.h5 ic4 12.h6 g6 13.liJe4 liJd5
14.ig5 ~d7 15.~c2 ia6 16.~b3± Henris.
"
o15...lLle7 16.fe3 0-0 17.~e2!? (17.lLld4 liJg3
18.hg3 Wg4!?; 17.c5!?) 17...We6, and Black has
nothing to worry about with a pair of long-
range bishops - Raetsky & Chetverik.
I
16.fe3.ie5?

,I
8 ... ttJge7 9.Wd2 h6 10./ih4 a4!?
\
'" o16.. J~d8"'.
"

" ' 10...if5! 11.lLlg3?! (11.Wc2 Wd7 12.0-0-0 We6 I:

•
13.~e7 'it'e7!?= Henris; 11.Wf4 Wd7 (11...g5? 17J~d5± b6 18.e4?!
"

12.lLlfg5 hg5 13.liJf6 @fB 14.~g5 @g7 15.liJd5+-)

'II'"
12.~e7 lLle7 13.lLlg3 ~e6 14 J':i:d 1! (S,14.0-0-0?! 18.id3! n ...ie3?! 19.@b1 We6 20.'iJ,e1
III
II,
Wc6!) 14... ~c4 15.e3 (15.ti:Jd4?! 'iJ,dB) 15...liJg6'" ic5 21.'iJ,d6!?+- Raetsky & Chetverik.
III
III
I
Henris) 11...g51 12.liJg5?! (12.liJf5 liJf5 13.~g3 18.lLlh4!?
g4 14.liJg1 Wen Raetsky & Chetverik) 12... hg5
13.~g5 Wd7 14.Wf4 ~c5 15.h4+ Saleh,Sal- 18...'iJ,e8?!
Chetverik,M, Pardubice, 2007.
18...'iJ,d8 19.id3!? (19.e6?! We6 20.Wg7 ie4
11.0-0-0/if5 12.ttJg3!? ~g6!? 21.liJe4 'iJ,d5 22.cd5 We4+) 19... @f8 20.ic2;t
Raetsky & Chetverik.
12...ih7? 13.liJh5! nO-O? 14.liJg7!+-.
012...g5 13.liJf5 liJf5 14.ig3 ~e7 (14...g4 19.ttJh4?!
15.liJe1;1;) 15.~c2 liJg3 16.hg3 o-o-o~ Henris.
12...ig4!? o19.e6! \We6 20.\Wg7± Raetsky & Chetverik.

13.e4!? 19...i>f820.ie2!

118
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6 5.a3 other lines

20.lL\g6 fg6 21.~d3 (21.lL\e2 Wg4!) 21 ...We6, Game 46

and White's minor pieces are passively placed. Ligterink,Gert (2390)
Brenninkmeijer,Joris (2495)
20... ~g8!? Groningen, 2001
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.lLlf3
20 ... ~e6. ltlc6 5.a3 a5?! 6.g3 (D)

21.~hd1 ~e6 22.ltlgf5! ltle5 23.ltlf3

f6 24.ltle5 fe5 25.ig4 ~f6= 26.~b1
h5!? 27.ih3 ~ad8 28.~d3 ~d5
29.cd5 ~g5!?

029...!!fS 30.Wc4 ~e8.

30.~c4 if7!? 31.~a4 g6 32.ltlg3

~e7 33.~c2 ie8! 34.~d3 h4
35.ltle2 id7?! 36.ltlc3 ih3 37 .~h3
~f7 38.g3 ~e3!? 39.~h4 g5?

39... ~a3!? 6...ic5!?

40.~g4? 6... ~ge7:

40J'!h5.
40...ie7?
040.. .!'!f2 41.ctJd1 We1 42.:8g5 Wh7 43.~a4 b5!.
41.d6! cd6?! 42.lLld5+- ~e1 43.~a2
~f1 44.lLle7 ~f7 45.lLld5 ~a1
46.~b3 ~f3 47.~a4 ~e6 48.~g5 b5
49.~b5 ~f8 50.lLlb6 ~f1 51.~c4
1-0
a) 7.ig2 ctJg6 8.~g5!? Wd7:
• 9.e6!? fe6 10.0-0 ic5!? (10...e5 transposes to
5.g3 ctJge7 6.ig2 tiJg6 7.ig5 iWd7 8.e6 fe6 9.0-0
e5 10.a3 e5 - chapter 5) 11.tiJbd2 h6 12.tiJe4 if8!?
13.id2 e5 14.ctJe1 ie7 15.ctJd3 0-0 16.b4;!; ab4
17.ab4 :8a1 18.iWa1 iWg4 19.b5 tiJd8 20.e3 tiJe6
21.f3 iWf5 22.f4 (Kazhgaleyev,M-Semiev,S, Dubai,
2011) 22 ...de3 23.ie3 (23.fe5 iWg4 24.:8f8 tiJef8!?
b.25.ie3? iWe2 26.iWd4 tiJe6) 23...ef4= Henris;
• 9.e3!? de3 10.~d7 ~d7 11.~e3 ctJge5 12.ctJe5
ctJe5 13.~d4?! (13.ctJd2 0-0-0 14.b4 ~c6+
Henris) 13... ctJd3?! (013 ... ctJc4!?+ Henris)

119
 Chapter 4

14.~d2 CLlc5 15.~c3 CLle6 16.i.e3 i.e7 17.~c2 9.0-0

i.f6 18.CLlc3 0-0-0 19.Elhd1 CLld4!+ Nikolayevsky,
A-Berenshtein, Ukraine, 1975. White has two attractive possibilities:
"
b) 7.b3 CiJg6 8.i.b2 i.c5 9.i.g2 0-0 10.0-0 i.f5 9.h4!? ctJg6 (9 ...0-0 10.h5 h6 11.CiJe4
I,
,
11.h3 (Le Quang,Li-Czebe,A, Budapest, 2005) i.g4 12.i.f4) 10.h5 CiJge5 11.h6 g6 12.CiJe5 ctJes
11 ...Wdn Henris. 13.CLlf3 (13.Wfa4!? c6 14.ctJe4 f5!? (14... 0-0
Both 6...ig4!? 7.ig2 Wd7 8.0-0, and 1S.cS;!;) 15.i.g5 Wfc7 16.CiJf6 <j;Jf8 17.f4 CiJf7 18.i.h4
6...ie6!? are also worth considering. i.e6(:! Henris) 13...CLlf3?! (013 ctJg4!?oo) 14.i.f3:
a) 14...c6 15.b4 i.b8? (15 0-0 16.i.b2 Ele8,
'II
7..ig2 CLlge7 8.CLlbd2 l:::....if5, ...d3) 16.i.b2 i.e5 17.Elh4! (17.b5!? c5
,
I .
I 18.e3; 17.e3) 17... ab4?! (017 ...0-0 18.i.d4 i.f6
I
,
8.0-0 is also possible: 19.if6 Wf6 20.b5 Eld8 21.Wc1 i.f5 22.Ela2±
,I
,
I,
I a) 8... CLlg6: Henris) 18.ab4 Ela1 19.Wa1 Wg5 20.~f1 0-0
: ,i • 9.VBa4!? i.d7!? (9... 0-0 10.Wfb5!? a4! (l:::.... ElaS) 21.i.d4± Inkiov, V-Szitas,G, Condom, 2002 .
11.i.d2 Wfen Henris) 10.Wfb5 b6 11.Wfb3 Wfe7 b) 14...0-0 15.b4 d3!? (15 ... c5 16.0-0 i.b6
,

12.i.g5 Wfe6= Santos,A-Guerra,V, Amadora, 2011; 17.bc5 i.c5 18.Elb1 We7 19.i.d5;!;) 16.c5
• After 9.ig5 Black has the typical odd-looking (16.Wd3!? Wf6 (16 Wd3!? 17.ed3 i.d4 18.Elb1
9...Wfd7!?, an idea which I shall look at later with ab4 19.ab4 Ele8 (19 i.fS!?) 20.i.e3! i.e3 21.fe3
the line 5.g3 CiJge7 6.i.g2 CiJg6 7.i.g5 Wfd7!? Ele3 22.<j;Jf2 Eld3 23.Ela1 Elb8 24.Ela7~) 17.Ela2
,
'I'i b) 8...0-0 9.CiJbd2 CLlg6?! (9 ...ia7) (S17.Elb1?! i.fS 18.e4 i.g4! 19.Elb3 Elfe8t)
I,
",'
,~ iI
10.CLlb3! i.a7 11.c5! CiJge5 (Bollard,M-Hoffer, T, 17...ab4 18.i.b2 We7 oo ) 16...Wf6 17.Elb1
Nancy, 2003) 12.CiJe5!? CiJe5 13.CiJa5;!; Henris. (17.i.e3) 17...de2 (17 ...Eld8!? 18.i.b2 We7
19.Wd2) 18.We2 ab4 19.ab4 i.f5 20.Wb2 Elfe8
8....ia7! 21 .'tt>f1 Wb2 22.Elb2;!; Henris.
9.c!iJb3 CLlg6?! (Leosson,T-Ragnarsson,J,
I,
8...CLlg6?! 9.CiJb3 i.a7 10.i.g5!? (10.c5! Reykjavik, 1997; 09...i.e6) 10.c5!? Ct:Jge5
il·
III
I'
ctJge5 11.CiJe5 ctJe5 12.Wfd4 Wfd4 13.ctJd4 i.c5 11.CiJe5 CiJe5 12.Wd4 Wd4 13.CiJd4 i.c5 14.CiJb5
i~, !
,
i; 14.lt:lb5 i.b6 15.i.f4± Henris) 10...Wfd7 11.c5 h6 i.b6 15.i.f4± Henris.
!,
.
,
12.i.c1 CiJge5 13.ctJe5 ctJe5 14.Wfd4 Wfd4 15.ctJd4
i.c5 16.ctJb5 i.b6 17.i.f4 f6 (Nemeth,J-Chetverik,M, 9...0-0
Zalakaros, 1995) 18.i.e3! Ela6 19.b4! ab4 20.i.b6
Elb6 21.CiJc7 <j;Jf7 22.CiJd5 Elb5 23.ctJb4± Henris. At this point I must precise that Black chose an
8...a4? 9.b4! ab3 (Zambo,Z-CiernY,L, original move order to reach this position: 5.g3
Salgotarjan, 2002) 10.CiJb3 i.a7 11.i.b2± Henris. i.c5!? 6.i.g2 a5 7.0-0 CiJge7 8.ctJbd2 i.a7 9.a3 0-0.

120
""------------------------------------
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6 5.a3 other lines

10.b41? 16...f5 17.ef6 :gf6 18.l2Jd3 iJ7

19.Wfc2 lLlg6 20.ic1
This thematic counter sacrifice activates
White's queenside and gives more breathing 20.ttlbc5 ~e5 21.~e5 b6 22.~a3 Ei:a5+t Tisdall.
space for his pieces. Furthermore, he hopes to
demonstrate that the bishop on a7 is offside. 20...Wfe8 21.~bc5!?

10...ab4 11.ab4 ~b4 12.ia3 After 21.ic6 Ei:e6 22.e5 (playing against the ugly
bishop on a7), Black gets annoying counterplay
Interesting is 12.~b3!? e5 13.lLle4 - Hoeksema. with 22 ...Wfd8 23.~b2 Wfh4+t Hoeksema.

12... ~bc6 21 ...ic5 22J'!:a8 Wfa8 23.~c5 ~ce5

24.~b7??
12...c5? does not work: 13.lLlb3 ~b6 14.~b4 Ei:a1
15.Wfa1 eb4 16.e5 ~e7 17.lLlbd4 . Hoeksema. A very bad mistake.
After 24.ib7 Wfa7 25.Wfa4 Wfa4!
13.~b3 ig4!? (25 ...Wfe5? 26.~a3) 26.lLla4 ~e4, Black's
position is a bit more comfortable.
After 13...ie6, 14.lLlg5!? is unpleasant. 24.ib2! (in this open position, White's
bishop pair constitutes a potent force) 24...Ei:f4
14.h3 25J::1a1 Wff8 26.~b7! 11...Wfe5? 27.Ei:a8 - Hoeksema.

14.ttlc5 ~e5 15.~e5 Ei:a1 16.Wfa1 b6 17.lLld4=. 24...d3! 25.ed3 llJf3 26.if3 ~f3 27.llJc5

14...ih515.g4!? 27.~b1 Wfe8! 28.mh2 e5+ Hoeksema.

This move unnecessarily weakens the kingside. 27.. J~h3 28.l2Je4 ~e5 29.ie3?
Better was the immediate 15.ttle1.
029.f4 Ei:d3! (29 ... lLlg4? 30.Wfg2; 29 ... lLld3
15...,tg6 16.~e1 30.Wfg2) 30.Wfg2 (30.fe5 Wfe4-+) 30 ...Wfa7 31.e5
lLld7 32.Wfe2 Wfa6+ Henris.
16.ttlh4 is critical, when White still might have
slightly the better of it - his ~g2 is tremendous 29...Wfc8
and there are chances to use the c5 square. 0-1

121
 Chapter 4

Game 47 • 8.g3 (Euwe) 8 .ic5 9.j,g2 j,f5 10.0-0 'lMrd7

i, ;,
Morozov,Grigory (2353) 11.ctJbd2 0-0 (S11 a4?! 12.b4! ab3 13.ttJb3 ~a7
Babikov,lvan (2325) 14.ttJe5 ttJe5 15..ie5±) 12.ttJb3 .ia7 13.ctJes
Moscow, 2012 ttJe5 14..ie5 d3!? 15..if6 1"1f6 16..ib7 1"1af8
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.~f3 17..id5 Wh8 00 Henris.
~c6 5.a3 a5?! (0) b) 6...ttJge7!?:
• 7.e3!? seems critical: 7... ttJg6 8..ig5!? (8'~93
.ic5 9.ed4 ttJd4 (S9....id4?f 10.ttJd4 Wd4
11.ttJc3) 10..id3 ctJf3 11.iWf3 .ig4!? 12.iWe4 Wd4
13.ttJc3 0-0-0 14.ttJb5!? iWe4 (14 ...iWd3 15.Wg4
f5f 16.ef6 1"1d7 17.iWe2 (17.ttJc7 .ia3f? 18.We2
.ib2 (0
) 17...iWe2 18.We2 1"1e8 19.Wf1 gf6 (0
)

15..ie4 1"1he8 16..ig6 hg6iii Henris) 8...f6 9.ef6

gf6 10..if4!? (10 ..ih4!? .ig4!? (S10....ic5f?
11 ..ig3f iWe7 12..ie2 de3 13.fe3 iWe3 14.1"1f1 ctJf4
15..if4 iWf4 16.ttJc3"! Henris) 11.h3 (11 ..ig3 iWe7
12..ie2 de3 13.fe3 iWe3 14.ttJc3 .if3 15.gf3 ttJf4 co
Henris) 11 ....if3 12.iWf3 ttJh4 13.iWe4 We7
14.iWh4 de3 15.iWh5 <j;>d8 16.iWd5 Wc8i
6.ig5!? Keryakes,M-Machado Caldeira,A, Lomas de
Zamora, 1984) 10... ttJf4 11.ef4 .id6 12.g3 0-0,
I shall look here at the main alternatives to with an unclear position in Fuzishawa,R-
6.ttJbd2 and 6.g3. Herzog, Kl, carr., 2009;
6..if4: • 7.iWd3!? ttJg6 8..ig3 (8 ..ig5!? .ie7 9..ie7 iWe7
a) 6..,f6!? 7.ef6 ttJf6: (9oo.We7? 10.e3f±) 10.ttJd4 ttJge5 11.iWd2 ttJd4
• 8.iWd3!? 8... ~c5 9.ttJbd2 iWe7!? 10.ttJb3 ttJe4!? 12.iWd4 .if5iii) 8... h5!? 9.h4 .ic5 10.ttJbd2 iWe7
11.ttJbd4?! (11.~c7?! a4 12.ctJfd2 (12.ctJc1? 11.ttJe4 (11.ttJb3 .ig4!?=) 11....ia7= Henris;
ctJb4f-+) 12... ctJf2! 13.Wf2 0-0 Ll...ab3+; 11.g3 a4 • 7.ttJbd2 ttJg6 8..ig3 a4= Gelle,I-Eberth,Z,
12.ctJc1?! 0-0 Ll... ~f5+ Soultanbeieff; 11.ctJc5 ctJc5 Budapest, 1987.
12.iWd1 0-0; 11.ctJfd2!?) 11...~d4!? (o11 ...ctJd4! c) 6....ig4!? 7.ctJbd2 ttJge7 8.h3! .if3 9.ttJf3 ttJg6
12.ctJd4 0-0+) 12.ctJd4 ctJc5 13.We3 ctJd4 14.Wd4 10..ig5?! (10 ..ig3 .ic5 b..... iWe7; o10.e3!?"J;)
ctJb3 15.Wd1 a4!i Batik,F-Macht,A, carr, 1927; 10....ie7 11 ..ie7 iWe7 12.ttJd4!? (Hodges,A-
• 8.e3 .ic5! 9..ie2 (9.ed4 .id4) 9...0-0 10.0-0 Marshall,F, New York, 1900) 12oo.1"1d8! 13.e3
de3 11 ..ie3 .ie3 12.fe3 We7=; iWe5i Henris.

122
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6 5.a3 other lines

6.b3 i.e5: • 7.e4 tLlg6 8.i.g5 i.e7 9.i.e7 We7!? (9 ... tLlge7
a) 7.~b2 i.g4 8.tLlbd2 tLlge7 9.tLle4 i.a7 is OK 10.tLlbd2 a4; 9...\We7 10.tLld4 tLlee5) 10.tLlbd2
for Black. tLlf4 11.\We2 Ele8 12.g3 tLle6 13.i.d3 Wf8 14.0-0
b) Black has no problems after 7.g3 tLlge7 (Andersen, Fr-Nielsen, Poul 5, Copenhagen, 1987)
8.i.g2 tLlg6 9.i.b2 0-0 10.0-0 Ele8 11.tLlbd2 14... tLle5=;
tLlge5= Andrews,T-5arkar,J, Kings Island, 2006. • 7.ig5 h6 (7 ...i.e6 8.g3 \Wd7oo) 8.ih4 (8.ie7
c) 7.tLlbd2 i.f5 8.i.b2 tLlge7 9.g3 tLlg6 10.i.g2 ie7 9.e3 (9.tLlbd2 a4) 9...ie5! 10.ed4 i.d4
0-0 11.0-0 Ele8= 5idorov,An-ZablotskY,5, 11.tLld4 \Wd4~) 8...g5 9.ig3 ig7~ Meinsohn.
Krasnoyarsk, 2007. b) 6...ic5?! 7.tLlbd2 a4? (7 ... tLlge7?! 8.tLlb3
6.h3!?: ia7 9.e5 a4 10.tLlbd4 i.e5 11.tLle6 \Wd3 12.ed3
a) 6...ic5: tLle6 13.ie3± Henris) was played in Mayer,Alb-
• 7.ig5 tLlge7 8.tLlbd2 h6 9.ih4 ie6!? (9 ... a4!? Jones,Ho, Washington, 1960. Now White should
10.g4 ie6 11.\We2 \Wd7 12.tLle4 ib6 13.0-0-0 play 8.b4! ab3 9.tLlb3 ia7 10.ib2+ Henris.
tLlg6 14.ig3 0-0 (Marshall,F-Showalter,J,
Cambridge Springs, 1904) 14 ...\We7 15.ig2 0-0= 6....ie77..if4!?
LL.Elfd8, ...Ela5 - Henris) 10.Ele1!? (10.tLle4 ia7
11.\Wd3 \Wd7 12.if6!? ~f8 (12... 0-0? 13.ig7! During a simultaneous game, Anatoly
~g7 14.tLlf6±) 13.ih4 tLlg6 14.ig3 \We7 m Karpov played the rather weakening 7.h4!?:
Henris) 10...a4 11.g4 \Wd7 12.ig2 tLlg6 13.ig3 a) 7...f6!? is already possible: 8.ef6 tLlf6~ Henris.
h5!:j: 14.gh5 Elh5 15.h4 tLlge5 16.tLle5 tLle5 b) 7...ig4!? 8.tLlbd2 (Karpov,Ana-5toma,P,
17.tLle4? (17.ib7!? Elb8 18.if3 tLlf3 19.tLlf3 Koszalin (simul.), 1997) f6!? (8 ...ig5?! 9.hg5
Elb2+) 17...ib6!? (17 ...ie7?!, suggested by tLlge7 10.\We2 tLlg6 11.0-0-0 \We7 12.\We4±)
Tarrasch, is not so clear after 18.tLlg5 m Henris; 9.ef6 tLlf6~ Henris.
o17 ...tLle4 18.if3 Elf5 19.tLle5 (19.ig4?? tLlb2-+ 7.ie7?! tLlge7 only helps black's
Chigorin) 19...Ele5 20.ib7 Elb8 21.ie4 tLlb2+) development: 8.tLlbd2 0-0 9.g3!? (9.tLlb3 tLlf5
18.ie5!? Ele5 19.e5 ia5 20.Wf1 i.b3+ (~ ... a4) 10.g4!? tLlh4 11.tLlbd4 tLlf3 12.tLlf3 ig4C
Janowski, D-Tarrasch, 5, Monte Carlo, 1902; Henris) 9... tLlg6 10.ig2 (10.tLlb3 \We7! 11.ig2
• 7.e3!? if5 8.id3!? id3 9.\Wd3 de3 10.\Wd8 (~11.tLlbd4?! Eld8 12.e3 tLlce5 13.tLle5 tLle5+)
Eld8 11.i.e3 ie3 12.fe3 tLlge7 13.tLle3 tLlg6 11...Eld8! (11...a4!? 12.tLlbd4 Eld8 13.\Wd3 tLlge5
14.tLlb5 Eld7 15.e6 fe6= Janowski,D-Marshall,F, 14.\Wc3 (14.tLle5? tLld4-+) 14... tLld4 15.tLld4
New York, 1899. i.h3!? 16.0-0 (~16.ih3?! Eld4t) 16...i.g2 17.Wg2
b) 6...tLlge7!? ~ ... tLlg6. tLlc4 18.\Wc4 \We4 19.Wg1 \Wd4 20.\Wc7 \Wb2
6.\Wd3!?: 21.Elfb1 \We2 22. Elb7=) 12.0-0 a4 13.tLlbd2
a) 6...tLlge7: tLlge5+ Henris) 10... tLlge5 11.0-0 i.e6 12.tLle5

123
 Chapter 4
•

ttJe5 13.b3 EJ:b8:j: Dominguez Marquez,C- 21 ..ie2 ttJf3 22.gf3 j,f3 23.EJ:h4 (23.j,f3
Cuartas,Ja, Collado Villalba, 2010. EJ:f3 24.j,c7 EJ:df8 25.j,d6 EJ:c8 00 ) 23 ...ttJg4 24.EJ:h5
I
!, I, ttJe3 25.j,f3 EJ:f3°o.
7...g5!? 8.~g3 h5?! 21.j,e5 j,e5 22.j,e2 j,g3 23.Wf1 ttJf7oo.

Better is 8... g4 9.ttJfd2 a4ii5 Henris. 21 ..J3fe8?!

9.h3 21 ....!tJc6!=.

After the weaker 9.h4?! g4 10.ltJfd2!? (10.ltJg5!? 22.mf2 ttJef7 23.me3?!

j,g5 11.hg5 1Wg5 00 ) , as in Arata,R-Castellanos
Bogalo,A, Benidorm, 2009, Black has good 23..!tJf3 EJ:e4 24.j,c7 Eld 100 •
compensations with 10... a400 or 10.. .f6!?
23... ~f5~ 24.lLlf5 lLlf5 25.mf2 ~e4?
9...lLlh6 10.e4?!
25....!tJg3 26.Wg3 Eld1 t.
10..!tJbd2 g4 11.hg4 hg4 12.ltJg1 a4 13.j,f4 j,g5
14.g3;1; Henris. 26.~h5 lLl7h6?

10...de3 11.Wfd8 ~d8 12.fe3 O-O?! 26....!tJg3! 27.wg3 j,e5 28.Wf2 Elf4 29.We1
(29.Wg1 Eld1 30.Elf2 Elc4) 29 ...Ele4 30.Wf2 Elf4=.
12...h4 13.j,f2 j,e6°o Henris.
"

I 27.~c7 ~f8 28.~e2 lLld4 29.me1

13.e4 f5? 14.ef6 ~f6?! 15.lLlc3 g4 lLle2 30.~e2 ~c4 31.~e5?!
16.hg4 ~g4 17.ttJd5!?
31.j,a5 ltJf5 32.j,b4±.

31 ...lLlf5?
17... ~b2 18.~a2 ~g7 19.1Llc7 ~ad8
20.lLlb5?! 31 ....!tJg4! 32.j,g7 Wg7=.

20.j,e2±. 32.~g5 ~c1 33.md2 ~c6 34.g4 ~d8

35.me1 ~c1 36.mf2
20...lLle5 21.lLlfd4!? 1-0

124
11'------------------------------------
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6 5.a3 other lines

Game 48 14.EJ:g1 E1he8!? (14 ... tLJe4 15.tLJe4 ~e4 16.0-0-0

Gallego Jimenez, Victoriano (2341) EJ:hf8=t Henris) 15.0-0-0 tLJe4! 16.tLJe4 iWe4
Ferron Garcia,Carlos (2283) 17.tlJd2 iWe7!? (o17... iWf4 18.iWf3 (18.iWg3 iWfl)
Barcelona, 2000 18... iWd6t Henris) 18.tlJf3 iWf7 19.EJ:g3 1Wf4
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4. tlJt3 20.EJ:d2 (Brunner,N-Leygue,D, Marseille, 2006)
tlJc6 5.a3 .it5?! (0) 20 ... d3! 21.e3 (21.~g7?? de2-+) 21 ... ~b2
22.iWb2 EJ:e3! 23.fe3 iWg3=t Henris.
b) 6...f6?! 7.ef6 1Wf6 8.~b2 0-0-0 9.iWa4 ~b8
10.tlJbd2± (Llg3, ~g2, 0-0) Kolev,At-Estevez
Jacome,J, Aviles, 1991.

6...de3

6... ~g4 7.~e2 de3 8.1Wd8 EJ:d8 9.~e3

~f3 10.~f3 tlJe5 11.~b7 tlJc4 12.~c6 ~e7
13.~a7 tlJb2 14.0-0, and White's a-pawn should
easily decide the game - Avrukh.
6...d3? 7.tlJc3 tlJge7 8.e4 ~g4 9.iWd3
1Wd3 10.~d3 ~f3 11.gf3 tlJe5 12.~e2±
6.e3! Karttunen,M-Jackson,O, Liverpool, 2006.

6.Wfb3!? is also good: 6.. J~lb8 (6 ...Wfd7?! 6. de3 7.Wfd8 E:d8 8..ie3 tlJge7
7.Wfb7! EJ:b8 8.Wfa6 ~c2 9.c5!+) 7.e3;!; Henris.
6..tg5!? ~e7 is worth considering: 8....tg4!? 9.tlJbd2 tlJge7 10.~f4 tlJg6
a) 7..tf4 (Polishchuk,O-Rzecki,A, Augustow, 11.~g3 ~c5 12.h3 ~f3 13.tlJf3 ~d4 14.tlJd4 EJ:d4
2004) 7...g5!? 8.~g3 g4 9.tlJfd2 iWd71ii Henris; 15.EJ:d1 EJ:d1 16.~d1 tlJge5 17.f4± Szmidt,P-
b) 7 .~e 7?! (Volcinschi,S-Grigore,Ge, Eforie Wodzynski,Mic, Znin, 2010.
Nord, 1998) 7...iWe7! Ll... O-O-O=i= Henris. 8.. .f6 9.ef6 tlJf6 10.tlJc3 tlJg4 11.~g5
6.b4!?: EJ:d7 12.~e2, and White is a pawn up - Avrukh.
a) 6...Wfe7!? 7.tlJbd2 0-0-0 8.iWa4 ~b8 9.~b2
f6!? 10.ef6!? tlJf6 11.h3!? g5?! (o11...tlJe4 9.tlJc3
12.tlJe4 ~e4 Ll13.0-0-0?! g6!+ Henris) 12.g4!?
(12.iWb5!? ~c2t Henris) 12... ~g6 13.iWb3?! 9..tf4!? is interesting: 9... tlJg6 10.~g3
(13.~g2 tlJe4 14.tlJe4 ~e4+± Henris) 13... ~g7t ~c5!? (10 ... h5!?) 11.tlJbd2 tlJd4!? (11 ... 0-0

125
 Chapter 4
-
12,0-0-0 :gfe8= Henris) 12,ctJd4?! (better is 11 ... ttJd4 12.ttJd4 .l\g4
12,O-0-0!?:t) 12 .. ,~d4 13,0-0-0 0-0 14,~e2 ~e5=
Roberto,J-Alberto Filho,C, Recife, 2009. 12... ~e4 13.f3 ~c5 (13 ... ~c6 14.ct:Jc6 bc6 15.f4±)
Black has no problem after 9.~g5?! h6 14.E1d1 0-0 15.fe4 (15.e6!? fe6 16.ct:Je6 E1d1 17.l1Jd1
10,~e7 ~e7 11,ct:Jc3 (Golikov, D-Mustafayev, F, ~f3 18.gf3 ~e3 19.ct:Jf8 11Jf8 20.~d3+- Henris)
Varna, 2011) 11 ... ~g4! - Henris. 15...E1fd8 16.~e2 (16.~g5? ~e7 17.~e7 ct:Je7=:.
Savoglou,N-Stoumbos,K, Nikea, 2007) 16... ~d4
9...ltJg6 17.~g4 ct:Je5 18.~d7 ~e3 19.11Je2+ Henris.

I
In Holland,D-Abbott,P, Sydney, 2009, Black 13.f3.th5
played 9...a6!? (to avoid ct:Jb5). But after 10.~e2
ct:Jg6, White can obtain the advantage thanks to 13... ~c5!? 14.E1d1 (14.0-0-0! 0-0 15.b4 ~d4 16.E1d4
his lead of development with 11.ct:Jd5 E1d7 E1d4 17.~d4 E1d8 18.~c3 ~e6 19.93 ct:Je7 20.g4 ct:Jg6
12.0-0-0 ct:Jce5 13.ct:Je5 ct:Je5 14.E1heH Henris. 21.E1g1 ct:Jf4 22.l1Jc2± Avrukh) 14... ~h5 15.b4
(15.g4? ct:Je5 16.gh5 (16.l1Jf2 ~g6 17.b4 ~e7 18.~e2
10.ltJb5 ~h4 19.11Jg2 h5t) 16... ~d4 17.~d4 ct:Jf3 18.l1Jf2
ct:Jd4+; 15.e6!? fe6 16.b4±) 15... ~d4 (Sagalchik,G-
Black is fine after 10.~e2!? ct:Jce5. Reprintsev,A, Roslavl, 1989) 16.E1d4!?±.
But maybe even stronger is 10.ltJd5!?
E1c8 (10 ... E1d7 11.0-0-0 ct:Jge5 12.ct:Je5 ct:Je5 14.g4
13.~a7!± Avrukh Ll13 ... b6? 14.E1e1+-) 11.ct:Jd4
~e6 (Hendricks,M-Finegold ,B, Plymouth, 1984) 14.e6!? fe6 15.ct:Je6.
12.ct:Jb5! ~d5 13.cd5 ct:Jce5 14.ct:Ja7± Avrukh. 14.0-0-0 ct:Je5 15.~e2±.

10.. J3d7 11.ltJfd4!? 14...lLJeS 1S.ghS l3d4 16.id4 lLJf3

It was more precise to play 11.ltJbd4!:
a) 11 ... ~e4!? 12.ct:Jc6 (after 12.e6!? fe6,
as in Garkauskas, O-Matsuura, E, Maringa, 2012,
13.ct:Je6;t Henris) 12 ... ~c6 13.~e2;t (13.e6!?)
Gomez, Dan-Scalise, L, Buenos Aires, 2002.
b) 11 ... ~g4 12.ct:Jc6 bc6 (12 ... ~f3 13.gf3
bc6 14.f4+-) 13.ct:Jd2 ct:Je5 14.~a7± Henris.
c) 11...ltJd412.~d4!± Henris.
17.<;!;lf2 lLJd4 18.ig2± lLJe6 19.ib7
ics 20.<;!;lf3 0-0 21.b4 ie7 22.l3ad1
cS 23.l3d7 l3e8 24.idS cb4 2S.ie6
fe6 26.ab4 ib4 27.l3a7 l3c8 28.l3g1
if8 29.l3g4 h6 30.l3e4 <;!;lh7 31.l3b7
l3cS 32.l3bS l3c8 33.l3beS id6 34.l3e6
ih2 35.<;!;lg2 ib8 36.l3e8 l3c7 37.l3b8
l3e7 38.l3h8
1-0

126
,
""----------------------------------
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.C2Jf3 C2Jc6 5.a3 other lines

Game 49 7.e3!
Aleksandrov,Aleksej (2616)
Ahmed,Fay (1850) The game position was reached by the move
Abu Dhabi, 2009 order 4.a3 tlJc6 5.e3 f6?! 6.ef6 tlJf6 7.tlJf3.
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.CL'lf3 7.g3 ~g4 is likely to transpose to the line 5.g3
llJc6 5.a3 f6?! (D) f6 6.ef6 tlJf6 7.a3 ~g4 (game 142 - chapter 10).

7...i.g4

7...de3 8.lMrd8 tlJd8 9.~e3+.

8.i.e2;t de3

8...~f3 9.~f3 lMrd7 (9 ...de3 10.~e3 tlJe5

6.ef6
6.~f4? is weaker: 6...g5 7.~c1 g4 8.tlJg1 fe5:j:
Van Vliet,L-(ohn,W, Ostend, 1907.
6...CL'lf6
6...lMrf6 is also inadequate:
a) 7.g3! ~f5 8.~g2 h6 9.0-0 0-0-0
10.tlJbd2!? g5 11 J"la2!? «11.b4? d3) 11 ... h5!?
(11 tlJge7 12.b4 g4 13.tlJh4:t) 12.b4
(12 g4 13.tlJh4 ~h7 14.lMra4+) 13.b5! tlJb8!?
(13 tlJce7 14.tlJb3+) 14.lMra4!? a6!? 15.tlJb3+
Lundholm,S-Rojahn,E, Stockholm, 1948.
b) Possible is 7.~g5!? lMrg6 8.tlJbd2+.
11.tlJd2 c6 12.0-0 ~e7 13.~e2 0-0 14.lMrc2±
Andre,K-Matula,E, carr., 1988) 10.ed4 tlJd4
11.tlJc3!? 0-0-0 12.~e3 ~c5 13.0-0 c6 14.tlJd5!
tlJf3 15.lMrf3 ~e3 16.tlJe3± Avrukh.
8...lMrd7?! 9.tlJd4+ Henris.
9.Wfd8 gd8 10.i.e3 i.e7 11.CL'lc3± a6
12.0-0 0-0 13.gfd1 b6 14.h3 i.f5
15.11Jd5 i.d6 16.b4 llJd5 17.cd5
llJe5 18.11Jd4 b5 19.9ac1 i.d7
20.i.f1 gde8 21.11Jb3 gf6 22.11Jc5
i.c8 23.11Je4 gg6 24.~h1 i.f5
25.11Jd6 cd6 26.gc7 i.e4 27.~h2
ga8 28.gd4 i.f5 29.gf4 i.d3 30.i.d3
llJd3 31.gff7 as 32.ba5 gaS 33.i.d4
h4!? llJe5 34.gfe7 h5 35.ge6 ge6 36.de6
~f8 37.i.e3 ga8 38.14 llJc4 39.i.d4
ge8 40.gf7 ~g8 41.gg7 ~f8 42.gf7
~g8 43.f5 llJa3 44.gg7 ~f8 45.gh7
1-0

127
jili

PART TWO

1.d4 d5 2.c4e5 3.de5 d4 4.tLlf3 tLlc6 5.g3

-------------------------------- ------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

According to the old theory books, White's

best move is 5.g~ at this stage. And thus for
a long time 5.g3 was considered to be the
main line and was therefore by far the most
popular continuation in the Albin.
Black used to respond to 5.g3 with a quick
development of his queenside with ... ~e6 or
... ~g4, ,..~d7, ... 0-0-0, followed by ... h5
and/or ... ~h3.
'I
Unfortunately for Black, White's attack
I

seems the stronger at the end.

But with the appearance of Morozevich's
games, where he successfully used a totally
different approach with 5... ltJge7, things
turned out to be not so simple after the
traditional5.g3.
And for the time being White is
experiencing difficulties in proving an
advantage in this line.

After 5.g3, I shall analyse the following continuations:

- Chapter 5: 5,..ltJge7
- Chapter 6: 5 ~e6 6.t2Jbd2 ~d7 7.~g2
- Chapter 7: 5 ~e6 other lines
- Chapter 8: 5 ~g4 6.ltJbd2
- Chapter 9: 5 ~g4 6.~g2
- Chapter 10: other lines

128
po

'" '1':
" -.,." '
•

Chapter:5 5.93~ge7.

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.lLlf3 Other moves fail to give White any advantage:
ctJc6 5.a3 lLlge7 (0) 6.~g5 prevents the knight from going
after the pawn (~ game 77).
6.lLlbd2 (~ game 78).
6.e3 (~ game 78).
6.lLla3 (~ game 78).
6.b3 ltJg6 7.~b2 (~ game 78).

6...tLlg6

At this junction, White has two main

continuations: 7.0-0 and 7.~g5.
The following alternatives are also interesting:
7.~f4 (~ games 72, 73 and 74).
7,1;Wa4 (~ game 75).
It is clear what the plan behind the text move 7.1Mfb3 (~ game 76).
is: to go for the e5-pawn as quickly as possible 7.lLlbd2 (~ game 76).
with ... ltJe7-g6.
Indeed, instead of trying to checkmate his
opponent as soon as possible with the 7.0-0 (0)
traditional coffee-house set-up mentioned
I
before (... ~e6/ ... ~g4, ...1Mfd7, ...0-0-0, ... h5 and
I
... ~h3), the second player prefers a more
..~
-'V-I

positional approach in regaining the sacrificed CC,

pawn.
If Black succeeds in retrieving his gambit
pawn, his advanced d4-pawn will constitute a
fair trade-off against White's powerful bishop
on g2.

6.~g2

The most natural and strongest move in the

position. White simply castles and doesn't bother about

129
 . -
Chapter 5

the gambit pawn. His play is based on his slight 7.i.gS (D)
lead in development. Black must be cautious
as he can achieve equality only by accurate
play.

7...ctJgeS!

Black must win back the pawn immediately as

after the natural 7...ie7?! Black will be in
trouble (-+ game 60).

8.ctJeS

8.lLlbd2 ie7 9.b3 is the subject of

game 55. See game 56 for 9.a3. The The most ambitious move. White develops with
alternatives to 9.b3 and 9.a3 deserve attention tempo and prevents the normal course of
too (-+ game 57). events for Black: winning back the pawn and
Instead of 8...ie7 Black also has 8.. .ctJf3 and kingside castling. It is not immediately obvious
8...96 (-+ game 58). how Black should reply now.
8.b3 is worth considering (-+ game 59).
8.~a4 (-+ game 59). 7...Wfd7!
8.~b3 (-+ game 59).
The queen isn't positioned very well as it is in
8...ctJeS the path of the bishop, but on the other hand
the e5-pawn's time is nearly over. The choice
Now White has the following possibilities: of defences is very narrow and this odd-looking
9.lLld2 (-+ game 50) and 9.b3 (-+ move is in fact far stronger than the following
games 51 and 52) are the two main alternatives:
continuations here. 7...ie7?! is the subject of game 70.
9.lLla3 (-+ game 53). Unfortunately for him, after 8.ie7 Black has to
9.~b3 (-+ game 54). take back with his king in order not to remain a
White also has the minor alternatives pawn down.
9.~c2, 9.e3 and 9.b4 (-+ game 54). 7....ib4?! is unsatisfactory (game 70).
Maxim Chetverik, author of a book on

130
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ct:Jf3 ct:Jc6 5.g3 ~ge7

the Albin Counter-Gambit together with 8.e61?

Alexander Raetsky, has championed 7...f6?! (~
games 70 and 71). However, after 8.ef6 gf6
9.~d2 Black's pawn structure is too compromised,
with no clear compensation in sight.
After 7...Vf1d7, White can only choose how to
part with his e5-pawn.
He has two main lines now: 8.0-0 and 8.e6.
See game 69 for 8.e3, 8.Vf1b3 and
8.Vf1a4.
This well-known Albin ploy may well be White's
best try for a small advantage. White gives
back the pawn (which is dead wood anyway) at
an opportune moment in order to obtain the
slightly superior pawn structure.
8... fe6
8...Vf1e6 and 8... ~b4 (~ game 68).

9.0-0
8.0-0 h6!N
See game 68 for the moves 9.a3 and
This is Morozevich's crucial novelty. Black had 9.h4.
previously tried 8...lLlge5?!. But White is simply
better after 9.lLlbd2 lLlf3 10.tLlf3 ~c5 11.tLle1 !±. 9 ...e5
See game 64 for detailed analyses.
9...h6 (~ game 68).
9..ic1
10.ltJbd2
After 9.,if4 Black has the opportunity
to grasp the initiative with tLlf4 10.gf4 g5!. The The alternatives 1 0.~c1, 10.Vf1a4,
position is now very complicated (~ game 63). 10.a3 and 10.e4 are all worth considering (~
9.~d2 (~ game 63). game 67).
9.e6 (~ game 63).
10... h611 ..ih4
9...ltJge5
Now Black has 11 ...Vf1f7 (~game 65).
Now White has 10.lLlbd2 (~ game 61). In this position he also has a lot of
See game 62 for the alternatives to interesting options at his disposal: 11 ...~b4,
10.tLlbd2, including 10.lLle5 tLle5. 11...~d6, 11...,ie7, 11 ...Vf1e6 and 11...Vf1f5 (~
game 66).

131
"",----, -

Chapter 5
-
Game 50 (21.~e4 ~f6) 21 ... ~g4 22.8g4 0-0-0-+ 23.8e5?
Lautier,Joel (2680) ~f6 0-1 Lovas,R-Tritt,M, Internet, 2005.
Raetsky,Alexander (2393) 10.ttJb3!? does not promise much:
Internet (blitz), 2004 10... 0-0!? (10 ...c5) 11.ltJd4 ltJc4 12.b3 ~f6 13.e3
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.lLJf3 ltJb6 14.~a3 ~e8 15.~c1 ~d4!? (15 ... c6=)
lLJc6 5.g3 lLJge7 6.ig2 lLJg6 7.0-0 16.ed4!? c6= Janev,T-Tadic,B, Belgrade, 2011.
lLJge5! 8.lLJe5lLJe5 9.lLJd2 (0) Black has adequate counterplay after
10.iWa4!? c6 11.b4!? 0-0 12.b5 ~g4!?
Pogorelov, R-Lyell,Ma, Pamplona, 2009.

10...lLJf3

/, ~,1
',' -
" 7 h ,
In Akobian,V-Nakamura,Hik, Philadelphia, 2004,
the two IGM agreed to a draw here.

11.~f3 0-0 (0)

9... ~e7 10.ltJf3

10.b3!?:
a) Black had a very comfortable game after
,I"
10...0-0 11.~b2 ~e8 12.h3!? c5 13.~e1 a5=
Brunner,L-Brendel,O, Switzerland, 2004.
'I

I
b) The more enterprising 10... h5!? seems also
possible: 11.~b2!? (11.ltJf3 ltJf3 12.~f3 Moo)
'I
11 ... h4 12.ltJe4?! (12.ltJf3 ltJf3 13.~f3 hg3
14.fg3 oo (S14.hg3? V!1d6 15.V!1d4 Wih6 16.~fb1 12.~f4
V!1h2 17.cj:;f1 ~h3 18.cj:;e1 ~d8 19.~d5 c6-+)
Henris) 12... hg3 13.fg3 ltJg4?! (013 ... c5i=) White has a large number of other alternatives:
14.V!1d4 V!1d4 15.~d4 ltJh2 16.m2 ltJg4 17.~f4 f6 12.V!1d3!?:
I
18.a4 a6 19.1tJf2 ltJe5 20.~e5 fe5 21.~g4? a) I like the way Black responded to 12.Wid3!? in

132
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6 5.g3 ~ge7

the game Bonade,M-Bontempi,P, Crema, 2009: 12 ~h3 13.!'Ie1 c6= Ginsburg.

12...c5!? 13J''\d1 iWb6 14.~e4 h6 15.iWf3 a5=. 12 ~f6!? is worth considering too.
b) 12... ~f6!? is playable but Black must be
careful in order not to face difficulties: 13.b4 13.~dS ~d6!?
g6!? (13 ...iWe7 14.b5 !'Id8 15.a4 a6°o Henris)
14.~b2 ~f5 15.iWb3!? (15.iWd2 c6). Now instead 13...iWb6 14.iWc2 ~e6 is also good - Davies.
of 15...a5?! 16.~b7 !'Ia7 17.~f3± Plaskett,J-
Trent,L, Southend, 2007, Black should have 14.'lWd2 ~h3 1SJ~fe1 ~b8 16.e4
continued with 15...iWe7 16.!'Iad1 !'Ifd8= Henris. bS!? H.eS ~c7
12.iWb3!? is not really dangerous:
a) 12... ~c5 13.~f4 c6 14.~g2?! (14.!'Iad1 iWf6!?) Black has a very pleasant position.
14...!'Ie8 15.h4 h6!? (15 ...a5!) 16.h5 iWe7!?
17.me1 iWf6 18.!'Iad1 a5! 19.a4!? (Lahiri,A- 18.'lWc2 ~e6 19.~e6 fe6 20.cbS
Semiev,S, Alushta, 2005) 19...!'Ie7!+ Henris. ~bS 21.b3 'lWdS 22.'lWe4 h6 23.h4
b) 12...a5!? 13.!'Id1 a4 14.iWd3 ~c5 15.~f4 'lWe4 24.~e4 as 2S.~c1 ~a8 26.~c4
(15.~e3? de3 16.iWd8 ef2 17.~g2 f1iW!-+; 15.e3?! a4?!
iWf6 16.ed4 ~d4! 17.iWd4 iWf3:j:) 15...iWe7 16.h4?!
h6 17.!'Iac1 !'Ie8:j: (lL.g5-g4, ...iWe2) 18.h5 !'Ia6 26... ~b6! 27.!'Ie1 a4 28.ba4 !'Ib4 29.!'Ib4 cb4:j:.
19.!'Ie1 !'If6! 20.a3 (20.~g2 ~f5 21.iWd1 a3+)
20 ...!'Ib6 21.iWd2 !'Ib3 22.g4 iWh4 23.~c7 ~g4 27.ba4 ~baS 28.~d2 ~a4 29.~cS
24.iWf4 d3!! 25.e3 d2 26.~g4 ~e3!! 0-1 ~a2!?
Dunning,S-Mengarini,A, Massachusetts, 1979.
12.b3!?: 29... ~b6 30.!'Ic6 !'I8a6 (30 ...!'Ia2 31.!'Ib6 !'Id2
a) 12...~h3?! (Jegorovas,A-Strohhaeker, Rao, 32.!'Ie6 !'Iaa2 33.!'If4±) 31.h5 !'Ia2 32.!'If4 !'Ia8
Internet (blitz), 2007) 13.~b7! ~f1 14.~a8 ~e2 33.!'Ib6 !'Id2 34.!'Ie6±.
(14 ...iWa8 15.iWf1 ~f6 16.~f4) 15.iWe2 d3 16.iWe3
~f6 17.!'Ib1 iWa8 18.iWd3 !'Id8 19.iWfH Henris. 30.~c7 ~d2 31.~g4± gS 32.hgS hS
b) 12...c6 13.iWd3 (13.~b2!? ~h3 14.~g2 ~g2 33.~f4 ~f8 34.~f6 d3 3S.~d7 ~e2
15.~g2 c5) 13...iWa5!? 14.~b2 !'Id8= Henris. 36.~d3?!
12.e3 is harmless: 12 ...de3 13.~e3 iWd1
14.!'Ifd1 c6= Porat,I-Brustkern,J, Budapest, 2005. 36.!'Ig6 ~h8 37 .!'Ie6 ~g8 (37 ...!'Ief2 38.!'If6+-;
12.~c2 c5 13.!'Id1!'1e8 14.~e4 96 - Davies. 37 ...d2 38.!'Iee7+-) 38.!'Ig6 ~h8 39.!'Id3+-.

12...cS! ? 36... ~eS 37 .~g6?

133
 Chapter 5

37 j"U8 \tJf8 38.f4+. Game 51

Pedersen,Stef (2457)
37 ...<it>f7 38J~U6!? Sadorra, Julio Catalino (2431)
Beijing (rapid), 2008
38J~h6 gg5 39.gd7 cj;>g8 40.ge6 h4 41.cj;>g2 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.~f3
gf7;j; . ~c6 5.g3 ~ge7 6.i.g2 ~g6 7.0-0
~ge5! 8.~e5 ~e5 9.b3 (0)
38 ...<it>g839'!!df3?!

I,
39J'!f8 cj;>f8 40. f4±.

I'
39 .. '!U6 40.gf6
I

I
40J'!f6 gg5 41.ge6 h4=.
I

'II
, :1
40 ...<it>f7 41.gf4 gf5 42.ga4 <it>f6
I' 43.<it>g2 <it>g5 44.ga6 <it>f6 45.gb6
I)
gc5 46.<it>f3 gc4

46...e.t>f5.
'I I White decides to attack the d4-pawn with his
47.gb5 <it>g6? bishop on b2.

47...e5. 9...i.c5!

48.ge5 gc6? Theoricians agree that this is best.

Other continuations are weaker:
Black could have reached a theorical drawn 9...ie7?! 10.ib2 if6 transposes to
endgame with 48... h4 49.g4 (49.gh4 gh4 50.ge6 Piskov, Y-Mozny,M, Clichy, 1990; see game 60.
cj;>f7=) 49 ... gc3 50.e.t>g2 cj;>f6 51.gh5 gd3=. 9...a5?! 10.ib2 ic5 11.tLla3 0-0
12.tLlb5 tLlc6 13.Wd2 (13.ic6!? bc6 14.tLld4
49.<it>g2 gb6 50.<it>h3 ga6 51.14 gb6 ($.14.id4 ib4 15.a3 ih3) 14 ... ~f6 15.~d2!
52.<it>h4 Henris) 13 ... ~e7?! (13 ... ge8 14.ic6 bc6
1-0 15.tLld4± Henris) 14.tLld4!? tLld4 15.id4 id4

134
,...-------------------------------
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.Ct:Jf3 Ct:Jc6 5.g3 lDge7

16.'lWd4 'lWe2 17.Ei:fe1 'lWh5 18.Ei:e5 'lWh6 28.Ei:c1 h6 Y2- Y2 Estremera P-Fluvia Poyatos,Jor,
19.Ei:ae1+ Rej,T-Brandenburg,D, Yerevan, 2006. Illes Medes, 2006.
9...c5?! is too slow: 10.e3! ctJc6 b) 11 ...c5?! (Epishin,V-Chetverik,M, Bad
(10 ...il.g4 11.f3 il.e6 12.f4 il.g4 13.'lWd2 ctJc6 Wiessee, 2006) 12.b4! cb4 13.V!ifa4 ctJc6 14.il.c6
14.Ei:e1C Henris) 11.ed4 ctJd4!? 12.ctJc3;!; bc6 15.V!ifc6 il.d7 16.V!ife4 il.e6 17.ltJc2;!; Raetsky
Gnusarev,Pe-Kairbekov,R, Astana, 2007. & Chetverik.
9...96?!, suggested by Kasimdzhanov, 10.b4!? il.e7 11.il.b2 ctJc4 (11 il.f6
looks very dubious to me because Black is 12.ltJd2) 12.il.d4 0-0 13.~d3 il.e6!? (13 il.f6
dangerously late in the development. For example: 14.il.f6 ~f6 15.ltJc3 ltJe5 16.ltJd5 ~d6 17.~e4;!;
10.e3!? de3 11.~d8 'tt>d8 12.Ei:d1 ltJd7 13.iie3 iig7 Henris) 14.il.b7 Ei:b8 15.il.g2 Ei:b4 16.il.c3!? Ei:b6
14.iid4 iid4 15.Ei:d4 c6 16.ltJc3;!; Henris. 17.a4 c5!? (17 ...il.c5) 18.~c2 ~c8 19.1tJd2 il.f5
20.e4 ltJd2 21.il.d2 il.e6 22.il.e3 Ei:b4 23.Ei:fc1 ~c7
10.~b2 24.il.c5 Ei:c4 25.~c4 il.c4 26.il.e7 V!ife7 27.Ei:c4=
Grachev,B-Morozevich,A, Moscow (blitz), 2006.
White has numerous alternatives:
10.ltJd2 0-0 11.ltJe4 il.e7: 10...0-0
a) 12.il.b2 c5 13.e3 ctJc6 14.ed4 cd4 15.a3 a5
16.'lWd3 il.g4 17.h3 il.e6 18.f4 'lWd7 19.~h2 Ei:ad8 10...il.g4? 11.h3!? (11.b4!±) 11...il.h5 12.b4! il.e7
20.Ei:f2 h6 21.Ei:d1 Ei:fe8 22.'lWf1?! f5 23.ctJd2 il.f6 13.g4 il.g6 (Dao Thien Hai-Senador,E, Kuala
24.ltJf3 a4! 25.b4 V!iff7 26.c5 il.c4 27.V!ifh1 d3:j: Lumpur, 2007) 14.il.d4!± Henris.
Malinin,V-Chetverik,M, Sukhumi, 2006.
b) White has difficulties to progress after 12.e3 11.CDd2 (D)
c5 (12 ...de3 13.il.e3 il.g4= Davies) 13.il.b2 ctJc6
14.ed4 cd4 15.f4 il.f5 16.g4!? iie4 17.iie4 iic5
18.~d3 ~h4 19.a3!? (Neverov,V-Strohhaeker,
Rao, Dresden, 2007) 19... a5! 20.h3 Ei:fe8 - Davies.
10.il.a3!? il.a3 11.ltJa3:
a) 11...0-0 12.~d2 (12.ltJb5 c5 13.e3 d3 (13... de3
14.V!ifdB ef2 15. Ei:f2 Ei:dB 16.il.d5 il.e6 17.il.b 7 Ei:abB
1B.il.e4 Ei:d7 ) 14.~d2 il.g4 15.f4ltJc6 - Raetsky &
Chetverik) 12...c5 13.ctJc2 V!ife7 14.e3 d3 15.ctJe1
Ei:d8 16.Ei:d1 il.g4 17.f3 il.h5 18.h3 f5 19.Ei:c1 Ei:d6
20.Ei:c3 Ei:ad8 21.f4 ctJc6 22.il.d5 il.f7 23.Ei:d3 il.d5
24.Ei:d5 Ei:d5 25.cd5 ctJb4 26.ctJf3 Ei:d5 27.~c2 ctJc6

135
 Chapter 5
: "

I,
This is the critical position for this line. (16 ...Wfe2!? 17.Ele2 ttJd3 18.~a3 ~f5 19.~f8 ~f8
I I
Black does not need to fear 11.e3? 20.Eld1 Eld8) 17.m3 (17.~f3? ttJf3 18.m3 Wfe4+)
because of 11...~g4! 12.Wfe2 (12.Wfd2? de3 17 ...Wfe2 18.Ele2 ttJf3 19.~f3 f5 20.ttJg5 e6
13.~d8 Elad8 14.~e5 ef2 15.'>t>h1 Elfe8+) 12...d3 21.ttJe6 Elf? 22.~a3 Ele8 23.ttJe5 Y2-Y2 Starke,
13.~e3 Ele8 14.ctJd2 ~e2+ Henris. Re-Leisebein,P, corr., 2005.
11.ttJa3!? is the subject of game 52. 12.Elc1 f5 13.ctJf3 ctJf3! (if 13... ctJe6?!, as
in Praveen Kumar,C-Saptarshi,R, New Delhi,
11 ...a5! 2008, 14.e3! de3 15.Wfd5! Wfd5 16.cd5 ef2
17.~h1 ~e3 14.~f3
II
18.Ele3+ Henris) f4!+i
,

The move 11...a5!, discovered by 1M Mark Henris.

I' Ginsburg, provides the bishop with a refuge on a7.
,I; ,

, '
Black must be careful otherwise White will 12....ig4!? 13.h3 .ih5 14.lL\f3
, '
obtain an edge as the following variations show:
11 ig4? 12.ctJe4±. 14.~b7 Elb8 15.~e4 (:S;15.~g2?! ctJd3) 15...Ele8ii5
11 ~e7? 12.ttJe4 Eld8 13.ctJe5 ~e5 Henris.
14.e3:!: ~g4? (Pantic,I-Vasovski,N, Belgrade,
2007) 15.~d4!± Henris. 14...lL\c6!?
III 11 ...a6?! 12.ctJe4 ~a7 13.e3;!;.
11...ib6?! 12.b4!;!;. 14...ttJf3.
, I'
11...f5?! 12.ctJf3 (12.a3 a5 13.b4!;!;)
, ,!I
12...ctJe6!? (12 ...ctJf3 13J!J3;!;) 13.a3 a5 14.~d2 15.'1Wd2 i!e8 16.i!fe1 Wd6!?
~d6 15.~fd1 Eld8 16.ctJg5+ Gounder,S-Wright,N, 17.Wg5!? .ig6 18.lL\h4 i!e5!?
Canberra, 2010.
II, I 11...~e7?! 12.ctJf3 ctJf3 13.~f3 e5 14.~d3 Also possible is 18... h6 19.~g4 (19.~d2 ~e4)
~f6 15.e3!? de3 16.~d8 ef2 17.m2 ~d8 18.1''1eH 19... ~e2t Henris.
Konstantinov,Ma-Dzulynski,M, corr., 2008.
19.Wf4 i!ae8 20.lL\g6 Wg6 21.Wd2
12.a3!? Wh5 22.g4!? Wh4 23.Wd3 h5!
24..ic1? hg4+ 25..if4?! gh3
12.ttJe4 ~a7 (fL.e5, ... ~b8, ...Ela6) 26..ig3 Wh6 27..id5 i!g5 28.@h1
'!
13.e3!? (13.e5 ctJe6 Ll...f5) 13... ~g4 14.f3 de3 .id6 29.Wf3 i!e7+
15.~e2 (15.~d8? Elfd8! 16.~e5 (16.fg4? e2-+) 0-1
16...e2 17.e5 ef1~ 18.~f1 ~f5 19.~e7 Eld7 In a difficult position White decided to resign
,
,, 20.~d6 Ele8+ Henris) 15... ~d3! 16.Elae1 ~f3!? prematurely.

136
p

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.tDf3 tDc6 5.g3 tDge7

Game 52 13...il.b6!? is also interesting: 14."@fd2 c5

Kaiyrbekov,Rustam (2342) «14 ..."@ff6 (f:"... c5 Davies) 15.c5! ic5 16.gad1
Voinov,Alexandr (2439) 1iMb6 (16... c6 17.1&c2±) 17.1&f4 ltJg6 18."@fe4 c6
Tomsk,2008 19.h4!?t Henris) 15.ltJf5D if5 16.1&f4 ltJc4
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 17.1&c4 gd7 18.gad1 gad8 19.9d71&d7= Henris.
ttJc6 5.g3 ltJge7 6.~g2 ltJg6 7.0-0
ltJge5! 8.ttJe5 ltJe5 9.b3 ~c5! 14.h3 ~d4! 15.~d4 c5 16.hg4 E:d4
10.~b2 0-0 11.ltJa3!? (D) 17.W1c2 ttJg4!?= 18.~d5 W1g5 19.e3?!

o19.~g2 ge8 20.gad1 gd1 21.gd1 b6= Henris.

19...'IWh5!? 20J~fe1 W1h2 21.@f1 E:d3!?

21..J'~d5 22.cd5ltJe3 23.ge31&h1 24.~e21iMa1 "'.

22.~g2?!

o22.1We2 gd5 23.1&g4 gd2 24.1iMf3 gad8

25.gad 1= Henris.

22...E:d6 23.W!e4 h5 24.@e2?!

11 ...W!e712.ltJc2 E:d813.ltJd4!?
13.1Wd2? d3! 14,ct'Je3 de2?! (14 ...ib4! 15.1iMd1
de2 16.1iMe2 gd2 17.1iMh5 gb2 18.ltJd51iMd6 19.1tJb4
ig4! 20.1iMg5 c6:j:) 15.1&e2 ltJd3 16.gad1!?
(16.ic3 ltJf2! 17.~f2 ig4 18.if3D if3 19.~f3
(S,19.1&f3? gd3) 19... ge8 20.gae1 1iMe4 21.~f2
gad8 22.id2 gd3 23.ic1 ge6 24.~g1 ge3
25.ie3 ie3 26.1&e3 1&e3 27.ge3 ge3 28.gd1
~f8+ Henris) 16 ... ltJb2 17.gd8 1&d8 18.1&b2 c6:j:
Epishin,V-Teran Alvarez,l, Calvia, 2005.
13... ~g4
24.1Wb7? ge8 25.ge2 gf6-+ Henris.
24.:E\ad1?! gf6+ Henris.
24.:E\e2D gf6 25.if3 gd8 26.ig4 hg4
27.1&g2 1iMh5 28.1&b71iMe5 29.gae11iMg3:j: Henris.
25.:E\h1 ltJf2! 26.1&h7! ~h7 27.gh2 ltJd1! 28.gh5
~g6 29.94 gd2 30.~f3 ge8+ Henris.
25... ttJf2!
0-1

137
,...--------- -

Chapter 5

Game 53 Necula,l, Internet, 2002.

Ivanchuk, Vassily (2769)
Morozevich,Alexander (2770)
Astana (blitz), 2012
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ltJf3
ltJc6 5.g3 ltJge7 6.~g2 ltJg6 7.0-0
ltJge5! 8.lLle5ltJe5 9.ltJa3!? (0)
b) o16...1i.e7 17.~c6 Wf8 18.~aS!? iWa8
19.ct:lb1!? ~e4 20.ct:lc3 h5!? (20 ... ~g2 21.e4 ~f1
22.Wf1 ~f6 23.e5 ~h4 24.ct:ld5 ~f2 25.cj:;g2 ~d4
26.:gbH) 21.ct:le4 (21.h3? :gh6! 22.f5 (22.hg4??
hg4-+) 22 ... ~d6!~) 21 ...iWe4 22.iWg3 f5 23.Wf3
cj:;f7 24.~d2± Henris.
9 a5?! 10.ct:lb5 ~e5 11.~f4 f6 12.e3!
~g4 (12 de3? 13.~e5 ef2 14.<j;Jh1 +- Henris)
13.iWa4 tUf3?? (13 ...e6 14.ed4 ~d4 15.ct:ld4
iWd4 16.:gaeH Henris) 14.~f3 ~f3 15.ct:ld4?!
(o15.ed4+-) 15... ~e6 16.ct:le6 iWd7 17.:gad1
iWe6 1S.iWe6 be6 19.~e7+- cj:;e7 20.g4 :ga7
21.~g3 :gb7 22.:gd2 :gb4 23.b3 a4 24.:gfd1 a3
25.:gd7 cj:;e6 26.~d6 ~d6 27.:g1d6 cj:;e5 2S.f4
cj:;e4 29. cj:;f2 1-0 Savina,A-Lomako,A, Rijeka,
2010.

10.ltJb5 O-ON

White keeps the option of playing ct:le2 or ct:lb5, 10...c6?! 11.iWd4 Wd4 12.ct:ld4 ~f6
followed sometimes by ~f4. (12 ct:le4? 13.ct:le6) 13.:gb1!? (o13.e5+ Henris)
13 ct:le4 14.ct:le6 O-O?! (14 ... ~f5 15.e4±)
9... ~e7 15.ct:lb4!? :geS 16.b3 ct:ld6 17.~f4 ct:lb5 1S.ct:ld5
~dS 19.:gbd1 ~g4 20.a4 ~e2?! 21.ab5 ~d1
Once again, Black must be careful not to fall 22.:gd1+- :geS 23.~e3 b6 24.:ga1 1-0 Volodin,
behind in development as the following lines Alex-Couso,L, Stockholm, 2009.
show: 10...c5?! 11.~f4 ~f6 12.e30 Henris.
9...a6!? 10.b3 e5!? (10 ... ~e7 11.~b2 e5
12.e3! Henris) 11.e3! ~g4 12.iWe1!? (12.f3 ~e6 11.ltJd4
13.f4 ~g4 14.iWd2 ct:le6 15.~b2;!; Henris) 12...d3
13.f3 ~h5 14.g4 ~g6 15.f4 ct:lg4 16.~b7: 11.1i.f4 ~f6 M2.e5?! ct:lg6! 13.~e7 iWd7 14.e6?!
a) 16.. J3b8?! 17.~e6 cj:;e7 1S.~b2± iWeS be6 15.:ge1 (15.~d6 :gdS 16.~e5 ~a6+) 15... ~b7
19.~f3!? (19.iWh4!?) 19... h5 20.e4+- Saul,T- 16.~a5 :gaeS+ Henris.

138
p----------------------------------
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.tLlf3 tLlc6 5.g3 ~ge7
11 ...lLle4 12.b3 i.f6 13.be4!?
13.e3 ttJe5 14.~c2 c6=.
13...i.d4 14J~b1 \Wf6!?
14... e6.
15.e3
S15.ib7?! Ei:b8.
15...i.b6 16.i.b2 \We7!?
16...1!;Vg6=.
17.\Wb3!?
17.1!;Vh5 c6=.
17...e6 18.\We3 f6 19.i.a3 i.e5!?
20.i.e5 \We5 21.gfd1 gb8 22.\Wd4
\Wd4 23.ed4 gd8 24.i.e6 i.g4 25.f3
be6 26.gb8 gb8 27.fg4 @f7=
We have reached a rook endgame. The battle
should logically end in a draw soon as Black
has adequate counterplay for the
pawn.
28.gd2 gb1 29.@g2 ge1 30.e5 @e6
31.ge2 ~d5 32.ge7 g5!?
32.. J'!c2 33.Wf3 Ei:h2 34.Ei:g7 Ei:a2=.
33J'~~d7
33J3h7!? Ei:c2 34.Wf3 Wd4 35.h4 Ei:a2 36.h5
a5~.
33...@e4 34J~h7 ge2 35.@h3 ga2
36.gf7 gf2!?
36...Wd4 37.Ei:f6 a5~.
37.ga7 @d4= 38.ga1 @e5 39.ge1
@d5 40.gd1 @e6 41.ge1 @d7
42.gd1 @e7 43.ge1 gd2 44.gf1 e5
45.gf6 e4 46.gf5 @d6 47.gg5??
While the draw was very close, Ivanchuk
commits a terrible blunder that should have
cost him the game. White could have gained
the immediate draw thanks to the well-known
stalemating possibility 47J:!f6 Wc5 48.Ei:c6!=.
47...e3 48.gg8 @d7
48... ~c7 49.Ei:g7 Ei:d7 50.Ei:g5 Wc6 51.Ei:g6 Ei:d6
52.Ei:g8 r:%Jc7 53.Ei:g7 Wb6-+.
49.gg5 @d6 50.gg8 @d7
missing
50... ~c7 - 48 ... Wc7.
Most likely in time trouble, Black decides to
repeat the moves and to take the draw.
51.gg5 ~d6-+
139
 Chapter 5

!I
,I
Game 54 Navin,K, Gurgon, 2009;
Milov, Vadim (2645) • 12.. J=1e8!? 13.~b2 ~g4'" Henris.
Raetsky,Alexander (2453) b) 11.~f4!? CLlg6 12.CLlC3!? CLlf4 13.gf4 c5!?
Biel, 2005 14.CLld5 ~d6!? 15.e4 f6 16.Ele1 Ele8= Nedobora ,
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.~f3 M-Kantsler,B, Elkana, 2007.
~c6 5.g3 ~ge7 6..tg2 ~g6 7.0-0 c) 11.c5!? d3 12.ed3 ~g4 13.Ele1 CLld3+ 14.Ele3
~ge5! 8.~e5 ~e5 9.VMb3!? (0) CLlc5 15.CLlC3 c6 16.b3 ~f6 17.~b2 ~d4 18.CLld1
CLle6 19.Ele1 ~f6 20.h4 ~d1 0-1
Kolomytchenko, I-Koziak, V, Barlinek, 2006.
d) 11.~e4 f5 12.~d5 mh8 1113.Eld4? c6 wins
materiel for Black - Davies.
9.e3?! de3 10.~d8 md8 11.~e3 CLlc4:
a) 12.~d4 f6 13.CLlC3 was Oud,Nic-
i
, Baumgartner, H, Bad Wild bad , 1997. Now
13... c5! 14.Elfd1 ~d7 15.~e3 CLle3 16.fe3 me8
would have left White struggling to justify his
play, according to Davies.
b) 12J:ld1 ~d6 13.~f4 (Rodshtein,M-Kotliar,A,
Internet (blitz), 2007) 13... ~d7!+.
9.b4?! CLlc4 10.~c2 CLlb6 11.~e4 was
This dangerous queen thrust must be taken tried in Labarthe,A-Vandevoort,P, Paris, 1989.
seriously. On b3 the queen puts more pressure on Now, instead of the game's 11 ... ~e7 12.~d4
b7. The queen makes also room for the rook so ~b4, Black should have played 11...~e7!
that it can come on d1 to attack the d4-pawn, 12.Eld1 0-0 13.Eld4 ~e8+ M4... ~f6 - Davies.
with the threat e3. Finally, Black must also pay
attention to the possible queen check on b5. 9....te7
Before starting to analyse 9.~b3, let's have a
look at the alternatives for White on move 9. The other replies in this position are:
9.'~·c2 ~e7 10.Eld1 0-0: 9...c6!? 10.e3!?:
a) 1UtJc3 c6!? (11...CLlC4? 12.CLld5 CLle5 a) 10... ~b6?! 11.ed4 ~d4 12.Ele1 ~e7 13.~d2
13.~c7±) 12.b3 (12.e3? d3!; 12.~e3!? c5 (Kukel, 1-5lacky,5, Banska 5tiavnica, 2007)
(12... de3!? 13.Eld8 ef2 14.cJJf2 Eld8)): 13.Ele4! ~d6 (13 ... ~c5 14.~e3 ~a5 15.~d4±)
• 12... ~f6?! 13.~b2 d3?! 14.ed3!? ~g4 14.~f4 f6 15.CLlC3± Henris.
15.CLle4!? ~d1 16.Eld1 CLld7 17.d4~ Adhiban,B- b) o10 ... ~c5!? 11.ed4 ~d4 (11...~d4 12.~e3

140
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.CLJf3 CLJc6 5.g3 ~ge7

Wd6 13.if4;!;) 12.ie3 0-0 (s12 ...ie3 13.We3 We7
14.:ge1 ttJg6 15.ttJe3 (15.Wc3!? ie6 16.Wg7)
15...We3 (15... ie6? 16.f4!) 16.:ge3 ie6 17.ttJe4
0-0-0 18.e5;!;) 13.:gd1 e5 14.id4 ed4 15.ttJd2 ig4
16.f3 if5 17.Wb7 :gb8 18.iWa7 :gb2'" Henris.
Black can get away with 9...ic5!?:
a) 10.iWb5 ttJd7 11.b4 e6 (11...ie7 is safer)
12.iWa4 (12.ie6!? be6 13.iWe6 :gb8 14.bc5 0-0
15.if4;!;) 12...ie7 13.ib2 ttJb6 14.iWe2 ie6
(14 ...ib4?! 15.e5 ttJd5 16.id4 0-0 17.iWb2±)
was played in the game Deak,S-Chetverik,M,
Gyula, 1999. Now White could have claimed a
small advantage after 15.:gd1 if6 16.ttJd2 0-0
17.ttJe4 ttJc4 18.ttJf6 iWf6 19.id4;!;.
b) 1o.if4 iWe7 11.ie5 iWe5 12.iWb5 (12.ib7
ib7 13.iWb7 0-0) 12 ...id7 13.iWb7 0-0 14.iWd5
iWd5 15.id5 e6 16.if3 :gab8 17.b3 :gfe8.
c) 10.e3?! 0-0 11.ed4 id4:j:.
9...id6!? 10.:gd1!? (10.e3 de3 11.ie3
e6 12.ttJe3 0-0 13.ttJe4;!;) 10 c5 11.e3:
a) 11 ...ig4 12.:ge1 0-0 (12 de3? 13.f4!±) 13.ed4
ed4 14.if4 Wa5 15.ttJd2 :gfe8 16.:ge4;!; Henris.
b) 11...de3? is wrong because of 12.ie3±
Nikitovic, N-Adensamer, G, Liechtenstei n, 1995.
9...c5?! :
a) 10.e3!? ie7 11.ed4:
• 11 ...iWd4? 12.if4 ig4? (12 ... ttJd3 13.iWb5 @f8
14.ib7 a6 15.iWe6 ib7 16.iWb7 :ge8 17.ie3 iWe4
18.ttJe3t; o12 ... ttJg6 13.:gd1 LDf4 14.:gd4 ttJe2
15.@h1 ttJd4) 13.ttJe3+- Galianina Ryjanova,J-
Chetverik,M, Gyongyos, 1999;
• 11 ...cd4 12.iWb5 ttJe6 13.ie6 be6 14.iWe6 id7
15.iWd5 0-0 16.iWd4;!;.
b) 10.iWb5 id7 (10 ...iWd7 11.iWd7 ttJd7 12.e3±)
11.iWb7 :gb8 12.iWa7 ct:le4 13.b3 ct:la5 14.ig5 f6
15.if4 :ge8 16.iWa6+.
c) 10.ib7?! :gb8 11.iWa4 id7 12.iWa6 ih3
13.:gd1 iWd7 14.id5 ie7 - Raetsky 8: Chetverik.
9...ttJd7?! 10.e3 de3 11.ie3 ie7 12.ttJe3
e6 13.:gad1 '\Wa5 14.:gfe1 0-0 15.id2± (15.ia7+)
15...ib4 16.a3 ie5 17.ttJa4! '\We7 18.if4 '\Wa5
19.We2! (llb4; 19.'\We2 ttJb6 20.ttJe5 '\We5 21.id6+)
1-0 Wikstroem,B-Eriksson,B, corr., 1981.
10.e3!?
10.:gd1 0-0 is more often played:
a) After 11.ttJc3 (Zakhartsov,V-Zablotsky,S,
Kemerovo, 2007) Raetsky and Chetverik
recommend 11 ...e5 12.ttJd5 id6 13.f4 ttJe6
14.id2 :ge8, with an approximate equality.
b) 11.e3 e5 12.ed4 ed4 13.if4 if6 14.ttJe3 ig4
15.ttJd5?! (15.:gd2 :ge8'" Henris) 15...id1 16.:gd1
:ge8:j: Keosidi,K-Lomako,A, Krasnoyarsk, 2009.
1o.ib7 :gb8 11.'\Wa4 id71? 12.'\Wa6'"
(12.Wa7?! e61113.Wd4? if6) - Raetsky 8: Chetverik.
10.iWb5!? ttJd7 11.iWd5!? (or 11.:gd 1 e6
12.iWh5 if6 13.e3) 11 ... e5 (11 ...if6 12.iWe4)
12.e3 de3 13.ie3;!; Raetsky 8: Chetverik.
10...0-0
After the weaker 10...de3 11.ie3 e6 12.ttJe3
0-0 13.:gad1 iWe7 14.if4, Black would have
some problems with his queenside because of
the pressure on b7 - Raetsky 8: Chetverik.
11.ed4

141
 Chapter 5
Black's situation is not bad after 11.~d1 c5
12.ed4 cd4 13.~f4 tiJc6 14.tiJc3 tiJa5 15.~c2
~g4 16.tiJe2 ~f6 - Raetsky Ei: Chetverik.
II
11 ...Wfd4 12..if4 i.f6?!
12...ltJd3!? 13.~e3 (13.~c7 ic5 14.~c3 (14.~c2
i(5) 14... ~d7! - Davies) 13... ~b2 14.~d3!?
(14.tiJc3 Wfb3 15.ab3 is interesting) 14...Wfa1
15.ctJc3 Wfb2 16.tiJd5 id6 17.id4 if5! 1S.Wfe3 Wfc2
19J''k1 Wfa4 oo • The initiative and the material
balance each other - Raetsky Ei: Chetverik.
13.ttJa3?!
13.ltJd2! tUg6 14.ie3 Wfb2 15.~b2 ib2 16.E1ab1
ic3 17.ib7 ib7 1S.E1b7 tUe5= Raetsky Ei: Chetverik.
13...e6 14.~fe1
I
I 14.E1ad1 seems more natural- Flear,G.
14...Cl:\g6! 1S.ie1 Wfb6 16.Wfe2 ie6!?
o16... ~b4! 17.E1e2 il,g4 1S.f3 ie6 19.~e3
E1adS:t Raetsky Ei: Chetverik.
"
H.e5!? Wfe7
17... ~b4!? 1S.E1e4 ~a5 19.id2 ~c7 20.E1ee1
I
I comes to the same thing.
18.i.d2 ~ad8 19.i.e3 ~e5!
19... ~d4!? 20.b4 a5 21.~d4 E1d4 22.b5 E1fdS:j:.
142
"
20J~e2 .id5 21 J~ae1 .ig2 22 ..ie5
.ie5 23. c;t>g2
o23.~e5!? ~d5 24.tiJc4.
23 ...i.d424.Wfe4?!
A repetition of moves was objectively stronger:
24.b4 a5 25.E1e7 E1d7 26.E1eS E1dS 27.E1Se7=.
24...Wfa5 2S.~e7 i.b2?
Correct was 25...if6! 26.E17e3 E1d4! 27.~c2 E1d2
2S.tiJc4 E1c2 29.tiJa5 E1b2:t Raetsky Ei: Chetverik.
26.ttJe2 ~dS 27.Wfb3 i.f6 28.~b7
WfeS+ 29.ttJe3 ~d2?
29.. J~e5 is possible but after 30.E1d1 E1e7
31.E1dd7, White keeps things messy - Flear,G.
Best is 29.. J~d4! stopping tUg4 and
leaving White with little for the pawn - Flear,G.
30.ttJg4 i.d4?
3o...idS! 31.E1f7 ~d5 32.Wfd5 cd5:j:.
31.~e8!+- WfdS 32.Wfd5 ed5
33.~bb8 i.eS 34.~f8 i.f8 35.~e5 f6
36.~d7 c;t>f7 37.~f8 ~a2 38.Cl:\d7 a5
39.~eS a440.~b7 c;t>g6 41.~a7 a3
42.~d3 d4 43.c;t>f3 h5 44.h4 c;t>f5
4S.~f4 c;t>e5 46.~d7
1-0
•
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.tDf3 tDc6 5.g3 tDge7

Game 55
Pornes Marcet,Juan (2347)
Fluvia Poyatos,Jordi (2470)
Catalunya, 2012
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3
ttJc6 5.g3 ttJge7 6..ig2 ttJg6 7.0-0
ttJge5! 8.ttJbd2 (0)

10..ib2 ge8!?

The most flexible continuation.

The alternatives are:
10.. J~b8!? 11.ct:le5 ct:le5 12.ct:lf3 ct:lf3
13.~f3 ~h3 14.~g2!? ~g2 15.~g2 ~f6= Alliot,K-
Humeau,C, Bastia, 2009.
10.. .f6!? seems quite playable too.
White does not rush with the exchange 8.ct:le5. 10...llJf3!? 11.ct:lf3 ~f6 12.~d2 is the
most often played line. But I think White
8....ie7 9.b3 (0) retains a small and persistent advantage:
a) 12.. J~e8!? 13.:J::i:ad1:
9...0-0 • 13... ~f5 14.ct:ld4 ct:ld4 15.~d4 ~d4 16.~d4
~d4 17.:J::i:d4 :J::i:e2 18.~b7 :J::i:b8 19.:J::i:a1+ Moen,A-
9...llJg6!? 10.~b2 0-0 (Armbruster,A- Brondum,E, Copenhagen, 2004;
Ackermann,Ha, Germany, 2008) is interesting. • 13... ~g4 14.me1 (14.~f4 :J::i:e2 15.~d4 ~f3
9... h5?! looks very dubious. After 16.~f6 ~f6 17.~f6 gf6 18.~f3 :J::i:a2= Ginsburg)
10.~b2!? h4 11.ct:le5 ct:le5 12.ct:lf3 ct:lf3 13.~f3 14... ~d7 15.ct:ld4 (15.~f4!?) 15... ct:ld4 16.~d4
hg3 14.fg3 (14.hg3? ~d6 15.~d4 ~h6---+ Henris) :J::i:ad8 17 .~e3±.
14...c5 15.e3!;I;, as in Blagojevic,Dr-Bukal,V jr, b) 12... ~g4?! 13.:J::i:ad1 (13.~f4!? is also good)
Zagreb, 2010, Black is dangerously lagging 13... ~d7!? (Burn,A-Schlechter,C, Barmen,
behind in development. 1905) 14.~f4!? :J::i:fe8 15.e3 :J::i:ad8 16.:J::i:d2;1;.

143
.----------------------------: _ ..- - - - - ,
Chapter 5

c) After 12... ~d6?!, White obtains a clear Game 56

advantage with very simple means: 13.e3! Bekker Jensen,Simon (2411)
gd8!? 14.tiJd4 tiJd4 15.ed4 ~d4 16.~d4 Wfd4 Tikkanen,Hans (2425)
17.Wfd4 gd4 18.E1fd1 gd1 19.9d1± Zhou Copenhagen, 2009
Haonan-Martchenko,A, Toronto, 2008. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.lLlf3
If 1O...f5?!, White wins the d4-pawn lLlc6 5.g3 lLlge7 6.i.g2 ~g6 7.0-0
,I
1
after 11.tiJe5 tiJe5 (Almond,R·Richmond,P, ~ge5! 8.~bd2 i.e7 9.a3 (D)
I '
,
, Hinckley Island, 2009) 12.~d5 ~h8 13.~d4 c6
~i
14.~e5 cd5 15.gc1 ± Henris.
10...if6? is easily refuted by 11.tiJe5:
a) 11 ...tiJe5 12.tiJe4 tiJc6 13.tiJf6 Wff6 14.ic6
, , (14.e3±) 14 ...Wfc6 15.Wfd4 Wfg6 16.gfd1±
Yudin,I-Cherniuk,M, Dagomys, 2009.
b) 11 ...ie5 12.ic6 bc6 13.tiJf3 ~f6 (13 ... ~d6?!
14.Wfd4± Kopp,D-Hufendiek,E, Enger, 2010)
14.~d4± Hamann,Svend-Porath, Y, Netanya, 1968.

11.~e5 ~e5 12.~f3

Ii

I,'I
,
12.ttJe4!? f5 (12 ... tiJc6!?) 13.tiJd2 ~f6;!;/=.
9...a5
:i
'I
I
!
12... ~f3 13.i.f3 i.h3!?
I
The most logical continuation.
Black does not need to give up the pawn, even But sometimes Black does not prevent b4:
if he gets compensations for it. 9... ttJf3!? 10.tiJf3 ~e6 (10 ...a5!?):
13...c5= is more simple and safe· Davies. a) 11.Wfa4!? 0-0 12.gd1 ~f6 (Frohne,G-
,
I,
Weidemann,C, Germany, 2008) 13.e3!? Wfe8!?
:I',
14.i.b7 i.f1 15.i.a8 '?Has 16.'?Hf1 (or 13...d3!?):
,I'
i.f6 17J!e1 '?He4 18J~~d1 c5 19.i.c1 • 14.ed4? tiJd4 15.Wfe8 tiJe2 16.~h1 (16.~f1?!
"
'?He2 20.'?He2 ~e2 21.i.d2 ~f8 gfe8 17.~e3 (17.~e2?? ic4 18.~d2 ge2#)
"

22.~f1 ~e6 23.i.a5 ~a6 24.b4 cb4 17... ~c4+) 16...gfe8 17.gd2 ic4+;
25.i.b4 i.e7 26.a3 ~a4 27.~d4 i.b4 • 14.ttJd4?! tiJd4 15.Wfe8 tiJe2 16.~f1 tiJg3
28.ab4 ~b4 29.~d7 ~c4 17.hg3 ic4 18.~e1 gfe8 19.ib7 gad8=i=;
Y2-Yz • 14.~b5!? gd8!? (or 14...de3=) 15.ed4!? tiJd4

144
p------------------------------------,
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.tDf3 tDc6 5.g3 lLlge7

16.lt:ld4 .id4 17..igS!? f6!? 18..if4 ~bS 19.cbS Danielsen, Hen -Potapov, Pav, Pardubice, 2008.
.tb2 20 ..tc7 !'i:d1 21.!'i:d1 !'i:c8 22 ..if4 b6= Henris. 11 .. J'~b8!? is a bit passive but is OK.
b) 1UWd3 as 12.b3 '&d7 13..ib2 !'i:d8 14.!'i:fd1 .if6 After the move 11 ...ig4?! (Chauvet,V-Le
(:s;14 ....tcS?! 1S.e3! de3 16.'&e2 ef2 17.lt>h1 '&e7 Diouron,A, Mulhouse, 2011), I suggest 12.ttJeS!?
18.!'i:d8 '&d8 (1B... lt>dB 19.b4!; 1B... ttJdB 19.~g7 ttJeS 13.~b7 gb8 14.~e4! (14.~g2? ttJd3).
'i1.gB 20.~d4!) 19.~g7 !'i:g8 20.~b2!) 1S.e3!? de3
16.'&d7 !'i:d7 17.~f6 ef2 18.lt>f2 gf6 00 Henris. 12.~e1
9 0-0!? 10.b4 ~f6!? (10 ...d3!?) 11.~b2
~g4!? (11 d3!? 12.ttJeS ~eS (12.JiJe5? 13.ed3 12.h3!? ~f6!? (12 ~fS!?; 12... ~cS!? - Henris)
ttJd3 14.~f6 '&f6 15.ttJe4+) 13.~eS ttJeS oo ) 12.ttJeS 13.lLleS ~eS (:S;13 -LleS?! 14.-Lle4!) 14.ttJf3 ~f6
ttJeS 13.h3 (13.~b7!? !'i:b8 14.~e4! Henris) 1S.'&d2 (15.'&d3 ~e6 16.!'i:ad1 '&d7 Ll17.-Lld4!?
13... ~fS 14.'&b3!? (14.cS!) 14...'&d7? (14 ...!'i:e8) ~h3 - Henris) 1S... ~e6 16.!'i:ac1 '&d7 17.lt>h2
1S.g4!? (o1S.f4!±) 1S... ~e6 16.f4± Andriasian,Z- .ifS!? (17 gad8) 18.!'i:fd1 '&e7!? (18 ... 'i1.ad8
Khusnutdinov,R, Internet (blitz), 2008. 19.b4!; 18 ~e4!? 19.e3 a4!? 20.b4 '&e7 21.-Lld4!
Henris) 19.-Lld4 ~d4 20.~d4 '&a3 (Czakon,J-
10.b3 Shtyrenkov,V, Karvina, 2005) 21.~c6 bc6 22.'&c3
f6 23.!'i:a 1 '&b4 24.!'i:d2! Henris.
10.ttJeS ttJeS 11.ttJf3 ttJf3 12.~f3 a4= Davies.
12...llJf3
10...0-0 11.i.b2 ~e8
12...,icS!? 13.ttJeS It:leS 14.-Lle4 ~a7:
11 ...lLlf3!? 12.ttJf3 ~f6?! (12 ... ~cS!?=) a) 1S.e3!? ~g4!? 16.13 fS! 17.fg4 (17.ed4?? fe4
13.'&d3 g6 14.!'i:ad1 ~fS 1S.'&d2 '&e7 (SauceY,Mic- 18.fg4 -Lld3-+) 17...fe4 18.~e4 (18.~d4 ttJd3 oo )
Labarthe,A, Saint Chely d'Aubrac, 2006) 18...ttJc4! 19.~d4 (19.~h7!? It>h7 20.'&d3 It>h8
16.ttJd4!? ttJd4 17.~d4 ~d4 18.'&d4 '&a3 19.~b7 21.'&c4 !'i:e3 oo ) 19...!'i:e4 (:S;19 ... ttJe3?! 20.~e3 '&d1
!'i:ab8 20.~dS '&b3 21.'i1.a1 a4 22.'&cS! Henris. 21.'i1.ad1 'i1.e4 22.~a7 ge1 23.'i1.e1 ga7 24.ge7;l;)
11..J'~a6!? is also interesting: 12.'i1.a2!? 20.~a7 '&d1 (20 ttJeS!?) 21.'i1.ed1! (21.gad1?
ttJg4!? (12 ... ~cS 13.ttJeS ttJeS 14.ttJe4 ~a7 1S.e3 ttJeS+) 21 ...-LleS (21 ttJa3=) 22.~d4 -Llg4= Henris.
~g4oo Henris) 13.'&a1 ~cS 14.h3 ttJf6 1S.ttJe1 b) 1S.~d2? 1S a4!+ Kangas,L-Kauppila,O,
(15.e3!? de3 16.~f6 ef2 17.lt>h2 '&f6 18.'&f6 gf6 Ylivieska, 2008.
19.ttJe4 ~e7oo Henris) 15.. J'1e8 16.ttJd3 ~a7 17.b4!? 12.. J~b8!? 13.ttJe4 -Llf3 14.ef3 ~e6=
(17.'i1.e1) 17...ab4 18.ab4 !'i:a2 (18 ...'i1.e2 19.!'i:d1) Toth,Li-Van den Heever,D, Budapest, 2008.
19.'&a2 ge2 20 ..ic1?! (o20.gd1!± Henris) 20 ~b8 12...if6?! 13.lt:leS ~eS 14.ttJf3 ~f6
21.'&a8!? (21.b5 ttJa7 22.'&b3± Henris) 21 ~fS= (Beinoraite,V-Borosova,Z, Beijing (rapid),

145
 ....
,------
~

Chapter 5

2008) 15.~d3 ~g4 16.2:adH Henris. 19...tLlc4!? 20.bc4 2:e2 21.2:ab1 d3 22.2:f1 b6
23.~b5 2:f2 24.2:f2 ~g3 25.~d4 ~d4 26.~f5 d2
13.ttJf3 ie5 27.~f7 Wh8 28.2:d1 ~a3ex> Henris.

13....if6?! is once again dubious: 14.~d3 .ig4 20.ed3?

15.2:adH Volak,M-Sladek,Vl, Brno, 2010.
o20.e3!.
14.~d2 ~d6 15J:!:ed1 ig4!?
20...ttJf3! 21.@h1?!
15.. J'~d8= is the most solid - Flear,G.
21 ..if3? ~g3 22 ..ig2 ~f2 23.Wh1 2:e2
16.h3 if3 24.2:g1 b6 25.Wc3 .id4+ Flear, G.
21.Wf1 ~g3!? (21...tiJh2 22.Wg1 tiJf3
16....ih5 17.g4 .ig6 18.ct:Jd4 ct:Jd4 19..id4 .id4 23.Wf1 ct:Jh2=) 22.Wc5 (22.fg3?? ct:Jh2#)
20.~d4 ~d4 21.2:d4 2:e2 22.2:d7! - Flear, G. 22 ... ct:Jh2 23.Wg1 ct:Jf3= Henris.
I,

17.if3 ~e5?! 21 .. J:!:e2! 22.if3?!

o17.. J3ad8 18.Wf4!? ct:Je5 19..ig2 (19..ib7 Wb6)
19... ~b6 20.2:ab1 2:d6ex> Henris.
18.ig2?!
o18..ib7! 2:ab8 19..ig2 (or 19..id5 c6 20 ..ig2
2:b3 21 ..id4 ct:Jc4 22.Wc2 .id4 23.Wb3 Wf6
24.Wc4 .ia1 25.Wc6 - Flear,G) 19... 2:b3 20 ..id4
.id4 21.Wd4 Wd4 22.2:d4 2:c3 23.2:d5 ct:Jc4 24.2:c5
Wf8 25 ..id5 2:a3 26.2:a3 ct:Ja3 27.e4± Henris.
18.. J:!:ad8!? 19.~a5!?
19..ib7 ~b6 - Flear, G.
19...d3?!
o22JU1 b6 23.Wb5 .if2!:j:.
22.. JU2!+ 23.~e3 ~g3 24.~g7 ~g7
25.ig7 :gf3 26.ie5 :gh3 27.<;!{g2
:ghd3 28.:gd3 :gd3 29.b4 id6 3o.id6
ed6 31.e5!? deS 32.be5 :ge3 33J:!:b1
:ge5 34.:gb7 :ge3 35.a4 :ga3 36J:!:b4
h6 37.<;!{f2 <;!{g7 38.<;!{g2 <;!{g6 39.<;!{f2
<;!{g5 40.<;!{g2 f5 41.:ge4 h5 42J::!:b4 h4
43.:ge4 h3 44.<;!{h2 f4 45J:!:e8 <;!{g4
46.:gg8 <;!{f3 47.<;!{h3 <;!{f2 48.<;!{h2 :ga4
49.:gb8 :ge4 50.:gb3 :ge6 51.:gb2 :ge2
52.:gb8? <;!{f1! 53.<;!{h1 f3 54.:ga8 f2
55.<;!{h2 :ge7 56.:ga1 <;!{e2 57.:ga2 <;!{f3
58.:ga3 :ge3 59.:ga1 :ge1 60.:ga3 <;!{e4
0-1

146
p

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ct:Jf3 ct:Jc6 5.g3 ct:Jge7

Game 57 • I find instructive the way the Spanish

Kallai,Gabor (2504) Grandmaster Jordi Magem Badals handled the
Kazhgaleyev,Murtas (2607) position in his game against the Bulgarian
Gonfreville, 2006 International Master Jordan Ivanov: 1O...1/,h3!?
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ltJf3 11.:i=i:e1 Wd7 12.e3 d3!? « 12... de3 13.1/,e3+)
ltJc6 5.g3 ltJge7 6.~g2 ltJg6 7.0-0 13.t2ld4 0-0 14.t2lc6!? (::;14.Wd3?! t2le5 15.We2
ltJge5! 8.ltJbd2 ~e7 (D) t2lf3iii) 14... bc6 15.1/,d2 1/,f6 16.:i=i:b1 :i=i:ab8 17.b3
c5 18.Wc1 :i=i:b6 19.1/,c3!? (19.Wa3 Wd6) 19...:i=i:d8
20.:i=i:b2 1/,g4 21.1/,g4 Wg4= 22.1/,f6 :i=i:f6 23.:i=i:d2
We4 24.Wa3 Wc6 25.Wa5 a6 26.:i=i:ed1 :i=i:fd6
27.Wc3 We4 28.Wa5 :i=i:c6 29.Wc3 :i=i:cd6 30.Wa5
Wc6 31.Wc3 We4 Yz- Yz Ivanov,J-Magem
Badals,J, Pamplona, 2005;
• 10...1/,f6 is usual: 11.1/,c6!? (11.1/,f4 0-0)
11...bc6 12.e3 d3 13.t2lc5 was played in the
game Moser,L-Zipfel,M, Freiburg, 1999. Now
13... 0-0 14.t2ld3 1/,f5 15.t2lf4 Wd1 16.:i=i:d1 :i=i:fd8
would have given Black excellent compensation
for the pawn, according to Davies.
b) 9..)t:lc4!? 10.t2lbd4 t2ld4 11.t2ld4 (11.Wd4!?
I shall finish the study of the line 8.t2lbd2 with Wd4 12.t2ld4 0-0 (::; 12... t2ld6?! 13.t2lc6!? 1/,f6
some minor alternatives for White after 14.e4 1/,d7 15.e5 1/,c6 16.1/,c6 bc6 17.ef6 gf6
8...1/,e7. 18.1/,e3!?1;) 13.1/,f4 c6= Henris) 11 ...0-0 12.Wd3
(12.t2lb5?! c6 13.Wd8 1/,d8 14.t2lc3 1/,e6!?
9.b4!? Remizov,A-Babikov,l, Moscow, 2008, or
14...1/,f6:;: Henris) 12... t2le5 13.We4 1/,f6 14.:i=i:d1
White would like to follow with b5. The threat c6!? (14 ... c5?! 15.1/,f4) 15.1/,f4 We7= Henris.
virtually forces the exchange of this pawn for c) 9...d3?! (Black wrongly opens the position
the central one. whilst White has a small lead in development)
White also has: 10.ed3 Wd3 11.t2le5 t2le5 12.1/,f4! Wd1!? 13.:i=i:fd1
9.lLlb3 has to be considered too: t2lc4!? 14.:i=i:ac1C t2lb2 15.:i=i:d2 1/,f6 (15 ... t2la4
a) 9...lLlf3 10.1/,f3 (10.ef3 0-0 11.f4 1/,f6 12.t2lc5 16.:i=i:c7+) 16.t2lc5 1/,f5 17.g4!? 1/,g4 18.t2le4 t2la4
:i=i:b8 was fine for Black in Guthrie,D-Sarapu,O, 19.t2lf6 gf6 20.1/,b7+- Alvarez Marquez,J-
Auckland, 1997): Montalvo,A, Khanty-Mansiysk, 2010.

147
""-------------------------,
Chapter 5

d) 9...0-0?! 10.ttJbd4 ttJd4 11.ttJe5!± Pinol There is something to be said in favour of

Fulgoni, F-Raetsky,A, Lausanne, 2004. 12.~e3!? It is clear that after this move time
9.Wfa4!? 0-0 10.ttJe5 ttJe5 11.ttJf3 and effort are still needed for Black to
~f6!?= Bacso,G-Lyell,Ma, Budapest, 2009. equalize:
a) 12...c6 13.Wfa4 CLJa6 14.:§fd1 CLJc5
9...ct:Jf3 10.~f3 ct:Jb4!? 15.Wfc2 Wfa5 16.:§ab1 Wfa4 17.CLJb3 CLJe6;j;
(instead of 17...:§e8?! 18.~c5! ~c5 19.~e4! ~e7
Black has an important alternative to the 20.~h7 g"f8 21.~e4± Petkov,VI-Nikolov,Sas,
move played in the main game. Indeed the Plovdiv, 2006).
second player seems to equalize more easily b) 12...c5!? 13.CLJb3!? (13.CLJb5!?)
with the following line: 10... ~b4!? 11.CLJd4 13...Wfb6 14.a3 :§d8 15.Wfb1 CLJa6!? (15 ...CLJc6
CLJd4 12.Wfa4 c6 13.Wfb4 CLJe2 14.g"h1 CLJc1 16.Wfc2 g6 17.:§abH Raetsky & Chetverik). And
I
,I 15.:§e1 ~e6 16.Wfb7! (16.:§ac1?! Wfe7 17.Wfb2 now, instead of 16.~d2!?, played in the game
0-0+ Caridi,N-Szenczy,S, corr., 2006) 16... 0-0 Jovanovic, Zora -Kostic, Vladi mir G, Senta, 2006,
17.:§ac1 Wfd2= 18.~c6 :§ac8 (18 ...Wff2!?) White had the chance to take a clear
19.9"g1 Wfa2?! (19 ... ~c4=) 20.~g2?! (020.c5!? advantage with the even stronger continuation
Wfa5!? 21.:§ed1 tJ= Henris) 20 ...:§b8?! (20 ...:§c4 16.Wfc2! ~f6 17.:§ab1± Henris.
,
I
I,
21.:§a1 Wfd2 22.Wfa7= Henris) 21.Wfe7?!
,

12...~f6 13.'1Wb3 ~d4 14.~b4!?

,
, (021.Wfe4 :§b4 22 .~fH/= Henris) 21...:§b2?!
II
,
(21 ... ~c4=) 22.:§a1!? (22.Wfc5 :§c2 (22... :§c8??
I
23.Wfc8 ~c8 24.:§e8#) 23.~e4 (I::::.. ~h7) 23 ...:§c1 After 14J'~ad1!? ~f2 15.:§f2 Wfe7a> , White's
24.:§c1 Wfd2= Henris) 22 ...Wfc4= 23.Wfa7 g6 bishop pair compensates for the missing pawn -
I
,

I
24.Wfe3 :§b3 25.Wfe5 :§b5 26.Wfe3 :§b3 27.Wfe5 Henris.
;1 i

II :§b5 28.Wfe3 Ii-Ii Nezad,H-Khader,S, Sharjah,

I
2011. 14... ~b2 15.~b2 ~e7= 16JUd1
,I

II
~b8 17.e3 ~e6 18.~e5 ~fe8
I 11.ct:Jd4 19.~d5 ~g4 20.~e7 ~e7 21.~d4 h5
22.13 ~d7 23.c5 ~e8!?
11.Wfd4!? has never been played before but is
I,
also interesting: 11...0-0 (11...Wfd4!? 12.CLJd4 Black also has the simple 23.. J'~e3 24.~fl g"fl
c6) 12.~b2 Wfd4 13.CLJd4 c6 14.:§fd1 :§e8=, with 25.:§d7 :§e7=.
a complicated game - Henris.
24.c;!?f2 c6 25.~b3 c;!?f8 26.14 b6
12.~b2!?
I
11...0-0 Y2-Yz
I'

I,

148
•
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ct:Jf3 ct:Jc6 5.g3 lLlge7

Game 58 • o10....ib4 11.tLJd4! tLJd4 12..ib2! «12.Wa4?!

Drasko,Milan (2510) c6 13.Wb4 tLJe2 14.rJJh1 ttJc1 15.1':i:e1 ie6
Bukal,Vladimir jr (2405) 16.Wb7! ttJd3 17.ic6 rJJf8 18.Wa8 Was 19.ia8
Cutro, 2005 ttJe1 20.1':i:e1 iC4=) 12 ... 0-0 (12 ... c5 13.e3)
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.lLlf3 13.id4!? (13.Wd4 Wd4 14.id4 1':i:d8 15.1':i:fd1
lLlc6 5.g3 lLlge7 6..ig2 ltJg6 7.0-0 c6=) 13...We7 14.Wb3 c6t,/= Henris.
lLlge5! 8.lLlbd2 (D) b) 9.lLle5! ttJe5 10.ttJb3 ttJc4 11.ttJd4C
ig7 12.Wa4 Wd7 13.Wc4 id4? (13 Wd4
14.Wc7±) 14.ih6?! (o14.1':i:d1! c5 (14 if2?
15.rJJf2 Wd1 16.Wb5+-) 15.e3+- Henris) 14 ie5
15.1':i:fd1 We6 16.id5 We??? (16 ...Wf6 17.if7!
rJJe7 18.1':i:ac1 +- Henris) 17.if7!+- Wf7 18.Wb5
rJJe7 19.We5 ie6 20.ig5 1-0 Camarena
Gimenez, R-Munar Rossello, P, Palma de
Mallorca, 2008.

9.lLlf3.ic5!?

The positioning of the black-squared bishop is

always a difficult question to solve for Black in
The main line is now 8...ie7. But Black has two this variation.
other possibilities worth studying. Maybe the more restrained 9...ie7 is preferable:
a) 10.Wa4!? 0-0 11.1':i:d1 if6!?:
8...lLlf3 • 12.b4!? d3 13.E:1b1 (13.E:1d3 We7) 13 id7
14.ed3?! (o14.1':i:d3 ttJe5 15.E:1d7 tlJd7+) 14 tlJd4
8...96?! is too slow: 15.b5!? (15.Wa3 tlJe2 16.rJJh1 tlJc3) 15 tlJe2
a) 9.b4!? ttJf3 10.ttJf3: 16.mf1 tlJc3+ 17.Wc2 tlJd1 18.Wd1 a6 19.a4 ab5
• 10...lLlb4?! 11.ttJd4 ig7 12.Wa4 id7!? 20.ab5 if5 21.E:1b3 1':i:a1 22.tlJe1 (Csiszar,C-
(12 ...Wd7!? 13.Wb4 c5!? 14.Wa5 id4 15.1':i:b1 Chetverik,M, Zalakaros, 2005) 22 ... E:1e8! Ll23.ib??
0-0 16.e3 ig7 17.Wc5± Henris) 13.Wb4 id4 ih3 24.ig2 (24.tlJg2 ib2! 25.E:1b2 Wd3! 26.Wd3
14.ib2!? (14.1':i:b1 I?) 14...c5± (14 ... c5 15.Wb7 E:1c1-+; 24.mg1 ig5 25.E:1c3 Wd4 26.1':i:c2 ic1
1':i:b8 16.We4 ie6 17.id4 Wd4 18.Wc6 rJJe7 27.1':i:c11':i:c1 28.Wc11':i:e2-+) 24 ...Wa8-+ Henris;
19.Wc7 rJJf6 20.Wa7± Henris) }j-}j Hertel,J- • 12.e3!? We8 13.Wb3 de3 (13 ...ig4!?) 14.ie3
Saptarshi,R, Kiel, 2009; We7 15.a3!? tLJa5!? 16.Wb5!? b6 17.c5!? ib7!?

149
, ~. m n
• F -.

Chapter 5

18.1"i:e1 iWe8 19.iWb4 iWe4 20.cb6 cb6 21.i.d4 10... h61? 11.Wfe4!? Wfe7
iWf5 22.i.f6 iWf6 23.iWd4!? iWd4 24,c2ld4 i.g2
25.~g2 1"i:fd8= Henris. 11 ....ie6!? 12.a3 a5 13.ct:Je5 0-0 (:513 ... ct:Je5?
b) 10..if4 0-0 11.iWd2 i.f6 12.E1ad1 Vfie7 14.Vfie5±) 14.ttJc6 bc6 15.iWc6;!;/= Henris.
13.E1fe1 .if5!? (13 ....ie6!? 14.e4 de3 15.Vfie3
E1ad8 16.ttJg5!? .ic4 17.iWe7 .ie7 18.b3 .ia6 12.Wfe7 ie7
19.E1d8 .id8 20 ..ic6 bc6 21.ttJe4iiii) 14.e4!? de3:
• 15J':!e3 .ie6=; 12...We7 13.ct:Je1 .ib6 14.ct:Jd3 .if5 15.~dH Henris.
• 15..ie3!? E1ad8 16.Vfic1 IWb4= Ignacz,M-
Erdos, B, Budapest, 2008; 13.if4 95!? 14.ic7 ie6?
• o15.\&e3!? Vfie3 16.~e3 ~fe8 (16 ....ib2!?
17.~d5 g6 18.~b3 .ig7 19.~b7 ttJd8! 20.~c7!? o14...f6!?CD was essential. The threat 15... ~d7
ttJe6 21.~b7 ttJf4 22.gf4 ~ab8iiii (22....ie4? 23.ttJg5 would have forced White to give back the
.id5 24..id5t)) 17.b3 E1e3 18.1e3 ~e8= Henris. pawn, leading to an unclear position - Henris.
c) 10.e3!? is also interesting - Henris.
15.tLle5!± ~c8 16.ClJc6 ~c7 17.tLld4
10.Wfd3!? if6 18.ClJe6 fe6 19.~ab1!?

White also has: 19.:Sac1 .ib2 20.~b1 .id4 21.E1b7 E1b7 22 ..ib7.
1O.lLle1!? 0-0 11.ttJd31e7:
a) 12J"Ib1!? a5 13.b3?! (13.e3?! de3 14.1e31f5; 19... ~c4 20J::!fc1 B:c1 21.B:c1 @d7
13.1f4 E1e8=) 13 ....if5 14.a3 ~e8 15.~e1 Vfidn 22.ib7!? ib2!? 23.B:c2!? ie5 24.ic6
16.Vfid2 h6!? 17..ib2 .ig5 18.Vfic2 E1e7 19.~bd1 @e7 25.ia4 B:d8 26.e3 ~b8 27.~c5
~ae8 20.h4 .if6 21.lWd2 Vfid6 22.ct:Jf4 .ig4 id6 28.B:a5 B:b7 29.ib3 ib8 30.@g2
23 ..ih3? (o23.b4) 23 ....ih3 24.ttJh3 ~e3! 25.c5? B:b4 31.h3 @f6 32.@f3 B:b6?! 33.@g4±
(25.fe3? Vfig3-+; 25.ttJf4 ~b3+) 25 ... ~g3!-+ @g6 34.B:c5!? B:b4 35.@f3 @f6 36.B:a5
Guichard,P-Goldsztejn,Gi, Nancy, 2008. B:b6 37.@g4 @g6 38.B:a4 h5 39.@f3
b) 12.b3!? ~e8 13..ib2!? .if6!? (13 ....if5) @f6 40.@e4 B:b5 41.B:a6 B:b6 42.B:a5
14.h3!? .if5 15.~e1 .ie4+ Skare,G-Vujic,M, ~b4 43.@d3 h4 44.gh4 gh4 45.B:a6
Belgrade, 2011. ~b6 46.B:a4 B:d6 47.@e2 e5 48.B:h4+-
Black had a good game after 10.a3 a5 ic7 49.B:h7 ib6 50.h4 B:d8 51.B:f7
11.iWd3!? h6!? (11 ... a4) 12.b3 (12.iWe4!?) c.t?g6 52.h5 @g5 53.B:e7 @f6 54.B:f7
12 ...0-0= Piceu,T-Henris,L, Aalst, 2005. I!;>g5 55.B:g7 I!;>f5? 56.ic2!? @f6 57.B:g6
1O.lLlg5!? .ie7. 1-0

150
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.tDf3 tDc6 5.g3 lLlge7

Game 59 • 15...\We7 16.~d5! (Mc5) 16...\Wb4 (16 ...b6?

Amir,Karim (2265) 17.~ad1) 17.Wlb4 ttJb4 18.~d2± Henris;
Neubauer,Martin (2422) • 15...0-0!? 16.~h3 (16.!=ld5!?) 16... ~h3D
Beijing (blitz), 2008 17.~d8 ~fd8 18.~f4 ~d7 19.~d1 ttJa5!?
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 (19 ... ~bd8?! 20.~d7 ~d7 21.Wh1 !±) 20.WEc2 ~d1
ttJc6 5.g3 ttJge7 6.~g2 ttJg6 7.0-0 21.WEd1 ttJc4 22.WEc2 ~d8 (22 ... ttJb2?? 23.ttJg5
ttJge5! (D) ~g5 24.~g5 ~e8 25.~d2+-) 23.~c7 ~d7 24.b3;!;
Henris.
b) 13.e3! de3 14.~e3 0-0 15.~ad1;!; WEc8
16.ttJd4!? (16.~fe1) 16... ttJe5!? (16 ... ttJd4?!
17.~d4;!;; 16... ~f6!?) 17.~fe1 ~g4 18.f3 ~h5?!
(18 ... ~h3 19.~f4 ttJc6 20.ttJc6 bc6 21.WEc2 ~c5
22.~e3 ~e3 23.~e3;!; Henris) 19.~f2 ~f6?
(19 ... ttJc6 20.ttJc6 bc6 21.WEa4±) 20.g4+-
Turov,M-Chebotarev,O, Internet (blitz),
2006.
8.WEb3!? ttJf3 9.~f3 ~e7 (Cardilli,M-
Marguerettaz,D, Saint Vincent, 2008) 10.~d1

0-0 11.ttJc3 ttJe5 12.~g2 c5!? 13.ttJd5 (13.e3

~g4~) 13... ~d6= Henris.
I have already analysed the two main
continuations 8.ttJe5 and 8.ttJbd2. But in 8...ttJf3 9.J.f3 J.h3
practice White also has tried the ideas covered
here. Dubious is 9...ie7?! 10.~b2 ~f6 11.ttJd2 0-0
(Verdier,P-Spitz,P, France, 2006) 12.~c6!? bc6
8.b3!? 13.ttJe4;!; Henris.

8.Wa4!? ~d7!? 9.ttJe5!? ttJe5 10.WEb3 10.J.g2!?

~b8!? (10 ... ttJc6!? 11.e3;!; Geffroy, La-Spitz,P,
France, 2005) 11.ttJd2 (11.~d1!? ~c5 12.ttJd2 It is quite interesting to see how things can go
WEe7 13.ttJe4) 11 ... ~e7 12.ttJf3 ttJc6?! (better is wrong so quickly for the first player when he
12... ttJf3 13.~f3 0-0 14.~d1 ~c5= (S,14... c5? plays too passively: 1OJ~e1 Wd7 11.a3 h5!?
15.~f4±): 12.b4 0-0-0 13.WEa4 Wb8'+ Kurowski ,A-
a) 13J~d1!? ~f6 14.e3 de3 15.~e3C: Smith,Do, corr., 2007.

151
 , ; :
-------,
1 Chapter 5

10...i.g2 11.i>g2 i.c5 12.i.b2 0-0 Game 60

13.a3 a5i 14.tLld2 :!3e8 15.tLlf3 :!3e4!? Piskov,Yury (2445)
MoznY,Milos (2375)
15...VNe7 16J'1e1 :gad8:j:. Clichy, 1990
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.tLlf3
16.'?Md3 '?Me7? 17.:!3fe1? t2Jc6 5.g3 tLlge7 6.,ig2 t2Jg6 7.0-0
ie7?! (0)
Both players missed the strong continuation
17.b4! :lla7 18.ttJg5 f5 19.ttJe4 fe4 20.Wc2±
Henris. Black must always be on the lookout
for the b4 thrust in these lines.

17.. J~e8 18.@f1 h6 19.'?Md2!?

'?Me6!? 20J3ad1!? '?Me7?!

20...ttJe5!+ Henris.

21.'?Mc1?

Giving up the important e2-pawn.

o21.VNc2 :lla3 22.:lld4. We shall see now why Black should not delay
the recapture of the pawn and instead play
21 ...:!3e2 22.@g2 d3 23.:!3f1?? 7... ttJge5! as seen before.

White blunders in a difficult position. A lesser 8.b3

evil would have been 23J'1e2 de2 24.:ge1 We4+.
Amongst the alternatives White has the
23...,if2! continuation 8.e3!? worth considering:
a) 8...de3 9.Wd8 :lld8 10.:lle3:
The game is over! a1) 10 0-0 11.lt:lc3:
• 11 :lle6 12.b3 :ge8 13.:gad1 :llg4 14.h3 :llf3
24.:!3f2? :!3f2 25.@f2 '?Me2 26.@g1 15.:llf3 ttJge5 16.:llg2 ttJg6 17.:gfe1 a6 18.:llc5
'?Mf3 27.'?Md2 :!3e2 :ge6 19.:ge6 fe6 20.ttJe4 :llf6 21.:gd7 :gc8 22.ttJf6
0-1 gf6 23.:llc6 bc6 24.:llb4+ Epishin,V-

152
,

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6 5.g3 lLlge7

Kostic,Vladimir G, Bad Wiessee, 2006;
• 11 .. J';e8!? 12.E1fe1 ct:lb4 13.E1ad1 (13.E1e2!?)
13... ct:lc2 14.E1e2 ct:le3 15.E1e3± Lopez Falcon,J-
Carvalho,Gu, Montevideo, 2009;
• 11...ct:lge5 12.ct:le5 ttJe5 13.ic5 E1e8 14.E\fe1
id7D 15.ib7± Raetsky & Chetverik.
a2) 10... ctJce5!? 11.ttJe5 ttJe5 12.id4 (12.b3!?
O-O;!; Epishin) 12...f6 13.E1e1 0-0 (= Davies) 14.f4
(S14.ie5?! fe5 15.E1e5 if6 16.E1e2 ig4 17.E1d2
c6 18.ttJc3 E1ad8ii5 Davies) 14...ttJd3 (Pekarek,A-
MoznY,M, Czech League, 1991) 15.E1e3 ttJb4
(15 ...c5 16.E1d3 cd4 17.id5 mh8 18.ttJd2 if5
19.ie4 ie4 20.ttJe4 E1e8!? 21.ttJd6 E1e2 22.b4;!;)
16.ic5 ttJc2 17.E1e2 ttJa1 18.id5 mh8 19.if8
ig4 20.ib7 ie2 (20 ...E1b8 21.E1d2) 21.ia8 ic4
22.b3 id3 23.ttJa3 ttJc2 24.ttJc2 ic2 25.mf2;!;,
with a very unpleasant endgame to defend for
Black - Henris.
b) 8...d3!? 9.1Mrb3 E1b8 10.ttJe1 if5
11.ttJc3;!; Raetsky & Chetverik.
c) 8...ig4? 9.ed4 if3 10.if3 ttJd4
11.ib7 E1b8 12.id5 ttJe5 13.E\e1+- f6!? 14.f4
ic5 15.ie3 ttJd3?? 16.id4 ttJe1 17.ic5 1-0
Akesson,R-Pauwels,R, Vlissingen, 2008.
14.e3) 14.id4 c5 15.ic5 E1d1 16 ..ie7 E1a1
17.E1a1 ct:le7 18.E1d1 f6!? 19.ef6 gf6 20 ..ib7! .ib7
21.E1dn Henris.
8...i.g4?! 9.ib2:
a) 9...i.f3 10.ef3 ttJge5 11.f4 ct:ld7 12.ic6 bc6
13.1Mrd4 ttJf6 (13...if6 14.iWe4 iWe7 (14... mfB
15.ttJc3 c5 16.E\ad1 E\bB 17.iWc6 id4 1B.ttJa4+-)
15.E1e1 iWe4 16.E\e4 mfB 17.ttJc3±) 14.E1e1 1Mrd4
15.id4 md7 16.ttJc3 c5 17.ie5 - Panzalovic,S-
MoznY,M, Germany, 1993.
b) 9...~d7?! 10.ttJd4 E\d8 11.ic6 bc6 12.1Mrc2!?+
Fordan,T-Kadas,G, Hungary, 2006.
8...ctJce5?! (Reiner,S-Molnar,Be, Paks,
2005) is not good of course because of 9.ttJd4+.
9.ciJe5 ltJe5 10..ib2 (0)

8...llJge5

It is interesting for Black to delay for a

while before capturing the pawn with 8...0-0!?
But anyway I have found a way to obtain an 10....if6!?
advantage for White after 9.ib2 ic5 10.ttJa3!?
1Mre7 11.ttJc2 E\d8 (Johansson,Ju-Gronroos,M, 10...c5 is tactically refuted:
Helsinki, 1996) 12.ct:lcd4!? ct:ld4 13.ct:ld4 a) 11.,ie4? 1Mrb6 12.1Mrc2 h5!? gave
(13.id4? id4 14.ct:ld4 c5) 13...id4 (13 ... ct:le5 Black a very pleasant game in Babula, V-

153
 Chapter 5
•

MoznY,M, Usti, 1994. & Chetverik) 12 ...ctJf3 13.i.f3 i.b2 14.l'!b1 te5
b) 11.tiJd2!? 0-0 12.ctJf3: 15.ctJc5!? c6 16.~d3+ Antic,De-Sarkar,J,
• 12... ctJf3 13.iJ3 (PevnY,M-RakovskY,Ad, Ledyards, 2006.
Piestany, 2004) 13...tg5!?=;
,
I :
, • 12...ctJc6 13.Wd2 tf6 14J::lad1 l::1e8 15.l::1fe1
I
(Foldi,I-Chetverik,M, Gyongyos, 1999) 15...tg4
16.Wf4 ~d7= or 15...tf5!? Driving back the bishop.
c) 11.e3! (again this thematic idea):
• 11 ...tg4 12.~d2! (12.f3? tf5 13.e4 (13.ed4? 12...ie713.e3!
ctJd3) 13...te6=) 12... ctJc6 (12 ... ctJf3 13.tf3 tf3
14.ed4+ Ginsburg) 13.ed4 ctJd4 (13 ... cd4 14.tc6 White has a small lead in development. So
bc6 15.~d4) 14.tb7± Malmstroem,J- quite logically he wants to open the position
Balachander, E, corr., 2008; for his pieces.
• Strangely enough later the International
Master Milos Mozny decided to repeat the same 13... ~c6 (0)
dubious variation (7...te7?!): 11...ttJc6!?
12.tc6!? bc6 13.ed4 cd4!? 14.Wd4 Wd4
15.td4± Spacek,P-MoznY,M, Czech Republic,
2006;
,
• 11 ...tf6 (Dao Thien Hai-Castellano,Christo,
I

,, ,
Manila, 2008) 12.ed4 cd4 13.ctJd2 tg4 14.f3
I
I
,,il (:~14.~b1!? 0-0 (14 Wd7 15.f4/ ctJc6 16.l::1e1
,I
'itlf8± Ginsburg (16 te7?? 17.ta3+-)) 15.tb7
,i',
I
,
l::1b8 16.tg2 d3) 14 tf5!? 15.f4 ctJg4 16.ctJe4;!;
Raetsky & Chetverik.

I
11.tLld2 cS
,
,
"
,

The following alternatives are also clearly 14.tLlcS! !

insufficient:
11 ... ctJc6?! 12.tc6 bc6 13.ctJe4± Thanks to this forceful blow White impressively
Raetsky & Chetverik. destroys Black's position, exploiting his
I:
11 ...d3?! 12.ctJe4!? (12.ed3 0-0 13.Wc2 advance of development in an optimal manner.
Wd3 14.Wd3 ctJd3 15.tf6 gf6 16.ctJe4± Raetsky Less spectacular but also good is 14.Wh5!? 0-0

154
------------------------------------"
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.lLlf3 lLlc6 5.g3 ttJge7

(Legde,G-Gries,V, Germany, 2008) 15.ttJc5! g6 Game 61

16.~d5 de3 17.ttJe4 i.e6 18.~d8
E1ad8 20.ttJf6 i.f6 21.i.f6+, with
powerful bishops in the ending -
Chetverik.
14...,ie515.ed4lLld4!?
ef2 19.Elf2 Kobylkin,Evgeni (2418)
a pair of Novikov,Stanislav (2512)
Raetsky & Voronezh, 2005
1.d4 d5 2.e4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ctJf3
lLle6 5.g3 lLlge7 6.,ig2 lLlg6 7.,ig5
'!Wd7! 8.0-0 h6! 9.,ie1 lLlge5 (D)

There is no good defence anymore:

15... ~f6 16.~e2 ~e7 17.i.c6 bc6
18.~f3 0-0 19.~c6+-.
15 if8 16.d5 CiJe7 17.E1e1±.
15 ib6 16.d5 CiJe7 17.ia3! 0-0
18.c5±.
15...ie7 16.d5 CiJb4 17.a3 (17.i.g7 Elg8
18.ic3) 17".CiJa6 18.ig7 E1g8 19.id4+.

16.b4! ,ib4?!

16...~b6 17.E1b1±.
You would not envy Black in the case
of 16...ib6 17.c5 CiJe6 18.cb6 ~b6 19.~g4±.
But at least some kind of resistance is possible
here.
17.'!Wa4 ctJe6 18.,ie6 be6 19.,ig7!+-
gg8 20.'!We6 ,id7 21.gfe1 ,ie7
22.ge7! '!We7
22... ~e7 23.~f6 \iJe8 24.E1e1 i.e6 25.E1e6 fe6
26.~e6+-.
This position is in all respects similar to that
one obtained after 7.0-0 with two extra tempi
for Black: ".h6 and ... ~d7.
10.lLlbd2 ,ie7
10...lLlf3 11.CiJf3 ic5 has never been tried in
practice. But it looks like a quite playable
alternative.
11.b3

23.'!Wa8 '!Wd8 24.'!We4 '!We7 25.'!Wh7 11.~a4!?:

1-0 a) 11 ... lLlf3 12.CiJf3 0-0:

155
,-----------------c-h-a-p-te-r-5---'---~----'-$,

• 13..tf4 i.d6 (13 ...i.f6 14.:J"i:ad1 VlJe7 15.:J"i:fe1 11...0-0 12.i.b2 gd8
i.e6 16.a3 :J"i:ad8 17.b4 a6 18.VlJc2 is equal,
according to the engine Rybka) 14.i.d6 VlJd6 12...tLlf3!?N 13.ctJf3 :J"i:d8 14.a3 (14.ctJe1 Wfd6
15.:J"i:ad1 i.g4= Riazantsev,A-Kurenkov,N, Minsk, 15.ctJd3=) 14...a5 15.Wfc2!? Wff5= Brede,Fa-
2005; Luo,X, Chemnitz, 2009.
• 13.:!'~d1 Eld8 14.a3 if6 15.b4!? VlJe6 16.b5
d3?! (o16 ... ctJe5 17.ctJe5 Wfe5!?= Henris) 17.:J"i:a2 13.a3!?
I,
de2 18.:J"i:e1 ctJd4 (Capuano,E-Salvador,R,
i Bergamo, 2005) 19.ctJd4!? id4 (19 ...:J"i:d4? 13.tLle5 ctJe5 14.ctJf3:
20.:J"i:ae2 Wfc4 21.Wfc4 :J"i:c4 22.:J"i:e8 <j{h7 23.Elf8±) a) 14...tLlf3 15.if3 Wff5 16.Wfd3 c6
20.:J"i:ae2 Wff6 21.if4 ig4 22.ib7 :J"i:ab8 17.:J"i:ad1 (Saralegui,M-Carvalho,Gu, Montevideo,
(::>22 ...ie2?! 23.ia8 (23.:J"i:e2 :J"i:eB!) 23 ...i.c4 2009) 17...ic5=.
24.Wfc4 :J"i:a8 25.Wfc7±) 23.ic6 ie2 24.:J"i:e2~ b) 14...tLlc6!? 15.Wfd2 ic5 16.:J"i:ad1
Henris. Wfe7= Madebrink,L-Brustkern,J, Sweden, 2010.
b) 11...0-0 12.ctJe5 ctJe5 13.Wfd7 ctJd7 14.ctJb3
ctJe5!? (14 ...c5?! 15.ctJa5 ctJe5 was played in 13...a5 14AJe1!?
I
Ii
Maiorov,N-Strohhaeker,Rao, Internet (blitz),
I
I
2007. Now 16.ctJb7! would have given White a This looks too slow. The following alternatives
small but clear advantage - Henris) 15.if4!? allow White to keep the balance:
(15.ctJd4!?=) 15...if6!? (o15 ...ctJc4 16.Elac1 14.'\Wc2 Wfg4 15.ctJe5 ctJe5 16.ctJf3 ctJf3
I
ctJb2 17.:J"i:c7 if6 18.ib7!? ib7 19.:J"i:b7 :J"i:fe8°o Y2-Y2 Kalinichev,A-Kanep,M, Tallinn, 2005.
i
,
Henris): 14.tLle5 ctJe5 15.ctJf3 ctJf3 16.if3=.
• 16.tLla5?! g5!? 17.ie5 ie5 18.:J"i:ad1 c6!?
(18 ...:J"i:b8) 19.:J"i:d2 :J"i:b8 20.b4 :J"i:e8= Wuest,M- 14...VNd6!? 15.ttJe4?!
Meyer,Ro, Boeblinger, 2004;
• 16.tLld4!? ctJc4 17.:J"i:ac1 ctJb2 18.ctJb5 c6 15.tLld3 if5=.
19.ctJc7 g5!? 20.ie3 :J"i:b8 21.ia7 id7 22.ib8
:J"i:b8 oo ,' 15...VNg6:j: 16.ttJd3 .it5
• o16.ie5 ie5 17.:J"i:ad1 :J"i:d8 18.e3~ Henris.
11.tLlb3 ctJc4 (11 ... ctJf3 12.if3 0-0 16...a4!? .
13.ic6 Wfc6 M4...ih3; M4...Wfc4 - Davies)
12.ctJbd4 ctJd4 13.Wfd4 Wfd4 14.ctJd4 0-0 15.b3 17 .ttJt4 VNh7 18.VNc2
(Goganov,A-Lintchevski, D, St Petersburg, 2007)
I: 15... ctJb6= Davies.
I

156
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.tLJf3 tLJc6 5.g3 tt)ge7

18...a4! 19.b4 ~g5!? Game 62

PostnY,Evgeny (2599)
~19 ...tLlc4?! 20.g4 tiJb2 21.gf5 %'f5 22.tiJh3. Abbasov,Farid (2507)
Bad Wiessee, 2007
20.ltJd5?! 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ltJf3
ltJc6 5.g3 ltJge7 6.i.g2 ltJg6 7.i.g5
The game remains complicated after 20.:Sad1: '?;Vd7! 8.0-0 h6! 9.ic1 ltJge5 (D)
a) 20...tiJc4!? 21.%'c4 !e4 (21...!f4?
22.tiJc5±) 22.tiJe6!:
• 22 ...!g2? 23.tiJd8! (23.tiJg5? hg5 24.mg2
tiJe5! 25.%'b5 ~e4 26.f3 (26. mg1?? c6-+)
26 ... tiJf3! 27.ef3 (27J1J3? g4-+) 27 ... ~c2 28.mg1
~b2+) 23 .. J''1d8 24.mg2 tiJe5 25.~b5 %'e4 26.f3
~c2 (26 ... tiJf3?? 27.1=1f3) 27.1=1d4!±;
• 22... b5!? 23.!e4 (23.tiJg5? bc4 24.tiJh7 !g2
25.mg2 c3!+) 23 ... bc4 (23... ~e4!? 24.tiJg5 hg5
25.~b5 tiJe5oo) 24.!h7 mh7 25.tiJd8 1=1d8ai.
b) 20...!f4!? 21.gf4 tiJc4 (21 ... d3!?
22.ed3 tiJg6 23.b5!? tiJd4 24.!d4 1=1d4 25.tiJg3
tiJf4 26.!b7 1=1ad8 27.!e4;!;) 22.tiJf6 gf6 23.~c4
!e4 24.!e4 ~e4 25.1=1d3°o Henris. Besides 10.tiJbd2, White also has a few minor
continuations which are considered here.
20...ltJc4! 21.g4?!
10.ltJe5
o21.tiJc71=1ab8!?:l:.
The following alternatives are not often played
21 ... ~g6 22.f4?? but they are not without interest:
10.b3!? !c5!? 11.!a3!?:
22.tiJg5 !c2 23.tiJh7 !h7 (23 ... tiJb2) 24.!c1 a) 11...'IWe7?!:
d3!? 25.ed3 !d3 26.1=1e1 tiJd4+. • 12..ib2?! %'d6?! (o12 ...tiJf3 13.!f3!? (13.ef3!?
0-0) 13...!h3 14.1=1e1 1=1d8 15.tiJd2 0-0:;: Henris)
22.. J!d5-+ 23.15 ~f5 24.gf5 ltJe3 13.tiJbd2!? (o13.tiJe5 tiJe5 (13 ... ~e5?! 14.e3±)
25.ltJg5 hg5 26.'?;Vd2 14.tiJd2;!; Henris) 13...f5?! (13 ... tiJf3 14.!f3!? !h3
0-1 15.tiJe4 ~e7 16.tiJc5 ~c5 17.1=1e1 O-O-O!?oo

157
 Chapter 5

Henris) 14.tLJe5 tLJe5 15.tLJf3!? (15.a3! ~a5?!

16.b4! ab4 17.ab4 ~a1 18.'~a1 ~b4 19.~d4+
Henris) 15... tLJf3 16.~f3 0-0 17.a3 a5 18.b4 ab4
19.ab4 ~a1 20.Wfa1 ~b4 21.~d4;!; Cotonnec,A-
Bourdonnais,L, Avoine, 2008;
• 12.tLle5 We5D (12 ctJe5?? 13.b4+-) 13.b4! d3
(13 ... ~e7 14.b5±; 13 ~d6 14.b5 ctJd8 15.~b2±)

I,
14.Wfd3 ~f5 (14 ...Wfa1?? 15.~c6 bc6 16.ctJc3
I Wff1 17.cj;>f1 ~e7 18.Wfe4+-; 14... ctJb4 15.Wfd2
I
Wfd6 16.Wfd6 cd6 17.ctJc3 ~b8 18.~ab1;!;) 15.~c6
bc6 16.Wff3 ~e4 17.~b2! ~d4 18.~d4 Wfd4
,
19.Wfb3 0-0 (19 ...Wfa1? 20.ctJc3 Wff1 21.cj;>f1 ~f5
1,1

22.Wfa4 ~d7 23.ctJe4±) 20.ctJc3 ~f5 21.~ad1

,'I,
,,',
11.Wfb3!?:
Wfe5 22.~d2;!; Henris. a) 11 ...c5!? 12.~d1 ~e7 (12 ...Wc7 or 12... ~d6 are
b) I recommend 11 ...tLlf3 12.~f3 ~a3 13.ctJa3 OK for Black) 13.ctJc3 0-0 14.ctJd5, Reyes,Alb-
O-O!? 14.ctJc2 ~d8 15.Wfd2 ctJe5 16.~g2 c5=. Junaidi,B, corr., 1999. And now 14 ... ~e8 would
1O.Wfa4!? ctJf3 11.~f3!?: have been fine for Black, according to Davies.
a) 11...~e7!? 12.~d1 0-0 13.ctJc3;!; Posazhennikov, b) 11...~c5!? 12.e3 (12.~d1 Wfe7 13.ctJd2 0-0
~I
!, ,
,,' A-Richmond ,P, Hinckley Island, 2009. 14.ctJe4 ~g4 15.ctJc5 Wfc5=; 12.~b7 ~b7 13.Wfb7
b) 11 ...tLle5!? doesn't look like an O-O&;) 12...0-0 13.~d1 ctJc6 14.ctJc3 Wfe7 15.ctJd5
improvement: 12.Wfd7 cj;>d7!? (12 ... ctJd7 13.~d1 Wfd6= Henris.
c5 14.~f4 g5 (14 ... ~e7 15.e3 de3 16.fe3) 15.~c7
~g7 16.ctJd2 ~e5 17.~e5 ctJe5 18.~d5 ~b8 11...,ic5!
,

, ,
"
,
19.b4!? cb4 20.ctJb3;!;) 13.~g2 c5 (13... ctJc4
14.~d1) 14.e3!?;!; Henris. Here the bishop is better placed than on el,
since it is protecting the d4-pawn.
10...llJe5 (D)
12.llJd2 0-0 13.i.b2 ~c6=
11.b3!?
It's clear that White has achieved nothing out
,
11.tLld2 is a bit more precise, since of the opening. The position is equal.
II
Ii now 11 ... ~c5 would be met by 12.tLJb3. Still, 13.. ,l':!:d8 and 13... ~e7 are also possible.
after 11...~e7 12.tLJf3 ctJf3 13.~f3 0-0 14.~f4
I
~f6, Black has no real problems to equalize. 14.llJf3 ~e8?!

158
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6 5.g3 ttJge7

It was better to complete the development of 26.b4 ~a3 27.1i.c4!

the queenside: 14...'l;Vd6 15.a3 (Black is fine after
15.W!d2 194 16Jlad1 Elad8) 15...a5 16.b4 ab4 This strong move prevents Ela3-d3 and opens
17.ab4 Ela1 18.W!a1 liJb4 19.1iJd4 1d4 2o.1d4liJc2 the d-file for the forthcoming penetration.
21.1e5liJa1 22.1d6 cd6 23.Ela1 1e6= Postny.

27 ...a5 28.b5 a4 29.c6+-.

16 Eld8 17.liJe1 b.liJd3.
16 1g417.h31f3 18.1f3 a5 19.Wc1 Elad8=. 28.b5 ~a3

17 .~d4 ~d4 18.id4 1d4 19.~d4
~d4 20J~d4 ~e2 21.ib7 ~b8
22.1d5 ~a2
In this ending White has some chances to
squeeze a full point, but with a few accurate
moves Black would have no problem in holding it.
23.~e1 @f8 24.g4
28.. J::1e8 29.Ele8 \t>e8 30.c6 h5 31.gh5 1h5
32.1f1 Elc1 33.\t>g2± Postny.
29.1f1 !
Now the rook is ready to penetrate to the 7th rank.
29J::1d7?! Elc3, and White has to go back with
the rook to d4.

24J~f4 196 25.Ele6 Elb6!= Postny.

Desperation. But there is not much Black can
24...1g6 do. His pieces are not coordinated and his
queenside pawns are about to be captured.
24...c5! is the easiest way to equalize. 25.Elf4
196 26.h4 f6 27.g5 Elb3 28.gf6 Elb1= Postny. 31.h3 hg4 32.hg4 ~a4 33.f3 ~f4
34.@g2 ~f6
25.c5 ~a5?
34...f5 35.\t>g3 Elb4 36.Elee7 f4 37.\t>h4+-.
Accelerating White's offensive on the queenside.
Better is 25...a5 26.h4 1c2 27.Elf4 f6 28.g5 hg5 35.~a1 c6 36.b6 ab6 37.cb6 ~e6
29.hg5 1b3 3o.1b3 Elb3 31.gf6 gf6 32.Elf6 \t>g7 38.b7
33.Elc6 E1f3 34.Elc7 \t>g6= Postny. 1-0

159
II"""'----------------------~-ai -----,
. Chapter 5

Game 63 15.ttJa3 i.g4!? 16.f3 i.d7!? 17.E1ad1 c5=

Gelfand,Boris (2709)
Morozevich,Alexander (2732)
Monte Carlo (blindfold), 2004
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.tLlf3
tLlc6 5.g3 ~ge7 6.i.g2 tLlg6 7.i.g5
Wfd7! 8.0-0 h6! (D)
I,!
Schneider Zinner,H-Wilke, W, Aschach, 2005;
• 12.i.b7!? E1b8 13.i.c8 ~c8 14.1Wa4 ~d7
15.1Wd7 c;t>d7 16.b3 c;t>c6 17.E1d1 E1he8~
Vorobiev,A-Herzog,Kl, corr., 2009.
b) 9 ic5!? 10.1Wb3 0-0 11.e3:
• 11 lLlge5 12.'2le5 '2le5 13.ed4 I1d4 14.'2lc3
1Wg4 (o14 ...c6 lL,1Wg4) 15.'2lb5 I1b6 16.11f4
1Wh5 17.E!ae1 '2lg4 18.h3 '2lf2!? 19.E!f2 I1h3
20.E!e5!? (20.11e3 E!ae8 21.1Wc3 ~e5 22.E!fe2
1Wc3 23.'2lc3 I1g4 24.11b6 l1e2 25.11a7 I1c4
26.E!e8 E!e8 27.11b7± COMP Rybka) 20 ...11f2
21.c;t>f2 g5 22.'2lc7 (Obukhov,A-Kurenkov,N,
Voronezh, 2005) 22 ...1192 23.c;t>g2 E!ad8 24.'2ld5

: f6=;
II
,
:(1
• :::11...de3?! 12.11e3 '2la5!? (12 ...11e3!? 13.1We3
":
"

,!
E1e8 (13...1We6 14.'2la3;1;) 14.'2lc3 '2lce5
15.E!fd1 !?;I; Henris) 13.1Wc3 l1e3 14.~a5 I1b6
15.1Wc3 1We7 16.'2lbd2 I1f5 17.'2lb3;1; Obukhov,A-
Trifonov,Al, Alushta, 2004.
9.i.f4!? 9.e6!? 1We6 10.i.c1 :
a) 10...1Wc4!? 11.'2lbd21Wa6!? 12.'2lb3 d3 13.ed3
With this move Gelfand makes it difficult for i.e7= Matsegora,T-Shtyrenkov,V, Alushta,
Black to recover the e5-pawn. But on the other 2008.
hand, White now gets his kingside disrupted. b) 10...ic5!? 11.'2lbd2!? 0-0 12.'2lb3 ~c4
White have some alternatives: 13.11h6!? I1b6:j: Henris.
9.i.d2:
a) 9...ttJge5 10.ttJe5 (10.~a4!? '2lf3!? 11.ef3!?
,
, l1e7 12.'2la3 0-0= Stephan,V-Doncea,V,
Guingamp, 2009) 10... '2le5 11.1Wb3 I1c5!? 9...ic5?! 10.'2lbd2 1We? 11.a3 a5 12.'2lb3 0-0
(11...c5?! 12.e3;1; Henris; 11 ...11d6!? M2.11b7 13.'2lc5 '2lf4 14.9f4 iWc5 15.1Wa4 l1e6
I1b7 13.~b7 0-0 14.2k1 1Wh3 15.1Wg2 1Wh5t 16.E!ac1 ±.
Davies):
• 12.11b4!? 1Wd6 13.11c5 1Wc5 14.1Wa3!? 1Wa3 1O.gf4 g5! (D)

160
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6 5.g3 llJge7

13.mh1 ~g4;;;.
11.e3!? is worth considering:
a) 11 ...gf4? 12.ed4 :r'1g8 13.mh1 :r'1g2!?:
• 14.mg2 Wh3 15.mh1 ig4 16.tLJg1 (16.tLJbd2!?
tLJd4 17.tLJg1 Wh5 oo ) 16...id1 17.tLJh3 if3
18.mg1 O-O-O! (18 ... tLJd4!? 19.tLJf4 0-0-0 20.tLJd2
tLJe2 (20...ic6 21.tLJd5) 21.tLJe2 ie2 22.tLJb3!?
~a3!? 23.f4 ~b2 24.:r'1f2!? :r'1g8 25.mh1 ~a1
26.:r'1e2 ~C3oo) 19.tLJd2 ~g4 20.tLJf4 :r'1d4 21.f3
~f5 22.tLJe4 tLJe5;;; Henris;
• 14.e6! fe6 15.mg2! Mlynek,P-Hasan,AI, Brno,
2005.
Taking the bull by the horns. Black is willing to b) 11 de3 12.fe3:
gambit more pawns in order to open up • 12 ~c5!?N 13.tLJc3 Wd1 14.:r'1ad1 gf4!?
White's kingside. (14 ... ~e3 15.mh1 ~f4 16.tLJd5 0-0 00 Henris)
15.mh1!? (15.tLJd5!? fe3 16.tLJc7 mf8 17.:r'1d5 e2
11.tLlbd2 18.:r'1c5 ef1W 19.mf1 :r'1b8 oo Henris) 15...fe3
16.:r'1de1?! (16.:r'1fe1 ~e6 17.tLJe4 ~e7 18.b3 :r'1d8
Taking twice on g5 does not come into 19.:r'1d8 md8 20.:r'1e3 mc8=/+) 16... ~e6!?+
consideration as it opens too many lines. After Cruz,Jon-Lyell,Ma, Pamplona, 2009;
11.fg5? hg5 12.tLJg5, both 12...tLJe5 and 12...Wg4!? • 12...Wd1!? 13.:r'1d 1 ~c5 14.tLJd4 ~g4 15.~c6
13.f4 Wh4 (13 ...ic5iii) are good for Black. bc6 16.:r'1f1 :r'1d8!? 17.tLJc3 ~d4 18.ed4 :r'1d4+
Also weaker is 11.f5? g4 12.e6 fe6 Ottenweller, W-Borisovs,L, corr., 2007.
13.fe6 Wg7!? 14.tLJfd2 ie6+ Fistek, D-
Zapolski,K, Lublin, 2007. 11 ... gf4 12.tLle4!?
11.Wc1?!:
a) In the game Katov,L-Panbukchian,V, Pleven, This is inaccurate.
2006, Black met this passive move with The prophylactic 12.mh1!? is probably
11 ...l:!g8 12.tLJbd2 ie7 13.mh1 d3 14.ed3 Wd3 better: 12... ~g7 13.tLJb3 tLJe5 14.tLJfd4 0-0
15.tLJb3 ig4 16.We3 0-0-0, and obtained a 15.Wc2:
strong initiative despite the exchange of the a) 15...Wg4!? 16.~e4 Wh5 17.:r'1g1 c5:
queens. • 18.tLJc5? tLJg4 costs White the exchange;
b) Black could also consider 11...gf4!?, • 18.if3 tLJf3 19.tLJf3 ~h8 20.Wd2 Wf5 21.tLJc1 ie6
immediately opening the g-file: 12.Wf4 :r'1g8 22.tLJd3 gad8 23.gac1 ~e5 24.b3 We4 00 Narciso

161
.-------------_. -- ..... - ..... -
• J 2 sa

Chapter 5

Dublan,M-Fluvia Poyatos,Jor, Badalona, 2005; 13... ~g4

• o18.tLlf5 .ifS 19..ifS;!;;
• 18.tLlb5!? is also interesting. Demonstrating that White's 12th and 13th
b) 15.. .'l!!!fe7!? moves were an unfortunate combination.
c) 15...c6!?, neutralizing the bishop on g2, was
another solid option.
12.tLlb3!? ~g8 13.'tt>h1 ig7 14.ttJbd4 ttJd4
15.~d4 ~d4 16.ttJd4 ie5 17.~ad1 = Ippolito,D- 14.h3 'Wg6 15.'Wf4 ih3 16.4:Jg3 ig2 17.~g2
Nikolayev,l, Philadelphia, 2008. The bishop pair O-O-O:j: .
compensates for the structural deficit.
14...1f5 15.~d4?!
12....ie7
This blunders a piece. But Black has a more
12...ig71? might well be the best line for than satisfactory position after any of the
Black: 13.'Wd2!? ttJe5 14.'Wf4 ttJg6 15.'Wd2 following alternatives:
(15.ttJf6? 'tt>e7! 16.ttJd7 ttJf4+) 15... ~g4 16.ttJg3 15.llJe1 0-0-0+.
ttJf4 - Raetsky &: Chetverik. 15.llJf6 if6 16.ef6 0-0-0 17.~g1 d3+.
15.h3 ~h5 16.~f4 ih3 17.4:Jg3
(17.~ad1!? O-O-O:j:) 17...'Wg4 18.'Wg4 ig4:j:.

A bad move, according to Morozevich. 15...E!d8?!

13.llJf6!? if6 14.ef6 (Boehm,J-
Chapman,A, Dortmund, 2011) 14...'Wd6:j:. After 15...0-0-0! 16.4:Jc6 ~d2 17.4:Je7 ~d8
It makes sense to move the king off the 18.4:Jf5 ~d7+, White doesn't get three pieces
dangerous line with 13. ~h 1: for the queen, as there is nowhere to retreat
a) 13...'Wg4!? 14.4:Jd4 4:Je5 15.4:Jb5 ~f8 16.4:Jc7 the knight from f5.
~g8 17.~g1 ~h4 (Kozak,Mi-Bukal,V jr, Znojmo,
2005) 18.~d2! ~b8 19.4:Jd5 if5 20.4:Je7 4:Jg4 16.llJf5?
21.~f4 .ie4 22.ie4 4:Jf2 23.'Wf2 ~e4 24.'Wf3 'Wf3
25.ef3 ~e7±. This queen sacrifice is not the best defence.
b) o13.. J:!g8 14.~g1 ~g6 15.~d3 'We6!? Gelfand doesn't exploit a fantastic chance to
b.".id7, ...0-0-0, when Black successfully stay alive with 16.llJf6! if6 17.ic6 bc6 18.ef6
completes his development - Raetsky &: c5 19.~a5!:
Chetverik. a) ~19 ...l':!d4?! 20.'Wc5! ~e2D (and not

162
•
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ltJf3 tDc6 5.g3 ~ge7
20 .. J''1d7? 21.~c6! Vf:fe2 (21...~g6? 22.f3 ~c2
23.'i£ad1! ~d1 24.'i£d1+-) 22.'i£fe1 ~e4 23.~e4
Vf:fe4 24.'i£e4 md8 25.'i£f4±) 21.f30 ~g4!!O
22.Vf:fc6 (22.fg4 ~e4 23.mg1 ~e3=) 22 ... md8
23.'i£ae1 (23.fg4?? 'i£d2-+) 23 .. .'t!~k4!? 24.Vf:fc4
~f3 25.'i£f3 'i£c4=.
b) 19...cd4 20.Wc7!? (20.'i£g1?! ~e4!
21.f3 Vf:fe6 22.Vf:fc7 ~f5! 23.Wf4 Wf6:t) 20 ... ~d7
21.f3 Vf:fe6 22.Vf:ff4 ~c6:j: Henris.
16... ~d2 17.CtJe7 @e7 18)t:ld2
%Ve2-+
Black is Winning. The remaining moves speak
for themself.
19.CLlf3 ~g8 20.b3 CLlb4 21.CLld4
%Vg422.ie4
~22J''1g1 ltJd3.
22... ~g5?
This suffices for the win. But 22... ~d3! would
have won on the spot as there is no defence
against 23...Wg1 and 24 .. ,cZlf2 mate! Please do
not forget that Morozevich was playing blindfold.
Had he been permitted one cursory look at the
board he would have found this nice finish!
23.~g1 %Vd7 24.CLlf3 ~g1 25.~g1
CLld3 26.~g2 c6 27.ih7 as 28.CtJh4
CLle5 .
0-1
Game 64
Werner,Dimo (2358)
Czebe,Attiia (2500)
Balatonlelle, 2007
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.CLlf3
CLlc6 5.g3 CLlge7 6.ig2 CtJg6 7.ig5
%Vd7! 8.0-0 CLlge5?! (D)
A dubious continuation leading to a position
from the branch 7.0-0 with the inclusion of
~g5 and ...Wd7. Whilst the outing of the bishop
on g5 is a useful developing move, the black
queen is misplaced on d7. White has a slight
lead in development while Black will have to
waste time to reorganize.
9.CtJbd2
The alternatives are not so strong:
9.tLle5!? ltJe5:
a) 10.~b3:
a1) 10...c6 11.'i£d1 f6 12.~f4 (12.~c1!? c5 13.CLlc3
163
 -------~----_ .. • 5

Chapter 5

I'
; ,
is interesting) 12...g5 13.,ie3!? (13.,ie5 fe5 b) 10...,id6!? 11.e3 de3 12.,ie3 O-O!?
I!
, 14.tiJd2 looks simpler) 13...c5 14.tiJa3 h5! 15.,id2 (12 ...ttJg4) 13.~b3 @h8 14.Ei:adH Henris.
h4 16.e3 hg3 17.hg3 ~h7 18.ed4 ~h2 19.@f1 ,ih3 c) 10...lLJf3!?:
20.~b7 (20.1h3? ~h3 21.@e1 ~h1 22.@e2 ~e4 • 11.lt:lf3!? 1e7 12.~b3 g5 13.1d2 g4 14.tiJh4
!! " 23.1e3 (23.~e3 ~g4 24.f3 'i%,h2-+) 23 ... ~g4 ttJe5 15.1b7 1b7 16.~b7 @f7 17.b3 tiJg6 18.tiJg2±
24.@d2 cd4-+) 20 ... ~h1 21.@e21g4! 22.@e3 cd4 Riazantsev ,A-Novikov,St, Nojabrsk, 2005;
23.@d4 'i%,d8 24.1d5 1d 1 25.~b5 'i%,d7 26.~b8
11,1
,
"
• 11.if3 1e7 12.lLJb3 g5!? 13.1c1!? O-O!?
Y:z- Y:z Bruckmayr, F-Brueckner, Jo, corr., 1998. (13 ... h5!? 14.~d3lLJe5 15.~d4 'l'!fjd4 16.tiJd4 tiJc4
111I
,
a2) 10...ic5!? 11.lLJd2: 17.tiJb5 1d8 18.b3 lLJe5 19.1g2;t) 14.1d5 @h8
1\:1
, . • 11...f6 12.tiJe4 1e7 13.1f4 tiJg6 14.1d2 c5 15.f4;t Haeggloef,K-Eriksson,B, corr., 1981.
15.'i%,ad1 0-0= Foisor,S-Muzychuk,A, Szeged, 2006; d) 10...tiJg6 11.lLJb3 (11.e3 tiJf4 12.ef4 1e7
"'I
" 'I 'I ','
,
• 11 ...0-0 12.lLJe4 1e7 13.'i%,ad1 195 14.lLJg5 13.tiJb3;t Henris) 11...lLJf4 12.gf4;t Schloegl,D@
"Ii:I-I
,
'l'!fje7 15.lLJf3!? lLJf3 16.1f3 c5 17.'i%,fe1!? (17.e3 Lo Conte,V, corr., 2007.
de3 18.'l'!fje3 1e6!? 19.me1 'i%,fe8= Henris) 9...ie7!? 10.1e7 ~e7 11.tiJb3 tiJc4
17...1e6 18.e3 de3!? 19.'i%,e3!? (Kosic,D- 12.lLJfd4 tiJ6e5 (12 ... tiJd4 13.~d4 tiJe5 14.f4 tiJg4
Valeanu,E, Novi Sad, 2007) 19...'i%,ad8= Henris. 15.~g7 ~e3 16.@h1 m8 (16... tiJf2 17.'i%,f2±)
a3) 10...ie7!? 11.1b7 1b7 12.'l'!fjb7 0-055 Davies. 17.~d4±) 13.'l'!fjc1! tiJb6 (13 ...lLJd6 14.14! tiJg4
b) 10.tiJd2!? is interesting too. (14 ... tiJg6 15.e4 f6 16.lLJf5) 15.e4 f6 16.h3 tiJh6
9.b3 lLJf3 10.1f3!? (10.ef3!?) 10...1c5 17.e5 fe5 18.fe5 tiJdf5 19.94 tiJh4 20.lLJb5; 13...c5
11.lLJd2 h6!? 12.1f4 1e7= Kantorik,M- 14.tiJf3 tiJf3 15.ef3! 1e6 16.f4) 14.a4! (14.tiJa5 c6
Shtyrenkov, V, Karvina, 2005. 15.tiJdc6 tiJc6 16.lLJc6 bc6 17.1c6 1d7 18.1a8
9.~a4 f6 10.1c1 1e7= Lopez, Die- tiJa8 19.'i%,d1 0-00» 14... a5 (14 ...c6? 15.a5 tiJd5
Moreda,L, Buenos Aires, 2006. 16.a6 0-0 17.ab7 1b7 18.~c5 a6 19.~e7 lLJe7
20.lLJa5;t) 15.~c3 tiJec4 (15 c6 16.lLJa5 tiJd5
9...'ilf3!? 17.1d5 cdS 18.tiJdc6±; 15 0-0 16.lLJa5 c6
(16...'i%,d8 17.tiJb7 1b7 18.1b7 'i%,a4 19.tiJf5!±)
I"
9.. .f6!? 10.1f4: 17.'i%,fc1 tiJd5 18.'l'!fjeH) 16.tiJc6! 'l'!fjf6 (16... bc6?
a) 10...g5?: 17.1c6 1d7 18.1a8 tiJa8 19.~c4±) 17.~f6 gf6
• 1ViJe4?! lLJf3! (11...1e7? 12.lLJe5 (12.1e5 18.'i%,fc1! 1d7 (18 ... tiJb2 19.1LJca5 c6 20.'i%,a2 tiJ2a4
lLJe5 13.lLJe5 fe5 14.e3 h5 15.ed4± Fernschach) 21.tiJc6 1d7 22.tiJca5;t) 19.tiJcd4 c6 (19 ...0-0-0
12... tiJe5 13.lLJg5 lLJc4 14.lLJe4±) 12.1f3 'l'!fje7 20.lLJc5 tiJd6 21.tiJdb3 lLJa4 22.tiJb7±) 20.tiJc5;t/±
13.1c11h3 ~ ... O-O-O; Smit,Di-Balogh,Ja, corr., 197Z.
• 11.ie5 lLJe5 (11...fe5 12.lLJg5±) 12.e3! de3 9... h6!? 10.1f4:
13.lLJe5 fe5 14.fe3± Henris. a) 10...lt:lf3 11.tiJf3 1c5 12.a3 a5 13.'l'!fja4 O-O!?

164
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.lDf3 lDc6 5.g3 ltJge7

14.b4 fie7 (14 ...fia7 15.b5 t21d8 16.'lWa5±) 12....id6!? 13.c5:

15.EI:ad1+ Nedilko,V-Zablotsky,S, Minsk, 2008. a) 13... ~f5? 14.cd6 'lWg5 15.dc7 'lWe7 16.EI:c1
b) 10...t21g6 11.t21b3;!; Nedilko,V-Borosova,Z, fig4!? (16 ...'lWc7 17.t21b4±) 17.EI:e1!? (17.t21f4
Warsaw (rapid), 2008. 'lWc7 18.Wd4±) 17...EI:ac8!? (17 ...'lWc7 18.t21b4+)
9...'lWf5!? 10.fif4 fid6?! (10 ...fie7 11.fie5 was played in Gaertner,G-Baumgartner,H,
t21e5 12.t21d4;!;; 10...t21g6 11.fic7 'lWd7 12.fif4 t21f4 Austria, 1996. Now White could have obtained
13.gf4;!; Henris) 11.t21e5 t21e5 (11 ...fie5 12.~c6 the advantage with 18.fic6 bc6 19.ct'lc5±
bc6 13.~e5 'lWe5 14.t21f3+ Henris) 12.t21e4± Henris.
Aloma Vidal,R-Arias Boo,G, Barcelona, 2011. b) o13...~e7 14.~c6!? bc6 15.t21e5 'lWd5 16.~e7
9...~d6!? 10.t21e5 ~e5 11.t21f3;!; Kiss,P- :1'1:e8 17.t21f3 :1'1:e7 18.'lWd4 :1'1:e2 19.'lWd5 cd5
Choukri ,A, Marrakesh, 2010. 20.:1'1:fe1 :1'1:e4 (20 ...:1'1:e1 21.EI:e1 ~f8 22.ttJd4;!;)
21.ttJg5 :1'1:e1 22.:1'1:e1;!; Henris.
10.tDf3
13.VNd2!?
1O.ef3!? f6 11.~f4:
a) S11 ... ~d6?! 12.~d6! (::;12.EI:e1?! ~e7 13.~f4;!; Henris.
(12... ~f7? 13.~d6 'lWd6 14.f4±) 13.t21b3 0-0
14.Wd3 a5! 15.EI:ad1 EI:d8) 12...'lWd6 13.EI:e1±. 13...ie7 14.ie7 CfJe7 15.VNb4?!
b) 11 ... ~e7 12.t21b3 0-0= Henris.
Better was 15.l2Jf4! Wc5 (15 ...c5!? 16.e3 :1'1:d8
10...ic5 11.tDe1!? 17.ed4 :1'1:d4 18.We3+) 16.EI:ad1 EI:d8 17.b4!? Wb6
(17 ...'lWc4 18.EI:c1) 18.c5 Wf6 19.e3;!; Henris.
11.a3 looks also good: 11...a5 12.Wa4
f6 13.~f4 EI:a6 14,ct'le1 (14.EI:fd1 0-0 15.e3± 15...VNf6 16.VNc5 c6 17J:~ad1 ie6
Henris) 14...0-0 15.t21d3 ~e7 16.EI:ad1 ~h8 18.b3!?
17.Wb5 Wd8 18.'lWd5± Trapl,J-Mista,L, Czech
Republic, 1995. 18.e4.
11.~a4!? is interesting too: 11...0-0
12.a3!? ~e7!? 13.~f4 fif6 (13 ... ~d6 14.~d6 'lWd6 18.. J!fd8 19.~d2 b6 20.VNe5 VNe5
15.EI:ad1 ~g4 16.EI:d2 EI:ad8 17.EI:fd1 Wf6 18.b4;!; 21.CfJe5 ~d6 22.~fd1!?
Henris) 14.EI:ad1 We7!? 15.b4 g5!? 16.b5 t21d8
17 .fic1:!: Hansen, Ca-Pedersen, Eric, carr., 1984. o22.b4;!;.

11...0-0 12.tDd3t VNf5 22... ~ad8 23.e3 c5 24.ed4 ~d4

165
,
i Chapter 5
I

24...cd4!? . 52.b51?

052.c!lJd3.

25...cd4!? . 52... ~b11? 53.~f3??

26J~d4 cd4 27.i.e4 f5?! 28.i.g2 53.b6 tLle3 54.me4 tLla4 55.mb5 tLle3 56.ma6+-.
f4!? 29..ie4 fg3 30.fg3 g6 31.i>f2
,
"
i>g7 32.~f3± i.f5 33.i.f5 ~f5 53...i>c7?
34. i>e2 i>f6 35.i>d3 h5 36.~d4
~h6 37.i>e4 ttJg4 38.h4 g5 39.b41? 53...c!lJc3.

39.c!lJb51+-. 54.~d4?

39... ttJf2!? 40.i>d5 gh4 41.gh4 ttJd3 54.b6 mb? 55.tLle5 tLle3 56.tLle4±.
42.a3 i>e7!? 43.~c6 i>e8 44.~e5?
54... ~d2 55.b6 i>b7 56.i>b5 ~e4=
44.c!lJa7+-. 57.~f5 ttJd2??

I
44... ttJe1 45.i>c6?! 57...c!lJc3 58.c;t>a5 (58.c;t>e4 tLla4 59.md4 tLlb6
I
60.tLlg3 c;t>e6 61.tLlh5 c;t>d6=) 58... tLld5 59.tLld6
I

I 045.a4 tLle2 46.b5. me6 60.b? me?=.

II

III
45... ttJc2 46.i>b7 ~a3 47.i>a7 i>e7 58.~d6 i>b8 59.i>a6 ~f3!?
I
48.i>b6 i>e6 49.~d3 ttJc4 50.i>c5 60.~f5?!±I+-
~a3 51.ttJe1??
In this position, despite White's clear
51.c!lJf4 mf5 52.tLlh5 mg4 53.tLlg3 mh4 54.tLle4 advantage, the draw was agreed.
mg4 55.tLld6 ~tLle4+-. White still had every chance to convert
his advantage after 60.c!lJf5?! ma8 61.tLle? tLle5
51 ...i>d7?? 62.tLld5 tLld? 63.tLle? mb8 64.tLle6 ±/+-.
But the simple 060.c!lJe4! tLlh4 61.tLle5
51 ...c;t>f5 52.tLld3 mg4 53.tLlb2 c;t>h4 54.tLle4 tLle4 would have won immediately.
55.me4 mg4=. Y2-Y2

166
,

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.lLlf3 lLlc6 5.g3 tLlge7

Game 65 12.a3!?
Vitiugov,Nikita (2538)
Kasimdzhanov, Rustam (2670) 12.e3!? is quite interesting and is
Tallinn (rapid), 2006 probably the critical move here:
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 a) :S12 ...i.d6?! 13.ed4 (13.ttle4?! i.g4+) 13 ... 0-0
ttJc6 5.g3 ttJge7 6.ig2 ~g6 7.ig5 (13 ... ed4 14.ge1):
~d7! 8.e6 fe6 9.0-0 e5!? (D) • 14.de5?! ttlce5 15.ttle5 i.e5;
• 14.d5 ttld4 15.ttld4 ed4 (15... ttlh4 16.ttle6)
16.ttle4 ttlh4 17.ttld6 cd6 18.gh4 iWf4 00 ;
• 14.c5 14 ... ttlh4 15.ttlh4 (and not 15.cd6?
ttlg2) 15...i.e7 16.d5±.
b) 12...liJh4?! 13.ttlh4 g5 (Miedema,D-Kuipers,
S, Venlo, 2007):
• 14.i.c6 bc6 15.ttlhf3 i.g7 16.ed4 i.h3!
(16 ...ed4? 17.ge1 i>f8 18.ttle5±) 17.iWe2
(17.ge1?! 0-0 18.de5 gae8) 17...0-0 18.ttle5!?
i.f1 19.9f1°o Henris;
• 14.i.f3!? i>d8 (14 ... h5 15.i.c6 bc6 16.ttlhf3±)
15.i.h5+ Henris.
c) 12...i.g4!? 13.Wa4 (13.Wb3 ttlh4 14.Wb7
As White often meets 9...e5 with 10.i.c1 (14.ttlh4 0-0-0) 14... ttlf3 15.i.f3 i.f3 16.Wa8
anyway, it makes sense to refrain from ~d7+) 13...i.d7 14.Wb5 i.b4 15.Wb7?! gb8
encouraging the bishop's retreat with 9... h6. 16.Wa6 (16.Wc7 0-0 leaves White's queen
trapped) 16...0-000, with a murky-looking position
10.ttJbd2 in which Black is ready for 17...gb6 - Davies.
d) 12...i.b4!? 13.ed4 0-0 14.d5 (14.de5 i.g4)
Logically aiming for the e4-square. But now the 14... ttld4 15.ttld4 ed4 16.ttle4 ttlh4 17.gh4 iWf4 -
bishop on g5 is going to be out of play. Raetsky & Chetverik.
See game 67 for the other options. e) 12...d3 13.Wb3 ib4 14.a3 (14.Wd3 ie6iii)
14...id2 15.ttld2 O-O? (o15 ...ttlh4 16.gh4 0-0
10... h6 11.ih4 ~f7 17.Wd3 - 15...0-0) 16.Wd3? (o16.id5! ie6 17.Wb7
id5 18.cd5 Wd5 19.9ac1 ttlh4 20.Wc6 (20.e4!?)
Unblocking the c8-bishop is the most natural 20 ...Wc6 21.gc6 ttlf3 22.ttlf3 m3 23.gc7 (23.gd1
move. See next game for the alternatives. gbB 24.gd2) 23 ... ~f8 24.e4±) 16...ttlh4 17.gh4

167
 ----------------_~-u ---,
If
,iii
" .. 'I
Chapter 5
,
,'
I,

ie6S6 COMP Fritz 1O-Henris, L, Brussels, 2007. 18.tLJb7?! ~ab8 (18 ... a5!?) 19.tLJa5 e4 20.tLJc6 vtic6
12.'I1;Yb3!?:
21.vtic6 ttJc6 22.ttJd2 ~b2 23.ttJe4 l"1e2+ Davies.
a) 12...a5 13.'lWb5!? ~a6 14.c5 CUh4!?
(14 .. .'~d5!? 15.CUb3!? (15.'lWd3 CUb4 16.'lWb1 18...ttJc6 19.ttJd2 ~h8 20.b4!? a6
vtif7f.) 15... ~b6 16.vtid3 e4 17.cufd4 ed3 18.id5 21.'~'b3 ie6 22.'!Hd3 if5 23.ie4
CUd4 19.cb6 cue2 20.<;iJh1 CUh4 00 Henris) 15.cuh4
!, '
g5!? (15...ie7!? . Henris) 16.CUhf3 ig700 23.'I1;Yb3 ~ad8!? (23 ...ie6=).
I, Hughes,Ty-Baratosi,D, Gaziantep, 2008.
b) I like 12...ib4!? M3...id2 14.cud2 CUh4. 23...ie4 24.'!He4 ~ad8 25.~ab1
12.'I1;Ya4!? id7 13.'lWb3 CUh4!?
(13 ...ib4!? 14.cue4!? cuh4 15.cuh4 O-O-O=/f. With the options of coming to the third rank or
Henris) 14.CUh4 g5!? (14 ... 0-0-0!?) 15.id5 pushing with b4-b5.
(15.'lWb7 ~b8 16.vtic7 ~c8 17.vtib7 (17.vtic8!? ic8
18.ic6 id7 19.id7 <;iJd7 oo) 17... ~b8= Henris) 25...'!He6 26.~b3 lLle7 27.~f3 ttJd5
oo
15...'lWg7 Prohaszka,P-Biro,S, Zalakarosi, 2008. 28.~f8 ~f8 29.1L1f3?

12...if5 13.'~a4 White's position now falls apart very quickly.

,
,
29.vtid3 a5!, and Black is on top - Davies.
13.'I1;Yb3 'lWd7! 14.'lWb7 ~b8 15.'lWa6 ~b2 looks
,
'I '
jill" !
'I '
The only move was 29.e3! e.g. 29... de3
1

good for Black - Davies.

'1 1"

,I1,1
I (29 ... cuc3 30.vtib7) 30.fe3 ~f1 31.cuf1 = Flear,G.
'

1(1
11,11
13.. .'~'d7 29...ttJc3 30.'!He5 ttJe2 31.~g2?
, "

I,ll
I, The queen breaks the pin, but now that the bishop 31.\tlh1 vtic4+ (31...'&c6 32.vtie2l"lf3 33.\tlg1l"la3+).
11':
I,, is developed Black's pieces are more harmoniously
placed. Black is threatening 14...e4!? 31 ...ttJf4! 32.~g1
13...e4? 14.CUd4.

I, 32.gf4 vtig4 33.<;iJh1 vtif3 34.<;iJg1 ~f4 35.h3 ~f5-+.

14.1L1b3 id6
32...'!Hc6
14...e4? 15.cufd4! CUd4 16.'lWd7.
I

After 33.gf4 vtif3, White's extra tempo over the

15.c5 ie7 16.ie7 ttJge7 17.ttJa5 previous note does not prevent the coming storm.
0-0 18.ttJc6 0-1

168
 ,

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.tLlf3 tLlc6 5.g3 tLlge7

Game 66 (16.t!Jc4!? 1Mff5 17.ie41Mff6 18.ic6 bc6 19.t!Jge5±)

Dreev,Alexey (2705)
RaetskY,Alexander (2440)
Sochi, 2005
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.~f3
ttJc6 5.g3 ttJge7 6.ig2 ~g6 7.ig5
Wfd7! 8.e6 fe6 9.0-0 e5 10.~bd2 h6
11.ih4 (D)
Instead of 11...~f7 seen in the previous game,
Black also has several interesting possibilities
shown here.
16,..1Mfe6D 17.ic6 (17.id5 ~g6 18.ic6 (1B.igB
ih3~) 18.,.~f8+ (~1B,..bc6?! 19.1MfgB±)) 17,..bc6
18.CLle5 ~c4 19.CLldc4± Polgar,Z-Nakamura,Hik,
Virginia Beach Ostend, 2005.
One can't help but think that 11...ie7?!
solves White's problem over the bishop on h4:
12.ie7 ~e7 13.~c2 (13.e3 de3 (13,..ie6 14.ed4
ed4 1S.E1e1a» 14.fe3 0-0= Raetsky & Chetverik)
13,..~f7 14.CLle1 0-0= 15.CLld3 ~h8!? (15,..CLlge7
16.f4 ef4 17.CLlf4;!; (17.E1f4!? ifS 1B.E1af1 ~e6a»)
16.b4 ig4 17.E1ae;!; Krasenkow,M-Morozevich,A,
Podolsk, 1993.
11 ...Wfe6!? 12.~c2 ib4 13.CLle4 CLlh4
14.CLlh4 ie7 15.f4 ih4 16.gh4 (Fodor,Tamas jr-
Kovacs,Ga, Budapest, 2006) 16,..ef4!? 17.l'U4 id7
18.CLlC5!? Wfe3 19.E1f2 d3 20.~d3! (20.CLld3? CLld4
21.Wfd 1 E1f8 22.~f1 0-0-0) 20,..~c5 21.~g6 ~d8
22.E1d1 E1f8 23.E1d7!? ~d7 24.ih3 ~d8 25.~d3
CLld4D 26.b4!? ~d6 27.E1f8 ~f8 28.~d4 ~d6D
29.~g7 c5a> Ll30.~g8 ~c7 31.~a8 ~d4= Henris.
11 ... ~f5!? is worth considering too.
12.Wfc2

11...ib4!? 12.11Jb3 ~f7 (12 ...0-0 13.a3 id6 14.c5

ie7 15.ie7 ~e7 16.CLlfd2 if5 - Raetsky &
Other options have been tried: Chetverik) 13.a3 id6 14.c5 if8!? (14,..'t:Jh4!?
11 ...id6?!: 15.CLlh4 ie7 16.f4!? ih4 17.fe5 ~g6 18.CLld4!?a>
a) Black has a good game after 12.11Je4!? 0-0 (1B.gh4 ih3 19.E1f2 0-0-0+)) 15.E1c1 if5=
13.c5 ie7 14.ie7 ~e7 15.'tJe1 ie6 Muir,A- (15,..ie6!? - Henris) COMP Yace-COMP Deep
Tate,A, Oban, 2005. Fritz, Brussels, 2001.
b) 12.c5! ic5!? (o12,..ie7 13.ie7 ~e7) 13.~c2 12.11Je4 ~f7 13.a3 t!Jh4 14.'t:Jh4 ie7
llJh4 14.t!Jh4 ib6!? 15.t!Jg6 E1g8 16.~c4 15.f4!? ih4 16.fe5 1Mfg6!? (16,..1Mfc4 17.gh4a»

169
",..----------------.--,
" Chapter 5
•

17.\¥fb1!? ttJe5 18.gh4 i.h3 19.ttJd6 \¥fd6 20.i.h3 18.ttJd2!? i.e6!? 19.i.e6 be6 20.\¥fg6 'tt>e7CXJ
)'J;f8+ Raetsky & Chetverik. Raetsky & Chetverik.
1V~'a4 ttJh4 13.gh4 i.d2 14.ttJd2 0-0
15.'tt>h1 \¥fe7+. 18.b4! O-O-O?!

12... ~f7 18...ttJb4 19.\¥fb2! i.e6 20.a3 tLla6 21.iWd4 )'J;d8

I
22.\Wf2!?± Raetsky & Chetverik.
II
I
,
12...\Wf5 13.tLle4 0-0 14.a3 i.e? looks fine for
, ;1
!' ,
Black - Davies. 19.~c5 ~e5?! 20.~a4 a6 21.~d7

13.~e4 21.ttJb7! tLlb8 (21 ... 'tt>b7?? 22.b5+-) 22.iWa5

Elde8 23.iWe5 Ele5 24.tLle5± Raetsky &
White's compensation looks very dubious to me Chetverik.
after 13.ttJd4?! ed4 (13 ...tLld4!? 14.\Wa4 iWd7
15.\Wb4 tLle2 16.\Wc3 tLla1 17.)'J;a1 e6+) 14.i.d5 21...@d7 22JU7?
i.e6 15.iWe4 'tt>d7+.
o22.b5! ab5 23.eb5 \We3 24.'tt>h1 tLle5 25.i.b?
13... ~h4!? Elhf8 26.i.g2 - Raetsky & Chetverik. White is
close to winning.
After 13...0-0 14.a3 tLlh4 15.tLlh4 i.e7 16.tLlf3
i.f5 17.tLlfd2 a5 Black's pieces are beautifully 22...@e6?!
positioned - Raetsky & Chetverik.
Now the position opens with the black king still 22 'tt>c8 23.i.e6 d3!? 24.\Wa5 (24.Ele1 I?)
in the centre. 24 iWa5 (but not 24 ...iWa 1?? 25.'tt>g2+-) 25.ba5
be6 26.ed3 Eld3 was correct, with a likely
14.~h4 ie7 15.f4!? ih4 16.fe5 drawn rook endgame - Raetsky & Chetverik.
~e7 17.gh4 id7?!
23J:!:af1 ~e3 24.@h1 ~e5 25.~a5?
Preparing the evacuation of the king to the
queenside. But the black king will not feel This move probably lets the advantage slip.
safer there than in the centre. Better was 25J:1:g7 Elhf8 26.\Wd 1± Raetsky &
17...ttJe5 18.\Wb3!? (18.)'J;ad1 !?) 18...)'J;f8 Chetverik.
19.e5 is riskier.
Better would have been 17...\¥fe5!? 25... b6 26.id5

170
,

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.tLlf3 tLlc6 5.g3 lLlge7

After the sacrifices 26.,ih3!? \Wh3 27.Ele7! c;ge7 Game 67

28.IWe5 \We6 29.IWg7 c;ge8 30.IWh8 c;gd7 31.IWd4 Cernousek,Lukas (2422)
c;gc8, the position is unclear - Raetsky & Trent,Lawrence (2423)
Chetverik. White is two pawns up but his king Birmingham, 2006
is not safe. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.CtJf3
tDc6 5.g3 tDge7 6.ig2 tDg6 7.ig5
26... ~d6 27.~a4 c6 ~d7! 8.e6 fe6 9.0-0 e5 10.ic1 (D)

Forcing the events, unlike 27.. :We2 28.\Wa6 d3

which is very unclear.

28J~g7 Elhf8 29.~f3 d3! 30.c5 bc5 31.bc5 \Wc5

32.1::1d1°o Raetsky & Chetverik.

28 ...tDf7 29J:~f7

White has only perpertual check after 29.Wb6

12Je5 30.IWc5 cZJc7 31.\Wa7 cZJc8 32.\Wa8=
Raetsky & Chetverik. This retreat allows White to put the bishop out
of harm's way. Also White wants to make good
29.. J:~hf8 30.~b6 :gf7 31.~d8 :gd7 use or the e4-square for one of his pieces.
32.c5 ~d5 33.~d7 ~c4 34.~c6 ~f2! Besides this move and 10.l2Jbd2 seen
previously, White also has:
Most likely White had not considered this 10.'l&a4:
resource. a) 1O... ~d6!? 11.l2Jbd2 h6?! (011.. .0-0 12.c5
~e7 - Davies) 12.c5!? (more natural is 12.~h4
35.~g2 ~e1 36.~g1 ~e2 37.~c1 0-0 13.c5 but after 13... ~e7 14.~e7 \We7
~b4 38.c6 d3 39.c7 d2 40.~b2 15.IWc2 IWf7 16.a3 ~f5 17.l2Je4 a5, Black is
~a4 41.~c2 ~b5 42.~b1 ~a4 active enough - Flear,G) 12... ~f8!? (12 ... ~c5
43.c8~ d1~ 44.~d1 ~d1 45.~g2 13.\Wc2 hg5 14.\Wg6 \Wf7 15.IWf7 cZJf7 16.tlJg5
~e2 46.~g3 ~e3 47.~g4 ~e2 cZJe7 (16... c;gg6 17.Elac1) 17.Elac1:!:/+; 12... hg5
13.cd6 g4 14.tlJg5 \Wd6 15.tlJc4 IWf6 16.tlJe4, and

171
 Chapter 5

Black's king will not find a safe place;
o12 ... ~e7) 13.~h4 a5!? (13... ~c5?! 14.iWc2 lLlh4
15.1L1h4) 14.a3 :ga6?! (the rook is out of place
here; o14 ...iWe6!? 15.b4 ~d7 16.b5 lLlce7, with
,
a playable position . Raetsky & Chetverik)
I,
13.b4i Smirnov,Arte-Pankov,Ger, St Petersburg,
2007) 12...iWg8 13.1L1c3!? ~e6 (:513...dc3?! 14.id5
c2D 15.iWd2 (15.iWd3 lLlb4) 15... ~b4 16.:1Lc6 bc6
17.iWb4 iWd5 18.iWc3 :1Lf5 19.e4 1e4 20.1L1e4 iWe4
21.:ge1 iWd5 22.1a3± Henris) 14.1L1e6 iWe6

15.:gfe1 iWf5 16.:gac1 ~e7 17.~e7 lLlge7 18.e3 15.1L1e4iii Lagowski,P-Szoen,D, Ustron, 2006.
Van WelY,L-Morozevich,A, Monte Carlo (rapid),
2004. White has started the middlegame, 11.~g5?!
,
,

I:
, whereas Black has still to finish the opening.
,
,'
"

b) 10... ~e7!? 11.~e7 lLlge7 (11 ...Vfle7? White gains the 'two bishops'. But with the black
12.liJd4!±; 11 ...1L1ce7!? 12.iWb3 0-0 00 ) 12.b4 liJg6 central pawns on e5 and d4 this transaction does
13.b51L1ce7 14.liJbd2 0-0 00 • not seem particularly advisable.
,I

i ' c) 10...h6!?N 11.~d2!? (11.~c1) 11...~d6 11.1L1bd2 is better:

i (11...~e7 12.1L1a3 0-0 00 ) 12.e3 0-0 13.ed4 liJd4!?
, (13 ... ed4) 14.iWd7 ~d7 15.liJd4 ed4 16.b4?!
i (16.~b7 :gab8 17.~d5 'It>h7 18.b3 :gbe8iii) 16... c6:j:
Y2- Y2 Zaja,I-Martinovic,Sa, Zagreb, 2006.
10.a3 a5:
a) Black has no real problems after 11.ic1 Vflf7
i
12.1L1bd2 :1Le7 13.b3 0-0 14.liJe1 'It>h8 15.Vflc2
,I
~f5 Grigore,Ge-Valeanu,E, Eforie Nord, 2007.
b) 11.Vfla4 h6 12.:1Lc1 lLld8!? (o12 ...:1Le7 13.b4
,
,
a) 11..-'&f5!? 12.liJe1:
• Exchanging the light squared-bishops with
12...Wh5 13.1L1d3 :1Lh3?! doesn't make that
much sense, as after 14.1L1e4 192 15.'lt>g2 the
knight on e4 could not easily be challenged in
KrivosheY,S-Kulicov,O, Dubai, 2006;
• 12...0-0 13.1L1d3 :1Ld7 14.1L1e4 liJd8! (excellent
regrouping, Ll... liJe6 and ...1c6) 15.f4 Vflh5
(o15 ...ef4 16.liJf4 lLlc6, when 17.liJd5 Vflh5

i
0-0 LL.iWg4-h5 - Davies) 13.Vfld7 ~d7 14.b3
liJe6 Y2- Y2 Izoria,Z-Nikolaidis, I, Athens, 2005.
10.e4:
a) 10...iWf7 11.iWb3 (Stopa,J-Cernousek, L, Brno,
2006) 11 ... h6 12.~d2 id6 Ll...O-O is fine - Davies.
b) 10...:1Le7!? 11.:1Le7 iWe7 12.liJe1 0-0 was also
quite comfortable for Black in Sumets,A-
Kabanov,N, Pardubice, 2005.
10...ie7
10...iWf7!? 11.1L1g5! iWc4 12.b3!? (12.1L1d2 iWg8
18.liJc7 :gf1 19.1f1 :gf8, intending 20 ...1g4,
would be very dangerous for White - Davies)
16.fe5 :gf1 17.Vflf1 :1Lg4 18.liJf4 lLlf4 19.9f4 :1Le2
20.Vflf2 :1Lc4 21.iWd4 1e6 22.1L1g3 Vflf7 23.f5 :1Lf5
24.1L1f5 Vflf5 25.iWc4 'It>h8 26.Vflc7 liJc6 Y2- Y2
Jakab,A-Cornette,M, Budapest, 2006.
b) 11 ...0-0 12.1L1e4:
• 12...h6 13.1L1e1 iWf5 14.liJd3 iWh5 15.~d2 a5=
Schorra,H-Zaitsev,Mikhail V, Dortmund, 2010;
• 12...We8 13.1L1e1 ~e6 14.b3 a5 15.liJd3 b6!?,
with a good game for Black in Skodvin,E-
Hammer,J, Oslo, 2007.

172
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6 5.g3 ~ge7
11...j\g5 12.j\g5 0-0 13.j\c11?
An amazing strategy, White retreats this bishop
back to c1 for the second time! After ttJbd2 the
bishop is in danger after ... h6.
13... ~fS 14.ttJd2 ~hS 1S.c!tJe4 h6
The straightforward 15... ~h3 is also good.
16.e3 would have been answered by 16... ~g4
17.f3 ~h3. Now that Black's dark-squared
bishop is off the board, the exchange of the
light-squared ones would be far more desirable.
16...c!tJb4 17.~b3 as 18.a3 c!tJc6
19.~d3 c!tJge7 20.b3 b6
20...,ih3!? is also quite good.
21.1d2?!
After this White's pieces become tangled up.
21 ... ~g6! 22.b41fS!
This pin is perhaps why Black preferred to keep
the light-squared bishops on: his bishop is
arguably more useful than White's.
23.bS c!tJd8 24.cS @h8! 2S.cb6 cb6
26.e3 ttJe6
All of a sudden the position has become very
difficult for White. Black threatens 27 ... ttJcS.
27.ed4 gad8 28.gae1 c!tJd4
28... gd4 29.iWc2 2:fd8 30.~c3 2:c8+ Flear,G.
o29.~c3! ~h3! (29 ...2:d7 30.f4!a»
30.~d4 ~g2 31.~g2 ttJfS+ Flear,G.
The immediate 29.f4!?, aiming for
simplification, might have been better - Davies.
30.f4 ef4 31.~f4 ttJc3, etc. - Davies.
30.f3 is a bit better, but this is not so
appealing for White after 30 ...ttJf6 - Davies.
30...1g431.f4?
Too late! This move now loses material.
Probably better was the continuation 31.ie3
ttJf3 32.~f3 ~f3 33.ttJd2, though Black has still
tremendous pressure after 33 ... ~g4t - Davies.
31 ...c!tJe2 32.ge2
Or 32.'it>h1 ef4 33.~f4 ttJef4 34.gf4 ttJf4, etc.
32...ie2 33J~e1 ef4! 34.E:e2 f3 35.if3
E:f3 36.i'd4 E:ff8 37.i'c4 i'g4 38.ic1 E:c8
0-1
173
 Chapter 5
';1
•

Game 68 b1) 9...id2 10.4:lbd2 fe6 (10 .. -'We6 11.ct:lb3 Wfc4

,

Akesson,Ralf (2494) 12.0-00-0 13.E1c1 Wfe6 14.ltJfd4 ltJd4 15.Wfd4 c6

Feygin,Michaii (2482) 16.ct:lc5 (16.f4!?) 16...Wfe2 17.E1fe1 1Mfh5 18.1Mfd6
Belgium, 2006 Wfg5 19.h4 ~d8 20.E1cd1 1Mfd6 21.E1d6 f6 22.f4
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.llJf3 E1b8 23.h5 4:lh8 24.iif1 4:lf7 25.iic4;!; Henris)
ltJc6 5.g3 ltJge7 6.ig2 ltJg6 7.ig5 11.0-00-0 12.1Mfc2;!; Henris.
~d7! 8.e6 (0) b2) 9...fe6 10.iib4 4:lb4:
• 11.lLld4? (Van Hecke,E-Pauwels,R, Vlissingen,
,
,I
2004) 11 ...1Mfd4! 12.1Mfa4 4:lc6 13.iic6 ~f7 (13... bc6!?
14.1Mfc6 ~e7 15.1Mfa8 (15.1Mfc7 iid7) 15...1Mfb2 16.0-0
,'I'
1Mfa1) 14.4:lc3 bc6 15.1Mfc6 iid7+ Henris;
,

,
• 11.0-0 e5 12.ct:lbd2;!;.
I
,

9.0-0

9.a3 a5 10.1Mfa4 h6 11.iic1 e5 12.4:lbd2

iie7 13.0-0 0-0= 14.b4 (o14.4:le1 Ll4:ld3 -
Raetsky & Chetverik) 14... 4:ld8 15.1Mfd7 iid7 16.b5
a4! (a standard positional idea seen in other
openings such as the Nimzo-Indian: White's
8.. .fe6 queenside pawn structure loses all flexibility)
17.4:le1 (Dreev wants to restrain any ideas of
8... ~e6?! 9.ct:ld4 iib4 10.ct:lc3 iic3 ...4:ld8-e6-c5) 17...c6 18.E1b1 cb5 19.cb5 E1a5
11.bc3 ct:ld4 12.cd4± (12.~d4 Wfc4 13.0-0+) 20.iie4 4:lh8! (the knight will be better placed
12 ...Wfc4 13.0-0±. on f7, a more stable square to defend his e5-
8...iib4!?: pawn) 21.4:ld3 4:lhf7 (21 ...E1b5!? 22.E1b5 iib5
a) 9.lLlbd2 1Mfe6 10.a3 iid2 11.1Mfd2 h6!? 23.4:le5 iie2?! 24.E1e1 iih5 25.iid5 4:ldf7
(11 ...Wfc4 12.E1c1 Wfb5 13.b4 h6 14.iif4 ct:lf4 (25... 4:lhf7? 26.g4) 26.iib7) 22.4:lc4 E1b5 23.E1b5
15.Wff4 0-0 16.ct:ld4 ct:ld4 17.1Mfd4 c6= Henris) iib5 24.4:lce5 4:le5 25.4:le5 iid6 (25 ...iie2?
12.iif4ct:lf4 13.Wff41Mfc4!? 14.E1c1!? (14.4:le5! 4:le5 26.E1e 1 iib5 27. 4:lg6) 26.iid5 (26.4:ld3 E1e8 27.iif3
15.1Mfe5 i>f8 16.0-0 - Henris) 14...1Mfb5? (14 ... ~d5 iic6) 26 ...i>h7 27.iie4 i>g8 28.iid5 i>h7 29.iie4
15.0-0 0-0 16.E1fdH Henris) 15.4:ld4 4:ld4 Y2- Y2 Dreev,A-Nakamura, Hik, Caleta, 2005.
16.Wfd4± WileY,T-Rudolf,An, Budapest, 2005. 9.h4!? has been played a few times
b) 9.id2: with some success:

174
 ..
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.tLlf3 tLlc6 5.g3 ~ge7

a) 9...,ib4!?: 22.~f2 (22.'8e5?? ~g1#) 22 ...tLlf2 23.Wg1 tLlh3

• 10.ltJbd2!? h6 11.a3 (11.~c2?? d3 12.ed3 24.,ih3 (24. Wh 1 LtJd3 25.,id5 Wh8+) 24 ...ih3
hg5-+ Heinig,W-Straeter,T, Germany, 2008; 25.tLld2 gad8:+: Henris) 21.Wg1 tLlh3 22.Wh1+
11.~b1 ~f7=) 11...hg5!? 12.ab4 gh4 13.b5;l; Henris; Y2-Y2 Demuth,A-Geenen,M, France, 2009 .
• 10.@f1!? as 11.LtJbd2 0-0 12.h5 LtJge5 13.h6;l;
id2?! 14.~d2 g6 15.gc1 LtJf3!? 16.ef3! e5 17.f4! 10...e5
'&f5 18.ge1± Krush,I-Amura,C, Ekaterinburg, 2006.
b) 9... h6!? 10.id2!? (10.ic1) 10...ic5 11.h5 10...ie7!? (as in Bensdorp,M-Muhren, B,
liJge7!? (11 ... LtJge5) 12.,if4 0-0 13.LtJbd2 id6 Leeuwarden, 2005) 11.\Wc2 liJge5 12.liJe5 liJe5
14.id6 '&d6= Repasi,Z jr-Gyurkovics,M, 13.liJd2 0-0 14.\We4 if6 15.f4 tLlc6 16.\Wg6 \We8
Hungary, 2008. 17.\We8 'Be8 18.liJe4 ie7=/;l; Henris.
1o ic5?! 11.tLlbd2 as!? (11...0-0
9...h6!? (D) 12.liJb3; 11 e5 12.LtJb3 ie7 13.e3 de3 14.ie3
\Wd1 15.'BadH Henris) was played in
Khruschiov,A-Babikov,l, Moscow, 2009. Now
White can obtain a clear advantage after
12.tLlb3! ,ia7 13.e3! e5 (13 ...de3 14.ie3 \Wd1
15.'Bad1 ,ie3 16.fe3) 14.ed4 ed4 (14 ...a4
15.LtJc5±) 15.'Be1 (15.liJa5!?) 15...liJge7 16.liJe5
liJe5 17.'Be5 0-0 18.'Ba5± Henris.

11.ltJbd2 '?:Vf7!?

o11 ...,ie7!? 12.tLle1 (12.\Wc2 \Wf5) 12... 0-0 -

Henris.

10..ic1 12.e3!N

1o.id2!? e5 11.e3 ie7 12.b4 0-0 13.b5 LtJd8 12.lLle1 I?:

14.ed4 ed4 15.ge1 '&f5 16.'&b3 LtJe6 17.,ib4 ib4 a) 12...id7?! 13.LtJd3 ie7 (Lekic,Du-Vujic,M,
18.'&b4 LtJef4!? (o18 ...tLlgf4! 19.LtJbd2 (19.gf4? Bar, 2008) 14.id5 ,ie6 15.\Wb3;l; Henris.
LtJf4-+) 19... LtJg2!? (19... LtJd3) 20.Wg2 b6-+ b) o12...ie7 Ll13.id5!? ie6 14.e4 LtJd8 - Henris.
Henris) 19.LtJd4 LtJh3?! (o19 '&f6! Ll20.gf4 tLlf4-+ 12.a3!? as 13.b3!? ,ie7 14.liJe1 0-0=
Henris) 20.Wh1 LtJf2 (20 '&f2!? 21.'&d2 LtJe5 Dreev,A-Pankov,Ger, Dagomys, 2009.

175
~ ,
t......-:-----,
Chapter 5
,

12...,ie6 18 lL\ce5! 19.CZJe5 (19.CiJc5 ~c8 20.CiJa6 liJa8

(20 ba6!? 21. CiJe5 - 19.CiJe5) 21.CZJe5 CZJe5 .
12...de3?! 13.fe3C. 19.CiJe5) 19... CZJe5 20.CiJc5!? ic8 21.CiJa6!?
(~21.CZJb7? ib7 22.ib7 IiJb7 23.Ele5 ie5
13.ed4 ed4 14.~a4 0-0-0 15.b4!?t 24.Wfb5 IiJc8+). The game would then have
c;t>b8 been extremely complicated as the following
variations show:
,
After 15...ib4 16.Elb1, White has the attack - a) 21...ba6 22.Ele5 ib7 (22 ...ie5??
,
"
Henris. 23.Wfc6+-) 23.ib7 IiJb7 24.Elc5 d3 25.Wfc6 IiJb8
I

II
I
26.Wfa6:
I
16J3e1 ? • 26...l3d6!? 27.Elb5 Elb6 28.Elf1 (28.Eld1? id4
I'
29.Eld2 ElfB) 2B ...Wfd7 29.ic1 d2 3o.id2 Wfd2 31.c5
16.c5 CZJce5 17.ib2-+ was better. The d4-pawn Elb5 32.Wfb5 \iJcB (32 ... \iJaB 33.Wfc6=) 33.Wfa6
I'
, would be then about to fall - Henris. (33.c6!?) 33...\iJbB (33 ... \iJd7!? 34.b5 oo ) 34.Wfb5=;
• 26...id4 27.Wfb5 (27.Elb5? ib6 28.c5 d2)
16....ie7 27 ...liJc8 28.Wfa6 IiJb8=.
b) 21...liJa8 22.b5 CZJc4 (22 ...Wfc4?
16...lDb4!? 17.Elb1 id7 18.Wfa5 does not solve 23.Wfa5) 23.Elac1 CZJb6:
, Black's problems: • 24.Wfa5 d3 25.CZJc7 (25.Elc7 Wfh5) 25 ...liJb8
,!

a) 18...lDc6? 19.Elb7 IiJb7 20.Wfb5 liJa8 26.Wfb4 d2 27.CZJa6 liJaBD (27 ...ba6?? 28.Wfd6
(20...liJc8? 21.Wfa6 IiJb8 22.CZJe5! CZJge5 Eld6 29.id6 Wfc7 30.ic7#) 2B.CZJc7 (2B.Wff4
23.Ele5+-) 21.CZJd4+-. de1Wf 29.Ele1 if5 30.CZJc7 IiJb8 31.CZJa6 liJa8=)
b) 18...b6?! 19.Elb4 ib4 20.Wfb4 c5 28 ...liJb8=;
21.Wfb3±. • 24.l3c7!? CZJa4 (24 ...Wfa2? 25.Wfa5 Elde8
c) 18...Wff5!? 19.CZJe5 CZJe5 20.Ele5 Wff6 26.Elec1) 25.Elf7 d3!? (~25 ...Eld7?! 26.Eld7 id7
21.Elb4 ib4 22.Wfb4± Henris. 27.id6 CZJc3 (27...id8?! 28.CZJc7 ic7 29.Ele7!
ib5 30.Elc7 ia6 31. Elg7±) 28.a4!? Elc8
17..ia3 .if6 18.~e4? (28... CZJa4? 29.CZJc7 IiJb8 30.Ela1) 29.CZJc7 Elc7D
30.ic7 d3 31.if4 CZJa4 32.if1 ib5 33.id3:t)
The advantage is kept with 18J!adH Henris. 26.Eld1 CZJc3 27.ic5!? CZJd1 (27... CZJb5 28.a4=)
28.CZJc7 \iJb8 29.CZJa6= Henris.
18...ic4?!
19.1Llf6 gf6 20.b5 ~ce5 21.~d4!
I think that Black should have continued with ~d3??

176
------------------------------------.
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.lLlf3 lLlc6 5.g3 lLlge7

Most probably Black had not seen the Game 69

move 21.ct:Jd4! and that he could not take the Wagner,Christian (2215)
knight: 21 .. J~d4 22.~e5 l'i:d5! 23.iWa7 <i>e8 Tikkanen,Hans (2415)
24.b6! l'i:e5 25.l'i:ad1! ~d5 26.be7 iWe7 27.~d5 Stockholm, 2008
l'i:d5 28.l'i:d5± Henris. 1.d4 dS 2.e4 eS 3.deS d4 4.11Jf3
A lesser evil would have been to enter llJe6 S.g3 llJge7 6..ig2 llJg6 7..ig5
a difficult ending after 21...~d5 22.ct:Je6 ct:Je6 VNd7! (D)
23.be6 ~g2 24.<i>g2 iWd5 25.iWe4 iWe4 26.l'i:e4!
Henris.

22.11Je6! be6 23.be6??

White misses the opportunity to win the game

on the spot with 23.b6! eb6 24.iWe6 ~d5
25.~d6+- Henris.

23...@a8 24J~~e4 llJgeS 2S.f4 fS

26J~eS 'DeS 27.feS!?

The position remains very unclear after

27.~c5!? a6 28.fe5 ~b5!? 29.iWa5 iWe4 30.~f2
iWe2 31.h4 - Henris.
27..J3d228.VNb4?
After 28.~f3?!, Black activates his
rooks with 28 ...l'i:b8 - Henris.
It was essential to keep an eye on the
d5-square: 28.iWa5 l'i:g2 29.<i>g2 f4 30.~e5 a6
31.~f2 fg3 32.hg3 iWd5 33.iWd5 ~d5= Henris.
28..J3g2! 29.@g2 VNdS 30.@h3 E:b8
31.VNeS VNe4!-+ 32.VNf2? .idS
0-1
I shall have a look here at some interesting
alternatives for White to the two main
continuations 8.0-0 and 8.e6 examined earlier.
8.e3?!
8.iWb3!? (putting indirectly pressure on
b7):
a) 8...ib4 9.~d2 ~d2 10.ct:Jbd2 0-0 11.0-0 ct:Jee5
12.ct:Je5 ct:Je5 13.l'i:ad1 iWe7 14.ct:Jf3 ct:Jf3 15.~f3
l'i:d8 16.l'i:fe1 iWf6 17.~g2 e5 (17 ...l'i:b8 18.e3:!:;
17...e6?! 18.e3! Cmilyte, Y-Muzychuk,A, Turin,
2006) 18.e3 ~e6 19.ed4 ed4°o Henris.
b) 8...lLlge5 9.ct:Je5 ct:Je5 10.0-0 would transpose

177
 Chapter 5
•

to the variation 8.0-0 ttJge5 9.ttJe5 ttJe5 10.~b3 11.fe3?! ttJb4.

already covered (~ game 64).
c) 8... h6!? 9.i.d2 ttJge5 10.ttJe5 ttJe5 11.i.b7?!
Elb8 12.i.c8 (as in Arkell,K-Grigoryan,M,
Bournemouth, 2012) 12... ~c6!, and the white
queen is lost due to the threat of ... ~h 1
checkmate - Lane.
8.1.1*fa4?! h6!?:
a) 9.i.f4 ttJf4 10.gf4 ~g4!? 11.0-0 i.d7 (Black
,
has a good position) 12.~b3 ~f4!? (12 ...Elb8)
13.~b7 Elb8 14.~c7 Elb2?! (14 ...Elc8 15.~b7
Elb8) 15.ttJbd2 i.e7 16.Elfb1± Kachiani
Gersinska,K-Straeter,T, Germany, 1999.
b) 9.i.c1 ttJge5 10.lIJe5 lIJe5 11.~d7 i.d7 12.0-0
(12.i.b7 Elb8 13.i.g2 i.b4=i=) 12...0-0-0=i= Borges
da Silva,R-Santos,Marcus V, Sao Paulo, 2009.
8...h6!
The simplest.
The alternative is probably not as strong as the
text: 8...i.b4!? 9.lIJbd2 de3!? (9 ... lIJge5 is
worth considering too - Henris) 10.i.e3:
a) 10...lLlge5 11.0-0!? (11.lIJe5 lIJe5
12.0-0) 11 ...0-0 12.lIJe5 (12.a3!? i.e7 13.b4 lIJf3
14.lIJf3 i.f6) 12 ttJe5 13.c5!?t Henris.
b) 10 1.1*fd3!? 11.a3 i.e7 12.lLld4 lLld4
13.i.e4 ttJc2 14.~c2 ~c2 15.i.c2 lLle5 16.i.f4 f6
17.0-0-0 i.g4 18.f3? lIJf3 19.h3 i.h5 20.g4
(Horvath,D-Semiev,S, Budapest, 2012) 20 lLld4!
21.i.c7 (21.gh5? lIJe2 22.Wb1 lIJf4) 21
22.i.h2 lIJc2 23. Wc2 i.g6 24. Wc3 h5=i= Henris.
9.~f4 de3 10.%Vd7 ~d7 11.~e3
11 ...lLlb4!?
Black tries to complicate matters in order to
outplay his weaker opponent.
11 ...0-0-0i was certainly a safer way to
preserve the advantage.
12.~a3!? ~d3 13.c;tJe2 0-0-0
14.lLlb5 a6?!
It's really a very bad idea to open the
b-file with the greedy 14...lLlb2? 15.lIJa7 Wb8
16.Elhb1 lIJc4 17.lIJd4! lIJb6 18.a4!±, with an
unstoppable attack - Henris.
14...lLlge5!? 15.lIJa7 Wb8 16.Elhd1
(16.b3!? i.g4; 16.lIJe5 lIJe5 17.b3 i.f5) 16...i.g4
17.h3 i.f3 18.i.f3 i.c5 19.i.c5 lIJc5 20.lIJb5 c6
21.lIJd6 r:JJc7 22.lIJf5 Eld1 23.Eld1 Ela8 24.a3
lIJa4t Henris.
14...lLlde5 15.lIJa7 Wb8 16.lIJe5!? lIJe5
17.b3:
a) 17...lLlg4!? 18.lIJb5 lIJe3 19.fe3 i.c5 20.lIJd4
i.g4~.
b) 17...i.f5! 18.Elhd1 i.d3 19.Eld3D (19.We1??
ib4 20.id2 Elhe8-+) 19,..tiJd3 20.Eld1 ic5=i=, and
Black keeps all the trumps in the endgame thanks
to the advantage of the exchange - Henris.
Elc8 15.lLlbd4?!
White does not take advantage of the golden
opportunity that presents itself to reach a

178
•

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.tLlf3 tLlc6 5.g3 ttJge7

drawn ending after 15.'it>d3! (without fearing Game 70

of ghosts!) 15... ~h3!? (15 ...ab5!? 16.e,t>c3 bc4 Arlandi,Ennio (2445)
17.Elhd1) 16.ctJd6 Eld6D 17.ed6 ~g2 18.ctJh4!? MoznY,Milos (2420)
(18.ctJd4 ~h1 19.Elh1 ~d6 20.ctJf5 ~e5=) Imperia, 1996
18... ~h1 (18 ... ctJe5!? 19.~c3 ~h1 20.Elh1 ~d6 1.d4 dS 2.c4 eS 3.deS d4 4.ttJf3
21.ctJf5t) 19.ctJg6 fg6 20.Elh1 ~d6= Henris. lLlc6 S.g3 lLlge7 6.ig2 lLlg6
7.igS (D)
1S...lLldeS; 16J~hc1 cS!? 17.lLleS
lLleS 18.lLlf3 lLlg4 19.h3 lLle3 20.fe3
gS!?

20... ~d6 21.g4 f5 was also possible, opening up

the position for the two bishops - Henris.

21.~c2!? ifS 22.~d2 ig7 23.~ad1

b6 24.g4 ie6 2S.~d8 ~d8 26.~d8
@d8

The bishop pair and the structural deficit in White's

camp make the ending very difficult for White.
The alternatives to 7...V11d7 covered here are
27.b3 fS 28.gfS ifS 29.lLld2 @d7 clearly weaker as you will see.
30.e4 ig6 31.lLlf1 id4 32.lLlg3
@e6 33.lLlfS hS 34.lLld4?! 7...f6?!

The following continuations are also

unsatisfactory:
34...cd4 3S.'it>d3 'it>eS+ 36.b4 ie8 7... ie7?! 8.~e7:
37.a3 id7 38.if1 ic6 39.ig2 id7 a) 8.. .'lWe7:
40.if1 h4-+ 41.ig2 g4 42.hg4 ig4 a1) 9.0-0:
43.'it>d2 h3 44.ih1 'it>f4 4S.cS bcS • 9...0-0 10.ctJd4 ctJce5 11.V11c2 V11c5 (Menyhart,
46.bcS id7 47.'it>d3 <;t>eS 48.'it>d2 ibS T-Kadas,G, Hungary, 2000) 12.e3! Ll...V11c4
49.if3 'it>f4 SO.ih1 as S1.'it>d1 'it>e3 13.iWc4 ctJc4 14.Elc1 ± Henris;
0-1 • 9...V11c5 10.ctJbd2 ~g4 11.ctJb3 iWc4 12.Elc1

179
 Chapter 5

, 'i'
'lWb4 (Hegeler,F-Maahs,E, Hamburg, 1993) c) 8...f6 9.ef6 gf6 10.i.h6± Kerr,Dav-Reis ,J ,
i I
13.tiJfd4! - Henris. corr., 1995.
, I

a2) 9.~d4 tiJee5 (9 ...'lWb4 10.tiJe3 tiJee5

,1 (10...vtib2? 11.tiJdb5) 11.a3! 'lWe4 12.tiJeb5± or a.ef6 gf6
,
, .
'I
" .,
I
12.Ei:e1±) 10.0-0 0-0 11.vtie2 Ei:d8 12.tiJf3 e6
,
, '
'
13.tiJbd2 i.e6 14.tiJe5 tiJe5 15.b3± Henneberke, Black's pawn structure is seriously damaged,
Il
, ,
F-Sarink,H, Amsterdam, 1963. with no real dynamic compensation.
, b) 8 tiJge7!? 9.tiJbd2:
I·;,
, II
,,
I,
• 9 Ag4 10.tiJb3!?; 9..id2!?
,
, I:'

II • 9 tiJg6 10.tiJb3 tiJge5 11.tiJe5 tiJe5 12.vtid4

I
,
, '
'II'
vtid4 13.tiJd4 tiJe4 14.Ei:e1±; 9.i.c1 is the subject of next game.
I'
• 9 0-0 10.tiJb3 tiJf5 (= Rewitz) 11.vtid2 i.e6
, i,1

II
II, (11 vtie7 12.g4 tiJh4 13.tiJh4 vtih4 14.i.e6 be6 9....ie6
15.vtid4 Ei:d8 16.vtif4) 12.Ei:e1 vtid7 (12 ...vtie7
13.tiJbd4) 13.g4 tiJfe7 (13 ... tiJh6 14.h3 Ei:ad8 9...Af5 10.0-0 vtid7 11.vtia4!? 0-0-0 12.b4--t
15.0-0±) 14.tiJe5 vtie8 15.h3± Henris. Henris.
c) 8...e.!fe7!? 9.vtid2!? (9.vtid3±) 9...Ei:e8 (Kozak,
Mi-Zurek,M, Czech Republic, 1996) 10.0-0 ~f8 10.~a4 ~d7 11.0-0 .ih3!?
!'I 11.Ei:d1 i.g4 12.tiJa3;1;/±.
7...Ab4!? 8.tiJbd2: 11 ...0-0-0 12.b4 ~b8 13.e5:
a) 8....ie7 9.i.e7 vtie7 10.tiJb3: a) 13...d3?!:
" ,
• 10...tiJge5 (Gonzalez, Ed-Van Esbroeck,J, • 14.tiJc3 de2 15.Ei:fe1t;
corr., 2007) 11.tiJe5! tiJe5 (11 ...vtie5? 12.i.e6 • 14.e3 i.h3 15.b5 tiJce5 16.tiJe5 tiJe5 17.e6
be6 13.vtid4±; 11...vtib4 12.vtid2 vtid2 13.~d2 vtie6 18.eb7 i.g2 19.~g2±;
tiJe5 14.e5±) 12.vtid4 i.h3!? (12 ...vtib4 13.tiJd2) • 14.ed3 i.h3?! (14 ...vtid3 15.i.e3 i.d5 (15...vtic4
13.0-0± Henris; 16.tiJfd2 - Raetsky 8: Chetverik) 16.tiJbd2±)
• 10...0-0 (Yang,Dar-Gossell,T, Stillwater, 15.b5 tiJee5 16.tiJe5 tiJe5 17.c6!+- vtid3 18.i.h3
2007) 11.tiJfd4! (11.tiJbd4?! Ei:d8) 11...Ei:d8 tiJf3 19.~h1 i.e5?! (19 ...Ei:d4 20.vtid1! (20.vtib3
(S11 ...tiJge5?! 12.tiJe6 tiJe6 13.0-0) 12.i.e6 be6 vtib3 21.ab3±) 20...tiJd2 21.tiJd2 vtid2 22.vtif3+-
13.vtie2 tiJe5 14.0-0-0;1; Henris. Raetsky & Chetverik) 20.i.f4 i.d4 21.tiJa3 i.a1
b) 8...'lWd7!? 9.a3 i.d2 10.vtid2 tiJee5 11.tiJe5 22.b6! 1-0 Horvath, Peter-Chetverik,M, Harkany,
tiJe5 12.i.f4 tiJe4!? (12 ... tiJg6 13.Ei:d1±; 12.. .f6 2001.
13.0-0 tiJe4 14.vtib4± Henris) 13.vtib4 tiJd6 b) 13 tiJce5 14.vtid7 Ei:d7 15.a4±.
14.Ei:d1± Titze,L-Fricke,D, corr., 2002. c) 13 a6 14.tiJa3 i.d5 15.Ei:fb1 (S15.b5

180
- - - - 0

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6 5.g3 lLlge7

ab5 16.tLJb5 Jlc5) 15... 8:g8 16.8:b2 tLJce5 17.'Wd7 Game 71

8:d7+ Raetsky & Chetverik. Rat,Dan Ovidiu (2303)
Chetverik,Maxim (2269)
12.e3! Budapest, 1999
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ltJf3
12.tLJa3!?: ltJc6 5.g3 ltJge7 6.~g2 ltJg6 7.~g5
a) 12.. J~d8? 13.8:ad 1!? (013.Jlh3! 'Wh3 f6?! 8.ef6 gf6 9.~c1!? (0)
14.tLJb5 ~d7 15.e3 d3 16.Jla5!? b6 17.Jlc3+
Henris) 13... h5?! 14.'Wc2!? (14.Jle3 Jlg2 15.~g2
h4 16.Jld4 hg3 17.fg3 'Wh3 18.~f2!? 8:d4 19.8:d4
tLJge5 20.8:f4± Henris) 14 ... ~f7 (Sorin,A-
MoznY,M, Biel, 1992) 15.ttJb5! Jlg2 16.~g2 h4
(16 ...a6 17.tLJbd4! ttJd4 18.ttJd4 Ll'Wd4?
19.Jle3+-) 17.Jle3+ Henris.
b) 012...Jlg2 13.~g2 0-0-0'" Henris.

12... h5?

12...Jlg2 13.~g2 0-0-0 14.ed4 ttJd4 15.'Wd7 8:d7

16.ttJd4 8:d4 17.Jlc3 8:c4 18.Jlf6 8:g8 19.8:d1+.
13.ed4 ~g2 14.@g2 h4 15.Wc2
Wg4 16J~~e1 @f7 17.We4+- Wd7
18.Wd5 Wd5 19.cd5 ttJb4 20.~b4
~b4 21.ltJc3 h3 22.@f1 ltJe7 23.a3
~a5 24.b4 ~b6 25.a4 as 26.d6 ttJf5
27.dc7 ~c7 28.ltJd5 ~d6 29.ba5
E:a5 30.ltJb6 ~c7 31.ttJc4 E:a7
32.E:ec1 E:ha8 33.E:ab1 b6 34.E:b5
ttJh6 35.ttJb2 ~d6 36.E:c6 ~a3
37.E:bb6 ltJg4 38.ltJd3 E:a4 39.ltJf4
~e7 40.ltJh3 E:a1 41.@g2 E:8a2
42.E:e6 E:d1 43.E:e4 f5 44.ltJfg5
1-0
In this way the bishop does not prevent the
knight from coming out to d2.
9... ~f510.a3!? Wd711.0-0
In the game Gladyszev,O-Chetverik,M,
Hlohovec, 1999, White decided to leave his
king in the centre, which was not justified:
11.b4 0-0-0 12.'Wa4 (12.tLJbd2 Jlh3 13.Jlh3
(13.0-0 tLJf4!?) 13...'Wh3 14.Jlb2 tLJge5 - Henris)
12 ... ~b8 13.tLJbd2 8:g8! (13 d3!? 14.b5 tLJce5 -
Raetsky & Chetverik (S,14 tLJd4 15.ttJd4 'Wd4
16.tLJb3 'We3 17.Jld2 ~e2 18.e3+ Henris))
14.Jlb2 Jlh6! 15.b5 (15.0-0-0? ~e6+; 15.8:d1

181
 Chapter 5
I; !
...
!I i.h3 16.i.h3 \Wh3 17.b5?! 1='1ge8! 18.bc6? 1='1e2! 18.'tt>h1 \Wh3 19.1='1g1 lUg6 20.cb7± Henris.
i,1 19.'tt>e2 d3 20.~e1 1='1e8-+ Raetsky & Chetverik; 15...\We6 16.\Wc2 1='1g8 17.c5:t Henris.
,!i ,
; ')1,1
15.lUb3 d3 16.e3 lUf4 17.gf4 1='1g2 . Henris) o15 ...\Wf5 16.c5 (16.b5 lUce5 17.lUd4?•
,.',

I ' 15 ...lUce5 16.lUd4?! (16.lUe5 fe5 17.lUb3 lUh4!-+) 16... a6, and it's very difficult to attack
III
I (17.lUe4?! lUh4!+) 17...i.c2 18.\Wb4 \Wf5 . the black king· Raetsky & Chetverik.
"
,,
I
'

Henris) 16 ...lUf4! 17.ic6? (17.ib7? lUfd3 18.ed3

II]', lUd3 19.'tt>f1 lUb2 20.lUc6 ~c6 21.ic6 lUa4-+ 16.h3
, .
I
,
I,i'
, Henris; o17.gf4 ~g2 18.fe5 id2 19.'tt>d2 fe5
I '

"'I,, gives somes chances for White to save himself· Another move order is 16.b5 lUce5 17.h3 with
Raetsky & Chetverik) 17...lUed3! 18.ed3 (18.'tt>f1 the idea of taking on d4 after kicking out the
ih3 19.'tt>g1 ~d4-+) 18... lUd3 19.'tt>f1 lUb2 queen:
20.id7 id3! 21.'tt>g2 lUa4 22.ie6 id2 23.ig8 a) 17... ~c8 18.lUd4 ic5 19.ie3 (19.lUf3
1='1d4-+ . lUf3 20.ef3 1='1dg8) 19...lUh4! 20.'tt>h2 (20.gh4
~hg8 21. 'tt>h2 lUg4!--+) 2o ...id4 21.id4 :t'ld4
11 ...0-0-0 12.~a4 22.:t'ld4 lUhf3 23.ef3 lUf3 24.'tt>g2 lUd4, and
Black is a pawn down· Raetsky & Chetverik.
"

, 12.b4 d3 13.e3 lUce5 14.lUbd2 ih3 00 b) 17...~f5 18.lUd4 lUM! 19.9h4 :t'lg8
Henris. 20.ig5 ~d4! 21.~d4 ic5 22.~d1 id4 23.Wd4
12.e3!? d3 13.lUd4 lUd4 14.ed4 ih3 fg5 00 Raetsky & Chetverik.

,
(14 ... ~d4?? 15.~f3) 15.~d3 ig2 16.'tt>g2 lUe5 c) 17... ~e4 18.lUc3 lUM! 19.'tt>f1 Wf5
17.~e4 ~d4 18.~d4
!
1='1d4, with some 20.lUM Wh3 21.'tt>g1 :t'lg8 - Raetsky & Chetverik.
I compensations· Raetsky & Chetverik.
I, 16... ~e4! 17.b5 ~h4!?
!

12...,ih3 13.b4 i.g2 14.i>g2 i>b8

I' 15J3d1 17...lLlce5 would transpose to the previous
I
note.
15.e3 is already too late because of 15 ih6!
16.ed4 (16.lUd4? lUM!; 16.1='1e1 1='1hg8) 16 ic1 18.i>g1
17.1='1c1 lUf4! . Raetsky & Chetverik.
Taking the knight is not good:
15... ~g4!? 18.gh4? :t'lg8:
a) 19.i.g5 fg5 20.lUbd2 (20.'tt>f1 d3;
Leading to very complicated play. 20.hg5 :t'lg5 21.'tt>f1 d3) 20 ...gh4 (20 ... ~e2
15...lUge5?! 16.b5 lUf3 17.bc6 lUh4 21.bc6 gh4 22.'tt>h1 ~e6 23.:t'lg1 ~h3 24.lUh2

182
""-----------------------------------
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6 5.g3 ttJge7

id6 25.tLidf3) 21.<j;>f1 ~f5 22.bc6 d3-+ Henris. 8: Chetverik.

b) 19.'it>f1:
• 19 d3? 20.ie3 - Henris;
• 19 ge8!? 20.Ela2 ~f5 21.~b3 (21.tLig1 id6!)
21 ... ~h3 22.me1 tLie5 23.md2 ih6 24.mc2 d3
25.Eld3 tLid3 26.~d3 Eld8 27.~h7 ic1 28.mc1
~f1 29.mc2 Wie2 30.tLibd2 Elg4--+ Henris;
• 19...tLie5 20.b6!? (20.tLibd2 ~f5) 20 ...cb6
21.tLibd2 (21.Eld4 Elg1! 22.mg1 tLif3 23.ef3
~d4-+; 21.tLic3 tLif3 22.ef3 Wif3) 21 ... ~f5!+
Raetsky 8: Chetverik.
21 ..if4!? tLif3 22.mh1 ~f2! (22 ... ~e6?!
23.ic7! (23.g4 Elg4) 23 ... mc7 24.tLif4 Wif5
25.~a7 ic5 26.~c5! (26.~a5 ib6 27.~b4 Wie4
28.c5 tLih4 29.mh2 tLif3=) 26 ...Wic5 27.tLie6 mb6
28.tLic5 mc5~ Henris) 23.tLid2 Elg3! 24.ig3 ~g3
25.tLif3 ~f3--+ Raetsky 8: Chetverik. White is a
rook up, but his naked king is facing a strong
attack.
21 ...ltJd3 22JU1

22.lLlf1 ~f2 (or 22 ... tLif2 23.ie3 tLih3 24.mh2

Wih5) 23.mh1 (23.mh2 tLie5-+) 23 ...id6+
In such a sharp position it's not easy to find Henris.
the right path.
Not good is 20.lLlf3? tLif3 21.ef3 ~f3 22...ltJc1 23J~ac1 \&d2 24.c5 ih6
(LL.id6) 22.Ela2 (22.~c2 d3 23.~d2 ic5-+)
22 ...id6+. After 24...d3 25.Elfd 1 Wib2 26.Elc2 Eld4 27.Elb2
o20.mh2!? ~e2 21.Eld2 Wie4 22.~d1, Ela4 28.Eld3 ic5=, the endgame is most likely
and White retains good chances of defending to lead to a draw.
himselff while being left with extra material -
Raetsky 8: Chetverik. 25.\&c4
o20.b6!? is also worth considering -
Henris. 25.gcd1 ~b2oo.

20...\&e2 21.ltJd2!? 25...\&a5

21.ie3? ic5 (21 ...Wib2!? - Henris) 25...d3!? 26.Elcd1 ~c2oo.

22.tLic3 ~h5! 23.tLif4 (23.tLie4 tLif3 24.mf1

~h3-+) 23 ... ~f3!-+ Raetsky 8: Chetverik. 26J~cd1 \&c3 27.\&f7 \&c5 28.\&h7
21.lLlc3?! tLif3 22.mh1 Wif2 23.tLie4 ~e2 \&9 5
24.ie3 ~h6! 25.Ele1 (25.ih6?! ~e4 26.if4 ~f5
27.g4 Elg4!-+) 25 ... tLie1 26.Ele1 ~h5-+ Raetsky 28...gh8 29.Wid3 f5 oo .

183
 Chapter 5

i I

43.h5.

29 f5!? 30.~f7 (30.:gfd1? :gg7 31.:gd4 :gc8!-+) 43 ...<j{dS 44.tlJg7?

30 f4°o.
44.tlJf4 Wc4 45.h5+-.
I,"
30.~e4 fS
" "
,
44...:13g7 45.@g3 @c4 46J';ed1 E:d5
,
,
30 ... ~b5!? 31.:gd4 :gd4 32.~d4 ~d7!? 33.:ge1 47.@g4 a6 48.E:h3?!
I
"i ,I
a6 34.~f6, with a clear advantage for White.
I 48.'it>f4 b5;!;.
31.~f3!? f4 32.a4 b6?!
48 ...d3 49.@h5 E:d6 50.@g4 E:dS!?
32...fg3 33.fg3 ~e5, and the position is unclear.
,
I 50...d2? 51.:gh2 Wc3 only leads to a draw after
52.:ghd2!? :gd2 53.:gd2 'it>d2 54.h5 b5 55.h6 :gh7
56.ab5 ab5 57.Wh5 b4 58.g6 :gh6 59.Wh6 b3
I
,
33.g4!? ~c5 34.:gfd1 ±. 60.g7 b2 61.g8~ b1~=.
I

33 ...fg3 34.fg3 E:gd7 51.E:hd3?! E:d3 52.E:d3 @d3 53.hS

,
I @e4!
:i
34... ~e5.
I 53...b5? 54.ab5 ab5 55.h6 :gh7 56.Wh5+-.
3S.h4 ~dS?
54.h6 E:h7 55.@h5 @f5 56.g6 E:c7
35... ~g7 36.g4 ~e3 37.CiJe3 de3 38.:gd7 :gd7 57.g7
39.:gd7 ~d7 40.~e2;!;.
57.h7? :gc1 58.Wh6 :gh1 59.Wg7 b5-+.
36.~dS E:dS 37.g4± cS 38.bc6 @c7
39.g5 .ig7 40.tlJf4 E:Sd6 41.E:e1 57...E:c1 S8.@h4 @f4??
@c6 42.tlJe6?!
Black wins with 58.. J~h1 59.Wg3 Wf6-+.
! 42.'it>g2+-.

42 ...E:Sd743.@g2

184

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6 5.g3 ttJge7
Game 72
Cebalo,Miso (2512)
Fontaine,Robert (2507)
Subotica, 2005
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.llJf3
llJc6 5.g3 llJge7 6.ig2 llJg6
7..1f4!? (D)
This direct but somewhat primitive way of
defending the pawn should not be dismissed.
7....1g4
Black also has other options at his disposal:
7...f6?! 8.ef6 ct:lf4 9.f7! ~f7 10.gf4:
a) 10.. ."~f6 11.0-0 h6!? (11 ...\Wf4 12.e3! de3 13.fe3
\We3 14.~hH Henris) 12.e3!? ic5 13.ed4 ct:ld4?
(13 ...id4 14.ct:ld4 ct:ld4 15.ct:lc3± Henris) 14.ct:le5
~f8?? (14 ... ~g8 15.ct:lc3!± Henris «15.b4? ct:le6
16.bc5 ct:lf4 <17.'i'f,e1 \Wg5 18.\Wf3 ih3 oo)) 15.b4+-
ct:le6 16.bc5 ct:lf4 17.'i'f,e1 \Wg5 18.\Wf3 ih3 19.\Wf4!
1-0 Ligterink,G-Thiel,Th, Ruhrgebiet, 1999.
•
b) 10....id6!? 11.'tJg5 ~e8?! 12.e3± Pavlovic,
Ran-Bontempi ,P, Rijeka, 2010.
7....if5!? 8.0-0 \Wd7 (8 ... 'tJf4!? 9.gf4
\Wd7 - Henris) 9.e3 ct:lf4 10.gf4!? (10.ef4)
10... 0-0-0 (Lortkipanidze, N-Caspi, I, Gaziantep,
2008) 11.ed4 ct:ld4 12.ct:lc3 c6iii Henris.
7...h6!? (Ll... ct:lf4 and ... g5) is quite
interesting and is the subject of game 73.
7...ct:lf4 8.gf4 f6 (---t game 74).
8.0-0
8.lL\bd2 \Wd7 (8 ... ct:lf4 9.gf4 f6 10.\Wb3 'i'f,b8)
9.\Wb3 O-O-O(:± 10.e3!? de3 11.ie3 ib4 12.0-0:
a) 12... ~d3?! 13.\Wa4!? id2 14.ct:ld2
ct:lge5 15.b4! \Wc3? (15 ... ~b8 16.'i'f,ab1i) 16.b5
\Wb4! 17.\Wc2 ct:ld4?! (17 ... ct:la5 18.a3 \We7
19.\Wc3 b6 20.c5±) 18.\We4+- Manoeuvre,A-
Kirszenberg,M, Issy les Moulineaux, 2008.
b) o12...id2!? 13.e6!? (13.'i'f,fd1? if3
14.if3 ct:lge5 15.id2 ct:lf3 16.\Wf3 ct:ld4+; 13.ct:ld2
ct:lge5=) 13...ie6°o (13 ...\We6 14.ct:ld2;!;) Henris.
8...llJf4 9.gf4 VNd7 10.llJbd2
More ambitious is 1O.~b3!? 0-0-0 11.'i'f,d 1 is:
a) 11 ...ih3? 12.e6 ie6 13.ct:le5.
b) 11 .. J!g8?! 12.ct:ld4!? (or 12.ct:la3!?)
12 ic5 (12 ...ie2?? 13.'i'f,d2+-) 13.ct:la3! ct:la5
(13 id4? 14.'tJb5) 14.\Wg3 id4 15.ct:lb5 c5 16.e3
id1 17.ih3 f5 18.ef6 gf6 19.id7 ~d7 20.'i'f,d1 'i'f,g3
21.hg3 ct:lc4 22.ed4 ct:lb2 23.'i'f,d2 ct:lc4 24.'i'f,c2;!;.
c) The surprising 11 ...g5!? might be the
strongest move in the position:
185
 ...----~---- -

"I
II! I
Chapter 5
,
,, •
,
II

II • 12.<!lJd4!? ~c5 13.tLJa3 tLJa5 (:513 ... ~d4? Black could have taken the pawn immediately:
, 14.tLJb5 '!¥e6 15.tLJd4 8:d4 16.8:d4 tLJd4 17.'!¥b7 21 ,..ttJd3! 22.~f5 <;t>b8 23.~d3 8:d3 24.8:ad 1
<;t>d8 18.8:d1 c5 19.Wa7 ~e2!? 20.'!¥c5 ~d1 (24.8:ae1 8:d8 25.8:e4 c6; 24.8:g8 8:d8 25.f3 8:h6
21.Wd4 <;t>e8 (21 ... '!¥d7?? 22. '!¥b6+-) 22.Wd 1 gf4 26.8:ag1 <;t>c8) 24 ... 8:d1 25.8:d1 <;t>c8 26.f3 8:h6+.
23.Wd5±) 14.Wc2!? ~d4 15.tLJb5 ~h3 16.~f3!?
,
i' (16.ih3 '!¥h3 17.tLJd4 gf4=) 16... tLJc6!?co; 22J~ae1 ib4?!
• 12.fg5 ih3 13.e6!? We6 14.tLJd4 8:d4 15.ih3
8:d1 16.<;t>g2 f5 17.Wd1 (and not 17.gf6?? 22 ...ttJd3+.
8:g8-+) 17...We4!? (:517 ...8:g8?! 18.Wd5 8:g5
19.<;t>h1 ±) 18.f3 (18.<;t>g1 Wh4! 19.if5 <;t>b8t) 23J~e2 tLld3 24.a3 ic5! 25.id3?!
18...We5 19.Wd3 <;t>b8 20.tLJd2 id6!?ii5 Henris,
25.ttJc5 ltJc5 26.id5:j:.
,

,
10...0-0-0
25.. J~d3 26.tLlc5 gc5+ 27.ge4
"

Black has a fUlly satisfactory game after 10...1h3 gf5!? 28J~ge1 b6 29.<it>g1 gb3
11.ih3 ~h3 12.<;t>h1 0-0-0 13.8:g1 '!¥f5 - Flear,G. 30.g1e2 gg5 31.<it>f1 gf3!?

11.tLlb3 h5! 12JWc1 h4 13.gd1 h3 031 ... f3-+.

14.ih1 if3 15.if3 gh4 16.<it>h1 g5!
I
17.gg1 32.ge7 gg2 33.gf7 gh2 34.gee7?

17.e3 d3 18.ie4 Wg4 19.8:g1 We2 34.<;t>g1 E1g2 35.<;t>f1.

:' I
20.8:g5 looks dubious after 20 ...8:f4! 21.ef4 We4
22.<;t>g1 ih6, with a strong initiative. 34...ghf2?
"
,, 17.fg5 ltJe5 is also unpleasant for White.
34...8:ff2 35.<;t>e1 <;t>b8!!+ 36.8:e8 (36.l'k7?? E1e2
37.<;t>d1 f3! 38.8:b7 <;t>c8 39.8:bc7 <;t>d8 40.8:cd7
17...gf4 18.'?Mc2 d3!? <;t>e8-+) 36 ...<;t>b7 37.E1ee7 <;t>c6 38.8:c7 <;t>d6
39.b4 8:a2 40.8:cd7 <;t>e5 41.8:de7 <;t>d4 42.:r'lf4
Instead of 18...ttJe5 19.ie4 8:h5 20.8:ad1 c5, the <;t>d3 43.8:f3 <;t>c4 44.8:c7 <;t>d5, and Black wins.
text tries to keep Black's pieces buzzing - Flear,G.
35.<it>e1 gf1 36.<it>d2 g1f2 37.<it>e1
19.'lWd3 'lWd3 20.ed3 tLle5 21.ie4 gf1 38.<it>d2 g 1f2
gh5!?

186
II
 ~---~~-----
•
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6 5.g3 ~ge7

Game 73 the queenside that fixes White's pawns: 9...i.f5

Dimukhametov,Artur (2295) 10.iWb3!? ct::lb4 11.:;::I:c1 a5! 12.a3 a4 13.iWd1 ct::lc6.
Potapov, Pavel (2436) c) 9... ~d7!?, followed by ...iWg4 (or
Naberezhnye Chelny, 2008 ...iWf5) , attacking the bishop on g2 and the f4-
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.11Jf3 pawn, is an original and interesting idea.
llJc6 5.g3 llJge7 6..ig2 ltJg6 7.if4
h6!? (0) 8...11Jf4 9.gf4 g5!? 10.~d3!?

1O.~c1!? gf4 (10 ...l"lg8!? - Henris)

Black's idea is clear: he plans to exchange on
f4 and then to play ...g5, a concept developed
by Alexander Morozevich in the line 7..~g5 iWd7
8.0-0 h6 9.~f4 CiJf4 10.gf4 g5!.
8.0-0
8.CiJbd2 CiJf4 9.gf4:
a) 9...g5 10.fg5 hg5 11.CiJb3!? (11.h3)
11 ... g4 12.CiJfd4 CiJe5!? (12 ... ~b4 13.mf1) 13.c5
c6!? 14.iWc2 ~d7 15.0-0-0 (Lagowski,P-
Jedryczka,K, Ustron, 2006) 15...iWf6o:> Henris.
b) In Lagowski,P-Maslak,K, Olomouc,
2005, Black played an instructive manreuvre on
11.iWf4 ~g7?! (o11 ...l"lg8 12.mh1 l"lg4 13.iWc1
~g7t Henris) 12.CiJa3 (12.e3!?;l; Henris) 12...iWe7
13.CiJb5 CiJe5 14.CiJbd4 CiJg6!? (14 ... CiJc4 15.CiJc6!
iWe6 16.l"lac1 CiJd6o:> Henris) 15.iWg3 c6 16.e4;t
KremenietskY,AI-Potapov,Pav, Moscow, 2010.
10.~a4!? ~d7 11.iWb3 gf4 12.iWb7?!
(12.l"ld1 l"lg8 13.mh1o:> Henris) 12...l"lb8 13.iWa6
l"lg8!? (13...l"lb6 14.iWa4 l"lb2 15.CiJbd2 CiJe5
16.iWa7 CiJc6 17.iWa4o:> Henris) 14.mh1 l"lg2!?
15.mg2 l"lb6 16.iWa4 CiJe5 17.iWd1?! (17.iWa5o:>
Henris) 17 l"lg6!? (17 ... ~h3 18.mh1 (18.mh3?
l"lg6-+) 18 CiJf3 19.ef3 ~f1 20.iWf1 l"lb2+ Henris)
18.mh1 ~c6 19.CiJbd2? (o19.l"lg1 Wh4 20.l"lg6 fg6
21.CiJbd2 iWf2-+ Henris) 19... ~b4? (19 ... CiJg4!-+
Henris) 20.l"lg1 ~d2 21.l"lg6 fg6 22.iWd2 Wh4!?
(22 ...CiJf3 23.Wf4D g5 24.iWg3 CiJd2 25.mg1 CiJc4+
Henris) 23.Wd4 CiJf3 24.iWh8 mf7 25.iWh7 mf6
26.Wh8 mf7!? (26 ...mg5 27.Wd8 mh5 28.Wh4
CiJh4 29.mg1 CiJf5 30.l"ldH Henris) }i-}i
Nikolov,Sas-Martinovic,Sa, Nova Gorica, 2006.
10... gf411J~d1 ig7!? 12.~e4~e7
13.~f4 ltJe5 14.11Jd411Jg6!?
14...ctJc4!? was possible:

187
, , i
, ,
Chapter 5
'I
a) 15.tLlb5!? tLlb2 16.tLle7 We7 Game 74
I',
«16... cj;>f8?! 17.2"1d5!? ~e6 18.tLla8 ~d5 19.Wb8 Tiviakov,Sergei (2615)
I
I
1Jf1e8 20.We8 cj;>e8 21.tLle7 cj;>f8!? 22.tLld5 tLla4 Ligterink,Gert (2390)
23.tLlbe3 ~e3 24.2"1e1 cj;>g7!? 25.e3 (s.25.2"1c3?! Groningen, 2001
, ,
,
, tLlc3 26. tLlc3 2"1c8; 25. tLlc3 2"1c8<») 25 ... ~a5 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.tDf3
I
I,!
Ii,' 26.2"1c4!? b5 27.2"1c6;!;) 17.1Jf1c7 tLld1 18.~c6!? ~c6 5.g3 ~ge7 6.ig2 ~g6 7.if4
,)
,
,
(18.~b7? ~b7 19.1Jf1b7 0-0) 18... bc6 19.1Jf1c6 cj;>e7 ~f4 8.gf4 f6!? (D)
II
, 20.1Jf1c5 (:QO.1Jf1a8?! ~a1) 20 ...\t>e8 21.1Jf1c6=.
b) 15.tLlc6!? bc6:
,
, II
II
• 16.%Vc4 2"1b8!? (16 ...0-0!? 17.tLlc3 2"1b8 18.b3
f
, I 2"1b4) 17.tLJc3 2"1b2 18.~c6 \t>f8<»;
I II
:r • 16.~c6 \t>f8 17.iWc4 (17.~a8?! tLJb2 (17... ~b2?!
18.%Vc4 ~a1 19.tLJc3 ~e6 20.Vlid3;!;) 18.2"1c1 ~e5
19.Vlie3 tLJd1!? 20.2"1d1 ~a1 21.Vlia3 2"1g8 22.\t>h1
Vlia3 23.tLJa3 ~f6 24.tLJb5 ~g4 25.2"1d2 c5 26.tLJa7
c4=i=) 17...2"1b8 (17... ~b2?! 18.~a8 ~a1 19.tLJc3
~e6 20.Vlid3;!;) 18.tLJc3 2"1b2<» Henris.

15.'1Wd2 0-0 16.tDc3 c6i 17.tDe4 f5

18.tDc3 f4!? 19.tDf3 ie6 20.i'd6!?
i'f7 21.~ac1?! ic4 22.b3 ie6 23.tDe4 This interesting idea looks nevertheless quite
dubious. There doesn't seem to be a
23.tl:ld4 ~g4 24.h3 2"1ad8. tremendous hurry - Black could just develop
and try to exploit white's looser kingside pawn
i
,
I
23...if5 24.tDd4!? ~ad8 25.i'c5 id4 structure with 8...~f5!? or 8... ~e6!?
26.~d4 tDh4 27.~d8 ~d8 28.i'e5??
9.~bd2
28.@h1 iWg7 (28 ... tl:lg2? 29.tLJd6!<») 29.2"1g1
(29.~f3?? ~h3-+) 29... @h7!+ (29 ... tLJg2?? :S:9.ef6?! 1Jf1f6 10.tLJbd2 1Jf1f4 (10 ... ~d6 11.e3 de3
,
I' 30.iWf5+-; 29...@h8? 30.tiJd6<»; 29...2"1d1?! 30.iWc4 12.fe3 Vlib2=i=) 11.1Jf1b3 a5!?=i=.
~h8 31.tiJg3! 2"1g1 32.@g1 iWg5!?=i=) Henris.
9...fe5 10.fe5 if5 11.Y:Vb3!
,,
28...Y:Vg6-+ 29.~f6? <:Jif7
,
0-1 Sharpening the situation. Black is not allowed
I
,
I

'I
"

,I
I,
,I'
188
I
,'I
 •
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6 5.g3 ttJge7

to complete his development unhindered. 24.ttJe1 !?;!;) 21.Elfe1 (21...ib4 22.ttJc6±)

11.a3!? is too slow: 11 ... ~e7 12.b4!? 0-0-0
13.~a4 mb8 14.c5 g5!? (14 ...ttJe5 - Henris)
15.b5 ttJe5 16.ttJd4? (16.b6!? cb6 17.cb6 a6)
16... ttJd3 17.mf1 ttJc5 18.~c4?? (o18.ttJf5 ~e5
19.~d1 ~f5+) 18...Eld4-+ 19.~d4 ig7 20.~b4
ia1 21.ttJb3 Ele8 22.~c5? ~e2 23.mg1 ~d1
24.if1 ~f1! (Ll25.mf1 ih3 26.mg1 Ele1#) 0-1
Fodor,Tamas jr-Brustkern,J, Budapest, 2004.
11...ib4?!
11 .. J~b8 12.0-0-0;1; Henris.
11 ...ttJb4!? has been suggested as an
improvement for Black. But White's advantage
is anyway unquestionable as the following
variations show:
a) 12.0-0 ic2 13.~a3 c6 14.ttJb3:
a1) 14...d3!? 15.c5!? ib3 16.~b4!? de2 17.Elfe1
idS 18.Ele2 ~b6!? (18 ... b6 19.~g4) 19.~b6!?
ab6 20.cb6 ic5 21.ttJg5;1; Henris.
a2) After 14...ie4 a curious position arises.
White is fully developped, but his queen is in a
bit of a fix:
• 15.ttJbd4 ttJc2 16.~c3 ttJa1 17.Ela1ii5, and with
two pawns in the centre White has reasonable
compensation for the exchange - Hoeksema;
• o15.Elad1!? ttJd3 16.c5! (~16.~a5
17.ttJa5 ttJf4! 18.ttJe1!? (1B.ttJb7? ElbB 19.ttJd6
id6 20.ed6 Elb2f.) 18...ig2 19.ttJg2
20.mh1 0-0-0 (20... ib4!? 21.ttJb3 (21.ttJb7!?
ElbB 22.ttJd6 id6 23. Eld2! ib4 24.Ele2 d3
25.Ele3 d2 26.Eld1 0-0 27.Ele2 ia5 2B.b3 Elf5
29.f4 g5) 21...0-0-0 22.f4 d3 23.a3
d3
22.ttJb7! Eld7 (22 ... etJb7 23.Ele2) 23.tt:ld6 i.d6
24.ed6 Elf8 25.Eld3 Elf2 26.c5!? Elg2 27.Eld2
(27. mg2?? ttJf4) 27 ...Elg5 28.Elde2 Elc5=)
16... ttJf4 17.ttJbd4± Henris.
b) 12.Elc1! (the simplest!) 12...a5 13.c5! with a
clear advantage for White - Raetsky & Chetverik
(~13.a3 a4 14.'rMfd1 ttJc6 Ll...ic5, ...'rMfd7).
12.a3 id2 13.~d2±
Obviously Black has no compensation for the
material.
13... ~g5
This active try only plays into White's hands.
13.. J~b8 offered more resistance, according to
Hoeksema.
14J~g1 !
14.VMb7 ~g2 15.~a8 etJf7 16.iWh8 'rMfh1 17.ttJf1
ih3 18.e6! would probably also win for White.
But the text is quite safe - Hoeksema.
14...0-0-0 15.~b7! <i!?b7 16.ic6 <i!?c6
~a5 17J~g5+- g6 18.0-0-0 ghe8 19.f4
<i!?b6 20.b4 a5 21.<i!?b2 ab4 22.ab4
ttJe2 c5 23.lLlb3 cb4 24.gg3 gd7 25.gd4
gd4 26.lLld4 <i!?c5 27.lLlf5 gf5
28.<i!?b3 ga8 29.e6 ga6 30.gd3 ge6
31.gd5 <i!?c6 32.gf5 ge2 33.gh5
ie7 1-0

189
 Chapter 5

Game 75 more prudent is 8... CLlge5! 9.CLle5 CLle5 10.Wb3 .

i : Khenkin,lgor (2610) Flear,G) 9.ii.g5:
Morozevich,Alexander (2707) a) 9...tt:\ce5? is inadequate after 10.ii.d8 ~a4
Mainz (rapid), 2005 11.ii.e7 tt:\f3 12.ii.f3 as Black lacks compensation
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4)bf3 for the pawn - Flear,G.
lLlc6 5.g3 lLlge7 6.,ig2 lLlg6 b) 9...f6?! 10.Wb5! ~b6 11.ef6 gf6 12.e5 (after
7.~a4 (D) 12.ii.h6, Black probably plays 12...We7, intending
to castle long) 12...CLlee5?! 13.\Wb3 (13.Wb4! \We7
14.ii.f6 Wf6 15.eb6 ab6, and Black's
I
ilil1 '
compensation is somewhat vague - Flear,G)
1: ,
,
, 13 ...ii.e5 14.CLle5 CLle5 15.\Wb7 !::le8 16.\Wd5+-
i !I
Gurevich, Dm-Nakamura, Hik, Stillwater, 2007.
c) After the more sensible 9... ~c8, White can
'II' ,! retain some pressure with 10.Wb3 as Black
,",
"

would then be ill-advised to capture on e5 with

I,
b7 hanging at the end of the variation. So best
': I
'I I'
II,
would be 10... 0-0 11.CLlbd2 !::le8 12.CLle4 ii.f8
13.!::lad1, and White is slightly better.
d) There is nothing wrong with 9...ii.e7 10.1e7
,
i,
\We7. In the picturesque variation 11.\Wb3 tLlge5
I: I

I, Protecting indirectly the e5-pawn by pinning 12.\Wb7 0-0 13.tLle5 \We5 14.1e6 !::lab8 15.\Wa6 ~b6
11 '
the knight on c6. The idea has been 16.\Wb6 ab6 17.1d7 \We2a> , White has a rook, a
I'
encountered at the Grandmaster level several bishop and a knight for the queen but the position
times in recent years. remains very unclear - Raetsky & Chetverik.
The following suggestion from Leonid
7...,ib4 Kritz is also very interesting: 7...ii.c5!? 8.0-0
0-0 9.CLlbd2 ctJge5 10.ctJb3 1e7 11.ctJe5 ctJe5
This seems to be the best. Black wants to 12.e5 (12.!::ld1?! e5 13.e3 1d7 14.Wa5 194:j:)
castle as soon as possible in order to evade the 12...d3 13.ed3 Wd3 14.1e3 e6 Li... Wg6-h5, 1h3,
pin on the knight. ctJf3; Li... ctJc4; Li...Wc4.
Black also has: 7... ~d7?! 8.0-0 ctJge5 9.ctJe5 ctJe5
7...ii.d7!? 8.0-0!? (the other tries 10.Wd7 Wd7 (10 ...ctJd7 11.iJ4±; 10...ii.d7 11.ii.b7
8.We2, 8.Wb3 ii.b4 and 8.e6!? fe6 are also !::lb8 12.ii.d5 c6 13.ii.g2 ctJc4 14.b3 CLle5 15.ii.f4
I
worth considering) 8...ii.e5?! (8 ... CLlee5 9.Wb3; f6 16.ctJd2;t) 11.!::ld1 CLlc4 12.!::ld4 ctJd6 13.ctJc3±
I'I

190
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ct:Jf3 ct:Jc6 5.g3 lLlge7

Hansen, Cu-Marder, 5, Copenhagen, 2005. ctJe5 12.ltJf3 ltJf3 13.~f3 c5= Dautov) 10...ltJce5
7...j.e7? 8.ctJd4±. 11.b4 d3! 12.e3:
a) 12...j.f6?! 13.ctJd4! ~d7?! (13 ... c6 14.~b3;!;
8.ttJbd2 Dautov; 13...We7 14.~b3;!; Dautov; o13 ...1:%e8 -
Davies) 14.~b3 a5 15.ib2 a4 (15 ...1:%e8 16.ctJe4
Black has no cause for concern after 8.j.d2 ab4 17.ab4 ie7 18.1:%a8 ~a8 19.f4 ctJg4
id2 (8 ... ~e7? 9.ctJd4± Dumitrache,D-Sebe 20.~d3±) 16.~c3± Lautier,J-Kanep,M,
Vodislav,F, La Fere, 2004) 9.ctJbd2 0-0 10.0-0: Gothenburg, 2005.
a) 10...tLlce5?! 1U%fd 1!? (11.c5!? - b) 12...ctJf3! 13.ctJf3 (13.if3 ~f6 14.1:%b1 ~e7
Henris) 11 ... c5 12.~b5!? ~c7 13.b4!?t 15.~b3 1:%d8 16.ib2 ib2 17.~b2 c6:j:) 13...if6
Koerholz, L-Mozny,M, Policka, 1993. 14.1:%b1 if5 15.ctJd2 c6 co Dautov.
b) 10...tLlge5 11.ctJe5 ctJe5:
• 12.tLlb3!? d3 13.ed3!? ctJd3 gave Black a good 10.a3 ie7 11 J~d1
position in the game Meszaros Sen,A-Weiss,F,
corr., 2007; 11.b4!?N:
• 12J:~ad1 d3 13.ed3 ig4 14.1:%de1 ctJd3 15.1:%e3 a) 11 ...ig4!? 12.b5 ctJce5 13.ib2 if6 (13 ...ic5
c6 . Raetsky & Chetverik; 14.ctJe5 ctJe5 15.1:%fe1 LlctJb3):
• 12.tLlf3 ctJf3 13.if3 ~e7!?= Henris. • 14.ctJe4?! if3 15.ef3 (15.if3 d3 16.~h5!? ctJf3
17.if3 ib2 18.1:%ad1 de2 19.1:%d8 ef1W 20.\tJf1
8...0-0 9.0-0 a5!? 1:%ad8 21.Wa5 (21. ctJc5 b6) 21 ... b6 22.Wb4 id4 co
CaMP Rybka) 15... ctJd3= 16.Wc2 (16.1:%ab1 ctJb2
This suggestion from Raetsky and Chetverik, (16... 1:%eB 17.ia1) 17.1:%b2 ctJe5) 16... ctJb2 17.Wb2
protecting the bishop and gaining space on the ctJe5?! 18.1:%fd1!? d3 (18 ...ctJc4 19.ctJf6 ~f6 20.~d4
queenside, makes sense. Wd4 21.1:%d4 ctJd6 22.1:%d5;!;) 19.\tJf1?! (o19.Wc1
Other approaches have also been tried: Wd4 20.ctJf6 gf6 21.f4 ctJd7 22.ib7) 19... ctJc4
9...id2!? 10.id2: 20.ctJf6 Wf6 (20 ...gf6 21.Wc3 Wd5 22.f4 Wb5
a) 10...tLlce5?! 11.ctJe5 (11.~b4!) 11 ... ctJe5 23.1:%ab1) 21.Wf6 gf6 22.1:%d3 1:%fd8 23.1:%c3 1:%d4
12.~b5 1:%e8 13.ig5 f6 14.if4 c6 15.~b3 ~b6 24.f4± Khenkin,I-lkonnikov,Vy, Port Erin, 2006;
16.1:%fd1 (Alekhine,A-Pires,A, Lisbon (simul.), • 14.tLld4 ie2 15.ctJe2 ~d2 16.ie5 ~e5
1941) 16...ctJg6=. 17.1:%ae1 1:%ae8 18.ctJc1 (18.~b7 id6 19.c5 ic5
b) 10...tLlge5 11.ctJe5 ctJe5 is the correct move 20.1:%c1 ~f2 21.1:%f2 1:%e2:j:) 18... b6;!;;
order leading to the game of the World • 14.tLle5 ctJe5 15.~b7 ~e2 16.1:%fe1 d3 17.~a8
Champion seen above. ~a8ai;
9...j.e7!?N 10.a3 (10.1:%d1 ctJce5 11.ctJe5 • 14J:!ae1!?

191
 Chapter 5

b) Ikonnikov could have continued immediately 18.~c2 a411

with 11 ...ltJce5 12.~b2 d3!? 13.e3a>.
11.'lWb5 a4. Not the best. Black should have prevented
White from playing 19.~e4 with 18.. J~e8.
11 ...llJce5 12.llJe5 llJe5 13.llJf3 llJf3
14..if3 .if6 19.e311

Without knights on the board it's difficult for 19.~e4.

White to prove anything. In fact he has to be
careful because of Black's space advantage. 19....ie6; 20J~e1 1

15.c511 Better was 20.ed4, hoping to obtain

compensation for the exchange after 20 ... ~b3!
015.e3 ~e5 16.ed4 Wf6!? 17.@g2 ~d4 21.Wf5 (21.Wd3 ~d1 22.~d1 ~fd8 23.~e3ii3
18.~g5! Wg5 19.~d4 - Raetsky & Chetverik. b.~g4-f5) 21 ...We6, which is better for Black.
After 15.b4!? c6 16.~b2 ~f5 17.b5 Wb6
a double-edged position has arisen - Flear,G. 20...d31+ 21.~d3 .ib2 22.gab1
15.~f4 b.~ac1 was also possible. gfd8 23.'~'c2 23....ia3-+

15.. .'~e7 16..if411 Black has acquired a massive passed a-pawn.

This is probably nothing more than a loss of 24..ic3?1 .ic5 25..ia1 gd7 26.ged1
time. 16.'lWc2 would have been a better choice.
26.'lWc3 f6 b.27.Wf6?? Wf6 28.~f6 ~f8-+.
16...g51
26...gd1 27..id1 b6 28..if3 .id5
Pushing back the bishop to an inferior square. 29..id5 cd5 30.1lNf5
16...'lWc5?! 17.~ac1.

i
30.'lWc3 f6.
17..id2 c6
30...1lNe41 31.1lNf61 1lNb1 32.i>g2 d41
17...'lWc5 18.~b4 ab4 19.~a8, and Black
doesn't have enough for the exchange - Flear,G. (b.33.Wg5 Wg6).
17...g41. 0-1
!
II

192
pi

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ctJf3 ctJc6 5.g3 lLlge7

Game 76 b) 9.f4?! (Zuehlke,B-Christensen,Niels, Bayern,

Cmilyte,Viktorija (2497) 2009) 9... ttJc6+ Henris.
Pantaleoni,C1audio (2211) c) 9.Wb5!? ttJd7 - Henris.
Gibraltar, 2009 d) 9.~f4 (Unuk, L-Fantini ,M, Nova Gorka, 2012)
1.d4 dS 2.c4 eS 3.deS d4 4.lLlf3 9...c6! 10.0-0 ttJg6= Henris.
ltJc6 S.g3ltJge7 6..ig2 ltJg6 (D) e) 9.0-0 c6= Henris.
7...a5:
a) 8.~g5 a4 9.~d3 ~b4 10.ttJbd2 ~d7 11.e3
cuge5 12.ttJe5 ttJe5 13.~d4:
• 13...f6 14.~f4 ttJd3 15.dJe2 ttJf4 16.gf4
(Barberi,A-Salvador,R, Milan, 2005) 16... ~e7!?
17.~e4 ~g4 18.f3 EJ:d8 19.~e7 dJe7 20.EJ:hd1
~e6 21.b3 f5~ Henris;
• 13...Wfd4 14.ed4 ttJc4 15.0-0-0 ttJd2 16.EJ:he1
dJd7!? 17.~h3 (17.~d2 ~d2 18.EJ:d2 dJd6=)
17...dJc6 18.~g2 dJd7!?= Henris.
b) 8.a3 a4 9.~c2 ~e7!? (9 ... ~c5 - Henris) 10.0-0
ttJge5, with an equal position in Gommers,J-
Martens,M, Vlissingen, 2005.
I shall look now at two minor alternatives for
White in this position which are worth considering. 8.ltJbd2

7.~b3!? The alternative is 8.~d2:

Black has no problems after 7.ltJbd2 cuge5 8.a3
ttJf3 9.cuf3 a5 10.b3 ~c5 11.~b2 0-0= Luciani,V-
Salvador,R, Salsomaggiore, 2005.
7.. ..ib4
Possible is the direct 7...ltJge5!? 8.cue5
a) 8....id2 9.ttJbd2 0-0 10.e6!? fe6!?
(10 ... ~e6!? 11.~b7!? (11.EJ:d1 EJ:b8) 11...ttJge7
12.~b3 EJ:b8 13.~c2 ~f5 14.~c1 ttJb4 15.0-0
ttJc2 16.EJ:b1 ttJb4= Henris) 11.0-0 e5 12.EJ:ae1
EJ:b8 13.e3 .ig4!? (13 ... ~e6 14.ed4 ttJd4 15.~c3
- Henris) 14.h3 (14.ed4 ed4 co Henris) 14... ~f5
15.ed4 ed4 16.h4!? h6!? (16 ... ~f6!?) 17.c5 dJh8
18.~c4 ~g4 (18 ... ~f6!?) 19.b4 a6 20.a4 EJ:f5?!

ttJe5: (20 ... ~f6 21.b5 ab5 22.ab5 ~f3 23.ttJf3 ttJce5
a) 9.~b7? EJ:b8 10.~a4 ~d7 11.~a6 (11.~a5 24.ttJe5 ttJe5 25.~d5!? (25.~e2±) 25 ... ttJd3
f6-+) 11 ...EJ:b7 12.~b7 ~c6-+ Henris. 26.EJ:e6 ~f7 27.EJ:h6!? gh6 28.~d4 ~f6 29.~d3;!;

193
 Chapter 5
...

Henris) 21.%1e4± i.f3 22.liJf3 %1d5? 23.%1fe1 +- Black misses 22 ...Wfe8! 23.'lWh6 ~g8 24.%1d4 :§:a6
'lWd7 24.i.h3 1-0 Hart, V-Brustkern,J, Bad 25.'lWe3 %1a3+ Henris.
Homburg, 2007.
b) 8...aS!? 9.a3 a4 10.'lWc2 i.e7!? 23.ttJc5
(10 ...i.d2 11.liJbd2 0-0= Henris) 11.b4?!
(1L~f4!? Henris) 11 ...ab3 12.'lWb3 0-0 13.0-0 23.~h6 ~g8 24.~g6= Henris.
liJge5 14.liJe5 liJe5 15.i.f4 liJg6 16.~c1 ~f6:j:
Nilsson,Mats-Thornert,H, Sweden, 2008. 23...i..c5!? 24.VMh5 @g7 25.VMc5 ~a5
26.VMd4 VMd4 27.~d4 ~a3= 2S.f3 ~c3
S...a5!? 9.0-0 0-0 10.a3 a4 11.~c2 29.~b1 ~f7 30.@f2 i..e6 31.~f4 ~c7
,'
I i:
i..e712.b4!? 32.~b6 i..c4 33.~g4 @fS 34J~e4
I,
~g7?! 35.h4 ~c2!? 36.g4± i..a6?
After 12.%1d1 (Hoang Thanh Trang-Heinatz,G,
Turin, 2006), I recommend 12.. .ttJge5 13.liJe5 36...%1f7±.
liJe5 14.liJf3 liJf3 15.~f3 ~c5=.
, ;
, 37.~be6!?
12...ab3 13.ttJ b3 ttJge5 14.ttJe5 ttJe5
15.i..e4 h6 16.i..f4 ttJg6 17.i..h6!? 37.hS±.
,
,I

::;17.~g6?! fg6 18.~g6 ~f5 19.~h5 ~d7t 37...i..c4?

Henris.
I

37...~bS.
I
I
I,
17... gh6 1S.i..g6 fg6 19.VMg6 @hS
20.~h6 @gS= 3S.~f6?
I
I

Black can be satisfied with the result of the 38.~e8! ~f7 39.%14e7 ~g6 (39 ... ~f6? 40.g5
opening. ~g6 41.h5+-) 40.h5 ~f6 (40 ... ~h7? 41.g5+-)
41.h6 %1e7 42.%1e7± Henris.
, 21.~g6 'it>hS 22.~ad1?
3S ...'it>gS?
Objectively it was better to take the perpetual
check with 22.~h6= Henris. 38...%1f7 39.%1b6:t.
,
I
22...c5?
"

I' 39.~b6!?
I

, ,
,

194
! I
'; I
II
 -----------------------------------
....

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.tLlf3 tLlc6 5.g3 ~ge7

39J'!e8 <;t>h7 40.g5±. Game 77

39.. J3f7 40,)3e5 ~a2 41.g5
42.~a6 .ia6 43.~e6!?
43.e4+-.
Miiovanovic,Srboljub (2203)
~a6? Vujic,Mihaiio (2329)
Pozarevac, 2012
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.CLlf3
CLlc6 5.g3 CLlge7 6..ig5!? (0)

43....ic4 44.~b6!? .id5 45.@g3

.ic6 46.e4 ~d7 47.h5 ~d1 48.~b4
~g1 49.@h4!?

o49.Wf4.

49..J3h1 50.@g4 .id7 51.@g3?

White preserves his advantage with 51.'lt>f4

:8h4 52.'tt>e5 :8h5 53.mf6±.

51 ....ic6??
With this move White tries to hinder the
51 .. J!h5=. normal development of his opponent's pieces.

52.f4?? 6... h6!?

52.h6+-. Wishing to obtain the advantage of the bishop

pair, so dangerous if the position opens.
52... ~h5= 53.@g4 ~h1 54.15 ~a1!? He can also ignore the bishop and develop his
55.e5 ~g1 56.@f4 queenside as in the following variations:
6...ie6!? 7,c2Jbd2 Wd7:
56.'lt>h5 ie8 57.g6 :8e1 58.e6 <;t>g7! 59.:8b7 'tt>f6=. a) 8.lLlb3!?N:
a1) 8...lLlg6?!:
56... ~f1 57.@g4 ~g1 58.@h5 ~h1 • 9.ig2?! h6 10.id2 O-O-O!? (10 ...a5!? - Henris)
59.@g4 11.0-0 lLlge5 12.liJe5 liJe5 13.liJa5 c6=
Yz-yz Lerner,K-Caspi,l, Herzeliya, 2006;

195
 " I Chapter 5
, ,

!, I,
• o9.tt:\bd4! lLlce5 (9 ....ib4 10..id2 .id2 11.Wfd2 with" .g5 and ....ig7 .
!i ,I
"I :
0-0-0 12.2:d1:!:) 10.lLle5lLle5 11 ..ig2 .ib4 12..id2 The more conventional 7....ie7 8.ig2 is Of
":I
.id2 (12 ...Wfd4?! 13.Wfa4±) 13.Wfd2lLlc4 14.Wfc3;!;. course possible too:
a2) 8 tt:\t5 9.g4!?:!: Henris. a) 8...g5!? 9.0-0 ((9.h3 1e6 10.~b3 ~d7 _
a3) 8 h6!? 9.lLlc5± Henris. Henris)) 9...g4 10.ltJe1 fiJeS 11.ltJd3 ltJg6 12.ltJa3
a4) o8 ...ic4 9.2:c1 (9.lLlbd4 h6!? 10.ie7 O-O!? 13.ltJc2 c6 14.ltJc1 1f6 1S.ltJb3 ~e71?
. ,

(10.ie3 fiJd5) 10 ie7 11.a3 2:d8!? 12.fiJc6 ~c6 (1S".ltJeS 16.cS (16.ltJcd4 ltJc4) 16".d3 17.ltJcd4)
13.~c2 ~bSoo) 9 idS 10.ig2 (~10.fiJbd4 fiJd4
"

i !
I .
16.ltJcd4 2:d8 17.cS as 18.a4 1e6!? (18...1d4
,
11.~d4 fiJc6 12.~d1 ib4 13.id2 0-0-0 14.ib4 19.1tJd4 ~cSoo) 19.e3 1b3 20.~b3 1d4 21.ed4 :gd4
,

"
fiJb4 1S.~d4 ~a4!n) 10... fiJg6 (10".h6?! 22.2:fe1 2:b4 23.~c3 ~gS 24.2:e4 2:e4 2S.1e4
1
,! i'I
", 11.fiJcS; 10".fiJfS!? 11.0-0 h6 12.if4 2:d8)
, ltJf8= Anastasian,A-Abbasov,F, Abu Dhabi, 2006.
11.fiJbd4 ib4 (11...fiJceS!?) 12.id2 fiJd4 13.ib4 b) 8...ie6 9.fiJbd2 ~d7 10.0-0 0-0-0
fiJf3 14.ef3 fiJeS 1S.0-0 0-0-0 00 Henris. also offers good prospects for Black.
b) 8.ie7 ie7 9.a3 (9.ig2 0-0-0 10.0-0 gS!?) c) On the other hand 8...0-0?! is too
9 ... 0-0-0 10.b4 f6!1:5 PokornY,T-MoznY,M, Czech slow: 9.fiJbd2;!; LlltJb3 - Watson.
Republic, 1999.
6...it5!? 7.lLlbd2 ~d7 8.ie? (8.fiJb3!? 8.a3!?
h6 9.ie7 ie7 10.ig2 2:d8f± (10".O-O-O!?))
8...ie7 9.~a4 0-0 10.ig2 f6!? 11.ef6 if61:5 After 8.lLJd4!? ~b4 9.ftJc3 ~b2
,II
'I ,
12.0-0 2:fe8 13.2:fe1 2:e7 14.fiJb3 2:ae8 1S.fiJcS 10.fiJdb5 ib4 11.~c1 ~c1 12.2:c1 iaS, Black
~c8
,I
II
,
16.if1?! fiJeS!? (16".d3) 17.fiJd4 b6! has enough compensation - Henris.
I,, , 18.fiJcb3 cS!? (18 ...id7 19.~a7 cS+) 19.fiJf5 ~fS 8.ig2:
II 20.fiJd2 fiJg4!+ 21.f3? id4-+ 22.~g2 fiJf2?! a) 8... ~b4!? 9.fiJbd2 (9.~d2 ~c4 10.0-0 ie6:+
(22 ... fiJe3 23.~h1 ib2-+) 23.e3 2:e3+ 24.~e8?! Henris) 9".~b2 10.0-0 ifS 11.~a4 ~b4!?
2:e8 2S.2:e8 ~f7 26.g4 fiJg4 27.2:ae1 fiJe5 12.~b4 ib4+ Brigati,A-Salvador,R, Lodi, 2006.
"
Ii
,I,
'! ' 28.2:8eS ieS 29.fiJe4 ~g6 30.fiJg3 ib2 0-1 b) 8...ig4!? 9.0-0 (9.fiJd4?! ~b4 10.fiJc30
'I'
Ilivitzki,G-Shamkovich,L, Tano Gork, 1945. 0-0-0 11.ic6 bc6 12.h3 ~b2:j: Henris) 9...0-0-0
Inferior is 6...Wfd7?! because of 7.M! (Roschupkin,V-Vdovichenko,V, Yuzhny, 2009)
Llih3 - Watson. 10.~b3 ~e6 11.2:d1 icS oo Henris.

,
c) 8...ie6!? 9.lLJbd2 0-0-0 10.0-0 gS 11.~a4
I
I
7.i.e7 'lWe7!? ~b8 12.fiJb3 g4 13.fiJfd2 fiJeS 14.cS (14.lLlaS?
'; 1
,,
",'
1'1
c6+ Henris; 14.1b7 ~b4!+ Henris) 14... ~d7
,,
A very interesting idea. Black wants to castle 1S.~b4 (Kartsev,So-Straeter,T, Essen, 2004)
"

II;
,.1
15".c6 oo Henris.
,
i' long quickly and he is ready to play actively
I

Ii 196
IF-----------------------------------
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.'Llf3 'Llc6 5.g3 ~ge7
8... ~g4 9.~g2 0-0-0 10.lLJbd2 d3!?
10...tLleS is also worth considering.
11.h3!?
11.e3 ttJ e5:j:.
11.0-0 ttJe5:j:.
11 ...de212.fNb3?!
12.ffe2? ttJd4 13.~d1 ttJf3 14.~f3 ~f3
15.fff3 ffe5 - Henris.
12.ffc2 ~d7!n Henris.
12...if5+ 13.fNe3 g5 14JWe2 id3
15.Wfe3 ig7 16.0-0-0 ig6 17.tLJb3!?
17.tLle4!? ffe6+ Henris.
17...fNe6 18.ctJfd2 fNe5 19.fNe5 ctJe5
20.ctJc5 b6 21.f4 gf4!? 22.gf4
bc5!?
22..J:!d2! 23.;gd2 ttJe4 - Henris.
23.fe5 ~e5 24J~hf1?
24..idS+.
24...E!d4!-+ 25.E!de1 ~f4 26.E!f4 E!f4
27..id5 E!d8 28.E!e2 E!d6 29.b4 cb4
30.ab4 c6 31 ..if3 E!d2
0-1
Game 78
Purnama, Tirta Chandra (2337)
Novikov,Stanislav (2534)
Dieren, 2005
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ctJf3
ctJc6 5.g3 ctJge7 (D)
Apart from 6.~g2 and 6.~g5, dealt with in the
previous games of this chapter, White also has
tried the continuations analysed here.
6.ctJbd2!?
6.e3!?:
a) 6... ~g4 7.ed4:
a1) 7...ttJd4 8.~g2 ttJee6 (8 ...ttJf3!? 9.~f3 ffd1
10.~d1 ~d1 11.md1 0-0-0'" Niewold,J-Fonseca
Gonzalez,J, corr., 2008 or 11 ... ttJe6'" Niewold,
J-Degterev,P, corr., 2008) 9.0-0 ttJe5 (9 ... ttJf3!?
10.~f3 ~d 1 11.~d 1 ~d 1 12.;gd1 ttJe5 13.ttJe3
ttJe4!? 14.ttJb5 ;ge8 (~14 ... ~d6?! 15.b3 a6
16.ttJc7 ~c7 17.bc4t.) 15.~f4 ttJd6 16.ttJan
197
 Chapter 5
.....

Henris; 9... ~e7!? - Henris) 10.~e1 (10j:ge1?! 16.1:1:dS (16.cd5!? ttJc2 00) 16... ttJc2!?00 (16 ... ~e6
II
,
ttJdf3 11.i.f3 ~d1 12.i.d1 0-0-0+ Niewold,J- 17.1:1:d2) - Henris).
Ottenweller, W, corr., 2007) 10... ttJdf3 11 .i.f3 b2) 7.e4 ttJfe7 8.~g2 ttJg6 9.0-0 ~e7 10.~b3 0-0
i.f3 12.~eS ~e7 13.1:1:e1!? (13.Wf4 i.c6 14.ttJc3 11.~f4 ~g4°o Niewold,J-Retamoza, F, carr .,
~e6!? 1S.ttJbS!? (15.~c7 i.d6 16.ttJd5!? 0-0 2007.
17.~a5 b6 18.~d2 1:1:ad8i;,) 1S...i.d6!? (15...i.b5 6.ttJa3!?:
16.cb5 i.d6 17.~f3 0-0 18.~bn) 16.ttJd6 cd6 a) 6...ttJg6!? 7.ttJc2 ttJgeS:
17.b4 a6 18.i.b2 0-0 00 ) 13... ~eS 14.1:1:eS i.e7 a1) 8.i.g2 d3! 9.ttJeS ttJeS 10.ttJe3 ~b4 11.~d2
1S.ttJc3 f6 16.1:1:e3 i.c6 17.ttJdS i.dS 18.cdS 1:1:d8= de2 12.~e2 (12.~a4? ~d7) 12... ~d2 13.Wd2
Henris. ~d2 14.Wd2 ~e6 1S.Wc3 0-0-0= BeliavskY,A_
a2) 7...i.f3!? 8.~f3 ~d4 (8 ... ttJd4 9.~e4) 9.i.e2 Fodor,Tamas jr, Szentgotthard, 2010.
~eS!? 10.ttJc3: a2) 8.ttJcd4!? ttJd4:
• 10 ttJd4? 11.~b7 1:1:d8 12.i.f4± Henris; • 9.ttJd4?! ~b4 10.~d2 ~d4 11.~b4 Wc4!
• 10 ttJf5?! 11.i.f4 ttJfd4 12.i.eS (12.~c6!? (11 ... ~e4?! 12.~dS LL.ttJd3? 13.~d3 Wh1
ttJc6 13.i.eS ttJeS 14.f4;!;) 12...ttJf3 13.i.f3 ttJeS 14.0-0-0 ~e6 1S.~d4 ~c6 16.~g2! ~b6 17.~cS
~a6 18.~b7!+-) 12.~c3 ~e4 13.~eS
,
14.i.b7 1:1:b8 1S.0-0-0!± Matera,S-Mengarini,A, WeS
14.~d2 ~e4!?+ (14 ...0-0 1S.~g2);
1

II
, USA, 1978;
• 10 ~e6!? LL.O-O-O - Henris. • 9.ttJe5 ~fS 10.ttJd3 ~e7 11.~e3 (:S;11.~g2
a3) 7 ttJe5?! 8.~a4 i.d7 9.~b3;!; Henris. 0-0-0) 11 ... ~e4!?i;, Henris.
b) 6 ttJf5!?: a3) 8.ttJe5 ttJeS 9.~d4 (9.ttJd4?! transposes to
b1) 7.ed4!? ttJfd4 8.i.g2 (8.ttJd4 ~d4t Henris) the line 8.ttJcd4!?) 9... ~d4 10.ttJd4 ttJc4= Chess
8 i.fS!? (8 ...i.g4!? transposes to the variation Atlas.
I.
6 i.g4 7.ed4 ttJd4 8.i.g2 ttJec6 analysed just b) 6...i.g4:
',I
I,
before) 9.ttJd4 ttJd4 10.0-0 ttJc2: • 7.i.g2 ~d7 (7 ... ttJg6 8.0-0 ~a3 (8... ~c5!?)
11.i.b7!? ~d1 1:1:d8 13.~c6 ~d7 9.ba3 ~f3 10.~f3 ttJgeS 11.~dS ~d6 12.1:1:bH)
,

; I
• 12.1:1:d1
14.~e4 ttJa1 1S.ttJc3 ~cS 16.ttJdS?! (16.~gS 1:1:b8 8.h3 ~fS 9.ttJh4!? ~e6 10.f4!? gS!? 11.ttJf3!? gf4
17.ttJdS ~g4 18.ttJc7 ~f8 19.1:1:a1 00 ) 16...c6! 12.~f4 ttJg6+± Dimitriadis,T-Kalaitzoglou,P,
17.ttJc7!? We7 18.ttJa6? (18.~gS f6 19.ef6 gf6 Peristeri, 2010;
20.~f4 ~c8+) 18... ~c8 0-1 Petersen, Te- • 7.ttJc2!? ~d7 8.~g2 0-0-0 9.h3?! (9.0-0=)
Simonsen,O, Faroe Islands, 2009; 9... ~f3 10.ef3?! (o10.~f3 ttJeS 11.~g2 ttJc4!?+
• 11.ttJc3 ~d1 12.1:1:d1 ttJa1 13.~b7 1:1:d8 (11 ... d3!?+)) 10... ttJeS 11.0-0? d3 (:S;11 ... ttJc4?
(13 ...1:1:b8? 14.~c6 We7 1S.ttJdS We6 16.ttJc7 12.f4 d3 13.ttJe3+) 12.ttJe3 d2-+ Janowski,D-
We7 17.~e3) 14.~c6 We7 (14 ... ~d7 1S.~gS) Marshall,F, Suresne, 1908.
1S.~gS (1S.ttJdS 1:1:dS (15... We6? 16.~e3±) 6.b3 ttJg6 7.~b2 ttJgeS 8.~g2 (8.ttJd4??

198
•

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.4:Jf3 4:Jc6 5.g3 lDge7

.tb4-+) 8... tLlf3 9.ef3!? (9.if3 ib4 (9 ...V!1f6!?) a) 7...lLlge5:

10.tLld2 .th3t Henris) 9...ib4 10.tLld2 V!1e7 a1) 8.lLle5 tLleS:
11.V!1e2 V!1e2 12.~e2 .tfS't BykhovskY,Av- • 9.lLld4?! ib4 10.id2 Wid4 11.ib4 Wic4't
Nikolaidis, I, Porto Carras, 2005. Henris;
• 9.~d4 ib4 10.id2 Wid4 11.ltJd4 id2 12.~d2
6...ttJg6 ltJc4= Konnov,O-Glukhov,A, Tolyatti, 2011;
• 9.ig2!? ib4 (9 ... cS 10.f4 ltJg4 11.0-0 ie7
6...a5!?N also has been played: 12.h3 ltJf6 13.e3i; 9... ltJc4 10.0-00) 10.id2
a) 7.tLlb3!? tLlfS 8..tgS!? (8 ..tg2 a4 9.tLlbd2) id2!? (10 ...ie7 11.if4 if6 12.ltJd4 c6
8....te7 (8 ....tb4 9.tLlbd2!? .te7 10.h4!? a4 (12... ltJc4? 13.Wia4 ~f8 14.Wic4 Wid4 15.Wid4
11 ..tg2!? h6 12.J~J4 a3!?00) 9.ie7 Wie7: id4 16.0-0-0±) 13.'gcH Henris) 11.Wid2 ltJc4
• 10.a3?! ltJeS; (Antic,De-Henris,L, Charleroi, 2005) 12.Wid4
• 10.g4?! a4! «10 ... ltJh6!? 11.tLlbd4) 11.gfS Wid4 13.ltJd4 ltJb2 14.'gc1 ~d8 1S.0-0iii Raetsky
(11.ltJbd2 tLlh4) 11...ab3 12.ab3 (12.Wib3 ifS!'t & Chetverik.
M3.Wib7 O-O! 14.Wic6 Wib4 1S.ltJd2 (15.~d1 a2) 8..tg2!?:
Wib2 16.'gc1 'ga2-+) 1S...Wib2 16.'gd1 ic2+) • 8...ib4 9.id2 ltJf3!? (after 9...id2!? 10.Wid2
12...'ga1 13.Wia1 ltJeS't; ltJc4, as in Mancini,M·Fruteau,S, France, 2007,
.10.Wid2ltJeS=; White plays 11.Wid3 WidS 12.ltJh4 WibS 13.0-0;1;
• 10.ig2 a4! (10 ...0-0!?) 11.ltJbd4!? ltJcd4 Raetsky & Chetverik) 10.if3 ie7 11.if4 ib4
12.ltJd4 Wib4 13.~f1 Wib2 14.ltJbS!? (14.e3 (11 ...if6!? 12.Wid3!? 0-0 13.ic6 bc6 14.0-0-0;1;
ltJd4 00 ) 14...WieS 1S.e4 ltJh6 00 Henris. Henris) 12.~f1 (12.id2 ie7=) 12 ...ih3 13.~g1
b) 7..tg2 7...a4 8.tLle4 tLlg6 9.igS ib4 10.~f1 (Barsov,A-Adnani,M, Casablanca, 2005) 13... 0-0
ie7 11.ie7 ltJge7!? (11 ...Wie7 12.ltJd4 tLlceS 14.ic6 (14.cS Wie7 00 Henris) 14... bc6 1S.Wid4
13.f4!? fS!? (13... ltJc4 14. Wid3!) 14.tLlc3 tLlc4 Wic8 00 Raetsky & Chetverik;
1S.Wid3 ltJe3 16.~f2 ltJg2 17.~g2 0-0 18.'gadH • 8...lLlf3!? 9.if3 lLleS (9 ...Wif6 Ll10.0-0?! ih3
Henris) 12.ltJcS!? (12.Wid3 0-0 13.'gd1± Henris) 11.'ge1 O-O-O't Henris) 10.Wid4 Wid4 11.ltJd4 ib4
12 ...a3 (Asgeirsson,H-Kristjansson,St, Reykjavik, (11...ltJc4?! 12.0-0;1; Hrubant,I-NovotnY,Lubom,
2005) 13.b4! ltJb4 14.ltJd4!. Prague, 1996) 12.id2 id2 13.~d2 lLlc4 14.~c3
6...lLlf5!? is also worth considering. ltJd6= Henris.
b) 7 ib4 8.id2:
7.a3!? b1) 8 lLlge5? 9.lLleS id2 10.Wid2ltJeS 11.Wid4±
Bruemmer,F-Borzykin,l, Germany, 2010.
Hitting the d4-pawn with 7.lLlb3 is b2) 8...J\d2!? 9.Wid2 tLlgeS 10.tLleS tLleS
another interesting possibility: (Zhukhovitsky, S-Mantsinov, B, Voronezh, 1997)

199
 Chapter 5

11.~d4 ~d4 12.ttJd4! Raetsky & Chetverik. 8.tLle5 ttJe5 9.i.g2 i.e? 10.0-00-0, with a good
b3) 8... ~e7!? 9.i.g2!? (9.ttJbd4 ttJgeS; 9.i.b4!? game for Black, Szmetan,R-Leow Leslie M,
~b4 10.~d2 ~d2 11.c;t>d2 ttJgeS 12.ttJe5 ttJeS Philadelphia, 1989.
13.eS! Henris) 9...0-0!? (9 ...ftJeeS 10.ttJfd4!?!
Henris): 8...c59.h4?!
• 10.0-0!? ftJge5 11.ftJe5 ftJeS 12.i.b4 \Wb4
13.\Wd4! ftJe4?? (13...EJ:e8 14.eS;!; Henris) White wants to destabilize the position of the
14.\We5?? (14.ftJeS a5 15.ftJd3 \Wb5 16.a4 \Wb3 black knights with h5. But Black can meet
17.i.d5 i.e6 18.ftJe5+- Henris) 14...\We5 15.ftJe5 the threat simply by protecting the knight on
EJ:b8 16.EJ:ae1 %-% Fodor,ls-Nagy,Danie, e5.
Balatonlelle, 2005;
• 10.i.b4 \Wb4 11.\Wd2 \We4 (11 ...\Wd2 12.ftJfd2 9....id6 10.b4 0-0 11.bc5 .ic5i
ttJge5 13.f4 ftJg4 14.i.e6 be6 15.ttJd4±) 12.EJ:e1 12.tlJb3
\Wa6 13.ftJfd4;!; Henris.
; I
b4) 8....ie7: 12.h5 would be consistent with White's
I I
• 9..ig2 0-0 (9...ftJge5?! 10.ftJbd4 ftJd4 11.ftJe5 previous play. But after 12... ftJf3 13.ftJf3 ftJe7
,I
i.f6 12.ftJd3;!; Lovass,I-Chetverik,M, Kecskemet, White's h-pawn advance has weakened his own
I
," I, 1999 or 12.f4!?;!;) 10.0-0 ftJee5 11.ftJe5 ftJe5 position just as much as Black's.
I I
,
12.i.f4 i.f6=;
I
• 9..if4 i.b4 10.ftJbd2 a5!? 11.a3 i.e5 12.ftJb3 12...tlJf3 13..if3 tlJe5 14..id5
i.a7 m Raetsky & Chetverik.
7.~a4!? i.e7 8.i.g2 0-0 9.0-0 fails to 14.lLlc5 ftJf3 15.ef3 \Wa5.
yield White an advantage: 9...i.g4!? (9 ... ftJee5)
10.\Wb5 \We8!? 11.a3!? a5!? 12.e5 EJ:d8 13.b3!? 14....ie6! 15..ig5?
EJ:d5! 14.ftJe4?? (14.i.b2 ftJge5 15.ftJe5 EJ:e5~
Henris) 14...i.f5?? (o14 ...ftJee5! 15.ftJe5 ftJe5!-+ 15..ie6 fe6 16.ftJe5 \Wa5 17.i.d2 \We5
Henris) 15.ftJfd2?! (o15.ftJfg5~) 15...ftJee5+ 18.i.b4 \We6 19.0-0 EZtd8-+.
16.i.b2?? i.d7 0-1 Zoebisch,H-Kovacs,Ga, 15.lLlc5 i.d5 16.ed5 \Wd5+.
Oberwart, 2005. o15.,ib7 EJ:b8 16.ftJe5!? \Wa5 17.i.d2
7..ig2 would transpose to variations \We5 18.~b4 \We4 19.~e4 (19.~f8? EJ:b7 20.~b4
already covered under the move order 6.i.g2 a5! 21.~d2 d3-+) 19... EJ:fd8~.
ftJg6.
15... ~d6 16..ib7 gab8 17.tlJc5 ~c5
7...tlJce5 8.~g2 18..ie4 ic4+

200
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ct:Jf3 ct:Jc6 5.g3 ~ge7

Black has a space advantage and his pieces are 21 ... ~b3 22..ie2 ge2! 23.ge2 d3
very active.
23.. .'~e6 (~24 ... ~h3) was also good according
19.0-0 gb2 20.ge1 \Wd6 to Davies.

With the idea ...d3. 24.ge6

21.ge1 ? After 24.ed3, 24 ...ii.c2 25.~c2 tiJf3 wins the

exchange and the game.
White overlooks the powerful sequence Black
has at his disposal. 24...\We6 25.\Wb3 de2
21J'!c2 is answered by 21 ...ii.b3.
21.ii.d2 was a bit better, even if it's ~26.Ele2 tiJf3 27.cj;Jf1 tiJd4-+.
still very unpleasant for White after 21 ...Ele8. 0-1

201
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.llJf3 6...Wld7
llJc6 5.g3 ~e6!? (D)
The most flexible move. Black prepares
queenside castling, followed by ... ~h3 and
... h5. The play becomes double-egded with
attacks on opposite wings.
Black also has a few minor alternatives in this
position; see chapter 7.

7.~g2 (D)

,,
I

On move five there are three distinct light-

, ,:
1
squared bishop moves for Black to choose
from. Whether it travels first to e6, g4 or f5,
each has its own characteristics.
The trend in Albin players has switched from

i i
5... ~g4 to 5... ~e6 as it has become clear that
I
... ~xf3 is rarely promising as we shall see later.
I

Black has in mind a possible ... Wd7 and ... ~h3

manceuvre. This position is one of the main tabiya for the
In comparison with the line 5... ~g4, Black •
openmg.
.1 I restricts White's choice by making him think Now I have divided the material into three
about his en prise c-pawn. main continuations: 7...0-0-0, 7...lt:lge7 and
•

II
•

7....ih3.
6.ctJbd2 Please note transpositions between these three
systems are quite frequent.
'I '
1 The most popular move in the position. In practice Black also has tried some marginal
The alternatives 6.b3, 6.Wa4, 6..ig2, 6.Wb3 moves at this junction which are dealt with in
and 6.Wc2 are also interesting. See next game 100.
chapter.

,
,

'I
1
202
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6 5.g3 ~e6 6.lLlbd2 ~d7 7.i.g2

7...0-0-0 (0) promising continuations have been discovered

for White.
This line has many affinities with the variation
5... ~g4 6.~g2 iWd7 7.0-0 0-0-0 8.ct:lbd2 h5, the
difference being that Black's bishop on e6
makes the g4-square available to his knight and
White cannot preface 0-0 with h3, driving
away the bishop. Play is very complicated and
Black must often give up material to prevent
White winning on the b-file.
Black has another important
alternative at his disposal with the move
8... ~h3 (~ games 83 to 85).
8...lLlge7 and some marginal
An unsophisticated strategy. Black prepares to continuations are also worth considerring (~
attack down the h-file. Mutual pawn attacks game 86).
with opposite side castling is most likely.
9.b4!?
8.0-0
This pawn sacrifice is the most aggressive reply
By far the most popular move. in the position. See game 79 for analyses
Sometimes White delays castling and concerning this continuation.
develops his queenside first with 8.a3 (~ game White also has another good option. '
87). After the strong 9.iWa4, Black's path isn't
See also game 87 for the other strewn with roses either as analyses show (~

alternative 8.'1Wb3. game 80).

On the other hand other moves give
8...h5!? Black enough compensation for the sacrificed
pawn.
This sharp move, which begins Black's 9.h4, preventing Black from opening
counterplay on the kingside as early as the h-file (~game 81).

possible, is quite logical. The position used to See game 82 for 9.iWb3 and the other
be one of the most important of the opening. possible continuations for White.
But it is now a bit out of fashion as several

203 203
 Chapter 6

7...lLlge7 (0) 7...i.h3 (0)

,
,
!!

i I

I,

With this comparatively quiet approach Black
wants to gain the e-pawn back with CLlg6-e5.
He does not rule out castling kingside.
8.0-0
Sometimes White develops his queenside first
with 8.a3 before castling. See game 92 for this
idea and some minor alternatives.
i
I reason why, for the sake of clarity, I have
Statistically speaking this continuation is the
strongest. See game 88.
Transpositions occur often with 9.a3 as
it can be played now but also earlier or later.
9.a3 is the subject of games 89 and 90.
See game 91 for the alternatives to 9.~a4 and
9.a3.
I
I
Black wants to get rid of the annoying bishop
on g2 before castling. It is very difficult to
draw conclusions about when this is or isn't the
correct way forward for Black. But it seems
better to play ... ~h3 now as later Black will
always have to be on the lookout for the strong
replye6!
It is clear that often transpositions occur,
particularly with a quick ... ~h3. This position
can also be reached by the sequence 5... ~g4
(or 5... ~f5) 6.CLlbd2 ~d7 7.~g2 ~h3. That is the
grouped together all the games starting with
5... ~e6, 5... ~g4 or 5... ~f5, followed by 6.CLlbd2
~d7 7.~g2 ~h3, under the same move order.
8.0-0
8.e6 ~e6 is an important theme in the
gambit (~ game 97).

204
pa ,

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6 5.g3 iLe6 6.~bd2 YNd7 7.iLg2

White also has 8.~h3 ~h3 (~ games 98 10.ttJe4

and 99).
See game 95 for the other options.
8... h5!?
10...0-0-0 11 ..ig5!!
If Black decides to exchange first the
bishops with 8....ig2 9.'it>g2, and only then 11 ..if4! is also good.
plays ... h5, White has the opportunity to lock
the kingside with the move h4. See game 96 After 11 ....ie7 12..ie7!? lLlge7 13.~d3 the
for detailed analyses. white king is safe and it's quite unclear how
8...0-0-0 is covered under the move Black should continue as analyses of game 95
order 7... 0-0-0 8.0-0 .ih3. show us.

9..ih3

9.e6!? is also critical for this variation

(~ game 94).
White has many other possible replies:
9.~a4, 9.lLlg5, 9.a3, 9.~b3, 9.lLle4 and 9.lLlb3
(~ game 93).

9... VNh3 (D)

205
 Chapter 6

Game 79 20.. .'~e6 21.ttJbB ~bB 22.'~a6+-) 21.Eld3 ~d6

Poulton,James (2365) 22.c5 1'i:h5 23.ttJe4+- Henris) 19...\Wb5 20.cbS
Spice,Alan (2190) ~b8 21.~b2+- Elbilia,J-Tsang,Ho, Erevan ,
England, 1998 1996.
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.~f3
~c6 5.g3 .te6!? 6.~bd2 ~d7 10.~a4
7..tg2 0-0-0 8.0-0 h5 9.b4!? (0)
The most precise move order. After 1O.1'i:b1!?
play often transposes to the main line. But
Black also has the following options:
a) 10...~c3?! 11.\Wa4 ttJa5 12.iWa3
(12.1'i:b5!? b6 13.ttJe4 a6 14.ttJc3 ab5 15.ttJb5
, ~c4 16.ttJfd4 ~d5 17.~d5 \Wd5 18.~f4±) 12... h4
, I,
, I
I (12 ...\We7 13.c5 b6?! 14.ttJe4±; 12.. .f6 13.ef6 gf6
14.ttJh4 (14.ttJe4±) 14... b6 15.ttJg6±) 13.ttJe4 b6
14.~g5 hg3 15.fg3 f6 16.ef6 (16.1'i:fd1? ~f5!oo)
, I
i
16...gf6 17.ttJf6 \Wg7 18.ttJe4± Ballai,Z-
Chetverik,M, Gyula, 1994.
b) 10... h4 11.ttJh4!? (11.\Wa4 is best and
transposes to the main line) 11 ... ~e7?!
,
, White gives up a pawn in order to develop the (11 ~h3 12.ttJdf3; 11 ... ~d2!? 12.~d2 ~h3
I
I
, intiative along the b-file. (12 ~c4!?)) 12.\Wb3 (12.\Wa4!?) 12... b6
~h3!? ~h4?? (14 ... ~g2;
I
13.ttJdf3?! 14.\Wb5
" ,
9....tb4 14 ~b7) 15.ttJh4?? (15.~h3 \Wh3 16.\Wc6+-)
I
I 15 ~g2 16.cj;>g2:j: Chandler,C-Lamford,P,
Black has to take the pawn otherwise White London, 1982.
, plays b5. c) 10... ~d2!? 11.~d2 ~c4 12.\Wa4 ~d5
I
I
The other way to take the pawn does not seem 13.\Wb5 b6 14.a4iii Raetsky &: Chetverik.
to solve Black's problems either: 9...ttJb4!? d) 10... ~f5!? brings to light the
10.a3 ttJc6 (10 ... ttJa6!?) 11.\Wa4 h4 12.1'i:b1 hg3 problem with the move order mentioned
13.hg3 f6 14.\Wb5 b6 15.ttJd4!+- ttJb8 16.ttJc6 above: 11.1'i:b2 ~c3 12.1'i:b5 ttJge7°o Farr,M-
1'i:e8 17.ttJa7 ~d8 18.ttJc6 ~c8 19.ttJb8?! Leisebein,P, corr., 2001.
(19.1'i:b3! ~f5 (19 ttJe7 20.ttJa7 ~dB 21.1'i:d3+-)
20.e6! ~e6 (20 1'i:e6 21.ttJa7 ~dB 22.\Wf5+-; 10....th3?

206
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6 5.g3 .ie6 6.lLlbd2 ~d7 7..ig2

This careless move allows a typical and abrupt
finish. But Black has not spoiled for choice
because after the following alternatives White
clearly has the upper hand:
10....id2 11.id2 ct:lge7 12.Ei:ab1
13.Ei:b2 ie4 14.ct:lg5!.
10....ic3!? 11.Ei:b1 ct:la5 12.Ei:b5
13.ct:le4 a6 14.tUc3 ab5 15.ct:lb5 ic4 16.ct:lfd4±
Stathopoulos,I-ShpakovskY,K, Prague, 2012.
10... h4 11.Ei:b1 (11.ct:lh4!? ih3 12.ic6
Wfc6 13.Wfc6 bc6 14.Ei:d1 ic3°o Tisdall):
a) 11...ih3? (Svendsen,Th-Dravnieks,O, corr.,
1989) 12.e6! ie6 13.ct:le5 ct:le5 14.ib7!+- Henris.
b) 11 ....id2 12.id2 hg3 13.fg3 ct:lge7 14.ig5
Ei:de8 (14 ...ih3 15.ih3 Ei:h3 16.ie7
17.Wfb5) 15.Ei:fd1 ih3 16.e6!± Henris.
c) 11 ...hg3:
c1) S12.hg3?! ih3 (12 ...ie7? 13.Ei:b7! ~b7
14.tUd4Wfd4 15.Wfc6 ~c8 16.Wfb7 ~d7 17.ic6#;
12...id2? 13.ct:ld2!±) 13.e60 Wfe7 (13 ...ie6?
14.ct:le5 tUe5 15.ib7+-) 14.ih3 (14.ct:le4?
14...ig2 15.~g2 f6 16.a3 Wfe6-+ Aagaard,J-
Harari,Z, Highgate, 1997) 14...Ei:h3°o Henris.
c2) 12.fg3!? (12.Ei:b4 ct:lb4 13.Wfb4 ih3 14.fg3 is
the main game while unclear is 14.e6? Wfe6
15.fg3 ig2 16.~g2 ct:lf6 17.Ei:e1 ct:lg4 18.ct:lf1 Wfe4°o
Vladimirov,B-Wolfson, Agler, 1969) 12...ih3
(12 ...d3!? 13Jlb4 ct:lb4 14.Wfb4 de2 15.Ei:e1 ±
Henris) 13.Elb4 ct:lb4 14.Wfb4 ig2 15.~g2 ct:le7!?
(15...Wfh3 16.mg1 ct:lh6 17.ct:le4!± Chabanon,J-
Henris,L, Narbonne, 1984) 16.ct:le4 ct:lc6:
• 17.Wfc5 d3!? (17 ...Elde8?! (1::... .f6) 18.ct:lf2!±
Henris) 18.e3!? (18.ed3 Wfd3 19.ct:lf2±) 18 ...Wfg4
19.ct:lf2 Wfh5 20.id2!?± Shepherd,M-Sedgwick,
D, Port Erin, 2000. Black does not have
sufficient compensation for his material
deficit, just vague tactics;
• 17.Wfb3 Wfh3 18.~f2 ct:le5! 19.ct:le5 Wff5
if5 20.Wff3! Wfe5 21.if4! Wfa5 (21 ... Elh2? 22.mg1
Wfh5 23.g4+-; 21 ...Wfh5 22.g4!) 22.Elb1 Elh2
b6 23.~g1 Eldh8 24.ct:ld6 ~d7!oo Henris;
• 17.~b1! (White has now got ct:le4 covered.
Moreover he is threatening to consolidate with
18.if4) 17...Wfh3 (17 ...Wfe6 18.ct:lc5 Wfh3 19.~g1
b6 20.Wfe4+- Henris) 18.~f2 1::.... ct:le5?? 19.ct:le5
Wff5 20.ct:lf3 - Van der Wiel.
11.e6! .ie6 12J3b1 .ih3?!
Wfe7
The alternatives do not solve anything:
12...Wfd6 13.ct:le4 (13.ct:lg5 id2 14.id2
Wfc5 15.Elb7 1-0 Chery,E-Baudoin,J, corr., 1985)
13...Wfe7 14.ct:le5 ct:le5 15.Elb4 c5 (15... c6 16.ia3
Wfc7 17.ct:lc5 b6 18.Wfa6 mb8 19.Elfb1 1-0 Heyland,
W-Piel,G, corr., 1995) 16.Elb1!? (16.ct:lc5! Wfc5
17.ib7 mc7 18.if4+- Pliester) 16...a6 17.ct:lc5
Wfc5 18.ia3 Wfc4 19.ib7 mc7 20.Elfc1 1-0 De
Boer,G-CrawleY,G, Ramsgate, 1984.
12...lLlf6 13.ct:le5! ct:le5 14.ib7! mb8
15.Wfb4 c5 16.Wfc5 Wfb7 17.Wfe5+- ma8 18.Elb7
~b7 19.Wfb5 mc7 20.ct:lb3 Elc8 21.Eld1 id7
22.Wfa5 ~b8 23.Eld4 ic6 24.if4 ma8 25.ie3
1-0 Vladimirov-Arseniev,V, USSR, 1955.
12.. .'IWe7 13.ct:le5!? (13.a3!?).
13.ttJe5! ttJe5 14.ib7! @b7 15.Wfb4
@c6 16.ia3!
1-0

207
 Chapter 6

Game 80 a5 are coming - Sadler) 11.il.c6 bc6? (better

Dukhov,Alexander (2445) was 11...W'c6 12.W'c6 bc6 13.!"1d1±) 12.W'a7+-
Chetverik,Maxim (2275) Cher,M-Chandler,C, carr., 1990.
Podolsk, 1993 b) 10.b4 is also possible: 10... hg3 (10 ...il.b4 11.8b1
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.lLlf3 transposes to the line 9.b4 analysed at the
lLlc6 5.g3 i.e6!? 6.ttJbd2 Wfd7 previous game) 11.fg3 d3 12.e3 ih3 13.b5 tlJb8
7.ig2 0-0-0 8.0-0 h5 9.Wfa4 (0) 14.W'a7± Geisler, Re-Finegold,B, Ostend, 1989.

10.b4!?

Not the only way to gain the advantage for White

A flexible move. White plans an attack with b4
or the more methodical 1:'1d1 followed by ltJb3
pressuring the d4-pawn.
1
but certainly the most dangerous for Black.
1O.tLlg5 ltJe5 11.Wd7:
a) After 11 ...:Bd7? as in Engqvist,T-Furhoff,J,
Gothenburg, 1990, 12.f4 wins - Henris.
b) 11...id7!? (Torman,E-Finegold,B, East
Lansing, 1995) 12.f4 f6 (12 ...ie7 13.ltJde4±)
13.fe5 fg5 14.ltJf3± Henris.
c) 11...tLld7 12.ltJe6 fe6 13.ltJf3 (White's knight
is misplaced after 13.ltJb3 e5 14.ltJa5 c6)
13...e5 14.ltJg5 ltJh6 15.id2 ie7 16.ltJe6 1:'1dg8
17.f4;!; Garcia Palermo,C-Cockroft,J, Palma de
Mallorca, 1992.
The slower 10.:Bd1 I?, with the idea
ltJb3, is also good:
a) 10...ttJe5 is equal according to Lamford. But

I'

Black is walking on a tightrope as the game after 11.Wd7 ltJf3 12.ltJf3 1:'1d7 (Blosze,E-
and the following alternatives show: Reschke,Ha, carr., 1991) 13.ltJd4! ic5 (13 ... c5
9...ih3? meets again the refutation 14.if4) 14.ie3 White has a clear advantage -
10.e6! ie6 11.b4! ~b8 (11...ib4 12.1:'1b1---+) Henris.
12.b5 ltJce7 13.ltJb3 ltJf5 14.ltJa5!+- Henris. b) 10... h4 11.ltJb3 (11.ltJh4!?) 11 ... hg3 12.hg3+
9... h4?! : LL.ih3? 13.e6! - Henris.
a) 10.tLlh4 ih3 (10 ... 1:'1h4 11.ic6 bc6 12.gh4 c) 10...ie7 11.h4ltJh6 12.ltJb3± Henris.
ih3 13.f3± is nothing for Black. W'a6 and ltJb3- Black is OK after 10.tLlb3 ltJe5 11.Wd7
i ,I
,'
;
I',
I'
! 208
•
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.tDf3 ltJc6 5.g3 .te6 6.ltlbd2 ~d7 7..tg2

ttJf3 12..if3 2"!d7 13.2"!d1 e5! 14..if4 ~e8 15.h4 crushed in all variations after 13.CiJe5:
(15.e3 d3 16..ie4 b6 17.2"!d3 (17..id3 .ie7 a) 13... ~e7 14.flb7! ~b7 15.CiJe6 iWd7
11....if6) 17....ic4 18.2"!d7 ~d7 19.2"!d1 ~c8 - 16.fla3 flb6 17.c5+- Henris.
Raetsky & Chetverik) 15 ...CiJf6 16.2"!ae1 fle7 b) 13... ~d6!? 14.tiJc6!! bc6 (14 ... ~a8
17.e3 de3 18.fle3 b6 19.2"!d2 ~-~ Sommer,Ja- 15.flf4 iWd7 16.2"!ab1+- I1b6!) 15.flf4 iWe7
Leisebein,P, corr., 2002. 16.2"!ab1 flb6 17.be6 1118.2"!b6 ab6 19.iWa6 fle8
20.iWb6+- Henris.
11 ... ~e5 c) 13... ~e8 14.2"!b1! CiJf6 15.CiJe6! be6
(15 ... ~a8? 16.b6!+-) 16.be6 ~a8 (16 ...flb6
Taking the pawn must also be considered: 17.e5+-) 17.flf4! VIie7 18.2=1b7 flb6 19.2=1b1!?
10 flb4 11.2"!b1 fle3 12.CiJe4t Henris. (19.2=1b6+-) 19...2=1b8 20.2=11 b6+- Henris.
10 tLlb4!? 11.iWb3 d3!? (11 ... e5?!
12.tiJe4± Henris (12.tiJg5!?± Raetsky Et 13.~e5 Wd6!? (0)
Chetverik)):
a) 12.e3!? h4!? 13.tiJh4!? flh3 14.flh3 iWh3
15.fla3 a5 16.flb4 ab4!? 17.a3!? 2"!h4!? 18.gh4
tiJh6 19.f3 flc5 20.ab4 fle3 21.~h1 tiJf5
(21 ...fld2? 22.iWa2) 22.tiJe4 e6 23.iWa2°o ~-~
Krammer,W-Sommer,Ja, corr., 2002.
b) 12.ed3 iWd3 13.CiJg5 iWb3 14.ab3! Henris.

11.b5!?N

This is more ambitious than 11.~d7 CiJf3 12.CiJf3

2"!d7, which is also promising for White: 13.c5
(13.2"!d1!? 11...flb4 14.2"!b1 - Henris) 13 ... tiJe7
(13 ...a5 14.a3) 14.flb2 a5 (14 ...CiJf5 15.2"!ad1±)
15.CiJd4 (15.a3!?) 15...ab4 16.2"!fd1± Brito Loeza,
C-Trani,F, corr., 1999.
11 ... ~f3 12.~f3 h4!?
12...~c5!? has been suggested by Raetsky and
Chetverik as an improvement. But Black is
The alternatives are no better:
13 ~e7 14.flb7! ~b7 15.tiJc6+-.
13 ~e8 14.flb7! ~b7 15.VIia6 ~a8
16.CiJc6 fle5 17.CiJd8 iWd8 18.iWc6+-.
13...VIic8 14.b6! eb6 (14 ... ab6 15.tiJe6
bc6 16.fle6+-; 14 a6 15.be7 iWe7 16.2"!b1+-)
15.flf4 fld6 (15 ~a8 16.CiJc6!+-) 16.e5! f6
(16 ...be5 17.2=1ab1+-; 16 ...VIic5 17.2"!ae1+-) 17.ed6

209
 Chapter 6
•

fe5 18.j,e5+- Henris.

31.~a3!? i>e5 32.~a6 ge3 33.gc5 i>e4 34.~b7
i>d3 35.~b1 i>e2 36.~b2 i>f3 37.~f2 i>g4
I

14.b6! ab6 38.~f5#.

14...YMb6 15.~g5+- Henris.

'II 31 ...\!ie5 32J:~e6?

15.l!Lle6 be6 16.ie6 We6 H.We6 l!Lle7 32.~c5 i>e6 33.~b6+-, and Black is going to
18.Wb5 id7 19.Wb3 hg3 20.fg3+- lose his only asset the passed pawn.

With a queen against two minor pieces White

32 ...\!ie4 33.Wb1?! d3 34.Wb4??
should have now won the game fairly easily.

White not only throws away the win but also he

;
I 20...l!Llf5 21.Wd3 i.e5 22.i.a3 could have even lost the game.
I,

34J'~c4 CUd4 35.~f1!? g5 36.~f7 ge5

22J~f5? ~f5 23.~f5 d3iii.
37.@'b7 gd5 38.~h7 c;t>e3 39.~e7 c;t>f3 40.~f7
c;t>e3=. Now White should avoid 41.~d5?? which
22...i.a3 23.Wa3 E:de8 would lose after 41 ...CUf3 42.~f3 c;t>f3-+.
34.gc4 was the only move giving White
I
23...CLle3 24.gf7 CUc2 25.~b2 CUa 1 26.~a 1+-. chances to keep some advantage.
I,

24.Wb2 E:e4 25.e5 E:he8 26.eb6

E:e2

Now White is struggling to stop the far

26...cb6 27.~b6 i>a8 28.~a6 c;t>b8 29.gab1+-. advanced passed pawn.

27.be7 \!ie7 28.E:ae1 35.E:d6 \!if3! 36.Wb7 \!ie3?

28.YMa3!?
Black could have preserved good winning chances
with 36.. J'~8e4 37.@'f7 c;t>e3 38J::ld4 Eld4+.
28...i.e6 29.E:e6! \!ie6 30.E:e1 \!id6
31.Wb4?!
37.E:d4 \!id4 38.Wb4 \!id5 39.Wb5
\!id4 40.Wb4 \!id5 41.Wb5 \!id4
From now on White starts to lose the thread of 42.Wb4 \!id5
the game. Y2- Yz

210
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.Ct:Jf3 Ct:Jc6 5.g3 J.e6 6.tLlbd2 Y!Yd7 7.J.g2

Game 81 • 11 ...ttJh6 12.~f4 ttJg4 13.a3!? WeB 14.ttJeg5

Vogel,Robert (2320) :gd7 15.Wa4 f6! 16.ef6 gf6 17.ttJh3 We2 1B.:gfe1
Finegold,Benjamin (2375) Wb2 19.:gab1 Wa3 20.Wb5 ib4+ Krijgelmans,J-
Germany, 1989 Henris, L, Belgium, 1986;
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.~f3 • 11...~g4!? 12.ttJeg5 ttJh6 co Remlinger,L-
~c6 5.g3 i.e6!? 6.~bd2 Wd7 Rotenberg,M, 5t Martin, 1991.
7.i.g2 0-0-0 8.0-0 h5 9.h4!? (0) b) 10.e6!? ie6:
• 11.~a4 11...ih3 (11...mb8!? - Henris)
12.ttJe5!? ttJe5 13.Wa7 We6!? (13 ... e6? 14.Wa8
me7 15.Wa5 me8 16.We5 (16.ih3 Wh3 17.We5
id6!~ Van der Wiel) 16...ig2 17.mg2 :ge8
18.Wa5;!; Henris) 14.Wb7 md7 15.ih3 Wh3 co
Henris;
• 11.ttJg5!? ttJf6 (11...ig4?! 12.ie6!± Henris
(s.12.Wa4 - Van der Wiel)) 12.Wa4 mb8
13.ttJb3!n.

•
10.b4!?

Very similar to the 9.b4 line. But the inclusion

This natural move, preventing Black opening of 9.h4 h5 is certainly in Black's favour. 50 the
the h-file, is slower than the continuations conditions for this sacrifice have changed for
9.b4 and 9.Wa4, analysed at the previous two the worse for the first player. Therefore White
games. Indeed Black seems to get enough should look for something else amongst the
compensation for the pawn. This is probably following continuations if he hopes to get an
why not many games have played with this advantage:
move. 10.~a4:
a) 10...mb8:
9... ~h6 • 11.ttJg5 ttJe5 12.Wb3 e6 13.ttJe6 We6 14.ttJe4
ie7= Pink,F-Leisebein,P, corr., 2001;
The main continuation in this position. • 11.ttJb3 ttJe5 12.Wd7 ttJf3 13.if3 :gd7=
Black also has the interesting alternative Burn,M-Newhouse,D, corr., 1986.
9...ih3!? at his disposal: b) 10...ih3?! 11.ttJb3 ig2 12.mg2:
a) 10.ttJe4 ig2 11.mg2: b1) 12...f6? 13.ef6 gf6 (Holzapfel,D-Ehrke,M,

211
 Chapter 6

Germany, 1988) 14.i.h6! :1:1h6 15.1':1fd1+- Henris. 12.i.b2;!;) 12.fe3 de3:

b2) 12...tLlf5!? 13.i.g5 i.e7 14.i.e7 Vlffe7: • 13.b5?! ct:la5 14.Wa4 ed2 15.i.d2 i.c5 16.~h2
• 15.:1:1ad1 f6! (15...mb8 16.tLla5!?;!;; 15...:1:1h6 ct:lc4:j: Henris;
16.c5;!;; 15 :1:1he8 16.:1:1d2;!;) 16.Vlffb5!? (16.ef6 • 13.Vlffa4 ed2 14.i.d2 ttJe5!? (14 ...i.c4!?
We2 oo ) 16 fe5 17.ct:la5 ct:la5 18.Vlffa5 mb8 15.i.g5) 15.Vlffd7 (15.Wa7!? ttJf3 16.ef3!? Wd4
(18 ...:1:1d6!?) 19.Vlffe5 (19.ct:le5 c5~) 19 ...Vlffe5 17.Vlffd4 :1:1d4 18.i.c3 :1:1c4 19.:1:1ac1 i.d6 (~19.. .f6
20.ct:le5 :1:1he8 21.ct:ld3 :1:1e2 22.mf3 :1:1e6 23.:1:1fe1 20.:1:1fe1) 20.f4 :1:1d8 21.:1:1fe1 g6=) 15... ttJd?
:1:1f624.mg2 oo ; (15 ...:1:1d7 16.ttJe5 :1:1d2 17.ttJf7 :1:1g8 oo ) 16.ttJg5
• 15.ct:la5 ct:la5 16.IWa5 mb8 17.mdH. ttJf6 (16 ...i.c4?! 17.:1:1ac1 f6 (17... ttJb6?! 18.i.f4±)
b3) 12...ct:lg4: 18.:1:1c4 fg5 19.i.g5 ttJf6 20.i.f4!? i.d6 21.:1:1fc1
• 13.:1:1d1 Vlfff5 14.i.f4 (14.i.g5 f6 15.ef6 gf6 i.f4 22.gf4;!;) 17.ttJe6 :1:1d2 (17.. .fe6 18.i.g5 i.d6
16.i.f4 Vlffe4 17.c5;!;) 14...IWe4 15.c5 i.e7 19.:1:1f3 i.e5 20.:1:1af1 :1:1he8 21.i.h3;!;) 18.ttJg5 i.e?
16.ct:la5!± (16.ct:lbd4?! i.c5!; 16.e3!? ct:lce5 19.ttJf7 :1:1f8 20.ttJg5 (20.ttJe5 :1:1e8!~) 20 ...i.d6 oo
17.ct:lbd2 Vlffc6 18.Vlffc6 ct:lc6=); Henris;
• 13.i.g5 f6 14.ef6 gf6 15.i.f4 Vlffe6 16.:1:1fd1 IWe4 • 13.V!ffb3!? ed2 14.i.d2 ttJd4 15.Wd3;!;, and
is unclear; White keeps his extra pawn - Henris.
• 13.i.f4 IWf5 14.ct:la5 ct:la5 15.Wa5 mb8 b4) 11.IWa4 ~b8:
16.:1:1ad1 Vlffe4 17.:1:1d3 Vlffe2 18.:1:1d4 :1:1d4 19.ct:ld4 • 12.ltJg5!? ttJce5 (12 ... ttJge5 13.ttJe6 Vlffe6 00
Vlffe4 20.ct:lf3± Henris. Flint,D-Saunders,Mi, corr., 1985) 13.IWb3 ttJc6!?
10.a3: (13 ... c6~ Henris) 14.ttJe6 (Lang,Marc-Soelch,H,
a) 10...i.e7!? 11.b4 ct:lg4 12.IWa4 mb8 13.i.b2 Wuerttemberg, 2000) 14 ...Vlffe6!? - Henris;
ct:lce5 14.Vlffd7 :1:1d7 15.ct:ld4 i.c4!? 16.f4 i.e2 • 12.b4 ttJce5 (12 ... ttJge5? 13.b5 ttJf3 14.ttJf3
17.fe5 i.f1 (Skorpik,M-Chetverik,M, Policka, ttJe7 15.ttJd4!+-) 13.IWd7 :1:1d7 14.i.b2 (14.c5 i.e7
1996) 18.:1:1f1 ct:le5 19.ct:lf5;!; Henris. 15.i.b2 :1:1hd8!? 16.:1:1fd 1 i.f6!?= Henris) as in
b) 10...ltJg4: Boness,A-Schiller,E, corr., 1984. And now
b1) 11.ltJg5?! ct:le3! 12.fe3 de3 13.ttJe6 fe6 14... ttJf3! 15.ttJf3 c5 is equal; 14... c5!? is also
14.i.c6 bc6 15.:1:1f3? (15.ttJb3 IWd1 16.:1:1d1 :1:1d1 interesting - Henris;
17.~g2 i.e7 18.i.e3 :1:1 a1 19.ttJa1+ Henris) • 12.IWb5!? a6 (12 ...ttJce5? 13.IWb7 ~b7
15...ed2-+ 16.i.d2 Vlffd2 17.IWa4 i.c5 18.~f1 14'ttJe5 - Henris) 13.Vlffb3 i.e7!? (13 ...IWc8!?
:1:1hf8 19.IWc6 :1:1f3 20.ef3 Vlfff2# 0-1 Cook,G- 14.ct:lg5 ttJge5 15'ttJe6 Vlffe6= Henris) 14.ttJd4!?
Fedorko,A, corr., 1988. ttJa5 15.Vlffc3 Vlffd4 16.Vlffa5 ttJe5 17.ttJf3 ttJf3
b2) 11.V!ffb3!? i.e7 12.:1:1d1 ttJa5 13.Vlffc2 ttJe3!:j: 18.i.f3 Vlffc4 19.i.f4 Vlffc5= 20.Vlffa4!? Vlffb5?!
Perkins-Lamford,P, Great-Britain, 1981. (Demian,E-Vasile,Co, corr., 1990) 20 ...:1:1d4!
b3) 11.b4!? ttJe3!? (Lamford; 11 ...ct:lce5 21.b4 1':1f4! 22.gf4 Wf5; Henris.

212
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6 5.g3 J.e6 6.ltlbd2 VNd7 7..ig2

10.tlJg5!? i.g4! 11.tlJdf3 f6! 12.ef6 gf6 Let's return now to the main game after
13.CtJe4 iWe6: 10.b4!? (D).
a) 14.tlJf6!? iWf6 1S.i.gS '!;Wd6 16.i.d8 iWd8
17.CtJgS:
• 17...i.d7?! 18.i.e6! i.e6 19.CtJe6 iWf6 (19,..iWd7
20.iWd4± Henris) 20.iWd4 iWd4 21.CtJd4;!; Raetsky
8: Chetverik;
• 17...d3?! 18.iWd3 iWd3 19.ed3 i.eS (Lenz,H-
Schirmer,M, corr., 1986) 20.i.eS! beS 2U%ae1±
Henris;
• Black takes the advantage with 17...tlJe5!
18.iWa4 as 19.'!;Wb3 cSt: Henris.
b) 14.iWc2!? CtJb4 1S.iWa4!? (S1S.iWb1 d3t):
b1) 15...a6!? 1S.eS!? CtJeS 17.CtJfd2!? (17.i.f4!?
iWe4!? 18.CtJeS '!;Wg2!? 19.<;t>g2 CtJeS oo Henris)
17...i.e2 18.i=!e1 d3 19.CtJe3 (o19.b4 LibS+! 10... ttJg4!?
Henris) 19,..i.eS!? (o19...CtJfS) 20.CtJb3 i.bS
21.i.hS (21.i.eS CtJg4!t:; 21.i.f1? as in Lindberg- It's probably better for Black to accept the
Schiller,E, corr., 1983, 21.,.CtJg4! 22.CtJd1 sacrifice as the continuation in the main game
CtJeeS-+ Henris) 21.,.i=!hS 22.i.eS iWfS (22,..iWeS is not entirely satisfactory for him after my
23.iWeS beS 24.CtJe2 de2 2S.i=!e2 i=!d3 2S.<;t>g2±) recommendation at White's 12th move:
23.CtJe2 iWf2 24.<;t>h 1 de2 2S.i.g2 iWg3 2S.'!;We4 10...CtJb4 11.CtJe4 d3 12.i.gS i=!e8 13.ed3
eS 27.i=!e2 i=!gS 28.iWfS <;t>b8 29.iWh3 iWg4 CtJg4 14.i=!b1 CtJd3 1S.iWb3 bS 1S.iWbS '!;WbS
30.i=!ae1 fS;!; Henris. 17.ebS i.a2 18.i=!a1 i.dS= Raetsky 8: Chetverik.
b2) 15.. -'We4!? needs to be investigated. It 10...ib4 11.iWa4 ifS 12.CtJb3 CtJg4
leads to extremely complicated play: (S12,..ie4 13.igS; s12,..ie7 13.CtJaS CtJaS
• 16.iWa7!? CtJeS (1S ...iWeS 17.iWa8 <;t>d7 14.iWaS <;t>b8 1S.i=!d1 eS 1s.if4 '!;We7 17.'!;We7
18.iWb7 00 ) 17.iWa8 <;t>d7 18.'!;Wb7 i=!b8 19.iWaS <;t>e7;!;) 13.ib2 (13.igS?! fS) 13...ie4 14.CtJfd4
i=!bS!? (19,..iWeS!?) 20.'!;Wa4 i=!b4 21.'!;Wd1 00; ig2 1S.~g2 CtJgeS 1S.CtJeS CtJeS 17.ig7 i=!hg8
• 1S.CtJgS iWe2!? (1S,..iWfS!? 17.iWa7 00 ) 17.iWa7 18.i.fS i=!de8 19.CtJd4 i=!gS!? 20.CtJe6 i=!g3! 21.fg3
<;t>d7!? (17,..fgS? 18.iWb7 <;t>d7 19.i.gS.-+; 17...eS? i=!e2 22.m2 i=!f2 23. <;t>f2 iWd2= Raetsky 8:
18.iWa8 <;t>e7 19.i.f4 i.dS 20.iWaS±; 17,..CtJe6?! Chetverik.
18.i.eS be6 19.i.f4 i.d6 20.i=!fe1±; 17...iWe4
18.iWb7 ~d7 19.i.f4!.-+) 18.iWb7 i.dS oo Henris. 11.Wa4 @b8 12..ib2?!

213
 Chapter 6

12.bSltJee5 13.~b2: Game 82

a) 13...cS?! 14.be6 CLle6 15.CLlg5 ~e7 16.~ab1 Piskov, Yury (2550)
~g5?! (o16 ...CLlee5 17.Wd7 ~d7 18.CLle6 fe6 Jakovljevic,Milan (2340)
19.~fe1 ~hd8 . Raetsky & Chetverik) 17.hg5 Becici, 1994
(o17.~a3!? CLlge5 18.hg5+· Llf4 . Raetsky & 1.d4 d5 2.e4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.~f3
Chetverik) 17... ~f5 18.CLle4 h4? (18 ...!e4 19.!e4 ~e6 S.g3 ie6!? 6.~bd2 Wd7
\!Ia8 20.~d4! - Raetsky & Chetverik) 19.CLle5 We8 7.ig2 0-0-0 8.0-{) h5 9.Wb3 (0)
20.CLlb7! hg3 21.CLld8 !b1 22.CLle6 \!Ie8 23.CLla7
1-0 Crouch,C·Spice,A, Birmingham, 2006.
b) 13...ic5 14.CLle5 liJe5 15.liJe4 Wle7= Raetsky
& Chetverik.
12.c5! CLlee5 13.Wld7 ~d7 14.ib2 d3!?
15.~fe1 de2 16J~e2liJd3 17.ie3;!; Henris.

12... tLl b4!?

Also good is 12...ib4 13.~ab1 ~he8 14.CLlb3

!f8!?, harmoniously positioning his pieces for
the coming battle· Raetsky & Chetverik.

13.Wb3!? Besides the three main continuations 9.b4,

9.Wla4 and 9.h4 already covered, White also
13.Wld7 ~d7 14.CLld4 (14.id4 CLle2 15.~ab1 liJd4 has tried in practice the text move 9.Wb3 and
16.liJd4 1'1d4+) 14 ... CLle2!:j: Henris. the following possibilities:
9.a3 h4 10.b4 hg3:
13...eS 14.ia3 We7!? 1s.ib4 eb4 a) After 11.fg3 ih3 12.1'1f2!? ~g2 13.1'1g2, as in
16.a3 ba3i 17J~fb1 ifS 18.~e1 ieS:+: Bracjunova,V-Henriques,Sofia S, Rimavska
19.WbS a6 20.Wfa4 ~he8 21.tLlb3 id7 Sobota, 1996, I recommend 13... CLlh6!?oo;
22.WfaS WfaS 23.ttJaS ib4 24.tLlb3 13 ...Wle6!? is also worth considering.
ie3 2S.~a2 ie6 26.ttJbd2 ib2 b) 11.hg3 !h3!? (11 ...f6!? . Henris) 12.e6
27.~e2 ifS 28.~eb2 ab2 29.~b2 (Berecz,G-Vasile,Co, corr., 1988) 12...ie6!?
ie8-+ 30.ttJb3 ttJe5 31.tLla5 rila7 13.b5 liJa5!? Ll14.Wa4!? ~h3! 15.CLle5 Wle6
32.tLleS ~eS 33.ttJb7 ~d7 34.14 ~fS 16.Wa5 ~g2 17.Wla7 Wle5 (17 ...1'1h1 18.\!Ig2 Wlh3
0-1 19.mf3 Wf5 20.mg2=) 18.mg2 Wlh5 19.Wa8 \!Id7

214
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6 5.g3 .ie6 6.llJbd2'!;Vd7 7.,ig2

20.~b7 ~h3 21.mf3 ~f5= Henris. • 13 hg3 14.fg3+-;

9.llJe4!?: • 13 ~h3 14..if4! g5 15.'iJa5! gf4 (15 ... 'iJe7
a) 9....1c4?! 10..ig5: 16.~b3 me8 17.e6! fe6 18.~b7 md7 19.~e7

a1) 10.. J::1e8 11.~e2 .id5 (Hudaverdieva,A- me8 20.'iJb7 Eld7 21.'iJd6 Eld6 22 ..id6+-)
Mamedjarova,Z, Azerbaijan, 2003) 12.Elfd1!: 16.'iJe6 mb7 (16 ... me8 17.~b5+-) 17.~b5 ma8
• 12...llJb4 13.iWe1! f6 (13 ....ie4 14.Eld4 .id5 18.~a6 .ie5 19.'iJd8+-;

(14... ~e6 15.iWd2+-) 15.e4+) 14.'iJe5±; • 13...ma8 14.iWa6 e5 15.iWe6 fe6 16..ig5±
• 12...f6 13.'iJd4! fg5 14.'iJe6! iWe6 15.iWd3+ Henris.
Henris. b) 9...llJe5!= Andruet.
a2) 10....ie7!? 11.Ele1 .id5 12.'iJe5 iWf5!? 9.~c2!? also deserves attention.

(Jendrossek,P-Schirmer,M, corr., 1990) 13.iWa4!:

• 13 .ic5?! 14..id8+-; 9...i.e7!?
• 13 .1g5?! 14.iWb5 'iJe5 15.'iJd4+-;
• 13 .if3?! 14..if3 ~g5 15..ie6 .ie5 16.Ele5+-; The alternative 9...h4 must be seriously
• 13 f6?! 14.'iJb7! fg5 (14 ...mb7 15.Ele6!+-) considered as it seems to offer Black better
15.~a6 mb8 16.'iJd8 'iJd8 17.'iJd4+- Henris. counterplay than the text:
b) 9...h4! 10.gh4?! (10 ..ig5 hg3 11 ..id8 gh2~ a) 10.llJh4 .ih3 (10 ....ie7!?):
Henris) 10....ie7!? (10 ....ie4! - Henris; 10....ih3!? a1) 11.'iJdf3 .ie7:
11 ..ih3 iWh3 12.'iJeg5 - Henris) 11 ..if4?! .ih3!? • 12..if4 .ih4 13..ih3 (13.'iJh4 .ig2 14.mg2
12..ig3 .ig2 13.mg2 'iJh6 14.b4 iWf5 15.iWb1 'iJge7--+ Henris) 13...iWh3 14.'iJh4 (Wehr,D-
'iJb4!? (15 ....ib4) 16.'iJd6? (16J~d1 'iJe6i) 16....id6 Schirmer,M, corr., 1986) 14...'iJge7 15..ig5 'iJe5
(16 ...ed6? 17.iWb4) 17.ed6 'iJe2+ 0-1 Quiroga,F- 16..ie7 'iJg4 17.'iJf3 'iJh2+ Henris;
Perez Pietronave,C, Buenos Aires, 1993. • 12J'!d1 .ih4 13.'iJh4 .ig2 14.mg2 'iJe5; 15.f3?
9.'iJg5!?: 'iJe7!? (15 ... 'iJg6! 16..ig5 f6!+ Henris) 16..ie3
a) 9... h4?!: e5?! (16 ... 'iJ5e6 - Henris) 17..if4?! 'iJ5g6 0-1
a1) 1O.llJe6 ~e6 11.~a4 hg3 12.hg3 ~e5!? Anders,H-Schwarz,Wi, corr., 1987.
13.'iJb3?! (13 ..ie6 ~h5! 14..ib7 mb8! 15.Ele1 a2) 11.~f3 .ig2 12.~g2 g5 13.'iJhf3 g4
iWh2 16.mf1 mb7 17.~b5= Henris) 13 ... ~e2 14.'iJe1!? 'iJe5~ Lutz,B-Bayer,Erw, Germany,
14..ie6 iWh5! 15..ib7 mb7 16.iWb5i Andruet,G- 2009.
Lamford,P, Lucerne, 1982. b) 10.llJg5!? .ie7 11.'iJdf3 hg3 12.fg3 .ie5
a2) 10.~a4! mb8!? 11 ..ie6 be6 (11 ... ~e6 13.'iJe6 ~e6 14.'iJg5 d3 15.mh1 ~g6 16..ie4
12.~e6 be6 13.'iJe6 fe6 14.'iJf3±) 12.'iJe6!? ~e6 (16.ed3 Eld3 17.iWe2 'iJd4 18.~a4 'iJe7 19.b4
(Schumacher, G-Vreugdenhil, F, Obertsdorf, 2003) 'iJe2 20.be5 'iJg3 21.mg1 'iJe2 22.mh1 'iJf5 0-1
13.'iJb3!: Riepe, B-Leisebein, P, corr., 2002) 16...de2

215
 Chapter 6

17.:i='i:e1 (Zschoch,E-Leisebein,P, corr., 2001) • 13.~eg5 hg3 (13 ...:i='i:f8!? 14.tLJh4!?oo) 14.e6!?
17...f5! 18.ef6 ~h5 19.M gf6+ Henris. (14.hg3 ~g4-+; 14.fg3 ~g5 15.i.g5 ~h3 16'~91
f6 17.ef6 ttJf6i) 14...fe6 15.tLJf7 ttJf6 16.ttJd8
10.tlJe4!? (16.hg3 e5) 16...i.d8 17.hg3 e5iii Henris.

White seems to secure a small 10...i.h3 11.,ih3 ~h3 12.tlJeg5 i.g5

advantage with 10.h4!? ttJh6 11.ttJe4 ttJa5 13.tlJg5 ~d7 14.i.f4 llJh6 15J!ad1
12.~b5 (12.~c2 ttJc4 (12... ~c4?! 13.:i='i:d1±) tlJg4
13.b3 ttJb6°o Raetsky & Chetverik) 12 ... ttJc4
(12 ... ~b5 13.cb5 ~c4 14.~d2± Raetsky & 15... h4!? is interesting too - Henris.
Chetverik) 13.~d7 (13.ttJd4?? c6!-+ Raetsky &
Chetverik) 13...:i='i:d7 14.b3 ttJa3 15.~b2 :i='i:hd8!? 16.~a3 ~he8 17.tlJf3 i>b8 18.,ie3!?
(o15 ...d3!?! Raetsky & Chetverik):
a) 16JUd1?! d3! 17.ed3 ttJc2!iii (17 ... ~d3? Probably White can get something from
18.ttJd6) Timar, Z-Chetverik,M, Budapest, 1994. 18.e3!? d3 19.~c3! Henris.
b) 16.:i='i:ac1! casts a shadow over Black's ninth
move: 16...d3 (16 ... ~d5 17.ttJd6! cj{d7
18.ttJb7+-) 17.ed3 ~d3 18.ttJd6 ~b8 19.ttJe1 18...tlJe3 19.fe3 tlJe5?
(19.~a3!? cd6 20.ttJg5! /'2-/'2 Papp-Chetverik,M,
Balatonalmadi, 1996) 19... ~d2 20.~c3 ~a2 19...~g4! 20.ed4 ttJd4 21.ttJd4 :i='i:d4= Henris.
21.ttJb7± Raetsky & Chetverik.
10.:i='i:d1 looks too slow to be really 20.tlJe5 ~e5 21.~d4 ~e8 22.~d8
dangerous for Black. He has now two promising ~d8 23.~f7±
continuations giving him good counter chances:
a) 10 h411.ttJf1: In the long run the ending is lost for Black.
• 11 ~a5? 12.~b5 ttJc4 13.\Wd7 ~d7 14.b3 ttJb6
15.~d4± Chetverik,M-Shak, Novosibirsk, 1982; 23... ~e8 24.~d3 ~g5 25.~f5 ~h6
• 11...hg3 12.hg3 ~h3 13.~h1 ~g4f! Raetsky & 26.~d4 ~c8 27.~f4 ~a6 28.~f8
Chetverik. ~a2??
b) 10...i.h3!? 11.ttJe4!? ~g2 12.~g2 h4:
• 13.i.g5?! hg3-+ 14.h4?! f6!? (14 ...gf2+ Henris) Black blunders in a very difficult position.
15.ef6 gf6 16.~f4? (16.~c1 gf2+ Henris) as in
Koczo,K-Zoltan,A, Budapest, 2008. Now Black
wins immediately with 16... ~f5-+ Henris; 1-0

216
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.Ct:Jf3 Ct:Jc6 5.g3 .te6 6.~bd2 tyd7 7..tg2

Game 83 avoid the exchange of his best bishop.

Schipkov,Boris (2345) 9.~a4 is also good:

Meszaros,Gyula (2260) a) 9 ig2 10.iJg2:

Kecskemet, 1993
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4..!tJf3
.!tJc6 5.g3 ie6!? 6.~bd2 Wld7
7.ig2 0-0-0 8.0-0 ih3!? (0)
This position can also be reached by the
sequence 7...ih3 8.0-0 O-O-O!?
After castling long the move ...ih3
countered by a typical stroke for the Albin...
9.e6!?
Probably the strongest move in the position. In
games where the players castle on opposite
sides, an attack against the opposing king is
almost always in order. And therefore time is a
very important factor. This is why White
advantageously inserts 9.e6 here giving him
more time to mount his offensive. He also
• 10 h6!? (Necula,I-Cehajic,M, corr., 2002)
11.CLlb3! ~g4 12.E1d1 ~e4 (12 ...a6 13.ttJbd4!?
ttJd4 14.ttJd4±) 13.iJg1! a6 (13 ... ~e2?
14.ttJbd4+-; 13...d3 14.ie3! LL.de2?! 1S.E1d8
iJd8 16.ttJfd4±) 14.ttJbd4! ttJd4 1S.ttJd4± Henris;
• 10.. .'it>b8 (Braeu,E-Kahler,K, Bad Woerishofen,
2000) 11.ttJb3! ~E1d1 ± Henris.
b) 9...iJb8!? 10.ih3 iWh3 11.b4!? iWfS (11...ib4
12.E1b1 id2 13.iWe6+- Henris; 11 ... ttJb4 12.E1b1--+
Henris) 12.eS! hS!? (12 ... ttJeS 13.ttJd4 (13.ib2!?)
13... E1d4 14.iWe8 iWe8 1S.iWeS± Henris) 13.bS!?
(13.ib2 h4 14.bS ttJeS 1S.b6!? eb6 16.eb6 a6
17.id4± Henris) 13... ttJeS (Hase,W-Faldon,D,
corr., 1984) 14.b6!?± Henris.
c) 9...h5 transposes to the line 7...0-0-0 8.0-0
hS 9.iWa4 ih3.
9.ttJe4:
a) The idea 9... h6!? is very interesting:
• 10.e3?! ig2 11.iJg2 iWg4 i Henris;
is • 10.a3!? gS?! (10 ...ig2 11.iJg2 iWe6 is better,
transposing to the game Miranda Jr,R-
Rodrigues da Silva,E, Recife, 2010, analysed
below - Henris) 11.b4? (o11.ih3 iWh3 12.b4
WlfS (12... iWe6 13.ib2; 12...ig7 13.ttJc5 ttJge7
14.iWa4 iJbB 15.E1d1±) 13.iWd3 ttJge7 14.bS!?
ttJeS 1S.ttJeS iWeS 16.f4!?:t Henris) 11 ...ig2
12.iJg2 g4 13.ttJe1 ttJeS+ Nikolaeva,A-
Nebolsina, V, St Petersburg, 1999;
• 10.~d3!? leads to a very complicated
struggle: 10 gS (10 ig2 11.iJg2 gS 12.h3
(12.e3!? - 10 g5) 12 iWe7=) 11.e3 ig2 12.iJg2

217
 Chapter 6

lLlb4 (12 ...g4!? 13.lLld4 lLle5 14.lMfc2 h5) 13.lMfb1 23.:9: 1f3 \;We5!?? Schwarz,Fra-Schmidt, Hara ,
(13.lMfd4? lMfc6 14.lMfa71Mfe4 15.lMfa8 <;t>d7 16.Eld1 Bad Segeberg, 2000;
lLld3) 13...d3 14.lLld4 f5! (14 ...g4!?1') 15.lLlf6 • 14.llJg5 tLlh6 15.lMfd3 (15.lLlf7? tLlf7 16.Elf7 d3
(15.ef6 lMfh7! 16.f3 (16.lLlc3 lLlc2) 16...g4--+; 17.Elf3 d2 18.iid2 lMfd4-+) 15...lMfd7 16.iid2
15.lLld2 c5t; 15.lLlc3 c5t) 15...lLlf6 16.ef6 f4! (:516.Elf7?! tLlf7 17.e6 lMfc6 18.tLlf7 iie7 19.tLlh8
17.a3 lLlc2 18.lLlc2 f3! 19.<;t>h1 D (19.<;t>f3?? Elh8<Xl) 16...g6!? 17.Elac1!? (17.Elf7!? tLlf7 18.e6
lMfh3!-+) 19...\Mrh3 20.Elg1 dc2 21.W1c2 h5 22.e4 \Mrc6 19.tLlf7 iie7 20.tLlh8 Elh8 21.Elf1 Ele822.Elf7
h4 .l123...iid6 and 24 ...hg3 25.fg3 \Mrh2 26.\Mrh2 \Mre6 23.Elh7 g5<Xl) 17...iig7 18.c5 lMfc6 (18 ...c6
Elh2 27. <;t>h2 Elh8# Henris. 19.tLle4) 19.b4 (19.tLlf7 tLlf7 20.Elf7 iie5<Xl;
b) 9...iig2 10.<;t>g2: 19.Elf7!? tLlf7 20.tLlf7 Eldf8 21.tLlh8 iie5 22.tLlg6
• 10 ...\Mrf5?! 11.\Mrd3 <;t>b8!? (Schuurman,P- hg6;!;) 19...<;t>b8 20.b51Mfd5 21.b6;!; Henris.
Piceu,T, Netherlands, 2005) 12.Eld1!± or c) 10,\Mra4!? - Henris.
11 ...lLlge7 (Vafin,A-Sadykov,Ra, Tolyatti, 2012) 9.b4!? iib4 (o9...iig2 10.<;t>g2 iib4 -
12.lLleg5! Eld7 13.\Mrf5 tLlf5 14.Eld1 h6 15.tLle4± Henris). And now instead of 10.\Mrb3!? iig2
Henris; 11.<;t>g2 lMff5 12.Elb1 (Varga,Pe-Meszaros,Gyu,
• Again the move 10...h6 is quite attractive: Hungary, 1993) 12... tLlge7<Xl Henris, White
11.a31Mfe6 12.lMfd3 lLle5!? (12 ...g5 deserves also should play the thematic 10.e6 iie6 11.Elb11i5 or
attention) 13.lLle5 \Mre5= Miranda Jr,R- 11.\Mra4!? - Henris.
Rodrigues da Silva,E, Recife, 2010. The slower approach 9.a3 is often
9.i.h3 lMfh3: played in this position. It's the subject of game
a) 10.lLle4 f6!? 11.ef6 gf6!? 12.iif4 h5 13.lLlh4!? 84.
iih6!? 14.lLlg6 Elh7 15.lMfd3?! (15.iih6 lLlh6 9.llJb3!? is covered in game 85.
16.lLlf4 \Mrf5 17.\Mrc2 h4~ Henris) as in
Kobylkin,E-KislinskY,A, Alushta, 2001. And now 9... ~e6 10.lLlg5
15... h4!1i5 with good compensation - Henris.
b) 10.llJg5!? \Mrf5 11.f4!? (11.l2ldf3 - Henris) 10.'l1;Yb3!? (.l1tLle5) 10.. .f6 11.Eld1 has been
11 ... tLle5 12.fe5 lMfg5 13.tLlf3 lMfg4?! (13 ...lMfh5 played in Marshall,F-Janowski ,D, Biarritz, 1912
14.\Mrd3 f6!?1i5 Henris): and Khenkin,I-Nieuweboer,M, Haarlem, 1997.
• 14.'1~·d3!? f6!? 15.i.d2!? tLle7 16.ef6 gf6 Things are not clear after 11 ...iih3°o Henris.
17.tLlh4 tLlg6!? (17...tLlc6 18.\;Wf5 (18.'ilJ6 tLle5)
18.. .''1Wf5 19J''1:f5 tLle5 20.i.f4 d3! 21.iie5 fe5 1O... ~g4!?
22.ed3 Eld3°o Henris) 18.tLlg6 hg6 19.:9:f6
i.d6!? 20.\;Wf3?! (better is 20.Elaf1;!; Henris) 10...iif5 (Podolchenko, E-Rakitskij, D,
20 ...\;Wh3 21.\;Wg2 \;Wh5!? 22.:9:af1 Elde8 Minsk, 2006) 11.iic6! bc6 (11...lMfc6? 12.tLlf7 iih3

218
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.CtJf3 CtJc6 5.g3 i.e6 6.lLlbd2 ~d7 7..1g2

13.0:Jf3) 12.~a4 Wb8 13.0:Jb3 l10:Ja5 - Henris. 17.~e5! g5 (D)

1o...ib4!? 11.~b3 ~d2!? 12.~d2± De
Souza,Ser-Kover,W, corr., 2001.

11.Wa4!?

11.i.c6 is probably even stronger than the text

. Henris.

11 ... ~h6 12.b4!

White has the initiative on the queenside.

12... ~b8 13.b5 ~e5 14.~gf3! ~f3

15.~f3 18.b6!! .ib6

Threatening ttJd4. White wins quickly in case of 18...ab6 19.ttJe6

be6 20.i.e6+- Schipkov.
15...Wf5
19.~c6!! ~a8
White has a huge advantage after
15...f6 16.ttJd4! - Schipkov. More enthralling was 19...bc6 20.~e6 We8.
White is also much better after Now White wins with the superb blow 21.i.e7!!
15... ~e6 16.e3! ttJf5 (16..,i.f3!? 17.i.f3 i.e5 i.e7 and the quiet move 22.E1ab1 threatening
18.ed4 i.d4 19J%b1 ~f5 20j~~b3 E1he8 (20..,ttJg4? the unstoppable 23.E1b8 'ttb8 24.~b7#
21.b6!!+-) 21.b6! ab6 22.i.h6 gh6 23.E1a3 ~a5 Schipkov. Remarkable! White has sacrificed,
24.~a5 ba5 25.E1b1 ± Henris) 17.ttJd4 ttJd4 one after another, a pawn, a knight, a bishop,
18.ed4 E1d4 19.i.e3 ~e4 20.~b3 ~b3 21.ab3 then made a quiet move and given also a rook.
E1b4 22.i.a7 We8 23.i.e5! - Schipkov.
20..ic7! Wc5 21 ..ib6
16..if4! .ic5
After 21...~b6 22.E1fb1, White mates in few
If 16...f6 then 17.i.e7! We7 18.~a5 We8 moves.
19.~a7+-, with a devastating attack - Schipkov. 1-0

219
 Chapter 6
•

Game 84 • 12.lLleg5 CUh6 13.i.f4 hg3 14.hg3 (Judycki,W-

Van WelY,Loek (2681) Michalczyk,S, Poland, 2002) 14...f6! 1S.CUe4
Morozevich,Alexander (2765) (1S.ef6!? gf6 16.CUe4!? lLlg4+) 1S...We6!?
Monaco (blindfold), 2008 16.Wd3 gS:j: Henris;
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.lLlf3 • 12.~f4 hg3 13.fg3 cuge7 14.CUfgS?! (14.b4?!
lLlc6 5.g3 .ie6!? 6.ttJbd2 Wid7 cug6 1S.Wd2 (15.c5? CUf4 16.gf4 W1g4+)
7..ig2 0-0-0 8.0-0 .ih3 9.a3!? (D) 1S...W1e8:j: Henris; 14.CUeg5!? cug6 15.e3!?
(15.Wd2?! W1e8) 15 ...W1fS!? 16.CUd4 cud4 17.ed4
cuf4 18.gf4 f6! 19.cuf3 Wf4:j: Henris) 14.. .tIJg6
15.Wd2 (15.e6!? fe6 16.We2 ~e7!?:j: Henris) as
in Anashkin,V-Vasilenko,An, corr., 1991. And
now Black keeps a clear advantage with
1S... cuge5:+: Henris.
b) 10.e6!? ~e6 11.b4 (after 11.. .cuh6?!,
as in Wittke,C-Donev,l, Switzerland, 1998,
12.b5!± Henris) 11 ...h4!? 12.bS cuee7 13.lLlh4!?
~h3 ($13 ...g5?! 14.cue4! gh4 1S.cue5 We8
16.Wa4 Wb8 17.CUb7---t) 14.CUdf3 ~g2 1S.Wg2
cug6!? (15 ...f6?! 16.Wa4 Wb8 1n:1d 1±) 16.CUg6
Wh3 17.Wg1 fg6 18.Wd3 (18.~g5 ~e7!? 19.~e7
cue7a» 18 ... cuf6 19.~g5 ($19.Wg6?! cug4 20.W1e6
The move a3 is frequently played here. But Wb8 21.~g5 E1e8:+:) 19 ...CUg4!? 20.We4 (20.~d8?
many transpositions occur with this move as it CUeS:+:) 20 ... CUh2 21.CUh4 ~e5!? 22.~d8 d3!
can also be played earlier or even later. 23.e3 (23.Wg2 Wg2 24.Wg2 cuf1 =) 23 ...cuf1
Actually the game reached the diagrammed 24.E1f1 d2 (IL.Wf1) 2S.E1d1 E1d8 26.CUg6 ~a3
position after the unusual move order: 5.cubd2 27.cuf4a>. Black's far advanced passed pawn is
cuge7 6.a3 ~e6 7.g3Wd7 8.~g2 ~h3 9.0-0. very dangerous - Henris.
c) 10.b4!?:
9....ig2 c1) 10... h4?! (Novosel,T-Kostrun,S, Velika
Gorica, 2005) 11.b5!:
9... h5!? must be considered: • 11 ...lLlce7 12.~h3! (12.Wa4!? Wb8 (12 ~g2
a) 10.lLle4!? ~g2 (10 ... h4!? is also 13.W1a7! W1h3 14.CUg5! Wf5 15.Wg2+- b. Wg5
interesting) 11.Wg2 h4: 16.cue4 W1e5 17.CUc5) 13.~h3 (13.c5? hg3 14.fg3
• 12.b4? hg3 13.fg3Wh3 14.Wg1 cueS+ Henris; ~g2 15.Wg2 cug6+!-) 13...Wh3 14.CUgS WfS

220
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6 5.g3 .ie6 6.tLlbd2 ~d7 7 ..ig2

15.t21df3 hg3 16.fg3 t21h6 17.c5!?~) 12 ...Wh3 • 17.ttJe5 t21e5:j: Henris.

13.t21g5 Wf5 14.t21df3 hg3 15.fg3 t21h6 16.Wd3±; b) 11.b4!? h4!?:
• 11 ...t21a5 12.e6! «12.Wa4!? ~g2 (12... b6? • 12.gh4?! (Sobrino Garcia, R-Fernandez Perez,
13.e6! ~e6 14.t21e5 - 12.e6!) 13:~a5 (13.~g2 R, Valladolid, 1991) 12 ...Wie6+ Henris;
b6<Xl) 13... hg3! 14.fg3 (14.~g2? Wih3 15.~g1 • 12.ttJe4? hg3 13.fg3 Wh3 14.~f2 (14.~g1?!
~c5!+) 14 ... ~f1 15.Wa7 We6 16.~f1 Wib6!? ltJe5:j: Hartenauer, F-Jakstaitis, V, Kiel, 2003)
17.Wb6 cb6<Xl) 12... ~e6 13.Wa4 b6 14.ltJe5 Wid6 14... ltJe5!? (14 ... ~e7!?) 15.ltJe5 f5!? (15 ...Wf5
15.ltJc6 t21c6 16.~c6+ Henris. 16.~g1 Wie5 17.ltJg5 ltJh6 18.Wid3!?<Xl «18.ltJfl?!
c2) 10...~g2 11.~g2 h4 transposes to the main ltJfl 19.E1fl d3!; 18.E1f7!? ~d6 19.1tJf3 We6
game after 9... ~g2 10.~g2, to the line 10... h5!? 20.E1g7 ltJg4--t)) 16.ltJg5 Wh2 17.~f3D Wh5
d) 10.~h3 Wh3 11.ltJg5!? (11.b4~ 18.~g2 Wih2= Henris;
Henris) 11...Wif5 12.ltJdf3~ Scheffner,A- • 12.Wa4 hg3 13.fg3 Wih3 14.~g1 ~b8t Henris;
Goeldenboog,J, Bochum, 1992. • 12.b5! ltJce7 13.ltJe4 (13.ltJh4?! g5 14.ltJhf3
Wih3 15.~h1 ltJg6+ Abraham,lng-Schulz
10.@g2 tt:Jge7!? Streeck,S, Kiel, 2008) 13... hg3 14.fg3 f6!?
(14 ... ltJg6 15.ltJeg5 Wie8 16.Wd3 ~b8 17.We4;!;)
Black has a very interesting alternative here 15.ef6 (15.Wd3 ltJg6 16.ef6 Wh3 17.~f2 gf6~)
with 10... h5!?: 15...gf6 16.t21h4 (16.Wid3!?) 16...Wg4 (16 ...ltJg6
a) 11.h4ltJge7 12.b4ltJg6 13.~b2: 17.ltJg6 Wh3 18.~f2 Wif5 19.~g1 Wig6 20.Wd3)
a1) 13...l2Jce5!?<Xl 14.ltJe5?! ltJe5 15.Wc2 d3! 17.E1f4 We6 18.Wid3 ~h6 19.E1f1!? ~c1 20.E1ac1
16.ed3!? ltJd3:j: 17J::lad1 Wig4 18.t21b3 ltJf4 f5 21.ltJc5 Wie5 22.t21b3 ltJh6 23.E1f4 ltJg4
19.~g1 ~e7 20.E1fe1 ~h4+ Tsiganova,M- 24.ltJf3;!; Henris.
GUilbert, Jea, Capelle-la -G rande, 1993.
a2) 13...Wg4!? 14.~h2 ~e7!? (14 ... t21ce5<Xl 11.b4 lLlg6 12..ib2
Henris) 15.ltJb3 (15.Wa4!? ~b8 - Henris;
15.Wc2!? t21ce5!t Henris) 15 ltJce5 16.~d4?! 12.b5? ltJce5 13.Wa4 ~b8 14.~b2 Wg4!
(16.ltJe5ltJe5<Xl) 16... ~h4!? (16 ~f6!?): - Henris.
• 17.gh4?? ltJf4 18.ltJe1 Wh3 19.~g1 t21g4-+ 12.l2Jb3 ltJce5 13.Wd4 Wd4 14.ltJbd4
Henris; ltJc4= 15.E1a2 ~e7 16.E1c2 t21d6 17.~e3 ).tj-).tj
• 17.l2Jh4 ltJf4! 18.E1h1 (18.gf4?? Wih4 19.~g2 Csulits,A-Hennings,A, Colditz, 1967.
Wg4 20.~h2 (20.~h1 Wh3 21.~g1 ltJg4-+) 12.Wa4 ~b8 is critical:
20 ...E1h6 21.f5 Wf4 22.~g2 Wig5 23.~h1 a) Play becomes quite sharp after 13.~b2
(23. ~h2 ltJg4 24. ~h3 Wf4-+) 23 .. .Wif5-+) Wg4!? (after 13... t21ce5?!, as in Auerweck,R-
18... t21e2+ Henris; Stefanovic,Dr, Werfen, 1996, 14.Wd7 E1d7

221
 Chapter 6

15.~d4± Henris) 14..8:fd1!? (14.b5!? tLJce5 17..8:fct!; Henris.

15.tLJe5 tLJe5 16..8:fe1?! (o16..8:ad1a> Henris) Let's return to the main game after 12.~b2.
16...h5! 17.h3 Wf5 18.Wb3 ~c5!n Ivanovic,
Dragu-Paresishvili,G, Canarias, 1995) 14... h5!: 12...h5 (0)
a1) 1S.bS?! tLJce5 16.~d4 .8:d4 17.ctJd4 ~c5!
(the white king feels quite alone on the
kingside!) 18.ctJ2f3 (18.ctJc6? bc6 19.bc6 h4-+;
18.ctJ2b3? h4!-+; 18.ctJ4b3 h4!-+, with a winning
attack in all cases) 18... h4+ Henris.
a2) 1S.ctJb3 ctJf4!? 16.<j;lh1 (S16.<j;lf1?! ctJe2
17.ctJfd4 ctJe5!?a> (17...ctJed4 1B.ctJd4 ctJe5a»
Ll18.f3? Wh3! 19.<j;le2 Wh2 20.<j;lf1 (20.<j;le1??
~d6-+) 20 ...Wh3 (20...Wb2?? 21 ..8:d2+-) 21.<j;lf2
~d6!-+) 16... ctJe2 leads to marvelous
complications after 17.ctJbd4:
• 17 lLled4? 18.ctJd4 ctJe5 19.f3!;
• 17 lLlcd4! 18.ctJd4 h4!! 19.ctJe2 (19.ctJc6??
bc6 20 ..8:d8 <j;lb7-+) 19... ~c5! (19 ...Wf3? 20.<j;lg1 13.b5!?
~c5 21.bc5 We2 22.Wb3+-) 20.bc5 We2
(Ll...hg3) 21 ..8:d8 .8:d8 22.gh4!? We4 (22 ...Wb2 13.h4:
23 ..8:d1=) 23.<j;lg1 Wg6= Henris; a) 13...lLlgeS? 14.b5 ctJf3 15.ctJf3 (15.bc6? ctJh4
• 17...h4!! 18.ctJc6 bc6 19..8:d8 (19.Wc6 .8:d1 16.<j;lh2 (16.gh4?? Wg4 17.<j;lh1 Wh3 1B.<j;lg1
(19... ~e7!? 20..8:dB ~dB 21 ..8:e1 hg3 22..8:e2 .8:h2 .8:h6-+) 16 ...Wg4a> Henris) 15...ctJe7 16.Wd4±
23.ctJh2 We2a» 20..8:d1 ~c5! 21.bc5!? hg3 Elizarov,D-Andrejkin,D, Serpukhov, 1999.
22.Wb5 <j;lc8 23.Wa6 <j;lb8 24.Wb5=, and White b) o13...lLlceS CII M4.~d4? (14.ctJd4? ctJh4-+)
has to take the draw) 19... <j;lb7 20 ..8:d3 hg3 14... ctJh4! 15.ctJh4 (S15.gh4? Wg4 16.<j;lh2
21.fg3 ctJg3 22.<j;lg1 ctJe2 23.<j;lh1 (23.<j;lf2 ctJf4 is (16.<j;lh1 .8:d4 M7.ctJd4 Wh3 1B. <j;lg 1 .8:h6!-+)
too dangerous for the white king) 23 ... ctJg3= 16....8:d4 17.ctJd4 ~d6 18.f4 Wh4 19.<j;lg1
Henris. (19.<j;lg2 ctJg4) 19...Wg3 20.<j;lh1 ctJg4 21.ctJ2f3
b) 13.lLlb3!?: ctJe3-+) 15...Wd4+ Henris.
• 13...WfS? (Gierlinger,A-Stanzl,M, Passau, 13.Wa4 h4! 14.b5 hg3 15.fg3 (15.bc6?
1998) 14.b5! ctJce5 15.tLJbd4± Henris; Wh3 16.<j;lg1 ctJf4 17.cb7 <j;lb8-+ Henris)
• 13...lLlceS!? 14.Wd7 .8:d7 (Ballo,H-Vershinin,l, 15...Wh3 16.<j;lg1 ctJce5 17.Wa7 ctJg4 18.Wa8
St Petersburg, 2002) 15.~b2 ctJc4 16.~d4 f6 <j;ld7 19.Wb7 ctJh2 20.Wc6 <j;lc8 21.Wa8=

222
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6 5.g3 .ie6 6.~bd2 V;Yd7 7..ig2

Kasimdzhanov. 19....id6

13... ~ce5 14..id4 t. Bf2.

19 ic5!? - Kasimdzhanov.
14.<!Lld4?! h4.
20.e3?!
14... ttJf3 15.ttJf3 h4 16..ia7?
20.<j;Jh1 Wlg3 21.e3+ Henris.
The crucial moment of the game.
16.ie3? was played in Schneider,Uw- 20.. J~h3!-+ 21.'it>h1 gdh8?
Goldt, R, Frankfurt, 2010. Now Black should
have answered with 16...id6!+ (M7 ... hg3 021...ig3! 22.Bad1 Bd1 23.Wld1 ttJe5! 24.Wld5
18.fg3 ~h3 and ...ig3-+) M7.c5? hg3 18.cd6 ttJf3 25.Wla8 <j;Jd7 26.Bd 1 id6-+ Henris.
Wlh3 19.<j;Jg1 ttJh4-+ Henris.
016.e3 hg3 17.fg3 Wlh3 18.<j;Jg1 t.Ba2-
d2 - Kasimdzhanov. It's not clear how Black
continues his offensive. 22.c5!? had to be played. Then play would
have been unclear:
16... ~g4!? a) 22 ....tc5 23.ib6! ib6 (23 ...cb6
24.a5! Wlg3 25.ab6 <j;Jb8 26.Wla2 (26.Wlc5??
16...<!Llf4 17.<j;Jh1 (17.gf4 Wlg4 18.<j;Jh1 Bd1; Bh2 27.ttJh2 Wlh2#) 26 ...ia3D 27.Bf2 ttJe5
17.<j;Jg1 Wlh3) 17... ~h3+ Henris. 28.Wla3 Wlf3! 29.Bf3 Bh2 30.~g1 ttJf3 31.<j;Jf1
ttJd2 32.<j;Je1 ttJf3 33.~f1 (33.<j;Jd1?? Bd2
34. <j;Jc1 Bh 1#) 33 ...ttJd2=) 24.a5 ie3 25.a6
ia7 26.b6! ib6 27.a7 <j;Jb7 28.a8Wl Ba8
17...id6 - Henris. 29.Ba8 <j;Ja8 30.Wlc6 <j;Jb8 31.Ba1 ia7 32.Bb1
ib6 33.Ba 1= Henris.
18.fg3 b6 19.a4?! b) 22... bc5!? 23.ic5 ic5 24.Ba2
(24.Wlc5?? Wlf3! 25.Bf3 Bh2 26.<j;Jg1 Bh1 27.<j;Jf2
The following alternatives are less bad: B8h2#) 24 ...ie3 25.~c6 (t.Bc2) 25 ...<j;Jb8 26.b6!
19.Wfa4 id6 20.Wla6 <j;Jd7 21.Bfd 1 Bh2 ib6 27.Bb1 co Henris.
22.ttJh2 Wlg3 23.<j;Jf1 Wlh3 24.<j;Je1 <j;Je8+ Henris.
19J~ad1 Bd1 20.Bd1 ttJh4 21.ttJh4 Bh4+ 22....ig3 23.gg1 ~f3!
- Henris. 0-1

223
 Chapter 6

Game 85 CLle5i Henris). And now instead of 13...i.g5?!

Shishkin, Vadirn (2488) 14.~g5, as in Mauelshagen,F-Balduan,M, I
KislinskY,Alexey (2406) Mittelrhein, 1994, Black should play 13.. .f6!?
Kiev, 2005 14.ef6 CLlf6iii Henris.
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ClJf3 b) 10.i.f4 i.g2!? (10 ... h4 Ll11.CLlh4? i.e?
c!Llc6 5.g3 ie6!? 6.c!Llbd2 'lWd7 12.CLlf3 i.g2 13.c;t>g2 ~h3 14.c;t>g1 g5-+ Henris)
7.ig2 0-0-0 8.0-0 ih3 9.ClJb3!? (D) 11.c;t>g2 h4f± Kuprijanov,A-Babikov,l, Obninsk,
2009.
c) 10.e3 i.g2 11.c;t>g2 h4!? 12.e6 ~e6
13.tt:lfd4 tt:ld4 14.tt:ld4 ~e4!? (14 ... ~d7 15.~c2
2::i:h5!?t Henris) 15.f3 ~e8!? 16.~c2 hg3 17.hg3
g6 18.c5?! (18.i.d2 i.g7 19.2::i:ae1 ~d7 20.2::i:h1
i.d4 21.ed4 2::i:h1 22.2::i:h1 ~d4= Henris)
18..,c6?! (18.,.~e5! 19.i.d2 (19.c6? ~h5
20.cb7 r;J;;bB! 21.tt:lc6!? r;J;;b7 22.tt:ldB r;J;;cB-+)
19...i.c5:j: Henris) 19.b4 ~d7 20.r;J;;g1 2::i:h3
21.~g2 i.g7 22.i.b2 2::i:h7 23.c;t>f2 tt:le7 24.2::i:h1
2::i:h1 25.2::i:h1 tt:ld5 26.a3?? (26.2::i:d1 tt:lb4+
Henris) 26 ... tt:le3!-+ 27.~h3 ~h3 28.2::i:h3 tt:ld1
0-1 Blagojevic,M-Bozicevic,l, Hum na Sutli,
9...ig2!? 2010.
d) 10.i.h3!? ~h3 11.i.f4 i.e7!?
Black has again the very interesting alternative (11 ... h4!? - Henris) 12.~d2!? tt:lh6!? (12 ... h4!?f±
9... h5 which seems to give him better chances Henris) 13.i.h6 2::i:h6iii Schut, T-Nieuweboer,M,
than the text: corr., 1999.
a) 10.i.g5 i.g2!? (10 ...i.e7 11.i.e7
tt:lge7 (Ll12...h4f±) 12.tt:lc5 ~g4 13.i.h3 ~h3 10.~g2 h5
14.~a4 c;t>b8 15.~b5 b6 16.a4± Raetsky &
Chetverik) 11.c;t>g2 i.e7: It should be noted that this position is
• 12.i.e7 tt:lge7! (12 ... ~e7 13.~d3± sometimes reached via the move order 7...i.h3
Biermann,K-Anhalt,A, Germany, 1992) 13.tt:lc5 8.0-0 i.g2 9.c;t>g2 h5 10.tt:lb3 0-0-0.
(13.h4 tt:lg6) 13... ~e8 (13 .. .'~~f5 14.'~~a4) 14.'~~b3 10.. .f6?! 11.ef6 CLlf6 12.~d3± De
b6 15.CLld3 tt:lg6 16.2::i:ad1 h4!?f± Henris; Smet,K-Rehfeld,R, corr., 1987.
• 12.Wfd2 h4 13.gh4!? (13.i.h4 i.h4 14.CLlh4 10...Wfe6?! 11.~d3 tt:le5!? 12.CLlbd4 ~f6

224
------------------------------------,
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ltJf3 ltJc6 5.g3 .ie6 6.~bd2 ~d7 7..ig2

13.iWe4 tLlf3 14.tLlf3 iWe7!? 15.iWe7 fJ.e7 16.;gad1 h4!?fi Henris.

16.tLle5!+ Kortchnoi,V-Mosionzhik,l, Leningrad, After 11.i.f4, which was played in
1969. Jeremias, D-Wiedermann, U, Lieme, 2010, I
recommend 11...h4!?, with counterplay.
11.e3 11.iWd31! h4! 12.gh4? iMfg4 13.'tfJh1
lLlb4 14:~d1 d3! 15.~g5 ~e7 16.lLla5? ~g5-+
11.h4: 17.hg5 de2 18.iMfe2 :9:h2! 19.'tfJh2 lLle7 0-1
a) 11 ... ~h6 (Huss,R-Brandt,Ch, Hessen, 1991) Gambini, P-Guidoni,M, corr., 1994.
12.'I&d3 lLlg4 13.fJ.f4 ~:9:ad1± Henris.
b) 11...'I&g4!1 (lL.lLlge7-f5, ...f6, ...:9:g8) 11.e3!? d312.h3!? (D)
12.'I&d3!? f6!? (12 ... lLlge7 13.fJ.g5) 13.ef6!? gf6
14.lLlh2!? iWe6 15.fJ.f4 lLlh6 16.fJ.h6 fJ.h6
17.:9:adH Henris.
c) 11 ...f6!1 12.ef6 (12.fJ.f4!? - Henris) 12...gf6
13.iWd3 (13.e3 d3a:o Henris) 13...lLlge7!?
(13...iWg4!? - Henris) 14.:9:d1 (14.e3!? 'l&g4
15.ed4 lLlf5 16.:9:e1 fJ.d6 17.:9:e4 iMfg6--t Henris)
as in Van Heirzeele,D-Piceu,T, Belgium, 2005.
Now after 14...'I&g4 Black has good counter
chances - Henris.
11.h3!1 is quite interesting. The idea
was shown to me by the late Eduard Gufeld
and is similar to the main game. White wants
to lock the kingside after 11...h4 12.g4. In the White is ready to avoid the opening of the
game Djoudi,A-Sarobe,R, corr., 2003, Black kingside by playing g4 after ... h4 from Black.
could not find adequate counterplay after 12.~bd4!1 gives Black good play after 12... h4

12 ...'I&e6 13.'I&d3 lLlh6 (13 ... lLle5 14.lLlbd4± 13.iMfd3 hg3 14.fg3!? (14.iMff5 iMff5 15.lLlf5 gh2a:o
Henris) 14.fJ.f4 lLlg4!? 15.lLlfd4!± (M5 ... lLld4 Henris) 14...iMfh3 15.'tfJf2 lLle5! 16.tLle5 (16.iMff5
16.lLld4 'l&b6 17:~f5 'tfJb8 18.lLlf3 lLlh6 19.fJ.h6 iMff5 17.tLlf5 tLlf3 18.~f3 :9:h2+ Henris) 16...iMfh2
:9:h6 20.:9:ad1± Henris) 1-0. 17.~f3 iMfh5 18.~g2 (18.tLlg4? g6!-+ Henris;
11.fJ.g5 fJ.e7 12.fJ.e7 (12:~d2 h4 13.fJ.h4 18.g4 iMfe5 19.iMff5 iMff5 20.tLlf5:j: Henris) 18...iMfh3!?
fJ.h4 14.lLlh4 lLle5t) 12...lLlge7! (12 .. :~e7 (18 ...iMfe5 19.:9:f7 tLlf6!? 20.iMff5 iMff5 21.tLlf5 ;gd1
13.iWd3±) 13.lLlc5 (13.h4 lLlg6) 13...iWe8 (21...lLlg4!?) 22.tLlh4!? fJ.c5 (22...fJ.d6!? 23.;gg7
(13 ...iMff5 14.iWa4) 14:~b3 b6 15.lLld3 lLlg6 fJ.g3) 23.;Gg7 fJ.e3 24.fJ.e3 :9:a1+ Henris) Yz- Yz

225
,-------_.
I
Chapter 6

Quiniou,J-Guidoni,M, carr., 1998. 24.1Wf31Wf3 25.~f3 Eld1 26.~f4;!; Henris.

12... h4 13.g4 f6!? 15.lLlfd4 ttJ h6 16.ttJc6

13.. .'IWe6 14.tLlbd4 We4 15.Wb3! (15.b3!? Wd5 16.~d3 tLlg4!oo M7.hg4?? Wg4 18.Wh2 id6
16.tLle6 We6 17.ib2;!;) 15...Wb3 16.ab3 tLld4 19.f4 Wg3 20.Wh1 Elhg8-+ Henris.
17.ed4 a6 18.EldH or 18.ig5!? ie7 19.Elad1 -
Henris. 16.. .'~c6 17.'~·f3 ~c4?!

14.ef6 gf6!? 17...~f3 18.Wf3 tLlf7 19.Wg2 tLle5 20.e5 f5!?

21.gf5 (21.f4!?) 21 ...Elg8 22.Wh1 tLlf3 23.tLld2
14...lLlf6 does not appear to provide full tLld2 24.id2 ie5 25.Elae1 ib6 26.Ele4;!; Henris.
equality:
15.lLlfd4 tLle5 (S15...tLld4?! 16.ed4! 18.~b7 c±>b7 19.1Lla5 c±>a6 20.ttJc4±
(16.tLld4 c5 17.tLlb3 We6 18.W1f3 tLle4 19.tLld2
tLld2 20.id2 Wc4!?oo) 16... ~e6 17.~f3 ~e4 White is much better and has all the chances
18.Eld1+) 16.c5!? ie5!? 17.tLle5 Wd5 18.f3 ~e5 to win. He is a pawn up and Black's pawns are
19.tLle6 ~d6 20.tLld8 Eld8~ or 20 ...tLle4 21.lLlf7 scattered and thus quite weak. The rest of
Wg3 22.Wh1 Wh3=. the game is just suffering for the second
15.lLlbd4 tLlg4!: player.
a) 16.lLlc6? ~c6 M7.hg4? d2!-+.
b) 16.hg4 ~g4 17.Wh1 tLld4 18.ed4 (18.lLld4?? 20.. J:~g8 21.c±>h1 f5 22.gf5 lLlf5
~h3 19.Wg1 Elh6 20.Wd3 Eld4-+) 18... Eld4! 23.i.d2 lLld6 24.lLld6 i.d6 25J:~g1
19.tLlg5 (19.tLld4?? Wh3 20.Wg1 id6 21.f4 :Sgf8 26.14 i.c5 27.c±>g2 :Sf6 28.c±>f3
ie5-+) 19... ~d7t. :Sb6 29.b3 i.a3 30.:Sg5 c±>b7 31.:Sa5
c) 16.~d3 tLlge5 17.We4 tLlf3 (17 ...Elh6 18.tLle5 ib2 32.:Sb1 i.f6 33.e4 i.d4 34.:Sh5
tLle5 19.~e5 Elg6 20.Wf3D Elf6 21.Wg2 Elg6=) :Sc6 35.:Sd1 :Sc2 36.a4 :Sb2 37.b4
18.tLlf3 (18.tLle6?? tLlg5-+) 18...id6 19.tLlg5!? as 38.:Sb5 c±>c8 39.:Sa5 :Sd6 40.e5
Elde8 20.~g4 ~g4 21.hg4 tLle5°o. :Sg6 41.:Sd5 i.a7 42.:Sd3 :Sa2 43.a5
15.id2!? tLle4 16.tLlbd4 ie5 17.ie3 c5 44.ie3 :Sg3 45.c±>e4 :Sa4 46.e6
Elhf8 18.~d3 tLle3 19.~e3D (19.be3?? Elf3-+) :Sb4 47.c±>f5 c±>c7 48.:Sd7 c±>c6
19... tLld4 20.ed4 id4 21.tLld4 ~d4 22.Elad1 49.:S1 d6 c±>b5 50.:Sb7 c±>a4 51.:Sb4
(22.Wd4 Eld4 23.b3 Eld2 24.a3;!; Eld3 25.b4 Elff3 c±>b4 52.id2
26.Elae1 Ela3 27.Ele7;!;) 22 ...Elf2 23.Elf2 ~e4 1-0

226
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6 5.g3 .te6 6.~bd2 'IWd7 7..tg2

Game 86 8... ~e7?! 9.a3 95!? (Baier,G-Grasso,P,

Gagunashvili,Merab (2599) corr., 1988) 10.b4 g4 11.b5 ltJa5 12.ltJe1±
Abbasov,Farid (2543) Henris.
Nakhchivan, 2011 8...f6!? 9.ef6 ltJf6 10.ltJg5!? ~g4!?
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.~f3 11.~c6 lMfc6 (11...bc6 12.lMfa4+ Henris) 12.ltJf7;t
~c6 5.g3 i.e6!? 6.CLlbd2 ~d7 Carlsen, Tor-Kover, W, carr., 2002.
7.i.g2 0-0-0 8.0-0 CLlge7?! (0)

9.b4!? ltJg6 (9 ... ltJb4 10.:gb1---;):

a) 10.b5!? ltJce5 11.ltJg5!? h5!? (11...~g4!? -
Henris) 12.ltJe6 ~e6= Ye Naung Win Myint-Al
Modiahki,M, Yangon, 1999.
b) 10.Wfa4, transposing to the main game,
seems best.
9.lLlg5!? ltJe5 10.ltJe6 Wfe6:
a) 11.lLle4!?:
• 11 ... lLl7c6!? 12.b3!? (Inkiov,V-Onkoud,A,
Poitou Charentes, 2003) 12...f6= Henris;
• 11 ...Wfc4 seems also possible: 12.~g5!? f6
Black mixes two systems, ... 0-0-0 and ... ltJge7. 13.:gc1 lMfb5!? 14.ltJf6!? gf6 (14 ... h6!? 15.a4!
But this is not good as we shall see. ~a5 (15... ~b4 16.ltJd5!) 16.~d2 ~b6
Apart from 8... h5, 8... ~h3 and 8... ltJge7, the 17.ltJe4!?;t) 15.~f6 ltJ5g6 (15 ...:gg8? 16.a4! lMfa5
main continuations for him after having castled 17.b4+-) 16.~h8 ltJh8 17.Wfc2 c6 18.lMfh7 ltJhg6 co
long, Black also has the following marginal Henris.
continuations: b) 11.a3!? ltJ7c6!? (11...h5!?) 12.b4 ltJc4!?
8 h6?! is very slow: 9.a3!? g5 10.b4 13.b5!? (13.ltJc4 lMfc4 14.~b2~ Henris)
g4!? (10 ~g7 11.~b2± Henris) 11.b5 ltJa5 13 ... ltJ6e5 14.ltJc4 lMfc4!? (14 ... ltJc4) 15.~f4;t f6
12.ltJe1 mb8?! (12 ...ltJc4?! 13.~a4 - Henris; 16.lMfd2 ~d6 17.:gfc1 ~a4 18.~e5 fe5 19.1Mfd3!±
12... ~c4!? 13.ltJc4 ltJc4 14.~a4!? ltJe5 15.~a7 ~a5 20.lMff5 mb8 21.lMfe4 ~b6 22.a4? (White
~b5 16.~f4+ Henris) 13.lMfa4 b6 14.ltJd3 ltJe7!? wins with 22.:gcb1! followed by a4-a5 - Henris)
15.ltJc5!? bc5 16.lMfa5± ltJg6? 17.~a6 22 ...a5?? (o22 ... ~b4;t Henris) 23.ba6 Wfa6
(~17 ... ~c8 18.~c6+-) 1-0 Bagaturov,G- 24.:gab1 +- b6 25.a5 d3 1-0 Onstad,P-Panuzzo,
Schmidt, Hara, Germany, 1999. J, email, 1995.

227
 Chapter 6

c) 11.~a4 gives also a small advantage for 10.b4

White.
9.lLJb3 looks enough for a small 1O.~b5!? is not dangerous for Black after
advantage: 9...tlJg6 10.ig5 ie7 11.ie7 iWe7 10...ih3:
12.iWc2 l::ld7 (12 ... tlJge5 is tactically refuted by a) 11.ih3 iWh3 12.tlJg5!? iWh5 13.tlJdf3
13.tlJe5 tlJe5 14.ib7! mb7 15.iWe4 - Henris) h6 14.tlJe4 a6!? 15.iWb3 tlJe5 16.if4 tlJf3 17.ef3
13.l::lfd1 l::lhd8 14.l::lacH Serralta,M-Havelka,G, tlJg6+ Gorozhanin,M-Glukhov,A, Tolyatti, 2012.
Brittany, 2001. b) 11.lt:le4 a6 12.iWb3 as in Figura,At-
Sturm,Ti, Dresden, 2008. And now 12... tlJg6=
Henris.

9...ih3?! 10.ih3 iWh3 (Portilho,G- 10... ~g6

Knol,E, corr., 1997) 11.b4!+ Henris.
9...lLJg6: 10...lLJe5 11.b5 tlJf3 12.tlJf3 tlJg6 13.l::ld1 ic5
a) 10.lLJb3 mb8: 14.ib2± Scheiblmaier,R-Babinetz,R, Austria,
• 11.ig5?! tlJce5! (11...ie7 12.ie7 (12.l::lfd1 2008.
tlJce5 13.iWd7 l::ld7 14.ie7 l::le7 15.tlJfd4±)
12.. :We7 13.l::lfd1±) 12.Wd7 tlJf3 13.if3 l::ldTi: 11.b5 lDce5 (D)
Henris;
• The simple plan 1U:!:d1!? is more effective:
11 ...ie7 12.ig5 ig5 13.tlJc5 iWe7 14.iWb5 ic8
15.tlJg5 tlJge5 16.f4 tlJg4 17.tlJge6 fe6 18.tlJb7
l::ld5 19.tlJc5 ma8 20.iWc6 mb8 21.cd5 a6 22.de6
ma7 23.l::ld4 1-0 Baltar Iglesias, D- Vazquez
Alvarez,An, Burgas, 2003.
b) 10.b4! is quite powerful:
• 10...ib4?! is far too dangerous: 11.l::lb1
id2?! 12.tlJd2! (threatening 13.l::lb7! mb7
14.Wb5) 12 tlJge5 13.f4!? (13.Wb5 b6 14.f4+-
Henris) 13 tlJg6 14.l::lb7 (14.iWb5 also wins)
14... tlJge7 15.iWa6 iWe8 16.l::lb6 md7 17.l::lc6 iWfB
18.l::lc7 1-0 Amarsson,H-Markkula,M, corr., 12.lDb3!?
1994;
• 10...mb8 transposes to the main game. 12.lLJe5?! tlJe5:

228
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ct:Jf3 ct:Jc6 5.g3 J.e6 6.tiJbd2 ~d7 7.J.g2

a) 13.f4?! d3!? (13 .. .'2Jg4!? 14.l2Jb3 d3!? (o17 ...l2Je5 18.l2Je6 We6 19..td4;!; Henris) as in
transposes) 14.e3 l2Jg4!?oo Sosulin,E@ De la Rocha Prieto, R-Caruso,Au, Cattolica,
Krupoder,S, Tula, 2001. 1994. Now White has a clear advantage after
b) 13..ib2!?: 18.l2Je6 We6 19.f4± Henris.
• 13...d3? 14.~e5 de2 15.E"Ue1 1Wd2 16.~e7!?
(16.~b7! ~d6 (16 rJ]b7? 17.1Wa6 rJ]bB 1B.b6!+-) 13.~fd4 id5?
17.~d6 i"ld6 (17 1Wd6 1B.~f3±) 18.~f3± Henris)
16 ... rJ]e7 17.1Wa7 ~b4? (17 ...i"lb8? 18.b6 rJ]e8 13...a6!? does not solve Black's problems:
19.~b7 i"lb7 20.1Wa8 i"lb8 21.1We6 rJ]d8 22.1We7 a) The tempting 14.ib7!? gives White
rJ]e8 23.1Wb8+- Henris; o17 ...i"ld7 18.1Wb7 rJ]d8 only a small advantage after 14... ~b5
19.1Wa8 rJ]e7 20.b6± Henris) 18.1Wb7 rJ]d6 (14 ... rJ]b7?? 15.Wa6 rJ]b8 16.ttla5+-) 15.ttlb5
19.e5!+- Van De Hurk,A-$choeber,P, Venlo, Wb5 (and not 15...rJ]b7?? 16.ct:Ja5 rJ]a8!?
1989; (16... rJ]bB 17.i"lb1+-) 17.ttlc7 We7 18.We4 rJ]b8
• 13... ~h3? 14,ctJb3 e5 (14... ~g2 15.~d4±) 19.i"lb1 rJ]c8 20.~e3+-) 16.Wb5 ab5 17.~g2;!;
15.be6 ttle6 16.~h3 Wh3 17.i"lad1± Henris; Henris.
• o13 ... ~e5 14.ttlb3 Wd6 15.i"laeH Henris. b) But White has the calm but strong
12.~b2 seems quite strong: 14.ie3!? ab5 (14 ... ~b5 15.ttlb5 Wb5 16.We4±)
a) 12...d3? 13.~d4! b6 14.~e5 de2 15.me1 (as 15.ct:Jb5!? (15.1Wa5!?) 15...Wb5 16.Wa7 rJ]e8
in the game Lauber,Ar-Manhardt, T, Medellin, 17.i"lad1 +- Henris.
1996) L115 ... ttle5 16.ttle5 Wd2 17.Wa6 ~e8
18.ttle6 rJ]a8 19.Wa7# Henris. 14.id5 ~d5 15.ie3!?
b) 12...c5 13.be6 ttle6!? (13 ...1We6!? 14.Wa5!±
Henris) 14.ltJg5!? ~f5 15.~e6 be6 16.~d4! 15J:!:d1 rJ]a8 16.i"ld2! wins more quickly -
(16.Wa5!?±) 16...1Wd4 (16 ... h6? 17.i"lab1 ~b1 Henris.
18.i"lb1+-) 17.i"lab1 ~b1 18.i"lb1 rJ]e7 19.ttlde4!+-
L1e3 - Henris. 15... ~e4!? 16.~e6!+· be6 17.~a7
i>e8 18.b6! i>d7
12...ie4!?
Black is also lost after 18...cb6 19.~b6 ~d6
12...l2Jf3 13.~f3 ttle5 14.i"ld 1!? ~e4!? 20.ct:Ja5+- Henris.
15.i"ld4 ttlf3 16.ef3 ~d5 17.~f4± Henris.
12...l2Jc4 13.l2Jfd4 l2Jb6 14.1Wa5 ttld5?! 19.9ad1 id6 20.be7 i>e6 21.ed8~
(14"'ttle5 15.i"ld1 ~d6 16.~f4 l2Jee4 17.Wc3+ gd822.ig5
Henris) 15.e4 l2Jb6 16.i"ld1 ~d6 17.~e3!? We8?! 1-0

229
 Chapter 6

Game 87 13.ctJd2 ctJge5 14.ctJe6 1Mfe6+! (14 .. .fe6 15.ct:Je4

Zimmerman,Yuri (2445) ~e7 16.c5±) - Raetsky & Chetverik.
Chetverik,Maxim (2375) c2) 9.0-0 ih3:
Harkany, 1996 • 10.ih3 ~h3 11.ct:Je4 h6!?oo Binder,Kl-
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.tLlf3 Leisebein,P, corr., 2002;
tLlc6 5.g3 ie6!? 6.~bd2 Wfd7 • 10.llJe4 ig2 11.mg2 h6!? 12.Ei:d1 g5~
7.ig2 0-0-0 8.a3!? (0) Hort,W-Leisebein,P, corr., 2002;
• 10J3d1 ig2 11.mg2 g5!~ Hummel,Di-
Olzem,L, Germany, 1999.

8... tLlge7!?

Black aims at regaining the e5-pawn. But this

White doesn't castle short early in the opening
and prefers to expand on the queenside first.
The alternative 8.~b3, defending the pawn
indirectly, deserves also attention:
a) 8...ih3? 9.e6! ie6 10.ltJe5 ~d6
11.ct:Jc6 bc6 12.~a4± Piscicelli,D-Damiano,M,
Mar del Plata, 2002.
b) 8...llJge7 9.ct:Jg5;!; Ostenstad,B-Hoen,
R, Oslo, 1984.
c) 8...ie7!?:
c1) 9.h4 ct:Jh6 Ii-Ii Portisch,F-Chetverik,M,
Zalakaros, 1994. The game could have continued
with 10.ct:Jg5 ct:Jg4 (10 ...if5 11.a3! d3 12.e3 f6
13.ef6 gf6 14.ct:Jh3;!;) 11.ct:Jdf3 ib4 12.id2 id2
idea does not seem to suffice.
8...ih3 9.ih3 (9.0-0 transposes to the
line 7...0-0-0 8.0-0 ih3 9.a3, ---+ game 84)
9 ~h3 10.b4 is seen under the move order
7 ih3 8.ih3 ~h3 9.a3 0-0-0 10.b4, ---+ game 98.
8 h5!? 9.b4 f6 (Raetsky and Chetverik
suggest 9 h4!?, bearing in mind the position of
the white king in the centre) 10.ef6 gf6 11.h4
ct:Jh6 12.~a4 mb8 13.b5 ct:Je5 14.ct:Je5 fe5 15.ct:Jb3
ct:Jg4 16.0-0 ~f7 17.ct:Ja5+ ic8 18.ig5 ct:Jf6?
19.ct:Jb7!+- Benjamin,Ja-Coll,F, corr., 1987.
9.b4
9.~a4:
a) 9...ih3? (Saulyte,G-Svensson,Hann, Budva,
2003) 10.ih3! ~h3 11.b4+ Henris.
b) 9...cj;>b8:
• 10.llJb3?! ct:Jg6 11.0-0 ct:Jce5 12.~d7 ct:Jf3
13.if3 Ei:d7 14.Ei:d1 c5= Luksza,A-Stelting,T,
Hamburg, 1985;

230
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6 5.g3 .ie6 6.tLlbd2 ~d7 7..ig2

• 010.b4! ctJg6 transposes to the main game.
9.lLlg5!? ctJe5 10.ctJe6 iWe6
(11.iWb3 c6 12.0-0) 11...ctJc4!? 12.ctJc4 iWc4 13.if4
ttJc6 14.Elc1 iWb5 15.a4 iWb6 16.iWd3iii Morales
Camacho,J-Gonzalez,G, Gran Canaria, 1989.
9... ttJg610.Wfa4!
10.ib2!?:
a) 10...lLlce5? 11.CtJd4 (011.id4±
11...c5? (011 ...ih3 12.ih3 iWh3
Henris) 12.bc5!? (012.ttJe6 iWe6 13.ic3 liJd3
(13... liJc4 14.Wa4 liJd2 15.id2±) 14.\iJf1 Wf5
15.f4± Henris) 12...ih3? (12 ...ic5 13.liJe6 We6
14.Wb3± Henris) 13.c6! bc6 (13 ...liJc6 14.ih3
Wh3 15.ctJc6 bc6 16.Wa4+- Henris) 14.ih3 Wh3
15.Wa4+- Howel!-Napier,W, corr., 1933.
b) 10 \iJb8?! 11.Wa4 is the main game.
c) 10 ttJge5:
• 11.Wa4?! liJc4 12.liJc4 ic4 13.b5 (13.0-0!?
ie2!? 14.Elfe1 iii Henris) 13...We6D
(14.0-0?! ib3 15.ih3 ia4 16.ie6 fe6 17.bc6
ic6 18.liJd4 id7+ Henris) 14...Wh3 15.Wc4 liJa5
16.Wa4 b6 17.0-0-0?! (17.id4 \iJb8:j:) 17...ic5
18.id4?! (18.liJd4 id4!? 19.id4 Wh5:j: Henris)
18...We6+ 0-1 Borisov,V-Lybin,D, corr., 1990;
• 11.b5?! liJf3 12.ctJf3 liJa5°o Henris;
.011.0-0 liJc412.liJc4 ic4 13.Elc1!?± Henris.
10.ttJg5 liJce5 11.liJe6 We6 12.Wb3;!;
Vasic,M-Stojanovic,A, Obrenovac, 2002.
10.h4!?, as in Giulian,P-Chandler,C,
corr., 1984, is also quite pleasant for White.
10... ~b8 11.~b2 ttJce5
11 ...lLlge5? 12.b5 ctJf3 13.ctJf3 ctJe7 14.id4+
11.0-0!? Schiendorfer,E-Herath,N, Vung Tau, 2008.
12.Wfd7 ~d7
12...liJf3 13.liJf3 Eld7 14.liJd4 ic4 15.Elc1±.
13.c5
Henris) Also good is 13.ttJd4 liJc4 14.liJc4 ic4 15.Elc1±
13.Wa4!?;!; Timoscenko,G-Babinetz,R, Wattens, 1994.
13... ~d5 14.ttJe5
14J~d1!? ie7 15.liJe5!? liJe5 16.id5 Eld5
17.liJb3± Nagley,T-Cehajic,M, Internet, 2003.
14... ~e5 15.~d5 ~d5 16.~b3 d3
17.~d1 ttJc418..ic1 .ie7 19.~d3±
14.ih3! The rest of the game is quite depressing for Black.
19... ~hd8 20.~d5 ~d5 21.f4 b6
22.cb6 cb6 23.ttJd2 ttJe3 24.~f2
~c2 25.ttJc4 .if6 26.~f3 ~d4
27.~e4 ~d7 28.e3 ttJb5 29.~e5
ie5 30.fe5 ttJc3 31.~f3 ~a4 32.~f1
b5 33.e4 ~b6 34.if4 ~b7 35.~c1
~d3 36.~g4 ttJc4 37.a4 a6 38.ab5
ab5 39.~f1 ~d7 40.h4 ~b6 41.~f5
~b7 42.e6 g6 43.~f6 fe6 44.~e6
~c6 45.~a1 ~d4 46.e5 ~b7 47.~f7
~d7 48.~e8 ~b6 49.e6 ~d4 50.e7
1-0

231
 Chapter 6
•

Game 88 (o11 ...ctJh4! 12.gh4 ~g4 13.~h1 ~d4 14.ctJf3

Meduna,Eduard (2405) ~e4 15.i.e3 0-0-01il Henris) 12.ctJc6 ctJc6
Mihaljcisin, Mihajlo (2350) 13.ctJf3± Graemer,G-Grahn,Ju, Germany, 1993.
Prague, 1980 9...h5!? 10.h4!? (10.ctJb3!?, 10.~d1!?
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.c!Llf3 and 10.ctJg5!? deserve attention - Henris)
lLlc6 5.g3 i.e6!? 6.c!Llbd2 ~d7 10...i.h3?! (10...ctJge5 11.ctJe5 ctJe5 12.~d7 i.d7
7.i.g2 lLlge7?! (0) 13.i.b7 ~b8 14.i.g2;!; Henris) as in
Andersen,Ran-Baudin,F, Germany, 1989. Now
White obtains a clear advantage after 11.i.h3
: A ~h3 12.ctJb3 0-0-0 13.i.g5 ~d7 14.~ad1± Henris.
_ ... ~

10.c!Llb3

The main continuation in the position. White's

plan is direct and simple. He's going to attack
the d4-pawn one more time with ~d1.

10J3d1 is similar:
a) 10...0-0 11.ctJb3 transposes to the main
game.
b) 10..J3d8 (Mihalik,Ma-Mikulas, D, Slovakia,
The knight is going to g6 to attack the e5- 1997) 11.ctJb3;!; Henris.
pawn. Black also keeps the option of castling c) 10...h5!? (Tuominen,R-Kosonen,E, Tampere,
short or long. 1992) 11.ctJb3! . Henris.
d) 10...i.h3 11.i.h3!? (11.ctJb3 - Henris) 11 ... ~h3
8.0-0 lLlg6 9.~a4 12.ctJd4 ctJge5 13.ctJ2f3± Gacso,T-Kovacs,Gy,
Hungary, 2003.
White scores quite well with this move. The enterprising 10.b4!? is interesting:
a) 10...0-0 11.b5 ctJce5 12.ctJe5 ctJe5 13.i.b7
9...i.e7 ~ab8 14.i.g2;!; Hera,I-Praszak,M, Wroclaw, 2011.
b) 10... ~b4!? 11.~d7 i.d7 12.ctJd4;!;
The most logical. The following continuations Cohrs,Christo-Kleinschroth, R, Kassel, 1996.
have also been played: c) 10... ~ce5!? 11.~d7 i.d7 12.b5!? 0-0-0
9...i.h3? 10.i.h3 ~h3 11.ctJd4? 13.ctJd4;!; Henris.
(11.ctJb3! 0-0-0 12.i.g5± Henris) 11...ctJge5? d) 10...ib4!? is worth considering - Henris.

232
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.tLlf3 tLlc6 5.g3 .te6 6.~bd2 ~d7 7..tg2

10...0-0 18.b4+ Engel,M-Gappel,R, corr., 1989) 17.ed3

10...0-0-0?! is far too dangerous: 11.ttJfd4!?
(the positional 11.ig5 and 11.:gd 1!? are also
good - Henris) 11...ttJd4 12.\Wa7! e6 13.ie3
ttJb3?? (o13 ...ttJe2 14.~h1 VfJe7 15.:gfe1 ttJg3!?
16.hg3;t Raetsky & Chetverik) 14.ib6!+· \We7
15.ie7 1-0 Jaracz,P-Krahe,F, Bad Wiessee, 2007.
ig4 (17 ...e6 18.ttJa5!? - Henris) 18.:ge1 :gfe8
19.:ge3± Engel,M-Hinze,H, corr., 1989.
16...i.c417.:gac1±
White has much the better endgame.
17...c5

17...ia6 18.b4 b6 (Braeuning,R-Lach,B, Hanover,

11 ...E:fd8 12.ig5: 1991) 19.f4! liJg6 (19 ... ttJg4 20.ttJf5) 20.~f2±.
a) 12...ig4 13.ie7 liJge7 (13 ...\We7
14.ttJfd4± Henris) 14.ttJe5 \We8 (Jongsma,A-
Smederevac,P, Beverwijk, 1966) 15.:gd2!± Henris.
b) 12...ig5 13.ttJg5 ttJge5 (Carlsen, 18...E:c7 19.f4 ie6 (19 ...ie2 20.fe5 id1
Christian A-Storgaard,F, corr., 2001) 14.ttJe5 21.:gd1 +-) 20.ttJd6±.
VfJe8 15.f4 liJg4 16.ttJee6 fe6 17.ie6 be6
18.VfJe6± Henris.

12.i.g5 ~ge5 19...ia220.b4.

12...ig5!? 13.liJg5 ttJge5 14.ttJe5 \We8 15.ttJge6!? 20.~d6 .ia2 21.~b7 c4 22.~c5
(15.f4 ttJg4 16.\Wb5± Henris) 15...fe6 16.f4!?
(16.\Wb5!?± Henris) 16...ttJg4. And now instead of 22.:aa1.
17.ttJb7? \Wb7 18.\We6 \We6 19.ie6 ttJe3 20.:gd3
(Claverie,C·Groenez,J, Val Thorens, 2002), 22...:ge7 23.14 :gc8??
which should have been answered with 20 ... ttJe2
21.:gad1 ttJb4;, White has 17.\Wb5± Henris. 23...liJg4;!;.

13.~e5 ~e5 14.VNd7 :gd7 15.i.e7 24.fe5

:ge7 16.~d4
b.24 ...:ge5 25.b4+-.
Also possible is 16.c5 d3 (16 ... b3 17.ab3 ttJd7 1-0

233
 ,
Chapter 6

Game 89 9... h5!? (Marshall,F-Kostic,Bo, corr.,

Byrne, Robert 1911) 10.b4 h4 11.1Mfa4!? hg3 12.fg3 ie7
,
Kostic,Boris (12 ...ih3 13.ih3 1Mfh3 14.Elf2) 13.ib2 (13.b5!?
"

USA, 1950 ltJce5 14.ltJe5 ltJe5 15.ib7 is riskier but worth

I'.1
'I 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.~f3 considering) 13...ih3 14.ih3 ~h3 15.m2;!;
I
,
•
~c6 5.g3 .ie6!? 6.~bd2 VNd7 Henris; 10.ltJg5!? also gives White a tangible
7..ig2 ~ge7?! 8.0-0 ~g6 9.a3 (D)
"

I advantage thanks to the two bishops - Henris.

9...0-0-0!?:
I, !.
. , a} 10.1Mfa4 allows an exchange of queens with
,

approximate equality: 10...<;f;b8 11.b4 (11.Eld1

ltJce5 12.1Mfd7 Eld7 13.b3 f6 14.h3 ie7 15.ltJe1
Elhd8 16.f4 ltJf7 17.ltJdf3 h5 18.e4 de3 19.Eld7
Eld7 20.ie3 ltJh6 21.ltJd4 ltJf5 22.ltJf5 if5=
Asgeirsson,H-RaetskY,A, Reykjavik, 1996)
11...ltJce5 12.~d7 Eld7 13.c5 d3!? (if 13...ltJf3
I I
14.ltJf3 ic4, as in Lehmann,Z-Reschun,S, Halle,
1995, then 15.Eld1± Henris).
b} 10.b4ltJce5 (10 ... ltJge5? 11.b5):
• White is behind in development after
11.ltJe5?! ltJe5 12.~c2!? (12.c5 ih3 13.ih3
The move 9.a3 is frequently encountered but it ~h3 14.ltJf3 ltJf3 15.ef3 ie7 16.Ele1 if6=)
I'
I
, is certainly less energetic than 9.~a4. Here too 12 ...d3! 13.ed3 ltJd3?! (13...1Mfd3 14.~a4;
transpositions occur often with this move as it o13 ...<;f;b8; o13 ... h5!?) 14.ltJb3?! (Lilienthal,A-
can also be played earlier or later. Tartakower,S, Paris, 1933) 14...if5 15.ltJa5
(15.ie3 ltJe1 16.1Mfb2 ltJg2 17.Elfd1 (17.<;f;g2
9....ie7 W73) 17 id6 18.<;f;g2 ih3---t} 15...c6 16.1Mfb3
(bob5) 16 1Mfc7 17.ie3 a6 18.1Mfc3 CXl ;
9.. J':lb8?! 10.~a4 a6 11.b4 ltJge5? • 11.ib2 h5 12.id4 h4 13.1Mfc2 hg3 14.fg3;t
(11 ... d3 12.ed3 ltJce5 13.1Mfd7 ltJd7 (13... <;f;d7 (and not 14.hg3? ltJf3 15.ltJf3 ih3!---t) - Henris;
14.ltJe5 ltJe5 15.f4 ltJd3 16.f5+-) 14.Ele1± Henris} .11.c5!?
12.b5 ltJf3 13.ltJf3± ltJa7? 14.ltJe5 1Mfd6!?
15.if4+- g5 16.b6 ltJb5 17.bc7 gf4 18.cb81Mf 1Mfb8 10.b4 ~d8
19.cb5 1Mfe5 20.ba6 b5 21.1Mfa5 1-0 Bragin,A-
Chetverik,M, Voronesch, 1994. Black's king is unsafe after 1O...O-O-O?!:

234
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6 5.g3 .1e6 6.~bd2 'lWd7 7..1g2

a) 11 ..ib2 .ih3!? (11 ... CLlge5 12.b5; • 13...cS! 14.be6 CLle6= Henris.
11 ... CLlee5 12.CLld4 CLle4 13.CLle4 .ie4 14.~e2, c) 13.CLld4:
with advantage for White in both cases - Henris) • 13...tLlc4?! 14.CLle4 ie4 15.~a4 .id5!? (15....ie2
12.b5? (12.~a4!?±) 12... CLlee5 13.~a4 .ig2 16.CLle2 ~d2 17.ie3!? ~e2 18.:i'1fe1 ~d3 19.:i'1e3
14.<;t>g2 CLlf3 15.ef3 .ie5 16.:i'1ad1 ~f5 17.CLlb3? ~d6 20.ib7± Henris) 16.e4 ie6 17.:i'1ad1±
(17.CLle4) 17...:i'1d6! 18.CLld2 CLlf4! 19.9f4 :i'1h6 0-1 Lange,H-Smederevac,P, Beverwijk, 1963;
Saemisch,F-Medina-Garcia,A, Madrid, 1943. • 13...ih3 14.We2!? (14.ib7!? - Henris)
b) 11.Wa4 <;t>b8: 14...lWg4?! (14 ...ig2 15.<;t>g2;1; Henris) 15.ih3
• 12J%d1 h5 13.h4 .ih3 co Raetsky & Chetverik; IWh3 16.We4!? (16.liJ4f3;1; Henris) 16...id6!?
• 12.bS liJee5 13..ib2 e5 (13... CLlf3 14.CLlf3 .if6 (16 ...ig5 17.e3;1; Henris) 17.e3!? (17.Wb7? e6 co
-15.:i'1fd1 ± Spitaler,J-Fantini,M, Feffernitz, Henris; 17.Wg2;1; Henris) 17...:i'1d7!? 18.Wg2 Wh5
2000) 14.be6 liJe6 15.:i'1ab1 .if5 (Kauft,M- 19.ie3 e5?! 20.be6 liJe6 21.liJ2f3?! (21.liJe6 be6
Ludden,G, Netherlands, 1987) 16..ia1!? .ib1 22.We6± Henris) 21...:i'1e8 22.:i'1ab1 Y2-Y2
17.:i'1b1 <;t>a8 18.CLld4! liJd4 19..ib7 IWb7 20.:i'1b7 Jelling,E-Rewitz,P, Copenhagen, 1995.
<;t>b7 21 ..id4 :i'1d4 22.liJb3 :i'1d1 23.<;t>g2 <;t>e8 12.Wa4 is possible too and is the
24.tt:le5 .ie5 25.lWd 1 :i'1d8 26.lWa4 :i'1d7 27.lWe6 subject of next game.
:i'1e7 28.lWa8 <;t>d7 29.lWg8±. Black has three
pieces for the queen but White is about to 12...i.h3
create some dangerous passed pawns - Henris.
12...tLlgeS?:
11.i.b2 0-0 12J~c1 a) 13.tLleS? CLle5 14.b5 e5!?+ (14...ih3!+) 15.lWa4
a6 16.f4 liJe4 17.CLle4 ab5 18.liJe5 ba4 19.1iJd7
Also good for White is 12.bS!? liJee5: :i'1d7 0-1 O'Hanlon,J-Kostic,Bo, Nice, 1930.
a) 13.Wa4?! e5! (13 ... d3? 14.CLle5 liJe5 15.e3 b) 13.bS! liJf3 14.ct:Jf3liJa5 15.lWa4±.
.if6 16..ib7±) - Henris. 12...tLlceS 13.ct:Jd4 ih3 14.lWb3 ig2
b) 13.Wb3?!: 15.<;t>g2 Wg4 16.ct:J2f3 if6 17.<;t>h1 IWh3 18.ct:Jg1
• 13...ih3?! 14..id4;1; liJf3 15.CLlf3 liJf4 16.ih3 IWh5 19.f3 :i'1fe8 20.:i'1ed1;1; Hansen,Ca-Agergaard,
liJh3 (16 ...liJe2?! 17.<;t>g2 liJd4 18.We3 liJe2 L, Arhus, 1994.
19.1We4 IWd3 20.~e7 liJa1 21.:i'1a1 ± Henris)
17.<;t>g2 IWg4 18.e3± Jakobsen,P-Rewitz,P, 13.c!Llb3
Denmark, 1991;
• 13...d3!? 14.:i'1fe1 de2 15.:i'1e2 liJf3 16.CLlf3 13.bS?! is too early: 13... ct:Jee5 14.liJd4!? liJf4!?
IWd3 17.~d3 :i'1d3 18.liJd4 .ie4 (18...ig4 15..ih3 IWh3 16.gf4 ct:Jg4 17.ct:J2f3 ie5 18.<;t>h1
19.:i'1e4;1;) 19.:i'1e1 :i'1d4 20.:i'1e7;!; Henris; :i'1d6 19.1We1? (19.lWd3 id4 20..id4 :i'1h6+)

235
 Chapter 6

,
I

19....id4 20 ..id4 ttJh2 21.ttJg5 ~h5 22.'t~k3 ttJf3 The critical position for this line.
23.<j;>g2 ~g4 0-1 Andriessen,W-Smederevac,P,
Zwolle, 1962. 18.bc5?!

13... ~g2
, ,
White's play can be improved. White keeps a
,"j
I '
I'
small but lasting advantage as the following
13... ~g4!?: little known game shows after the superior
a) 14.'\Wd2?! l2lce5 15.l2le5 l2le5 16.f3 18.fe5!?N: 18... ~e4!? (18 ...cd4 19.:!'1f4 Wg6
'Wh5 17.l2ld4 cS 18.bc5 .ie6 19.e3 l2lc4 20.~e2 20.:!'1d4 - Henris) 19.:!'1f3 cd4 20.'Wd3!? 'We5
l2lb2 21.~b2 !c5 22.~b7 !d4 %- % Holst,A- 21.:!'1d 1 'We6!? (21 ...!f6?! is weaker because of
Rewitz,P, Arhus, 1991. 22.e3+ Henris) 22.!d4 a5? 23.cS!? ab4 24.ab4
b) 14.!h3 ~h3 15.l2lbd4 l2ld4 16.!d4 b6!? 25.cb6 !b4 26.e3 !as 27.b7 'Wa2 28.~g1
c5 17.bc5 !c5 18.e3± Henris. !c7 29.E1fS !b8 30.We4 :!'1fe8 31.Wg4 g6
32.:!'1c5!? (32.:!'1df1 !+-) 32 ...Wb3 33.Wf3 We6?!
14.c;!;>g2 Wfg4 15.~bd4 ~d4 34.:!'1dc1 1-0 (uno,T-Keith,D, Erfurt, 1989.

15...l2lce5 16.l2le5 l2le5 17.e3! is also better for 18... ~c5 19.e3!?
White: 17... ~g6 18.~e2 c5 19.bc5 l2ld3
(19 ...!cS!?) 20.:!'kd1 l2lc5 21.~f3± Euwe,M- After 19.fe5 'We4 20. ~h3 !d4 21.:!'1f4, Black has
Kostic,Bo, Beverwijk, 1952. to sacrifice his queen for two rooks. But then
play would be unclear after 21 ...Wf4 22.gf4
16.~d4 ~e5 17.14!? c5 (D) !b2 23.Wc2 !c1 24.'Wc1 :!'1c8.

19...Wfd1 20,!!fd1 ~g4 21 '!!d3 ~e3

22'!!e3 ~d4 23.~d4 ~d4 24.~e7
~d2 25.c;!;>h3 f5 26.~ce1

26J':;:b7?? :!'1f6-+.

26 ... ~f7
,

,I
Or 26.. J:'i:f6 27.:!'1e8 :!'1f8 28.:!'18e7 %- % Teipelke,
I'
H-Lach,B corr., 1988.
Y2-Y2

236
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6 5.g3 .le6 6.~bd2 %Vd7 7.i.g2

Game 90 Wfe7 17.cS!± Spielmann,Ru-Kostic,Bo, Bled, 1931.

Burn,Amos b) 13.bS tUceS 14.tUd4!? ibh3 15.1"i:ad1 ibg2 16.mg2
Marshall, Frank Wfg4 (Vidmar,M-Kostic,Bo, corr., 1923) 17.f4+.
Ostend, 1905
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4)iJf3 13.b5 (D)
llJc6 5.g3 .le6!? 6.llJbd2 YlVd7
7..lg2 llJge7?! 8.0-0 ttJg6 9.a3 i.e7
10.b4 gd8 11 ..lb2 0-0 12.YlVa4!? (D)

13J:!ad1? gives Black a lot of play after

13...ibg2 14.\iJg2 iWg4! 15.bS ttJceS 16.ttJe5 ttJe5
17.ttJf3 ttJg6 18.Wfa7? (18.\iJh1 ibcs+; 18.1"i:d4
The game position was reached by the move 1"i:d4 19.ttJd4 ttJf4 20.\iJh1 ttJe2 21.Wfd1 ibf6
order S.g3 ibg4 6.ibg2 ttJge7 7.0-0 iWd7 8.ttJbd2 22.1"i:e1 ibd4 23.iWe2 iWe2 24.1"i:e2 ibb2 25.1"i:b2=
ttJg6 9.iWa4 ibe7 10.a3 0-0 11.b41"i:ad8 12.ibb2. Henris) 18... ttJf4 19.\iJh1 d3! 0-1 Joksic,S-Bucan,
Du, Vrnjacka Banja, 1970.
12....lh3 13.ibh3!? iWh3 14.bS ttJceS:
a) 1s.id4 1"i:d4!? (M6.ttJd4 ttJg4 17.ttJ4f3
The other moves are too slow: (17.lLl2f3? ibc5!-+) 17... ttJh4! 18.gh4 ibd6
12...lLlgeS? 13.bS ttJf3 14.lLlf3 lLlb8 19.\iJh1 ttJh2 20.\iJg1 ttJf3 21.ttJf3 iWg4= Henris)
1S.ttJd4± Knol,Wol-Hummel,J, Groningen, 2001. Y2-Y2 Ehrnrooth,J-Penoyer,F, corr., 1987.
12...d3?! 13.ed3 iWd3 (Lathela,S- b) 1S.Wla7!? ttJg4:
Lipecki,A, Internet, 2003) 14.1"i:fe1± Henris. • 16.id4? lLlh4! 17.gh4 ibd6 18.mh1 (18.e3
12...b6?! : ibh2 19.\iJh1 ibd6 20.mg1 c5!-+) 18...ttJh2
a) 13J~ac1 as 14.bS ttJceS 1s.ibd4 ibf6 16.1"i:fd1 19.mg1 ttJg4-+;

237
~------------------------- _ _,,",2_ - ,

Chapter 6

• 16J~fd1?! d3!+; 21.Elad1; 20 ...Wc4?! 21.Wb7) 21.if4 Elf4 22.Wb7

• 16J'Ue1 b6!? 17.ct:Jf1 (17.Wc7?? id6-+ LL.ct:Jh4) Elf6 (22 ...Elc4? 23.Elfd1±; 22 ...Wg6 23.mh1 Wff5
17...ic5 18.Wc7!? (18.Wa4? d3! 19.e3 ct:Jf4! 20.ef4 24.lLlg1;1;) 23.lLlg1Wfc4 24.Elac1;1; Henris.
(20.gf4 Wf3-+) 20 if2 21.'\t>h1 ie1 22.Ele1 d2
23.Eld1 Elde8-+) 18 ct:Jf6!?= lL.Elc8 - Henris. 18...f4?!

13...ig2!? 18..J!de8? 19.Eld4?! (19.h3Wfe4 20.Eld4

Wfe6 21.Wfa7± Henris) 19...f4 20.c5! Wff5 21.Wc4
13...lDce514.id4: '\t>h8 (as in Hromadka,K-Kostic,Bo, Trencianske
a) 14...lDf4? has been played several Teplice, 1928 and also Pirc,Vasj-Kostic,Bo,
times, but it's a mistake: Ljubljana, 1947) 22.ic1 Wfc5 23.gf4;1; Henris.
• 15.ie5?! lLlg2 co ; o18.. J~ld1! 19.Eld1 f4 20.h3 Wfe6 21.gf4
• 15.lDe5?! lLle2 16.'\t>h1 ig2 17.'\t>g2 Wfd4 (21.if4? Elf4 22.gf4 ttJf4) 21 ...ttJf4 (21 ...Elf4!?)
18.ct:Jef3 Wfg4 (18 ...Wfc5? 19.Elae1± Abellan 22.if4 Elf4 23J%d4 (23.Wfa7!? Wfe2 24.We3 Wfe3
Ruiz,M-Ecenarro Antonana,J, corr., 1980) 25.fe3 Elc4=) 23 ...Wfg6 24.'\t>f1 Eld4 25.ttJd4 Wfb1
19.Wfa7 (19.Elae1 lLlf4 20.'\t>h1 lLle6 21.Wfa7 b6~) 26.'\t>g2Wfg6= Henris.
19...lLlf4 20.'\t>h1 lLld3 21.Wfb7 ic5 22.<;!{g2
(22.Wfe4? f5!) 22 ... ct:Jf4= Henris; 19J~d8 id8 20.c5 h5?
• 15.ih3!? Wfh3 16.gf4 lLlg4 17.c5!? Eld5
(Rabar,B-Smederevac,P, Novi Sad, 1955), and 20...lDh4!? 21.'\t>g1 Wh3!? (21 ...ct:Jf3?! 22.ef3 Wf3
Black's attack is easily repulsed after the 23.if4±) 22.gh4 fe3 23.Wb3 '\t>h8 24.We3;1; Henris.
simple 18J'lfd1 +- Henris.
b) o14...lDf3 15.lLlf3 ig2 16.'\t>g2 Wfg4 21.ic1?!
17.ie3 transposes to the main game - Henris.
21.YNb3! <;!{h8 22.h3 Wff5 23.gf4 lLlf4 24.if4 Wff4
14.@g2 ~ce5 15.id4 llJf3 16.~f3 25.Eld1 ± Henris.
YMg4 17.ie3 f5!?
21 ...ie7!? 22.YMe4 fg3 23.YMd5 @h7
17...Wfe4?! (Bodrogi,L-Kadas,G, Nyiregyhaza, 24.fg3 ~f5?!
2004) 18J'lfd1± Henris.
24...lDh4! 25.'\t>h1 ttJf3 26.ef3 (26.Elf3 Eld8
18.~ad1!? 27.Wfb3Wfe4 co ) 26 ...Wff5 27.Wfb7!? ic5 co Henris.

18.YNa7 f4 19.h3 Wfe6 20.gf4 ct:Jf4 (20 ...We4?! 25.YMf5!?

238
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.lDf3 lDc6 5.g3 .ie6 6.lDbd2\Wd7 7..ig2

25.\Wd3 h4? Henris. Game 91

Hart,Vlastimil (2605)
25... ~f5 26.ttJg5 ~g5 27.i,g5 i,g5 Gasic,Bazidar (2330)
28JU5 @h6 29.~d5 llJf8 30.h4 .if6 Sarajevo, 1972
31.e4 g6!? 32.a4 @g7 33.a5 ttJe6?! 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3
ttJc6 5.g3 te6!? 6.llJbd2 ~d7
33...<;t>f7 34.b6 cb6 (34 ...ab6? 35.c6!+-) 35.a6!? 7.i.g2 ttJge7?! 8.0-0 ttJg6 (0)
(:535.ab6 ab6 36.cb6 <;t>e7) 35...ba6 36.c6 t21e6
37.c7 (37.:8:d7 ~e8 38.:8:d6 ~e7 39.:8:d7=) 37...t21c7
38.:8:d7 ~e6 39.:8:c7 ~d6 40.:8:a7 a5'" Henris.

34.b6!? cb6 35.~d7 @f8 36.cb6?

White misses the chance to take the advantage

with the obvious 36.c6! bc6 37.a6± Henris.

36...ab6 37 .~d6

37.ab6 ltJc5 - Henris.

37...@f7 38.~d7 8...ltJg6 is very natural and the most frequently

played move.
38J3b6 ltJd8= Henris. But 8....ih3, played in a few games, should also
be considered:
38....ie7 39.~b7?! a) 9.e6?! (Black has not castle long, so
this move is out of place here) 9....ie6 10.ltJg5
39.ab6 ltJc5 40.:8:c7 ~e6= Henris. .if5!?= Nagni,M-Palmizi,A, corr., 1994.
b) 9.lLlb3 .ig2 10.~g2 :8:d8 (10 ...0-0-0
39... ba5; 40.~a7 llJc5 41.~a5 llJe4 11.ltJc5 ~f5 12.~b3 (12.~a4!?) 12 ... b6 13.ltJd3
42.'it>f3 llJd2 43.@g2 llJc4 44.~a6 t21g6 14.a4± Henris) 11.ltJc5 ~c8 12.t21d3±
id6 45.@h3 @e6 46.g4 hg4 47.@g4 Dobrov, V-Elfert,A, St Petersburg, 2003.
@f6 48.@h3 @e6 49.@g4 @f7 50.h5 I shall look here at the alternatives to the main
llJe5 51.@h3 1e7 52.hg6llJg6 53.~g6 two continuations 9.~a4 and 9.a3 after
8...ltJg6.

239
,,
,

Chapter 6

9.lLlg5!? ttJf3 (14,..ttJc4? 15.~c6 bc6 16.!g5+-) 15.c;t>h1

\Wf5 CXl Bellmann,He-Benz,An, corr., 1997;
White wants to secure a small but stable • 11...~e6!? 12.a3 (12.~d5 \Wh3 13.CI:lf3!
-
advantage thanks to the two bishops. Kasimdzhanov) 12... h5 13.ttJf3 ttJf31?
• •

He also has the following interesting moves at (13,..CI:lc4?! 14.liJg5± Kasimdzhanov; 13...Wc4!?
his disposal: 14.\Wc4 CI:lc4 15.CI:lg5 ttJd6 16.~d1 f6!? 17.CI:le6
9.~b3!? leads to difficult problems to ~e8" Henris) 14.!f3 h4 15.~e1!? hg3 16.hg3,
solve for Black: with mutual chances, Shestakov,S-Sorensen ,
a) 9...ltJa5?! 10.~b5 \Wb5 11.cb5 0-0-0 12.liJg5 Ar, corr., 1973.
CI:le5 13.CI:le6 fe6 14.!h3±. d3) 10J~d1 !h3!? (10 ... h6 - Raetsky ft
b) 9...ie7?! 10.\Wb7: Chetverik) 11.e6!? (11.!h1!?, as in the Sicilian
• 10.. J%b8? 11.CI:ld4!+- Sorm,D-Wahedi,A, Bad Dragon, is worth considering) 11 ...!e6 12.CI:le4
Homburg, 2008; (12.CI:lg5!? - Henris) 12... CI:la5?! (o12 ...!h3
• 10...0-0 11.CI:lg5 CI:lge5 12.CI:le6 fe6 13.liJf3 13.!h1 !g4 - Henris) 13.\Wc2 CI:lc6 14.a3?!
CI:lc4 14.\Wb3 CI:l6a5 15.\Wd3 ~ad8 16.b3 CI:lb6 (14.!e3! CI:lb4 15.~b3 c5 16.!d2 liJc6 17.CI:leg5;!;
17.!d2 liJc6 18.~ac1± !f6?? 19.~c6 1-0 Henris) 14...!f5" Kranz,Ar-Mittermeier, P,
Plaskett,J-Rewitz,P, Esbjerg, 1982. Austria, 1995.
c) 9.. J~b8?! 10.CI:lg5: 9.ltJb3!?:
• 10...if5 (as in Slisser,T-Smederevac,P, a) 9...ih3? (Wade,R-Perez Perez,F, Barcelona,
Amsterdam, 1967) 11.f4±; 1946) 10.e6!?±.
• 10...ltJge5 11.CI:le6 fe6 (11,..\We6 12.!d5± b) 9.. J%d8!? 10.!g5 !e7 11.ie7 ~e7:
Minev) 12.f4 CI:lg4 13.CI:le4 !e7 14.!h3 CI:lh6 • 12.~c2?! 12...0-0 (12 ... CI:lge5!? 13.~ad1!?;!;
15.!d2 0-0 16.~ad1+ Smyslov,V-Smederevac,P, Henris (S13.CI:le5?! CI:le5 14.!b7 O-O~;
Polanica Zdroj, 1966. 13.~fd1I?)) 13.~fd1 CI:lb4 14.~e4 c5~ Pfaue-Dal,
d) 9...0-0-0 is the correct continuation: corr., 1964;
d1) 10.ltJe4!?: • 12.ltJbd4 ttJd4 13.CI:ld4 0-0 (13 ...c5? 14.\Wa4
• 10...ih3!? 11.e6!? (11.~d1 !g2 12.c;t>g2 !d7 15.CI:lb5±) 14.c5!? (S14.!b7?! liJe5t
CI:lge5= Henris) 11...!e6 12.CI:leg5;!; Henris; (14.,.c5?? 15.ttJc6+-)) 14,..liJe5 15.c6!?
• 10... h6" Henris. (15.\Wa4!?) 15...\Wf6 (LL~d4) 16.e3 !c4 17.~e1
d2) 10.ltJg5 CI:lge5 11.CI:le6: bc6 18.~c2 c5 19.CI:lb3;!; Henris;
• 11...fe6!? 12.\Wa4!? (12.f4 CI:lg4 13.CI:le4 !e7" • 12.~c1 0-0 13.~d1 CI:lge5 14.CI:le5 CI:le5
Bellmann; 12.CI:lf3 CI:lf3 13.!f3 !e7 14.'1Wb5 a6= 15.CI:ld4 !c4 16.f4 (16.!b7?! c5) 16,..ttJg4
Bellmann; 12.CI:le4!?) 12... d3!? (12,..!e7 13.f4 17.e4;!; Henris.
CI:lg4 14.CI:lb3± Bellmann) 13.ed3 Wd3 14.ltJb3!? c) 9...0-0-0 would transpose to the line

240
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ltJf3 ltJc6 5.g3 .ie6 6.~bd2 ~d7 7 ..ig2

7... 0-0-08.0-0 ttJge7 9.ttJb3 ttJg6 (~ game 86).
9.b3?! is weak as it allows the second
player to gain back the e5-pawn without any
problem. Here is a good example how to
proceed for Black: 9...ibh3!? 10J':le1!? ibg2
11.mg2 0-0-0 12.ibb2 ttJge5=
Panuzzo,J, email, 1994.
14.ttJe5 ttJe5 15.We4 ttJe4 16.Eld4 ttJd6:
a) 17.ibf4!?:
• 17...0-0 18.Ele1 Elfe8 19.Eld2 g5 20.ibe3 e6
21.iba7 Ela8 22.ibe5 ttJb5 23.ibe7 'fl,e7 24.a3±
Kindl,P-Lach,B, Germany, 1991;
Bausch,J- • 17...g5!? 18.ibe5 (18.ibe3 ttJf5) 18.. .f6 19.ibd6
ibd6 20.'fl,ad1 me7=.
b) 17.e4;t Henris.

11 ...0-0-0 12.VNb3 ~a5?!

9...ibf5:
a) 10.f4?! f6 11.ef6 gf6 12.ttJgf3 12...~c4?! 13.CiJe5 'Wb3 14.ibh3 'We6
(12.CiJge4!?) 12... h5!?CXl. 15.ibe6 fe6 16.ttJf7±.
b) 10.~b3!? ttJge5 11.Wb7 Elb8 12.Wa6 012...ltJf3! 13.ibf3 h5 14.h4 ibe5 ;1;/=
Raetsky & Chetverik.
c) 10.e6! fe6 (10 ...ibe6?! 11.ttJe6 We6
12.Wb3;!; Minev) 11.ttJb3 Eld8 12.e4 de3 13.VNb5 ~f3 14.i.f3 ~c6 15.i.d5
13.ibe3±. VNd7!? 16J~d1± a6 17.VNb3 i.c5
18.VNf3 ~b8 19..if4

19.b4! was possible immediately.

11.~a4:
a) 11 ... ibe7 12.ibd5 Wd7 13.ttJf3!? (13.ttJb3;!; 19...f6 20.b4!
Henris) 13... ttJf3 14.ibf3 O-O-O!? 15.Eld1 ttJe5?
(15 ...mb8 16.Wb3;1; Henris) 16.Wa7± Levit,R- Opening advantageously the lines.
Montgomery,P, Dearborn, 1992.
b) 11 ...ltJd7 12.'Wb5 CiJb6 13.e5 a6 14.'Wb3 20...i.d6
ibe5 15.'We6 fe6 16.CiJb3 ttJa4 17.CiJe5 ttJe5
18.ibf4 CiJd7 19.ibe7 Ele8 20.ibd6 <j;>f7 21.Elad1 20...ib4? 21.'fl,ab1 +-.
CiJf6 22.ibe6 Ele6 (or 22 ... be6 23.Eld4±)
23.Eld4± Stahlberg,G-Longobuco,J, Rosario, 21.bS abS 22.cbS ~aS 23.i.d2 i.cs
1940. 24.i.e4 b6 2SJ~dc1 i.d6 26.i.aS
11.~b3!? Elb8!? 12.Eld1!? ibe7 13.ttJf3!? baS 27.~c6
(13.ibd5) 13...'We4?! (013 ... ttJf3!? - Henris) 1-0

241
 Chapter 6
•

Game 92 11 ...d3! (11...~h3!?) 12.ed3 lLld3 13.~b2?!

Tania,Sachdev (2398) (13.lLlb3) 13... ~h3 14.~d4? (14.!"Ifd1 ~92
luldachev,Saidali (2519) 15.Wg2 lLlgf4+) 14... lLldf4!-+ 15.~e3 (15.~h3
New Delhi, 2010 iWh3 16.gf4 lLlf4 17.lLle1 !"Id4-+; 15.gf4 %'94
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.~f3 16.lLle1 ~g2 17.lLlg2 (17.lLldf3 ~f3) 17... lLlh4
~c6 5.g3 i.e6!? 6.~bd2 VNd7 (17 lLlf4) 18.iWe4 !"Id4-+ (18.. .f5 19.h3 %'96-+))
7.i.g2 ~ge7?! 8.a3!? (0) 15 ~g2! 16.~f4 lLlf4 17.gf4 ~f3 18.lLlf3 %'g4
19.Wh1 %'f3 0-1 Erdelyi,S-Nielsen,Ju, Warsaw,
1935.
b) 9.iWa4 ~e7:
b1) 10.b4 !"Id8 11.~b2 0-0 12.!"Ie1 (12.0-0 would
transpose to the line 7...lLlge7 8.0-0 lLlg6 9.a3
~e7 10.b4 !"Id8 11.~b2 0-0 12.iWa4, ---+ game 90;
12.b5!? is also interesting) 12 ... ~h3 13.0-0 ~g2
14.Wg2 %'g4f± Preinfalk,A-Kostic,Bo, Novi Sad,
1945.
b2) 10.lLlb3:
• 10...0-0? 11.lLlfd4 lLld4 12.iWd7 lLle2 (12 ... lLlb3
13.%'d1 lLla1 14.~f4±) 13.Wd1 ~d7 14.We2 lLle5
15.~f4±;
I cover here variations where White does not • 10...0-0-0!? 11.~g5 Wb8 12.~e7 %'e7 13.0-0
castle early in the opening and instead prefers ~d7! (13 ... lLlge5? 14.lLle5 lLle5 15.~b7!±)
to develop his queenside first. 14.lLla5!? lLlee5!? (14 ... lLla5 15.%'a5 ~e6!=
The original move order of the game was 5.a3 Marshall,F-Janowski,D, Habana, 1913) 15.iWb3
lLlge7 6.lLlbd2 ~e6 7.g3 iWd7 8.~g2. b6!?oo (15 ... lLlf3? 16.Wh1! (16.~f3? b6 oo ;
16.%'f3?! c6 17.iWb3±) 16... b6 17.iWf3+-);
8...i.h3 • 10...:5dS!? Ll... O-O.
c) 9.b4:
Black has another important alternative with • 9 0-0-0?! 10.%'a4 Wb8 11.~b2+ Henris;
S...lLlg6. • 9 a5 10.b5 lLlee7 11.~b2 e5 12.lLle4 lLle8
And now: 13.!"Ie1 lLlb6 14.lLled2 ~e7 15.0-0 0-0 16.iWb3;!;
a) 9.iWc2?! 0-0-0 10.b4 (010.0-0) Grott, P-Oesterle, P, corr., 1987;
10...lLlee5 11.0-0 (011.lLle5 lLle5 12.iWe4 • 9...:5dS 10.b5 lLlee5 11.lLle5 lLle5 12.~b7 ~e7
(12.lLlf3? lLlc4+) 12...%'e6 13.%'e6 lLle6:;: Henris) 13.lLlf3 lLlf3 14.~f3 0-0 15.~e6 %'e8 16.%'b3 ~h3

242
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.tt:lf3 tt:lc6 5.g3 .ie6 6.ttJbd21Wd7 7..tg2

17.~d2 ~f6;:;; Santos,L-Sorensen,H, corr., 1989; 9..th3!?

• 9... ~h3!? 10.e6! ~e6 11.b5!? (11.h4!?t -
Fedorowicz) 11...ttJdS (~11 ... ttJce5 12.ttJe5 ttJe5 9.0-0 i.g2 10.r:t2g2 ttJg6 11.b4 0-0-0 transposes
13.~b7 E1bS 14.~g2 d3!? (14".ttJc4?? 15.~c6+-) to the line 7".0-0-0 S.O-O ~h3 9.a3 ~g2 10.r:t2g2
15.~b2! (15.V!1a4?! de2 16.Vffa7 E1d8 17.Vffe3 tLlge7 11.b4 tLlg6 (--t game 84).
ttJc4 18.Vffe2 Vffb5 19.ttJc4 V!1c4 20.Vffc4 i.c4
21.~c6 r:t2e7 22.~g5 f6 23.i.f4~; 15.e3!?±)
15".de2 16.V!1e2 ttJd3 17.r:t2f1 E1b6 1S.i.c3+-
Henris) 12.h4!? (12.~b2?! C5!CXl Fedorowicz) 10.tLle4!? deserves also attention: 10".ttJg6
12".f6! (12".h6 13.h5 ttJe7 14.~b2 c5 15.bc6 (10".ttJe5?! 11.ttJe5 Vffg2 12.V!1a4 ttJc6D
ttJdc6 16.V!1a4 ttJf5 17.ttJb3± Henris) 13.h5 ttJe5 (12... c6?? 13.ttJd6+-) 13.l"i:f1 Vffe4 14.~f4!?;!;)
14.h6 g6 15.ttJe5!? fe5 CXl Fedorowicz,J-Joksic,S, 11.tLleg5 Vffd7 12.Vffd3:
New York, 1982; a) 12...0-0-0?!:
• 9...i.e7 10.b5!? ttJce5 11.ttJe5 ttJe5 12.i.b7 • 13.i.f4!? 13...ttJf4 14.gf4 h6 15.ttJe4 Vffg4 CXl
(12.f4? ttJc4 (12."ttJg4!?) 13.ttJc4 i.c4 14.i.b7 Mareco,S-Ferreira,K, Sao Paulo, 2009;
O-O~ Henris) 12".0-0 13.i.b2 (13.i.aS!? E1aS • 13.Wfe4 f5!? 14.e6 (~14.ef6!? gf6 15.ttJe6 l"i:eS
14.0-0 - Henris) 13".E1abS 14.i.g2 (Hankel,D- 16.ttJfS l"i:hfS 17.Vffd5 Vffh3 CXl ) 14".fe4 15.ed7 r:t2d7
Kleinschroth,R, Hermannen, 1997) 14".a6! 16.tLle4~ Henris.
15.a4 E1fdS+ Henris. b) 12...tLlge5?! 13.ttJe5 ttJe5 14.V!1e4 f6:
d) 9.tLlg5!? ttJge5 10.ttJe6 V!1e6: • 15.f4 i.e7 CXl ;
• 11.i.d5!? (Graf,Al-Meier,Ann, Dresden, 2004) • 15.i.f4 O-O-O!? (15".V!1c6 16.i.e5 Vffe4 17.ttJe4
11".Vffh3 12.f4!? tLlg4 13.ttJe4 (13.Vffa4 O-O-OCXl) fe5 ~/=) 16.i.e5 fe5 CXl ;
13".i.e7 14.Vffd3!? O-OCXl Henris; • 15.Wfb7 l"i:dS 16.Vffe4!? d3 17.0-0 (17.ed3
• 11.0-0 0-0-0 12.b4!? ttJc4?! (o12".h5!? offers Wfd3+±) 17".d2 1S.i.d2 Vffd2 19.ttJe6 l"i:d7 20.f4
better counter chances - Henris) 13.ttJc4!? (20.l"i:ad1 !?CXl) 20".ttJg4 21.ttJc7 r:t2dS 22.ttJe6
(13.b5 ttJ6e5 14.ttJc4 ttJc4 15.i.f4~ Henris) r:t2eSD 23.ttJfS! r:t2fS 24.l"i:ad1 Vffd1 25.l"i:d1 l"i:d1
13".Vffc4 14.i.f4!? (14.~b2!? ,6E1c1 - Henris) 26.r:t2g2±;
14".i.d6 15.E1c1 Vffe6 16.Vffa4?! (16.~c6? i.f4 c) o12 ...i.e7 13.e6!? (13.Vffe4 i.g5
17.~b7 r:t2b7 1S.gf4 E1heS!n Henris; o16.i.d6 (~13".O-O?! 14.e6±) 14.~g5 (14.ttJg5 ttJge5 15.f4
l"i:d6 17.Vffc2!? Vffd7 1S.b5 ttJdS 19.a4~ Henris) f5) 14".0-0 15.l"i:d1 l"i:aeS!?CXl) 13".fe6 14.Vffe4
16".~f4 17.gf4 d3?! (17".r:t2bS CXl Henris) 1S.ed3 (14.ttJh7 ttJge5 15.ttJe5 tLle5 16.Vffe4 O-O-O!?CXl)
l"i:d6? (o1S".r:t2bS± Henris) 19.b5 tLld4 20.Vffa7± 14".~g5 15.~g5 (15.ttJg5 O-O-OCXl) 15".0-0
Aleksandrov,Alekse-Abu Sufian,S, Bhubaneswar, 16.h4!? l"i:f5 (16".ttJhS 17.b4!) 17.0-0-0 e5 1S.h5
2010. ttJfS~/= Henris.

243
 Chapter 6

10...0-0-0 11.'1We4 (D) 13.. .'~e6 14.0-0 ttJg6

14...Y«e2!? 15.1::1e1 Wd3 16.Wf6 tiJg6 17.8e4

(threatening to trap the queen with tiJe1)
17...We2 18.b4, with chances for an advantage
to White as Black has lost the initiative.

15.'~e4 ~d7 16.ttJb3 f5 17.~d5!?

Giving back the pawn in order to exchange

11 .. .f5!
Black improves over 11 ... ltJg6? he played
earlier in the same tournament: 12.g4! (Black's
queen is suddenly trapped!) 12...ltJh4 (12 ... h6
13.1::1g1 followed by 1::1g3; 12... h5 13.tiJg5 Wg4
14.tiJf7± Henris) 13.tiJg5 tiJg2 14.<j{f1!
(14.<j{d1 !?± - Henris) 14 ... tiJe3 15.<j{g1 Wg4
16.Wg4 tiJg4 (Black has to drop the exchange)
17.tiJf7± Turov,M-luldachev,S, New Delhi, 2010.
12.ef6 gf6
In return of the pawn Black has opened lines
and has the more active pieces. Eventually
pressure down the e-file against e2 could tell.
queens and then have an easier time.
White probably didn't like 17.W!d3
tiJge5 18.tiJe5 tiJe5 19.We2 (19.Wd1 I?) 19...d3
20.ed3 (20.Wd1?! We6) 20 ...Wd3 - Flear,G.
She also rejects 17.'~c2 d3 (17 ...f4!? is
also worth considering - Henris) 18.ed3 lMfd3,
when Black is very active - Flear,G.
After 17.Y«b1!? f4 (17 ...1::1e8? 18.1::1d1
(18.Wd3!?'!), and the d4-pawn is about to fall)
18.We4 j,g7, the position is unclear - Henris.
17... ~d5 18.cd5 :gd5 19.~d2 ttJge5
20.ttJe5 ttJe5 21.:gac1 ~d6
Material is equal and Black has more space, the
cramping effect of the pawn on d4 being felt
deep into the game.
22.~f4 :ge8 23.:gfd1 d3!?
This thematic thrust is often awkward to
meet.

13.ltJb3!? d3!? 14.ed3 j,g7 - Henris. 24..te5?

244

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6 5.g3 .te6 6.lt)bd2 'lWd7 7..tg2
o24.e3! 'De6!? (24 ...d2? fails to 25.liJd2 E\d2
26.E\d2 liJf3 27. \tJg2 liJd2 28 ..id6) 25.E\e3, when
White shouldn't be worse - Flear,G.
24...ie5 25J:~d3 gd3 26.ed3 ib2
27.gc2
27 J~c5 b6 28J':lf5 .ia3 should favour Black: the
bishop is superior as is the speed of the
majority - Flear,G.
27...ia3 28.ga2 ge1 29.@g2 gd1!!
A remarkable move!
29...id6 30J:!a7 b6 31.ttJd4 would instead be
far from clear as White's pieces are quite
active - Flear, G.
30.ga3 gd3 31.@f1 b5 32.@e2 gc3
33.@d2 b4 34.14
Keeping the tension and hoping to make the f-
pawn into a threat.
o36...@b7! 37.l::1h5 \tJb6 38J:!h7 a5 39.g4 l::1f3,
with a almost winning advantage - Flear,G.
38.\tJd2 repeats. But the game move looks even
better as Black would then have had the chance
to revert to the line in the previous note.
2
38.. J~c3 39.@d2 @c8!?
A strange move. Surely 39...c5?! looks more
natural, but then Black's king can be caught
out after a variation such as 40.l::1h7 a5 41.g4
E1e4 42.f5! E1g4? (42 ...E1f4 43.\tJe3 E1f1 44.\tJe2
E1f4=) 43.f6 E1g8 44.E1e7!, and White wins -
Flear,G.
40.gh7
Leading to a race which White just loses. Why
not 40J%a5! which is drawn after 40 ... E1a3
41 .E1a3 ba3 42. \tJe3 - Flear, G.
40...a5 41.g4 gc4 42.g5 gf4 43.g6
gg4 44.g7 @b7
The point! Black can hide his king behind the c-
pawn.
45.h4 gg3 46.h5 a4 47.h6 gg2
48.@d3 a3 49.gh8 a2 50.h7
Or 50J~b8 \tJb8 51.h7 a1~ (51 ... E1g7?? 52.h8~
\tJb7 53.~g7 +-) 52.g8~ E1g8 53.hg8~ \tJa7, with
a winning queen ending for Black - Flear,G.
50...a1%V 51.g8%V %Vd1 52.@e4 %Ve2
52 ...E\e2 mates more quickly.
0-1
245
 Chapter 6
•

Game 93 8.e6 ~e6 (~ game 97).

Danner,Georg (2407) 8.i.h3 ~h3 is dealt with in games 98
Kekelidze,Mikheil (2477) and 99.
Batumi, 2002
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.~f3 8... h5!?
~c6 5.93 .1e6!? 6.~bd2 ~d7
7..192 .1h3!? (0) An important nuance: Black throws the paWn
before the exchange on g2 in order to avoid
the blocking move h4.
See game 96 for the alternative 8... i.g2.

9.~a4!?

White has a wide variety of choices in response

to 8... h5!?
The following ones do not pose real problems
for Black:
9.lLlg5?! ~g2 10.e6 fe6 11.mg2
(Rades,Al-Haag,Gu, Eisenberg, 1993) 11...h4:j:
Henris.
In the Albin Counter-Gambit an exchange of 9.a3?!, as in Eberhardt,O-Marchio, E,
the light-squared bishops is often a small, and Hessen, 2000, is too slow because of 9... ~g2
sometimes a considerable, achievement for 10.mg2 h4 - Henris.
Black. 9.'!Wb3!? ~g2 10.mg2:
But this exchange must be timely played. If a) 10...0-0-0:
Black launches this bishop move at a later • After 11.lLle4, as played in the game
stage, when both sides are already busy Barsov,A-Ludden,G, Hoogeeven, 1997, Sadler
attacking their opponent's castled position, recommends 11...~e8!?, aiming for ...f6;
White can often insert advantageously e6! as 11.. .h4+t must also be considered - Henris;
we shall see later. • 11.a3!? is again too slow: 11...h4 12.~d3 hg3
13.fg3 ~h3 14.mf2 (Klein,Di-Balduan,M,
8.0-0!? Bergisch Gladbach, 1994) 14...E1h5!?+.
b) 10... h4!? 11.tLlh4!? 0-0-0:
The main continuation in the position. • 12.f4 tLlh6 13.tLldf3 ~e7 14.~d3!? tLlb4

246
 •
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.tt:Jf3 tt:Jc6 5.g3 .ie6 6.1L1bd2 YNd7 7..ig2

15.\1;ire4 (lppolito,D-Cotten,D, Alexandria, 1996) Willighagen,G-Flohr,R, Leiden, 2009) 11 ...0-0-0

15 ... ~h4 16.CiJh4 f5 «16 ...\1;ire6?! 17.f5 ~c4 (11 ... hg3? 12.e6! (12.fg3? ~h3 13.~g1 0-0-0)
18.~g5) 17.e6 (17.\1;irf3 CiJc2 18.E1b1 CiJg4+; 12 .. .fe6 13.CiJc6!? lMfc6 14.hg3± Henris):
17.ef6 E1he8---+; 17.~b1 \1;irc6 18.~g1 ~c4+) a) 12.ltJc6? h3! 13.~h1 ~d1 14.CiJa7 ~b8
17...fe4 18.ed7 1::1d7 19.CiJg6 E1e8 20.tlJe5 E1d6 1S.E1d1 1::1d1 16.CiJg1 ~cS!? 17.~e3 1::1a1 18.~cS
21.~d2 CiJc6= Henris; 1::1a2 19.CiJbS 1::1b2-+ Henris.
• 12.~d3?! g5 13.CiJfS tlJh6 14.tlJh6 E1h6 1S.h4 b) 12.~g5?! f6! (12 hg3? 13.e6+- (13.fg3??
gh4 16.tlJf3 E1hS+ Brodowski, P-Olejarczyk, B, lMfh3 14.~f2 1::1d4); 12 ltJd4? 13.~d8 hg3 14.lMfd4
Ustron, 2003. (14.~h4? ltJf3 15.lMfd7 ~d7 16.1::1fd1 ~e6 17.ef3
9.ltJe4 ~g2 10.~g2 h4 11.~f4: 1::1h4 18.fg3 1::1c4 19.1::1d8 1::1c2 20.~h3 ~e7co)
a) 11 hg3!? 12.fg3: 14... 1::1h2 1S.~g3! lMfh3 16.~f4+- Henris) 13.e6
• 12 ~h3?! 13. ~h 1!? 0-0-0 14.tlJegS ~d7 (13.ef6 hg3+; 13.~e3 hg3 14.e60 lMfe8+; 13.ltJc6
(Meurrens,P-Van Hoofstat,T, Belgium, 1995) lMfc6 14.~d2 hg3!? (14... ~4) 1S.fg3 gS+ Henris)
1S.e3+; 13 ...lMfe8+ Lacoste,A-Stepien,G, corr., 1994.
• 12...0-0-0 13.~d3 ltJge7 14.ltJegS CiJg6 c) 12.e6! fe6 (12 ...lMfe8 13.lMfa4! h3 14.~h1!
1S.~e4 1::1e8 16.e3!? f6!? 17.e6 (17.~g6 fgS co ) ltJd4 1S.lMfe8 1::1e8 16.ef7+-) 13.~gS!? ~e7
17... ltJf4 18.~f4 ~e7 19.1tJf7 1::1g8 20.ed4 ~e6 (13 ... ltJd4 14.~d8±) 14.~e7 ltJge7 1S.ltJc6 lMfc6 co
21.1::1ae1 ~f7 22.~fS ~d80 (22 ~b8?? Henris.
23.ltJgS ~hS 24.g4+-) 23.1::1e8 ~e8 (23 ~e8?? See the next two games for the critical
24.lMfc8 ltJd8 2S.1::1e1 ~e7 26.dS!+-) 24.lMfdS ~d6 variations 9.e6 and 9.ih3.
2S.cS E1h8 26.cd6 lMfd7 27.dc7 ~c7 28.lMfc4~
Henris. 9....1g2 10.i>g2 h4 (D)
b) Black has a good counterplay after 11...0-0-0
12.a3!? (12.lMfd3!?) 12... hg3 13.~g3!? ltJh6!?
(13 ... ltJge7!? 14.b4 ltJg6 MS.bS? ltJceS 16.CiJeS
tlJeS 17.~eS \1;irfS+) 14.b4 CiJfS (14 ... ltJg4!?;
14 ...\1;irg4!? n... ltJfS), as in the game Meinsohn,F-
Henris,L, Val Thorens, 1986.
9.ltJb3 ~g2 (9 0-0-0 9.ltJb3 would
transpose to the line 7 0-0-0 8.0-0 ~h3; ---+
game 8S) 10.~g2 h4 (10 ...0-0-0 would also
transpose to the line 7... 0-0-0 8.0-0 ~h3 9.tlJb3
~g2 10.~g2 hS; ---+ game 8S) 11.CiJbd4!? (Black
has a good game after 11.~f4 hg3 12.~g3 0-0-0

247
 Chapter 6

11.b4!? 12...d3!? 13.ed3 Wfh3 14.mf2!? (14'~91

transposes to the main game) 14 ... 0-0-0
i
,,
A novelty, but not an earth shattering one. (o14 ... CtJh6+) 15.E1b1 tiJh6 16.ttJe4? ttJg4-+ Hsu
Black continues to have some kingside Li Yang-Henris, L, Singapore, 1989.
initiative for the gambit pawn, though the
exact objective value of this compensation is 13.@g1 d3!?
,,, '
far from clear.
,

Here are the alternatives: 12...1lb4 13.E1b1 1ld2 14.1ld2 0-0-0 15.~b5 b6::
1UiJh4?! g5 12.CtJhf31Wh3 13.~g1 1le7 leads to a complicated position with chances
14J:J:e1 (14.E1d1?! g4 15.CtJh4 1lh4 16.gh4 d3!+) for both sides according to Raetsky and
14...g4 15.CtJh4 1lh4 16.gh4 1Wh4 17.CtJf1 0-0-0 Chetverik.
18.1lf4+ Raetsky 8: Chetverik.
11.tL'lb3?! hg3 12.fg3 1Wh3 13.~g1 14.ed3 0-0-0 15.:1;f2 E:d3 16.~f1?!
O-O-O:j: Haftstein,G-Bayer,E, Germany, 2008.
11.tL'le4!? hg3 12.fg3 f6!? (12 0-0-0:j: It is very difficult to understand this move as
I Henris) 13.ef6 CtJf6 14.CtJeg5 1ld6!? (14 0-0-0) it allows Black to restore the material
II
II
I 15.c5?! (15.b4!? 1lb4 16.E1b1 co Henris) 15 1lc5:j: balance and continue his attack. Presumably
Strating, H-Turin,J, corr., 1989. White missed the idea in the note to White's
11.e6!?: 17th.
a) 11 ...fe6!? 2.CtJh4;J; Spiegel, W-Wuppinger,M, 16,l':lb1 leaves matters rather unclear.
Austria, 1997. After 16.a3 tiJh6 17.1Wc2 E1d8 18.ttJf1
b) I recommend for Black the interesting 1Wh5 19.1lh6 E1h6 20.1We4;J; the position is more
11 ...1We6 which leads to very complicated pleasant for White thanks to his centralized
variations after 12.CtJd4 1Wd7 13.CtJ2f3 (13.CtJc6 pieces - Raetsky 8: Chetverik.
hg3 14.fg3 tiJe7 15.h4 tiJc6 co ) 13... hg3 14.fg3
1lc5 15.1le3!? tiJge7 16.E1ad1 1Wh3 17.mh1!? 16...ib4 17 .ie3
1ld6!? (17 ...1ld4 18.1ld4 tiJf5 19.1lf2 ~f8co)
18.E1f2!? 0-0-0 19.tiJg5!? 1Wh5 20.tiJc6 (20.tiJf7 17.tL'lg5 1Wd7!t intending to use d4 after 18.tiJf7
1lg3 co ) 20 ... tiJc6
21.E1d6 cd6 22.tiJf7 tiJe5 1lc5 19.tiJh8 1lf2 - Tisdall.
23.tiJe5 (23.tiJd8 tiJg4 co ; 23.tiJh8 tiJg4 24.h4
tiJf2 25.1lf2 E1h8!?co) 23 ...de5 24.1la7!? 1Wg6 co 17... ltJh6 18.E:d1 E:a3!
Henris.
This piece exerts awful pressure along the
11 ... hg3 12.fg3 Wh3 third rank.

248
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6 5.g3 .le6 6.~bd21];Vd7 7..ig2

19.~c2 llJg4 20.~f5 i>bS+ Game 94

21.llJg5? Van der Wert,Mark (2430)
Van Hoofstat,Tom (2195)
Losing a piece and the game. The only chance Denmark, 1999
to stay in the game was 21 J!e2: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.tLlf3
a) 21..J:!a5!? 22.E1b1 g6!? (22 ...f6? tLlc6 5.g3 ie6!? 6.tLlbd2 ~d7
23,ctJd4 ct:Jd4 24.~d4) 23.Wf7 ct:Jce5 24.ct:Je5 ct:Je5 7.ig2 ih3!? 8.0-0 h5 9.e6 ie6 (D)
25.Wf2 ct:Jd3:t Henris.
b) 21...Wh5 22.Wh5 E1h5 23.<;:t>g2
(S23.ct:Jd4? ct:Je3 24.ct:Jc6 bc6 25.E1b1 a526.ct:Je3
E1e5 27 .E1b3 ~c8:j:) 23 ...b6 24.~f4to Henris.
c) 21 ...96 is probably the strongest
continuation: 22.Wf7 (22.Wf4 ct:Je3 23.ct:Je3 ~c5
and White's position is about to go) 22 ...Wh5!
with a clear advantage for Black - Tisdall.

21 ... ~h5

The weakness of d1 prevents any tactics from

working for White.
The move 9.e6 allows White to gain time.
22.llJf7 lLle3 23.llJe3-+ ~e3 24.~h5
~h5 10.h4

White loses his last trump the e5-pawn.
25.g4 ~h4 26.~f4 a5 27.i>g2 tLle5
28.tLle5 ~e5 29.~d5 ~h2 30.i>h2
~d5 31.~f7 ~d2 32.i>h3 g5 33.~f5
~a2 34.~g5 ~a3 35.i>g2 ~c3
36.~gS i>a7 37.g5 ~c4 3S.g6 ~c6
39.i>f3 a4 40.g7 ~g6 41.~a8 i>aS
42.g8~ ~gS
0-1
White also has the following possibilities:
10.~a4!? ~h3!? (10 ... h4!? - Henris)
offers good chances for the second player.
Here are two examples:
a) 1UiJb3 ~g2 12.~g2 h4 13.~f4!? (13.ct:Jbd4 hg3
14.fg3 ~c5 (14 ...Wlh3 15.~g1 ~c5 16.e3 - 11.~h3)
15.~e3 ct:Jf6!?to Henris) 13...0-0-0 14.E1ad1 hg3
15.~g3 ~d6:j: 16.c5 ~g3 17.fg3 ct:Jf6!? (17 ...Wlh3
18.~g1 Wlh5 19.ct:Jbd4 ct:Jd4 20.E1d4 Wlc5:t Henris)
18.ct:Jbd4 (Stephan,V-Chretien,A, Aix-les-Bains,

249
 Chapter 6

, .
, '
, 2009) 18.. :~lg4i Henris. Henris.
b) 11 ..ih3 ~h3 12.tLld4 h4! 13.tLl2f3 (13.tLlc6? 10...f6!? 11.a3!? (11.~a4 0-0-0 12.tLlb3
hg3 14.tLld4 c6 15.tLl4f3 (15.tLl2f3 gh2-+) 15...g2 I!;>b8 13.'8d1± Henris) 11 ....ih3 12.b4 (12 ..ih3
lL.id6) 13 ... hg3 14.fg3 (14 ..if4 gh2 15.<j{h1 ~h3 13.b4 0-0-0 14..ib2± Henris) 12....ig2
tLlge7 16.tLlb5 0-0-0 (0
) 14....ic5 (14 ....id6 13.<j{g2 0-0-0 14.iWa4 <j{b8 (Haus,V-Vogel,Pa,
15.tiJc6 .ig3 16.tiJcd4 c6 17..ig5 .ih2 18.<j{f2 f6 Hessen, 1997) 15.tiJb3± Henris.
19..id2) 15J:1f2 (15.e3 tLlge7 (15....id4? 16.ed4 10....!t:lf6 11.~b3 (11.tLlg5!?) 11 ...'8b8
0-0-0 17.'8f2! tiJd4 18.tiJd4 '8d4 19..ig5±)) (11 ...0-0-0? 12.tLle5) 12.tLlg5;!; Henris.
,

15...tLlge7 16..ie3 '8h5+± Henris.

10.tLlg5!?: 11.~a4!? .ig7 12)tJe4!?
a) 10... h4!? 11.~b3!? 0-0-0 12.tLldf3 tLla5
(12 ... hg3? 13.tLle5! gh2 14.<j{h1 ~e8 15.tiJc6 12..!t:lb3± ~'8d1 - Henris.
bc6 16.~a4±; 12.. .f6 13.tLle6 ~e6 14.e3±
(14.tLlh4!?±)) 13.~b5 ~b5 14.cb5;!; Henris. 12..)tJge7 13.ttJcS ~c8 14.ltJgS ifS
b) 10....if5!? 11 ..id5!? (11.'8e1!? h4 00 ; 1S.ttJge4 0-0 16..igS f6!? 17.if4
11.~b3!?;!; Henris) 11 ...f6!? 12.tLlf7 '8h7 13.tiJg5 gb8!?
. !
,
,
13... '8h8 (13.. .fg5?! 14..ig8 '8h8 15..id5;!; Kopp-
Canal, E, Vienna, 1951) 14.tLlf7= Henris. 17... b6 18.tLla6 (18.tiJb3 .ih3=) 18... tLle5 19.c5i
10.Wfb3!? '8b8!? 11.'8d1!? (11.e3;!; or Henris.
11.tLlg5;!; Henris) 11 ....ie7 12.tLle4 .if5 (12 ...tLlf6
I,
13.tLleg5;!; Henris) 13.tLlc3 a6 14.~a4 .ic5 18.gfe1!? as 19.a3!? b6= 20.ttJd3
15..ie3± Pesorda,I-Reschun,S, Austria, 1999. ttJeS?
.,
,

10...g6!? 20...Wfe6 21.tLld2 tLle5 22.c5 '8fd8°o Henris.

1

10....ih3?! 11.Wfa4!? (S11 ..ih3?! ~h3 21.ttJf6! if6 22.ttJeS± ~e6 23.ttJc6
12.tLlb3!? (12.~a4 0-0-0 13.tLlb3 .id6i) gbe8?! 24.e3!? .ie4??
12 ...0-0-0+± Henris) 11 ....ig2 12.<j{g2 0-0-0
13.tLlb3 <j{b8!? (13...tLlf6 14.'8d1 tLle4 15.tLlfd4± 24...d3±.
,

Henris; 13... ~g4 14.'8d1 ~e4 15..if4± Henris)

14.'8d1± Gnichtel,G-Haag,Gu, Hagenbach, 1998. 2S.ttJd4+- .id4 26.ed4 .ic6 27.ge6
10....!t:lh6 (Pichler,P-Sommer,So, Austria, .ia4 28..ih6!? .id7 29.ge4 gf6
2000) 11:lWa4 0-0-0 (11 ....ie7 12..!t:lb3 tLlf5 30.gae1 c,!;>f7 31.dS
13.'8d1) 12.tLlb3 I!;>b8 13.'8d1 iWe8 14..if4± 1-0

250
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.CLJf3 CLJc6 5.g3 .ie6 6.CLJbd2 Wld7 7..ig2

Game 95 Ellenbroek, T, Leeuwarden, 1993, Black has the

Musat,Adrian (2285) strong 11 ...g5! 12.tLlhf3 g4 13.tLlh4 i.e7+
Buzila,Ciprian (2350) Henris.
Romania, 1992 b) 11.tLlg5 1&g4 (11...~d7?? 12.e6 fe6 13.1&g6
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ltJf3 ~d8 14.tLlf7 1-0 MUir,A-Beacon,R, Scotland,
ltJc6 5.g3 .ie6!? 6.ltJbd2 '?;Vd7 1988) 12.tLldf3 hg3 13.hg3 (Krebs, H-Schmidt, Pe,
7.ig2 ih3!? 8.0-0 h5 9.ih3 '?;Vh3 (D) corr., 1998) 13... tLlge7 14.1&e41&h5'" Henris.
10.tLl b3!? was played in Kracht,J-
Cleemann,A, carr., 1994. Now I suggest
10... h4!? 11.i.f4!? (11.tLlbd4?! 0-0-0-+; 11.tLlh4?!
i.e7-+; 11.e6!? f6!?'" (11...1&e6!?)) 11...hg3
12.fg3!? 0-0-0'" Henris.
10.tLlg5!? 1&d7 (11...1&f5?! 11.tLldf3
0-0-0 12.1&d3± Cazzaniga,W-Galli,Fabi, Milan,
2007) 11.tLldf3 O-O-O!? (11...h4!? - Henris)
12.i.f4 tLlh6 13.1&d3 f6!? 14.ef6 gf6 15.tLle4 i.e7
16.tLlh4!?± Lundholm,S-Monaville,G, corr.,
1988.

10...0-0-0
9.i.h3 1&h3 is another annoying variation for
Black. 10... h4!? 11.tLleg5 ~d7 12.a3!?
(12.tLlh4!?;!; Henris) 12 ... hg3 13.fg3± i.e7?
10.ltJe4 14.tLlf7! ~f7 15.1&d3!+- 1&g4 16.tLlg5 ~e8
17.1&g6 ~d7 18.e6 ~c8 19.Elf8! 1-0 Degterev,P-
After 10.1&a4!? Black gains good play McDonald,Gr, corr., 2007.
thanks to 10... h4t 11.gh4?! 0-0-0 12.~h1 10...i.e?!? 11.tLleg5!? (11.1&b3 0-0-0)
tLle5!? (12 ... tLlh6t - Henris) 13.Elg1 (13.tLle5 11 ...i.g5 leads to very interesting
Elh4 14.tLlef3 i.d6 15.1&b3 tLlf6!-+ Henris) complications:
13...tLlc6!? (13 ... tLlf3 14.tLlf3 a6:j: Henris) a) 12.~g5!? f6:
14.tLle4 1&e6!n Lobo,Ri-Frankle,J, San a1) 13-'&b3 0-0-0 14.ef6 tLlf6 15.:8fd1 Eldf8
Francisco, 1985. 16.i.f6 Elf6 17.tLld4 Elf2! 18.~f2 ~h2= 19.~f1
1O.'~c2!? h4: (19.~e1? tLld4=t; 19.~e3? Ele8 20.~d3 tLld4
a) After 1Ut:\h4?! as playd in the game Oei,H- 21.~d4 ~e2=t) 19...1&h1 20.~f2 ~h2 Y2-Y2 Del

251
 Chapter 6

Gobbo,M-Wagner,B, corr., 1991. • 17.<ile3 was played in the game Habedank,D.

a2) 13.ef6 ct:lf6 14.Wd3 0-0-0 15.~g6!?: Wilshusen,H, corr., 1986. Now Black should
I • 15...tLlg4!? 16.~d8 ct:lce5 17.~f5 <;t>b8 18.%%fd1 continue with 17... ct:ld4! 18.%%f2 (18.ct:lf2 g6-+)
['
"
ct:lf3 19.~f3 ~h2 20. <;t>f1 %%f8 21.~f6 %%f6 22.%%d4 18... ~h4 19.~a7!? ~h6 20.f4 ~h3 21.<;t>d2 ~b4
i' ct:le3 23.fe3 %%f3 24.ef3 b6 25.%%e1 ~g3 26.f4 22.tiJc3 ~g3!-+. The white king is more
~h2 27.%%e2 ~h1 28.@f2 @c8 29.%%d5 ~h2 exposed than his black colleague - Henris.
,
I 30.@f1 Yz- Yz Vigneron ,M-Wagner, Br, corr., b) 12.tLleg5 ~f5ao Henris.
'!,
i, 1993; c) 12..ig5 ~e7 13.~h4 (13.ct:lh4?! f6!) 13... ~h4
• 15...h4! 16.~f6 (16.~h4? ct:lg4+) 16...gf6 14.ct:lh4 d3!? (14 ...%%h4!? 15.gh4 d3!ao) 15.ed3
17.ct:lh4 d3! (17 ...%%h4? 18.gh4 ct:le7 19.~e4±) (15.ct:lg5 ~g4 16.ct:lf7 %%h4 17.ct:ld8 tiJd4! 18.~e8
18.ed3 %%h4 19.9h4 ct:le7 20.~g3 (20.~e4? %%g8 tiJe2 19.<;t>g2 ct:lf4=) 15... %%h4 16.gh4 ct:le5 17.f3
21.<;t>h1 f5+) 20 ... %%g8:j: Henris. ct:lf3 18.%%f30 ~f3 19.~a7 ~g4 20.tiJg3 %%d3=
b) 12.ct:lg5!? ~d7 (12 ... ~f5!? 13.~f4 (13.~d3 Henris.
~e5) 13...0-0-0 14.~d3 ~d7 15.b4!?i) 13.~f4 11.tLleg5!? \Wd7 12.h4!? ct:lh6 13.\Wd3;!;
(13.~b3 0-0-0 14.~f4 ~e7 (14 ...h4 15.c5) Kummer,Hel-Neubauer,Ma, Austria, 1992.
15.ct:lf3 f6!? 16.ef6 ct:lf6 17.~g5;!;) 13...0-0-0 Raetsky and Chetverik recommend
14.b4!? ~e7 15.e6!? fe6 16.b5 ct:lb8 17.ct:lf3;!; 11.~g5! :lie7 12.:lie7!? tiJge7 13.\Wd3, with a
Henris. small advantage for White.

11 ..if4!! 11...f6!? 12.ef6 gf6 13.b4!? .ib4

14.YMb3 YMe6 15.a3 YMe4?
After 11.Y;Ya4!? Black has once again
good counterplay with 11...h4!?: 15....ie7?! 16.%%ab1 b6 (16 ...\We4?
a) 12.ct:lh4? %%h4! 13.gh4 d3! 14.ed3 ct:ld4! 15.f3 17.\Wb7 <;t>d7 18.ct:ld4!+-) 17.\Wd3± Henris.
ct:le2 16.@f2 ~h2: o15...i.f8 16.%%ab1 b6 17.\Wd3 ct:lgen
• 17.<;t>e1 ct:ld4 18.%%f2 (18.ct:lf2 ~e5 19.ct:le4 Henris.
~h2) 18 ~g1 19.%%f1 (after 19.<;t>d2 Black wins
with 19 f5! 20.ef6 ct:lf6-+) 19...ct:lf3 20.<;t>e2 ct:ld4 16.ab4± d3!? 17.b5 de2 18JUe1
21.<;t>e1 ~b4 22.ct:lc3 (if 22.~b4, then of course ~d3 19.YMa4!? llJb8 20.11Jd2 YMe7!?
11...ct:lc2-+) 22 ~h2 23.%%f2 ~h 1 24.%%f1 21.YMa7+- llJh6 22.b6 llJf7 23.bc7
(24.<;t>d2 ~h4) 24 ~h4 25.%%f2 ~h1 26.%%f1 ~g2 llJc6 24.YMa8 '.!fd7 25.YMb7 ~c8
27.m2 ~g1 28.%%f1 ~g3 29.%%f2 ct:lf3 30.@e2 26.~a8 YMe8 27 .~e2 llJfe5 28..ie5
ct:le5 31.~e3 ~g4 32.<;t>f1 ~h3 33.<;t>e2 ~c3 fe5 29.11Je4
34.bc3 ~h5-+ Henris; 1-0

252
p •

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.CUf3 CUc6 5.g3 .ie6 6.ltJbd2 ~d7 7 ..ig2

Game 96 ~b8 14.~b2 tLlf5 15.1"lad1!? ~e7 16.Wb3!?;!;

Zaitsev,Vadim (2367) Henris;
Shukan,Alexander (2232) • 11...tLlg4! 12.We2 0-0-0 13.b4 etJee5 14.~b2
Novokuznetsk, 2010 (Jiretorn,E-Lyell,Me, Crete, 2007) 14...d3!=
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.~f3 Henris.
lLlc6 5.g3 .ie6!? 6.lLlbd2 ffd7 b2) 11.lt:lb3 0-0-0 12.~g5!? (12.Wd3 etJg4
7..ig2 .ih3 8.0-0 .ig2 9.~g2 (D) 13.~f4;!; Henris) 12... ~e7 13.~f4?! (13.e3!?)
13... etJg4?! (13 ...Wg4! 14.Wd3 etJf5f± Henris)
14.Wd3 f6 15.ef6 ~f6 16.a3 E1hf8 17.etJe5 Wf7?
(o17 ...We8) 18.Wf5 i'b8 19.etJb7!+- Wd7
20.Wb5 me8 21.etJe5 1-0 Kolb,T-Grimm,T,
Eppingen, 2004.
c) Here too, Gufeld's concept 10.h3!?, already
mentioned in game 85, with the idea of locking
the kingside, seems quite effective:
c1) 10 h4 11.g4;
c2) 10 0-0-0 11.a3 etJge7 12.b4 etJg6 13.Wa4
i'b8 14.etJb3!:
• 14....ie7? 15.b5 etJee5 16.etJbd4 h4 17.g4 etJf3
18.etJe6! be6 19.be6 We8 20.E1b1 i'a8 21.ef3
9... ~ge7 ~e5 22.E1b5 ~d4 23.~b2! etJe7 24.~d4 E1d4
25.E1e1 etJe6 26.E1d5 Wb7 27.E1d4 etJd4 28.E1e8
Black has two very interesting alternatives E1e8 29.We8 Wb8 30.We4+- Henris;
here: • 14...ltJce5 15.Wd7 E1d7 16.etJe5 etJe5 17.e5;!;
9... h5!?: Henris;
a) After 10.'~c2!?, I suggest 10... h4!?, with • 14... h4 15.g4 etJee5 16.\Wd7 E1d7 17.etJe5 etJe5
enough counterplay - Henris. 18.e5;!; Henris.
b) 10.h4 etJh6 (10 ...0-0-0 transposes to the line 9...0-0-0 is most likely to enter to the
7...0-0-08.0-0): line 7...0-0-0 8.0-0 ~h3, with the following
b1) 11.a3!?: possible transpositions:
• 11 ...0-0-0 12.b4 was played in Hoang Thanh a) 10.tLle4 - 9.etJe4 ~g2 10.i'g2 (~ game 83) .
Trang-Taylor,Te, Budapest, 2003. Now White b) 10.'~a4 - 9.Wa4 ~g2 10.i'g2 (~ game 83).
keeps a small advantage after 12 etJg4 13.Wa4 c) 10.a3 - 9.a3 ~g2 10.i'g2 (~ game 84).
i'b8 14.~b2± Llb5 and after 12 We6 13.Wa4 d) 10.tLlb3 - 9.etJb3 ~g2 10.~g2 (~ game 85).

253
 Chapter 6

e) 10.b4?! (without the light-squared bishops b) 11.ltJb3!? 'Llce5 12.Wd7 ~d7 13.'Llbd4 'Llc4
I.
• this move loses a lot of its strength) 10... ~b4 14.Ei:d1 'Lld6 15.b3!?± Bauk,S-Semenov,Alek ,
11.Ei:b1 b6 12.'Lle4 ~e7 13.~d2 Wf5 00 14.Wc2?? Tivat, 1995.
d3!-+ Yang,Dar-Xiong,Jef, Saint Louis, 2012. 10.a3 'Llg6:
a) Black has no problem after 11.Wb3 0-0-0
10.lLle4?! 12.Wa4 ciJb8.
b) 11.b4 0-0-0 transposes to the line 7... 0-0-0
A nonchalant move after which Black has the 8.0-0 ~h3 9.a3; see game 84.
better chances.
White has several possibilities to obtain a pull: 10...lLlg6 11.b3!? h5!?
10.'Llb3 0-0-0 (10... 'Llg6 11.'Llbd4±):
a) 11.~g5!? h6 12.'Llc5?! (012.~e7 ~e7 011 ...0-0-01+1 Henris.
13.Wc2;!; Henris) 12...Wf5 13.~e7 ~e7 14.'Lld3
•

h5?! (14...g5!+ Henris) 15.h4?! (15.b4!?oo Henris) 12..ib2 h4 13.e6?!

15...g5+ 16.hg5 ~g5!? (016... h4!+ Henris)
17.'Llg5!? Wg5 18.Wc1 Wg4!? 19.Wf4 YZ-YZ 13.ltJeg5!? Wg4!?oo.
Roglin,U-Edelmann,W, Germany, 1992. 13.ltJd4!? hg3 14.e6 'Llh4!? (14 ... 'Llf4!?
b) 11.e3 de3 (11...d3?! 12.'Llbd4± Gutow,A- 15.ciJf3D 'Lle6 16.ltJe6 We6 17.Wd5 gh2 18.We6
Shukan,A, Novokuznetsk, 2001) 12.Wd7 Ei:d7 fe6 19.ciJg2 oo ) 15.ciJg1 gh2 16.ciJh1 fe6 17.'Llb5
13.~e3 'Llg6 14.e6!? fe6 15.Ei:adH Henris. 0-0-0 18.Wd7 Ei:d7 19.Ei:ad1 Ei:d1 20.Ei:d1 oo Henris.
c) 11.'Llc5! Wf5 (11 ...We8 12.Wb3! b6 13.'Lld3±
Henris) 12.Wb3 b6 (Baltagis,G-Kuhn,St, Austria, 13.. .'~e6 14.lLlfg5?! Wfg4?
1995) 13.'Lld3;!; Henris.
10.Wc2!? 'Llg6 11.We4 0-0-0 12.'Llb3: 014...Wd7+ Henris.
a) 12...We6!? 13.'Llbd4 'Lld4 14.'Lld4 We5
15.Wf5 'it>b8 16.~e3± Bulthaupt,F-Hilgert,W, 15.e3! Wfd1 16J:i:ad1 f5?! 17.~d2 d3
Germany, 1986. 18.~df3± ~d8 19.~e6 ~d7 20.~fd4
b) 12...ltJge5!? 13.'Llbd4 (13.'Lle5!? We6 14.f4 f6 ~d4 21.ed4 ~e7 22.d5 c6 23.~d3
15.e3 de3 16.~e3 fe5 17.Ei:ad1!? Ei:d1 18.Ei:dH) cdS 24.cd5 ~d7 25.a4 ~e7 26.d6
13 ...ltJd4 14.We5;!; (:S;14.'Lle5!? We6 oo ) Henris. ~c6 27.~c5 h3 28.cJig1 ~h6?
10.Wa4 'Llg6: 29.~d7!?+- cJid7 30.~d5 f4 31.~f5
a) 11.Wb5 0-0-0 12.'Llb3 a6 13.Wa4 'Llce5 14.Wd7 fg3 32.fg3 .id6 33..ig7 ~g6 34..ic3
Ei:d7 15.'Llbd4 'Llc4 16.b3 'Llce5 17.~b2 ltJf3 cJie6 35.~f7 ~e7 36.~h7 ~d5 37.~f3
18.'Llf3 f6= Laschek,G-Brandt,Ch, Hessen, 1991. 1-0

254
,
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6 5.g3 .ie6
Game 97
Olsson,Linus (2273)
Westerinen,Heikki (2403)
Pelaro, 2002
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3
ttJc6 5.g3 i.e6!? 6.ttJbd2 ~d7
7.i.g2 i.h3 8.e6!? i.e6 (D)
White can often advantageously play e6,
forcing the reply ... ~e6, in order to gain time
to organize his offensive. However, in this
case Black is not yet committed to castling
queenside and thus a less tempo-centred
game with kingside castling is still an option
for him.
9.0-0
The most natural move. But White has some
interesting alternatives:
9.tLlg5 ~f5 10.1&a4 (10.1&b3
11.0-0 ct:Jh6 LL.f6 - Henris) 10...f6 11.ct:Jgf3 0-0-0
6.~bd2 ~d7 7.i.g2
12.0-0 h5 13.h4 (13.ct:Jh4 ~h3 14.~c6 1&c6
15.1&e6 be6 16.Eld1 ct:Je7 17.ct:Jb3 g5! 18.ct:Jf3 ct:Jf5
19.e4 (19.ct:Jfd4? c5) 19,..ct:Jd6 20.Eld4 Ele8'"
Henris) 13... <;t>b8 14.a3 g5! 15.b4 (15.hg5 fg5
16.ct:Jg5 h4 17.gh4 (17.ct:Jdf3 hg3 18.fg3 d3!)
17,..Elh4 18.ct:Jdf3 Elg4 19.b41&g7+ Henris), as in
Aangeenbrug,H-Ellenbroek, T, Enschede, 1998.
Now Black preserves a small advantage after
15...g4 16.ct:Jh2 ct:Jge7 17.~b2ct:Je5:j: Henris.
9.~a4 (White does not allow 9,..~h3
because of 10.~h3 iWh3 11.ct:Jd4):
a) 9...d3!? 10.ed3 ct:Jb4 11.1&d7 ~d7 (Zichichi,A-
Kleinschroth,R, San Martino di Castrozza, 2002)
12.0-0 ct:Jd3 13.ct:Jb3t Henris.
b) 9 tLlf6 10.0-0:
• 10 ~h3? 11.ct:Jb3 ~g2 12.<;t>g2 0-0-0 13.Eld1+
Grycel,K-Olejarczyk,B, Ustron, 2003;
• 10...ie7?! 11.EldH (~ct:Jb3) Ivanov,Mikhail M-
Kleinschroth,R, Baunatal, 1999;
• o10... ~d6 11.ct:Jb3 0-0 12.Eld1 (12.~g5 ct:Je4)
12...Elfe8'" Henris.
9.~b3:
a) 9...tLlf6 10.1&b7 Elb8 11.ct:Jd4! Elb7 12.~e61&e6
13.ct:Je6±.
b) 9... ib4 10.a3 ~d2 11.~d2 ct:Jge7 12.0-0±.
c) 9.. J~b8 10.0-0:
• 10... b5?! 11.ct:Jg5!? (11.1&d3 be4 12.ct:Je4t
Henris) 11,..ct:Ja5?! (11,..be4 12.1&a4 ~d5 13.~d5
~d5 14.1&e4t Henris) 12.1&f3!? ct:Je4!? 13.ct:Je6
fe6 14.ct:Je4!? ~e7 15.~g5!? ~g5 16.ct:Jg5 ct:Jd2?
(16.,.ct:Jf6 17.~h3±) 17.1&f4 ct:Jf1 18.Ele1 !+- h6
19.~e6 hg5 20.~d7 1-0 Shemeakin,A-
0-0-0 Reprintsev,A, Alushta, 1997;
• 10...ie7 11.Eld1 ct:Jf6!? 12.ct:Jg5 0-0 13.ct:Je6
255
 Chapter 6

'\We6'" Makeev, V-Sonnet,Jean-P, corr., 2003. tDge7 15.:J"i:b3 (15.'\Wb5!? b6 16.c5 :J"i:d5 17.'\Wa6
md7!"') 15...f6 16.Elfb1 b6 17.:J"i:c1!? (17.c5 :J"i:d5
9....ih3 18.cb6 cb6"') 17...mb7 18.c5 g5 19.:J"i:a3 '\Wd7
20.e3 and White has good compensations for
Black gets rid of the light-squared bishops the missing pawn - Henris.
before White plays l2lg5.
9...tt:Jf6 10.'\Wb3 :J"i:b8 11.l2lg5 is annoying: 11 ...de3 12.tLle4!
11.. .~e 7 12.l2le6 '\We6 13.l2lf3 0-0 14 .~f4;!;
Bischoff,Diete-Ellenbroek,T, Dortmund, 1992. White opens up the position in order to exploit
his advantage in development.
10..ih3
12...ef2
White's queen is misplaced after
10.YMb3. Black has an easy game after 10... ~g2 12...YMg4!? 13.:J"i:e1 :J"i:d8 14.~d2 md7 (14 ... :J"i:d3
11.mg2 0-0-0 12.a3 h5 13.h4 l2lge7 14.l2le4 15.l2lc3 ~c5 16.YMe2 l2ld4 17.l2ld4 '\We2 18.:J"i:e2
l2lg6 15.'\Wa4 f6 16.b4 '\Wg4 17.l2lc5 ~c5 18.bc5 :J"i:d2 19.Eld2 ed2 20.l2lb3 ~b4= COMP Rybka)
d3 19.ed3 :J"i:d3 20.~e3 l2lf4 21.~f4 '\Wf3 22.mg1 15.~e3 \t>c8 16.l2lfd2 YMd1 17.:J"i:ad1 l2le5 18.b3
g5 23.~e3 gh4 24.:J"i:ad1 h3 0-1 Kartsev,Alex- ~b4 19.a3 ~a3 20.:J"i:a1 ~b4 21.:J"i:a7 l2le7 22.f4
Dzantiev,Z, Russia, 2000. l2ld3 23.:J"i:d1 l2lf5 24.l2lf1 \t>b8 25.:J"i:da1 12-12
Black has a promising play after Hansen,John-Marcinkiewicz,W, corr., 2005.
10.YMa4 ~g2 11.mg2 (Feavyour,J-Barton,R A,
Southend, 2006) 11 ... h5!t Henris. 13.E:f2 '?Nd7 14.E:d2 '?Ng4 15.'?Ne2
.ie7 16.E:d5 i>f8 17..if4 tLlf6 18.tLlf6
10...'?Nh3 11.e3 .if6 19.E:e1 i;

11.YMa4 0-0-0 12.b4!? ~b4 13.:J"i:b1: White's initiative outweighs the material.
a) 13... h5? has been played twice but 19.Ac7 g6.
it cannot be recommended: 14.:J"i:b4 l2lb4
15.'\Wb4 h4 16.l2le4!? (16.l2lb3 hg3 17.fg3 l2lf6 19...h6 20.'?Ne4 i>g8 21.E:b5 '?Nc8
18.'\Wa5 mb8 19.~f4, and White is close to 22.tLle5 tLle5 23..ie5 c6 24.E:b3 .ie5
Winning - Henris) 16... hg3 17.fg3 :J"i:e8 18.l2leg5 25.'?Ne5 i>h7 26.'?Ne7 E:e8 27.'?Ne8
'\Wd7 (Munschi,S-Furhoff,J, Budapest, 1994) '?Ne8 28.E:e8 E:e8 29.E:b7 :ge2
19.:J"i:d1 ± Henris. 30.E:f7
b) Black has to play 13... ~d2!? 14.~d2

256
,

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ctJf3 ctJc6 5.g3 .ie6 6.llJbd2 ~d7 7..ig2

Game 98 • 13.ltJg5 Wh5 «13 ...W!g2?! 14.Wf3±) 14.~f4!?

Gurevich,Mikhaii (2667) ~e7 (14 ... h6?! 15.tUe6 !'ld7 16.h3±) 15.tUe6 !'ld7
Yilmaz,Turhan (2338) 16.h3 (16.tUg7!? Wh3 17.Wf3 (17.tUf5 !'lfB)
Izmir, 2004 17 !'lf8 18.0-0-0 (1B.We4 d3!) 18 !'lf7!+
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.~f3 (1B tUce5!? 19.We4 tUg6+; and not 19 tUf2?
~c6 5.g3 .ie6!? 6.~bd2 Wfd7 20.We5 tUh1 21.tUc5±)) 16 ...g5! 17.W!f3 Wg6
7..ig2 .ih3 8..ih3!? Wfh3 (0) 18.tUec5 (18.Wg4? h5+; 18.tUg5?! tUf2 19.Wf2
~g5:j:) 18... ~c5 19.tUc5 tUf2! 20.tUd7 (20.Wf2
!'lf7 21.0-0-0 gf4 22.gf4 !'le8:j:) 20 ... tUh1 21.tUe5
Wg7!? 22.tUc6 gf4 23.gf4 (23.0-0-0 tUg3)
23 ... bc6 24.Wc6 (24.Wh1?? Wg3-+; 24.0-0-0?
tUg3+) 24 ... tUg3 25. Wf2 tUf5 26.!'lg 1 Wf8 27.Wa8
Wd7 28.Wd5 tUd6 29.Wd4 co Henris.
b) 10.~g5!? f6 11.ef6 (11...tUf6 12.a3 d3 13.ed3
!'le8 14.~e3 tUg4 15.We2 g6 16.tUg5 Wh5
17.tUe4 tUce5 18.tUbd2 (o1B.~d4 Wf5 19.0-0-0 -
Henris) 18... ~g7 19.h3 !'lhf8 20.~c5 !'lf7 21.f4
tUd3 22.Wd3 tUf6 23.Wf2± Jumabayev,R-
Kuderinov,K, Astana, 2007) 11...gf6 12.~f4 ~b4:
• 13.ltJfd2 Wg2!? (13 ... tUh6!? 14.a3 (14.~h6?
White accepts that he won't be castling in the tUe5!) 14 ...Wg2 15.!'lf1 ~d2 16.Wd2 tUg4
near future and intends getting straight on 17.0-0-0 tUf2=t=) 14.!'lf1 tUh6!? (14 ... tUe5 15.~e5
with things on the queenside. fe5:j:) b.15.~h6 tUe5! 16.Wb1 d3~;
• 13.~d2 d3 14.~b4 tUb4 15.tUbd4 tUh6:j:
9.a3 Henris.
c) 10.a3!? (Rogosaroff,I-Sonnet,Jean-P, corr.,
White also has the following interesting 2004) seems to offer White a small advantage:
continuations: • 10... ltJge7 11.Wd3 tUg6 12.~f4 (:512.We4?!
9.ltJb3 0-0-0: tUge5 13.tUfd4 (13.tUe5 f5!; 13.tUbd4 tUf3 14.tUf3
a) 1 0.~d3 f6!? 11.ef6 tUf6 12.a3 tUg4: ~c5C) 13... tUd4 14.tUd4 ~c5 15.Wf5 Wf5 16.tUf5
• 13.ltJfd4? tUd4 14.tUd4 (Briggeman,P-Turin,J, tUc4 17.tUg7 !'ld5t) 12 ... ~e7 13.0-0-0 f6 14.ef6
corr., 1991) 14... ~c5! 15.~f5 Wb8 16.Wc5 Wg2 ~f6 15.tUg5;!; Henris;
17.!'lf1 tUh2:j: Henris; • 10...f6!? 11.ef6 tUf6 12.~g5!? (12.Wd3 tUg4
• 13.~g5!? !'ld7 14.We4 ~d6t; would transpose to the game Briggeman,P-

257
 Chapter 6

Turin,J, corr., 1991, seen before) 12...i.e7 (11.tLlb3+- Henris) 11...tLlge7 12.tLle4!? 0-0-0
13.~d3 h6 14.i.f6 i.f6 15.0-0-0;1; Henris. 13.tLlc6 tLlc6 14.tLlg5± Rethali-Krenosz ,
9.tLle4 0-0-0 10.i.g5?! (10.a3): Budapest, 1949.
a) 10...i.b4!? 11.i.d2 ~f5Q) 12.~c2?? d3! 0-1 But 9 ...tLlh6!? really deserves serious
Gerhardt,P-Sielaff,R, Schwaebisch Gmuend, attention. After 10.~c2!? ct:Jg4 11.~e4 i.e?
2005. 12.b4 0-0, the continuations 13.b5 and 13.i.b2
b) 10...f6! 11.ef6 gf6!? (11...ct:Jf6!?) 12.i.f4 have been met in practice:
(12.ct:Jf6? ct:Jf6 13.i.f6 i.b4 14.ct:Jd2 1'%he8 a) 13.b5!?:
M5.i.d8 ~g2 16.1'%f1 d3 17.e3 cj;Jd8-+) 12... 1'%e8 • 13...tLlce5? 14.ct:Je5 ct:Je5 15.~e5 i.f6 16.~f4!?
13.ct:Jed2 ct:Jb4 14.~b3 d3 15.ct:Jd4 ~g2 16.1'%f1 d3 17.1'%a2± Jorgensen,Mic-Kleinschroth,R,
i.c5=i= Henris. Copenhagen, 2001;
The interesting 9.Wfa4 is the subject of • o13...Wfg2! 14.1'%f1 (14.~g4 ~h1 15.ct:Jf1 f5!
game 99. 16.~f4 (inferior is 16.ef6?! i.f6 17.bc6 d3
18. 1'% a 2 1'%ae8+) 16... ct:Ja5 17.ct:Jd4 1'%ae8+)
9...0-0-0?! (D) 14...ct:Jce5 15.i.b2 (15.ct:Je5 ~e4 16.ct:Je4 ct:Je5+;
15.h3!? ct:Jf3 16.~f3 ~h3 17.1'%h1 ct:Jh2 18.~d3
(18.~b7 d3!-+) 18... ~g2 19.~e4 ~e4 20.ct:Je4
ct:Jg4+; 15.ct:Jd4 ~e4 16.ct:Je4 ct:Jc4=i=) 15...1'%ad8+
Henris.
b) 13.i.b2 1'%ae8:
• 14.i.d4 i.f6 15.i.c3?! (15.0-0-0 ct:Jce5!?
would have been unclear - Henris) 15...ct:Jge5
16.ct:Je5?! (better is 16.b5 ct:Jg4 17.~c2 i.c3
18.~c3 ct:Jce5=i= Henris) 16...i.e5+ 17.~f3 1'%e6!?
(17 ...i.d4!? is also worth considering: 18.~d3
1'%d8!? (18... ~g2!?) 19.i.d4 ct:Jd4 20.0-0-0 ~e6
(20... a5!?) 21.e3 ct:Jf3 22.~c3 ct:Jd2 23.1'%d2 1'%d2
24. cj;Jd2 'lWc6, and Black has some initiative -
Very naturaL .. But too slow! Henris) 18.1'%c1? (o18.b5 ct:Jd4 19.i.d4 i.d4
Please note that the move order of the game 20.0-0-0 1'%fe8=i= Henris) 18...i.c3 19.'lWc3 1'%fe8-+
was 5...i.g4 6.i.g2 ~d7 7.a3 0-0-0 8.ct:Jbd2 i.h3 O'Kelly de GalwaY,A-Forintos,G, Bordeaux,
9.i.h3 ~h3. 1964;
9...a5?! wastes time and unnecessarily • 14.b5!? 'lWg2 15.1'%f1 ct:Jce5 16.i.d4 i.f6 17.ct:Je5
weakens the queenside: 10.~a4 g5? 11.ct:Jd4!? ~e4 18.ct:Je4 i.e5 19.1'%d1 i.d4 (19...1'%d8!?

258
 . ----------
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.tLlf3 tLlc6 5.g3 Ae6 6.tDbd2 Wld7 7.Ag2

20 ..ic5!? Eld1 21.c;tJd1 Eld8 22.c;tJc2 ttJh2 23.Elh1 27.c;tJb2;!;) 20 ....if6 21.e3 .ie5 22.ed4 .id4
ttJg4 24.f3;!;) 20.Eld4 ttJh2 21.Elh1 ttJg4 22.f3!? 23.Elhe1 Wfh6!? 24.Wfc2± Henris.
(22.ttJc5 ttJe5 co ) 22 f5 23.ttJc5 ttJe5 24.c;tJf2 b6 On the other hand 11.ef6?! ttJf6 would
25.ttJd7 c5!? (25 Eld8 26.Elhd1 ttJd7 27.Eld7 unwisely open up the position and give Black
Eld7 28.Eld7 Elf? 29.Eld8 Elf8 30.Eld5;!;) 26.Eld5 too much play after 12.ttJb3 (12.b5!? ttJa5 co
ttJd7 27.Eld7 Elf? 28.Elf? ~f? 29.Elh7 Eld8f2 Henris (12... ttJe7? 13.ttJg5)) 12...d3!?:
Henris. a) 13.e3? ttJe4:
• 14.ib2? ~b4! 15.ab4 ~g2 16.Elf1 ttJb4-+
10.b4 f6!? Henris;
• 14.tl:lbd4? Eld4! 15.ttJd4 (15.ed4? ttJb4!-+)
It's already too late now for 10...tl:lh6: 15...ttJd4 (15... ttJe5!?) 16.ed4 Wfg2 17.E1f1 ~b4!
11.b5 ttJa5!? 12.Wfa4!? b6 13.c5!? ~c5 14.ttJe4 18.ab4 Ele8-+ Henris;
~e7 15.~d2± Vasile,Co-Stefanescu,S, corr. • 14.c5? ttJc3 15.ttJg5 Wfd7 (and not 15...Wfg2??
1987. 16.Wff3 Wff3 17.ttJf3± Csizmadia,Las-Toth,Jo,
1O... ~e6!? has been played in Nyiregyhaza, 1996) 16.Wff3 (16.Wfd2 Wfd5-+)
Sadowski,Ma-Leisebein, P, corr., 2003. After 16 ttJe5 17.Wfg2 (17.~h5 Wfd5-+) 17...d2
11.~b2 ttJge7?! (11 ... ttJe5 12.~d4! ttJf3 13.ttJf3± (17 ~a4-+) 18.~d2 ttJd3 19.~f1 ttJf4!-+ Henris;
Henris) White could have obtained a clear • 14.tl:lbd2!? Wfg2 15.Elf1 ttJc3 16.Wfb3 (16.Elg1
advantage with 12.Wfa4! ~b8 13.b5 ttJe5 Wfg1 17.ttJg1 ttJd1 18.~d1+) 16...Ele8! 17.Wfc3
14.~d4± Henris. Ele3 18.~d1 Elf3+ Henris.
b) 13.ed3!? ttJb4!co Henris.
11.Wfa4 c) 13.ie3 leads to great complications:
13 ttJb4! (13...ttJg4!?) 14.ab4 (14.ttJbd4? c5-+)
11.ib2 is also good for White: 11 ... ttJh6 14 ~b4:
12.Wfa4 ~b8 13.b5 ttJe5 14.~d4 c5 15.~e5 fe5 c1) 15.id2 de2:
16.0-0-0 ~e7 17.ttJe4 ttJf5 18.ttJe5 ttJd4 • 16.~e2?1 Elhe8 17.ttJe5 Ele5 18.Wfe5 Ele8
19.ttJc3: 19.Wfe8 ttJe8 20.~b4 ~e6 21.~d1 Wfc4 22.ttJd2
a) 19...Elhf8 20.e3 Elf2 21.ed4 Wff5 Wfb4 23.Ela7 ttJd6+;
(Zimmerman,Y-KislinskY,A, Zvenigorod, 2008) • 16.~c21? Wfg4! 17.ttJe5!? (17.~b4?? Wff3
22.ttJd3 ~g5 23.~b1 Eld2 24.Eld2 ~d2 25.Wfc2+- 18.Elg1 Eld1! 19.Eld1 ed1Wf 20.Wfd1 Ele8 21.~d2
Henris. Eld8-+) 17... ~d2 18.ttJd2 Wfd4 19.Ela3!? (19.Ela5?
b) 19... ~e6 20.f4 (20.ttJd3 ttJe2 21.ttJe2 Wfe2 ttJe4!-+; 19.Wff5? ttJd7 20.Ela2 (20.Ela5? ElhfB
22.Elhe1 Wff3 23.Ele7 (23. Wfc2!?) 23 ...Eld3 21.ttJf7 EldeB-+) 20 ...Wfe5 21.Wfe5 ttJe5+)
24.Eld3 Wfd3 25.Wfc2!? Wfa3 26.Wfb2 Wfb2 19 ...Wfe5 20.Ela7 c;tJb8+;

259
 Chapter 6
•

• 16.1oWb1! \t>b8 (16 ... ~g4!? 17.tiJe5) 17.~a2 a6
18.~b4!? ~g2 19.Elg1 ~f3 20.tiJd2 ~h5 21.~a5
~h2 22.tiJf3 ~h3iii.
c2) 15.tiJbd2 a5!:
• 16.~a4? tiJe4 17.ed3 Eld3--+ Henris;
• 16.~b3 de2 17.\t>e2 tiJg4--+ Henris;
• 16.ed3 Eld3 17.~e2 Elhd8 18.~f4 (and not
18.0-0-0? ~e6 19.Elhe1 ct:le4!-+) 18... Elc3!?iii
Henris.
11 ...@b812.i.b2 '?Me6!?
12...fe5!? 13.b5 ct:lce7 14.ct:le5 ~e6 15.ct:ldf3
ct:lf6 16.c5!? (Black is about to lose his central
pawn) 16...ct:lf5 17.ct:ld4? (17.Elc1) 17...ct:ld4
18.~d4 ~d5 19.0-0 ~c5 20.~c5 ~c5 21.ct:lf3
Elhe8 22.Elad1 !?± as in the game Pixton,A-
Kaufman,R, Filadelfia, 2001.
13.0-0-0!
13.ef6 ct:lf6 14.b5 ct:le5 15.~d4 (15.ct:ld4?? is a
blunder because of 15... ct:ld3) 15... ct:ld3 16.@f1
~c5t Gurevich,M.
15.tiJg5 ~g6 16.tiJge4± Gurevich,M.
14 tiJf6 15.e3 tiJg4 (15 ...d3 16.b5
tiJe7!? (16 e4 17.tiJg5 ~f5 18.bc6 ~g5 19.~d4±
Henris) 17.ct:le5± Gurevich,M) 16.ed4 ct:lf2 17.d5
~g6 (17 ...ct:ld3 18.@b1 ~g6 19.ct:lh4+):
a) 18.tiJh4?! ~d6a>.
b) 18.Wfc2?! ct:ld3 (18 ... ~c2?! 19.\t>c2 tiJd1
20.@d1 ct:le7 21.ct:le5± Gurevich,M) 19.@b1 tiJe1
20.Ele1 ct:ld4a> Henris.
c) 18J~e3 ct:ld1 19.~d1 Wh6 20.We1+ Henris.
White will get a very powerful position after
21.ct:le5.
15.e3! '?Mf6?!
Better is 15...de3 16.Ele3 ct:lg4 17.Ele2 Wff5
although White has still a strong initiative after
18.h3 Wd3 19.Elde1 e4 20.ct:le4 Wff3 21.hg4 Wg4
22.b5i Gurevich,M.
16.ed4 ed4 17 .~e4+-
White is threatening 18.Elde1 or 18.b5. Black
has great difficulty in developing his kingside.

13...fe5 14J3he1 17... a6?

b.15.e3. Allowing a very nice finish. But it's already very

hard to give a good advice.
14...lDh6!?
18.~de1 lDf5 19.~e6 '?Mf7 20.~e6!
The alternatives for the second player fare no be6 21.lDe5 '?Mf6 22.lDe6 @b7
better: 23.~e6!
Black loses his pawn after 14...e4? 1-0

260
 1
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6 5.g3 .te6 6.lLJbd2 VNd7 7..1g2

Game 99 Galkine,G-Mongle,J, email, 2001.

Loeffler,Markus (2379) The immediate 10.b4!? il.b4 11.~b1
Schmid,Martin (2137) should also be a consideration:
Basle, 2001 a) 11 ...d3? 12.~b4 (12.ed3?? Wg2-+) 12 ... CLlb4
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.~f3 13.Wb4 de2 14.Wa3! a6 15.CLlg1! We6
~c6 5.g3 .ie6!? 6.~bd2 ~d7 (15 ...Wg2? 16.Wf3) 16.CLle2± Henris.
7..ig2 .ih3 8..ih3!? ~h3 9.~a4 (D) b) 11 ... ~c3!? 12.1&b5? (12.~b7!? Wb7 13.Wb5
We8 14.We6 CLle7 15.1&e5!? Wd7 (15 ~he8!?)
16.1&b5 e6 17.Wb7 We8:; Henris) 12 CLlge7?
(12 ...CLla5+ Henris) 13.~a3? (13.Wb7 Wd7
14.1&a6 ~b8Q) Henris) 13... b6+ Alber,H-Marchio,
E, Bergen Enkheim, 1997.

10...d3!?

10... c!tJh6!? 11.b4 CLlg4 12.b5 CLlee5

(12 ...1&g2? 13.~f1 CLlee5 14.Wa7± Li~e8?
15.Wa8 Wd7 16.1&b7±) 13.Wa7 ~e8 14.CLle5
CLle5 15.<j;Jd1 I?;!; Henris.
I recommend a quick development with
9...0-0-0 10.:gb1!? 10...~b4!? 11.a3 ~d2 12.~d2 d3! with good
counterplay for Black.
10.a3:
a) 1O.. .'~b8?! 11.b4 f6 12.~b2± Srokowski,J- 11.b4
Balduan,M, Germany, 1994.
b) 10... c!tJh6 11.b4 CLlg4 12.~b2 (12.b5? CLlee5 11.ed3 CLlh6!?:;: Henris.
13.1&a7 ~e8!+) 12... d3 13.ed3 1&g2 14.~f1 ~d3
15.0-0-0 (15.b5 ~f3Q») 15... CLlf2 16.~g1 1&h3 11...de212.@e2
17 .~df1;!; Henris.
c) 10...d3!? (with the White's king in the The white king has decided to remain in the
centre logically Black wants to open up the centre, where it anticipates being safer than
position) 11.b4!? (11.ed3?! ~d3:j:) 11 ...de2 its enemy number.
12.~b2 a6!? (12 ... Wb8!? 13.b5 ~e5Q) Henris;
12 ... CLlh6~ Li13.b5?! ~e5+ Henris) 13.b5!? CLlb8Q) 12... ~f5!?

261
 Chapter 6
-
12 ge8 13..ib2 (13.~d1 gdB 14.~e2 geB) Game 100
13 .ib4 14..ia1 a5 15.a3 .id2 16.ttJd2~ Henris. Tiviakov,Sergei (2618)
Brenninkmeijer,Joris (2499)
Groningen, 2001
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.'tJf3
Correctly employing the rook to patch up the ~c6 5.g3 .ie6!? 6.~bd2 ~d7
hole on d3. 7..ig2 (D)

13... ~g4?!

13...ttJd4?! 14.ttJd4 ~e5 15.mf1 ~d4

16.~g2± Henris.
13... ttJh6 14.b5 (14.h3!?) 14...ltJe5
15.~a7 ~e8 16.ltJe5 ~e5 17.~d1± Henris.
13...l!?b8 14..ib2 f6 15.~e1 fe5 16.l!?fH
Henris.

14.h3± E:d2?!

If 14... ~e6 then 15..ib2 would, with b5 next on

the agenda, give White an easy ride. Instead of the main continuations 7...0-0-0,
7...ltJge7 and 7....ih3, Black also has tried in
15..id2 ~c4 16.E:d3 ~h6? practice some uncommon ideas which I
examine here.
16... ~e4 17..ie3.
7....ie7?!
17.E:c1+- ~e6 18.~c2
Though it usefully controls the g5-square,
Homing in on c7. The knight is pinned, making 7....ie7 feels a little slow.
19.b5 a serious threat. Black's idea is 8.0-0 h5 9.h4 ltJh6, and the
knight finds a nice spot on g4 or f5.
18....id6 19.E:d6! cd6 20.b5 ~f5 After the weak 7....ib4? White can
21.bc6 E:e8 22.cb7 simply develop with 8.0-0± Dworakowska,J-
1-0 Lyell,Me, Crete, 2007.

262
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.tLlf3 tLlc6 5.g3 .ie6 6.lDbd2 ~d7 7..ig2
1

7.. J~d8!? 8.0-0 ttJge7 9.~a4 ttJg6 obtain a clear advantage after 11.b5 ttJa5
10.!"\d1 fie7 11.ttJb3± Djukic-Gagic,N, 12.~a4 b6 13.fib2± Henris.
Yugoslavia, 2000. 8.0-0 hS! (after 8...fih3!?, as in
Steiner,Her-Woliston,P, South California, 1940,
8.VBa4!N White can play 9.fih3 ~h3 10.~a4 0-0-0
11.b4!?---t Henris):
Although this move is very logical, it is new. a) 9.a3?! h4! 10.!"\e1 (10.b4 hg3 11.fg3 !"\hSii5
Before bringing his king to safety White puts Raetsky & Chetverik) 10... hg3 11.hg3!?
immediate pressure on the queenside and d4 (11.fg3!?) 11 ...fih3 12.fih1 (12.fih3?? ~h3
pawn. By ignoring the advance of the h-pawn 13.etJh4 fih4 14.gh4 !"\h4-+) 12... ~g4!?
White gains a huge amount of time. (12 ... 0-0-0 13.b4 ~fSoo Henris) 13.~c2!? ~hS
Let's also analyse the following alternatives for 14.~b3 0-0-0 1S.e4? d3! (1S ... gS! - Henris)
White: 16.~c3 fif1! 17.mf1 (17.fig2 fig2 18.<j;Jg2 ~h3
8.h4?! (Flumbort,A-Koszegi,L, Eger, 19.mg1 ~h1#) 17... ~h1 18.etJg1 !"\h2 0-1
2009): Haines, W-Von Oettingen,S, Sacramento,
a) 8...0-0-0!? 9.0-0 ttJh6 (9 ...fih3!? 10.fih3 ~h3 1961.
11.etJb3 ~g4 12.~d3;j;) 10.etJb3!? (10.~a4!? b) 9.~b3!? h4? (9 ...0-0-0 10.ttJe4 (10.h4!?)
mb8; 10.a3 etJg4 11.~b3) 10...fic4 (10 ... etJg4 10... h4!? 11.!"\dH Henris) as in Schrank,Mar-
11.fif4 fic4 12.!"\cH) 11.fih6!? gh6 12.~c2 fidS Neumeyer,H, Germany, 2004. Now White can
13.!"\fd1;J; Henris. take the pawn with 10.~b7 because after
b) o8...ltJh6 9.etJb3 etJg4 (9 ...0-0-0 - 8 ...0-0-0) 10...!"\b8 she has 11.etJd4+- Henris.
10.Lt:Jfd4 (S10.etJbd4 !"\d8 11.e3 fic4:j:) 10... etJd4 c) 9.lLlb3!? 0-0-0 (Calton,B-Finegold,R, Detroit,
11.iWd4 iWd4 12.etJd4 0-0-0 13.fie3 (13.e3?! 1990) 10.figS!? fic4 11.fie7 etJge7 12.!"\c1 fidS
fib4; 13.etJc2!? fics 14.0-0 fic4 1s.fih3 fie6;;;) 13.t1:lcS ~e8 14.b4i Henris.
13 ...fib4 14.<j;Jf1 etJe3 1S.fe3 fic4 16.<j;Jf2 !"\he8 d) 9.b4!? fib4 (Haba,Z-Cirabisi,F, Imperia,
17.!"\hc1 fidS 18.fidS !"\dS 19.etJf3 fiaS;;; 2005) 10.!"\b1 ii5 Henris.
Henris.
8.a3!?: 8... h5
a) 8...fih3!? 9.fih3 ~h3 10.b4 ~e6!? 11.~a4±
Rosso,M-Busson,B, Provence, 2006. 8...ltJe5 loses after 9.~d7 etJd7
b) 8... h5!? 9.h4!? (9.b4!? - Henris) 9... etJh6!? 10.ttJd4+-.
10.b4 O-O?! (10 ... etJg4 11.bS etJceS 12.etJeS etJeS 8...0-0-0 is met by 9.0-0± Llb4; LlttJb3.
13.fib7± Henris) was played in Maurer,Fri-
Chetverik,M, Triesen, 2011. Now White can 9.ltJ b3

263
 Chapter 6

I,
, Threatening tt:Jfd4. 1U~d1!? was possible as well. E.g. 11...hg3
12.fg3±, and the d4-pawn is very weak.
9.. J~d8
11 ...hg3
Keeping the king in the middle.
9...tt:Je5 10.~d7 tiJd7 11.tiJfd4 ie4 Or 11 ... lL\h6!? immediately.
12.ib7±.
9...0-0-0 10.tiJg5! (10.0-0 ~b8;!;; 12.fg3± ~h3?
10.ig5±) 10...ib4 (10 ... tiJe5 fails to 11.~a7)
11.id2 id2 12.tiJd2 tiJge7 13.tiJb3+- The losing move. It was necessary to finish the
(13.tiJge4!?). development and bring the knight into play.
9...d3!? 10.tiJfd4 (10.ed3 ~d3f±) After 12...tt:Jh6 13.:§:ad 1± White still

I,
10... tiJe5 11.~d7 id7 12.ib7 :§:b8 13.id5 tiJf6 keeps a large advantage. 13.ih6 :§:h6 14.:§:ad1+
14.f4 tiJd5 15.ed5±. is possible as well.
12 ...lL\e5 13.~d7 tiJd7 14.tiJbd4 ie4
i

I, 10.0-0! 15.:§:fe1±.
I,

I,'
,

From this point on, Tiviakov limits himself to 13.~h3 E:h3

making thoroughly sound moves, a tactic that
proves suficient for the win.
White doesn't have time to play 10.h4
because of 10...d3!f±.
Black also has good counterplay after
10.if4 d3f±.
interesting was 10.lL\g5!? tiJe5 11.~d7
id7 12.ib7 (after 12.tiJd4 ie8! Black has nice
play: d4 and e4 are hanging, and ib4 is in the
air) 12...ib4 13.~f1 (13.id2 id2 14.tiJd2 :§:b8!)
13...d3! 14.ed3 tiJd3 and Black possibly has
something here that with a bit of good will
could be called compensation - Hoeksema.
Tiviakov opts for a more clear-cut approach.
10...h4 11.~f4
After 13... ~h3, 14.tiJa5 (or 14.:§:f2!?) is very
awkward for Black: 14... ~d7 15.tiJb7 :§:b8
16.~a6+- (16.~b5+-).
14.E:ad1+-
It's curtains for the d4-pawn. Black's thankless
task is to drop the second pawn under the most
favourable circumstances possible.
White wins after 14...lL\e5 15.~d7 tiJd7
16.tiJfd4+-.
Another way to try to fish in muddy

264
 1.d4 d5 2.e4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.lUf3 lUe6 5.g3 .*.e6 6.lLlbd2 Wd7 7..*.g2

waters is 14...1"i:h5, but after 15.ltJbd4 ltJd4 18....tc519.'it>g2.

16.~d7 1"i:d7 17.ltJd4 .ic5 18.e3 g5 White has
the strong move 19.1tJf5!, the main idea of 19J~d7 'kt>d7 20J~~d1
which is the fork on g7. After, for instance,
19.. .f6 20.1"i:d7 <±>d7 21.e6! <±>c8 22.g4, it's all 20 ..tg5+-.
over - Hoeksema.
20...'kt>e8
15.llJbd4 llJd4 16.'~d7 gd7 17.llJd4
20... ~c6 21.~g5.
White has two extra pawns. The rest of the 20.. .';!;>e6 21.~g5.
game is not interesting anymore. Black could
have resigned here. 21 ..ig5 i.g5

17...llJg4?! 21 ...lLlh2 22.<±>g2 ttJf3 23.ef3.

Making it easy for White.

17...~c5 18.<±>g2! 1"i:h5 19.ttJb3+-.
More stubborn is 17...g5 18.<±>g2 1"i:h5
19.~c1 (even after the careless 19.~e3!? White
still has the advantage after 19...1"i:h2 20.<±>h2
ttJg4 21. <±>g 1 ttJe3 22.1"i:d3±). Black will probably
win back a pawn at some stage, but he will be
struggling for the draw - Hoeksema.
18.llJf3 g5
22.. J~h2 23.1"i:d4.
22...1"i:h523.ttJf3.
23.llJf3 ga6 24.a3 ga4 25.gc1 llJe3
26.llJd2 llJg4 27.e6 fe6 28.gc3 'kt>e7
29.h3 llJe5 30.'kt>f2 b6 31.llJf3 llJc4
32.b3 llJd6 33.gc7 'kt>d8 34.gc6
1-0

265
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 The main option in the position.
I tLJc6 5.g3 .te6!? (D) But Black also has the following continuations:
,I,
6....ib4, pinning the knight on d2 and
threateningto win back the pawn with 7...~c4,
is also worth considering. See games 103 and
104.
6... lLlge7 will transpose to the previous
chapter if Black decides to play ,. .W'd7. But
I instead, the second player can follow with
7,..lLlg6 after 7.~g2 and then the development
of his kingside. This plan is examined in game
105.
A rather cheeky alternative is 6...g5!?
See game 105 for detailed analyses.
,
!

!I! In this chapter I shall consider all the replies 7.a3

for White except for 5.g3 ~e6 6.lLlbd2 iWd7
!
,
7.~g2 discussed in chapter 6. Here White does not play an early ~g2 in the
opening and prefers first to expand on the
6.tilbd2 queenside before deciding where to develop
his light-squared bishop and where to hide the
,
i;
I The timid 6.b3 is analysed in games king.
106 to 108. At any time play may transpose to the previous
6.~a4 is examined in games 109 and chapter in case if White reverts to an early
110. ~g2.
White can sacrifice the c4-pawn for a 7..ig2 is the subject of chapter 6.
lead of development with the interesting
6.ig2!? This idea is dealt with in games 111 7... ttJge7
and 112.
Other minor alternatives (6.~b3, 7...a5 has been played a few times and
6.~c2 and 6..ig5) are also considered. See thus is worth considering. It is analysed in
game 113. game 101.
The pawn sacrifice 7...f6 and 7...h6 are
6...Wfd7 also covered (~ game 101 ).

266
 1
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.4:Jf3 4:Jc6 5.g3 J.e6 other lines

8.tLlb3 (D) 1982. You will find detailed analyses in game

101.
The alternatives 9 ...lbd4 and 9...:Bd8
are inferior and are also covered in this game.

8.b4 ttJg6 was played in the game

Ward,C-Pert,R, Staverton, 2009 and is dealt
with in game 102.
The alternatives to 8.ttJb3 and 8.b4 are
seen in game 101.

8...tLlg6

8..ic4?! does not give enough

compensation as analyses of the game 101
show.
8...lbf5?! transposes to the line 5.a3
.ie6 6.ttJbd2 ttJge7 7.ttJb3 ttJf5 8.g3!? examined
in game 24 (chapter 2), note of White's 8th
move.

9.tLlbd4 0-0-0

9...0-0-0 is the subject of the

beautiful game Levitt,J-Speelman,J, Torquay,

267
 Chapter 7
,
II

Game 101 (14 ... ba3 15J':1:a3 tt:Jge5 16.c5 iJ.a7 17.'~a1 iJ.b8
Levitt,Jonathan (2310) 18.f4!? tt:Jg4 19.iJ.c6 ~c6 20.tt:Jd4 ~c5 21.f5±)
Speelman,Jonathan (2575) 15.c5 ~a5 16.tt:Ja5 tt:Ja5 17.ab4 tt:Jac4 18.tt:Jc4
Torquay, 1982 tt:Jc4 19.~c1;!; Henris.
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.11Jf3 c) 8 i.h3 9.0-0:
lLlc6 5.g3 ie6 6)Llbd2 YMd7 7.a3 (D) • 9 h5!? 10.tt:Je4 ~g2 11.ctlg2 h4 12.~f4
(12.tt:Jh4 tt:Je5"') 12... hg3 13.~g3;!; Wohlfahrt,H-
,I Ellenbroek, T, Dortmund, 1992;
• 9...i.e7!? 10.Wfb3 ~g2 11.ctlg2 g5!? 12.h3!?
,I
Ii
II
h5 13J''J:h1 0-0-0 14.Wfb5 tt:Jh6!? 15.tt:Jb3±
Rapport, R-Staberhofer, R, Rijeka, 2009.
7.. .f6 8.ef6 tt:Jf6:
a) 9.ig2 ~e7 10.b4 a6 11.~b2 gd8 12.0-0 0-0
13.b5± Sanz Lazaro,A-Velasco Valentin,L,
Valladolid, 1981.
b) 9.b4t Koopmans,P-Mol,G, corr., 1991.
7...0-0-0?! allows 8.b4 tt:Jge7 (8 ... ~e7?
9.Wfa4 ~f8 10.b5 tt:Jb8 11.Wfa7 tt:Je7 12.~g2 1-0
Guzman,Ca-Nielsen,Hei, corr., 1999) 9.b5 tt:Ja5
White postpones ~g2 and prepares the 10.Wfa4 b6 11.~b2 c5 12.bc6 tt:Jec6 13.~g2;!;
expansion on the queenside with b4. Henris.
8.~g2!?
" '

7 h6?! (8.b4 is strong -

7...11Jge7! Henris) 8 0-0-0 9.0-0 (9.b4± Henris) 9...g5
10.Wfa4!? ctlb8 (Poklitar,V-Duskuzhanov,D, St
Black does best by immediately attacking the Petersburg, 1999) 11.b4 ~g7 12.b5!? tt:Je5
e-pawn. 13.tt:Je5 ie5 14.tt:Jb3 Wfd6 15.~b2 tt:Je7
7...a5 8.~g2: 16.gad1 ± Henris.
a) 8...lZlge7 9.0-0 ttJg6 10.Wfa4 ~e7 11.ttJb3 0-0
12.~g5;!;. 8.11Jb3!?N
b) 8 .ic5!? 9.0-0 ttJge7 10.b3!? tt:Jg6 11.~b2:
• 11 lZlge5!? 12.tt:Je5 tt:Je5 13.~b7± Ekstrom,F- Interesting is 8.lZlg5!? tt:Je5 9.tt:Je6 ~e6
Mieses,J, Hastings, 1945; 10.~g2 0-0-0:
• 11..J':1:d8!? 12.b4!? (12.tt:Je4 ~a7 13.tt:Jeg5 a) 11.0-0 h5!?:
~f5=) 12 ...ab4 13.ttJb3 ~b6 14.tt:Jfd2!? tt:Jge5 • 12.YHb3 tt:J7c6'" Henris (12 ...c6?! 13.tt:Je4

268
•
1
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ct:Jf3 ct:Jc6 5.g3 J.e6 other lines

tD7g6 14.tDgS;!; Lagerlof,F-Linklater,L, corr., 10.~e3

1997);
• 12.tDf3 tDf3 13.ef3 ~e4:j: Tataev,M- 10.e3!? lLlgeS 11.lLleS lLleS 12.We2 i.g4 13.f4?!
Krasenkow,M, Moscow, 1981. (13.i.g2 cSt Henris):
b) 11.tDe4?! We4!? (11...tD7e6!?) 12.b3 ~bS a) 13...c5!? 14.lLlbS?! (14.feS ed4:j:)
13.0-0 tD7e6 14.i.d2!? h6!? 1S.i.h3 ~b8 16.f4 14...i.f3 1S.1::1g1? (1S.feS i.h1 16.lLla7 ~b8
d3!? 17.e3 tDg6!? 18.lLle3= Srinivasan,J- 17.lLlbS;I; Henris) as in Tudor,V-Vasile,Co, corr.,
Leisebein,P, corr., 2001. 1986. Now 1S...i.e4 allows Black to maintain a
8.h4!? lLlg6 9.i.g2 lLlgeS 10.lLleS lLleS clear advantage: 16.Wa4 (16.We4?? Wfd1
11.i.b7 1::1d8!?oo Wachinger,G-Babinetz,R, 17.~f2 lLlg4 18.~g2 1::1d2 19.i.d2 Wfd2 20.~h3
Wattens, 1996. lLlf2-+; 16.lLld6!? Wfd6 17.feS WfeS+) 16... lLlf3
See next game for 8.b4. 17.~f2lLlg1+ Henris.
8.i.g2 transposes to the line S.g3 i.e6 b) 13...ttJf3 14.lLlf3 (14.~f2?? lLld4
6.lLlbd2 Wd7 7.i.g2 lLlge7 8.a3 (~ game 92 - 1S.ed4 Wfd4-+ 1116.i.e3? Wfe3 17.~e3 i.eS
chapter 6). 18.~e4 ~he8#) 14...i.f3 1S.~g1 i.eS!?t Henris.

10... lLlge5 11.~e5 ~e5 12..ig2

8...i.c4?! 9.lLlbd4 lLlg6!? (9 ...1::1d8 12.ttJe6 Wfe6 13.Wfe1!? (13.Wfe2!? i.eS!;

10.i.e3;1;) 10.lLle6 We6 11.i.d2!?± COMP The 13.Wfb3!? e6= Hernis) 13... lLle4!? 14.i.a7!?:
Crazy Bishop-COMP Zarkov, Germany, 1999. a) 14...b6!? 1S.e3!? (1S.i.g2 i.eS oo ) 1S...WfdS
8...tDf5?! would transpose to the line 16.f3!? (16.1::1g1? WfaS 17.b4!? i.b4 18.ab4 Wfb4
S.a3 i.e6 6.lLlbd2 lLlge7 7.lLlb3 lLlfS 8.93!? 19.~e2 ~d2 20.~f3 lLleS 21.~g2 Wfe4 22.~h3
analysed in game 24 (chapter 2), note of WffS 23.g4 Wff3! 24.~g3D Wff2-+; 16.i.h3 ~b7
White's 8th move. 17.0-0!?oo) 16...Wff3 17.Wfe4 i.eS! (17 ...Wfh 1?
18.i.b6 i.d6 19.0-0-0±) 18.Wfa6 ~d7 19.i.h3
9.~bd4 0-0-0 ~e6 20.~f1 Wfe3 21.~e2 Wfe2 22.~e2 ~he8
23.~f3 ~d3 24.~g4 (24.~g2?? ~e2 2S.~h1
9...tDd4?! 10.Wd4± Foisor,O-Lamford, ~dd2-+) 24 ... ~e4:j: Henris.
P, Lucerne, 1982. b) 14 ttJd2!? 1S.~e3:
9...E!d8 10.i.e3 i.e4 11.lLle6 We6 • 15 ttJf1!? 16.~f1 b6 17.~e1 eS (17 ...i.eS?!
12.We1 i.dS 13.We6 i.e6 14.e6!? fe6 1S.i.h3 i.f3 18.b4;!; Hera,I-Kleinschroth,R, Buchen, 2009)
16.ef3 ~f7 17.0-0;1; Witke,T-Lach,B, Augsburg, 18.Wf3 ~e7oo Henris;
1991. • o15... b6!? 16.i.b6 (16.i.g2 i.eS:j: 1117.0-0-0?

269
 ,
Chapter 7

~f2-+) 16 ...11Qfb6 17.~h3

Wb8 18.1''i:d1 ~a3 15.We2? 11Qfb5 16.We1 ct:ld3 17.Wf1 ct:lf4
19.11Qfa3 (19.ba3?? ct:lf3!-+) 19... ct:lf3 20.11Qff3 11Qfa5 18.Wg1 ct:le2 19.11Qfe2D 11Qfe2 20.~c5 2:d1 21.2:d1
21.11Qfc3 2:d1 22.Wd1 11Qfd5!? 23.Wc2 11Qfh1 lXl iWd1 22.~f1 iWc2-+.
Henris.
12.b3 ct:lg4. 15...ia6!

12...ic4!? The continuation 15...ct:ld3?! would have been

12...ct:lc4!? 13.ct:le6 (13.iWb3 ~d5!)
14.2:d1 2:d1 15.\t>d1 ct:le3 16.fe3 fe6=.
13.~c2 ic5 14.ctJf5?! (D)
weaker: 16.\t>e2 iWf5 17.2:hc1! ~h5 (17 ...ct:lc1
13...iWd1 18.2:c1 2:he8 19.~e3 iWc2 20.2:c2+-) 18.~f3
(18.\t>f1? ct:lc5:j: Ll19.iWc5?? 2:d1-+) 18... 2:he8
19.~e3 2:e3! 20.fe3 (20.\t>e3 iWe5 21.~e4 ct:lc1
22.2:c1 f5:j:) 20 ...iWh2 21. \t>f1 iWg3 22.~g2 ct:lc1
23.2:c1 ±.

16.ctJd6!

16.~e4 ~d3!.
16J3d1 '2ld3 17.2:d3 ~d3 18.iWb3 2:he8
19.~e3 (19.ct:le3 b6+) 19... c6+.

16...<i!fb8! 17.0-0-0 cd6! 18.id6

~d6! 19.~d6 ~d6iii (D)

White seeks to simplify the position by

exchanging pieces but he overlooks the
wonderful move Black has now.
014.2:d1.
014.0-0-0!? iWe7 15.\t>b1;!; Lane.

14...ie2!! 15.ic5

15.11Qfc5?? ct:ld3-+.

270
-- ----
Chapter 7
2001.
b) 9... ~g7 10.~b2 CLlge7 11.~g2 2"1d8
(11 ...0-0-0 12.CLle4 ~c4 13.CLlc5 ~e8 14.~c2
~d5 15.2"1c1±) 12.\Wc2 0-0 13.2"1d1 CLlg6 14.b5!?
CLlce5 15.CLld4± Henris.
8.. .'~d7 9.a3 a5?!
Black seems hardly justified in trying to prove
compensation by aiming to grip the entire
board. Surely he should be attempting to
reserve this flank as a home for his king. On
the other hand, it doesn't pay to be too
dogmatic· part of the point of the Albin is to
build and hold the d4 pawn, so there is logic at
work here too.
9...0-0-0 or perhaps 9...ig7 look more likely to
have a chance of combining king haven and
pressure on e5 which seem to be the ideas
Black should be pursuing - Tisdall.
10.b3 f611.ef6 ~f612 ..ib2 ic5
12...2"1d8!? - Tisdall.
13.b4!?
13.g4!? - Tisdall.
13...ab4 14.ab4 E!a1 15..ia1 .ib4
16.0-0!?
16.tLJd4 CLld4 17.~d4 O-O~ (17 ... ~d4 18.~a4) -
Tisdall.
280
16... 0-0
16...ih3 17.~h3 ~h3 18.CLld4 CLld4 (18 ... ~d2
19.~d2 CLlg4 20.CLlf3, and Black's king is more
exposed - once White's rook moves there will
not even be a threat to sacrifice on f3)
19.~d4 CLlg4 20.~a4 <j;{d8 21.CLlf3 2"1f8 22.2"1d1 ~
Tisdall.
Black seems to have accomplished a lot -
gotten his pawn back and his king out of the
centre. But his position is still riddled with
weaknesses.
19...c5 20.'~c2 b5 21.~c6 ~h7
22.~b2 .id5?!
Black's position is terribly difficult, but
keeping this piece allows some counter
pressure against e2 and a slightly safer
king.
23.id5 ~d5 24.~e5+-
White continues to land precise punches.
24.. J~f5
24...tLJf6 25.CLle7 <j;{g7 26.CLld5 - Tisdall.
1-0
• ,
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6 5.93 .te6 other lines

Game 106 8.0-0 (0)

Suri,Hans (2155)
RaetskY,Alexander (2505)
Lenk, 1995
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.lDf3
lDc6 5.g3 ie6 6.b3?! (D)

8.h4?! ttJge7 9.Ag5?! (9.h5!? Ag4:j: Henris)

With this timid move the first player deprives
himself of the opportunity to mount an attack
on the queenside with a3 and b4. Moreover
White's queen can not be activited on a4 or
b3.
6...'IWd7
6...Ab4 and the marginal alternatives are seen
in game 108.
7.,ig2 0-0-0
The other continuations for Black are covered
in game 107.
9... h6 10.Af4!? ttJg6 11.a3 f6!? 12.ef6?! ttJf4
13.gf4 Ad6!? (13 ...gf6+ Henris) 14.e3 1Wf7!?
15.ttJbd2!? (15.ed4 1Mff6 16.ttJc3 Af4+ Henris)
15...de3!? 16.fe3 1Mff6+ 17.<j;Je2? ~he8-+ 18.lWc2
Ag4 19.<j;Jf2 ~e3! 20.<j;Je3 Ac5 21.<j;Je2 ttJd4 0-1
Pasztor,F-Schmikli,L, Hungary, 2002.
8...ih3!
Black's attack grows unhindered.
He also has the following possibilities:
8...h5!? leads to very interesting
complications:
a) 9.ll:lbd2!? h4 10.ttJe4?! (10.ttJh4!? - Henris)
10... hg3 11.hg3 Af5 (11 ...Ah3?! 12.ttJeg5 Ag2
13.<j;Jg2 Ab4 14.Ad2 1Mff5 15.Ab4 ttJb4 16.~h1+
Schleifer,Mi-Basanta,G, Winnipeg, 1985)
12.ttJeg5 <j;Jb8!? lL.ttJh6-g4 - Henris.
b) 9.e3!? h4!? 10.ed4 hg3 11.fg3 Ah3!? 12.Ah3

281
--~-- --

Chapter 7

Wh3 (.t1... ct:Je5) 13.E1f2 ~c5!? 14.~b2 (14.~e3 Soloviev,VI, Gorky, 1954.
ct:Jd4! 15.~d4 (15.ct:Jd4 ct:Jh6!) 15... ct:Jh6~ Henris) b) 9.ib2!?:
14... ct:Jh6 15.Wf1?! (15.ct:Jbd2 ct:Jd4 16.~d4 ~d4 • 9...ttJge7!? 10.\Wd2!? (10.ct:Ja3± .t1ct:Jc2 -
17.ct:Jd4 E1d4~ Henris) 15...Wf1 16.E1f1 ct:Jd4 Henris) 10 ... ttJg6 11.E1d1 ~c5 (Filipe,P-
17.~d4 (S17.ct:Jd4?! E1d4!+ Henris) 17... E1d4! Johansen,M, Szombathely, 1993) 12.ttJa3 ~h3!?
18.b4 ib4 19.ttJd4 ic5f Gavrileteanu,L- 13.ttJc2 ig2 14.\t>g2+ Henris;
Leisebein,P, Internet, 2003. • 9...ih3!? 10.a3!? (10.e3!?! Henris) 10... ~g2
c) 9.ig51? f6!? (9 ...ie7°o Henris) 10.ef6 gf6 11.\t>g2 h5!? 12.h4 ttJh6 13.b4 ttJg4 14.\Wa4;!;
11.ih4!? (11.if4!? - Henris) 11...Wf7 (11...ie7?! \t>b8? 15.b5! ttJce5 16.~d4+- Medic,Milj-
as in the game Happel,Hend-Gooding, lan, Colakic,T, Zagreb, 2010.
Guernsey, 1987. Now 12.e3!? gives White a
small advantage - Henris) 12.ct:Jbd2 ct:Jh6~ 9.C2Ja3!?
Henris.
d) 9.ttJg5!? h4 10.if4 ie7!? 11.ct:Jd2 hg3 12.fg3 White wants to attack one more time the d4-
ct:Je5! 13.ct:Jdf3!? (13.ie5? ig5+ M4.ig7?? ie3 pawn with ttJc2.
15.\t>h1 E1h7 16.ie5 f6 17.if6!? ct:Jf6 18.E1f6 E1h2 The other continuations seen in practical play
19.\t>h2 \Wh7-+ Henris; o13.ct:Jde4°o Henris) as in are:
the game Lombart,P-Finegold,B, Ostend, 1989. 9.ib2:
Now after 13...ct:Jf3 14.ct:Jf3 f6f, Black preserves a) 9...ig2 10.\t>g2:
a small advantage - Henris. a1) 10...h5 11.h4 ttJh6:
8...ct:Jge7!? is more passive but • 12.ttJa3 \Wg4!? (o12 ... ~a3 13.ia3 E1he8
playable: Raetsky & Chetverik or 13... ttJg4!?) 13.Wd2!?
a) 9.ttJbd2!? ct:Jg6 10.ttJg5!? ttJge5 11.ttJe6 \We6°o ie7 14.\Wf4 ttJf5 15.ttJc2 d3 16.ed3 E1d3 17.Wg4
Storch,Dome-Huemmecke,S, Willingen, 2008. hg4 18.ttJg5 ~g5 19.hg5 E1d2 20.E1ac1 E1h3
b) 9.ib21? ttJg6 10.ttJa3 ia3 11.ia3 h5!?oo (Jussupow,Al-Chetverik,M, Deizisau, 2006). Now
Henris. perpetual check was a logical result of the
c) 9.ttJa3!? ttJg6 10.ttJc2 ttJge5 11.ttJe5 ttJe5 battle after 21.\t>g1! ttJg3 22.fg3 E1g3 23.\t>h1
12.ib2 ttJc6 (12 ...ic5 13.b4) 13.e3!? de3 E1h3=',
14.ttJe3 Wd1 15.E1fd1 E1d1 16.E1d1 f6;!;/= Henris. • o12.ttJbd2!? ttJg4 13.Wc2 ttJge5= Nemec,F-
With 8... h6?! Black avoids ttJg5 and Riedl,Mar, Czech Republic, 2000.
sometimes can play ...g5 followed by ...ig7. a2) 10...g51? 11.ttJg5 ttJe5 12.e3? (12.ttJd2°o
But this plan seems to slow: Henris) 12 ...Wc6 13.ttJf3 de3 14.\We2 ~g7
a) 9.e3 de3 10.Wd7 E1d7 11.~e3 g5 12.h3 ~g7 15.\t>h3?? (15.fe3 ttJf3 16.E1f3 Wg6°o Henris)
13.ttJc3 ttJe5 14.ttJe5 ~e5= Zagorovsky,V- 15... ttJf3 16.~g7 (Peters,Sh-Paulshus,A, Oslo,

282
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.lLlf3 lLlc6 5.g3 .ie6 other lines

2011) 16... tLJe7 17.ih8 tLJg5-+ Henris. 9..ig5!? (as in Jurkiewicz,Kr-Kolendo,T,

b) 9... h5!?: / Poznan, 2006) 9...ig2 10.iJg2 ie7a> Henris.
• 10.llJa3!? ig2 (10 ... h4!? - Henris) 11.iJg2
h4~ Kovalenko,Ni-KislinskY,A, Kharkov, 2001; 9...h5! 1O.~c2 h4!
• 10.llJbd2?! h4!? (o10 ...ig2 11.iJg2 h4:;:
Henris) 11.ih3!? (11.tLJg5? ig2 12.iJg2 ct:Je5-+ 10...ie7?! (Pfaff, V-Kleinschroth, R, Baunatal,
Hestad,J-Thorstensen, E, Stavanger, 2005) 1999) is too slow because of 11.b4!?f± Henris.
11 ...Wh3 12.gh4? (o12.ct:Jg5 ~f5 13.ct:Jdf3 E1h5t
Henris) 12...ie7!? (12 ... ct:Jh6!? or 12 ... ct:Jge7!? - 11.,if4
Henris) 13.~c2?? (13.iJh1 ih4+ Henris)
13...d3!-+ 14.Wd1 (14.ed3 ct:Jb4 15.Wb1 ct:Jd3-+ 11.e6!? ie6 12.ct:Jg5!? (12.ct:Jh4 ih3~ Henris)
Henris) as in Topuz,S-Hinrichs,J, Hamburg, 12... hg3!? (12 ...if5!?) 13.fg3 (Koporcic,B-
2011. Now Black wins with the simple 14...de2 Gveric,T, Zagreb, 2009) 13...ct:Jf6:;: Henris.
15.~e2 ~g4 16.iJh1 E1d2-+ Henris.
9.ct:Jbd2: 11...hg3 12.,ig3 ,ig2
a) 9...ig2!? 10.iJg2 ct:Jge7!? (10 ... h5!? - Henris)
11.ib2!? h5!? 12.~c2!? h4:;: Manin,Vi-Papin,Y, 12...f6!? 13.ef6 ct:Jf6 14.~d3 ig2 15.ciJg2 ~h3
St Petersburg, 2011. 16.ciJg1 id6:;:.
b) 9... h5!? 10.ct:Je4?! (10.ih3!? Wh3 11.ct:Jg5
~d7 12.ct:Jdf3 h4iiii Henris) 10...ig2 11.iJg2 h4~ 13.@g2 ~ge7 14.VNd3 tlJf5 15J3h1
Maleychik,A-KislinskY,A, Dnepropetrovsk, 2001. f6!?
9.a3!? ig2 10.iJg2 ct:Jge7!? (10 ... h5!? -
Henris) 11.b4!? (11.Wd3!? - Henris) 11...ct:Jg6 15...g6 16.E1ad1 ig7 17.We4 E1h5:;: (17 ... E1he8iiii).
12.~a4 iJb8 13.ig5?! (13.E1d1 ie7!? 14.ib2
~g4!?f± Henris) 13...ct:Jce5!? (13 ...ien Henris) 16.VNe4?!
14.Wd7 E1d7= Trumpf, W-Raetsky ,A, Biel, 1995.
9.ia3!? ia3 10.ct:Ja3 ig2 11.iJg2 h5!? 16.ef6 gf6 17.e4!? ct:Jg7!~ (17 ...de3? 18.~d7 E1d7
12.h4!? ct:Jh6 13.ct:Jc2 ct:Jg4= Behle,B-Balduan,M, 19.ct:Je3 ct:Je3 20.fe3 ic5 21.E1he1 ;1;).
Bergisch Gladbach, 1994.
9.ih3 Wh3 10.tLJg5!? Wd7 11.f4!? h6!? 16...fe5 17J~ad1 ~d6 18.VNd5 VNf5
12.tLJe4 f6!?f± Horak,J-Sleich,J, Czechia, 2001. \ 19.~ce1 ~e4 20.~h4 E:h4 21.VNd8
After 9.e3!? ig2 10.iJg2 (Weinstein- ~d8 22..1h4 ~e6 23..ig3 ~c3
Lapiken,P, USA, 1958) I suggest 10... h5!? 11.ed4 24.E:d2 tlJf4 25..1f4 VNf4 26.E:d3 e4
h4!? 12.iJg1!? hg3 13.fg3 ic5!?f± Henris. 0-1

283
 Chapter 7

Game 107 Swinemunde, 1933;

Levy,Rene (2207) • 10... ~h3!? 11..~h3!? ~h3 12.tLJg5!? 'lWf5
Hector,Jonny (2514) 13.tLJge4?! tLJge5+ 14.~b1?! 'lWh5+ 15.f3 f5
Liechtenstein, 1988 16.tLJf2?! ~b4!-+ Cotonnec,A-Cappon,J, Cappel-
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.lDf3 Ie-la-Grande, 1995;
lDc6 5.g3 ie6 6.b3?! ~d7 7.ig2 (D) • 10...h5 11.h4 ~h3 12.~h3 'lWh3 13.tLJg5 'lWg4?
(13 ...'lWd7°o Henris) 14.tLJf7 tLJh4!? 15.tLJf3?
(15.tLJh8? ~h3 16.gh4 'lWg4= Henris; 15.e3! -
Henris) 15... tLJf5? (15 ... d3! 16.tLJh4 (16.tLJd8??
de2 17.'lWe2 tLJf3-+; 16.tLJh2? ~e4!+) 16...de2
17.'lWc2 ef1'IW 18.E1f1 ~c5 19.'lWf5 'lWf5 20.tLJf5
E1df8 21.e6+ Henris) 16.tLJh2!? (16.tLJh8+-
Henris) 16... ~e4?! 17.'lWd3!? ~d3 18.ed3 ~b4
19.a3 ~c3 20.~c3 dc3 21.E1ac1 tLJcd4 22.cj{g2
1-0 Truskavetsky,A-Kovalenko, I, Alushta, 2007.
b) 8.ttJa3!? tLJg6 9.tLJc2:
• 9.. J':!:d8 10.~b2 ~c5 11.0-0 0-0 (Milic,B-
Kostic,B, Zagreb, 1950) 12.'lWd2! Henris;
• 9...0-0-0 10.~b2 ~c5 11.'lWd2 ~h3!?
The interesting move order of the game was (11...tLJge5 12.tLJe5 tLJe5 13.0-0-0!) 12.e6
1.d4 d5 2.tLJf3 tLJc6 3.c4 e5!? 4.de5!? d4. (12.~h3!? 'lWh3 13.0-0-0 (13.b4 d3!+t-) 13...E1he8
14.b4!? ~f8 15.~d4 tLJge5 16.tLJe5 E1e5 17.e3!)
7...i.h3!? 12... ~e6 13.0-0 E1he8 14.b4!? ~f8 15.b5!? tLJce5
16.tLJe5 tLJe5 17.~d4! Henris.
Black also has the following continuations: c) 8.~a3!? (Minev) 8... tLJg6 9.~f8 E1f8 10.0-0
7...ttJge7!?: 0-0-0 11.tLJ bd2 tLJge5=.
a) 8.0-0 tLJg6 9.~b2 0-0-0 10.tLJbd2: 7....tb4?! 8.~d2 ~d2!? 9.tLJbd2 0-0-0
• 10...ttJge5 11.tLJe5 tLJe5 12.tLJf3 tLJf3 13.~f3 10.0-0 tLJge7 11.b4!? tLJg6!? (11 ... tLJb4 12.E1b1
~h3+ (13 ... h5!? 14.l''\c1!? h4 15.c5 c6 16.b4 hg3 tLJbc6 13.tLJg5!?± Henris) 12.'lWa4 (12.tLJb3!?
17.fg3 ~e7°o Al Kuwari,Fay-Vladyka,V, Decin, Ll... ~c4?! 13.tLJc5 'lWe8!? 14.E1c1 ~d5 15.'lWa4+-
1997) 14.~g2 h5?! (14 ... ~g2 15.cj{g2 h5) Henris) 12...cj{b8 13.b5 tLJce5 14.c5--+ Dao Thien
15.~d3?! (15.'lWd4! ~g2 16.'lWd7 E1d7 17.cj{g2 Hai-Nishendra,H, Visakhpatnam, 2008.
E1d2 18.~c3 E1e2 19.E1fe1 = Henris) 15... ~g2 7...E1d8?! 8.0-0 tLJge7 (Germek,M-
16.cj{g2 h4~ Von Hennig,H-Leonhardt,P, Tot,B, Sarajevo, 1951) 9.tLJa3 (or 9.e3!?;!;)

284
......, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.CLlf3 CLlc6 5.93 .te6 other lines

9...ttJg6 10.ttJc2 ~c5 11.~b2!?~ Henris. 14.efl ttJfl 15.Wid4 ttJd4 16.li'Jfl cJlfl 17.CiJc3 ~f6
7...f6?! 8.ef6 ttJf6 is covered under the 18.~2~) 12...d3 13.CiJc3 h4 14.CiJd5±) 12.~b2
move order 6...f6!? (--t game 108). 0-0-0 13.'@'f3 ttJh6 14.CiJd2~ Henris.

8.0-0 10...0-0-0 11.ed4lLld4 12.lLld4 i.c5

13.i.e3lLlh6 14.~f3lLlg4!?
Interesting is 8.e6!? ~e6 9.0-0 ~h3!?:
a) 10.ttJa3 ~g2 11.~g2 0-0-0 12.ttJc2 h5 14...id4 15.id4 E1d4oo Henris.
13.h4 ttJge7!? 14.b4 ttJg6= Cherednichenko,S-
Kosintseva,N, Oropesa del Mar, 1998. 15.~g2 ~g2 16.lt>g2 i.d4 17.i.d4
b) 1o.ih3!? iWh3 11.e3!? 0-0-0 12.ed4 ~d4~ 18.lLlc3!?
ttJd4 13.ttJd4 ic5 14.ib2 ttJf6 15.iWf3 id4
16.id4 E1d4 17.ttJc3= Henris. 18J'!e1 E1e8 19.h3 E1e5= Henris.
18.e6!? fe6 19.h3 ttJf6= Henris.
8...h5!?
18... ~d2!?
Because of the possible improvement for White
at his 10th move there is something to be said 18,..ttJe5 19.E1fe1 f6 20.ttJb5!? (20.E1ad1 E1hd8)
in favour of the continuation 8,..ig2 9.~g2 20 ...E1d3 21.ttJa7 ~b8 22.ttJb5 c6 23.ttJa3
h5!? 10.h4 0-0-0 11.ia3 (11.a4?! f6 12.ef6 gf6 :1'1d2!?ii5 Henris.
13.ttJa3 ttJge7 14.ttJc2 E1g8:j: Henriksson,Ja-
Furhoff,J, Stockholm, 1992) 11...ia3 12.ttJa3 19.1Lle4?
ttJge7ii5 Raetsky & Chetverik.
19.:1'1ae1 :1'1e8= (S19 ...:1'1c2?! 20.h3 :1'1c3 21.hg4
9.i.h3 ~h3 10.e3!? hg4 22.:1'1e4~) Henris.

1O.ttJd4? 0-0-0 11.e3 ttJe5+ Henris. 19...lLle3 20.lt>f3 lLlf1 21.lLld2!?

10.ig5!? (as in Gavasheli,A-Guner,Sat,
Izmir, 2006) allows 10... h4!~ Henris. 21J~f1 :1'1a2.
Black doesn't seem to fully equalize
after 10.ttJg5!? '@'d7!? (10 ...iWf5?! 11.'@'d3~ 21,..lLld2 22.lt>e3 ~d8 23.f3 a5-+
Fick,R-Haag,Gu, Mehlingen, 1992) 11.e3!? V2-Y2
(11.'@'d3!? 0-0-0 12.'@'e4 E1e8 co ) 11...d3 Strangely enough the game ended peacefully
(11 ... ~e7?! 12.ttJf3 (12.ed4 '@'d4 13.e6!? ttJh6!? here although Black is totally winning.

285
------------------------------------""1
Chapter 7

Game 108 clear advantage - Henris.

Pedersen,Bjarne (2185) 6...tLlge7!? 7.i.g2 ct:Jg6 8,0-0 Wd7
Rewitz,Poul (2285) (8 ...i.e?? 9.i.b2± Mazhukin,E-Kruchinin,A,
Aarhus, 1994 Nizhnij Novgorod, 2008) 9,e3!? d3 10.i.b2;i;
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ltJf3 Henris.
ctJc6 5.93 ie6 6.b3?! .ib4!? (D)
7.,id2

7.tLlbd2?! is weaker because of 7...i.c3 8.~b1!?

(8.i.a3 8...i.a1 9.'Wa1 'Wd7!? 10.ct:Je4 b6:j:
Dobrishman,L-Fragakos,A, London, 2004)
8...i.f5 9.i.a3!? l2Jb4! (:59 ...i.b1?! 10.'Wb1 and
White has an active position) 10.i.b4 i.b4
11.~a 1 i.c3 12.~c1 i.b2, and White loses the
exchange - Rewitz.

7...a5!?

• •
Black also has the following promlSlng
Black also has the following options: continuations:
6...f6?! 7.ef6 is very dubious: 7...i.d2 8.ct:Jbd2 (8.'Wd2!? (llct:Ja3-c2,
a) 7...tLlf6 8.i.g2 'Wd7 9.0-0 0-0-0 10.i.b2 i.h3 ~d1) 8.. .f6!? 9.ef6 ct:Jf6 (9... 'Wf6!?) 10.i.g2 0-00>
11.tLlbd2 h5 12.i.h3 Wh3 13.l2Jg5 Wd7 14.h4 Wong Kwok,M-Henris,L, Singapore, 1989)
tLlh7 15.l2Jdf3;t Hastik,S-Machalova,M, Vsetin, 8... tLlge7:
1997. a) 9.tLle4!? l2Jg6 10.ct:Jc5?! 'We7 11.l2Je6 fe6:
b) 7...'Wf6 8.i.b2 (8.a3!? 118 d3?! 9.~a2 - • 12.a3!? ct:Jge5? (012 ... 0-0-0 - Henris) 13.ct:Je5
Rewitz) 8...i.b4 9.tLlbd2 i.c3?! (9 0-0-0 10.i.g2 l2Je5 14.'Wd4 Wf6 15.Wd 1?? (15.0-0-0!? 0-0
i.c3 11.Wc1 + Sosa Macho,J-De Oliveira, P, 16.f4± Henris; 15.~d 1± Henris) 15 ~d8??
Punta del Este, 1993) 10.i.c3 dc3 11.tLle4 'Wg6 (15 ...l2Jg4-+ Henris) 16.'Wc1D O-O? (16 ct:Jg4!
12.tLlc3 ct:Jb4 13.~c1 ~d8 (55 Steinkohl & 17.f3 tLle3+ Henris) 17.f4 (17.f3?? l2Jf3 18.ef3
Heemsoth) 14.ct:Jd2!? i.g4?! (14 ...l2Jf6 15.i.g2;t 'Wf3-+) 17... tLlg4!? 18.~a2? (018.i.h3 tLle3
Henris) 15.f3 We6?! (15 ...i.e6 16.a3 l2Jc6 19.\tJf2o> Henris) 18...Wd4!? (18 ... e5+ Henris)
17.Wc2± Henris) as in Burke,F-Sholomson,S, 19.e3 tLle3+ 20.i.e2?? tLlg2 21.\tJf1 ct:Jf4! 0-1
California, 1956. Now 16.e4! gives White a Schaedlich,D-Tain, corr., 1984;

286
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.1L1f3 lLlc6 5.g3 i.e6 other lines

• 12.i.g2!? 0-0 (12 ...1Mfb4? 13.1Mfd2 1Mfd2! de3 18.CiJc3±; o16 ... CiJe7 - Henris) 17.1Mfc5
(13 CiJge5?! 14.1Mfb4 CiJf3 15.:i/,f3 CiJb4 16.:i/,b7; It>b8?! (017 ...1Mfc6 18.1Mfc6 bc6 19.fe3 CiJh600
13 0-0-0 14.Wib4 CiJb4 15.0-0!? l:::.CiJg5) 14.lt>d2 Henris) 18.Wie3! Riofrio,M-Metge,K, Novi Sad,
•
(14.CiJd2 CiJge5=) 14... 0-0 15.CiJg5! )"lf2 16.:i/,c6 1990.
bc6 17.CiJe6±) 13.0-0 (13.CiJd4? Wib4 14.lt>f1 b) 9 h6 10.CiJe1 0-0-0 11.CiJd3 :i/,f8 12.Wie1!? g5
)"lad8 15.e3 CiJce5:j:) 13...)"lad8 14.Wib1! l:::.Wie4;1; (12 :i/,h3!?) 13.a4 )"le8!? 14.a5 :i/,f5 15.a6;1;
Henris; Radzikowska,K-Prokopovic,O, Piatigorsk, 1978.
• 12.ih3 l:::.0-0 - Rewitz. c) 9...a5!? would be similar to the line chosen
b) 10.0-0: in the main game.
b1) 10.. J~b8?! 11.CiJe4 CiJge5 12.CiJe5 CiJe5
13.Wid2 CiJc6 14.e3!? (14.CiJg5± Henris) 14...de3 8.a3 ic5 9.ig2 h6 10.0-0 ct:lge7
(14 ...0-0 15.CiJc5) 15.'lWe3± Voinov,A-Patsuk,E, 11.ic1 Wd7 12.~bd2 ct:lg6 13.ib2
Ufa, 2004. l:!d8 14.l:!c1
b2) 10...'lWd7?! 11.CiJe4:
• 11...b6!? (Tvarusko,L-Horvath,F, Hungary, White experiences difficulties in finding a
2008) 12.CiJeg5± Henris; sensible plan.
• 11...0-0-0 12.CiJc5 'lWe7!? (Graczyk, D-
Wesolowski,E, Lublin, 2007) 13.b4!± Henris. 14...0-0 15.~e1
b3) 10 'lWe7! 11.a3!? O-O-O!? 12.b4:
• 12 llJge5? 13.CiJe5 CiJe5 14.'lWa4 It>b8 15.llJe4 :i/,a7 is not better. If 16.c5?, then
15.:i/,b7!± Planas,Ju-Crockoff, Palma, 1991; 16...)"lfe8 l:::.... :i/,h3 - Rewitz.
• 012...<j;lb8 13.'lWa4 h5 14.CiJb3 (14.h4 CiJce5
15.CiJe5 CiJe5:j: l:::.16.:i/,b7?? :i/,d7 17.Wia6 )"lh6!-+) 15... ~ce5 16.~d3
14...CiJge5 00 Henris.
7...ic5!? 8.:i/,g2 Wid7 9.0-0: 16.:i/,b7? would lose the bishop after 16...c6 -
a) 9...ih3? 10.b4? (010.:i/,h3 Wih3 11.b4!± Rewitz.
Henris) 10 ...:i/,g2 11.<j;lg2 :i/,b4 12.:i/,b4 CiJb4
13.CiJd4;1; 0-0-0 (13 ...CiJe7 14.CiJc3;1; (14.CiJb5!?;I;)) 16...ie7 17.~e5 ~e5 18.~f3 ~f3
14.e3 c5!? (14 ... CiJc6!? 15.CiJd2!? (15.CiJc3 CiJd4 19.ef3
16.ed4 'lWd4 17.'lWb3 'lWe5!? 18.)"lab1 b6 oo )
15... CiJd4 16.ed4 'lWd4 17.'lWa4 CiJe7 (17...Wid2?? After 19.:i/,f3 )"lfe8 Black also has a small
18.)"lfd1+-) 18.CiJf3 'lWc5 19.)"lab1 a6 20.CiJg5 advantage - Rewitz.
)"lhf8 21.CiJh7 )"lfe8 22.CiJg5 CiJc6 00 Henris)
15.'lWb3! cd4 16.'lWb4 de3!? (16 ...1Mfc6 17.lt>g1 19...ic5 20.Wd2 b6~ 21.b4?!

287
------------------------,
Chapter 7

The move 21.b4?! unnecessarily weakens the Game 109

queenside. Mittelman,Gur (2410)
Harari,Zaki (2235)
21 ...ab4 22.ab4 ie7 23J!fd1 ~a4! Hampstead, 1998
24.c5 bc5 25.bc5 if6 26.~a1 ~c6 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.CLlf3
27.14 id5 28.id5 ~d5 29.~b4 lLlc6 5.g3 ie6 6.~a4!? (0)
~fd8 30.~ac1 ~h5!

While White is busy trying to protect his c-

pawn Black initiates a powerful attack against
the white king.

31.~c4 ~dd5

Threatening 32 .. J'lh2 33.~h2 1::1h5 34.~g1

1::1h1#.

32.h4 ih4

32.. J::!c5 also wins, of course. 6... ~d7

33.~d4 The following alternatives do not seem

adequate:
33.gh4 1::1h4 (with the threat ...1::1h 1!) 34. ~f1 6...ttJge7?! (suggested by Rewitz)
1::1e5! 35.fe5 ~f3! 36.~e1 1::1e4 37.~d2 ~f2 7.ig2 d3 8.ttJc3!? (8.0-0 de2 9.1::1e1 ~d3
38.~d3 ~e2#. 10.ttJbd2;!;) 8...de2 9.~e2± b.1::1d1 - Henris.
6...ib4?! 7.id2 id2 8.ttJbd2 ttJge7
33... ~d4 34.~d4 helps White develop faster: 9. ig2 ttJg6 (9... 0-0
10.0-0 iWd7 11.1::1fd1 ih3 12.ttJb3± Leisebein,P-
34.id4 ig3 35.fg3 (35.~f1 ~e4 36.ie3 ~f3-+ Andre,K, corr., 1987) 10.0-0 ~d7 11.ttJb3 0-0
Henris) 35 ...iWf3-+ Rewitz. 12.1::1fd1 1::1ad8 13.ttJc5 ~c8 14.~b5! ttJge5
15.ttJe5 ttJe5 16.ttJb7 c6 17.~e5 ~b7 18.b3±
34...,if6 left White a clear pawn up and with a superior
0-1
position in the game Bouwmeester,H-

288
r-----------------------------------~

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.tDf3 tDc6 5.g3 i.e6 other lines

Trauth,M, Berlin, 1980. after 8.0-0:

a) 8...0-0-0? is bad because of 9.b4! ~h3 10.bS
7..tg2 ttJb8 11.e6!? ~e6 12.'I&a7 ~c4 13.ttJeS 'l&bS
14.ttJc4!? (14.ttJa3 iWa6 1S.'I&a6 ~a6 16.ttJf7)
7..if4?! h6 8.h4 ttJge7 9.ttJbd2 ttJc8 (9 ... ttJg6 14... ttJec6 1S.~h3 fS 16.iWa8 cj,Jd7 17.ttJba3 ~a3
10.0-0-0+ Raetsky & Chetverik) 10.e3 18.ttJa3 1-0 Balshan,A-Lamford,P, Hastings,
(10.0-0-0?! ttJb6 11.iWb3 as+; 10.~g2 ttJb6 1977.
11.'I&b3 as;;; Raetsky & Chetverik) 10 ...ttJb6 b) 8...lLlc8!? 9.iWd1! (9.ttJbd2 ttJb6 10.iWc2
11.'I&d1 (11.iWb3 ~b4 (11 ... de3 12.~e3 8500) ~e7+!) 9... ~c4 10.ttJbd2 LlttJb3± Raetsky &
12.0-0-0 (12.ed4 ~d2 13.~d2 ttJd4~) 12 ... aS~ Chetverik.
Raetsky & Chetverik) 11 ... 0-0-0 (11...de3 c) 8 lLlg6 9.!=1d1:
12.~e3 O-O-O~ Raetsky & Chetverik) 12.a3 ~g4 c1) 9 0-0-0 10.ttJc3± Henris.
13.e4 iWe6 14.b4 ttJd7 1S.iWa4 cj,Jb8:j: Jansen- c2) 9 lLlce5 10.iWd7 ~d7 11.ttJeS ttJeS 12.~b7
RaetskY,A, Aachen, 1994. !=1b8 13.~g2± Asgeirsson,H-Ragnarsson,J,
Hafnarfjordur, 1996.
7...0-0-0!? c3) 9.. J:'!:d8 10.~gS (10.ttJc3!?± is also quite
good):
Automatic, but maybe not the best. • 10...~e7?! 11.~e7 ttJge7 (Rellstab,Ludwig Sr-
7...~c5?! (this bishop rarely looks Leonhardt,P, Bad Pyrmont, 1933) 12.ttJbd2 0-0
comfortably settled on the far side of the b6-f2 13.ttJb3+ or 12.b4!?± Henris;
diagonal): • 10...lLlce5 11.!=1d4 ~d6 (Dashibalov,E-
a) 8.lLlg5? ttJeS 9.iWd7 ~d7= Rabinovich,l- Yuzhakov,O, Nizhnij TagH, 2007) 12.iWc2 ttJf3
Tartakower,S, Baden-Baden, 1925. 13.~f3 f6 14.~f6! gf6 1S.cS± Henris.
b) 8.0-0 ttJeS (8 ... ttJge7 9.a3 ttJg6 10.b4 ~e7 Of the alternatives, 7...d3 looks the
11.~b2 0-0 12.ttJbd2 a6 13.!=1fd1 !=1fd8 14.iWc2 most interesting. It is the subject of next
~h3 1S.~h3 iWh3 16.iWe4 fS 17.ef6 ~f6 18.ttJb3+ game.
Yakovich,Yur-Lyell,Me, Yerevan, 1996) 9.iWd7
ttJd7 10.b3± ~b6?! 11.~b2 ttJgf6 (11...cS 12.e3± 8.0-0 <;!{b8
Henris) 12.ttJd4± Mastroddi,E-Ragonese,R,
Rome, 1997. 8... ~h3? would transpose to the line S... ~g4
c) 8.lLlbd2 ttJeS 9.iWd7 ttJd7 10.ttJgS+ Alekhine. 6.~g2 iWd7 7.0-0 0-0-0 8.'I&a4 ~h3 analysed at
d) 8.a3! - Rabinovich. the chapter 8. White takes the advantage with
7...lLlge7?! makes more sense but 9.e6! 9.e6! ~e6 10.ttJgS!? or 10.!=1d1 as we shall
again Black has problems with his d4-pawn see.

289
 Chapter 7

9.lLlbd2 12J~d1 .tc5!?

More often met in practice is 9.~d1 ct:le5 The bishop never gets comfortable on this
(9 ... ~h3!? 10.ct:lc3± Henris) 10.~b3 (exchanging square but something had to be done about the
queens is clearly weaker: 10.~d7?! ct:lf3 11.~f3 d4-pawn. Unfortunately 12...c5 13.~f4 ~a8 (or
2:d7= Molchanov,E-Jimenez,Joaquin R, Buenos 13... ~d6 14.ct:ld4! cd4 15.2:d4 which wins as the
Aires, 2002) 10... ct:lf3 11.~f3 c6 12.~f4 ~a8 black queen is overworked after 15... ~f4
(Farr,M-Leisebein,P, corr., 2002) 13.~e5± 16.2:d8) 14.ct:lg5± (14.e3!?± Henris) would
Henris. involve losing the key bishop for a knight -
Ward.
9...ltJe5 10.~b3! (D)
13.~b5! ib6 14.c5 a6

Buying the bishop a retreat square but all holes

created in the pawn structure around the black
king are undesirable.

15.~b4 a5 16.~a3 ia7 17.ltJd4+-

Suddenly the position is a nightmare for Black.

He's already a pawn down and the one on a5
looks set to drop. On top of all that, White has
the better pieces too.

The most testing. 17...ltJe7 18.ig5 f6 19.if4 g5

Once again Black is fine after the exchange of 2o.ic7!
queens: 10.'~d7?! ct:lf3 11.ct:lf3 2:d7 12.~d2
(12.ct:le5 2:d8 is also very playable for Black) This neat tactic ends things. As the queen must
12...f6= Schamberger,A-Riedl,Max, Germany, guard the light-squared bishop, Black's
1996. selected recapture is forced.

10...ltJf3 11.ltJf3 ~c8 20... ~c7 21.tlJe6 ~e6 22.~a5 ~b8

23J~d8
The alarm bells are ringing about b7. 1-0

290
 ---------------------------------,
.....

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6 5.g3 J.e6 other lines

Game 110 a) 9.tlJd4? i.b4 10.i.d2 O-O-O!+ 11.Ct:Jc6?!

Rajkovic,Dusan (2440) (11.i.c6? :gd4! Henris; o11.Ct:Je6 fe6 (11 ...id2
Muse,Mladen (2275) 12.ltJd2 Wd2 13.'tt>f1 Wd3 14.'tt>g1 fe6+) 12.i.c6
Athens, 1985 bc6 13.Wc6 id2 14.ltJd2 Wd2 15.'tt>f1 Wd4+
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.~f3 Henris) 11 ..,id2 12.ltJd2 Wd2 13.'tt>f1 ~b2!-+
~c6 5.g3 ie6 6.~a4!? ~d7 7.ig2 14.ltJa7 'tt>b8 15.:ge1 :gd2! 16.ltJc6 bc6 17.ic6?
d3!? (0) (17.Wc6D :gf2 18.'tt>g1 :gg2 19.Wg2 Wb6-+
Henris) 17.,.:gf2 18.'tt>g1 :gg2! 19.ig2 ~d4
20.:ge3 ~e3, and Black was winning in
Sadovich, V-Fedyashin,S, corr., 1980.
b) Much better is 9.tlJfd2!? id7!? (the activity
of White's pieces gives him the better game
after 9..,ltJge7!? 10.ltJc3 0-0-0 11.ie4 Wd4
12.0-0 'tt>b8 13.:gd1!? ~e5 14.ltJf3 :gd1 15.WdH
Henris):
b1) 10.i.e4?! ~d4!? (10 ... ltJe5= Henris) 11.0-0
~e5 12.ltJf3
•
(Bazon,V-Vasile,Co, corr., 1989)
12.,.~e4 13.:ge1 ltJe5 14.:ge4 (14.~d7 'tt>d7
15.ltJe5 ~e5 16.:ge5 id6=) 14..,ia4°o Henris.
b2) o10.~b3!?:
Hoping to trap the white king in the centre • 10...tlJb4?! 11.ie4 (11.ib7?! ltJc2 12.'tt>d1
after 8.ed3 Wd3. ig4 (12.,.ltJe3 13.'tt>e10 ltJc2=) 13.f3 ltJe3
14.'tt>e1 ltJc2 15.'tt>d1=; 11.Wd3?! ltJd3 12.'tt>e2
8.0-0! ltJe5 13.ib7 :gb8 =/;t) 11...~b3 12.ab3;t (12.ltJb3
f5!);
The best continuation in the position! • 10... ~b3?! 11.ab3 (11.ltJb3 ltJe5!? 12.ib7
8.e3!?: :gb8 13.ig2;t) 11...ltJe5 12.ib7 (12.0-0!?;t)
a) 8...0-0-0!? 9.0-0 f6!? 10.ef6 ltJf6 11.ltJc3 ih3 12...:gb8 13.ig2;t (::;13.:ga7?! ltJd3 14.'tt>e2 ltJf2
12.e4 h6 13.ie3 ig2 14.'tt>g2 g5 15.a3;t 15.:ge1!? i.c5 16.:ga8 :ga8 17.ia81tJf6 oo );
Leisebein,P-Grasso,P, carr., 1988. • 10...tlJe5!? 11.~b7 :gd8 12.ie4 (12.We4 f6 oo )
b) 8...ltJe5!? 9.Wd7 ltJd7°o Schrank,Mar-Liebs,H, 12.,.~d4 13.0-0 (13.ltJc3!?) 13... ltJf6 14.ig2+
Germany, 2002. Henris.
c) 8...ih3!? 9.0-0 ig2 10.'tt>g2 h5 - Henris.
8.ed3!? Wd3: 8...de2 9J'~e1 O-O-O!?

291
---------------------------,
Chapter 7

The alternatives for Black are clearly inferior: 15.~d2 ~d2 16.~c6 bc6 17.~c6. And now,
9...ttJb4?! 10.~d7 ItJd7 11.Ele2± instead of 17... ~d4?! 18.Ela2± (Naumovic,J-
(11.tLJa3!? tLJd3 12.Ele2 ~a3 13.ba3 ~c4 14.Elc2 VUjadinovic,Mil, corr., 1996), 17... ltJb8 18.~e4
~a6 15.~h3±). (18.~e8 ItJb7 00 ) 18...tLJe7 19.Ele2 ~d7 would
9... ~c5?! 10.Ele2 O-O-O?! 11.Eld2 tLJd4 lead to a very unclear situation - Henris;
12.~a5! tLJf3? 13.~f3+- ~d4 14.tLJc3 ~c4? b) 13J!e2! tLJge7 14.Elae1± (after 14.a3!?, as in
15.Eld4! ~d4 16.~e3 1-0 Bortolin,B-Deneuville, Sykula,A-Koelbach,R, corr. (email), 1998, Black
C, corr., 1994. should play 14 ~d2 15.Eld2!? (15.tLJd2 ~g4
9...lLle5?! 10.~d7 tLJd7 11.tLJd4!: 16.f3 ~e600) 15 Eld2 16.tLJd2 (:516.~d2 Eld8t)
a) 11 ... ~c4 12.~b7 Elb8 13.~f3 ~b4 14.~d2 16... Eld8~) - Henris.
tLJe7 15.~e2 (Freeman,M-Eastwood,M, London,
1988) 15... ~e2 16.Ele2;!; Henris. 10....ib4!?
b) 11...0-0-0 12.tLJe6 fe6 (Braunton,R-
Newhouse,D, corr., 1986) 13.Ele2± Henris. 10...ic5!? has been suggested as an
improvement for Black. But I don't believe it
10.tlJc3!? solves Black's problems:
a) 11.ig5 tLJge7 12.Ele2 ~d3 (00
Black obtains an equal position after Rajkovic) 13.tLJd2± Henris.
10.Ele2?! ~d1 11.~d1 Eld1 12.Ele1 Ele1 13.tLJe1 b) 1U!e2 tLJd4 12.E1e1 ~a4 13.tLJa4 tLJf3
tLJe5 14.b3 ~e7!? (14 ...tLJe7 15.~b2 tLJ7c6= 14.~f3 ~b4 15.Ele4 ~f5 16.Ele3± Henris.
Henris) 15.~b2 ~f6 16.tLJd2!? (16.tLJc3 tLJd7
(16... ~c4? 17.bc4! tLJc4 18.Elc1! tLJb2 19.tLJb5±) 11 ..ie3 a6
17.tLJd3 c6°o Henris) 16... tLJd7!? 17.tLJd3 ~b2
18.tLJb2 tLJgf6= lonescu,Con-Henris,L, Val 11 ...lLlge7? is a mistake in view of 12.tLJd4±
Thorens, 1987. a6?? (Jackelen,T-Schulz,Klaus J, Germany,
10.~e3!? (in order to avoid 10... ~c5, 1990) 13.tLJc6 tLJc6 14.~c6 ~c6 15.~b4 ~h3
even if I don't think this is a problem for White 16.f31Mff3 17.Ele2+- Henris.
anyway) 10... ~d1!? (10... ~b4 11.tLJc3 transposes
to the main game (11.tLJbd2!? - Henris)) 11.b3! 12J~e2!?
(Rajkovic) 11...~b4 12.tLJbd2 ~c2 (12 ... ~d2??
13.Elad1 ed1~ 14.Eld1 ~e3 15.Eld8 ItJd8 16.fe3 12.lLld4!? tLJd4 13.~b4 tLJc6 14.~c5±.
tLJge7 (00 Schiller) 17.tLJd4+- Henris): 12.lLlg5! is even stronger.
a) 13.a3!? ~d2 14.tLJd2 (14.~d2!? Eld3°o Henris
(14 ... Eld2 15.tLJd2 ~d2 - 14.tLJd2)) 14...Eld2!? 12...i.c3 13.bc3 ~e5 14J'Nb3

292
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.tLJf3 tLJc6 5.g3 .ie6 other lines

Much weaker would be 14.VNd7?! ctJd7 15.ctJd2= 22...gd8

(15.ctJg5 ic4 16.Ei:b2 b6; 15.c5 id5=).
There is no big difference after:
14...lLlc4 15.ttJeS!? V;VbS 22 Ei:d3!?
22 Ei:d2!? .
15...lL\e5?? 16.~b7#. 22 h5!? 23.h3!.

16.V;VbS abS 17.ttJc4 bc4? 23.gb8 c;tc7D 24.g1b7 c;tc6 2S.gd8

c;tb7 26.c;tg2 c;tc7 27.gf8 c;td7
17...ic4!? 18.Ei:b2~ lla4. 28.a4 c;te7 29.gb8 hS 30.h4 gh6!?

18.gb2,idS!? Against the threat a5-a6, etc., Black has no

other choice but to mobilize his rook.
18...b6 19.a4;!; is also uncomfortable for Black.
31.gg8 ga6 32.gg7 ga4 33.ggS
19.,idS gdS 20.gab1 b6 (0) ga3 34.ghS gc3 3S.gcS c;td6
36.gc8 c;td7 37.ga8 gd3 38.ga7!?

38.<;f;1f1 c3 39.<;f;1e2+-.

38...c;tc6 39.c;tf1!

39.E!:f7? c3 40.Ei:f8 <;f;1c7 41.Ei:f7=. And not 41.Ei:f4

Ei:d6!, when it is suddenly White who has to
fight for a draw.

39...c3 40.c;te2 gd2 41.c;te3 gdS

41 ...f5 42.Ei:a3! Ei:c2 43.h5 <;f;1d5 44.h6 Ei:c1 45.h7

21.,ib6!? cb6 22.gb6 (45.Wd3+-) 45 ...Ei:h1 46J'lc3 Ei:h7 47.<;f;1f4+-.

In exchange for his sacrificed bishop White has 42.ga3+- gc5 43J~a1 gbS 44.c;td3
two well coordinated rooks while Black's gfS 4S.f4
kingside is paralyzed. 1-0

293
 .,
Chapter 7

Game 111 common reply, simply continuing with Black's

YermolinskY,Alex (2560) standard plan and bolstering d4 rather than
Reprintsev,Alexander (2370) recouping his investment) 7.0-0 (7.lLlbd2
Philadelphia, 1995 6.lLlbd2 \Wd7 7.ig2 and 7.\Wa4 - 6.\Wa4).
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.~f3
~c6 5.g3 .ie6 6..ig2!? (D) 7.~bd2!?

Immediately developing a piece at the expense

of the attacked bishop.
Other continuations include:
7.'~a4!?N iWd5 8.0-0 ib5 (8 ...\Wb5!?
9.iWb5 ib5 seems quite playable for Black -
Henris) 9.iWd 1 O-O-O?? (the black king is never
completely safe over here as danger lurks on
both the long white-squared diagonal and on
h3-c8. 9.. J'%d8!? deserves serious attention,
considering trying to eventually park the king
somewhere safer) 10.lLlg5!+- d3?! (10...iWd7?
11.ih3+-; 10...iWe5 11.lLlf7 iWe8 12.lLld8+-)
A rare continuation. Most players are not so 11.e4+-, winning material for nothing,
willing just to return the pawn while not Baginskaite,C-Sagalchik,O, Seattle, 2000.
solving the problem of the weakened e-pawn. 7.0-0 is an important alternative. See
But there is a strong argument for this next game.
minimalist approach.
White gives up his c4-pawn in order to develop 7....id5!?
rapid pressure against Black's d4-pawn, the
pride of Black's position. 7...ia6!? 8.0-0 iWd7 is an interesting line
proposed by the computer Rybka which has
6....ic4 never been encountered yet.

Black's decision to capture represents a radical 8.0-0

change of plan.
Ignoring the c-pawn will most probably 8.llJb3!?:
transpose to other lines after 6...\Wd7 (the most a) 8...ib3? 9.\Wb3± iWd7? (Hughes,Ty-

294
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.tLlf3 tLlc6 5.g3 ~e6 other lines

Persson,Jo, Internet (blitz), 2009) 10.~b7! 1:'\b8 deserved serious attention: 10.b4 ~e7 11.CtJb3
11.CLld4+- Henris. tiJe5= Henris (11...0-0-0!? 12.~f4 a6°o Raetsky &
b) o8... ~b4 9.~d2 ~d2 10.~d2 tiJe5 Chetverik).
11.0-0!? tiJf3 12.~f3!? tiJe7= Henris.
10.~c2 ~e7!?
8...ic59.a3N
The following continuations do not constitute
9.ttJb3 ~b6 10.1:'\e1 tiJge7 11.~g5!? (11.e3!? de3 an improvement:
12.~e3 0-0 00 Henris) 11...h6 12.~e7 ~e7 10 ~b6 11 .ttJ c4 .
13.tiJbd4!? tiJd4 14.tiJd4 ~g2 15.mg2 0-0-0 10 ~a7 11.1"1d1 ~e7 12.tiJb3 tiJe5
16.e3 ~e5= Hammett,M-Chandler,C, corr., 13.ttJbd4;!; (13.tiJe5 ~g2!).
1987.
11.ttJb3 ib6
9...a5!?
Black almost has everything under control. If
Probably Black would like to give preference to he juts gets the chance to play ...1"1d8, then his
developing but without the text, he would position would be excellent.
have to contend with the move b4 (and maybe
followed by b5), as well as ~b2, further 12.ttJbd4!
pressurising the d4-pawn.
9... ~e7!? 10.tiJb3 ~b6: 12.~g5 ~e6 (12 .. .f6!? 13.ef6 tiJf6) 13.tiJc5 ~g6
a) 11.e4!? ~e4 12.1"1e1 ~d5 13.tiJbd4 tiJd4 14.'t'!f1c1!? (intending tiJb7) 14.. .f6 15.ef6 gf6
14.tiJd4 ~g2 15.mg2 0-0-0 16.tiJf5 (16.~g4 ~d7 16.~f4 0-0-0 17.~h3 mb8 18.tiJd7 1"1d7 19.~d7
17.~d7 (17.'t'!f1g7? 't'!f1d4) 17... 1"1d7= Henris) d3 is completely random - Sadler.
16 ...'t'!f1e6 17.'t'!f1f3 (17.'t'!f1g4 g6) 17...g6 18.tiJg7!?
't'!f1d5 19.'t'!f1d5 1"1d5 20.e6 ~d4!? 21.ef7 ~g7 22.1"1e8 12...ttJd4?!
1"1d8 23.1"1d8 md8 24.fg8't'!f1 1"1g8 25.1"1a2 1"1e8 Yz- Yz
Sadowski,Ma-McDonald,Gr, corr., 2003. 12... ~d4! 13.tiJd4 ~g2 14.tiJf5 ~e5 15.mg2
b) 11.e3 tiJe5!? 12.ed4 tiJf3 13.~f3 0-0-0 ttJge7 16.tiJe7 ~e7 17.~e3 ~e6 is a little
14.a4!? (14.~f4 tiJf6 15.1"1e1 ~d7) 14...a5!? uncomfortable for Black but he just has enough
(14 ... ~e6 15.~d5 't'!f1d5 16.~f4 t) 15.~f4 tiJf6 resources to stop White from hoovering up the
16.1"1e1 ~d7 17.~d5 tiJd5 18.~d2;!; Henris. queenside:
9... ~b6 not committing the queenside, a) 18..ic5 b6 19.~e3 0-0 20.1"1ac1 tiJe7!
which might still be the king's home some day, 21.1"1fd1 (21.~c7 tiJd5=) 21...c5 22.'t'!f1c4 ~f6

295
 Chapter 7

bo .. .ltlf5-d4 - Sadler. the b7-pawn guarded:

b) 18.\Wc5!? b6 19.\Wb5 0-0 20.2"!ac1 18 f6 19.~d2±.
ltle7 21.2"!c7 (21.2"!fd1 c5 22.\Wd7 \We4 23.<;t>g1 18 \Wc719.Wc3!±.
ttJf5 24.2"!c3 2"!ae8 is not too bad for Black: his
queenside is weak, but he is very active) 19.,if6 gf6
21 ... ttJd5 22.2"!c6 \We4 23.<;t>g1 ttJe3 24.fe3 We3
25.2"!f2 2"!ad8= Sadler. 19...\Wf6 20.Wb7 0-0 21.2"!fc1 2"!fb8 22.Wc6 \Wb2
23.\Wc2±.

20J~fd1 0-0 21.e3

14...id4 15.Wa4 Wd7 16.Wd7 <;t>d7 17.2"!d1 c5
18.e3±. The black bishop is blunted and White's knight
intends to take up the strong f5-square as
15.ttJf3! residence.

Black has a queenside pawn majority but 21 .. JUd8 22J~ac1 ~d1 23.~d1 b5
White's lead in development is of more 24.VNc2 ~c8 25.ttJh4! VNe6 26.ttJf5
relevance.
Ll2"!d6.

16...Wd717.We4!+-.
Now White has a nasty initiative, with ig5
coming and Black's queen needed in defence to
the prodding White is giving on the b-file.
26....ib8
Black's response aims at countering the threat
27.2"!d6. But this allows the next move from
White which gives him several tempting fourth
rank options.
27.~d4+- c5 28.VNc5!

17....ia7 18.!g5!± ttJf6?! Of course, the queen can't be taken because

of the back rank mate.
Allowing White a very simple and good
continuation. But a close inspection reveals a 28...@h8 29.VNd5 h5? 30.VNf3
lack of viable alternatives as Black has to keep 1-0

296
j
---------------------------,
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6 5.g3 .ie6 other lines

Game 112 19.1tJd6 mb8 20.ltJf7+-) 19..te3± Henris.

Norri,Joose (2430) 7....ie6!? 8.1Wa4 ~d7 9.Ei:d1!± (9.ltJa3!?
Laine,Heikki (2230) ics 10.Ei:d1 Ei:d8 11 ..tgS ltJge7 12.Ei:ac1:!: Kagirov,
Helsinki, 1997 R-Shukan,A, Prokojevsk, 1998) 9...Ei:d8 (9 ... ltJeS
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.tLlf3 tLlc6 10.~d7 ltJd7 11.ltJd4+) 10.ltJc3! ics 11.igS
5.g3 ie6 6.ig2!? ic4 7.0-0 (D) ltJge7 12.e3 ig4 (12 ...d3 13.if4±) 13.ie7 ltJe7
14.~c4! ib6 1S.ed4 if3 16.if3 id4 17.ltJbS+-
Kondratiev, P-Gasic, B, Olomouc, 1975.
7 idS!? 8.e3! (8.ltJbd2 ics - 7.ltJbd2)
8...ic4 (8 de3 9.ie3 ic4 10.Ei:e1 ~d1 11.Ei:dH
Henris) 9.Ei:e1!? (9.ed4± is very good - Henris)
9...d3 10.~a4 bS!? 11.~d1 Ei:b8 (Rouzaud,P-
Cehajic,M, corr., 2002) 12.ltJd4 ltJd4 13.ed4
ltJe7 (13 'lWd4?! 14.ic6±) 14.b3± Henris.
7 ~d7!? 8.ltJbd2:
a) 8...ie6 9.ltJb3~ Reca,D-Tartakower,S,
Buenos Aires, 1931.
b) 8.ooidS 9.ltJb3~ Henris.
c) 8oo.ia6!? deserves attention - COMP Rybka.
The move 7.0-0 has enjoyed good practical 7oo.lLlge7 8.ltJa3 idS 9.ltJc2 .tf3 10.if3~
results, and it appears to give White very nice Fernandez Mayola,R-Cordero Leandro,J,
prospects. Habana, 2009.
7...f6 8.ef6 ltJf6 (Riessenbeck,J-Matula, E,
7...d3!? corr., 1988) 9.ltJbd2 idS 10.ltJb3~ Henris.

The alternatives are also good for White: 8.ed3 ~d3

7...ib4!? 8.a3 (8.ltJbd2!?) 8...iaS 9.~c2
idS 10.:r=ld1 ib6 11.t2lbd2!? ~e7 12.ltJb3!? 0-0-0 8.ooid3 9.Ei:e1 (Farwig,M-Sosna, V, Pinneberg,
13.if4 f6 14.ltJbd4! (14J~ac1? feS+ Nordahl,H- 1993) ~e6, 'lWa4± Minev.
Westerinen,H, Gausdal, 2002) 14...id4D
(14 ...ltJeS? 1S.ltJfS+-; 14...ltJd4? 1S.ltJd4 feS 9.~c3!?
16.ltJfS+-) 1S.ltJd4 ig2 16.ltJfS Ei:d1 17.Ei:d1 ~e6
(17 ... ~f7? 18.e6! ~e6 19.mg2, with a winning 9.~d3 .td3 10.Ei:d1 (10.Ei:e1±/=) 0-0-0
initiative - Henris) 18.mg2 feS (18 ... ltJe5? (10 ....tc2 11.Ei:d2 ig6 12.ltJd4 ltJd4 13.Ei:d4 c6

297
 Chapter 7

14.ct:Jc3:!: COMP Francesca 0.68d-0.70-COMP 11 ...lLlge7t.

Patzer 3.00, Germany, 1999):
a) 11 ..ig5!? ct:Jge7!? (11 .. .f6!? - Henris) 12.Wlg4!?
12.~h3!? ~b8 13.ct:Je1 ~c4°o Damjanovic,Draga-
Cobic, V, Belgrade, 2004. 12.~b3 ~c4 13.!::1d 1± Henris.
b) 11.~c3 ttJge7 12.~e3 h6!? 13J:1d2;!; Henris.
9.~bd2!? !::1d8 10.~a4 ~b5!? 12...Wlg6 13.Wlg6 hg6 14J!eH
(10 ... ~d5!? - Henris) 11.~f4 ttJge7 12.e6 (an 0-0-0 15..if4 tLlge7
interesting attempt to cloud the issue) 12...fe6
13.ttJe4 ttJg6!? (13 ... ttJf5°o Henris) 14.~g4 ~e7!? o15... ic4~.
(14 ... ~d7!? 15.!::1e1 ~b4 (15... e5?!, suggested
by Tisdall, is countered by 16.Wlh5± Henris) 16.tLlg5 .ic4 17.e6!± .ie6 18.'De6
16.ttJc3!? 0-0 17.ttJg5!? ttJge5 18.~e6 ~h8 fe619J!e6±
19.~f4 ttJd3~ Henris) 15.ttJfg5!? ttJce5 16.Wlh5
~e2 17.f3? (17.~e2 ~e2 18.ttJe6 ~f1 19.~f1 White has the advantage of the bishop pair and
!::1d1 20.~e2 !::1g1 21.~h3°o Henris) 17...!::1d1 Black's pawn structure is seriously damaged.
18.~f4 !::1a1 19.!::1a1 ~g5!? 20.ttJg5 (Von
Herman,B-Mirnik,B, Berlin, 1987) 20 ... ~b2 19.. J3h5? 20..ic6!? 'Dc6 21 J3g6
21.!::1d1 ~e2 22.!::1a1 ~c6 23.~e5 ~e5 24.!::1f1 !!d7 22.!!e1 !!h8 23.h4+-
.. + Henns.
r<h 71?-
'eYe .
9.e6!? fe6!oo (9 ... ~d1 10.ef7 ~f7 The rest of the game is not interesting
11.!::1d1+; 9...0-0-0 10.Wld3 !::1d3 (10... ~d3 11.ef7) anymore and thus is given without comment.
11.ef7 ~f7 12.ttJg5) - Minev.
9.~a4 ~b5! 10.~f4 Wlc4!?=. 23...!!hd8 24.h5 !!f7 25.@g2 as
26..ig5 ~df8 27.f4 'Da7 28.g4 'Db5
9...i.b4!? 29.!!e3 'Dd6 30.!!e7 'De8 31.!!ge6
'Dd6 32.f5 a4 33..if4 'Dc4 34.i.c7
A lesser evil seems to be 9... ~d1 10.!::1d1 ~c5 a3 35.i.e5 tLle3 36.@g3 'DdS 37.!!f7
(10 ... ~b4!? 11.ct:Jd4! ct:Jge7 12.ttJc6 ttJc6 13.~c6 !!f7 38.!!e8 @d7 39.!!g8 'Df6 40..if6
bc6 14.!::1d4 ~c3 15.!::1c4 ~a5 16.~e3± gf6 41.h6 @e7 42.c4 !!h7 43J3g7
Dias, Paulo-Diogo, V, Figueira da Foz, 2009) ~g7 44.hg7 @f7 45.@f4 b6 46.g5
11.b3 ~e6 12.~b2!?;!; Raetsky & Chetverik. fg5 47.@g5 @g7 48.f6 @f7 49.@f5
@f8 50.@e6 @e8 51.f7 @f8 52.@f6
10.Wla4!? i.c3 11.bc3 .ib5?! 1-0

298

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ct:Jf3 ct:Jc6 5.g3 §Le6 other lines
Game 113
Buturin,Vladimir (2445)
Chetverik,Maxim (2290)
Martin, 1996
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3
~c6 5.g3 .ie6 6.'?;Vb3!? (0)
After having investigated the main defence
6.ct:Jbd2 and the alternatives 6.b3, 6.iWa4 and
6.ig2, I shall finish this chapter with a look at
6."Wb3, a very unusual but quite interesting
move for White.
The queen doesn't plan to take the b7-pawn
immediately as it would cost the initiative, but
at an appropriate moment.
White's ideal set-up against Black's standard
plan of ..."Wd7 followed by ...0-0-0 is to
combine a bishop on g2 with the queen on b3
and a rook on d1. The weakness of the b7-
pawn gives White the threat of ct:Jd4 (... ct:Jd4
would be impossible due to "Wb7#) while the
pin on the d4-pawn allows the development of
,
the knight on b1 to c3.
White also has some minor alternatives:
6.~c2!? h6!? (6 ..."Wd7) 7.a3 as 8.ig2
ieS 9.0-0 ct:Jge7 10.ct:Jbd2 ifS 11.ct:Je4 ia7
12.if4 "We8 13J::1ad1 "We6 14.ie1 0-0 1S.e3 ig4
16.ct:Jd4 id1 17.E1d1 "WeS+ Gordon,A-Adams,
We, Pittsburgh, 1946.
6.ig5?! "Wd7 7."We2 h6 8.id2?! ct:Jge7
9.ig2 gS 10.0-0 ct:Jg6 11.E1d1 g4 12.ct:Je1 ct:JgeS
13.ie3? ig7! 14.e3? de3! 1S.E1d7 ct:Jf3 16.ct:Jf3
eb2 17.ct:Jd4 ct:Jd4 18.ed4 ba1"W 19.E1e7 "Wd4
20.ib7 0-0 0-1 Hagen,Andr-Rewitz,P, Denmark,
1993.
6...'?;Vd7
6...ib4!? 7.id2:
a) 7...id2 8.ct:Jbd2 "Wd7 9.ig2 ct:Jge7 10.E1d1 E1b8
11.ct:Je4± Jasinski,J-Persson,Sv, corr., 2000.
b) 7...a5!? 8.ib4!? (8.a3 a4) 8...ab4 9.ig2
ct:Jge7 10.ct:Jbd2 0-0 11.0-0 ct:Jg6 12.E1fd1 "We7
13."We2;!; Henris.
6.. J'~b8!?, threatening 7... bS, is worth
considering too.
7..ig2 (0)
7.~b7 leads to a very unclear situation after
7... E1b8 8."Wa6:
a) 8...lLlb4?! 9."Wa7 E1d8 10.ct:Ja3 d3
11.ed3 (11.id2!?± Henris) 11 ... ct:Jd3 12.id3 "Wd3
13.ct:Jd2 (13.iWa4?! id7 14."Wb3 was played in
Sirletti,S-Sommer,So, Batumi, 1999. Now Black
should have continued with 14...ie6!=i= Henris)
299
 Chapter 7
•

13...i.b4 14.We3+ Henris. • 9...'lWb5?! 10.cbS± i.c4?! 11.i.d2 b6 (Avila

b) 8...i.b4 9.i.d2 (9.lLlbd2!? 1"1b6!? Jimenez,J-Diaz Moron,A, Castelldefels, 2005)
10.~a4 i.c4 CXl Henris) 9... lLlge71ii Raetsky 8: 12.i.h3 ~b8 (12 ... ~b7 13.b4 .ie2 14.lLlgS .if1
Cheteverik. 1S.~f1+-) 13.i.aS baS 14.1"1d1 .ie2 (14 ....ic5
1S.1"1c1 .ie2 16.lLlgS+-) 1S.lLld4+- Henris;
• 9...tLlc4 10.iWd7 1"1d7 11.b3 lLlaS 12..ib2 lLlc6
13.lLlgS± or 12...cS 13.lLlgS;!; Henris.
7..J~d8!? 8..igS lLlge7 9.lLlbd2 h6
10.i.e7 i.e7 11.0-0 0-0 12.1"1fd1 a6 (12 ... lLla5
13.\WbS lLlc4 14.\Wd7 1"1d7 1S.lLlc4 .ic4 16.lLld4±
Raetsky 8: Chetverik) 13.a3 lLlaS 14.iWd3
(14.~a2 cS 1S.1"1ab1 lLlc61ii Raetsky 8: Chetverik)
14... cS1ii 1S.1"1ac1 (1S.e3 .ifS (15... de3 is also
possible) 16.iWe2 (16.lLle4?! de3f. (16... lLlc4?
17.lLlc5±)) 16...i.c2 17.1"1dc1 d3 18.~f1 bS CXl
Henris) 1S... bS 16.b3 i.fS 17.e4 .ig4 18.1"1f1 1"1b8
19.1Lle1?! (19.cbS abS (19... 1"1b51ii Henris)
7...tL\ge7!? 20.lLle1 CXl Raetsky 8: Chetverik) 19... bc4 20.bc4
~a4!f. 21 ..if3 (21.f3 lLlb3! 22.1"1c2 lLld2 23.\Wd2
It's not quite clear what's the best i.e6+ Raetsky 8: Chetverik) 21 ... lLlb3! 22.lLlb3
continuation in this position. (22.i.g4 lLlc1 23.~f3 i.gS!-+ Raetsky 8:
Black also has the following interesting ideas: Chetverik) 22 ...1"1b3 23 ..ig4 (23.iWd1 .if3 24.lLlf3
7...lLla5!? 8.~bS (8.Wd3!? - Henris) 1"1a3+ Raetsky 8: Chetverik) 23 ...1"1d3 24.lLld3
8... lLlc4 9.~d7 (9.~b7 i.dS 10.~a6 i.b4 \Wa3 2S..ie2 1"1b8 26.1"1a1 ~b3 27.1"1a6 ~c4
11.\iJfH) 9...i.d7 10.b3! (10.lLld4!? 0-0-0 28.1"1a7!? (28.lLlf4 iWb3) 28...\Wc2! 29.1"1e1
(10... lLle5? 11.i.b7± Raetsky & Chetverik) (29.1"1e7 ~e2 30.lLlcS \WbS-+ Henris) 29 ... c4-+
11.lLlf3 i.c6 12.lLlc3 i.f3 13.i.f3 lLleS 14.i.g2 i.b4 30.1"1c7 .ib4 31.lLlb4 1"1b4 32 ..ihS g6 33.e6 fe6
1S.i.f4 i.c3 16.bc3 f6= Henris) 10 ...i.b4 11.\iJf1 34 ..ig6 1"1b1 3S.1"1b1 ~b1 36.\iJg2 c3 37 ..ih7
lLlb6 12.lLld4;!; Henris. \iJh8 38.h4 ~b6 0-1 Kushnarev,S-Chetverik,M,
7...0-0-0!? 8.0-0: Voronesch, 1989.
a) 8....ih3? is bad because of 9.e6 i.e6 7...1"1b8!? 8.0-0 bS! (not an everyday
10.lLleS± Henris. stereotyped reaction!) 9.1"1d1 lLlge7! (9 ... bc4
b) 8 tLlge7 is too slow due to 9.1"1d1± Henris. 10.lLld4! cb3 11 ..ic6!) 10.lLlc3:
c) 8 tLla5!? 9.~bS: a) 10...bc4 11.iWa4 1"1b4 12.1"1d4! (forced, but

300
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ctJf3 ctJc6 5.g3 .leG other lines

strong) 12... CiJd5! 13.'<Wa6: move) of the chapter 6.

• 13...CiJd4? 14.CiJd4 ~b8 15.CiJe6?! (o15.CiJd5 b) 9.CiJg5!? - Henris.
~d5 16.~d5 Wd5 17.CiJe6 Ll... ~e5 18.CiJb8 0-0
19.'<We6! Wd1 20.~g2 ~b6 21.CiJd7! - Sadler) 9.Wfb5
15.. .fe6 16.'<Wa7 Ele8 17.lWa6 e6 18.lWe4 ~e7
19.CiJe4+- Sadler,M-Ludden,G, Netherlands, 9.'I&d1 e5!oo Raetsky 8: Chetverik.
2003;
• o13.. J~b6! 14.lWe4 CiJd4 15.lWd4 (15.CiJd4 CiJe3 9...l2Jec6
16.We6 CiJg2 17.lWa8 lWd8 18.CiJe6 Ele6 19.1Wa7
CiJh4 20.gh4 ~e7iii when Black has some 9... CiJc4? 10.lWd7 'tt>d7 11.tud4± Raetsky
chances due to White's exposed king) 15... e5 8: Chetverik.
16.lWd2 CiJe3 17.lWe3 ~en. White has a slight 9...lWb5 10.eb5 e5 11.be6 CiJae6;!;
advantage with his two pawns for the Raetsky 8: Chetverik.
exchange, but Black has his chances too -
Sadler. 10.0-0
b) 10... ~c4!? 11.lWe2 CiJb4 12.Wd2 (12.lWb1 de3!
13.Eld7 e2! is rather embarrassing) 12,..e5 13.e3 10.CiJg5!? - Raetsky 8: Chetverik.
d3 14.CiJe1, with the idea of b3, followed by a3
should be the way to a White advantage, 10....ie7 11.a3 a6 12.Wfa4 gb8
although it is very murky: 13.Wfc2.if5 14.Wfd1 b5 15.cb5 ab5
• it's hard to believe that Black can hold thing 16.b3
together for too long after 14...CiJec6!? 15.b3
(15.f4 CiJa5 16.b3 ~b3 17.ab3 CiJb3 18.lWb2 CiJa1 16.b4 CiJe4 17.CiJb3 Eld8 18.~g5! ~g5 (18 .. .f6?
Ll...e4 is very attractive; 15.a3 CiJa5! 16.ab4 19.ef6 gf6 20.CiJe5! ~e5 21.~f6!+-) 19.CiJg5
CiJb3!) 15,..CiJa5 (Ll16.be4 CiJe4!) - Sadler; CiJ6e5°o Henris.
• 14...CiJg6!? 15.f4 ~d8 - Sadler.
16...0-0 17..ib2 gfd8 18.gc1 b4
8.l2Jbd2 ctJa5!? 19.a4 .ie6;; 20.ctJc4?

With 8...0-0-0!? Black wants to bring the game 20J':!:e1 :

back to more traditional paths: a) 20 ...f6?! 21.ef6 (21.e3!? de3
a) 9.0-0 CiJg6 transposes to the line (21.,.fe5? 22.ed4 ed4 23.CiJe5 CiJe5 24.Ele5 c5
6.CiJbd2 lWd7 7.~g2 CiJge7 8.0-0 CiJg6 9.lWb3 25.We2 Elb6 26.~e1 d3 27.lWe3 ~f6 28.Wc5+-)
0-0-0 analysed in game 91 (note of White's 9th 22.Ele3 fe5 23.lWe2) 21 ... ~f6 22.~e5±.

301
 Chapter 7

b) 20...g5!?<o Henris Quite promising too is 30..J';c4!? 31 ..ic4 ttJC4

32.Eldb1 ttJb2 33.Elb2 c4 34.a6 d3 35.a7:
20...llJc4 21.bc4 b3 22.Wfd3 i,f5 a) 35...c3?? 36.Elb3! (36.a8W?? cb2::
23.e4?! Raetsky & Chetverik) 36 ...d2 (36 ...c2 37.Eld3+.)
37.Elc3 .if6 (37 ...d1'<tW 38.Eld1 Eld1 39.Wg2 Eld8
23.Wd2?! .ib4 24.Wf4 .ic3!+: Raetsky & 40.Elb3 .id6 41.Eld3+-) 38.Eld3 Eld3 39.a8'<tW Eld8
Chetverik. 40.Wd8 .id8 41.Eld1 .ia5 42.Wf1+-.
b) 35..J';a8!-+ Henris.
23....ig4 24.E:fd1 .if3 25.Wff3 etle5?!
31 ..ic4?
Black keeps a clear advantage after:
25 .ig5+ Raetsky & Chetverik. 31.E:a4! ttJb2 32 ..ib3 ttJa4 33 ..ia4 Ela8 34.Ele1
25 .ic5+ Henris. .if8+: Raetsky & Chetverik.

26.Wff5 31 ...E:c4-+ 32.a6 E:c2 33.a7 E:a8

26.Wh5 We6:j: Henris.
26...Wff5 27.ef5 c5 28..id5 E:b4
29.a5 E:a4 30.E:a1 etlc4
34.E:db1 d3 35..ie5 c4 36.E:a5 d2
37..if4 g5 38.fg6 hg6 39.E:d5 E:a7
40..id2 .if6 41 ..ie3 E:b7 42.E:d6
.ig7
0-1

302
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.tLlf3 He can also play for a quick queenside advance
ttJc6 5.g3 ~g41? (0) with a3 and b4, or even b4 without the
preparatory a3.
Black also has to contend with a timely h3 and
be careful that e6 doesn't happen at an
unfortunate moment.
After 5... ~g4, White has two main
continuations: the direct 6.~g2, which will be
the subject of next chapter and 6.ClJbd2,
examined here.

6.ttJbd2 (0)

5... ~g4 is the old main line. It used to be one

of the most frequently reached positions of the
Albin Counter-Gambit.
Whilst offering up the usual ...'Mfd7, ... 0-0-0
and ... h5, the bishop also stands on a square
where it pressurises the knight on f3 and
indirectly the e2-pawn. Sometimes Black
exchanges his bishop on f3 in order to regain
his e5-pawn. Moreover in favourable
circumstances Black can break open the
position with the pawn push ...d3 when White's 6... ~d7
knight may be pinned.
However, compared to the positions where 6... lLlge7, keeping open the option of
Black plays 5... ~e6 as in the previous chapters, castling short, is seen in game 124.
White has here greater flexibility in that he 6.. :~e7 (-+ game 124).
can omit ClJbd2 and play 0-0 after ~g2,
followed by, for example, 'Mfb3 and E1d1 7..ig2
pressurising the d4-pawn. This idea is discussed
in the next chapter. The move 7.h3 is also worth considering (-+

303
,, Chapter 8

game 124). 8...h5 (D)

7...0-0-0

The option 7...lLlge7 is analysed in

game 123.
7....ih3 transposes to chapter 6 (games
93 to 99).

8.0-0 (D)

This sharp move, which begins Black's

counterplay on the kingside as early as
possible, is very logical but also insufficient.

9.b4!

This promising pawn sacrifice is the most

agressive reply.
The alternatives are less strong:
8.h3 is again quite interesting (--+ game 9.h4 offers Black good counterplay (--+
122). games 119 and 120).
Delaying castling short with 8.a3 is also 9J~e1, 9.~b3, 9.a3 and 9.~a4 are
discussed in game 122. covered in game 121.

Now Black has two main continuations in the 9 ...lLlb4!?

diagrammed position: 8...h5 and 8...lLlge7.
8....ih3 transposes to chapter 6 (games 83 to
85).
If 9....ib4, then White has a strong attack after
10.~a4 (--+ game 118).
9... lLlb4!? leads to extremely complicated play,
as games 116 and 117 show.

304
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ctJf3 ctJc6 5.g3 .ig4 6.~bd2

8 ... lLlge7 (0) 10J~d1 (--+ game 114).

10... lLlg6 11.b5

11.c5 (--+ game 114).

11.e6 (--+ game 114).

After 11. b5 tUce5, White has the choice

between the continuations 12.tUb3 and 12.i.b2
(--+ game 114).

9.Wfa4

White also has:

9.a3 lLlg6 (when White doesn't play
Wfa4) is investigated in game 115.
The move 9.~b3 is examined in game
115.
9.b4 (--+ game 115).
9.lLlb3 (--+ game 115).

9...@b8

Black has a few alternatives here (--+ game

114).

10.b4

10.a3 is slower but not bad either (--+

game 114).
10.lLlb3 (--+ game 114).

305
 Chapter 8

Game 114
! I

Malakhatko, Vadim (2559)

Philippe,Christophe (2399)
Marseille, 2006
,
,I
, , 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ltJf3
ltJc6 5.g3 .ig4 6.ltJbd2 Wfd7 7..ig2
0-0-08.0-0 ltJge7 9.Wfa4 (D)

I'
I"

The most challenging continuation.

I
,
1

,
But life is not that much easier for
I Black after the slower 10.a3 CiJg6 11.b4:
a) 11 ...ih3?! (as in Skorpik,M-SmutnY,J, Czech
Republic, 2000) 12.e6! ie6 13.ib2± Henris.
I
b) 11...ttJce5 12.iWd7 :gd7 13.ib2 CiJf3 14.CiJf3 c5
15.:gfdH Heller,R-Froehlich,Pa, Ludwigshafen,
1998. Black has not fully equalized.
c) 11...h5!?:
c1) 12.h4!?:
I
9...ih3? 10.e6! ie6 11.b4 a6 12.b5 • 12...ih3!? 13.e6!? ie6 (Barkatov-Savliuk,
I,
CiJb8 13.:gb1 CiJg6 14.CiJd4! W'd4!? 15.ba6 1-0 USSR, 1960) 14.b5 CiJce5 15.ib2;t Henris;
,

Kekki,P-Osterman,G, Helsinki, 1983. • 12...ttJce5 13.iWd7 :gd7 14.ib2 ie7°o

9...ttJg6: (14".CiJf3!? 15.CiJf3 c5 16.:gfdH; 14".if3!?) -
a) 10.ttJb3 Wb8 11.:gd1 CiJce5 12.iWd7 :gd7 Henris;
13J::1d4 :gd4 14.CiJbd4 CiJc4 Y2-Y2 Rajesh,V- • 12...ie7!? - Henris.
Palit,S, Aurangabad, 2011. c2) 12.ib2 h4 13.b5 if3 14.CiJf3 CiJce5 15.CiJd4±
b) 10.b4 Wb8 transposes to the main game Solozhenkin,E-Biro,S, Kecskemet, 1990.
(10 ...ib4?! 11.:gb1 would be really too c3) 12.c5!?:
dangerous) . • 12...ih3?! 13.e6! ie6 14.b5 CiJce5 15.c6±
Kozlovskaya, V-Mosionzhik, I, USSR, 1971;
10.b4 (D) • 12...ttJce5 13.iWd7 :gd7 14.ib2;t Reiss,T-

306
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.tLlf3 tLlc6 5.g3 .tg4 6.lLlbd2

Borsavolgyi,T, Hungary, 2005. 10...lLlg6 (D)

10.tLlb3 is also promising:
a) 10...tLlc8?! 11.c5:
• 11....te7?! 12.1"\d1 .tf3 13.ef3 ct'Je5 14.iWd7
1"\d7 15.f4 ct'Jc6 16..tc6 bc6 17.1"\d4±
PolugaevskY,L-Vasiukov,E, Moscow, 1964;
• 11 ....tf3 12.ef3 (inferior would be 12..tf3 ct'Je5
13.iWd7 ct'Jf3 14.ef3 1"\d7 CXl Henris) 12... ct'Je5
13.iWd7 ct'Jd7 14.c6 ct'Jc5 15.cb7 ct'Jbn Raetsky &
Chetverik;
• 11...tLle5 12.iWd4 ct'Jf3 13.ef3 iWd4 14.ct'Jd4 1"\d4
15.fg4 1"\g4 16..te3;!:; Bischoff,K-Vatter,H,
Baden-Baden, 1990.
b) 10....tf3 (Lexa, V-Benes,Mir, Ostrava, 2010)
11.ef3 ct'Je5 12.iWd7 1"\d7 (12 ... ct'Jd7 13.f4) 13.f4 I have to mention that the diagrammed
CiJ5c6 (13 ... CiJc4!?) 14.CiJc5 1"\d8 15..td2± Henris. position of the main game was obtained by the
c) 10...tLlg6 1L~g5 (11.1"\d1 - 10.1"\d1) 11...CiJce5 following move order: 5.g3 ~g4 6.~g2 iWd7
12.iWd7 1"\d7 13.CiJfd4 c5!? 14.h3 cd4 15.hg4 7.0-0 0-0-0 8.iWa4 ~b8 9.CiJbd2 CiJge7 10.b4
CiJc4 16.1"\fd 1+ Henris. CiJg6.
1OJ:~d1 is also worth considering:
a) 10...iWf5?! 11.CiJb3 ~f3 12.~f3 iWe5 13.~f4 11.b5
iWf6 14.CiJc5± ZagorianskY,E-Panov,Va, Moscow,
1942. The other advance 11.c5!? deserves
b) 10...ltJe5 11.iWd7 ct'Jd7 12.ct'Jd4 CiJe5 13.CiJ2f3 attention too:
CiJc4 14.b3!. a) 11....th3? 12.b5 (12.e6!? ~e6 13.b5 CiJce5
c) Best is 10 ...ltJg6: 14.c6+ Henris) 12...CiJce5 13.c6 iWg4 (Hohm,K-
• 11.iWb3!? (Kishnev,S-Schebler,G, Germany, Kuhn,No, Bayern, 1996) 14.~h3! iWh3 15.cb7±
1995) 11 ... ~e7!? 12.CiJe4 h6 Henris;
CXl Henris.
• 11.ltJb3 CiJce5 (11...CiJge5? 12.ct'Jbd4! ct'Jf3 b) 11...ltJce5 12.iWd7 1"\d7 13.~b2 CiJc6 (or
13.~f3 CiJd4 14.1"\d4!+ ll... iWd4? 15.~e3 - Henris) 13... ~e7!? 14.CiJd4!? ~e2 15.1"\fe1 ~g4 16.c6;!:;,
12.iWd7 1"\d7 13.ct'Je5 (13.1"\d4 1"\d4 14.CiJbd4 and Black hasn't equalized - Henris) 14.b5 CiJce5
CiJc4=) 13... CiJe5 14.1"\d4 1"\d4 15.ct'Jd4 ct'Jc4, and (Khudiakov,S-Alifirov,A, Volgodonsk, 2007)
the position is almost equal - Raetsky & 15.ct'Je5 CiJe5 16.CiJb3± ll... ~e2?? 17.1"\fe1+-
Chetverik. Raetsky & Chetverik.

307
 Chapter 8
•

The move 11.e6?! would be weaker: \Mfc6 16.bc6 if3 17.cb7 ic5 18.ie3 ie3 19.fe3
11 ...\Mfe6 12.ttJg5 \Mfd7!? 13.b5 ttJce5 14.f4 f6 ttJe5 20.c5+- Ivanusa, Bo-Kariz, P, Skofja Loka ,
15.fe5 fg5 16.ttJb3 \Mfe7!? 17.id2 \Mfe5 18.ttJa5 1997.
ic8'" Koifman,I-Korotonozhkin,A, Leningrad, 12...d3 is also clearly unsatisfying:
1970. 13.ttJe5 ttJe5 14.ie3 b6 15.id4!? de2!? 16.ie5!
ef1\Mf 17J''lf1 \Mfe? 18.ttJd4± Raetsky ft
Chetverik.

Malakhatko doesn't determine

•
the intention of 13.ef3
his queen's bishop.
After 12.ib2!? Black has a difficult choice to Of course, White preserves his strong light-
make: squared bishop.
a) 12 ic5 13.ttJb3\Mfe7 14.ttJfd4±.
b) 12 tLlf3 13.ef3! (wrong is 13.ttJf3 13...YNf5
because of 13 ic5):
• 13...ih3 14.tLlb3 ig2 15.c;t>g2 d3 16.id4± b6 White's great attacking potential is also
(Nestorovic, De-Carnic, D, Belgrade, 2008) demonstrated in the following variation:
17.\Mfa6 c5 18.bc6 \Mfc6 19.c5 - Raetsky & 13...V;Ve6 14.c5 \Mfd5 15.f4 ttJf3 16.if3 (even
Chetverik; stronger is 16.c;t>h1!± Henris) 16 ...\Mff3 17.ttJd4
• 13...if5 14.ttJb3 ic2 15.\Mfa5 d3 16.ttJd4 ic5 \Mfc3 18.b6!± Raetsky & Chetverik.
17.ttJc2 dc2 18.E1ac1± Korchnoi,V-Mosionzhik,l,
Moscow, 1966. 14.f4 lLld3 15.lLla5 lLlc5 16.YNd1 h5
c) 12...if3!1N seems to be the best
way to proceed for Black: 13.ttJf3 ttJf3 14.if3 The French player undertakes a desperate
(14.ef3 ic5 15.f4 h5f±) 14... h5 15.\Mfc2 ic5 onslaught. But this attack is doomed to
16.E1ad1"'. Now Black should not play 16... ttJe5? failure.
(as in Sanchez Cuchillo,A-Clari Mascarell,J,
Valencia, 1992) because of 17.ib7! c;t>b? 17..ia3
18.\Mfe4+- Henris.
Malakhatko eliminates the defender of the b7-
12....if3!? square.

12'''tLlf3? is beautifully refuted after 17...h4 18..ic5 .ic5 19.YNf3

the sequence 13.ef3 ih3 14.ttJd4! ig2 15.ttJc6! 1-0

308
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.4:Jf3 4:Jc6 5.g3 .ig4 6.~bd2

Game 115 bc6 15.ed6 .th3 (15 ....te2 16.E1e1) 16 ..th3!?

Jayakumar,Adarsh (2267) 'lWh3 17.c5 wins - Henris.
Garcia,Gildardo (2414) b2) 1O.gd1:
Philadelphia, 2012 • 10...h5?! (Nindl,G-Biro,S, Eger, 1987) 11.liJe4
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 h4 12.liJeg5 hg3 13.hg3;!; Henris;
ttJc6 5.g3 ,ig4 6.ttJbd2 Wd7 7.,ig2 • 10...ih3?! (Kozak,Mi-Shurygin,S, Klatovy,
0-0-08.0-0 ttJge7 9.a3 (D) 1996) 11.e6! ie6 12.liJg5;!; Henris;
• o10...V;Yf5!?= Henris.
c) 9...h6!? 10.e3!? de3 11.liJe4!? (11.V;Ye3 liJf5
12.V;Ye4 liJfd4?) 11 ...e2 12.E1e1 (Nedilko,V-
Reprintsev,A, USSR, 1989) 12 ...V;Yd1! 13.ie3
V;Yb3 14.ab3 liJf5°o.
9.b4!? liJg6 (9 ... liJb4 10.E1b1 liJg6
11.ia3 liJc6 12.c5, with compensation) 10.c5!?
(10.b5!?; 10.V;Ya4!?) 10...liJce5 (10 ... liJb4!?)
11.ib2 d3! 12.ie5 liJe5 13.ed3 (Schultz,An-
Michailow,S, Kassel, 1995) 13... liJd3+ Henris.
9.~b3 liJg6 10.ig5 ie7 11.ie7 V;Ye7
12.V;Yd2 (Goldberg,G-Mikenas, V, USSR, 1955)
12...liJge5 13.liJe5 liJe5?
White also has the following options:
9.V;Yb3: 9... ttJg6 10.b4 (D)
a) 9...ih3?!:
• 1 O.~e4?! (Tourneur,J-Kirszenberg,M, Paris,
1991) 10...ig2! 11.e6 (11.ti:Jc5?! liJa5 12.V;Ya3
liJec6; 11.~g2!? liJg6) 11...V;Ye6 12.liJc5 liJa5
13.liJe6 liJb3 14.ab3 if1!? 15.liJd8 ie2 16.liJf7
if3 17.liJh8 liJc6°o Henris;
• 10.e6!? ie6 11.liJg5 f5!? 12.liJe6 V;Ye6
13.liJf3;!; Karasev,V-Reprintsev,A, Podolsk, 1990.
b) 9... ~g6:
b1) 10.~e4 h6 11.E1d1 V;Yf5? (o11...ih3°o
Henris), as in Ignacz,M-Magyar,An, Hungary,
2007; now 12.liJd6! cd6 13.liJd4 V;Yd7 14.liJc6

309
 Chapter 8

The following alternatives are also worth .if3! 15.ef3 .ib6 16.c5!? h3 17..ih1 Wf5 18.ttJd2
considering: (18.f4? CiJf4-+) 18... ~c5+) 14...CiJe5 15.ttJb3 Wd6
10.~b3!? ~h3 11.e6!? ~e6 12.ttJg5 16.ttJc5 Wc5:j: Henris.
~g4!? (12 ... h5!?) 13,!'!e1 (13.~c6!?) 13... h6 a2) 12.CiJb3!?:
14.ttJgf3 l::1e8!? (14 ... ~e7) 15.ttJf1!? ~e7 16.~d2 • 12....1h3?! 13.e6 ~e6 14.ttJfd4 hg3 15.fg3
~f6 17.l::1ad1 ~h3!? (17 ... ttJge5) 18.~h1 ttJd4 16.Wd4 Wd4 17.CiJd4± Henris;
(Chirila,I-lvelinov,H, Bulgaria, 2012) 18...ttJge5= • 12...CiJce5!? 13.Wd4 Wd4 14.~d4 ttJc4
Henris. 15.l::1fcH Niewold,J-Ferro,S, corr., 2008;
There is no reason to give back the • o12...hg3 13.fg3 ~h3t Henris.
pawn with 10.e6?!: 10... ~e6 11.b4 h5 12.~b2 b) 11.h4!?:
h4 13.b5 ttJce5 14.~d4 ttJf3 15.ttJf3 hg3 16.fg3 b1) 11 ...,Ah3?! (Gonzalez Garrido,A-Diaz
~h3 17.~f2 Wg4 18.Wc1 ~g2 19.~g2 Wh3 Iglesias,J, Asturias, 1993) 12.~h3 Wh3 13.ttJg5
20.~h1 ttJe5 21.~g1 (Hoang Thanh Trang- Wf5 14.f4;!; Henris
Shurygin,S, Budapest, 1995) 21 ...Wg3+ Henris. b2) 11 CiJce5 12.~b2:
After 10.~a4 ~b8 play transposes to • 12 .1f3?! 13.ttJf3 ttJf3 (Hoang Thanh Trang-
the line 9.Wa4 ~b8 10.a3 analysed in the Biro,S, Budapest, 1992) 14.ef3± Henris;
•
prevIOus game. • 12...d3!oo Henris.
After 10.b4 I look here at variations where
White doesn't play Wa4 as in game 114. 11 ..ib2

10... ~ce5 The move order of the game was 5.g3 ~g4
6.~g2 Wd7 7.a3 ttJge7 8.b4 0-0-0 9.ttJbd2 ttJg6
10...d3?! is not sufficient: 10.,Ab2 ttJce5 11.0-0.
a) 11.~b2?! ttJce5! 12.h3!? (12.l::1e1!? f6!??)
12...de2 13.We2 ttJf3 14.ttJf3 ~h3 15.l::1ad1 ~d6 11 ...h5!?
16.~h3 (16.c5? ttJf4) 16...Wh3 17.ttJg5 Wf5
18.l::1d5 ~e5 19.~e5 l::1d5 20.~g7 l::1dd8 21.~h8 Black doesn't care about his central pawn and
l::1h8ex> Henris. immediately starts his attack on the kingside.
b) 11.ed3 Wd3 12.Wa4± Daniuszewski,D- Not good is 11 ....1f3 12.ttJf3 ttJf3 13.~f3
Maliutin,B, St. Petersburg, 1909. ttJe5 14.,Ad5 c6 15.Wd4 ttJc4 16.~c4 Wd4
10... h5!? deserves attention: 17.,Ad4 l::1d4 18.,Af?±
a) 11 ..ib2!? h4 (11...ttJce5 allows Black to But 11 ...d3!? is worth considering.
transpose to the main game):
a1) 12.b5!? ttJce5 13.Wa4 ~c5 14.ttJe5 (14.ttJb3 12.h4!?

310
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.tDf3 tLJc6 5.g3 ,ig4 6.~bd2

More critical seems to be 12.c!Lld4 Jth3
13.~e4!? f5 14.~d5 f4+! Henris.
12.c!LleS!? ttJe5 13.ttJb3:
a) 13...ttJc4?! 14.~d4;!; ~b8 15.Wc2 ~e6?!
16.2":fd1± Wa4?? 17.~a7+- Nickel,Ne-Riedel,C,
Neumuenster, 1998.
b) 13... h4!? 14.2":c1 (S;14.ttJd4?! hg3 15.hg3
ttJc4+; 14.~d4 ttJc6iii; 14.Wd4 \Wd4 15.~d4
ttJc4 co ) 14... hg3 1S.fg3 (S;15.hg3?! We6t) 1S.. .f6:
• 16.ttJd4 g6!?;
• 16.Wd4 Wd4 17.~d4 (17.ttJd4 cS+!) 17... ~e2co;
• 16.~d4 ttJc6!?co (or 16...We8!?) - Henris.
12.Wb3!? is also interesting.
12....ie7 13.ctJd4 .ih3 14.e3 (D)
It was preferable to exchange first on g2,
leaving the white king naked: 15....ig2 16.~g2
ttJh4 17.~h2 ttJg4 18.~g1 \Wd6 19.f4D (19.ttJ4f3
ttJe3!-+; 19.ttJ2f3 ttJe3-+) 19... ttJe3 20.We2 Wg6
21.~h1 (21.~h2 2":he8!-+) 21...ttJf1 22.2":f1 ttJfS
23.ttJfS WfS+ Henris.
16..ie4 f5!? 17..id5 f418.ef4?!
Better was 18.ttJbS±.
18...ctJd319..ic3!?
If 19.fS, then 19... ~fS.
19...ctJf4!? 20..ie4 ~he8!?

20... ~h6!?-+.

21 ....1g2?! 22.~g2 ttJhg2 23.2":e8 2":e8

24.Wf3 gS+!.
Correct was 21 .1g4! 22.Wc2 ttJh3
23.~h1 (23.~f1 Wd6!) 23 ttJf2 24.~g1 Wd6!-+.

22..ib7+- @b7 23.~e5 .ig2 24.~e3

ctJh3 25.@h2 ctJf2 26.'?Bh5 '?Bd6
14....ih4! 27.@g1 '?Bf4 28.ctJe6 '?Be3 29.ctJd8
@c8 30.'?Bh4 ctJe4 31.@g2 '?Be2
Starting to dismantle the refuge of White's 32.@g1 '?Be3 33.@f1 '?Bd3 34.@e1
monarch! ctJc3 35.'?Bg4 @d8 36.'?Bf3 '?Bd4
37.~c1 '?Bg1 38.ctJf1
15.gh4 ctJh4? 1-0

311
 Chapter 8
,
,

Game 116 preventing White to take the b-file at once ,

Van der Wiel,John (2498) which is one of the major worries in this
Tiviakov,Sergei (2618) position. The idea of keeping control of the a4-
Groningen, 2001 square in order to prevent the white queen to
!,

i
I, join the attack is quite interesting.
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ctJf3 The main theorical move 9...i.b4 is the subject
,
,
, ctJc6 5.g3 .ig4 6.ctJbd2 VMd7 7..ig2 of game 118.
I
0-0-08.0-0 h5!? (D)
10.a3!

This little move doesn't look like much, but it

is very important. After more direct attemps
Black always has a good reply:
10.'lMfb3 c6.
10J:!b1 ~f5! 1U'1b2 d3.
After 10.~b3, 10... c5, 10...d3!? or
10 .. .ltJc6!? are all reasonable rejoinders.

It's only natural for Black to want to relocate

Tiviakov opts for the sharpest continuation. the knight on c5 rather than return it to c6,
where it will be hit by the dangerous moves
9.b4!? ~a4 and Ei:b1 as the following line shows:
10... ~c6 11.~a4 leaves White a freer hand in
,
,
I,
White does not waste time and chooses to his attacking play (b.Ei:b1; 11.Ei:b1 is also
open the b-file with this standard pawn interesting: 11...b6 12.~a4 ttJa5 13.Ei:b5 c5
sacrifice which is the most aggresive reply. 14.Ei:a5! - Raetsky & Chetverik):
Now Black has no choice but to accept this a) 11 ...~f5 (preventing the powerful
poisoned gift. threat of 12.Ei:b1) 12.ttJh4!? (White also has
12.~b2!? or even 12.Ei:a2!?) 12... ~h7 13.ttJe4
9...ctJb4!?N ~e7 14.Ei:b1 b. ~h4? 15.ttJc5! (15.Ei:b7!?+- Van
der Wiel) 15 ~e7 16.~a7!! ttJa7 17.~b7 cj;>b8
This looks like a potentially important novelty, 18.ttJa6# Henris.

312
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.tLlf3 tLlc6 5.g3 .ig4 6.tLlbd2
b) 11 ~h3 12.e6! ~e6 13.Elb1 - Renet.
c) 11 h4 12.Elb1 gives White a very
strong attack: 12... hg3 13.fg3 a6 (13 ... ~h3
14.~b5±) 14.ttJg5 ttJh6 15.ttJde4 ~e2 16.e6 fe6
17.2:f8 Elhf8 18.ttJc5 ~e7 19.~c6+- Renet.
11.CL'lb3!
Attacking Black's d-pawn while simultaneously
covering the c5-square and freeing the c1-bishop.
Less convincing than the text are:
11.tt.Je4 ttJc5 - Van der Wiel.
11.~b2 c5 - Van der Wiel.
11 ...d3?!
This too superficial move may be the decisive
error. See next game for the alternatives.
12.i.e3!
Bad news for Black: the ttJa6 no longer has a
future and the pressure on his queenside is
mounting dangerously.
12... ttJe7
The most obvious move. If Black gets time for
... ttJe7-c6, he has got a decent defensive
position. But White will get his nose in first.
The bishop on e3 protects the third
rank, preventing wholesale swapping by Black
on the d3-square, which may become apparent
from 12...de2 13.~e2 ~d3 (13 ... ~h3? 14.Elfd1;
13... ~a4 14.\Wb2 - Van der Wiel, or 14.Elfb1 -
Renet) 14.~b2, and White's attack increases in
strength - Van der Wiel.
12...tt.Jh6!? might have been a serious
alternative. White then has many possibilities:
a) 13.ed3 ~d3 14.~d3 2:d3 15.ttJfd2 (15.ttJfd4?,
given by Van der Wiel, is met by 15...c5).
b) 13.h3 ~h3 14.e6 ~e6 15.tt.Je5 (15.ttJa5!?) -
Van der Wiel.
c) 13.tt.Ja5 b6 14.tt.Jd4! (::;;14.e6 ~d6 15.~f4 ~c5)
14... ttJc5! (14 ...de2? fails to 15.~b7 ~b8
16.ttJdc6 ~c6 17.~d8 ~c8 18.~c8#; 14... ba5
15.ttJc6!--+):
• 15.f3?! ba5 16.fg4 ttJg4 17.~b1 liJe3 18.liJc6
is not yet quite clear;
• 15.tt.Jdc6 de2 16.ttJa7 ~b8, after which
White is best advised to acquiesce in a draw
with 17.ttJ7c6 as 17.ttJ5c6 ~a8 18.ttJd8 ~a7
yields White nothing tangible;
• 15.tt.Jac6! de2 16.ttJa7 (16.ttJe2? ~c6!-+)
16... ~b8 17.ttJac6 ~c8 18.~c2 ef1~ 19.2:f1,
and again with sacrificial play, White keeps a
very attractive position, probably indefensible
for Black, e.g. 19... ttJf5 20.ttJa7 ~b8 21.ttJdc6+-
Van der Wiel.
d) 13.e6!? - Van der Wiel.
13.ttJa5!
This cannot be delayed, as ... ttJe7-c6 is coming.
The Dutchman recklessly throws himself into
the attack. White pinpoints b7 as a target.
13.ed3 ~d3 14.~b1! is no worse,
although it isn't as clear. In the event of an
313
I,
Chapter 8
, ,
, I
.. ' ,
'i, i
exchange of queens the a6-knight will look Essential for the success of the white attack •
extremely miserable - Raetsky &: Chetverik. Now there is a possibility of gaining a tempo
I
I; , 13.~d3 ~d3 14.ed3 :1'1d3 15.:1'1fb1 t Tisdall. with tUe5.
iii
'1 White wants to play his tUf3, but at this point
I 13... b6 (D) this is not really possible yet:
Iii
,:1 I
I
, , 14.lLld4? de2 is not good, as the c6-
Ii I
,,' I square is now better protected - Van der Wiel.
14.lLlgS? de2 - Van der Wiel.

14...Wd6?

I
Tiviakov doesn't take the pawn so as not to be
I
attacked by the knight.
14...fe6 15.tUe5 leads to a quick win for
i

White - Van der Wiel.

14...\We8 15.ef7 also wins for White -
Van der Wiel.
,
,
,
After 14...iLe6 15.tUe5 \Wd6 Black is still
Anything else cannot really be recommended: alive, but not for very long after 16.tUae6
13...de2 14.\We2 is clearly too early. litUa7; li\Wa4 - Van der Wiel.
After 14 ...\Wa4, White launches a tremendous 14...1&e6 might put up a sterner defence
attack with 15.tUb7! (Van der Wiel) 15... Wb7 but after 15.tUg5!? the same ideas as in the
I
I 16.tUg5 We8 17.\Wb2±. game are in evidence (15.tUb7!? is interesting:
13...lLlc6 gives White the choice 15...Et:d7 16.~a4 tUb8 (16... de2 17.V!ia6 ef1V!i
between 14.tUe6 \We6 15.ed3, prosaically 1B.Et:f1 WbB 19.tUa5+-) 17.tUd4-t Tisdall):
winning a pawn, and 14.tUb7!? Wb7 15.tUd4! a) 1S de2 16.iLb7 Wb8 17.\Wd8 - Renet.
(15.\Wa4!?+-) 15...de2 16.\Wa4+- Van der Wiel. b) 1S \Wg6 16.iLb7 Wb8 17.iLa6 iLe2 18.\Wa4
13...c6 14.iLa7 \We7 15.Et:b1 (15.tUb3 b6) iLf1 19.Et:f1 h4 20.tUf7+- Renet.
15 ...\Wa5 16.iLb6, and Black's king finds itself c) 1S...\WfS 16.tUb7 Et:d7 (16 ...iLe2 17.\Wa4)
in an unenviable position - Van der Wiel. 17.\Wa4! tUb8 18.ed3 e6 19.tUe5! be5 20.f3 \Wd3
13...cS 14.tUg5!? (14.ed3 b6; 14.\Wd3!?) (20 ...\We5 21.iLf4 \Wd4 22.Wh1 tUd5!? 23.iLb8
14...de2 15.iLb7 Wb8 16.\Wb3 - Henris. Wb8 24.fg4+- Renet) 21.iLf4 \Wd4 22.Wh1 tUd5!?
(22 ...iLe6 23.Et:ab1; 22 ...iLf5 23.tUf7) 23.iLb8
14.e6!! tUb6 24.V!ic6 ~b8 25.fg4 Et:h6 26.\Wb5 \Wc4

314
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.tLif3 tLic6 5.g3 i.g4 6.~bd2

27.'~a5 hg4 28.Elae1 Ele7 29.Eld1 Ele8 30.Elf7+- Black is a rook up with the white knight
Henris. hanging on a5. Nevertheless, he has serious
d) 15.. .'~f6 16.ct'lb7 (after 16.~b7 Wb8 17.~a6 problems to deal with and no solution in sight.
~e2 18.~b3 ~f1 19.E1f1, the black king's
situation is also alarming, due to e4-e5 - 17....ie6
Raetsky & Chetverik) 16... ~e2 17.Wa4--+.
e) 15.. .'~'d7 16.~b7 (16.Wd3!?) 16... Wb8 17.f3 - There is no adequate defence for Black:
Van der Wiel. 17...c6 18.t2le6 t2le6 (18 ... t2le5 19.~e5
and 20.Wa6) 19.Wa6+- Van der Wiel.
15.ct:Jg5! 17...ttJc5 18.~e5 We5 (18 ... be5 19.t2lb7)
19.t2lb3+- Van der Wiel.
Showing tremendous vision. 17... ba5 18.Wb5! (Van der Wiel) 18...fe6
15.~f4 We5 would not have been 19.~b7 mb8 20.~e6 We8 21.Wb7# Henris.
effective - Van der Wiel. 17.. .'~'d1 is best ignored with 18.Wb5+-
15.ttJb7!? also looks a little futuristic. (18.E1d1!? is also sufficient) - Van der Wiel.
After 15... mb7 16.t2le5 e6! 17.t2lf7 Wb8, the 17 ttJd5!? 18.t2lf7 (18.~d5 is also very
situation is at least unclear - Van der Wiel. good) 18 ~a3 19.We6! Wa5 20.t2ld8 ct'lb8
After 15.Wa4 ba5 (15 ... de2 - 15.t2lg5), (20 ... ~d6 fails to 21.Wd7 Wb8 22.t2le6; 20 ... t2ldb4
White does not have as forcing a reply as after 21.~d7 Wb8 22.t2le6 t2le6 23.We8+-) 21.iWb7 md8
the text, even though moves like 16.E1fb1 or 22.iWb8 me7 23.ed5+- Van der Wiel.
16.t2lg5!? (16.Wa5 t2lb8!?) are certainly 17... fe6 18.t2lb7 Wd3 19.Wa6+- Renet.
promising - Van der Wiel.
18.ltJb7! Wd3 19.Wa6
15...de2
After 19-'Wa6 Black resigned because:
Biting the bullet. a) 19 ic4 20.t2ld6 Wd7 21.t2le4+-.
15 ~e6 16.~b7 Ma6 (16.t2lb7!?). b) 19 Wb8 20.t2le6+- (20.t2le5 ~e8; 20.t2ld8
15 ba5 leads to serious indigestion in ~e8).
view of 16.ct'lf7 de2 (16 ...We6 17.~b7! md7 c) 19...Wd7 20.t2le6 (20.Wa4 We8 21.Wa7+-
(17... WbB 1B.t2ldB) 18.Wd3) 17.t2ld6 (17.Wb3!? Raetsky & Chetverik) 20 ...fe6 (20 ...We6
ef1W 18.E\f1 We6 19.Wb5!! Mb7) 17... Eld6 21.t2le5) 21.iWa4 We8 (21...e6 22.E1d1) 22.ct'ld8
18.Wb3 (or 18.Wa4) - Van der Wiel. Wd8 (22 ... ~d8 23.Eld1) 23.Wa6+- Van der Wiel.
19.ttJd8!? was also possible.
16.Wa4 ef1W 17.EU1 1-0

315
 Chapter 8

I
Game 117 (14.ltJe5!?) 14... ba5 15.ltJf7 d3 16..if4!? de2
Dimitrov,lvan (2375) 17.Wfa4 ef1Wf 18.Elf1 .id6 19..id6 Eld6 20.ltJd6
Humeau,Cyrii (2203) Wfd6 21.Wfe8 r;!;c7 (21 Wfd8 22 ..ib7+-) 22.Elb1
Costa Serena, 2009 ltJb4 23.ab4 cb4 (23 Wfe6 24.Wff8!; 23 ...ab4
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.~f3 24.Ela1) 24.Ele1 !+-, followed by c5 - Van der
~c6 5.g3 ~g4 6.~bd2 ~d7 7.~g2 Wiel.
0-0-0 8.0-0 h5 9.b4 ~b4!? 10.a3 11..:~a4!?:
~a6 11.~b3 (0) a) 12.c!t~bd4? Wfd1 13.Eld1 c5, and Black wins
,
, ·1
,
,' material - Van der Wiel.
b) 12.c!t~g5 ltJh6 is also not quite clear. Black
"
,
,

will often follow up with ... c6 to prevent

actions against b7 (or, if possible, with ...d3).
White still has chances of an advantage after
13.h3 .if5 14.e4!? de3!? 15..ib7 r;!;b7 16.Wfd8
e2! (16 ...Wfb3 17..ie3 gives White nice
compensation) 17.Ele1 Wfb3 18..ie3 (18.Ele2
'I
,
"
i .ic5!), which is rather difficult to assess - Van
der Wiel.
c) 12..ig5!? (White connects his pieces on the
bottom rank, renewing the threat of ltJbd4)
12...f6 (12 ....ie7 13..ie7 ltJe7 14.ltJbd4 Wfc4
11 ... ~c5!? 15.Elc1 Wfd5 16.Wfa4±) 13.ef6 gf6 14..if4:
• 14... ~c4 15.ltJfd4 (with the threat of 16..ib7
An interesting attempt to strengthen Black's r;!;b7 17.ltJa5) 15...Wfa4 (15 ... ltJc5?! 16.Elc1 Wfb3
play, instead of 11 ...d3?! seen in the previous 17.ltJb3 Eld1 18.Elfd1 ltJb3 19.Elc7) 16.Wfb1+ (or
game. It's very important for Black to control 16.h3) . Van der Wiel;
the c5-square. • 14....ic5 15.ltJfd4!? .id4 16.ltJd4 Wfc4
11 ...c5!? 12.ltJa5 (12.ltJg5!? ltJb8 17.Wfb1!, with an immense attacking game for
13.Elb1 b6 14.a4 f6!?oo Tisdall or 14... h4!?f±) White, e.g. 17...Eld4 (17 ...c6 18.ltJc6!+-;
12... b613.e6!: 17...ltJc5 18.Elc1+-) 18.Wfb7+- Van der Wiel;
a) 13....ie6 14.ltJe5+-. • 14...lLlc5 15.ltJfd4 (15.ltJbd4!?) 15... ltJb3
b) 13.. .'~'e6 14.ltJg5 Wfe2 (14 ...Wfe8 15.ltJc6±) 16.Wfb3 Wfb3 17.ltJb3 .ie2 18.Elfe1, and even
15.Wfa4---+ Van der Wiel. without queens there is ample terror on the
c) 13.. .'~c7 is Black's best chance: 14.ltJg5 queenside, e.g. 18....ic4 (18 ....id3 19.1tJa5 c6

316
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6 5.g3 .ig4 6.tLlbd2

20.~h3 f5 21.Ei:ad1; 18... ~g4 19.CtJa5 c6 White starts to lose the thread of the game.
20.Ei:ab1 +-) 19.~b7 (19.Ei:ac1) Van der Wiel; Better was 13.Ei:b1, with the following
• 14...c5! 15.CtJh4! Ei:h7! (15 ...d3 is met by the possibilities:
diabolical 16.'lWb1!, intending 16 ... de2 17.~b7+-; a) 13...c6 14.ic6!! bc6 (14.,.'lWc6
15... ~e6 16.'lWb1) 16.'lWd3 Ei:hd7± (16 ...Ei:e7 15.ttJc6 Ei:d1 16.ttJa7 r;tJb8 17.Ei:d1 r;tJa7 (17,..ttJb3
17.CtJf5), and even if White has a large 18.lLlb5+-) 18.ie3 b6 19.ttJc5 ic5 20.ic5 bc5
advantage the battle isn't over yet - Van der 21.Ei:d5+-) 15.ttJc5 ic5 (15 ...'lWd4 16.Ei:b8!+-)
Wiel. 16.'lWa4! (1l'IWa6) 16...ib6 17.c5! 'lWd4 18.'lWc6
d) 12.lLlfd4! is strong: 12... c5 13.Ei:b1 Ei:d7 14.h3 ic7 19.e6! fe6 20.if4 e5 21.'lWa6 <j;Jd7
~e6 15.ttJe6 Ei:d1 16.~b7!+- Raetsky ft 22.Ei:fd1 +- Henris.
Chetverik. b) 13... b6 14.ie3!?± Henris.
11 ... ~c5!?:
a) 12.lLle1 (1l13.ttJd3) 12,..~h3! - Van der Wiel. 13... hg314..ig3!?
b) 12.Ei:b1 c6 13.h4 ttJe7= Renet.
c) 12.~b2 ~f3 (Black has to exchange his o14.hg3 c6 (14 ...ih3?! 15.ttJc5 ic5 16.ttJb3
light-squared bishop but his position remains 'lWd1 17.Ei:fd1 gd1 18.gd1 ig2 19.r;tJg2 ia3
solid) 13.~f3 ttJe7 (13 ... h4 14.e3!) 14.Ei:b1 c6 20.ga 1±) 15.'lWc2! Henris.
15.ttJc5 ttJc5 16.a4 ttJg6 17.~a3 ttJe6 18.~d6 f6
- Renet. 14....ih315.CL'lc5?!
d) 12.~g5!? - Van der Wiel.
e) 12.id2! (with the idea 13.ib4!) poses 15.ih3 'lWh3 16.gb1 ttJe4 17.'lWd3 ttJg3 18.'lWg3
enormous problems for Black: 12,..'lWe7 'lWh519.Ei:fdH.
(12 ...ib6!?, suggested by Olivier Renet, is
clearly insufficient because of 13.ib4 c5 15....ic5 16.CL'lb3??
14.ia5 ia5 (14... ttJe7 15.ib6 ab6 16.ttJbd2±)
15.ttJa5! Henris) 13.ttJc5 or 13.ttJa5 - Van der 16.lLlf3!?oo.
Wiel.
16....if2!
12.CL'lfd4 h4
White resigned here a bit prematurely even if
After 12...lLlb3 13.'lWb3, the ttJd4 is taboo as after 17.<j;Jf2 (17.if2? 'lWg4-+) 17...'lWf5 18.<j;Je1
there is the threat on b7 - Van der Wiel. gd1 19.9d1 'lWg6, Black should win in the long
run - Henris.
13..if4!? 0-1

317
 Chapter 8

Game 118 c) 11 llJge7!? - Henris.

Bhakti,Kulkarni (2289) d) 11 d3!?oo Renet.
Meszaros,Gyula (2360) 10.'lWb3?! tLlge 7 11.EJ:b1 ~f5 12.EJ:b2 b6
Kecskemet, 2011 13.Wla4 a5°o Pastukhov,I-Reprintsev,A, USSR ,
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.lLlf3 1990.
lLlc6 5.g3 .ig4 6.lLlbd2 Wfd7 7..ig2
0-0-08.0-0 h5 9.b4 ib4!? (D) 10....ic3!?

Catastrophe awaits Black at every step:

1O...~h3? transposes to the line
5... ~e6 6.tLlbd2 Wld7 7.~g2 0-0-0 8.0-0 h5
9.b4!? ~b4 (game 79 of chapter 6). White has a
winning attack after 11.e6! ~e6 12.EJ:b1.
10....id2?! 11.~d2 ~f3 (Lecha
Gonzalez,J-Montilla,E, Barcelona, 1995) 12.ef3!
h4 13.f4 tLlge7 14.:1'\ab1 hg3 15.hg3± Renet.
10...d3!? 11.ed3:
a) 11...Wld3 12.EJ:b1! ~f3 13.~f3 ~d2 14.EJ:b3!
Wlg6 (14 ... ~c3 15.~c6 bc6 16.~b2) 15.Wlb5±
Renet.
The theorical main line. b) 11....id2:
• 1VltJd2 ~h3! allows Black to enter to a
complicated endgame with opposite-colored
bishops which seems quite defensible for him
More precise than 1 O.:!'~b1!? which after 13.~c6 Wlc6 14.Wlc6 bc6 15.EJ:e1 EJ:d3
allows 10... ~f5!? 11.EJ:b3, and White's queen 16.tLle4 ~e6 (16 ...EJ:d4 17.~b2 EJ:c4 18.e6 ~e6
cannot go to a4: 19.~g7 EJ:h7 20.~f8, and White retains the
a) 11...~h3? 12.e6! ~e6 13.a3 ~d2!? 14.ct:le5! initiative) 17.tt:lc5 (17.~e3!?) 17...EJ:d4 18.~e3
Wld6 15.ct:lc6 bc6 16.~d2!?± Hidalgo Duque,C- EJ:c4 19.tt:le6 fe6 20.~a7 tt:le7. The d5-square
Fidalgo Fernandez,J, Mondariz, 2005 gives Black good chances to resist - Renet;
b) 11....ie7 12.~b2 b6? (12 ... ~h3oo) 13.EJ:b5 h4 • 12.~d2! ~f3 13.~f3 tt:le5 14.Wld7 EJ:d7 15.~e4!
14.Wla4 \t>b8 15.EJ:d5 Wle6 16.tLld4 tLld4 17.~d4 tLle7 (15...tt:lc4 16.~c3 tt:ld6 17.~g7±; 15...tt:lf6
hg3 18.Wla7! 1-0 Wilde,Mar-Vatter,H, Germany, 16.~f5 tLlf3 17.<j,Jg2 tt:ld2 18.EJ:fd1±) 16.~c3 f5!?
1990. (16 ...tt:ld3 17.~g7; 16.. .f6 17.~e5 fe5 18.f4 ef4

318
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ltJf3 ltJc6 5.g3 .ig4 6.~bd2

19.Ei:f4 g6 20.Elf7 c6 21.Elaf1 Ele8 22.El1f6) 11 ...ttJa5 12.Ei:b5 b6 is more stubborn - Raetsky
17.~b7 ct7b7 18.~e5 ttJc6 19.Elab1 ct7c8 20.~a1 ± & Chetverik.
Renet.
c) 10... h4!? (this counterattack isn't 12.~b7!
satisfactory but it's probably the best option)
11.Ei:b1: A beautiful sacrifice!
• 11...hg3 12.Ei:b4!? (12.fg3!?) 12 ... ttJb4 13.Wb4 The less direct 12.e6!? is not bad either:
gh2 (13 ... ~h3 would again transpose to the 12...iWe6 13.ttJg5iWg6 14.Ei:b7! Wb7 15.iWb5!? We8
game 79 of chapter 6) 14.ttJh2 c6 15.ttJe4 16.~e6+- Csiszar,C-Meszaros,G, Budapest, 1993.
(15.ttJg4 Wg4 16.ttJf3) 15... ~e2 16.ttJd6 ct7b8
17.~f4!? Was (17 ... ~f1? 18.e6!) 18.Ei:b1 +-
Renet;
• 11 ... ~d2 12.~d2 hg3 13.fg3 ttJge7 14.~g5! White wins if Black accepts the rook: 12...lt>b7
~h3 15.~h3 Ei:h3 16.~e7 We7 17.Wb5± Renet. 13.ttJb3! We7 14.ttJfd4! Ei:d4 15.We6 We8 (Renet)
16.ttJd4 ~d4 17.Ei:d1+- Henris.
11.~b1 .if5? (0)
13.'?Md7 .id7 14.~a7 i>b8 15.~a5
.ia5 16.ltlb3 .ic3 17.ltlfd4!±

White has every chance to win the game: he

has three pawns for the exchange and the
better position.

17...i>c8 18..id5 .ih3 19.~d1 .id4

Black tries to harass the rook on b1. But a
surprise awaits him. Strangely enough Gyula
Meszaros repeats this bad line for Black he had
already played in his game against Csiszar in
Budapest, 1993.
20.~d4 ltle7 21.e4 c6 22..if7 ~d4
23.ltld4 ~d8 24..ib2 c5 25..ie6 .ie6
26.ltle6 ~d2 27..ic3 ~d1 28.i>g2
~c1 29..id2 ~c4 30.ltlg7 ~e4
31.ltlh5 ~e5 32.ltlf4 ltld5 33.i>f3
ltlf4 34..if4 ~e1 35..ie3 c4 36.i>e4
~d1 37..id4 i>d7 38.h4 i>e6
39..ic3 ~d3 40..ib4 ~d7 41.a4 ~c7
42.i>d4 i>f5 43.f3 ~g7 44.a5
1-0

319
 Chapter 8

Game 119 Schlemmer,H, Bayern, 1995.

Browne, Walter (2590) The untried 9... ~f5!? •
IS worth
Mestel,Jonathan (2540) considering.
Las Palmas, 1982 9...lt:lh6! is probably the most flexible
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.~f3 and strongest move in the position. See game
~c6 5.g3 ig4 6.~bd2 Wfd7 7.ig2 120.
0-0-08.0-0 h5 9.h4!? (D)
I I
" , I'
10.Wfa4
I

10.lt:lb3 tLlg6 11.~g5 ~e7 12.~e7 We7f.

Beil,Z-Trefny,V, Czechoslovakia, 1994.
,
10",Wb31? tLlg6 11.tLle4 ;ge8!? was
, ,
II
,I, unclear in Galarza Docampo,K-Agirretxe San
Sebastian,J, Amorebieta, 2006.
10.b4!? tLlg6 11.Wa4!:
a) 11 ... ~b4!? 12.;gb1 ~d2!? (12 ...We 7 13.Wb3±)
13.~d2!?± ~h3?? 14.e6!? (14.Wb5! b6
15.~h3+-) 14... ~e6 15.;Gb7!! Wd6 (15 ... ~b7
16.;Gb1+-) 16.tLld4 tLld4 17.;Gfb1! 1-0 Lefranc,B-
ZakY,Tam, Issy les Moulineaux, 2006.
9... ~ge7!? b) 11 ... ~b8 transposes to the line 10.Wa4 ~b8
11.b4 analysed below.
9...l!h6?! 10.tLlb3 ;gg6 11.~f4 tLlh6
12.e3 d3 13.tLlbd4 tLlf5 14.e6 fe6 15.tLle6 We6 10... ~g6
16.tLle5± Piesina,G-Reprintsev,A, Belgorod,
1989. 10... ~b8 transposes.
Black has very little to show for the
pawn after 9...f6?! 10.ef6: 11.~b3!?
I ,• a) 10...lt:lf6 11.Wa4 ~h3 12.~h3 Wh3 13.tLlg5
Wd7 14.tLldf3;!; Krysztofiak,M-Kozlowski,To, Browne's plan is simple and good. But it's not
Bartkowa, 2002. the best.
b) 10...9f6 11.a3 tLlh6 (11...~h3 12.b4 ~g2 11.b3?! is too slow to be dangerous:
13.~g2;!;) 12.b4 ~h3 13.~b2 ~g2 14.~g2 tLlf5 11...~b8 12.~b2 tLlge5!? (12 ... ~h3+) 13.;gad1
15.Wa4;!; ;gg8? 16.b5 tLlb8 17.Wa7± Maugg,L- d3! 14.ed3 tLld3 15.~e3 tLle5!? (15 ...f6+) 16.Wa3

320
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ctJf3 ctJc6 5.g3 .ig4 6.ctJbd2

tLle4 17.~e1 tLle3 18.~e3 (Bacrot,E- 11 ...~b812.<!lJaS!?

Mastrovasilis,D, Bratislava, 1993) 18... ~f5=F
Henris. . 12.,agS!?:
11.b4! is more aggressive and refutes a) 12....if3!? 13.e6! (13.,af3 tLlee5 14.~d7 CDf3
the manreuvre ... tLlge7-g6: 15.ef3 :r'!d7; 13.ef3 tLlee5 14.~d7 :r'!d7) 13 ... ~e6
a) 11 ...,ab4 12.:r'!b1 ~e7 13.~b3 b6 14.~a4 - (13 .. .fe6 14.ef3) 14.,af3 f6 15.,ad5 (15.,ae6 ~e6
Renet. 16.~e6 be6 17.,ad2 c5=) 15...:r'!d5!? 16.ed5 ~d5
b) 11...d3 12.ed3 ,ab4 13.:r'!b1 ,ad2 14.tLld2 17.,ad2 ,ad6;;; Henris.
tLlge5 15.~b5 b6 16.d4, with the advantage for b) 12...ltJceS 13.~d7 :r'!d7 14.tLlfd4 f6 (14 e5
White - Renet. 15.f3 ed4 16.fg4 hg4 17.,ae4;!;) 15.f3 fg5 (15 e5
c) 11...'it>b8 12.b5 (12.e6!? ~e6 13.e5;!; 16.fg4 ed4 17.gh5 fg5 18.hg6 gh4 19.9h4 CDg6
Vanderstricht,G-Jossien,R, Bethune, 2002) 20.,ae4;!;) 16.fg4 gh4 17.gh5 :r'!h5 oo Henris.
12...tLlee5 13.tLlb3 (13.e5!?): 12.:r'!d1 CDee5 (12 ... CDge5 13.CDe5 CDe5
c1) 13...ltJf3?! 14.ef3 ,ah3?! (14 ...,af5 15.tLld4!± 14.Wd7 :r'!d7 15.:r'!d4 :r'!d4 16.CDd4 CDe4=;
(15.,ab2!? - Korchnoi)) 15.CDd4! (15 ...,ag2? 12 ...,ae7!?) 13.Wd7 :r'!d7 14.:r'!d4 :r'!d4 15.CDbd4
16.tLle6! be6 17.be6 ~c8 18.,ae3+- a6 19.mb1 CDe4= Renet.
~a8 20.:r'!b7 1-0 Korotylev,A-Mueller,Diete,
Biel, 2003) 15...,ae5 16.tLlb3± Van der Marel,B- 12...&ila5
Clemens,Adrian H, Groningen, 2001.
c2) 13...d3 14.,ae3!± (14.tLle5 tLle5 15.,ae3!? Bad is 12...ltJceS? because of 13.Wb3+-.
(15.ed3±) 15... b6 16.,ad4!? (16.ed3) 16...de2 12...,af3?! 13.ef3 (13.,af3?! CDee5
17.,ae5 ef1~ 18.:r'!f1 ~e7 19.tLld4 :r'!h6 14.Wb3 tLlf3 15.Wf3 e5=) 13 ...CDa5 (13 ...CDee5?
20.:r'!d1 !±); 14.Wb3) 14.Wa5;!; Renet.
c3) 13.. .'l;Ye6!? (as in Agrest,ln-Orndahl,Mar,
Vesteras, 2011) 14.e5;!; Henris. 13.~a5 ~f5!oo 14J~e1 f6 15.~b5 c6
c4) 13...,af3 14.ef3 ~f5!? (14 ... ~e6?! 15.e5+): 16.~b3 .ic5?!
• 1S.ltJd2 tLld3 16.~e2 ,ab4=F;
• 1S.cS tLlh4!? (15 ... tLlf3 16.,af3 ~f3) 16.gh4 16...,af3 17.ef3! (17.~f3?! CDe5:j:)
tLlf3--+ ; 17...CDe5 18.f4 CDd3 19.~e6 ~b4 (19 ...CDe5
• 1SJ3d1 tLlh4 (15... tLld3!?) 16.gh4 tLlf3 17.~f1 20.~b5±) 20.~h1+.
(17.,af3 ~f3--+; 17.~h1 ,ae7+) 17...,ae7 18.e5 Probably Mestel should have regained
,ah4 19.b6 eb6 20.eb6 ab6=F; his pawn as the end of the game is very
• 1S.f4! tLld3 16.tLla5 tLle5 17.~d1 Ll,aa3 - unfavourable for him: 16.. .feS 17.tLlg5 ~d7
Henris. (17 ... ~f6!? is also interesting - Henris) 18.~d2

321
 Chapter 8

(18.i,e4 i,f5 19.'!Wd3 i,e4 20.'!We4 '!We8= Renet) 33..ig5 h3 34.c;t>g3 c5 35.c;t>h3
18...i,d6 - Henris.
35J!f8 1"lf8 36.f4 would have put an end to the
17.ef6 gf6 18.VNd3! VNd3 19.ed3 game.
.ib420..id2
35... ~e8 36.~d2 c;t>b7
20J=!d1 ;to
Probably the game ended in zeinot and White
20....if3 21 ..ib4 lbh4!? collapsed under the time pressure.

Mestel wins back a pawn. But Browne has well 37..if4 c;t>a6 38.<;!;>g3 ~e1 39.a3?
calculated and now transposes into a winning <;!;>a5 40.<;!;>f2 ~h1 41.<;!;>g2 ~b1
endgame. 42..id6 <;!;>a4 43.<;!;>g3 <;!;>b3

22..ih3! lbg6 23..if5 ~hg8?! What a dramatic reversal of situation!

23 ... ltJe5 24.~e7 ~g4 25.~g4 hg4 44.f4 ~g 1 45.<;!;>f2?

26.~d8 1"\d8 27.1"\e5!? fe5 28.1"\e1 1"\f8 (28 ...1"\e8
29.1"\e4) 29.1"\e5 1"\f3 30.ci>f1! 1"\d3 31.ci>e1 1"\f3 After 45.'it>f3 ~d3! (an amazing resource!)
32.1"\e4 d3 33.1"\f4+- Henris. 46.1"\d3 'it>c2 47.<;tJf2 1"\8g4 48.1"\h3 d3 49.~e5
23 .. J!dg8!? (suggested by Lamford) 1"\4g2 50.<;tJf3 d2 51.1"\d6 d1'!W 52.1"\d1 <;tJd1, it is
24.1"\e6± Henris. now White who has to struggle to obtain the
draw.

45... ~g4+ 46.<;!;>f3 ~g1 47.f5? .ih5-+

26.~d6!? 1"\d6 27.1"\d6 hg3 would give Black 48.<;!;>f4 ~f1 49.<;!;>e4 ~e1 50.<;!;>f4
some hopes - Renet.
50.<;tJd5 ~f3#.
26...lbg4 27..ig4 .ig4 28.13 .ih5
29.g4 .ig6 30.~d1

30.~d6!? was more precise. Black wins after 51.<;tJf3 1"\g6 52.<;tJf4 (52.ci>f2
1"\gg1 H) 52 ...1"lf6.
30...c;t>c7 31.c;t>f2 b6 32..id2 ~df8 0-1

322
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ct:Jf3 ct:Jc6 5.g3 .ig4 6.tDbd2

Game 120
Golubovic,Boris (2430)
Matetic,Milovan (2039)
Paris, 2004
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.~f3
~c6 5.g3 .ig4 6.ttJbd2 Wd7 7..ig2
0-0-08.0-0 h5 9.h4!? ttJh6! (0)

a) 11...~f3? 12.CiJf3 CiJe5 13.iWb3! CiJf3

10.~b3
As often in this kind of position White faces a
difficult choice: should he opt for a plan where
pieces play the main role ('tWa4 , CiJb3 and 2:d 1)
or a plan Q La Philidor in which the pawns are
in front of the pieces (a3-b4, CiJb3 and ~b2)?
10.'~·a4 (D): 10 ...<;t>b8 (10 .. .f6?! 11.ef6
gf6 12.CiJb3 CiJf5 (12... ~h3 13.2:d1±) 13.~f4±;
10... ~h3?! transposes to the line 5.g3 ~e6
6.CiJbd2 iWd7 7.~g2 0-0-0 8.0-0 h5 9.h4 CiJh6
10.iWa4 ~h3?! analysed in game 81 - chapter 6)
11.2:d1 (11.CiJb3 d3! 12.ed3 ~f3 13.~f3 CiJe5
14.iWd7 CiJf3 15.<;t>g2 CiJh4 16.gh4 2:d7::; Renet):
(13 ... CiJc6?? 14.CiJe5+-) 14.iWf3 c6 15.~f4 <;t>a8
16.~e5± Renet.
b) 11...lDe5 12.iWb3! CiJf3 13.CiJf3±.
c) 11 ...d3!? 12.ed3 (12.CiJb3 CiJd4) 12 ...iWd3
13.2:e1 (il2:e3-b3):
• 13 lDf5 14.CiJg5! ~c5 15.iWb3± Renet;
• 13 lDb4 14.e6!? ~e6 (14 ... CiJc2 15.CiJe5+-)
15.CiJe5 iWf5 16.iWb5!? (16.CiJb3?! CiJg4
(16... CiJc2? 17.CiJc6+-) 17.~f4 iWc2 oo ) 16 ... ~c8
17.~e4 iWe6 18.a3 a6 19.iWa5 b6 20.iWa4 iWe5
21.ab4+ Henris;
• 13... ~c5!? 14.CiJe4 ~b6 (14 ... ~b4?! leads
nowhere: 15.~h6!? ~f3 (15...gh6 16.2:e3 iWc4
17.a3) 16.2:e3 iWc4 17.~f3 2:h6 18.2:c3! iWa6D
19.iWa6 ba6 20.2:b3± Henris) 15.c5! (15.~h6 ~f3
16.~f4 (16.~g7?! ~e4) 16...2:he8 17.iWb3 iWb3
18.ab3 ~g2 19.<;t>g2 a6 20.CiJg5 2:e7°o Henris)
15... ~f3 16.cb6 ab6 17.~h6 2:h6 18.2:e3 ~d1
19.2:d3 ~a4 20.2:d8 CiJd8± Renet.
d) 11 lDf5 12.CiJb3!?:
• 12 ~e7 (Black hopes to regain the pawn in

323
----------------------,
Chapter 8

good circumstances or to prepare an attack 17.gh4 Wfc4 18.iWd3 .id6 co Henris.

with ...g5. But this is too slow and White takes b) 10...iWe6!? 11.b4 .ie7 (11 ... ct:le5? 12.ct:le5
the initiative thanks to a quick counterattack) Wfe5 13.ct:lf3'I,) 12.ib2 tLlf5 13.Wfa4 mb8+. Black
13.ctJa5! (simplifying advantageously the is ready to regain the e5-pawn and to launch
position) 13...if3 (13... ct:la5 14.Wa5 if3 (14 ... g5 the attack with ...g5 - Renet.
15.ig5 ig5 16.ct:lg5 (16.hg5 h4) 16...ie2 The untried 10.b4!? is interesting
17.Wb4 c5 18.Wc5 id1 19.1l,d1±) 15.if3 g5 although the inclusion of 9.h4 ct:lh6 gives Black
16.ig5 ig5 17.hg5 h4 18.g4 ct:le7 19.1l,d3) a better version of the line 9.b4!? - Henris.
14.if3 ct:le5 15.Wb3! (this attack is quite
instructive) 15...ct:lf3 16.Wff3 c5 (16 ...c6 17.if4 10....ie7
ma8 18.e4 ct:lh6 19.ie5 d3 20.ig7 ll,h7 21.ic3)
17.b4! (17.ct:lb7ct:lh4) 17...cb4 18.a3!~; It's better to win back material with 10...if3
• 12...if3 allows Black to regain his pawn in a 11.if3ct:le5 12.id5ct:lf5 - Raetsky & Chetverik.
slightly inferior endgame. But the following
variations show that this is the correct way to 11 ..if4 .ih3 12.~d3 .ig2 13.i>g2
handle the position: 13.ef3 ct:le5 14.Wfd7 ll,d7 ~f5 14.~bd2 g5!?
15.ih3 g6 16.if4 (16.if5 gf5 17.f4 ct:lc4 18.ll,d4
ll,d4 19.ct:ld4 ct:ld6 20.ie3 ig7=) 16...f6 Not having sufficient compensation for the
(16 ... ct:lc4?! 17.if5 gf5 18.ll,ac1 ct:ld6 (18... ct:lb2 pawn Black starts an attack doomed to failure.
19.1l,d4 ll,d4 20.ic7) 19.ct:ld4±; 16... ct:lc6 17.ll,d2
ib4 18.ll,d3 id6 19.if5 gf5 2o.id6 ll,d6 21.f4 15.hg5 h4 16Jl:h1 hg3 17.1g3 ~h1
ll,hd8 (21 ... ll,e8 22.mf1) 22.ll,adH Henris) 18.~h1±
17.ie5 fe5 'I,/= Renet.
10.a3!? gives Black more time: Black's initiative has gradually faded away.
a) 10...ih3 11.b4 (11.ih3!? Wfh3 12.ct:le4)
11 ...ig2 12.mg2 ct:lg4? (12 ...Wfe6 13.Wfa4 mb8 18... ~b4 19.~e4 ~a2 20.~a1 ~b4
14.ib2 ct:lf5 15.ll,ad1!? ie7 (b....g5) 16.Wfb3!?+ 21.~a7 ~c6 22.~a8 ~b8 23.~b3
Henris) 13.ct:lb3?! (13.Wfa4 mb8 14.ib2±): .ib4 24.~a5 .ia5 25.~a5 ~h8
• 13...tLlce5 14.ct:lfd4 tLlc4 15.Wfc2 ct:lb6 16.ll,d1 26.~a7 ~c6 27.~a8 ~b8 28.~a1
ie7 (Derieux,C-Daillet, E, Montpellier, 1991) ~c6 29.~h1 ~h1 30.i>h1 ~b4
17.ib2± Henris; 31.i>g2 d3 32..id2 ~c2 33.~d3
• 13...tLlge5!? 14.b5 ct:lf3 15.bc6 ct:lh4 16.mh2 ~d3 34.ed3 ~fe3 35..ie3 ~e3
(16.gh4? Wfg4 17.mh2 Wfh4 18.mg2 ll,d6-+; 36.i>f2 ~g4 37.i>e2 c5
16.mg1? Wfh3 17.gh4 id6 18.f4 ll,h6-+) 16...Wfc6 1-0

324
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6 5.g3 .ig4 6.tLlbd2

Game 121 (15.Wib7?? Wb7 16.ClJh4 ClJf3-+; 15.Wib5??

Kan,lIya ic5!-+; 15.ClJd4?! 'gd4 16.Wib7 Wd8 17.ffb8 Wic8
Simagin,Vladimir 18.Wia7 'gg4+) 15...ig7 16.ClJd4 'gd4 17.ffd4 ClJf3
Moscow, 1952 18.ClJf3 id4 19.ClJd4 ffg4:j: Henris; o14 ...ic5!-+
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.lLlf3 ~ ... ClJe5 - Henris) 15.ClJh4? (15.'ge2 de2 16.ffe3
lLlc6 5.g3 ig4 6.lLlbd2 ~d7 7.ig2 ffd3+ Henris) 15... 'gh4! 16.gh4 ffg4! (16 ... ClJg6!?
0-0-08.0-0 h5 (D) looks also good - Henris) 17.ClJf1 ClJf5-+ 18.ClJh2
ffh4 19.id2? fff2! 20.Wf2 ic5 21.ie3 ie3#
0-1 Formanek,Ed-Oshana,D, Chicago, 1970.
9.a3!? h4 10.b4 hg3 11.fg3:
a) 11...ih3? 12.b5 ClJce7 (12 ...ig2? 13.bc6!
ffh3 14.cb7 Wb8 15.m2 if3 16.ClJf3± Renet)
13.ffa4 Wb8 (13...ig2? 14.ffa7! ffh3 15.e6!
ffe6 (15.. .fe6? 16.ffa8 Wd7 17.ClJe5 We8
(17... Wd6 18.ffd8-+) 18.ffd8 Wd8 19.'gf8#)
16.Wg2±) 14.ih3 ffh3 15.c5 ClJf5 16.ClJe4±
Henris.
b) 11...d3?! 12.ib2:
• 12...ih3 (Walther,Re-Muhr,J, Bayern, 2000)
13.ed3 ig2 14.Wg2± Renet;
I analyse here other continuations than the • 12...tLlh6 13.ed3 ffd3 14.ffb3 ie6 15.ffd3
main lines 9.b4 and 9.h4 already covered. 'gd3 (Novotelnov, N-Soloviev, Vl, Sochi, 1952)
16.'gfd 1 ClJg4 17.ClJe 1 'gd8 18.ic6 bc6 19.ClJef3;!;
9J~e1?! Henris.
c) 11...f6!? (Henris):
Black gets good counterplay if White plays too • 12.ef6 gf6 leads to a very complicated
cautiously. position. Black has no direct attack, but he has
9.ffb3?! h4! 10.ClJh4 (10.ClJe4!? hg3 the initiative. The e3-square is weak and can
11.fg3 if3!? (11...ih3? 12.e6!±) 12.ef3 ClJe5°o be exploited with ...ih6 or ...ClJe7-f5. Black's
Henris) 10...ie2 (10 ...ih3!? M1.ClJdf3!? ie7, queen can reach the kingside quickly with
with the idea 12 ...ih4 13.ClJh4 ig2 14.Wg2 ...ffh7;
ClJe5 - Henris) 1U%e1 d3 12.ClJhf3!? fff5 13.h4? • 12.ffa4 Wb8 13.ib2!? ClJe5? (13 ...Wie6 14.ef6
g5!? (13 ... ClJh6+ Henris) 14.hg5 (14.ClJg5?? fff2 ClJf6 15.'gf2;!; Henris; o13 ...ih3°o Henris) 14.Wid7
~15.Wf2 ic5#) 14... ClJge7? «14 ...ClJe5?! 15.ffc3 'gd7?? (14 ... ClJd7;!;) 15.tLle5 1-0 Mann,Ge-

325
 Chapter 8

Kovacs,Gy, Hungary, 2001. 9 ... h41 10.a3

9.Wfa4!?:
a) 9...Wb8?! 10.b4!?N (10.h4 ctJge7 would 1O.llJh4!? ~h3--+.
transpose to the line 9.h4 seen in games 119
and 120) 10...ctJb4 11.'1Wd7 l::1d7 12.e6!? ~e6 10...hg3 11.hg3 d3!?
13.ctJeS l::1d8!? (13 ...l::1e7!? 14.a3 ~c8 1S.ctJdf3
ctJa6 16.l::1d1 cS 17.e3!± Henris) 14.l::1b1!? (14.a3 Transferring the queen to the kingside
~d6 (14 ...ti'Ja6? 15. l::1b 1+-) 1S.ctJdf3± Henris) with 11 ...'Wf5 is another interesting option:
14... ~d6 1S.ctJd3 ~fS (Daloz,J-Jossien,R, a) 12.llJf1:
Tarbes, 2003) 16.l::1b4 ~b4 17.ctJb4± Henris. • 12... ~f3!? 13.ef3 ctJeS~ Henris;
b) 9... h4! is logical and best: • 12.. .f6 13.ef6 ctJf6 14.b4?! ~h3+ Henris
b1) 10.llJh4!? ~e7? (10 ... ~e2 11.l::1e1 d3 ao (14 ... ctJe4~ (+ Minev));
Henris) 11.~c6!? (11.b4!--+ Henris) 11 ... bc6?? • 12... ~h3t Henris.
(o11...'Wc6 12.'Wc6 bc6 13.ctJhf3± Henris) as in b) 12.llJh2 l::1h2! 13.mh2 d3 14.ctJf3 (14.~f3 ctJe5
the game Curione,F-Bauer,We, Cattolica, 1992. 1S.mg2 ~cS+) 14...de2 1S.'We2 'WhS 16.mg1
Now the simplest was 12.ctJb3!+- Henris. ctJd4 17.ctJd4D ~e2 18.ctJe2 'WeS+ Henris.
b2) 10.b4 d3! (if 10... hg3?, as in Zabala c) 12.b4:
Ordonez,A-Castillo Gallego,S, Linares, 1991, • 12...llJe5!? 13.'Wa4 ao (:S;13.ctJeS 'WeS 14.~b2
11.bS!± is very strong - Renet) 11.ed3 hg3 'WhS 1S.ctJf3 ~h3+ Henris (15... ctJf6+ Lam[ord));
12.bS!? (12.hg3 ~b4 M3.llJgS?! ctJd4 14.~b7 • 12... ~h3 13.~h1 'WhS~ Henris.
mb7 1S.'Wb4 ma8+ Henris) 12...ctJd4 13.'Wa7 11 ....th3!? is also worth considering -
ctJe2 14.mh1 'Wd3: Henris.
• 15.'Wa8 md7 16.'Wb7 (16.e6 me6) 16...~f3
17.ctJf3 'Wf3!-+ Renet; 12.b4 Wff5 13.e41? Wfh5 14.ib2
• 15.e6 fe6 16.ctJh4!? (16.h4 ~e7! 17.ctJh2 ttJh6?1
(17.'WaB rJdd7 1B.'Wb7 ~h4 19.ctJe5 meB 20.~c6
mfB-+) 17...md7! 18.'Wb7 me8 19.~c6 mf8 14...~h3? 1S.ctJh4 ao Henris.
20.fg3 ctJf6+) 16...md7! 17.fg3 (17.'Wb7 l::1h4 Stronger was 14... ~e7! (with the idea
18.'Wc6 me7-+; 17.~b7 ~d6!+) 17... ctJg3! 18.hg3 of attacking the knight on d2 with ... ~gS)
'Wg3+ Henris; 1S.ctJf1 (1S.~c3 ~gS 16.l::1a2 ctJge7+; 15.l::1e3!?
• 15.h4 1S... ~e7 (1S ... ~f3? 16.ctJf3 'Wf3 ~gS 16.ctJf1!? ~e3 17.ctJe3 ctJh6!+) 1S... d2!
17.~gS!!+- (17.~f3?? l::1h4 1B.mg2 l::1h2#)) 16.l::1e3 ~gS 17.l::1b3 ctJge7!n Henris.
16.ctJh2 (16.e6 fe6 - 1S.e6) 16...md7 17.ctJe4
(17.'Wb7 me8+) 17...gh2 18.'Wb7 me8+ Henris. 15.c51?

326
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.CtJf3 CtJc6 5.g3 .ig4 6.tlJbd2

The counterattack with 15.~a4!? seems to 21 ...g5! 22 ..td2 (22 ..tg5? Eld3! 23.'lWd3
lead to a forced draw after 15....th3! 16.b5 (S.23..th4 ltJe5) 23 ... ltJe5+) 22 Ei:d3! (f1 ... Elf3)
ltJe5!? 17.'lWa7 (if 17.ltJe5? or 17..te5? White 23.Ei:fc1 .tf2 24.mf1 Ei:hd8 (24 Ei:f3!? 25.'lWf3D
faces too many dangerous threats after (25.if3?? 'lWh3 26.ig2 'lWg3-+) 25 ... ltJh2
17....tc5!) 17...ltJhg4 18.ltJe5 ltJe5 19..te5 .tg2 (25...i.b6?? 26. me2+-) 26. mf2 ltJf3 27 ..tf3;!;)
20.mg2 'lWh2 21.mf3 'lWh5 22.mg2=. White has 25.ig5 ib6'" Henris.
to take the draw by repetition - Henris.
22.g4!? ttJg4 23..ig3?
15....ie7?!
23.ltJd2! g5 24.ig3 ltJf2 25.'lWh5 ltJg4
15....te6!? (f1... ltJg4) 16.b5 ltJa5 17J::lc1 26.if2 if2 27.Ei:f2 Ei:h5 28.Ei:e2± Henris.
(17 ..tc3? is met with 17...ic5! 18.ia5 ltJg4 23.e5!? - Henris.
19.1'U1!? ltJe5 20.ltJh4 ig4+) 17...ltJg4 18.'lWa4
b6 19.cb6 ab6 20.id4 mb8'" Henris. 23.. J:!:d6?!

16.b5 ttJe5? 23...id6 (f124 ....tg3 25.fg3 'lWc5) was a lesser

evil: 24.e5 ltJe5 25.ie5 Ei:de8 26.'lWd2 ie5
16...ltJd4?! 17.id4 Ei:d4 18.'lWb3± Henris. (intending ...ih2) 27 ,Ei:fc1! ia 1 28.'lWd6 mb8
o16...ltJb8 17.c6!? (17.Ei:c1 ig5+±) 29.Ei:c7 'lWg6 (29 ...Ei:h6 30.Ei:b7+-; 29 ...'lWh6
17... bc6 18.bc6 ic5 leads to a double-edged 30.Ei:b7+-) 30.Ei:b7! mb7 31.ltJh4 (and not
position - Henris. 31.ltJe5?? 'lWg2 32.mg2 ie5) 31 ...'lWg2 32.mg2±
Henris.
17..ie5 .if3 18.ttJf3 ttJg4 19..if4?!

19.id4! Ei:d4 20.ltJd4 ic5 21.'lWd3 ltJe5

(21...Ei:d8 22.'lWf3±) 22.'lWe2 id4 (22 ...'lWh2 24.id6 id6 25.Ei:fd 1 .tc5 26.'lWd2 if2 27. mf1 +-
23.mf1 id4 24.Ei:ad1+-) 23.'lWh5 Ei:h5 24.Ei:ad1± Henris.
Henris.

19....ic5 20Jl:f1 d2! 21.%Ve2

24...if2 25 ..tf2 ltJf2 26.'lWh5 Ei:h5 27. mf2 Ei:h4
21.iLd2?? Ei:d3-+ f1 ... Elf3 - Henris. transposes.

21 ...ttJh2? 25.%Vh5 gh5 26..if2!?

327
 Chapter 8
o26.i.d6 cd6 27.Elf2 Elh4 28.Eld 1± Henris.
26... ~f2 27.~f2 gh4 28.gad1± gh5
29.~e2 f6 30.gf5 gh2 31.gf2 gh5
32.a4 gd4?!
32 ...a6!?
33.~e3 ga4 34.gfd2 gh8??
34.. J'!:a3 35. ~f2 2:h8+ Henris.
35.~f2?
White could take advantage of Black's error
with 35.Eld8 2:d8 36.i.h3 2:d7 37 .2:d7+- Henris.
35...a6 36.ba6 ga6 37.if3!?;t :!3h2
38.ig2 :!3h8 39.:!3d3 :!3a2 40.~g3 :!3a4
41.ih3 ~b8 42.:!3d8 :!3d8 43.:!3d8 ~a7
The two connected passed pawns give Black
good counter chances.
44.if5 :!3a1 45.~f2 :!3c1 46.:!3d7 g5
47.:!3f7 :!3c6 48.id7 gd6 49.~f3 ~b6
50.~g4 ~c5!? 51.ic8 ~d4 52.~f3
Or 52.i.b7 c5 53.Elc7 c4.
52...c5 53.gb7 c4 54.if5 ~c3
55. ~e2 gd2 56. ~e3 gd3 57. ~e2
gd2 58. ~e3 gd3
Y2-Yz
328
Game 122
Bondarevsky, Igor
Mikenas, Vladas
Moscow, 1950
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.CLlf3
~c6 5.g3 ig4 6.~bd2 Wfd7 7.~g2
0-0-0 (D)
I shall look here at variations (8.h3 and 8.a3)
where White delays castling short.
8.h3!?
White drives away the bishop, so that if it
retreats to h5, Black will have no play down the
h-file. The problem with 8.h3!? is that White's
king is now stuck in the middle of the board.
White is committed to weaken his kingside with
g4 at some stage if he wants to castle.
White also has 8.a3!?:
a) 8...tLlge7!? 9.b4 tiJg6 10.~a4 ~b8
11.i.b2;t.
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ctJf3 ctJc6 5.g3 .ig4 6.tLlbd2

b) 8...d3!? 9.h3!? de2 10.'t!Me2 CLld4 13.CLld4 ~f6°o Raetsky & Chetverik) 12... Wb8
11.'t!Md1 CLlf3 12.~f3 ~f3 13.iWf3 f6~ Reprintsev. 13.b5 ct::lee5 14.CLld4+ Henris.
c) 8... ~h3!? is also interesting - Henris.
10.ef6
8....if5
10.ffa4!? <;t>b8 (10 .. .fe5?! 11.b4 e4 12.ct::lh4 ct::lf6
Black also has two other continuations which 13.g4±) 11.ct::lh4 ie6 12.~e6 be6 (12.,.V!1e6
are worth looking at: 13.V!1e6 be6 14.ef6 ct::lf6 15.ct::lhf3;!;) 13.ct::lb3 e5
8...if3?! 9.ct::lf3 ib4!? (Muller,Ra- 14.V!1a6 We8 15.V!1b5 V!1b7 16.V!1b7 <;t>b7 17.ef6
Wilcox,J, email, 1993) 10.<;t>f1 !+ Henris. ct::lf6 18.~g5;!; Simagin,V-Gereben,E, Budapest,
8...ie6 9.a3 ct::lge7 (9 ...f6!?) 10.b4 1988.
(10.'t!Ma4 <;t>b8 11.b4 ct::lg6 12.ib2 transposes
below) 10... ct::lg6: 10...ct:\f611.b4 ge8 (0)
a) 11.ib2 ct::lge5 12.1''1c1 (12.b5 ct::lf3 13.ct::lf3 ct::la5
14.id4 (14.V!1a4 ct::lc4 15.V!1a7 V!1b5 16.id4 V!1a6
17.V!1a6 ba6) 14...ie4 15.0-0 ct::lb3!; 12.e5!? -
Henris) 12...f6 (12 ..,ie7? 13.b5 ct::lf3 14.ct::lf3 ct::la5
15.V!1a4 b6 16.ct::le5± PodolnY,J-Mikenas,V,
Vilnius, 1949) 13.b5 ct::lf3 14.ct::lf3 ct::le5 15.V!1a4
ct::lf3'" Raetsky & Chetverik.
b) 11.ffa4!? <i>b8 12.ib2 ct::lee5 13.V!1d7 ct::lf3
(13 ...Eld7 14.e5 ct::lf3 15.ct::lf3) 14.ct::lf3 Eld7 15.e5
d3!? 16.ed3 Eld3 17.ct::ld4± Henris.

9.a3 f6!?

The alternative 9...ct::lge7 is not sufficient A position has arisen which is typical of the
either after 10.b4 ct::lg6 11.ib2 (11.V!1a4 <;t>b8 Albin Counter-Gambit. For his sacrificed pawn
12.ib2± is also good for White - Henris): Black has a lead in development and it looks as
a) 11...d3 12.e3 Ele8 13.V!1a4 <;t>b8 the threat of ... ~d3 will force White to delay
14.b5±. his developement even more by 12.<;t>f1.
b) 11...lLlge5 12.b5 ct::lf3 13.ct::lf3 ct::la5 However, Bondaresvky reveals the weakness of
14.V!1a4± lasoni,R-Ochrana,L, Massy, 1993. Black's queenside by giving back the pawn and
c) 11...,ie7!? 12.V!1a4!? (12.b5 ct::lce5 sacrificing the exchange.

329
----------------------------,
Chapter 8

11 tLle4 (Minev) 12.lbe4 ~e4 13.0-0 d3 • 15... tLld5! is better: 16.0-0!? Ct:Je3 17.iWa4
(13 ~e7 14.bS ~f3 1S.ef3 Ct:JeS 16.f4 Ct:Jc4 ~h3+ Henris.
17.mra4±) 14.ed3 ~d3 1S.:1:\e1 ~c4 16.mrd7 2:d7 b) 14.g4! ~g6 1S.iWa4!?± (1S.0-0!?± Henris;
17.2:e8 2:d8 18.2:d8 ~d8 19.~gS ~e7 20.2:d1:!:. 1S.cS!?+ Henris) 1S...a6!? 16.cS ~eS 17.~eS!?
Ct:JeS 18.iWd7 Ct:Jfd7 19.Ct:Jd4 2:hf8 20.0-0 ~f7
12..ib2! .id3!? 21.2:fc1 c6? 22.a4? (22.Ct:JfS+-) 22 ...Ct:Jg6 23.b5
cb5? 24.c6+- Ct:Jb6 2S.cb7 ~d7 26.~c6 1-0
White was threatening to win the d4-pawn by Garcia-Alonso, corr, 1985.
13.bS.
12...d3?! 13.e3 ~d6: 13.0-0! ie2 14.~a4 if115J~!f1;; (D)
a) 14.c5?! is very risky as the white
king will be the subject of a relentless attack
after 14... ~g3 15.fg3 (15.~f6?! 2:e3 16.~f1 ~f2
17.~f2 2:e2+):
• 15.. .:1!e3!? 16.~f1 (16.~f2 2:e2 17.~g1 Ct:Je4!?
(17... mre6!?) 18.~f1!? Ct:Jg3 19.~e2 de2 20.mrb3
Ct:Jh1 21.~h1 2:e8 22.2:e1 ~e6 23.mrc2 ~d5
24.~g2 g5 25.bS Ct:JaS oo ) 16... Ct:JhS!? (Korn;
16 Ct:Je4!?) 17.g4 Ct:Jg3 18.~f2 (18.~g1!? Ct:Je2
(1B Ct:Jh1? 19.~h1 ~e6 20.b5±) 19.~h2 (19.~f2
2:heBoo) 19... ~g4!? 20.hg4 mrf7 21.2:f1 mrf4
22.~h1 Ct:Jg3 23.~g1 Ct:Je2=) 18... Ct:Jh1 19.~e3!?
(19.~h1? 2:e2 20.~g3 h5!-+; 19.mrh1 2:e2
20.~g3!? ~e4oo) 19...2:e8 20.~f4 g5! 21.Ct:JgS Suddenly the picture has changed dramatically
(21.~g5? mre7-+) 21...Ct:Jd4 22.~b7!? (22.~h1? and it is White who is ahead in development,
Ct:Je2 23.~f3 mre7 24.~g2 mrg5 25.Ct:Jf3 ~e4! with Black already threatened by b5. His
26.mrd3!? Ct:Jf4 27.~h2 mrh6 28.iWf1 ~d3-+) material advantage plays no part in the
22 ... ~b7 23.mrh1 c6 24.~d4 (24.~g3 2:e3 2S.~f2 proceedings, as his rooks cannot become
2:e2 26.~g3 2:e3=) 24 ...mrd4 2S.~g3 (25.Ct:Jge4 active. For the exchange White obtains an
~e4 26.Ct:Je4 2:f8 27.~g3 mre5 28.~h4 mre7=) irrefutable attack against the enemy king.
2S mreS 26.~h4 h6 27.Ct:Jf7 iWf6 28.~g3 iWf7
(28 2:e3!?) 29.mrf3 mrc7 30.mrf4 2:e3 31.Ct:Jf3 ~e4 15...i>b8
32.iWc7 ~c7 33.~f4 2:f3 34.~e4 2:h3 3S.2:d1 2:g3
36.2:d3 2:g4 37.~fS 2:gS 38.~e6 as= Henris; 15...a6!? 16.bS Ct:Jb8 17.Ct:Jd4± Henris.

330
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ct:Jf3 ct:Jc6 5.g3 J.g4 6.~bd2

16.b5 ltJd8 17.ltJd4 ~c5?! Game 123

Delemarre,Jop (2455)
17....id6 18.~e1---;. Weidemann,Joerg (2305)
Germany, 2007
18.ttJ2b3 ~d4 19.~d4± 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ltJf3
ltJc6 5.g3 i.g4 6.ltJbd2 Wd7 7.i.g2
Even worse is 19...a6 20.Wa5, etc. White's ltJge7!? (0)
bishops are stronger than Black's rooks.

19... b6 20.c5! 'Be7?

Black resists longer by giving back the exchange:

20 .. J~e4 21 ..ie4 ct:Je4 22.eb6 ab6
23 ..tb6 eb6 24.We4 iWb5 25.ct:Jd4+-.
20 .. J~e6 21.eb6 (21 ..te3!?) 21 eb6
22 ..te3 (threatening .tf4 and ct:Jd4) 22 ~e3
23.fe3 ~e8 24.iWf4± Minev.
But in both cases Black is a pawn down and the
situation of his king leaves much to be desired.

21.cb6 cb6 22.i.b6!+- ab6 23.Wa8 With 7... ct:Jge7 Black develops his kingside and
@c7 24.Wa7 @d6 keeps the option of castling short.

24...Wc8 25.~e1. 8.0-0

25.'Bd1 @e5 26.'Bd7 ttJd7 8.h3!? is worth considering.

White has a queen and two pawns against two 8...ltJg6 9.a3
rooks, and Black's king is so vulnerable that he
can set up no defence. White expands on the queenside, threatening
to win the d4-pawn after b4, .tb2, ct:Jb3 and b5.
27.Wc7 @e6 28.ltJd4 @f7 29.ttJf5!? He also has the following alternatives:
'Be1 30.@h2 'Bd1 31.Wc2 9.b3?! O-O-O:j: as in Kostelnik,P-Belis,R,
1-0 Slovakia, 2009.

331
--------------------------------------~

Chapter 8

9.tL\b3 0-0-0 10.i.g5 i.e7 11.i.e7 V/!fe7 9 ... ~h3?! (D)

12.V/!fd2 h5!?'" Saffern-McCormick, New York,
1973.
9.V/!fb3!?:
a) 9.. J:l:b8!? 10J~e1!? ie7 11.ttJe4 ttJge5
12.ttJe5 ttJe5= as in Polgar,Z-Heinonen,J,
Valkeakoski (simul.), 1996.
b) 9...0-0-0!? transposes to the line 7...0-0-0
8.0-0 ttJge7 9.lMfb3 ttJg6 analysed in game 115.
9.ffa4:
;

a) After 9...hS?! 10.ttJb3±, Black has serious

problems with his d4-pawn - Henris.
b) 9...ie7:
b1) 10.b4!? O-O!? 11.ia3!? d3!? (11 ...a6!?'"
Henris) 12.ed3 lMfd3'" Pataki,G-Serdarevic,M, In the game this position was reached after the
Zenica, 2002. moves 5.g3 ttJge7 6.ig2 ttJg6 7.0-0 if5 8.ttJbd2
o
b2) 1 J:l:e1 0-0 (10 .. J:1d8!? 11.b3!? ttJb4!?= lMfd7 9.a3 ih3. In practice other move orders
Taylor-Mengarini,A, USA, 1975) 11.ttJb3 (after have been also used to obtain the position.
11.lMfb5!? a6 12.lMfd5, as in the game Instead of 9...ih3?!, which is met with the
Hernandez, Rom-Jigjidsuren, P, Skopje, 1972, game continuation, Black should finish the
12 E1ad8 13.lMfd7 E1d7 equalizes - Henris) development of his kingside.
11 E1ad8 12.lMfb5 a6 13.Wb7 E1b8 14.lMfa6 E1b6 9...ie7 10.b4 O-O-O!? (10 ... 0-0 11.ib2!?
15.lMfa4 E1b4 16.lMfa6 E1b6 17.lMfa4 E1b4 18.lMfa6 E1ad8 12.b5!? ttJce5 13.ttJd4;1; Weiss,Mark-
E1b6 Yz- Yz Rosenkilde,A-Hvenekilde,J, Obro, Regnat,M, Mittelfranken, 2007) 11.lMfa4 ~b8
2006. (Bowersock,M-Culbeaux, T, Irvine, 2010) 12.ib2
b3) 10J%d1 0-0 11.ttJb3: ttJce5 13.b5 c5 (13 ... ttJf3 14.ttJf3±) 14.bc6 ttJc6
• 11 ...if3?! 12.if3 (12.ef3!? - Henris) 12...ttJge5 15.lMfb3!?;I; The white king is safer than his
(Donner,J-Mertens,F, Ostend (simul.), 1978) colleague (12.e6!? is also promising) - Henris.
13.ic6 lMfc6 14.lMfc6 ttJc6 15.ttJd4 ttJd4 16.E1d4 9...aS!?:
E1fd8 17.E1d8 E1d8 18.ie3± Henris; a) 10.b3!? ie7 11.ib2 0-0 12.ttJe4 (Sadaba
• 11 .. J%ad8 12.c5!? ttJge5 (and not 12 ...a6? Rodriguez,I-Parrefio Cueto,A, Collado Villalba,
13.ie3± Marshall,F-Chajes,O, New York, 1913; 2009) 12...E1ad8= Henris.
12...if3?! 13.ef3;1; Henris) 13.ttJe5 ttJe5 14.Wd7 b) 10.ffa4!? ie7 11.b4!? 0-0 (11...ttJce5?!
E1d7 15.if4!? ttJg6'" Henris. 12.lMfd7 id7 13.ttJe5 ttJe5 14.ib2± Jimenez

332
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.lLlf3 lLlc6 5.g3 .ig4 6.~bd2

Zerquera,E-Hope,M, Siegen, 1970) 12.b5 tLlce5 14.'?;Yd7 ~d7 15.ltJd4 ltJc4 16.ltJc4!
13.tLle5!? (13 ..ib2 c5 (13... tLlf3 14.tzJf3±) 14.bc6 .ic4 17 .~fc1! .ie6
tzJc6 15.tzJb3 d3!? 16.Elfd1 (16.ed3 Elfd8~
tJ.... .if3, ... tzJce5) 16... ~c8!? 17.Eld3 .id7°o The bishop on c4 has no good retreat.
Henris) 13,..tzJe5°o 14..ib7?! ~e2 15.~a8?! In case of 17... ~d5 18.e4 is annoying - Henris.
(15.Ele1 d3+ Henris; 15.~b2 tzJd3 16.~a8 Ela8
17 .~c2 Ele8!?~ Henris) 15,. .Ela8 16.Ele1 18.ltJe6!?
(Szeberenyi,A-Meszaros,An, Hajduboszormeny,
1995) 16,..d3!+ Henris. Even stronger is 18.f4! - Henris.
c) 10.tzJb3 Eld8 11.~g5!? ~e7 12.~e7 ~e7:
• 13.~c2?! tzJge5 14.tzJe5 ~e5 Y:!-Y:! Moebus,M- 18...fe6 19..ih3 .id6!?
Kahms, W, Lippstadt, 2000 (the odd move order
of the opening was 4.a3 tzJc6 5.tzJf3 ~g4 Black gives up the pawn in order to finish his
6.tzJbd2 a5 7.g3 tzJge7 8.~g2 tzJg6 9.0-0 ~d7); development.
• 13.tt:lfd4!? tzJd4 14.tzJd4 0-0 15.~b7!? tzJe5!? Thanks to 19..J3d6 Black could preserve the
16.~d5 c6 17.~c6D tzJc4°o Henris; pawn. But after 20.f4± Black's position would
• White secures a small advantage with remain very difficult - Henris.
13.h3!? ~c8 14.~c2 tJ.Elfd 1 - Henris.
9...0-0-0 transposes to the line 7...0-0-0 20..ie6 :E:e7 21 ..ic4
8.0-0 tzJge7 9.a3 tzJg6 covered in game 115.
With a pawn up and the bishop pair, the rest of
10.e6! the game is a matter of technique for White.

10.tt:lb3 ~g2 11.\1]g2 0-0-0 12.~g5 ~e7 13.~e7 21 ...ltJe5 22.e3 ltJf3 23.~g2 :E:f8
~e7 14.~c2 tzJge5= Freeke,M-Nederlof,J, 24.:E:c2 g5 25.:E:d1 h5 26..ie2 g4
Hengelo, 2003. 27..if3 gf3

10....ie6 11.b4 0-0-0I? 27.. J3f3 28.Eld5 - Henris.

If 11 ... ~h3, then 12.~b2± Henris. 28.~h3 a5 29.ba5!? :E:f5 30.:E:c4

11 ... ~e 7 is not sufficient either, also :E:a5 31.a4 :E:f5 32.:E:d3 :E:ef7 33..ia3
because of 12.~b2± Henris. .ie5? 34.:E:d8 ~a7 35.e4!?+- :E:g5
36..ic1 :E:g6 37.:E:e8 .ia1 38.e5
12.'?;Ya4 ~b8 13..ib2± ltJce5 1-0

333
----------------------------------'1
Chapter 8

Game 124 • 10.ge1!? f6 (10 ... ttJf3 11..~f3 ii.e6 12.ttJe4±

Horvath,Jozsef (2535) Henris; 10 ...ii.f3!? 11.ct:Jf3 Ei:d3 12.ii.g5! Ei:d1
Afifi,Assem (2340) (12.. .f6? 13. ct:Je5f+-) 13.Ei:ad 1+ Henris) 11.h3!?
Cairo, 1997 (11.Wa4+ Henris) 11...ii.f3 12.ct:Jf3 Ei:d3 13.ii.d2
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.~f3 ct:Jf3 14.ii.f3 Wd7 15.ii.d5!+ Malmgren,H-
~c6 5.g3 .ig4 6.tLlbd2 (0) Heinrich,Gu, corr., 1938;
• 10.'lWa4 a6 (10 ... \tJb8 11.d4!; 10... ct:Jc6 11.d4!)
11.ct:Je5 We5 12.c5 Ei:d4 13.ct:Jc4 Wf6 (13 ...Wc5
14.We8 Ei:d8 15.We4+-) 14.ii.e3 Ei:d3 15.We8! 1-0
Saemisch,F-Rathai, V, Berlin, 1941.
b2) 9... gd3 (Black has practically nothing for
his pawn) 10.Wa4 (10.We2!?) 10...Wb4 11.Wc2
Ei:d7 (11 ...ii.f5 12.ii.h3!) 12.a3 Wa5 13.We4
(13.b4!? ct:Jb4 (13...ii.b4? 14.ct:Jb3) 14.ab4 Wa1
15.ii.b2±) 13...f5 14.Wc2! ct:Je5 15.b4 ct:Jf3 16.ct:Jf3
ii.b4 17.ab4 Wfa1 18.ii.b2ai Burn,A-Spielmann,
Ru, San Sebastian, 1911.
6... ct:Jge7 7.ii.g2 ct:Jg6 8.0-0:
a) 8...ii.e7!? 9.ct:Jb3± Thorsteins,K-Hvenekilde,J,
6...'lWd7 Copenhagen, 1989.
b) 8...Wld7 transposes to the line 6.ct:Jbd2 Wd7
6.. .'lWe7 is clearly too slow: 7.ii.g2 0-0-0: 7.ii.g2 ct:Jge7 8.0-0 ct:Jg6; see game 115.
a) 8.Wlb3!? Wb4!? 9.Wd3 ii.f3 (9 ...g6!? 10.0-0
ii.g7 11.a3 We7 12.Wb3± Henris) as in 7.h3!? .if5 8.a3
Giulian,P-Aird,l, Glasgow, 2012. Now White
retains a clear advantage after 10.Wf3 ct:Je5 8.ii.g2 0-0-0 is analysed under the move order
11.Wf5 ct:Jd7 12.0-0± Henris. 7.ii.g2 0-0-0 8.h3 ii.f5 (---t game 122).
b) 8.0-0 d3!? (8 ... ct:Je5 9.ct:Je5 We5 10.Wb3 c6
11.ct:Jf3 (11.Wa4f?±) 11...Wc5 gives a small edge 8... 0-0-0!?
to White who has the easiest development and
safest king after 12.Ei:d1, as in Bai Jinshi-Li 8...ttJge7 9.ii.g2 ct:Jg6 10.Wfa4 0-0-0
Hanbin, Beijing 2012 or 12.Wa4, as in 11.b4 \tJb8 12.ii.b2±.
Saemisch,F-MaroczY,G, Dresden, 1936) 9.ed3: 8...a5 9.ii.g2;!; Klugman,R-Mengarini,A,
b1) 9...ttJe5?!: Philadelphia, 1954.

334
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ltJf3 4:Jc6 5.g3 .tg4 6.ltJbd2

9.b4 ~e8!? 10.1i.g2 .£ie4m Henris.

10.§'a4!? Wb8 (weaker would be 10 ...CLJe5?! 16.0-0 1i.h3 17.lLld4 gd4 18.1i.d4 h5
11.iWe8 :ge8 12.CLJe5 :ge5 13..£ib2±) 11 ..£ib2± 19.1i.h3
Henris.
19.c6!? comes also into consideration - Henris.
10...lLle5 11.lLle5 VNe5 12.ib2 VNe6
13.c5lLlf614.lLlb3?! 19...VNh3 20.VNf3 lLld2?

Better was 14.CLJf3! d3 15.CLJd4 de2 16.Wa4± 20 ...iWe6.

Henris.
21.VNf7± ie7 22.ig7 lLlf1 23.gf1 d2
14...d315.e3lLle4?! 24.ih8 VNf1 25.@f1 d1VN 26.@g2
id8 27.VNe6 @b8 28.id4
Much stronger was 15...d2! 16.CLJd2CLJe4 17.~e4 1-0

335
 •

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.lLlf3 7.h3 (---+ game 137).

lLlc6 5.g3 ~g4 6.~g2 (D) Some independent moves are also
examined in game 137.

7...0-0-0

7...h5!?, taking immediate action on

the kingside, is interesting and is the subject
of game 136.
7...lLlge7?!, 7....ih3?! and 7.. J~d8 are
also considered in game 136.

8.~b3!

The most frequently played move in the

Usually if White plays tiJbd2 in the next few position and probably the strongest
moves he will transpose to the previous continuation. The white queen frees the d1-
chapter. square for the rook and aims at the b7-
However, he can omit this move and take square.
advantage of the saved tempo with the direct 8.'l1Na4 is an important alternative
6.tg2 examined in this chapter. which is discussed in game 132.
The slow 8.a3 is covered in games 133
6... ~d7 and 134.
I shall take a look at some unusual
The normal continuation. Black prepares continuations for White in game 135.
queenside castling followed by ... h5 and/or 8.lLlbd2 is the previous chapter.
...th3.
See game 138 for 6....ib4 and 6...lLlge7. After 8.Wb3! Black has two main continuations:
8...lLlge7 and 8....ic5!?
7.0-0 8 h5 is covered in game 130.
8 .ih3? is a mistake (---+ game 131).
Sometimes White delays or even gives up the Some rare options for Black are
idea of castling short: analysed in game 131.
7.'l1Nb3!? (---+ game 137).

336

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6 5.g3 .ig4 6 ..ig2
8... ttJge7 (D)
9.gd1
The most logical. White's threat is 10.CLld4!.
Other options are covered in game 129.
9... ~f5
Alternatives are investigated in game 129.
10.lLla3
White's plan is clear: to attack one more time
the d4-pawn with CLlc2 or CLlb5.
The immediate 10.tLld4!? is also worth
considering here (~ game 128).
White also has 1O.~f4!? (~ game 127).
10...lLlg6
10... ~h3 is not sufficient either (~ game 127).
,
11.ttJc2 ~c5 12.lLlbd4! id4 13.lLld4
gd414.gd4lLld415.'~b7
White has a very strong attack (~ game 127).
8....tc5!? (D)
8... ~c5!? is a more sensible possibility.
9.tLlbd2 is the subject of game 126.
The alternatives 9.Wfb5!? and 9.~g5!?
are also examined in game 126.
9... a6
9.. .'~f5, 9...Wfe7 and a few marginal
alternatives are seen in game 125.
9...a6 is covered in Izeta Txabarri,F-
Rojo Gomez,J, Zamora, 1996 (~ game 125).
337
 •
Chapter 9

Game 125
Izeta Txabarri,Felix (2470)
Rojo Gomez,Jorge (2240)
Zamora, 1996
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ClJf3
ClJc6 5.g3 .ig4 6..ig2 ~d7 7.0-0
0-0-0 8.~b3 (D)

Black takes advantage of the fact that White

cannot attack the bishop with a3-b4 or ltJd2-
b3. He defends the d4-pawn and is about to
complete his development with ltJge7. Black
will have to lose a tempo with a6 to ensure
the bishop on c5 a safe retreat.

9.E:d1 a6!?
White shows his intention not to use the b-
pawn and instead decides to put pressure on Black must be careful as his move can serve as
the position of the black king who chose to a target for White to open the lines on the
take up residence on the queenside. The move queenside if he succeeds in playing b4.
8.1Wb3 creates typical tactical themes along 8...a6 9.gd1 (9.ltJbd2 ltJge7) 9...ic5 is another
the diagonal h1-a8 and in particular on b7. move order to reach the same position.
Black must always be on the alert with threats 9...1Wf5!? is also worth considering:
like e6, followed by ltJe5 or gd1, followed by 10.ltJa3 ltJge7 (Llaneras Henarejos,M-Parrefio
ltJd4. Black does not have time to attack the (ueto,A, Benidorm, 2010) 11.ltJc2!? if3
white king and will therefore opt for a plan to (11...ltJg6? would allow the strong move
regain the e5-pawn with the manceuvre 12.ltJcd4!, transposing to the line 8...ltJge7
... ltJge7 -g6. analysed in game 127 after 9.gd1 ~f5 10.ltJa3
ct:Jg6 11.ltJc2 ic5) 12.if3 ib6 offers Black
8....ic5!? (D) reasonable chances. For instance: 13.c5!? ic5

338
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ctJf3 ctJc6 5.g3 J.g4 6.J.g2

14.liJe1 .ib6 15.liJd3 liJe5 16.liJe5 Vffe5 17.Vfff7 Vffe4 21.Elae1 Eld3 22.\Wf6± Henris;
~hf8 18.Vffc4 liJg6!?, with a good game - Henris. • 14...liJg6!? 15.ed4?! (15.~e1 I?:!: Henris)
9...W/e7 10..ig5 f6 11.ef6 liJf6 (as in the 15...liJf4 16.dc5?! (16.gf4 .id4 17.~e1 ~f5
game Furman,SI-Vujadinovic,Mil, corr., 1999) 18.ttJd4 ~d4co Henris) 16....ih3? (o16 ... ~d3
12.liJbd2;!; Raetsky & Chetverik. 17.~c2 ttJb4 18.~a4 liJg2 19.1t>g2 liJc6+ Henris)
9...liJa5 10.~b5 ~b5 11.cb5 liJc4 17.ttJh4? (17.gf4 ~g4 18.ttJh4 .ig2 19.1iJg2 ttJd4
12.liJbd2 liJe3 13.liJb3 liJd1 14.liJc5± Raetsky & 20.f3!? liJb3 21.fg4 ttJa1 22.ttJe3 ~d3 23.lt>f2 ~e8
Chetverik. 24.ttJdf1 ~d1 25.ttJd1 liJc2:j: Henris) 17... ~d3!
9...liJge7 10.liJc3 (10 ..ig5 ~he8 11.liJc3 18.~a4? ttJg2!? (o18 ...ig2 19.ttJg2 ttJh3 20.lt>f1
liJa5 (11.. ..ib6 12.liJa4 .ie6 13.liJb6 ab6 ~f5-+ Henris) 19.ttJg2 ttJd4?? (19 ...ig2 20.lt>g2
14.~b5±) 12.~a4 b6 (12....ib6 13.c5!) 13.liJb5 ~e2 21.ttJf1 ~f3-+ Henris) 20.ttJf1?? (20.liJf4!
a6 14.b4 ab5 15.cb5 liJd5 16.bc5 liJc3 17.~a3 ttJe2 21.liJe2 ~e2 22.~e1! ~h5 (22... ~d2??
liJd1 18.~d1 f6 19.ef6 h6 20.cb6 ~b5 21.f7+- 23.~ad1+-) 23.c6 co Henris) 20 ...ttJe2 21.lt>h1
Henris) 10... liJa5 11.~a4 liJac6 12.liJe4 b5 ~e4!? (21...ig2 22.lt>g2 ~e4 23.f3 (23.lt>h3
13.~a6 1-0 Piza Cortizo,D-Fernandez,M, Orense, ttJg1#) 23 ... ~f3 24.lt>h3 ttJf4 25.@h4 ~h5#
1994. Henris) 22.ttJfe3 ~e3 0-1 Navarro Lerma, R-
Prudlo,S, Niederrhein, 1996.

10...llJge7 (0)
10.a3? would be a mistake in view of
10... liJa5 11.~a2 ~a4 12.~d3 ~c4:j: Rotshtein,
E-Reprintsev,A, Yalta, 1988.
But 10.ig5!? is quite interesting:
10...f6!? (10 ...liJge7 11.liJc3 h6 12.ie7 ~e7
13.liJd5;!; Henris) 11.ef6 gf6 12.if4liJge7:
a) 13.lLlc3 ~e6 14.ttJd5 (14.ttJa4 ia7 15.c5!?
~b3 16.ab3 co ) 14...ttJd5 15.cd5 ~d5 16.~d5 ~d5
17.h3 ih5 18.g4 if7 19.ttJd2 ~d7 20.~ac1 ib6
21.ttJe4 ia2 22.ttJf6 ~e7 23.@f1;!; Henris.
b) 13.ttJbd2!? ~e6 14.e3!?:
• 14...de3 15..ie3 .ie3 16.fe3 ttJf5 17.~e1
(~17.liJf1 h5i) 17 ~he8 (17... h5? 18.liJd4!±)
18.~c3 .if3!? (18 liJe3?? 19.ttJf1+-) 19.1iJf3 Unlike the other variations here Black
(19 ..if3 liJe5 20 ..id5 ~d7co) 19...ttJe3 20.~e2 completes his development without problem.

339
,....- 01

Chapter 9

10...Wff5?! 11.ct:ld5! ~f3 (11 ... ct:lge7? 12.ct:ld4!+-)
12.~f3 ct:le5 13.~g2 c6 (13 ...d3? 14.ct:le3+-
Henris) 14.ct:lb6 ~b6 (14 .. .';tJc7 15.ct:la4 ~a7
16.~d2± Henris) 15.Wfb6± Renet. The squares
around the black king are very weak.
11.lLJe4 i.a7 12.V;Va3!
White doesn't obtain an advantage after
12.llJeg5 ct:lg6 (12 ... ct:la5?! 13.~d3 (13.~a3!?)
13... ~fS 14.~d2 (14.e4?! de3 15.~d7 'il,d7
16.ie3 ie3 17.fe3 ct:lc4f.; 14.~a3!?) 14... ct:lec6
1S.ct:lh4;!;) 13.h3! ifS (13...if3 14.ct:lf3) 14.g4 ct:laS
(14 ...ie6 15.ct:le6; 14... h6 1S.gf5 ~fS 16.cS! hg5
17.ct:ld4 'il,d4 18.'il,d4 ct:ld4 19.~b7 md8 20.e4±
(20.ie3!?)) 15.~b4 (15.~a3? ic2) 1S...ct:lc6
(1S ...ic2?! 16.'il,d2 ttJc6 17.~a3 h6 18.'il,c2 hgS
19.igS 'il,de8 20.'il,d1±) 16.~d2!? (16.~a4 h6
17.gfS ~f5oo) 16... h6!? (16 ...ie6 17.ttJe6) 17.gf5
~fS 18.~d3 ~d3 19.ed3 hg5 20.ttJg5 'il,de8 21.f4
f6 22.ef6 gf6 23.ct:le4 fS oo Henris.
12•.•V;Vf5
12... llJg6!? seems also good enough to keep
the balance. Now the French Grandmaster
Olivier Renet suggests 13.ttJcS!?:
a) After 13.. JWe7?! 14.b4!, Black has a
multitude of options at his disposal, but none
of them can solve his problems:
• 14...llJb4? 15.ttJb7! mb7 16.igS f6 17.ct:ld4
~c8 18.ct:lc6+- Renet;
• 14.. J':1:he8 15.ct:la6± Renet;
• 14...a5 15.ct:ld3 ab4 16.~a4± Renet;
• 14...d3 15.ed3 ~c5 16.bc5 ct:lge5 17.ct:le5 ct:le5
18.~f4! ct:lf3 (18 ... ~d1 19.'il,d1±) 19.~f3 ~f3
20.'il,e1 ~f6 (20 ... ~d7 21.d4!+-) 21.d4! - Renet.
Black has no time to take advantage of the
white squares and he cannot stop the advance
of the central pawns;
• 14...ic5 1S.bcS ct:lgeS (1s ...if3!? 16.~f3
ttJgeS 17.idS± Henris) 16.ttJeS ct:leS 17.f4! (the
first player takes advantage of a tactical
theme to launch a powerful offensive) 17... ct:lc6
(17 ...ttJc4? 18.ib7; 17...ie2 18.feS id1 19.ib7!
md7D 20.c6!? me8 21.~e7 me7 22.ia3 me6
23.'il,d1+-) 18.ic6 ~e2 (18 ... bc6 19.~a6 md7
20.'il,d4 me8 21.~c6+-) 19.ib2 bc6 20.~a6 md7
(20 ... mb8 21.id4 ~d1 22.'il,d1 id1 23.ieS+-)
21 .id4± Renet.
b) 13....tc5!? 14.~cS 'il,he8 is more
appropriate. After the tempting 1S.b4?!, Black
has 1s...if3! 16.if3 ct:lgeS+ Henris.
c) Best is 13... ~f5! 14.ttJd3 (14.ct:la6 d3!
1S.h3 de2 16.'il,d8 'il,d8 17.hg4 'il,d1 18.mh2
~g4!-+) 14....tf3 1s.if3 ttJceSf. Henris.
13.ttJeg5 ttJg6?
After this mistake Black loses quickly.
He had to play 13... h6! (in this very
complicated position Black can gain time
thanks to the move ... ~c2, allowing him to get
out of a ticklish situation) 14.h3 (14.ct:lh4? ~c2!
1S.'il,d2 ~c4+ Renet):
a) 14... hg5? 1S.hg4 ~g4 16.igS (in this
variation Black cannot take advantage of the
opening of the h-file):

340
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6 5.g3 .ig4 6..ig2

a1) 16...d3? 17.~e7 CfJe7 18.'lWe7 de2 19.:8d8 17...h6 18.fe5 hg5 19.ig5± Renet.
:8d8 20.:8e1 'lWg3 21.e5+- Henris.
a2) 16...:8d7 17.b4 d3 18.:8d3 (18.ed3? CfJd4 18.~e6 gd6 19.~g7 ~c4 20.b3
19.CfJd4 id4+): ~a5
• 18.. :~g3 19.e3 (19.e5±) 19...:8d3 20.1Wd31Wg4
21.b5 CfJe5 22.ttJe5 'lWg5 23.'lWe4+- Renet; 20... :8d7 21.ttJh5 - Renet.
• 18... ~f5 19.:8d7 Wd7 20Jl:d1 We8 21.b5 ttJed4
(21 ...1Wg3 22.e5+-) 22.Wf1! CfJe6 23.1Wd3± Henris; 21.1a3
• 18...:8d3 19.1Wd3 ttJb4 20.1Wb3± Henris.
a3) 16...:8de8 17.b4 (17.ie7!? :8e7 18.b4 - Black's knights are too badly positioned while
Henris) 17... ttJg6 (17 ...d3?! 18.'lWd3±) 18.b5 White's bishop pair radiates across the entire
ttJee5 19.ba6 ttJf3 20.1Wf3 'lWf3 21.if3 ba6 chessboard.
22.ig4 Wb7 23.:8ab1 We6 24.if3 (24.e3 ttJe5)
24 ...Wd7 25.ie3+ Henris. 21 ...gdd8
b) 14...if3 15.ttJf3 ttJg6 16.'lWd3 (16.b4
'lWe2"') 16...1Wd3 (16 ...1We6 17.if4 :8he8 18.a3 21 ... :8d7 22.ttJh5 f5 23.:8ae1 - Renet.
ttJge5 19.ttJe5 ttJe5 20.ie5 'lWe5 21.:8d2~)
17.ed3~ Renet.
c) 14...ih5! 15.g4 'lWe2! 16.id2 (16.:8d2
'lWe4 17.b3 'lWb5 18.gh5 hg5+) 16... hg5 17.gh5 23.ic5! ie5 24.ttJe5 :8d6 25.b4 ttJe6 26.ic6±.
f6! (17 ...'lWe4 18.ig5~) 18.:8ae1 'lWf5 19.ef6 gf6
20.b4 :8h5'" Renet. 23... ~e7
All these variations show us the richness of the
position. The plan with ...ie5 and ... ttJge7 is 23...:8e8 24.ttJc5 ic5 25.ic5 d3 26.:8ad 1 :8e2
best because it offers a lot of resources for 27.if1 :8d2 28.:8d2 - Renet.
Black, even if the path is often very narrow
and full of pitfalls. 24.ie7 ge7 25.~d4 gd8 26.gad1 b5?

14.h3 if3 15.Wf3! 26... :8ed7 was necessary.

This exchange allows White to gain a clear 27 .~b5+- if2 28.@f2 gd2 29.gd2
advantage in the endgame. ab5 30.gd5 c6 31.gd6 c5 32.ga6
c4 33.ga5 c3 34.ga8
15...Wf316.ef3! ~ce517.f4f6 1-D

341
 Chapter 9

Game 126 c) 9...ie7 10.:1:;:d1 a6 11.VNa4 lWe6!? 12.ttJbd2;!;

Savchenko,Stanislav (2480) Raetsky & Chetverik.
Moroz,Alexander (2345) It should be noted that the move order 8...a6,
Belgrade, 1989 followed by ...ic5, avoids this line.
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.tDf3 9.i95!? Ele8 10.lLlbd2 h6 11.lLle4 if8
tDc6 5.g3 i,g4 6.i,g2 \Wd7 7.0-0 12.ic1 f6 13.\Wb5 fe5 14.Ele1 a6 15.\Wa4 lLlf6
0-0-0 8.\Wb3 .ic5!? 9.tDbd2 (D) 16.lLlfd2 lLld8= Shadrin-Reprintsev,A, corr., 1990.

9...a6 10.lLle4

The following options are also worthy of

consideration:
10.lWa4!? lLlge7 11.lLlb3!? (11.a3!? -
Henris) 11...ia7 12.lLla5 (12.Eld1!? if3 13.ef3
lLle5 14.lWd7 Eld7= Henris) 12... h6!?oo Ruban,A-
Reprintsev,A, corr., 1989.
10.a3!? lLlge7 11.lWa2!? lLlg6 12.b4;!;
Kuzmin,AI-Reprintsev,A, corr., 1989.

10....ia7
White also has the following continuations:
9.'lWb5!?: 10...ie7?! 11.lLleg5±.
a) 9...VNe7?! 10.ig5 f6 11.ef6!? (11.if4 a6
12.lWb3 h6!? would be unclear - Henris) 11...gf6 11.lLleg5!?
(11...lLlf6!? is interesting - Henris) 12.if4±
Risch-Reprintsev,A, corr., 1990. With the threat 12.e6, followed by lLle5.
b) 9...ib6!? 10.b4!? a6 11.lWa4 d3 12.e3!? 11.Eld1 is also worth considering:
(12.c5 de2 13.:1:;:e1 lWd1 14.lLlc3 if3 15.lLld1 a) 11 ... h6!?:
ed1lW 16.Eld1 Eld1 17.if1 ia7 18.ib2 Ela1 • 12.id2!? lWe6?! 13.ib4! f6?! 14.ic5!± if3
19.ia1 lLlge7°o Henris) 12 ...lLle5 (12 ...if3?! 15.lWf3 lLle5 (Kushch,N-Reprintsev,A, Yalta,
13.if3 lLle5 14.lWd7 Eld7 15.ig2 (15.ie4!? - 1988) 16.lLld6!+- Henris;
Henris) 15... lLlh6 16.c5 ia7 17.ib2± • 12.lLld4!? id4 (12 ...lLld4?! 13.Eld4 lWd4
Teipelke,H-Fiori,B, corr., 1986) 13.lWd7 lLld7 (13 id4 14.lLlc5!) 14.ie3 lWe5 15.ia7 (l:::.lLlc5)
14.EldH Henris. 15 b6 16.'Wa4 'Wa5 17.'Wc6 (17.'Wa5 ba5

342
------------------------------------,
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.tLlf3 tLlc6 5.g3 .ig4 6..ig2

18.e3"') 17... ~e2 (17...tiJe7 18.Vf1a8 md7 21 .. .'~e6 22.'\Wb3 C6CD

19.'8,d1+-) 18.~h3 f5 19.c5 CiJe7 20.~f5 CiJf5
21.cb6+- Henris) 13.CiJc5 ~c5 14.'8,d7 ~d7 The position is unclear. White has the bishop
15.~e3 ~e3 16.Vf1e3 CiJge7'" Shikhirev,L- pair and Black's king is a little weak. But the
Reprintsev,A, corr., 1991. second player has a strong grip on the centre
b) 11 ...CiJge7 would transpose to the thanks to his pawns.
line 9.'8,d1 a6 10.CiJc3 CiJge7 11.CiJe4 ~a7
analysed in the previous game. 23.~c4 ~he8 24.~ac1 ~d7 25.i.f3
f5 26.~d3 @b8 27.~4c2 @a8 28.a4
11...16! 12.e6 ~c8 29.~b2 ctJf6 30.~bc2 ctJe4~
31.i.b4 c5 32.i.e1 @b8!? 33.i.g2
12.ef6 gf6 13.CiJe4 '8,e8iii Renet. ctJd6 34.~f3 ~e7 35.i.d2 ctJe4
36.i.f4 @a8 37 .~d3 ctJc3 38.e3
12...i.e6 13.ctJe6 ~e6 14.i.d2 ctJge7 ltJa2!?

Before White launches the assault with his 38...c4!? would not be so clear after
pawns against the enemy king Black should 39.Wf1'" Henris.
take immediate action on the kingside with But with 38...ib8!?; Black would
14...g5!? 15.Wd3 g4 16.CiJh4 CiJge7 17.b4 CiJe5 preserve a small advantage - Henris.
18.We4 c6'" Henris.
39.~b1
15.~d3 g5 16.b4 g4 17.b5 gf3
18.~f3;!; ~c4!? 19.bc6 ~c6 20.~a3 39J;a2 Wa2 40.Wa6 is unclear - Henris.

Later White improves with the somewhat 39...ltJb4 40.~b4?

better 20.Wb3!? CiJd5? (20 ... ~b5 21.We6 Wd7
22.Wf6!?! or 22.~b3!?;t Henris) 21.'8,fc1!? Most probably this blunder was due to
(21.'8,ab1!± Henris) 21 ... ~e6? (21 ...Wb5 timetroube.
22.Wc2± Henris) 22.'8,ab1 +- Savchenko,S- 40.Wc4 co .
Mallassagne,F, Montpellier, 2005.
40...cb4+
20...ltJd5 21.~fc1!? 0-1
In this inferior position White decided to resign
021 J;ab1!;!; Henris. prematurely.

343
 ,
Chapter 9

Game 127 1994) 12... ct:Jh3 13.ctfh1 bc6 14.ct:Jf5 gd1

Lazarev, Vladimir (2440) 15.~d1D ct:Jf2 16.<Jig2 ct:Jd1-+ Henris.
Meszaros,Gyula (2200) b) 12.gf4 ~f4 13.ct:Jc6 gd1 14.~d1 bc6 15.i.c6!?
Kecskemet, 1993 lWe5!?oo Schepers,H-Schlemmer,H, corr., 1991.
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ltJt3 The sacrifice 10.4:ld4!? is already
ltJc6 5.g3 ig4 6.1g2 fid7 7.0-0 worth considering. See next game.
0-0-0 8.fib31tJge7 (D)

After 10...i.h3 White plays the strong 11..~h 1!±

Budde,V-Hubert,Ral, Germany, 1994.

White concentrates all his forces towards d4.

Again 11.4:ld4!? is dangerous: 11 ... gd4 12.gd4
ct:J d4 (12 ...i.c5? 13.i.c6!? bc6 14.i.e3 i.d4
15.i.d4+ Scholz-Schlemmer, H, corr., 1989)
13.~b7 Wd8 (Hellsten,J-Kostopoulos,E, Agios
Kirykos, 2004) 14.~e3, with attack - Henris.
Or 8... ~f5 9.l::1d1 ct:Jge7, as it actually happened
in the game. 11...ic5 (D)
Black has no time to attack the white king and
therefore opts for a plan to regain the e5-pawn I
I

(ct:Jge 7-g6). This is recommended by the theory

but I absolutely do not agree as it is clearly
unsatisfactory for Black as we shall see soon. I

9J~d1 fit5 10.~a3

The knight goes to c2 or b5 in order to put

more pressure on d4.
1O.i.f4!? ct:Jg6 11.ct:Jd4!? ct:Jf4!:
a) 12.i.c6?? (Wemmers,X-Woudt,E, Hengelo,

344
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.CLlf3 CLlc6 5.g3 J.g4 6.J.g2

White is better after 11 ....if3!? 12.ef3! lLlge5 (22. me2 Wg4) 22 ...Wg4 (Renet) 23.Eld 1+-.
13.f4± Roeder,M-Hubert,Ral, Germany, 2000. c) 20...lLle5 21.~b7 ~h3 (21 Wf5
22.Wa8 md7 23.Eld1 +-) 22.me1! lLlc3 (22 Wg4
12.ttJfd4! 23.Wb8 md7 24.iWh8 Wg5 25.Eld1+-) 23.bc3
iWe6 24.~d5 (Renet) iWf5 25.f4+-.
This sacrifice is winning in all variations.
17... ~e7 18..ig5 f6 19.ef6 gf6
12....id4 20.~e4 ~f7

12....ie2 13.E1d2 ~d4 14.ttJd4! E1d4 15.E1d4 ttJd4 The black king has managed to find a shelter.
16.Wb7 ~d8 17.Wd5 iWd7 18.~g5 f6 (18 ... ttJe7 The position is rather unclear now.
19.Wa8 iWe8 20.We8 ~e8 21.~e7+-) 19.ef6 iWd5
20.~d5+ Renet. 21 ..ie3 ~d8! 22.h3 .if5

13.~d4 ~d4 14.~d4 ttJd4 15.~b7 Black holds after 22...i.e6 23.~h2 e5.
~d8 16.~d5!? 22 ... ~e2!? is interesting too - Renet.

16.i.e3! was stronger: 23.~d5 .ie6 24.~h5 ~g7!?

a) 16... ~e2 17.~f1 iWd3 (Perala,M-
Byggmastar, L, corr., 1984) 18.~g5!+- Henris.
b) 16...iWd7 17.~g5!? ~e8 18.e3 ttJe2
19.~f1 ttJe5 20.iWb8 iWe8 21.iWe8 ~e8 22.~e2+­
Schreiber,Ku-Schlemmer,H, corr., 1991.
o24...cj{g8 25.~e4 iWf7 would have given Black
better chances to defend his king - Renet.
25..ie4.ic4?

16... ~d7 17 .~a8? o25...iWf7.

White allows Black to come back into the game. 26.~h6 ~g8 27..id4 ~d4 28..ig6
Correct was 17.i.g5 ~e8 (17...f6 18.ef6+-; hg6 29.~g6 ~f8 30.~c1 .ie2?
17... ttJe7 18.Wa8 We8 19.E1d1+-) 18.iWa8 iWe8
19.Wa7 ttJe2 (19 ...e5 20.~d5+·; 19... ttJe6 Black is too greedy.
20.~b7 iWd7 21.Wa8 ttJd8 22.~e6+-) 20.~f1: 30...i.f7 was more resistant - Renet.
a) 20.. .16 21.ef6 gf6 22.~f6 E1f8 23.~g5
- Renet. 31.~c7 ~d1 32.~h2 ~d7 33.~f6
b) 20 ... h6 21.~b7 ~h3 22.~e1! 1-0

345
 Chapter 9

Game 128 b) 13... lLle2 14.tLle2 ~e2 15.~e3 We5

De Sa Nobrega,Aurelio Agostinhio 16 J''\e 1 ~c4 1lJ'ld 1, and White has a very
Conde Podreso,Jose Antonio strong attack - Renet.
corr., 1998
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ltJf3 13.ttJc3 ttJe2
ttJc6 5.g3 ig4 6.ig2 ~d7 7.0-0
0-0-0 8.~b3 ttJge7 9.!'!:d1 ~f5 (D) 13 §'e5 14.~f4 - Henris.
13 §'c8 (Baur,H-Schlemmer,H, carr.,
1989) 14.1Mfa7 tLlec6 15.~g5 ~e8 16.1Mfa4+, and
White has four pawns for the piece and the
initiative.
13...~e2 14.tLle2 (14.~e3 tLlf3+±)
14... tLle2 15.~f1:
a) 15... lLlc1 16.!'J:c1 (Black cannot prevent !"\d 1)
16...§'d7 17.~e1 +- Renet.
b) 15...tt:Jd4 16.~e3 c5 (16 ...1Mfd3 17.cj;Jg1 CL:Je2
18.cj;Jh1) 17.!"\d11Mfc2 18.~f31Mfc4 19.cj;Jg2+- Renet.
c) 15... ~d3 16.1Mfb8 tLlc8 (16 ... ~d7 17.~h3)
17.~g5 f6 (17 ... ~e7 18.~e7 ~e7 19.~c7+-)
18.ef6!?+- Renet.
10.ttJd4!? In all these variations the bishop on f8 and the
rook on h8 are out of play. Moreover the black
After 10.CiJd4 White is probably already king has no way to find a shelter on the kingside.
winning. The analyses show that it is virtually
impossible to defend against this sacrifice. This 14.ttJe2 ie2 15.ie3± W'e5? 16.if4+-
is further evidence that the plan with ... CiJge7,
followed of ... 1Mff5, is bad. The rest of the game is just butchery.

10...!'!:d4 11 .!'!:d4 ttJd4 12.~b7 ~d8 16... ~c5 17.b4 ~b6 18.~a8 ~d7
19.!'!:e1 ~b4 20J:!e2 ~b1 21.if1 f6
12... ~d7 13.CiJc3 does not change anything: 22.c5 c6 23.~a7 ~e8 24.id6 ~f7
a) 13... ~e2 14.CiJe2 tLle2 15.~f1 tLlc1 25.ie7 ~g6 26.id6 id6 27.cd6
(15 ...1Mfd3?! 16.~h3 f5 17.ef6 ~e8 18.Wb5 c6 ~b8 28.~d4 ~b1 29.d7 :13d8
19.1Mfh5 CL:Jg6 20.We2+- Renet) 16.!"\c1 +- Henris. 1-0

346
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6 5.g3 i.g4 6..ig2

Game 129 19.Ct:Jd4! id4 20.e3+ Henris) 17.ie5 E1e5

Korchnoi,Viktor (2665) 18.iWa4 1-0 Kahe,R-Wolf,J, corr., 1993.
Veinger,ltzchak (2200) 9.ig5!? ih3 10.Ct:Jbd2:
Beer-Sheva, 1978 a) 10... h6!? 11.ie7 ie7 12.E1fd1 (Manzanares,C-
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ct:lf3 Canal Oliveras,Ju, corr., 1984) 12...ig2 13.<J7g2
ct:lc6 5.g3 i.g4 6.i.g2 Wfd7 7.0-0 g5!?+! Henris.
0-0-0 8.Wfb3 ct:lge7 9.:gd1 (D) b) 10...ig2 11.<J7g2 h6 12.ie7 iWe7!? (12 ...ie7&i
Henris) 13.iWa4!? g5+! Mourot,F-Rouzaud,P,
France, 2002.
9.lt:lg5!?:
a) 9...iWe8!? 10.E1e1 h6 11.Ct:Je4 Ct:Ja5 (11...Ct:Jg6
12.f4;!; Henris) 12.iWb5 iWb5 13.cb5;!; COMP
Ferret-COMP Tao 5, Internet, 2002.
b) 9...lt:lg6!? 10.ic6!? iWc6! 11.Ct:Jf7 ic5 12.Ct:Jd8
(:=:;12.lt:lh8? d3!) 12 ...E1d8 13.iWb5 (13.ig5 ie2)
13...iWb5 14.cb5 ie2°o Henris.
I shall examine now the alternatives to the
main line 9...iWf5 already covered.

9...i.f3?!
This move is self explanatory: White simply
threatens 10.Ct:Jd4!. Most of the time it's a bad idea to concede the
White also has some marginal possibilities control of the white squares too quickly.
instead of 9.E1d1: But the other options are not very appetizing
9.Ct:Ja3!? Ct:Jg6 10.Ct:Jb5 ic5: either:
a) 11.E1d1!? a6!? (11...iWf5? 12.Ct:Jbd4! Very unappealing is 9...b6?! 10.Ct:Jc3±
transposes to the line 9.E1d 1 - game 127) Borovikov,Vl-Reprintsev,A, USSR, 1985.
12.Ct:Jbd4 if3 13.if3 id4 14.e3 Ct:Jge5 15.ig2 9...ih3?! 10.e6!? (10.ih1!, followed by
Ct:Ja5 16.iWc2 Ct:Jac6°o Henris. Ct:Jd4, is also good) 10 ...ie6 (Vorobiev,K-
b) 11.ig5 if3 (11...E1de8? 12.Ct:Jfd4!+- Henris) Skuratovich,Y, Russia, 2004) 11.Ct:Jd4! Ct:Jf5 12.e3
12.iWf3 E1de8?! (o12 ... Ct:Jge5± Henris) 13.b4! Ct:Jfd4 13.E1d4 id6 14.Ct:Jc3+ Henris.
Ct:Jge5 (13 ...ib4?? 14.Ct:Ja7+- Henris) 14.iWb3 9...lt:lg6?! 10.Ct:Jd4 Ct:Jge5 (10 ...ie2
ie7 15.if4 if6 16.E1ad1!? (16.iWa3+ Henris) 11.ic6 bc6 12.E1d2+-) 11.Ct:Jc3 Ct:Ja5!? 12.iWc2
16...iWg4? (16 ...<J7b8 17.ie5 ie5 18.iWa4 a6 iWe8 13.b3!? ic5 14.ie3 h5 15.h3 id4 16.id4

347
 Chapter 9

id7 17.ie5 Wfe5 18.2:d5+- Kutscheid,H-Loerke, f6 16.ef6 CLJf4 17.gf4 gf6iil Henris; 15.2:d1 f6!'"
R, carr., 1991. Henris) 15... CLJf4 (15 ...if2! 16.Wf2 tLJf4 17.gf4
Wfb6+ Henris) 16.gf4 if2 17.Wf1 Wfe4 18.Wff7
10.V9f3 lDg6 Wfe1 19.Wf2 2:hf8 20.Wfe8 2:e8 21.2:d2 We8 0-1
Gappel,R-Engel,M, carr., 1989.
1O... ~e6!? is also interesting - Renet. b) 13.e3! (Minev) 13... d3 (13 ... tLJf4 14.gf4±
Ernazarov,N-Hasler,UI, carr., 2000) 14.ih3
11.V9h5!? (14.ie6 Wfe6 15.2:d3 Wfe4 16.Wfd1+ Engel)
14.. .'&d8 (Coquemer,P-Engel,M, carr., 1993)
Threatening ih3. 15.if1 tLJge5 16.ie5 tLJe5 17.id3! tLJd3 18.~f5+
Engel.
11...l"!?b8 I suggest the improvement 12...f6!?:
13.ef6 (13.e3 fe5 14.ie6 Wfe6 15.ie5 tLJe5
11 ... ~e8!? 16.Wfe5 ie5! 17.ed4 (17.b4? de3-+) 17... 2:he8:l:)
13... tLJf4:
12..if4!? (D) a) 14.fg7 Wfg7 15.gf4 2:g8 16.Wff3 id6 17.e3!?
(17.tLJd2 2:df8 18.e3 de3 19.fe3 if4! 20.ef4 2:f4
21.Wfh3 2:g4-+) 17...de3 18.fe3 2:de8+
(18 ...if4!? 19.2:d8 tLJd8 20.tLJe3 ie3 21.Wh1
id4+) - Henris.
b) 14.gf4 gf6~, and Black has good counterplay
along the g-file - Henris.

13.gf4 g6 14.V9f3 f6

Black continues logically and undermines e5 in

order to obtain counterplay on the dark
squares.
14...ic515.tLJe3.
12...lDf4?
15.ef6 V9f5 16.lDd2 V9f6 17.lDe4 V9f5
12.. J'~e8?! has also been tried in 18.b4!±
practice:
a) 13.ic6?! Wfe6 14.2:d4 ie5 15.2:d5? (15.2:d2 Korchnoi plays with energy. The pawn sacrifice

348
".-----------------------------1
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6 5.g3 .ig4 6 ..ig2

is thematic. Game 130

Chojnacki,Krzysztof (2441)
18...d3 Kula,Robert (2341)
Police, 2012
18 1t1b4?? 19.ttJd6 - Henris. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.lLlf3
18 ib4 19.Ei:ab1 ~a5 20. ttJg 5--.+ lLlc6 5.g3 ,ig4 6.,ig2 \Wd7 7.0-0
Henris. 0-0-0 8.\Wb3 h5?! (D)

19J~d3 ,ib4 20J'~b1 ~d3 21.\Wd3!

The queen moves towards the queenside.

21 ...,ie7

21 ... ~f4 22.Wb3.

22.c5!

White threatens Wb5.

22...\Wf4 This move makes sense but is not good in the

diagrammed position. The white counterattack
22 ic5 23.~c3 id4 24.Ei:b7! (24.Wc6+-) in the centre is too fast.
24 Wb7 25.ttJd6 Wb8 26.~b3 ib6 27.ttJf5+-.

9.h4 could be played but the text is stronger.

This sacrifice exploits perfectly White's
domination on the white squares. 9... h4

23... ~b7 24.\Wb5 ~c8 25.,ih3 Black ignores White's threat.

The alternatives are also insufficient:
1125...Wd8 26.~c6+-. 9... ~f5 10.ttJd4! Ei:d4 (10 ...1t1d4 11.Wb7
1-0 Wd7 12.Ei:d4 - Henris) 11.Ei:d4 ttJd4 12.~b7 Wd8

349
~r-----------------------------'
I;,
Chapter 9

'I
I
13.ttJc3 ttJe2 (13 ... h4 14.ie3 ttJe2 15.ttJe2 ie2 13.~a4 mb7 14.Eld3+-) 12.ie3 ie2 (12 ...ih3?
16J':!e1 hg3 17.fg3+- Renet) 14.ttJe2 ie2 13.ie6! be6 14.~a4 mb7 15.ctJe3+- Henris)
15.ie3+- Sterngold,S-Oshana,D, Illinois, 1971. 13.Eld2 id4 14.Eld4 (14.id4?! ~e6) 14... ~f5
9... b6?! is an admission of failure: (14 ... ~e6 15.Eld8 ctJd8 16.ctJe3±) 15.Eld8 ctJd8:
a) 10.if4!? h411.ttJc3! if312.if3 g5?!: a) 16.f4?! ~g6 (16 ... ctJh6 17.ctJe3;
• 13.~a4!? ttJge7 (13 ... ttJb8 14.ctJb5+-; 16...g5 17.ctJe3 gf4 18.i.f4 ig4 19.ctJb5± Renet)
13 ... ttJa5 14.~d7 Eld7 15.ig4 c5 (15...dc3 17.i.a7!? (17.mf2 Elh2+±) 17...i.d3 18.ctJd2 ~g3
16.ig5 cb2 17.Elab1+-) 16.ig5+-) 14.ig5 hg3 19.ctJf1 ~g6 20.Eld1 i.e4 21.~g3 Elh6'" Henris.
15.hg3 mb8 16.i.e7 (16.ie6 ~e6 17.~e6 ttJe6 b) 16.ctJd2 ~e5 17.Ele1+ Henris.
18.id8 de3 19.be3+-) 16 ... ttJe7 17.Eld4! ~d4
18.ttJb5 ~e5 19.~a7 me8 20.~a8 md7 10...hg3 11 ..ig3 CLlge7!?
21.Eld 1+- Henris;
• 13.~b5! ttJb8 14.~d7!? (14.ig5+- Henris) 11 ...i.c5!? 12.ttJe3 a6 13.ctJd5± Henris.
14... Eld7 (14 ...ttJd7 15.ig5 f6 16.ctJb5! - Henris)
15.e6! fe6 16.i.e5 ig7 17.ig7 Elg7 18.Eld4± 12.CLla3?!
Silakov-Khavin,A, Leningrad, 1964.
b) 10.~b5! : Again 12.ctJd4!± is very strong - Henris.
• 10 i.c511.a3 h4 12.b4+- Renet;
• 10 ~b8 11.h3!? if3 (11 ...i.f5 12.ttJh4; or 12...CLlf5 13.CLlc2
11 ...ie6 12.ttJg5±) 12.if3 ttJge7 13.if4± Henris;
• 10...t2Jb4 11.~d7!? (11.a3!? ~b5 12.eb5 ttJe2 13.t2Jb5!?:
13.Ela2 ie6 14.b3 ib3 15.Elb2 ia4 16.ih3 mb7 a) 13...t2Jg3? 14.hg3!? (14.ctJfd4! i.e5
17.ttJe3!+- Renet) 11...Eld7 12.a3 d3? (12 ...ttJe6 15.hg3+- Henris) 14...i.f3 15.~f3+- i.e5 16.b4!
13.b4± Henris) 13.ab4 de2 14.Eld7 if3 15.id2+- i.b4 (16 ...i.e7 17.Eld4 ~e6 18.ttJa7+- Henris)
Caceres Vasquez,S-Von Dessaver,D, Santiago 17.ctJa7 mb8 18.ctJe6 ~e6 19.~e6 1-0 Michenka,
de Chile, 2007. J-Hricak,V, Piestany, 2009.
9...ic5 10.ttJe3 i.f5!? (Lagashin,P- b) 13...i.c5'" Ll14.e6?! ~e6 15.ctJe7
Chizhikov,V, Moscow, 2008) 11.ttJd4! i.d4 ~h6:j: Henris.
12.i.e3 ttJa5 13.~a3 ttJe4 14.~b4+- Henris.
13....ic5 14.CLlce1!? CLlg3 15.hg3 .ih3
10..if4
15...a6 16.ctJd3 ia7'" Henris.
10.t2Jd4! leads to a clear advantage for White:
10... hg3 11.hg3 ie5 (11 ...ih3? 12.ie6! be6 16.e6! .ie6?

350
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.lLlf3 lLlc6 5.g3 .ig4 6..ig2

o16.. .'~e7! 17.ibh3 l=1h3 18.ct:Jd3 fe6'" Henris. Game 131

SpasskY,Boris (2690)
17.lDeS± '!;Vd6 18.lDe6 be6 19.'!;Va4 Forintos,Gyozo (2500)
@d7? Sochi, 1964
1.d4 dS 2.e4 eS 3.deS d4 4.lDf3
19...ibb6 20.ct:Jd3± Henris. lLle6 S.g3 i.g4 6.i.g2 '!;Vd7 7.0-0
0-0-0 8.'!;Vb3 i.h3? (0)
20.lDd3+-

Followed by b4.

20 ...!!b821.b4?!

21.a3 a5 22.'Wa5 ibb6 23.'Wg5+- Henris.

21 ...i.b4 22.eS i.eS 23.lDeS?

23.E:ac1 Ei:h5 24.g4 Ei:g5 25.f4+- Henris.

23 ...'!;VeS 24J~ae1 ~b4 2S.'!;Va3!?

'!;Vb6 26.~e6 ~b1!? 27.~de1? This can be labeled a blunder.
The alternatives to 8,. .ibh3 are the lines 8,..ibe5
27.E:b6 Ei:d1 28.ibf1 Ei:f1 29.\t>f1 ab6 30.Wa4 and 8,..ct:Jge7, already seen, and those covered
\t>e7 31.Wd4± Henris. here:
8...h6 9.Ei:d 1:
27... ~e1 28.'!;Ve1 '!;VaS IIl 29.~eS '!;Vb6 a) 9...ih3 10.~h1!? (10.ct:Je3 ~g2 11.\t>g2 'Wf5
30.i.e6 @d6 31.~e2 '!;VaS 32.a4 12.ct:Jd5± Henris) 10,..~e5 (Getta,M-Sting,T,
~b8? Germany, 1991) 11.ct:Je3! ttJa5 (11...ttJge7
12.ct:Je4±; 11...~f5 12.ttJd4! ~d4 13.e3±) 12.'Wa4
32 ...E:h5'" Henris. Wa4 13.ttJa4 ibe7 14.Ei:d4 Ei:d4 15.ttJd4 ttJe4
16.ibf4± Raetsky & Chetverik.
33.i.bS± ~e8?? 34.~e6+- @e7 b) 9.. :~f5 10.ttJd4!? Ei:d4 11.Ei:d4 ttJd4 12.'Wb7
3S.'!;VeS @f6 36.'!;Vd4 @e7 37.~e6 Wd8 13.ttJe3 ct:Je2 14.ttJe2 ibe2 15.'Wb8 We8
1-0 16.'Wa7± Hachmann,B-Hawranke,D, Pinneberg,

351
-----------------------------------,
Chapter 9

1998. 1978.
8...d3?! 9.'~d3!? 1:Wd3 10.ed3 E1d3
11 ..ie3 ctJge7 (11 ....if3 12..if3 ctJe5 13..ie2;!;) 13.ttJa3! Wfb6
12.ctJc3 ctJg6 13.h3;!; Raetsky & Chetverik.
8...lLla5 9.1:Wb5 1:Wb5 10.cb5 ctJc4 13...lLle7 (as in Ostenstad,B-Hartung Nielsen,J,
11.ctJbd2 ctJd2 12..id2±. Copenhagen, 1986) 14.b4!±.
8.. :1:Wf5 9.E1d1 ctJge7 transposes to the
line 8...ctJge7 9.E1d1 1!f1f5 (9....if3?! 10..if3 h5 14.1e61a3 15.ba3 ttJe7 16.1b5 e6
11.h4 ctJh6 12..ig5 f6 13.ef6 gf6 14..ih6 E1h6 17.1a6 @d7 18.1f4 Wfe5 19.:B:ab1
15.1:Wb5 1!f1b5 16.cb5 ctJe5 17..ie4± Galianina 1h3 20.:B:b7 @e6 21.:B:d1 g5!
Ryjanova,J-Chetverik,M, Zvolen, 2000). 22.1d2 Wfe5 23.e5!
8...a6 9.E1d1 .ic5 transposes to the line
8....ic5 9.E1d1 a6. Spassky ensures the connection between the
bishop on a6, a bit out of play, and the the rest
9.e6! 1e60 of his troops.

9...1!f1e6?? 10.ct:lg5. 23...@f6 24.Wfb3 @g7

10.~e5 Wfd6 Black has managed to put his king in a safe

place thanks to an incredible journey. But all
The knight is immune to capture because of his problems are not yet solved.
the mate on b7.
Or 10...lLla5? 11 ..ib7! 1-0 Mester,G-Babarczy,P,
Eger, 2004.
Threatening g4.
11.~e6 be6 12.Wfa4+-
25... h5 26.1e4 :B:df8 27.1e1
White's plan is quite simple. He only needs to
attack Black's position in ruins. White wants to attack the weak d4-pawn.

12...Wfe5 27...1e828.:B:a7

12.. .'IWb4 13.1:Wa7 1!f1b7 14.1:Wa4 ct:le7 15.E1d1 1!f1b6 Spassky chooses an artistic way to realize his
16.ct:lc3+- Leontxo Garcia,O-Teulats,L, Spain, advantage.

352
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.CLlf3 CLlc6 5.g3 .ig4 6..ig2

28...'i!¥c5 29..ib2 (D) Game 132

5ch lechter, Carl
Mieses,Jacques
Paris, 1900
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.~f3
CDc6 5.g3 ig4 6.ig2 VMd7 7.0-0
0-0-0 8.VMa4 (0)

29...16

White's pieces can not be taken.

29.. :~a7 30.id4 wins - Renet.
29...§'c4 30.id4 f6 31.'fl,e7 also wins -
Renet.
29...tlJf5 30.id4! - Renet. The queen frees the d-file for the rook and also
aims at the a7-pawn.
30.id4 VMc4 31.~e7 ~g6 32.VMe4
if5 8...ih3!?

32... ~h6 33.h4+- Renet. The move order of the game was 5.g3 ie6
6.IWa4 IWd7 7.ig2 0-0-0 8.0-0 ih3.
33.~g7! ~h6 Unlike the variation 8.IWb3, this move isn't
criminal here.
33... ~g7 34.if6 'fl,f6 35.IWc4+- Renet. Black also has the following important options
in this position:
34.VMf5 ~g7 35.VMg5 ~f7 36.VMf6 8... h5:
~e8 37.VMg6 ~e7 38.ih8 a) 9..ig5 ie7 10.ie7 Cl:Jge7°o Krajewicz,P-
1-0 Jaroch,P, Ciechocinek, 2002.

353
 q

Chapter 9

b) 9.a3!? h4 10.ct:Jh4 ii,e2? (o10 ...ct:Jge7!? - Joe, Germany, 2010) 11.'lWd7!? E1d7 12.ct:Jd2 ct:Jf6
Henris) 1U'le1 d3 12.ct:Jc3± Horvath,Peter- 13.f4± Raetsky & Chetverik.
Chetverik,M, Aggtelek, 2002. b) 9'lLlbd2:
c) 9J:'~d1 I?: • 9...lLle5?! 10.'Wd7 lLld7 11.ct:Jd4 ct:Jb6 12.e3!
c1) 9...ih3 10.e6 ie6 (Gonshorovitz,l- Chetverik,M-Lapchev, Duschanbe, 1985;
Rodriguez Martin,E, Internet (blitz), 2009) • 9...lLlge7 is analysed under the move order
11.ct:Jc3! (11.ct:Je5!? ct:Je5 12.'Wa7 c6 13.'Wa8 cJlc7 6.ct:Jbd2 'Wd7 7.ig2 0-0-0 8.0-0 ct:Jge7 9.'Wa4
14.'Wa5 cJlc8 15.'We5±) 11 ...ic5 (11 ... a6 cJlb8 (game 114 - chapter 8).
12.ct:Jb5!) 12.ct:Jb5± Henris. • 9...h5 transposes to the line 6.ct:Jbd2 'Wd7
c2) 9...h4: 7.ig2 0-0-0 8.0-0 h5 9.'Wa4 cJlb8 analysed in
• 10.lLlc3 hg3 11.fg3 ih3 12.ih 1!? dc3!? game 121 - chapter 8.
(12 ...cJlb8 13.ie3!?+) 13J''ld7 ic5! 14.E1d4D The repy 8...ic5!?, considered by John
(14.e3 cb2!-+; 14.ct:Jd4 id7!-+) 14... ct:Jd4!? Van der Wiel, is simply not good because of
(14 ...E1d4?! 15.e3 cb2 16.ib2 E1c4 17.'Wb3;l;) 9.a3.
15.e3 ct:Je2 16.cJlf2 ct:Jc1 17.E1c1 cb2 18.E1b1 ct:Jh6 Now a familiar theme to us returns after
19.'Wb5 ct:Jg4 co Henris; 8...ih3!?
• 10.lLlh4!? ie2 11.E1e1 d3 (Farago,I-Nagy,
Hungary, 1990) 12.ct:Jc3!?± Henris. 9.e6!?
d) 9.h4!? is also interesting.
8... ~b8 is the usual move in this The alternatives are:
position. Now the white queen is a little 9.ih3?! 'Wh3 10.ig5 ie7 11.ie7 ct:Jge7
vulnerable to tricks involving ... ct:Je5: 12.b4 ct:Jg6 13.b5 ct:Jce5 co Henris.
a) 9J~d1: 9.ig5 ig2 10.cJlg2 ie7 11.ie7 'We7
a1) 9...lLlge7!? 10.ct:Jc3;l; Provoost,S-Van der (11 ... ct:Jge7?! 12.b4 ct:Jg6 13.b5 ct:Jce5 14.'Wa7
Pluijm,Rick, Twente, 2007. 'Wg4 15.'Wa8 cJld7 16.ct:Je5 ct:Je5 17.'Wb7 'We2
a2) 9...if3!: 18.ct:Ja3+- Sergejev, R-Rutu, Bulgaria, 1983)
• 1o.if3?! ct:Je5 11.'Wd7 ct:Jf3 12.ef3 (12.cJlg2!? 12.ct:Jbd2 cJlb8 13.ct:Jb3;l; Henris.
ct:Jh4 13.cJlh3 E1d7 14.cJlh4 keeps White's pawn 9.a3 ig2 10.cJlg2:
structure in order but with all his pieces on the a) 10... ~b8!? 11.E1d1!? (11.b4± Henris)
back rank, it's not clear if White has an 11 ct:Jge7 12.ct:Jc3'Wf5 13.e4!? (13.ct:Jb5+ Henris)
advantage with such a adventurous king) 13 'Wh5 14.ct:Jb5 a6 15.ct:Jbd4+- Atababayev,K-
12... E1d7 left Black half a pawn up in Ballas, K, Kallithea, 2008.
Burke,John S-Reprintsev,A, Chicago, 1997; b) 10...h5 11.h4!? ct:Jh6 12.b4 cJlb8 (weaker is
• 10.ef3! is corrrect: 10"'lLle5 (Louis,Vo-Becker, 12...'We6 13.b5 ct:Je5 14.'Wa7 - Henris) 13.b5

354
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.CLlf3 CLlc6 5.g3 .Ag4 6..Ag2

tiJe7 14.~g5!? (14.Eld1 ± Henris) 14... ~g4 After 1OJ;d1! White has a tremendous
15.tiJbd2± Akobian,V-Taylor,Ti, Los Angeles, initiative:
2003. a) 10.. .f6 11.tiJe3 We8 (11...~f7 12.tiJb5)
9.Eld1 ~g2 10.~g2 h5 11.tiJe3! h4 12.'!:lb5± a6 13.~f4! ~d6 14.'!:lfd4 '!:ld4 15.Eld4
12.tiJb5 ~e5 (12 ... hg3? 13.'!:la7! '!:la7 14.~a7 ~b8 16.~b7! ~b7 17.Eld6! ~e4 18.Wa6 1-0
~h3 15.~g1 gh2 16.~h1±) 13.b4! hg3 14.be5 Carpentier,Je-Granger,J, corr., 1989.
~h3 15.~h1 (15.~g1? '!:le5) 15... '!:le5 16.'!:la7 b) 10...mb8 11.'!:le3 '!:lf6 12.CLJb5± Joergensen,
~b8 17.ttJc6! '!:le6 18.Elb1 '!:lge7 19.fg3+ A-Panter,B, corr., 1996.
Henris. c) 10...a6 11.CLJc3 CLJf6 12.il.g5 ~e7 13.il.f6
~f6 14.CLJd5!;I; CLJe5 (14 ...il.d5 15.cd5 ~d5
9...i.e6 (D) 16.ctJd4 ~a5 17.ctJe6 ~a4 18.il.h3+-
Liberzon) 15.~d7 :e:d7 16.ctJd4 ctJe4 17.ctJf6
gf6 18.e3± Dzindzichashvili,R-Manevich,V,
Israel, 1978.
1O.b4!? is also worth considering.

10...lLle5 11.VNa7 (D)

Of course not 9.. .'tWe6?? 10.'!:lg5+-.

10.lLle5?!

10.lt:\g5!?:
a) 10...lt:\ge7?! 11.b4 ~b8 12.'!:la3±
Krzyzanowski, W-Engel,M, corr., 1992. Although the queen and bishop look menacing
b) 10...mb8 11.~e6 (11.'!:le6 We6 12.t2Jd2 '!:lf6 and the black king is right to feel nervous, one
13.a3;1;) 11.. .We6 12.We6 be6 13.tiJe6 fe6 certainly couldn't call the sequence 9.e6 ~e6
14.~g5 '!:lf6 15.'!:ld2! Raetsky & Chetverik. 10.'!:le5 a winning combination. The position is

355
 ,
Chapter 9

quite unclear, suggesting that 9.e6 may not be Game 133

the best. Amazingly, this game is the any Bellon Lopez,Juan Manuel (2470)
practical encounter since 1900 with 10.CiJeS, Cirabisi,Federico (2200)
despite the fact that this line looks very Genova, 1989
important. 1.d4 d5 2.e4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3
ttJe6 5.g3 ig4 6.ig2 ~d7 7.0-0
11 ... ~d612.~b7 ~d713.f4?! 0-0-0 8.a3 (D)

A better option was 13.b3!?:

a) 13...\Wb6!? 14.\Wb6 (14.~e4?! CiJc6+)
14...cb6 1S.f4 C1O Henris.
b) 13... ~e7!? 14.f4!? CiJg4:j: MS.fS?
.w.fS+ Henris.
c) 13...g6!? 14 ..w.a3!? ~b6 1S.~b6 cb6
16..w.f8 Elf8 17.EldH Romanovski.
d) 13...c;f;>e8!? should also be
considered - Henris.

14.b3 f5 15.~b5 e6
13... ttJg4
16.~b7 ~e8 17.e5 ~e7 18.ie6
id7 8...ih3!?

18...c;f;>f7!?+. The alternatives to 8... ~h3 are covered in

game 134.
19.b4 ttJ8f6
9.b4
19...\We2!?+.
Gaining time with 9.e6!? leads to unclear play
20..tf3 ~e3; 21 ..te3 V;Ve3 after 9... ~e6 10.Wa4 Wb8 11.b4 (Gurevich,D-
22.\t>h1 h5 23.a4 h4 24J3a3 V;Ve6 Saimcled, USA (blitz), 2006) 11...CiJeS! 12.~d7
25J3g1 hg3 26J3g3 ~g4 27J3g2 CiJf3 13.~f3 Eld7 14.cS!? CiJe7!? 1S.Eld1 g6
~e3 28J~g5 .te7 29J3h5 B:h5 16.~b2 ~g7C1O Henris.
30..th5 g6 31 ..tf3 V;Ve4
0-1 9... ig2

356
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ct:Jf3 ct:Jc6 5.g3 .ig4 6..ig2

9... h5?! 10.b5 Cjjce7 (Solokhina-Borisenko,G, Andrej-Kupreichik,V, Gomel, 1968.

Sverdlovsk, 1958) 11.~a4! ~b8 (11 ... ~g2
12.V9a7! W'h3 13.Cjjg5+-) 12.Eld1± Henris. 12.h4?!

10.@g2 h5 (D) Bellon tries to put a stop to all this nonsense but
the light squares are weakened considerably.
Over the board, Black has all the fun.
12.h3!? M2... h4 13.g4 - Henris.
A better way for White to handle
things is 12.V9a4! ~b8 13.Eld1!± (13.c5 h4?)
M3... tiJf5? 14.e4! - Ward.

12... CL'lg6 13.'1Wd3 ~h6

Though not threatening anything just yet, the

black knights are certainly starting to look
•
menacmg.

Please note that the diagrammed position was 14.e3?

reached after the original move order 5.g3 ~f5
6.~g2 V9d7 7.0-0 ~h3 8.a3 h5 9.b4 ~g2 10.~g2 White should have considered something like
0-0-0. I have regrouped all the lines with 14.lLlbd2!? W'g4 15.tiJe4 (15.W'e4 4:Jf5 CX1 )
... ~g4, ,..~e6 and ... ~f5, when Black plays later 15,..~e7 16.tiJeg5;!; Henris.
... ~h3.
10...W'e6!? 11.W'd3 (as in Ogala,K-Byggmastar,L, 14... ~g4!
corr., 1990) 11,..tiJe5!? 12.tiJe5 W'e5 13.tiJd2;!;
Henris. Although still a pawn down, things are very
much starting to fall into place nicely for
11.b5!? CL'lce7 Black. The simple threat is ... 4:Jf5.

Black doesn't look to have all that much for his 15.ed4?!
aggression, but there's still a lot in this
position. 15.e4 ~e7 is easy enough for Black, who has a
11...Cjja5?! 12.W'a4 b6 13.~d2!?± Peterson, big lead in development and a big initiative to

357
 Chapter 9
"

boot - Martin. Game 134

Chatalbashev,Boris (2530)
Turner,Jan (2305)
Pardubice, 1997
Black is now two pawns but his position is quite 1.d4 dS 2.c4 eS 3.deS d4 4.lLlf3
attractive. There is serious pressure on d4 and h4. lLlc6 S.g3 194 6.ig2 VMd7 7.0-0
0-0-0 8.a3 1f3?! (D)
16.1gs

White starts to get his queenside pieces out,

but without this bishop he will be vulnerable
on f4 too.

16...1e7! 17.VMd2?!

17.ie7?? ltJf4-+ wins the queen.

17...1gS-+ 18.CiJgS

18.ffg5? ltJgh4.
18.hg5? ltJgh4. It is obviously a bit of a blow to the whole
...ig4 system for Black if, as our main game
18.. J~d4 seems to suggest, he isn't in general
threatening if3.
All Black's play on the kingside has led to this Instead of 8 if3 and 8...ih3 (seen in the
breakthrough in the centre. But the kingside previous game), Black also has the following
action isn't over yet! options:
8... h5!?:
19.VMc1 CiJgh4 20.~h1 CiJf3 a) 9.b4 f6!? 10.ef6 gf6!? 11.ltJbd2 ih3 12.ll,lfa4!?
(12.ib2? h4f± Hutin,E-Jossien,R, La Fere,
21.ltJf3 fff3 22.~g1 (White runs out of 2007) 12... h4 (12 ... ~b8 13.b5 ltJce7 14.ib2)
resources after 22.~h2 h4) 22 ...ltJg3-+ or 13.b5 ltJb8 14.ll,lfa7 ig2 15.~g2 hg3 16.fg3 ffh3
22 ...ltJ h4-+. 17.~g1± Henris.
0-1 b) 9.tLJbd2 transposes to the line 6.ltJbd2 ll,lfd7

358
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6 5.g3 i.g4 6..ig2

7.ig2 0-0-0 8.0-0 h5 9.a3 analysed in game Deliberately doubling the pawns and gifting
121 - chapter 8. Black a passed pawn in the centre. However,
c) 9.h4!? is worth considering too. White is eager to preserve his strong bishop
8...<!Llge7: and doesn't want to spend another tempo
a) 9.Y;Ya4 ~b8 10.if4?! (10.ttJbd2 transposes to moving it.
the line 6.ttJbd2 \Wd7 7.ig2 0-0-0 8.0-0 ttJge7 Instead, 9.if3 ct:le5 10.ig2 ct:le4 doesn't give
9.\Wa4 ~b8 10.a3 analysed in game 114 - much for White's pawn as there is no tactic on
chapter 8) 10... h6!? (10...ttJe5 or 10... ttJg6!? - b7 and, of course, the black queen covers the
Henris) 1U'%d1 \Wf5!? 12.\Wb3 \We8 13.a4 g5 a4-square - Ward.
14.ie1 ttJg6:j: 15.ttJa3 ttJge5 16.ttJe2? d3!
17.ttJe5 ttJe5 18.E1d3 ttJd3 19.ed3 ie5!? 20.\Wb5 9...CLle5 10.CLld2 h5?!
ie7 21.ie3 E1d3?! (21 ...a6 22.\Wb3 ih3 23.ih1
h5:j: Henris) 22.ct:ld4 id7 23.\Wa5?! (23.ib7 ib5 A logical move although, without a light-
24.ie8 ~e8 25.ab5 ie5:j: Henris) 23 ... e5! squared bishop to challenge White's, it is
24.ttJb5 a6 25.\Wb6 ab5 26.ab5 E1d6?? unlikely that this offensive will be successful.
(26 ...\We7! 27.\Wa7 (27.E188?? ~88 28.\Wc7 E1d1 10...g6 11.f4 ct:le6 (11 ... ct:ld3? 12.\Wf3)
29.if1 ih3-+) 27 ... ~e8+ Li28.\Wa8 \Wb8 29.ib7 12.b4t.
~e7 30.b6 ~b6! 31.\Wa6 ~e7-+ Henris) The alternative 10...ttJd3 11.f4 ct:lc1
27.\Wa5+- ie6? 28.b6 1-0 Potapov,Alexa- 12.E1c1 would eliminate one of White's
Kostopoulos, E, Dresden, 2007. potentially powerful bishop pair, but opposite
b) 9.b4 ttJg6: coloured bishops favour the attacker and one
• 10.b5 ttJce5 11.ttJe5 ttJe5 12.\Wc2!? d3 13.ed3 suspects White would be the one engaging in
ic5 14.ib2 ttJf3 15.if3 if3 16.ttJd2 ie2:j: most of the offensive manCEuvres - Ward.
Strumnik,A-Reprintsev,A, corr., 1990;
• 10.ib2 if3 (10 ... ct:lce5!? - Henris; 10...ttJge5!? 11.f4 CLlc6
- Ward) 11.if3?! (11.ef3 ct:lge5 12.\Wb3 is
probably a better recommendation - Ward) This time 11 ...ttJd3?? walks into 12.\Wf3 ct:lc5
11...ct:lce5 12.ig2 ct:lc4+, and Black was a pawn 13.b4+- Ward.
up in Jovanovic,M-Fry, P, Mingara, 2000;
• 10.Y;Ya4 ~b8 11.b5!? ttJce5 12.ttJd4?? (Molina 12.b4±
Mansilla,R-Fluvia Frigola,J, Spain, 2000)
12...\Wd4 13.ie3 \Wa1 14.\Wa7 ~c8-+ Henris. Preparing to remove the flimsy cover the
knight offers. The unchallenged g2-b7 diagonal
9.ef3! is a trump card for White.

359
 Chapter 9

12... h4 13.ltJb3 hg3 14.hg3 Game 135

Seoev, Robert
Correctly recapturing towards the centre. As Mikenas,Vladas
,I
White doesn't intend parting company with his Moscow, 1959
,
", ,
II
light-squared bishop, he isn't fretting about 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3
I: I
" I,
any ...iWh3-h 1 possibilities. ttJc6 5.g3 ig4 6.ig2 Wfd7 7.0-0
0-0-0 (0)
14.. .'?«f515.b5 ttJce7

15.. .1.Wh7 16.2:e1 iWh2 17.c;t>f1 isn't even a minor

inconvenience - Ward.

16J~e1 ltJf6 17.ltJd4

Another reason for budging the c6-kinght. This

appears to walk into a self-pin but White has
everything under control.
I :
, I
,
,,
i'
I
17...'?«c518.ie3ltJf5
I
I I,
II' ',
Black's position is desperate. I shall look here at some marginal options for
"
,
He can't be blamed for not fancing 18...\Wc4 White in this position instead of 8.iWb3, 8.iWa4
'.,,
; ii'
19.2:c1 iWa2. Indeed, both 20.iWa4 and 20.b6 and 8.a3.
look horrendous - Ward.
8.E:e1 !?
19.'~·f3!?
White wants to preserve his light-squared
19.i.b7 c;t>b7 20.iWf3 c;t>c8 21.l2le6! was also bishop after 8.,.~h3 with 9.~h1 !? But this slow
crushing. But it is fitting that White retains his move loses valuable time.
light-squared bishop to the end - Ward. White also has:
,
,I 8.i.f4?! :
,'
,
,
19...E:d4 20.'~·b7+- @d7 21.id4 a) 8...i.h3!? 9.~h3 iWh3 10.l2lbd2 h6 11.l2lb3 g5
!
ttJd4 22.E:ad1 Wfc4 23.ic6 12.~c1 g4 13.l2lh4!? ~e7 14.l2lf5!? (14.l2lg2
1-0 (l:::.l2lf4) 14..,iWh5:j: Henris) 14..,h5 co Mladek,Z-

360
- - - - - -__- . : _ a - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6 5.g3 .ig4 6..ig2

(ervenka,J, corr., 1993. 10.~e7 ~e7, with compensation, Gutzelnig,F-

b) 8...h6 9.h4!? tLlge7 10.b4!? g5!? 11.hg5 Balogh,Em, Szombathely, 2004.
tiJb4!? 12.gh6 d3°o 13.tiJc3 ~h6 14.~b3?
(14.~h6 :8:h6 15.\Wd2!?oo Henris): 8...tlJge7!?
• 14... ~h3? 15.e6? (15.~h6! de2 (15... :8:h6?
16.e61; 15... ~g2 16.'lffg2 :8:h6 17.:8:h1+) 16.tiJe2 Black plans to regain his pawn after ...tiJg6.
~g2 17.'lffg2 :8:h6 18.:8:h1+ Henris) 15... ~e6 8...'lffb8!? 9.a3 tiJge7 10.b4 tiJg6
16.tiJg5?! (16.~h6?! \Wh6-+ Henris; 16.~c7!? 11.~b2:
~f4!!-+ Houdini) 16... ~g5 17.~b7 'lffb7 18.~b4 a) 11 ....tf3?! 12.ef3 tiJce5 13.~b3 c5 14.b5 f5
~b6? (18 ...'lffc8-+ or 18 ...'lffa8-+ Henris) 19.:8:fb1 15.f4 tiJg4 16.a4 .td6 17.tiJd2 :8:he8 18.~f3! tiJf6
~f6 20.\Wa3 de2+ 21.:8:b6 ab6 22.:8:e1? 19.a5 :8:e1 20.:8:e1± Shipov,A-Shatskes,B,
(22.~c7!? 'lffc7 23.tiJb5 'lffc8 24.\Wa6 'lffd7, and Moscow, 1965.
the king escapes the checks - Henris) b) 11 tiJce5!? 12.tiJbd2;1; Henris.
22 ...:8:d3-+ 23.~e5? ~e5 24.~e7 :8:g3! (Ll25.fg3 c) 11 ih3!? 12..th1 tiJge5 13.b5 tiJf3 14.ef3;1;
~d4 26.'lffh2 ~f1 27.~h4 :8:h4 28.gh4 ~c3-+) 0-1 Henris.
Mandarin,V-Jossien,R, France, 2003; d) o11...h5!? 12.tiJbd2 h4 13.b5 tiJce5 14..td4
• o14... ~f4! 15.~b4 tiJc6 16.~b3 (16.\Wb2 ~h3! hg3 15.hg3 ~h3! 16.~h1 (16.~a4 tiJf3 17.tiJf3 b6
17.:8:ab1 b6-+) 16... ~f3! 17.ef3 (17.~f3 :8:dg8-+) 18.~h1 ~g4 19..tg2 .th3=) 16... ~f5 17.\Wa4 tlJf3
17... tiJd4 18.\Wb1 (18.~b2 \Wc6-+) 18...tiJe2 18.tiJf3.tc5 19..tc5 ~c5°o Henris.
19.tiJe2 de2 20.:8:e1 ~g3! 21.:8:e2 ~h2 22.'lfff1 8...h5!? 9.h4 f6 10.ef6 tiJf6 11 ..tf4 .td6
:8:dg8-+ Henris. 12..td6 ~d6 13.tiJbd2 :8:he8 14.a3;1; Barendregt,
8.e3!? (Grooten, H-Zauner, L, Budapest, J-(ortlever,N, Wijk aan Zee, 1974.
1990) 8... de3 9.~d7 :8:d7 10.~e3 ~f3 11.e6!?
(11.~f3 cue5 12.~g2 It>b8) 11 ...fe6 12.~f3 9..ig5!?
cue5 13.~e2, and White has a tiny edge -
Henris. 9.a3 tiJg6 10.\Wa4 'lffb8 Ll...tiJce5= Minev.
8.~g5!?:
a) 8... ~e7 9.~e7 tlJge7 10.~b3 ~h3!? (10 ... h5 9... h6 1O..ie7 .ie7
11.tlJbd2 (11.:8:d1 \Wf5) 11...h4 12.tiJe4± Henris;
10... tiJg6 11.:8:dH Ll... ~f5? 12.tiJd4 :8:d4 13.:8:d4 10... ~e7!? is also possible - Henris.
tiJd4 14.~b7 'lffd8 15.tlJc3---+ Henris) 11.e6!? ~e6
12.:8:dH Henris (12.tlJe5?! ~d6 13.tlJc6 tiJc6= 11.tlJbd2 :ghe8
Geresdi,A-Szili,A, Hungary, 2010).
b) 8... tiJge7!? 9.tiJbd2!? (9.~b3 \Wf5) 9... h6 11...ih3!? Ll... h5 could be considered - Henris.

361
 Chapter 9
•

I
i;
"

I 12J~c1?! As it's often the case in the Albin Counter-

, I'

Gambit the passed pawn will play a decisive

,: I

Black finds it difficult to regain his pawn role in the future.

after 12.a3 i.f8 13.Wb3 a6 (13 ... CiJa5?! 19...de3 20.fe3 2:e3'" Henris.
14.Wb5±) 14.2:ae1 CiJa5 15.Wa2 CiJe6 16.b4
CiJe5 17.CiJe5 2:e5 18.CiJf3 i.f3 19.i.f3, with an 20.\Wd2 :Bc5 21.:Bc5?
edge - Minev.
21.b4°o Henris.
12...i.b4i 13.a3 i.d2 14.\Wd2 ~e5!?
21 ...\Wc5 22.i.e4
14...g5!? 15.b4 Wf5 - Henris.
22J~c1? We1 23.~e1 d2-+ Henris.

15.~e5 :Be5 16.c5?!

22 ...i.e2i
16.id5°o Henris.
22 ...f5!? 23.i.d3 ~d5 24.f3D i.f3 25.~f2 ~d3!?
16...\We7!? 26.~f3 ~e4~ Henris.

The game is double-edged after 16...c6 17.b4 - 23.b4? \Wc4 24.f3?!

Henris.
24.i.g2 ~e2-+ Henris.
17.\Wb4?! 24.i.f5 me7, followed by ...96 - Henris.

White misses the opportunity to create 24...g6-+ 25.g4 @c7

complications with 17.c6 2:e2 (17 ... b6!?) 18.eb7
mb8 19.2:e2 i.e2"', with a very murky position - 25...We6!? LL.fS - Henris.
Henris.
26.:Bb1!? f5! 27.b5
17...c6 18.e3 a5?!
27.gf5 gf5 28.i.fS 2:98-+ Henris.
o18...d3 19.~g4!? (S;19.~d2? 2:eS+) 19.. .f5
20.~e4 d2 21.b4 de1W 22.2:e1 g5~ Henris. 27 ...fe4 28.bc6 b6!? 29.\Wb2 \Wc5
30.\Wg7 @c6 31.\Wg6 @c7
19.\Wa5 d3!? 0-1

362
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6 5.g3 .tg4 6..tg2

Game 136 iWd4 15.'Wb3 ibe6 16.iWe3 1-0 Thivel, R-Philipp,

SokolskY,Alexey corr., 1979) 11.tLld4 iWf6 12.tLle6 ibd7 (12 tLle6
Simagin, Vladimir 13.ibg5! iWg6 14.tLle3C) 13.tLla3! ibe6 (13 \Wa1
Moscow, 1953 14.tLlb5±; 13... tLle6 14.tLlb5 Ele8 15.ibf4+)
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.!iJf3 14.tLlb5 Ele8 (14 \Wa1 15.ibe6 tLle6 16.tLle7±)
lLlc6 5.g3 ig4 6.ig2 ~d7 7.0-0 (D) 15.ibe6 tLle6 (15 \We6 16.iWb3+) 16.ibf4 ibd6
17.ibd6 ed6 18.Elad1± Henris.
a2) 9 ie6 10.tLle5 \We8 11.iWa4 tLlbe6 12.tLle6:
• 12 lLlc6 13.ibe6 be6 14.'We6 ibd7 15.iWe4
ibe7? (o15...j,e6) 16.j,a3 O-O? 17.iWe7+-
Tolush,A-Horn,D, Hastings, 1953;
• 12...'Wd7 (Calinescu,G-Biro,S, Deva, 1988)
13.iWb5!? (13.iWb4 be6 14.tLld2;l;) 13... be6
14.\Wb7 iWe8 (14 ...Eld8 15.tLld2±) 15.j,e6 tLle6
16.iWc6 j,d7 17.iWe4;l; Henris.
b) 8...if3!? 9.j,f3 tLle5 10.j,b7 Elb8 11.j,g2 Elb4
12.j,a3!? (12.tLld2!?± Henris) 12 ...Elb8 13.tLld2±
Delalande,T-Garzon,Y, France, 2002. Black's
king is still in the centre and his king's bishop
Here I shall focus my attention on alternatives and rook are still on their starting square.
for Black to castling. c) 8...lLlf5!? 9.a3!? (9.b5 tLld8 10.\Wd3± Henris)
9..,h5 10.b5 tLld8 11.tLle1!? h4 12.h3± j,h3?
7...h5!? 13.j,h3 hg3 (Schaedlich ,M-Bondick, K, corr. ,
1984) 14.j,g4+- Henris.
The second player undertakes active measures 7...j,h3?!:
before White advances on the queenside. a) 8.ih3!? iWh3:
Black can also delay queenside castling in • 9.lLld4 0-0-0 would be rather risky for White;
favour of the following continuations: • 9.lLlg5!? iWf5 10.f4 is assessed by Nunn's
After 7...lLlge7?!, White has the Chess Openings as clearly better for White.
surprising 8.b4!? Black is in dire straits: Ward obviously doesn't agree, considering
a) 8...lLlb4 9.e6! (with this forceful move White 10...j,e7 (10 ...f6!?) 11.tLlf3 0-0-0 12.iWd3 iWh3
exploits Black's omission of castling): 13.a3 h5 14.tLlbd2 h4!? 15.tLlh4 j,h4 16.gh4 iWh4
a1) 9.. "1~fe6!? 10.iWa4 10... tLlbe6 (10 ... tLlee6 17.iWf5 ~b8 18.tLlf3 iWh6!?~ as unclear;
11.tLld4 iWe4? 12.tLle6 ibd7 13.a3!+- b5 14.tLla5! 14...tLlh6 15.tLle4 h4 16.tLlf2 iWd7 17.j,d2 hg3

363
 Chapter 9

18.hg3 tLlg4a>, as in Sarno,S-Chen,Haw, Genova, The move 8.a3!? is a bit slow and allows Black
1992, is also unclear; to develop his attack on the kingside.
• 9.e3! de3 10..te3± is a simple and convincing Interesting is 8..tg5 (preventing ... h4):
•
recIpe. 8....te7:
I
!';, b) White gains an important tempo for the a) 9.i.e7!? 'iJge7 10.'iJbd2 h4 (10 ...'iJg6
attack of the d4-pawn with 8.e6! (this move 11.'iJb3!;'; or 11.'Wa4!? h4 12.'iJb3;'; Henris)
refutes 7....th3) 8....te6 9.'Wa4: 11.gh4? (11.'iJh4!?;t; Henris; Raetsky and
• 9....tc5? 10.a3 .tb6 11.'iJbd2 'iJe5 12.'Wd7 Chetverik suggest 11.'Wb3!? and 11.a3!?)
'iJd7 13.b4 c5 14.'iJg5± Radashkovich,l- 11 ...'iJg6 12.'Wb3 'iJf4 13.Ei:fe1 .th3 (13 ... 0-0-0!?

I Kupreichik,V, Dubna, 1970; - Raetsky &. Chetverik) 14.e6 'We6 (14 ...fe6
I,
,,
• 9... h6 10.Ei:d1 Ei:d8 11.'iJc3 'iJf6 12.'iJb5± 15..th3 'iJh3 16.@f1 0-0-0:;: Raetsky &.
Geller; Chetverik; 14....te6+ Henris) 15.'iJg5 'Wg4~
• 9...0-0-0 transposes to the line 7...0-0-0 Chetverik,M-Sergejev,R, Voronesh, 1980.
8.'Wa4 .th3 9.e6 .te6 analysed in game 132. b) 9.~d2:
I

7..J'!:d8 8.a3: • 9...0-o-o!? 10.'iJa3 .tf3 11.ef3 'iJe5!? 12..te7

a) 8...a5 9.'Wb3± as in Chetverik,M-Kadas,G, 'iJe7 13.f4 'iJg4 14.Ei:feH h4? (14 ...'iJf5 15.c5+
Gyongyos, 1994. Henris; 14...'iJc6;'; Henris) 15..tb7! @b7 16.'Wb4
b) 8...t2lge7 9.'Wb3!?;'; Henris (9 ..tg5?! h6 @c8 17.Ei:e7± SerebriskY,A-Khavin,A, Ukraine,
, 10..te7 .te7 11.'iJbd2 0-0 12.Ei:e1 Ei:fe8 13.'Wa4 1954;
"i
"
I .tf8= Oll,L-Hvenekilde,J, Copenhagen, 1993). • 9...h4!? is quite attractive: 10.'iJh4!? .th3
I
I' 11.'iJa3 .tg2 12.@g2 'iJe5ii5 13..te7?! 'iJe7
I
II
, 8.a3!? (D) 14.~g5? 'iJ7g6-+ 15.@h1 (15.Ei:ad1?? f6-+
Henris) 15...'Wh3 (M6.'iJb5 Ei:h4 17.gh4 'iJg4-+;
M6.Ei:g1 f6 17.'Wd2 'iJh4 18.gh4 Ei:h4 19.Ei:g2
0-0-0-+ Henris) 0-1 Lettich,S-Girino,C, Italy,
,

1999.
8.h4!?:
a) 8...t2lh6?! 9.'Wb3 0-0-0 10.Ei:d1 'iJf5 11 ..tg5!?
(11 ..tf4± Henris) 11 ....te7!? 12.'iJc3!? .tf3 13..tf3
.tg5 14.hg5 a6?! 15.'iJa4± b6 16.'Wa3! a5
(Kunicki,M-Philippe,C, Rewal, 2007) 17.c5!+-
Henris.
b) 8...t2lge7 9.Wb3 0-0-0:
b1) 10J''!:d1 Wf5?! (o10 ....tf3!? 11.'Wf3 tLlg6

364
----------------------------------
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.lLlf3 lLlc6 5.g3 i.g4 6.i.g2

12.i.f4;!; Henris) 11.tba3!? (11.i.g5!? f6 (11 ...i.f3 6.liJbd2 Wd7 7.i.g2 0-0-0 8.0-0 h5 analysed in
12.i.f3 We5 13.i.c6 bc6 14.Wd3±) 12.ef6 gf6 games 116 to 121 - chapter 8.
13.i.f4!?;I; (13.i.c1 liJg6<») M3oo.liJg6?? 14.liJd4!
gd4 15.gd4 liJd4 16.Wb7 'it>d7 17.i.c7!± Henris; 8... h4 (D)
11.liJg5!? - Henris) 11...liJg6? 12.liJc2? (12.liJd4!
.. fI':\ . .
gd4 13.gd4 liJd4 14.Wb7 'it>d8 15.i.g5 f6 ~r"
" ..
16.gd1+- Henris) 12oo.i.c5? (o12oo.i.f3 13.ef3!
liJge5 14.f4;1; Henris):
• 13.liJce11 i.b6 14.liJd3 i.f3 15.ef3 liJge5=
16.c5!? (16.liJe5 We5 17.c5!? i.c5 18.Wf7 ghf8
19.Wc4 d3<» Knezevic,Milorad-Klaric,Zl, Borovo,
1981) 16oo.liJd3 17.cb6 liJc1 18.ba7??
(o18.gac1<» Henris) liJb3! (18oo.liJa7?? 19.9ac1±
Markovic,L-Mrkonjic,N, Borovo, 2009) 19.a8W
'it>d7-+ Henris;
• 13.liJcd4! i.d4 14.liJd4 Eid4 15.Eid4 liJd4
16.Wb7 'it>d8 17.i.g5+- Henris.
b2) 10.liJa3 liJg6 11.Eid1!? i.c5!? 12.liJc2!? Black sacrifices his h-pawn for the attack.
(12.i.g5!?;I; Henris) 12oo.Wf5? (o12oo.i.f3 13.ef3
liJge5 14.f4;1; Henris) was the actual move order 9..if4
of the game Markovic,L-Mrkonjic,N, Borovo,
2009. After 12.ooWf5? we have reached the Black has good counterplay after 9.liJh4 i.h3
same position as in the note b1 after 10.Eid1 (9oo.i.e7!? 10.liJf3 i.h3 is also promising) 10.i.h3
Wf5 11.liJa3liJg6 12.liJc2 i.c5. Wh3 11.i.g5!? i.e7 12.i.e7 liJge7 13.liJd2 g5
c) 8...0-0-0: 14.liJhf3 g4 15.liJh4 liJg6+ Henris.
• 9.a3!1 liJge7 10.i.g5!? i.f3 11.i.f3 liJe5=
Paluch, Lad-Kmit,J, Slovakia, 2009; 9... hg3
• 9.liJbd2 transposes to the line 6.liJbd2 Wd7
7.i.g2 0-0-0 8.0-0 h5 9.h4 analysed in game 9...i.e7!1 is also worth considering and leads to
119 - chapter 8; unclear complications after 10.b4 g5!? 11.b5
• 9.Wb3 would transpose to the line 6.i.g2 (11.liJg5 i.g5 12.i.g5 i.h3 13.i.h3 Wh3 14.i.h4
Wd7 7.0-0 0-0-0 8.Wb3 h5 9.h4 seen in game liJh6 15.liJd2 liJg4 16.liJf3 Eih4! 17.gh4 liJce5-+)
130. 11oo.liJd8!? 12.e6 (12.liJg5 i.g5 13.i.g5 i.h3
8.liJbd2 0-0-0 transposes to the line 14.i.h3 Wh3 15.i.h4 liJh6 16.liJd2 liJg4 17.liJf3

365
 ,
Chapter 9

lLle6 18.~d2 1=1h4 19.9h4 0-0-0--+) 12... lLle6!? safer way to equalize - Henris.
(12 ... ~e6 13.i.e5 (13.lLld4 ~b6!+; 13.~d4 i.f6
14.i.e5 i.f3!? 15.i.f6 i.g2 16.i.hB i.f1+; 23.~e4?!
13.i.c7!?) 13...i.f3 14.i.h8 i.e2 15.~d4 i.f1
16.~fH) 13.lLle5 ~c8 14.ttJg4 gf4'" Henris. White gives back the pawn.
Even if Black's compensation for the pawn is
10.i.g3 ~ge7!? 11.b4 tt:\f5 obvious after 23.b5 lLld4, White is more likely
12.tt:\bd2 tt:\g3 13.fg3 ih3 14JU2?! to retain an edge - Henris.
ig2 15J:!g2 0-0-0 16.~a4 d3!?
23...ab4 24.ab4 ib4 25.E!a1 ~b8
16... ~b8!? - Henris. 26.E!b3 i.e7 27.E!ab1 tt:\a5

17.ed3 27... b6 28.c5 ttJd4'" Henris.

17.b5? is bad because Black has 17...i.c5+ 28.E!b5 E!b6!? 29.E!b6 cb6
Henris. 30.E!b6?! tt:\c4 31.E!b5 ~c7

17... ~d3 18J:!e1 Black has created a passed pawn supported by

the king.
Again 18.b5? is weak because of 18 ...i.c5 -
Henris. 32.tt:\eg5 ~c6 33.E!b1 ig5 34.tt:\g5
~e5+ (D)
18...ie7!?

18... ~b8!? - Henris.

19J:!ge2!? E!h6 20.~b3!?

20J'~e3 is somewhat better - Henris.

20...a5!? 21.~d3 E!d3 22.E!e3

E!d8!?

22 .. J''1e3 23.1=1e3 ab4 24.ab4 i.b4= is probably a

366
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.tDf3 tDc6 5.g3 .ig4 6 ..ig2

Black has a clear advantage: he is a pawn up Game 137

and his passed pawn is ready to move forward Milov,Vadim (2595)
and go queening! Renet,Olivier (2494)
Epinal, 2002
35Jk1 @b6 36J~b1 @a7 37J3a1 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.Ct:Jf3
@b8 38J3a2 ~d6 39.~e2 f6 40.Ct:Je4 Ct:Jc6 5.g3 .ig4 6..ig2 ~d7 (D)
~d1 41.@g2 b6 42.h4 Ct:Jg4 43.~b2
@c7 44.~a2 @b7 45.~b2 lLle3
46.@f3 lLlc4 47.~b4 Ct:Je5 48.@e2
~g1 49.~b3 @c6 50.@f2 ~c1
51.@e2 b5 52.h5 ~c2 53.@d1 ~h2
54.Ct:Jc3 @c5!? 55.Ct:Jb5 @c4 56.~b1
@d3!?

56... ~h5+ was stronger - Henris.

57.~b3 @c4 58.~b1 lLlg4!?

58... ~h1 59.l:t>e2! - Raetsky & Chetverik.

Again 58 ... ~h5+ was better - Henris. Sometimes White delays castling as in the
game here.
59.lLla3 @c3 60.~b7 Ct:Je3 61.@e1
@d3 62.~b3 @e4 63.lLlb5 f5? 7.~b3

63 ~h5+ was much better. White also has:

63 f5? allows White to sacrifice the exchange 7.h3!? ~e6!?:
in order to reach an drawn endgame - Henris. a) 8.b3!? 8... 0-0-0 9.~b2 h6 10.a3 tiJge7 co
Bosboom Lanchava, T-Pokorna,Reg, Istanbul,
64.lLld6 @f3 65.~e3! @e3 66.Ct:Jf5 2003.
@e4 67.lLlg7 ~g2 68.h6 ~h2 b) 8.4Jbd2 0-0-0 transposes to the line 6.tiJbd2
69.Ct:Je6 ~h6 7o.lLlf4 ~h2 71.@d1 iWd7 7.~g2 0-0-0 8.h3 ~e6 analysed in game
@e3 72.lLld5 @d4 73.Ct:Jf4 @e4 122 - chapter 8.
74.Ct:Je2 @e3 75.Ct:Jc1 c) 8.W'a4!?
Yz-yz 7.~f4!? ~h3!? (7 ... tiJge7!?) 8.~h3!?

367
 Chapter 9

'!Wh3 9.lDbd2 O-O-O!? (9...h6 10.lDb3 g5 - Henris)

10.'!Wa4 h6 11.lDb3 g5t Schacht,H-Adrian,C,
Porto Mannu Palau, 2008.
7.a3!?, delaying castling in order to
play b4 and ib2, is an interesting but untested
plan - Lamford.

7...0-0-0 8..id2N (0)

It's probably better to play 9... tt:lg6!?, when

Black doesn't seem to have any problem:
a) 10.tt:lb5 ic5 11.0-0 a6 12.a4 ~f5+
Milov.
b) 10.h3!? if3 11.if3 lDge5 12.id5 d3!
- Henris (12 ...ic5 13.0-0-0;!; Milov; 12...'!Wf5!?).
c) After 10.0-0-0 if3!? (10 ...ic5
11.ig5 l::1de8 12.lDc2 - Henris), Black accepts to
exchange his light-squared bishop since he is
Milov invents a new way to play the opening. able to limit the action of his counterpart:
He wants to develop his b1-knight to a3 and • 11.ef3 ct:lge5 (11...ia3!? - Henris) 12.f4 ct:lg4
castle long. 13.ct:lb5 ic5 14.ie1 l::1he8:j:. Black has a strong
passed pawn which compensates for the loss of
8...lLlge7 the light-squared bishop - Renet;
• 11.if3 ct:lge5 12.id5 ct:lg4 13.ie1 (after
8...ih3? is a big mistake because of 9.e6! ie6 13.ct:lb5 ic5 14.if4 ct:lf2 15.ic7 l::1de8+, White
10.lDe5+-. doesn't have enough compensation for the
sacrificed material) 13... ct:lf6 (13 ...ia3!? -
9.lLla3 d3!? (0) Henris) 14.if3 '!We6 15.ct:lc2 ct:le4!:j: Henris (this
is stronger than 15...ic5!?= Renet).
This central breakthrough is of course double-
edged. 10.e3

368
 1.d4 dS 2.c4 eS 3.deS d4 4.~f3 ~c6 5.g3 i.g4 6.i.g2

10.ed3 ~d3 11.0-0-0 (11.~d3 Eld3 12.ttJg5 ttJe5
13.f4 h6= Renet) 11 ... ~b3 12.ab3 ~f3 13.~f3
ttJe5 14.~e2 ttJd3= Milov.
10...%Vf5!
<j;Je8 17.~e7 Ele8 18.~b7 f6!oo, and the king will
find a shelter on f7 - Renet.
13...i.e2 (D)

10... ~h3? 11.e6! ~e6 12.ltJb5± Milov.

11.Cl:lh4

11.ttJd4? Eld4! 12.ed4 ~f3! 13.0-0 ltJd4 14.~a4

ltJee6 (-+ Milov) 15.ltJb5 ltJe2 16.<j;Jh1 ~e5+
17.~e3 (17.ltJe3 ltJe5-+; 17.b41&e4! 18.Elg1 ltJg1
19.Elg1 ~f2-+) 17... ~g2 (17...~e3 18.fe3 ltJg3-+)
18.<j;Jg2 ~e4 19.<j;Jh3 h5! 20.~e5 (20.ltJe3 ~f3
21.ltJe2 h4-+) 20 ... ttJf4 21.<j;Jh4 g5 22.<j;Jg5 We5
23. <j;Jh4 Wf6# Renet.
The position becomes very complicated.
11 ...%Vh5?! 13...ie6 14.ltJa7 (14.ltJf3!?±) 14 ...ltJa7 15.jJ3!?
Wh6 16.Wb7 (16.ib7 <j;Jd7 17.ltJf3 ltJae6 oo )
It was better to take back the e5-pawn: 16...<j;Jd7 17.ia5 (17.Wa7 gh4 18.g4±) 17 ...d2
11...We5 12.ltJb5 <j;Jb8 13.0-0;1; Ll14.ltJd4 - Milov. 18.<j;Jd1 Ele8 (18 ...<j;Je8 19.ie7) 19.Wa7 gh4
20.ib7+- Milov.
12.Cl:lb5!? 95!?

Black continues his plan.

12...<j;Jb8? 13.ltJd4!± Eld4 14.ed4 g5 15.h3 ~e2 The analyses below show that Black has
16.ltJf5!+- Renet. excellent defensive resources after 14.ttJa7!?
ltJa7 15.Wb7 <j;Jd7:
13.h3!? a) 16.e6 fe6 (16 ...<j;Je8? 17.ltJf5!+-)
17.Wa7 ig7 00 (17 ...gh4? 18.Wd4).
An important intermediate move which keeps b) 16.ttJf5 ltJae6!? (16 ... ltJf5 is the main
away the bishop from the defence. game) 17.g4 ~g6 18.~b5 Elb8 19.1tJe7 ~e7
13.ttJa7 ltJa7 14.~b7 <j;Jd7 15.~a7 gh4 16.~a5 20.~d5 <j;Je8 21.~e6 ~e6 22.~e6 Elb2 00 Milov.

369
 ,

I,
Chapter 9
-
c) 16.'1Wa7 gh4 17.i.aS! (17.g4 Wlg6 15.94 ttJh4! 16.LUa7 md7 17.i.dsLUeS!-+ Henris.
18.i.aS me8):
c1) 17...'itle8 18.lWc7 d2 19.1d21d3 20.g4+- Renet. 15...llJa7D
c2) 17.. J3C8!? 18.1b7 i.g7 (18...:1'\d8? 19.94
Wg6 20.i.a6+-) 19.Wd4! ~e6! (19... ~e8? 15...Wd7 16.LUe6 be6 17.ie6 ~e6 (17 ...mc6
20.1e8 LUe8 21.i.e7+- Renet) 20.i.d5 (20.i.e7 18.Wb5#) 18.id5 ~e7 19.ib4+- Milov.
i.e5 21.Wb6 ~d7 22.i.e5 We5 23.i.e8 :1'\e8:j:)
20 ... LUd5 21.ed5 ~e7 22.i.e7 :1'\e7 23.d6 ~d7 16.Y;Yb7 ~d7 17.94!
24.de7 ~e8 25.Wb6 We5'" Henris.
c3) 17...d2!?: 17.%Va7!? Wg6 18.ie3 (18.ia5? Wb6!, and the
• 18.~d2 ~e8 19.~e1 (19.~e1 Wf5! 20.We7 queen cannot be taken because of mate -
:1'\e8'" Renet) 19...i.e4 (19 ... hg3? 20.We7) 20.g4 Renet) 18...ig7 19.ie4± Henris.
We5! 21.i.e3 Wb5 22.We7 (22.i.h8? LUd5!+)
22 ...:1'\g8 23.a4 Wb3 24.i.e6 LUe6 25.We6 :1'\d7 17...Y;Yh6
26.Wa8 :1'\d8 (26 ... ~e7 27.We4) 27.We6= Henris;
• 18.id2 hg3 19.ia5! (19.fg3? id3) 19...:1'\e8 17...i94 18.hg4 Wg4 19.if3 We4 20.:1'\e1 +-
, (19 ...gf2!? 20.~f2 :1'\e8 21.Wd4 ~e8 22.e6 ig7! Milov.
:1
23.Wg7 :1'\f8 24.ie3 fe6 25.~g1 :1'\g8 26.Wf6
ie4"') 20.ib7!? (20.Wd4? ~e8 21.e6 fe6 18.9f5 Y;Yb6 19.Y;Yb6 cb6 20..ic3±
,I :
,
22.Wh8 ie4-+; 20.fg3 if3 21.We5 ~e8
"
,
,'
(21...ig2?? 22.e6) 22.0-0 ig2 23.~g2 :1'\g8"') b.21.e6.
,I
L'
I'I': 20 ...gf2 21.~d2!? (21.~f2 ~e8 22.:1'\hg1 ie4
"i

23.:1'\g4 (23.ic8?? We2 24. ~g3 :1'\g8 25.ig4 LUf5

I, 26. ~f4 ih6 27. ~f5 id3-+) 23... Wf5!?~)
'I
1
21 ...:1'\d8 22.if3! We5!? (22 ...Wf3 23.We7 ~e6 20...1398 21.id5 ~e8 22.~d2± Milov.
24.Wd8±) 23.~e2 Wb2"', and the position
remains very uncertain because the two 21.e6?! (D)
monarchs are in precarious situation - Renet.
I
1
o21.@d2!? - Milov.
14...llJf5
21 ....ih5?
14...if3? 15.g4 - Milov.
21 ...f6!? is very unclear: 22.i.f6 i.b4
15.llJa7! 23.ie3 i.e3 24.be3 :1'\df8 25.e4 LUc6.

370
 2
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.tLlt3 tLlc6 5.g3 .ig4 6 ..ig2
Black also had 21 ...,id6!?
sacrifices the exchange in order to recover the
control of the dark squares):
a) 22.c5?! is not dangerous: 22 ... be5 23.,ia5
Wb8 24.,id8 E:d8 25.ef7 e4 26.a3 ,ie5 - Renet.
b) 22.ef7 E:hf8 23.,id5 ltJe6 oo . The knight comes
back into play and can penetrate through b4 or
f3 via e5 - Renet.
c) 22.,ih8 E:h8 23.a3 fe6 00 Renet.
22.'it>d2 ~g8 23 ..td5 te6
23...ie7 24.f6 ,id6 25.e7 . Milov.
24..te6 ~g7
24...1g7 25.ig8 ie3 26.We3 1'lg8 27.Wd3 - Milov.
25..te5!
In this way White will win the d3-pawn thanks
to the check in d5.
25 ...@b7 26.ig7 ig7 27.id5 llJc6
28.h4!
The killing move! Black is forced to play ... g4.
The d3-pawn is lost and the bishop on h5 is out
of play. White has a clear advantage.
28 ... g4 29.'it>d3 b5?!
Black commits suicide!
29...,ib2 30.1'lab1 ,if6 31.We4 We7
32.1'lb5ltJe7 33.1'lhb1 ltJd5 34.1'ld5!?+ Milov.
(Black 29 ...Wc7 was more resilient. White is
better, but he must be accurate: 30. We4
(30.1'labH Milov) 30 ...,ib2 31.1'lab1 if6 32.e5!
be5 33.1'lb5 (t.1'le5; t.1'lhb1) 33 ... ltJb4!? (33 ...ie7
34.1'lhb1 - Renet; 33 ...1'le8 34.ie6 if7 35.E:d1! -
Renet) 34.1'le5 Wb6 35.1'le4 ltJd5 36.1'lb 1 Wa5
37.1'le5 Wa4 38.1'ld5 1'ld5 39.Wd5 if7 40.Wd6
ia2 41.1'lh1 Wb4 42.h5+ Henris.
30.'it>e4 ~e8
30 ... bc4 31.ie41'le8 32.Wf4 h6 33.Wg3+-.
31.'it>t4!+-
White has nothing to fear from the check
...ie5. Now the king is safe. The game is over.
31 ....th6 32.'it>g3 'it>b6 33.cb5 lLle5
34.a4 its 35.a5 'it>b5 36.a6 id6
37.a7 it7 38.a8Wf lLlc6 39.'it>g4
1-0
371
 Chapter 9

Game 138 10.tLJbd2 \Wd7 (10 ...d3 11.ed3 \Wd3 12.\Wb3 !'%d8
Cantero, Ronaldo (2481) 13.!'%fe1 0-0 14.!'%e3 \Wf5 15.a3 ba3 16.\Wa3 tLJg6
Thiellement,Andre (2300) 17.\We3 !'%fe8 18.!'%ae1 !'%e6 19.b4± Ganin,M.
Lugano, 1968 Saskowski,J, Legnica, 1996) 11.tLJb3 £d8
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.~f3 12.tLJe5 \We8 13.a3!? ba3 14.!'%a3;t Szeberenyi,A.
~c6 5.g3 ig4 6.ig2 ib4?! (D) Farago,S, Budapest, 2012.
b) 7...tLlge7 8.ib4 tLJb4 9.0-0;t Mellado
Trivino,J-Carballo,R, Zaragoza, 1993.
c) 7...\We7 8.0-0 0-0-0 (8 ...id2 9.tLJbd2
0-0-0 10.\Wa4 <;t>b8 11.a3;t Muir,W-Mitchell,W,
Atlanta, 1939):
• 9.~a4 id2 10.tLJbd2 <;t>b8 11.tLJb3 if3
(11...tLJe5 12.tLJe5 \We5 13.tLJa5±) 12.ef3!±
Henris;
• 9.\Wb3 id2 10.tLJbd2 f6 11.ef6 tLJf6 12JUe1
!'%he8 13.e3±. Black's development is fine, but
he has no good specific plan and therefore no
compensation for the pawn - Raetsky &
Chetverik.
6...tLlge7?! is rarely encountered but must be
mentioned: 7.0-0 tLlg6: 7... ~ge7
a) 8.~b3 ~d7!? 9.~b7 !'%b8 10.tLld4!
!'%b7 11.ie6 tLJe5 12.id7 <;t>d7 13.tLJd2 ib4 Alternatives are also good for White:
14.f4?! (14.!'%d1± Henris) 14... tLlg6? (o14 ...ie5 - 7... ~e7 8.0-0 0-0-0 9.a3 id2 10.id2:
Henris) 15.tLl2f3 !'%e8 16.<;t>f2 ie5 17.!'%d1 1-0 a) 10...d3?! proved unsuccessful after 11.ie3
Nevednichaya,R-Hannula,H, corr., 1979. f6 12.\Wb3!? de2 13.!'%fe1 !'%d3 14.!'%e2 if3?
b) 8.tLlbd2 transposes to the line 15.ef6! \We2 16.fg7 tLJd4 17.id4 (17.gh8\W+-)
6.tLJbd2 tLJge7 7.ig2 tLJg6 8.0-0 seen in game 17...!'%b3 18.gh8\W \We6 19.ie3 ig2 20.<;t>g2 !'%b6
124 - chapter 8. 21.\Wh7+- Belistri,F-Santha,J, Buenos Aires,
1979.
b) 10...tLle5 11.tLJe5 \We5 12.\Wb3 e6 13.if4±
Cardo Moreno,X-Otero Velasco,F, Tarragona,
7.id2 is the other term of the alternative: 2003.
a) 7...a5 8.0-0 tLJge7 9.ib4 ab4 c) 10...f6 11.ef6 tLJf6 12.ig5 h6 13.if6 \Wf6;t.

372
, - - - - - - -_ _L.:_ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.1L1f3 lLlc6 5.g3 .1g4 6..1g2

7 ...1Jd7 8.0-0: 21.eb5 llJd5 22J~ad1??

a) 8...h5!? 9.ctJe4 :lie? 10.ct:leg5!? (10.:lig5 h4
1n~lfb3 0-0-0 (11 ... hg3!?) 12.8fd1 hg3 13.fg3'" 22.:Jla7 8a8 23.8ad 1 wins easily - Henris.
Henris; 10.h4± Henris) 10... h4 11.e6!? (11.ct:lh4)
11...:lie6 12.ct:le6 fe6 13.Wb3 hg3 14.hg3+ 8h5!? 22... ct:\e3 23.!!d3 ct:\g2
(Kileng, B-Handoko, E, Indonesia, 1982) 15.Wb?!
Elb8 16.ttJd4+- Henris. Most probably White missed this simple
b) 8...f6!? 9.ef6 ttJf6 10.a3 :lie? 11.b4 d3 12.ed3 intermediate move when he played 22.Elad1.
Wd3 13.8e1 ttJd4? 14.8e3+- as in Uhlmann,W-
Breustedt, W, Gotha, 1957. 24.!!ed1 id3 25.!!d3 ct:\e1 26.!!e3
c) 8...0-0-0 9.Wa4 mb8 10.ttJg5+.
Fortunately for White, the knight is trapped.
8.0-0 .id2 9..id2!? ct:\g6 10.h3 .if5
26...Wfd8 27.Wfe4 Wfd2 28.!!e2 Wfd4!
If 10...:lif3 11.ef3± Ll... ttJge5? 12.f4 ttJg6 29.!!e1 Wfb2 30.!!e2 Wfb5
13.8e1+-, etc. - Lamford.
Black's poor queenside pawn structure is
11.e3 de3 12..ie3 0-0 13.ct:\d4± compensated by the fact that the white king is
ct:\d4 14.Wfd4 Wfe8 15.'~h2!? somewhat unsafe behind his advanced pawns.

Even stronger was the continuation 15.g4 :lid? 31.f5 Wfb1 32.Wfb1 !!b1= 33.@g2
(15 ...:lie6 16.f4; 15...8d8 16.Wc3 :lid? 1?f4±)
16.8ad1± Henris. 33J%c2 h5.

15...!!d8 16.Wfe5 b6 17.Wfe6 !!b8 33 ...@f8 34.@f3 @e7 35.!!e2 @d7

18.f4 !!d3 19.!!fe1 ct:\e7 20.Wfa4 b5? 36.g4 !!e1 37.@f4 h6 38.h4 !!f1
39.@e4 !!e1 40.@f4
In a very difficult position Black overreacts.

373
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.llJf3 Gambit is played as a real gambit by ... f? -f6 ,
llJc6 5.g3 (D) Black's dynamic resources are not to be
despised."
..•.. ~ .... /~/
, ,,>< ~ .'
6.ef6 ttlf6 (D)
.....r. ~ ...••......•
/1':\: . <

"""" .. ~ ..

;;r
F;!
'/,iiJ
f#;
F.' .

i
.,,~

/ -,',,-

'/

Apart from the main lines 5... 4:Jge7, 5...i.e6 h'C__

and 5...i.g4, dealt with in chapters 5 to 9,

Black has also tried the following moves: 5...f6,
5...i.f5, 5...i.c5 and 5...i.b4. The alternative 6...%Yf6 is sharper, according to
The material in this chapter is considered Kurt Richter, but less promising, in my opinion.
disreputable, but that does not mean that it See game 146.
cannot be used as a surprise weapon on
•
occasIOn. 7..ig2.ig4

This position can also be reached after the

5...f6!?
The Albin is treated here as a pure gambit.
Black does not try to regain the pawn by
attacking White's e5-pawn, but continues in
gambit style.
Savielly Tartakower, who was one of the most
notable chess personalities of his time, once
remarked rightly that "When Albin's Counter-
move order 5.g3 i.g4 6.i.g2 f6 7.ef6 4:Jf6.
Black also has the move 7...i.f5 which is
examined in game 146.
8.0-0
The continuation 8.4:Jbd2 is analysed in
game 145.
8.a3 is worth considering (---t game 145).

374
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6 5.g3 other lines
8...V*fd7
The continuation 8....ic5 is interesting too (---+
game 144).
This position can be reached via other move
orders; for example: 5.g3 .ig4 6..ig2 1Mfd7
7.LtJbd2 f6 8.ef6 LtJf6 9.0-0 or 5.LtJbd2 f6 6.ef6
LtJf6 7.g3 .ig4 8..ig21Mfd7 9.0-0, etc.
The move 9.LtJbd2 is examined in games 139,
140 and 141.
9.a3 is considered in game 142.
9.1Mfb3 is analysed in game 143.
5....if5 (D)
This post for the bishop is not in fashion, but
it has a long history. The move has been
much less analysed and has received fewer
practical tests than 5....ie6 and 5....ig4. The
variation has gained a bad reputation from
the game Chigorin-Albin, Nuremberg, 1896,
which, incidentally, was reputed to be the
only occasion on which Chigorin has ever
played 1.d4. But Black's chances seem no
worse than in other lines and all has not been
said about it.
5....if5 controls the b1-square and delays any
attacking ideas involving the move !'=la1-b1.
Black's bishop has an option of dropping into e4
and the pawn push ...d3 is always in the offing
too. Moreover, White must always beware of
the possibility of ... LtJb4.
6..ig2
6.lLlbd2? LtJb4 is analysed in game
150.
6.a3, avoiding any ... LtJb4, is a
frequently played alternative also seen in
game 150.
6...1Mfd7
6...1Mfd7 is covered in games 147 and 148.
Black has the following other options at his
disposal:
6 d3 is examined in game 149.
6 lLlb4 has been tried a few times (---+
game 149).
6 i.b4 (---+ game 149).
6 tL\ge7 is also seen in game 149.
375
 I,
,
Chapter 10
Ii

5....ic5!? (D) 7.0-0 is an important alternative:

7 tlJge7 is seen in game 152.
7 ii.e6!? is also worth considering h
game 152).

7...!i.a7 8.0-0 lLlge7 9.lLle4

White also has the option 9.a3 seen in game

151.

9...0-0

9...0-0 is the subject of Kahn,E-Chetverik,M,

Budapest, 1995 (game 151).
The attractive move 5...ic5!? is not really
new. But it has been analysed very little and
the material available is still too limited. Thus 5...!i.b4?! (D)
it is too early to give a definite judgment. This
variation deserves further examination.
With 5...ic5 Black reinforces the protection of
his d4-pawn.
I

6.i.g2 a5

This interesting move protects the bishop on c5

from any b4 push. Black can also drop it back
to a7, maintaining support of the d4-pawn.
Sometimes Black plays first 5...a5, and only
then 6... ic5.
Often Black plays 6...tlJge7, followed by ...a5.
,I, I'
But there is a problem with this move order, as 6.lLlbd2!
seen in game 151.
White gains the two bishops and the better
7.lLlbd2 position.

376
- - - - - - - - _.., , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ctJf3 ctJc6 5.g3 other lines

6...ltlge7 7..1g2 0-0 8.0-0

Threatening 9.ltJb3.

8....1f5 9.a3 .id2 10..id2

Touzane,O-Honfi,K, Budapest,1995 (-t game

153).

377
 Chapter 10

Game 139 a2) 12..ib2! (Minev):

Dinser,Hans (2165) • 12... h4 13.b5 de2 14.~e2 ttJd4 (14 ... ttJa5?!
Mione,Dario (2295) 15.iie3±) 15.iid4 ~d4 16.ttJd4 (16.h3!?)
Bratto, 1996 16...iie2 17.Elfe1 Eld4 18.Ele2 hg3 (18 ...iic5
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.~f3 19.ttJf3 Ele4 20.ttJh4±; 18... h3!?) 19.hg3±
~c6 5.g3 f6!? 6.ef6 ~f6 7.i.g2 i.g4 lL.iie5? 20.ttJb3 Ele4 21.iib7+- Henris;
8.0-0 '?9d7 9.~bd2 (D) • 12...de2 13.~e2 Ele8 14.~d1 ttJe4 15.ttJe4
~d1 16.Elad1 Ele4 17.h3 Ele2 18.hg4 Elb2
19.ttJh4 iid6 20.e5 iie5 21.iie6 iig3 22.iid7 1-0
Siviero,G-Nicodemo,M, corr., 1997.
b) 10.c!tlb3 iih3 (10 ... h6 11.iif4 g5
12.iie5 iig7;!;) 11.e3!? iig2 12.~g2 d3! 13.ttJbd4
~ g4 (Sitter, R-Rosenfeld, Her, corr. , 1990)
14.ttJe6 be6 15.ttJd4! (15.~a4 ~e4 (15... ~b7?
16.ttJd4±) 16.iid2 g5 17.h3 h5f±) 15... ~e4 16.f3
~e8 17.~a4+- Henris.
c) 10.b4!? d3!? 11.ed3 ~d3 12.~a4
~b8 13.b5 ttJd4 (Guevara,F-Wahib,J, Dubai,
1986) 14.ttJd4 Eld4 (14 ... ~d4? 15.ttJb3) 15.iib2!+
tL.~d2?? 16.iid4 ~d4 17.Elad1+- Henris.
The move order to reach this position can vary
a lot. Sometimes Black waits until White 10.a3!?
wastes time on a3 or ttJbd2 before playing ...f6.
You should note that the move order of the
9...i.h3!? main game was 5.g3 iif5 6.iig2 ~d7 7.0-0 0-0-0
8.a3 f6 9.ef6 ttJf6 10.ttJbd2.
9...0-0-0 is also worth considering: 10.c!tlb3 is the subject of game 141.
a) 10.a3 h5!? 11.b4 d3!?:
a1) 12.'1Wa4?! de2 13J'!e1 ~b8 14.iib2 h4 15.b5 10...i.g2
hg3 16J'!e2?! (16.be6? gf2 17.~f2 iie5-+;
o16.hg3) 16... ~d3 17.Elae1 (Schneiders,A- 10... h5!? 11.Ele1 (11.b4 h4 12.b5 ttJe7 13.ttJe5
Dintheer,W, San Bernardino, 1991) 17...gh2! ~e8 14.iih3 ~h3 15.ttJdf3 hg3 16.fg3 ttJf5 might
18.~h1 ttJe7 (18 ... ttJd4? 19.iid4 Eld4 20.Ele3±) have been better, but it is evident that Black
19.iif6 gf6 20.Ele7 iie7 21.Ele7 ~g6!-+ Henris. has a very dangerous attack - Martin) 11...iig2

378
 •

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6 5.93 other lines

12.~g2 h4 13.e3? (White tries to get some The alternative 12...d3?! is weaker: 13.tLlb3
central counterplay but it is already too late!; de2 14.~e2 Ei:e8 15.~c2 h5 (Jensen,N-
13.tLlf1 hg3 14.fg3) 13 ... d3! (the d-pawn is a Rehfeld,R, corr., 1987) 16.h4 ~d6 17.c5 ~e5
bone in White's throat) 14.tLlh4? (14.tLlf1) 14... g5 18.~b2+ Raetsky & Chetverik.
15.tLlhf3 ~h3 16.\t>g1 g4 17.tLlh4 tLle5! (the
threat of mate looms, the process beginning 13.b5?!N
with ... Ei:h4) 18.f4 (18.tLlf1 Ei:h4 19.9h4 tLlf3
20.\t>h1 ~d6) 18... Ei:h4 19.9h4 CUf3 20.tLlf3 gf3 This seems to be a novelty. And a bad one!
21.~d2 tLle4 0-1 Gigerl,E-Cirabisi,F, Italia, 1989. 13.lLlg5 is the subject of game 140.
The alternatives 13.lLlb3 and 13.ib2
11.c;t>g2 0-0-0 are also seen in game 140.

11 ...a5 is really asking too much!: 12.cub3 0-0-0 13...g4!

13.e3!? d3 14.tLlbd4 ~g4 15.cuc6!? (15.~d3?
~f3 16.\t>f3 cue5 17.\t>e2 tLld3 18.\t>d3 c5+; Black's point.
15.h3! ~e4 16.\t>h2!? h5 17.CUg5 ~g6 18.tLlc6± 13...lLla5? 14.~a4 b6 15.tLlb3 g4 16.tLle5 ~e6
Henris) 15... bc6 (Palme,R-Schuster,Th, Stuttgart, 17.~f4 (17.CUa5+-) 17...~d6 (17 ... tLlb3 18.~a7+-)
1943) 16.tLld2 ~d1 (16 ... ~e6? 17.~a4) 17.Ei:d1± 18.tLld4+-.
Henris.
14.ltJh4?!
12.b4 g5!? (D)
14.bc6 ~c6 (14 ...gf3 15.ef3 ~c6 16.Ei:e1
M7.~b3;!; Raetsky & Chetverik) leaves White a
little tied up although the game continuation is
no improvement and turns very sour very
quickly!: 15.~b3 ~g7 16.Ei:b1 (16.~b5 gf3
17.tLlf3 ~e4 18.~g5 d3 19.e3 Ei:df8 20.~f4
CUd7+) 16... Ei:he8 17.~d3 gf3 18.tLlf3 tLle4 19.~f4
(19.~b2 Ei:d7) 19... b6lii Keith.

14...ltJe5

A far more attractive square for the knight

than a5 (which is where it might have found

379
 Chapter 10
•

itself without g-pawn interference).

15.VNb3lLlg6!

Black wants to prise open the h-file and we'll

soon see the reason why.

16.lLlg6 hg6 17J~h1

This is slightly premature although h2 is an

obvious target.

17...d3?! The rook on h8 can't be taken because of the

This move looks strong, but it is actually a
mistake.
After 17.. .'~e6, Black has at least an equal
game - Mione.
mate on f2.
20.lLle4 VNe4 21.i>g1 ~h3!?
Perhaps 21 .. J~h5 was even stronger - Mione.

18.e3? 22..id4?

Black wanted to use the d-file for an attack The only way to avoid mate was 22.j,f6, with
and doesn't intend trading queens. Obviously the idea 22 .. J'%d7 23.c5 2:%dh7 24.j,h4 g5
the text move is a mistake. 25.wrg8, and White holds on - Mione.
18.ed3 wrf5, for example, looks very
powerful, but having a pawn lodged on d3 is
also very restrictive for White here - Ward.
After 18.~d3, Black would have The other rook sets about making its way to
probably played the move 18 ...wrf7, with this the h-file and you'll soon see the devastation
possible continuation: 19.wrc2 j,c5, and Black its arrival brings.
has some pressure in return for the two pawns
- Mione.

18...VNf5 19..ib2lLle4! (D) Again 23.iLf6 was the only chance to survive,

380
--------.:--------------------------
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.tLlf3 tLlc6 5.93 other lines

even if after 23...Eldh7 24.i.h4 95 White is lost Game 140

anyway - Mione. Thystrup,Preben (2260)
Keith,Daniel
23... ~dh7-+ corr., 1991
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.~f3
The sacrifice 23...%Yh1 was a more beautiful ~c6 5.g3 f6!? 6.ef6 ~f6 7.i,g2 i,g4
finish: 24.~h1 E1dh7, and mate can't be avoided. 8.0-0 ~d7 9.~bd2 i,h3 10.a3
i,g2 11.@g2 0-0-0 12.b4 g5!?
24.~d3 (D) 13.~g5 (D)

Falling in with Black's plans, although the fact Please note that the move order of the game
is that there isn't even anything resembling an was 5.a3 i.e6 6.tiJbd2 f6 7.ef6 ttJf6 8.g3 Wd7
adequate defence available. 9.i.g2 i.h3 10.0-00-0-0 11.b4 i.g2 12.~g2 g5!?
Fritz gives 24.f3 Wf3 25.i.e5 (25.E1d2 E1g3; 13.ttJg5.
25.Wb2 E1g3) 25...Wh1 26.~h1 E1h2 27.~g1 E1h1 Grabbing the pawn is probably the best option
28.~f2 E17h2#. for White.
As shown in this game, when the pawn is
captured, the pattern is very complicated, full
of tactical possibilities.
Black has a forced mate after 25.~h1 E1h2 Apart from 13.b5, seen before, and 13.ttJg5
26.~g1 E1h1 27.~g2 E17h2#. White also has:
0-1 13.1L1b3?! (the rejection of the

381
 Chapter 10

sacrificed pawn is not a good decision) 13...g4! 14.h4!?

14.tLJe1 tLJe5+ 15.c5?! (after 15.tLJd3, Black
keeps the initiative after 15...tLJc4i; o15.~b2) White could also consider the following
15...d3! (the most typical tactical tool in the continuations:
Albin Counter-Gambit, the kamikaze pawn, 14.b5!? ctJe5:
opens the gates for Black's pieces against the a) 15.Wa4 mb8 16.h4!?;!; Henris.
position of White's king) 16.ctJd3 (this loses, but b) 15.tt:lgf3!? ctJf3 16.ctJf3 h4! 17.ctJh4 (S;17.~g5
after 16.ed3 IWd5 White's position is really not allows the annoying Zwischenzug 17...hg3!
enviable) 16.. .'~c6 17.mg1 E1d3!? 18.ed3 ctJf3 18.~f6 IWh3 19.mg1 g2 20.~h8 gf1IW 21"~f1
19.mh1 IWd5 20.ctJa5 IWh5 21.h4 ctJh4 22.gh4 IWh8 oo ) 17...E1h4! 18.gh4 IWg4 19.mh1 'Wh4
IWh4 23.mg2? (after 23.mg1 g3 24.mg2! (24.fg3 20.IWd3 (20.IWe1? ~b4!? (or 20... ctJg4 21.~f4
IWg3 25.mh1 IWh3 26.mg1 E1gB would lead to a ctJh2 22.~h2 ~4!) 21.~g5D IWh3! 22.IWb4 ctJg4
quick mate), Black still has to find the winning 23.~f4 ctJh2 24.~h2 E1h8-+) 20 ... ~d6 (20 ... ctJe4!?
move 24 ...E1g8! - Henris) 23 ...IWh3 24.mg1 g3! 21.f4! (S;21.IWf3 ~d6 22. IWg2 (22.h3 E1g8!)
0-1 Barbora,J-Benesch,H, corr., 1982. 22... E1fB----*) 21 ... ctJf2 22.E1f2 IWf2 23.~d2;t) 21.f4
13.~b2!?N g4 14.ctJh4 ~e7!? 15.IWc2 E1h8 22.h3 ctJe4----* Henris.
ctJh5 16.ctJf5!? (16.IWf5 ctJg7 (16... ~4 17.IWh5) 14.tt:lgf3 h4 15.ctJh4 (and not 15.b5?
17.IWd7 E1d7ilil Henris) 16... ~f6 17.E1ab1!? (17.b5 which is again met by 15...hg3!) 15... tLJe5
d3! 18.ed3 (1B.IWd3? ~b2+) 18 IWf5 19.~f6 ctJf6 16.ctJdf3± Henris.
20.bc6 E1d3 21.cb7 mb8 oo ) 17 E1hf8°o Henris; 14.tt:ldf3!? seems also quite strong -
17 d3!? is weaker: 18.IWd3 IWe8 19.IWc2 IWe2!? Henris.
(19 E1d2 20.IWd2 IWe4 21.f3 gf3 22.ef3 IWf5
23.~f6 IWf6 24.E1bdH Henris) 20.E1bd1 ~b2 14... ~e5 15.~b3?
21.IWb2 E1hf8 22.E1feH Y2- Y2 Zlochevskij,A-
Hauke,C, Germany, 1996. 15.tt:lgf3 ctJfg4 16.ctJb3!?±. And not 16.IWb3?! d3
17.ctJe5 ctJe5 18.e3 ctJg6 or 16.ctJe5!? ctJe5
13... h5!? 17.~b2!? ~e7, with good counterplay in both
cases - Henris.
My own suggestion which clearly offers more
chances to fish in muddy waters than 15...d3! 16.e4!?
13...tt:le5?! 14.~b2 (14.tLJgf3!?±) 14...h5
15.tLJdf3 ctJf3 16.ctJf3 c5 17.h4 ctJe4 18.IWd3 IWg4 16.ed3 IWc6 17.tLJdf3 (17.tLJde4!?) 17... E1d3
19.tLJe5 1-0 Birnbaum,D-Nattkaemper,S, corr., 18.b5 tLJf3 19.bc6 ctJh4 20.gh4 E1b3 21.cb7 mb8°o
1993. Van der Tak.

382
-------....-s-------------------------
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.lLlf3 lLlc6 5.g3 other lines

16... ttJg6! 17.ttJdf3D a) 20..td8? ttJf4! 21.gf4 Wg4 22.~h2 Wf4

23.~g2 Wg4 24.~h2 Wf3 25 ..tg5!? ttJg5 26.hg5

17..tb2 ttJf4!:
a) 18.gf4 Wg4 19.mh2 Wh4 20.ttJh3
ttJg4 21.mg2 [1g8-+ Schiller.
b) 18.c.t>g1 i.h6 19.9f4 i.g5 20.fg5 Wg4
21.mh2 Wh4 22.mg2 Wg5-+ Keith.
c) 18.mh2 i.h6 19.9f4 (19.ttJdf3 ~g5
20.ttJg5 ttJe4 21.gf4 tDg5 22.fg5 Wg4) 19...Wg4
20.Wd1 Wh4 21.mg2 Wf4-t.
17...ih6 (D)
~f4 27.mh1 ~h4 28.mg2 Wg5. and Black wins -
Henris.
b) 20.Wd1? ttJg5 21.ttJg5 ttJe5 22.[1c1!? d2!
(22 ... ttJg4? 23.Wd2 co ) 23.[1c3 Wd4 24.[1b3 ttJc4,
and Black is close to winning - Henris.
c) 20.e6!? 20 ... ~e6 21.[1ae1 co Henris.
d) 20.c5!?co Henris.
18...ig5 19.ttJg5
19.hg5:
a) :5:19...ttJe4 (an idea from Schiller)
20.~h8 Wg4 21.~e5 Wf3 22.mf3 ttJd2 23.mg2
ttJb3 24.~f6!+-.
b) Black has the powerful 19...ttJf4!
20.gf4 Wg4 21.mh2 Wf4 22.mg2 ttJe4 23.~h8
Wg4 24.mh2 ttJd2!! 25.ttJd2 Wh4 26.mg2 Wg5
27.mf3 Wg4 28.me3 We2 29.mf4 [1f8 30.mg3
(30.mg5 Wg4 31.mh6 [1h8#) 30 ...Wg4 31.mh2
[1g8-+ Keith.

19...'t:\h4!-+ 20.@h2 ~g4 21.@h1

ghg8 22.gh4 gg5! 23.14
18.ib2?
Black also wins after 23.hg5 ttJe3 24.fe3 Wh3
Probably the decisive mistake. 25.mg1 Wg4 26.mh1 (26.mf2 Wh4) 26 ...Wh4
18.c5 ~g5 19.i.g5 ttJe4 20.~d8 [1d8 27.mg2 Wg5 28.mh2 (28.mf2 [1f8-+)
21.mg1 ttJf4 22.ttJe5 Wg7-+ (or 22 ... ttJe2!? 28 ...[1g8-+ .
23.mg2 Wf5 24.Wb2 [1g8 25.ttJd3 ttJ2g3 26.Wb3
[1g6-+ ). 23...'t:\f2 24.gf2 'lWh3 25.gh2 'lWf3
White had to play 18.e5! ~g5 19.~g5 26.gg2 'lWg2#
ttJe4!: 0-1

383
 Chapter 10
-
Game 141 11 ..tg5!?
Gligoric,Svetozar (2575)
Ljubojevic,Ljubomir (2615) Intending 12.e3.
Portoroz, 1975
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.CLlf3 11 ... ~g4!?
CLlc6 5.g3 f6!? 6.ef6 CLlf6 7.i.g2 i.g4
8.0-0 ~d7 9.CLlbd2 i.h3 10.CLlb3! (0) 11...~e7 12.~f6 ~f6 13.ltJe5 Wf5 14.~h3
Wh3 15.Wa4~.
11 ... ~g2, transposing to the game
Kummer,H-Stanka,W, Vienna, 1998, was a
better option.

12.~d2 i.d6 13.i.f6 gf6 14.~h6±

i.g2 15.<tt>g2 E:he8 16.E:ad1 i.f8?

16.. .l:~e2 17.ltJbd4 ltJd4 18.2:%d4 Wg6 offered

more chance to fish in muddy waters - Henris.

17.~h7 E:e2 18.h3±

10.ltJb3 is simple and quite effective! White forces the exchange of queens.
The move order of the main game was 5.g3
~e6 6.ltJbd2 Wd7 7.~g2 f6!? 8.ef6 ltJf6 9.0-0 18... ~d7 19.~d7 E:d7 20.CLlfd4 CLld4
~h3 10.ltJb3. 21.CLld4 E:b2 22.E:fe1 E:d8 23.CLle6
E:d1 24.E:d1 i.d6 25.h4 <tt>d7
10...0-0-0 26.CLlg7 <tt>e7 27.CLlf5 <tt>e6 28.CLld6
cd6 29.h5 E:a2 30.h6 <tt>f7 31.E:d6
10... ~g2 11.mg2 0-0-0 12.~g5 ~e7 13.Wd3 h6 <tt>g6 32.h7 <tt>h7 33.E:f6 <tt>g7
14.~f6 ~f6 15.2:%ad1!? (15.ltJe5!? Wd6 16.b4!?t 34.E:d6 E:b2 35.c5 a5 36.c6 bc6
~ ltJb4?! 17.Wf5 mb8 18.2:%fb1± Henris) 37.E:c6 a4 38.E:a6 E:a2 39.g4 a3
15 2:%he8 16.ltJe5 We?? (o16 ...Wd6;!;) 17.Wf5 40.<tt>g3 E:a1 41.<tt>f4 <tt>f7 42.<tt>f5
mb8 18.ltJb7! \t>b7 19.Wb5 me8 20.We6+- <tt>e7 43.g5 E:a2 44.14 E:a1 45.<tt>g6!
Kummer,Hel-Stanka,W, Vienna, 1998. 1-0

384
------- - --------------------------
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.1L1f3 lLlc6 5.g3 other lines
Game 142
Henriksson,Jakob (2160)
Furhoff,Johan (2325)
Stockholm, 2002
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3
ttJc6 5.g3 f6!? 6.ef6 ttJf6 7.,ig2 ,ig4
8.0-0 'ffd7 9.a3 (D)
The diagrammed position of the main game
was reached via a very rare move order: 1.d4
ttJc6 2.ttJf3 d5 3.g3 f6 4.c4 e5 5.de5 d4 6.ef6
ttJf6 7.ig2 ig4 8.0-0 ~d7 9.a3.
White doesn't lose time with ttJbd2 and starts
to push his pawns on the queenside.
9...a5
Black prevents White's standard method of
generating activity, advancing the b-pawn. The
possibility of getting a grip with ...a4 later is
dramatically illustrated later.
After 9...0-0-0 White's queenside play develops
very quickly: 10.b4 d3!? 11.Wd3 Wd3 12.ed3
~d3 13.ttJbd2 ttJd4 14.ttJd4 ~d4 15.~e1 c5
16.ttJb3 - Viner,P-Dintheer,W, Biel, 1994.
10.'ffb3 i.e7
10...ttje4 looks playable: 11.~b7 ~b8 12.ttJe5
~b7 13.ttJd7 ~d7 14.ie4 (14.f3 ie6 (14 ic5
15.fe4 d3 16.e3 ttJe5!?) 15.fe4 ic4~) 14 ie2
15.~e1 ic4 16.ttJd2, and White gains a
dangerous initiative in return for allowing Black
to re-establish material equality - Tisdall.
11.'ffb7 0-0
11..J~b8 12.ttJd4!.
12.'ffb3!?
12.if4 is more consistent:
a) The position looks a bit messy after
12.. J~a7? 13.~b5 a4 14.ttJe5 ttJe5 15.ie5!
(15.~e5?! ~e8~). But Black's compensation is
actually nonexistent: 15...ie2 (15 ... ~f5 16.id4
c5 17.if6+-) 16.~d7 ttJd7 17.id5 ~h8 18.id4
c5 19.ig7! ~g7 20.~e1 - Tisdall.
b) 12...id6!? is a better try, even if
White keeps the advantage - Tisdall.
12...a4 13.'ffd1 ga5!
Black usually castles queenside and tries to
attack down the h-file, so it is extremely
entertaining to see him do so by castling kingside
385
 Chapter 10

and using the a-file to do the same thing. Game 143

Sjoberg,Mats (2338)
14.:ae1 ~h3 15.tlJbd2 :ah5 Bodin,Stefan (2037)
Stockholm, 2002
Black has a very dangerous attack. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.tlJf3
tlJc6 5.g3 f6!? 6.ef6 tlJf6 7.ig2 ig4
16.tlJf1 ? 8.0-0 ~d7 9.~b3 (D)

White should have been thinking of preserving

his bishop at least as much as using the f1
square for defence when playing l::1e1.
After 16.ih1 it is much more difficult for Black
to attack - Tisdall.

16...~g2 17.s!lg2 ~h3 18.s!lg1 tlJg4

19.b4 tlJce5 20.if4 l:U4!
,
I
I
I
, 20...1L1f3 21.ef3 tLlh2 22.tLlh2 Wh2 23.<;t>f1 ig5
I

was also good, but Black aims for a romantic

finish - Tisdall.
9...:ab8!?
21.gf4 ih4! 22.tlJ h4
This time Black does not risk throwing a second
22.Wd4 was a way to prolong the agony and pawn to the wind. In comparison to the
avoid a flashy finish - Tisdall. previous game, the omission of the moves
a3/a5 presumably favours White, who has not
22...tlJh2! 23.~d4 created any queenside weaknesses. Black has
less chance of lifting his a-rook into the game
23.1L1g3 t2lhg4 24.'&d4 '&h2 25. <;t>f1 t2lc6!-+ Tisdall. as well.
9...0-0-0? is of course met by the nasty
23...tlJhf3! 10.t2le5!.

It's mate after 24.ef3 tLlf3 25.t2lf3 Wh 1#. 1OJ~d1 ic5 11.tlJc3! 0-0 12.~g5!
0-1 ~f5

386
- - - - - - - _...- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6 5.g3 other lines
12.. J~be8!?, to bank on centralization, seems
an alternative, now that b2 is unprotected and
the b7 pawn less tempting to take - Tisdall.
13..if6 ~f6 14.~d5±
Black is left with plenty of weaknesses for the
gambited pawn. His queenside pawns are
vulnerable and neither bishop is particularly
safely posted.
14.. J!f7 15.liJf4 <iJh8 16.h3!?± Tisdall.
15,ll::lc7!? wasn't out of the question. It is not
at all clear how Black intends to crack White's
defences on the kingside - Tisdall.
15...g5 16.~d3 .ih3
16....ie7 17.Wb5! ~ ...E1:e6 18.h3! .ih3 19..ih3
Wh3 20.liJg5 .ig5 21.Wg5+- Tisdall.
17..ih3 Wh3 18.~c5 ~e5
The familiar attacking array, but the looming
check on h2 will not be mate.
19.1Lle4 lLlf3 20.Wf3+- Wh2 21.@f1
Wh3 22.Wg2 Wd7 23.lLlg5 c6 24.lLlf3
1-0
Game 144
Mejzlik,Zdenek
Prucha,Karel
Trebic, 1957
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.lLlf3
~c6 5.g3 f6!? 6.ef6 ~f6 7..ig2 .ig4
8.0-0 .ic5!? (0)
Another interesting move. Black intends to
accelerate his kingside development and to
connect his two rooks along the open files.
9.a3 as 10..ig5 0-0 11 ..if6?! Wf6
12.~bd2 ~ae8~
It would seem that the pressure along the e-
and f-files is enough compensation for the
sacrificed pawn.
13.~b3 .ia7 14.~c1 We7 15.@h1
@h8 16.b3 ~f6 17 .~a2 ~e6 18.Wd2
.ic5 19.Wb2 Wf8
387
 Chapter 10

Threatening ...d3!. Game 145

De Claire
20.h3?! Larzelere,Mark
corr., 1967
This move weakens the shelter of the king and 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.tLlf3
Black achieves a powerful attack. You should tLlc6 5.g3 f6!? 6.ef6 tLlf6 7..ig2 .ig4
remember Lasker's advice: "After castling, 8.tLlbd2 (D)
don't move the pawns around your king if it is
not mandatory!".

20.. J3h6 21.h4 ~f5 22.c.t>g1 E:he6

23.~d2 h6 24.c.t>h2 ~h5 25.c.t>g1
~f5 26.c.t>h2 ~f8!

Black creates weaknesses on White's

queenside.

27.a4

If now the a3-pawn is protected by 27.Wfb2,

then 27 ...d3! is very strong. The move order of the game was 5.ltJbd2 ~g4
6.g3 f6 7.ef6 ltJf6 8.~g2.
27...tLlb4 28.E:b2 d3! I shall have a look here at variations where
White delays castling early in the opening.
Now this typical tactical blow wins a piece by 8.a3!? a5, followed by ... ~c5, is also worth
force. considering.

29.tLld3 E:e2 30.~c3 8... ~d7 9.a3

Or 30.Wfe2 Ei:e2 31.Ei:e2 ltJd3-+. 9.Wfb3!? looks strong. Then Black has to play
something like 9...Ei:b8, as after 9... 0-0-0?
30....if3 31.tLlc5 .ig2 32.E:e2 E:e2 White has 10.ltJe5.
33.@g2 ~c5 34.~f3 ~c6
0-1 9...a5 10.tLlb3 E:d8 11 ..ig5 .ie7

388
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ltJf3 ltJc6 5.g3 other lines
12..if6?! .if6 13.llJcS Wic8 14.Wia4
0-0 1S.llJd2?
White attempts to win a pawn before castling.
But when the opponent is fully developed this
is often a wrong idea. And here it is just
suicide.
1S...d3!
Opening the lines with the white king still in
the centre.
16..ic6 bc6 17.ctJd3 ~d3! 18.ed3
.ib2?
o18.. -'1:Ye6 19.1tJe4 if3 20.Wd2 ie4 21.de4
~e4-+.
19.~a2?
Trying to save the exchange, White misses his
last chance. Good or bad, he should have
played 19.0-01 ia1 20.:ga1 ~f5+.
19... ~e6 20.ctJe4 .ic3 21.~d2
Facing the sorry truth.
21.Wf1 ih3 22.Wg1 (22.We2 ~g4-+) 22 ... ~g4,
and Black wins.
21 ... ~f2??
A terrible mistake!
21 ....if3 wins on the spot - Henris.
22.@f2 WifS 23.@g1
After 23.We1??, Black wins spectacularly by
23 ... ~f3. The main variation runs 24.ltJc3
(24.ltJf2 ~e2#) 24 Wh1 25.Wf2 ~h2 26.We3
(26.Wf1 ih3-+) 26 ~g3 27.We4 (27.Wd4 c5!
28. Wc5 (28. Wd5 ~d6 29. We4 ~d4# or 28. We4
Wf3 29.We5 Wf5#) 28 ... ~d6 29.Wb5 ~b6#)
27 if3 28.Wf5 (28.We3 id1; 28.Wd4 c5)
28 ~g4 29.We5 ~g5 30.We6 (30.Wd4 c5#)
30 ig4#.
23....id2 24.ctJd2?
24.h3! ie3 (24 ...ih3 25.ltJd2) 25.Wh2 ~h5
26.h4+ Henris.
24... ~d3?!
o24... ~g5! would have allowed Black to give
perpetual check comfortably after 25.ltJf1 ~c5
26.Wg2 ~f5= Henris.
2S.~c6??
After 25.~b3! ~d2 26.~b8 Wf7 27.~c7 Wg8
28.~b8 mfl 29.Wa7 Wg8 30.~f2, White has the
better chances - Henris.
2S... ~e3-+ 26.@g2 ~d2 27.@g1
Wie1 28.@g2 Wie2 29.@g1 .if3
0-1
389
 Chapter 10

Game 146 7.~g2 ~f5!? (D)

Strastil
Gensbaur,Viktor t2J 7 "

Europe, 1941 ~ '"

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.~f3

~c6 5.g3 f6!? 6.ef6 ~f6 (D)

8.0-0 ~d7 9.a3!? 0-0-0

White arrives first after 9...ih3!? 10.iWa4 ig2

,
,I 11.mg2 0-0-0 12.b4 d3 13.ed3 iWd3 (Reimer,L-
Bobber,J, corr., 1990) 14.ie3± Henris.
6...Wlf6?! 7.ig2:
a) 7...ib4?! (this interpollation has little 10.~bd2
point) 8.CLlbd2 ig4 9.0-0 0-0-0 10.h3 ih5 11.a3!
id2 12.id2 d3 13.ic3 de2 14.Wle2± CLld4? 10.b4 is also good.
15.id4 if3 16.if6+- ie2 17.ig7 if1 18.mf1
CLle7 19.ih8 1-0 Zamecnik,F-Pospisil,L,corr., 10...g5!?
1980. •

b) 7...ig4: The opening guides suggest the plan for an

• 8.0-0 h6 9.CLlbd2 0-0-0 10.iWa4 iWe6!?, as in attack by 10...ih3, followed by ...g5!?:
the game Bjorkander,E-Kostic,Bo,Stockholm, a) 11.ih3?! iWh3 12.b4 CLlg4-..+ 13.ib2!?
1913. Now White preserves a small advantage h5 14.b5 CLlce5 15.iWc2 h4 16.iWf5 mb8 17.iWg5
with 11.2"le1!? CLlf6 12.a3 M3.b4;!; Raetsky & ic5 0-1 De Bruin,W-Nieuweboer,M, corr.,
Chetverik; 1996.
• 8.lLlbd2 transposes to the line 5.CLlbd2 f6 6.ef6 b) 11.b4 ig2 12.mg2 would transpose
iWf6 7.g3 ig4 8.ig2 covered in chapter 13. to the line 5...f6 6.ef6 CLlf6 7.ig2 ig4 8.0-0

390
----------------------------------
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.l2Jf3 l2Jc6 5.93 other lines

~d7 9.LLJbd2 ~h3 analysed in games 139, 140 19.'It>h2 Wfd6 20.'It>h3??
and 141.
White returns the favour.
11.tLlg5 gg8 12.tLlgf3!? id6 Better was 20.f4!? ~f1! (and not 20 ... LLJf4??
13.'1Wa4? 21.~e4 ~g6 22.2::1f2+- Henris) 21.~f1 ~e7!-+.
And certainly not 21 ... ~f4? 22.~f4 ~f4
White should have played 13J~e1, 23.~g3±, with a successful defence,
followed by 14.LLJf1 - Richter. according to Richter.
Richter also suggests 13.b4, followed
by 14.LLJb3. 20 ... tLlf4 21.i>h2 tLle2?!
In both cases Black will have difficulties
proving the correctness of the second sacrifice. 21...lL\d3 22.@h1 ~h6 23.@g2 2::1g8 24.@f3
~f4#.
13...tLlh5 14.b4 ih3 15.b5 ig3!
16.bc6!? 22.f4 ~h6 23.i>g2 gg8 24.i>f2
tLlc3?
Hoping for a counterattack.
The alternative 16.fg3 seems to be hopeless. A 24.. -'Wh2 25.@e1 ~c3 wins immediately.
possible continuation is 16...LLJg3 17.hg3 2::1g3
18.2::1f2 Wg4 19.LLJe1!? ~g2 20.~g2 2::1g8-+. 25.cb7 i>b8 26.~d1 ~f4?

16...ih2! 17.tLlh2 Again Black misses an obvious mate: 26... ~h4

27.@f3 ~g3#.
In case of 17.@h2, Kurt Richter gives the
following beautiful variation: 17...2::1g2 27.tLlf3
(17 ... ~d6-+) 18.@h1 ~g4 19.~e1 ~g3!!
20.~df3 ~f2!-+. 27.~f3 ~h4-+.

17... gg2 18.i>h 1 gh2?? 27 ... ~g3#

Instead 18...~g7!, followed by ...2::1h2 and This was not a perfectly played game, but the
... ~g2, wins. Now White not only has defensive idea of quickly opening the g-file doubtless
possibilities, but probably even winning deserves attention.
chances. 0-1

391
 .
Chapter 10
.,

Game 147 7...tlJb4? is out of the question: 8.a3

Brenninkmeijer,Joris (2495) ct:Jc2 9.E1a2 c5 10.b3 ct:Je1 11.E1e1 itb1 12.E1d2
Van der Wiel,John (2495) 0-0-0 13.itb2!? ite4 14.e3+- Corfield,J-Faldon,
Groningen, 2001 D, corr., 1989.
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.tDt3 7...itc5!? 8.a3 a5 9.b4!? ab4 10.itb2
tDc6 5.g3 .it5 (D) ba3 (10 ...itb1 11.ab4! E1a1 12.ita1 itb4 13.ilMb1
ct:Jge7 14.E1d1±) 11.ct:Ja3 ct:Jge7 12.ct:Jb5 E1d8
13.ilMa4 0-0, with a satisfactory position for
Black, according to Povah, Botterill,G-
Povah,N, London, 1980. But after 14.E1fd1 ite4
15.ct:Jbd4;!; White still keeps the advantage -
Henris.
7...tlJge7 is the subject of game 148.
7...ith3 transposes to the line 5.g3 itg4
6.itg2 ilMd7 7.0-0 ith3 analysed in game 136,
chapter 9.

8.tDbd2!?

The third bishop posting alternative. The text White also has a few alternatives in this
doesn't pressurise the f3-knight, as it does on g4, position:
nor does it threaten White's c4-pawn, as it does Black hasn't yet found something
on e6. However the option remains for ...iWd7 convincing against 8.ilMb3!?:
and ...ith3, whilst controlling the f5-b1 diagonal a) 8 ith3? 9.e6! ite6 10.ct:Je5.
heralds some bonuses of its own. With the bishop b) 8 tlJa5?! 9.ilMb5 ilMb5 10.cb5+ Bernard,
arguably less vulnerable on f5, White mus.t Christo-Guilbert,Jea, Le Touquet, 1996.
always beware the possibility of ...ct:Jb4 (e.g. c) 8...ite7!? 9.E1d1 ith3 (Yrjola,J-Tahkavuori,T,
6.ct:Jbd2? ct:Jb4!). Black's light-squared bishop has Jyvaskyla, 1993) 10.ith1 !?±.
the option of dropping into e4 and White has to d) 8...itc5!? 9.E1d1 a6:
keep a close watch for the push ...d3. • 10.a3? (Armstrong,A-Markulla,M, corr., 1993)
10... ct:Ja5! 11.ilMa2 ilMa4+ Henris;
6..ig2 YMd7 7.0-0 0-0-0 • 10.tlJc3 lLJge7 11.a3 (11.lLJd5?? lLJa5-+)
11 ...ilMe8!? (11 ... lLJa5? 12.ilMa2 itc2 13.b4+-)
Black has some alternatives here: 12.lLJd5 tlJa5 13.ilMa2 itc2 14.E1d3!? itd3

392
------_.~.!2--------------------------

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6 5.g3 other lines

15.ed3±, and White has the much better 10.a3ltJg411.b4ltJce5

coordinated pieces - Henris.
8.e3!?: The spectacular 11 ....!tJe3?! would give White a
a) 8 d3?! 9.Ct'Jc3 or 9.a3 - Van der Wiel. tremendous attacking position after 12.fe3 de3
b) 8 de3 9.1Mfd7 1:%d7 10.~e3 Ct'Jb4 11.Ct'Ja3 - Van 13.\Wa4! ed2 14.~d2± in spite of his damaged
der Wiel. structure - Van der Wiel.
c) 8...ic5!? looks playable - Van der Wiel.
8.a3 is a bit slow. Black could consider 12.ib2 CLlf3 13.lLJf3 c5
now 8... h5!? or 8...Ct'Jge7. 8... ~h3 would
transpose to the line 5.g3 ~g4 6.~g2 \Wd7 7.0-0 13...d3?! 14.e3 or 14.Ct'Jd4 - Van der Wiel.
0-0-0 8.a3 ~h3 analysed in games 133 and 134,
chapter 9. 14.~b3 (D)
8.\Wa4!? is also possible. Then 8... ~h3
would transpose to the line 5.g3 ~g4 6.~g2
\Wd7 7.0-0 0-0-0 8.\Wa4 ~h3 analysed in game
132, chapter 9.

8...h5!?

8....!tJge7?! 9.Ct'Jb3 Ct'Jg6 10.~g5 ~e7

11.~e7 \We7 12.Ct'Jbd4± Borowicz,P-Jonczyk,K,
Rewal, 2007.
8...ih3 transposes to the line 5.g3 ~e6
6.Ct'Jbd2 \Wd7 7.~g2 0-0-0 8.0-0 ~h3 analysed in
games 83 to 85, chapter 6.
Rather suprisingly Joris Brenninkmeijer offered
9.h4 the draw in this position. Perhaps inspired by
dissatisfaction with the course the opening
Van der Wiel suggests 9.\Wa4!? had taken. Things were just getting
interesting.
9...lLJh6!? Let's see how the game could have continued
after 14.\Wb3:
An aditional point to 5... ~f5: the g4-square is 14... b6?! is rather draughty. In that
beckoning. case White can carry on with, for example,

393
 Chapter 10

15J''1fd1 and 16.a4 - Van der Wiel. Game 148

According to Jonathan Tisdall, Black Richardson,John (2360)
should probably play 14...~e4 to keep his Mortensen,Erling (2450)
position under control, with a sharp game. Copenhagen, 1997
White's king looks a bit safer though after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.CL\f3
15.bc5 ~c5 16.1''1ad1. White can also decide to llJc6 5.g3 .if5 6..ig2 'lWd7 7.0-0
secure the bishop pair with 15.tiJe5!? tiJe5 llJge7 (D)
16.~e4.
After 14.iWb3 Black manages to get
some play in the variation after 14.. J'1h6
15.1''1ad1 :1'1b6 16.iWa2! (the alternative 16.:1'1d2!?
is also worth considering; the d4-pawn seems
to be doomed), starting with 16...iWa4, e.g.
17.bc5 (the threat was 17...:1'1b4; 17.iWa1!? is
also interesting) 17... ~c5 18.tiJd4 (after 18.~d4
:1'1bd6 19.e3 ~e4, Black would have reasonable
compensations) 18... ~c2!:
a) 19.~c2?! :1'1d 1 20.:1'1d 1 iWc2 21.:1'1d8 Wd8
22.~f6 could work badly for White, as after
22 ...:1'1f6 23.iWc2 :1'1f2! Black is attacking - Van
der Wiel. 8.'lWa4
b) 19J'1d2 ~b3 20.tiJb3 (20.iWa1!? is probably
slightly better) 20 ...iWb3 21.:1'1d8 ~d8 22.iWb3 8.'lWb3 0-0-0 is a major alternative:
:1'1b3 23.~g7, and Black has a fair share of the a) 9.~bd2 tiJg6 10.a3 ~e7 (10 ... ~h3!? 11.e6!?
action after 23 ... tiJf2!? (23...:1'1g3 24.e3 tiJf2 ~e6 12.tiJg5;!; Henris) 11.:1'1e1!? ~h3 12.~h1 h5
25.~f6+-; 23 ...We7 24.~f3! and 23 ...f6 24.~f3! 13.e3:
are to White's advantage) 24.m2 :1'1g3 CXl Van der • 13... h4? 14.ed4± Peev, P-lvanovich,S, Plovdiv,
Wiel. 1977;
c) A good alternative is 19J'1c1!? - Van der • 13 de3!? 14.iWe3 h4 CXl Henris;
Wiet. • 13 d3 14.~d4 tiJge5 CXl Henris.
All things considered and objectively speaking, b) 9J'!d1 ~h3 10.~h1 transposes to the line
Black should certainly not decline 'the draw 5.g3 ~g4 6.~g2 iWd7 7.0-0 0-0-0 8.iWb3 tLlge7
offer. 9.:1'1d1 ~h3 which is examined in game 129
Y2-Y2 (chapter 9).

394
------------------------------------
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.tLif3 tLic6 5.g3 other lines

8.a3 ttJg6 9.b4 0-0-0I? (9 ...l"1d8 also has 11.ltJb3

been played) 10.~g5 ~e7 11.~e7 We7 12.ttJbd2
ttJce5 13.Wa4 iob8 14.l"1fe1 h5 15.ttJe5 ttJe5 Upon 11.b3, 11...i.b4 suggests itself in order to
16.c5? i.d7 17.b5 "Wc5+ Hohner,K-Hummel,T, exploit the hole on c3, but 11...d3!? 12.ed3
Erlangen, 2002. i.b4!? also looks awkward for White - Ward.

8...lDe8!? 11 ...j,e7 12.j,g5 0-0

White's previous logical queen deployment Black correctly avoids 12...i.g5?! 13.ct:lg5 ct:le5
offers Black a tempting alternative to the usual 14.ct:lc5 "We7 15.ct:lb7 Wffg5 16.f4± Ward.
development for his knight.
6...lLlg6 9.l"1d1 ±. 13.~e1 h6 14.j,e7 ~e7 15.~f4 j,h7
16.~ae1
9.lDbd2lDb6 10.~d1 ~d8 (D)
After 16.lLlbd4!? ct:ld4 17.ct:ld4, both 17... g5 and
the immediate 17... ct:lc4 are playable. Hence
White simply defends his c-pawn - Ward.

16...d3!? 17.ed3

17.e3 f6! poses the white queen some difficult

questions - Ward.

There is a space behind White's advanced pawns

and Black's pieces are looking to infiltrate.
Essentially this is the new system. Black isn't
interested in castling long and has no 18.~fe1 ttJa4 19.~e2 ttJe5 20.lDe5
particular aspirations for a kingside attack. ~e5 21.h4 ttJd8!
Instead he bolsters his d4-pawn and continues
his development. Whilst trying to restrite the White's minor pieces have difficulty moving and
activity of his opponent's pieces, he hopes to this excellent temporary retreat, preparing to
pick off the e5-pawn later. relocate to the fine e6-square, is also very

395
 ..
: •

Chapter 10
.,

annoying for the white queen. As he has Game 149

difficulty doing anything constructive as things Chigorin,Mikhaii
stand, White now offloads his extra pawn. Albin,Adolf
Nuremberg, 1896
22.e6!? llJe6 23.Wfe5 lUd8 24.Wfc5 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.llJf3
llJc5=/~ ~c6 5.g3 if5 6.ig2 (D)

It's fair to say that Black has a very slight edge

here. But it shouldn't be enough for a win.

25J3e7 ~3d7 26.~d7 ~d7 27.llJe5

~e7 28.~d1 ic2 29.~d8 @h7
30.llJf3 a5 31.llJd4 ib1 32.a3 a4
33.llJb5 id3 34.~d4 c6 35.llJc3
~e1 36.@h2 if5 37.if3 ~c1 38.g4
ie6 39.@g2 g6 40.h5 @g7 41.id1
llJb3 42.~d8 llJc5 43.~d4 gh5
44.gh5 @f6 45.@f3 llJb3 46.~f4
@e5 47.~e4 @d6 48.@e3 f5 49.~h4
@e5 50.14 @f6 51.~h1 llJc5 52.@d2 This game was one of the very first occasions
~a1 53.~g1 if7 54.~g2 llJe4 the gambit was played. It was the second time
55.llJe4 fe4 56.ia4 ic4 57 .~g6 Albin introduced it in masters' practice during
@f5 58.~h6 @f4 59.~f6 @e5 60.~f8 the tournament of Nuremberg.
~h1 61.@c3 ie6 62.~e8 ~h5 The tournament of Nuremberg in 1896 was one
63.ic2 ~h6 64.a4 c5 65.b3 b6 of strongest tournaments in the end of 19th
66.id1 @d6 67.@d2 ~h1 68.ic2 century. World Champion Emanuel Lasker
~h2 69.@c3 ~h3 70.@d2 e3 finished clear first. The rest of the field was
71.@c3 ~h2 72.id3 e2 73.@d2 comprised of some of the best players of the
ib3 74.~b8 @c7 75.~a8 ie6 76.a5 time: Albin, Maroczy, Tarrasch, Pillsbury,
ba5 77 .~a5 @d6 78.~a8 c4 79.ie2 Janowski, Steinitz, Schlechter, Chigorin,
ig4 80.~e8 @c5 81.~e7 ~e2 Blackburne, Winawer, Showalter, Teichmann,
82.~e2 ie2 83.@e2 @b4 84.@d2 etc.
@b3 85.@c1 @c3 86.@b1 @d2
0-1 6...d3?!
•

396
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.tLJf3 tLJc6 5.g3 other lines

6...tDb4? has been played a few times 11.~b7 1"1d8 12.CZJc3 CZJa1 13.~c6±) 10.ed4 ~d4
but as a rule it is clearly not good to play twice 11.~b7!?+ Henris;
the same piece in the opening: 7.0-0! (after • 8.tDc3! CZJc2 9.e4!? (9.Elb1 ± Henris) 9... ~e6
7.CZJa3!? d3 8.0-0! de2 9.~e2 ~d3 10.~e3 ~f1 (Moreland,H-Faldon,D, corr., 1986) 10.Elb1C
11.~f1, as in Patton,T-Dutiel,T, Stillwater, Henris.
2011, White gets very nice compensation): 6...ib4 7.liJbd2 d3 8.e3:
a) 7...ltJc2: a) 8...ltJge7 9.0-0 liJg6 (Kecskes,G-Honfi,
a1) 8.ltJa3?! CZJa1 9.CZJd4 ~c8 (9 ... ~g6? Karoly, Budapest, 1995) 10.liJd4!± Henris.
10.~b7+- Montupil,J-Poelmans,J, Belgium, b) 8...ie4 9.0-0 ~d2 10.id2 liJh6 11.~a4 ~d7
1998) 10.~e3 ~a3 11.ba3 CZJe7 12.~a1 c6 12.b3 liJg4 13.ic3 0-0-0 14.h3 if3 15.~f3 liJge5
13.Eld1 ~c7 14.e6 fe6 15.liJf3 0-0 16.~f4 ~a5 (Poblete,L-Mongle,J, Internet, 2001) 16.~g2±
17 .~e5oo Henris. Henris.
a2) 8.ltJh4! ~d7: 6 ltJge7 7.0-0 liJg6 8.~a4!? (8.~b3!? -
• 9.e6!? ~e6?! (9 ...fe6!? 10.liJf5 liJa1 11.liJh4 Henris) 8 ~d7 9.Eld1 Eld8!? 10.~g5 ~e7
(~11.liJd4 0-0-0) 11...0-0-0 12.~g5 liJf6 13.liJd2± 11.ie7 We?? 12.liJc3!? ih3? 13.~a3!? We8
Henris) 10.~d5!? (10.~b7± Henris) 10... ~d7 14.~h3 ~h3 15.liJd5+- Antonsen,M-Sorensen,
11.liJf5 ~f5?! (11...liJa1 12.~d4! ~f5 13.~b7+­ Alex, Odense, 2012.
Henris) 12.e4+- as in Lagowski,P-Liberadzki,S,
Warsaw, 2000; 7.e3
• 9.g4!? liJa1?! (9 ... ~e4 10.~e4 ~g4 11.~g2
liJa1 12.liJf3!?+ Henris) 10.liJf5+ Marchand,F- 7.ltJh4!? is also good for White: 7...~b4 8.liJc3
Chaumont,G, France, 2002; ~e6!? 9.~c6 bc6 10.~d3!?± Huss,A-Ekstroem,
• 9.ltJf5! ~f5 10.e4 de3 11.fe3 ~g6 12.e6! fe6 R, Switzerland, 1990.
13.~f3 liJf6 14.~b7 Eld8 15.~c6 Eld7 16.~c7+­
Henris.
b) 7... d3:
• 8.liJe1!? c6 (8 ... de2 9.~e2 c6 10.liJc3 ~d3 In the tournament book Tarrasch comments
11.liJd3 ~d3 12.~d3 liJd3 13.Eld1± Maksimovic- sarcastically about Albin's play: "The knight
Stamatovic, Bela Crkva, 1986) 9.ed3!? liJd3 rests safely here for the next 30 moves".
10.~f3!? (10.liJd3 ~d3 11.Ele1 ~c4 12.~a4 ~e6 7...ltJge7 8.0-0 liJg6 9.liJd4! liJd4 10.ed4 ~d4
13.liJc3C Henris) 10... ~g6 11.liJd3 ~d3 12.b3!? 11.~b7 Eld8 12.~f3± Minev.
0-0-0 13.~e3 ~c2? 14.~a7 liJh6 15.~c3 1-0
Ronczkowski,M-lvanov,Ana, corr., 1983; 8.0-0 i.e7 9.llJc3 0-0 10.b3 Wd7
• 8.e3!? liJc2 9.liJd4! CZJd4 (9 ... ~c8? 10.CZJf5 ~f5 11.i.b2 :gae8?!

397
 Chapter 10

A much better move would have been Game 150

11 ..JUe8!? Tutov, Vi ktor
Andruet,Gilles (2355)
12.lLld5± i.d8? corr., 1990
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.lLlf3
12....ic5 13.a3 a5 14..ic3± is better for White lLlc6 5.g3 if5 6.~bd2? (0)
but was a lesser evil. Now White gets a very
strong initiative.

13.i.a3! i.e7 14.~e7 ~e7 15.lLld4

c6 16.i.d6 i.g6 17.c5! c;t>h8 18.14
!!g8 19.e4 f5 20.e6 ~d8 21.e5 ~c8
22.~d3 ~a5 23.a3 a6 24.b4+- ~d8
25.!!fe1 lLle7 26.!!ad1 ~c8 27.!!d2
!!gf8 28.a4 !!g8

Any modern master playing Black would resign

here. Albin's will to defend this hopeless
position is remarkable.
This is a mistake!
29.b5 ab5 30.ab5 ~a8 31.i.e7 !!e7 The position can be reached via the move
32.bc6 bc6 33.~c6 ~c8 34.~e7 order 5.ttJbd2 .if5 6.g3.
~c5 35.c;t>h1 ~e7 36.~d6 ~a7 Often White plays 6.a3 in order to avoid any
37.!!b1 lLlg4 38.~b6 ~a3 39.h3 ... ttJb4 and to prepare the b4 push. Now Black
~g3 40.hg4 fg4 41.!!bd1 ~h4 has two continuations:
42.c;t>g1 g3 43.!!d8 i.e8 44.~d4 h5 6...'IWd7:
45.!!d3 !!f8 46.e7 !!g8 47.!!e8 !!e8 a) 7..ig2:
48.~d7 ~e7 49.~e7 !!e7 50.!!g3 • 7... d3?! 8.ttJc3 0-0-0 9.ttJh4? (9..ie3! Henris)
!!f7 51.e6 !!a7 52.!!e3 !!e7 53.15 9....ih3? (9 ...de2 10.1Wd7 .id7 11.f4 ttJd4 co
c;t>h7 54.!!g3 !!a7 55.!!g6 !!c7 Henris) 10.1Wd3! Chemin,Ju-Matsuura,E,
56.ie4 h4 57.c;t>h2 c;t>h8 58.c;t>h3 Maringa, 2012;
!!a7 59.c;t>h4 c;t>h7 60.i.c6 !!c7 • 7...0-0-0 8.0-0 transposes to the line 5.g3 .if5
61.i.d7 !!c4 62.!!g4 6..ig2 1Wd7 7.0-0 0-0-0 8.a3 analysed in game
1-0 147 of this chapter.

398 •
-------~-------------------------

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6 5.93 other lines

b) The immediate 7.b4 is consistent: the line 5.g3 iif5 6.iig2 Wid7 7.0-0 iic5 8.a3 a5
b1) 7..J3d8: analysed in game 147):
• 8.,ib2Wie6!? 9.ct:Jbd2 iie7 10.iig2 ct:Jh6 11.0-0 c1) 9.b4?! ab4 10.iib2 d3!? (10 ...iib1?! 11.ab4
0-0 12.b5 ct:Je5 (Pelikan,Jo-Tomovic,V, Novi E1a1 12.iia1 d3 (12...iie4 13.bc5+) 13.Wib1
Sad, 1936) 13.ct:Jd4!± Henris; (13.bc5? iic2 14.Wid2 de2 15.E1e1°o Raetsky Et
• 8.ct:Jbd2 iib4? (an" unsound sacrifice; but Chetverik) 13...de2 14.E1e1 ct:Jb4 15.E1e2±)
after 8... ct:Jge7, suggested by Lamford, 9.b5 11.ed3 iid3 12.E1e1 O-O~ Henris.
ct:Jb8 10.ct:Jb3±, Black has serious problems with c2) 9.lLlbd2:
his central pawn - Henris) 9.ab4 ct:Jb4 10.e6! fe6 • 9...Wid7 10.b4!? ab4 11.ct:Jb3 b6 (11 ...iia7?
(10 Wie6 11.Wia4 - Brinckmann) 11.ct:Je5 Wid6 12.ab4+-) 12.iib2 ba3 13.ct:Jc5 bc5 14.iia3+
(11 ct:Jc2 fails to 12.Wic2 iic2 13.ct:Jd7 E1d7 Nilssen,J-Rasmussen,Per A, Copenhagen, 1996;
14.E1a7+-) 12.ct:Jd3 c5 13.E1a7 b5 14.ct:Jb4 cb4 • 9...ia7!? 10.ct:Je1!? Wid7 11.ct:Jd3 iih3
15.iig2 ct:Jf6 16.0-0+-, and Black's weak pawns 12.ct:Jf3!? ct:Jg6!? 13.Wia4 iig2 14.mg2 ct:Jce5
were no match for the piece in Engels,L- 15.Wid7 ct:Jd7 16.b4+ Van Haastert,E-Privitera,F,
Richter,Ku, Bad Oeynhausen, 1939. Vlissingen, 2009.
b2) 7...0-0-0!? comes also into consideration: c3) 9.lLle1!?, as in Livner,A-Novikov,Ger,
8.iib2 (8.b5!? - Henris; 8.ct:Jbd2!?) 8.. .f6!? 9.ef6 Manhems, 1998, is also worth considering.
ct:Jf6 10.b5 ct:Ja5°o Raetsky 8: Chetverik;
c) 7.lLlbd2 transposes to the line 5.ct:Jbd2 iif5 6... ttJb4! 7.~a4 c6!
6.a3Wid7 7.g3 covered in game 169 (chapter 13).
d) 7.Wib3!? is also interesting. 7...b5?! is clearly weaker: 8.cb5 ct:Jc2 9.md1
6...a5!? 7.iig2: ct:Ja1 10.ct:Jd4 iig6?? (after the much better
a) 7...Wid7 8.Wia4 ct:Jge7 9.0-0 ct:Jg6 10.E1d1 ± 10...iid7 11.iig2 iic5 12.b3 ct:Je7 13.iib2 0-0
Giulian,P-Wells,J, corr., 1989. 14.iia 1, White has good compensation - Henris),
b) 7...lLlge7 8.0-0 Wid7 9.Wia4 ct:Jc8 10.Wib5 as in Kogan,Ar-Dzhavad Sade, Azerbaidzan,
E1a6?! (10 ... ct:Jb6?! 11.c5±; 10 ...iie7 11.Wib7!? 1963. Now White wins after 11.b6! Wid7 12.Wid7
(11.E1d1±) 11 ... E1b8 12.ct:Jd4! (12.Wia6? E1b6 md7 13.iih3 me8D 14.iig2+- Henris.
13.Wia8 O-O!-+)) 11.E1d1 ct:Jb6? (11...E1b6
12.Wid5±) 12.ct:Jd4 iic2 13.E1d2 iia4 14.ct:Jc6 iib5 8.ttJh4 i.c2!?
(14 ...Wic8 15.ct:Ja7 iib5 16.ct:Jc8 ct:Jc4 17.E1c2+-)
15.cb5 E1a8 16.E1d7 ct:Jd7 17.ct:Jd4 ct:Je5 18.iif4 8...YNd7!? leads to unclear play according to
E1d8 19.iie5 f6 20.iic7 E1d4 21.ct:Jc3 1-0 Minev. But after 9.ct:Jf5 Wif5 10.iig2 (10.md1?
Hawksworth,J-Povah, N, England, 1985. Wif2 11.ct:Je4 Wif5 12.iig2 d3!?+ Henris), White
c) 7 ...iic5 8.0-0 ct:Jge7 (8...Wid7 transposes to has the advantage as shown here:

399
I ,
I Chapter 10

a) 10....!2:lc2 11.~f1 (11.~d1 I?) 11 ... .!2:le3 Game 151

(11...C21a1 12.~c6 ~d8 13.~b7±) 12.~g1 C21g2 Kahn,Evarth (2400)
13.~g2 ~e5 14.C21f3 ~e4 15.2:d1± Henris. Chetverik,Maxim (2335)
b) 10... ~c2 11.C21b3 ~c4!? (11...d3 Budapest, 1995
12.0-0 de2 13.2:e1 ± Henris) 12.0-0± Castillo 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.lLlf3
Larenas,M-Cristia,J, Buenos Aires, 1935. 4:Jc6 5.g3 ic5!? (D)

9.b3 lLla6 10.ia3 lLlc5 11.ic5 ic5

12.ig2 4:Je7 13.4:Je4 d3! 14.e3 d2
15.lLld2 ie3!~ 16.4:Jhf3

16.fe3 ~d3-+.

16.. JWd3 17.~c1 id2 18.lLld2

~d8-+ 19.Wib4 c5 20.Wib5 ~d7?

20... ~f8 21.C21e4 ~d 1-+.

21.lLle4! 0-0 22.Wic5?

This variation banks on maintenance of d4
o22.'1WaS:+. combined with gradual pressure on e5 to
justify the gambit. White tries to get the upper
22...lLlf5!? hand by ganging up on d4 or throwing in ig5 or
e6 in at opportune moments, but the line has
22 ... :gd4-+. not been tested much.
Sometimes Black played first 5... a5 and only
23.Wia5 4:Je3! 24.f3 lLlg2 then 6...ic5.

24...id1 25.~d2 C21g2 26.~g2 if3-+. 6.~g2 a5

25.~f2 Wie3 26.~g2 ~e4 27.fe4 There is a problem with the move order
~d2 28.~h3 Wig5! 29.g4 Wie3 6... .!2:lge7?! (with the idea to follow with ... a5
30.~h4 Wif2 as in the main game) 7.C21bd2!?:
0-1 a) 7.. ..!2:lg6 8.C21b3! ~b4 9.~d2 tLlge5

400
_. -----_J~.2"---------------------------

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6 5.g3 other lines

(9 ....te7 10.liJa5! liJge5 11.liJe5 liJe5 12.liJb7±

Raetsky & Chetverik) 10.liJe5 .td2 11.iWd2 liJe5
12.iWd4 iWd4 13.liJd4 liJe4 14.liJb5!?± Euwe,M-
Van der Kar,J, Amsterdam, 1927.
b) 7...a5 8.liJb3! .tb4 (8 ...ia7 9.e5 a4 10.tiJbd4
ie5 11.ie3±) 9.id2 tiJf5 10.0-00-0 11.ig5!?±
Raetsky & Chetverik.

7.lLlbd2

7.0-0 is the subject of game 152.

7...i.a78.0-0
10.i.gS h6 11.i.f4 lLlg6 12.'?Md3?!

After the continuation 8.lLle4 tiJge7 12.ih6 gh6 13.tiJf6 ~g7 14.tiJh5= Raetsky &
9.iWb3!? 0-0 10.0-0 tiJg6, Black was close to Chetverik.
equality in the game Botsari,A-Stefanova,A,
Belgrade, 1994. 12...'?Me7 13.~ed2 !!e8 14.'?Me4 a4
8.a3 tiJge7 transposes to the line 5.a3
a5 6.g3 ie5 7.ig2 analysed in game 46 14...lLlge5?! 15.ie5 tiJe5 16.tiJd4 tiJe4 17.iWe7
(chapter 4). ~e7 18.tiJe4 id4 19.~fd1 ± Raetsky & Chetverik.

8...lLlge7 9.lLle4 1S.!!fe1 '?Mb4~

9.a3 is also possible:
a) After 9...lLlg6?!, White should not
continue with 10.iWe2? 0-0 11.~d1 tiJge5=, as in
Benitah, Y-Benoit,S, La Fere, 2004, but with
the strong 10.b4!t Henris.
b) 9...0-0 transposes to the line 5.a3 a5
6.g3 ie5 7.ig2 analysed in game 46 (chapter
4).
9...0-0 (D)
White hasn't made any progress and is faced
with strong counterplay.
16.a3
16J~~ab1 a3 (16 ... tiJge7 - Raetsky & Chetverik)
17.b3 tiJge5! - Flear,G.
16...'?Mb2 17.!!eb1 '?Mc3 18.!!c1 '?MaS
19.!!ab1 '?Mcs 20.'?MdSlLlge7 21.'?McS

401
 Chapter 10

.ic5 22J~a1 .it5 23.e6 te6 24..ic7 Game 152

~ac8 25..ie5 tlJg6 26.g4 .ig4 27..ig3 Horvath,Csaba (2540)
.it5 28.tlJe1 e529..ie4? Chetverik,Maxim (2290)
Budapest, 1996
White should avoid the exchanges. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.~f3
29.tLld3 b6+ Raetsky Et Chetverik. ClJc6 5.g3 ic5!? 6.ig2 a5 7.0-0 (D)

29...ie4 30.tlJe4 ClJa5 31.~d3 ClJb3

32.~dc5 ~c5 33.~d6 ~b3 34.~ab1
tlJc1 35.~c1 ~ed8 36.tlJc8 ~c8 37.~b1
~c4 38.~b7 e4

Stronger is 38...:ac3! 39.Elb5 e4 - Raetsky Et

Chetverik.

39.h4!?

39J%d7+ Raetsky Et Chetverik.

39... h5 40.~b5 d3 41.ed3 ed3

42.~d5 ~c3 43.id6 ~h4 44.ib4
~b3 45.f4 g6 46.c;!{f2 ClJf5 47.~a5
~b2 48.c;!{f3 ~d4 49.c;!{e3 ClJc2
50.c;!{d3 ~b4 51.ab4 ~b4 52.c;!{e3
h4 53. c;!{f3 h3 54. c;!{g3
Or 54.l!?g4 h2 55.Ela8 I!?g7 56.Ela7 I!?h6 5n~~a8
Elb7-+ Raetsky Et Chetverik.
54.. J~b3 55.c;!{h2 a3 56J~a7 ~f3
57.c;!{h1 c;!{f8 58.c;!{h2 c;!{e8 59.c;!{h1
c;!{d8 60J~a6 c;!{c7 61.c;!{h2 c;!{b7
62.~g6 a2 63J~g1 ~a3 64.~a1 c;!{c6
0-1
7...ie6?! is a slightly unusual and dubious
mixture of systems: 8,ct:Jbd2 tiJge7 9.b3 tiJg6
10.tiJe4 ia7 11.ia3 (taking the a3-f8 diagonal
which has been kindly vacated by Black)
11...~d7 (Hebden,M-Valaker,O, Port Erin, 2003)
12.~d2, followed by Elfd1 - Flear,G.
8.b3!?
White wants to exchange the dark-squared
bishops.
He also has:
8.tLla3!?:

402
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.tDf3 tDc6 5.g3 other lines

a) Doubling the pawns only opens the valuable considered - Henris.

b-file for White: 8... ~a3?! 9.ba3 0-0 (9 ... ~e6
10.\Wb3±) 10.~b2 CLlfS 11.Wd3 \We7 12.CLld4 1o.ics
CLlfd4 13.~d4 CLleS 14.\We3 El:e8 1S.El:ab1 -
Raetsky &. Chetverik. White misses the very strong continuation
b) 8...0-0 9.CLlbS (9.b3 194:!:) 9 a4 (9...1fS!?; 10.lLlh4! 1b1 11.~cS bc5 12.El:b1 E1a6 13.f4±
9...1g4!?) 10.1gS (o10.1f4!) 10 ge8 11.Wc2 Raetsky &. Chetverik.
(11.Wd2 1e6 12.gac1 h6 13.1e7 ge7 14.gfd1
gd7~) 11...h6?! (11...1fS!? 12.1e7 Wd7 13.Wd2 10... bcS 11.tlJbd2?!
gel;!;) 12.1e7 ge7!? (12 ...CLle7?! 13.gfd1 l2lfS
14.e4±) 13.gfd1 194 14.h3 1hS (14...1f3 1S.1f3 11.lLlh4!? E1a6 12.f4;t Raetsky &. Chetverik.
geS 16.e3±) 1S.g4 196 16.Wd2 gd7 17.Wf4 1c2!
18.gd2 gS 19.Wg3 196 20.e6 1d6 (20 .. .fe6 11 ..J3a612.e6!? fe613.ttJe1
21.l2leS±) 21.l2ld6 gd6 22.ef? if? 23.cS (23.l2leS
l2leS 24.Wes1c4 2s.1b7 gb8 26.1f3 gbS 27.We4±) 13.lLlh4 O-Of± Raetsky &. Chetverik.
23 ...gdS 24.gad1 gaS (Seres,L-Chetverik,M,
Revfi..ilop, 1995) 2S.e3!+ Ll...de3? 26.gdS ef2 13...tlJeS
27 .Wf21dS 28.tt:lgS+- Raetsky &. Chetverik.
8.~g5!? h6 9.~e7 We7 10.CLlbd2 0-0 13...0-0 14.CLld3 Wd6= Raetsky &. Chetverik.
11.CLlb3 El:d8 12.CLlCS WcS 13.Wd3 CLleS 14.CLleS
WeS 1S.e4 cS= Poulenard,R-RaetskY,A, Cap 14.ttJe4 ie4 1S..ie4 tlJfS
d'Agde, 1994.
8.lLlbd2 1a7 would transpose to the 15...0-0 16.CtJd3\Wd6= Raetsky &. Chetverik.
•
prevIous game.
16.ttJd3 ttJd3?!
8...ifS
16... ~d6= Raetsky &. Chetverik.
8...lLlg6 9.~a3 ~a3 10.CLla3 CtJgeS 11.l2le5 CLle5
12.CtJb5 c5 13.e3! de3 14.\Wd8 \t!d8 1S.f4± 17.ed3 ~gS?
Raetsky &. Chetverik.
Instead of this provocation Black should have
9.ia3 b6 played 17...0-0 18.\Wd2;t Raetsky &. Chetverik.

9...~a7!? should have been seriously 18.f4 ~f6 19.ifS ~fS

403
 .,
Chapter 10

19...ef5 20.~d2 0-0 21.:1'i:fe1 a4 22.b4+ Raetsky Game 153

& Chetverik. Touzane,Olivier (2250)
Honfi,Karoly (2390)
Budapest, 1995
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3
ttJc6 5.g3 ib4?! (D)

22.b4!

Destroying Black's defences.

22...0-0 Clearly stronger than the more often played

6.id2.
22... ab4 23.~a4 c;t>d7 24.:1'i:c5+- Raetsky &
Chetverik. 6...ttJge7 7.ig2 0-0 8.0-0 if5 9.a3

23.V;Vf3+- E:b6 24.b5 E:f5 25.E:ae1 White obtains the bishop pair for free.
h6 26.@f2 V;Vf6 27.a4 E:d6 28.@g2
g5 29.E:f5 ef5 30.E:e5 gf4 31.V;Vf4 9...id2 10.id2!?
E:e6 32.E:f5 E:e2 33.@f1 V;Ve6 34.E:f8
@g7 35.V;Vf7 V;Vf7 36.E:f7 @f7 10.1Mfd2, followed by b4, is also quite good -
37.@e2 @f6 38.@f3 @g5 39.h4 @f6 Henris.
40.@f4 h5 41.g4
1-0 10... ttJg611.if4!?

404
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6 5.g3 other lines
After 11.b4 g;:e8 12.g;:c1 :gb8 13.i.f4, White
retains a small advantage - Henris.
11 ...d3?!
Black has good play on the white squares after
11 ...lDf4 12.gf4 "lWd7, with the idea ...ih3,
exchanging the light-squared bishops - Henris.
12.ed3 ~f4 13.gf4 id3 14J~e1 ic4
1S.VMa4 ie6 16J3ad1~ VMc8 17.~gS
CiJe7 18.VMc2 if5 19.VMb3 h6??
Better is 19...c6, and Black is still in the game.
2o.ib7??
Both players miss the killing move 20.e6!+-
Henris.
20..J3b8 21.ic8 ~b3 22.ifS ~fS
23.~e4 ~b2= 24.~d7 ~c2 2S.~b1
as!?
Black threatens 26 ...g;:c4.
If immediately 25..J!c4, then 26.g;:b4
g;:b4 27.ab4 g;:b8 28.g;:c7 g;:b4 29.f3'" Henris.
25...lDh4!? t..... lDg6 - Henris.
26.~b7 ~c8 27.@g2 ~c4 28.@f3
~a4 29.~bc7 ~a3?!
029...lDh4 30.i>e3 tZJg2 31.i>f3 tZJe1 32.i>e3
g;:a3 33.i>d2 (:>;33.i>e2 g;:c7 34.g;:c7 tZJd3:j:)
33... ctJf3 34.i>c2 g;:c7 35.g;:c7 ctJd4 36.i>d2 g;:f3,
with an edge for Black - Henris.
After 32.f5, White's activity would give him a
dangerous initiative - Henris.
32...CiJf3?
032 ...g6 t..33.g;:f7 (33.tZJf7?? h5 34.i>h4D tZJf3
35.i>g3 tZJe5-+) 33 ... tZJf3!= Henris.
033.lDf7± Henris.
33... ~h2??
Better is 33 ...96!, and Black has at least the
draw.
34.@fS+- ~f3 3S.@g6?
35.e6! tZJd4 36. ~e5+- Henris.
35... ~h4 36.~h5 Eld3! 37.Ela7 ~g2
38.~g4 Eld4 39.Elg7 ~g7 40.~f5 ~f7?
40 ~f8 41.tZJd4 h5 42.~g3 (42.i>g5 h4"')
42 tZJe1, and White's win is in doubt - Henris.
41.~d4 a4 42.CiJc2
1-0
405
 . '." ,

. . .,,:: -;;";';!;-~;_:', , " .... ;':::;.

o
"'. -

With Black doing well against 5.a3 and 5.g3, I have to mention that since White's plan is
attention has shifted recently to 5.ttJbd2 ttJd2-b3, he usually needs to play a2-a3. The
which has been recommended as the move a3 prevents a check from b4 and
easiest anti-Albin system. prepares a possible b2-b4.

This continuation has the advantage of The ideal for White is to play a3, b4, ttJb3
avoiding the main lines which now extend and .ib2, after which the d4-pawn
into 20 or more moves of theory. inevitably falls.
Usually Black tries to prevent this by
Developping the knight creates its own counterattacking the pawns on c4 or e5.
set of problems for Black because he
can't simply mechanically proceed
by ....ie6, ...\Wd7, ....ih3 and ...h5-h4
without losing his d4-pawn due to tLlb3.

First of all 5.tLlbd2 protects the pawn on

c4 and the knight on f3 (for the case
of ....ic8-g4). However, White's main idea
is to attack quickly the pawn on d4.

5.tLlbd2 is also a very flexible approach.

White doesn't reveal his intentions yet and
can later adopt the kinside fianchetto
instead of sending the knight to b3.

After 5.ttJbd2, Black has tried just about everything. I'll look at the following plans:

- Chapter 11: 5 ttJge7

- Chapter 12: 5 .ig4
- Chapter 13: other lines

406
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ltJf3 7.e4 (0)
lLlc6 5.ltJbd2 lLlge7 (0)

The latest edition of Bilguer's Handbuch des

Morozevich also has played like this against Schachspiels, the first comprehensive manual
5.g3 and 5.a3. of chess theory, published in 1912 under the
direction of Carl Schlechter, already suggested
the move 7.e4.
White radically changes the position with this
The most logical continuation. move which allows doubled isolated pawns on
6.a3 transposes to the line 5.a3 tLlge7 the e-file. But it appears to be strong as White
6.tLlbd2 analysed in games 14 and 15 - chapter controls a lot of squares in the centre.
1. The options 7.g3, 7.g4 and 7..ig5 are
The continuation 6.g3 is analysed covered in game 157.
under the move order 5.g3 tLlge7 6.tLlbd2 (~ 7.a3 transposes to the game Sokolov,l-
game 78 - chapter 5). Morozevich,A, Wijk aan Zee, 2005, examined
under the move order 5.a3 tLlge7 6.tLlbd2 tLlf5
6...ltJf5!? 7.tLlb3 (~game 14 - chapter 1).

The position is actually not that new as 7...de3

Tarrasch even tried it over a century ago!
The alternative 6...lL\g6 is insufficient. This Instead of exchanging queens, Black also has
move is analysed in game 157. tried to complicate matters with 7...lL\h4!? (~

407
 I
q,,
Chapter 11
game 156).
8.'1Wd8 ltJd8!?
Black's king position after 8...@d8!? 9.fe3 (or
9.~e3!?) makes it difficult to get his rooks
coordinated. Still 8... md8 deserves attention as
strong players have used it (--+ game 155).
9.fe3 (D)
It is not clear how favourable the ending is for
White. Some commentators are very
enthusiastic about White's chances. Others
have a more cautious view. The truth probably
lies somewhere in between.
Very few GM has tried this widely accepted
"refutation" so far. One can only guess that
they assume that the doubled e-pawns on an
open file are a significant long-term weakness.
Morozevich also must have judged Black's play
to be adequate in his preparation against
408
Sokolov, even if after 9... ~b4 (9 ... ct:lc6 and
9...ct:le7 have also been met in practice) 10.mf2
ct:le6 11.~d3 ct:lc5 12.ct:lc5 ~c5 13.a3 a5 14.b3
0-0 15.~b2 (Fluvia Poyatos,J-Fluvia,J Badalona
2005) White keeps an edge (--+ game 154).
The extra pawn may not be that significant.
And the two bishops, added to the dispersion of
the pawns, may well then ensure adequate
compensation for Black. But the fact is that
Black lacks squares for his minor pieces.
Although the pawns on the e-file are doubled
and isolated, they control important squares,
which secure White a better placement of the
pieces. White's pawns are exposed, but the e5-
pawn cramps Black's game and the e3-pawn
anchors pieces on d4. White is also ahead in
development and has a space advantage, and it
turns out that his remaining pieces have good
squares; e.g., bishops on c3 and d3 or e4, and
rooks on the d- and Hiles. Finally, it is a
peculiarity of the position that Black has a
difficult time targeting the e5-pawn, whose
capture is the most important way to get back
into the game. It is important for White that
Black is not able to restore material equality.
White's advantage here is out of question. It is
therefore clear that basically only two results
are possible and Black must struggle.
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.4Jf3 4Jc6 5.~bd2 ~ge7

Game 154 advantage in Lehmann,Heinz-Smederevac,P,

Fluvia Poyatos,Joan (2478) Beverwijk, 1965;
Fluvia Poyatos,Jordi (2399) • 10....1b4 11.Wf2! ~e7!? (11 ...0-0 is met by
Badalona, 2005 12.1t1bd4! ltlfd4 13.ed4 f6 14.ef6 1"i:f6 15.~g5 1"i:f8
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.~f3 16.a3 ~d6 17.c5 ~f4 18..1f4 1"i:f4 19.We3±
~c6 5.~bd2 ~ge7 6.tDb3 tDf5 7.e4 Watson) 12.~d2 ltlh4 13.~c3 ltlg6 14.~e4 .1d7
de3 8.'1Wd8 ~d8 9.fe3 (D) 15.1"i:ad1+ Drozdovskij, Y-Bauer, Christi, Ourense
(blitz), 2009.
b) 10.lLlbd4 is also good; e.g., 10... ~b4
11.Wf2!? (11.~d2!? ~d2!? 12.Wd2 ~d7 13..1d3
'.', '

b 0-0-0 14.1"i:hfH Watson & Schiller) 11...1t1fd4!

12.ed4 ~g4 13.~e3 0-0-0 14.1"i:c1 ~f3 15.gf3
ltld4 16.~h3 Wb8 17.1"i:hd1 ltlc6 18.a3 .1e7 19.f4
g5! 20.1"i:d5!;t; Watson.
9... lLle7!?N 10..1d2 ltlec6 11.1t1bd4 ~d7
is slow; e.g., 12.~d3 ~b4 13.0-0-0 ~d2 14.1"i:d2
ltlb4 15.~b1 ltle6 16.1"i:hd1± 0-0-0 17.a3 ltlc6
18..1e4 (White misses the opportunity to
activate his rooks: 18.1t1c6 .1c6 19.1t1d4 .1d7
(19... 1"i:de8 20.1t1c6 bc6 21.1"i:d7 1"i:hf8 22.b4V±)
9..1e31t1e3 10.fe3;t; Bilguer. 20.1"i:f1 1"i:df8 (20... 1"i:hf8 21.1"i:df2+-) 21.h4;t;/±
Rogozenko) 18...1t1a5 19.1t1e6 (o19.~d5 ltld4
9...ib4 20.1t1d4 c5 21.b4 cd4 22.ba5 de3 23.1"i:d3;t;
Rogozenko) 19...1t1b3? (after the correct
9...lLlc6 is the consistent move, 19... ~e6, Black should be able to escape -
attacking the e5-pawn and clearing the way for Rogozenko) 20.Wc2 ltld2 21.~b7 Wb8
... 0-0-0 : (21 ...Wb7 22.1t1d8 1"i:d8 23.1"i:d2+- Rogozenko)
a) 10..1d3: 22.1t1d8 ~a4 23.Wd2 1"i:d8 24 ..1d5 .1d1 25.Wd1
• 10....1e6?! 1L~d2 a5 12..1e4 .1b4 13.Wf2 0-0 c6 26.1t1d4 1-0 Maksimenko,A-Antoniewski,R,
14J~hd1 gives White a very comfortable game - Wysowa, 2007.
Watson;
• 10...lLlfe7 11.1t1bd4 ~g4, and now 12.~e4 is 10.@f2 tDe6
strong (Watson) while 12.h3 ~f3 13.1t1f3 ltlg6
14.~g6 hg6 15.We2 yielded a smaller Or:

409
 Chapter 11
•

10....ie7 11.tDbd4 0-0 12..id3 tDh4 situation in his favour with 17...tDh4! 18.tDh4
13..ic2!? (13 ..id2! keeps bringing the pieces (18 ..ie4 .ig4+) 18...ig4 19.tDf3 .if3 20.<;iJf3
out; e.g., 13...c5 14.tDb5 tDc6 15..ic3, and ~d3+ Henris.
White is in control - Watson) 13...c6 (13 ...c5!
14.tDb5 tDc6 is still good for White, but more 18.h3 ~g6 19.1c3~ 1b6
combative - Watson) 14..id2 ~e8 15.ic3 a5 20.~hd1 ~e8 21.1f5!? 1c7
16.a3 (16.~ad1! tDf3 17.ctJf3 - Watson) 16...a4 22.1c8 ~ac8 23.~d7 h6 24.~ad1
(16 ... ctJf3;!;) 17.~ad1 g6 18.<;iJg3 g5 19.ctJh4 gh4 ~f8 25.~7d2 CDg6 26.h4!? b6
20.<;iJf2 ig4 21.~d2 ig5 22.h3 ih5 23.ctJf5± De 27.~d7!? CDf8 28.~7d2 CDg6
Jong,Jan-Docx,S, Gent, 2006; White has a pawn 29.h5 CDe5 30.1e5 1e5 31.CDe5
and the better position. ~e5 32.~d8 ~d8?!
10...0-0 11.g4 ctJh6 12.h3 <;iJh8 13.id3
ctJe6 14.ctJbd4 a5 15.a3 ic5 16.id2± Palliser,R- Better is 32... ~e8 33.~e8 ~e8 34.~d6 ~c8;!;.
Bonafont,P, Torquay, 2009. Black's pieces are passively placed, but he
10...lLlh6 11.h3;!; Malmstroem,J-Korchut, would have reasonable chances to hold the
A, corr., 2008. position - Henris.

11.1d3 33.~d8 @h7 34.~d6 ~e6?

Or 11.lLlfd4!? ctJc5!? (11...ctJh4!?) 12.ctJc5 Black wrongly tranposes into a lost pawn
ic5 13.ctJb5 <;iJd8 14.id3;!; Lalic,B-Dargan,P, ending.
Denham, 2011. 34...f5 35.gf5 ~f5 36.~c6 b5 37.c5 ~h5 offered
better counter chances thanks to the passed
11 ... ~c5 12.~c5 i.c5 13.a3 as pawns on the kingside - Henris.
14.b3 0-0 15.1d2~ ~d8 16.@e2 c6
17.g4? 35.~e6 fe6 36.c5! b5D 37.@f3 @g8
38.@f4 @f8 39.g5 hg5 40.@g5 @f7
A mistake unnoticed by both players. 41.e4+- b4 42.a4 @f8 43.@g6 @g8
With 17J~hd1;t White would preserve his 44.h6 e5 45.@g5 gh6 46.@h6 @f7
advantage. 47.@g5 @g7 48.@f5 @f7 49.@e5
@e7 50.@f5 @f7 51.e5 @e7 52.e6
17...lLle7? @e8 53.@f6 @f8 54.e7 @e8 55.@f5
@e7 56.@e5
Black misses the opportunity to turn the 1-0

410
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6 5.lLlbd2 lLlge7

Game 155 14.liJg5+-) 14.ttlb3+- Van Ketel,R-Aranovitch,

Kislik,Erik (2371) Em, Kallithea, 2008.
Fodor,Tamas Jr (2488) 9....ie7 10.id2 ttlh4 11.ic3 ig4 12.<j;f2
Kecskemet, 2011 ~e8 13.<j;g3 if3 14.gf3 liJf5 15.<j;f4 g6 16.~d1
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.11Jf3 <j;c8 17.ih3+ - Dokutchaev,Alek-Niemela, A,
ClJc6 5.11Jbd2 llJge7 6.ClJb3 llJf5 7.e4 Joensuu, 2006.
de3 B.WldB @dB!? 9.fe3 (D)
10.@f211Jh6!?N

An interesting new idea which is stronger than

It's illogical to give up the bishop pair with
9.i.e3!? Nevertheless White gets the
advavantage after 9.. ,c21e3 10.fe3 ib4?!
(10 ...g6!? 11.liJbd4 id7 12.0-0-0 <j;e8;!;) 11.<j;f2
~e8 12.~d1 id7 13.c5 liJe5 14.a3 liJg4 15.<j;g3
~e3? (15 ... liJe3 16.~d3±) 16.id3 liJe5 17.<j;f4±
Szeberenyi,A-Biro,S, Budapest, 2009.
9... ~b4
Black also has the following options, but none
of them are satisfactory:
9...ltJfe7?! 10.liJbd4 g6 11.id2 ig7
12.ic3± liJe5? 13.0-0-0 id7 (13 ... ltJd7
the following alternatives:
1O... ~e8?! 11.e4! liJh6 12.ig5 ie7!?
13.~d1 id7 14.e6!? fe6 15.liJc5 liJg4 16.<j;g3
liJge5 17.liJb7 <j;c8 18.ie7 ~e7 19.1iJc5+
Maisuradze, N-Gervasio,R, Paris, 2012.
10...ie7 11.liJbd4 id7 12.id3 liJh4
13.liJc6 (13.ie4 liJg6 14.liJc6 ic6 15.id5±
Jojua,D-Adnani,M, Manama, 2009) 13...ic6
(Pillsbury,H-BrodY,M, Monte Carlo, 1902)
14.id2 liJg6 15.ic3±.
11.h3
11.a3?! is weaker: 11...liJg4 12.<j;g3 ie7
13.e4!? h5!? (13 ...liJge5= Henris) 14.h4 liJce5
15.liJe5 liJe5= 16.if4 if6 17.~d1 <j;e8 18.~d5
liJg4!? (018 ...liJg6 19.ic7 ie6 - Henris) 19.ic7
ie6!? (19 ...liJe3!? - Henris) 20.c5?! (20.~d2 ~c8
21.if4 liJe5!? 22.liJd4 liJc4 23.ic4 ~c4
24.liJf5!?;!; Henris) 20 ...a6?! (020 ...ib2+ Henris)
21.liJa5 ~c8?! (after 21 ...id5 22.ed5 id4
23.liJb7 liJf2 24.~h2 ~h6, the situation would be
very unclear - Henris) 22.id6;!; ib2?! (022 ... b5
23.cb6 id5 24.ed5 <j;d7 25.if4 ~c5 26.liJc4

411
 Chapter 11

:r'1d5 27.!iLe2 !iLd4 28.b7 !iLa7;!; Henris) 23.ttJb7± Game 156

ttJf6 24.!iLd3 !iLa3? 25.:r'1a1 +- !iLb4 26.:r'1a6 !iLd5 Brunner,Nicolas (2429)
27.ed5 ttJd7 28.:r'1a4 1-0 Lund,Si-Johansson,Rob, Feygin,Michaii (2569)
Sweden, 2007. Namur,2008
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ct:Jf3
11..J''!e8 12.e4!? ~c6 5.~bd2 ct:Jge7 6.ct:Jb3 ct:Jf5 7.e4
~h4!? (0)
Instead I suggest 12.c5!? ~e6 (12 ... ttJe5?! 13.a3
ttJf3 14.9f3 ~e6 15.ab4 ~b3 16.2:91 96 17.e4±)
13.~b5 ~b3 14.ab3 ~c5 15.~d2, with a clear
advantage for White - Henris.

12... ct:Je5 13.ig5 f6 14'!'!d1 id7

15.ih6 gh6 16.ie2

16.c5 ~c8.

16...@c8 17.ct:Je5 E:e5 18.E:d4 b6

19.ig4 ig4 20.hg4 if8 21.E:hd1 i>b7

The position is about equal. Instead of enduring an unpleasant endgame

after 7...de3, Black tries to complicate
22.E:d8?! E:d8 23.E:d8 id6 24.@f3 matters.
h5 25.gh5 E:h5 26.ct:Jd4 as!? 7...i.b4? is obviously not a solution: 8.~d2
ttJh4 (after 8 ...i.d2 9.\Wd2 ttJh4 10.ttJfd4 ttJe5
o26...:r'1a5 27 .a3 ~e5:j: Henris. 11.0-0-0 0-0 12.f4 tiJd7 13.93 White wins -
Rogozenko) 9.~b4 (9.tiJfd4± Rogozenko)
27.ct:Jf5 ie5 28.E:d2 E:h1 29.~e3 a4 9 ... tiJf3 10.9f3 tiJb4 11.\Wd2 tiJc6 12.0-0-0 tiJe5
30.E:d1 E:h4 31.g3 E:h2 32.~g4 E:b2 13.f4 tiJc6 14.tiJd4 \We? 15.tiJc6 bc6 16.2:91 0-0
33.ct:Je5 fe5 34.E:h1 E:a2 35.E:h7 17.\Wd4 f6 18.f5 a5 19.c5 a4 20.i.c4 ~h8
E:a1 36.@g4 a3 37.E:h2 a2 38.E:f2 21.2:93+- Atalik,E-Muzychuk,M, Kusadasi,
@c6 39.@f5 @c5 40.g4 @c4 2006.
41.@e5 b5 42.g5 b4 43.g6 b3
0-1 8.ct:Jfd4

412
 ..
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.lLlf3 lLlc6 5.tLlbd2 tLlge7

8.tL\bd4 would be weaker: Black's knights produce some discomfort in

a) 8....ib4: White's camp. The knights can be supported by
• ~9 ..id2?! CiJd4 10.CiJd4 (10 ..ib4? .ig4-+) bishops ( i.c8-g4 and ...i.f8-b4) and by the c-
10 Wd4 11 ..ib4 ~e4 12.We2 CiJg2 13.c;g;,d2 Wf4 pawn ( c7 -c5) for the creation of further
(13 Wd4!? 14.c;g;,c1 CiJf4 15.~e3 ~e3 16.fe3 threats. With accurate play White can manage
CiJg6:1=) 14.c;g;,c3 i.g4 15.Wd3 (15.Wd2 Wf3 to neutralize his opponent's initiative and drive
16.Wd3D CiJe3! 17.i.e2! We2 18.We2 i.e2 19.fe3 away the knights, which, by the way, don't
0-0-0:1=) 15...a5! 16.i.g2 (16.i.c5? Eld8) 16...ab4 have any stable squares.
17.c;g;,b3 c6! (17 ...0-0!?) 18.We4 Wd2! (Ll...Ela3!)
19.We3 0-0-0:1=; 9.f3!?
• 9.c;g;,e2 CiJd4 10.CiJd4 (10.Wd4!? We7) 10...a5
11.f3!? We7 12.CiJc2 i.c5 13.i.e3 i.e3 14.CiJe3 9.f4!? is a bit overambitious. After
We5 15.Wa4 c6 (15 ...i.d7 16.~a3 f5 17.CiJd5! 9...i.g4, White has:
c;g;,f7 18.Wc3±) 16.Wa3 f5 17.ef5 CiJf5 18.c;g;,f2 c;g;,f7 a) 10.i.e2!? liJg2! 11.c;g;,f2 (11.c;g;,f1?! i.h3)
19.Ele1 Eld8 20.i.d3 Wd4 21.i.f5 i.f5 22.Eld1 11 ... ~h4 12.c;g;,g2 i.h3 13.c;g;,g1:
We5 23.Elhe1;!; Rogozenko. • 13...0-0-0?? 14.fe5 Eld4 15.liJd4 i.c5
b) 8...lLld4! 9.liJd4 i.b4'" Rogozenko. (Seymour,T-HanleY,Cr, London, 2010) 16.i.f1+-
Henris;
8... ~e5 (D) • 13.. J'!d8! 14.fe5 Eld4! 15.liJd4 i.c5 16.i.f4D
(16.i.e3? We4-+; 16.i.f1 Wg4!-+) 16...Wf4
17.~d3 Wg5 18.c;g;,f2 ~h4 19.c;g;,e3 (19.c;g;,g1
0-0-+) 19...0-0 (19 ... ~g5=) 20.c;g;,d2 (S20.b4?
Wg5 21.c;g;,f2 f5! 22.ef6 Elf6 23.c;g;,e1 i.d424.Wd4
~h4 25.c;g;,d2 Eld6) 20 ...Eld8 (20 ...i.d4!?"')
21.Wg3 Eld4 22.i.d3'" Henris.
b) 10.Wc2:
• 10...c5?! 11.liJb5liJef3?? (11 ...liJc6 12.i.e3 a6
13.liJc3± Henris; 11 ... a6 12.liJc3 liJhf3 13.c;g;,f2!
liJd4 14.liJd4 cd4 15.liJd5± Henris) 12.gf3 liJf3
13.c;g;,f2 Wh4 14.c;g;,e3 O-O-O!? 15.Wf2 ~e7 16.i.e2
g5 17.~g3!? (17.i.f3?? gf4 18.c;g;,f4D Wf6
19.c;g;,e3 i.f3+ Henris) 17...h5!?, as in
8...lLld4? 9.Wd4 i.b4 10.i.d2+ Rogozenko. Kulakarni, R-Saptarshi, R, Dindigul, 2007. Now
After 8...liJe5 White is a healthy pawn up, but the simplest is 18.c;g;,f2+- Henris;

413

• 10... a51?N (Black's improvement over 10...c5
seen in the previous game which was played
the day before in the same tournament!)
11.fe5 a4 12.~e3 ab3 13.iWb3 ~e7 14.h3 ~d7
15.iWc2!? (15.0-0-0!? ~a4 16.iWb7 ~g5!? 17.~g5
iWg5"" Henris) 15...0-0"" 16.~d3?! ~g5 17.~g1?
(17.~g5 iWg5~ Henris) 17... ~f4+ Vidit,S-
Thejkumar,MS, Dindigul, 2007.
White has at his disposal the strong
possibility 9.e5! (D).
This move closes the diagonal for
opponent's bishop, opens a diagonal for his own
bishop, makes the knight more stable on d4
and it gains an advantage in space.
White's chances are preferable:
a) 9 ig4 10.iWc2 a5 11.h3± Rogozenko.
b) 9 ~e7 10.~f4 ClJhg6 (10 ... ~f6 11.iWc2 0-0
12.0-0-0±) 11.~e5! (also good is 11.~g3 0-0
12.~e2±, and White's advantage is beyond
question, but 11.~e5 is even more vigorous)
11 ...ClJe5 12.f4 ClJd7 (12 ... ClJg6 13.iWf3 LL~c5
414
Chapter 11
14.~b5 c6 15.ttJc6 bc6 16.~c6 ~d7 17.~d7 iWd7
18.ClJc5 iWd4 19.ClJb3 iWb2 20.0-0±/+-) 13.Ei:c1 as
14.a4 0-0 15.e5± Rogozenko.
c) 9 a5 10.ClJb5:
• 10 ,id7 11.~f4 ClJhg6 (11 f6 12.~e5 fe5
13.g3 ClJg6 (13...a4 14.gh4 fj. ab3 15.iWh5+-)
14.iWf3+-) 12.~e5 ClJe5 13.iWd5±;
• 10...a4 11.iWd8 @d8 12.ClJ3d4 f6 (12 ... ~c5
13.~g5 ~e7 14.~e7 @e7 15.ClJc7+-) 13.f4±
Rogozenko.
9....ib4 1O. c;f;>f2
White could have kept a small advantage after
10.id2 ~d2 11.iWd2 c5 12.f4 (12.ClJc5 iWd4!
13.iWd4 ClJhf3 14.gf3 ClJf3 15.@f2 ClJd4) 12...cd4
13.fe5;!; Rogozenko.
10...c5?!
010...0-0"" Rogozenko.
11.a3 cd4 12.ab4 d3 13.1e3 0-0
his 14.1d4 Yffe7 15..ie5 Yffe5 16.1d3
.ie6 17.Yffe2 b5 18J~a5 E:ab8 19.93
ttJg6 20.E:c1 E:fd8 21.E:c3 Yffh5
22.c;f;>g1 ttJe5 23.ttJd2 bc4 24.1c4
E:d2 25.Yffd2 ttJf3 26.E:f3 Yfff3
27.1e6 fe6 28.E:a7 E:f8 29.E:a1 Yffe4
30.E:e1 Yfff3 31.Yffe3 Yfff6
Y2-Y2
White could have continue the fight as he still
has a clear advantage after 32.iWe6 iWe6
33.Ei:e6± Rogozenko.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -...
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6 5.~bd2 ~ge7

Game 157 d2) 9....ic5:

Nielsen,Peter Heine (2653)
Nevednichy,Vladislav (2566)
Warsaw, 2005
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ltJf3
ltJc6 5.~bd2 ltJge7 6.ltJb3 ltJf5 (D)
The alternative 6...lLlg6? is clearly insufficient:
7.lLlbd4 (7.a3!? is not bad either and would
transpose to the line 5.a3 ltJge7 6.ltJbd2 ltJg6
7.1tJ b3 analysed in game 15 - chapter 1):
a) 7 .ib4 8..id2±.
b) 7 lLld4 8.'tMfd4 Wd4 (8 ....ib4 9..id2
'tMfd4 10.ct:ld4 .id2 11.~d2 ltJe5 12.ltJb5+
Rogozenko) 9.ltJd4 ltJe5 10.e3± Colovic,A-
Jonckheere,E, Lille, 2012.
c) 7...lLlge5 8.ltJe5 ltJd4 (8 ...Wd4 9.ltJc6
Wd1 10.~d1 bc6 11 ..if4+; 8....ib4 9..id2 Wd4
10.ltJc6±) 9.e3± Rogozenko.
d) 7...lLlce5 8.ltJe5 ltJe5 9.e3:
d1) 9...c5 10.ltJb5 'tMfd1 11.~d1 .ig4 12.f3 0-0-0
13.~c2± Rogozenko.
• 10..id2!? 0-0 (10 ....id4 11.ed4 'tMfd4 12..ic3;!;
Ll...'tMfe4 13.We2 ltJd3 14.~d2 We2 15.~e2 ltJf4
16.~e3+) 11 ..ic3±;
• In the event of 10..ie2'tMfg5 White must make
a concession - either give up the bishop pair
after 11.0-0 .ih3 12..if31tJf3 13.Wf3± or weaken
the pawn structure, although it is unclear if
Black can show any real compensation after
11.g3.
d3) 9....ig4:
• 10.ie2? .ib4 11 ..id2? ltJd3 12.~f1 Wh4+
Mason,D-La Mar,F, Detroit, 1985;
• 10.'Wb3 c5 11.h3 .id7 (11 ....ih5 12.Wa4 ltJd7
13..ie2±; 11 ...cd4 12.hg4±) 12.ltJb5 a6 (12 ....ic6
13.e4 .ie4 14..if4t) 13.ltJc3. An extra pawn
together with the weakness of the e5-square
should secure White an advantage. If Black
places the bishop to c6, it can always be met
with e3-e4 - Rogozenko.
7.g3!? (D)

415
 Chapter 11

,
,,
7.g4!? ttJh4! is an important 7...a5
,
alternative. And now:
iI
a) 8.h3?! (Tessedik,K-Burghardt,M, Budapest, Black has another good option in 7...ib4 8.id2
II 2012) 8... ttJf3 9.ef3 h5!?, with a good game - Wle7 9.ig2 (9.a3 ltJe5! 10.ltJe5 id2 11.Wd2
I.
,

Henris. Wle5= Phanstiel,J-Murphy, R, Jamaica, 2006)

b) 8.ttJbd4 (Graf,AI-Velcheva,M, Athens, 2008) 9...0-0 10.0-0 id2 11.Wd2 ltJe5 12.ltJbd4 ltJc4 ,
8...ig4!, and Black is already better - Henris. with a roughly level position in Schrader,Edm-
c) 8.lLlh4 Wlh4 9.ig2 (9.lLld4?! ic5 MO.e3? Bellec,J, corr., 1997.
,
,
ig4 11.ie2 ie2 12.ttJe2 E1d8-+ Davies)
I
9...id7!? (9 ...Wlg4 10.E1g1 id7 gives Black a 8..ig2
nice attacking position - Davies) 10,ct'ld4
(10.if4 Wlg4 11.ig3 O-O-O:j: Yezheliev,Y- 8.e4!? (Malmstig,E-Thornert,H, Sweden,2009)
,
!. Serikbaev,Y, Astana, 2010) 10...ic5 11.ie3 is also worth considering. I suggest now 8...ib4
I
I,
Wlg4!? (11 ... 0-0-0!?) 12.ic6 (12.if3!?) 12...ic6 9.id2 id2 10.Wld2 a4, with an unclear position
,
,
13.ttJc6 ie3 14.fe3!? (14.lLla5!? Wle4 15.E1f1 id4 - Henris.
16.Wla4 c6 17.ttJb7 O-O:j:; 14.Wlb3!? Wlg2 15.E1f1
if2 16.E1f2 Wlh1 17.E1f1 Wlc6:j:) 14...Wlh4 15.mf1 8... a4 9.~bd2 .ie7 10.0-0 g5! (D)
bc6 16.Wld4 Wlen Henris.
7.ig5:
a) 7...ie7!? 8.ie7 Wle7 9.g4!? (9.a3!? 0-0, and
Black was better due to his lead in
development in Sathya,Pri-lpatov,A, Balaguer,
2008) 9...ttJh4 (9...ttJh6 10.h3 0-0 11.Wld2 E1d8
12.ig2 ttJe5 13.ttJe5 Wle5 14.0-0-0 c5 15.f4!?
,
Wlc7 16.f5!?;!;;) 10.ttJh4 Wlh4 11.ig2 (11.ltJd4
I'
ttJe5) 11.. .id7, with an unclear position -
Henris.
b) 7...ib4 is a simpler way to obtain an equal
game: 8.id2 (Schmiel,G-Schwab,S, Krumbach,
1981) 8...Wle7!? 9.ib4 Wlb4 10.Wld2 Wlc4 is fine
for Black - Davies. A very interesting move: after gaining space on
The line 7.a3 is covered under the the queenside Black now does the same thing
move order 5.a3 ltJge7 6.ltJbd2 ltJf5 7.ttJb3 and on the other flank. The pawn on e5 is
is analysed in game 14 - chapter 1. recovered as an incidental extra.

416
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.Ct:Jf3 Ct:Jc6 5.~bd2 ~ge7

10 h5 11.h4. 20.c6!±) 18.ttJb3 if6 19.e3±.

10 0-0 11.h3 (11.g4 ttJh4 12.ttJh4
ih4 oo ) 11 E1a5 12.g4 ttJh6 13.ttJe4 ttJe5 14.ttJe5 17....if6 18.tLlac5 tLld6!;; 19..ib2
E1e5 15.ih6 gh6 16.V9a4 f5 17.gf5 if5 18.ttJg3±. .if520.e4!

11.tLle4 With Black's pressure mounting, White decides

to try and take the initiative by returning the
11.ttJe1 ttJe5 12.ttJd3 ttJc6"'. pawn.
11.h3 would naturally be met by
11 ... h5! - Davies. 20...tLle4 21.~e4 .ie4 22.\Wd1?!

11 ...g4 12.tLle1 tLle5 Better was 22.ie4 E1e4 23.f3 gf3 24.E1f3 ig5
25.l"Iaf1 f6=.
With a messy position. White is able to win the
a-pawn but is unable to retain full control and 22....if5 23.b4
goes down in the later complications.
23.f3 would be strongly answered by 23 ... l"Ie3+
13.\Wc2 O-O!?co Davies.

Nevednichy has probably considered 13...h5!? 23...c6 24.\Wb3 ~e2+ 25.~ad1?

here too, and it looks far from clear. Black
might even consider letting his king in the
centre: 14.ttJd3 ttJg6 15.ttJec5 c6 16.ttJa4 h4i5.
14.~d3 ~g6!?
After this White wins a pawn, though the
position remains very murky.
14... ttJd3 15.ed3! (15.V9d3 c5 looks fine for
Black - Davies).
15.tLlec5 ~a7 16.tLla4 ~e8 17.b3?
At this point both players missed a powerful
idea for Black.
25J':!:fd1 was better, so as to meet 25 ... b5 with
26.E1ac1, and White obtains some compensation
for the exchange after 26 ...ie6 27.ic6 bc4
28.E1c4i5 Davies.
25...\We7?
25...b5! (lL.ie6) is very strong: 26.ic6 bc4
27.iWc4 id3 28.V9d3 l"Ib2-+.

17.ttJac5! ttJd6 (17 ... b6 18.ttJe4 ib7 19.c5! V9a8 26.a4 hS 27..ia3 \We8 28.bS cbS

417
 .,
Chapter 11

29.ebS h4? 30.. J::!:a4+ 31 ..ib2

This gives White a chance, which he fails to After 31.,ib7 ii.e6, White can't defend the
take. bishop on a3 - Davies.
Better were:
29 .ie6;. 31 ....ie6 32..idS ~aS-+ 33.~b4?
29 .ie4 would have made sense, in
order to exchange the light-squared bishops - Losing immediately, though by now there isn't
Davies. much good advice to be offered.

30.b6?? 33... ~b2! 34.Wb2 .idS 35.~fe1 Wb5

Turning a golden opportunity into a loss,
presumably as a result of time trouble.
Simply 30 ..ic5!± was very strong, as Black can't
defend his b-pawn - Davies.
36.Wd2 @g7 37.~e1 ~a4 38.~b1
Wd7 39.We2 ~b4! 40.~b4 .le6
41.We5 d3 42.~d1 ltJe5 43.~f4 ~f3
44.@g2 .le5
0-1

418

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3
ttJc6 5.ttJbd2 i,g4!? (D)
This move is seen more than others. Although
this sortie doesn't look very logical after
White's previous move, it indeed represents
the most popular choice in practice. Black
prepares ... 0-0-0 after ... Vlie? or ...Vlid? Black's
point is that after 6.h3 he takes on f3, gives a
check with the bishop on b4 and then plays
...Vlie?, achieving normal developement and
regaining the pawn.
6.h3!?
6.Vlib3!? is rare but quite interesting
(--+ game 162).
6.ttJb3 is also worth considering (--+
game 162).
I have attached a !? to the move
5...j,g4 as White could now play
transposing favourably to the variation 5.a3
4
,ig4 6.ct:lbd2 seen in chapter 3 in which Black is
currently experiencing serious problems.
6.93 would lead us to chapter 8 (5.g3
j,g46.ct:lbd2).
Thus this chapter is concerned only with the
lines where White refrains from an early a3 or
g3.
6...i,f3
The alternatives 6...j,f5 and 6...j,h5 are not
satisfactory (--+ game 161 ).
7.ltJf3 ib4!
The following options have also been played:
7...f6, 7...j,c5 and 7...Vlie7 (--+ game 161).
8.id2 ~e7!
This idea of the Hungarian master Krenosz
assures Black a satisfactory game.
White has now three continuations:
9.93 (--+ game 158).
9.a3 (--+ game 159).
9.j,b4 Vlib4 10.Vlid2 (--+ game 160).
In all cases Black is doing well.
6.a3
419
 Chapter 12
•

Game 158 a) 11 lLlc4?! 12..tb4 iWb4 13.iWc2t.

Vanderstricht,Geert (2450) b) 11 lLlf3?! (an instructive mistake)
Vandevoort, Pascal (2353) 12.ef3! (12.i.f3 i.d2 13.iWd2 ttJf6 - Henris)
Eupen, 2003 12...i.d2 13.iWd2 iWf6 14.a4 ltJe7 15.f4 h5 16.h4
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.~f3 ~b8 17.a5 a6?! (or 17... ~he8 18.a6 b6 - Henris)
~c6 5.ltJbd2 i.g4 6.h3 i.f3! 7.~f3 18.b4 ~d6 19.~fb1 d3? (19 ... ~a8 20.b5 ~b8
i.b4 8.i.d2 We7 9.g3 (D) 21.c5± Henris) 20.b5+- ab5 21.cb5 ttJc8 22.a6
ba6 23.ba6 ~b6 24.iWd3 ~a7 25.~c1 1-0
Miralles,G-Pergericht,D, Cannes, 1988.
c) 11 ....td2! 12.iWd2 ltJc6!? (12 ltJf6
13.~fd1 ltJc6 is also possible; but not 12 ttJc4
13.iWc2t) 13.a3 ttJf6 14.iWd3 ~he8 15.me1 ttJe4
16.b4 f5= Dieu,B-Coulombier,S, corr., 1999.

11 ...i.d2 12.Wd2 We5

Black has restored material equality and has

kept his outpost at d4. The only drawback of
his position results from the bishop on g2
whose activity radiates along the main
9...0-0-0!? diagonal. However, this piece could easily be
thwarted by the arrival of the knight on e4,
Black can play 9....td2! immediately, after which White probably would have no
with a good game: 10.iWd2 ltJe5 11.ltJe5 iWe5 other choice but to exchange it. But then he
12.i.g2 (12.0-0-0 0-0-0 13.e3 c5 14.iWa5!? ltJe7 would be left with a backward pawn on the e-
15.iWa7 ltJc6 16.ed4 iWg5!? 17.f4 iWg3 18.iWc5 file. Black has seized the initiative.
iWf4 19.~b1 ~d4=) 12...0-0-0 13.0-0 ltJf6
14.iWb4 ltJe4 15.~ad1 ~he8= Newman,Te-
Tuttle, D, corr., 2000.
9...lLle5!? is also interesting - Henris. White seeks an objective on the queenside.
13.0-0 has been played before: 13... ltJf6
10.i.g2 ltJe5 11.ltJe5 14.~ac1 ltJe4 15.iWd3 f5 16.c5 c6 17.b4 ltJc3
18.~c2 ~he8 19.i.f3 <;t>b8 (19 ...f4!?:l:) 20.a4 a6!?
White has an important option with 11.0-0I?: 21.~a1 ~c7 22.~b2 ~a8 23.~d2 ~ed8=

420
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.lt:Jf3 It:Jc6 5.~bd2 i.g4

Zilberstein,V-Vasiukov,E, USSR, 1964. 19..ib7!

13...c6 14.0-0 h5?! Now or never!

Vandevoort neglects the centralization of his 19...cj;lb7 20.~a6 cj;lc7?

forces and is tempted by an attack on the
kingside. A miscalculation.
14...'!We2 15.IWa5!? Black had to play 20... ~a8 21.b6 (if 21.IWe6
The simple 14...lDf6, quickly followed \tJb8 22.b6 a6 closes the door) 21 ...l'i:d7 22.ba7
by ... ttJe4, then ...f5 and ...l'i:he8, would have (threatening l'i:b8!):
given Black the advantage - Winants. a) After 22...'!We4!? 23.f3 IWe7 24.IWe6
l'i:b7 25.l'i:b7 IWb7 26.IWe5 h4 27.94<0, Black has
15.~a3 cj;lb8 16.b4 the better chances, but his task remains very
complicated - Winants.
The race is on! b) 22 ...'!We7 23.IWe6 (23.l'i:b5 l'i:b7
24.IWe6 IWe7 25.IWf3 ttJe4) 23 ..,l'i:b7 24.l'i:b7 IWb7
16.. .f5 25.IWe5 l'i:e8~.

Once again, it was better to play 16...lDf6 - 21.b6! cj;ld7D

Winants.
The lesser evil.
17 J::!:ab1 ttJf6 18.b5 c5 (D) If 21 ...ab6? 22.IWa7 \tJe8 23.l'i:b6 '!We7 24.IWa6
\tJd7 25.l'i:b7+- wins the queen and the game -
Winants.

22.ba7 cj;le7 23J::!:b7 ttJd7 24J::!:fb1

The attack is more dangerous than expected:

the rook on d8 cannot cover both the knight on
d7 and the a8-square.

24... ~e6

Compulsory.

421
 Chapter 12

25J~d7!? Game 159

Meessen,Rudolf (2316)
25J~~1 b6 iWe2 26.a8iW iWe1 27.~g2 iWe4 28.~h2 Henris,Luc (2285)
E1a8 29.E1d7 ~d7 30.E1b7 iWb7 31.iWb7 ~e6 Namur, 2006
32.iWc6 ~f7 33.iWc5 E1hd8 34.iWf5 ~g8 35.Wd3 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.CLlf3
E1a2 36.~g2 is unclear - Winants. 'tJc6 5.CLl bd2 ig4 6.h3 if3 7.CLlf3
ib4 8.id2 ~e7 9.a3 id2 1 0.~d2
25.. J~d7 26.a8~ E:a8 27.~a8 ~e2? 0-0-0 (0)

This loses immediately.

27...iWe4!? 28.iWb8 h4! 29.E1b2 hg3
30.iWg3 ~f7lXl Winants.
27...iWc4 28.E1b8 iWd5 29.E1e8 ~f6
30.E1f8 ~e6 31.iWe8 ~d6lXl.

28.~g8!+-

The combined attack of the queen and the

rook decides the outcome of the game.

28... ~e5 29.E:b8

11.e3!?
29.~f1!? was not bad either - Winants.
A very interesting novelty.
29...i>d6 30.E:b6 i>e7 31.E:b8!? 11.0-0-0 liJe5 12.liJe5 (12.liJd4 liJc4
13.Wc3 liJd6 14.e3 liJe4= Henris) 12...iWe5 13.e3
A little hesitation apparently in time trouble. c5= 14.ed4 (14.Wa5 liJe7 M5.Wa7?! liJc6! -
31 J:~g6! - Winants. Henris) 14...Ei:d4 15.~d3 liJe7!? (15 ...liJf6 - Henris)
16.Ei:he1 Wd6 17.Wg5 Ei:d3 18.Ei:d3 Wd3 19.We7
31 ...i>d6 32.E:b6 i>e7 33.E:g6! Wc4 20.~b1= Toth,Bel-Balogh,Ja, corr., 1944.
11.iWf4 f6 12.ef6 liJf6~, with good
Followed by 33...d3 34.iWg7 iWg7 35.E1g7 ~e6 compensations according to Max Euwe.
36.E1d7 ~d7 37.~f1+-.
1-0 11 ...ltJh6!?

422
 •
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6 5.ltJbd2 j.g4

11 ...de3 12.~e3 ct:Jh6 13.~d3 :ghe8 21.We2 ~e2 22.@e2 feS lXl Henris.
14.0-0-0+ Henris. b) 14.0-0-0!? ct:Jd4 1S.We3!? ct:JfS!?
After 11 ... ttle5!? 12.ct:Jd4! (12.ct:JeS ~eS 16.:gd8 (16.Wa7 ~gS 17.<±>c2 :gd1 18.<±>d1 :gd8
13.0-0-0 cS= would transpose to Toth,B- 19.<±>c2 ttld4 20.<±>b1 WfS 21.<±>a1!? ct:Jc6 22.Wa8
Balogh,J, corr., 1944) 12... cS 13.ct:JfS ~e6 <±>d7 23.~a4D Wf2 lXl ) 16...:gd8 17.~e4 WgS 18.f4
14.~c2 g6 1S.ct:Jg3 fS 16.~e2 hS;!;, Black's ct:Jg3! 19.fgS (19.~f3 Wg6+) 19... ct:Je4 20.ie2
compensation for the pawn is probably not :gd4!lXl Henris.
sufficient - Henris. c) 14.d5 WeS 1S.We2 :ghe8!? 16.~eS
:geS 17.<±>d2 c6 18.id3 cdS 19.:ghe1!? :ge1
20.<±>e1 ct:Jh4 21.<±>f1 dc4 22.ic4 :gd7!?;!;. White
has a tiny edge but Black has good chances to
12.ed4?! is weaker: 12...ct:Jd4 13.ct:Jd4 ~eS hold - Henris.
14.~e3 Wd4 1S.Wd4 :gd4 16.b3 :ge8 17.ie2 :gde4
18.:ga2 ct:JfS 19.<±>d1 D ct:Jd4 20.id3 :g4eS:j: Henris. 14.'?Na5?

12...ctJd4 13.ed4 (D) White neglects his development.

14..td3 :gd4 (ll :ghd8) 1S.We3 :ge8
16.0-0-0 (16.f4 f6) 16 ~eS 17.:ghe1 We3
18.:ge3 :ged8;!; Henris.
Much better is 14.d5 WeS 1S.ie2 :ghe8
16.f4 (16.<±>f1 <±>b8 (16... CiJf5 17.ig4 <±>b8 18.:ge1
Wd4 19.:ge2;!;) 17.:ge1 ct:JfS 18.b4!?;!;) 16... ~e7!?
17.<±>f2±. White consolidates with an extra
pawn - Raetsky 8: Chetverik.

14.. J3d4 15.'?Na7 ge8!?

Also possible is 15...~e5 16.ie2:

a) 16.. J:~e4 17.~a8 <±>c7 18.WaS
13...c5?! (18.~h8? :ge2 19.<±>f1 Wb2-+) 18... <±>b8 19.0-0-0
:ge2 20.:gd8 :gd8 21.Wd8 @a7 22.WaS= Henris.
13...ttlf5!?, not losing time, seems preferable: b) 16.. J~hd8!? 17.<±>f1 (17.b4!? :gc4
a) 14.~d3 ct:Jd4 1S.We3 :ghe8 16.f4 ~h4 18.Wa8 @c7 19.~aS=) 17...:gd2 18.~f3 :gf2
17.g3 WhS 18.:gd1 f6 19.ie2 ct:Je2 20.:gd8 :gd8 (18 ...:gb2 19.@g1 :gdd2 20.:gf1 Wd4 21.Wa8 <±>c7

423
 Chapter 12
22.~a5 Wb8 23.i.d5 Elf2 24.~d8 Wa7 25.~a5=)
19.Wf2 ~b2 20.Wg1 (20.i.e2? ~d4 21.Wg3
(21.Wf3 Eld6! 22.Elhf1 Elf6 23.®g3 ~e5 24.Wh4
Elf4 25.Elf4 V!1f4 26.g4 CiJf5 27.®h5 g6#) 21 ...CiJf5
22.Wh2 V!1e5-+) 20 ...V!1a1 21.®h2 V!1e5 22.<;t>g1
V!1e1 23.<;t>h2 V!1e5= Henris.
16.1e2 ~e417.0-0-0!? (D)
Now perpetual check seems inevitable.
17.VMa8 <;t>c7 18.V!1a5 <;t>b8 19.<;t>f1 V!1e5 2o.id3
Eld4 21.V!1c3 V!1d6 22.ic2 V!1f4 CXl Henris.
17...~e2 18.f4
18.Eld5 Ele5 19.Elhd1 Eld5 20J'%d5 V!1e1 21.<;t>c2
V!1f2 22.<;t>b3 V!1g3 23.<;t>a2= Henris.
18... ~e4
18...lLlf5 19.Eld5 CiJd4 20.Elc5 CiJc6 21.Elc6 bc6
22.V!1a8 <;t>c7= Henris.
424
19J~d5
19.b3 lLlf5 20.Eld5 CiJd4 21.Elc5 CiJc6 22.Elc6 bc6
23.V!1a8 <;t>c7 24.VMa7= Henris.
19... ~c4 20.c;tb1 ~d8!?
Black is making life more difficult for himself.
20.. :~e6? 2U1d6 V!le7 22.1'%hd1 +- Henris.
2o...lLlf5! is simpler: 21.Elhd 1 CiJd4
22.b3 1'%c3 (22 ...CiJb3? 23.V!1a8 <;t>c7 24.1'%d7 V!1d7
25.1'%d7 <;t>d7 26.V!1b 7 <;t>d8 27 .V!1b3+-) 23.V!1a8
<;t>c7 24.V!1a5 <;t>c6 (24 ... <;t>b8 25.V!1c3+-) 25.1'%d6
V!1d6D 26.V!1a4 (26.ed6 Elb3 27.<;t>c1=) 26...<;t>b6
27.ed6 Elb3 28. <;t>c1 Elc3= Henris.
21.'~a8Ef)
o21.~hd1 Eld5 22.E1d5:
a) 22... ~d4? 23.E1c5 <;t>d7 24.V!1b7 <;t>e8
25.E1c7 E1d7 26.V!1c6+- Henris.
b) 22...lLlf5?! 23.b3 E1c3 24.V!1a8 <;t>c7
25.V!1a5 <;t>c6 26.V!1c3 <;t>d5 27.V!1c4 <;t>c6 28.V!1e4
<;t>b6 29.V!1f5 V!1d8 30.<;t>c2 V!1d5;!; Henris.
c) 22...f6D 23.b3 E1d4 24.E1c5 <;t>d7
25.E1b5 (25.V!1b7 <;t>e8 26.E1c7 V!1e6 27.V!1b5 E1d7D
28.g4 fe5 29.E1d7 V!1d7 30.V!1e5 V!1e7 CXl ) 25 ...E1d1!
26.<;t>c2 <;t>e8 27.E1b7 E1d7 28.E1d7 V!1d7 29.V!1d7
<;t>d7 30.ef6 gf6= Henris.
21 ...c;tc7 22.~a5 c;tc8 23.~a8 c;tc7
24.~a5 c;tc8 25.~a8 c;tc7 26.~a5
c;tc8
 •

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.lLJf3 lLJc6 5.tl)bd2 ,ig4

Game 160 Bolding,K, Arhus, 1992.

Drozdovskij,Yuri (2415)
Bliumberg,Vladislav (2310) 12.e3
Odessa, 2000
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.tDf3 Or 12.e4 tiJg6 (12 ...de3! is the main game)
tDc6 5.tDbd2 .ig4 6.h3 .if3 7.tDf3 13.~d3 tiJge5 14.tiJe5 tiJe5 15.f4 tiJd3 16.md3;!;.
.ib4 8..id2 Wle7 9..ib4 Wlb4
10.Wld2 (D) 12...de3

12...0-0-0?! 13.ed4 (or 13.~d3) 13...tiJd4 is

inferior: 14.tiJd4 :8d4 15.mc3 :8hd8 (15 :8e4
16.~d3 :8e5 17.:8he1) 16.~e2 tiJc6 (16 :8e4?
17.~g4 mb8 18.:8he1) 17.~g4 mb8 18.:8ad1 :8d1
19.:8d1 :8d1 20.~d1 tiJe5 21.f4;!; Henris.

13.@e3 tDg6 14.e6!?

14.~d3 tiJge5 15.tiJe5 tiJe5 16.f4 tiJd3 17.md3

0-0-0 18.mc3 :8d7 19.:8ad1 :8d1 20.:8d1 E\e8=
Fuster-Balogh,Ja, corr., 1945.

10...Wld2 14...fe6

10... ~c4?! (a novelty, but not a good one!) 14... 0-0!? 15.~d3 (15.ef7 :8f7ii5) 15...:8fe8
11.e3 de3 12.~c4 ed2 13.md2± Illescas 16.~g6 hg6= Henris.
Cordoba,M-Fluvia Poyatos,Joa, Lorca, 2005.
15..ie2
11.@d2 tDge7
Or 15,l'!d1 me7 16.~d3 tiJge5 17.tiJe5 tiJe5 18.f4
11...0-0-0!? is not very good: 12.e3 de3 13.me3 tiJd3 19.:8d3 :8ad8 20.:8hd1 :8d3 21.:8d3 :8f8=
f6!? 14.~d3 (14.ef6 tiJf6ii5) 14 ...fe5?! (14 ... tiJe5 Szabo,L-Krenosz, Budapest, 1939.
15.tiJe5 fe5 16.~f5 mb8 17.:8ad1 tiJf6!/= Henris)
15.~f5 mb8 16.~e4 tiJd4?! (16 ... tiJge7 17.:8adH 15...0-0 16.!!hd1
Henris) 17.tiJe5 tiJf6 18.:8ad1 c5 19.f4± Holst,A- Yz-Yz

425
 Chapter 12
•

Game 161
Capablanca,Jose Raul
Aurbach ,Arnold
Paris, 1914
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.~f3
~c6 5.~bd2 .ig4 6.h3 (D)

.- n

7...f6!?

Instead of 7,..~b4!, Black also has the

continuations examined here:
7... ~c5!? 8.a3 a5 is interesting:
a) 9.93 ttJge7 (9,..f6!?) 10.~g2 ttJg6 11.0-0
(11.h4!?):
6...if3 • 11 .. J'~b8 12.iWe2! ttJge5 (12,..iWe7 13.~d2
ttJge5 14.ttJe5 ttJe5 15.b4± Collins) 13.ttJe5 ttJe5
In view of the ease with which he equalizes 14.~f4! (14.~b7? d3! (14 ... 'il,b7 15.iWe4± Euwe)
after 6... ~f3, Black would be ill-advised to 15.iWa4 iWd7 16.iWd7 md7 17.~e4 (17.~f3? ttJf3
refuse the exchange of the bishop against the 18.ef3 mc6 19.'il,d1 'il,hd8+) 17,..de2 18.'il,e1
knight: ttJe4 oo ) 14... ttJg6 15.iWe4± Henris;
6...~f5?! 7.ttJb3 We7 (7 ...iWd7!? • 11...0-0 12.Wa4! iWe8 13.'il,d1 'il,e8?!
8.ttJbd4!± Henris) 8.ttJbd4 0-0-0 9.e3 ttJe5 (o13...ttJge5 14.ttJe5 ttJe5 15.iWb5;!;) 14.~d2
10.~d2 ~g6 11,ctJe5 iWe5 (Urcullu,A-Uifelean,A, (14.~f4!?) 14...ttJge5 15.ttJe5 'il,e5 (15 ... ttJe5?!
corr., 2007) 12.~e2;!; Henris. 16.iWb5) 16.~f4! 'il,e2 17.~e6 be6 18.iWe6± ~d6
After 6... ~h5?! 7.a3!, play is likely to 19.'il,d4 'il,b2 20.'il,ad1 h6 21.e5 ~f4 22.'il,f4 iWe8?
transpose to the line 5.a3 ~g4 6.ttJbd2 - 23.iWe8 'il,e8 24.'il,d7+- Collins,J-Santasiere,A,
chapter 3. New York, 1952.
b) 9.h4!? h6 (or 9,..ttJge7 10.h5± ~g3, ~h3/g2,
7.~f3 (D) as in Kujoth,R-Stoppel,Fre, corr., 1949) 10.g3

426
 •
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6 5.~bd2 J.g4

Wie7 11.j,f4 0-0-0 12.Wia4 f6 (Semkov,S- 16.ab4 m3!-+) 15...tbc5 n... d3-+ Henris.
Panbukchian, V, Internet (blitz), 2007) 13.ef6 c) 14J~d1! is best: 14...d3! 15.Eid3 Eid3
tbf6 14.b4 ab4 15.Wia8 tbb8 16.j,h3+-. 16.Wid3 Eid8 17.Wib1 Wic5! (17 ...tbb4?! 18.e3
7...Wie7 8.e3!? (8.a3!?) 8...de3 9.j,e3 tbg3 19.Eig1) 18.e3 (18.Wie4?? Wia5 19.b4
tbe5 10.j,e2 - Raetsky 8: Chetverik. Wia3-+) 18 ...Wif5!? (18 Wia5 19.i>e2 oo ) 19.j,d3!
(19.j,g2?? tbe5-+) 19 Eid3 20.Wid3 Wif3 21.0-0
8.ef6 ctJf6 9.g3?! CLlg3 22.fg3 Wig3= Henris.

9.a3!? looks clearly better. 13.Wid3! g6

9....ib410..id2 Wie7 11.a3?
White should play 11.j,g2, not losing time.
11 ....id2 12.Wid2 (D)
13...lLle4 14.j,g2 (14.b4!?) 14... CLlc5 15.Wif5 i>b8
16.0-0 - Henris.
14..ig2 ghe8 15.b4 ctJd7 16.gd1
ctJde5 17.ctJe5 ctJe5 18.Wie4 ctJe6?!

o18...c6!? - Henris.

19.Wig4!? ~b8 20..ie6 be6 21.0-0

Wie2 22.gd4 gd4?!

22 ...Wig4 23.Eid8 Eid8 24.hg4 Eid3;!; (24 ...Eid4?!

25.f4±) - Henris.

23.Wid4± h5 24.b5 e5 25.Wie5 h4

12...0-0-0?!
Black misses the strong idea 12...lLle4! 13.Wic2
(13.Wid3 tbc5) 13... 0-0-0 (13 ... tLic5!?):
a) 14.j,g2? d3!-+ Henris.
b) 14.1lNd3? Eihf8 15.j,g2 (15.b4? tLib4!
26.gh4!? Wif3 27.Wie6!? Wif7?
28.gd1 +- gf8 29.Wie5 Wif4 30.a4
Wif3 31.gd3 Wif6 32.a5 ge8 33.Wie6?
33.a6+- Henris.
33...Wie6 34.be6 a6 35.gb3 ~a8
36.ge3
1-0

427
 Chapter 12
.,

Game 162 11.ltJc1 a3 12.b3 ltJe7 13.ltJd3 ltJec6 14.ltJb4

Grekov,Nikolay ltJb4ii5 Salwe,G-Spielmann,Ru, Ostend, 1907.
Nenarokov,Vladimir Ivanovich b) 6....tb4 7..td2 1We7!? (7 ....te7 8..tf4 ~b4
Moscow, 1922 9.Ct:Jbd2 Ct:Jge7"') 8.Ct:Jbd4 (taking the d4-pawn is
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.~f3 obviously too risky; 8..tb4 1Wb4 9.1Wd2 Wd2
~c6 5.~bd2 i.g4 6.~b3!? (D) 10.'it'd2 O-O-O~) 8...Ct:Jd4 9.Ct:Jd4 0-0-0 10.Ct:Jb3
1We5 11.1Wc1 ~d2 12.Ct:Jd2 Ct:Jf6oo 13.h3? Eld2!
14.1Wd2 Ct:Je4 15.1Wb4?? (15.1Wd5 1Wb2 16.Eld 1
1Wc3 17.Eld2 Ct:Jd2 18.1Wd2 1Wa1 19.1Wd1 1Wa2!-+
Henris) 15...1Wf4 0-1 Hakanen,V-Laakso,A,
corr., 1965.
c) 6...1We7!? 7.Ct:Jbd4 0-0-0 8.e3 Ct:Je5 9.Wb3
(9.~d2?? Eld4-+) 9....tf3 10.Ct:Jf3 1Wb4 11.Wb4
.tb4 12.'it'e2 Ct:Jc4"'.
6.a3 transposes to the line 5.a3 .tg4
6.Ct:Jbd2 analysed in chapter 3.

6...i.b4

The move 6.1Wb3 attacks b7, prepares e3 and 6...tZ:lge7:

at the same time allows 1Wf3 as a response to a) 7.h3 .tf5 8.a3 (8.g4 .td7 9.Ct:Je4 is better for
....tf3 in some variations. White) 8...Elb8 9.g4 .tg6 10.e4 h5 11.g5 h4!
6.tZ:lb3!? would not be very efficient: 12.1Wd3 .th5 13.b4 Ct:Jg6'" Ivanov-Tarasevich,V,
a) 6 .tf3!? 7.ef3 (7.gf3!?): Moscow, 1965.
• 7 1We7?! 8.f4 (8,Ct:ld4? 0-0-0-+ or 8...1Wb4!? b) 7.tZ:le4! improves upon 7.h3: 7....tf3 (7 ...Elb8
9..td2 Ct:Jd4-+) 8...0-0-0 9..td3 f6 10.0-0 fe5 8.~g5! is obviously good for White) 8.ef3 Ct:Je5
11 ..te4± Gurvich,A-Arnstam,K, corr., 1973; 9.f4 (9 ..td2 is also good because Black can't
• 7...'IWd7?! 8.f4 O-o-Q 9..td3!? f6 10.0-0! easily untangle: 9... Ct:J7c6 10.f4 Ct:Jd7 11.1Wb7
(10.ef6!? Ele8 11.'it'f1 Ct:Jf6~ Berger,Joh- Ct:Jb4 12.0-0-0) 9...ltJ5c6 10..td3 Elb8 11.0-0, with
Leonhardt,P, Barmen, 1905) 10.. .fe5 11.fe5 the two bishops and superior developement -
Ct:Je5 12.Ele1 Ct:Jd3 13.1Wd3± Henris; Watson ft Schiller.
• 7...tZ:le5 8.Wd4 .tb4 9..td2 .td2 10.1Wd2~ 6.. J:!b8 7.h3 (7.e3!?) 7....tf5 (7 ....te6
Wiener Schachzeitung; 8.1Wa4 Ct:Jge7 9.Ct:Jb3!; 7....tf3 8.ltJf3 ~b4 9.~d2
• 7...a5!? 8.f4 .tb4 9..td2 a4 10..tb4 Ct:Jb4 ~d2 10.ltJd2 Ct:Je5 11.1Wg31We7 12.0-0-0± Henris)

428
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.'Df3 'Dc6 5.llJbd2 i.g4
8.g4 ~e6 9.\&a4 (9.e3 is also appealing) 9... ~d7
10.~g2 h5 (it's hard to see what Black has for
the pawn, but when he recovers it by 10 ... ~e7
11.tlJe4!? tlJe5 12.~d7 tlJd7 13.tlJd4 ~c4 14.~f4,
things look pretty grim for him) 11.g5 11e7
12.tlJb3 d3!? 13.ed3 \&d3 14.tlJfd2! (hitting c6)
14 ...\&d7 (14 ...11d7? 15.11e4!) 15.11c6
16.~c6 bc6 17.h4± Watson & Schiller.
7.a3 i.d2 8.tt:\d2!?
This move leads to wild complications.
The straightforward 8.11d2! is clearly better.
This would allow White to transpose favourably
to the line 5.tlJbd2 11b4 6.a3 11d2 7.11d2 11g4
8.~b3 analysed in game 173 - chapter 13.
8...tt:\ge7 9.'I1&g3!?
A little too greedy. After this things aren't so
clear.
Better is 9.h3! 11e6 10.tlJf3, and White gets a
small advantage - Watson & Schiller.
9...'I1&d7 10.h3 i.e6iii
10...11f5 11.~g7 2:g8 12.~f6 2:g6 13.~h4 tlJe5
14.f4! tlJ5c6 15.g4± Watson & Schiller.
11.'I1&g7?!
Taking this second pawn is consistent if risky.
11 ...0-0-0 12.'I1&f6!?
Probably 12.~g5 leaves White with fewer
problems - Watson & Schiller.
12...tt:\f5! (D)
~c6
13.g4?
13.lLlf3? 2:hg8 14.CiJh4 d3! 15.ed3 CiJfd4
is great for Black - Watson & Schiller.
13.lLle4?! 2:hg8!? (13 ...d3!? 14.ed3
2:hg8 15.g4 2:g6 would transpose to 13 2:hg8)
14.g4 d3! (this is much better than 14 2:g6?
15.gf5 2:f6 16.CiJf6 ~e7 17.fe6 tlJe5 CXl Watson &
Schiller) 15.ed3 (15.gf5 11f5 L'l16. CiJd2 CiJd4-+)
15... 2:g6 16.gf5 2:f6 17.CiJf6 ~d4 18.fe6 \&e5+
Henris.
13.~g5D CiJe5:j: Henris.
13... tt:\e3! 14.fe3 de3 15.'I1&f4 tt:\d4!
16.'I1&e4?! ed2-+ 17.i.d2 tt:\b3
18.E:d1 ltJd2 19.'I1&c2 'I1&c6
0-1
429
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.lLlf3 Black tries for a rapid kingside attack along the
lLlc6 5.lLlbd2 (D) e- and Hiles.

6.ef6 YNf6

6...\Wf6 is examined in games 163, 164 and 165.

The continuation 6...lt)f6 has been
recommended by Tartakower. It is analysed in
games and 166 and 167.

5...1f5 (D)

This chapter explores other 5th moves than

5 4:Jge7 and 5... ~g4 after 5.4:Jbd2: 5...f6,
5 ~f5, 5... ~e6, 5... ~b4, 5...\We7 and
5 lt)h6.

5.. .f6!? (D)

Black has tactical threats based on ...4:Jb4.

Now White has:
6.a3 is covered in games 168 and 169.
The immediate 6.lt)b3 is possible and is
examined in games 170 and 171.
6.g3? allows 6... 4:Jb4 and is analysed
under the move order 5.g3 ~f5 6.4:Jbd2? in
game 150 - chapter 10.

430
 •

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.tDf3 tDc6 5.tDbd2 other lines

5... ~e6 (D) 5... ~b4 (D)

The move 5...i.e6, discovered by American This ancient reply, proposed by five-time U.S.
master William Ewart Napier and frequently Champion Jackson Showalter and often played
adopted by Grandmaster Borislav Kostic, is by Grandmaster Gennadij Sagalchik, although
insufficient. allowing Black to regain the e5-pawn, does not
Now 6.lLlb3 is best and is covered in equalize.
game 172.
The following continuations are also worth 6.a3
considering:
6.Wfb3 is interesting too and is also The logical answer, forcing Black to give up the
examined in game 172. bishop pair.
On the other hand 6.b3 is very slow (--+ 6.g3 is also possible and is analysed under the
game 172). move order 5.g3 i.b4 6,ct:lbd2 in game 153 -
White also has the attractive possibility to chapter 10.
transpose into the following options:
The strong 6.a3, avoiding the 6...i.d27.Wfd2!
inconveniences that occur after ...i.b4, is
covered under the move order 5.a3 i.e6 7.Wfd2 is analysed in game 173.
6.lLlbd2 - chapter 2. 7.i.d2, recommended by fCO, is not as strong as
6.g3 transposes to chapters 6 and 7. 7.'l~'d2. This move is also covered in game 173.

431
 Chapter 13
•

5...We71? (D) A very unusual continuation: Black wants to

play 6 ... ttJg4, attacking the e-pawn and at the
same time eyeing the f2-square.
I shall look at this option in game 176.

With this very rare and interesting

continuation, which leads to positions similar to
those of the variation 5... ~g4 6.a3 Vlie7, Black
attemps to regain the e5-pawn immediately.
This idea is analysed in games 174 and 175.

5... ~h61? (D)

432
 is

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.Ct:Jf3 Ct:Jc6 5.~bd2 other lines

Game 163 threats, but care must be exercised.

Bernstein,Ossip 6...tLlf6 is the other term of the alternative
Janowski, Dawid analysed in games 166 and 167.
Barmen, 1905
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ltJf3 7.ltJb3! (0)
ct:lc6 5.ltJbd2 f6!? (0)

A strong idea that has not been appreciated at

This pawn sacrifice was played for the first its true value!
time by Janowski in this game. Its value has More usual are:
been appreciated differently since then. 7.g3 is the subject of game 164.
Though in practice it offers tactical 7.a3 is covered in game 165.
opportunities this gambit remains questionable
and is now regarded as inadequate. 7.. ..ig4
Black tries for a rapid kingside attack along the
e- and f-files, but White can consolidate the 7...ii.b4 8.ii.d2 ii.f5 9.ii.b4 ct:lb4 10.ct:lbd4 0-0-0
extra pawn by quickly completing his kingside 11.Wb3± Henris.
development.
8.a3
6.ef6 'lWf6
And not 8.ltlbd4? 0-0-0-+ Lamford.
Black intends an early ...ii.g4 or .. .ii.f5, followed
by ... 0-0-0. White is able to ward off Black's 8... h6

433
";,

Chapter 13
-
8....1f3, as played in Choroszej ,A-Kuchnio, P, 13.i.e3
Kowalewo Pomorskie, 2009, does not solve
Black's problems after 9.ef3!? 0-0-0 10..id3 After 13.e3?! ctJf4 14.ef4 g5!~, Black has good
~e5 11.~e2 E1e8 12.~e5 ctJe5 13..if5 c;t>b8 counterplay - Henris.
14.0-0± Henris.
13... tLle514.i.f4
9.g3?
14.lLlbd2!? (suggested by Minev) would allow a
9.e3?! is not very good: 9...de3 little combination: 14.,.de2 15.~e2 E1d2!
(9 ... ctJe5 10.ctJbd4 0-0-0 11 ..ie2±) 10.fe3 16..id2 .if3 17..if3 ctJf3 18.c;t>g2 ctJd2 19.\¥fe8
:

I (10 ..ie3 is not playable because of 10...\¥fb2) \¥fd8 20.~d8 c;t>d8 21.E1ad1 ctJf6 22.E1d2 c;t>c8,
10...E1d8t Henris. with an approximate equality - Henris.
But on the other hand 9.lLlbd4! is
possible and is a simple refutation of the line 14... tLlf3?!
5...f6 6.ef6 ~f6: 9,..0-0-0 10.e3 .ic5 11 ..ie2 .if3
12..if3 .id4 13.ed4 ctJd4 14..ig4 c;t>b8 15.0-0± Bernstein recommends the much better
Henris. 14...lLlg6! 15.e3 (15 ..ie3 ctJe5=) 15,..ctJf4 16.ef4
g5!00.
9...0-0-0 10.i.g2 d3! 11.0-0!
15.ef3 i.h5 16.We1!± i.f7 17.Wa5
White must be very careful: Wb6 1S.Wc3 tLlf6 19.i.e3 Wa6
11.ed3? loses due to 11...ctJe5-+ 20.tLld2 g5 21.b4 i.g7 22.b5 We6
Bernstein. 23.Wa5 tLld7 24.Wa7 i.a1 25.f4
11.e3 allows 11...d2! 12.ctJbd2 ctJe5 ~dgS 26.Wb7 <i!?dS 27.~a1 gf4
13.h3 E1d2+ Henris. 2S.i.f4 Wb6 29.WaS <i!?e7 30.~e1
i.e6 31.We4 tLlc5 32.We5 tLld7
11 ...tLle5 33.c5 ltJe5 34.cb6 tLld7 35.i.d5 ~g6
36.i.c7 <i!?f7 37.~e6 ~e6 3S.a4 <i!?e7
11 ... g5!? - Lemonier. 39.i.e6 <i!?e6 40.a5 <i!?d5 41.a6 ~cS
42.b7 ~c7 43.a7 ~b7 44.aSW tLlc5
12.i.f4 tLlg6 45.<i!?g2 <i!?d4 46.tLlb3 tLlb3 47.Wb7
d2 4S.Wd7 <i!?c3 49.b6 tLld4 50.Wg4
::i12...de2?! 13.~e2 ctJf3 14..if3 .if3 15.~f3 g5 <i!?d3 51.b7 tLle2 52.Wf3
16.~g4± Hoffer. 1-0

434
r------------------------------------
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6 5.lDbd2 other lines
Game 164
Mueller, Hans
Balogh,Janos
corr., 1932
1.d4 dS 2.c4 eS 3.deS d4 4.lLlf3
lLlc6 s.lLlbd2 f6 6.ef6 'lWf6 7.g3 (D)
7...i.g4
A recommandation of Panov.
7...-if5 is a major alternative. Now:
a) 8.a3 (sometimes this position is
reached by the move order 5.a3 f6 6.ef6 Wf6
7.lubd2 -if5 8.g3) 8...0-0-0:
• 9.-ig2 d3 (9 ...g5 10.0-0 Wg6 11.b4 -ic2
12.We1 -ig7 13.~b2 E1e8 14.b5 lLle5 15.lLle5
~e5 16.lLlf3± Goransson,B-Raben, Kiruna, 1960)
10.e3 g5 11.E1a2!? (11.lLlb3 ~e4cx> Henris; 11.E1b1
~g7 12.b4 We7 (12... lLlge7 13.~b2 Wg6 14.~g7
Wg7 15.0-0 h5 16.b5 lLle5 17.lLle5 We5 18.Wf3
c6 19.bc6± Henris) 13.~b2 ~b2 14.E1b2 h5
15.h4 lLld4?? 16.lLld4 E1d4 17.Wf3 1-0
Hargittai,S-Szabo,Bel, carr., 1968) 11 ... h5
12.b4 ~g7 13.~b2 We7 14.b5 lLla5 (14 ... lLle5??
15.lLle5 ~e5 16.Wf3+-) 15.~g7 Wg7 16.Wa1 !?±
Post,Eh-Spielmann,Ru, Berlin, 1907;
• the attempt to attack the bishop with
9.lLlh4!? looks also good: 9 ~g4 10.f3?! ~e7!?
11.lLle4 (11.fg4 Wh4) 11 We6 12.lLlg5 ~g5
13.~g5 lLlf6 14.fg4 d3 (Pedersen,Bo-Rojahn,E,
corr., 1932) 15.~g2 E1he8 16.~f3 de2 17.Wb3±
Henris.
b) 8..tg2 (this is the most natural
continuation):
• Black can attempt to take advantage of the
omission of a3 with 8...lLlb4?!, but after 9.0-0!
lLlc2 (9... ~c2 10.We1 ~g6 11.lLlb3 lLlc2 12.Wa5
lLla1 13.lLlbd4 also gives White a strong attack
according to Bogoljubov) 10.E1b1 lLlb4 (10 ... d3
11.e4 ~g4 12.h3 ~h5 13.lLlb3± Bogoljubov)
11.a3! ~b1 (11...~c2 12.We1 ~b1) 12.lLlb1 lLlc6
13.b4 h6 14.~h3 g5 15.~b2, White has a strong
attack for the sacrificed exchange, Soininen-
Svensson, corr., 1947;
• 8...0-0-0 9.0-0 (Gruenfeld's 9.lLlh4!? is also
strong) 9...g5 (9 ...lLlge7 also proved inadequate:
10.Wa4 g5? 11.lLlb3 h6 12.lLlc5 lLlg6 13.lLlb7!
~b7 14.Wb5 ~c8 15.Wa6 ~d7 16.lLld4! Wd4
17.~e3 Wf6 18.E1ad1± Busch-Schoenmann,W,
carr., 1919) 10.Wa4 ~b8 11.lLlb3 h6 12.~d2
lLlge7 13.e3 ~d3 (13 ...de3 14.~c3+-) 14.E1fe1+
lLlc8 15.lLlbd4 lLld4 16.lLld4 lLlb6 17.Wd1 ~c5
18.~c3 ~c4 19.1Llc6 1-0 O'Hanlon,J-Euwe,M,
Holland, 1921.
8.i.g2 0-0-0
435
 Chapter 13

8...d3!? 9.ed3 ~b4 10.0-0 0-0-0 11.CUe4 Wlf5 b) 12.lt:lb3! M2 ... ~h6 13.CLlc51•
12.~f4± Ancin,A- Fodor, Hungary, 1961. intending CLlg5, and White wins on the
queenside - Watson.
9.h3!
10.0-0 d3
White also has two other good options:
9.0-0!? CLlge7 (Emmerich,F-Moritz, Bad 10...g5? doesn't work because of
Oeynhausen, 1922) 10.h3!± Euwe. 11.CLle4 - Henris.
9.a3 (this position can be reached after 10...h6!? 11."tMfa4 ~e8!? 12.CLle1 "tMfe6!?
various move orders) 9...d3!? 10.0-0 (10.e3!? is 13.CLld3 "tMfe2? 14.~e1 "tMfh5 (14 ..."tMfd3 15.~e4+-)
possible too: 10... CLle5!? 11.0-0!? CLlf3 12.CLlf3!? 15.CLlf4 "tMff5 16.CLle6+- Hutchings,S-Stewart,Ala,
(12.~f3) ll12 ...d2?! 13.~d2 ~d2? 14.Wld2 ~f3 corr., 1988.
15.~f3 "tMff3 16.~fd1± Henris) 10...de2 11."tMfe2
CLld4: 11.ed3
a) 12.We5?? ~f3 13."tMff6 CLle2 14.c;i{h1 ~g2 0-1
Elsas,H-Ernst,W, Germany, 1947. 11.e3!?, suggested by Carlo Salvioli,
b) 12."tMfe4!? ~f5. Now instead of 13."tMfe5?, as also gives White the advantage: 11.. .~b4
played in Ladstaetter,H-Naef,W, Luzern, 1954, (11 ...CLle5 12.g4 ~g6 13.CLle5"tMfe5 14.CLlf3±):
which leads to an unclear position after a) 12.Wfa4!? ~f3 (12 ... ~d2?! 13.CLld2 ~e2 14.~e1
13 ..."tMfe5!? 14.CLle5 CLle2 15.c;i{h1 CLlc1 16.~ac1 CLlge7 15.tiJe4 Wif7 16.~d2 tiJe5 17.Wia7 tiJf3
~d2 17.CLlf7 CLlf6!? 18.CLlh8 ~b2, according to 18.~f3 Wif3 19.tiJc5+- Shakmatny Listok) 13.~f3
Raetsky and Chetverik, White can simply play (13.tiJf3 d2) 13... ~d2 14.~g4 c;i{b8 15.~d2 h5
13."tMfe3!+ Henris. 16.~c3"tMff7 17.~d1 Wif5f± or 17...tiJge7!?a> Henris.
c) 12.We3! is strong, with the idea 12...CLlc2? b) 12.a3 ~d2 13.~d2 "tMfb2 14.~b1 "tMfc2 15.g4
13."tMfa7 CLla1 14."tMfa8 c;i{d7 15."tMfb7, and White ~g6 16.tiJd4"tMfd1 17.~fd1± Henris.
has a winning attack - Henris. 11.lt:lb3!?, played in Garcia Gil,Ja-
Romero Perera,E, St Eulalia de Roncana, 2010,
9....ih5 is possible too.
11.e3!?, as in Geiger,H-Balogh,Ja,
Or 9... ~f5 10.0-0 g5 11."tMfa4 h5?: corr., 1932, seems also playable.
a) After 12.lt:le1!? CLlge7 13.CLld3 g4
14.h4 ~d3 15.ed3 "tMff5 16.CLle4! c;i{b8 17.f4± 11..J~d3 12.94
Teichmann,Ri-Mieses,J, Berlin, 1910, White has
succeeded in blocking the kinside. 12.We2!? is not bad as it looks because after

436
•

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6 5.1L1bd2 other lines

•
12.. J''1d2 13.i.d2 liJd4, White continues with Improve:
14."lWe4! i.f3D (14 ...liJf3? 15.~h1 !+-) 15."lWe8! a) 16.<!tlb3 hg4 17.liJc5 gh3 18."lWb5 hg2
"lWd8 16.me1!, and Black is struggling to 19."lWb7 ~d8 20."lWa8 rJle7 21.Ele1 rJld6 22.liJb7
extricate himself from White's firm grip on the Y2-Y2 Boekdrukker,N·Nijssen,J, carr., 1936.
position - Henris. b) 16.g5! "lWd6?! (better is 16..."lWg5
17.liJb3, with only a small advantage for White)
12...i.g6 13.'?Ma4 i.b4 17.liJf3 i.e4 18.i.e3 liJge7 19.Elfd1 i.f3 20.i.f3
a6 21.Eld3 "lWd3 22."lWd1!? "lWc4 23.i.h5 liJe5
If 13... h5 14.g5 "lWf5 15.c2lh4 "lWg5 16.liJdf3 "lWf6 24.i.g4 liJg4 25."lWg4 "lWg4 26.hg4± 1-0
17.i.g5±, intending Elad1 - Salvioli. Radulescu,Mih-lvanovich ,A, carr., 1936.

14.a3 i.d2 16.~b3 h5?

14....id6 15.c2le1 liJge7 16.liJdf3! Elf8 17.liJd3
i.d3 18.i.e3! gave White a strong attack in
Gruenfeld, E-Schoenmann, W, carr., 1919.
15.~d2! (D)
16..."lWe5 was a better try: 17.i.d2 h5:
a) 18.f4 "lWb2!? (18 ..."lWd6?! 19.i.b4±
(19.c5 "lWd7 20.f5 i.f7:f.)) - Henris.
b) 18J~fe1 "lWb2!? (and not 18..."lWd6?
19.i.b4+-) - Henris.

17.~c5+- hg4 18.'?Mb5 b6

18...gh3 19."lWb7 rJld8 20."lWa8liJc8 21.i.g5.

19.i.g5! '?Me5

19..."lWg5 20."lWa6 rJld8 21.liJe6.

20.i.e7 ~e7 21.i.b7! ~d8

21 ...rJlb8 22.liJa6.

15... ~ge7 22.~d3 '?Mb5 23.cb5 i.d3 24JUd1

gh325.i.e4
15...h5!? is an unsuccessful attempt to 1-0

437
 Chapter 13
-
Game 165 • 9.~b2! is also quite good - Henris.
Bernstein,Ossip b) 8.g3 0-0-0 9.~g2 transposes to the line
Spielmann, Rudolf 5.tiJbd2 f6 6.ef6 iWf6 7.g3 ~f5 8.~g2 0-0-0 9.a3
Ostend, 1907 analysed in game 164.
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.lLlf3 c) The strong 8.tiJb3!? is covered under the
lLlc6 5.lLlbd2 f6 6.et6 Wf6 7.a3 (D) move order 5... ~f5 6.tiJb3 f6 7.ef6!? iWf6 8.a3
and is analysed in game 170.
7... ~e6!? ~ ...O-O-O is an interesting
suggestion of Schlechter.

8.h3 its

8... ~f3 9.tiJf3± Zittersteyn,G-Kroone,G,

Nijmegen, 1921.
8... ~h5!?:
a) 9.iWb3!? 0-0-0'" Peeters,T-Van Leeuwen,J,
Antwerp, 2003.
b) 9.b4 0-0-0 (9...d3 10.1:'1b1 ~~b2) 10.~b2
iWe7!? (Seiler,Jo-Dannenberger,A, Hockenheim,
7... 194 1994) 11.g4 ~g6 12.~g2± ~ ... ~d3 13.0-0 ~e2
14.iWa4 ~f1 15.1:'1f1 ~ Henris.
The move order of the game was 5.a3 ~g4
6.tiJbd2 f6 7.ef6 iWf6. 9.lLlb3 h6
7... ~f5!? is also worth considering:
a) 8.b4! 0-0-0 (8 ...d3? 9J:lb1 ~~b2): 9...0-0-0 is impossible because of 10.~g5.
• 9.b5?! tiJe5 10.tiJe5 iWe5 11.~b2 (11.tiJf3 iWe4
~ ~c5) 11 ... ~c5"'; 10.lLlbd4 0-0-0 11.e3 1c5 12.1e2
• 9.iWa4!? d3! 10J'1a2 de2 11.~e21:'1e8;!;; 1e4 13.0-0 1f3 14.1f3lLlge7
• 9.tiJb3 h6 10.b5!? (10.~b2+) 10... tiJe5 11.tiJfd4
(11.~b2 tiJf3 12.gf3 iWg6!? 13.tiJd4 ~c5 14.e3±) Black has no compensation for the pawn after
11 tiJg4! 12.f3 (12.e3 tiJf2! 13.iWf3 tiJd3 14...ttJd4 15.ed4 ~d4 16.iWb3 c6 17.~e3±
(13 tiJh1!? 14.iWf5 iWf5 15.tiJf5) 14.~d3 ~d3"') Henris.
12 ~c5 (Meinsohn) 13.e3 ~d4 14.tiJd4+-
Henris; 15.1g4 @b8 16.lLlc6 lLlc6 17.Wc2

438
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6 5.lLJbd2 other lines
h5 18..te2 g5 19.b4! .td6 20..tb2±
.te5 21 ..te5 ltJe5 22J~~ad1 gdg8
23.~e4!?
After 23.f4! gf4 24.:t:1f4 ~g7 25.~e4+ White has
two pawns and active play with his centralyzed
queen and his rooks occupying open files -
Henris.
23...g4 24.gd5 ge8 25.~f4 ~f4
26.ef4 ltJg6 27..td1 ltJf4 28.gf5 ge4
29.hg4!?
o29.f3! is even stronger - Henris.
29... hg4 30.gg5?!
30.ig4±.
30...ge631 ..tg4?
Allowing Black to escape.
31 ...geh6 32.13 gh1 33.~f2 ltJd3
34.~e2 ttJf4 35.~f2 ttJd3 36.~e2
36.lt>e3?! :t:1f1 37.lt>d3 :t:1a1 - Henris.
36...ltJf4
Black could have continued the fight with
36...B:e8!? 37.lt>d3 :t:1f1, with an unclear position
- Henris.
V2-V2
Game 166
Lignell
Niemela,llmari
Finland, 1943
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ltJf3
ltJc6 5.ltJbd2 f6 6.ef6ltJf6 (0)
7.a3
This position can also be reached by the move
order 5.a3 f6 6.ef6 CDf6 7.CDbd2.
White also has:
7.g3 if5 (7.,.ig4 8.ig2 transposes to
the line 5.g3 f6 6.ef6 CDf6 7.ig2 ig4 8.CDbd2
analysed in game 145 - chapter 10) 8.CDb3!?
(8.ig2):
a) 8...ie4!? 9.ig2 ~d7 10.0-00-0-0 (Meinsohn)
11.ig5!? d3 12.ed3 id3 13.:t:1e1 ib4 14.CDe5!?
(14.id2 ic4!+; after 14 ...CDe4? 15.ib4 CDb4
16.CDe5 ~f5, suggested by Schiller, White has
17.f4+- Henris) 14 ...CDe5 15.:t:1e5± Henris.
b) 8...ib4 9.id2 id2!? (after 9..,ie7!?, as in
439
! Chapter 13
!:'
, I
,

the game Kellner,Go-Palda,K, Vienna, 1947, E1d4 17.ct?c3 E1hd8 18.E1a7 ~b8 19.E1a1 E1d2;1;
White plays 10.j,g2;1; Henris) 10.Wd2!? ttJe4 Henris.
11.Wd1 We7 12.j,g2 Wb4!? 13.ttJfd2 O-O-Oiii 8.g3
Henris.
7.ttJb3!? j,b4 8.j,d2 j,e7 (Bowen,A- 8.Wb3!? Wd7 9.Wb7 E1b8 10.Wa6 j,e7
Thomas,Andrew, Bath, 1963): 11.g3 (11.b4!? - Henris) 11...d3!? was unclear in
a) 9..if4 j,b4 10.ttJbd2 (10.j,d2 j,e7) 10oo.j,e6, Kaunas, K-Narmontas, R, Vilnius, 1995 (12.ed3
with a good game for Black according to O-OC) - Henris.
Meinsohn. 8.b4!? is a rarely played alternative:
b) 9.e3!? de3 (9oo.j,g4 10.ed4 j,f3 11.Wf3 ttJd4 8oo.We7!? 9.h3!? (9.ib2!? - Henris) 9.ooif3!?
12.ttJd4 Wd4 13.0-0-0±) 10.j,e3 j,b4 11.j,d2 (9oo.ih5!?) 10.ttJf3 0-0-0 11.Wd3!? (after
(11.ttJbd2!?) 11...We7 12.ie2 (12.We2 j,d2 11.ib2?! ttJb4!~, as in Woodhams,M-West,G,
13.ttJbd2 j,e6 14.0-0-0 O-O-Oiii) 12oo.j,g4! 13.ib4 Perth, 1978, White cannot continue with
(13.a3?! j,f3; 13.0-0 0-0-0 14.E1eH) 13oo.Wb4 12.ab4? Wb4 13.Wd2 ttJe4 14.ia3D ttJd2
14.Wd2 Wd2 15.ttJbd2 ttJb4 16.<j;lf1 0-0-0;1; 15.ib4 ttJf3 16.gf3 j,b4+) 11...ttJe4 12.g3 g6
Henris. 13.j,g2 ig7 14.0-0;1; Henris
8.h3 is the subject of game 167.
7....ig4
, 8....?Ne7!
'I To meet the threat of ttJb3, attacking the d-
pawn. The idea is obvious: Black immediately creates
7...a5? is a luxury in this sharp line: pressure down the e-file.
8.ttJb3 j,e6 9.Wd3 Wd7 10.ttJbd4 j,c5 11.e3
(11.ttJe6!?±) 11...j,g4 12.ie2!? j,f3 13.if3± 9..ig2
Saemisch,F-Becker, Mittweida, 1927.
7 .ie68.b4. 9.h3 ih5 10.ig2 d3 11.g4 ig6 12.e3 0-0-0'"
7 .tf5!? 8.ttJb3 (8.b4!?; 8.g3) 8.ooWe7!? Raetsky & Chetverik.
(after 8.ood3? 9.ed3 We7 10.ie2 0-0-0 11.0-0,
as in Rietveld,D-Staal,P, Groningen, 2001, 9...d3! 10.e3 ttJd4! 11.0-0
Black has no compensation) 9.ttJbd4 0-0-0
(intending oo.ttJd4 and oo.c5) 10.b4D (10.Wa4? 11.h3 j,f3 12.if3 ttJc2 13.<j;lf1 ttJa1 14.j,b7
E1d4-+; 10.e3?! ttJd4 11.ttJd4 c5+) 10.ooj,e4 E1d8-+ .
11.j,b2 (11.ie3 ttJg4!?) 11...j,f3 12.gf3 ttJd4
13.j,d4 Wb4 14.ab4 j,b4 15.Wd2 id2 16.ct?d2 11 ...ttJe212.i>h1 O-O-O:j: 13.b4

440
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6 5.ltlbd2 other lines

Now 13.h3 is met by 13... h5!. Game 167

Oyckhoff, Eduard
13... h5 Pedersen, Henry
corr., 1930
Please notice the reason for Black's coming 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.~f3
success. In comparison with the theoretical ~c6 5.~bd2 f6 6.ef6 ~f6 7.a3 ig4
main lines, the roles are reversed. Here the 8.h3 (D)
position of White's king makes it a definite
target and it is Black who first begins to
develop an attack.

14.Wlb3 h4 15.gh4

1S.tLlh4 g5!+ t,16.ltJg6? E1h2!-+.

15... ~e4! 16.~e4?! if3! 17.~g5 (D)

8....if3

8....ihS:
a) 9.g4 .ig6 10..ig2 (Roblek,E-
Angelov,D, corr., 1999) 10 ...We? 11.0-0 0-0-0 00
Raetsky & Chetverik.
b) After 9.b4!? Wd? (g ... We?!?), as in
Risch,F-Graupner,T, Leipzig, 1996, White can
play 10..ib2± Henris.
17.i.f3 Wh4-+.

17...Wlg5! 18.hg5 ~h2 19.@h2 .id6

20.@h1 ~h8# 9...aS 10.e3 (10.g3 .ic5 11 ..ig2 0-0
0-1 12.0-0 We? 13..if4±) 10....ic5 11.ed4 .id4

441
 ,
Chapter 13

12.i.e2! flO-Of or 12.LtJd4!? ~d4 13.~e2 1t>f7 middle of the board) 16.~e3 (16.lt>f1 i.c5
14.i.e3+ Henris. 17.~e1 1"%d2! 18.id2 1"%f8 19.i.f3 1"%f3-+) 16...i.c5
9.. .'~e7 10.e3 0-0-0 11.i.d3± Henris. 17.lt>f4 (17.cj;Jf3 1"%hf8 18.cj;Jg4 (18.cj;Je4 1"%d4
19.cj;Je3 1"%c4 20.cj;Jd3 LtJe5#) 18...LtJe5 19.cj;Jh4
10.Wc2?! ie7 20.cj;Jh5 1"%f5#) 17...1"%hf8 18.~g5 h6 19.cj;Jh4
ie7 20.cj;Jh5 g6! 21.cj;Jh6 (21.~g6 LtJe5) 21...1"%h8
More convincing is 10.e3! i.c5: 22.cj;Jg7 1"%dg8 23.cj;Jf7 1"%f8 24.cj;Je6 1"%f6 25.cj;Jd5
a) 11.b4? de3 12.~e3 (12.~d8!? 1"%d8 1"%d8 26.~e4 1"%e6 27.cj;Jf4 1"%f8 28.cj;Jg4 LtJe5#;
13.~e3 LtJb4! 14.ab4 ~b4 15.lt>e2 LtJc3=) • 14.~d2 tLle5 15.ttJe5! (15.~b3 LtJd3!) 15...We5
12... ~e3 13.~d81"%d8 14.fe3 ~e7!?i6 Henris. 16.Wb3!± (and not 16.Wc2 1"%d2 17.We4 We4
b) 11.~d3± Henris. 18.ie4 1"%b2 oo ) - Henris.
c) 13...g6!?111 Henris
10...We7 11.e3
11 ...0-0-0
11.g3!? 0-0-0 12.ig2?! (12.~d3) 12...d3! 13.~d1:
a) 13...tLla5?! 14.0-0!? LtJc3!? 15.bc3 11 ...de3 12.ie3 LtJg3!? 13.1"%g1 (13.fg3?! We3
de2 16.~a4 ef1~ 17.ifH Henris. 14.We2 oo ) 13... LtJf1 14.cj;Jf1± Henris.
b) 13...d2?! (tempting but not correct):
• 14.tLld2? (0). 12..1d3 lLlg5

12...tLlc5 13.0-0!? de3 14.if5 cj;Jb8 15.ie3± Henris.

13.lLlg5 Wg5 14..1e4!? de3 15..1f5

c,!,>b8 16..1e3± Wf6

16...Y;Vg2?? 17.ie4, and the queen is lost.

17.0-0 lLld4 18..1d4 gd4 19.9ad1

This leads to beautiful variations after
14... LtJf2! 15.cj;Jf2 We3!! (catching the king in the
.1c5 20.b4 gf4 21.gd5 .1d4 22.g3
gf3 23.c,!,>g2 ga3 24.gd1 .1c3 25.b5
.1b4 26.c5 a5 27.b6 cb6 28.gd6
We5 29.g1 d5 We1 30.ge6 gc3
31.Wa4 Wc1 32.cb6
1-0

442
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.tLlf3 tLlc6 5.lLlbd2 other lines

Game 168 17.0-0-0+- as in Banic,S-Amaraddio,A, Portoroz,

Arizmendi Martinez,Julen Luis (2568)
Zamarbide Ibarrea, Daniel (2215)
Arenal d'en Castell, 2011
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttlf3
ttlc6 5.ttlbd2 ~f5 (D)
1994.
6.. .f6!? 7.ef6 ~f6 transposes to the line
5.CUbd2 f6 6.ef6 Vfif6 7.a3 ~f5 analysed in game
165.
6...Vfid7 is the subject of game 169.

7.b4

7.llJb3 0-0-0 8.~f4 f6!? 9.ef6 cuf6

6.a3
6.llJb3 is examined in game 170.
6.93? cub4! transposes to the line 5.g3
~f5 6.cubd2 cub4 analysed in game 150 -
chapter 10.
6... We7
This position can also be reached after the
move order 5.cubd2 Vfie7 6.a3 ~f5.
10.CUfd4 cud4 11.cud4 c5!? 12.CUb5 (12.CUf5!?
~d1 13.~d1 ~e4 14.cud6 ~d6 15.~d6 ~d8)
12... ~d1 13.~d1 ~d7 14.cud6 <j;Jd8 15.CUb7 <j;Jc8
16.cud6= Henris.
7.93 0-0-0 8.~g2 (8.b4 cue5 9.cue5 Vfie5
10.~b2 Vfie6 11.~g2 d3 12.e3 ~h3co Henris)
8...g5!? 9.0-0 h6 10.cub3 ~e4 11.~d2!? g4
12.~b4 Vfie8 (12 ... CUb4? 13.ab4 gf3 14.ef3 ~f5
15.~a7 c6 16.b5± Henris) 13.~f8 Vfif8 14.CUbd2!?
(14.CUfd4 ~g2 15.<j;Jg2 CUd4 16.CUd4 c5 17.e3 h5
18.~a4 cd4 - Henris) 14 ...gf3 15.~h3 <j;Jb8
16.cue4 fe2!? (16 ... h5!? 17.ef3 h4 co Henris)
17.Vfie2 cue5 18.b4!? (18.f4 d3 19.Vfid2 cuc6 co )
18 d3 19.Vfih5!? (19.Vfib2 Vfig7 20.<j;Jg2 ~h7co)
19 cuc4 20.~ac1 CUd6 21.CUc5 (Gajewski,G-
Sipila,V, Stockholm, 2012) 21 ...Vfie7 co Henris.
7...0-0-0 8.g3
8.~b2:

Alternatives are: a) After 8...llJeS 9.cue5 (9.CUd4??

6...aS? 7.CUb3 a4 8.CUbd4 Vfid7 9.CUf5 CUd3#) 9...Vfie5 10.cuf3!?, Black has some
Vfif5 10.Vfid3 Vfid3 11.ed3 0-0-0 12.~e3 f6 13.ef6 problems with his d4-pawn.
CUf6 14.h3 h6 15.d4 g5 16.~d3 (16.d5!?) 16... ~g7 b) Grandmaster Leonid Kritz proposes

443
 Chapter 13

the startling variation 8...f6!? 9.ef6 tLJf6 10.tLJb3 Game 169

(10.b5 tLJe5 11.tLJe5 vtie5 12.tLJf3 vtie4 13.tLJd4 Teschner, Rudolf
i.c5 14.e3 ghe8; 10.g3 tLlg4 11.i.g2 tLle3 12.fe3 Wolf,Heinrich
de3 13.vtic1 ed2 14.tLld2 tLld4) 10...d3 11.b5 Berlin, 1939
tLlb4!? 12.ab4 de2 (12 ...vtib4 13.tLlfd2 de2 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ctJf3
14.i.e2) 13.vtie2 vtib4 14.tLlfd2 ge8 15.i.e5 i.d6 ctJc6 5.ctJbd2 .if5 6.a3 Wd7 (D)
16.f4 i.e5 17.fe5 tLle4 (17 ... tLlg4 18.vtif3 ge5
19.i.e2 ghe8 20.0-0) 18.ga7 \t>b8, and play is
very unclear.
8.lL\b3!? is also worth considering -
Henris.

8...f6?!

8...lL\e5 seems better: 9.tLle5 vtie5 10.i.b2 vtie6

11.i.g2 d3 12.e3 i.h3, with an unclear position
- Henris.

9.ef6 ctJf6 10..ig2 d3 11.e3 ctJe4?

12..ib2!? 7.g3

12.lL\h4± Henris. 7.lL\b3 leads to unclear complications

after 7...0-0-0 8.e3!? d3!? (White would retain
12...ctJd213.ctJd2!? an edge after 8... de3 9.vtid7 i.d7 10.i.e3 ge8
11.i.d3 - Henris) 9.tLlbd4 i.e4!?:
13.vtid2. a) 10.lL\g5!? tLld4 11.ed4 vtid4 12.i.e3 (12.vtig4
f5! Ll13.ef6? \t>b8 14.tLle4 tLlf6+ Henris)
13...ctJe5? 14.Wa4+- a6 15.b5 ~d6 12...iWb2! (12 ...vtie5? is bad because of 13.tLlf7
16.ba6 vtib2 14.tLld8 vtic3 15.i.d2± Kagramanianz,V-
Malinin,V, Zaporozhye, 2004) 13.tLle4 vtie5 co
16.c5. f::.14.tLld2?! i.c5-+ Henris.
b) 10.lL\c6!? vtic6 11.tLld4 vtig6 12.f3 i.c5!?
16... ~a6 17.Wb5 13.vtib3 (13.fe4?! i.d4 14.ed4 vtie4 co ) 13...tLlh6
1-0 14.i.d2 (14.fe4? i.d4 15.ed4 vtie4 16.\t?d1

444
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6 5.lLlbd2 other lines

ttJg4+) 14...ttJf5 15.ttJf5 .if5 16.0-0-0 i::i:d7oo 8...0-0-0!?

Henris.
On the other hand, 7.b4!? seems quite It is probably better to continue with 8...ttJg6!?
good for White: 9.ttJbd4 0-0-0 10..ie3 .ic5 11.ttJc6 lMfc6 12.lMfb3
a) 7....ib4? 8.ab4 ttJb4 is simply refuted by ttJe5 13..ig2 (13..ic5? ttJd3! 14.ed3 lMff3+)
9.e6! fe6 10.ttJe5 lMfd6 (10 ... ttJc2 11.lMfc2 .ic2 13....ie3 14.lMfe3 ttJd3!? (14 ...i::i:he8 15.0-0;!;)
12.ttJd7 ~d7 13.ttJf3+-) 11.lMfa4 c6 12..ia3+- 15.~f1 E%he8!? (15 ... ttJb2 16.ttJd4 (16.lMfa7!?
Henris. lMfa4 17.lMfa4 ttJa4~) 16...lMfd7 17..ib7 ~b7
b) 7...lMfe6!? 8.ttJb3 0-0-0 9..ib2± Van Dusen,E- 18.lMff3 c6 19.ttJf5!? ttJc4 20.~g2 ttJd2! 21.lMff4
Dillon,R, corr., 1997. i::i:he8 22.ttJe3 lMfe7;!;) 16.lMfa7!? i::i:e2!? (after
16 ...lMfc5!? 17.lMfc5 ttJc5, Black's activity seems
7...tlJge7!? sufficient to compensate for the pawn) 17.ttJg5
(17.lMfa8? ~d7 18.ttJe5 E%e5 19..ic6 bc6 20.lMfa7
7...d3?! 8.e3 f6 9.ef6 ttJf6 10..ig2;!; .ih3 21.~g1 ttJe1 !+; 17.~e2!? lMfc4 18.lMfb7!
Saemisch,F-Richter,Ku, Berlin, 1941. ~d7D 19.~f1!? CDf4=) 17....ie4! 18.ttJe4
7...f6!? 8.ef6 ttJf6 is interesting. (~18 ..ie4 E%e4 19.ttJe4 lMfe4oo) 18...E%e4 19.h4
(19.E%d1 E%d6oo) 19...E%de8 20 ..ie4 (20.~g1 b6oo)
8.tlJb3!? (D) 20 ...lMfe4 21.lMfa8 ~d7 22.lMfa4 c6, with an
unclear position - Henris.

9.tlJc5

9..ig2 ttJg6 10..ig5 .ie7 11 ..ie7lMfe7 would lead

to a complicated game:
a) 12.ttJfd4?! ttJd4!? 13.ttJd4 lMfe5
(13 ...c5? 14.ttJf5 E%d1 15.E%d1±) 14.e3 c5 15.lMfb3
i::i:d4 16.lMfb7 ~d8; Henris.
b) 12.liJbd4?! CDd4 (12 ....ie4 13..ih3
~b8 14.CDc6 .ic6 15.lMfb3 CDe5;) 13.CDd4 lMfe5 -
12.CDfd4?!.
c) 12.0-0 d3 (~12 ...CDge5?! 13.CDfd4!;!;)
8.b4 ttJg6 9.ttJb3 (Jain,R-Karpinski,Lu, 13.E%e1 CDge500 Henris.
Uxbridge, 2010) 9...0-0-0 00 Henris.
8..ig2!? is worth considering - Henris. 9...VNe810.VNa4?

445
 Chapter 13

White misses his chance. Game 170

1 O.~g5?! h6: Sacconi,Antonio
a) 11.~a4? hg5 12.~b5 tiJa5! 13.~a5 tiJc6! Monticelli,Mario
14.~b5 ~c5 15.~c5 g4 16.tiJd2 (16.tiJh4 ~e4 Venice, 1926
(16...'il,h4!? 17.gh4 tiJe5 (17... d3!?) 18.0-0-0 b6 1.d4 dS 2.c4 eS 3.deS d4 4.tLlf3
19.~b5 c6 20.~a6 \!2b8 21.~g2 ~c8 22.~a4 tLlc6 S.tLlbd2 .ifS 6.tLlb3!? (0)
Vfie6'" Schiller)) 16... tiJe5+ Henris.
b) 11.~e7 Vfie7!? (11 ... ~e7 12.tiJd3 g5 13.~g2
g4 14.tiJd2 ~d3 15.ed3 tiJe5 16.0-0 h5"') 12.b4
(12.tiJd3 g5t) 12... tiJe5 13.~g2 tiJf3 14.~f3 c6
15.0-0 Vfif6=i= Henris.
10.~g2!? looks strong, with the idea
10...tiJg6 11.tiJb7! \!2b7 12.tiJd4 'il,d4 (12 ... ~d7?
13.Vfib3!? \!2c8 14.Vfib5 tiJge5 15.~f4!?+-)
13.Vfid4 Vfie5!? 14.Vfid1 !?± Henris.

10...tLlg6 11.\WbS .ics 12.\WcS

tLlceS 13.tLleS tLleS+

Black's huge lead in development gives him a A key position. Black has several responses, but
strong attack against White's uncastled king. none of them seems adequate.

14.@d2? 6...f6?

White's situation would remain bad after This recent try is easily refuted.
14.Vfia7 tiJd3 15.\!2d2 tiJf2 16.Vfia8 (16.~g2 Vfie3 Black also has:
17.\!2e1 tiJd3 18.\!2d1 tiJb2 19.\!2e1 (19.~2 Vfib3 6...a5? 7.a3± LL.d3?! 8.~e3 de2 9.Vfid8
20.\!2e1 Vfib2 21.\!2f2 'il,he8 22. 'il,ae 1 d3!-+) 'il,d8 10.~e2 - Watson.
19... tiJd3 20.\!2d1 tiJc1 21.Vfib7 \!2d7 22.Vfic6 6...g6? 7.tiJbd4 tiJd4 8.tiJd4 ~g7 9.tiJf5
\!2e7-+) 16...\!2d7 17.Vfib7 Vfie6+ Henris. Vfid1 10.\!2d1 gf5 11.f4 0-0-0 12.\!2c2± Gaier,W-
Heckmann,G, Ladenburg, 1992.
14...'IWe6 15.b3? d3 16.e3 ~f317.@d1 6... Vfid7?! 7.tiJbd4!:
d2 18..ib2 \We4 19.@e2 tLlg1! a) 7....ib4 8.~d2 tiJd4 9.tiJd4 Vfid4 10.Vfia4 c6
0-1 11.Vfib4± Kish,J-Sykula,A, corr., 1998.

446
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ct:Jf3 ct:Jc6 5.ttJbd2 other lines

b) 7...0-0-0 8.e3 ~c5 (8 ... tLJb4 9.~d2 tLJd3 12.gf3 'Wf6) 11 ... tLJd4 (11 ... tLJe5 12.'Wc2) 12.ed4
(9... tLJh6 1O.~b3 tLJa6 11.~b5 c6 12.~a5+-) ~f3 13.'We7 tLJe7 14.gf3 Ei:d4 15.~e3±;

10.~d3 ~d3 11.e6 fe6 12.ct'le5+- Henris) 9.~e2 • 8... h6 9.tLJfd4! (9.g3!? 0-0-0 10.~g2 g5 11.0-0
~d4 10.ed4! ct'lb4 (10 ... ct'ld4? 11.ct'ld4 ~d4 d3!iii) 9... 0-0-0 10.e3 ct'ld4 11.ed4 'Wg6 12.'Wf3!
12.~d4 Ei:d4 13.~d2 ct'le7 14.~c3±, with the (12.~e3? ~c2-+; 12.d5 Ei:e8=i= Meinsohn) 12... ~c2
bishop pair and a clear extra pawn) 11.0-0 ct'lc2 (12 ... ct'lf6!?) 13.~e2!± or 13.ct'la5 ~e4 14.'Wg3±
12.Ei:b1 ct'ld4 (12 ... ct'lb4 13.ct'lh4! Ll13 ... ~b1 Henris; but not :513.d5?! Ei:e8 14.~e2 ~b3
14.~g4) 13.ct'ld4 ~d4 14.~d4 ~d4 15.~e3 Ei:e4 15.~b3 ~g2 16.Ei:f1;!;.

16.Ei:be1 ~e6 (16 ...Ei:e5? 17.~d4) 17.b3 ct'le7 7.e6!? ~e6 8.ct'lbd4 ct'ld4 9.ct'ld4 ~b4
18.~d2 ct'lf5 19.~f3 Ei:e1 20.Ei:e1±, again leaves 10.~d2 ~d2 (10 ... ~d4 11.~a4+) 11.~d2 ~c4
White a clear pawn ahead - Watson ft Schiller. 12.Ei:c1 ~f7 13.~e3 mf8;t.
6... ~b4!? is the subject of next game. 7.lL\bd4! ~b4 8.~d2 ct'ld4 9.ct'ld4
transposes to the main game.
7.tDfd4! (D)
7...ib4 8.id2 tDd4 9.tDd4 Wd4
10.Wa4!+-

And not 10.~b4? because of 10... ~b2.

10...c6 11.Wb4 0-0-0 12.e3

Or 12.~e3!? ~e5 13.~a7.

12...WeS 13.ie2!?

Back has no compensation.

7.ef6!? ~f6!?: 13... tLlh6 14.ic3 Wc7 1S.h3 ie4

a) 8.lL\bd4?! ~b4! 9.~d2 ct'ld4 10.ct'ld4 ~d2! 16.0-0 tLlfS 17.cS l:!he8 18.l:!ad1
11.~d2 0-0-0+. l:!d1 19.1:!d1 96 20.WaS WaS 21.iaS
b) 8.g3!? ~b4 9.~d2 0-0-0=. idS 22.ic3 l:!e6 23.a3 tDh4 24.l:!d4
c) 8.a3!?: tLlfS 2S.l:!f4 b6 26.94 tDh4 27.cb6
• 8...~e7!? 9.ct'lbd4 0-0-0 10.e3 ~g4 (10 ...ct'ld4 ab6 28.l:!f6 l:!f6 29.if6 tDf3 30.~f1
11.ct'ld4 b. ... c512.~f3+) 11.~e2!? (:511.~e2 ~f3 1-0

447
"i i
Chapter 13

Game 171 his pawn) 8... 0-0 9.~b4 tLJb4 10.a3 tLJbc6
Sakai, Kiyotaka 11.tLJf5± Hickl,N-Musielak,M, corr., 1987.
Caridi, Nicolo 7...~e7!? 8.lLlbd4 tLJe5:
email, 2002 a) 9..ib4!? ~b4 10.Wd2 lLlf3 (10 Wd2 11.lLld2)
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ltJf3 11.gf3 (11.lLlf3 Wc4 12.e3;!;) 11 Wd2 12.lt>d2
tDc6 5.tDbd2 if5 6.ltJb3 ib4 (0) 0-0-0 13.lt>c3± Henris.
"

b) 9.l2le5! ~d2 10.~d2 We5 11.lLlf5 Wf5 12.Eld 1

lLlf6 13.~e3 It>f8 14.g3 ~a5 15.Wd2 ~a2
16.~b4It>g8 17.~g2+ Watson.

8.if4

8.a3!? is also interesting: 8...f6 9.~f4 fe5

10.lLle5 ~f6 11.lLlc6 bc6 12.lLlc5 ~e7 13.lLla6!?
"
, (13.b4!? Llg3, ~g2) 13...g5?! (Shekhtman,E-
Solntsev,Y, USSR, 1964) 14.~a4± Henris.

8...g5!?

Probably the best try. Critical is 8...ib4 9.lLlbd2 lLlge7 10.a3 id2
(10 ...lLlg6 11.~g3) 11.~d2 lLlg6 (11...0-0
7.id2 i.e7 12.Eld1±; 11...~d7 12.Eld1 O-O-O?! (12... lLlg6!?
13.b4±) 13.b4 Llb5± Minev) 12.Eld1!? (12.0-0-0
The following options are clearly unsatisfactory: 0-0 13.~g5 (13.e3!? - Henris) 13 ... ~d7 14.lLld4
7...d3? 8.ed3! (8.~b4 lLlb4 9.ed3 ~d3 h6 CXl Raetsky & Chetverik; 12.b4 0-0 13.b5 lLla5 I

10.~d3 lLld3 11.lt>f1 lLlb2 12.~e2 Wd3 13j=k1 14.lLld4! lLlc4 15.~c3 lLlf4 16.~c4, with some \
I

Eld8+) 8... ~d3 9.~b4 (9.~d3!? Wd3 10.~e2 advantage as Black has to prove that he has
(1O.~b4!? lLlb4 11. ~d3 lLld3 12.lt>e2 lLlb2 counterplay - Watson & Schiller) 12... 0-0:
13.Elac1+) 10 ... ~d2 11.lLlbd2 We2 12.lt>e2±) a) 13.ig5 ~d7 14.lLld4 lLlce5 (14 ... h6!?)
9... lLlb4 10.lLlbd4 ~e4 (10 ... ~f1 11.Wa4!± 15.e3 Elfe8 CXl Raetsky & Chetverik.
Watson) 11.~a4 lLlc6 12.0-0-0!?± Stoelbinder, b) 13.e3 de3 14.We3 ~e7 15.~e2 Elfe8,
W-De Nooij,C, corr., 1991. with compensation according to Raetsky and
7...lLlge7? 8.lLlbd4 (8.~b4 lLlb4 9.lLlbd4 Chetverik; but after 16.~g3 White keeps a small
0-0 10.a3 lLlbc6 11.e3± gives Black nothing for advantage thanks to his bishop pair - Henris.

448
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ct:Jf3 ct:Jc6 5.tLJbd2 other lines

d) 13.g3!? t.14.~g2, 15.0-0. Game 172

c) After 13.~g3!? (Watson & Schiller) Isaksson,Sten
13...We7 (13 ...Ei:e8? 14.tLld4 tLld4 15.Wd4 Wd4 Muir,Walter
16.Ei:d4 tLle5 17.e3±) 14.e3!? de3 15.We3 Ei:fe8 corr., 1958
16.~e2 tLlce5 17.tLle5 tLle5 18.0-0 (18.Ei:d5!? f6 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.~f3
(1B... tLlc4? 19.~c4 Wg5 20.Ei:e5 Ei:e5 21.~e5 ~c6 5.ltJbd2 .ie6 (0)
Wg2 22.Ei:f1 Ei:eB 23.f4 Wh2 24.We2+) 19.0-0
~e6lXl) 18...Wf6 19.Wc3!, the bishop pair gives
White a small but stable advantage - Henris.

9..ic1 !

9..tg3? g4 10.tLlfd2 (10.tLlfd4?? ~b4-+)

10... tLlb4:j: 11.Ei:c1 tLla2 12.tLld4?? (12.Ei:a1 tLlb4
13.Ei:cH) 12...Wd4 13.Wa4 c6 14.Wa2 ~b4
15.Ei:d1 Ei:d8 16.b3 ~b1! 0-1 Neumann,U-
Nattkaemper,S, corr., 1993.

9... g4?

9...~b4 10.~d2 ~e7 11.h3 h6!? 12.e3

de3 13.fe3!?± Henris.
9...V1Yd7 is better: 10.~g5 (10.tLlbd4?
0-0-0; 10.tLlfd4!? 0-0-0 11.e3 tLle5 12.~e2!)
10... ~g5 11.tLlg5 0-0-0 12.e4 h6!? 13.tLlf3 ~g4
14.h3 (14.tLlbd4? We8!+) 14 ... ~f3
15.g4 ~g6 16.~d3!) 15.Wf3 ttJe5 16.Wf4! Henris.
10.ltJfd4 .ib4 11 ..id2 ~d4 12.ltJd4
~d4 13.~a4 c6 14.~b4 0-0-0
15..ic3 ~e4 16.~a5 a6 17.e3 .ie6
18.~b6 ~e7 19.~a7 ~c2 20..ie2
~a4 21.~c5
1-0
This move yields a slight edge.
White also has tried:
6.b3!? Wd7 (6 ...f6!? 7.ef6 Wf6 -
Alexander) 7.a3 ttJge7 8.g3!? tLlg6= Torok,Jo-
(14 ... ~h5 Chetverik,M, Budapest, 1995.
6.V1Yb3!? Wd7 (6 ... Ei:b8!? LL.b5) 7.Wb7!?
~b8 8.Wa6 tLlb4 9.Wa7 ~d8 10.Wd1 ~f5!?
(10 ... tLlh6!?) 11.a3 tLlc2?! (11 ... ttJc6?! 12.Wa4
tLlge7 13.b4± Henris; 11...~c2 12.We1 tLlc6
13.Wa6 tLlge7 14.b4! Henris) 12.~a2± Pohl,W-
Schwarz,Wi, corr., 1987.
6.a3 transposes to the line 5.a3 ~e6
6.tLlbd2 covered in chapter 2.

449

Chapter 13
6.g3 transposes to the line 5.g3 ie6
6.ttJbd2 analysed in chapters 6 and 7.
6... ~b4!?
The alternative 6...i.c4 has been tested a
number of times, with little success for Black.
After 7.ttJbd4, Black has:
a) 7...ttJd4?! 8.Wd4 Wd4 9.ttJd4 l::1d8
(Alapin,S-Leonhardt,P, Barmen, 1905) 10.ttJf3
ttJe7 11.e4 i.f1 12.l::1f1 ttJc6 13.i.e3 i.e7
14.<;t>e2±.
b) 7...Wid5?! 8.ttJc6 Wc6 9.i.d2! Wib6
(9...i.c5 1oJ'%c 1 Wb6 11.Wa4 i.b5 12.Wh4 a5
13.e6! ttJf6 14.ef7 <;t>f7 15.ttJg5 <;t>g8 16.e3 i.f1
17.l::1f1 ± Chalupetzky) 10.Wa4 (10.Wc2 i.d5)
10...i.b5 11.Wa5! 0-0-0 12.Wb6 ab6 13.e3 i.c6
14.i.c4± ChalupetzkY,F-Bauer,R, corr., 1938.
c) 7...i.c5:
• 8.e3 i.f1 9.l::1f1 Wd7?! (9.,.i.d4!) 10.ttJc6 Wc6
11.i.d2 a5 (11...i.b6 12.l::1c1 Wg6 13.Wc2 Wg2?!
14.Wa4 <;t>f8 15.We4± Dzevlan,M-Furhoff,J,
Stockholm, 1992) 12.Wc2!±, followed by 0-0-0.
Raetsky and Chetverik give 12.l::1c1 ttJe7 as
unclear, but White is clearly better after 13.a3
a4 14.Wc2 b6 15.i.b4 i.b4 16.ab4 We6!?
(16...Wc2?! 17.l::1c2 ttJd5 18.<;t>e2±) 17.<;t>e2 0-0
18.l::1fd1; but not 18.Wc7? l::1ac8 19.Wd6 Wa2!!;
• 8.i.e3!? (t.l::1c1) 8,..Wd5!? 9.ttJc6 i.e3 10.Wd5
i.d5 11.ttJb4 i.f3 12.gf3 i.d4 13.ttJd3± Seiler,J·
Loeffler,M, Eppingen, 1988;
• 8.Wia4 is a good alternative.
450
,
7...i.e7 8.e3 de3 9.ii.e3± Henris.
8.!iJbd4
8.i.b4 only leads to an equal game after
8,..Wb4 9.Wd2 Wd2 10.ttJbd2 0-0-0= Henris.
8.a3!? i.d2 9.Wd2 i.c4!? (9...0-0-0
10.ttJa5!?! Henris) 10.ttJbd4!? (10.ttJa5!?!
Henris) 10 ...ttJe5 11.ttJe5 }-2-}-2 Sheldon,R-
Sedgwick,D, Hove, 1997. In the final position
White keeps a small advantage after 11 ...We5
12.ttJf3!? Wf6 13.l::1c1 l::1d8 14.Wb4 i.d5 15.l::1c7
i.c6 16.e3 Wg6 17.ttJd2 Wc2 18.i.e2! Henris.
8...!iJd4 9.!iJd4 0-0-0 10.!iJf3
10.e3!? is weaker: 10...i.d2 11.Wd2 c5 12.Wic3
(12.0-0-0 cd4 13.ed4iii Chalupetzky) 12...cd4
13.ed4iii Bellardi,M-Ludden,G, Hoevelte, 2003.
10...!iJh6!?
10...i.c4!? 11.Wa4 id2 12.ttJd2 ia6 is interesting:
a) 13.e3!? if1 14.l::1f1 We5 15.Wa7!?
(15.0-0-0 Wc5 16.Wc4 Wc4 17.ttJc4 ttJe7=
Krause) 15...l::1d2! 16.<;t>d2 (16.Wa8 <;t>d7 17.<;t>d2
Wb2 18.<;t>d3 Wb5, with perpetual check)
16,..Wb2 17.<;t>d3 ttJf6 18.Wa8 <;t>d7 19.Wh8 Wb5,
and White cannot escape the checks - Henris.
b) 13.Wig4 \t>b8!? (13...Wd7 14.Wd7 l::1d7
15.g3 <;t>b8 16.f4±) 14.Wg7 Wid7 15.l::1d1!?
(15.0-0-0) 15,..ttJe7 16.Wf7 l::1hf8!? 17.Wh7!?
We6 18.We4 Wa2 19.e3!? i.f1 20.l::1f1 Wb2 21.f4
ttJd5 22.l::1b1· Wc3 23.l::1f3!? b6!? 24.Wc4 Wa5
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.CLlf3 CLlc6 5.~bd2 other lines

25.\Wb5 \Wc3 26.\Wb2± Henris. Game 173

Riordan,Charles (2336)
11.\&c2 Sagalchik,Gennadij (2537)
Boston, 2001
11.~b3?! Eld2! 12.lLld2 lLlg4 13.Eld 1 Eld8lii Krause. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.lLlf3
lLlc6 5.lLlbd2 ib4?! (D)
11...llJg4?!

11....id2 12.lLld2 lLlg4 13.\Wc3 .if5 14.f3 tlJe5

15.e4 Elhe8 16..ie2 .ig6 17.0-0-0! Henris.

12.ic3!t \&c5!?

12 .ic4 13.h3 - Henris.

12 ic3 13.\Wc3 f6 14.e3!? (14.ef6 tlJf6
15.e3±) 14 tlJe5 15'tlJe5 fe5 16..id3! Henris.

13.e3 ic4?!

13....!t:\e3!? 14.fe3 \We3 15..ie2D .ic5 16.Elf1!?
(16 ..id2 \Wf2 17.md1 \Wg2 18.Elf1
16 ....ic4 17.\Wf5! mb8 18.tlJg1± Henris.
14.ic4 \&c4 15.h3 lLlh6 16.:gc1±
:gd7 17.ib4 \&b4 18.\&c3 \&b5?!
19.e6! fe6 20.lLle5 :ge7D 21.\&a3!
:ghe8 22.:gc5 \&a6
22...\Wb623.lLlc4+-.
23.\&a6
White is much better after 23 ... ba6 24.me2.
1-0
After 5....ib4 White will win the two bishops
.ig4-+) for free.
6.a3
The most direct attempt at a refutation.
The quieter 6.93, analysed under the move
order 5.g3 .ib4 6.tlJbd2 in game 153 (chapter
10), is also good.
6...id2 7.\&d2!
A powerful continuation!
7..id2, as recommended by ECO, is not as
strong as 8.\Wd2!: 7....ig4 8.\Wb3!? (8.g3 if3

451
 Chapter 13

9.ef3 ttJe5 10.f4 ttJc6 11 ..ig2 co ;!;; 8.h3 .if3 9.gf3 7....tg4
ttJe5 10.f4 ttJc6 11 ..ig2;!;):
a) 8.. J'~b8 9..ig5! ttJge7 10.0-0-0 0-0 It's already too late for 7...ttJge7 8.b4 ttJg6 (or
11.e3 Ei:e8 (Marshall,F-Showalter,J, USA, 1909) 8....tg4 9..tb2) 9..tb2 0-0 10.ttJd4± Kamrukov,A-
12.ed4 .if3 13.Wf3 ttJd4 14.Wg4 cS 1S..if6 g6 Romanov, Vi, Novosibirsk, 2008.
16.WgS is virtually winning for White according
to Watson. 8.b3!?
b) 8...Wc8 9.0-0-0 ttJge7 10..igS ttJfS
11.h3 .if3 12.ef3 h6 13..id2 ttJfe7 14.f4 ttJd8 This is a little passive.
1S.g4 cS 16.fS We7 17..if4 ttJde6 18.Wg3± The following options are definitely more
Marshall,F-Reggio,A, Monte Carlo, 1903. enterprising:
c) 8...ttJge7: 8.Wf4!? Wd7:
• 9.0-0-0!? (.ie3 will follow next with pressure a) 9.b4 0-0-0 10..tb2!? ttJge7!? 11.0-0-0!?
on the d-pawn) 9...0-0 10..ie3 .if3 11.ef3 ttJg6 (11.bS ttJaS co Henris) 11...ttJg6!? (11...We6 co
12.Wb7!? (or 12.f4!?) 12...ttJgeS (12 ...Wd7 Henris) 12.Wg3 We6 13.e3? (13.ttJd4 We4
13.WbS±, with an obvious advantage - Watson 14.We3;!; Henris) 13... de3 14..te2!? .tf3?!
& Schiller) 13.f4 Ei:b8 14.Wa6 We7 1S..id2 (14 ... ttJeeS 1S.ttJeS (15..te5 .tf3) 1S....te2
(1S.feS? de3 16.We6 Ei:b2-+; 1S..ie1 Ei:b6 16.Wa4 16.Ei:d8 Ei:d8 17.We3 .tf1 !?+ Henris) 1S.gf3?!
ttJd7 17.b4 as) 1S...Ei:b6 16.Wa4 ttJg4 17.Ei:e1 (1S.Wf3 ef2;) 1S... ttJeeS!?+ Sturm,M-Young,
(17 ..ie1?! as 18..id3 Ei:fb8 19.Ei:d2 ttJf6;) Trinidad, 1947.
17.. .'~f6f! Henris; b) 9.e3 .tf3 10.gf3 0-0-0 11.Wg3!? ~b8 12..th3
• 9.ig5 .if3 10.ef3 ttJeS 11.WbS, with free We7 13.f4 (13.Wg7? ttJeS! 14.Wh8 ttJf6 1S.Wg7
development and the two bishops - Watson & Ei:g8+ M6.Wh6? Ei:g6-+ Henris) 13.. .f6 14.e6!?
Schiller; g6 1S.0-0?! (15.e4 co Henris) 1S...fS 16.b4 ttJf6
• 9.g3 0-0 (9 ...d3?! 10.0-0-0! de2 11 ..ie2 17..tg2 We6; Kashdan,I-Adams,We, New York,
Me3±; 9....tf3?! 10.Wf3 ttJg6 11.We4 We7 1936.
12.f4± Henris) 10..ig2 Ei:b8 (10....tf3 11.ef3 ttJeS 8.b4 .tf3 (8...We7!? 9.ttJd4 ttJeS 10.e3
12.f4 ttJSe6 13.Wd3±) 11.0-0 (11.e3?! ttJg6 0-0-0 11 ..te2±) 9.ef3 ttJe5 10.f4! (10 ..tb2 We7
12.ttJd4 ttJd4 13.ed4 Wd4 14.f4 (14 ..tc3 Wd3) 11.0-0-0 0-0-0 12.f4 ttJe6 13.g3± Fine,R-
14 ...ttJeS! 1S.feS? Ei:fe8 16..tf4 Ei:eS! 17..teS Ei:e8 Adams,We, USA, 1944) 10 ...ttJg6 (10 ...ttJe6
18.~f1 Ei:eS 19.Ei:e1 Ei:fS 20 ..tf3 .th3! 0-1 11.bS! Ll.tb2) 11 ..tb2 We7 12..te2 0-0-013.0-0
Spielberger-Wysowski,S, corr., 1946) 11...ttJg6 ttJf6 14.Ei:fe1 Wd6 1S.g3±.
12.h3 .tf3 13.ef3! ttJgeS 14.f4 ttJd7 1S.'~e2± Llb4 8.Wd3!? (followed by b4) is also worth
- Gruenfeld. considering.

452
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6 5.ttJbd2 other lines

8...,if3 9.gf3 llJe5 10.f4 llJc6 Game 174

11.,ib2 YHh4 12.e3 llJf6 13.,ig2 0-0 Tikkanen,Hans (2469)
14.0-0?! NabatY,Tamir (2523)
Pardubice, 2010
Very dubious. Unwisely the first player castles 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.llJf3
kingside where his pawn structure is severely lLlc6 5.lLlbd2 YHe7!? (D)
damaged.
014.0-0-0 Ei:ad8 15.ed4 ltJh5 16.d5 ltJf4 17.ie4
Ei:fe8 18.Ei:deH/±.

14...gad8 15.ed4 c!tJ h5 16.d5 lLlf4

17.YHe3?

17...gfe8?!

The wrong rook!

After 17.. J'!de8! 18.\Wf3 ltJe5 19.ie5 Ei:e5+
t.... Ei:g5, Black doesn't have to worry about any A very interesting idea which leads to positions
back rank mate threat - Henris. similar to those of the variation 5...ig4 6.a3
\We7. Black's intentions are clear: he wants to
18.YHf3 lLle5 19.1e5 ge5 20.i>h1 take the e5-pawn immediately.
gh5!?
6.YHb3!?
20 .. J~de8!?+.
White doesn't allow 6...ltJe5 because of 7.ltJd4,
21.YHg3 YHf6~ and there is no checkmate on d3.
An important alternative is 6.ltJb3!?
Surprisingly White resigned in this position. ig4 (6 ...\Wb4?! 7.\Wd2 \Wc4 8.e4 de3 9.ic4 ed2
After 22.Ei:ae1 g6 (::;22 ...Ei:g5 23.\We3) 23.Ei:e4 10.id2 ig4 11.0-0-0 if3 12.gf3± Watson &
Ei:f5, Black's advantage is certainly not yet Schiller) 7.ltJbd4!? (7.e6? fe6 8.e3 e5+
decisive. Plosila,J-Sirunen,J, corr., 1989; 7.if4!? 0-0-0
0-1 8.a3 if3 9.gf3 g5 10.ig3 h5 11.h3!? ltJe5

453
 ,
,
Chapter 13

12.i.e5 ~e5 13.~d3 f5!? (13.. .ti'Je7!) 14.0-0-0= 7.ef6 lLlf6 (D)
Varga-Balogh,Ja, Budapest, 1935):
a) 7...0-0-0 8.e3 (8.i.g5 ~g5) 8...i.f3 (8 ... ttJd4
9.ed4 i.f3 10.~f3 2'!d4 11.i.e2) 9.~f3 (9.gf3
ttJe5; if 9... ~e5, then 10.i.h3):
• 9 ttJd4 10.ed4 2'!d4 11.i.e2 ~e5 12.0-0;
• 9 ~b4 10.i.d2 ~b2 11.~f5 2'!d7 12.2'!b1 ~a2
(12 ttJd4 13.~d7 \tJd7 14.2'!b2) 13.i.d3 ttJge7
14.~e4;
• 9...ttJe5 10.~f4 ttJh6 11.i.e2 (11.i.d2 ttJg6)
11 ... ~b4 12.\tJf1 ttJc4 13.ttJf3;!; Henris.
b) 7.. J~d8! 8.e3 i.f3 9.~f3 (9.gf3 ~e5 10.i.e2
i.c5iii Henris) 9... ~b4 10.i.d2 ~b2 11.2'!d1 i.b4
12.i.b4!? ~b4 13.2'!d2 ttJge7= Kritz.
6.a3 (a2-a3 is often a useful move, but Opening the e-file seems to create some
here it might be a shade sluggish): practical problems for White, but Tikkanen
a) 6...ttJe5 7.ttJe5 ~e5 8.ttJf3 ~a5 9.~d2!? doesn't panic.
(9.i.d2 is also possible) 9... ~d2 10.i.d2;!;.
b) 6...i.f5!? gives Black the interesting 8.a3!
possibility to transpose to the line 5...i.f5 6.a3
~e7 analysed in game 168. 8.g3!? is an option worth considering.
c) 6...i.g4 would transpose to the line 5.a3 i.g4
6.ttJbd2 ~e7 analysed in chapter 3. 8...lLld7!?
6.g3 is probably best. This option is
the subject of game 175. 8...g6 9.g3 i.g7 10.i.g2 0-0 11.0-0 a5iii seems to
give Black enough play for the pawn - Henris.
6.. .16!?
9.e4?!
The main point behind White's previous
move is that 6...ttJe5? drops at least the d- o9.~c2~ Henris.
pawn after 7.~b5.

6...ttJh6?! 7.h3 a5 8.a3 a4 9.~d1 ttJe5 9···9 5 !

10.ttJe5 ~e5 11.ttJf3 ~a5 12.i.d2 ~b6 13.i.h6
gh6 14.~d4± Brunner,N-Amigues,E, Nancy, 2008. Played in the spirit of the gambit. Black finds

454
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.tLlf3 tLlc6 5.ltJbd2 other lines

an original way to develop his dark-squared 19... ~c3 20.bc3 ~g4 21.:1'!b1, followed by ~e3,
bishop along the a1-h8 diagonal while would be hopeless for Black - Henris.
threatening to attack the f3-knight with ... g4
and to regain the e5-pawn. 20.id3± ig4 21.f3!? ie6?!

10.h3!? ig7 11.~c2 h5!? 021 ...:1'!g8 - Henris.

Gaining space on the queenside with 22.ih4?

11 ...a5 is an attractive option for Black -
Henris. 022.f4! - Henris.
11 ...lLlc5!? is also interesting - Henris.
22..J::!:g8?
12.~b3 g4?!
Black misses the tactical shot 22...lLlf3!. After
12...if6, restraining the development of the 23.gf3 iWc3 24.bc3 8d3, things would not be so
bishop on c1, looks stronger - Henris. clear anymore. Despite White's strong
connected passed pawns Black would have
13.ig5 ~f7!? chances to fish in muddy waters - Henris.

13...if6 14.if6 8f6 (14 ...iWf6 15.hg4 hg4 23.if1+-

16.E1.h8 (16.e5!? 8de5 17.E1.h8 Wh8 18.8fd4±)
16...iWh8 17.8g5 8de5 18.iWd2±) 15.hg4!? Now White can consolidate. The game is over.
(S15.8fd4 8d4 16.8d4 8e4 CXl ) 15...ig4
16.0-0-00-0-0 17.:1'!eH Henris. 23... ~a6!? 24.if2 ~d6 25.~h5 b6
26.0-0-0!?
14.~h4 a5!? 15.~f5 a4 16.~d2
~c5 17.hg4 d3? 26.e5+- Henris.

017...hg4 18.8g7 Wg7 19.E1.h8 iWh8 20.0-0-0 26... ~d7 27.ie3 if7 28.~e5 <t!?d8
8e5 21.if4 ~e6 22. Wb1 iWf6, and Black seems 29.~g5 ~g5 30.ig5 <t!?c8 31.if4 ~g6
to have enough piece activity to compensate 32.ie3 ~d6 33.<t!?b1 ~db3 34.ie2
for the material - Henris. ih5 35.~h8 <t!?b7 36.~h5 ~d2
37.~d2 ~d2 38.id2 ~d2 39.~d5
1-0

455
 Chapter 13

Game 175 7.ef6 llJf6 8..tg2 d31

Sakaev,Konstantin (2607)
NabatY,Tamir (2526) Black makes a nuisance of himself.
Plovdiv, 2010
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.~f3 9.e3 .ig4 10.0-0 0-0-0
llJc6 5.~bd2 'f!e7 6.g3 (D)
Black's idea is obvious: he postpones the
development of the kingside pieces in order to
castle queenside quickly. For this purpose,
Nabaty makes the case for posting his queen on
the same file as White's king, rather than the
usual ... Wfd7.

11.a3~ h512.h3 ie6

The alternative set-up 12....if5 13.b4 Wfd7

14.b5 tiJa5 is given as better for White by
Rybka due to 15.Wfa4 b6 16.tiJb3.

6.. .f6!? 13.b4llJd7 14.ib2 h4 15.g4

An interesting continuation for real gambiteers.
Black also has the following continuations at
his disposal:
6....if5 7.~g2 0-0-0 8.0-0 tiJe5? 9.tiJe5
Wfe5 10.Wfb3 c6 11.Wfa4± Henris.
6...lL\e5 7.tiJe5 (and not 7.tiJd4?? tiJd3#
0-1 NN-Bogoljubov,E, Freiburg, 1946) 7...Wfe5
8.tiJf3!? Wfa5 9.~d2 Wfb6 10.~g2!? tiJf6 11.0-0;1;
Henris.
The more timid alternative 6....ig4
7.ig2 0-0-0 8.0-0 transposes to the line 5.g3
ig4 6.tiJbd2 Wfe7 7.ig2 0-0-0 8.0-0 analysed in
game 124 . chapter 8.
The computer gives 15.lL\h4, but humans would
be frightened at the idea of having to face a
strong attack starting with 15.. J"1:h4 16.gh4 Wfh4
17.Wff3 ~d6. The position may be objectively
better for White, but it could still give him
some very unpleasant moments.
15....ig4!?
Nabaty can not blamed for not being brave in
this game.
16.hg4 h3 17..ih1

456
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6 5.~bd2 other lines

White is a piece up, but Black has not said his
last word ...
17...h2! 18.CL'lh2 'I1Mh4 19.1lJdf3 'I1Mh7
20.e5 i..e7 21.i..g2 i..f6
Calmly neutralizing White's strongest piece.
22.'I1Mb3 gdf8 23.gfd1 CL'lee5 24.e6
be625.gae1
Sakaev has fUlly mobilized his forces and is
ready to make inroads on the queenside.
However, whatever the material count, life
goes on ...
25...llJf3 26.CL'lf3 i..b2 27.'I1Mb2 gf3
More fuel to try and reignite the fire.
28.i..f3 'I1Mh2 29.i>f1 llJe5 30.i..g2
gf831.ge5?
An imprecision giving Black a glimmer of hope.
The simplest is 31.~c6! iWg3 32.Ei:de1 cue6
33.Ei:e6 iWg4 (33 ...iWe3? 34.Ei:e7! <:%le7 35.iWg7,
regaining the rook with check) 34.iWd2, and the
extra piece should be enough to win - Flear,G.
31 ...llJg4 32.gd3 'I1Mg3 33.ge2 CL'lh2
34.i>g1 llJf3 35.i>f1 llJh2 36.i>e1!
36...'I1Mg2 37.~d2!
It's time to take the king for walkies.
37...CL'lg4 38. i>e3 llJf2 39.gd4 'I1Mg1
40.'I1Me1
White could also play 40.<:%lb3 immediately -
Flear,G.
40...'I1Mg6 41.i>b3 llJd3 42.'I1Mh1 'I1Me6
43.i>a4!
Of course! Where else?
43...llJe5 44.ge4 'I1Md6 45.'I1Mh2 gf5
Slightly more resistant is 45.. J~e8! 46.Ei:e5 <:%lb7,
but then White seizes the initiative with
47.iWe2! a6 48.<:%la5! - Flear,G.
46.ge5 'I1Md1 47.'I1Me2 'I1Md6 48.'I1Me3
'I1Md1 49.i>a5
Hardly a surprise anymore. White is winning
easily now.
49...CL'lf7 50.gf5 llJd6 51.'I1Me6 llJb7
52.i>a6 'I1Md3 53.ge4
Or 53.@a7.

White refuses to take the draw by threefold 53...'I1Ma3 54.ga5

repetition. 1-0

457
 Chapter 13

Game 176 7.tLlbd4?!

Bergez,Luc (2416)
Bontempi,Piero (2325) 7.a3 seems more sensible: 7...ltJge5 8.ltJe5
Split, 2011 (8.ltJbd4!?) 8...ltJe5 9.Wd4 (9.ltJd4!?) 9...Wd4
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.'lJf3 10.ltJd4 ltJc4 11.e4 ltJe5 12.ltJb5 ~d8 13.if4 f6
'lJc6 5.'lJbd2 'lJh6!? (D) 14.Elc1 c6 15.Eld1 id7 16.ie2!?;!; Henris.

7... tLld4 8.'1Wd4

The difference with the line 5...ltJge7 6.ltJb3

ltJg6 7.ltJbd4 ltJd4 is clear: after 8.ltJd4? ib4
9.id2 Wd4, the queen attacks not only the b-
pawn but also f2 - Henris.

8... ~d4 9.'lJd4 1b4 10.1d2 1d2

11.@d2 'lJf212J~g1 'lJg4

There is no reason to play 12....ie6?! 13.h3!?

(13.ltJe6 fe6 14.h3;!; Henris) 13...ltJe4?!
With this odd-looking move Black intends to (13 ... 0-0-0 14.~e3 ic4 co Henris) 14.~e3;!;
continue with 6...ltJg4, threatening to regain Lund,Si-Hjorth,T, Denmark, 2009.
the e5-pawn and at the same time eyeing the
f2-square. 13.tLlb5!?

6.'lJb3!? 13.e3!? ltJe5 - Henris.

13.4:Jf3!? ie6 14.e4 0-0-0 15. ~c3
6.h3 looks interesting, not allowing the knight ltJf2!?co Henris.
to come on g4.
13...@d8 14.@c3!? 1d7
6... tLlg4
14.. J'~e8!? - Henris.
Better than 6....ib4?! 7.id2 4:Jf5 8.ib4 ltJb4
(Hrabusa,M-Bontempi,P, Stare Mesto, 2010) 15.e41b5 16.cb5 'lJe5 17.E:d1 @e7
9.Wd2!?± Henris. 18.E:d5 f6~

458
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.tDf3 tDc6 5.lLJbd2 other lines

Black has a tiny egde in this position thanks to 32.. J;g2 33.d6 ~h2 34.de7 We8ex> Henris.
his strong knight and his better pawn
structure. 33.@d2 ge5 34.d6 gd5 35.@c3
gd6 36.gd6 cd6!? 37.a4 f5!? 38.b4
19..ic4 gad8 20.ggd1 ~g4
21.g1d3 ~e5 22.g3d4 gd7 23.gd7 38.h4 g6 39.b4 h6 40.md4 g5 41.hg5 hg5
~d7 24..id5 gb8 25.ga4 ~b6!? 42.me3 me7= Henris.
26.ga7 ~d5 27.ed5 @d6 28.@d4
38...g5 39.a5 h5 40.a6 rj;;c7 41.h4??
The game should have ended in a draw.
White blunders and loses the game.
28... b6 29.ga3 ge8 30.gc3!? The immediate draw was obtained with
41.md4 h4 42.me3 mb8= Henris.
30J:!g3 ~e2 31.~g7 ~b2 32.a4 h5!? is unclear -
Henris. 41 ...g4 42.rj;;d4 f4 43.rj;;d3 d5
44.rj;;d2 d4
30...ge2 31.gc6 rj;;d7 32.rj;;c3 ge3!? 0-1

459
White has several ways to decline the with in chapter 16, allow easy equality. I
gambit and there are a variety of odds shall look at 3.cd5, lLlc3 and 3.e3.
and ends which do not follow the normal
sequence 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 ttJc6. 3.. d4

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 Black's pawn restrains White's development.

The endgame is unpleasant after 3...dc4?!.
The move is briefly examined in chapter 15.

Chapter 15 mainly deals with the

continuation 4.a3 and the important
alternative 4.e4.
Some marginal lines are also covered at this
stage.

4...lLlc6

Chapter 14 explores deviations from the

standard moves 5.a3, 5.g3 and 5.ttJbd2:
3.de5 5..if4, 5..ig5, 5.e3 and minor continuations.
I shall also succinctly have a look at 4...c5
Most of the alternatives to 3.de5, dealt and 4....ib4 here.

After 2... e5, We examine:

- Chapter 14: 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3

- Chapter 15: 4.a3, 4.a3, other lines
- Chapter 16: 4.cd5, 4.ttJc3, 4.e3

460
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ltJf3 (D)
4...ltJc6
This is the only move that gains compensation
for the pawn. It develops and attacks the pawn
on e5.
After 4...c5?! Black's position becomes
too static and can be undermined by e3. This
continuation is analysed in game 188.
The other sideline 4...,ib4?! is also
dealt with in game 188.
After 4... ttJc6 we reach another tabiya for the
Albin Counter-Gambit.
This chapter covers other 5th moves than 5.a3,
5.93 and 5.ttJbd2, already seen in the first
three parts.
White has 5.if4, 5.,ig5 and 5.e3.
The minor continuations 5.h3, 5.b3 and 5.~b3
are also analysed in game 187.
5.i.f4
5.,if4 allows White to hold on to the e5-pawn.
But here the bishop is exposed and can be
attacked after ...ttJe7 -96.
5...llJe7
Beside this logical and strong manreuvre,
White also has the interesting continuations
covered in game 177: 5...,ig4, 5...,ib4, 5...ie6
and 5...h6.
6.llJbd2
White also has some pawn pushes:
6.e3 is the subject of game 179.
6.a3 is covered in game 180.
6.e4, 6.g3 and 6.h3 are also analysed
in game 180.
6...ltJg67.i.g3
461
 •
.,
Chapter 14

The alternative 7.i.g5 is analysed in game 177. game 184).

On the oder hand, 5....tb4 is inferior
After 7.i.g3 Black has several interesting (---+ game 184).
options:
7... h5!? is the subject of game 177, 6..ie7
The alternatives 7...Ac5, 7...if5 and
7...a5 are analysed in game 178. White also has:
The interesting option 6.Af4 is the
subject of game 183.
5..ig5 (D) 6.h4 (---+ game 183).

6...Wfe7?! allows 7.ctJd4;!;.

7.e3 is examined in game 181.

7.g3 is also analysed in game 181.
The move 7.lLla3!? is also considered in
game 181.

After 7. ctJ bd2 Black has several options at his

5... ie7
Clearly White's most natural and frequently
played continuation.
But some alternatives have been tried:
5.. .16 6.ef6 ctJf6 is the subject of game
184; 6...gf6 is also interesting (---+ game 184).
5...Wfd7 is not often played, but is
quite interesting (---+ game 184).
5...tt::lge7!? is not often encountered in
practice either but is also worth considering (---+
disposal:
7...0-01 is the subject of games 181 and
182.
7...Ag4!? gives Black a good game (---+
game 181).
7...lLlg6!? is less flexible as Black has
lost the option of ... ctJf5. This continuation is
also analysed in game 181.
7...ie6!? is also worth considering (---+
game 181).

462
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ll:)f3 (ll:)c6)

5.e31! (D)

An early e3 is never a great idea against the

Albin.

5...i.b4

5...i.g4 is less strong (~ game 185).

6.ttJbd2

The important alternative 6.i.d2 is

covered in game 186.
The strange-looking move 6.@e2?! is
also examined in game 186.

6...de3 7.fe3 i.g4

7 i.g4 is analysed in game 185.

7 lL\ge7 and 7...lL\h6 are also
interesting (~game 185).

463
 .,
Chapter 14

Game 177 will regain his pawn soon with a good position:
Neumann,Avraham 9.ig5?! (9.ig3?! ib4 10.lDd2 ti'lge5:j: Henris;
Porat,Yosef better is 9.id2!? ti'lge5= Henris) 9..."tVg5!?
Israel, 1967 10.ti'lg5 ib4 11."tVd2 lDge5:j: Walter, W-Royset,J,
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.~f3 Kretsmesterskap, 1999.
tLlc6 5..if4 (0) 5....ib46.lDbd2:
a) 6 lDge7 7.a3:
• 7 lDg6?! 8.ab4! lDf4 9.b5lDb4 (9 ...lDe7 10.g3
lDfg6 11.ig2+ Henris) 10..8:a4 "tVe7!? 11.lDb3 d3
12.Wd2!? (12.e3 lDc2 13.ciJd2 lDe6 14.id3±
Henris) 12 ...lDc2 (12 ... de2 13.ie2 lDg2 14.ciJf1
ih3 15.Wb4 (1S.ciJg1? .8:dB) 15..."tVe6 16.Wc3±
Henris) 13.ciJd1 de2 14.ie2 lDe2 15.ciJe2 if5
16.Wg5± Panuzzo,J-Khu,R, email, 1995;
• 7....td2 8.Wd2 ig4 (8 ... lDg6?! 9.0-0-0
(9.igS!) 9...ig4 10.ig5 f6 11.ef6 gf6 12.ih6±)
9..8:d 1 if3 10.ef3 lDg6 11.ig3 We7 12.f4 f6!
13.id3 fe5 14.ig6 hg6 15.fe5 0-0-0 16.0-0 Wc5
17.e6!? (17.We2±) 17...d3 (Aban,E-Bademian,J,
The move 5.if4, which defends immediately Buenos Aires, 1989) 18.b4! Wc4 19..8:c1±
the e5-pawn, was played for the first time by Henris.
Frank Marshall in 1904. Later it was b) 6...ie6!? 7.e3!? de3 (7...d3?! 8.Wb3±
recommended by Reuben Fine. On f4 the Ragozin,V-Krylenko,N, corr., 1926) 8.ie3 lDge7
bishop is exposed as Black can gain time by (after Radulescu's suggestion of 8...ig4!? 9.ie2
attacking it with ... lDe7 -g6. We7 10.0-0 0-0-0, White can play 11 ..8:e1±)
9.ie2 (9.a3!?;t) 9... lDg6 10.0-0;t Henris.
5...tLlge7 c) 6...ig4 7.a3;t
5...ie6!?:
This is the most principled move, gaining time a) 6.e3!? ib4!? (o6 ...de3 7.Wd8 .8:d8 8.ie3!?
by attacking the somewhat misplaced if4. lDge7= Henris) 7.ti'lbd2 de3 8.ie3 lDge7 9.a3
Black also has: id2 10.id2!? lDg6 11.ic3;t Luz,H-Guara Neto,
After 5 .tg4 6.lDbd2, Black should A, Blumenau, 2010.
probably play 6 lDge7 as now 7.h3 if3 8.lDf3 b) 6..!tlbd2 Wd7!? 7."tVa4 ti'lge7 8.0-0-0!? ti'lg6
lDg6 does not pose any problem for Black who (8 ...ti'lc8!?) 9.g3 ig4 10.ig2 lDf4 11.gf4 0-0-0

464
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.tbf3 (tbc6)

12.ttJb3 ~f5 13.ttJfd4! ttJd4 14.ttJd4 ~f4 15.e3 6...llJg6 7..tg3

~f2 16.~a7! ~g2 (16 ... ~e3 17.c;t>b1 ~f5
18.c;t>a1+-) 17.~a8 c;t>d7 18.~d8! (M8 ...c;t>d8 Or 7.,ig5:
19.ttJc6 c;t>c8 20J''1d8#) 1-0 Santos,Antonio P- a) 7...f6 8.ef6 gf6 9.~h4 ~g4 10.~g3
Rodrigues,Nu, Almada, 1998. We7 11.Wb3 0-0-0, with typical compensation,
5... h6!? (a move suggested by Panov) Polak,T-Neubauer,Ma, Stockerau, 1993.
6.h4! (6.h3 ttJge7 7.ttJbd2 ttJg6 8.~h2 a5!? 9.a3 b) 7...ie7! 8.~e7 ~e7 9.ttJb3 ig4
(9.g4 h5 10.g5 h4+!) 9... a4 10.Wc2 ~c5 11.0-0-0 MO.ttJfd4 0-0-0 - Davies.
We7 12.ttJe4 0-0 00 Wischemirskis-Mikenas,V,
Riga, 1945) 6... ttJge7 7.h5 (Sorsa,M-Vaisanen,K, 7...h5!? (D)
Helsinki, 1999) 7... ~g4 8.ttJbd2 Wd7 9.g3
O-O-O+!.

6.ttJbd2 (D)

Black has in mind a very interesting plan to

regain the e-pawn.
The alternatives 7...,ic5, 7...if5, and 7...a5 are
covered in game 178.
This looks like the most natural move.
But White also has: 8.h3
6.e3 is the subject of game 179.
6.a3 is examined in game 180. Or 8.h4 ~g4 (8...ic5 9.a3 a5) 9.a3 a5 10.b3
6.e4 is analysed in game 180. ic5 11.ttJe4 ~b6 12.~d2 0-0 - Henris.
6.g3 is also covered in game 180.
6.h3 is dealt with in game 180. 8...h4 9..th2 gh5 10.a3 ttJge5

465
 ,
Chapter 14

11.lLle5 llJe5 12.1i.e5 Game 178

Laurentius, Leonard
More critical is 12.<~Jb3, when 12...g6 (here the Kostic, Boris
continuation 12...%'f6!? 13.CiJd4 ~d7, intending Munich, 1936
14... 0-0-0, is also worth considering) 13.%'d4 1.d4 d5 2.e4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ctJf3
%'d4 14.CiJd4 CiJc4 15.e3 CiJd6 16.!"k1 c6, and llJe6 5.flf4 ctJge7 6.ctJbd2 ctJg6
White is only slightly better, according to 7.i.g3 (0)
Davies.

12.. J3e5 13.ctJf3 :ge4 14.VMb3 e5

15.0-0-0 VMb6 16.VMb6 ab6

Black's unusual and creative play has brought

him a very pleasant two-bishop endgame.

17.e3 de3 18.i.d3 :ge6 19.ctJh4?

White should have eliminated the other pawn

first with 19.fe3 - Davies.
Now Black is clearly better.
I shall look here at the alternatives to 7... h5
19...ef2 20.:ghf1 g6 seen in the previous game.

20...E:f6!? was worth considering, as now 7...i.e5

21.CiJf3 would be answered by 21 ... ~h3 -
Davies. 7...1i.f5!? 8.a3 (or 8.%'a4 %'d7!? 9.0-0-0
After 20 ...g6 the game peters out to 0-0-0 10.CiJb3 ~C2!CXl Henris) 8...%'e7 makes
approximate equality. perfect sense, preparing to castle queenside
and recover the e5-pawn. After 9.%'b3 0-0-0
21.:gf2 fle7 22.ctJf3 fld7 23.:ge1 :ge1 10.e4 CiJge5 11.CiJe5 CiJe5 12.0-0-0 ~g4, Black
24.ctJe1 i.e6 25.~e2 :gd8 26.:ge2 was doing just fine in Kieninger,G-Engels,L,
~f8 27.fle4 :gd4 28.fle6 be6 29.b3 Bad Oeynhausen, 1939.
flf6 30.ctJf3 :gd7 31.a4 7...a5 rules out b2-b4, and the a-pawn
can also be used to eject a white knight from

466
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.~f3 (~c6)

b3. After 8.h4 h5 9.a3 (Ho,Cheng Fai-Van 14.i.d3 ~a5! (0)

Tilbury,C, Calvia, 2004), Black should probably
play 9...a4 10.~c2 fie?, putting the onus on
White to complete his development - Davies.

8.a3 a5 9.%Vc2!?

9.tlJb3 is another option:

a) 9...b6?! 10.e3!? (10.tiJc5 bc5 11.e3
O-Oiii Reprintsev) 10...de3 11.~d8 Wd8 12.CiJc5
ef2 13.Wf2 bc5 14.E1d1 fid7±.
b) 9...~e7 10.ctJfd4 liJd4 11.liJd4 liJe5
12.e3;!;.
c) 9...fia7 10.c5 ~e? 11.tlJbd4 liJce5
12.e3 fic5= Kosir,P-Urbanc,S, Bled, 2000. 15.0-0?!

9...%Ve710.%Ve4!? 15.fic2!? .

Such centralization of the queen is generally 15... ~ce5+ 16.b4??

innocuous when it has no clear plan to follow.
Such is the case here. This blunder brings a quick end to the game,
1O.tlJb3 fie6 11.0-0-00-0-0 12.h4 h5:j:. but White's position was pretty terrible
anyway.
10...a4!
16...ab3?
Clamping down on the queenside, and in
particular, on the b3-square. o16...f5! wins the queen on the spot - Henris.

11.h4 h512.e3 de313.fe3 i.b6 17.CL:lb3??

Black has good compensation for the pawn as o17.tlJe5+ Henris.

White's weak pawn structure renders the extra
pawn meaningless. In fact, the extra pawn just 17.. .f5
gets in the way of the White pieces. 0-1

467
 ,
Chapter 14

Game 179 Blankenberg,B, corr., 2000.

Holwell,James
Cleemann,Arnold 7...ie7?!
corr., 1988
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.~f3 This is the first slip, one that is not
ltJc6 5..if4ltJge7 6.e3!? (D) commented on by Leiseben when annotating
the game. Black need not give White a two
pawn lead.
7...ib4?! 8.ttJbd2 f6 9.ef6 gf6 10.ih6
ig4 (Dmitruk, Vo-Stanek,S, Bmo, 2005) 11.a3;!;
Henris.
It makes more sense to challenge the
bishop immediately, forcing White to lose
time retreating with 7...f6! 8.ef6 gf6. Now
Black gets great play whichever way the
bishop goes:
a) 9.ih4?!:
• 9...ib4 10.ttJbd2 ig4 11.ig3 de3 12.fe3 IWe7
13.a3 IWe3 14.IWe2?? (a lesser evil was 14.ie2
According to Peter Leisebein, this is the ic5 15.IWb3 0-0-0+ McGrew) 14...id2-+
refutation of Black's idea. 15.<iJd1 0-0-0 0-1 Weiss,Da-Gelfenboim,J,
Wuerttemberg, 1997;
• 9...ttJh4 10.ttJh4 ib4 11.ttJd2 de3 12.fe3 ig4
13.ie2 f5 14.ttJhf3 was played in Nadal
After 6...ig4?!, instead of 7.ie2?! de3 8.IWd8 Bestard,S-Cockroft,J, Palma de Mallorca, 1992.
l"i:d8=, I suggest the continuation 7.ed4!? if3 Now 14...IWe7 gives Black a clear advantage.
(7 ...ttJg6 8.ie3;!;) 8.IWf3 IWd4 (8... ttJd4 9.IWe4±) b) 9.if4 ttJf4 10.ef4, and now instead of
9.ttJc3 ttJg6 10.ie3 IWe5 (10 ... ttJge5 11.IWd5!?;!;) 10...if5 11.ie2?! (11.id3 ib4 12.<iJf1 IWd7lii)
11.0-0-0!?;!; Henris. 11...ib4 12.<iJf1 d3?! (Nebel,L-Bobber,J, corr.,
1988) which could be have been met by
7.ig5 13.ttJh4!, with obscure complications, Black
can simply play 10...ib4, intending 11.ttJbd2
Or 7..tg3 ib4 8.ttJbd2 de3 9.fe3 IWe7, and Black d3!, with a very comfortable position -
was better in the game Meisinger,P- McGrew.

468
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.~f3 (~c6)

8.i.e7 Wfe7 9.ed4!? Game 180

Xu Jun (25S2)
Better seems to be 9.ttJd4 CLJge5 10.CLJc3+. Ni Hua (263S)
Xiapu, 2005
9...i.g4 10.ttJc3 i.f3 11.gf3 0-0-0 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.lDf3
12.i.h3 <it>bS 13.c£)d5 Wfh4~ 14.i.g4 ttJc6 5.i.f4lDge7 6.a3!? (D)
h5?

Here is the real error. Black's temporary

advantage in development must be put to good
use before White can find a safe haven for his
king.
Therefore, Black should line up and lash out
with 14.. J3he8! 15J'£c1 h5!. Timing makes a real
difference: here after White plays
Black punches with 16 ... CLJge5! before White
can swap minor pieces on g6. Timing the
exchange this way leaves White's
vulnerable, so that after 17.de5 E1e5 18.~e4 f5,
Black regains everything with a winning
position - McGrew.
After 14... h5? Black loses much of his advantage.
15.i.f5 lDf4 16.i.e4 ttJg2 17.<it>f1
Wfh3 1S.<it>g1 ~d5! 19.cd5 ttJf4
20.Wff1 Wfh4+ 21.h3 ttJd4 22.<it>h2
'I1«g5 23.d6 cd6 24.ed6 'I1«e5 25.'I1«c4
ttJde6? 26.'I1«c3 'I1«g5 27.~hg1 'I1«h4
2S.~g3 ~dS 29.~c1 'I1«f6 30.'I1«f6 gf6
31.d7 ttJe2 32.~cS ~cS 33.dcS'I1«
<it>cs 34.~gS <it>c7 35.~eS ttJdS
36.i.b7 ttJf4 37.i.a6 ttJfe6 3S.i.c4
<it>d7 39.~hSlDg5 40.<it>g3
1-0
16.~f5,
bishop
It must be said that the move order of the
game was 5.a3 CLJge7 6.~f4.
Instead of 6.CLJbd2, 6.e3, covered in the
previous games, White also has 6.a3, seen here,
and the following options:
6.e4 CLJg6:
a) 7.~g5 ~e7 (7 ...iWd7!?) 8.~e7 'We7!? 9.CLJd4
(Lacroix,S-Barbeau,S, Quebec, 1991) 9... ~d7!?
10.CLJc3 0-0-0, when Black enjoys a dangerous
initiative - Davies.
b) 7.~g3 ~g4 8.~e2 ~b4 9.i>f1!? 0-0 10.a3 ~e7
11.'Wb3!? ~f3 12.gf3 CLJge5!? 13.f4 CLJa5 14.iWb5
d3! 15.fe5 de2 16.i>e2 (Senchovici-Ianovici,
corr., 1934) 16...CLJc6!+ Henris.
6.h3 CLJg6 7.~h2:

469
 Chapter 14

a) 7....if5 8.a3 f6?! (8 ...a5!?) 9.ef6 V9f6 10..ic7

~h8 15.e3 f4!+ Wein,W-Seyb,H, Schloss
.ie7 11.tbbd2 0-0 12.g4 .ie6 13..ig3;t Marshall,
Schney, 1997) 8... de3 9.V9d8 ttJd8 10.fe3 .ic5=
F-Lawrence,T, Cambridge, 1904.
Kukov, V-Karpatchev,A, Istanbul, 2006.
b) 7...ie7 ~ ... O-O, ... .§e8, ...if8 - Davies.
6.g3!? h6 7.ttJbd2 g5 8.ttJe4 ig7 9.id2 8.h3
ttJg6 10.M gM (10...g4!?) 11.ttJM ttJge5i=
Georgadze, G-Chachibaia, D, USSR, 1989.
Or 8.h4 ig4 (8 ...a5!? 9.ttJbd2 ig4 00 ) 9.ttJbd2!?
~e7 ~ ... O-O-O~ Henris.
6... ~g6 7.ig3
8... h4 9.ih2 l3h5?!
7.ig5!?:
a) 7...f6!? 8.ef6 gf6 9.ic1 (9.iM ig4
9...a5!? 10.ttJbd2 ic5 11.ttJb3;t.
or 9...ttJM!?) 9...ig4 10.~d3!? (o10.~b3!? _
I prefer 9...if5!?, followed by ... ~d7
Henris) 10... ~d7 11.e4?! 0-0-0 12.ie2? ttJge5?
(or .. .''!fie7) and ... 0-0-0 - Henris.
13.ttJe5 ttJe5 14.~d1 ie2 15.~e2 .§g8-+
Huebener,J-Helling, K, Berlin, 1937. Black's
10.e3!? de3 11.%Vd8 c;tJd8 12.fe3
tremendous lead in development gives him a
ie5!?
winning position.
b) After 7...ie7!? 8.ie7, Black has
After 12...c!Llce5 13.ttJe5 ttJe5 14.ie2 .§g5
several interesting possibilities:
15.if4 '§f5 16.ttJc3, the rook on f5 is misplaced
• 8... ~e7!? 9.ttJd4 ttJce5!? (9 ttJd4?! 10.~d4
and the black king is still in the middle of the
ttJe5 11.ttJc3 c6 12.ttJe4±; 9 0-0!? is worth
board. White has a small but indisputable
considering) 10.ttJc3 0-0 11.e3 .§d8iii Henris;
advantage - Henris.
• 8...c!Llge7 9.ttJbd2 (9.g3 ttJg6 10.ig2 ttJge5 is
quite comfortable for Black) 9... 0-0 00 Henris;
13.~e3 ie6 14.l3d1 c;tJe7 15.~d4±
• 8...@e7!?, ~ ....§e8 and ... cj;Jf8 - Henris.
l3d8 16.ie2 l3hh8 17.tDe6 be6
c) 7... ~d7 could be considered, as in
18.c;tJf2 a5 19.~e4 ia7 20.b4 l3b8
5.g3 ttJge7 6.ig2 ttJg6 7.ig5 ~d7 - Henris.
21.l3b1!? l3hd8 22.ba5 if5 23.if3
tDf8 24.l3b4 ~e6 25.c;tJe2!? ~e5
7... h5!?
26.~f2!?

Black has no problem equalizing after 7...a5

26.c!Llc5 .ic5 27.gb8 gb8 28 ..ic6 gb2 29.~f3±,
8.e3 (8.'~~Vc2!? ic5 9.ttJbd2 Vge7 10.Vge4!? 0-0
and three pawns more must count for
11.ttJb3 ia7 12.ttJbd4?! ttJd4 13.ttJd4 f5! 14.V9d5 something - Henris. i

470
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4
26... ttJb3 27J'~d1 ~c2??
27...gd1 28.lLld1 i.e6;!; Henris.
28J'~d8 ~d8!?
After 28 ...Wd8 29J'%b8 i.b8 30.a6, White should
win quickly - Henris.
29.~b7 ~d2 30.@e1 !e3 31.ttJg4
!g5 32.~c7 @e6 33.~c6 @f5
34.!g1!? 34... ~d3 35.a6 !iJd2
36.!d5 ~a3 37.!e3?!
37.lLle3 i.e3 38.i.e3 lLlb3 39.a7 is one way to
victory - Henris.
37...!iJe4 38.!g5 @g5 39.e6?
White starts to lose the thread of the game.
39.i.f7? i.d3! 40.lLle3 l"1a1 41.lLld1 i.c2,
and things are not clear anymore - Henris.
39J~c7! is the right way to proceed: 39 ...l"1a6
(39 ...i.d3 40.i.e4 i.e4 41.a7 i.g2 42.lLlf2 Wf5
43.l"1f7 We5 44.l"1g7+-) 40.l"1f7+- Henris.
39...fe6 40.~e6 @f4 41.!iJf2!? ~a1
42.@e2 !iJf2 43.@f2 !d3 44.~e1
~a6 45.~c1 ~a2 46.@g1 @e3 47.c5
~a5 48.!f3 @d2 49.~d1 @e3 50.c6
~c5 51.~e1 @f4 52.~e7 g6 53.@h2
~f5 54.~h7 @g5
Y2-Y2
White is still clearly better in the final position.
4.~f3 (~c6)
Game 181
Borisenko, Georgy
Mosionzhik,lIya Samoilovich
USSR, 1968
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3
ttJc6 5.!g5 !e7 6.!e7 ttJge7 (D)
6...\!!'!e7?! is bad because of 7.lLld4;!; Dittmar,P-
Schumacher,Hor, Bad Wiessee, 1998.
The most natural move.
Alternatively:
7.e3!? i.g4 (7 ...de3!? is also possible):
a) 8.i.e2 de3 9.iWd8 l"1d8 10.fe3 lLlb4!? (or
10...i.f3 11.gf3 (S,11.i.f3 lLle5) 11 ... lLlf5 12.\t>f2
lLle5 13.lLlc3 l"1d2 14.l"1hd1 l"1b2 15.l"1ab1 l"1b1
16.l"1b1 ij; Henris) 11.lLla3 (McKenzie,M-Stawski,
N, Canberra, 1999) 11...lLlg6!?:i= Henris;
b) 8.ed4 i.f3 9.iWf3 (Stiegmeier,F-Jesus Filho,J,
Brazil, 1999) 9...iWd4:j: Henris.
471
 Chapter 14

7.g3 ttJg6 8.~g2 0-0 9.ttJbd2 ttJge5 is at ttJge5= Cehajic,M-Nagley, T, corr., 2003.
least equal. Black has recovered the sacrificed 7...<!Llg6!? is less flexible than 7... 0-0.
pawn and enjoys a space advantage - Davies. After 8.ttJb3 Black does not have the option
7.ttJa3 (with the idea ttJc2) 7... ~g4 ...ttJf5 anymore. But precise play from Black
8.'~a4? (8.ttJc2 ~f3 9.gf3 ttJg6 10.Ei:g1 lMrh4+ leads to unclear complications:
Dorner,An-Landolt, F, Jedesheim, 1991) 8...0-0 a) 8...<!Llge5?!:
9.ttJc2 ~f3 10.gf3 'iJe5 11.c5? 'iJ7c6 12.Ei:d11Mre7 • 9.lLlbd4?! 'iJf3 (or 9 'iJd4 10.'iJd4 (10.'iJe5
13.~g2 d3!-+ Knuesli & Musumeci-De Barbieri, ~f5 11.Ei:c1 lMrd6) 10 0-0 00 Henris) 10.'iJf3
V, Genova, 1917. (Balazs,Andras-Molnar, Fe, Hungary, 2008)
10 ...lMrf6 11.lMrd2 ~g4!?~ Henris;
7...0-01 (D) • 9.lLle5! 'iJe5 10.lMrd4! (10.'iJd4? O-O! 11.e3
transposes to the line 8...0-0!) 10...lMrd4 11.'iJd4
'iJc4 (Lieder,K-Kleine,J, Willingen, 2001)
12.Ei:c1!± Henris.
b) 8...0-0! 9.'iJbd4 'iJce5 is quite interesting:
• 10.lLle5 'iJe5 11.e3 lMrf6! 12.~e2 lMrg6~
Couspeyre,T -Hartmann,Joh, corr., 2007;
• 10.e3 (Kozlov,Vladimir N-Mosionzhik,l, Riazan,
1975) 10...lMrf6!? 11.c5!? Ei:d8 12.lMrc2 'iJf3 13.'iJf3
~f5 14.lMrc31Mrc3 15.bc3 Ei:d5 16.c6 b6 00 Henris.
7...ie6!? seems playable too:
a) 8.\1;Yc2!? lMrd7 (8 ... 'iJg6!? - Henris) 9.Ei:d 1!?
(Gonzalez Castro,E-Valadez Espinosa,J,
Hermosillo, 2001) 9... ~f5!? 10.lMra4 0-0 11.'iJb3
Black also has the following options: ~c2 12.Ei:d21Mrf5 oo Henris.
7...~g4: b) 8.lLlb3!? ~c4 9.'iJbd4 lMrd5 10.b3 (10.'iJc6
a) Black has a good position after 8.g3 0-0 'iJc6 11.e3 0-0-0 12.~c4 lMrc4=) 10 ...0-0-0
(8...lMrd7!? 9.~g2 0-0-0) 9.~g2 'iJg6 10.0-0 11.bc4 lMra5 12.lMrd2 'iJd4! 13.'iJd4 lMrd2 14.md2
'iJge5 according to Meinsohn, e.g. 11.'iJe5!? Ei:d4 15.mc3 Ei:e4;1;/= Henris.
'iJe5 12.~b7!? Ei:b8 13.~g2 Ei:b2, etc.
b) 8.lMrb3 0-0 9.e3 'iJf5 10.e4 'iJfe7 11.~d3 'iJg6
12.0-0 ~f3 13.'iJf3 'iJce5 14.'iJe5 'iJe5 15.h3 c5=i=
Einarsson, Be-Gaprindashvili ,V, Paris, 1995. 8...<!Llg6!? 9.'iJbd4 'iJce5 is analysed under the
c) 8.h3!? ~f3 9.'iJf3 'iJg6 10.lMrb3 0-0 11.0-0-0 move order 7... ttJg6 8.ttJb3 0-0.

472
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttlf3 (ttlc6)

9.%Vd2 a) 14...c5!? 15.CiJf3 ~f3 16.gf3 ~g5!? (Black is

threatening ... ~g2) 17.r;t>f1!? CiJg6 (Yashin,R-
9.g4 CiJh4 10.CiJbd4 CiJf3 11.CiJf3 iWe7~ Hasler,Ul, corr., 2000) 17... ~f5°o Henris.
9.h4!?, intending g4, is an untried b) 14... ~e2!? 15.r;t>e2 oo ; and not 15.CiJe2 :§:d3
suggestion of Minev. 16.'rWc2 (16.\Wa5 iWg5) 16...:§:ad8+ Henris.
9.g3 iWe7 10.~g2 :§:d8 11.0-0 a5!? (or
11 ...CiJe5= Henris) 12.CiJc1 CiJe5= Henris. 14...Ct:Jg6 15.i>f2 Ct:Jf4?

9.. .'~e7! An unsound sacrifice.

9".a5!? is the subject of next game.
10.Ct:Jbd4 Ct:Jfd4 11.ttJd4 ttJe5 12.e3
~d8 (D)
15."c5 would keep matters unclear - Henris.
16.h3!
16.ef4? iWc5 17.r;t>g3 (17.~e3?? :§:d4) 17...:§:d4
18.r;t>g4 h5!---t Henris.

16...ih5 17.Ct:Jf5?

o17.ef4 iWc5 18.b4 \Wd4 19.\Wd4 :§:d4 20.g4 m4

21. ~g3 m1 22J:lhf1 ~g6 23.:§:ad 1± Henris.

17.. .'~g5 18.'~·g7?!

18.tLJg7?? allows 18...:§:d3!!-+ Henris.

18.94 CiJe6 19.:§:g1 ~g6 20.h4 iWf6
21.iWf6 gf6 22. r;t>e2 r;t>f8;!; Henris.

Black has sufficient compensation for the pawn 18...Y;Yg7 19.ttJg7 ttJd3! 2o.id3 i>g7
thanks to his lead in development. 21.ie2 ~d2 22.g4 ig6 23.b3 id3
24.~he1 ~b2 25.i>f3 ig6 26.if1
13.Y;Yc3 .1g4 14.14 ~d8 27.~e2 ~dd2 28.~d2 ~d2
29.c5 i>f6 30.i>f4 ~f2 31.i>g3 ~d2
14.h3 c5!oo fCO. 32.ic4 i>e5 33.~f1 f6 34J;f2 ~d1
14.i.e2!?: Yz-yz

473
 Chapter 14

Game 182 14.e3 c5 15.ttJf3!? ttJf3 16.gf3, and White keeps

Borisen ko, Georgy an edge - Henris.
Simagin,Vladimir
Moscow, 1955 13... ~f6! 14.i.e2 ~g6+! (D)
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.tLlf3
tLlc6 5.ig5 ie7 6.ie7 tLlge7
7.ttJbd2 O-O!? 8.tLlb3 tLlf5 9.~d2
a5!? (D)

The position has become awkward for White,

who cannot easily defend g2 without losing
castling rights.

9...a5 may be less accurate than 15...iWe7. 15J:!g1

10,!!d1 The loss of castling rights promises Black long-

Black would have substantial compensation
after 10.0-0-0 a4 11.ttJbd4 ttJfd4 12.ttJd4 ttJe5,
with White's king being none too secure on the
queenside - Davies.
10...a4 11.ttJbd4 tLlfd4 12.ttJd4 tLle5
13.e3!?
Better is 13.~c3 iWe7 (13 ...iWf6 14.g3! fCO)
term compensation.
15.g3 is met by 15...ih3 - Davies.
15... ~h6 16.h3 a3?!
Black shoud not encourage White to protect c4.
16...i.d7 looks like a good idea, when 17.f4 (or
17.ttJf3 ttJf3 18.if3 iC6iii) 17...ttJc6!? 18.~f2
:gad8 19.ttJc6 iWc6 20.iWd5 iWb6 keeps an
ongoing initiative - Davies.

474
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.tLlf3 (tLlc6)
17.b3 W'f6 18.f4 ltJc6 19.1tJe6 be6
20.~d3 e5 21.@f2 ~b7 22J~ge1
l3ad8 23.W'e2 W'h4 24.@g1 l3fe8
25.~f1 l3d1 26.W'd1
26J':ld1 would have been a better choice, when
26 ...Ele3?! 27.Eld7 is good for White - Davies.
26...l3d8 27.W'e1 '?Ng3 28.l3e2 g6
29.e4 h6 30.'?Na3 '?Nf4 31.'?Ne5 l3d1
32.'?Nf2!?
Time trouble might have been playing its part,
and over the next few moves Black gets back
into the game.
32J'U2+- was stronger.
32...'?Nc1 33.'?Nf6 ~e8 34.l3f2 ie6
35.'?Nf4 '?Nb1 36.l3d2 l3d2 37.'?Nd2
'?Ne4 38.'?Nh6 '?Ne2 39.'?Ne3 '?Na2
40.~e2± '?Nb1 41.@h2 '?Nb2 42.~f3
@g7 43.@g3 @g8 44.~g4 ~g4
45.hg4 '?Nf6 46.g5 '?Nd6 47.'?Nf4 '?Nd3
48.@h2 '?Nb3 49.'?Ne7 '?Ne3 50.'?Nd8
@g7 51.'?Nd5 @f8 52.e5 '?Nf4 53.g3
'?Nf2 54.@h3 '?Nf1 55.@h4 '?Ne2
56.'?Nd8 @g7 57.'?Nd4 @f8 58.@h3
'?Nf1 59.@g4??
A terrible blunder.
59.. .f5!
White is checkmated: 60.gf6 W'f5 61.~h4 W'h5#.
0-1
Game 183
Biag, Ivan Gil
Taylor,Timothy (2440)
Los Angeles, 2002
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.tLlf3
tLle6 5.ig5 ie7 6.~f4!? (D)
The reasoning behind White's little jig with this
bishop is that exchanging on e7 aids Black's
development, but this manceuvre makes it
hard for the tlJg8 to emerge. White hopes to
exploit the passive knight on g8.
6.h4!? if5 7.tlJbd2 ig5!? 8.hg5 was played in
Martirosian,N-Shevchenko,Y, Serpukhov, 2001.
Now 8.. :~e7 9.W'a4 0-0-0, intending ...i>b8
followed by ...tlJe5, is good for Black - Davies.
6...g5!?
6...g5 gives Black active play. He gets this
disruptive possibility for free, and there is no
reason not to use it.
475
 Chapter 14

6....ib4 7.ltJbd2 transposes to the line 5..if4 10.ef6 ltJf6 11.~b3 0-0 12.g3?
.ib4 6.ltJbd2 analysed in game 177.
12.1IJffb7 is reckless, but it is not clear that
7.i.g3 g4!? White falls any further behind in
development while grabbing a few more
7...lLlh6!? is a tempting alternative: 8.h3 ttJf5 pawns. Certainly, if White was not going to
9.~h2 h5 10.g4 hg4 11.hg4 ttJh4+t (11...~b4!?, grab more he could have found something
with the idea of ... ttJe3 to follow, is another more constructive than 1IJffb3 to play. Once
interesting option) 12.l2lh4 Elh4 13.f3 ~e6, and you play moves like 1IJffb3 you tend to have to
Black had extremely active playas back them up with greed. 12... ttJb4 (or
compensation in Kostak,T-Spal,M, Frydek- 12 ...1IJffe8!?) 13.ttJa3 ~d6 gives Black a very
Mistek, 1997. dangerous initiative and a huge assortment of
open lines bearing down on White's
8.~fd2 i.e6!? undeveloped position - Tisdall.

After 8...lLlh6!? 9.~f4 ttJf5 (9 ... ~g5

10.g3 1IJffe7 11.ttJe4) 10.g3, Black's activity on
the kingside does not look justified - Tisdall.
On the other hand, 8...h5!? 9.h4!?
ttJh6, intending 10 ... ttJf5, gives Black
advantage according to Meinsohn.
8...Af5!? is also worth considering.
9..if4 f6!?
A drastic reaction.
Interesting is 9...1IJffd7 (seeking speedy
development and castle long) - Tisdall.
9...Af8!?, to try and use the advanced
g-pawn to help surround the e5-pawn, is also
worth considering - Tisdall.
Black's reaction is more romantic and puts top
priority on development, no matter the cost in
pawns.
An odd square but White is probably motivated
by fears of a tactic involving ... ttJc4, followed
the by ...1IJffd5, for example.
13.1IJffa4?! ttJc4 14.ttJc411Jffd5 - Tisdall.
13.1IJffc2 ttJc4!? 14.ttJc411Jffd5 15.e4 de3 is
terrifying for White, with his king stuck in the
centre and lines being blasted open all around
him: 16.Elg1 ~f5! (16 ...ef2!? 17.1IJfff2 ttJe4 18.ttJc3
~b4 (18... ttJc3 19.bc3 ~c5 20.ttJe3) 19.1IJffc2 ttJc3
20.bc3 Elae8~) 17.1IJffb3 ef2 18.'>t>f2 ~c5 19.ttJe3
(19.~e3 ~c2! 20.1IJffc2 ~e3 21.ttJe3 1IJfff3-+)
19...1IJffb3 20.ab3 ttJd5~, and Black will regain
his material with some interest - Tisdall.
The problem with the move in the game is that
it just postpones the threat.
13...c5 14.~a4

476
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.~f3 (~c6)
l

14..ig2?? .id7 embarrasses the queen - Game 184

Tisdall. Schafer, Ezio
Gessaga,E
14...CtJc4! 1S.ltJc4 WldS+ 16J1:g1 Mendrisio, 1989
Wlc4 17.Wlc4 ic4 1.d4 dS 2.c4 eS 3.deS d4 4.ltJf3
CtJc6 S.igS f6!? (D)
Black has a considerable advantage in space
and development.

18.CtJa3

18.lt:ld2 looks more solid; the knight is not well

placed on a3 - Tisdall.

18...ia6 19.b3 bS 20.CtJc2 ib7

. c. ' . '
, .
. • .
,
20...lt:ld5!?+ 21.~g2 E1ad8 - Tisdall.
.'

. . 4\~ .
21.e3 a6 22.ed4 cd4 23.0-0-0
This pawn sacrifice, introduced by Frank
23.lt:ld4 ~b4 24.~d2 ~d2 25. c;t>d2 E1ad8, and Marshall, is promising.
White cannot survive - Tisdall. Aside from 5... ~e7, already dealt with
previously, and 5...f6, Black also has a few
23...gac8+ 24.ig2 ie4! 2S..ie4 marginal options:
CtJe4 26.<j{b2 5...'lWd7!? is an interesting try: 6.a3 h6
7.~h4 g5!? (7 ...ttJge7!? - Henris) 8.~g3 ~g7
Or 26J~d4 ~a3 27.c;t>b1 ttJc3 28.c;t>a1 ttJe2-+ 9.b4:
Tisdall. a) 9...g4?! 10.b5 ttJa5 (Vukobrat,D-Kostic,Vl,
Senta, 2006) 11.e6!?~ or 11.ttJd4~ Henris.
26...CtJf2 27.gd2 ltJe4-+ 28.gd3 CtJcS b) 9... lt:lge7!? 10.b5 ttJa5'" Henris.
29.ggd1 ltJd3 30.gd3 .if6 31.id2 5...lt:lge7!? is another playable move:
ig7 32.if4 gfe8 33.<j{b1 ge2 6.e3 ~g4:
34.gd2 d3 3S.ge2 de2 a) 7.ed4 ~f3 8.'lWf3 'lWd4 (Ramella,F-Panic,N,
0-1 Imperia, 1969) 9.e6!? (9.ttJc3 'lWe5=) 9...'lWe5

477
j----------------------------,
Chapter 14

(9 .. .'~b2?? 10.ef7 Wd8 11.'~k3+-; 9...f6?! 7 Ji.e7 is also interesting: 8.e3!?

10.ttJc3!) 10.\We3 \We3 11.~e3 fe6 12.ttJc3 ttJf5=
Henris.
b) 7.h3!? ~f3 8.\Wf3 h6!? (8 ...\Wd7 9.ttJd2 0-0-0
10.0-0-0 ttJe5 11.\We4) 9.~f4 ttJg6 10.ttJd2 de3
11.~e3 ttJge5 12.\We4;1; Henris
5... ~b4?! has less point. 6.ttJbd2:
a) 6...f6 7.ef6 ttJf6 8.a3 ~e7 9.ttJb3 0-0 10.ttJbd4±
Mahishkar,B-Schneider,Luc, Moscow, 1956.
b) 6...c!L)ge7 is also inadequate: 7.a3 ~d2 8.'!Md2±.
6.et6lilt6
(8.g3!?) 8 ttJe4!+! (8 ...0-0? 9.ed4) 1::.9.~e7 '!Me7
10.ttJd4!? ttJd4 (10 ... 0-0!?~) 11.\Wd4 c5! 12.'!Md5
ttJf2! 13.Wf2 ig4!?-t Henris.
7...h6!? does not look bad either.
8.'1Wc2 ie7 9.lilbd2 ~d7 10J~d1 0-0
11.lilb3 itS! 12.~c1 d3!?
Prying open the box in which the white
monarch resides.
12...E:ad8 allows 13.ttJbd4.

After 6...gf6!? 7.~f4 ttJge7 8.e3 ttJg6 (Markos,J- 13.ed3 gae8 14.ie2 id6 1S.ie3
Chetverik,M, Bratislava, 1998), I suggest 9.~g3
~b4 10.ttJbd2 de3 11.fe3 \We7 12.a3!?;I; Henris. This retreat is necessary if White wants to
remove his king from the centre.
7.a3
1S...lileS?!
7.tlJbd2 if5:
a) 8.a3 \We7 1::.9 ...0-0-0 - Davies. 15...tlJg4!?
b) Black had a fine position after 8.\Wa4 ie7
9.'!Mb5 id7 10.if6 if6 11.\Wh5 g6 12.\Wd5 \We7 16.lileS geS 17.0-0!?
13.\We4 ie6+ in the game Traube,H-
Hartlaub,C, Hanover, 1913. White has wasted 17.h3!?
too much time with his queen.
7.e4!? ib4 8.ttJbd2 0-0 9.\Wb3 17...lilg4!?
(9.id3!?) 9...a5! 10.a3 a4! 11.\Wc2 id2 12.ttJd2
\We8 13.if6 m6 14.f3 ttJe5, and Black had play Threatening ...ttJh2, followed by .. J'~e3.
for the pawn in Jaffe,C-Marshall,F, St Louis,
1904. 18.ig4?
7.g3!? is worth considering.
18.c5! forces the strong bishop to move away
7...ie6!? from the dangerous h2-b8 diagonal - Henris.

478
 1
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.~f3 (~c6)
•

18....tg4 Game 185

Kocsis,Janos (2295)
Black has a strong initiative. All his forces Seebacher,Otto
threaten the opponent's king. Savaria, 2002
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.CDf3
19.f3! CDc6 5.e3?! (0)

19J:!de1? loses in spectacular fashion after

19... ~f3! (19.. .:!~h5? 20.f4) 20.c5 (20.gf3 'lWh3
21.~f4 ~f4-+) 20... ~e4!!-+ Fritz (and not
20...'lWg4?? 21.'lWc4+-).

19.. J~h5?

Black had to take the forced draw with

19...if3! 20.~f3 (after 20.gf3 'lWh3 21.~f2 ~f3
22.~f3 'lWf3, Black has a strong attack) 20 ... ~f3
21.gf3 'lWh3 22.tiJd4 ~e3 23.'lWe3 ~h2 24.i'f2
~g3 25.i'g1 ~h2= Henris.
It is tempting for White to try and eliminate
20JU2?? Black's d4-pawn. But this move asks for trouble
in the Albin. If it were so easy to undermine
White could have taken the bishop: 20.fg4! Black's strategy, the gambit would not be
~h2 21.i'h1 ~f1 22.m1 'lWg4 23.~f3! ~d6!? played at all!
(23... ~h4 (LL.'lWh5) 24.'lWd2) 24.i'g1 ~h2 Please note that the diagrammed position is
25.'lWd2!+- Henris. also known from the theory of the Chigorin
Defence: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 tiJc6 3.e3 e5 4.de5 d4
20....ih2-+ 5.tiJf3.

Now the Black attack is overpowering. 5....ib4

21.i>f1 .tg3 22.fg4 .tf2 23..tf2 gh1 An unpleasant check.

24.i>e2 'lWg4 5... ig4 is less strong but deserves
0-1 consideration (this position can also arise from

479
 Chapter 14

the Chigorin Defence: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 ct:lc6 3.ct:lf3 8.i.e2

~g4 4.e3 e5 5.de5 d4):
a) 6.~a4? ~f3 7.gf3 ~b4 8.~d2 ~d2 S.a3!? ~d2 9.~d2 (9.Vlid2!? Vlie 7= Lockhart, R-
9.ct:ld2 de3 10.fe3 ~h4 1Htte2 0-0-0+. Burnett,W, Scotland, 1994; or 9... tiJge7 10.~e2
b) 6.h3 ~b4 7.~d2 de3 8.hg4 ed2 tiJg6, with a nice position for Black - Davies)
9.tiJbd2 Vlie7 10.iWe2 0-0-0 11.0-0-0 tiJh6 12.g3 9... tiJe5!? (Schiwarth,N-Lazareva,V, Oberhof,
tiJg4 13.~h3 f5 14.a3 ~a3 15.ba3 Vlia3 16.~b1 1999) 10.~c3!? tiJf3 11.gf3 Vlih4 12.~e2 ~e6
tiJb4 17.tiJe4 Vlib3 0-1 Puroila,S-Vujic,M, 13.b3 f6 m Henris.
Thessaloniki, 2011.
c) 6.~e2!? ~b4 7.~f1 de3 8.~e3 Vlid1 8...i,f3 9.i,f3 ~e5 (D)
9.~d1 0-0-0 10.tiJc3 ~c3 11.bc3 tiJge7=
Balasubramaniun, R-Saptarshi, Ramn, New Delhi,
2007.
d) 6.ed4! ~f3 7.iWf3 (7.gf3?! Vlid4!t)
7...Vlid4 8.~e2:
• S...VlieS 9.tiJc3 ~d6 10.~e3 tiJge7!? (10 ...tiJf6
11.0-0-0t Bronznik) 11.0-0-0;1; Bodiroga,P-
Vojinovic,G, Neum, 2008;
• S... ~b4 9.tiJc3, with the better chances, e.g.
9...tiJge7 10.0-0 0-0 11.E'ld1 Vlie5 12.~f4 Vlif6
13.~c7± Kappler,J-Dubois,Jea, Epinal, 1986,
9... 0-0-0 10.0-0 Vlie5 11.~f4 t or 9...Vlie5
10.~f4t.
9... ~h4!? is simpler and better: 10.g3 (10.~e2
tiJgeTi=) 10 ...Vlic4 11.~c6 Vlic6 12.0-0 tiJh6 13.tiJf3
0-0, and White had to fight for equality in
The alternatives 6.~d2 and 6.~e2?! are Belcher, E-Oliveira,Paulo S, Philadelphia 1993.
covered in game 186.
10.0-0?
6...de3 7.fe3 i,g4t
This just admits that White is willing to settle
Black has full compensation. for a lifetime of positional suffering, with no
7...tiJge7!? looks also good. compensation for the weak e-pawn.
7...ct:lh6!? is worth considering - Henris. 1O.~a4? c6, and since the ~b4 is

480
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.tL~f3 (~c6)

taboo, White has just wasted time - Tisdall. solution to having a target on e3.
10..ib7!? looks worth a try - it loosens
Black's position as well - Tisdall. 18... h6 19.~b2 ,id4

10...c6 11.,ie2 '?;Vb6?! Thematic. Black leaves White with his

wretched bishop and feeble e-pawn.
11...<!Llf6 looks better, just completing
development - Tisdall. 20.~d4 E:d4 21.E:ad1 E:fd8 22.~g1
llJg6 23.E:d4 E:d4 24.E:d1 E:d1
12.llJf3 E:d8 13.'?;Vb3 ~f3 14.,if3 25.~d1 llJe5
,ic5 15.'?;Vb6
25... @f8 26.ig4.
15.Wfc3!? ttJf6 16.~e5 mf8, and Black still has
comfortable play on the e-file, though the 26.~e2 ~f8 27.~f2 ~e7 28.~e3
position is murkier than in the game - Tisdall. ~d6 29.~d4 c5 30.~e3 llJc6
~
I 31.~d3 ~e5 32.g3 g5 33.a3 llJd4
15...ab6 34.b4 g4 35.~b1 llJf3 36.~d3?

15....ib6 16.b4f± Tisdall. 36.h3 ttJd2!!-+ Tisdall.

36.h4 was forced, when it is still not
16.~h1?! clear how Black can win - Tisdall.

16J:!b1! ttJe7 17.b4 id6 18.c5!, and White has
achieved active counterplay and at least equal
chances - Tisdall.
16...llJe7 17.b3?!
36...llJh2 37.~f2
There is no way to cage the knight since even
37.ie2 h5 38.b5 ttJf3 39.if3 gf3 40.mf3 md4
leads to a lost ending - Tisdall.

White repeatedly refuses chances to achieve 37...llJf3 38.~e3 h5 39.~e2 tLld4

counterplay. 40.,id3 llJe6 41.,ic2 @f6 42.,ia4 @g5
43.i.e8 f6 44.i.d7 tLld4 45.i.c8 tLlc2
17...0-0 18.e4 46.~d3 tLla3 47.b5 h4 48.gh4 ~h4
49.~b7 g3 50.e5 fe5 51.~e3 tLlc4
This weakening advance is far too passive a 0-1

481
 Chapter 14

Game 186 • 9.~d8 ~d8 10.fe3!? (10.bc5?! ttJd4 11.me3

Donovan,Jeremiah ttJc2 12.mf4 ttJa1 (12 if3? 13.~a2) 13.mg4
Adams, Weaver Warren ~d1 14.ie3!? ~bn) 10 ie7 lXl Henris.
Ventnor City, 1941
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.ttJf3 6...de37.fe3
~c6 5.e3?! .ib4 6..id2 (D)
White has to take the pawn because 7.ib4?
ef2 8.me2 Wi'd1 9.md1 ttJb4 10.a3 ttJc6 11.ttJc3
ig4+ is bad for him, Shinkevich,V-Barsky,V,
Moscow, 2002.

7....ig4!?

Once again the most natural and best move.

The following contituations also give Black a
comfortable game:
7...ttJge7 8.ib4 Wi'd1 9.md1 ttJb4 10.a3
ttJbc6 11.ttJc3 ig4 12.ie2 0-0-0 13.me1 if3
14.gf3 ttJeS= Huebner,R-Zaragatski,l, Internet
The odd move 6.~e2?! has also been met in (blitz), 2004.
practice. After 6...ig4 (6 ...ie6!?) White has: 7...tLlh6!? 8.ib4?! Wi'd1 9.md1 ttJb4
a) 7.h3?! if3: 10.ttJc3 ie6+ 11.h3? ttJfS=t 12.g4?! ttJe3-+
• After 8.gf3??, as played in Obrezchikov,M- Azmaiparashvili,Z-DeadDookie, Internet (blitz),
Chizhevskaja,J, Nizhnij Novgorod, 2009, Black 2005.
has 8...Wi'h4 ~ ...O-O-O-+ Henris;
• 8.~f3 Wi'h4! (weaker is 8.. .ttJeS 9.mg3 de3 8.a3
10.Wi'd8 ~d8 11.ie3) 9.g3 Wi'hS 10.g4 Wi'eS=t
Henris. This move is not the only one to have been
b) 7.a3 icS?! (7 ...ie7 looks better) tried.
8.b4 de3!? (8 ...ie7 9.ib2 lXl ): Others:
• 9.bc5!? ttJd4 10.me3 ttJfS (11.me2 ttJd4 8.ie2 if3 9.if3 Wi'h4 10.g3 Wi'c4:
12.me3 (12. me1? ttJf3 13.gf3 Wi'd1 14. md1 a) 11.ic6 Wi'c6 12.0-0 id2 13.ttJd2 ttJe7 14.ttJf3
if3-+) 12...ttJfS=) Y2-Y2 Vela-Cohn, Guatemala, 0-0 1S.Wi'b3 Wi'e4:j: Agustoni,M-Sprenger,P,
1937; Lucerne, 1994.

482
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.tl)f3 (tl)c6)

b) 11 ..ie2 i&e4 12.0-0 0-0-0; Kofler,A-Thomi, 12..ie2 0-0-0 gave Black rather more than
H, Graechen, 1999. equality in the game Senoner, P-Mittermeier, P,
c) 11.b3 i&c5= Davies. Vorarlberg, 1995.
8..ib4 i&d1 9.~d1: 9...Wfe7!?, building up pressure on e5
a) 10.ttJa3 0-0-0 11.~e1 CiJe7 12.h3 .if3 13.gf3 and preparing castle queenside, is also good.
CiJf5 was good for Black in Draillard,J-
Chretien,Co, France, 2001. 10.i.e2 0-0 11.0-0 ttJg6 12.\We1 i.f3
b) 10.ttJb4 10.h3 O-O-O~, and initiative plus 13.ttJf3 \We7 14.\Wg3 :Bad8 1S.:Bad1
plenty of weak pawns to target must mean ttJgeS 16.ttJeS \WeS 17.\WeS ttJeS
good value for the gambit.
c) 10.ttJbd2 CiJe7 11.h3 ~f5 12.CiJd4 0-0-0 Black's firmly established knight on e5 gives
13.~e2 ~g6 14.~c1 ttJec6 15.CiJ2f3 E1he8:j: him what chances that are going in this ending.
Topalidis,K-Mihailidis,A, Ermioni, 2006.
d) 1O.~e2 0-0-0 11.CiJbd2 CiJh6 would be not 18.:BdS f6 19.:Bfd1 :BdS 20.cdS :Bd8
too pleasant for White. 21.g4 ~f8 22.~f2 gS 23.e4 ~e7
I
I.
8.ttJc3 is well met by 8...CiJh6; for 24.~e3 ttJg6 2S.:Bd4 llJf4 26.i.f1
example: 9.a3 ~e7 10.~e2 0-0 11.0-0 ~f3
12.~f3 CiJe5 13.~b7 E1b8, with at least equality 26J~b4 was more annoying.
- Davies.
8.Wfb3!? ~f3! 9.gf3 ~d2 10.CiJd2 Wfh4 26 ...aS 27.:Ba4 :Ba8 28.b4 b6 29.bS
11. ~e2 0-0-0 12.~g2 CiJe5 left White's king in ttJg6 30.:Bc4 :Bc8 31.i.e2 ttJeS
trouble in Merkle,C-Linke,M, Cologne, 1997. 32.:Bc1 ttJd7 33.:Bc6 llJeS 34.:Bc1
8.Wfa4 is strongly met by 8... ~f3 9.gf3 ~d6 3S.~d4 :Bg8 36.~e3 :Bg6
i&h4 10.~e2 (10.~d1?! i&f2H Henris) 37.h3 :Bh6 38.i.f1 :Bh4 39.:Bc2 hS
10...0-0-0 11.~b4 i&c4, when Black regains the 40.ghS :BhS 41.:Bf2 llJd7 42.~d4
pawn with advantage. :Bh443.:Bf3?!

8...i.d2 9.ttJbd2 o43..ig2 ~e7 44.E1f1 CiJc545.m2.

Or 9.i&d2!? ~f3 10.i&d8 E1d8 11.gf3 CiJe5=. 43 ... ~e7 44.:BfS?! ttJcS+ 4S.i.g2
ttJb7 46.:Bf2 ttJd6 47.a4 fS 48.:Be2
9 ...ttJge7 ~f6 49.:Be3? fe4 SO.:Be1 ttJfS
S1.~c4 ~eS-+ S2.:Bc1 ttJe3
9...ttJe5 10.Wia4 i&d7 11.i&d7 CiJd7 0-1

483
 Chapter 14

Game 187 tLlge7 7..id3 .ig4!?a> Rooms,T-Clews,B, corr.,

Janowski,Dawid 1999) 6... tLlge7 7..ig2 (Sapi,L-Besztercsenyi,T,
Marshall, Frank Budapest, 1964) 7... 0-0 is fine for Black.
Suresne, 1908
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.lDf3 5...if5!?
lDc6 5.h3!? (0)
Alternatives are as follows:
With White having wasted time on 5.h3,
the move 5...f6!? makes a lot of sense. After
6.ef6 ct:lf6 7.~g5 ~d6 8.g3 h6 9.~f6 Wf6 10.~g2
0-0 11.0-0 ~f5+±, Black had very active play in
Lyles,M-Del Rosario,Fri, San Mateo, 1999.
5...ct:lge7 6.e3 ct:lf5 7.ed4 ct:lfd4 8.~f4
~b4 9.ct:lc3 0-0 10.~d3 was played in Davis,Ja-
Cordell,N, corr., 1995. Now 10...f6! would have
been very dangerous for White - Davies.
5... ~c5 6.a3 as transposes to the line
5.a3 as 6.h3 ~c5 analysed in game 47 - chapter
4.
A cautious move designed to prevent ... ~g4.
Frank Marshall played three matches against 6·9 4 !?
Janowski, in 1905, 1908 and 1912. This game
was played on the occasion of the ten-game A rash advance.
match near Paris in 1908. The move order of 6.a3 ct:lge7:
the game was 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.h3!? a) 7.e3!? de3 8.Wd8 :1%d8 9.~e3 ct:lg6=
ct:lc6 5.ct:lf3. Aparicio Lecha,F-Gonzalez del Campo,D,
Among the unusual responses for White after Asturias, 1998.
4... ct:lc6, two other moves are also worth b) 7.lLlbd2 ct:lg6 8.ct:lb3 (8.Wb3 Wd7!?)
considering: 8...We7!? 9.ct:lbd4 0-0-000 Henris.
5.b3 is quite passive: 5... ~g4! 6.ct:lbd2
~b4 7.~b2 ~f3!? 8.ef3 Wg5!?a> Janicek,R- 6...ie4!? 7.if4?!
Steinkellner,R, corr., 1994; or 8... ct:le5!?
5-'Wb3!? has more point: 5... ~c5 7.lLlbd2!? looks better.
(5 ... ct:lge7!? seems also possible) 6.g3 (6.e3 7..ig2!? is not bad either.

484
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.~f3 (~c6)

7...f611 13.0-0-0± ~d81 1 (D)

7....1f31? 8.ef3 ~e7!? (8 ...ib4 9.ttJd2

ttJge7 10.a3!? id2 (10... ttJg6!? 11.ig3) 11.~d2
ltJg6 12.0-0-0;!;) 9.iMfe2!? g5 10.ig3 ig7 - Henris.
7....1b4 8.ltJbd2 ltJge7ii5 (8 ...f6!?) Henris.

8.~bd2 .if31?

8....1b41? 9.ig2 (9.ef6 iMff6t Ll10.ic7?? if3

11.ef3 i'd7-+) 9...fe510.ig3 iMfe7= Henris.

9.ef3

Inferior is 9.ltJf311 fe5:j:. 13....id2 14.E1d2 LliMff3? 15.E1e1+-.

9...fe5 10..ig3 co d3? 14.i.e41?

A very bad move! 14..ie51+- wins on the spot.

10...ltJf61? is fine - Davies.
Or 10...iMff6!? 14...i.d2 15.~d2 ~d2 16.i>d2 ~ge7
17.i>c1! 0-0 18.~d1 Wfh6 19.i>b1
11.Wfa4 Wfh3 20.c51 h5?

Followed by 0-0-0. The American commits suicide.

Black is about to lose one of his central pawns.
21.Wfc4+- i>h8 22.Wfc1 h4 23.~h1
11 ...Wff6 Wfh1 24.Wfh1 g5 25.i.h4 gh4
26.Wfh4 i>g7 27.Wfh7 i>f6 28.g5
11...iMfd4 12.0-0-0. i>e6 29.Wfh6 i>f7 30.g6 i>e8
31.g7 ~g8 32.Wfh5 i>d8 33.Wff7
12..id3.ib4 ~b8 34.i.h7 ~e8 35.i.g6 ttJg6
36.Wfg6
12...0-0-0 13.if5 c;t>b8 14.0-0-0± Henris. 1-0

485
 Chapter 14
,
,
,

Game 188 available.

Gruenfeld, Ernst White has an interesting alternative with 5.g3.
Tartakower, Saviely Now critical is S... lLic6 6.ig2 lLige7 7.0-0 lLig6.
Karlsbad, 1923 Things turned out well for White after 8.e3
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4)iJf3 d3!? 9.b3 ig4 10.h3 if3 11.if3 lLigeS 12.idS
c5?! (0) lLib4 13.lLic3 Wd7 14.<±>g2 hS 1S.f4 lLig6 16.a3
lLidS 17.cdS 0-0-0 18.Wd3± Bodnar,O-Urietyki,
A, Eforie Nord, 1998.

5...QJc6 6.ed4

6.ie2!? was recommended by Lasker,

and if 6... lLige7 7.0-0 lLig6 8.:ge1 ie7 9.lLia3
(Ragnarsson ,J-Grigorianas, G, Reykjavik, 2009)
9... lLigeS 10.lLieSlLieS 11.ed4 cd4 12.lLibS±.
After 6.id3 ig4 7.ed4 cd4, we are
back to the main game as 7...if3!? 8.Wf3 Wd4
9.0-0 0-0-0 10.:gd1 WeS (Kutrum-Wulkau, West
Germany, 1955) 11.if4 We6 12.lLic3± Henris,
Tartakower's idea, with which he had little and 7... lLid4!? 8.lLibd2 lLie7 9.h3± Nemeth,Las-
success. Black supports his d4-pawn. But Szenczy, S, corr., 2007, are bad for Black.
Black's position becomes too static and can be
easily undermined bye3. 6...cd47..id3
4...ib4?! must be considered: S.id2
(S.lLibd2!?) S... lLic6!? 6.ib4 lLib4 7.a3 lLic6 White blocks Black's d-pawn.
8.lLibd2;!; ig4!? 9.h3 if3 10.lLif3 We7 11.lLid4!? 7.ig5 ie7 8.ie7 lLige7 9.lLibd2 0-0
(11.Wd3) 11...0-0-0 12.e3 lLieS 13.b4± Henris (Aguilar,D-Manzur,C, Mexico, 1997) 10.id3
(13.Wc2?? :gd4 14.ed4 lLif3 0-1 Castillo Ruiz,J- lLib4 11.ie4±.
Castro Luaces,J, Cajas, 1989). 7.if4 lLige7 8.id3 lLig6 9.ig3 ie7
(9 ...lLigeS 10.lLieS lLieS 11.0-0!± (11.ie5 Wa5;
5.e3 11.We2 id6 12"4 ig4)) 10.0-0 ig4 11.:ge1±
Salus,St-Andrieu, P, Thonon-les-Bains, 1995.
The text gets straight to the point and takes
advantage of the fact that ...ib4 is no longer 7....ig4 (0)

486
r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - '1
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.~f3 (~c6)

extra exchange in Dus ChotimirskY,F-

···:~Wt/; . . etJ.· .
. k ,- Tartakower,S, Karlsbad, 1911. But 14...f5!
would have maintained material equilibrium.
b) 12.c!Llge4 ~a7 13.Wh5 looks like a clear
edge. White retains his pawn plus and appears
to have more attacking chances than his
opponent - Davies.
7...c!Llge7 is probably the most logical
response: favouring kingside development,
Black holds back on ... ~g4:
a) 8.c!Llbd2 ~g4 9.Wb3We7 10.0-00-0-0 11.1"1e1
ltJg6 12.h3! ~e6 (12 ... ~f3 13.~g6! (13.~f5 WbB
Alternatives are no better: 14.ltJf3 ltJge5 15.ltJe5 c!Lle5 16.~f4 f6= Tarrasch)
7...c!Lle5? 8.We2 (8.tbe5 Wa5) 8.. .f6 13... hg6 14.ltJf3±) 13.~e4! ltJge5 (13 ... ~e7
9.~f4!? (9.ltJe5! Wa5 10.Wd1! (10.c!Lld2!?) 14.~d5! ~d5 15.ed5 c!Llee5 16.ltJe5 ltJe5 17.c!Llf3
10...fe5 11J~e1 ~d6 12.~f4± Henris) 9... ~d6 ltJf3 18.Wf3± Tartakower) 14.ltJe5 We5!?
10'cbbd2!? (10.e5! Wa5 11.ltJbd2 We5 12.0-0± (14 ... ltJe5? 15.Wb7 (15.~7 Wb7 16.1"1e5 Wb3
Watson & Schiller) 10...We7 11.~e5 fe5 12.0-0 17.ab3±) 15...Wb7 16.~b7 Wb7 17.1"1e5 (±
~g4 13.e5!?± Johner,P-Duras,O, Karlsbad, Bogoljubov) 17... ~d6 18.1"1e1 ~b4 (1B...'if,heB
1907. 19.1tJe4) 19.a3 ~d2 20.~d2 ~e4 21.'if,e7 Wa6
7...h6?! is too slow: 8.0-0 ~e6 9.a3 22.1"1e1 'if,e8 23.1"1d7 d3 24.~e3± Bouwmeester)
We7 10.1"1e1 0-0-0 11.b4 g5 12.We2!? ~e7 15.ltJf3 (15.Wb7?! Wb7 16.~e6 We6 17.1"1e5 ~b4
13.ltJfd2!? g4 14.e5 ~g5 15.ltJe4! ~e1 16.ltJd6 18.b3 ~e3 19.1"1b1 'if,he8iiii or 19...d3!?):
Wb8 17.1"1e1+- Kapstan,A-Roque,Ru, Winnipeg, • 15...Wfc5? 16.~f4! ~d6 (16... ~e4 17.We4!! We4
1997. 18.~f5 We6 (1B... 1"1d7 19.1"1eB ltJdB 20.ltJe5+-
7...f6!? 8.ef6 ltJf6 9.0-0 ~e7 10.ltJbd2 Tarrasch) 19.1"1e6 fe6 20.~e6 1"1d7 21.ltJe5 ltJe5
0-0 11.ltJe4 ~g4 12.h3 ~h5 13.ltJg3± Lutz- 22.~e5±) 17.~e6! be6 (17...We6? 18.ltJd4 We5
Honlinger,B, Breslau, 1925. 19.1tJe6 fe6 20.~e3 We5 21.g3+-) 18.~d6 1"1d6
7... ~c5 is a little slow: 8.0-0 ltJge7 9.a3 (Tarrasch,S-Tartakower,S, Berlin, 1920) 19.c!Lld2
a5 10.ltJbd2 0-0 11.ltJg5! h6 (11 ... ltJg6 12.Wh5 Wb6 20.Wa3 e5 21.1"1e5 1"1e6 22.ltJe4± Tarrasch;
h613.ltJf7): • 15...Wfc7!? 16.~g5 f6 17.~h4 ~f7 18.~g3 ~d6
a) 12.c!Llh7!? ltJe5 (12 ... 1"1e8 13.ltJe4 (or 13.Wh5) 19.~d6 1"1d6 is unclear.
13... ltJe5 14.ltJhf6+) 13.ltJf8 ltJd3 14.ltJe4 ltJe6? b) 8.0-0:
15.Wd3 ~f8 saw White go on to convert his • 8....ig4 (Reti,R-Tartakower,S, Amsterdam,

487
 Chapter 14

1920) 9.i.f4 ttJg6 10.i.g3 i.f3 (10 ... ttJge5 11.i.e5 14...a6 15.e51± .it6
ttJe5 12.'lWe1 !±) 11.'lWf3 ttJge5 12.:;"\e1 i.d6
13.i.e5 ttJe5 14.c5!± Heinig; 15...'lWc5 16.'lWb7 :;,,\b8 17.'lWa6 :;,,\b2? •
1S
• 8 ttJg6 9.h3 i.e7 10.:;"\e1 0-0 11.ttJbd2 i.b4 unplayable because of 18.lLlc4+- Ward.
(11 i.e6 12.ttJb3 'lWd7 13.i.g6 hg6 14.ttJfd4 ttJd4
15.'lWd4 'lWd4 16.ttJd4 i.c4 17.i.e3± Heinig) 12.a3 16.~e4! fie5?
i.d2 13.i.d2 :;"\e8 14.'lWc2± Heinig,W-Starck, B,
East Germany, 1978. The game continuation is a mistake.
But the alternative 16...0-0 17.b4± would
8.0-0 fie7 9.h3 .if3 10.fif3 ~e5? simply have been very unpleasant - Ward.

10...0-0-0 11.:;"\eH Lamford. 17.fib70-0

11.~e1 .id6 Black has protected the rook by castling but

now there is a tactic netting the exchange.
"I
I' 11 ...0-0-0 12.:;"\e5 'lWe5 13.i.f5+- Lamford.
,"

18.lL\ b6!
12..if4
The knight is heading for d7.
12.'lWg4 ttJe7 ~13.'lWd4? :;"\d8.
18... ~ab8
I 12... ~e7 13..ie5
I
I
I;, Or 18...:Sfb8 19.'lWe4 'lWb6 20.'lWh7 <j;>f8 21.'lWh8
13.'lWg3 ttJf3 14.'lWf3 i.f4 15.ttJa3 a6 16.:;"\e4! i.d6 lLlg822.i.h7+-.
17.:;"\ae1 ~ ...O-O? 18.:;"\e7 i.e7 19.'lWe4 - Watson
& Schiller. 19.fie4 ~g6 20.~d7+- fid6 21.~f8
,
I
~f8 22.~ae1 ~b6
,
13....ie5 14.~a3!
22...:Sb2 23.:;"\c8 g6 24.:;"\c6 'lWd8 25.:;"\a6.
White's play is very sensible in this game. The
bishops are now of opposite colour but Black's 23.~e8 g6 24..ie4 @g7 25.fie8 ~b7
d-pawn is clearly a weakness, whilst White's 26.~e6 fit4 27.g3 fid2 28.~f6! @f6
queenside pawn majority soon looks 29.fie5#
menacing. 1-0

488
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 (D)

b2-b4, White can also pressurize the d4-pawn

with ib2, whilst b4-b5 to kick off the coming
The logical reply, establishing a pawn wedge in knight on c6 is also on offer. The question is
White's position. whether or not this fairly innocuous pawn move
Black gets some disadvantage in the endgame is too slow. Play often transposes to the lines
after Mieses' 3...dc4?! 4.\Wd8 <;t>d8. This dubious including ct'lf3 and ct'lc6, but 4.a3 may have
continuation is briefly examined in game 214. independent significance.
After 3...d4, White has several interesting
alternatives to the main move 4.ct'lf3: 4.a3,
4.e4 and 4.e3.
Black can shore up his d4-pawn with 4...c5. The
second player attemps to obtain a more
4.a3 (D) favourable version of Tartakower's 4.ct'lf3 c5
thanks to the inclusion of the move a3. 4...c5 is
This move was first analysed by von analysed in game 195.
Bardeleben in Deutsches Wochenschach in
1919. White prevents any nasty checks on b4 5.e3 (D)
form the enemy bishop. This is particularly
useful if White's intention is to undermine White gets in his desired pawn push. Now the
Black's d4-pawn with e2-e3. A queenside prophylactic role of 4.a3 comes to the fore:
expansion is also prepared. This may be the move 5.e3 gains force as now there is no
threatening if Black castles queenside. After ...ib4. It should be noted that the position can

489
 Chapter 15

The less critical options 5...f6, 5....if5

and 5....ic5 are examined in game 194.

4.e4 (0)

arise from the Chigorin Defence: 1.d4 d5 2.c4

l2lc6 3.e3 e5 4.de5 d4 5.a3.
The alternatives 5.f4!? and 5..if4 are
not troublesome (--+ game 194).
5.lt)f3 transposes 4.l2lf3 l2lc6 5.a3 lines
covered in part one.
After 5.e3, Black has several continuations: The so-called 'Spassky' Variation. This old idea
5...a5 is the subject of games 189 to due to Salvioli, excellent Italian theoretician
191 . (1850 - 1930), was intensively analysed during
5...de3 is dealt with in games 192 and the famous tournament of Munich in 1900.
193. Although 4.e4 was played in the first recorded
5....ie6 is a reliable possibility for game with the Albin Counter-Gambit in Milan
Black analysed in game 194. 1881, it was Spassky who revived the idea in
After 6.l2lf3 de3 7.1Mfd8 :gd8 8..ie3, play the 60's and demonstrated the attacking
transposes to the line 4.l2lf6 l2lc6 5.a3 .ie6 6.e3 possibilities behind the move in his games
de3 7.1Mfd8 :gd8 8..ie3 analysed in games 17 to against Mikenas Beliavsky and Lutikov.
22 - chapter 2. However Black has several antidotes which give
5...lt)ge7 is another good option for him good counterplay and the variation now
Black which is covered in game 194. has lost his popularity. Rarely played
Now 6.l2lf3 would transpose to the line 4.l2lf3 nowadays, the move 4.e4 only reappears
l2lc6 5.a3 analysed in games 10 to 13 - chapter occasionally.
1. There is a certain amount of logic behind 4.e4

490
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.a3, 4.e4, other lines

and the continuation avoids the main theory of comfortable game as seen in game 208.
the Albin Counter-Gambit. Maroczy has shown the way to answer
In the Spassky Variation White plays 4.e4 to 5.,if4 (--t game 209).
take advantage of the fact that an en passant After 5.f4, Black has two main continuations at
capture must be made immediately after the his disposal: 5...f6 and 5...g5.
enemy pawn advances. So now after 4...ib4
5.,id2 the en passant capture ...de3 is no
, longer available to Black. 5...f6 (D)
With 4.e4 White adopts an original strategy. He
; allows Black to establish a passed pawn on d4.
i But White's pawn majority on the kingside can
: be exploited immediately; and the dangerous
d4-pawn will be blocked by id3. Moreover the
e2-pawn, which is usually left backward in the
gambit, is effectively mobilized here.

4...tLlc6

After 4.e4, most of the time Black plays

4...ltJc6, attacking the e5-pawn.
But he has some alternatives worth considering:
4 f6 is the subject of game 210.
4 c5 is dealt with in game 211.
4 ,ic5 and 4...,ib4 (--t game 211).
5.14
5.f4 is the thematic move after 4...ltJc6.
The alternatives ways of defending the e5-
pawn, which do not weaken the e3-square, are
inferior:
5.lDf3 allows ...ig4, and after 6.if4,
the simple 6...ltJge7 (followed by ...ltJg6) proves
to be a good way to regain the pawn with a
Black sacrifices a pawn for a lead in
development. The manreuvre ... ltJf6-g4-e3 will
be threatened.
After 5...f6, White may decline the
pawn with 6.lDf3. After 6.. .fe5 7.f5 and 7.id3,
Black is quite OK. He has nice prospects on the
dark squares. White could also insert the move
7.a3 before playing f5. See game 204.
The marginal options 6.e6 and 6.f5 are
also examined in game 204.
After 6.ef6 ltJf6 (6 ... \Wf6 and 6...ib4 are
both covered in game 203) 7.id3 (7.e5 --t game
203) ib4 (7... ltJg4 --t game 203), White can

491
 ,
Chapter 15

prevent ... ttJg4 with 8.~f1?!. But this is unsafe Schlechter's move. Black sets about disrupting
as the instructive game Ulibin,M-Furhoff,J White's impressive congregation of pawns on
shows (---+ game 202). the kingside.
It does not look right to allow the exchange of
the bishops of the dark squares with 8.id2?!, 6.f5
making it very difficult to defend the hole in e3.
Black can strike while the iron is hot with After 6. tt:l f3 , Black has what he's after:
8 t2lg4. Less forcing but still interesting too is shattering White's pawn formation with 6...gf4.
8 0-0. The continuation 8.id2?! is the And after 7.if4, Black gets a promising position
subject of game 201. with 7...t2lge7. See game 207.
8.t2ld2 is critical. Black has several promising The rare continuations 6.id3, 6.a3,
continuations. True, the position is dangerous 6.fg5 and 6.a3 are also covered in game 207.
for White but it's not quite clear if one of these
continuations gives Black a concrete
advantage. 8...t2lg4 leads to very unclear
complications (---+ games 196 and 197). Spassky thought that here Black cannot
8...0-0 is covered in game 198. go for 7....ib4 because of 8.mf2! t2lg4 9.mg1
8.. :~e7!? is the subject of game 199. .ic5 10.b4!. But Black could improve with
8...ig4 is analysed in game 200. 8...t2lf3!, and he has a good game. If instead of
8. mf2, White plays 8.t2lbd2, Black should
probably not retreat his knight to c6 but play
5...g5!? (0) 8...t2lf3!? 9.\Wf3 t2lf6, trying to make the knight
to e5, with a very pleasant position. 7....ib4 is
the subject of game 206.
Black usually proceeds with 7...tt:lf3.
After 8.\Wf3, Black has quite a few interesting
moves at his disposal. All of them lead to fairly
unclear positions: 8...ib4, 8...ig7, 8....id7,
8... h5, 8....id6 and 8...\We7. See game 205.

4.e3? (0)

4.e3? is a mistake which is still surprisingly

492
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.a3, 4.e4, other lines

6.fe3 is relatively best.

After 6..tb4 ef2 7.'JJe2 fg 1lLl!, White is
lost as seen in game 213.
There is no relief for White after 6.~a4
lLlc6 7.i.b4 ef2 8.'lt>f2 ~h4 (--t game 213).

6...vgh4 7.g3 vge4 8.vgf3 id2 9)iJd2

vge5

Black had a clear advantage in Shumiakina, T·

RaetskY,A (--t game 212).

common. It is quite tempting and natural for

White to want to free his light-squared bishop
and undouble his e-pawn by eliminating Black's
d4-pawn. But trying to do so immediately has
serious pitfalls. If White could play such a

L
move without damage, the Albin Counter-Albin
I
I would be forgotten since a long time!
,

4...ib45.id2

The continuation 5.lLld2 de3 6.fe3 Wh4

7.g3 We4 8.Wf3 We5 leaves Black with the
better position thanks to a superior pawn
structure (--t game 213).
5.~e2?! is also covered in game 213.

5...de3!

White now has the depressing choice between

6.fe3, 6.i.b4 and 6.Wa4.

6.fe3

493
 Chapter 15

Game 189 17.~a2 CLle2=+: Duong Thanh Nha-Grondin,J,

Feller,Sebastien (2580) Montreal, 1995.
Chadaev,Nikolay (2535) c) 7.ttJc3!? Wfd1 8.CLld1 CLle5, and Black was at
Moscow, 2008 least equal in Lypps,B-Armstrong,D, Canada,
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.a3 ltJc6 1991
5.e3 a5 (D) d) 7.Wfe2 .tg4 8.CLlf3 .tf3 9.Wff3 0-0-0 10..te2
Wfe5 11.Wfe3 .tc5 12.Wfe5 CLle5 13.CLlc3 h6
(13".CLld3 14..td3 !:%d3 15.We2 !:%d8 16..tg5 f6
17..tf4 CLle7= Bronznik) 14..tf4 l2ld3 15..td3 !:%d3
16.We2 !:%d7 17.!:%hd1 CLlf6= Kadimova,I-Peek,
, Mar, Belgium, 2003.
I,
I
White played badly the opening in
Lazarev,Se-Tishin,P, Korolev, 2000: 6.b3?! .tc5
I
,
, 7.CLlf3 .tf5 8..te2 CLlge7 9..tb2 de3 10.Wfd8 !:%d8
11.fe3.te3=+:.

6...i.c5

Although 6....tg4 enables Black to regain the

,I'
Prophylaxis: Black defends against b2-b4 and pawn quickly, this move does not equalize:
secures the c5-square for his bishop. a) 7.ed4 .tf3 8.Wff3 Wfd4 9.CLlc3 Wfe5
10..te2 (after 10.Wfe3, as in Jorgensen,Brian-
Nicolaisen,J, Copenhagen, 2001, 10...l2lf6=)
10... CLld4 11.Wfb7 !:%d8 12.f4 (12.0-0 .td6 13.g3
Here 6.ed4!? Wfd4! has been also CLle2 14.CLle2 Wfe2 15..tf4 co Raetsky & Chetverik)
played: 12 ...Wfe6 13.Wf2 CLlc2!? 14.!:%b1 .tc5 15.Wf1 c6 co
a) 7.Wfd4? l2ld4 8. Wd 1? (8.!:%a2 .tf5 9.l2lc3 l2lc2 Henris.
10.Wd1 O-O-O=+:) 8....tf5 (8 ... l2lb3 9.!:%a2 .tf5 b) 7..te2 de3 (7 ....tc5!? 8.ed4 .tf3 9..tf3
10.CLld2 0-0-0-+) 9.CLld2 0-0-0 10.CLle2 CLlb3 11.!:%a2 Wfd4 10..tc6 bc6 11.0-0± Gyimesi,Z-Lengyel,Be,
.tb1-+ Royers, D-Harms,J, Groningen, 2001. Budapest, 1994) 8..te3 .tf3 9..tf3 Wfd1 10..td1
b) After 7.ttJf3?! Wfd1 8.Wd1 .tg4, Black CLle5 11 ..te2 0-0-0 12.0-0 (or 12.CLlc3;!; Henris)
achieves a dangerous initiative, e.g. 9..te2 12... CLlf6 13.CLlc3+ Delchev,A-'Alias', Internet
0-0-0 10.Wc2 .tc5 11 ..tg5 f6! 12.ef6 CLlf6 13..tf6 (blitz), 2003. White has the two bishops in an
gf6 14.l2lbd2 .tf5 15.Wb3 !:%d2 16.CLld2 CLld4 open position.

494
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.a3, 4.e4, other lines

7.ed4 1996.
8.tLlc3 ~g4 9.~e2 liJf3 10.i.f3 Wd1
7.i.e2 allows 7...de3 (the simpler, but 11.~d1 ~d1 12.liJd1 ~d4 13.f4 f6iii Franco
7 liJge7!? is also interesting) 8.Wd8 'tt>d8 Ocampos,Z-Miladinovic, I, Saint Vincent, 1998.
(8 liJd8!?) 9.~e3 ~e3 10.fe3 liJh6 11.liJc3 ~d7
~-Y2 Vasiliev,Vladimir P-Tishin,P, Tula, 2007. 8....ig4 9.i.e2

7...llJd4!? (0) White is better as Black's activity is quickly

diffused.
Black would be OK after 9.~d4 ~f3 10.Wf3 Wd4
11.CtJc3 We5 12.~e2 CtJf6.

9...llJe6!?

9 lLle2 10.1We2 ie3 11.1We3 CiJe7 12.CiJbd2+.

9 tLlf3 10.gf3! Wd1 (10 ... ~e3 11.Wd8
EJ:d8 12.fe3 ~e6 13.CtJc3± Ahues,C-Mieses,J,
Berlin, 1929) 11.~d1 ~e3 12.fe3 ~e6 13.~e2±.

10",Wb3llJe7

! 7... ~d4! is the subject of games 190 and 191. 10...a411.Wb7± or 11.iWc3±.
,
f
,
8.i.e3! 11.llJbd2 a4 12.Wfc3± 0-0 13.0-0-0
.ie3 14.Wfe3 llJc6 15.llJe4 Wfe7
There are no particular problems for Black 16.ttJc3 ttJa5!? 17.ttJd5 Wfe8?! 18.id3
with the alternatives: i.h5 19.1lJg5 h6??
8.~e2 ~f5!? 9.liJd4:
a) 9...Wd4?! 10.Wd4 ~d4 11.f4 f6 12.liJd2 A very bad mistake in a very difficult position.
(~12.ef6 liJf6 13.liJd2 O-O-Oiii) 12...fe5 (12...0-0-0?! o19...i.g6±.
13.liJf3 ~b6 14.~d2±) 13.liJf3!;!; Bacrot,E-
Mellado Trivino,J, Enghien-les-Bains, 1995. 20.ttJh7+- f5 21.ef6 id1 22.ttJe7 i>h8
b) 9... ~d4 10.0-0 ~e5 11.~f3 liJe7! 12.~b7 Wd1 23.1g7 llJg7 24.llJf8 i.h5 25.Wfh6#
13.EJ:d1 EJ:b8= Nilsson,Ma-Bodin,S, Stockholm, 1-0

495
 ,

il
,"
Chapter 15

Game 190 Gonzales,Jay, Dapitan, 2009) 9...CtJe5= Henris.

Szabo,Bence (2326) 8..!e2 is analysed in game 191.
, lyell,Mark (2179)
~
I
Budapest, 2010 8...ffd4
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.a3 tLlc6
I
I
5.e3 as 6.tLlf3 ic5 7.ed4 id4! (D) After 8...'lWd4, the position is awkward for
White. As compared to an analogous line of the
Chigorin Defence (where both a-pawns are on
their starting squares) here White has
weakened the b3-square.

Alternatively:
9.f4?! 'lWd1 10.d1d1 ttJd4 (10 ... ~g4!?
1H~7C2 ~f5 12.d1c3 (12.~d3 ttJd4!? 13.d1c3 ~d3
14.d1d3 O-O-O~) 12.. .f6 13.ef6!? ttJf6~) 11.ttJc3
(Moernaut,E-Avdeeva,Vik, Herceg Novi, 2006)
11.. .~g4 t Henris.
We owe this idea to John Watson. 9.VNe2!? ~g4 (9 ... ~f5!? 10.f4!? 0-0-0
Of course, on positional grounds Black would 11.~e3 'lWd7~; 9...'lWe5 10.~f4 'lWe2 11.~e2 ttJd4
like to establish his knight on d4 after all the 12.~e5! ttJc2 13.d1d1 f6 14.~f6!? ttJf6 15.d1c2
exchanges. But this is not so easy to achieve. ~f5 16.d1c1!? ttJe4~) 10.f3:
The game position was reached after the move a) 10...0-0-0?! 11.fg4 ttJf6 12.ttJd2 (after
order 4.tuf3 ttJc6 5.a3 a5 6.e3 ~c5 7.ed4 ~d4. 12.~d2?!, as in Tarakanov,M-Shavliuk, USSR,
1961, Black can play 12...'lWb2! 13.~c3 'lWc1
14.~f2 ttJd4! b.15.~d4? 'lWf4+ Henris) 12.ttJd2
ttJe5 13.'lWf2 'lWd6 14.~e2 ttJeg4 15.ttJe4!?
White also has: (15.~g4 ttJg4 16.'lWf5 d1b8 17.'lWg4 Elhe8 oo )
8..!Llbd2!? ttJge7 9.~e2 0-0 10.0-0 ~f5 15...'lWe6 16.'lWf4, and Black's attack begins to
11.ttJb3 (11.1'%e1 !?) 11 ... ~e5!? (11 ... ~a7°o Henris) run out of steam - Henris.
12.ttJe5 ttJe5 13.ttJd4;!; Pedersen,D-Bromann,T, b) 10....!e6 11.~e3?! 'lWe5 12.ttJc3 ~c4 13.'lWc4
Aarhus, 2004. 'lWe3 14.~e2 ttJge7+ Scoatarin,J-Garcia,Jea,
8.~d3!? ~g4 9.0-0 (Gomez,John P- Saint-Quentin, 2000.

496
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.a3, 4.e4, other lines

,r
,,, 9.~d4 ttJd4: position. He has a small advantage.
a) 10.i.d3? ttJb3 11.ttJd2 ttJa1 12.b3 was played
in Daniuszewski,D-Tereshchenko,N, Saint 20.ie3 lbe3!? 21.~e3 ~d2 22.~e2
Petersburg, 1909. Now 12.. J':\a6! 13.c5 (13.~b2? ~cd4 23.~be1

ttJb3!-+) 13... ~e6 14.~a6 ba6 wins - Henris.

b) 10.'it>d1? ~g4 11.f3 ttJf3 12.'it>c2 (12.h3 Now White should be able to defend even if
0-0-0+) 12... ttJe5+ Esipovich,S-Pankov,Ger, the position is easier to play for Black.
i Saint Petersburg, 2009.
,
! c) 10.ga2 ~f5 11.ttJc3 ttJc2 12.c;t>e2 0-0-0'" 23...lbc5 24.lbb1 lbe4 25.<;!;lf3 ~2d3
l
f BrodY,M-Leussen,B, Hannover, 1902. 26.<;!;lg2 lbd2 27.lbd2 ~d2 28.<;!;lf3
,
,

,, <;!;ld7 29.<;!;le3 ~2d3 30.<;!;lf2 c5 31.e6

,,

9... ~d1 fe6 32.~e6 ~d2 33.~1e2 ~e2

34.~e2 b5 35.<;!;le3 <;!;le6 36.g4 <;!;ld5
l
i 9...Wfe5 10.Vge2 (10.~e2 ttJge7 (10... ~g4!?)
i The pawn majority on the queenside is easier to
I 11.0-0 0-0 12J':\e1 1':\d8= Weschke,W-Kahn,Man,
!I Baden-Baden, 1993) 10... ~e6 11.Vge5 ttJe5 advance and the black king is better centralized.
12.~f4 f6 13.0-0-0 ttJe7 14.b3, and White will
rely on the bishop-pair to give him an edge, as 37.~c2

in Petrovic-'Silicon', Internet (blitz), 2001.

10.~d1 ~ge7!?
Of course 10...lL\e5 is also possible.
11.f4!? ~d4 12.id3!? if5 13.if5
~ef5 14.0-0 0-0-0 15.~c3 lbb3
16J:~b1 ~d3;;;
Black has nice compensation for the pawn
thanks to his active piece play.
17J~e1 ~hd8 18.<;!;lf2 ~8d4 19.93 ~c4
Black has regains the pawn with an active
37.'it>f31':\d3 38.c;t>g2 b4:j:.
37...c4 38.f5?
A blunder in an unpleasant position.
38... ~g4-+ 39.~d2 <;!;le5 40.~d7 ~g2
41.a4 b4 42.~a7 ~b2 43.~a5 <;!;lf6
44.~c5 c3 45.<;!;ld3 ~h2 46.a5 ~a2
47.<;!;lc4 ~b2 48.a6 c2 49.<;!;lb5 b3
50.<;!;lb4 ~a2 51.<;!;lb3 ~a6 52. <;!;lc2
~a3 53.<;!;ld2 ~f3 54.<;!;le2 ~f5
55.~c1 h5 56.~h1 g6 57.~h2 ~f4
58.<;!;le3 <;!;lf5 59.~a2 g5
0-1

497
 Chapter 15

Game 191 Fluvia Poyatos,Jor, Banyoles (rapid), 2006.

Bareev,Evgeny (2665)
Morozevich,Alexander (2595) 9.0-0
Elista, 1997
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.a3 lLlc6 After 9.liJd4!? iWd4 10.liJe3 (10.f4 ~e6iii or
5.e3 a5 6.lLlf3 .ic5 7.ed4 .id4! 10 ~f5iii Bronznik; 10.iWd4 liJd4 11.~d1 ~e6iii)
8..ie2 (D) 10 iWe5 11.0-0 0-0 12.Ei:e1 Ei:d8, with
reasonable chances to equalize, Panos,J-
Chetverik,M, Marianske Lazne, 2010.

9... 0-0

9....!Llf5?! 10.~g5!? iWd7 11.liJe3± YZ-YZ

Babu,N-Neelotpal,D, Kolkata, 2008. White is
clearly better in the final position.
9...ie6?! 10.liJe3 ~e5 (10 ... ~e3!?
11.be3 iWd1 12.Ei:d1 liJg6 13.Ei:b1 b6 14.liJd4±
Bogdanovski, V-Krstev,E, Struga, 2011) 11.liJe5
liJe5 12.iWb3 iWe8 13.liJd5;!; Mirzoev,A-
Bromann,T, Barbera del Valles, 2005.
The diagrammed position was reached after
the moves 1.d4 d5 2.e4 liJe6 3.e3 e5 4.de5 d4 10.lLlc3 (D)
5.a3 a5 6.liJf3 ~e5 7.ed4 ~d4 8.~e2.

8... ~e6!? 9.0-0 ~e5 10.liJe5 liJe5

(Pruun,Ri-Keres,P, Parnu, 1933) 11.iWb3± Henris.
8... ~f5!? 9.0-0 liJge7 (9 ... ~e5 10.liJe5
liJe5 11.~f4;!; Schulien, C-Gather,J, corr., 1995)
10.liJe3 0-0 (10 ... ~e3!? 11.be3 iWd1 12.Ei:d1 ~e2
13.Ei:d2 ~g6 14.a4 Ei:d8 15.Ei:d8 <iJd8 16.~f4;!; as
in Farago, I-Ellenbroek,T, Leeuwarden, 1992)
11.~e3!? ~e5 12.liJe5 liJe5 13.iWb3;!; Korchnoi,V-

498
r--------------------------------------,
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.a3, 4.e4, other lines

There is a pull for White here due to the a) 12.c!L\c3 j,e6 13.b3 'lWd1 14.:1%d1 2::1fd8 15.E1d8
bishop pair. Accurate play from Black is 2::1d8 16.2::1d2 2::1d2 17.j,d2;t Aleksandrov,Aleksa-
needed if he wants to gradually equalize. But Philippe,C, Aix-les-Bains, 2011.
to achieve this he often has to enter a b) 12.b3 'lWd1 13.2::1d1 a4 14.b4 j,e6 15.2::1c2
somewhat inferior endgame first. j,f5!? (15 ...2::1ad8!? 16.2::1d8 2::1d8 17.2::1d2;t;
White also has: 15... lLlf5!?) 16.2::1cd2! (16.2::1b2 2::1fd8 17.2::1bd2 2::1d2
10.~d4 'lWd4: 18.lLld2 j,c2! (1B... lLld3 19.1Llf1 lLlc1 20.2::1c1 2::1dB
a) After 11.~c3, Black soon got into trouble in 21.2::1dH Flear,G; 1B... 2::1dB 19.f4 j,g4! 20.j,g4
the game Leitao,Ra-Vivaldo,F, Santos, 1998, lLlg4 21.2::1e1 lLlf5 22.~f3°o Henris) 19.2::1e1
with 11 ...'lWd1? 12.2::1d1 lLle5 13.lLlb5 j,f5 14.j,e3 lLl7g6= Flear) 16...j,b1 17.j,b2 lLlc4 18.j,c4 j,f5;t
2::1ad8 15.j,c5±. He should have opted for Henris.
11 ...'lWe5! 12.2::1e1 2::1d8, transposing to the game
Panos,J-Chetverik,M, Marianske Lazne, 2010, 10....ic3!?
with good chances to equalize.
b) 11.~d4 lLld4 12.j,d1 (12.j,d3 lLlb3 13.2::1a2 The alternative is 10...j,e5!? 11.lLle5 (Y:z- Y:z
lLlg6 (13... lLlc6 14.j,f4 2::1dB;, Watson) 14.j,g6 Stern,R-Rabiega,R, Berlin, 2010) 11.lLle5 lLle5,
hg6~ Bronznik) 12...j,e6!? (also possible is regaining the pawn and reaching a solid-looking
12 ...j,f5 13.2::1e1 lLlc2 14.j,c2 j,c2= Bronznik) position. After 12.j,g5 f6 13.j,e3 j,e6, Black
13.j,g5 (13.lLld2 c5~ COMP Ant-COMP Chess would gradually equalized - Morozevich &.
Tiger, Leiden, 2004) 13... lLlec6 14.2::1e1 h6 Barsky. But stronger is 12.j,f4! lLl7g6 13.j,g3
15.j,f4 j,c4= as in Jorgensen,Brian-Hassan,O, j,f5 14.'lWb3;t Flear,G.
Copenhagen, 2001.
1O.j,g5!? j,b2 11.2::1a2: 11.bc3 tLlg6 12..ig5
a) 11 ...f6 is given as equal by both Bareev and
Morozevich, but White is clearly better after White has a broken structure and his opponent
12.'lWd8 2::1d8 13.j,f6!? gf6 14j%b2 fe5!? is likely to soon regain his pawn, but one
(14 .. .t2Je5!? 15.lLle5 fe5 16.2::1eH) 15.lLlc3 2::1b8 should not underestimate the influence of the
16.lLld5± Henris (even stronger than Flear's bishop pair.
16.lLlb5;t).
b) 11...1.Wd1 12.2::1d1 f6 (Bonte,An-Chibukhchian, 12.. .'~e8!?
A, Budva, 2009) 13.j,f6;t Henris.
10J'!a2!? j,e5 (10 ...a4?! 11.b4! ab3 Exchanging queens doesn't ease Black's task:
12.2::1d2 lLlf5 13.'lWb3 is unpleasant for Black due 12... ~d1 :
to the pin - Flear,G) 11.lLle5 lLle5: a) 13.E1ad1 lLlge5 (13 ... 2::1e8 14.lLld4 f6

499
 Chapter 15

15..ie3 ttJd4 16.ed4 te5 H.e5 ed4 18.:i'l:d4 .it5;!; 16....ie6 17.:i'l:ab1 b6 18.ttJd4 ttJee5
Deveraux,M-Ghost, Internet (blitz), 2002) 19.ttJe6 ~e6 20.e5.
14.ttJe5 ttJe5 15..it4 t6 co Cano,A-Vujadinovic, Black is also not completely happy in
Mil, corr., 2003. the event of 16....tg4 17.tLld4 tLlee5 18.f4 tLle6
b) 13.:i'l:fd1 ttJge5 14.:i'l:abH (14.ttJe5 19.tLle6 be6 20.h3 .td7 21.g3!?;!; Morozevich &
ttJe5 15.i.f4 t6 co Bronznik). Barsky.

13J~e1 a4!?

13...tLlce5 14.i.d3 (14.ttJd4;!; Bareev; 17...tLle5 18.i.d4 M4.

14.tLle5!?) 14...tLlt3 15.Wt3 Wd7 16.:i'l:ad1 Wg4;!;,
. I
with equality according to John Watson. 18.~b2!?
However the bishop pair should enable White
to keep a small pull out of the opening. This queen-activating manreuvre secures White
Or 13...tLlge5 14.tLle5 tLle5 15.Wd5!?;!; a slight and enduring advantage.
I
Morozevich & Barsky. But was it not possible to try for more?
I,
In reply to 18..td2?!, Black is saved by
14.i.e3 .tt5!= Morozevich & Barsky (or 18...Wt5).
But it was possible to force the
14.i.d3!? :i'l:a5 15.tLld4 :i'l:e5 16.i.e3;!; is exchange of the queen for two rooks. After
interesting - Morozevich & Barsky. 18.if4!? We1 19.2"le1 :i'l:e1 20.Wd2 (20 ..te7)
14.~b1 tLla5 LL.i.e6, ... tLlb3-e5~. 20 ...:i'l:e8 21 ..te7, White has an appreciable
advantage: he will support his bishop on d6 by
14... ~e7 15.~c2 E:e8! playing e4-e5, and will create pressure on the
b7-pawn. It is not so easy for Black to defend,
If 15...tLlce5, then 16.i.d4;!;. since for the moments his forces are scattered
about - Morozevich & Barsky.
16.i.f1
18... ~e419.~b5
16..id3 i.g4 17.tLld4 tLlee5.
19..td2!? We6 20.:i'l:e8 We8 21.e5;!;.
Here too 19..tf4!? is possible.

16...i.d7?! 17.:i'l:ad1. 19...E:e5

500
~""'------------------------------- l
1.d4 dS 2.c4 eS 3.deS d4 4.a3, 4.e4, other lines

19... ~c6 20.~c6 bc6 21.if4!. 22J';d4 iMfc6 23.:B:b4 id5 24.c4.
Black now has to decide where he should place
20.c5 his queen.

White cannot win a pawn with 2o.Ad2 :B:b5 22...'IWg4?

21.:B:e4 :B:e5 22.:B:e5 ttJe5 23.if4 f6 24.ie5 fe5
25.:B:e1 :B:a5 26.f4 11tf7= Morozevich 8: Barsky. Now the queen is pushed to the side and it
becomes extremely difficult to develop an
20....ie6 attack.
Black should have reconciled with himself to a
20 ...~c6 21.iMfc6 bc6 22.if4. somewhat inferior endgame after 22...iMfc6!
23.iMfc6 bc6:
21 J~ad1 a) 24.ig6 fg6 25.ih6 :B:e1 26.:B:e1:
• 26 gh6 27.:B:e6+-;
White has an edge. • 26 11tf7 27.ig7 :B:b8 28.id4 :B:b3 29.:B:a1!;
• 26 id5 27.if4 :B:b8 28.h4!? (28.f3 :B:b3 29.:B:e7
21 ...h6 :B:a3 30.ie5 :B:a1 31.l1tf2 a3 32.:B:g7 I1tf8 33.c4
:B:a2) 28 ...:B:b3 29.:B:e7 (29.:B:e8!? I1th7 30.:B:e7
21 ...iMfc6 22.iMfc6 bc6 23.f4 :B:d5 24.:B:b1 :B:a3 31.ie5 :B:a1 32.l1th2 ic4! 33.:B:g7 I1th6
also favours White. 34.:B:c7 a3 35.if6 g5!) 29 ...:B:a3 30.ie5 :B:a1
21 ...ib3 22.:B:d7 (22.:B:d4!? iMfc6 23.:B:b4?! 31.I1th2 ic4! (31 ... a3 32.c4);
id5=). • 26...ic4! 27.if4 :B:b8 28.f3 :B:b3 29.:B:a 1=
(29.:B:e7 :B:a3 30.ie5 :B:a1 31.l1tf2 a3-+);
22..id3!? • 26.. J';b8!? . Morozevich 8: Barsky.
b) Even in the resulting simplified
White disposed of the curious 22.f4!? position it is clear that White's all-powerful
Now 22 ...:B:h5 23.id3 iMfc6 24.iMfc6 bc6 25.c4± bishops give him an edge after 24.f4! :B:d5 25.c4
leaves Black with a rather unpromising :B:d7 26.h3 (26.f5? :B:ad8 27.ic2 if5!) 26 ... ttJe7
position, while the capture 22 ... ttJf4!? involves 27.g4;1; Morozevich 8: Barsky.
a piece sacrifice: 23.:B:d4 ttJh3 24.gh3 iMfg6
25. I1tf2 :B:f5 26.:B:f4 :B:f4 27.if4 iMff6 28. I1tg3 iMfg6 23.h3 'lWh5 24..ie2 'lWh4 25.'lWb7
29. I1tf3 :B:d8iiii Morozevich 8: Barsky. The white geS 26.'lWc7+-
king is very insecure, and Black has definite
compensation. 26J';d4+-.

501
 -----~

Chapter 15

26.. J~e3 27.fe3 (0) i.g4, the best continuation is 32.Ei:d8 mh7
33.Wfa4 (33.Wfe8!?) 33 ....ie6 34.Wfd4+-
Morozevich & Barsky.

30.'iMa4 ie6

Or 30..J3c5 31.Wfd4+-.

31.c6 h5

31 ... ~c5 32.lMfb4 Wfc6 33.Ei:d6 lMfc3 (33 ...lMfa8

34Jled1 ~h7 35.ge6 fe6 36 ..id3+-) 34.gd8
~h7 35.gc8+-.

27 ...'iMg5 32.gd2 h4 33.'iMe4! 'iMc5

Tempting is 27....ih3, but despite his exposed 33... h3 34Jled1 hg2 35..ig2 ltJh4 36.c7, and
king White should win on material after 28.gh3 the far advanced pawn wins.
ltJe5 29.~g2 Wfg5 30.~h2 Wfe3 31 ..ih5+- (or
31.Wfb7) - Morozevich & Barsky. 34.ged1 gc6 35.gdS @h7 36.id3
f5
2S.if1 ?!(±)
36...'it>h6 37..ie2 ~h7 (37...Wfc3 38.gh8+-)
28.'it>h2 ltJe5 (28 ....ib3 29 ..ib5! (and 38.gf1 Wfc3 39 ..id3 mh6 40.gh8.
not 29.Wfd7? Wfe5; 29.l'k1 .id5 30.Wfg3)) 29 ..if1
has been suggested, but Black could then try 37.'iMf3 @h6 3S.ie2 @g5 39.gSd5
29 ....ih3!? 'iMc3 40.gf1 @f6
Therefore, the simplest is 28.'it>h1 !+-,
when Black is well short of ammunition - 40...tLle7 41.Wfh5 mf6 42.Wfh4 mf7 43.gd3 Wfc2
Flear,G. 44.Wff2+-.

2s...ih3 29.'iMc6 gcS 41.gf5 @e7 42.gf7 @d6 43.gd1

@c5 44.gb7
In the event of 29 .. J3e3 30.ge3 Wfe3 31.mh1 1-0

502
I
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.a3, 4.e4, other lines
Game 192
Hsu Li Yang (2390)
Handoko,Edhi (2470)
Singapore, 1997
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.a3 ttJc6
5.e3 de3!? (D)
A principled decision. Black regains the pawn
immediately.
6.~d8 @d8 7..ie3 ttJe5
As the two centre files are open and Black
cannot castle, one might suggest that White is
slightly better here. However, arguably White's
c-pawn is unfavourably placed on c4.
8.ttJf3!? (D)
A very aggressive continuation which Jonathan
Rowson has recently highlighted in his Chess
for Tigers book. Other renowned theoricians
like Valeri Bronznik and Mikhail Shereshevsky
are also keen on this slightly surprising move.
White accepts doubled pawns, but reasons that
the open lines and his lead in development
more than compensate. Moreover because of
the loss of the right to castle Black still has
some work to do in order to achieve an equal
game.
If White wishes to maintain an opening pull
8.ttJf3 is probably his best bet. White could try
other moves but it's not sure these give him
anything:
8.ttJd2!? ~e6 9.0-0-0 <;t>c8 10.ttJgf3 is
given as an edge to White by Morozevich and
Barsky. But Black is fine after 10... ttJg4 -
Flear,G.
8.ttJc3 ~e6 9.0-0-0 <;t>c8 10.c5
(10.ttJd5!? ttJe7!?) 10... ttJf6 11.h3 a5 (11 ... ~b3!?)
12.g4 h5'" Nikolic,Pr-Piket,Je, Monte Carlo
(rapid), 1996.
8....id6! ?
503
 Chapter 15

The safest response. But Black has little to
gain by trying to avoid the exchange of
knights.
8...lLlf3 is the subject of game 193.
9.tt:lc3 .ig4 10.0-0-0!?
14.i.g5 i.e7 15.i.d3t
White definitely has a strong intiative. The
black king is awkwardly placed and struggles to
find a home that will help to coordinate his
rooks.

The following continuations seem also 15...@e8 16.tt:le4

promising for White:
10.lLlg5!1 ie7!? 11.ttJd5;!; - Flear,G. Although this move concedes the bishop pair, it
1o.lLld4!?!. has to be said that 16.if6!1 if6 17.ttJd5 would
look to cause Black even more problems -
10...tt:lf3 11.h3 Ward.

11.c5 ttJh2 is less clear - Ward. 16...tt:le4 17..ie4

11 ....id7 White is much better.

After 11 ...ih5, White can choose between 17....ig5 18.gg5 h6 19.9g3?!

12.c5 or 12.ie2 - Ward.
19.E1e5 ie6 20.ib7, with 21.id5 to follow,
12.gf3 tt:lf6?! looks more promising - Ward.

In view of the game continuation, developing 19...c6

the knight on e7 or h6 may have been shrewder
- Ward. Now Black's position is defensible.

13J~g1 gg8 20..ih7 gf8 21.gg7 .ih3 22.gh1

.ie6 23..id3 @d7 24.gh6 @e7
This is the sort of forced passivity that justifies 25.@c2 gad8 26.@c3 gh8 27.gh8
White's decision to effectively self-isolate his gh8 28.@d2 gh4 29.c5 b6 30.gg8
kingside pawns. Y1-Y2
13...g61 14.E1d6 cd6 15.ig5 loses two pieces The extra half-a-pawn on the Hile isn't that
for a rook - Ward. important.

504
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.a3, 4.e4, other lines 1

Game 193 11.0-0-0 ~c8 12.~e4

Pedersen,Daniel Vesterbaek (2297)
Sobjerg,Erik (2260) White should avoid the tempting 12.ttJb5?!,
Aalborg, 2000 which can be met by 12...a6 13.ttJa7? :ga7
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.a3 ~c6 14.~a7 b6=t, trapping the bishop with some
5.e3 de3!? 6.~d8 ~d8 7.1e3 ~e5 advantage - Flear,G; better is 13.ttJd4 ~d7=.
8.~f3!? ~f3 9.gf3 (D)
12... ~f5 13.,ic5

13.ttJg5! is somewhat more critical:

a) 13...ttJe3 14.fe3 ~c5 15.ttJe6 fe6
(after 15... ~e3 16.Wc2 fe6 17.~h3, White has a
useful initiative) 16.~h3 :ge8 17.:gd3 a5 18.:gg1
g6 19.:gg5! favours White because 19... ~d6
(19... b6 20.:ge5) 20.c5 ~h2? loses the bishop to
21.:gd2! according to Glenn Flear. But 19... ~f8
is better, restricting White's advantage to a
minimum - Henris.
b) 13...~e7 14.ltJe6 fe6 15.~h3 :gd8!?
(15 ... ~f6 16.:ghe1 :ge8 allows the cheeky pawn
As for the 5...a5 line, the evaluation in this grap 17.~a7! - Flear,G; but 15...:gfS seems a bit
variation hangs somewhere in the balance better - Henris) 16.~d2! (16.:gd8 Wd8 17.:gd1
between equal and slightly better for White. We8 18.~f4 ~f6i) 16...g6!? 17.:ghe1 :gd6 18.~f5
The first moves of the game were 1.d4 d5 2.c4 gf5 19.:gg1 Wd7 20.:gg7i Flear.
ltJc6 3.e3 e5 4.de5 d4 5.a3.
13...b6 14.,if8 E:f8
9...,ie6 10.~c3 ~e7
The position is not that sensational for White.
10...a6!? 11.0-0-0 We8 (11...Wc8!?)
12.ltJd5 :gc8 (12 ... ~d5 13.:gd5i) 13.c5i, 15.~g5!? c5! 16.~h7 E:h8 17.~g5
Rubinetti ,J-Mendez, Er, Buenos Aires, 1999. ~d4 18.h4 ~c7 19.~e6 fe6 20.,id3
10...c6!? 11.0-0-0 We8 12.ltJe4 f6!? E:af8 21 ..ie4 ~f3 22..if3 E:f3
13.~d3 Wf7 14.:ghe1;!; Hall,Joh-Sherman,Jo, 23.E:dg1 E:h7 24.E:h2 as 25.E:g4
Toronto, 2008.

505
 Chapter 15

Game 194 5 ...f6?! (D)

Kincs,lmre (2215)
Chetverik,Maxim (2290)
Gyongyos, 1993
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.a3 ctJc6
5.e3 (D)

Black plays in true-gambit style.

The following alternatives are not troublesome:
5.f4!? ~e6 (5... ~f5!?) 6.e4 is
overambitious: 6.. .f6 7.f5 fe5 8.fe6? IWh4 9.md2
(9.me2) 9...lWe4 10.tDf3?? ~b4!, and White
resigned in Shearer,H-Shearer,C, Sydney, 1939,
because of 11.ab4IWe312.mc2ltJb4#.
5.~f4:
a) 5...lL\ge7 6.~g3 (6.ltJf3 would transpose to
the line 4.ltJf3 ltJc6 5.~f4 analysed in game 180
- chapter 14) 6... ltJf5 7.lWd3 IWg5~ Kluxen,W-
Lasker,Em, Hamburg, 1904.
b) 5...g5!? 6.~g3 h5!?, as in Onate,A-Palao,M,
Cali, 1999, is quite interesting.
5.lL\f3 transposes to the line 4.ltJf3 ltJc6
5.a3 covered in part one.
We must also consider the following
alternatives because some of them are critical,
especially 5... ~e6 and 5...ltJge7!?:
5...~e6 is a reliable option for Black:
a) Now White should avoid 6.ed4?! IWd4 7.ltJf3
(7.lWd4? ltJd4+) 7...lWd1 8.md1 0-0-0 9.ltJbd2
~c5iii Ten Wolde,B-Frederiksen,Je, Guernsey,
1991.
b) After 6.lL\f3 de3 7.lWd8 2::1d8 8.~e3, play has
transposed to the line 4.ltJf3 ltJc6 5.a3 ~e6 6.e3
de3 7.lWd8 2::1d8 8.~e3 analysed in games 17 to
22 - chapter 2.
The approach 5...lL\ge7!? is another
good possibility for Black:
a) After 6.f4!? 6...ltJf5 7.ltJf3, Black has:
• 7...lL\e3?! 8.~e3 de3 9.lWd8 ~d8 10.ltJc3
~g4± Y2- Y2 Aleksandrov, Alekse- Zablotsky, S,
Voronezh, 2008;
• 7... ~e6?! 8.e4!? «8.ed4?! ltJcd4 (B... ltJfd4

506
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.a3, 4.e4, other lines

9..ie3 tbf5 10.'!!idB 'gdB~) 9..id3!? .ic5!? 7.e4!?

t.10.b4?! tbf3+);
• 7...a5;; Henris. 7.ed4 seems preferable: 7... tbd4 (inferior is
b) 6.lLle2 de3 7.'!!id8 md8 8..ie3 tbe5 9.ttJf4 ttJf5 7...Wffd4 8..ie2 Wffd1 9..id1 - Raetsky &
10.ttJc3 ttJe3 11.fe3 c6 12..ie2 .ic5 13.mf2 ~e8 Chetverik) 8.ttJe2 ttJe6 (8 ....ie5 9..ie3 ttJe6
14.b4 .ie7 15.~ad1 me7 16.e5 ttJg4 17..ig4 .ig4 10..ie5 ttJe5 11.Wffd4 Wffd4 12.ttJd4;!; Raetsky &
18.~d4 .if5= Ortega,Fr-Tolkacz,K, Avoine, 1995. Chetverik) 9.ttJbe3 (9.ie3 '!!ib2 10.ttJbe3 .ie5 -
c) 6..ie2 .if5 7.ttJf3 d3 8..if1 Wffd7 9.ttJe3 0-0-0 Raetsky & Chetverik) 9...id7:
was very promising for Black in Karayannis,A- a) 10.ttJd5!? Wffe5 (1 O... Wfff7!?~ Raetsky
Karadeniz, E, Panormo, 1998. & Chetverik) 11.Wffd3?! (more precise is 11 ..ie3!
d) 6.ttJt3 transposes to the line 4.ttJf3 ttJe6 5.a3 as 11 ...Wffb2?? loses quickly after 12.ttJee3 -
analysed in games 10 to 13 - chapter 1. Flear,G or 12.ttJd4+-) 11...ttJe7 12.f4 Wffd6
5...it5?! (the bishop is not very stable 13.ttJg3? (13 ..ie3±) 13... ttJe5 14.Wfff3 (Frolik,M-
on that square). After 6.ttJf3, White transposes Chetverik,M, Fridek Mistek, 1995) 14...ie6!
favourably to the line 5.ttJf3 ttJe6 6.a3 if5 7.e3 15.Wffh5 g6 16.Wffe2 O-O-OC Henris.
analysed in game 48 . chapter 4. b) Sensible is 10.ie3 0-0-0 11.ttJd4
5...ic5? 6.b4 ttJb4 7.ab4 .ib4 8.id2 (11.Wffe2!? ie5 12.ttJd5 Wfff7 13.ttJee3!? .ie3
de3 9.fe3 (9 ..ib4 ef2 10.<iJe2 fg1ttJ!; 9.Wffa4 b5! 14.ttJe3!? ttJd4 is not so clear) 11 ...ttJe7 12.ie2
10.Wffb5 (10.Wffb4 ef2) 10...e6 lXl ) 9...Wffh4 10.g3 ttJd4 13.id4 (13.Wffd4 Wffd4 14.id4 ttJf5 lXl )
Wffe4 11.Wfff3 Wffe5 12.~a2 .id2 13.ttJd2± Elliot,S- 13...Wffg6 14.0-0 ih3!? 15..if3 ttJf5 16.Wffb3 e6
Marshall,F, (simul.), 1914. 17.ie5± Henris.

6.ef6 7...ctJge7?

6.id3?! (Piot,O-Adda,O, Aix-les-Bains, 2003)
6...de3 7..ie3!? (7.Wffh5?! g6! 8.ig6 hg6+; 7.f4!?
.ie5) 7... ttJe5 8.ie2 Wffd1 9.md1 if5!?+ or
9... ttJe7!?+ t....ttJf5 - Henris.
6...'IWf6
6...lLlt6 7.ttJf3 transposes to the line 4.ttJf3 ttJe6
5.a3 f6 6.ef6 ttJf6 7.e3 analysed in game 49 -
chapter 4.
Black has good compensation after 7...Wffg6!
8.ttJf3 Wffe4 9..ie2 if5 10.0-0 0-0-0 - Raetsky &
Chetverik.
8.g3?!
Black has no real compensation for the pawn
after 8.t4 Wffg6 9.ttJd2 .ig4 10..ie2 .ie2 11.Wffe2
0-0-0 12.ttJgf3± Raetsky & Chetverik. White
controls all the squares in the centre.

507
 Chapter 15

8... ttJg6? Bad is 14.Wfd5? liJf3! 15.~f3 ~f3 16.Wff3

0-0-0-+ Henris.
8...lLle5 9.f4 tLlg4 10.tLlf3 (and not 14.lLle5?! liJe5 15.~d5 is met by the
10.e5?! ~c6 11.~f3 ~d7 12.~g2 ~c4 13.tLld2 surprising 15... ~d4!~ Henris.
~c6?) 10... c511.~e2;!; Raetsky &. Chetverik. Correct was 14.fe5!? tLle5 15.tLle5
Black can play 8... ~d7 t. ... 0-0-0, with (15.~e4? ~f3 16.~f3 0-0 17.~e2 gad8!+):
only a tiny edge for White - Raetsky &. Chetverik. a) S15... ~f2?! 16.cj{d1 gd8 17.ge1! (~17.~d8?
cj{d8 18.tLlg4 hg4 19.tLlc3 gh2 (19 ... ~g2?
9.14 h5 10.,ie2 d3 11.vgd3 ,ic5 20. cj{c2) 20.~g5 cj{c8 21.~g4 cj{b8 22.gh2
12.llJf3!? ~h2;!;) 17... ~e7 18.tLlc3 gd3 19.tLld3 ~d4
20. cj{c2, and White is close to winning - Henris.
Even stronger was 12.lLlc3, M2... ~d4 13.~d4 b) 15...~f2 16.cj{d2 gd8 17.tLlg4 hg4 18.tLlc3
tLld4 14.~d1+- Raetsky &. Chetverik. gd3 19.~d3 ~g3 20.cj{c2, with three pieces for
the queen· Henris.
12...,ig4 13.e5? (D)
14...,if3

14... ~f5!? is not bad either - Henris.

15.,if3 0-01+ 16.,ih5

16.fe5 ~f3 17.~f3 gf3+ Raetsky &.

Chetverik.
16.~e2 gae8! 17.fe5 ge5 18.~g2tLld4+.

16.. J~ad8 17.llJc3 llJd3 18.i>f1 llJf2

13.e5 allows Black to complicate matters with
the coming sacrifice.
Easier was 13.lLlc3 ~f3 14.~f3 (14.~f3?! tLlge5)
14... tLld4 15.~d3± Raetsky &. Chetverik.
13... ttJge5! 14.vge4?
19.vgg2? vgd4-+ 20.E:g1 vgc421.ie2
vgd4 22.h4 E:fe8 23.vgf3 llJg4 24.vgg2
24J:gg2 tLlh2-+ Raetsky &. Chetverik.
24...E:e2! 25.i>e2 vgd3 26.i>e1 ig1
27.vgg1 E:e8
0-1

508
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.a3, 4.e4, other lines

Game 195 ~g4 16.LtJf3= Boyarkov,V-Solovtsov,A, Moscow,

Schneider,Udo (1796) 1904.
Chetverik,Maxim (2240) b) 6.lLlf3:
Bad Zwesten, 2013 • 6...f6!? 7.ed4 cd4 8.ef6 C2Jf6 9.~d3 ~e7
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.a3 10.~g5 ~g4 11.C2Jbd2 0-0 12.1Wc2 (12.0-0!?;I;
c5!? (D) Flear,G) 12 ... h6 13.~h4!? C2Jd7 14.~g3±
Moller,Ba-Rojahn,E, Buenos Aires, 1939;
• 6...lLlge7!? 7.ed4 cd4 8.b4 C2Jg6 9.~b2 ~g4°o
Van Heirzeele,D-Britschgi Zwimpfer,M, Triesen,
2007.

5... ~c6 6.~f3 eDge7 7..ig3 eDf5

8..if4 h6 9.h4!? .ie7 10.g3 g6

10...0-0!? looks also possible.

11 ..ig2 .ie6 12.b3 ~g8!? 13.~d2

eDa5 14.~d3 ~b6!?

The normal 4 ... C2Jc6 is almost always played but 14... g5 15.hg5 hg5 16.~d2 g4 17.C2Jh2 1Wb6°o
Black could try and exploit White's slow fourth Henris.
move and play 4 ...c5, attempting to obtain a
more favourable version of Tartakower's 4.C2Jf3 15.eDbd2 0-0-0 16.~b1!?
c5 seen in game 188 - chapter 14. This
surprising move has been very little studied Quite strong is 16.b4! cb4 17.ab4 ~b4 18.0-0
and is worth a try. ~c3 19.1J:fb11Wc7 20.1J:a4± Henris.

5..if4 16...g5 17.b4! cb4 18.ab4 eDc6

19.c5 ~c7 20.~e4?!
A developing move.
White also has 5.e3 C2Jc6: 20.hg5 hg5 leads to obscure complications:
a) 6.ed4!? C2Jd4 7 .~e3 C2Je7 8.~d3 21.g4!? (21.b5!? gf4 22.bc6 oo ; 21.~g5!? ~g5
C2Jec6 9.C2Je2 (9.f4!?) 9...C2Je5 10.~d4 cd4 11.0-0 22.C2Je4 oo ) 21 ... C2Je3!? (21 gf4 22.gf5 ~a2oo)
~e7 12.f4 C2Jc6 13.~e4 ~f6 14.1Wd3 g6 15.C2Jd2 22.~e3 (22.fe3 de3) 22 de3 23.1We3 C2Jb4°o

509
 Chapter 15

Henris. Game 196

Markos,Jan (2596)
20...gf4 21.tlJd6 .td6 22.cd6 Wfd7? Hrabusa,Matej (2344)
Czech Republic, 2012
It was better to give back the piece immediatly 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.e4 tlJc6
for the pawns with 22...tLld6! 23.ed6 Wfd6, 5.14 f6 6.ef6 ~f6 7..td3 .tb4 8.tlJd2
leaving White with a clearly inferior position - tlJg4! (D)
Henris.

23.b5 fg3?

There was no reason to give the knight in a

such unfavourable way.
Better was 23 tLla5 24.ttJd4 (24.Wfa3!?)
24 ... tLld4 (after 24 fg3??, White would have
the devastating 25.~c6!+-) 25.Wfd4 mb8
26.Wff4'" Henris.

24.bc6!?

o24J~c1 !±. This move, already mentioned in the 1983

Batsford book Albin Counter-Gambit by Paul
24...gf2?? Lamford, is critical.

A bad mistake allowing White's rooks to be 9.a3 ~e3 10.Wfe2 O-O!?

connected and the king to defend his bishop.
Black stays in the game after 24...Wfc6.... 1O... ~g4 is more usual and gives Black
interesting play. See game 197.
25.@f2+- Wfc6 26.~g5
Yz-Y2 11.ab4!?
White is totally winning in the final position.
But probably the difference in Elo points White could seriously consider not taking the
between the two players explains this strange bishop immediatly and instead develop with
result. 1UZlgf3!?, transposing to the game 197.

510
-----------------------------------,
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.a3, 4.e4, other lines

11 ...ttJb4 12.ttJdf3!? 17.id2!? ie6 18.1335 c519.~e2!? (D)

12.lt>f2!? is a possible alternative: e.g.

12.. .tZJbc2!? 13.:J':i:a5 (13.~c2 lIJc2 14.:J':i:a5 d3
15.Wf3 c5"') 13 ...Wh4 14.g30 lIJg4:
a) 15.lt>g2? lIJce3 16.ciJf3 :J':i:f4! 17.ciJf4
(17.gf4 lIJh2! 18.Wh2 ~g4#) 17...Wf6 18.:J':i:f50 g5
19.ciJf3 lIJf5! 20.ef5 ~f5-+ Henris.
b) 15.ciJf3 :J':i:f4! 16.ciJf40 (16.gf4? lIJge3!
17.h3 ~g4! 18.hg4 Wg4 19.ciJf2 Wg2#) 16...Wh6
17.ciJf3 (17.:J':i:g5?? lIJe5 18.h4 (18.~c2 Wf6
19.:J':i:f5 g5#) 18 ~g4!?-+) 17... lIJge3 18.:J':i:f5
(18.ciJf2 lIJg4=) 18 ~f5 19.ef5 Wh5 20.ciJf2 lIJd1
(::>20 ... lIJg4?! 21.Wg4 Wg4 22.~c2+) 21.ciJf1
(21.ciJg2?? lIJce3-+) 21 ... lIJde3= Henris. 19...d3!
c) White can take the draw
immediately with 15.ciJf1 lIJge3= Henris. Black opens the lines advantageously on the
naked king.
12...ttJg2! 13.Wg2 ttJd3 14.i>d1!?
We7 15.ttJe5!? 20.Wd3 ~ad8 21.Wc2

15.e5?! Wb4 16.:J':i:a3 ~f5--t Henris. Allowing mate in four moves.

It looks very dangerous to take the
pawn on d4 but things are not clear at '"all: 21 ... ~f1 22.i>e2 ~d2!?
15.lIJd4!? :J':i:d8 (15 ...c5!?) 16.lIJge2 ~h3!? (or
16... c5!?) 17.Wg3 :J':i:d4!? 18.lIJd4 We4"'. With the After 22 .. .'~f6, checkmate is unstoppable -
white king in the centre, .J would prefer to play Henris.
Black - Henris.
23.i>d2 Wd4 24.Wd3 Wb2 25.i>e3
15... ttJe5 16.fe5 We5
25.'~·c2 :J':i:f2-+.
Black only has two pawns for the piece. But
the position is wide open and White has no 25...Wf2#
safe shelter for his king. 0-1

511
 Chapter 15

Game 197 A-Nadasi, La, Hungary, 2007.

Rubinstein,Samy (2250)
Henris,Luc (2150)
Brussels, 1980
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.e4 llJc6
5.f4 f6 6.ef6 llJf6 7.id3 ib4 8.llJd2
llJg4!? 9.a3llJe3 10.'?ge2 ig4 (D)
12.'?9f3
:S12.gf3?! ~h4 13.~f2 j,d2 (13 ... ltJg2 14.\tJf1
~f2 15.<i>f2 ltJf4 16.j,c2 j,eTl:) 14.j,d2 ~f4+
Henris.

12...0-0! 13.ab4

13.g3? ltJe5?! (13...j,d2! Li14.j,d2? (14. <i>d2)

14...ltJe5 15.~e2 i"lf4! 16.j,e3 de3-+ Henris)
14.~e2 i"lf4!? (o14 j,d2!? - Henris) 15.ab4
(15.gf4? ~h4-+) 15 ~f6 16.i"lf1? (16.i"la3 i"lf3
17.j,b1 co Henris) 16 i"lf1 17.ltJf1 ltJf3 18.<i>f2ltJh2
19.<i>g1 ltJhf1+ Osipov-Zhuravlev, USSR, 1972.

13.. J~f4!

:S13...lLlb4?! 14.<i>e2!? - Henris.

Salomon ("Samy") Rubinstein was the son of
Akiba Rubinstein. For many decades, he was 14.'?ge2
one of the best players in Belgium.
10...j,g4 gives Black interesting play. 14.Y!Yh3 ltJb4 15.<i>e2? ~e7!-+ (LL.i"lh4),
Smedemark,H-Rewitz,P, Aarhus, 1993.
11.llJgf3 14.Y!Yg3 i"lg4 - Henris.

11.Y!Yf2!? O-O!? 12.ab4 ltJb4 13.i"la3 ~d6!?

(13...i"lf4!? 14.ltJdf3 ~e7 seems also possible)
14.ltJdf3 ~f4co Henris.
11 ...if3
Weaker would be 11 ...j,e7?! 12.ltJf1! Popovics,
14...lLle5?! 15.ltJf3? (15.i"la3;!; Henris)
15...i"lf3! 16.gf3 ~h4 17.\tJd2D ~f4? (17 ...i"lf8
18.j,b1 i"lf3!-+, and White cannot parry Black's
threats - Henris) 18.~f2!± Kuzenkov,An-Meyer,
Bernh, corr., 1991.

512
;
1

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.a3, 4.e4, other lines

14... ~f6 1S.ttJf3'" Henris. 26J3e2 ge2 27.@e2 g5!? 28.tlJe5

g4 29.@d2 b6 30.tlJe6 e5 31.'it>e3
15.tlJf3! tlJg2 'it>f7 32.lLld8 'it>f6 33.'it>f4 h5 34.tlJc6
a635.tlJe5
After 15.. J'~f3? 16.gf3 'lWh4 17.@d2 'lWf4
18.E1:g1+-, Black has no dangerous discovered 35.tt:lb8 g3!? 36.@g3 (36.ttJd7 @e6 37.ttJf8 @f7
check at his disposal - Henris. 38.ttJh7 g2 39.ttJg5 @f6 40.ttJf3 h4=) 36 ... @e5!?
37.ttJd7 @d4 38.ttJb6 a5!= Henris.
16.'1Wg2
35...g3 36.lLlf3 g2 37.'it>g3?
And not 16.@f2?:
a) 16...'lWh4?! 17.@g1 (17.@g2? E1:g4 The king was needed in the centre to stop the
18.@f1 E1:f8-+) 17...E1:f3 18.'lWf3 ttJe1 19.'lWg3 'lWg3 penetration of Black's king on the queenside.
20.hg3 ttJed3+ Henris. 037.'it>e3= Henris.
b) 16...tt:le3! 17.ie3 (17.h4?! ttJd3
18.'lWd3 'lWf6 19.E1:h3 E1:f8 20.'lWe2 E1:h4-+) 37...'it>f5 38.'it>g2 'it>e4 39.'it>f2 'it>d3
17...'lWh4! 18.@g1 E1:g4 19.@f1 'lWh3 20.@e1 40.tlJe5 'it>d4?
E1:g2-+ Henris.
Black would have won the game after 40...@c2
16...tlJd317.'it>e2?! 41.ttJd7 @b2 42.ttJb6 @b3 43.@g3 a5 44.@h4
a4 45.ttJa4 @a4 46.@h5 @b4-+ Henris.
017.'it>d1 E1:g4 18.'lWf1 (18.'lWe2 ttJcS"') 18 ...ttJc1
19.@c1 E1:e4'" Henris. 41.tlJd7 'it>c4 42.lLlb6 'it>b3 43.tlJd7=
'it>b4
17...tlJe118J3ae1 ~e4:;: 19.@d1 'fie8?!
43...c4 44.ttJc5 @b2 45.ttJa6 c3 46.ttJb4=
019...'lWd7 looks more natural. Henris.

44.'it>e2 c4 45.'it>d2 @b3 46.'it>c1 h4

47.tlJc5 'it>b4 48.tlJe4 h3 49.'it>c2 h2
20 .. J'~d8!? . 50.tlJf2 a5 51.tlJh1 a4 52.~f2 c3
53.bc3 'it>c4 54.'it>b2 a3 55.'it>a3
21 J3e4 'fie4 22.tlJe1 Wfg2 23.tlJg2 'it>c3 56.lLlh1
~U8 24.tlJe1 ~f2 25.tlJd3 gh2

513
 Chapter 15
Game 198
Rustemov,Alexander (2564)
Koziak, Vitali (2486)
Lubniewice, 2005
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.e4 llJc6
5.f4 f6 6.ef6 lLlf6 7.id3 ib4 8.llJd2
0-0 (D)
Less forcing than 8... ct:lg4 but quite interesting
too, this continuation leads to complications.
9.llJgf3
9.a3?! ~d2 10.~d2 ct:le4! 11.~e4 :8:e8 12.ct:lf3
(12.We2 d3! 13.We3 ~f5! 14.~f5 :8:e3 15.~e3
Wf6-+ Henris) 12... :8:e4 13.~f2 (Huuskonen,V-
Kanatoff,J, corr., 1965) 13... ~g4+ Henris.
9...llJg4
9...We7?! is inferior: 10.0-0 ct:lg4!?:
a) 11.a3? ct:le3 12.We2 ~d2 (12 ... ct:lf1? 13.ct:lf1)
514
,
13.~d2 ct:lf1 14J''1f11ii Vasiukov,E-Gusev,Niko,
Moscow, 1960.
b) The simple 11.lL\b3!± is quite good for White
- Henris.
9...lL\h5? 10.g3 ct:lf4? 11.gf4 :8:f4 12.0-0
~g4 13.a3 ~d2 (equally insufficient is 13... ct:le5
14.ab4 ct:ld3 15.Wb3 ct:lc1 16.:8:ac1, as Black has
very little for his piece - Flear,G) 14.~d2 :8:f3
15.:8:f3 ct:le5 16.~e2 d3 17.:8:f8! Wf8 18.~g4, and
White emerged with an extra piece in Erdos, V-
Le Roux,Je, Szeged, 2007.
10.a3 id6!? (D)
In order to provoke an early pawn advance
which may prove to be a weakness.
Also worth considering is: 10...lL\e3!? 11.We2
11 ...:8:f4!? (11...~e7?! 12.ct:lf1 :8:f4 13.ct:le3 de3
14.~e3± Volk,Se-Artemov,N, Voronezh, 2008)
12.ab4 ct:lb4 13.:8:a3!? (13.~f2 ~g4!? (l:::.... Wh4;
13 ~h3!?co Henris) 14.h4 Wf6 co Pantaleoni)
13 ct:lec2 14.~f2 (14.~c2 ct:lc2 15.~f2 ct:la3
,..p- - - - _ : _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.a3, 4.e4, other lines
16.ba3 c5!? (16... b6!? 17.c5!? il.e6!?) 17.ttJb3
~f7 18.ttJc5 il.g4 19.ttJd3 ~h4 20.cj;{g1 ~af8
(20... ~eB!? 21.e5!? i1.f3 22.gf3 ~e6 23.f4 ~g6
24.cj;{f1 ~h3 25.cj;{e1) 21.ttJde5 i1.f3 22.ttJf3 ~g4
23.cj;{f2 ~h4 24.~g1 ~g4=) 14,..ttJa3 15.ba3
ttJd3 16.~d3 ~f7 17.c5!?;!; (and not ::>17.ttJb3
i1.g4"') - Henris.
11.g3!?
11.e5!? is riskier: 11 ...i1.e5 (11 ...ttJe3 12.~e2 i1.e7
13.ttJb3!? 1"i:f4 14.i1.e3 de3 15.0-0-0 ~f8 16.~e3±
is messy but favours White) 12.fe5 ttJce5:
a) 13.tL\e4?! ttJf3 14.gf3 ~h4 15.~d2
ttJe5!-+ Henris (15 ...liJe3?! 16.~e1'" Williams,
Simon K-Yeo,M, Liverpool, 2007).
b) 13.tL\e5?! liJe5 14.liJf3 1"i:f3! 15.gf3
~h4 16.~e2 (16.~d2? liJd3 17.<i>c2 (17.~d3?
i1.f5 1B.~d2 ~g5 19.~e1 1"i:eB-+) 17 ...i1.f5!?
18.~b3 b5!-+) 16 ... liJf3! 17.h3 (17.~f1? i1.h3-+)
17...i1.h3-+ Henris.
c) o13.ie4!? liJe3 (::>13 liJf3?! 14.liJf3
(14.i1.f3? liJe3 15.~b3 d3!-+) 14 1"i:e8 15.liJg5!
liJf6!? 16.0-0! (16.~f3? i1.g4 17.~f4 liJe4
1B.liJe4!? ~h4 19.93 ~h3-+) 16,..liJe4 17.~h5
liJg5 18.i1.g5 ~d7 19.1"i:ae1 1"i:e6!? 20.i1.h4!±
b.1"i:e6, ~e1) 14.~e2 i1.g4 15.h3 i1.h5ii5 Henris.
11 ... ~e312.'~e2 ih3!? 13.E:g1
A slightly ugly move but if White can maintain
his pawn front then Black's active piece play
will come to nothing and the advanced knight
on e3 will eventually be undone (either with
ttJd4, followed by ~e3, or il.e3, etc.) - Flear,G.
13...ig414.h3!
With complications.
The 'natural' 14.tL\b3 can be strongly met by
14,..liJe5! - Flear,G.
14...ih3?!
Better is 14...ih5!?, with the idea 15.g4 ~f4!
16.gh5 liJe5+, and White is paralyzed - Henris.
15.e5 ie5!?
A bit desperate. But what is the alternative?
If 15...ie7 then 16.liJb3; and after the retreat
16,..liJf5, White has 17.g4!, with a strong attack
in prospect. The bishop on h3 is hopelessly
stuck in enemy territory - Flear,G.
16.E:h1!
This strong Zwichenzug leaves Black in trouble.
If instead 16.fe5, then 16,..i1.g4 17.~h2 (17.ie4
liJe5 18.~h2 liJc2!+ M9.i1.c2? liJf3 20.liJf3
~e8-+ Henris) 17... h6 gives Black excellent play
for the piece - Flear, G.
16...if5 17Je5
Now the bishop can safely be captured.
17...h6!?
515
 Chapter 15

17....td3 18.'lWd3 h6 19.!'lh6! gh6 20.'lWg6 ~h8 Game 199

21.'lWh6 ~g8 22.'lWg6 ~h8 23.CLle4! !'lf3 24.~e3 Grinza,Andrea (2335)
CLle5 25.'tMfh5 ~g8 26.~f4 !'lf4 27.gf4 'tMfh4! 28.'tMfh4 Rubanraut,Serge (2180)
CLlf3 29.~e2 CLlh4 30J'%g1 ~f7 31.!'lhH Henris. Haifa, 1976
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.e4 ttJc6
18..tf5 !!f5 19.ttJb3± !!f3!? 5.14 f6 6.ef6 c!Llf6 7..td3 .tb4 8.ttJd2
Wfe7!? (0)
The only chance to mix it.

20.'~f3 ttJc2 21.@d1 ttJa1 22.ttJa1

c!Lle5 23.'~e4!? 23.. .'~f6 24.'~·d5 @h8
25..tf4 c!Llg4 26.@c1 c!Llf2 27.!!h5
c!Lld3 28.@b1 c!Llf4 29.gf4 Wff4

29...c6 30.Wff3 Wfe6 would have put up more

resistance - Flear,G.

30.ttJb3 Wff6? 31.!!f5 Wfg6 32.@a2

c633.Wfd7

The trademark of the Albin, the d4-pawn, is Another interesting option.

about to go and along with it any remaining
chances for Black. 9.Wfe2 .tg4 10.ttJgf3 ttJh5 11.g3
g5!?
33...@h7 34.c!Lld4 !!e8 35.!!f7 !!e1
36.ttJf5 !!g1 37.Wfb7! Here 11 ...0-0 is also worth considering:
a) 12.0-0 is met with 12...!'lf4! 13.gf4
White can capture on g7 in a move or two with CLlf4, winning back the bishop on d3 - Davies.
a decisive advantage now that Black's b) 12.a3 ~f3!? 13.Wff3 CLle5 14.Wfh5
queenside has collapsed. (14.'tMfe2 CLlf4! 15.gf4 Wfh4 16.<;t>d1D l'%f4 17.ab4
The alternative 37J397 'tMfg7 38.CLlg7 !'lg7 !'lf2t) 14...CLld3 15.<;t>e2 CLlc1!? 16.;gac1 d3
should of course also win but would require 17.<;t>d1 ~d2 18.<;t>d2 ;gad8'" Henris.
many moves and good technique.
1-0 12.a3!?

516
•
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.a3, 4.e4, other lines

12.f5 ttJe5 13.0-0 h6 14.a3 ,id2 15.,id2 0-0-0+ Game 200

Henris. Pavlovic,Milutin (1809)
Dakic,Dejan (2143)
12...gf4?! Belgrade, 2005
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.e4 ~c6
o12 ...id2 13.id2 gf4 14.gf4 Elf8 1S.h3!? ttJf4! 5.f4 f6 6.ef6 ~f6 7.id3 ib4 8.~d2
(even better than 1S... ttJg3) 16.if4 ihS!+ ig4!? (D)
Henris.

13.ab4 fg3 14.hg3 ~g3 15.'lWg2

if3 16.~f3 ~h1

16... ~b4?! 17.id2 ~b2 18.Elb1 ~a3 19.~g3

~d3 20.Elb7± Henris.

17.'lWh1 0-0-0 18.ig5?

o18.b5 ttJb4 19.~fH Henris.

18...'lWb4 19.~d2 E:de8!?

19... ~b2!? 20.Elb1 ~c3 21.id8 ~d3!? 22.Elb3
~c2 23.~h3 Wd8 24.ElbSo:> Henris.
20.0-0-0= ~b8 21.'lWh3!? E:e5!
22.if6 E:a5 23.ih8??
23.ic2".
23...E:a2!-+ 24.~b3 'lWb3 25.'lWg2
E:a1 26.ib1 E:b1 27.~b1 'lWd1
28.~a2 ~b4 29.~a3 ~c2 30.~a2
a5 31.'lWf2 ~b4
0-1
With 8...ig4 Black has an original plan in mind.
9.~gf3 ~h5!? 10.g3 g5!? 11.a3
•
11.fg5?! id2 12.ict2 0-0 13.0-0 ttJeS
14.ttJeSD id1 1S.Elad1 ~e7!?~ Henris.
After 11.f5, Black can play 11...~d6,
with ideas of castling queenside and perhaps
sacrificing the knight on g3 - Davies.
11 ...id2 12.id2 'lWf6 13.f5 h6 14.E:f1
On 14.h3, Black has the option of 14...,if3
1S.~f3 ~f7, with the idea of putting his knights

517
 Chapter 15

on e5 and f6, and castling long, with good 31.~c4 c6?! 32.g4 ~d8 33.~e1 tlJa3
compensation for the pawn - Davies. 34.~cc1 tlJ b5?

14...0-0-0 15.YMc2 ~he8 16.i>f2!? 30...d3 offers more chances.

i.f3 17.i>f3 ~e5 18.i>g2 YMg7?
35.h4! ~g8?
A weird move, after which Black's starts going
downhill. 35...gh4 36.~h6 d3 was a better try - Davies.
18...Wfc6, taking aim at the e4-pawn, was
clearly better - Davies. 36.~h1
The remainder of the game features some
rather patchy play by both sides. 36.hg5 hgS 37.~gS!+-.

19.~ae1 ~f6 20.h3 YMf7!? 21.b4 36...d3?

~fd7 22.c5 ~d3 23.YMd3 ~e5
24.YMc2 YMc4? o36.. J:~ge8 37.hgS hgS 38.~gS Ele4 b....CLJc3.

Black should keep the queens on with 24... Wfg8, 37.hg5 hg5 38.~c4 ~ee8 39.~h5
when he'll always have chances - Davies. ~d8 40.e5 ~d4 41.~d4! ~d4 42.16
i>d7 43.~h7 i>e6 44.~e7! i>d5
25.YMc4 ~c4 26.~f2 ~e5 27.i>f3 45.17 ~f8 46.~d7!?
~a3 28.~a1 ~b5 29.~c1?! ~de8
o46.e6 Ele4 47.Ele8+- Henris.
o29...d3!, with unclear play.

Turning a win into a dead loss.

White should have played 30.'~g4 Ele4 31. <;t>hS 47 J:~b7 should win.
- Davies.
47...i>d4 48.e6 i>d5 49.i.g5 i>e6
30...a6 50.i>e3 ~f7 51.i>d3 ~g7 52.i.d2
E:g4 53.ciJc3 @d5 54.@b3 as! 55.i>a4
30...d3! 31.Ele3 CLJd4 is good for Black after ab4 56.i.b4 ~b4!
32.<;t>f2 Ele4 33.Eld3 Ele2 34.<;t>f1 CLJfS+ Davies. 0-1

518
-----------------------------------,
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.a3, 4.e4, other lines

Game 201 lUeS! 14.ia8 (14.fe5? Ei:f1 15.~e2 ig4 16.~d3

Trenner,Rolf (2260) Ei:d1-+ Rewitz,P) 14 ... lU5c4!? 15.Wc1 if5 16.if3
Szoen,Dariusz (2452) d3! 17.\Wc3 \We7! 18.~f2 Wc5 19.b4 tiJg4
Olomouc, 2007 20.~e1 (20.~g2 tiJce3 21.~h3 tiJf2 22.~h4
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.e4 ~c6 We7-+ Rewitz) 20 ...\Wf2 21.\t>d1Wf1 0-1 Lohsse,
5.14 f6 6.ef6 ~f6 7..id3 .ib4 H-Hvenekilde,J, Berlin, 1967.
8..id2?! (D) c) 9.ttJf3 tiJe3 10.\We2 0-0 11.g3 ig4 12.a3?
(this looks like a blunder but close inspection
reveals that the obvious 12.h3 fails to 12...if3
13.\Wf3 tiJe5 14.\We2 Ei:f4! 15.ib4 (or 15.gf4
\Wh4) 15...Ei:f3!-+ Ward) 12... tiJe5! 13.ib4 tiJf3
14.\t>f2 Ei:f4! 0-1 Meschke,J-Eulberg,D, Hassloch,
1997.
Quite interesting too is 8...\We7!? 9.e5
tiJg4 10.tiJf3:
a) 10...ttJe3!? 11.\We2 id2!? (11 ... 0-0? 12.tiJd4
tiJg2 13.\Wg2 tiJd4 14.ib4 \Wb4 15.tiJc3 Ei:f4
16.0-0-0; 11...ig4?! 12.tiJc3!) 12.tiJbd2 ig4:i:.
b) 10...0-0 11.0-0 id2 12.\Wd2 tiJe3:
• 13J'!e1 Ei:f4 14.tiJd4 tiJg2! 15.\t>g2 (15.tiJc6?
This dubious continuation allows the typical Wc5 16.\t>g2 (16.tiJd4 Ei:d4 17.\t>g2 Ei:g4+)
manreuvre .. .t21f6-g4-e3. 16...\Wc6!? M7.\t>g1 Ei:g4 18.\t>f1 \Wf3 19.Wf2
\Wd3-+) 15...Ei:d4!?+;
8...0-0!? • 13JU2 Ei:f4 14.tiJd4 Ei:f2! 15.We3 (15.tiJc6 Ei:g2
16.\Wg2 bc6; 15.\Wf2 tiJg4 16.tiJc6 bc6 17.\Wd4
The continuation 8...ttJg4! is more ie6+) 15...Ei:b2 16.tiJc6 bc6+ Henris.
forcing:
a) 9.ib4 tiJb4 10.a3 tiJc6!? 11.g3 tiJe3 12.\Wh5 9.\1Mb3!?
g6 13.Wh6 \We7 14.tiJf3 ig4 15.tiJbd2 O-O-O:i:
Khruschiov ,A-Khusnutdinov, R, Cheliabinsk, 9.ttJe2 tiJg4 10.0-0 (10.ib4 tiJb4 11.\Wb3
2008. c5!? (11 ... tiJc6 12.c5 \t>h8 13.0-0 \Wh4 14.h3
b) 9.eS!? 0-0 (and not immediately 9...tiJe3? tiJe3 15.Ei:f2 \We?co Reprintsev) 12.0-0 Wh4 13.h3
because of 10.\Wh5 g6 11.ig6 - Rewitz,P) 10.a3 tiJe3 14.Ei:f2 ie6:i: Raetsky & Chetverik)
id2 11.Wd2 tiJe3 12.g3 b6! (~ ... tiJa5) 13.ie4 10...\Wh4 11.h3 id2 12.\Wd2 lUe3 13.Ei:f3 tiJe5+

519
 Chapter 15

14J"!:g3? l"U4-+ 15.lLla3 i.h3 0-1 Vasiliev,R- 13.\We2 i.g4

Gusev,Vladimir A, USSR, 1986.
9.e5?! lLlg4 10.lLlf3 (or 10.g3 Ei:f4!+) Threatening ... CUe5.
10... lLle3+ as in Berasasin-Mettler, Montevideo,
1920. 14.h3 i.f3 15.\Wf3 tlJe5! 16.\We2
9.lLlf3 cug4 10.0-0 ~d2 11.\Wd2 cue3=i= ~f4!
Henris.
,
An unpleasant surprise!
9...a5!?
17.i.b4
Black could have destroyed White's centre
with the powerful move 9...lLle4! 10.~e4 (after Of course the rook is taboo: 17.gf4 \Wh4-+
10 .~b4 \Wh4 11 .g3 cug3, Black has a winning Henris.
attack) 10 ...\We? 11.cue2 (or 11.~b4 \We4
12.cue2 Ei:f4) 11 ... \We412.~b4 Ei:f4+ Henris. 17... ~f3 18.qjd2 c5??

10.tlJf3 qjg4!? An incomprehensible move, after which Black

should have lost the game.
Again 10...lLle4! is very good for Black: 11.~b4 Black wins easily after the following
(11.~e4 \We?) 11 ...\We8! 12.0-0 ab4 13.Ei:e1 continuations:
cue5+ Henris. 18.. J!g3 (.b.... \Wh4) 19.cuf1 (or 19.h4
cud3 20.\Wd3 cug2-+) 19...cud3 20.\Wd3 cug2-+
11.g3? Henris.
18...lLld3 19.\Wd3 cug2 20.<j;Je2 Ei:e3
Far too slow! 21.\We3 cue3-+ Henris.
White could limit the damage with 11.0-0 ~d2
12.e5! (12.CUbd2 a4! 13.\Wa3 Ei:f4+) 12... <j;Jh8 19.i.a3??
13.cubd2 cue3 (13 ...Ei:f4? 14.\Wd5"') 14.f5!?
(14.Ei:f2 a4 15.\Wa3 Ei:f4) 14...a4 15.\Wa3 cuf1 White returns the favour.
16.Ei:f1 ~dn Henris. White could have won after 19.1Llf3 cuf3 20.\Wf3
eb4 21.e5!?+- Henris.
11 ...a4 12.\Wd1 qje3
19...\Wa5 20.~c1 ~g3 21.\Wf2 qjd3
Black is already winning. 0-1

520
,,-------------------------------------,
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.a3, 4.e4, other lines
Game 202
Ulibin,Mikhaii (2521)
Furhoff,Johan (2405)
Stockholm, 2008
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.e4 ~c6
5.f4 f6 6.ef6 ~f6 7..id3 .ib4
8.@f1?! (0)
The only way to prevent ... CiJg4 is to escape the
check with 8.mf1. But White's king now is
unsafe.
8...0-09.h3?
This is too much already.
Even after the more appropriate 9.llJf3 White
suffered a painful defeat in the following
instructive miniature: 9...ig4 (interesting also
is 9... CiJg4!?, with the idea 10.g3?! CiJe3 11.ie3
ih3!+ Raetsky 8: Chetverik):
a) 10.h3? if3 11.Wff3 CiJe5! 12.Wfd1
CiJh5! 13.mg1? (13.Wfh5 CiJd3 14.me2 CiJf4 15.if4
EJ:f4+) 13...liJf4 14.~f4 EJ:f4 15.a3 Wfh4-+ 16.~e2
(16.ab4 Wff2 17.mh2 liJf3 18.Wff3 EJ:f3-+) 16... ~e1
17.CiJd2 if2 18.mf1 ie3 19.CiJf3 Wff2# 0-1
Bouton,C-RaetskY,A, Capelle-la-Grande, 1995.
b) 10.a3 id6! 11.e5 ie5 12.fe5 liJe5
13.ig5 (13.if4 -uf3 14.gf3 -uh5 15.fg4 ~f4
16.me1 (16. mg2 Wfh4-+) 16...Wfe8-t Henris)
13...Wfe8:j: Raetsky 8: Chetverik.
9...'?Me8 10.a3 .id6! 11.e5!? ~h5
12.~f3 (0)
Black is already in the middlegame while White
is still in the opening. In such situations one
should follow the time-tested recipe: open up
the centre, even if you have to sacrifice a
piece or two!
12....ie5! 13.1e5 ~g3 14.@g1 ~e5
15.~e5 '?Me5 16..id2? (0)
White is completely paralyzed.
521
 Chapter 15

Game 203
Tarrasch, Siegbert
Caro,Horatio
Vienna, 1898
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.e4 tLlc6
5.f4 f6 6.ef6 (D)

16...if5! 17.'?Ne1 ~ae8! 18.'?Ne5 ~e5

19.if5 ~ef5 (D)

,H
This game, one of the first played with the
,

moves 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5, deals with a few

marginal continuations for both sides after 6.ef6.

·>' "" 6... tLlf6

, "

i - .- r__.'#
, .'

- < - '

;""'*'
. /"
'/,/ ", Also possible is 6.. :~f6!?, e.g. 7.ttJf3
. " ~ ',' ,. ,

(7.a3!? is worth considering) 7...ib4 8.<j;>f2 ttJh6

This is a picturesque position! Despite an extra
piece, White is absolutely helpless.
20.tLlc3 dc3 21.ic3 tLlh1 22.@h1
~f1 23.~f1 ~f1 24.@h2 @f7 25.@g3
g5 26.@g4 @g6
0-1
9.id3 ttJg4 10.<j;>g1 ttJe3 11.We2 ig4 12.h3 if3
13.Wf3 0-0 14.a3 ie7 15.ie3 de3 16.ttJc3 ic5,
and Black has good compensation for the
pawn, From,$-$orensen,Ar, Vejle, 1974. But in
view of the attractive main line continuation,
however, this seems a bit unnecessary.
Minev suggests 6...ib4!? 7.id2 ttJf6:

522
'----------------------------------1
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.a3, 4.e4, other lines
8.~b4 ct:lb4 9.a3 ct:lc6 10.e5?! ct:lg4+ 11.~d3 0-0
12.g3 fi:f4?? (012 ...ct:lce5! 13.fe5 ct:le5!, with a
winning attack - Henris) 13.gf4 (13.~d2? fi:f2-+
14.ct:le2 ct:lce5 15.~c2 ct:lf3 16.\iJd1 ct:le3 0-1
King,No-Lawson,Joh, 1994) 13... ~h4 14.\iJd2D
ltJf2 15.Wf3 ltJd3! (S15... ctJh1 16.~h1 Wf4
17.\iJc2 oo ) 16.\iJd3 (16.~d3? Wf4-+) 16... ~e1!
17.~d5 (17.~e4 Wd1+) 17...\iJh8 18.We4 (18.e6
~e3 19.\iJc2 ~e6 20.~f3 d3! 21.\iJd1 ~b6!-+)
18... ~d1 19.1tJd2 Wa1+ Henris.
7.id3
7.e5?! ~b4! 8.~d2 (8.ltJd2!? ltJg4!) 8... ltJg4
(8 ... ~d2!? 9.ltJd2 ltJg4!~) 9.a3 ~d2 10.ltJd2 0-0
11.g3 ltJe3 12.Wb1 (Mirwald,S-Schimmel, W,
Regensburg, 1995) 12... ltJe5!-+ Henris.
7... ~g4?! (0)
7... ~b4! must be played immediately, before
White gets in a3, as seen previously.
8.a3! a5 9.ie2 'ic5 10.ig4 ~h4
11.g3 ~g4 12.~g4 ig4 13.b3
It is hard to justify the gambit now, though
Black's superior development does give him
some counterplay.
13...d3 14.ib2 id4 15.ic3 0-0-0
16.@d2 ghe8 17.h3 ih5 18.e5 if7
19.~f3 1f2 20.g4 a4 21.gf1! ib6
White just needs to active his queenside pieces
and his advantage will be decisive.
22.15 ab3 23.e6
Now White is winning.
23...ie6 24.fe6 ge6 25.@d1 d2
26.~bd2 gd3 27.gc1 ged6 28.@e2
ge3 29.@d1 ic5 30.ib2 ged3
31.gc3 gc3 32.ic3 ia3 33.~e5 ~e5
34.ie5 gd3 35.gf3 gd7 36.gb3 ic5
37.@c2 ge7 38.ib2 ie3 39.gd3 ig5
40.gd5 h6 41.ge5 gf7 42.~e4 id8
43.gf5 ge7 44.@d3 c6 45.gf7 g6
46.ge7 ie7 47.ig7 h5 48.gh5 gh5
49.if6 @d7 50.ie7 @e7 51.c5 @e6
52.@d4 h4 53.~f2 @d7 54.~d3 @c7
55.~e5 b6 56.cb6 @b6 57.~f3 @b5
58.~h4 @b4 59.~f3 c5 60.@d5 c4
61.h4 c3 62.~d4 @a3 63.h5 @b2
64.h6 c2 65.~c2 @c2 66.h7
1-0
523
 Chapter 15

Game 204 14...gf6 15.tiJg5 iWg6 16.tiJf7 Wf7~ Henris.

Spassky, Boris b) 7...,ib4! (Ll... tiJge7, ...0-0) 8.tiJbd2 (Reed,Jo-
Lutikov,Anatoly Taylor,Robert K, Chester, 2013) 8... tiJge7 9.a3
USSR, 1963 ~d2 10.~d2 0-0, with rapid development.
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.e4 ~c6 6.f5!?:
5.f4 f6 (0) a) 6...ib4 7.~d2 fe5 8.iWh5 Itif8 9.~d3 tiJf6
10.Wh3 was played in Dolezal,Ji-Skacel,J,
Kosice, 1961. Now 10... h5!?, intending
11 ... tiJg4, would be interesting - Davies.
b) 6...lLle5!? 7.iWh5 liJf7 8.liJf3 liJe7 9.id3 g6
10.iWh4 (Ugoluk,V-Pirrot,D, Germany, 2005)
10... liJc6+ Henris.

6...fe5 7.i.d3

The alternatives are rarely encountered:

White can decline the pawn but, of the
attemps, only 6.tiJf3 holds any water.
The alternatives to 6.ef6 and 6.tiJf3 are:
6.e6!? ~e6 7.tiJf3:
a) 7...Wid7?! 8.a3 a5 9.~d3 ~c5 10.0-0 tiJge7
11.f5 ~f7 12.e5!? tiJf5 (12 ... tiJe5?! 13.tiJe5 fe5
14.tiJd2 tiJc6 15.tiJe4iii Gofshtein,L-Ashton,A,
Hastings, 2007):
• 13.ef6 tiJe3!? (13 ...gf6!?) 14.fg7 Elg8 15.We2
0-0-0 16.b4 Elg7 17.Elf2 ~d6~ Henris;
• 13.if5 Wif5 14.ef6 (14.tiJg5 Wc2!+ Fritz
(14...Wd7? 15.e6 ~e6 16.tiJe6 We6 17.Wh5±
Gotshtein; 14... d3!? 15.ltih1 Wg6~ Fritz))
7.fe5? ig4 8.if4 ib4 9.liJbd2 liJge7
10.a3 0-0 11.ig3 id2 12.ltid2? (12.iWd2 if3
13.gf3 Elf3 14.0-0-0 liJa5---+) 12...liJg6 13.ie2 d3!
14.id3 tiJge5 15.iWc2 if3 16.gf3 Elf3 0-1 Lorch-
Michell, London, 1903.
7.f5?! proved a waste of time after
7 ib4 8.ltif2?! (8.id2 is stronger, but then
8 id2 9.liJbd2 liJf6 is still quite nice for Black
- Davies) 8... liJf6 9.id3 g6! 10.a3 gf5! 11.ab4
(11.ef5 e4 12.We2 We7) 11...fe4 12.Ele1 ef3!-+
13.Wf3 tiJg4 14.ltig3 (14.ltig1 iWh4-+) 14... Elg8
15.h3 liJe3 16.ltih2 Elg2 17.ltih1 ~g4! 18.Ele3
(18.We4 Elg3-+) 18...if3 19.Elf3 e4! 20.ie4 Ele2
0-1 Szilagyi,P-Forintos,G, Budapest, 1964.
7.a3!? a5 (7 ...ef4? 8.b4!±; 7...ig4?!
8.ie2 ~f3 9.if3 ef4 10.~f4 Md6 11.e5!
(11.Wd2?! liJe5!) 11 ... tiJe5 12.ie5 ie5 13.ib7±
Meinsohn) 8.f5 (8.fe5?! ig4 9.if4 (9.~e2 ~f3

524
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.a3, 4.e4, other lines
10.1//3 tiJe5, with good play for Black) 9...tiJge?
10.h3 i.f3 11.'lWf3 tiJg6 12.'lWh5 i.e? LL.O-O:;:;
8.i.d3 ef4 9.i.f4 tiJge? 10.e5!? tiJf5, with
chances for both sides; Black will continue with
...i.e? and ... 0-0) 8...g6!? 9.i.d3 i.e? 10.0-0 tiJf6
11.tiJh4!?, with unclear play - Henris; and not
11.tiJg5?! h6 12.tiJf3 gf5+ (12,..g5?! 13.h4!?
tiJg4!?00 or 13,..g4!? - Meinsohn).
7...i.b4!
7...i.g4!? was tried in Tal,M-Springall,J, England,
1964: 8.0-0 i.d6?! (better is 8,..liJge?!) 9.e5!?
(9.Wlb3) 9,..ie5 10.Wlb3 WId? 11.liJe5 liJe5 12.fe5
0-0-0 13.liJd2 liJe? 14.liJe4 Eldf8 (14...ie6!?)
15.if4 ie2?! (15,..ie6 is better) 16.e6! Wld8
(16,..Wle6? 1?liJd6+·) 1?liJe5? (1?ie2 d3
18.ie3 de2 19.Elfe1 ie3 20.liJe3 oo Henris)
1?,..if1 18.Elf1 liJg6? (18 ...Elf4! 19.Elf4 Wld6-+)
19.1iJf7 Wle8 20.ig3 Elhg8? (20.,.ib6±) 21.Ele1 +-.
8.tLlbd2 ef4 9.0-0 tLlf6 10.llJb3?!
10.e5 liJg4 (10,..id2 11.'lWd2!? liJh5
12.b4 0-0 13.ib2i55) 11.liJe4 0-0 12.e5 i.f5
13.if4 <j;>h8 14.'lWb3 (00 Reprintsev) 14...i.e4
15.ie4 Elf4 16.ie6 d3:;: Raetsky 8: Chetverik.
10.a3!? i.e? (10 ...id2!? 11.id2 - 28.a3 !!de3 29.llJf3 if3 30.gf3 !!e1
Lamford) 11.b4?! (o11.liJb3 oo Henris) 11...liJg4
12.liJb3 O-O!? (12,..liJe3 13.ie3 de3:;: Henris)
13.b5 liJee5!? 14.liJe5 tiJe5 15.if4 i.g4 16.'lWe2
i.f6 oo Dobai,S-Gyurkovics,M, Eger, 2009.
10...0-0 11.c5!?
A useful move, cutting off the bishop on b4 and
creating a nice post at c4. But the pawn is
weak, and Black can win it, though the
operation does take time.
11.if4 liJg4 (11 ... tiJe4 12.ie? Wle? 13.ie4+±)
12.ig5 ie? 13.ie? Wlen Raetsky 8: Chetverik.
11...'~e7 12.'1Wc2 tLld7 13.i.b5 ic5+
It is obvious that Black stands better here.
White must make some committal moves to get
his pawn back.
14.<i>h1 i.b6 15.i.e6 be6 16.tLlfd4
tLlf6 17.if4 ~e4 18.~e4 tLle4 19.ie3
Black's extra pawn is meaningless, but he does
have the bishop pair.
19.. J:!e8 20.i.g1 e5 21.llJf3 e4
22.tLlbd2 llJd2 23.tLld2 ib7 24.ib6
ab625.!!f2
25.tiJe4 Ele2, with a clear advantage for
Black.
25... b5 26.<i>g1 !!ad8 27.!!c1 !!d3
31.!!e1 !!e1 32.<i>g2 !!c1 33.!!d2
<i>f8 34.!!d7 e3 35.bc3 !!e3 36.h4
h5 37.<i>g3 e6 38.!!c7 !!e4 39.<i>f2
<i>g8 40.<i>e3 <i>h7 41.<i>d3 !!e1
42.<i>d4 <i>h6 43.<i>e5 !!e4 44.f4
Y2-Y2
•
525
 q

!, Chapter 15

Game 205 8.'1&f3 (D)

Gross,Stefan (2310)
Eiber,Manfred (2175)
Bayern, 1995
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.e4 llJc6
5.14 95!? (D)

8...i9 7 !?

Black has many other options in the position:

With this ambitious continuation Black sets
about undermining the white pawn chain.
6.f5!
This move has established itself as the best
continuation. White gives up the defence of his
pawn but fixes the weaknesses of Black's
kingside.
Alternatives are covered in game 207.
6...llJe5 7.llJf3 ~f3
The alternative 7...~b4!? is the subject of
game 206.
8...id6!? (Minev) 9.id3 (9.e5!?):
a) 9...h5:
• 10.~e2!? Vlie7 (10...ie5 11.CtJd2 g4"') 11.e5
ie5 12.ig5 f6 13.id2 id7= Somogyi,l-
Kaposztas,M, Budapest, 1966;
• 10.e5!? ie5 (10 ...Vlie7 11.Vlie2 - 10.Vlie2)
11.~e2 f6 (11 ...Vlie7 10.~e2) 12.ig5
(Terekhov,A-Wichmann,Da, Bad Wiessee, 2007)
12 ...Vlien t. ...0-0-0 - Henris.
b) 9... ~e7 10.0-0 f6 (10 ... h6!? is necessary if
Black wants to develop his knight on f6: 11.ttJd2
ttJf6 12.e5! ie5! (12... ic5 13.ttJc4 t.e5) 13.ttJe4
id7 is interesting - Pantaleoni) 11.Vlih5 Vlif7
12.Vlie2 ttJe7 13.e5! ie5 14.e5!± Williams,Simon
K-Ashton,A, Port Erin, 2006.
8... id7!?:
a) 9.~d3 ib4 (9 ... ~f6!? 10.~g3!? ~d6 11.~g5

526
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.a3, 4.e4, other lines

h6 12.\Wf6 t2lf6"') 10.iJd1!? (10.t2ld2!?) 10...\We7!? Moscow, 1949.

A O-O-O, with unclear play - Henris; instead of
10 hS!? 11.eS ic6 12.ie4 ie4 13.\We4! 9.~d3 c5!?
Scheffer,E-Hiemstra,J, Groningen, 2001.
b) 9.e5!? ic6 10.~g3 d3! 11.igs (11.~d3 Wd3 An obvious move although it does not help
12.id3 O-O-Oiii; 11.id3 ~d4 A... O-O-O) 11...ib4 Black to complete his development.
A... ~d4, 0-0-0 - Lamford 8: Davies. 9... ~f6? (A...l2Je7-c6) falls foul of
8 h5!?: 10.Wg3!, simultaneously hitting both g5 and c7.
a) 9.id3 f6 (9...id6 10.We2 We7 11.eS ieS 9...ie5!?, played in Stocek,J-Szoen,D,
12.igs f6 13.id2 id7=) 10.h4 (10.eS! feS Pardubice, 2006, is interesting.
11.0-0iii) 10...g4 11.Wg3 id6 12.if4 if4 13.Wf4 9... h5 is probably best 10.l2Jd2 (10.eS
We7 (13 ...t2lh6 14.eS (14.t2ld2 t2lf7) 14.. .feS ~e7 11.~e2 ieS - 8 ...id6) 10... l2Jf6= A11.eS?

1S.WeS We7 16.We7 rlle7 17.0-0 Ei:f8:j:) 14.0-0
l2Jh6 1S.l2Jd2l2Jfl:;: Halprin-Lapiken,P, USA, 1953.
b) 9.e5!? ~e7 10.rlld1!? (10.rllf2?!
11.id3 l2Jh6!+; 10.~e4?! l2Jh6!:j:; 10.id3!? ig7!?
(10... ~e5 11.rlld1 g4!? 12.~f2iii) 11.0-0 ieS
12.Ei:e1 f6!?"') 10...g4 11.~f2 (11.~e4 l2Jh6:j:)
11...id7!:j: A...O-O-O - Henris.
8...ib4!? 9. rlld 1!? (9.id2!?
10.id3 id6 11.0-0 ieS 12.l2Ja3 cS'" Moranda,
W-Miroslaw,M, Cracow, 2006; 9.l2Jd2!? is also
worth considering) 9...id7!? 10.id3!? We7
11.h4 g4!? 12.~g3!? (12.~g4!?) 12... hS?!
(12 ...0-0-0!?; 12...id6!?) 13.if4 0-0-0 14.a3
iaS 1S.b4± t2lf6? 16.eS+- Petrosian,Tigran V-
Mukhitdinov,M, Tashkent, 1951.
8... ~e7!? 9.id3 (Sorakunnas,O-
Hakanen,V, corr., 1965) 9...id7 10.0-00-0-0"'.
8.. :~f6?! 9.id3 id6 10.eS!
(10 ... ~eS 11.rlld1) 11.l2Jd2 We7 12.0-0 f6?!
13.cS! WcS? (o13 ...t2lh6 14.l2Jc4 t2lf7 1S.b4 0-0
16.h4;!;) 14.t2lc4 rlld8?! 1S.b4! ~c6 16.t2leS feS
17.igs t2le7 18.f6 1-0 Korchnoi,V-Shapkin,A,
l2Jg4 12.e6 fe6 13.l2Je4 l2JeS 14.~e2 efS 1S.l2JgS
(1S.igS? fe4!! 16.id8 l2Jd3 17.rlld2 (17.rllf1 0-0
~eS!? 18.rllg1 ih6!-+) 17...e3! 18.rllc2 (18.rlld3 if5#)
18...ifS!-+ Meinsohn) 1S... ~e7 16.0-0 l2Jd3
17.Wd3 id7 18.if4 O-O-O? Raetsky 8: Chetverik.
10.\Wg3 h6 11.h4!
~e7
White makes sure that Black doesn't solve the
problem of his g-pawn so easily.
11 ...\We7!
Deflecting the attention to both the e4-pawn
and the now effectively unprotected pawn on
f5: ...ifS and ... t2lf6 are threatening.
ieS 12.hg5 ~f5 13.gh6 ~e5?
Black shoudn't be worse here:
13 ig6 14.igs We6 1S.t2la3 a6"'.
13 ie4 14.ie4 We4 1S.iJd1 ieS"'.

527
 Chapter 15

14.i.f4 i.f4 15.'l1*ff4 i.g6 16.~d2 Game 206

V;Vf61? 17.g3 Spassky, Boris
Mikenas, Vladas
Instead 17.~f6 ttJf6 18.e5 ttJg4 19.i.g6 fg6 Riga, 1959
20.ttJe4 ttJe5 21.ttJc5 ttJc4 is murky - Ward. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.e4 ~c6
5.f4 g5 6.f5 CfJe5 7.CfJf3 ib41? (D)
17... ~f4?1

Better is 17..J::gh6!? 18J''!h6 ~f4 19.9f4 ttJh6.

18.gf4 !!h6 19.@f21 !!h1 20.!!h1 f6

21 )tJf3 @f8 2V~g3 !!e8 23.f5 iof7
24.@f4;t

White has several pawns on the same colour as

his bishop but his king is in a dominant position
and Black's pieces are far more passively placed.

24... b5 25.!!c1 b4 26.ic2 !!d8

27.ia4 ih5 28.!!h1 if3 29.@f3 @g7
30.!!g1 @f7 31.@e2 CfJe7 32.!!h1 st>g7
32.. J::!:g8! was better.
33.!!g1 @f7 34.!!h1 @g7 35.@d3
!!h8?1 36.!!h8 @h8 37.e51 CfJf5
If 37... ~g7 38.~e4 ~f7 39.i.d1 Wg7 40.i.h5,
then the white king will find a way deeper into
enemy territory - Ward.
38.@e4 CfJe3 39.e6 ~c4 40.e7 CfJd6
41.@d5
1-0
The continuation 7...i.b4!? is more adventurous
but also riskier than 7... ttJf3 analysed in the
•
prevIous game.
8.CfJbd21
8.i.d2 ttJf3 9.~f3 i.d6!oo Raetsky 8:
Chetverik.
8.~f2!? ttJf3! (and not 8...ttJg4?! 9.~g1
i.c5 10.b4!± Spassky) 9.~a4 (9.~f3 h5 (9... ~e7
10.i.d3 i.d6 is equal according to Kmoch)
10.i.d3 ttJf6 oo ) 9... c6 10.~b4 ttJe5= Raetsky 8:
Chetverik.
8...CfJc6!?

528
 ,
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.a3, 4.e4, other lines
It is probably safer not to lose time retreating
the knight with the immediate 8...tDf3!? 9.~f3
(Scammon,C-Raven,S, corr., 1997) 9... ct:lf6!? (if
this knight makes it to e5 then Black will have
a more than comfortable game) 10.id3 ct:ld7
11.0-0 ct:le5!? 12.~e2°o or 12.~g3!? f6.
9.i.d3
9.a3 id6, with an unclear position, Geller,E-
Mikenas,V, Moscow, 1951.
9...g4 (D)
10.0-0! gf3 11.lLlf3C
White's compensation for the sacrificed piece
is obvious. He has a strong centre and is better
developed. Black's kingside is also dangerously
weakened.
11 ...i.d6?
1
11 ... ~e7?! 12.e5 a5 13.a3 i.c5 14.b4!
ab4 15.ig5+ f6 16.ef6 ~f7 17.ab4 (White has a
strong attack for the piece) 17...2"i:a1 18.~a1
ib4 19.~a8 ~d8 20.ie4 ~c4 21.ct:le5! ct:le5
22.ib7 ct:le7 23.fe7 ~d7 24.ic8 2"i:c8 25.~c8
~c8 26.e8~ ~b7 27.~e5 1-0 Spassky,B-
Beliavsky,A, Leningrad, 1955.
11 .. .16!? 12.a3 (12.e5!? - Henris)
12...id6 13.b4 lIJe5 (13... ~e7°o Reprintsev)
14.c5 lIJf3 15.2"i:f3 ie5 16.ic4 lIJe7 17.~d3 h5
18.ib2. Spassky thought that White is much
better here but if White's compensation for the
sacrificed material is unquestionable the
position remains rather unclear.
12.e5! tlJe5
12...i.e5 13.~e1 f6 14.b4--+ Cafferty.
13.E:e1 f6
Or 13... ~e7 14.c5! lIJf3 15.gf3 ie5 16.f4.
14.c5!± i.e7
14...,ic5 15.ct:le5 fe5 16.~e5 ie7 17.i.g5 or
17.~h5 ~d7 18.f6.
15.lLle5
15J!e5 fe5 16.ct:le5 lIJf6 17.ic4 ic5 would not
be so clear - Lamford.
15...1e5 16.E:e5!?
529
 Chapter 15

16.~h5 also looks strong: 16... ~d7! (16 ... ~f8?? Game 207
17.~c4 'lMfe8 18.~h6 ttJh6 19.Wh6#) 17.~eS ttJf6 Praszak,Michal (2275)
18.'lMff7 Wf8 19.'lMfc4. MoznY,Milos (2375)
Prague, 1990
16...ltJf6 17..igS 0-0 1.d4 dS 2.e4 eS 3.deS d4 4.e4 ltJe6
S.f4 gS 6.ltJf3!? (0)
17.. JU8 loses after 18.~f6 ~f6 19.'lMfhS ~f8
20.'lMfh7+-.

18.VMb3 ~h8

18 ~g7 19.~ae1 Ei:e8 (19... ~cS 20.~cS;

19 ~f7 20.~c4) 20.~bS ~d7 21.~d7 'lMfd7
22.'lMfg3!.

19.E:ae1 .ieS

19.. J~e8 20.~f6.

20.E:eS+- Aside from the text, White also has:

6.~d3?! gf4:
20.~e8? looks attractive but after 20 ...'lMfd6 a) 7.~f4 ttJge7 8.~g3 CUg6 9.'lMfhS (9.CUf3 ~g7)
21.'lMff7, Black has 21 ...ttJg8! 22.'lMfhS ~fS! (and 9... ~b4 (9 ...CUb4! 10.'lMfe2 hS=t) 10.~e2 (10.CUd2
not 22 .. .ltJf6? 23.~f8 'lMff8 24.'lMfh4+-) 23.~fS d3 ~d2 11.~d2 'lMfe7 12.CUf3 ~e6:j:) 10... ~e6 11.CUf3
24.~h1 (24.~e3 ~fS) 24... ~fS 2S.~a8 d2 26.~d1 Wd7 12.h3 ~e7 (lLCUb4) 13.a3 CUaS 14.CUbd2
'lMfd3-+ Henris. cS 1S.~hc1 (1S.b4?! cb4 16.ab4 ~b4 17.~hb1!?
~c3 18.~a3 CUc6!?:j:) 1S... CUc6 16.~f2 ~g8!
20...VMd6 21.E:eeS tDg4 22..if4!? 17.b3 (17.'lMfh7? ~h8 18.'lMfg7 0-0-0-+; 17.~g1?
~h3! M8.gh3 CUf4-+ Raetsky 8: Chetverik)
22.~e7!? also wins after 22 ...Wh6 23.h3 ttJeS 17...0-0-0+1 Burn,A-$chlechter,C, Munich, 1900.
24.~f8 ttJf3 2S.gf3 'lMff8 26.f6!. b) 7.lLlf3 CUge7 8.~f4 CUg6 9.~g3 hS 10.h3 h4
11.~h2 ~g7 12.Wb3 We7 13.ttJbd2 CUgeS
22....id7 23..ig3 .ie6? 24.E:Se4 14.0-0-0 ttJd3 1S.'lMfd3 ~e6=t Ilincic,Z-Lyell,Ma,
1-0 Kecskemet, 2010.

530
•

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.a3, 4.e4, other lines

1

6.a3 (White prevents the annoying 6.g3?! gf4 7.~f4 ~g7 8.CiJf3 ~g4+ Minev.
check on b4) 6...gf4 7.~f4 CiJge7 (the typical
manreuvre already seen many times) 8.CiJf3 tLlg6 6...gf4
9.~g3 ~g7 (attacking three times the e5-pawn
and regaining the pawn: Black can be satisfied 6....ib4?! 7.~d2 gf4 8.a3 ~d2 9.lWd2±.
with his position) 10.~d3 h5 11.h3 h4 12.~h2
tLlge5+ 13.0-0 ~e6 14.iWe2 tLlf3 15J''\f3 tLle5!? 7.i.f4 ttJge7
16.E'I:f1 iWg5 17.~f4 iWh5 18.lWe2 Elg8 19.1f?h1
~h6! 20.~h2 O-O-O!? 21.b3?! Elg3!-+ 22.~g3 7....ig4 is playable too: 8.~d3 (8.h3 ~f3 9.iWf3
hg3 (LL~h3) 23.Elf5 ~f5 24.ef5 iWg5! 25.~e4 ~b4 10.tLld2 iWen Raetsky ft Chetverik)
iWe3 0-1 PeredY,F-Lyell,Ma, Kecskemet, 2010. 8... tLlge7 9.0-0 tLlg6 10.~g3? (this concedes the
6.fg5?! : c1-h6 diagonal; better was 10.lWe1 ~f3 11.Elf3
a) 6... h6!? 7.tLlf3 (7.gh6? iWh4) 7,..~b4 8.~d2 tLlee5 12.~e5 tLle5 13.Elg3, but 13,..lWf6,
(and not 8.tLlbd2? hg5+ Kholopov,A- intending ...0-0-0, still gives Black the
Schetinin,A, Cheliabinsk, 2008) 8... hg5!? 9.~b4 advantage· Fernschach) 10.,.~h6! 11.iWb3 lWd7
tLlb4 10.lWd2!? (10.tLla3!? - Henris) 10...g4!? 12.e6! (12.iWb7 Elb8 13.iWa6 ~f3 14.Elf3 ~e1
11.iWb4 gf3 12.gf3 lWh4 13.lf?d1 tLle7. Black has 15.tLla3 Elb6 16.iWa4 ~e3+) 12,..~e6 (Kopacka-
sacrificed two pawns, but he has very active Sapundzhiev,G, corr., 1960) 13.iWb7 Elb8
piece play. The pawn on e5 is very weak and 14.iWe7 iWe7 15.~e7 Elb255 Raetsky ft Chetverik.
will be recaptured soon. Black's position seems
preferable - Pantaleoni. 8.e6?! i.e6 9.ttJg5 ttJg6 10.ttJe6 fe6
b) 6...lLle5 (Minev) 7.tLlf3 ~g4 (7,..CiJf3 8.iWf3 11.i.g3 i.d6 12.WI'g4 Wl'd7+
~b4 9.~d2 ~d2 10.CiJd2 lWg5 11.0-0-00
Pantaleoni; 7... ~g7 8.tLld4 h6 9.tLle3 hg5 10.tLlf5 Black is much better developed and he has nice
~f5 11.ef5 lWd1 12.tLld1 tLle7 oo ) 8.~e2 (8.iWa4 squares for his pieces.
tLle6 9.tLle5 ~d7oo) 8,..d3 9.CiJe5 ~e2 10.lWa4 e6
11.lLle3 ~g7 12.~f4 tLle7oo. 13.ttJd2 0-0-0I?
c) 6... ~b4! 7.~d2 iWg5 8.tLlf3 lWg6 9.iWe2 ~g455
10.~e2? 0-0-0+ 11.a3 ~e5 12.~f4? (12.iWd3!?) 13...lLlb4 is also troublesome for White - Henris.
12,..d3! 13.~d3 ~f3 14.gf3 tLld4 15.iWd1 iWg2
16.Elf1 lWb2 17.tLld2 iWe3-+ 18.iWb1 CiJe6 19.~g3 14.i.d6 Wl'd6 15.c5 Wl'c5 16.WI'e6 ~b8
~e3 20.Ela2 Eld3 21.iWd1 CiJe7 22.lf?e2 Elhd8
23.lf?e1 Eld2 0-1 Pomar Salamanca,A-Medina Black's lead in development is probably already
• •
Garcia,A, Madrid, 1943. wmnmg.

531
 Chapter 15
I
I,

17.'lWc4 'lWg5 18.0-0-0 lbge5 19.'lWa4 Game 208

d3! 20.~b1 ltJg4!-+ 21.lbf3 'lWe3 Janowski,Dawid
22.'lWb3 ltJf2 23.E:e1 'lWe1!? 24.lbe1 Marshall, Frank
d2 25.~e2D ~d4?! Suresne, 1908
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.e4 ltJc6
Making life more complicated. 5.ltJf3!? (D)
25... d1~ 26.id1 :1'1:d1 wins easily because after
27.~c2, Black has 27 ... ct:ld4, winning back the
queen with interest - Henris.

26.VNe3 ltJe2 27 .~f3 d1 VN?!

Queening is of course very tempting.

But better was 27...lL\h1! 28.ct:ld2 :1'1:hf8! 29.lL\f3
(29.~e2 :1'1:d2) 29 ... ct:lf4, when Black's pieces are
stronger than the white queen - Henris.

28.E:d1 E:d1 29.~c2 E:c1 30.~d2?

True, Black is still winning after 30.'i!?b3, but Janowski prefers not to weaken the e3-square
then he had to find the not-sa-obvious with 5.f4.
continuation 30 :1'1:d8! 31.~e2 (31.~f2 :1'1:d3 Another move order to reach the diagrammed
32.~b4 :1'1:c2-+) 31 ct:ld3! 32.a3 :1'1:c6 - Henris. position is 4.ct:lf3 ct:lc6 5.e4.

30...E:d8! 5... ~g4!?

Now things are easy again for Black. Black also has tried the following continuations
in practice:
31.~e2 E:c2 32.~f1 E:d1 33.ltJe1ltJd3 5....ib4!? (!::J. .. :We7, ... ig4, ...0-0-0 -
Panov) 6.id2:
The pin is deadly. a) 6... ~e7 7.id3 (7.a3 id2 8.lL\bd2 ig4iii5)
7...ig4 8.~a4!? (Santos,Dan-Gonzalez,J,
34.VNd3 E:d3 35.lbd3 E:d2 Catalunya, 1996) 8...if3 9.gf3 O-O-O:j: Henris.
0-1 b) 6...id2 7.~d2 ct:lge7 8.lL\a3 ig4 (again the

532
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.a3, 4.e4, other lines

combination of ib4/ig4 secures Black good Henris) 9 tLle5 10.~g3 ~d4 11.tLlc3 (11.ib4
play for the gambited pawn) 9.ie2 if3 10.if3 ~b2) 11 0-0-0+ Schnoewitz,B-Peinador,D,
tLle5 11.ie2 d3 12.if1 (Gallego Gonzalez,A- corr., 2007.
Sanchez Naranjo,J, Lorca, 2001) 12 ... ~d4! - 6.tLlbd2!? d3!? (more ambitious than
Tisdall. 6...tLle5 7.~b3 tLlc6 8.id3 ~d7= Bonham,R-
5.. .f6!?: Balogh,Ja, corr., 1965) 7.h3?? (7.a3 Wfd7 co
a) 6.e6?! ie6 7.ie2!? ic5 (7...d3!? 8.id3 Henris) 7... tLlb4 8.tLlb3? (8.Wfa4 id7-+) 8...tLlc2
(B.Wfd3? Wfd3 9.id3 ctJb4 10.<;t>e2 0-0-0+) 9.<;t>d2 ib4# 0-1 Vernooy,D-De Ruyter,W,
8...ctJb4 9.ie2 ~d1 10.<;t>d1 0-0-000 Henris) 8.a3 Leiden, 2011.
a5:j: 9.b3 ctJge7 10.0-0 0-0 11.ib2 ctJg6 6.h3 if3 7 .~f3 ctJe5 8.Wfg3 ctJg6!?
12.ctJe1!? f5 13.~c2? ctJf4 14.ctJd3? fe4-+ (8 ...ib4!? 9.id2 id2 10.ctJd2 Wff6f± Raetsky &
Lasker,Em-MaroczY,G, Hungary, 1900. Chetverik; 8... ~e7!? - Henris) 9.f4!? (9.Wfb3!?
b) 6.ef6 ~f6?! (6 ... ctJf6!?) 7.ie2 ig4 8.0-0± h6? ctJf6 10.Wfb7 1':\b8 11.Wfc6 ctJd71ii Henris) 9...ie7!?
9.ctJd4 ie2 10.ctJe2+- Kolbe-Wren, Columbus, 10.~f2 ctJf6 11.id3 0-0 12.0-0 ctJd71ii Hopman,P-
1961. Schalk,A, corr., 1926.
The logical 5...ltJge7!? is also worth 6.Wfa4!? if3 7.gf3 Wfd7!? (7 ...Wfh4 is a
considering. more active continuation - Henris) 8.~b5!?
0-0-0 9.h4 <;t>b8 10.ih3 Wfe7!? 11.ig5 f6 12.ef6
6.Wfb3!? ctJf6!? (or 12...gf6 13.id2 ctJe5:j: Henris) 13.ctJd2
(Marchukov, Dmitry-Surov, S, Borisoglebsk, 2008)
White has a large number of alternatives at his 13... ctJb4 14.0-0 h6 15.if4 g5!+ Henris.
disposal:
6.if4: 6...ib4
a) 6...ib4 7.ctJbd2 Wfen (7... ctJge7!?) 8.a3 if3
9.gf3 ,id2 10.Wfd2 (Moutaux,R-lgnjatovic,M, 6.. -'Wd7!? 7.~b7 1':\b81ii.
Paris, 1999) 10... ctJe5:j: Tisdall. Also good is 6...,if3 7.gf3 ctJe5 8.Wfb5!?
b) 6...f6!? 7.ef6!? ctJf6!? 8.,id3 ,ib4 9.,id2!? 0-0 ctJd7 9.Wfb7?! ,ic5 10.,ih3 ctJgf6 11.,id7!? ctJd7
10.0-0 (Salvioli,C-Cavallotti,M, Milan, 1881; this 12.,ig5?? Wfg5! 13.Wfa8 <;t>e7 14.Wfh8 ~c1
game was probably the first Albin Counter- 15.<;t>e2 d3-+, with a mating attack, Brandt-
Gambit ever played!) 10...tLld7!+ Henris. Soleta, 1937.
c) 6...ltJge7 is also interesting.
6.ie2!? ,ib4!? 7.,id2!? d3! 8.,if1 7.ltJfd2!?
(8.,ib4 ctJb4 9.~a4 tLlc6 10.h3!? ,if3!? 11.,if3
Wfd4:j: Henris) 8...,if3 9.Wff3 (9.gf3 Wfh4!? - 7.ltJbd2 a5!? 8.a3!? a4!co.

533
 Chapter 15

7..id2 a5 8.~b4 ab4 9.CLlbd2 CLlge7 d) 13...tLlh6C.

10.~d3 0-0= Raetsky & Chetverik.
12.'lWd3 gf4 13.gf4 lLlge7 14J~g1
7...Wfh4!C 8.a3 id2 9.~d2 0-0-0;; (D) ~hg8;; 15.~g2!? ie6!? 16.~f2!?
~g1!? 17.lLlf3 ~h1?!

17.. J~g4!? (~ ...liJg6) looks better, with the idea

18.f5!? liJf5 19.h3 (and not immediately 19.ef5?
~f5 20.~b3!? because of 20 ... E1e4-+) 19...E1g3
20.ef5!? liJe5t Henris.

18.id2

Weaker would have been 18.f5?! liJf5 19.ef5

~f5 ~ ...d3t Henris.

18...f6!? 19.ef6lLlf5!? (D)

Black's easy development is well worth the
investment of a pawn.

10.g3 Wfh5 11.f4!?

11 ..ig2?! d3! - Henris.

11 ...g5!?

Black has several interesting continuations at

his disposal after 11 ...d3!? 12.~d3 liJd4
13.~c3:
a) 13...tLle2? 14.~e2 ~e2 (+ Schlechter)
15.'lWe3 ~c4 16.g4!? ~h4 (16 ...'lWg4? 17.E1g1) 20.0-0-0?
17.~f2 'lWf2 18.iJf2±.
b) 13 f6!?ii; Raetsky & Chetverik. Taking the knight leads to unclear play
c) 13 ~h3t. after 20.ef5!? ~f5:

534
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.a3, 4.e4, other lines
a) 21.'11ffb3?! E1e8 22.E1e2 (22. ~d1? Wh3)
22 ...E1e2 23. ~e2 E1h2 (23....lte4? 24. ~f2 d3
25.iWd1 2':1f1 26.Wf1! (26.~f1?! .ltf3 27.iWe1 CiJd4!
28.iWg3 .lte4a» 26 ...W'f3 27.~e1 W'h5 28 ..ltc3±)
24.~d1! (24.~e1 iWe8+) 24 ...2':1f2!
25.f7! W'f3 26. ~c1 W'f1 27 .W'd 1 W'd 1 28. ~d 1
.ltg4 29.~e1+-) 25 ..lte2 d3 26.f7D iWf7 27 ..ltd3
.ltg4 28..lte4 2':1f1 29.~c2 2':1 a1+ Henris.
b) 2UWe2! 2':1e8 22.CiJe5 CiJe5!? 23.fe5 (23.W'h5?
CiJd3 24.~d1 CiJf2-+) 23 ....ltg4 24.f7!? .lte2
25.fe8W' W'e8 26.~e2 (26.2':1e2?
26 ...iWh5!? (also possible is 26.. JJ:h2 27.2':1h2
(27..ltf4 iWh5 28.~e1 2':1f2 29.~f2 W'g4a» 27 ...W'e5
28.~d3 W'h2a» 27.~d3D (27.~e1? W'e5 28.~d1
(28.2':1e2 W'f6 29.2':1f2 W'e7 l:::.30.2':1e2 iWh4 31.2':1f2
2':1h2-+) 28 ...d3! 29. ~c1 W'e2!?-+)
28.~d4D (28.~e2?! W'e4 29.~d1 d3-+) 28 iWb6
29.c5D (29. ~e4? W'f2 30 ..lth3 ~b8!? 31.2':1h 1
iWd2+) 29...W'b2 30.~d5 (30.~c4 W'a1 31.2':1f8
~d7 32.c6! ~c6 (32... bc6?? 33..lth3 ~e7 34..ltb4
c5 35..ltc5#) 33.2':1f6 ~d7 34 ..lth3 ~e8 35.2':1e6
~f7 36.2':1f6 ~e8=) 30 ...W'a1 31 ..lth3 ~d8 32 ..ltg5
~e8 33..ltg4 2':1f1 34..lth5 ~d7 35 ..ltg4= Henris.
But Black's play is simply refuted
thanks to 20.CiJg5! .ltd7 (20 ....ltg8 21.f7 .ltf7
22.CiJf7 iWf7 23.ef5+-; 20 ...2':1e8 21.CiJe6 2':1e6
22.f7 iWf7 23.0-0-0+-) 21.ef5!?+- Henris.
20... ~e3!t 21 ..ie3 de3 22.'~e3 ~d1
23.@d1 .ic4 24.Wfe1?!
24.f7! W'f7 25.CiJd2 .ltf1 26.CiJf1;t.
24...WfcS!i
It seems that Black must settle for the draw.
24...tLld4? 25..lth3! (25.iWc3? .lte2!) 25 ...iWh3
26.iWh 1+- Henris.
(24 ...d3? 2S..ih3
25.tLld2!? 2':1f1!? (25 ....lte6=) 26.tUf1 D
(26.E1f1? .ltd3!+) 26 ....ltb3 27. ~e2 (27. ~d2??
iWa5-+) 27 ... tUd4 28.~d3D .ltc4 29.~d2 iWa5
30.b4D iWa3 31.iWb1a> Henris.
d3!-+) 25.f7!? .ltb3!? 26.~e2 iWe4 27.~d2 iWe2
28. ~e3 iWe5a> Henris.
2S...@b8 26.Wfh1 .ib3
27 W'g6 Or 26... ~f2 27.tUd2a> Henris.
27.@e2 Wfc4?
Play remains unclear after the correct 27...ic4.
28.@e3 WfcS 29.@e2
o29.CiJd4! W'd4 (29 ...tUd4 30.W'g1!? tUf5 31.~f3
W'e3 32.~g4 W'e4 33.2':1d2 tUd6 34.W'd4 ie6
35.~h4 tUf5 36.if5 W'f5 37.W'd8 ie8 38.~g3+-)
30.~f3 W'd3 31.~g4 ie6 32.~g5! W'h3 33.W'f3+-.
29...Wfc4 30.@e3 WfcS 31.@e2
31.CiJd4! transposes to the previous note.
31 ...Wfc4 32.@d2 Wfc2 33.@e3 Wfcs
535
 Chapter 15

Game 209 6... hS!

Janowski,Dawid
Maroczy,Geza The option 6...lLlg6!? 7.f4 hS is also worth
Munich, 1900 considering - Macdonald, R.
1.d4 dS 2.c4 eS 3.deS d4 4.e4 tLlc6
S.if4!? (0) 7.h3?!

This move prevents intrusion on g4.

7.h4!? tLJg6 8.f4 (8.tLJf3 ~g4 9.~e2!? ~f3!?
10.gf3!? tLJgeS 11.~eS!? tLJeS 12.f4 tLJg6, with a
clear advantage for Black - Schiller) 8... ~g4!?
9.tLJf3 vtie7 n...o-o-O, with a good game for
Black - Henris.

7...gS!?

A typically active move from Maroczy.

7...tLJg6!? is also interesting - Henris.

Not weakening the e3-square with S.f4. 8.h4!?

S...tLlge7 8.tLJd2!? tLJg6 leads to equality - Macdonald,R.

5...Vf1h4?! 6.g3!? ~b4 7.tLJd2 We7 8 ... g4

(Dal,I-Ozen,A, Turkey, 2011) 8.a3! ~d2 9.vtid2
f6!? 10.ef6 vtie4 11.vtie2;t Henris. Black wins space.
5...g5!? 6.~g3 hS!? 7.h4 g4 00 Van
Boltaringen, E-Bernard,Ja, Bois Gentil, 1994. 9.ClJd2

6.ig3 After 9.lLle2 tLJg6, Black has a slight advantage.

6.lLlf3 tLJg6 would transpose to the line 4.tLJf3 9 ... tLlg6 10.f4?!
tLJc6 S.~f4 tLJge7 6.e4 tLJg6 analysed in game
180 - chapter 14. 10.lLle2 tLJceS+.

536
. .- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - l
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.a3, 4.e4, other lines

10....te7? ib4 18.'it>d1 1Mfg5-+) 15... 'it>f8; 14.ef7 'it>f7 15.f5

(15.e5 hg3) 15... hg3 (15 ... lLlge5 16.ie5 lLle5
Not a good move because now White is right 17.0-0-0) 16.fg6 'it>g7+.
back in the game.
10...gf3!? 11.lLlgf3 i.g4. 14...i.e6!
o10 ...ih6! 11.lLle2!? d3 12.lLlc3 lLlf4 is
very strong for Black - Macdonald, R. 14... hg3?! 15.Elh8 lLlh8 16.Y;Vg8 i.f8
17.Y;Vh8 i.e6~.
11 ..td3!? 14...tL!b4!? 15.i.b1 i.e6+.

The bishop is safe in front of d4. 15.f5 i.c8!?

1 U~Vb3 i.h4!? 12.i.h4 lLlh4 13.f5!? lLle5
14.0-0-0;t. 15...id7 16.0-0-0!? i.f6 is solid for Black -
Interesting is 11.Y;Va4!? i.d7 12.0-0-0!? Macdonald, R.
lLlce5 13.Y;Vb3lLlc6 14.lLle2 - Macdonald,R.
16.i.h2 ~ge5+ 17.~e2
11 ...ttJh4!?
17.i.e5!? lLle5 18.Y;Ve2+.
Now Black has a solid advantage.

Material is even, but Black has a commanding

Black intends to play ... h4. lead in space.

13.e6!

This ingenious answer to the threat of h4 is the 20.tL!gf3? a4 21.~d1 lLld322.'it>f1 lLlb2+.
best chance to achieve some active play. If now 20.a3? a4 21.Y;Vd1 lLld3 22.'it>f1 lLlc5+.
the pawn is captured, then 14.e5 will create It was important not to let the a5-
opportunities. But Maroczy has a clever reply. pawn to go further. So 20.a4!n was called for.

13... h4! 14.'11~fg4 20...a4 21.VHd1 ttJd3?!

14.f5? hg3 15.ef7 (15.fg6 Elh1 16.g7 Elg1 17.lLlf1 This poor move forfeits part of Black's

537
 Chapter 15

advantage. 28...tLlc41? (D)

21 ...d3! 22.0-0 Ei:g8 is quite strong for Black.

22.<it>f1 tLlb2 23.%Vg4 :ga61?

A nice defensive move which allows the rook to

sweep the board along the 6th rank. White's
forces, on the other hand, are in complete
disarray.

24.tLlf4
" " 'c

..
.i
• •

24.,ie5,if6 2S.,if6 Ei:f6+. .

•
.
•

24...<it>f81? 25.tLld51 :gc6 Better is 28.. J~h6! 29.iWg4 (29.iWh6? ,ih6

30.,ic7 iWd7 31.tDeS iWc7 32.tDc7 ,if4-+)
Black has erected sturdy defences and will 29 ...tDc4!?+
soon control the g-file. 2S ...Ei:c6 exerts also
pressure on the isolated pawn. 29.f6??

26.1e5 Another bit of territory lost.

29.llJg5 iWgs 30.iWgS Ei:gS 31.,if4:j: offers better
26.Ei:c1!? ,igS 27.Ei:c2!? ,id2 28.Ei:b2 offers chance to defend.
better chances.
29...tLle31
26...:gg8 27.%Vh5?!
Now Black is winning.
27 .~e2?1 ,ifS! 28.efS tDc4+. Or 29...llJe5!? 30.tDgS Ei:f6-+.
27.~f3 tDc4 28.tDc4 Ei:c4+.
30.tLle3
27...ig51 28.tLlf3
30.';t>g1 doesn't do any good after 30 ...,if6
28.~e2 ,id2 29.iWd2 ct:Jc4 30.Wb4 ~e8 31.,id4!? 31.Ei:h2 tDdS 32.edS iWdS 33.Wh6 ~e8 34.,if6
iWgS+. iWf3 3S.Ei:e1 Ei:e6-+.

538
 -----------------------------------,
~.

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.a3, 4.e4, other lines

30... ~e3 31.!!d1 ~g41? Black's idea is 35 ... ~a6.

After 34...id4! 35.~h6 (35.e5 ~d5-+) 35 .. .'~e8
Better is 31 ...d3!, and Black has it in the bag 36.\Wg7 ~f6! (36 ...:1'1f8? 37.\Wf8 c;t>f8 38.:1'1h8#;
after 32.~d4 h3!? 33.1::1h3 ~h3 34.\Wh3 ~d4 36 ...:1'1g7? 37.:1'1h8 c;t>d7 38.:1'1d8 c;t>d8 39.:1'1d4 c;t>e8
35.e5!? ~e5!? 36.\Wh6 c;t>e8-+ Macdonald,R. 40.fg7+-) 37.\Wg8 c;t>e7 38.:1'1d3 \Wf4, mate is
coming - Schiller.
32.'~h4 .if31
35.!!d3?
32.. J~c2 33.\We1 :1'1f2 34.\Wf2 ~f2 35.c;t>f2
e5-+ Macdonald,R. White misses the opportunity to complicate the
32... ~a8! also wins. game significantly with the unexpected bishop
sacrifice 35.ia7!. Maroczy probably overlooked
33.gf3 !!c21? 34..id4?1 this great tactical shot obstructing the queen's
way to the mate: 35 ...b6! (35 ...\Wa7?? 36.:1'1d8#;
Threatening ~e5. 35 ...ia7? 36.\Wh6 c;t>e8 37.\Wg5!+- or 37.\Wg7
34.~e1 doesn't get the bull off the ice because :1'1f8 38.\Wf8+-; 35...\We8!? 36.:1'1d5 b6+) 36.\Wh3
of 34...c;t>e8 35.\Wa5 :1'1a2, and Black should win (36.\Wh5 \We8! 37.\Wd5 (37.:1'1d3 ~g5!? 38.\Wh3
easily - Macdonald, R. \Wh3 39.:1'1h3 ~f6-+) 37 ...\Wh3! 38.:1'1h3 :1'1g1#
Maroczy; 36.:1'1d3 \We8 37.:1'1e3 \Wa6 38.c;t>e1 \Wa5
34.. .'IWa8?! (D) 39.c;t>f1\Wb5 40.c;t>e1\Wb1# Maroczy):
a) 36... ~g5!? 37.\Wd7!? (37.:1'1d7!? \We8
38.~b8!? :1'1e1 (38... ~b8?? 39.:1'1f7 c;t>f7 40.\Wd7!
c;t>f6 41.\Wf5 c;t>e 7 42.:1'1h 7+ -) 39.c;t>e2 :1'1h 1 40 .~e 7
:1'1h8 41.~d6 c;t>g8 42.\Wg4 :1'18h5-+) 37 ... ~f6
(37 ...\We8? 38.\Wd3 :1'1a2 39.:1'1h2!+-) 38.:1'1h7
\We8-+ (and not 38 ... ~e7? 39.:1'1f7! c;t>f7 40.\Wf5
c;t>g7 41.\Wg4 c;t>h6 42.\Wh3=).
b) 36... ~e81? 37.\Wd7 :1'1f2 38.c;t>e1 :1'1a2
39.\We7 ~f2 40. c;t>f1 ~b5-+.
c) 36.. J3f2 37.c;t>e1 :1'1a2 38.\Wd7 \We8
39.\Wd5 :1'1b2 40.~b8 ~f2 41.c;t>f1 ~g3-+.

35.. .'IWa61
A little strange and unnecessary conception. 0-1

539
 Chapter 15

Game 210 8.c!Lld2 0-0 (8 ... c!Lle5!? 9.~b3 0-0 10.0-0 c5 -

Djuric,Stefan (2350) Davies) 9.0-0 tLJe5:j: Joksic.
Joksic,Sinisa (2410)
Vrnjacka Banja, 1978 8...0-0 9.0-0?
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.e4 f6 (D)
o9.f3 tLJd7!? - Henris (9 ... tLJh5 10.0-0;1;; 9... tLJg4!?
- Raetsky & Chetverik).

9...lLlg4! 10.h3 lLlge5~ 11 ..if4 (0)

., 1.
•

Black aims for rapid development and play

down the e- and Hiles.

5.ef6
After 5.c!Llf3, Black should probably play 5...tLJc6,
when 6.ef6 tLJf6 7..~d3 ib4 8.id2 0-0 9.0-0 ig4
looks as if it gives Black compensation for his
gambited pawn - Davies.
5...lLlf6 6..id3lLlc6 7.lLle2!?
White has the option of transposing back into
the line 4...tLJc6 5.f4 with 7.f4.
Black would blast open White's kingside after
11.ic1 with 11 ...ih3!, when 12.gh3 l;f3 13.tLJf4
~g5 14.tLJg2 ~g6 15.ie2 l;h3 would give him a
winning attack - Davies.
11 ....ih3! 12.gh3
After 12.a3, there follows 12...ig2 13.c;t>g2 l;f4
14.tLJf4 ~g5 15.c;t>h3 ~f4 16.ab4 l;f8, and Black
is winning - Henris.

•
7....ib48..id2 12...\Wh4!? 13..ig3

540
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.a3, 4.e4, other lines l

This leads to defeat. Game 211

But the alternatives are not much good either: Galovic,Stefan (2190)
13.~e5 tLle5 14.f4 ~h3 15.fe5 1'!f1 Dzurenda,Stefan (2150)
16.~f1 ~d3-+ Joksic. Slovakia, 2000
13.Wh2 1'!f4 14.tLlf4 ~f4 15.Wg2 i'!f8 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.e4 c5 (0)
LL.tLlg6-+ Joksic.
13.Wg2 1'!f4 14.tLlf4 Wff4 15.f3 ~d6-+
Joksic.

13...'IWh3 14.f4lLlg4 15J~f2

15.Wfb3 tLle3 (or 15...1'!f6, intending

...1'!h6) 16.1'!f2 tLle5-+ Henris.
15J:~f3 tLlce5! 16.Wff1 tLlf3 17.Wff3 tLle5-+
Davies.

15...lLlce5!-+ 16.VMf1

16.fe5 1'!f2!-+ Joksic.
16.1Mfb3 ~e1-+ Henris.
16.c5 tLle3-+ LLtLlf3 - Henris.
16...lLlf217.VMf2
17.1Mfh3 tLlh3 18.~h2 tLld3-+ Joksic.
17...lLld3 18.VMg2 VMg2 19.@g2 lLlb2
19.. J:~ae8 was also good - Davies.
20.CtJd4 lLlc4 21.a3 i.a5 22.CtJe6 E:f6
23.lLlc5 E:b6 24.a4 E:d8 25.i.f2 E:b2
26.e5 E:d1
0-1
Black supports his d4-pawn with 4...c5, but in
doing so rules a future ... ~b4 out of the
equation. But it seems quite important to keep
the diagonal open for the bishop on f8.
Black also has tried the following marginal and
dubious continuations:
4... ~c5?! 5.f4 f6 6.ef6!? tLlf6 7.~d3 tLlc6
8.a3 a5 9.tLlf3 0-0 10.0-0 1'!e8 11.e5 tLlg4
12.tLlg5!± Henris. This is much stronger than
12.1'!e1?! ~f5! 13.~f5?? (13.Wfe2!? ~h3 - Henris)
13...d3-+ 14.~f1 Wfh4! 15.Wfd2 Wfh2! 16.~d3
(16.Wfd3 1Mfh1 17.~e2 Wfg2 18.Wd1 tLlf2-+)
16...Wfh1 17.We2 Wfg2 18.~d1 Wff3 19.~e2
(allowing checkmate in three moves) 19 ...Wfb3
20.Wfc2 tLlf2 21.Wd2 ~e3# 0-1 Berger,Joh-
Krejcik,Jo, Vienna, 1907.

541
 Chapter 15

4...i.b4?! (a suggestion of Panov) 8.fg5

5.tiJd2!? tiJc6 6.a3!? i.d2 7.i.d2!? tiJe5!?
(Schnoewitz,B-Romero,Ag, carr., 2007) 8.tiJf3 8.f5?! fails to 8... 94, lLtiJe5 - Ward.
(8.f4!?) 8...i.94 9.~b3 i.f3 10.9f3 '2Jf6 11.0-0-0, 8.g3 is best met by 8...i.h3!? rather
and White's position looks preferable - Henris. than 8...9f4 9.9f4 i.h4 10.<j;Je2 - Ward.

5.14 8...ig4 9.if4 if3 10.%Vf3 %Vd7

Or 5.i.d3 '2Jc6 6.f4 95, with an unclear and 10...i.g5 11.e6!.

fairly random position, Gustafsson,T· Lardot, D,
Skelleftea, 2001. 11.ctJa3 a6

5... tLlc6 6)lJf3 ie7!?
Black sets his stall out for the ...97 -95 rather
than the .. .f7-f6 break. The problem with the
latter is that after 7.ef6 '2Jf6, White can happily
play either 8.i.d3 or 8.eS. Without the bishop
check on b4, Black won't be securing the e3-
square for his knight.
As it happens, things turn out quite nicely for
Black. White is two pawns up but has no useful
plan.
12.ctJc2 h6! 13.gh6 ctJh6 14.0-0-0
ctJg4 15.e6 %Ve6 16.e5 0-0-0
17J!hf1 ctJge5 18.ie5 ctJe5 19.%Vf4
ctJd3 20J!d3 %Vc4+

7.id3 g5!? (0) Now Black is clearly on top. He has a nice

queenside pawn majority, his bishop is
preferable to the passive white knight and he
is material up.

21.~fd1 %Va2 22.~e1 id6 23.%Vf5

~b8 24.h3 ~he8 25.~dd1 ig3
26.~f1 ~e7 27.~f3 ie5 28.~a3 %Vd5
29.g4 c4 30.~b1 d3 31.'~Je3 %Vb5
32.tLlc4 %Vc4 33.~ad3 ~c8 34.~3d2
f6 35.h4 ~c5 36.%Vf2 ~ec7 37.g5 %Ve4
38.~d3 ~c1 39.~a2 %Va4 40.~a3 %Vd1
0-1

542
F-·- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.a3, 4.e4, other lines

Game 212 6...VNh4

Shumiakina, Tatiana (2350)
RaetskY,Alexander (2510) 6...c!Llc6 is also worth considering.
Cappelle-la-Grande, 1995
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.e3? (D) 7.g3 Y;Ve4 8.Y;Vf3!?

8.ib4? Wh1 9.ct::lf3 !g4 10.ct::lbd2 ct::lc6

11.!c3 0-0-0 left White without any
compensation for the exchange in Saeed, 1-
Handoko,E, Tagaytay City, 2004.
8.c!Llf3 !g4 9.!e2 (9.!g2 %'e3 10.%'e2
!d2 11.ct::lbd2 %'e2 12.c;t>e2 ct::lc6 13.c;t>f2 0-0-0=1=
Rauanheimo,M-Mertanen,Ja, Finland, 1993)
9...!d2 10.ct::lbd2 %'e3 11.%'b3 %'b3 12.ct::lb3 ct::ld7
was equal in Kotzian,E-Robertson, 1, Oban,
1995.

8....id2 9)iJd2 Y;Ve5 (D)

Surprisingly this move has acquired a fair body
of theory. My database contains more than two
hundred games with it! And still nowadays
strong players fall into the trap.

4...i.b4 5..id2

The alternatives 5.c!Lld2 and 5.c;t>e2?! are

considered in game 213.

5...de3! 6.fe3

The choice of the lesser evil.

The other options are clearly weaker: Black has a clear advantage thanks to his
•
6.!b4 is the subject of game 213. superior pawn structure. White's e-pawn is
6.\1Na4 is also analysed in game 213. chronically weak.

543
 Chapter 15

10.0-0-0 tlJgeS 19.94 fS 20.tlJg3? gS+

10.%Ve4 tLlc6 11.tLlgf3 %Ve4 12.tLle4 o20...%Vd6! 21.E'!d1 tLlb4 - Davies.

tLlge7 13.j,e2 j,f5, with a slight advantage for
Black in the game Montelongo Avalos,A-Cadena 21.V!!f1 fg4 22.V!!g2 tlJb4 23J~ef1
Maytorena, E, Hermosillo, 2002. CLled3 24.id3 tlJd3 2S.@b1 V!!g7
10.ltJh3 tLlf6 11.tLlf2 %Vb2 12.E'!b1 %Ve5 26.tlJde4 gh3 27.V!!c2 tlJb4 28.V!!b3
13.j,d3 0-0 14.0-0 tLlbd7+ Fontanet Llobera,J- CLlc6 29.V!!c2 .ig4 30.a3 @h8 31.tlJf2
Torrent Palou,M, Mollerusa, 1997. 1f3 32.tlJh3 CLleS 33J'~h2 @g8

10...CLlf6 11.'~f4 The immediate 33...ltJg4 would have won at

once.
Or:
11.j,h3 tLlc6 12.%Vf4 0-0 13.j,c8 E'!ac8 34.CLlf2 CLlg4
14.tLlgf3 iWa5:1= Swartz,J-Jackson,Jo, Detroit,
1983. 34...%Vg6 was better.
11.j,d3 tLlc6 12.j,e4 (as in the game
Fontanella,A-Trifunovic, I, Pellestrina, 1979) 3S.CLlf5?
12... 0-0! t.13.j,c6 bc6!+ Henris (even stronger
than 13...j,g4!? - Davies). The losing move.
White should play 35.ltJg4 j,g4 36.E'!fh1, with
11 ...V!!e7 the idea 36...j,f3 37.E'!h6 j,h1 38.E'!g6, etc. -
Davies.
More ambitious than 11 ...%Vf4 12.ef4 0-0:1=.
35.. JU5 36.CLlg4 .ig4 37JU5 if5
12.tlJgf3 O-O:j: 13.1d3 tlJg4 14.tlJg5?! 38.V!!f5 V!!h7

14J3df1 iWe3 15.iWe3 tLle3 16.E'!e1 tLlg4:1=. The exchange of queens ends the game
because of Black's two connected passed
14... h6 15.CLlge4 tlJc6 pawns on the kingside.

Black could consider 15..J3d8 first - Davies. 39.e4 V!!f5 40.ef5 @g7 41.~e2 ~f8
42.~e5 h5 43.@c2 @f6 44.~a5 h4
16.~de1 ie6 17.ib1 ~ad8 18.h3 0-1

544
,...- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - l
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.a3, 4.e4, other lines

Game 213
Klocker,Benedikt (2253)
Konrad,Edmund (2190)
Oberwart, 2012
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.e3?
,ib4 (D)

6.~a4 ttJc6! (the simplest) 7 .~b4 ef2! a. ~f2

Wh4:
a) 9.g3 Wd4 10.~g2 Wb2 11.ttJd2 Wa1
12.ttJgf3 Wb2 13.a3 ~g4 0-1 Peev,P-Pantaleev,
D, Bulgaria, 1973.
b) 9.@e3 Wd4 10.~f3 ~g4 11.~g3 ttJh6
12.h3 ttJfS 13.~h2 Wf4 14.g3 Wg3# 0-1 Linze-
5.id2 Kjelberg, Malmo, 1917.
c) 9.~f3 ~d7 10.~e3 Wd4 11.~e2 Wb2
5.@e2? ttJc6 6.a3 (6.ed4 ttJd4 7.~e3 12.~d2 ct:Jd4 0-1 Larusdottir,A-Grigorian,Me,
~cS-+) 6... ~e7 7.f4!? (7.ttJf3 ~g4) 7...f6!? Copenhagen, 1999.
(7 ... ~e6+) a.ef6!? ttJf6 9.ttJf3 ~g4+ Turner,Ja- d) 9.@e2 Wc4-+ Nikolic,N-MoznY,M,
Iglesias,D, Lucerne, 1982. Prague, 1986.
5.c!lJd2 de3 6.fe3 Wh4 7.g3 We4 a.Wf3
WeS leaves Black with the better position 6...ef2 7.~e2
thanks to his superior pawn structure,
Vainius,V-Uogele,A, Vilnius, 2000. To promote to a queen now would allow a.Wda
~da 9J''1g1.

5...de3! 6.,ib4 (D)

7...fg1llJ!
It is unbelievable how many games have
featured this mistake. Even in the twenty-first century White players

545
 ,
Chapter 15

are still falling into this trap. Game 213

Komarov,Dimitri (2539)
8.me1 Afifi,Assem (2326)
Cairo, 2001
The only move as 8.:Bg1 ~g4 wins the queen 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 dc4?! (D)
and the game.

8...'?Mh4! 9.md2 ~c6 10..ic3

Alternatives don't help:

10.@c3 ~g4 11.Wd2 l"1d8 12.We3 ~e2
13.l"1g1 (13.~e2 Wd4! 14.Wd4 lLle2-+) 13...Wc4#
0-1 Bukovinsky,M-Cizmar, R, Slovakia, 1998.
10.@c1 lLlb4 11.l"1g1 ~g4-+.

10....if5!?

10... ~g4 11.We1 0-0-0 is also good:

a) 12.@c2 We1 13.~e1 lLle2-+ 14.~e2 ~e2
15.~c3 ~c4 16.b3 ~e6 17.lLld2 lLlge7 18.l"1ae1
lLld5 19.~b2 lLldb4 20.@c3 l"1d3# 0-1 Josephine,
S- Blum, Ga, Meri bel, 1998.
b) 12.@e3 Wg5 13.@f2 l"1d1 14.We4 ~f5 15.We3
(15.h4 Wg6) 15...l"1f1! 0-1 Wright,Wi-Finegold,R,
Detroit, 1990.
c) 12.~d3 Wg5 13.@c2 (13.We3 l"1d3 14.@d3
~f5 15.@d2 Wg2-+) 13... l"1d3 14.@d3 ~f5-+.
After 10...Wf2!? 11.@c1 ~f5, we are
back to the main game.
This endgame is much better for White, as
Black's king is badly placed in the centre and
White will win a few important tempi (~g5,
0-0-0) to quickly develop his pieces.
Other moves have also been played here. But
5.lLlc3 allows a rapid development of the
queenside.
5...c6

11.mc1 '?Mf2 12.~d2 0-0-0-+ 13.c5 Black has other options, but they all seem to
~d4 14..id4 gd4 15.c6 ~e7 16.cb7 be insufficient:
mb8 17..ia6 ghd8 5...ttJc6 6.~g5 ~e7 7.0-0-0 ~d7
0-1 (7 ...@e8 8.~e7 lLlge7 9.lLlb5!± Avrukh) 8.~f4 a6

546
-------------------------------------,
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.a3, 4.e4, other lines

9.ttJd5 (9.ttJf3!? b5 10.g3± Avrukh) 9...flc8 The following alternatives are also good for
10.ttJf3 b5!? 11.e3!? (11.g3!+ Henris) 11 ... ttJb4? White:
(11 ...ttJh6 12.h3±; 11 ...iJe8 12.i.e2!?;I;) 12.ttJb4 6.lLlf3 i.b4 (6 ...i.e6 is well met by
i.b4. Now instead of the tempting 13.e6? fe6 7.ttJgS - Avrukh; 6... ttJd7 7.e4 bS 8.a4 b4 9.ttJa2
14.ttJeS i.d6 1S.ttJf7 iJe7 16.ttJh8± which was ia6 10.e6 fe6 11.ttJgS± Avrukh) 7.if4 ie6
played in Pillsbury,H-Mieses,J, Monaco, 1903, 8.ttJd4 ttJe7 9.e4+ Leisebein,P-Blankenberg,B,
White could win immediately with 13.g3!+- corr., 2000.
Henris. 6.e4!? bS 7.a4 is also a worthwhile
5...ib4 6.igS: alternative - Avrukh.
a) 6.. .16 7.0-0-0 ttJd7 8.ef6 gf6 (Black's
position is very difficult after 8... ttJgf6 9.e4 6...c.!lc7 7.0-0-0 &iJe7 8.&iJf3 iJ.e6
ic3 10.bc3 :ge8 11.f3 bS 12.ttJe2+ Avrukh. He 9.e4 &iJg6 10.&iJd4 b5 11.iJ.e3 a6!?
will not survive for long) 9.ih4 ic3 10.bc3 bS
11.ttJf3 cS was played in Sundararajan,K- 11 ...lLle5? 12.if4 ttJbd7 (12 ...id6 13.ttJdbS cbS
Afifi,As, Cairo, 2000. Here White could have 14.ttJbS+-) 13.ttJe6 fe6 14.:gd7 md7 1S.ieS±
developed a decisive attack with 12.g4 <j;>e8 Henris.
(12 ...ib7 13.ih3 does not change anything:
14.gS is coming with decisive effect) 13.gS+- 12.f4±
Avrukh.
b) 6...lLle7 7.0-0-0 me8 was seen in Amado,Cl- White has a large advantage of space and a
Soppe,G, La Falda, 1977. Now very strong was formidable pawn centre.
8.ttJbS ttJa6 9.e4 ie6 10.ttJd4 (10.ttJf3!? can also
be considered) 10... ttJcS 11.ie3 ttJe4 12.ttJe6 12...iJ.c8
fe6 13.:gd4 ttJcS 14.:gc4 ttJa6 1S.:gg4±. White is
threatening both 16.ia6 ba6 17.:gb4 and 12...ig413.:gd2±.
16.:gg7 - Avrukh.
5...ie6 (Kitarovic,M-Jurkovic,A, Bosnjaci, 13.iJ.e2 iJ.e7 14.g3 :Sf8!? 15.&iJf5
2003) 6.igs ie7 7.0-0-0 ttJd7 8.ttJf3 c6 9.ttJe4
mc7 10.e3;1;. Black resigns as his position is absolutely
hopeless.
6.iJ.g5 1-0

547
!""""'---------------------------------------~

White may prefer to avoid the main lines. He 5.~d1 llJc6

has several ways to decline the gambit and
there are a variety of odds and ends which do 5...i.c5!? is also appealing (~ game 216).
no follow the normal sequence 3.de5 d4 4.ltJf3
ltJc6: 3.cd5, 3.tlJc3 and 3.e3. 6.ClJf3

Other moves are also comfortable for Black:

3.cd5 'iNd5 (0) 6.f4 is the subject of game 216.
6.i.f4 (~game 216).
6.e4 is analysed in game 216.
6.e3 is also covered in game 216.
6.tlJc3 is also dealt with in game 216.

6...i.g4

6 i.g4 is the subject of game 215.

6 f6, 6...i.c5 and 6...i.f5 are also worth
considering (~ game 215).

4.de5!?

The continuation 4.ltJf3 is covered in

game 217.
4.tlJc3 leads to an equal position after
•
4...Wd4 5.Wd4 ed4 6.ltJb5 i.b4 7.i.d2 i.d2
8.~d21tJa6 9.ltJd4 (~ game 217).
4.e3 is met by 4... ed4 (~ game 217).

4 ...'iNd1 !

4...Y*le5 5.ltJf3 would give White a nice lead in

development as shown in game 216.

548
-------------------------------------"\
1.d4 d5 2.c4 a5 3.cd5, 3.~c3, 3.e3

3.ltJc3 allows Black to liquidate the centre. 6.~b5

3... ed4 6.~d8 Ei:d8 is examined in game 219.

3....ib4? is bad because of 4.de5± 6...a6 7.~a4

Henris.
3...dc4 would transpose to a generally Taking the b-pawn with 7.~b7? is asking for
acknowledged inferior line in the Queen's trouble (-+ game 219).
Gambit Accepted.
3...llJc6 transposes to a somewhat 7....ib4
inferior line of the Chigorin Defence.
3...c6 leads us into the Winawer 7....ic5!? is worth considering and is analysed
Counter-Gambit (1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.llJc3 e5). in game 219.
After 3...ed4 Black can develop quickly. After 7....ib4, most sources give Karu,A-Keres,P,
corr., 1931 (-+ game 218), as the main reference
4.~d4 for this line. But the game Marshall,F-Duras,O,
Karlsbad, 1907 (-+ game 219), shows that Black
4.llJd5 does not pose any problem for Black: has some difficulties in demonstrating adequate
game 219. compensation after 8.e3.

3.e3 (0)
4...dc4!? leads to an unpleasant ending for
Black (-+ game 219).

5.~d5 .ie6

The untried 5....id7!?, with the idea ...tiJf6,

....ic5, .. ,We7, etc., is worth considering. This
is similar to an important line in the Schara-
Hennig-Gambit (1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.tiJc3 c5 4.cd5
cd4!? 5.Wd4 tiJc6 6.Wd1 ed5 7.Wd5 .id7),
except that the c-pawns have not been
exchanged.

549
,
,,

Chapter 16

3 ...ed4

3... lLlc6 transposes to a line of the

Chigorin Defence.
3... dc4 transposes to a line in the
Queen's Gambit Accepted: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dc4
3.e3 e5.

4.'~d4!?

4.ed4 ltJf6 transposes to an unpopular variation

of the French Defence (1.e4 e6.2.d4 d5 3.ed5
ed5 4.c4) not treated here.

Now Black can give a pawn with

4...lLlc6!? for a quick development. This
continuation is analysed in game 220.
He aslo has 4...lLlf6 which gives him a
good position (---+ game 221).

550
j
-------------------------------------,
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.cd5, 3.lLlc3, 3.e3

Game 215 2003.

Drzemicki,Dariusz (2355) 6....tf5!? 7.iiJ4!? (7.e3 0-0-0 8.id2
Masternak,Grzegorz (2310) ib4;;;) 7... o-o-oc Savina,A-Shevchenko, Y,
Slupsk, 1992 Serpukhov, 2001.
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.cd5 Wd5 4.de5
Wd1! 5.@d1 lLlc6 6.~f3 (0) 7.if4

Or 7.tt:lc3 0-0-0 (7 ...icS!?) 8.~c2 '2lge7 9.e4!?

if3 10.gf3 '2ld4 11.~b1 '2lf3~ Getz,A-
StripunskY,A, Dos Hermanas (blitz), 2009.

7... ~ge7 8.~bd2 ~g6 9.ig3 0-0-0

10.@c1!?

10.a3 hS 11.h4 if3 12.ef3 '2lgeS~ Janes,M-

Adams,We, Fallsburg, 1948.

10...ib4 11.a3

I have to mention the opening moves of the 11.h3 (Juan Roldan,J-Olea Perez,Mario,
game: 1.d4 dS 2.c4 '2lc6 3.cdS 1WdS 4.'2lf3 eS Candas, 1999) 11...ie6~ Henris.
S.deS1Wd1 6.~d1.
11 ...id2 12.~d2 ~ge5~ 13.13 ie6
6...ig4 14.e3 ~d3!?

Black also has other interesting possibilities: 14.. J3d5, with the idea of doubling the rooks
6...f6!? 7.ef6 '2lf6 8.iJ4!? (8.'2lc3!? '2lg4 on the defile, looks quite strong - Henris.
9.'2lbS!? (9.~e1? '2lb4) 9oo.iJS!? 10.'2lc7 ~d7
11.'2la8 '2lf2 12.~e1 '2lh1:i= Henris) 8...'2le4!?
9.ig3!? ig4!? (or 9oo.ifS!? - Henris). Black's
more active position outweighs White's pawn - This loses a pawn.
Rewitz,P. But 15..td3 1"1d3 would be weaker because
6....tc5!? 7.e3 ig4 8.ibS 0-0-0 after 16.e4 1"1hd8 17.if4 '2ld4, Black has a
9.~e2!? '2leS+ Didner,C-Bouillot,S, France, winning initiative - Henris.

551
 Chapter 16

15... ttJb2! 16..ib5!? ttJa5+ 17.@b2!? Game 216

gd2 18.@c3 ghd8 Li Zunian (2378)
Wang Hao (2605)
Quick mobilization of forces is more important Suzhou, 2006
than winning a mere pawn. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.cd5 Wfd5 4.de5 (D)

19.@b4? (D)

4...Wfd1 !

Allowing a nice finish. 4...V;Ye5!? 5.ltJf3 ~b4 6.ltJbd2 '\We7!? 7.a3 ~d2
8.~d2 ltJf6=/;!; Vuji,A-Metge, K, Novi Sad, 1990.
19...gb2! 20.c;t>a5

It's too late to go back as 20.~c3 would lose

the bishop on b5. Also appealing is 5....ic5!? 6.e3 ltJc6 7.f4 f6!
8.ltJf3 ~g4 9.~b5 0-0-0 10.~e1 ltJb4, which
20...gd5 21.a4 c;t>b8! gave Black a nice initiative in the game
Storkebaum,K-Mehler,G, Darmstadt, 1993.
With the idea 22 ... b6 23.ma6 ~c8#.
6.f4!?
22 ..ic7 c;t>c7 23.ghc1 c;t>b8 24.e4
gd6 25..if1 ga6! White also has:
0-1 6..if4ltJge7 (6 ... ~f5 looks also good) 7.e3

552
,-------------------------------------4
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.cd5, 3.tLlc3, 3.e3

(7.liJf3 liJg6 8.e3 11,g4 9.liJbd2:;: Norri,J-Kanep,M, Game 217 .

Espoo, 2006) 7...11,f5 8.liJf3 0-0-0 9.liJbd2 liJg6 Voinov, Nikolai
10.a3 (Maksimov,Alexe-Kutuzov,D, Kazan, 1997) Kostic, Boris
10... liJf4 11.ef4liJd4 12.liJd4 E1d4:;: Davies. Munich, 1936
6.e4 liJe5 7.f3 ~e6 8.CiJc3 0-0-0 9.~c2 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.cd5 ~d5 (D)
~c5 was very good for Black in Kusina,J-
Bontempi,P, Split, 2011.
6.e3 ~f5 7.a3 0-0-0 8.~e1 CiJe5 9.CiJc3
~e7 10.e4 ~e6 was clearly better for Black in
Collier,M-Newrick, W, St Helier, 2004.
6.CiJc3 ~e6 7.~f4 0-0-0 8.~c1 was
played in Elieff,K-Jewlal,D, Canada, 1994. Now
8... ~b4 9.CiJf3 CiJge7i looks very promising for
Black - Davies.

6...if5

The immediate 6...f6!? is also interesting.

I shall look here at the alternatives to 4.de5.
7.tLlc3 0-0-0 8.id2 f6! 9.e4
4.~f3
After 9.ef6 CiJf6, Black has great compensation
for just a pawn. Here are the other moves:
4.liJc3:
9...ig4 10.ie2 ie2 11.ltJge2 fe5~ a) 4... ~b4!? 5.de5 (5.iMfa4 liJc6 6.iMfb4!? liJb4
12.fe5 ic5 13.~d5 ~e5 14.gc1 7.CiJd5 liJd5 8.de5 CiJb4a;) 5...iMfd1 6.~d1 liJe7~
ltJd3 15.gc2 ~f2 16.@e1 ltJe4 Kloska, R-Monteforte, K, Baden, 1992.
b) 4...iMfd4 5.iMfd4 (5.~e3? iMfd1 6.E1d1 ~b4 7.~d2
Black is winning. He's a pawn up and the white c6 8.CiJf3 f6 9.liJe4 ~e7+ offered nothing for the
king remains in the centre of the board. pawn in Zaudtke,F-Lutz,P, Nuremberg, 2002)
5...ed4 6.CiJb5 6... ~b4 (or 6...liJa6 7.liJd4 ~d7=)
17.~df4!? ~gf6 18.a3 if2 19.@f1 7.~d2 ~d2 8.~d2 CiJa6 9.CiJd4 CiJf6!? (10 ...c5!?)
~g4 10.e3 (10.f3?! c5 11.CiJb5 0-0 12.e4 E1d8~
0-1 Beldyugin,A-Prihodko,l, Dimitrovgrad, 2011)

553
 Chapter 16

10 ...tDc5 11.f3 (1Uk1 tDce4 12.@e1 c6=) 11...c6=. J-Lesot,J, Bethune, 2003.
4.e3 ed4 (4 ...ltJc6 transposes to the 5.tLlg1ltJc6 6.e3 ct:lf6 7.ct:lc3 IWd8
Chigorin Defence): 8.ct:lge2 id6 9.ct:lg3 IWe7 10.ie2 0-0 11.a3 1"i:e8
a) 5.~d4?! ~d4 6.ed4 tDc6 7.ie3 (Bot,G- is about equal, Cohn, Eri-Perlis,J, Vienna, 1908.
Rojahn,E, Moscow, 1956) 7,..tDb4! 8.~d2
(8,c2la3 c6 - Rewitz,P) 8,..if5 9.tDc3 0-0-0 5...ib4 6.~g1?!
10.ltJf3 ltJf6=i= Henris.
b) 5.ltJc3!? ib4 6.a3?! (6.ed4 is likely to This ugly retreat is probably not the best
tranpose to 5.ed4) 6...dc3! 7.~a4!? (7.aM ~d1 continuation for White.
8.~d1 ltJf6!? 9.bc3 ltJe4 10.~e1 ltJc3=i= Henris) 6.tLle5? ic3 7.bc3 f6 8.IWa4 b5! 9.IWa5
7,..ltJc6 8.ab4 c2! 9.id2?! (9.~c2 ltJf6!?) fe5 10.IWc7 ct:ld7-+ as in the game Showalter,J-
9,..if5=i= Fretel,D-Cleran,A, Sautron, 2008. Wolf,Heinr, Munich, 1900.
c) 5.ed4 ltJc6 6.ltJf3 ig4 7.ie2 ib4 8.ltJc3 6.~a4 ct:lc6 7.IWb4 ct:lb4 8.ct:ld5 ct:ld5
transposes to the Goring Gambit Declined: 1.e4 9.ct:lg5 ct:lgf6 10.id2 as 11.1"i:c1 a4 12.e3 h6
e5 2.ltJf3 ltJc6 3.d4 ed4 4.c3 d5 5.ed5 IWd5 13.ct:lh3 ih3 14.gh3 ~dn Dietz, H-Nikolaidis, I,
6.cd4 ig4 7.ie2 ib4 8.ltJc3. Thessaloniki, 2005. Black is better due to his
superbly entrenched knights.
4...e4 6.tLld2!? seems more critical: 6,..IWd4
7.e3 IWe5? (better is 7,..IWd6!? 8.ct:lce4 IWg6
This seems like Black's best. 9.ct:lg3 ct:lc6 10.a3 id6, with approximate
4...ed4!? 5.ltJc3 (also possible is 5.IWd4 equality - Henris) 8.IWa4! (8.IWc2? ct:lf6 9.ct:lc4
IWd4 6.ltJd4) 5,..ib4!? 6.IWa4!? (6.IWd4!? IWd4 IWe7 10.a3 ic3 11.IWc3 0-0+ Simunic,N-
7.ltJd4 has to be considered too) 6,..ltJc6 7.IWb4 Sunara,T, Stobrec, 2006) 8,..ct:lc6 9.ib5±
dc3!? (~7,..ltJb4 8.ltJd5 ltJd5 9.ltJd4;!;) 8.IWc3 Collier-Mcintire,A, USA, 1990.
ie6!? (after 8,..f6?!, as in Potts,K-Munchak,N,
Philadelphia, 1987, White has 9.if4;!; Henris; 6... ~c6 7.e3 ~f6 8.,id2
,
8.,.ltJf6 9.ig5) 9.IWg7 (9.ltJg5!? 0-0-0) 9,..0-0-0
"
"

10.id2 (10.ig5 f6!) 10,..ltJge7iii Henris. 8.a3 ic3 9.bc3 ct:la5 10.c4 ct:lc4 11.IWa4 b5
4...tLlc6 would lead the game into the 12.ic4 IWc4 13.IWc4 bc4+ Schmidt,Nie-Jea,A,
Chigorin Defence. Glucksburg, 1988.

5.tLle5? f6 6.ct:lc3 IWe6 7.IWa4 c6+ Perz, After 8... ~e6, White obtains the bishop pair

554
,-------------------------------------1
1.d4 d5 2.c4 a5 3.cd5, 3.lDc3, 3.e3

with 9.a3 .td6 10.CIJb5 - Davies. The critical line is 25..tb4 'lWd8 26 ..tf8 9f4
27 ..tf3 'lWf8 28.9f4! (28 ..te2? f3:; Davies) 28 ...ef3
9.a3 i.d6 10.VNc2 i.f5 11.h3 i.g6 29.2:g 1 Wh8 30.iMfd 1+ Henris.
12.i.b5 0-0 13.~ge2
25...gf4 26J~g1?? (D)
13..tc6!? bc6 14.CtJa4 CtJd5 15.Wc6 iMfg5+
Davies.

13... ~e7 14.0-0 c6 15.i.c4 i.c7

16.g3?

16.lL\g3!? was quite interesting. After, for

example, 16....tg3 17.fg3"', White might get the
chance to sacrifice the exchange on f6 -
Davies.

16... ~f5 17.VNc1 VNd7 18.@g2 i.h5

19.~g1 VNd6 20.~ce2 ~h4 21.@h2
~f3 22.~f3 i.f3 23.~f4 26...ef3?

23.lL\g1 looks more tenacious - Davies. 26...fg3 27.2:g3 Wh8 is winning for Black, the
point being that after 28 ..tb4 'lWd7 29 ..tfB 2:f8
23...g5 24.i.e2? Black is threatening both 30 ... ef3 and 30 ... h4 -
Davies.
White leaves his knight en prise, hoping to get
an attack down the g-file. 27.gf4 @h7 28J~g3?
24..tb4 iMfd7 25.CtJg2 was a lesser evil.
White had to play 28..tb4 iMfd5 29 ..tf8 2:fB
24... h5? 30.iMfd1 +. He may still be losing at the end, but
this would have put up more resistance -
A very odd move. Davies.
Simply 24...gf4 was winning here - Davies.
28...VNd5 29J~g5?? VNg5
25.i.f3? 0-1

555
 Chapter 16

Game 218 retreat in defence.

Karu,Aivi
Keres,Paul 10.W!c2
carr., 1931
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.tLlc3 ed4 4.W!d4 10.Y!Yd1 doesn't work because of 10... ltJd4, with
tLlc6!? 5.W!d5 ie6 6.W!b5 a6 7.W!a4 the threat 11...ii.b3 - Keres.
ib4 (D)
10...tLld4

Black already has a strong initiative.

11.W!e4 ie7 12.tLlf3?

It was necessary to play 12.e3. Then Black

should continue with 12 ...ii.f1 (if 12... ltJb3
13J'id1 ii.f1 White responds with 14.ii.c1) 13.ed4
ii.c4 14.Y!Yc6 mfa, with a somewhat better
position - Keres.

12...c5! 13.E:c1
8.id2!?
Now it's too late for 13.e3 because after
8.a3?! b5! 9.cb5 ltJd4 10.ba6? c6, and 13...ltJf6 14.Wfb1 ii.f1 15.!'if1 ltJb3, the rook is out
there is no defence against 11 ...ii.b3 - Keres. of play - Keres.
8.e3! is the subject of game 219.
13...tLlf6 14.W!b1 W!d6!
8...ic4
Black threatens 15...!'id8.
Black has regained his pawn with a fine
position.

9.a3 b5! Once again White cannot play 15.e3 because of

15...ltJf3 16.gf3 !'id8, and if he continues with
Seizing the initiative and forcing White to 17.!'id1, then 17...ii.b3.

556
 1
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.cd5, 3.~c3, 3.e3

That's the reason why Karu tries to relieve his 20...E:e8

position by exchanging pieces.
White is paralyzed!
15...cd4 16.~e4 ~e4 17 .We4 0-01
21.b3
An unexpected surprise for White who
obviously thought this move impossible With this move White hopes to weaken the
because of 18.~b4. pressure against e2.
21.e3 Wa5.
18.if4 If 21.e4, 21...Wd5 wins a pawn - Keres.

In case of 18.~b4, Black was ready to sacrifice 21 ...d3!

his queen: 18...Wb4! (even stronger than
18...Wh6 19.~d2 ~g5) 19.ab4 ~b4 20.~d1 ~b3 White's undeveloped position allows this
21.Wc2 (21 J~c2 )"1ac8) 21 ... ~c2 22.)"1c2 )"1ac8+ decisive sacrifice.
Keres. The simple 21 ... ~d5, followed by 22 ...)"1c8, was
also good - Keres.
18...Wd8 19J~d1
22.e4
19.e3 is not possible because of 19...Wa5-+
Keres. After 22.bc4 bc4! 23.e4 ~c3 24.~d2 ~d2
25.)"1d2 c3! 26.)"1d3 c2! 27.)"1d8 )"1ad8, Black wins
19...if6 - Keres.

Black's pieces are fully developed and well 22...ic3 23.id2 Wd4!
coordinated, and he has a strong cramp on the
White forecourt which makes it impossible for Now that the e4-square is indefensible, White's
the first player to attend to the important task position collapses.
of getting his pieces into the game.
24.ic3 Wc3 25.:gd2 :ge4!
20.Wf3
White resigns because of 26.We4 Wc1 27.)"1d1
Once again 20.e3 is bad in view of 20 ...Wa5-+ d2#.
Keres. 0-1

557
 Chapter 16

Game 219 5.liJf4 liJf6 6.liJf3 i.b4!? 7.i.d2 i.d2 8.~d2 c5

Marshall,Frank 9.e3 liJe4 10.~c2 ~a5 11.liJd2 liJd2 12.~d2
Duras,Oldrich ~d2 13.'>iId2 de3 14.'>iIe3= Henris.
Karlsbad, 1907
1.d4 dS 2.c4 eS 3.~c3 (D) 4... ~c6!?

4...dc4?! 5.'&d8 '>iId8 6.i.g5!? (or 6.e4 i.e6

7.lLlf3;!;) 6...i.e7 7.0-0-0 i.d7 8.i.e7 '>iIe7 9.lLld5
'>iId8 10.lLlf3;!; Matnadze,A-Fluvia Poyatos,Joa,
Banyoles, 2006.

S.VNdS

Refusing the pawn offered is inferior:

5.VNd2? d4 6.lLld5 lLlf6:+: Henris.
5.VNd1?! d4 6.lLld5 lLlf6:j: Henris.
5.VNe3!? i.e6 6.cd5 (6.lLld5?! lLlf6!
7.a3?! (7.lLlf6 ~f6 8.a3 O-O-OC Henris) 7... lLld5
3...ed4 8.cd5 '&d5 9.lLlf3 O-O-O:+: Rendon,R-Molina,Gil,
Manizales, 2008) 6...lLlb4 7.'&d2 lLld5 8.e4
3...i.b4? is an inferior attempt to lLlb4!t Bustos,S-Almiron,A, Asuncion, 2010.
complicate the game because of 4.de5± Henris.
3...dc4 transposes to an inferior line in S...1e6
the Queen's Gambit Accepted (1.d4 d5 2.c4
dc4 3.lLlc3 e5). 5...i.d7!?, followed by ...lLlf6, ...i.c5, ...'&e7,
3...tLlc6 transposes to a somewhat etc., could be tried. This idea is very similar to
inferior line of the Chigorin Defence (1.d4 d5 the following line in the Schara-Hennig-Gambit:
2.c4 lLlc6 3.lLlc3 e5). 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.lLlc3 c5 4.cd5 cd4!? 5.~d4
3...c6 leads to the Winawer Counter- lLlc6 6.~d1 ed5 7.~d5 i.d7, except that the c-
Gambit (1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.lLlc3 e5). pawns have not been exchanged - Henris.

4.VNd4 6.VNbS

4.liJd5!? is not dangerous for Black: 4... c6 6.i.g5!? is quite interesting:

558
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 a5 3.cd5, 3.lL:Jc3, 3.e3

a) 6....ie7?! ?.ie7? (?V4fd8 ~d8 8..ie? We7 7....ic5!? 8.ttJf3:

9.e3;1; Henris) 7...V4fe 7 8.V4fb5 0-0-01:5 Y2- Y2 a) 8... ~e7?! 9.e3!? (9.ttJd5! .id5!?
•

Sommer,So-Meissner,Cla, Tapolca, 1996. 10.cd5 ~b4 11.~d2 We4!? 12.~b4 Wb4 13.Wb4
b) 6....id5!? 7.,~d8 ~g2!? (:57 ... ~c4?! 8.~c7 ttJb4 14.~c1± Henris) 9...0-0-0 10.a3 ttJf6
~ttJb4 9.e3!) 8.~g2 ttJd8!?'" Henris. 11.~e2!?+ Lindberg,Bo-Johansson,Ca, Sweden,
6.'~·d8!? is much better than its 2009.
reputation. After 6... ~d8, White has: b) 8... ttJf6 9.~gS h6 10.~h4 g5?!
a) after 7.e3?? ttJb4!, and Black is already 11.E1d1? (11.~g3± Henris) 11 ...We7?! (11...~d7
12.~g3 We71:5 Henris) 12.l2leS (12.~g3!? ~d7
• •
wmnmg.
b) 7.f3?! (~7 ... l2lb4 8.@f2) 7... ~c4:j:. 13.Wc2 g4 14.l2lh4 0-0-01:5 Husek,Z-Cizmar,R,
c) 7.~g5!? f6 8.~f4 ~c4!? 9.~c1 (9.~c7 ~d7 Slovakia, 2001) 12... ~d7! (:512 ...0-0 13.ttJc6 bc6
10.~f4 ttJb4 11.~c1 ttJa2 12.l2la2 ~a2= Henris) 14.~g3;1;) 13.ttJd7 ttJd7 14.~g3 ttJb6
9... ~b4!? (9 ... ~d7= Henris) 10.a3 ~aS 11.b4 (14 ... 0-0-0?? 1S.~c7!+-) 1S.Wc2 ttJd4 16.We4!?
~b6 12.l2la4 (Nie,X-Guo Qi, Xinghua, 2012) (16.Wc1 fS!"') 16...We4 17.l2le4 ~b4!?
12... ~bS 13.l2lb6 cb6= Henris. (17 ... 0-0-0!?) 18.ttJc3 0-0-0'" Henris.
d) 7.~f4!? ~c4 (after 7... l2lb4?! 8.~c1 ~c4,
played in De Andrade,Fr-Ferreira,K, Brasilia, 8.e3! (D)
2011, White gains the advantage with 9.a3;1;
Henris) 8.~c7 ~d7 9.~f4 ttJb4 10.~c1 ttJa2
11 .l2la2 ~a2= Henris.

6...a67.VNa4

7.~b7!? l2ld4 8.We4 l2lf6 has to be investigated

further:
a) 9.~b1 ~fS 10.e4 l2le4! 11.l2le4 ~b4
12.~d2 ~d2 13.Wd2 l2lc2! is winning for Black
according to Keres. But White has some
resources: 14.~d3! ttJa1 15.We2 0-0--+, and
White's king remains exposed to a strong attack
- Henris. A move much too lightly dismissed by many
b) 9.~d3!? ~c41:5 Henris. commentators.

7... ~b4 8...VNf6

559
 Chapter 16

8....ic3 9.bc3 is properly evaluated by Marco 22....ig4

and Schlechter as better for White, who will be
able to use the b-file for his rook and establish 22...E!d7!? comes into consideration: 23.ie6
a dominating bishop at a3. (23.1Mfh7 ig4 24.hg4 1Mfd8+t) 23 ...1Mfe6 24.1Mfh7
1Mfc4 traps the king in the centre.
9..id2 0-0-0 10.tlJf3 tlJh6 11 J~d1
23.hg4
11.0-0-0 tDg4! - Marco & Schlechter.
23.1Mfg4 'kt>b8 24.0-0 E!d2~.
11 ...tlJg4 12..ie2 ~h6 13.a3!
23... ~d6 24.0-0 g6 25.f4!
13.0-0 ic4! 14.ic4 tDce5 15.h3 tDf3 16.gf3 1Mfh3
17.ie6!! (17.fg4? 1Mfg4 18.i>h2 E!d6 19.e4 E!g6 In order to create an open line on which the
wins fo Black) 17...fe6 18.fg4= Marco & rook on f1 can operate.
Schlechter.
25...ef4 26.ef4 Wic5 27.i>ii2 gd4
13....ic3 14..1c3 gd1 15.~d1 gdS 2S.WieS i>c7 29.ge1 i>b6 30.ge7 gd1
16.~c2 f6 17.h3±
30... ~c4 is met by 31.~b8.
White has an extra pawn and the bishop pair. And 30...l;c4 runs into 31.~d7.

17...tlJge5 1S.tlJe5 tlJe5 19..1e5?! 31.~f7 ~g1 32.<i?g3 a5 33.gb7?

fe5
33.b4! ab4 34.ab4 'kt>a6 35.b5 'kt>a5 36.bc6 bc6
The well-placed knight was a formidable 37.E!a7+- Marco & Schlechter.
opponent. But by giving up the power of the
bishop pair, White has made the path to 33...i>a634.gb3
victory more difficult.
34.b4? ~e1 35.'kt>h3 E!d3 36.i>h2 ~h4 37.'kt>g1
20.~e4 ~f6 21 ..1f3 c6 22..ig4?! E!d1 #.

White continues to liquidate, but an extra 34...Wie1 35.i>h3 Wih1 36.i>g3 ~e1
pawn in a heavy artillery endgame is not often 37.i>f3 Wif1 3S.i>g3 Wie1 39.i>f3 ~f1
decisive.

560
 -------------------------------------,
_.
1.d4 d5 2.c4 a5 3.cd5, 3.tl)c3, 3.e3
Game 220
Aguero Jimenez,Luis Lazaro (2403)
Otero Acosta,Diasmany (2417)
Havana, 2010
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.e3 (0)
3...ed4
After 3...lLlc6 play transposes to a line
of the Chigorin Defence: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 lLlc6 3.e3
e5.
3...dc4 transposes to a line in the
Queen's Gambit Accepted: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dc4
3.e3 e5.
4.ed4 CiJf6 would transpose to a not too
popular line of the Exchange Variation of the
French Defence normally reached by 1.e4
e6.2.d4 d5 3.ed5 ed5 4.c4!?, and not treated
here.
4...llJc61? (0)
Black gives a pawn for a quick development.
4...lLlf6 is the alternative covered in game 221.
5.~d5
5.~d1?! is weaker:
a) 5...dc4?! 6.Wd8 CiJd8 7.ic4 ie6
8.ib5 c6 9.ie2 CiJf6= Mueller,Helg-Panse,G,
Germany, 1991.
b) 5...d4!? 6.a3 (6.ed4 Wd4) 6...if5
7.id3?? (o7.CiJf3 de3 8.Wd8 E1:d8 9.ie3 CiJf6:;:
Henris) was played in the game Rabitzsch,M-
Petzenhauser,l, Schney, 2000. Now Black wins
after 7...de3! 8.ic2 (8.if5? ef2 9.'lt>e2 Wd1
10.<;t>d1 f1W-+; 8.ie2 CiJd4 9.id3 ef2 10.'lt>f2
ic5-+) 8...ef2 9.'lt>f2 ic5-+ Henris.
c) Black's position is to be preferred
after 5...lLlf6 6.CiJf3 ie6!? - Henris.
561
-------------------------------------,
Chapter 16

Black's compensation for the pawn is
clearly insufficient after 5...ke6?! 6.~d8 Ei:d8
7.a3;1; Yermishin,V-Chetverik,M, Bulgaria, 1996.
On the other hand, 5...kd6!?, keeping
the queens on the board, is certainly worth
considering.
6.ed5 ttJb4 7.ib5
7.lDa3 lDd5 is equal.
7...e6!?
Black obtains an even game after the simple
7...kd7 8.kd7 ~d7.
Inserting first 10...kb7 looks interesting: 11.tiJf3
(Martinez,Julian-Garcia,Gild, Bogota, 2010)
11 ...i,b4 12.i,d2 i,d6 CXl Henris.
11.id2 ie5!?
The position is about equal.
12.ttJe3 id7!?
And not 12...ib7?! 13.tiJb5 i,g2 14.ttJc7
~e7 15.lDa8 lDf6 16.b4± Henris.
But 12...b4 seems adequate: 13.lDd5
i,b7 14.ttJc7 cj;>d7 15.ttJa8 i,g2 16.Ei:a5 ~d6
17.Ei:a6 ~d7 18.Ei:a5= Henris.

8.de6 be6 9.a3 13.ttJf3 ttJf6 14.ttJe5 a6!? 15.'i!7e2!?

'i!7e7!? 16.ttJd7 'i!7d7 17.E:he1 ie7
Or 9.ka4!?:
a) 9...lDd3?! 10.~d2! lDf2?! (10 ... lDe5 17...id6 18.f4;1; Henris.
11.lDf3!± Henris) 11.kc6 ~d8!? 12.i,a8 lDh1
13.~e1!± Rytkonen,J-Curran,A, Internet (blitz), 18.e4~ E:he8 19.f3!? 'i!7e6 20.94
2004. id8 21.95 ttJd7 22.ttJd5 E:e1
b) 9...i,a6! 10.lDe2 ttJd3 11.~f1D ttJc1! 23.E:e1 ttJe5?
12.i,c6 ~d8 13.i,a8 ttJe2, with a lasting
initiative - Henris. o23...f6 24.Ei:c6 ~f7;1; Henris.

9...eb5 24.ie3!?± f5??

Also interesting is 9 lDc2!? 10.~d1!? (10.cj;>d2 A blunder which loses the game.
cb5 11.cj;>c2 i,f5iiii) 10 cb5!? (10 ...ttJe3!? 11.i,e3 24...f6 25.gf6 gf6 26.f4 ttJd7 27.i,d4± Henris.
cb5=) 11. ~c2 i,f5iiii Henris.
25.ttJf4
10.ab4 ib4!? 1-0

562
 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.cd5, 3.ltJc3, 3.e3 1

Game 221 • 6.~d5 ct:ld5 7.a3= (7 ..id2?! 4Jb4!t Kotova,L-

Dodge,R Babaev, Ta, Tula, 2011);
Houghteling,Jay • 6.lt:lf3 ct:lc6 (or 6...iWd4 7.ct:ld4 a6= Kuehl,Klaus
Chicago, 1904 D-Brumm,C, West Berlin, 1984) 7.iWd5 ct:ld5
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.e3 ed4 4.'~'d4!? 8.a3= (8.id2?! ct:ldb4!t Tobias,G-Krajnak,M,
lDt6 (0) Slovakia, 2007).

5...lDc6 6.Wfd1 .it5!? (0)

The other term of the alternative, 5.cd5, is Controlling an important diagonal.

probably better: 6...d4!? 7.ed4 iWd4 8.ie3 iWd1 9.gd1=
a) 5...lt:ld5!? 6.e4 ct:lb4 7.iWd8 \t>d8: Lukin,Va-Lefebr,V, Cheliabinsk, 2009 .
• 8.lt:la3 ie6!? (8 ...id6 9.ic4 ge8 10.f3 f5°o 6...ie6!? 7.cd5 ct:ld5 8.id2!? ct:ldb4:j:
Henris) 9.b3?! (o9.ct:lf3°o Henris) was played in Roelli,C-Schulz,S, Dresden, 2004.
the game Toth,Pal-Vargyas,Z, Hungary, 2007.
Now 9... ct:ld7!, followed by ... ct:le5 or ...ct:lc5, 7.f3?
would have given Black the initiative - Henris;
• 8.@d2!? f5!? (8...ie6!? 9.a3 (9.ct:lc3 ct:l8c6 This move is questionable. The point is to build
10.a3 ct:ld4t) 9... ct:la2iii Henris) 9.a3 ct:l4c6 a pawn chain to take the bishop off that
10.id3!? fe4 11.ie4 ct:ld4iii Kliewe,Ha- diagonal. It is vital because of the threat of ct:lb4.
Augstein,J, Ueckermuende, 2007. 7.lt:ld5?! ct:ld5 8.cd5 (8.iWd5? .ib4 9.id2
b) 5...'\Wd5: iWf6!-+) 8...ct:lb4 9.ib5 c6 10..ia4 (S;10.dc6?!

563
 ,
Chapter 16

bc6) 10...iWa5!?+ Henris. 12...ltJc213.<it?d1!?

7.cd5!? t1Jb4 8.~b5 c6 9.dc6 \Wd1
10.Wd1 bc6 11.~a4 O-O-O!? 12.We2 ~d3i Henris. The other legal move, 13.'it>e2, loses to
7.lLlf3!? dc4 8.Wfd8 ~d8 9.~c4 a6!n 13... ~e8, and White will have to lose material
Henris. in order to avoid mate· Henris.

7...ltJ b4! 8.'1Wa4? 13...ltJf2 14.c;!?e2 i.c5

Since White played 7.f3 he should now consider Black doesn't need to capture the rook
8.Wf2!?, though White's lack of development immediately.
should prove fatal· Henris.
15.ltJf3?
8...VHd7?
There was no way to save the game anymore.
8...c6! wins for Black - Henris. But 15.ttJf3 allows one of the most beautiful
finishes of all time.
9.VHd7 C;!?d7?!
15....id3 16.c;!?d2 .ie3# (D)
o9 lLld7 10.Wf2 (10.ttJd5 ttJc2 11.Wf2 0-0-0+)
10 dc4 11.~c4 ttJe5+ Henris. "'+ ····M·.···
10.e4?? b
Better was 10.Wf2 ttJc2 11.~b1 d4 12.e4 dc3
13.ef5 ~c5 14.Wg3:j: Henris.

10...de4 11.fe4 ltJe4-+

.' - - ,
.• . • . . . 'jl!i
'. & .'.
Black is a pawn up and his rooks are close to "A .'
.'.. '" '1.'
, .' -
taking charge on the central files. . ., , ,

........
.'

'-- •

12J3b1?! 0-1
One of the most extraordinary checkmates in
Allowing White to escape the fork. the history of chess.

564
565
-----------------------------------------~,

PART ONE: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.lLlf3 lLlc6 5.a3

6.b4
Chapter 1 - 5.a3 lLlge7

6...lLlg6

6 ie6, 6 il.g4 37
7.i.b2
l.bS, 7.ig5 38
7... a5
7... CtJce5, 7...i.g4, 7...i.e6,
7 ttJge5 38
/' N,1
~.- '"
' ;
,
,

i
.'
..'
.-.--
,-
8.b5
,

8.'Wa4 , , 21

8...lLlce5 9.lLle5

9.l!fff.d4 , 34

566
,......- - - - - _ ---------------------------------
2

1
Index of variations

9.ii.d4 ............................. •••••••••••••••••••••••••• 36 6.e3

9...<!L\e5 10.e3
6....ig4
10.id4, 10.Wd4 21
6...de3 ·.................................................. 40
10....ie6 11 ..id4
6... CUf5 ·.................................................. 43
11.c5, 11.Wd4 21
7.ie2
11...<!L\c4 12.Wc2
7.Wa4, 7.h3, 7.e6 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 40
12.CUd2 ................................... ' . 21
7.ed4 ••••••••••••• • • • • • • • • • • • ••• •• • • ••••••••••• ••••••••••• 42
12...CUd6
7...de3 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 40
12... CUb6 • •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 22
7... d3 ..................................................... 40
12...Wd5 • •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 33
7... CUf5 ·.................................................. 41
13..id3 Wg5
13...ie7,13...Wd7 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 22

14.f4
6...<!L\f5
14.0-0 ....................................................... 29
6 lt:Jg6 •••••••••••••••••••••• 49
14.ltJc3 . 31
6 a5 --+ 5.a3 a5 114
14... Wh4
7.CUb3 .ie7 ............................... 46
14...Wd5 • •••••••••••••••• • •• • •• •• •••••••••••••• ••• • •• •• •• • • 22
7...ie6 --+ 5.a3 ie6 6.CUbd2 CUge7
15.g3
7,tbb3 CUf5 ................................ • •••••••••••• 65
15.Wf2 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• • • • • • • • • • • •• ••• •• •• •• •• • • 22

15... Wh3 other lines

15...Wh5 • •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• • • • • • •••••••••• • 22
6.ig5 ..................................................... 50
16.e4 ...........................•••••••••••••••• 25
6.93 . •••••••••••••••••••••••••• 50
16.Wc7, 16.lt>f2 •••••• • • ••• • • • • ••••••• • •••••• • • • •••• • • • • 25
6.h3, 6.b3, 6.if4 ....... ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 51
16.CUc3 •••••• •••••• •••• • • • •• • •• • • • • •••• •• •• ••• •• ••••• • • •• ••• 28

567
-------------------------------------,
Index of variations

10.i.g5 60
Chapter 2 - 5.a3 .ie6

6...V;!1d7 .0 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• , •• 0 •••••••••••••••••••• 73

5 aS, 6 f6 74

7.lDb3

7.b4, 7.g3, 7.Wb3 74

7...lDf5

7 ttJg6 65
7 !c4 72
8.~d3 0 ••••••••••••••••••• 66
6.e3
8.g4, 8.g3 69
6...de3
8.ig5, 8.Wc2, 8.h3 70
6 j,g4 54
7.Wd8 ~d8 8.ie3 lDge7 other lines
B h6, 8 ltJh6 63
6.b4, 6.Wc2, 6.b3, 6.e4 73
9.lDc3

9.ttJbd2, 9.ig5, 9.if4 63

9.ie2, 9.ttJg5, 9.id2 64

9...lDf5

9 ttJg6 , 9 a6 61

10.~b5 55
10.~d1 55
10.tf4 56

10.ie2 59

568
------~~------1
" Index of variations

8-'Wa4
Chapter 3 - 5.a3 i.g4
8 94
• • •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• . 88

8.b4 . 90

8.93 . 91
8... 0-0-0 9.b4
9.g4 i.g6 10.i.g2 h5 88

9... @b8

9 ltJe5 78

10.g4
10.~b2:

10 f6!? 86

10... ttJe5 11.ttJe5 We5 12.g4

6.ttJbd2
~g6 13.~g2 ~ 10.g4
6.i.f4 , ,. 106
10...i.g6 11.i.b2
6.~b3 ,. 109
11.ig2 83
6.~g5, 6.b4 111
11 ...ttJeS
6.h3, 6.e3, 6.Wa4 112
11 f6 . 82
6...'%Ye7
12.ttJe5 '%YeS 13.~g2 78
6 tt:Jge7 100
13 .~
l':\f3 ........... 80
6 W'd7 . 103

6 a5 . 104
7.h3
7.b4, 7.g3, 7.Wa4 98

7...i.h5
7 it5 . 78
7 ~t3 . 94

569
-------------------------------------.,
Index of variations

7.g3 116
Chapter 4 - 5.a3, other lines
7...lDf5

7 ttJg6 116

8..ig5
8.e3/8.e4, 8.g4 116
8... ~d7

8 Jie 7 8 f6
I 117

9.g4lDfe7

9 h6 117

10.lDbd4 117

5...a5

5 ~f5 125
5 f6 127

6.tLlbd2

6.93 119

6..ig5, 6..if4 122

6.b3, 6.h3, 6.iWd3 123
6.e3 ~ 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.a3

tiJc6 5.e3 a5 6. tiJf3 494

6...lDge7

6 ic5 117
6 .ie6 ~ 5.a3 .ie6 6. tiJbd2 a5 74
6 .ig4 ~ 5.a3 .ig4 6. tiJbd2 a5 104

7.lDb3

570
•
1
Index of variations

PART TWO: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.tlJf3 tlJc6 5.g3

6.ig2
Chapter 5 - 5.g3 lLlge7
6.~g5 195
6.lLlbd2, 6.e3 197

6.ttJa3, 6.b3 ttJg6 7.tb2 198

6...lLlg6

7.0-0
•

7 .~f4 . 185

7.iWa4 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 190

7.'Wb3, 7.ttJbd2 . 193

7...lLlge5

7 .1e7 152
8.lLle5

571
-----------------------------------,
Index of variations

8.ltJbd2: 10.ltJe5, 10.b3 157

8... ~e7: 10.'!!ia4 158
9.b3 143 ***
9.a3 144 8.e6 fe6
9.b4, 9.tLlb3 147 8 'lWe6, 8 ~b4 174
9.'lWa4 148 9.0-0

8 tLlf3, 8 g6 149 9.a3, 9.h4 174

8.b3, 8.'lWa4, 8.'lWb3 151 9... e5
8 ltJe5 9.ltJd2 132 9 h6 175

9.b3 134 10.ltJbd2

9.ttJa3 138 10.~c1, 10.'lWa4 171
9.'lWb3, 9.'lWc2, 9.e3, 9.b4 140 10.a3, 10.e4 172

10 h6 11.ih4 'lWf7 167

7•.t.g5
11 ... ~b4, 11 ~d6, 11 ... ~e7, 11 'lWe6,
7...'lWd7 11 ~f5 169
7 ie7, 7 f6 179

7 ib4 180
***
8.0-0

8.e3, 8.'\Mfb3 177

8.'\Mfa4 178
8... h6
8 ltJge5 163

9..ic1

9.~f4, 9.~d2, 9.e6 160

9 ltJge5 10.ltJbd2 155

572
 Index of variations

9.h4 211
Chapter 6 - 5.g3 i.e6 6.tDbd2 Wfd7 7.i.g2 9.~b3, 9.a3 214

9.tLJe4, 9.tLJg5, 9.~c2 215

7...tDge7

8.0-0
8.a3 ,. 242

8... tDg6
8 i.h3 239
9.'i'a4 232

9.a3 234

9.tLJg5, 9.tLJb3, 9.b3 240

7...0-0-0
7...i.h3
7 ike 7, 7 ib4 262
7 ~d8 263 8.0-0

8.0-0 8.e6 , , 255

8.a3, 8.~b3 230 8.ih3 , 257

8... h5 8... h5

8...ih3: 8...0-0-0 ~ 7... 0-0-08.0-0 WJ3 ........ 217

9.e6, 9.~a4, 9.tLJe4 217 8 ig2 253

9.ih3, 9.b4 218 9.ih3

9.~a4, 9.tLJg5, 9.a3, 9.~b3 246
9.a3 220

9.ct:Jb3 224 9.tLJe4, 9.tLJb3 247

8 ttJge7 227 9.e6 , 249

9.b4 9 ~h3 10.tDe4 251

10.~a4, 10.~c2, 10.tLJb3, 10.tLJg5 251
9."!!fa4 ,... 208

573
,...-------------------------------------1
Index of variations

6.i.g2 i.c4:
Chapter 7 - 5.g3 .te6, other lines
7.ct:lbd2, 7.'Wa4 294

7.0-0........................................ 297

6.'Wb3, 6.'Wc2, 6.i.g5 299

6...\!Wd7

6...i.b4:

7.i.g2, 7.'Wa4 273

7.Vf1c2 275

6 g5, 6 lt:lge7 278

6 g6 279

7.a3

6.lt:lbd2 7.i.g2 --+ 5.g3 i.e6 6.ct:lbd2 'Wd7

6.b3: 7.!g2 202

6...'Wd7 7..tg2: 7...lt:lge7

7 0-0-0 281 7 a5, 7.. .f6, 7 h6 268

7 i.h3,7 lt:lge7, 8.lt:lb3

7 i.b4, 7.. .f6 284 8.ti:Jg5 268

6 i.b4, 6 f6, 6 ct:lge7 286 8.h4 ,.. 269

6.'Wa4: 8.b4 ctJg6 272

6 ct:lge7, 6 i.b4 288 8.i.g2 --+ 5.g3 i.e6 6. ct:lbd2 'Wd7 7.i.g2

6 'Wd7: ct:lge78.a3 242

7.i.f4 289 8... lt:lg6

7.i.g2: 8 .~c4 269

7 0-0-0, 7 i.c5, 8...ct:lf5 --+ 5.a3 i.e6 6.ct:lbd2 ct:lge7 7.ct:lb3 ct:lf5

7 ct:lge7 289 8.g3 69

7 d3............. 291 9.~bd4 268

574
 -----------------------------------,
......

Index of variations

9.b4
Chapter 8 - 5.g3 .1g4 6.tlJbd2
9.h4:

9 liJge7, 9 E1h6, 9 \&f5 320

9 ctJh6 323

9.E1e1, 9.\Wb3, 9.a3 325

9.'!!!fa4 326

9 11Jb4 312
9 ib4 318

8... tlJge7

9.%Ya4

9.a3 liJg6, 9.\Wb3, 9.b4, 9.liJb3 309

6... %Yd7 9 @b8
6 \&e7, 6.. .ttJge7 334 9 J.h3, 9 liJg6 306
7.J.g2 10.b4
7.h3 334 10.a3 306
7... 0-0-0 10.liJb3, 10.E1d1 307
7 ctJge7 331 10 tlJg6 11.b5 307
7...J.h3 ---t 5.g3 J.e6 6.liJbd2 \&d7 11 .c5 307
7.ig2 246 11 .e6 308
8.0-0

8.h3, 8.a3 328

8...h5

8... ~h3 ---t 5.g3 J.e6 6.liJbd2 \&d7

7.ig2 217

575
 Index of variations

8.e3, 8..!ig5 ,.. 361

Chapter 9 - 5.g3 .ig4 6.i.g2
8.lIJbd2 ---+ 5.g3 i.g4 6.lIJbd2.................. 303

8...tlge7
8 h5 349

8 ih3, 8 h6 351
8 d3, 8 lIJa5, 8 ~f5 352

9J~d1

9.lIJa3, 9.i.g5, 9.lIJg5 347

9 ~f5

9 i.f3, 9 b6, 9 lIJg6 347

6 ~d7 10.lLla3

6 i.b4, 6 lIJge7 372 10.i.f4 344

7.0-0 10.ct:Jd4 346

7.~b3, 7.h3, 7.i.f4 367 10 ltJg6 344

7.a3 368 10 ~h3 344

7 0-0-0
S...ic5
7 h5, 7 lIJge7, 7 i.h3 363

7 ~d8 364 9,l'!d1

8.~b3 9.lIJbd2, 9.~b5, 9.i.g5 342

8."!if1a4 , 353 9 a6 338

8.a3: 9 ~f5 338

8 ~h3 , 356 9 Vi1e7, 9 lIJa5, 9 lIJge7 339

8 i.f3, 8 h5 358
8 lIJge7 359
8.Ele1, 8.i.f4 360

576
~----------------------------------1

Index of variations

10.a3
Chapter 10 - 5.g3, other lines
10.ttJb3 378

10...ig2

10 h5 378

11.<;t>g2 0-0-0

11 a5 379

12.b4 g5

12 d3 379

13.b5 379

13.liJg5, 13.liJb3 381

13.ib2 382

5...f6 5....tf5

6.ef6 ltJf6 6.ig2

6 'Wf6 ,..... 390 6.liJbd2, 6.a3 398

7.ig2 ig4 6...~d7

7 it5 390 6 d3 396

8.0-0 6 liJb4, 6 ib4, 6 liJge7 397

8.ltJbd2, 8.a3 388 7.0-0 0-0-0 392

8... ~d7 7 liJb4, 7 ic5 392

8 ic5 387 7 ltJge7 394

9.ltJbd2 7...ih3 --+ 5.g3 ig4 6. ig2................... 363

9.a3 385
5....tc5
9.W'b3 386

9... ih3 6.ig2 a5

9 0-0-0 378 6 ttJge7 400

577
- _ .- . - - " " , " " , it _ _ *----.-.-_:_:
:4"": _11; ·--'_1__,
._as_Ji"'" :-----1
ss:_,- - ,...

Index of variations

7.0-0
7.ttJbd2 400

7 ~ge7 402
7 ie6 402

6.lLlbd2 lLlge7 7.ig2 0-0 8.0-0 404

578
 Index of variations

PART THREE: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.lL\f3 tLlc6 5.lL\bd2

6.93 ~ 5.g3 CiJge 7 6. CiJbd2 197

Chapter 11 - 5.tLlbd2 c!Llge7
6...c!Llf5
6 ct:Jg6 415
7.e4
7.g3 415

7.94, 7.~g5 416

7.a3 ~ 5.a3 CiJge7 6. CiJbd2 CiJf5 7.CiJb3... 46

7...de3
7 ttJh4 412

8 ~d8 411

6.c!Llb3 9.fe3 409

6.a3 ~ 5.a3 CiJge 7 6. CiJbd2.... 46

579
 Index of variations

Chapter 12 - 5..!Llbd2 ~g4 Chapter 13 - 5..!Ll bd2, other lines

6.h3
5•••16
6.%Vb3, 6.8b3 428
•

6.a3 -+ 5.a3 ~g4 6.8bd2 76 6.ef6 YNf6

6.g3 -+ 5.g3 ~g4 6.8bd2 303 6...8f6:

6...~f3 7.93 439

6 ifS, 6 ih5 426 7.8b3 440

7..!Llf3 ~b4 7.a3:

7 f6, 7 ic5 426 7 a5, 7 ~e6,

7 'We7 427 7 ~f5 440

8.~d2 YNe7 9.g3 420 7 ~g4:

9.a3 422 8.g3, 8.%Vb3,

9.,ib4 425 8.b4 440

8.h3 441

7..!Llb3 433

7.g3 435

580
•
Index of variations 1

7.a3 438 5 '1!!ffe7 453

5 ctJh6 458
S...AfS

6.a3
6.tDb3:
6 f6, 6 aS, 6 1Mfd7 446

6 ib4 448
6.93 ---+ 5.g3 id5 6. tDbd2 398

6...'%Ve7 443

6 a5, 6 f6 443

6 W'd7 444

S...1e6

6.~b3 449
6.b3, 6.W'b3 449

6.a3 ---+ 5.a3 .!e6 6.tDbd2 52

6.93 ---+ 5.g3 .!e6 6. tDbd2 202

5...Ab4

6.a3
6.93 ---+ 5.g3 .!b4 6.tDbd2 404

6 .!d2 7.Wfd2 451

7.id2 451

other lines

581
~------------------------------------------~

Index of variations

PART FOUR: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 (3.de5 d4 4.~f3 llJc6)

5•.tf4
Chapter 14 - 3.de5 d4 4.~f3 (llJc6)

5 llJe7

5 ~g4, 5 ~b4, 5 ~e6 464

5 h6 465

6.llJbd2

6.e3 .. 468

6.a3, 6.e4, 6.h3 469

6.g3 470
6...llJg6 7..tg3

7.ig5 0.0.................. 465

7 h5 465
4...llJc6
7 ~c5, 7 ~f5, 7 a5 466
4 c5, 4 ~b4 ,.... 486

582
....- --_aa_-----------------------------j
Index of variations

5..tg5
Chapter 15 - 4.a3, 4.a3, other lines

5...ie7
5 f6, 5 Wfd7, 5 tUge7 477

5 tb4 478
6.ie7
6.if4, 6.h4 ,... 475
6...tUge7

6.. :@e7 471

7.tUbd2

7.e3 471
..
.. -
7.g3, 7.tUa3 472

7 0-0 3 dc4 546

7 ~g4, 7 tUg6, 7 ~e6 472

8.lilb3 lilf5 9.~d2 4.83

9.94, 9.h4 473

4...lilc6
9 'YNe7 473 4 c5 509
g aS 474
5.e3
5.f4, 5.if4 506
5.e3
5.tUf3 ~ 4.tUf3 tUc6 5.a3 17
5... ~b4 5... a5
5 ig4 479 5...de3 6.Wfd8 ~d8 7.~e3 tUe5:
6.lilbd2 8.liJd2, 8.tUc3 503
6.id2, 6. cj{e2 482 8.tUf3:
6 de3 7.fe3 ~g4 480 8 ~d6 504
7 tUge7, 7 tUh6 480 8 tUf3 505

583
 Index of variations

5 i.e6, 5 ttJge7, 5.. .f6 506 6.a3, 6.a3, 6.fg5 531

5 .ifS, 5 i.c5 507 6.f5 ttJe5 7.ttJf3:

7 ttJf3 526

6.ed4, 6.b3 494 7 ib4 528

6...Ac5 6.ef6

6 ig4 494 6.tiJf3, 6.e6, 6.f5 524

7.ed4 6 lL\f6

7.ie2 495 6 Wf6, 6 i.b4 522

7...Ad4 7..id3

7 ttJd4 495 7.eS 523

8.Ae2 7....ib4

8.tiJd4, 8.tiJbd2, 8.i.d3 496 7 ttJg4 523

8 lt)ge7 498

8 .ie6, 8 i.f5 498 8.id2 519

8. ~f1 521
4.e4
8 lL\g4 510

8 0-0 514

4 f6 540 8 Vf1e7 516

4 c5, 4 !c5 540 8 !g4 517

4 ~b4 542
4.e3
5.f4
5.ttJf3 532 4...Ab45.Ad2

5.!f4 536 5.me2, 5.tiJd2 545

5... f6 5 de3 6.fe3 543

5...g5: 6.i.b4, 6.Wa4 545

6.ttJf3, 6.i.d3 530

584
- - - - -..- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - l
Index of variations

Chapter 16 - 3.cd5, 3.<!Llc3, 3.e3

3...ed4
3 ib4 558
4.~d4

4.0Jd5 558

4 dc4 558

5.~d5

5.Wd2, 5.~d1, 5.iWe3 558

5...,ie6
5 id7 558

3.cd5
6.ig5 558
3...~d5 4.de5
6.~d8 559
4.ltJf3, 4.ltJc3 553
6...a67.iWa4
4.e3 554
7.W'b7 559

7...,ib4
4...'!;Ne5 .0 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 552
7 ic5 559

8.e3 559
5 ic5 552
8.id2, 8.a3 556

6.f4, 6.if4 552 3.e3

6.e4, 6.e3, 6.ltJc3 553
3 ed4 4:~d4 <!Llc6 561
6 ,ig4 551
4 ttJf6 563
6 f6, 6 ,ic5, 6 ,if5 551

585

A Andre,K - Matula,E 127
Aagaard,J - Harari,Z 207
Aangeenbrug,H - Ellenbroek,T 255
Aban,E - Bademian,J 464
Abellan Ruiz,M - Ecenarro
Antonana,J 238
Abraham,lng - Schulz Streeck,S 221
Adhiban,B - Navin,K 140
Agrest,E - Glenne,B 61
Agrest,E - Sadler,M 54
Agrest, In - Orndahl,Mar 321
Aguero Jimenez,L - Otero Acosta,D 561 Arata,R· Castellanos Bogalo,A 124
Aguilar,D - Manzur,C 486
Agustoni ,M . Sprenger, P 482
Ahues,C - Mieses,J 495
Akesson,R - Feygin,M 174
Akesson,R - Pauwels,R 153
Akobian, V - Nakamura, Hik 132
Akobian,V· Taylor,Ti 355
Al Kuwari,Fay - Vladyka,V 284
Alapin,S - Leonhardt,P 450
Alapin,S . Marshall,F 104
Alber,H - Kleinschroth,R 71
Alber,H - Marchio,E 261
Alekhine,A - Pires,A 191
Aleksandrov,Aleksa • Philippe,C 499
Aleksandrov,Alekse - Abu Sufian,S 243 Asgeirsson,H - Ragnarsson,J 289
Aleksandrov,Alekse • Ahmed,Fay 127 Ashwin,J - Ferreira,Alex 33
Aleksandrov,Alekse· Zablotsky,S 506
Alekseev,An - Korzubov,P 101
Allies - Lasker, Em 98
Alliot,K - Humeau,C 143
Almeida Saenz,A - Fontaine,R 107
Almond,R - Richmond,P 144
Aloma Vidal,R - Arias Boo,G 165
Alvarez Marquez,J . Montalvo,A 147
Amado,Cl - Soppe,G 547
Amarsson,H - Markkula,M 228
Amir,K· Neubauer,Ma 151
Amstadt,A - Farkas,Ric 88
Anashkin, V - Vasilenko,An 220
Anastasian ,A - Abbasov, F 196
Ancin,A - Fodor 436
Anders,H - Schwarz,Wi 215
Andersen,Fr - Nielsen,Poul S 123
Andersen,Ran - Baudin,F 232
586
numbers refer to pages / bold = complete games
Andrews,T - Sarkar,J 123
Andriasian,Z . Khusnutdinov,R 145
Andriessen,W - Smederevac,P 236
Andruet,G - Lamford,P 215
Antic,De· Henris,L 199
Antic,De - Sarkar,J 154
Antonsen,M . Sorensen,Alex 397
Aparicio Lecha,F - Gonzalez
del Campo,D 484
Appeldorn, D - Leisebein, P 40
Arbinger,R - Marchio,E 272
Arbinger,R· RaetskY,A 107
Arguinariz,E - Biava,M 279
Arizmendi Martinez,J -
Zamarbide Ibarrea,D 443
Arkell,K - Grigoryan,M 178
Arkell,K - Schmid,Marc 103
Arlandi,E • Mozny,M 179
Armbruster,A· Ackermann,Ha 143
Armstrong,A - Markulla,M 392
Arnason,T - Finegold,B 55
Arnaudov,P . Kostopoulos,E 89
Asgeirsson,H - Kristjansson,St 199
Asgeirsson,H - Raetsky,A 234
Astrom,R - Engqvist,T 116
Atababayev,K - Ballas,K 354
Atalik,E - Muzychuk,M 412
Atalik,S . Vlahos,G 110
Auerweck,R - Stefanovic,Dr 221
Avila Jimenez) . Diaz Moron,A 300
Avila Jimenez,J . Perez Candelario,Man 47 Beliavsky,A· Fodor,Tamas jr 198
Avrukh,B - Karjakin,S 39
Azmaiparashvili,Z . DeadDookie 482
B Bellon Lopez,Ju - Cirabisi,F 356
Babu,N . Neelotpal,D 498
Babula,V· Banikas,H 38
Babula,V - Krasenkow,M 56
Babula,V· Mozny,M 153
Bacrot,E - Mastrovasilis,D 321
Bacrot,E . Mellado Trivino,J 495
Bacso,G . Lyell,Ma 148
Bagaturov,G - Schmidt,Hara 227
Baginskaite,C - Sagalchik,O 294
Bai,J . Li Hanbin 334
Baier,G . Grasso,P 227
Balasubramaniun, Ramn . Saptarshi, R 480
Balazs,Andras - Molnar,Fe 472
Ballai,Z· Chetverik,M 206
Ballo,H - Vershinin,1 222
Balshan,A· Lamford,P 289
Baltagis,G - Kuhn,St 254
Baltar Iglesias,D . Vazquez Alvarez,An 228
Banic,S - Amaraddio,A 443
Baranov,J • Chirpii,A 42
Baranov,J - Krektun,D 87
Barberi,A . Salvador,R 193
Barbora,J - Benesch,H 382
Bareev,E - Morozevich,A 65
Bareev,E - Morozevich,A 498
Barendregt,J . Cortlever,N 361
Barkatov . Savliuk 306
Barsov,A - Adnani,M 199
Barsov,A . Ludden,G 246
Batik,F . Macht,A 122
Bauk,S - Semenov,Alek 254
Baur,H . Schlemmer,H 346
Bausch,J - Panuzzo,J 241
Bazon,V - Vasile,Co 291
Becker,Hans P - Buerger,R 273
Behle,B - Balduan,M 283
Beil,Z - Trefny, V 320
Beinoraite, V - Borosova,Z 145
Bekker Jensen,S - Tikkanen,H 144
Belcher,E . Oliveira,Paulo S 480
Beldyugin,A - Prihodko,1 553
Belistri,F· Santha,J 372
Bellardi,M - Ludden,G 450
Bellmann,He· Benz,An 240
Bellon Lopez,Ju - Pergericht,D 110
Benitah, Y - Benoit,S 401
Benjamin,Ja - Coll,F 230
Benkirane,A - Poulain,A 66
Berasasin - Mettler 520
Berecz,G . Vasile,Co 214
Berger,Joh - Krejcik,Jo 541

Berger,Joh - Leonhardt,P 428
Bergez,L - Bontempi,P 458
Bernard,Christo - Guilbert,Jea 392
Bernstein,O - Janowski,D 433
Bernstein,O - Spielmann,Ru 438
Bertamini,A - Popovic,Draga 101
Bertrem,S - Dal Borgo,A 116
Bertrem,S - Maenhout,T 272
Bets,A - Kachur,A 47
Bhakti, K - Meszaros, Gyu 318
Biag, I - Taylor, Ti 475
Biermann,K - Anhalt,A 224
Bilobrk,F - Levacic,P 101
Binder,KI - Leisebein,P 230
Biriukov,O - Matlakov,M 63
Birnbaum,D - Nattkaemper,S 382
Bischoff,Diete - Ellenbroek, T 256
Bischoff,K - Vatter,H 307
Bitan,B - Thejkumar,MS 112
Bjorkander,E - Kostic,Bo 390
Blagojevic,Dr - Bukal, V jr 143
Blagojevic,M . Bozicevic, I 224
Blokland,P - Rellum,T 278
Blosze, E . Reschke, Ha 208
Blumin,B . Adams,We 104
Bodiroga,P - Vojinovic,G 480
Bodnar,O· Urietyki,A 486
Bodrogi,L· Kadas,G 238
Boecker,H • Loeffler,M 88
Boekdrukker,N - Nijssen,J 437
Boehm,J . Chapman,A 162
Bogdanovski, V - Krstev, E 498
Bogoljubow,E - Helling,K 110
Bollard,M - Hoffer,T 120
Bonade,M - Bontempi, P 133
BondarevskY,1 - Mikenas,V 328
Boness,A - Schiller,E 212
Bonham,R - Balogh,Ja 531
Bonte,An . Chibukhchian,A 499
Borges da Silva,R . Santos,Marcus V 178
Borisenko,G • Mosionzhik,1 471
Borisenko,G • Simagin,V 474
Borisov, Ve . Lybin,D 231
Borovikov, VI - Reprintsev,A 347
Borowicz, P - Jonczyk, K 393
Bortolin,B - Deneuville,C 292
Bosboom,M - Piceu,T 107
Index of games
Bosboom Lanchava,T - Pokorna,Reg 367
Bosch,Joac - Lagache, Y 106
Bot,G - Rojahn,E 554
Botsari,A - Stefanova,A 401
Botterill,G - Povah,N 392
Bounya,M - Camelin,G 21
Bouton,C - RaetskY,A 521
Bouwmeester, H - Trauth ,M 288
Bowen,A - Thomas,Andrew 440
Bowersock,M - Culbeaux, T 332
Boyarkov, V - Solovtsov,A 509
Bracjunova,V - Henriques,Sofia S 214
Braeu,E . Kahler,K 217
Braeuning,R - Lach,B 233
Bragin,A - Chetverik,M 234
Brandt - Soleta 533
Braunton,R - Newhouse,D 292
Brede,Fa - Luo,Xinping 156
Brenninkmeijer,J • Van der Wiel,J 392
Brigati,A - Salvador,R 196
Briggeman,P - Turin,J 257
Brilla Banfalvi,S - Muir,W 75
Brito Loeza,C - Trani,F 209
Brix,G - Kleinschroth,R 64
Brodowski, P - Olejarczyk, B 247
Browne,W - Mestel,J 320
Bruckmayr,F - Brueckner,Jo 164
Bruemmer,F - Borzykin,1 199
Brunner,L - Brendel,O 132
Brunner,N - Amigues,E 454
Brunner, N • Bergez, L 80
Brunner, N - Daurelle, H 42
Brunner,N • Feygin,M 412
Brunner,N - Leygue,D 125
Budde,V - Hubert,Ral 344
Buenjer,C . Riepe,B 79
BukovinskY,M - Cizmar,R 546
Bulthaupt,F - Hilgert,W 254
Burg,T - Pruijssers,R 101
Burke,F - Sholomson,S 286
Burke,John S - Reprintsev,A 354
Burkov,D • Adamson,G 100
Burn,A - Halprin,A 117
Burn,A • Marshall,F 237
Burn,A - Schlechter,C 143, 530
Burn,A - Spielmann,Ru 334
Burn,M - Newhouse,D 211
Burtman,S - Sagalchik,O 276
Busch - Schoenmann,W 435
Bustos,S - Almiron,A 558
Buturin, V • Chetverik,M 299
BykhovskY,Av - Nikolaidis,1 199
Byrne,R· Kostic,Bo 234
C
Caceres Vasquez, S - Von Dessaver, D 350
Calinescu,G - Biro,S 363
Calton,B - Finegold,R 263
Camarena Gimenez,R - Munar Rossello,P 149
Cano,A - Vujadinovic,Mil 500
Cantero,R - Thiellement,A 372
Capablanca,Jos • Aurbach,A 426
Capuano,E . Salvador,R 156
Cardilli,M - Marguerettaz,D 151
Cardo Moreno,X . Otero Velasco,F 372
Caridi,N - Szenczy,S 148
Carlsen, Christian A - Storgaard,F 233
Carlsen,Tor - Kover,W 227
Carneiro,Ca - Santos, Jose Al 101
Carpentier,Je - Granger,J 355
Castillo Larenas,M - Cristia,J 400
Castillo Ruiz,J - Castro Luaces,J 486
Cazzaniga,W - Galli,Fabi 251
Cebalo,M - Fontaine,R 185
Cebalo,M - Gruber,F 61
Cehajic,M - Nagley,T 472
Cernousek, L - Trent, L 171
Chabanon,J - Henris,L 207
Chalupetzky,F· Bauer,R 450
Chandler,C - Lamford,P 206
Chatalbashev,B - Czakon,J 49
Chatalbashev,B - Jedryczka,K 40
Chatalbashev,B - Turner,Ja 358
Chauvet,V - Le Diouron,A 145
Chemin,Ju - Matsuura,E 398
Cher,M . Chandler,C 208
Cherednichenko,S - Kosintseva,N 285
Cherednichenko,S - Koziak, V 50
Chery,E - Baudoin,J 207
Chetverik,M - Kadas,G 364
Chetverik,M - Lapchev 354
Chetverik,M - Shak 216
Chigorin,M • Albin,A 396
Chirila,1 - Ivelinov,H 310
587
 !i
Chojnacki,K· Kula,R 349
Choroszej ,A - Kuchnio,P 434
Claverie,C - Groenez,J 233
Claverie,C - Spitz,P 66
II' Clery,N - Chetverik,M 117
:j
I
Cmilyte, V - Muzychuk,A 177
Cmilyte, V - Pantaleoni,C 193
Cohn,Eri - Perlis,J 554
Cohrs,Christo - Kleinschroth,R 232
Collett,P - Kelfve,M 65
Collier' Mclntire,A 554
Collier,M - Newrick, W 553
Collins,J . Santasiere,A 426
Colovic,A - Jonckheere,E 415
Colson,A - Henris,L 81
COMP Ant - COMP Chess Tiger 499
COMP Ferret - COMP Tao 5 347
COMP Francesca 0.68d-0.70 -
COMP Patzer 3.00 298
COMP Fritz 10 - Henris,L 168
COMP The Crazy Bishop 0045 -
COMP Zarkov 4.5L 269
COMP Yace 0.23 - COMP Deep Fritz 169
Conquest,S - Acher,M 43
Cook,G - Fedorko,A 212
Cooksey, P - Lyell,Me 73
Coquemer,P - Engel,M 348
Corfield,J - Faldon,D 392
Cori Tello,D - Calle Soto,M 98
Cotonnec,A· Bourdonnais,L 158
Cotonnec,A - Cappon,J 284
Couspeyre,T - Hartmann,Joh 472
Crouch,C - Spice,A 214
Cruz,Jon· Lyell,Ma 161
Csiszar,C - Chetverik,M 149
Csizmadia,Las - Horvath,Kar 49
Csizmadia,Las . Toth,Jo 259
Csulits,A· Hennings,A 221
Cuno,T - Keith,D 236
Curione,F - Bauer,We 326
Czakon,J - Shtyrenkov,V 145
o Djoudi ,A - Sarobe, R 225
Dal,1 - Ozen,A 536
Daloz,J - Jossien,R 326
Damen,O - Onwezen,E 64
Damjanovic,Draga - Cobic,V 298
588
Index of games
Dancevski,O - Krstev,E 104
Danielsen,Hen - Potapov,Pav 145
Daniuszewski,D - Maliutin,B 310
Daniuszewski,D - Tereshchenko,N 497
Danner,G - Kekelidze,M 246
Dao Thien Hai - Castellano,Christo 154
Dao Thien Hai - Nishendra,H 284
Dao Thien Hai - Senador, E 135
Dashibalov, E - Yuzhakov, 0 289
Davis,Ja - Cordell,N 484
De Andrade,Fr - Ferreira,K 559
De Blecourt,S - Stock,L 50
De Boer,G - CrawleY,G 207
De Bruin, W - Nieuweboer,M 390
De Claire - Larzelere,M 388
De Jong,Jan - Docx,S 410
De Rooij,R - Brandenburg,D 116
De Sa Nobrega,A - Conde Pedroso,J 346
De Smet,K - Rehfeld,R 224
De Souza,Ser - Kover, W 219
De la Rocha Prieto, R - Caruso,Au 229
Deak,S - Chetverik,M 141
Degterev,P - McDonald,Gr 251
Del Gobbo,M - Wagner,B 251
Delalande,T - Garzon, Y 363
Delchev,A - Alias 494
Delemarre,J - Weidemann,Jo 331
Demian,E - Vasile,Co 212
Demuth,A - Geenen,M 175
Derieux,C - Daillet,E 324
Deveraux,M - Ghost 500
Di Berardino,D - Matsuura,E 64
Dias,Paulo - Diogo, V 298
Didner,C - Bouillot,S 551
Dietz,H - Nikolaidis,1 554
Dieu,B· Coulombier,S 420
Dimitriadis,T - Kalaitzoglou,P 198
Dimitrov,lv· Humeau,C 316
Dimukhametov,A· Potapov,Pav 187
Ding Liren - Lin Chen 93
Dinser,H - Mione,D 378
Dittmar,P - Schumacher,Hor 471
Djukic - Gagic,N 263
Djuric,S • Joksic,S 540
Dmitruk,Vo - Stanek,S 468
Dobai, S - Gyurkovics,M 525
Dobrishman,L - Fragakos,A 286
Dobrov, V - Elfert,A 239
Dodge,R - Houghteling,J 563
Dokutchaev,Alek - Niemela,A 411
Dolezal,Ji . Skacel,J 524
Dominguez Marquez,C - Cuartas,Ja 124
Donner,J - Mertens,Franc;: 332
Donovan,Je - Adams,We 482
Dorner,An - Landolt,F 472
Draillard,J - Chretien,Co 483
Drasko,M - Bukal, V jr 149
Dreev,A - Nakamura,Hik 174
Dreev,A· Pankov,Ger 175
Dreev,A· RaetskY,A 169
Drozdovskij,Y - Bauer,Christi 409
Drozdovskij, Y - Bliumberg,V 425
Drzemicki,D • Masternak,G 551
Dukhov,A· Chetverik,M 208
Dumitrache,D . Sebe Vodislav,F 191
Dunning,S· Mengarini,A 133
Duong Thanh Nha - Grondin,J 494
Dus ChotimirskY,F • Marshall,F 104
Dus ChotimirskY,F - Tartakower,S 487
Dworakowska,J - Lyell,Me 262
Dyachkov,S - Kanep,M 116
Dyckhoff,E • Pedersen,Henry 441
Dzevlan,M· Furhoff,J 450
Dzindzichashvili,R - Manevich,V 355
E
Eberhardt,O . Marchio,E 246
Ehrnrooth,J - Penoyer,F 237
Einarsson,Be . Gaprindashvili,V 472
Eingorn, V . Vion,J 88
Ekstrom,F - Mieses,J 268
Elbilia,J . Tsang,Ho 206
Elieff,K . Jewlal,D 553
Elizarov,D - Andrejkin,D 222
Elliot,S - Marshall,F 507
Elsas,H - Ernst,W 436
Emmerich,F . Moritz 436
Engels,L· Richter,Ku 399
Engel,M - Gappel,R 233
Engel,M - Hinze,H 233
Engqvist,T - Furhoff,J 208
Enricci,J - Biava,M 279
Epishin,V - Chetverik,M 135
 $
Epishin, V - Kostic, Vladimir G 152
Epishin,V - Teran Alvarez,1 137
Erdelyi,St - Nielsen,Ju 242
Erdos,V - Le Roux,Je 514
Ernazarov,N - Hasler,Ul348
Ernst,Mi - Spanton,T 71
Esipovich, S - Pankov, Ger 497
Estremera Panos,S - Fluvia Poyatos,Jor 135
Euwe,M - Kostic,Bo 236
Euwe,M - Van der Kar,J 401
F Furman,SI . VUjadinovic,Mil 339
Farago,1 - Bukal,V jr 103
Farago, I - Ellenbroek,T 498
Farago,1 - Mestel,J 62
Farago,1 - Nagy 354
Farago,1 - Prohaszka,P 98
Farago,S - Chetverik,M 117
Farago,S - Lyell,Ma 44
Farr,M - Leisebein,P 206
Farwig,M - Sosna, V 297
Feavyour,J - Barton,R A 256
Fedorowicz,J - Joksic,S 243
Feller,Se - Chadaev,N 494
Fernandez Fernandez,Juan C -
Sagalchik,G 276
Fernandez Mayola,R -
Cordero Leandro,J 297
Fick, R - Haag, Gu 285
Figura,At - Sturm,Ti 228
Filipe,P - Johansen,M 282
Fine,R· Adams,We 452
Finegold,B - Ligoure,G 273
Fistek,D - Zapolski,K 161
Flint,D - Saunders,Mi 212
Flumbort,A - Koszegi,L 263
Fluvia Poyatos,Joa - Fluvia
Poyatos,Jor 409
Fodor, Is - Nagy, Danie 200
Fodor,Tamas jr - Brustkern,J 189
Fodor,Tamas jr - Kovacs,Ga 169
Foisor,S - Muzychuk,A 164
Foldi,1 - Chetverik,M 154
Fontanella,A - Trifunovic, I 544
Fontanet Llobera,J - Torrent Palou,M 544 Geiger,H - Balogh,Ja 436
Fordan,T - Kadas,G 153
Formanek,Ed - Oshana,D 325
Index of games
Franco Ocampos,Z - Miladinovic,1 495Gelfand,B - Morozevich,A 31, 160
Freeke,M - Nederlof,J 333
Freeman,M - Eastwood,M 292
Freise,E - Visser,J 102
Fretel,D - Cleran,A 554
Frohne,G - Weidemann,C 144
Frolik,M - Chetverik,M 507
From,S - Sorensen,Arne 522
Fuderer,A - Toth 100
Fuhrmann,Da - Marchio,E 59
Furman,Bo - Pokorna,Reg 87
Fuster - Balogh,Ja 425
Fuzishawa,R - Herzog,KI 122
G Giulian,P - Aird,1 334
Gaal,AI - Hedrera,M 85
Gacso,T - Kovacs, Gy 232
Gaehler,C - Haus, V 279
Gaertner,G - Baumgartner,H 165
Gagarin,V - Tikkanen,H 70
Gagunashvili,M - Abbasov,F 227
Gaier,W - Heckmann,G 446
Gajewski,G - Sipila,V 443
Galarza Docampo,K . Agirretxe
San Sebastian,J 320
Galianina Ryjanova,J . Chetverik,M 141, Goldin,A - Mengarini,A 80
352
Galkine,G - Mongle,J 261
Gallego Gonzalez,A -
Sanchez Naranjo,J 533
Gallego Jimenez,V - Ferron Garcia,C 125 Gomez,John P - Gonzales,Jay 496
Galovic,S - Dzurenda,S 541
Gambini, P - Guidoni ,M 225
Ganin,M - Saskowski,J 372
Gappel,R - Engel,M 348
Garcia - Alonso 330
Garcia,N . Biava,M 279
Garcia Gil,Ja . Romero Perera,E 436
Garcia Palermo,C - Cockroft,J 208
Garkauskas,O - Matsuura,E 126
Gavasheli,A - Guner,Sat 285
Gavrileteanu,L - Leisebein,P 282
GeffroY,La - Spitz,P 151
Geisler,Re - Finegold,B 208
Gelfand,B - Kasimdzhanov,R 29
Gelfand,B· Radjabov,T 99
Gelle, I - Eberth, Z 122
Geller,E - Mikenas, V 529
Gelman,Geo . Wilson,Jon 278
Georgadze,G - Chachibaia,D 470
Georgiev,Ki . Bontempi,P 35
Geresdi ,A - Szili ,A 361
Gerhardt,P· Sielaff,R 258
Germek,M - Tot,B 284
Getta,M - Sting,T 351
Getz,A . Stripunsky,A 551
Gierlinger,A - Stanzl,M 222
Gigerl,E - Cirabisi,F 379
Gilbert,Ja - Sweetland,G 72
Giulian,P· Chandler,C 231
Giulian,P . Wells,J 399
Gladyszev,O - Chetverik,M 181
Gligoric,S - Ljubojevic,L 384
Gnichtel,G - Haag,Gu 250
Gnusarev,Pe· Kairbekov,R 135
Godat,T - Belanoff,S 38
Gofshtein,L - Ashton,A 524
Goganov,A· Lintchevski,D 156
Goldberg,G - Mikenas,V 309
Golikov,D - Mustafayev,F 126
Golod,V - RaetskY,A 109
Golubovic,B - Matetic,M 323
Gomez,Dan . Scalise,L 126
Gommers,J - Martens,M 193
Gonshorovitz,1 . Rodriguez Martin,E 354
Gonzalez Castro, E - Valadez Espinosa,J 472
Gonzalez,Ed - Van Esbroeck,J 180
Gonzalez Garcia,Jo . Arias Boo,G 29
Gonzalez Garrido,A . Diaz Iglesias,J 310
Goransson, B . Jonasson, S 95
Goransson,B . Raben 435
Gordon,A - Adams,We 299
Gordon,S - Berg,E 38
GormallY,D· Radovanovic,J 44
Gorozhanin ,M - Glukhov,A 228
Gounder,S - Wright,N 136
Grabarczyk,M - Hnydiuk,A 72
Grabliauskas,V . Vaznonis,D 55
589

Grabuzova,T - Muzychuk,M 44
Grachev,B - Morozevich,A 135
Graczyk,D - Wesolowski,E 287
Graemer,G - Grahn,Ju 232
Graf,AI - Barua,D 90
Graf,AI - Meier,Ann 243
Graf,A1 - Velcheva,M 416
Grandelius,N . Smith,Ax 66
Grekov,N - Nenarokov,V 428
Griffin,J . Smeckert,D 74
Grigore,Ge - Valeanu,E 172
Grinza,A - Rubanraut,S 516
Grooten,H - Zauner,L 361
Gross,Stefa - Eiber,M 526
Grotars,G - Le Nineze,H 84
Gruenfeld,E· Schoenmann,W 437
Gruenfeld,E - Tartakower,S 486
Grycel,K· Olejarczyk,B 255
Guevara,F· Wahib,J 378
Guichard,P - Goldsztejn,Gi 150
Gupta,M· Nabaty,T 82
Gurevich,Dm - Nakamura,Hik 190
Gurevich,M • Yilmaz,Tu 257
Gurvich,A • Arnstam,K 428
Gustafsson,T - Lardot,D 542
Guthrie,D - Sarapu,O 147
Gutow,A· Shukan,A 254
Gutzelnig,F - Balogh,Em 361
Guzman,Ca - Nielsen,Hei 268
Gyimesi,Z - Lengyel,Be 494
H 318
Haba,Z . Cirabisi,F 263
Habedank,D • Wilshusen,H 252
Hachmann,B - Hawranke,D 351
Haeggloef,K - Eriksson,B 164
Hagen,Andr· Rewitz,P 299
Haines,W - Von Oettingen,S 263
Hakanen,V - Laakso,A 428
Hall,Joh - Sherman,Jo 505
Halprin - Lapiken,P 527
Hamann,Svend - Porath, Y 144
Hammett,M - Chandler,C 295
Hankel,D - Kleinschroth,R 243
Hanks,J - Mescher,M 108
Hansen,Ca· Pedersen,Eric 165
Hansen,Ca . Agergaard,L 235
590
Index of games
Hansen,Cu - Marder,S 191
Hansen,John - Marcinkiewicz,W 256
Happel,Hend . Gooding,lan 282
Hargittai,S - Szabo,Bel 435
Hartenauer,F - Jakstaitis,V 221
Hartl,Al - Zauner,J 102
Hase,W - Faldon,D 217
Hastik,S - Machalova,M 286
Haus, V . Vogel,Pa 250
Hawksworth,J . Povah,N 399
Hebden,M - Valaker,O 402
Hector,Pi - Martin,Ale 278
Hegeler, F - Maahs, E 180
Heinig,W - Starck, B 488
Heinig,W . Straeter,T 175
Heinrich - Eisinger,M 92
Heller,R· Froehlich,Pa 306
Hellsten,J . Kostopoulos,E 344
Hendricks,M - Finegold,B 126
Hendriks, P . Woudt, E 66
Henneberke,F - Sarink,H 180
Henrich,T - Marchio,E 72
Henriksson,Ja· Furhoff,J 285
Hera,1 - Kleinschroth,R 269
Hera, I - Praszak,M 232
Hernandez,Rom - Jigjidsuren,P 332
Hertel,J . Saptarshi,R 149
Hestad,J - Thorstensen,E 283
Heyland,W - Piel,G 207
Hickl, N - Musielak,M 448
Hidalgo Duque,C . Fidalgo Fernandez,J
Hilse,W - Hartlaub,C 106
HO,Cheng Fai - Van Tilbury,C 467
Hoang Thanh Trang· Heinatz,G 194
Hoang Thanh Trang - Taylor,Te 253
Hoang Thanh Trang - Biro,S 310
Hoang Thanh Trang - Shurygin,S 310
Hochstein,U - Mueller,Hans Ge 108
Hodges,A - Lasker,Em 111
Hodges,A . Marshall,F 122
Hoffman,Alejandro . Da Silva,AF 279
Hohm,K - Kuhn,No 307
Hohner,K - Hummel,T 395
Holland,D - Abbott,P 126
Holst,A - Bolding,K 425
Holst,A • Rewitz, P 236
Holwell,J • Cleemann,A 468
Holzapfel,D - Ehrke,M 211
Hopman,P - Schalk,A 533
Horak) - Sleich,J 283
Hort,V - Brustkern,J 194
Hort,V· Gasic,B 239
Hort,W - Sommer,Ja 41
Hort,W - Leisebein,P 230
Horvath,C • Chetverik,M 402
Horvath,Dav - Semiev,S 178
Horvath,Jo • Afifi,As 334
Horvath,Peter - Chetverik,M 180, 354
Hough,R - Tapper,La 275
Howell - Napier,W 231
Hrabusa,M - Bontempi,P 458
Hromadka,K - Kostic,Bo 238
Hrubant,1 - NovotnY,Lubom 199
Hsu Li Yang - Handoko,E 503
Hsu Li Yang - Henris,L 248
Hsu Li Yang - Humeau,C 28
Hudaverdieva,A - Mamedjarova,Z 215
Huebener,J - Helling,K 470
Huebner, R - Zaragatski, I 482
Hughes,Ty· Baratosi,D 168
Hughes,Ty - Persson,Jo 294
Hummel,Di - Olzem,L 230
Husek,Z - Cizmar,R 559
Huss,A - Ekstroem,R 397
Huss,R - Brandt,Ch 225
Hutchings,S - Stewart,Ala 436
Hutin,E - Jossien,R 358
Huuskonen, V . Kanatoff,J 514
I
lasoni,R - Ochrana,L 329
Ignacz,M - Erdos,B 150
Ignacz,M - Magyar,An 309
Ikeda,J - Yu, R 21
llincic,Z - Lyell,Ma 530
llivitzki,G - Shamkovich,L 196
Illescas Cordoba,M - Fluvia Poyatos,Joa
425
Inkiov,V - Onkoud ,A 277
Inkiov,V· Peev,P 272
Inkiov,V - Szitas,G 120
lonescu,Con - Henris,L 292
Ippolito,D - Cotten,D 247

Ippolito,D - Nikolayev,I 162
Isaksson,S - Muir,W 449
Iskusnyh,S - Shukan,A 98
Ivanchuk,V - Morozevich,A 138
Ivanisevic,1 - Khenkin,1 72
Ivanov - Tarasevich, V 428
Ivanov, J - Magem Badals, J 147
Ivanov,Mikhail M - Kleinschroth, R 255
Ivanovic,Dragu . Paresishvili,G 222
Ivanusa,Bo - Kariz,P 308
Izeta Txabarri,F - Rojo Gomez,J 338
Izmestiev,A - Shukan,A 106
Izoria,Z - Nikolaidis,1 172
Izquierdo,D - Paulo ,5 274
J Khruschiov,A· Babikov,1 175
Jackelen,T· Schulz,Klaus J 292
Jaffe,C - Marshall,F 478
Jain,R - Karpinski,Lu 445
Jakab,A - Cornette,M 172
Jakobsen,P - Rewitz,P 235
Janes,M - Adams, We 551
Janev,T - Tadic,B 132
Janicek,R - Steinkellner,R 484
Janowski,D • MaroczY,G 536
Janowski,D . Marshall,F 123, 198
Janowski,D - Marshall,F 484, 532
Janowski,D - Tarrasch,S 123
Jansen - RaetskY,A 289
Jaracz, P - Krahe, F 233
Jasinski,J - Persson,Sv 299
Jayakumar,A - Garcia,Gild 309
Jegorovas,A - Strohhaeker,Rao 133
Jehnichen,G - Barnstedt,D 40
Jelling,E - Rewitz,P 235
Jendrossek,P . Schirmer,M 215
Jensen, N - Rehfeld, R 379
Jeremias,D - Wiedermann,U 225
Jimenez Zerquera,E - Hope,M 332
Jiretorn,E - Lyell,Me 253
Jiretorn,E - Rewitz,P 62
Johannessen,L - Hector,J 74
Johansson,Ju - Gronroos,M 153
Johner,P - Duras,O 487
Jojua,D - Adnani,M 411
Joksic,S - Bucan,Du 237
Jongsma,A - Smederevac,P 233
Index of games
Jorczik,J - Deglmann,L 44
Jorczik,J - Nabaty,T 83
Jorgensen, Brian - Nicolaisen,J 494
Jorgensen,Mic - Kleinschroth,R 258
Josephine,S - Blum,Ga 546
Jovanovic,Ma . Fry,P 359
Jovanovic,Zora - Kostic,Vladimir G 148
Juan Roldan,J - Olea Perez,Mario 551
Judycki,W - Michalczyk,S 220
Juhasz,A . Torok, T 79
Julia,E - Sagalchik,O 87
Jumabayev,R - Kuderinov,K 257
Jurisic,N . Majstorovic,L 107
Jurkiewicz,Kr - Kolendo,T 283
Jussupow,Al - Chetverik,M 282
K Khruschiov,A - Khusnutdinov,R 519
Kachiani Gersinska,K - Straeter,T 178
Kadimova,1 . Peek,Mar 494
Kagirov,R - Shukan,A 297
Kagramanianz, V - Malinin,V 444
Kahe,R - Wolf,J 347
Kahn,E - Chetverik,M 400
Kaiyrbekov,R - Voinov,A 137
Kakkanas,E - Papathanasiou,AI 116
Kalinichev,A· Kanep,M 156
Kallai,G - Kazhgaleyev,M 147
Kaminsky,O - Mosionzhik,1 88
Kamrukov,A - Romanov,Vi 452
Kan,1I - Simagin,V 325
Kangas,L - Kauppila,O 145
Kantorik,M . Shtyrenkov, V 164
Kappler,J - Dubois,Jea 480
Kapstan,A· Roque,Ru 487
Karasev, V - Reprintsev,A 309
Karayannis,A - Karadeniz, E 507
Karpov,Ana - Kasimdzhanov,R 35
Karpov,Ana . Stoma,P 123
Kartsev,Alex· Dzantiev,Z 256
Kartsev,So - Straeter,T 196
Karttunen,M - Jackson,O 125
Karu,A • Keres,P 556
Kashdan,1 - Adams,We 452
Katov,L - Panbukchian,V 161
Kauft,M - Ludden,G 235
Kaunas,K - Narmontas,R 440
Kazhgaleyev,M . Sagalchik,G 276
Kazhgaleyev,M - Semiev,S 119
Kecskes,G - Honfi,Karoly 397
Kekki,P - Westerinen,H 74
Kekki,P - Osterman,G 306
Kellner,Go - Palda,K 440
Keosidi,K· Lomako,A 141
Kerr,Dav - Reis,J 180
Keryakes,M - Machado Caldeira,A 122
Khamitskiy,S . Wodzynski,Mic 101
Khenkin,1 - Morozevich,A 190
Khenkin,1 . Ikonnikov,Vy 191
Khenkin,1 - Nieuweboer,M 218
Khodos,G . Mosionzhik, I 85
Kholopov,A - Schetinin,A 531
Khoroshev,N - Potapov,Pav 34
Khudiakov,S . Alifirov,A 307
Kieninger,G - Engels,L 466
Kileng,B - Handoko,E 373
Kines, I - Chetverik,M 506
Kindl,P - Lach,B 241
King,No . Lawson,Joh 523
Kish,J - Sykula,A 446
Kishnev,S - Schebler,G 307
Kislik,E - Fodor,Tamas jr 411
Kitarovic,M - Jurkovic,A 547
Klein,Di . Balduan,M 246
Klemm,H - Brauchart,E 95
Kliewe,Ha - Augstein,J 563
Klocker,B - Konrad,Ed 545
Kloska,R - Monteforte,K 553
Klugman,R - Mengarini,A 334
Kluxen, W - Lasker, Em 506
Knezevic,Milorad - Klaric,ZI 365
Knol, Wol - Hummel,J 237
Knuesli & Musumeci - De Barbieri, V 472
Kobylkin,E· KislinskY,A 218
Kobylkin, E . Malaniuk,V 40
Kobylkin,E - Novikov,St 155
Kocsis,Ja - Seebacher,O 479
Koczo,K - Zoltan,A 216
Koehler,Be - Stroup, A 108
Koelbach,R· Sykula,A 110
Koerholz,L - MoznY,M 191
Kofler,A - Thomi,H 483
Kogan,Ar . Dzhavad Sade 399
591

Koifman, I - Korotonozhkin ,A 308
Kolb,T - Grimm,T 253
Kolbe - Wren 533
Kolev,At - Estevez Jacome,J 125
Kolomytchenko, I . Koziak, V 140
Koltanowski,G - Steckel,W 103
Komarov,Oi - Afifi,As 546
Kondratiev,P - Gasic,B 297
Kondrin,A - Kozlov,K 117
Konnov,O - Glukhov,A 199
Konstantinov,Ma - Dzulynski,M 136
Koopmans,P - Mol,G 268
Kopacka - Sapundzhiev,G 531
Koporcic,B - Gveric,T 283
Kopp - Canal,E 250
Kopp,D - Hufendiek,E 144
Korchnoi, V - Fluvia Poyatos,Jor 498
Korchnoi, V - Mosionzhik, I 225, 308
Korchnoi, V - Shapkin,A 527
Korchnoi,V - Veinger,1 347
Korotylev,A - Mueller, Diete 321
Kosic,D - Valeanu,E 164
Kosir,P· Urbane,S 467
Kostak, T - Spal,M 476
Kostelnik, P - Belis, R 331
Kotova,L· Babaev,Ta 563
Kotzian, E - Robertson, I 543
Kovalenko,Ni - KislinskY,A 283
Kozak,Mi - Bukal,V jr 162
Kozak,Mi - Shurygin,S 309
Kozak,Mi - Zurek,M 180
Kozlov, Vladimir N - Mosionzhik,1 472
Kozlovskaya,V· Mosionzhik,1 306
Kracht,J - Cleemann,A 251
Krajewicz,P - Jaroch,P 353
Krammer,W - Sommer,Ja 209
Krantz,C . Brustkern,J 33
Kranz,Ar - Mittermeier,P 240
Krasenkow,M - Morozevich,A 169
Kratochvil,Milo - Janecek,Jo 80
Krebs,H - Schmidt,Pe 251
Kremenietsky,Al - Potapov,Pav 187
Krijgelmans,J - Henris,L 211
Krivoshey,S - Kulicov,O 172
Krivoshey, S - Lorenzo de la Riva, L 21
Kropff,R - Delgado Ramirez,N 98
Krueger,St - Baier,Re 274
592
Index of games
Krush,1 - Amura,C 175
Krysztofiak,M - Kozlowski,To 320
Krzyzanowski,W - Engel,M 355
Kuehl,Klaus D - Brumm,C 563
Kuemin,S • Colin,V 278
Kujoth,R· Stoppel,Fre 426
Kukel,1 - Slacky,S 140
Kukov,V - Karpatchev,A 470
Kulakarni,R . Saptarshi,R 413
Kuljasevic,O· Hrabusa,M 65
Kummer,Hel . Neubauer,Ma 252
Kummer,Hel - Stanka,W 384
Kunicki,M· Philippe,C 364
Kunz,Ko - Chetverik,M 117
Kunz,Ko - Puetz,L 110
Kuprijanov,A - Babikov,1 224
Kurowski,A . Smith,Do 151
Kushch,N - Reprintsev,A 342
Kushnarev,S - Chetverik,M 300
Kusina,J - Bontempi,P 553
Kutrum - Wulkau 486
Kutscheid,H • Loerke,R 348
Kuzenkov,An - Meyer,Bernh 512
Kuzmin,Al· Reprintsev,A 342
L Lettich,S • Girino,C 364
L'Ami,E - Kuipers,S 38
Labarthe,A - Vandevoort,P 140
Lacoste,A - Stepien,G 247
Lacroix,S - Barbeau,S 469
Ladstaetter, H . Naef,W 436
Lagashin,P - Chizhikov,V 350
Lagerlof,F· Linklater,L 269
Lagowski, P - Jedryczka, K 187
Lagowski,P· Liberadzki,S 397
Lagowski,P • Maslak,K 187
Lagowski,P - Szoen,D 172
Lahiri,A· Semiev,S 133
Lainburg, V - Hermanowski,M 54
Lalic,B - Dargan,P 410
Lang,Marc - Soelch,H 212
Lange,H - Smederevac,P 235
Larusdottir,A - Grigorian,Me 545
Laschek,G - Brandt,Ch 254
Lasker,Em - Albin,A 112
Lasker,Em - Alekhine,A 94
Lasker,Em - Maroczy,G 533
Lathela,S - Lipecki,A 237
Lauber,Ar - Manhardt,T 229
Lauferon,P - Philippe,C 81
Laurentius,L - Kostic,Bo 466
Lautier,J . Kanep,M 191
Lautier,J - RaetskY,A 132
Lazarev,Se . Tishin,P 494
Lazarev,V· Barsky,V 62
Lazarev,VI - Meszaros,Gyu 344
Le Quang, Li - Czebe,A 120
Le Quang,Li - Morozevich,A 116
Lefranc,B . Zaky,Tam 320
Legde,G - Gries,V 155
Lehmann,Heinz . Smederevac,P 409
Lehmann,Z - Reschun,S 234
Lehtiranta,J . Manninen,Ma 64
Leisebein,P - Blankenberg,B 547
Leisebein,P . Grasso,P 291
Leitao, Ra . Mekhitarian, K 65
Leitao, Ra - Vivaldo, F 499
Lekic,Du • Vujic,M 175
Lenz,H - Schirmer,M 213
Leontxo Garcia,O - Teulats,L 352
Leosson,T· Ragnarsson,J 120
Lerner, K • Caspi, I 195
Levit,R - Montgomery,P 241
Levitt,J • Speelman,J 268
Levy,R - Hector,J 284
Lewkowitz,A - Biava,M 279
Lexa, V - Benes,Mir 307
Li Zunian - Wang Hao 552
Lieder,K - Kleine,J 472
Lignell • Niemela,1 439
Ligterink,G - Brenninkmeijer,J 119
Ligterink,G - Thiel,Th 185
Lilienthal,A - Hildebrand 95
Lilienthal,A· Tartakower,S 234
Lillevold,F - Helbig,M 60
Lindberg - Schiller, E 213
Lindberg,Bo - Johansson,Ca 559
Linze - Kjelberg 545
Livner,A - Novikov,Ger 399
Llaneras Henarejos,M . Parreiio Cueto,A 338
Lobo,Ri - Frankle,J 251
Lockhart, R - Burnett, W 480
Loeffler,M - Schmid,Mart 261

Lohsse,H - Hvenekilde,J 519
Lomakina,G . Biro,S 108
Lombart,P· Finegold,B 282
Lopez,Die . Moreda,L 164
Lopez Falcon,J - Carvalho,Gu153
Lorch - Michell 524
Lortkipanidze,N - Caspi,1 185
Louis, Vo - Becker,Joe 354
Lovas, R - Tritt,M 132
Lovass, I . Chetverik,M 200
Luciani,V - Salvador,R 193
Lueckerath,K - Balduan,M 90
Lukin,Va - Lefebr,V 563
Luksza,A . Stelting,T 230
Lund,Si . Hjorth,T 458
Lund,Si . Johansson,Rob 412
Lundholm,S· Monaville,G 251
Lundholm ,S - Rojahn ,E 127
Lupik,M - Fedorova,An 103
Lutz - Honlinger,B 487
Lutz,B· Bayer,Erw 215
Luz,H - Guara Neto,A 464
Lyles,M· Del Rosario,Fri 484
Lypps,B - Armstrong,D 494
M Mastroddi, E - Ragonese, R 289
Machalova,E - Farkas,Ga 102
Madebrink,L· Brustkern,J 156
Mahishkar,B . Schneider,Luc 478
Maiorov,N - Strohhaeker,Rao 156
Maisuradze,N - Gervasio,R 411
Makeev,V . Sonnet,Jean-P 256
Maksimenko,A - Antoniewski,R 409
Maksimov,Alexe· Kutuzov,D 553
Maksimovic . Stamatovic 397
Malakhatko,V· Philippe,C 306
Maleychik,A - KislinskY,A 283
Malich, B • Mueller, Kl 94
Malinin,V - Chetverik,M 135
Malmgren,H - Heinrich,Gu 334
Malmstig,E - Thornert,H 416
Malmstroem,J - Balachander,E 154
Malmstroem,J - Korchut,A 410
Mancini,M - Fruteau,S 199
Mandarin,V - Jossien,R 361
Manin,Vi - Papin, Y 283
Mann,Ge - Kovacs,Gy 325
Index of games
Manninen,Ma - Groenroos,M 44
Manceuvre,A - Kirszenberg,M 185
Manzanares,C - Canal Oliveras,Ju 347
Manzone,A - Jimenez,Joaquin R 107
Marchand, F - Chaumont, G 397
Marchukov,Dmitry - Surov,S 533
Mareco,S - Disconzi da Silva,R 46
Mareco,S - Ferreira,K 243
Markos,J - Chetverik,M 478
Markos,J - Hrabusa,M 510
Markovic,L - Mrkonjic,N 365
Maros,M . Csonka,At 71
Marshall,F - Chajes,O 332
Marshall,F· Duras,O 558
Marshall,F . Janowski,D 94, 218, 242
Marshall,F - Kostic,Bo 234
Marshall,F - Lawrence,T 470
Marshall,F - Mieses,J 112
Marshall,F - Napier,W 279
Marshall,F· Reggio,A 452
Marshall,F - Showalter,J 123, 452
Martinez,Julian . Garcia,Gild 562
Martirosian,N - Shevchenko,Y 475
Marzano,C - Bontempi,P 39
Mason,D - La Mar,F 415
Mastrovasilis,A . Rychagov,A 40
Matera,S - Mengarini,A 198
Matlakov,M • Chuprov,O 36
Matnadze,A - Fluvia Poyatos,Joa 558
Matsegora,T - Shtyrenkov,V 160
Mauelshagen,F· Balduan,M 224
Maugg,L - Schlemmer,H 320
Maurer, Fri· Chetverik,M 263
Mayer,Alb - Jones,Ho 123
Mazhukin,E - Kruchinin,A 286
McKenzie,M· Stawski,N 471
Medic,Milj - Colakic, T 282
Meduna,E - Mihaljcisin,M 232
Meessen,R - Braun,Christi 46
Meessen,R - Henris,L 422
Megias Chafer,A - Lopez Duran,J 88
Meinsohn,F - Henris,L 247
Meisinger, P - Blankenberg, B 468
Meissner,Cla - Hoerig,D 73
Mejzlik,Z - Prucha,K 387
Melchor Munoz,A - Fernandez
Ruiz,Jo 279
Mellado Trivino,J - Carballo,R 372
Menyhart,T - Kadas,G 179
Merkle, C - Linke ,M 483
Meschke,J - Eulberg,D 519
Mester,G - Babarczy,P 352
Meszaros Sen,A - Weiss,F 191
Meurrens,P - Van Hoofstat, T 247
Michenka,J - Hricak,V 350
Miedema,D - Kuipers,S 167
Mihalik,Ma - Mikulas,D 232
Mikenas, V - Mosionzhik,1 88
Mikhalevski, V - Kriventsov, S 21
Milic,B - Kostic,Bo 284
Milov,V - RaetskY,A 140
Milov,V - Renet,O 367
Milovanovic,Srb - Vujic,M 195
Miralles,G . Pergericht,D 420
Miranda Jr,R - Rodrigues da Silva,E 218
Mirwald,S . Schimmel, W 523
Mirzoev,A - Bentivegna,F 92
Mirzoev,A - Bromann,T 498
Mittelman,G • Harari,Z 288
Mladek,Z - Cervenka,J 360
Mlynek,P· Hasan,Al 161
Moebus,M - Kahms,W 333
Moen,A - Brondum,E 143
Moernaut,E . Avdeeva, Vik 496
Mohandesi,S - Henris,L 89
Moheni,A - Ho Yin Ping 103
Mohota,N - Tania,S 95
Molchanov,E - Jimenez,Joaquin R 290
Molina,Rob . De Lima,Ca Alexandre 116
Molina,Rob - Lapertosa Viana,J 70
Molina Mansilla,R - Fluvia Frigola,J 359
Moller,Ba - Rojahn,E 509
Monin,N - Czebe,A 103
Montelongo Avalos,A - Cadena
Maytorena,E 544
Montupil ,J - Poelmans ,J 397
Morales Camacho,J - Gonzalez,G 231
Moranda,W - Fridman,Da 36
Moranda,W - Miroslaw,M 527
Moravec,M - Mozny,M 42
Moreland,H - Faldon,D 397
Morozov,G· Babikov,1 122
Morrison,G - Bjerke,S 64
593

Moser,L - Zipfel,M 147
Mourot,F - Rouzaud,P 347
Moutaux,R - Ignjatovic,M 533
Mueller,Hans - Balogh,Ja 435
Mueller,Helg - Panse,G 561
Muir,A . Beacon,R 251
Muir,A - Tate,A 169
Muir,W . Mitchell,W 372
Muller,Ra - Wilcox,J 329
Munschi, S - Furhoff,J 256
Musat,A - Buzila,C 251
N Nikolic,Pr· Piket,Je 503
Nadal Bestard,S . Cockroft,J 468
NagleY,T - Cehajic,M 231
Nagni ,M . Palmizi ,A 239
Napier,W - Tarrasch,S 70
Narciso Dublan,M . Fluvia Poyatos,
Jor 162
Nasri,A - Abbasov,F 51
Naumovic,J . Vujadinovic,Mil 292
Navarovszky, L - Orendy, E 87
Navarro Lerma,R - Prudlo,S 339
Navrotescu,C - Goldsztejn,Gi 37
Nebel,L - Bobber,J 468
Necula,1 . Cehajic,M 217
Nedela,V - Chetverik,M 89
Nedilko,V - Borosova,Z 165
Nedilko, V - Reprintsev,A 309
Nedilko, V - Zablotsky,S 165
Nedobora,M - Kantsler,B 140
Nemec,F - Riedl,Mar 282
Nemeth,J - Chetverik,M 120
Nemeth, Las - Szenczy, S486
Nestorovic,De - Carnic,D 308
Neuman,P . Konrad,Ed 102
Neumann,Av - Porat,Y 464
Neumann,U - Nattkaemper,S 449
Nevednichaia,R· Hannula,H 372
Neverov,V· Strohhaeker,Rao 135
Newman,Te - Tuttle,D 420
Nezad, H - Khader, S 148
Nickel, Ne . Riedel, C 311
Nie,X - Guo Qi 559
Nielsen,Bo - Okland,S 63
Nielsen,PH - Nevednichy,V 415
Nielsen,PH - Rasmussen,Kar 78
i
I
594
Index of games
Nielsen,PH - Tikkanen,H 67
Niemela,1 . SpasskY,B 93
Niewold,J - Degterev,P 197
Niewold,J - Ferro,S 310
Niewold,J - Fonseca Gonzalez,J 197
Niewold,J - Ottenweller,W 198
Niewold,J - Retamoza,F 198
Nikitin,A - Kupreichik, V 95
Nikitovic,N . Adensamer,G 141
Nikolaeva,A - Nebolsina,V 217
Nikolayevsky,A· Berenshtein 120
Nikolic,N - MoznY,M 545
Nikolov,Sas - Martinovic,Sa 187
Nilssen,J . Rasmussen,Per A 399
Nilsson,Ma - Bodin,S 495
Nilsson,Mats . Thornert,H 194
NN - Bogoljubov,E 456
Nogareda Estivil,A - Carol Querol,Sa 118
Nogly,C - Saptarshi,R 35
Nordahl,H - Westerinen,H 297
Norri,J . Kanep,M 552
Norri,J - Laine,H 297
Noteboom,D - Helling,K 73
Novosel,T· Kostrun,S 220
Novotelnov,N . Soloviev,Vl325
Nunez Portabales,M - Ayza Leon,D 110
Nupponen,T - Makela,Ra 86
Nyback,T - Vihmand,A 38, 100
o Pedersen,Stef - Sadorra,J 134
O'Hanlon,J - Euwe,M 435
O'Hanlon,J . Kostic,Bo 235
O'Kelly de Galway,A . Forintos,G 258
O'Kelly de GalwaY,A - Sturm,M 274
Obrezchikov,M· Chizhevskaja,J 482
Obukhov,A· Kurenkov,N 160
Obukhov,A - Trifonov,AI 160
Oei,H - Ellenbroek,T 251
Ogala,K· Byggmastar,L 357
OIl,L - Hvenekilde,J 364
Olsson,Linu - Westerinen,H 255
Onat,1 - Schwab,P 100
Onate,A - Palao,M 506
Onstad,P - Panuzzo,J 227
Opocensky,K - Pelikan,G 59
Ortega,Fr - Tolkacz,K 507
Osipov - Zhuravlev 512
Ostenstad,B - Hartung Nielsen,J 352
Ostenstad,B - Hoen,R 230
Ottenweller,W· Borisovs,L 161
Oud,Nic . Baumgartner,H 140
Ovod,E . Shurygin,S 112
p
Paalman,H - Snuverink,Joc 85
Palliser,R· Bonafont,P 410
Palme,R - Schuster,Th 379
Paluch,Lad . Kmit,J 365
Panos,J - Chetverik,M 498
Pantic,1 . Vasovski,N 136
Panuzzo,J - Khu,R 464
Panzalovic,S • Mozny,M 153
Papin,V - Popov,lv 91
Papp . Chetverik,M 216
Pappier,C . Biava,M 279
Parker,Jon - Pert,N 40
Pasztor,F . Schmikli,L 281
Pataki,G - Serdarevic,M 332
Patton,T - Dutiel,T 397
Pavlidis,Ana - Nabaty,T 66
Pavlovic,Milu - Dakic,D 517
Pavlovic, Ran· Bontempi, P 185
Pedersen,Bja - Rewitz,P 286
Pedersen,Bo - Rojahn,E 435
Pedersen,Da· Bromann,T 496
Pedersen,Da - Sobjerg,E 505
Peeters,T . Van Leeuwen,J 438
Peev, P - Ivanovich, 5 394
Peev,P . Pantaleev,D 545
Pekarek,A - MoznY,M 153
Pelikan,Jo - Tomovic, V 399
Peralta,Fe - Amura,C 30
Peralta, Fe - Perez Candelario,Man 35
Peredy,F - Lyell,Ma 531
Perkins· Lamford,P 212
Pert,N - Rogers,Jo 55
Perz,J - Lesot,J 554
Pesorda, I . Reschun,S 250
Peters,Sh . Paulshus,A 282
Petersen,Te - Simonsen,O 198
Peterson,Andrej . Kupreichik, V 357
Petkov, Vl - Chatalbashev, B 59

Petkov, Vl - Nikolov,Sas 148
Petrosian,Tigran V - Mukhitdinov,M 527
Petrosian,Tigran V - Porreca,G 111
Petrovic - 'Silicon' 497
Pevny,M - Rakovsky,Ad 154
Pfaff, V - Kleinschroth,R 283
Pfaue - Dal 240
Phanstiel,J - MurphY,R 416
Piceu,T - Henris,L 150
Pichler,P - Sommer,So 250
Piesina,G - Reprintsev,A 320
Pillsbury,H - BrodY,M 411
Pillsbury,H - Mieses,J 107, 547
Pink,F - Leisebein,P 211
Pinol Fulgoni,F - Raetsky,A 148
Piot,O - Adda,O 507
Pirc, Vasj - Kostic,Bo 238
Piscicelli,D - Damiano,M 230
Piskov, Y - Jakovljevic,M 214
Piskov,Y - MoznY,M 152
Pixton,A - Kaufman,R 260
Piza Cortizo,D - Fernandez,M 339
Planas,Ju - Crockoff 287
Plaskett,J - Rewitz,P 240
Plaskett,J - Trent,L 133
Plischki,S - Hrtanek,J 105
Plosila,J - Sirunen,J 453
Poblete, L - Mongle,J 397
Podolchenko,E - Rakitskij,D 218
PodolnY,J - Mikenas,V 329
Pogorelov,R - Lyell,Ma 132
Pohl, W - Schwarz, Wi 449
Poklitar, V - Duskuzhanov, D 268
Pokorny,P - Novotny, Vi 39
Pokorny,T - Mozny, M 196
Polak,T - Neubauer,Ma 465
Polgar,Z - Heinonen,J 332
Polgar,Z - Nakamura,Hik 169
Polishchuk,O - Rzecki,A 125
PolugaevskY,L - Vasiukov,E 307
Pomar Salamanca, A - Medina
Garcia,A 531
Pomes Marcet,J - Fluvia Poyatos,
Jor 143
Popov,Val - Potapov,Pav 25
Popovics,A - Nadasi,La 512
Porat,1 - Brustkern,J 133
Index of games
Portilho,G - Knol,E 228
Portisch, F - Chetverik,M 230
Portisch,L - Forintos,G 93
Posazhennikov,A - Richmond,P 158
Post,Eh - Spielmann,Ru 435
Postny, E - Abbasov, F 157
PostnY,E - Schneider,Dm 275
Potapov,Alexa - Kostopoulos,E 359
Potapov,Alexa - Svoboda, V 36
Potts,K - Munchak,N 554
Poulenard,R - RaetskY,A 403
Poulton,J - Spice,A 206
Praszak,M - MoznY,M 530
Praveen Kumar,C - Saptarshi,R 136
Preinfalk,A· Kostic,Bo 242
Prohaszka,P - Biro,S 168
Provoost,S . Van der Pluijm,R 354
Pruun,Ri - Keres,P 498
Pudovkin,D - Bratkovskiy,D 106
Purnama,T - Novikov,St 197
Puroila,S - Vujic,M 480
Pushkov,N· Poddubnyi,V 60
Q Riordan,C - Sagalchik,G 451
Quiniou,J - Guidoni,M 226
Quiroga,F - Perez Pietronave,C 215
R Roblek, E - Angelov, D 441
Rabar,B - Smederevac,P 238
Rabinovich,1 - Tartakower,S 289
Rabitzsch ,M - Petzenhauser, I 561
Rachela,M - Balogh,Em 83
Radashkovich, I . Kupreichik, V 364
Rades,Al - Haag,Gu 246
Radulescu,Mih - Ivanovich,A 437
Radzikowska,K - Prokopovic,O 287
Ragnarsson,J - Grigorianas,G 486
Ragozin,V· Krylenko,N 464
Rajesh, V - Palit,S 306
Rajkovic,Du - Muse,M 291
Rallsjo,A - Trybom,M 105
Ramella,F - Panic,Nikola 477
Ramlow,M - Chetverik,M 98
Rapport,R - Staberhofer,R 268
Rat,D - Chetverik,M 181
Rauanheimo,M - Mertanen,Ja 543
Reca,D - Tartakower,S 297
Reed,Jo - Taylor,Robert K 524
Reimer,L - Bobber,J 390
Reinemer,F - Schmidt,Oli 110
Reiner,S - Molnar,Be 153
Reiss, T - Borsavolgyi,T 307
Rej, T - Brandenburg, D 135
Rellstab,Ludwig Sr - Leonhardt,P 289
Remizov,A - Babikov,1 147
Remlinger,L - Rotenberg,M 211
Rendon,R - Molina,Gil 558
Repasi,Z jr . Gyurkovics,M 175
Rethali - Krenosz 258
Reti, R - Tartakower, S 487
Reyes,Alb . Junaidi, B 158
Rezende,G - Carvalho,Gu 39
Riazantsev,A . Kurenkov, N 156
Riazantsev,A - Novikov,St 164
Richardson,Joh - Mortensen,E 394
Riepe,B . Leisebein,P 215
Riessenbeck,J - Matula,E 297
Rietveld,D· Staal,P 440
Rinaldi,C . Biava,M 279
Riofrio,M - Metge,K 287
Risch· Reprintsev,A 342
Risch,F - Graupner,T 441
Roberto,J . Alberto Filho,C 126
Rodriguez,Jorge - Abreu Suarez,1 107
Rodriguez Vignote,J . Salgado
Lopez,O 104
Rodshtein,M· Kotliar,Ar 140
Roeder,M - Hubert,Ral 345
Roelli,C - Schulz,Stefanie 563
Roglin,U - Edelmann,W 254
Rogosaroff,1 - Sonnet,Jean-P 257
Ronczkowski,M - Ivanov,Ana 397
Rooms,T - Clews,B 484
Roschupkin,V . Vdovichenko,V 196
Rosenkilde,A . Hvenekilde,J 332
Rosso,M - Busson,B 263
Rost,M - Dravnieks,O 110
Rotshtein,E - Reprintsev,A 339
Rouzaud,P - Cehajic,M 297
Royers,D - Harms,J 494
Ruban,A - Reprintsev,A 342
Rubinetti,J . Mendez,Er 505
595

Rubinstein,Sa - Henris,L 512
Rustemov,A· Koziak,V 514
Rytkonen,J - Curran,A 561
S Scarella,E - Sagalchik,G 276
Sacconi,A - Monticelli,M 446
Sadaba Rodriguez,l - Parrefio
Cueto,A 332
Sadler,M - Ludden,G 301
Sadovich - Fedyashin 291
Sadowski,Ma - Leisebein,P 259
Sadowski,Ma - McDonald,Gr 295
Saeed,1 . Handoko,E 543
Saemisch,F - Becker 440
Saemisch,F - MaroczY,G 334
Saemisch,F - Medina Garcia,A 235
Saemisch,F - Rathai,V 334
Saemisch, F . Richter, Ku 445
Saffern - McCormick 322
Sagalchik,G - Reprintsev,A 126
Sakaev,K - NabatY,T 456
Sakai, K - Caridi, N 448
Sakai,K - Choroba,V 82
Saleh,Sal - Chetverik,M 118
Salus,S - Andrieu,P 486
Salvioli,C - Cavallotti,M 533
Salwe,G - Spielmann,Ru 428
Sanchez Cuchillo,A - Clari
Mascarell,J 308
Sands,D - Walton,Al 30
Santos,Antonio P - Guerra,Vic 120
Santos,Antonio P - Rodrigues,Nu 465
Santos,Dan - Gonzalez,J 532
Santos,L - Sorensen,H 243
Sanz Lazaro,A - Velasco Valentin,L 268
Sapi ,L - Besztercsenyi,T 484
Saralegui,M· Carvalho,Gu 156
Sargissian,G - Slobodjan,R 36
Sarkar,J - Nikolayev, I 35
Sarno,S - Chen,Haw 364
Sathya,Pri - Ipatov,A 416
SauceY,Mic - Labarthe,A 145
Saul,T· Necula,1 138
Saulyte,G - Svensson,Hann 230
Savchenko,S - Mallassagne,F 343
Savchenko,S - Moroz,Alex 342
Savina,A - Lomako,A 138
596
Index of games
Savina,A - Shevchenko,Y 551
Savoglou,N - Stoumbos,K 126
Sbarra,M - Marchio,E 64
Scammon,C - Raven,S 529
Scekic,M - Dena,B 272
Schacht,H - Adrian,C 368
Schaedlich,D - Tain 286
Schaedlich,H - Bondick,K 363
Schafer,E - Gessaga,E 477
Schamberger,A - Riedl,Max 290
Scheffer,E - Hiemstra,J 527
Scheffner,A - Goeldenboog,J 221
Scheiblmaier, R . Babinetz, R 228
Schepers,H - Schlemmer,H 344
Schiendorfer,E - Herath,N 231
Schiller, G - Erbe, H 86
Schipkov,B - Meszaros,Gyu 217
Schiwarth,N - Lazareva,V 480
Schlechter,C - Mieses,J 353
Schlechter,C - Reggio,A 74
Schleifer,Mi - Basanta,G 281
Schloegl,D· Lo Conte, V 164
Schmidt,Nie - Jea,A 554
Schmiel,G - Schwab,S 416
Schneider,Ud - Chetverik,M 509
Schneider,Uw - Goldt,R 223
Schneider Zinner, H . Wilke, W 160
Schneiders,A - Dintheer,W 378
Schnoewitz,B - Peinador,D 533
Schnoewitz,B . Romero,Ag 542
Scholz - Schlemmer,H 344
Schone,C . Diaz Huizar,A 112
Schorra, H - Zaitsev,Mikhail V 172
Schrader,Edm . Bellec,J 416
Schrank,Mar - Liebs,H 291
Schrank,Mar - Neumeyer,H 263
Schreiber,Ku . Schlemmer,H 345
Schuil,J - Haast,M 49
Schultz,An - Michailow,S 309
Schumacher,G - Vreugdenhil,F 215
Schut,T - Nieuweboer,M 224
Schuurman,P - Piceu,T 218
Schwarz, Fra - Schmidt, Hara 218
Scoatarin,J - Garcia,Jea 496
Seiler,Jo - Dannenberger,A 438
Seiler,Jue - Loeffler,M 450
Semkov, S - Panbukchian, V 427
Senchovici - lanovici 469
Senoner, P - Mittermeier, P 483
Seoev,R - Mikenas,V 360
Serebrisky,A - Khavin,A 364
Seres,L - Chetverik,M 403
Sergejev, R - Rutu 354
Serralta,M - Havelka,G 228
Seymour,T - HanleY,Cr 413
Shabalov,A - Sagalchik,G 273
Shadrin - Reprintsev,A 342
Shearer,H - Shearer,C 506
Shekhtman,E - Solntsev,Y 448
Sheldon,R - Sedgwick,D 450
Shemeakin,A - Reprintsev,A 255
Shepherd,M - Sedgwick,D 207
Shestakov,S - Sorensen,Ar 240
Shikhirev,L· Reprintsev,A 343
Shinkevich,V - Barsky,V 482
Shipov,A . Shatskes,B 361
Shishkin,Va - Kislinsky,A 224
Shkliarevsky - Reprintsev,A 108
Shoosmith,H . Van Vliet,L 273
Showalter,J - Cohn, W 117
Showalter,J - Wolf,Heinr 554
Shtyrenkov, V - Chetverik,M 86
Shumiakina,T· RaetskY,A 543
Sidenko,A - Efendiyev,E 273
Sidorov,An - Zablotsky,S 123
Sieciechowicz,M - Barski, R 35
Silakov - Khavin,A 350
Simagin,V - Gereben,E 329
Simantsev,M - Chetverik,M 41
Simchen,L - Schwarz,W 56
Simonson,A - OpocenskY,K 64
Simunic,N . Sunara,T 554
Siomos,N - Katsouris,G 100
Sirletti,S - Sommer,So 299
Sitter,R - Rosenfeld,Her 378
Siviero,G - Nicodemo,M 378
Sjoberg,Ma - Bodin,S 386
Skare,G - Vujic,M 150
Skodvin,E - Hammer,J 172
Skorpik,M - Chetverik,M 212
Skorpik,M - SmutnY,J 306
Slisser,T - Smederevac,P 240
Smedemark,H - Rewitz,P 512

Smirnov,Arte - Pankov,Ger 172
Smit,Di - Balogh,Ja 164
Smyslov, V - Smederevac, P 240
Sobrino Garcia,R - Fernandez Perez,R 221 Strastil - Gensbaur, V 390
Soininen - Svensson 435
Sokolov,lv - Morozevich,A 46
SokolskY,A - Simagin,V 363
Solokhina - Borisenko,G 357
Solozhenkin,E - Bhakti,K 306
Sommer,Ja - Leisebein,P 209
Sommer, So - Meissner, Cla 559
Somogyi,1 - Kaposztas,M 526
Sorakunnas,O - Hakanen,V 527
Sorin,A - MoznY,M 181
Sorm,D - Wahedi,A 240
Sorokin,M - Cunha,E 274
Sorsa,M - Vaisanen,K 465
Sosa Macho,J - De Oliveira,P 286
Sosulin,E - Krupoder,S 229
Spacek,P - Mozny,M 154
Spassky,B - BeliavskY,A 529
SpasskY,B· Forintos,G 351
SpasskY,B - Lutikov,A 524
SpasskY,B - Mikenas,V 528
Spassov,L - Gaulin,B 100
Spiegel,W - Wuppinger,M 248
Spielberger - Wysowski,S 452
Spielmann,Ru - Kostic,Bo 237
Spiric, I - Petrovic,Mil 276
Spitaler,J . Fantini,M 235
Srinivasan,J - Leisebein,P 269
Srokowski,J - Balduan,M 261
Stahlberg,G - Longobuco,J 241
Staldi,C - Anglares,E 274
Starke,Re - Leisebein,P 136
Stathopoulos,1 - Goumas,Ge 22
Stathopoulos,1 - ShpakovskY,K 207
Steiner,B - Foldes,G 102
Steiner,Her - Woliston,P 263
Stephan,V - Chretien,A 249
Stephan,V - Doncea,V 160
Sterk,K - Merenyi,L 110
Stern,R - Rabiega,R 499
Sterngold,S - Oshana,D 350
Stiegmeier,F - Jesus Filho,J 471
Stocek,J - Szoen,D 527
Stoelbinder,W - De Nooij,C 448
Index of games
Stojanovic,Mih - Tadic,B 35
Storch,Dome - Huemmecke,S 282
Storkebaum,K - Mehler,G 552
Strating,H . Turin,J 248
Strumnik,A - Reprintsev,A 359
Sturm,M - Young 452
Sturt,R - Bae,To 69
Suchin,D - Ernst,Math 94
Suetin ,A - Mosionzhik, I 85
Sumets,A - Kabanov,N 172
Sundararajan,K - Afifi,As 547
Suri,H - RaetskY,A 281
Suurendonk,P - Knoek,J 274
Suvrajit,S - luldachev,S 89
Svendsen,Th - Dravnieks,O 207
Swapnil,SD - Thejkumar,MS 82
Swartz,J - Jackson,Jo 544
Sykula,A - Koelbach,R 292
Szabo,Ben - Lyell,Ma 496
Szabo,L - Krenosz, 425
Szeberenyi,A - Biro,S 411
Szeberenyi,A - Farago,S 372
Szeberenyi,A - Meszaros,An 333
Szilagyi,P - Forintos,G 524
Szmetan,R - Leow Leslie M 200
Szmidt,P . Wodzynski,Mic 125
Szwier,E - Zimolzak,P 89
T Trenner,R - Szoen,D 519
Taimanov,M· Mikenas,V 63
Tal,M - Springall,J 525
Tania,S - luldachev,S 242
Tarakanov,M . Shavliuk 496
Taras,lu - Ardelean,G 91
Tarrasch,S - Caro,H 522
Tarrasch,S - Tartakower,S 487
Tataev,M - Krasenkow,M 269
Taylor - Mengarini,A 332
Teichmann,Ri - Mieses,J 436
Teipelke,H - Fiori,B 342
Teipelke,H - Lach,B 236
Ten Wolde,B - Burton,R 63
Ten Wolde,B - Frederiksen,Je 506
Terekhov,A - Wichmann,Da 526
Teschner,R - Wolf,Heinr 444
Tessedik,K - Burghardt,M 416
Thivel, R - Philipp 363
Thomas,Mi - Kish,J 80
Thorsteins,K - Hvenekilde,J 334
Thystrup,P - Keith,D 381
Tikkanen,H • NabatY,T 453
Timar,Z - Chetverik,M 216
Timoscenko,G - Babinetz,R 231
Titze,L - Fricke,D 180
Tiviakov,S - Brenninkmeijer,J 262
Tiviakov,S - Ligterink,G 188
Tjiam,D . Bontempi,P 79
Tobias,G - Krajnak,M 563
Tolush,A - Horn,D 363
Topalidis,K . Mihailidis,A 483
Topalov,V - Morozevich,A 21
Topuz,S . Hinrichs,J 283
Torman,E - Finegold,B 208
Torok,Jo - Chetverik,M 449
Torsteinsson,J - Petursson,S 274
Tot,B - Petrovic 41
Toth,Bel . Balogh,Ja 104, 422
Toth,Li - Van den Heever,D 145
Toth,Pal - Vargyas,Z 563
Tourneur,J - Kirszenberg,M 309
Touzane,O • Honfi,Karoly 404
Trapl,J - Mista,L 165
Tratar,M - Lyell,Ma 33
Traube,H - Hartlaub,C 478
Tregubov,P - Kasimdzhanov,R 43
Trumpf,W - RaetskY,A 283
TruskavetskY,A· Kovalenko,1 284
Tsiganova,M - Guilbert,Jea 221
Tudor, V - Vasile,Co 269
Tuominen,R· Kosonen,E 232
Turner,Ja - Iglesias,D 545
Turov,M - Chebotarev,O 151
Turov,M - luldachev,S 244
Tutov,V - Andruet,G 398
Tvarusko,L - Horvath,F 287
U
Ugoluk, V - Pirrot,D 524
Uhlmann,W - Breustedt,W 373
UjtelkY,M - Puc,S 108
Ulibin,M - Furhoff,J 521
Ulibin,M - Pettersson,An 276
597
--------------------------------------------------""'l
Unuk,L - Fantini,M 193
Urcullu,A - Uifelean,A 426
V Voinov,A . Patsuk, E 287
Vafin,A - Sadykov,Ra 218
Vainius, V - Uogele,A 545
Van Boltaringen,E - Bernard,Ja 536
Van De Hurk,A - Schoeber, P 229
Van Dusen,E . Dillon,R 445
Van Espen,E . Wilms,W 107
Van Haastert,E . Privitera,F 399
Van Hecke,E . Pauwels,R 174
Van Heirzeele,D . Britschgi Zwimpfer,M Von Herman,U . Krasenkow,M 49
509
Van Heirzeele,D . Piceu,T 225
Van Hoolandt,P . Henris,L 25
Van Ketel,R . Aranovitch,Em 411
Van Vliet,L· Cohn,W 127
Van WelY,L . Morozevich,A 172
Van WelY,L - Morozevich,A 220
Van der Marel,B . Clemens,Adrian H 321 Wachinger,G . Babinetz,R 269
Van der Werf,M - Van Hoofstat,T 249
Van der Wiel,J - Ligterink,G 61
Van der Wiel,J - Tiviakov,S 312
Vanderstricht,G . Jossien,R 321
Vanderstricht,G - Vandevoort,P 420
Vareille,F· Goldsztejn,Gi 44
Varga· Balogh,Ja 454
Varga,Pe . Meszaros,Gyu 218
Vasilchenko,O - Biro,S 106
Vasile,Co· Stefanescu,S 259
Vasiliev,R . Gusev,Vladimir A 520
Vasiliev,Vladimir P . Tishin,P 495
Vasiukov,E . Gusev,Niko 514
Veech,J . Vergilesov,A 61
Vela· Cohn 482
Vera Gonzalez Quevedo,R . Bauer, Werner,Di - Czebe,A 163
Christi 74
Verdier,P· Spitz,P 151
Verlinden,M· Beutel,H 95
Vernooy,D - De Ruyter,W 533
Vesely,Mi . Pospisil, Vl 88
Vidit,S . Thejkumar,MS 414
Vidmar,M· Kostic,Bo 237
Vigneron,M . Wagner,Br 252
Viner,P - Dintheer, W 385
Vitiugov,N - Kasimdzhanov,R 167
598
Index of games
Vladimirov . Arseniev, V 207
Vogel,Joe· Grewenig,R 80
Vogel,Ro - Finegold,B 211
Voinov,H - Kostic,Bo 553
Volak,M . Sladek,Vl 146
Volcinschi,S . Grigore,Ge 125
Volk,Se . Artemov,N 514
Volodin,Alex· Couso,L 138
Volzhin,A· Rewitz,P 74
Von Hennig,H . Leonhardt,P 284
Von Herman,B . Mirnik,B 298
Vorobiev,A· Herzog,Kl 160
Vorobiev,K· Skuratovich,Y 347
Vorobiov,E . Van der Raaf,E 21
Vuji,A • Metge,K 552
Vukobrat, D . Kostic, Vl 477
W YermolinskY,A - Reprintsev,A 294
Wade,R· Perez Perez,F 240
Wagner,Ch - Tikkanen,H 177
Wallinger,M . Jaschke 95
Walter,S· Perez Mitjans,O 59
Walter,W· Royset,J 464
Walther, Re . Muhr,J 325
Ward,C - Pert,R 272
Wegner,Ha . Pflantz,M 90
Wehr,D· Schirmer,M 216
Wein,W· Seyb,H 470
Weinmann Musset,M . Lotzwick,H 100
Weinstein - Lapiken,P 283
Weiss,Da· Gelfenboim,J 468
Weiss,Mark . Regnat,M 332
Wemmers,X . Woudt,E 344
Weschke,W· Kahn,Man 497
Wiedenkeller,M . Engqvist,T 64
Wikstroem,B· Eriksson,B 141
Wilde,Mar· Vatter,H 318
Wiley, T . Rudolf,An 174
Williams,Simon K • Ashton,A 526
Williams,Simon K • Yeo,M 515
Willighagen,G . Flohr,R 247
Wischemirskis . Mikenas,V 465
Witke,T· Lach,B 269
Wittke,C . Donev,1 220
Wohlfahrt,H· Ellenbroek,T 268
Wong Kwok,M . Henris,L 286
Woodhams,M· West,G 440
Wright,Wi - Finegold,R 546
Wuest,M· Meyer,Ro 156
x
Xu Jun - Hi Hua 469
y
Yakhijev, T . Reprintsev,A 98
Yakovich, Yur . Vorotnikov, V 30
Yakovich, Yur . Lyell,Me 289
Yang,Dar . Gossell,T 180
Yang, Dar· Xiong,Jef 254
Yashin,R· Hasler,Ul473
Ye Naung Win Myint . Al Modiahki,M 227
Yermishin, V . Chetverik,M 562
Yezheliev,Y· Serikbaev,Y 416
Yrjola,J • Tahkavuori,T 392
Yudin,1 . Cherniuk,M 144
Z
Zabala Ordonez,A . Castillo Gallego,S 326
Zagoriansky, E . Panov, Va 307
Zagorovsky, V . Soloviev,Vl 282
Zaitsev,Vad - Shukan,A 253
Zaja,1 . Martinovic,Sa 172
Zakhartsov,V· Zablotsky,S 141
Zambo,Z . Cierny,L 120
Zamecnik,F· Pospisil,L 390
Zaudtke,F· Lutz,P 553
Zetthofer,G • Sadilek,M 88
Zhao Xue . Reprintsev,A 279
Zhou Haonan . Martchenko,A 144
Zhukhovitsky,S . Mantsinov,B 199
Zichichi,A· Kleinschroth,R 255
Zilberstein,V . Vasiukov,E 420
Zimmerman,Y - Chetverik,M 230
Zimmerman, Y . Kislinsky,A 259
Zittersteyn,G . Kroone,G 438
Zlochevskij,A· Hauke,C 382
Zoebisch,H . Kovacs,Ga 200
Zschoch,E· Leisebein,P 216
Zuehlke,B . Christensen,Niels 193
 A Almiron,A 558 Arnstam,K 428 Baltagis,G 254
Aagaard,J 207 Almond,R 144 Arseniev, V 207 Baltar Iglesias,D 228
Aangeenbrug,H 255 Aloma Vidal,R 165 Artemov,N 514 Banic,S 443
Aban,E 464 Alonso 330 Asgeirsson,H 199, 234, 289 Banikas,H 38
Abbasov,F 51, 157, 196, 227 Alvarez Marquez,J 147 Ashton,A 524, 526 Baranov,J 42, 87
Abbott,P 126 Amado,Cl547 Ashwin,J 33 Baratosi,D 168
Abellan Ruiz,M 238 Amaraddio,A 443 Astrom,R 116 Barbeau,S 469
Abraham,lng 221 Amarsson,H 228 Atababayev,K 354 Barberi,A 193
Abreu Suarez,1 107 Amigues,E 454 Atalik,E 412 Barbora,J 382
Abu Sufian,S 243 Amir,K 151 Atalik,S 110 Bareev,E 65, 498
Acher,M 43 Amstadt,A 88 Auerweck,R 221 Barendregt,J 361
Ackermann,Ha 143 Amura,C 30, 175 Augstei n, J 563 Barkatov 306
Adams,We 104,299,452, Anashkin, V 220 Aurbach,A 426 Barnstedt,D 40
452, 482, 551 Anastasian,A 196 Avdeeva,Vik 496 Barski,R 35
Adamson,G 100 Ancin,A 436 Avila Jimenez,J 47, 300 Barsky, V 62, 482
Adda,0507 Anders,H 215 Avrukh,B 39 Barsov,A 199, 246
Adensamer,G 141 Andersen,Fr 123 Ayza Leon,D 110 Barton, R A 256
Adhiban,B 140 Andersen,Ran 232 Azmaiparashvili,Z 482 Barua,D 90
Adnani,M 199, 411 Andre,K 127 Basanta,G 281
Adrian,C 368 Andrejkin,D 222 B Batik,F 122
Afifi,As 334, 546, 547 Andrews,T 123 Babaev,Ta 563 Baudin,F 232
Agergaard,L 235 Andriasian,Z 145 Babarczy,P 352 Baudoin,J 207
Agirretxe San Sebastian,J 320 Andriessen,W 236 Babikov,I 122, 147, 175, 224 Bauer,Christi 74, 409
Agrest,E 54, 61 Andrieu,P 486 Babinetz,R 228, 231, 269 Bauer,R 450
Agrest,ln 321 Andruet,G 215, 398 Babu,N 498 Bauer, We 326
Aguero Jimenez,L 561 Angelov,D 441 Babula,V 38,56, 153 Bauk,S 254
Aguilar, D 486 Anglares,E 274 Bacrot, E 321, 495 Baumgartner,H 140, 165
Agustoni,M 482 Anhalt,A 224 Bacso,G 148 Baur,H 346
Ahmed,Fay 127 Antic,De 154, 199 Bademian,J 464 Bausch,J 241
Ahues,C 495 Antoniewski, R 409 Bae,To 69 Bayer,Erw 215
Aird,1 334 Antonsen,M 397 Bagaturov,G 227 Bazon, V 291
Akesson,R 153, 174 Aparicio Lecha,F 484 Baginskaite,C 294 Beacon,R 251
Akobian, V 132, 355 Appeldorn,D 40 Bai,J 334 Becker 440
Al Kuwari,Fay 284 Aranovitch,Em 411 Baier,G 227 Becker,Hans P 273
Al Modiahki,M 227 Arata,R 124 Baier,Re 274 Becker,Joe 354
Alapin,S 104, 450 Arbinger, R 107, 272 Balachander, E 154 Behle,B 283
Alber,H 71, 261 Ardelean, G 91 Balasubramaniun,Ramn 480 Beil,Z 320
Alberto Filho,C 126 Arguinariz,E 279 Balazs,Andras 472 Beinoraite, V 145
Albin,A 112, 396 Arias Boo,G, 29, 165 Balduan,M 90, 224, 246, 261, Bekker Jensen,S 144
Alekhine,A 94, 191 Arizmendi Martinez,J 443 283 Belanoff, S 38
Aleksandrov,Aleksa 499 Arkell,K 103, 178 Ballai,Z 206 Belcher, E 480
Aleksandrov,Alekse 127, 243, Arlandi, E 179 Ballas, K 354 Beldyugin,A 553
506 Armbruster,A 143 Ballo,H 222 BeliavskY,A 198, 529
Alekseev,An 101 Armstrong,A 392 Balogh,Em 83, 361 Belis,R 331
Alifirov,A 307 Armstrong,D 494 Balogh,Ja 104, 164, 422, Belistri,F 372
Alliot,K 143 Arnason, T 55 425, 435, 436, 454, 531 Bellardi,M 450
Almeida Saenz,A 107 Arnaudov,P 89 Balshan,A 289 Bellec,J 416

599
r------------------------------------------------_...
Index of players

Bellmann,He 240 Blumin,B 104 Bracjunova, V 214 Burkov,D 100

Bellon Lopez,Ju 110, 356 Bobber,J 390, 468 Braeu,E 217 Burn,A 117, 143,211,237,
Benes,Mir 307 Bodin,S 386, 495 Braeuning, R 233 334, 530
Benesch, H 382 Bodi raga, P 480 Bragin,A 234 Burnett,W 480
Benitah, Y 401 Bodnar,O 486 Brandenburg,D 116, 135 Burtman,S 276
Benjamin,Ja 230 Bodrogi,L 238 Brandt 533 Burton,R 63
Benkirane,A 66 Boecker,H 88 Brandt, Ch 225, 254 Busch 435
Benoit, S 401 Boekdrukker,N 437 BratkovskiY,D 106 Busson,B 263
Bentivegna,F 92 Boehm,J 162 Brauchart, E 95 Bustos,S 558
Benz,An 240 Bogdanovski, V 498 Braun,Christi 46 Buturin, V 299
Berasasin 520 Bogoljubov,E 110, 456 Braunton, R 292 Buzila,C 251
Berecz,G 214 Bolding, K 425 Brede,Fa 156 Byggmastar,L 357
Berenshtein 120 Bollard, M 120 Brendel,O 132 Bykhovsky,Av 199
Berg,E 38 Bonade,M 133 Brenninkmeijer,J 119, 262, Byrne,R 234
Berger,Joh 428, 541 Bonafont, P 410 392
Bergez,L 80, 458 Bondarevsky, I 328 Breustedt,W 373 C
Bernard,Christo 392 Bondick, K 363 Brigati,A 196 Caceres Vasquez,S 350
Bernard, Ja 536 Boness, A 212 Briggeman, P 257 Cadena Maytorena, E 544
Bernstein,O 433, 438 Bonham,R 531 Brilla Banfalvi,S 75 Calinescu,G 363
Bertamini,A 101 Bonte,An 499 Brito Loeza,C 209 Calle Soto,M 98
Bertrem,S 116, 272 Bontempi,P 35, 39, 79, 133, Britschgi Zwimpfer,M 509 Calton,B 263
Besztercsenyi,T 484 185, 458, 458, 553 Brix,G 64 Camarena Gimenez,R 149
Bets,A 47 Borges da Silva,R 178 Brodowski,P 247 Camelin,G 21
Beutel,H 95 Borisenko,G 357, 471, 474 Brody,M 411 Canal Oliveras,Ju 347
Bhakti,K 306,318 Borisov,Ve 231 Bromann,T 496,498 Canal,E 250
Biag,1475 Borisovs,L 161 Brondum,E 143 Cano,A 500
Biava,M 279, 279, 279, 279, Borosova,Z 145, 165 Browne,W 320 Cantero,R 372
279,279 Borovikov, Vl 347 Bruckmayr,F 164 Capablanca,Jos 426
Biermann,K 224 Borowicz, P 393 Brueckner, Jo 164 Cappon,J 284
Bilobrk,F 101 Borsavolgyi,T 307 Bruemmer,F 199 Capuano,E 156
Binder, Kl 230 Bortolin,B 292 Brumm,C 563 Carballo, R 372
Biriukov,O 63 Borzykin,1 199 Brunner,L 132 Cardilli,M 151
Birnbaum,D 382 Bosboom Lanchava,T 367 Brunner,N 42, 80, 125, 412, Carda Moreno,X 372
Biro,S 106, 108, 168, 310, Bosboom,M 107 454 Caridi,N 148, 448
363, 411 Bosch,Joac 106 Brustkern,J 33, 133, 156, Carlsen,Christian A 233
Bischoff, Diete 256 Bot,G 554 189, 194 Carlsen,Tor 227
Bischoff,K 307 Botsari,A 401 Bucan,Du 237 Carneiro,Ca 101
Bitan,B 112 Botterill, G 392 Budde,V 344 Carnic, D 308
Bjerke,S 64 Bouillot,S 551 Buenjer,C 79 Caro,H 522
Bjorkander, E 390 Bounya,M 21 Buerger, R 273 Carol Querol, Sa 118
Blagojevic,Dr 143 Bourdonnais,L 158 Bukal,V jr 103, 143, 149, 162 Carpentier,Je 355
Blagojevic,M 224 Bouton,C 521 Bukovinsky,M 546 Caruso,Au 229
Blankenberg,B 468, 547 Bouwmeester,H 288 Bulthaupt,F 254 Carvalho,Gu 39, 153, 156
Bliumberg, V 425 Bowen,A 440 Burg,T 101 Caspi,1 185, 195
Blokland,P 278 Bowersock,M 332 Burghardt,M 416 Castellano,Christo 154
Blosze,E 208 Boyarkov, V 509 Burke,F 286 Castellanos Bogalo,A 124
Blum,Ga 546 Bozicevic, I 224 Burke,John S 354 Castillo Gallego,S 326

600
 I

Index of players

Castillo Larenas,M 400 Cierny,L 120 Cotonnec,A 158, 284 De Boer,G 207
Castillo Ruiz,J 486 Cirabisi,F 263, 356, 379 Cotten,D 247 De Bruin,W 390
Castro Luaces,J 486 Cizmar,R 546, 559 Coulombier,S 420 De Claire 388
Cavallotti ,M 533 Clari Mascarell,J 308 Couso,L 138 De Jong,Jan 410
, Cazzaniga,W 251 Claverie,C 66, 233 Couspeyre, T 472 De La Rocha Prieto,R 229
Cebalo,M 61, 185 Cleemann,A 251, 468 CrawLeY,G 207 De Lima,Ca ALexandre 116
Cehajic,M 217,231,297,472 Clemens,Adrian H 321 Cristia,J 400 De Nooij,C 448
Cernousek,L 171 Cleran,A 554 Crockott 287 De Oliveira,P 286
Cervenka,J 360 Clery,N 117 Crouch,C 214 De Rooij,R 116
Chabanon,J 207 Clews,B 484 Cruz,Jon 161 De Ruyter, W 533
Chachibaia,D 470 Cmilyte, V 177, 193 Csiszar,C 149 De Sa Nobrega,A 346
Chadaev, N 494 Cobic, V 298 Csizmadia,Las 49, 259 De Smet,K 224
Chajes,a 332 Cockroft,J 208, 468 Csonka,At 71 De Sou:z.a, Ser 219
Chalupetzky, F 450 Cohn 482 Csulits,A 221 Deak,S 141
Chandler,C 206, 208, 231, 295 Cohn,Eri 554 Cuartas,Ja 124 Deglmann,L 44
Chapman,A 162 Cohn,W 117,127 Culbeaux, T 332 Degterev,P 197, 251
Chatalbashev,B 40, 49, 59, 358 Cohrs,Christo 232 Cunha,E 274 Del Gobbo,M 251
Chaumont,G 397 Colakic, T 282 Cuno,T 236 Del Rosario, Fri 484
Chauvet,V 145 Colin,V 278 Curione, F 326 DelaLande,T 363
Chebotarev,a 151 Coll,F 230 Curran,A 561 Delchev,A 494
Chemin,Ju 398 Collett,P 65 Czakon,J 49, 145 Delemarre, J 331
Chen,Haw 364 Collier 554 Czebe,A 103, 120, 163 Delgado Ramirez,N 98
Cher,M 208 Collier,M 553 Demian,E 212
Cherednichenko,S 50, 285 Collins,J 426 o Demuth,A 175
Cherniuk,M 144, 117 Colovic,A 415 Da Silva,AF 279 Dena,B 272
Chery,E 207 Colson,A 81 Daillet,E 324 Deneuville,C 292
Chetverik,M 41, 86, 89, 98, CaMP Ant 499 Dakic,D 517 Derieux,C 324
117, 117, 118, 120, 135, 135, CaMP Chess Tiger 499 Da1240 Deveraux,M 500
141, 141, 149, 154, 180, 181, CaMP Deep Fritz 169 Dal Borgo,A 116 Di Berardino, D 64
181,200,206,208,212,216, CaMP Ferret 347 Dal, I 536 Dias,Paulo 298
216,230,230,234,263,282, CaMP Francesca 0.68d 298 Daloz,J 326 Diaz Huizar,A 112
299, 300, 352, 354, 354, 364, caMP Fritz 10 168 Damen,a 64 Diaz IgLesias,J 310
400, 402, 403, 449, 478, 498, CaMP Tao 5 347 Damiano,M 230 Diaz Moron,A 300
506, 507, 509, 562 CaMP The Crazy Bishop 269 Damjanovic,Draga 298 Didner,C 551
Chibukhchian,A 499 CaMP Yace 0.23 169 a
Dancevski, 104 Dietz,H 554
Chigorin,M 396 caMP Zarkov 4.5L 269 Danielsen,Hen 145 Dieu,B 420
Chirila,1 310 Conde Pedroso,J 346 Daniuszewski,D 310, 497 Dillon,R 445
Chirpii,A 42 Conquest,S 43 Dannenberger,A 438 Dimitriadis,T 198
Chizhevskaja,J 482 Cook,G 212 Danner,G 246 Dimitrov,lv 316
Chizhikov, V 350 Cooksey, P 73 Dao Thien Hai 135, 154,284 Dimukhametov,A 187
Chojnacki,K 349 Coquemer,P 348 Dargan,P 410 Ding Liren 93
Choroba, V 82 Cordell, N 484 Dashibalov, E 289 Dinser,H 378
Choroszej,A 434 Cordero Leandro,J 297 Daurelle,H 42 Dintheer,W 378,385
Chretien,A 249 Corfield,J 392 Davis,Ja 484 Diogo,V 298
Chretien,Co 483 Cori Tello,D 98 De Andrade,Fr 559 Disconzi da Silva,R 46
Christensen, Niels 193 Cornette,M 172 De Barbieri, V 472 Dittmar, P 471
Chuprov,D 36 Cortlever, N 361 De Blecourt,S 50 Djoudi ,A 225

601
 Index of players

Djukic 263 Efendiyev,E 273 Farwig,M 297 Forintos,G 93, 258, 351, 524
Djuric,S 540 Ehrke,M 211 Feavyour,J 256 Formanek,Ed 325
Dmitruk, Vo 468 Ehrnrooth,J 237 Fedorko,A 212 Fragakos,A 286
Dobai,S 525 Eiber,M 526 Fedorova,An 103 Franco Ocampos,Z 495
I Dobrishman,L 286 Einarsson, Be 472 Fedorowicz,J 243 Frankle,J 251
Dobrov, V 239 Eingorn, V 88 Fedyashin 291 Frederiksen,Je 506
I
Docx,S 410 Eisinger,M 92 Feller, Se 494 Freeke,M 333
Dodge,R 563 Ekstroem,R 397 Fernandez Fernandez, Freeman,M 292
Dokutchaev,Alek 411 Ekstrom,F 268 Juan C 276 Freise,E 102
Dolezal,Ji 524 Elbilia,J 206 Fernandez Mayola,R 297 Fretel,D 554
Dominguez Marquez,C 124 Elfert,A 239 Fernandez Perez, R 221 Fricke,D 180
Doncea,V 160 Elieff,K 553 Fernandez Ruiz,Jo 279 Fridman,Da 36
Donev,1 220 Elizarov,D 222 Fernandez,M 339 Froehlich,Pa 306
Donner,J 332 Ellenbroek,T 251,255,256, Ferreira,Alex 33 Frohne,G 144
Donovan,Je 482 268, 498 Ferreira,K 243, 559 Frolik,M 507
Dorner,An 472 Elliot,S 507 Ferro,S 310 From,S 522
Draillard,J 483 Elsas,H 436 Ferron Garcia,C 125 Fruteau,S 199
Drasko,M 149 Emmerich,F 436 Feygin,M 174, 412 Fry,P 359
Dravnieks,O 110, 207 Engel,M 233, 233, 348, 348, Fick,R 285 Fuderer,A 100
Dreev,A 169, 174, 175 355 Fidalgo Fernandez,J 318 Fuhrmann,Da 59
Drozdovskij,Y 409,425 Engels,L 399, 466 Figura,At 228 Furhoff,J 208, 256, 285, 450,
Drzemicki,D 551 Engqvist,T 64, 116, 208 Filipe,P 282 521
Dubois,Jea 480 Enricci ,J 279 Fine,R 452 Furman,Bo 87
Dukhov,A 208 Epishin,V 135, 137, 152 Finegold,B 55, 126, 208, 208, Furman,SI 339
Dumitrache, D 191 Erbe,H 86 211,263,273,282,546 Fuster 425
Dunning,S 133 Erdelyi,St 242 Fiori,B 342 Fuzishawa,R 122
Duong Thanh Nha 494 Erdos,B 150 Fistek,D 161
Duras,0487, 558 Erdos,V 514 Flint,D 212 G
Dus ChotimirskY,F 104, 487 Eriksson,B 141, 164 Flohr,R 247 Gaal,Al85
Duskuzhanov,D 268 Ernazarov,N 348 Flumbort,A 263 Gacso,T 232
Dutiel,T 397 Ernst,Math 94 Fluvia Frigola,J 359 Gaehler,C 279
Dworakowska,J 262 Ernst,Mi 71 Fluvia Poyatos,Joa 409, 425, Gaertner,G 165
Dyachkov, S 116 Ernst,W 436 558 Gagarin,V 70
Dyckhoff,E 441 Esipovich,S 497 Fluvia Poyatos,Jor 135, 143, Gagic,N 263
Dzantiev,Z 256 Estevez Jacome,J 125 162, 409, 498 Gagunashvili,M 227
Dzevlan,M 450 Estremera Panos,S 135 Fodor 436 Gaier,W 446
Dzhavad Sade 399 Eulberg,D 519 Fodor, Is 200 Gajewski,G 443
Dzindzichashvili,R 355 Euwe,M 236,401,435 Fodor,Tamas jr 169, 189, Galarza Docampo,K 320
Dzulynski ,M 136 198, 411 Galianina Ryjanova,J 141, 352
Dzurenda, S 541 F Foisor,S 164 Galkine, G 261
Faldon,D 217,392,397 Foldes,G 102 Gallego Gonzalez,A 533
E Fantini ,M 193, 235 Foldi, I 154 Gallego Jimenez,V 125
Eastwood,M 292 Farago,1 62, 98, 103, 354, 498 Fonseca Gonzalez,J 197 Galli,Fabi 251
Eberhardt,O 246 Farago,S 44, 117, 372 Fontaine,R 107, 185 Galovic,S 541
Eberth,Z 122 Farkas,Ga 102 Fontanella,A 544 Gambini,P 225
Ecenarro Antonana,J 238 Farkas,Ric 88 Fontanet Llobera,J 544 Ganin,M 372
Edelmann,W 254 Farr,M 206 Fordan, T 153 Gappel,R 233

602
 Index of players

Gappel,R 348 Gofshtein,L 524 Grigorian,Me 545 Hakanen, V 428, 527

Gaprindashvili,V 472 Goganov,A 156 Grigorianas,G 486 Hall,Joh 505
Garcia 330 Goldberg,G 309 Grigoryan,M 178 Halprin 527
Garcia Gil,Ja 436 Goldin,A 80 Grimm,T 253 Halprin,A 117
Garcia Palermo,C 208 Goldsztejn,Gi 37, 44, 150 Grinza,A 516 Hamann,Svend 144
Garcia,Gild 309, 562 Goldt,R 223 Groenez,J 233 Hammer,J 172
Garcia,Jea 496 Golikov,D 126 Groenroos,M 44 Hammett,M 295
Garcia,N 279 Golod, V 109 Grondin,J 494 Handoko,E 373, 503, 543
Garkauskas,O 126 Golubovic,B 323 Gronroos,M 153 Hankel,D 243
Garzon,Y 363 Gomez,Dan 126 Grooten,H 361 Hanks,J 108
Gasic,B 239, 297 Gomez,John P 496 Gross,Stefa 526 HanleY,Cr 413
Gaulin,B 100 Gommers,J 193 Grotars,G 84 Hannula,H 372
Gavasheli,A 285 Gonshorovitz, I 354 Gruber,F 61 Hansen,Ca 165, 235
Gavrileteanu,L 282 Gonzales, Jay 496 Gruenfeld,E 437, 486 Hansen,Cu 191
Geenen,M 175 Gonzalez Castro, E 472 Grycel,K 255 Hansen,John 256
GeffroY,La 151 Gonzalez del Campo,D 484 Guara Neto,A 464 Happel,Hend 282
Geiger,H 436 Gonzalez Garcia,Jo 29 Guerra, Vic 120 Harari, Z 207, 288
Geisler, Re 208 Gonzalez Garrido,A 310 Guevara,F 378 Hargittai,S 435
Gelfand,B 29,31,99, 160 Gonzalez,Ed 180 Guichard, P 150 Harms,J 494
Gelfenboim,J 468 Gonzalez,G 231 Guidoni,M 225, 226 Hartenauer, F 221
Gelle,1 122 Gonzalez,J 532 Guilbert,Jea 221, 392 Hartl,AI 102
Geller, E 529 Gooding, Ian 282 Guner,Sat 285 Hartlaub,C 106, 478
Gelman,Geo 278 Goransson,B 95, 435 Guo Qi 559 Hartmann,Joh 472
Gensbaur,V 390 Gordon,A 299 Gupta,M 82 Hartung Nielsen,J 352
Georgadze,G 470 Gordon,S 38 Gurevich,Dm 190 Hasan,Al 161
Georgiev, Ki 35 GormallY,D 44 Gurevich,M 257 Hase, W 217
Gereben,E 329 Gorozhanin,M 228 Gurvich,A 428 Hasler,Ul 348, 473
Geresdi ,A 361 Gossell,T 180 Gusev,Niko 514 Hastik,S 286
Gerhardt,P 258 Goumas,Ge 22 Gusev,Vladimir A 520 Hauke,C 382
Germek,M 284 Gounder,S 136 Gustafsson,T 542 Haus,V 250, 279
Gervasio,R 411 Grabarczyk,M 72 Guthrie,D 147 Havelka,G 228
Gessaga,E 477 Grabliauskas,V 55 Gutow,A 254 Hawksworth,J 399
Getta,M 351 Grabuzova,T 44 Gutzelnig,F 361 Hawranke,D 351
Getz,A 551 Grachev,B 135 Guzman,Ca 268 Hebden,M 402
Gierlinger,A 222 Graczyk,D 287 Gveric,T 283 Heckmann,G 446
Gigerl,E 379 Graemer,G 232 Gyimesi,Z 494 Hector,J 74, 284
Gilbert,Ja 72 Graf,A1 90, 243, 416 Gyurkovics,M 175, 525 Hector, Pi 278
Girino,C 364 Grahn,Ju 232 Hedrera,M 85
Giulian,P 231,334,399 Grandelius,N 66 H Hegeler, F 180
Gladyszev,O 181 Granger,J 355 Haag,Gu 246, 250, 285 Heinatz,G 194
Glenne,B 61 Grasso,P 227, 291 Haast,M 49 Heinig,W 175,488
Gligoric,S 384 Graupner,T 441 Haba,Z 263 Heinonen,J 332
Glukhov,A 199, 228 Grekov,N 428 Habedank,D 252 Heinrich 92
Gnichtel,G 250 Grewenig,R 80 Hachmann,B 351 Heinrich,Gu 334
Gnusarev,Pe 135 Gries,V 155 Haeggloef, K 164 Helbig,M 60
Godat,T 38 Griffin,J 74 Hagen,Andr 299 Heller, R 306
Goeldenboog,J 221 Grigore,Ge 125, 172 Haines,W 263 Helling,K 73, 110, 470

603
 Index of players

Hellsten,J 344 Hope,M 332 Ikonnikov,Vy 191 Jaschke 95

Hendricks,M 126 Hopman,P 533 Ilincic,Z 530 Jasinski ,J 299
Hendriks,P 66 Horak,J 283 Ilivitzki,G 196 Jayakumar,A 309
Henneberke,F 180 Horn,D 363 Illescas Cordoba,M 425 Jea,A 554
,
Hennings,A 221 Hort, V 194, 239 Inkiov,V 120, 227, 272 Jedryczka,K 40, 187
I Henrich,T 72 Hort,W 41,230 lonescu, Con 292 Jegorovas, A 133
I
Henriksson,Ja 285 Horvath,C 402 Ipatov,A 416 Jehnichen,G 40
Henriques,Sofia S 214 Horvath,Dav 178 Ippolito,D 162, 247 Jelling,E 235
Henris,L 25, 81, 89, 150, Horvath,F 287 Isaksson, S449 Jendrossek, P 215
168, 199,207,211,247,248, Horvath,Jo 334 Iskusnyh,S 98 Jensen,N 379
286, 292, 422, 512 Horvath,Kar 49 luldachev,S 89, 242, 244 Jeremias,D 225
Hera,1 232, 269 Horvath, Peter 180, 354 Ivanchuk,V 138 Jesus Filho,J 471
Herath,N 231 Hough,R 275 Ivanisevic, I 72 Jewlal,D 553
Hermanowski,M 54 Houghteling,J 563 Ivanov 428 Jigjidsuren, P 332
Hernandez,Rom 332 Howell 231 Ivanov,Ana 397 Jimenez Zerquera,E 332
Hertel,J 149 Hrabusa,M 65, 458, 510 ivanov,J 147 Jimenez,Joaquin R 107, 290
Herzog,Kl 122, 160 Hricak, V 350 Ivanov,Mikhail M 255 Jiretorn,E 62, 253
Hestad,J 283 Hromadka,K 238 Ivanovic,Dragu 222 Johannessen,L 74
Heyland, W 207 Hrtanek,J 105 Ivanovich,A 437 Johansen,M 282
Hickl,N 448 Hrubant, I 199 Ivanovich, S394 Johansson,Ca 559
Hidalgo Duque,C 318 Hsu Li Yang 28, 248, 503 Ivanusa,Bo 308 Johansson,Ju 153
Hiemstra,J 527 Hubert,Ral 344, 345 Ivelinov,H 310 Johansson, Rob 412
Hildebrand 95 Hudaverdieva,A 215 Izeta Txabarri, F 338 Johner,P 487
Hilgert,W 254 Huebener,J 470 Izmestiev,A 106 Jojua,D 411
Hilse,W 106 Huebner,R 482 izoria,Z 172 Joksic,S 237, 243, 540
Hinrichs,J 283 Huemmecke,S 282 Izquierdo,D 274 Jonasson, S 95
Hinze,H 233 Hufendiek,E 144 Jonckheere,E 415
I, Hjorth,T 458 Hughes,Ty 168, 294 J Jonczyk,K 393
Hnydiuk,A 72 Humeau,C 28, 143, 316 Jackelen,T 292 Jones,Ho 123
Ho Yin Ping 103 Hummel,Di 230 Jackson,Jo 544 Jongsma,A 233
HO,Cheng Fai 467 Hummel,J 237 Jackson,O 125 Jorczik, J 44, 83
Hoang Thanh Trang 194, 253, Hummel,T 395 Jaffe,C 478 Jorgensen,Brian 494
310, 310 Husek,Z 559 Jain,R 445 Jorgensen,Mic 258
Hochstein,U 108 Huss,A 397 Jakab,A 172 Josephine,S 546
Hodges,A 111, 122 Huss,R 225 Jakobsen,P 235 Jossien,R 321,326,358,361
Hoen,R 230 Hutchings,S 436 Jakovljevic,M 214 Jovanovic,Ma 359
Hoerig,D 73 Hutin,E 358 Jakstaitis,V 221 Jovanovic, Zora 148
Hoffer,T 120 Huuskonen,V 514 Janecek,Jo 80 Juan Roldan,J 551
Hoffman,Alejandro 279 Hvenekilde,J 332, 334, 364, Janes,M 551 Judycki,W 220
Hohm,K 307 519 Janev,T 132 Juhasz,A 79
Hohner, K 395 I Janicek, R 484 Julia,E 87
Holland,D 126 lanovici 469 Janowski,D 94, 123, 123, Jumabayev,R 257
Holst,A 236, 425 lasoni,R 329 198, 218, 242, 433, 484, 532, Junaidi, B 158
Holwell,J 468 Iglesias,D 545 536 Jurisic,N 107
Holzapfel, D 211 Ignacz,M 150, 309 Jansen 289 Jurkiewicz, Kr 283
Honfi,Karoly 397, 404 Ignjatovic,M 533 Jaracz,P 233 Jurkovic,A 547
Honlinger,B 487 Ikeda,J 21 Jaroch,P 353 Jussupow,Al282

604
 ,
Index of players

K Kaufman,R 260 Kloska, R 553 Kostelnik,P 331

Kauft,M 235 Klugman,R 334 Kostic,Bo 234, 234, 235, 236,
Kabanov,N 172
Kachiani Gersinska,K 178 Kaunas,K 440 Kluxen,W 506 237, 237, 238, 238, 242, 284,
Kauppila,O 145 Kmit,J 365 390, 466, 553
Kachur,A 47
Kadas,G 153, 179, 238, 364 Kazhgaleyev,M 119, 147, 276 Knezevic,Milorad 365 Kostic, VI 477
Kadimova,I494 Kecskes,G 397 Knoek,J 274 Kostic,Vladimir G 148, 152
Keith,D 236, 381 Knol,E 228 Kostopoulos,E 89, 344, 359
Kagirov, R 297
Kagramanianz, V 444 Kekelidze,M 246 Knol,Wol237 Kostrun,5220
Kahe,R 347 Kekki,P 74, 306 Knuesli 472 Koszegi, L 263
Kahler,K 217 Kelfve,M 65 Kobylkin,E 155,218 Kotliar,Ar 140
Kahms,W 333 Kellner, Go 440 Kobylkin,E 40 Kotova,L 563
Kahn,E 400 Keosidi,K 141 Kocsis,Ja 479 Kotzian,E 543
Kahn,Man 497 Keres,P 498, 556 Koczo,K 216 Kovacs,Ga 169, 200
Kairbekov,R 135 Kerr,Dav 180 Koehler, Be 108 Kovacs,Gy 232, 325
Kaiyrbekov, R 137 Keryakes,M 122 Koelbach,R 110, 292 Kovalenko, I 284
Kakkanas,E 116 Khader,5 148 Koerholz,L 191 Kovalenko,Ni 283
Kalaitzoglou,P 198 KhamitskiY,5 101 Kofler,A 483 Kover,W 219,227
Kalinichev,A 156 Khavin,A 350, 364 Kogan,Ar 399 Kozak,Mi 162, 180, 309
Kallai,G 147 Khenkin,I72, 190, 191,218 Koifman, I 308 Koziak, V 50, 140, 514
Kaminsky,O 88 Khodos,G 85 Kolb,T 253 Kozlov,K 117
Kamrukov,A 452 Kholopov,A 531 Kolbe 533 Kozlov,Vladimir N 472
Kan,ll325 Khoroshev, N 34 Kolendo,T 283 Kozlovskaya,V 306
Kanatoff,J 514 Khruschiov,A 175, 519 Kolev,At 125 Kozlowski,To 320
Kanep,M 116, 156, 191, 552 Khu,R 464 Kolomytchenko, I 140 Kracht,J 251
Kangas,L 145 Khudiakov,5307 Koltanowski,G 103 Krahe,F 233
Kantorik,M 164 Khusnutdinov,R 145, 519 Komarov,Di 546 Krajewicz,P 353
Kantsler, B 140 Kieninger,G 466 Kondratiev, P 297 Krajnak,M 563
Kaposztas,M 526 Kileng,B 373 Kondrin,A 117 Krammer,W 209
Kappler,J 480 Kincs,1 506 Konnov,O 199 Krantz,C 33
Kapstan,A 487 Kindl,P 241 Konrad,Ed 102, 545 Kranz,Ar 240
King,No 523 Konstantinov,Ma 136 Krasenkow,M 49, 56, 169, 269
Karadeniz,E 507
Karasev, V 309 Kirszenberg,M 185, 309 Koopmans,P 268 Kratochvil,Milo 80
Karayannis,A 507 Kish,J 80, 446 Kopacka 531 Krebs,H 251
Kariz,P 308 Kishnev,5307 Koporcic,B 283 Krejcik,Jo 541
Karjakin,5 39 Kislik, E 411 Kopp 250 Krektun, D 87
Karpatchev,A 470 Kislinsky,A 218,224,259, Kopp,D 144 Kremenietsky,Al 187
Karpinski, Lu 445 283, 283 Korchnoi,V 225,308,347, Krenosz 258, 425
Karpov,Ana 35, 123 Kitarovic,M 547 498,527 Krijgelmans,J 211
Kartsev,Alex 256 Kjelberg 545 Korchut,A 410 Kristjansson, 5t 199
Kartsev, So 196 Klaric,Zl 365 Korotonozhkin,A 308 Kriventsov,5 21
Karttunen,M 125 Klein,Di 246 Korotylev,A 321 Krivoshey,5 21, 172
Karu,A 556 Kleine,J 472 Korzubov,P 101 Kroone,G 438
Kashdan,I452 Kleinschroth,R 64, 71 232, Kosic,D 164 Kropff,R 98
Kasimdzhanov,R 29, 35, 43, 243, 255, 255, 258, 269, 283 Kosintseva, N 285 Krstev, E 104, 498
167 Klemm,H 95 Kosir,P 467 Kruchinin,A 286
Katov,L 161 Kliewe,Ha 563 Kosonen,E 232 Krueger,5t 274
Katsouris,G 100 Klocker,B 545 Kostak,T 476 Krupoder,5229

605
I"'"- - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - " ' l
Index of players

Krush, I 175 Lainburg, V 54 Leontxo Garcia,O 352 Lorch 524

Krylenko, N 464 Laine,H 297 Leosson,T 120 Lorenzo de la Riva,L 21
Krysztofiak,M 320 Lalic,B 410 Leow Leslie M 200 Lortkipanidze, N 185
Krzyzanowski, W 355 Lamford,P 206,212,215,289 Lerner,K 195 Lotzwick,H 100
Kuchnio, P 434 L'Ami,E 38 Lesot,J 554 Louis, Vo 354
Kuderinov,K 257 Landolt,F 472 Lettich,S 364 Lovas,R 132
Kuehl,Klaus D 563 Lang,Marc 212 Levacic,P 101 Lovass, I 200
Kuemin,S 278 Lange,H 235 Levit,R 241 Luciani,V 193
Kuhn,No 307 Lapchev 354 Levitt,J 268 Ludden,G 235, 246, 301, 450
Kuhn,St 254 Lapertosa Viana,J 70 Levy,R 284 Lueckerath,K 90
Kuipers,S 38, 167 Lapiken,P 283, 527 Lewkowitz,A 279 Lukin, Va 563
Kujoth,R 426 Lardot, D 542 Lexa,V 307 Luksza,A 230
Kukel,1 140 Larusdottir,A 545 Leygue,D 125 Lund,Si 412, 458
Kukov,V 470 Larzelere,M 388 Li Hanbin 334 Lundholm,S 127, 251
Kula,R 349 Laschek,G 254 Li Zunian 552 Luo,Xinping 156
Kulakarni,R 413 Lasker,Em 94, 98,111,112, Liberadzki, S 397 Lupik,M 103
Kulicov,O 172 506,533 Liebs,H 291 Lutikov,A 524
Kuljasevic, D 65 Lathela, S 237 Lieder, K 472 Lutz 487
Kummer,Hel 252, 384 Lauber,Ar 229 Lignell 439 Lutz,B 215
Kunicki ,M 364 Lauferon, P 81 Ligoure,G 273 Lutz,P 553
Kunz,Ko 110,117 Laurentius,L 466 Ligterink,G 61,119,185,188 Luz,H 464
Kupreichik, V 95, 357, 364 Lautier,J 132, 191 Lilienthal,A 95, 234 Lybin,D 231
Kuprijanov,A 224 Lawrence,T 470 Lillevold,F 60 Lyell,Ma 33, 44, 132, 148,
Kurenkov,N 156, 160 Lawson,Joh 523 Lin Chen 93 161, 496, 530, 531
Kurowski,A 151 Lazarev,Se 494 Lindberg 213 Lyell,Me 73, 253, 262, 289
Kushch,N 342 Lazarev, V 62 Lindberg, Bo 559 Lyles,M 484
Kushnarev,S 300 Lazarev, VI 344 Linke,M 483 Lypps,B 494
Kusina,J 553 Lazareva,V 480 Linklater,L 269
Kutrum 486 Le Diouron,A 145 Lintchevski, D 156 M
Kutscheid, H 348 Le Nineze,H 84 Linze 545 Maahs,E 180
Kutuzov,D 553 Le Quang,Li 116, 120 Lipecki ,A 237 Machado Caldeira,A 122
Kuzenkov,An 512 Le Roux,Je 514 Livner,A 399 Machalova,E 102
Kuzmin,AI 342 Lefebr, V 563 Ljubojevic,L 384 Machalova,M 286
Lefranc,B 320 Llaneras Henarejos,M 338 Macht,A 122
L Legde,G 155 Lo Conte,V 164 Madebrink, L 156
La Mar,F 415 Lehmann,Heinz 409 Lobo,Ri 251 Maenhout,T 272
Laakso,A 428 Lehmann,Z 234 Lockhart,R 480 Magem Badals,J 147
Labarthe,A 140, 145 Lehtiranta,J 64 Loeffler,M 88, 261, 450 Magyar,An 309
Lach,B 233, 236, 241, 269 Leisebein,P 40, 136, 206, Loerke,R 348 Mahishkar, B 478
Lacoste,A 247 209,211,215,216,230,230, Lohsse,H 519 Maiorov,N 156
Lacroix,S 469 259,269,282,291,547 Lomakina,G 108 Maisuradze,N 411
Ladstaetter,H 436 Leitao, Ra 65, 499 Lomako,A 138, 141 Majstorovic,L 107
Lagache, Y 106 Lekic,Du 175 Lombart,P 282 Makeev,V 256
Lagashin, P 350 Lengyel,Be 494 Longobuco,J 241 Makela,Ra 86
Lagerlof,F 269 Lenz,H 213 Lopez Duran,J 88 Maksimenko,A 409
Lagowski,P 172, 187, 187, 397 Leonhardt,P 284, 289, 428, Lopez Falcon,J 153 Maksimov,Alexe 553
Lahiri ,A 133 450 Lopez,Die 164 Maksimovic 397

606
----------- ~--~

Index of players

Malakhatko, V 306 Martirosian, N 475 Meschke,J 519 Moheni,A 103

Malaniuk,V 40 Marzano,C 39 Mestel, J 62, 320 Mohota,N 95
Maleychik,A 283 Maslak,K 187 Mester,G 352 Mol,G 268
Malich,B 94 Mason,D 415 Meszaros Sen,A 191 Molchanov, E 290
Malinin,V 135,444 Masternak,G 551 Meszaros,An 333 Molina Mansilla,R 359
Maliutin,B 310 Mastroddi, E 289 Meszaros,Gyu 217,218,318, Molina,Gil 558
Mallassagne, F 343 Mastrovasilis,A 40 344 Molina,Rob 70, 116
Malmgren,H 334 Mastrovasilis,D 321 Metge,K 287, 552 Moller,Ba 509
Malmstig, E 416 Matera,S 198 Mettler 520 Molnar, Be 153
Malmstroem,J 154, 410 Matetic,M 323 Meurrens, P 247 Molnar,Fe 472
Mamedjarova,Z 215 Matlakov,M 36, 63 Meyer,Bernh 512 Monaville,G 251
Mancini,M 199 Matnadze,A 558 Meyer,Ro 156 Mongle,J 261, 397
Mandarin, V 361 Matsegora,T 160 Michailow,S 309 Monin,N 103
Manevich,V 355 Matsuura,E 64, 126,398 Michalczyk,S 220 Montalvo,A 147
Manhardt,T 229 Matula,E 127,297 Michell 524 Monteforte,K 553
Manin,Vi 283 Mauelshagen,F 224 Michenka,J 350 Montelongo Avalos,A 544
Mann,Ge 325 Maugg,L 320 Miedema,D 167 Montgomery,P 241
Manninen,Ma 44 Maurer, Fri 263 Mieses,J 107, 112, 268, 353, Monticelli ,M 446
Manninen,Ma 64 Mayer,Alb 123 436, 495, 547 Montupil,J 397
Manceuvre,A 185 Mazhukin,E 286 Mihailidis,A 483 Morales Camacho,J 231
Mantsinov,B 199 McCormick 322 Mihalik,Ma 232 Moranda,W 36,527
Manzanares,C 347 McDonald,Gr 251, 295 Mihaljcisin,M 232 Moravec,M 42
Manzone,A 107 Mclntire,A 554 Mikenas,V 63,88,309,328, Moreda,L 164
Manzur,C 486 McKenzie,M 471 329, 360, 465, 528, 529 Moreland,H 397
Marchand,F 397 Medic,Milj 282 Mikhalevski,V 21 Moritz 436
Marchio,E 59, 64, 72, 246, Medina Garcia,A 235, 531 Mikulas,D 232 Moroz,Alex 342
261, 272 Meduna,E 232 Miladinovic, I 495 Morozevich,A 21, 31, 46, 65,
Marchukov,Dmitry 533 Meessen,R 46,422 Milic,B 284 116, 135, 138, 160, 169, 172,
Marcinkiewicz,W 256 Megias Chafer,A 88 Milov,V 140, 367 190, 220, 498
Marder,S 191, 243 Mehler,G 552 Milovanovic,Srb 195 Morozov, G 122
Mareco,S 46 Meier,Ann 243 Mione,D 378 Morrison,G 64
Marguerettaz, D 151 Meinsohn, F 247 Miralles,G 420 Mortensen,E 394
Markkula,M 228 Meisinger, P 468 Miranda Jr,R 218 Moser,L 147
Markos,J 478, 510 Meissner,Cla 73, 559 Mirnik,B 298 Mosionzhik, I 85, 85, 88, 88,
Markovic,L 365 Mejzlik,Z 387 Miroslaw,M 527 225,306,308,471,472
Markulla,M 392 Mekhitarian, K 65 Mirwald,S 523 Mourot,F 347
Maroczy, G 334, 533, 536 Melchor Munoz,A 279 Mirzoev,A 92,498 Moutaux,R 533
Maros,M 71 Mellado Trivino,J 372, 495 Mista,L 165 MoznY,M 42, 152, 153, 153,
Marshall,F 94, 104, 104, 112, Mendez,Er 505 Mitchell,W 372 153, 154, 179, 181, 191, 196,
122, 123, 123, 198,218,234, Mengarini,A 80,133, 198, Mittelman,G 288 530,545
237, 242, 279, 332, 452, 452, 332, 334 Mittermeier, P 240, 483 Mrkonjic, N 365
470, 478, 484, 507, 532, 558 Menyhart,T 179 Mladek,Z 360 Mueller, Diete 321
Martchenko,A 144 Merenyi, L 110 Mlynek,P 161 Mueller,Hans 435
Martens,M 193 Merkle,C 483 Moebus,M 333 Mueller,Hans Ge 108
Martin,Ale 278 Mertanen,Ja 543 Moen,A 143 Mueller, Helg 561
Martinez,Julian 562 Mertens, Fran<; 332 Moernaut,E 496 Mueller, Kl 94
Martinovic,Sa 172, 187 Mescher,M 108 Mohandesi,S 89 Muhr,J 325

607
 Index of players

Muir,A 169, 251 Nemeth,J 120 Nordahl,H 297 p

Muir,W 75,372,449 Nemeth,Las 486 Norri,J 297, 552 Paalman,H 85
Mukhitdinov,M 527 Nenarokov,V 428 Noteboom,D 73 Palao,M 506
Muller, Ra 329 Nestorovic, De 308 Novikov, Ger 399 Palda,K 440
Munar Rossello,P 149 Neubauer,Ma 151, 252, 465 Novikov,St 155, 164, 197 Palit,S 306
Munchak,N 554 Neuman,P 102 Novosel, T 220 Palliser,R 410
Munschi, S 256 Neumann,Av 464 Novotelnov, N 325 Palme,R 379
Murphy,R 416 Neumann,U 449 NovotnY,Lubom 199 Palmizi ,A 239
Musat,A 251 Neumeyer,H 263 Novotny, Vi 39 Paluch, Lad 365
I! Muse,M 291 Nevednichaia,R 372 Nunez Portabales,M 110 Panbukchian, V 161, 427
Musielak,M 448 Nevednichy,V 415 Nupponen,T 86 Panic,Nikola 477
Mustafayev,F 126 Neverov, V 135 Nyback,T 38, 100 Pankov,Ger 172, 175, 497
Musumeci 472 Newhouse, D 211, 292 Panos,J 498
Muzychuk,A 164, 177 Newman,Te 420 o Panov,Va 307
Muzychuk,M 44, 412 Newrick,W 553 Obrezchikov,M 482 Panse,G 561
Nezad,H 148 Obukhov,A 160, 160 Pantaleev, D 545
N Ni Hua 469 Ochrana,L 329 Pantaleoni,C 193
NabatY,T 66,82,83,453, Nickel,Ne 311 Oei,H 251 Pantic,1 136
456 Nicodemo,M 378 Ogala,K 357 Panuzzo,J 227, 241, 464
Nadal Bestard, S 468 Nicolaisen,J 494 O'Hanlon,J 235, 435 Panzalovic,S 153
Nadasi,La 512 Nie,X 559 O'Kelly de GalwaY,A 258, 274 Papathanasiou,Al 116
Naef,W 436 Nielsen, Bo 63 Okland,S 63 Papin, V 91
Nagley,T 231, 472 Nielsen,Hei 268 Olea Perez,Mario 551 Papin, Y 283
Nagni,M 239 Nielsen,Ju 242 Olejarczyk,B 247, 255 Papp 216
Nagy 354 Nielsen,PH 67, 78, 415 Oliveira,Paulo S 480 Pappier,C 279
Nagy,Danie 200 Nielsen,Poul S 123 OIl,L 364 Paresishvili,G 222
Nakamura,Hik 132, 169, 174, Niemela,A 411 Olsson,Linu 255 Parker,Jon 40
190 Niemela,1 93, 439 Olzem,L 230 Parreno Cueto,A 332, 338
I
Napier, 70, 231, 279 Nieuweboer,M 218,224,390 Onat, I 100 Pasztor,F 281
I
I Narciso Dublan,M 162 Niewold,J 197, 197, 198, Onate,A 506 Pataki, G 332
! .
Narmontas,R 440 198, 310 Onkoud,A 277 Patsuk, E 287
Nasri,A 51 Nijssen,J 437 Onstad,P 227 Patton,T 397
I
! Nattkaemper,S 382, 449 Nikitin,A 95 Onwezen,E 64 Paulo,S 274
I
Naumovic,J 292 Nikitovic,N 141 OpocenskY,K 59, 64 Paulshus,A 282
I, .
Navarovszky,L 87 Nikolaeva,A 217 OrendY,E 87 Pauwels,R 153, 174
Navarro Lerma,R 339 Nikolaidis,1 172, 199,554 Orndahl,Mar 321 Pavlidis,Ana 66
Navin,K 140 Nikolayev, I 35, 162 Ortega,Fr 507 Pavlovic,Milu 517
Navrotescu,C 37 NikolayevskY,A 120 Oshana,D 325, 350 Pavlovic,Ran 185
Nebel,L 468 Nikolic,N 545 Osipov 512 Pedersen,Bja 286
Nebolsina,V 217 Nikolic,Pr 503 Ostenstad,B 230, 352 Pedersen,Bo 435
Necula,1 138,217 Nikolov,Sas 148, 187 Osterman,G 306 Pedersen,Da 496, 505
Nedela, V 89 Nilssen,J 399 Otero Acosta, D 561 Pedersen,Eric 165
Nederlof,J 333 Nilsson,Ma 495 Otero Velasco,F 372 Pedersen, Henry 441
Nedilko,V 165, 165,309 Nilsson,Mats 194 Ottenweller, W 161, 198 Pedersen,Stef 134
Nedobora,M 140 Nishendra,H 284 Oud,Nic 140 Peek,Mar 494
Neelotpal, D 498 Nogareda Estivil,A 118 Ovod,E 112 Peeters,T 438
Nemec,F 282 Nogly,C 35 Ozen,A 536 Peev,P 272,394,545

608
-------.., - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .
Index of players

Peinador, D 533 Pires,A 191 Poulain,A 66 Rajkovic,Du 291

Pekarek,A 153 Pirrot, D 524 Poulenard,R 403 Rakitskij,D 218
Pelikan,G 59 Piscicelli,D 230 Poulton,J 206 Rakovsky,Ad 154
Pelikan,Jo 399 Piskov,Y 152, 214 Povah,N 392, 399 Rallsjo,A 105
Penoyer,F 237 Pixton,A 260 Praszak,M 232, 530 Ramella,F 477
Peralta,Fe 30, 35 Piza Cortizo,D 339 Praveen Kumar,C 136 Ramlow,M 98
Peredy,F 531 Planas,Ju 287 Preinfalk,A 242 Rapport,R 268
Perez Candelario,Man 35, 47 Plaskett,J 133, 240 Prihodko,1 553 Rasmussen,Kar 78
Perez Mitjans,O 59 Plischki, S 105 Privitera,F 399 Rasmussen,Per A 399
Perez Perez,F 240 Plosila,J 453 Prohaszka,P 98, 168 Rat,D 181
Perez Pietronave,C 215 Poblete,L 397 Prokopovic,O 287 Rathai, V 334
Pergericht,D 110, 420 Poddubnyi,V 60 Provoost,S 354 Rauanheimo,M 543
Perkins 212 Podolchenko,E 218 Prucha,K 387 Raven,S 529
Perlis,J 554 PodolnY,J 329 Prudlo,S 339 Reca,D 297
Persson,Jo 294 Poelmans,J 397 Pruijssers,R 101 Reed,Jo 524
Persson,Sv 299 Pogorelov, R 132 Pruun,Ri 498 Reggio,A 74, 452
Pert,N 40, 55 Pohl,W 449 Puc,S 108 Regnat,M 332
Pert,R 272 Poklitar, V 268 Pudovkin, D 106 Rehfeld,R 224, 379
Perz,J 554 Pokorna,Reg 87, 367 Puetz,L 110 Reimer,L 390
Pesorda, I 250 Pokorny,P 39 Purnama,T 197 Reinemer,F 110
Peters,Sh 282 Pokorny,T 196 Puroila,S 480 Reiner,S 153
Petersen,Te 198 Polak,T 465 Pushkov,N 60 Reis,J 180
Peterson,Andrej 357 Polgar,Z 169, 332 Reiss,T 306
Petkov, Vl 59, 148 Polishchuk,O 125 Q Rej,T 135
Petrosian,Tigran VIII, 527 Polugaevsky, L 307 Quiniou,J 226 Rellstab,Ludwig Sr 289
Petrovic 41, 497 Pomar Salamanca,A 531 Quiroga,F 215 Rellum,T 278
Petrovic,Mil 276 Pomes Marcet,J 143 Remizov,A 147
Pettersson,An 276 Popov, Iv 91 R Remlinger,L 211
Petursson,S 274 Popov, Val 25 Rabar,B 238 Rendon,R 558
Petzenhauser, I 561 Popovic,Draga 101 Raben 435 Renet,0367
PevnY,M 154 Popovics,A 512 Rabiega,R 499 Repasi,Z jr 175
Pfaff, V 283 Porat,1 133 Rabinovich,1 289 Reprintsev,A 98, 108, 126,
Pfaue 240 Porat, Y 464 Rabitzsch,M 561 255, 279, 294, 309, 309, 320,
Pflantz,M 90 Porath, Y 144 Rachela,M 83 339, 342, 342, 342, 342, 342,
Phanstiel,J 416 Porreca,G 111 Radashkovich,1 364 343, 347, 354, 359
Philipp 363 Portilho,G 228 Rades,AI 246 Reschke,Ha 208
Philippe,C 81, 306, 364, 499 Portisch,F 230 Radjabov,T 99 Reschun,S 234, 250
Piceu,T 107, 150,218,225 Portisch,L 93 Radovanovic,J 44 Retamoza,F 198
Pichler, P 250 Posazhennikov,A 158 Radulescu,Mih 437 Rethali 258
Piel,G 207 Pospisil,L 390 Radzikowska,K 287 Reti,R 487
Piesina,G 320 Pospisil, VI 88 Raetsky,A 107, 109, 132, Rewitz,P 62, 74, 235, 235,
Piket,Je 503 Post,Eh 435 140, 148, 169, 234, 281, 283, 236, 240, 286, 299, 512
Pillsbury,H 107, 411, 547 PostnY,E 157, 275 289, 403, 521, 543 Reyes,Alb 158
Pink,F211 Potapov,Alexa 36, 359 Ragnarsson,J 120, 289, 486 Rezende,G 39
Pinol Fulgoni,F 148 Potapov,Pav 25, 34, 145, Ragonese,R 289 Riazantsev,A 156, 164
Piot,0507 187, 187 Ragozin,V 464 Richardson,Joh 394
Pirc, Vasj 238 Potts,K 554 Rajesh,V 306 Richmond,P 144, 158

609

Richter, Ku 399, 445
Riedel, C 311
,
Riedl,Mar 282, 290
,I
I Riepe,B 79,215
, I
Riessenbeck,J 297
Rietveld, D 440
Rinaldi,C 279
Riofrio,M 287
Riordan,C 451
Risch 342
Risch,F 441
Roberto,J 126
Robertson, I 543
Roblek, E 441
Rodrigues da Silva,E 218
Rodrigues,Nu 465
Rodriguez Martin,E 354
Rodriguez Vignote,J 104
Rodriguez,Jorge 107
Rodshtein,M 140
Roeder,M 345
Roelli, C 563
Rogers,Jo 55
Roglin,U 254
Rogosaroff, I 257
Rojahn,E 127, 435, 509, 554
Rojo Gomez,J 338
Romanov, Vi 452
Romero Perera,E 436
Romero,Ag 542
Ronczkowski,M 397
Rooms,T 484
Roque,Ru 487
Roschupkin,V 196
Rosenfeld,Her 378
Rosenkilde,A 332
Rosso,M 263
Rost,M 110
Rotenberg,M 211
Rotshtein,E 339
Rouzaud,P 297, 347
Royers,D 494
Royset,J 464
Ruban,A 342
Rubanraut,S 516
Rubinetti,J 505
Rubinstein,Sa 512
610
Index of players
Rudolf,An 174 Sarapu,O 147 Schmid ,Mart 261
Rustemov,A 514 Sargissian,G 36 Schmidt,Hara 218,227
Rutu 354 Sarink,H 180 Schmidt, Nie 554
Rychagov,A 40 Sarkar,J 35, 123, 154 Schmidt,Oli 110
Rytkonen, J 561 Sarno,S 364 Schmidt, Pe 251
Rzecki,A 125 Sarobe,R 225 Schmiel,G 416
Saskowski,J 372 Schmikli,L 281
S Sathya,Pri 416 Schneider Zinner,H 160
Sacconi ,A 446 SauceY,Mic 145 Schneider,Dm 275
Sadaba Rodriguez, I 332 Saul,T 138 Schneider,Luc 478
Sadilek,M 88 Saulyte,G 230 Schneider, Ud 509
Sadler,M 54, 301 Saunders,Mi 212 Schneider,Uw 223
Sadorra,J 134 Savchenko,S 342, 343 Schneiders,A 378
Sadovich 291 Savina,A 138, 551 Schnoewitz,B 533, 542
Sadowski,Ma 259, 295 Savliuk 306 Schoeber,P 229
Sadykov,Ra 218 Savoglou,N 126 Schoenmann,W 435,437
Saeed,1 543 Sbarra,M 64 Scholz 344
Saemisch,F 235, 334, 334, Scalise,L 126 Schone,C 112
440,445 Scammon,C 529 Schorra,H 172
Saffern 322 Scarella,E 276 Schrader,Edm 416
Sagalchik,G 126, 273, 276, Scekic,M 272 Schrank,Mar 263, 291
276, 276, 451 Schacht,H 368 Schreiber, Ku 345
Sagalchik,O 87, 276, 294 Schaedlich,D 286 Schuil,J 49
Sakaev,K 456 Schaedlich,H 363 Schultz,An 309
Sakai,K 82, 448 Schafer,E 477 Schulz Streeck,S 221
Saleh,Sal118 Schalk,A 533 Schulz, Klaus J 292
Salgado Lopez,O 104 Schamberger,A 290 Schulz,Stefanie 563
Salus,S 486 Schebler,G 307 Schumacher,G 215
Salvador,R 156, 193, 193, 196 Scheffer,E 527 Schumacher,Hor 471
Salvioli,C 533 Scheffner,A 221 Schuster,Th 379
Salwe,G 428 Scheiblmaier, R 228 Schut,T 224
Sanchez Cuchillo,A 308 Schepers,H 344 Schuurman,P 218
Sanchez Naranjo,J 533 Schetinin,A 531 Schwab,P 100
Sands,D 30 Schiendorfer, E 231 Schwab,S 416
Santasiere,A 426 Schiller,E 212,213 Schwarz,Fra 218
Santha,J 372 Schiller,G 86 Schwarz,W 56
Santos,Antonio P 120, 465 Schimmel,W 523 Schwarz,Wi 215, 449
Santos, Dan 532 Schipkov,B 217 Scoatarin ,J 496
Santos,Jose Al 101 Schirmer,M 213,215,216 Sebe Vodislav,F 191
Santos, L 243 Schiwarth,N 480 Sedgwick,D 207, 450
Santos,Marcus V 178 Schlechter,C 74, 143, 353, Seebacher,0479
Sanz Lazaro,A 268 530 Seiler, Jo 438
Sapi,L 484 Schleifer,Mi 281 Seiler, Jue 450
Saptarshi,R 136, 149 Schlemmer,H 320, 344, 344, Semenov,Alek 254
Saptarshi,R 35, 413, 480 345,346 Semiev,S 119, 133, 178, 427
Sapundzhiev, G 531 Schloegl, D 164 Senador, E 135
Saralegui,M 156 Schmid,Marc 103 Senchovici 469
-----------------------------------------------,
Index of players

Senoner,P 483 Simagin, V 325, 329, 363, 474 Sommer,So 250, 299, 559 Steckel,W 103
Seoev,R 360 Simantsev,M 41 Somogyi,I526 Stefanescu,S 259
Serdarevic,M 332 Simchen,L 56 Sonnet,Jean-P 256, 257 Stefanova,A 401
Serebrisky,A 364 Simonsen,O 198 Soppe,G 547 Stefanovic,Dr 221
Seres,L 403 Simonson,A 64 Sorakunnas,O 527 Steiner,B 102
Sergejev,R 354 Simunic, N 554 Sorensen,Alex 397 Steiner,Her 263
Serikbaev, Y416 Siomos,N 100 Sorensen,Ar 240 Steinkellner,R 484
Serralta,M 228 Sipila,V443 Sorensen,Arne 522 Stelting,T 230
Seyb,H 470 Sirletti,S 299 Sorensen,H 243 Stephan,V 160, 249
Seymour,T 413 Sirunen,J 453 Sorin,A 181 Stepien,G 247
Shabalov,A 273 Sitter,R 378 Sorm,D 240 Sterk,K 110
Shadrin 342 Siviero,G 378 Sorokin,M 274 Stern,R 499
Shak 216 Sjoberg,Ma 386 Sorsa,M 465 Sterngold,S 350
Shamkovich,L 196 Skacel,J 524 Sosa Macho,J 286 Stewart,Ala 436
Shapkin,A 527 Skare,G 150 Sosna,V 297 Stiegmeier,F 471
Shatskes,B 361 Skodvin,E 172 Sosulin,E 229 Sting,T 351
Shavliuk 496 Skorpik,M 212, 306 Spacek, P 154 Stocek,J 527
Shearer,C 506 Skuratovich, Y347 Spal,M 476 Stock,L 50
Shearer,H 506 Slacky,S 140 Spanton,T 71 Stoelbinder,W 448
Shekhtman,E 448 Sladek,Vl 146 SpasskY,B 93, 351, 524, 528, Stojanovic,Mih 35
Sheldon,R 450 Sleich,J 283 529 Stoma,P 123
Shemeakin,A 255 Slisser,T 240 Spassov,L 100 Stoppel,Fre 426
Shepherd,M 207 Slobodjan,R 36 Speelman,J 268 Storch,Dome 282
Sherman,Jo 505 Smeckert,D 74 Spice,A 206, 214 Storgaard, F 233
Shestakov,S 240 Smedemark,H 512 Spiegel,W 248 Storkebaum,K 552
Shevchenko,Y 475,551 Smederevac,P 233, 235, 236, Spielberger 452 Stoumbos,K 126
Shikhirev,L 343 238, 240, 240, 409 Spielmann,Ru 237, 334, 428, Straeter,T 175, 178, 196
Shinkevich,V482 Smirnov,Arte 172 435, 438 Strastil 390
Shipov,A 361 Smit,Di 164 Spiric,1 276 Strating, H 248
Shishkin,Va 224 Smith,Ax 66 Spitaler,J 235 StripunskY,A 551
Shkliarevsky 108 Smith,Do 151 Spitz,P 66, 151, 151 Strohhaeker,Rao 133, 135,
Sholomson,S 286 Smutny,J 306 Sprenger, P 482 156
Shoosmith,H 273 Smyslov,V 240 Springall,J 525 Stroup,A 108
Showalter,J 117, 123, 452, Snuverink,Joc 85 Srinivasan,J 269 Strumnik,A 359
554 Sobjerg, E 505 Srokowski,J 261 Sturm,M 274, 452
ShpakovskY,K 207 Sobrino Garcia,R 221 Staal,P 440 Sturm,Ti 228
Shtyrenkov, V 86, 145, 160, Soelch,H 212 Staberhofer, R 268 Sturt,R 69
164 Soininen 435 Stahlberg, G 241 Suchin,D 94
Shukan,A 98, 106, 253, 254, Sokolov, Iv 46 Staldi,C 274 Suetin,A 85
297 SokolskY,A 363 Stamatovic 397 Sumets,A 172
Shumiakina,T 543 Soleta 533 Stanek,S 468 Sunara,T 554
Shurygin,S 112, 309, 310 Solntsev, Y448 Stanka,W 384 Sundararajan,K 547
Sidenko,A 273 Solokhina 357 Stanzl,M 222 Suri,H 281
Sidorov,An 123 Soloviev,Vl 282, 325 Starck, B488 Surov,S 533
Sieciechowicz,M 35 Solovtsov,A 509 Starke,Re 136 Suurendonk,P 274
Sielaff, R 258 Solozhenkin, E 306 Stathopoulos, I 22, 207 Suvrajit,S 89
Silakov 350 Sommer,Ja 41,209,209 Stawski,N 471 Svendsen,Th 207

611
i-------------------------------------------------- O

Index of players

Svensson 435 Tessedik,K 416 Tregubov,P 43 Van der Wiel,J 61, 312, 392
Svensson,Hann 230 Teulats,L 352 Trenner,R 519 Van Dusen,E 445
Svoboda,V 36 Thejkumar,MS 82, 112, 414 Trent,L 133, 171 Van Esbroeck,J 180
Swapnil,SD 82 Thiel,Th 185 Trifonov,Al 160 Van Espen,E 107
Swartz,J 544 Thiellement,A 372 Trifunovic, I 544 Van Haastert,E 399
Sweetland,G 72 Thivel, R 363 Tritt,M 132 Van Hecke,E 174
Sykula,A 110, 292, 446 Thomas,Andrew 440 Trumpf,W 283 Van Heirzeele,D 225, 509
Szabo, Bel 435 Thomas,Mi 80 TruskavetskY,A 284 Van Hoofstat,T 247,249
Szabo,Ben 496 Thomi,H 483 Trybom,M 105 Van Hoolandt,P 25
Szabo,L 425 Thornert,H 194, 416 Tsang,Ho 206 Van Ketel,R 411
Szeberenyi,A 333, 372, 411 Thorsteins, K 334 Tsiganova,M 221 Van Leeuwen,J 438
Szenczy,S 148, 486 Thorstensen,E 283 Tudor,V 269 Van Tilbury,C 467
Szilagyi,P 524 Thystrup,P 381 Tuominen,R 232 Van Vliet, L 127, 273
Szili,A 361 Tikkanen,H 67, 70, 144, 177, Turin,J 248, 257 Van WelY,L 172, 220
Szitas,G 120 453 Turner,Ja 358, 545 Vanderstricht,G 321, 420
Szmetan,R 200 Timar,Z 216 Turov,M 151, 244 Vandevoort,P 140, 420
Szmidt, P 125 Timoscenko,G 231 Tutov,V 398 Vareille,F 44
Szoen,D 172, 519, 527 Tishin,P 494, 495 Tuttle,D 420 Varga 454
Szwier,E 89 Titze,L 180 Tvarusko,L 287 Varga,Pe 218
Tiviakov,S 188, 262, 312 Vargyas,Z 563
T Tjiam,D 79 U Vasilchenko,O 106
Tadic,B 35, 132 Tobias,G 563 Ugoluk,V 524 Vasile,Co 212,214,259,269,
Tahkavuori,T 392 Tolkacz,K 507 Uhlmann,W 373 291
Taimanov,M 63 Tolush,A 363 Uifelean,A 426 Vasilenko,An 220
Tain 286 Tomovic,V 399 UjtelkY,M 108 Vasiliev, R 520
Tal,M 525 Topalidis,K 483 Ulibin,M 276, 521 Vasiliev, Vladimir P 495
Tania,S 95, 242 Topalov,V 21 Unuk,L 193 Vasiukov,E 307, 420, 514
Tapper,La 275 Topuz,S 283 Uogele,A 545 Vasovski,N 136
Tarakanov,M 496 Torman,E 208 Urbane,S 467 Vatter,H 307,318
Taras,lu 91 Torok,Jo 449 Urcullu,A 426 Vaznonis,D 55
Tarasevich,V 428 Torok,T 79 Urietyki,A 486 Vazquez Alvarez,An 228
Tarrasch,S 70, 123, 487, 522 Torrent Palou,M 544 Vdovichenko,V 196
Tartakower,S 234, 289, 297, Torsteinsson,J 274 V Veech,J 61
486, 487, 487, 487 Tot,B 41,284 Vafin,A 218 Veinger,1 347
Tataev,M 269 Toth 100 Vainius, V 545 Vela 482
Tate,A 169 Toth,Bel 104, 422 Vaisanen,K 465 Velasco Valentin,L 268
Taylor 332 Toth,Jo 259 Valadez Espinosa,J 472 Velcheva,M 416
Taylor, Robert K 524 Toth,Li 145 Valaker,O 402 Vera Gonzalez Quevedo,R 74
Taylor,Te 253 Toth,Pal563 Valeanu,E 164, 172 Verdier,P 151
Taylor, Ti 355, 475 Tourneur,J 309 Van Boltaringen,E 536 Vergilesov,A 61
Teichmann,Ri 436 Touzane,O 404 Van De Hurk,A 229 Verlinden,M 95
Teipelke,H 236, 342 Trani,F 209 Van den Heever,D 145 VernooY,D 533
Ten Wolde,B 63, 506 Trapl,J 165 Van der Kar,J 401 Vershinin,1 222
Teran Alvarez,1 137 Tratar,M 33 Van der Marel,B 321 VeselY,Mi 88
Terekhov,A 526 Traube,H 478 Van der Pluijm,R 354 Vidit,S 414
Tereshchenko,N 497 Trauth,M 288 Van der Raaf,E 21 Vidmar,M 237
Teschner,R 444 Trefny,V 320 Van der Werf,M 249 Vigneron,M 252

612
_. --"~----------------------------------------l
Index of players

Vihmand,A 38, 100 Walton,Al 30 Wuest,M 156 Zhou Haonan 144

Viner,P 385 Wang Hao 552 Wulkau 486 Zhukhovitsky,S 199
Vion,J 88 Ward,C 272 Wuppinger,M 248 Zhuravlev 512
Visser,J 102 Wegner,Ha 90 Wysowski,S 452 Zichichi ,A 255
Vitiugov,N 167 Wehr,D 216 Zilberstein, V 420
Vivaldo, F 499 Weidemann,C 144 X Zimmerman,Y 230,259
Vladimirov 207 Weidemann,Jo 331 Xiong,Jef 254 Zimolzak,P 89
Vladyka, V 284 Wein,W 470 Xu Jun 469 Zipfel,M 147
Vlahos,G 110 Weinmann Musset,M 100 Zittersteyn,G 438
Vogel,Joe 80 Weinstein 283 y Zlochevskij ,A 382
Vogel,Pa 250 Weiss,Da 468 Yakhijev,T 98 Zoebisch,H 200
Vogel,Ro 211 Weiss,F 191 Yakovich, Yur 30, 289 Zoltan,A 216
Voinov,A 137, 287 Weiss,Mark 332 Yang,Dar 180, 254 Zschoch,E 216
Voinov,N 553 Wells,J 399 Yashin,R 473 Zuehlke,B 193
Vojinovic,G 480 Wemmers,X 344 Ye Naung Win Myint 227 Zurek,M 180
Volak,M 146 Werner, Di 163 Yeo,M 515
Volcinschi,S 125 Weschke,W 497 Yermishin, V 562
Volk,Se 514 Wesolowski,E 287 YermolinskY,A 294
Volodin,Alex 138 West,G 440 Yezheliev, Y 416
Volzhin,A 74 Westerinen,H 74, 255, 297 Yilmaz, Tu 257
Von Dessaver,D 350 Wichmann,Da 526 Young 452
Von Hennig,H 284 Wiedenkeller,M 64 Yrjola,J 392
Von Herman,B 298 Wiedermann,U 225 YU,R 21
Von Herman,U 49 Wikstroem,B 141 Yudin,1 144
Von Oettingen,S 263 Wilcox,J 329 Yuzhakov,O 289
Vorobiev,A 160 Wilde,Mar 318
Vorobiev,K 347 Wiley,T 174 Z
Vorobiov, E 21 Wilke,W 160 Zabala Ordonez,A 326
Vorotnikov, V 30 Williams,Simon K 515, 526 Zablotsky,S 123, 141, 165,
Vreugdenhil,F 215 Willighagen,G 247 506
Vujadinovic,Mil 292, 339, 500 Wilms,W 107 Zagoriansky, E 307
Vuji,A 552 Wilshusen,H 252 Zagorovsky,V 282
Vujic,M 150, 175, 195,480 Wilson,Jon 278 Zaitsev,Mikhail V 172
Vukobrat,D 477 Wischemirskis 465 Zaitsev, Vad 253
Witke,T 269 Zaja,1 172
W Wittke,C 220 Zakhartsov, V 141
Wachinger,G 269 Wodzynski,Mic 101, 125 Zaky,Tam 320
Wade,R 240 Wohlfahrt,H 268 Zamarbide Ibarrea,D 443
Wagner,B 251 Wolf,Heinr 444, 554 Zambo,Z 120
Wagner,Br 252 Wolf,J 347 Zamecnik,F 390
Wagner,Ch 177 Woliston,P 263 Zapolski,K 161
Wahedi,A 240 Wong Kwok,M 286 Zaragatski,1482
Wahib,J 378 Woodhams,M 440 Zaudtke, F 553
•
Wallinger,M 95 Woudt,E 66, 344 Zauner,J 102
Walter,S 59 Wren 533 Zauner,L 361
Walter,W 464 Wright, N 136 Zetthofer,G 88
Walther,Re 325 Wright, Wi 546 Zhao Xue 279

613
Books
Playing the Queen's Gambit: A Grandmaster Guide - Lars Schandorff (Quality Chess,
2012)
Il controgambetto Albin! arma letale contro 1.d4 - Claudio Pantaleoni (Le Due Torri, 2011)
1.d4 - Beat the Guerrillas! - Valeri Bronznik (New In Chess, 2011)
No Passion For Chess Fashion - Alexander Raetsky & Maxim Chetverik (Mongoose Press, 2011)
Squeezing the Gambits - Kiril Georgiev (Chess Stars, 2010)
Grandmaster Repertoire - 1.d4 volume one - Boris Avrukh (Quality Chess, 2008)
Gambiteer 1/ - Nigel Davies (Everyman Chess, 2007)
The Chigorin Defence According Morozevich - Alexander Morozevich & Vladimir Brasky
(New in Chess, 2007)
Dangerous Weapons: the Queen's Gambit - Richard Pallister, Glenn Flear & Chris Ward
(Everyman Chess, 2007)
Mastering the Chess Openings volume 2 - John Watson (Gambit, 2007)
How to Succeed in the Queen Pawn Openings - John Watson & Eric Schiller (Trafford, 2006)
The Chigorin Defence - Valery Bronznik (Kania, 2005)
Secrets of Opening Surprises 2 - "Morozevich's Pet Line in the Albin" - Jeroen Bosch (New
in Chess, 2004)
v

Encyclopaedia of Openings D - (Sahovski Informator, 2004)

Unusual Queen's Gambit Declined - Chris Ward (Everyman, 2002)
Attacking with l.d4 - Angus Dunnington (Everyman, 2001)
Albin Counter-Gambit - Sergey Anapolky (Murad Amannazarov, 1999)
Nunn's Chess Openings - Joseph Gallagher, John Nunn, John Emms, Graham Burgess
(Everyman Chess, 1999)
Albins Gegengambit - Alexander Raetzki & Maxim Tschetwerik (Kania, 1998)
Albin Counter Gambit - (Echecs International, 1997)
Albins modgambit - Rewitz, Poul (Self-edition, 1996)

614
-----------------------------------,
Bibliography

Le contre-gambjt Cavalotti-Albin - Luc Henris (Marchand, 1993)

How to Play the Albin Countergambit - Eric Schiller (Chess Enterprises, 1991)
Albins Gegengambit - Ludwig Steinkohl & Hermann Heemsoth (Madler im Walter Rau
Verlag, 1986)
The Albin Counter-Gambit 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5!? - Paul Lamford (Batsford, 1983)
Counter Gambits: Black to Play and Win - Tim Harding (British Chess Magazine, 1974)
Predicament in Two Dimensions: The Thinking of a Chess Player - Ariel Mengarini
(Thinker's Press, 1979)
Albins Motgambit - Sthig Jonasson (Schaakbulletinens Gambit-Serie, 1970)
Le contre gambit Cavalotti-Albin - Jacques Le Monnier & Andre Garreau (s.n., 1967)
Controgambitos - Benito Lopez Esnaola (Ricardo Aguilera, 1957)
El Contragambito Albin - Eduardo Jorge Marchisotti (Editorial Grabo, 1950)
Black to Play and Win - Weaver Adams (McKay, 1946)

CDs and DVDs

Unorthodox Chess Openings - Valeri Lilov (ChessBase, 2011)
Roman's Lab Vol 5 - Rapid and Complete Opening Repertoire for White, Roman
Dzindzichashvili (DVDRip, 2011)
Albin's Countergambit - Rustam Kasimdzhanov (ChessBase, 2008)
Albin Countergambit - Luc Henris (ChessBase, 2003)
Albin Counter-Gambit - Andrew Martin (Foxy Openings, 1998)

Periodicals & articles

New in Chess Yearbook 105 - 'The Albin Resurrected" - Jose Lopez Senra (New in Chess,
2012)
Video Albin Counter Gambit - Leonid Kritz (ChessBase Magazine 147,2012)
White against the Albin - Dorian Rogozenko (ChessBase Magazine 134, 2010)

615
 a

Bibliography

Sadler on the Albin - Matthew Sadler (The British Chess Magazine, volume 130 /
September & October 2010)
Morozevich's Pet Line in the Albin· Jeroen Bosch (50S vol. 2 - New In Chess, 2004)
The Albin Counter-Gambit - Susan Polgar (Chess Life, February 2005)
New in Chess Yearbook 71 - "A 'Suspect Variation' in a Suspect Counter-Gambit" -
Alexander Raetsky (New in Chess, 2002)
New in Chess Yearbook 62 . "Still Suspect" - John Van der Wiel & Erik Hoeksma (New in
Chess, 2002)
Les Variantes Oubliees du Passe - Olivier Renet (Europe Echecs, 2002)

Databases 8: websites
Mega Database 2012 - ChessBase (ChessBase, 2012)
Correspondence Database 2011 - ChessBase (ChessBase, 2011)
TWIC
ChessPublishing.com
Chessca{e.com

616