.,.

s
CIJess

C!hi"H

The Sffifest Grfinfel�

A Complete Repertoire for Black

Alexander Delchev
Evgenij Agrest

Chess Stars

www.chess-stars.com
Current Theory and Practice Series

The Safest Griinfeld

Translation and editing by Semko Semkov

Cover design by Kalojan Nachev

Copyright © 2011 by Alexander Delchev

Printed in Bulgaria
ISBN: 978 -954-8782-81-4
Contents

Foreword 5
Introduction 10

Part 1
The Fianchetto System 11

Part 2
The .if4 System 61

Part 3
The .igS System 103

Part 4
The e3 System 139

Part S
The 'Wb3 System 157

Part 6
Rare Systems I 175

Part 7
Rare Systems II 197

Part 8
The Exchange System 7 . .ie3 2 09

Part 9
The Exchange System 7.C2lf3 225

Part 10
The Exchange System 7 . .ic4 257

Part 11
SOS Systems 305

Part 12
Anti-Griinfeld - 3.f3 313

Part 13
The English Anti-Griinfeld 329

Index o f Variations 343

Bibliography

Books

An Expert's Guide to the 7.fic4 Gruenfeld, K.Sakaev, Chess Stars 2 0 0 6

Opening for White According t o Kramnik, volume la, A. Khalifman, Chess

Stars 2006

The Griinfeld Defence, M .Botvinnik and Y. Estrin, Fizcultura i sport

1979 (in Russian)

l.d4 Volume Two, B.Avrukh, Quality Chess 2010

The English Opening, volume 2, M . Marin, Quality Chess 2010

Electronic/Periodicals
Mega Database, Chess Base
Chess Informant, Sahovsky Informator
New in Chess Yearbook, Interchess
Chess Today

I nternet resources
The Week In Chess (chesscenter.com)
10 Days (Chessmix.com)
Internet Chess Club (chessclub.com)
ChessPublishing.com forum
Chesspro.ru

4
Foreword
My first book, The Safest Sicilian,
has been very well received and
readers often asked me if l was writ­
ing something new. So when in the
beginning of 2010 Chess Stars of­
fered me to continue our collabora­
tion, I did not hesitate long. I chose
the Griinfeld Defence, because it is
one of the most quickly developing
openings and, like the Sicilian, of­
fers fair chances to play for a win.
I have been studying the Griin­
feld for years. I often used it in deci­
sive games as Black, but I also have
extensive practice as White.
In 2009, Topalov's assistant GM
Cheparinov invited me to help him
prepare for the World Cup tour­
naments and the World Champi­
onship in Khanty Mansiysk. Dur­
ing our work, we made a general
examination of various openings.
I was surprised by the extraordi­
nary working capacity of Chepari­
nov and also by the powerful arse­
nal of his opening ideas. We often
discussed the Exchange line in the
Griinfeld. He did not need too much
effort to convince me that Black was
in real danger in the main line with
the exchange sacrifice: 10 . . . �g4 11
f3 lLla5 12 �d3 cd 13 cd �e6 14 d5 ! .
Although there i s not a forced win,
Black's defence is far from trivi­
al. White can develop his initiative
in different directions, and Black
must be able to find only moves in
all of them.
We were both of the same opi­
nion about the popular system with
10 . . . lLla5 and 1 l . .b6. It is playable,
but risky, and also requires memo­
rization of tons of variations. As
we later saw, even World champi­
on Anand failed to cope with these
problems and was crushed in the
first game of the match in Sofia
2010 against Topalov.
We reached the conclusion that
only the Classical system with
. . .Vlffc7 gives Black fair chances to
play sound positional chess. In it,
it is of paramount importance to be
well acquainted with its strategic
ideas. The focus is shifted towards
pawn structures and plans, rath­
er than move-by-move forced play.
That makes it much safer from a
practical point of view, because the
role of calculation and home prepa­
ration is reduced.
5
 Foreword
I have also learned how to or­
ganise effectively the joint work of
two grandmasters, and how to dis­
tribute tasks in order to reap the
best harvest from it.
My duties were to seek original
ideas which significantly differed
from established theory, and mark
the main pawn structures, plans
and move order tricks. Then we
both put the idea under the micro­
scope of different engines. Final­
ly Cheparinov decided whether the
idea deserved a practical test.
I used the same method with
my co-author Evgenij Agrest. He
plays the Griinfeld only as White
so he provided the necessary criti­
cal view on my analytical work. At
first I prepared a general survey of a
given system, with an approximate
evaluation of every branch. Zhen­
ya's task was to find a decent way
for Black to deviate from the es­
tablished theory. When I deemed
that his proposed setup had a solid
positional background and the risk
was reasonably low, we started ana­
lysing with engines. Our best assis­
tants were Firebird and the current
number 1, Houdini. The result of
our effort was a number of solid al­
ternative setups which could serve
as good backup lines or even as a
main repertoire.
For instance, in the Exchange
System 7.'Llf3 c5 8 . Elb1 0 - 0 9.0-0, in
addition to the main line with 9 .. .
'Llc6, Agrest analysed in detail 9 .. .
b6 10.0-0 �c7! .
6
This development practically
eliminates all the theory and lets
Black play in the centre without
running any risk of being crushed
"by the book".
We followed this approach
throughout the whole book. In eve­
ry major system, we tried to offer at
least two alternatives. That should
bring about flexibility in our rep­
ertoire, and allow a variable ap­
proach to opponents according to
their strength or playing style. With
our backup lines, you should be able
to avoid long forced variations and
surprise your opponents. Even for
our main lines, we aimed to focus
(whenever possible) on positional­
ly sound and less forced variations.
We are convinced that the stud­
ying of an opening should not be­
gin with a memorization of varia­
tions. We should first understand
what our positional aims are, what
to pursue and what to avoid. Then
we should examine the typical
pawn structures and plans that en­
sue from them. Only then should we
choose a system which best fits in
with our style of play.
 Foreword
Here are some examples from
the practice of my students.
We had studied the typical ide­
as and a few classical examples, so
when Kadric got into the position of
the following diagram, he did not
get crushed, despite the fact that he
did not know the best move order:
Drenchev-Kadric
Plovdiv 05.02.2011
9 . . . .ixf3? !
Correct is 9 . . .tt:Ja5! 10.'\Wa4 .ixf3.
10.gxf3 tt:Ja5 11.'\Wd3 ! c5! 12 . .ie3
tt:Jd7 13.f4 a6 14.e5 b5 15.'\Wd2
White is 150 Elo points high­
er rated (2521) than his opponent
and much more experienced, but
he was forced to think concrete­
ly in an unusual position. Black re­
membered that I advocate . . . a6 and
. . . b5 in the Griinfeld and success-
fully gained space on the queenside.
Now he could have applied anoth­
er typical method - a pawn sacri­
fice - to seize the initiative: 15 .. .f6
16.e6 tt:Jb6 17 . .ixc5 tt:Jbc4 18.'\Wc1 f5
19.0-0 :Q:c8t , instead of the timid
15 . . . :Q:c8 . However, later he got the
upper hand, but failed to convert
his advantage.
When we studied the ideas of the
g3 -system, I showed the game Ben­
ko-Smyslov, Budapest 1949 (given
in the intro of Part 1) which intro­
duced for the first time the attack on
the queenside by the a-pawn.
During the following game,
Kadric recalled it and, inspired by
Smyslov's example, followed up by:
G.Szabo-Kadric
Plovdiv 03.02.2011
1l. . . a4 ! ?
Consistent, though probably not
best (1l. . .e5 ! = ).
1 2 . tt:J xa4 tt:Jxa4 13.bxa4 e5 !
14 . .ib2 exd4 15 . .ixd4 tt:Jxd4 16.tt:Jxd4
.ixd4 17.'\Wxd4 '\Wxd4 18.exd4 and
Black easily drew against the 185
Elo points favourite.
I would also like to call your at­
tention to a thematic manoeuvre
7
 Foreword
in the Griinfeld - . . . 'Llc6-a5-b7-d6,
blockading the advanced d5-pawn.
I first delved into this idea dur­
ing my work with Ivan Saric, a
World and European champion un­
der 18, and now the leading Croa­
tian grandmaster. One of my stu­
dents liked it so much that he strived
to reach a similar pawn structure
in every game, thinking that Black
was even better. I spent some ef­
fort to convince him that the eval­
uation of such a position depended
on the placement of the other piec­
es. Here is a fresh example from my
own practice:
Naumkin-Delchev
Cap p elle IaGrande27.02.2011
During the game, I indulged i n
meditation o f a philosophical cha­
racter - if White did not have any
problems even in this ideal block­
ading position, I thought, then per­
haps Black did not stand so well in
other similar positions either. He
lacks an active plan. The natural­
looking move .. .f7-f5 would only
weaken the e5-pawn. After Ei:e1,
.tc3, Black cannot make any pro­
gress since his setup is basically
passive and defensive. His left flank
is cramped. That is why I recom-
8
mend in the book to resort to this
plan mostly after having gained
space on the queenside first with
. . . b5.
My advice is: study the main
strategic ideas, before drawing your
conclusions. Play according to the
position - do not overestimate your
chances. After all, we have Black,
so reaching comfortable equality
should not upset us.
To save you time and help you
quickly achieve practical results, I
have used a slightly different struc­
ture than in The Safest Sicilian. This
time I borrowed the style of pres­
entation of my colleague in the Bul­
garian national team, Kiril Geor­
giev, from his book Squeezing the
Gambits, Chess Stars 2010. Again,
every part is divided to 3 chap­
ters. The titles "Step by Step" and
"Complete Games" speak for them­
selves. The difference is in the first
chapters, called "Main Ideas". Like
the "Quick Repertoire", they also
aim to give you a succinct review
of the theory and the basic knowl­
edge that should allow you to start
playing the opening without much
study. However, I have also includ­
ed a lot of diagrams with examples
of middlegame plans and typical
tactical motifs. These should help
you compensate for the lack of prac­
tice. The "Main Ideas" chapters are
very important and complement
the "Step by Step" chapters. I also
tried to reduce the amount of the­
ory in the "Step by Step" chapters
by examining some backup lines in
 Foreword

heavily annotated games, given in

the "Complete Games". That should
facilitate your navigation between
the numerous branches of our rep­
ertoire.

I have arranged the material ac­

cording to the main pawn struc­
tures in the Griinfeld.
Thus Parts 1-4 consider systems
where White does not hurry to oc­ Finally, Parts 7-10 are devoted
cupy the centre and our g7-bishop is to the Exchange System. This has
restrained by the d4-pawn: been White's most popular weapon.

Then in Parts 5 -6 I examine the The last parts deal with some
more aggressive pawn formation: Anti-Griinfeld approaches.

I would like to thank GM Evgenij Agrest for his fruitful collaboration,

and S. Semkov for editing this book.

The material in this book is up to date to April first, 2011.

A.Delchev
Aleksandar.delchev@gmail.com

9
Introduction
Black lets White build a strong pawn
centre and subsequently tries to trans­
form this strength into a weakness
The dynamic character of play
makes the Griinfeld Defence one
of the most popular contemporary
openings. However, in the begin­
ning, this original and highly pro­
vocative setup did not inspire con­
fidence.
The birthday of this hypermod­
ern opening was in 192 2 . In the first
top level game, Alekhine-Griin­
feld, Vienna 192 2 , the future World
champion probably underestimat­
ed the great idea of his opponent
and lost. Subsequently, Alekhine
adopted it himself, starting in the
same year. He even chose it for a
main weapon in his match against
Euwe in 1935, but the overall score
was 3-1 in White's favour and he did
not try it again in the rematch.
In the match-tournament in
1948, another future World cham­
pion, Smyslov, took up the torch
and opted for the Griinfeld in three
games. He lost one of them to Euwe,
but no one could lightly dismiss the
new opening anymore.
Six years later, the Griinfeld ap­
peared in the 1954 match Botvin­
nik-Smyslov and later Botvin­
nik himself adopted it, popula-
10
Botvinnik
rising it further. Henceforth, near­
ly all World champions included
the Griinfeld Defence in their rep­
ertoire. After the catastrophe in the
Tarrasch Defence in his first match
against Karpov, Kasparov put his
fate in the Griinfeld. Still, the to­
tal score of 5-1 and 17 draws, shows
that back in the 1980s this defence
was going through a crisis. Or per­
haps Karpov's seconds did a better
job.
For many years, the forced char­
acter of the main Griinfeld lines put
the home preparation of both sides
to the test and made this opening
difficult to play. The strong pawn
centre allowed White to launch
kingside attacks where every mis­
take could be fatal.
Eventually, the powerful new
engines helped Black neutralise the
most dangerous lines and nowa­
days the Griinfeld defence is as re­
liable as ever. Svidler and Kam­
sky have brought it at a new level of
competitiveness and keep on win­
ning decisive games with it. Black
is in perfect theoretical shape so do
not hesitate. Join the party!
 Pa rt 1

The Fianchetto System

1.d4 d5 2.c4 g6 3.g3 ig7 4.ig2 d5

11
Pa rt 1
Main Ideas
Objectives and Move Orders
The Fianchetto system is in no way
the most ambitious one against the
Griinfeld Defence, but it is definitely
quite insidious. White develops his
forces slowly, but very solidly. That
makes it difficult for Black to at­
tack the centre in the same way as
he does against the systems where
White advances his e-pawn on the
fifth or sixth move. Twenty years
ago the Fianchetto system was not
too popular because general opin­
ion held that Black had good chan­
ces to equalise by holding the centre
with . . . c6 and . . . d5. This approach is
very solid indeed and play is rath­
er drawish, but tastes have been
changing lately. First of all, White
players discovered that the Main
(or the Exchange) line in the Griin­
feld was far from clear, with Black
firmly holding his own in the long
forced variations. This made many
of them turn to more calm systems
and the Fianchetto is certainly the
most solid one. Secondly, Griinfeld
fans wanted sharper play for the
three possible results. Struggling to
draw in a symmetric position is not
too inspiring, indeed. I'll provide
you with advice and analyses how
to play after . . . c6 and . . . d5, but I'll
12
focus on the most dynamic way to
put pressure on White's centre and
queenside, namely . . . d5 without
preparation. It leads to rich double­
edged play with the main events
unfolding on the queenside.
If Black seized the initiative and
forced White relocate his pieces
to defend weaknesses on the left
wing, he could get opportunities to
strike at the weakened enemy king.
Here is an instructive example
of that scenario by the great expert
of the Griinfeld Defence, World
champion Vasily Smyslov:
Benko-Smyslov
Budapest, 1949
l. d4 tt'lf6 2. c4 g6 3 . tt'lf3 .ig7
4.g3 d5 5. cxd5 tt'lxd5 6. .ig2 0-0
7. 0 - 0 tt'lb6!
By retreating the knight, Black
starts the battle for the d4-pawn.
8. tt'lc3 tt'lc6 9. e3 a5
I prefer 9 . . . l"i:e8 , which will be
analysed in the "Step by Step"
chapter.
10 . b3
After 10.a4 e5 ll.d5 'Llb4, Black
obtains a perfect stand for his
knight.
10 tt'lb4 ll .ib2 a4!
• • . •
 l.d4 t'Llf6 2 . c4 g6 3 .g3 flg7 4./lg2 d5

22 /lxg2
••• 23 . �xg2 b6!
24. /lb4 c5!

Taking over the initiative.

12.lLl xa4 lLl xa4 13. bxa4 lLl d5
The second knight is on its way
to recapture the a4-pawn. That will
make the a2-pawn the next target.
14.lLl e5 lLl b6 15.lLl d3 lLl xa4
16. /la3 fle6! 17.�cl
The b7-pawn is immune in view
of 17./lxb7? t'Llc3 - +.
The seemingly active 17.t'Llc5
t'Llxc5 18./lxc5 would stumble into
18 . . . b6! 19./lxaS �xa8 with Black's
advantage, for example 20./lxe7
l"i:e8 21./lg5 flh3 22 .f3 flxf1 23.1Mfxf1
1Mfd5!+.
17 c6 18 . l"i:dl l"i:e8 19.lLlc5
•••
lLl xc5 20 . /lxc5 l"i:a6!
Threatening 21.../lxa2 2 2 .1Mfb2
"A very strong idea probably
missed by Benko." - Smyslov.
25. /lc3
In the event of 25.dxc5 1Mfa8+
26.c6 ixa1 27.l"i:xa1 b5! 28.l"i:c1 l"i:c8
White is in trouble.
25 cxd4
••. 26. /lxd4 �aS+
27. e4
If 27.@g1 ixd4 28.l"i:xd4 l"i:xa3
29.l"i:xa3 1Mfxa3 30.1Mfc6 1Mfa1+ 31.@g2 ,
Black keeps the edge with 31.. .l"i:b8!
(Smyslov) which is stronger than
31...1Mfa8 3 2 .1Mfxa8 l"i:xa8 33.l"i:d7! @f8
34.l"i:b7.
27 l"k8 28.�d3 l:!a4! 29. /lxg7
.••

1Mfa8. @xg7
21. a3 /ld5 22. 1Mfc2?!
22 .e4 would have only weakened
the centre after 22 . . . /lb3 23.l"i:d3
ia4, intending . . . b6, as pointed out
by Smyslov. White's best choice was
probably 2 2 .ixd5 1Mfxd5 23.l"i:b1 b5
24.1Mfc2, but after 24 . . . e6! , Black will
threaten to exchange the bishops
from f8. The arising heavy pieces
endgame would be unpleasant for
White due to the clear target on 30 .f3 ?
a3. The slightly weakened White's 30.l"i:e1 l"i:c5 31.l"i:e3 1Mfc6 clearly
castling position could provide a favoured Black, but it still pre­
second weakness to attack. served some drawing chances.

13
 Part 1

After the text, Smyslov changes the Basic Plans and Pawn
direction of his offensive, exploit­ Structures
ing the gaping second rank.
30 . . . �a5 31. h4
Or 31.�d7 Ei:c2+ 32 .Wh1 Ei:xa3 -
Smyslov.
31. Ei:c3 32. �d7 Ei:xa3 33.Ei:xa3
•.

�xa3 3 4. �d4+ f6 35.�xb6 Ei: c2+

and White resigned.

Note that White chose 3.l2'lf3.

This move has no advantages over
3.g3, which is more flexible be­
The key to understanding this
cause it leaves open the possibility
structure is the general weakness
for leading out the king's knight to
of White's light squares a4, d3,
e2. Thus I'll consider the move or­
c4 and especially the latter. It is
der:
caused by the absence of the light­
squared bishop which had gone to
l. d4 ll:\f6 2. c4 g6 3.g3 .ig7 (or
the main diagonal.
3 . . . d5 at once) 4. .ig2 d5

The most important strategic

I divided the material into three
tasks of Black are:
major systems:
1. He aims to occupy c4 by
A. White does not take on d5,
knight or pawn and leave the op­
offering Black to capture the c4 -
ponent with a bad dark-squared
pawn, or entrench himself with
bishop. To achieve that, he would
. . . c6.
gladly trade his own bishop for
B . White takes on d5 and follows White's last knight should it appear
up with e2-e4 and l2Jg1-e2. on e5.

C. White does take on d5, but de­
velops the knight to f3. The e -pawn
often stays back to e3, bolstering
d4 and helping to restrain Black's
wildest attacker, the g7-bishop.
A. 5.ltlf3 dxc4!
6. ll:\a3 c3 7 . bxc3 0-0 8 . 0 - 0
c5 9.e3 ll:\c6
2. The queen's bishop goes to f5,
and eventually to e4.
3. Black's queen has two pos­
sible routes. If White continues in
the diagram position with 10 . .ib2
(line A1 in the " Step by Step" chap­
ter), then Black answers with 10 . . .
�b6! having in mind 11.l2Jc4 �a6
or 11.�e2 .if5! 1 2 . Ei:fc1 Ei:fd8. Should
White choose 10.�e2 (line A2),
then the queen most often goes to

14
 l.d4 '2lf6 2 . c4 g6 3 .g3 :il.g7 4.:il.g2 d5
h5 via d5, after the preliminary 10 . . .
l2l d 5 ll.:il.b2 l2lb6!
In general, Black should avoid
opening the c-file. His favourite sce­
nario is to exchange the opponent's
knights and queen and exploit the
queenside weaknesses.
Saric-Rade
Kastel1999
White's Ahileas heel in this
structure is the c4-square. Do not
hesitate to kill its defenders:
12 . . . '2lxe5 13.'2lxe5 :il.xe5 ! 14.dxe5
l2lb6+.
Pr.Nikolic-Van Wely
Reykjavik 2003
White is fully developed and
rules in the centre. However, this
impression is deceptive. The game
went 13 . . . b5 14.'2lce5 l2lxe5 15.'2lxe5
:il.xe5! 16.dxe5 '®a5 17.:il.b2 l"lfd8
18. l"lc2 '®a4 19. l"lac1 '2lg5 - +, with to­
tal domination on the light squares.
Khismatullin-Efimenko
M oscow20 08
17. . . c4! 18.'2lb4 a5 19.'2lc2 l2ld6
20.:il.g2 :il.d3 2 l .'®d1 e5-+.
Compare the b2-bishop to the
one on d3!
Now let us draw inspiration
from an old game of the great
fianchetto expert Predrag Nikolic.
In the distant 1988 he was Black
though!
Kurajica-Pr.Nikolic
Brez ovica, 1988
13 . . .'2lb6! 14.'®d1 '®d5! 15.'®e2
l"lad8. A perfect blockade! Next
Black can shift the queen to f5 or h5.
15
 Part 1

Espig-Peter Heine Nielsen 14 . . . lt:lxc3 ! ! 15.lt:lxc3 cxd4 16.lt:la4

Germany2004 (Or 16.lt:lb5 d3; 16.lt:le4 d3 17. l"lb1
�c4 18 .�a3 dxe2 19. l"le1 �d3+) 16 . . .
�c4 17.�xa7 �xe2 18. l"le1 d 3 19.�d2
�d4 20.�a6 l"lc2 21.�h6 d2-+.

Panchenko-Malaniuk
Kh arkov, 1980

In this example, White decided

to forestall the opponent's plans
and immediately occupied c4, pre­
venting . . . �b6. The game went
10 . . . lt:ld5 11.�b2 lt:lb6! 12 .�e2 lt:l a4
13.lt:lfe5?! (We know this positional
mistake. 13. l"lad1 is equal.) 13 . . . 14 . . . lt:lxc3 ! !
lt:lxe5 14.lt:lxe5 �xeS! 15.dxe5 �e6 This hit combines the destruc­
16.c4 �b6 17.l"lab1 �a6 18. l"lfc1 lt:lb6 tion of White's centre with a double
19.�fl l"lfd8. White is paralysed attack: 15.�xc3 cxd4 16.�b2 (16.
with the defence of the pawn on c4. �a5 �d6 ; 16.�b4 �b6) 16 . . . �b6
17.�b5 a6 -+.

Typical Tactical Motifs

Karpov-Leko
Most tactical hits are linked with Cannes2002
the power of the g7-bishop. When
the d4-pawn is shaky, we should
always be looking for some tactics:

Schwarz-Delchev
Arnh em 1990

The d4-square looks rock-solid,

but Leko's next two moves shake it
dramatically:
12 . . . �g4 13.f3 lt:ld5!
White's pieces lack coordination

16
 l.d4 4Jf6 2 . c4 g6 3 .g3 j,g7 4.j,g2 d5
so Black can unleash his tactical
imagination:
14.4:lc4
Or 14.j,b2 4:lxe3 ! 15.d5 (15.fxg4
Lt:lxdl 16. l"1xdl cxd4+; 15.dxc5 Vfffx c5
16.Vffff2 j,e6 17.4:lc2 g5) 15 . . . 4Jxdl
16. l"1xdl j,d7 17.4:lc4 Vfffa 6 18.dxc6
j,xc6 19.j,fl e6+.
14 . . . Vfffa 6! 15.j,b2 4Jb6 (15 . . . j,e6 =)
16.j,f1 (16.fxg4 Vfffxc4) 16 . . . Vfffxc4
17.Vfffxc4 4Jxc4 18.j,xc4 4:la5.
The endgame is pleasant for
Black because the knight on h4 is
misplaced, to say it mildly.
B. 5.cxd5 ltlxd5 6.e4
6 . tilb6 7. 4Je2
••
7. c5!
..
The move order is very impor­
tant here !
8 . d5 0 - 0 9. 0 - 0 e6!
In the "Step by Step" chapter I
examine in detail:
Bl. 10.4Jec3 4Ja6! ll.a4 4:lb4 and
B 2 . 10.4Jbc3 4Ja6! 11.4:lf4 e5!
Basic Plans and Pawn
Structures
The character of play in this vari­
ation differs significantly from line
A. Instead of hiding behind the
pawn shield in the centre, White
gains space and builds his game
around the d-pawn. Dynamic fac­
tors prevail over strategy and Black
should be very careful to avoid an
opening catastrophe. He should not
hurry to exchange too early on d5
and allow d5-d6 as in the following
example:
Vaganian-Smejkal
Germany 1998
12 .d6!
Avoid such a position! A passed
central pawn should be treated like
a dangerous criminal (remember
this?) and restrained (blocked) as
further back as possible. Moving
to d6, it opens the long diagonal
17
 Part 1
to the g2-bishop, but most impor­
tantly, frees the d5-square for the
c3-knight.
Funny, but Vaganian had the
chance to teach that lesson not
once, but twice. The source game
went:
12 . . . l"1e8
Vaganian-Holzke, Germany 2002
saw 12 ... l"1b8 13.i.f4 i.d7 14.h4 i.c6
15.d7! i.xg2 16.\t>xg2 l"1a8 17.i.d6+-.
13 .tt:Jf4 l"1b8 14.tt:Jfd5 tt:Jxd5
15.tt:Jxd5 i.e6 (15 ... �d6!) 16.i.f4
i.xd5 17.�xd5 tt:Jb4 18 .�d2±.
Suppose that Black had not ex­
changed on d5 in the last example.
Then he could prevent the bishop
on f4 from supporting the d6-pawn
by playing e6-e5. This plan was in­
troduced in the game:
Blumin-Reshevsky
NewYork, 1939
Reshevsky chose here:
ll . . . e5 12.i.c1 tt:Jc4 13.b3 tt:Jd6
The pawn is tamed and Black
can start his own play on both sides
with . . .b7-b5 or f7-f5.
14. l"1b1 �e7 15.f4 i.d7 16.�e1 b5!
17.tt:Jd1 f5!+.
18
Remember:
Black should keep the tension in
the centre until White defines the
future of his king's knight (or plays
i.f4, as in the above example).
The reason behind the idea of
delaying . . . exd5 is that White can­
not keep his knight on e2 forever. It
has no prospects there and should
be relocated to a better stand. In
practice White tried at least 3 dif­
ferent setups of his knights: tt:Je2-
c3+t2la3; tt:Je2-c3+t2ld2; tt:Jbc3+t2lf4.
The first two of them take White's
cavalry away from the kingside and
then Black can already open the
centre aiming to take over the ini­
tiative. Should, however, a knight
appear on f4, we better close the
position with . . . e5 and switch to
blockading ideas.
Now let us examine some typi­
cal examples:
Leko-Topalov
Nanjing2009
Black's pieces are active and To­
palov decides to launch a kingside
attack - 16 . . . �e8 ! ? .
The game Kempinski-Bobras,
Polanica Zdroj 2006 saw the more
 l.d4 '2Jf6 2 .c4 g6 3 .g3 JJ.g7 4.:fJ.g2 d5

conservative 16 . . . '2Jba4 17. '2Jxa4 when 19 . . . §J.d4 would have been

'2Jxa4. roughly equal.
17. '2Jd2 f5 ! . The threat of .. .f4
forces White to take the sacrificed Szczepanski-Szczepankiewicz
pawn. corr. 2009
18.exf5 gxf5 19.'2Jxc4 '2Jxc4
20.'<l�xc4 '2Je4 21.�b4 '2Jxc3 22 .bxc3
f4! . Topalov developed a tangible
initiative in only a few moves.
23.:fJ.c5? (23.:fJ.xa7) 23 . . .f3 !
24. §J.xf8 (24.§J.hl Elf4 25.c4 b 6
26.§J.e3 Elfxc4+) 2 4. . . §J.xf8 25.�xb7
fxg2 26.�xg2 �f7-+.

Euwe-Smyslov
Zuerich 1953 Another example of exploiting
the d3-square: 12 . . . JJ.f5 13.'2Jc3 c4!
14.�a4 §J.d3 15. Eldl '2Jd7 16.:fJ.e3 lLle5
(16 ... b5 ! ) 17. Elacl a6 18.b3 b5 =.

Hulak-Sutovsky
Istanbul 2003

In this game from the legendary

Candidates tournament in Zuerich,
Euwe put his queen's knight at the
edge of the board, leaving c3 for
the other one. This idea is too slow
and Smyslov attacked immediately
with:
ll . . . exd5 12 .exd5 §J.f5 13.'2Jc3
'2Jb4. A typical picture for this vari­
ation - the d3-square is in full con­
trol of the black pieces. The game
went on with 14.:fJ.e3 Elc8?! (better
was 14 . . . '2Jd3 ! ) 15.d6 §J.d3 and here
White sacrificed the exchange with
a sufficient compensation: 16.JJ.b7
Elb8 17.§J.g2 §J.fl 18 .�fl l2Jd7 19.l2Jc4
This setup of White's knights
hides more venom, but again the
d3-square saves the day:
l l . . .l2Jb4! 12 .l2Jb3 c4! 13.l2Jc5 l2Jd7
14.JJ.e3 �aS 15.l2Jxd7 JJ.xd7 16.§J.d2
l2Jd3+. Black has developed a strong
initiative on the queenside. The
central pawns only hamper the rest
of White's army.

19
 Part 1
Kempinski-Brkic
Kusadasi, 2006
ll . . . exd5 12 .exd5 tt:Jc4 13.lt:Jd2
tt:Jxd2 14. .ixd2 .ifS 15 . .ie3 Wfd7
16.11h'b3 l"1ac8. Preparing . . . tt:Jb4 with
good counterplay.
Typical Tactical Motifs
In this line, the raging bishop on g7
has no barrier on its line of fire and
it is the main protagonist in tactical
skirmishes :
Reinartz-Pusch
Nordwal de 1988
15 . . . tt:Jxb2 ! 16.11h'xb2 tt:Jxa4
17.11h'xb7 (or 17.tt:Jxa4 .ixb2 18.tt:Jxb2
Ei:e8+) 17 ... hc3 18.l"1a2 .ib4+.
20
Euwe-Pilnik
Amsterdam 1950
17. . . exf4! 18 . .ixf4 (18.gxf4?
tt:Jxe4 19 . .ixe4 Ei:xe4) 18 . . . .ia6 (18 . . .
tt:Jxe4? 1 9. .ixe4 Ei:xe4 2 0.tt:Jxe4
.ixa1 21.lt:J 2c3 ! , with a decisive at­
tack) 19.E\e1 Wfe7 20.g4 .ie5 2 l ..ixe5
Wfxe5+.
Be careful when calculating
your tactical blows. White might be
able to strike back:
O'Kelly-Phillips
Hastings 1950
1 2 .tt:Je4! tt:Jxb2? 13.11h'c2 tt:J a4
14.11h'xa4! .ixa1 15 . .ig5 f6 16 . .ih6
.ie5 17..ixf8 Wfxf8 18.f4. White has
a winning attack. The black king
lacks defenders, the passed d-pawn
is also very strong.
 l .d4 'Llf6 2 .c4 g6 3.g3 �g7 4 .�g2 d5
C. 5.cxd5 li:Jxd5 6.li:Jf3
Objectives and Move Orders
In the Griinfeld, as a rule, we aim
for asymmetric, strategically un­
balanced positions. We want to
have our own trumps - active piec­
es, pressure on weak white pawns.
That should be enough to compen­
sate the strong enemy centre. Thus,
in the diagram position, we prin­
cipally reject the plans with 6 ... c5.
Being a tempo down, the arising
symmetry would doom us to a long
defence without serious winning
chances.
Instead, we shall be preparing
. . . e5, but the timing for this break­
through will be decisive for the out­
come of the opening battle.
6 .•. 'L:lb6!
It is important to play this move
before castling. Thus we sidestep
the unpleasant variation 6 . . . 0 - 0
7.0 - 0 CL:lb6 8 .'L:lc3 'Ll c 6 9.d5 which
does not work now because Black
can take on c3 with check and win
a pawn. Note that our move order
sets up a positional trap - if White
answered by the mundane 7.0-0,
we equalise at once by 7. . .CL:lc6! 8 .e3
e5! 9.'Llc3 exd4 10.exd4 0-0. White's
best is:
7.ttl c3 ttl c6 8 . e3 0-0 9. 0-0
ges!
9 . . . e5 10.d5! is better for White,
so we must wait for White to weak­
en his main diagonal with b3. We
have plenty of useful "waiting"
moves as . . . a5-a4, even . . . E\a5 in
some variations, to control d5.
After the text, 1 0 .d5 is not that
strong as the g7-bishop breaks
loose along its striking diagonal.
We'll be preparing . . . c6, but also
keeping open the option of . . . c5 :
10. . . CL:la5 ll.'L:ld4 �d7 12 .e4 gc8 ! ?
Black's position i s like a com­
pressed spring. He is ready to
21
 Part 1
blockade the centre with tempo af­
ter 13.i.f4 cS 14.ltJf3 eS ! , or open it
after 13.:1'1e1 c6 14.i.f4 cxdS 15.exd5
ltJac4 16.b3 ltJd6.
The most topical line lately is:
We have seen a fierce dispute
over this position in the last year.
Black is winning it convincingly so
far:
This is the main line in the se­
cond volume of Avrukh's repertoire
book l.d4. A possible improvement
can be 1l.'®c2 ! ? a4 ! ? and the critical
position arises after 12 .:1'1d 1 :
12 . . . i.f5 ! ? 13.e4
22
Or 13.'®e2 i.g4 14.h3 i.e6 15.d5
ltJxdS 16.lLlb5 '®c8 17.ltJg5 :1'1d8
18.ltJxe6 f:xe6oo.
13 . . .i.g4 14.ltJb5 :1'1a5 ! 15.'®e2
:1'1xb5 ! ? 16.'®xb5 i.xf3 17.hf3 ttJxd4
18.'®d3 cS.
Black has full compensation for
the exchange, according to Agrest's
analysis.
ll. . . i.e6! 12.ll:ld2
1 2 .:1'1d1 i.c4 13.'®c2 ltJb4 ! 14.'®b1
has disappeared from practice after
game 1 Leitao-Caruana, Khan­
ty-Mansiysk, 2 0 1 0 which went:
14 ... e5 ! ! 15 .a3 exd4 16.axb4
Black is fine. He can make a
draw with 16 . . . axb4 17.:1'1xa8 '®xa8
18.ltJe4 '®a4 19.:1'1e1 i.a2 2 0 .'®d3
i.c4= or play for a win with 16 . . .
dxc3 17.:1'1xd8 :1'1axd8 .
12 .ll:lb4
••
I consider also 12 . . . a4 ! ? 13 .:1'1d1
fS ! ? .
13. :1'1dl c6 14. a3 tt:l 4d5
Black has a comfortable posi­
tion.
 l.d4 l2lf6 2 .c4 g6 3 .g3 il.g7 4.il.g2 d5

Basic Plans and Pawn 17. . .l2la8!

Structures Black needs to activate his
queen. Another way to achieve it
is 17... l"1c7!? 18.a4 WeB 19.Wd3 il.fS
Ehlvest-Ftacnik
20.l2lxf5 WxfS 2l.Wxf5 gxfS 2 2 .'2le2
Haninge 1990
il.xb2 23.:1'1xb2 l"1ec8+, Maletin-Zhou
Jianchao, Novokuznetsk 2008.
18.a4 Wb6 19.l2lce2 l2lc7 20.l2lf4
l2lf5?!
Black has an easier game so he
did not need to seek exchanges. He
could have fixed the queenside with
20 . . . a5, intending . . . l2la6-c5.
2 1.'2lxf5?!
Aronian overestimates his
chances. Better was 2l.il.h3 ! il.xd4
We see a typical pawn structure
2 2 . il.xd4 Wxd4 23.Wxd4 l2lxd4
with an open centre. Black would
24.il.xd7 l2lf3+ 25.';f;>g2 l2lxel+
have been OK, had he a bishop on
26.:1'1xel l"1cd8 27.il.xe8 l"1xe8= '
d7. However, he has exchanged it on
where Black has no weaknesses.
f3 and now White is better due to
2 1 . . . il.xf5 2 2 . il.xg7 il.xbl 23.il.al
his bishop pair. With his next move
il.f5 ! and White has not enough
he is aiming for d5-d6 to open play
compensation.
even more:
16.:1'1adl ! l2l ac4 17.il.cl! l2ld7
Kempinski-Khalifman
18 .We2 l"1e8 19.h4!
EU-chT Plovdiv2003
White is dominating the board
and exchange combinations like
19 . . . l2lxb2 are in his favour.

The correct setup of Black is:

Aronian-Rowson
Noyon2005

White has changed a pair of

knights and prevented the themat­
ic redeployment . . . l2lc4-d6. Still, the
c4-square remains a perfect junc­
ture point for Black's pieces:
15 . . . . Wc8 16.il.f4 Wc4
The queen is following the route

23
 Part 1
d8-c8-c4-a6 -a5.
17./''lacl l"iac8 18.l"ife1 h6! 19.h4
�a6 20.�f1 �a5 2l.ctJb5 l"ixc1
22.l"ixc1 l"ic8 23.l"ixc8+ ltJxc6 =.
Borovikov-Areshchenko
Rivne2005
This is another typical pawn
structure with a blockaded centre.
15.�g5 f6 16.�c1 ltJbc4!
Making way to the b-pawn.
17.b3 ltJd6 18.a4?
Weakening b3. Better is 18.�e3,
bS, but even then I prefer Black.
18 ...c4! 19.�a3 �f8 20.b4 LLlb3
2l.l"ia2 bS 22.axb5 ltJxbS 23.ltJxb5
�xbS 24.�c1 ltJxc1 25.�xc1 c3+.
I'll consider now two original
ways of solving strategic problems.
Mamedyarov-Sutovsky
EU-chT Leon200 1
24
Now 16 ... �g7 is possible since
17.e5 will be attacked with 17...
f6. Still, Black has a more direct
way to prevent the threat of e4-e5,
ltJc3-e4-d6:
16 ...�xc3 ! ? 17.bxc3 f5 !
The light-squared blockade does
not leave White many possibilities.
18.e5
Or 18.exf5 �c4-+; 18.�f2 fxe4
19.�xb6 axb6 20.�xe4 bS 2 l.l"ie1=.
18 ...�a3 !
The game is balanced. Best is
probably 19.�c2 ltJ a4 (or 19...l"iad8)
20.l"id3 �b2 2l.�xb2 ltJxb2 22.l"id4
ltJc4 23.�f2 l"iac8=, Blagojevic-1.
Markovic, Budva 2004.
Bauer-Tkachiev
Belfort, 2010
White's last moves, h3 and l"ib1,
do nothing more than waiting.
Tkachiev comes up with something
far from trivial:
12 ...l"ia5!
Taking control of d5 and bS!
13.ctJd2 eS! 14.b4 (14.d5? ltJxdS
15.ltJxd5 l"ixdS 16.�xd5 �xdS+) 14...
axb3 15.ltJxb3 l"ia8 16.d5 e4 (16 ...
ltJb4!?) 17.ltJxe4 ltJxdS 18.ltJbc5 l"ia7
19.�b3 ltJaS 20.�c2 b6 2 l.l"id1 c6
22.ctJa4 bS! 23.ctJac3 l"id7=.
 l.d4 lLlf6 2 . c4 g6 3 .g3 .ig7 4 . .ig2 d5
Typical Tactical Motifs
Again, the hero of the day is the g7-
bishop.
Bacrot-Gustafsson
Germany200 1
Black is in danger since his
knights remained useless at the
edge of the board. The tactical solu­
tion of this positional problem is:
15 . . . tt:Jbc4! 16.bxc4 �b6
White is unable to defend all his
hanging pieces along the main di­
agonal: 17.tt:Ja4 .ixa4 18 .�xa4 tt:Jxc4
19 . .ic3 .ixd4 20 . .ixd4 �xd4 or
17.tt:Jcb5 tt:Jxc4 18 . .ic3 .ixb5 19.tt:Jxb5
�xb5 20 . .ixg7 i>xg7 2 1.�d4+ i>g8
22 .�xa7 tt:Jd6 23.�d4 l"lc2 . So he
strikes back with:
17.tt:Je6! tt:Jxc4! 18.tt:Jxg7 tt:Jxb2
with an active position for Black.
Smejkai-Khalifman
Germany2000
13 . . . .ic8 !
Suddenly Black threatens a fork
by . . . e5 so White must start a re­
treat along the whole battlefront.
14.tt:Jde2 cxd5 15.exd5 e5 (15 . . .
.ig4! ?) 1 6 . .icl tt:J ac4 17.b3 tt:Jd6, with
a typical blockading position:
18.a4 .ig4 19 . .ia3 tt:Jbc8 20.h3
.ixe2 2 1.�xe2 a6 =.
25
Pa rt 1

Step by Step

l.d4 l2lf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 i.g7 4.i.g2
d5
I advocate this sharp system
against the fianchetto because it is
true to the Griinfeld spirit and al­
lows Black to play for a win. Howev­
er, you should be aware that many
players discard the fianchetto setup
against the King's Indian/Griinfeld
as a main repertoire mostly because
of the extremely solid variation :
difficulties in the sharp main lines.
In the diagram position, White's
most popular answers are :
a) 6 .b3
This is the main repertoire in
Avrukh's book l.d4 who spent 30
pages on it. I'll confine myself to
one column:
6 ... 0-0 7.0-0 �f5 8 .�b2

3 . . . c6 4.�g2 d5 5.'2lf3 �g7

8 . . ..�b6!?

This move is seldom seen in

Even the ultra-sharp young Kas­
practice and it is not mentioned in
parov placed his trust in it when
Avrukh's book. Thus you have a se­
he wanted to make a draw against
rious chance to surprise your oppo­
Karpov. This approach has several
nent. The idea behind it is to ham­
positive sides : Black's game is clear
per White's natural development
and easy, one can learn all the vital
with '2lc3. Besides threatening to
variations in an hour. I do not plan
capture on c4, Black is also eying
to elaborate too much in this vari­
the d4-pawn. His next move can be
ation, but Agrest prepared for you
. . . �d8 or . . . '2le4. The most obvious
a brief survey with some original
answer is :
recommendations. You might want
to try it in the event of temporary 9.'2lbd2

26
 l.d4 '2lf6 2 .c4 g6 3 .g3 il.g7 4.il.g2 dS
A small victory for us - the
knight went to a passive place and
left the d4-pawn without the sup­
port of the d1-queen.
Alternatives are :
9.cxdS cxdS 10.'2lc3 '2lc6 11.'2leS
E1fd8 1 2 . '2l a4 'WbS 13.'2lxc6 'Wxc6
14.E1c1 'Wd6 1S.C2lcS E1ab8 = ;
9.'2leS E1d8 10.'2lc3 C2lbd7 11.'2lxd7
E1xd7 1 2 . '2l a4 'Wd8 13.'2lcS E1c7= .
9 . . . '2lbd7
9 . . . '2le4 is less convincing due
to 10 .e3 C2lxd2 11.'2lxd2 (11.'Wxd2
il.e4=) 11 . . . il.e6 (ll . . . il.d3 12 .E1e1
dxc4 13 .il.a3) 1 2 . E1c1 '2ld7 13.e4
dxe4 14.'2lxe4, but despite White's
space advantage, Black is still hold­
ing after 14 . . . E1ad8 1S.C2lgS cS = .
After the text, i t i s unclear how
White should continue. His prob­
lem is that 10.e3 would fail already
to 10 . . . il.d3 ll.cs 'WaS 1 2 . E1e1 b6+.
In general, the queen on b6 is
very annoying, but 10 .'2lh4 il.e6
1l.cS 'WaS 1 2 . a3 will also face 12 . . .
b6. Finally, 10 .a4 could b e met by
lO . . . aS.
I think that Black enjoys a com­
fortable game after 8 . . . 'Wb6.
b) 6.cxdS cxdS 7.'2leS 0-0 8.'2lc3
il.fS ! ? (8 . . . e6 9 . 0-0 '2lfd7 is also
popular) 9.0-0 C2le4 !
A simple and straightforward
way to equality. Black takes on c3
and follows up with . . . C2lc6. White
will have the double attack 'Wb3 , but
it leads to a forced draw. When Bot­
vinnik first faced this move in the
world championship match against
Smyslov in 19S4, he took on e4 and
agreed to a draw two moves later.
Main continuations are :
b1) 10.'Wb3 C2lc6 1l.'WxdS (11.
E1d1? ! is often played, but White
is even a bit worse after 11 . . .
C2lxd4 1 2 . E1xd4 C2lxc3 13 .bxc3 il.xeS
14.E1xdS 'Wc7.) 11 . . . '2lxc3 12 .bxc3
'WxdS 13 .il.xdS ltJxeS 14.dxeS il.xeS.
The game Benko-Fischer, New
York 196 2 , saw further 1S.il.h6 E1fd8
16.il.xb7 E1ab8 17.E1ad1 il.xc3, with a
quick draw. In my game M .lvanov­
Delchev, Benasque 2 0 0 8 , White de­
viated with 1S.il.e3 ? ! E1ac8 16.il.xb7
E1xc3 17.E1ac1 E1d8 18.E1xc3 il.xc3 and
managed to make a draw.
b2) 10.il.f4 C2lxc3 ! (It is essential
to avoid the structure that aris­
es after 1 0 . . . '2lc6 ? ! 1 1 .'2lxc6 bxc6
1 2 . '2l a4:1:: . ) 11.bxc3 C2lc6 2 .'Wb3 e6!
13.'Wxb7 (13 .h3 ltJxeS 14.il.xeS f6
1S.il.f4 gS 16.il.d2 'Wd7=) 13 . . . '2lxeS
14.il.xeS il.xeS 1S.dxeS 'WaS 16.'Wb4
27
 Part 1
(16.c4 :B:ab8 17. 1We7 dxc4 18.e4 .ig4
19.f3 :B:b2-+) 16 . . . 1Wxb4 17.cxb4
:B:fb8 18.a3 aS 19 .bxaS :B:xaS = ,
Huebner-Kozma, Siegburg/Bad Go­
desberg 1969.
b3) 10 ..ie3 tt:lxc3 1l .bxc3 tt:lc6
12. tt:lxc6 (or 1 2 . 1Wb3 tt:lxeS 13.dxeS
e6=) 12 . . . bxc6 13. 1Wa4 1Wb6 = . The
famous game Geller-Fischer, Pal­
ma de Mallorca 1970, went further
14.:B:ac1 :B:ab8 1S.c4 hd4 16 .hd4
1Wxd4 17.e3 '!WeS 18.cxdS cxdS
19.:B:fd1 e6 2 0 . 1Wxa7 :B:a8+.
Now, with a solid backup line
in the pocket, let us return to the
much more interesting positions
from our main repertoire:
I examine here:
A. S.tt:lf3 ; B. 5.cxd5 tbxd5 6.e4;
C. 5.cxd5 tbxd5 6.tbf3.
Variations B and C look similar,
but in fact they have quite different
character and deserve independent
main lines.
28
A . 5. tLlf3 dxc4!
This is the best move order. M­
ter S . . . 0-0, White could switch to
6.cxdS and throw us out of the pro­
posed repertoire.
6. tLla3
6.1Wa4+ tt:lfd7 7.0-0 tt:lc6 8 . 1Wxc4
tt:lb6 9 . 1Wc2 0-0 10.:B:d1 .ig4 ll.e3
looks solid, but the queen lift 11 . . .
'!WdS ! 1 2 . tt:lbd2 1WhS solves the prob­
lem of activating the strongest black
piece. Play might continue 13.:B:e1
tt:lb4 14.1Wc3 cS ! 1S.a3 tt:lc6.
6 ••• c3 !
This genuine Griinfeld move
was first played by Milan Vidmar
in 1940. It has gradually pushed
into the background the varia­
tion 6 .. 0-0 7 0 - 0 tt:lc6 8 tt:l c4 .ie6
where Black aims to blockade the
light squares and seek counterplay
on the a-file with 9.b3 .idS 10 . .ib2
aS. The main expert for White is
Predrag Nikolic who every too of­
ten proves that White's powerful
centre prevails in this structure. I
advocate the more active approach
linked with a direct attack of the
centre with . . . c7-cS. It is true that
6 . . . c3 bolsters up White's centre,
but the closing of the c-file and the
shift of the pawn to c3 weakens the
c4-square which should become
the fulcrum of Black's strategy. We
should only watch out not to allow
the advancing of the pawns to c4,
dS, e4.
 l.d4 'Llf6 2 .c4 g6 3 .g3 �g7 4.�g2 dS

7.bxc3 c5 8 . 0 -0 0-0 queens favours Black. Any ex­

change of minor pieces is also wel­
come. Hopefully, we could block­
ade the b2-bishop with . . . c5-c4, or
gain control over the c-file with a
timely exchange on d4. However,
do not hurry to define the fate of
the c5 -pawn!
You should learn carefully the
recommended move order and exa­
mine the positional and tactical
motifs given in the "Main Ideas"
chapter.
The other options on move 9 do
9. e3! not set serious problems:

White lays his hope for an ad­ a) 9.'Lle5 'Llc6!

vantage on this very move. He
builds up a dark-squared pawn
triangle to reduce the scope of the
bishop on g7. He will then develop
with natural moves as \We2 , �b2 ,
l"lacl, l"lfdl. In the middlegame,
White will attempt to put his pawn
cluster in motion. Many Black play­
ers feel uncomfortable when facing
such an approach, because it is very
difficult to generate any tactical A standard tactical motif. Black
threats. sacrifices a pawn in order to ex­
I will show a good method of change the active knight and inter­
creating counterplay: cept the initiative.
The f6 -knight goes with tem­
10.'Llxc6
po to b6 via dS (hitting c3). From
there it cuts the white knight on 10.'Llac4 'LldS transposes to line
a3 off from the c4-square and pre­ b. 9.'Llc4.
pares an attack on the b2-bishop
10 . . . bxc6 ll.�xc6
with 'Llb6-a4. Black's queen finds
an employment on a4 via b6-a6, or White can take the pawn by
on h5 (through dS). Sometimes the 11.\Wa4 'LldS! 12 .\Wxc6 (12 . �d2 cxd4
queen builds a battery on the h3-c8 13.cxd4 'Llb6! 14.\Wxc6 �a6 15.\We4
diagonal after �e6 , \WeB. \Wxd4=), but then Black's initiative
In most variations, a trade of is even stronger: 12 . . . �e6 13.'Llb5

29
 Part 1

(13.'Wxc5 misses the typical tac­ �xf3 13.lLlxf3 cxd4 14.lLlxd4 lLla5=,
tical hit 13 . . . lLlxc3 ! when neither Sanchez-Salo, Moscow (ol) 1956.
14.'Wxc3 �xd4 15.'Wf3 �xa1 16.�h6
�g7 17.�xg7 'kt>xg7 18.'Wc3+ f6 10 ... lLld5! 1l.�b2
19.�xa8 'Wxa8+, nor 14.e3 lLle2+
15.'tt>h 1 lLlxd4-+ would save White.)
13 .. .l'k8 14.'Wa6 lLlxc3 ! The same
hit! 15.lLlxc3 cxd4 16.lLla4 �c4. I
was hesitant what to take first.
17.'Wxa7 �xe2 1 8 .l''l e 1 d3 19.�d2 �d4
2 0 .'Wa6 l"lc2 2 1.�h6 d 2 - + , Schwarz­
Delchev, Arnhem 1990.

We could also use here the

standard strategic motif 1 1 . . .lLlxe5
12 .lLlxe5 �xe5!? 13 .dxe5 �e6!
(keeping the bishop pinned to the
c3-pawn. 13 . . . lLlb6 is a mistake in
view of 14.'Wxd8 l"lxd8 15.�cl! �g4
16.�e3)
11.. .�h3

White's position is difficult. For

instance, 12.�xa8 'Wxa8 13.f3 fails
to 13 . . . lLld5!+. 1 2 .�g2 is also bad
owing to 12 . . . �xg2 13.'tt> x g2 lLle4
14. �b2 l"lb8 15.l"lb1 cxd4 16.cxd4
'Wd5 17.f3 'Wxa2+. Remains:

1 2 . l"le1 lLld5! (cutting the bishop's

retreats) 13 .�b2 (13 .'Wd3 lLlxc3 ! )
1 3 . . . l"lb8 14.'Wd2 lLlxc3 !+, Panchen­
ko-Malaniuk, Kharkov 1980.
b) 9.lLlc4 lLlc6 10.lLlfe5
Alternatives:
10.lLlce5 lLld5 1l.�b2 (ll.'Wb3
lLlxe5 12 .lLlxe5 �e6 13 .'Wxb7 loses
to 13 . . .lLlxc3-+) ll . . . lLlxe5 12 .lLlxe5
�xe5 13.dxe5 �e6 = ;
10.�b2 �e6 ll.lLlce5 �d5 1 2 .c4
14.'Wc2 (White's kingside attack
reaches an impasse after 14.'Wc1
'Wc7 15.f4 lLlb6 16.c4 lLlxc4 17.f5 gxf5
18.e4 lLlxb2 19.'Wxb2 fxe4-+; On
the other hand, the endgame also
favours Black: 14.c4 lLlb6 15.�xb7
l"lb8 16.�e4 lLlxc4 17.�c3 'Wxd1
18. l"lfxd1 lLlb2 19. l"ld2 lLl a4 20.�a5
l"lfc8 2 l . l"lc2 c4 2 2 .f4 c3-+.) 14 . . .
'Wc7 15.e4 lLl b 6 16.f4 �c4 17.l"lfe1

30
 l.d4 l2lf6 2 .c4 g6 3 .g3 fJ.g7 4.fJ.g2 d5

:El:ad8 18.fJ.c1 §J.d3 19.�f2 l2lc4 20.g4 matches. The queen frees d1 for the
�a5 2l.f5 l2lxe5-+. The idea of the rook.
double exchange on e5 would be
9 . . . l2lc6 10.:1l:d1 l2la5! (to control
even stronger on the next move, so
c4!) 1l .�b2
White should take on c6 himself:

12 .l2lxc6 bxc6 13 .�a4

We already know that 13.l2le5?!

ixe5!? 14.dxe5 �c7 is good for
Black.
13.�c2 is also passive: 13 . . .
�c7 14.e3 (or 14.e4 l2l b 6 15.l2le3
l2lc4 16.l2lxc4 fJ.xc4 17.:1l:fe1 �a5 =)
14 . . . cxd4 15.cxd4 c5 16.dxc5 �xc5
17.ixg7 lt>xg7 and the opponents
signed a draw, Andersson-Balashov,
Buenos Aires 1980.
13 . . . :1l:b8 14.:1l:ac1 :El:b5
l2lb6 16.l2lxb6 �xb6 17.fJ.a1
The bishop is out of play on al.
"For a compensation", the a2-pawn
is weak, which was underlined by :
17. . . :1l:c8 ! (intending . . . :El:a5) 18.d5
:El:a5 19.�c4 cxd5 20.fJ.xd5 fJ.xd5
2l.�xd5 �a6 22 .:1l:c2 c4.
Black is on top, Mamedyarov­
Van Wely, Ciudad Real 2004.
c) 9.�b3 ! ?
A n idea o f E . Vladimirov - one
of Kasparov's assistants in the KK
ll . . . cxd4
My new idea, which you will see
on move 13, is also working without
15.:1l:fd1
the exchange on d4, but I think that
the c-file opens in Black's favour.
In the game Papin-Kokarev, St.
Petersburg 04.11.2010, Black tested
ll . . . �b6 1 2 .l2le5 §J.e6! (In Inarkiev­
Kurnosov, Moscow 2010, Black lost
tempi on manoeuvring and ended
up without counterplay after 12 . . .
l2l d 7 13.l2lac4 l2lxc4 14.l2lxc4 �a6
15.l2le3!t.) 13 .:1l:b1 �xb2 14.:1l:xb2
:El:ad8 15.hb7 when instead of 15 . . .
:El:b8? 16.§J.f3±, h e should have played
the obvious 15 . . . l2lxb7 16.:1l:xb7 l2ld5,
regaining the material.
12.cxd4 fJ.f5 !
Planning . . . fJ.e4.
13.l2le5 l2lg4!
With this novelty, I improve on
the game Turov-Flumbort, Haar­
lem 2010, which saw 13 ... l2ld7 14
l2l ec4 l2lxc4 15 l2lxc4 fJ.e6 16 l2le3!t.
The fine point is that the knight on

31
 Part 1
g4 discourages the unpleasant ma­
noeuvre lt:Jc4-e3.
14.if4
Alternatively:
14.lt:Jec4 lt:Jxc4 15.lt:Jxc4 l"1c8 ! 16
lt:Je3 lt:Jxe3 17. ixe3 l"1c2 or 17. . . b 6 = ;
14.lt:Jxg4 ixg4 15.if4 l"1 c 8 16.h3
ie6=.
14 ... lt:Jxe5 15.dxe5 1Wb6! 16.1Wxb6
axb6 17.lt:Jb5 lt:Jc6
The endgame is equal, for in­
stance, 18.e4 ig4 19.f3 ie6 20.lt:Jc7
l"1xa2=, or 18.lt:Jc7 l"1a5 19.lt:Jd5 ie6 =.
9 .tt'lc6
•.
Now White chooses between :
Al. 10ib2 and A2. 10.1We2.
10.lt:Jc4 is only a minor alterna­
tive: 10 . . . lt:Jd5 ll.ib2 lt:Jb6! 12 .1We2
lt:J a4 13.lt:Jfe5?! lt:Jxe5 14.lt:Jxe5 ixe5 ! .
Al. 10 . .ib2 1Wb6!
10 . . . lt:Jd5 is an attempt to steer
play into the 10.1We2 line. However,
32
I have some aprihension about 11.e4
(in the line 11.1Wb3 lt:Ja5 1 2 . 1Wb5 a6
13.1We2 lt:Jb6, the extra move . . . a6
might be useful) ll ... lt:Jb6 12 .1Wc2!
(Keeping a4 under control. 12 .d5
lt:Ja5 13.l"1b1 id7 is fine.) Now 12 . . .
ig4 i s insufficient in view o f 13.d5
ixf3 14 ixf3 lt:Je5 15 ie2 when
Black has no counterplay against
f2-f4 and e4-e5, so we should opt
for 12 . . . cxd4 13 .cxd4 ig4 14.d5
.ixf3 15.ixf3 lt:Jd4 16 . .ixd4 ixd4
17. l"1ac1 1Wd718.1We 2 ! . White is to be
preferred here because we cannot
contend for the c-file. For example,
18 . . . l"1fc8 walks into 19.ig4! f5 20
ih3 ! and Black's castling position
is weakened.
11.1We2
If ll.lt:Jc4 1Wa6 12 .lt:Jfe5 (12.lt:Jce5
if5) 12 . . . ie6! and White loses the
battle for the c4-square.
ll. . . .if5! 12.�fcl
I recently faced 12. l"1fd1 l"1fd8 13
lt:Jc4 1Wa6 14 if1 1Wa4=, Pavlovic­
Delchev, Serbia 2010, 13.ifl does
not set problems either: 12 . . . lt:Ja5!
(Black should restrict the knight
on a3 from going to the centre.)
14.lt:Je5 l"1ac8 15.lt:Jac4 lt:Jxc4 16.lt:Jxc4
1Wa6 and Black is slightly better.
12. . . �fd8 13 . .ifl
Or 13.lt:Jc4 1Wa6 14 . .if1 (14.lt:Jh4
ie6 15 . .ifl 1Wa4+) 14 . . . 1Wa4! 15.lt:Jfe5
lt:Jxe5 16.lt:Jxe5 lt:Je4=.
 l.d4 4'lf6 2 . c4 g6 3 .g3 il.g7 4.il.g2 dS
13 . . . ttJa5 14.ttJe5 gac8 15. llJac4
ttJxc4 16.llJxc4 �e6=.
A2. 10 .�e2 ttJd5 ll.il.b2 ttJb6!
Our plan is to trade the bishop
on b2 with 4'lb6-a4. White has a
wider choice. First of all, he should
decide on the setup of his rooks. It
may seem that the best places for
them are cl and dl, but one of the
biggest experts for White, Nikolic,
preferred to put them to bl and cl.
I further examine:
A21. 1 2 . gfdl?! ; A22. 1 2 . Elabl !?;
A23. 1 2 . Elacl; A24. 1 2 . Eladl.
A21. 12.gfdl?!
This allows the exchange of the
b6-knight for the b2-bishop. Al­
though this piece looks passive at
the moment, without it White will
lack an active plan.
12. . . ttJa4! 13.gacl
13.4'lc4 could make Black re­
consider his plans with 13 . . .�c7
14. Elacl bS 15.4'lce5 4'lxe5 16.4'lxe5
Elb8 17.il.al
Now Black gains the edge by 17. . .
il.xeS 18 .dxe5 c4.
13 •.• ttJxb2 14.�xb2 �b6!
As I had noted, trading queens
is generally a good idea!
If 15.�e2, Black returns to the
plan with . . . �a6, e.g. 15 . . .�a5 !
16.4'lc4 �a6 17.d5 4'la5 18.il.fl 4'lxc4
19.�xc4 �xc4 20.il.xc4 il.d7 21.e4 bS
22 .il.e2 Elfd+.
15. . . cxd4 16.cxd4 �xb5
17.ttJxb5 il.d7 18. a4 gfc8=.
A22. 12.l=�abl! ?
A fresh idea of Predrag Nikolic.
It faces us with a new type of prob­
lems. Black should reckon with the
pressure down the open b-file.
12. . . �d5! ?
I suppose that 12 . . . il.f5 is a vi­
able alternative:
33
 Part 1

13.e4 �g4 14.dS '2leS 1S.c4 e6 16 17.�xeS! �xeS 18 .\We3 �xf3 19.�xf3
�fc1 \We7 where Black should be able to
neutralise the opponent's initiative .

.�..
13. '2le5

13.c4 \WhS 14.dS '2leS 1S.�xeS

�xeS was equal in Jankovic-Sebe­
nik, Nova Gorica 2003: 16.h3 �g7
17.g4 \Wh6 18 .'2lbS �d7 19.'2lxa7
ttJxdS =.

Here, in the game Nikolic-Nedev, 12... \Wxa2 14.'2lxc6 bxc6

Antalya 2004, Black chose 16 . . . �c8 15.�xc6 �h3!
and after 17.\We3, White unpinned
his knight, remaining with a solid
spatial advantage.
In the Griinfeld, we often face
the dilemma - to blockade the cen­
tre or to destroy it. The second ap­
proach is very tempting so I spent a
lot of time on 16 .. .fS? ! . The final di­
agnosis is that Black is unable to rip
dividends from the pressure along
the f-file and eventually White gets
the upper hand. My main variation
runs 17.�xeS 17 . . . �xeS 18.exfS �xfS
19.dxe6 \Wf6 2 0 .�b3 �f8 2 1.\We4 16.�xa8
�xf3 2 2 .�xf3 '2lc8 2 3 . Wg2 '2ld6
24.\We2 Wg7 2S.'2lbS±. After 16. �fe1 �ab8 17.e4 cxd4
The key to understanding this 18 .cxd4 �fcS 19.dS '2ld7 20.�xg7
position is that the b6-knight is \Wxe2 2l. �xe2 �xb1+ 22 .'2lxb1 Wxg7,
passive while the possibility of '2lbS Black has some initiative.
and the pressure on b7 are a con­
stant source of concern. 16 �xfl
.•. 17. \Wxfl �xa8
Logically, I came to the move: 18.'1Wa6 cxd4 19.cxd4 e6=.
16 . . . �b8 !
Then 17.\We3?! �xf3 18.�xf3
\WgS ! 19.�e2 (19.\We2 '2lxf3+ 20.\Wxf3 A23 . 12.�acl \Wd5!
�xb2) 19 . . .\Wxe3 20.fxe3 should be
about equal. White's most chal­ This queen lift is probably the
lenging continuation seems to be safest setup in this system. We

34
 l.d4 tt:Jf6 2 . c4 g6 3.g3 !g7 4.!g2 d5
evacuate our strongest piece from
the centre to h5.
12 . . . !e6, as in the game Adi­
anto-Ehlvest, Bali 2 00 0 , looks in­
teresting, for instance, 13.l:!fdl
Wc8 ! 14.c4 !g4! and Black is fine.
However, I'm afraid that it is not
entirely sound. White's most chal­
lenging response to it is to capture
on c5 and follow up with tt:Jd4, e.g.
13.dxc5!? tt:Ja4 14.4J d4 (14.Wb5 Wfa5)
14 . . .4Jxc5±.
13. c4!
Or:
13.Wfb5 Wh5 14.l:!fel !d7 15.1Mffl
l:!ac8= (15 . . . l:!fd8 16.4Jd2 l:!ac8=);
13.4Je5 Wfxa2 14.4Jxc6 bxc6
15.!xc6 l:!b8 16.l:!al Wfe6 17.!g2
tt:Ja4, with counterplay.
13 ••• 1Mfh5
Threatening to paralyse White's
pieces with . . . !g4, so he must de­
fine the pawn structure in the cen­
tre.
14.dxc5
14.d5 lUeS is also roughly equal.
See game 3 Matnadze-Delchev,
Zaragoza 3 0 . 1 2 . 2010.
14 !xh2 15. Wxb2 tLla4 16.1Mfb5
•••
tLlxc5 17.l:!fdl a6 18. 1Mfb6 tLla4
19. 1Mfhl Wfa5 20 .l:!d5 tLlc3 21.l:!xa5
tLlxhl=.
A24. 12.!\adl Wfd5! 13. c4
Alternatively:
13.4Je5 Wxa2 14.4Jxc6 bxc6
15.!xc6 l:!b8 16.l:!d2 cxd4 17.cxd4
!b7 18.!xb7 l:!xb7 19.l:!c2 (19.Wfa6
Wfd5 20.l:!cl Wfd7 21.l:!dc2 tt:Jd5
22 .We2 a5+±) 19 ... 4Ja4+;
13 .1Mfb5 Wfh5 14.4Jd2 !d7+.
13. . . 1Mfh5 14.dxc5 Wfxc5
15. !xg7 @xg7 16.1Mfh2+ e5 17.tLld2
17 ••• !f5!
It is essential to prevent the
knight from landing on d6.
18. tLlb3
35
 Part 1
Or 18'2le4 �xe4 19 �xe4 fi:ad8 =.
18 ... '1We7 19. c5 tt'la4 20 . \Wcl
fi:ad8 21.ll'lb5 �d3 22.fi:xd3 fi:xd3
23.'1Wc4 1"1xb3 24. axb3 tt'lxc5=.
B. 5. cxd5 t2lxd5 6.e4
White decides to occupy the
centre. Our bishop on g7 welcomes
such a strategy! It is more difficult
to obtain counterplay against the
rock-solid dark-squared fortress
e3-d4. I consider it in line C.
I would also like to mention the
move order:
6.'2lc3 '2lb6! (I prefer this to 6 . . .
'2lxc3.) 7.e3
7.'2lf3 '2lc6 8.e3 0-0 9 . 0- 0 trans­
poses to line C.
7... 0-0 8.'2lge2 eS 9.d5
9.0 - 0 exd4 10.'2lxd4 \We7 was the
first game in this line, Capablanca­
Flohr 1935. Black took over the initi­
ative with . . . fi:d8, ... cS and . . . '2la6-b4.
9 . . . c6 10.e4 cxdS ll.exdS '2la6
12.0-0
This position often arises after
6.e4 '2lb6 7.'2le2 0-0 8.0-0 eS 9 .d5
36
c6 10.'2lbc3 cxdS ll.exdS '2la6, when
White has an extra tempo for 12 .b3.
In our example, it is Black to move
and he seizes the initiative with 12 . . .
�fS 13.b3 '2lb4. The very instructive
game Kortschnoj-Svidler, Tilburg
1998, saw further 14.�a3 aS 15.'\Mfd2
'2lc8 16.'2le4 �xe4 17.�xe4 '2ld6
18.�g2 e4 19.fi:ac1 fi:e8 20.�xb4
axb4 21.'\Mfxb4 fi:xa2 2 2 .'2lc3 �xc3
23.'\Mfxc3 e3 24.fxe3 '\Mfb6t.
6. . . tt'lb6 7. tt'le2
7.'2lf3 is not popular due to 7. . .
�g4! 8.d5 c 6 when the f3-knight
hinders the g2-bishop from pro­
tecting the key pawn on dS. Black
should only refrain from exchang­
ing his bishop after 9 .h3. Instead,
9 . . . �c8 or 9 . . . �d7 maintain the ba­
lance.
7• . . c5!
The move order is very important
here! After 7... 0-0 8.0-0 cS, White
would have the option of 9.dxc5!
8 . d5
 l.d4 LZ:lf6 2 .c4 g6 3.g3 ii,g7 4.ii,g2 d5
8 .dxc5?! does not even win a
pawn owing to 8 . . .'tlMxdl+ 9.�xdl
LZ:la4 10.LZ:lbc3 LZ:lxc5 ll.ii,e3 LZ:lba6
12.�c2 ii,e6 13J=1adl !':c8=.
8 • • • 0-0 9. 0 - 0 e6!
Black has managed to disrupt
the white pawn pair in the centre
and prolong the scope of his dark­
squared bishop. It would be es­
sential to stop the d5-pawn from
reaching d6. This task is assigned
to the b6-knight which can go to d6
via c4 or c8.
It is more difficult to solve the
problem with the development of
the c8-bishop. We would like to
trade it for its white counterpart,
but that is unrealistic. On f5 it will
be unstable since White could expel
it by h3 and g4. Remains b7 (after
... b6). The bishop will be passive
there, but it will enable the connec­
tion of Black's rooks.
Our main line branches now to:
Bl. 10.LZ:lec3; B 2 . 10.LZ:lbc3.
Bl. 10 . tt::Jec3 tt::Ja6!
Black maintains the tension in
the centre. It is important to keep
open the option of . . . e6-e5, fol­
lowed by an eventual transfer of
the knight to d6. With such a strong
blockading piece Black could play
on both sides of the board with . . . b5
or .. .f5 in a well chosen moment. I
explained the typical ideas in such
structure in the "Main Ideas" chap­
ter.
ll. a4!
The favourite weapon of Kar­
pov in 2009. The other moves are
weaker:
a) ll.LZ:ld2?! is considered as
an opening mistake, for example,
l l . . .LZ:lb4 ! 12 . LZ:lb3 c4 ! 13.LZ:lc5 LZ:ld7
14.ii,e3 Wfa5 15.LZ:lxd7 ii,xd7 16.ii,d2
LZ:ld3+, Hulak-Sutovsky, Istanbul
2003.
b) ll.LZ:la3 exd5 12.exd5 ii,f5!
, �·�
In my opinion, Black is already
fighting for the edge here. The
a3-knight remains very passive,
its only function being to defend
37
 Part 1

the c4-square. Black will prepare
. . . 'Llb4 to target the sensitive d3-
square.
13.ie3
13 .g4 is more principled, but
Black is still fine after 13 . . . id7
14.if4 'Llb4 15.d6 \Wc8 16.h3 ic6 =.
Other alternatives are:
13.'2lab5 'Llb4 14.d6 'Llc4=+;
13.d6 \Wd7.
13 .. J �e8 (13 . . . \Wd7 14.\Wd2 ih3 =
is also good enough.) 14.\Wd2 \Wd7
15. l"1adl
15. l"1fdl is similar: 15 ... !"1ac8
(aiming for ... 'Llb4) 16.ifl ih3 ! and
Black was fine in Bukal-Rade, Si­
benik 2009.
. . . ed5. Practice had seen only 11 . . .
exd5 12.exd5 'Ll c 4 (12 . . .'2l b 4 was
the third game of that very match :
13.ie3 id4 14.a5 ixe3 15.axb6 id4
16.bxa7 if5, with a tangled position
in Karpov-Kasparov (3) rapid 2009
Valencia) 13.'2ld2 'Llxd2 14.ixd2
if5 15.ie3 \Wd7 16.\Wb3 l"1ac8 when
17. l"1fdl! was slightly better for
White in V.Gaprindashvili-Sakaev
2001. Instead, the thematic ad­
vance 17.d6? ! proved to be too early:
17. . . '2lb4 18.ixc5 'Llc2 19.ixa7 'Llxal
20. l"1xal \Wxd6=, Kempinski-Brkic,
Kusadasi 2006.
12. ie3

15 . . . !"1ac8

Preparing . . .'Llb4. 15 . . . !"1ad8 also

worked well in the game Tkachiev­
Cheparinov, Khanty Mansyiisk
2007: 16.ig5 l"1c8 17.'2lcb5 'Llb4
18 .'2lxa7 l"1a8 19.'2l7b5 id3 20.'2lc3
c4 21. l"1fel l"1xel+ 2 2 . l"1xel 'Ll6xd5 =.

16.d6 'Llb4 17.'2lcb5 'Ll a4

Perhaps White should opt here
for 18.'2lc3 'Llb6 = since 18.'2lc7 l"1ed8
19.ixb7 l"1b8 hands Black the initia­
tive.
ll. . . 'Ll b4!
Even after his retirement from
active chess, Kasparov keeps de­
monstrating his deep understand­
ing of the game. He introduced this
idea in his blitz match vs. Karpov
in 2009. Black delays once more
12. . . id4!
The key of Black's opening stra­
tegy. By delaying the exchange on
d5, he preserved the possibility of
. . . e5.
13. ixd4 cxd4 14)t:l a2! ?
We are following the source
game Karpov-Kasparov, blitz match,
Valencia 2009, 4 -th game. Later

38
 l.d4 'Llf6 2 . c4 g6 3.g3 i.g7 4.i.g2 d5
Karpov tried to improve with
14.'Llb5 e5 15.a5 i.d7 16.'Llla3, but
16 . . . 'Llc8 17.�a4 'Ll a6 18Jl:fcl 'Lld6
19.�b3 'Llxb5 2 0.'Llxb5 b6 gave
Black comfortable equality in Kar­
pov-Carlssen, Moskow, rapid 2009.
14 .. .lt:\ xa2 15. :Bxa2 e5!
The protected passed pawn on
d4 completely balances the centre
and Black's bishop is even more
functional than its white counter­
part, which is restrained by its own
pawns, e.g. 16.'Lld2 a5! 17.�b3 �d6
18.f4 f6
B2. 10.lt:\ bc3
10 . . .lt:\ a6!
10 . . . exd5 is the old main line.
Of course it is playable, but in my
opinion Black has more problems
to overcome in that line:
ll.exd5 !
The idea of trading a pair of
knights by ll.'Llxd5 ! ? is also reason-
able since 'Lle2 and 'Llc3 essentially
control the same squares. ll.. .'Llxd5
(or ll...i.g4 1 2 .h3 i.xe2 13 .�xe2 'Llc6
14.�b5 'Ll d4 15.�xc5 'Llxd5 16.exd5
�d7�) 12.exd5
12 . . . i.f5 13.'Llc3 c4! (13 . . . 'Lla6
14.i.e3 �d7 15.�d2 :Bfe8 16. :Bfdlt)
14.�a4 i.d3 15.:Bdl 'Lld7 16.i.e3 b5 ! ,
with Black's initiative.
ll . . . i.f5 !
After the exchange on d5, 11 . . .
'Ll a 6 is already dubious due to
12 .d6!
Here 12 . . . l"1b8 13.i.f4! i.d7 14.h4±
leads to a typical position where
all white pieces are extremely ac­
tive and support well the advanced
passed pawn on d6. The game Vaga­
nian-Holzke, Germany 2002 went
on 14 . . . i.c6 15.d7 i.xg2 16.<;t>xg2 l"1a8
17.i.d6 �xd7 18.i.xf8 + - .
39
 Part 1

12.h3 ! I have been following the game

Wu Shaobin-Sytovsky, Shenyang
12 .i.e3 t'Lla6 13.b3 �d7 14.�d2 is
1999. White is probably a little bet­
less precise in view of 14 ... Ei:fe8? or
ter, but I found 19 .. .f5 ! , restricting
14 . . . i.h3 =.
the knight on g3 . My analysis sug­
12 . . . t'Lla6 gests that play is rather unclear.

This allows g4, but 12 ... h5

does not work due to 13.t'Lle4! Ei:e8
14.t'Ll2c3 t'Lla6 15.i.g5 ! , with a strong
pull.
13.g4! (13.i.f4 t'Llb4!) 13 . . . i.d7
14.t'Llg3
14.d6!?;!; also deserves attention.
ll.tilf4!
Two 2009 games of Peter Leko,
against Topalov and Carlssen, es­
tablished this move as the main
line. At first it looks like a loss of
tempo after . . . eS, but Leko's idea is
to redirect the knight to d3 and lat­
er to f3, from where it would target
the key square eS and enhance the
effect of f2-f4. Alternatives do not
give White any advantage:

a) ll.h3 exdS 12 .exd5

Or 12 .t'Llxd5 t'LlxdS 13 .exd5 i.fS

14.g4 (14.t'Llc3 c4!) 14 . . . i.d7 15.t'Llc3
(15 .t'Llg3 i.bS 16. Ei:e1 t'Llb4) 15 ... c4!
14 . . . t'Llc4! 16.i.e3

The only way to activate the

queen on d8 and hamper White's
development at the same time. Or
14 . . . Ei:e8 15.t'Llge4! .

15.Ei:b1 �b6! 16.b3

Alternatively: 16.i.f4 �b4 ! ;

16.�b3 �xb3 17.axb3 t'Ll a S 18.d6
Ei:ab8 =.

16 . . . i.xc3
16 . . . t'Lle5 17.i.e3 t'Llxg4 18.hxg4
i.xc3 19.b4 i.bS 20.bxc5 �aS
21.t'Lle4� looks too risky.
17.�c2 t'Ll a3 ! 18.i.xa3 i.d4 19.i.b2
16 . . . t'Llb4!
A very strong exchange sacri­
fice.
17.i.c5 t'Lld3 18.i.xf8 �xf8 19.�d2
fS 20.gxf5 �xfS. Black is in full con­
trol of the dark squares.

40
 l.d4 LLlf6 2 . c4 g6 3 .g3 �g7 4.�g2 d5
12 . . . LLlc4! 13 .b3 (13 . l"\e1 l"\e8 14.b3
LLld6 15.�f4 b6 16.Wid2 �b7 17. l"\ad1
1Llc7=) 13 . . . LLld6 14.�f4 b6 15.Wfd2
(15.�xd6 W!xd6 16.LLlb5 Wfd7) 15 . . .
�b7 16. l"\ad1 LLlc7
This position arose in the first
rapid game Karpov-Kasparov, Va­
lencia 2009. Black has covered
most approaches to his position and
stands well, for example: 17.�xd6
W!xd6 18 .LLle4 Wfd7 19.d6 LLlb5 =.
Trading dark-squared bishops is
anti-positional since it bolsters up
the stand of the blockading knight
at d6: 17.�h6?! �xh6 18.Wixh6 l"\e8
19.l"1fe1 Wff6 20.Wff4 �g7. Perhaps
best is 17.l"1fe1 l"\e8=.
In the game, Karpov chose the
pricipled 17.g4? ! , but Black can
exploit the weakening of White's
kingside with 17. . . Wfd7 18.a4 l"\ae8 ! ?
I n my opinion, this is much safer
than the continuation in the game:
18 .. .f5 19.g5 l"\ad8 20.�g3 f4!?
21.LLlxf4 LLlf5 which still provides
good compensation for the pawn.
The rook is undoubtedly more ac­
tive on the e-file. White should
think about equalising, e.g. 19.l"1fe1
f5 20.g5 LLle4 21.LLlxe4 fxe4 22.�xc7=.
b) 1l.�f4?! e5!
This is one of the main ideas of
the variation. It was played firstly
by Reshevsky back in 1939.
12 .�cl
12 . . . LLlc4!
Also possible is 12 . . . c4! ? 13 .b3
�d7 14.�e3 l"\c8 15.Wfd2 LLlc5 16.l"1ab1
f5, with an active position in Me­
dic-Brkic, Sibenik 2006.
13.b3 LLld6 14. l"1b1
White's only sensible plan is
linked with f2-f4, so he should shift
the rook from the long diagonal.
Any delay gives Black time to start
first the offensive, e.g. 14.�e3 �d7
15.Wfd2 l"1c8 16.l"1ab1 Was 17.Wib2 f5.
14 . . . Wfe7 15.f4 �d7 16.Wie1 b5
17.LLld1 f5!+, Blumin-Reshevsky, New
York 1939. The white knights failed
to find good stands.
c) 1l.b3 ! ?
This rare move is very logical.
White takes c4 under control and
completes development.
1l.. .exd5 12 .exd5 �f5 12 .�e3
LLla6 13 .b3 l"1e8 14.Wid2 Wfd7=, Sach­
dev-Djingarova, Dresden ol. 2 0 0 8 .
41
 Part 1
ll. . . e5!
It is time to close the centre.
1l.. .exd5?! gives White the op­
portunity to trade his knight which
was barring the way of the c1-bishop.
Furthermore, White's light-squared
bishop also gains in strength. After
12Jt:lfxd5 ! tt:Jxd5 13.Ct:J xd5, White
is better. Black could try 12 . . . .te6,
but simple development like 13 . .tf4
gives White an easier game. Even
more unpleasant is 13.h4 ! , aiming
for 14 . .tg5 on the next move.
12.tt:l d3 c4!
Black repels the d3-knight from
its perfect position and prepares
the march of his queenside pawns
with . . .tt:Jc5, . . . .td7, . . .tt:Jc8-d6, . . . b5.
12 ... tt:Jc4, aiming firstly to go
to d6 before proceeding with the
queenside play, spends precious
tempi. White took over the initiative
in Leko-Carlssen, Nanjing 2009 ,
after 13.We2! Wa5 (perhaps 13 . . .
tt:J d 6 14.f4 f6 was relatively better,
for instance, 15.b3 .td7 16 . .te3 Elc8
17.ElacU) 14.a3 ! .td7. Black seems to
be OK here - next follows ... b5 and
42
the pawns are rolling forth. How­
ever, Leko's excellent retort 15 . .tg5 !
allowed him to keep the initiative.
The fine point is that White can
meet 15 . . .f6 by 16.b4! cxb4 17.axb4
Wb6 18.lt:Jc5! tt:Jxc5 19.Wxc4t.
13.tt:l el .td7 14. .te3
Denying the a6 -knight access to
c5. Alternatives are:
a) 14.f4!? lt:Jc5 15.f5 was recently
tried in Kharitonov-Khismatulin,
Moscow 2010. (Note that 15.fxe5
.txe5 16.lt:Jf3 .tg7 17. .tg5 WeB leaves
White's pawn centre hanging.)
Now, instead of the ambitious
but dubious 15 . . . gxf5?! 16.exf5 e4,
Black can improve by 15 . . . tt:Jba4
16.g4 (16.tt:Jxa4 tt:Jxa4; 16.Elb1 b5
17. .te3 Elc8) 16 . . . b5 17.�h1 (or 17.g5
f6) 17. . . Elc8! and Black succeeded
in his queenside initiative while
White's attack is still to take shape.
b) 14.We2!?
Targeting the c4-pawn thus
preventing the manoeuvre . . . tt:Jb6-
c8-d6.
14 ... tt:Jc5 15 . .te3 Elc8 16.lt:Jf3 We8
17.tt:Jd2 f5 !
 l.d4 l/Jf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 il,g7 4.il,g2 dS
An excellent pawn sacrifice.
Leko underestimated it and was
quickly punished by Topalov in
Nanjing 2009: 18.exfS gxfS 19.l/Jxc4
t2Jxc4 20.'®xc4 l/Je4 2 1.'®b4 l/Jxc3
22 .bxc3 f4 23.il,cS f3 , with a win­
ning attack.
14. . . l/J c8
I analysed a lot 14 .. J :k8? ! , but
came to the conclusion that White
is better after 1S.a4!±.
Instead, 1S.l/Jf3 lUeS 16.'®e2 '®e7
17.l/Jd2 fSt occured in Peter Heine
Nielsen-Sutovsky, Malmo 2003.
The position is quite similar to the
game Leko-Topalov.
lS . . . l/JcS 16.aS l/Ja8 17.l/Jf3 ! l/Jb3
18.Ela2 l/JxaS 19.il,gS ! f6 (19 . . . '®b6
20.d6 l/Jc6 21.l/JdS '®cS 2 2 .l/Je7+
cj;>h8 23 .l/Jxc8 Elxc8 24.il,e3 l/Jd4
25.l/JxeS '®xeS 26.f4 '®xd6 27.eS '®c7
28.'®xd4 a6 29. Elcl+ -)
Now White strikes in the centre:
20.l/JxeS ! ! il,e8 21.d6 ElcS 22 .d7±.
15. f4!
White can also stop . . . b7-bS by
1S.a4, but the hole on b3 assures
Black of good play: 1S . . . l/Jd6 16.l/Jc2
'®aS ! (An important improvement
over the blitz game Koneru-Lahno,
Moscow 2010, which went 16 . . .'®c7
17.l/Ja3) 17.l/J a3 lUeS 18.l/JabS (18 .
l/JcbS l/Jcxe4 19.'®c2 a 6 20.l/Jxd6
l/Jxd6 21.l/Jxc4 Elac8 =) 18 ... l/JxbS
19. axbS '®b4 20.'®c2 fS =.
15. . . ttl d6
There is no time for lS . . . bS? as
the blockade on eS collapses after
16.fxeS il,xeS 17.l/Jf3 when 17. . . il,g4
would leave the bS -pawn hanging.
16.'®d2
Now 16.fxeS il,xeS 17.il,d4 f6
18 .l/Jf3 il,g4 is about equal. By mov­
ing the queen, White prevents the
pin from g4.
43
 Part 1
16. . . f6
16 . . . 2"1e8 !? 17.fxeS �xeS 18.�d4
f6 is a valuable alternative to the
main line. Note that 16 . . . bS? is still
premature in view of the pawn
sacrifice 17.fxeS �xeS 18 .tt:lf3 �xc3
19.bxc3 tt:lxe4 20.�d4, with a strong
attack.
17.fxe5 fxe5 18.lt'l f3
Exchanges favour Black who has
a clearcut plan on the queenside :
18. 2"1xf8+ �xf8 19.tt:lf3 �e7 20. 2"1fl
b6! 21.�gS (21.a4 tt:lcS 22.�xcS bxcS,
with a pressure on b2) 2 l . . .�e8
2 2 .l2lel l2lcS 23.tt:lc2 bS 24.a3 aSt.
18 . . . '1Wc7 !
Enabling . . .tt:lcS. 18 . . . bS stum­
bles into 19.tt:lgS.
19.ttl g5 ttl c5
20.ttl e6!
Only this pawn sac faces Black
with some problems. 20. 2"1xf8+
44
2"1xf8 21.tt:le6 tt:lxe6 22 .dxe6 �xe6
23.tt:ldS �b8 is totally safe.
20 . . . 2"1xfl+! 21. 2"1 xfl ttl xe6
22.dxe6 �xe6 23. ttl d5 \Wd8!
24. �g5 c3! 25.bxc3 ttl c4=
Everything is under control.
C. 5. cxd5 ttl xd5 6. ttlf3
6 ... ttl b6 7 . ttl c3
7.0-0 tt:lc6 8.e3 0-0 transposes
to the main line. (8 . . . eS 9 .tt:lc3 is too
drawish for my taste : 9 . 0-0 exd4
10.exd4 0-0 ll .�gS �d7! 12 .tt:le4
tt:lxd4 ! 13.tt:lf6+ �xf6 14.�xf6 tt:lxf3+
1S.�xf3 c6 16.2"1fel �fS 17.2"1e7 �xf3
18.�xf3 �d7 19.2"1dl 2"1ad8 and a
draw was soon agreed in Pantsu­
laia-Gupta, Dubai 2 0 0 6 . ) The only
independent variation is the pawn
sacrifice 8.tt:lc3, but it is not danger­
ous at all :
8 . . . tt:lxd4 9.tt:lxd4 �xd4 l O . tt:lbS
No better is 10 .�xd4 �xd4
ll.ttJbS �eS 12 �f4 �xf4 13.gf4 Wd8 !
with an extra pawn.
 l.d4 ct:Jf6 2 .c4 g6 3 .g3 !£.g7 4.!£.g2 d5

10 . . . �c4 ! 1l.a4 for Black) 12 . dxe5 ct:Jc4 with active

play, Ju Wenjun-Negi, St. Peters­
1l.�b3 regains the pawn but
burg 2 0 09.
it is completely harmless, 11. . . 0-0
12 .�xc4 ct:Jxc4 13.ct:Jxc7 E\bS 14.ct:Jd5
8... 0 - 0!
E\eS 15.!£.f4 f£.e5 16 .!£.xe5 ct:Jxe5
17.!"\fd1 l£,g4 1S.f3 !£.d7 19.f4 ct:Jc6 = ,
S . . . e5 9 . 0-0 is about equal, as we
Kotsur-Kempinski Moscow 2 0 0 5 .
had seen above, but 9 .d5 is not too
1 1 . . . 0-0 1 2 .b3 �g4 13 .!£.f4 ! ? clear.

After 13 .!£.e3 !£.e6 14.!£.xb7 (14.

fiJxc7 !"'adS 15.�b1 !£.xa1 16 .�xal 9. 0 - 0
hb3 17.a5 ct:J c4 1S .!£.h6 �d4+,
Pr.Nikolic-Kasparov, Wijk aan
Zee 2 0 0 0 . ) 14 . . . !"\adS 15 .�c2 f£.xa1
16.!"\xa1 f£.d5, Esen-Ruck, Kerner
2 0 07, Black is the exchange up and
he has an attack.

13 . . . !£.e6 14.h3 �h5 15.g4 �c5 = .

White's b3-pawn i s weak s o 16.!"\c1
does not work due to 16 . . . �b4. In­
stead, Bu Xiangzhi-Timofeev, So­
chi 2 0 0 9 saw 16.�c1 �xc1 17.!"\axc1
c6 1 S .ct:Jc7 !"'adS 19.ct:Jxe6 fxe6
20 .!£.g5 ct:Jd5 = . 9 !"\eS !
• . .

Nimzowitsch called such moves

7 tt:l c6 8 . e3
•••
Our mission has been accom­
plished. The fine point of Black's
move order is that S.d5 is impossi­
ble in view of S . . . !£.xc3+ so we side­
stepped the variation 6 . . . 0-0 7.0-0
fiJb6 S.LLlc3 LLlc6 9.d5 ! ? .
S .!£.f4 aims t o prevent . . . e5, but
nevertheless after S . . . 0-0 9.e3 h6
10.h4 f£.g4 ! 11.!"\c1, Black went on
with ll . . . e5 ! ? (This is not the only
good option. The game Nguyen­
Saric, Vung Tau 2 0 0 S saw instead
11.. .LLld5 ! 12 .�b3 ct:Jdb4 13.0-0 !£.e6 !
14.d5 hd5 15.ct:Jxd5 �xd5 16.!"\c4
fiJa5, with a material advantage
mysterious -putting a rook on a
closed file. Indeed, if we wanted
to play . . . e5, we could have done it
outright. After all, we have enough
hits on e5. Let us shed light on the
reasons behind this strange move.
We shall be meeting time and
again in the book the pawn forma­
tion e3-d4. It is getting on Black's
g7-bishop nerves because this usu­
ally most active piece is biting at
granite. Naturally, it is longing
for action, but the immediate 9 . . .
e 5 would b e met b y 10 .d5 and the
bishop will remain plugged behind
its own pawn.

45
 Part 1
Practical experience shows that
after lO.dS Black is about to strug­
gle for a long time ahead.
It is clear that the active ap­
proach to the opening problems
does not bring Black benefits. Then
he should adopt a waiting strategy.
Let us consider White's plans
and look at the position from his
perspective. He happens to face the
same problem ! The pawn forma­
tion in the centre restricts its own
dark-squared bishop even worse
than it does with our hero on g7.
Evidently, White's only sen­
sible setup is b3, �b2 followed
by Wff e 2, l"1fd1, l'!acl. Should he
achieve it without allowing us to get
counterplay with . . . cS or . . . eS, will
be straddled with a passive defence.
In the diagram position, Black is
somewhat cramped and the lack of
space will tell in future.
Thus the idea is clear. The bat­
tle is for . . . e7-e5 which remains the
only active option after the knight
on c6 has blocked the way to the c7-
pawn. The key is when to thrust the
e-pawn forward. We should seize
the moment when White would not
have d4-d5 . Let us make a useful
move and pass White the turn.
We'll understand better the
character of position if we briefly
examine various other options :
a) 9 . . . e5 lO.dS ! e4
The rest is gloom for Black:
10 ... Ct:le7 1l.e4 �g4 1 2 .h3 �xf3
13 .Wffxf3±;
lO ... Ct:laS 1l.e4 c6 12 .�g5 f6
13.�e3 cxd5 14.�xb6 ! . Many games
46
have proved White's advantage
here. Most instructive are probably
Portish-Schmidt, Bath 1973 and
Hulak-P. Popovic, Zlatibor 1989.
The pawn sacrifice was intro­
duced in the women's world cham­
pionship match Chiburdanidze­
Akhmilovskaya which took place
in Sofia 1986. I (still very young
then ! ) was among the spectators
and I remember myself telling the
neighbours that the demonstrator
probably messed something on the
board.
1l.dxc6 Wffx d1 1 2 . l"1xd1 exf3
13.�xf3 bxc6 14.�d2 !
This strong improvement tips
the balance in White's favour.
Previously White used to take the
c6-pawn, but Black had sufficient
counterplay after 14.�xc6 l"1b8
15.Ct:ld5 (or 15. Ct:lb5 Ct:lc4 16.Ct:lxa7 �g4
17.f3 �e6 18 .�d5 �xb2 = , Konopka­
Seres, Hungary 1998) 15 . . . Ct:lc4
16.Ct:le7+ Wh8 17.Ct:lxc8 l"1fxc8 .
1 4 . . . Ct:lc4 15.Ct:la4 ! l"1b8 16.�c3
�xc3 (16 . . . Ct:lxb2?? 17.�xb2 �xb2
18.l"1ab1 +-) 17.bxc3 Ct:leS 18 .�e2 �e6
19.l"1d4. White has an obvious ad­
vantage which he converted to win
the match for the European title,
Tkachiev-Sutovsky, Dresden 2 0 07.
 l.d4 lLlf6 2 .c4 g6 3.g3 1i.g7 4.1i.g2 d5
b) 9 . . . a5
We saw this idea in the intro
game Benko-Smyslov, Budapest,
1949. However, later White discov­
ered better ways:
10 .b3 lLlb4
Alternatives :
10 . . . e5 11.1i.a3 ! (gaining a tempo)
11.. .l'!e8 12.dxe5 ! lLJxe5 13.lLJd4 c6
14.Wlc2 . Black executed . . . e5 with­
out risking to face d5 in answer, but
play opened in White's favour. The
queen on d8 has no good squares;
10 ... a4? ! ll.lLJxa4 lLJxa4 1 2 .bxa4
�e6 (12 . . . lLJd5, following in Smys­
lov's footsteps, is bad here because
White has 13 .1i.d2 ! lLJb6 14.a5 ! .)
13.l'!b1 l'!a7 14.Wlc2 Wfa8 15.lLJh4 ! and
Black has no time to recapture the
a4-pawn due to d4-d5 .
11.lLJe4!
An improvement over the pas­
sive 1 1.1i.b2.
1 1 . . .1i.d7 1 2 . a3 lLJa6 13 .1i.b2 ti.f5
14.lLJe5 ! c6 15.lLJd3. Black has no
counterplay, Tukmakov-F.Olafsson,
Las Palmas 1978 .
Cl. 1 0 .d5 ; C2. 1 0 . l'!e1 ! .
Minor alternatives are :
a) 1 0 .Wfe 2 . The opposition of
l'!e8 vs. Wfe2 suggests that we should
open the centre with 10 . . . e5 ! 11.dxe5
lLJxe5 1 2 . lLJxe5
Or 1 2 . l'!d1 lLJxf3 + 13.1i.xf3 Wfe7
14.h4 c6 15.1i.d2 ti.e6 16.1i.e1 lLJc4
17.b3 lLJe5 18 .1i.g2 l'!ad8 = , Brunello­
Safarli, Reggio Emilia 2 0 0 9 .
12 . . . 1i.xe5.
In principle, White should aim
in this structure for e3-e4-e5, but
here 13.e4 would be met by 13 . . .
ti.e6 ! s o White has t o change plans :
13.l"1d1 Wfe7 14.e4 (14.f4 ti.xc3 !
15. bxc3 ti.e6) 14 . . . c6 15.1i.e3 ti.e6
16.f4 1i.g7 (16 . . . 1i.xc3 17.bxc3 f5 18 .e5
Wfa3 is also interesting.) 17.e5 f6 = .
b ) 10.lLld2 i s seldom seen lately.
The idea of this move is not quite
clear to me. I recommend 10 . . . e5
ll.d5 lLJe7 1 2 .e4 c6 13.lLlb3 cxd5
14.exd5 lLJf5, with counterplay.
C1. 10. d5
The bishop on g7 is happy now.
Black can renounce the advance of
the e-pawn and prepare . . . c6 in­
stead, in order to open the c-file.
10 . tt:\ a5 ll. ttl d4
• •
This centralisation of the knight
only temporarily prevents the break
. . . c6. We meet 11.e4? ! with ll . . . c6 ! .
ll. . . .id7
47
 Part 1
Completing development and
intending . . . c7-c6 while the oppo­
nent's bishop is still stuck on cl.
12. e4!
White opens the c1-h6 diago­
nal and reinforces his front central
pawn. White has also tried in prac­
tice nearly all other legal moves :
a) 12 .b4 Ci:J ac4 13.a4 aS 14.bS
'l!Mc8 1S.E\e1 had been the main line
for a long time. But, eventually, in
2 004 Ivancuk showed a convincing
way to destroy White's centre :
1S . . . eS ! 16.Ci:Jb3 c6 ! 17.dxc6 bxc6
18.E\a2 cxbS 19.axbS E\a7+, Aronian­
lvancuk, Antalya 2 0 04.
48
b) 1 2 . a4 is threatening 13.b4, but
12 . . . E\c8 ! discourages it in vew of
the counterblow 13 . . . cS !+. Instead,
my game Roiz-Delchev, Pamplona
2 0 0 8 , went on with 13.Ci:Jce2 cS
14.dxc6 Ci:Jxc6 1S.aS Ci:lc4 and I was
already slightly better.
c) 12 .b3 cS ! underlines the
weakening of the main diagonal
and forces White to exchange his
dS-pawn since 13.Ci:Jde2 would be
attacked by 13 . . . e6. After 13.dxc6
Ci:Jxc6 14.Ci:lxc6 .bc6 1S.�xc6 bxc6
(or 1S . . . 'l!Mxd1 16.EJ:xd1 bxc6 17.�d2
aS as in Ljuboj evic-Kasparov, Bar­
celona 1989) 16.�b2 cS 17.'l!Me2 c4,
Black gets rid of his pawn island
and the game should be drawn.
d) 1 2 . Ci:Jb3 Ci:Jxb3 (It is natural to
trade pieces when the opponent has
a spatial advantage, but the block­
ading 12 . . . Ci:J ac4 followed by . . . Ci:Jd6
is playable, too.) 13.1!Mxb3 c6 14.e4
cxdS 1S.exdS
Here, in Kempinski-Khalifman,
Plovdiv 2003, the ex-FIDE World
champion manoeuvred his queen
to its best stand on aS via . . . 'l!Mc8-c4-
a6-aS and levelled the game.
The simpler 1S . . . E\c8 16.�f4 Ci:Jc4
17.E\ac1 'l!Mb6 is also good enough.
 l.d4 '2lf6 2 .c4 g6 3.g3 il.g7 4.il.g2 d5
e) 1 2 . 2:bl. Anticipating 12 . . . c5
which, however, still proves to be
good enough :
13.dxc6 '2lxc6 14. '2lxc6 il.xc6
15.il.xc6 bxc6 16.�e2 �d7 17.il.d2
We6 18 .b3 a5 19.a4 '2ld7 2 0 .b4 axb4
21.2:xb4 '2lc5 2 2 .�c4 �xc4 23 J'l:xc4
il.xc3 24.il.xc3 4Jxa4 25.2:xc6 4Jxc3 ,
draw, Kotsur-Lahno, Satka 2 0 0 8 .
Still, 1 2 . . . 2: c 8 looks even better,
intending to meet 13 .b4 by 13 . . . c5 !
14.'2le6 fxe6 15.bxa5 '2lc4 16.2:xb7
'2ld6 17.2:b3 �xa5 18.dxe6 il.xe6
19 .il.d5 il.xd5 2 0 .�xd5+ '2lf7= .
12. . . 2:c8 ! ?
1 2 . . . c 6 i s more common, but in
this line of the Griinfeld we often
observe that the "threat is stronger
than its execution" a la Nimzo­
witsch. We keep open both options
- of . . . c6 and . . . c5 . The text pre­
sents a more annoying for White
approach as he should reckon now
with two quite different strate­
gies. Black might open the centre,
or blockade it with . . . c5, . . . e5 and
bring a knight to d6 via c4.
13. 2:el!
13.i/.f4 (or 13.il.g5 h6 14.il.f4)
would hand us the tempo for . . . e5
we have been waiting for.
13 . . . c5 ! 14.'2lf3
We had seen before that 14.'2lde2
is misplaced in this structure : 14 . . .
e5 ! 15.il.cl '2lbc4 16.b3 '2ld6 17.2:bl
b5 ! , with an initiative.
14 . . . e5 15.il.g5 f6 16.il.cl '2lbc4
17.a4 '2ld6 18 .b3 c4 ! + .
13. . . c6
I'm afraid to recommend 13 . . .
c5 for the main repertoire due
to 14.'2lf3 (Or 14.'2lb3 '2lbc4 15.f4
�b6+.) 14 . . . '2lbc4 ! 15.e5 ! (15.2:bl b5
16.e5 il.f5 ; 15.�e2 b5) 15 . . . il.g4 when
both : 16.e6 or 16.il.f4 '2lxb2 17.�e2
'2lbc4 18 .h3 (18.2:adl f6) 18 . . . il.xf3
19.il.xf3 g5 2 0 .il.xg5 '2lxe5 lead to
very tangled positions with White's
initiative.
14.il.f4
Or 14.2:bl cxd5 15.exd5 4J ac4
16 .b3 '2ld6 17.il.b2 '2l a8 ! !
An amazing manoeuvre of Miro­
shnichenko ! Black gives way to his
queen which is longing to reach a5,
while the knight is redeployed to
c7-b5 (or a6). The game Tkachiev­
Gopal, Dresden 2 0 0 8 , went 18.'2lce2
�a5 19.a4 il.g4 2 0 .h3 il.xe2 = .
14 cxd5 15. exd5 lLJ ac4 16. b3
. • •
lLJ d6 17 .'�fd2 lLJf5 18. lLJ de2 h6
19.h4 h5
Black found satisfactory stands
for most of his pieces. He only needs
to redeploy the b6-knight to d6.
49
 Part 1
The game Hauchard-Nataf,
Montreal 2005, went further:
2 0 Jlac1 Elc5 2 1 . Eled1 Ci'lc8 2 2 .Ci'le4
Elxc1 23.Elxc1 Ci'lcd6 24.CL\c5 �c8
25.Ci'ld3 \Wb6 2 6.�e5 �h6 2 7.�f4
�g7 2 8 .�e5 �h6 2 9 .�f4 �g7, with
a draw.
C2. lO.Elel!
The same improving and wait­
ing-to-see strategy. At the same
time, White prepares to meet the
breakthrough . . . e5 by advancing
his e- and f-pawns.
10 . . . a5
Another useful move before
starting operations in the centre.
Black's idea could be to push a4-a3
at some point, creating weaknesses
on the queenside. Another original
idea behind this move is to activate
the rook to aS after a5-a4.
I can recommend as an alterna­
tive line the fresh idea of Cuban GM
Dominguez 10 . . . e6 ! ? . It is a conti-
50
nuation of the waiting strategy.
Black wants to see b3 and only then
open the centre by . . . e5. See the an­
notations to game 2 Alekseev­
Dominguez Perez, Havana 2010.
C21. 11.11-lfc2 ! ? ; C22. 1 1 .11-lfe2 .
White has also tried:
a) ll.Ci'lg5 . This move looks like
a provocation. Indeed, ll . . . e5 1 2 . d5
11-lfxgS 13.dxc6 Eld8 14.11-lfc2 bxc6
15.�xc6 Elb8 16.b3 �a6 17.e4 is
slightly better for White due to his
better pawn structure. Perhaps we
should question White's idea with
1 1 . . .h6 1 2 .Ci'lge4 e5.
b) ll.b3 e5 12.Ci'lxe5 CL\xe5 13.dxe5
he5 14.�b2 c6 15.\We2 V!ie7 and the
counterplay with . . . a5-a4 is enough
for maintaining the balance.
c) 11.11-lfd2 ? ! e5 1 2 .d5 Ci'lb4
13.e4 c6 14.a3 cxd5 15.axb4 axb4
16.Elxa8 bxc3 17.bxc3 Ci'lxa8 18.exd5
Ci'lb6, with a fine game for Black
in Carlsen-Giri, Wijk aan Zee
17. 0 1 . 2 0 1 1 .
d ) ll.a4? ! . I t i s a really bad idea
 l.d4 lt:lf6 2 .c4 g6 3 .g3 �g7 4.�g2 d5
to spend a tempo on this positional­
ly wrong move which abandon the
b4-square : l l . . .e5 12 .d5 lt:lb4 13.e4
c6 14.�g5 f6 15.�e3 cxd5 16.�xb6
�xb6 17.lt:lxd5 lt:lxd5 18.�xd5+
�e6+.
e) ll.d5 . This pawn sacrifice was
recently played in two rapid games
at top level, but apparently it only
seeks the surprise effect : ll . . . �xc3
12 .bxc3 �xd5 13.lt:ld4 �c4 ! 14.�a3
(Or 14.lt:lxc6 bxc6 15.�d4 l"1b8
16.�fl �a4 17.c4 �a6 18.c5 lt:lc4+.)
14 ... �d7 15.�fl �a4 16.�xa4 lt:lxa4
17.l"1ecl lt:le5+, Navara-Ivancuk, ra­
pid match, Prague 2 0 0 9 .
f) ll .h3 a4 ! 12 .�e 2 . (12 .l"1bl l"1a5
13.�d2 e5; 12 .d5 lt:lb4 13.e4 a3 ! )
1 2 . . . �e6 13.lt:ld2 lt:lb4 14.l"1dl �c8,
Zhao Zong Yuan-Navara, Khanty­
Mansiysk, 2 9 . 0 9 . 2 0 1 0 . It is obvious
that White's strategy was a failure.
g) ll. lLld2 e5 1 2 .d5 lt:lb4 13.e4 c6
and Black already has a slight ini­
tiative, Jasnikowski-Ftacnik, Pas­
sau 1994.
C21. ll. �c2! ?
White began testing this move
in the end of 2 0 1 0 . It might soon
become the main line though. The
only sure thing in this complex po­
sition is that ll.. .e5 1 2 .lt:lxe5 lt:lxe5
13.dxe5 he5 14.f4! �g7 15.e4, aim­
ing for e5, is better for White. For
instance, in Leitao-Mecking, Campi­
nas 14. 01.2 011, after 15 . . . c6 16.�e3
l2Jc4 17.�f2 �d2 18.�xd2 lt:lxd2
19.e5 �g4 20 .h3 �f3, White had the
retort 2 l.l"1ac l ! l"1ad8 2 2 . l"1c2±.
However, it is still unclear what
White has in store against the the­
matic answer l l . . .�e6 ! ? . I do not be­
lieve in 12 .b3 , as in Gunina-Huang
Qian, rapid Ningbo 2 0 1 0 , because
of 12 . . . �f5 13 .�e2 e5 14.lt:lxe5 lt:lxd4
15.exd4 �xd4 16.�f4 �xc3 17.l"1acl
�b4 18.�xb7 l"1ab8 19 .�c6 l"1e6,
when White's pieces are quite un­
stable. Anyway, I think that the
most consistent retort to ll.�c2 is :
ll . . . a4! ?
and the critical position arises
after
12.l':ldl
12. . . �{5! ?
We have gained space on the
queenside and made room at a5 for
our rook. Furthermore, we dragged
the white rook to dl. That enables a
pin from g4 if White pushes e4. The
game H uzman-N epomniachtchi,
Plovdiv, 2 2 . 10 . 2 0 10 saw instead
the innocuous move 12 . . . h6, which
weakens the castling position. Huz-
51
 Part 1
man answered with the equally
mundane move 13.h3 ? ! , but I do
not like Black's position after the
more purposeful thrust in the cen­
tre: 13.d5 ! l/Jb4 14.'11-lf e 2 a3 15.e4 �d7
(or 15 . . . l/Ja4 16.l/Jxa4 E1xa4 17.b3
E1a8 18.:1:1bU; 15 . . .�g4 16.:1:1b1 axb2
17.�xb2;t) 16.l/Jd4 c5 17.l/Je6 fxe6
18.dxe6 axb2 19 .�xb2 �d4 2 0 . l/J d5 !
�xe6 2 l.�xd4 cxd4 2 2 .l/Jxb4±.
13. e4
13.'11-lf e 2 is the other critical line.
Then we'll return to e6, but it is im­
portant firstly to plug the h3 square
to White's bishop : 13 . . . �g4 14.h3
�e6 15.d5 l/Jxd5 16.l/Jb5 '\1-lfc8 17.l/Jg5
E1d8 18.l/Jxe6 fxe6oo.
13 ••• �g4 14. l/J b5 E1a5!
We see the result of 1l. .. a4.
15.'11-lf e2 E1xb5! ? 16.'11-lf xb5 .ixf3
17 .ixf3 l/J xd4 18.'11-lf d3 c5.
• Previously he had played only:
Black has full compensation for
the exchange, according to Agrest's
analysis.
52
C22. 11.'11-lf e2
This is the main line in the se­
cond volume of Avrukh's repertoire
book l . d4.
ll. . . �e6!
A vital move in Black's setup.
The bishop is going to harass the
enemy queen from c4, while the c6-
knight will repel it from c2 if it ran
away to this square.
Avrukh rightly points out that
ll . . . e5 is bad due to 1 2 . dxe5 l/Jxe5
13.l/Jxe5 �xe5 14.e4 ! �e6 15.f4 �g7
16 .�e3 '11-lf e 7 17.e5 E1ab8 18.'11-lff2±.
12)ij d2
This move appeared in 2 0 1 0 .
The knight is heading for c 5 via e4.
White does take c4 under control,
but this manoeuvre is too artificial
to be dangerous.
12 .:1:1d1 �c4 13.'11-lf c 2 l/Jb4 ! 14.'11-lfb 1,
but the brilliant game 1 Leitao­
Caruana, Khanty-Mansiysk 3 0 . 0 9 .
2 0 1 0 , has dealt this line a terrible
 l.d4 l2lf6 2 .c4 g6 3.g3 �g7 4.�g2 dS
blow. Black followed with 14 . . . e5 ! !
and went on to win in grand style.
See the "Complete Games" chapter.
12 .. . t2:l b4
Simple and good. If Black seeks
complications, he should opt for:
12 ... a4 ! ? 13.l"1dl fS ! ?
I have also analysed :
13 . . . l"1a5, bringing another hit on
dS and preparing . . . eS. The game
Poobalasingam-Darini, Zuerich
2010 (with a transposition), how­
ever, cast a doubt on this idea:
14.l"1b l !
O r 14.l2lde4 �c4 15.\Mic2 (15.
iMiel Wc8 ! 16.f4 l"1d8 ! 17.l2lc5 a3 ! = )
15 . . . \Mia8 16.l2lc5 eS 17.l2l3xa4 l2lb4
18.\Mid2 l"1xa4 19.l2lxa4 Wxa4 2 0 .b3
.bb3 2 l . axb3 Wxal 2 2 .\Mixb4 exd4
23.exd4 Wa6 = .
1 4 . . . \Mic8 15.b4 axb3 16.l2lxb3 !
(16.axb3 �g4 17.�f3 �xf3 18.l2lxf3
e5=) 16 . . . �c4 17.\Mib2 l"1h5 18.f4t.
Now let us return to 13 .. .f5 :
An original plan. Black wants to
exchange 2 minor pieces through
d5 while restricting the d2-knight
from reaching cS.
14.l"1b1 �f7 15.b3 axb3 16.axb3
Black was better in Maletin-Kur­
nosov, Irkutsk 2 0 1 0 , after 16.l2lxb3
ltJdS 17.l2lxd5 �xdS 18 .\MibS e6.
16 . . . l2ld5 17.�b2
I have been following the game
Harikrishna-So, Guangzhou 2 0 1 0 .
Here, 17 . . . l2lxc3 18.�xc3 �dS would
have been roughly equal.
13.l"1dl
13.�xb7? ! l2lc2 14.�xa8 Wxa8
15.l"1bl l2lxe1 16.\Mixe1 cS ! gives Black
the initiative.
13 . . c6 1 4. a3 til 4d5
.
Black has a comfortable posi­
tion. It has been tested twice :
15.l2lde4 l2lxc3 16.bxc3 (16.l2lxc3
�b3) 16 . . . �b3 17.l"1e1 �dS 18.l2lc5
�xg2 1 9 . ';hg2 eS= , Laznicka-Zhi­
galko, Plovdiv 2 0 1 0 ;
15.l2lce4 �fS 16.l2lc5 e S 17.dxe5
We7 18.l2ld3 �xd3 19.\Mixd3 \MixeS
2 0 .l2lf3 We7 2 1.iMic2 We4 2 2 .Wxe4
l"1xe4 = , Sethuraman-Zhigalko, Mos­
cow 13. 0 2 . 2 0 1 1 .
53
Pa rt 1
Complete Gam es
1 . Leitao-Caruana
Kha nt y- M a nsiysk 3 0 . 09 .2 010
1 .d4 tt'lf6 2 . c4 g6 3 . tt'l f3 �g7
4.g3 d5 5.cxd5 tt'lxd5 6.�g2 tt'lb6
7 . tt'l c3 tt'lc6 8 .e3 0-0 9 . 0-0 Ele8
1 0 .Eie1 aS 1 1 .Wfe2 �e6 1 2 . Ei d 1
I suppose that 12 .fi:d1 will soon
become obsolete. Lately White be­
gan trying 1 2 .lt:ld2 .
1 2 . . . �c4 1 3 .Wfc2
Perhaps here or on the next two
moves White should look for devia­
tions as the main line is not too in­
spiring for him. He can try 13.1Mfe1
lt:lb4 14.b3 �a6 15.'1Mfd2 c5 ! 16.�a3
fi:c8 = .
1 3 . . . tt'lb4 ! 1 4.Wfb1
In a blitz game, one very strong
grandmaster surprised me with
54
14. 1Mfd 2 . Having in mind that Carlsen
also resorted to this move (as early
as on move 11), this ugly placement
of the queen is evidently White's
last hope to revive the whole vari­
ation. I still do not believe in such
an artificial setup. Agrest's analy­
sis of my game showed that Black
should be OK after 14 . . . a4 ! ? 15.lt:le1
(15.lt:le5 �xeS 16.dxe5 c6 17.e4 'Wc7)
15 . . . c6 16.e4 'Wc7 17. lt:l c2 c5t . Then
I was surprised to see the Ukrain­
ian prodigy Nyzhnyk also employ­
ing 14.1Mfd2 against Bok in Wijk aan
Zee 2 0 1 1 . This game did see 14 . . . a4
15.lt:le1 c6, but here White deviated
from our analysis with 16.lt:lc2 lt:lxc2
17.1Mfxc2
Basically, Black should be glad
to trade knights as he has less space
in the centre. Furthermore, the ex­
change has vacated the b4-square
for Black's queen. It would be very
annoying to White in a number of
 l.d4 tt'lf6 2 .c4 g6 3.g3 �g7 4 .�g2 d5
variations, for instance :
17 . . . �e6 ! 18 .e4 �d6 19.e5
(19.�e3 tt'lc4) 19 . . . �b4 2 0 . tt'le4
l'led8 . The d4-pawn is a nice target.
Another attractive line is 17 . . . �e6 !
18.e4 �g4 ! ? 19.f3 �e6 2 0 .�e3 tt'lc4
21.�f2 �aS 2 2 .tt'le2 a3 23 .b3 tt'lb2
24J:l:d2 l"l:ad8, intending to meet
25.tt'lf4 by 25 . . . �b4+.
Bok chose the mundane 17 . . . �c7
18.e4 l"l:ed8 19 .�e3 �e6 2 0 .b3 axb3
21.axb3 l"l:xal 2 2 .l"l:xal and still
would have had a satisfactory game
after 22 . . . �d6 23 .e5 �b4 24.tt'le4
li:ld5 = . He opted again for the most
passive setup : 22 . . . �c8 23.l"l:dl tt'ld7
24.f3 �c7 25.�f2 tt'lf8 2 6 . tt'l a4 and
even here 26 . . . �d6 would have
been quite safe. Only his tacti­
cal mistake 26 . . . �a5? 27.d5 ! gave
White an advantage.
Now let us return to the stem
game :
White's heavy pieces are so
cramped on the queenside, that a
tactical solution would not surprise
anybody. Still, the find of Djukic,
first demonstrated at the Olympiad
2010, was a kind of revelation :
1 4 ...e5 ! !
A very deep queen sac for a rook,
piece and a pawn.
1 5.a3
15.b3 exd4 ! 16.exd4 (16.bxc4
dxc3 17.EJ:xd8 EJ:axd8- + ) was the
stem game MeNab-Djukic, Khanty­
Mansiysk 2 8 . 0 9 . 2 0 1 0 , when best is
16 . . . tt'l 6d5+.
Perhaps White could try here
15.tt'lxe5 �xeS 16.b3 �d3 17.EJ:xd3
tt'lxd3 18 .�xd3 . Of course, White
has full compensation for the ex­
change, but we do not expect to see
many candidates for playing this
position for a win as White.
1 5 . . . exd4 1 6 .axb4
16.tt'lxd4 �d3 17.EJ:xd3 tt'lxd3
18.�xd3 c5 19 .�xb7 cxd4 2 0 . exd4
EJ:b8 ; 16.exd4 tt'l c6+.
1 6 ... dxc3
16 . . . axb4 17.l"l:xa8 �xa8 18.tt'le4
�a4 19.l"l:el �a2 2 0 .�d3 �c4 is only
a draw.
1 7 J�xd8 gaxd8 1 8 .'Wc2 ?
18 .bxc3 was more safe. Then
18 . . . l"l:dl+ 19.�fl �xfl 2 0 .�c2 �e2 +
i s a draw, Amanov-Young, Las Ve­
gas USA 2 0 1 0 , but Black can play
on with 19 . . . �xc3 2 0 . l"l:xa5 EJ:ed8
2 1.�c2 EJ:xfl+ 2 2 .<i>g2 �xb4.
1 8 . ..axb4 1 9 .lLld2 cxd2 20 ..ixd2
Now Black deals another blow:
55
 Part 1
20 . . . l"1a8 ! ! 2 1 .l"1xa8 l"1xa8
2 2 . .ixb7??
The only move was 2 2 .h4 l"\a1+
2 3 . Wh2 and White is still holding,
e.g. 23 . . . b3 24.�e4 .ixb2 25.�e7
l"1d1 2 6 . .ib4.
22 . . . l"1a1 + 23 ..ic 1 b3 24.\Wd 1
.ixb2 0-1 .
Curiously, the Fianchetto sys­
tem was extensively tested at the
Olympiad 2 0 1 0 . Black scored 7 out
of 8 in the first ten rounds .
2 . Alekseev-Dominguez Perez
Havana 14 .06 .2010
1 . d4 l2'lf6 2 . l2'lf3 g6 3.c4 .ig7
4 .g3 d5 5 .cxd5 lt:Jxd5 6 . .ig2 l2'l b6
7 . .!2Jc3 lt:Jc6 8 .e3 0-0 9 . 0-0 l"1e8
1 0 . l"1e1 e6 ! ?
56
This is a waiting move, but in
contrast with 10 . . . a5, here Black
directs his effort to achieving
. . . e5 while staying passive on the
queenside. There are only 2 games,
so we can say that the arising posi­
tions are a blank spot in the theory.
You can use this variation as a sur­
prise weapon.
Black's main idea is to wait for
b3 and then open the centre with . . .
e 5 . For instance, ll.b3 e 5 1 2 . dxe5
�xd1 13.l"1xd1 'Llxe5 = .
White should not imitate the
same tactic with 11.h3, because
we will answer with a more useful
move - 1 1 . . . a5 ! . Note that 1 1 . . .�e7
would be less convincing, because
it allows 12 .e4 when neither 12 . . .
'Llxd4 13.'Llxd4 l"1d8 14.'Lld5 ! exd5
15.exd5 �b4 16 . .ig5, nor 12 . . . l"\d8
13 . .ig5 f6 14 . .ie3 'Llc4 15 .�e2 are
too pleasant to face.
1 1 .\Wc2
The other critical move is :
1l.�e2 e5 ! (using that 12 .d5 is
impossible)
We have analysed extensively
ll . . . �e7. Then neither 1 2 . l"1d1 l"\d8
13 .b3 e5, nor 12 .b3 e5 do not set any
problems. However, the computer
suggests the unpleasant 1 2 .a4 ! It is
threatening not only a5-a6, but also
b3, .ia3 . Here are some variations :
12 . . . a6? ! 13.a5 'Lld5 14.e4 'Lldb4
15.e5±;
12 ... a5? ! 13 .b3 'Lld5 14.'Llb5 b6
15.e4 'Lldb4 16 . .ig5 �d7 17.l"1adl
 l.d4 l2lf6 2 .c4 g6 3.g3 i.g7 4.i.g2 d5

ia6 18 .i.h3 l2la7 19.l2le5 'Wc8 2 0 .'Wf3 15.e4, so we h ave to embrace more
l"1f8 2 1 . l2lxa7 ( 2 1.i.e7 i.xb5 2 2 . axb5 drastic measures:
lLlxbS 2 3 .i.xf8 'Wxf8t) 2 1 . . J �xa7
22 .i.e7 c5 2 3 .i.xf8 'Wxf8 24.i.fl i.xfl 14 . . . i.xc3 ! 15.bxc3 i.f5 (15 . . . 'Wf6 ? !
25.\t>xfl cxd4 2 6 . l2l c4 'Wb8 27.e5 16.e4 'Wxc3 17.i.e3�) 16.i.xb7 l'l:b8
l"1d7 2 8 .h4�. 17.i.g2 i.d3 18.'Wf2 i.e4
12 ... l2l a5 13 .'Wd1 c5 14.b3 'Wd8
15.l2le4±;
12 . . . l2ld5 13.e4 l2lxc3 14.bxc3 eS
15.d5 l2l a5 16.i.a3±.
Black should try 12 . . . e5 13.a5
tLld7 14.a6 l'l:b8 15.axb7 i.xb7 16.d5
tLlb4 17.e4 c6, with unclear com­
plications : 18.l'l:xa7 cxdS 19.exd5
lLlxdS 2 0 . l'l:xb7 l2lxc3 2 1.'Wa6 l'l:xb7
22 .'Wxb7 l'l:b8 23 .'Wc6 l2la 2 = or 18 . . .
cxd5 19.exd5 a6 2 0 .d6 'Wf8 2 1.i.e3 This position is entirely in the
h6 2 2 . l2ld2 i.xg2 2 3 . \t>xg2 f5oo. spirit of the Griinfeld. Black has ac­
tive play and full compensation for
However, we have a more inte­ the pawn.
resting idea in mind :
12.l2lxe5 l2lxe5 13.dxe5 i.xe5 1 1 . . . We7 1 2 .b3 e5 1 3 . l2l xe5 (13.
d5? ! e4 ! ) 1 3 ... l2l xe5 1 4.dxe5 'fixeS
1 5 . .ib2 c6 (15 . . . '\MicS ! ?)

14.f4

The game Bukavshin-Lagarde, Black has solved most of the

Batumi 2 0 1 0 , saw the innocu­
ous 14.i.d2 c6 15.l'l:ad1 i.e6 16.f4
ig7 17.e4 (17.i.c1 'We7) 17 . . . l2l a4
(17 . . . l2lc4 ! 18 .i.c1 'Wa5 19.e5 l'l:ad8oo)
18.l2lxa4 'Wd4+ 19 .i.e3 'Wxa4 2 0 .b3
'WaS= 2 1 . e5 i.f8 (2 1. .. f6= ). The text
would win a tempo after 14 . . . i.g7? !
opening problems. White's only
dangerous plan is connected with
f4, e4-e5, l2le4, but it is unrealistic
here. White could continue with :
16.l'l:ad1 i.g4 17.l'l:d2
Or 17.f3 i.fS 18 .e4 'Wc5 + ! (the

57
 Part 1

point ! ) 19.'\Wf2 '\Wxf2 + 2 0 .\t>xf2 �e6 pawn majority on the queenside

2 l.e5 a5 ! underlining the weakness would be gaining in strength with
of White's queenside pawn forma­ every exchange. The rest is clear.
tion.
26.e4 .ie6 27 . .!Llc5 l"1xd 1 +
17 .. J''1 a d8
28 .l"1xd 1 .ic8 2 9 . .!Ll d 3 a5 3 0 . .!Llb2
Black has not any serious prob­ .ie6 3 1 .<;t>e2 .!Ll d 7 32.'ifid2 .!Llb6
lems here. 33J�b1

1 6 . .!Lla4 Wffe 7 1 7 ..ixg7 'i!ixg7

1 8 . .!Llc5 .!Ll d 7 1 9 .Wffc 3+ Wif6

19 . . . '\We5 2 0 .'\Wxe5 l"1xe5= is more

precise.

20.Wff x f6+ <;t>xf6 2 1 ..!Lle4+ 'i!ie7

22.l"1ed 1 .!Llf6

33 ... a4 34 . .!Ll xa4 .!Ll xa4 35.bxa4

l"1xa4 36.:5xb7+ <;t>d6 37.e5+
<;t>xe5 38 ..ixc6 :5xa2+ 39.<;t>e3
:5a3+ 40.'i!id2 :5a2+ 41 .'i!ie3 :5a3+
42.'ifid2 1 /2-1 /2.

Black has no weaknesses . It
would be enough to swap the en­
emy knight to equalise completely.
The king on e7 covers all the inva­
sion squares along the d-file.
3. Matnadze-Delchev
Z ar agoz a30 . 12 .2010
1 .d4 .!Ll f 6 2 .g3 g6 3 ..ig2 d 5
4 . .!Ll f 3 .ig7 5.0-0 0-0 6.c4 dxc4
7 . .!Lla3 c3 8 .bxc3 c5 9 .e3 .!Llc6
1 0 .Wffe 2 .!Ll d 5 1 1 . .ib2 .!Llb6 1 2.:5ac 1

23 . .!Llc5 .!Ll d 7 2 4 . .!Ll d 3 l"1 d 8

25.'ifif1 .!Llf6

25 . . . a5 2 6 . 'it>e2 a4 27.b4 tt:lb6

2 8 .tt:lc5 l"1xd1 29.l"1xdl a3 was fine for
Black, but it seems that Dominguez
was waiting for a draw proposition
so he did not want to alter the pawn
structure. In principle, Black's

58
 l.d4 l/Jf6 2 .c4 g6 3.g3 �g7 4.�g2 d5
1 2 . . .1.Wd5 !
It is time to evacuate the queen
from the d-file because White was
planning to put a rook on dl. The
other thematic manoeuvre in this
variation is 12 . . . l/J a4 13 .�al WaS,
but here it is not with tempo (White
had defended c3 twice ! ) so 14.l/Jd2
is possible and quite awkward -
14 . . . l/Jb6 15.�b 2 .
1 3 .c4
The a2-pawn could be defended
with 13 .�al. After 13 . . . Wh5 14.e4
!g4 ! 15.l/Jc2 f5 ! , Black destroys the
enemy centre.
1 3 . . . '\MfhS 1 4.d5
P.Nikolic-V.Belov, Istanbul 2003
saw 14.dxc5 . Although Black was
fine after 14 . . . Wxc5 = , 14 . . . �xb2
15.Wxb2 l/Ja4, recapturing on c5 by
knight, looks even better.
1 4 . . . l/Je5
1 5 .�xe5
If White has to make such
moves, her opening strategy was
wrong. White remains with the bad
bishop on g2. Drasko-Jankovic,
Neum 2005, saw instead 15. l"lc2
�g4 16.�xe5 �xe5 17.h3 �xf3
18.Wxf3 Wxf3 19.�xf3 l/Ja4 20.l"lbl
l"lab8 2l.�g2 l"lfd8 2 2 .f4 �g7 23 .e4
�d4+ 24.Wh2 a6=.
1 5 . . . �xe5 1 6.h3
So White's idea was to isolate
my queen to h6. In fact, it can eas­
ily join the action from g7. In the
game, I was influenced by other
Griinfeld variations where Black
counterattacks on the queenside
with . . . b5. However, the concrete
situation made possible another
plan, connected with . . . g5 and .. .f5,
for instance, 16 ... �b8 ! ? 17.g4 Wh6.
1 6 ... �g7 1 7 .g4 Wfh6 1 8 . lLlh2
Matnadze is planning to gain
more space with e4 and f4. How­
ever, immediate 18.e4 would let
my queen slip to f4. Therefore she
wants to start expanding with f4.
1 8 . . . l/Ja4 1 9 . tLl b1 �d7 20 .f4
The computer says that Black
could have seized here the initiative
59
 Part 1

with 20 . . . b5 21.cxb5 Ei:ab8, because

2 1.g5 \Wh4 was not dangerous. The
machine may be right, but I was
getting goose skin from the sight of
my caged queen. No wonder I pre­
ferred to stay on the safe side.

20 . . . .ib2 ! 21 J'!c2 'Wg7 22 .e4 ? !

This does not prevent 2 2 . . .f5

as it is still good, and, as a whole,
lacks any sense. Pawns do not go
back and now the d4-square will be
permanently ill. My bishop gets the
needed stable square on the main
diagonal to make way to the a4-
knight.
White should have waited with
2 2 J2'l d 2 b5 ! 2 3 .'Lle4.
22 . . . b5 ! 23 .cxb5 (23.'Lld2 .id4+
24.'\t>hl bxc4) 23 . . J'!ab8
All m y pieces invade White's
camp from the queenside. A great
triumph of the Griinfeld's ideas !
24.:Bd1 .ixb5 2 5.'Wf3 .id4+
26.�h1 lt:lb2 2 7 . :Be 1 lt:ld3 2 8 . :Bd1
c4 29 ..if1 .ia4 30 . .ixd3 cxd3
3 1 .'Wxd3 .ixc2 32 .'Wxc2 .ie3
33.:Bf1 :Bfc8 34.'Wd3 .ixf4 35. lt:lf3
'Wb2 36.lt:lbd2 :Bc1 37.�g2 :Bxf1
38.�xf1 'Wxa2 39.�e2 aS 40 .e5
:Bd8 41 .e6 fxe6 42 .'We4 e5 0 - 1 .

60
 Pa rt 2

The �f4 System

1.d4 d5 2.c4 g6 3.tt:Jc3 d5 4.i.f4 i.g7

61
Pa rt 2
Main Ideas
l. d4 ll'lf6 2. c4 g6 3. ll'lc3 d5 4. .if4
.ig7
Introduction
This natural development was
popular in the first half of the 2 0th
century. White is developing his
queenside pieces, intending to gen­
erate pressure on c7. A lot of varia­
tions lead to endgames or symmet­
ric pawn structures with a slight
initiative for White. No wonder it
was Capablanca's favourite system.
Euwe scored an important victory
over Alekhin in the word title match
in 1935. Also notable was the loss of
Fischer to Petrosian in the Candi­
dates final in 1971. Black had suc­
cesses too, as Gligoric's victory over
Botvinnik at the Olympiad in Tel
Aviv 1964. Later Black found the
precise move order and the whole
system has receded into the back­
ground. I have not met fresh ideas
for White for a long time.
62
Black's play is simple and very
purposeful. Good calculation is
paramount so you should pay spe­
cial attention to the typical tacti­
cal motifs and the precise order of
moves.
White's main problem arises
from the absence of the dark­
squared bishop from the queenside.
Kingside development is also de­
layed and that offers Black good
tactical options. His counterplay is
linked with . . . c7-c5, .. :.gva5, . . . lt:le4
and a concentrated attack on the
knight on c3 . Pawn losses should
not scare Black. As a rule, he gains
a strong initiative and sometimes
even queens trade does not help
White.
Tolush-Botvinnik
L eningrad 1939
l.d4 ll'lf6 2. c4 g6 3. ll'lc3 d5
4. .if4 .ig7 5. e3 0 - 0 6J'!:cl c5
The greatest chess thinker and
researcher of his time, Botvinnik,
has an enormous contribution to
the development of the Griinfeld
Defence. He played it with both
colours and his games were mile­
stones in the opening theory. Here
he showed one of his famous home
preparations.
 3.lt:Jc3 d5 4.�f4
7 . dxc5 �a5 8. cxd5 l"1d8
This position had occurred in
the game Capablanca-Reshevsky,
AVRO Tournament 1938. White
answered 9 .1Mfa4, but after 9 . . . 1Mfxa4
10.lt:Jxa4 lt:Jxd5 Black reached a
pleasant game. So Tolush prepared
an improvement:
9. �d2?! ll:l xd5 10.�c7 ?! �xc7
ll. ll:l xd5
ll. . . l"1xd5!
Surprise ! Perhaps the fine tacti­
cian and master of the attack To­
lush missed this blow. Now Black's
pieces come into play with tempi
and White's position becomes criti­
cal.
12. �xd5 �e6!
12 . . . �xb2 13.l"1c2 �e6 14.1Mfd2
would have given White time for
consolidation. Botvinnik also men­
tiones 12 . . . lt:J c6 ! ? 13.�d2 (13 .�c4
�e6) 13 . . . �f5.
13. �d2 ll:l c6 14. l"1dl
14.�c4 loses to 14 . . . l"1d8 15.1Mfc2
1Mfa5+ 16.\t>fl l"1d2 , so White decides
to contest the d-file. In his anno­
tations, Botvinnik recommended
14.l"1c3 ! ? as the only chance, where­
as he intended to continue the at­
tack with 14 . . . lt:Jb4 15.lt:Jf3 l"1d8
16.lt:Jd4 �xa2 . Of course, the most
natural 14 . . . hc3 15.1Mfxc3 �xa2
16.lt:Jf3 l"1c8 17.�e2 aS ! would be also
in his favour.
14 l"1d8 15. �cl �a5 + 16. l"1d2
• . •
l"1 d5
Suddenly, the decisive blow
comes from the c-file, for instance :
17.lt:Jf3 l"1xc5 18.�b1 ha2 19 .'\Mia1
l"1c2 2 0 .�d3 �xb 2 . Note the impor­
tance of the d5-square which served
as a juncture point for Black's pie­
ces.
17 . ll:l e2 l"1xc5 18. ll:l c3 hc3
19. bxc3 l"1xc3 20. �b2 l"1a3
White is helpless against the
killing threat of . . . l"1xa2 .
21. �b5 �c3 ! 22.�b2 �c5!
23. �bl
23 �xa2!
••. 24.l"1xa2 �a5 +
25.l"1 d2 l"1al 26.�d3 l"1xbl +
27 .hbl ll:l e5!
The game is over. The rest is a
short agony.
63
 Part 2

28.'i!l e2 �b5 + 29 . .id3 l2J xd3 5.LZ:lf3 c5? is outright bad ! ) , and af­
30.gxd3 a5 3 1.ghdl �c4 32. 1!>£3 ter 5 J''\ a cl we repel the f4-bishop by
b5 33.gd7 b4 3 4.ga7 a4 35.gd8 + 5 . . . LZ:lh5 6 . .ig5 h6 7 . .ih4 and only
l!>g7 3 6.gda8 a3 3 7 . g3 �b5 0 - 1. then push 7 . . . c5. Let us now go into
Undoubtedly, such games are some detail :
capable of boosting up the popular­
ity of any opening. A. s.gcl
This move anticipates Black's
counterplay, but . . . c5 is still possi­
Objectives and Move Orders ble, albeit with a preparation:
5 . . . l2J h5! ? 6. .ig5 h6 7 . .ih4
The .if4-system is relatively easy to
c5 8 . e3 (8.LZ:lxd5 LZ:lc6 9.e3 cxd4
play with Black because the strate­
10.exd4 0-0 ll . .ie2 .ie6 ! and Black
gic ideas are clear and most games
is fine.) 8 . . . cxd4 9. l2J xd5 l2J c6
feature one and the same symmet­
10. exd4 .ie6!
ric pawn structure. The centre is
open, with an early elimination of
the c- and d-pawns. This enhanc­
es the role of tactics and requires
heavy calculation. On the other
hand, Black commonly has no theo­
retical problems. Black's plan is to
play . . . c5, . . . �a5, . . . LZ:le4 while the
important pawn on d5 can be sac­
rificed or bolstered up with . . . .ie6.
The first thing we should decide White has to struggle to equalise.
is when to push . . . c5. This depends
on White's fifth move : B. 5. l2Jf3
Botvinnik thought this natural
developing move to be the best. It
discourages the immediate 5 . . . c5,
but we have other good options :

5. . . 0 - 0

A. s.gcl ; B. 5.LZ:lf3 ; C. 5.e3.

My recommendation is :
We meet 5.e3 by 5 . . . c5 ! . In the
event of 5 .LZ:lf3, we castle (Note that

64
 3 .l2Jc3 d5 4 . .if4

Bl. 6 e3 ; B 2 . 6. E\cl. S.VNxdS

Bl. 6. e3 c5 7 . dxc5 VNa5 SJ�cl 8.e4 VNa5 9 .e5 l2Jh5 ! 10 . .ie3 l2Jc6
dxc4 9 . .b:c4 ll . .ixc4 .ig4 is unclear.

8 . . . Eixd8 9.e4 tt:J a6 10. e5

tt:J h5! ll . .ie3 .ig4! 12. .ixc4 .ix£3
13.gxf3 .ixe5

Now White should take on a6,

with equality, because the alterna­
tives give Black the initiative :
14.c6 l2Jc7 15.cxb7 E\ab8 16 . .ixa7
Elxb7 or 14.a3 l2lb8 and the knight is
Now 9 . . . V9xc5 is my main line, heading for d4.
but it requires more studying.
Check the "Step by Step" chapter. C. 5. e3 c5
Instead, you can opt for:
This is the sharpest line. The
9 . . . l2J bd7 ! ? 10. 0 - 0 tt:J xc5 main reason to play 5 . . . c5 instead
of 5 . . . 0-0 is to avoid the drawish
Our next move will be . . . .ie6
endgame after 6.cxd5 tt'lxd5 7.tt'lxd5
and Black should be OK, e.g. ll.1l-lfe2
1l-lfxd5 8 . .ixc7 tt'la6 9 . .ixa6 1l-lfxg2
ie6 1 2 .l2Jd4 .ixc4 13.1l-lfxc4 Elfc8 = .
10.1l-lff3 .
The only way to prevent it i s ll.l2Jd4
when we have to develop the bishop
6. dxc5 VNa5
to d7, but it is important firstly to
weaken the enemy kingside : 11 . . .
ig4 ! 12 .f3 .id7 13.1l-lfe2 Elac8 14.Eifdl
a6 15.e4 b5 16.l2lb3 l2Jxb3 17 . .ixb3
b4 18.l2lbl .ie6 ! 19 . .ixe6 1l-lfb6+ (the
point of ll.. . .ig4 ! ) 2 0 . .ie3 1l-lfxe6 = .

B2. 6. Elcl c5! ? 7 . dxc5 dxc4!

7 . Ei cl

I also examine as separate

branches :
a) 7.1l-lfb3 .id7 ! , preventing the
exchange of queens from b5.

65
 Part 2

b) 7.'Wa4+ 'Wxa4 8 .lt:Jxa4 7 . . . dc4! 8.�xc4 0 - 0 !

White eliminated the threats
along the aS-el diagonal, but he is
behind in development and his mi­
nor pieces are uncoordinated. Black
counts on a long-term initiative.
8 . . . �d7 9 . lt:J c3 tt:Je4 !

Black does not need to recapture

immediately on cS. For instance,
9 . a3 is well met by 9 . . . tt:Jc6.

9. tLlge2!

You should always consider this

The only way to set some prob­
move in the �f4 system. It helps the
lems. The c3-knight is overprotect­
�g7 break loose.
ed now and we have no reason to
lO.tt:JxdS (or 1 0 .lt:Jge2 tt:JxcS ! ?
keep the queen on aS anymore.
n.tt:Jxds tt:Jd3+ 1 2 . md2 tt:Jxf2) 1 0 . . .
tt:J a 6 ll.f3 tt:JexcS
9 . . . 'Wxc5 10.'Wb3 !

Eying f7 and freeing dl for the

other rook. The alternatives lead
to easy equality. We simply retreat
the queen back to aS after 10 .'Wd4
or 10 .�b3.

10 . • . 'Wa5

I also examine the much sharper

Despite the extra pawn, White
achieves the meagre 27% in prac­
tice. His whole queenside is vulner­
able.
c) 7.lt:Jf3 is not of independent
significance. After 7 . . . 0-0 S . Ei:cl
dxc4, play transposes to other lines.
However, I recommend the simpler
7 . . . tt:Je4 ! ? = .
line 10 . . . tt:Jc6 ! ? . See the detailed an­
notations of game 4 Wang Yue­
Topalov, Sofia 2 0 0 9 . However, it
is not something that even remotely
fits into my conception for a quick
preparation.
11. 0 - 0 tLlc6 12.Ei:fdl! tLlh5!
13. a3 tLlxf4 14. tLlxf4

66
 3.lLlc3 dS 4.�f4

9.lLlb5 ! �b4+ l O .Wfl lLl a6 1l.a3

�aS (ll. .�b2 12 l'!c2 +-) 12 .�c7!
lL:lxc7 13.lLlxc7+ �xc7 14.�xf7+ Wxf7
15.:8xc7 + - .

O n e move later, when Black has

already castled, 9 . . . �xc5 is possible
and sets up an insidious trap :

Black is still experiencing minor Zaja-Brkic

problems with his light-squared O mis2005
bishop, but a few precise moves
level the game :

14. . . e6 15.�e2 l'!d8 16. lLl d3

�d7 17.lt'l e4=

I have been following the game

Kraidman-W.Schmidt, Nice 1974,
which eventually ended in a draw.

l O . lLlbS? �b4+ 1l. Wfl a6 12 .a3

Typical Tactical Motifs
�xb2 13.:8b1

Perhaps the most critical moment

in the �f4 system is when to recap­
ture the cS-pawn. The general rule
is to delay it if there are other good
developing moves. Here is a typical
mistake where Black was too hasty
to regain the pawn with 8 . . . �xc5?? :

Example
White wins the queen, but this
proves to be an unfortunate idea.
Black's pieces generate amazing
energy:
13 . . . �xb1 14.�xb1 axb5 15 .�xb5
:8xa3 16 .�xb8 lL:l e4 ! ! 17.�xe4
:8al+ 1 8 . lLl cl :8xc1+ 19. We2 :8xh1
2 0 .'Wxe7 �g4+ 2 l .f3 �xf3 + , with a
clear edge.

67
 Part 2
The most often cause for open­
ing catastrophes is the a5-e1 diago­
nal. Here are some instructive ex­
amples :
Barbosa-Rojas
S antiago2005
13 . . .'�b4 !
White is desperately behind in
development so this double attack
finishes the game.
14.h:h5 gxh5 15.i.g3 '®xb2
16.E\c2 '®xc3 ! 17.E\xc3 h:c3 - + .
Farago-Ftacnik
Passau, 1994
7 . . . tt:lxd5 ! 8 .'®xd5 h:c3 + 9.bxc3
'®xc3+ 1 0 .<i>e2 '®xa1 ll.i.e5 '®b1 !
12 .i.xh8 i.e6 13 .'®d3 '®xa2 + 14.<i>f3
f6 ! . Black has a winning attack.
68
Komljenovic-Luecke
O l ot 1992
10 . . . b5 ! ll.i.xb5 tt:lfe4 12.tt:ld4
tt:lxc3 13.E\xc3 (13.bxc3 e5 ! )
White survived the first wave of
the attack. He is not afraid of the
variation 13 . . . tt:le4 14.'®a4 '®xa4
15.h:a4 = , but Black deals another
blow: 13 . . . e5 ! and this time White
loses composure :
14.dxe6?
14. 0- 0 ! tt:lb7 15.Eia3 '®b6 16.i.g5
exd4 17.i.c6 dxe3 18.h:e3 '®c7
19.E\b3 would have been unclear.
14 . . . tt:lxe6 15.i.c6 h:d4 16.exd4
tt:lxf4 17.'®f3 Elb8 18.'®xf4 Elxb2
19.'®c1 Elb1 ! 2 0 .'®xb1 '®xc3+ 2 l .<i>f1
'®xc6 0-1.
Sometimes tactical stabs only
help Black solve the opening prob­
lems :
 3 . ltJ c3 d5 4 . .if4
Pinter-Ruck
Hungary200 1
7 . . . ltJ e4 ! ? 8 . .ie5 .ixe5 9.ttJxe5
ltJxc3 10 .'Wd2 .ie6 ! ll.l.'kl 0-0
12.'1Wxc3 'Wxc5 13.b4 '1Wc7, with
counterplay.
The most sensitive point in
Black's position is, apart of c7, the
square f7. White usually attacks it
by 'Wb3, but sometimes he can hit
without this preparation, as in the
following example:
Bosboom-Finkel
D ieren 1997
12 . .ixf7+ ! Eixf7 13.e6 Eif8 14.'Wb3
White regains the piece with inter-
est. Later he can evacuate his king
to the queenside.
The white knight at f3 is often a
target of tactical hits :
7 . Secrieru -Szabo
corresp ondence game2006
13 . . . .ih3 ! 14 . .ifl ltJbd7 15.ttJe2
e5! 16.ltJg3 'Wg4 17.ltJxe5 ltJxe5
18 . .ie2 ltJ d3 + ! 19.'it>fl 'Wh4 20 . .ixd3
.ie6, with an initiative.
Pelletier-lllescas Cordoba
Pamplona 2003
13 .'it>e2? The king goes under a
fatal pin: 13 . . . .ig4 ! , with an edge.
69
Pa rt 2
Step by Step
l. d4 ltl f6 2. c4 g6 3 . ltl c3 d5 4. .if4
.ig7
A. 5 J''k l ; B . 5 .tt:lf3 ; C. 5. e3.
A. 5J�cl ltl h5! ?
An interesting attempt to fight
for the initiative. The common
5 . . . 0-0 is a good alternative, but
then 6.e3 would throw us out of the
main repertoire, based on the ag­
gressive 5.e3 c5.
6. .ig5
Alternatively:
a) 6 . .ie5 .ixe5 7.dxe5 d4 ! + .
b ) 6 ..i d 2 c5 ! 7.e3 ( O r 7.dxc5 d 4 ;
7.cxd5 cxd4 8 .tt:lb5 tt:l a 6 ) 7 . . . cxd4
8 . exd4 dxc4 ! 9 . .ixc4 0-0 10 .d5 tt:ld7
70
ll.tt:lf3 a6 1 2 . a4 b5 ! 13.axb5 tt:lb6
14.b3 axb5 15.tt:lxb5 tt:lxd5 with a
pleasant game, Stohl-Ilincic, Vrn­
j acka Banj a 1989.
c) 6 . .ie3 . I . Sokolov beat Smirin
recently with this move, but I really
do not grasp White's idea. What is
he going to do if we simply return
6 . . . tt:lf6 ! ? . Sooner or later play will
transpose to the main line, e.g.
7.tt:lf3 0-0 8 . .if4. However, we have
an even better option : 6 . . . dxc4 !
7.WI'a4+ c6 ! 8.WI'xc4 .ie6 9 .WI'd3 (or
9.WI'b4 Wl'b6 10 .WI'a3 Wl'a6) 9 . . . 0-0
(9 . . . tt:la6 1 0 . a3 Wl'a5 ll.ti:lf3 8:d8+)
10.tt:lf3 tt:la6 ll.a3 Wl'a5 12 . .id2 8:fd8
13.tt:le4 Wl'b6 14 . .ic3 .if5+, Berg­
mann-Arenhoevel, Germany 2 0 0 1 .
6 . . . h6 7 . .ih4
If 7 . .id2 , we can eat the c4-
pawn and keep it: 7 . . . dxc4 8.e3
 3.'2lc3 dS 4.�f4
�e6 ! 9.'2lf3 c6 1 0 .'2le4 �dS 11.1Mfc2
bS 1 2 . '2l cS Pinter-Popovic, Thessa­
loniki 1988, when 12 . . . �xf3 ! 13.gxf3
0-0 is better for Black.
7 ••• c5
7 . . . dxc4 is not bad either, but it
gives White a strong centre for the
sacrificed pawn: 8.e3 �e6 9 .�e2
'2lf6 ! 10.'2lf3 (10 .�xf6 exf6 ! plan­
ning .. .fSt) 10 . . . c6 11.'2leS ! (11.0-0
'2lbd7! 1 2 . '2l eS? ! ltJxeS 13.dxeS
ltJdS+) ll . . . bS 1 2 .f4 ! ( 1 2 . 0-0 ltJ dS !
13 .'2le4 �xeS ! 14.dxeS '2ld7) 12 . . .
ltJdS !
13.1Mid2
It is not too inspiring to defend
the pawn with 13 .�f2 . Play would
be balanced after 13 . . . '2lxc3 14.bxc3
idS 1S.if3 (1S . O-O '2ld7) 1S . . . ixf3
16.1Mfxf3 1MidS 17.e4 1Mid6 18.0-0
'2ld7= .
13 . . . '2lxc3 ! 14.bxc3
White can try counterplay with
b3, for instance, 14.1Mixc3 ! ? �dS
1S.O-O '2ld7 16.b3 ! , or 1S . . . aS 16.b3
cxb3 17.axb3 if6 18.if2 a4co.
14 . . . idS 1S.1Mic2D (1S.O-O '2l d7+)
1S . . . �f6 ! .
This position is i n Black's fa­
vour: 16.�f2 ixg2 17J''l g 1 1MidS !
18.l"lxg2 1Mfxg2 19.if3 1Mfh3 2 0 .ig4
( 2 0 .1Mie4? 1MffS ! ) 2 0 . . . 1Mfxh2 2 1 . �e2
ih4 2 2 .l"lfl ixf2 2 3 .l"lxf2 1Mfh4 24.fS
'2ld7- + .
8 . e3
8 . cxdS cxd4 9 . '2lbS '2la6 1 0 .'2lxd4
loses to 10 . . . 1MfaS + ;
8 . '2l xdS '2l c 6 9 .e3 cxd4 10.exd4
0-0 1 1.�e2 ie6 ! and Black is fine.
8 . . . cxd4 9. tl:\ xd5
Or 9 .exd4 dxc4 (9 . . . '2lc6 10.'2lf3
ig4 11.cxdS '2lxd4=) 10 .ixc4 0-0
11.dS '2lf4 12 .ig3 eS 13.dxe6 �xe6+.
9 . tl:\ c6 10. exd4 �e6!
••
White has to struggle to equalise
here :
a) 11.'2le2 �xdS 1 2 . cxdS 1MfxdS
13.'2lc3 1Mfxd4.
b) 1l.�e2 ixdS 1 2 . cxdS 1MiaS+
13.1Mid2 1MfxdS 14.if3 1Mfxd4.
c) 11.'2lf3 ixdS 1 2 . cxdS 1MfxdS
13 .�c4 1Mie4+ 14. �fl 0-0+.
71
 Part 2
B. 5. tt:\f3 0 - 0
S . . . cS?, intending to sacrifice
two pawns, is entirely in the spirit
of the Griinfeld. Botvinnik believed
it to be incorrect, but it is often seen
in practice so I put it under the mi­
croscope. My verdict is that Black
should forget about this move !
Thus the intuition of the patriarch
of the Soviet chess school proved
right. The problem line is :
6.dxcS WaS 7.cxdS ! tt:lxdS
8.WxdS �xc3+ 9 .�d2 �e6
1 0 .Wxb7 �xd2+ ll.tt:lxd2 0-0
12 .b4 Wa4 13.e3 ! tt:ld7 14.a3. Black
is two pawns down without suffi­
cient compensation. This position
has been tested in practice and it is
believed that Black gets counterplay
with 14 .. J�fd8, but I found 1S.�bS !
Wc2 16.0-0 ! ! This novelty elimi­
nates all Black's threats.
72
Black wins a piece, but gets into
a doom-and-gloom position with­
out any counterchances after 6 . . .
l"lab8 17.Wc7 l"lbc8 18 .Wxa7 l"la8
19 .Wc7 l"lac8 2 0 .Wg3 Wxd2 2 l .�a6
l"la8 2 2 .�b7 l"lab8 23.l"lad1 We2
24.�f3 Wa6 2S.c6± tt:lf8 26.l"lal.
Bl. 6 e3 ; B2. 6 . l"lcl.
Bl. 6. e3 c5 7 .dxc5
Occasionally White tries to
avoid complications with the in­
nocuous 7.�e2. After 7 . . . tt:lc6 ! , White
has a choice - to play in the Tarra­
sch style with an isolani on d4, or
opt for a symmetric pawn structure
with 8 . dxcS :
a) 8.0-0 cxd4 9.exd4 dxc4
10 .�xc4 �g4 1l.dS tt:l aS 12 .�e2
l"lc8 = .
b ) 8 .h3 cxd4 9.exd4 dxc4
10.�xc4 tt:l aS 1l.�e2 �e6 1 2 . 0-0
l"lc8 . Black has a clearcut plan on
the queenside in this Tarrasch with
reversed colours.
c) 8.dxcS tt:le4 ! 9 . 0 - 0 tt:lxc3
10.bxc3 dxc4 11.hc4 WaS = .

7 . . • 1Mfa5
7 . . . C2Je4 ! ? is a well known alter­
native to our main line. It leads to
an endgame where Black should be
OK:
8 J''lc 1
8 .�e5? ! is a bad idea. After 8 . . .
t/Jxc3 9 .�xc3 �xc3 + 10 .bxc3 1MI'a5
11.1MI'b3 dxc4 12.'Wxc4 C2Ja6, White
has not compensation for his split
pawns, Markov-Wang Hao, Khan­
ty-Mansiysk 2 0 1 0 .
8 . . . C2Jxc3 9.bxc3 dxc4 !
9 . . . 'Wa5 is an interesting pawn
sacrifice tried in various games by
Sutovsky but I consider the text
more correct.
10 .'Wxd8 Ei:xd8 1l.�xc4
12 .Ei:d1
Or 12 .�g5 Ei:e8 13 .�b5 a6 14.�a4
h6 15.�h4 g5 16.c6? loses to 16 . . .
t/Jc5! 17.cxb7 hb7 18.he8 gxh4-+,
Ribli-Timman, Amsterdam 1978,
when the e8-bishop has no retreats.
12 . . . Ei:f8 13.�g5 �xc3+ 14.�e2
�f6 15.�xf6 C2Jxf6
3 . lt'l c3 d5 4.�f4
16.C2Je5 (16.Ei:d4? ! �g4 ! = , Hari­
ka-Delchev, Cappelle la Grande
04. 0 3 . 2 011) 16 . . . �f5 17.c6 ! (17.f3
Ei:ac8 18.Ei:c1 Ei:c7=) 17 . . . bxc6 18.C2Jxc6
Ei:fe8 19.C2Je5 Ei:ec8 2 0 .�xf7+ �g7
2 l.�b3 C2Je4�.
S.l:'kl
Botvinnik showed how to neu­
tralise 8.'Wa4 back in 1937: 8 . . .
1Mfxc5 9.'Wb5 1Mfxb5 10.C2Jxb5 C2Ja6
ll.Ei:d1 �e6 ! 12.C2Jfd4 �d7 13.�e5
Ei:fc8 ! ? 14.cxd5 C2Jxd5 15.hg7 �xg7
16.e4 C2Jdb4 17.C2Jc3 C2Jc5 18.a3 C2Jc6
19.�e2 C2Jxd4 2 0 . Ei:xd4 e5+, Leven­
fish-Botvinnik, Leningrad/Moscow
1937.
8 . . . dxc4
Here 8 . . . C2Je4 is already bad in
view of 9.�e5 �xe5 10.C2Jxe5 C2Jxc3
ll.Ei:xc3 1MI'xa2 12 .1MI'c1 1MI'a5 13 .cxd5±.
C2Jd7
9.�xc4 1Mfxc5
9 . . . C2Jbd7! ? is a valuable alterna­
tive to the main line. The idea be­
hind it is instead of shuttling the
queen between a5 and c5, to deve­
lop the knight to an active position.
It is unexplored and gives you a
73
 Part 2
chance to surprise a well prepared
opponent:
1 0 . 0-0 'LlxcS 11.We2
11.'Lld4 is the only way to prevent
. . . �e6 since ll.a3 is still answered
with ll . . . �e6 ! . The correspondence
game Plauth Herr-Geissler, 2 0 0 1 ,
went ll . . . �g4 ! 12 .f3 �d7 13 .We2
(or 13.a3 'Lla4) 13 .. J''l a c8 14.Eifd1
a6 1S.e4 bS 16.'Llb3 'Llxb3 17.�xb3
b4 18.'Llb1 �e6 ! 19 .�xe6 Wb6 + (the
point of ll . . . �g4 ! ) 2 0 .�e3 Wxe6= .
1 1 . . .�e6 12 .'Lld4 �xc4 13 .Wxc4
White is only a little ahead in
development, but 13 . . . Eifc8, intend­
ing 14.b4 Wa6, neutralises that. 13 . . .
'Llcd7 also withstood practical tests.
10.�b3
74
Rare alternatives are :
a) 10 .b3 'Llc6 11.0-0 �g4 12 .h3
Elfd8 13.We2 hf3 14.Wxf3 WaS = .
b) 10.Wb3 'Ll c 6 11.'LlbS �e6 ! , ex­
ploiting the hanging state of the c1-
rook. 12 .'Llc7 �xc4 13.E\xc4 WaS + .
c) 10 .We2 ? ! �g4 ll.'LlbS (11.0-0
�xf3 1 2 .gxf3 'Llc6) 1 1 . . .Wb4+ 1 2 .\t>fl
'Llc6 is quite dubious for White.
d) lO.'LlbS �e6 ! 11.'Llc7 �xc4.
White is worse because of his
uncastled king, for instance :
12.'Llxa8 WaS+ 13 .Wd2 Wxa2
14.b4 'Llc6 1S.Wxa2 �xa2 16.'Llc7
'Llxb4 17. 0-0 'Lle4+ and the black
bishops control the queenside;
12.'Lld2 bS 13 .b3 (13.'Llxa8 'LldS)
13 . . . 'LldS+;
12 .b3 WaS+ 13.Wd2 Wxd2+
14.'Llxd2 �d3 1S.'Llxa8 'LldS 16.'Llc7
Elc8 ! . The point of Black's play. The
knight is pinned and the threat of
. . . �b2 assures Black of the bet­
ter game, Inkijov-Lputian St.John
1988.
10 ... Wa5
10 . . . 'Llc6 11.0-0 WaS transposes
to the main line as 1 1 . . .WhS 12 .h3
 3.'Llc3 d5 4.iJ4
e5 13 .i.h2 �d8 14.'Lld2 ! �h6 15.�e2
�f5 16.�fd1 i.d3 17.�f3 , Larsen­
Tal, Bled 1965, left Black with un­
coordinated pieces.
11. 0 - 0 lt:l c6 12. h3!
Preventing both . . . i.g4 and
. . . 'Llh5 . 1 2 .'Llg5 h6 13.'Llge4 allows
13 . . . 'Llh5 = , and 12 .�e2 'Llh5 13.i.g5
- 13 . . . i.g4, when 14. 'Ll e4 �f5 15.i.c2
Wffe 6 hands the initiative over to
Black.
12. . .i.f5
12 . . . �a6 ? ! is an interesting mul­
tipurpose move. It denies White's
queen the e2-square, frees a5 for
the c6-knight, and prepares the ex­
change of the light-squared bishops
through e6 (after . . . 'Llb4 first).
However, Black is severely lagging
behind in development so White
easily takes command in the centre :
13.e4! �d8 14.�c2 ! i.d7! (14 . . .
tt'lb4? 15.ibd'7+ ! ) 15.�fd1 'Lla5 16.i.a4
ha4 17.�xa4 'Llc4 18.�xa6 bxa6
19.b3t. The a7-pawn is too weak.
13. �e2
13.'Lld4 i.d7 14.�e2 'Llxd4
15.exd4 e6 was equal in Karpov­
Kasparov, London 1986.
13.'Llg5, targeting f7, is more
challenging, but Black has at least
two good defences :
13 . . . �ad8 ! ? 14.hf7+ �xf7 15.�b3
'Lld5 16.i.c7 (16.'Llxf7 mxf7 17.'Llxd5
'Llxc7 17.�xf7+ (17.'Llxf7 i.e6
18 .�xb7 mxf7 19 .�xc6 'Lle8 2 0 . �fd1
�cs 2 L �f3 + i.f6=) 17 . . . mh8 18 .�b3
'Lle5, with a tangled position;
13 . . . e5 �adS 15.�f3 (15.i.xf7+ ? !
�xf7 16.�b3 �c7 17.�fd1 �xd1+
18.�xd1 �e7 19.e4 i.c8 2 0 . 'Lld5
'Llxd5 2 1 . 'Llxf7 �xf7 2 2 .exd5 'Lld4
23 .�c4 i.d7 24.�e1 i.b5 25.�c8 +
i.f8 26.d6 i.c6 27.i.xe5 �d5 28.f3
'Llxf3+ 0-1, Grigore-L'Ami, Brat­
to 2010) 15 . . . h6 16.'Llge4 'Llxe4
17.'Llxe4 �b4 (17 . . . �d3 is also good :
18.'Llc5 'Lld4 19.�xb7 'Lle2+ 2 0 . mh2
'Llxc1 2 l . �xc1 �dd8 =) 18.'Llc3 (18.
�c4 �e7=) 18 . . . �d2 19.'Lld5 �a5,
with a pleasant game.
13. . . lt:l e4 14. lt:ld5
White should keep more pieces
on the board.
14.'Llxe4 is very timid : 14 . . . i.xe4
15.md1 (15.'Lld2 i.d5) 15 . . . �ad8
16.'Llg5 i.d5 17.i.c7 �xc7 18.�xd5 = ,
L.Hansen-Shirov, Novi Sad 2 0 0 9 .
14.g4 ! ? was first played by Ka­
simdzanov in 2 0 0 9 . White repels
Black's centralised pieces and gains
some temporary initiative. How-
75
 Part 2
ever, his pawn weakness give us just
enough counterplay to maintain
the balance : 14 . . . tt:lxc3 15.bxc3 id7
16J'Ud1 �adS ! 17.�d5 1Mfa3 ! 1S.�cd1
ie6 19.�xdS tt:lxdS ! 2 0 .1Mfb5 a6
2 1.1Mfb6 ixb3 2 2 . axb3 tt:le6=.
See the annotated game 6
Dreev-Delchev, Cento 1 1 . 0 2 . 2 011.
1 4 . . . e5 15.i.h2
a) 15.�xc6 gained popularity af­
ter the world championship match
Karpov-Kasparov in 19S6. Kaspa­
rov did not accept the sacrifice,
preferring 15 . . . exf4, but later prac­
tice showed that 15 . . . bxc6 16.tt:le7+
mhS 17.tt:lxc6 1Mfb6 1S.tt:lcxe5 ie6 !
19.ixe6 1Mfxe6 2 0 .1Mfc2 fS !
is quite safe for Black.
White usually continues with
2 1.1Mfa4 to tie Black's rook with the
76
defence of the a7-pawn, when Black
grasps the opportunity to generate
threats on the kingside with :
2 l . . .g5 !
In 2 0 10 the great Griinfeld ex­
pert Svidler introduced the novelty
2 l . . .a6, but it seems a bit slow. It is
true that the aS-rook recovers its
freedom, but on the other hand,
White can petrify the kingside with
2 2 .h4. I think that 2 l . . .g5 is more
straightforward and easy to play.
2 2 .ih2 '<MfeS
Black has sufficient counterplay
against the enemy king. See the an­
notated game 5 Iljushin-V.Be­
lov, Sochi 2 0 0 6 .
b ) 15.ig5 looks a very ugly
move, but Lysyj and Riazantsev
apparently have another opinion
since they chose it recently. We
eat the bishop, of course, 15 . . . tt:lxg5
16.tt:lxg5, and question White's plan
with 16 . . . 1MfdS .
The game Lysyj-Salem, Biel
2009, saw further 17.h4 h6 1S.g4 !
id7 19.tt:le4 1Mfxh4 2 0 .f3 mhS !
2 l . l!ig2 fS 2 2 .�hl. Now 2 2 . . . 1MfdS is
possible, but Black decided to force
play with 2 2 . . . fxe4 2 3 . �xh4 exf3 +
24.1Mfxf3 �xf3 2 5 .mxf3 e4+ 2 6 . 1!ig2
gS 27.�hh1 ixg4 which was only
about equal.
15. . . i.e6!
An alternative is 15 . . . tt:lc5 ! ?
16.ic4 ! ? (or 16.e4 �adS ! ) 1 6 . . .
e 4 17.tt:ld4 tt:lxd4 1S.tt:le7+ mhS
 3.tt:lc3 d5 4.�f4
19.exd4 tt:ld3 2 0 J''l c d1 E1ad8 2 1.tt:lxf5
�xf5 2 2 .�xd3 exd3 23.�xd3 �xd3
24.E1xd3 E1xd4= , Mecking-Lima,
Sao Paulo 2 0 05.
16. E1fdl E1fd8 17. �c4 ltl f6
18.e4 E1ac8
This position has been known
since 1971 as the main line of the
if4 system. The opening stage is
over. Both sides completed their
development. The white bishop is
not too impressive on h2, so White
should try something quickly:
19. ltl g5!
Alternatively:
a) 19.�c3 �xc3 2 0 .tt:lxf6 + �xf6
21.bxc3 �xb3 2 2 . axb3 tt:l a5 = .
b ) 19 .�c5 �xc5 2 0 . E1xc5 tt:lxe4
21.E1xc6 E1xc6 2 2 .tt:l e7+ <;t>f8 23.tt:lxc6
E1xd1 + 24.�xd1 bxc6 25.�c2
liJc5 2 6 .tt:lxe5 �xa2 27.tt:lxc6 �b3
28 .�xb3 = .
19 ••• ltl d 4 20 . ltl e7 + <;t>f8
Note the funny mate after 20 . . .
<i>h8 2 l.�xe6! fxe6 2 2 .tt:lf7# .
21. ltl xe6 + <;t>xe7 22. ltl xd8
:i:!xc4 23 .hc4
A critical position for the assess­
ment of line Bl. Black has several
playable options, but in all of them
draw is the most likely outcome :
a) 23 . . . tt:lxe4 24.tt:lxf7 (24.tt:lxb7
�b6) 2 4 . . . �b6 25.tt:lxe5 (25.he5?
tt:lf3 + ! 2 6 .gxf3 �xf2 + 27.<;t>h1
�xf3+ 2 8 .<;t>h2 �f2 + 2 9 .<;t>hl �xe5
3 0 . tt:lxe5 tt:lg3 # ) 25 . . . he5 2 6.�xe5
tt:lf3+ and a draw with perpetual
as in the game Pinter-Maslik Graz
2 0 1 0 : 27.gxf3 �xf2 + 2 8 .<;t>h1 �xf3 +
2 9 .<;t>h2 �f2 + 3 0 .<;t>h1 �f3 + . Draw.
b) 23 . . . �h6 24.tt:lxb7 (24.�xe5? !
�xe5 25.tt:lxf7 �f4 2 6 .tt:lxh6 �xh6+
Huzman-Dorfman, Lvov 1988)
24 . . .�c7 25.E1c3 tt:lxe4 2 6 . E1xd4
tt:lxc3 2 7.bxc3 �xb7 2 8 .�xe5, with a
balanced position.
c) 23 . . . tt:l e8 ! ?. This was the
choice of Kamsky against Kramnik,
Moscow 2 0 0 8 : 24.tt:lxf7 b5 25.�d5
tt:le2+ 2 6 .<;t>h1 tt:lxc1 27.E1xc1 �d2
2 8 .E1c6 (or 2 8 . E1c8 �xf2 2 9 . ig1 �f1
3 0 .E1a8 tt:lc7 3l.E1xa7 <;t>d7 32 .b3 g5
33.a4 g4 34.hxg4 �f6 35.g5 �f4
77
 Part 2
36.axb5 �h4+) 2 8 . . . �xf2
The correspondence game Ko­
vacs-Klimakov 2008, saw 28 . . . �xb2
and a draw was signed.
2 9 .iigl �fl 30 J'' \ a6 11Jc7 3 U ' \xa7
Wd7 32 .b3 g5 33.a4 g4 34.hxg4 �f6
35.g5 �f4 36.axb5 �h4 + , draw.
B2. 6J''k l
This line is assessed as not too
challenging. Black usually answers
with 6 . . . dxc4 - line B 2 2 , but I rec­
ommend instead a simple and easy
to learn approach (line B21).
B21. 6 ... c5 ! ? ; B22. 6 ... dxc4.
B21. 6 . • . c5! ? 7 .dxc5 dxc4!
White can switch here to line B l
with 8 . e 3 �a5 9.iixc4 �xc5.
8 .e4 �a5 9.e5 (9.11Jd2 iie6
10 .iixc4 iixc4 11.11Jxc4 �xc5=)
78
9 . . . 11Jh5 ! is unclear. My analy­
sis suggests that Black has good
counterplay in the sharp middle­
game : 10.iie3 11Jc6 ll.iixc4 (11.11Jd2
l"\d8 ! +) ll. . . iig4 12 .iie2 (12.e6 fxe6
13.�b3 iixf3 14.gxf3 11Je5 15.iie2
11Jf4 16.iixf4 E1xf4 17.�xb7 E1af8�)
12 . . . l"\ad8 13.�a4 �xa4 14.11Jxa4
iid7! 15.0-0 11Jxe5 = .
8 . . . 1'!xd8 9. e4
9 .e3 11Ja6 10 .c6 bxc6 ll.iixc4
11Jd5 or 11.. . 11Jb4 is equal.
9 . . . 11J a6 10. e5 ttJh5! ll.ii.e3
iig4! 12.iixc4 iixf3 13.gxf3 iixe5
Now White should take on a6
with equality since the alternatives
give Black the initiative :
14.c6 11Jc7 15.cxb7 l"\ab8 16.iixa7
l"\xb7 or 14.a3 11Jb8 and the knight is
heading for d4.
B22. 6. . . dxc4 7 . e4
The solid 7.e3 is best met by 7 . . .
iie6 ! White must now move a sec­
ond time the same piece : 8J[jg5
when both answers - the origi­
nal 8 . . . iig4 ! ? 9.f3 iic8 10 .iixc4 c6,
Karpov-Kasparov, New York 2 0 0 2 ,
and the well tested 8 . . . iid5 9 .e4 h6
10 .exd5 hxg5 ll.ii.xg5 b5 ! ? 12.�f3
(12 .iie2 c6 ! ) �d7, lead to interes­
ting sharp play.
7 . . . iig4 8.hc4 iixf3 9.gxf3
tLlh5 10.iie3
 3 .'Ll c3 dS 4.�f4
We play on the dark squares:
10... e5! ll. dxe5 he5 12J1�'xd8
Or 12 .Wb3? ! 'Llc6 13.Wxb7 Wf6�.
12. . J!xd8 13. 0 - 0
Black has two decent plans here
- the solid 13 . . . 'Ll d7, leaving c6 for
the pawn, and the more active :
13 . . )i) c6! ? 14.liJ d5!
Or 14J'1fdl 'Lld4 ! 15.�d5 c5, with
full control of the dark squares,
Bosboom-Akesson, Hafnarfjordur
1998 . Similar is 14.�d5 'Lld4 ! .
1 4. . . lt:\ a5 15.�g5 E1d7 16.�b5
c6 1 7 . b4! cxb5 18. bxa5 E1e8 !
The game i s level. Black pre­
pares counterplay with .. .fS, for in­
stance, 19J'1fdl fS ! 2 0 .�e3 a6 2l.f4
�b2 2 2 .l:1c2 �a3 = .
Sumets-Shishkin, Milan 2 0 0 9
saw 1 9 .l"1c5 a6 2 0 . l"1fcl f6 = , 2 0 . . .f5
also deserves attention.
C. 5. e3 !
The most unpleasant move.
White keeps the option of develop­
ing the king's knight to e2 which
would be able to support 'Llc3.
5. . . c5
Botvinnik claims that 5 . . . 0-0 is
more precise, because Black avoids
the very sharp line with 'Llge 2 . In­
stead, White can win the c7-pawn
by exchanging first on dS. This
variation is not dangerous, but it
should lead almost certainly to a
draw. This is the main reason I do
not recommend it. Still it is a reli­
able weapon and I examine it on the
next few pages :
a) 6 . cxd5 'Llxd5 7.'Llxd5 Wxd5
8.�xc7 'Lla6 !
79
 9 .�xa6
It is very risky to spend a new
tempo on retreat: 9 .�g3 �f5 1 0 .a3
l"1ac8 11.l2le2 �b5 ! (an improvement
over 1 1 . . .�c2 12 .�d2 e5? 13.dxe5
�b3 14.ct:Jd4 �xb2 15.l"1cl±, Le­
venfish-Ragozin, Leningrad 1936)
12 .b4 (Or 12.ct:Jf4 �xb2 13.l2ld5 l"1fe8
14.�xa6 bxa6 15 .0-0 e6 16.ct:Jc7
l"1ed8 17.ct:Jxa6 e5+) 12 . . . l"1c2 13.ct:Jc3
�c6 - + .
9 . . . �xg2 10.�f3 �xf3 11.l2lxf3
bxa6 12.l"1c1 (12 .l"1g1 f6)
White too quickly returned the
extra pawn. Furthermore, he con­
ceded the bishop pair. Why then is
this line still occurring in practice? !
White's positional aim i s to double
rooks on the c-file behind the shield
of the c7-bishop. Black's bishop on
g7 is passive, restricted by the d4-
pawn. We can try to activate it from
f8, but then White will exchange it
with the help of a3, �a5-�b4. The
arising endgame would be clearly
in his favour. The other problem is
that the black rooks cannot find any
open file to operate on. Thus White
is not risking anything and could
torture us to put our endgame tech­
nique to the test. However, Black
80
has an original way to regroup his
forces and solve all practical prob­
lems. According to Megabase,
White has not won a single game
after his next move :
12 . . .f6 ! 13.l"1g1
The game Pelletier-Illescas,
Pamplona 2003, saw 13.<i>e2? �g4+,
with a deadly pin.
13 . . . l"1f7!
Very flexible! Black does not de­
fine the future of his light-squared
bishop, which could be useful both
on d7 (threatening to check from
b5) , or on b7. Instead, 13 . . . �d7
14.md2 l"1fc8 15.l"1c3 �f8 16.a3 mf7
17.l"1gc1 e6 18.<i>e1 �e7 19.ct:Jd2 <i>e8
2 0 .ct:Je4 gave White some pull in
Trifunovic-Najdorf, Opatija 1949.
14.<i>e2
We understand now the finesse
of Black's previous move. 14.<i>d2
would be met by 14 . . . �b7! and ap­
parently White should correct him­
self with 15.<i>e2 e6= .
14 . . . �d7 15.d5
15.ct:Jd2 led to a repetition after
15 . . . e5 16.d5 �b5 + 17. <i>f3 f5 18 .b3
e4+ 19.<i>g2 �b2 2 0 . l"1c2 �d3 2 l .l"1c6
�b5 2 2 . l"1c2 �d3 23.l"1c6, draw, Rad­
j abov-Ivanchuk, Morelia/Linares
2006.
15.l"1c3 looks more natural, but
Black has 15 . . . e5 ! 16.dxe5 (16.d5
�b5+ 17.md2 �f8 gains a crucial
tempo, e.g. 18.a3 l"1c8 19.l"1gc1 l"1d7
2 0 .e4?? �h6+) 16 . . . f:xe5 17.ct:Jg5
�b5+ 18.<±>e1 e4 19.ct:Jxf7 �xc3 +
20.bxc3 �xf7=, Gyimesi-Luther,
Germany 2 0 0 8 .
1S . . . eS 16.dxe6= , Chatalbashev­
Brkic, Zagreb 2 0 1 0 .
I n m y opinion, White can try to
set us problems only with :
b) 6.E1c1 ! ?
This i s aimed against Black's
counterplay with . . . c7-cS. However,
developing another queen's piece
leaves White 3 moves away from
castling so we should seek to open
up the centre.
6 . . . i.e6 !
A Korchnoi's idea which aims
to define the setup in the centre.
6 . . . cS 7.dxcS i.e6 was the famous
game Botvinik-Gligoric, Tel Aviv
1964.
7.�b3 !
A nice way to remain in the bat­
tle for the centre. 7.cxdS? ! 'LlxdS
8.'2lxdS �xdS 9 . a3 E1c8 10.'2lf3 �a2
11.�d2 cS gives Black the initiative.
7.cS is inconsistent. The point is
whether we can break through the
centre with . . . e7-eS or not: 7 . . . c6
8.i.d3 i.g4 (8 . . . '2lhS 9 .i.g5) 9 .�c2
(9 .'2lge2 'LlhS) 9 . . . '2lfd7
10 .i.xb8 (10 .h3 does not suc-
ceed in preventing . . . eS either: 10 .. .
eS ! ll.dxeS i.e6 1 2 . '2l f3 'LlxcS) 10 . . .
'Llxb8 ll.h3 i.c8 12 . f4 b6 13.'2la4 (13.
b4 bxcS 14.bxcS �aS) and now 13 . . .
eS ! ! 14.dxeS f6 1S.exf6 �xf6 16.'2lf3
�e7 17.�f2 bS 18.'2lc3 'Lla6, with
an initiative in Wang Yue-Carlsen,
Nanjing 2 0 0 9 .
7.'2lf3 transposes t o line B 2 -
4.i.f4 i.g7 S.'Llf3 0-0 6 .E1c1 dc4 7.e3
i.e6.
Let us return to 7.�b3 :
7 . . . cS !
An important novelty of V.Be­
lov, played for the first time in
2 0 1 0 . It significantly improves on
the common 7 . . . b6 8 . '2l f3 cS 9.dxcS
bxcS ! (9 . . . '2l a6 10 .c6) 10.E1d1! (10.
�b7 is dubious due to 10 ... �b6
11.�xb6 axb6 1 2 .'2lgS d4 13.exd4
cxd4 14.'2lbS, Galojan-Khotenashvi­
li, Plovdiv 2 0 1 0 and now 14 . . . i.d7 ! )
10 . . . dxc4 11.i.xc4 i.xc4 12.�xc4
�b6 13 . 0 - 0 'Llc6 14.E1d2 E1fd8.
White has some minimal edge here.
8.�xb7
8 .dxcS is hardly better after 8 . . .
'Llc6 9 . '2l f3 E1c8 10 .E1d1 �as 11.�bs
dxc4 12.i.xc4 i.xc4 13.�xc4 'Llb4
81
 Part 2
14. 0 - 0 '�!fixeS 15.'1!fffxc5 Elxc5= , Edou­
ard-Rodshtein, Khanty-Mansiysk
23.09.2010.
8 . . .'®b6 9 .'1!fffxb6 axb6
Black has a big lead in deve­
lopment and he will quickly regain
the pawn. Obviously White cannot
dream of any advantage here.
10.ltJf3
White failed to equalise in Ham­
mer-Le Quang Liem, Cap d'Agde
2 0 1 0 : 10.dxc5 bxc5 1l.�e5 dxc4
1 2 .C2Jh3 C2Jc6 13.�g3 C2Jh5 14.C2Jg5
hc3 + 15.bxc3 C2Jxg3 16.hxg3 C2Je5
17.Elc2 Elfb8 18.C2Jxe6 Elb1+ 19.i>e2
fxe6+.
1 0 . . . C2Jc6
1 0 . . . dxc4 1l.dxc5 C2Jd5 1 2 .cxb6
C2Jxf4 13 .exf4 Ela6 is a draw -
14.C2Jd1 Elxb6 (14 . . . Elxa2 15.�xc4
�xc4 16.Elxc4 Ela6 17.b7 Elb6 18.Elc7,
draw, Wang Yue-Khmelniker, Zue­
rich 2010) 15.�xc4 Elc8 16 .b3 �xc4
17.Elxc4 Elxc4 18.bxc4 Elb4 19.0-0
Elxc4= .
1l.dxc5 bxc5 1 2 . C2J e5 C2Jxe5
13.he5 dxc4 14.�e2 C2J d7 15.�xg7
i>xg7
82
The stem game Sargissian-V.
Belov, Moscow 2 0 1 0 , saw further
16.0-0?! Elfb8 17.Elc2 C2Je5 18.Ela1
C2Jd3, with serious pressure.
White has to play 16.i>d2 ! Elfb8
17.i>c2 C2Je5 18.Elhd1 Elb6 19.Eld2
Elab8 2 0 . i>b1 C2Jd3 2 l.�xd3 cxd3
2 2 .C2Ja4 Ela6 23.C2Jxc5 �xa2 + 24.i>a1
Ela5 25 .b4 Elxb4 2 6 . Elxa2 d2 2 7.Eld1
Elxc5 2 8 .Elaxd2 = .
6.dxc5
Botvinnik considers 6 .�xb8
Elxb8 7.'1!fff a 4+ �d7 8 .'1!fffxa7 as an ar­
gument against the early 5 . . . c5, but
I think that such a greedy approach
in a sharp opening as the Griinfeld
is rather misguided. After all, the
a7-pawn has no significance while
development does matter. We con­
tinue with 8 . . . cxd4 9 .'1!fffx d4 0-0
10.cxd5 'l!fff a5 and White must be
happy to live up to move 30.
6 ... V9a5
Black's idea is based on the
variation 7.cxd5? C2Jxd5 8 .'1!fffxd5
�xc3 + 9.bxc3 'l!fffxc3 + 10 .i>e2 'l!fffx a1
1l.�e5 V9b1 12 .�xh8 �e6 13.'1!fffd 3
'l!fffx a2 + , with a winning initiative,
for instance: 14. i>e1 f6 15.�g7 C2Jc6

16.lt'lf3 :B:d8 17.lt'ld4 i.f5 18 .'@b5 :B:d7
19.i.e2 '@a1+ 2 0 .i.d1 lt'lxd4 2l.exd4
�xd4- + or 14. <i>f3 f6 15.i.g7 lt'lc6
16.<i>g3 :B:d8 17.�e2 �b1 18 .h4 :B:d1
19.lt'lf3 a5.
Instead, White has the following
reasonable continuations :
Cl. 7.�b3 ; C 2 . 7.'@a4 + ;
7.lt'lf3 ; C4. 7.:B:c1!
Cl. 7.'@b3 i.d7 !
Preventing the possible exchange
of queens after 7 . . . 0-0 8.'@b5 ! ± .
8.i.e5
White has also tried:
a) 8.cxd5 lt'lxd5 9.�xd5 i.xc3+
10 .bxc3 '@xc3 + 1l.<i>e2 '@xa1- + ,
Levesque-Gustafsson, playchess.
com 2 004.
b) 8.'@xb7 0-0 9 .i.c7 (9.'@xa8
ic6 10.'@xb8 :B:xb8 1l.ixb8 lt'le4-+)
9 ... �xc5 10 .�xa8 i.c6 1l.'@xb8
l"1xb8 12 .i.xb8 lt'le4 13.lt'lge2 '@b4
14.l"1d1 lt'lxc3 , with a decisive at-
3 .Ct'l c3 d5 4.i.f4
tack, Gleeson-Chabot, WCCF email
2 0 0 0 . White is lost after both
15.bxc3 '@xb8 16.cxd5 i.a4 17.:B:c1
�b2 - + and 15.lt'lxc3 '@xb8 16.lt'lxd5
'@xb2 17.lt'lxe7+ ci>f8 - + .
c ) 8.lt'l f3 lt'la6! (8 . . . lt'le4 9 . l"1c1
lt'lxc5 10 .'@dU) 9 .'@xb7 0-0 with
perfect compensation since 10.c6
fails to 10 . . . lt'le4.
d) 8 . :B:c1 i.c6 9.lt'lf3 lt'lbd7= .
s . . . d:xc4 9 . .hc4
9.�xc4 lt'lc6 10.lt'lf3 lt'lxe5
ll.lt'lxe5 0-0 also gives Black nice
compensation.
9 • . . 0 - 0 1 0 .tt:lf3 tt:l a6 11. .ha6
It is difficult to play such a
C3. move, but 11. 0-0 lt'lxc5 12 .�c2 b5
was clearly better for Black in Lau­
tier-lvanchuk, Monte Carlo 199 8 :
13 .i.d5 l"1ac8 14.a3 i.f5 15.'@d2
lt'ld3+.
11. . . \Wxa6 12. 0 - 0 - 0 :B:fc8.
Black's bishop pair makes his
position preferable.
C2. 7 .'@a4 + '@xa4 8 . tt:l xa4
The exchange of queens elimi­
nates most of Black's imminent
tactical threats. White hopes to
consolidate and remain a pawn up
in the endgame. Still, Black's piece
activity promises him a nice game.
Recently only Dreev opted for this
83
 Part 2
line at top level, and was happy to
escape with a draw.
8 . . • .id7 9)Lic3 lt:l e4!
After 9 . . . dxc4 10 .hc4 .ic6 11.tt:Jf3
(ll . .ibS tt:Jfd7! ) 1 1 . . . tt:Jbd7, White's
task is easier:
1 2 . tt:Je5
Or 1 2 . 0-0 tt:JhS 13.tt:Jg5 (13 .tt:Jd5
�c8 14 ..ig5 .ixdS 15 . .ixd5 �xeS
16 . .ixb7 h6=) 13 . . . 0-0 14.�ac1 tt:Jxf4
15.exf4 tt:JxcS 16.b4 tt:J a4 17.tt:Jxa4
.ixa4 18 . .id5 h6 19.tt:Jf3 �fd8
2 0 .i.xb7 �ab8 2 l . �c7 �d7 2 2 . �c8 + .
Here Spacek and Berndt, Berlin
199 0 , signed a draw although only
Black can play for a win.
12 ... tt:Jxe5 13 . .ixe5 .ixg2 14.�g1
.ic6 15.b4 a6 16.We2, Yuferov­
Gogichaishvili, Nabereznye Chelny
1988. White has some initiative on
the queenside.
lO . lLl xd5
l O .�cl tt:Jxc3 1l.bxc3 dxc4
12 . .ixc4 .ic6 13.tt:Jf3 tt:Jd7+ or
84
10.tt:Jxe4 (Ftacnik) 10 . . . dxe4 11.0-0-0
tt:Ja6= are obviously fine for Black.
Sharper positions arise after:
1 0.tt:Jge2 tt:JxcS ! ?
Immediately targeting the weak
square d3. 10 . . . tt:Ja6 1l.cxd5 tt:J axcS
is inferior in view of 12 .�d1! (The
alternatives assure Black of active
play: 1 2 . tt:Jd4 tt:Jxc3 13 .bxc3 �c8� or
1 2 . tt:Jxe4 tt:Jxe4 13.tt:Jd4 �c8 14.�d1
.ia4 ! ? 15.b3 .id7� or 15.�b1 0-0
16 ..id3 tt:Jf6 17.d6 exd6 18 . .ixd6
�fd8 19 . .ia3 tt:Jhs�.) 12 . . . �c8
13 .tt:Jxe4 tt:Jxe4 14.f3 tt:JcS 15.b3±.
11.tt:Jxd5 tt:Jd3+ 1 2 . Wd2 tt:Jxf2
13.tt:Jc7+ Wd8 14.tt:Jxa8 e5 15 . .ig5+
f6�. The knight at a8 is doomed.
10 • • • lt:l a6 ll.f3
This way White anticipates . . . e6,
which leads to a slight edge for
Black after 11.tt:Jf3 e6 12 .tt:Jc7 + tt:Jxc7
13 . .ixc7 .ixb2 14.�b1 .ic3 + 15.We2
tt:Jxc5 .
1l. �b1 is an ambitious attempt
to keep the extra pawn. Then 11 . . .
.ifS? 12.f3 tt:Jc3 13.�a1 tt:Jxd5 14.cxd5
.ixb2 15 . .ib5+ Wd8, as in Faldt­
Hermansson, Sweden 2 0 0 3 , should
fail to 16 . .ixa6! bxa6 17.�d1 ic2
18.�d2 ic3 19.tt:Je2± when sudden­
ly White takes over the initiative.
The best reply to 1l.�b1 is ll . . . gS !
1 2 .tt:Jc7+ tt:Jxc7 13 .hc7.
We see a typical picture for this
variation. Black's pieces are so ac­
tive, that it is White who must be
careful. For instance :
 3 .'Llc3 dS 4.i.f4
a) 13 . . . i.f5 14.i.d3 E\c8 15.f3 'Llg3
16.hg3 i.xd3 17.E\d1 i.xc4 18 .b3
ibS 19.:1'\dS h5. The game is level,
for instance : 2 0 . a4 i.c6 2 1 . :1'\xgS i.f6
22.:1'\fS i.d7 2 3 . :1'\dS h4 24.i.f2 i.e6
25.E1d3 E1xc5 26.'Lle2 E1c2 27.e4 E1b2
28.'Lld4 E1b1 + with a draw, or:
b) 13 . . . E1c8 ! ? 14.c6 E1xc7 (14 . . .
ixc6 15.i.a5 'LlcS�) 15.cxd7 + E1xd7
16.i.e2 'Lld2 17.E\c1 i.xb2 18.E1c2
ia3 = .
11 )2J exc5
. •
Despite the extra pawn, White
achieves the meagre 27% in practice.
12. 0 - 0 - 0
The other ways to defend b2 are :
a) 1 2 . 'Ll c3 'Lla4+.
b) 12 .i.g5 i.xb2 13 .E1b1 f6 = ,
Dreev-Gopal, Zuerich 2 0 0 9 .
c ) 1 2 . E\b1 i s too passive. We
should answer 12 . . . e6 (12 . . . E1c8
13 .i.g5 ! f6 14.i.h4 g5 15.i.g3 e6
16.'Llc3 'Llb4 17.Eid1 fS 18.E1d2 ! ±)
13.'Llc7+ 'Llxc7 14.i.xc7 'Ll a4 15.i.d6
'Llxb2 16.i.a3 'Ll a4 17.E1xb7 i.f8 !
Paradoxically, exchanges fa­
vour Black who will eventually
remain with a raging rook on the
second rank and a perfect blockad­
ing knight at c5. White is unable to
cut across his plans with 18.i.c1 aS
19.a3 because after 19 . . . i.d6 2 0 .e4
f6, Black will follow with . . . �e7,
. . . E1hb8 and invade the queenside
anyway.
1 8 .hf8 Elxf8 19.'Lle2 �e7
2 0 . 'Ll d4 'Ll c5 2 l . E\b4 E1fb8 2 2 .a3,
Novikov-Sutovsky, Koszalin 1998.
Black owns the initiative and he
could have underlined that with
2 2 . . . Eib6 ! 23.i.e2 E\a6 24.'Llb3 E1c8
25.'Llxc5 :1'\xcS 2 6. Eib3 E1ca5 27.Eib7
Elxa3 2 8 .c5 E\c6 2 9 . 0-0 �d8 3 0 .E1d1
E\c7, winning a pawn.
12 . . . e6
12 . . . E\c8 is imprecise owing to
13.e4 and Black fails to build a
pawn barrier on f6, e5 - 13 . . . e6
14. 'Ll c3 i.xc3 15.bxc3 f6 16.e5 !
13 )2J c7 +
13.'Llc3 ? ! hc3 14.bxc3 f6�
leaves White an extra double pawn,
but this structure is unpleasant for
85
 Part 2
him, because his pieces have not
good stands : 15.'2le2 �a4 16.E\d2 e5
17.�h6 'tflt7
13 . . . lb xc7 14.�xc7 E\c8 15.�d6
Ftacnik also considers 15.�g3
15 . . . b5 16.cxb5 (16.b3 bxc4 17.�xc4
l2la4f!) 16 . . . '2la4 + , with an initiative.
15. . . b5
Even without queens, the posi­
tion remains very sharp. White's
king is in danger under the fire
of 3 long-range pieces, but our
own monarch is in his turn rather
restrained by the bishop on d6.
In general, Black has more than
enough compensation for the pawn.
16. b3
Of course, 16.cxb5? loses to 16 . . .
l2le4+ 17.'tflb1 l2lf2 . The attempt to
close the queenside by 16 .�xc5 Elxc5
17.b4 E\c7 18.c5 does not work too
well due to 18 . . . �c3 19.a3 a5 2 0 .'tflc2
(20.E\xd7 'tflxd7 2 1.hb5+ 'tfle7+)
20 . . . axb4 2 1 . 'tflb3 Elxc5 2 2 .axb4 E\c7.
86
16 .. . lb b7
16 . . . bxc4 is about equal : 17.�xc4
(17.bxc4 l2lb7 18 .�a3 �b5 19.<tflb1
�a4+) 17 . . . '2l a4 ! 18.E\d2D (18 .bxa4
E\xc4+ 19.'tfld2 �xa4+; 18. 'tfld2
�c3 + 19.'tfle2 l2lb2 2 0 . E\cl l2lxc4
21.bxc4 E\xc4 2 2 . 'tfld3 �b5 23.a4
�a6 24.E\xc3 E\c6+ 25.'tflc2 E\xd6
2 6 . '2lh3 =) 18 . . . �b5 19 .E\c2 �xc4
2 0 .bxc4 ( 2 0 . Eixc4 Elxc4+ 2 1.bxc4
'tfld7 2 2 .�g3 E\c8+) 20 . . . 'tfld7 2 1. c5
(21.�a3 E\c6 2 2 .'2le2 Elhc8 2 3 . E\d1 +
'tfle8 =) 2 l . . .E\c6! 2 2 .'2le2 ( 2 2 .Eid2
'tflc8 23 .E\c2 'tflb7 24.'2le2 l2lxc5)
22 . . . '2lxc5 ! 23 . E\d1! (23 .hc5 Elhc8
24.E\d1+ 'tfle8 2 5 . 'tfld2 Elxc5 2 6 . Eixc5
E\xc5+, Novikov-Yermolinsky, New
York 1998) 23 . . . E\xd6 24.E\xc5 = , in­
tending . . . E\a5.
1 7 . 'tfl bl lLl xd6 18 .E:xd6 'tfl e7
19.E:d2
Or 19.E:d1 �h6 2 0 .f4 e5 2 1.fxe5
E:hd8.
19 ... �h6 20 . f4 e5
Black's bishop pair 1s m full
control, e.g. 2 1.�d3 bxc4 2 2 .�xc4
�f5++, Kiss-Rowson, Reykjavik
2002.
C 3 . 7 . llJf3 lLl e4! ?
We can transpose to other main
lines by 7 . . . 0-0 8 . E:c1 dxc4, but the
text is simpler.
8 . �e5 �xe5 9.lLl xe5 lLl xc3
1 0 .Wfd2 �e6
 3.l/Jc3 d5 4.�f4
Black recaptures the material
and comfortably castles : 1U'k1
0-0 12 .Wxc3 Wxc5 13 .b4 Wc7 14.c5,
Pinter-Ruck, Hungary 2 0 0 1 , when
14 . . . l/Jc6= is a little more precise
than 14 .. J'lfd8 as in the stem game.
C4. 7 -l''k l dxc4 8.�xc4
Losing tempi with 8 .Wa4+
might be risky for White, even with­
out queens : 8 . . .\�lfxa4 9.l/Jxa4 �d7
10.l"lxc4 0-0
Mind the trap 10 ... l/Ja6? ll.c6 ! .
11.l/Jf3 l'i:c8 1 2 . l/Jc3
It is probably safer to continue
development with 12 .�e2 l/Jd5
13 .�e5 �xa4 14.l"lxa4 l"lxc5 = .
12 . . . l/J c 6 ! 13.l/Je5 �e6 14.l/Jxc6
l"lxc6 15.l"lb4 l/Jh5 ! ?
The game Gunawan-Dorf-
man, Sarajevo 1988, saw 15 . . . l/Jd5
16.l/Jxd5 �xd5 17.e4 �xa2 18 .�e3
l"lc7 19.�d3 a5= .
16.l"lxb7 l/Jxf4 17.exf4 l"lxc5, with
an initiative.
8 . . • 0-0!
I n most branches of this system,
Black should not hurry to regain the
sacrificed pawns. Here 8 . . . Wxc5??
loses the queen after 9 .l/Jb5 Wb4+
1 0 . <±>fl l!Ja6 ll.a3 Wa5 12 .�c7 l/Jxc7
13.l/Jxc7+ Wxc7 14.�xf7+.
9.tf) ge2
9 .l/Jf3 transposes to line B l .
The text bolsters u p the c3-
knight. White is undeveloped for
tactical attempts like :
9.Wa4 Wxc5 1 0 . l/Jb5 l/J d5 ll.l/Je2
l/J a6 12 .Wb3 l/Jxf4 13.l/Jxf4 Wb4+ or:
9 . a3 ? !
Setting u p a trap, which i n fact
leads to unclear consequences: 9 . . .
Wxc5 ! ? 1 0 .l/Jb5 �e6 11.�e2 Wf5
1 2 . l/J c7 g5 ! 13.�g3 l/Je4. Now my op­
ponent showed good appetite and
took the rook, but turned up worse
after 14.l/Jxa8 �xb2 15.l/Jf3 Wa5+
16.<±>f1 �xc1 17.Wxc1 l/J a6+, Nikolov­
Delchev 2 0 0 1 . He could have tried
instead 14.f3 ! ? l/Jxg3 15.hxg3 �xb2
16.l"lb1 or 16.�d3, aiming to exploit
87
 Part 2
the open h-file. However, I recom­
mend:
9 . . . t2lc6! 10 .�b3 (10.t2lge2 �xc5
11.t2lb5 �h5=) 10 . . . �xc5 (10 . . .
t2le4=) 1l.�b5 �xb5 1 2 .�xb5 �e6
13.t2lge2 t2ld5.
9 . . . �xc5
10. �b3 !
a) 10.t2lb5? �b4+ 11.\ilfl a6 12 .a3
�xb2 13 .l"lbl. White wins the queen,
but this idea proves rather dubious.
The rest of Black's pieces generate
tons of threats while the rook at h1
is out of play: 13 . . . �xb1 14.�xb1
axb5 15.�xb5 l"lxa3 16.�xb8 t2l e4 ! !
17.�xe4 l"la1+ 18.t2lc1 l"lxc1+ 19.\ile2
l"lxhH 2 0 .�xe7 �g4+ 2 l.f3 �xf3 +
2 2 .\ilxf3 l"lxb8 23 .�c7 l"lf8 . This po­
sition should be lost for White.
b) 10 .�b3 ? ! Black has no prob­
lems after this waste of time. Any
normal move should be OK: 10 . . .
�a5 11.0-0 t2l a 6 ! (eyeing the d3-
square) 12 .�e1 l"ld8 13.l"ld1 l"lxd1
14.�xd1 t2lc5 15.�c2 �e6+, Kaka­
geldyev-Sasikiran, Jodhpur 2 0 0 3 ,
o r 10 . . . t2l c 6 11. 0-0 �h5 (10 . . . �a5)
88
1 2 . t2lg3 �h4 13.t2lge2 l"ld8 14.�e1
t2lh5 = .
c ) 10.�d4 �a5 ! ( O r 10 . . . �h5
11.hb8 l"lxb8 12 .�xa7 �d7 13.t2lg3
�h4 14.�d4 �xd4 15.exd4 b5�,
Istratescu-Iordachescu, Pre deal
2 0 0 6 . ) ll .b4 �a3 12 .�xb8 l"lxb8
13 .0-0 t2lg4+.
After 10.�b3 , Black has two good
continuations. 10 . . . �a5 is much
simpler and easier to learn. This
way Black avoids long forced varia­
tions. However, if you seek compli­
cations and are ready for an open­
ing dispute, line C42 should be your
choice. It leads to very interesting,
materially unbalanced positions.
C41. 10 . . . �a5 ; C42 . 10 . . . t2lc6 ! ? .
C41. 10 . . . �a5 11. 0 - 0 tt'lc6!
I do not like ll . . . t2lbd7? ! in view
of 1 2 .l"lfd1 (Or 12 .a3 ? ! t2lb6 13.�c7
�d7 and the game Wang Yue-Carls­
en, Sofia 2 0 0 9 , eventually ended in
a draw.) 12 . . . a6 (12 . . . t2lc5 13.�b5
�xb5 14.t2lxb5 �e6±) 13.t2ld5 ! ± .
 3 .'Llc3 d5 4.�f4
12.1'!fdl!
The idea of ensuring a retreat
to the dark-squared bishop by
12 .h3 doesn't promise much. After
12 . . . 'Lle5 ! 13 .�xe5 (13.'Lld5 'Llxd5
14.�xd5 e6 15.�e4 �d7 16.Wxb7
l"1ab8 17.Wc7 Wxc7 18.1'!xc7 �b5
19.1'!el �d3 2 0 .�b7 �f6 ! = , threaten­
ing to win the exchange with . . . �d8
as in Riazantsev-Najer, Linares
2003) 13 . . . Wxe5 14.l"1fdl e6 (aimed
against 'Lld5) 15.'Lld4 WaS, Black
protects the a7-pawn and will soon
develop the light-squared bishop,
e.g. 16.'Lldb5 �d7 17.'Lld6 �c6 = .
12. . . tt:l h5! 13 . a3
White prevents an exchange of
queens through b4 and threatens to
disturb Black's queen with 14.1'!d5,
or thrust the b-pawn after the pre­
liminary Wa2 .
13 . . . tt:l xf4 14. tt:l xf4
14 . . . e6
The game Kaidanov-Mikhalev­
ski, Lubbock 2 0 0 8 , introduced the
amazing, I would even say, arro­
gant, idea:
14 . . . �g4 ! ? 15.f3 (15J''1 d 5 Wc7
16 J"lc5oo) 15 . . . �c8 .
Is the weakening of the whole
complex of White's kingside dark
squares worth two tempi ? ! I doubt
it, but it is not easy to prove a
White's advantage. Kaidanov was
obviously so perplexed, that he im­
mediately lost the thread and de­
cided to spend 2 tempi on his turn
with 16.'Lld5? in order to provoke . . .
the useful move 16 . . . e6 ! .
A sterner test of Black's idea
would be 16.'Lla4 ! e6 (preventing
'Ll c5) 17.�d3 l"1d8 18 .�e4 l'!xdl +
19 .Wxdl.
It looks like Black is still under
pressure, but 19 . . . Wg5 seems to
solve the problem of the �c8-de­
velopment: 2 0 .b4 e5 ! 2 1 . 'Lld5 �e6
2 2 .Wel �xd5 23.�xd5 �h6 24.l"1c3
l"1d8 = . Black is ready to counter­
attack: 25.�e4 ? ! 'Lle7 2 6.�xb7? 'Llf5
2 7.e4 'Lle3- + .
White can try 15 .�b5 and take
on c6, but Black should not have
problems having the bishop pair.
15. . . 1'!d8 16. tt:l d3
Or 16.l"1xd8 + Wxd8 17.l"1dl We7= .
16 . . . �d7 17 . tt:l e4=
We have been following the
game Kraidman-W. Schmidt, Nice
1974, which eventually ended in a
draw.
89
 Part 2

C42 . 10 . Cl:lc6 ll. tt:lb5

• • 12 • . • Wh4 13 . tt:l c7 e5!

Heading for c7. Mundane moves

like 11.\WbS WxbS 12.ixb5 id7= or
1 1 . 0 0 tt:laS 12 .\WbS WxbS 13.ixb5 a6
14.id3 id7= do not deserve more
attention.

n . . . Wh5 ! 1 2 . tt:lg3 !

1 2 . ct:\ c7 l=!b8 does not trouble

Black:

Note the trap 13 ... l=!b8? 14.ixf7+

a) 13.ct:\d5 eS 14.Ct'lxf6 + ixf6
15.ixf7+ l=!xf7 16.l'!xc6 bxc6 17.Wxb8
Wg4 ! 18 .ig3 (18 .ixe5 ixe5 19 .Wxe5
Wxg2 2 0 . l'!f1 ih3 2 1 .ct:\g3 Wf3) 18 . . .
l=!b7 19 .\Wd6 l=!xb2 2 0 . 0 - 0 We6+.
b) 13.ixf7+ l=!xf7 14.l'!xc6 loses
to 14 . . . \WaS+ 15.l'!c3 (15.ct:\c3 eS
16.l'!xf6 ixf6 17.ll:l7d5 ie6 18 .ig3
ixdS 19.\WxdS WxdS 2 0 .ct:Jxd5 l'!c8
2 1 . 0 - 0 ig7 2 2 .e4 l'!c2 -+) 15 . . . e5
16.ig3 ct:Je4- + .
c ) 13.ct:Ja6 WaS + 14.ct:Jc3 l'!a8
15.ct:Jc7 eS 16. ct:Jxa8 exf4 17. 0-0 fxe3
18.fxe3 WeS ! + , Perun-Shishkin,
Kiev 2005.
d) 12 .Wa3 a6 ! ? (or 12 ... id7
13.0-0 ct:Jg4 14.ig3 LLlgeS 15.ct:Jbd4
ct:Jxc4 16.l'!xc4 ct:Jxd4 17.ct:Jxd4 eS =)
13.ct:Jc7 l'!a7, with an initiative.
l=!xf7 15.l'!xc6.
13 . . . g5? is popular, but bad:
14.ixg5 Wxg5 15. ct:Jxa8 id7 16.Wxb7
l=!b8 17.\Wc7 l'!xa8 (17 . . . l'!c8 18.h4
Wh6 19.\Wf4 or even 19.\WxcS ! ?±)
18.ia6 Wg4 19.l'!xc6 and White
keeps a healthy extra pawn, for
instance : 19 . . . ct:Jd5 20 .Wb7 ixc6
21.Wxc6 Wb4+ 22 .�e2 Wxb2+
23. �f3 l=!d8 24.l=!dU, Tregubov­
Oral, Selfoss 2 0 0 2 .
14.ig5 !
White will lose the bishop any­
way, but he should keep the centre
closed. The other options are :
a) 14.ih6? ixh6 15.ct:Jxa8 ct:Jd4
16.\Wc3 bS+ ;
b) 14.ixe5 ct:JxeS 15.ct:Jxa8 b6 !
Protecting the b7-pawn, which
is vulnerable after 15 . . . id7 16.ct:Jc7
ic6 . This position has been tested
extensively in practice. After 17.ct:Jd5
(17.ifl l=!d8 18.l'!xc6 bxc6 19 .ie2
ct:Jfg4 was equal in P.Cramling

90
 3 . t2l c3 d5 4 . S:H4
-Lahno, Plovdiv 2 0 0 8 ) 17 . . . � h 8 ,
Black h a s s o m e compensation,
but he should only struggle for the
draw : 1 8 . t2l xf6 ( 1 8 . t2l f4 is an infe­
rior option : 18 . . . g5 1 9 . t2l d3 t2lxd3+
2 0 .�xd3 il,xg2 2 1 . t2lf5 �h3 2 2 . t2lxg7
�xg7 2 3 .:r:1g1 :r:1c8 24.�d4 b5 25 .�e5
h6 2 6 .�xb5 �xh 2 27.�e2 :r:1b8
28.:r:1xg2 �h5 + . ) 18 . . . 2l,xg2 1 9 . :r:1g1
il,c6 2 0 .2l,d5 �xf6 2 1 .2l,xc6 bxc6:f:.
16. tt:lc7
White should not even think
about castling under the fire of four
black pieces : 1 6 . 0 - 0 ? il,b7 17.t2lc7
tt:lfg4 18.h3 t2lf3 + ! .
16.�b5 i s well met by 1 6 . . . 2l,b7
(16 . . . t2lfd7 is not that simple due to
17.2l,e2 il,b7 1 8 . t2lxb6 t2lxb6 1 9 . 0 - 0
1Llg4 2 0 .2l,xg4:f:) 17.�xe5 il,xg2 - see
line a) below.
16 . . . 2l,b7
17.tt:ld5
a) 17.�b5 il,xg2 1 8 . �xe5 tt:lg4
19.�b5 il,xh1 2 0 . tt:lxh1 tt:lxe3 . Black
has terrific compensation, for ex­
ample, 2 1 . t2ld5 ( 2 1 .il,xf7 + :r:1xf7
2 2 .�e8 + il,f8 2 3 . �xe3 :r:1e7 2 4 . tt:l e 6
1Wg4 2 5 . :r:1c6 �b4+ ) 2 1 . . . tt:lf5 ( 2 1 . . .
1Llg4 ! ? ) 2 2 . t2lg3 t2l d4 23 .�b4 l2lf3 + = .
b ) 17.il,fl :r:1c8 1 8 . :r:1c2 l2le4 19 .2l,e2
:c1d8 (19 . . . t2l xg3 2 0 .fxg3 �e4 2 l . :r:1f1
il,f8 2 2 . :r:1c3 il,b4 2 3 . :r:1f4 il,xc3 +
2 4 . �xc3 �b1 + 2 5 . �f2 g5 2 6 .:r:1a4
�f5 + 2 7 . �g1 aS = ) 2 0 . 0- 0 t2l d 2 with
an edge.
17 . . . tt:lxd5 18 .2l,xd5 2l,xd5 19.�xd5
:r:1d8 2 0 . �b3 l2ld3+ 2 l . �e2 l2lxc1+
2 2 J�\xc1 2l,e5 .
Two 2 0 09 games : Golod-Neste­
rovsky, Israel 2 0 0 9 and Govcyan­
Negi , Paris 2 0 0 9 , proved that play
is equal, but not obligatory a draw:
2 3 . �b5 ( 2 3 . f4 �xh 2 2 4 . �f3 :r:1d2)
23 . . . 2l,b8 ( 2 3 . . . 2l,xg3 24.hxg3 �g4 +
2 5 . � e 1 �e4 2 6 .:r:1dl :r:1xdl + 2 7 . �xdl
�b1 + = ) 24.�c6 il,xg3 2 5 . hxg3
�h5 + 2 6 . f3 �e5 = .
14 . . . �xg5
15.h4
The point of White's idea. It
turns out that the queen is a bit
awkwardly placed. The only hope of
Black is to exploit the weakening of
the kingside.
1 5 . tt:l xa8 e4 1 6 . 0 - 0 is not in the
limelight of modern theory, but
it deserves consideration. At first
glance, Black should have a strong
01
 Part 2
attack. The eS-square is a good
juncture point for Black's pieces.
The advance of the h-pawn could
be also unpleasant. Meanwhile the
aS-knight needs whole two moves
to join in the battle. However, tac­
tics work in White's favour and he
is likely to end up with a tiny edge
in the endgame, arising after 16 . . .
hS? ! 17.'Llc7! (17.'Lle2 'Llg4 1S.'Llf4
�es 19.h3 'Llf6 2 0 . l'!fd1 'tt> g7�, Ber­
czes-Braun, Balatonlelle 2 006) 17 . . .
h 4 1S.'Lle2 �h3 19.'Llf4 �xg2
2 0 . 'Llce6 ! ! '®g4 2 1 .'Llxg2 h3
2 2 . 'Ll ef4 22 . . . 'Lle5 23 .�e2 'Llf3 +
24. 'tt> h 1 hxg2 + 2 5 .'Llxg2 'LlhS !
(25 . . . g5 as in Bhat-Gupta, Be­
nasque 2 0 0 S , is insufficient ow­
ing to 26.'®xb7! '®h3 27.'®c7 'LlhS
2 S .hf3 exf3 2 9 . l"1g1 fxg2 + 3 0 . l'!xg2
g4 3 1.'®b7 'Llf6 3 2 .b4 !±, followed by
l'!cS) 26 . . . '®h3 27.hf3 �es 2S.'Llf4
'®xf3 + 2 9 . l'!g2 �xf4 3 0 .exf4 '®xb3
3 1 . axb3 'Llxf4 3 2 . l'!g4 'Lld3 33.l'!c2
l'!eS. The draw is very likely, but still
White can play on. He will sooner
or later untangle his rooks with the
help of f2-f3 .
Instead o f playing for mate,
Black should stake on the isolation
of White's knight on aS with :
92
16 ... '®e5 ! 17.�e2 hS !
This is an important improve­
ment over 17 . . . '®e7? 1S .'®a3 ! '®eS
19 .b4±, Kuzubov-Swinkels, Neu­
hausen Baden, 2 007. The key mo­
ment is to keep the threat of going
to bS (which currently does not
work due to l'!xc6) and gain space
on the kingside.
1S.l'!fd1 h4 19.'Llfl h3 2 0 .g3 'Lld7t
Now Black's queen will be pro­
tected on bS so White should look
for equality, maybe with 2 1.'Lld2
'LlcS 2 2 .'®b5 'Lld3 23 .�xd3 exd3
24.'®xe5 �xeS 25.b3 �e6 26.f4 �g4
27.fxe5 �xd1 2 S .l'!xd1 l'!xaS = .
15. . . '®g4 16.lt:l xa8
16. . . tLla5! ?
Two elite players, Topalov and
Sasikiran, preferred recently 16 . . .
'®d7. I have n o reason to discard
their choice so I examine it in detail
in the "Complete Games" chapter.
See game 4 Wang Yue-Topalov,
Sofia 2 0 0 9 .
However, the text i s more sim­
ple and easy to play.
 3 .l2l c3 d5 4 . .if4
17. �b5
White is worse after:
a) 17.�b4 .ie6 18.�xa5 .ixc4
19.l2lc7 .id3 ! + (or 19 . . . l2lh5 ! ?) .
b) 17.'W'd3 e4 18 .'W'd2 l2lxc4
19.E\xc4 l2lh5 ! (19 . . . .ie6 2 0 . Eic5)
20.Eixe4 'W'd7 2 1 .l2lxh5 gxh5. The
knight cannot be saved without
other material losses . 2 2 .f3 'W'xd2 +
23.'i>xd2 .if5 24.l2lc7 Eld8+ 25.Eid4
(25.'i>e2 .ixe4 2 6.fxe4 E\c8) 25 . . .
hd4 26.exd4 Elxd4 + .
1 7 . . . tt:l xc4 18.Eixc4 .id7 !
19. �b4
19.Eixg4 loses to 19 . . . .ixb5
20.Eib4 .ic6 2 1 .l2l c7 E\c8 2 2 . l2lb5
hg2 - + .
1 9 . . . e4
20. tt:l c7
2 0.�xb7 is more aspiring. White
destroys our queenside. 2 0 . . . .ie6
21.E\d4 l2ld7! 2 2 . Eixd7
Or 2 2 .E\xe4 l2l c5 23.Eixg4 l2lxb7
24.Eib4 l2l c5 25.Eib5 l2ld3+ 26.'i>e2
.ic4 27.l2lc7 l2le5+ with an excellent
position.
22 ... .ixd7 2 3 . l2lc7 .ie5 24.0-0
24 . . . .ixg3 !
24 . . . �xh4 25.�xa7 .ixb2 oc-
curred in Mamedjarov-Elj anov,
Gothenburg 2005. Material bal­
ance has been restored, but White's
a-pawn should not be underesti­
mated. White eventually won the
game and I think that it would be
wise to avoid this position. Fortu­
nately, we have a direct way to the
draw.
2 5.fxg3 'W'xg3 2 6 .l2ld5 .ie6
27.l2lf6 + 'i>g7 2 8 .�xa7 .ih3 2 9 .Eif2
E\c8 3 0 . l2lh5+ gxh5 31.�xf7+ 'i>h8
3 2 .�f6+ 'i>g8 = .
20 . . . .ic6 21. �d6
White is under attack after:
2 1 .�e7 l2ld7 2 2 . 0-0 .if6 23.�b4
.ie5 24.l2lb5 .ixg3 25.fxg3 'W'xg3 or:
2 1 . l2lb5 l2ld5 2 2 .�d6 .ixb5
2 3 . E\c5 l2lb4 24.Eixb5 l2ld3+ 25 .<i>d2
�c8 .
21. . . tt:l d7 22)i)d5 .ie5 23. �xe5
93
 Part 2

2 3 .l2'l e7+ <;t>h 8 ! (avoiding ct:Jf5+ 25.gxc6

ln some lines) 24.�b4 a5 25.�xa5
The game Matveeva-Danelia,
�e6= . Stayed the king on g7, White
Rijeka 2 0 1 0 , saw 25.ct:Jxg4 ct:Jxc4
would have been better following
2 6 .b3 ct:Jb6 27.h5 f5 2 8 .h6+ <;t>g8
2 6.�b4 id6 27.�xd6 ! .
29 .ct:Jh2 l"ld8 30.ct:Je2 ib5 31. lLld4
23 • • • ct:J xe5 24. ct:J f6 + <;t>g7 id3 , with Black's pull.

25. . . �xg3

Or 25 . . . ct:Jd3+ 26.<;t>d2 ct:Jxf2

27.ct:Jxg4 ct:Jxhl = .

26.fxg3 .!Ll xc6 27 . 0 - 0 gds

28 .!Ll xe4 .!Ll e5
•

Black has some initiative so

White should be careful in this end­
game.

94
Pa rt 2
Comp lete Games
4. Wang Vue-Topalov
S ofia MT el M asters23 .05 .2009
1 .d4 tt:l f6 2 .c4 g6 3 . tt:l c3 dS
4 . .if4 .ig 7 S .e3 cS 6 .dxcS Was
7J!c1 dxc4 8 . .ixc4 0-0 9 . tt:l ge2
�xeS 1 O .Wfb3 tt:lc6 1 1 .tt:lbS WfhS
1 2. tt:l g 3 Wfh4 1 3 .tt:lc7 eS 1 4 ..igS
�xgS 1 S.h4 Wfg4 1 6 . tt:l xa8 Wfd7
I consider 16 . . . '2la5 in the "Step
by Step" chapter. Topalov's novel­
ty is also playable and gives Black
enough counterplay. The knight
on a8 is in a critical situation and
White has to rely on tactics in order
to save it. He has not time for 17.h5
e4 18.hxg6 hxg6.
17. 0-0 is possible. Then we can
continue with the thematic 17 . . .
e4, making room for our queen on
eS, or 17 .. ."�e7 18 ."�a3 "Wd8 19 .b4
�e7! (dragging first the rook to c3)
2 0 J::1 c3 Ci:Jg4 2 1.f3 '2lh2 2 2 . @xh2
"Wxh4+ 23 .@g1 "Wxg3 24.b5 e4 ! .
1 7 J'!d1 Wfe7 1 8 .Wfa3 tt:lb4 1 9 . 0-0
.ig4 ! ?
Two months later, Sasikiran
tried to improve with 19 . . . b5 ! ? .
I'm not sure whether Black's
compensation would be sufficient
after 2 0 .�xb5 �g4 (20 . . . �b7 2 1 .'2l c7
a6 2 2 .�e2 l'!c8 23 .l'!c1 �f8 24.�xa6
l'!xc7 25.l'!xc7 "Wxc7 2 6.�xb7 "Wxb7
27."Wb3 is also unclear.) 2 1 . '2l c7
�xd1 2 2 .l'!xd1 "Wxc7 23."Wxb4 l'!b8,
e.g. 24.a4 a6 25."Wc4 "Wxc4 26.�xc4
l'!xb2 2 7.�xa6 l'!a2 2 8 .�b5±. In the
game, White chose the safer 2 0 .�e2
�b7 2 1 .'2lc7 a6 2 2 .l'!c1 l'!c8 23 ."Wb3
e4 (23 . . . �f8 24.a3 Ci:Jc6 25.'2ld5
Ci:Jxd5 2 6."Wxd5 Ci:Jd4 27."Wa2±) 24.a3
'2lc6 25.l'!xc6 �xc6 2 6 .'2lxa6
95
 Part 2
The weakness of the h4-pawn
and the active rook promises Black
fair counterchances. Perhaps he
should play here 26 . . . �d7. Sasikiran
opted for 26 . . . �f8 ? ! 27.l"!dl Vfle5
2 8 .l"!d2 h5 29 .4Jb4 �b7 3 0 .l"!c2 �c5
3 1 .�xb5 4'lg4, when 3 2 .�d7! �xe3
33.�xg4 Vflxg3 34.Vflxe3 would have
been better for White, Olszewski­
Sasikiran, Warsaw 2 1 . 07. 2 0 0 9 .
Topalov's treatment is more
energetic. It is vital to provoke f3,
thus making the whole castling po­
sition of White vulnerable. The e3-
pawn will be a target, as well as the
knight on g3.
20 .f3 �h6
I spent a lot of time on the no­
velty 20. . . �d7? ! . It looks very tempt­
ing and all principled variations
looked very promising for Black:
2 1 .4'lc7 ( 2 1.Vflxa7 4Jc6 2 2 .Vflxb7
4'l a5) 2 l . . .l"!c8 2 2 .l"!cl? ! �h6 ! 2 3 .l"!fel
(Or 23.4'le4 �c6 ! 24.4'lxf6+ Vflxf6
25.4'lb5 l"!d8 ! - eying the second
rank - 26.l"!c3 a5 27.Vflxa5 4'lc2
2 8 J'l:xc2 �xe3+ 2 9 .l"!cf2 Vflxh4
30.Vflc3 Vflg5 3 1.l"!el �b6�) 23 .. .',t>g7!
24.�b5 �xb5 25.4'lxb5 l"!xcl 2 6 . l"!xcl
Vfld7 27.4Jc7 4'lc6 2 8 .4'lb5 Vfld2 ---+ .
However, the rational machine
96
found an amazing defence which
came as a cold shower for my en­
thusiasm. After:
2 2 .4'ld5 ! 4'lfxd5 23.�xd5 �b5,
the engine recommended the re­
ally inhuman move :
24.�b3 ! !
Instead of defending, White
counterattacks ! The threat is
4'lg3-e4-d6. The "normal" 24.l"!fel
�f6 25.4'le4 �xh4 26 .�xf7+ lt>g7
is fine for Black, e.g. 27.�e6 l"!c7
2 8 .4'ld6 4'lc2 29.Vflxa7 (29 .Vfla5 tLlxel
30.Vflxb5 l"!c6 31.4'lf5+ gxf5 32 .l"!d7
l"!xe6 33.Vflxb7 e4 34.Vflxa7 exf3)
29 . . . �f2 + ! (29 . . . �xel 3 0 .Vflb8 !t)
3 0 .It>xf2 Vflh4+ 3 1 . \t>gl tLlxe l = .
Now Black has t o switch over to
a dull defence :
24 . . . �xfl 25. \t>xfl a6 2 6 .4'le4 �f8
27.4'lg5 (27.4'ld6 Vflxh4= ; 27.Vfla5
4'lc6 2 8 .Vflb6 l"!d8t) 27 . . . \t>g7 28.Vfla5
4Jc6 29 .Vflel t2'ld8 30 .Vflg3t.
Topalov's intuition in dynamic
positions once again proved to be
fantastic.
2 1 .fxg4
The other way to defend e3 is
2 1.Vflxa7 �e6 2 2 .�xe6 fxe6 23.l"!fel
(23 .e4 4'l c6) 23 . . . e4 ! 24.4'lxe4 4Jxe4
 3.4Jc3 d5 4.�f4

25.fxe4 4Jc6 2 6.�a4 �xh4, with at 8 J'�c1 dxc4 9.�xc4 \1Nxc5 1 0 .ib3
least a draw. ttlc6 1 1 .0-0 \1Na5 1 2 .h3 �fS 1 3.'11Ne 2
tt:\e4 1 4.tt:\d5 eS 1 5.Ei:xc6 ! !
21 ... tt:\ xg4

This move became popular

22J3xf7 in 1986, after the match Karpov­
Kasparov in London. Kasparov
Krasenkow suggests 2 2 J''lf3 took on f4 and went on to draw, but
�xh4 2 3 .4Jfl 4Jc2 24.�xf8+ �xf8 White retains a small plus in this
25.�xt7+ �h8 2 6.�b3 �c5 27.�xc2 line. Lately Black prefers the more
e4 2 8 .�xe4 4Jxe3 2 9 .4Jxe3 �xe4 challenging capture.
30.�f2 b5 3U :ld8+ �g7 32 .�e2
�xe3 33.EI:xe3 �xg2 + , with suffi­ 1 5 . . . bxc6 1 6 .tt:le7+ 'it>h8
cient counterplay. 1 7 .tt:\ xc6 '11Nb6 1 8 .tt:\cxe5 �e6
1 9 .�xe6 \1Nxe6 2 0 .'11Nc 2 fS !
22 ... EI:xf7 2 3 . ttlf1 �g7 24.�xf7
�xf7 25.'11Nxb4 Occasionally, Black opts for 2 0 . . .
4Jf6 to avoid making weaknesses on
Here Topalov gave perpetual the kingside. However, we can turn
check. this vulnerability into a strength -
if we push the pawns even further!
25 ...'11Nf 2+ 26.�h1 '11Nx h4+
27 .'it>g 1 '11Mf 2+ 2 8 .'it>h 1 '11Nh 4+ 29.'it>g 1 2 1 .'11Na4
ixe3+ 30.tt:l xe3 '11Mf2+ 3 1 .�h1
�h4+ 32.'it>g1 '11Mf2+ 33.�h 1 '11Mh 4+
1 /2-1 /2 .

5. lljushin-V.Belov
S och i2006

1 .d4 ttlf6 2 .c4 g6 3.tt:lc3 dS 4.ttlf3

ig7 5.�f4 0-0 6.e3 cS 7 .dxcS \1MaS

97
 Part 2
2 1 . . . g5! 22 . .ih2 VNe8 23 .VNa5
Kosyrev-Sakaev, Internet 5'
2 0 04 saw 23.lt'lc6 )"1c8 24.)"1cl f4 ! +
(24 . . . g4+) . The point i s that 2 6.)"1el
would lose to 2 6 ... lt'lc3 ! ! 2 7.)"1xe8
)"1fxe8 2 8.�c4 )"1xc6 ! 29.�fl .ixd4
30 .bxc3 .ixc3 .
23 . . . :gbs
24.lt'lc4
24.�xa7 )"1xb2 25.lt'lc4 )"1c2 (25 . . .
)"1b5 =) 26.lt'ld6 �e6 i s roughly equal.
24 . . . :gb5 25.VNxa7 g4 26. lt:ld4
Of course, White should not
open the f-file.
98
Such positions are very difficult
to evaluate over the board . One
really needs an engine in the head
to play them. This task can be fa­
cilitate by formulating a few postu­
lates which both sides should have
in mind :
1. White has not any advantage
here. No matter how many extra
pawns he has, he is the defending
side because his castling position is
vulnerable and his only stronghold
in the centre, d4, is about to be un­
dermined after .. .f4. The bishop on
h2 is rather useless.
2. White should be seeking to
trade queens at any cost.
3. Any other exchanges also help
White.
4. He should keep his pieces
together around the king. Any at­
tempt to push queenside pawns
only wastes time and discoordinate
White's forces.
In the light of this to do list,
27.�b6 ! f4 2 8 .�e6 ! looks best, be­
cause Black cannot avoid queens
trade. Variations like 28 . . . )"1xd4
29 .�xe8 )"1xe8 30.exd4 g3 31.lt'le5
gxh2+ 3 2 .'� xh2 )"1a8 33.a3 <i>g8=
or 2 8 . . . )"1c5 29 .b3 (29.lt'ld6 lt'lxd6
30 .�xd6 )"1c8 31..ixf4 )"1d8 3 2 .�c7
:1'\d7 33 .�cl gxh3 34 . .ig3 hxg2
35.Wxg2 =) 29 . . . g3 30 .fxg3 )"1xc4
3 1.�xe8 should lead to a draw. If
you do not believe in Black's attack­
ing resources, look at this variation:
31.bxc4? .ixd4 32 .�xe8 .ixe3+
33.\i>hl )"1xe8 34.gxf4 lt'lf2 + 35.\i>gl
lt'lxh3 + 36.<±>hl lt'lf2 + 37.<i>gl lt'lg4+
38.\i>hl )"1e6- + :
 3.lLlc3 dS 4.i.f4
White has no defence against
... Elh6 !
27 .1Mfb7 g d 7 28 .1Mfb5 f4
Perhaps 28 . . . gxh3 left more
chances to Black:
29 .lLle5 Ela7 30.gxh3 '\MfxbS
31.lLlxb5 Elxa2+, or 29.t2Jxf5 hxg2
30.'i>xg2 'IMfhS 31.'1Mfxd7 ElxfS 32 .'\MfcS+
Elf8 33 .'1Mfh3 'IMfgS+ 34.<i>hl t2Jxf2 +
35.Elxf2 Ei:xf2+.
29.lLlf5 g 3 30.fxg3 gxf5 3 1 .1Mfxf5
fxg3 32.b3 ga7
In the next moves, Belov is try­
ing to maintain some tension and
confuse his opponent. 32 . . . gxh2+
33 .'i>xh2 t2Jd2 was equal.
33.a4 ge7? ! 34.1Mff4? !
34.Elf4 gxh2 + 35.<i>xh2 '\Mfb8
36.g3 t2Jf6 was still unclear.
34 . . . gxh2+ 35.1Mfxh2 gb7 36.a5
Elxb3 37 .1Mfc7 gba 38. gf4 lLlf6
39.gfs gca 40.1Mff4 1Mfe6
40 . . . t2Je4! to prevent the knight
from returning home with 41.lLld2 ,
was better
41. lLl b6?
The knight is protected on this
square, but it is far away from its king.
41.lLld2 was called for, with good
drawing prospects after 4l...Elcl +
(41.. .lLld5 42 .'1Mfe4 '\Mfxe4 43.t2Jxe4
t2Jxe3 44.Ei:b5 t2Jc4=) 42.'i>h2 h6.
4 1 . . . gda
Black misses his chance to ob­
tain a probably decisive advantage
with 4l.. . Ei:c3 ! 42 .'i>h2 h6, making a
luft for his king.
Losing outright. 42.lLlc4 ! was
holding the position.
42 . . . i.h6 43.1Mfe5 .ixe3+ 44.<i>f1
gd 1 + 45.<i>e2 1Mfa2+ 0-1 .
This game is a good example of
the power of Black's coordinated
forces. The f- and g-pawns tear
apart White's castling position.
6 . Dreev- Delchev
Cento 1 1 . 0 2 . 20 1 1
1 .d4 lLl f6 2 .c4 g6 3 . lLl c3 d5
4 . .if4 .ig 7 5.e3 c5 6.dxc5 1Mfa5
7.gc1 dxc4 8 . .ixc4 0-0 9 . lLl f3
99
l.WxcS 1 O.�b3 lLl c6 1 1 .0-0 \Wa S
1 2 . h 3 �fS 1 3 .\We2 ltJe4 1 4.g4 ttJxc3
1 5 . bxc3 �d7 1 6 J'�fd 1 l3ad 8 1 7 .l3d 5
1 7 . . . \Wa3 !
The game Postny-Caruana, Aix­
les-Bains 31.03.2 01l, saw 17 . . . �b6? !
18J�1b 1 ! �c8 19.8:g5 �e6 2 0 .8:b5 �a6
2 1.he6, with a pull.
1 8 .l3cd 1 �e6 1 9 .l3xd 8 lLlxd8
20 .\WbS �xb3 2 1 .axb3 a6 22 .l.Wb6
lLl e6
This position has occurred in 5
games so far. White won one and
drew the others. It may look abso­
lutely equal as the weakness on b7
is balanced by the weak c3-pawn.
However, Black still has to work
before claiming a full equality. The
difference is made by the active
white rook. The f3-knight is also
100
slightly more dangerous than its
counterpart on e6.
23 .�e5
23.c4 a5 24.�xb7 L/Jc5 25.�xe7
�xb3 led to a draw in Mamedyarov­
Sutovsky, Bursa 2 0 1 0 : 26.8:d5 L/Jd3
27.�g3 a4 28 .8:d8 h6 29.L/Je5 �b1+
30 .Wg2 L/Je1+ = .
2 3 . . . \WcS ? !
I underestimated a little White's
threats. After the game, I came to
the conclusion that 23 . . . �xe5! is
slightly more precise : 24.L/Jxe5 �c5
25.�xc5 (25.L/Jd7 �xb6 26.L/Jxb6
8:d8 27.8:xd8+ L/Jxd8 2 8 .f4 f6 29.Wf2
\t>f7 3 0 .Wf3 We6) 25 . . . L/Jxc5 26.b4
L/Je4 27.8:d7, draw, Tomashevsky­
Svidler, Moscow, 15. 1 2 . 2 0 1 0 .
24.\WxcS ltJ x c S 25.�xg 7 i>xg7
2 6 . b4 ltJe4 27 .l3d7 l3b8 28.l3xe7
ltJ xc3 29 .l3d7 'iilf6 30.ltJd4 b6
I did not like 30 . . . h6 3 1.h4
L/Ja2 32 .g5+ hxg5 33 .hxg5 + Wxg5
34.8:xf7 L/Jxb4 35.L/Je6+ Wh5 36.f3 ! ,
but 3 4 . . . Wh6 ! would have neutral­
ised most of the enemy's threats.
3 1 . lLl c6
 3.lLlc3 d5 4.�f4

A critical position. White is The good thing about rook end­

threatening with lLldS. During the games is that one can always resort
game, I was afraid of some mating to them being a pawn down. It is
threats so I sadly decided to switch more important that I'll have my
to a gloom defence. Later I discov­ own passer:
ered that I could have ignored the
attack on f7. My distant a-pawn 43.lt:lxe6 fxe6 44.c;t.e4 c;t.xb5
could become a serious trump after 45.c;t.es �a4 4G.c;t.xe6 b5 47.E!a8+
3l. .J"J:a8 ! 3 2 . lLl d8 (32 . <i>g2 aS 33 J''l d 3 �b3 48.f4 b4 49.f5 gxf5 50.gxf5
lt:lbl 34J''l d 6+ <±>g7 35.bxa5 bxa5) E!b6+ 5 1 .c;t.es E!b5+ 52.�e6
32 . . . a5 33.bxa5 bxa5 34J:'lxf7+ <i>e5
35.l"ld7 l"lc8 ! (35 . . . a4 36.f4+ <±>e4
37.<i>f2) 36.lLlf7+ <i>e6 37.l"la7 a4
38.lLlg5+ <±>d5 . Black is even better.
After my mistake, the rest of the
game is irrelevant for the theory. I
finally activated my king and held
the draw despite the horrible time
trouble in the end.

31 . . . E!f8 ? ! 32J'!b7 lt:la4 33 .lt:lb8 52 . . . 8!b6+ !

�d8 34.lt:lxa6 �e6 35.�g2 �d7
36.�b8 �a7 37 .b5 �d5 38J:�c8 The only move ! Black loses the
ttlc5 39 .ltlb4+ c;t.c4 40.ltlc6 E!b7 pawn race for one tempo. So I must
41 .ltld4 c;t. b4 42 .�f3 ltle6 try to stop the f-pawn somehow:

53.�e7 E!b7+ 54.�e8 E!b6

The f-pawn cannot advance and

I win the precious tempo which I
needed.

55.8!c8 �a3 56.�e7 E!b7+

57. �f8 b3 58 .8!a8+ �b4 59.8!a1 b2
60.8!b1 �c5 6 1 .f6 �d6 62.f7 c;t.eG
1 /2 - 1 /2 .

101
102
 Pa rt 3

The �gs System

1 . d4 d 5 2 . c4 g 6 3 .Ct:J c3 d 5 4.�g 5
4.'Llf3 �g 7 5.�g 5

103
Pa rt 3

Main Ideas

Introduction 12.e5 cxd4 ! , with a big advan­

tage.
In this part, I deal with systems
For half a century White did not
where White develops his bishop to
come up with any fresh ideas until
g5. Line A is devoted to 4.�g5 while
the year 1970 . Then the �g5 system
line B considers its "improved" ver­
enjoyed a burst of popularity, con­
sion 4.Ci:lf3 �g7 5 .�g5.
nected with the novel move 5 .�h4.
Black reacted with the thematic
The first test of this system was
. . . c5, but Taimanov won a num­
the game Alekhine-Griinfeld, Vien­
ber of games which put the whole
na 192 2 . It saw 4.�g5 Ci:le4 ! and the
Black's setup under question. The
future World champion unexpect­
turn of the tide was the game:
edly answered with 5.cxd5 . This
probably took the godfather of the
Mecking -Fischer
opening, Griinfeld, unawares as he
B u enos Ai res 1 970
failed to find the best continuation.
(nevertheless he won the game)
It was demonstrated a year later:
5 ... Ci:lxg5 6.h4 Ci:le4! 7.Ci:lxe4 �xd5
8.Ci:lc3 �a5 9 .h5 �g7 10 .h6 �f6 1l.e4
c5 !

Euwe-Von Hoorn
Amsterdam 1 92 3

Bobby Fischer played here 5 . . .

Ci:lxc3 ! 6.bxc3 dxc4 ! 7.e3 �e6 ! . His
idea marked the beginning of a new
era in the development of the �g5
system. It is the foundation of our
proposed repertoire, although we
also provide a more solid and safe
setup as a backup line.

104
 3.lt:Jc3 dS . Systems with ii.gS
The improved branch of the ii.gS
system - 4.lt:Jf3 ii.g7 5.ii.g5, had si­
milar development. In the begin­
ning, White linked it with the idea
to grab the d5-pawn after 5 . . . lt:Je4
6.cxd5, using the fact that the
g5-bishop was defended. Of course,
Black could easily regain the pawn,
but not without concessions :
6 . . . lt:Jxg5 7.lt:Jxg5 e6 8 .�d2 exdS
9.�e3+ i>f8, losing the right to cas­
tle. So Black should play first 8 . . . h6
9.tt'lf3 and only then recapture the
pawn. The resulting Carlsbad pawn
structure with . . . h6 on the kingside
was assessed as slightly better for
White. However, Black gradually
learned how to cope with this ap­
proach. He found a good manoeu­
vre - before castling, the g7-bishop
returned to f8 and then went to d6
to support play on both flanks. Al­
ternatively, it turned out that Black
was not even obliged to level the
pawns. Firstly Korchnoi tried 7 . . .
c6? ! , and then 7 . . . 0-0 ! ? was discov­
ered. Thus about 1970, White had
to borrow the retreat to h4 from the
4.ii.g5 variation. As a result, after
6.ii.h4 lt:Jxc3 7.bxc3 dxc4, instead of
having an extra pawn, White was
playing a real gambit.
A. l . d4 ttlf6 2 . c4 g6 3 .ttlc3 d5
4.ii.g5
Objectives and Move Orders
Similarly to the previous part,
White leads out his bishop, intend­
ing to complete development with
e3 . The big difference is that instead
of targeting the c7-pawn, which is a
remote threat, he now simply wants
to snatch the central pawn on dS.
Black has not a convenient way to
defend it so he will have to take on
c4. However, he should first ex­
change his f6-knight to reduce the
number of minor pieces which is
important in a cramped position.
The immediate 4 . . . dc? ! 5.e4 ii.g7
6.ii.xc4 0-0 7.lt:Je2 ! would be hor­
rible for Black so he answers with :
4 ••• ttle4
This is by no means the only
move. Svidler's efforts in the ear­
ly 1990s popularised the amazing
move 4 . . . ii.g7 ! ? . Practice has con­
firmed that Black gets good com­
pensation for the central pawn.
Still, I advocate the opposite ap­
proach - instead of sacrificing a
pawn, to pocket one. It gives more
chances to win.
105
 Part 3

5.i.h4 Al. 8 .i.e2 tt::Jd7! ? 9 . d5?! i.f5

5.lt:lxe4 deprives White of the f3-
square. Black can use this to attack
the central dark squares, e.g. : 5 . . .
dxe4 6.e3 i.g7 7.lt:le2 c 5 8.\l,!fd2 h 6 !
9 .i.f4 leads to the following position:
10.'�d4 E1g8
Black has the initiative. For in­
stance, ll.e4? i.g7 12 .\l,!fxc4 would
fail to 12 . . . i.xe4.

A2 . 8 . \l,!fbl? ! c5 !

Now simplest is 9 ... e5 ! 10 .i.xe5

i.xe5 ll.dxe5 \l,!fxd2+ 1 2 .'tt> x d2 lt:l c6
13.lt:lc3 i.f5 14.i.e2 0-0-0+ 15.'tt> c 2
9 . \l,!fxb7 i.d5 10 .'�b5 + �d7!
lt:lxe5 16J�adl i.e6 17.b3 f5= .
ll.E1bl �xb5 12.E1xb5 tt::Jd7 13.tt::Je2
5 tt::Jxc3 ! 6.bxc3 dxc4 7.e3
.•.
e5 14.f3 i.g7
i.e6 ! Black has completed develop­
ment with a roughly equal position.

A3. 8 . E1bl c5 !

An idea of Agrest.

9 .E1xb7 �a5 10. tt::Je 2 i.d5

Our plan is to finish develop­

ment with . . . lt:ld7-b6, . . .i.g7, and
. . . 0-0. Then we'll wait for an op­
portunity to push . . . c7-c5. If White
played e3-e4, we should be ready
to stop his central expansion with
. . . f7-f5 or . . . e7-e5. Whenever White
plays a4, we blockade the pawn
with . . . a5 and attack the target on Black has full compensation for
a4 with . . . i.d7, possibly . . . \l,!fe8. the pawn and an easy game, for

106
 3.l2lc3 d5. Systems with �g5
instance : ll.�bl (ll.l"i:b2 l2ld7) 11 . . .
l2ld7 12 .l"i:b5 �a3 .
A4 . 8.tt'lf3 .!Lld7!?
9.d5 �g4 10.�d4 �xf3 is fine for
Black.
9 . . . .!Llb6 10. 0 - 0 �g7
Here White can try to build up
play on the kingside with e3-e4,
or on the opposite flank with �c2 ,
lt'ld2, �f3 .
Basic Plans and Pawn
Structures
Most often we'll be dealing with the
following pawn structure :
In positions with a mobile pawn
centre, White usually aims for a
kingside attack. However, here our
c4-pawn prevents the light-squared
bishop from arriving at the bl-h7
diagonal. Furthermore, our fian­
chettoed bishop on g7 provides
good protection to our castling po­
sition. That inspires confidence in
our defensive possibilities and al­
lows us to cling to the extra pawn
and temporary concede the initia­
tive to the opponent. When we con­
solidate, we will think about rolling
forth our queenside pawn mass.
Drozdovskij-S h ipov
Internet 2004
White hurried to occupy the
centre with 7.e4? ! , but now his
light-squared bishop and his knight
have no prospects. We successfully
defend the pawn with :
107
 Part 3
7 . . . b5 !
Note that this would have been
a blunder after 7.e3, because the
white queen could hit our rook
from f3 .
8 . a4 c6 9.lLJf3 ig7 10 .ie2 0-0
11.0-0 a6 !
Do not put the bishop to b7 as it
will be hanging there after 12 .\Wbl.
1 2 .\Wb1 liJd7
We aim to define the queenside
pawn structure by . . . liJb6
13.Ei:d1 liJb6? ! (13 . . . Ei:e8 ! was
better, discouraging 14.\Wb4 in view
of 14 . . . a5) 14.\Wb4 Ei:e8 15.liJe5
Now Black had the spectacular
combination 15 .. a5 ! 16.\Wc5 liJxa4 !
17.Ei:a4 \Wd6 ! ! + and White is losing
material.
Dreev-Svid ler
Poikovsky 2005
108
White has built a broad centre
which restricts our minor pieces.
The decision is a light-squared
strategy:
16 . . .f5 !
We have nothing to worry about
with the d5-square in our control.
17.\We1 if6 ! 18 .id1 fxe4 19.liJg5
\Wd5 2 0 .ic2 if5 and Black took
over the initiative.
The following position arose
from the move order with 4.liJf3
ig7 5.ig5, but the game soon trans­
formed in the same pawn structure
as in the previous examples :
Delchev- Karr
TOP 1 6 Fra nce 20 1 0
I was quite happy with my posi­
tion. All my pieces are better than
its counterparts. Black cannot easi­
ly develop his queenside. All I need
is to finish regrouping with 1Wb1
and Ei:fdl. However, look what hap­
pened in just a few moves :
13 . . . if5 ! What is this for? !
14.e4
Off course I cannot let him land
on d3 ! (which would have been per­
haps the best decision - 14.Ei:e1 id3
15.liJb3 =)
 3.lL:lc3 dS. Systems with i.gS
14 . . . i.c8 !
Black has lost too tempi, but the
white centre became unstable.
15.'\Wbl? !
This routine move is a mistake.
15 . . . c5 ! 16.axb5 �b7! 17.lL:lxc4
cxd4 !
My centre has fallen apart. Only
with very precise play and a little
help from my opponent did I man­
age to escape.
Delchev-Ve .Schneider
La Massana 2 0 1 0
We see here the same pawn
formation in the centre, but the
queenside setup is different. Black's
counterplay is linked with the weak
a4-pawn. The breakthrough . . . c7-c5
is efficient as always in the Griin­
feld.
In the diagram position, I was
expecting something like 13 . . . h6
with idea of . . . f7-f5 next which I
was planning to meet with mel !
However, practically without even
thinking, my opponent surprised
me with :
13 . . . i.d7!
It turns out that the a4-pawn is
very sensitive. For instance : 14.lL:ld2
c5 15.d5 1We8 16.lL:lxc4 lL:lxa4 ; 14.�fbl
1We8 lS.i.dl fS !
14.i.g3 1We8 !
Remember this battery!
lS.i.dl �c8
Black gives me a respite. She
could have taken on a4 with a better
endgame: 15 . . . lL:lxa4 ! 16.�xa4 i.xa4
17.1Wxa4 1Wxa4 18 .i.xa4 c6 19.e5 bS
2 0 .i.c2 i.h6+.
16.�el (against . . . f7-f5 ! )
Now the most consistent was
16 . . . c5+, but my opponent suddenly
changed her mind in favour of a re­
straining tactic:
16 .. .f6 17.1Wa2 e5= .
M y bishop o n g3 i s a poor sight.
I had to use a great deal of imagina­
tion (and help from the opponent)
to activate it through h2-gl.
Akobian- Ro iz
Kha nty M a n s iysk 2007
13 . . . i.d7! 14.'\Wcl i.xa4 15.'\Wa3
'\Wd6 ! 16.i.xe7 1Wxa3 17.i.xa3 �fe8
18 .lL:ld2 i.c2 19.�b2 i.d3 ! - + .
I n the next example, White's
pawn is on a2 so Black should seek
counterplay in the centre :
109
 Part 3
Ana lysis
12 .. .f5 ! !
With this essential novelty Black
wins the battle for the d5-square.
13J'Uel fxe4 14.�xe4 �d5 !
15.�e3 �f6 16.�g3 e6. Black gained
an important central square and
now he will aim for . . . c7-c5.
B. 4.ttJf3 �g7 5.�g5 ttJe4
Main lines
I chose this move for our repertoire
because it offers Black active pieces
and clear plans. Alternatives are 5 . . .
dxc4 and 5 . . . 0-0 ! ? .
Bl. 6 . .tf4 ttJxc3 7.bxc3 c5
110
8 .e3 0 - 0 9.cxd5 cxd4 ! 10.cxd4
�xd5 U . .te2 ttJc6 12. 0 - 0 �f5 =
Stayed White's bishop on h4,
White would have been better due
to the pressure on e7 and the d8-
h4 diagonal. From f4, the bishop
is hitting void. Even more, in many
variations, when the d5-queen had
retreated to a5, . . . e7-e5 will be with
tempo.
B2. 6.cxd5 ttJxg5 7.ttJxg5
0 - 0 !?
I prefer this move to 7 . . . e6 or 7 . . .
c6? ! . Now w e threaten t o regain the
pawn with 8 . . . e6 or even meet 8.e3
with the sharp 8 . . . c6 9.dxc6 e5 ! ? so
White retreats with :
8 . ttJf3 c6 9.dxc6 ttJxc6 1 0 .e3
e5
 3.l/Jc3 dS . Systems with �gS
Black has full compensation for
the pawn :
ll.dxeS l/JxeS 12 .�e2 l/Jxf3+
13.hf3 �e6 14.0-0 '.WaS 1S.iWc2
!'1ab8, Smyslov-De la Villa, Barce­
lona 1990, or:
1l.dS e4 1 2 .l/Jxe4 �fS 13.l/Jc3
tt:Jb4 14J''k 1 '.WaS .
B3. 6.�h4 tt::l xc3 7.bxc3 dxc4 !
8.e3 bS ! 9.a4 c6 does not give
White substantial compensation so
he commonly answers in Catalan
style :
8.iWa4+ '\Wd7! 9.iWxc4 b6!
10.e3 �a6 11. iWb3 .ixf1 12.<it>xf1
0 - 0 13.'i!?e2
It is obvious that Black's only
reasonable plan is connected with
. . . c7-cS, but I prefer to execute it
when we'll be better mobilised.
13 tt::l c 6 ! ?
••• 14Jl:hdl tt::l a5
15.iWb4 e6! 16.l%acl l%fc8 17.c4
c5 !
Now 18.dxcS iWb7 19.cxb6 axb6
would give Black excellent compen­
sation while 18.iWbS is also sharp
and unbalanced: 18 . . . iWb7 19.dS
exdS 2 0 .cxdS.
Basic Plans and Pawn
Structures
We have seen already examples
where White sacrificed the c4-pawn
and allowed Black to defend it with
. . . bS and . . . c6. I'll examine here
only structures that are specific for
the 4.l/Jf3 �g7 S.�gS line.
111
 Part 3
Sahovic- Dorfma n
Lvov 1 984
A typical position for the line B3
with �a4 + . White has a very solid
pawn structure, but the weakness of
the c4-square gives Black the better
game. It is very instructive to watch
how the fine strategist Dorfman ac­
cumulates small advantages :
1 7. . . �a4 ! 18. <i>fl Elfd8 19 .�e2
tt:l c4 2 0 . <i>gl b5 2 1 .h3 a6 2 2 .lt'lg5 h6
23.tt:le4 cxd4 24.cxd4
No matter how good Black's
position is, he can hardly win the
game without activating the g7-
bishop. This is achieved by:
24 . . . e5 ! 25.dxe5 Elxdl+ 2 6.�xdl
�xdl+ 27.Elxdl tt:lxe5 2 8.Eld6 Elc6+
and Black went on to convert his
edge.
112
Cebalo-Mark Tseitl i n
Davos 2008
Black has compensation for the
pawn. Both c4- and a2-pawns are
weak. Still, the white pieces are ac­
tive and there is no an immediate
way to regain the pawn.
2 0 . . . e5 !
Cutting off the bishop and the
knight. Black can always redeploy
his own bishop via f8. White got
nervous from this turn of events
and tried to force exchanges :
2 1 .<i>fl �f8 2 2 .�b5 ? ! (22 .�bl
f6) 22 . . . Elc5 ! 23 .�d7 �xd7 24.Elxd7
tt:lxc4 25.Elcdl f6 and Black won eas­
ily this endgame.
Typical Tactical Motifs
Gelfa n d - Kasparov
Asta n a 2001
 3.'2lc3 d5. Systems with �g5
Like in the other Griinfeld sys­
tems, White often falls victim to the
bishop on g7. However, Gelfand
was on his guards and played 16.h3,
avoiding the insidious trap :
16.Elc5 '2lxd4 ! !
when 17.Elxa5 '2lxe2+ 18.i>fl
�xa1 19.i>xe2 Elc2 + 2 0 . i>fl Elcl+ is a
draw by perpetual while 17.exd4??
would leave the al-rook hanging.
Pantev-Brati m i rova
B u lg a ria 2009
Apparently White was not ac­
quainted with the above-mentioned
tactical motif as his last move was
16.Elc5??. It should not be a prob­
lem for us to find:
16 . . . '2lxd4 !
Black finished the game in a
beautiful way.
Stefanova-Sutovsky
Hoogeveen 2005
The hanging h4-bishop is often
a precondition for double attacks
along the 4th rank:
14 . . . '2lxd4 ! 15.exd4 1Mfxd4 16.he7
Elfe8 17.1Mfb4 a5 ! and Black regains
the piece.
Eljanov-Svid ler
Na lchik 2009
Even top players can overlook
the linear attack along the 4th rank.
The whole combination is quite
long and complicated, but once
you recognised the pattern, the rest
should be easier:
2 l . . .�xd4 ! 2 2 . Elcdl Elcd8 23.exd4
Elxd4 24.Elxd4 Elxd4 25.f3 f5 2 6 .gxf5
gxf5 27.�e3 Eld3-+.
Marcel in-Miton
Top 1 6 Fra nce, 2008
2 1 . . .�g3 ! ! 2 2 .Elxd7+ Elxd7 23.'2ld4
cxd4 24.1Mfc8 Eldb7 0-1
113
Pa rt 3

Step by Step

l.d4 lt:lf6 2 .c4 g6 3 . lt:l c3 d5 study since White's choice is re­

stricted to S ..bf6, or S.'Llf3 (line B).
I examine 4.�gS in line A and
4.'Llf3 �g7 S.�gS - in line B. Al . 4 . . . lt:le4 ! ? 5.�h4

A. 4.�g5 a) S.h4 ! ? , S.Wcl. I consider these

moves in Part 11 - SOS systems.
b) S.cxdS? !
Alekhine' s choice in the very first
game where 4 . . . 'Lle4 was played. It
is based on the tactical trick:
S . . . 'LlxgS 6.h4
White regains the piece, but we
have the bishop pair:
6 . . . 'Lle4 7.'Llxe4 WxdS 8 .'Llc3
(Rogers mentioned 8 .f3 ? ! in his
SOS book. Black answers 8 ... �g7
9.e3 eSt 10.'Lle2 exd4 ll.'Llxd4 0-0
12 J'kl Wxa2 13 .hS 'Llc6---+ ) 8 . . . WaS
Al. 4 . . . 'Lle4 ! ? ; A2 . 4 . . . �g7.
9.hS �g7 10 .h6 �f6 1l.e4 cS !

White's fourth move threat­

ens the dS-pawn. In line Al, I deal
with the most popular and interest­
ing retort of Black. It brings about
unbalanced positions with mutual
chances. 4 . . . �g7 is a safe and solid
variation. If White takes the pawn
on dS, Black obtains an easy game.
He puts his rooks on the open files
and his activity fully compensates It is easy to find this move now­
for the material deficit. Black's only adays. The source game Euwe-Von
problem is that he cannot play for a Hoorn, Amsterdam 1923 went:
win. On the other hand, having 4 . . . 12 .eS cxd4 ! 13.�bS+ 'Llc6 14.Wxd4
�g7 i n the repertoire saves some 0-0 1S .�xc6 �xeS 16.We3 bxc6.

114
 3.'Llc3 d5. Systems with �g5

Now simplest is 9 . . . e5 ! 10 .�xe5

ixe5 11.dxe5 '\Wxd2 + 1 2 . c;hd2 'Llc6
This retreat often transposes
13.'Llc3 �f5 14.ie2 0-0-0+ 15.�c2
later to line B 1 : 4.'Llf3 �g7 5.�g5
'Llxe5 16.Ei:ad1 ie6 17.b3 f5= .
tt'le4 6.�f4.
6 . . . ig7 7.e3
5 . . . 4Jxc3 6.bxc3 c5
7.0-0-0 is dubious, because
6 . . . dxc4 7.e4 �g7 8.�xc4 c5
Black will have nice attacking pros­
9.tt'le2 0-0 1 0 . 0-0 'Llc6 is a para­
pects after 7 . . . c5 8 .d5 h6 9 .if4 'Lld7
doxical attempt to transpose to the
10 .e3 b5t, Erdogan-Khachiyan, Ye­
main line of the Exchange system.
revan 2 0 0 0 .
Here White has a pure extra tempo,
but it is not obvious how (and is it 7 . . . c5 8.d5!
possible at all) to make any use of
8.'Lle2 h6 9.�f4 e5 transposes to
it: 11.d5 ! ? 'Lla5 ! 12 .�d3 e6 ! .
the position of the above diagram,
7.e3 �g7 8.cxd5 cxd4 ! ( 8. . .'\Wxd5 while 9.ih4? ! cxd4 10.exd4 'Llc6
9.'Wf3) 9.cxd4 '\Wxd5 10.'Llf3 0-0 11.d5 'Ll e5 12 .'Llc3 �f5 is even more
ll.�e2 'Llc6 1 2 . 0-0 �f5 . I examine pleasant for Black.
this position in line Bl.
8 . . . '\Wb6 9.Ei:b1
d) 5. 4Jxe4 Again, 9. 0-0-0 ! ? 'Lla6 10 .a3
This is an attempt to deprive id7-> would place White's king un­
Black of his usual counterplay in der attack.
the centre and eventually prove
9 . . . 4Jd7 10.'Lle2 'Lle5 11.'Llc3 h6
that the pawn on e4 is weak. How­
12 .ih4 g5 13 .ig3 if5 14.ie2
ever, White's knight would need
one more tempo for activation, and
his king will be constantly in dan­
ger, no matter which side it will
choose for castling.
5 . . . dxe4 6.'\Wd2
6.e3 �g7 7.'Lle2 c5 8 .'\Wd2 h6 !
9.if4 leads to this position :

Here, in Golod-Fercec, Rieka

2 0 1 0 , Black chose to break through
the centre with 14 . . . Ei:d8 15.0-0 0-0
16.'\Wc2 e6. I prefer to shift the fo­
cus to the kingside with 14 . . . 'Wg6
(if 14 . . . 0-0, White could try 15.h4)
15 .0-0 0-0, with a pleasant game.

115
 Part 3
5 . . . lDxc3 !
After 5 . . . c5 6.cxd5 lDxc3 7.bxc3
�xd5 8.e3, Black has many options,
but all of them lead to positions
with only two possible results. In­
stead of struggling to make a draw,
I prefer to snatch a pawn and play
on counterattack in the centre.
6 .bxc3 dxc4
7.e3
The pawn sac 7.e4? ! is unclear:
7 . . . b5 8.a4 c6 9.lDf3 �g7 10 .�e2 0-0
11.0-0 a6 and White is yet to prove
his compensation.
It is best to meet 7.�a4+ with
. . . c6 !
7 . . . �d7 8.�xc4 b6 9 .�g3 c5 ! is
also a good option, Dreev-Najer,
Ulan Ude 2 0 0 9 .
8.�xc4 �a5 9.e3
9 .lDf3 is less precise since after
9 . . . �e6 ! 10 .�b4 (Or 1 0.�d3 lDd7
ll.e4 lDb6 12 .lDg5 �b3 ! + and the
bishop will retreat later to a4.) 10 . . .
116
�xb4 ll.cxb4 a5 ! White has not the
answer 12 .b5.
9.e4 is not as good as in line B,
where lDf3 �g7 is inserted, since
Black can lead out the bishop to
h6: 9 . . . �e6 10 .�d3 ct:ld7 11.ct:lf3 ct:lb6
12 .ct:ld2 �h6 ! ? followed by 13 . . . l"1d8,
14 . . . ct:la4, and eventually 15 . . . ct:l c5.
9 ... �e6
On d3, the queen is exposed
to tactical tricks, for instance :
10 .�d3 ? ! �g7 ll.ct:lf3 ct:ld7 12 .�e2
ct:lc5 13 .�c2 �f5 14.�b2 ct:la4 15 .�b4
�xb4 16.cxb4 ct:lc3 17.�c4 a5+ or
12 .�d2 ct:lc5 ! 13.l"1c1 ct:le4 14.�c2
ct:ld6 ! 15.�d3 �xa2 16.�xa2 ha2+,
Wang Yue-Kamsky, Sochi 2 0 08 .
10 . . . �xb4 ll.cxb4 �d5 12 .ct:lf3
ct:ld7= . Black even has some initia­
tive so White should be careful. In
P.Genov-Bok, Groningen 2 0 09,
he carelessly wasted a tempo with
13.a3 when the thematic 1 2 . . . a5 !
13.b5 c5 would have earned Black
an edge.
7. . . �e6 !
O f course we should defend the
pawn. Our plan is to finish devel-
 3.lt:Jc3 dS. Systems with �gS
opment with . . . lt:J d7-b6, . . . �g7, and
... 0-0. (Beware the blunder 7 . . . bS??
8.a4 c6 9.axbS cxbS 10 .'\Wf3.) Some­
times Black also chooses a setup
with . . . �h6.
I examine here :
All. 8.�e2 ; Al2 . 8 .'\Wbl? ! ; A13 .
8.Ei:bl; A14. 8 .lt:Jf3 .
All. 8 .�e2 lt:J d7!? 9 . d5? !
9.lt:Jf3 lt:Jb6 10. 0-0 �g7 transpos­
es to line A4. Agrest thinks that 10 . . .
�h6 also deserves a practical test.
9 . . .�f5 10.1�'d4 Ei:g8
Black has the initiative. For in­
stance, ll.e4? �g7 12 .'\Wxc4 would
fail to 12 . . . he4.
A12 . S .�bl? ! c5 !
This idea of Svidler seems to
have discouraged White from play­
ing 8 .'\Wbl anymore.
9.'\Wxb7
9.lt:Jf3 \WaS is bad for White, so
the only alternative to the text is
9.'\WbS + ? ! lt:Jd7 (9 . . . lt:Jc6 10.'\WxcS
'\Wb6 was unclear in Iljushin­
Dominguez, Khanty Mansiysk
2 007) 1 0.�xc4 hc4 11.'\Wxc4 cxd4
12.exd4 (12.'\Wxd4 eS ! ; 12.cxd4
\WaS + ) 12 . . . lt:Jb6 with clear play
against White's central pawns.
9 . . . �d5 10 .�b5+ �d7! ll.Ei:bl
'\Wxb5
It is better to trade queens or
White will have some initiative af­
ter ll . . . lt:Jc6 1 2 .lt:Jf3.
1 2 . l"i:xb5 lt:Jd7 13.lt:Je2
13.lt:Jf3 e6 14.lt:Jd2 does not
win the c4-pawn due to 14 . . . cxd4
1S.exd4 �e7 16.�xe7 mxe7 17.lt:Jxc4
Ei:hc8+.
13 ... e5 14.£3 �g7
Black has completed develop­
ment with a roughly equal position.
117
 Part 3
White has tried here :
a) lS.Ei:bl �c6 16.l2lcl exd4
17.cxd4 cxd4 18.�xc4 dxe3 19 .�gS
tt:Jb6 2 0 .�bS �xbS 2l.Ei:xbS 0-0
2 2 .�xe3 tt:Jc4+, Sanikidze-Rod­
shtein, Plovdiv 2 0 0 8 .
b) lS.dxcS ? ! 0-0 16.e4 �c6
17.Ei:bl Ei:fb8 18 .Ei:dl �a4+, Aruti­
nian-Pashikian, Martuni 2 0 07.
A13. S.Ei:bl
This move aims to prevent ... bS.
Since Fischer's times, Black near­
ly automatically answered 8 . . . b6
9.tt:Jf3 �g7 10 .tt:Jd2 0-0 ll .�e2 (11.
�xc4? �xc4 12 .tt:Jxc4 �dS) and here
Svidler's fascinating rook sac 11 . . .
cS ! 12 .�f3 cxd4 !
gives Black a strong attack.
However, the game is most likely to
end in a draw after:
13 .�xa8
Or 13.cxd4 ? ! tt:Jd7 14.�xa8 (14.
dS �fS 1S.e4 c3 16.tt:Jb3 Ei:c8 17.�c2
gS ! 18.�xgS �g6, with an excellent
position) 14 . . . �xa8, Moiseenko­
Svidler, Sochi 2 0 0S, and the bishop
pair dominates the board.
13 . . . dxc3 14.tt:Jf3 �d3 1S.Ei:cl tt:Ja6
16 .�b7 (16.�c6 tt:Jb4 17.�a4 tt:Jxa2
118
18.Ei:c2 tt:Jb4 19.Ei:cl tt:Ja2 =) 16 ... tt:JcS
17.�xe7 tt:Jxb7 18 .�xf8 @xf8 19 .tt:Jd4
tt:JcS 20.�xd3 (20 .tt:Jxe6+ tt:Jxe6
2 l.Ei:c2 tt:JcS 2 2 .�e2 bS 23.a3 aS+)
20 . . . tt:Jxd3+ 2 l.@e2 tt:Jxcl+ 2 2 .Ei:xcl
�xd4 23.exd4 bS 24.a3 aS 2S.Ei:xc3
@e7 2 6.Ei:e3 @d6 27.Ei:eS �dS 28 .f3
b4 29.axb4 axb4= .
Lately Black discovered that he
did not need to spend a tempo on
8 . . . b6 and began playing 8 . . . tt:Jd7= .
The problem of this move is that
usually the knight is more active on
c6. We are going to make a further
step forth and propose the novelty:
8 ••• c5 !
An idea of Agrest. Black simply
ignores the threat on b7.
9 .Ei:xb7 �a5 10.tt:\e2
Or 10 .�d2 �dS ll.Ei:b2 tt:Jc6
12 .tt:Je2 �g7t.
10 �d5 ll.�bl (11.Ei:b2 tt:Jd7)
..•
ll . . .tild7 12.Ei:b5 �a3
Black has full compensation for
the pawn and an easy game. He can
 3 .Ct:lc3 dS. Systems with JigS
develop his bishop to g7 or h6 while
White should think up a way to dis­
entangle his pieces.
A14. S . tt'l£3 tt'ld7!?
Perhaps this is the most pre­
cise move order. Thus Black cuts
off sidelines like 8 . . . Jig7 9.1&b1 or
9.Elbl.
9.Jie2
Rare alternatives are :
a) 9.dS Jig4 10.1&d4 .!xf3
11.1&xh8
ll.gxf3 may be objectively bet­
ter, but then White has not a com­
pensation for his split pawn struc-
ture. After 1 l . . . Elg8 12 .1&xc4 Jig7
13.0-0-0 (or 13.Eld1 Ct:lb6 14.1&b3
1&d6) 13 . . . Ct:lb6 14.1&bS+ c,t>f8 Black
has good prospects connected with
the option of . . . 1&d6.
1 l . . .JixdS 12 .1&d4 Ct:lb6 13.e4 .!c6
Black had more than sufficient
compensation for the exchange in
Gelfand-Ponomariov, Nice 2 0 1 0 .
b) 9.a4
Played by Kiril Georgiev against
Rodshtein in 2 0 1 0 . Black an­
swered with the mundane 9 . . . Jig7
and White regained the pawn with
10 .Ct:ld2 - the idea of White's previ­
ous move. (10 .Ct:lgS does not work
in view of 10 . . . JidS 1l.e4 h6 1 2 . exdS
hxgS 13.JixgS Ct:lb6 14.aS Ct:lxdS
1S.Jixc4 1&d6 16.1&b3 Ct:lxc3 ! .) After
10 . . .Ct:lf6 ll.Jie2 cS 12 .Ct:lxc4 cxd4
13.cxd4 Ct:le4 14.Elc1 .!xc4 1S . .!xc4
1&aS+ 16.c,t>f1 Ct:ld2 + 17.c,t>g1 Ct:lxc4
18.Elxc4, play was about equal, for
instance, 18 . . . 0-0 ! 19 .h3 Elfc8.
I think that Black should pre­
serve tension with 9 . . . aS when play
will be similar to the main line.
9 . . . tt'lb6 10. 0 - 0 Jig7
119
 Part 3
Here White chooses between
plans with e4 - line A141, and with­
out it - line A14 2 .
A141. ll.a4 a 5 12 .Wc2
This seems to be the most flex­
ible move order. An alternative is :
12.lt:ld2
White vacates the f3-square for
the bishop and prepares to send the
knight to c5 via e4. The latter threat
is not dangerous so we do not see
a reason to hamper it by 12 .. .f5 as
in Wojtaszek-Krasenkow, War­
saw 2 0 1 0 . Still, Black had a good
game after 13 .'\!,lfb1 Wd7 14.'\!,lfa2 0-0
15.Ei:fb1 �d5.
12 . . . 0-0 13.�f3 Ei:a7 14.Ct:Je4 �d5
15.Ct:Jc5 �xf3 16.'\!,lfxf3 Ct:Jd5 17.Ei:fcl
b6 18 .Ct:Je4 '\!,lfd7 19.Ct:Jd 2 . Here Black
gets a preferable game by open­
ing the c-file and trading all the
rooks. In the endgame, White's a4-
pawn will be very sensitive : 19 . . . c5 !
2 0 .Ct:Jxc4 cxd4 2 l . cxd4 Ei:c7 2 2 .�g3
Ei:c6 23 .Ct:Je5 Ei:xc1+ 24.Ei:xcl �xe5
25 .�xe5 Ei:c8+.
12 . . . 0 - 0
120
13.13tbl
Alternatively:
a) 13 .Ct:Jd2 should be met by 13 . . .
c5 ! ( 1 3 . . . We8 14.�g3 �d7 15 .�xc7!
Ct:Jxa4 16.Ct:Jxc4 b5 17.Ct:Jb6 Ct:Jxb6
18 .�xb6 a4 19 .�c5 �c6 2 0 .c4 bxc4
2 l.�xc4±) 14.Wb2 (14.dxc5 Ct:Jd5
15.�xc4 '\!,lfc7) 14 . . . cxd4 15.cxd4,
Petran-Hoelzl, Budapest 1987, 15 . . .
Ei:c8 ! 16.Ei:fc1 Wc7 17.'\!,lfb5 c 3 . This
pawn is cramping White's pieces.
I prefer Black here : 18.Ct:Je4 Ct:Jd5
19 .Ct:Jc5 '\!,lfc6 2 0 .'\!,lfxb7 Wxb7 2 1.Ct:Jxb7
c2 2 2 .Ct:Jxa5 13c3 23 . Wfll'!fc8t .
b) 13.�g3 �f5 !
A typical motif. We provoke e3-
e4 in order to weaken d4. Thus our
future breakthrough . . . e7-e5 will
gain strength.
14.e4 �g4 15.Ct:Je5 (or 15.13fb1
�xf3 16.�xf3 e5 17.dxe5 Ei:e8) 15 . . .
�xe2 16.'\!,lfxe2 �xe5 17.�xe5 '\!,lfd7
18 .'\!,lfc2 f6 19 .�g3 . Black is fine
here. He can continue, for instance,
with 19 . . . Ei:ae8 2 0 .Ei:fb1 e5 2l.dxe5
f:xe5 2 2 .f3 '\!,lfc6 23.Ei:b5 Ct:Jd7 24.Ei:d1
b6 25.Ei:dd5 Ei:e6, or even better:
19 .. .f5 ! ? 2 0 .f3 fxe4 2l.fxe4 Ei:xfl+
2 2 .Wxf1 Ei:f8 + 23.Wg1 e6 24.h3 '\!,lfc6
2 5 . Wh2 Ct:Jd7 26 .Ei:d1 Ct:Jf6 27.Ei:e1
Ct:Jh5 28 .�e5 Ct:Jf4+.
13 . . . We8 !
Underlying the drawback of the
early a4 - this pawn is a constant
source of concern for White. Now
he must reckon with . . . �d7.
14.ll:d
:l 2 �d7 15.ll:x
:l c4 ha4
 3.tt:lc3 dS. Systems with �gS

Black has active pieces, not to

mention that he is still a pawn up.
See game 9 Bo.Vuckovic-Sutov­
sky, Moscow 1 1 . 0 2 . 2 011.

A142. ll.e4 0 - 0 12 .1Mfc2 !

The insertion of 12.a4 aS is

hardly in White's favour since the
a4-pawn is likely to fall. For in­
stance :
12 . . . f5 ! !
13.tt:lgS �d7 14.f4 1Mfe8 1S.1Mfd2
f6 16.tt:lf3 �xa4, Kazhgaleyev-Smi­
With this essential novelty,
rin, Chalons en Champagne 2 0 0 9 ,
Black wins the battle for the dS­
when 17.dS fS ! ? 18 .eS �b3 would
square. Without it, his position
have paved the way to conversion
to the aS-pawn. White's dS-pawn is would remain cramped and some­
what worse despite the extra pawn :
also quite weak;
12 . . . c6 13.a4 aS (13 . . . tt:lc8 14.tt:lgS
13 .'�c2 �d7! 14.�g3 (14.tt:ld2 cS 1Mfd7 1S.tt:lxe6 1Mfxe6 16.e5 tt:lb6 17.aS
15.dS 1Mfe8 16.tt:lxc4 tt:lxa4 ; 14.l"1fb1 tt:ldS 18.�xc4±) 14.l"1abU.
�e8 1S.�d1 fS) 14 . . . '\MfeS ! 1S.�d1
13.:Bfel

The game Delchev-Ve.Schnei­
der, La Massana 2 0 1 0 , went 1S . . .
Elc8 16.l"1e1 f6 17.1Mfa2 e S 18.�c2 ,
with a double-edged game which
I eventually won. However, in the
diagram position, Black can elimi­
nate to a better endgame with 1S . . .
tt'lxa4 ! 16.l"1xa4 �xa4 17.1Mfxa4 1Mfxa4
18.ha4 c6 19.eS bS 2 0 .�c2 �h6+.
Alternatives are :
a) 13.tt:lgS �d7 14.f4 1Mfe8 1S.l"1ae1
h6 16.tt:lf3 1Mff7 17.tt:leS �xeS 18 .fxeS
gS 19.�f2 . Now Black has several
good options, for instance, 19 . . .
fxe4 2 0 .Wxe4 c6+ o r the simpler:
19 . . . 1Mfg6 2 0 .dS fxe4 2 1 .hb6 Wxb6+
2 2 .'tt> h 1 l"1xfl+ 2 3 .:Bxfl We3 .
b) 13.dS fxe4 14.dxe6 exf3
1S.�xf3 (1S.l"1fd1 Wc8 16.�xf3 :Bxf3 !
17.gxf3 Wxe6) 1S . . . l"1xf3 ! 16.gxf3
'IMfdS+.
c) 13.a4 ! ? Now Black can con­
tinue as in the main line with 13 . . .
a S . In many variations h e has not
. . .bS, but that seems irrelevant, e.g.

121
 Part 3
14.ti:lgS �d7 1S.�xc4 ti:lxc4 16.'\Wb3
h6 17.'\Wxc4+ �hB 1B.ti:lf7+ Elxf7
19.'\Wxf7 gS 2 0 .�xgS hxgS 2 1 .exfS
'\WeB 2 2 .'\Wb3 b6 23 .g4 '\WgB 24.dS
�eS ! intending . . . �d6 and Black's
position should be preferred.
Another good answer to 13.a4 is
13 . . . fxe4 14.'\Wxe4 (14.ti:ld2 �fS 1S.g4
�e6) 14 . . . �dS 1S.'\We3 '\WeB (1S . . .
�f6 ! ?) 16.ti:leS. White has compen­
sation, but it's not easy to decide
whether it's sufficient or not. This
is really a position for practical test­
ing.
13 fxe4 14JWxe4 �d5! 15.'\We3
•••
Naturally, White would prefer
to keep queens on. 1S.'\Wxe7 '\Wxe7
16.�xe7 Elf7 17.�gS ti:la4 1B .�d2 EleB
19.ti:lgS Elfe7 is obviously better for
Black.
15 .•• �f6 16.�g3 e6
This position is sharp and unbal­
anced, but besides the extra pawn,
Black has plenty of counterplay in
the centre, for example: 17.h4 (17.
Elad1 '\We7) 17 . . . cS 1B .hS (or 1B.dxcS
122
ti:la4 19 .�eS �xeS+) 1B . . . cxd4 (or
1B . . . gxhSoo) 19.ti:lxd4 �gS 2 0 .f4 eS !
2 1.'\WxeS �f6 2 2 .'\We3 EleB 2 3 .'\Wd2
'\Wd7oo.
A2 . 4 .•. �g7 5 .hf6
S.ti:lf3 ti:le4 is considered in line
B.
S.e3 cS ! faces White with a
choice :
a) 6.dxcS '\WaS 7.hf6 (The
bishop is hanging in many lines so
White exchanges it. Instead, 7.'\Wd2
dxc4 B.�xc4 '\WxcS 9.�xf6 �xf6
10 .Elc1 ti:lc6 ll.ti:le4 '\WfS 12.ti:lxf6+
'\Wxf6 13 .�dS 0-0 is equal.) 7 . . . �xf6
B.Elc1 dxc4 9.�xc4 0-0 10 .ti:lf3 '\WxcS
11.'\We2 ti:lc6 1 2 . 0-0 '\WaS = . Next,
Black plays 13 . . . �g4.
b) 6.ti:lf3 cxd4 7.exd4 0-0 !?
B.�xf6 hf6 9.ti:lxdS �g7 10.ti:lc3
�g4 11.�e2 ti:lc6 12 .dS hf3 13.�xf3
ti:laS 14.�e2 ElcB 1S.'\Wa4 '\Wc7 (lS . . .
�xc3+ ! ? 16.bxc3 =) 16.ti:lbS '\WeS !
17.'\WxaS '\Wxb2 1B.Eld1 a6= .
c ) 6.�xf6 �xf6 7.cxdS (7.ti:lxdS? !
�g7 B.ti:lf3 ti:lc6 ) 7 . . . cxd4 B.exd4 0-0
9.�c4 '\Wb6 10 .ti:lge2 '\Wxb2 11.Elb1
(11.0-0 '\Wb4 12 .�b3 ti:ld7) 11 . . . '\Wa3
 3.ct:lc3 dS. Systems with .igS
12 .0-0 ct:ld7 13.ct:le4 ct:lb6 14 . .ib3 .ig7
15.l"1e1 l"1d8 16.'Ll2c3 .ifS = , Krasen­
kow-Svidler, Jonkoping 1998.
5 . . . .ixf6 6.cxd5
6.ct:lxdS? ! .ig7 7.e3 (7.ct:lf3) is bad
due to 7 . . . cS !+.
6 ... c6 !
A2 1. 7.dxc6? ! ; A2 2 . 7.e3 ; A23 .
7.e4 ; A24. 7.l"1cl.
A2 1. 7.dxc6 ? ! .ixd4 ! 8.cxb7
ixb7
The lead in development offers
Black full compensation. Some of
White's queenside pawns will fall
sooner or later:
a) 9.ct:lf3 .ixc3+ 10 .bxc3 �aS
ll.�b3 0-0 12 .e3 .ixf3 13.gxf3 ct:ld7
14.�b4 �fS 1S . .ie2 l"1ab8 16.�e4
�xe4 17.fxe4 l"1b2+, Orlinkov-Najer,
Moscow 1996.
b) 9.�b3 .ixc3+ ! 10 .bxc3
(10.�xc3 0-0 11.e3 �b6 1 2 .'Llf3 l"1c8
13 . .ic4 .ixf3 14.gxf3 ct:lc6 1S.O-O
ct:laS 16 .b3 ct:lxc4 17.bxc4 l'!cS 18.l"1fc1
l"1ac8 19 .�d4 �c6 2 0 .f4 aS 21.l"1ab1
l"1xc4= ) 10 . . . �c7 11.'Llf3 ct:ld7 12 .e3
.ixf3 ! 13.gxf3 0-0 14 . .ie2 l"1ab8
1S.�a3 �cS 16.�xcS ct:lxcS+.
c) 9.e3 .ixc3 + 10 .bxc3 �aS
11.�d4 0-0 12.�b4 �c7 13.'Llf3
(13.l"1c1 ct:lc6 14.�c5 �b6 ! 1S .�b5
l"1fc8 16.'Llf3 ct:lb4t) 13 . . . ct:lc6 14.�cS
l"1fc8 1S . .ie2 ct:laS 16.�xc7 l"1xc7
17.l"1c1 l"1ac8+.
d) 9.l"1c1
White defended the knight on
c3 , but the b2-pawn is also vulne­
rable:
9 ... 0-0 1 0 .e3 .if6 ! 11.�xd8 l"1xd8
1 2 .ct:lf3 ct:ld7 13 . .ie2 l"1ab8t.
A2 2 . 7.e3
This line has disappeared as
White gets nothing in return for the
exchange of his bishop.
7 . . . cxd5 8 . .ib5 + 'i!?f8 ! 9 .ll:\ge2
l!tg7 10.�b3 e6
Evidently, only black can be bet­
ter here. After 11.0-0 a6 12 . .id3 ct:lc6
13 .l"1ac1, simplest is 13 ... bS .
A23 . 7. e4 0 - 0 !
7 . . . cxdS? ! 8 . .ibS + ! .id7 9 . .ixd7+
�xd7 10.exdS ct:la6 11.ct:lf3 ct:lb4
(11 . . . 0-0 1 2 . 0-0 ct:lc7 13 .�b3 l"1ab8
14.ct:leS) 12 .ct:leS .ixeS 13.dxeS
l"1d8 14.0-0 ct:lxdS 1S.ct:lxdS �xdS
16.�a4+ bS 17.�xa7 favours White.
123
 Part 3

8 . e5 14 ..tc2 .tb7 15.�xb4 .txd5 16. 0-0

tt:Jc6 17.�c3 f6 18.exf6 .txf6 19. l"lad1
Bulgarian grandmaster Iotov should be in White's favour.
mentioned the interesting novelty:
8 .l'k 1 ! ? .tg7! (8 . . . cxd5 9.tt:Jxd5 12 .h4
.tg7 10 J''lx c8 ! + -) 9.dxc6 (9 . .tc4
cxd5 10.exd5 �b6 11.tt:Jge2 �xb2=)
9 . . . tt:Jxc6 ! 10 .d5 tt:Jd4

I analysed here :
I do not believe in this attack be­
a) 1l.tt:Jge2 e5 ! (ll . . . �b6 1 2 .tt:Jxd4
cause White lacks a dark-squared
.txd4 13 .�d2 .td7 14 . .td3 l"lac8
bishop. See the complete game 8
15.0-0 l"lc7 16.l"lc2 l"lfc8 17.l"lfc1 �f6)
Bukavshin-Matlakov, Moscow
1 2 .tt:Jg3 h5�.
01.02.2011.
b) 1l.�d2 f5 12 ..tc4 .td7 13.tt:Jge2
l"lc8f!.
A24. 7.l"lcl
c) 1l..td3 e6! 12 .tt:Jge2 exd5
13.tt:Jxd5 tt:Jxe2 14.�xe2 .te6 15 ..tc4
Developing a piece and indirect­
b5 16 . .tb3 �a5+ , with more than
ly keeping the extra-pawn in view
sufficient compensation, e.g. 17.tt:Jc3
of 7 . . . cxd5? ! 8 .tt:Jxd5 .
.txc3 + 18 .bxc3 l"lac8 19.0-0 .tc4
20 . .txc4 l"lxc4= .
7 . . . 0 - 0 8.dxc6 (8.e4 .tg7!)
8 . . . �xd4! 9.�xd4 hd4 10.cxb7
8 . . . .tg7 9 . .tc4 b5 10 . .tb3 b4 !
ll.�ce2 cxd5
a) 10 .c7 tt:Jc6 ll.tt:Jf3 .tb6 !
1 2 . tt:J d 5 ? .ta5++.
1 1 . . . .ta6 has not advantages over
the recapturing of the sacrificed b) 10.tt:Jf3 .txc3+ 1l.l"lxc3 tt:Jxc6
pawn. White has many options, but 12 .e3 .te6 ! 13 . .tc4 (13 . .tb5? ! ha2)
simplest is perhaps 12 .�d 2 . Then 13 . . .hc4 14.l"lxc4 l"lfc8 15 .<it>d2
12 . . . cxd5 would be similar to the tt:J a5 = , Ivanchuk-Dominguez, Ha­
main line while 12 . . . c5 13.tt:Jf3 ! c4 vana 2 0 1 0 .

124
 3.'Llc3 dS. Systems with �gS
10 . . .h:b7 ll.lt:Jf3 �f6
Black's activity balances the
game. He has different ways to de­
velop his initiative. See the anno­
tations to game 7 Bo.Vuckovic­
Mekhitarian, Moscow 1 0 . 0 2 . 2 011.
B. 4.tt:Jf3 �g7 5.�g5 tt:Je4
I examine here :
Bl. 6.�f4 ; B 2 . 6.cxdS ; B3. 6.�h4
Bl. 6.�f4 tt:Jxc3 7.bxc3 c5
8.e3 0 - 0 9.cxd5 cxd4 ! 10.cxd4
�xd5 11.�e2 tt:Jc6 1 2 . 0 - 0 �f5
The bishop is misplaced on f4. It
does not attack e7, moreover, White
has to reckon with . . . eS, e.g. 13.'Lld2
eS ! . That's why White prefers :
13.'\1;1!a4 \WaS ! 14.'1Wb3 (14.\WxaS
'LlxaS 1S.�c7 'Llc6 ! 16.f\fc1 f1ac8
17.�g3 E\fd8=) 14 �e4 !
. . •
Indirectly defending the b7-
pawn (1S.Wxb7 'Llxd4 ! ) while keep­
ing the queen at aS to support the
break . . . e7-eS . Our plan is to trade
as many heavy pieces as possible
and get an ending with a distant
passed pawn.
a) 1S.f\ac1 Wb4 ! 16.f\cS (16.
�c4 h6 17.!"1fd1 \Wxb3 18.axb3 E1ac8
19.'Lld2 �fS 2 0 .�dS 'Llb4 2 1.!=1xc8
l"\xc8 2 2 .�xb7 f\c2 23.�b8 aS 24.h3
'Lla2 2S.'Lle4 'Llc3 26.'Llxc3 E1xc3
27.g4 l"\xb3+) 16 . . . \Wxb3 17.axb3 b6
18.f\c3 (18.f\c4 'LlaS 19.f\c7 'Llxb3
2 0 .!=1xe7 f\fe8 21.f\xe8+ f\xe8)
18 . . . 'Llb4 19.'Lld2 �fS 2 0 .�f3 f\ac8
21.f\xc8 f1xc8 2 2 .f\a1 �d3+, Gasa­
nov-Kurnosov, Dagomys 2010.
b) 1S.f\fc1 ! f1ac8 16.�g3 !
12S
 Part 3
The game Gelfand-Kasparov,
Astana 2 0 0 1 , saw 16.h3 e5 ! and it
suddenly turned out that 17J'k5 did
not work due to 17 . . . �xf3 ! 18.�xf3
4Jxd4 ! ! 19.!"1xa5 4Jxb3 2 0 . axb3
exf4+.
16 . . . �d5 17.'&d1 (17.�c4 �xc4
18.!"1xc4 '&d5=) 17 . . . 4Jb4 ! 18.a3 4Ja2
19.!"1c2 4Jc3 2 0 .'&e1 4Jxe2+ 2 l.'&xe2
�e4+.
B 2 . 6.cxd5 4Jxg5 7.ttJxg5
7. . . 0 - 0 ! ?
There is a very good chance that
this move will be a surprise to your
opponents as it occurs in less than
7% of the games.
The most popular answer is
7 . . . e6 8 .'&d2 when 8 . . . exd5 allows
the awkward 9.'&e3 + , while 8 . . . h6
9.4Jf3 exd5 leads to the Carlsbad
pawn structure with the insertion
of '&d2 h6 which is undoubtedly
in White's favour. Contemporary
theory has found a reliable setup
where Black redeploys the �g7 to
126
d6 via f8 . Still, I prefer the more
lively positions of our repertoire.
Now I would like to draw your
attention to another interesting op­
tion:
7 . . . c6? !
Black gets some compensation
for the pawn, but it is hardly suffi­
cient for equality:
8.dxc6 !
a) 8 .e3 e6! 9.4Jf3 exd5 10 .�e2
transposes to the main line.
b) 8.'&b3 0-0 9.4Jf3 cxdS
10 .'&xd5 '&b6 ll .'&b5 (ll.'&b3 �xd4
1 2 .4Jxd4 '&xd4 13.!"1d1 '&c5) 11...
�xd4 1 2 .4Jxd4 '&xd4 13.!"1d1 '&b6
14.'&xb6 axb6 15.e3 �e6 16.a3 4Ja6
17.�e2 4Jc5 18.0-0 �b3 19.!"1d4
Ei:fd8 = .
8 . . . 4Jxc6
9.d5 !
9.e3 e5 10 .d5 '&xg5 ll.dxc6 0-0
12 .h4 (12 .c7 e4 13.!"1c1 '&aS 14.�e2
'&xc7 15.0-0 Ei:d8 16.4Jxe4 l!Ne7=)
12 . . . '&e7 13.4Jd5 '&d6 14.!"1c1 (14.c7
�d7 15.!"1c1 �c6 16.�c4 Ei:ac8 17.�b3
e4 18.!"1c2 '&e5 19.h5 �xdS 2 0 .'&xd5
 3.ct:Jc3 d5. Systems with �g5
E1xc7 2 1.�xe5 �xeS 2 2 J'lxc7 �xc7
23.'it>e2 lt>g7=) 14 . . . e4 15.c7 �xb2
16.Ek2 �e5 17.�c4 �d7 18.0-0
E1ac8 = .
9 . . . �a5 10 .�d2
10 .ct:Jge4 is bad owing to 10 . . . �f5
ll.dxc6 �xe4 12 .�d7+ 'it>f8 13 .�d2
E1d8 14.cxb7 �xb7 15.�c2 �e4
16.�b3 �e5- + .
1 0 . . . ct:Je5 11.e3
White would like to bolster up
his d5-pawn with ll.e4, but af­
ter ll . . . h6 1 2 .ct:Jf3 (12 .�b5+ �d7
13.�xd7+ lt>xd7) 12 . . . ct:Jxf3 + 13.gxf3
.id7, he has nothing to oppose to
Black's queenside play: 14.h4 Ei:c8
15.Elc1 0-0 16.f4 b5.
1 1 . . . 0-0 12 .�e2
Black's plan is simple : he will
put the rooks to c8 and d8 and
threaten with . . . ct:Jc4 or . . . b7-b5.
Contrary to the first impression,
White's pawns on d5 and a2 are
very sensitive. If he decides to repel
the knight from e5 before it could
reach c4, it will go to f6 : 12 .f4 ct:Jg4
13.h3 (13.�e2 Ei:d8 14.Ei:d1 �c5) 13 . . .
lLlf6 14.Eld1 Eld8 15.�e2 Elb8 16.e4
h6 17.ct:Jf3 b5 18.e5 b4= .
1 2 . . . �f5
13.e4
White counterattacks. He aims
to plug the g7-bishop with f4, e4-e5.
Routine development is less
convincing:
a) 13.0-0 Ei:ac8 14.Elacl ct:Jc4
15.�xc4 Elxc4 16.ct:Jf3 (16.Elfe1
Elfc8 17.e4 �d7 18 .e5 �h6 19.f4
�b6 + 2 0 .'it>h1 �d4 2 1.�xd4 Ei:xd4
2 2 .g3 �xg5 23 .fxg5 Ei:d2 24.Ei:b1 b5
25 .Ei:ed1 Elc2 =) 16 . . . �xc3 (16 . . . b5 ! ?)
17.Elxc3 Elxc3 18 .bxc3 Elc8 19.c4
(19.Elc1 �e4) 19 . . . �a4 20.ct:Jd4 �d7
2 1.Elc1 Elxc4.
b) 13.f4 ! ? h6 14.ct:Jge4 ct:Jd7
15.ct:Jg3 !
Kiselev-Vorobiov, Moscow
1996 saw 15.ct:Jf2 ct:Jc5 16.0-0 Elfd8
17.�f3 ct:Ja4 18.Elac1 Elac8 19.e4
ct:Jxb2 2 0 . �xb2 Elxc3 21.Elxc3 �xc3
2 2 . �xb7 �d7 23 .ct:Jg4, when 23 . . .
�d2 24.f5 gxf5 would have been
unclear. Another option is 15 .ct:Jd1
�xd 2 + 16.ct:Jxd2 ct:Jb6 17.e4 �d7
18 .Elc1 Ei:ac8 19.Elxc8 Elxc8 with suf­
ficient compensation due to possi­
ble breaks as .. .f5 or . . . e6.
15 . . . Ei:ac8 (15 ... ct:Jb6 16.e4 ! ) 16.Elc1
Or 16.e4 Elxc3 ; 16.0-0 hc3
17.bxc3 ct:Jf6 ; 16.Eld1 ct:Jb6.
16 . . . ct:Jc5 !
127
 Part 3

Controlling e4 and planning 'ib>h7 27.E1fl Vfifxc3 + 2 8 . <i>d1 vtifd3+

. . . l2la4. The other setup, 16 . . . l2lb6
17.0-0 .id7 18 .e4 E1fd8, does not
look good. White is slightly better
after 19.<i>h1 hS (19 . . . l2la4 2 0 .e5)
2 0 .E1fd1 h4 2 1 .l2lfl l2la4 2 2 .e5.
17. 0-0 (17.e4 l2lxe4) 17 ... l2l a4
18 .e4 .id7 19.e5 vtifb6+ 2 0 . <i>h1 Vfifxb2
2 l.Vfifxb2 l2lxb2
Black finally regained the pawn,
but his dark-squared bishop is cut
off and that gives White some prac­
tical chances even without a pawn :
2 2 . l2lge4 ! fS 23.l2ld2 ! E1fd8 24.l2lb3
.ie8 25.l2lb5 E1xc1 26.E1xc1 .ixbS
27 ..bb5 E1xd5 2 8 . .ie2;!;.
13 . . . .id7 14.f4 h6
15.l2lh3
15.fxe5 hxg5 16.Vfifxg5 vtifb6 offers
Black a strong initiative : 17. 0-0-0
(17.E1b1 E1ac8) 17 ... E1ac8 18.E1d2
(18.E1he1 Vfifb4 ; 18.E1hfl vtifaS 19.'ib>b1
E1xc3 2 0 .bxc3 Vfifxc3 2l.E1f3 vtifb4+
2 2 .E1b3 Vfifxe4+ 23 . .id3 VfifxdS 24 . .ic2
vtife6 25.E1xb7 .ic6 26.E1xe7 E1b8+ ;
18.E1d3 .ibS 19.E1d2 .ixe2 2 0 . E1xe2
vtifaS 21. 'ib>b1 E1xc3 2 2 .bxc3 vtifxc3 =)
18 ... vtifb4t (18 ... \b>h7! ?) Only Black
can play here for a win, for exam­
ple : 19.E1c2 .ia4 2 0 .a3 vtifaS 2 l..ig4
.ixc2 22 . .ixc8 E1xc8 23 .\b>xc2 vtifa4+
24.'ib>b1 E1xc3 25.bxc3 Vfifb3 + 2 6.<i>c1
2 9 . <i>e1 Vfifxe4+ 3 0 .<i>f2 .ixeS 3l.'ib>g1
Vfifd4+ 3 2 . <i>h1 f6 33 .Vfifc1 Vfifh4 34.h3
Vfifg3.
15 . . . .ixh3 16.gxh3 l2l d7 17.e5
E1ac8 18.0-0 E1fd8 19.E1ad1 l2lb6
2 0 .h4;!;.
As long as Black's bishop re­
mains out of play, White's game
will be preferable.
8 .h4? ! h6 (or 8 . . . c6 9.dxc6 .ixd4
10.cxb7 .ixb7) 9.l2lge4 c6 10.dxc6
.ixd4 1l.cxb7 .ixb7 12 .e3 .ig7
13.vtifxd8 E1xd8 is fine for Black.
8.e3 only offers Black additional
options. He can transpose to the
main line with 8 . . . c6 9.dxc6 e5! (9 . . .
l2lxc6?! 1 0 .h4! h6 11.l2lge4) 1 0 .l2lf3
(10.cxb7 .ixb7 11.l2lf3 exd4 1 2 .l2lxd4
Vfifb6 13.Vfifb3 .ixd4 14.exd4 E1e8+
15 . .ie2 Vfifxb3 16.axb3 .ixg2 17.E1g1
.if3 18.\b>fl .ixe2 + 19.l2lxe2 l2lc6 is
balanced) 10 . . . l2lxc6. However, he
can also choose a good version of
the Carlsbad structure with :
8 . . . e6 ! 9.l2lf3 exdS 10 .b4 c6
In this pawn formation, White
commonly builds up a minority at-

128
 3.t2Jc3 dS. Systems with �gS
tack on the queenside with '2lc3-a4-
cS followed up by b4-bS. Black, for
his part, seeks counterplay on the
opposite flank. The concrete posi­
tion, however, suggests another
setup. In order to activate our dark­
squared bishop, we should aim to
push . . . c6-cS. Then the c-file will
open in our favour. I recommend
... �e6, . . . '®'d6, . . . '2ld7 and . . . aS, in-
tending to meet b4-bS by . . . c6-cS.
11.�e2
1U'k1 bS 12.a4 stumbled into
12 . . . aSt in Matveeva-Chiburdanid­
ze, Jakarta 1993.
ll . . . �e6 12. 0-0
Or 12 .l"k1 '®'d6 13.'®'b3 '2ld7
14.'2la4 aS 1S.bS '®'b4+ 16.'2ld2
l"\fc8+, Saric-Pashikian, Plovdiv
2010.
12 ... '®'d6 13 .'®'b3 '2ld7 14.l"\ac1
Or 14.a4 aS 1S .bS (1S.bxaS l"lxaS
16.l"lfd1 cS) 1S . . . cS 16.'®'a3 l"lfc8
17.l"\ac1 '2lb6 18.l"lfd1 '®'f8+.
14 ... aS 1S.bS cS 16.'®'a3 l"lfc8= .
8 . . . c 6 9 . dxc6 l2Jxc6 10.e3 e5
ll.d5
We'll understand better the
strength of Black's position on the
example of the game Smyslov- De
la Villa Garcia, Barcelona 199 0 :
11.dxeS '2lxeS 12 .�e2 '2lxf3 + 13.hf3
�e6 14.0-0 !WaS 1S.'®'c2 l"lab8
16.l"lfd1 l"lfc8 17.l"\d3 �fS 18 .e4 �e6
19 .'®'d2 �xc3 2 0 .bxc3 l"lc4 ( 2 0 . . .
l"\d8 =) 2 1 .h4 h S 2 2 .l"\b1 b6 23.'®'f4
l"lbc8 24.l"lbd1 'it>g7 2S.l"ld6 l"le8
2 6 .�e2 l"lcS 27.c4 '®'xa2 = . All the
moves of the ex-World champion
proved to be the first line of the en­
gine, and still he had to be careful to
make a draw.
ll e4 12. l2Jxe4 �f5 13 . l2J c3
..•
l2Jb4 14.l'!cl !WaS
White should play precisely to
hold the equality.
B3. 6.�h4 l2Jxc3
After 6 . . . cS 7.cxdS '2lxc3 8.bxc3
'®'xdS 9.e3, White has a small, but
stable advantage. Furthermore,
Black's chances to play for a win
seem next to none : 9 . . . cxd4 10 .cxd4
'2l c6 11.�e2 0-0 1 2 . 0-0 eS 13.dxeS
!WaS 14.�f6 (14.'®'b3 '2lxeS 1S.C2Jd4
'2lc6 16.'2lxc6 bxc6 17.l"lac1 �e6
18 .�c4 l"lab8=) 14 . . . �xf6 1S.exf6 '®'fS
16.'2ld4 '®'xf6 17.'2lxc6 '®'xc6 18 .�f3
'®'a6 19.'®'d4 �fS 2 0 . l"lfd1 l"lac8, Kot­
ronias-Ghinda, Athens 1988. With
good defence, Black should be able
to make a draw.
7.bxc3 dxc4 !
129
 Part 3
8 .\Wa4+
Alternatives do not set Black any
problems :
a) 8.e4? ! b5 9.a4 c6 10 .�e2 0-0
11.0-0 a6 12 .\Wb1 ct:ld7;
b) 8.e3 b5 ! 9.a4 c6 10 .�e2 a6
ll.ct:ld2 0-0 1 2 .�f3 l"i:a7! 13.0-0 �f5 !
In Beliaivsky-Kamsky, Belgrade
1991 , Black realised the interest­
ing manoeuvre : 13 . . . l"i:d7 14.\Wb1
\Wc7 15.ct:le4 Ei:dd8 16.'�fb4 f5 17.ct:lc5
Ei:de8. The rooks have finally con­
nected in a most unusual manner.
Play is double-edged.
14.l"i:e1
I have learned from my own
experience that in this structure
14.e4 ? ! is a strategic mistake. White
130
only weakens the support of the
d4-pawn and limits the scope of
his light-squared bishop. If Black
succeeds in breaking through with
. . . b4 or . . . c5, White's centre will
collapse. Black can retreat to d7
or e6, but perhaps most unpleas­
ant is 14 . . . �c8 ! as in Delchev-Karr,
France 2 0 1 0 , which went 15.\Wb1?
c5 ! 16.axb5 l"i:b7! 17.ct:lxc4 cxd4 !+.
14 ... �d3 (14 ... a5 ! ?) 15.ct:lb3 �f5
16.ct:ld2 (16.ct:lc5 ct:ld7=) 16 . . . �d3
and White should repeat moves.
8 . . . \Wd7!
8 . . . c6 9.\Wxc4 \WaS 10.e4! �e6
11.�d3 ct:ld7 is too passive. White
can prevent the threat of 12 . . . ct:lc5
by 12.ct:ld2 !
9.�xc4 b6!
We know that in the Griinfeld,
the c4-square is often Black's main
strategic aim. Therefore it would be
helpful to trade light-squared bish­
ops. White can prevent that by:
1 0 .�g3? ! c5 11.ct:le5, but then the
typical motif ll . . . he5 ! 12 .�xe5 �a6
13.�b3 0-0 gives good play due to
his lead in development: 14.e3 (14.
d5 �f5 15.�g3 c4 16 .�b4 �xd5
17.�xe7 ct:lc6 18.�f6 l"i:ad8 19.�f4
l"i:fe8 2 0.�h6 �e5 2 1.�xe5 ct:lxe5
2 2 .�e3 �b7 23.l"i:d1 �d5 24.h4 f6 = ;
14.l"i:d1 ct:l c 6 15.�a4 ct:lxe5) 1 4 . . . �xfl
15. Wxfl ct:lc6 16.�g3 ct:la5+.
10 .e4 �a6 11.�d5 is outright
bad : 1l.. .�xd5 12.exd5 �xf1 13.Wxfl
ct:la6 14.a4 0-0-0 15.�xe7 l"i:xd5
16.g3 c5+.
 3.lt:lc3 d5. Systems with �g5
10.e3 �a6 11. '!Wb3
11.'1Wb4? �xf1 1 2 .<i>xfl goes half­
way Black's plan to open play with
ll . . . c5 ! 13.dxc5 lt:la6 14.'\We4 E1c8
15.cxb6 lt:lc5 16.'\Wb4 axb6 with a
decisive attack.
ll . . . �xf112 . <i>xfl 0-0 13.<i>e2
13 ••• lt::Jc 6 ! ?
1 3 . . . c 5 i s more popular, but I
prefer to execute this move when
Black is fully developed. Anyway,
White cannot prevent it. The prob­
lem position arises after:
14.E1hd1
14.dxc5? ! at this moment is risky
because our knight will arrive at
c5 with tempo : 14 . . . lt:la6 ! 15.E1hd1
1Wc7! (15 . . .'\Wb7 16.c6 '\Wxc6 17.�xe7
E1fe8 18 .�a3 '\Wxc3 19.'\Wxc3 �xc3
20.E1ac1 �b4 2 1.�b2 �f8 2 2 .lt:ld4
tt:lc5 23 .g4 E1e4 24. <i>f3 E1ae8 25.h3
f6 26.�a3 <i>f7 27.E1c2 lt:la6 28.�xf8
i>xf8 2 9 .E1c6 <i>g7 30 .lt:lb5 E14e7
31.E1dd6±) 16.cxb6 (or 16.c6 lt:lc5
17.'\Wc4 e6 18.lt:ld4 '\Wxh2+) 16 . . . axb6
17.�g3 '\Wc6 18.<i>f1 lt:lc5 19 .'\Wd5
'\Wxd5 2 0 . E1xd5 �xc3 2 1.E1c1 �f6
2 2 .E1c2 E1a6 = .
1 4 . . . lt:lc6 ! 15.dxc5 (15.E1abl cxd4
16.cxd4 E1fc8 = ; 15. <i>fl lt:la5) 15 . . .
'\Wc8
16.E1abl ! parries all the threats :
16 . . . bxc5 17.'\Wc4 E1b8 18.E1xb8 '\Wxb8
19 .'\Wxc5 E1c8 2 0 . <i>fU. White evacu­
ated his king from the centre and he
is still a pawn up ( 2 0 . . . e6 2 1 .'1Wa3).
14J�hdl lLl a5 15.'\Wb4 e6!
Saving the pawn and control­
ling d5. 15 . . . E1fe8 16.E1ac1 E1ac8 17.c4
'\Wg4 18.h3 '\We4 19 .'\Wa4 c5 2 0 .d5 is
slightly better for White.
16.E1acl E1fc8 17.c4 c5 !
Just in time! Now 18.dxc5 '\Wb7
(18 . . . '\Wc6 19.cxb6 axb6 2 0 .E1d6 '\We4
21.E1xb6 lt:lxc4 2 2 .'\Wb1 '\Wd5 23.E1b3
h6) 19.cxb6 axb6 gives Black an ex­
cellent compensation. After 2 0 . i>f1
�f8 he should be even better.
18.'\Wb5 is also sharp and un­
balanced after 18 . . . '\Wb7 19.d5 exd5
2 0 . cxd5. Here Black can choose
between 2 0 . . . c4 2 1.d6 E1c5 2 2 .'\Wa4
f6 and the more solid 20 . . . E1c7 ! ?
2 1 .<i>fl E1 d 7 2 2 .e4 E1e8.
131
Pa rt 3
Complete Games
7 . Bo.Vuckovic-Mekh itarian
M oscow 1 0 . 02.2 0 1 1
1.d4 lt:lf6 2 . c4 g 6 3.lt:lc3 d S
4 ..i g 5 .i g 7 5 . .ixf6 .ixf6 6 . cxd5 c 6
7 J !c 1 0 - 0 8 . dxc6 VNxd4 9 . VNxd4
.ixd4 1O.cxb7 .ixb7 11 .lt:lf3 .if6
12 .e3
This move weakens the d3-
square, but 12 .g3 'Lld7 13.�g2 Ei:ab8!
regains the pawn by force : 14.E\c2
�xf3 15.hf3 Ei:xb2 16.Ei:xb2 hc3+
17.Ei:d2 Ei:b8+; 14.'Lla4 Ei:fc8 15.0-0
�a6t ; 14. 0 - 0 ! �xf3 = .
12 . . J�d8
The biggest weakness in White's
position is not the b2 -pawn, but
the squares d2 and d3. White will
castle and after the exchange on f3 ,
Black's rook will invade the second
132
rank. 12 . . . 'Lld7 13.�b5 Ei:fd8 should
also be enough to make a draw:
14.0-0 �xf3 15.gxf3 Ei:ab8
16.�xd7
Or 16.b3 �xc3 17.�xd7 �d2
18.E\c7 �a5 19.E\c5 �b4 2 0 . Ei:b5 Ei:xb5
2l.�xb5 Ei:d2 2 2 .a4 g5= .
16 ... E\xd7 17.E\c2 Ei:db7 18.Ei:b1 hc3
19.Ei:xc3 Kazhgaleyev-So, Guangzhou
2010.
1 3 . .ie2 lt:la6 14.0-0 lt:lb4 15.a3
15.Ei:fd1 Ei:xd1 + 16.�xd1 Ei:d8
17.�e2 �xf3 18.�xf3 Ei:d2 equalises
outright.
15 . . . lt:ld3 16 . .ixd 3
Or 16.E\c2 �xf3 17.gxf3 'Llxb2
18.'Lle4 �g7= .
1 6 . . . E\xd 3 17 .Ei:fd1 Ei:xd 1 +
1 8 .Ei:xd1 .ixc3
Black eliminates now to a draw
rook endgame.
19 . bxc3 Ei:c8 20 .E\c 1 .ixf3
2 1 .gxf3 E\c4 22.'it>f1 eS 2 3 .�e2
�f8 24.�d3 E\a4 25.c4 �e7 26.E\c3
�d 6 27.f4 exf4 28.�d4 fxe3
29.E\xe3 E\aS 30.E\f3 �e6 31.E\e3+
�d6 32.E\f3 �e6 33.E\e3+ 1 /2 -1/2 .
 3.'2lc3 d5. Systems with .ig5
8. Bu kavsh in-Matla kov
Moscow 01 .02 . 201 1
1 .d4 l2lf6 2 . c4 g6 3 . '2l c3 d 5
4.ig 5 i g 7 5.ixf6 ixf6 6.cxd5
c6 7.e4 0-0 8.e5 ig7 9 .ic4 b5
1 0 .ib3 b4 1 1.lL i ce2 cxd5 1 2 . h 4
To allow or not to allow h4-
h5? The game Pashikian-Edouard,
Khanty-Mansiysk 2 0 1 0 , went 12 . . .
h 5 13.'2lf4 e 6 , with unclear play.
12 . . . h6? ! 13.'2lf4 e6 14.'2lf3 l2ld7
15 ..ic2 .ia6 16 ..id3 .ixd3 17.�xd3
'We7 18.0-0 Elfc8 19.Elac1±, Rod­
shtein-Khusnutdinov, Moscow
2010, is not inspiring either.
Agrest is an optimist about
Black's defence in a position with
an open h-file, because White lacks
a dark-squared bishop. He propo­
ses the novelty 12 . . . .if5, which
would be justified in the event of
13.h5 l2lc6 14.Elc1 Elc8 15.'2lf3 .ig4
or 13.'2lf4 l2lc6 14.g4 (14 . .ixd5 Elc8)
14 ... .id7 15.h5 e6 16.'2lf3 g5. How­
ever, 13. Elc1 ! , preventing . . . l2lc6,
looks unpleasant. For instance,
13 . . . e6 (13 . . . .ih6 14.f4 .ig4 15.'2lf3 f6
16.h5 ! ) 14.h5 f6 15.hxg6 hxg6 16.f3 .
Evidently, he i s not alone t o think
that 12 . . . h5 is not an obligatory re­
tort. This game presents another
interesting idea:
1 2 . . . lt:\ c6 1 3 . h 5 e6 1 4.lt:\f3 ia6
1 5. lt:\ f4 :Bc8 1 6 . hxg6 hxg6
A critical position. Let us con­
sider the plans of both sides.
Evidently, White should try to
bring his pieces closer to Black's
king. However, even if he checked
from h7 with his queen, that would
not be any progress since the king
would be comfortable on f8 . White
could think about some destructive
sacrifice on e6 or g6, but this idea
does not seem efficient as a simple
move like . . . Ele8 or . . . �d7 would be
enough to parry it.
A closer look at the position re­
veals the manoeuvre l2lf3-g5-h7-f6.
It is really dangerous. White would
have at least a draw in the pocket
if not a direct win. This manoeu­
vre is not possible yet, because the
dB-queen controls g5, so perhaps a
useful move like 17.�d2 should be
a candidate number 1 in our cal­
culations. If Black did not shift the
queen from the h4-d8 diagonal (for
instance, to b6 or aS), White could
think about l2lf4-h3-g5-h7.
You might ask, why not then im­
mediately 17.'2lh3? Because Black
would answer 17 . . . .ih6 ! , followed
up by 18 . . . �g7, with domination on
both flanks !
133
 Part 3
So we decide on:
17.1Wd2 and start thinking about
what Black can do in his turn.
The engines very enthusiastical­
ly point out to 17 . . . 1Wb6? ! , "having
in mind" to double the rooks on the
c-file. They underestimate White's
attacking possibilities. I checked
first 18 .l"i:dl ! , overprotecting d4 a la
Nimzowitsch. How to proceed fur­
ther? 18 . . . il.b5 19.l2lg5 a5 2 0 .1We3
Suddenly a mate is looming -
2 0 . . . a4?? 21.l"i:h8+ ! . This is a bad
sign. Black should answer 20 . . . l"i:fe8,
but once launched, White's attack
is difficult to be deflected : 2 1 .l2lxf7
@xf7 2 2 . l2lxd5 exd5 23.1Wf3 + @e7
24.l"i:h7---+ .
Perhaps 19 . . . a5? was a mistake?
Let us see - 19 . . . l"i:fe8 2 0 .l2lh7!
'!Wd8 2 l.g4 a5 2 2 .g5 a4 23.l2lf6+
@f8 24.il.c2 ---+ . There is something
definitely wrong with Black's setup
here. So we discard 18 . . . il.b5? and
check 18 . . . l2la5. Again - 19.l2lg5 is
unpleasant.
It is clear that Black's only
counterplay could be connected
with an invasion down the c-file
since he has not any other open
134
files or diagonals on the queenside.
I suppose, Black would be glad to
steel the b4-pawn from the board,
but GM Vuckovic would have no­
ticed, I'm sure !
As the pawn is still on b4, how­
ever, let us think how to shift its
blocker - the b3-bishop.
17 . . .il.c4 seems consistent, but:
1. It does not really threaten
to take on b3, since 18.l2lh3 il.xb3
19.axb3 is positionally great for
White. He can even castle now.
2. 18 .il.dl ! ? would put Black into
an awkward situation - how to con­
tinue?
3. The variation 18.l2lh3 l2la5
19.l2lhg5 il.xb3 2 0 .1Wf4 1We7 2 1 . l2lh7,
when 2 1 . . .f6 is the only move, does
not look too attractive.
The only sensible option re­
mains 17 . . . l2la5 !
Now the Force (and the tempi ! )
are with us !
a) 18 .l2lh3 l2lxb3 19.axb3 l"i:c6 !
(the point! ) 2 0 .l2lhg5 1Wc7 2 1.1Wf4
l"i:c8-+ .
b ) 18.1Wxb4 l2lxb3 19.axb3 l"i:c2 ! .
c) 18.l"i:dl l2lc4 (18 . . . l2lxb3
19.axb3 1Wc7+) 19 .hc4 l"i:xc4---+ .
Black doubles or triples on the c-file
 3 .ct:Jc3 d5. Systems with �g5
and disembarks on c2 .
d) 18.ct:Jd3 �xd3 19 .�xd3 Ei:c7
(Black should be very precise with
the move order and keep an eye on
g5. For instance, 19 . . . �c7 2 0 .ct:Jg5
ct:Jxb3 2 1.�h3 Ei:fe8 2 2 . axb3 �c2
23 .�h7+ <j;lf8 24.�h4t would have
been risky.) 2 0 .�e3 (After20 .�dl
V;Ne7 2 l.Ei:bl ct:Jc4 2 2 .<j;le2, Black can
even gain space on the kingside
with 2 2 . . . f5) 2 0 . . . �e7 ( 2 0 . . . �d7 ! ?
21.ct:Jg5 Ei:fc8 2 2 .ct:Jh7 ct:Jxb3 2 3 . axb3
V;Nc6 24.ct:Jf6+ <j;lf8 25.ct:Jh7 + = )
2l.�f4 ct:Jxb3 2 2 . axb3 Ei:fc8.
This position would be roughly
equal after 23.0-0.
White has hardly paid due at­
tention to this critical moment of
the game, as he made a serious
positional mistake :
1 7 . .ic2 ? ! b3 1 8 .axb3 "Wb6
Black owned the initiative and
White has to beat the retreat. He
tries to cover the diagonal a6-fl.
1 9 . ct:J e2 .ixe2 20 .�xe2 ct:J b4
2 1 . .id3 :Bc7 22 ."Wd2
2 2 . <j;lfl Ei:b8 23 .�e2 ct:Jc2+ regains
the pawn.
22 . . . :Bfc8 23.:Bhc1 tt:\ c6
It is understandable that Black
wants to maintain more pieces on
the board, but 23 . . . Ei:xcl 24.Ei:xcl
Ei:xc1 25.�xcl ct:Jxd3 2 6 . <j;lxd3 �xb3+
would have won a pawn and, why
not, the game. For instance : 27.<j;le2
�b5 + 2 8.<j;lel �f8 29.ct:Jd2 �b4
3 0 .�c2 �a5 3l.<j;ldl �b6+.
24.g3 tt:\ xd4+
24 . . . �f8 ! ? was more tricky.
White should find 25.<j;lfl ct:Jxd4
26.ct:Jxd4 �xd4 27.Ei:xc7 Ei:xc7
2 8 .'1We2 to remain in the game.
2 5 . tt:\ xd4 "Wxd4 26.f4 .if8
27.:Bxc7 :Bxc7
2 8 .:Ba4?
Now White is lost. 28.<j;lf3 !
135
 Part 3
would have been more stubborn.
The fine point is that he can hide
the vulnerable king to g4 in some
variations.
28 . . . 'Wg 1 29 .'We 1 'Wb6?
29 . . . Wg2 + 3 0 .Wf2 Wh3 should
be winning. The opposite coloured
bishops attack continues in full
steam, e.g. 31.Wel Wh5+ 3 2 .<i>f2
Wh2 + 33.<i>f3 Wxb2 - wining a cou­
ple of pawns. In the game, Black
gradually let his advantage slip
away.
30 .'Wa5 'Wc6 3 1 .ga1 gb7 32 .'Wc3
'Wb6 33.gc1 'Wxb3 34.'Wxb3 gxb3
35.gc2 .ib4 36.g4 .iaS 37 .f5 gxfS
38.gxf5 exfS 39 . .ixf5 .ib6 40 .'i!td 1
ge3 4 1 .ge2 'iilf8 42 .e6 gxe2
43.�xe2 f6 44.�f3 aS 45.b3 �e7
46 . .ig4 'i!td6 47.�f4 .id8 48 . .ih3
'i!tcs 49 . .ig2 d4 50.'i!te4 .ie7 5 1 . .if3
� b4 52.'i!txd4 'i!txb3 53 . .id 5+ � b4
54. �d3 a4 55 . .ic4 'i!tcs 56 . .ia2 .idS
57 ..ic4 �d6 58.'i!te4 'i!tcs 59.'i!td3
fS 60 ..ia2 .igS 6 1 .�e2 'i!td4 62.�f3
'i!tes 63 . .ic4 a3 64 . .ia2 �d4 65.e7
.ixe7 66.�f4 'i!tc3 67.�xf5 .if6
68.'i!txf6 �b2 69 . .ie6 a2 70 . .ixa2
'i!txa2 1 /2- 1 /2 .
9 . Bo.Vuckovic- Sutovsky
M oscow 1 1 . 0 2 . 20 1 1
I chose to annotate this game
because of three reasons :
It was played recently by two
strong grandmasters ;
White introduced a novelty in a
sharp, topical line;
The engines fail to evaluate
136
correctly the arising positions and
might deceive readers.
1 .d4 tt:l f6 2 . c4 g6 3 . tt:l c 3 dS
4 . .ig 5 tt:l e4 5 . .ih4 tt:J xc3 6 . bxc3
dxc4 7 .e3 .ie6 8 . tt:l f3 .ig7 9 ..ie2
tt:ld7 1 0 .0-0 tt:l b6 1 1 .a4 aS 1 2 .'Wc2
0-0 1 3 .gfb 1 .id7 1 4. tt:l d2 'We8
1 5. tt:l xc4 .ixa4
1 6 .'We4
The game Avrukh-Popilski, Is­
rael 2 0 1 0 , saw 16.Wa2 lt:JdS 17.Wa3
(17.Wd2 could be met by 17 . . . b5
18.lt:Jxa5 eS ! .) , when Black should
have retreated the bishop to c6.
Vuckovic's novelty looks dubious at
first - the engines stubbornly claim
a Black's advantage after the natu­
ral :
1 6 . . . .ic6? !
I suspect that White's prospects
are better after this move. Black's
problem is that he is left without
any decent plan. White obtains a
powerful pawn centre which allows
him to manoeuvre at his ease.
We should all learn to part with
central pawns very carefully. I think
that Black should have taken a deep
breath here, and switch from move-
 3 .ltk 3 d5. Systems with .ig5
by-move calculation to a long-term
thinking. My understanding tells
me that the centre should be at­
tacked immediately by:
16 . . . Ci:lxc4 ! 17 . .ixc4 e5 ! .
Then 18.Wlxb7 .ic6 19.Wlxc7 .ie4
20 . .ib5 Wlb8 21.Wlxb8 �fxb8 rever­
ses the roles.
White is a pawn up, but Black
is extremely active and the a-pawn
will probably win material. For
example : 2 2 . �b3 .ic2 23.�b2 .id3
24 . .ic6 �xb2 25 . .ixa8 a4+. Black
trades rooks and dark-squared
bishops, and the pawn reaches a2 .
1 7 .'1Wxe7 lt:ld 5
This is also against basic chess
rules. Black avoids exchanges
having less space in the centre.
17 . . . Ci:lxc4 18 . .ixc4 .ie4 seems more
precise. Now 19 .�b2 is bad due to
Vffc 6, so White should play 19 .�cl or
19.Wlxe8. In both cases Black may
be holding, but it is only White who
can improve his position. Varia­
tions are not forced and my exam­
ples can only illustrate the charac­
ter of play, nothing more :
19 .�cl Wlxe7 2 0 . .ixe7 �fe8
21..ia3 c6 2 2 .f3 .if5 23 .e4 .id7
24 . .ic5 b5 25 . .ia2 .if8oo;
19.Wlxe8 �fxe8 2 0 . �b2 a4 2 1..ig3
�ec8 2 2 .f3 .ic6 23.<;t>f2 �a5 24.<;t>e2
b5 25 ..id3 a3 26.�b3 .if8 27 . .iel
�b8oo.
1 8 .'1Wxe8 �fxe8 1 9 J3c1 a4
2 0 .�g 3 �b5 2 1 .lt:lb6 lt:lxb6 22 .�xb5
c6 23 .�e2 lt:ld 5 24.c4 lt:lf6 25.c5
lt:le4 26J3a2
A critical moment. Black should
play 26 . . . Ci:lxg3 27.hxg3 a3 2 S .<;t>fl
�a7 2 9 .g4 �b8 3 0 . �c3 �baS (30 . . .
b6 3 1 . �b3) and struggle to hold this
unpleasant endgame. White will
blockade the a-pawn with his king
and will try to win it and advance
his central chain.
Instead, Sutovsky opts for a
hopeless position:
26 ... f5 27.�ca1 lt:lxc5 2 8 .dxc5
�xa 1 29.�xa1 a3 30.'it>f1 lt>g7
3 1 .'it>e1 'it>f6 32.i>d2 13a5 33.�d6
b 5 34.\t>c3 13a4 35 . .if3 13c8 36.'it>b3
lt>e6 37.13xa3 13xa3+ 38.\t>xa3 lt>d7
39.1t>b2 13e8 40 . h 4 13a8 4 1 .�d 1 13e8
42 .�b3 13a8 43 .�e5 lt>e7 44.'it>c2
13e8 45.'it>d3 'it>d7 46.�d4 13a8
47.f3 13a3 48.'it>c2 13a8 49 .�e5 13e8
50.�f4 13a8 5 1 .'it>b2 13f8 52.g3 13e8
53.'it>c2 13a8 54.e4 fxe4 55.fxe4 13a1
56.�g8 lt>e8 57.�d6 13 g 1 58.1t>d2
13g2+ 59.'it>e3 b4 60.'it>d3 1 -0 .
137
138
 Pa rt 4

The e3 System
1 . d4 d 5 2 . c4 g 6 3 . ll:J c 3 d 5 4.e3

139
Pa rt 4
Main Ideas
Introduction
l.d4 lt:lf6 2 . c4 g6 3. lt:lc3 d5 4.e3
.ig7
In this system, White adopts an
anti-Griinfeld approach. Instead
of gaining space in the centre, he
tries to anticipate Black's thematic
counterplay with . . . c7-c5, or at least
render it inefficient. Such a re­
straining tactic could hardly assure
White of an opening advantage, but
it might be justified in practice since
Black will have to handle positions
which are closer to the Anti-Meran,
the Tarrasch Defence or even the
Panov Attack. The focus of the bat­
tle is often shifted towards middle­
game plans. In general, Black needs
to adjust his play to White's setup
and calmly complete development
before choosing where to break in.
The godfather of the opening
himself employed the e3-system as
White : 5.'2lf3 0-0 6.�b3
140
The game Gruenfeld-Steiner, Vi­
enna 1923, went 6 . . . c6 7 . .id2 dxc4
8 . .ixc4 '2lbd7 9 . 0-0 l2lb6 10 . .ie2 .ie6
ll.�c2 .if5 12 .e4 and White was
better. One of the greatest visionar­
ies in opening theory, Rubinstein,
also preferred the e3 system. Look
at his miniature against the future
World champion: Rubinstein-Ale­
khine Vienna 192 2 : l.d4 l2lf6 2 . c4
g6 3. ltJ f3 .ig7 4.'2lc3 d5 5.e3 0-0
6.cxd5 l2lxd5 7 ..ic4 l2lxc3 8.bxc3 c5
9 . 0-0 l2lc6 10 . .ia3 cxd4 ll.cxd4 a6
1 2 .l'k 1 b5 13 . .ixf7+ �xf7 14.�xc6
.ib7 15.�c5 .idS 16.�c2 e6 17.�cl
.if8 18.'2le5, with a huge advantage.
Later Rubinstein migrated to
6.�b3 and 6 . .id2 . The real boom
of the e3-system, however, came
in the 50s, when the Russian mas­
ter Makogonov introduced the plan
with b2-b4. It is still bringing White
a positive score and we should be
well prepared for it.
Basic Plans and Pawn
Structures
A. White allows an early
. . . c7-c5
We should always prefer the ac-
tive plan with . . . c7-c5 to the solid,
but passive . . . c7-c6. However, to
 3.tt:Jc3 dS 4.e3
make this break work, we should
not reinforce White's centre by ex­
changing on c3. Typical positions
arise after:
S.cxdS tt:JxdS 6.�c4 tt:lb6 ! 7.�b3
0-0 8.tt:lf3 cS
or S.cxdS tt:JxdS 6.tt:Jxd5 �xdS
7.tt:le2 0-0 8 . tt:J c3 �d8 9 .�e2 cS ! ?
o r 5.�b3 dxc4 6.hc4 0 - 0 7.tt:lf3
cS
In this structure, White can as­
pire to an advantage only by seizing
space in the centre with d4-d5. Let
us examine a few instructive exam­
ples :
Ehlvest- Kamsky
P h iladelphia 2 0 1 0
White has a huge spatial ad­
vantage so any exchange of minor
pieces should be helpful :
12 . . . tt:Jxb3 13.axb3 �g4 14.h3
�xf3 15.�xf3 l"\e8 16.�e3 hc3 !
This typical exchange operation
is very timely. White was ready to
support the dS-pawn with a rook
from dl. Then his more active
heavy pieces would be able to join
in a kingside attack.
17.�xb6! �xb6 18.bxc3 �xb3
19.2"1ab1 �a3 2 0 . 2"\xb7 l"\ac8, with a
quick draw.
G l igoric- Portisch
1 972
Here White had played �gS to
141
 Part 4

provoke the weakening move . . . h7- Ziva n ic-Kritz

h6. Black could have answered with B rownsvi lle 2 0 1 0
. . . Ele8 as in the next example, but he
had in mind the simplification aris­
ing after:
16 . . ..bc3 ! 17.bxc3 �xd5 18.�xd5
ct:lxd5 19 ..bh6 Elfd8 2 0 .c4 ct:lb4 with
a roughly equal ending.

Tregu bov- Kurnosov

Moscow 2008
You should also remember the
following tactical skirmish :
14.d6 ! ? �xd6
It is too late for 14 . . . . ct:lb3? 15
.ie7+-, Delchev-Gupta, Sort 2 0 0 8 .
15 . .ixf7+ Wxf7 16.Elxe7+ �xe7
17 . .ixe7 Wxe7.
The game went 18.ct:lb5 ? ! Wf8 !
and White was eventually out­
played. However, even the best
continuation 18.ct:ld5+ Wf8 ! does
not give him any winning chan­
ces after 19 .�d2 .ixf3 2 0 .ct:l c7 .ic6
2 1.�xa5 Wg8 2 2 .ct:lxe8 Elxe8 23 .Ele1
Elf8 ! . With rooks on board, Black
keeps the initiative.
If White pushes immediately
d4-d5, he can get the following po­
sition :
The passed pawn on d5 is rather
unstable. In comparison with the
g3-system, the white bishop is less
useful on e 2 . Therefore Black can
set up a blockade and gradually
surround the overextended pawn :
12 . . . b6 13.0-0 .ib7 14.�b3 ! ct:ld7
In my opinion, 14 ... �d6 ! ? is
stronger, for example : 15.Eld1 (15.
ct:lb5 �e5 16 . .if3 lt:ld7; 15 ..ie3 ct:l d7
16.Elad1 Elad8 17.Elfe1 Elfe8 18 .�a4
a6=) 15 . . . ct:ld7 16.g3 Elfd8 17 . .if4
ct:le5 18.ct:lb5 �d7=.
15 . .ie3
The same idea as in the game
also works after 15 . .if4 a6 16.a4 Ele8
17.Elfe1 .id4 ! .
1 5. . ..id4 ! 16.Elad1 .ixe3 17.fxe3
�g5. White's pawns are week and
Black has good control over the
central dark squares.

142
 3 .'Llc3 d5 4.e3
B . White prevents ... c7-c5
5.t2�f3 .tg7 6. b4
White can play 6 . .td2 as well.
It also discourages 6 . . . c5, but the
bishop has no future on d2. I an­
swered 6 . . . e6, obtaining some­
thing similar to the Nimzo, where
Black has saved the useless walk
to b4. See game 10 G. Rodriguez­
Delchev, La Massana 2 0 1 1 .
6 . . . c6 !
The plan with . . . c7-c5 is no long­
er attractive since after . . . b6 and
. . . c5, White will open the queenside
in his favour. I prefer to prepare
counterplay with . . . a7-a5.
7 . .tb2
7.c5 gains space on the
queenside, but it allows the break­
through . . . e7-e5 : 7 . . . 'Llbd7 8 . .tb2 e5
9 . .te2 exd4 1 0 . 'Llxd4 'Lle5, Ruste­
mov-Svidler, Germany 2 0 0 6 .
7 . . . a5 8 .b5
8 . . . a4 !
Black has clear counterplay on
the queenside. He is going to ex­
change on b5 and send a knight to­
wards c4 via d7-b6. Any White's at­
tempt to grab the a4-pawn is unrea­
sonable: 9 .bxc6 bxc6 10.'Llxa4 �a5+
11.'Llc3 .ta6 ! or 9 . .ta3 cxb5 10.cxb5
.tg4 1 1.i.b4 'Llbd7 12 .'Llxa4 ? :
Ako b i a n - Perelshteyn
Stil lwater 2007
12 ... e5 ! ! 13 ..te2 (13 .hf8 .txf8+)
13 .. J''l e 8 14.dxe5 'Llxe5 15.'Llc5
'Llxf3 + 16.gxf3 .th3. The stem game
did not last long: 17 . .tc3 b6 18.'Llb3
l"lxe3 ! ! 19 . .td4 (19 .fxe3 'Lle4 2 0 .fxe4
hc3+ ) 19 . . . l"le8 2 0 . l"lg1 'Llh5 2 1 .�d2
l"la4 2 2 . 0-0-0 �c8+ 23.'tt> b 1 .tf5+
24.'tt> a 1 �c2 and White resigned.
C. White hurries to castle
5 . tD f3 .tg7 6 . .te2 0 - 0 7. 0 - 0
cxd4 8 .exd4 tDc6
143
 Part 4

This is the Tarrasch Defence Fra n ic-Delchev

with colours reversed. Black can Zadar 2009
choose most of the typical White
plans, linked with a light-squared
blockade in the centre, for instance :

9 .h3 dxc4 10 ..bc4 ltJaS ll..ie2

.ie6 12 .ltJe5 �c8 .

Should White prevent that by

c4-c5, we can easily undermine his
pawn centre, for instance:

9 . c5 ltJe4 10 . .ie3 b6 ! ll.�a4 12 . .ib5 �adS 13.�a4 .ifS 14.ltJe2

ltJxc3 12 .bxc3 .id7 or: eS ! . Everything went well and I got
a lasting advantage after 15.hc6
9 . �el .ie6 ! 10 .c5 ltJe4 11.h3 �c7! : bxc6 16 . .ie3 f6.

144
Pa rt 4
Step by Step
l.d4 ll:\f6 2 . c4 g6 3 . ll:\c3 d5 4.e3
1g7
A. S.cxd5 ; B . 5.1Wb3 ; C. 5.ll:\f3
A. 5.cxd5 ll:\xd5 6.ll:\xd5
This has been the most popular
move lately. White drags the queen
to d5 in order to gain a tempo later
with 't'lg1-e2-c3 . The alternative :
6.1c4 brings Black a positive
score after:
6 . . . 't'lb6 !
In my opinion, 6 . . . 't'lxc3 7.bxc3
0-0 8.'t'lf3 c5 9 . 0-0 should be
slightly better for White. He can
develop his pieces to good squares :
1b2, 1We2 , Elfd1, Elac1 and next e3-
e4, with a strong centre.
7.i.b3 0-0 8.'t'lf3 c5
9.0-0
9 . dxc5? ! deprives White of the
advantage in the centre and opens
the main dark-squared diagonal.
Black can fight for the initiative
with 9 . . . 't'l 6d7 (9 . . . 1Wxd1+ 10.i.xd1
't'l 6d7 is only equal.) 10 .'t'le4 (10.
1Wd5 1Wc7 11.0-0 't'lxc5 12.1Wg5 Ele8
13.'t'ld5 1Wd6 14.Eld1 't'lxb3 15.axb3
't'lc6 16.e4 h6 17.1Wh4 g5+) 10 . . . 't'la6
ll.c6 bxc6 12. 0-0 't'ldc5 13.'t'lxc5
't'lxcS 14.i.c4 1Wxd1 15.Elxd1 i.g4+.
9 . . . cxd4
9 . . . c4 does complicate things,
but it is hardly recommendable.
White's setup looks more natural
after 1 0 .i.c2 't'lc6 ll.h3 ! a6 12 .1We2
1Wc7 13.Eld1 Eld8 14.a3 i.e6 15.a4.
10.exd4
10.'t'lxd4 ? ! 't'lc6 ll.'t'lxc6 bxc6
1 2 .1Wf3 is in Black's favour. He can
145
 Part 4
simply ignore the threat on c6 with
12 . . . a5 ! , e.g. 13 .'�xc6 a4 14.i.c2 a3
15.i.b3 i.a6.
1 0 . . . ct'lc6 1l.d5 ct'laS
12 .fi:e1!
The dS-pawn is already hang­
ing, so White should oppose coun­
terpressure on e7. He can achieve
that also with 12 .i.g5. Then 12 . . .
h 6 13.i.f4 i.g4 14.h3 i.xf3 15.'<l�xf3
ct'lxb3 16.axb3 hc3 17.bxc3 '!WxdS
18.1Wxd5 ct'lxdS 19 .hh6 Ei:fd8 elimi­
nates to a drawish endgame, but
still White can claim that he has
a bishop vs. knight. Probably 12 . . .
ct'lxb3 13.axb3 fi:e8, transposing to
the main line, is the better continu­
ation.
12 . . . i.g4
12 . . . ct'lxb3 avoids the compli-
cations of the main line, but after
13.1Wxb3 ! ? (13.axb3 i.g4) 13 . . . i.xc3 !
14.bxc3 1Wxd5 15.fi:xe7 1Wxb3 16.axb3
ct'ld5 17.fi:e5 ct'lxc3 18 .i.b2 f6 ! 19.fi:ee1
ct'ldS 2 0 .Ei:ad1 ct'lb4 2l.Ei:d6 i.g4
2 2 .i.xf6 i.xf3 23.gxf3 fi:ac8 24.fi:e4
ct'lc6 25.Wg2 fi:f7 26.f4 fi:cf8 27.i.g5
'it>g7 28.fi:ee6 the game is a dead
draw according to the chips, and
even a little unpleasant for Black
from practical point of view.
146
13.i.g5 ! ?
13.h3 i.xf3 14.1Wxf3 ct'lxb3
15.axb3 fi:e8 16.i.e3 i.xc3 17.i.xb6
'!Wxb6 18 .bxc3 '!Wxb3 19.Ei:ab1 '!Wa3
2 0 . Ei:xb7 fi:ac8 was a quick draw
in Ehlvest-Kamsky, Philadelphia
2010.
13 . . . fi: e 8 14.d6 '!Wxd6 15.i.xf7+
<i>xf7 16.fi:xe7+ '!Wxe7 17.i.xe7 Wxe7
Only Black can play for a win
here. In the stem game Tregubov­
Kurnosov, Moscow 2 0 0 8 , White
immediately erred with 18.ct'lb5?
and after 18 . . . wf8 19 .1Wd6+ Wg8
2 0 . ct'lc7 fi:ed8 2l.'!Wb4 fi:ac8, he ended
up without material. More interest­
ing is 18.ct'ld5 + ! Wf8 ! 19.'!Wd2 hf3
2 0.ct'lc7 i.c6 2l.'!Wxa5 Wg8 2 2 . ct'lxe8
E:xe8 23 .fi:e1 fi:f8 ! . With rooks on
board, Black keeps the initiative.
6 1Wxd5 7.ct'le2
•.• 0-0 8 .tt:l c3
'!Wd8 9 .i.e2 c5 ! ?
I suggest t o adopt the stand­
ard Griinfeld approach. Some fans
of the Meran might prefer 9 . . . c6
10. 0-0 eS. Still, White is usually
slightly better in such a pawn struc­
ture. Play can continue with :
1l.dxe5
 3.tt:lc3 d5 4.e3
11.d5 is obviously innocuous :
1l. ..cxd5 12.�xd5 tt:lc6 13 .!:'1d1 iie6
14.�b5 �b6 = , Prins-D. Byrne, Tel
Aviv 1964.
1l.. .iixe5 12 .e4 �e7! 13 .ibe3 E1e8 !
14.�c2 tt:ld7
15.!:'1ad1
Black prevents f4 by tactical
means : 15.f4? iixc3 16.�xc3 �xe4.
15 . . . tt:lf6 16.ibd4 b6 17.f3
Again, 17.f4? is bad due to 17 . . .
ixd4+ 18.!:'1xd4 �c5 19.E1fd1 tt:lxe4.
17.g;,h1 would give us time
for simplification with 17 . . . ixd4
18.!:'1xd4 ib7 19.f3 E1ad8 2 0 . E1fd1
Elxd4 21.!:'1xd4 E1d8.
17 ... iib7 18.ixe5 �xeS. Black
has everything covered.
10.d5 e6 ll.e4 exd5 12.exd5
b6
The position after 12 . . .if5
13.0-0 tt:l a6 14.ie3 is similar to the
fianchetto system, but the white
bishop favourably covers the d3-
square : 14 . . . �a5 15.!:'1c1 Elfe8 16.�b3
tt:lb4 17.E1fdl±, Salgado Lopez-Fer­
cec, Rijeka 2 0 1 0 .
13. 0-0 iib7
The placement of the bishop on
e2 has its drawbacks, too. The d5-
pawn is hanging.
14.�b3 !
White should not take a pas­
sive stand. In the event of 14.ibf3
tt:l d7 15.!:'1e1 tt:le5 16.ie2 �d6 ! ,
Black's queen proves to be a decent
blocker. This means that only Black
can display activity, for example:
17.ibg5 a6 18.a4 h6 19.ie3 f5 2 0 .f4
tt:ld7 2 1 .if3 E1ae8+.
14 . . . �d6
It is useful to take out the f4-
square from White's bishop, al­
though 14 . . . tt:ld7! ? 15.if4 (15.ie3
id4 16.E1ad1 iixe3 17.fxe3 �g5co
Zivanic-Kritz, Brownsville 2 010)
15 . . . a6 16.a4 E1e8 17.E1fe1 id4 18 .iic4
(18.E1ad1 �f6 19.ig3 h5) 18 . . . tt:le5
19.ixe5 E1xe5 2 0 . E1xe5 ibxe5 2 1 .!:'1e1
�c7 2 2 .g3 E1d8 is also fine for Black.
15.lM1
15.tt:lb5 only discoordinates
White's pieces : 15 . . . �e5 16.ibf3 tt:ld7
17.d6 iixf3 18.�xf3 c4 19 .�c6 tt:lc5+;
15.ibe3 is too passive. Black can
intercept the initiative with 15 . . . a6
16.!:'1ad1 f5 .
15 . . . ltlbd7
Black has successfully complet­
ed development.
147
 Part 4
B. 5J1�'b3 dxc4
5 . . . e6 is a solid variation. I pre­
fer the text as it leads to more un­
balanced play.
6.hc4 0-0 7)L\£3 c5
8 . d5
Evidently, 8 . 0-0 cxd4 9.li:Jxd4
li:Jbd7 10.l"ld1 a6 11.�d2 e5 does not
set any problems.
8.dxc5 is more ambitious, but
Black has good play after 8 . . . '\WaS :
a) 9.li:Je5 li:Je4 ! 10 .�xf7+ <i>h8
11.f4 �xeS 12 .fxe5 li:Jxc5 13.iWc4
�f5 14.0-0 li:Jc6 15.�d2 l"lfd8 16.�e1
li:Jxe5 17.li:Je4 li:Jxc4 18 .�xa5 li:Jxa5
19. li:Jxc5 l"ld2 = .
b ) 9.'1Wb5 iWc7 10.li:Jd5 li:Jxd5
11.hd5 l"ld8 12 .e4 e6 13 .�c4 �d7+.
c) 9 .�d2 iWxc5 10.li:Jb5 li:Jc6
ll.l"lc1 iWh5 ! (ll ... iWb6 ! ? 12.0-0
�g4=) 12 .h3 li:Je4, with active pieces.
8 . .• a6 ! 9 . a4 ll:\bd7 1 0 . 0-0 !
In practice White only linked
148
his setup with 10 .e4, but it is a tac­
tical error due to 10 . . . '\Wa5 11.�d2 b5
1 2 .li:Jxb5 iWb6 13.li:Jc3 iWxb3 14.hb3
l"lb8 15.�c2 l"lxb2 16.l"la2 , Kovalyov­
Cornette, Montreal 2 0 1 0 . Here 16 . . .
li:Jxe4 ! 17.l"lxb2 li:Jxc3 would have
earned Black a second pawn (on
d5 or a4) for the exchange and very
active minor pieces. White would
have been doomed to a passive de­
fence.
10 . . . l2Je8 ! ll.e4 ll:\d6
12.�f4
12.a5 would entice Black to open
the b-file. That could be done im­
mediately: 12 . . . b5 ! ? 13.axb6 l"lb8,
or after a preparation : 12 . . . li:Je5
13.li:Jxe5 he5 14.�h6 l"le8 15.f4
�d4+ 16.<i>h1 �d7 17.�e2 l"lb8.
12 ..• 1Wa5 13.e5 ll:\xc4 14.1Wxc4
iWb4
White's pawns are hanging:
15.1Wxb4 cxb4 16.li:Je4 f5 17.li:Jeg5
li:J c5 18.�e3 li:Jd3 19 .�d4 li:Jf4 2 0 .�c5
h6 2 1.li:Je6 li:Jxe6 2 2 .dxe6 l"lfe8.
 3.l2'lc3 dS 4.e3
c. 5 . li:\f3 .ig7
I consider here :
Cl. 6.b4 and C2. 6 . .ie2 .
Alternatively:
6.cd5 lLlxdS 7 . .ic4 l2Jb6 8 . .ib3
c5 transposes to a position which I
mentioned in line A.
6.1Mfb3 dxc4 7 . .ixc4 cS 8 .d5 a6 is
line B.
6 . .id2 is another way to prevent
. . . cS, without committing oneself
with b4. I answered it with 6 . . . e6!
- see game 10 G. Rodriguez-Del­
chev, La Massana 04. 0 1 . 2 0 11 .
Ct. 6. b 4 c6 !
Preparing counterplay with
. . . a7-a5.
Another safe continuation is
6 . . . b6, reviving the threat of . . . cS.
White can discourage it with 7 . .ia3 !
(7.1Mfb3 cS 8 .bxc5 bxcS 9.cxd5 l2Jbd7
10 . .ie2 Elb8 1 1.1Mfa3 .ib7 gives Black
sufficient counterplay, for instance :
12.0-0 lLlxdS 13 . .id2 cxd4 14.l2Jxd4
eS 15.l2Jf3 e4 16.l2Jd4 l2Jf4 ! ?oo, Ako­
bian-Ponomariov, Khanty-Man­
siysk 2 0 09, or 12.Elb1 .ixdS.) 7 . . .
c6 ! (After 7 . . . c 5 8.bxc5 bxcS 9.Elc1,
White retains a slight advantage :
9 . . . l2Je4 10 . .ixc5 ! lLlxcS 11.dxc5 1Mfa5
12 .1Mfd2 dxc4 13 . .ixc4 l2'lc6 14.l2Jd5
1Mfxd2+ 15.l2Jxd2±) 8 .Elc1 a6 ! 9.cxd5
cxdS lO .bS axbS 1 1.1Mfb3 (11.l2'lxb5
.id7 12 .1Mfb3 l2Jc6 13 .1Mfb2 Ela4 ! ) 11 . . .
b4 ! 12 . .ixb4 l2J c 6 1 3 . .ie2 l2Jxb4
14.1Mfxb4 l2Je4 15.a3 (or 15.a4 l2Jxc3
16.Elxc3 .id7 17 . .ib5 .ixbS 18.1Mfxb5
ElaS 19.1Mfb4 1Mfd7 2 0.1Mfxb6 Elxa4
2 1 . 0-0 Elc4=) 15 . . . .ig4 16.0-0 (16.
h3 .ixf3 17 . .ixf3 l2Jxc3 18.Elxc3 1Mfd7
19.0-0 e6 2 0 .1Mfxb6 Elfb8) 16 . . . e6,
with a balanced game.
7 . .ib2
7.c5 gains space on the
queenside, but allows the break­
through . . . e7-e5 : 7 . . . l2Jbd7 8 . .ib2
eS 9 . .ie2 exd4 10.l2'lxd4 lLleS 11.0-0
Ele8 = , Rustemov-Svidler, Germany
2 0 06.
After 7.1Mfb3, we could follow
up with our main plan: 7 . . . dxc4 ! ?
8 . .ixc4 b S 9 . .ie2 a5 10.a3 (or 1 0 . 0-0
.ie6 1 1.1Mfb2 axb4 12.1Mfxb4 l2J a6
13.1Mfb2 b4 14.l2Ja4 1Mfa5 15.1Mfc2 .ifS
16.1Mfb3 l2Je4, Troianescu-Botvin­
nik, Budapest 1952) 10 . . . axb4
11.1Mfxb4 WfaS 12 .1Mfxa5 ElxaS 13 . .id2
Ela7 14.0-0 .ifS 15.l2Je5 l2Je4 = , Kem­
pinski-Lagowski, Warsaw 2 0 04.
7 . . . a5 8 .b5
White could also keep the clamp
on cS with 8 .a3 axb4 9.axb4 Elxa1
149
 Part 4
10 .\Wxa1, but then the b4-pawn is
a good target: 10 . . . dxc4 11.�xc4 bS
12 .�d3 '2la6.
8 . . . a4 !
It would have been premature
to define the pawn structure on the
queenside with 8 . . . cxbS? ! 9.'2lxbS
a4. White was slightly better in To­
mashevsky-Evdokimov, Pardubice
2 0 0 6 , after 10.E1c1 '2lc6 11.�e2 �e6
1 2 . cxdS '2lxdS 13 .0-0.
9.�a3
If White grabs the pawn with :
9.bxc6 bxc6 1 0 .'2lxa4 \WaS+
11.'2lc3, he should be ready to face
ll . . . �a6 ! Even with two extra pawns
in the endgame, he'll have to find
only moves to equalise following:
1 2 . cxdS
Or 12 .�e2 '2lbd7 13.'2ld2 E1fb8
14.'2lb3 \Wb4 1S.cxdS he2 16.�xe2
cxdS+; 1 2 . cS? �xf1 13.�xfl '2lbd7.
12 . . . �xf1 13.�xf1 cxdS 14.g3
'2le4 ! 1S.\Wb3
1SO
1S.C2lxe4 loses a piece to 1S . . .
dxe4 16.'2ld2 \WbS + .
1S . . . C2l c 6 16.\WxdS \WxdS 17.'2lxdS
E1fb8 18.�c1 eS�.
The immediate 9.'2lxa4 does not
actually win a pawn since Black re­
gains it by force : 9 . . . cxbS lO.cxbS
\WaS+ 11.'2lc3 '2le4 12 .E1c1 �fS 13 .�d3
\Wb4 14.\Wb3 \Wxb3 1S .axb3 '2lxc3
16.E1xc3 �xd3 17.E1xd3 E1aS = .
T o 9.E1c1 \WaS 10 .�d3, Aronian­
Svidler, Morelia/Linares 2 0 07,
simplest is 10 . . . dxc4 11.�xc4 cxbS
12 .�bS a3 13 .�a1 �e6 = .
9 . . . cxb5 ( 9 . . . �fS 10 .E1c1 '2le4=)
10.cxb5
Or 10.'2lxbS '2lc6 11.�e2 �e6
12.cxdS \WaS+ 13 .\Wd2 '2lxdS 14.0-0
E1fc8 1S.E1fc1 �fS = .
Afer the text, Black has good
chances due to the weak square c4.
He can direct his knight towards it
with 10 . . . '2lbd7 11 .�e2 '2lb6 1 2 . 0-0
�fS = , or firstly develop the bishop
with 10 . . . �g4 11.�b4 '2lbd7. The tac­
tical background of the latter vari­
ation is seen in the game Akobian­
Perelshteyn, Stillwater 2007 which
went 1 2 .'2lxa4?
 3.cuc3 d5 4.e3
12 ... e5 ! ! 13 .�e2 (13.�xf8 �xf8+)
13 .. J':1e8 14.dxe5 lUxeS 15 .cuc5
l2Jxf3+ 16.gxf3 �h3. Black has a ter­
rific compensation for the pawn.
The source game did not last long :
17.�c3 b6 18.cub3 Ei:xe3 ! ! 19 .�d4 (19.
fxe3 cue4 2 0 .fxe4 hc3 +) 19 ... Ei:e8
20.Ei:g1 cuh5 2 l.�d2 Ei:a4 2 2 . 0-0-0
1Mfc8 + 23.'it>b1 �f5 + 24.<i>a1 �c2 and
White resigned.
C2. 6.�e2 c5
C21. 7.dxc5 ; C 2 2 . 7.0-0.
C21. 7.dxc5 dxc4 ! ?
7 . . . �a5 i s considered a s main
line, but it leads to forced play
which needs deep study. It is also
possible to stumble into a home
preparation :
8.cxd5 ! cuxd5 9.�xd5 �xc3 +
10 .bxc3 ! ?
10 .�d2 i s about equal after 10 . . .
Ei:d8 1l.�xc3 �xc3+ 12 .bxc3 Ei:xd5
13.Ei:d1 Ei:xc5 14.Ei:d8+ 'it>g7 15.cud4
white has a lot of activity in return
for the spoiled structure.
10 . . . �xc3+ 1l.�d2 �xa1 1 2 . 0-0
White has a dangerous initiative
for the exchange. The best way to
defend is:
12 ... �e6 ! 13 .�b2 �xa2 14.cug5
f6 15.�f3 �c4 ! 16.�xb7! = . (16.Ei:c1
cuc6! 17.Ei:xc4 Ei:ad8 18 .�d5+ Ei:xd5
19 .�xd5+ <i>h8 favours Black.)
7 . . . dxc4 is simpler and leads to a
typical balanced position.
8. 0 - 0
Black has some initiative in the
endgame after 8.�xd8 Ei:xd8 9.�xc4
cubd7 (9 . . . cufd7) 10 .c6 bxc6 11.0-0
cub6 (It would be interesting to try
11 ...cu e8 ! ? 12 .�d2 Ei:b8 13.cua4 cub6
14.�a5 �g4+.) 12 .�e2 cufd5 = .
s . . .'�a5 9 .�xc4
White has also tried 9 .�d4. I
prefer here the new move 9 . . . cufd7!
10.�xc4 �xc5 11.�h4 cuc6 12 .�d2
(12.cug5 h6 13.cuge4 �a5) 12 . . . Ei:d8
13.Ei:ac1 cu de5, heading for the weak
square d3.
9 . . .'�'xc5 1 0 .�b3 tt:lc6
151
 Part 4
The position is similar to the �f4
system, but White still has to work
to develop his dark-squared bishop :
ll.e4 �g4 12 .�e3 �a5
Of course, the queen will be also
safe on hS : 12 . . . �hS 13.h3 �xf3
14.�xf3 �xf3 1S.gxf3 cud7= .
13.h3 1"!:ad8 14.�e2 �xf3
15.�xf3 ltld7 16. 1"!:fdl e6=
I have been following the game
Fressinet-Dorfman, Belfort 2 0 1 0 ,
where the opponents signed the
draw on the next move.
C 2 2 . 7. 0 - 0 cxd4 8 .exd4 ltlc6
We have reached the Tarrasch
Defence with colours reversed.
Black can choose most of the typi­
cal White plans, linked with a light­
squared blockade in the centre.
9 . c5
Trivial alternatives do not set
any problems :
1S2
a) 9.h3 dxc4 (Or 9 . . . �e6 lO .�gS
cue4 11.'2lxe4 dxe4 12 .dS exf3
13.�xf3 h6 14.�e3 �d7 1S.dxc6
�xc6=.) 10 .hc4 cuaS 1l.�e2 �e6
12.cueS l"!:c8 13.�f3 cudS 14.cue4 cub4.
b) 9.1"!:e1 �e6 ! 10 .cS (lO .�gS?
dxc4 ll.�xf6 �xf6 12.dS �xc3-+;
10 .'2lgS �fS 1l.�e3 dxc4 12 .�xc4
cuaS 13.�f1 cudS 14.cuf3 cuxe3
1S.fxe3 l"!:c8 16.h3 �e6 17.�d2 �c4
18 .1"!:ad1 e6 = , Vera Gonzalez -Ernst,
Thessaloniki 1988) 10 . . . cue4 ll.h3 !
(1l.�e3 ? ! lUxeS 12.dxcS d4+) 11 . . .
Vfff c 7 12 .�bS 1"!:ad8.
The battleplan is to reinforce the
dS-pawn, then play .. .f6 and break
through in the centre with . . . e7-eS.
My game Franic-Delchev, Zadar
2009, went 13.Vfff a4 �fS (13 . . . cuxc3
14.bxc3 �fS 1S.�d2 f6 16.c4 ! �e4
17.cxdS �xdS 18 .�c4=) 14.cue2 eS!
1S.hc6 bxc6 16.�e3 f6+.
9 . . . ltle4 1 0 .�e3 b6! ll.�a4
Or 1l.�bS cuxc3 12 .bxc3 cuaS;
1l.cxb6 cuxc3 12 .bxc3 axb6+.
ll . . . ltlxc3 12.bxc3 �d7 13.Vfffb3
bxc5 14.dxc5 �g4 15.h3 �
16.�xf3 e6
Black is already slightly better.
Part 4
Complete Games
1 0 . G. Rod rig uez- Delchev
La Massana 04.0 1 .201 1
1 . d4 lLl f6 2 . lLl f3 g6 3.c4 �g7
4.lLJc3 d 5 5.e3 0-0 6.�d2
White aims to prevent . . . c5 .
Some Griinfeld adepts feel ill at
ease when they cannot break trough
White's centre. However, I have
enough practice in Queen's Gam­
bit/Slav positions so I was aware
that the bishop had no prospects on
d2. In the event of pawn exchanges
in the centre, this piece would be
only hampering the coordination of
White's pieces. In any case, it would
have been better placed on cl. I de­
cided to follow up with simple de­
veloping moves :
6 . . . e6 7.�c1 b6 8 .�e2
8 . cxd5 leads to similar posi­
tions : 8 . . . exd5 9.b4 a6! (It is better
to avoid b5 which hits c6.) 10.1Mib3
ib7 ll.ie2 '2lbd7 1 2 . 0-0 b5 ! 13.a4
c6
This is a typical defensive setup
against White's minority attack. As
a rule, Black is fine here if he suc­
ceeds in manoeuvring a knight to
d6. From there, it controls e4 and
it can also plug the c-file on c4. The
game Zimmerman-Van der Weide,
Triesen 2 006, went 14J'1fd1 (14.
a5 ! was necessary, but after 14 . . .
'2l e 4 ! 15.E1fd1 '2l d 6 Black would have
the easier game.) 14 . . . '2lb6 ! 15.'2le5
'2lfd7! 16.'2lxd7 1Mixd7 17.1Mic2 f5
18 .ie1 E1ae8, with a clear positional
advantage
8 . . . �b7 9 .0-0 Wfe7 !
153
 Part 4

9 . . . ct:Jbd7? ! is imprecise due to 1 2 .. J'!fc8 1 3 .'Wb3 .if8 !

10.cxd5 exd5 ll.ct:Jb5 !
My bishop also was on the
1 0 .a3? ! wrong diagonal, but it took an im­
portant step in the right direction.
A strange move that only loses Now White's queenside pawns are
time. It looks that White was not stopped. I hoped to complete the
sure what plan to choose. Or he was regrouping by bringing the bishop
setting the positional trap 10 . . . c5? ! to d6 where it belongs.
ll.cxd5 exd5 12.dxc5 bxc5 13.b4 ! .
H e could have played immedi­ 1 4J'!c2 c6
ately 10.b4 ! , threatening to gain
I was planning ... b5, ... ct:Jb6, ... a5
space on the queenside with c5.
so White anticipated it with :
So I should take 10 . . . dxc4 ll.�xc4
and counterattack in the centre
1 5. ct:J a4 ct:Je4 1 6.�c1 ct:J d 6
with ll...c5 ! 12.dxc5 (12 .bxc5 bxc5
1 7 .�b2 ct:J c4 1 8 J !fc 1 aS!
13.dxc5 ct:Jbd7=) 12 . . . bxc5 13 .b5 a6
14.a4 axb5 15.axb5 ct:Jbd7= .
So far so good. White's queen­
Another option was 10.cxd5
side begins to crumble.
exd5 ll.b4 c6! 12 .iWb3 ct:Jbd7 13.fi:c2
fi:fc8 14.fi:fcl �f8 15.a3 b5 ! , achiev­
1 9 .ct:Je5
ing the setup I mentioned before.

1 o . . . ct:J b d 7 1 1 .cxd5 exd5 1 2 . b4

1 9 ... b5

I had better options here. For

In this typical pawn structure,
White commonly tries to push b5
and activate or exchange his dark­
squared bishop from a3 . But it is
now on d2, so this plan does not
work here. On the contrary, I will
attack the queenside myself.
instance, 19 . . . axb4 2 0 . ct:Jxd7 iWxd7
21.axb4 fi:a7! or 19 . . . ct:Jdxe5 2 0 . dxe5
axb4 2 1 . axb4 fi:a6 would have
earned me a clear edge.
2 0 . ttl c5 tt:\ xc5 2 1 . bxc5 tt:\ xe5
22.dxe5 �g7 ? !

154
 3.4Jc3 d5 4 .e3
I provoke f4 which is obligatory
anyway. 22 .. J�cb8 , with the idea of
. . . ic8-f5 and . . . b5-b4 was slightly
better for Black.
23.f4 B:cb8 24 ..if3 .icB
I am ready to push . . . b4. Then
White cannot close the queenside
with a4, because I would have .. .f6
(after due preparation) . It is clear
that White should seek an active
plan, too. It is evidently connected
with 25.e4 ! , when my only rea­
sonable answer would be 25 . . . d4 !
26.ixd4 b4, with a compensation
for the pawn, for instance : 27.a4
(27.'�e3 ie6 2 8 J �b2 bxa3 29.'\Wxa3
l"lxb2 30 .'1Wxb2 a4 31.l"i:al ib3�)
27 . . . ie6 2 8 .'\We3 l"ld8�. White de­
cides to deprive me of this option,
but tempi are important in this
sharp position and I seized the ini­
tiative :
25 . .id4 b4 26.axb4 ? !
This i s too cooperative. 2 6.'\Wa4 !
Vf1c7 27.e4 bxa3 28 .'\Wxa3 dxe4
29.ixe4 ie6 would have been un-
clear. After the text, I could have
fixed a clear edge by 26 . . . axb4 !
when White is unable to stop my
pawn from further advancing.
27.e4 would lose outright to 27 . . .
ih6 ! 2 8 .g3? l"i:a3 . However, i n the
time trouble, I wanted everything
to be with tempi so I chose:
26 ... B:xb4? ! 27.1Mfa3 f6? !
Playing o n the flank where the
opponent is stronger. Of course,
27 . . . '\Wb7! looks more natural.
2 8 . B: b 2 ? !
2 8 .ic3 ! would have left me
struggling for the draw, probably
with 28 . . . l"lbb8 29.e4 dxe4 30 .ixe4
fxe5 31.ixc6 l"la6 32 .id5+ ie6. The
text, and especially the next mis­
take, quickly finish the game in my
favour.
2 8 . . . B:ab8 29.B:cb 1 ? fxeS
30 . .ixe5
White finally noticed that
30.fxe5 ixe5 31.l"lxb4 axb4 3 2 . l"lxb4
loses to 32 . . . ixh2 + ! 33.'ihh2 '\Wh4+
34.Wgl '\Wel+ .
30 . . . .ixe5 3 1 .fxe5 1Mfxe5
32.B:xb4 axb4 33 .1Mfb3 .ifS 34.B:d 1
1Mfc3 ! -+ 35 . .ixd5+ cxdS 36.1Mfxd5+
� h 8 37.e4 1Mfe3+ 38.� h 1 1Mfxe4
39.1Mfd6 B:e8 40.1Mff6+ �g 8 41 .:a:t1
1Mfe5 42 .1Mfb6 B:b8 0-1 .
155
156
 Part S

The lMrb3 System

1 .d4 d 5 2 .c4 g 6 3 . lLlc3 d 5 4 . 'Ll f3 i.g 7 5 .'11N b3

157
Pa rt 5

Main Ideas

Objectives and Move Orders 8 ... e5 ! 9.dxe5 (or 9.d5 'Lld4 ! +)

9 . . . 'Llxe5, or even 9 . . . 'Llg4 ! .
White has two ways of reaching the
White can also prevent . . . .ig4 by
1Wb3 system :
8.h3 :
l.d4 tt'lf6 2 . c4 g6 3.tt'lc3 d5
Portisc h - Korchnoi
4 . tt'lf3 .ig7 5.1Wb3 or 4.1Wa4+ .id7
Bad Kissingen, 1 98 3
5.�b3

I suggest to use the same ap­

proach to both of them : we attack
the d4-pawn with . . . .ig7, . . . 'Llc6 and
. . . .ig4. Our aim is to provoke d4-d5
when we retreat to a5 with tempo
and attack White's centre with . . . c6 .
If White tries to trick us with the
move order 4.1Wb3 dxc4 5.1Wxc4 .ig7
6.e4 0-0 7 . .ie2 'Llc6 8 . .ie3 , avoid­
I t would b e a big disadvantage
ing the main line with 8.'Llf3 .ig4,
to play against such a powerful cen­
we intercept the initiative with the
tre with all the minor pieces on the
thematic break:
board. We could think about devel­
oping our bishop to b7, but having
S ha ba lov- Mikha l evski
put our knight to c6 rules out this
P h i ladelphia 2009
idea. In no way should we concede
to a cramped position after 8 . . . 'Lld7
9 . .ie3 'Llb6 10 .1Wc5 f5 ll.e5.
In this very important game
one of the greatest Griinfeld (and
not only ! ) players of all times intro­
duced a heavyweight novelty:
8 . . . e5 ! 9.dxe5 'Lld7! 10 .e6 fxe6
11 .1Wxe6+ cj;>h8 12 .1Wd5 l"1xf3 ! 13.gxf3

158
 3 .ti:lc3 il.g7 4.ti:lf3 d5 5 .1Wb3

ti:ld4 14.il.e3 ! ti:lc2+ 15.�d2 ti:lxa1 9 . d5 ! tlJ a5 1 0 .1Wb4 !

with sufficient compensation for
the pawn.
As we see, White does not gain
much by avoiding the main line :
10.1Wa4? ! il.xf3 ! ll.il.xf3 c6 1 2 . 0-0
b5 ! 13 .1Wb4 is similar to the main
line, but with an extra move ( . . . b5)
for Black.

l.d4 tlJf6 2 . c4 g6 3 . tlJc3 d5 lO ••• il.x£3 ll.il.x£3 c6

4.tlJf3 il.g7 5.1Wb3 dxc4 6.1Wxc4
0 - 0 7.e4 tlJc6 8.il.e2

12. 0 - 0

Our main recommendation here 12 .il.e3 is premature since Black

is 8 . . . il.g4, but we also analyse the
interesting alternative :
8 . . . e5 ! ? 9.d5 ti:ld4 1 0 .ti:lxd4 exd4
11.1Wxd4 c6 12 .d6
gains the initiative with 12 . . . cxd5 !
13.exd5 l:l:c8 ! and the aS-knight sud­
denly enters play with a great effect.
12 .•. 1Wb6 13.1Wa4 tlJd7

where I propose the novelty 12 . . . White has several reasonable

ti:ld7! and Black regains the pawn in options here, but I would like to fo­
a few moves. If you want to surprise cus your attention on the most topi­
your opponent at an early stage, cal of them :
and save time on preparation, you
can check the "Step by Step" chap­ 14J�dl 1':1fd8 15 .1Wc2 �ac8
ter for more detail. 16.il.e3

159
 Part S
16 ••• �c7!
I think that in this open position
with a bishop pair for White Black
should aim for a symmetric pawn
structure. Furthermore, the combi­
nation of Wf + ltJ : Wf+� is known to be
more efficient than the ttJ :�. There­
fore we retreat the queen and take
on c6 by piece :
17.d:xc6 tt:Jxc6 18 J:1acl Wfb8 !
White has not any advantage.
Basic Plans and Pawn
Structu res
When White attempts to hold
his pawns on d4 and e4, we should
counterattack with . . . eS :
Rjaza ntzev-Delchev
Port M a rly 2009
160
No matter what White plays,
we should keep our knight on d4,
at least until White castled short.
Only then we could take on f3 and
attack the enemy king. Otherwise
we should develop a queenside
initiative with . . . bS and . . . cS, for in­
stance:
a) 12 J'k1 ct:Je8 13.h4 ct:Jd6 14.Wfd3
cS.
b) 1 2 . 0-0-0 ct:Je8 13.h4 ct:Jd6
14.Wfd3 cS.
c) 12 .�d1 c6+ (� . . . bS-b4) 13.dxc6
�c8 14.Wfa4 �xc6.
Even after 12.ct:Je2, as Rjazantzev
played, Black still can hold on to the
outpost at d4 :
12 . . . bS ! 13 .Wfd3 (13 .Wfc1 �e8
14.Wfd2 Wfd7 1S .O-O-O cS) 13 . . . cS.
Another typical structure arises
when White plays e4-eS :
Gershon-Tseitl i n
Ramat Aviv/Mod i i n 2000
Here we should switch to a light­
squared strategy with :
lO . . . aS !
This enables . . . ct:Jb4 or . . . a4 fol­
lowed up by . . . �aS. The other typi­
cal way of fighting against e4-eS is
connected with .. .f6. I think that it
 3.lt:Jc3 �g7 4.lt:Jf3 d5 5.�b3
can be efficient only when White
had developed his bishop to g5 so
.. .f6 would be with tempo.
11.�e2
11.a3? ! prevents . . . tt:Jb4, but af­
ter ll . . . . a4 and 12 . . lt:Ja5 all the light
squares we'll be in our possession.
1 1 . . .lt:Jb4 ! 1 2 . 0-0 c6 ! 13.lt:Je4 �f5
14.lt:Jg3 (14.lt:Jfd2 lt:J 6d5+) 14 . . . �d3 .
Black has established domina­
tion on the light squares.
Gu revi c h - U rban
G ro n i n g e n 1 997
Most often you will face this
pawn structure. Commonly we
should not hurry to exchange on
d5, because that would prolong
the working diagonal to the bishop
on f3 . On the contrary, we would
like to keep the centre closed until
we are fully mobilised with . . . tt:Jd7,
... 8:fd8, .. J'1fc8. In the current po­
sition, however, White denied us
the b6-square for our queen. He
achieved that by delaying castling
and we should exploit that with en­
ergetic play:
12 . . . cxd5 ! 13.exd5 EJ:c8 14.8:d 1 !
I t is very dangerous t o accept
the pawn offer: 14.0-0 tt:Jc4 15.�xa7
tt'ld2 ! .
1 4. . . lt:J c4 15.�d4 �d6 ! develop­
ing the queen with tempo.
16.�b3 tt:Jd7
Exchanging the dark-squared
bishops will leave Black with two
active knights and the better chan­
ces.
Babu la-Ruck
Novi Sad 2009
This example shows how impor­
tant it is to delay the exchange on
d5 as much as possible (except for
tactical reasons).
Black's play is based entirely on
blockade :
2 1 . . . 8:fe8 ! (to stop e5) 2 2 .�g5 !
Bareev-Lalic, Jahorina 2 0 03
saw 2 2 .�d7 whereas Black should
have continued with 22 . . . �e5 ! .
Then 23.dxc6 would not b e good
owing to 23 . . . 8:ed8 followed by 24 . . .
8:ac8 .
2 2 . . . �e5 ! 23 .�d2 EJ:ad8 24.g3
Now that Black's pieces took
their best places, he can exchange
on d5 :
24 . . . cxd5 25.exd5 lt:Jb7=
The problem knight is on its way
to the dream squares d6 and c5.
Now, an example of an open cen­
tre with symmetric pawn structure :
161
 Part S

Cm i lyte-Howe l l 15 ... tt:lxb2 ! 16.1Wxb2 tt:le4 17.�d4

Caleta 2005 �xd4 18.:1'1xd4 tt:lxc3 19.0-0 b5+.

Note the specifics, linked with

the placement of White's queen on
the fourth rank. Even good players
become victims of mundane play
and lose their bishop on g4 :

Nyback-Sammalvuo
Finland 2009

Such a position is our main aim l.d4 tt:lf6 2 .c4 g6 3.tt:lc3 d5 4.tt:lf3
in the 1Wb3-system. It may seem �g7 5.1Wb3 dxc4 6.1Wxc4 0-0 7.e4
passive, but in fact we have no �g4 8 .�e2 tt:lc6 9.d5 tt:la5 10 .1Wb4
weaknesses and our knights will be c6?? (10 . . . �xf3)
very active on the dark squares. We
only have to parry a few pokes first:
15.tt:ld5 '\Wd8 16.�g5 tt:lb6 17.1Wa3
l"1e8 18 .:1'1ad1 tt:lxd5 19.exd5 tt:ld4.
Black is rock solid.

Tactical Motifs

In this system, White aggressively

occupies the centre with e4 and ll.e5 1-0
often pushes d5. That enables the
typical tactical hits, based on the Look at the next diagram :
unleashed power of the g7-bishop.

Vsh ivkov-Vokarev Evdoki m ov-Zakharov

Omsk/Perm 1 998 Nizh n ij Novgorod 1 99 9

162
 3.'Llc3 ig7 4.'Llf3 d5 5.'Wb3

You might think that White Karolyi-N ogrady

grabbed a piece by ll.e5 ! . Not at all ! Hunga ry, 1 992
He firstly took "automatically" on
c6, and only when he started think­
ing to make a plan, did he notice e5 :
ll.dxc6?? 'Llxc6?? 12 .e5 ixf3
13.exf6 ixe2 14.fxg7.

This recurring blunder can only

be explained by the fact that the
mind of the Black player does not
"register" the white queen on its
unusual stand. Even in a corre­
spondence game, the queen on b4
is a precondition for blunders. In
the next example, Black falls victim
of the hanging knight on a5 :
Pesc hardt- Hess
corr. 2003
Black has not an overwhelming
superiority in forces on the king­
side, nor has he an advantage in the
centre. Still, the split castling posi­
tion of White enables various tacti­
cal possibilities.
20 . . . '\Wd6 2 1 .h4 'Lle8 2 2 .ib8 'Wf6
23.:<'1:£4 'Lld6 ! ! 24.'\Wb4 'Llf5 25.Ei:el
Ei:xh4-+ 26.Ei:g4 'Lld4 ! ! 27.Ei:e3 Ei:xg4+
2 8 .fxg4 'Llc2 29.'Wf4 'Llxe3-+.

G i orgadze- D u nne
P h i ladelphia 1 99 1

14.d6 ! +-. The fine point is that

14 . . . exd6 loses to 15.txf6 txf6
16.'Lld5. The game went instead
14 . . . '\Wb6 15.'\Wxb6 axb6 16.e5 'Lld5
17.dxe7+ - .

O n the next diagram, w e s e e an­ 16 . . . '\Wh4 17.'\Wxe7 Ei:fe8 18.'Wa3

other original position, typical only Ei:e5 19.f4 'Llc2 2 0 .'Wa4 Ei:h5 2 1.hh5
for the 'Wb3-system : 'Llxh5 2 2 .'Wxc2 'Wg4 + = .

163
Pa rt 5

Step by Step

l.d4 lt:\f6 2 . c4 g6 3.lt:\c3 d5 4.lt:\f3 pose to our main repertoire by 8 ...

.ig7 5.1Mfb3
Note that 4.W!b3 dxc4 5.W!xc4
.ig7 6.e4 0-0 7 . .ie2 C2lc6 8.C2lf3 .ig4
transposes to the main line.
White tries occasionally the
"tricky" move order:
4.Wla4+ .id7 5.W!b3 dxc4 ! 6.W!xc4
.ig7
White's only achievement is that
he prevented Black from fianchet­
toing the bishop to b7. However, we
advocate in the main line . . . .ig4, so
White's move order does not throw
us out of our repertoire. Even more,
the extra move . . . .id7 is quite useful
as it helps . . . b5 in some variations.
7 . .if4
After 7.e4 0-0 8.C2lf3 (8.e5 .ie6 !
9.exf6 hc4 10.fxg7 <i>xg7 ll..ixc4
W!xd4 12 . .ie2 C2lc6), Black can trans-
.ig4, but he has a more enterprising
option : 8 . . . b5! 9.C2lxb5 C2lxe4 10.W!xc7
(10.C2lxc7 C2lc6 ll.C2lxa8 W!a5+ 12 . .id2
C2lxd2 13.C2lxd2 C2lxd4+) 10 . . . C2lc6
ll . .id3 C2lb4 12 . .ixe4 .ixb5 13.W!xd8
�axd8 14 . .id2 C2ld3+ 15 . .ixd3 .ixd3
16 . .ic3 .ie4 17.<i>e2 �d6 ! ? , with a
nice compensation for the pawn.
7 . . . C2la6
7 ... c6 ! ? is more solid, but it leads
to symmetric pawn structures. The
game Van Lommel-Posazhenni­
kov, Vlissingen 2 0 0 2 , went 8.C2lf3
.ie6 9.Wld3 C2ld5 1 0 .C2lxd5 cxd5 ll.e3
W!a5 + = .
8 .C2lf3 0 - 0 9.e4
Black is slightly better after the
passive 9.e3 c5 10 .Wlb3 (10 . .ie2
�c8) 10 . . . cxd4 ll.exd4 .ic6.
9 . . . c5

164
 3 .lt:lc3 �g7 4.lt:lf3 dS S.®'b3

lO.eS ! kovenko in Nanjing 2 0 0 9 , 14 . . . lt:lb4,

but I cannot recommend it, because
Alternatively:
Krasenkow's suggestion lS.'IWcS ! ?
a) lO.dS b5 ll.lt:lxbS lt:lxe4.
gives White a n obvious advantage.
b) lO.dxcS �e6 ll.®'bS �d7
12.®'xb7 lt:lxcS 13.®'b4 lt:le6 14.�eS 5 •.. dxc4 6.�xc4 0 - 0 7.e4
(14.�g3 aS 1S .®'a3 �c6 16J'l:d1
'\Wb6 17.eS lt:lhS) 14 ... aS 1S .®'a3 7.�f4 is not played anymore : 7 . . .
'\Wb6 16.�c4 (16.lt:ldS lt:lxdS 17.exdS c 6 8 .e4 b S 9.®'b3 \WaS 10 .�d3 �e6
lt:ld4 ! 18.hd4 �xd4 19.lt:lxd4 ®'xd4 11.®'d1 cS 1 2 . 0-0 b4 13.lt:le2 �g4
20 .�e2 Eiab8 = ) 16 . . . lt:lg4 17.�g3 14.eS lt:l dS 1S.ie4 Eid8 = .
'\Wb4 18 .®'xb4 axb4 19.lt:ldS �xb2
20 .Eibl �c3 + 2 1 .ill e 2 (21.lt:lxc3 bxc3
22.0-0 Eiac8 2 3.�a6 c2 24.Eia1 Eic3
2S.Eifc1 lt:lcS 2 6.�e2 lt:lxe4) 2 1 . . .lt:lcS
22.lt:lb6 �e6 2 3 .�xe6 fxe6 (23 . . .
lt:lxe6 24.lt:lxa8 Eixa8 2S.Eihdl Eixa2 +
26.illf1 lt:lf6 27.eS lt:le4 28.Eid7
illf8 =) 24.lt:lxa8 Eixa8 2S.h3 Eixa2 +
26.ill fl lt:lf6 27.eS lt:l dS- + .
lO . . . lt:lhS 11.�e3 cxd4 12 .®'xd4
ic6 13 .�e2 ®'aS 14.0-0

7 . . .ti::l c 6

I chose this move for our rep­

A critical position. The game
I.Sokolov-Van Wely, Belgium 2003,
saw further:
14 . . . �xf3 ! ? 1S.�xf3 �xeS 16.®'dS
'\WxdS 17.lt:lxdS Eife8 18.Eiacl e6=.
18.g4 is only a minor improve­
ment: 18 . . . lt:lg7 19.Eifdl e6 2 0 .lt:lf4
lt:lb4 2 1 .lt:ld3 lt:lxd3 2 2 . Eixd3 Eiad8
23.Eiad1 Eixd3 24.Eixd3 b6= . In a lat­
er game, Topalov played against J a-
ertoire, because it is much closer
to the spirit of the other chapters.
Black's play in this variation is
natural and it does not require ex­
tensive home preparation. If White
further finds all the best moves, he
will have a tiny advantage in the
endgame, but practice shows that
Black easily holds his own.
7 . . . lt:la6 and 7 . . . a6 are much
more complex systems.
8 . .ie2 !
White has also tried nearly all
legal moves :

16S
 Part S

a) 8 .dS? ! ct:laS 9.�d3 c6= . Black has a strong attack. His

next move will be . . . ct:l eS.
b ) 8 .�e3 ct:lg4 9 . 0-0-0 (9.eS �e6 !
lO.�cS aS 1l.a3 a4, followed by
9 ... ct:lb6 lO.�cS �g4 11.ct:lbS (11 .
. . . :1'1aS) 9 . . . ct:lxe3 1 0 .fxe3 eS ! = .
�e3 �d6) ll . . .�xf3 12.gxf3 ct:ld7
c ) 8.eS ct:ld7 ! ? 13 .�c1 Here, 13 . . . a6 14.dS ct:lceS
1S.ct:ld4 cS forces a good endgame
8 . . . �e6 9.exf6 �xc4 1 0 .fxg7
for Black: 16.dxc6 bxc6 17.ct:lxc6
Wxg7 1l.�xc4 ct:lxd4 12.ct:lxd4 �xd4
ct:lxc6 18.�xc6 �aS+ 19 .�d2 ct:leS
13 .�e2 �b4 gives Black a mate­
2 0 .�xaS ct:lxc6 2 l.�c3 �xc3+
rial advantage, but there is too little
2 2 .bxc3 :1'1fb8�.
practice for a definite judgment.
e) 8 .�gS �g4 (8 . . . h6 9.e3)
9.�e3
9. 0-0-0 ct:ld7 10 .eS ct:lb6 1l.�cS f6 !+.
Or 9.�e2 ct:lb6 lO .�cS aS 1l.�e3
f) 8 .h3 ! ? This prophylactic move
ct:lb4 12.0-0 ct:ld7.
deprives Black of his main resource
9 . . . ct:lb6 lO .�cS aS ! 1l.�e2 . . . �g4. Perhaps he should force the
ct:lb4 12.:1'1c1 (12. 0-0 c6 13.ct:le4 �fs events by 8 . . . eS ! ? 9.dxeS ct:ld7 10 .e6
14.ct:lfd2 'Ll 6dSoo) 12 . . . �fS 13.0-0 fxe6 1l.�xe6+ Wh8 12 .�dS
�d3+.
d) 8 .�f4 ct:ld7!
Black can try to intercept the
initiative with 8 . . . ct:lhS 9.�e3 �g4
1 0 . 0-0-0 eS 1l.dxeS (1l.dS ct:ld4)
1l.. .�e8 12 .�b3 ct:lxeS 13 .�e2 ct:lxf3
14.gxf3 �e6, but after 1S.�xb7 his
compensation is not easy to prove.
9. :1'1d1
12 . . . :1'1xf3 13.gxf3 ct:ld4 14.�e3
9.ct:ldS can be met by 9 . . . ct:lxd4 ct:lc2+ 1S.Wd2 ct:lxa1 16.�e2 c6
1 0.�xc7 ct:lxf3 + 1l.gxf3 �e8 1 2 .�b4 17.�d6 �eS 18.�d3 b6 19.:1'1xa1 �a6,
fS ! with a sufficient compensation for
the pawn.

8 . . . �g4

Black has a rare, but worthy al­

ternative :
8 . . . eS ! ? 9.dS ct:ld4 10.ct:lxd4 exd4
1l.�xd4 c6 12 .d6

166
 3.t2Jc3 i.g7 4.t2Jf3 d5 5.'�b3
12 . . . t2Jd7!
The stem game Carlsen-Do­
minguez, Sofia 2009 went 12 . . . t2Jd5
13.�d3 t2Jxc3 14.bxc3 �f6 15.i.b2
E1d8 16.1"\d1 1We6 17.f4 1Wxa2 18.1"\d2
and White prevailed with brilliant
play. Our novelty is less commit­
ting. Black will regain the pawn
with . . . E\e8, . . . i.e5, . . . E1e6. In some
variations he also has . . . b5, . . . t2Jc5,
t2Jb7.
13.1Wd2
Alternatives are :
a) 13 .1We3 i.e5 14.0-0 i.xd6
15.E1d1 1We7=.
b) 13.1Wd1 t2Jc5 14.i.e3 (14. 0-0
E1e8 = ; 14.i.f4 i.xc3+ 15.bxc3 1Wf6)
14 . . . i.xc3+ 15.bxc3 t2Jxe4 16.1Wd4
E1e8 17.i.h6 1Wf6 18.1Wxf6 t2Jxf6 19.f3
E1e6 2 0 . 1"\d1 t2J d5 = .
1 3 . . . t2J c5 14.0-0 E1e8
15.i.f3 (15.f3 b5 16. �h1 i.e5 =)
15 . . . 1"\e6 16.E1d1 (16.1Wg5 1Wxg5
17.i.xg5 hc3 18.bxc3 t2Jxe4 (18 . . .
f6 19.i.f4 t2Jxe4 2 0 . 1"\ad1 i.d7 2 1 . c4
b6 2 2 .h3 �g7 23 .i.e3 c5 24.E1d3
h6 25.1"\b1 f5 26.h4±) 19 .he4 E\xe4
2 0 . E1fe1 E1xe1+ 21.1"\xe1 i.d7= 2 2 .�f1
E\e8 23 .i.e7 is a drawish endgame
with opposite coloured bishops)
16 . . . i.e5 17.1Wg5 (17.d7 t2Jxd7;
17.1Wh6 E\xd6 18.i.f4 i.xf4 19.1Wxf4
E\xd1+ 2 0 .1"\xd1 1We7 2 1 .h4. It looks
�hat White is slightly better, but
m fact he has no approaches to
Black's position : 2 1 . . .i.e6 2 2 .h5 E\d8
23.E1xd8 + 1Wxd8 24.h6 f6= . ) 17 . . .
1Wxg5 18 .i.xg5 E\xd6 19.1"\xd6 hd6
2 0 .E1d1 i.e5 2 1.i.e3 b6 2 2 .i.d4 i.xd4
23.1"\xd4 i.e6 = .
I think that 8 . . . e 5 could b e a reli­
able backup line for our repertoire.
9 . d5 !
White should repel the c6-
knight from the centre before Black
got time for . . . e5:
9.i.e3 ? ! i.xf3 10.gxf3 !
1 0 .i.xf3 e5 ll.d5 t2Jd4 occurred
in my game Rjazantzev-Delchev,
Port Marly 2 0 0 9 :
167
 Part S

Only in the postmortem did

I understand that Black's knight
should not budge from d4 :
a) 1 2 . l"lc1 ct'le8 13 .h4 ct'ld6 14.iWd3
cS 15.dxc6 bxc6 16 .h5 ct'l 6f5.
b) 1 2 . 0-0-0 ct'le8 13.h4 ct'ld6
14.iWd3 cS 15.dxc6 bxc6 16.ct'le2 cS.
c) 12 . .id1 c6+ (ilb5,b4) 13.dxc6
l"1c8 14.iWa4 l"1xc6 15.0-0 a6 16.iWa3 12 ... ct'le8! 13 .h4 ct'ld6 14.iWd3
l"1e8 17.b4 iWd6 18 .iWb2 l"1ec8 19.l"1cl cS !+.
iWc7 2 0 .ct'le2 l"1xc1 21.ct'lxc1 ct'lxe4- + ,
Rajkovic-Sedlak, Kragujevac 2 0 0 9 . 9 )i.:l a5 10.iWb4 !
.•

Even after:
d) 12.ct'le2, as Rj azantzev played,
Black still can hold on to the out­
post at d4:
12 ... b5 ! 13 .iWd3 (13 .iWcl l"1e8
14.iWd2 iWd7 15 . 0-0-0 cS ; 13.iWc3
ct'lxe2 14.'tt> x e2 ct'lxdS 15.exd5 e4;
13 .iWc5 ct'ld7 14.iWc3 ct'lxf3+ 15.gxf3
iWf6 16 . .id2 l"1fc8 17.l"1c1 .if8 18 .h4
c6 19.dxc6 b4 2 0 .iWe3 l"1xc6 2 1 .h5
.icS) 13 . . . c5 14.0-0 (14.ct'lxd4 exd4
15 . .ig5 l"1e8 16.0-0 c4+) 14 . . . c4
15.iWd2 ct'lxf3+ (White has castled
so this exchange is already good.)
16.gxf3 a6 17.a4 iWd7= .
1 0 . . . e5 11.d5
11.dxe5 opens the centre so
White can hardly count on a
kingside attack anymore : ll . . . ct'lxeS
12 .iWd4 (Or 12.iWb3 ! ? ct'lhS ! 13 .h4
ct'l d3 + ; 12 .iWb5 ct'lhS ! + 13.iWxb7 l"1b8
14.iWd5 iWf6 15.0-0-0 ct'lf4 ! , Bareev­
Balashov, Irkutsk 1986) 12 . . . iWxd4
13 . .ixd4 ct'lc6! 14 . .ie3 l"1fd8 = , Gure­
vich-Kaidanov, Lvov 1987.
1 1 . . .ct'ld4 1 2 . 0-0-0
Only this move leaves White
some temporary initiative.
10 .iWa4? ! .ixf3 ! 11..ixf3 c6 1 2 . 0-0
bS ! 13 .iWb4 (13 .iWd1 b4 14.ct'la4 cxdS
15.exd5 iWd6 16 . .ie3 l"1fc8+, Ivani­
shevic-Iordachescu, Valjevo 2 007)
is similar to the main line, but with
an extra tempo for Black:
13 . . . a6 ! 14 ..ig5
14.l"1d1 is imprecise due to 14 . . .
ct'l d 7 ! 15 . .ie3 (15.ct'le2 c S 16.iWe1
ct'leS 17.ct'lf4 ct'lxf3++, Ehlvest-Sha­
hade, New York 2 0 03) 15 . . . c5 ! (In
Lalic-Delchev, Cappele la Grande
0 2 . 03 . 2 0 11, I chose 15 . . . l"1c8 16.dxc6
ct'lxc6 17.iWb3 e6 18.a4 ! ct'l aS 19.iWb4
ct'lc4 2 0 . .ic1 ! iWc7! which was "only"
equal.) 16 . .ixc5 ct'lxcS 17.iWxc5 l"1c8
18 .iWa7 ct'lc4 19.d6 (19.l"1ab1? iWd6 ! +)
19 . . . exd6 2 0 . l"1ab1 (20.ct'ld5 l"1a8+)
20 . . . ct'lxb2 2 1 . l"1xb2 .ixc3 2 2 . l"1bb1
iWaS.
14 . . . cxd5 15.exd5 (lS.ct'lxdS ct'lc6
16.iWc5 l"1c8) 15 . . . l"1c8 16.d6 exd6
17.l"1ad1 ct'lc4 18 . .ib7 l"1c5 19.iWxc5
dxcS 2 0 . l"1xd8 l"1xd8 2 1.ha6 h6

168
 3.ct'lc3 j.g7 4.ct'lf3 d5 5.�b3
22.j.xb5 ct'lxb2 . This endgame is
equal, for instance : 23 .j.c1 ct'ld5
24.ct'lxd5 Ei:xd5 25.a4 ct'ld1 26.Ei:e1
ct'lc3 27.�f1 ct'lxb5 (27 ... Ei:d4 28 .j.e3
Eld8 29.f3 Ei:a8 =) 2 8 . axb5 Ei:d3
29.Ei:e8+ �h7 3 0 .j.e3 Ei:b3 = .
1 0 . . . � 11.� c6
A. 12 .j.e3 ; B. 1 2 . 0-0.
White can also try to restrain the
aS-knight by 1 2 . Ei:b1 �b6 13.�xb6
axb6 14.b3 , but Black quickly devel­
ops a queenside initiative with 14 . . .
ct'ld7 15.j.d2 b 5 16.0-0 b 4 17.ct'la4 b5
18.ct'lb2 j.c3 19.Ei:fd1 c5= .
A. 12 .j.e3 cxd5 ! 13.exd5 Ei:c8 !
If we do not play actively, we
risk to remain with a passive knight
on the rim.
White should take the pawn or
he might become even worse after
the exchange of the dark-squared
bishops: 14.Ei:d1 ct'lc4 15.j.d4 (15.
ha7 ct'lxb2 16.�xb2 ct'le4 = , Vshiv­
kov-Vokarev, Perm 1998) 15 . . . �d6
16.�b3 ct'l d7 17. 0-0 j.xd4 18.Ei:xd4
�c5 19.Ei:fd1 ct'l d6 ! + .
1 4 )tJC4 15. 0 - 0 ltJ d 2 16.�fdl
• .
�c4 !
White is walking on thin ice :
a) 17.�xb7? should lose after 17 . . .
ct'lxf3+ 18.gxf3 �c7 19 .�a6 (19.�b6
�d7) 19 . . . �a8 2 0 .tt'lb5 Ei:d7 2 l . Ei:ac1
�xd5 2 2 . �xd5 �xd5 23 .�c6 �g5 + !
24.�h1 ct'ld5 25.Ei:c5 e 6 26.ct'lc7 �f6
with a decisive attack, for instance :
27.ct'lxd5 �xf3 + 2 8 . �g1 �g4+
2 9 . �h1 exd5 30.�xd5 (30.Ei:xd5
�c8-+) 30 . . . j.d4 3l.Ei:c4 Ei:e8 - + .
b) 17.�b5 ct'lxf3+ 18.gxf3 �c8 !+.
Black is threatening to double
his heavy pieces on the h-file or re­
deploy the f6-knight to d6 (via e8)
or e5 (via d7) . White can defend
with:
19.Ei:d4
Or 19 .j.e3 ct'ld7! 2 0 . �g2 ct'le5
2 1.h3 �h4 2 2 . �h1 �f5 23.f4 ct'ld3--t;
169
 Part S

19.Elacl? ! tt:le8 ! 2 0 .tt:le2 tt:ld6 2 1.Wb3 13.Wa4

bS 2 2 .�e3 WfS+ 23 .i>g2 Elh4 24.tt:lgl
�eS 2S.h3 tt:lc4. Black is better developed so
19 ... Elxd4 2 0 .�xd4 Wh3 2 l.�xf6 ! pawn eating like :
Or 2 1.We2 tt:lxdS ! ? 2 2 .tt:lxdS
a) 13.Wxe7! ? should be dubious.
�xd4 23.tt:lxe7+ ci>g7, with an initia­
We should meet it with :
tive.
2 1 . . .hf6 2 2 .We2 Elc8 23.tt:le4 13 . . . tt:lc4 ! (threatening with
�eS 24.tt:lg3 �d6+, Miton-Tyomkin, . . . Ele8) 14.dxc6 !
Philadelphia 2 0 0 2 . Black will ad­
14.�f4 (or 14.a3 aS) 14 . . . 1%ae8
vance his h-pawn, the dS-pawn is
1S .Wc7 Wxb2 favours Black.
also qute sensitive.
14 . . . bxc6 1S.�f4
17 tt:lx£J+ 18.gxf3 Wc8 19.1%d4
Or 1S.a3 aS 16.tt:la4 WbS 17.tt:lc3
•••

Wb6= .
19.We3 Wh3 2 0 J'l:d4 Elxd4
2 l.�xd4 is also insufficient due to 1S . . . Elfe8 16.Wc7 Wxc7 (16 . . . tt:lhS
2 1 . . . tt:lg4 2 2 .Wf4 i>xh2. 17.�xhS gxhS 18.Elacl Wxc7 19 .�xc7
tt:lxb2=) 17.�xc7
19 ••• Elc7

Black is clearly better. He could

have fixed his advantage with
19 . . . Elxd4 2 0 .Wxd4 tt:l d7 2 l .We3
b6! 2 2 .�xb6 tt:lxb6 23 .Wxb6 hc3
24.bxc3 Wxc3 , but the text is more
unpleasant as Black keeps more
pieces on the board.

This position is equal and Black

B. 1 2 . 0 - 0 �b6 has many ways to prove that. Per­
haps strongest is:
17 . . . Elac8 !
Alternatively: 17 . . . tt:ld7 18.Eladl,
Gyimesi-Flumbort, Nagykanizsa
2003, 18 . . . tt:lcS ! 19.eS tt:le6=.
18 .�g3
Or 18.�f4 tt:lhS 19 .�cl (19.hhS
gxhS 2 0 . Elabl �xc3 2l.bxc3 Elxe4=)
19 ... Elb8 2 0 .tt:la4 tt:lxb2 2 1 .tt:lxb2

170
 3.'Llc3 �g7 4.'Llf3 d5 5.�b3

hb2 2 2 .Ei:b1 �xc1 23.Ei:fxc1 Ei:xb1 B l . 14.�e3 �xb2 15.Ei:fcl

24.Ei:xb1 'Llf6 = . hc3 16. Ei:abl! b5 17. Ei:xb2 bxa4
18. Ei:xc3 cxd5
18 . . . 'Ll h 5 19. Ei:ac1 'Llxg3 2 0 .hxg3
'Llxb2 = , Gyimesi-Swinkels, Liver­
pool 2 0 06.

b) 13.�xb6 axb6 14.dxc6 bxc6 is

totally equal. White has tried:
15.Ei:d1 Ei:a7= , Radjabov-Rowson,
Torshavn 2 0 0 0 . A more direct way
is 15 . . . 'Llb3 16.Ei:b1 'Llxc1 17.Ei:bxc1
ih6 18.Ei:c2 if4 19.e5 !xeS 2 0 .ixc6
Ei:ac8 = ;
15.Ei:ab1 Ei:fd8 (Ll'Lla5-c4-d2)
16.ie2 'Lld7 17.ie3 b5 18.Ei:fc1 'Llc4
19.hc4 bxc4 2 0 .b3 Ei:a3, Caspi-Su­ White has the bishop pair, but
tovsky, Ramat Aviv/Modiin 2 0 0 0 . Black's knights are well coordinat­
Black has a slight initiative. ed:

13 . . .ti:'ld7 19.exd5

19.Ei:b5 was not any better: 19 . . .

'Llc4 2 0 . exd5 'Lldb6! 2 l.ixb6 'Lld6
2 2 . Ei:b4 axb6+, Gyimesi-Roiz, Tel
Aviv 2 0 0 1 .

19 . . . . Ei:ac8 2 0 .Ei:bc2 ll:\b6

21.Ei:c7 ll:\ac4 2 2 . Ei:xe7 ll:\xe3
23.Ei:xc8 ll:\xc8 24.Ei:xe3 Ei:d8

Babula has tested this position

I examine here :
Bl. 14.ie3 ; B 2 . 14.dxc6; B3.
14.ie 2 ; B4. 14.Ei:dl.
Another possible move is 14.�c2
when we could continue with the
thematic 14 . . . �b4 15.Ei:b1 Ei:ac8
16.ig4 Ei:cd8= .
twice, only to prove that it is abso­
lutely balanced.
B 2 . 14.dxc6 ll:\xc6 15.ll:\d5
�d8 16.�g5 ll:\b6 17.�a3 Ei:e8
1 8 .Ei:adl ll:\xd5 19.exd5 ll:\d4
I have been following the game
Cmilyte-Howell, Gibraltar 2 0 05.

171
 Part 5
Black has not problems.
B3. 14 . .ie2 .!DeS
This is more active than 14 . . .
�ac8 ! ? which i s also enough for
equality. The game Flear-How­
ell, Yarmouth 2 0 07, saw further
15.�a3 �c5 16.�xc5 'Llxc5 17 . .id2
cxd5 18.exd5 (18.'Llxd5 'Llc6 19.�ac1
'Llxe4 2 0 .�xc6 �xc6 2 1 .'Llxe7+ �h8
2 2 . 'Llxc6 'Llxd2 23 .�d1 'Lle4 24.'Llxa7
ixb2 ) 18 . . . 'Lld7= .
15. �c2 �b4 16 . .ie3 .b:c3
17.gacl .id4 !
172
18 . .b:d4
Anyway, White cannot keep his
bishop pair: 18.a3 �a4 19.�xa4
'Llxa4 2 0 .ixd4 'Llb3 21.�c4 b5
2 2 .�b4 'Llxd4 23.�xd4 �fd8 24.�c1
c5 25.�d2 c4+.
18 JWxd4
•• 19.�xc5 \Wxb2
2 0 . .if3 b6 21.\Wxe7 gfe8 2 2 .\Wg5
This move was suggested as an
improvement on the game Bareev­
Lalic, Jahorina 2 0 0 3 , which went:
2 2 .�d7 �e5 23.dxc6 (23.�fd1
�e7 24.�g4 �d8 25.g3 would al­
low 25 . . . c5 ! 2 6.ig2 f5 27.1!Mh4 fxe4
2 8.�e1 �deS, with a balanced po­
sition : 29.�xe4 �d6 30 .�ce1 �xe4
31.�xe4 �xe4 3 2 .�xe4 �g7.) 23 . . .
�ed8 24.�g4 �ac8 = .
2 2 . . . �e5 ! 23.�xe5 gxe5
The game is balanced. Black
can play on the dark squares with
. . . �d8, . . . cxd5, . . . �e7, . . . 'Ll a5-b7-d6,
or gain space on the queenside with
. . . b5, . . . 'Llc4.
 3.Ci:lc3 f2.g7 4.ti:lf3 dS 5.'�b3
B4. 14.l'l:dl �fd8 !
Jovanic-Avrukh, Zuerich 2009,
saw 14 . . . ti:lc5. This move may also
equalise, but the text is more pre­
cise. The game went 15.'1Wc2 ti:lc4
16.f2.e2 '\Wb4 17.a3 '\Wb3 18.'\Wxb3
ti:lxb3 19.�b1 ti:lb6 2 0f2.e3, with a
small plus according to Onishcuk.
15.'1Wc2
15.f2.e2 weakens the e4-pawn
so we can attack it with 15 . . . ti:lc5 !
16.'1Wc2 '\Wb4 17.f2.e3 flxc3 18.�ac1
b6 19 .flxc5 iWxcS 2 0 .'1Wxc3 (20 .'1Wb1
cxdS 21.�xc3 '\Wb4 2 2 . exd5 �ac8)
20 . . .'\Wxc3 2 1 . �xc3 cxdS. The end­
game is level, for instance : 2 2 . �xd5
(22 .b4 ti:lc4 23.�xd5 �xdS 24.exd5
ti:ld6 25.f2.a6 ti:le8; 2 2 . exd5 �ac8
23.�dc1 �xc3 24.�xc3 �xdS 25.b4
ti:lb7 26.�c7 ti:ld8 27.�xe7 ti:lc6
28.�c7 ti:lxb4 29.�xa7 �d2 30 .f2.c4
�d1+ 31.f2.f1 �a1 32 .g3 �xa2 33.�b7
ti:lc6 = ) 22 . . . �dc8 23 .f2.a6 �xc3
24.bxc3 ®f8 25.g3 ®e8 2 6.h4 e6
27.f2.b5+ ®f8 2 8.�d7 a6 = .
15 ••• �ac8 16.§le3
Avrukh obviously likes to keep
the queen on b4 as he played this
move twice. Against Onishcuk
in 2 0 07, he chose 16 . . . '\Wb4 and
gradually went on to equalise after
17.dxc6 bxc6 18.f2.e2 ti:lc4 19 .f2.xc4
'\Wxc4 2 0 . �ac1 ti:lb6. I do not like too
much Black's position after 17.�ab1
although 17 . . . ti:lb6 seems to hold
everything.
In general, I think that in this
open position with a bishop pair
for White Black should aim for a
symmetric pawn structure. Fur­
thermore, the combination of
iW+ti:l : iW+fl is known to be more ef­
ficient than the ti:l :fl.
17.dxc6
a) 17.�ac1 ti:lc4 18.f2.xa7 ti:ldeS
(18 . . .f2.h6 ! ?) 19.f2.e2 b6 20.dxc6 �xd1+
2 1.�xd1 ti:lxb2 2 2 .'1Wxb2 '\Wxa7= .
b) 17.'\Wa4?! bS 18 .'\Wb4 ti:leS
19.dxc6 (19 .f2.e2 ti:l ac4) 19 ... a6 !
2 0 . ti:l d5 ti:lxf3 + 21.gxf3 ti:lxc6 ! .
c) 17.f2.e2 cxdS 18.�xd5 e6
19.�d2 a6 2 0 .�ad1 ti:lb6 21.�xd8 +
�xd8 2 2 . �xd8+ '\Wxd8 23.b3 ti:lc6
24.ti:ld1 ti:lc8 = .
17 ••• .!Llxc6
My analysis suggests that
·
17 . . . '\Wxc6 also gives sufficient
counterplay, but the text is more
simple.
Our next move will be 18 ... e6.
White has not even a trace of ad­
vantage.
173
174
 Pa rt 6

Rare Systems I
1 . d4 d 5 2 . c4 g 6 3 . Cl:Jc3 d 5 4 . cxd 5 Cl:Jxd5

5 . .id2 5.lt:Ja4 5.W!'b3

175
Part 6
Main Ideas
In this chapter, I examine rare lines
where White takes on dS, but then
refrains from e2-e4 :
l.d4 tt:\f6 2 . c4 g 6 3 . tt:\c3 d5
4. cxd5 tt:\xd5
A. 5 .�d2 , B. 5 .4Ja4, C. 5.Wb3 .
All these moves contradict the
principle of quick development and
often lead to loss of tempi. How­
ever, Black should not think that
he will automatically obtain some
advantage. On the contrary, he still
has to play for equalisation first,
because White's noncommittal play
does not give him many options for
a sharp counterattack.
A. 5 . .id2
Introduction
This "ugly" move aims to cut across
Black's main plan in the Griinfeld.
176
White will recapture on c3 by piece,
thus avoiding the chronic weak­
ness of the c4-square and tactical
motifs on the long diagonal. Break­
throughs like . . . cS and . . . eS become
less effective, as well as queenside
counterplay in general.
5.�d2 was the pet line of the
great Griinfeld expert Smyslov. In
the 80s it was popularised by Mos­
kalenko. In the recent years Kha­
lifman and Dreev use it occasion­
ally to achieve solid strategic play
where positional factors prevail.
As a rule, White resorts to 5 .�d2 in
order to evade theoretical battles in
the main variations.
Objectives and Move Orders
White's main aim is to build up a
strong centre, keeping more minor
pieces on board : 5 . . . �g7 6. e4 4Jb6
7.�e3 0-0 8 .h3 !
 4.cxd5 tt:JxdS Rare Lines: 5 .�d2 , S.l2Ja4, 5.�b3

Steer clear from this position ! e5 ! 10.hc6 exd4, s o Black i s not los­
White is slightly better after 8 . . . ing a pawn. The game went on with
eS 9.tt:Jf3 exd4 10 .�xd4 o r 8 . . . tt:Jc6 11.l2Jxd4 bxc6 12.tt:Jce2 �dS 13.0-0
9.tt:Jf3. c5. Black has the more active pieces.

The simplest way to disturb After 6.�g5 �g7 7.l2Jf3 c5 ! 8.dxc5

White's plan is to play: we reach the following extremely
5 .tt:\ b 6 before castling. Then
.• important position:
White should decide what to do
with his dark-squared bishop. Oleksienko-L' Am i
Rijeka 2 0 1 0
a) He can opt for a quick develop­
ment with tt:Jf3 , e3, leaving the bish­
op very passive on d2. We meet it
by . . . tt:Jc6, aiming for . . . e7-e5.

b) He can make a second move

with the bishop to f4 or g5. This is
the more ambitious approach, but
we can exploit the loss of a tempo
by switching to aggressive play with
... c7-c5. Now Black executes his main
positional motif in the �d2 -system:
8 . . . hc3 + ! 9.bxc3 �xd1+ 10J�xd1
tt:J a4 1l.�e3 tt:Jd7
Basic Plans and Pawn
Structures

Marcel in-Sasi kiran

Fra n ce 2008

We'll be meeting this pawn

The tactical foundation of
Black's plan is the possibility of 9 . . .
structure time and again in vari­
ous settings. Perhaps you should
remember that Black is OK if he
has not castled yet. The fine point is
that he should play sooner or later
. . .f6 and it is important that White's

177
 Part 6

retort �h6 would be without tempo. 10 .ct:Jd5 ct:Jxc5 ! ll.E1acl ct:Jba6

In our example, play continued 12 .b4 ! ct:Je4 13.ha6 bxa6 14.E1c7
with 12 .g3 (12 .h4 f6 ! ) 12 . . . ct:Jdxc5 �d7! 15.ct:Jg5 e6 16.ct:Jxe4 exd5
13 .ct:Jd4 �d7 14.�g2 E1c8 15.E1cl e5 17.'\¥fxd5 �b5
16.ct:Jb3 b6 17.ct:Jxc5 ct:Jxc5 18.�h6
E1g8 19.�g5 �e6 2 0 . 0-0 ct:Jd7 2 1 . a4
f6 2 2 .�e3 ct:Jc5+.

The same idea also works with a

white bishop on f4: 6.�f4 �g7 7.ct:Jf3
c5 ! 8.dxc5 �xc3 + 9.bxc3 '\¥fxdl+
10.E1xdl ct:Ja4 ll.e3 (ll.�e3 f6 ! 12 .g3
ct:Jxc3) ll . . . ct:Jxc5.
Even after 6.�f4 �g7 7.e3 we
can try 7 . . . c5 8.dxc5 �xc3 + 9.bxc3 Black has sufficient compensa­
'\¥fxdl + 10.E1xdl ct:J 6d7. tion for the pawn - see game 11
Dreev-Karavade, Reykjavik 2010.

Typical Tactical Motifs

De Jong-Sasikira n
Kerner 2007

However, Nyzhnyk's idea 11.hb8

sets some problems to Black. That's
why I recommend to meet 6.�f4
�g7 7.e3 by 7 . . . 0-0 8.ct:Jf3 c5 ! 9.dxc5
ct:J 6d7! :

In this example, White mixed up

You should remember the fol-
lowing forced variation :
the move order. He firstly decided
to play E1cl, and only then realised
that the bishop will be caged after
e3. So his last move was 8.�f4, hop­
ing to transpose to the main line
with 8 . . . 0-0 9.e3. However, Black
has the fork:

178
 4.cxd5 'LlxdS Rare Lines: 5.�d2 , 5.'2la4, 5.Wb3
8 . . . . '2lxd4 ! 9.'2lxd4 eS ! lO.'LlcbS
0-0 1l.�g3 c6! with better piece
play.
B. 5 )L\ a4
There is nothing special to learn
for this variation. We should devel­
op following the typical Griinfeld
recipes :
5 . . . �g7 6.e4 ct:\b6 7.�e3 0 - 0
S.ct:\£3 �g4
9 .�e2 (9.'2lc5 'Llc6 ! ) 9 . . . ct:\c6
10.d5 ct:\e5 ll. ct:\xe5 ! ? he2
12.Wxe2 ct:\xa4 13.f4 e6 14.dxe6
he5 15.exf7+ �xf7 16.fxe5
Black can repeat moves with
16 . . . Wh4+ or play on with 16 . . .
We7 ! ? .
C. 5.�b3 lt:\xc3 ! 6.bxc3 J.g7
Objectives and Move Orders
I'm not too sure what exactly White
wanted to achieve with his fifth
move, except for deviating from the
main lines. If he aimed to restrain
Black's counterplay with 7.�a3 ? ! ,
h e evidently missed the goal since
we'll play . . . b6 ! and . . . cS is on the
agenda again, while the bishop will
be a ridiculous sight on a3 : 7 . . . 0-0
8.'2lf3 (8.e4 b6 ! ) 8 ... b6! 9.e3 cS
1 0 .�e2 (lO.dxcS? bxcS 1l.�xc5 Wc7)
1 0 . . . '2l c6 !
The knight i s heading for aS,
the light-squared bishop takes the
other main diagonal, and Black ob­
tains a good game.
7. ct:\f3 0 - 0 8.e3 c5 9 .�e2 ct:\c6
1 0 . 0 - 0 b6!
Black has a comfortable deve­
lopment.
179
 Part 6

Basic Plans and Pawn

Structures

When White plays i.a3 early, he is

likely to reach the following posi­
tion:

Smejka i - R i b l i
B u d a pest 1 975
2 0 .lLle4? ! !'lxdl+ 21.!'lxdl i.c6
2 2 .1Mfc2 l2Jxc4 23 .i.e2 lLlxa3 24.ha6
l2Jxc2 25.hc8 he4- + .

White can also combine the ear­

ly i.a3 with an expansion in the cen­
tre with e4, followed by d5 :

Example

It is difficult to find an active plan

here. White would like to advance
in the centre, but 14.!'lfdl would be
met by 14 . . . !'lfd8 and d5 would be
still impossible. So Smejkal opts for
a symmetric structure with:
14.dxc5 bxc5 15.c4 !'lfd8 16.!'lfdl
!'lacS.
The position is roughly equal,
but White should not forget that his
bishop is misplaced at a3. It would
be wise to exchange it with 17.i.b2 ! ?
hb2 18.1Mfxb2 i.xf3 ! 19 .hf3 !'lxdl +
2 0 .hdl, but White was stubborn
to justify his previous play and em­
barked on a wrong plan:
17.t2:J d2 ? ! 1Mfc6 18.i.f3 1Mfa6
19 .1Mfa4 !'ld6 !
It turns out that the a3-bishop is
much more shaky than the c5-pawn.
White went on to lose quickly:
Black commonly attacks White's
centre with:
13 . . .f5 !
This move is good here, because
White is behind in development.
He has not castled yet and that tells
in a number of variations :
14.l2Jxe5 he2 15.!'ld2 he5
16.!'lxe2 when Black can choose be­
tween the blockading 16 .. .f4 17.i.b2
'\Mrc7 18.f3 i.d4 ! or the simplifying
16 . . . 1Mfd6 17.exf5 !'lxf5 18.i.b2 !'laf8

180
 4.cxd5 ct:Jxd5 Rare Lines: 5.�d2, 5.ct:Ja4, 5.�b3
19.h3 �xb2 2 0 .�xb2 e6 ! ? 21.:1'i:xe6
(2l.dxe6 :1'i:e8) 2l.. .�f4 22.0-0 �xc4=.
Exa m ple
Here the bishop is on c1, but
again, Black is ahead in develop­
ment. That allows him to destroy
the enemy centre by 14 . . . e6 ! ? or
follow the previous example :
14 . . .f5 ! ? 15.ct:Jg5 �e5 16.ct:Je6
fxe4 ! ?
Grabbing a pawn with 1 6. . .�xc3
17.ct:Jxg7 �xa3 18.�xa3 'it>xg7 would
offer White some compensation
while the text gives Black firm con­
trol over the centre after 17.ct:Jxf8
l'!xf8 18 .�e3 �xd5 19.l'!ac1 �e6
2 0 .l'!d2 �f7.
181
Pa rt 6

Step by Step

l . d4 ltlf6 2 . c4 g6 3 . ltl c3 d5 7.e3 cxd4 8.exd4 0-0 gives Black

4.cxd5 ltlxd5
A. S.�d2 , B. S.li:la4, C. S.�b3
a pleasant version of an isolated
queen's pawn position.
7 . . . ltlxc3 8.bxc3 0-0 9 . e3 (or
9.e4 �g4) 9 . . . �e6 !
Black i s developing with tempo.
His next moves could be . . . li:lc6,
. . . f1c8 while White's pawn centre
is immobile. Our general plan in
such positions is to complete de­
velopment, open the c-file and ad­
vance the queenside pawns. Trad­
ing queens would be in our favour
because in the endgame we could
make a distant passer.
10 .�a4

I 'll also mention : 10 .�d2 li:lc6 11.�e2 (11.�d3

S .�gS �g7 6.ltlf3 (6.f1cl ltlxc3
7.bxc3 cS 8.e3 0-0) 6 . . . cS !
7.f1cl
�aS) 1 1 . . . f1c8 1 2 . 0-0 h6 13 .�h4
cxd4 14.cxd4 gS 1S.�g3 �aS= is a
good illustration of the above-men­
tioned plan.
10 . . . li:lc6 ll.�e2 (11.�d3 �d7
12 .�a3 =) 11.. .f1c8 1 2 . 0-0 h6 13 .�h4
gS 14.�g3 �as.
Black has equalised. Banikas-El­
janov, Plovdiv 2 0 03 went 1S.�xaS
ltlxaS 16.h4 (or 16.a4 �c4 17.f1fe1
�xe2 18.f1xe2 f1fd8 19.f\b1 b6=)
16 ... cxd4 17.cxd4 �xa2 18.f1a1 f1c2 ,
when only 19 .�d1 keeps the balance.

182
 4.cxd5 l2lxd5 Rare Lines : 5 .�d2 , 5.l2la4, 5 .Wb3
The other move order, 4.l2lf3
�g7 S.cd lLldS 6.�d2 , is less precise
since Black can equalise by pinning
the f3-knight. Play might continue
with :
6 . . . 0-0 !
a) 7.e4 l2lxc3 8.�xc3 �g4 ! .
b ) 7.e3 cS ! 8.Wb3 l2lxc3 9.�xc3
cxd4 10.l2lxd4 e5 11.l2lb5 �e6 12 .�c4
hc4 13 .Wxc4 l2lc6 14.0-0 We7
15JUd1 fi:fd8 = .
c ) 7J'k1 l2lc6 ! 8 .e4 (8.e3 l2lb6 !
9.�b5 eS 10 .�xc6 exd4 ! or 8 . . . e5
9.l2lxd5 WxdS 10.�c4 We4 ! ll.dS
lt:ld4) 8 . . . l2lxc3 9.hc3.
In the recent game Naum­
kin-Delchev, Cappele la Grande
0 2 . 03 . 2 011, my opponent surprised
me with 9 .bxc3 ! ? . I followed the
general plan with 9 . . . �g4 ! 10 .�e2
10 . . . �xf3 ! 11.�xf3 eS 12.d5
l2le7! 13.c4 cS and quickly equal­
ised : 14.Wb3 Wc7 15.0-0 l2lc8 16.a4
l2ld6 = . Black has achieved the per­
fect blockade - a strong knight on
d6 and a very passive white bishop
on f3 . I cannot speak of a Black's
advantage though, since White has
no weaknesses and his pawn centre
should serve as a sufficient protec­
tion against active attempts from
Black.
9 . . .�g4 lO .dS lLleS 11.�e2 l2lxf3+
12 .�3 hc3+ 13.l"lxc3 hf3 14.Wxf3
e6=, Fridman-Ftachnik, Bundesliga
2008.
Underlining the downside of
White's last move. The d4-pawn is
hanging so White should either lose
a tempo on a second move with the
bishop, or allow the pin on the f3-
knight.
Practice has seen Black also
equalising after 5 . . . �g7 6 .e4 (6.l2lf3
cS ! ) 6 . . . l2lxc3 ! 7.�xc3 0-0
183
 Part 6
8 .�c4
a) 8J''l c 1 c5 9 .d5 �xc3 + 10.l"1xc3
e6 1l.�c4 exd5 12 .�xd5 'Ll d7 13.'Lle2
'Llf6 14.0-0 'Llxd5 15.exd5 b6 = .
b) 8.'Llf3 �g4 9.�e2 c 5 10 .d5
�xc3+ ll.bxc3 �xf3 ! 1 2 .hf3 'Lld7
13.0-0 't{fffc 7 14.c4 l"1ad8 15.1{fffb 3 e5 = .
The dark-squared strategy could be
completed with the blockading ma­
noeuvre 'Lld7-f6-e8-d6.
c) 8 .1{fff d 2 The best move, ac­
cording to Rowson. However, it
does not hamper our blockading
plan from the previous line : 8 . . . c5 !
9 .d5 hc3 10 .bxc3 . (Or 10.1{fffx c3 e6
ll.dxe6 �xe6 1 2 .'Llf3 1{fff e 7 13 .�e2
'Llc6 14.0-0 l"1fd8 = , Solozhenkin­
Holmsten, Finland 2 0 05.)
10 ... 1{fffd 6 ! ? (The game Mame­
dyarov-Vachier Lagrave, Germany
2 01 0 , saw the thematic 10 . . . 'Ll d7
184
11.'Llf3 1{fff c 7 12 .�d3 'Llf6 13.h3 e5
14.1{fffh 6 'Lle8 15 . 0-0 f6 16.'Lld2 'Lld6
17.1{fffh 4 c4 18.�c2 �d7 which is fine
for Black. My suggestion is more
challenging though.) 11.'Llf3 �g4 !
12 .'Llg1 �c8 ! What now? ! Draw?
13 .�c4? ! 'Lld7 (13 . . .f5 ! ?+) 14.f4?!
'Llb6 15.�b3 c4 16.�c2 f5+, Gupta­
Li Chao, Wijk aan Zee 2 0 1 0 .
8 . . . c 5 9.d5 �xc3+ 10 .bxc3 1{fff d 6!
A very important move ! Black
takes control of e5 and threatens to
counterattack with . . . f7-f5.
11.1{fffe 2 !
We know that 11.'Llf3 �g4 should
be good for Black even though
White has 12 .e5. Here it only loses
a pawn after 12 . . . 1{fffc 7 13.0-0 hf3
14.1{fffxf3 1{fffx e5 although White had
compensation in Grachev-Vachier
Lagrave, Moscow 2 0 1 0 : 15.l"1ab1
'Lld7 16.l"1fe1 1{fff d 6 17.l"1xb7 l"1fb8
18.l"1b3 'Lle5 19.1{fff e 4 'Llxc4 2 0 .l{fffxc4
l"1xb3 2 l . axb3 l"1d8 = .
11.'Lle2 allows both plans : the
active ll .. .f5 1 2 .exf5 �xf5 13.0-0
'Lld7 14.'Llg3 'Llb6 15.1{fffb 3 1{ffff4 (15 ...
l"1ab8 =) 16.�e2 c4 17.1{fffb 5 �d3 =
18 .�xd3 cxd3 19.1{fffx d3 l"1ad8 = ,
and the solid 1 1 . . .'Lld7 12.�b3 'Llb6
 4.cxd5 'LlxdS Rare Lines : 5.�d2 , 5.'Lla4, 5.'�b3

13 .a4 c4 14.�c2 eS 15.dxe6 �xd1+

16J:l:xd1 he6 17.l"lb1 l"lab8! 18.0-0
'Lld7 19.l"lb4 'Ll cS 2 0 .'Lld4 l"lfc8 = .
n . . . �es

ll . . . 'Lld7 also deserves attention :

12.'Llf3 'Llb6 13 .h3 ! (13.e5? �d7) 13 . . .
�f4 ! (preparing . . . e7-e6) 14.�b3 e 6
15.dxe6 �xe6 16 .�xe6 l"lae8 ! = .
12 .�e3 fS !

After 5 . . . 'Llb6, I consider:

Al. 6.'Llf3, A2 . 6.�g5, A3 . 6.�f4.

Al. 6.tt:l f3 �g7 7.l;ct

If White boxes in his bishop

In the Griinfeld, the break . . . f7-
f5 is either very bad, or quite un­
pleasant to White. In the diagram
position, it is not so destructive as
usual, but it is still enough for level­
ling the game:
13.'Llf3 �xe4 14.�xe4 fxe4
15.'Llg5 �fS 16.0-0-0 'Lld7 17.d6+
i>g7 18.'Llxe4 'Llb6 (or 18 ... �xe4
19.dxe7 l"lf4 2 0 . l"lxd7 l"le8 21.l"ld8
l"lxe7 2 2 .l"le1 l"lf8 23.l"ld2 = . ) 19.dxe7
l"lfe8 2 0 .'Lld6 'Llxc4 21.'Llxc4 l"lxe7= ,
Zhou Weiqi-Sutovsky, Khanty-Man­
siysk 2 0 0 9 .
Conclusion:
5 . . . �g7 is a reliable option.
with 7.e3, we should aim at achiev­
ing . . . eS, for instance : 7 . . . 0-0 8 .�e2
'Ll c6 9 . 0-0 e5= .
7.�g5 i s considered i n line B.
7.e4 deserves attention. Ac­
cepting the sac by 7 . . . �xd4 8 .'Llxd4
�xd4 is unclear: 9.�c2 c6 10 .�h6
�e6 11.l"ld1 �eS 12.f4 �aS (12 . . . �c5
13.'Lld5) 13 .�e2 'Ll 8d7 14.0-0 0-0-0
so I prefer:
7 . . . 0-0 8 .�e3
Following 8 .h3, we could already
eat the pawn, 8 . . . hd4 9.'Llxd4
�xd4, for instance : 12 .�e3 l"ld8
13.�e2 �e6 14.b3 'Llc6 or 10 .�c2
�eS ll.'LlbS 'Lla6 12 .�c3 �f4.

Let us return now to the main 8 . . . �g4 9 .�e2 'Llc6 lO.dS �xf3
line. 11.gxf3 (11.�xf3 'LleS 12 .�e2 'Llec4

185
 Part 6
13.�c1 c6) 1 1 . . .tt:la5 (11.. .tt:le5
12.l�'b3±) 12 .�d4
12 . . . �d6 ! 13 .hg7 Wxg7 14.�d2
(14.Ek1 c6) 14 . . . �f6 ! 15 .b3 ! (15.f4
c6 ! gives Black an initiative.) 15 . . .
e6! This novelty assures Black o f a
good game. I have analysed :
16.E\d1 (16.0-0-0 E\ad8 17.Wb1
tt:lc6) 16 . . . 8:ad8 17. 0-0 (17.�c1 exd5
18.exd5 c6) 17 . . . tt:lc6 (or 17 . . . exd5
18 .exd5 tt:lc6 19.tt:le4 �eS) 18.f4.
Black has now several good op­
tions, as 18 . . . tt:le7 19.�f3 exd5 (19 . . .
e 5 2 0 .tt:le2 c 6 2 1.�c3 exf4 2 2 .�xf6 +
Wxf6 23.dxc6 tt:lxc6 =) 2 0 . exd5 �h4
2 1 . E\fe1 tt:lfS or 18 . . . exd5 19.exd5 tt:le7
2 0 .�f3 ( 2 0 .tt:le4 �fS+) 2 0 ... �h4.
7 . . . tt:lc6 8.e3
8.�f4 tt:lxd4 9.tt:lxd4 e5 10.tt:lcb5
passes the initiative to Black after
10 . . . 0-0 1 1.�g3 c6 ! 12.tt:lxc6 bxc6
13.�xd8 E\xd8 14.tt:lc3 tt:ldS 15.e4
tt:lb4 16.�h4 �h6 17.hd8 �xc1
18 .�e7 �xb2 19.Wd2 aS+, De Jong­
Sasikiran, Kerner 2 0 07.
8 . . . 0 - 0 9.�b5
White has prevented . . . c5, now
he tries to discourage the other
186
breakthrough in the centre. But it is
nevertheless possible:
9 . . . e5 ! 10 . .ixc6 exd4 ll. tt:lxd4
11.�e4 dxc3 12 .�xc3 �xc3 + is
completely equal.
ll . . .bxc6 12.tL'lce2 �d5 13. 0 - 0
c5 14.tt:lf4 �d6 15.tL'lb5 �e7!
16.tt:lc3 (16.�c3 �a6) 16 . . . �a6
17.l'l:el :Bfd8
Black has the more active pieces.
A2 . 6.�g5 �g7 7.lLl£J
Delaying development is dan­
gerous - 7.e3 allows 7 . . . c5 8 .dxc5
�xc3 + 9.bxc3 �xd1+ 10.:Bxd1 tt:l 6d7
11.�b5 tt:lc6. In this typical posi­
tion, Black has good counterplay
due to the crippled white queenside
pawns. The tactical background of
this idea is seen in the variation
12.:Bd5 f6 13.�f4 e6 14.8:d6 tt:lxcS !
15.E\xc6 bxc6 16.�xc6+ Wf7 17.�xa8
tt:ld3+ 18. We2 �a6 and White
should think about salvation.
 4.cxd5 lt:lxd5 Rare Lines : 5 .i.d2 , 5.lt:la4, 5.�b3
7. . . c5 !
8.dxc5
Karpov chose against Shirov
8.e3, but his reply 8 . . . cxd4 was
hardly the best. More testing is :
8 . . . lt:lc6! 9 .dxc5
9.i.b5 i.g4 10.dxc5 could be met
with the same idea as in the previ­
ous note : 10 . . . i.xc3+ ll.bxc3 �xdl+
12.l"lxdl lt:ld7 13.h3 i.xf3 14.gxf3
lLlxc5 15.e4 l"lc8 16.i.e3 a6! and
again, White has not even a trace of
advantage.
9 ... bc3+ 10.bxc3 �xd1+ ll.l"lxd1
lLla4 12 .l"lc1
Or 12 .i.h6 f6 ! 13.i.c4 fails to 13 . . .
lt:l b 2 14.i.g7 lt:lxc4 15.i.xh8 Wf7.
12 . . . lt:lxc5 13 .i.b5 i.d7 14.0-0 f6
15.i.h4 lt:le5 ! 16.i.e2 lt:lxf3+ 17.i.xf3
l"lc8, with a clear edge, Paprocki­
Vovk, Warsaw 2 0 0 8 .
8 . . . i.xc3 + 9.bxc3 �xdl+
10 .8:xdl lt:la4 ll.i.e3 lt:ld7
Black is one step away from re­
storing the material balance. Then
he can start molesting White's
weak pawns. The game Oleksienko­
L'Ami, Rijeka 2 0 1 0 , continued:
12 .g3 (12 .h4 f6 ! ) 12 ... lt:ldxc5
13.lt:ld4 i.d7 14.i.g2 l"lc8 15.l"lcl e5
16.lt:lb3 b6 17.lt:lxc5 lt:lxc5 18.i.h6
l"lg8 19 .i.g5 i.e6 2 0 . 0-0 lt:ld7 2 l .a4
f6 2 2 .i.e3 lt:lc5+.
A3. 6.i.f4 i.g7 7.e3 !
We shall routinely meet 7.lt:lf3 by
7 . . . c5 ! (although this move seems to
be a novelty!) 8.dxc5 i.xc3+ 9.bxc3
�xd1+ 10.l"lxd1 lt:la4 ll.e3 (1l.i.e3
f6 ! 12 .g3 lt:lxc3) ll . . . lt:lxc5 .
7 . .• 0-0
187
 Part 6
Lately Black has been often ex­
perimenting with the immediate :
7 . . . c5 ! ? 8.dxc5 �xc3 + 9.bxc3
'Wxd1+ 1 0 J"lxd1 Ci:l 6d7
Here the only problem variation
is the idea of the new Ukrainian
prodigy Nyzhnyk:
1 1.�xb8 ! ?
1 1.�b5 a 6 12 .�a4 Ci:l c 6 13.�c7
0-0 14.�b6 Ci:lce5�. The c4-square
is as weak as ever and White has
not any target. Now 15 J"ld4 Ci:lxb6
16.cxb6 �e6= would give Black easy
play on the c-file, so in the game
M . Muzychuk-Bok, Wijk aan Zee
2 0 1 0 , White preferred 15.'2lf3 Ci:lxb6
16.cxb6 Ci:lc4 17J"lb1 �fS 18J"lb4 l"lfc8
19 .�b3 Ci:ld6. Black has the initia­
tive, despite being a pawn down.
1 1 . . . Ci:lxb8
ll . . . l"lxb8 looks insufficient for
equality: 12 .�b5 e6 13.'2lf3 We7
14.�xd7 �xd7 15.'2le5 l"lhd8 16.We2
l"lbc8 17.lLlxd7 l"lxd7 18.l"lxd7+ Wxd7
19.l"ld1+ 'it>e7 2 0 . l"lb1 l"lcn.
1 2 .'2lf3 0-0
1 2 ... �e6 13 .�b5+ ! Wf8 14.h4
Wg7 (or 14 . . . h6 15.h5 g5 16.'2ld4
ha2 17.l"ld2 �b1 18.0-0 �h7 19.f4±)
188
15.h5 l"lc8 16.h6+ Wg8 17.l"lh4 Ci:lc6
18 .�xc6 l"lxc6 19.l"lhd4 l"lf8 2 0 . '2lg5
favours White.
13.'2ld4 �d7 ! ?
The stem game Nyzhnyk-Negi,
Hoogeveen 2 0 1 0 , saw 13 . . . b6?!
which is clearly better for White.
14.�e2 l"lc8 15.l"lb1 l"lxc5 16.l"lxb7
e5 17.'2lf3 �c6 18.l"lb3 Ci:ld7 19. 0-0
Ci:lb6 2 0 .l"lc1 l"ld8.
Black has compensation for the
pawn, but evidently, he has not
winning chances.
8 .l"lc1 looks senseless as it does
not prevent . . . cS : 8 . . . c5 9.dxc5
�xc3+ 10 .bxc3 (10.l"lxc3 'Wxd1+
11.Wxd1 Ci:l a4t) 10 ... 'Wxd1+ 11.l"lxd1
Ci:l 6d7 12 .�b5 (12 .�h6 l"le8 13 .�b5
a6 14.�a4 Ci:lc6 15.'2lf3 Ci:lxc5 16.�xc6
bxc6 17.Ci:ld4 e5 18.'2lb3 Ci:lxb3
19.axb3 �e6 2 0 .b4 aS= , Dreev­
Shirov, blitz, Moscow 2 00 7) 12 . . .
Ci:l c 6 13.l"ld5 Ci:lf6 14.l"ld1 Ci:le4 15.'2le2
Ci:lxcS 16.0-0, Dreev-Ponoma­
riov, blitz, Moscow 2 0 07, 16 . . . �e6
17.Ci:ld4 Ci:lxd4 18.cxd4 a6 19 .�e2
Ci:le4 2 0 .�f3 �d5 = .
8 . . . c5 ! 9.dxc5 Ci:l 6d7!
The thematic 9 . . . �xc3 + ? ! is not
so good here because Black has
castled already. That gives White a
critical tempo on �h6, for instance:
1 0 .bxc3 'Wxd1 + l l . l"lxd1 Ci:l 6d7
12 .�g5 ! l"le8 (12 .. .f6 13 .�h6 l"le8
14.�c4+ e6 15.'2ld4 Ci:lxcS 16.'2lb5
Ci:lba6 17. 0-0 �d7 18.'2ld6±; 12 . . .
 4.cxd5 li:lxd5 Rare Lines : 5 .�d2 , S . li:l a4, 5.'�b3

I/Jc6 13.li:ld4 ! ) 13 .�b5 a6 14.�a4 Alternatively:

I/Jc6 (14 .. .f6 15.�h6 li:lc6 16 .�b3+ a) 1l.�c7 \Mrd7 1 2 . �c1 tt:lba6
e6 17.li:l d4 li:lxcS 18 .�c2 li:le7 19.e4 13 .�e5 �d8 14.�xg7 <j;>xg7 15 .1Mfd4+
E1d8 2 0 .�e3 b6 2 U::\b 1 �d6 2 2 . li:lf3 f6 = .
eS 23.�xc5 bxcS 24 .�b3 + <j;>f8
b ) ll.tt:lc7 �xb2 1 2 . �c1 (12.
25.li:ld2 �b8 2 6 . li:lc4 �d8 27.<j;>e2
�e2 tt:le6 13.tt:lxa8 tt:lxf4 14.exf4
td7 2 8 . �hd1 �bS 2 9 . �xd8+ �xd8
�xa1 15.1Mfxa1 �g4 16.\Mfd1 \Mfc8
30.a4 �e8 3 l .�c2±, Khalifman­
17. 0-0 li:lc6) 12 . . . �xc1 13.\Mfxc1 �g4
Kojovic, Budva 2 0 09) 15.�d5 ! e6
14.tt:lxa8 (14.\MrxcS �xf3 15.gxf3 tt:ld7
16.�d6 li:lxcS (16 . . .f6 17.�h4 li:lxcS
16 .\Mfa3 eS) 14 . . . tt:lbd7 ! ? (14 . . . �xf3
18.�xc6 bxc6 19.li:ld2 gS 2 0 .�g3
15.gxf3 tt:le6 16.li:lc7 li:lxf4 17.exf4
tb7 2 l . <j;>e2 �ad8 2 2 . �b1 <j;>f7
1Mfd6 18.li:lb5 (18 .�h3 a6 19.0-0
23.�d4±) 17.�xc6 bxc6 18.li:ld2 ! aS
tt:lc6) 18 ... 1Mfb4+ 19 .1Mfd2 1Mfb1+ is
(18 . . . �b7 19.�f6±) 1 9 . �xc6 li:ld3+
equal) 15.li:lc7 eS 16.tt:lxe5 \Mfxc7 and
20.<j;>e2 li:l eS 2 l.�c5.
White cannot take on g4.

n . . . tt'lba6 12 .b4! tt'le4 13.ha6

bxa6 14.!1c7 (14.0-0 �b7) 14 . . .
�d7! 15. tt'lg5

15.1Mfd3 e6 16.1Mfxe4 exd5 17.\Mfxd5

�e6 should be safe for Black with
his bishop pair.

15 . . . e6 16.tt'lxe4 exd5 17.1Mfxd5

�b5

1 0 .tt'l d5

White's only hope for advantage

is to grab something while Black
is still undeveloped. The mundane
10.�c4? ! li:lxcS 1 1.1Mfe2 li:lc6 1 2 . 0-0
allows 12 ... �e6 and White's light
squares are very weak: 13.li:lg5 (13.
�fd1 \Mfb6 14.�xe6 li:lxe6 15.li:ld5
I/Jxf4 16.exf4 1Mfxb2=) 13 . . . �xc4
14.\Mfxc4 li:ld3 15.\MrbS \Mrd7! 16.�fd1
E1ad8 17.li:lge4 li:l cb4+. Black has a sufficient compen­
sation for the pawn - see game 11
10 . . . tt'lxc5! n.�acl Dreev-Karavade, Reykjavik 2010.

189
 Part 6

B . 5 . tt'l a4 attack the enemy centre, but that

will depend on White's next move:

S . lt:J£3

8.l'k1 wastes yet another tem­

po and we should be even better
after 8 . . . tt:lc6 9 .d5 tt:Jxa4 10.�xa4
tt:Je5 11.h3 e6+. The same applies to
8.tt:lc3 tt:lc6 ! + .

8 . . . �g4

This strange move is the favou­

rite weapon of GM Lysyj . Its main
idea is the same as in the �d2-
system - to take over the centre by
e2 -e4 without having to recapture
on c3 by pawn. However, its draw­
backs overweigh any positive sides
it may have - from a4 the knight
has only three options :
a) to take on b6, but we know
that exchanges favour Black in the 9.�e2
Griinfeld.
After 9.tt'lc5 tt:lc6 10.tt:lxb7, Black
b) to go to c5, threatening b7, regains the pawn with 10 . . . �b8
but this idea requires so many tem­ 11.�a6 (1 l. . .e5 ! ?) 11. . . tt:lb4 1 2 .tt:lc5
pi, that Black will have plenty of �xf3 13.gxf3 E'ld8 14.0-0 �xd4= .
time to hit the d4-pawn.
9 . . . tt'lc6 10.d5
c) to return to c3 which will net
in 2 tempi lost. 10.tt:Jxb6 ? ! weakens White's
queenside: 10 . . . axb6 11 .d5 tt:Jb4!
Black gets a comfortable game 12 .�b3 tt:Ja6 13.0-0 tt:Jc5 14.�c2
with natural moves : �d7 15.E'lfd1 �a4 ! + .

5 .•. �g7 6.e4 tt'lb6 7.�e3 0 - 0 1 0 . . . tt'le5 U. tt'lxe5 ! ?

Black's development is almost Evidently, 11.tt:lxb6 axb6 1 2 .tt:lxe5

complete. His next step will be to �xe2 13 .�xe2 �xe5 14.0-0 �d7

190
 4.cxd5 t2lxd5 Rare Lines : 5.�d2 , 5 . t2l a4, 5.�b3
15.a3 is not more than equal. Black
even has a slight initiative after 15 . . .
f5 !?, underlying the weakness o f the
d5-pawn.
ll . . . he2 12 .\Wxe2 lt:Jxa4 13.f4
e6 14.dxe6
This is a draw offer, but 14.0-0
exd5 15.Elad1 t2l b6 is clearly in
Black's favour.
14 . . . he5 15.exf7+ Elxf7
16.fxe5 �h4+
Black could deviate from the
repetition of moves with 16 . . . �e7 ! ? .
17.�f2 gxf2 18.�xf2 �xe4+
19J�'e2 �b4+ 2 0 .�d2 �e4+ = .
C. 5.�b3 lt:Jxc3 ! 6.bxc3 �g7
Cl. 7.�a3? ! ; C2. 7.t2lf3 .
Cl. 7.�a3 ? !
This is an attempt to prevent
... c5, but it does not achieve its
goal. We'll only have to prepare
the breakthrough with . . . b6. Then
we'll offer a pawn sac on c5, which
White should not accept. In that
scenario the a3-bishop will look
very clumsy.
7. . . 0 - 0
S.lt:J£3
8 .e4 does not fit in with the
placement of the bishop on a3.
Black replies :
8 . . . b6! 9.t2lf3 c5 10 .Eld1 (It would
be senseless to take on c5 : 10 .dxc5
�e6 1l.�c4? �xc4 12.�xc4 b5
13 .�b3 �d3) 10 . . . t2lc6 ! 1l.�e2 �g4
1 1 . . .�c7 12 .0-0 �g4 is also good:
13 .d5 [13 .�b2 ? ! Elad8 14.d5 (14.
�a4 �xf3 15.�xf3 cxd4 16.cxd4 �d7
17.d5 t2l e5 18.�b3 t2lxf3++) 14 . . . t2le5
15.c4 t2lxf3 + 16.�xf3 �xf3 17.gxf3
�e5] 13 . . . t2le5 14.c4 f5, with some
edge.
1 2 . d5
Or: 12 .h3 �xf3 13.�xf3 cxd4
14.e5 Elc8 15 .�xc6 Elxc6 16.cxd4 �c7
191
 Part 6

17.0-0 f1d8 18 .d5 f1c3 19.d6 exd6
20 . .b:d6 Wc4+; 12 .�b2 Wc7 13.0-0
f1ad8; 12.dxc5 Wc7 13.0-0 l'Lle5.
12 ... l'Lle5 13.c4 f5 !
Black owns the initiative, for
example, 14.l'Llxe5 �xe2 15.!"1d2 (15.
'tt> x e2 .b:e5�) 15 ... .b:e5 16.!"1xe2 f4
17.�b2 Wc7 18 .f3 (18.0-0 f3 19.�xe5
Wxe5 2 0 .gxf3 f1f4t) 18 . . . �d4+.
Now the only way to justify the
early move 9.!"1d1 is:
14.dxc5
Following 14.e4 f1fd8 15.�b2
e6! Black obtains a perfect version
of the exchange system, with all
White's pieces set to wrong places.
14 . . .bxc5 15.'\Wb5 f1fc8 ! . Black's
game is easier, because 16.!"1d7
fails to 16 . . . 1Wb6 17.!"1xe7 �f6 18 .!"1d7
�c6 19.1Wxb6 axb6, while 18.c4 �f6 !
17.'\Wd7 Wxd7 18.!"1xd7 �c6 19.!"1d2
�e4 leaves him with the more ac­
tive pieces in a symmetric pawn
structure.
9 ••• c5 1 0 .�e2 (10.dxc5? bxc5
1l.�xc5 Wc7) 10 •••tt::l c6 !

8 b6! 9.e3
•••

White intends to finish develop­

ment with �e2 , 0-0, f1ac1 and f1fd1,
then start rolling his central pawns.
We should prepare to meet this
plan with .. .f5 !
White does not gain benefits
from putting the rook on d1 at once:
9 . !"1d1 c5 10.e3 (10.dxc5 Wc7
1l.cxb6? ! �xc3 +) 10 . . . '\Wc7 1l.�e2
l'Llc6 1 2 . 0-0 l'Ll a5 13.'1Wb1 �b7
The knight would be much better
placed on a5 than on d7.
1l.dxc5? would still be bad due
to ll . . . �e6 12 .'1Wb2 bxc5 13.�xc5
WaS 14.�d4 l'Llxd4 15.l'Llxd4 f1ab8
16.'1Wd2 f1fc8 17. 0-0 �xd4 18.'\Wxd4
!"1b2 19.�f3 f1c4 2 0 .'1Wd1 f1xc3+.

11. 0 - 0 tt::l a5 1 2 .'1Wc2

192
 4.cxd5 ct:lxd5 Rare Lines : 5 .�d2 , 5.ct:la4, 5.1Mfb3

12.1Mfb2 places the queen in

the firing range of the g7-bishop.
Play might continue with 12 . . . Wfc7!
13.l"lfd1 (discouraging . . . �e6) 13 . . .
�e6 ! 14.d5 �f5. Black lost a tempo,
but prolonged the diagonal to the
beast on g7. The next step will be
to open up the centre in order to
stress the ridiculous position of the
a3-bishop : 15.ct:lh4 �d7 16.Wfc2 e6!
17.d6 (17.e4 exd5 18.exd5 Wff4 19 .g3
�a4+) 17 . . . 1Mfc6 18.�f3 Wfa4 !+.

12 ."\Wc7 13 . l"lacl �b7 14.dxc5

••
ll.�dl

White cannot advance his cen­
tral pawns anyway - 14.l"lfdl l"lfd8 ! .
14 . . . bxc5 15.c4 �fd8 16.�fdl
�ac8
All White has achieved is a sym­
metric position where Black has the
better bishops.
The only sensible plan of White
is to push e4. Alternatives pass the
initiative to Black:
ll.dxc5 bxc5 12 .�a3 Wfa5 ;
1l.�b2 ct:l a5 12 .1Mfc2 �b7 13.l"lad1
cxd4 14.cxd4 l"lc8 15.Wfb1 Wfd6 !
16.e4 Wfb4 17.�d3 ct:lc4 18 .�a1 Wfxb1
19.l"lxb1 e6, with a better endgame
in Barlov-J.Horvath, Tivat 1995.

11 . . . \Wc7 12.e4! c!L\ a5 13.\Wa3

C2 . 7. .!l:\£3 0 - 0 8 .e3
8.e4? ! is an obvious mistake,
because it destabilises White's cen­
tre. After 8 . . . c5 9.d5 �g4 ! 10 .�e2
ltld7 11.0-0 (ll.l"lb1?! c4 12 .hc4
ltJc5 13.1Mfc2 ct:lxe4) 11.. .Wfa5 12 .�d2,
Black can launch a strong attack
with the typical pawn sac 12 . . . c4 !
13.hc4 hf3 14.gxf3 l"lac8 15.l"lfc1
(or 15.l"lab1 ct:lc5 16.Wfc2 Wfc7 17.�e2
�e5 18.h3 b6 19 .�e3 f5�) 15 . . . ct:lc5
16.1Mfb5 Wfc7 17.�f1 �e5 18.h3 f5t.
8 ... c5 9 .�e2 c!L\c6 1 0 . 0 - 0 b6!
Or 13.Wfb1 cxd4 14.cxd4 �b7
15.�e3 l"lac8 16.l"lcl Wfd6 = .
13 . . . �b7 14.d5
White cannot keep the pawn on
e4 since 14.�d3 will be attacked
with 14 .. .f5 15.ct:lg5 fxe4.
14 . . . f5 ! ?
This i s thematic, but simple 1 4 . . .
e6 is also good enough for achieving
an advantage: 15.l"lb1 exd5 16.exd5
Wfe7 17.�e3 Wfe4 !+.

193
 Part 6
15.liJg5 �e5 16.liJe6
Black has the initiative, but win­
ning a pawn with 16 ... �xc3 17.tt::l x g7
194
Wxa3 18 . .ixa3 lt>xg7 19.l"1acl ! is
quite unclear. It is probably better
to stay active with :
16 . . . fxe4 ! ?
Here 17.tt::l xf8 l"1xf8 18 . .ie3 .ixd5
19.l"1acl We6 2 0 .l"1d2 Wf7 would give
Black firm control over the centre,
whereas 17.tt::l xg7 Wxg7 18 . .ie3 l"1ad8
19 .c4 e6 20.dxe6 Wf6 is not too
clear, but still Black is a pawn up.
He can always bar the main dark­
squared diagonal with . . . tt::l a5-c6-d4
if White managed to build up a dan­
gerous W-.i battery on it.
Part 6
Complete Games
1 1 . Dreev-Karavade
Reykjavik 20 1 0
1 .d4 lLlf6 2 . c4 g 6 3 . lLl c3 d 5
4.cxd5 lLlxdS 5 ..i d 2 lLl b6 6 . .if4
ig7 7.e3 0-0 8 . lLl f3 c5 9 . dxc5
lLl6d7 1 0 .ltld5 lLlxcS 1 U'!:c1 lLl ba6
1 2 . b4 lLl e4 1 3 ..ixa6 bxa6 1 4.:Bc7
id7 1 5. lLl g 5 e6 1 6. lLl xe4 exd5
17 .'I!Mxd5 .ibS
This is a critical position for
our repertoire against 6.if4. It
first occurred in the game Gran­
delius-Gupta, Wijk aan Zee 2 0 1 0 .
White decided t o keep the queens
with 18 .id6? ! , but after 18 . . . Elc8
19.Elxc8 �xeS 20 ..bf8 �g4 ! (20 . . .
Wcl+ 2 l .�dl ic3+ i s a draw.), he
had to find the only move 2 l .�dl ! .
Then 2 l . . .�xg2 2 2 .ixg7 �xhl+
23.�d2 �xe4 24.id4 should be a
draw. Instead, he stumbled with
2l.�d2 ? ! �xg2 ! 2 2.Ct:lg3 ixf8 23.a3
aS 24.bxa5 hS 25.f4 �f3 and Gupta
went on to win.
1 8 .'11Mx d8 1 8 . . . :Bfxd8 1 9 .f3 :Bac8
2 0 .'it>f2 :Bxc7 2 1 . .ixc7 :Bc8 22 . .if4
:Bc2+ 23.'it>g3
Dreev wants to play a safe po­
sition with small, but lasting ad­
vantage after 23 . . . Elxa2 24.Elcl h6
25 .h4. In this variation White is the
more active side. He will eventually
win the f7-pawn and the black king
will be under attack. I analysed fur­
ther and it seems that Black has just
enough counterplay against g2, for
instance : 25 . . . id3 ! 26.Elc8+ �h7
27.Elc7 ifl 2 8 . �h2 Elxg2 + 29.�hl
Ele2 .
Similarly, 23 . . .f5 24.lLld6 ic3
25.a3 ib2 2 6.e4 fxe4 27.lLlxe4 ixa3
2 8 .id6 leaves White with some ini­
tiative. However, Karavade takes a
more practical decision to keep
195
 Part 6
White's rook caged in his half of the
board.
23 . . . i.e2 24.a4 f5 25.ltld 6 i.f8
26.e4
After this move, the game is
completely balanced. White had
two other attractive options :
2 6.h4 ! ? Ei:d2 27.Ei:el �dl (The
rook endgame after 27 . . . �xd6
2 8 .�xd6 hf3 29.gxf3 Ei:xd6 3 0 . Ei:cl
Ei:b6 should be a draw.) 2 8.e4 �xd6
2 9 . e5 �xe5 30.Ei:xe5 Ei:d7 when
White has a nice advantage, which,
however, cannot be converted ;
26.Ei:bl g5 ! (26 . . . Ei: d 2 27.ltlb7 �d3
2 8 .Ei:cl �xb4 29.Ei:c8+ mf7 30.ltld8+
mf6 31.Ei:c?t) 27.�e5 Ei:d2 2 8 .l2J b 7
(28.Ei:el �dl 29.ltlxf5 �xb4 is un­
clear) 28 . . . mf7= . The bishop pair
neutralises White's extra pawn.
26 . . . fxe4 27.ltlxe4 i.xb4 2 8 . h 4
gcs 29.i.e5 aS 30 . h 5 gxh5 3 1 .gxh5
i.d3 (31 . . .�dl) 32 .i.d4 a6 33.gds
h 6 34.gd7 gg6+ (34 . . .�c2) 35.�f2
i.c2 36.ltlf6+ �f8 37.gb7 i.xa4
196
38.g4 i.e7 39.ltld 5 i.h4+ 40.�e3
gcs
The rest is irrelevant. Dreev
took some risks, trying to compli­
cate things, but it all ended with the
logical outcome.
4 1 .f4 i.d 1 42 . g 5 hxg5 43 .f5
g4 44.i.g7+ �g 8 45.f6 ? ! (45.�e5
�f3 = ) 45 . . . i.g5+ 46. 'it>e4 i.f3+
( 46 . . . �c2 + 4 7. me5 Ei:c5 48.Ei:b8+ mf7
49.md6 ! Ei:xd5+ so.mxd5 g3 51.�f8
g2 52 .�c5 hf6=) 47.�f5 i.xf6
48.ltlxf6+ gxf6+ 49 .i.xf6 i.xb7
50.�xg4 �f7 5 1 .i.c3 a4 52.'it>f5
a3 53.'it>e5 a2 54.i.a 1 �e7 55.'it>d4
�d6 56.�c3 �c5 57.�b3 i.d5+
58.�a3 i.c4 1 /2 - 1 /2 .
 Pa rt 7

Rare Systems II
1 . d4 d 5 2 . c4 g 6 3 .li:J c3 d 5 4. cxd 5 tiJxd5
5 . e4 tiJxc3 6 . bxc3 i.g 7

7 .i.b5+ 7 .'Wa4+ 7 .i.a3

197
Pa rt 7
Main Ideas
l.d4 tt:'lf6 2 . c4 g6 3.tt:'lc3 d5
4.cxd5 tt:'lxd5 5.e4 tt:'lxc3 6.bxc3
�g7
A. 7.�b5+ ; B. 7.11,1Ja4 + ; C. 7.�a3 .
I consider 7.�g5 in Part 11.
A. 7.�b5+ c6 ! 8.�a4 0-0
9 . tt:'le2 b5 ! ? 10.�b3 a5
Our plan is to gain total con­
trol over the light squares by . . . a4,
. . . 'Ll d7-b6, . . . �e6, while restricting
the mobility of the enemy's central
pawns with . . . 11,1Je8 and . . . e5, or first
198
. . .f6, . . . �e6 and push . . . e5 later.
Evidently, White has to produce
some threats against our king or he
will come out of the opening with
an inferior position.
Va isser-Jansa
Arco 2 0 1 0
1l.�e3 'Lld7 12 .h4
White opts for a direct assault.
Black does not have to change his
general plan :
12 . . . a4 13 .�c2 'Llb6 14.11,1Jc1 'Llc4
15.�h6
15 ... e5 ! 16.�xg7 <i>xg7 17.h5 11,1Je7
18 .�d3 �e6
The first wave of the attack has
passed by without causing any
harm.
The other logical way to break
through Black's defence is to use
the f-pawn. We can simply stop it
by .. .f5 :
 4.cxd5 li:Jxd5 5.e4 li:Jxc3 6 .bxc3 �g7 Rare Lines
11.0-0 li:J d7 12 .�g5 a4 13 .�c2
li:Jb6 14.f4 f6 15.�h4 li:Jc4 16.1Wd3
16 .. .f5 ! 17.li:Jg3 fxe4 18.li:Jxe4
li:Ja3 ! 19.cj;Jh1 (19.�ae1 b4) 19 . . .�e6
20.1Wd2 li:Jxc2 2 1.1Wxc2 b4, destroy­
ing White's centre.
11.0-0 li:Jd7 12 .�g5 a4 13 .�c2
li:Jb6 14.1Wc1
14 .. .f6 15.�h6 eS 16.�xg7 cj;lxg7
17.h3 (17.f4 �g4) 17 . . . �e6 18.f4 �c4.
The bottom line is that Black's
play is thematic and easy - he aims
for . . . eS (or even . . . cS at an opportu­
nity) while White has not shown yet
any dangerous plan.
B. 7.1Wa4+ tt:ld7 S . tt:l£3 0 - 0
9. ig5 c5
You should aim for the following
setup :
1. Expel the bishop from the ac­
tive position on g5 with . . . h6.
2 . Fianchetto the bishop to b7
with . . . a6, . . . bS, if possible, or . . . b6,
if White meets . . . a6 with 1Wa3 .
3. Take dS under control with
. . . e6 and bring both rooks in the
centre.
1 0 . gc1
10.gd1 h6 ! 1l.�e3 cxd4 12.cxd4
li:Jb6 13.1Wa3 1Wd6 ! = .
10 h 6 ! ll.�e3 a6 ! 12.1Wa3 !
•••
(12 .�e2 bS) 12 b6 13.�d3 e6
•••
14. 0 - 0 �b7
Najer-Shomoev, Warsaw 2 0 05,
saw further: 15.1Wb3 ! 1Wc7 16.1Wd1
when best is 16 ... li:Jf6 = , e.g. 17.li:Jd2
�ac8 18.a4 gfd8.
199
 Part 7

C. 7. .ia3 tiJ d7 S . lD£3 c5 ! b5 ! ?) 1 0 . . . cxd4 11.cxd4 tDf6 12.e5

tiJd5 13. 0 - 0 b6

White's main problem here is

that the a3-bishop is hanging, for in­ Black is fine here:
stance, after 9 ..ic4 cxd4 10.cxd4??
'&a5 + . So he must protect it: 14. lDg5 ! h6 ! 15 . .if3 .ib7
16.lDe4 '&d7= , Atalik-Lin Weiguo,
9.'&b3 0-0 1 0 . .ie2 (10 . .id3 Beijing 1997.

200
Part 7

Step by Step

l.d4 .!Df6 2 . c4 g6 3 . .!L\ c3 d5 The bishop would be too pas­

4.cxd5 .!L\xd5 5.e4 .!L\xc3 6.bxc3 sive on c 2 . After 10 . .ic2 we can play
ig7 immediately 10 . . . c5 ! ll . .ie3 (White
cannot develop the bishop to the
more active square gS, because he
should defend d4 against the threat
of . . . b4. ) ll . . . lLld7 1 2 . 0-0 lLlb6 !
13 . .id3 (13 .dxc5 lLlc4�) 13 . . . lLl a4 !
14.hb5 (14.1{h'c2 .id7; 14.1{h'd2 b4)
14 . . . lLlxc3 15.lLlxc3 cxd4= .

In this chapter, I continue the sur­

vey of rare systems which are of­
ten stored in White's repertoire as
backup lines of the main variations.
I'll consider:

A. 7 . .ib5+ ; B. 7.1{h'a4 + ; C. 7 . .ia3 .

10 • . . a5 ! ? 11. 0 - 0

A. 7 . .ib5 + c6 ! 8 . .ia4 0-0 White can prevent the positional

9 . .!L\e2 bind on the queenside by ll.a4, but
this move would help us open the
We have a wide choice here, like a6-fl diagonal. Practice has been
9 . . . c5 or 9 . . e5, but I recommend
. satisfactory for Black after 1 1 . . .b4,
the most consistent and straightfor­ but Agrest suggest a slightly differ­
ward: ent move order: ll . . . .ia6 ! , intend­
ing to meet 1 2 . 0-0 with 12 . . . b4. If
9 b5 ! ? 10 .ib3
..• • White chooses 1 2 . axb5 cxb5 13 . 0-0,

201
 Part 7

then 13 . . . tt:lc6 14.�e3 a4 15.�d5 16.dxe5 tt:lc4) 15.dxc5 tt:lc4 16.1MI'xd8

(15 .�a2 b4; 15.�c2 tt:l aS 16.�d3 Elxd8 17.tt:le2 f6 18 .�cl e5+, intend­
1MI'd7+) 15 . . . Elc8 16.Elel e6 17.�a2 ing . . . �f8 .
tt:l aS, with an edge.
c) 14.1MI'cl f6 15.�h6 e5 16 .hg7
Wxg7 17.h3 (17.f4 �g4) 17 . . . �e6
ll tt:ld7 1 2 .�g5 !
18.f4 �c4.
•••

12 .�e3 has no bite : 12 . . . a4

Perhaps he should try to open
13 .�c2 tt:lb6 14.�d3 (14.tt:lf4 e5
the f-file with :
15.dxe5 tt:lc4=) 14 . . . �e6 15.tt:lf4 �c4,
with a total light-squared domina­
14.f4 f6 15.�h4 tt:lc4 16.1MI'd3
tion.

Black has here at least two de­ Here we blockade the f-pawn
cent plans: with :
Al. 12 ... a4 and A2 . 12 ... c5.
16 f5 ! 17)l:lg3 fxe4 18. tt:lxe4
•.•

tt:la3 ! 19.Whl (19.Elael b4) 19 �e6.••

Al. 12 ••• a4 ! 13.�c2 tt:lb6 20.1MI'd2 tt:lxc2 21.1MI'xc2 b4

Our idea is clear - we aim to re­ Nothing has left from White's
strict the mobility of the enemy's centre, our bishop pair is in control.
central pawns with . . . 1MI'e8 and . . . e5,
or first .. .f6, . . . �e6 and push . . . e5
later. White finds it difficult to come A2 . 12 c5
•••

closer to our king, for instance :

a) 14.�d3 �e6 15.tt:lf4 �c4
16.�xc4 tt:lxc4 17.tt:ld3 1MI'c7 18 .e5 c5 ! .
b ) 14.tt:lcl cS (14 . . .1MI'e8 15.tt:ld3 eS
This move is connected with
. . . 1Mfc7, . . . e5, which could lead to a
closed centre should White answer
it with dS.

202
 4.cxd5 '2lxd5 5.e4 '2lxc3 6 .bxc3 1lg7 Rare Lines
13 .�d2
Alternatively:
13 J''lb l :fla6 ! 14J''l e l (14.e5 h6
15.1le3 cxd4 16.cxd4 '2lb6+±) 14 . . . h6
15.1le3 :1'lc8 16.'2lf4 a4 17.1lc2 cxd4
18.cxd4 e5 ! ;
13 .1ld5 :1'lb8 ;
13.d5 '2lb6+;
13 .�cl :fla6 ! .
13 . . . §lb7! 14.:1'\adl ! ?
The alternatives are passive :
14.f3 a4 15.1lc2 '2lb6 16.dxc5
�xd2 17.1lxd2 '2lc4 18 .1lg5 f6 19 .1lh4
1:'lfc8 or 14.d5 a4 15.1lc2 '2le5 = .
14 . . . �c7!?
The game Stocek-Evdokimov,
Travemuende 2009, saw 14 . . . cxd4? ! .
In my opinion, i n the Griinfeld
Black should exchange on d4 only if
he gets concrete benefits. White is
better after 15.cxd4 :1'lc8 (15 . . . '2lb6 ! ?
16.d5 a4 17.1lc2 :1'lc8 18.1ld3±) 16.d5 !
(The game went 16.'2lc3 a4 17.1ld5
ia6 18.e5 '2lb6 19.1lf3 '2lc4 2 0 .�e2
1:'le8 21.e6ro.) 16 . . . '2lc5 17.1lc2 b4
18.'2ld4 �d7 19.�e3 !±.
My idea is to prepare ... e5 which
would be quite good in the event
of 15.�e3 e5 16.d5 c4 17.1lc2 f6
1 8.1lh4 �c5 19.�xc5 '2lxc5 2 0 .f3
:1'lfc8 2 1.:1'lbl :fla6 2 2 .1lf2 :flf8+.
White should take the pawn :
15.1lxe7 :1'lfe8 16.d5 (or 16.ixc5
'2lxc5 17.dxc5 :1'lxe4 18 .�d7 :1'le7
19.�xc7 :1'lxc7 2 0 .1ld5 :1'lac8 2 1.1lxb7
:1'lxb7 2 2 .:1'\dS :flf8) 16 . . . �e5 17.d6
�xe4 1 8 .f3 �fS.
At first White's position looks
overwhelming, but we need only
one move - . . . §lf6(f8), to balance
the game. Play might continue with
19.<i>hl (19 .1lc2 �e6; 19.'2lg3 �eS)
19 . . . c4 2 0 .1lc2 �c5 2 1.'2ld4 (21.:1'\bl
:flf6 2 2 .:flxf6 '2lxf6 2 3 .'2ld4 b4
24.'2lf5 :1'\eS 25.cxb4 axb4 26.�xb4
�xb4 27.:1'lxb4 gxfS 2 8 . :1'lxb7 :1'lxa2
2 9.1lbl :1'ld2 =) 2 1 . . .1lf8 2 2 .ixf8 '2lxf8
23.�f4 :1'lad8 = .
B . 7.'�'a4+ .!Ll d7
White's check was aimed against
our thematic plan with . . . c7-c5,
. . . '2lc6 so our suggested answer
looks like a concession. However,
I think that this is the best way to
achieve rich dynamic play. After all,
the knight supports . . . c5 and can be
203
 Part 7
quickly redeployed to f6 or b6 with
tempo. Let us consider the alterna­
tives :
7 . . . c6 seems illogical as after
8. cuf3 0-0 9.�e2 cS 1 0 . 0-0 cuc6
11 .�e3 white is a clear tempo ahead
with \Wa4. On the other hand, it is
arguable that the queen is so much
better placed on that square. M­
ter 1 1 . . .\WaS 1 2 .\WxaS cuxaS Black
should not have serious problems ;
7 . . . �d7? ! 8 .1Wa3 ! is not quite in
the spirit of the Griinfeld as . . . cS be­
gins to look as a distant mirage .
7 . . . 1Wd7 may be as good as the
text after 8 .1Wa3 b6 ! 9.cuf3 �b7
10 .�d3 cS 11.�e3 0-0 1 2 . 0-0 with a
complex battle ahead.
Another setup is S .�gS 0-0
9J':!dl. Black obtains a pleasant
flexible position without any weak­
nesses with 9 . . . cS 1 0 .1Wa3 \Wc7
11.cuf3 cuf6 12 .�d3 �g4 13.0-0 �xf3
14.gxf3 EI:fc8. The f6-knight is eying
the square f4.
8... 0 - 0
204
9.�g5
The a1-rook should quickly leave
the big diagonal or Black will eas­
ily equalise exploiting the pin after
9 .�e2 cS 1 0 . 0-0 cxd4 ll.cxd4 cueS!
12 .\Wc2 cue6 13 .�e3 cuxd4 14.cuxd4
(14.�xd4 �xd4 1S.EI:ad1 eS 16.cuxeS
\Wb6) 14 . . . �xd4 1S.EI:ad1 eS 16.�xd4
exd4 17.1Wb2 �e6 18.\Wxb7 1Wb6= ,
Miton-Ivanchuk, Havana 2 0 07.
The white bishop could also go
to e3, but it would be passive there.
Following 9 .�e3 cS 1 0 . EI:d1 cub6!
11.\Wa3 (11.\WaS cxd4 1 2 . cxd4 �g4
13.�e2 \Wd6 14.0-0 EI:fc8 ; 11.\Wb3
cxd4 1 2 . cxd4 �d7, threatening
. . . �a4) ll . . . cxd4 1 2 . cxd4 Black finds
time for 12 . . . \Wd6 or 12 . . . �g4.
9 . . . c5 1 0 .EI:cl
The c-file will be probably open
in future, so the rook's most natural
place is on cl.
10 .�e2? ! again is dubious, but
this time things are more compli­
cated than in the note to White's
ninth move : 10 . . . cxd4 ll.cxd4 cueS!
12 .\Wa3 cuxe4 13 .�xe7 \Wb6 14.hf8
�xf8 with a terrific compensation,
for example : 1S.\We3 �b4+ 16.Wfl
�fS, followed by . . . EI:e8.
10.EI:d1 h6! faces White with a
difficult choice. 11.�h4? ! maintains
the hit on e7, but the bishop will be
missing from the centre - 1 l . . .cuf6!
12 .�d3 (12 .eS cudS 13.dxcS cuxc3
14.EI:xd8 cuxa4 1S.EI:d4 cuxcS 16.he7
cue6) 12 . . . �g4 13.0-0 cxd4 14.cxd4
cuhS+. 11.�e3, on the other hand,
leads to nearly the same position as
 4.cxd5 lLlxd5 5.e4 lLlxc3 6.bxc3 �g7 Rare Lines
in the event of 9 .�e3 . Black follows
the same recipe : ll . . . cxd4 12.cxd4
li:lb6 13 .\Wa3 \Wd6 ! 14.\Wxd6 exd6
15.�d3 f5 ! 16.0-0 (16.e5 Eld8) 16 . . .
g 5 17.d5 lLl a4, Jacobsen-Petrosian,
Gibraltar 2 0 0 8 . Black is already
slightly better.
10 . . . h6 ! ll.�e3
The game Dreev-Gulko, New
York 1989 saw 11.�h4? ! . Accord­
ing to the computer, Black should
punish it with ll . . . g5 12 .�g3 g4, but
my human advice is ll . . . lLlf6 ! Then
White should part with his dark­
squared bishop with 1 2 .�xf6 as 1 2 .
12 .�d3 lLlh5 ! would b e quite awk­
ward for him.
ll . . . a6 ! 12 .\Wa3 !
Or 12 .�e2 b5 13 .\Wa3 �b7;
12 .�d3 b5 13.\Wa3 �b7 14.0-0 \Wc7
15.d5 c4 16.�b1 Elfe8 17.lLld4 lLl e5+.
12 . . . b6 13 .�d3 e6
It is good to restrain White's
d4-pawn. 13 . . .�b7 14.0-0 lLlf6 15.d5
is better for White since the only
counterplay with 15 . . . lLlg4 16 .�d2
f5? ! can be met by 17.Ele 1 ! and play
opens in White's favour.
14. 0 - 0 �b7
This position would have been
pleasant for White, stayed his
queen on d2 or e2. It has nothing
to do on the left flank which is, in
principle, a Black's domain.
The game Serper-Chuchelov,
Novosibirsk 1989, went 15.Elfd1 \Wc7
16.lL'ld2 Elfd8 17.�b1, when Black
should have displayed activity with
17 . . . b5= . Instead, he removed his
knight from the main battleground
with 17 . . . lLlf6? ! 18.f3 Elac8? (19 . . . c4)
19 .dxc5 ! bxc5 2 0 . lLl c4 and unex­
pectedly White's knight obtained a
dominating stand.
Najer-Shomoev, Warsaw
2 0 0 5 , saw a more logical idea:
15.\Wb3 ! \Wc7 16 .\Wdl. The queen
is already closer to the kingside so
here 16 . . . lLlf6 is already a reason­
able move. (In the game, Black
ruined his position with 16 . . .f5?
17.�c4 Elae8 18.exf5 gxf5 19.a4±. He
should have stayed passive on the
kingside.) After 17.lL'ld2 Elac8 18.a4
Elfd8, I do not see how White could
improve his setup since 19 .\We2 is
hardly good due to 19 . . . cxd4.
C. 7.�a3 c!Lld7
We know from the previous part
that White's bishop on a3 is not a
serious barrier before our favour­
ite breakthrough . . . c7-c5. I recom-
205
 Part 7

mended . . . b6, followed up by . . . cS . 9 .Wfb3

However, here White has saved
a tempo on \Wb3 . With 7 . . Jt:Jd7, 9 .Zi.c4 cxd4 10 .\Wb3 (10.0-0
we try to exploit the drawbacks of dxc3 ! ? 1l.Zi.xf7+ <;t>xf7 1 2 . lt:Jg5+
White's move order. The bishop on <;t>es 13.lt:Je6 \WaS 14.lt:Jxg7+ <;t>t7+)
a3 is unprotected which enables the 10 . . . 0-0 1l.cxd4 lt:Jb6 leads to the
threat . . . c7-cSxd4, \WaS + . That does following position :
not mean 7 . . . b6 is bad, on the con­
trary, it is a valuable alternative :
8 .Zi.c4 Zi.b7, and here the aggressive
9 .\Wf3 ! ? is probably too commit­
tal : 9 . . . 0-0 10 .h4 ! lt:Jd7! 1l.hS lt:Jf6
12 .hxg6 hxg6, with a sharp position.

S.ti:J£3

8.\Wb3 would obtain a somewhat

Now 12 .Zi.e2 Zi.e6 ! 13.\Wb4 Ei:c8 !
better version for White of line C1/
would give Black full compensa­
Part 6, because on d7 the knight is
tion in the event of 14.�xe7 \Wxe7
more passive than on c6. Still, Black
1S.Zi.xe7 Ei:fe8 16.Zi.d6 (16 .Zi.gS Zi.c4
is fine after 8 . . . cS 9 . Ei:d1 0-0 10 .Zi.e2
17.eS f6 ! ; 16.Zi.a3 Zi.c4 17.eS f6;
\WaS 11.lt:Jf3, Milov-Mikhalevski
16 .Zi.h4 Zi.g4 17.eS f6 ! ) 16 . . . Zi.c4!
Biel 2 0 0 2 , whereas Kogan suggest�
so Milov preferred 1 2 . 0-0 against
ll . . . lt:Jf6 ! 12 .Zi.d3 Zi.e6 13.\Wb2 b6
Svidler, Moscow 2 0 0 1 . However,
14.0-0 Zi.g4+.
with the bishop pair and no weak­
Alternatively, 8 .Zi.c4 cS 9 .\Wb3
nesses, Black's game is very pleas­
0-0 10.lt:Jf3 can be attacked by 10 . . .
ant: 12 . . . lt:Jxc4 13.\Wxc4 Zi.g4 14.li:Je5
bS ! ll.Zi.dS Ei:b8t.
Zi.e6 1S.\Wb4 \Wb6 ! . This improves
on 1S . . . Ei:e8 from the stem game
8 . . . c5 !
and leaves Black with some initia­
tive, e.g. 16.\Wa4 Ei:fd8 17.Ei:fd1 Zi.xeS!
(a universal motif in the Griinfeld)
18.dxeS \Wc7 19 .Zi.b2 (19 .f4 Ei:xd1+
2 0 .Ei:xd1 aS 2 1.\Wd4 bS 2 2 .Ei:c1 \Wb7)
19 . . . a6 2 0 .Ei:ac1 Ei:xd1+ 2 l . Ei:xd1 bS+.

9 ••• 0 - 0 1 0 .Zi.e2

White has also tried :

a) 10 .Zi.d3
On this square the bishop
provokes lO . . . bS ! ? (Kogan), when

206
 4.cxd5 'Llxd5 5.e4 'Llxc3 6.bxc3 1l.g7 Rare Lines

White cannot simply castle due to square, but White has some threats,
the fork at c4 . After ll.Wxb5 �b8 connected with :
12 .Wa4 'Llb6 13.Wc2 cxd4 14. 'Llxd4
(14.cxd4 1l.g4t) 14 . . . 1l.d7 15.0-0 �c8,
Black has enough compensation
for the pawn. Furthermore, Black
can calmly prepare . . . b5 with 10 . . .
l':lb8 ! 11.0-0 b5, when either the b3-
queen or the d3-bishop should re­
treat. Then Black has many useful
moves on the queenside as . . . Wc7,
... a6, . . . 1l.b7, while White seems to
lack an active plan.
b) 10 .1l.c4
This is really begging for 10 . . . b5 !
11.id5 (or 11.1l.xb5 �b8 12 .Wa4 'Llb6 14.tl'lg5!
13.Wa4 cxd4 14.'Llxd4 1l.b7t) 11 . . .
l':lb8t. Now 14 . . .1l.b7 would allow 15.e6!
f6 16.'Llf7 Wc8 17.�fel Wc3 (17 . . .
c) 10 .ib5 ? ! cxd4 ll.cxd4 'Llf6 Wxe6 18 .ic4) 18.1l.f3:t, so:
12 .id3 1l.g4+.
d) lO .�dl does not prevent . . . b5 14 . . . h6 ! 15.1l.f3 ib7 16.tl'le4
either: 10 . . . Wc7 11.1l.e2 b5 ! Wd7

ll . . . cxd4 Black has consolidated his piec­

ll . . . �b8 ! ? , enabling . . . b5, looks a
valuable alternative.
ll.cxd4 tl'lf6 12 .e5 tl'ld5 13. 0 - 0
b6
It looks like Black is already bet­
ter due to his control over the d5-
es. In Atalik-Lin Weiguo, Beijing
1997, White sought counterplay
with 17.�fe1 �ac8 18.�ad1 �fd8
19.e6 fxe6 2 0 .1l.g4 �c6 2 1 .icl, with
some compensation.
Perhaps Black should deprive
the enemy of that resource by 18 . . .
�c7, when 19.e6 fxe6 2 0 .ig4 'Llf4+
would be outright bad.

207
 Part S

The Exchange System 7.�e3

1 . d4 d 5 2 . c4 g 6 3 . ttJc3 d 5 4 . cxd5 ttJxd 5 5 . e4 ttJxc3
6 . bxc3 .ig 7 7 . .ie3

2 09
Pa rt S

Main Ideas

l.d4 lLlf6 2 . c4 g6 3 . lLl c3 d5 D u m itrache-Vokarev

4.cxd5 ll:lxd5 5.e4 ll:lxc3 6 .bxc3 Bucharest 1 998
.ig7 7 . .ie3 c5

13 ..id2 b6 14 . .ib4 fS ! 15 . .id3

By firstly developing the bishop,
White hopes to get the best of the
7.CLlf3 system while sidestepping
the pin from g4. This move order
is often adopted by players who
love endgames. Their favourite line
is 8.l,l;rd2 l,l;ra5 9J'kl cxd4 1 0 . cxd4
l,l;rxd2 + ll. Wxd2 with an active king
and a safe position. I propose to
complicate their task with the rela­
tively rare setup:
fxe4 16 . .ixe4 .ib7+.
In most games White prefers to
develop the knight, but then our fa­
vourite plan with . . . .ig4 works fine:
ll.ll:lf3 .ig4 12 ..ie2 l,l;ra5 13. 0 - 0
B:ac8 14.l,l;rxa5 ll:lxa5 15.B:cl .ix£3
16 . .ixf3 (16.gxf3 CLlc6) 16 . . . ll:lc4
17.e5

A. 8 .l,l;rd2 cxd4 9.cxd4 lLlc6

lO.B:dl 0 - 0

Now White can trade queens

with ll.dS l,l;ra5 1 2 .l,l;rxa5 CLlxaS, but
his rook is not on the open c-file,
and, more importantly, his centre
has lost its flexibility and can be at­
tacked with .. .fS :

210
 4.cxd5 l2Jxd5 5.e4 l2Jxc3 6.bxc3 �g7 7.�e3
It is true that Black has no
chances to win this position, but,
on the other hand,
17 . . . b5 ! 18.�b7 :Bb8 19.�d5
8:fc8 20.e6 :Bb6 21.exf7+ @£8
22.a4 e6 looks like an easy draw.
B. S.:Bcl �a5 9.�d2 0 - 0
This leads to original and inte­
resting positions. Since White's
rook is already on c1, we'll not hur­
ry to open the c-file. Instead, we'll
build up play against the queen on
d2 by bringing our rook to d8.
10.l2J£J
1 0 . d5 is more principled, but
the arising pawn structure with an
open e-file is good for Black: 1 0 . . . e6
11.l2:lf3 exd5 1 2 . exd5 :t'le8 13.�e2 :
Karpov-Kasparov, Lyon/New
York 1990, continued 13 . . . �f5 14.0-0
l2J d7 15.h3 l2Jb6 (15 ... l2Jf6=) 1 6.g4
�d7 1 7.c4 �xd2 1 8 . l2Jxd2 l2Ja4 = .
l O . . JMS
The whole White's setup is de­
vised to support d5, followed by c4 .
He can play it now or on the next
move.
1 l.�e2 �g4 ! 1 2 .d5
12 . . . c4 ! is pleasant for Black so
the main danger should be:
11.d5 e6!
Now White can finally play
1 2 .c4, but after 12 . . . �xd2 + he faces
an unpleasant dilemma. If he re­
captures with the king, it will feel
in the draught on the open d-file:
1 3 . @xd2 l2Ja6 14.a3 f5 ! ? 15.exf5
exd5. In the event of 13.l2Jxd2 b6
21 1
 Part 8

14.�e2 tLla6 15.0-0 tLlb4 16.a3 tLla2, 15.exd5 c4 ! 16.�xc4 �e6 17.E\d1 tLle7,
his pieces lack coordination : see game 14 Pashikian-Cornet­
te, Aix-les-Bains 2 8 . 0 3 . 2 0 1 1 .

1 3 . . J�'a4! 14.c4 ll:\ c 6 15.�e3

exd5 16.exd5 ll:\b4 ! =

See game 12 Tunik-Timofeev,

St. Petersburg 2 0 0 2 .

12.�g5 f6 ! 13.�f4
See game 13 Sargissian­
For 13.�e3 tLlc6 14.�d3 exd5 Svidler, Khanty-Mansiysk 2010.

212
Part S
Step by Step
l.d4 ltJf6 2 . c4 g6 3 . ltJc3 d5
4.cxd5 ltJxd5 5.e4 ltJxc3 6.bxc3
ig7 7.�e3 c5
A. 8.Wd2 ; B. 8 J'i:cl.
8.ltJf3 transposes to part 9, line D
while 8.�c4 WaS 9.Wd2 tt:Jc6 10.ltJe2
0-0 lU'i:dl does not set Black any
problems. He can trade queens by
ll ... cxd4 12.cxd4 Wxd 2 + 13.l"i:xd2
tt:la5 14.�d3 �d7 15.0-0 l"i:fc8 = .
A. 8.Wd2
This move is by far the most
popular choice of White. Most often
Black answers with 8 . . . Wa5 9 .Ekl
cxd4 10.cxd4 Wxd 2 + ll.@xd2 when
White's king is quite active in the
endgame.
We chose for our repertoire a
more straightforward and univer­
sal approach, which is efficient in a
wide variety of variations :
8 . . . cxd4 9.cxd4 ltJc6 lO. l"i:dl
0-0
Alternatives allow counterplay
in the centre :
a) ll.d5 WaS 12.WxaS
It is dubious to move again the
rook, because Black's knight will
be very active on d4: 12J'kl Wxd2+
13 .�xd2 tt:Jd4 14.�e3 a6 ! = . The last
move aims to ensure protection for
the centralised knight, should he
retreat to bS. The immediate 14 . . .f5
2 13
 Part 8
is also possible, but the sharp end­
game after 15.e5! ii.xe5 16J''k4 Lt'lb5
17.Lt'lf3 ii.c3+ 18.r,f1d1 ii.f6 19.f1xc8
f1axc8 2 0 .ii.xb5 f1fd8 2 1.r,f1e2 f1c2 +
2 2 .Lt'ld2 f1xa2 23.!"1b1 looks danger­
ous for Black.
12 . . . Lt'lxa5
It becomes obvious that White's
rook missed its best square - cl.
The pawn centre also lost its flex­
ibility and can be attacked now
with .. .f5, as in the event of 13.ii.b5
f5. Instead, Dumitrache-Vokarev,
Bucharest 1998, went 13.ii.d2 b6
14.ii.b4. Here the thematic 14 .. .f5
took over the initiative : 15.ii.d3 fxe4
16.ii.xe4 ii.b7 17.f3 . Now the simple
17 . . . ii.f6 would have fixed Black's
edge.
b) ll.ii.e2 may be preventing the
pin from g4, but lets in 1l.. .e5 12 .d5
Lt'ld4. The game Gelfand-Svidler,
Ohrid 2 009, saw further 13.Lt'lf3
Lt'lxe2 14.\Wxe2 WaS+ 15.ii.d2 \Wa4 = .
( 1 5 . . . \Wxa2 16.0-0 f5 i s sharper, but
risky.)
ll . . . ii.g4 12 .ii.e2 \Wa5 13. 0 - 0
13.\WxaS Lt'lxa5 14.Lt'ld2 ii.xe2
15. r,f1xe2 facilitates Black's task.
2 14
13 ••• f1ac8 14.'�xa5
14.h3 hf3 15.hf3 \Wxd2 16.!"1xd2
Lt'la5 17.ii.g5 Lt'lc4 is evidently safe for
Black.
14 Lt'lxa5 15.!"1cl .ixf3 16.hf3
•••
(16.gxf3 Lt'lc6) 16 .lt:\c4 17.e5
••
This position has occurred in
several games which all ended in
a draw. White hopes for some tiny
advantage despite the opposite col­
oured bishops. Perhaps the most
precise move is :
17 . . . b5!
The blindfold game lvanchuk­
Svidler, Nice 2 0 1 0 , went instead
17 . . . Lt'lxe3 18.fxe3 ii.h6 19.r,f1f2 b5
2 0 . r,f1e2 e6 2 1.ii.b7 f1c4 2 2 .!"1xc4
bxc4 = .
18.ii.b7 E:b8 19.ii.d5 E:fc8 20.e6
l'l:b6 21.exf7+ @£8 22.a4 e6=.
 4.cxd5 li:lxd5 5 .e4 li:lxc3 6.bxc3 i2.g7 7.i2.e3
B. S .l'k l �a5 9.�d2 0 - 0
There is no need to hurry with
the exchange on d4, although it also
leads to a balanced game. Let us
give the enemy more options to err. . .
10.li:lf3
a) 10 .i2.c4 does not fit in with
White's scheme. A possible retort
is 10 . . . li:lc6 1l.li:le2 cxd4 12.cxd4
�xd2+ 13.'it>xd2 Eld8 14.d5 e6 = .
b) 10.d5 i s more principled.
We should attack the centre with
10 . . e6, using that White's king is
.
far from safe in the middle of the
board after 1l.c4? ! �xd2+ 1 2 . 'it>xd2
b6, followed up by 13 .. .f5. So White
usually prefers ll.li:lf3 exd5 12.exd5
1"1e8 13 .i2.e2 (13.c4 �xd2 + 14.<i>xd2
b6=).
Black's pieces are active and
compensate for the enemy passed
pawn in the centre. In the world
championship match, Kasparov
continued against Karpov (Lyon/
New York 199 0 ) :
1 3 . . . i2.f5
13 . . . li:ld7 is equally good: 14.0-0
li:lf6 15.c4 �xd2 16.li:lxd2 i2.d7
17.Elfe1 b6 18 .h3 i2.a4 19 .i2.d1 i2.xd1
2 0 .Elexd1 li:ld7 2 l .Ele1 li:le5 = .
14.0-0 li:ld7 15.h3
Alternatives are :
15.c4 �xd2 16.li:lxd2 i2.b2 17.Elce1
i2.c3 18.Eld1 i2.d4 19.i2.xd4 cxd4
2 0 .i2.f3 i2.c2 2l.Elc1 d3+; 15.�b2 li:lf6
16.i2.c4 �b6 17.�a3 i2.f8 18.Elcd1
i2.d6 19.h3 a6 2 0 .i2.h6 �c7+.
15 . . . li:lb6 (15 . . . li:lf6=) 16.g4 i2.d7
17.c4 �xd2 18.li:lxd2 li:la4 = .
1 0 .l'=1d8 ll.d5
••
This way White anticipates 11 . . .
i2.g4 because h e can meet it by 1 2 . c4
�xd 2 + 13.li:lxd2, while :
1l .i2.e2 i2.g4 ! is already good.
This position occurs from time
to time, so we'll elaborate a little.
After:
2 15
 Part 8

12 .d5 nasty to our queenside. We should

grasp the opportunity and quickly
Black has a wide choice. In prac­
exchange the queens : ll . . . cxd4
tice he fares best with 12 . . . lLld7, but
12.�xg7 ill xg7 13.cxd4 lLlc6 14.1Wxa5
this move allows 13.c4 with a space
lLlxa5 15.ill d 2 �e6 ! 16.d5 f5 ! 17.lLld4
advantage. We like the more chal­
�g8 18.f3 fxe4 19.fxe4 e6 and
lenging:
White's centre is crumbling down.
12 . . . c4 !
ll . . . e6!
Now 13 ..bc4 fails to 13 . . . Ek8 .
Also bad is 13. lLld4? ! .be2 14.lLlxe2
(14.1Wxe2 e6) 14 . . . e6 15 .0-0 exd5
16.E1fd1 lLlc6 17.exd5 lLle5 18.lLlf4
lLl d3 19.lLlxd3 E1xd5+. We'll focus
on:
13.0-0 lLld7 14.h3 !

White should attack on the

kingside. Any loss of time would
concede the initiative to Black, e.g.
14.1Wc2 E1ac8 15 .E1b1 .bf3 16.�xf3
bS+.
14 . . . �xf3 15.�xf3 b5 12 .�g5

15 . . . lLle5 is unclear. White a) After 12.c4 1Wxd2+ White is at

should sac a pawn with enough
compensation after 16.�e2 e6 17.f4
lLl d3 18 .�xd3 cxd3 19.1Wxd3 exdS
2 0 .e5 1Wxa2 2 l.�d4 1Wc4 2 2 .1We3 E1e8
23.f5 1Wc7.
16.E1fd1 1Wa3 17.h4 aS
Black has clearcut play on the
queenside.
Finally, 11.�h6 hardly deserves
attention, because the whole idea
to trade dark-sqaured bishops is
strategically unsound. In many
Griinfeld endgames, Black finds it
difficult to activate his g7-bishop
while the white one could be rather
a crossroads.
13. ill x d2 lLla6 14.a3 looks more
testing, but the centralised king
is a good reason for busting the
white pawn formation with 14 . . .f5 ! ?
15.exf5 exd5 16.fxg6 hxg6 17.cxd5
lLlc7 18 .�d3 lLlxdS. White's king is
in the draught on the open d-file.
This sharp position is yet to be test­
ed in practice.
Much more popular is 13.lLlxd2
13 . . . b6 14.�e2 lLla6 15. 0 - 0 lLlb4
16.a3 lLla2.
Black's knight is incredibly
jumpy and makes all the difference
in Black's favour.

216
 4.cxd5 tt:lxdS 5.e4 l2Jxc3 6 .bxc3 il.g7 7.il.e3
White seems unable to set up
coordination between his pieces.
See game 12 Tunik-Timofeev, St.
Petersburg 2 0 0 2 for more details
about this line.
b) 12 .il.e2 exdS 13.exd5 bS ! ?
It i s good to immediately de­
stroy the enemy centre. 13 . . . l2Jd7
14.0-0 l2Jf6 is a little slow and gives
White time to reinforce his passed
pawn with 15.c4 1Wxd2 16.l2Jxd2 b6
17.h3 .
After 13 . . . b5, both 14.c4 1Wxd2+
15.l2Jxd2 bxc4 16.il.xc4 il.b7 and
14.il.xc5 il.b7 15.c4 1Wxd2+ 16.l2Jxd2
bxc4 17.il.xc4 il.xdS, Brunner-Rod­
shtein, La Bordeta 2 0 1 0 , complete­
ly level the game.
12 . . . {6 ! 13.il.f4
Alternatively:
a) 13.c4 does not save a tempo
on retreating the bishop due to
13 . . . l2Jc6 ! 14.1Wxa5 tt:lxaS 15.il.d2
b6 16.il.d3 l2Jb7 17. 0-0 il.d7 18J�fe1
E1e8 19 .il.c3, Melkumyan-Sasiki-
ran, Moscow 2 0 1 0 . Here 19 .. .
exdS ! 2 0 . exd5 ( 2 0 . cxd5 bSt) 2 0 . . .
lt:ld6 21.tt:ld2 'it>f7 would have easily
equalised.
b) 13 .il.e3 was Kramik's choice
against Howell, London 1 1 . 1 2 . 2 0 1 0 .
The game went 13 . . . exd5 14.exd5
l2Ja6 15.il.e2 il.e6 16.c4 1Wxd2+
17.l2Jxd2 il.d7, and it turned out
that Black has lost a tempo. The
correct retort was shown a week
later in Potkin-Svidler, Moscow
18.12.2010:
1 3 . . . l2J c 6 :
White tried t o expel the knight
with 14.il.d3, but 14 . . . exd5 15.exd5
c4 ! 16.il.xc4 il.e6 17.Eld1 l2Je7 appar­
ently keeps the balance.
This position was further tested
at the European Championship in
Aix-les-Bains, see game 14 Pashi­
kian-Cornette, 2 8 . 0 3 . 2 011.
In the diagram position, 14.il.e2
would not change anything af­
ter 14 . . . exd5 15.exd5 c4, but in
Bacrot-Timofeev, Moscow 2 0 1 0 ,
Black chose the more ambitious
15 . . . l2J e7 ! ? 16.c4 1Wxd2+ 17.l2Jxd2
b6 18.g4 fS 19.g5 Eie8, with a level
game.
14.h4 exdS 15 .exd5 il.g4 16.il.e2
also allows 16 . . . c4 ! ? 17. 0-0 il.e6
18.il.xc4 il.xdS= .
13 . . . 1Wa4! 14.c4
217
 Part S

14.1Mfc2 is too timid and gives home analysis and brilliantly won
Black an excellent game after 14 . . . an extremely important game at the
1Mfxc2 15.8:xc2 exd5 16.exd5 �f5 Olympiad.
17.8:b2 �e4 18.c4 hf3 (18 . . . 8:e8=)
19.gxf3 l"i:e8+ 2 0 .'tt> d 2 b6 2 1 .h4
lt:ld7+.

14 . . . tiJc6 15.�e3

Or 15.�d3 lt:lb4 16.�b1 b5 ! .

15 . . . exd5

15 . . . b6 ! ? 16.�d3 lt:lb4 17.�b1

exd5 18.exd5 �g4 deserves atten­
tion, too.
16.exd5 tt:lb4 !
Black lured the opponent into a
See game 13 Sargissian­
Svidler, Khanty-Mansiysk, 2 010.
Of course, the diagram position is
far from clear, but Black's threats
are more direct and menacing.

218
Part S
Complete Games
1 2 . Tunik-Ti mofeev
St. Peters b u rg 2002
1 .d4 lLl f6 2 . c4 g6 3 . tLl c3 d 5 4.cxd5
lll x d5 5.e4 ttJxc3 6. bxc3 .ig7
7 . .ie3 c5 8 . .E!:c1 Was 9 .Wd2 0-0
1 0 .tLlf3 .E!: d 8 1 1 .d 5 e6 1 2 . c4 Wxd2+
1 3 .tLlxd2
When White chose 7.�e3 , he
was planning to play an endgame
with his king remaining in the cen­
tre. Meanwhile, Black has put a
rook on d8, and now White finds it
reasonable to reconsider his inten­
tion. Evidently, he was not ready for
a theoretical battle in the sharp (but
roughly equal) variation 13.'it>xd2
lll a6 14.a3 f5 15.exf5 exd5.
1 3.tLlxd2 b6 1 4 ..ie2 ttJ a 6 1 5.0-0
Following the same "safe" stra­
tegy, started on move 13. Instead,
White could have attempted a re­
deployment of the awkward knight
on d2 : 15 .tt:lb1, but, again, 15 . . .f5 is
strong. 16.f3 (16.exf5 exd5 17.cxd5
tt:lb4 looks out of question) 16 .. .fxe4
17.fxe4 �b2 18.:Bd1 (18.:1:1c2 �d4)
18 . . . tt:lb4 ! does not give White time
for castling (19.0-0 tt:lxa2 ! ) so the
whole idea with 15.tt:lb1 turned out
to be dubious. This example, and
the course of the game, suggest that
perhaps White should restrain the
enemy beast from jumping to b4
with 15.a3. White loses a pawn after
15 . . . �b2 16.:Bb1 �xa3 , but activates
his passed pawn with 17.�g5 :Be8
(17 . . . :1:1d7 18 .�d1 ! ) 18.d6 �b4 19.e5
It seems that Black's greediness
will be punished, but the unfortu­
nate stand of the knight on d2 once
again ruins White's game. Black has
19 . . . �b7! 2 0 .d7 :BedS 2 l.�xd8 :Bxd8
2 2 .�f3 �xf3 23.gxf3 :Bxd7 24.:1:1d1
�c3 , collecting a good pawn har-
219
 Part 8
vest. If White does not take the ex­
change, he will be bound to struggle
without a pawn after 2 0 .�f3 �xf3
2 1 .gxf3 'Llb8 2 2 .1tie2 hd2 23.1tixd2
'Lld7 24J''1h el f6 25.exf6 ltif7.
1 5 . . . tt:l b4 1 6 .a3
1 6 . . . tt:l a 2 !
This incredible knight makes all
the difference ! It is treading under
the enemy position, racing all over
the queenside along the route b8-
a6-b4-a2-c3-a4-b 2 .
The bishop will be hanging o n
this square, but White is firmly de­
cided to expel the c3-knight back to
the rim, or eat it. His attitude is easy
to understand since 18 J''1 e l 'Llxe 2 +
19 J''1x e2 exd5 2 0 . cxd5 �a6 2 1 .'Ll c4
f5 2 2 .f3 l"ld7 23.1"\el fxe4 24.fxe4
!"le8 is gloom for him, e.g. 25.�f2
!"lde7 2 6.'Lld6 l"lf8 when White lacks
good moves.
As a matter of facts, White can
maintain the balance with the solid
1 8 .�f3 exd5 19.exd5 ! (19.cxd5 �a6
2 0 . 1"\fcl 'Lle2+ 2 1.�xe2 �xe2 2 2 .f3
�d3 23 .1"la2 f5 24.�g5 l"ld7 25.a4
220
!"le8-+) 1 9 . . . �f5 2 0 . 1"\ccl, grip­
ping for the tactical straw 20 . . . 'Lla2
2 1 .1"\al ! = . Still, Black might be a lit­
tle bit better after 20 . . . 1"\acS, pre­
paring . . . b5. However, if White was
to cling to such variations, it would
have been wiser to make a better
choice much earlier!
1 8 . . . �a6 1 9 .�g5 gd7
It is senseless to force play
with 2 0.hd8 l"lxd8 21.exd5 'Llxd5
2 2 .1"\el 'Llf4 23 .�fl and, as passive
as White is, he is nevertheless the
exchange up, e.g. 23 . . . 'Lle6 24.'Llb3
�b7 25.1"\d2±.
2 0 . gfc 1 h 6 2 1 .�f4
The critical position for 18 .�d3.
It has arisen in several games ! Now
18 . . . 'Lla4 or 18 . . . g5 would be about
equal, but Black has a tactical solu­
tion :
2 1 . . . exd5 ! �xc3
23.gxc3 g 5
The two minor pieces that pro­
voked nightmares to White have
disappeared, but the heavy artillery
comes in place.
 4.cxdS ct:JxdS S.e4 ct:Jxc3 6.bxc3 i.g7 7.i.e3
24 . .ig3 dxc4 2 5 . '2l xc4
25 . . J:!d4 ! ?
A computer would have chosen
25 .. Jl:xd3 with a pawn up, but the
opposite coloured bishops depreci­
ate the advantage. Over the board,
the initiative is often a bigger ad­
vantage, than a pawn. As a rule, a
rook + pawn in an endgame are not
weaker than a knight+bishop. If
we throw in the bad coordination
of White's pieces, Black's edge be­
comes substantial.
26 . .if1 :Bad8 27.f4?
White breaks up too easily.
27.f3 offers good chances for sur­
vival : 27 .. J'l:dl 2 8 . 'i!?f2 bS 29 .i.e2
E1al (29 . . . :Bld4 ! ? might be a bet­
ter try: 3 0 . '2l aS :Ba4 3 Ulc2 �c8
32.'2lb3 �xa3 33.'2lxcS b4 34.i.d6
he2 3S.I!?xe2 b3 36.�cl �a6 37.eS
E1ac6 38.'i!?d3 b2 39 .�bl �xeS
40.hcS �xeS 41.e6 �dS + ! 4 2 . 'i!?c3
E1bS ! 43.e7 �eS with an extra pawn
and practical chances.) 3 0 .'2ld6 b4
3l.�xcS �a2 3 2 . axb4 he2 33.\!?gl
a6+. White's pieces are very active.
After the text, White's material
quickly evaporates :
2 7 . . . :Bxe4 28. '2l b2 .ixf1 29.'kt>xf1
:Bd2 30 . ltJ c4 :B d 1 + 3 1 .'kt>f2 gxf4
32 . .ih4 :Bdd4 33 . '2l b2 f3 34 ..if6
:Bd2+ 35.i>xf3 :BeG 0-1 .
1 3 . Sarg i ssi a n -Svid ler
Khanty- M a n s iysk 30 . 09 . 20 1 0
This game was extremely important
for both opponents. It took place in
the ninth round of the Olympiad in
Russia. The Armenian team was, as
usual, one of the main contenders
for the gold, so the fight was fero­
cious. Undoubtedly, both sides came
armed with the most advanced the­
oretical preparations of their team
and clubs. The rigid opening tastes
of Svidler did not leave much room
for doubts - White was sure to face
the Griinfeld.
1 .d4 'Llf6 2 . c4 g6 3 . ltJ c3 d 5
4.cxd5 .!tJxd5 5.e4 .!tJ x c 3 6 . bxc3
.ig7 7 . .ie3 c5 8.:Bc1 \1;lfa5 9 .\1;lfd2
0-0 1 O.liJf3 :Bd8 1 1 .d 5 e6 1 2 . .ig5
f6 1 3 . .if4 \1;lfa4 1 4. c4
1 4 . . . ltJ c6
This is a novelty. Two weeks ear­
lier the game Navarro Molina-Alsi-
221
 Part 8

na Leal, El Sauzal 04.09.2010, saw any White's advantage there:

14 . . . exd5 15.exd5 Lt::l a6 16.�e2 Lt::l b 4 17.�c2 �xc2 18.Elxc2 �f5 19.Elb2
17.0-0 �xa2 18 .�e3 �f5 19.�xc5 Lt::l a5 2 0 .�e2 b6 2 1 . 0-0 Ele8 2 2 .Lt::l h4
Lt::l x d5 2 0 . cxd5 �xe2 2 Ulfe1 �a2 �d7 2 3 .g3 Lt::l b 7= .
2 2 .d6 Elac8 and Black went on to
win this tangled position. A week 1 7 . .ixc5 aS!
after Svidler's resounding win in
Khanty-Mansiysk, Ernst-Gustafs­
son, Baden-Baden, 0 9 . 1 0 . 2 0 1 0 ,
featured 2 2 .�b5 � a 6 23 .�b3 �b6
24.�a2 �a6 25.�b3 �b6 2 6.�a2
�a6 27.�b3, draw by repetition.
We see that the idea of . . . Lt::l b 4,
hitting the a2-pawn, was not com­
pletely new. Svidler's finesse is that
he refrains from opening the cen­
The first critical position in the
tre. Thus, in the event of 15.�e2, he
game.
could continue with 15 . . . Lt::l b 4 16.0-0
Some commentators assessed
�xa2 17.�e3 e5 18 .�g3 �a5oo.
Sargissian's next move as dubious.
White should also reckon with
18 .�e2 was allegedly better and
15.�e2 e5 16.�e3 Lt::l d 4 17.�d1 �a3
should lead to a balanced game.
18.0-0 Eld6 ! ? . We prefer White's
The latter is almost true: 18 . . . �xa2
game here, but Svidler had tried a
19 .�e3 (after 19.Elc3 Black can re­
similar rook lift against Topalov, so
peat moves with 19 . . . �b1 + 2 0.Elcl
Sargissian could not be sure what
�a2 ) 19 . . . �xd2+ 2 0 . �xd2 b5 ! ?
his opponent really had in mind.
(20 . . . �f8 2l.'Lld4 �d7 2 2 .'Llc2 bS
Let us note that after 15.�e 2 ,
23 .�d4) 2l.cxb5 Elxd5+ 2 2 .�el
Black could not simply transpose
Lt::l d 3 + . Still, Black's distant pas­
to the previously known game by
ser looks more dangerous. We
15 . . . exd5, because White has the
see, however, that in many varia­
zwischenzug 16.�d1, e.g. 16 . . . �b4
tions the break . . . b5 is awkward for
17.exd5 �xd2+ 18.'�xd2 b5 19.cxb5
White. Understandably, he wants
Elxd5+ 2 0 .�e2 Lt::l a 5 2 l.Ele1 where
to discourage it with :
Black has more weaknesses. Sar­
gissian goes for the most testing 1 8 . tt:l d4 Ele8+ 1 9 . .ie2 W/xa2
move : 2 0 . tt:l b 5 .if5 2 1 .Wfxa2 tt:Jxa2 22.l"la1
tt:l b4
1 5 . .ie3 exd 5 1 6 .exd5 Lt::l b4
The next critical position.
I doubt that Svidler had even Svidler said he had reached it in his
thought about 16 . . . �f8 . At the home analysis. White has 23.�fl
same time, it is not easy to prove Lt::l c 2 :

222
 4.cxd5 ct'lxd5 5.e4 ct'lxc3 6.bxc3 �g7 7.�e3
Now 24.Elcl is risky because
... �h6 will be with tempo : 24 . . . Elec8
25.�e7 a4 2 6.g4 �h6 27.Eldl �e4
28.Elgl <i>f7, with an initiative.
Remains : 24.Ela2 �d3 ! 25.�e3
12lxe3+ 2 6.fxe3 Elxe3 27.�xd3 Elxd3
28.<;t>e2 Elb3 29 .ct'lc7 Elc8 30 .d6 b6 = .
White does not risk anything here
with a strong passer and an active
king.
Sargissian opts for the more
consistent and ambitious :
23.@d2 ! ? tt'l c2 24J'!af1 .ih6+
25.f4 Elac8
26 . .id6?
"White has such a healthy
structure that if he manages to
consolidate, even giving up a full
exchange with check, then all the
same I'd have a very difficult tech­
nical task. " - Svidler. Indeed, he
should have made way to his d­
pawn with 2 6.�b6 �f8 27.d6 when
Black should decide how to make
a draw. He could choose opposite­
coloured bishops after 27 . . . �d7
2 8 .�f3 �xb5 29.cxb5 �xd6 3 0 .�xb7
�b4+ 3 L <i>dl Elb8 3 2 .�d5+ <i>g7
33.<i>xc2 Ele2 + 34.<i>b3 Elxb6 35.�c6
Ele3 + 3 6 . <i>c4 Elc3+ 37.<i>d4 Elb8=
or a bishop+2 pawns : rook after
27 . . . Elxe 2 + 2 8 . <i>xe2 Elxc4 29.Elcl
�d7 30 .Wd2 �xb5 31.Elxc2 �d6
3 2 . Elxc4 �c4 33.g3 a4= 34.Elcl
�d5 = .
2 6 . . . tt'l e 3 2 7 . tt'l c7 ?
This is too much. Evidently,
Sargissian has lost the thread of the
game. He could have put up resist­
ance with 27.c5.
27 . . . tt'l xf1 + ? !
Black returns the favour. H e
should have stayed active with 27 . . .
Ele4 ! 2 8 .c5 ct'lxg2 . He needs the
knight which is a very important
piece for the attack. Nevertheless,
Svidler showed good technique
and won convincingly:
2 8 .Elxf1 Eled8 2 9 . tt'l b 5 .if8
30 . .ixf8 @xf8 3 1 .g4 .id7 32 . tt'l d 6
El c 7 33.f5 gxf5 34.gxf5 b5 35.cxb5
Elc5 36 ..ic4 .ixb5 37.tt'lxb5 Elxc4
38.@d3 Elc5 39.tt'lc3 Eldc8 0-1
According t o Svidler, h i s oppo­
nent thought he was much better
after the opening, and broke up
when he faced concrete problems.
223
 1 4. Pash ikian-Cornette
Aix- les- B a i n s 2 8 . 0 3 . 2 0 1 1
1 . d4 tt'lf6 2 . c4 g6 3 . tt'l c3 d 5
4.cxd5 tt'lxd5 5.e4 tt'l xc3 6 . bxc3
.ig 7 7 . .ie3 c5 8 .W/d2 0-0 9 . tt'l f3
W/a5 1 OJ�c1 E:d8 1 1 .d 5 e6 1 2 . .ig 5
f6 1 3 . .ie3 tt'lc6 1 4 . .id3 exd5
1 5.exd5 c4 1 6 ..ixc4 .ie6 1 7 . E: d 1
tt'le7 1 8 .dxe6 E: x d 2 1 9 .E:xd2 W/xc3
20 . .ib3
20 . . . W/c1 + !
2 0 . . . \'tfal+ ? quickly lost i n Lu­
pulescu-Bukavshin, Aix-les-Bains
2011, 23.03.2 011, after 2 1 ..idl ! ltJf5
2 2 . 0-0 vtfc3 23 . .ib3 mh8 24.E:d7+ -.
White went on to win on move 35.
2 1 . E: d 1 W/c3+ 22.E:d2 W/c 1 +
23.E:d 1 W/c3+ 24.i>e2
224
24 . . . W/b4!
Cornette improves on the stem
game Potkin-Svidler, Moscow 2010,
which saw 24 . . . a5 25.E:d7 a4 26J"1cl
vtfb2 + ? (26 . . . vtfb4 ! ) 27J''k 2 vtfbl,
when instead of 28.ltJd2, White
could have gained some edge
with 2 8.E:dl vtfxdl+ 29.mxdl axb3
30.axb3±.
25.E:d3
Cornette's idea is seen in the
variation 25 .Eld7 vtfb5 + ! . This check
is awkward to White. Following
26 .md2 a5 27.Elcl a4 28 . .ic4 vtfb2 +
29 .Elc2 vtfb4+ 3 0 .mcl b 5 31.id3
Ele8, Black is better.
25 . . . a5 26.E:c1 a4 27 .E:c4 W/b5
28. E:c5 Wfb4 29.E:c4 Wfb5 30 .E:c5
Wfb4 3 1 . .ic4?
White avoids the repetition of
moves, but now 3 1 . . . .ih6 ! would
have tipped the balance in Black's
favour. Later in the game, White
again deviated from repetition, try­
ing to win (or lose ! ) , but eventually
everything finished in peace.
31 . . . E: b 8 ? ! 32.1'!d7 .if8 33.E:cc7
b5 34 . .id 3 W/a3 3 5 . tt'l d 2 W/xa2
36.E:xe7 .ixe7 37.E:xe7 a3 38 ..id4
i>f8 39 . .ic5 i>g8 40 . .id4 ci>f8
41 . .ic5 ci>g8 42 .ri>e3? f5? 43 ..id4
ri>f8 44 . .ic5 i>g8 45 . .id4 ri>f8
46 ..if6 E:b6 47.E:f7+ 'it>es 48.E:e7+
ri>f8 49 .E:f7+ ri>e8 1 /2 - 1 /2 .
 Part 9

The Exchange System 7. �f3

1 . d4 d 5 2 . c4 g 6 3 . t2Jc3 d 5 4 . cxd5 t2Jxd5 5 . e4 t2Jxc3
6 . bxc3 ibg 7 7 . t2Jf3

225
Pa rt 9
Main Ideas
Introduction
In this part, I examine White's set­
up with :
l.d4 tl:lf6 2 . c4 g6 3 . tl:lc3 d5
4.cxd5 tl:\xd5 5.e4 tl:\xc3 6.bxc3
.ig7 7.tl:lf3
Perhaps this is the most natu­
ral development. White is follow­
ing the classical principles - he
seized the centre, then leads out the
knights, and the bishops have ex­
cellent places on e2 and e3.
Nevertheless, Botvinnik consi­
dered 7.C2:lf3 to be insufficient for
achieving an opening advantage
and devoted only short notes on
this variation in his book.
The reason for that is the square
d4. The c8-bishop, which is usu­
ally the only problem minor piece
in Black's army, begins to exert a
strong impact on the centre by the
226
possibility of reaching g4. The mere
threat of that sortie upsets White's
plans.
White's dream after 7.lt:Jf3 is to
achieve the following position :
7 . . . 0-0? ! 8 . .ie2 c S 9.0-0 cxd4
10.cxd4 lt:Jc6 ll . .ie3 .ig4
12.d5 ! ±
Black's best retort i s to attack
immediately d4 with :
7 . . . c5
Remember! Unlike in the
7 . .ic4 system, the move order is im­
portant here ! We should not waste
a tempo on castling.
White's only way to exploit our
early break is 8 . .ib5+ , but 8 . . . lt:Jc6!
equalises smoothly, as shown in
line A.
Ever since the early days of the
Gri.infeld, it has been established
 4.cxd5 'Llxd5 5.e4 'Llxc3 6 .bxc3 i.g7 7.'2lf3

that 7 . . . c5 8 .i.e2 'Llc6 ! 9.i.e3 i.g4 !

wins the battle for the d4-square.
8.i.e3 i.g4 ! 9.Ei:c1 is not a signifi­
cant improvement, but we should
adjust our tactic a little. Since
White has removed his rook from
the long diagonal, he is ready to
meet the pressure on d4 with d4-
d5. Therefore, we should prepare
also an attack on d5. The best way
to accomplish that is to oppose a
rook to White's queen:
which brought the burst of po­
pularity of the 7.'2lf3 variation.
With this multipurpose move
White :
1. Discourages . . . i.g4 due to the
attack on b7.
2. Removes the rook from the
long diagonal so the d4-d5 advance
becomes an option, regardless of
the fact that the c3-pawn may be
left en prise.
This setup was introduced by
Viacheslav Eingorn, but became re­
ally popular thanks to the practical
successes of Boris Gelfand and Ale­
xander Khalifman.

It has been quickly discovered

that the thematic . . . i.g4 does not
work against 8.Ei:bl. The last sig­
9 ... 0-0! 10 .i.e2 �a5 11.�d2 'Llc6
nificant game on this subject was
12 .d5 hf3 13.gxf3 Ei:ad8 14.0-0 e6
Gelfand-Dvoirys, Odessa, 1989 :
15.Ei:fd1 exd5 16.exd5 Ei:d7= .
8 . . . 0-0 9.i.e2 cxd4 10.cxd4 ig4
The lines where Black puts his
11.0-0 i.xf3 12.ixf3 i.xd4 13.Ei:xb7
bishop on g4 demonstrate that
'Llc6
White is unable to hold a mobile
centre. So the first players began
to seek ways of preventing the bi­
shop's sortie.

8.h3 looks consistent, but this

prophylactic puts White behind in
development. Black typically uses
the tempo for undermining the
enemy centre by . . . f7-f5 : 8 . . . 0-0
9.ie2 'Llc6 1 0 .i.e3 cxd4 ll.cxd4 f5 ! ,
14.�a4 ! �d6 15.Ei:b5! i.e5 16.Ei:d5
with fair counterplay.
�f6 17.i.e3
Only in the 80s did White find White's bishop pair and active
the sneaky move : heavy pieces assure him of an edge.

227
 Part 9
Then the prominent Griinfeld
expert for both colours, Tukmakov,
was first to spot one of the draw­
backs of 8 .l"1bl. The a2-pawn was
hanging and he had the courage to
grab it twice against one of the best
players of the 80s, Jussupow, in Ye­
revan 1982 and Moscow 1983. After
9 .. .'\1>Jfa5 1 0 . 0-0 \1>Jfxa2 ,
Black has won a pawn, but he is
to survive a dangerous initiative :
1 1..ig5 \1>Jfe6 12 .e5 l"1d8 13 .'\1>Jfa4. Tuk­
makov was crushed in the fist game,
but convincingly won the second
duel. Later practice proved that
Black should firstly exchange on d4
by 9 . . . cxd4 10.cxd4 1Mla5 + , but then
White can simply defend the pawn
with 11.1Mld2 1Mlxd2 12 . .ixd2 :
Lputian-Tukmakov
Riga 1 985
228
Tukmakov showed that Black
should not be afraid of this end­
game: 12 . . . e6! 13.0-0 b6 14.l"1fdl
.ib7 15.d5 exd5 16.exd5 l2l d7 17 . .ib4
l"1fc8 18 . .ib5 ltJf6 and White had to
think about equalising.
Since that game, it has been
clear that White should seek im­
provements in the pawn sac line:
11..id2 1Mlxa2 12.0-0.
Perhaps the next milestone in
the theory of this system was :
Kamsky-An a n d
Las Palmas 1 995
12 ... .ig4 ! . At last Black can safe­
ly develop his bishop ! 13 . .ig5 h6
14 . .ie3 ltJc6 ! 15.d5 l2la5 16.l"1b4 .ixf3
17 . .ixf3 ltJ c4 18 . .id4 l2ld2 19.l"1b2
l2lxf3+ 2 0 .1Mlxf3 1Mla6 2 1..ixg7 'it>xg7
2 2 .1Mlc3 + 'it>g8 23 .1Mlc7 and now
Anand came up with an improve­
ment over his previous game:
23 . . . 1Mld6 ! (23 . . . l"1fe8 24.l"1xb7 1Mld3
25.1Mle5 a5?? 26.l"1xe7+- Vaisser­
Anand, Paris 1994), and Black
achieved a draw ending.
Still, I think that the line with
taking the a2-pawn completely
hands over the initiative to White.
Black is on the defensive and, as you
 4.cxd5 t2Jxd5 5.e4 t2Jxc3 6.bxc3 i.g7 7.t2Jf3

see, often has to find only moves to
save the day!
Black can avoid the sharpest
lines with the modest 8 J''lb 1 0-0
9.!e2 b6. This positionally sound
system is not easy to refute. It of­
fers calm play where understand­
ing of plans and pawn structures is
of paramount importance. Agrest
shed a lot of sweat to build up a
decent backup system to our main
repertoire. I discuss it in the "Step
by Step" chapter.
However, my preferred choice is:
9 .. . tt'lc6
2 9 . Elc1 i.d7 3 0 . Elxc8 hc8 3l.!c6
<j;>f6 3 2 .d7 hd7 33.i.xd7 e5? 34.<j;>f2
e4 35.i.c6 <j;>e5
36.h4 ! and White went to win
this endgame. Years later Kasparov
revealed in his book the improve­
ment 33 . . . <j;>e5 ! .
I n the pre-computer era, the big
learning overhead of the 8.Elb1 sys­
tem repelled many Griinfeld fans
from their favourite opening.
Nowadays the engines helped to
neutralise White's most dangerous
lines and 7.t2Jf3 yielded precedence
to the 7.i.c4 system .

Objectives and Move Orders

It was considered as main line
in the early 80s. The new system Let us consider:
quickly grew up and accumulated
a tremendous bulk of theory. Some 7)t'l£3 c5 S . E:bl 0 - 0 9 .i.e2
sharp variations were analysed at tt'lc6 ! ? 10.d5! (10 .i.e3 i.g4=) 10 . . .
home up to bare kings. The most tt'le5 ll. tt'lxe5 he5 12.WI'd2 !
notorious example is probably No­
vikov-Tukmakov, Lvov 1984:
10.d5 t2Je5 ll.t2Jxe5 i.xe5 12.1!Md2
e6 13.f4 i.g7 14.c4 Ele8 15.e5 f6
16.d6 fxe5 17.i.b2 exf4 18.i.xg7
l!lxg7 19.0-0 Elf8 2 0 .Elxf4 Elxf4
2l.WI'xf4 Wff6 2 2 .Wfe4 Elb8 23.Elf1
�d4+ 24.Wfxd4+ cxd4 25.Elb1 i.d7
26.if3 b6 27.c5 Elc8 2 8 .c6 i.xc6

229
 Part 9

12.c4 would cost a pawn with­ pionship match Alexandria-Chi­

out compensation after 12 . . . �a5 + , burdanidze in 1981.
while 1 2 . l"1b3 c4 ! would ban c3-c4 at
least for a while. 12 . .id2 also does
not work due to 12 . . . �d6 ! followed
by . . .f5.

After 12 .�d2 ! , White's plan be­

comes clear. He will try to push his
whole central cluster one step fur­
ther, even if it cost him a pawn, as
in the following example:
16.d6 ! This pawn will be a con­
stant source of concern for Black
even though practice suggests that
he can hold this position. In this
example, White managed to play
c3-c4 thus enabling the activation
of his dark-squared bishop on the
main diagonal. I do not like such
type of positions where I should
be only defending for many moves
ahead. That is why I recommend to
actively disturb the enemy plan and
focus our attention on preventing
c3-c4. Let us move forward in small
steps now:
Its main (and only ! ) objective is
to prevent White from playing c3-
c4. As a result, White will have to
recapture on d5 by the e-pawn and
the e-file will open up in Black's
favour. On the flip side, our king
remains without defenders and we
should not spare any effort to keep
the enemy dark-squared bishop out
of play. Once we neutralised the
positional threat of c3-c4, the only
other way to activate the cl-bishop
will be with g2 -g4 and f4-f5 . How­
ever, that would uncover White's
king and we should seek then an
opportunity to counterattack. The
next few moves are critical :
14. 0 - 0 exd5 15.exd5 .ia5 !

12 . . . e6 13.f4 .ic7!?

This amazing idea was revealed

for the first time in the world cham- 16.d6

230
 4.cxd5 lLlxd5 5.e4 lLJxc3 6 .bxc3 i.g7 7.lLJf3

White has many other continua­ D a n n evig-Svid ler

tions, but none of them sets serious G a u sd a l 1 992
problems. We'll examine some ex­
amples later. The general principle
of Black's defence is counterattack.
He can either target the c3-pawn by
... �f6, or generate counterplay on
the queenside with . . . c4 or . . . a6 and
... b5.

16 .. J:!b8 ! 17.i.a3 i.f5 18.�adl

Black can continue with 18 . . . b5,

This looks like the critical po­
sition for the 13 . . . i.c7 line. Black
can either eliminate to an ending
with 18 .. .'&f6 19 .hc5 i.xc3 2 0 .i.d4
ixd4, or venture into complica­
tions with 18 .. J�c8 ! ? 19 .g4 i.d7
20.f5 '\Wh4. I analyse further these
positions in line E16.
Basic Plans and Pawn
Structures
but then 19.c4 would open the main
diagonal. It is safer to keep it close
or in our possession:
1 8 ... c4 ! 19 .i.xc4 l"1c8 2 0 .i.d3
i.xc3. Black has won the opening
battle. The passive bishop on a5
transformed into the most pow­
erful piece on the board. Svidler
easily won after 2 1 . \t>hl i.b4 2 2 .f5
'\Wh4 ! 23 .i.bl i.xa3 24.i.xa3 i.b5
25.g3 '\Wg5 2 6 .l"1f4 l"1fe8 27.i.e4 l"1c4
28.'\Wf3 '\Wh5 29 .g4 '\Wh4 30 .fxg6
hxg6 3l.'it>g2 '\Wel 0-1.
Pel l etier-Ash ley
Berm u d a 1 999

I will consider here only the most

topical variation which is examined
in line El. The other variations are
less fashionable. The introduction
covers the most essential ideas that
should be remembered.
Black's main plan is to expand
on the queenside where he has a In this example, Black chose a
pawn majority. more passive setup with . . . b6 and

231
 Part 9

now White's threat of c4 is very The safest way to meet White's

dangerous. It should be prevented attack with g4 is to bind him with
even at a cost: defence of the c3-pawn by . . . iWf6:
17 . . . '\WxdS ! 18.�f3 iWc4 19.�xa8
�a6 2 0 J''l e 1 �xa8
Black has full compensation due I . Rajl ich-Boros
to the split enemy pawns on the B u d apest 2006
queenside. In Almasi-Peng Xiao­
min, Las Vegas 1999, White also
ceded the d-file and after 2 1.�a3
�d8 2 2 .h3 �c8 2 3 . <i>h2 �e6 24.�e3
hS, Black was in total control.
2 1 .iWd2 iWd3 ! 2 2 .iWxd3 �xd3
2 3 .�a3 �d8 24.�e3 �ds 25.g4 fS
2 6 .�d1 c4= . Black is not worse in
this endgame.

16 ... iWf6 17.�b2 c4 ! 18 .f5 . Now

Au bel-Finke l best is 18 . . . b5, for instance, 19.fxg6
D i e ren 1 997 iWxg6 2 0 . <i>h1 �e8 2 1.�f3 �b7=. The
game might end in the old masters
style :
2 2 . a4 �adS ! ? 23 .�a3 !

In this example, White sacked

on fS a pawn, then the exchange.
His attack looks horrifying, but
19 . . . c4 ! again helps Black save the
day: 2 0 .hc4 f6 2 1.�a3 iWc7 2 2 .iWh4
�fc8. White still has a perpetual by
2 3 .iWxf6. However, he erred with
2 3 .�a6 when Black could have
launched a powerful counterattack:
2 3 . . . '\WeS !
23 . . . �xd5 ! 24 .�xd5 �e2 ! !
25.�be1 ! ! iWe4+ ! ! 2 6.he4 �xe4+
27.'it>g1 �b6+ 2 8 .iWd4 hd4+
29.cxd4 �g2 + 3 0 . <i>h1 �e2 + , with a
perpetual check with the only two
pieces from the black army which
have survived.

232
 4.cxd5 tLlxdS 5.e4 tLlxc3 6 .bxc3 �g7 7.tLlf3

M i kh alevski - Ftacn i k 2 0 . . .'�f6 2 1.�b2 c4 ! 2 2 .i>hl �a4

Bel levue 2006 23 .l"kl El:fd8 24.�a3 �c7! 25.El:cdl? !
(25.g5=) 25 . . . �xdl 26.El:xdl bS
27.�b7 �xd6 2 8 .hd6 El:b8 29 .�d5
l"'\xd6 3 0 .�xf7+ i>xf7 31.'Wxd6 'Wxd6
32 .El:xd6 b4+.

One thing Black should remem­

ber to avoid: taking on fS by pawn
is generally a bad idea. It opens not
only the g-file, but also the bl-h7
diagonal :
18 ... 'Wf6 (18 . . J'k8 ! ? is the shar­
per option) 19.�xc5 hc3 2 0 .�d4 Eng e l h ardt-Atakisi
ix:d4+ 21.'Wxd4 'Wxd4+ 2 2 J''\xd4 bS carr. ICCF 2006
with a balanced endgame.

Learte Pastor-Koronowski
corr. ICCF 2008

20 ... gxf5? ( 2 0 . . . 'Wh4 or even

20 . . . b5 are much better options.)
2 1 .�d3 ! fxg4. Here White could
have fixed his advantage with
2 2 .El:del ! , going to e7.

233
Pa rt 9

Step by Step

l.d4 tt:lf6 2 . c4 g6 3 . tt:l c3 d5 15.l"lfcl \Wc6 16.h3 l"lfc8 17.fid3 c4

4.cxd5 tt:lxd5 5.e4 tt:lxc3 6.bxc3 18 .fic2 b5 19.a5 ! ) 11.\We2 tt:lf6 12 .h3
i.g7 7. tt:lf3 c5 b6:l:.

A. 8.i.b5+ ; B. 8.i.e 2 ; C. 8.h3; D. 9. 0 - 0 cxd4 1 0 .cxd4 0 - 0

8 .i.e3 ; E. 8 J''lb l. ll .i.e3 i.g4 12 .hc6 bxc6 13.l"kl

A. 8 .i.b5 + tt:lc6!

It is true that this move could

lead to an inevitable draw, but
it is objectively the best retort to
White's check.
Instead, 8 . . . i.d7 9.i.xd7+ \Wxd7
10.0-0 0-0 ll.i.e3 cxd4 1 2 . cxd4
tt:lc6 13.d5 tt:le5 14.tt:lxe5 i.xe5 15 J"lcl
l"lfc8 16.1Wb3 b6 17.f4 fig7= is play­
able, but also drawish.
Only 8 . . . tt:ld7? ! preserves more
pieces on board, but we suspect that
13 l"lc8 ! ?
White opts for 8 .fib5+ exactly in
•••

the hope to see 8 . . . tt:ld7. From this

square the knight misses its pri­
mary target - the d4-square. That
dooms Black to a passive defence :
9 . 0-0 0-0 and now:
a) 10 .fie3 ! ? tt:lf6 ll.fid3 b6
12 .\We2 fib7 13 .fid2 l"lc8 14.l"lfdl \Wc7
15.a4 e6 16.a5.
b) 10 .fig5 h6! ll.fif4 \Wa5 12 .1Wb3
g5 13 .fie3 tt:lf6 14.fid3:l:.
c) 10.a4 \Wc7 (10 . . . a6 ll.fic4
\Wc7 12 .1We2 b6 13.e5 e6 14.fig5 fib7
The only way to complicate
things. l3 ... \Wa5= is well tested. It has
a strong drawish tendency after:
14.\We2 !
Alternatively:
a) 14.\Wd2 \Wxd2 15.tt:lxd2 l"lfd8
16.tt:lb3 a5 17.l"lxc6 a4 18.tt:lc5 fie2
19.l"lel fixd4= , Komarov-Svidler,
France 2 0 0 9 .
b ) 14.l"lxc6 \Wxa2 15.l"lc7 \We6
16.h3 1Wd6 17.l"lc5 fixf3 18.\Wxf3 a5=,
I.Sokolov-Leko, Sarajevo 1999.

234
 4.cxd5 '2lxd5 5.e4 '2lxc3 6.bxc3 �g7 7.'2lf3

14 . . . E1fd8 15.E1c5 iWa3 ! 16 .\Wc4 8 . . . 0 - 0 ? ! 9.0-0 cxd4 (9 . . . b6 10 .�g5 !

ie6 17.iWcl iWxa2 18.E1xc6 a5 19.�h6 �b7 1l.iWd3±) 10.cxd4 '2lc6 1l.�e3
ig4=. �g4 12 .d5 '2le5 (12 . . . �xa1 13.\Wxa1
'2l a5 14.�h6±) 13.'2lxe5 �xe2
14.\Wa4 14.\Wxe2 �e5 15J'1abU.

Play is sharper after:

a) 14.e5 �e6 15.\Wa4 �d5 16.'2ld2
�d7 17.f3 f6�.
b) 14.E1c5 �xf3 15.gxf3 (15.\Wxf3
ixd4 16.E1d1 e5 17.�xd4 exd4
18.iWd3 iWe7 19.E1dcl E1fe8+) 15 . . . \Wd7
16.iWe2 f5 17.E1d1 e6. Next, Black
plays . . . E1f7, . . . �f8 .
14 . . . .txf3 15.gxf3 iWd7 16. @g2
f5 17.h3 f4 18 .�d2 hd4
9.d5 is inefficient since Black
can favourably return the ex­
change after 9 . . . �xc3 + 10 .�d2 �xa1
1 1.\Wxal '2ld4 1 2 .'2lxd4 cxd4 13.\Wxd4
0-0 ! (13 .. .f6 is also seen. White has
sufficient compensation for the
exchange.) 14.�h6 iWa5+ 15.@fl f6
16.�xf8 @xf8+.

Or 18 . . . \Wxd4 19.iWb3+ @h8

2 0 .�c3 iWb6 2 1.iWe6 �xc3 2 2 . E1xc3
�a5 23.E1xc6 E1xc6 24.\Wxc6= .

19 J:'Ifdl e 5 20.�c3 E:fd8

The stem game Feller-Negi, Ev­

ry 2009, went 2 l .�d4 exd4 2 2 . E1c5
d3 23 .\Wb3 + @g7 24.E1c3 E1b8
25.\Wa3 d2 2 6.E1c2 @h 6 27.E1cxd2
�xd2 28.E1xd2 E1xd2 29 .\We7 E1bb2
30.iWh4+ @g7 31 .\We7+, draw. Sim­
pler was 2 l.�a5 with a repetition of Practice has seen White strug­
moves. gling in this position. 10 .E1b1 �xf3
ll.�xf3 cxd4 12.cxd4 �xd4 13 .�xd4
'2lxd4 14.E1xb7 loses a whole rook af­
B. 8 .�e2 lLlc6 ! ter 14 . . . '2lxf3 + so White is forced to
a major strategic concession.
White's last move looks very
natural, but in fact it loses the bat­ 10.e5 0 - 0 11. 0 - 0 E:c8
tle for the d4-square. We should
play concretely to avoid ending up White has not any active plan,
in a passive position, for instance : while Black will expand on the

235
 Part 9

queenside, e.g. 12 .1Mfa4 cxd4 13.cxd4 12 .i.c4+

1Mfa5 14.1Mfxa5 tt:Jxa5 15.E\ac1 i.e6+.
1 2 .exf5 1Mfa5+ is awkward for
White who should move back the
c. 8 .h3 bishop to d2 and struggle to keep
the balance.
This prophylactic move lived
its moment of glory in 2 0 0 0 when 12 . . . mhs 13.e5 b5 14.i.b3 f4
Kramnik employed it against Kas­
parov in Linares. Its idea is crystal Black has the initiative. He can
clear - to prevent the annoying develop it with 15.i.d2 a5 16.0-0 i.fS.
pin and keep a mobile pawn cen­
tre. However, the tempo tells and
Black has at least two decent ways D. 8 .i.e3 i.g4
to achieving a good game :

8 . . . 0 - 0 9 .i.e2 .!Dc6

Kasparov was tempted by the

opportunity of starting immedi­
ately queenside play with 9 . . . b5
1 0 .i.e3 i.b7 11.1Mfd3 cxd4? (11 . . .
tt:Jd7 ! ? 1 2 . 0-0 tt:Jb6 ! 13.dxc5 tt:Ja4)
12.cxd4 tt:Jd7 13.0-0 tt:Jb6, but af­
ter 14.1Mfb1 ! , he had to switch to
defence : 14 . . . tt:Ja4 15.'\Mfxb5 tt:Jc3
16.1Mfxb7 tt:Jxe 2 + 17. mh1 tt:Jxd4
18.Ei:ad1 e5 19.tt:Jxe5 i.xe5 2 0 .f4 . The well trodden path is 8 . . . '\MfaS
9.1Mfd2 tt:Jc6, but we chose a more
10.i.e3 cxd4 ll.cxd4 f5 ! straightforward setup. In practice
White has been floating in this po­
sition. He has tried no less than 8
different continuations :

9.Ei:cl

a) 9.i.e 2 ? ! tt:Jc6! 1 0 .d5? ! (10 .e5=)

10 . . . hc3+ ll.mfl hf3 12 .gxf3 hal
13.'\Mfxa1 tt:Jd4 14.i.b5+ mf8 15.i.xd4
cxd4 16.1Mfxd4 f6 17.mg2 1Mfd6+, Zhu
Chen-Van Wely, Batumi 2 0 0 1 .

b ) 9.Ei:b1 tt:Jc6!

236
 4.cxdS lLlxdS S.e4 lLlxc3 6.bxc3 !J.g7 7.lLlf3

This move is more ambitious

than 9 . . . hf3 10.gxf3 lLlc6 1U1xb7
(Or 1l.eS cxd4 12.cxd4 �aS+
13.�d2 �xd2 + 14.<i>xd2 0-0-0
15.c.!?c3, Kir.Georgiev-Leko, Dubai
2002, 1S . . . Ei:d7= .) 11 . . . 0-0 12 .fJ.bS
(Stayed the bishop on g4, this move
would have lost to 12 . . . lLlaS and the
d7-square is covered.) 12 . . . cxd4
13.hc6 dxe3 14.Ei:d7 �aS 1S.!J.xa8
1Mfxa2 16.�e2 !J.xc3+ ! . (16 . . . �a1+ 1 0 . . . heS !
17.Ei:d1 �xc3+ 18.<i>fl Ei:xa8 19.�xe3 White's pawn weaknesses and
a5 20.Ei:d3 �b4 2 l . <i>g2 a4 2 2 .Ei:hd1, bad development do not give him
Malakhatko-Sarkar, Caleta 2 0 1 0 , time for organising an attack:
proved t o b e i n White's favour.) 1l.dxeS 0-0 12 .h3 !J.e6 13 .f4 Ei:c8
14.!J.e2 �aS 1S.�xaS lLlxaS 16.Ei:fl
10.Ei:xb7 fS= (16 . . . Ei:fd8 ! ? ) , Grischuk-Svidler,
10.fJ.bS 0-0 1l.!J.xc6 bxc6 1 2 . 0-0 Amber rapid, Nice 2 0 1 0 .
cxd4 13.cxd4 �d7 leaves White
wondering what to do with his rook 9 ••• 0-0
on bl.

10 . . . 0-0 ll.!J.e2 hf3 1 2 .!J.xf3

cxd4 13.cxd4 !J.xd4 14.!J.xd4 lLlxd4
15.0-0 �d6+.

c) 9.�d2 !J.xf3 1 0 .gxf3 cxd4

11.cxd4 lLlc6 12 .Ei:d1 (12 .fJ.bS 0-0
13.hc6 bxc6 14.0-0 cS= ) 12 ... 0-0
13.f4 (13 .dS lLleS 14.!J.e2 Ei:c8
15.0-0=, Doettling-Svidler, France
2002) 13 . . . e6 14.h4 �e7 1S.!J.g2
!'1ac8 16.eS Ei:fd8 17.Ei:c1 hS+.

d) 9.fJ.bS+ lLlc6 1 0 . 0-0 cxd4 l O .fJ.e2

11.cxd4 0-0 12 .hc6 bxc6= . Play
has transposed to line A.
e) 9.�a4+ lLlc6 ! 10.lLleS
It is amazing how often in the
Grii nfeld Black can favourably
part with his otherwise most useful
piece:
There were times when 10.dS
was considered best, but 10 . . . �aS
1l.�d2 !J.xf3 12.gxf3 c4 ! allows
Black to seize the initiative : 13.!J.d4
lLld7 14.hg7 <i>xg7 1S.hc4 Ei:ac8
16.!J.b3 Ei:cS 17.0-0 Ei:fc8= , Caruana­
Rodshtein, Biel 2 0 1 0 .

237
 Part 9
Another try is 10 .�d2 .b£3
ll.gxf3 cxd4 12 .cxd4 tt:lc6 13.dS
tt:l eS 14.�e2 �d7 1S.f4 tt:lg4 16.0-0
(16.�cS 'Llf6 17.�e3 �h6 18.�f3
tt:lg4) 16 . . . tt:lxe3 17.fxe3 Ei:fd8 18.�f3
eS 19. �g2 �d6 = .
10 . . . �a5 11.�d2 tt:lc6 ! 1 2 . d5
hf3
12 . . . Ei:ad8 is also possible : 13.0-0
(13.c4 fails to 13 . . . tt:lb4 14.a3 �xa3
1S .�xcS 'Lld3++.) 13 . . . e6 14.c4 �xd2
1S .�xd2 �xf3 16.�xf3 tt:ld4 17.�d1
exdS 18.cxdS b6 19.f3 fS = .
13.gxf3 �adS 14. 0 - 0 (14.�b2
tt:ld4) 14 ... e6 15.�fd1 exd5 16.exd5
:Sd7= .
E. 8 . �b1! 0 - 0 9.�e2
We'll examine here the sharper
El. 9 . . . 'Llc6 and the more restrained
E2.9 . . . b6. We recommend the lat-
ter for a backup system, because
it is less forced and it is unlikely
that a new game could dramatically
change some evaluation.
238
El. 9 . • . 'Llc6 10.d5
10 .�e3 �g4= is considered in
line D. However, Black could also
play 10 . . . cxd4 ! ? ll.cxd4 �aS+
12 .�d2 (12 .�d2 �xd2+ 13. �xd2
Ei:d8 14J''l h c1 tt:lxd4 1S.�xd4 hd4
16.'Llxd4 Ei:xd4+ 17.�e3 Ei:a4+)
12 . . . �xa2 13.dS tt:leS 14.tt:lxeS �xeS
1S.O-O �d7! 16.Ei:xb7 �a4 17.�e1
Ei:fb8 18.Ei:xb8+ Ei:xb8+, with better
pieces and a strong passer.
10 . . . ltle5 ll. ltlxe5
11.'Lld2 ? ! wastes a tempo. We
should attack by . . .fS immediate­
ly, or a couple of moves later: 11 ...
e6 12 .f4 'Lld7 13.c4 'Llb6 14.0-0 fS
1S.�b2 �xb2 16.Ei:xb2 Ei:e8= or 1l.. .f5
1 2 . 0-0 (12.c4 fxe4 13.0-0 b6 14.Ei:b3
'Lld3=) 12 . . . fxe4 13.'Llxe4 �fS.
11. .. �xe5 12. �d2
Another way to defend the c3-
pawn is :
12.Ei:b3, when simplest is 12 . . . c4
13 .�xc4 �c7 14.�e2 (14 .�e2 �g4
1S.�xg4 �xc4 16.�d2 b6 17.�e2
Ei:fc8 18.f4 �g7 19.�f2 �a4 = , Shul­
man-Kamsky, Saint Louis 2 009)
14 . . . �xc3 + 1S .�d2 �xd 2 + 16.�xd2
�eS 17.Ei:e3 �d7= .
12 .�d2 is bad due to 12 . . . �d6
13.h4 fS.
12 .c4 �aS + 13.�d2 is outright
dubious. Without knights, Black
is not cramped and he can safely
grab the a2-pawn : 13 . . . �xa2 14.0-0
�d4 1S.�h6 Ei:e8 16.�h1 e6 17.f3 b6
 4.cxdS tt:lxdS S.e4 tt:lxc3 6.bxc3 �g7 7.tt:lf3
18.�d3 �d7 19.\Wc1 \Wa6+, Wirig­
Atakisi, Antalya 2 0 0 9 .
1 2 . . . e 6 13.f4
This weird retreat has been all
the rage lately. It is aimed against
c3-c4. If needed, Black will sac his
cS-pawn by . . . cS-c4 to keep the
pawn on c3 . However, the older:
13 . . .�g7 seems to be in good
health, too :
14.c4 !
Black's task i s easier after 14.d6
b6 15.0-0 eS 16.�c4 (16.fxeS �b7
17.1Mff4 \We8 18 .�c4 �c6 ! 19.\Wg3
heS 2 0 .�f4 hf4 2 1 .:8:xf4 bS
22 .�d5 �xdS 23.exdS :8:d8 24.:8:e1
1/tfd7 2S.:8:f6 :8:de8 26.:8:ef1 :8:e2 27.a3
1/tfb7 28.\WgS c4 2 9 .h4 \Wb6+ 3 0 . <i>h2
1/tfe3 31.\Wxe3 :8:xe3 32 .d7 :8:e7 33.:8:b1
!'!xd7 34.:8:xbS :8:fd8 3S.:8:aS :8:xdS
36.:8:xa7 :8:8d7=) 16 . . . �e6 17.�xe6
[Or 17.�bS exf4 18.\Wxf4 (18 .\Wd3?
c4! 19.\Wd1 \WgS !+) 18 . . . �xc3 19.�b2
hb2 20.:8:xb2 f6 2 1 . :8:d1�] 17 . . . fxe6
18.1Mfd3 \Wd7 19 .�e3 :8:ad8 2 0 . :8:bd1
\Wc6 2 1.c4 :8:f7 2 2 .fxeS :8:xf1+ 23.:8:xf1
�xeS 24.�h6, Gomez Esteban-Sion
Castro, Leon 1994, 24 . . . \Wxd6+.
14 . . . :8:e8 ! 1S.eS !
The pawn structure after 1S.O-O
exdS 16.exdS �d4+ 17.<i>h1 b6 is fa­
vourable to Black, due to his control
of the e-file and the weaknesses of
White's second rank: 18.�d3 �fS ! ?
19.�b 2 ? ! �xb2 2 0 . :8:xb2 \Wf6+.
1S .. .f6
16.d6
Or 16.0-0 fxeS 17.fxeS exdS
18.cxdS �xeS 19 .�b2 �xb2 2 0 . :8:xb2
b6 2 1.d6 �e6 2 2 .�bS :8:f8 23.:8:f4
:8:fS = .
16 . . . fxeS 17.�b2 exf4 18 .�xg7
ci>xg7 19.0-0 :8:f8 2 0 .:8:xf4
2 0 .:8:bd1 �d7 2 1 .\Wb2 + ci>g8
2 2 .\Wxb7 offers enough compensa­
tion, but still White is a pawn down :
2 2 . . . �a4 23.:8:d3 \Wd7 24.\Wc7 �c6
2S.�g4 hS 26.�h3 :8:ac8 27.\WaS �e4
28.:8:dd1 �fS+.
20 . . . :8:xf4 21.\Wxf4 \Wf6 2 2 .\We4
Or 2 2 .\We3 b6 23 .\We4 :8:b8
24.\Wc6 \Wd8 2S.:8:d1 �b7 26.\Wa4
:8:a8 = .
239
 Part 9
2 2 . . . Elb8 23.Elfl '@.rd4+ 24.'@.rxd4+
cxd4 25.Elbl �d7 26.�f3 b6 27.c5
Elc8 2 8.c6 �xc6 29.Elcl �d7 30.Elxc8
�xeS 31.�c6 @f6 32 .d7 �xd7
33 .�xd7
33 . . . @e5 ! This move improves
on 33 . . . e5? and even faces White
with some problems. It was men­
tioned by Kasparov and tested in
Shulman-Marin, Reykjavik 2 0 0 9 :
34.@f2 @d5 ! 35.@e2 e5= .
14. 0 - 0
14.�c4 ? ! wastes a tempo in a
sharp position. White will stroll on
the edge of the abyss: 14 . . . a6 15.a4
(After 15.dxe6 '@.rxd2+ 16.�xd2
fxe6 17. 0-0 b5 the black queenside
pawn majority has more potential.)
15 ... b5 16.axb5 axb5 17.�xb5 exd5
1 8.�c6 Ela6 19 .hd5 (Or 19.exd5
�f5 2 0 .Elb2 Elxc6 21.dxc6 Ele8+
2 2 . @f2 '@.rh4+ 23 .g3 '@.rh3, with a ter­
rific attack. Even if White repels the
first wave, his king will be perma­
nently in danger.) 19 . . . Eld6 2 0 . 0 - 0
�f5 2 1.'@.re2 Elxd5= , Smirin-Neven,
Calgary 1996.
14 ••• exd5 15.exd5 i.a5 !
240
The point of Black's plan. c3-c4
should be prevented at any cost.
Play has been more or less forced
so far, but now we should examine
a great number of branches :
Ell. 16.g4; El2. 16.Elb5 ; E13.
16.Elb3 ; E14. 16.�a3 ; El5. 16.f5;
E16. 16. d6.
Ell. 16.g4 ! ?
White i s unable t o activate his
dark-squared bishop through the
main diagonal, so he tries to break
it loose with f4-f5. We must antici­
pate that with :
16 . . . '@.rf6 ! 17.i.b2 c4 ! 18.f5 b5
In this variation, 18 . . . gxf5 seems
to be always dubious as it opens up
either the b3-h7 diagonal, or the
g-file: 19.�xc4 '@.rh4 2 0 .@hl ! ± fxg4
2 1.�a3, with a rout.
19 .fxg6 '@.rxg6 2 0 . @hl �e8
2 1 .i.f3 i.b7= .
 4.cxd5 Lt:lxd5 5.e4 Lt:lxc3 6 .bxc3 �g7 7.Lt:lf3
E12. 16.l"1b5
This is a dangerous attempt to
win by a direct attack.
16 . . . b6 17.l"1xa5
17.�b2 ! ? �a6 18.f5 is also very
challenging. (18.d6 �d7 19.a4
Elad8-+) You should memorise
the following variation : 18 . . . Ei:e8 !
19.fxg6 (19 .�c4 �d6) 1 9 . . . hxg6
20.�f4 �e7 2 l .Ei:f3, when only 2 1 . . .
g5 ! ! offers winning chances ( 2 l . . .f5
22 .l"1g3 �f7 23.�f1 �xb5 24.c4 �d7
25.�h6 Ei:g8 26.�h7+ �f8 27.�h6+
�f7= ) , for instance : 2 2 .�g4 f6
23.Ei:f2 �e4 24.�h5 �h7 25.�f3
hb5 26.�b5 Ei:e1+ 27.�f1 Ei:f8
28.c4 �e4 29 .�h5 Ei:f7 30 .d6 b5+.
17 . . . bxa5
18.c4
White has a compensation for
the exchange, but the most straight­
forward tries to mate Black's king do
not work. He should instead think
about maintaining the balance, for
instance : 18 .�a3 �d6 ! 19 .�e3 (19.
c4 Ei:e8 2 0 .�d3 �e7 2 l.�f2 �e3
2 2 . Ei:d1 �xf2 + 23.�xf2 �g4 24.Ei:b1
Ei:ab8+) 19 ... �xd5 2 0 .�xc5 �e6
2 l.Wifd4 �xe2 2 2 .�xf8 �xf8 23.�d5
�e3 + 24.�h1 �b7 25 .�xb7 Ei:e8 = .
1 8 . . . Wifd6 (18 . . . Ei:e8 ! ?) 19 .�b2
19 .�d3 �d7 2 0 .f5 �xf5 2 l.�xf5
gxf5 2 2 .Ei:xf5 f6 is level.
19 . . . f6 20.�d3
In the stem game Kiriakov-Sow­
ray, Hastings 1998, White quickly
became worse after 2 0 .g4 Ei:b8
2 l .�a1 Ei:e8 2 2 .�f3 Ei:b4+.
20 . . . a4 21.f5=
Black's rooks are too passive
and busy ensuring protection of its
king.
E13. 16.l"1b3 a6 !
16 . . . b6 is alledgedly best, but
I think that White can keep some
pull after:
17.�d3 !
Alternatively:
a) 17.f5 �xf5 18.Ei:xf5 gxf5 19.�h6
(19.�f4 Ei:e8 2 0 .�xf5 �h4) 19 . . . c4 !
2 0 .�xc4 f6 ! 2 l.�a3 (2 l.d6+ �h8
2 2 .Wifd2 �d7 23 .g3 Ei:ad8) 2 l . . .�c7
2 2 .Wifh4 Ei:fc8, Aubel-Finkel, Dieren
2 0 0 0 , 23.�xf6 �xc4= .
b ) 17.�d1 �d7 18.c4
241
 Part 9

No one has tested 18.f5 ! ? �a4 This is the difference in com­

19 .�d2 �xb3 2 0 . axb3 �d6 2 1.�b5. parison with line E15. 16 .f5. The
Then 2 l . . .a6 2 2 .�c6 Elac8 practical­ a7-pawn is not hanging and Black
ly ensures an exchange of queens. takes control over the e-file.
The arising endgame is about equal:
23.�e3 b5 24.c4 bxc4 25.bxc4 Elxc6
26.dxc6 �d4 27.�xd4 cxd4 28 .�h6 E14. 16.�a3 b6 17.�b5
Elc8 2 9.Elal �c3 30.Elxa6 d3 = . The
text was recommended by Ftacnik Aiming to prevent Black's main
in 1998, but later practice showed counterplay with . . . Ele8 . Instead,
that Black defends easily: 17.�b4 �xb4 18.cxb4 �d6 is equal.
18 . . . �a4 19 .�b2 �xb3 2 0 . axb3
�e7 2 1 . Whl (It turns out that 2 1.f5
or 2 1.�e5 are parried by 2 l . . .�c3 .)
2 l . . .Elae8 2 2 .�f3 �el+.

c) 17.�b2 �xd5 18.�f3 �c4

19 .�xa8 �a6 2 0 . Elel Elxa8 changes
the roles. Now Black has the ini­
tiative, Pelletier-Ashley, Bermuda
1999 .
17 . . . �f5
Computers suggest 17 . . . �e7, but
it does not prevent White's main
plan with 18.c4 ! ± .
Now, 18.Elbdl a6 19 .�e2 E1e8
18.�f3 El e 8 19.c4 �h4, Ivanov­ would make White's 17th move
Greenfeld, Belgrade 1999. The end­ pointless so he should try:
game after 2 0 .�d3 ! �g4 21.�f2 is
somewhat better for White. 18.d6 �f6 19 .�b2 Elad8
20.Elbdl a6 21.�e2 ElfeS 2 2 .f5
17.f5
Here the simple 2 2 . . . g5= is
In Dannevig-Svidler, Gausdal enough to repel the attack.
199 2 , Black seized the initiative af­
ter 17.�dl �d7 18.Ela3 c4 ! 19.�xc4
Elc8 2 0.�d3 �xc3 2 1 . Whl �b4 2 2 .f5 E15. 16.f5 ! ? �5 17.Elxb7
�h4.
This variation is a little under­
17 . . . �xf5 18.�xb7 '1Wd6 19.�c4 estimated. White discards the plan
ElaeS ! for a kingside attack and stakes his

242
 4.cxdS 'LlxdS S.e4 'Llxc3 6.bxc3 �g7 7.'Llf3
hopes on the strong d-pawn. Most
endgames should be better for him,
mostly due to the misplaced bishop
on aS.
Black's task is not easy. For in­
stance, 17 . . . iMff6 is often met, but
then critical is 18 .g4 �xc3 19 .�b2
ixd2 2 0 .�xf6. The d6-pawn is very
dangerous so 20 . . . �c8 is the only
move, whereas 2 U''lb 2 keeps some
initiative.
17 . . . iMfd6 18.�c4
18.l"lbS �c7 19 .g3 offers Black a
choice : 19 . . . c4 allows a draw by per­
petual after 2 0 .l"lxfS gxfS 2 l.�a3 ,
while 19 . . . l"lae8 is unclear, for exam­
ple, 20.c4 a6 2l.l"lb7 �aS 2 2 .iMfxaS
!'lxe2 Becker-Brkic, Dresden 2 0 07.
18 . . . iMfe5 19.l"lf3
19 .l"le1 iMff6 ! ? , with good counter­
play, has been tested twice by Su­
tovsky.
19 . . . l"lfb8
19 . . . iMfe4 2 0 .iMff4± trades queens
in a favourable situation.
2 0 . �xb8 + �xb8 21.iMff4
I have been following the game
Wells-Howell, Halifax 2 0 0 9 , which
continued 2 1 . . .�c7= . 2 l .d6 looks
more testing, but 2 1 . . .�e6 2 2 .�xe6
fxe6 23.iMff4 iMfxf4 24.�xf4 c4 should
level the game.
E16. 16.d6 �bS !
16 . . . b6 is less precise because
Black's b-pawn place is on bS and
not on b6. Another point in favour
of 16 .. J'\b8 is that the weakness of
the c6-square could be vital in some
endgames, for example : 17.�f3
�fS ? ! 18 .�xa8 �xb1 19 .�c6 iMff6
2 0 .�b2 �xa2 2 l.c4 ! �xd2 (21.. .iMTe6
2 2 .fS ! ! + -) 2 2 .hf6±0
17.�f3 allows Black to fulfil the
main idea of his previous move : 17 . . .
b S 18.�b2 �fS 19.l"lbd1 c4 ! 2 0 J'lfe1
( 2 0 .iMfdS iMff6 2 l .�e4 �xe4 2 2 .iMfxe4
l"lfe8 23 .iMfdS l"le2) 20 . . . �d3 2 l .�a3
b4 ! 2 2 .�xb4 �xb4 2 3 . cxb4 iMfxd6
24.a3 aS 2S .�e4 axb4 26 .�xd3
cxd3 2 7.iMfxd3 iMfb6 + 2 8 . Wh1 b3+,
Rubio Mejia-Mekhitarian, Madrid
2008.
18.l"lbS i s pointless i n view of
18 . . . a6 ! . Then 19.l"lxcS �b6 2 0 . Wh1
243
 Part 9
.txc5 2 1.hc5 does not offer full
compensation, see game 17 Ga­
jewski-Sutovsky, Rijeka 2 0 1 0 .
A crucial position for the whole
idea with 13 . . . .tc7.
I'll consider the more solid E161.
1 8 ... �f6, and the sharp E162. 18 . . .
l':1c8.
E161. 18 . . . �f6
Introduced in Ftacnik-Mikha­
levsky, Bellevue 2 0 06. It leads
nearly by force to a drawish end­
game :
19.hc5
19.l':1f3 c4 ! is awkward to White :
2 0 . .tc5 ( 2 0 . .txc4 .tg4) 2 0 . . . l':1bc8
2l..tf2 l':1c6 2 2 .d7 l':1d8.
19 . . . hc3 20 . .td4 hd4+
2 1.'�'xd4 �xd4+ 2 2 . l':1xd4
244
22 . . .b5
Activating the rook with
2 2 . . . l':1fc8, followed by . . . l':1c5, also
levels the game.
23.l':1cl .te6 24.l':1d2 E1fd8
25.l':1c6 b4 26.l':1a6 E1b6 =
The stem game finished in a
draw after 27.l':1xb6 axb6 2 8 .h3 �f8
29 . .tfl h5 30 .h4 l':1a8 31.l':1d4 l':1d8
32 .l':1d2 l':1a8 33.l':1d4 l':1d8 34.l':1d2 .
E16 2 . 18 . . . l':1c8 19.g4 !
19 . .tf3 �f6 ! equalises out­
right. White must answer 2 0.d7
(or 2 0 . .tb2 ? ! c4 ! 21.l':1fel .td3+,
V.Belov-Nikolenko, Moscow 2 000)
20 . . . l':1cd8 2 1..txc5 l':1xd7 2 2 .�e3 l':1c8
23 . .td4 .tb6= .
19 . . . .td7 2 0 .f5 !
2 0 . .tf3 does not fi t in with
White's previous move. Black has
at least two good retorts :
 4.cxd5 l2Jxd5 5.e4 l2Jxc3 6 .bxc3 �g7 7.l2Jf3

20 . . . Wf6 2 1.�b2 c4 2 2 .Whl �a4 E 2 . 9 . . . b6

23J''lc l l"1fd8 24.�a3 �c7! 25 .g5
(25.l"1cdl �xdl 26.l"1xdl b5 27.�b7
ixd6 2 8.�xd6 l"1b8 29 .�d5 l"1xd6
30.�xf7+ Wxf7 31.Wxd6 Wxd6
32.l"1xd6 b4+, Learte Pastor-Ko­
ronowski, ICCF 2 0 08) 25 . . . Wf5
26.l"1cel �xd6 27.�xd6 Wd7= , Fal­
coni-Koronowski, ICCF 2 0 0 8 ;
20 . . . b5 2 1 . Whl Wf6 (or 2 1 . . . c4
22 .f5 Wf6 23.fxg6 hxg6 24.l"1cl �b6)
22 .ib2 l"1ce8 2 3 .l"1fel l"1e6 ! 24.h3
(24.f5 c4 25.ig2 l'!xel + 26.l"1xel
idS ! =) 24 . . . l"1fe8 25.l"1xe6 Wxe6
26.Wg2 c4 27.f5 We3+, Bennborn­ This line is entirely written by
Popelka, ICCF 2 0 07. Agrest.

10. 0 - 0

a) 10 .�e3 ? ! does not fit in with

White's strategy. Black continues
with 10 . . . �b7 and now:

al) l l.Wd3 �a6 12 .Wd2 Wc8

20 . . . Wh4 !
20 . . . gxf5? 2 1 .�d3 ! gives White
a terrific attack. See the important
game 15 Meyer-Bokar, ICCF
2007.
21.�f3 l"1fe8
Black is holding in this sharp
line. He should control the e7-
square and refrain from taking on
fS. See game 16 Souza-Barbosa,
ICCF 2 0 0 8 for a detailed analysis.
13.0-0 13 . . . �xe2 14.Wxe2 Wa6 !
15.Wd2 (Black has good counterplay
in the endgame after 15.Wxa6 l2Jxa6
16.l"1fcl l"1ac8 ! 17.d5 f5 ! , Roiz-Golod,
Beer Sheva 2 0 0 1.) 15 . . . l"1d8 16.�h6
(16.�g5 l2Jd7 17.�xe7 l"1e8 18 .�d6
l"1xe4 19.dxc5 l2Jxc5 is equal.)
16 . . .�h8 17.Wf4 Wxa2 . We got a bet­
ter version of the standard pawn
sacrifice since a pair of minor pieces
has been already exchanged while
White still has nothing tangible in
the centre.
a2) ll.e5
This advance surrenders the d5-
square so White can count only on
a direct kingside attack.
l l . . . cxd4 1 2 . cxd4 l2Ja6 !

245
 Part 9
Simple and strong. The knight
is heading for d5. Now 13.h4 4Jc7 (I
don't like the weakening 13 . . . h5 and
also see no reason to waste time on
it.) 14.h5 4Jd5 15.hxg6 hxg6 ! leaves
Black better developed. That al­
lows him to easily neutralise the
attack along the h-file : 16.�h6
�xh6 17J'lxh6 Wg7 18.'\Wd2 4Jc3 and
White's position is on the verge of
collapsing. Instead, Nemet-Kor­
chnoi, Switzerland 1985 went:
13.'\Wd2 4Jc7 14.h4 4Jd5 15 .h5
4J xe3 16.fxe3 (16.'\Wxe3? ! '\Wd5 gives
Black a clear edge, due to White's
sensitive pawns on a2 and d4) 16 . . .
e6 17.�d3 l"lc8, with a n edge to
Black. The h4-h5 thrust has turned
out to be a waste of time.
b) 10 .h4 is another version of
the same plan as in line a. I should
mention that it is inconsistent with
8 . l"lbl. Black can now prevent h4-h5
by the natural 10 . . . �g4
246
b1) 1l.Wfl cxd4 1 2 . cxd4 4Jc6.
This suggestion of Rowson aims
to disrupt the harmony of White's
centre. After 13.d5 4Ja5 14.h5 �xh5
15.4Jg5 �xe 2 + 16.'\Wxe2 h6 17.4Jf3
h5, Black has the upper hand.
b2) 11.4Jg1 �xe2 12 .4Jxe 2 .
White i s stubbornly pursuing
his idea of opening the h-file, but
his light squares are weak, espe­
cially c4. Krivoshey-Vallejo Pons,
German League 2 0 05, continued:
12 . . . '\Wd7! 13 .�e3
13 d5? ! '\Wg4 ! is embarrassing
for White, but he might try 13.f3
when 13 . . . 4Jc6 14.dxc5 (14.d5 4Je5
15.f4 4J c4 16.'\Wd3 '\Wa4 looks OK)
14 . . . '\WcS would be unclear, accord­
ing to Vallejo. I can add that over
the board, it is easier to play with
Black due to the numerous weak­
nesses of the enemy pawn forma­
tion.
13 . . . 4Jc6 14.'\Wa4
14.h5 l"lad8 15.hxg6 hxg6 16.d5
'\Wg4 is a typical example of the rule
that an attack can only succeed
when the active side has superior
forces on that wing. In our case,
the roles are reversed, and Black
 4.cxd5 l/Jxd5 5.e4 l/Jxc3 6 .bxc3 !g7 7.l/Jf3

goes on the offensive himself with A flexible move which keeps

17.�c2 l/Je5 18.i>fl f5 ! . open both options - of . . . !g4 and
. . . !b7(a6) .
14 . . . l'lfd8 15.d5 l/Ja5 16.�xd7
!;lxd7
ll.i.g5 !

It is a general rule in the Griin­

feld that when Black refrains from
an early attack on d4, White should
lead out his bishop to g5 in order to
keep an eye on e7.
ll.!e3 !b7 12 .!d3 (12 .�d3
!a6 13.�d2 !xe2 14.�xe2 l/Jd7)
12 . . . l/J d7 13.�d2 l'lad8 14.!h6 e5 !
effectively paralyses White's centre.
Black reached the typical Griin­
feld endgame with full control over
ll . . . lbc6!
c4.
Commonly Black connects ... b6
with . . . l/J d7, but our sneaky queen
b3) ll .!e3 l/J c6
move let us see White's setup and
Black is back to the standard
adjust accordingly.
Grii nfeld scheme of development
with the insertion of h4 b6, which is 12 .�d2
undoubtedly in his favour. White is
a) 12 .d5 l/Je5 13.lt:ld2
under pressure.

12.e5 cxd4 13.cxd4 l'lc8 ! ? 14.h5

txh5. I doubt that White would be
able to justify his opening strategy.

10 . . . �c7!?

It looks correct to keep more

pieces on board, but this retreat al­
lows Black to stab first.
13.l/Jxe5 !xe5 14.f4 !xc3 15.e5
!d4+ 16. i>hl !f5 is also better for
Black, but 13.c4 f5 14.exf5 !xf5
15.l'lb3 l/Jxf3 + 16.!xf3 l'lae8 17.l'lel
!d4 18 .!e3 e5 would be equal.

247
 Part 9
13 . . .f5 ! 14.exf5 ixfS 15.Elb3 c4
16.Elb4 aS 17.Elb5 id7 18.Elbl ifS
19.Elb5 lt:J d3 2 0 .ie3 Elab8+, Del Rio
Angelis-Krasenkow, Leon 2 0 1 0 .
b ) 12 .ih4
A computer move. It aims to
take control of eS.
12 ... ig4 13 .ig3 1Mfc8 14.d5 lt:Ja5 !
Instead, 1 4 . . . Eld8 15.1Mfc2 ixf3
16.ixf3 lt:Je5 17.ie2 c4 is also worth
consideration, but we want to drag
White's pawns forward where we
could attack them later.
15.e5
If White misses his chance to
gain more space now, he will have
to allow the blockading . . . e7-e5, for
instance :
lS.Elcl ixf3 16.ixf3 lt:Jc4 17.Elel
(17.ie2 lt:Jd6 18 .1Mfc2 fS ! ) 17 ... e5
18.ih4 1Mfc7 19 .1Mfe2 bS 2 0 .Elal lt:Jd6,
or 15.lt:Je5 ixe2 16.1Mfxe2 e6! 17.d6
f6 18.lt:Jf3 e5 19.Elfd1 1Mfe6 = . In both
positions, it is unclear how White
can make any progress.
15 . . . 1Mfd7 16.1Mfd2 Elad8 17.Elbdl
(Or 17.d6 exd6 18.exd6 ixf3
19.ixf3 lt:J c4 ; 17.Elfdl ifS 18.Elb2
248
1Mfa4+±) 17 ... 1Mfa4 ! = . Despite White's
enormous space advantage, Black
does not experience problems. His
pieces are constantly harassing the
enemy pawns.
12 . . . i.g4 !
Our plan is to provoke d4-d5
and blockade the centre with . . . e7-
e5, or destroy it by . . . f7-f5.
13.d5
13.Elfcl does not improve White's
position. We can answer 13 . . . Elad8
14.d5 (14.1Mfe3 ixf3 15.1Mfxf3 cxd4
16.cxd4 1Mfd7 17.d5 lt:J d4 18 .1Mfe3
lt:Jxe 2 + 19 .1Mfxe2 Elc8 = ) 14 . . . ixf3
15.ixf3 lt:JeS 16.ie2 fS ! 17.exf5 Elxf5
18 .c4 lt:Jf7 19 .ie3 e6 2 0 .ig4 Elf6
2 1 .Elel exdS 2 2 . cxd5 lt:J eS 23.ie2
1Mff7 24.Elbdl Elfd6=.
1 3 )i:Je5
••
The blockading plan 13 . . . Elad8
14.if4 e5 is also viable : 15.ig3 '\Mfe7
(15 . . . lt:Ja5 is also possible as 16.lt:Jxe5
ixe2 17.lt:Jd3 1Mfe7 18 .1Mfxe2 Elxd5=
 4.cxd5 '2Jxd5 5 .e4 '2Jxc3 6 .bxc3 �g7 7.'2Jf3
recaptures the pawn . ) 16J�fel �xf3
17.hf3 '2Ja5 18 .�e2 '2Jb7
19.c4
19.�a6 l2Jd6 2 0 .c4 would cut
off the white bishop on a6. We
could immediately launch an attack
with 2 0 . . .f5 2 l .exf5 and now both
21...:1'1xf5 ! ? and 2 1 . . .'2Jxf5 2 2 .f3 '2Jxg3
23.hxg3 e4 24.:1'1xe4 'Wd6 25.'\t>h2
1:1£5� offer Black an initiative.
The text is more solid, but the
breakhrough . . . £7-fS is still possible:
19 ... '2Jd6 2 0 .�d3 fS 2 l .exf5 gxfS
2 2 .f3 e4 2 3 . �xd6 ( 2 3 .fxe4 l2Jxe4)
23 . . . :1'1xd6 24.fxe4 f4, with a clas­
sical opposite coloured bishops at­
tack.
14.ll:'l xe5 �xe2 15.lL'lxg6 hxg6
16.�xe2 hc3 17.f4 gadS !
The game Czerwonski-Olszew­
ski, Warsaw 2 0 1 0 , saw 17 . . . e6,
but it is basically wrong to further
weaken our kingside pawns in view
of 18.dxe6 f:xe6 19.e5. The text pre­
vents e4-e5 and prepare . . . '\t>g7 or
. . . �f6 . White's only chance is:
18.f5 l!?g7 19.�f4 (19 .g3 :1'1h8)
19 �e5 20.'�e3 gbs
.•.
Black's c-pawn might become
the hero of the day.
Conclusion:
9 . . . b6, followed by 10 . . . '\Wc7, is a
solid positional system. It ensures
an easy development and avoids
long theoretical variations.
249
Pa rt 9
Complete Games
1 5. Meyer-Bokar
carr. I C C F 2007
1 .d4 .:!Llf6 2 . c4 g 6 3 . o:!Ll c3 d5
4.cxd5 o:!Llxd5 5.e4 o:!Llxc3 6. bxc3
.ig7 7 . .:!Ll f3 c5 8 . :Ei b 1 0-0 9 ..ie2
o:!Llc6 1 O.d5 o:!Lle5 1 1 . o:!Ll xe5 .ixe5
1 2.1�' d 2 e6 1 3 .f4 .ic7 1 4.0-0 exd5
1 5.exd5 .ia5 1 6. d 6 :Eib8 1 7 . .ia3
.if5 1 8 . :Ei b d 1 :EicB 1 9 .g4 .id7 2 0 .f5
20 . . . gxf5?
This is a mistake. It seems that
Black should never take on f5 in
this line. It is very helpful, however,
to be well acquainted with White's
attacking resources.
2 1 . .id3 !
Now all the enemy pieces gather
around the black king. Alternatives
would justify the capturing on f5 :
250
2 l.g5 c4 2 2 . .if3 Ei:e8 23.�hl b5
Gerzhoy-Tyomkin, Ashdod 2 0 04;
2l.gxf5 "I!:Mf6 2 2 . .ib2 c4 23.�f3
(23.�hl Ei:c5) 23 . . . b5 24.Ei:fel .ib6+
25.�hl �h8 26.Ei:e7 Ei:g8 27.l!:Mf4 Ei:g5
28 .�cl Ei:cg8 29 . .ie3 Ei:xf5 30."1!:Md4
Ei:xf3 3l.Ei:xd7 .ixd4 32 . .ixd4 l!:Mxd4
33.cxd4 Ei:d3-+, Tortato-Henrichs,
LSS 2 0 0 8 .
2 1 . . .fxg4 22.:Eide1 !
The point! The rook is rushing
to e7. Before this game, Black was
defending successfully:
a) 2 2 ."1!:Mh6 f5 2 3 .Ei:fel �f6
24.1!:Mxf6 (24 . .ic4+ �h8 25.1!:Mxf6+
Ei:xf6 26.Ei:e7 .ia4 27 . .ib3 �xb3
2 8 . axb3 .ib6 29.c4 �g8 30 .d7 Ei:d8
3l..ib2 Ei:f7 32 .Ei:e8+ Ei:f8 = ) 24 . . . Ei:xf6
25.Ei:e7 c4 26.Ei:xd7 cxd3 27.Ei:xb7
Ei:xc3 2 8 . .ib2 Ei:xd6 29 . .ixc3 .ixc3
30 .Ei:b3 .id4 + .
b ) 2 2 . .if5 f6 23 ."1!:Md5+ �h8
24.Ei:fel Ei:e8
 4.cxd5 tt:lxd5 5.e4 tt:lxc3 6.bxc3 :li,g7 7.tt:lf3
25.:li,xh7 (25.'\¥ff7 Ei:xe1+ 26.Ei:xe1
hf5 27.Ei:e7 '\¥ff8 28.d7 '\¥fxf7
29.dxc81¥J+ :li,xc8 30.Ei:xf7 �g8
3l.Ei:e7 :li,f5 3 2 .:ld,xc5 :li,xc3 33.Ei:xb7
a6=) 25 . . . �xh7 26.1¥Jf7+ �h8
27.Ei:e7 Ei:xe7 2 8 . dxe7 '\¥fe8 29.'\¥fxf6+
'it>h7 30.c4 Ei:c6 31.'\¥fe5 Ei:e6 3 2 .'\¥ff5+
�g6 33 .'\¥fxg6+ �xg6 34.Ei:xd7 �f7
35.:li,xc5 :li,b6 36.:li,xb6 Ei:xb6 37. �f2
l"lb2+ 38.�g3 Ei:xa2 39.Ei:xb7 a5
40 .Ei:a7 Ei:c2 4l.Ei:xa5 Ei:xc4 42.Ei:e5=
lt>e8 43 .Ei:e2 1/2 Engelhardt-Ataki­
si, ICCF 2 0 0 6 .
2 2 . . . 'Wh4 23 . .if5 ! .ixf5 24J'!xf5
!:'leeS
Alas, 25 . . . Ei:xe7 leads to a catas­
trophe along the main diagonal,
something Black has been trying
to avoid ever since the opening:
26.Ei:g5+ �h8 27.dxe7 Ei:e8 28 .:li,b2 !
f6 29.c4 ! , mating in 5.
26.Ei:fe5 Ei:d 8 27 . .ixc5 'Wf6 28.d7
.ib6 29 . .ixb6 'Wxb6+ 30.Ei:e3
The rest is clear:
30 . . . a6 3 1 .'Wd 5 'i!?g7 32.a4 'i!?g8
33.c4 'Wf6 34.Ei:e8 'i!?g7 35.Ei:3e5
%lib6+ 36.c5 'Wb2 37 .'Wd6 1 -0 .
1 6 . Souza-Barbosa
ICCF 2008
1 . d4 ltlf6 2 . c4 g 6 3 .ltlc3 d5
4 . cxd5 ltlxd5 5.e4 ltlxc3 6. bxc3
.ig7 7 . ltlf3 c5 8 . :1'i: b 1 0-0 9 . .ie2
ltlc6 1 O.d5 ltle5 1 1 .ltlxe5 .ixe5
1 2 .'Wd2 e6 1 3 .f4 .ic7 1 4.0-0 exd5
1 5.exd5 .ia5 1 6.d6 :1'i:b8 1 7 . .ia3
.if5 1 8 . :1'i: b d 1 :1'i:c8 1 9 .g4 .id7 20 .f5
'Wh4! 2 1 . .if3
2 1 . . . :1'i:fe8
2 l . . .b5 looks a viable alternative :
2 2 .Ei:de1 (or 2 2 .fxg6 hxg6
23 .Ei:de1 :li,e6=) 22 . . . :li,d8 ! ?
An original way to take the criti­
cal square e7 under control. The
passive bishop on a5 will soon be­
come very active :
2 3 . �h1 :li,g5 24.'\¥fg2 Ei:fe8
25.Ei:xe8 + Ei:xe8 26 .:li,xc5 :Ji,f4 27.'\¥ff2
'\¥fxf2 2 8 .:li,xf2 a6
This game provides yet anoth­
er proof that Black's active pieces
and a better pawn structure on the
queenside balance White's extra
pawn in a wide range of Griinfeld
endgames.
29 .fxg6 hxg6 30 .:li,c5 Ei:e6 3l.Ei:d1
:li,e3 3 2 .:li,a3 :li,b6 33.�g2 Ei:e3 34.Ei:d2
a5 35 .:li,b2, draw, Meyer-Bauer,
ICCF 2 0 07.
251
 Part 9

22. me 1 25.�xe1 �xc3 26.�e7 �dB 27.id5

id4! 28.fxg6 hxg6 29.ic1 ixg4
I have also analysed : 1 /2- 1 /2 .
a) 2 2 .�cl b5 (22 . . . Elcd8 23 .fxg6
hxg6 24.'\Wg5 '\Wxg5 25.�xg5 �b5
2 6.�xd8 Elxd8 27.Elfel bc3 28.Ele7
�d4+ 29.<i>g2 Elxd6 30.Elxb7 a6
3 1.h4±) 23 .<i>hl Ele5oo.
b) 2 2 . <i>hl Ele5 (22 . . . b5 23.fxg6 ! ?
hxg6 24.�d5) 23 .fxg6 (23 .�b2 c4
24.Eldel Elce8 25.Elxe5 Elxe5 26.fxg6
hxg6 27.'\Wf4 Elel 2 8 .�d5 �f5
29.'\Wxc4 Elxfl+ 3 0 .'\Wxfl '\Wxg4) 23 . . .
I t seems that the position i s still
hxg6 24.'\Wf4
unclear, but in a correspondence
game it is easy to check that after
3 0 .�xf7+ <i>h8 3l.�f4 g5 32 .�g3
b5 33.Ele8+ Elxe8 34.�xe8 c4 35.d7
�b6 36.�f2 �d8 37.�xa7 ci>g7, nei­
ther side can make progress.

1 7 . Gajewski-Sutovsky
2 3 . 0 1 . 20 1 0 Rijeka

An important position. 24 . . . 1 .d4 lt:lf6 2 . lt:lf3 g 6 3 . c4 ig7

'\Wg5? fails t o 25.'\Wg3 , but 24 . . . Elf5 !
apparently solves the problems :
25.'\Wg3 (25 .'\We3 Ele8 26 .'\Wxe8+
�xe8 27.gxf5 �b5 2 8 . Elgl '\Wf4
29.Elg3 '\Wxf5+) 25 . . . '\Wxg3 2 6.hxg3
Elxf3 27.Elxf3 �xg4 2 8 . <i>g2 = .
4.lt:lc3 d5 5.cxd5 lt:lxd 5 6.e4 lt:lxc3
7 . bxc3 c5 8 . � b 1 0-0 9 .ie2 lt:lc6
1 O.d5 lt:leS 1 1 .lt:lxe5 ixe5 1 2 .Wd2
e6 1 3 .f4 ic7 1 4.0-0 exdS 1 5 .exd5
iaS 1 6 .d6 �b8 1 7 .ia3 itS 1 8 .Elb5
a6!

2 2 . . ."1W h 3 !

The alternatives are worse:

2 2 . . . c4 23 .Ele7! ;
2 2 . . . b5? ! 23.Elxe8 + Elxe8
24.�xc5 gxf5 25.gxf5 '\Wf6 2 6.�d4
'\Wxf5 27.'\Wg2 + '\Wg6 2 8 .�h5 '\Wxg2+
2 9 . <i>xg2±

2 3 .Wg2 Wxg2+ 24.�xg2 �xe 1 This improves o n the game

252
 4.cxd5 lt:Jxd5 5.e4 lt:Jxc3 6.bxc3 i.g7 7.lt:Jf3

Fahnenschmidt-Mark Tseitlin, Bad 24 . . . i.c6? 25.f5 ! gxfS 26.i.c2

Homburg 2 005, which saw 18 . . . b6 i.e4 27 .i.b3 h6 28 .W/f6 i> h 7 29.gg 1
19Jlxa5 bxa5 2 0 .i.xc5. The two con­
nected pawns in the centre, backed
by the bishop pair, are very strong,
although White quickly lost.

1 9 .gxc5

White can try 19J'lb3, intending

to grab a pawn after 19 . . . b6 2 0 .i.xa6
�f6 2 1.gd1 i.g4 2 2 .i.e2 c4 23.gb4
(23.Elbbl i.xc3) 23 . . . i.xe2 24.Wxe2,
29 . . . gga 30 .W/xf7+ gg7 3 1 .Wixd7
when Black is not obliged to take
gxd7 32.gd 1 i.c6 33.'tt> g 1 ge2
the exchange. Instead, he has 24 . . .
34.i.f2 \t>g6 35.'tt> f 1 ge4 36.c4 aS
b5 ! 25.Elbbl Elfe8 with active play.
Even simpler is 19 . . . b5 ! 2 0 .i.xc5
.tb6 2 l.i.xb6 Wxb6+ 2 2 .'it>hl Elbd8
23.Eldl Elfe8 24.Elb4 We3 25.i.fl
i.g4, regaining the pawn.

1 9 . . . i.b6 2 0 .i> h 1 i.xcS 2 1 .i.xc5

%Vd7 22 .i.b6 i.e4 23 .W/d4 gbe8
24.i.d 1

A critical position. White should

White's venture turned into
a failure. He does have a strong
passed pawn, but his pieces lack co­
ordination. Now Black could have
fixed his advantage by returning
the exchange with 24 . . . Ele6 25 .i.c7
�c6 26.Wd2 Eld8+, but we would
have missed the instructive end­
game that followed :
have fixed the pawn at a5 where it
will be a target for the dark-squared
bishop. After 37.a4 Ele6 38 .c5 Ele4
39 .i.d4 Elf4+ 40 .'it>e2 White is hold­
ing. The only sensible plan could
be 40 . . . b6, but after 4l.cxb6 Elxd6
42 .i.c3 Elxdl 43.'it>xdl White's
passed pawns balance Black's ex­
tra exchange. Play might continue
43 . . . Elfl+ 44.'it>c2 i.xg2 45.i.xa5 f4
46.i.d2 i.e4+ 47.'it>c3 f3 48 .i.e3 f2
49 .i.c4 = .
White allows the enemy to pin
his pawn to a3. Then the plan with
. . . b6 is winning, because the white
bishop will be overcharged with the

253
 Part 9
defence of two pawns - on a3 and
b6.
37.a3 <;t>tG 38J�d2 a4 39 ..ia2
b5?
This pawn should be used for
undermining the c5-pawn. The
right plan was 39 . . . <;t>es 40 .c5 b6!+.
Now White is fine.
40.c5 b4 ( 40 . . . <;t>e5 ! = ) 4 1 . .id4+?
After 41.axb4 fi:xb4 42 .i.d4+
<;t>gs 43 .g3;t only White can play for
a win.
41 .. J'!xd4! 42.:5xd4 bxa3
43.:5b4 �e5 44.:5b6 .ie4 45.�e 1 ?
This strange move loses the g2-
pawn and the game. White should
have waited with 45.fi:b4 fi:a7 46.g3 .
4 5 . . . :5 a 7 46.:5b4 .ixg2 47.:5c4
.ic6 48.:5c3 �d4 49 . :5c4+ �d3
50. :5b4 :5g7 5 1 .:5b6 �e3 52.�f1
.ig2+ 53.<;t>e1 .ie4 0 - 1 .
1 8 . Xu J un- N i Hua
Wuxi 2006
1 .d4 l2:lf6 2 . l2:\ f3 g6 3 . c4 .ig7
4 . l2:\ c3 d 5 5.cxd5 l2:\xd5 6.e4 l2:\ xc3
7 . bxc3 c5 8 . :5 b 1 0-0 9 ..ie2 l2:\ c6
1 O.d5 l2:\ e 5 1 1 . l2:\xe5 .ixe5 1 2 .'Wd2
e6 1 3 .f4 .ic7 1 4.0-0 exd5 1 5.exd5
.ia5 1 6 . d 6 :5b8 1 7 . .if3
17.i.a3 ! i.fS 18.fi:bdl fi:c8 has
been more topical lately.
2 54
1 7 . . . b5 1 8 . .ia3 .if5
18 . . . b4 would have unneces­
sarily opened the main diagonal
- 19.cxb4 cxb4 2 0 .i.b2 b3 21.'<!Nd5
bxa2 2 2 .1!Nxa2 i.b4 23.fi:bdl i.xd6
24.<j;hl V!ic7 25 .V!ial, with a com­
pensation.
1 9 .:5bd 1 c4
19 . . . b4 ! 2 0 . cxb4 i.xb4 2 1 .i.xb4
fi:xb4 2 2 .V!ic3 V!ib6 was good and
safe. Perhaps Ni Hua overestimat­
ed the importance of the square d3
for his bishop.
20.:5fe 1
Black was threatening with
. . . V!if6 . White was unable to prevent
it with 2 0 .V!id4?? due to 2 0 . . . b4.
2 0 .d7 was also dubious in view of
2 0 . . . V!ib6+ 2l.V!if2 fi:fd8.
20 . . . .id3 2 1 . .ie4?
It looks like White miscalculated
something. Naturally, 2 1.i.d5 Elb6
2 2 . <j;hl fi:xd6+ or 21.d7 b4 2 2 . cxb4
i.b6+ 23 .<j;hl V!ixd7 24.i.b2 i.d4
25.Ele4 i.xb2 26.Elxc4 i.a3 are fine
for Black, but 2 1 .Ele5 ! would have
 4.cxd5 tt:lxd5 5.e4 tt:lxc3 6.bxc3 1d,g7 7.tt:lf3
set problems to Black. Then 2 1 . . .
�f6 i s not a threat s o White could
choose from 2 2 .d7, 2 2 .fi:del! and
even 2 2 . Whl. Perhaps Black should
switch to a struggle for the draw
with 2 l . . .b4 2 2 . cxb4 id,b6+ 23.Whl
�xd6 24.1d,b2 fi:be8 25.fi:xe8 fi:xe8
26.Wfc3 f6 27.Wfxf6 Wfxf6 2 8 .id,xf6
!'1e3 . This sad necessity teaches us
that the white dark-squared bishop
should be restricted by all possible
means and the sooner the better.
21 . . . \Wf6 !
This hit on c3 saves Black often
in this line. Here it gains the edge.
2 2 . fi: c 1 fi:fe8 23 . .ixd 3 fi:xe 1 +
24.\Wxe1 cxd3 2 5 . d 7 ? !
White had t o pull himself to­
gether for a stubborn defence with
25.Wfd2 b4 26.cxb4 Wfd4+ 27.\Wf2
\Wxd6 2 8 .bxa5 \Wxa3 29.\We3 . In­
stead, he errs again:
2 5 ... \WcG 26.\Wes .ic7 27.\We7
fi:d8 28 . .ic5 \Wxd7 29 .'1Wf6?? d2
0-1 .
3 0 . fi:dl loses to 30 . . . \Wg4.
255
256
 Part 10

The Exchange System 7.�c4

1 . d4 d 5 2 . c4 g 6 3 . 'Ll c3 d 5 4 . cxd5 'Llxd5 5 . e4 'Llxc3
6 . bxc3 i.g 7 7 . i.c4

257
Pa rt 10

Main Ideas

Introduction able. It is still bringing Black satis­

factory results, but he has very little
In this part, we are going to study
chances to entangle the opponent
White's most aggressive and dan­
in a messy unbalanced struggle that
gerous plan - the king's bishop goes
most Griinfeld players like.
to c4 while the knight takes a stable
Another straightforward ap­
stand on e 2 . This setup ensures a
proach is 10 . . . �g4 ll.f3 tt'la5 12 .id3
secure defence of the d4-pawn and
(12 .ixf7+ enjoyed a peak of popu­
allows White to preserve a mobile
larity after the world title match
pawn centre. It was popularised in
Karpov-Kasparov in 1987, but then
the 50s and the 60s by the great at­
has gradually drifted out of fash­
tackers Bronstein, Spassky, Geller.
ion.) 12 . . . cxd4 13.cxd4 ie6.
After:

7.�c4 c5 8.tt'le2 tt'lc6 9 .�e3

0 - 0 10. 0 - 0 ,

Here White must sacrifice some­

Black tried at first the direct
attack on the d4-pawn : 10 . . . cxd4
ll.cxd4 tt'la5 12 .�d3 tt'lc6 ! ? . A draw
proposition which White can de­
cline by 13.�b5 or 13 .�c2 , conced­
ing to a more passive stand for his
bishop. This line is absolutely play-
thing in order to keep the initia­
tive. In my opinion, 14J''k l ixa2 is
perfectly fine for Black, so the only
challenging line is the exchange
sacrifice 14.d5 ! . I believe in Black's
position, but play is too forced for
my taste. Real fight, if ever, begins
around move 30, and one can never
be sure if the latest engine did not
come up with some nasty surprise.

258
 4.cxd5 lt:lxd5 5.e4 lt:lxc3 6 .bxc3 iig7 7.iic4
The fact that Topalov confidently
enters this line as White suggests
that he hides trumps up his sleeve.
In the 60s, the focus began
to shift to a more flexible setup
where Black aims first to com­
plete development with . . . V!ic7,
... l"\d8, . . . b6, . . . iib7, and only then
seek counterplay. This plan was
regularly used by World champions
Botvinnik, Smyslov and Fischer. I
recommend it as a main repertoire
since it gives the better player fair
chances to win. For a backup line
I examine in detail the very topical
10 . . . lt:la5 ll.iid3 b6, see game 2 0
Shirov-Vachier-Lagrave, Wijk
aan Zee 2 0 1 1 .
The game Gligoric-Smyslov, Ki­
ev 1959, was the first high-level en­
counter where Black adopted this
completely new approach. Instead
of fighting for elimination of the
central pawns, he aimed to restrict
their mobility and eventually block­
ade them :
1 0 . . . V!ic7! ll.�cl Eld8
12 .h3 ! ? This move is very con­
sistent. White intends to open the
f-file with f4-f5, but firstly he pre­
vents the annoying pin . . . iig4. (Six
years later Geller played against
Smyslov 1 2 .f4 without any prophy­
lactics and went on to win, but that
happened because Black did not
follow his own blockading plan. He
correctly started wit 12 . . . e6, but af­
ter 13.Wh1 he should have followed
up by 13 . . . lt:la5 14.iid3 f5 ! .)
12 . . . b6 13.f4 e6 14.Vfie1 iib7
15.Vfif2 ? (15 .f5 ! lt:la5 16.iid3 exf5
17.exf5 �e8 ! ) 15 . . . lt:la5 ! 16.iid3 f5 ! .
This plan is vital for Black's set­
up. It stops the enemy attack and
questions the whole White's stra­
tegy. 17.e5 c4 ! . The blockade now
extends over the queenside, too !
18 .iic2 lt:lc6 19.g4 lt:le7 2 0 . Wh2 V!ic6
2 1 . lt:lg3 b5
.�. . B ••�
.J .a• • li;l i
·i¥· i · i �
� i · �.� i ·
• i D �.� � �
� o m V{fj �
�· � .t •
�
� � "
% "
� a •M•
We can only admire the domi­
nation of the black pieces.
This game earned the ... V!ic7 sys­
tem many followers and it became
259
 Part 10

the main line for quite a long time.

White tried to strike back with :
12 .�f4 !
The idea of this move is to fix
the centre after 12 . . . e5 13 .�g5 Ele8
14.d5, with a better position.

Korchno i-Stein
M oscow 1 971
19 . . . tt:J c 6 2 0 . Eif2 (or 2 0 . lt:J d4±)
20 . . . tt:Je5 21.lt:Jd4 �d7 2 2 .Eicfl.
White owns the initiative - he is
threatening with �g5 .

Instead of trying to blockade

the centre at any cost, I propose for
the aims of our repertoire to keep
the tension and gain space on the
queenside with . . . b5. This is a mo­
12 . . . �d7! 13.d5 ! tt:Ja5 14.�d3 e5. dern plan which began to gain po­
Later it has been established that pularity in the last 5 years .
14 . . . b5 ! gives more chances for
generating counterplay, but before
this game Black used to overesti­
Objectives and Move Orders
mate his chances in the blockaded
position after . . . c5 and . . . e5. It was We begin with 10 . . . �c7
widely accepted that the manoeu­
vre . . . tt:Jc6-a5-b7-d6 should assure
Black of bright prospects. Korchnoi
shook this assessment:
15.�e3 c4
An obligatory move, or White
will play c4 himself. Then he could
choose active plans on both flanks.
16.�c2 �e7! 17.�d2 ! (17.f4 �g4 ! )
17 . . .b 6 18 .f4 ! exf4 19.�xf4.
Black had to take on f4 because Black's queen stands up against
of the threat of f4-f5. But now the enemy bishop on c4. It also va­
White obtains an excellent stand on cates d8 for the king's rook.
d4 for his knight and the f-file for It seems that White's only rea­
the rooks : sonable move is ll.E\cl because his

260
 4.cxd5 LL:lxd5 5.e4 LL:lxc3 6.bxc3 �g7 7.�c4
bishop on c4 is hanging, but that is
not true. Sometimes he tries 1l.l"1b1
or even 11.h3 when we should en­
hance the threat of taking on d4
with ll . . . e6! Then 1 2 .�f4 would be
pointless due to 12 .. .'�e7.
One might ask why should
White wait, but not play imme­
diately 11.�f4? The reason is that
we'll answer 1 l . . .e5 ! and 12 .�g5
will be impossible (our rook is not
on d8 ! ) due to the hanging state of
the d4-pawn. So White will have to
retreat to g3, but after 12 .�g3 'We7!
13.d5 LL:la5 14.�d3 ,
14 . . . f5 (The thematic 14 . . . c4
15.�c2 b6 16.f4 exf4 17.l"1xf4 ! is un­
clear.) 15.exf5 gxf5 17.f3 b6 Black
has active play.
1Uk1 E:d8
Our backup line could be 11 . . .
e6!?. I t leads to calm play i n the cen-
tre. See the detailed annotations to
game 20 Onischuk-Zhou Jian­
chao, Khanty-Mansiysk 2 0 1 0 .
The diagram position i s the
modern tabya for the 7.�c4 system.
White's main moves are :
A. 1 2 .f4
Since the game Spassky-Fischer,
Santa Monica 1966 (with a transpo­
sition), Black knows that he should
stop White's advance with :
12 . . . e 6 ! 12 .'1Wel ltJ a5 14.�d3
f5 = .
B . 12 .'Wd2 a6 !
This might come as a big sur­
prise for White as this challenging
continuation is rarely seen in prac­
tice and it is practically ignored by
older books.
Black is going to seize space on
the queenside. The light-squared
bishop can go to b7, the e-pawn can
move to e6 or e5 depending on the
enemy's setup.
We would exchange the c-pawns
only when we consider it necessary:
261
 Part 10

1 . To trade queens ; 14 . . .b 5 15.�b3 ! lt:\ a5

2 . To start play along the c-file ;

3 . To win material.

White, for his part, should try to

organise a kingside attack. For that,
he should weaken Black's castling
position. Possible plans are con­
nected with f4-f5 or h4-h5.
The first one is not efficient.
After 13.f4 bS 14.�d3 e6! 15.f5 (or It is not clear how White should
we'll play . . . f7-f5 on the next move) continue. After:
15 . . . exf5 16.exf5 16.�f4 (16.dxc5 �b7) 16 . . . e5
17.�g5 :1'i:e8 18.d5 = , Black obtains
a good version of the typical pawn
structure with a closed centre.

c. 1 2 .�f4 '\Wd7!

16 . . . cxd4 ! 17.cxd4 '\Wd7, Black

has the more active pieces. The
same can be said about 13 J�1fd1 bS
14.�d3 �b7 15.f4 e6! 16.'\We1 cxd4
17.cxd4 '\Wd7 18 .�b1 EiJe7.
White can choose here between
The second plan does not weak­
13.dxc5 and 13.d5. The first varia­
en White's position, but it requires
tion leads to a calm, very static po­
some preparation :
sition with a temporary advantage
for White after 13.dxc5 '\We8 ! 14.id5
13.�h6 �h8 !
id7 ! 15 .'\Wd3 e6 16.ixc6 ixc6
17.�d6 b6 18 .'\We3 �b7, see game
We need the bishop !
24 Delchev-Ruck, Sibenik 2 006.
13.d5 EiJ aS ! is more dynamic
14.'\We3
and leads to sharp play: 14.id3
Or 14.h4 bS 15.�b3 (15.�d3 (14.�b3 ! ? EiJxb3 15.axb3 aS 16.c4
EiJeS ! 16.�f4 '\Wd7=) 15 . . . EiJa5 16.�d5 bS 17.EiJc3 bxc4 18.bxc4 a4) 14 ... b5
�b7= . 15 .�e3 e6 ! .

262
 4.cxd5 'Llxd5 5.e4 'Llxc3 6.bxc3 �g7 7.�c4

Basic Plans and Pawn Mi h a i l ovs- l patov

Structures Barcelona 2009

Our main plan is to attack the d4-

pawn and either win it, or provoke
e4-e5. As a rule, d4 is very shaky if
White pushes f4 :

Black followed with the pro­

gram move 14 . . . b5. There is noth­
ing wrong with it, except for the
fact that 14 . . . cxd4 15.cxd4 'Llxd4 !
was winning a healthy pawn after
16.'Llxd4 �b6 17.e5 l"lxd4 18.�e3
White has played very consis­
�f5.
tently indeed. He prevented . . . �g4
and then put in f4. The problem is
Most often White leaves his
that his e3-bishop is hanging! Black
pawn on f2 and prefers first to com­
hits d4 with : 14 . . . cxd4 15.cxd4 �b6 !
plete development with �d2 and,
and the only way to hold d4 is the
eventually, l"lfdl. In this scenario,
ugly 16.e5 'Llb4.
we try to get in ... b5. Note - not
. . . b6, but . . . b5 ! That allows us:
D uessei-Moor
Zuerich 2002 1 . To expel the active bishop
from c4 without removing the c6-
knight from the centre. Thus we
keep the pressure on d4 and re­
strain the enemy's play.
2. To deny White the possibility
of bolstering his d5-pawn by c3-c4.
3. To expand further on the
queenside with . . . a5.

16 ... cxd4 ! 17.cxd4 �d7! 18.fxg6 As a whole, this approach is

(18.ic2 'Ll e5 ! 19.ib3 'Llc4; 18.f6? ! much more aggressive than . . . b6,
i.f8) 18 . . . hxg6 19 .ig5 (19 .ie4 which is linked mostly with the
i.b7)19 .. J''l e 8 and the d4-pawn is plan of blockading the centre. We'd
about to fall. rather destroy it!

263
 Part 10

Game 2 5 Topalov-Svidler 15 . . . a5 ! ? 16.ll�lfc2 b S 17.:1'1fdl a4+.

Sofia 2006 The same march of the a-pawn
is possible after 16.c4 bS 17.lLlc3
bxc4 18 .bxc4 a4

16 ... e 6 ! 17.�g5 l"1e8 and White

is unable to defend his centre. See
the rest in the "Complete Games" The a-pawn, strongly supported
chapter. by the rook and the dark-squared
Example bishop, balances the game :
19.:1'1c2 a3 ! ?

We often should choose between

closing the centre or maintaining
the tension. Therefore we should
have clear criteria how to assess
such positions.
Firstly I will offer an example of
what we should be avoiding:

Instead of closing the centre Lu kacs-Ruck

with 15 . . . c4 16.�c2 eS, we attack it Perenyi M emorial 1 997
with 15 . . . e6!

Roder-Lau bsch
Copenhagen 2 0 0 1

Black allowed:
2 0.f5 ! and was very passive af­
ter 2 0 . . .f6 2 1.�e3 �d7 2 2 . lLlg3 'Jlfe7

264
 4.cxd5 'Llxd5 5.e4 ct:Jxc3 6.bxc3 �g7 7.�c4

23.h4 'Lld6. 17.c4 ct:J d 6 18J�kel �e8 19.'Llg3

White is in full command and exf4 = .
can easily improve his pieces:
24.�dl! �f8 25.�g4 Vfig7 26.Vfie2 Example
ie7 27.fxg6 ! �g4 28 .Vfixg4 hxg6
29.h5. Black is helpless.
We should be careful when
entering such type of posi­
tions.
That could be advisable only if
White's pieces were misplaced and
did not support the plan with f4, for
example, White's rook is not on fl,
or our knight is closer to d6 so we
could meet f4 by .. .f5. In this example, Black's rook is
on e8. This is not its ideal place,
Game 22 Sasikiran-Kamsky but the opposition with the enemy's
D resd e n o l . 2008 queen makes it useful in the immi­
nent clash in the centre:
2 0 .<i> h l (20.f4 Vfic5 ! ) 2 0 . . . 'Lld6
2 l.f4.
Black has two good replies :
2 l . . .f6 2 2 .fxe5 ct:Jxe4 ! 23 .Vfixe4
Vfixe5 = , or:
2 l . . .f5 2 2 .'Llg3 fxe4 23.'Llxe4 �f5
24.'Llxd6 (24.'Llf6+ �f6 25.�xf6
�xc2 26.�xc2 'Llf5 27.Vfif3 exf4) 24 . . .
Vfixd6 25.�f5 gxf5 26.Vfig3 Vfig6 = .
Here White's strongest piece is
misplaced at a3 . This encourages
Black to counterattack with 16 . . . P. N ielsen-lvanchuk
f5, e.g. 17.exf5 �xf5 18.c4 �xd3 M onte Carlo 2006
19.Vfixd3 e4 2 0 .Vfic2 Vfie7, or complete
the long manoeuvre of the knight:

16 . . . 'Llb7

White's pieces are not as active

as in the previous example so 17.f5
is not so efficient : 17 . . . gxf5 18.exf5
e4 19.�a6 'Lld6 2 0 . 'Llg3 �e5 2 l.Vfib2
1/§fh4 2 2 .Vfid2 f6= .

2 65
 Part 10
This structure is, as a rule,
pleasant for Black since the oppo­
nent has no active plan :
17 . . . c4 ! 18.�c2 g5 with an ad­
vantage.
However, . . . c5-c4 should be
carefully calculated. Always check
the consequences of the possible
breakthrough g3, followed up by
h4. Compare this position with the
following one:
266
17 ... c4? is a mistake here (17 ...
f4 ! should be safe enough ) : 18.�c2
f4 18 .g3 g5.
If Black controlled the d4-
square, he could have defended
with 18 . . . \Wd6 19.gxf4 exf4 because
White's knight would not have any
prospects.
19 .h4 h6 2 0 .hxg5 hxg5 2 l.gxf4
gxf4 2 2 . <i>f2 and White should be
winning because he was first to
start the attack.
The same pawn structure with
dark-squared bishops is safe for
Black since his king is well protect­
ed. Therefore he should try to insert
. . . c4 in order to gain space and free
c5 for his pieces.
Part 10
Step by Step
l.d4 lt'lf6 2 . c4 g6 3 . lt'lc3 d5
4.cxd5 lt'lxd5 5.e4 lt'lxc3 6.bxc3
ig7 7.i.c4 0 - 0 8 . lt'le2 c5
We do not advocate slow de­
velopment like 8 . . . b6 or 8 . . . tt:lc6,
because they offer the enemy extra
options.
9.i.e3 lt'lc6 10. 0 - 0
10J�k1 was popularised by Polu­
gaevsky in the late 80s, but it has
drifted out of fashion in the last
decade. The decline of this line
began in 1992 when Kudrin found
a convincing setup against it. The
last blow was dealt in the Kamsky­
Anand candidates match for the
PCA world title in 199S. After this
game, 1 0 J'k1 has disappeared from
top level practice. Black answers :
10 . . . cxd4 ll.cxd4 '®aS+ 12.mfl
'®a3 !
Black vacates the aS-square for
his knight and keep an eye on the
e3-bishop, thus hampering f3 . That
is essential in the variations :
13.h4 i.g4 ! (f3 is impossible ! )
14.hS i.xhS ! MSJhhS gxhS 16.tt:lg3
i.xd4 17.i.xd4 tt:lxd4 18.tt:lxhS '®d6+,
and 13.eS i.g4 14.'®b3 '®xb3 1S.axb3
tt:laS 16.f3 i.d7+.
13.dS? ! is also bad as White is
lagging behind in development:
13 . . . tt:laS 14.i.d3 i.d7 1S.i.cS '®xa2
16.i.xe7 E1fc8�.
Another dubious try is :
13 .'®d2 ? ! E1d8 ! (hitting d4)
14.dS tt:l eS 1S.i.bS b6! 16.f4 (16.i.d4
i.a6 17.i.xa6 '®xa6 gives Black the
initiative. Sakaev also mentions
16.'®c3 '®xc3 17.tt:lxc3, but Black's
pieces are more active after 17 . . . i.b7
18.me2 E1ac8 .) 16 . . . tt:lg4 17.i.d4 eS !
18 .i.b2 '®xa2 19.E1a1 '®b3 2 0 .i.c6
267
 Part 10
�b8 2l.�xa7 li:Je3+ 2 2 . <i>f2 li:Jc4
23 .�c3 �xb2 24.�xc4, Ftacnik-1.
Gurevich, Biel 1993, 24 . . . exf4+.
The only reasonable moves for
White in the diagram position are :
a) 13.�c3 ! ? �d6 14.h4 (14.f3 �d8
15. <i>f2 li:Jxd4+) 14 . . . h5 !
In my opinion, Black should not
allow h4-h5.
15.�d2 !
H awkins-Gormally, Liverpool
200 8 , saw 15.f3 �e6 16.�xe6 �xe6
17.�b1 �d7 18 .e5 e6 19.<i>f2 li:Je7+.
Or 15.�d3 �d8 16.e5 �b4 17.e6 li:Je5
18.exf7+ <i>f8 19.�c2 li:Jxc4 2 0 . �xc4
�d6 2l.�c5 b6+.
15 . . . �d8 !
Black had previously played only
15 . . . e5 16.d5 li:Ja5 17.�d3 b6, but I do
not like the position after 18. lt>g1 ! f5
19.f3 fxe4 2 0 .fxe4 �g4 2l.ci>h2t.
16.\t>g1 (16.�d3 �b4) 16 ... li:Jxd4
The text simplifies to an equal
heavy pieces endgame. 16 . . . a6 ! ? ,
intending . . .b 5 , . . . �b7, keeps more
tension.
17.li:Jxd4 hd4 18 .�d3 e5
19 .�xd4 exd4 2 0 .�d5 �e6 2 l . �xd4
268
�e5 2 2 .g3 �xd5 23.exd5 �ac8
24.\t>g2 = .
b ) 13.�b3 �xb3
Sakaev recommends 13 . . . �d6 !?.
Indeed, Black is fine in the arising
complex positions :
14.�d5 li:Ja5 15 .�b5 e6 16.�xa5
b6 17.�d2 exd5 18 .e5 �e6 ; 14.�c3
�e6 = ; 14.e5 �d8 15.�a3 �f5 16.f3
li:Ja5 17. <i>f2 = .
14.�xb3 �d7
Black has a clear plan to ex­
change the c6-knight for the
b3-bishop and start rolling his
queenside pawns. See the anno­
tated game 19 Kamsky-Anand,
Las Palmas 1995 for more detail.
This is one of the oldest sys­
tems against the Exchange Vari­
ation. It was employed by World
champions Botvinnik and Fischer.
Later Kasparov shifted the focus
to 10 . . . �g4 while in the last years
10 . . . li:Ja5 seems to be all the rage
at top level. I have nothing against
these systems, except for the fact
that they require deep computer
assisted preparation. Even Anand,
 4.cxd5 ct:Jxd5 5.e4 CL:lxc3 6.bxc3 ilg7 7.ilc4

in the 2 0 1 0 match for the world ti­
tle against Topalov, fell victim of a
home analysis, to lose without any
fight. I have extensively analysed
the variation of that game and think
that it is perfectly playable.
You can find a detailed
survey on this system in the
comments of game 21 Shirov­
Vachier Lagrave, Wijk aan Zee,
2011 in the "Complete Games". It
could serve as a backup repertoire.
However, I advocate sound po­
sitional chess where understanding
and practical strength decide the
outcome of the game. The only oth­
er setup that meets these require­
ments is:
10 . . . e6
It is practically unexplored so
your opponent will most likely be
surprised to see it. White has the
following logical answers :
a) ll.f4 ? ! ild7 (ll . . . cd4 ! ? 12 .cd4
i.d7) 12 .g4 ? ! l"1c8 13.dxc5 CL:la5
14.1d3 ila4 15.VNd2 VNh4 16.g5
!'ifd8+, Leverett-Svidler, Philadel­
phia 1995 .
b) ll.l"1bl ? ! CL:la5 12 .ild3 cxd4
13.cxd4 b6. Compared to the 10 . . .
cxd4 ll.cxd4 'Lla5 system, the
white rook is now misplaced on bl.
14.1Wa4 ild7 15.ilb5 ilxb5 16.VNxb5
�e8 17.VNb4 VNc6 18.'Llg3 l"1fc8
19J�bcl VNd7 2 0 .'Lle2 ilf8 2 1.VNbl
li:lc4t, Leoni-Davies, Bratto 2 0 0 0 .
c) ll.VNd2 VNa5
Black's main idea is to trade
queens and play an endgame with
a pawn majority on the queenside.
12 .VNb2 b6 13.l"1acl (13.a4 ilb7
14.ilb5 cxd4 15.cxd4 1lNb4=) 13 . . . ilb7
14.l"1fdl cxd4 15.cxd4 l"1ac8 16.'Llf4
Sakaev assess this position as
preferable for White due to the
threat of ct:Jxe6. He continues his
analysis with 16 . . . e5 17.ild2 VNa4
18.'Lld5t. I propose to take care of
the e6-square and return to the ini­
tial idea of swapping queens :
16 . . . l"1fe8 17.VNb3 VNb4 (but not
17 . . . ila6 18.d5 exd5 19.ilxd5 'Lle5
2 0 . l"1xc8 l"1xc8 2 1.ild4 ilc4 2 2 .VNb2t,
with an awkward pin) 18.d5 exd5
19 .ilxd5 VNxb3 2 0 . axb3 ila8 . In
these endgames, Black usually
neutralises the enemy activity and
hopes to exchange the rooks. Then
he could produce a distant passer
on the queenside. Play might con­
tinue :
21.g3 CL:lb4 ( 2 1 . . .CL:le5 2 2 .l"1xc8
l"1xc8 23.ilxa8 l"1xa8 24.CL:ld5) 22 .ilxa8
l"1xcl 23.l"1xcl l"1xa8= 24.�g2 ilf8
25.l"1c7 ild6 26.l"1d7 ilxf4 27.ilxf4
ct:Ja6 2 8 .ile3 'Llc5.
d) ll.dxc5
This pawn structure is com­
monly safe for Black if the pawn is

269
 Part 10
still on a7 and the b6-square is not
weakened. Black should continue
with :
l l . . .'� a5 !
The threat is 12 . . . E1d8, then
. . . �f8xc5. 12 .'�'c2 does not set prob­
lems due to 12 . . . lt:le5 13 .�b3 lt:lg4.
The thematic in such structures
1 2 . lt:ld4 is innocuous here in view of
the simple 12 .. .'�xc5. The plan with
12.f4 leads to an equal game af­
ter 12 . . . E1d8 13.�b3 �f8 14.f5 �xeS
15.lt:ld4 lt:lxd4 16.cxd4 E1xd4 17.�xd4
�xd4+ 18.Whl �xal 19 .fxe6 �xe6
20.�xe6 fxe6 2 l.�xe6+ Wh8
2 2 . E1xal E1f8 = .
Let u s now return t o 10 . . . �c7:
We vacated the dB-square for
the rook from where it will be at-
270
tacking the central pawn on d4. In
many lines we'll play later . . . e6 in
order to stop the advance d5. On the
queenside, we'll gain space with ... a6
and . . . b5. The natural place for our
light-squared bishop is b7, but con­
crete reasons might require . . . �d7.
ll.E1cl
White has a fair range of oth­
er options. He can easily make
positional mistakes trying to follow
typical recipes from other varia­
tions. Next I will examine some of
his inferior moves :
a) ll .�f4 ? !
This i s dubious when Black's
rook is not on d8, because after:
ll . . . e5 ! ,
the thematic 12 .�g5 will b e with­
out tempo so Black can grab the d4-
pawn. Thus he should retreat:
12 .�g3
and close the centre after
12 . . . �e7! 13.d5
Note that 13.dxe5 lt:lxe5 14.�d5
�e6 ! is fine for Black, mostly be­
cause of his control of the c4-square:
15.lt:lf4 (15.E1bl �xd5 16.exd5 E1ad8
17.E1el E1fe8 18.lt:lf4 b5 19.h3 a6
2 0 .a4 �d7) 15 . . . g5 ! 16.lt:ld3 tZlc4
(16 . . . lt:ld7 17.�xb7 E1ad8) 17.be6
fxe6 18.e5 (18.'\Wc2 E1ad8 19.E1adl b5
2 0 .a4 a6 2 l . axb5 axb5=) 18 . . . E1ad8
19.'\We2 lt:lb6 2 0 .lt:lb2 lt:ld5 2 l.E1acl
lt:lf4 2 2 .�xf4 gxf4+. After the text,
the following position arises :
 4.cxd5 ct:Jxd5 5.e4 ct:Jxc3 6.bxc3 ibg7 7.ibc4
We have examined this struc­
ture in the "Main Ideas" chapter.
Here Black has the best of it - the
rook is on its ideal place f8 while,
on the contrary, White's dark­
squared bishop is not on e3 where it
belongs. That saves us some effort
since there is no need to regroup.
We continue with :
13 . . . ct:Ja5 14.ibd3 f5
The thematic 14 . . . c4 15.ibc2 b6
is unclear. White's bishop on g3
attacks e5 while our knight is still
too far from d6: 16.f4 ! (16.\Wd2 is a
bit slow - 16 . . . ct:Jb7 17.f4 ibg4 18 .f5 !
gxf5 19.exf5 f6 2 0 .ibf2 ibxe2 2 1.\Wxe2
�a3 22 .\Wd2 l"i:ad8 2 3 .g4 l"i:d7 24.ibe4
1'1fd8=.) 16 . . . exf4 17.l"i:xf4 ! (17.ibxf4
.ig4) 17 . . . ct:Jb7 18.ct:Jd4 \Wa3 (18 . . . ibd7
19J':1fl) 19 .\Wd2 ibh6 2 0 .\Wel ibxf4
21.hf4 f6 2 2 .\Wg3, with an excellent
compensation for the exchange.
15.exf5
15.f3 c4 ! 16.ibc2 f4 17.ibf2 ibd7
leads to the pawn structure from
game 23 Van Wely-Kamsky,
Dagomys 2 0 0 8 , where White has
no plan and can only wait.
15 . . .gxf5 17.f3 b6
Black has an active position. He
will play ... ibd7, ct:Ja5-b7-d6.
b) ll.d5
This advance is premature as
White cannot bolster his pawn with
c4 after ll.. .C2la5 12 .ibd3 e6=, e.g.
13.l=kl exd5 14.exd5 ibe5 ! 15.h3 (15.
f4 ibd6 16.C2lg3 f5 ! ) 15 ... b6.
However, I think that we could
play more concretely:
ll . . .tt'le5 ! ? 12 .ibb3
1 2 .ibf4 \WaS ! 13 .ibb3 (13 .ibxe5 ? !
i s grim for White : 13 . . . ibxe5 14.\Wd2
b5 15 .ibd3 l"i:b8 16.a4 b4 17.f4 ibxc3
18.C2lxc3 bxc3 19.\We3 l"i:b2) 13 . . . c4 !
14.ibc2 (14.ibxe5 ibxe5 15.ibxc4 \Wc7
16 .ibb3 ibxh 2 + 17.Whl ibd6 18.f4
ibg4+) 14 . . . e6.
12 ... b6!
We are threatening with ... iba6 ! .
The fine point is that 13.c4 f5 !
14.exf5 ibxf5 would send our bishop
to an even better place. 13.ibf4 iba6
14.l"i:cl c4 15 .ibc2 \Wc5 is also fine.
13.l"i:cl c4 ! 14.ibc2 iba6 15.ct:Jf4
ct:Jd7! 16 .\Wd2 ct:Jc5 17.l"i:fdl l"i:fd8 and
Black has the better prospects in
this complex middlegame.
c) 11 .\Wcl ? !
This move was well forgotten
until the early 70s, when Dutch
grandmaster Donner dared to test
it at high level. It is certainly not
deprived of logic. White is going to
defend the d4-pawn by rook, avoid­
ing the awkward opposition after
the usual \Wd2 - l"i:d8. However, the
queen move hampers the coordi­
nation between White's rooks and
clearly lacks harmony.
271
 Part 10
The last high level game was
Eljanov-Sasikiran where Black opt­
ed for the timid 11 . . . .td7. I prefer a
more active approach :
1 1 . . .!:'\dS 12 .Eld1 (12.d5 C2Ja5
13 . .td3 e6 ! =) 12 . . . a6
The common 12 . . . C2Ja5 13 . .td3
e5 ! = 14.d5 (14.dxe5 �xeS ; 14.dxc5
.te6 = ) 14 . . . c4 15 . .tc2 b6 is fine of
course. The d1-rook is obvio � sly
misplaced since it does not help f4.
However, 12 . . . a6 better fits in with
our repertoire for the main line.
13.a4
I do not see any other reasona­
ble ideas : 13.d5 C2Je5 14 . .tf4 (14 . .tb3
c4 15 . .tc2 e6) 14 . . . b5 15 . .tb3 �b6+.
13 . . . C2Ja5 !
The weak b3-square forces the
bishop to retreat to a passive place.
14 . .ta2 .td7
The vulnerable a4-pawn makes
the endgame after 14 . . . cxd4 ! ?
15.cxd4 �xc1 16.Eldxc1 (16.Elaxc1
.td7) 16 ... C2Jc6 easy for Black, but
there is still no need to simplify
play.
15.dxc5
272
It is hard to suggest anything
better. Brionne-Leko, Paris 1990
saw instead 15 . .tf4 e5 16 ..tg5 Ele8
17.dxc5 .te6 18 .he6 Elxe6 1 9 .�a3
Elc8+.
15 . . . e6
This structure is better for
Black, especially with the horrible
weakness on a4. He has many other
good moves, as 15 . . . .te8 16.Eld4 C2Jc6
17.Elxd8 Elxd8 18.f4 e6 19 ..tf2 .tf8
2 0 .�e3 Elc8 2 l.e5 C2Jb8 2 2 .C2Jg3 C2Jd7
23.C2Je4 .txc5 24.�f3 hf2 + 25.�xf2
C2Jc5 2 6 .tLlf6+ @g7+.
16 . .tg5 Eldc8 17 . .tf4 e5 18 .i.e3
.tf8 1 9 .�c2 i.e8.
Next we recapture on c5 , with a
strategic advantage.
d) 11.Elb1 ! ?
This move unexpectedly rose
from oblivion in 2 0 1 0 , but only
temporary, I think. Perhaps the rea­
son is that White discovered holes
in Black's most frequent responses.
For instance, after 11 . . . C2Ja5 12 .i.d3
e5, White has 13.f4 ! which puts
under question Black's setup. The
thematic 11 . . . !:'\dS ? ! is not too good
either due to 12 .i.f4 ! .
11.. .a6, which i s i n the spirit
of our repertoire, is playable. In
practice White answers 12.�c1 (Or
12 .a4 Eld8 ! when critical is 13.i.f4!
i.e5 ! 14.i.xe5 C2Jxe5 15.i.b3 ! bS!
16.f3 e6 17.�e1 C2Jc6 18.�f2 ttJaS
1 9 . .ta2 bxa4+t.) 13 . . . e 6 ! 14.i.g5 ! ?
(14.Eld1 C2Ja5 15.i.a2 i.d7) 14 . . . !:'\eS
15.d5 C2Ja5 16.i.a2 c4 17.i.f4 �d7.
 4.cxd5 'Llxd5 S.e4 'Llxc3 6.bxc3 flg7 7.1lc4
I suppose that attentive readers of
Chess Stars books have noted Sa­
kaev's suggestion in his An Expert
Guide to the 7. 1lc4 Gruenfeld:
ll. . .a6 12 .1lf4 ! eS 13 .1lg3 . Here
he mentions only 13 . . . \We7 14.dxe5
ti'lxeS lS.§ldS±. Stronger is 13 . . .
b 5 14.1ld5 §lb7 15.a4 'Ll e 7 16.1lxb7
�xb7 17.d5 'Llc8 18.f3 'Lld6 19.1lf2
�c7 2 0 .'Llc1 c4. Of course, Black is
holding here, but his setup is a little
passive.
There is no reason to go for this
line when we have a more testing
retort to White's tricky eleventh
move :
1l. ..e6!
This useful move revives the
threat of taking on d4 and pinpoints
the drawbacks of 1U''1b 1 - the c4-
bishop is hanging. All White's de­
fences have their flipsides :
dl) 12 .\Wcl b6 13 .1lh6 cxd4
14.cxd4 'LlaS 15.1lxg7 'it>xg7 16.§ld3
�xcl 17.l"lbxc1 ilb7 18.l"lc7 l"lfc8,
with an equal ending.
d2) 12 .'1Wd2 cxd4 (12 . . . l"ld8 ! ?
13.if4 \We7 14.1lg5 flf6=) 13.cxd4
ti'Jxd4 14.1lxd4 \Wxc4 15.l"lfcl=/oo.
d3) 1 2 .1lf4 \We7 13 .'1Wd2 l"ld8
14.d5 lt:JaS 15.1lb3 exdS 16.exd5 ifS
17.l"lbdl
The stem game Wang Hao-Zhou
Jianchao, Shenzhan 2 0 1 0 , went
17 . . . 1We4 ? ! (17 . . . 'Llxb3? ! 18.axb3 c4
19.d6 \Wd7 2 0 .bxc4 l"lac8 21.l"lfel
l"lxc4 2 2 .'Lld4 gives White a strong
initiative, for example: 22 . . . 1le6
23.'Llxe6 fxe6 24.1lg5 ! hc3 25.1We2
l"lcc8 2 6.hd8 flxe1 27.1le7 ilc3
28.h4 ! ) 18.'Llg3 'Llxb3 19.axb3 1Wc2
20.'Llxf5 1Wxf5 2 1 .1lg3 aS±. I suggest:
17 . . . c4 ! 18.d6 \Wd7 19 .1lc2 flxc2
2 0 .1Wxc2 b6 with excellent play.
Our knight will soon reach cS.
White cannot impede that because
of 2 1.'Llg3 'Llb7 2 2 .'Lle4 l"le8 23.f3 fS.
e) ll.h3
I would not have mentioned this
move hadn't it appeared in the blitz
game Bareev-Grischuk, Moscow
2 0 0 9 . Everything we said about
11.l"lb1 applies to this move, too. We
should refrain from 1 1 . . .l"ld8 due
to 12.1lf4 eS 13 .1lg5 l"ld6 14.d5. In­
stead, we can choose:
l l . . .e6, enhancing the treat of
capturing on d4 and making a re­
treat square on e7 in the event of
12 .1lf4 .
273
 Part 10

ll ... �d8

Before diving in the depths of

the main line, I would like to draw
your attention to a fresh untrod­
den path which seems to be gaining
popularity lately:
ll . . . e6 ! ?

Our main line branches here to:

A. 12 .f4; B . 12.1lh'd2 ; C. 12 . .if4.

Minor alternatives are :

a) 12.d5? ! lt:Ja5 13 . .id3 c4 14 . .ibl

This move i s connected with an
original concept. Black renounces
all the ideas of expanding on the
queenside with . . . a6, . . . b5. Instead,
he builds up a solid fortification in
the centre. The knight is not go­
ing to a5, but is keeping an eye on
d4, the queen has a good reserve
square to e7 thus pre-emptying the
often awkward .if4. Our setup also
includes . . . b6, . . . .ib7, .. J''\ a d8 , while
the other rook stays on f8 to protect
f7 or support a breakthrough like
.. .f5 .
This setup challenges White to
demonstrate an active plan. In my
opinion, d4-d5 is not dangerous.
An attack on the kingside would in­
volve e4-e5, but that would weaken
d5. As a whole, the arising positions
are double-edged. See the detailed
annotations of game 20 Onis­
chuk-Zhou Jianchao, Khanty­
Mansiysk 2 0 1 0 .
e6 15.�d2 b6 16.l"\fdl lt:Jb7 ! . The
point here is that we keep both
options - . . . exd5 and . . . e5 - open.
17 . .ig5 f6 18 . .ie3 lt:Jc5 = .
b ) 12 .h3 ? ! a6 ! 13.f4
The game Radjabov-Carlsen,
Nanjing 2 0 0 9 , saw 13 . .if4 \WaS!
14.�b3 e6 15.a4 (15.d5 b5 16.dxc6
bxc4 17.\Wxc4 e5 18 . .ie3 �e6
19.\Wxc5 \Wxc5 2 0 . .ixc5 .ic4 2l.l"\c2
l"\dc8�) 15 . . . cxd4 16.cxd4 lt:Jxd4
17.lt:Jxd4 l"\xd4 18 . .ie3 l"\d6 19.l"\fdl
l"\xdl+ 2 0 . l"\x dl b5 (Black could keep
the tension with 2 0 . . . .if6 2 1..ih6
\Wh5 = , Mikhalchishin.) 2l.axb5
axb5 2 2 .\Wxb5 \Wxb5 23.l"\d8+ �f8
24 . .ixb5 .ib7 25.l"\xa8 .ixa8 = .
13 . . . b5 14 . .ib3 (14 . .id3 cxd4
15.cxd4 \Wb6) 14 . . . lt:Ja5 15.f5 lt:Jxb3
16.\Wxb3 gxf5 17.exf5 .ib7, with an
active bishop pair in Alexandrova­
Sulypa, Alushta 2 0 0 0 .

274
 4.cxd5 Ci:Jxd5 5.e4 Ci:Jxc3 6.bxc3 ilg7 7.ilc4

c) 12 .1Mfe1? !
Players usually link this move
with the game Spassky-Fischer,
Santa Monika 1966. White hopes to
transfer the queen to the kingside
after f4, but:
12 . . . 1Mfa5 ! ensures an exchange
of queens : 13J=ld1 cxd4 14.cxd4
�xe1 15J=lfxe1 b6 16.d5 Ci:Je5 17.ilb5
All White's pieces are directed
id7 18.Ci:Jd4 ilxb5 19.Ci:Jxb5 Ci:Jc4 = .
toward the kingside and the posi­
tion is completely unclear.
d ) 12 .1Mfa4 ild7 13 .1Mfa3 ilf8 !
14.ilf4 (Or 14.1Mfb2 b5 15.ild3 Elab8
12 . . . e6!
16.ilf4 e5; 14.f4 e6 15.1Mfb2 Ci:Ja5
16.id3 f5 = . ) 14 . . . e5 15.ilg5 Ele8
Preparing to bar further advanc­
16.dxc5 Ci:Jd8 ! ? (16 . . . Ci:Ja5 17.ild5
ing of the f-pawn with .. .f5 (after
hc5 18.1Mfb2 ile6 19.c4 Ci:Jc6 = . )
. . . Ci:Ja5 first). White has tested many
17.ie3 Ci:Je6 18.Elfd1 ilxc5= .
continuations here :

13.'\Mfel
A. 12.f4

Initially, White linked the bish­
op's development to c4 with a direct
attack on the f7-square by f4-f5.
However, it was quickly discovered
that White's onslaught is not run­
ning smoothly at all. 12 .f4 quickly
lost appeal and nobody has played
it at top level in the last 2 0-30
years. Still, this variation has plenty
of blank spots.
For instance, Sakaev recom­
mends :
12 . . . ilg4 13.f5 Ci:J a5 without offer­
ing any variations. Indeed, 14 .ilxf7 +
l!lxf7 15.fxg6+ ill g 8 16.gxh7+ ill h 8
would be good for Black, but what
to do after:
14.ild3 1Mfd7! 15.d5 ! . If 15 ... gxf5,
then 16.c4 !
Transposing to Spassky-Fischer,
Santa Monica 1966. Despite losing
the game, Fischer showed a reliable
defensive setup so the opening was
hardly to blame.
Alternatives are :
a) 13. ill h 1 Ci:Ja5 14.ild3 f5 15.exf5
exf5 16.dxc5 ile6 17.1Mfc2 Ci:Jc6 18.Elb1
1Mff7�, Tukmakov-Stein, Moscow
1971.
b) 13.f5 exf5 14.ilg5 Elf8 15.exf5
ilxf5 16.Ci:Jg3 (16.Elxf5 gxf5 17.Ci:Jg3
1Mfd6 18.ild3 Ci:Je7 19.1Mfh5 h6 !
2 0 .he7 1Mfxe7 2l.Ci:Jxf5 1Mfg5) 16 . . .
cxd4 17.Elxf5 (17.<'ijxf5 gxf5 18.cxd4
Ci:Jxd4 19.ill h 1 1Mfd6+) 17 . . . gxf5
18.Ci:Jxf5 1Mfe5 19 .ild3 dxc3 ! 20.1Mfg4
( 2 0 .1Mfh5 Elfd8) 2 0 . . . illh 8 2 1.1Mfh4
Elad8 - + .

275
 Part 10
13 . . . lLl a5
13 . . . cxd4 14.cxd4 tt:lxd4 15 ..be6
V!ff e 7 16 ..bc8 tt:lxe 2 + i s equal.
14.i.d3 f5
This stalls White's attack at least
for a while. Now Black should watch
out for the potential threat of d5.
15.g4 only uncovers White's
king, without breaking the block­
ade on f5 : 15 . . . b6 16.tt:lg3 V!fff7
17.gxf5 exf5 18.exf5 gxf5 19.V!fff2
i.e6 ! ? (The game Cebalo-Ruck,
Celj e 2 0 0 3 , went 19 . . . tt:lc4 2 0 .i.xc4
V!ffx c4 2l.dxc5 bxc5 2 2 .i.xc5 i.b7
2 3 .i.d4 :8d7, with a decent compen­
sation for the pawn.) 2 0 . :8fdl cxd4
2 l.i.xd4 :8ac8 2 2 .i.xg7 V!ffx g7. Only
Black can be better here.
Spassky opted for the more
positional :
15.:8dl b6 16.V!fff2 cxd4
Later Fischer suggested 16 . . . i.f8,
but it is hardly better than the
move he chose in the game. Play
might continue with 17.tt:lg3 i.b7
276
18.d5 ! fxe4 19.tt:lxe4 i.xd5 2 0 .tt:lf6+
<i>h8= (19 . . . V!ffg 7 2 0 .c4 exd5 21.tt:lg5
tt:lxc4oo ) .
17.i.xd4 i.xd4 18.cxd4 i.b7
19. lLlg3 V!ffg 7!
In the game, Fischer erred with
19 . . . V!fff7 when 2 0 .d5 ! earned White
a strong attack.
After the improvement, sug­
gested by Fischer, play is balanced:
2 0 .i.c2 ! fxe4 2 1 .tt:lxe4 i.d5 ! = .
B . 12.V!ffd 2 a6 !
In my opinion, this rare move is
the most challenging continuation.
Interestingly, Sakaev does not even
mention it in his fundamental book
on the 7.i.c4 system. That is a good
sign - you have a fair chance to take
your opponent unawares.
12 . . . V!ff a5 ! ? is also in good theo­
retical health, but play is less com­
plex:
13.:8fdl !
White's pieces are directed to­
ward the kingside. His main plan
is to exchange dark-squared bish­
ops with i.h6, and destroy Black's
castling position with h4-h5, pos­
sibly followed by a piece sac on g6.
Therefore
13 .V!ffb 2
is not consistent. Black should
follow up with :
13 . . . b6 ! , preparing to trade bish­
ops with . . . i.a6. The only way to
prevent that is:
 4.cxd5 l2lxd5 5.e4 l2lxc3 6.bxc3 fJ.g7 7.1J.c4
14.a4 ! ?
Alternatively:
a) 14.dxc5 l2le5 15.fJ.d5 Elxd5
16.exd5 l2ld3 17.Wb1 l2lxc1 18.Elxc1
bxc5 19.d6 exd6 2 0 .We4 d5 2 1.Wxd5
!:ib8 2 2 .Wxc5 Wxc5 23 .1J.xc5 Elb2
24.Ele1 aS, with an initiative.
b) 14.Elfd1 fJ.a6 15.1J.d5 Elac8
16.l2lf4 e6= (or 16 . . . cxd4 17.cxd4
�b4=).
c) 14.1J.d5 fJ.b7 15.Elfd1 e6 16.1J.b3
cxd4 17.cxd4 Elac8 = , Gligoric-Tuk­
makov, Leningrad 1973 .
d ) 14.f4 fJ.a6 15.Wb3 1J.xc4
16.Wxc4 Wa3+.
14 . . . 1J.d7! 15 .Wfb3 !
In Ponomariov-Dominguez, Am­
ber rapid, 2 0 1 0 , White opted for
15.Elfd1 when instead of 15 . . . 1J.e8 ,
15 . . . cxd4 ! would b e a n improve­
ment: 16.cxd4 Wxa4 17.1J.b3 Wa6+
18.1J.c4 Wb7 19 .Wa2 fJ.e8 2 0 .1J.a6
�d7. Or 15.Wa2 e6 16.Elfd1 cxd4
17.cxd4 l2lb4 18 .Wb2 fJ.xa4+.
15 . . . e6! 16.Elfd1 l2lxd4 ! 17.cxd4
ixa4 18 .Wd3 (18 .Wa2 1J.xd1 19 .Wxa5
bxa5 2 0 . Elxd1 cxd4) 18 . . . b5 19 .Ela1
bxc4 2 0 .Wxc4 fJ.bS 2 1.Wxc5 Wb6+.
13 . . . 1J.d7!
Sakaev recommends 13 . . . l2le5
14.1J.b3 fJ.g4, but it loses a pawn af­
ter 15.h3 ! fJ.f3 16.We1 ! c4 17.1J.c2.
14.Wb2
Alternatively:
a) 14.1J.h6 is the most principal,
but after 14 . . . cxd4 15.1J.xg7 i>xg7
16.Wf4 (16.cxd4 Wxd2 17.Elxd2
Elac8 = ), Black has either a forced
draw with 16 . . . dxc3 ! ? 17.Wxf7+ i>h8
18.Eld5 (18.l2lxc3 Elf8 19.Wd5 Elad8=
Gatto-Tal, carr. 1989) 18 ... Wb4
19.l2lf4 Wfxc4 2 0 .l2lxg6+ hxg6
2 l.Wxg6 (2l.Elh5+ gxhS 2 2 .Wxc4
e5 23.Wxc3 l2ld4=) 2 1 . . .1J.g4= ,
Neverov-Novikov, Tallinn 1986,
or a safe playable position with
16 . . . 1J.e8 17.cxd4 e5. The latter was
proven in many top level games
as Polugaevsky-Vaganjan, Linares
1985 and Pinter-Tukmakov, Plov­
div 1983.
b) 14.dxc5 l2le5 15.1J.b3 fJ.bS
16.l2ld4 l2l d3 17.Elc2 l2lxc5 18.c4
Wxd2 19.Elcxd2 fJ.e8 ! (19 . . . l2lxb3
2 0 . axb3 fJ.e8 2 1 . l2lb5) 2 0 .l2lc6 Elxd2
2 1 .l2lxe7+ i>f8 2 2 .l2lxg6+ i>g8
23.l2le7+ = .
c ) 14.f4 cxd4 15.cxd4 Wxd2
16.Elxd2 l2l a5 17.1J.d3 Elac8 18 .d5
(18.Eldc2 Elxc2 19.Elxc2 l2lc6)
18 . . . Elxc1+ 19.l2lxc1 Elc8 2 0 .Elc2 Elxc2
2 1.1J.xc2 b6=.
d) 14.Wc2 b5 15.1J.d5 cxd4
16.cxd4 Elac8 17.Wb3 e6=.
277
 Part 1 0
1 4 . . . b5 !
This sacrifice was seen for the
first time in Pinter-Jansa, Prague
1985. It leads to a draw endgame
after:
15.\Wxb5 \Wxb5 16 ..bb5 'Llxd4
17.'Llxd4 cxd4 18 . .b:d7 dxe3 19 .fxe3
�e5 ! 2 0 . c4 �d6 2 1.�a4 :r::l d c8
2 2 . :r::l d 5 �c5 = . The only thing Black
should watch for is not to allow e4-
e5, which could lead to suffocation.
Perhaps he should put his pawn to
f6 and White would lack any active
plan.
13 .�h6
This looks the most consistent.
White tries to reduce the defenders
of Black's king and makes room for
the queen on e3 at the same time.
In practice he has also tried:
a) 13.a4? ! . This move will fail
to restrain our counterplay on the
queenside. We will play . . . b5 any­
way, but first we should protect
the critical point in our position
- f7: 13 . . . �d7 14.\Wa2 �e8 15.\Wa3
b5 ! 16.�a2 b4 17.cxb4 cxd4 18 .�d2
278
\Wd6+, Farago-Adorjan, Budapest
1991.
b) 13.a3 ? ! Preparing a retreat to
a2 . However, the white bishop has
no future on this diagonal : 13 . . . b5
14.�a2 �b7 15.:r::lfd1 :r::l a c8 16.d5 c4
17.f4 'Lla5 18 .\Wb2 e6+.
c) 13.f4 b5 14.�d3
The other retreats are worse:
14.�b3? ! e6! 15.f5 exf5 16.�g5 ! (16.
exf5 �xf5 17.'Llg3 �e6) 16 . . . :r::lf8+
17.exf5 �xf5 18 .'Llg3 �e6 19 .d5 c4
2 0 . dxe6 cxb3 21.exf7+ :r::lxf7 2 2 . axb3
'Lla5; 14.�d5 e6 15 . .b:c6 \Wxc6
16. 'Llg3 cxd4 17.cxd4 \Wd7 18.:r::lfdl
�b7+.
14 . . . e 6 !
14 . . . f5? ! 15.exf5 i s better for
White.
15.f5 (or we'll play . . . f7-f5 on the
next move) 15 . . . exf5 16.exf5
16 . . . cxd4 !
Wang Hao-Ruck, Beijing 2008,
saw a curious repetition of moves:
16 . . . \Wd7 17.f6 �f8 18 .�h6 \Wd6
19.�f4 \Wd7 2 0 .�h6 \Wd6 .
17.cxd4 \Wd7 (17 . . . \Wd6 ! ? 18 .�e4
�b7) 18 .�c2 (18 .fxg6 hxg6 19.�g5
 4.cxd5 4Jxd5 5.e4 4Jxc3 6 .bxc3 :!g7 7.:!c4
Ele8+) 18 . . . 4J e5 19 .:!b3 4Jc4 2 0 .:!xc4
bxc4 2 1.f6 (21.l"1xc4 Wi'd5) 2 1 . . .:!f8
22 .:!h6 ( 2 2 . l"1xc4 :!b7 23.l"1fc1 Wi'e6)
22 . . . c3 .
Black can play for a win only
with 22 . . . :!a3 ! ? 2 3 .l"1xc4 a5 24.:!f4
ia6 25.l"1c7 Wi'e6 2 6.l"1e1 Wi'e4, with a
compensation for the pawn.
23.4Jxc3 Wi'xd4+ 24.Wi'xd4 l"1xd4
25.:!xf8 �xf8 26.l"1fdl l'!xdl+
27.l"1xd1 :!f5 = . Next, Black plays
... ®e8 while the enemy knight is
unable to hit anything in 2 moves.
d) 13 . l"1fd1 is similar to the main
line:
13 . . . b5 14.:!d3
14.:!b3 :!b7 15 .:!h6 :!h8 16.Wi'e3
Elac8 transposes to 13 .:!h6, while
14.:!d5 e6 15.:!xc6 Wi'xc6 16.d5 exd5
17.exd5 Wi'b6 18 .c4 :!b7 is about
equal.
14 . . . :!b7 15.f4 (15.d5 ? ! Lt'le5
16.:!f4 Wi'a5) 15 ... e6! 16.Wi'el cxd4
17.cxd4 Wi'd7 18.:!bl 4Je7 19.Wi'f2
Elac8+.
The f5-square is under control
so Black's pawn majority on the
queenside should begin to tell.
13 . . . :!h8 !
Note this move ! We need
the bishop both for attack and
defence.
14.Wi'e3
This is the ideal place for the
queen - it defends d4 and is beyond
the range of the d8-rook. And it is
closer to Black's king, too !
a) 14.a4? ! :!d7 15.e5 could be
met by 15 . . . b5 16.axb5 axb5 17.hb5
4Jxe5 18 .:!xd7 Wi'xd7+, Kallai-Ador­
jan, Hungary 199 2 .
b ) 14.f4 ? ! i s hardly possible in
view of 14 . . . cxd4 15.cxd4 4Jxd4
16.4Jxd4 Wi'b6 17.e5 l"1xd4 18 .Wi'e3
:!f5+.
c) 14.d5 ? ! 4Je5 15.:!b3 c4
16.:!c2 e6 17.l"1cdl exd5 18.exd5
l"1d6 ! 19.l"1fe1 (19 .:!e4 b5 2 0 .4Jd4 f5
2 1 .:!f3 :!b7 2 2 .4Je6 l"1xe6 23.dxe6
:!xf3 ; 19.4Jg3 :!e6) 19 . . . b5 2 0 .Wi'e3
:!b7 2 1 .Lt'l d4 Wi'd7!+.
d) 14.l"1fd1 b5 15.:!d3 ! (or 15.:!b3
:!b7 16.Wi'e3 4Ja5 17.:!c2 4Jc4 18.Wi'f3
cxd4 19.cxd4 l"1ac8 2 0 .:!b3 f5)
15 . . . :!b7 16 .Wi'e3 l"1ac8 . This branch
has merged with the main line.
e) 14.h4 b5 15.:!b3 (15.:!d3 4J e5 !
16.:!f4 Wi'd7=) 1 5 . . . 4Ja5 16.:!d5 :!b7
17.4Jf4 Wi'd7 18 .h5 e6 19 .:!xb7 Wi'xb7
2 0 .d5 4J c4 2 1 .Wi'e2 exd5 2 2 . 4Jxd5
4Jb6 = .
14 . . . b5 15.:!b3 !
White needs his bishop for the
attack. After 15.:!d5 e6 16.:!xc6
w:Fxc6 17.4Jf4 :!b7 18.d5 Wi'd6
19.dxe6 fxe6 2 0 .h4, Adler-Gobet,
Bern 1988, simplest would have
been 2 0 . . . e5 2 1 .Lt'lh3 Wi'd3 = .
O n d 3 the bishop would be
harmless and we could complete
development with 15.:!d3 :!b7
16.l"1fd1 l"1ac8 = .
279
 Part 10

19.d5 !

19.dxc5 would be strongly met

15 . lt:\a5 ! ?
••
by 19 . . . �g7! (shifting to f8) 2 0.�d5
'\Wxc5 21.'\WxcS Ei:xc5 2 2 .hb7 'Llxb7
The only argument against: 23.Ei:d7 'Lla5 24.Ei:cdl �f8 = .
15 . . . �b7 is that in positions with
1 9 . . . 'Llxb3 ! (19 . . . c4? ! 2 0 .�c2±)
a closed centre the b7-bishop would
2 0 . axb3 c4 2 1 .b4 aS.
be an obstacle to the knight's ma­
noeuvre . . . 'Llc6-a5-b7-d6. The main Black has enough counterplay.
position arises after: His only weakness, the b5-pawn,
could be defended with . . . �c8-d7,
16J]fdl
for instance, 2 2 .bxa5 Ei:xa5 23J1al
Perhaps we could keep the ten­ Ei:ca8 24.Ei:xa5 Ei:xa5 25.h4 '\Wd6
sion in the centre for one more 26.h5 f6 27.�h4 �g7 28 .Ei:bl �c8=.
move with 16 . . . Ei:ac8 ! ? , but I have
analysed mainly: 16.�f4 (16.dxc5 �b7) 16 ••• e5
17.�g5 Ei:e8 18.d5 =
16 . . . 'Lla5 17.�f4 !
In the event of 17.dxc5 Ei:ac 8 !
18.Ei:xd8 + ? ! Ei:xd8 our control over
the d-file would allow us to ig­
nore the enemy's extra pawn and
count on piece activity with . . . 'Ll c4
or . . . 'Llxb3, followed up by . . . a5-a4.
18.f3 or 18.'Llf4 give us a tempo
for 18 . . . Ei:e8 ! . The latter variation
could be prolonged with 19.'Lld5
(or 19.'Lld3 'Llc4 2 0 .'�e2 Ei:ed8 ! )
19 . . . �xd5 2 0 . Ei:xd5 e 6 21.�f4 '\Wa7
2 2 .Ei:d6 'Llxb3 23.axb3 '\Wxc5= .
1 7. . . e 5 18.�g5 (18 .�g3 cxd4 Black has obtained a good ver­
19.cxd4 '\Wb6) 18 . . . Ei:dc8 (18 . . . Ei:d7 ! ? ) sion of the typical pawn structure

280
 4.cxdS ltJxdS S.e4 '2lxc3 6 .bxc3 �g7 7.�c4
with a closed centre. I like here
the straightforward plan with
18 . . . '2lxb3 ! ? 19.axb3 c4 20 .b4 aS= ,
but the more habitual plan with
.. .fS also works : 18 . . . c4 19 .�c2 '2lb7
20.'�h 1 ! (20 .f4 �cS ! ) 20 . . . '2ld6
21.f4 fS ! This should lead to nu­
merous exchanges in the centre :
22.'2lg3 fxe4 23.'2lxe4 �fS 24.'2lxd6
(or 24.'2lf6+ �xf6 2S.�xf6 �xc2
26J''1x c2 ltJfS 27.�f3 exf4) 24 . . . �xd6
2S.�xfS gxfS 2 6.�g3 �g6 27.d6
exf4 2 8 .fi:xf4 fi:a7 29.fi:f3 Ei:d7 30.�f4
1/Nxg3 31.fi:xg3+ Wf8 = .
c . 12.�f4 �d7!
Cl. 13.dxcS ; C 2 . 13.dS
Cl. 13.dxc5 �eS ! 14.�d5
a) 14.�a4 �d7 1S.�a3 ltJeS !
16.ixeS heS 17.f4 �g7 18.fS �bS
19.�b3 �xc4 2 0 .�xc4 fi:ac8 gives
Black standard play against the
queenside pawns, Bick-Khamraku­
lov, Ubeda 2 0 0 0 .
b ) 14.�c2 �d7 1S.fi:fd1 fi:ac8
16.ibS ltJ aS 17.�xd7 fi:xd7 18.fi:xd7
�xd7 19.fi:d1 �bS 2 0 .�d3 �xd3
21.fi:xd3 Wf8=, Aoiz Linares-W. Aren­
cibia, Badalona 199S.
14 . . . i.d7! 15.�d3
White is a pawn up, but he lacks
an active plan. Black does not need
to regain the cS-pawn. He can even
exchange it by . . . b6 when the activi­
ty of his rooks should counterweigh
White's slight material advantage.
From d3 the queen can go to e3,
giving a hand to the cS-pawn. Here
are other examples :
a) 1S.�c2 e6 16.�b3 (16 .�xc6
�xc6 17.�d6 b6 18.eS bxcS=)
16 . . . '2l eS 17.Ei:fd1 �e7 18.fi:d6 Ei:dc8
19.fi:cd1 �e8 = .
b ) 1S.�d2 e 6 16.�b3 ltJeS 17.�e3
�bS 18 .ixeS �xeS 19.fi:fd1 �xe2
2 0 .�xe2 fi:xd1+ 2 1.fi:xd1 Ei:d8+,
Babuiian-lpatov, Lvov 2 0 0 8 .
c ) 1S.fi:b1 e6 16 .�b3 ltJ e S 17.�gS
ibS 18 .�xd8 fi:xd8 = .
d ) 1S.�gS h 6 (or 1 S . . . '2l aS 16.f4
Ei:dc8 17.fS e6 18 .fxe6 fxe6 19 .�b3
fi:xc5t, Kushnir-Gaprindashvili, Riga
1972) 16 .�e3 (16.�h4 Ei:dc8) 16 . . . e6
17.�b3 ltJ eS� 18 .�c2 �c6 19.fi:fd1
�e7 2 0 .'2ld4 '2lg4 2 1.�f4 �eS
2 2 . '2lxc6 bxc6 23 .heS ltJxeS 24.fi:d4
�xeS 2S.�d2 �f8 2 6.fi:d1 Ei:db8 = .
15 . . . e6 16.�xc6
The knight is too jumpy while
the white bishop has not good pros­
pects anyway: 16.�b3 ltJ aS 17.�e3
fi:ac8 18 .�d6 �a4 19 .fi:b1 b6 2 0 .eS
'2lb7 2 1.cxb6 '2lxd6 2 2 .exd6 axb6
281
 Part 10
23 .'�xb6. Draw, Cleto-Nimtz, ICCF
2008.
1 6 . . . .b:c6 1 7. .id6 b6 18 .'�'e3
.ib7 19 .e5 �c6 20.f3 bxc5
2 1 . tt:lg3 (21.c4 �a4 2 2 J''lfd l �xa2 =)
2 1 . . . �a4
Of course, White has a space
advantage, but it is unclear how to
make real progress. See game 24
Delchev-Ruck, Sibenik 2 0 0 6 .
C 2 . 13.d5 tt:l a5
In the World cup 2 0 0 9 Domin­
guez staked on 13 . . . lt'le5? ! , but it
leads to a difficult position, because
White seizes the centre :
14 . .ixe5 .ixe5 15.f4 .ig7 16.'�b3
!"i:b8 17.a4 �c7 18 .!"1bl !
282
White i s ready t o grab even more
space with e5 so Black should pre­
pare to undermine the centre with
. . .f6. Meanwhile, 18 . . . a6 19 . .ixa6
.if5 is insufficient due to the simple
2 0 .exf5±.
18 . . . \t>h8 19.lt'lg3 .id7 20 .e5
a6 2 1 .�b6 ! �xb6 2 2 .!"1xb6 f6
(22 . . . ixa4? ! 23.lt'le4), Caruana-Do­
minguez, Khanty-Mansiysk, 2 0 09.
In all three games in my database,
White answered with 23.e6 and
went on to draw. However, 23.lt'le4!±
fixes a serious advantage for him,
for instance : 23 . . . fxe5 24.fxe5 !xa4
25.lt'lg5 !"i:f8 26.!"1xf8+ !xf8 27.!xa6
!g7 28.ib5 !b3 29.c4 ; 23 . . . if5
24.exf6 !xe4 25.fxg7+ lt>xg7 26.!"1e1
!xd5 27.!xd5 !"i:xd5 2 8 . !"1xe7+ lt>g8
29.!"1f6 ; 23 . . . !xa4 24.d6 fxe5 25.'2lg5
!e8 2 6.fxe5 exd6 27.e6 h6 28.e7
hxg5 29.exd8� !"i:xd8 3 0 .!"1xb7.
14.!d3
Caruana chose 14.!b3 ! ? in 3
consecutive white games in his
match against Dominguez at the
World cup 2 0 09 in Khanty Man­
syisk. Despite the three draws,
Black was struggling a little after
14 . . . b5 15 .!e3 �d6 16 .c4 '2lxc4
17.ixc4 bxc4 18.!"1xc4.
I recommend a more straight­
forward approach :
14 . . . lt'lxb3 15.axb3 a5 16.c4
(16.�c2 b5 17.!"1fdl a4+, Roder­
Laubsch, Copenhagen 2 0 01) 16 . . . b5
17.'2lc3.
The greedy 17.ie3 !a6 18.'2lf4
bxc4 19 .bxc4 a4 2 0 .lt'ld3 a3 2 1 .'2lxc5
 4.cxd5 l2Jxd5 5.e4 l2Jxc3 6.bxc3 �g7 7.�c4
offers Black the initiative after 2 1 . . .
Wd6 2 2 . l2Jxa6 Ei:xa6 23 .�d4 �xd4
24.Wxd4 Ei:a4t.
17 ... bxc4 18 .bxc4 a4
The a-pawn, strongly supported
by the rook and the dark-squared
bishop, creates a havoc in White's
camp. I think that play is dynami­
cally balanced. Here are some vari­
ations:
19.Ei:c2
19 .�e2 a3 or 19 .�d3 e6 2 0 . Ei:fdl
a3 are similar.
19 . . . a3 ! ?
Black could also attack the cen­
tre with 19 . . . e6 2 0 .�d3 exd5 ( 2 0 . . .
f5 2l.e5±) 21.l2Jxd5 �b7
The bishop is ready to take the
d5-knight, but only in the event of
dire necessity. Otherwise it would
be better to keep the bishop pair,
for instance, 2 2 .Ei:a2 �e6 ! . Note that
2 2 . . .f5 is also possible. Then 23 .Ei:dl
�d4 24.l2Jf6+ �xf6 25.�xd7 Ei:xd7
2 6 . Ei:xd7 �xe4 27.Ei:dl �c3 2 8 .f3 �c6
2 9 . Ei:bl a3 3 0.�cl �b4 leads to a
position where White cannot make
further progress : 31. @f2 (3l.Ei:bal
�c3) 3 1 . . .�e8 32.Ei:bal �f7 33 .�xa3
�xc4= .
In the diagram position, White
could also try 2 2 .Ei:dl a3 23.Ei:a2 �a4
24 .g3 (24.�e3 �xd5 25.exd5 �b2 = )
24 . . . h6 25.Ei:bl �a6 26.Ei:cl �b2
27.Ei:c2 Ei:ab8 ! 28 .hb8 (28.�xh6
�b3) 2 8 . . . Ei:xb8 29.@g2 �b3
30 .�xb3 Ei:xb3 = .
2 0 .'Wd3 �b7 2l.Ei:bl �xbl+ !
2 2 . l2Jxbl a2 23.Ei:xa2 Ei:xa2 24.h3
�d7
Black has open files for his rooks
so he should not be worse here :
25.l2Jd2 Ei:da8 2 6.�g3 (26.d6
exd6 27.�xd6 �e6 28 .�xc5 Ei:c8
29 .�d6 Ei:c2 =) 26 . . . Ei:b2 = .
14 . . . b5 15.�e3
15.Ei:bl a6 does not offer White
any benefits. The fine point is that
after 16.c4 Black is not obliged to
283
 Part 10
release the tension in the centre
by 16 . . . b4. Instead, he can further
undermine it with 16 . . . e6 ! . See the
instructive game 25 Topalov­
Svidler, Sofia 2 0 0 6 .
Apart from 16.c4, White has also
tried 16.�c1, preparing �h6 or �a3 .
Then we should attack the centre,
but not close it with . . . e5 :
16 . . . e6!
Now 17J'1d1 exd5 ! 18.�a3 (18.
exd5 �b7) 18 . . . c4 19.�c2 'Llc6!
2 0 .exd5 ( 2 0 J''!x d5 �e8) 2 0 . . . 'Lle5
would favour Black while 17.�a3
c4 18 .�c2 'Llb7! 19.dxe6 (19 J'!fd1
exd5 2 0 . l"1xd5 �e8 2 1 .'Lld4 �f8
2 2 . l"1xd8 �xd8 23 .�b2 'Llc5 24.l"1d1
�b7= ) 19 ... �xe6 2 0 .l"1bd1 [20.'Lld4
�b6 ! 2 1.�e3 ( 2 1.�g5 l"1e8 2 2 .'Llxb5
�f8 23.'Lld4 �xb1 24.�xf8+ i>xf8
25.l"1xb1 'Llc5 2 6 .f3 �d7 27.l"1b4
l"1ac8) 2 l . . .�f8 2 2 .�c1 'Ll c5 23.a4
�d7 24.�d2 �aS 25.f4 bxa4 26.f5
'Llb3 2 7.�f2 �g7+, Dosi-Nimtz,
ICCF 2 0 07.] 20 . . . �f8 2 1.�cl l"1xd1
2 2 . l"1xd1 'Ll c5 is about equal.
15 . . . e6!
It is not advisable to insert 15 ...
c4 16.�c2 before 16 ... e 6 because
White can exchange on e 6 and
284
the arising pawn structure is in
his favour: 17.dxe6 fxe6 1 8 .�e1 eS
19.f4 ! .
16 . .b:c5
16.'Llf4 c4 17.�e2 (17.�b1 'Llb7)
17 . . . �e7 18 .�d2 e5 19.'Llh3 �xh3
20.gxh3 is balanced, Najdorf-Ghe­
orghiu, Manila 1973 .
1 6 . . . exd5 17.e5 ! ?
An enterprising novelty of
Vachier Lagrave at the Olympiad in
Khanty Mansyisk 2 0 1 0 . White ob­
tains nice attacking chances and a
strong knight on d4 for only a pawn.
17.exd5 �xd5 18.�e4 �xd1 19.l"1fxd1
l"1xd1+ 2 0 . l"1xd1 �b7= is hardly an
enticing alternative.
17. . . �xe5 18.�d4 !le8 ! ?
The stem game Vachier Lagrave
-Nepomniachtchi, Khanty Man­
syisk 2 0 1 0 , continued 1 8 . . . 'Llc4
19 .�xc4 �xd4 2 0 .�xb5 �xf2 +
2 1 .l"1xf2 �xb5 2 2 . 'Ll d4 , with fair
compensation.
 4.cxd5 Lt:lxd5 5.e4 Lt:lxc3 6.bxc3 fig? 7.!ic4
The critical position for White's
idea. It looks that Black risks to be
crushed after f4-f5, but concrete
analysis does not support such an
assessment. Black's counterplay is
linked with . . . Ei:b8 and . . . b4. I could
not find anything dreadful after:
19.he5
19.f4 could lead to a similar po­
sition after 19 . . . !ixd4+ 2 0 .Lt:lxd4
Lt:lc4 2 l.f5 Ei:b8, but we could also
opt for 19 . . . !ic7 2 0 .f5 Lt:lc4.
19 Ei:xe5 20)2jd4 tl:lc4oo 21.f4
•••
Ei:e7 ( 2 1 . . .Ei:e8)
Now the most direct attack 2 2 .f5
Lt:le3 2 3 .�d2 Lt:lxfl 24.Ei:xfl fails after
24 . . . �d6 25 .�h6 Ei:b7 26.Ei:f3
Or 2 6 .h4 b4 27.h5 fixf5 2 8 .Ei:xf5
bxc3 29.hxg6 fxg6 30.Ei:g5 �f6
3l.Ei:xd5 Ei:e8 and Black takes over
the initiative.
26 . . . b4 27.Ei:h3 f6 2 8 .Ei:g3 �f8
29 .�e3 g5.
285
Pa rt 10

Complete Games

1 9 . Kamsky-An a n d
Las Palmas 1 995
1 .d4 tt:lf6 2 . c4 g6 3 . tt:l c3 d 5
4 . cxd5 tt:l x d 5 5.e4 tt:l x c 3 6 . bxc3
�g7 7 .�c4 c5 8 . tt:l e2 0-0 9 .�e3
tt:l c 6 1 0 .8: c1 cxd4 1 1 . cxd4 'WaS+
1 2 .'kt>f1 'Wa3 1 3 .'Wb3 'Wxb3
1 4.�xb3
After 14.axb3 , Black can weak­
en the enemy centre with 14 . . J'ld8
15.d5 li:la5 16.f4 e6 17. 'kt>f7 ibd7. Then
18.e5 will be undermined with 18 ...
f6 and 18.d6 - with 18 ... b5 ibd3 eS !.
1 4 . . .�d7

Anand is planning to sacrifice a

pawn, but this idea could be shaped
differently: 14 . . . li:la5 ! 15J'lc7 (1S.f3
li:lxb3 16.axb3 fS) 15 . . . li:lxb3 16.axb3
aS 17.l"1xe7 a4 18.bxa4 l"1xa4 19.l"1c7
bS, with full compensation.

1 5.f4 8:fc8 1 6.'kt>f2

Sakaev advocates 14 . . . 'W'd6,
which leads to a complex balanced Obviously, 16.d5 li:la5 17.l"1xc8+ ?
middlegame. However, I chose to l"1xc8 18 .ibxa7 loses to 18 . . . li:lxb3
comment this game, because it is 19.axb3 ibbS 2 0 .mel l"1c2 .
an instructive example of the force
of the bishop pair. In many Griin­ 1 6 . . . tt:l a 5 1 7 . d 5 tt:lxb3 1 8 .axb3
feld positions we can observe that
Black's activity fully balances a
pawn deficit. This compensation is
often not a matter of concrete varia­
tions, but it ensues from the charac­
ter of the position - an open centre
with pawns on both wings. It is also
important that Black keeps a rook
on the board, because it cooperates
well with the bishops.

286
 4.cxd5 l2lxd5 5.e4 lZ:lxc3 6.bxc3 �g7 7.�c4
A critical position.
Black has not time for mundane
moves like 18 . . . b6 because White
will exchange one of the bishops
with 19.�d4. Then his centralised
king, plus space advantage, will as­
sure him of the edge.
A typical plan would be: 18 . . . a5 !
19.�d4 (19 .�b6 a4 2 0 .bxa4 E1xa4
21.!"1xc8 + �xc8 2 2 .!"1cl �g4 23.h3
ixe2 24.\t>xe2 E1xe4+ 25.\t>d3 f5
26.!"1c8+ lt>f7 27.!"1c7=) 19 . . . b5?
20.�xg7 \t>xg7 2 1 . l2l d4 a4
Black has sufficient counterplay
because the knight is not good at
stopping distant passers. The game
is level, for instance: 2 2 . !"1xc8 E1xc8
23.bxa4 bxa4 24.!"1bl a3 25 .!"1al E1a8
26.!"1a2 f5 27.e5 �c8 28.l2lc2 �b7
29.!"1xa3 !"1xa3 3 0 .lZ:lxa3 �xd5= .
Anand decides to stay active even
at the cost of a pawn :
1 8 . . . �b2 1 9 .!"1xc8+ E1xc8
20.�xa7 1'!c2 2 1 .i'f3
21.\t>e3 would have taken con­
trol of d2, but at the expense of g4 :
21.. .�g4 2 2 .!"1el �xe2 23.!"1xe2 �cl+
24.\t>d3 E1xe2 25 .\t>xe2 �xf4 = .
21 . . .f5 22.exf5
White is not happy to split his
centre, but 2 2 .e5 ? ! loses a pawn to
2 2 . . . !"1d2 2 3 .\t>e3 E1xd5 24.!"1bl �a3
25.l2lc3 E1a5 2 6.�d4 �b4+. After
the text, Short suggests 22 . . . gxf5 = ,
having i n mind 23 .!"1dl �b5 24.lZ:lg3
�d7. I suppose that Anand wanted
to leave more freedom to his bishop.
22 . . . Axf5 23.1'!d 1
It is time to take stock. White's
healthy extra pawn makes his po­
sition a bit more pleasant, but it
should be technically impossible to
convert it in view of the activity of
Black's long-range pieces. A simple
waiting strategy as 23 . . . \t>f7 24.h3
�d7 should be successful. The
point is that 24.�d4 would stum­
ble into 24 . . . !"1xe2 ! = while 24.�e3
�f6 25.!"1d2 E1xd2 2 6.�xd2 �c2
27.b4 �b3 would also force a draw.
Anand's next move is a concession :
23 . . . Aa3 ? ! 24.Ae3 ( 2 4 .�d4)
Ad6 2 5 . h 3 1'!a2 2 6 . l2l d 4 Ad 7
2 7 . 1'! c 1 i>f7
Black assumes that the oppo­
nent has no invasion squares. The
bishop pair is out of reach and co­
vers both flanks. White should pre-
287
 Part 10
pare for a long manoeuvring in the
hope that Black would make some
mistake. Instead, he embarks on an
active plan, which only facilitates
Anand's task. It seems that Kamsky
did not really believe he had win­
ning chances at all.
28.g4 h 5 ! =
The more pawn islands, the
stronger the bishop pair is. 29.gxh5
gxhS 3 0 . Ei:hl �c5 would lead to op­
posite coloured bishops.
29.'it>g3 l3a5 3 0 . liJ e6 �xe6
3 1 . dxe6+ 'it>xe6 32.<;f;>f3 l3a2 33.l3d 1
l3b2 34.l3d 3 hxg4+ 35.hxg4 l3b1
36 .�d2 l3f1 + 37.'it>e4 l3g 1 38.i>f3
l3f1 + 39.'it>e4 l3g 1 40.i>f3 l3f1 +
4 1 .i>e4 1 /2 - 1 /2 .
2 0 . O n i sc h u k-Zhou J ianchao
Kha nty- M a n s iysk 2 9 . 0 9 . 2 0 1 0
1 .d4 liJ f6 2 . c4 g 6 3 . liJ c 3 d 5
4.cxd5 liJxdS 5.e4 liJxc3 6 . bxc3
�g7 7.�c4 c5 8 . liJ e2 liJ c6 9 .�e3
0-0 1 0 . 0-0 Vlfc7 1 1 .l3c1 e6
This is a backup line to our main
repertoire.
288
Apart from the main move
12 ."\Wd2, I will also consider:
a) 12.f4? ! b6 13 .�d3 �b7 14.f5
exfS 15.exf5 E\ae8 16."\Wd2 cxd4
17.cxd4 "\Wd6+.
b) 1 2 .�f4
This otherwise typical move
looks senseless here as the queen
has an excellent retreat square :
12 . . . "\We7 13."\Wd2 Ei:d8
13 . . . b6 looks consistent, but
White has the annoying 14.d5!
(14.�h6 �xh6 15."\Wxh6 �b7) when
Black must play very precisely:
14 . . . E\d8 15.�b3 �a6 ! 16.c4 tt:ld4
17.tt:lxd4 cxd4 18.e5 exdS 19.�g5
"\Wxe5 2 0 .�xd8 Ei:xd8 2 1 . Ei:fel "\Wd6
2 2 .cxd5 �b7 23 ."\Wc2 �dS 24."\Wc7
"\Wxc7 25.E\xc7 �xb3 2 6 . axb3 d3
27.Ei:dl aS= . Nothing can prevent
. . . �f8-b4 or a similar draw stand.
14.�g5 �f6 15.�f6 "\Wxf6 16.Ei:fdl
b6 17."\We3 �b7= . Here, in the
game Strelnikov-Arnaudov, Bansko
2010, White tried 18.e5, but Black
had good counterchances after
18 . . . "\Wh4 ! .
c ) 12 .d5 li:J e5 !
 4.cxd5 'Llxd5 5.e4 'Llxc3 6.bxc3 �g7 7.�c4

The standard 12 . . . 'Lla5 13 .�d3 c4 Play might continue with

14.�c2 b6 ! (14 . . . exd5 15.exd5 b6=)
is also good enough : 15.Wd2 exd5
16.exd5 �b7 17.l"i:fdl l"i:ad8 18 .�e4
Elfe8 19 .�f3 �e5 = .
13.�f4 ! (13.�b3 c 4 14.�c2 exd5
15.exd5 Ei:d8 16.h3 'Lld3 17.hd3
Elxd5 18.�d4 cxd3 19.Wxd3 �e6+)
13 . . . l"i:d8 14.Wb3 Ei:d6 ! 15.�xe5 �xeS
16.f4 Ei:b6 17.Wc2 �g7 18.'Llg3 e5
19.f5 l"i:d6 = .
13 . . . �b7 14.hg7 lt>xg7 15.l"i:fdl (15.
h4 is slightly premature due to
15 . . . We7 16.h5 Wh4) 15 . . . l"i:fd8 16.We3
l"i:ac8 17.h4 We7 18.h5 'Lla5 (it is good
to repel the bishop from the a2-g8
diagonal in order to avoid tactical
hits on e6 after 18 . . . Wh4 19.g3 Wxh5
2 0 .'Llf4) 19.�d3 Wh4 20.'Llg3 cxd4
21.cxd4 l"i:xcl 2 2 . l"i:xcl 'Llc6.
1 3 . . . �b7 1 4.�f4

1 2 .\Wd2 b 6 ! 14.d5 is again dubious : 14 . . . 'Lla5

15.�b3 'Llxb3 16.axb3 exd5 17.exd5
Dvoirys often plays 12 . . . 'Lla5 c4 ! .
13.id3 b6, but it is better to keep
the knight in the centre for a while. 1 4 . . . \We7

1 3. l"i:fd 1

Brunner-Jo.Horvath, Vaujany
2010, saw 13 .�d3 �b7 14.d5 exd5
15.exd5. I do not completely un­
derstand White's idea, since it is
well known that this structure, with
an open e-file, is about equal -
15 . . . 'Lle5 16.c4 Wd7, waiting an op­
portunity for . . . b5. However, in the
game Black opted for the thematic
pawn sac 13 . . . c4 ! ? 16.�xc4 'Lle5 Or 15.d5 'Lla5 16.d6 Wd7 17.Wd3
17.ib3 'Llc4 and even White should e5 18 .�g5 'Llxc4 19.Wxc4 b5 2 0 .Wxc5
be careful after 18.�xc4 Wxc4 or Wg4+.
18.Wd3 'Llxe3 19 .fxe3 Wc5.
1 5 . . .�f6 1 6.�xf6 \Wxf6 1 7 .\We3
Another possible plan is 13 .�h6. 'Lla5 1 8 .�d 3 l"i:ac8
It aims to gain control over the dark
squares with h4-h5 and eventually While Black's play is clear and
h6. Then Black's last rank will be easy - to hit d4 with . . . l"i:fd8, . . . cxd4,
quite sensitive, especially after the . . . l"i:xcl, . . . 'Llc6, White lacks an active
imminent trade of rooks on the c­ plan. That is why Onischuk decides
file. to fix the dark-squares :

289
 Part 10
1 9 .e5We7 20 . lLl g 3 cxd4 2 1 .cxd4
J.d5 2 2 . ltJ e4 J.xe4 23 .J.xe4 �xc 1
24.�xc1 �d8
The opening is over. Black has
the better pawn formation, so
White should be careful to main­
tain the balance.
25.g3 '.Wd 7 26.J.f3 b 5 ! 27.�d 1
We7
Black plays it safe. 27 . . . tt:lc4 al­
lows 2 8 .'\Wg5 when some regroup­
ing would be needed: 2 8 . . . '\Wc7
29 .h4 l"ld7 3 0 .h5 '\Wd8 31.'\Wf4 tt:lb2 = .
2 8 . d 5 exd5 29.J.xd 5 ltJ c4
30 .'.Wb3 lL! xe5 3 1 .Wxb5 c;t>g7=
The rest of the game is not inte­
resting.
32 .We2 Wf6 33.J.g2 �xd 1 +
34.Wxd 1 h5 35.'.We2 '.Wd6 36.'.Wb2
c;t.9s 37 .Wb3 lL! g4 3S .J.f3 Wd4
39 .Wc2 ltJe5 40.@g2 ltJ d 3 4 1 .Wd2
h4 42 .@f1 Wa 1 + 43 .'.Wd 1 Wd4
44.@e2 Wxf2+ 45.@xd3 Wxh 2
46 .gxh4 Wxa2 47.@e3 We6+
48.@f2 Wf6 49 .c;t>g3 We5+ so.c;t>g2
@g7 5 1 . h 5 1 /2 - 1 /2 .
290
2 1 . S h i rov-Vach ier Lag rave
Wij k aan Zee 2 0 1 1
1 .d4 ltJf6 2 . c4 g6 3 . ltJ c3 d5
4.cxd5 ttJxd5 5.e4 lL!xc3 6. bxc3
J.g 7 7.J.c4 0-0 8 .J.e3 c5 9 . ltJ e2
ltJc6 1 0 .0-0 ltJ a S
This system has become re­
cently Black's most popular weap­
on against 7.�c4. Kamsky, Anand,
Svidler, Shirov, to name a few, put
their faith in it. Black did take some
ferocious beating, but latest devel­
opments show that he is in good
theoretical shape and the onus is
on White.
1 1 .J.d 3
lvanchuk experimented once
with ll.�b5, but it does not bring
any dividends after ll . . . �d7 (11 ...
cxd4 12.cxd4 b6 13.l"lcl e6 14.'\Wd2
�b7 15.f3 a6 16.�d3 tt:lc6 17.�bl b5
18.l"lfdl \WaS 19.'\WxaS tt:lxa5 2 0 .�d3
l"lfc8=) 12 .�d3 b6 13.l"lbl '\Wc7!?
14.'\Wd2 l"lad8 = .
1 1 . . . b6 1 2 .'.Wd2
12.dxc5 ? ! bxc5 ! 13 .�xc5 Vfic7
offers Black an excellent compensa-
 4.cxd5 tt:JxdS 5.e4 tt:Jxc3 6.bxc3 fd.g7 7.fd.c4
tion: 14.fd.d4 (14.fd.b4 �d8 15.'<1Mc2
tt:Jc6 16.fd.c4? tt:Jxb4 17.cxb4 fd.e6
18.�ac1 �ac8 19 .fd.b3 1/Mxc2 2 0 .fd.xc2
ib2 2l.�cd1 �xd1 2 2 .fd.xd1 fd.xa2+,
Markos-Le Roux, Olbia 2 0 08) 14 . . .
e5 15.fd.e3 tt:Jc4 16.fd.xc4 1/Mxc4 17.'<1Mc2
(17.1/MdS 1/MxdS 18.exd5 fd.a6 19.�fe1
l"lfd8 2 0 . �ad1 ic4+, Nikolaev-Yan­
demirov, St. Petersburg 1998)
17 ... fd.e6 18.�fb1 aS 19.a4 �fb8
20.'2lg3 if8 2 1 .'2lf1 �xb1 2 2 . �xb1
id7 23.�a1 �c8 24.fd.d2 fd.c6 25.f3
l"ld8 26.'2lg3 1/McS+ 27.'tt> fl fd.b7
28.'2le2 fd.a6 29.'tt> e 1 fd.e7+, Seres­
Groszpeter, Zalakaros 2 0 0 1 .
An improved version o f the
same idea is :
12 .�c1 eS ! 13.dxc5
Modern development of this
variation began with the game
Topalov-Svidler, Morelia/Linares
2006. In his comments, Krasenkow
assessed 12 . . . e5 as dubious. Sa­
kaev also claimed an advantage to
White. However, the current state
of this variation is satisfactory for
Black. In practice first players score
even below 50%.
Note that the alternatives have
no bite at all :
a) 13.d5? ! fS ! 14.exf5 (14.f3 c4
15.ic2 f4 leaves White without a
plan - 16.fd.f2 �f7 17.�b1 fd.f8) 14 . . .
gxfS 15.c4 e4 ! 16.fd.b1 fd.a6+, Krush­
Ganguly, Gibraltar 2 0 0 9 .
b ) 13.dxe5 fd.e6 ! A pawn sac­
rifice for domination on the light
squares. After 14.f4 tt:Jc4 15.fd.xc4
hc4 he has some edge, e.g. 16.�c2
�d3 17.1/Mxd3 hd3 18.�d2 he4+.
Even more enterprising is 14 . . . fd.xa2
15.c4 fd.b3 16 .'<1Md2 l!Md7 17.�c3 �adS
18 .'<1Mb2 l!Mxd3 19.�xd3 �xd3 with a
fine compensation for the queen.
c) 13.1/Ma4 id7 14.1/Ma3 ie6 !
15.d5 fd.d7, game 2 2 Sasikiran­
Kamsky, Dresden 2 0 0 8 . Black has
achieved the ideal blockading po­
sition, with his rook on f8 and the
enemy queen far from the kingside.
13 . . . fd.e6 !
14.c4 !
White links his hopes for an
opening advantage with an occupa­
tion of the dS-square with the ma­
noeuvre '2le2-c3-d5. The immediate
14.cxb6 axb6 brings about a typical
structure, in which White's extra
pawn is irrelevant. Black is just in
time for preventing the crucial c4-
c5 which would break loose the "big
pawn" on d3 : 15.c4 l!Mb8 ! 6.�c3 �c8
17.'<1Mc2 fd.f8 ! 18 .�b1 fd.cS 19.hc5
�xeS 2 0 .'2lc1 1/Mc7 21.'2lb3 �c6 = ,
Van Wely-Eljanov, Foros 2 0 0 8 .
14 . . . bxc5 15.fd.xc5 fd.h6 !
A very important zwischenzug
of Elj anov which revived the whole
system. Previously Black had been
suffering after 15 . . . �e8 ? ! 16.§ie3 !
�e7 17.'<1Mc2 �d7 18.�fd1 '2lc6 19.a3
291
 Part 10
�aS 2 0.ti:Jc3 ! , Topalov-Svidler, Mo­
relia/Linares 2 0 0 6 .
White has tried in this position :
a ) 16.�xf8 hcl 17.ti:Jxcl <i>xf8 !
18 .ti:Jb3 (18.�a4 :1'1c8) 18 . . . �xc4
19.ti:JxaS �xd3 2 0 .ti:Jxc4 �xc4
2 1.�d6+ <i>g8 = .
b ) 16 .:1'1c2 :1'1e8 17.ti:Jc3 :1'1c8 !
18 .�xa7 (18 .�b4 ti:Jxc4 19.ti:JdS
hdS 2 0 . exdS �b6 2 1.a3 ti:Jd6
2 2 . :1'1xc8 :1'1xc8 23 .�a4 e4 24.�a6
:1'1c7) 18 . . . :1'1e7 19 .�e3 he3 2 0 .fxe3
ti:Jxc4= 2 1 . ti:J dS �xdS 2 2 .�xc4 he4=
Williams-Kurnosov, Dresden 2 007.
c) 16.f4 :1'1e8 17.fS ! ?
O r 17.�e3 :1'1e7 18.�c2 :1'1d7
19.:1'1cdl �g4 (19 . . . ti:Jc6 ! ?) 2 0 .cS ( 2 0 .
h3 exf4 hf4 2 2 .:1'1xf4 �xe2 23 .�xe2
:1'1xdl+ 24.�xdl �xdl+ 2S.�xdl
li:Jxc4 = , Zhou Jianchao-Li Chao,
B eijing 2 008) 20 . . . exf4 2 1 .�xf4
�xf4 2 2 .:1'1xf4 �xe2 23 .�xe2 :1'1xdl +
24.�xdl �xdl+ 2S.�xdl :1'1c8 2 6 . :1'1f6
:1'1xcS 27.:1'1a6 :1'1cl = .
17 . . . �c7 18 .�f2 ! (18.�a3 �xcl
19 .fxe6 �e3+ 2 0 . Whl :1'1xe6)
18 . . . hc4 19.�xc4 ti:Jxc4 2 0 . ti:J c3 ! ?.
Here, in Harikrishna-Sutov­
sky, Montreal 2 0 07, Black chose
20 . . . ti:Jb2 2 1 .ti:JdS �xcl 2 2 . ti:Jf6+
Wg7 2 3 .ti:Jxe8 + :1'1xe8 24.f6+ Wg8
292
2S.�xcl hcl 26.:1'1xcl ti:J d3 27.:1'1c3
ti:Jxf2 2 8 .<i>xf2 hS= , but he could
have ventured into 20 . . . hcl ! ?
2 1.ti:JdS � d 8 2 2 .�xcl ti:Jd6 23.�e3�,
for example, 23 . . . gxfS 24.exfS <i>h8
2S.�g3 f6 2 6.�h4 :1'1f8+.
d) 16.:1'1c3 :1'1e8 17.�e3 ! ?
It looks strange that White con­
cedes to ruin his pawn structure,
but alternatives did not bring him
an advantage : 17.f4 :1'1c8 18 .�xa7
ti:Jxc4 19.�c2 �aS 2 0 .�f2 ti:Ja3
21.:1'1xc8 :1'1xc8�, Svidler, or 17.�c2
�c7 18 .�a3 :1'1ab8! 19.cS (19 .�cl
�xcl 2 0 .�xcl :1'1ed8 ; 19.:1'1bl :1'1xbl+
2 0 .�xbl ti:Jxc4co) 19 . . . :1'1ed8 2 0.�cl
(20 .c6 ? ! :1'1b6= ; 2 0 .:1'1dl ti:Jc6 2 1.�c4
:1'1xdl+ 2 2 .�xdl �xc4 2 3 .:1'1xc4 �aS+)
2 0 . . . hcl 2 1 .ti:Jxcl ti:Jc6
Black has a dangerous initia­
tive. The game Korotylev-Timofeev,
Moscow 2 0 0 9 , went 2 2 .�a4 :1'1d4
23 .�a3 ti:Jb4 24.:1'1el when 24 . . . a5!
2S.h3 :1'1bd8 would have left White
short on useful moves. The text at
least takes d4 under control.
17 . . . �xe3 18 .fxe3 :1'1b8
Play is not forced and both sides
have a wide choice, but Black's ac­
tivity levels the chances. In Giri­
Danin, Bussum 2 0 0 9 , he preferred
to keep the queen on the kingside:
 4.cxd5 ti:lxd5 5.e4 ti:lxc3 6 .bxc3 �g7 7.�c4

18 . . . '<Wg5 19 .'<Wcl l'l:ed8 2 0 .\t>hl ti:lb7 or 14 . . .'<W d 6 15.f4 fxe4 16.he4 �g4 !
2l.c5 ti:lxc5 2 2 . l'l:xc5 l'l:xd3 23.ti:lf4 17.ti:Jg3 ti:J c4 1 8 .'<Wd3 exf4 19.'<Wxc4
E1d6 24.'<Wal l'l:ad8 25.l'l:xe5 '<Wg4 fxg3 2 0 .hxg3 b5 21.'<Wxb5 hc3 give
26.h3 '<Wg3 27.'<Wel= . Black an edge.
19.c5 (19.'<Wa4 l'l:e7 2 0 .c5 l'l:b2
b) 13.dxe5 �e6 ! is similar to the
2l.'<Wa3 = , Prohaszka-Rodshtein, Ri­
1 2 . l'l:cl line. After 14.f4 ti:lc4 15.�xc4
jeka 2 0 10) 19 . . . '<Wc7 2 0 .'<Wa4 l'l:ed8
'<Wxd2 16.hd2 �xc4 17.l'l:fel l'l:ad8
2l.ti:Jcl l'l:b2 ! 2 2 . l'l:f2 (22 .c6 '<Wb6 ! =)
18 .�e3 l'l:d3 19.'it>f2 l'l:fd8 White's
2 2 . . . �d7 23 .'<Wa3 l'l:xf2 24.\t>xf2 �c6 .
extra pawn does not play while the
White's structural defects are ham­
black queenside pawns will start
pering him to convert the extra
marching.
pawn. The game Cheparinov-Ma­
14.l'l:fdl ti:lc4 15.�xc4 �xc4 16.f4
slak, Rijeka 2 0 1 0 went 25.\t>gl lt>g7
'<We7 17.'<Wc2 l'l:fd8 led to a balanced
26.h3 h5 27.ti:Jb3 ti:lxb3 28.axb3 a5
game in Gozzoli-Safarli, Zuerich
29.b4 axb4 30.'<Wxb4 l'l:b8 3 l.'<Wa3 h4
2009.
and White's further efforts to win
this position were futile. c) 13.dxc5 �e6 ! 14.l'l:fdl '<Wc7
The bottom line is that White 15.cxb6 axb6
keeps an extra pawn, but his win­
ning chances are very slim. That
has been steadily reducing the ap­
peal of the 1 2 . l'l:cl variation lately
and the focus has shifted to 12 .'<Wd2.

12 . e5 1 3 .�h6
. .

This whole line is only 4 years

old so we cannot speak about more
or less tested moves. Anything is
new and tastes change with every
important game. Still, it is clear
that:
a) 13.d5 is not the refuta­
tion of Black's setup. In the game
P.Nielsen-Ivanchuk, Monte Carlo
2006, Black immediately took over
the initiative on the kingside with
13 .. .f5 ! . The only sensible answer
is 14.�g5 (14.�h6 c4 15.�c2 f4) ,
but both 1 4 . . . '<We8 15.f3 c 4 16.�c2
f4 17.'it>hl h6 18.�h4 g5 19.�el �d7,
Van Wely-Kamsky, Dagomys 2 0 0 8 ,
Our favourite structure on the
queenside ! Even the material-ori­
ented engines learned to assess it in
Black's favour:
16.'<Wb2 ti:lc4 17.hc4 '<Wxc4
18.ti:Jg3 h5 19.'<Wb4 b5 2 0 .a3 l'l:fc8
2 1 .�d2 �f8 2 2 .'<Wxc4 l'l:xc4 23.f3
�c5+ 24.\t>fl l'l:ca4+, Beliavsky­
Sutovsky, Natanya 2 0 0 9 ;
16.�h6 l'l:fd8 17.�xg7 lt>xg7
18 .'<We3 �xa2 !+, Ni Hua-Navara,
Dagomys 2 0 0 8 . Black regained the
pawn retaining all his positional
advantages.

293
 Part 10
d) 13 J''l a d1
This is play for equalisation.
13 . . .cxd4 14.cxd4 exd4 15.�h6
�b7 16.�xg7 i>xg7 17.'Wb2 'Wf6
18.t2lxd4 t2lc6 = , Golichenko-Mas­
lak, Pardubice 2 0 1 0 .
The following move hides more
venom:
e) 13 .�g5 ! ? This aims to provoke
. . . f6, but we should not oblige:
13 . . . 'Wd7! 14.�h6
14.Elad1 exd4 15.cxd4 cxd4
16.�h6 �b7 17.�xg7 i>xg7 18 .'Wb2
Elfd8 19.�b5 'We7 2 0 .t2lxd4 i>g8 is
roughly equal.
This is the same position as
in the main game, except for the
queen, which is on d7. It is still dif­
ficult to weigh down the pros and
cons. One thing is clear though -
the defensive setup with . . .f6, for
instance, 14 . . . cxd4 ! ? 15.�xg7 i>xg7
16.cxd4 exd4 17.f4 f6? 18 .f5 ! or 17 . . .
'Wd6 18.f5 f6? does not work any­
more. This is due to the fact that
White saved a tempo on Elc1 (in
the main line White should include
this move since f4 would be met by
. . . �g4, which is now impossible).
In my opinion, eating the
294
d4-pawn is possible and the
only way to play for a win !
But after 17.f4 Black should an­
swer 17 . . . t2lc6 ! ? . In no way should
we play . . .f6 . White's mating threats
are scaring, but not working: 18.f5
t2le5 19.f6+ i>h8 2 0 .'Wh6 Elg8 2 1.Elf4
g5+. Of course, White can try
18.�c4 �b7 19 .�d5 Elfe8 2 0 .Eladl
i>g8 2 1.t2lxd4 t2lxd4 2 2 .'Wxd4 hd5
23.exd5 'Wd6 or 18.Elacl �b7 19.'Wb2
Elae8 2 0 . Elfdl f6 2 1.f5 i>h8, but in
both examples we retain fair chan­
ces in a complex position. I would
be curious to see that tested in
practice !
14 . . . �b7 15 .hg7 i>xg7 16.d5
16.f4? stumbled into 16 .. .f5!
17.d5 fxe4 18 .�xe4 t2lc4 19 .'Wd3 'Wa4
2 0 .f5 t2ld6 ! 2 1 . t2lg3 �a6+, Leitao­
Sutovsky, Bursa 2 0 1 0 .
16 . . .f5 17.f3
The same structure occurs often
in the Exchange system (see 17.d5
above) , but with a significant nu­
ance - Black usually keeps a bishop
on g7. Then the typical treatment is
. . . c4 followed up by . . .f4. Here this
approach is losing! After 17 . . . c4?
18.�c2 f4 19.g3 g5 2 0 .h4 h6 2 1.hxg5
hxg5 2 2 .gxf4 gxf4 23.i>f2 nothing
 4.cxd5 tt:lxd5 5 .e4 tt:lxc3 6.bxc3 �g7 7.�c4
could stop White's rooks.
The game Nakamura-Vachier
Lagrave, Wijk aan Zee 2011, saw an­
other positional mistake : 17 .. JU7? !
18.exf5 and with an open centre
White should be better because
of the weakness of Black's king. I
think that the only way to hold is:
17 .. .f4 ! (keeping control of d4 ! )
18.g3
Or 18.c4 l"1ae8 19.tt:lc3 (19 .g3 'Wd6
20.'Wc3 �g8) 19 . . . �a6 2 0 .'We2 g5.
18 . . . 'Wd6 !
I do not believe White can make
any progress here :
19.c4 l"1ae8 2 0 .'Wc3 �g8 2l.gxf4
exf4 2 2 .�hl ( 2 2 . tt:l cl �c8 23 .�e2
th3 24.l"1f2 'We5 25.'\MfxeS l"1xe5
26.tt:lb3 tt:lxb3 27.axb3 l"1g5+ 28 .�hl
aS) 2 2 . . .'\MfeS 23 .'Wxe5 l"1xe5 24.l"1gl
tc8 25.�g2 tt:lb7 26.tt:lc3 (26.tt:lcl
1Lld6) 2 6 . . . �d7= .
1 3 . . . cxd4 1 4.cxd4 exd4 1 5.Axg7
l!lxg7
Currently, this is the most topi­
cal position in the 10 . . . tt:l a5 line.
1 6J'�ac1
A sneaky move. White is de­
veloping, waiting for the bishop to
leave the c8-h3-diagonal. At the
same time the rook prevents . . . tt:lc6,
which would be a perfect manoeu­
vre against f2-f4-f5 .
16.f4 seems a little premature
because after 16 . . .f6 ! 17.l"1acl (Or
17.f5 tt:l c6 ! 18 .�b5 tt:le5 19.tt:ld4 gf5 !
2 0 .exf5 �h8 = , Rodshtein-So, Biel
2 0 1 0 , or 2 0 . l"1adl fxe4 2l.'Wf4 'We7
2 2 .'We4 �b7= , suggested by So.) the
strong 17 . . . �g4 ! prevents White's
knight from reaching f4 : 18.tt:lg3
�d7 19 .h4 l"1c8 2 0 . l"1xc8 ( 2 0 .h5 'We7
2 l.�a6 l'!xcl 2 2 . l"1xcl tt:lc6 23 .�b5
'Wd6 24.h6+ �xh6 25.e5 'Wd5+,
Golichenko-Shishkin, Kiev 2 008)
2 0 ... �xc8 2 l .'We2 'We7 2 2 .h5 �d7+
Cheparinov-Kamsky, Sochi 2 0 0 8 ,
or 18.f5 �xe2 19.'Wxe2 'Wd6 = .
Another idea i s to break m
through the centre with:
16.f4 f6 17.e5 �d7!
Topalov introduced against
Kamsky, Sofia 2 0 0 8 , a novelty -
17.e5, but Kamsky's answer seem­
ingly surprised him as he spent
some time before opting for:
18.exf6+ (18.tt:lxd4 tt:lc6 19.tt:lf3
�g4=) 18 . . . 'Wxf6 19.tt:lg3 �h8 2 0 .f5
gxf5 2 l.�xf5 �xf5 2 2 .l"1xf5 'Wd6 = .
The exposed king should not allow
Black to convert his extra pawn.
1 6 . . . Ab7 ! ?
A Carlsen's move. Black com­
pletely ignores White's attack and
provokes the opponent into weak­
ening his position. Concrete ana­
lysis seems to favour this bold ap­
proach.
295
 Part 10

Lately Black made two quick
draws with 16 . . . ct:lb7 ! ? 17.l"\c4
ct:lc5 18.l"\xd4 Wfe7, for instance :
19.ct:lc3 �e6 2 0 .�b5 Ei:ad8 2 l.l"\d1
l"\xd4 2 2 .'fffx d4+ 'ffff6. Draw, Parli­
gras-Lupulescu, Sarata Monteoru,
17. 0 2 . 2 011.
However, Anand's :
16 . . . 'fff d 6 ! ? 17.f4 f6 18.f5 ! Wfe5
(18 . . . �d7 ! ? )
is not refuted, despite his pain­
ful loss against Topalov in Sofia
2 0 1 0 . The critical position arises
after:
19.Lt:lf4 g5 ! 2 0 .ct:lh5+ �g8
20 ... �h8 21.h4 l"\g8 is also un­
clear. Then the sacrifice 2 2 .Lt:lxf6
Wfxf6 23.e5 does not win in view
of 23 . . . 'fffxe5 24.f6 �e6 25.f7 Ei:gf8
26.l"\ce1 'fffd5 27.�e4 ct:lc4 28.'ffff2 Ei:xf7
29.hd5 l"\xf2 30.ha8 Ei:xf1+ 3l.Ei:xf1
d3 3 2 .hxg5 d2 33.l"\f8+ �g7 34.l"\d8
�g6 35.�f3 b5 36.�f2 �xg5= .
2 l .h4 h6 2 2 .hxg5 hxg5 23.l"\f3
27.Ei:h7+ �e8 28.l"\cc7 �d8 2 9 .�b5
'fffxe4 3 0 . l"\xc8 + , 1-0.
The correct defence is:
23 ... �d7! with the following pos­
sibilities :
a) 24.Lt:lxf6+ Ei:xf6 25.'fffxg5+ �f7.
b) 24.l"\h3 l"\ac8 25.ct:lxf6+
(25.l"\e1 l"\c5 26.Lt:lxf6+ 'fffxf6 27.e5
l"\xe5 2 8 . l"\xe5 'fixeS 29.'fffxg5+ �f7
30 .�e2 'ffff6 3l.Ei:h7+ �e8 3 2 .�f4
ct:lc6 33.'fffc 7 Ei:f7 34.�h5 ct:leS)
25 . . . 'fffxf6 26.l"\xc8 Ei:xc8 27.e5 'fixeS
2 8 .'fffxg5+ �f8 29 .�e4 (29.Ei:h7
Wfe3+ 3 0 .'fffx e3 dxe3 3l.Ei:xd7 l"\cl+
3 2 . �h2 l"\d1) 29 . . . �e8 3 0 .�d5 'fffe l+
31.�h2 Wfe5 + = .
c ) 24.l"\g3 � f7 25.�c4+ (Or
25.l"\h3 l"\h8 2 6.�c4+ �e7 27.�d5
l"\ac8 ; 25.Lt:lxf6 'fffxf6 2 6.l"\e1 l"\c3
is unclear.) 25 . . . ct:lxc4 26.l"\xc4
l"\h8 27.Ei:xd4 �e8 2 8.Ei:d7+ �£8
29.Lt:lxf6 (29.'fffb 4+ 'fff c 5+ 3 0 .'fffxc5+
bxc5 31.Lt:lxf6 �xd7 32.ct:lxd7+ �e7
33.ct:le5 l"\hc8) 29 . . . 'fffxf6 3 0 .'fffb 4+
�g8 3 l.e5 'fffxf5 3 2 .'fffc 4+ �£8
33.'fffb 4+ �g8 34.'fffb 3+ �f8 35.l"\f3
�xd7 36.l"\xf5+ �xf5 37.'ffff3 �e7
38.'fffxf5 Ei:hf8 = .

1 7 .f4 E: c 8 (or 17.Ei:fdl 'fffd6)

1 7 . . . E:c8!

Here Anand messed something

up and was crushed after 23 . . . �f7?
24.Lt:lxf6 ! �xf6 25.Ei:h3 l"\g8 (25 . . . �d7
2 6 . Ei:h6+ �f7 27.'fffxg5 Ei:g8 2 8 .'fffh 5+
�f8 29.l"\h7 Ei:g7 3 0 .f6) 26.Ei:h6+ �f7 1 8 .f5

296
 4.cxdS ct'lxdS S.e4 ct'lxc3 6.bxc3 ilg7 7.ilc4
18 J'l:xc8 ! ? should be met by
18 . . . hc8 ! (Karjakin-Carlsen, Foros
2008, saw 18 . . .'�xc8, but after 19.fS
li:lc6? ! 2 0 .f6+ ! <;th8 21.WgS would
have been very unpleasant, be­
cause Black has no defence against
the rook lift Elfl-f3-h3 .) 19.fS lt'lc6!
20.ct'lf4 lt'leS 2 1 . ct'l dS, Peralta-Alon­
so, La Plata 2 0 0 8 , when simplest is
21.. .f6. The dark-squared blockade
should keep Black out of danger.
1 8 . . J'�xc 1 !
Generally, the exchange of just
one pair of rooks is in Black's favour.
Then if White tries to manoeuvre
his rook to h3, his first rank will be
left on the mercy of Black's queen.
On the other hand, Black needs one
rook to defend the mate on g7.
In the event of 18 . . . lt'lc6 19 .f6+
<i>h8 2 0 .Wh6 Elg8 2 1 .Elf3 Wf8
23.�gS Ele8, White has 24.Elxc6 !
hc6 2S.Elh3 flc8 2 6.g4 when 26 . . .
hg4 i s the only move, with a tan­
gled position.
1 9 .§'xc 1 tt:l c6 2 0 .f6+ m h 8
21 .§'g5
21.Wh6 Elg8 2 2 . Elf3 is neutralised
with 22 . . . Wf8 23.WgS WcS+. From
g5 the queen controls eS.
21 . . . §'d6 2 2 . tt:l g 3 ? !
Probably a decisive mistake.
White's attack has come to an im­
pass, but he could have tried to
fight for the eS-square with 2 2 .ElfS.
Then 2 2 . . . Wb4 2 3 .<;tf2 Ele8 24.Wh6
Wf8 2S.Wxf8 + Elxf8 26.EldS ct'lb4
27.Elxd4 ct'lxd3 + 2 8 . Elxd3 flxe4
29.Eld7 aS 3 0 .g4 h6 31.h4 gS would
be about equal, but the other queen
sortie, 22 . . . Wa3, is more unpleas­
ant: 2 3 .Elf3 flc8 24.fJ.bS WaS 2S.Wh6
Elg8 2 6.ilxc6 Wel + 27.Elfl Wxe2
2 8 . Elf2 We3 29 .Wxe3 dxe3 30 .Ele2
Eld8 3 1 . Elxe3 Eld6+.
After the text, White's game
quickly goes downhill.
22 . . . Elg8 23 ..ic4 tt:le5 24 . .ib3 d3
25.h3 .ia6 2 6J'�f4 d2 27.i>h2 §'c5
28.h4 tt:ld3 29.e5 tt:l xf4 30 . tt:l e4 tt:le6
31 ..ixe6 §'c6 32 . .ixf7 d 1 §' 0-1 .
2 2 . Sas i k i ra n - Kamsky
D resden o l . 2008
1 .d4 tt:l f6 2 . c4 g6 3 . tt:l c3 d 5
4.cxd5 tt:lxd5 5 . e 4 tt:l x c 3 6 . bxc3
.ig7 7 ..ic4 c5 8 . tt:l e2 tt:lc6 9 . .ie3
0-0 1 0 .0-0 tt:l a 5 1 1 . .id3 b6 1 2 J'� c 1
e5 1 3 .§'a4 .id7 1 4.§'a3 .ie6 1 5. d 5
.id7 1 6 .f4
297
 Part 10
Understanding positions with
closed centre is essential for play­
ing well the Exchange system.
Their assessment depends on the
placement of several key pieces. For
White, this is the queen. It belongs
to d 2 , from where it can go quickly
to f4 or another dark square of the
kingside. More importantly, it re­
stricts the enemy queen from go­
ing to g5 after an exchange of the
dark-squared bishops. On b2 or a3
the queen is misplaced and needs
tempi to return home.
For Black, the most important is
the light-squared bishop. It is best
placed on d7, from where it sup­
ports both breaks .. .f5 and . . . b5.
Unfortunately, Black often gets
the closed centre with a bishop
on b7. Not only doesn't it help the
counterplay, but it also hampers
the aS-knight to reach d6. I would
generalise, that with a bishop on
b7, Black should avoid closing the
centre. The other important piece is
the king's rook. It is better to have it
on f8, from where it supports both
.. .f6 and . . .f5 .
In the diagram position, Black
has the ideal setup while the op­
ponent's queen is on the worst pos­
sible place. That enables him to
choose between both main plans in
this structure :
1 . A central break with . . . f7-f5 ;
2 . A dark-squared blockade
with .. .f6 and counterplay on the
queenside.
298
Kamsky opts for the latter, pro­
bably because it keeps more ten­
sion, but 16 .. .f5 17.exf5 i.xf5 18 .c4
i.xd3 19.'Wxd3 e4 2 0 .'Wc2 'We7 was
also possible.
1 6 . . . .!t'l b7 1 7 . c4
17.f5 is not dangerous for the
same reason as f4 - White's queen
is too far from the main battlefield.
This allows Black's queen to invade
the kingside after 17 . . . gxf5 18.exf5
e4 19 .i.a6 LLld6 2 0 . LLlg3 i.e5 2 l.'Wb2
'Wh4 2 2 .'Wd2 f6.
1 7 . . . .!t'l d 6 1 8 J�ce1 �e8
Black's defence is commonly
based on . . . 'We7, . . .f6 . Kamsky de­
cides to put more pressure on e4,
exploiting the bad coordination
of the enemy's pieces. Now White
must define the situation in the
centre. Best is 19.fxe5 i.xe5 2 0 .Wcl
(20 .i.f4 i.xf4 2 1.LLlxf4 Wg5) 20 .. .
b5 ! with sufficient counterplay. In­
stead, he sets up a positional trap:
1 9 . .!t'l g 3
White dreams about 19 . . . a 6 ? o r a
similar mundane move) 2 0 . f5 ! with
 4.cxd5 'Llxd5 5.e4 'Llxc3 6.bxc3 ilg7 7.ilc4

an initiative on the kingside. In this denly decided to play on the flank

structure, White's knight should go where the opponent is stronger.
to f3 (via gl) , but not to g3 . That quickly loses the game :

1 9 . . . exf4 ! 20 .�xf4 �e5 2 1 .�c 1 2 8 . 1'! b 1 ? ! �d6 ! 2 9 . � d 2 (29 .®'d2

V!fe7 22 . \t> h 1 1'!ac8 1'!b8+) 29 . . . �xf4 30.1'!xf4 c3 3 1 . � c4
1'!b8 32.1'!xf6 �a4 ! 33.1'!b3 1'!b4
Evidently, Black's main plan is 34. 1'!xf7 �xb3 35.axb3 'it>xf7
linked with . . . b5. It will open the 36.\t>g 1 1'!xc4 0-1
b-file so 22 . . . 1'!ab8! would have
been better, for example, 23.1'!f2 b5
24.cxb5 ilxb5 25 . .b:b5 1'!xb5t. 23. Va n Wely-Kamsky
Dagomys 2008
23.�e2 b5 24. � g 1 f6? !
1 .d4 � f6 2 . c4 g6 3.�c3 d5
Finally, White improved the 4.cxd5 �xd5 5.e4 � xc3 6.bxc3
placement of his knight. Black �g7 7 .�c4 c5 8 . �e2 � c6 9 .�e3
should have answered with 24 . . . 0-0 1 0 .0-0 � a 5 1 1 .�d3 b6 1 2 .�d2
bxc4 25 .ilxe5 ®'xe5 26.'Llf3 ®'g7 e5 1 3 . d 5 f5
27.ilc2 f6= , or 24 . . . ilxf4 25.®'xf4
bxc4 2 6.ilc2 ®'e5 27.®'f2 ®'d4 = .
Instead, h e presents the opponent
with a tempo : 25.ilxe5 ®'xe5 26.'Llf3
Vffe7 27.e5 fxe5 2 8 . 'Llxe5 ®'g7= , but
White misses this opportunity:

25.�f3 ? ! �xf4 26 .�xf4 bxc4

27.�c2 �f7

The same pawn structure as

in the previous game, but White's
queen is on d2 and the black bishop
is still on c8. Note also that White's
rook on al could be useful for a plan
with a4-a5, for example : 13 . . . 'Llb7
14.c4 'Lld6 15.'Llc3 f5 16.f3 f4 17.ilf2
g5 18.a4;t.

Black has achieved his ideal 1 4.�g5

setup. Now Sasikiran should have
switched to a patient defence with It is not easy to recommend
28.®'d2 1'!b8 29.�c3 , but he sud- something else for White. 14.ilh6

299
 Part 10
�xh 6 ! 15.il,lfxh6 c4 16.�c2 f4 leaves
White without an active plan. A
similar position arose in Nielsen­
lvanchuk, Amber-blindfold 2 0 0 6 :
14.�g5 �d6 15.�h6 f4 16.�xg7
@xg7 17.f3 c4 18 .�c2 g5 19.@hl
�d7 It is clear that Black is slight­
ly better: 2 0 .g3 �ae8 2l.gxf4 gxf4
2 2 .�gl+ @h8 23.�g5 �g8 24.�xg8 +
�xg8 25.�gl �xgl+ 26.Lt'lxgl Lt'lb7+.
By keeping the dark-sqaured bi­
shops, White nurtures some hopes
for counterplay on the queenside.
Similar to the stem game is 14.f3
f4 15.�f2 c4 16 .�c2 �d7! (to prevent
17.�a4).
1 4 ... �e8 1 5 .f3 c4 1 6 ..ic2 f4
1 7 . 'kt> h 1 h6 1 8 . .ih4 g 5 1 9 . .ie 1
White is planning to defend
with g3 so he leaves the f2-square
for the rook.
1 9 . . . .id7 2 0 . g 3 �h5 2 1 . lLl g 1 �f7
22 .�g2 'kt> h 8
A very gloom position for White
straight from the opening ! He can­
not plug the kingside with 23 .h4
(hoping for g4 and h5) due to 23 . . .
fxg3 24.�xg3 Lt'lb7 25.�h2 g4. The
only thing he can do is wait and
300
watch Black regrouping for the fi­
nal assault:
23 . .id 1 � g 8 24. � b 1 .if8 2 5 . .ie2
.ic5 26 . .if2 .id6 27 ,:gb2 gf6
28 . .ie 1 �e8 2 9 . lLl h 3 gfg 6 3 0 . lLl f2
h 5 3 1 .g4
White decides to change the
stand, but this only opens files on
the kingside.
3 1 . . . gh6 32.gxh5 gxh5 3 3 . Lt'l g4
'it>g7 34 . .id 1 gghB 3s.mt2 gh3
36 .�f1 .ixg4 37 .fxg4 �g6 38 . .if3
.ic5 39.:gfe2 lLl b7 40 .�g2 lLld6
41 .a4 �h7 42 .�f1
42 . . . 'kt>f6
It looks like Kamsky wants to
prolong the suffering of his oppo­
nent. He could have finished him
off outright with 42 . . . Lt'lxe4 43.�xe4
�xh2+ 44.�xh2 �xe4+ .
43 .�g2 �d7 44.ga2 gsh6
45.�f1 �h7 46.�g2 gxf3 47 .�xf3
g h 3 48 .�g2 'kt>e7 0-1
24. Delchev-Ruck
S i b e n i k 2006
1 .d4 lLl f6 2 .c4 g 6 3 . lLl c3 d5
4.cxd5 lLlxd5 5.e4 lLl xc3 6 . bxc3
 4.cxd5 'Llxd5 5.e4 'Llxc3 6.bxc3 �g7 7.�c4
�g7 7 .�c4 c5 8 . tt'l e2 tLlc6 9 . .ie3
0-0 1 0 .0-0 �c7 1 U�c1 �d8 1 2 . .if4
%Yd7 1 3.dxc5
In his book, Sakaev chooses this
variation as a main line against
Black's setup.
1 3 . . . �e8 1 4 . .id 5 .id 7 1 5.�d3 e6
16 ..ixc6 .ixc6 1 7 . .id6 b6 1 8 .�e3
1 8 . . . .ib7
The bishop frees the way to the
queen on e8. A year later against
Harikrishna, Ruck tried to improve
with 18 . . . e5, but after 19.c4 �e6
20.tLlc3 �xc4 21.'Lld5 White was bet­
ter, for instance : 2 1 . . .�a4 2 2 .'Lle7+
�h8 23 J''1fe l (23.cxb6 �xd6 24.�c5
1'1d2 25.'Llxc6 axb6 2 6.�xb6 �xe4)
23 .. .f6 24.�h3 ! �xe4 25.c6±.
1 9 .e5 �c6
In this type of positions, Black
should worry only about his king.
If he trades queens, he would play
.. .f6 and his bishop pair, backed
by active rooks, would completely
compensate for the missing pawn.
For instance, he could try 19 . . . �a4 ! ?
20.cxb6 axb6 21.a3 �e4 2 2 .�xe4
he4 23.�fdl �deS 24.c4 �a4
25.f3 �b7 2 6 . \t>f2 h5 (or 26 . . . �axc4
27.�xc4 �xc4 28.�bl �d5 29.�xb6
h5 3 0 . �bl �c2) 27.�d4 �a6 28 .�bl
.ixc4 2 9 . �xb6 �a5 3 0 .f4 f6, with
counterplay.
20 .f3 bxc5 2 1 . tLl g 3 �a4 22. �f2
I understood that White's only
active play is linked with 2 2 .'Lle4.
However, after 2 2 ... �xe4 23.fxe4
�d7 24.�bl �adS:
Black is threatening with . . . �f8.
How to continue? My bishop on d6
is cementing my centre. Should it
be swapped, I would remain with
5 ( ! ) pawn islands and no win­
ning prospects at all. For example:
25.�b2 �c6 2 6.�f4 �f8 27.�d2 c4
2 8 .h4 �xd6 29.exd6 e5 ! 3 0 .�xe5
�xd6 31.�xd6 �xd6+.
Grabbing a pawn by 2 2 .�xc5
does not help much : 22 . . . �h6
2 3.�bl �ac8 24.�b4 �xb4 25.cxb4
�c2 . So I decided to wait for a better
moment.
22 . . . �ac8 (22 . . . �d7 23 .�xc5)
23.�b 1 !
2 3 .'Lle4 did not guarantee an
edge : 23 . . . .ixe4 24.fxe4 �f8 25.�d2
�d7 2 6 .�cdl �cd8 27.�xc5 �xe4.
301
 Part 10

Wfxa7+ 3 1 . .!Lle3 � h 6 32.'it>f2 �f4

33.g3 Wfa2+ 34.�g 1 �xe3+ 1 /2-1/2.

2 5 . Topa lov-Svidler
Sofia 2006

1 .d4 .!Llf6 2 .c4 g6 3 . .!Ll c3 d5

4.cxd5 .!Llxd5 5.e4 .!Llxc3 6 . bxc3
23 . . .�d5
�g7 7 .�c4 c5 8 . .!Lle2 .!Ll c6 9 .�e3
0-0 1 0 .0-0 Wfc7 1 1 .l"i:c1 l"i:d8 1 2 .�f4
2 3 ... l"i:d7 24.l"i:fb2 �d5 allows
Wfd7 1 3. d 5 .!Ll a 5 1 4.�d3 b5
25 .'@Fxc5 ! so Black anticipates the
doubling of White's rooks on the b­
file.

24.�xc5? !

Now was the last possible mo­

ment for 24.lt:le4 ! ? �xe4 25.fxe4
l"i:d7 (25 . . . �f8 26.l"i:bfl l"i:d7) 26.l"i:bfl
'@fc6 27.'@Ff4 (27.l"i:f3 �f8 2 8 .'@Ff2 f5)
27 . . .�f8 2 8 . l"i:d2 and White is still
in control although he can hardly
improve his position. For instance,
after 28 . . . c4 2 9 .h4, Black could try
29 . . . f5, or stay passive after 29.�hl
�g7 3 0 .h4 h6. After my mistake,
the initiative switches to Black.
24 . . . �xa2 25J:�a1 l"i: d 1 + 26.l"i:f1
l"i:xf1 + 27 . .!Ll xf1 '@Fc2 2 8 .�xa7 ? !
More precise was 2 8 .'@Ff2 '@Fxf2 +
29.�xf2 �c4 30 .�d4 a6 31.lt:ld2
�d3 3 2 . �f2 �h6 33.lt:le4 l"i:b8= or
33 ... �xe4 34.fxe4 l"i:a8 35.l"i:a5 �f8
36. �e2 �e8 37. �d3 �g5 38 .�b6
�d8 39.�xd8 �xd8 40.�c4 �c7
41.�c5 �b7= .
28 . . . l"i:xc3 29.l"i:xa2 Wfxa2 30.Wfxc3
1 5. l"i: b 1
After this game, White began to
try other moves, as 15 .�e3 e 6 ! - see
our main line.
1 5 . . . a6 1 6 .c4?
It is difficult to understand what
Topalov had in mind with this un­
fortunate novelty. After Svidler's
retort, White's centre is falling
apart. The usual l6.'@Fcl e6 does not
set any problems either, but 16.a4
deserves attention.
1 6 . . . e6! 1 7 .�g 5 l"i:e8 1 8 .�d2
.!Ll xc4 1 9 .�xc4 bxc4 2 0 . d 6 �b7
2 1 .Wfe3 f6 22 .�h4 g5 23 .�g 3

302
 4.cxd5 lt:Jxd5 5 .e4 lt:Jxc3 6.bxc3 il.g7 7.il.c4

23 . . .f5 ! ! 3 1 .:ga3 .ixe2 32.:gxe2 :gbs

33.:gb3 :gxb3 34.axb3 'iflf7 35.'iflf1
Every other move would have :gb7 36.:ga2 .if6 37.1t>e2 c4! 3 8 . b4
justified White's play. For instance, :gxb4 39.:ga7+ 'i!lg6 40.:gc7 c2
White would be fine after 23 . . . il.c6 4 1 .1t>d2
23 .lt:Jc3 or 23 . . . h6 24.e5. But Svidler
is in his element in his beloved . . . �
opening. His feel of the Griinfeld � � .
� �
- � .,
dynamics is perfect. . �� · ··�
� . .,.
lil A . • �
@% •� •� [l, iM
.
The best move again. Gene­ -
�
��'. � �-
� [l, rt!l
� "''
rally, most endgames with a bishop � . . .
pair are better for Black. He often
even sacs a pawn in order to trade 4 1 . . .f4 42 . .ie 1 :g b 1 43.:gxc4
queens. :gd 1 + 44.'i!lxc2 :gxe 1 45.:gxf4 :ge2+
46.'i!ld3 :ge5 47.:gg4+ lt>f7 48.:ga4
26 .\1*/xdS :gaxd8 27 _ :g d 1 :gd7 :gd5+ 49.lt>e3 :gxd6 5o.:ga7+ 'i!lg6
28 .f3 .ic2 29.:ge1 .id3 30.:gxa6 c3 5 1 . 'iflf4 :gd4+ 52. 'i!lg3 .ih4+ 53. 'i!lh3
.if2 54. g 3 :g h4+ 55.lt>xh4 .ixa7
Black has a big edge and despite 56.'iflh3 lt>f5 57.lt>g2 .ie3 58.'iflh3
Topalov's dogged defence, Svidler lt>e5 59.'i!lg4 .ig 1 60.h4 .if2 6 1 . h 5
went on to convert it into a point: h6 0-1 .

303
304
 Part 1 1

SOS Systems
1 . d4 lt:Jf6 2 . c4 g 6 3 . lt:J c 3 d 5 4. h4, 4.g4

305
Pa rt 1 1
Step by Step
I'll consider shortly several dubi­
ous variations called SOS systems
after the New in Chess series SOS.
Every adept of the Griinfeld enjoys
them very much as they commonly
lead to sharp original play which
perfectly fits in the profile of the
players that opt for this opening.
There are only a few fine points to
remember.
A. l.d4 tt::l f6 2 . c4 g6 3 . tt::l c3 d5
4.g4? !
Even in the Meran, the Bayonet
attack sets more problems to White,
than to Black. Here, it is outright
dubious and should cost White the
natural advantage of the first move.
Bulgarian master Pantaleev used to
306
play i t a lot 40 years ago, but in our
databases times the surprise effect
can work in one game only.
The idea of 4.g4 is to create
chaos on the board after 4 . . . �xg4? !
5 .1Mfb3 dxc4 6.1Mfxb7, although it is
arguable that White is any better
after 6 . . .C2lbd7 7.l/Jb5 l'!c8 8 .�f4 eS
9.dxe5 l/Jh5 lO .�gS l/Jc5. However,
we have more challenging options:
4 . . . dxc4 !
White was threatening to win
the dS-pawn so it is consistent to
save it with interest!
I found only two games with 4 ...
cS ! , yet this is the obvious retort to
all SOS tries. White should struggle
to equalise after 5.dxc5 (S.gS cxd4
6.l/Jb5 dxc4 ! ) 5 . . . d4 6.l/Jb5 (6.g5
dxc3 7.1Mrxd8+ 'tt> x d8 8.gxf6 exf6
9 .b4 aS) 6 . . . l/Jc6 7.l/Jf3 �g7 8.�f4
(8.l/Jfxd4 a6 9 .l/Jxc6 1Mfxdl+ 1 0 . '\t>xdl
axbS ll.l/Je5 l/Je4) 8 . . . 0-0.
5.h3
Or 5.g5 l/Jd5 6.�g2 (6.e4 l/Jb6
7.�e3 �g7+) 6 . . . c6 (6 . . . l/Jb6+) 7.1Mfa4
l/Jb6 8.1Mfa5 �g7 9.l/Jf3 0-0+.
5 . . . �g7
 l.d4 'Llf6 2 . c4 g6 3.'Llc3, SOS Systems

The thematic manoeuvre 5 . . . 'Lld5

6.e4 'Llb6 is unclear: 7.�e3 �g7 8.f4,
Obsivac-Pribyl, Czechia 1998.

6.e4 c5 7.dxc5

7.d5 b5 8.g5 'Llh5 9.'Llxb5 �a5+

10.'Llc3 �xc3+ ll.bxc3 �xc3 +
12 .�d2 �e5+.
7. . . �xdl+ S .@xdl lLla6 9.�e3
ie6
White has problems here.
B. l.d4 lLlf6 2 . c4 g6 3 . lLlc3 d5
4.h4? !
9 . . . 'Lla6
Suggested by Jeroen Bosch in
his SOS book. 9 ... �f5 allowed White
to equalise after 10.f3 'Lld7 ll.e4
�e6 12 .c6 bxc6 13.'Lle2 = , A.Zaitsev­
Smyslov, Sochi 1963.
9 ... 'Lld7, heading for f6, is also in
Black's favour.
10.�a3 �f5 ll.f3 �h6+ 12.e3 @c7
13 .�xa6 �ad8+ 14.@e1 bxa6+.

5 . . . d4 ! 6. lLlb5 e5 !

4.cxd5 'Llxd5 5 .h4 transposes to

4.h4 c5 5.cxd5.

4 .•. c5 !
Six moves after the beginning of
Thematic and strong!
the game, Black is already ahead in
development. Any mistake can be
5.dxc5
fatal for White. Perhaps his only
move now is :
5.cxd5 'Llxd5 6.dxc5 'Llxc3
7.'Wxd8 + @xd8 8.bxc3 �g7 9.@d2
7.e3

307
 Part 11
7.b4 a6 8.�a4 �d7 9 .�g5 �e7
lt:Jc6! 10.lt:Jd6+ �xd6 ll.cxd6 h6
12.�xf6 �xf6 13.c5 e4 should end
up with a debacle.
7 . . . �xc5 8 .exd4 exd4 9 . .!Llf3
0 - 0 1 0 .�e2 .!Llc6
Without h4, White would have
been only slightly worse. As things
are now, he is a big underdog.
The game Cebalo-Riazantsev, Biel
2 0 0 9 , went ll.�f4 �fS 12 .�d3 �xd3
13.�xd3 a6 14.lt:Jc7 (14.lt:Ja3 Ei:e8 +
lS.�fl lt:Jb4 16.�b3 d3) 14 . . . Ei:c8
15.a3 Ei:xc7 16.�xc7 �xc7 17.b4
Ei:e8+ 18. �fl �f8 , with a material
and positional advantage.
C. l.d4 .!Llf6 2 . c4 g6 3 . .!Llc3 d5
4.�g5 .!Lle4
I have devoted Part 3 to this sys­
tem, but I decided to examine two
rare moves separately in this chapter:
Cl. S.�cl ; C2. 5.h4 ! ? .
C l . 5 .�cl c5 !
308
S . . . lt:JxgS 6.�xg5 dxc4 brings
Black very good results, but 7.�e5
f6 8 .�b5+ c6 9.�xc4 bS 10.�d3 b4
ll.lt:Je4 �fS is unclear to me. Black's
pawn formation is seriously com­
promised.
6.cxd5 (6.lt:Jxd5 cxd4) 6 .•. .!Llxg5
7.�xg5
7 . . . �b6 !
Rogers considers only 7 . . . cxd4 ! ?
8.�e5 dxc3 ! (8 . . . �b6? 9.Ei:dl)
9.�xh8 f6, with a great compen­
sation for the exchange - 10.�xh7
(10.0-0-0 cxb2+ ll.�xb2 �b6+
1 2 . �al �c7+) lO ... �fS ll.bxc3 �as
(ll . . . �xdS 12.e3 lt:Jc6 13.Ei:dl �xa2)
12 .Ei:cl �a3 13.�dl ! (13.�d2 �xa2 +
14.�el �b2 lS.�dl lt:Jc6 16.�h4
0-0-0-+) 13 . . . �a4+ [13 . . . lt:J c6 14.f3
lt:JeS 15.e4 (15.�h4 Ei:d8 16.e4 �a4+
17.�el Ei:xdS 18.lt:Jh3 Ei:aS) 15 . . . id7
16.�d2 �b2 + 17.Ei:c2 �bl 18.Ei:cl
�xa2+ 19.Ei:c2 �bl 2 0 .Ei:cl] 14.�el
�a3 = . The text looks more simple.
8.dxc5 �xb2 9 .'1Ml'cl
 l.d4 4Jf6 2 .c4 g6 3 . 4J c3 , SOS Systems

Or 9 J''kl ig7 10.�d2 �xd2+ 6.bxc3 dxc4 7.e3 ie6

ll.'it>xd2 0-0 12 .tiJbS 4Jd7 13.e3 tiJf6+.

9 . . .�b4 l O J�Ibl �xc5 ll. lilb5

W/xcl + 1 2 J �Ixcl lila6

There is no way to be worse with

the bishop pair and no weaknesses.

C2. 5.h4 ! ?

This i s a very young line with

only lS games in my database.

This position differs from our

5 lilxc3 !
main line in Part 3 only by the h4-
• . .

pawn (and the bishop is on gS) .

Black has a number of interest­
The only way t o justify the pawn
ing alternatives :
move seems to be S .hS, but I do
a ) S . . . c 6 6.4Jf3 �aS ! brings Black not believe in such an approach
comfortable equality, e.g. 7.e3 to the opening: 8 . . . ig7 9.h6 (9.e4
(7.cxdS cxdS 8.�b3 4Jxc3 9 .bxc3 c6+) 9 . . . if6 (or 9 . . . if8 lO.l'!bl �ds
lt:lc6 lO .hS ig7) 7 . . . dxc4 8.ixc4 ll.if4 �c6 1 2 .4Jf3 4Jd7 13.tiJgS idS
lt:lxc3 9.bxc3 (9.�d2?? f6 10.if4 eS) 14.f3 fS 1S.�e2 �f6 ! ) 10 .hf6 exf6
9 . . . �xc3+ lO.tiJd2 4Jd7 (lO . . . �aS ll.tiJe2 idS 1 2 .4Jf4 c6 13.ie2 0-0=.
ll.�b3) ll.hS ! ? (After lUkl �as
12.0-0, White does have some com­
pensation, but in my opinion, it is not D. l.d4 lilf6 2 . c4 g 6 3 . lil c3 d5
enough) ll . . . ig7 (ll.. .tiJb6 12 J:l:cl 4.cxd5 lilxd5 5.e4 lilxc3 6.bxc3
WfaS 13 .hf7+ lt>xf7 14.hxg6+ lt>g8 ig7 7.ig5 (a SOS line? ! ) 7 . . . c5
lSJ'kS �xa2 16.gxh7+ l"1xh7 17.l"1xh7 S J 'kl 0 - 0
'it>xh7 18.�hS+ lt>g8 19.�g6+ ig7
20.�e8+) 12.l"1cl �as 13.�f3 �fS = ;
b ) S . . . c S 6.cxdS 4Jxc3 7.bxc3
WfxdS 8 . e3 ;
c ) S . . . ig7? ! I mention this move
only because it occurred in the re­
cent European championship in the
game Jobava-Safarli 2 0 1 1 : 6.cxdS
lt:lxc3 7.bxc3 �xdS 8 .e3 h6 9 .if4 eS
lO.heS ixeS ll.dxeS �xeS 12.�d4
lt:lc6 13.ibS id7 14.4Jf3t.

309
 Part 11

9.lt'rf3 Eleb8 23.0-0 .ieS 24 . .ie7 Elxb6+,

Jenkinson-Fenwick, corr. 2 0 08)
The bishop would have stood 15.11::Vxb7 cueS 16.0-0 Elab8 = .
very well on gS had Black devel­
oped his queen's knight to d7. In 12 ••• .ixf3 13 .ixf3
•

the current position, however, he

cannot defend the d4-square and
sooner or later he will have to move
the d-pawn forward. Still, 9.dS? ! is
premature in view of 9 . . .fS, for in­
stance : 10 . .ic4 <;t>h8 11.cue2 (11.'11::Ve 2
bS ! 12 . .ixbS fxe4 13.'11::Vxe4 .ifS
14.'11::V e 3 11::Vx d5 1S . .ie2 cuc6 16 . .if3
11::V d 7 17.Eld1 '11::Vc 7 18.cue2 Elac8 19.0-0
cueS.) 1 1 . . .fxe4 12 . cug3 cud7 (12 ... .if5
13.'11::V e 2 cud7) 13.cuxe4 cub6 14.'11::Ve 2
cuxc4 1S.'\1::Vxc4 .ifS 16.d6 (16.0-0 bS ;
16.cug3 '11::V d 6 17. 0-0 e6) 16 . . . .if6.
13 . . . c4 !
9 ••• .ig4 1 0 .d5 '11::Vd 6 !
This ensures the cS-square for
The blockade on the dark the knight. Now Black has good
squares levels the game. counterplay. The game Batsiashvi­
li-Gopal, Cappelle la Grande 2011
11 . .ie2 saw further 14.11::V a4 Elfc8 1S . .ig4
Elc7 16.f4 cueS 17.11::Vxc4 cue6 18.'11:b
:V 3
11.'11::Vb 3 hf3 12.gxf3 cud7 (12 . . . cuxgS 19.fxgS '\1::Vb 6+ = .
b 6 13.f4 h 6 14.e5 '\1::V c 7 1 5 . .ih4 .ixeS
16.fxe5 11::Vx eS+ 17 . .ie2 11::Vf4) 13.h4
(13.'11::Vxb7 Elab8 14.'11::Vc 6 Elb6 1S.11::Vx d6 E . l . ll'lf3 ll'lf6 2 .c4 g 6 3.ll'lc3
exd6�) 13 . . . Elab8 14.a4 .ieS was d5 4 . cxd5 ll'lxd5 5.h4 ! ?
better for Black in Erdos-Tazbir,
Griesheim 2 0 1 0 .

l l . l2ld7! 1 2 . 0 - 0
••

Alternatively:
12.h3 ? ! .ixf3 13.hf3 c4+;
12.cud2 .ixe2 13.'11::Vx e2 Elfe8
14.11::Vb S a6 (14 . . . e6 1S.cuc4 '\1::Vc 7 16.d6
'11::V c 8 17.a4 b6 18 .aS a6 19.'11::Vb 1 bS
2 0 . cub6 cuxb6 2 1 . axb6 11::Vd 7 2 2 .'11::V d 3

310
 Why not ! ? White has more
pawns in the centre and he is better
developed. The move . . . g6 is "beg­
ging" for h4, especially after the f6-
knight has left f6. That is why the
retreat:
5 . . . Ci'lf6 ! ? is consistent and it has
prominent adepts as Svidler. Play
might continue with:
6.d4 ibg7 7.e4 0-0 8 .ibe2 cS 9.d5
In the stem game game Svidler
chose 9 . . . e6, but lost to Piket in
2000 and his idea has not caught
up.
Najer tested 9 . . . b5? ! 10 .e5 (10.
hb5 Ci'lxe4 ! ) 10 ... Ci'lg4 ll.ibxbS ! to
reach a very tangled and unclear
position.
I recommend, however, the
most natural answer:
5 ... ibg7 6.h5 Ci'lc6
Continuing the developing stra­
tegy. 6 . . . Ci'lxc3 is a sound alterna­
tive.
7.g3
Or 7.d4 ibfS 8.ibd2 �d7 ! ?
I n Aronian-Svidler, Nice 2 0 1 0 ,
Black opted for 8 . . . e 5 9.dxe5
Ci'lxeS 10 .e4 Ci'lxc3 ll.ibxc3, when
ll . . . �xdl + 1 2 . 8:xdl Ci'lxf3+ 13.gxf3
ibxc3+ 14.bxc3 ibe6 15.hxg6 fxg6
would have been equal. Svidler
tried to keep more pieces with
ll . . . �e7 ! ? to win eventually.
The text is an attempt to fight
for the edge. For instance, 9.e3 e5
would be an improved version of
Svidler's play since 10.dxe5 Ci'lxeS
ll.e4 would stumble into ll. . .Ci'lxf3 +
12.�xf3 ibg4. Apart from 9 . . . e5,
Black could also choose the plan
with long castling.
9.e4 Ci'lxc3 10 .bxc3 ibxe4 ll.Ci'lgS
ibfS 12.'\Wb3 e6 13.�xb7 Ei:b8 14.�a6
h6 15.Ci'lf3 gS+.
7 ibf5 8 .ibg2 (8 .�b3 ? ! ibe6)
•••
8 . . . �d7
9 . lt.Jxd5
White has many alternatives, for
instance :
a) 9.0-0 gxhS 1 0 .Ci'lxd5 �xdS
ll.d3 ibg4.
b) 9 . Ci'lg5 Ci'ld4 10 .d3 (10.Ci'lxd5
311
 Part 11

�c2) 10 ... c6 ll.e4 �g4 12.f3 'Llb4

13.fxg4 'Lldc2 + 14.<±>e2 'Llxal+.
c) 9.hxg6 hxg6 10.Ei:xh8+ �xh8
ll.'LlgS 'Lld4 12 .d3 c6 13.�d2 �g4
14.f3 �e6 15.'Llxe6 �xe6.

9 1Mfxd5 10.d3 �d7 ll.hxg6

• • •

hxg6 12 .1'�xh8 + hh8 13.lt'lg5

tt:ld4 14.hb7 Ei:b8 15 .�g2

Or 15.�e4 �xe4 16.dxe4 �c6.

15 . . • �g4 16.f3 1Mfc6 17. <±>f2 Black has active play on the
�d7 queenside.

312
 Part 12

Anti-Grii nfeld - 3 .f3

1 . d4 'Llf6 2 . c4 g 6 3 .f3

313
Pa rt 12

Main Ideas

I ntroduction Objectives and Move Orders

W auld you guess which is the best

scoring third move of White after
l.d4 ltJf6 2 .c4 g6? Right - 3.f3 ! Four
percent better than 3 . ltJ c3 or 3 .ltJf3 .
Let u s g o further. Following 3.f3
d5, White achieves an even higher
percentage - 61. Does that mean
that it is wrong to insist on playing
the Griinfeld against 3.f3? Should
we admit that White has tricked us Our aim is to push . . . e5. It seems
by the move order and we have to that we'll get some sort of the Sa­
switch to the Samisch or Modern misch with . . . ltJc6, but the position
Benoni? Not at all. The problem is has an important peculiarity - our
that Black is often unprepared for bishop is still on f8 and it can pop
3.f3 and the opponent enjoys a se­ up on c5 . For instance : 4.e4 e5 5.d5
rious advantage in opening know­ ltJd4 6.ile3 ilc5 ! 7.ilf2 We7. Instead,
ledge. I suggest to strike back with 5.dxe5 ltJxe5 6.ile3 (6.ctJc3 ilc5 !)
his own weapon. We'll answer with 6 ... ilg7 7.ltJc3 0-0 8.Wd2 d6 9.l"ldl
the rare, but ultra-modern move :

3 .tl:lc6
••

Theory is very scarce here and

you can study most of the games in
your database in an hour. Add my
guidance, and you would probably
turn out better versed than your
opponent even if it were your first
game in this variation. Oh, and the White cannot complete develop­
stats will be with you - White is still ment so we prepare to open the cen­
struggling to break even against the tre with 9 . . . l"le8 ! 10.b3 a6 ! ll.ctJe2
"modest" knight's move. b5 ! 12.cxb5 axb5 13.ltJxb5 d5.

3 14
 l.d4 '2lf6 2 . c4 g6 3 .f3
Let us consider now:
A. 4.d5 ll:\e5 5.e4 d6
White's most testing plan here is
to grab even more space and try to
consolidate his centre :
6.f4
6.'2le2, intending l2lec3 or l2lg3,
is too slow. Black can hamper the
enemy's development with 6 . . . c6 ! ,
followed by 7 . . . '\Wb6.
6.'2lc3 ig7 7.f4 leads to the same
positions as the main line.
6 . . . ltled7 7.ltlc3 ig7
I think that Black should attack
dS with both pawns - . . . c6 and . . . e6.
It is still difficult to say in what or­
der, but probably starting with the
queen's pawn is better. White can-
not allow two exchanges on dS be­
cause such a pawn structure is ge­
nerally good for Black. Therefore he
should be ready to take on c6 or e6
and reinforce the remaining pawn
on e4. 8 .'2lf3 0-0 9 .id3 does not
look impressive as Black will have a
tempo for . . . l2lc5 : 9 . . . c6 1 0 . 0-0 l2lc5
11.ic2 cxdS 12.cxd5 e6! 13.dxe6
ixe6 14.ie3 = , Donchev-Ermen­
kov, Sofia 1984. Grischuk's idea to
lead the knight to f2 deserves more
attention:
8 . ll:\ h3 ! ? 0 - 0 9 . .ie2 ll:\c5
10. ltlf2 e6 11. 0 - 0 exd5 12.cxd5
c6 13 . dxc6 bxc6 14 . .tf3 �e7
15 . .ie3 d5 ! ?
Play i s double-edged. See game
27 Grischuk-Giri, Wijk aan Zee
2 011.
B . 4 . ltl c3 d5 5.cxd5
5.e4 ! ? dxe4 6 .d5 l2le5 7.fxe4 ig7
8.'2lf3 l2lfd7 9 .ie3 0-0 10 .'\Wd2 fS !
was fine for Black in Caruana-How­
ell, Biel 2 0 1 0 .
5 . . . ltlxd5 6.e4 ll:\xc3 7.bxc3
e5 ! s . .tb5 ! .td7 9.ltle2 .tg7
315
 Part 12
10 . .ie3
10.1"1b1 lt:Ja5 1l.dxe5 hb5 12.1"1xb5
1Wxd1+ 13.Wxd1 0-0-0+ 14.Wc2
b6 15.f4 cS 16.h4 lt:J c4 17.h5 1"1hg8
brings about a typical position with
ample compensation for the pawn.
10 . . . 0 - 0 ll.d5 lt:J a5 12 .id3
•
b6 13. 0 - 0 tt'lb7 14.c4 c5
316
Now White is faced with a cru­
cial choice. 15.lt:Jc3 fS keeps a space
advantage, but it is unclear what
White can do further.
In Anand-Carlsen, Linares 2009,
White preferred:
15.dxc6 hc6
The game is level.
Part 12
Step by Step
l.d4 lt:lf6 2 . c4 g6 3.£3
Black has three reasonable ways
to avoid Modern Benoni structures
that arise after 3 . . . c5 4.d5 e6 and
the Samisch variation 3 . . . �g7 4.e4.
The most popular by far is 3 . . .
d5. People who play 3.f3 are usually
best prepared for it. Lately Black
has been testing 3 . . . e5 occasionally,
but I think that the most contempo­
rary retort to White's sneaky move
order is the even more tricky:
3 ••• lt:lc6!
It looks like we are going to
play . . . eS, but that is not the whole
truth. After 4.e4, we do push 4 . . .
e5, but i n the event o f 4.Lt:lc3, we
switch to the Griinfeld approach
with 4 . . . d5, exploiting the fact that
we can exchange on c3 after 5.cxd5
Lt:lxdS 6.e4. Finally, 4.d5 is not so
crushing as it might seem at a first
glance. The gaping main diagonal
and the general weakness of the
dark-squares in White's camp as­
sures Black of good counterplay.
In the Four Pawns Attack against
the King's Indian, Black tries some­
times . . . Lt:lc6, hoping to provoke dS .
White's best answer then, however,
is eS, but not dS ! In our case, the
f-pawn is only halfway to f4, so he
will probably spend later a tempo to
advance it.
A. 4.d5 ; B. 4.Lt:lc3 ; C. 4.e4.
A. 4.d5 lt:le5 5.e4 d6
Al. 6 . Lt:l e 2 ; A2 . 6 .f4 ; A3 . 6.Lt:lc3
317
 Part 12
Al. 6 . lD e 2 c6 ! ?
In this structure, Black will play
. . . c6 anyway, so it makes sense not
to delay it. Our queen will go to b6
while the bishop could still be use­
ful on f8 to protect the d6-pawn
should we decide to undermine d5
with an early . . . e6.
The other plan is to push first
. . . e6. It also leads to balanced play:
6 . . . �g7 ! ? 7.C/Jec3 0-0 8 .�e2 e6
9.0-0 (9.f4 is too committal. The
game Nakamura-Svidler, Amster­
dam 2 0 09, went 9 . . . C/Jed7 10.0-0
exd5 ll.cxd5 fi:e8 1 2 .�f3 C/Jc5 13.fi:e1
h5 14.h3, when instead of 14 . . . b5 ! ?
15.e5 dxe5 16.fxe5 C/Jfd7 17.e6 C/Je5oo,
the simple 14 . . . c6 would have been
better for Black.) 9 . . . exd5 10.cxd5
c6 11.dxc6 bxc6�, Mamedyarov­
Carlsen, Wch. blitz, Moscow 2 0 0 9 .
7. lDec3
7.C/Jg3 \Wb6 ! questions the op­
ponent how will he develop. 8 .C/Jc3
�g7 9 .\Wb3 , Chatalbashev-Dvoirys,
Oberwart 2 0 0 3 . Here 9 . . . C/Jfd7
would have led to Black's edge.
318
8.\Wb3
This is too timid. White should
test 8 .\We2 �g7 9 .�e3 \WaS 1 0 .\Wd2
0-0 11.�e2 cxd5 12.cxd5 �d7 13.0-0
a6= .
8 . . . �g7 9.\Wxb6 axb6 10.�e3
0 - 0 ll .�e2 (ll.�xb6 c5) ll . . .b5
I'm following the game Haba­
Jansa, Czechia 2 0 0 9 . Black decides
to sacrifice a pawn for the initiative.
That is entirely in the spirit of the
Griinfeld, but also he had a number
of other good options. As a whole,
Black can be satisfied from the
opening.
12.cxb5 cxd5 13.exd5 �f5
14.lDd2 fi:fc8 15.'it>f2 lDd3+
16.�xd3 hd3;;; .
A2 . 6.f4 lDed7 7. lDc3
This position is a blank spot in
theory. I suppose White does not
like it because his setup looks ra­
ther airy. That is not easy to exploit
 l.d4 cuf6 2 . c4 g6 3 .f3

though. Perhaps Black should try Wfb6 1 0 .!ie3 Wfb4 11 .b3 cufg4 12 .!id4
to exchange some pieces to avoid !ih6 13 .Wib2 cS, Dreev-Sutovsky,
suffocation due to the lack of space: Internet ICC 2 0 0 2 .
7 . . . :Jig7 8.cuf3 0-0 9.!ie2 (9 .!id3
b ) 7.cuge2 0 - 0 8.cug3 c 6 9.!ie3
c6 1 0 . 0-0 cxdS 11.cxdS bS+!) 9 . . . c6
(9 .!ie2 Wfb6) 9 . . . a6 10 .!ie2 bS
(or 9 . . . e6 10.dxe6 fxe6 11.0-0 Wfe7
1l.cxbS axbS 12.dxc6 b4 13.cudS
12.<i>h1 aS) 10 .!ie3 cug4 11.!id4 !ixd4
cuxc6 14.0-0 cuxdS 1S.exdS ct:leS+!.
12 .Wfxd4 Wfb6 13.Wfxb6 cuxb6= .
Another interesting option is
7 . . . . lt:led7
7... c6 ! ? , transposing to game 26
Kramnik-Navara.

A3. 6.cuc3 :Jig7

6 . . . c6 ! ? is more challenging, but

a bit too committal. Black gives the
opponent a free hand in the centre :
7.f4 cued7 8 .!ie3 !
After 8.cuf3 , 8 . . . WfaS is an awk­
ward pin (8 . . . !ig7 9 .!ie2 is consid­
ered in line C2.) 9.!id3 cueS 10. 0-0
cxdS 11.cxdS cuxd3 12 .Wixd3 !ig7= .
8 . . . eS
8 . . . WfaS is not so efficient al­
ready as White has 9.Wfd2 . Still, the
position after 9 . . . cu cS 10.l"lb1 Wfb6
ll.ct:la4 Wfc7 is unclear.
9.dxe6 fxe6
See the detailed commentaries
of game 26 Kramnik-Navara,
Khanty-Mansiysk 2 0 1 0 .
7.f4
Slow development offers Black
good counterplay on the queenside :
a) ?.figS c6 8 .Wfd2 0-0 9 .l"ld1
8 . lL\ h3 ! ?
A Grischuk's idea. The knight
hurries to f2 . From there it will bol­
ster the pawn centre so that White's
space advantage could begin to tell.
8.cuf3 0-0 9.!id3 gives Black a
tempo for . . . cueS so the plan with
. . . c6 becomes more attractive : 9 . . .
c 6 ( 9 . . . e6 1 0 . dxe6 ! has never been
tested) 10.0-0 cueS 11.!ic2 cxdS
12.cxdS e6! 13.dxe6 :Jixe6 14.!ie3 = ,
Donchev-Ermenkov, Sofia 1984.
8 ... 0 - 0 9 .!ie2 lilc5 10.lilf2 e6
It looks sensible to neutralise
White's spatial advantage as quick­
ly as possible. After 10 . . . l"le8 11. 0-0
eS 12.dxe6 !ixe6 13 .Wic2 !id7 14.!if3
!ic6 1S.!id2 aS 16.l"lfe1, Grischuk-

319
 Part 12
Kurnosov, Moscow 2010, White
consolidated while retaining some
pull.
11. 0 - 0 exd5 12.cxd5 c6
13. dxc6 bxc6 14 ..if3 ffe7 15 . .ie3
d5 ! ?
Play i s double-edged. See game
27 Grischuk-Giri, Wijk aan Zee
2011.
B . 4.ti:lc3 d5
5.cxd5
320
I n Nice 2 0 1 0 , Kramnik sur­
prised Dominguez with S . .ig5?!
.ig7 6.e3. Black lacked the courage
for 6 . . . 0-0 ! (choosing the passive
6 . . . e6 instead) 7 . .ixf6 (7.ffd2 E1e8
8.cxd5 'LlxdS) 7 . . . exf6 where Black
will quickly develop an overwhelm­
ing initiative :
8.cxd5 'Lle7 9.e4 (9 . .ic4 'LlfS) 9 ...
fS 1 0.ffd2 fxe4 ll.fxe4 c6;
8. 'Llxd5 E1e8 9.'Lle2 (or 9. 1i>f2 f5
10.f4 bS) 9 . . .f5 10 .ffd2 b5---+ ll.'Lle£4
bxc4 12 ..bc4 gS 13.'Lle2 .ie6
14.'Llec3 'LlaS.
5.e4 ! ? is an enterprising idea
which attracted several super GMs.
After 5 . . . dxe4 6.d5 'LleS 7.fxe4 .ig7
(7 . . . c6? ! 8 .'Llf3) 8 .'Llf3 'Llfd7 we
reach the critical position:
The first game that featured this
position, Rodshtein-Bykhovsky, Ri­
shon le Zion 2 0 04, went 9 . .ie2 0-0
10 . .if4 c6 11.ffd2 ffb6 12 . .ie3 ffb4! ,
with counterplay. White should
have played 1 2 . 0-0-0 though. I sup­
pose that play in the centre is more
safe and clear than queenside stabs,
for instance : 10 . . . 'Llxf3 ! ? ll.gxf3 f5!
12 .ffd2 fxe4 13 .fxe4 'LleS 14. 0-0-0
ffd6, with an initiative.
A new attempt to improve
White's play was Caruana-Bowell,
 l.d4 t2lf6 2 . c4 g6 3.f3
Biel 2 0 1 0 : 9.i.e3 0-0 10.'1Wd2 , but
again lO . . .fS ! proved to be strong:
ll.i.h6 t2lxf3+ 1 2 .gxf3 t2le5 13 .i.e2
ixh6 14.'\Wxh6 fxe4 15.4Jxe4 e6
16. 0-0-0. Here 16 ... exd5 ! ? is pro­
bably slightly more precise than
16 . . . '\We7, which allowed 17.d6. Af­
ter 17.l"lxd5 '\We7 18 . .!2lg5 t2l c6 19.l"le1
Wffg7, play would have transposed to
the game which was fine for Black.
5 ••• 4Jxd5 6.e4 4Jxc3 7.bxc3
e5!
This is the right plan so Black
has no reason to delay it. Still,
7 ... i.g7 8.i.d3 (8 .i.b5 i.d7 9.t2le2 eS)
8 ... 0-0 9.t2le2 e5 ! ? is also possible,
as in the game Ward-Seel, Catalan
Bay 2 0 04. It went lO .dS t2la5 ll.i.a3
1'le8 12 .i.b4 b6 13.i.b5 i.d7 14.i.xd7
Wffxd7 15.i.xa5 bxaS 16.0-0 l"lab8
17.'\Wc2 i.f8, with an easy game for
Black.
8.i.b5 !
8.d5 t2la5 does not set Black any
problems.
8 •.. i.d7 9.lL!e2 i.g7
10.i.e3
1 0 . l"lb1 offers Black a choice.
He can allow the opponent to split
his queenside pawns by 10 . . . 0-0
ll.i.xc6 bxc6 (or try the "improved"
version of this idea - 10 . . . '\Wh4+
ll.g3 '\We7, when 12 .i.xc6+ bxc6
13 .'\Wb3 ! '\We6 14.i.a3 '\Wxb3 15.l"lxb3
fS is about equal).
A more flexible continuation is
10 ... 4Ja5. This move is connected
with an interesting pawn sacri­
fice : ll.dxe5 i.xbS 12.l"lxb5 '\Wxd1+
13.'it>xd1 0-0-0+ 14.'it>c2 b6 15.f4 c5
16.h4 t2l c4 17.h5 l"lhg8 . Despite the
extra pawn, White lacks any idea
what to do further and he can easily
find himself in a bad position. In­
stead, in Kuzubov-Timofeev, Ohrid
2 0 09, he preferred the noncommit­
tal 11.i.d3 '\Wh4+ 12 .g3 '\We7 13.0-0
0-0 14.i.e3 l"lad8 15.'\Wcl b6 16.l"lf2 ,
but Black took over the initiative
with 16 . . .f5.
10 . . . 0 - 0 ll.d5
Or 11.0-0? t2lxd4 ! ; 11.l"lb1 ! ? t2la5!
12 .i.d3 c5.
11 )2Ja5 12 .i.d3 b6
•.
Black had a wide choice here.
For instance, he could have played
12 . . . i.h6 ! ? . Then 13.hh6 '\Wh4+
14 . .!2lg3 �xh6 15.'\We2 b6 16.i.a6
i.c8 ! should be equal so White
would probably answer 13 .i.f2 .
12 . . . '\Wh4+ 13.i.f2 '\We7 does not
change the character of position ei­
ther - 14. 0 - 0 i.h6 15.c4 c5 16.dxc6
t2lxc6 17.4Jc3 b6 18 . .!2ld5 '\Wd6.
321
 Part 12
13. 0 - 0 lLlb7
We know from the previous part
that 13 . . . c5 14.c4 (14.�d2 fS) 14 . . .
fS should b e OK for Black if h e can
close the kingside with .. .f4. On the
other hand, 15.exf5 gxfS would give
Black a dynamic centre. Carlsen
postpones this plan for a while.
14.c4 c5
Finally Black wants to define the
pawn structure in the centre. The
plan with . . . c6 leaves White the bet­
ter chances: 14 . . . �e7 15 .�d2 l"1ac8
16.<'tk1 c6 17.l2lb3 cxd5 18.cxd5 l2ld6
19.!"1ac1 fS 2 0 .�b4 ii.f6 2 1 . tLl d2±.
15.dxc6
Engines tend to overestimate
space advantage so they prefer
15.l2lc3, but what should White do
after 15 .. .f5? Then 16.�d2 f4 17.ii.f2
gS cannot be appealing so he should
take on fS : 16.exf5 gxfS 17.�c2 l2ld6
when it turns out that the threat of
... e4 is very unpleasant, e.g. 18.!"1ae1
�f6 19 .ii.d2 a6 2 0 .a4 e4 ! 2l.fxe4
322
�d4+ 2 2 . 1fih1 fxe4 23.!"1xf8+ !"1xf8
24.l2lxe4 l2lxe4 25.ii.xe4 l"1f2 , with a
strong initiative. White is lucky to
have a draw with 2 6.ii.xh7+ @h8
27.ii.d3 �g4 (27 . . . ii.xa4 2 8 .�xa4
�xd3 29 .�e8 + l"1f8 30 .�h5+ �figS
3l.�d1 �xc4oo is too risky.) 28 .ii.fl
�d4 29 .ii.d3 = .
After the exchange o n c 6 , play
was level in Anand-Carlsen, Lina­
res 2 0 0 9 :
1 5 . . . ii.xc6 16.l2lc3 ii.d7 17.tt:Jd5
ii.e6 18 .�d2 !"1c8 19.!"1fc1 f6 2 0 . Ifihl
lfihS 21.!"1ab1 l"1f7 2 2 .�e2 ii.f8
23 .ii.d2 ii.d6 24.ii.c3 �figS 25 .�d2
�f8 2 6.ii.e2 !"1d8 27.!"1d1 !"1c8 28.!"1dcl
l"1d8 29.!"1dl. Draw.
C. 4.e4 e5
5.dxe5
Alternatively:
a) S.dS l2ld4 6.l2le2 (6 .ii.e3 ii.c5!
7.ii.f2 �e7 or 6.l2lc3 lt:JhS 7.ii.e3 ii.c5
8.ii.f2 d6 9.a3 0-0 10 .b4 ii.b6 11.tt:Ja4
fS+, Abdelmoumen-Van Bommel,
IECG 1999.) 6 . . . ii.c5 7.l2lxd4 ii.xd4
 l.d4 l2lf6 2 .c4 g6 3 .f3

8.l2lc3 (8.l2la3 LLlhS 9.g3 d6 10 .l2lc2

�b6 ll.il.e3 f5 ! =) 8 ... l2lh5 9.g3 d6
10 .il.d3 c6 ! t , A.Kuzmin-Kurnosov,
St. Petersburg 2 0 04.
b) 5.l2le2 exd4 6. l2lxd4 il.g7
7.l2lxc6
7.il.e3? loses to 7 . . . l2lxe4 8.fxe4
Wh4+ 9.il.f2 'Wxe4+ 10.l2le2 l2lb4.
7 . . .bxc6 8 .l2lc3 0-0 9.il.e2 dS
lO.cxdS cxdS ll.exdS il.b7 1 2 . 0-0
LLlxdS 13.l2le4 cS, with an edge for
Black in Bercys-Shabalov, rapid,
USA, 2 0 0 9 .
9 . . . c6 ! ? 10 .b3 (Perhaps White
5 ••• tt:\xe5 6.il.e3 had to take it: 10 .'Wxd6 ! ? 'Wxd6
11.)'%xd6 il.e6 12 .c5 )'%fd8 = . ) and an­
Of course White should not al­ other one : lO . . . dS ! ? (lO . . . 'WaS ! ?
low 6 . . . �c5 . ll.l2la4 'Wxd 2 + 1 2 . )'%xd2 dS) ll.l2lge2
'WaS ! 1 2 . cxd5 cxd5 13.exd5 )'%e8?.
6 il.g7 7.tt:\c3 0 - 0 8 .'Wd2 d6
•••
However, in the diagram posi­
9J�dl tion, 9 . . . )'%e8 ! 10 .b3 a6! would have
been even better since White can­
This position occurred in Laznic­ not complete development. For in­
ka-Dvoirys, Pardubice 2 0 07. Black stance, ll.cS will be met by ll.. .dS
offered a typical for the King's In­ while ll.l2le2 is not any better due
dian pawn sac: to l l . . .bS! 1 2 . cxb5 axbS 13.l2lxb5 dS.

323
Pa rt 12
Complete Games
26. Kram n i k- N avara
Kha nty- M a n s iysk 2 7 . 09 . 2 0 1 0
In this game, Navara opts for
the challenging plan with . . . c6. It is
totally unexplored and I hoped that
an encounter at such a high level
would shed some light on it. Un­
fortunately, the game posed more
questions than it answered.
1 .d4 lt:\f6 2 . c4 g6 3.f3 lt:\ c 6 4 . d 5
lt:\ e 5 5 . e 4 d 6 6 . lt:\ c3 c6 7.f4 lt:\ed7
8.�e 3 ! e5 9.dxe6 fxe6
1 0 . lt:\ h 3
White wants t o control g4, but
10.'2lf3 ! ? eS 1 Lf5 ! (1l.�e2 'Llg4;
ll.'LlgS �e7) was also possible. A5
a rule, this structure is in White's
favour, so Black should find some­
thing concrete.
ll . . . 'Llg4? ! 12 .�g5 �b6 (12 . . . �e7
13 .h3 ! ) 13.�e2t or 1 l . . .�e7? ! 12 .�e2
'Ll cS 13.0-0-+ are gloom.
324
1 1 . . .'2lc5 looks hopeless af­
ter 12 .hc5 dxcS 13.�xd8+ <±>xd8
14.'2lxe5 <±>c7 15.fxg6 �g7 16.gxh7
Ei:xh7 17. 0-0-0, but it turns out that
White cannot easily cope with the
activity of Black's long-range pie­
ces. I suppose that 17 . . . '2lh5 18.'2lf3
�g4 19 .�d3 Ei:f8 gives sufficient
compensation to neutralise the en­
emy's material advantage. For in­
stance :
2 0 .'2le2 ( 2 0 .e5 Ei:hh8 2 l.�e4 'Llf4
2 2 .g3 'Llg6 23.Ei:dfl 'LlxeS 24.'2lxe5
�xeS 25.Ei:xf8 Ei:xf8 26.'2ld1 �d4
27.�d3 Ei:h8 = ) 20 . . . �xf3 2l.gxf3
Ei:xf3 2 2 .Ei:hfl Ei:xf1 23.Ei:xf1 �eS = .
1 0 . . . e5 1 1 .f5 '!Was
1 1 . . . '2lc5 12.�f3 gxfS 13.exf5 e4
14.�f4 'LlhS 15.�f2 'Llf6 16.�xc5
dxc5 17.Ei:d1 �e7 18.�e2 Ei:g8 19.�h4
�d7 2 0 .�h5+ favours White.
1 2 .fxg 6 ? !
 l.d4 LiJf6 2 .c4 g6 3.f3

A strange move, which does not sound manoeuvre 14 . . . �e7 15.�e2

fit in with White's previous play. I LiJf8 , heading for e6.
have no idea why Kramnik rejected
the obvious 12.LiJf2 ! : 1 5. lLi g 5 axb4 1 6 .axb4 l'!xa 1
1 7 .Vf!xa 1 d 5 1 8 . .!Lie6 Vf!d6 1 9 .exd5

In such open positions with

queens, knights are often more
valuable than bishops. 19 .\Wa8
\Wxe6 2 0 .\Wxc8+ <;t>£7 21.cxd5 cxd5
2 2 . exd5 \Wg4 gives Black the initia­
tive.

1 9 . . . cxd5 20 .cxd5 V!!x b4 2 1 .i.d 3

White seems to gain a stable
edge after:
12 . . . LiJc5 13 .�d2 \Wd8 (13 ... gxf5
14.b4 ; 13 . . . \Wb6 1 4.b4 LiJcd7 15.g4±)
14.\Wf3 ;
12 . . . d5 13.cxd5 cxd5 1 4.�d2 \Wb6
15.fxg6±;
12 . . . gxf5 13.exf5 d5 14.cxd5 cxd5
15.�d2±;
In these examples, Black is over­
extended in the centre, and his king 2 1 . . . e4
desperately lacks a safe haven.
White's mistake steers the game It is never too late for being mat­
into unclear complications. Most ed! 2 l . . .LiJxd5 2 2 .�g5 ! ? \Wxc3+ ??
importantly, the terrible threat of 23.\Wxc3 liJxc3 eliminates queens,
g2-g4 is no longer on the agenda. but unfortunately the black king
goes down, too - 2 4.�xg6 mate !
1 2 . . . hxg6 1 3 .a3 Vf!c7
22 .i.b5 i.d6 23 .i.d4 ile7
13 . . . LiJxe4 loses to 14.\Wg4 liJxc3 24.<i>e2 l'!xh2 2 5 . 1'! b 1
15.\Wxg6+ <;t>d8 16.LiJg5.
Now the game suddenly ends in
1 4. b4 a5 ! ? peace.

Navara conducts the game in 25 . . . Vf!a3 26.Vf!xa3 i.xa3 27 .i.xd7

the sharpest possible manner, ob­ i.xd 7 28 .i.xf6+ <i>xf6 29 .1'!xb7
viously seeking to create chaos all l'!xg2+ 30.<i>f1 l'!c2 3 1 . .!Lixe4+ ile5
over the board. Instead, he had the 32.1'!xd7 1 /2 - 1 /2 .

325
 Part 12
2 7 . G rischu k-G i ri
Wij k a a n Zee 2 5 . 0 1 . 20 1 1
1 . d4 lL'l f6 2 . c4 g6 3.f3 lL'lc6 4 . d 5
lL'le5 5 . e 4 d 6 6 . lL'l c3 �g7 7.f4 lL'led7
8.lL'lh3 0-0 9 .�e2 lL'lc5 1 0 . lL'l f2
1 0 . . . e6
It may be tempting to use the
open main diagonal and try some­
thing on the queenside, but in the
long run White's overwhelming su­
periority in the centre should pre­
vail. Instead, Black should quickly
undermine the enemy centre.
White cannot advance further since
his knight on f2 has only defensive
functions and it does not support
ideas with e5.
1 1 .0-0 exd 5 1 2 .cxd5 c6
1 3 .dxc6 bxc6 1 4.�f3 fie7 1 5.�e3
d5!
326
In only four moves, Black
changed dramatically the situation
in the centre. The only question
now is whether he will be able to
defend his d5-pawn.
1 6.e5 lL'lfd7 1 7 . b4 lL'le6 1 8 .b5
17. tt'le2 would give Black time
to consolidate after 17 . . . tt'le6 (17 ...
f6? ! is basically a good idea, but
probably Black should find a bet­
ter timing for it, when he will be
better developed: 18 .b4 tt'le6 19.b5
fxe5 2 0 .bxc6 exf4 2 l . tt'lxf4 tt'lxf4
2 2 ..bf4 tt'lb6 23.E1e1 �e6 24.�d2
�xa1 25 .�xa1 E1ac8 2 6 .tt'lg4 hS
27.tt'le5 offers a strong initiative for
the exchange.) 18.E1c1 �b7 19.�d2
f6 2 0 . exf6 �xf6 = .
1 9 .f5
Perhaps variations like 19 .bxc6
d4 2 0 .�xd4 E1d8 2 l . tt'lb5 �a6
2 2 .tt'ld6 �xf1 2 3 .\t>xfl tt'lxf4 con­
vinced Grischuk that the f-pawn
was likely to fall anyway so he de­
cides at least to weaken Black's cas­
tling position.
1 9 . . . gxf5 20 .�xb6 axb6
 l.d4 li:lf6 2 . c4 g6 3 .f3

21 . bxc6 .!xeS 2V!ljxd5 'Wh4 2 3 . g 3 32 .Eldl �d4 33 .Wb4 Wg4 34.Elel

'Wg5 24 . .!g2 �a6oo would have retained the ten­
sion, but it is practically impossible
White wanted to anticipate .. .f4 to guess over the board what is go­
or . . . li:ld4, I guess. Still, 24.li:ld3 ing on with all these hanging pieces.
(24.li:lxb6 �xal 25 .Wxal Ela3)
24 . . . �xal (24 . . . �d4+ 25. <i>hl ElaS 3 1 . . .fxe6 3 2 . lt:J f4 Wh6 33.'Wb1
26.li:l3f4±) 25.Wxal Wg7 26 .li:le5
ElaSoo looks more natural. After the White could have set an insidious
text, Black could have taken the trap with 33.�c6, when Giri was
exchange : 24 . . . �xal 25.Wxal Wg7, to find the only defence 33 . . . �e3 !
with a solid position. 34.hb5 hf4 = . Look, however, at
the position after 33 . . . �c4? ! 34.Elc7 ! .
24 . . . .!a6 25.Ele1 .!d4 26.Elc1 Suddenly, Black has n o defence
ib5 27.c7 Elxa2 against Wd7, for instance, 34 . . . �e3
35.h4 'Wg4 36.Wxg4 fxg4 37.�e4
The engines say that Black is
holding after 27 . . . Elfc8 2 8 .Wb3
$.xf2 + 2 9 .c;hf2 Wd2 + 30 .\t>gl
1"1xa2 31.Wxa2 Wxa2 3 2 . li:l e7+ <i>f8
33.li:lxc8 Wd2 = , but it is difficult to
be sure about that 6 moves in ad­
vance. Most humans would prefer
to stay active.

2 8 . c8'W .!xf2+ 2 9 . W h 1 Elxc8

30.Elxc8+ \t>g7 Not only is White threatening
with mate, but the c4-bishop is
hanging !

33 . . . Ela5 34. lt:J xe6?? (34.Wcl ! = )

34 . . . 'Wf6 35.'Wc 1 + f4 36.Elc3 .!e3?

The opponents were definitely

in time trouble. 36 . . . Wxe6 was win­
ning: 37.Wxf4+ lt>g6 38 .�e4+ lt>g7
39.Elc7+ �d7- + .

31 .Elxe6 37 .'We 1 .!f2 38.'Wc1 .!e3 39 .'We 1

'Wxe6 40.gxf4 'Wf6 4 1 .'Wxe3 Ela 1 +
It seems that White is getting 42 . El c 1 .!d7 43 . h 3 Elxc 1 + 44.'Wxc1
impatient or his time was drained 'Wd4 45.'Wc7 .!f5 46 .'We7 'Wxf4
to the last minute. 31.Wbl ! ? ElaS 47.'Wf6+ \t> h 5 48 .'Wxb6 1 /2 - 1 /2 .

327
32 8
 Pa rt 13

The Engl ish Anti-Grii nfeld

1 . c4 '2lf6

329
Pa rt 13
Step by Step
This part aims to serve you as a
guide in some of the most popular
Anti-Griinfeld systems. It cannot
present a full move-by-move reper­
toire as we should have dealt then
with a good half of the theory of
closed openings.
In principle, the most challeng­
ing retorts to l.c4 should be l . . .c5
or l . . . e5 ! . That is why White often
prefers the move order with l.Ci:Jf3 .
Then l . . .d5 2 . d4 would throw u s out
of the Griinfeld, so we should an­
swer (apart of l . . . c5 ! ? of course) 1 . . .
Ci:Jf6 2 .c4 g 6 when White has vari­
ous options. I examine the most
important of them in lines B -E.
I reserved line A for the event when
White fianchettoes his king's bishop
before developing the knight to f3 .
A. l.c4 Ci:Jf6 2 . lt'l c3 d5 3.cxd5
tt:\xd5 4.g3 g6 5 . .ig2 tt:lb6
330
6.d3 !
Black can neutralise flank ad­
vances like 6.a4 with 6 . . . a5, and
6.h4 with 6 . . . h6 when 7.f4? ! Ci:J 8d7
8 .h5 gxh5 9 .l"lxh5 l"lg8 10.�f2 Ci:Jf6
would be equal - Pribyl.
6 .ig7 7 .ie3 !
••• •
The inclusion of 7.h4 h6 ! is in
Black's favour:
8 . .id2 (After 8 . .ie3, Black has
the strong manoeuvre 8 . . . Ci:J 8d7!
aiming for . . . Ci:Jf6-g4.) 8 . . . Ci:Jc6 (Do
not hurry to castle 8 . . . 0-0 9.\Wcl
�h7, since White would have
10.f4 � h5 ! ?--+, Benko) 9 .\Wcl Ci:Jd4
10.Ci:Jf3 Ci:Jxf3+ ll..ixf3 c6 12.0-0
.ie6 13.Ci:Je4 Ci:Jd7. White is hamper­
ing Black's castling, but he cannot
keep the \W-.i battery for ever, for
instance, 14 . .ig2 \Wb6. He can play
immediately 14 . .ic3 0-0 15.1xg7
�xg7 16.b4 id5 = .
Alternatively, 7.1d2 ! ? Ci:Jc6 8 .\Wcl
Ci:Jd4 9.Ci:Jf3 e5.
7 . . . tt:\c6!
White's attack on the h-file
should not be underestimated:
7 . . . 0-0?! 8 .\Wd2 e5 9 . .ih6 ! ? (9 .h4 !?
h5 10 .1h6 l"le8 ll.ixg7 �xg7 12 .l"lcl
 The English Anti-Griinfeld
c6 13.ct:lf3 ct:la6 14.0-0 ct:lc7 1SJ'lfd1
f6 16.e3 aS 17.Wi'c2 Wfe7 18.ct:le4t
Miles-Panno, Wijk aan Zee 1978)
9 . . . ct:l 8d7 (9 . . . Wi'e7 10 .ibxg7 lt>xg7
ll.ElcH, Taimanov-Konopka, Ere­
van 1986) 10 .h4 ct:lf6 1l.ibxg7 lt>xg7
12.hS ct:lxhS 13 .ibf3 . Remember that
White can always castle left !
It is safer to delay castling, even
at the cost of split pawns on the
queenside.
Al. 8.Wi'd2 ; A2 . 8.ibxc6+ ; A3 .
8.Wi'c1 ; A4. 8.l"lc1; AS. 8.ct:lf3 .
Al. 8 .Wi'd2 ltJ d 4 9.l"lcl
9 .h4 could be stopped by the
thematic 9 . . . h6. It has the advan­
tage of controlling gS, but lO . . . hS is
also possible - 1l.Elc1 c6 1 2 . 0-0 ibg4
13.lt:JgS 0-0 14.\t>h2 Wi'e7 1S.l"lce1
Elad8 16.Wi'cl lt:Jd7 17.lt:Jge4 ct:lcS
18.lt:JxcS Wi'xcS 19 .i.h6 lt:JbS 2 0 .ibxg7
lt>xg7= , Conquest-Areshchenko, Co­
ventry 200S.
9.ct:lf3 eS 10.l"lc1 deprives White
of the right to castle queenside
so we can already play 10 . . . 0-0.
Then 1l.ibh6 ibxh6 12 .Wi'xh6 lt:Jxf3 + !
13.ibxf3 c6 14.h4 f6 1S.g4 Wi'e7 would
be roughly equal, while 11. 0-0 l"le8
12 .ibh6 ibh8 13.lt:Jxd4 exd4 14.lt:Je4
c6 (Or 14 . . . ct:ldS 1S.ibgS f6 16.ibh6
c6 17.e3 fS 18.ibgS dxe3 19 .fxe3 Wfc7
2 0 . lt:JcS Wi'd6 2 l. lt>h1 ibf6 2 2 .e4 hgS
23.Wi'xgS Wfe7= , Arkhipov-Leko,
Nettetal 199 2 . ) 1S.Elc2 would lead
to a typical English position where
Black puts a knight on dS and ma­
noeuvres in the centre.
9 •.. ttJf5 10.i.c5 0 - 0 ll . .!fJ£3
ll.e3 l"le8 (In his book, Marin
gives the plan with . . . cS - ll . . . lt:Jd7
12 .iba3 lt:J eS 13.l"ld1 l"lb8 14.ct:lf3
ct:lxf3 + 1S.ibxf3 b6 16. 0-0 cS 17.b4
cxb4 18.ibxb4 aS 19.iba3 bS 2 0 .ibb2
b4+!, Grigorian-Gulko, Soviet Un­
ion 1974) 1 2 . ct:lge2 eS 13.0-0 c6
14.b3 aS 1S.l"lfd1 ct:ld7 16.iba3 ct:lb6
17.ibcS lt:Jd7 was equal in Gritsak­
Zezulkin, Zakopane 2 0 0 0 .
l l . . . c6
Another possible plan is con­
nected with . . . cS, for instance:
1 1 . . .lt:Jd7 12 .iba3 cS? ! . Then 13.0-0,
331
 Part 13
as in Dannevig-Bae, Bergen 2 0 0 0 ,
would b e fine for Black i n view of
13 . . . a5 ! 14.b3 !"1b8 14.lt:la4 b6. How­
ever, White could anticipate this
idea with 13 .b4 ! enjoying an initia­
tive due to his better pawn centre.
Black can try to trick the opponent
with the move order, starting with :
1 1 . . . a5 ! ? .
Then 1 2 . 0-0 c5 ! would b e nice,
so White should try other ideas.
12 .e4? loses the exchange to 12 . . .
�h6. 12 .e3 c 6 i s also equal. The only
sensible attempt seems to be:
12 .h4, provoking weaknesses
in Black's castling position. Then
12 . . . h5 13.0-0 c6 (13 . . . �h6 14.�c2 )
leads to the following position:
White is a couple of moves
ahead in development, but he can­
not hit anything in near future.
Thus we'll have time to consolidate,
for instance, 13.lt:le4 lt:lf6 = .
12. 0 - 0 !"1e8 13 .�c2
'The queen was not placed
well on d2 already. It deprived the
knight from an important square
and it may get under an attack with
. . . C2lc4 or . . . �h6.' - Marin.
332
13 • . . tt:ld7 14 . .ia3 tt:ld6
14 . . . lt:le5 15.lt:lxe5 �e5 16.e3
.id6 ! is totally equal. (Marin cites
only the game Vilela-Pribyl, Trnava
1979 which saw 16 . . . �g7.), for in­
stance : 17.�a4 �e6 18.lt:le4 �a3
19.�xa3 �d5 2 0 . !"1fd1 �c7 21.'1Wc3
lt:ld6=. But I do not see any reason
why Black should be playing for
equalisation in this position:
What has White achieved?!
The dubious manoeuvre �e3-c5-
a3 definitely misplaced the bishop.
It is funny, but White should now
think how to fianchetto the unfor­
tunate piece to b2 since on a3 it
would be exposed to attacks, for
instance, 15.b3 �xc3 16.�xc3 C2lb5
17.�b2 �a5 18.�c5 lt:lxc5 19.!"1xc5
�a3 = . Or 15.lt:la4 �a5 (heading for
h5) 16.lt:lc5? lt:lb5 ! . White can also
try 15.lt:ld2 lt:lf6, and again 16.t2la4
would face 16 . . . lt:lb5, while 16.!"1fdl
�e6 would leave White wondering
what to do further.
The bottom line is that White
cannot be any better with not a sin­
gle piece before the third rank.
 The English Anti-Griinfeld

A2 . 8 .hc6 + bxc6 11 . . . 0 - 0 1 2 . ttl de4 'i!?h7 13.£3

ttld5 14.!c5 i.e6 15.!f2 !h3
This exchange has been a sub­ 16.ttld1
ject for discussion for many years.
On the one hand, Black's pawn This position occurred in Mala­
formation on the queenside is ir­ khatko-T.L. Petrosian, Dubai 2010.
reparably damaged, on the other Black could have intercepted the
hand, the weakened light squares initiative with 16 . . .f5 17.ltJc5 Wd6.
in White's camp on the opposite
wing will become a target. A very
important nuance is that Black has A3. 8 .Wc1 ! ? tt:ld4! 9 . ttlf3
not castled yet so 9 .Wd2 will be at­
tacked with 9 . . . h5 ! . Finally, taking
by pawn toward the centre creates a
good outpost for Black's knight on
dS. Griinfeld players are commonly
accustomed to sharp dynamic play
so they should be able to handle
successfully this type of positions.

9.Wc1

Black obtained good counterplay

in Nakamura-Mamedyarov, Mainz
2009, after 9J:kl !g4 ! 1 0 .Wd2 hS
9 . . . ttlxf3 + !
ll.h3 !fS 12 .lLlf3 Wd7 13.h4 !g4
14.12lg5 lLldS 15 .lLla4 ltJxe3 16.Wxe3
9 . . . lLlf5 i s also possible, but Black
0-0 17.We4 Wds .
should be happy to trade one of his
9 . . . h6 lO.IiJf3 !h3 11.ttld2 knights. Note that 9 . . . e5 should
(lU!gl !g4 12 .lLld2 ltJdS) be avoided in these positions. We
should first complete development,
neutralise the enemy's initiative,
and only then could we think about
advancing in the centre. Black's
play in the game Brenke-Naumann,
Lippstadt 1999 is an excellent ex­
ample to follow:

10.i.xf3 c6 ll.!h6 !xh6

1 2 .Wxh6 Wd4 13. 0 - 0 !e6
14J Uc1 tt:ld7 15.!g2 tt:lf6 16.h3
ttlg8 17.Wd2 ttlf6 = .

333
 Part 13
A4. S . :Bcl
White hopes to see Black castling
and then take on c6. We should not
oblige though. We answer 8 . . . '2ld4 !
9 .�d2 'LlfS and play transposes to
line Al. I mention 8.Elc1 separately
only to help the readers of Marin's
book on the English where it is the
main line.
A5. S . tt'l£3 0 - 0 9 . 0 - 0
Minor alternatives are :
a) 9.�c1 eS 10.�h6 Ele8 ! (10 . . . '2ld4
and 10 . . . �e7 are also possible.)
1l.�xg7 Wxg7 1 2 . 0-0 'Lld4
13.Ele1
The e2-pawn needs protection.
That is well seen in the variation
13 .b4 �g4 ! 14.'2lxd4 exd4 1S.�f4
�d7 16.'2lbS �xe2 17.'2lxc7 �xfl
18.Elxf1 Elac8 19.'2lxe8+ Elxe8=.
13 . . . aS ! (aimed against b4)
14.'2lxd4 exd4 1S.'Lle4 c6= .
b) 9 .�d2 e S 10 .�h6 'Lld4!
1l.�xg7 'Llxf3 + 1 2 .�xf3 Wxg7 13.0-0
(13 .h4 h6 14.b4 c6 1S.�b2 �d4
16.0-0 aS 17.a3 axb4 18.axb4 �e6= ,
334
Ribli-Pribyl, Germany 1989) 13 ...
c6 14.b4 �e6. The game is level, for
instance : 1S.bS cxbS ; 1S.Elfc1 'Llc4
16.�c2 'Lld6 17.�b2 f6 18.'2le4 'Llxe4
19.�xe4 Elf7, Robatsch-Polugaevs­
ky, Sochi 1974.
9 . . . e5
9 . . . h6 ! ? , preventing bishop
exchange, is worth considering:
10.�d2 Wh7 11.Elfcl eS 12 .b4 'Lld4
13.Elab1 (13.'2le4? ! 'LldS ! ) 13 . . . �e6
(13 . . . �g4 14.'2le1 Elb8) 14.'2le4 'LldS
1S. '2l cSro.
9 . . . Ele8 is often played to avoid
the modern variation 9 . . . eS 10 .b4.
I do not find it dangerous, but that
is a matter of taste. In most games
play transposes later to our main
line.
ASl . 1 0 .�d2 ; AS2 . 10.Elcl; A53.
10 .a4; AS4. �c1 ; ASS. 1 0 .b4 ! ? .
A51. 10. �d2 EleS ll.�g5
Or 1l.�h6 �h8 12.Elfc1 'Lld4
13.'2lxd4 exd4 14.'2le4 'LldS 1S.h4 c6
 The English Anti-Gri.infeld
16.i.f3 f5 17.lt:lg5 i.g7! and the game
is balanced, Tkachiev-Cheparinov,
Khanty Mansiysk 2 0 07.
ll . . . f6 12 .i.h6 i.e6 13.i.xg7
<;!;>xg7 14.l2Je4 i.d5 15 .l2Jc5 1:%b8
16.e3
Perhaps White should try 16.e4
if7 17.Wk3 'W'd6 18.1:%fc1 �ed8
(18 . . . lt:ld7 19J2jxb7 �xb7 2 0 .'W'xc6
l"1xb2 2 l.i.fl 'W'xc6 2 2 .�xc6 �c8)
19.i.f1 lt:ld4 20.lt:lxd4 exd4 2l.'W'c2
liJd7.
16
•.. l2Jd7 17. l2J a4 l2Jb6 18. l2Jc5
ll:ld7=
White seemed unable to show
any plan in Lenic-Areshchenko,
New Delhi, 15 . 0 1 . 2 0 1 1 .
A52 . 1 0 . �cl l2J d4 ll. l2Je4 h6
12. l2Jc5 c6
Black has not any problems.
White's only plan is linked with b4,
but 13 .b4 could be attacked by 13 . . .
a S s o h e should play first 13.i.d2.
Cvitan-Kolbus, Biel 2 0 0 6 , went
13 . . . �e8 14.b4 lt:ld5 = .
A53 . 10.a4 a5 ll.hb6 cxb6
12.l2Jd2 1:%e8 13 .l2Jc4 i.f8 14.@hl
i.e6 = , D . Kovalev-Areshchenko,
Alushta 2 0 07.
A54. lO.'W'cl 1:%e8 ll.i.h6
i.h8 12 .1:%el l2Je7 13 .l2Je4 i.e6
14. l2Jc5 i.d5 15.e4 i.c6 16.Wfc3
Wfd6 17.1:%acloo, Moldobaev-Teske,
Frunze 1989.
A55 . 10.b4 l2Jd4 ll.a4
This position is nearly unex­
plored. At the European champi­
onship, my student Kadric easily
equalised after:
11.. .c6 12.a5 (12.lt:ld2 i.e6 13.b5
lt:ld5=) 12 . . . lt:lxf3+ 13.M3 lt:ld5
14.lt:lxd5 cxd5 15.�cl i.h3 16.1:%e1
'W'd7 17J'k5 i.e6 18.'W'c2 �fc8=
19.�c1 i.f8 ! 2 0 . �xc8 �xeS 2 l .'W'xc8
'W'xc8 2 2 . �xc8 i.xc8 - draw, Ya­
kovich (2546)-Kadric (2379), ECC,
28.03.2011.
1 1 . . . a5 presents a more aggres­
sive approach : 12 .b5 c6 (It would
be interesting to see what White is
going to oppose to the thematic Si­
cilian plan 12 .. .f5 ! ? aiming for .. .f4.)
335
 Part 13
13.bxc6 bxc6 14.E1b1 �g4 1S.Ci:ld2
li:ldS (1S . . . E1b8=) 16.�xd4 exd4
17.li:lxdS cxdS 18.E1bS V!ffe 7 19.E1e1
�d7 2 0 . E1xdS �c6 2 1.E1bS �xbS
22 .�xa8 E1xa8 23.axbS V!ffb 4= .
B. l. li::l £3 li:lf6 2 . c4 g 6 3.b4
�g7 4.�b2 0 - 0 5.e3 c6 6.d4 d5
This is a sideline of the Schlech­
ter System. White's bishop was com­
mitted to b2 too early. In many lines
it would have stayed better on a3 .
7.li:lbd2
This move, as well as 7.li:lc3, al­
lows 7 . . . aS, but 7.a4 ! ? is not impres­
sive either: 7 . . . �fS 8 . li:lbd2 li:lbd7
9.�e2 li:le4 1 0 . 0-0 li:lxd2 11.li:lxd2
aS (11. . . eS ! ? 12.cxdS cxdS 13.dxeS
li:lxeS 14.�d4 aS) 12 .bS eS 13.cxdS
cxdS 14.dxeS li:lxeS 1S .�d4 E1c8f!.
7 ••• a5! 8.b5
8.a3 ? ! axb4 9.axb4 E1xa1 10.V!ffx a1
dxc4 11.�xc4 bS would leave White
with a target on b4.
336
8 ... cxb5! 9.cxb5 tl:lbd7 10.�d3
10 .�e2 is passive - 10 . . . li:lb6
11.0-0 �fS 1 2 .V!ffb 3 li:le4
10 ••• e5 ! ?
This equalises easily: 11.li:lxe5
li:lxeS 12.dxeS li:lg4 13.li:lf3 Vfje7
14.0-0 li:lxeS 1S.li:lxeS �xeS 16.1!fjd2
b6 17.�e2 �b7 18.�d4 V!fff6 19.he5
V!ff xeS 2 0 .�f3 E1fc8 21.E1ac1 E1ab8!
2 2 .E1fd1 E1c4 = .
C. l.tl:l£3 ttlf6 2 . c4 g 6 3.ttlc3
d5 4.V!ffa 4+
4.cxdS li:lxdS S.V!ff a 4+ was once
popular because White believed
that 4 . . . c6! 6.V!ffd 4 (6.e4? ! li:lb6
7.V!ff c 2 �g4 ! 8 .li:leS �e6 9 .d4 V!ffxd4
1 0 .�f4 �g7+) 6 . . .f6 7.e4 favoured
him. However, 7 . . . eS 8. li:lxeS li:lxc3
9 .V!ffxc3 V!ff e 7 10.li:lf3 V!ffx e4+ 11.�e2
li:ld7! has proven to be balanced:
12 .d4 �e7 13.�e3 li:lb6 = , or 12.0-0
�b4 13.V!ffe 3 (13.V!ffb 3 li:lcS 14.1!fjdl
li:l d3 1S.li:le1 li:lxc1 16.E1xc1 �e6)
13 . . . V!ffx e3 14.dxe3 me7 1S.e4 �d6
16.E1d1 E1d8 17.�e3 li:leS = .
Then White turned his hopes to
6 .li:lxdS V!ffx dS 7.e4 V!ff d 6 8 .d4
 The English Anti-Griinfeld

Here, 8 . . . 'Lld7! (8 . . . �g7 9 .�e3 Alternatively, 10 .e5? ! 'Llg4 ll.h3

ig4 10.'Lle5) 9.�e2 (9 .�e3 'Llb6 [11.\Wd5? ! cxd4 ! 12.'Llxd4 (12 .V!lfxa8
10.V!lfc2 �g7 11.�e2 �g4) 9 . . . 'Llb6 dxc3 13.\We4 V!lfc7+) 12 . . . ixe5 13 .�e2
10.V!lfc2 �g4 11 .�e3 �g7 12 J''l d 1 e6 ! ] 11.. .cxd4 12.hxg4 ie6 !+.
[12 . 0-0 �xf3 13.�xf3 (13.e5 \Wd7
14.ixf3 'Lld5=) 13 . . . �xd4 14J''l a d1 10 . . . �c6 !
e5 15.ixd4 exd4 16.e5 \We6 17.\WcS
0-0- 0 ! 18.!"\xd4 l"lxd4 19.\Wxd4 l"ld8
20.V!lff4 h5+, Miton-Vachier La­
grave, Evry 2 0 10] 12 . . . �xf3 13.�xf3
1i>!lb4+ ! 14.\Wc3 (14.!"\d2 'Llc4 15.a3
11>\lb5 16.!"\d3 e5) 14 . . . \Wxc3 + 15.bxc3
e5 ! levels the game.

4 �d7! 5.\Wb3 dxc4 6.\Wxc4

. • .

(6.V!lfxb7? ! 'Llc6 7.'Llb5 'Ll d5t)

You'll not find this position in

Khalifman's Opening for White
According to Kramnik, volume
3a. It first occurred in the game
Grischuk-Svidler, Moscow 2 0 07.
White sensed the danger and chose :

ll.e5 'Llfd7 12 .�e3 (12 .e6 'Llxc5

13.exf7+ <i>f8 14.\Wb4 ixf3 15.gxf3
'Lld3+ 16.�xd3 \Wxd3+) 12 . . . 'Llxe5
6 ... a6 7.d4 b5 8 .�b3 13.'Llxe5 �xeS 14.f4 �g7 15.!"\d1
(15.';H2 0-0 16.!"\d1 'Lld7 17.�e2 e5,
It may seem that the queen Lalith,-Li, Puerto Madryn 2 0 09)
would stay better in the centre, 15 . . .'V!lfa5 16.<i>f2 e6 17.a3 0-0
but 8.V!lfd3 �g7 9.e4 b4 ! unleashes
the "bad" bishop : 10.'Lle2 (10.'Lld1
tbs 11.\Wc2 �xf1 1 2 .l"lxf1 c5 ! 13.dxc5
li:lc6) 10 . . . �b5 ll.\Wc2 0-0 12.'Llf4
hf1 13.<i>xfl �d7 14.�e3 \Wb5+
15.'tt>g1 'Llbd7.

8 . . .�g7 9.e4 c5 ! 10.dxc5

337
 Part 13
Black's kingside is safer and that
makes his game easier. Play went
on with 18 .�e2 Vfff c 7 19.E\d6 lLld7
2 0 . E\hd1 lLlf6 2 l .Vfff c 2 E\fd8 2 2 . E\xd8+
E\xd8 23.E\xd8 + Vfffx d8 24.�f3 ? !
when 24 . . . lLlg4 + ! 2S.�xg4 Vfffh 4+
26.�f1 Vfffxg4 would have been bet­
ter for him.
The other developing move,
ll.�e2, also returns the pawn :
ll . . . lLlxe4 12.lLlxe4 �xe4 13.0-0
�dS (or 13 . . . Vfff d S 14.VfffxdS �xdS
1S.E\d1, Hungaski-Ganguly, Edmon­
ton 2008, 1S . . . e6=) 14.Vfffe 3 lLlc6
1S.E\d1 0-0 16.E\b1 E\a7 17.b3 E\d7
1 8.�b2 �xb2 19.E\xb2 �xf3 2 0 . E\xd7
Vfffx d7 2 l.�xf3 lLl d4 = , Maksimenko­
Areshchenko, Kallithea 2 0 0 8 .
The computer a t first likes
very much ll.a4 bxa4 1 2 .Vfff c4 0-0
13 .�e2 lLlbd7
14.lLld4 (14.0-0 Vfff c 7 was unclear
in Jankovic-Grandelius, Khanty­
Mansiysk 2010) 14 . . . �xe4 1S.lLlxe4
lLlxe4 16.lLlc6, but it turns out that
Black obtains a terrific initiative
after 16 . . . Vfff c 7 17.lLlxe7 + (17.Vfffx e4
lLlxcS 18.Vfffd S lLlb3 19.E\b 1 E\ad8 !
2 0 .Vfff e 4 E\d6) 17 . . . �h8 18.lLldS Vfffe S
19.c6 lLl d6 2 0 .Vfff a 2 lLlcSt.
338
Conclusion:
This young (born in 2 0 0 7 ! ) line
sets up serious problems to White.
D. l.lLlf3 lLlf6 2 . c4 g6 3 .tik3
d5 4.cxd5 t2Jxd5
There is little we can do if White
decides to dry out play with S.e4
t2Jxc3 6.dxc3 Vfffxd1 + 7. �xd1
It has been established that the
best plan is:
7 .. .f6 ! 8.�c4
Alternatives are :
a) 8.�c2 eS 9.�e3 �e6 = .
b ) 8 .�e3 e S 9.lLld2 lLld7! aiming
to trade dark-squared bishops with
. . . �cS while keeping the other one.
c) 8.eS lLlc6 9.exf6 exf6 lO .ibS
(10.�f4 �cS 1 l.�xc7 �xf2 12 .ic4
�g4) 10 . . . �e6 1l.�e3 0-0-0+ 1 2 . �e2
�dS 13.Eihd1 a6 14.�d3 �g7 1S.I!ifl
fS, Vaganian-Donchev, Haifa 1989.
d) 8.h4 ! ? �g4 9.�e3 eS 10 .ic4
lLld7 1l.�c2 �xf3 1 2 .gxf3 icS
13 .�h6 �e7 14.E\hf1 aS = .
8 . . . e S 9.�e3 lLld7 10.�e2 icS!
1 1 .E\hd1 �xe3 1 2 . �xe3 �e7 13.lLld2
aS 14.f3 lLlb6 1S.�e2 �e6 16.lLlb3
 The English Anti-Griinfeld
lt'lc4+ 17 ..bc4 h:c4 18.lt:Jc5 b6
19.b3 �e6, draw, lvanchuk-Nepom­
niachtchi, Havana 2 0 1 0 .
5.'1!Nb3 ttl b 6 6.d4 �g7
Dl. 7.�g5 ; D 2 . �f4 ; D3. e4.
Dl. 7.�g5 h6 8.i.h4 i.e6
9.'1!Nc2 ttlc6 l O J�dl (10.e3 lt:Jb4 ! )
1 0 . . . ttlb4 ! ll.'I!Nbl 0 - 0 12.e3
12.e4 will be met by 12 . . . �g4
while 12.a3 lt:J4d5 13.lt:Jxd5 by
13 . . . 1!Nxd5 ! 14.�xe7 fi:fe8 15.�b4 �g4
16.lt:Je5 cS, Skembris-A.Mikhal­
chishin, Portoroz 1993.
12 ... i.f5 13.e4 i.g4
14.d5
White cannot preserve a flexible
pawn centre : 14.�e2 �xf3 15.�xf3
lt:Jc6 16.e5 lt:Jxd4 17.�xb7 fi:b8
18 .�a6 �xeS 19.0-0 (19.'1!Ne4 �g7
2 0 .�xe7 'I!Nd7 2 1 . 0-0 fi:fe8) 19 . . . c5
2 0 .�e4 �c7 2l.fi:fe1 �xh2+ 2 2 .'tt>h 1,
Conquest-Smejkal, Germany 1989,
when 2 2 . . . g5 ! would have given
Black the upper hand.
14 f5
.•.
14 . . . �xf3 ! ? 15.gxf3 �d7 16.a3
lt:Ja6 leads to a balanced game. The
text is sharper.
15.a3 g5 16.i.g3
Or 16.axb4 gxh4 17.h3 �hS
18 .�e2 �d6 19.lt:Jxh4 �xe2 2 0 .'tt> x e2
fxe4+; 16.�xg5 hxgS 17.axb4 �d6
18 .�e2 �xb4t.
16 . . . f4 17.axb4 fxg3 18.hxg3
13xf3 19.�e 2 ! ?
Practice has proved that 19.gxf3
�xf3 2 0 .fi:h2 �xd1 2 l .�xd1 �d6 is
roughly equal.
19 .. J �xc3 2 0 .hg4 �b3
Or 2 0 . . . �c4 2l.�e6+ 'tt>h 8 2 2 .e5
�e8 2 3 .�f5 g4= .
21.i.e6+ 'tt> h 8 2 2 .e5 �e8
White should be able to keep the
balance with precise play, Bauer­
Svidler, Germany 2 0 04.
339
 Part 13
D2. 7 . .if4 .ie6 8 .\Wa3
The queen is misplaced on c2
- 8 .\Wc2 ? ! 'Llc6 9.e3 (9.l"1d1 'Llb4
10 .\Wb1 'Ll4d5 ll. 'Llxd5 \Wxd5 12 .e4
�xa2 13.d5 �xb1 14.l"1xb1 .id7
15 ..ixc7 0-0 16 . .id3 f5 17.0-0 fxe4
18 . .ixe4 .ifS+, Berkes-Lupulescu,
Balatonlelle 2 0 0 2 ) 9 . . . 'Llb4 10 .�d1
(10 .�c1 0-0 11..ie2 c5 12.dxcS
'Ll 6dS 13.'LlxdS �xdS 14.0-0 l"1ac8)
10 . . . 0-0 ll . .ie2 eSt.
8 .•. 0 - 0 9.e3
Gelfand-Svidler, Sochi 2008,
saw 9.e4 c6 10 .l"1d1 'Ll8d7 ll.'LlgS
ig4 12.f3 h6 13.fxg4 eS 14.'Llf3 exf4
1S.eS l"1e8 16.ie2 �e7 17.�xe7 l"1xe7
18.0-0 cS= .
9 . . . lt:\ 8d7 (aiming for . . . cS)
lO.:B:dl
Radjabov-Vachier Lagrave, Kal­
lithea 2 0 0 8 , ended in a draw af­
ter 10 .ie2 cS 11.dxcS (11.0-0 'Llc4
12 .�a4 'Lldb6 13 .�c2 ifS 14.�c1
cxd4 1S.'Llxd4 .id7) ll . . . 'Llc4 12.�b4
aS 13.�bS l"1c8 14. 0-0.
10 . . . c6 !
340
ll. lDg5 (11.b3 ? ! cS ! ) ll ... .id5
12.e4
Alternatives are : 12.'Llge4 l"1e8
13 .ie2 e5 14.dxeS 'LlxeS 1S.igS �d7
16.'Llf6+ ixf6 17.ixf6 �fS 18.ixe5
�xeS= ; 12 .h4 eS.
12 . . . .ic4
Black is fine here. I have analysed
13 .ixc4 'Llxc4 14.�b3 (14.�b4? ! b5
1S .b3 aS) 14 . . . bS 1S.'Llf3 eS 16.dxe5
�e7= , and 13.h4 ixf1 14.<thfl Ci:Jc4
1S.�b3 b5 16.'Llf3 eS 17.dxeS �e7
18 .igS �e8+.
D3. 7.e4 0 - 0 8 .ie3
•
The early e4 defined a clear tar­
get in White's position - the d4-
pawn. We should attack it as usual:
8.ie2 ig4 9.ie3 (9.dS c6 10 .ie3
cxdS 11.exdS Ci:J 8d7 1 2 . 0-0 l"1c8
13.l"1fd1 Ci:JeS 14.Ci:JxeS ixe2 1S.Ci:Jxe2
.ixeS=) 9 . . . ixf3 10 . .ixf3 ixd4.
8 . . . .ig4 9 . :B:dl
a) 9 . 0-0-0 is risked. Black can
loosen the enemy's castling posi­
tion with 9 . . . aS 10 .h3 a4 11.�c2
[11.�a3 ixf3 12.gxf3 �d6 13.Ci:Jb5
�xa3 14.Ci:Jxa3 'Ll 8d7 (14 . . .fS!?)
15.f4 fS 16.eS c6 17.ig2 e6, Addi­
son-Uhlmann, Palma de Mallorca
1970] 1 1 . . . ixf3 1 2 .gxf3 a3 13 .b3 e6
14.Wb1 'Llc6 1S.Ci:JbS 'Llc8 16.h4 Ci:Jd6
17.eS Ci:JxbS 18 . .ixbS 'Llb4 19.�c5
Ci:J dS 2 0 .id2 c6 2 1.id3 hS.
b) 9.a4 aS 10 .dS is best met by
 The English Anti-Griinfeld
10 . . . e6! ll.Eldl exd5 12 .tLlxd5 tt:J8d7
13.�e2 �e6.
9 tt:Jc6 ! 10.d5 tLle5 ll.�e2
• • •
lLl:x£3+ 12.gxf3 �h5 13.Elgl
White tries to isolate the h5-
bishop from play. 13.f4 �xe2
14.tt:Jxe2 should be answered with
14 . . . �d7 15.h4 c6.
13 . • . �c8 14.Elg3 c6 15.a4 ! (15.
dxc6 bxc6) 15 lLld7 16.a5 tLle5!
. . •
We have reached a sharp posi­
tion with mutual chances. I have
analysed :
17.Elcl c5 ! 18. <i>fl (18 .f4 �xe2
19.tt:Jxe2 c4) 18 . . . c4 19 .�b4 f5= ;
17.f4 �xe2 18.tt:Jxe2 tt:Jg4 19 .�c5
Ele8 2 0 .e5 tt:Jh6;
17.<i>f1 c5 18 .tLlb5 (18 .�b5 c4
19 .�b4 f5 2 0 .d6 exd6 21.tLld5 Elf7)
18 . . . b6 ! = .
E . l.d4 lLlf6 2 . lLlf3 g6 3. lLlc3
d5 4.i.f4 i.g7
5.e3
The plan with long castling is
not dangerous. We should counter­
attack in the centre :
5.�d2 0 - 0 ! 6.0-0-0
Or 6 .�h6 �d6 ! 7.0-0-0 [7.�xg7
ci>xg7 8 .e3 (8.tLle5 c5 9.e3 tt:Jc6 10 .f4
�f5) 8 . . . c6 9 .�e2 tt:Jbd7 10. 0-0 Ele8
11.Elfd1 b6 12 .�d3 �b7=] 7 . . . tt:Je4
8 .tt:Jxe4 dxe4 9.�xg7 ci>xg7 10.tLlg5
(10.tLle5 �d5 ll.e3) 10 . . . �d5 11.�f4
tt:Jc6 12 .b3 (12.ci>b1 tt:Jb4) 12 . . . �a5
13.<i>b2 f5 14.e3 h6 15.tLlh3 e5
16.dxe5 �xeS+ 17.�xe5+ tt:Jxe5= .
6 . . . tt:J e 4 7.tt:Jxe4 dxe4 8.tt:Je5
341
 Part 13
(8.'Llg5 \Wd5 9 . �b1 h6) 8 . . . \Wd5
9.�b1 (9.c4 \We6+) 9 .. .f6.
5 • . • 0 - 0 6 .ie2 c5
.
This break could be prepared
with 6 . . . b6 ! ? 7.'Lle5 (7. 0-0 ib7
8.'Lle5 c5) 7 . . . c5 8.0-0 ib7 9.a4 a6
10 .a5 cxd4 ll.exd4 b5 12 .Ele1 e6
13.'Lld3 'Llfd7 14 ..id6 Ele8 15.'Lle5
'Llxe5 16 . .ixe5 .if8 17 . .if1 'Llc6+ Bis­
guier-Nakamura, New York 2 0 04.
7. 0 - 0
White often takes on c5 :
7.dxc5 'Llbd7!
a) 8 .'Llxd5 'Llxd5 9.\Wxd5 hb2
1 0 . Elb1 \Wa5+ 11.�f1 ig7= , Zhang
342
Pengxiang-Zhou Jianchao, Jin-
Zhou 2009.
b) 8 .'Llb5 a6! (8 . . . 4Jxc5 9.'Llc7
Elb8 10 .'Llb5 = ) 9.ic7 (9.'Llc7 Ela7)
9 . . . \WeB 10.'Llbd4 'Llxc5 11.0-0
'Llfe4= .
c ) 8 . 0-0 'Llxc5 9.'Llb5 (9.h3 b6
10.'Llb5 .ib7 ll . .ie5 'Llcd7 12 .ih2
a6 13.'Llbd4 Elc8+, Izeta-Khalif­
man, Dos Hermanas 1993.) 9 . . . a6
10 .ic7 \WeB 11.'Llc3 \Wc6 12 .ie5 e6
13.'Lld4 \Wb6 14.'Llb3 'Llcd7 15.ig3
\Wd8 16.id6 Ele8 17.a4 b6 18.a5 b5
19.if3 ib7 2 0 .\Wd2 'Llb6 ! 2 1.ib4
'Llc4 2 2 .\Wc1 'Lld7+, Murshed-So,
Guangzhou 2 0 1 0 .
Other alternatives t o 7 . 0 - 0 are:
7.h3 'Llc6 8 . 0-0 'Lle4;
7.'Lle5 'Llc6 8.'Llxc6 (8.0-0 cxd4
9.'Llxc6 bxc6 10.exd4 'Lld7 11.'Lla4 e5
12 .dxe5 'Llxe5=) 8 . . . bxc6 9.ie5 'Lld7
10 .ixg7 �xg7 11.0-0 (ll.dxc5 \WaS)
1 1 . . .e5 12.dxe5 'Llxe5= .
7 cxd4 8.exd4 tt:l c 6 9 . tt:le5
• . .
Wb6 10. tt:lxc6 \Wxc6 = .
Index of Variations

Part 1. The Fianchetto System

l.d4 t2'lf6 2 . c4 g6 3.g3 .ig7
3 . . . c6 4 . .ig2 d5 5.4Jf3 .ig7 6.b3 26 (6.cxd5 27)
4 . .ig2 d5 5.4Jf3 28
5 . . . dxc4 6.4Ja3 c3 7.bxc3 c5 8 . 0-0 0-0 9.4Je5 29
9.4Jc4 3 0
9.1!�%3 31
9.e3 4Jc6 10 .We2
(10 . .ib2 32) 10 . . . 4Jd5 ll..ib2 4Jb6 12 J'lfdl 33
12.�abl 33
12.�acl 34
12.�adl 35
5.cxd5 4Jxd5 6.e4 (6.4Jc3 36) 6 . . . 4Jb6 7.4Je2 (7.4Jf3 36) 7 . . . c5
8.d5 0-0 9.0-0 e6 10.4Jec3 4Ja6 ll.a4 (ll.'Lld2 37; ll.'Lla3 37) 11 . . . 4Jb4 38
10.4Jbc3 4Ja6! (10 . . . exd5 39) 11.4Jf4 e5 42
ll .h3 4 0
ll..if4 41
ll .b3 41
6.'Llf3 4Jb6 7.4Jc3 (7. 0-0 'Llc6 8 .4Jc3 44) 7 . . . 4Jc6
8.e3 0-0 9.0-0 �e8 (9 ... e5 46; 9 ... a5 47)
10 .d5 47
lO.�el a5 (10 . . . e6 ! ? 56)
ll.Wc2 51
ll.'Llg5 50
ll.b3 50
ll.Wd2 50
ll.a4 51
ll.d5 51
ll.h3 51
ll.'Lld2 51
ll.We2 52

343
 Index of Variations

Part 2. The .if4 System

l.d4 ttlf6 2.c4 g6 3 . tt'lc3 d5 4 .if4 .ig7•

S Jk l 70
S.tt'lf3 0-0 (S . . . cS? 72) 6.e3 72
6Jkl cS 78
6 . . . dxc4 78
S.e3
S . . . cS 6.cxdS 79
6J'kl 81
S . . . cS 6 . dxcS \WaS
7.\Wb3 83
7.\Wa4+ 83
7.tt'lf3 86
7Jkl dxc4 8 . .ixc4 (8 .\Wa4+ 87) 8 . . . 0-0 9.tt'lge2
iWxcS 10.iWb3 \WaS 88
1 0 . . . lt:lc6 9 0

Part 3 . Systems with .ig5

l.d4 ttlf6 2 . c4 g6 3 .tt'lc3 d5
4 . .igS LLle4 S . .ih4 (S.cxdS 114; S . .if4 115; S .lt:le4 115; S.h4 ! ? 3 0 9)
S . . . lt:lxc3 6.bxc3 dxc4 7.e3 (7.e4 116) 7 . . . .ie6
8 . .ie2 117
8.\Wbl 117
8.l"lbl 118
8.lt:lf3 lt:ld7
9 . .ie2 (9.dS 119; 9.a4 119) 9 . . . lt:lb6 1 0 . 0-0 .ig7 1l.a4 12 0
ll.e4 121
4 . . . .ig7 S . .ixf6 (S.lt:lf3 125; S.e3 cS 122) S . . . .ixf6 6.cxdS c6
7.dxc6 123
7.e3 123
7.e4 123
7.l"lcl 124
4.lt:lf3 .ig7 S . .igS LLle4 6 . .if4 125
6.cxdS LLlxgS 7.lt:lxgS 0-0 126 (7 . . . c6 126)
6 . .ih4 lt:lxc3 7.bxc3 dxc4 8 .\Wa4+ 13 0

344
 Index of Variations

Part 4. The e3 System

l.d4 lbf6 2 . c4 g6 3.lbc3 d5 4.e3 .ig7
5.cxd5 l2lxd5 6.l2lxd5 145 (6 . .ic4 145)
5.'1Mfb3 dxc4 6 . .ixc4 0-0 7.l2lf3 c5 8.d5 148 (8.dxc5 148)
5.l2lf3 .ig7 6 . .id2 153 (6.cxd5 149; 6.'1Mfb3 149)
6.b4 149
6 . .ie2 c5 7.dxc5 151
7.0-0 152

Part 5. The '1Mfb3 System

l.d4 lbf6 2 . c4 g6 3.lbc3 d5 4.lbf3 (4.'1Mfa4+ 164) 4 • • • .ig7 5.'1Mfb3 dxc4
6.'1Mfxc4 0-0 7.e4 l2lc6 8 . .ie2 (8.d5, 8 . .ie3, 8.e5, 8 . .if4, 8 . .ig5 166) 8 . . . .ig4
(8 . . . e5 166) 9.d5 (9 . .ie3 167) 9 . . . l2la5 10 .'1Mfb4 (10 .'1Mfa4 168) .ixf3 1l..ixf3 c6
12 . .ie3 171
12.0-0 '1Mfb6 13.'1Mfa4 (13.'1Mfxe7 170 ; 13.'1Mfxb6 171) 13 . . . l2ld7 14.'1Mfc2 171
14 . .ie3 171
14.dxc6 171
14 . .ie2 172
14.Eld1 173

Part 6. Rare Systems I

l.d4 lbf6 2 . c4 g6 3 . lbc3 d5 4.cxd5 lbxd5
5 . .ig5 182
5 . .id2 ( 4.l2lf3 .ig7 5.cxd5 l2lxd5 6 . .id2 183) 5 . . . l2lb6 (5 . . . .ig7 183)
6.l2lf3 185
6 . .ig5 186
6 . .if4 187
5.l2la4 190
5.'1Mfb3 l2lxc3 6.bxc3 .ig7 7 . .ia3 191
7.l2lf3 193

Part 7. Rare Systems II

l.d4 lbf6 2 . c4 g6 3.lbc3 d5 4.cxd5 lbxd5 5.e4 lbxc3 6.bxc3 .ig7
7 . .ib5+ 201
7.'1Mfa4+ 203
7 . .ia3 205
7 ..ig5 3 0 9

345
 Index of Variations

Part 8. The 7.�e3 System

l.d4 lt:lf6 2 . c4 g6 3 . lt:lc3 d5 4.cxd5 lt:lxd5 5.e4 lt:lxc3 6.bxc3 �g7 7.�e3
c5 (8.l/Jf3 236; 8.�c4 213)
8.'\Wd2 cxd4 9.cxd4 l/Jc6 10J'l:d1 0-0 11.l/Jf3 213 (11.d5 213; 11.�e2 214)
8.:1'\c1 '\Wa5 9.'\Wd2 0-0 10.l/Jf3 213 (10.�c4 215; 10.d5 215)

Part 9. The Exchange System with 7.lt:lf3

l.d4 lt:lf6 2.c4 g6 3.lt:lc3 d5 4.cxd5 lt:lxd5 5.e4 lt:lxc3 6.bxc3 �g7 7.lt:l£J c5
8.�b5+ 234
8.�e2 235
8.h3 236
8.�e3 236
8.El:b1 0-0 9.�e2 l/Jc6 10.d5 (10.�e3 cxd4 238) 10 ... l/Je5 11.l/Jxe5 �e5 12.'\Wd2
(12.El:b3, 12 .�d2, 12.c4 238) 12 ... e6 13.f4 �c7 (13 ...�g7) 14.0-0 (14.�c4 240)
14 ... exd5 15.exd5 �a5
16.g4 240
16.El:b5 241
16.El:b3 241
16.h3 242
16.f5 242
16.d6 243
9 ...b6 !? 245

Part 10. The Exchange System with 7.�c4

l.d4 lt:lf6 2.c4 g6 3.lt:lc3 d5 4.cxd5 lt:lxd5 5.e4 lt:lxc3 6.bxc3 �g7 7.�c4
0 - 0 8.lt:le2 c5 9.�e3 lt:lc6 1 0 . 0 - 0 (lO.El:cl 267) 10 . . .'11�'c7 (10 ... e6 269) ll.El:cl
(ll.�f4 270 ; 1l.d5 271 ; 11.'\Wc1 271; 1l.El:b1 272; 1l.h3 273) ll • • • El:d8 (11 ...
e6 274) 12.f4 274 (12 .d5, 12 .h3 274 ; 12 .'\We1, 12 .'\Wa4 275)
12.'\Wd2 a6 (12 . . . '\Wa5 276)
12.�f4 '\Wd7 13.dxc5 281
13.d5 282

Part 11. SOS Systems

l.d4 lt:lf6 2 . c4 g6 3 . lt:lc3 d5
4.g4? ! 3 0 6
4.h4? ! 3 0 7

346
 Index of Variations

4.�g5 ct:le4 5.vtfcl 3 0 8

5.h4 ! ? 3 0 9
4.cxd5 ct:lxd5 5.e4 ct:lxc3 6.bxc3 �g7 7.�g5 3 0 9
l.tt:lf3 ct:l 6 2.c4 g6 3 .ct:lc3 d 5 4.cxd5 tt:lxd5 5.h4 ! ? 31 0

Part 12. Anti-Griinfeld with 3.£3

l.d4 tt:lf6 2 . c4 g6 3 .£3
3 ... ct:lc6 4.d5 ct:le5 5.e4 d6 6.lt:le2 318
6.f4 318
6.ct:lc3 319
4.ct:lc3 32 0
4.e4 322

Part 13. The English Anti-Griinfeld

l.c4 tt:lf6 2 .ct:lc3 d5 3.cxd5 tt:lxd5 4.g3 g6 5.�g2 ct:lb6 6.�g2 �g7 7.�e3 ct:lc6
8 .vtfd2 331
8.�xc6+ 333
S.vtfcl 333
S.l"kl 334
8.tt:lf3 0-0 9.0-0 (9.vtfcl, 9.vtfd2 334) 9 ... e5 (9 .. J''l e 8 334) 10 .vtfd2 334
10 .E1cl 334
10 .a4 335
lO .vtfcl 335
10 .b4 335
l.tt:lf3 tt:lf6 2 .c4 g6 3 .b4 336
l.tt:lf3 tt:lf6 2 . c4 g6 3.ct:lc3 d5 4.vtfa4+ 336 (4.cxd5 ct:lxd5 5.vtfa4+ 336)
4.cxd5 ct:lxd5 5.vtfb3 (5.e4 336) ct:lb6 6.d4 337
l.d4 tt:lf6 2.tt:lf3 g6 3.ct:lc3 d5 4.�f4 339

347
Other CH ESS STARS Books

Repertoire books :

Opening for White Ace. to Kramnik l.Nf3 by A. Khalifman

Volume 1a: Old Indian, rare lines in the Classical Variation, 2006
Volume 1b : The Classical Variation, 2 0 0 6
Volume 2 : Anti-Nim-Ind, Anti-Queen's Indian, English, 2008
Volume 3a: Maroczy, English (l. . .c5), English (four knights) , 2011
Volume 3b: Modern, Dutch, Rare
Volume 4: Queen's Gambit Accepted, Slav, Semi-Slav
Volume 5 : Catalan Opening
Opening for White According to Anand l.e4 by A. Khalifman
Volume 8 : The Sicilian, Paulsen-Kan and rare lines, 2 0 0 6
Volume 9 : The Sicilian, Paulsen-Taimanov and other lines, 2007
Volume 1 0 : The Sicilian, Sveshnikov, 2007
Volume 11; The Sicilian, Dragon, 2 0 0 9
Volume 1 2 : The Sicilian, Rauzer Attack, 2 0 0 9
Volume 13: The Sicilian, English Attack, 2010
Opening for Black According to Karpov by Khalifman

Current theory and practice series :

The Sharpest Sicilian by Kiril Georgiev and At. Kolev, 2 0 07

The Safest Sicilian by Delchev and Semkov, 2nd rev.ed. 2 0 0 8
The Queen's Gambit Accepted by Sakaev and Semkov, 3rd. rev. ed. , 2008
The Easiest Sicilian by Kolev and Nedev, 2008
The Petrosian System Against the QID by Beliavsky and Mikhalchishin,
2008
Kill K. I.D. 1 b y Semko Semkov, 2 0 0 9
The King's Indian. A Complete Black Repertoire b y Victor Bologan, 2009
The Scotch Game for White by Vladimir Barsky, 2009
The Modern Philidor Defence by Vladimir Barsky, 2 0 1 0
The Moscow & Anti-Moscow Variations b y Alexey Dreev, 2 0 1 0
Squeezing the Gambits by Kiril Georgiev, 2 0 1 0
The French Defence. A Complete Black Repertoire b y Nikita Vitiugov, 2 0 1 0
A Universal Weapon l.d4 d6 b y Vladimir Barsky, 2010
The Meran&Anti-Meran Variations by Alexey Dreev, 2011

More details at www.chess-stars.com