John Emms - Play The Najdorf - Scheveningen Style - A Complete Repertoire For Black in This Most Dynamic of Openings-Everyman Chess (2003) PDF

ey, the najdort. Se A 4 Style - aplay the — Nnajdort: scheveningen style by John Emms EVERYMAN CHESS ester Publishers ple wwrm.everymanchess.com GloueeFirst published in 2003 by Gloucester Publishers ple (formerly Everyman Publishers plo), Gloucester Mansions, 140A Shaftesbury Avenue, London WC2H 8HD Copyright © 2003 John Emms The sight of John Emms to be identified as the author of this work has been as- serted in accordance with the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Alll rights reserved. No patt of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system of transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without ptior permission of the publisher. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this books available from the British Library. ISBN 1 85744 323 3 Distributed in North America by The Globe Pequot Press, P.O Box 480, 246 Goose Lane, Guilford, CT 06437-0480. Allother sales enquiries should be directed to Everyman Chess, Gloucester Publishers plc, Gloucester Mansions, 140A Shaftesbury Avenue, London WC2H 8HD tel: 020 7539 7600 fax: 020 7379 4060 email: info@everymanchess.com website: www.everymanchess.com Everyman is the tegistered trade mark of Random House Inc. and is used in this work under license from Random House Inc. EVERYMAN CHESS SERIES (formerly Cadogan Chess) Chief advisor: Gatry Kasparov Commissioning editor: Byron Jacobs ‘Typeset and edited by Fitst Rank Publishing, Brighton, Cover design by Horatio Monteverde. Production by Navigator Guides. Printed and bound in Great Britain by Biddles Ltd.Everyman Chess Popular opening books: 1 85744 2180 1 85744 2539 1 85744 256 4 185744 2326 1 85744 281 4 185744 292 X 1 85744 290 3 1 85744 242 3 1 85744 2628 185744 2911 185744 2520 185744 257 1 185744 276 8 Unusual QG Declined Alekhine’s Defence Queen’s Gambit Declined French Classical Modern Defence Symmetrical English 3 Sicilian Offbeat Spanish Classical Nimzo-Indian Sicilian Grand Prix Attack Dutch Stonewall Sicilian Kalashnikov French Winawer Books for players serious about improving their game: 1 85744 226 1 185744 2318 1 85744 236 9 1 85744 241 5 1 85744 246 6 1 85744 2237 1 85744 228 8 1.85744 233 4 1 85744 238 5 Starting Out in Chess Tips for Young Players Improve Your Opening Play Improve Your Middlegame Play Improve Your Endgame Play Mastering the Opening Mastering the Middlegame Mastering the Endgame Simple Chess Books for the more advanced player: 1.85744 233 4 1 85744 233 4 1 85744 2199 185744 224 5 1 85744 273 3 Attacking with 1 64 Attacking with 1 d4 Meeting 1 e4 Meeting 1 d4 Excelling at Chess Chris Ward Nigel Davies Matthew Sadler Byron Jacobs Speelman & McDonald David Cummings Joe Gallagher Glenn Flear Bogdan Lalic James Plaskett Jacob Aagaard Pinski & Aagaard Neil McDonald Byron Jacobs Matthew Sadler Chris Ward Andrew Kinsman Glenn Flear Byron Jacobs Angus Dunnington Glenn Flear John Emms John Emms ‘Angus Dunnington ‘Alexander Raetsky Aagaard and Lund Jacob Aagaaedplay the Nnajdort. scheveningen style by John Emms EVERYMAN CHESS yucester Publishers ple www.everymnanchess.com GloCONTENTS Bibliography Preface Introduction 1 e4 c5 2 Df3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Axd4 AE 5 Ac3 a6 we NAH eR wD 6 &c4: Introduction and Sidelines 6 &c4 067 &b3 b5 80-0. Be7 9 WE 6 &e3 eG: Introduction and Sidelines 6 &e3 e6 7 3: ‘The English Attack 6 &e2 e6; Introduction 6 Be2 e6; Main Lines 6 gs of 6g3 Other Sixth Move Options for White Index of Variations 34 55 63 88 101 140 167 180 185 189BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Brnoyelopacdia of Chess Openings Volume B, 3rd Edition Sahovski Informator 1997) Exngelopacdia of Chess Openings Volume B, 4th Edition (Sahovski Informatot 2002) ‘Nunn's Chess Openings, Nuon, Burgess, Emms and Gallagher (Bvezyman/Gambit 1999) ‘Najaf for the Tournament Player, John Nunn Batsford 1988) The Compl Nj Mode Line, John Nunn and Joe Gallagher Batsford 1998) Easy Guide to the Nojdorf,'Tony Kosten (Everyman 1999) Winning with the Najdorf, Daniel King, (Batsford 1993) Easy Guide to the Sicilian Scheveningen, Steffen Pedersen (Everyman 1998) ‘The Sicilian Scheveningen, Gasty Kaspatov and Aleksander Nikitin (Batsford 1991) Sikgjlianisch im Geiste des Igels, Frank Zeller (Schachverlag, Kania 2000) Beating the Sicikan 3, John Nuon and Joe Gallagher (Batsford 1995) The Sicilian Sozin, Milchail Golubev (Gambit 2001) ECO Monograph B86-87, Alexandet Beliavsky and Adrian Mikhalchishin (Sshovski Informator) Winning with the Fischer Soxin Attack, Gary Lane (Batsford 1994) ECO Monograph B80, Robert Hibner (Sahovski Tnformator 1994) ‘The Complete Najdorf 6 &25, John Nunn (Batsford 1996) ‘Taming the Sicilian, Nigel Davies (Everyman 2002) The Seven Deadly Chess Sins, Jonathan Rowson (Gambit 2000) Periodicals Chess Informants 1-86 New In Chess Yearbooks 18-66 The Week in Chess 1447 Chisspublisbing com ChessBase Magasine Databases ‘Mega Database 2003 Mega Corr 2 6PREFACE ‘The main objective of this book is to arm the reader with a teliable and yet ambitious defence to the Open Sicilian. The book is aimed at players wishing to take up the Najdorf as their main weapon against 1 e4 and those who already play it but would like to increase their repertoire within the opening. I don’t pretend to be the world’s leading expert on the Najdorf and Scheveningen. I have plenty of experience in some lines and a sprinkling of knowledge in others, However, I jumped at the chance to write this book because 1 knew it would be a great learning experience to study one of the most important openings in the history of chess — a challenging, sometimes arduous, but overall rewarding task. And at the end of the day I hoped that it would also provide me with another defence against 1 e4! There are many good reasons to play the Najdorf, but the one that stands out to me is the fact that ies generally regarded as 100 percent sound. Generations of the world’s leading players have relied on the Najdorf as their main defence, and they cannot all be wong, And yet the opening is also incredibly enterprising — Black can play for a win from the word go without having to first go through the boring process of equalising. Because of the asymmetric nature of the pawn structure, Black acquires certain advantages from the very start (more central pawns, for one thing). Who plays the Najdorf? Well, it would be quite easy to jot down a long list of world-class devotees, but perhaps just evo are sufficient: Bobby Fischer and Garry Kasparov. The two most famous figures in chess history have relied upon the Najdosf throughout their carcers and both have made massive contsibutions to the theory (from White’s side as well as Black’s) I should point out at this stage that the repertoire I’m recommending is actually a blend of the Najdorf and another great Sicilian defence ~ the Scheveningen. ‘The simplistic way to explain the difference between the two is that in the Najdorf, depending on circumstances, Black quickly plays either ...e7-€6 or ..e7-e5; in the Scheveningen he always sticks with ..e7-e6. The reasons for concentrating on the Scheveningen pawn structure were twofold. Firstly, I certainly have more experience and understanding of these positions with both colours (with Black I have played both the Sicilian Kan and Taimanov, in which Black often adopts the Schevenin- gen structure). More importantly, though, as far as ’mn aware there is very litde published material featuring a repertoire with a mixture of the two. ‘The Najdorf very much appeals to ambitious players, but also those who are prepared toPlay the Najdorf put in a bit of good old-fashioned hard graft. It’s true that there is a substantial amount of theory that simply has to be learnt. T've endeavoured to condense the mountain into a workable repertoire but, as you can see, this is hardly a leaflet that you have in front of you. That said, one advantage of choosing to always adopt an ..t7-e6 approach is that you can soon become familiar with the stractute and the systems of development. Tve often given more than one option in Black’s repertoire. Sometimes this is to cater for diffetent styles and occasionally it’s because I've felt that the state of the theory in certain lines is unstable. ve tried to collect and check games and analysis from a wide range of sources, the most important of which are Chet Informant, ChessBare Magagine, New in Chess, plus the chess databases Mega Database 2003 and Mega Cos 2 (a database of over 350,000 correspondence games). I've tried to attribute analysis and assessments accordingly, except when these are totally obvious. Once again I've been ably assisted in checking and providing new analysis, and making assessments by a ‘team’ of computer engines — sadly one cannot live without them in the often-crazy complications of the Najdorf. I've tried to make as few analytical etrors as pos sible, but in such shatp lines I guess it would be impossible to be perfect. I'd welcome any feedback on mistakes you discover — you can email me at Everyman. Aside from a vet brief explanation in the Introduction, T have dealt with positional and tactical ideas as they atise in the repertoire, rather than separately. In conclusion, some acknowledgements. I would like to thank Byron Jacobs and Dan Addelman at Everyman for their patience in what has been a long; long project. 1 would also like to thank Joe Gallagher for providing useful extea material. Finally, special thanks go to Richard Palliser for his input, analysis and assessments of certain lines. John Emms Kent June 2003INTRODUCTION Let’s begin by going back to basics and looking at the opening moves of the Najdorf Sicilian 1e4 cB ‘The Sicilian Defence. Black prevents White from establishing an e4-d4 pawa centre by controlling the d4-square. At the same time, Black avoids the symmetry that arises after 1.5, 2 OF White’s most popular and direct way to proceed ~ he plans to open the position with the advance d2-d4 and to recapture with the knight. 2...d6 Protecting the e5-square in preparation for MEG (the immediate ... Dt by 3 €51), 3 d4 cxdd 4 Axda D6 ‘An important move. By inducing White to protect the e4-pawn in the most natural way (by Bc3), Black prevents White from gaining space and a clamp on the centre with c2-c4 (known as the Mardczy Bind). 5 D3 a6! With this move Black enters the Najdorf Variation. Black prevents White from playing, DS or £.b5, while he also prepares eventual queenside expansion with ..b7-b5. The move 5..a6 also has a certain ‘waiting’ quality to it— \f6 can be answered Black doesn’t commit in the centre until he sees what White’s plans are. In the Najdorf proper Black will, depending on White’s reaction, play either ..e7-€6 or ..e7-e5, In our repertoire, however, we shall always be adopting the ...e7-e6 approach. The Scheveningen Structure ‘The repertoire I'm advocating involves Black answering virtually all White’s sixth moves with 6..e6, setting up the Scheveningen structure, as Fg ‘The first thing to notice is that Black has an extra central pawn. The pawns on e6 and d6 form what is known for obvious reasons as the ‘small centre’. ‘They control the crucial squares 5, d5, e5 and f5 and give Black’sPlay the Najdort position a certain resilience against white aggression, White will try to exploit his early ead in development in order to attack Black’s structure with pieces, pawns or a mixture of both. White’s usual target is the kingside of, mote specifically, the black king! Speaking purely of pawns, White often pushes with {2-f4, after which Black has to constantly be on guard over +65 and e4-e5 advances. Sometimes White also throws in g2-g485, gaining crucial space on the kingside and forcing Black's f6-knight to teteeat, OF course this is a double-edged sword; White may win brilliantly but he is just as likely to overstretch and leave himself open tora classic suckerpunch. Let’s talk about Black’s counterplay, The Classic pawn break is ..d6-d5 which, if timed correctly, can liberate Black's position. If White captures on d5. and Black is able to secapture with a piece, then the only centsal pawn left on the board is Black’s e-pawn, which in many cases leaves Black with cersteal control. However, in some lines it’s difficult to arrange an effective ..d6-d5, More often than not, Black instead relies upon queenside counterplay (note the half-open c-file) and an attack on White’s slightly vulnerable pawns on 2 and e4. The e4-pawn can be assaulted in vatious ways. Already the knight on £6 is eyeing this pawn, while this can be joined after ..b7-b5 (or ..b7-b6) by a bishop on b7. ‘The queen’s knight may go via d7 to 5 and the b-pawn may disturb the c3-knight with wbS-b4. In certain cases Black may even contemplate sacrificing the exchange with .Hc8xc3. The capture on e4 and the disrup- tion of White’s queenside pawns more often than not provide excellent compensation for the small material deficit. White’s e4-pawn suffers from the fact that ithas no neighbour on the d-file to protect it. Te does have the pawn, but often this has ambitiously lunged to f4, leaving the e4-pawn to fend for itself. Irs teue that White can play £243 instead, but this leaves White rather passive if he castles kingside and encourages Black to play for ..d6-d5. However, White can play {2-63 in conjunction with queenside castling ~ this is known as the English Attack (see Chapter 4). Advantages and Disadvantages of the Najdorf Move Order So why use the Najdorf move order when you are simply going to transpose to a Scheveningen with an eatly ...e7-e6? Why not play 5..€6, heading straight into a Schevenin- gen? Well, the main reason is to avoid the fearsome Keres Attack (5...06 6 g4), a violent line which has scored heavily for White in practice and has put many players off going sttaight into a ‘Schevy’. By playing 5..26, Black keeps control of g4 for a crucial extra move. Another advantage of playing the Najdorf move ordet is a practical one. Say a white player likes to use the English Attack against the Scheveningen structure (see Chaptet 4). After 5..e6 White can happily play 6 £3 in the knowledge that he’s getting what he wants. However, if Black employs the Naj- doxf move order, then White has to take into consideration the fact that Black may not want to continue with ..c7-e6 at all. After 6 Be3 White has to be prepated for the ‘Naj- dor? moves 6..05 and 6..@g4. By playing the almost universal ..47-a6 as early as move five, Black simply gives White less information to go on. One disadvantage of playing the Najdorf move order is that Black has committed himself to playing an early ..a7-26. Luckily, it's easy to construct a repertoire where ..a7-a6 is always useful. A more setious problem is that it allows the continuation 5..26 6 Bg5. It’s tee that this is a dangerous system for Black ,to meet, but it’s also true that it has a poorer theoretical reputation (from White’s point of view) than 5...e6 6 g4l. So J think we can live with this... 10Introduction How this Book is Organised Chapters 1 and 2 deal with 6 &c4, which is Fisches’s favourite move. I make no excuses for indulging a little bit more than I needed to here because 6 S2c4 has always been my favourite way of attacking the Najdorf. These two chapters also take up considerable space because Black plays very much a ‘reactive’ role. White tends to choose the lines and Black reacts in the appropriate manner — it’s difficult to cut comers. ‘There are quite a few old-fashioned lines, which, without causing Black problems theoretically, still require to be learnt by the Najdorf player. In Chapters 3 and 4 we study ‘ the move of the moment’. 6 £e3 is a very fashionable response to the Najdorf and I see no obvious reason why it may decline in popularity. Note that by choosing 6..e6, Black immediately eliminates around two-thirds of the theory on the 6 &e3 Najdorf (as 1 mentioned before, White would have to take 6..e5 and 6..Dgd into consideration). Chapters 5 and 6 deal with the popular 6 Be2, an outwardly quiet way of battling against the Najdorf and Scheveningen. ‘This move is a favourite amongst ‘positional’ players. This is all relative, however, because 6 Be2 €6 can still ead to wild attacking chess. Chapter 7 sees the ultra-aggressive 6 295, the traditional main line of the Najdorf. This move has already produced a mountain of chess literature but fortunately it’s Black who makes the main decisions as to what to play and therefore much of the theory can be eliminated Chapters 8 and 9 deal with 6 f4 and 6 93, which ate less popular but nevertheless serious options. Finally, in Chapter 10 we look at offbeat tries for White at move six. Here I discovered that even moves like 6 Bei and 6 h3 cannot be toyed with! 17CHAPTER ONE 6 &c4: Introduction and Sidelines 1 e4 cB 2 D3 dé 3 dé cxdd 4 Axd4 DEG 5 Dc3 a6 6 cd ‘The development of the bishop to ct introduces the ‘Sozin Attack’, one of the most dangerous systems against the Najdorf. A favourite with both Kaspatov and Fischer it’s sometimes called the Fischer Attack), I also have a soft spot for it and it's been my main weapon against the Najdorf for many years. It now feels a little strange recommending what to play against it but, with more than a decade of highs (and the occa- sional low) from White’s point of view, I feel in.a good position to do so. ‘There is no teal subtlety to 6 Sc4; White immediately places his bishop on the ctitical a2-g8 diagonal, hitting the Achilles’ heel on £7. The Sozin is one of only two systems that virtually forces Black into adopting the Scheveningen structure with ..e7-e6 (the other is 6 Sg5); it certainly makes more sense fot Black to blunt the a2-a8 diagonal with this mther than accentuating the bishop’s power by playing ..c7-e5. Indeed, the simple ....7-6 does seem to ask an immediate question about the viability of Ste4. Isn’t the bishop simply ‘biting on granite’ ‘once Black has played this move? To answer ‘yes’ to this question would fail to see the whole picture. On one hand, the ‘Sozin bishop’, which usually takes up residence on the b3-squate, plays an important prophylactic role in preventing Black from expanding in the centre (both an eventual ..d6-d5 or .~e6-e5 would bring the bishop back to life with a vengeance). More to the point, White often tties to force the issue in the centre with 2-46, putting unquestionable pressure on the e6-pawn and forcing Black to make 2 decision, Whichever route he takes (6-5 or, less commonly, ..exf5) the diagonal is extended for the Sozin bishop. Fur- ther factors that Black has to watch out for are possible piece sactifices Axe6, Lxe6, Df and Ads are the main ones). But that’s enough harping on about the good points of this system; I don’t want to frighten. you into believing that this line is something to feat and I’m sute you’te all far more interested in how to exploit its short- comings. One of the main drawbacks to the Sozin is that it is rather time consuming and walks straight into Black’s typical queenside counterplay (..b7-b5 gains an important tempo on the bishop). If White adopts the idea of an eatly £2-f4, then this can leave the edpawn woefully weak. Black often has @ simple threat of ..b5-b4l, displacing the e- pawn's only natural defender (the knight on 3). In some lines White is simply forced to 126 &c4; Introduction and Sidelines sactifice his e-pawn, Black, however, must be waty of capturing this pawn too soon and walking into an attack; often it’s better just to keep the threat. In this chapter we will deal with sidelines and white plans involving an early £2-f4, which were made extremely popular by the successes of Fischer. However, time has shown how Black can effectively counteract this plan to obtain a more than reasonable position. In Chapter 2 we will study a more refined approach by White which has over- taken the early £2-f4 lines and has been popu- lat at the highest levels for around 15 years. 6...06 Immediately adopting the Scheveningen formation and blunting the Sozin bishop. ‘This is by far Black's most natural move. I should, however, point out the intriguing possibility of 6..b512, which is hardly ever seen but looks like a perfectly playable move, especially if Black’s intention is simply to meet the natural 7 &b3 with 7...c6, transposing into the main line, The point of this move order is to avoid both 6...e6 7 a3 and 6..06 7 ad (not that these are particularly dangerous systems). The only way for White to ‘exploit’ Black’s move order is with 7 &d5!? but practice has so far shown that this is not particularly effective: 7..Dxd5 8 exd5 @ Axd5 e6 9 De3 Lb7 is not really the sort of position White was aiming for after 6 Aca!) 8..2b7 9 a3 (White must do something about the threat of ...b5-b4) see following diagram and now: a) 9..Dd7 10 0-0 AFG 11 Hel g6 12 WE Sig? 13 Bho 0-0 14 Bxg? Gxg7 15 Wes He8 16 Hadi (Mikhalchishin gives 16 Df5+ Sh 17 Dho ke7 18 DES+; this repetition may already be White’s best) 16..Wd7 17 h3 Dxd5 18 Adxbs Ato 19 Dd4 5 20 Ade2 Web 21 £3 d5 saw Black taking over the centte in no uncertain terms in Lamoureux- Hauchard, Clichy 1993, at mae = a a b) 9.96 10 e3 Vg7 11 Wa2 Dd7 12 Bh6 Bxh6 13 Weh6 DG 14 0-0-0 Hc8 15 Ha3 We7 16 Bet Dxds 17 Wy? Bey 18 Ded? (18 Dxd5 Bxd5 19 Wrh7 is unclear) 18..d2d7 19 gS Wicd 20 Axh7 Kfe8 and Black went on to win in Bauer-Kempinski, Bundesliga 2000, So if Black wishes to rule out the possibilities of 7 a3 and 7 a4, then 6...b5 is certainly worthy of consideration, After 6..6 White’s most popular move by far is 7 &b3 (Line ©), nestling the bishop into safety from ideas such as ...b7-b5, ..d6- d5 and even ...Axe4. However, White does have a number of playable alternatives that we should also study. We shall look at: A:7 a3 B:7 a4 C: 7 &b3Play the Najdorf Another common move is 7 0-0, but after Tub5 8 Sb3 we have simply transposed to Line C4. Most of the other seventh move alternatives for White ate also likely to transpose to later lines after the insertion of ..b7- bS and £b3, a) 7 £63 b5 8 Sb3 transposes to note ‘a’ to White’s 8th move in Line C. b) 7 3 b5 8 Rb3 transposes to note ‘b’ to White’s 8th move in Line C, ©) For 7 We2b5 8 3 see Line C1. 4d) 7 4 b5 8 b3 teansposes to Line C2, while 7..d5!? looks like a sensible way of exploiting White's early £pawn advance: 8 2.03 dxed 9 Axed SeT 10 c3 0-0 11 WES Deb 12 Ke3 Dds 13 Bxc6 bxc6 was fine for Black in Voigt-Votava, Hamburg 2002. ©) 7 &g5 bS 8 Lb3 transposes to Line C3, but Black may wish to take advantage of White's move order: 7...£e7 (| — Golubev) 8 2b3 Be6 (with the bishop on g5 rather than 3, it makes sense to wage battle on the d4- square; White must also be wary of ..@xe4 tricks) 9 £4 0.0 9..Wbdl? 10 Axc6 We3+!? 11 We2 Wre2+ 12 Yxe2 bxc6 13 Hadi a5 14 Sad &b7 15 Bd2 Dd7 16 Bhd d5 17 exd5 exd5 gave Black ao problems in Miiller- King, Bundesliga 1999) 10 6 h6 11 @h4 d5 125 Dedt 13 Sxe7 Wre7 14 Axed daet 15 @d2 bS! with good counterplay in So- loviev-Simagin, Gorky 1954, ) 7 WES is the only move that interferes with Black’s plan of ..b7-b5 (Ju.b5 caf be met by the obvious 8 e5!). However, using the position of White’s queen, Black can change plans very effectively: 7...bd7! 8 &b3 (otherwise White has to take ..De5 into account) 8..Ac5 9 f.e3 b5! 10 0-0-0 (10 5 is now met by 10...£7)) 10...2b7 see following diagram and White’s e-pawn is under tremendous pressure, for example: fl) 11 het Was 12 Wh3 Be? (12..b412) 13 £41 b4 14 Db1 Afxed 15 Da2 Hc8 16 eb1 Dxd2+ 17 Bxd2 0-0 and Black won in ‘Waldmann-Atwanitakis, Oberwart 2000. £2) 11 Wh3 Afxed 12 Dxed Bxet 13 Bhel Hc8 14 He2 @xb3+ 15 axb3 WE6 16 £3 Bc6 17 g4 Me7 18 95 Wig6 and Black was a good pawn ahead in. Gdanski-Jasnikowski, Warsaw 1990. Already one can see how the defence of the ed-pawn can prove to be a real problem for White. A) Jad Not a very common move. White takes ‘time out to ensure that the bishop will be snugly placed on 22 (on b3 the bishop has to worty about ...\d7-c5 or ..e6-a5) and that Black cannot play an early ..b5-b4, Neverthe- Jess, a tempo is a tempo and this is seen as somewhat extravagant for White. I’m advocating that Black should try to exploit the 146 &c4: Introduction and Sidelines slowness of White's development with a swift attack on the e4-pawn 7...b5 Black has other playable moves, but this looks the most natural. 8 Ba2 Bb7!7 8...8e7 9 0-0 0-0 is safe enough for Black but there is no reason for Black to delay his assault on e4, 90-0 9 We2 Dbd7 10 g4!?, planning to embar- rass the knight by g4-g5, is interesting but should not unduly worry Black: 10...h6 11 h4 Bc8 12 3 Ded 13 Be3 Was (13.512) 14 s&12? (Giaccio-Sunye Neto, Villa Gisell 1998) and now 14..Dexg4+! 15. fxg4 Bxc3l 16 bxc3 Zixe4+ 17 Ggi Dg3 looks very strong. 9... bd? 10 Ket Here White has a number of alternatives: a) 10 &g5 Wo 11 Hel Qe7 transposes to the main text b) 10 £4 (in compatison with 7 £3 lines, this sort of thrust is less likely to work when White has already wasted a tempo with a2- a3) 10... Axe4 (why nor?) 11 £5 Axc3 12 bxc3 5:13 Wh5 d5 14 3 Qc5+ 15 Whi 0-0 and Black already has a winning advantage, Jovic- Minic, Vinjacka Banja 1962 ©) 10 &xe6?! (this type of sacrifice should always be considered, but it looks debious here) 10...fe6 11 Dxe6 We8 12 Ads Zxd5 13 exdS ALG 14 Rel GET 15 Bg5 Kxd5 16 DxfB WES! 17 Qxf6 gxf6 18 Dd7 Leb 19 @®b6 (Munizaba-Arutunian, Verdun 1995) and now 19..Hag8 20 g3 We5 looks very good for Black. d) 10 We2 Hc8 11 Bg5 (but not 11 £4? @c5!, when the ed-pawn cannot be pro- tected) 11...h6 12 &h4 Who 13 Kadi Se7 and now: dl) 14 Dxe6 fxe6 15 Lxe6 Hxc3! 16 bxc3 g5! was good for Black in Kupreichik- Akesson, Mariehamn 1997, d2) 14 Bh1 g3 15 Lp3 (Ciric-Velimirovic, Zenica 1963) Se My) L in Y, and now Golubev’s suggestion of the typical Sicilian exchange sacrifice 15..Hixc3! 16 bxc3 Qxe4 looks a very promising ay for Black. 10...2e8 11 295 Or 11 We Woe (11...e5!7) 12 Be3 We? 13 2g5 We5 14 @xfo Dxf6 15 Hadt Whs and Black was fine in Isonzo-Mirumian, Ha- nia 194, 11...Wb6 This line has many similarities to the sharp variation 7 @b3 b5 8 0-0 &b7? 9 Bet Abd7 10 &g5 Wh6. However, the extra tempo expended on 2-23 makes a big difference because Black is less likely to come under a quick attack. 11...h6, hitting the bishop on g5 first, is also a possibility: 12 &h4 (12 Qxfo Wxfo looks comfortable for Black) 12..Wb6 (or 12..g51? 13 &g3 De5!) 13 Wd2 Qe7 with play very similar to the main text. 12 Wa2 In some ways White's most critical try is 12 a4, but it creates a strange impression and loses time to play this so soon after opt- ing for a2a3 12..b4 (12..Exc3!? is also enticing, while 12...bxa4 13 @xa4 Wa5 14 &xf6 DAxf6 15 Ac3 Wh5 looks safe and equal) 13 Ad5 exd5 14 exdS+ ded8 and I don’t believe that White has enough for the fidcee5 13 Kadi ke7 14 h1 h6 15 &h4 Dc4 16 2xc4 Exc 17 £4.0-0Play the Najdorf Black has eliminated the Sozin bishop, has an ideal counterattacking set-up and can look forward to the future with some confidence. Kupper-Gligoric, Ziitich 1961 continued 18 BL We7 19 Wa3 Bek 20 Ap3% 45! 21 exd5 Dxd5 22 Dads AadS 23 3 Lxf3 24 Wet Exf and Black went on to win. B) Tad ‘This move is a special favourite of mine, but my successes on the white side of this variation have generally been mote to do with me being mote familiar than my oppo- fhents with the positions that rise rather than any white claim to a theoretical edge. 7 a4 has similar motives to 7 a3, bit this time White is sing © preven Black from playing the ..b7-b5 lunge. The price that ‘White pays for this is an important tempo, plus slight weakening of the b4-square. 7.206 Black has many other plausible responses but, now that White has weakened b4, it makes sense to develop the knight on 6, 8 fe3 8 0-0 should transpose to the main line af ter 8.87 9 $3, while Black can punish 9 £4 with either 9...Wb6 ot 9..d51?, 8...Re7 9 0-0 With his pawn on a4, White is hardly going to contemplate castling queenside. 9...0-0 10:eh1 A semi-usefal waiting move which has become the main move neatly by process of elimination, Alternatively: a) 10 #421 is a bit reckless: 10...d5! (a good retort to a pfematute £2-F) 11 exd5 (or 11 Dac6 bre 12 Rd3? dé!) 11,,exd5 12 &b3 Des 13 ADxc6 bxc6 14 Bd4 Lf6 and Black is more than comfortable — the pawn now looks a bit silly on £4, b) 10 @22 looks like a reasonable move, but the one problem with retreating this bishop early is that Black may be able to arrange ..b7-b5 after all, for example: 10...Sd7 11 4 Bxd4 12 Sxd4 Bc6! 13 Wa3 b5! 14 axb5 axb5 and now 15 €5 dxe5 16 fxe5 “d7 17 Dxb5? fails to 17.5. ©) 10 We2 is in some ways the most natu- sal move here, but 10..d5! seems like an effective reply; White’s queen is misplaced on 166 &c4: Introduction and Sidelines €2 when the pawns are exchanged. 11 exd5 (or 11 Badi!? Qd6! 12 exd5 exdS 13 DxdS Dxd5 14 Qxd5 Vxh2+ 15 Brxh2 Wxd5 16 gl Le6 and Black had no problems in Kuzmin-Ubilava, Tashkent 1984) 11..exd5 12 Bb3 eB! 13 h3 Bcd 14 Wa2 Bb4 15 Wa1 (what else?) 15...&2xc3 16 bxc3 Ded and my cute queen triangulation (Wd1-e2-d2-d1)) simply led to a slightly inferior position in Emms-Anastasian, European Team Ch, Batumi 1999, 10...We7 Now White has to be careful of discov- cred attacks on the bishop on c4. 11 We2 Or 11 Ba2 Qd7 12 £4 Back (12..Axd4 13 &xd4 Bc6 is another possibility) 13 WH @xd4 14 Lxd4 e5 15 Le3 ext 16 Qxfs &e6 with equality in Galdunts-Grigorian, Belgrade 1989, 11.247 1214 Finally White gets going on the kingside. T've even tried delaying the attack farther with the restraining 12 Badt, but 12...2xd4 13, Qxd4 (Emms-Verhaeghe, Gent 2001) 13...£6! looks fine for Biack — now 14 £42! can be met by 14...2xed!, 12...Bac8 Threatening ...Axd4; White must do something about his bishop on c4. 13 a2 “The most consistent move, but White has two worthwhile alternatives: a) 13 Axc6 Bxc6 14 23 (Chibur- danidze-Popovic, Subotica 1986) and now Black’s best course is 14..fe8 15 25 Ad7, with ideas of ...&Lf6 or ....8f8 and ...g7-26. b) 13 @d3 and now: b1) 13..@b4!? (eliminating White’s dan- getous bishop) 14 BS Bfe8 15 Zafl £68 16 Eg3 Dxd3 17 cxd3 Shs? 18 DAf3 Lc6 19 Eh3 Gg8 with a complex position in V.Gurevich-Ganin, Alushta 1998. b2) 13..Axd4 14 @xd4 e5 15 Re3 exf4 16 Sixf4 Bfe8 (if Black wants to avoid the following complications, then 16...e6 17 &g5 Dea! looks like a safe equaliser) 17 &g5 (or 17 h32t &e6 18 WE Dd7 19 We3 Des 20 Qe3 Wa8 21 Hadi &h4 22 Wh2 Les and Black was a little better when the players agreed a draw in Kuzmin-Zagrebelny, Kras- nodat 1998) 17..Re6 18 SxfOl? Qxfo 19 Exfo! exf6 20 Whs We5 21 Ads xd5 22 exd5 We3 23 Wxh7+ 8 24 Het Wes, when White had some compensation for the exchange in Azatic-Djukanovic, Budva 1996. 13...Dxd4! This simplifying proceduse is Black’s safest way to play. 13..Qa5? 14 Bad Act looks enticing, but after 15 &cl it’s difficult for Black to arrange ...b7-b5 and the knight on c4 can become a liability that requires constant protection. Emms-Shipov, Hastings 1998/99 is a reminder of how Black can easily drift in positions like these: 15...2hfd8?! 16 g4! Wc5? 17 g5 DeB 18 ft e5 19 Ads 2B 20 b4 Wa7 21 Qxcd exd4 22 96 Hh8 23 gxt? Dc7 24 Bes and Black was forced to resign. 14 Qxd4 05 15 2e3 Le6 16 a5 16 £5 Sxa2 17 Bxa2 Wed! is very awkward for White: 18 Wxc4 Bxc4 19 &¢5 Bfc8 and White’s pieces are in no position to exploit his supposed positional advantage. 16...Sxa2 17 Bxa2 Black has no problems here, for example: a) 17..ie4 18 WE3 (18 Wd3? loses to the surprising 18... Axe4)) 18...exf4 19 &xf4 Web 20 Had Bed! 21 Exot Wrc4 22 e5 dxe5 23 17Play the Najdorf Rxe5 Wh4 24 Dds Dxd5 25 Wed5 and the game was soon diawn. in Emms-Grischuk, Esbjerg 2000. b) 17..2hfe8! 18 W321 d51 @ classical Najdorf/Schevy breakthrough) 19 exd5 (or 19 Dxd5 Dxd5 20 exd5 4 and ...Wxc2) 19...c4 20 Wal Rb4t 21 Het Sxc3 22 bxcd WaT 23 Bd Bxc3 24 Bet Be5 25 cd HxaS 26 h3 He5 27 Wh3 bs with an advantage to Black in Emms-'Cairo’, cortespondence 2003. c) 7 &b3 Fat and away White’s most popular move. The bishop retreats a squate, out of striking distance from Black’s d- and b-pawns. 7...b5. are now setious options). It was a tough choice between this and the well-respected 7.€bd7, but in the end I plumped for the most popular move, White now has fout main responses to 7.5. C1: 8 We2 C2: 814 C3: 8 295 C4: 80-0 ‘Less important tries include: 4) 8 M3 Lb @..b4 9 Dad Ded is a very risky pawn grab, with 10 Dxe6l? fxe6 11 Db6 being just one dangerous continuation; Black needn’t bother with these complications when he has more promising alternatives) 9 £4 transposes to note ‘b’ to White’s 9th move in Line C2. }b) 8 £3 is not mentioned in many texts but White’s idea has some value, He simply wants to play aa English Attack’ with the bishop placed on b3 tather than fl. OF course, the negative point is that the time taken to play £fl-c4-b3 offers Black more chances to cteate counterplay, 8.,.2b7 9 Be3 Dba7 10 Wad b4t 11 Deed (11 Dad can also be answered by 11.45) 11..d5! 12 exd5 Dsd5 13 0-0-0 Dcd 14 De Axb3+ 15 @xb3 Re7 Black immediately begins coanterplay against White’s e¢-pawn (..b5-b4 and ...£b7 with a very comfortable position for Black. Ardura Fernandez-Dominguez, San 18Miguel 1999 continued 16 5? &g5 17 Le3 Dxe3 18 Wxe3 We7 19 g3 Bc8 20 Hd2 0-0 21 Hhd1? 5 22 Hd7 Wc? mate. 9) 8 WS &b7! with a further split: cl) 9 &g5 Dbd7 10 0-0-0 b4 11 Dad Was 12 &xf6 Axio 13 Wes Re7 14 3 0.0 is more than reasonable for Black. K.Grosar- ‘Wilhelmi, Bled 1999 continued 15 g4? @xe4! and the knight cannot be taken duc to ...&.g5. 2) 9 0-0 Abd7! (some care must be taken here: 9...b42! runs into 10 224+ bd? 11 Dd5} exd5 12 exd5, which is very dangerous for Black) 10 Hel (10 &g5 is tame: 10...h6 11 &xfo Wxfd gives Black no problems) 10..De5 14 Sd5!? (or 11 BgS Re7 12 Badt 0-0 13 Wh32! Afxed 14 Axed Sxe4 15 QxcT Wxe7 and Black was a clear pawn ahead in Clarke-Sadler, Hastings 1990/91). Now 11..exd5 is a dangerous sactifice to accept: 12 exd5+ @d7 13 b4 Dad 14 Axad bxa4 15 c4 and White has a big initiative, USSR 1987. Fortunately, Black can simply carry on with development 11..Wb6! 12 Sxb7 (12 Bg5 b4 13 Oxb7 Wab7 14 Qxf6 bxc3 15 Sb4 cxb2 was better for Black in Doghti-Hamdouchi, Tunis 1997) 12..Wxb7 13 a3 &e7 with a roughly level position. Meistet-Svirin, cn 8 We2 White develops as in the famous ‘Velimi- 6 &ic4: Introduction and Sidelines rovic Attack’: 1 e4 c5 2 B63 d6 3 d4 exd4 4 Axd4 DEG 5 Dc3 Deb 6 Bcd e6 7 Le3 a6 8 We2 Se7 9 0-0-0, Against the Najdorf, however, the delay in development of the b8- knight in favour of queenside expansion and a counterattack on e4 means that Black is often ‘first on the trigger’, It’s notable that the Velimirovic set-up is nowhere near as popular against the Najdoef as it is against the Classical Variation, 8...267 4 S20 os a Ge 9 Be3 Alternatively: a) 9 g4l? (very direct) 9..b4 10 Bad d5tP (10...8b7 11 £3 c6 also looks reasonable) 11 e5 Des? 12 &e3 We7 13 0-0-0 Ad7 14 £4 Ddc5 15 £5 Bd7 16 fxe6 fre6 17 Axed (17 Het? Dxa4 18 Axe6 Wre5 and Black went on to win in Voronov-Agzamoy, ‘Tash- kent 1976) 17...€xc5 is better for Black, as 18 Ahf 1? runs into 18..£xd4 19 @xd4 2b5, b) 9 &g5I? is perhaps stronger than the text move because at least the e-pawn is of- fered. more protection this way, Following 9...0-0 White has nwo choices: bl) 10 f4 bat 11 Dad @b7 12 Axfo Qxfo 13 0-0-0 Was 14 We3 (or 14 Wel Ac 15 Dea We7 16 Wes Das 17 Who Bac8 18 Wrxc7 Bxc7 19 Bhel Bd8 20 5 Axb3+ 21 axb3 exf 22 exf €f8 and Black's bishop pait gave him the edge in Radulov-Browne, Venice 1971) 14...2c6 (but not 14..Ad7? 15 Dxeol) 15 De3 We7 16 Bd2 Da5 with good 19Play the Najdorf counterplay, Eberth-Gombkoto, cotrespon- dence 1992, b2) 10 0-0-0 @we4! 11 Weed (11 B.xe7? ®xc3 is good for Black) 11,..8xg5+ 12 £4 45 13 Axd5! exd5 14 Sixd5 Mxf4t+! 15 bt Ba7 16 Weft Wads 17 Wab8 Ba7 with an equal position in Radulov-Padevsky, Sofia 1970. 9...0-0 10 0-0-0 White has two other tries: a) 10 3 2d7 11 g4 (for 11 0-0-0 see the main text) 11b4 12 Adi (12 Ab1 Dc6 13 52! Dxdl4 14 Sxd4 Bh5 was good for Black in BSchneider-Gerber, Germany 1989) 12..@\c6 (Heuet-Mikhalchishin, Riga 1975) and now 13 g5?! Dxd4 14 &xd4 Db5 poses White the problem of defending the g-pawn. because 15 h4 runs into 15..2\g31. b) 10 a3 prevents ..b5-b4 for the moment but this weakness may speed up Black's attack later on; 10.867 11 £3 Dbd7 12 gt Dc5 13 Raz Bc8 14 0-0-0 Was 15 g5 Ara7 16 h4 bl 17 axb4 Wxb4 18 h5 KXb8! 19 g6? (ying to exchange queens with 19 Wo4! — Florean — is White’s only chance) 19...Sxe4) 20 fxe4 Wab2+ 21 ded2 21. Wec3 +l (Rajna-Barczay, 1977) and now 22 €xc3 allows mate after 22..Axe4+ 23 Bcd (or 23 Hd3 DdeS+ 24 Bc4 d5 mate) 23..De5. 10...247 Preparing ..b5-b4, This could also be played immediately: 10...b4I? 11 a4 Was 12 Hungary g4 QA7l 13 Dbl Web6 14 Axes Wh7 (Golubev suggests 14..Hb5 as an imptove- ment) 15 @xf8 Sxf8 with an unclear position, but I would, take Black, N.Rogers- R.Byre, Philadelphia 1992. 1113 Or 11 g4? b4 12-4)b1 and Black can safely grab the e-pawn with 12..Dxe4, Given White’s problems in the main line, I suspect that 11 a3!? may be best. Black can answet with 11..Ac6, not fearing 12 xc6 Bxc6 13 e5 on account of 13...Ae8l. 11,.b4 12 Qb1 abl Black’s attack looks much faster than White’s, Menal-Averkin, correspondence 1984 continued 13 &c4 We7 14 g4 Bc8 15 Bb5 a4 16 5 Dhs 17 Ha2 Bast 18 Rxd7 @xd7 19 f4 96 20 £5 €5, Now 21 Aes Bes! is unpleasant for White, so he tried 21 fxg6, but after 21...exd4 22 geh7+ @h8 23 Sxd4+ Dg7 24 h4 De5 White didn’t have enough play for the piece. The game ended rather suddenly: 25 WE2 Wb7 26 He2?? d3+ 0-1, butBlack was winning in any case. 2) Bia ‘The original way of playing the Sozin and in some ways the most logical; White immediately attempts to ‘lengthen’ the Sozin bishop's diagonal with a quick £4-£5. Fischer brought this line into the public eye when he introduced it in a game against Tal in 1959, 206 &c4: Introduction and Sidelines but it was the same Fischer who showed the way for Black in his famous encounter with Byzne (see note ‘3’ to White’s 12th move). Despite attempts to resurrect White’s play, the variation has never really recovered from. this setback and is very much a backwater these days. 8...2b7! The move ..b7 is 2 logical choice against an early £2-£4 as it underlines the weakness of the e4-pawn. 8...b4.9 Dad Axet is also possible, but too risky for Black in my opinion, especially as the main line seems so promising for Black. The stem game Fischer- ‘Tal, Bled/Zagreb/Belgrade 1959 continued 10 0-0 g6A1 11 $51 gxfS 12 Dxé5 and White had a menacing attack. Note that 12,..exf5 fails to the neat 13 Wd5 Ba7 14 Wed, fork- ing both rooks. 915 White continues in consistent fashion. Other continuations include: a) 90-0 Be7 transposes to Line C4. b) After 9 3 Black’s development means that he is now in 2 much healthier position to grab the e4-pawn: 9...b4! 10 Aad Sxe4 11 0-0 Be7 transposes to the note to White’s 11th move in Line C41 ©) 9 €5 dxe5 10 fxe5 Ded! causes Black no problems, for example 11 Axe4 (11 Dce2? Wh4+ 12 93 @xg3! and Black wins, |J.Kovacevic-Seruga, correspondence 1978) 11...2xe4 12 0-0 Sc5 (Suetin assessed this position as equal) 13 c3 cb 14 Le3 0.0 (14,,.We7!2) 15 Wed Bxd4 16 cxd4 B65 17 Wis @Db4 and Black was fine in P.Andersson-Ekstrom, correspondence 1971 d) Given that Black has played ....&b7, he has to be wary of sacrifices on 6. However, 9 Sxe6% looks premature here. 9...fe6 10 Dxe6 We8 11 Dd5 Lxd5 12 exd5 and now Kosten’s calm 12...82£7, preparing to develop the kingside, looks like the safest way to de- fuse White’s attack (12...We4?! 13 b3 We4-+ 14 Sbf2 Bd7 15 c4! was less clear in Gross- Bénsch, Decin 1976). 9...05! So Black is forced to weaken the d5- square, but at least this keeps the position as closed as possible. 9..exf5?1 10 Axf5 is not particularly appetising (10..Dxe4? 11 WEG), while 9...b4#! allows 10 fxe6 bxc3 11. exf7+ Bd? (11..se7? 12 €5!) 12 BeG+ Bc7 13 £65 (Kosten), when White has a strong attack 10 Ade2 Play now very much centres on the battle for control over the d5-square, hence White's knight retreat to €2. From here it can travel to h5 via g3 and eliminate one of Black's defenders of the d5-square. For the same reason, 10 Af3 is less logi- cak 10..2e7 11 We2 (11 &g5 Dredly 11..Dbd7 and now: a) 12 a4 0-0 (12..b41? 13 Wed 0-0 14 21Play the Najdorf Wixb4 Eb8 also looks promising) 13 axb5 axb5 14 Hxa8 Wrxa8 15 Wxb5 c5 16 &d5 Wal! 17 0-0 Ba6 18 &gs Weafl+ 19 Weft Sxfl 20 Oxf6 Rxf6 21 Sxfl Hb8 and Black went on to win in ‘Tatai-Patma, Reggio Emilia 1965, b) 12 Bp5 Rc8 13 xt Axés 14 0-0-0 ‘Buxc3! (again we sce this sactifice) 15 bxc3 WaS 16 Bd3 Dxe4 17 Wes 0-0 18 hd Ded with an excellent position for Black in Benitez-Gligoric, Manila 1968, 10...Abd7 Sensibly continuing with development. ‘The knight belongs on d7 rather than c6 as it conttibutes more to the overall battle for the control of c5; it protects the £6-knight and doesn’t block the b7-bishop. 10..Axe4 is still risky: 11 Axed Bxe4 12 0-0, followed by Dg3 or Ac3 (Gallagher), when White has good compensation for the paw, 11 295 Or 11 Dg Hc 12 0-0 b5I (this idea is borrowed from the famous Byrne-Fischer game —see note ‘c’ to White's 12th move) 13, WES Se7 (the immediate 13,,Ehxc3!? also looks good) 14 Phi?! Hxc3! (this type of sactifice should be becoming second nature by now!) 15 bxc3 h4 16 De? Axe4 17 Wh3. Wh6 18 Be3 Dg3+ 19 hxgs Wre3 20 Baet D6 with a fantastic position for Black in “‘Fomasic- Ruck, Opatija 1995 11 0-0 He8 12 Sg5 transposes to the next note. 11.,.0e7 12 Qg3 Or 12 Sxfs Dxfs 13 Was Whol (prevent ing kingside casting) 14 3 (14 0-0-0 may be more accurate) 14..0-0 15 0-0-0 a5! 16 Dds Qxd5 17 Sxd5 Bac8 18 Sebi Be5 19 pt Hfc8 and Black was in control, Suetin- Platonov, USSR 1971. An important altemative is 12 0-0 Bc8 (12.,.Dxed 13 Sxe7 Wre7 14 Axed x04 15 Dg3 still gives White annoying pressure for the pawn) and now: a) 13 Rxé6 Dxf6 14 Wa3 Be5t (another defender of d5!) 15 Had1 0-0 16 h3 a5 with a pleasant position for Black, Andersson-Ree, Wijk aan Zee 1971. b) 13 Pht? 0-0 (13..xed 14 Axed Bxct 15 Sxe7 WxeT 16 Dg3 still gives White good compensation) 14 2xf6 (against 14 Bg3, both 14..b4 15 Sxf6 bxc3 and 14..Bxc3!2 are worthy of consideration) 14,.@xf6 15 Wd3 Bc5! 16 Hadi Was 17 Dos Bees 18 We2 a5 19 Dh5a Hxc3! 20 bxc3 Sxe4 21 Axf6+ Sxf6 with once again excellent compensation for Black. The game Moukhin-Zaitshik, USSR 1974 continued 22 Wa2 Hic5 23 Wxd6 S.xg2+ 24 dg1 and now the simple 24,.2xf1 25 Exfl Wa7 would have left Black with a winning advantage. 6) 13. Dg3 13..h5!! (any seasoned Najdorf cam- paigner would now play this move like a shot, but when Fischer first unleashed it, this ‘was something of a revelation): cl) 14 Bxf6 Df 15 WES Fxc3! 16 Wxc3 h4 17 De2 Wh6t+ 18 Shi Axes 19 Wh3 Des! 20 We4 h3 and Black won in Bednar- ski-Lehmann, Palma de Mallorca 1967. 2) 14 Bh4 b4 15 Bai Dxt6 16 Das hd 17 Dsf6+ gxfSl 18 Dhs Woot 19 teh1 Wed and the hopeless positioning of the white knight on h5 gives Black a winning position, Fernando-Yakovieh, Santo Antonio 2001. <3) 14 h4 (anything to prevent ...h5-h4l) 14..b4 15 Mxf6 BxfS 16 Dds Vxh4 17 2ych5 Wes 22(White has won the battle to control d5, but has lost the war...) 18 £6 g6! 19 Ag7+ Sd8 20 1 Bg3 21 Wd3 Bh2+ 22 efi Dc5 23 Bh3 Bhd! 24 WHS Axb3 25 axb3 Hxh3 26 Weh3 Sxd5 27 exdS Wrfo+ 28 Bet Wi 0-1 R.Byme-Fischer, Sousse 1967. 12.88 13 Oxt6 Or 13 DhS DxhS 14 Weh5 0-0 and now: a) 15 h42l b4 16 DdS Sxd5 17 exdd DcS 18 0-0-0 a5 19 We4 a4 20 &c4 b3 and Black’s attack was far quicker in RByme- Bouaziz, Sousse 1967 ~ not a good tournament for the Sozin! b) 15 Bxe7 Wxe7 16 We2 Af6 and Black holds a slight edge, for example 17 0-0 b4 18 DAS Axd5 19 Bxd5 @xd5 20 exds Wa7+ 21 ht Wa4 (Kosten). For 13 0-0 h3! see note ‘c’ to White's 12th move. 6 &ic4: Introduction and Sidelines 13...Ox16 14 Dh a) 14 0-0 hS! again simply aansposes to note ‘c’ to White's 12th move. b) 14 Wad3 Wo! 15 0-0-0 0-0 16 Bhel (KristoffelTopchy, correspondence 1980) 16..Hc5! (Black will continue with ...a6-a5- a4) 17 Dd5 Bxd5 18 Qxd5 Afc8 is a touch better for Black. 14... x3! Necessary but good, 14..0-0? 15 Dxf6+ Bxf6 16 Bd5! Bxd5 17 Axd5 is just the sort of position that Black must do anything to avoid. The knight is a monster when it is uneballenged on d5. 15 bxe3 ‘The alternative is 15 Axf6+ L.xf6 16 bxc3 and now: a) 16...xe4 17 0-0 d5 18 a4 0-0 19 axb5 axb5 20 @hi Wa7 21 c4 bxc4 22 Bxcd h6 23 Ld3 Lxd3 24 cxd3 e¢ 25 Ha5 03 26 d4 He8 and Black was better in Voigt-Joecks, Germany 1993. b) 16..2b4+! 17 g3 (17 Sfi Who 18 Qxf7+ eT — Kosten — 19 We2 Bxed! and Black will follow up with ...B§8) 17..8xe4 18 0.0 Woot 19 BP @g5 (Kosten) 20 Whs Be3 21 Wef7+ sed8 22 Haft We7! with a clear plus. Here 15...2xe4 is playable but 15...Axe4! looks even stronger, for example: a) 16 Wt g6 17 fxg6 hxgo 18 Het (Bangiev-Letunov, USSR 1972) and now 18..Wb6! 19 Sxf7+ Sd8 leaves White with 23Play the Najdorf 100 many threats to covet. b) 16 Dxg7+ SAB 17 Abs (or 17 Whs Gxg7 18 Wxt7+ Wh6 and White has no follow-up) 17..&h4+! 18 93 Wh6 19 We2 ‘We6! and White is in big trouble. In conclusion, Black no longer bas anything to fear against 8 £ and, if careful, has every chance of coming out of the opening with an advantage. C3) 8 95 ‘This idea, championed by Dutchman Geet Timmerman and, more recently, German Sozin experts Karsten Miiller and Alexander Naumann, is probably White’s most dangerous alternative to 8 0-0. After 8...8¢7 White plays 9 Wi, followed by long castling: With all of White’s pieces quickly into play, Black’s position can soon come under considerable pressure and great care is needed to avoid falling into several traps. However, there is some danger for White too — castling queenside runs straight into Black’s natural counterplay. Because of the volatile nature of the theory, I will be advocating more than one line for Black bere. 8...207 If Black wishes to take the game into independent paths, then 8.267? could be worth @ look, for example: 2) 9 WE Abd71 transposes to note ‘’ to White’s 8th move in Line C. b) 9 0-0 Acét (0..Abd7 10 Bet trans poses to the theoretical ine 8 0-0 272 9 Hei! Dba7 10 Bg5l, which is probably a little uncomfortable for Black) 10 @xc6 &xc6 and this position looks very playable for Black, for example 11 Wd4 @e7 12 a4 0-0 13 axb5 axb5 14 9 We7 15 Phi Beds and Black had no problems in Voitsek- hovsky-Sapunov, Samara 2000. ©) 9 We2l? Wbd7 10 0-0-0 Bc (of course not 10...Se7? because of 11 Axe6!) 11 Khel (11 #4 Bxc3! 12 bxc3 Was gives Black excel- Jent counterplay, while 11 Ad5 exd5 12 DES — Golubev — looks insufficient after 12...dxe4) 11..22xc3! (it’s amazing how often this sactifice is effective) 12 bxc3 Wa and now: cl) 13 xf Dxfo 14 WH Re7 15 Wh3 0-0 16 Bxe6 Axed! 17 Bret xed 18 Vb3 6 and Black went on to win in Hendriks- Mirumian, Groningen 1997. 2) 13 3. d5 14 exd5 Ra3+ 15 b1 Wed 16 Met Bxct 17 Bxct Wxd4 18 dxe6 fxe6 19 Wreé+ dd8 was unclear in S.Buckley- Oswald, Scarborough 2001, but both 13.dRe72 and 13...b4 14 Sixf6 bxc3! are also ‘worthy of consideration. ows For 9 We2 see note ‘b’ to White’s 9th move in Line C1. White now once again threatess e4-5. Once again 9...8b7? allows the obvious 10 246 &c4: Introduction and Sidelines &xe6!, so Black must play a move to prepare £17 in the event of e+-e5, We will consider the following, choices: Those looking for something more offbeat could do worse than try 9...2a7!2, The solid 10 0-0 is of course possible, but Black can meet the consistent 10 0-0-0 with 10...Wa5!, when the idea of ...b5-b4 is slightly awkward for White: a) 11 Bhel b4 12 Axf6 Oxf 13 Ace2 Bd7 14 Wey3 We5+ 15 Waxes Sxe5+ 16 f4 &d8 was equal in Senff-Kersten, Willingen 2001. b) 11 Wg3 b4 12 Qxf6 Lxf 13 Lad+? &d7 was simply good for Black in Trapl- Movsesian, Czech League 1996. c) 11 @e3 He7 12 Bhel (Munteanu- Calotescu, Romania 2001) and now 12 .&b7 looks reasonable for Black, the poiat being, that 13 Sxe6? can be met by 13 .Axc3!. c31) 9...Wé Although this move hasn’t been refuted and is certainly playable, one practical problem is that White can force a draw in more than one line. Another consideration for those choosing 9...Wb6 is that 10 0-0 transposes to Line B1 in Chapter 2. 10 0-0-0 bd7 Or 2) 10...b42! is probably a just a bit too pro- vocative: 11 DESI exfS 12 Qxi6 KxfS 13 Ads Bp5+ 14 bi Was 15 h4 Qxh4 16 exfS $8 17 £6 Bg5 18 De? (1-0 Berger- Buhr, Hamburg 2000) being a good illustea- tion of the dangers facing Black in this system, b) 10..0-0 may transpose, but gives further options for both sides. bl) 11 g4 b4! 12 Dad W7 looks okay for Black. b2) 11 Be3 Wh7 12 gt (this looks like White’s most dangerous plan) 12..b4!? (12.06 13 gS Dxdd 14 Qxdd Da7 15 Wh5 looked dangerous for Black in Yemelin- Nepomnishay, St Petersburg, 1996, but still may be playable) 13 g5 bxc3 14 gxf6 exb2+ 15 bi Oxf and here the best I can see for White is forcing a draw with 16 Wxf6l gxf6 17 Hhgi+ @h8 18 Gh6 Kgs 19 Bxgs+ xg8 20 Hglt dh8 21 Qe7+ digs 22 Bho+. b3) 11 Bhet @d7 (11..Dbd7 transposes to the main line, while 11..2b7!? 12 We3 Dc6 13 Dxc6 Wexcb 14 Bh6 DeB 15 f4 ths 16 &g5 Qxg5 17 fxg5 b4 18 Ae? €5 19 Ld5 We7 20 &xb7 Wxb7 21 Wh4 Hes 22 Hd3 £5! was unclear in Naumann-Areshchenko, Halkidiki 2002) 12 £e3!? Wb7 13 g4 b4l 14 g5 bxc3 15 gxf6 &xf6 16 Het hs 17 Bho Hg8 and again White should probably take the draw with 18 Wxf6 gxf6 19 Axg8+ dexp8 20 Egi+ @h8 21 2g7+ S822 Bh6+ because 18 &g5 cxb2+ 19 Hb1 &xp5 20 Bxps D6 was better for Black in Naumann- Borziss, Bundesliga 2002 11 Bhet Or 11 Be3 Wb7 (11...Ac5!? also looks okay) 12 We3 0-0 (12...b42! 13 @d5! is a dangerous sacrifice) 13 Dd5!? Ac5 14 Axe7+ Wre7 15 Dc6 Axb3+ 16 axb3 We7 with equality in ‘Trapl-Stohl, Prague 1986. 11...0-0 Ie’ time to get the king into relative safety. 25Play the Najdorf 11..Ac5? falls into another trap: 12 AGI exf 13 Bxfb gxfs 14 Dd5 Wo8 15 exfS Ba7 16 We3 was winning for White in ‘Timmerman-Boll, correspondence 1976. 12 Wg3 12 Wh3 is another possibility, but this is less critical than the text: 12..2c5 13 b4 14 €5 dueS 15 fre5 Dd5!? 16 Lxe7 Dxe7 17 Det Dred 18 Hxet Dg6 19 Heel Bb7 turned ovt well for Black in Vombek-Hulak, Bled 2001. 12.05 13 2h6 Or 13 £4 &b7 14 65 (14. Rh6 De8 trans- posés to note ‘b’ to White's 14th move) 14udxed 15 Bxf6 Axf6 16 fxeS Re7 and 1 ptefer Black; the bishop on b3 really is now biting on granite. 13..Q08 14 B51? ‘This move seems to lead to a draw. Alternatively: a) 14 He37! Qf6 15 Bd5 Bed 16 #4 Bxd4 17 Exd4 exd5 18 Dxd5s Was 19 £5 £6 gave White insufficient play for the piece, Bangiev-Joecks, Germany 1999, b) 14 £4 Dh8 15 Bes BxeS 16 ExgS Sd7 17 Wh4 b4 18 Dce2 Axb3+ 19 axb3 e5 20 DS Lxf 2 exfS £6 22 96 h6 was unclear in Balogh-Szcberenyi, Budapest 2003; with the blocked pawns on the kingside, Black's king is now quite safe. ©) 14 2d5!? is an enticing alternative because 14,.exd5? loses to 15 Dxd5 Wh? 16 DS Bxf5 17 exf. Black has two stronger responses: ct) 14..b41? 15 Ded (15 Bxa8 bxc3 16 b3 Rd7 17 5 dxe5 18 DG £6 — Saunders — looks promising for Black; the bishop on a8 has n0 useful retteat) 15..Axat 16 2xa8 846 with good play for the exchange in RJones-Dworakowska, British League 2003. 2) 14.87 looks safe. 15 b4 Qd7! and now both 16 Axe6 fre6 17 Rxe6-+ Wh8 18 Bxd7 gah6 and 16 DS cxf 17 ex R6 seem to fall short, for example (in the Jatter case): 18 Rxb7 Wxb7 19 Dds Shs 20 Bxes Hixe8 21 Dxf6 gxh6 22 DxeB Exes 23 Wrd6 Des 24 Wro+ Gps. 14...0xf5 15 ext An improvement over 15..Wd8 16 Bxe7 Wre7 17 Dd5 Wa8 18 Het! Deb 19 fxe6 fxe6 20 Sg5! WaS (Hendriks-Van Wely, Dutch League 1999), when 21 @e7+ Shs 22, He3 (Hendriks) is good for White, 16 Hxe8 Exe8 17 Sixg7 Dxb3+ 18 axb3 Sha! 19 Wxh4 sxg7 Also important is 20 a5 Wa8 (Palliser) but, just like the main line, best play seems to lead to a draw: a) 21 We4+ fs 22 Wes ep7 23 Wy3+ (23 Ha3 (6! 24 Be3+ hs 25 Wns Ba7 26 @xfo BiB is winning for Black, while 23 ‘We4+ GB is a sepetition) 23..deha!? 24 We3+ Hes 25 4 Bxf 26 Wad (26 fxe5? Hc8) 26..8c8 27 Be3 Wic? 28 fe5 dxed is 266 &c4: Introduction and Sidelines unclear. b) 21 fo+ Bh8 22 De7 Ba7 23 Exdo (23 a4 is answered by 23..Haxe7!) 23..B8d7 24 Who Bys 25 Bd? Lxd7 26 Dxp8 Wxp8 27 g3 (Palliser) 27...SLe6 28 b4 Weo 29 Wee+ We8 and now White should repeat with 30 Whe, 20 Wg5+ 2h8 But not 20.87? 21 Who+ de7 22 Dds+ 21 WI6+ seg8 As far as 1 can see, White has no more than a draw here: 22 Ed4? fails to 22...ax65!, while White must also take the perpetual on offer after both 22 @d5 Wsf2 and 22 Hxd6 Wsf2. The only other winning try is 22 Rd3 Bel+ 23 Adi 2b7 24 Who! (24 Hy3+? ie 25 Bg? Ld5 26 Hxh7 de8 27 Bh8+ a7 and the black king escapes) 24...@2h8 25 Wr6+ (25 Bh3? Hxdi+! 26 dexd1 Wad4+ and Wg7) 25.8298 26 Wh6 and again it’s a draw by repetition. ¢32) 9...We7 10 e5!? This direct attempt is Miiller’s invention. Other moves include the following: a) 10 0-0 transposes to note ‘b’ to White’s 10th move in Line A of Chapter 2. b) 10 Qxf6 Sxf6 11 e5 Bxe5! (11...2b77! 12 d5 dxe5 13 Dxe6 feb 14 Bxb7 is good for White) 12 Wxa8 Sxd4 13 WE 2b7 with good compensation for the exchange. © 10 0-0-0 (the main alternative) 10..Abd7 (but not 10,26? because of 11 Bxf6! Bxf6 12 Dd5! — Golubev) and now: cl), 11 Bxf62! Axf6 12 ga (12 e5 Lb7!) 12.27 13 We3 Dc5 14 Bhel 0-0 15 g5 b4 16 Aad Qd7 17 Dxc5 WexcS 18 5 a5 19 exd6 Sxg5+ 20 Gb1 £16 and White was in trouble in Kummerow-Novikov, Bad Wi- essee 1999, 2) 11 Wy3 Dc5 12 V5 (12 DG exf5 13 Lxf6 Qxi6 14 Ads Was 15 Axio+ Write 16 Bxd6 fH! wins for Black — Gelfand) 12..88b8 13 &c6+ BAB, when Black misplaced king is less important than White's misplaced bishop on c6, Illescas Cordoba- Gelfand, Linares 1990. 3) 11 Bhet 0-0 t Y A fae Sgt ae Now White has a choice of two queen moves: 31) 12 Wg3 Dc5 13 Qh6 (13 £4 bal 14 Rxf6 QxfG 15 Dat Dxb3+ 16 Wxb3 Bbs is good for Black) 13..Qe8 14 Bd5 (or 14 f4 b4 15 Aad Axb3+ 16 axb3 2b7) 14...b4 (14..8b8!? is an alternative suggestion from Golubev) 15 Acb5 axb5 16 Sxa8 Ld7 17 8 dxe5 with good compensation for the exchange in Garcia-Martinez-Pigusov, Havana 1986 32) 12 Wh3 Ac5 13 4 LT (13...b41? 14 €5 dxe5 15 fke5 bxc3 16 exf6 Axb3+ 17 ADxb3 Sx 18 Axio We4+ 19 Me3 Weto 20 Bxc3 &b7 was unclear in Timmerman- 1986) 14 €5 Soltau, correspondence 27Play the Najdorf (Timmetman-Van der Drift, cortespondence 1982) 14..dxe5 15 fre5 Afe4 16 Axed Bxe4 17 Bxe7 Wrxe7 18 Wet 2g6 and Black has nothing to fear. 4) 11 e51? (a new try) 11..2b7 12 Wed dxe5 (12,2 xe51?) 13 Sxe6 fred 14 Dxe6 We6 15 Dxg7+ Sf7 16 AAS Bags 17 Axe? SPxcT 18 4 h6 19 feeS Bxg5 20 exi6-+ Wey was unclear in Stocek-Dydyshko, Czech League 2002. 10...8b7 11 exd6 Bxd6 12 We3 &c5 Black has to be very careful hete, for example: 12...h6? 13 Rxf6 gxf6 14 Wxe6! feb 15 Dxe6 We7 16 0-0-0 SF7 17 het Be5 18 £4 Wrxe6 19 freS Wae5 20 Who We+ 21 Sb1 Bob 22 g3 WH 23 We7+ Bd7 24 94 and White won in Stellwagen-Naiditsch, Wijk aan Zee 2003. However, 12...8e51? looks playable: 13 0-0-0 0-0 (but not 13...h6? 14 Acxb5!) 14 4 Bxd4 15 Wxd4 (15 Bxd4 Dbd7 16 Bhdt Hac8 17 db1 Sc6 18 We2 Wh7 and the idea of ..a6-a5 gives Black enough counterplay — Wahls) 15..Nbd7 16 Ehgt 8.c6 17 g4.a5 and the threat of ..25-a4 is awleward for White. 13 0-0-0 Or 2) 13 0-0? is met by 13... b) 13 Bat Sxd4 (C can see no tefutation of the greedy 13...x9212) 14 Wad4 @c6 15 Wht Wes+ 16 Be3 0-0 17 0-0 Bfds was equal in Kersten-Naumann, Bad Zwesten 2001. co) 13 Rxf gxf6 14 0-0 Wo 15 Badi DAT 16 Bd5 0-0-0 17 xb7+ Web7 offers Black good counterplay, Zimmermann- Ewald, Uberlingen am Bodensee 2000. 13.206! An improvement over 13..Mbd7? 14 Bxc6l 0-0 (14.fse6 15 Wres+ BB 16 Waf6-+! is good for White) 15 23, which left White a clear pawn ahead in Miiller- ‘Wahls, Gladenbach 1997. 14 2xf6 gxf6 An important position for the evaluation of this line. Now 15 Sxe6? fails to 15.,.Sxd4 16 Bxd4 Dxd4 17 Wadd fxe6, leaving White with two important alternatives: a) 15 Bed Bxd4 16 Bxd4 Dxdd 17 Dxio+ Bee 18 Wadd Bas 19 Wha Wed (19..61) 20 Wh6+ (20 3? h6 21 £4 We3+ 22 #b1 Hd? led to a black win in Lobron- Novikov, Bad Wiessee 1999) 20.,8e7 21 Dea Wad 22 3 Hhg8 and I prefer Black. b) 15 Dd5 Wa8 16 c3 Cunclear’ — Wahls) 16.@a51? 17 Bf4 Dxb3+ 18 axb3 Berger- Zoch, Germany 2000) 18..We? with a very interesting but balanced position. White has the safer king, but Black has the bishop pair om an open board. ca) 80-0 SS 4 id a i a = [ce White's most popular continuation; he puts his king into safety and secs how Black reacts before he commits himself to any plan 286 &c4: Introduction and Sidelines of action, 8.87 8..Qb7 and 8...b4 are both playable, albeit somewhat risky, alternatives. 1 did consider presenting a repertoire option with one of these moves, but in the end I instead decided to give two options with 8...2e7 (9 WES We7 and 9 Wr3 Wh6). 8...2e7 is much mote popular than the other two mentioned moves, the overriding reason being that it is far more reliable. Now 9 WE is White’s main move and that is the subject of the next chapter, Here we will look at another dangerous-looking idea for White, 9 441? A direct attempt to blow Black away. Ag- ainst careful defence, however, it seems to be White who is struggling to achieve equality. Other tries include the following: 4) 9 a3 is simply too slow to cause Black any problems. Following 9...0-0 10 $3 &b7 11 £3 Acé6 Black obtains easy equality. b) 9 a4 b4 10 a2 0-0! (10..Axed 11 Dxb4 Wh6 12 3 Ve5 13 a5! We7 14 &c2 0-0 15 Het was a litte better for White in Soltis-Browne, US Championship 1977) 11 Axb4 Wh6 12 c3 a5! (12..Ase4 13 a5!) 13 @d3 Dxe4, when White’s slight lead in development is compensated by Black’s central pawns, Dorfman-Tukmakov, Lvov 1978. b) 9 2e3)? is tricky; White hides his inten- tions for one more move. 9...0-0 and now: bl) 10 a4? b4 11 @a2 Qb7! (after 11..Dxedl? White has the incredible and strong 12 Axe6! fxe6 — 12...82.xe6 13 SLd5! — 13 @d5 and here Shipov suggests 13..a5 14 &xa8 d5, when Black has some play for the exchange due to White’s out of play bishop on a8) 12 Axb4 a5! (12..Rxe4 13 a5!) 13 Dd3 Bxe4 and Black looks in good shape. b2) 10 £4 We7! (to prevent e4-e5; 10..b4 11 Bad @xe4 12 £5! is dangerous for Black) 11 a3 (or 11 £5 b4 12 Dad €5 13 De2 Dod? 14 Bg} Bb7 15 c3 a5 16 Bel Wb8 and Black keeps good pressure on the e4-pawn and d5-squate, Soltis-Dzindzichashvili, Bos- ton 1988) 11..Qb7 12 WE Abd7 13 £5 5 14 Bde2 Dc5 15 Dg3 is reasonable for Black, for example: 15..2c6 16 @d5 Dad! 17 Bxc6 Wrc6 18 Asad bxad 19 He2 Babs 20 3 d5 21 exd5 Wxd5 with a level position in Veroci-Kotronias, Nikea 1985, 9...Sb7 9..b4 10 Dad is a playable line for Black, but grabbing the pawn with 10..Axe4?! proves very risky after 11 £5! White now has nvo main options: C41: 10 2e3 C42: 10 e5 Other tries are less important: a) 10 5 e5 11 Dde2 Dbd7 12 Bg5 transposes to the note to White’s 12th move in 29Play the Najdorf Line C2 (12 @g3 can be met by the typical 12...h5)). b) 10 Pht is too slow: 10..b4! 11 €5 bxc3 12 exf6 Bxf6 13 bxc3 0-0 14 Bb1 We7 was better for Black in Milen-V.Gurevich, Pula 1994, ©) 10 Bxe6?! fxe6 11 Axe6 is ineffective here as Black has time to defend g7 after 11...Wb6+ 12 d2h1 @e7. c41) 10 £03 White develops his last minor piece and hopes to arrange ed-e5 under favourable circumstances (10...8721 11 e5!, for example). However, the e-pawn is ripe and that is where Black can focus his attention, 10...b4 Grabbing the pawn immediately is too greedy. 10..2xe4? 11 xed Bxe4 12 5! gives White a strong attack, for example: 12.05 13 Sxf7+! Gxf7 14 Whs+ dps 15 Deb Wa7 16 We with a clear advantage. If Black is looking for an alternative to the main line, then 10..2bd7!? may be the move. 11 £5 5 12 Ade2 He8 is fine for Black, while 11 Bxe6 fre6 12 Dxeb isn’t as effective 2s usual — White's e4-pawn has been weakened by £2-f4; Play continues 12,..We8 and now: a) 13 Bad Bg8 14 Dds Rxd5 15 exdS D8 16 Het Dxe6 17 Hxeo His 18 Wea Be and Black successfully uneavelled in Thorsen- Poulsen, correspondence 1985, b) 13 Dxg7+ GET 14 DGS bay 15 Ads (or 15 Dxe7 xe7 16 e5 Wes! as in Galla- Cordara, Turin 1984) 15..M&xd5 16 @xe7 ‘Sxc7 17 exdS Wed! and Black was better in Stam-Van Wely, Haarlem 1995. ‘This is all very sharp and may not be to everyone's taste, but 10...Abd7 does seem to be very effective. 1165 11 @d5? looks a bit desperate: 11...cxd5 12 5 (De Firmian-Olafison, New York 1987) and now Kosten’s suggestion of 12..@e4 13 DES dxeS 14 fxe5 2.18 seems to leave White with virtually nothing for the sacrificed piece. 11 Dadi? is the only real alternative to 11 5, after which Black should play 11...82xe4I, As a general rule, captuting with the bishop on e4 in this type of situation is safer than with the knight; Black controls more squates in the centre and White’s attacking ideas are more likely to fail. 11..2\xe4 would have invited trouble after 12 5 €5 13 De6! fre6 14 Whst, After 11..2xe4 White has various options: a) 12 Qxe6? fre6 13 Dxes Wa7 14 Dxg7+ WET 15 Doo Wes 16 Wag Dngt 17 @xa8 Dre3 18 Bfel d5 and White resigned in Ostergaatd-Agrest, Stockholm 1994. b) 12 Bl 5 13 Rxk7+ (or 13 De6 fixes 14 fxe6 0-0 15 Db6 Dcb 16 Axa8 Wra8 and Black was clearly better in Alaan-Amason, Novi Sad Olympiad 1990) 15..2xf7 14 De6 WaT 15 Dg5+ SAB 16 Axes Dxet 17 Dds Wes 18 £6 Axf6 19 Axa8 Wea8 and White has nothing to show for his material deficit, Rechlis-Pinter, Beersheba 1988. ©) 12 c3 (probably the best bet) 12...c61? (12.85 13 5 €5 14 DB Dbd7 15 Des 0-0 16 Dxe4 dxe4 17 g4-h6 was also a bit better for Black in. J-Todorovicllincic, Belgrade 1995) 13 @xc6 Sxc6 14 exb4 0-0 and, with the dust settled, Black’s central pawns outweigh White’s on the queenside, Swan- 30Rowson, Scottish Championship 1995. 11...bxe3 12 exf6 &xf6 Y 4 1315 White has two alternatives here: a) 13 Ba4+ Dd7 14 6 can be answered by 14...0-0! (14...e5 15 Ae6 transposes to the note to Black’s 14th move, but this is stronger), for example: 15 fxe6 De5 16 cb We7 17 Hxfé cxb2 18 Rb1 Dxat 19 e7 Wixc6 20 exf8W+ Mxf8 21 Wet hS 22 Wes @Qc3 and White can already resign, Borkowski-Wojtkiewicz, Slupsk 1989 b) 13 bxc3 is an important alternative. Play continues 13..0-0 14 Wd2 (or 14 £5 ¢5 15 De2 WcT 16 Wa2z Web 17 Ag3 Dd7 18 ad1 Bac8 and Black's better structure must be worth an edge, A.Sokolov-Vaulin, Kstovo 1997) 14... We7 15 Badt d5! (15.4771 16 £5 €5 17 De6! fxe6 18 fxe6 Dc5 19 €7+ worked out well for White in Velimitovic-Andersson, Moscow 1982) 16 g4l? (after 16 £52 eS 17 De2 Ad8 Black has an impressive centre) 16..Dd7! (16...$e7 17 5 5 18 1 Qxfo 19 DS gave White a menacing attack in Allvanov-Oll, Kostroma 1985) 17 g5 Se7. Now 18 c4? loses to 18..dxe4 19 Axe We6! (Kosten). 18 £5 is more sensible, but I still prefer Black after either 18...5 or 18..Dc5!?. 13...05 14 2aa+ Or 14 Dc2 cxb2 15 Hbt 0.0 16 Bxb2 We7 17 Bd5 @xd5 18 Wxd5 Acé (De Fir- mian-Pinter, Copenhagen 1985) and now Beliavsky and Mikhalchishin claim that White 6 &c4: Introduction and Sidelines has compensation after 19 @g3 De7 20 Wd2 d5 21 @h5, but it’s difficult to believe that Black isn’t better here. 14.2671? 14..Dd7 15 De6 fee6 16 feo 0-0 17 Bxd7 We 18 bxc3 Bc6 19 Bxc6 Wrxc6 20 HXb1 dd! left Black with the advantage in Kuzmin-Shneider, USSR 1982, but Kosten’s 17 exd7 is less clear, for example: 17...cxb2 18 Abt Was 19 Bxb2!. 14,..92681? is an idea of Beliavsky and Mik halchishin. After 15 @b3 cxb2 16 Bb1 Black plays 16..€2g8 followed by ..h7-h6 and ».82h7. However, this all looks a bit long- winded and the king is safe enough on e7. 15 De2 exb2 16 Lb1 We7 17 Wd2 Dd7 18 Bxb2 D5 19 Lfb1 Lab8 £2 As is so often the case in the Najdorf, White's greater piece activity is counterbal- anced by Black's better pawn structure. We are following the game Borkowski-P.David, Hradec Kralove 1988, which continued 20 D3 Dxad 21 Dxa4. Now after Kosten’s 21..&e4 22 De3 Hxb2 23 Bxb2 Bc6 24 @Dd5+ Qxd5 25 Wxd5 Eb8 Black has any advantage that is going (White should play 26 Hb3), but 22 Abs is possibly stronger. Overall, another line that Black needn’t fear, plus there’s always the extra and enticing, possibility of 10...Abd7!, 42) 10 e5 37Play the Najdort White goes for the ‘everything bot the kitchen sink’ approach. However, Black has more than. one way to rebuff White’s early onslaught and practical results have been excellent for the second player. 10...tixe5 11 fxe5 clear pawn ahead) 16...Eixd4 17 fxg7 Hg and Black will recapture on g7 with a clear edge (better pieces, pressure on g? etc.). © 15 Bc5! (the most testing move) and now: 11.8051 Immediately counterattacking on the sensitive a?-g1. diagonal is Black’s best approach. 11..€Afd7? allows White to display the purpose behind. 10 e5: 12 Bxf7! Sxf7 13 Axed Wh6+ 14 hi, when White has a very strong attack. 12 Be3 12 exf6? Wxd4+ 13 dh1 gxf6 is obviously good for Black, as is 12 Ace2? De6 13 exf6 @xd4 14 Wh Axb3 15 fag? Hg8 16 axb3 Bxg7, 12...Sxda ‘There: is also nothing wrong with the theoretical tecommendation of 12..c6 13 exfé Sxd4, but that is rather more complex than the solution offeted here. Tony Kosten states the case for 12...Axd4 very impres- sively in Easy Guide to the Najdorf 13 Bxd4 An important alternative is 13 Wxd4 Wadd 14 &xd4 Dcé6 and now: a) 15 exf6 Dxd4 transposes to the note to White's 14th move. b) 15 Had1 Eds! 16 exf6 (or 16 &b6 ‘Bxd1 17 Hxd1 Dd7 18 Ded Dxb6 19 Dde+ $e7 20 Axb7 @xe5 ~ Nunn — and Black is a cl) 15..Dd7 16 Bd6l (16 Bet Duc 17 DxcS Da5 — Kosten — is probably a little better for Black) 16,.Ddxe5 17 Qed! with some dark-squated control as compensation for the pawn, QD) 15..Axe5 16 a4 OA7 with a further split, 21) 17 Bb4 Dcé 18 Ld6 Ada! 19 axb5 axbS 20 Hadi @xb3 21 cxb3 £6 22 Zxb5 SBE7 with advantage to Black. 22) 17 Bd6 Ac4 18 Bb4 Dd2 19 Dxbs (after 19 Bf? Dxb3 20 cxb3 bxa4-21 baad Tike the idea of 22...h5! and ...2h6) 19..axb5 20 Bxd2 Ac5 21 axbS Dxb3 22 cxb3 (Ros- ten) is a probable draw, while 18..a5!? is interesting, 13...0c6 14 Bf4 14 Dez should be answered by 14..Agdl, while 14 exf6 Wxd4+ 15 Wadd Axd4 16 fxg7 Hg8 gives a similar ending to the one discussed in note ‘b’ to White’s 13th move, Black will recapture on g7 and enjoy a clear edge: 14 &c5 hopes to gain a tempo over note $e to White's 13th move after 14..Wad1#1 15 Wfxdi, but Black daesn’t need to play ball: 14.,.Qxe5! 15 We2 (or 15 a4 We7 16 Was Wad6 17 xd6 Act 18 Bb4 De3 19 BO 32Ded5 ‘with a solid pawn more’ — Kosten) 15..We7 16 22 (16 Bd4? Deg4! 17 g3 ‘WeG! is a demonstration of Black’s power on the long diagonal) 16..eg4 17 &g3 We5+ 18 @h1 0-0 19 Bact Had8 and Black is in control, Sus-Kaluza, correspondence 1994, 14...We7! Pinning the e5-pawn and preparing to either castle long or play ..d8. 15 We2 15 WEL (avereide-Gallagher, Lewisham 1984) should be answered by 15..Ah5! 16 Hh4 Dxd4 17 Bxh5 (Kosten), when White's out of play rook on h5 and the weakness on 5 give Black an edge. 15...0-0-0 16 Se3 16 Edi allows Black to simplify into a favourable ending: 16..0xd4 17 Bfcdd Exd4 18 Exd4 Wc5 19 We3 Dd7 20 Ded Sxe4 21 Exed Wxe3+ 22 Hxe3 Wb7 23 dif2 Hc8 24 13 He5 and White must always keep guard of his vulnerable e5-pawn, Costa des Neves- Rodriguez, correspondence 1990. 16 We! Bxd4 17 Bxd4 Axd4 18 ext Dxb3 19 exb3 pxfb 20 Hct debs left Black a clear pawn up with a good position in Westerinen-Arnason, Helsinki 1986. 16...Wxe5 17 Wi2 hs! Nunn’s suggested improvement from Nunn-Kosten, London 1980 (the original 6 &c4: Introduction and Sidelines game in this line). After 18 h3 Black plays 18..2h6l, intending ..Lg6. 18 Ab6 \ lad me Wisp Widmann-Gierse, correspondence 1993. Here I like 18...d7!, when the onus is on White to prove that he has enough compensation for the pawn. I suspect that he hasn't, In conclusion, this is another sharp line at White’s disposal, but Black’s resources are considerable and he has more than one way to achieve a good position. Because of this, white players have virtually given up on eatly £2-£4 lines, preferring the more controlled approach of Chapier 2. Points to Remember 1) 6 Sct bSI? is a litle-played wrinkle which avoids Variations A and B, not that Black has anything to fear in these lines. 2) The ...Axc3 exchange sacrifice is a prominent feature in lines with an early £2-£4. 3) Be very careful before capturing the e4- pawn, Undoubtedly this is an extremely important pawn to win, but in some cases White obtains terrific compensation. Often the threat to capture on e4 is greater than the execution, 4) Fischer’s amazing idea of ...h7-h5 has virtually killed off Variation C2. 33CHAPTER TWO 6 2c4 e6 7 &b3 bd 80-0 2e7 9 WF3 1 04 cB 2 D3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Axd4 ATG 5 Dc3 a6 6 Lcd e6 7 Lb3 b5 80-0 eo7 9 Wis ‘One of the earliest examples of 9 WES was in: Bobby Fischer-Fridtik Olafsson, Buenos Aites 1960. Despite a victory for the young American 9 WS, and the plans associated with it, remained in the shadows. It only became popular later (in the Jace 1980s), when. it became clear that black players had found more than sufficient antidotes to the hyper- aggressive £2-F4 lines seen in Chapter 1. White’s main idea is to attack Black with pieces rather than his £ and e-pawns, Using the threat of a quick e4-e5, the queen gains a tempo on its way to g3. Here it attacks the g- pawn and encourages Black to castle, which is then met by £2h6, usually forcing ..De8, ‘The system with 9 WS has become very popular because White can attack without overextending himself with weakening pawn moves. I's true that this type of attack puts much less pressure on Black’s structute, but White is much more likely to end up with a playable position, even if Black avoids the vatious wicks in the opening. The good news for Najdor? players is that, as long as Black avoids these traps, he too will have a very playable position. ‘Lricks to be waty of include e4-e5, AS, Dd5, @d5 and various sactifices on ¢6, That may sound like a lot to handle, but covering these threats soon becomes second nature to a Najdorf player. Structutally speaking, Black has nouch less to worry about, White is usually in a less fa- voutable position to employ £2-f4. If it comes at all, it will only be much later on, and by that time Black is usually not only ready for it, but already undertaking counterplay on the queenside or in the centre, AsI mentioned earlier, White's immediate threat is 10 5. The most natutal move, 9.nKbT?, fails to a typical tactic: 10 Sxe6! fre6 11 Axe6, followed by 12 Axg7+, when Black’s position is in total disarray. However, Black must be ready to meet 10 ¢5 with 10..2b7. Thus my two tecommendations for Black are the reliable 9...l8e7 (A) and the mote ambitious 9...1Wb6 (B). A) 9...We7 ‘The most obvious solution to Black's problems; the black queen tikes up its fa voutite Najdorf post and Black is ready to deal with e4-e5. We will now look at White’s two main replies, Al: 10 Het A2: 10 Wg3 346 &c4 e6 7 &b3 D5 8 0-0 he7 9 WIS Before moving on, let's take a brief look at less critical ideas: a) 10 €5 is the move that 9...We7 was meant to avoid. It és just about playable, but White has hardly gained anything after 10..2b7 (but not 10...dxeS? 11 Adxb5!) 11 exd6 &xd6 12 Wh3 0-0. In the game JTurner-Lea, Cardiff 1996, White continued in aggressive fashion with 13 £4, but following 13..b4 14 Ace2 Ac6 15 c3 Dxd4 16 cxd4 Hfe8 17 @e3 Dds 18 Bact Wer 19 EB Axe3 20 Bxe3 WG it was Black, with the bishop pair and the stronger structure, who was in control, Instead, 13 g5 Dbd7 looks level. b) 10 &g5 (White normally tries to develop this bishop on h6 — after Wg3 and 0-0) 10..@bd7! (with the queen on £3 rather than g3, this now becomes an important option; the point is that &xe6 can be met effectively by ..De5!) 11 Badl 0-0 with a petfectly acceptable position from Black's point of view. The knight on d7 can go to either €5 or, better still, c5, From that square it hits the e4-pawn and the Sozin bishop on b3, while it also adds support to e6, thus cutting out sacrifices on 6, bl) The game —_Bosch-Kuczynski, Bundesliga 1997 continued 12 a3 Ac5 13 ‘We2 Lb7 14 3 h6 15 Act Axb3 16 exb3 Bfes 17 Hel 248 18 We2 Bad8 19 b4 €5! 20 DES dst and Black had taken over the initiative and the centte in typical Sicilian Najdorf fashion, b2) In Lutikov-Polugaevsky, Leningrad 1960, White tried to force matters with 12 €5?, but following 12,.dxe5! 13 Dxe6 fueé 14 Wxa8 &b7 15 xe6+ Bh8 16 Exd7 (or 16 Wa? 8.05; 16 Wxb7 Wxb? 17 &xd7 is relatively best) 16..Axd7 17 Wxb7 Wxb7 18 Sixe7 He8 19 2d5 We7 Black went on to win, ©) 10 a3 here is too slow and also allows 10...Abd7! (of course 10...0-0 and 10..Acé6 ate perfectly acceptable too) 11 Wg3 DcS! 12 ‘Wig? (risky, but at least consistent) 12..1g8 13 Wh6 Dcxed 14 Axed Dxes. Here 15 Wxh7 D6 16 Wh6 Qb7 17 £3 0-0-0 gives Black tremendous play on the open files against the white king. Al) 10 He!? A tricky move and a worthwhile altetna- tive to the much more popular 10 Wg3. Cf ten the queen will still go to g3 in any case, but White is waiting to see how Black commits himself first 10...0-0! In my opinion this is the most precise move, the reason being that, with the queen not on g3, there is no immediate &h6 to worry about. Still, it's worthwhile looking at alternatives (good and bad) just to see how carefully Black needs to tread here: a) OF course we mustn't forget that 35Play the Najdort 10...$2b7? still runs into 11 &xe6l. b) 10..bd7!, planning ...e5 or ..2e5, is idealistic but also rather risky for Black after 11 Wy3l (11 Sxe6? eS is the point behind Black’s previous move) and now: bt) 11..Deset 12 @65I (it was this discovery that enticed me to try out 10 Bet as White) 12..exf5 (or 12...80b7 13 Dxg7-+ ded7 14 WES with a clear advantage to White, Emms-Rashkovsky, Hastings 1995) 13 Wxg7 Bi 14 exfS Axb3 15 axb3 ded8 16 @xb5 and Black is in deep trouble, b2) Afier 11..b4 White can still sacrifice: 12 DdSI? exd5 13 Mxds Od5 14 Wag BEB 15 exd5 e5 16 Sh6. Black may be okay hete, but it’s difficult to recommend this line as a first choicel ©) If Black is looking for something different to 10...0-0, the move 10.26 is playable: cl) 11 e5%! Bxddl 12 Wra8 dxe5 13 &g5 0-0 gave Black excellent compensation. for the small material deficit in Vink-Najer, Groningen 1999, 2) 11 Axcé Wrcs 12 Kgs! (12 Wed transposes to Variation A22) and now Black has to be precise: 21) The natural 12..0-0? runs into a typical trick: 13 Dd5! exd5 14 SxdS Axd5 15 exd5 Wxe2 16 @xe7 Be8 17 Sxd6 with a clear extra pawn for White. 22) 12...@b7 also doesn’t solve all the problems: 13 Qxf6l gxf6 (13..Rxf6? 14 Rds! WeB 15 €5)) 14 He3 WeS 15 Buel 88 16 &d5! exd5 (or 16.Ha7 17 Sexb7 Bxb7 18 5 d5 19 exf6 @d8 20 Axd5) 17 exd5 with a very strong attack for White in Sutovsky- Gallagher, Bled Olympiad 2002. 23) 12,..Ha7l, as recommended by Tony Kosten in Easy Guide to the Najdor, avoids the immediate tricks and is the way forward for Black. 27 Baws toueta 7 y mae aa £7 fe Hy 231) 13 Dd? exd5 14 Bxf6 palo 15 Sxd5 We5 doesn’t give White enough for the invested matetial, 232) 13 Blad1 0-0 14 Wig3 Bds 15 &h6 De8 16 Be3 Bb7 17 a3 b4 18 axb4 Bxb4 was equal in T.Chtistianses-Jensen, cotre- spondence 1987. Black will eventually arrange ..06-5-a4, 232) 13 ad! (suggested by Golubev) 13...b4 14 a5 0-0 15 a2 Eb7 looks playable for Black, for example 16 2d2 We5 17 Aci DAT A18 Dd3 DeSl or 16 Dct Whs 17 &d2 5. 11 Wg3 ‘The most testing move. Now that Black has castled, the white queen hutties to g3 in order to arrange S2h6, Alternatively: a) 11 €5? loses after 11..dxe5! 12 Wha (or 12 BdxbS axb5 13 WxaB 2b7 14 Dxb5 Wed) 12..exd4 13 De4 Lb7 14 Dsko+ exfo 15 Wa7 c5. It’s amazing how often Black can allow his rook on a8 to be captured. In many cases White’s queen never makes it out of the cotner alive! 366 cd e6 7 2b3 b5 B 0-0 Be7 9 WB b) 11 23 allows Black to set up a perfect defensive formation with 11,.Abd7!, ‘This move is playable with the white queen still on £3 because 12 &xe6?? loses to 12...He5, while 12 5? is met by 12..dxe5 13 Axe fxe6 14 Wxa8 2b7. ‘The continuation 12 Wey3 DeS 13 Bho Dhs 14 Wh3 Dfo 15 We3 Ago! gave Black no problems in Emms-Lutz, Hamburg 1995. The following moves are quite instructive as Black gradually assumes the initiative: 16 &g5 Bb8 17 Hadi b4 18 axb4 Mxb4 19 AGB Hd8 20 Dh4 Dxh4 21 Qxh4 Bb7 22 We3 hol 23 8 Dgal 24 Gg3 Woot 25 Bhi DL+ 26 Rxf2 Wiz Black’s dark-squared control is now an important factor) 27 Het Wh4 28 We3 £6 29 Wel Wxel 30 Efxet Be5 31 Hd3 a5 32 Hal Ha8 33 g3 g5 34 deg? Aco UE a & S mi d y a8 ace ne aN y em an og 35 Bad Exb2! 36 Bxc6 He8 37 Bad Hxc3 38 Bxc3 &xc3 and Black won, ©) 11 &g5 Dbd7! (again this move) 12 We3 (12 €5? loses after 12..dxe5 13 Axes fxe6 14 Wxa8 Qb7 15 Lxe6+ Sh8 16 Wa? c5; 12 @xe6 would work with the queen on g3 but here it once again allows 12...Ae5!) 12..De5 (12..Ac5, hitting b3, e4 and protecting €6, also looks promising) 13 Had ba? 14 Dbl Abs 15 Wh4 Lxgs 16 Wxg5 D6 17 c3 Sb7 18 F3 a5 and I prefer Black, Ankerst-Shneider, Pula 1994. 11.2.4 Note that 11..@bd7?? now fails 12 Bxe6l, while 11...Ac6 is just what White wants. AE ter 12 Dxcé Wxc6 we have wansposed to Line A22 where Black has casted too early. 11...8d7 and 11...82h8 are both reliable alternatives, but J like 11...b4 (this is the reason 1 played 11 a3 in my game with Lutz). For those looking to keep their pawn on b5 for the moment, the continuation 11...8d7 12 Rho eB 13 Kadl Acé 14 @xc6 Lxc6 15 a3.a5 16 &eS BxgS 17 Wags Bbs, as in Gobet-Pinter, Thessaloniki 1984, looks reasonable for Black. 12 2a4 Or 12 Ddl De6 (12.828 13 3 LI? also comes into consideration because 14 @xe6 can be answered by 14..Axed!) 13 Dxco Wrxe6 14 &h6 DeB 15 c3 Bh8 16 Sigs Qxp5 17 Wxe5 with equality, Repkova- Vasilchenko, Zlin 1995, 12...8d7 13 63 ‘As far as I’m aware, this is the only move to have been tied here, but White should consider alternatives: a) 13 Bh6 De8 (13..AnS!? 14 Wes Was looks as though Black is playing with fire, but this may just about be playable) 14 ¢3 a5 15 Bact Wb7 and Black will follow up with Deo, b) 13 a3 bxa3 (15..a5!2) 14 Hxa3 De6 15 Dxc6 Bxc6 16 Lh6 Ae8 17 Maat (or else ..46-d5 is a constant worty) 17..WWb7 and again White’s attack is repulsed, 13...WaB Another enticing option for Black here is to saddle White with an isolated pawn after 13..fixa4!? 14 xad bxc3 15 bxc3, The game Edwards-Penquite, correspondence 1997 continued 15...28c8! 16 8&h6 S48! 17 232! Abd7 18 Kaet? Was! 19 23 Ah5! 20 Wh3 gxh6 21 Axe6 Adf6 22 g4 Ag7 and Black went on to win. 14 exb4 14 &h6? now simply loses material after 14... D5. 14...Wéxb4 15 De2 Wad 16 “e3 De As far as I can see, Black has completed development, has no weaknesses and can 37Play the Najdorf look forward to the future with confidence. Here are three practical examples: a) 17 4 Wh? 18 De3 Wes! 19 Wea Daal 20 Qdi Bb5 21 Axb5 axb5 22 213 Leb 23 Del Wee2+ 24 doxea Bic 25 Ha2 5 26 5 Dad7 27 Le3 b4 left Black with a favourable ending in Prescha-Caccia, cotespondence 1995, b) 17 Raz We7 18 &h6 Des 19 Badt Da5! 20 Dd4 KG (20..Axb3 also can’t be bad) 21 Bad Sxa4 22 Dxad W7 23 b3 Hc8 24 Bhi PhB 25 Le5 Deb! 26 SLxf5 Dxk6 27 B Bias 28 Axcé Bxcé 29 Ab2 He2 30 Dc4 d5 31 exdS Bxd5 32 Mat Hd8 was agreed drawn in Ponelis-Vriendt, correspondence 1997, ©) 17 S03 We7 18 Hact Bes 19 Ads Wb7 20 Axc6 Bxc6 21 a5 22 Rad! pave White the faintest of edges in Van Riemsdijk- Mecking, Sao Paulo 1993, but retreating with 17..MWc7 doesn’t make sense to mie. More active is 17..2fc8, for example 18 Hadi De5 19 Bd2 Wh6, after which Black has ideas of 6-a5-a4 and ..o4, A2) 10 Wg3 ‘The main continuation, White completes his queen manoeuvre afid hits the g7-pawn. 10...0c6 OF course fot 10..Rb7? in view of 11 &xe6! — this should be becoming a very fa- milliar tactic by now! 10...0-0 is the major alternative for Black, after which play normally continues with 11 AnG DeB, It was a difficult choice between this and 10..Ac6 because both moves: ate reliable. In the end I plumped for 10..2e6 because I feel that White has fewer possibilities here and so there is slightly less to learn. Now White has to do something about his rattacked knight. We will consider the following possibilities: A21: 11 D512 Other choices are less dangerous: a) 11 DP (this and the other knight retreat in variation ‘b’ don’t look threatening) 11..0-0 12 &h6 De8 13 Hadi S&b7 (13...£d7 would actually transpose to a theo- setical position reached after 10...0-0 11 &h6 @c8 12 Bad &d7 13 AB Acc, but of course here Black can place his bishop on a more active diagonal) 14 S£4 @a5 15 &5 Has 16 Bel Dxb3 17 cxb3 dxe5 18 DxeS Dab 19 Wes Wed 20 Het Was! and Black had more than equalised in Vavra-P.Neumann, Germany 1998, b) Tm sure there are quite a few good lines against 11 @de2. Kosten’s 11...0-0 12 h6 De8 13 Bad Aa5 is one decent way forward for Black. ©) 11 &e3 looks sensible as it develops « piece and defends the knight. However, this 386 2c4 06 7 &b3 bd 8 0-0 Be7 9 WF move is hardly ever played because, as I've mentioned before, the bishop really wants to develop on hG (after Black castles kingside, of coursel). Now 11...0-0 12 Axc6 Wxc6 13 Bh6 Def leaves White a tempo down over the theoretical line 11 Dxcé Wxe6 12 Rel 0-0 13 &h6 Des, and this fact considerably cases Black's task, for example: cl) 14 dS looks threatening, but 14...2.d8!, intending ..WWb7, is more than sufficient for Black, for example 15 2g5?! (15 Hfe1 should be played) 15..2xg5 16 WegS exd5! 17 Qxd5 We5! 18 b4 WaT 19 Bxa8 Wra8 20 8 We6 with a clear advantage to Black, Olivier-Kosten, Monaco 2000. 2) 14. a4 Qb7 (14...b421 15 @d5! — watch this tactic! — 15..2.d8 16 a5 was better for White in J-Polgar-H.Olafsson, Egilsstadis 1988) 15 axb5 axb5 16 Hxa8 @xa8 17 Mel 86 and Black had things under control in Nikolenko-Yuferov, Moscow 1990. A21) 11 DEBI? ‘The first time I took this outlandish move even remotely seriously was after I played against David Coleman in Gausdal in 1996. Having played 10...0-0 in our encounter, David, a Najdorf expert, casually told me that no one was playing 10..c6 anymore because of 11 AE5I. This comment came as a bit of a shock to me because, as far as I was aware, there had been no published analysis supporting 11 )f5. On the other hand, David was certainly correct in that, at the time, 10...0-0 was the move amongst the top (Najdorf experts Gelfand and Wojtksiewiez were employing it and, after one outing with 10..Ac6, Kasparov had also switched to 10.,.0-0). Anyway, I was persuaded enough to take a closer look at 10 15. After some analysis my conclusion was that it is certainly playable but nothing really special for White. ‘That said, and despite the fact it’s oaly been played in a handful of games, this line should be treated with great care, 11...6xf5 Black must be brave and grab the piece on offer — cowardice is not rewarded here. The continuation 11,.b4? 12 Dxg7+ looks good for White, for example 12...8d8 (or 12...8¢d7 13 Dad Hy8 14 Bho Des? 15 Axesl) 13 De2 Axed (13..Hg8 14 Bh6 De8 loses to 15 Dxe6+) 14 WES Dgs 15 Whs Kgs 16 £4 Exg7 17 fag5 and it's difficult to recommend this for Black. His position is a bit of a mess and there’s no extra piece as compensation! 12 Wxg7 218 13 295 13 exfS @xf5! (13.52! 14 Ad5! Axd5 15 2xd5 Qb7 16 Sxb7 Wxb7 17 f6 2d8 18 Bho Vd7 19 Wexh7 He8 20 f4 looks promising for White) 14 2g5 b4 15 Bxf6 bxc3 transposes to note ‘a’ to White’s 14th move. 13...b4! Te’s crucial that the white knight isn’t allowed to land on an unguarded d5-square. ‘The line 13..Axe4? 14 @d5! has previously been given as unclear, but I would ad- vise readers to stay well clear of this line: a) 14. Wd8 15 &xe7 Dxc7 16 £3 Bgs 17 Wah? Dgs 18 Dto+ 0B 19 Who+ Bye? 20 Dh5 Woot 21 Shi Wd4 22 c3 Ags 23 Wh8 We5 24 £4 and White wins. b) 14..Wb7 15 Axe7 Axe7 (or 15..Axg5 16 Dxc6 Deb 17 We3 Bd7 18 Ab4) 16 Bh6 @®e6 17 Bact! Wa7 (17.9048 18 Waa! — planning £2-£3 — 18..Wa7 19 Exe! fxed 20 Wrd6+ He8 21 Ld5 Bb7 22 Rcot+ Lxc6 players 39Play the Najdorf 23 Wxc6+ #7 24 Re3 and White wins) 18 Be3 We? 19 B Be 20 fred fed 21 RhG Rxb3 22 axb3 looks decidedly dodgy for Black, 14. Bd5 ‘The most consistent follow-up, but 14 Sixf6l? must also be taken seriously. Black should play 14...bxc3 and now: a) 15 exf Rxf 16 Bact 0-0-0 (16.,.cxb2 is possible as Black can always gain time with the deflecting move ..b1W!) 17 @xe7 Axe7 18 He3 cxb2 19 Wf $6 and Black went on to win in Mubutdinov-Shneider, St, Peters- burg 1993. b) Strangely, I haven’t seen any mention of the move 15 Sxc3I? here, White doesn’t have to play for mate; he also has the materi- alistic option of trying to grab as many pawns as possible as compensation for the piece minus. I suspect, however, that the resulting: positions are at least playable for Black and may possibly be better for the second player. ‘The continuation 15..f4! (15..Rb7I? also looks interesting) 16 Wak? De5 looks sensible, for example 17 Rédi 47 18 Who Bes 19 Watt Bed and now it's Black ture to attack, 14...0xd5 15 exd5 Or 15 BxdS Bays 16 Wags £4) 17 Wats 2b7 and Black's extra piece was worth more than White's two pawns in Guseinov- Magertamov, Baku 1986. 15...De5! ‘The only move; Black must both block the e-file and guard against a4, we rm . i een mG 16 x07 16 4 RxgS 17 Wags f6 and 16 Rae MAT 17 Bxd7+ Wad? 18 Sxe7 Wre? 19 Wa7+ 20 Bhi Dgs 21 Hacit+ ed7 are worse for White than the main line, 16...Wxe7 For those brave souls there is 16..?xe71? (a tisky attempt to keep the extra piece) 17 4 and now: a) 17..g6?? 18 Bacl+ eds 19 Wes+ De7 20 Be3 Be8 21 Mfel is winning for White: 21..2b7 22 Bxe7 Bxe7 23 Wh8+ Bad7 24 Batt. b) 17,.WWc5+H clears the king’s path to the queenside: 18 Shi Zg6 19 c3 Wd7 20 cxb4 Wed 21 Mfet+ ded 22 Bact Mes 23 Weo+ e7 is decidedly murky, 17 £4 f61 406 cd e6 7 B63 b5 8 0-0 Be7 9 WI Tt was the discovery of this move that put me off playing 11 \¢5, especially after I later discovered that Tony Kosten had also found it and mentioned it in Easy Guide to the Naj- dorf. The line 17..Wa7+? 18 Sh1 Ag6 19 Wo sed7 20 c3! is much more exciting for White — Black’s pieces are clumsily placed and his king will never be safe. 18 Wxe7 + 18 We3 allows 18..WWa7+ (an important resource in many lines). Following 19 Shi Deo 20 Wel+ De7 21 Wxb4 We7 White doesn’t quite have enough compensation for the piece, 18.,.Sexe7 19 fxe5 fxe5 ‘At first sight this endgame simply looks good for Black — he has a central pawn mass, while White’s bishop is blocked by the pawn on d5. However, I actually believe that it's not so clear. White can create some play on. the queenside with the immediate 20 a3, against which Black should probably play 20..8b8, Nevertheless, if push came to shove I would probably choose Black. A22) 11 Dxc6 Wxe6 12 Het ‘The most natural move. White defends the e-pawn and waits for Black to commit his king, Short castling will be met by £&h6, forc~ ing... Deb. Alternatives are not particularly frightening for Black: a) 12 Wexg7?! Res 13 Wh6 @xe4 14 Axed Wxed 15 £3 We6 16 Wxp6 hxg6 gives Black a very comfortable ending wiere his central pawns promise an edge b) After 12 a3 &.b7 there is nothing better for White than transposing to the main line with 13 Hei, Meanwhile 12..Axe4 13 Axed Weaet 14 Wxe7 Bes 15 Bh6 27 also looks playable for Black. ©) 12 gb is a typical move that Black is likely to face but, as White is still likely to meet ..0-0 with 2h6, playing Bg5 loses a tempo over the old main lines. Now 12...0-02 13 Dd5I is a characteristic trick to look out for. Instead Black should continue with 12...8b7! and now: cl) 13 Biel 0-0 14 &h6 (thus White loses a tempo) 14... De8 15 Hadl Bd8 16 a3 B £6! (16...@2h8 is also okay for Black) 17 Bd3 a5 18 g5 b4 19 axb4 axb4 20 Da2 WeS 21 Qd2 Lxb2 22 Sxb4 Who 23 Wys Has 24 3 223 was equal in Schulte-Hacssel, Ed- monton 2000, 2) 13 Had1 0-0! (13..d8 is solid) and now: 21) 14 Bh6 De8 (or 14...Dh5!? 15 Wes b4) 15 Efet transposes to ‘cl. 22) 14 AxfG Sxfo 15 Bxd6 We5 (Golubev) with significant compensation for the pawn (pressure on e4, better minor pieces) €23) 14 a3 (to prevent..b5-b4) 14..fd8! (now &h6 can also be answered by ...g7-26 41Play the Najdorf as well as ...2e8) 15 Hd3 a5 and Black, who has renewed the theeat of ..b5-b4, is fine. 24) 14 Bfel Bat (or 14..b4!? 15 @xf6 — 15 Rd5 We7! — 15.,.8xf6 16 Bxd6 We7 17 Dat Sh4 18 Wa3 Had8 19 €5 Re7 20 Kxds Bxd8, when Black's better minor pieces and control over the d-file give him enough for the pawn) with a final branching: 241) 15 Hagel bal 16 Dd5 exd5 17 exdS ‘WaT! (Golubev) 18 Hxe7 Wre7 19 Me3 WEB! (this is one reason why ...fd8 can be more favourable than ...Rad8) 20 Sxf6 He8 and Black is berter. 242) 15 @d5\? We7l Black must avoid 15..exd5? 16 Axd5!) 16 Sxb? Wrb7 17 &xf62! (17 26 g6 18 23 a5 is comformable for Black) 17..2xf6 18 Bxd6 Hxd6 19 Wixd6 b4 20 Dai (or 20 Dat ds 21 We Wo) 20.248 21 We4 Wa7 and Black threatens both Wid! and ...Wd2. 243) 15 23 a5 16 Rh6 RB (16..De8 17 Bd3 26 is possible if Black is playing for more, though the position is still objectively equal) 17 @g5 Se7 18 &h6 and a draw was agteed in Vasiukov-Polugaevsky, Moscow 1969. 12...b7! Initially black players were castling immediately — 12..0-0 13 &h6 We8 is the old main line and possibly a slight edge for White. However, it then was discovered that Black's g-pawn is actually ‘poisoned’ and that it is more beneficial for Black to delay castling in favour of other developing moves. Now we shall take’ a look at White’s two sain responses: A221: 13 a3 A222: 13 Wxg7 Firstly, let's take a brief look at less threatening alternatives: a) 13 &g5 transposes to note ‘cl’ to White’s 12th move, b) 13 ad? b4 14 a5 (threatening &a4) 14..0-0 is simply good for Black because e¢ is deopping. ©) It should be second nature to Najdorf playets to calculate the consequences of @d5. Hete it is premature: 13 @d5? exd5 14 exd5 Axd5 15 Weg7 0-0-0! 16 Wxt7 286 and Black wins. 4) 13 Bis another useful waiting move in that it overprotects the e4-pawn. However, there ate also some disadvantages to playing this move so early. For one thing, White's queen's soute along the third rank is now blocked, while White also has to take into consideration black checks on the a7-gl diagonal in any tactical sequences. di) 13..0-0 14 @hG De8 15 Hadi Wf61? 16 Mp5 (16 Ha3 b4 17 Dad a5 18 c4 bxc3 19 bxc3 Ba6 was slightly better for Black in Boll-Van Oostetom, cottespondence 1991) 16..88G5 (16..n8xC31? 17 bxc3 a5 also locks 426 &c4 e6 7 Bb3 b5 8 0-0 Le7 9 WHE promising) 17 Wxg5 @f6 and, compared with say 15..8h8 16 Sg5 &xg5 17 Wxgs f6, Black is very slightly better off because the king is more centzalised on g8 (this can be a significant factor — see Line A221). Note that once White has played £2-3, Black does not have to worry about any possible rook swingers to the kingside via the third rank (Gd3-23 would have been one possibility). After 18 23 Bad8 we would actually transpose to Zapata-Mecking (note to White's 17th move in A221). 2) If Black is looking for a more advea- turous way to play against 13 £3, then he could do worse than try American GM Wal- ter Browne's sophisticated 13...Hg8!? here Black’s idea is to punish White for playing an carly £2-£3 by commencing attacking operations on the kingside, In the game Ander- son-Browne, Los Angeles 1996, Black’s plan worked admirably after 14 De2 g5 15 Dds We5 16 Be3 WeS 17 262 Dbs! 18 Wrxes dxe5 19 Ae2 p4 20 Fl Bg6 21 Hadi Keo! 22 Dgl Bg6 23 Ge2 a5 24 a4 Bab 25 axb5 Bxb5 26 c4 Leb 27 Rb1 Lb4 28 Bedi Bie 29 Det gxf3 30 gxf3 Df4. I'm sure White’s play here can be improved somewhere along the line, but this ambitious attempt from Black is sefteshingly different and shouldn’t be discounted. A more recent encounter continued 14 Be3 g5 15 &d4 Barlow- Palliser, Hepolite 2002) and now Palliser suggests 15...g4!? 16 f4 Dh5, intending 17 WA g3 18 hxg3 Dxp3. A221) 13 a3 The sensible option. White plays a useful waiting move that prevents ..b5-b4 and thus takes some of the pressure off the e¢-pawn. 13.808! ‘An important refinement by the Azerbai- jani GM Elmar Magerramov. Black somehow manages to find yet another useful waiting move before castling! Before this discovery 13..0-0 had been played quite a few times, and Black can play like this if he wants to avoid Bd5 fireworks after ..Rd8. Play can continue 14 &h6 Dc8 15 Bad1 Bs 16 Rad 266 (16...2h8 17 Bes is similar) 17 @g5 Ad7 18 Qxf6 Dxf6 19 B Mfd8 20 Hedi (Ciemniak-Skalik, Bielsko Biala 1991). This gives us a typical position in which Black has beaten off White’s early initiative. On the other hand, White has not overstretched and has no real weaknesses for Black to exploit. The only point of attack is Black’s pawn on dé, but this is easily cov- ered by Black’s major pieces and, in the ending, the king can slot into the e7-square. White’s advantage, if he has one, is insignifi- cant. However, there is no objective need to avoid playing 13...d8. aS BT ris a an Again White places the bishop on the long diagonal, Here he has a very specific plan in mind. 10...We7 11 Dxe6 Here it is. White will follow up with @a4 and ¢2-c4, creating a kind of clamp in the centre. This plan is quite unusual for the a Scheveningen, Alternatively: 2) LL ad transposes to Line B in Chapter 6. b) 11 Bh1 Dx! (11...2d7 wransposes to Line B32) 12 Wxd4 e5 13 Wd2 b5! 14 a3 b7 15 Hadi Bfes 16 WE was agreed drawn in Kuzmin-Novikov, Leningrad 1990 ~ Black is comfortable in the final position co) 11 Wet?! Dxd4! 12 Bxd4 €5 13 Led 97Play the Najdort (13 fxeS deed 14 We3 25! and now White's bishop on £3 looks rather silly) 13..b5 14 Hat s2b7 and again Black can be happy with his position. 11,..bxe6 12 Gad &b7 13 64 65 Wat+ 27 shea Wa2+ 28 $63 Wa3+ 29 dps, ‘We6+ are perpetual checks) 26..Wel+ 27 ed We2+ 28 2B Lxc6l 29 Web Wai+ 30 det We2+ 31 GAS (1 Wed5?? even loses after 31..Wxp2+ 32 ded6 Wrxc6+ 33 exc £3) 31.. Wh5+ 32 Ged We2+, 14 De3 A serious alternative for White is to leave the knight on a4 and to tty to arrange a favourable e4-e5 break leaving the c5-pawn vulnerable. 14 We2 Dd7 15 Hadi Bads 16 b3 @b8l? (taking up the challenge by manoeuvring the knight to c6 in order to eye the d4-outpost; if Black wants to play it safe he could slowly improve his position with 16..2Lfe8 followed by ...$£8) 17 WE Dc6 18 5 dxeS and now: a) 19 fxe5 Qxe5 20 Oxb7 and here Black, has the choice of entering an unclear position after 20..Wxb7 21 Dxc5 We6 ot claiming a draw with the very neat sequence 20..Ag4 21 We Mp5! 22 Wxc? Rxe3+ 23 Pht DOr. b) 19 Mxc5! Bxdt 20 Eadt exft 21 Sexe? Were? 22 Wc5! Had8! (the only move) 23 Dxd8+! (23 Wae7? Badi+ 24 Sxdi Axe7 gave Black a better ending in Van det Wiel- Van Wely, Dutch League 1993) 23...ixd8 24 Sxc6 Waal 25 del and now Black draws with the amazing 25...e5!l, for example 26 Was) (26 S63 e4! 27 Bxet Wal+ 28 dio Wa2+ and 26 Bxb7 14...2d7 15 We2 15 Wd2 will probably come to the same thing after 15..Had8 16 Badt @b8 17 We2 Deb. 15...Bad8 16 Rad1 Dbs! ‘This is a typical plan; the black knight comes to 06 in order to control the d4 outpost. 17 Wt2 Acé6 Black can be satisfied with his position. Ideally he would like to play ...£.%6-d4, but this needs some preparation as a premature -ALf6 may be answered by e4-e5. Hete ate some practical examples: 986 2e2: Introduction a) 18 p42! (this crude lunge is unwarranted here — White is just hitting thin air) 18.286 19 g5 @xc3! 20 bxc3 f5! 21 extS exfS! 22 Bot Da5 23 Sxb7 Axb7 24 WH Das 25 Bed Bie8 26 2 Bed and White's position fell to pieces in Roy Chowdhury-Sasikiran, New Delhi 2001 b) 18 @h1 and now: bi) 18..Bfe8 19 25! and now 19...26? is met by the very strong 20 £51, but after 19.8! (Fernandez Garcia-Lalic, Zaragoza 1996) it’s unclear what the bishop achieves on h5. b2) 18..g61? 19 (51? @£6 with a balanced position, Psakhis-KiGeorgiev, Palma de Mallorca 1989. B32) 10 ht By nestling the king safely in the corner, White doesn’t commit himself to any plan just for the moment. Instead he waits to see how Black will react. 10...2d7! ‘There's nothing wrong with 10...Wc7; it’s just that 11 Wel! sneakily gets us out of our sepertoire (as 1 mentioned earlier, in most early Wel lines in Chapter 6 our queen remains on d8 for a while), oat a Wh BR Eeeeeae a: 11243 Alternatively: a) 11 Wet transposes to Line Al in Chap- ter 6 (Black continues with 11...b5)). b) 11 a4 Dxd4l? (11..We? transposes to Line B21 in Chapter 6) 12 Wxd4 2c6 13 £8 (13 a5 Be8 14 Wd3 Dd7! 15 23 We7 16 Bf2 Béd8 was equal in Ljubojevic-Hulak, Indonesia 1983) 13..4c8 14 a5 d5! 15 5 (or 15 exd5?! Axd5 16 Axd5 Sxd5 17 Qxd5 Gc51 18 Wd3 Wad5 19 Wxd5 exd5 20 Bxc5 Bxc5 — Omstein — and White’s pawns are actually weaker than Black’s) 15..De4 16 Dxet dxed 17 Be2 Wrxd4 18 Axd4 5! 19 exf6 Lexf6 20 &xf6 (Pritchett-Andersson, Haifa Olympiad 1976) and now Ornstein suggests 20..gxf6 as the best move 11..Sile7 12 94 Or 2) 12.a4 transposes to Line B21 in Chaptet 6 b) 12 Wel allows Black to illustrate a negative feature of &£3 to complete the equalising manoeuvre 12...Axd4! 13 &xd4 €5 14 fxe5 dxe5 15 Wy3 2d6 — the bishop on 3 inconveniently blocks the ffile so there is no Exf6. c) 12 @b3 plans g2-g4-5 without allowing Black to exchange on d4 and play ..6. One possible line is 12...b5 13 23 Hfd8 14 g4 Qe8!? (an unusual but effective way of clearing d7 for the knight) 15 g5 Dd7 16 Sg2 @Db6 and now in Petrov-Yemelin, St Peters- burg 1997 White felt obliged to give up his dark-squared bishop with 17 &xb6 due to the threat of ...Ac4. 12...2xd4! Making room for ...2c6 so that the f6- knight can retreat to d7. 13 &xd4 £06 14 g5 Dd7 15 Lg2 bd 16 a3 Kasparov gives some convincing analysis to negate the aggressive 16 Wh5?: 16...b4 17 BDe2 (or 17 Ads exd5 18 exd5 Qb7 19 Let £5 20 pxf6 DxfS 21 Axi Hxé6 22 WahT+ BE 23 Hel Kes 24 Bo6+ LB and White's attack hits a dead end) 17...e5 18 Be3 g6 19 Who £5! 20 Ags Wh? and Black is very well coordinated. 16...05! 17 We2 ZabB 99Play the Najdorf Black queenside operations assure him of sufficient counterplay. We have been following the game Short-Kasparov, Amsterdam 1991, which saw 18 b4 (18 @d5? exdS 19 exdS £b7 20 We? Bbe8 21 &b6 Wxbs 22 Wexd7 He2 gives Black a cleat plus ~ Kaspa- tov) 18..2fe8 19 Hadi 26 20 M3 05 21 Be3 (21 fxe5? dxeS! 22 Bh3 exdd 23 Wh5 h6 24 Wat7+ Bh8 25 gxh6 g5 — Kasparov — is extremely cool defence by Black!) 21...exf4 22 Bxf4 De5 23 Hh3 Rd7! 24 Das Wes and Black has a slightly favourable endgame. Points to Remember 1) Positions in which White plays 0-0-0 (Line A) very much resemble the English Attack. Black should remember that, with the white bishop on €2, the plan of ..b7-b5 to b4 gains in strength as the e2-square is not available for the c3-knight. 2) An eatly @h1 by White (Line B1) gives Black the necessary time to arrange a favourable ..Wc7 and ..b7-b5. 3) In Lines B2 an B3 an agetessive early 92-g4 lunge can sometimes be met effectively by a prophylactic ..Df6-d7. 100CHAPTER SIX 6 2e2 e6: Main 1 ed c5 2 D3 dé 3 d4 cxdd 4 Axda M6 5 Ac3 a6 6 Be2 e6 7 0-0 Re7 814 0-09 £63 Acé We've already come across this important position in the previous chapter. ‘There we dealt with some of White’s less important ‘ideas; in this chapter we will look at White’s ‘two most popular moves. The first option is aggressive and direct, while the second aims to combine restraint with a controlled attack. A: 10 Wet B: 10 a4 A) 10 Wet This is probably White’s most aggressive way to play the position — the white queen begins its journey to the kingside (the g3- square in particular). Against this I’m offering two differem options for Black: Al: 10...2d7 A2: 10...Axd4 10...We7 is also a perfectly viable move and reaches a very theoretical position. How- ever, it’s actually quite unusual to arrive at that position via this move order — normally Black has committed his queen to c7 earlier in the game and there are also transpositions from the Sicilian Taimanov (1 e4 c5 2 Df3 6 3 d4 cxdd 4 Axd4 Acé 5 Ac3 We7). It’s true that there are many transpositions from, say, 10... Axd4 to 10..Wec7, but an advantage with the move order we're adopting is that Black can delay the development of the queen, The queen can perform a useful role on its home square, while we will see that c7 is not the only square to move to ~ d7 and b8 also come into consideration in various positions. Ay 10...2d7 By supporting the knight on 6, Black prepares the thrust ..b7-b5. This is a good 101Play the Najdorf choice for players keen to avoid the complications of 10..Qxd4 11 @xd4 bS 12 Bdt (Line A21), although the flip-side is that Line A12 scems to be just as complex! Following 10.847 we will consider White's two most dangerous possibilities: At: Bdt A12: Wg3 Firstly, here are a couple of less significant options: 4) 11 a4 (White combines the Wet-g3 manoeuvre with restraint on the queenside) 11,.Dxd4 12 Bxd4 Bc6 13 We3 indirectly defending e4 because of the mate on g7) 13...g6 (again threatening to captute on e4) 14 Sd3 b5! 15 Bfet (15 axbS axb5 16 Bxas Wra8 is fine for Black, for example: 17 Qxf6 Wxf 18 5 dred 19 freS Qg7 20 Dubs Lxb5 21 MxbS Wb8) 15..b4 16 Adi Dns 17 We Dxf4l 18 Weaf4 e5 with good play for Black in Swathi-Sandipan, Calcutta 2002. Note that 19 Sxe5?! dxe5 20 Whxe5?? &d6 traps the white queen in mid-board! b) 11 Sht b5i Black targets the sensitive e4-pawn) 12 a3 (or 12 @d3 Dxd4 13 Badd Rc6 14 23 Wa7! — preparing ..a6-a5 — 15 ‘Weg3 05 16 Hael b4 17 Adi &bS and Black has 0 ptoblems, Hemnandez-Akopian, Me- fida 2000) 12..Wb8! (planning ..b5-b4 or «Dxd4 followed by ..a6-a5) 13 We3 (13 Batt Dsd4 14 Bxd4 5 15 fke5 dxeS 16 Re3 Bc6 — Kasparov — is equal, as is 13 Rd3 b4 14 Dxc6 Bxc6 15 axb4 Wxbs) 13..b4 14 axb4 Wxb4 15 Dxcé (15 5? @®xd4 16 exfs DP! — Kasparov — and 15 Bedi Wxb2 16 Axc6 &xc6 17 Las Wh7 18 Babi WT [Sibarevic-Kasparov, Banjaluka 1979] are both very good for Black) 15..xc6 16 5 Ded 17 Axed Bxed 18 exd6! (18 Bxa6 Bxa6 19 Sxa6 Waxb2 — Kavalek ~ leaves White with pawn weaknesses) 18...2xd6 and it was White who was trying to equalise in Larsen-Kavalek, Sol- ingen (8th matchgame) 1970. Ay 11 Edt White puts his rook on the same file as the black queen; this will induce Black into making a quick decision about whete to move her majesty, 11,..2\xd4- 11.521 is too reckless here; 12 e5! makes use of the rook’s presence ont di and forces Black into the ugly 12...0e8. 12 Sxd4 2c6 13 23 For the alternative 13 Wy3 b5 14 a3 see Line A12. Note that after 13 e5 Black can happily play 13..dxe5 14 fxe5 Ded 2s there is no useful discovered attack on the black queen, 13...We7 Again 13...b5? is ptemature: 14 e5! xf 15 exf6! is good for White. 10214 Wg ‘Typical play by White, moving the queen to where the action is on the kingside, Note that Black's knight can at the moment only retreat to the undesirable e8-square due to mate threats on g7. 14 5 is direct but it shouldn’t cause problems: 14..dxe5 (Kasparov also suggests 14..Ad7 15 exd6 Sxd6 16 Bxc6 Wrxc6 but 17 Bcd! Be7 18 BA was probably a little better for White in Thomas-Pencose, correspondence 1985) 15 fxe5 Ad7 16 Lxc6 Wxc6 17 @e4 and here Kasparov and Nikitin recommend 17..We7, planning to answer 18 &)f6+ with the cool 18...2h8l The move 17...ad8 also looks reasonable, as now 18 Afo+ fails to 18..gxf6 19 We3+ Hh8 20 exf6 Axio! 21 Wh4 Bxdd!, while T also can’t see a refutation to 17..Wse2I? 18 Df6+ gxf6 19 ext BAB. ie may seem like a sweeping statement, but the move f4-£5 is no usually effective unless Black has committed himself to ...g7-g6. Af ter 14 £5, Black could continue with 14..b5 but 14..e5 15 &f2 b5 leoks consistent, for example: 16 g4?! b4 17 g5 bxc3 18 gxfo Lxf6 19 Wxc3 Bfc8 and Black will follow up with Wb. 14...b5 15 a3 This move, preventing ...b5-b4, is an al- ‘most automatic response to ..b7-b5. 15 e5 again fails to worry Black: 15..dxe5 16 fxe5 (or 16 &.xe5 Wh7) 16..Ad7 17 Act 6 Be2 e6: Main Lines xed! (the safest) 18 Qxe4 Bad8 19 c3 Bcd 20 Hh1 Sxd4 21 cxd4 £5 22 exf6 Wxg3 23 hxg3 @xf6 with an equal ending in R-Byrne- Ree, Amsterdam 1979. 15...Had8 By indirectly hitting d4, with this move Black takes prophylactic steps against e4-e5 15.,.ac8 is also playable, though: 16 e5 dxe5 17 fxe5 Qxf3!? (there's nothing wrong with 17... Dd7 here) 18 exf6 (18 Hxf3 Dd7 is okay for Black, for example: 19 Ae4 Wxc2! 20 Bet Ecd8 21 DsG+ Bh! and the black queen performs a very useful role on the h7- b1 diagonal) 18..Wxg3 19 hxg3 &xd1 20 fxe7 Hfc8 21 Exdi 6 ‘with a sharp endgame’ — Kasparov. 16 Rfe1 \ ht @ i “ \ Rs \ on Mn an am aie Vi, i \ PBs eo \ Da ree wy Wy This move contains a well-hidden threat. Once more 16 e5 isn’t effective here: 16..dxe5 17 e521 (17 @xeS is safer but 17.7 or 17... ‘tee is fine for Black) 17.47! may leave the e5-pawn weak. Fol- lowing 18 Ded Bxe4! 19 xed Bes! 20 ‘Wh4 h6 the e5-pawn is indeed dropping off the board. 16...¢eh8! Crucially breaking the pin on the g-file. 16..a5? would have allowed White to carry ‘out the trick: 17 Dd5! exd5 18 exd5 a8 19 Exe7! Wexe7 20 Hel Wrxel+ 21 Weel with a clear advantage, Sandipan-Relange, Shenyang 1999. 17 &h1 103Play the Najdorf Now 17 @d5? fails after 17...exd5 18 exd5 Bb7 19 Bxe7 Wxe7 20 Het We7, revealing the point of ..,2h8. 17 Wh3 ioses control over e5 and can be answered by 17.51, after which Black is happy. Note that 18 fxeS?l dxe5 19 Wg37? loses simply to 19...Eixd4! 20 Bxd4 Sc5. The move 18 Se3 is better, but Black can con- tine with ..26-a5 and/or ..Wb7, pressusis- ing ¢4. 17..2g8! Giving Black the option of continuing with ...Ad7 and pethaps ...£f6, We are following the game Zhang Zhong-Movsesian, Shenyang 2000, which continued 18 Wi ®Dad7i? 19 Bd2?l (White should have been more ambitious with 19 Dd5! Sxd5 20 exdS €5 21 Se3 exft 22 Rxf4 26, although even hete Black looks okay) 19...e5 20 23 exf4 21 Rxft De5 22 Dd5 Lxd5 23 Bxds £46 24 c3 Hge8 and Black was very solidly placed with counterplay against the e-pawn and pethaps ...c4. If Black doesn’t fancy allowing 19 ®d5, then 18,..Wb7 looks like a good ‘way to continue. Black can still plan ...a6-a5 and ..b5-b4. At12) 11 Bg3 ‘White immediately places the queen on 93 ‘and keeps his options open regarding the al- rook. 11.5 1203 12 €5 allows Black to demonstrate a resource which works with the queen on d8: 12...dxe5 13 fxe5 Dxd4 14 Bxdd Aco! 15 Hadi Des (or 15..Dd7) 16 Axc4 Mixed with an equal position — again White has no useful discovered attack on the black queen. 12..fxdd This can lead to a complicated forcing line. Black players can also consider the lesser-seen 12... Wb8!, for example: a) 13 Boel?! b4 14 axb4 Wxb4 15 xc6 x06 16 €5 Ded is a bit better for Black. b) 13 Badl Dud4 14 Lxd4 Lc6 transposes to the next note. 13 Bxd4 B06 14 2d3 Or 14 Badi Wb8! and now: a) 15 €5 dxeS 16 Sxe5 Wb7 17 6 exf5 18 Hf De8l 19 Ba3 g6 20 Heel ADg7 lett 104Black very solidly placed in McKenzie-Kelly, Moscow Olympiad 1994. b) 15 23 W7 16 Hfet Bac8! (16..ad8? falls for a trick we've already seen: 17 Dd5! exd5 18 exd5 e819 Bxe7 Wxe7 20 Het and White is better) 17 €5 dxe5 18 fre Dd7 19 Bed We7 was equal in Renet-Portisch, Yerevan Olympiad 1996. 14...Wa7! Keeping an eye on the d4-bishop in case of e4-e5 and preparing ...a6-a5 and ..b5-b4, 15 Hae1 Alternatively: a) 15 B83 a5 16 Wh3 e5!? 17 fee5 dxeS 18 Bxed5 Bcd+ 19 ht Wxh3 20 Bxh3 Det with good compensation for the pawn, ‘Vukcevich-Olafsson, Reykjavik 1976. b) 15 €5 dxe5 16 Sxe5 6! (freeing the f6- knight) 17 £5 @hS 18 Wed exfS 19 Qxf5 Ac5+1? (19..Wb7 20 Bed is equal) 20 &h1 We7 and Black had no problems, Hecht: Larsen, Teesside 1972 15...a5 16 £131? A typical movement of the rook up to the third rank, from where it can swing actoss to the kingside, White does, of course, have other options: . a) 16 Wh3 ¢5! 17 fxe5 Wxh3 18 gxh3 dxe5 19 Qxe5 b4 20 axb4 axb4 21 Ad] QcS+ and Black's active pieces give him mote than enough play for the pawa, for example: 22 AP Bac8! 23 Bxf6 gxf6 24 Bal £51, Vukce- vich-Sigurjonsson, Reykjavik 1976. 6 Se2 e6: Main Lines b) 16 b4 (a direct but slightly weakening move that prevents ..b5-b4) 16..axb4 17 axb4 Ha3 with an awkward pin on the third rank, Suetin-Doda, Polanica Zdroj 1974. ©) 16 €5 (this looks logical as White’s pieces are geared up for this advance) 16...dxe5 17 S&xe5 g6 (again this typical reaction, which frees the £6-knight) 18 £ @h5 19 Wh3 exfS 20 SxfS Wh7 21 Ged! (21 Qed Bac8 was equal in Kruszynski-Schmidt, Kra- kow 1978) 21..@c5+!? (21..Ag7 is solid enough) 22 @h1 £6 23 Sxh5 fxe5 24 Weo+ ee? 25 Wrxe5+ gS 26 AxfB+ QxfB 27 Wey3 Sg7 and I suspect that Black’s raking bishops provide at least sufficient compensation for the pawn, 16...b4 After this move play becomes extremely sharp. Black playets wishing to avoid the following complications (including an appar- ent forced draw) could consider the less fore- ing 16...g6, for example: 17 £5?! (17 Bfe3 and 17 b4 ate better moves) 17...e5 18 $3 b4 19 Bcd (or 19 Dds Qxd5 20 exd5 e4) 19..Dh5 20 WE2 bxc3 21 fags hxgs 22 Sho Aes with a clear advantage, Nunn-Hartston, London 1981. 17 Dd5! After 17 De2 g6! the threat to White's e4- pawn becomes very real 17,..exd5 18 exd5 2xd5 19 &xh7 +! 19 Bxe7? loses after 19...Wxe7 20 e3 (or 20 Sxh7+ Bh8! 21 Me3 Wrxe3+ 22 Wed 105Play the Najdorf @xh7) 20..Re6 2 Bxh7+ Sxh7 22 Wys (22 Wh4+ $8 23 By3 was originally given as drawn by Minic, but 23..2f5! — Pedersen — wins for Black) 22..2h8! 23 5 (23 Hg3 2g4}) 23...@98 and Black went on to win in Bellon Lopez-Larsen, Las Palmas 1977, 19...8h8 19..d2xh7 leads to a level ending: 20 Wh4+ dg8 21 Bae? 21...Wipd (21... Wixe7? 22 Hih3 wins for White) 22 Wagd Ded 23 Bg3 Re6 24 3 Bfc8 25 hyp Hxc2 26 £5 Md5 27 g5 Hcl+ 28 dh2 Bel 29 96 Ext 30 pxf7+ Esf7 (Bielczyk-Schmidt, Polish Champion- ship 1978). From this position it seems that best play leads to a forced draw. 4) 20 Efe3 (Nunn) 20..exh7! 21 Wh4+ Sg8 22 Hh3 (or 22 Bxe7 WES) 22..Wxb3 23 Weh3 Hfe8 and Black’s rook, bishop and Knight outweigh White’s queen and pawn. b) Ihaves’t seen 20 @ed!? suggested any- where but it deserves attention: 20,,.8xe4 21 Buxc4 shp8! 22 We5 Hes! and Black is better after either 23 Bfe3 818 24 &xf6 Bxed 25 Exe4 Be8 26 Bxe8 Wae8 27 S£2 bxad 28 bxa3 Wad or 23 5 £f8! 24 Hxe8 Bxe8 25 ixf6 Wa7+ 26 SEL WeS, despite being a pawn down ia both lines. ©) 20 Wh4! Wed! (20...&xf3? loses after 21 B85+ Dh5 22 Wh3 Whs — or 22..Wa8 23 xB Shs 24 Wet — 23 of!) 21 Wxed Axes. 22 Hh3 Ri6 23 Led+ Se8 24 Rh7+ whs and White must take the perpetual check on offer, Allin all, a line with many complex variations and a forced draw at the end. However, Black does have opportunities to change the course of events at moves twelve and sixteen, A2) 10...2xd4 Black exchanges on d4 in preparation for .ub7-b5. This is the most straightforward way of dealing with 10 Wel. 11 Axd4 bS Here we will concentrate on White's two principal moves. A21: 12 Bd1 A22: 12 a3 Less important alternatives for White include the following: a) 12 Wey3 bal (for 12..2b7 13 Ld3 cb 14 a3 see Line A22) 13 @a4 Sb7 14 &d3 45 15 e5 es and Black, having succeeded in establishing a knight on e4, can be happy with his position. b) 12 £3 b4lP (12...Rb7 tansposes to Line A21 after 13 Bd1 and Line A22 after 13 a3) 13 e5 (13 Dat Bb8 14 5 dxeS 15 Bxe5 Bb5 — Magerramov — looks okay for Black; 16 &c6 can be met by 16...Wa5! 17 b3 Ec5!) {3..dxe5 14 Waxe5 (or 14 &xe5 Rb7!) 14.206 15 We5 h6 16 We3 Hb8, and now 17 Ded? can be met by 17...8xf4l. 1066 &e2 e6: Main Lines A21) 12 Bd1 Again White puts his rook on the same file as the black queen, hoping to engineer a favourable e4-€5. Play soon becomes very sharp, 12...b7 12...b4 13 Dad Axe4?! 14 213 should be avoided. 13 O13 Preparing e4-e5. Alternatively: a) 13 e5 can simply be met by 13..dxe5 14 freS Ded!, while 14.547 15 263 We7 transposes to the main line. b) 13 @d3 We7!? (13.206 14 Pht b4 15 €5 dxe5 16 fxe5 Dd7 17 Aca Was 18 Afo+ Dxfo 19 exf6 We5 20 Bed Bxed 21 Wxed Bxf6 22 Bxf6 gxf6 was equal in Glauser- Timman, Lugano 1983) 14 €5 Black has no problems after either 14 Wp3 b4 15 De2 d5 16 5 Wed or 14 a3 eS!) 14..dxe5 15 fxeS @d7 16 Des (16 We3 can be met by 16...£2c51) 16...Axe5! 17 Wy3 £6 18 Ags (or 18 Axé6+ xf 19 BxiG Bx6 20 Bxed Wes+ 21 deht Hey) 18..fg5 19 BxeS WeS+ and if anyone's better it is Black. 13...e7 14 5 White cannot delay this advance otherwise Black will get there first: 14 a3 ¢5! 15 e3 (15 fxe5 dxe5 16 We3 Bc5 17 Qxc5 WacS+ 18 @h1 Bfd8 is a bit beccer for Black — the weakness at e4 will not go away) 15..exf4 16 Sixf4 Dd7 17 We3 De5 and Black’s strong knight on e5 assures him of a good game, Guex-Betend, Neuchatel 1996. 14...dxe5 15 fxe5 15 &xb7?! is an incorrect move order that should be exploited: 15...exd4! 16 Sxa8 dxe3 17 &£3 cxb2 looks very good for Black. 15 Sxe5 is possible but rather tame: 15..Wb6+ 16 Bhi Sxf3 17 Bx ads gives Black a comfortable equality. 15...2d7 16 &xb7 Wxb7 17 De4 ‘As mentioned by Joe Gallagher when annotating a game between Tal and Ulf Anderssen in The Magic of Mikhail Tah, at first sight White does seem to have a very impressive position — all his pieces are active and ready to attack the black kingside. However, this is only half the story. Black has no weaknesses to attack, many hidden defensive resources and counterplay against White’s own pawn weaknesses (e5 and c2). 17...e7 By hitting the e5-pawn, Black restricts White’s attacking options. ‘There is an enticing alternative for Black here. The move 17...2%ad8!, threatening .2xe5!, is a risky idea but I haven't been able to find anything obvious for White in the admittedly complex variations. a) After 18 6+, 18..82h8! is fine for Black (this calm king move is a vital part of Black's defence in this line). White probably has nothing better than to exchange on d7 because 19 Wh4 gxf6 20 exf6 Ld6 21 Be3 107Play the Najdorf Hig! 22 Reo Des is winning for Black. b) 18 Hd3 Wes bl) 19 c3? loses a pawn to 19. ‘Bre b2) 19 Df6+ gxf6 20 Wp3-+ Hh8 21 ext Drxib 22 Qxf6+ 22 Wxi6? Budd!) 22..0xf6 23 HExf6 Exxd3 24 Wixd3 (Gallagher) is level. b3) 19 We3 Wc2I? looks incredibly risky but I have failed to find a refutation (19...£5 20 exf6 Dxf6 21 gs Hd6 22 c3 — Gligotic —is just a shade better for White): b31) 20 Bd wins after 20..We7? 21 DG6+! Dxk6 22 exf6 Lxf6 23 Sxf6 Bxd3 24 Bxd3 gxfé 25 Wh6, but I can find nothing fot White after the cool 20,..$2h8!, 32) 20 DeG+ Ax 21 exfG cd! (21..Qxf6? loses to 22 Exf6 e5 23 Wxe5! Wad3 24 Hae Wai+ 25 df Wed 26 3) 22 fxg? (or 22 Wg5 Sxd4+ 23 Hxd4 We6) 22,,f4fe8! and it’s Black who comes out ahead. This final line serves as another illustration of the resilience of Black's position in this opening. bd) 19 Hg3 Wxc2 20 We3 (Tal-Andersson, Stockholm 1976) 20...8h8! 21 Dps (21 Dae £5 22 exf6 2xf6 looks good for Black, although actually White cart force a draw with the aesthetic 23 Bxf6 Axf6 24 WaT Ba? 25 Wad7! Dad7 26 HxfB+ Dats 27 DE7+ Sy8 28 Dh6+) 21...dxg5 22 Wrgs Byes 23 Whe Haf8 (Gallaghet), when Black is incredibly solid and still has that extra pawn, 18 Wo3 Again White has numerous other tries: a) 18 Bd3 Dxe5! 19 Wy3 £6 20 Axko+? (20 Bc3 is relatively best) 20...xf6 21 Hxf6 Exfé 22 Mxe5 WeSt! 23 a4 Batsl (N.Weinstein) and Blick keeps his material advantage due to mate threat on Fl. b) 18 c3? Dees! 19 Wy3 £6 20 Dxto+ Rixf6 21 Reet We? 22 &xe5 Bh4 was win ning for Black in Geller-A.Sokolov, Reykja- vik 1990. ©) 18 Df6+!? dh8! and White bas failed to make anything of this position. cl) 19 Bas? gxfo 20 exf6 cS 21 RxcS Wac5+ 22 deh De5! was winning for Black in Kaplan-N.Weinstein, New York 1976. <2) 19 Wh4? gxf6 20 Ba3 By8 21 Bh3 Wyc2 and once mote White’s attack hits a dead end, Cramling-Rayner, Copenhagen. 1980. 3) 19 Dh5 Wee2 20 Hd? We7 21 ht Sb4 22 Wg3 26 and Black went on to win in Sznapik-Kaplan, Caracas 1976, cf) 19 @xd7 (best, but hardly inspiting) 19..MWxd7 20 Bd3 Hac8 21 <3 b4! with good counterplay against White's weaknesses, F.Olafsson-Panno, Buenos Aires 1980. 18...¢ehB 18,.Had8 has been seen a few times, with White being a tiny bit better in the ending arising after 19 c3 £5 20 exf6 Wxg3 21 f7+ Bxf7 22 Dxg3 Exfl+ 23 Gxfl. 18..2hB was suggested by Kasparov and Nikitin, who go on to give 19 Dd6 Bes (if 1086 &e2 e6: Main Lines Black is looking for something different, then Pedersen’s 19...Wxc2!? 20 Hct Wa2 could be tried) 20 Bxt7 Rx? 21 Dxt7 Wxc2 22 Wet Wg6. However, I suspect that White is still slightly better after 23 Wag6 hxg6 24 Be’ Instead I prefer 22...1f8 23 @d6 and now 23..Axe5! seems to work: 24 Wxeé+ (24 Bxe522 WR+ 25 hi WEl+ mates) 24.267 25 Wet Dp5l? (25..DeS 26 Wes+ DET is an unusual and pretty draw by repetition) 26 Hel Wd3. Now 27 2d1?? loses to 27...Y3+1 so White probably has to catty on with something like 27 @b?, but after 27...0b4 it’s White who is struggling to equalise. In view of this, perhaps White should play Gallagher’s suggestion of 22 BA, when the game could end in a draw after 22..5°8 23 Dho+ Bh8 24 BxB+ VxfB 25 De7+ kgs 26 Dn6+. Along with A12, this is one of the sharp- est variations in the entire chapter. As with more than a few complex positions, the main line seems to lead to a draw. If Black is looking to avoid giving this opportunity to his opponent, then the best bet is to study alternatives given at moves 17 and 19. A22) 1243 ‘The slower approach — White prevents 1b5-b4 for the time being, 12...b7 13 Wig3 After 13 @d3 Black can play 13..2c6, which will probably transpose to Line A12 after 14 Wy3. Also possible, though, is 13..Qd7 with ideas of ...e6-e5 or ...8.£6, for example: 14 Edi We7 (14.2621 15 5 dxe5 16 fxe5 &e7 17 Det Bxed 18 Weed g6 19 bd! — Anand — prevents the simplifying wudiie5 and keeps an advantage for White) 15 Shi 5! 16 Be3 (or 16 fxe5 Dxe5) 16... Rac8! 17 Woe3 £6 18 £52! (18 fxeS @xe5 19 Suf4 is equal) 18..92h8 19 Be2 Be7 20 Hid2 Was 21 Wel ho 22 h3 Df was better for Black in Hiibner-Anand, Dortmund 1996; there is pressure on e4 and the possibility of an exchange sacrifice on ¢3 13...96!? Renewing the threat to e4. 13...i2¢6 would transpose back to Line A12 14 2d3 14 2.3 is the other way to protect e4, but this can be met effectively by 14..a5l. We 78) a) 15 e52! dxeS 16 Bxe5 b4 17 axb4 axb4 18 Bad Ded! 19 Wel £5! and there’s a marked difference between the activity of the two knights, Padevsky-Jansa, Venjacka Banja 1978, b) 15 Bael b4 16 axb4 axb4 17 Adi d5 18 €5 Wed and Black’s knight on e4 assures him of a comfortable position. ©) 15 Bad1 b4 16 axb4 axb4 17 €5 &xf3 18 exf6 Qxf6 19 Wx Qxd4+ 20 xd bxc3 21 Waxc3 is equal according to Rogers, but I would still prefer Black’s stronger pawn 109Play the Najdorf structure and safer king, d) 15 Dxb5 Dxet 16 Wel 5 (16..d5 is also not bad) 17 Hd1 We8 18 We2 a4 19 c4 We? with a balanced position, Svidler- Akopian, Groningen 1996. Following 14 f5?l e5 15 S£c3 Black can safely grab the e4-pawn: 15..Axe4 16 @xe4 Bxet 17 Lh6 He8 18 2d3 Qxd3 19 cxdd RB 20 AxfB BxfB 21 £6 Bes! 22 We5 Bed and Black went on to win in Anagnostopou- los-Jansa, Bad Wérishofen 1993. 14...808 14...a5 is still a possibility: 15 Bael b4 16 axb4 axb4 17 Dd d5 18 e5 Bed has been seen in a few games and doesn’t give Black much to worry about. 15 Haet 15 © allows a promising exchange sactifice: 15..c5 16 £3 Hac3! 17 bxc3 @xe4 18 Wet fo 19 Wh3 We8! (Jansa-Hartston, Reykjavik 1975). 18...0d7 This move illustrates another positive feature of leaving the queen on d8: Black threatens ..dh4. I have found two games from this position and both have worked out well for Black. a) 16 We2 eS! 17 fkeS dxeS 18 Rxe5% Dxe5 19 Wxed Ldo 20 Wee (20 Waa? @xb2+) 20..Wsf6 21 Exf6 Be5 22 Ee Rd4+ 23 ht Lxc3 24 bxc3 Bxc3 with an obvious endgame advantage for Black in Matciano-Berend, French League 1996, b) 16 Wh3 5 17 2e3 exf4 18 Bxt4 Wes 19 @d5 Bxd5 20 exd5 M6 21 <3 Bg? and Black’s minor pieces occupy strong and solid positions, Fierz-Bucher, Swiss League 1999, Points to Remember 1) Most attacking schemes from White include the manoeuvre Wel-g3, 2) There are two ways fot Black to prepare the ...b7-b5 lunge: with ...&c8-d7, or on Debxd4. 3) The black queen often ends up on the cT-squate, but on certain occasions it is better placed on d7 or b8, while sometimes it does a good job on its original square. 4) Black must show calm nerves in defence. For example, White’s plan of De4-f6+ can often be met by a cool ..,d2h8!, 5) Black must be wary of sactificial ideas including #5. B) 10 ad This is another very popular option for White. At a cost of 2 tempo, Black’s queenside counterplay is very much reduced because it becomes very difficult to achieve -b7-bS, Then again, a whole tempo is not to be sniffed at. For one thing, Black is usually in a much better position to deal with the typical Wel-g3 manoeuvre. Because of this, White is normally content to build up mote 1106 &e2 e6: Main Lines deliberately on the kingside, which in tum gives Black more time to organise play in the centre and on the queenside, One final thought is that White has slighdy weakened the bé-square, which sometimes becomes a useful post for the c6-knight. 10...We7 10...24e8!? is an intriguing transpositional move which aims to cut out some of White’s options. Line B22 is reached after 11 h1 ‘We7, while 11 &£3 We? 12 Seh1 transposes to Line B224. Any attempt to change direc tion by White hasn't met with great success, for example: 12 Wd2 Axd4 (12...2a51? looks logical) 13 S&xd4 e5 14 Ge3 Bd7 15 a5 exfd 16 &xf4 Bac8 17 Kd We5+ with equality, Cvitan-Damaso, Yerevan Olympiad 1996. After 10..Wc7 we shall concentrate on vo white options, the second of which is by far the most popular. B1: 11 Wet B2: 11 ht Firstly, though, we should look at other possibilities for White in this position: a) 11 Qb32! is premature here. A rule of thumb is that White should wait for Black to play ..5d7 (with ideas of ..Axd4 followed by ...&c6) before retreating to b3. At least then the bishop occupies the natural retreat square for the f6-knight after the almost inevitable g2-p4-g5. This means that the f%- knight either has to retreat to a less favourable square ot, more commonly, the d7- bishop has to move again (usually back to c8!). The upshot of all this is that by playing ®Db3 too early, White loses time and Black quickly manages to reach a perfect defensive set-up with good counterplay on the queenside and in the centre: 11...b6! (preventing the positional threat of a4a5) 12 £6 Hbs (12..fb7 is also very playable) 13 We2 Da5!? (we'll see a lot more of this move) and now: al) 14 Dxa5 isn’t usually the answer to a quick ...2a5. Following 14...bxa5 the doubled a-pawns are difficult to attack and Black has promising counterplay against. White centre and queenside. a2) 14 Haelal Dc4 15 Bcl b5 16 axbS axb5 17 @hi b4 18 Ad1 Ba6 and Black is making giant strides on the queenside, Grot- tke-Vogt, East German Championship 1977. a3) 14 Ad2 Lb7 15 g4?! (15 Bad] is safer) 15... fc8 16 Wp2 Dd7 17 g5 Ded 18 Axc4 Wec4 19 h4 b5 20 axb5 axb5 21 Hacl b4 22 Dal b3l 23 exb3 Wrxb3 24 Bxc8+ Bxc8 25 Ac3 Db6 26 Lxb6? Wxbo+ 27 We Wha 28 Wa2 £8 (preparing ...g7-g6 and ...2.¢7) 29 Bal g6 30 De? He 31 @c3 d5!, and now in Fichtl-Jansa, Czechoslovakian Champion- ship 1974 White simply gave up the e-pawn with 32 We2 dxed, but there was little choice as 32 exd5 Hxf4 is simply winning for Black, for example: 33 We2 Hxh4 34 dxeo Wy4+! 111Play the Najdorf 35 Bixgt BcS+ 36 Wed Qxe3+ 37 SE Hsp4 38 c7 Sia6+ and Black mates. b) 11 gl? is sare but certainly not bad. Black has a number of ways to deal with White's early aggression: bl) 11.45 12 €5 (12 exd5et Axd5 13 Daxd5 exd5 14 c3 RA6 left White’s advanced kingside pawns looking a litde silly in Roet- tinger-Lagrotteria, Cesenatico 1998) 12.247 and Black plans to answer 13 S43 with 13.5. b2) 11..2d7 12 g5 Be8 13 5 Ddes 14 £6 £8 and once more Black has a good defensive set-up, Plane-Inkiov, Plancoet 2001. b3) 11..@xd4l? and now: b31) 12 Sxd4 e5 13 Be3 (13 MEP dS! 14 Dxd5 Dud5 15 exd5 exf4 is better for Black) 13..cxf4 14 Exf4 @e6 15 Ads Bxd5 16 exd5 Dd7 17 2d4 £6 and White's kingside simply looks weak, Wittmann-Dobosz, Nur- emberg 2000. 232) 12 Wad4 (I can’t find any examples of this move but it strikes me as being stronger than 12 &xd4) 12.05 (or 12...Qd7 13 g5 He8 14 5 eS 15 £6 SAB and the strong knight on e5 promises Black excellent defensive cover) 13 Wa3 exf4 14 g5!? fxe3 15 exf6 Bxf6 16 Dds Wa8 17 Dxfo+ pxfs 18 Wre3 $h8 and Black isn’t worse, ©) 11.263 He8 12 Hht reaches Line B224, but 11..2d8!? an enticing way to meet an early 23; if White does nothing Black may play .. De5!, ct) 12 Pht De51 13 Le2 b6 14 Wel Act 15 Ret RD7 16 b3 Da5 with an equal position, Svidier-Ivanchuk, Linares 1998, 2) 12 Wet Axd4 13 Rxd4 5 14 Red exf4 15 Qxf4 Me6 (a precursor for ...Xd7- €5) 16 e51 eB? (16...d7 is also not bad) 17 Wht deed 18 Rxe5 Od6 19 Da5? (19 Kxdo Dxd6 is equal) 19...Sxd5 20 &xd5 Sxe5l 21 Bxé7 Bxd5! 22 Hxc7 @xc7 and Black’s rook, bishop and knight were more than a match for White’s queen and pawn, Panchenko- ‘Mochalov, USSR 1981, B1) 11 Wet Combining restraint on the queenside with the typical queen manoeuvre Wel-g3. Black’s extra tempo (..Mc7) means that he is well positioned for a typical equalising manoeuvre, the downside of which is that best play allows White to force a draw if he so wishes. 11...2xd4 If Black wishes to avoid offering White a chance of a quick draw, the following two lines should be considered, a) 11..Db4)? is a logical move. Black uses the slight weakness on b4 created by a2-a4 and hits the tender <2-pawn, 12 43 can be answered by 12....8d7 or 12...Ngdl?, while 12 ‘We3 can be met by 12..b6!? or 12.65 13 fxeS 13..dxe5 14 Hadi @d7. In the game King-Wolff, London 1990 White tried 12 1126 fle2 e6: Main Lines Eel, but Black was fine after 12..b6 13 #2h1 27 14 BH d5 15 €5 Ded 16 Qxe4 dred 17 We3 Aco! 18 Wee Das — the knight will come to c4, b) 11..Da5!? (preparing ..Dc4 and ...b7 6) and now: bl) 12 Hal Dc4 13 Ki 5 14 Ab3 Bbs 15 Weg3 b5 16 axbS axb5 and Black has no problems, Davidov-Paresishvili, Baku 2000. b2) 12 dh] b6 13 Hdl &b7 14 Ld3 Dc 15 We3 Ab4 16 Wh3 Bres 17 AB 17.268 18 Dg5! h6 19 Dt3 (Dolmatov-Polugaevsky, Sochi 1988) and here Dolmatov gives 19..Dd7I? 20 @d4 eS 21 £5 e5 as unclear. b3) 12 Wy3 12..c4 (12.86? 13 65! should definitely be avoided) 13 &xc4 Wxe4 14 e5 De8 15 Ded (or 15 Hadl Qd7 16 a5 Aic8) 15...f61? 16 b3 Was 17 exf6 Axio 18 @®sfo+ @xf6 with an equal position, Klovans-Polugaevsky, USSR Championship 1976. 12 Axdd 06 13 £3 13 fxe5 dxeS 14 We3 can be met effectively by 14...8c5! 15 QxcS WxeS+ 16 Wht and now: a) 16..@2h8 17 Bxf6 gxf6 18 Wh4 Bg8 19 Wexfo+ Xg7 20 Was+ Bgs 21 Weo+ with perpetual check has been the end of quite a few encounters. b) If Black is unhappy with allowing a perpetual check, he can try 16..De8!? 17 Dd5 e618 Wxe5 and now cither 18....8xd5 19 18...8xd5 19 exdS Wxc2 (intending 20 d6 Dxd6) or 18..Wxc2 19 De7+ Wh8 20 Vhs Wb3 21 Bad Who 22 Baf3 Wao and Black was equal, ‘Theissen-Morawietz, Germany 1994, 13...extd, 14 &xtd 14 Exf4 gives Black less to worry about after 14...2e6! (planning ...Ad7-e5) 15 Wg3 @d7 and now: a) 16 Sd4 De5 17 Rd3 Was 18 Whi Hac8 was equal in Larsen-Andersson, Manila 1974, b) 16 Bafl Ded 17 Bes Bes (17.8657 18 Dds Wa8 19 exfS gives White a strong attack) 18 Bh5 g6 19 Whi {8 20 Bho Sxh6 21 Bxh6 We? 22 Bh WS 23 Ehf4 Hac8 and again Black had no problems, Spassky-Kavalek, Solingen 1977. 14...2e6 Once mote Black covers d5 with the bishop in order to prepare the favourable DAT-05 Once the knight reaches €5, Black's position looks to be very sound 15 Wg3 Dd7 15..fd8!? avoids the forced draw and looks playable for Black, for example: 16 Qh6 96 17 HPht (or 17 Bes We5+ 18 Bb? Dh5!) 17..Dd7 18 Bet Ded 19 Rxeb freb 20 Wh3 Wd7 and Black will continue with 1 fB. 16 &he manoeuvre. 113Play the Najdort Any delay allows Black’s knight to reach 5: 16 ht De5 and here 17 &h6?l can be met by the simple 17...2)g6!. 16...We5+ 17 &h1 Many games have ended in a draw by repetition after 17 Se3 Wes 18 Sf4 Wc5+ 19 Med. 17...We5 18 &f4 We5 19 Dd5 19 &h6 Wes 20 54 We5 21 Bh6 Wes is another draw by repetition. Another try for White is 19 Red! Des 20 B65 Dg6 21 Red (OlL-Averkin, USSR 1985) and here Ol suggests 21... Wed! 22 Bp5 Bxe5 23 Wags Wh4 for Black. 19...x05 20 exd5, “The alternative is 20 £26 and now: a) 20.61 21 QxfB QxfB 22 exdd5 Wxe2 23 We3 Wexb2 24 Babi Wa2 25 Bxb7 Des 26 Wed a5 and White is a tiny bit better in Psakhis-Van den Doel, Groningen 1996, but Black’s position is difficult to break down. b) 20.4 21 exd5 Wes! 22 Wre5 Dxe5 23 Med B66 24 c3 Bis 25 Biei Ber 26 QA Bae8 was equal in Cabrilo-Paunovic, Yugoslavia 1993, 20...Ae5! 20...$Wxc2? is too risky: 21 243 Wxb2 22 Wh3 D6 23 Rab1 Wad Spasov-Istratescu, Budapest 1993) and now 24 &xd6! &xd6 25 Bxg6 wins for White. 21 &xe5 dxeS 22 Wxe5 2u6 23 WIS aes Black’s control over the dark squares gives him excellent compensation for the pawn. ‘The game Solozhenkin-Hjattarson, Linares 1995 continued 24 243 96 25 WEG He3 26 ‘Wea Waa 27 Bact? We5! 28 Wh4 Exel 29 Hxcl Wxb2 and Black was better. Instead of 27 Hae1, White should play 27 b3 We5 28 g3 Wxd5+ 29 Wy2 (jartarson) which looks pretty level. B2) 11 dh White's favourite choice. The king is te- moved ftom the gl-a7 diagonal to the relative safety of bi. Furthermore, White waits to see how Black will set out his defensive stall before reacting in the appropriate manner. In this position T'm advocating two moves for Black; the solid 11...d7 (B21) and the popular 11...68 (B22), 1146 &e2 e6: Main Lines A. good, solid alternative to the almost universal 11...e8, It has the advantage over 11..e8 in that White has fewer ways to attack (there aren’t really serious alternatives to Wet-g3, or Db3 followed by g2-g4-g5). White always has to be aware of the simplifying plan of .. Axd4 and ..2c6, There are two main replies to 11...2d7. B211: 12 We1 B212: 12 Db3 Less impostant alternatives include: a) 12 Wa2 Axd4 13 &xdd B6 14 28 b5 15 axb5 axb5 16 Mael b4 17 Adt 5 18 Bgl Wh7 19 DL exf4 20 Wxt4 Dd7 was equal in Timar-G.Horvath, correspondence 1986, b) 12 DB Aba? 13 a5 Bac8 14 Ld3 Bc6 15 Wel (KiGeorgiev-Mainka, Reckling- hausen 1998) and now Black should probably consinue with 15..Dxd3!? 16 exd3 Dd7. ©) 12 Bd3 Db4t 13 a5 Axd3 (13..Kfes transposes to Line B223) 14 cxd3 £.c6 looks okay for Black, d) 12 gd should be met by 12..@xdd! 13 Bxdi4 Le6 14 g5 Daz. ©) 12 263 and now: el) 12..fe8 should, after 13 Ab3 bé, reach Line B212. Alternatives to 13 Db3 include: e11) 13 g4!? Dxd4 14 Sxd4 Sc6! (making room for the knight to retreat to d7) 15 g5 Da7 16 Dd5!? Bxd5 17 exdS eS! 18 Bed exf4 19 Rxf4 8 20 a5 6 21 c3 De5 and White probably wished he had his pawn back on g? in Tatai-Palac, Cannes 1997. 12) 13 Wel Axd4! 14 @xd4 €5 15 @e3 5 16 axbS axb5 17 Hel ba 18 Ads Dxd5 19 exd5 S2f6 and Black had taken over the operation in Drobne-Palac, Ljubljana 1997, €2) 12...Dxd4!? 13 Wadd Bc6 14 a5 Bac8 looks reasonable for Black, for example: 15 Wa2 Wbs 16 rai Beds 17 We2 Daz 18 Das Dc5! 19 D6 Dxed!? 20 Bxed xed 21 Dxc8 Rxc8 with good compensation for the exchange, Garcia-Kholmov, Havana 1965. 115Play the Najdorf Again White goes for the typical Wel-¢3 procedure. 12...Db4!? We've seen this move before in this type of position. Black makes use of the slight weakening of the b4-square and the removal of White’s queen from the defence of the c2- pawn. ‘The other typical route for Black to take is 12..Axd4 13 &xd4 B.c6 (13...e5? is now met by 14 fxe5 dxeS 15 We3! and Black is in some trouble — with the king on hi there is no ...S2c5 resource) 14 We3 and now: a) 14..b6, preventing 2425, is solid enough. b) 14. Waste. ad-a5()), while it also sup- ports the advance ..b7-b5 and sometimes the queen can make a auisance of itself with bl) 15 e5 dxe5 16 Bxe5 6 17 Had Dd? was agreed drawn in Klovans-Sakaev, Mainz 1995. b2) 15 Badi bS! 16 86 We? 17 Bas Kac8 18 axb5 axb5 19 b4 Hfd8 20 5 DeB was equal in Kunte-Jakovenko, Pardubice 2002 b3) 15 263 Mac8 16 €5 dxe5 17 fre5 Bd? 18 Det Bxe4 19 Axed Bcd 20 2.63 Wha 21 fic3 Wed and Black threatens both ...Dxad and the simplifying ... ded. Another option for Black here is the prophylactic 12..h8, planning to meet the natural 13 We3 with 13..Qb4, This transposes to the main line while cutting out White's alternatives on the thirteenth move (not that these need to be avoided). 13 Wg3 Or: a) 13 &d3 isn’t particularly inspiring for White: 13..Dxd3 14 cxd3 b5! 15 axb5 axbS 16 @dxb5 Wb7 17 Add Wxb2 gave Black nothing to worry about in Wilterdink-Spaans, correspondence 1988. b) 13 Hel defends ¢2 but leaves the rook passively placed: 13..d5!? (13..Hfc8 also looks reasonable) 14 e5 Ded 15 Axe4 dxed 16 S42 Who 17 c3 Dds (threatening ...e4- €3) 18 a51? Wea 19 c4 Sb4! 20 Db3 (perhaps 20 &xb4 is stronger as 20...Wxb4 21 cxd5 Wxd4 22 d6 Hfc8 gives White some compensation for the pawn) 20...2xd2 21 Drxd2 €3 22 Ded Wei 23 Bexel Abd and White was struggling to equalise in Paksa- Bartha, Hungarian League 1995. 13...22h8! . A a Ba ema A very useful move that cuts out a lot of tactics for White (including a later 2h6). 13...d5? would be premature here: 14 &5 Det 15 Axed dxet 16 65! exfS 17 Rho B16 18 S.f4! and €5-e6 is coming, 14 Rad1 White plans to defend the c2-pawn with Bd1-d2. Note that after ...c6-e5, fxe5, ..dxe5 Black doesn’t actually threaten to capture the 1166 &e2 e6: Main Lines knight on d4 due to the pin on the g3-c7 diagonal. Alternatives for White include: a) 14 Bd3 Axd3 15 cxd3 WaS (planning an intriguing manoeuvre) 16 h3 Hac8 17 WE2 Whs! 18 Bgl h6 19 Aes Dn7! 20 Bact £5! 21 We2 DES 22 Qdd Bas 23 ext exfS 24 b4 WE7 and Black’s original play had paid off in'Tseshkovsky-Petrushin, Barnaul 1984. b) 14.5 DfdS 15 Axd5 (or 15 Bd2 dxeS 16 fxe5 Dxc3 17 Bxc3 DdS) 15..xd5 16 Gigi Hac8 17 c4 Axfd 18 Hxfa dxe5 19 Ret exd4 20 &xd4 (Illescas Cordoba-Belotti, Los Yebenes 1990) and here I believe Black should play 20...f6! 21 Bxg7 (or 21 Wh4 Hey 22, Bd3 £5 23 WhS eg8 and Black is rock- solid) 21..Wsxg3 22 Exg3 e5 followed by £.c6 and ...Ag8. 14...Bac8 15 Hd2 15 e5 dxe5 16 fee5 AfdS 17 DxdS Dxd5 (Olsen-U Nielsen, 1985) shouldn’t give Black any problems. 15...d5!? This is the move that Black has been pre~ paring for some time. 16 e5 Ded 17 Dxed dxed correspondence A complicated position has been reached, ‘The e4-pawn may become a weakness, but the same could be said about White’s queenside pawns. So far practice has shown that Black has good counterplay. a) 18 £5 ext 19 c3!? (I prefer Black after 19 DxiS Sxf5 20 ExfS Dxc2 21 Bes Wes 22 Bh5 We6, as in Cunanan-Barcenilla, Ma- nila 1991) 19..Ad5 20 AxfS Qxf5 21 Hxds eG 22 Hdd Woo'? 23 Hb4 Weo 24 Kbo ‘Wead 25 Hxb7 Ac5 and Black looks okay. b) 18 b3 We3! 19 Bet Bc5 20 Bedi b5 (or 20..Rxd4!? 21 Qxd4 — 21 Bxd4 b5! — 21...Wxg3 22 hxg3 @xa4) 21 axb5 and now not 21...8xb57 22 AxbS axb5? 23 Lxc5 Wags 24 QxfB!, which was winning for White in Bellia-Belotti, Rome 1988. Instead Black can play 24..axb5! 22 &f1 @e8, ©) 18 c4 @xad! 19 5 Ac6 and now 20 fxe6 Dxd4 21 Exd4 feb 22 Exed Bxfl+ 23 S&xfl_ was equal in Lengyel-Alfred, Budapest 2002, while 20 b3 can be met by 20...2xd4 21 Axd4 Qb4! 22 Mddi (or 22 £6 Hes) 22.806 23 £6 By8! B212) 12 Db3 This popular choice against 12...8d7, and with good reason. For one thing, White eliminates the freeing possibility of ... Axd4 followed by Sic6 or ...e6-e5. Now White’s plan is to continue with a quick g2-g4-g5, harassing the black knight which, at the moment, doesn’t have its desired d7-square available. A third point of 12 @b3 is chat it threatens to take a grip on the queenside with ad-a5, a possibility that Black prevents with his next move. 12...b6! 13 2f3 White plans g2-g4 so the h1-a8 diagonal is thematic retreat is White’s most 117Play the Najdorf 2 good place for White’s light-squared bishop ~ it will provide cover for the white king on the long diagonal. White can, however, immediately begin his kingside pawn launch with 13 94 Now Black plays a move which is on first sight incredibly difficult to comprehend. 13...2c81. The bishop only just went from c8 to d7 a couple of moves ago and now it has decided to move back! This seems like a massive waste of time. Has Black lost the plot or is there method in his madness? Well, the overriding feature in this type of position is that the knight on £6 requires its natural retreat square d7, so the bishop sim ply has to vacate this square. Why is the d7- square such an important square for the £6- knight? ‘The answer is that, for one thing, the knight eyes the excellent e5-outpost for when White almost inevitably plays £4-£5. Another crucial factor is that the knight can retreat to 8 to prevent mate on h7 when White lines up his heavy pieces on the h-file. As far as the loss of the ‘two tempi’ with ..&2c8-d7-c8 is concerned, Black can point to the fact that Black’s bishop on d7 did its job by inducing White's knight to retreat from d4 to the certainly mote passive b3-square — this in itself can be construed as a balancing loss of time on White's part. Now that White has opened himself up with the aggressive advance of the g-pawn, the bishop’s natural home is along the long diagonal and now it has the option of going to b7. It should be said, however, that Black’s bishop often remains on ¢8 for a while because Black can try for queenside counterplay with ..b8 and ..b6-b5 (or Da5). OF course, Black could have left his bishop on cB ca move eleven, but that’s an entirely different argument which brings its own pros and cons and will be discussed in Line B22 with 11.8. After 13...2c8 14 g5 ®d7 the most common sequence is 15 263, wransposing after 15,.Be8 to Line B2122. More direct is 15 £5! He8 16 Bet BEB 17 Bh3 (17 gO? hxgd 18 fxe6 fxe6 19 Ad5? doesn’t work for White: 19..exd5 20 WxdS+ Wh8 21 Bp ALG - Milos — and the knight can block the check on h7) 17..Ade5 18 We2 g6 19 Bra 297 20 afl Db4 21 Wee Hs 22 Ads Abco with a gpically unclear position, Milos-Movsesian, Shenyang 2000. Before moving on, let's consider a further two options for White at move thirteen. a) 13 Wd2 Bfe8 14 &£3 transposes to Line B2121 b) 13 Wel (planning W£2) can be answered by 13...c8 followed by ..2d7. However, 13...A\b4 also looks logical, especially as the white knight has retreated to b3 and so c2 is attacked. Play could continue 14 Ad4 Bh8 15 Wy3 Qc8!, planning ...2b7 with pressure on e4, 13...Bfe8 \ RR Ys £ 3 S yr z WS WN NN Ww ss “ 1186 &e2 e6: Main Lines Another common way to reach this position would be 11..He8 12 2.63 &d7 13 Db3 ‘b6 (see Line 8224). ‘The rook is useful on 8 for at least two teasons. Firsily, an eventual £4.15 by White may lead to the opening of the e-file, Secondly, Black prepares to bolster his kingside defences with a timely ...2£8 (and possibly ...g7-g6 and ...2g7). Now White’s two main moves are the following: B2121: 14 Wd2 82122: 14 g4 Other white tries include: a) 14 gt would be an unusual way to reach the position discussed under 11...e8 12 Qgll? Sd7 13 DDG b6 14 8.3 Babs (see Line B22) b) 14 5 gives up White’s centre for Black’s bpawn and following 14..dxeS. 15 fre5 Wxe5 16 S8.xb6 Hac8 Black has nothing to Gear, ©) 14 We2l? is a wicky move, delaying the advance of the g-pawn and improving the position of the white queen; note that ..Bab8 is prevented due to the threat to the a-pawn. Now 14...@.c82! is too risky here, for example: 15 a5! Ad7 (or 15...bxa5 16 e5!) 16 5 dxe5 17 fxe5 Bb8 18 Qxc6! Wxc6 19 Sxf7!l Sexf7 (Zelcic-Hoffmann, Buekfuerdo 1995) 20 Dd4 Wh7 21 WhS+ (Hansen) and White wins, In general Black should be keen to wait for White to commit himself to g2-24 before playing ..2c8. After 14 We2 Black can instead play 14...Ab4l, giving the option for the bishop to go straight onto the long diagonal on c6. see following diagram Now White can try the following moves cl) 15 5 Afds 16 DxdS Dxd5 17 Rxd5 exd5 18 @d4 265 19 c3 Wed 20 Wadi b5 was equal in Kuczynski-Schmidt, Lubniewice 1993. 2) 15 Badt Sicé 16 Mat (16 We2 Babs. 17 Ba2 268 18 £5 exfS 19 exfS dS was okay for Black in Kruppa-Dydyshko, Minsk 1996, while 16 g4?! can now be met by 16..d5!, intending to meet 17 5 with 17..Axg4!) 16...d5 17 e5 @d7 18 WE b5 19 axb5 Qxb5 20 Bal 26 21 Hd2 Bab8 and Black is very compact and has chances of counterplay on the queenside, _IGurevich-Polugaevsky, Hastings 1992/93. B2121) 14 Wd2 Habs This position is more commonly reached via 11..Be$ 12 &f3 Hb8 13 Wd2 Sa7 14 @®b3 b6, but by using our move order we have cut down on some of White’s options, most notably the dangerous 13 g4 (instead of 13 Wa2), 15 94 119Play the Najdort White begins his pawn assault on the kingside, but this isn’t the only plan White has; he can also try for a central breakthrough with e4-c5. Here are some playable alternatives a) 15 ael (White plans e4-e5) 15...8c8 (15..b5 also looks playable: 16 axb5 axb5 17 eS! ded 18 fred DxeS 19 .@.f4 Qd6 20 Madi Ab6! and Black’s position held together in Zelcic-Cvitan, Pula 2001) 16 €5 dxe5 4 Y oe any Dag and now: al) 17 &eS @xeS 18 BM Axes? (18..@fd7 19 We2 £6 is also playable) 19 Exf3 Wa? 20 @xb8 Wxb8 (Anand), when Black’s bishop pair and extra central pawn give excellent play for the exchange. a2) 17 Bxc6 Wxe6 18 fres Ads! 19 Wea HEB 20 AxdS Wxd5 21 Bxb6 Kb7 22 Acs (Anand gives 22 Bgl! as an improvement, but after 22...{6 23 Wg3 Ebc8 the power of Black’s bishops on an open board more than make up for the pawn minus) 22...Sh4! 23 We2 Bfc8! and Black was doing very well in Ivanchuk-Anand, Shenyang 2000, b) 15 WE and now: bl) 15..Ab4 16 Ad4 (or 16 gt Bc6! 17 g5 Ad7) 16.05 17 DS Qxf5 18 exf5 e4 19 Dset Wec2 20 Hic Wat2 21 Dxf2 45 was equal in Ivanchuk-Kasparov, Linares 1993. b2) 15..Da52 16 DAd2 &c8B 17 Bae (again White is playing for e4-e5) 17..2d7! 18 e5 &b7 19 @.xb7 Wxb7 20 exd6 Sxd6 21 Deed O68 22 c3 Web 23 We2 a8 24 Hat DoT 25 Bd4 DbeS and Black had successfully neutralised White's initiative in Kuporo- sov-Ruban, Andropov 1986. ©) 15 B£2 Bc8 16 Lg3 (yer another way of preparing e4-e5) 16..d7 17 €5!? dxe5 18 Hael! @b7! 19 fxe5 Dcxe5!? (grabbing this hot pawn isn’t totally necessary but it still works out okay for Black) 20 &xb7 Exb7 21 We2 £6 22 Wxa6 S&b4 23 @bs Wes 24 3 £8 25 @S5d4 (Anand-Topalov, Linares 1999) and now Anand gives 25..Dc5! 26 Bxe5 bxc5 27 VxeS exdd! 28 Vxd4 Bxb2 29 Wrxc8 Bxc8 30 Bxe6 Ba2 31 Hab Qc5t as equal, for example: 32 h3 &xd4 33 cxd4 Bcc2 34 Het Bd2 35 Ba7 hs. 15...2¢8! You should be getting used to this concept by now! 16 g5 Dd7 AO ated 17 G92 The bishop drops back a squate so that the rook on fl has mote influence. In certain cases White will consider 2£3-h3, perhaps followed by WF2-h4 with dangerous threats on the kingside. It is up to Black to be ready for such an attack. One method of defence involves ...0.f8, ..27-g6, -.&g7 and finally 2f8, securing the h7-pawn, Another important resource is to meet a threat on h7 with ..h7-h5. Then a resulting gxb6 (en passant) can be met by ...82h7!, after which the black king can use the white pawn as a shield. Instead of capturing en passant, White may 1206 &e2 6: Main Lines try to atrange a devastating piece sacrifice on hS with &f3xh5. 17 We2 is less direct for White: 17..@a5! (the general ideas behind this move are explained in the note to Black's 17th in the main text) 18 Add (or 18 Hadi Dc4 19 Bel bS 20 axb5 axb5 21 Qp2 b4 22 De2 Acs 23 £5 QB 24 96 Dxb3 25 cxb3 De5 26 gxi?+ Wai? 27 Dd4 exfS 28 exfS Ob7 with an equal position, Topalov-Anand, Las Palmas 1996) 18...2£8 19 £92 Dc4 20 Bcl Lb7 21 b3 a5 22 Bb2 Ac6 23 DB g6 24 Kadi g7 25 5 Aded Y ace gives a typical position. White has pressure on the kingside but Black has a good defensive set-up and chances of counterplay on the other wing. The continuation of the game Timoshenko-Lesiege, Koszalin 1999 is quite instructive: 26 £61? $168 27 Wh4 248 28 De2 b5 29 Det Hed8! Gi’s time for steady nerves; 29...bxa4 30 Dxe5 Axed 31 Qxe5 dxe5 allows 32 ADxg6! hxg6 33 Bd3 and White mates down the h-file) 30 axb5 Bxb5 31 Rdel Wo 32 &ct We5 33 BR (White finds it difficult to continue the attack, while Black slowly improves his __ position) 33... Dxf3 34 2x63 Dd4 35 Sd? (a blunder; 35 $.b2 was necessary) 35.65! and Black soon won. Another white option is 17 We2, planning: to push his h-pawn up the board: 17..2)a5 18 Bad1 Ac4 19 Sct bS 20 axbS axb5 21 Dad b4 22 Deed O68 23 h4 Ded 24 5 (Vazquez-Akopian, Santiago 1991) and now Akopian gives 24...e51? 25 DES Lxf5 26 extS e4 27 &g4 b3l, which doe: Black good counterplay. 17..a5! This is a characteristic way to start Black’s counterplay on the queenside. White doesn’t usually capture on a5 as then Black’s play down the half-open files usually more than compensates for his weakened pawn structure, So White has to find another way to deal with the positional threat of ...Ac4 and this slows down his attack on the kingside. 17.28, with the defensive idea of ...g7-26 and ...&g7, has been played a few times, but I must admit that Black’s position can become precatious if he delays queenside operations, for example: 18 Bf3 go 19 We @b7 20 Hh3 27 21 Wha! 21 5 Bxc3! 22 bxc3. exfS 23. exfS Dees! — Hiibner- Hijartarson, Munich 1988 — is the type of position Black is aiming for) 21.28 22 6! &xc3? Black must take his chance after 22..exf5 23 Dds Wd7 24 Dfo+ Bxfo 25 gxf6 h5; note that 22..Ae5 23 £61 Bh8 is a depressing ptospect for Black) 23 f6l! h5 24 £31 and Black has no good way to deal with the devastating threat of &xh5, S.Hansen- Svensson, Gothenburg 1998. This is a good illustration of White's attacking chances in the $.¢2 Scheveningen. 17...8b7 is also possible, but with the rook already on b8 it seems more sensible to 121Play the Najdorf push with ..b6-b5 and play ...Dab 18 Wr2 18 Dxa5 bxa5 suddenly gives Black lots of play on the queenside, for example: 19 b3 &b7 20 De2 Bbc8 21 Ha2 (21 Bact dS is annoying for White as 22 e5 can be met by 22...d203!) 21...8a8 (or 21...f6!? 22 Dg3 fxgs 23 fxg5 BB, as in Morais-Britten, correspondence 2000) 22 Ag3 g6 23 Wel Dbs! 24 hd Dc 25 c4 Abs 26 He2 (Kharlov- Tratar, Vienna 1996) and here Black should continue with either 26....2.8 or 26.45. 18...2xb3 This move has been played a couple of times by the Slovakian GM Lubomiir Ptacnik, who is an expert on the &e2 Scheveningen, 18...Dc4, however, looks equally playable: 19 Bel Bb7 (19...b5? is too early: 20 axbS axb5 21 Ba7 Who 22 Wxb6 Bxb6 23 Bc7 Aes 24 ®xc5 dxc5 25 eS was good for White, ZSzabo-Vicek, Slovakia 1998) 20 Ad4 2.68 and we have transposed back to the note on 17 We, 19 cxb3 Dc5 wy Th Two Ftacnik games have shown that Black can be happy with his position here. a) 20 b4 Ad3 21 Wha Wed 22 EPS (Fleck- Ftacnik, Bundesliga 1990) and now I can’t see anything for White after 22..xb2 23 Bh3 ho, b) 20 We2 bS 21 axb5 axb5 22 £5 (or 22 b4 Dad) 22...b4 23 Dat exf5 24 exfS £8 25 &f4 Palac-Ftacnik, Vinkovei 1995) and now Stohl’s 25...2b7 looks okay, for example: 26 Dxc8 Bxe2+ 27 Sexy?! Ebs.. 82122) 14.94 Avoiding any preparatory moves, White goes for the most direct course of action. 14.08! ‘The usual antidote. 1 haven’t mentioned this before, but of course 14..h6? makes absolutely no sense here. White will follow up with 15 h4 and the opening of the kingside after g4-g5 can only favour him. 15 g5 Dd7 16 292 Be ata ae 7 Clearing the way for the white queen to go to h5. This is definitely White's most dangerous approach. 16 We2 is aot so worrisome and is likely to transpose into lines discussed in B2121 after 16..Xb8 17 We2 (or 17 We2). 16,..2b7 On this occasion P've plumped for the bishop move over the equally playable 16...24b8 with the idea of ...b6-b5; a difficult choice as both ideas have their pros and cons. However, the casting vote was that, with White not holding back in this line, contesting the long diagonal after £4-£5, ..exf5, exf3 is paremount — an exchange of light- squared bishops will expose White's own king to a counterattack. 17 Whs No dilly-dallying with We2 or Wd2; White goes straight for the throat here. 122‘An equally dangerous approach is 17 B63, planning to swing the rook and then the queea over to the b-file. Play continues 17.96 18 Bh3 Aba! (tying White down to the defence of the c-pawn) 19 Wd2 2.£8 and now 8) 20 Bi (adding more bite to a later f4- £5) 20...Sg7 21 WE2 and Black has a couple of possibilities: al) 21..He7!? (see the note to Black’s 20ch move for an explanation of this bizarre- looking move) 22 Wh4 (22 &d4!?) 22.08 23 We2 Dd7 24 Wh4 AGB 2-2 De Firmian- Van Wely, New York 1997. a2) 21...Bab8 22 £d4 (naturally White is happy to exchange these bishops; after 22 Wha DB 23 5 extS 24 exfS Bxg2+ 25 Goxg?2 Bxc3\ 26 bxc3 Axc2 | suspect that Black has the better of the complications) 22...S.xd4 (22.52 doesn’t work here: 23 fxeS AxeS 24 Wh4 and there’s no knight to go to £8!) 23 Dxd4 ALB 24 6 exfS 25 exfS Re5! (preparing to double on the e-file) 26 Ddt Bxg2+ 27 Weg2 Hbe8 28 KhGB (Thip- say-Murugan, Musaffapur 1998) and now I think Black should play 28..d51. b) 20 Edi (White twins attacking on the kingside with pressure on the d-file) 20..Bab8 21 Wi2 Qe7 22 Hd2 $28 with a farther split: bi) 23 Wh4 is met by 23.68, after which Black has his ‘perfect’ defensive set- up. The assessment then revolves around the 6 2e2 e6: Main Lines strength of f4-5: 24 £5 exf5 25 ext &xg2+ 26 Bxg2 $.xc3! 27 bxc3 Wh7+ 28 Lgl Ads 29 as De, This is a demonstration of how Black can successfully meet the f4-f5 lunge. Black's knight will plonk itself on {5 and it will be White's king which is under more threat. b2) 23 Ad4 £5! 24 Dde2?! (instead of 24 Dde2, ECO gives 24 gxfo Dxt6 25 Wh 5 26 AB Kbd8, assessing the position as unclear; Black has certainly beaten off the first wave of White’s anack and his pieces are well placed for countering in the centre) 24...fxe4 25 Qxe4 (Neclotpal-Thipsay, Calcutta 1998) and now Black has the shot 25..Dxc2l, for example; 26 Wh4 Sxe4+ 27 Axed Wo7 28 Wah7+ Sf7 29 A2c3 Bhs. 17 Wet is quite likely to transpose to the main line after 17..b4 18 RQ 8.8 19 Haft 6 20 Wh3 or 19 Bd 96 20 Wh3, 17...b4 Releasing the power of the bishop along, the diagonal and attacking the slightly vulnerable c2-pawn. 17...86 is also playable, although Black has to be careful: 18 Wh3 268! (18...2b4?! 19 £51 ®xc2? 20 feg6 fxg 21 BET left Black in big trouble in Tiviakov-Van Wely, Groningen 1995 because 21..8xf7 22 Wxh7+ £8 23 Efi+ is curtains) 19 Kadi &g7 (Hristov- Iichev, Bulgaria 1996) and now 20 £3 can be met effectively by 20...\b4} 18 Hf2 123Play the Najdorf A good way to defend c2 — White can look to double rooks on the Ffile. 18 Hf3? is blunt and ineffective: 18..Axc2 19 Bh3 68 and Black adequately defends. An important alternative for White is 18 Ad4 g6 and now: a) 19 Whd eS! Black strikes back in the centre; he obtains a typical outpost on e5 for the knight) 20 fxe5 AxeS 21 Hf 28 (manoeuvring the bishop to g7) 22 Bafl 2g7 ET 72 2 Ye AP BN 4 os PF and Black has an excellent defensive set- up, Lobron-Van Wely, Antwerp 1996, The rest of the game is quite instructive: 23 D3 He7 24 Axed Bxe5 25 Kf4 Bw 26 Bxe5 Hxe5 27 Who We7 28 AiG Axedl? 29 Axed Bxe4 30 &xe4? (after 30 c3 Dd3 31 Bxet Wxed+ 32 Bgl Black probably doesn’t have better than perpetual check) 30,.Wxed+ 31 bgt Dds! 32 Wh3 (or 32 HoF2 De3 33 Met Wed+ 34 Gh1 DES! and White muse give back the exchange, leaving him a pawn down) 32..Dxf6 33 gxf6 h5! 34 Wy3 Wxc2 35 Wado Wxb2 36 Edi Bes 37 We7 Bc8 38 ‘Wa? We3 39 Hd6? and White resigned (or pethaps lost on time) before Black could play 39... Wel+ 40 &g2 Be2+ ete. b) 19 Wh3 c5 with a further split: b1) 20 £5 doesn’t quite work: 20..exd4 21 fxg6 fxg6 22 EAT (unlike in ‘Tiviakov-Van Wely, this tactic isa’t effective here) 22..D8 23 Bafl We4 (Van Wely) and Black defends after 24 Wh6 Wxt7 25 Ext? dxf? 26 Bxd4 Hec8 27 Wy7+ des, 2) 20 fxeS Axe5 21 Hact O18 22 Be (Aleksieva-Palac, Cannes 1997) and now I like 22..Wc8, negating the threat of Ah4. 18.218 18...26 19 Wh3 268 20 Bafl will lead to the same thing. 19 Raft Another illustration of Black's chances can be seen in the game Ol-Van Wely, Dordrecht 1998: 19 dt g6 20 Wh3 2g7 21 £5 exf5 22 exf5 Sxg2+ 23 Wp? &xc3! (this ugly-looking exchange is not an uncommon, feanie after White has played f4-£5 and is well timed on this occasion; Black removes a key defender of the d5-square) 24 bxc3 Wxc3 25 dd Web 26 fxg hxg6 27 B63 Axc2 28 Bh3 Wxp2+ 29 Bxg2? Ded 30 Bxb6 Dct and Black went on to win. 19...96 wo oa oy y, Bye\,) 7 4 ag g 20 Wh3 Or 20 Wh4 Sp7 21 Od4 e5!? (an idea borrowed from Kasparov — see below) 22 fre5 AxeS 23 Qxe5 Bxe5 24 Hxt7 He? 25 Exe? Wxe7 26 e5!? dxe5 27 Ded? (27 Wedt+ PbS 28 Axb7 Wxb7+ 29 Ded looks better, although Black looks okay after 29...Ad5) 27..Dxc2 28 Wh3 Hd8 29 Dbd2 Ad4 and Black converted his extra pawa in Zapata- David, Bled Olympiad 2002. 20...2.97!? Lining up @ positional pawn sacrifice, a typical Kasparov idea in the &e2 Schevenin- gen. 1246 &e2 6: Main Lines 20...2e7!? is another amazing idea that was first played by Kasparov against Karpov (ina similar position). Black’s concept behind this strange-looking rook move is to dissuade White from playing (4-15. After ..exf5, exfS Black would be ready to double rooks on the e-file and secure crucial counterplay, for example: 21 £5 exfS 22 exfS Hac8 23 &d4 Acs 24 feg6 fxg6 and Black is most definitely alive and kicking, Instead, the game Almasi- Ribli, Hungarian League 1998 continued 21 Hd2 Bas 22 Hfdt (White changes tack; so does Black) 22.,.Hee8 23 Act a8 24 Dd3 @xd3 25 cxd3 2g? and White’s position isn’t particularly threatening. 21 ada As I've mentioned before, it’s certainly in White’s interests to exchange these bishops in order to accentuate the weaknesses of the dark squares around the black king. Again the alternative is the direct 21 6. Ftacnik gives the line 21..cxf5 22 exfS Bxg2+ 23 Bxp2 @xc3! (once again Black uses this idea to gain control of d5) 24 bxc3 Dd5 25 Bd4 De5, intending to meet 26 £6 with 26..h5!, Following 27 gxh6 h7! White’s attack has hit a dead end ‘We have been following the game Anand- Kasparov, Frankfurt (rapid) 2000, which continued 21.5! (this is certainly not forced) 22 fxeS AxeS 23 Qxe5 Hxes 24 Ext? He? 25 Hxe7 Wxe7, when Black’s bishop pais, control of the dark squares and pressure on e4 give him good play for the pawn. Black’s most popular move, one idea of which is to negate White’s plan of Wel-g3 (see Line B221). Sometimes play can cans- pose to 11...2d7 lines (11,.4e8 12 &£3 &d7 13 Ab3 b6 comes to mind), but I shall also be offering an independent way to play with 12....68!?, Before that, though, Black does have quite a few 12th move alternatives to deal with, White’s four main moves here ate: B221: 12 We1 B222: 12 a5 B223: 12 &d3 B224: 12 2f3 125Play the Najdort Firstly, let’s look at less ctitical options for White, a) 12 Wd2 £47 13 Bad! (after 13 Db3 b6 14 263 Hab8 we have transposed to Line B2121) 13..Bad8 14 Db3 Lc8B 15 BE bs 16 We Dd7 17 Ads &b7 and Black is perfectly placed for any White aggression, An- Vorld Championship (Game b) 12 Qgt (one of the ideas of this move is to leave the third rank free for the manoeuvre Wd3-g3) 12...8d7 13 Ab3 (13 Wa3 Dxd4 14 Qxd4 c5 15 Le3 ext 16 Qxft fico 17 Wit 2f8 18 Bd3 Bhs 19 Bact Deal 20 Bcd De5 was equal in Ye Jiang- chuan-Xu Jun, HeiBei 2001) 13..b6 14 263 Zab8 and now: bl) 15 g4 &c8 16 g5 Dd7 17 Rg? Das! 18 Dd2 2b7 19 Wed 2.18 20 BG g6 21 Bh3 Sig? 22 Set 51? 23 ext Axt6 24 We2 Dhs gave a typically unclear position in Zapata- Fuacnik, Thessaloniki Olympiad 1988, b2) 15 We2 Db4! (again this typical reaction to We2; 15...28 16 Wed! £b7 17 a5! exd5 18 exd5 looks better for White) 16 Had! e5 17 £5 d5!? 18 g4? (18 exd5 is better, although Black can be happy with his position after 18..Axf5) 18..d4 19 g5 dxc3 20 gxf6 Sxf6 21 bxc3 a2! and Black was bet ter in Karjakin-Vorobiov, Kramatorsk 2001. ©) 12 gal? (very direct, but rarely played) 12..Dxd4 13 Bxd4 (or 13 Wadd Dd7 14 g5 b6 15 28 2b7 16 Be2 2A 17 Wa2 Bac8 with an equal position in Tal-Kasparov, Brussels [blitz] 1987) 13..b6 14 g5 Ad7 15 28 Sb7 16 2g2 B68 17 Wh (17 £5 exf! 18 exfS Bxg2+ 19 Gxg2 Ded 20 Bxed Exe5 21 WEG Bac8 22 Whi d5 gave Black good counterplay in Dolmatov-Vorobiov, Moscow 2002) 17...26 18 Wh3 d w aa A eAat eo es 2 a a Bf A a am Now 18..Hab8? leads to a theoretical position which would normally arise after 11..Be8 12 £63 Bb8 (’'m advocating 12..8d7 and 12...88) 13 g4! Dxdd 14 Aixd4 b6 15 95 Dd7 16 8g2 &b7 17 Whs g6 18 Wh4 £68. Here 18...c5? would be met by 19 fxeS Dxe5 20 SxeS dxe5 21 Bxf7!, when 21...8x£7 gets mated after 22 Wxh7+ eG 23 Wxgot+ Bed7 24 2h3+ ds 25 Hdi+. However, in our line there is of course no need for 18..Kb8 and the extra tempo of ...@e7-f8 allows Black to play 18...e5! 19 fxeS Dxe5 with a solid position. 8221) 12 Wet Not a very dangerous idea. Again White goes for the typical Wel-g3 procedure but, with the £00k on 8, Black has a faitly simple solution to his problems. 12...Axd4 13 Qxd4 e5! 14 fred Or 14 Be3 exft 15 Qxfd Be6 16 Wes and now Black embarks on the plan that we've seen before and neatly always seals a comfortable game: 16...d7! 17 Badl De5. 126a aatarae If White plays @d5 it will simply be exchanged by the e6-bishop. Meanwhile, Black will carry on with moves such as ...8.f6 (or $248), ..g7-26 and ...Sp7. The game Ratna- karan Prasad, Raipur 2002 shows how White can easily drift into an inferior position: 18 Bxe5?! dxeS 19 Ads Gxd5 20 exdS &d6 21 4 a3! 22 b3 b6, after which White's queenside pawn majority is clearly blocked whereas Black’s kingside majority can expand with ..e5-e4, ..27-g6 and an eventual ...£7-£5. 14...dxe5 15 Wg3 White follows the usual formula but Black has a clever resource... 15...2d8! ‘The point — Black simultaneously defends £6 and c7 and White's bishop must retreat. 16 263 16 &gi?! gives the bishop less scope: 16,..8e6 17 Hadi He8 18 Ed2 hs 19 23 6 &e2 6: Main Lines Was 20 Hid1 £b6! 21 Wel Rxgi 22 Wei Wb4 and Black has the more active pieces, Westerinen-Helmers, Esbjerg 1982. 16...2h8! Another excellent prophylactic move that prevents &h6. The plausible 16..8e6 17 Bh6! 6 18 Bad looks better for White after either 18..2e721 19 Dds! Bxd5 20 exd5 or 18..Hc8 19 Be5 Ad? 20 Sg! Qxgs 21 Rxe6 fre 22 Wxg5 (Notkin). 17 295 17 Badi &e6 18 gs is another move order to reach the same position A different plan for White is to double on the File: 17 2f2 @e6 18 Hafl and now: a) 18..Bc8 19 &g5 Dgs (19...Wb6l2) 20 8e3 DE6 (quoted by ECO) is a typical repetition for this line. b) If Black is more ambitious he could uy 18..2e71? 19 Bg5 Hads 20 Wh4 (20 &xfo Lxf6 21 Bxfo gxf6 22 Wha We7 23 Exto ApS is better for Black) 20..Ag8! 21 Bd3 BixgS 22 Wags (6 23 Whd Hdd 24 Whs Hed8 as in Vogt-Stohl, Potsdam 1985. White is struggling to make any progress, while Black is sirnply improving his position 17...2e6 18 Bad1 18 Wh4, eyeing a sactifice on £6, is met by the cool 18.g8! (another reason for ..€@h8), for example: 19 Qxd8 Haxd8 20 We3 Dc7 21 Bed Bcd! (keeping the better bishop) 22 Hfd1 £6 23 We3 S.f7 and I prefer Black, Muslija-Cvitaa, Rijeka 2001. 127Play the Najdorf 18...8e7!? 18..c8? allows White to cay out the threat contained in his last move: 19 Hxd8! Wxd8 20 Wh4 (Lukin-Timoshchenko, Russia 1979), when it’s difficulr to come up with a good move against another exchange sactifice in Bx ‘The repetition 18..Dg8 19 &e3 Af 20 25 has been played in a few games, but Adorjan believes that Black can play for more with 19..Bc8, giving the analysis 20 2d37 Dfo 21 gS DbS!, Instead of 20 243, White should probably exchange light- squared bishops with 20 8g4, leaving the position roughly balanced. 19 Oxt6 Or 19 Wh4 Ead8!? (19...Ag8 is perfectly safe and good) and now: a) 20 Bxf6 Bxdl+ 21 &xdl @xfo 22 Sxf6 gxf6 23 Wxfo+ de8 24 Wy5+ See 25 Wh6+ Be? (Adorjan) allows Black to play for the win. b) 20 Kd3 Ags 21 Dds Bxgs 22 Wexgs Bixd5 23 exdS Hxd5 24 Wh4 Atel 25 Bt (or 25 S@xh7 Bxd1 26 Sed+ Gg8 27 Axl He7 followed by ...Hd7) 25..c4 26 Reft exd3 27 cxd3 Wad7 with a clear structural edge for Black, Korkhov-Izhnin, Simferopol 1991 19...8x16 20 S94 to if , ea Vn, YD ‘GZ fA a “aae “wt amet A The game Padevsky-Ermenkoy, Varna 1973 shows Black how to treat this position: 20..Bad8 21 Bxd8 Bxd8! 22 h3 b5 23 axb5 axb5 24 Sxe6 fxe6, Black is quite happy to accept doubled e-pawns as this prevents White's knight from landing on d5. Without this possibility, the c3-knight is a poor piece, while Black’s bishop on £6 can eventually be improved with, for example, ...@e7-c5. One possible continuation is 25 WH (to protect 2) 25..b4 26 Ad1 Wed 27 Het Se7 and Black has the initiative. Note that 25 @xb5? can be met by 25... Wed! In conclusion, 12 Wei doesn’t cause Black any problems. B222) 12 abl? A very dangerous double pawn sactifice, which T believe was the invention of the Ukrainian GM Gennady Kuzmin, Its adher- ents include the young Ukrainian star Andrei Volokitin. 12...2)xa5! ‘The critical test is to accept the sacrifice. Declining it allows White to maintain a bind on the queenside and reduces Black’s counterplay to a minimum, for example: 12...£268 13 Db3 De? 14 243! Ag6 (Volokitin- Cheparinov, European ‘Team Championship, Leon 2001) and now 15 Bad Bd7 16 Dbs Zad8 17 c4 (Volokitin) leaves Black very passively placed. 13.5 The point of 12 a5 was to draw the c6- knight from the centre and leave it ‘hanging’ on a5. The logical follow-up is to strike in the 1286 &e2 e6: Main Lines centre, although now the investment will be two pawns. 13...dxe5 Other moves leave Black in trouble, for example: 13.5 14 Axe6! Lxe6 15 AxdS Bxd5 16 Wxd5 or 13..Bd7 14 exdo Bxd6 15 @db5, both of which lead to clear advantages for White. 14 fxe5 Wxe5! Again acceptance is the key; it's worth il- lustrating the dangers of declining the second pawn: a) 14..Ad5 again runs into 15 Dxe6 b) 14..Ad7 15 Lf4 leaves White with a powerful initiative: 15...b6? 16 Dd5! exd5 17 6 Wb7 18 exf7+ Bxf7 19 Gxad!! Bxa6 20 Wh5+ So8 21 Wxe8t+ Ds 22 Bp5 Rcd 23 Ex(8+ 8x68 24 Afi and Black was forced to resign, Najer-Bocharov, Elista 2000; or 15..Dxe5 16 2d3 G2 17 We2 do 18 Ddb5! axb3 19 Axb5 Wd7 20 Axd6 Wxd6 21 @xe5 with a clear advantage (Pacnik). 15 fa Black’s next two moves are forced as the queen beats a hasty retreat. 15...Wc5 16 Dad WaT There's no doubting that White has a strong initiative and Black certainly needs one of two moves to coordinate his pieces However, the value of the two extra pawns should not be underestimated. The main line sees Black offloading an exchange to dampen White's attack and we are left with an unbal- anced but very playable position. 17 &eT Hitting the knight on a5 and preparing Doo. An alternative way for White to proceed is with 17 £e3. Now Black has two possibie moves. a) 17..Ad8 18 DS exf5 19 Bxa7 Hxd1 20 Bfxd1 Hxa7 21 Abo Leb 22 Hxa5 Des 23 Lgl (23 Hel? loses to 23...8d8!) 23..g6 (but not 23..2c5+2? 24 Hxcd Dxc5 25 Has mate!) 24 @fl Bb4 25 Hat Bc5 26 Ad? BeT 27 Db6 Lc5 and a draw was agreed in Smirin-Hansen, Istanbul Olympiad 2000. b) 17..b6!? and now: bl) 18 ba? Ads! 19 2d3 &xb4 20 Q£2 (or 20 &xh7+ Gxh7 21 Whs+ des 22 H3 5) 20..We7 21 &g3 We7 22 3 Dxc3 23 BxhT+ Bxh7 24 Dxc3 (24 Wh5+ Les 25 &b4 We? was winning for Black in Ga jewski-Dydyshko, Lubniewice 2002) 24...dxc3 25 Wd3+ Sp8 26 Wrxc3 &b7 with a clear three-pawn advantage for Black. b2) 18 Ass?! Ads 19 Bel We7 and now 20 c4 Axc4 21 Hel can be met simply with 21..b5. b3) 18 @F5 (Mikhalchishin) 18..exf5 19 Sxb6 Wb7 20 BxaS Be6 and I prefer Black’s extra pawn, bd) 18 Axe6! (the critical move) 18..LLxe6 19 @xb6 Wh7 20 Qxa5 Bac8! (20.845 21 8.63 Bxf3 22 Wat Babs 23 Web? Exb7 24 129Play the Najdort b3 left White slightly better in Mikhalchishin- Zheliandinov, Lvov 2001) 21 b3 (21 @£3 can be met by 21...Wb5). Mikhalchishin likes White’s position after 21 b3, but following 21..8d5 22 263 Sixf 23 Bxf3 Ded I believe that Black has good counterplay. 17.6 17.,,£2d8? is not to be recommended: 18 Sxd8 Exd8 19 DbS! (1-0 Zelcic-Vismara, Bled 2001) 19..Bxd1 20 Bfxdi is winning for White. 17..b5 is the main alternative and indeed this has been played more often than 17..c6. However, the positions reached are similar ia nature (White gains an exchange and Black eases his position) and I believe that 17..Dc6 is easier to play. 18 Abe White must cash in, otherwise his initiative could quite easily burn out. 18...xd4- 19 Wxd4 2d7 a mate Volokitin assesses this position as slightly better for White, but Black’s chances shouldn’t be overlooked. He has a solid position and vo good pawns for the exchange. White must either protect or move the queen from d4 before being able to capture on a8, A few different moves have been tried. a) 20 Bxf6? Bxf6 21 Wad? He7 22 Wa Exc7 23 Wxe? 248 is very good for Black (Volokitin). b) 20 Hadt &c6 21 Axas Wadd 22 Bxd4 Bxa8 23 BB (23 Rd6 Qxd6 24 Bxd6 PB left Black with a slightly favourable ending in Smeets-Grachev, Halkidiki 2001) 23...$.xf3 24 gxf3 (2-2 Vorobiov-Vitiugov, St Peters- burg 2001) 24...Be8 (or 24...2Dd5!?) 25 Bde BB with a fairly level ending. ©) 20 Wa3 2c6 (or 20,,.2b5!? 21 4 BadB 22 Bad8 Hxd8 23 We3 Se6 24 c5 Det 25 b4 Wb8) 21 Axa8 Hxa8 22 8.63 We5 23 ddl? Wxb4 24 x6 bxc6 25 Bibt Wes 26 Bxad Bxa6 27 Hb8+ 218 28 Wxas Ad5 29 Be3 g5 and Black will try to make use of his kingside majority, Schaefer-Maksimenko, Senden 2001 od) 20 Wes Bc6 21 Dxag Exafl (stronger than 21. Wra8 22.26 Sxf} 23 Bxf3, which was perhaps a shade better for White in Vo- lokitin-Gashimov, Artek 2000) 22 £3 WS 23 c4 Qxf3 24 Bxf3 and now Black can choose between the ambitious 24...g5 or the more solid 24...h6 25 Bd! b5. Overall, 12 a5 is a very sharp line that Black has to be prepared for when choosing 11..e8, ‘Theoretically speaking, though, Black is holding his own. it’s pethaps significant that Kasparov has continued to play 11..Be8 and no one has dared to play 12 a5 against him! B223) 12 £43 ‘The bishop is more aggressively posted on 43, where it points to Black’s kingside, so White is content to expend an extra tempo. 130This move was analysed heavily after Anand employed it in his 1995 world championship clash with Kasparov. 12..Db4! A logical reply; Black gives himself the option of exchanging the d3-bishop at the most convenient moment. 13 a5! Te makes sense for White to exploit the downside of ..Ab4 to create a bind on the queenside and eliminate (for the time being at least) the possibility of ..b7-b6, Other ties include the following: a) 13 DB (White’s knight looks for an active role on the kingside) 13...b6 14 e5 @xd3! 15 cxd3 Dg 16 Rel dxe5 17 freS Bb7 18 d4 Had8 and Black had nothing to fear in Smirin-A.Sokolov, Moscow 1988 — the bishop on b7 is a particularly good piece b) 13 g4 Black is well placed to deal with pure aggression from White) 13..b6! 14 g5 Da7 15 Whs Dc5l? 16 5 gol 17 feo fxg 18 We2 Dexd3 19 cxd3 Sd7 (now the bishop needs to cover e6, but the queen can be ‘f- anchettoed’ instead) 20 Hacl Wb7 21 Wel 2/8 and Black was better in Mortensen- Pedersen, Horsens 2003. ©) 13 Wel be! Z ft) (13...2d7 is ‘theory’, after which White can play 14 We3; 1 prefer to try to punish White for delaying 4-25) 14 Debs!? (14 We3 transposes to note ‘d’) 14...axb5 15 Waxb4 (15 Dxb5 Axd3 16 Axc7 Axel 17 Hfxet &d7 6 &e2 e6: Main Lines should be at least okay for Black) 15...bxa4 16 @bS (16 Bxa4 d5 17 Wh3 Hxad 18 Wxat dxe4 19 Bxed Ld7 20 Leb looks equal) 16... Wa? 17 Dc3 d5 18 Whxb6 28 19 Wat dxe4 (Zentai-Antal, Hungarian League 1999) and now 20 @xe4 d5 looks reasonable for Black. d) 13 WE3 b6! (again the bishop will be more active on b7) 14 We3 27 15 Bael has been seen a few times. Black has to be waty of the e4-e5 break but the fact that he has the option of playing ...xd3 eases his defensive task, One practical example continued 15.0268 16 Sd2!? (16 €5 Axd3 17 cxd3 dxe5 18 fxe5 Ad5 is fine for Black; note that 19 Ded Axe3 20 At6+? loses after 20...82h8 21 Dxc8 Axfl) 16...Bad8 17 Acb5!? axb5 18 Bxb4 bxad 19 AbS Wh8 20 Bc3 Ad? 21 5 dxe5 22 fxe5 Ac5 23 Dd6 Dxd3 24 cxd3 Exd6! 25 exd6 Wxd6 26 &e5 Wad7, when Black had excellent play for the exchange, Godes-Andrianov, correspondence 1986. 13...0d7 14 Of3 Planning to use the knight on the kingside and making way for @&d4 and 2b6. White does, however, have more than one option here. a) 14 WES €5!? (certainly not the only move, but effective enough in this situation) 15 FeeS (15 DES Bxf5 16 exfS Dxd3 17 cxd3 Wc6 was level in Moldobaev-Fomichenko, Krasnodar 1999) 15...dxe5 16 AES Sxf5 17 Wx Axd3 18 cxd3 Qb4 19 Lh6 (or 19 131Play the Nojdorf Bp5 Oxc3 20 Rxf6 Bd2) 19..Wa7 20 Wrxd7 Dxd7 21 Dads Ld6 with equality, Smirin-Novikov, Polanica Zdroj 1989. b) 14 g4l? (this violent move makes more sense now that Black’s bishop is commitced to d7) 14.26! (naturally Black must vacate the d7-square) 15 £5 dS! 16 fxe6 fxe6 17 Dxe6 (or 17 5? Wres! 18 SF4 Wadd! 19 Sxh7+ Dxh7 20 Wxd4s Dxc2 and Black will pick up ample material for the queen; Polul- jahoy also gives 17 Zxc6 Wxc6! 18 WE Big 19 Wig? dxe4 20 Axed Aeds! 21 Wa2 Dxd3 22 cxd3 Wb5 with a clear plus for Black due to White’s kingside weaknesses) 17..Wd7 18 DxgT dxet 19 Lc4+ Bxy7 and White didn’t have enough for the piece in Velimirovic~ Poluljahov, Yugoslavia 1995, Instead of 15 £5, White should probably play 15 g5 Dd7 16 £5, when Black should choose the solid 16...8.68. Note that 17 fxe6 fxe6 18 Wed BDe5 19 xe6? loses to 19...Wd7! c) 14 Wet usually transposes to other lines: cl) 14..3ac8 15 DEB (the repetition 15 We3 Dns 16 WH ADL has been seen) 15,806 16 9.6 Wo8 reaches the main text. 2) 14...8c6 15 We3 2.68 16 De3 Ad? 17 &d4 Bac8 transposes to note ‘cl’ to White’s: fifteenth move. 14...Hac8! So that the queen can drop back to b8. 15 2b6 It makes sense for White to force the black queen to move off its favourite square Alternatives for White include the following: a) 15 We2 2c6 16 &b6 Wh8 transposes to note ‘c’ to White’s sixteenth move. b) 15 Wet &c6 16 2b6 Wos 17 We Dd7 18 Bd4 reaches the main text. ©) 15 Bad Bc6 16 Wet Dd7 17 Wes and now Black has two ways of dealing with the mate threat on g7: cl) 17.2.8 18 Ad1 @xd3 19 cxd3 eS 20 fxeS dxe5 was equal in Svidlet-Anand, Linares 1999. 2) 17.46? 18 Bxf6 (or 18 €5 dxe5 19 Qxh7+ Sxh7 20 fre5 Le7 21 Dgd+ Vxgs 22 Wxg5 @p8 and Black wins — Dokhoian) 18..Dxf6 19 Dd (19 €5 dxe5 20 freS Bxd3 21 exd3 Ad? 22 dé £6 — Dokhoian — is fine for Black) 19..ed8 (prophylaxis against e4- 5) 20 Whd Dxd3 21 cxd3 We7 22 h3?! Les 23 Bfct Dd 24 Wxe7 Dxe7 25 Hgl 5 26 ®de2 £5! and Black opened up the position to his advantage in Lutz-Kasparov, Bled Olympiad 2002. Instead of the indecisive 22 h3, Dokhoian gives 22 B63 Ads 23 Wel ®Dxc3 24 bxe3 Ld7 ‘with roughly equal play’. 15...Wb8 16 2d4 Or a) 16 Wel 51? (16.26 17 &d4 trans: poses to the main text) 17 fre5 dxeS 18 We3 Bc5 19 BDp5 GeT 20 AB Bc 21 Ags Re7 was 2 repetition in the game Kindermann- Ribli, Bundesliga 1999. b) 16 €5 dxe5 17 fxeS Beds 18 DxdS 1326 &e2 e6: Main Lines exd5! 19 Bet h6 20 c3 @xd3 21 Wad3 Soc5 (Black temporarily sacrifices a pawn to case his position) 22 Wxd5 2e6 23 Wd2 @xb6 24 axb6 Ec6 and Black picks up the b6-pawn with equality, Anand-Kasparov, World Championship (Game 7), New York 1995. ©) 16 We2 0.06 17 Dd4 Dxd3 18 cxd3 d5! (18..Dd7? 19 £5! is good for White as after 19..e5 20 @c2 White can home in on the d5- square) 19 WE3 (Kasparov gives 19 e5 Dd7 20 WhS g6 21 Wh3 Axb6 22 axb6 Lc5 23 63 h5 as unclear) 19.,.Dd7! 20 Axc6 bxc6 21 @a4 Wa with a very solid centre for Black in Anand-Kasparov, World Champi- onship (Game 5), New York 1995. 16...8:¢6 17 Wet U7 &5 Ded?! 18 exdé Wxd6 19 Bcd Was 20 Afg5 gave White a strong attack in Jansa- Vicek, Austria 1999. Instead I prefer 17..Bd7 18 exd6 Axd3!, planning to meet 19 dxe7 with 19..@xf4. IF White tries 19 Wxd3 Wxd6 20 4ip5?l, Black is fine after 20....xg5 21 figs e5!. 17...d7 17...d5 also looks playable, for example: 18 5 Ded 19 We3 (or 19 Axed dxe4 20 Qxed Bxe4 21 Wxed Dxc2) 19..Dxd3 20 cxd3 Dxc3 21 Lxc3 We7 22 Sd Vb5 23 Erer Wa7 24 Abo Bxci+ 25 Exel Be8 with an equal ending, Jimenez Haertel-Meymuhin, correspondence 2000, 18 Wg3 G8 T have found a couple of practical examples from this position: a) 19 Bael ¢5 20 Be3 exf4 21 xfs DG 22 Ddd DhS 23 WE Dxd3 24 cxd3 Dx kt 25 Wxf4 Be7 26 APS was agreed drawn in Smirin-Olafsson, New York 1997, though there is still plenty to fight for. White has good control over the centre but Black has the long-term potential of the bishop pais. b) 19 5 e5 20 &e3 Axd3 21 cxd3 (Kovalev-Lazar, Pardubice 2002) and now I like the move 21...Af6, intending to meet 22 Finally we arrive at the most common reply to 11..Me8. White’s light-squared bishop immediately covers the long diagonal, where it serves some useful functions. Firstly, in readiness for g2-g4, the bishop provides cover for the white king. Secondly, Black's queenside counterplay is slowed down — moving the b-pawa is hazardous when White has ed-e5 ideas in the air. After 12 2£3 I have given Black two choices for the repertoire. The first choice, 12.87, transposes to the note ‘el’ in Line B21 (and most likely to Line B212 after 13 Db3 b6). Traditionally the main move for Black has been 12...8b8, but in recent years the line 13 gal Axd4 14 @&xd4 €5 15 fxe5 dxe5 16 227 Ba8 17 g5t! has caused Black quite a few headaches. This has led to Black 133Play the Najdorf searching for alternatives here, and my second recommendation is the relatively new 12...218 This is 2 useful move because the bishop often drops back to £8, while it also main- tains much flexibility (the d7-square remains vacant for the f6-knight and Black still has ideas of ...Axd4 followed by ...c6-e5). Com- pared to 12..2d7, the position becomes critical very quickly. Play is very tactical, but on the other hand White is less likely to sue- ceed in an all-out attack on the black king and often prefers to play for tactical breaks in the centre and queenside (see Line B2243). White’s three most popular choices against 12...2£8 are the following: B2241; 13 g4 B2242: 13 Wd2 B2243: 13 Db3 Less important alternatives include: 2) 13 Wd3 Db4!? (13...8d7 is a reasonable alternative) 14 Wd2 e5 15 @de2 (15 Ab3 can be answered by 15...d51? or 15...exf4 16 Qxf4 Le6) 15..d51 16 fxe5 Axes 17 Axed dxed 18 Bxet Wxe5 19 Ac3 Le6 20 Sd4 Had8 and Black had equalised in Lukaszewski-Perdek, Polanica Zdroj 2001. b) 13 Wel and now: bl) 13.05 14 Axc6 bxc6 15 freS dxeS 16 &g5 DBd7 17 Bh5 g6 18 Be2 Dc5 19 Bcd Re6 20 We2 Wb7 was equal in Asrian-Van Wely, New Delhi 2000. b2) 13..Axd4 14 Bxd4 e5 15 Be3 (15 fxe5 dxeS 16 We3 can be met by 16...8¢5) 15...exf4 16 Rxf4 Le followed by ...Ad7 is a valid alternative for Black. c) 13 22 is a wicky waiting move, cl) 13..Dxd4 14 Wrxd4 e5 15 Wa2 ext 16 da! (revealing a downside to 12....0f8) 16.87 17 Wxf4 @e6 18 Wg3 was a shade better for White in Kaiurov-Magerramov, Beltsy 1979. c2) 13...4b8! and now: 21) 14 Hel Dd7 15 We2 Dxd4 16 Bxd4 BG 17 €5! dxe5 18 fxeS (Razuvaev-Kasparov, USSR Championship 1978) and here Minic and Sindik suggest 18...2c5!?. 22) 14 Sg3 Dd7 (14..Dxd4 15 Wexd4 €5 also looks playable) 15 Wd2 Dxd4 16 Wd b5 (or 16.6) 17 axbS axbS 18 b4 e5 19 Wa2 exf4 29 Dds Web 21 Lxf4 AeS and Black can follow up with ...2e6!, Milos-Vera, Vila Real 2001, 82241 13 g4 ‘This is the move that 12.8.8 (as opposed to 12..b8) was supposed to avoid, However, it still remains a dangerous option (dangerous for both sides, that is!) 13...2xd4 Tf Black doesn’t wish to enter the complications of the main line, then 13..Qd72 looks worth investigating. After, say, 14 Rg2 Axd4 15 Qxd4 b6 16 g5 Bb7 we have actually transposed to note ‘c’ to White’s owelfth move in Line B22, which is okay for Black. Indeed, this was the actual move order to Dolmatov-Vorobiov, Mosadvem. Now we see the advantage of playing 12,,.268 rather that 12..2b8; White cannot gain a tempo on the rook with Qa? and follow this up with g4-g5. 15 291 Alternatively, a) 15 @e3 exf4 16 Bxf4 Qe6 17 g5 Dd? 1346 £62 e6: Main Lines 18 Bd5 (You-Koepke, Bad Homburg 2000) 18..Wd8! and Black can continue with ...Bc8 and ...e5. b) 15 fxe52! dxeS 16 Be3 Be6 17 g5 Mads! 18 We2 Dd7 19 BhS Bc5 20 Hadi Db6 21 b3 dd was good for Black in Song. Bing-G.Szabo, Oropesa del Mar 2000. ©) 15 £2 is similar to the main text, but White plans to use the gi-square for the rook. Play continues 15..exf4 16 g5 @d7 17 Dds Was 18 Bgl and now: cl) 18..b6 19 Wd2 Sb7 20 Wrt4 Bxd5 21 exd5 Be8 was equal in Savanovic- Sibarevic, Banjaluka 2002. 2) 18..De5? 19 Lb6 Wd7 20 Ac? Axs3 21 Wxt3 We6 22 DxaB 5! 23 Bact Kxa8 Gavanovic) gives Black good compensation for the exchange — White’s pawns are weak and his king is hardly safe on ht. 15...exf4 16 g5 16 2d4 can be met by the prophylactic 16... Was 16...Ad7 17 Dd5 WaB 18 Wa2 18 Lg? DeS 19 Hxft Be6 20 Be3 HcB (Gzischuk) leaves Black very solidly placed. 18...e5 19 Wxtd 19 &bG? Wxg5 20 Ac? 2h3! is obviously good for Black. This position has arisen a couple of times so far and Black has fared okay on both occasions a) 19...2.h3!? 20 2b6 Wd7 21 Be Ax63 22 Wxf3 Sg4 is given as unclear by Nataf. Let’s play a few more moves; 23 We4 Rac8 24 Hgt and now Black should play 24...&h5! (but not 24...£2€6? 25 Dfo+!), b) 19..2c6 20 Bb6 20..Wd7 21 Dc7 Web 22 Axa8 (or 22 a5!? Wrxc2! 23 Be W3 24 Sdl We4 25 Dxa8 Bxa8 — Nataf— when Black has typical compensation for the exchange) 22..4xa8 and now both 23 2d4 @Dxf3 24 Wef3 d5! (NatafStefansson, Ha- vana 2001) and 23 a5 Axf3 24 Bxf3 d5 25 ¢5 Wexc2 (Cernousek-Berezjuk, Roznov 2002) promise Black good play for the material disadvantage. White will find it very difficult 10 consolidate with his king being so open. B2242) 13 Wd2 abi? ‘Taking advantage of White's previous move to threaten ... ed, Another way for Black to play is with 13...8b8, for example: 14 Hadi Dd7 15 WA2 Dxd4 16 Qxd4 b5 17 axb5 axb5 18 €5 (Her- nandez-Vera, Matanzas 1992) and now best for Black seems to be Vera’s suggestion of 18.45. 14 Wr2 White can prevent ..Ac4 at a cost of weakening the queenside with 14 b3 Bb8 and: a) 15 Hadi b6 16 e5!? dxe5 17 fxeS Dd7 18 Qf Dxe5 19 We3 £6 20 Ded Bc5 21 Dxc5 bxcS 22 De2 cf 23 We3 Bb7 24 BixeS Wxe5 25 Wre5 fixed led to a draw in Jansa-Stohl, Cologne 2002. 135Play the Najdorf b) 15 £5 De6! Going back to c6 now that the eS-square is available) 16 fxe6 fxe6 17 gS Be7 18 Hadi De5 19 Be2 a7 and Black was okay in Hossain-Goloshchapov, Dhaka 2003, 14...c4 15 Bc1 e5 16 Ade2 ao moe Y WY 16...d5!? A gypical Scheveningen breakthrough in the centre that leads to forcing play. If Black wishes to play the position more quietly then I can recommend 16..exf4 17 Dxf4 Be6 18 b3 De5 19 Lb2 (Agopor-Pogorelov, Be- nasque 1999). Here 1 like 19...g6 with the intention of ...&g7. 17 fxe5 17 exd5? loses a piece after 17..e4, while 17 @xd5e! Dxd5 18 exdd e4 19 LAS g6 20 We3 &p7 21 Be4 & is extremely unpleasant for White. 17... Axed 18 24 Or 18 exd5 Dxf3 19 Wx Lg4 20 Wed Wexg3 21 Dxg3 &b4 22 Da2 Vel! 23 Sp5 Bxg3 24 Rxf6 Le2 25 Kft 2 26 Vg5 Be5 27 Qed BES 28 Ac3 Oct 29 Rp Mugs 30 hxg3 @xd5 31 Axd5 Mxd5 and Black had a slightly better ending in Kuczynski-Ehlvest, Warsaw 1999, 18...dxe4 19 Axed Wxe2!? A suggested improvement from Kaspatov after 19..2\d5 20 @g3 had left him a shade worse in Sutovsky-Kasparov, Tel Aviv 1998. 20 Dxf6+ gxf6 21 Wo3+ 21 Mxed Exe5 22 Mad Le7 23 He Waxf2 24 Hxf2 Hb8 gave an equal ending in Yagupov-Galkin, Tomsk 1999, Black’s extra pawn is meaningless, but the bishop pair in an open position certainly isn’t, 21 Hfcl can be answered by the greedy 21..Wxb2, for example: 22 Habi Wa3 23 Sxb7? Axb7 24 Hxb7 Dd3 25 We3+ Bhs and Black wins (Bosch). 21...Wg6 fae ised a 7) th y) AD a a os | a “e ae Boe PRA e it Oe m Bn Despite the split pawns on the kingside, Black has a reasonable position (one of the split pawns is an extra one, after all). Here are a couple of practical examples: a) 22 Se4 (5 23 Ads Acé 24 WH Seb 25 Hadi Wet 26 Ada Wrt3 27 Sxf3 Hac8 28 Dxc6 bxc6 and Black went on to convert his extra pawa, Galkin-Poluljahov, Nov- gorod 1999. b) 22 B45 Ac6 23 Ac3 Wxg3 24 Bxp3 Bg7 25 83 Be6 26 Det Kad 27 ha £5! 28 Df6+ Sxf6 29 Bxf6 Hd and Black will continue with ...8d5, Lutz-Galkin, Batumi 1999. It’s revealing that Galkin switched sides after his reverse against Poluljahov. Ww oe o 82243) 13 Db3 Ordinarily this move would be classified as a tempi-losing mistake, After all, doesn’t White normally wait for Black to move his bishop to d7 before retreating the knight to b3? However, White has something very specific in mind and it doesn’t inchude the 136usual p2-p4-95 thrust. 13...b6 On first sight this natural reply to Db3 seems forced due to the positional ‘threat’ of a4-a5. However, if Black wishes to avoid the complications of 13...b6 14 €5, then another playable route is 13..d7I? (drawing the sting out of e4-e5) 14 a5 (other moves can simply be answered by ...b7-b6) 14...b5! 15 axb6 @xb6, transposing to the note to Black’s fourteenth move. 14.5 After this move the position becomes very tactical 14 p42 is an instructive mistake. Because Black hasn’t wasted time on ...{&c8-d7-c8, he will be two tempi up on the variations discussed in Line B2122. Of course White's position is still playable, but Black will certainly not come under as much pressure as normal, One example from practice continued 14..2b7 15 g5 Dd7 16 &g2 Dc5 17 Dd4 Ab4 18 Wa2 d5! 19 e5 Ded 20 Axes dxe4d 21 c3 @d3 and the knight on d3 is a real thorn in White’s position, Reefat- Stefansson, istanbul Olympiad 2000. 14 e5!2, however, is a dangerous alternative, with White trying to take advantage of the open h1-a8 diagonal, Black must tread very carefully because White does build up quite an initiative. Play continues 14...dxe5 15 fxeS Dd7 and now: a) 16 DAd4 V7 17 Kxc6 Lxc6 18 Axc6 6 Sie2 e6: Main Lines Wixe6 19 Wh5 £5! 20 exfo Dxf6 21 We2 Kb4 22 Dd1 (Mamadshoev-Erdogdu, Bled Olym- piad 2002) and here I like 22.,.8¢5 with the intention of answering 23 S&g5 with 23..@edl. b) 16 Bxc6 (White gives up the bishop pair in return for a quick attack on the kingside) 16...Wxe6 17 Dd4 W7 (otherwise WE. will hit a8 and £7). White's attack looks menacing but, as always, Black’s position is resilient: b1) 18 Bxf7 is flashy but not particularly effective: 18,..€2xf7 19 Wh5+ Wes! 20 Wxes. Now 20...Axe5!? is possible, but the simplest answer appears to be 20..Wxg2+ 21 Gixg2 Rb7+ 22 #2 Axe8, when I prefer Black in the resulting ending. b2) 18 Wh5 (this is more dangerous) 18.26 19 Wh4 White correctly gives up e5; 19 Wes Sg7 20 Aes We7 — Lukacs — leaves White firmly on the defensive) 19..Axe5 20 Det Ve7! (20..Lg7 21 Lh gives White a strong attack) 21 Ag5!? (the variations 21 SigS £5 22 Qxe7 Wxe7 23 DlG+ WhB and 21 DE6+ Qxf6 22 Bxf Wd — Lakacs — are not dangerous for Black, while 21 Wea £5 22 Wrxe5 Waxed 23 Wxed fred 24 Deb Bc5 leads to a level ending) 21...8xg5 22 Bxg5 £5 23 Hael AFT! and White certainly has some pressure, but Black’s pawn shield on the kingside shouldn’t be discounted, Rajlich- Antal, Budapest 2002. 14...bxa5 137Play the Najdorf 14...d7 is an important alternative, not least because of the transpositional possibility on Black’s 13th move, White has two ways forward: a) 15 e5 Bb8! 16 exd6 xd6 17 6 Dxad 18 fxe6 fe6 19 Dxa5 bxa5 20 Ded #e5 21 Bh5 Bee 22 @7+! Shs! 23 Vxe6 (Leitao- Cvitan, Cappelle la Grande 2000) and now Leitao gives 23.6 24 Bxc8 (24 Axl Rxe6) 24..Hbxc8 25 Axt6 Hx 26 Bx gxf6 27 c3 Rxh2 28 WEI Se5 29 Wxa6 Hbs with a slight advantage to Black. b) 15 axb6 Dxb6 16 We2 (16 Ab5 axbS {7 Bxb6 Wh8 18 HxaB Wxa8 has been played a few times but Black has been pretty comfortable) 16...b4!? 17 bs Wh 18 @Sd4 €5 19 freS dxeS 20 DG Be6 and Black’s position was quite playable despite the weak pawn on a6, Hermansson-De Fir- mian, Stockholre 2002. 15 05 dxe5 16 fxe5 16 DxaS can be met by 16..e4 17 Axed Dd5 18 8d? Hbs (Stohl) 16...2d8 17 d4 17 We2 can be met effectively by 17...Ad5, while 17 &d2 Dd5 18 Dxd5 exas 19 Dxa5 Heo 20 Axcé Wrc6 was equal in Jakovenko-Vorobiov, Moscow 2003. 17...2xd4 18 xd 18 Bxa8 Wre5! 19 Bel QeT 20 Dds! @xd5 21 Sxd4 Wh8 22 WhS was very complex but probably a litte better for White in ‘Tiviakov-Shipov, Port Erin 1999. However, Shipov suggests 18.25! as an improvement, giving 19 Wel Dxe3 20 Wxe3 Aga 21 We3 (or 21 Wet Axc5) 21..AxeS 22 Baet Bd6 23 De4 We7 as equal. 18...@b7! 18.25 19 Axd5 exd5 is enough for equality but 18.867 forces White to play mote accurately. 19 exf6 e5 Powe Yara; Jha £7 Using the pin on the d-file to win back the piece at once. I have found two games from this position and both turned out well for Black: a) 20 Had?! exd4 21 Bxd4 Bxd4 22 Wxd4 xf 23 Ext Bd8 24 Wes Wes 25 Bel g6 and Black had an advantage in Marjanovic- Belov, Ano Liosia 2000 — the f6-pawa is more of a weakness than a strength. b) 20 fxg? Bxg7 21 Bxe5 Wre5! 22 Wel Weel 23 Bfxet @xf3 24 gxf3 Bd2 25 Bxad Exc2 and the long-range power of the bishop over the knight gave Black an edge in Vehi Bach-Van Wely, Vlissingea 2001. In- stead, Shipov and Belov give 22 Wel Bab8 as equal, although I believe Black’s position is slightly easier to play. ‘Another very complicated variation, but once again Black seems to be holding his ‘own in the main line, 1 woulda’t be surprised if we started to see more of 14 e5, but don’t forget that if Black doesn’t ust his position here, there is always the option of playing 13813..A\d7 to fall back on. Points to Remember 1) White's ateacking pawn thrust g2-g4-25 should nearly always be answered by ...\d7. This is by far the best retreat square for the knight. 2) The move Dd4-b3 is a typical reaction to ....c8-d7. White eliminates the possibility of ...xd4 followed by ...6 and leaves the black bishop stuck on the {6-knight’s natural retreat square, 3) Likewise, the move ...b7-b6 is an almost automatic response to @d4-b3 — Black prevents White from obtaining a queenside bind with a4-a5. 4) Remember when choosing 11...d7 that, if White reacts with @d4-b3, sooner or later the best response may well be ...8d7- c8l. This is especially so if White plays a quick g2-24. 5) When choosing between 11..8d7 and 11...Be8, note that there is more theory and sharper lines to learn with the latter. The 6 &e2 e6: Main Lines move 11...8d7 is zelatively positional, but you must be prepared to face a kingside onslaught with g2-e4-3, &e2-£3-g2, Wai-hs, BA1-13-h3 etc. 6) Against a kingside attack, an effective plan is ..DG-d7, ...SLe7-18, ..27-26, kT and, if White piles up on the h-pawa, ..Ad7- £8. Another idea is to allow White to build up on the h-file and to meet an attack on h7 with ...h7-h5. After g5xh6 (en passant) Black can reply with ..,@2h7 and use the white pawn as a defensive shield. Instead of capturing en passant, White may instead try to arrange a piece sacrifice on h5 with, say, 2.f3xh5. 7) One of the positive features of playing JRfB-c8 is that the rook can be brought to life if White's standard £4-£5 is met by ...exf5. 8) Black has a few ways of organising counterplay on the queensice and in the cen~ tre. The a8-rook often goes to b8 to facilitate .bS, while the c6-knight can go to a5 (offering an exchange with the knight on b3), or b4 (hitting che vulnerable c2-pawn). Black's light-squated bishop usually ends up on c6 or b7, contesting the long diagonal, 139CHAPTER SEVEN 6 &g5 1 e4 c5 2 Af3 d6 3 d4 cxdd 4 Axd4 ATG 5 c3 a6 6 Ag5 Traditionally speaking 6 @g5 is White’s main move against the Najdorf, although in the past couple of decades its popularity has slipped noticeably under both 6 e3 and 6 Ge2. Nevertheless, there has been more written about 6 &g5 than any other variation of the Najdorf, In the relatively recent nwo- volume epic The Complete Najdorf by Nunn and Gallagher, material on 6 295 occupied a whole volume — as much as the rest put together! T suspect that 6 25 is also the reason that many players are put off playing the Najdorf — whatever his reply, Black has no option but to go head first into razor-sharp positions. However, most would also agree that the massive mountain of theory on &g5 outweighs both its popularity and probably also its effectiveness. The truth is that there is so much theory only because Black has so many playable options: the Poisoned Pawn, the old main line, the Polugaevsky, the Browne System, 7...Abd7, 7..We7, 7.6, not to mention the option of transposing to a Richter-Rauzer with 6..c6. From a practical viewpoint it’s so much easier to play Black than White: Black can simply cut out the majority of the theory to learn just one line; White, on the other hand, has to leara six or seven. So out of this immense choice, which line did I finally settle on? I won’t bore you with detailed reasons why 1 discounted lines (too much theory or inferior positions were the main two objections co some). In the end I plumped for 6...06 7 £4 Wc7, a sharp but nor overly fashionable system that has been used by Kasparov amongst others. The main idea of 7..Wc7 is to begin queenside operations very early with ..b7-b5, but without allowing: e4-€5 (as in the Polugaevsky: 7..b5 8 eS!) ‘The point is that, compared with the so- called main line (7...¢7 8 WE3 We7 9 0-0-0 @Dbd7), Black’s queenside counterplay can in many lines attive before White gets organised with his own attack. All well and good so far, but of course there ate trade-offs. For one thing, delaying the development of the f8- bishop and playing ..Wce7 gives White the option of playing an early &xf6, exchanging the dark-squared bishop to compromise Black’s pawn stractute. Also, with Black lag- ging somewhat behind in development, White does have some enticing sacrificial possibilities, ‘Then again, this is pretty much par for the course in the 6 25 Najdorf anyway; I suspect that this is the main attrac- tion behind playing 6 &g3 in the first place. 140Before we move on, one thing has t© be pointed out. Others have said it before, but I should say it again: in this chapter you cannot just rely on general principles, common sense and positional understanding ~ you have to learn the best moves too! Wer itt A ace oe we Oe li Y, 5 ee A Aa Am eA x eh E Ae whe Ave Bw “9 Enough of the waffle. Below are White's four main options after 6...e6, the last of which being by far the most popular and most dangerous. A: 7 We2 B: 7 Wit3 c: 7 Was D: 7 14 Before sinking our tecth into the main theoretical lines, let's examine some le postant options for White a) 7 &c4 twansposes to a line considered in Chapter 1 b) ‘There doesn’t appear to be a more natural move in the world than 7 Wd2 - ‘White moves the queen to a normal square and prepares for queenside castling. Push the pawn on a6 back to 27 and move the b8 knight (0 ¢6 and indeed you will have arrived at the mainline RichterRauzer. However, this small difference makes 7 Wd2 com- pletely innocuous against the Najdorf, Black continues with the reply 7...h6! and now we have: bl) 8 &h4? Axed! 6 295 is the point: Black can use this tactic to exploit the undefended bishop and the position of White's queen. 9 Wed 0 Axed Wha and 9 &xd8 x2 simply leave Black a pawn up for no compensation) 9..Df6 and, not only is White a pawn down, he is also faced with the threat of ...g7-g5. Note that 10 e4 can be successfully met by 10... Wa5+!. b2) 8 Bed Ags! (rabbing the bishop pair) 9 0-0-0 Axe3 10 Wxe3 Ac6 11 4 Be7 12 Sb1 0-0 13 D3 Wad with a very comfortable position for Black, Gligoric, Belgrade 1961. b3) 8 &xf6 Wxf6 (in the Richter-Rauzer White could now play 9 Ddb5!) 9 £4 g5i? (claiming some dark squares; some might prefer the quieter 9...2e6) 10 £51? (or 10 fxg5 hxg5 11 0-0-0 Be6 12 Le2 Dxdd 13 Wxdd Wrd4 14 Bxdd @d7 15 b3 Reb 16 23 0-0-0 17 2d3 @g7 18 Bhdt Se5, when the bishop pair plus the undoubted dark-squared control gives Black a clear edge, Kummerow- Pavlovic, Biel 1997) 10..Ac6 11 0-0-0 Wxd4 12 Wxd4 Axd4 13 Bxdd @d7 14 Be2h5 15 Bhd Lc6 16 fre6 fee6 17 h3 dB 18 263 Be7! 19 De2 Bg7 and again the dark- squared bishop is a monster, Le Dinh-lincic, Bled Olympiad 2002. °) 7 £d3 (one could easily come across this rare but natural move, especially if White doesn’t know his ‘theory’ 7...@¢7 and now: cl) 8 f4 h6l 9 &h4 Axed! (this trick again!) 10 @xe7 Dxc3 11 Wed? (11 Bxd8 Janosevic- 141Play the Najdort @xdt leaves Black a pawn up) 11..Wxe7! (11..82xe7 12 bxe3 8 is also possible but thete’s no denying that White has compensation) 12 Wxg7 Wis 13 WafB+ BxfB 14 bxc3 7 and I would take Black in this ending due to White's inferior pawn structure. 2) 8 Wa2 co! highlights a problem with playing £3: the knight is no longer de- fended on d4 so White must commit to some sort of action, Following 9 Bxc6 bxc6 castling long suddenly loses its appeal due to Black's imminent counterplay on the b-file, but then what's the point of Wd2? 3) 8 We2 b5! (8..c6 9 Axc6 bxcb 10 e5! is White’s idea) 9 0-0-0 2b7 10 4 Abd? 11 5 (the logical follow-up to White's previ- ‘ous play) 11..dxeS 12 fxeS Dds 13 Bxe7 Wxe7 (13..Axc3!? is also possible; the ending arising after 14 Qxd8 Axc2+ 15 Qxe2 Bxd8 16 £3 &xf 17 Dx Dbo looks equal, while 14 We4 Wxe7 15 Wxe7 0-0-6 16 bxc3 Ehg8 17 Who @xe5 is good for Black) 14 @xd5 Bxd5 fetata® a F anh Pe Ys ie eta a Le ae and with a weak pawn on eS to attack and chances on the queenside, Black can be quite happy with his position. The game Nowak- J.Pribyl, Bradislava 1967 continued 15. h4 Dc5 16 Wes 0-0 17 Sebi Bids 18 Zh3 Wer! 19 Me3 Hd? 20 Ae2 RcB and White was slowly pushed onto the defensive. ) 7 Sic2I? is maybe the best of White's alternatives to 7 f4; White plays a Classical but with the bishop on g5 instead of e3, ® "Se hes mi Play continues 7...€e7 and now: 1) 8 £4 We7 transposes to Line D. 2) 8 Wa2 b5 9 a3 27 10 263 Wool? 11 &e3 We? 12 g4!? (12 0-0 Abd7 is comfortable for Black, who has ideas of both ..De5 and ..Ae5) 12.6 13 g5 D7 14 Dxc6 Bxc6 and Black can continue with ...a6-a3, «Wb7 and ...b5-b4, Nicevski-Nemet, Yugo- slay Championship 1975. 3) 8 Wa3 Dba7! 9 £4 h6 10 Sh4 We? 11 0-0-0 Acs 12 Wg3 g5! 13 fygs Dtked 14 Dxet Dyed 15 Wa3 bags 16 Rel d5 with a clear advantage to Black, Istrati-S.Vajda, Iasi 1999. d4) 8 0-0 0-0 9 Wa3 We7 10 Wp3 Dbd7 11 Bad! bS 12 a3 Qb7 13 &ho eB 14 4 Bh8 15 Lg5 and now both 15..Del6 16 £63 Zab8 (Smith-H.Hunt, British League 1997) and 15...@xg5 16 fxg5!? dep8 17 hi De5 18 He2 We7 19 Bdfl Dc7 (Gurgenidze- Shamkovich, Baku 1961) look perfectly reasonable for Black. A) 7 We2 White prepares to castle queenside but, unlike 7 Wd2, he attempts to do so without allowing tricks with .... Dxe4 — unsuccessfully! 7...n6 8 2h4 Or: a) 8 Axf6 (very limp) 8..MHxf6 9 0-0-0 Dc6l and White has given up the dark squares for no good reason. 1426 295 b) 8 Be3 (after ‘encouraging’ ...h7-h6, tne bishop comes back to e3 and White tries to play some sort of English Attack) 8..b5 9 23 @.b7 10 £3 Abd7 11 0-0-0 Kc8I, and now in Ziatdinov-Browne, San Francisco 1999 the looming possibility of ..Bxc3 induced White to move his queen again. Following 12 Wel simplest for Black looks 12..d5, Note that after 13 exd5 @xd5 14 @xd5 Bxdd 15 Dxb5? axb5 16 Hxd5 exd5 there is no devastating discovered check on the black king. 8....207 Those looking for something sharper could try 8..g512, for example 9 s8g3 Abd7 10 0-0-0 Wc7 11 hd Hy8 12 hxg5 hxgs 13 63 De5 with a roughly level position, Yurtaev- Rashkovsky, USSR 1982, 900-0 Alternatively: a) 9 fF Dxed! (it doesn’t matter that the queen is on e2 rather than d2 — this still works!) 10 @xe7 Axc3 11 Wed! (11 &xd8 @xe2 12 Qxe2 xd8 simply leaves Black a clear pawn ahead for nothing) 11..@xe7 12 Wec3 He8 13 0-00 G68 and White has insufficient compensation for the pawn, Yur- taev-Rashkovsky, Frunze 1983. b) 9 Bg3 (avoiding the... Axe4 trick, but White’s play is beginning to look more and more artificial) 9...e5! 10 Ab3 b5 (Black has a favourable version of a tue Najdorf structure ~ White has lost time and the bishop on. 3 is misplaced) 11 F4 0-0! 12 fxe5 (12 Wea32t Dbd7 13 Le2 Qv7 14 0-0 Be8 was advanta- geous for Black in Smyslov-Portisch, Tilburg 1979) 12...dxe5 13 Bxe5 Deb (13...b4!?) 14 Edi and now both 14...2d7 and the ambitious 14..Axe5!? 15 Bxd8 Bxd8 (Portisch) give Black good play. 9...Dxed! Simplifying into a very untroubled endgame. 10 xe? Other moves are worse: a) 10 Wxed @xh4 11 DS Wy5+ 12 Sb1 WxfS 13 Weh4 d5 14 2d3 We5! (Meulders) and Black is a safe pawn up. b) 10 Axc4 Sxh4 11 DES and now | like 11..exf5! 12 Dxd6+ BB 13 Axt7 Bgs+ 14 Bbt xi? 15 Bxd8 Bxd8, when Black’s rook, bishop and knight outweigh the queen and pawn. 10...xc3 11 Axd8 11 Wed? can be met by the ‘desperado” 11..Dxa2+!, 11,..0\xe2+ 12 Dxe2 &xd8 13 Lxd6 + sbe7 14 Ed2 b5 Planning to put the bishop on the long diagonal. Objectively this ending must be equal, but of course there are still chances to outplay an opponent from here, for example: a) 15 Dc3 Sb7 16 2d3 b4 17 Ded DaT 18 Bel g6 19 Bcd (manoeuvring the bishop to a worse home) 19..b6 20 Ab37! Zad8 21 Bxd8 Hxd8 and Black had the better placed pieces, Wirschell-Van Wely, Ant- 143Play the Najdort werp 1996. b) 15 g3 signifies the lack of ambition shown by White in playing this line, but may nevertheless be a good move: 15...b7 16 Hel Dd7 17 Bp? Vxg2 18 Axe? Back 19 £3 Ec7 with equality, Voekler-Dinstuhl, Plauen 2003. B) 7 Was This time White really does avoid the -Dxe4 tricks. White's queen may look clumsy on d3 but the idea is that the queen may take up residence on g3 or h3. However, the relative slowness of this plan allows Black to react quickly on the queenside. 7...b5! Recommended by both Kosten and Nunn. Black plans an early assault on the e4- pawn with moves such as ..b5-b4, .. Ad7-c5 and ...27, ns Ua acuae . | ae UY, Be RR Y Ba3 Preventing ...b5-b4. Alternatively: a) 8 £4 b4 9 Ace2 Dba? 10 0-0-0 Bb7 transposes to note ‘b2’. b) 8 0-0-0 bé and now: bl) 9 5 bxc3 10 exf6 gxfo 11 Waxed)? (11 WS fxg5 12 Wxa8 Who! Jefe White’s queen in trouble in Neuronov-Zaichik, USSR 1979) IL.fxg5 12 Dxe6 &xe6 13 Wxh8 Wh6 isn’ totally clear, but I think I prefer Black. b2) 9 Dce2 Dbd7 10 4 Bb7 11 Dg3 Was 12 Sb1 Ac5 13 Ab3 (13 We3 Afked simply wins a vital central pawn for nothing, Martin Gonzalez-Gual Pascual, Barcelona 1990) 13..Axd3! 14 Axad ARQ 15 Dxb7 @®xd1 and Black is a safe exchange ahead — there is no good way for White to exploit Black’s knight on di, 8...Dbd7 914 Or 9 0-0-0 &b7 10 Wh3?! (10 £4 transposes to the text) 10..8e7 11 £d3 Hes! 12 Bhet Exc3! (of course!) 13 bxc3 WaS and Black has a very powerful attack, Sareen- Howell, Calcutta 1996. 9...2b7 10 0-0-0 10 Wh321, as in the previous note, is simply too ambitious: 10..2e7 11 243 Bes! 12 0-0-0 (12 0-0? loses a piece after 12...Wb6) (2...Bxc3! 13 bxc3 Aec5 and Black was better in Arencibia-Ivanchuk, Lucerne 1997. The rest of the game shows how difficult it is for White to defend such positions: 14 &xf6 Sixf6 15 Bhet Wa5S 16 5 dxe5 17 fixed Rg5+ 18 debi Ads 19 D3 Wrxa3 20 QxbS+ axb5 21 ExdS Dad and White resigned, 10 @e2, planning 2e2-£3, also causes Black no problems: 10...8e7 11 &£3 Who! 12.0-0-0 h6 and now: a) 13 @xf6 Bxf6 14 h4 (or 14 eS Dc5 15 We2 dxe5 16 fxeS &g5+ 17 Sb1 bd!) 14...0-0-0! 15 Sb1 De5! and Black was better in Linskiy-Novikov, Toronto 1998. b) After 13 @h4 I like 13..Hfc8, for exam- 144ple: 14 Hhel g5! 15 fxgS DeS 16 We2 hxgs 17 Bxg5 Mxc3! 18 bxc3 We5 with a strong attack against the white king. 10...e7 11 2xf6 White must do something to combat the threat of ...Ac5. 11 We2 He8! (eyeing up yet another exchange sacrifice on c3) 12 €5 dxe5 13 fxe5 Dds 14 &xe7 Wxe7 15 DxdS Bxd5 16 Wed 0-0 17 &d3 b4 18 a4 Ac5 left Black totally in command in Chudnovsky- Wojtkiewiez, Newark 1995. 11... Dxf6 0g) \ we pp rr LD Ds i O28 8 \ a zi N a Ce (oe [aS Black can be very satisfied with the outcome of the opening. Here ate a couple of practical examples: a) 12 €5? dxe5 13 fxeS Dar 14 Wh3 (or 14 DB We? 15 Des VdS!) 14..We7 and White's e5-pawn drops off, Pandavos- Wojtkiewicz, Athens 1992. b) 12 @e2 0-0 13 RB (Yilmaz-Savon, Alushta 1992) and now I like 13...047, taking the sting out of a possible e4-e5 and preparing to go to ¢5 or b6. Cc) 78 Yet another queen movel The advantage 7 WES has over 7 Wa3 is that it prevents ...b7- bS for the time being due to ideas of ed-ed. On the other hand, on £3 the queen blocks the path of the 2-pawn so it’s likely that White will have to expend another tempo moving the queen to g3 or h3 6 agd 7...2bd7 Some players prefer to ask the question to the white bishop immediately with 7...h6 but I don’t see any reason to give White an extra option of doubling the pawns with 8 &xf6, not that Black is any worse after 8...Wxf6 9 Wrf6 pxf6. This gives a structure that usually atises from the Richter-Rauzer, but the absence of queens is to Black's advantage — his king is much safer than normal. 8 0-0-0 h6 9 &h4 9 3 is also playable. Indeed, this position vety much resembles the one arising after 6 Le3 e6 7 WEE Dbd7 8 0-0-0 (see Chapter 3). One possible continuation is 9... eT 10 Wy3!? e5! (changing to a Najdorf structure; 10..b5!? allows an unclear piece sacrifice with 11 &xb5l? axb5 12 Adxb5) 11 Db3 b5 12 a3 Abs! 13 B Db6 14 Wei Leb 15 Bb1 Ac4 16 p4 Be7 17 h4 a5 and Black’s attack was quicker, Mazi-Fercec, Pula 2002. 9...We7 10 Re2 Alternatively: a) 10 &d3 Be7 11 We2 b5 12 f4 b4! and now White should probably make do with the uninspiring 13 @b1, after which Black is fine, because 13 A)d5? exd5 14 AS Ac5 saw Black easily rebuffing White’s attack in L.Milov-Savon, Alushta 1992. b) 10 Wh3 (eyeing a possible sacrifice on 6) 10..Se7 (10..b52! 11 Axe6! fxe6 12 Wxe6+ Be? 13 &xb5! was good for White 145Play the Najdorf in L.Milov-Ruck, Zalakaros 1993) 11 £4 b5 and now: bl) 12 e521 dxeS 13 fxe5 Axed 14 Bg3 Wet 15 Ve2 0-0 16 Khel Ago! and White had nothing to show for the pawn, Ivanovic- Bukic, Yugoslavia 1981. b2) 12 8.43 b4 13 4a4? (Black should answer the stronger 13 Ace2 with 13..Ac5) 13..Ac5 14 AxeS dxc5 and now knight retreats allow ..c5-c4 winning a piece, Mar- torclli-Ortega, Saint Vincent 1999. b3) 12 a3 Hb8! (playing for ...b5-b4; notice how Black keeps his light-squared bishop on 8 — the same diagonal as White’s queen) 13 B.d3 (13 €52! dxe5 14 fee Axed 15 Bg3 b4- 16 axb4 Exb4 17 AGB Dfys left Black well on tp in L.Milov-Ruck, Griesheim 2002) 13..b4 14 axb4 Exb4 15 Db3 Ac5 16 Axc5 Wxc5 with a roughly level position, Ivanovic- ‘Marjanovic, Yugoslav Championship 1982. 10...2€7 10...b5? should be avoided here: 11 €5 2b7 12 Axes! Wed (12...fke6 13 Wh5+! is White’s idea) 13 Axp7+ &xg7 14 Wy3 dxeS 15 Wsg7 and Black was in some trouble in Rakowiecki-Kuligowski, Warsaw 1981 11 Shet Or 11 We3 b5 12 2xf6 Axio 13 £4 b4 14 ®b1 Bb7 15 Ad2 Hec8 and I prefer Black, Van — Riemsdijk-Olafsson, Thessaloniki Olympiad 1988. 11...g5! A common feature in the Najdoef, Biack clamps down on the datk squares and se- cures the e5-squate for his knight for a long time to come, 11...Ab81?, intending ...b7-b5, also looks reliable, for example: 12 Wh3 12...b5 13 £4 b4 14 Db1 Vb7 15 Ad2 Ac5 with good prospects for Black, Korchnoi-Sadvakasov, As- tana 2003. 12 &g3 Ded 13 Wed b5 14 a3 bs Black has an excellent set-up, the knight on e5 being the dominant presence. Both 15 £3 Did? 16 £4 pxf4 17 Bxfd b4 18 axb4 Txb4 (Tal-Platonov, USSR 1969) and 15 £4 gsf4 16 Sxf4 b4 17 axbd Exb4 (Ivanovic- Bukic, Pula 1991) are favourable for Black. So, all well and good so far — it’s surprising how White can drift into worse positions without making any obvious mistakes. How- ever, from now on things are going to hot up a little! D) 74 By far the most popular move. White erects part of his kingside pawn front — now the queen’s development on £3 wil look so much more natural. 7...c7 As explained in the introduction to this chapter, the main feature of this is to prevent e4-e5 and to prepare a very quick ..b7-b5. We will now look at White's four main moves in ascending order of importance. 146Ze ¥ t/_At WU, Y N N NS \ oO \r> SNS J \ Pee W Ke \Y ie D1: 8 We2 D2: 8 2d3 D3: 8 Axfé D4: 8 WHS Other white tries include: a) 8 &e2 (White switches plans to castle kingside) 8...2e7 9 0-0 Dc6! (threatening Wb6) 10 @h1 0-0 11 £5 2d7 with an equal position, b) 8 Wa2 (I haven’t found this sensible- looking move mentioned anywhete) 8...Qe7 90-0-0 h6 10 &h4 Abd? 11 £43 and now: bl) 11..b5 offers White the chance to sactifice a piece for three pawns with 12 Qxb5 axb5 13 Ddxb5, leading to a position which is difficult to evaluate, though I suspect that Black is okay. b2) Instead of this, Black can play 14..Dxed! 12 Axed (or 12 Lxed Bxh4 13 @dbS? axb5 14 AxbS Wes 15 Axd6+ ke7 16 Axb7 Whé 17 Ad6 BaT and White’s attack has been repelled) 12...@xh4 13 £5 e5. 14 DGB Be7 15 Le2 0.0 16 Dxdo Acs, This looks good for Black, for example: 17 Dxc8 Haxc8 (threatening ...e5-e4 followed by 8.g5) 18 We3 e4 19 Bd4 261, ©) 8 £51? (adding early pressure on the ¢6- pawn — we might see more of this move) 8.27 9 Fxe6 fxe6 10 Wad3 (10 g3 Acé 11 Bb3 WaS! 12 Dxc6 bxc6 13 Wa2 Ebs gave Black no problems in Matulovic-Tukmakov, 6 295 ‘Titograd 1982) 10..@c6 11 0-0-0 &d7 12 Be2 DAxd4 13 Wadd Hc8! (preventing 2c4) 14 Ehfl 0-0 with a roughly level position, Nataf-Bruzon, Havana 2002. D1) 8 tie2 Preparing to castle and supporting the e4- 5 push. White's queen blocks in the fl- bishop, but this can be developed after g2-g3 (or g4) and 22 8..Dc6! Pressurising d4 is quite logical once the white queen is not protecting this square anymore. Besides, after the typical 8..b5 9 €5!? dxeS 10 fxe5 Gid7 White has “tricked” Black into the Polugaevsky Variation — not part of our repertoire! 9 0-0-0 ‘The most natural response; White’s other options are not dangerous a) 9 Dxc6 Wxc6 (or 9...bxe6!?, intending to answer 10 e5 with 10..245!) 10 0-0-0 Be7 11 g3 We7 12 Bp2 Bd7 13 Bd2 Bes 14 hdl h6 15 Bxf6 was agreed drawn in Luther Wojtkiewicz, Hamburg 1993. After 15..Rxf6 16 Hxd6? Qxc3 17 bxc3 0-0 the weaknesses of White’s shattered queenside more than make up for the pawn deficit, while Black has a reasonable position after the stronger 16 Dd5 Lxd5! 17 exd5 e5, b) 9 @é3 is playable, but the loss of time on White's past means he can hardly claim 147Play the Najdorf any advantage. For example, 9...S2e7 10 0-0-0 0-0 11 Wel (2 further loss of time) 11..b5 and Biack has an equal share of the chances, Prie-Renet, French League 1991. 9...A\xd4 10 Exd4 2e7 pia | SS 1193 A logical continuation, preparing to develop the fl-bishop. Alternatives include the following: a) 11 e5 (risky because the e5-pawn becomes isolated and weak) 11..dxe5 12 fxe5 Dd5 13 Qxe7? (Kasparov suggests the stronger 13 {d2!? and gives 13..xc3 14 Sxc3 0-0 15 Wet Rd7 16 Bd3 g6 17 Rb4+ with a level position) 13..Axe7 (13..Axc3!? also looks enticing) 14 Ded 6-0 15 Wh Des 16 eS h6 17 AE3 (Ivanchuk-Kasparov, Tilburg 1989) and now Kasparov gives the analysis 17..Kd8! 18 Bxd8+ (or 18 Bed Eas!) 18..Wxd8 19 Wet Was! 20 2c4 Bd? (20..Axe5 is also good) 21 Kel Qe6 with a clear plus to Black due to the weakness on 6. b) 11 Wa3e! (this looks severely clumsy) 1.5 12 &e2 Bb7 13 Hdl Bc8 14 Bx @xf6 15 Bxdo @e7! 16 €5 (or 16 Bd7 Waf4+ 17 Bb1 &c6 18 Ha? £6! 19 Bxa6 0-0, when White looks seriously uncoordi- nated) 16...2xd6 17 exdé Wa? was good for Black in Grabarczyk-Wiojtkiewicz, Warsaw 1995. ©) 11 gf allows Black to fight for dark- squared control on the kingside: 11..h6 12 Lhd g5! 13 fees Dd7! 14 Wa2 Des 15 Le2 Hg8 (Kasparov) and Black will continue with hhxg5. 11...807 Planning to oppose the long diagonal with .&ie6. This is more solid than 11..b5 12 Bg2 Qb7l (12.8 is better) 13 Bhd! 0-0 14 Qxf6, as now 14,..2xf6 can be met by 15 5! @&xg2 16 exf6, when Black is clearly worse 12 92 h6 13 Bhd Bc 14 151? Or a) 14 Het Wh6 15 eS? @xe2 16 Wrxp2 dxe5 17 fxeS Dd5! 18 Bxe7 (18 Dxd5 exd5 19 Wrxd5 Bad8 and Black can follow up by trapping the bishop with ...g7-g5) 18..@xe7 19 Wed Ac6 20 Dad We 21 Acs Wre5 22 Dxb7 Wxed 23 Ado+ He? 24 Axes Hhe8 Yo-¥e Luther-Sadler, Altensteig 1992. b) 14 Bhdt g5! 15 fg hxgs 16 &xg5 Bxh2 17 Bhi Exhi+ 18 Bxh1 0-0-0 with a level position (Kasparov and Dvorkovic) 14...0-0 15 Shd1 Kasparov and Dvorkovic assess 15 fxe6 fxe6 16 Wed g5 17 Wxe6+ og7 as unclear; Black wins the bishop on h4 but White will undoubtedly have some compensation. If pushed, though, I think I would take Black. 15...b5!? Finally Black gets motoring on the queenside. The game is finely balanced, as the following possibilities show: 148a) 16 g4? e5 17 B4d3 b4 18 Bxf6 bxc3! 19 BxeT cxb2+ 20 Rb Wae7 21 Bxdo Bic left Black on top in Ljubojevic-Kasparov, Belgrade 1989 — White's king is far more vulnerable than Black's. b) 16 fxe6 fxe6 17 Bxf6 Lxfoi 18 Bxd6 bd and now: bi) 19 Abt? loses to 19... 2e5+! b2) 19 Wed bxc3 20 Weo+ (or 20 Wxc6 Wa5!) 20..8h8 21 Bxe6 (Kasparov, Dvork- ovic) and now I like the look of 21...Wa5; that pawn on c3 is an enormous thorn in White's side. b3) 19 Exc6! Wxc6 20 e5 and here Kas- parov’s and Dvorkovie’s initial suggestion of 20...Wc7? allows 21 exf6 bxc3 22 Wxeo+ winning for White, so 1 suspect that Black should flick in 20....g5+! 21 b1 and only now 21...Wc7 22 &xa8 bxc3. Despite being a pawn down, Black has reasonable prospects due to the massive pawn on c3. Note that 23 Wra6 Wh8 24 Wxeo+ Bh3 25 Wh3 Wres! keeps the pressure on White. D2) 8 2d3 A natural move — White still plans We2, but moves the bishop first so that the queen doesn’t get in the way of its development. White also leaves the option open of castling cither side. 8...b5 9 We2 Alternatively: a) For 9 WAS see Line D4, b) 9 Bxf6 gxf6 10 Wh5?! (10 WE3! transposes to note ‘a’ to White’s 10th move in Line D41) 10.5! 11 Wxc5 dxc5 12 AB 2b7, By forcing the exchange of queens, Black has made his king much safer and holds the advantage due to possession of the bishop pair, Yanovich-Klimenok, correspondence 1998. ©) 9 a3 is obviously playable, but Black is ‘usually happy when this happens — White’s attack is slowed down by a tempo and Black bas more time to construct the perfect defensive set-up: 9..2\bd7 10 We2 Qe7 (or 10...@b7 11 0-0-0 Be8 12 &b1 Who 13 Db3 Bxc3! 14 bxc3 We7 15 Bh4 Abo 16 Bel d5 17 5 Ded and Black has typical compensa tion, Maatsskanian-Rashkovsky, Yerevan 1984) 11 0-0-0 &b7 12 Bhet ho 13 Bxs61? xf 14 €5 dxeS 15 fxe5 Dd5 with a good position for Black, Bruce-Palliser, Oxford 2003 d) 90-0 Dba7 10 ght Be7! (the correct move order; 10..2b721 11 £5! e5 12 Deo! fxe6 13 fxe6, as in Gufeld-Dubinsky, USSR 1966, is good for White because 13....e5 can be met by 14 Bxf6l) 11 a3 Sb7 12 We2 (12 6 5 13 De? feb 14 fxes Dc3 no longer works for White) 12..0-0 13 Bael (again White lines up e4-e5) 13...Bad8! 149Play the Najdorf and now the tactics stemming from 14 6521 dxe5 15 fxeS WxeS! (the point of 13,..Bad8) 16 &xh7?+ Dxh7 17 Bxe7 Wxd4 18 Sxd8 Exd8 19 Bxt? Dgs! favoured Black in Emms-IGurevich, — Hastings 1991/92. White can uy to prepare e4-e5 further with 14 D3, but Black can react with 14..h6 (14...e5?! 15 Dh4!) 15 Sh4 e5l, preventing White's advance once and for all and claiming an equal position 9...b4! Chasing the knight away disrupts White’s development and allows Black the time to consolidate. 9..Abd7 is also playable, but White’s attack is quite dangerous after 10 0.0-0 b7 11 Bhet S&c7 12 51, Note that in this line L1...b4 would be too late: 12 Ad5! would leave Black in a perilous position. 10 Ad1 The knight plans to rejoin the action via 22. 10 @d5? is certainly not good here’ 10..exd5 11 exdS+ We? and Black even manages to trade queens. However, 10 Db1 ®Qbd7 11 Dd2 is certainly a reasonable alternative. Play could continue 11...&b7 12 @c4 h6! and now Black looks okay after both 13 Qxf6 Axio 14 €5 dees 15 fxe5 Dd7 16 0-0 &c5 17 c3 0-0 and 13 &h4 e5!? (or 18..d0Bd7 11 Df2 &b7 12 0-0-0 Or 12 0-0 2e7 and now: a) 13 Rael ho! 14 @h4 (or 14 Lxf6 xl 15 5 dxeS 16 fxeS Dd5 17 Wed 0-0-0, when 18 Wxg7? &c5 leaves White in big trouble) 14...g5! 15 fxg5 hxgs 16 &xg5 Dest and Black will continue with ..0-0-0 and ~Hdg8 (Spraggett) with a strong initiative on the kingside. b) 13 AB h6 14 Bh4 Abs! 15 Dh3 (15 RixeTe! Dxl4 16 Wd2 Dxd3 17 cxd3 dxe7 18 Webs Wh6! gave Black a very pleasant position in Spraggett-Gelfand, Manila 1990) 15..faxh4 16 Dxh4 Dhfe 17 DB 5 (Spraggett) with a slight advantage to Black ~ he’s extremely solid and White’s knight on h3 is misplaced. 12...@e7 13 Bhe1 h6 14 ha ae a a ‘e ogee wat g Aa & We have been following the game Nisipeanu-Istratescu, Mamaia 1991, which continued 14..c5 15 e5 dxe5 16 fxe5 Dd5 17 &xe7 Wixe7 18 g3 0-0 with a roughly level position, As well as this, I quite like the thematic 14..g512, for example: 15 fxe5 hxg5 16 Bxgs Wa5!l 17 2xf6 Rxf6 with excellent compensation for the sacrificed pawn. D3) 8 Axf6 This is White's most solid system against 7.Mic7. He gives up the bishop pair but compromises Black’s pawn structure, hoping that this will [ead to a small plus. After Black recapeures on £6 the pawn structure becomes very reminiscent of the one arising from some lines of the Sicilian Richter-Rauzer (..Dc6 6 Lg5), and indeed there are some 1506 295 transpositions. Black can keep a Najdorf flavour, however, by developing the queen’s knight via d7. John Nunn summed up this line nicely with the quote: ‘White has chances to gain an edge, but it is hard to get wildly excited about his position? 8...gxf6 \ = Ee WW ea NY ~~ Yi Now White’s two main moves are the following: D31: 9 Wd2 D32:9 Le2 Alternatives include: a) 9 WES Acé (9...b5!? transposes to Line D41) 10 0-0-0 &d7 reaches Line D4. b) 9 Wh52! We5! (in general Black wel- comes the exchange of queens as then he no longer has to worry about king safety) 10 Wrxe5 dxc5 11 DEB b6 12 a4 Deo 13 0-0-0 G.b7 14 g3 Be7 15 Bg2 eT and Black has a small advantage due to the long-term power of the bishop pair, Rogers-Lautier, Dutch League 2001. c) 9 Wd3 (White’s queen may go to h3 to put pressure on the e6-pawn) 9...b51? (as against 9 Wid2, 9../2c6 followed by ...kd7 and ...0-0-0 is a solid and safe way to proceed, while 9...Dd7!2 10 0-0-0 Ac5 also deserves attention) 10 0-0-0 Ad7 11 Wh3 Acds 12 a3 and now 12..Bb8 13 £5 b4 14 axb4 Exb4 15 fxe6 fxe6 16 Be2 was a touch better for White in Videki-Robovic, Kecskemet 1994, Instead of 12..b8, Black could wy , for example: 13 exdS Wxf4+ 14 d) 9 SP (very direct, but Black has scored well against this) 9...2c6! and now: di) 10 Bc4 Dxd4 11 Wxd4 Byst 12 g3 Wes! 13 00-0 Wadd 14 Bxd4 247 was equal in Gufeld- Rashkovsky, Kischniev 1975; once more the exchange of queens eases Black’s task. d2) 10 Re2 Wh6! 11 Db3 Wes!? 12 Wa3 (or 12 Ad2 Ae5 13 DE1 Wh6 and White was ina bit of a tangle in Kotkov-Balashov, Mos cow 1970) 12.\Wh6! (using dark-squared control to its fullest) 13 WES Qd7 14 0-0 Re7 15 Wh5 WehS 16 xhS 18 17 Hadi e5 with a level ending, Lengyel-Dao Thien Hai, Budapest 1993, 3) 10 fxe6 Exe6 with a further split: 31) 11 Bed Dxdd 12 Wad4 Bos! 13 Het Exg2 14 0-0-0 We5 (Black gives back the pawn to exchange queens; 14...¢7 is more ambitious) 15 Wxf6 WeS+ 16 Wxg5 Exg5 with a level position, Langer-Wojtkiewicz, Kona 1998. 32) 11 Qe2 Wh6 12 Bh5+ Be7 13 Dxc6+ (13 DS+ is answered by 13..ed7), 13..bxe6 14 Wd2 Bb8 15 b3 We5 16 0-0-0 Bg? and Black held an edge in Ruxton- Badea, Oakham 1990 — his king is relatively safe on ¢7 and there is no disputing White's problems on the dark squares. 151Play the Najdort D31) 9 Wd2 Acé ‘The solid way to play the position. Black shows that he’s willing 10 transpose into a line of the Richeer-Rauzer. ‘Those wishing to keep things strictly Naj- dorf can play 9...b5 Ot ae vs ao and now: a) 10 Re2 h5!. This pawn lunge is very common in positions with this pawn structure. Firstly, Black prevents White from playing Qe2-h5, pressutising and pinning the slightly vulnerable £7-pawn. Secondly, push- ing the h-pawn may also give Black counterplay on the kingside, especially if White decides to castle short. Thirdly, if White plays 92-23 it will give Black the chance of offering, to exchange off his weak pawn and activate his h8-rook with ..hS-hd, As Black is often slow to commit his king, it’s important for the rook on h8 to find a meaningful sole. Play can continue 11 2&3 Qb7 12 0-0 h4 13 £5 bl (logically Black forces the knight away from protecting d5 before playing ..e6-e5) 14 Dadi 5 15 De2 Woo+ 16 We3 (or 16 Shi .h6 and Black has a good crossfire effect on the dark squares) 16..Ad7 17 Wxb6 Axb6 18 De3 Bh6 19 Ags &g5 20 c3 bxc3 and Black’s bishops are working well in this ending, Schlange-Gavrikov, Neu Isenburg 1992. b) 10 2d3 Ad? 11 0-0-0 Bb7 12 Bhet 0-0-0 13 £5 cS 14 23 Bs 15 b1 h5 16 We3 Bho 17 Wh3 We7 with a level position, Khalifinan-Lautier, Moscow 2001 c) 10 0-0-0 267 11 Axb5+!? Black always has to watch out for this sacrifice, but here it’s not particularly frightening; 11 &d3 Da7 transposes to note ‘b’)) tH..axbS 12 @dxbs We6 13 Axd6+ Bxds 14 Wrxdo Wado 15 Bxd6 BaG 16 Bd2 se7 17 Abdt Hc8 18 Bd3 Bacé 19 Rid2 Bcd, De la Paz- Vera, Holguin City 2002. With White's pawn on £3 instead of £4, White could claim an edge in this ending, but here the weakness on 4 tips the balance in Black’s favour. d) 10 a4 b4 11 Da2 Wb7! 12 65 (12 Vdd should be answered by 12..Bp8!, intending £6-£5, while 12 Wrxb4?! d5 13 Wb3 dxet 14 Be2 Bd5 15 cd Deb 16 We3 Axct 17 Wxd4 Bc6 18 Wxf6 Eg8 gave Black excellent counterplay in Repkova Eid-Givaadaljir, Bratislava 1993) 12..e5 13 Ab3 Lxed 14 ®xb4 Ady! 15 DxaGe (Instead of 15 \xa6?!, V.Vaisman suggests 15 &d3! &b7 16 c4 as a way for White to keep an edge, but even here I'm confident enough in Black's position) 15...Wb7 16 DAb4 Ags 17 Kgl (or 17 c3 d5!) 17..WWb6 18 Bh1 2h6 19 Wxho Wxb4+ 20 Wd2 (Matulovic-V.Vaisman, Zrenjanin 1980), and now Black can keep an advantage after 20..2Exa4 21 Wxb¢ Exb4 22 sea2 det 10 0-0-0 247 11 &b1 11 Se2 h5! 12 Wbi transposes to note ‘a’ to White’s 13th move. 11...n5! 152Again we see this typical move, 12 Bed Adding further pressure to e6, which will come to a head after White advances with f4- £5, White has wo other options. a) 12 Be2 Be7 13 B63 Dxd4 14 Wxd4 0-0-0 15 £5 Eb8 16 Wa2 hd 17 De2 Bc8 18 fxe6 (or 18 Af4 d5! 19 exd5 8.6 — Timman) 18...fxe6 19 Df4 Bhgs 20 We3 (Timman- Kasparov, Niksic 1983) and now Timman suggests 20...We5 21 Wh3 Wes 22 Da3 Wo! as the best way for Black to continue. b) 12 Ab3 0-0-0 13 Be2 Das! 14 Zhe Sb8 15 BG e7 16 Bh3 h4 17 Wel Dxb3 18 axb3 £5! 19 exf5 d5 with good play for the pawn, A.Ivanov-Waitzkin, New York 1993. 12. Black’s king is often safer on the queenside in this type of position, certainly after Black has played ...h7-h5! 13 Dxc6 13 &b3 can be met by 13...2a5! (Anand). 13...Wx06 14 &b3 &ebB 15 Zhi1 Wes 16 was We have been following Topalov-Anand, Dortmund 1997. Now Leko recommends 16.807 17 £5 Bdg8 18 Wh3 He! for Black, adding pressure to the e4-pawn. 32) 9 262 On a good day White may be able to play avery quick @h5. 6 295 10 b3 Alternatively: a) The immediate 10 2h5 is met by 10,..Wb61, which is awkward for White. b) 10 Wd2 247 (10..Asxd4 11 Wedd reaches note ‘c’ below) 11 0-0-0 h5 12 #b1 0-0-0 and we have transposed to note ‘a’ to White’s 12th move in Line D31. ©) 10 Wad3 Axa? (10...2.d7 is also sensible) 11 Wadd We5! 12 Wa2 (both 12 Wxi6 Hp8 and 12 Wxc5 dxc5 13 &h5 c4! — Tal — give Black good counterplay) 12...d7 13 Bfl Bc8!? (13..0-0-0 also looks okay) 14 0-0-0 b5 15 e5 {it may be better for White to be less committal with 15 23, but 15..b4 16 e205 17 Sb a4 still gave Black a reasonable position in Marusiak-Riemer, correspondence 1991) 15...5! 16 &£3 b4 17 De2 Bb5 and Black was very active in Tal- Tukmakov, USSR Championship 1978. 10...b5 Dynamic, but a touch risky — Black will have to think seriously about where his king ‘wants to go. In some circumstances it’s actually safest left in the middle. 1103 After the direct 11 @h5!? Black can change direction and castle _kingside: 11..2g7 12 Wed 0-0 13 0-0-0 De7! 14 Ads bd 15 Dce2 £51 16 exf e5 17 fxe5 dxeS 18 We5 ho 19 Wy3 DAxéS 20 AxtS Bxf5 and Black’s bold play paid off in Yudasin- 153Play the Najdorf Kasparov, Frunze 1981. The game concluded 21 Bd2 Hac8 22 W3 e4 23 bt Bc6 24 We3 Was and White had to resign. 11,..b7 11..Wb6 is also possible, for example: 12 Wa2 h5 13 0-0-0 &b7 14 Bb1 0.0.0 15 Ehfl db8 16 BG h4 with a balanced position, Barash-Lipiridi, correspondence 1984, 12 2d3 h5 130-0 We have been following the game Witt mann-Gavtikov, Vienna 1990, which continued 13..e7 14 £5 e5 15 Be? h4 16 h3 Hes 17 QhS £h6 18 Wd3 Bd8 19.2.6 &.£4 20 Bad! Bos 21 Sg4 Who+ 22 tht d5 23 exdS Dxd5 24 @xd5 BxdS with an equal position. Notice how Black has managed to activate his pieces without castling. D4 8 wt This is White’s most important attempt against 7..We7 and is twice as popular as all the rest of White's options put together. White puts the queen on the most natural square and prepares to castle 8...b5 ‘The most consistent move ~ Black prepares ...27 and perhaps an carly ..b5-b4, knocking the knight off its c3 perch. 1 must warn readets, however, chat things get pretty wild from now on, so hold on to your hats! Black’s last chance to head for slightly more tranquil waters lies with 8.c6!2, which has been used with some success by some of China’s top GMs. Theoretically White is supposed to have an edge, but there may be room for some investigation here. Play normally continues 9 0-0-0 &d7 and now White has a choice: a) 10 @b3 (this looks tame) 10...8¢e7 11 Lhd 0-0 12 gt Hfc8 13 Qg3 b5 and Black’s attack looks just as quick as White’s, Rabar- Najdorf, Gothenburg 1955. b) 10 @h4 (to allow for g2-g4-g5) 10..Le7 11 g4 Dxdd! 12 Hxd4 26 (freeing up the d7-square for the knight) 13 2g2 Hc8 14 Bhd! 0-0 15 g5 Dd? with a roughly level position, Keres-Stahlberg, Gothenburg 1955. ) 10 Re2 Be7 11 Lbt 0-0 12 We3 Bac8 (Xu Jun assesses 12...8h8 13 Axc6 Axcb 14 2d3 €5 15 fre5 dxeS 16 Wh4 h6 17 Hhft De8 18 Rxe7 Wxc7 19 Wxe7 Axe7 20 ed £6 as equal) 13 SLh6 DcB 14 £5 Dxd4 15 154Fixd4 2£6 16 Hed &c6 and Black has good chances to exploit White’s oddly-placed rook on 4, Gild.Garcia-Xu Jun, Manila Olympiad 192, 6) 10 Bxf6 gxf6 and now: dl) 11 &c4 Aa5 12 &b3 h5 13 5 Axb3+ 14 axb3 We 15 Sb1 We5 with a level position, David-Lautier, Escaldes 1998. 2) 11 5 Axd4 12 Mxda Wes 13 Bd3 (or 13 fxe6 Wey5+! 14 Sebi fed) 13..h5 14 feb We5+ 15 Sbi fre6 16 e5 Bc6 17 Wxt Wsf6 18 exf6 Sf7 and Black regains his pawn, afier which the bishop pair will be a very powerful presence, Jacnig-Zagrebelny, Metz 2002. e) 10 Dxcé (this has been suggested as White’s best response) 10..bxe6 11 Re4 Be7 12 Ha3 hG (interesting is 12.05? 13 Axf6 xf 14 exdd cxd5 15 Qxd5! Bbs! wich compensation for the pawn) 13 &xfo Bxé6 14 Hhdt Le? 15 Wed. Now 15..g5% 16 5 was better for White in Ragozin-Borsony, correspondence 1956, but matters are far less clear after the superior 15...g6!. Some of these lines could do with further tests but at the moment 8...c6 seems like a viable alternative to 8..b5. ‘2 yy eat le 2 a, 64 ss Going back to 8...b5, we will now look at White's three most dangerous ideas here. D41: 9 axté D42: 9 0-0-0 D43: 9 £5 6 295 Before moving on to these, though, let’s have a brief look at less critical lines. a) 9 e5?! 2b7 10 We3 (10 &xb5+ axb5 11 dxb5 We8 is an unsound piece sacrifice) 10..Dd5 11 Dxdd LKxd5 12 0-0-0 hot and White is in an awkward position because 13 Qh4 can be met by 13..dxe5 14 fxe5 g5t, trapping the bishop. b) 9 Qd3 b4 10 Ace2 Abd7 11 0-0-0 Qb7 12 Bb1 Le7 13 Mhel Ac5 14 Dg3 ho 15 &h4 0-0-0 16 We2 Sb8 17 Db3 ght (this strike again) 18 fxg5 Afd7 19 AFL hxps 20 223 a5 and Black has obtained the crucial eS-square, _Leiber-Wojtkiewiez, Bad Worishofen 1991 ©) The loss of time and momentum associated with 9 3 means that it's aot one of White's most critical tries. However, this sort of ‘safety first’ move is certainly not uncommon, Black should continue with 9..2\bd7!, keeping options open whether to play ...2b7 or ..Kb8. Let’s look at @ couple of tries for White. cl) 10 &d3 (keeping options open as regarding which side to castle) 10...2b7 (10...b82 still looks very playable, especially since 11 0-0? can be met by 11..Wb6!) 11 0-0-0 &e7 12 Bhei Wh6! (a typical idea, forcing the knight away to a less dangerous post) 13 b3 Hes) and now: cll) 14 Wh3 Bxc3? (14..b4 15 axb4 Wxbd also looks very playable) 15 bxc3 We7 155Play the Najdorf 16 $b1 4366 and once again Black has typical compensation for the exchange, Nataf- Dominguez, Havana 2002 12) 14 We2 ho 15 Bh4 Axed! 16 Bxet Qxh4 17 &xb7 Bxc3! 18 g3 (Solomon- Kofidis, Thessaloniki Olympiad 1984) 18,,.2c7! with advantage to Black — Nunn 2) 10 0-0-0 b8 (of course 10...2b7 is playable, bat when White commits his king so eatly I like the ambitious idea of ..2b8 and ..b5-b4) 11 &xf6 (11 g4 bd 12 axb4 Bxb4 13 Qxf6 Dsl reaches note '21’) 11..Dsf6 and now: €21) 12 g4 b4 13 axbd Exbd 14 95 Dd? 15 52! DeS 16 Wh3 Wh6! 17 Ab3 Le7 18 26 fxg6 19 fxe6 Kxb3! 20 cxb3 Wxb3 21 Wes (21 Dd5?? loses to 21...2g5+) 21...f.xe6 with excellent play for Black, Bronstein-Polugaevsky, Moscow 1967. In- stead of 15 £5? White should probably wait for Black to commit his d7-knight, for example: 15 Wh3 Ac5 16 6 g6l, preventing g5-26, with 2 roughly level position in Polugaevsky- Padevsky, Reykjavik 1957. It’s perhaps revealing that ren years later Polugaevsky was willing to play the black side of this. €22) 12 ¢5!2 (an attempt to exploit the omission of ...8b7) 12...2b7! (12..dxe5 13 We6+! is awkward to meet) “easy ype Y YE with a further split e221) 13 Wh3 Ads! 14 Axd5 (or 14 Det Dxf4 15 exd6 Qxd6 16 Dxdo+ Wado 17 We3 We with a clear advantage to Black — Nunn) 14,..8xd5 15 We3 dxeS 16 fxe5 g6 17 2d3 Qg7 18 Hhel 0-0 19 b3 b4 20 axbs Hxb4 and Black is clearly better — his king is much safer than White’s and the e5-pawn is simply a glaring weakness, Stefanishin- V.Gurevich, Simferopol 1991. 13 We3 dxe5 14 Acxb5! (Lyman-Burger, USA 1979) 14..We5! (but not 14...axb5? 15 Rxb5+ Be7 16 Dc6+!) 15 fre (15 Wes? can be met by the calm 15..2c8!; after 16 Wre5 &xc5 17 Dc3 the move 17..Dga! is very awkward for White) 15..2d5 16 WA Le7 (but not 16...axb5?? 17 Bxb5+ Be7 18 2\c6+) 17 We3 0-0 18 b4 (R-Byrne, Mednis) and now one idea for Black after 18..¥b6 19 Dd6 is 19...Rxd6 20 exd6 a5l?, planning to meet 21 c4 with 21..axb4! 22 cxd5 bxa3. D41 9 Axfé Once again White gives up the bishop pair to compromise Black's pawn structure 9...9xf6 7 T 7 AS eo 8 fo Fs gy 10 6S This is White's most aggressive move here, but he does have one important alternative (note ‘c’) a) 10 &d3 Ba7? (10..Ac6 11 ADxe6 Wxc6 12 £5 transposes to the note to White’s 11th move in Line D431) 11 0-0-0 2b7 12 Hhet 0-0-0 13 5 Ac5! was played in Suetin- Balashov, Sochi 1973. Now White can win a pawn after 14 fxe6 fee6 15 Wxf6 Qe7 16 1566 £95 WA, but Black’s dark-squared control and active bishops supply enough compensation, for example: 16..b4 17 Dce2 (17 1? loses material after 17...&h6+) and here Palliser’s suggestions of 17..5 and 17..hf8 both look reasonable for Black. b) 10 a3 (this doesn’t look too threatening — Black has more time to reach an effective set-up) 10...b7 11 &e2 (11 Wh5?! can be answered by 11...Wc5! as 12 £5 Wxd4 13 fxe6 Be7 14 Wat?7+ Bd8 doesn’t give White enough for the piece) 11..k5! (but not 11..Ad7? 12 £5! e5 13 AeG!; Black must be ‘wary of this idea) and now: bt) 12 Wh3 Ad7 13 Bxh5 0-0-0 14 65 (14 WIS? drops material to 14...Wic5 — Palliser) 14.05 15 Db3 De5 16 Dxc5 dxc5 17 0-0 ed 18 Bfdt @c5+ 19 @Et (Chod-Fiensch, correspondence 1987) and here Nunn recommends 19...d4. b2) 12 0-0-0 Ad7 13 Wh3 0-0-0! 14 5 (14 &xh5, as in Unzicker-Balashov, Munich 1979, is risky; one option for Black is 14..£512, intending to meet 15 exiS with 15.26) 14...e5 15 Ab3 Ab6 16 Bd3 &bs 17 28 Dc4 18 Wh4 hot 19 Sb1 Lys 20 Wr2 hd with a balanced position, Helsloot- Danner, correspondence 1985 ©) 10 0-0-0 (long with 10 5, this is White’s most dangerous move) 10...b4 (10...8b72! 11 WhS! is unpleasant for Black, as 11.,.Wc5 can be met by 12 £5). a z Ve viet rena a 8 a AR Ae fate ad ai ’b4 White must make a difficult ‘ae oe a After 10... decision: cl) 11 Dce2 h5!? 12 1521 (unnecessarily committal’ — Nunn) 12..e5 13 Ab3 h4 14 Sb1 Dd7 15 Dect Kb7 16 Bd3 Bho 17 Ehe de7 18 Ad2 Ab6 gave Black a very pleasant position in Dosfanis-Wojtkiewicr, Komotini 1992 — Black’s bishops are particularly effective. As an improvement over 12 £5, Palliser gives 12 Ag3 b4 13 Db5. Now 13...0€7 14 e517 S67 15 Wed fred 16 Dp7+ skd7 17 fxe5 (Palliser) looks a bit shaky for Black, so I prefer 13..Ad7, for example: 14 Wet 2b7 15 Weh4 0.0.0 16 6 Acd with reasonable compensation for the pawn. 2) 11 Dd5I? (this piece sacrifice is an attempt to blow Black off the board) 11..exd5 12 exd5 We! (so that the king can escape via 7!) 13 23 Ha? 14 O65 ded8 (14..Oxf5 15 @xi5 He7 16 Bhei+ Sd8 17 Wes Sc8 18 Edd a5 19 b3 DaG 20 Bcd Whs 21 Wad sb7 was also unclear in Akopian-Lauticr, Ubeda 1997) 14.88 15 Qxc8 Gxc8B 16 Wh3+ G07 17 Bhet da8 (the Black king reaches some semblance of safety!) 18 He8 Bev! with a very unclear position, Dorfman- Yuferov, USSR 1978. Those of you beginning to have second thoughts whether this is ‘you’ of not, now is the time to scurry back to the ‘safe’ 8..Dc6 (or perhaps the Caro- Kann). 10...451? Black’s alternative is most important 157Play the Najdorf 10.27, the main line of which scems to Jead to a draw, Play continues 11 Wh5 b4 12 Dxe6 (12 Dce2 can be answered by 12.245 13 exf6 Da7) 12... We rT ‘a Vid, *" and now: a) 13 DsfBP bxc3 14 Dxh7 fxeS with a further split: al) 15 @ro+!? Be7 16 Wy5 cxb2 17 Dd5+ and now 17...4268 18 We7+ Sp8 19 We5+ G8 is a draw by perpetual check, while 17...:2e6?? loses to 18 WE6+! 2xd5 19 Bat+ Bet 20 Ld3+ LHe3 21 0-0 (Palliser), a2) 15 b3 Bd? 16 Bcd (or 16 fre Axed 17 Wes WeS! with compensation for the pawn) 16..d5, and hete 17 &xd5? &xd5 18 DiGo+ Axl 19 Weh8+ Be7 20 Wxc8 Bxc8 21 fxe5 Des was good for Black in Gentile Astengo, Arvier 2002. Instead White should retreat with 17 &e2, when the position remains genuinely unclear after 17..Wc6, pre- pating to castle queenside. b) 13 Bb5+ axbS 14 DxbS Wre2 15 DbeI+ Bd7 16 Wxt?+ Be7 17 exto West 18 Sed1 Wd3+ with a farther branch: bi) 19 Bel We3+ 20 ddl (20 SFI? cd! 21 Wxe7+ Gc8 left White in big vou- ble in Wedberg-Novoselski, Kladovo 1980) 20..Wd3+ 21 Bet We3+ with a draw by perpetual check, b2) 19 Bet also draws: 19..We3+ (but not 19...8e42? 20 Dc5+!) 20 dedi (20 $c2?? loses to 20..b3+! — Palliser) 20..Wd3+ with another perpetual. 11 exf6 Dd7 Another major option is 11...b4 and now: a) 12 Dce2 Dd7 13 £51? e5 14 Deb freb 15 fxe6 Axio 16 Wf &p7 17 Wes He 18 WhsS+ 22d8 19 0-0-0 (but not 19 Ad4?? exd4 20 Wxd5+ We7 21 Wxa8 2b7 22 Wa7 Has and the white queen is trapped) 19...£xe6 was unclear in Adler-Semeniuk, Vilnius 1974. b) 12 Axd5!? exdS on ae ate OLS ane "oun with a further branch: bl) 13 Wxd5 Qb7 14 &b5+ axds 15 Dxb5 Web 16 Wes+ Bd8 17 0-0-0+ Ad7 18 Bhet @c5 19 Bxd7+ @xd7 20 Hat+ cB 21 We5+ deb8 22 We5+ Sc8 (Nunn) is another draw by perpetual, but Black could consider diverging with the crazy-looking 15..We7+!? 16 fxe7 &xd5 17 De7+ Exe? 18 @xd5+ HB 19 0-0-0 Adz. b2) 13 0-0-0 Dd7 14 Sb5P (14 Weds Qb7 15 DeG!? Fee6 16 Wxeb+ ded8 17 Be2 &c6 is good for Black) 14..axb5 15 Hhel+ ‘Bs 16 Wad5 Bao 17 Wxi7 Waea+ 18 Yb1 (Berelovich-Isteatescu, Romania 1998) and now Berelovich and A.Vaisman assess 18.25 19 Deo+ xed 20 Wes te? as unclear, although if T had to choose, 1 would probably go for Black’s three minor pieces over the rook, three pawns and attack! 12.0-0-0 12 2d3 is harmless: 12..Dxf6 13 a4 b4 14 Deed Bb7 15 0-0 h5 16 c3 bxc3 17 bxc3 2c5 18 Whi Aes was favourable for Black in T-Exst-Sadier, Gausdal 1994, 15812...Axf6 13 £5! ‘White must react quickly as Black has the positional trumps, 13...e5 14 Dxd5 Dxd5 15 Wxdd Bb7 16 axb5+ Or 16 Axb5!? Lh6+ 17 Sbt axbS 18 Sxb3+ BB. Now 19 Wd6+ Wrd6 20 Eds Sg7 and 19 Wa7 Wxd7 20 Exd? &xg? are both good for Black. Best for White seems to be 19 Wb3 Scb! 20 Wds &b7 21 Wb3 (Ku- laots) with a strange draw by repetition. 16...axb5 17 Wxb5+ Also possible is 17 AxbS We7 18 Ad6+ ‘Wad6 19 Wxb7 and now: a) 19...@.h6+ 20 &b1 Wa6 21 Wd7+ eB was unclear in Zjukin-Kulaots, Estonian Championship 2091, but 21 Wxa6 Exa6 22 hel (Tyomkin) may be a better choice for White 6 295 b) 19...28b8! 20 Bxd6 (or 20 Wa7 &ho+ 21 bl Wh4 22 Wd7+ 68 23 b3, which Kulaots gives as unclear) 20..xb7 21 Bd5. ‘Tyomkin prefers White here, but Black’s chances shouldn’t be discounted, for example: 21..£6 22 Hei?! Hg 23 93 Bes 24 Ba Ed7 and Black’s plans include...h5-h4. 17...8e7 18 16+ &xt6 19 Bhf1+ &g6 Black has a piece for two pawns, but his king is way out in the open. White’s remain ing pieces are very active, but Black's defensive resources shouldn’t be underestimated. Here are some possible lines. a8 “ORR a) 20 Wa3+? e4 21 Wh3 28 and Black managed to consolidate in Bexclovich- Mukhutdinov, Moscow 1993. b) 20 AB Ba5 21 Ah4+ (Nunn) can lead to a deaw by perpetual check after 21.8297 22 AfS+ hy 23 Ah4+ de7, while Black has 20..0xf3! 21 Bx Qh6+ 22 debi Hhd8 as a winning try ©) 20 AES Bed! 21 Dh4+ wo7 22 AS+ (or 22 Bxt7+? Wsf7 23 Md7 Se7 24 Wxe5+ ‘@g8 — Berelovich — and Black should win) 22...<8g8 23 We2 @xf5 24 Exf &e7 with advantage to Black ~ Berelovich. d) 20 deb1 (this quiet move may well be best) 20...@h6 21 Wd3+ e4 22 Wh3 Ba5 23 AES Be5 and now 24Ah4+ Sxh4 25 Wxhd £5 26 gd HPS 27 gxf5+ Bp7 was a bit better for Black in Zjukin-Kanep, Kilingi Nomme 2002. Instead White should try 24 Bd6+ £6 25 Hd7! Waxd7 26 Dh4+ Qxh4 27 Wrd7 159Play the Najdorf Rc8 28 Wed Be5, when all three sesults are still possible! In conclusion, this line is certainly one of the toughest for Black to meet after 7..Wc7 8 WES b5. Some of the resulting positions are very difficult to evaluate (the ‘main line’, 1ib4 and 10 0-0-0 b4 11 Dd5!?), while others can lead to forced draws (10...8b7 and 16 @xb5). On the subject of drawing lines, this very much comes with the territory when playing sharp variations where perpetual checks or attacks are the norm. It's something that’s very difficult to avoid as Black without making obvious concessions. If you have a hunch that the extent of your opponent's ambitions is to memorise one of these lines to a forced draw, and this is something you want to avoid, then it may be worth foiling his plan with 8...Ac6. p42) 9 0-0-0 Black has scored very well against this 9...b4t As I mentioned before, 9...b7?! 10 B.xf6 gxf6 11 Wh5 We5 12 £5 is very unpleasant for Black. There is nothing wrong with 9..Dbd7 except for the fact that it leads to more wild and heavily theoretical positions which are outside the scope of our repertoire (that position is more often reached via 7..Dba7 8 WE We7 0-0 b5) & 10 e5!? Other options include the following: a) 10 Ad5 exd5 11 &xf6 gxf6 12 exdd transposes to note ‘c2’ to White's 10th move in Line D41. Given the overall assessment of 10 €5, this may well be White’s best. b) 10 Ab! is lame: 10..Abd7 11 Dd2 Bb7 12 &d3 Be7, Cela-Soylu, Zouberi 1993, hardly has Black quaking in his boots. c) 10 Ace2 (this retreat makes more sense) 10..Abd7 11 g4 (11 Ags Qb7 12 Qd3 h6 13 Bh4 Be7 14 DhS DshsS 15 Wehs We5 16 Wxc5 Dxc5 17 Bxe7 exe7 was level in Kotronias-Leitao, Istanbul Olympiad 2000, while 11 5? &b7 12 Wh3 dxeS 13 Axe6 fxe6 14 Wxe6+ 27 is simply good for Black) 11...8b7 12 Dg3 d5t VB! aed Aral and now: cl) 13 e5 Det 14 Dxed (14 Lh4 g5!) 14..dxe4 15 We2 h6 16 &h4 25 17 fxg5 (Outerelo Ucha-Teran Alvarez, Spain 1993) and here Nunn’s suggestion of 17..Milxe5 looks best. 2) 13 Bxf6 dxed! 14 Dxe4 Daf 15 Rd3 &e7 16 h4 0-0-0? 17 Bxa6 BxaG 18 Axié &b7 19 Bed WaS with the double threat of .Wxa2 and ...£7-£5, Wobbe-Neurohr, St Ing- bert 1994 3) 13 Sd3 Bc5 14 Ab3 deed 15 Axes Bc7 16 Bhel (or 16 Bxf6 Axt6 17 Axfo+ xf 18 Bet Be8! — Yudasin) 16..2c8! 17 Ee2 (17 @bi allows Black to demonstrate the point behind his previous move: 1606 895 17..Dxe4 18 Bxe4 Wxc2+! 17..0-0 18 Lxf6! Axfo 19 £5! a5! and Black’s attack is more potent, Luther-Yudasin, Budapest 1989. 1 b7 11 Bcbs 11 Ddb5 axb5 12 DxbS transposes to the note to White’s 12th move. A major alternative is 11 Wh3!? dxeS Ea 4, and now: a) 12 DebS axb5 13 fee5 (13 Bxb5+> Sic6! was very good for Black in Psakhis- ‘Tukmakov, USSR 1979) with a further split: al) 13..Wxe5 14 Oxf gxfo 15 &xb5+ e716 Bhel Bet 17 Wh4 We5+ 18 Wxg5 fxg5 19 Hxe4 Bxa2 (Nunn) is unclear. a2) 13..Afd7 14 Dxeé Who 15 Axt8 BxfB 16 Bxd7 Dxd7 17 Wxd7 Weo 18 Re7+ Wp8 19 Qxb5 Wxd7 20 Qxd7 Bxa2, as played in Hiarcs 7.32-Century, Cadaques 2000, is difficult to assess but White went on cowin, 43) L like the move 13...b31, forcing White to displace one of his active pieces: 14 Wexb3 GAS 15 QxbS+ DEAT 16 c4 Bb7 and T suspect that White hasn’t enough for his sactificed piece b) 12 fxeS Wae5 13 &xf6 gxfot (13... Wt6 14 Acb5! is very dangerous) 14 BbS+ (14 Dad Dc6 15 Db3 Has 16 Ad3 Wes+ 17 Sb1 De5 gave Black a clear plus in Lepesh- kin-Dubinsky, Moscow 1964, while 14 Dcb5 can be met by the very calm 14...2d7!) 14..axb5 15 Khel Wf4+ 16 db1 Ha6 and now: bl) 17 Wh5 17..bxc3 18 Axe6 Hxe6 19 Exe6+ Le7 20 WxbS+ 206 21 Bxc6 Axc6 22 Wxco+ Bf8 23 Wxc3 Rd6 with an edge for Black, Yudasin“Tukmakov, USSR Cham- pioaship 1981 b2) 17 DcxbS Ld5 18 b3 Dd7 19 Whs (19 Wa3 - Korolev — can be met by 19..c5 20 Dxe6 fee 21 Wxd5 Se7 22 Whs+ 48, while 19 3 is refuted by 19...Wb8!) 19...e7 20 AS Wef5 21 Dc7+ Sd8 22 Wef5 extd 23 Dxa6 £6 and Black was clearly better in Goedkoop-Van der Plassche, correspondence 1991. 11...axb5 s BER 7) 12 &xb5+ Alternativ a) 12 @xb5 We8! (Nunn) 13 We3 Dds 14 Bxd5 &xd5 15 Wb6 £6 16 Dc7+ Se7 and Black wins. b) 12 Wh3 b3 13 Hxb3 Bd5 14 Dxbs WS 15 We3 Wxc3 16 bxc3 Des 17 Bxd5 exd5 18 Dc7+ Hd7 19 Dxa8 BG and White’s knight on a8 is in some trouble, Ta- her-Magem Badals, Nevi Sad Olympiad 1990. 12...Dbd7 ‘This variation is so complex that even Garry Kasparov has slipped up here: 12... Mfd7? 13 Axes fre6 14 Wh3 G7 15 £5 gave White a winning attack in Kr.Georgiev- Kasparov, Malta Olympiad 1980. 13 Wh3 161Play the Najdorf Now 13 Dxe6 is unsound: 13...fxe6 14 Wh3 G7 15 exf6 Set 16 Wh5+ g6 17 We2 cS and Black won in Jankowski-Jaworski, correspondence 1992. 13...b3 14 Wxb3 Or 14 exf6 bxa2 15 d2 WaSt 16 3 0-0-0! and now: a) 17 fxg7 Qxp7 18 Qxd8 Axd8 19 Axd7+ (or 19 Ac6 Lxc6 20 Bxc6 Wh6 21 Qxd7+ Exd7 22 decd Hb7 23 b4 Ber) 19..xd7 (Nunn) and Black’s advantage should be decisive. b) 17 b4 a3 18 fxg7 Wb2+! 19 Ac2 Qxg? 20 Qxd8 Bxd8 21 Sxd7+ Sxd7 and Black went on to win in Heintich-Hefka, correspondence 1992, 14,..8d5 15 cf Ded 16 We2 &b7! ‘The cleanest. 16...Elxa2 17 b1 Wa7 18 ®Db3 Bb7 19 Bhel! Axes 20 fxg5! is still good for Black, but less clear than the text. ian 6 eee wae “gee Ar After 16....8b7 White has been unable to justify his piece deficit, for example: a) 17 b4 Axgs 18 fags 0-0-0 19 exd6 Rxd6 20 c5 ADxe5!? 21 bxcd Bxc5 with a clear advantage for Black, Danko-Rashkov- sky, USSR 1989, b) 17 Bh4 Be7! 18 Axe7 Sxe7 19 exdo+ (19 Sxd7 Bxa2 20 exdo+ Wed6 21 db1 Eha8 22 Db3 Dc3+! 23 bxc3 Wad is also winning — Maliangkay) 19..Dxd6 20 &xd7 Hxa2! 21 cS Det and White resigned in Chouinard-Maliangkay, correspondence 1992 on account of 22 Wed Wsf4+ 23 bi Dd2+ 24 Heed? Wrd2 25 Wrxa2 Wxd4 26 6 We4+ 27 dcl &xc6 (Maliangkay), © 17 Bhet Dxgs 18 fed 0-0-0 19 Bxd7+ Bxd7 20 Dds Woo 21 Sb1 (Van det Wiel-Brunner, Baden-Baden 1992) and now 21...dxe5! 22 Hxd7 @xd7 23 Edi+ Sc8 24 Wa2 2c5 (Brunner) should win for Black. In conclusion, this is an extremely complex line, but against best defence White’s attack doesn’t seem to work. Black has every chance to come out of the opening with a clear advantage. D43) 915 By adding immediate pressure to e6, White makes it difficult for Black to arrange 2b7. However, Black must react quickly because White is threatening fxe6 followed by e4-c5. Here we shail look at ewo possible continuations for Black. D431: 9...Ac6 D432: 9...b4 D431) 9...De6 10 Dxc6 Alternatively: a) 10 @xf6 gxf6 11 Axcé Wxc6 transposes to the text. b) 10 0-0-0 DcS 11 Wh3 b4! 12 Qxf6 bxc3 13 Qg5 cxb2+ 14 xb2 Hb8+ 15 Ab3 eT and suddenly it’s White’s king which 1626 295 faces the most problems. ©) 10 e5 Axd4 11 Wxa8 dxe5 is good for Black — Nunn, 4) 10 Dexb5 axb5 11 Sxb5 Ld7 12 fxe6 @xd4 13 Bxd7+ Be7 (Nunn) looks winning for Black. 10...Wxe6 11 fxe6 ‘The main alternative for White is 11 @.xf6 gxf6 12 @d3 (12 fxe6 fxe6 transposes to the text) 12,,.Ba7! and now: a) 13 0-0-0 b4 14 De2 e5 15 Bbi a5 16 cl Bho 17 We2 He7 18 Lbs Woo 19 Bad Qa6 20 Wh @xci 21 &b3 Kes 22 Excl a4 23 $.d5 a3 with an edge for Black, Hector-Kulaots, Istanbul Olympiad 2000 — White's king will come under considerable pressure. b) 13 fxe6 fxe6 with a further split: bl) 14 242! b4 15 DbS? axbs b2) 14 Wxf6? 27 (the point of 12...Ba7!) 15 WE S&xc3+ 16 bxc3 Wxc3+ 17 He2 Rg7 and I prefer Black. b3) 14 0-0-0?! Bh6+ 15 bl 0-0 16 Wh3 &g7 17 De2 (or 17 €5? HI — Sedlak) 17..Wc5! 18 €5 (18 Ehfl We5 was better for Black in Vuckovic-Sedlak, Yugoslavia 2000) 18..f5 19 exd6 We5 20 c3 and now both 20..8d7!? and 20..b4 (Sedlak) give Black good compensation for the pawn. bd) 14 Wh5+ Sd8 15 0-0-0 (or 15 0-0 We5+! 16 Wxc5 dxc5 17 Bxfo Ag? 18 BS Ead7) 15..Bc7 16 Bhél Se? 17 Wh4 Wes! 18 Sb1 We is assessed as unclear by Sedlak — Black’s has positional trumps and his king is relatively safe on d8. 11...fxe6 12 xf6 gxf6 13 Wxt6 Hg8 14 Re2 2e7 rea 1, pega riwrt ee Pa farm Z 2 oo. AOR OOS a. a ook o ~ SA \ \ “Ss 15 Waa Or 15 Sh5+!? ded7! 16 WET (for 16 Wad Bxg2 17 0-0-0 @b7 see the note to White’s 17th move) 16...2b7 17 23 We5 and Black has active play and dark-squared dominance for the pawn. 15...2xg2 16 0-0-0 16 Wh8+ $247 17 Wah? b4 18 Wh3 bxc3! Bénsch) 19 Wxg2 cxb2 20 Hbt We3+ is a dangerous line for White to go down. 16...{b7 Also playable is 16..We5 and now: a) 17 Wh8+ @d7 18 Bf Wy5+ 19 &b1 We7 20 Wxg7 Bxg7 (Nunn), when I would prefer Black’s bishop pair. b) 17 Wxc5 dxc5 18 @h5+ WR 19 Rhfl+ 48 20 Bg Exel 21 Exgit+ @h8 with a roughly balanced position, Jasinski- Kas, correspondence 1994. 17 Bdg1 White’s other option is to give a check with 17 @h5+ @d7 18 e5 Wed! 19 Wb6 (or 19 exd6 Wixd4 20 Bxd4 £6 21 Kd3 Bes! 22 Bel Be! and Black regains the pawn with an advantage) 19..Xxc2+! (Stoica gives 19... We7 20 Wda Wed as equal) 20 dbl (20 dxc2 loses to 20...he4+ 21 Hcl Sg5+ 22 Md2 Wa3) 20,..&xh1 21 Bxd6+ &xd6 22 Wxdo+ 163Play the Najdorf cB 23 Bxc2 Ka? and Black, an exchange up, can consolidate. 17..Exg1+ 18 Zxg1 Web! We have been following the game Nisipeanu-Szuhanek, Romania 1994, which now continued 19 Wxc5 dxc5 20 e5 Bd8 21 g7 Ed7! with an equal position. Note that 22 Flxh7?? loses to 22....g5+1 Overall 9...Ac6 seems like a viable alternative to the crazy complications of 9...b4 (Line 432) The most ambitious move. Once again Black puts the question to the c3-knight. 10 Dcb5!? ‘The critical test of Black’s play. 10 fre6 bxe3 11 &xf6 cxb2 12 Mb1 gxf6 13 Wxf6 We3+ 14 BE2 fxe6 15 Wxh8 Ac6 (Nunn) is winning for Black, while 10 &ce2 ¢5 11 Bxf6 pxf6 12 Db3 Lb7 gives Black a comfortable version of the type of position discussed in Line D3. 10...axb5 11 &xb5 + A major alternative for White is 11 fxe6!? Be7 and now: a) 12 DES? (can’t find any examples of this move) 12...0-0 13 €5 &.b7 14 Wy3 (or 14 Dxe7+ Wee 15 exf6 Wxe6+ 16 We3 Bes 17 Wae6 BxeG+ 18 $22 h6, when Black's activity compensates for his compromised structure) 14..dxe5 (14..Ded!? 15 Dxe7+ @h8 16 {d3!! dxe5! is food for thought!) 15 Bxf6 Bx66 16 7 Dd7!? (16..Be8 17 Dho+ Bhs 18 Dxl7+ ps 19 Aks+ is a draw by repetition) 17 exf8W+ AxfB 18 Bxb5 Ago and Black plans ...\f4 with good play for the sactificed exchange b) 12 e5 dxe5 13 &xf6 (13 AxbS Wb7 14 Wab7 &xb7 was better for Black in Piaeren- Averkin, USSR 1969) 13...8xf6! (this looks stronger than the previously played 13..gxf0) 14 Axb5 (or 14 exf7+ GAB 15 Wra8 exd4) 14..Weo! 15 Wxc6+ Dxc6 16 De7+ kee7 17 ®xa8 Dd4 (Tyomkin) and Black has a dangerous initiative. For example, 18 0-0-0 &xe6 19 Db6 Bb8 20 Act Hc8 21 b3 Has, or 19) Dc7 Lxa2 20 b3 Sxb3 21 cxb3 He8 22 Bc4 Eixc7 — in both cases Black is better, 11...d7 12 fxe6 2xb5! 12...£%e6 13 Lxf6 gxf6 14 Wxf6 BxbS 15 1646 igs ®xb5 Web 16 0-0 is good for White. 13 Dxb5 We5 14 Lxt6 fxe6! I prefer this to 14..Wxb5 15 &xg7! &xp7 16 Wxi7+ Bd8 17 Wxg7 Be8, which is also playable for Black 15 Oda White has owo important alternatives a) 15 e5 WxbS 16 Wrxa8 gxf6 17 0-0-0 fre5 18 W3 Se7 19 RhFl Wed 20 bl Aco 21 b3 We3 with a clear edge for Black, Lu- ther-Rashkovsky, Sverdlovsk 1989, b) 15 Wh3!? ext6 16 Wxe6+ Be? 17 0-0-0 Waxbs 18 We8+ rally there is some risk involved. Play continues 19 Axd6 and now: b21) 19... Wig5+ 20 db1 Wa5 21 Ahdi (21 Weo+ BiB 22 EA dg? 23 Hs War 24 Hg5+ fxg5 25 We5+ with perpetual check — Hamarat) 21..Wxa2+ 22 Sect def? 23 15! (Hamarat-Marcussi/Mozzino, _correspon- dence 1989) 23..\Wal+ 24 sed2 Wel! 25 We6+ ¥g61 (Palliser) and White has no more than a perpetual (but not 25...87?? 26 Bad7+ Axd7 27 Exd7+ dg6 28 Wed+ Sho 29 We7+ @h5 30 o4+ seh4 31 Who+ dexed 32 Bg7+ 3 33 We3 mate — Palliser). 622) 19...8£7!? is a serious winning try for Black. Indeed, Black is obviously better after 20 Kxd8 Bxd8 21 Wxd8 Bxa2 22 db1 Was. Less clear, however, is 20 Bhd, for example: 20..b32 21 We6+ Wg? 22 cxb3! Hxa2 23 Sb1 Has 24 Bxd8 Exd8 25 We7+ $6 26 Bxd8 (Palliser) 26..WE1+ 27 c2 and it’s unlikely that Black has moze than a draw here. 15...gxf6 16 Axe6 16 Wrxf6? can be answered by the simple 16..We5!. 16...We4 17 Wxi6 Dd7 we @ Ee a oe et ae nin AY BY anew = apne a “owt ae “e eo . mm "i ime Me pt ae Mae re and now bl) 18.267 19 Wxh8 Hxa2 20 Wxh7+ (YY Monin-Kopylov, _ correspondence 1986) 20..8f8 21 Wh8+ £7 is a draw by perpetual check. b2) If Black is looking for more than a draw he could try 18...2d8, although nam- 18 Dc7 + 18 Wxh8 Wxed+ 19 sd1 Wxe6 looks a bit better for Black — White will find it difficult to get his a1 -rook into play. 18...Wxe7 19 Wxh8 We5! An important improvement by the Dutch player Jeroen Noomen over some old analy- 165Play the Najdorf sis from Rashkovsky, who assessed 19..2e5 20 0-0 Wig? 21 Exi8+ Wxf8 22 Wxh7 as slightly better for White. 20 Wixh7 We3+ 21 skf1 21 Sd? Ah6 22 Wes+ Se7 23 Was (or 23 Wh7+ ded8 24 Wy8+ @c7 25 Was We2) 23...b3 24 cxb3 WE2 was winning for Black in Choxfi-Noomen, correspondence 1999. zu_yex Gna G Ly A Jay, Vif, (4, Black has at least a draw by perpetual check, but quite possibly more, for example: a) 21..Wra+ 22 @e2? (White must play 22 Sg! or 22 Bel) 22..Hc8! 23 Whs+ ke? 24 Gd1 Bho 25 We2 Bcd! 26 93 Had+ 27 Bet Wes 28 WE Exed+ 29 sof2 We5+ 30 day? Wee2+ 31 We2 Woo! 32 dh3 Be3 33 WES Heol 34 Wh7+ ded8 35 We8+ Bes 36 We7 Was! 37 Bhel Hg8 0-1 Velde-Noomen, cor: respondence 1998, b) 21...0-0-0! 22 Wh 97 23 We2 Wra+ 24 Rel? (24 WE may be more resilient, but Black is still better after 24..We5 — Tyomkin) 24...2xb2 25 Hb1 (Rebel Century-Har Zvi, Ramat Aviv 2000) and now 25...Sc3+ 26 a1 Dcd 27 Bel Wxet 28 Wrxet Axed (Tyomkin) gives Black a clear advantage, It looks like the ball is firmly in White's court both in the ‘main line’ and after 11 fxe6 Be7 12 5 dxeS 13 Lxf6 Qxf6l. White’s best may well be the sideline with 15 Wh3, after which a draw is probably the fait result. Points to Remember 1) In this chapter general principles, positional understanding and common sense will only get you so far, Some variations simply have to be learnt off by heart. 2) After ...h7-h6 and &h4, Black should be aware of the tactical idea of ..xe4 and the positional one of ...g7-g5. 3) When White compromises Black’s pawn structure with ££ gxf6 (Line D3 in particular), Black is usually doing well if he can engineer an early exchange of queens. With the queens removed, the issue of Black's king’s safety becomes less relevant. 4) Continuing with this pawn structure, it's worth remembering the importance of the move ...h7-h5, preventing 2h5 (or Wh) and in some lines activating the rook on h8. 5) For those of you with any doubts about the critical lines D41, D42 and D43, there’s the option of playing 8...Dc6 (see Line D4), which looks a viable and less complex alternative. 166CHAPTER EIGHT 6 f4 1 04 cB 2 ATS dé 3 dd cxd4 4 Axd4 DIE 5 De3 a6 6 14 6 F4 is yet another aggressive system that White can employ, one which very much rose in popularity after being advocated by John Nunn in the popular Beating the Sicilian series. White creates two pawns abreast in font of his king. If Black employs the Scheveningen structure with ..c7-e6, it’s not unusual at some point for White to also thtow the g-pawn up the board as well White often castles queenside while, as with some lines of the English Attack, Black’s king can remain in the centre as he concen trates on obtaining counterplay on the queenside. Unlike the English Attack, though, White’s e¢-pawn has no protection from f2-£3 and can be vulnerable to attack. 6...06 ‘Transposing to a Scheveningen. Pure Naj- dorf moves are 6...c5, 6... Abd7 and 6...We7. Now we shall consider, in ascending order of importance, White’s three main moves. A: 7 Se3 B: 7 &d3 C: 7 WES Alternatively: a) 7 Be2 transposes to Chapter 5. b) 7.24 Dc6 8 Re3 We7 9 Bd? 9 Be2 Se7 10 0-0 0-0 transposes to Line B in Chapter 6) 9..2xd4 10 @xd4 e5! 11 Be3 exfd 12 Qxf4 2e7 13 0-0 0-0 and Black will follow up with ...£2c6 and ... Ad7-e5. White develops the ci-bishop and prepares to castle queenside. However, the disadvantage of this move, when compared to both 7 £43 and 7 WF, is that Black is in no way discouraged from beginning immediate counterplay on the queenside. 7...b5! The most natural reaction to White’s last move — the e4-pawn is an immediate target. 167Play the Najdorf 8 WS Defending the e4-pawn, making way for queenside castling and incidentally threatening ede5. Alternatives for White now include: a) 8 @d3 &b7 9 a3 O WE reaches the main line) 9..Dbd7 10 0-0 Bc8 11 WS transposes to note ‘b’ to White's 10th move. b) 8 e5!? dxeS 9 fxe5 Ad5 10 Axds Weds 11 Be? offers a pawn sacrifice that should be accepted. 11..Wxe5 12 Wd2 &b7 and now: bl) 13 0-0-0 Se7 14 Qf4 We5 reaches note ‘b2’, while 14 2£3 &xf3 15 gxf3 0-0 16 Hhg! g6! (Gipslis) sees White obtaining insufficient compensation. b2) 13 Bf4 Wes 14 0-0-0 Be7 15 Ab3 (15 Sxb8 Exb8 16 Dxe6 fes 17 Wa7+ Sew 18 Wxe6 &xg2 was winning for Black in Ol Smirin, Klaipeda 1988) 15..We8 16 Sd6 Was! 17 Wo4 (or 17 Ac5 Kgs! 18 Bea Wrxd2+ 19 @xd2 @xd2+ 26 Bxd2 Qd5 21 BE Qxf3 22 gxf3 e723 Bhdi Ba7 and White is simply a pawn down) 17...8.xd6 18 Bixd6 WeS+ 19 Bd2 We? 20 DcS 0-0 21 Bhdt He8 22 We3 Ba7! 23 Axb7 Rxb7 24 263 Mc7 25 We5 Hec8 and Black has con- solidated his extra pawn, Gipslis-Sutkus, correspondence 1988. 8...2b7 Reintroducing the threat of ..b5-b4. 9 243 Dbd7 The right squate for the knight — it doesn’t block the b7-bishop and can add extra pressure to the e4-pawn from c5. 10 94 A very natural move in this line - White gains space on the kingside and prepares to force the f6-knight away with g4-g5. Alterna tives include: a) 10 0-0 Bc8 11 Rael @e7 12 a3 transposes to note ‘b’. b) 10 23 Bc8 11 0-0 (11 0.0.02) is asking for ...£Axe31, either at once or possibly following 11..8e7 12 g4) 11..@e7 (11..Bxc3!? is already a possibility, but it probably pays to wait a little...) 12 Bact 0-0 Ys and now; bl) 13 g4?! Hxe3! (now that White has weakened himself with g2-g4, this sacrifice becomes all the more enticing) 14 bxc3 Ac5 15 Gcl Wa8! (White can’t hold on to the crucial e-pawn; Black already has an edge) 16 Wh3 Dfxed 17 (51 5 18 D3 DAxd3 19 cxd3 ApS 20 Bxe5 Gxg5 and Black’s extra pawn, raking bishops and an airy white king provide enormous compensation for the exchange, Donchev-Lukov, Bulgarian Cham- pionship 1982 b2) 13 Wh3 (eyeing the f7-pawn) 13..2c5 and we have a further branch: bl) 14 €52 de5 15 fxe5 Dxd3 16 ext6? (this simply doesn’t work; better is 16 exd3 Ads 17 Dxd5 Wxd5 with a slight plus for Black) 16...8xf6 17 Axe6 Qxp2!! 18 Wed fxe6 and White resigned in Diaz-Zapata, Havana 1986. 22) 14 @r2 Afd7!? 15 hI (or 15 £5 5 16 De3 fo! 17 Bd2 Axd3 18 cxd3 Wa? 19 He3 d5! 20 exd5 Dxd5 21 Hg3 16 22 Woes Er7 23 Dxd5 xd5 24 Le3 Re? with advantage to Black, Myrvold-Bologan, Oslo 1994) 15.26! 16 Hdl?! He8 17 Bg! 26 18 Dde2 Bg7 19 5 We7 20 Bd4 As6! and the pressure on e4 gave Bleck a clear edge in Yudasin-Kasparoy, Moscow 1988. Instead of 16 Hdl, Nikitin suggests 16 5 as an improvement, against which Black should play the calm 16...Be8. The move 16..c5?! doesn’t create a good impression with the bishop on 1686 f4 f6 and the knight on d7 as Black has less control over d5 than normal 10...b4 Other moves like 10..Ac5 and 10...h6l? are perfectly playable, but this is the most ambitious. 11 Dce2 11...05!? Again Black could settle for 11...c5, but with this move Black plans a direct counterattack with his central pawns. 12 @b3. After White’s other knight move, 12 ®f5, Black has two equally good continuations. a) 12..d51? (this works in spite of Black's uncastled king because his pieces are so well coordinated) 13 Afg3 (13 Deg3? p6 14 Dh4 ®xe4 and White’s position collapses) 13..Ac5! 14 g5 dyed 15 Axed Axed 16 Rixet Bxe4 17 Wxed Bxe3 18 Wxe3 0-0 and the liquidation has left a balanced position, Balashov-Spassky, Bugojno 1978. b) 12..g6 13 Afp3 exf4 (a different approach — Black claims the eS-square) 14 xf4 b5! 15 exhS DxhS 16 Dxh5 Bxh5 17 @De3 Bh7 18 &d2 Was 19 a3 Wed 20 axb4+ Wsxb2 and I prefer Black’s chances in this messy position, Hansen-]Howell, Port Erin 1995. 12...d5 Thematic Scheveningen strategy: ..e6-e5! quickly followed by ...d6-d5! — Black is certainly not holding back in the battle for the centre. However, as against 12 65, there is another sensible approach for Black: 12...exf4 13 &xf4 We7 (13...h5 is also possible) 14 0-0-0 DeS 15 We3 Bc8 16 Dedt We? 17 @b1 g6 and Black will continue with ...2g7 and 0-0, Leko-Smirin, Wijk aan Zee 1993. 13 Qg3 We7! Keeping the tension is Black's best way forward. I have found a few examples of practical play from this position and Black's results have been very encouraging, although I should add that I believe it’s objectively equal. Here are some possibilities: a) 14 0-0-0? Eic8 suddenly leaves White in trouble due to the nwin attacks on c2 and e4 I's difficult to suggest a move, for example 15 Hhfl dxe4 16 Axed Axed 17 Oxe4 DIG! and Black wins; 15 g5 dxe4 16 @xe4 Dxe4 17 Bxed Wre2t+! 18 Qxc2 Qxf3; 15 exdd Bxd5 16 Det Axed 17 Gxed Wrxe2+! 18 169Play the Najdorf Bixc2 @xf3; and finally 15 Bd2 d4 16 2 exit, b) 14 0-0 h5!? 15 g5 h4! 16 gxfo hxg3 17 fxg7 gxh2+ 18 Bhi Lxg7 19 fxe5 0-0-0 20 Wat? Qxe5 left Black with a clear advantage in Wapner-Avrukh, Israel 1996. The game concluded 21 We3 Adg8 22 We2 Hgi+ 23 Bxgl bxgtW+ 24 Sxg1 @xb2 25 Bd2 fixal 26 ®xal Wy3+ 27 We2 Wxg2+ 28 Gxg2 dxet and White, facing the loss of more material, resigned. Earlier on 17 Wxp3 dxe4 18 fxg7 Qxg7 19 Wxg? 0-0-0 is good for Black. White should probably play 17 hxg3 Dxf6 18 Dd2, against which 1 suspect that Black should keep the tension with 18...8.e7. o) 14 g5 Dxed 15 Axes Me8! 16 Ag3 d4 17 Bed Bxed 18 Weed dxe3 19 0-0-0 and “both sides have equal and good winning chances’ — Kasparov and Nikitin, The only practical example I could find continued 19...a5 (19..Dc5!?) 20 fxe5 a4 21 €6 fre 22 Wxeb+ Be7 23 Add @c5 and Black went on to win, Greul-Kroll, correspondence 1991, although the position is still very un- cleat at this point. B) 7 2d3 Clearly a sensible move. White develops the Fl-bishop on an aggressive post and prepares to castle 7...Dbd7 1 like this dual-purpose move. The knight controls eS, thus preventing White from playing a quick e4-e5. At the same time Black has the option of playing ....c5, both putting pressure on e4 and giving Black the option of exchanging the d3-bishop at his convenience, ‘This resource cannot be underestimated, as White’s attacking chances on the kingside can fade dramatically with the removal of the light-squared bishop. ‘The direct 7.051? is probably just about playable, but I’m not entirely convinced by Black’s position after § ¢5! dxeS 9 fxe5 Dd5 10 Wed — he seems to be a long way behind in development and White's pieces are an- noyingly active. After 7..bd7 White must make a choice: A: 8 Wits B: 80-0 Alternatively: a) 8 a4 b6 9 0-0 &b7 transposes to Line C in Chapter 10. b) 8 A63 is a typical idea for White in this type of position (see Line B2), The knight slots itself behind the fpawn and can be used in kingside operations, including supporting the e4-e5 advance. A good reply when White plays this so early is 8..g6!, which is specifically designed to negate the idea of e4-e5. With black’s bishop on g7, 2 premature e4-e5 might simply leave White with an indefensible pawn on that square. Note that with White’s bishop blocking the d-file, Black doesn’t have to worry so much about pressure on his own d6-pawn. We'll see quite a bit more of Black using the f- anchetto in this chapter. Play can continue with 9 0-0 £g7 and now: bl) 10 e5? dxe5 11 fxeS Aga and the e5- pawn will be captured next move. b2) 10 @ht 0-0 11 Wel Acs 12 Be3 bol? (12...b5 13 Wxe5 dxcS 14 €5 is White’s idea) 13 b4 Dxd3 14 cxd3 Dgt 15 Lgl £5! 16 h3 DDG 17 exf exfS 18 Ad4 Ke8 19 Wdi 2b7 1706 4 20 Wb3+ @h8 21 Hfel Wa7 and Black’s bishop on b7 is a monster piece, Gross- Stohl, Czech League 2001. b3) 10 a4 0-0 and now: 531) 11 We2 We7 12 dh b6 13 e51? dxeS 14 fxe5 Ded 15 Q£4 Bb? (the e5-pawn is lost but White has enough resources to equalise) 16 @e4 @xe4 17 Wed Doxes 18 Hacl £6 19 &xe5 Axe5 20 Axed fxe5 with a level position, Sax-Kasparov, Skelleftea 1989. 632) 11 Wel (this is more ambitious — White plans Wh4) 11...We7 12 Wh4 bé! 13 Qb7 14 Bh6 Hae8! 15 Bxg7 Hxg7 16 Hh1 Wc5 and Black is solid, Marinkovic-Landa, Belgrade 1991. This game ended abruptly after 17 Hf27! Whb4 18 eS? Wxh4 0-1 B1) 8 WHS ad Ss WY ae = e' . ‘A useful move, which develops the queen, prepares to castle queenside and prevents .-b7-b5 on account of e4-e5. 8...Wb6 ‘A typical manoeuvre that occurs in many forms of the Sicilian. Before settling on its favourite c7-square, the black queen tries to force the knight on d4 to retreat to a less aggressive square (normally 63). Black has two other worthwhile continuations, a) 8..Wc7 and now: al) 9 Be3 b5 10 0-0 Sb7 11 a3 Me7 12 Bact Dc5 13 5! e5 14 Db3 0-0 15 g4 (15 DxeS dxc5 16 Dds Vxd5 17 exdd c4 18 Sed Bab8 was better for Black in Zarnicki- Ol, Biel 1993) 15..d5 16 DAxcS Bxc5 17 exd5 (or 17 AxdS Qxd5 18 exd5 ed!) 17..xe3+ 18 Wxe3 (18 Bxe3 Whé!) 18..Dxg4 19 Wg3 DEG with an equal position — Ol a2) 9 g4 De5 10 g5 Dfd7 with a further branch: a2l) 11 @d2 b5 12 b4! Axd3+ 13 cxd3 @b6 14 Bet Wb7 15 0-0 Qd7 16 65 €5 17 @Db3 Hc8 18 Dad was better for White in Bologan-Stanec, Moscow 1994, but instead of 11...05, I prefer 11...g6 followed by ....&g7. 22) 11 &e3 b5 12 0-0-0 Rb7 13 eb! g6 14h4 b4 15 Dce2 0-0-0 16 h5 Sg? 17 Des Bb8 18 Hh2 Hc8 with a roughly level position, Leko-Hracek, Kecskemet 1991. b) 8.26? 9 Db3 (9 Led Mp7 10 0-0-0 We7 11 £5 DeS 12 Wh3 Afgs 13 fxe6 feo looks okay for Black, Mokey-Obodchuk, Hlohovec 1993, while 9 g4 27 10 S23 ¢5 11 Dde2 ext4 12 Weft DeS 13 b3 0-0 14 Dg3 Le6 was level in L.Bronstein-Giardell, Argentinean Championship 1989) 9...8e7 10 23 0-0 Black could also consider delaying, castling with 10..We7 or 10...Bb8) 11 g4!? ‘We7! (11..2b8 12 h4 b5 13 h5 Lb7 14 hxgs hxg6 15 0-0-0 was better for White in j.Polgat-Hellers, Biel 1993) 12 h4 b5 13 h5 b4 14 De2 a5 15 hxgo hxg6 16 g5 AhS 17 0-0-0 24 (Hellers), when both sides have strong attacks! 171Play the Najdorf 9 Db3 9 a3!? is a tricky move. The point is chat 0. Wixd4?? loses the queen to 10 £3, while 9.807 10 &e3! Wxb2 11 G2! leaves Black with big problems to solve, Instead Black should play 9..c5, for example 10. bd!? BDxd3+ (10..Acxe4 11 Axed Wrd4 12 3 is a dangerous pawn to grab) tf Wxd3 Re7 12 Rb2 0-0 13 6-0-0. In the game Mokry- Asnason, Manila Olympiad 1992 Black continued with 13..c5?! 14 DES QxfS 15 exf5 exf4 16 gl and White had an edge. Instead Black should continue with 13..a5 14 bS Ba7, or 13..We7!? follawed by ...b7-b5 and Sb7. 9...We7 10 94 h6 10,..Dc5, vacating d7, is also possible, but with 10..h6 Black seeks to slow down White's charge on the kingside. 11 Wh3 Pinning the h-pawn and thus reintroducing the idea of g4+-g5. An alternative is 11 h4 h5! 12 g5 Apd and now: a) 13 Ddl g6 14 Ded Dxed 15 Wxed &g7 was equal in MainkaJaenig, Bad Worishofen 2001 b) 13 g6l? Ddf6l 14 &d2 b5 15 0-0-0 and here 15..2b7 16 gxf?+ Wxf? 17 a5! was good for White in Hazai-Grootea, Copenha- gen 1987. Insterd Black should play 15..Ab8!, for example: 16 @b1 &Qb7 17 gxf7+ Wxt7 and now 18 Dad can simply be answered by 18...8.081, 11...g6 12 2e3 Or 12 g5 @h5 13 5 Ded! 14 fxg6 hugs 15 Gxg5 Dxg6 16 WEL Be7 17 xe? We? 18 0-0-0 &d7 and Black bas no problems, Bohnenblust-Gadjily, Halkidiki 2000. 12.5 Gaining space on the queenside. Note, however, that in many lines the light-squared bishop may remain on 8 in order to support the e6-pawa if White plays ff. Black's position looks solid here and quickfire attacks by White can prove to be premature, for example: a) 13 0-0-0 ba 14 De2 2b7 15 De3 Bg? 16 £52! De5 17 fees Fxe6 18 g5 Dfe4 with a clear plus for Black. b) 13 £52! Des! 14 g5 Afes 15 Bd2 b4 16 De2 exfS 17 exfS Dxd3+ 18 Wxd3 eS 19 We3 bxg5 20 fxg6 Hh3 21 Ags /5t, with the threat of ...65-f4, Norqvist-Wallace, tuna 1995, ©) 13 g5 Dh5 14 £5 Des 15 fxg6 fxg6 and now 16 @d4?? loses material after 16..b4 17 Ace2 Axd3+ 18 cxd3 5. d) 13 a3 (preventing ..b5-b4 is probably best) 13....R¢7 14 0-0-0 Bb8! and Black will continue with ...b5-b4. Sollen- B2) 80-0 b5 Those with a sense of adventure might like to try out the crazy line 8.Wb6!2 9 Se Wxb2 10 AdbS! axbS 11 AxbS Ba5! 12 Edt 172Fixb5 13 Hxb2 Hxb2 14 Wal Bb6 15 &xb6 Dxb6 16 We3 Be7 17 Bb Dfd7 18 Weg7 S246 19 Wh6, which occurred in Anand- Kasparov, Tilburg 1991. It’s very difficult to make an assessment of this position. If Black can coordinate then the three pieces should oucweigh the white queen but this might prove to be difficult. 903 Preventing ...b5-b4 for the foreseeable fu- tare, Alternatives include a) 9 Wet 2b7 10 ht Dc 11 b4 Axd3 12 exd3 Be8 13 Bb2 Be7 14 Db3 0.0 15 a4 bxad 16 Axad &c6 2-2 Petrov-Yudasin, St Petersburg 1997, b) 9 DB Bb7 10 Wel (10 a3 transposes to note ‘b’ to White’s 10th move) 10..We7 (10..e5 also can’t be discounted) 11 $h1 b4! and now: bl) 12 Ad1 Se? 13 AM Acs 14 d2 a5 15 a3 b3 16 Sb5+ Dfd7 17 Het bxc2 18 Exc? ad! 19 Bb4 0-0 left Black with an edge in J.Polgat-Polugaevsky, Roquebrune (rapid) 1992. b2) 12 Dad d5 13 eS Ded 14 a31? bxa3 15 b3 h6! 16 Bxa3 xa3 17 Hxa3 0-0 18 c4 Dec5 19 Axc5 Axc5 20 Le2 deed 21 Qxcd Bfd8 with a roughly level position, Dvoirys- Agrest, Budapest 1991, c) 9 We2 &b7 10 Phi (10 25? dxeS 11 fxe5 &c5 wins a pawn) 10.25 11 b4 Axd3 12 cxd3 Bc8 13 Qd2 Be7 14 Bact 9-0 15 a3 and now the manoeuvre 15..@d7! 16 He2 6 f4 {6 gave Black a comfortable position in De Fitmian-A Sokolov, Reykjavik 1990. 9...@b7 10 h1 Or a) 10 WE3 Hc8 11 e3 transposes to note ‘b’ to White’s 10th move in Line A b) 10 AB Se7 11 Wel Kel? (11...0-0 12 5 dxeS 13 fees Ag 14 LF4 looks a bit risky for Black, but 11..Ac5 is certainly playable) 12 hl (or 12 5% dxeS 13 fee5 Dg4 14 &.f4 and now I like 14..25!, for example: 15 Bei BcSt+ 16 Sht Ae3 17 He2 Axg2! 18 Gxg2 g4 and Black wins material) 12..Ac5 13 b4l? Axd3 14 cxd3 0-0 15 Be3 (1 prefer 15 &b2) 15..Ad7! 16 Hel BF6 (this idea again!) 17 &d4 e5! 18 fxe5 Dxe5! 19 Dxe5 dxe5 20 &c5 Be7 21 Bxe7 Wrxe7 and Black was a touch better due to the weakness on 3, Adams-Yudasin, Manila 1990. 10...267 Black also has the option of fianchettoing: 10...g6!? 11 Wel £97 12 651? gxf5 13 exfS eS 14 2g5 0-0 15 Gb3 d5, when Black’s central dominance compensates for a slightly compromised king position, Smejkal-Adamski, Lugano Olympiad 1968. 11 Wet Alternatively: a) 11 We2 Ac5 12 b4 Dxd3 13 cxd3 0-0 14 Se3 Dd7! 15 Bact 2.66 16 Me2 Hes with a level position, Kosten-Spraggett, Torcy 1991. b) 11 b4l? 0-0 12 b2 He8 (intending 173Play the Najdorf .Db6-c4) 13 We2 Dbo 14 521 (Anand suggests 14 ad! Ded 15 ct) 14..dxe5 15 fred Dfd3! 16 Axd5 (16 Axes fees 17 Whi is refuted in fine style by 17.265! 18 Ext5 961 19 Bes Sxpe5 20 &xgs Hc? — Anand) 16..8xd5 17 Hael Sc4 and Black's strac- tural advantage became dominant in Adams- Anand, Hilversum 1993. 11...De5 12 b4 In the game Fernandez Aguado- Polugaevsky, Haifa 1989 White played very strangely and soon ended up in an infetior position: 12 @d2 0-0 13 We32 Hc8 14 Bes? d5! 15 eS Ded 16 Rel £5! 17 BE1 (17 ext £ixf6 is no improvement) 17...Wa7 18 Dxet Dxe4 and Black followed up with ...&.d8-b6. 12...Dxd3 13 cxd3 0-0 14 £3 fics aie ~ . Ono ae mee Be wee ‘The removal of the d3-bishop means that an all-out attack by White on the kingside is unlikely to be successful. Iastead play will be more positional in ature, but basically Black doesn’t have any real problems, The game Schmaltz-Shipov, Internet 2002 continued 15 Dce2 Da! 16 We3 R617 Bact We7 18 Wh3 96 19 £5 exfS 20 exfS xcl 21 &xcl c8 with an equal position. c) 7 ws White’s most popular move. Unlike 7 2e3 and 7 £d3, 7 Wf3 really does prevent Black from playing 7..b5. So Black must prepare b7-b5 with ..¥c7, but first. 7...ub6! With the same idea as in Line B1 — the queen tries to force the knight from its aggressive post before setting on c7. Now White has nwo options: Ct: 8 a3!? C2: 8 Db3 1) 8 a3!? With this move White can keep the knight on dé for a litde longer (8..Wxd4?? 9 23! traps the black queen in mid-board). Yh th Now White really must make a decision. 9 Dxcé ‘The alternative is 9 4b3, but it creates a strange impression to play 8 a3 only to retreat the knight a move later. One could ar- gue that Black has committed his b8-kaight to c6 (sometimes it goes to d7), but is this really worth a tempo? After 9 @b3 play continues 9...Wc7 — the queen has done its job on b6 and immediately moves out of the way of Black’s b-pawa in preparation of ..b7-b5. White has two main choices: a) 10 g4 b5 11 g5 Ad7 12 &d3 g6l (the bishop will be well placed on g7) 13 &e3 GgT 14 hd b4 15 Dad?! bxad 16 Fxa3 Abs and Black had an edge in Onischuk-Van Wely, Wijk aan Zee 1997. Instead of 15 Da4, Onischuk assesses 15 axb4 Zxb4 16 0-0 0-0 17417 22 as unclear. b) 10 243 (White plans to castle kingside) 10..96 (one of the advantages of delaying the development of the 8-bishop is flexibility; in this instance the black king will feel safer with the bishop on g7) 11 0-0 27 with a further branch: bl) 12 &e3 0-0 13 Bnet bS 14 e52! dxe5 15 &c5 @b7! 16 BxfB BxfB (De Firmian- Polugaevsky, Biel 1990) gives Black excellent compensation for the exchange in the form of a pawn, the bishop pair and dark-squared control. One possible continuation is 17 fxe5 Dxe5 18 Wh3 Axd3 19 cxd3 AdS, when most GMs would take Black. 2) 12 @d2t? 0-013 Ddl (this looks a little slow) 13..e5! 14 De3 (or 14 d5 15 fxgo dse4! 16 gxh7+ @h8 17 Bxe4 Dxed 18 Waxed £5 19 Wh £4! — Kasparov — and Black has the initiative) 14,.exf4 15 Whxf4 B06 16 ‘Wh4 Was! Short-Kasparov, Debrecen 1992) and now Kasparov gives 17 &c3 Dgd 18 Wxd8 Bexd8 19 Axed Bxc3 20 DUG+ Lxlo 21 xt dg? 22 BA Bac8, when Black has a slight edge. 9...bxe6 It makes more sense to capture with the pawn in order to strengthen Black’s control over the central squares. 10 b3 Preparing #b2 and 0-0-0. White has a more aggressive alternative in the shape of 10 g4l2. Now 10...g6 11 g5 @d7 6 f4 713 Bub2 0-0 14 0-0-0 45 15 h4 gave White a menacing attack in Short Smirin, Debrecen 1992. Better is the strange- looking 12...h6 13 &b2 Zh7, although after 14 Dat We7 15 b4 hxg5 16 fxgS eT 17 We3 2b7 18 0-0-0 0-0-0 (OllStohl, Manila Olympiad 1992) Black’s position didn’t look torally convincing. Perhaps Black should be looking to take more immediate steps in the centre to counter White’s flank attack. In this respect, 10...d51? looks logical, for example: 11 g5 (o¢ 11 23 &e7 12 g5 Ad? and Black can con- tinve with ..Ac5) 11..Dxe4 12 Axed ded 13 Wet Qb7 14 Bg? 2c5I? and White has trouble finding a safe place for his king. 10...2b7 11 Sb2 d5 12 b3 Bg) 12 2d3 Alternatively: a) 12 e5 @a7 13 0-0-0 and now Black can continue with 13..c5 or 13..g612, planning to meet 14 g4 h5 15 h32l hxg4 16 hxgd? with 16..Bxh1 17 Wht We3+t b) 12 0-0-0 Wa5! 13 e5 (or 13 b4 We7 and Black can nibble away at White’s queenside with ...26-a5 or ...c6-c5) 13..Ad7 14 Aad Wer! 15 Hel? (Kasparov gives 15 4 d4 16 2d3 c5 17 Bed as unclear) 15.96 16 g4 5 17 Qe2 bs 18 Wai (or 18 £5 d4 19 Wee Sxg2 20 Wxg2 cd!) 18..c4 19 &b1 Was and Black has a powerful initiative on the queenside, Almasi-Kasparov, Lyon 1994. 12...05 13 exd5 exd5 14 0-0-0 0-0-0 175Play the Najdort on "ihe ‘The position is evenly balanced. The game J.Polgar-Kasparov, Dos Hermanas 1996 continued 15 Dad We7 16 B£5+ (or 16 Be5 2d6 17 Bhel Bhe8) 16..2b8 17 25 &d6 and now White erred with 18 Wc3?! ddl 19 Bxd6 (19 WaeS? loses a piece after 19..£xc5 20 Bxc7+ Pxc7 21 Axes Hd5 22 BDxb7 Exf5) 19..Wxd6 20 Wxcd Wxf4t 21 bb1 Bas, after which Black was better. c2) 8 Db3 We7 Preparing for ..b7-05. 994 This space-gaining lunge of the g-pawn is White’s most common move here, but there are other options: a) 9 &d3 b5 10 0-0 Dbd7 11 Bd2 Qb7 12 Bael g6!? (12...2e7 is certainly also playable, but ...g6 and ...2g7 does give added protection to the kingside) 13 Wh3 297 14 D4 0-0 15 DEB b4 16 Ad1 Acs 17 Be2 a5 and Black was well placed, Berzinsh- Movsesian, Czech League 1999. b) 9 a4 (White prevents ..b7-b5 so Black goes for a ‘smaller’ fianchetto) 9...b6! 10 £3 &b7 11 0-0 (of course White is less likely to castle queenside with 4 pawn sticking out on a4) 11... Abd? and now: bi) 12 Wg3 g6l 13 Bd2 Bg7 14 Bael 0-0 15 Wh4 c5 16 £5 ext 17 exf5 Web 18 Me2 ®xd3 19 cxd3 Hae8 and Black can be happy with the outcome of the opening, Adams- CHansen, Groningen 1995 — the bishop on b7 makes its presence felt along the long diagonal b2) 12 Bd2 g6!? (of course 12..8e7 13 Hael 0-0 is a playable alternative) 13 Wh3 13...2.g7 14 Haet (14 £5? is a strategic etror: 14...gxf5 15 exf3 eS! and Black will follow up with ...0-0-0 and ...Bhg8) 14..0-0 15 £5 Hac8 16 &g5 (Nunn-Stohl, Novi Sad Olympiad 1990) and now Nunn gives the long and certainly not forced line 16..exf3 17 exfS Exel 18 Bxet Re8 19 Bxe8+ Dxe8 20 fxg6 hxg6 21 Bxg6 fxg6 22 We6+ Wh? 23 Wxed as unclear. It’s true that following 23..Wc6 24 We2 Dc5 Black’s bishop pair gives him strong compensation for the pawn. 9...b5 10 95 10 £d3 &b7 11 g5 Déa7 teansposes to the text 17610...2fd7 Black has another option here in 10..b4!?, but I’m a little suspicious of his position following 11 AbS axb5 12 gxf6. 11 &d3. Alternatively: a) 11 Be3 Bb7 (or 11..Db6!? 12 0-0-0 |)8d7 13 Wh3 b4 14 De2 Ded 15 Gb1 27, as in ].Polgar-Kasparov, Geneva 1996) 12 0-0-0 b4 13 Be2 Ac6 14 Ded4 Dxd4 15 Qxd4 €5 16 Be3 exfd 17 Bxf4 Des 18 Rxe5 dxe5 19 Bh3 Ld6 20 265 0-0 21 hd 26 22 &2h3 a5 with a sharp and finely balanced position, Almasi-Sax, Hungarian Championship 1995. b) 11 @g2 Bb7 120-0 Dc6 13 Wh3 b4 (13..Le7A allows 14 g6l) 14 De2 e5!? 15 3! a5 16 cxb4 axb4 17 2e3 2a6 18 Hf2 (Koza- kov-Maksimenko, Lvov 2000) and here Fracnik gives 18..2c5! 19 Decl exf4 20 Bxi4 De6 as Black’s best course of action, 11...0b7 12 Be3 With this move White gives himself the option of castling queenside. There are, however, quite a few different ways forward for White. Here is a summary: a) 12 h4 @c5! 13 h5 (this is probably too early) 13.. Abd? (13...b4!? 14 e2 d5 is also enticing) 14 2¢3 b4! 15 De2 d5 and Black has strong counterplay along the long diagonal b) 12 a3 (preventing ...b5-b4 but expend- ing a tempo) 12...@c5! 13 2d2 Dbd7 14 h4 Bxd3+ 15 cxd3 ADcS! 16 Det d5!? 17 exdS Has 18 0-0 &xd5 19 Dxd5 Bxd5 and I prefer Black, Giaccio-Shipov, Internet 2000. ©) 12 Wh3 g6! (otherwise White will play g5-g6!) and now: cl) 13 @c3 Bg7 14 Add e5 15 fxe5 Axed 16 0-0-0 Abd? 17 Hb1 0-0 18 Engl b4 19 Ad5 Qxd5 20 exd5 Bfc8 and Black will continue with .26-25-a4, Solleveld-Van Wely, Datch League 2000. 2) 13 BEI? (planning a very early F4-65) 13..b4 (13.897? 14 65 exf 15 exf Lixc3+!? 16 bxc3 De5 also looks reasonable 64 for Black) 14 De2 De6 15 £5 gxf5 16 exfS e5 17 £6 0-0-0 18 Bh5 Abo 19 Bc3 d5 20 65+ Lb8 21 Lxbo Wxb6 22 0-0-0 (or 22 Ws£7!? c4!, planning ...De5) 22...a5 23 Sb1 (Ulibin-Khurtsidze, Oakham 1992) and now Nunn gives 23...a4! 24 @bc1 a3 as unclear. d) 12 Bd2!? Acs and now: dt) 13 £5% (premature) 13..b4! 14 Dat exfS 15 WxfS Abd? 16 Axb4 o6 17 Wh Dc5 18 We3 h6 19 Dc3 Be7 20 gxh6 Lg5! 21 We2 Deo 22 Kai Rn4+ 23 bar Dea and White is in big trouble, Wahls-Hracek, Bundesliga 1997, 2) 13 0-0-0 Axd3+ 14 Wxd3 Ad? 15 Ehei 0-0-0!? (15...c5!? also looks okay) 16 £51? 16..HeBl 17 &f4 Aes 18 Wh3 eb8 19 a3 (19 g6 ba! 20 Bad Kec8! is awkward for White) 19..Dc4 20 g6 5 21 gxt7 Wat? 22 2g5 Be? 23 &xe7 Hxe7 with a roughly level position, Nouro-Rytshagov, Tampere 1996. 3) 13 De2 (with the possible idea of Ba5) 13...De6 14 Dxcd dxc5 15 c4l? Who 16 491 (I suspect that White doesn’t get enough for the pawn) 16...bxc4 17 Sxcd Wxb2 18 2c3 Wb6 19 a5 We7 20 &b3 (20 0-0 Aday 20...Bd8 21 0-0 cdl? 22 &xc4 Bc5+ 23 ht Dd4 and White will have long-term problems with king safety, Popovych-Maksimen- ko, Lvov 1999. 12...c5! ‘This seems to be the most accurate move order for Black. Firstly, he needs to be in a 177Play the Najdorf position to capture on d3 as soon as White castles queenside and, secondly, the knight on b8 keeps its options of going to both 6 and d7. Ws oA at Bas 1s ae 12..Ac6 has frequently been played, but now White should continue with 13 0-0-0 Dc5 14 Bb1!. The point is thar... Axd3 can now be met by cxd3!, crucially bolstering White’s centre and the e4-pawn in particular, 130-0 Finally White decides to castle short, but there are other options, a) 13 a3 Dbd7 14 0-0-02! (14 0-0 transposes to the text) and now Biack has a pleasant choice between 14...@xd3+ 15 cxd3 Wed and 14..xb3+ 15 cxb3 b4! 16 axb4 d5. b) 13 5?! b4 14 BDe2 Abd? 15 Arcs De5! 16 Wh3 (or 16 Wy3 dxc5 17 fxe6 fxe6 18 4f4 246 19 0-0 We? 20 We2 0-0 21 Re2 c4 with a clear plus for Black, Witzschel- Manso Gil, correspondence 1998) 16..dxc5 17 fxe62! (the stronger 17 b3 should be answered by 17...exf5 18 Wxf5 26) 17.4! 18. 0-0 exd3 29 cxd3 fKe6 20 Wxe6+ We? and White has insufficient compensation for the piece, Van der Wiel-Sax, Wijk aan Zee 1989. ©) 13 0-0-0 Axd3+! (if Black wants to exchange on d3, now is the time to do it; 13...bd7 14 Hb1! Axd32 allows 15 cxd3!) 14 Bxd3 (now, of course, 14 cxd3?? foses material after 14..b4) 14.47 with a further branch; cl) 15 Hhdl b4 16 Be2 Bc8 17 B3dz Wy Be7 18 BDg3 0-0 19 WE2 25 20 Hdl a4 21 Del Hfes 22 Ad3 b3 23 cxb3 axb3 24 a3 Wed with 2 clear plus for Black, Van der Weide-Van Wely, Leeuwarden 2001. This is a model example from Black's point of view. 2) 15 Gd4 b4 16 Adi a5 17 bl a4 18 Det KB 19 Rd2 €5 20 B62 exfa 21 Wefd DoS 22 Bd4 Le7 with a roughly equal position, Inarkiev-Bisiukov, St Petersburg 2001. 13...Qbd7 13..b4 14 @e2 Dbd7 also looks okay for Black. a) 14 a42l b4 15 Ae2 d5 16 Dg’3 dxed 17 Dxed 246! and Black will follow up with 00, b) 14 £5 eS 15 Wh3 and here 15...cxf5?! 16 Waf5 Dxb3 17 axb3 Le? 18 Dd5 was good for White in Shmuter-Maksimenko, Kherson 1990. Instead Black should flick in 15...b4! 16 De2 and only then 16...ex65, After 17 Wx Dxb3 18 axb3 &Le7 we reach a level position, 14.207 JF Black is feeling ambitious, he could even try opposite-side castling with 14...0-0-01, for example: 15 Wh3 @b8 16 Badi Db6 17 (5 d5 18 fee Axeo with an unclear position, Ye Jiangchuan-Xu Jun, China 1989. 15 ada Or 15 Wh3 Dxd3 16 cxd3 Dc5 17 Dxc5 178dxc5 18 g6 f5! 19 gxh7 (19 exf5?! 0-0-0! 20 fxe6? We6! 21 gxh7 Exh7 22 We Bxd3 and White can resign!) 19..0-0-0 20 Bfdl @b8 21 Bacl g6! 22 b4 2£6 23 bxc5 Bxh7 24 We3 Bhd, and Black has 2 menacing attack against the white king, Mortensen-Xu Jun, Moscow Olympiad 1994. 15...0-0 We are encounter Mortensen-C.Hansen, Copenhagen 1995, which turned out to be another model example of how Black should approach this position: 16 Wh5 g6 17 Who Bie8! 18 BS 268 19 Wh4 27 20 Sh3 AFB! (establishing the ‘perfect defensive set-up’) 21 fl (or 21 £5 exfS 22 exfS @xd4! 23 Wadd Woo 24 RE Be5)) 21..c5! 22 fed Bxe5 23 Bhf3 Me7 24 Dde2 Hae8 (White's position is beginning to look vulnerable) 25 Af? Rxc3! 26 bxc3 xed 27 De2 Dxc3 28 Dxc3 Hxe3 29 Bxf7 ‘Wes 30 B12 Axd3! 31 Hxf8+ Bxt8 32 cxd3 Axf2 33 Wuf2 Wxc3 and White resigned. following the Points to Remember 1) White often plays a very quick g4-g5, attacking the f6-knight. On most occasions Black must be ready to retreat with ..d7, so the d7-square must be available for this purpose. Sometimes, however, Black can slow down White's pawn lunge with ...n7-h6 (ee Line B1). 2) One of Black’s main sources of counterplay is the weakness of White’s e4-pawn (emphasised by the move 6 f4!). Black can gang up on the pawn in a methodical way with ...b7-b5, ...2.b7, ...Ad7-c5 and ...b5-b4. 3) If White plays an early WE3 (Lines B1 and ©), Black can force the d4-knight to retreat to a less active square with ...Wb6. Once the queen has achieved this objective, it usually settles back on c7 in order to arrange wbT-bS. 4) The move ...b8-d7 is often an effective way for Black to meet the developing move d3, Black can then play .@d7-c5, adding pressure to e4 and giving Black the option of exchanging White’s potentially powerful bishop. 5) Black's £8-bishop doesn’t automatically belong on the £8-a3 diagonal. In many in- stances the bishop is fianchettoed on g7. Here it gives the castled king protection and dissuades White from advancing with e4-e5. ©) White sometimes prevents expansion with ..b7-b5 by playing an early a2-a4. How- ever, Black can then employ a ‘smaller’ fianchetto with ...b7-b6 and ...2b7. 179CHAPTER NINE 6 g3 1 e4 cB 2 Af3 dé 3 d4 cxd4 4 Dxda 246 5 De3 a6 6 g3 6 g3 is an outwardly quiet move that can still lead to very sharp positions. If Black adopts the Scheveningen structure play can become very similar to the main lines of the Classical Scheveningen (see Chapter 6). In- deed, in some ways White gains as his light- squared bishop can be well placed on g2 (in the Classical White often ends up playing Se2-f3-g2!), On the other hand, if White chooses to pawn storm on the kingside, he loses a tempo with the g-pawn (here it's g2- g3-e4-25, as opposed to g2-p4-g51). Also g3- g4 sometimes needs more preparation (on 2 the bishop doesn’t support the initial advance). 6...06 6..e5 would keep the game in Najdorf channels. 7 fig2 2e7 8 0-0 0-0 Many publications, includiag ECO and NCO, list 8..We7 as the main move hete. OF course there are many transpositions, but 1 prefer to delay this move — in some lines the queen may wish to remain on ¢8, In this way I believe that some of the more dangerous lines (for example, 8..We7 9 £4 0-0 10 g4 Deb 11 Axc6 bxcG 12 g5) can be avoided. After 8..0-0 White's two main choices are the following: Alternatively: a) 9 gt Dc 10 gh Axd4 12 Wsdd DdT 12 h4 b5 13 Vc3 Lb7 14 a4 Bc6 with an equal position, Stefanov-Kr.Georgiev, Sofia 1984, b) 9 Acé 10 Axc6l? (10 Wes We7 transposes to Line B2) 10..bxe6 11 e5!? (trying to exploit the absence of the queen on cD) Idxe5 12 Wxd8 (12 fxe5 Wxdi 13 Exdl Ags 14 xc Hbs8 and Black regains the pawn) 12..Rxd8 13 Bxc6 (13 fre5 Ded 14 &xc6 Hb8 reaches the same position) 13..Bb8 14 fxe5 Dg4 and White will not be 1806 93 able to hold on to his extra pawn. ©) 953 We7 10 @b2 Basi? 11 24 Aco 12 h3 2d7 13 Bet Le8! 14 Wd2 Rack and Black can continue with ...xd4 and ...b7-b5, Short-Suba, Dortmund 1983. A) 9 a4 Ac6 10 Ab3 ‘White plans to create a bind on the queenside with a4-a5. Note that 10...b62 is impossible due to 11 ¢5. Other white tries include: a) 10 &c3 Wc7 transposes to Line B. b) 10 Axc6l? bxc6 11 eb dxe5 (11.005 12 exd6 Wxd6 13 Det We7 also looks reasonable for Black; the pawn on a4 would rather be back on a2 because the natural ¢2- c4 now leaves a gaping hole on b4) 12 &xe6 8 and now: bi) 13 We2 We7 14 $2.22 Ba8 and Black's activity and open lines compensate for his compromised pawn structure, Gymnopou- los-Vouldis, Athens 1997 b2) 13 Wad8 Bxd8 14 a5? dst 15 Bat Dxc3 16 Exd8+ Lxd8 17 bxc3 Mxa5! 18 Hxa5 Ebi and Black went on to win in Ab- dul Karim-Sziraki, Eger 1992, The stronger 14 Ed should be met by 14.247 15 &xd7 @®xd7 and Black will follow up with ...{7-£5. 10...2a5! An exchange of minor pieces eases Black’s defence. 11 Dxad Wxa5 12 £e3 Alternatively: a) 12 &d2 We7 13 a5 Bd7 14 Be3 Bac8 15 f4 Bc6 16 Bia Ad7 17 Sd4 Bees 18 Be2 @c5 with a level position, Martinovic- Kofidis, Athens 1993. b) 12 g4 Ad? 13 Qd2 We7 14 hi Abs 15 £4 b5 16 axbS axb5 17 g5 He8! and Black will proceed with ...28, ...g7-g6 etc., Kam- sky-Polugaevsky, Reggio Emilia 1991. 12...2d7 13 Wd2 Or 13 We2 &c6 14 Bfd1 Bad8 (14. Bfds followed by ...Hac8 also looks reasonable) 15 Mabt 5 (this is far from forced) 16 exd5, and now 16... Dxd5 17 DxdS Lxd5 18 Bxd5 Bixd5 19 Hxd5 Wad5 leaves Black with no problems. 13...teh8! A prophylactic measure against the idea of 5, 14.3 206 15 Rfd1 Kfd8 16 ada Zack Black has no real worries in this position. ‘The game Serper-Epishin, Uzhgorod 1987 continued 17 We3 Ad7 18 Bd5 Bxds! 19 exd5 05 20 2c3 We7 21 a5 (5 22 Mact Bes with a roughly level position. B) 9 Re3 White's most popular move. In most positions the bishop belongs on e3 so White sees no reason to delay the inevitable ic Now White’s two main moves are: 181Play the Najdorf B1: 10 We2 B2: 10 £4. a) 10.4 (his is likely to transpose to other lines) 10..Wc7 and now: al) For 11 We2 see the note to White’s 11th move in Line B1. a2) 11 £4 He8 12 #h1 Bb8 transposes to Line B2 a3) 1? @®b3 is premature. Following: 11..Ae5t the idea of ...Acad is awkward for White to meer. a4) 11 Axc6 bxc6 12 ad!? Ad? 13 Dad c5 14 65 d5 (or 14,.Bb8 15 exd6 &xd6 16 Wad2 &e5 17 c3 Bb5, when both sides have weaknesses, Cosma-Kirov, Val Thorens 1992) {5 cd QbT 16 cxd5 exdS 17 Bxd5 Axed 18 ifs Bad8 19 Dc3 Wa7 20 Qxe5 xd5 21 ®xd5 Wxd5 and the position has simplified to equality, Iskov-Nicholson, Ramsgate 1979, a5) 11 h3 Ld7 12 gt Aixd4 13 Bxd4 Beco 14 g5 Dd7 15 Wes bS and Black is okay, Zatonskih-Baciv, Bucharest 1998. b) 10 Axc6 bxc6 anata Y, a a & poeeee Ba HOR and now: bl) 11 e5 Bd5 12 exdé Rxdg 13 Haz Bbs 14 Dad? 5 15 4 De7 16 Hc3 DS 17 b3 e5 and Black will continue with ...Ad4, Kudrin-De Firmian, US Championship 1983. 2) 11 Dad Bb8 (11...d5 also looks sensible) 12 c4 c5 13 We2 We7 14 Bad! &b7 15 @c3 Da7 16 fF Kbd8 17 Bd3 Dbs! and the knight heads to 6, eyeing up the dd-square, Alvanov-Lesiege, San Felipe 1998. B1) 10 We2 With this move White signals that he is happy with a slow and deliberate set-up, He is unlikely rush into a kingside attack, al: though this may eventually be his ambition. 10...We7 11 Had1 Or 11 a4 &d? and now: a) 12 Hadi transposes to the text. b) 12 @xc6 can either be answered by 12,.S2x06 of 12...bxc6!2, intending to meet 13 g4? with 13..d5! (Gelfand, Atlas) ©) 12 h3 Des! (Black eyes the c4-square — a common goal when White’s light-squared bishop no longer controls the fl-a6 diagonal) 13 Béd1 Back 14. dh] Dc 15 ct g6 (planning ...c6-e5 without allowing Af) 16 b3 @a5 17 Vb2 5 18 AL3 Beas with a level position, Gavrikov-Van der Wiel, London 1985. d) 12 Db3!? DeS! 13 Had1 Bac8 (or 13..e4 14 Lect b5!? 15 axb5 axb5 16 e5 dxe5 17 @xa8 Bxa8 with compensation for the exchange ~ Gelfand, Adas) 14 £4 Ded 15 Bct b5 16 axb5 axb5 and Black’s queenside counterplay is well on the way, Ledic-Cebalo, Pula 1992 11,.,.2d7 t at aa a re 12 a4 It makes sense for White to forestall ...b7- 1826 93 b5. Other lines allow Black quick counter play, for example: a) 12 h3 b5 13 a3 Bfe8 14 £4 Babs 15 Dxe6 Bxc6 and Black will continue with 106-25 and ...b5-b4, Jongsma-Spassky, Am- sterdam 1970, b) 12 Ab3 b5 13 a3 Babs 14 £4 ba! 15 axb4 @xb4 with a comfortable position for Black. In the game Hecht-Ivkov, Reach 1969 White now blundered with 16 g422, allowing 16..Dxc2! 17 Wrxe2 Bad! — a trick worth remembering. ©) 12 f4 ®xd4 and now: cl) 13 @xd4 Rc6 14 f5 e5 15 Le3 bS 16 a3 (16 $25 b4 17 Bxi6 Qxf6 18 Dds Lxd5 19 Bxd5 Bfc8 20 Bf2 Wh6 ~ Cvetkovie — is level) 16...a5! 17 gl? (17 &g5 is safer) 17..b4 18 Ad5 Sxd5 19 exdS bxa3! 20 bxa3 h6! and Black wants to continue with ..@h7 and 2.g5, Sax-Cvetkovic, Vrajacka Banja 1974, 2) 13 Hxd4 &c6 14 Bfdl Bac8 15 £5 5 16 B4d2 b5 17 23 h6 18 h3 Wb7 19 ds Sxd5 20 exdd &d8! and Black follows up with ...2b6, Rasik-Plachetka, Czechoslova- kian Championship 1991. 12,..Bac8 13 4 13 h3 looks a little too slow. In Stocek- Jansa, Czech League 1994 Black gained an advantage after 13..Dxd4 14 Hxd4 e5 15 Ead2 Qe6 16 Bhai Was! 17 gs Wha! 18 Bxf6 (18 Hb1?? loses to 18..Exc3!) 18..2xf6 19 Bxd6 Wxb2 20 Dds Sxd5 21 Boxd5 Bxc2. This plan of ...WaS-b4 can prove troublesome for White. He should probably play 16 bi! Wa5 17 b4 We7 18 @d5 Axd5 19 exd5 £65, with an unclear position, 13...xd4 Or 13...Afe8 14 h3 Dxdd 15 Hed Bo 16 Ee2 d5 17 e5 Ad7 with a roughly level position, Adas-Adler, Swiss League 2002. 14 Bxda Or 14 Sixd4 €5 15 Bc3 b5!? 16 axbS axb5 17 ®xb5 LxbS 18 Wxb5 Bbs 19 Was Exb2. 14...806 15 Bd2 ‘The game Hoepfl-Schmidt, Wiirzburg 1993 continued 15...d5!? 16 e5 Ded 17 Axe dxe4 18 3 bS 19 axb5 Axb5! 20 c4 Lc6, when the weakness of e4 is compensated by the one on b3. Instead, after 16 exd5 Dxd5 17 Drd5 Sxd5 18 Rxd5 exd5 19 Bxd5 Wes Black regains his pawn with an equal position. B2) 1014 ‘The most aggressive move. White begins limbering up for a kingside assault. 10...We7 11 d2h1 Alternatively: a) 11 Axcé bxc6 12 Dad (we've seen this idea before; Black’s response is pretty standard) 12...8.b7 13 c4.c5 14 Ac3 Had8 and now: al) 15 g4 Bfe8 16 g5 Dav 17 Wad2 268 183Play the Najdorf 18 Bad? g6 19 Bhi £5! 20 gxt6 Axf6 and Black will continue with ..2g7, Larsson- Andersson, Swedish ILeague 2000. a2) 15 Hcl Ad7 16 g4 Hfes 17 g5 2£8 18 WE (Holzke-Mainka, Porz 1992) and now I like Hiibner’s suggestion of 18...) 11,,.Bb8 Or 11..2d7 12 ®b3 b5 13 a3 (Honfi- Jansa, Trnava 1982) and now Jansa recommends 13..Bfe8!, intending to meet 14 g4 with 14...2c8 15 g5 Dd7. 12 a4 HeB Play very much resembles Line B in Chap- tet 6, except of course White's light-squared bishop is developed on g2 rather than €2. | explained in the introduction to this chapter, this has both positive and negative ef- fects. One problem for White is that he cannot play the immediate 13 942! due to 13..Axd4! 14 @xd4 e5 and Black wins a pawn (White doesn’t have enough after 15 a7 Ba8 16 g5 Bxa7 17 gxto &xf6 18 Ads Wd8). This helps to explain White’s next move, although of course in some ways he would prefer to wait until Black commits himself with ...£247. 13 Db3 Sharper is 13 e5!? dxe5 (13..2ixd4? 14 Aixdd Dd? 15 Wed gave White a strong position in Hamdouchi-Lautier, Cap d'Agde 1994) 14 fxe5 (Lutz gives 14 Axc6 bxc6 15 fre5 dS 16 @xd5 exd5 17 Bxf7! Re! and Black will follow up with ...Bxb2 with a level position) 14..Axe5 15 Bf4 Dfd7 16 DE £6 17 We2 g5 18 DxeS Axed 19 Bxe5 Wes 20 WeeS fxe5 21 Maet Bee 22 Bxf8+ dext8 23 Bxe5 h6, when Black’s bishop pair compensate for his slightly inferior structure, Solak- Paunovic, Herceg Novi 2001. 13...b6 14 94 We have arrived at a position that now very much resembles those seen in the Classical. ‘The tempo count is a bit confusing but I will try to explain. Overall White has gained a tempo on the kingside (he’s won two with the bishop but lost one with the g-pawn). On the other hand, Black’s ¢8-bishop has gained a couple of moves by not going to d7 and back. Fi- nally, Black has played ...b8, which is useful, but not always necessary. Anyway, I don’t think Black’s chances are any worse than in the Classical. The game De Firmian- Hiastarson, Bermuda 1997 continued 14..Qb7 15 95 Ad7 16 B63 68 17 Bh3 26 18 Wed Abs 19 Bel 65 20 ext Axf6 21 Wht 27 22 86 AES with a typically double-edged position. With Black's rook on b8 already, Black could also consider 14...d7 15 g5 DaS!?, gaining counterplay in the usual way. Points to Remember 1) One common plan for White is to play an early Axc6 bxe6 and to follow this up with e4-e5 or Dad and c2-c4. 2) With the light-squared bishop no longer guarding the fl-a6 diagonal, Black’s plan of c6-e5-c4 becomes more enticing. 3) Black doesn’t necessarily need to play an early ..We7 in this line. By omitting this in favour of other development, Black can avoid some of the more dangerous lines at White’s disposal 184CHAPTER TEN Other Sixth Moves for W 1 e4 cB 2 Of3 dé 3 d4 oxd4 4 Dada AKG 5 Ac3 a6 In this final chapter we shall take a look at rather offbeat ideas that White can employ on move six. When I thought about the content for this hapter I imagined it would be a bit of light relief from the heavy theoretical discussion of moves such as 6 Sg5, 6 Red etc. However, I soon found out that moves like 6 Hgi!? have been amassing theory of their own! It seems like even the world’s top players are willing to try anything in order to bamboozle the Najdosf player. Here we will study the following moves: A: 6 Hg1 B: 6 h3 C: 6 243 Alternatively: a) Against 6 9.£42? I will finally recommend the Najdorf move 6..5! b) 6 £3 is a perfectly reasonable move and has actually been seen quite a lot recently, ‘The idea is that White wants to play an Eng- lish Attack but without allowing the variation 6 Se3 Dgd. For us this is of little relevance — after 6 £3 e6 7 Se3 play simply transposes to Chapter 4. ©) 6 a4 is another often-played move that for us will just transpose to other chapters. Following 6..06, 7 &c4 reaches Chapter 1, 7 &e2 tansposes to Chapter 5, 7 £4 gives us Chapter 8, and finally 7 2d3 b6 8 0-0 @bd7 transposes to Line C in this chapter. A) 6 Bgi!? Mock this move at your peril ~ at the time of writing even Garry Kasparov has a minus score against it! White’s plan is simply to play as in the Keres Attack and force @2-e4. Unless Black is willing to go to extreme lengths with 6.51? (it has been played), then this cannot be prevented. However, Whice’s carly flank play gives Black enough time to organise a quick counter in the centre 185Play the Najdorf 6...06 7 94 d5!? 8 exd5 ‘The most sensible move. 8 e5 must be playable but somehow it doesn’t seem to fit in with White’s previous play. Following 8..2fd7 9 £4 Dc6 10 Ge3 we have a French Defence structure where White has played couple of strange moves (g2-g4 and Bgl) on the kingside. Black has several ways to play but one enticing possibility is 10..Wb6!? and now: a) After 11 We2 Black can safely grab the pawn with 11..Wxb2 12 Bb1 Wa3, White can hardly claim compensation when his own king is still unsure where to go. b) 11 Bad WaS+ 12 c3 and now 12.,@ixd4 13 Whd4 b5 14 Db6 LS 7} 2 3 2a ae Be looks at first sight as if it wins on the spot, but White can play 15 WxcS!! Axc5 16 &x5 Eb8 17 ad! (threatening b2-b4) 17..bxa4 18 b4 and Black is worsel. Instead Black should play 12..We7!, when the ideas of ...b7-b5 and 97-95)? assure him of excellent counterplay. c) 11 a3 Bc5 12 Dat WaSt 13 32 (13 Dc3 is better, after which Black, if he wishes, can repeat with 13,.Wb6) 13..2xd4 14 Bxd4 Dxdd 15 Wadd (or 15 b4 AB+! 16 ef2 We? 17 Wef3 5) 15..We7 16 b4 g5! and Black is better. 8...Dxd5 9 Dxd5 After both 9 &d2 Ae6 10 Dxc6 bxeb 11 WES 2.d6 and 9 2p2 Axc3 10 bxc3 We7 it’s White who's struggling for equality. 9...Wxd5 10 £3 After 10 &g2 We5+ 11 @e3 there’s nothing stopping Black grabbing a pawn with 11... Wxh2 before cetreating back with ..Wc7. 10...Wa5 + Black doesn’t necessarily have to throw in this check. 10...2e7 11 Wd3 (or 11 &g2 Wed) 11..0-0 12 Bg2 Was+ 13 2d2 Weds+ 14 Be3 Wa5+ 15 Sd2 We7!? 16 0-0-0 Ad7 17 hd Hd8 18 g5 Ac5 19 We3 eS was okay for Black in Landenbergue-Maksimenko, Geneva 1996, 113 Or 11 Wd2 &b4 12 c3 Be7 13 Lg2 0-0 14 Db3 We7 15 0-0-0 Ad? 16 &b1 Abe 17 Sxb6 Wxb6 and Black has the long-term plus of the two bishops. In the game Fressi- net-Shipov, Hastings 1998/99 ie’s instructive how Black manages to slowly unravel: 18 £4 Eds 19 We2 We7 20 Bxd8+ @xd8 21 Wed Ebs 22 Bal Re7 23 Add 218 24 Ds3 bS 25 DegS 26 26 Wes Wxe5 27 fxe5 Be7 28 Det b7 29 Ha7 Ge8 30 BF3 b4 31 c4 BeB 32 FRd3 Axed 33 xed Bc8 and now Black has a clear plus due to the weakness on ¢5. Thave found three practical examples after 11 c3 and I suspect that Black has a perfectly playable position here. a) 11..We7 12 hd Be7 13 We2 Dd7 14 0-0-0 Acs 15 Bg2 Wd7 16 g5 0-0-0 17 Hada 96 18 Db3 Axb3+ 19 Wxb3 Lc6 20 Bxc6 Wxc6 was level in Waitzkin-Fedorowicz, New York 1999. b) 11..e7 12 g5 0-0 13 Bd3 €5 14 Ab3 186Wad 15 Wh 96 16 WS Deo 17 h4 Ra8 18 e4 Le6 was unclear in Waitzkin-Pelletier, Bermuda 1999. c) 11..2d7 (the most straightforward — Black plans ..Ac6) 12 Bg? (lordacheseu- Vorobiov, Kiev 2000) and now either 12..De6 13 Wh3 We? or 13 Wd2 Basi? (Pracnik) seems to give Black a comfortable game. B) 6h3 With a similar idea to 6 Bgl — White continues his obsession with g2-g4 6...06 7 g4 bS 7..d5 8 exd5 @xd5 is also playable (and equal), although White’s position makes a bit more sense after 9 £d2 or 9 Ade? than with the rook on gi and pawn on h2, 8 ag2 Or 8 g5 Dfd7 9 Be3 (9 Rg?! Sb7 transposes to the note to move nine) 9...2b7 10 £3 Db6 and we have reached a kind of Eng- lish Attack where White has played the use~ less 2-3. 8...2b7 9a3 Another possibility is 9 g5 @fd7, for example: 10 £4 ®c6 11 Axc6 &xc6 12 Be3 bd (or simply 12...2e7 and 0-0) 13 De2 Dc5 14 Dg3 Renet-Murey, Lyon 1988) and now I suspect that Black should simply continue with 14...Qc7 followed by ...0-0. Other Sixth Moves for White 9.407! Prophylaxis against e4-e5, g-g5 and £2-f4 (which can now be met by ...Wh4+). 100-0 2e7 Those looking for more adventure could do worse than try the positionally-motivated 10...g5!2. Black’s idea is to clamp down on the dark squares and secure the e5-square as an outpost for the d7-knight. In the game Skorchenko-Petrushin, Krasnodar 1999 Black’s plan succeeded and after 1: Dde2 hS 12 gxh5 Hxh5 13 3 De5 14 fl xf 15 Dxf4 Bh7 16 We2 Dbd? 17 Wi2 Bes 18 Bad Wh4 he had a unquestionable advan- lage. 11 14 Dc6 12 Le3 Axd4 13 Wxd4 0.0 Black has sufficient resources in this position, The game Fontaine-Lautier, Marseilles 2001 continued 14 a4 $.c6 15 axb5 axb5 16 b4 and now Black seized the e5-square with 16.5 17 Wa3 exf4 18 Bxf4 Des, c) 1 e4 c5 2 D3 dé 3 dé oxd4 4 Dxd4 O46 5 De3 a6 6 LAB ‘A very sensible-looking move (especially when compared to 6 Egi and 6 h3!). I’m surprised this isn’t tried more often, 6...06 Of course there are other ways to play this position, but you must be getting used to this move by now! 70-0 187Play the Najdorf 7 4 Abd7 transposes to Line B in Chap- ter 8. 7...Qbd7!? As T’ve mentioned before, I like developing the knight on d7 when White's bishop goes to d3. Black can at some point play ~-Dc5 to attack the e4-pawn and allow the option of exchanging on <3. Bad Preventing ..b7-b5, but Black now opts for the ‘small’ fianchetto. 8 f4 transposes to Line B2 in Chapter 8. 8...b6 9 f4 2b7 10 Wi3 10 We2 should be answered by 10...2c8i. 10...g6!? Pressurising €4 with 10...c5 also can’t be bad, for example: 11 2e3 Ec8 12 Kael Re? 13 hi Wa7! 14 Sgt g6 with a level position, Westerinen-King, London 1988. 11 Aib3 &g7 12 Wh3 We7 13 2e3 Oi ene Here the game Semeniuk-Rublevsky, Rus- sia 1999 continued 13...h5!? 14 hl Dgs 15 Agi Dc5 with an unclear position. Black also has the option of playing more solidly with 13..0-0 14 (5 Zac8! Points to Remember 1) 6 igi and 6 h3 are unusual bur certainly not bad. 2) An early 43 can be met effectively by ~Dbd7, 3) When faced with a move you haven't seen before, keep calm. Typical Schevenin- gen development should assure you of a playable position. 188INDEX OF VARIATIONS 6 2c4 1 e4 c5 2 DFS dé 3 d4 cxd4 4 Dxd4 DIE 5 Dc3 a6 6 Lcd 6 7 Sb3 70314 Tad 16 7...b5 8 0-0 8 We2 19 8 £4.20 8 e527 9 WES 9. WWb6 25 9..Wc7 27 8...2e7 9 WS 9 f4 Sb7 10.5 37 10 Be3 30 9...We7 9. Wb6 10 Le3 57 10 2g5 47 10 Wo3 10 Bet 35 10...De6 11 Axc6 11 Des 39 11...lWixe6 12 He &b7 13 a3 43 13 Wsg7 46 13 £342 189Play the Najdorf 6 Be3 1 ed c5 2 O13 d6 3 d4 cxdd 4 Axd4 DLE 5 Ac3 a6 6 Le3 e6 7 13 7 WS 56 7 ethS 8g5 61 8 gxh5 59 7.5 7.7 8 Wd2 Nc6 9 40-0 10 0-0-0 Axda If &xdd 68 11 Wed4 65 8 Wd2 8 4 h6 9h4 73 9 Wd2 75 8...2\bd7 9 g4 AG 10 0-0-0 &b7 11 WE2 11 g5 79 11 &d3 80 11...Dfd7 12 Bd3 85 12 Sebi 83 6 Be2 1 04 65 2.23 d6 3 da cxdd 4 Axdd Df6 5 “c3 a6 6 Le2 e6 7 0-0 7 Ac3 89 7...8t07 8 £4 0-0 9 03 9 23 95 9 deh We7 10 Wel 92 10 Le3 94 9.,.De6 10 a4 10 £3 97 10 ht 99 10 Wel Axd4 11 xd b5 12.03 109 12 Bat 107 12 263 106 10,247 11 We3 104 11 Rat 102 11 @h1 102 10...We7 11 ht 11 Wel 112 11...Hes 11...8d7 12 Wet 115 190Index of Variations 12 Db3 b6 13 2 Hees 14 94 122 14 Wa2z 179 14 We2 119 12 2f3 12 Wel 126 12.a5 128 12 &d3 130 12...848 13 Db3 136 13 gd 134 13 Wd2 135 6 &g5 1 e4 c5 2 AS d6 3:d4 cxd4 4 Axd4 MIG 5 Dc3 a6 6 g5 e6 7 14 7 WES 145 7 Wa3 144 7 We2 142 7...We7 8 Wt3 8 Bd3 149 8 We2 147 8 Qxf6 gxf6 9 Ber 153 9 Wad2 152 995 151 8..b5 8.6 154 915 9.0-0-0 160 9 Bxf6 156 9...b4 164 9.26 162 6 f4 1 04 c& 2 23 dé 3 d4 cxd4 4 Dxd4 At6 5 Dc3 ab 6 14 e6 7 WIS 7 G03 167 7 &d3 DbaT 80-0 172 8 Ws 171 8 DEB 170 7.66 8 Db3 176 8 a3 174 191Play the Najdort 6 g3 1 e4 c5 2 DiS d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Axd4 Df6 5 Ac3 a6 6 g3 e6 7 Lg? Le7 8 0-0 0-0 ed 9 a4 181 9 £4 180 9...D06 10 £4 183 10 We2 182 10 Dxc6 182 Others Sixth Moves for White 1 04 c5 2 Df3 dé 3 d4 cxdd 4 Axd4 D6 5 Dc3 a6 6 Ad3 157 6h3 187 6 Api 185 624 185 6 83-185 192play the najdorf. scheveningen style The Najdorf Sicilian is one of the most sharp, dynamic and popular openings that Black can play and is a firm favourite amongst the world’s elite players, including world number one bear on dod aoe 8M ola hol ce oe ees cee od to reach a position in which one can play for the win without coool) Colac Bias esa a elem Cia eal moles Sie to Nee eee en Rec iehTarelt at of theory amassed on this great opening. In Play the Najdorf: See CnC MCC mem UR als tot John Emms condenses this mountain to produce a workable ‘black repertoire against all of White's possible options. Emms Pere ger altel Rea M Re Rs eee eR wel eee ea thus establishing the well-known Scheveningen pawn structure. & Explains an opening championed by Garry Kasparov ® Written by a renowned openings theoretician ee er a eR sod John Emms is one of Gritain's strongest Grandmasters: Ree Basle RC UR Lg He now has many works to his name, including Sicilian Kan CURR ee MR ace Reset sie ail very popular openings bible Nunn's Chess Openings. DL al Ce Rue ee ca eg DR Re Ua eee £14.99 $19.95,

John Emms - Play The Najdorf - Scheveningen Style - A Complete Repertoire For Black in This Most Dynamic of Openings-Everyman Chess (2003) PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

John Emms - Play The Najdorf - Scheveningen Style - A Complete Repertoire For Black in This Most Dynamic of Openings-Everyman Chess (2003) PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like