Viktor Moskalenko i th oe on agg then a 5 vildor 2 i The. % % Kortchnot Bench s Yn fing Strategic Ideas & Surprise Weapons for Dynamic Chess PlayersViktor Moskalenko The Wonderful Winawer Strategic Ideas & Surprise Weapons for Dynamic Chess Players New In Chess 2010Acknowledgements This book is dedicated to my wife Tatiana, since her character is far more complex shan the whole Winawer System! But I would also like to dedicate it to all ‘Francophiles’in the chess world — as basi- cally this isa repertoire book forthe black side Many thanks to the friendly grandmaster Viktor Kortchnoi, who wrote sympatheti cally about my two French books in his foreword. Kortchnoi has been walking through the French labyrinths for many years ~ all on his own and never in need of a map. My gratitude goes out to Lluis Delgado for his help with the translation, And, of course, to the editing team of New In Chess.© 2010 New In Chess Published by New In Chess, Alkmaar, The Netherlands www.newinchess.com All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission from the publisher. Photos: New In Chess Archives Cover design: Steven Boland. Supervisor: Peter Boel Proofreading: René Olthof Production: Anton Schermer ISBN: 978-90-5691-327-4Contents New In Chess Code System. : 6 Foreword by Viktor Kortchnoi 7 Introduction. . a) Part One — White and Black Deviations . An Introduction to the Open Game ee eee eee IS Chapter 1 ~The Anti-Winawer: no e4-e5 18 Chapter 2 ~ The Semi-Winawer: 4.¢5 e5 without 5.3. . cece Al Chapter 3 ~ Black Magic: 4.05 2e7 : 51 Part Two — The Sub- and the Old Winawer . ‘The Sub-Winawer: 4.05 5 5.3 2xe3+ 6.bxc3 Qe7 Chapter 4 — The Classical 7./0£3 and the Anti-Dynamic 7.a4 67 Chapter 5 ~The Sharp Flank Attack 7.hd #2 ‘The Old Winawer: 4.e5 c5 5.a3 Chapter 6 ~ Armenian Variation: 5.205 woes 102 Chapter 7— Knight System: 5...8xc3+ 6.bxe3 Ge? 7Wed OF 2... 116 Chapter 8 ~ Eingorn Variation: 5....xc3+ 6,bxc3 De7 7.Wed df8 128 Part Three ~ The Ultimate Winawer . 149 ‘Chapter 9 - Warsaw Variation: 7.Wg4 0-0. 151 Chapter 10~ Poisoned Pavn: 5.3 Si.xc34-6bxc3 ie? 7.Wed WoT /7..cxdd 188 Chapter 11 — Black Queen Blues: 5.a3 &xc3+ 6.bxc3 WaS 230 Index of Games. . . 260 Index of Variations 261 Index of Players 265 Bibliography sees mnNew In Chess Code System ‘White stands slightly better Black stands slightly better ‘White stands better Black stands better White has a decisive advantage Black has a decisive advantage balanced position unclear position ‘compensation for the material strong (sufficient) weak (insufficient) better is, weaker is ‘good move excellent move bad move blunder interesting move dubious move ” cz +2-ANAvMB OL tana only move o with the idea 4 attack - initiative 1 lead in development 1 counterplay 2 correspondence corr,Foreword by Viktor Kortchnoi Statistics show that about one million people on this earth are interested in chess, amateurs and professionals all together. Not a bad num- ber. At their service are many different profes- sional publishers, producing magazines and other sources of information, using the internet and other innovations, which have speeded up the pace at which information spreads, as well as the pace of chess life itself Chess books occupy a separate role Leading chess masters write about major tournaments, and share their experience, But books about particular openings are a differ- ent matter ~ they belong more to the realm of textbooks. The author, usually a high-class practitioner of the opening, explains the ideas, hidden behind the forest of variations, and gives a logical explanation of the character of the battle, which results from the chosen opening. Chess is acknowledged“ be a logical game, with a psychological sub-text. Consequently, the author should explain in the clearest possible way the direction of the two players’ thoughts, then the logical thoughts as they are crystallized on the board, and finally account for the psychological nuances of what is going on, So itis, that the author, besides a primitive listing of variations, also has to think of his fu- ture reader who will be studying the book eagerly ‘Therefore we can conclude that the author should have experience and with every book he develops his ability to explain his thoughts, Not all authors suffi- ciently understand the importance of explaining the ideas of the opening, but Viktor Moskalenko, the young author of the present book on the French Defence, has not lost sight of his responsibilities In 2008 a book appeared with the rather unusual title The Flexible French. We all know that the French is an opening, with hundreds of years of history behind it, but what is meant by ‘flexible’? Here there are several possible explanations. We know that there are groups of openings: so-called open games, semi-open games and closed games. Sometimes, at the player's wish, it is possible to transform a position from a semi-open to an open character. Is this how we should understand the phrase ‘flexible French’? Or another explanation: every opening has its own special structure or appearance. But the analyst will point out: “The French was played, but on the board we have a Sicilian structure’. This is also an interesting characteristic of this opening that might explain the title. However this may be, the author sets out the logical and psychological aspects of the opening and its drawbacks admirablyAnd now, two years later, a new book by Moskalenko on the French appears, and can see the serious thought he has put into setting out the different variations. He has even come up with his own classification. I have read a great deal about the French Defence, but this classification is something new for me. The present book deals with the Winawer Variation. But the main line thereof only arises after the moves 1.e4 06 2.d4.d5 3.0c3 Qb4 4.05 c5 5.a3 Sxc3+ 6.bxc3 The positions after 4.23, 4.We#, 4.2d2 and 4.Zge? he calls the ‘open Winawer’, whilst the positions after 5..2d2 or 5.Wg4 are “semi-Winawers’. It is an interesting, but rather complicated system. Fortunately, this author forgets neither the weak nor the strong among his readers and explains everything clearly T will point out several details. Like in most opening books, the present author makes liberal use of his own games, but not, I think, for the purpose of self- aggrandisement. It is simply that one understands and can analyse one’s own games more easily than those of other players. Moskalenko could not be accused of over- promoting himself since alongside his own games he also gives those of many of the acknowledged giants of the chess world. also note that our author very much likes to analyse the games of the greats ~ the world champions and their principal rivals, Well, firstly these games have been analysed many times. Secondly, though, the general class of such games is very high, and it is clear that the author enjoys looking at them again. Finally, he never fails to remind himself and his readers how a great player, in this position, played exactly this particular move! I should point out that the public always react sharply to great names, the fame of an author, his achievements and awards, and also his recent re- sultsin tournaments, ‘The majority of those who buy the book will look very carefully at the pub- Jisher’s blurb about the author and his approach. Moskalenko does not strike me as a particularly dry, classical author. His tales about the magic of the French Defence, his joyous commentaries on the dance of the black queen. his attempts to present some- ‘what dubious sidelines as perfectly sound means of avoiding the main lines, all point to his love of the fantastic, both at the board and away from it. Consequently, I am more interested in reading his account of new attempts to play the opening than in reading about main lines established for up to 200 years. And familiarizing oneself with Moskalenko's new ideas can only have a beneficial effect on the play of any reader, from amateur to professional. In this approach I can see many connections between this second book and the earlier, ‘flexible’ volume, which proves that the ‘two are in spirit actually one publication. It is pleasant for me to be able to say that this author, unlike many of his col- leagues, writes with soul. He believes passionately in every word he has written, and ‘wants everyone who reads the book to share his belief. The highest form in which the reader can show his beliefis by playing the lines recommended by the author! Viktor Kortchnoi September 2010Introduction Welcome to the Wonderful Winawer! The French Defence is the only classical opening which has not yet been an cout for twenty-odd moves in our days, The reason is probably that the pos the French are so specific and the ‘theoretical’ possibilities so boundless, t many cases a proper understanding of the French rules can be more practica the study of concrete variations and the help of a computer's engine. ‘A typical example is the dogma prevalent with many less educated playe’ the c8 bishop in the French is “bad’! In fact, the French bishop can be a much helpful piece, in defence as well as attack, than its counterpart on fl, or even a rook. The ultimate success in the use of these pieces chiefly depends on the st implemented by both sides. As a long-time French Defence fan (at least spre acToss two centuries!) I can say that there is no bad French bishop — there ar players who don't know how to use this wonderful piece! In this book, my second one dedicated to the French Defence, we exami highly complex Winawer Variation. Itis characterized by the moves 1.04 e6 2.44 d5 3.263 b4Since the days of Aaron Nimzowitsch (1886 1935) and Mikhail Hotvinnik (191 1995), who were the first pioneers of th Defence, the Winawer System emerged as a result of the historical and theoretical development of the French, and therefore this variation includes all typical French resources — but it also has its own particular aspects, both strategic and tactical, In the middle of the 20th century, the French Defence (and mainly the line 3.4c3 Abs) was tested at the highest level in the World Championship matches Smyslov-Botvinnik (1954 and 1957) and Tal-Botvinnik (1960 and 1961). Soon ‘enough, great experts in the French Defence appeared, such as Tigran Petrosian, Viktor Kortchnoi, Wolfgang Uhlmann, Rafael Vaganian and a whole army of ‘Francophiles ‘Thanks to their ‘modern-classical” games, the French Defence has become one of the ‘most popular and complex openings today, It is amazing to see how many important, and exciting games are played with the French Defence every month, Directions The main ideas of the 3...Sb4 pin are quite simple: attacking the centre and not wasting any tempi (as in the Classical Variation 3...2f6 4.5). The king’s knight stays on its mast flexible square: 98. Inthe event of ..,Ab4x’0c3 bxc3 Black will obtain a frvourable pawn structure. The other bishop can be exchanged after ..b6 and ...a6, or activated by manoeuvres such as Sd7-at or ..d7-e8-g6. ‘Meanwhile, White must take profit from his space aduantage, the weakness created on 7 (through We4!), the mobility of his minor pieces, and also the attacking resources offered by theh-pawn with hot (The Flexible French, page 2.12, by the same author) White has four main methods to develop his opening play: 1) Anti-Winawer: avoiding the advance e¢-e5. 2) Semi-Winawer: playing 4.5, but without including the key move 5.a3. These first two methods can be found in Part I—"The Open Game (Chapters 1-2). 3) Sub-Winawer: after 5.a3 &xc3 White plays classically slow, developing and trying to make progress on all parts of the board. Otherwise, White can try 2 sharp flank attack with the h-pawn (h2-h4), See Part II - Evolution (Chapters 4-8) and Part I1—The Ultimate Winawer (Chapter 11). 4) Massive pressure on the kingside ~ this always starts with the white move ‘Wes. This method can be found throughout the book, and especially in Chap- ters 7-11. Of course, White can combine the different methods. Along the way, Black also has a number of deviations: 1) The Barricading method playing without the direct ..7-c5 (seen in Chapter 3) 2) The Armenian Variation — keeping the king's bishop: after 5.23, 5..2a5 (Chapter 6) 3) The Black Queen Blues Variation: 6...\aS and 7...\Wa4 (Chapter 11) Many other main lines and sub-lines will be examined throughout this bookStatistics Statistics are relative and should not be given all the credit since many ‘games are between players with very different ratings ~ in most of them White had a higher Elo. Therefore, sometimes itis interesting to check the results among high- rated players who are known for their deep theoretical preparation. In fact, when the author places the symbol (=) at the end of a line in this book, it does not mean that the game is a draw! There is still plenty of play in such positions Moreover, we should not forget that computer programs do not understand French lines too well and here they are less helpful than in other sharp opening positions. Inall aspects and at all levels the Winawer System offers creative play for both sides. White can test almost all lines offered in this book and even try to make them criti cal, buton the other side, almost all Black's counter-ideas are playable and sound. The book's structure allows the reader to study both the theoretical and the his- torical development of the main lines in the Winawer System, while enjoying the games of the great stars of the French Defence. There are 35 heavily commented model games. Each game in this book is an article with many stories, so each chapter is full of interesting issues. There is much to learn in The Wonderful Winawer! ‘My best wishes to all Francophiles, Viktor Moskalenko Barcelona, August 2010 Symon WinawerPart | - The Open Game: White and Black Deviations French Magic works from the very first moves. Afler 1.e4 ¢6 2.44.45 White must spend an im- portant tempo on defending, sacrificing, exchanging or advancing his ef pawn. Therefore the _game can very soon become quite complicated. (The Flexible French, page 149) Akethine used oop fran open game against the Winawer Here he plays Max Ewe atthe World Championship, 1935, Abit of History ~The Botvinnik Era Part I contains the history of some players and the theoretical development of many anti-Winawer lines. Since deviations are a typical phenomenon in any major system, we need to check all of them carefully. The ‘open game’ against the Winawer Variation was tried out in praxis by the fourth World Champion Alexander Alekhine (1892-1946), in full accordance with his fantastically active style, As an anti-Winawer weapon it was also popular during the era of the Patriarch — and great Francophile -, the sixth World Champion Mikhail Moiseyevich Botvinnik (1911-1995). Therefore this method was developed during the formation of the Soviet chess school, Many strong grandmasters, true ‘murderers of the French’, have been searching for sharp refutations of the Winawer Defence. We have to consider the games played by such fine players as Paul Keres and the World Champions Vasily Smysloy, Boris Spassky and Bobby Fischer. In spite of all this, history and statistics reveal another significant direction: in that era, the romantic style was still predominant among the best players in the ‘world, but nowadays these attractive variations are only appealing to amateur chess fans not professionals!Why is it that both theory and practice of the deviations have almost come to a standstill? Was it because Black found the best defences or because White found new attacking methods that are even more effective? Or was it because the new genera- tion changed their style completely? Perhaps it was a mixture of all these factors Directions — 1.e4 e6 2.44 d5 3.2c3 Sb4 HasWe ak ead Chapter 1—The Anti-Winawer White does not advance the e-pawn: A) 4.a3,4.Wg4, 4.047, 4.002 B) 4.243 or 4.Wd3 ©) 4exds Chapter 2 ~The Semi-Winawer (4.e5) After 4.e5 c5, White does not immediately play 5.23 A) 5.Wg4, 5.2f3 and 5.dxe5 B) 5.d2 Chapter 3 Black Magic After 4.e5 Black does not play his classical break ...c7-c5 immediately, but first plays 4...2e7!?, proposing to play a closed gameAn Introduction to the Open Game In the main deviations White tries to keep the centre semi-open. The game becomes quite forced and dynamic from the very first moves. Tactical Schemes A) Sacrificing the Centre A good tactical scheme is the early queen sortie 4.W4 in the anti-Winawer, where White immediately attacks Black's weakest point: the pawn on g7. However, with either a black or a white pawn on e4 this attack can be met with ...2f6! (see Games 13). xaswe Aaa i weaul ry a Asows | ® “waow AA a a | Ae WanllAwa® wAw|[AWAR BAB HS weon||m @ waan|p wean In the Semi-Winawer, after 4.e5 c5, the move 5.Wg4 introduces another sharp line, which was a popular attacking weapon in the era of Boris Spassky: zanve I aa ada a aad a A w ea A&B BAB Ef Saaz Here the best defence is 5...@e7, a move which leads to attractive complications (Game), Black can also try to avoid the sharpest lines of the Semi-Winawer by playing first 4..e7 instead of 4..c5 (Game 9).Tactical Schemes — B) Defending the Centre; C) Exchanging The ideas behind 4.843 and 4.1Wa3 are obvious enough Both moves aim to defend the e¢ pawn, maintaining the tension in the centre while trying to force Black to give up the centre by playing ...dxe4 (Game 5). ‘The resulting structures are symmetrical and hardly attractive after 4.exd5 exd5 (diagram right). This situation is especially bothering for genuine French players, who prefer to close the game and to play positions with a closed centre. However, here the game is very balanced, and I will present to you my own anti-method (see Game 6) Semi-Strategic Schemes In the Anti-Winawer, afier 4.4e2 (diagram left), White prepares a2-a3 with the main, fundamental idea of achieving the favourable trade 2x4 (Game 4), In the Semi-Winawer 4.e5 c5 and now 5.2 (instead of the main move 5.23) White prevents the doubling of the c-pawns, keeping a classical French structure (Game 8).A Statistics Report for two World Champions Alexander Alekhine as White versus the Winawer Variation Alekhine never closed the centre against 3....b4; he preferred an open game. 443, 4. Wed and 4.242 Here Alekhine won three attacking games: two against the 5th World Champion Max Euwe, playing 4.3 and 4.W4, and one against the strong grandmaster Salo Flohr with 4.242. His opponents did not make use of all the available opening resources to compensate for the weak position of their king (see the notes to Games 1-3). 50: winawer 408 In his game against Aaron Nimzowitsch (San Remo 1930) Alekhine used even an- other deviation: 4...c5 5.242 Mikhail Botvinnik as Black versus White’s Deviations B® aocwinawer 4.3: 6 games=3,5 points, The owo first victories were in early games against Ragozin and Romanovsky. But, significantly enough, Botvinnik sufferered one defeat and only made three draws against Vasily Smyslov during the 20th and 21st World Championship matches. 4.exd5: 5=4 (a good result, but obtained from bad opening positions! 4.Be2 dxed: 2 4d? dees 5.We4: 1-0 Botvinnik lost a spectacular game against Paul Keres see Game 3 DR seni winawer he lost against §.Wg4and 5.dxc5 and won after 5.42. [As we can see, Botvinnik scored quite poor results when facing rarer systems. Could it have been this that impelled his opponents to make this kind of choices in the ‘Winawer against Botvinnik — and even that those results may have had an influence on the popularity of these deviations? Nobody knows today. Keep in Mind The labyrinths of the deviations can be tricky and dangerous, but only if you are not well prepared.Chapter 1 - The Anti-Winawer es LL i iJ = Again Smo, Botan only sored 6-2 inher World Championship matches. Directions — 1.e4 e6 2.4 dS 3.2c3 &2b4 (lines without an immediate 4.¢5) Raowe ak aad ry} Pete A&& AAA |B OWeOAn In the anti-Winawer White does not advance his e-pawn, maintaining the tension in the centre and using his turn to achieve three possible aims: A) Sacrificing the e¢ pawn temporarily or even permanently: 4.a3 (Game 1), 4.We4 (Game 2), 4.242 (Game 3) and 4.2e2 (Game 4). These are dangerous, surprising weapons, recommended for tactical players. Black must be well pre- pared. B) Defending the pawn one: 4.£243 or 4.Wd3 (Game 5) ©) Exchanging, simplifying the pawn structure and the game: 4.exd5 (Game 6) Band Care quite modest lines with low winning chances.A) Sacrificing the Centre - Games 1-4 GAME 1 - Following famous game: 4.3 (1845 Mega games=51.1%) The ambitious move 4.a3 gained its first popularity thanks to Alekhine’s vic against Euwe (World Championship Match 1935, round 3), and also after some ceessfl games by the 7th World Champion Vasily Smysov, mainly against Botvir and Uhlmann. Later the legendary Bobby Fischer tried it in 6 games (4,5 poit hut usually against the Winawer/3....,2b+ he preferred the main pawn advance 4.¢ In modern chess this variation is quite rarely seen at the highest level. Howe wwe have to check some old games by Ukrainian grandmaster Gennady Kuzmin expert of 4.23, and some fresh ideas by Serbian grandmasters Miladinovic Ivanisevic, who still manage to find new attractive paths, helping White’s cause. Inthis book I could not leave out the following famous game, as a fine exampl Robert Fischer Vlatko Kovacevic Rovinj/Zagreb 1970 (8) 1.e4 €6 2.d4 d5 3.3 The most popular move in recent years. 3.ndb4 4.03 Vite Kowceve-an open game with Roby cher, White spends a tempo to force the ex- change 2x4, 4 SkxC+ (7..Oxd5 8.West) 8.dxc5it The retreat 4...@a5 must be weaker White has a pleasant choice between 5.b4 and the exchange 5.exd5, which is more favourable in this line. 5.bxc3 dxe4! Accepting the consequences is the right way. A solid try is 5...0e7, but as Psakhis has correctly commented, Black has dif- ficulty obtaining full equality after, for instance, 6.8d3 cS 7.exd5 exdS GXuzmin-Chernin, USSR Cup 1$ Black faces a tough struggle for the dt 6.Wg4l This manoeuvre is generally conside to be the most dangerous resot against the Winawer Variation. Black to face itin many lines. WEAPON: The Winckelme Riemer Gambit 68 can be swith the straightforward 6..c5! (6..e5probably « good alternative; 6.87 is given bry Watson) 7.Seu'3 Wa5! 8.dxc5 (in the game Simon-De Francesco, Balatonbereny 1995, White tried 8,fred Wrxc3+ 9.Sad2 Wada 10Afs Wred+F, but with three extra pawns you can never lose! 8...2\c6 (8...2f6I?) 9.cef2 Df6 10NWA6, as in Velicka-Babula, Czech tt 1994/5. analysis diagram Here, instead of 10..exf3 I recommend 10..2d5!, playing for the initiative (also 10..e7!?): 1Bel @xe3 12.Bxe3 e5!F. Black intends simply ..e6 and ...Bd8, for instance: 13.Rct e6! 14.2.x26 Bd8!, win- ning the queen 6.246! ‘The best defence versus Wg4 here 74x97 Remember the opening rule: Beware of taking pawns with the queen: they might be poisoned. 7.2198 8.Wh6 {Raawe =k We have reached the key position of the 4.3 variation: White has two bishops and he would like to open up the game, but the pawn structure favours Black (and the pawn on e4 is still a strong sol- dier which, by the way, will decide this game). Black has a few typical alternatives here Some of them follow the same concept, and it is advisable to consider them all: 8..Abd7, 8...c5, 8..LIg6 and &...b6. 8..bd7 Perhaps the most flexible move, and mainly good if connected to the the ‘matic flanchetto: ..b6 and ....b7. ‘A) Botvinnik’s favourite defence was the energetic break 8..c5!2 9.De2 Forced; < 9.dxc5 @bd7 10.2957! Ege 11 Bxfo Oxf6 12.We3 Was 13.Was a7 14.Wb+ We7 15.Hb1 0-0-0F with a huge lead in development for Black in Agamalian-Petrosian, Tbilisi 1944; 9.8b21 BA717= Psakhis 9.2066 The defensive resource 9...2g6 may be premature in some cases — see below. I think that saving this move for later is more useful: 10.Wd2 @bd7 (10...WWa5!? Banas-Knaak, Trnava 1981) 11.g3!7 (11Gb? b6 12.n3% &b7 13.Hgi We7 14.0-0-0 0-0-0 15.Wit= Smyslov-Botvinnik, Moscow Weh m-21 1954) 11..b6 12.8g2 Sb7 13.0-0 We7 14.a4!? 0-0-0 15.a5! eS 16.axb6 axb6 17.Wit Df3+ 18.8xf3 exf3 19.Wrc7+ Soxc7 20.f4 Higgs 21.dxc5 bxc5 22.431 G.Kuzmin-Dolmatoy, Moscow 1981, 10.dxe5!? Finally White tries to open the game and force mat- ters. 10.295 is a standard attack, but it does not seem dangerous here: 10...2g6 (10..2g422) 11.Wh4 cxd4e is good for Black in every case, a line which was originally played in Romanovsky- Botvinnik, Leningrad 1938. 10...1g6!|x swe | aa aa } i sary! | a & A A QRAB |\f @ een analysis diagram 11.Wd2 Wast? < 11.247 12.Rb1 Wer 13.Wd6= Smyslov-Botvinnik, Moscow Weh m-19 1954, 12,044 WxeS 12...a6? 13.@xc6 bxcé 14.Wddt Ziatdinov- Rozentalis, Moscow 1983. 13.a4!? 13.bS BAB! 14.a4 SyBH 13...26 14.03 WAS 1S.Bb1 247 16.203 Miladinovic-Halkias, Athens 1999, Now afer: 16..b51=* Black has a very good po- sition ~ but the game has just begun!; B) The most popular defence is 8..g6!? with a quite balanced game: 9.Wd2 9.We3 2c6!? and the knight heads to €7-£5/dS (or 9...5!? 10,@e2 De6 11.dxeS (after 11.£42 Black has many interesting moves; for instance, I like 11..exd4 12.exd4 b6z2) 11...Wa5!? (Botwinnik’s famous motif was 11...g4 12.Wxes Wdl+! 13.sbxd) Axi2+ \4sbel @xe4 15.Oft By8 16.243 @xcS 17.xh7 EHS 18.2432 Smyslov-Botvinnik, Moscow Weh m-7 1954) 12.fd2 Boleslavsky-Uhlmann, Krynica 1956, Now: 12..e5=) 10.b2 (10.4e2 Be7 11.g30 Kosteniuk- Hoang Thanh Trang, Dresden o! 2008) 10..b6 (10..Be7!?) 11.0-0-0 Sb7= Fischer-Uhlmann, Herceg Novi. blitz 1970) Sucb6 10.a412 As we will see in other Tines, this is a modern Serbian weapon (10.2b2 b7 11.0-0-0 Wd6 12.c4 Deo 13.63 0-0-0 14.Wel Qase smwslov-Uhimann, Moscow 1960) analysis diagram 10.261 11.2e2 2b7 12.04 Wa7! .®bS2!_ Miladinovic-B.Kovacevic, Murska Sobota t 2008. Now: 13.a5! 13.&b2 0-0-0F Black is better prepared for direct action, Fries Nielsen Sawadkubi, Hamburg 2005; C) Finally, 8.4b6 is also playable, and quite similar to our main line 8...bd7. At least I have not found any extra at- tacking resources for White: 9,@h3!? 9.Gg5 go? (9...bd7) 10.Whs 2b7 11Be2 (1L.&bS+ Dba? 12.0 Knaak) 11..86 12.Qxh6 Hg¢ 13.Wh3 Dcoi20; 9.g3 Wb7 10.Rg2 ge 11,.We2 S.ivanov-Nevanlinna, Jyvaskyla 2003, and now 11..WdS!. 9...8b7 10.8b5+ c6 10...bd7!= 11.2xd7 +7! xd7F. 11.Re2! Dba7 11...Bxg?? I2Ags! cS 13.A 3 14.Bx03; 11...c52! 12.dxcStt because of the open position. 12.Sg5 12.0-0 We7 13.a4-c5. 12...We7 13.0-0 0-0-0 = ‘analysis diagramThe game iy quite balanced, but the position is promising for Black right afer the opening. For instance: 14.f3 go! (now this resource works per- fectly) 15.Wh4 Bdg8! 16.éh1 h6 (here 16...exf3!? or 16..c5!? 17.fxet Hyxgs! are other weapons for Black) 17.2xf6 Wee 18.Wxf6 Qxf6 and Black's position is not worse here at the very least, Hector-Brynell, Tastrup 1990. 9e2 The most popular move and at least itis not worse than the alternatives: (fim A) The Serbian WEAPON 9.a4!? is a modern and dy- namic idea, played in many lines (with 4.03) by Ivanisevic and Miladinovic. White opens up the game to the maxi- mum, harassing the black king who has castled queenside. The queen's bishop may be activated along the diagonal 03-f8: 9...c5 9...06!? may be an anti- dote for Black: 10.a5 Dbd5 11.0e2 W6/?< preparing ....d7 and 0-0-0; or 9...b6 10.05 2.678 — no games with this line. 10.a5 We7 11.W a2 analysis diagram It looks as if White is wasting lots of tempi, but the situation is highly un- clear. The problem is the unsafe position ofthe black king. 11..b61? 11...0b8 12.402 Iwanisevle Psakhis, Internet blitz 2006. 12é\e2 12axbé Wxbé 13.Qe2 Ma6z 12.867 13.WE4 Miladinovic-Franic, Zadar 2007. Here, after 13...Wc8! Black's position is strong enough; qi 8) Ljnbojevic's WEAPON 9.2431? was a success for White in its time. White prepares Sg or gS ‘hile leaving the bishop on fl, with free de- velopment. However, after 9..b6! Black can {g0 back to the line 8.06 (9..c5 is very un- clear here: 10.¢2 Wa5 11.22 Kxg2?! 12.05 cxdd 13.Wg7 Brg! 14. x95 Wags 15.8195 drc3 16.0-0-0 and White's chances are better in the resulting ending, Ljubojevic-Kortchnoi, Tilburg 1986) 10.0g5 x 2We KD |A BA kok aA 4a © a aa AA & AA& (Bh 2 So 8 analysis diagram This possibility is one of the differences in comparison with @e2, but it doesn’t matter! 10..Bg6! 11.Wh4 2b7 12.2xh7 @xh7 13.Waxh7 Wf6! and Black has ob tained fantastic compensation for a pavin ~ apart from a certain psychologi- cal advantage! 14.Wh3 After 14h4 0-0-0! 15.g5 Eh8! Black is OK 14..,.0-0-0 15,.We3 We7 16.227! £5 17.0-0-0 26% with an excellent posi- tional game for Black: 18.¢4 Bf8 18..Dg4!?. 19.43 f41t, Rombaldoni- Rahal, Verona 2007;©) An amateur WEAPON: Black is better after 9.f32! 05! 1WLived (S 10.Bb2 exda! Hexdd Wa5F Watson) 10.06%. 9.6! Recommended by Vukovic in Sahovski Glasnik in 1935. The idea of the fianchetto with ...2b7 is a key con- cept for Black! (see also 8...b6) The sharpest option 9.5 can lead to many transpositions related with line A, 8...05: 10.0g3 We7!= A signifi- cant improvement on the following Classical game: 10...Bg62! After this toss of time Black's game becontes very dif- ficult (Alekhine) ... the position of the rook on 6 provides White with a motif for a number of dangerous tactical blows (Kotov) 11.We3 245? 12.Wxet Dxc3_13.Wd3F and White is much better because of the open position, Alekhine-Euwe, The Netherlands Weh m-3 1935; 10...WaS 11.22 b6 12ad cxdd 13.cxd¢ Was 14.We34 Ndlhovu-Hook, Novi Sad ol 1990. RUS eo AWA UA A oe we a Ra s & Boe a By AAS #8 SH analysis diagram 11.2b5 11,We3 (Fischer-Byrme, New ‘York ch-USA 1966) and now 11.,..b6!=. 11.6 12.Md2 12.We3 cxd4! 12.06 12..h5!2, 13.2e2 b6! The fianchetto at last. 14.0-0 &b7= Bloch-Hiuss, Siegen ol 1970. x 2We x a4 a4 ab or fan 8) AB S| BAOORAR ho Bo 54) 10.2g571 This pseudo-active move leads to disaster for the 11th World Champion. 10.2g3 is suggested by Smyslox, but Black has very positive results in this line. For instance: 10...28g6 (10....2b71? is similar) 11.Wad2 b7 12.hb? We? 13.0-0-0 0-0-0 14.04 Dgs! 15.h3? OxfIF Leiros Vila-Garcia Gonzales, Pontevedra 1986, Or 10.a4 36475 11.237! (H.Nielsen- Rosell, Denmark tt 1975/76) and now 11.58% 10..We7! Casting doubt over White's 10th move. The key move! White must meet the threat of 11..2g4~ (Kovacevic) 11.Whan ee TRCK ag? ght 2.bse7 Dxh6 13.4 Bet—+; THK OH Dott Bde Dxh6 13.84 DF. 112b7Kovacevic gives credit to Alatortsey for the moves up to this point. 12.5931? 12.@F4 he (12..0-0-017 13.0hS Beez 14.0 f4 Bxgsi? 15.Wags Kgs 16.Wbs eS! CGarcia-Crotti, Posadas 2005) 13.Waxh6 0-0-0 14.Wh4 Estevez Mo- rales-Vilela, Cienfuegos 1991. Here, af ter 14..2h8!? 15.0h5 WES 16.Lixf6 xfs 17.Wxf6 BxhSF Black has a clear Initiative for the pawn. 12..h61 The deviation theme, Black will be the first to gethis desired position. 13.042 TICK Wat? ass the bishop after 13..Dg4 14.2xe7 Dxh6 15.2h4 Bet. 13.xh6 Bgd 14.Wh3 0-0-0 15.262 Hgg8 (15..g6!2) 16.Whs Bhst 13..0-0-01 This strong and logical move exposes the disadvantages of White's position: a delay in development, a bad pawn struc ture and a lack of coordination between the pieces. However, the energetic 13...ig4l? is a modern _ alternative: 14,Wxh6 14.Wh31700 deserves some ~ computer attention. 14.,.0-0-0 15.c4 To prevent dS, bus 15./Dg8!? 16.We3 £5! Pushing the pawns ~ on the attack! 17.DHS €5 18.dxe5 Axe 19.0-0-07 analysis dlagram Missing a nice reply. 19.,Qd3+! Destroying White's posi- tion. 20.exd3 Wxa3+ 21.cbe2 exd3+ 22.0xd3 Wart 23.he3 Exd3+! 24.Wxd3 Wa3+ 28.toc2 Bet 0-1 Romero Holmes-Matamoros Franco, Elgoibar 1997. 14.0e2 Here Kovacevic introduced his famous knight tango: 14..04817 1 like this manoeuvre, which serves to improve Black's ‘worst’ piece. 14..We6?! (Krasenkow-Stewart, Mos- cow 1990) seems a waste of time. The computer's line is: 14..e3!7 15.fxe3 Saxg? 16.0gl Bete, 15.0-071 After this ‘natural’ move White faces se rious difficulties. 15.2h5!? (MeDonald/ Watson) leads to some complications af- ter 15. Exg2? (15..8d7=) 16.Wxi6 Wsfo 17.Oxfo Bgo 18.Dg+ 03 19.Bxe3 Behl 20.63 Od7=, but this seems alright for Black 15..2g6! 16.Wxh6 16.Wh3 Ost 16..Dh8 17.Wg5 Hdg8! Reaching the desired position — the ‘French’ army is ready to attack. 18,317 A tactical trick in a difficult situation. AF- ter 18.c4 Dh4 19.We3 A+! 20.gxf3Syd8t 21. Wred Swe! (Psakhis) Black's tack is ieresistble 18...e3!! Rona Petrosian! According to an anec- dote told by Viktor Kortchnoi in his book Memuary Shakhmatista, 2006 in the Russian language, it was Petrosian’s wife who helped Kovacevic to find this strong reply. I don't think it was ~ Vlatko Kovacevic simply played a brilliant game! © resc-rs,.an47 19,04 19.2x03 19.Wxe3 is not better, since after 19...d5 White's position is hopeless: 20.Wgs (20.Wet Wis—+) 20...f6 21.Wes £5! 22.We5 Wh7—+ wins in the attack 19.,048! Summary 4.a3 In accordance with the “tango™ steps, af ter five moves the knight heads back to £8. This is stronger than the obvious 19...b4 20,217 Bags 21.2xg5 DES 22.e4 and White has some compensa- tion for the queen. 20.8b5 Od5! Now the game is over in view of ..Whé. 21.9f2 21d? co! 22.Wd3 Wh4—+. 21.08 22.WWd3 Bxh2 23.3h1 Wh4 24.ixh2 Wxh2 25.011 Bxg2+ 26.0e1 What 27.02.96! Another tango step ~ and one more piece joins in the attack. 2B.Hel Agta 29.2xt4 Axf4 30.Wes Bf2 ot A superb game, particularly when you con- sider who was playing the White side ~ Psakhis, ‘© Objectively, I think that this variation is playable for White, even in modern chess! ‘+ Both sides have a hard time trying to judge (and play) the positions that appear af ter each line correctly, ‘« There are still lots of ideas and deviations hidden in ll lines. ‘« Anyway, Botvinnik’s 8...c5, the most popular 8...2g6 and the fundamental 8...6 are strong alternatives for 8...bd7 ‘+ Black can combine all the knowledge given in the analysis ofthis game. # Personally, I like the solid positions arising after the flanchetto with ...2b7, even without the h-pawn,GAME 2 - A Risky Queen Sortie: 4.Wg4 (315 games=55.2%) 1-0 in Alekhine-Euwe, Round 9, 16th World Championship, 1935 John Watson: The ‘Blitz Variation’. White tries to save a tempo on 4.03 by bringing his queen out immediately. The problem is that he hasn't strengthened his centre (as bxc3 did above), and Black can therefore counterattack more quickly in that sector. Although the debate about 4.Wis still raging, I think that an accurate play by Black makes it dificult for White even toequalise. In fact, in this line Black has more active pieces and pawns, that is, a better devel- opment, and therefore he has more tempi and more opportunities for intermediate moves. The immediate central counterattack compensates for the central position of hisking and the rest of his weaknesses. CO Klaus Birk @ Richard Ludwig Germany tt 1995 1.4 €6 2.04 d5 3.2ic3 &b4 4.Wa4 A risky continuation leading to sharp play with mutual chances. 4.2161 5.Wxg7 Remember Tarrasch’s axiom: Any cap- ture of a paon with the queen in the opening isa mistake. 5.298 6.Wh6 6.05! The typical French break, and logical in this situation. Black's pieces are ready for action. There are two alternatives A) 6.ulfg6!? The main idea of this in- termediate move is to taking on et with the knight. 7.We3 and now: Al) 7€St is still interesting here (some lines transpose to 6... 5): 8.242 For 8.a3!? a5! see the analysis below, afier 6..c5 7.43; 84le2 cad 9.xd4 DxesF, 8.61? 8..cxd4!? 9.Wads Dc6 10.Ab5 Lixc3! 11.Axc3 Dress; 8... g4!? 9.Wa3 Dcse2. 9.2050 TRICK 229 (he same apes to 9.20022) 9..cxdd 10Dxdd Ded T.Wal3 S51 12.xc6 Bf2+ 13. bxcb 14.8c1 Qb6F Yilmaz-Morovic Fernandez, Dubai ol 1986. 9.uA7 10.Sxc6 10.Dge2 Wet 11Bxc6 Bxcé6t. 10.86 11.Dge2 11.0-0-0 dyes¥. Mudxes 11..2g4? 1dxeS ge 12...Hxg? 2, 13,Wdee Planine-Bysne, Moscow 1975. Here the best continuation is 13..e3! 14.@xe3 (14.fixe3 Bxc3!F) 14...Wad) 15.Dxd4 @xeo3 16.fxe3 SAxg? with a better game for Black due to the bishop pair: AD) Tuned 8.203 ‘analysis diagram ‘The key position of the 6...2g6 line. In the historic battle Alekhine-Euwe, TheNetherlands Weh m-16 1935, Black played: 8...£52! The Dutch-Stonewall ac- cording to Fuwe. However, the knight on et does not need such help, so this move only weakens the king's position. 8,.Oc67=2; 8,xg? 9.Gxet dees 10.Wrxet Bxc3+ I1.bxc3 WdS=. 9.2e2 c5 Now this break is not so at- tractive, as time is lost. 9... xg?!?e0. 10.2x64 10.0-0!1. 10...fre4c0 with an unbalanced position, precisely what Alekhine wanted in a game; B) The move 6...dxe4 leads to simpli- fications: 7.2g5 (7.242 transposes to the next game) 7.096 8.2xf6 Wate 9.We3 DQcé 10.He2= Schwab-Reim, Tirschenreuth 1982. Now, 10....8xc3+ I1.bxc3 eS gives Black enough counterplay. 7e5 Here is some more good news: A) TRICK: 7:22? loses alost by WG orce:7 xd 8 Dates! analysis diagram 9805+ Bal? 10.Sxd7+ Dhl? 1.0/6 A+ and now 120g7+ (12.03 Sf8!) 12...hxg7 13.Wxg7 dxc3 and Black is abso- lutely winning, Bartel-Szelag, Broeg Dolny ch-POL jr 2001 B) Miladinovic’s weapon 7.23 is prob. ably the best try for White, trying to go back to the 4.23 line, but Black will not allow him todo so: 7...ig6 8.We3 analysis diagram 8.fiaSt B..cxd4!? 9.Wxda Dcow. 9.842 2c61 Black is ahead in develop- ment, so 102bS (Miladinovic- Calandri, Assisi 2003) and now 10..cxd4! is the strongest option: 11.Wad4 471 Black dominates the game from a dynamic point of view. 7..cxdal |AWAS t RAR (IBS wenn white ghng up his cene 8.23 Ae! 8...dxc37! is a mistake which leads to a better ending for White: 9.axb4 cxb2 10.2xb2 Wb6 (Ninov-Dragiev, Sofia ch-BUL 1995) and now: 11-b5 (1We3rt) 11Wxf2+ 12.aexf2 Dyt+ 13.63 Dxho 14.843. 9.Wxf6 Wxf6 10.exf6 dxc3 11.2e2 It’s obvious that White is the one who has to be careful if he wants to keep the balance. 11.bxc3 @d7 12.862 Oxfo 13.04 Qg7 14.Eb1 des (14...b6!F) 15.xct b6 16.013 Od7¥, PenasIgor Miadnovc:a modern killer of te French, Hemandez-Bjerke, Oropesa del Mar jr 1999. 11..0xb2 ‘The most ambitious and freshest option. 11...24712= is a radical solution, which iseasy to play RR eae PW ar erty a& a A’ | BAVOaRAR RE 2 Hog analysis diagram For instance, 12.@xe3 a6 Black won two games using this modest_move which serves to avoid the threat Obs. 12..8d6!? is similar: 13.g3 Dxf6 14g? &d7 15.0-0 0-0-0% etc Antoniewski-Shaked, Zagan Wch-jr 1997. 13.se3 Or 13.93 Oxf 14.592 Ba7 150-0 Bc6 16.2¢3 0-0-0 17.Hadl Sd6 18.Bfel dbs 19.022 henburg Ech-tt 2005. 13. 14.04 Od7 15.0-0-0 bS 16.466 Hb8!? Inviting White to trade his knight for the bishop. (e821 Rejecting Black's offer and trading the knight was safer. 17..21xc8 18.f42! Qe 19.Gxe5 xeSF Cam- pora-Rustemov, Dos Hermanas 2003. 12.2xb2 bet # San 2] a & BACORARK n oan} Black has a superior pawn structure and he will ry to exploit this. 13.93 Creating a sarcophagus in order to de- fend against the menacing rook on g8. Or 13.2d4 a6!F, 13.206 Assigning a task to the ‘bad’ French bishop. 13...2d7!? 14.2d4 a6!F. 14.004? 14.4475. 14..x1 15.txf1 Dd7 16.Het Ee8 17.He2 Beat A desirable position for any Francophile.IBIS WdB 19.%1e3 Dad 20.04 dxcd S\xgd 2B/ixg4 Oxf 29./ie5+ bs 21.92 Hg6 B0.Rb2+ a6 31.0d7 c3 32.0b3 2D de F. Haxf4 33.0¢6 Bf2+ 34.93 D5t3+ 22.0d1 we7 23.44 Sxt6 24/5 Th6 35.iq4 b5 36.4 wb6 37.d8 a6 25.205+ &c6 26.24 Hh5 27.94 38.axb5 (5+ 39.95 c2 ot Summary of the variation 4.8g4 This variation is suspicious, White falls behind in development in order to capture the pawn on g7. Black has good counterattacking chances, mainly in the centre. GAME 3 - Sharing the Concept, or a Classic Game: 4.5242 (1380 games=49.5%) ann 1th game Keres was an expert ofthe case open game with many important victories guns the stange postion CO Paul Keres Raawe ak @ Mikhail Botvinnik aaa aba ‘The Hague/Moscow Weh 1948 (25) a Prior to this game, Keres had a truly a wretched score against Botvinnik: 6 R WA draws and 6 losses in 12 encounters. So a this victory must have been extremely ARAG RAR sweet @ weens 1.04 06 2.04 d5 3.03 &b4 4.042 {a oNOnce again, White's idea is Wed, The main difference is that White develops ‘more rapidly here at the cost of a pawn. 4udxedt On the ChessPublishing website, the amiable IM Goh Wei Ming wrote: This is the principled move and the mainline of this variation which leads to some wild complica- tionsin the later stages. The flexible move 4...@€7 can transpose to sub-lines of the Semi-Winawer (see Chapter 3, Game 9). Here is a game from my own experience with it: 5 Wet 0-0 6.5 F517 (the strategic 6..b6!? transposes 10 Game 9) 7.Wg3 5 8.0-0-0 cxd4 9.@bS Mc 10.0f3 Doe 11.Rgs Whe 12.Rxe7 Lxe7 13.bxd4 27% and Black has better chances on the queenside, Gamundi Salamanca-Moskalenko, Mallorca 2003. 5.Wa4 According to the same concept as in the two previous games. 5../016! 6.Wxa7 Rg8 7.Wh6 In my opinion, Black has two good op- tions here. 7.268 The Patriarch, the father of pragmatic chess, plays a natural developing move. |A) Accepting the central pawn with 7...Wi/xd412 is more ambitious and looks. more promising Probably Botvinnik was afraid to enter this position without any previous analytical work, Here the ‘most popular continuation is 8.0-0-07! (see A2), but this line is clearly worse for White than: Al) 8.2ge21, the best move order be- fore castling queenside. The arising po- sition is quite equal, for instance: All) 8..WeS — 9.0-0-0! Bg6 10.WWF4=, Werner-Wagner, Germany tt 1993/94. White compensates for the pawn deficit with better development and active pieces, but Black's fortress is also very solid. AL2) 8.ui2f8! was also analysed by Goh Wei Ming. Black’s perspectives are better: 9,Wh4 This is the main try. 9.Wh3? is considered dubious for many reasons, for instance: 9...Wxf2! 10.Dge2 Bd7! 11.gs (11.Dg3 03 12Ge1 WF 13.243 Who!—+) 11..Bxg+ 1203 €3 13.01 Wh 14.22 Who! 15,Wshe Sxh6 16.faxb7 S4cé 17.Sxa8 &xa8 and Black is winning, Bezgodov-Kornev, Krasno- yarsk ch-RUS 2003. 9..Eig4! 10.Wh3 Wx analysis diagram It seems that White hasn't got serious compensation for the two pawns: 11.Re2 11.£e3 Wh4 12.Wxht Bxht 13.g3 BhS 14fe2 Gho! 15.0xh6 Bxh6F Cabanas Jimenez-Moreno Ruiz, Mostoles 2008, 11...h4! 11...2.g6 al-lows some tactical complications afier Logi!) 12llxhd Wah 13.g3 and how, according to theory and practice, both 13..Wh6!% and John Watson's 13...03 give Black excellent play; 119) TRICK: 8.4 9.18 and now there is a wonderful mate after 9. Wxf22? (2 9.07 10WRh7 fe 9.47 10.2)h300) 10.Wd8+!! oxd8 11 Sag eB 12.4. B) As in many ‘Sacrificing the Centre lines, including 7... g6?! could be pre- mature: 8.We3! (the best try to fight for an advantage) 8..2c6 9.@ge2 Sxc3!? 10.Wxc3! (10.8xc3 De? 11, Df4 Beds 12Oxds Wad 13. Wdo= Gelbmann-Ziger, _Werfen 1995) 10.47 11.We3!? We7 12.h3 0-0-0 13.0-0-0e. I think that this position is desirable for the white player who likes \o practice open games. 8.0-0-0 The key moment, Black must find a way tomove forward After 8.ge2 Se7 the position is bal- anced, for example: 9.0-0-0 g4 But 8..“2xd4!? is more complicated: 9.2 xd4 Wxd4 10.0-0-000 Budimir- Simonyi, Senta 2007, 8.296! Im this position this move is correct. It defends the knight on f6. From now on, taking the d4 pawn is too dangerous: 8..fixd4? 9.2g5! Zyo 10,Wh4t. The same goes for 8..Wxd4? 9.Db5 Sixd2+ 10.2xd2 Wes 11.f4!+. own 9.We3?! Wad 11 xe3 Wes 9..8x031? Looking to unbalance the game and start creative play. Black could offer a draw by playing 9...g¢ 10.Wh3 Ego 11.Wh4 gig. 10.2x03 Wd5= 10.We1 &xc3!? The position is equal, but of course there isa lot of play on the board. Strate- gically, Botvinnik wants make to use of the light squares and Keres will play on the opposite ones, 11.3 De71? A central set-up is appropriate for Botvinnik. 11...a5 was a flank attempt. 1243 Continuing the concept of ‘playing an ‘open game’. 12.4)e2!? was an alterna- tive option: after 12...Wd6 things are unclear, 12d 700 The golden rule is: develop before taking action, 13.262 Preparing c2-c4, 13.fkes Wxed! 14.013 Rc6=. 13.06!\x e aah @4 2 & sax w e Bae w Ai RA ABA [AB SR BDE! Time to draw up a balance. Finally the black army is also well prepared. There fore White cannot wait anymore and must start some active play. 14.041 815 The safest and most logical queen move. The ending is beter for White: 14.052 15,.WobS QxhS 16.Rel But 14..Wd6!? deserved attention 15.45 exd5 16.e2 0-0-000. Finally, 14...Wa5 seems too risky, but af- ter the forced variation 15.45 exdS 16.Saxf6 DES 17.W4 (17.Wel Weel 18.Bxel Bxf6 19.cxdS @xd5 20.fxee He6=) 17..Hxfo 18.Wes+ Hee 19.Bixf5 Wa? chances are equal. The white king is exposed. 15.05! x é Adah AAA Rh RAR aw Avs wT A & AS SAR enoeae ‘The opening phase is concluded and the real battle begins. However, White still hhas undeveloped kingside pieces and this factor neutralizes his own attack 15..exd50 16,fx04? An inaccurate move, 16,1131? could be a more critical try: 16..dxc4!? 17.Sxe4 DStet; or 16.De? dxcd 17.g3 WeSe and the position is dynamically balanced. 16..dxed Botvinnik aims for a strong ¢-pawn. 16...@\xe4!? brings the pieces into play: 17.03 Bgs 18.Well) dxet (after 18...0-0-017F Black is very solid) 19.Sxc4 Hxg? 20.2f1 Ad6 with com- plications, but also with two extra pawns. 17.03.94 17..204712 18.Wh7 0-0-0. 18.893 18,Waxh7 Bg8 19.Wh4 Dede 18..We5 18... Was!? 19.Wxc7 Hic8 20.014 WeS+ 21.242 & ral Ag 2” Ral “e wees] The most tense moment of this classic game. 218x147 21...Wel+ 22.841 We3+ was a correct draw. 22.xf4 e3 23.8627! Probably both players were a little tired in this World Championship tourna- ‘ment game, which was played in Round 25! Consequently they lost their way course at the most critical moments during time-trouble... 23.d4!2. 23..1g5= 24.202 2f2?24,.ske4! was the only move: 25.23 fata 25.ne1+ 2dB It is too late to play 25...e4 26.8°3! Skxe2 27 bred. 26.937 26 E11 26...15? 26, Sted! 27 He3 DiS 27.af1 Bxt4? The losing move. 27...22°3!2 was the coly chance to complicate the game. 2Boxt4 Dd3+ 29.xd3 Badd 30.Lc3t+— This simplification leads to a technical win. e aa maa 2 iA CADRE AR oe Be ee 30..Exe3+ 31.Sx03 215 32.042! bd7 33.2xe3 bE 34.212 16 35.bd2 h5 36.4:d3 ONG 97.sh4 15 38.He7+ ted6 39:h31 Black resigned. Summary +4.2d2 is a quite solid line, but this is not enough in an open game. The arising posi- Lions are at least not worse for the black side. GAME 4 - The Two Knights: 4./e2 (4247 games=55,3%) The variation 4.e2 was analysed for both sides in The Flexible French (Game 73) My general summary has not changed yet: the Two Knights Variation with 4.2e2 is one of many Anti-Winawer lines, which is quite fashionable these days, It offers an escape from the main lines and interesting play. Objectively it gives an equal game {afier 4..dxe4 5.3 &xc3 6.2xc3 Aicé6, White must play 7.45=). However, the final ‘outcome usually depends on both players’ knowledge of the line Here is an update on the most combative line for the black side. Cijorge De la Riva Aguado ‘White prepares 22-23 with an idea based Viktor Moskalenko on the fundamental chess concepts Sitges 2006 (3) achieving the favourable x wade. 1.4 06 2.4 d53.2c3 sib4 402 However, Black can reply in vintage a French style wit: (xaaWe ak ater aad aha And the opening discussion (che fight a for the e4-point) continues. The text a move looks very logical: Black develops | #& RA and puts pressure on the centre. But we a 2 are not in a genuine French here! The IARAZORAN most straightforward way to equalize is 4..dxed!?, see the notes to Game 73 in H QWs 2 sy book The Flexible French.5.05 Closing the centre is not common in the anti-Winawer, but what to do? A) The gambit 5.a3 can be accepted with pleasure: Sun@xc3+ 5...¢7!? is more complex: 6.e5 @fd7 7.f4 — see be low after 6.4. 6.2xc3 Dxed 7.Dxe4 dre 8.Wy4 8.03 0-07, 8...Wxdd 9.03 WH6 10.Wret Zcé 11.263 eS 12.243 Se6F Holzhiuer-Renner, Ger- many Bundesliga B 2000/01; B) Another popular motif is 5.2g5!? counter-pinning in MacCutcheon fash- ion: Sudxed 6.43 Se7! 7.2xf6 7.Wa2 Dbd7 8.43 ho 9.Gxf6 Oxfe 1o.Dgret Axes 11.Dxe4= Gipslis- Matlak, Ostrava 1992. 7..gxf6 8.2ixe4 kaaWe & reververy aa aay & BAe DRAB nm Wee on analysis diagram This position is also important for the theory of 4.2e2 BL) Itis not so clear which is the best move order for Black. The most popular idea is playing 8...b62? first. Many times it leads to the same position, but it also allows some deviations for both sides: 9Wd2 &b7 10.043 col? (blocking the d5-square) 11.g3 Dd7 12.592 We7 13.Wh6 0-0-0 14,Whs Bae 15.0-0 £5 16.24 2f6 17. WE3 Bd8 18.Badi hSF and Black was better in TWillemze- ‘Nepomniachtchi, Wijk aan Zee C 2007; B2) Buf5 9.O4e3 If 9.04932! DAT”? 10,Wd3 Qf 1.0.0.0 Aga! 12.45 Wrd5tF, 9.04712 A solid set up, but there are neither many games, nor theory. Now 9...b62! isa worse option due to the fragile pawn chain e6-f7-f5: 10.2g3!? (10.0 &b7 11.45 Wd 12.g320 Alvarez Ibarra-Moskalenko, Renedo 2009) 10...8b7 11.45! (11.8b5+2! c6F, Del Valle Cirera-Moskalenko, Sitges 2009) 11.96 12.Bcd!1, 10.3 26 11.@g2 and here the improvement is 11..Wd6! instead of 11...c6# (Novak-Nepeina Leconte, Bled ol 2002): 12.We2 £47! 13.0-0-0 13.2xb7 bs 14.992 Exb2#. 13..0-0-0= Both ar- miesare ready for action. Bu AATI? Transposing to structures similar to those of the Classical French. The alter- native move 5..Qe4, imitating the MacCutcheon Variation, was deeply ana- lysed in The Flexible French, Game 73. zane z &ada bb el 2 a | aA RA a ABBR ORAR | GWee 8 6.43 A sharp line. White prepares queenside castling. 6.a3 He7!; 6.Df4 c5! 7.03 (7.We4 0-0!F) 7...81a5!? 8.W g4 0-0 9.Dh5 pox; After 6.f4 0-0 6...067! 7.a3 2e7? 8.5! Kalod-Moskalenko, Catalunya tt 2007; 6.05! 7.034. 7.a3 Be7! we have achieved a hybrid of the Classical French. (3.2c3 @fs) and the ‘Pawn Wedge Tarrasch’ (3.4\d2), also analysed in The Flexible Frenchxaaw Xk asaata a aa & A & & BALD EB owee ‘analysis diagram 8.g3 c5 9.23 Zc6 10.2g2 dé! 11.0-0 a6. In the game Asis-Moskalenko, Montcada 2006, White continued 12.Bf2 He8 13.f51? and here 13...225! 14.64 Oxft 15.gxf4 Wh4et was good for Black. 6..0-017.a3 7.We3 fore 7..ie7! ‘The Winawer bishop has become Classi- cal. 7.,.8xc3 +718 Wae3E. 8.Wg3 dhe! Defending against c1-h6 8...0529.2h6+ (WEAPON: 8... is.a tricky tac- tical option: 9NHg4 f5! 10.°8K5!? exf6 Wrfo 11.84 Booze; TOWNS c5 11. We 12.235 e600) 10..c5 11. exdd 12.Dxe6 36 with an extremely unbal- anced position. 9.8.63 65 10.0-0-0 “c6 11.£4 BS! Beginning the counterattack ~ tine is the prevalent rule! You can learn about the Five Touchstones in my book Revolu- tionize your Chess, New In Chess 2009. 12.dxe5 WEAPON: Accepting the gift ‘with 12.2xb5?! can lead to a quick catastrophe, which was confirmed in the following game: 12.8 13.Dec3 cf! 14.fe? f5!7 (14..8HD6! was even stronger, with the idea of 15..26) 152 (15.exf6 DaxfoF) 15..Ma5 16.446 a6 17. Wel Bxd6 18.exd6 Bf6 19.03 Woo 0-1 R Perez-Rustemoy, Villade Albox 2002. 12.b4l The tick of the Black Magic is to open the game on the right sie. 18.axb4 xb4 14,517 White is behind on the other side, so he decides to provoke some complica- tions. 14..2x057! A logical move, but it costs time. 14..Wa5S! was more in the attacking spirit: 15.f6 (15.%b1 exfS 16.06 DeSt) 15...gxf6 16.exf6 Bxf6 17.2b1 a6. 15.fxe6 fxe6 16.2104 xd4l 17.0xd4? The bishop on d4 is not like the knight onthe same spot! 17 xd! was the last chance to fight for the initiative, 17..Wa5-»cond of the drama 18.202 a6 18,..Wal+!? 19.294 Wa1+20.b1 20.sed2 Wxb2 21.Hcl Hac8 22.2xe6 eS 23.ixc8 DbI+—+. 20..HacB 21.c3 Da2t+ 22.b¢2 Ube 23.b4 Dxb4+ 24.cxb4 Hich+ 25.265 Wa2+ ot ‘The line 4.4e2 61? leads to a creative semi-open game, where the final outcome depends on the sills of both players. B) Defending the Centre GAME 5 ~‘Two Modest Lines: 4.2.43 (1660 games=54.8%) and 4.Wd3 (619 games=58.2%) White defends his pawn on e4 and keeps the options open in the centre. However, Black gets a nice range of possibilities and extra tempi to complete his development. Martin Lorenzini @ Viktor Moskalenko Alleante 2000 (9) 1.04 e6 2.4 d5 3.2\¢3 2b4 4.2.43 Watson: This lacks punch ands seldom seen at the top levels any more. Another modest line is 4.Wd3. Watson: White covers ef and would like to transfer the queen to pressure the kingside. In addi- tion, he can prepare 0-0-0 by say, Sud2... but generally, the queen is not wel placed on 43 4..De7? [KagWe Bl hak Bada! ry | ‘analysis diagram 36 This is more flexible than 4../2°6 or 4.dxe4 and it enables Black to save some tempi. 5.242 0-0 6.23 6.03 bé! 7.23 a6! 8We3 Qxc3F transposes, Roca Calaf-Moskalenko, Sant Boi 2001 6..8xC3!2 7.8xc3 B61 Typical counterplay. 8.0-0-0 226 9.We3 Sixfl 10.Bxfl aS! The bishop on c3 is now useless, 11.03 @be6 12.942 bs 13.Wd3 dxet 14.Wxe4 Was 15.Wxds @xd5 16.041 Bfh8 17.3 ad! The white pieces are out of play 18.d2b2 fo! (em, | analysis diagramWith a comfortable endgame, which al towed Black to win easily: 19. het set7 20.Hed Hao 21.g4 b4! 22.axb4 axb3 2403 Halt 24.0oxb3 Dxc3!—+ Jerez Perez-Moskalenko, Barbera 1999. 4..dxe4! aking advantage of the over-developed bishop on e4. 4...@f6? 5.e5 S.uuxed Of6 5.065 is similar 6.95 ‘A) 6.863 is more popular, although this move seems harmless: 6..0-0 Or 6.451 7.Bed (7.a3 Bxcd+!? 8.bxc3 0.0 922¢2 Stet) 7...0-0 8.0-0 cxds 9fxd4 e5= LevskiS01-CapNemo, playchess.com 2009) 7,4e2 eS! eaaw Re aaa gua a a 8 woe &A & a ER awe analysis diagram le oe iA = 5) Probably the most forcing way to obtain an equal game. TICK: ese of 80571 Wl + 9.sbxdi Diya! White is the one who has to be careful: 10.8.xg40) Sixgdt 11,73 Sips 12.2d2 Deb 13,f4 Bad8 14.%bc1 fo 15.03? Qxc3 16.Axc3 Sed 17.033 feed 18,fee5 BAF Muromtsee-Lysyj, Sochi t-2 2006; 0 Sixc3!? 9.Oxc3 9.bxc32? e+. 9.end4 10,2005 c5 11.24 a6 A primi- tive but safe route; 11..De8!? 12.¢3 26 13.033 Qc6= Lejlic-Grover, Dubai 2009. 12.2d6 De6 13.c3 Le61? 14Sxe6 144ixb7 Who 15.06 Bad8e. 14..bxc6 15.cxd4 cxd4 16.Wxd4 De8= and the draw is obvi- ‘ous here, Kalod-Moskalenko, Badalona 2005; B) 6.23 is grandmaster Djuric’s specialty: 6...c5! 7.4e2 cxd4 8.Dxd4 0-0 9.0-0 eS! 10.Ade2 @c6 11.23 Be7= Djurie-Moskalenko, Calpe rapid 2000. 6.5 6.6?! 7.Sexf6 Wale 8.13%, 7.093 ‘The key moment. 7..cxdal? This is the positional refutation of White's strategy. ‘The tactical path is less clear: 7...Sxc3+ Bbxc3 Was 9.xfo Wxc3+ 10.042 gxfoo. 8.4xxd4 Obd7IN ‘Comfortably preparing ..h7-h6, 9.2e2 h6!? 10.5.2 10.xf6F is a psychologically impossi- ble exchange. 10..0-0 11.0-0 e7! A useful manoeuvre prior (o the capture of the bishop on ef. 11.BeSi2=. 12.293 xed Hliminating the strongest white piece or wasit the weakest? 13.gxe4 15118.103 Wes! Bringing the queen to the kingside 18,..We7!? 19,246 Sixd6 20.Wxd6 247 20...b4!? 21.Det b6->. 21,43 206+ go Wake {ea s — Pawaeaal 14.293 14 15.2ge4 131+ a Nasty harassment. 15...2e5 is also good. & 16.9xf3 eB BA 16.93 Wes ABA: 16.25 iE ene White's fortress has some glaring holes. EE 1744296 My opponent decided to avoid the torture S17..ic42 18.03. by the great French bishop and resigned. ©) The Exchange GAME 6 - Simplification versus Symmetry: 4.exd5 (4157 games=53,4%) This method was first World Champion Wilhelm Steinitz’s main weapon against the Winawer Variation. The popularity of the exchange of central pawns has continued from the classical period up to the modern era (just like the Exchange Variation 3.exd5), until Black found several easy paths to follow. The truth is that defending here is not hard at all for Black: the most important thing to keep in mind is not to be too ambitious and to patiently keep simplifying the game Nowadays this line is rarely used by strong players. I'll try to show the road Black has to follow to geta balanced game. The examples are mainly from my own practice. CO Luis Maria Perpinya Rofes — Viktor Moskalenko |za oe ad Badalona 2007 (7) PARQ UAKA 1.64 e6 2.d4 d5 3,ac3 Sb4 4.exd5 | ak “ an | 4.5 is pla itor WEAPON: 4.15 is playable a wr players who desire to unbalance ae ‘ JAAS BA Te ed on interesting pln on the = (EWE BT Internet:5.0f3 2.47. analysis clagramhe ide isto prepare SAE61?, and continue with £6 followed by eastling queenside. Forexample 6d? (6,5d3 BS 7.0-0 Bxc3 B.bxc3 Skad3 9.cxd3 Qc6 10.04 Wa7 11.861 (0 0-oe Sattar-CapNemo, playchess.com 2006) 6...Rxe3 7 8.xc3 7.bxc3 BES (7.6 Ksut3 Bb5 900 Sxd3 10.Wxd3 Deb 11 Ead1 0-0-0 12.63.95! The desired position for Black. 13.We3 g4 14.De5 QxeS 15.Wxes Se4 16.8b2 Wrxes 17.dxeS Dd? 18.Bfel Bd7 19.@cl Ehd8$ Sulashvili-CapNemo, _ playchess.com 2006. 5.243 Afier 5.WY32! Black gets an excellent game with the most precise move: 5...We7+! 5.0161? A logical and good move. Right now, this is my favourite defensive method. My opponents have tried various ways of fighting for the initiative, but with no great success, Alternatively, Sw’De6 can be played. This has been the most popular continu- ation in the past few years: 6.2e2 6.23 Qxc3+ 7.bxc3 Bes (7..W6 8.Zb1 Dge7 9. WE %4-/s Wemmers-Khuzman, Ohrid tt 2009) 8.41 bé 9.Wi3 Wa7 10.e2 Dge7 11.a4 SS= Hernandez ade 0 Gallardo-Arizmendi Martinez, Pal Mallorca ch-ESP 2009, 6..‘ge7 7. BfS= & xa’ ‘analysis diagram Capablanca-Alekhine, Buenos Aires Weh m-1 1927. Alekhine even won this fa- mous game in 43 moves. This game brought about the era of the Winawver since the feared exchange line had been shown to be innocuous. (Taulbut, CBM) 6.2e2 The most flexible continuation. A) 6.a3 Bd617 6...8xc3+ 7.bxc3 0-0 is equal in my opinion. 7.0b5 Be7 8.2F4 a6 9.Ae2 c6 10.be3 De7 11.b3 Deb 12.Ke5 DA7 13.2h2 0-0 14.f42! 2f6 15.091 Dest Nataf-Tu Hoang Thong, Montreal 2007; B) 6.8g52! A pseudo-active move: 6.6 7.Sh4 0-0 8.22 TREK: 892? is another rare ma rnoeuvre that almost loses the game: 8.951 9.0.93 Bed 10.We3 c5!—+, winning in Ferran Garcia-Moskalenko, Villa Salou 1999. 8.He8 9.0-0 6 Zugzwang! 10.f4 gst 10..bd7=. 11,h3 Sxe2 12.4)xe2 Mbd7 Black now has at least an equal game, Perpinya Rofes- Moskalenko, Catalunya-ch 2002 6..0-0 7.0-0xALw xe AAR oAAL a ok a 8 i ¢ aoe ARAZARAE B owore | 7.08 7...Re8 is a similar move order: 8.2g5 (8.2g3 Abd? 9Aicer 18 ¥-% Cornette-Moskalenko, Open Medes 2006/07) 8..c6 9.Wd2 h6! 10.2xf5 Wafs 11.Bael Qd7 12.0g3 Bae 13.Bxel Wd8 14.0f5 Of6 15.We3 AxfS! 16.2xfs WaS¥ Joan Fluvia Poyatos-Moskalenko, Open Medes 2006/07. 8a3 For 8.2257! see 6.85. With 8.2g3 White wants to regroup his cavalry: 8..He8 9.Dce2 {8 10.03 @bd7 11.Hf D6 12.Wer LAs 13.Bael h6 14.b3 We7 15.Wd2? Qxft 16.Waxfs Yi-'4 ODe la Riva Aguado- Moskalenko, Catalunya tt 2007. 8.046 9.564 gal? 10.842 In case of 10.3 &hS 11.Wd2 &g6 12.Bael xd3 13.Wxd3 Sxfé 14.064 Wee 15.We2 Dbd7 16.043 Bfes= the game is too balanced. 10..52xe21 Keep in Mind: A® can be more helpful than a 2 in such pawn structures (7=7) 11.0xe2 axt4 12.Wxt4 Dbd7 13.293 96= Simplifications in this symmetrical pawn structure are welcome! 14.Efe1 Ze8 15.h4 f8!16.c3 16.Bxe8 Dxe! 16..e6 17.W13 Dd7I? 18.Wg4 Wo7 19.De2 O6 20.W13 bg7 21.93 Le7 22.04 Rae8 22...Oixfs 23.Bxe' 23,.0xe6+ Exo6 24.0xe6 Exe6 25.492 We 25..fe4!? was another chance for Black, for example: 26.2xe4 (26.Wa1?? Axg3! 27.fxg3 He34) 26...Hxe4. 26.Eb1 We7 27.0c1 We7 28.2c2 “es 29.He2 hé 30.814 a5 31/3 Ate 32.0xe6 Wxes 33.WeS Wxe5— Y-v Conclusion Chapter 1, The Anti-Winawer © Many lines are (too forced and) over-analysed and are basically useful as a ‘sur prise weapon’, but generally speaking they do not offer White any advantage ~ the resources are still quite limited ~ since both armies are underdeveloped, ‘© Therefore, in modern chess, the strongest players prefer to advance their pawn: 44.5 is the main move against the Winawer, and this is the move we will be facing from Chapter 2 and right until the end of the book.Chapter 2 - The Semi-Winawer Directions - 1.e4-€6 2.d4 d5 3.3 @b4 4.e5 c5 eae Lines without an immediate 5.a3 a a Ra2We Ak kk an & have named these lines the ‘Semi-Winawer’ because here White does not try to trade off the Winawer bishop immediately. Instead he tries: AA) Tactics with 5. Weg4, 5.£3 or 5.dxcS (Game 7), or: B) 5.2 (a strategic concept, Game 8) A) Tactics GAME 7 ~Spassky’s Queen Attack: 5.Wg4 (773 games=56,4%), 5.f3 (357 games=42%) and 5.dxc5 (316 games=56,7%) 5.dxc5 usually transposes to the first two lines. OiParimarjan Negi Petr Kostenko New Delhi 2009 (7) 1e4 6 2.d4 d5 3.2c3 Abd 4.05 c5 SWoAl? This attack is an independent line against the Winawer. White does not re spect the rule according to which a flank attack only works if the centre is fixed. This concept can be useful as a guide to the labyrinths of the Semi-Winawer and also to this recent game. Another variation with an unbalanced centre is 5D£3 exd4!? This is also ana- lysed by Watson in Play the French (2003). Of course, §..c6 or 5...e7 are the most natural moves, when the line can transpose into the main Sub- Winawer afier 6.23 Sixc3+ 7.bxc3: the lines without the move Wg4, which are absolutely harmless for Black, see Part I. 6Wxdd Qc6 7.Wet 7.Sbs Wasier 7..<.ge7! 8.xg7 2)g6 and Black has at least a draw after the subsequent ...&e7. 5..De7! The best defence against 5.We4. The pawn on g7 is poisoned now. GE NCH Sucude? olay? dred 7.b34— and Black loses his h8 rook (15 gamesiin the Mega Database).6.dxcs A) 6.lixg7 is dangerous for White, because the Winawer bishop on bé is still alive: 6..2%g8 7.Wh6 After 7Mxh72 cxd4 8.23 Wa5! Black wins some material: 9.axbs Weal 10.0ce2 Dbe6F and there is no real compensa- tion. 7..cxd4 8.a3 and now almost all natural moves give Black a slight advan- tage. I like for example, the tricky varia- tion 8...£a5!? 9.b4 Bc7 10.AbS abl; B) 6.23 develops too late. Black gets his counterplay in first: 6...cxd4! 7.Oxd4 We71? Rah oe ® aaW @AbA a aA | 24 © a ABA ARAB Hf oo 8 analysis diagram 8.2b5+ A forced check, in order to gain some tempi for development 8.Wg37! 0-0F. 8...d7! The most accu: rate defence. 8...Jbc6 leads to a famous ultra-classic game: 9.0-0 &xc3 (9...0-0!) 10.bxc300 Spassky- Ublmann, Manila izt 1976. 9.0-0 2xc3 10.bxc3 0-0 11.8xd7 Gxd7 12.003 Bfe8 13.Hab! b6F and Black hay a better pawn structure, asin Ashton Cox, England tt 2005/06. 6.2666 Dynamic development, defending the Winawer bishop and atacking the ¢5 pawn. The static concept is, as always, based on the pawn structure: afier 6..8:xc3+1? 7.bxc3 the arising positions are quite equal: 7..0g6 8&3 Da7 8.We7!? 9.863 Dd7 10.8b5 0-0 11.8xd7 2xd7= Gallagher- Romero Holmes, El Corte Ingles Open 1990. 9.fe3 9.Gb5 0-0 10.8xd7 xd7= Diickstein-Uhlmann, Vienna _ 1959. 90-0 For 9..Wc7!? see the Romero game 10.543 DdxeS 10...Was? 11.0-0 Bxcd 12.0xc5 Uxc5 13.05 Waxed 14.Hael We7 15.f¢t Spassky-Mititelu, Le- ningrad wt 1960. 11Axe5 Dxes 12.Sxh7+ dxh7 13.WhS+ ge 14.Wxe5 f6= White has an extra pawn at the cost of a wonderful tripling on the c- file, rapl-Fichd,Jablonec ch-CSR 1962, 7.242 oh World Champion Bois Spsity won thre xy games wth Speen hough ths was mainly dueto his oppoueas’poot play inte openingDefonding against dS A) The g7 pawn is still poisoned: 7.Wixg7 igs 8 Weh7 d49.23 Was! analysis diagram 10.1 duc3 11.8¢30 &d7!F Black is ahead in development. 12.Wed? 12.Me20 Bxc5 13.b4 Bxb4+ 14.axb+ Sixb4F. 12..0d5—+ Ivekovic-Pourra ‘mezanali, Vung Tau jr 2008; B) 7.098 d41? 8.2b5 (8.a3 Was 9axbt Waal 10.2e2 @xb4¥) 8..Was 9.Lxc6+ bxcé 10.Wad4 St Banas-Prandstetter, Marianske Lazne ch-CSR 1978. 7.2961? Defending g7 and getting ready to un- leash many counteractions A) Of course 7..0-0 is also correct: ae ARAL BAS g Peay analysis cagram 8.0-0-0 8.23 xc3!? 9.Axc3 d+ ‘Van der Veen-Wempe, Hoogeveen 2004; B.D Ags 9.Ad3 BxcS!? 10.Whs Db4!= 14 Mega games. me EAPON: 8.16 (8 BoB? 94 fols) 9exbo Wrxbo 1003 ae!N Tres 5012.09 Wes nt seen in a quite fresh correspondence game, ‘Niewiadomski-A.Burger, cr ICCF 2006; B) In my own games I have used an. other strong set-up: 7..0f5!? This uni- versal idea can also be applied in Black's Deviation line 4...e7 5. We4, see Game 9 below. 8.23 0-O!N x OW ke aay aaa aos Aaka |_& oe Qa la RAS a A& [mt @o 28 analysis chagram Now 9.8€3 f6! 10.0-0-0 Oxc5!? 10..freS 11@xeS BxcS 12.f4= Jerez Perez-Moskalenko, Castellar 2004. 11.h3? > 1 exo Wale? 12.095 WET 13,Wh3? e5!F Steinhardt Scholz, Berlin 2000. 11..AixeS 12.0ixe5 fies 13.96 ‘Wh4F Mitkov-Moskalenko, Barbera 2000. B.0f3 Axc5 Bor a {Aw A® BSA £ & 2 9.7 Provoking 10.20b5, but this does not seem dangerous. First 9...a6!? is similar;9..S)b$ 10.0-0 (1O.Lxg6! ego 11,0-0-08) 10..ixd3 L1cxd3 d7= Spassky-Mednis, Reykjavik tt 1957. 10.0-0-0 Choosing the most aggressive set-up. 10.0-0 247 11.Bfel 0-0-0 (11..0-017 12.Bxg6 fxg6ts) 12We3 Ode 13.xd4 Sxd4ee, Strenzwilk-Morin, Philadelphia 1990; Let's check 10.b5 Wb8 and now 11.0-0-0 a6! 12.4c3 $47, with almost the same position as in the main game, Wittke-FGraf, Willingen jr 2005. 11.h4.2d7! 10. Summary of 5.Wg4 Just in position. 12.2xg6 The main attacking move 12.h5 only creates further problems for White: 12..gxeS 13.Dxe5 Ores 14.Wxg7 0-0-0 (14..@xd3+ 15.cxd3 0-0-02) 15.faxh7 e4ta2 and Black's pieces are more active 12..hxg6 13.6F4 Again, after 13.h5 gxhS ime, and reaching an imerestin 14.Bxhs (14.¥xg7 0-0-0 is good) 14...Exh5 15.Wah5 0-0-0! Black is OK. 13.16 13...0-0-01 is probably the best move order; 14.Wxi7 (14.863 Bxe3+ 15.fxe3 (6%) 14..Dxe5 15.Dxe5 Wrest 14.0xd5!? 14.Wg3 0-0-0 15.26 Waseo, 14..exd5 15.¢6 0-0-0 Now the position is equal. The rest of the notation was completely confused. Black won on move $3 In this model game we have found many options to face the Queen Attack. This tacti- cal line was still popular in the time of Russian World Champion Boris Spassky, but nowadays this weapon can only frighten weak players or kids! B) Strategy xa ea / a a AWA 2 1 pe | £We ak AeA) a p AAI We saz A problematic move in the Winawer, 5.Sd2 is not especially strong (compared to 5.a3), but since it prevents the doubling of pawns on c3 it tends to lead to positionsswith a slight advantage for White with for White (3123 games=58,2%). ‘Mier this move Black has experienced some problems trying to unbalance the yume in order to fight for the initiative in the opening. In The Flexible French, I pro- posed a surprising bishop retreat after: 5..cxd4!? 6.b5 cS! which was not very well known, But recently it has become Black's most common practical counterplan, I recommend you to examine Game 74 in The Flexible French for more details on this line. For this book I have prepared another interesting but still undeveloped set-up: §...Gh6!?. Many young Spanish players play it on both sides, thanks to the analyses and games of the prominent coach, grandmaster Jesus De La Villa Garcia. any risk, The statistics are very reasonable GAME 8 ~A Spanish Sword: 5.242. he (167 game There is no doubt that the dynamic counterattacking bonuses compared to the usual defence 5...e7. Standing on h6, the knight can jump to three more dynamic squares (g4-f5-f7). However, there are some problems, or instance, White can play the exchange @x‘h6, Let's see an example. (1 Roy Chowdhury Saptarshi Wi Jesus De La Villa Garcia Andorra 2006 (9) 1.e4 e6 2.44 d5 3.3 Gb4 4.e5 c5 5.2421? 6.03 Probably the best continuation for White. OF course, the most natural and popular alternatives must be invest gated A problematic move in the Winawer. After this Black has experienced some problems in unbalancing the game and fighting for the initiative in the opening. (The Flexible French, page 263). KALWS AE Aa aba aad a a a ABBAS BAB x WeAOE Spanish grandmaster Jesus De La Vil G ciara get experi offs variations inal Kinds of openings Our new line begins with this move. The most common option is still 5...e7. OK, maybe I'll try it for the next book :-)Alittle controversy |A) The main idea of the variation is to play 6.4bS. However, this procedure al- ways holds back the general develop- ment of the white army. ‘analysis diagram 6.uSixd2+ 7.xd2 0-0 8.£4 Strength- ening the pawn wedge. 8.dxc5 is dan- .gerous due to the mentioned factor (de- velopment): 8..{6 (8...2e6!? will be studied later by _ transpositions; 8.84717, Vasilevich-LRajlich, Chisinau Fch 2005) 9.exfé Wxfo! 10. Was We7 11.23 @c6 12.WC3 e51 Blot-Thomas, Montigny le Bretonneux 2008. Here is an interesting contribution by Watson on the ChessPublishing Forum, combined with my own analysis and some improvements: A) 8..0e6 9,03 John Watson: (com. paring this position to the one after 5..Qe7): A knight on h6 defers against the tactics involving Sxk7+ as well as the move ..247 (...). Furthermore, Black’s night cam help attack the centre from f7 after he plays ..f6, and ..2K6 also leaves Black's queen in contact with the kingside. Finally, the knight can (and does) goto g4 with great effect when a paren on a4 anchors ¢3 for oc- cupation via ...2e3 and/or when Black’s queen on b6 supports that move. A knight on 7,0n the other hand, has its own advantages in that it can go to c6 (often with tempo), or to x6, ar e8 (from which square it ean ehal lengea knight ono) anaysis diagram Al) %nf6!2 10.3 47 10...fxe5 11.dxe5 7 12.0-0-0 a6 13.03 bSt Magem Badals-Romero Holmes, Terrassa 1990. 11.046 cxd4 I2cxd4 Who 13,0-0-0 freS 14.freS £e8 14...0f71 15,2xe8 Haxe8= draw on move 31 in Leko-De La Villa Garcia, Leon 1994; A2) 9.ua6! TN, Watson: .. is also good for Black Watson's (and Moskalenko's) analysis. The position af- ter 10.46 occurs by transposition in some other games. 10.2346 exd4! analysis diagram and now for the more common move: 11.ixd4 11.2432! £6! F according to De la Villa Garcia in ECO) 12.0-0 (Cubas-Fier, S20 Paulo 2007) and now 12..42g4! is bad for White as indicated by Watson. 11.6 120xc6 bxe615.0-0-0 freS I4.treS Sige 15.Hel Bhat 16.h3 Wb6 17.03 BAL! (Watson) is very promising for Black. 1) Bina6t 9.246 cxd4 10. ‘analysis diagram 10...f6! 10...@c6 is the more common move — see the variation below. Hi Soxd4 11. Dxc8 feeS!; 11. We? fre (2fxeS co 13.0-0 Ags 14.Oxd+ figxeS¥; 11.243 also fails to 11.Be6 12.0-0 Dga® when White isin some difficulty materially. It.fxeS 12.fxeS Dgs! 13.0e2 ‘SimeSF and White has scant compen- sation for the pawn, General conclusion on 6.b5 Sixd2+ 7.Wxd2 0-0 8.f4 (Moskalenko): Starting with pawn play by 8...26!? 9G id6 cxd 10.23 f6! seems to be the most. dynamic possibility for Black. However, the normal, ‘static’ continua- tion 8..c6 is also promising, Anyway, the main problem for White afier the move bS is his lag in development ~ which allows the central Pawn Wedge to bre destroyed definitively! Alittle theory OK, now let's relax and then continue by checking other lines: B) 6.a3!2 [ think that this move is po- tentially stronger than the premature knight attack —at least it is more solid. ‘analysis diagram 6.08KC3 7.2xe3 7.bxc3!? imitates the main Winawer lines, but one tempo is already lost: 7..0c6 8.3 Of5 9.843 We7 10.0-02! c4 11.2¢2 Ad7 12-Ae1 0-0-0 13.g3 {6 14.f¢ Hafe 15.Dg2 h6z* Lobron-Hug, Beer-Sheva a 1985. Tudb6! A mix of set-ups! 7...0¢6? is not good: 8.dxe5!? d+ 9.ad2 Was 10.@xh6! (Gharamian-Laurent, Char- Ieroi 2007). This is the disadvantage of Dh6; not 7..cxd47 8.Waxe Of 9.WWEz 7 Mega games. 8.LbS+!? Pre- venting ...2a6. Afier 8.4 We7 9.dxcS bxcS 10.243 exb4 1 1.@xb4 a5! 12.842 Dg4F the eS pawn is weak, A.Martin- Shaked, Schwarzach 1997. 8.47! There is no need to worry 9.243 c6 Development. 10.0f3 cxd4 11.2xd4 xd 12.4xd4 fi Attack in the centre. 13.WhS+ D67 14.9bS, Melia- Bensdorp, Kusadasi Ech 2006; after 14..g6! 15.2d6+ tee7 Black is OK; ©) 6.2432! is nota great idea: 6...2c6 7.263 ®xd4! and Black can obtain some ‘static’ advantage afier 8.Qxd4 cxd4 9.2ab5 Bixd2+ 10.Wxd2 0-0 11.0-0 6! 12.64 Wh6 13.4 a5! 14.Bael 473, Friedrich-Hindermann, Switzerland tt 2002; D) The Ox exchange with 6.Sxh6 is also a principled option, recom- mended by grandmaster Roman Dzindzichashvili (Dzind2i) as giving asmall advantage to White, However, afier 6.ugxh6 7.a3 Black has a clear path to equality: analysis dlagram 7..fa5'? B.dxcS a 9.b4 dxc3 10.bxaS Wras 11.2e2 Wxcs 12.Wd6 Dd7 13.Wxc5 OxcS 14.9xc3. Bd7= Leniart-BSocko, Troms 2009; B) 6.f42! is a suspicious option 6..cxd4 7.DbS Bc5! (a well-know mo- tif against DS, also highlighted in The Flexible French) 8.b4 a6 9.bxc5 axbS 10.8xb5+ Zcé 11.03 “ESF Papp. Farago, Zalakaros 2003; F) Finally, White achieved nothing af- ter Ace? Sxd2+ 7.Wxd2 Deb 8.64 0-09.03 £6! 10,exf6 Waxfe 11.g3 oxd4 12.Bexd4 — (12.0-0-02!Recuero Guerra-Santana Montero, Linares. jt 2007 12...43!1) 12...051 13.0xc6 bxc6 14.Oxe5 Dede 6.06 7.2xh6 Following Daindzi’s concept A) White can again try his main idea 7.205, but now he is doing this with- out a pawn wedge: 7..dxd2+ 8.Wxd2 0-0 The safest option. The sharpest is 8...cxd4!? 9.@d6+ @f8 10.WE4 (10.@bS Bg wins the pawn on eS) 10...WaS+ 11.cbd1 AfSe, 9.dxc5! b61= Taking profit of his better development. 10.cxb6 Or 10.We3 Sd7 11.Se2 bxcS 12.Wxcs Det 13.0-0 DgxeS 14.Dxe5 Oxesez 15.f42 Hc8!F —Gutenev-Recuero Guerra, Herceg Novi jr 2006 10...Wxb6 11.843 11.0-0-07! Des 12.Dbds Dgxes 13.Oxc6 Dxeb 14.3 bs 15.242? (Hunt-S.Williams, Witley 1999) and now 15...2xd4! l6cxd4 eS!—+ wins. 11g 12,We2 Wb8 13.0-0 DexeS 14,Dxe5, DxeSF, Jerez Perez-Recuero Guerra, Pamplona 2005; B) 7.dxcS 0-0! (7...Dg42 8.2b5!) 8.0.43 (61 9.exf6 Wxl6 10.0-0 Bx: and the position is equal 7..axh6 8.2b5 A typical blockading move in this kind of variation. White hopes to control the centre, 8.23 is similar to 6.S¢xh6. The best continuation fs: 8...8a5!? 9.dxe5 4 10.b4 dxc3 11.bxaS WexaSz andWhite cannot play 12,6? on account oh 1.dkl/1 Uireatening the white queen after ...0-0-0. ..WbeN The standard French move, exerting pressure on dé, ‘) 8.2471? is my recommendation, hut it has to be investigated further; 1) B..cxd4 9.Wxdt WaS 10.0-0 is unclear, Landa-Dgebuadze, Belgium tt 1005/06; €) 8..Wa52t 9.Wd? Bxc3 10.8xc6+ bxco 11.Wec3 Wxe34+ 12.bxc3¢ White won two games from this posi- tion 9.0-0 cxd4 10,2xd4.S.d7 The key moment after the opening phase. 11.2x06 ‘An excessively ambitious exchange (AB vs, D4). Surely the static option was more interesting for White: 11-2xc6!?, after which I have analysed: Uiabxc6 12.443 Wade 13.Whs Wee 14.g3 We5 15.We2 hSe and in my ‘opinion this position is playable for both sides. 11..bxe6= How to understand this position? Black has the pair of bishops, a strong centre and the open g-file. However, his Kingside pawns are weak, so the black king will have to takea walk. oN En (Germany-tased Ruan grandmaer onsaatin Landa te 482 a iling sno-Winawer weapon. 12.0¢e2 Attacking is not easy for White, but he cannot play passively. After the most aggressive continuation 12.We4!? 1 would recommend. the following set-up: 12...67!7 13.b3 18 14.Badl Bg8 15.Wh3 bg7!? (15...2g600) 16.43 sha! 17.Wxh6 Hgo 18.Wh3 Bags 19.3 Wb7!s* and Black achieves an excellent position, get- ting ready for a central attack with the pawns: ..c5-d4. 12.07 13,Wd2 €51 14.013 26! x e a Bak | Wek & | kad a |RRAWORABl in ng After a few more moves, Black suddenly dominates the whole board.15.0471 You cannot play chess as if it were foot- ball! 15..d4! 16.293 Wxb2 17.Wxh6 Wxc2 18.W97bd7 18...Wg6! would have been a technical win: 19.Wxh8+ bd7 — 20.Wxas Bxa8—+. 19.Wh6 Wg6 20.Wd2 hs! White's situation is dramatic. Speaking in football terminology, the two knights are poor goalkeepers. Summary of the set-up 5.42 Oh6 x 1 A wae an wi) ae | Age ik @ BOR Ww AAS ls Re 21.2xd4 cxd4 22.Wxd4+ 2d5 23.64 Ehe8 24.2act Uc2 25.¢h1 Lxg2 26.15 a4 ot In my opinion this is a useful weapon against the early 6.2b5?! sortie, but the lines 6.a3 or 6.013 Hc6, and now the ‘Dzindzi’ exchange 7.2xh6, are still playable for White. A black player needs to apply some accuracy here. However, Black has one more magic trick to avoid annoying Semi-Winawer lines, as we will see in the next game.Chapter 3 - Black Magic Grandmaster Leonid Kritz wrote in his article in ChessBase Magazine 131: The French Dejeuce i one ofthe least explored openings in modern opening theory. Apart from the classi- cul main fines there isa host of rarely played variations whick constitute a great danger forthe player with White ifhe does not know exactly how toachieve an opening advantage. ‘We shall treat one such variation in this chapter. ‘A deviating weapon for Black can be a strategic set-up without an immediate «7-5, enjoying the closed structure. Directions 1.e4.€6 2.d4 d5 3.4\c3 Bb4 4.e5 De7!? |X mo We x wad Make Lae | # * @ as JAWA AB ip wees Playing this way Black can avoid getting involved into too many complications and he can also avoid a lot of theoretical lines of both the Semi- and the Main Winawer, although he will be restricted to certain variations (where Black does not play an early ...De7). For instance, after 5.23 2xc3 6.bxc3 he can neither play the Black Queen Blues with 6...Wa5, nor Botvinnik’s old Winawer with 6...Wc7 7.Wg4 f5 ‘Aswe already know, White can continue in two ways: AA) Typical Semi-Winawer moves (without 5.a3) ~Game 9 B) Finally play 5.23, trying to get into Main Winawer lines ~Game 10 GAME 9 ~ Avoiding the Semi-Winawer: 5.242 and 5.Wg¢ There are no clear statistics on these lines due to the excessive transpositions that lead to them. O Vugar Gashimov Tomas Petrik Dresden Bch 2007 (5) 104 e6 2.4 d5 3.23 Ab4 405 Bert? Deviations vs, Deviations. This flexible move allows Black to change his usual course, both in the Semi-Winawer and in the Winawer main lines. As the pres- cent game shows, this move almost neu- tralizes the strategic idea of &d2 (since 7-5 has not been played, DbS is not possible). Black comfortably prepares hisalternative plan ...b6 and ..236.| € Pere rad x) Aad MAAa a a A ‘Sew BRAY BBA n aweean In the closed structures that arise from here, the black knight can be more effec- tive than the white queen's bishop (4 vs, &). However, if White castles queenside, the position of His Majesty becomes less safe. 5.ad2 Against 5.Wg4 the deviation move is 5.3512. Black's main concept here is trading the queens (of course you can always choose to play 5...c5!, as in Game 7). 6.243 6.0f3 c5 also leads to Game 7. 6..h5 7.Wft Wh4! There are only 10 Megabase games with this move. 8.2xf5 8.0f3 Wxit 9.2xft De6!? (also 9...b6 10.842 Lxc3 11.Qxc3= Lamoureux-Moskalenko, France tt 2001) 10.8xf5 @xc3+!? I1.bxc3.exfS= — Makropoulou- SaMartinovic, Rijeka 2009, 8..Wixé& 9.axf4 Bxc3+! 10.bxc3 exfS 11.h4 e6= analysis diagram The position is equal, but still contains some play. Both players have some ad- vantage on opposite sides. 12.h3 Deb 13.Re3 Bas 14.63 Des 15.4A2 Dad 16.0d2 aS 17DE4 Ba6lree 18.Bhg] g6 19.94? fxg4 20.fxe4 Dea+ 21.3 bags 22.Dxe6 Lxe6F (@ vs. &) Kosteniuk-Efimenko, Biel 2004. 5..b6! Instead of playing his usual break 5...c5 (and going back to the Semi-Winawer), Black prepares the French bishop sortie ‘fta6, solving one of the most impor- tant (and dogmatic) problems for Black in the French Defence: the positioning of his ight-squared bishop. S..8x03!? This early exchange leads to similar consequences after 6.2x¢3 b6! This is another basic position for our line anaiysis diagram TW gh 7.QDS+!? c6 8.B.a4 a5 9.23 0-0 10.d2 abe Hajnal-Macsik. Zalakaros 1999. Now: A) After 7...0-02? Black has won sev- eral nice positional games: 8.h4 Or else, for instance, 8.3 Ba6 9.2xa6 ®xa6 10:h4 cS 11hS h6 12.0-0-0 eB 13.842 h7 14. We7 15.chb1 exdé 16.Oxd4 De6 17.Dxc6 WxcsF (@ vs. &) N.Pedersen- Sorensen, Aarhus 1996. 8...@a6fred CSte® 10.5 h6 11.242 Wh7 12.0-0-0 Sibe6 13.dxc5? bxcS 14.Wat Wh6— Hebden-Botterill, Southport ch GBR 1983, 1h) In my own games I preferred the salir move 7ug6 8.b4 (8.b4 cSt was seen in Mitkov-Moskalenko, Harbera 1999) 8..h5 9.We3 a6 10,0-0-0 Sxfl 11.Bxfl De6 12.2e2 Swe 13.Wd3 DES 14.93 Wa7 15.842 cs!f Minguez-Moskalenko, Canovelles 1000. 6.Wigd Keep in mind the following opening rule: In almost all lines of the Winawer Varia- tion, White needs to play aggressively on the kingside.... therefore, natural con tinuations like 6.f3 do not make much sense. For instance, 6...xc3!? 7.fixc3 a6 8.Bxa6 Axaé 9.We2 We8 10.0-0 5 11.Bfa1 Obs 12.a¢ Dbes 13.dxc5 bxcs 14.WDS ct 15.We5 0-0F (2 vs. 2) Novichkov-Moskalenko, Moscow 1996. 6..0-0! Castling here is probably better than in the main Winawer! (to compare the dif- ferences, see Part II) 6.25 is an alternative in order to equalize: 7.243 (7.Df3 Bxc3 8.Bxc3 @a6s Bakhmatov-Moskalenko, Minsk 1996) 7...n517 8.Wfs Wh4= etc. 7.0-0-0 This seems a logical continuation, Alter- natives are: A) 7.063 226 82x26 Dxa6 9.HdL xc3!?_10.bxc3_ Wd7= Timman- Hibner, Linares 1985; B) 7.4321 is apparently the least rea- sonable move in view of 7...8a6 8.Df3 (8.2h6? DgoF JDiaz-Pecorelli Garcia, Cienfuegos 1996) 8...0xd3 9.cxd3 @f5F due to the better pawn structure, in Pietruszewski-Jussupow, Warsaw rapid 2007. Toone ‘The main trick in this line and the main theme in closed French structures (xd), 7..c51? is a novelty that de- serves some investigation; 7...026!? is also a correct option: 8.2137! (8.Sxa6 @xa6_is the main line) 8...2xf1 9.Bhxfl @xc3! 10.8xc3 c5!F with the typically better pawn structure in the centre, Mrdja-B. Kovacevic, Zagreb 2009. 8.2x63 Of course, White cannot play the Winawer recapture 8.bxc3 here. 8..a6 8.512 9.03 a6 10.h47 Bxfl 11. Haxfl Dbc6F, UNielsen-Rodgaard, Denmark 1991 9.0xa6! xa6 We have arrived at the climax of this strategic variation (4...e7 5.S2d2).we a me » a a > “See a & Ow 2 z BAY BAB _ ORY OE 10.4 White may have made all the correct moves, but miraculously, he has no ad- vantage at all! The opposite-castled kings might even favour Black. 10..c51 11.002 cxd4 12.h5 25 13.We2d3!? The dynamic option, winning some tempi. 13..c5!? 14:h6 g600 is more complex. 14.Wxd3 Deb 15.1013 We7 16.04 Bac! Black's counterplay is obvious. 17.9484 17H 072, 18,Wd3 me a a a a adé & a = BA wy &BA ee OE ‘The key moment of the game. 18.4?! After the correct 18..d4! 19.c3 Qc6# Black has better attacking prospects on the queenside. 19.Wxc4 Exc4 20.0€2 De7 Now the position is equal 21.2d2 Ee7= ‘And afier some mysterious play by both sides, the endgame dramatically finished ina draw on move 74. x aowioa & GAME 10 — Avoiding the Main Winawer: 4...e7 5.a3 Sixc3+ 6.bxc3 b6!? (731 games=54,5%) RR MY v7 statistics with the ack pieces 25 games: 16 wins, 7 draws, 2 losses, performance=2584. xanWe & & MAba aoa aA aK AD RAR mR AwWesaR z Kritz: A continuation which i ful of ideas, Black wishes to solve right at the start the greatest problem of the French Defence, namely the exchange of his white-squared bishop. Praxis in re- cent years has shocwn that itis not so simple for White to demonstrate his superiority.You can find another interesting set-up in The Flexible French, Part Fe (atte tc bo 5.Wig4 or 5.23: 5... JUf8!2, Games 56-58). Some concepts explained in The Flexible French are also useful here: This is a typical plan in the Winawer, with a couple of strategic ideas: itis based ‘on trying to exchange the light-squared bishops by ....26, thereby reducing White's Initiative, In many cases the position remains quite closed. Black always has the op- tion of playing the typical French advance ...c7-c5. Then, after dxe5 bxc5, a wonder- {ul pawn centre is created for him: 5-a5. There is very little theory on these lines! ir, Chapter Please note that basically, the endgame is problem-free for Black Peter Leko Viktor Moskalenko Copenhagen 1995 (5) 1.e4 6 2.04 d5 3.263 bd 4.e5 He7 5.a3!? Finally, White offers his opponent the chance to reach the main Winawer structure (after &x4c3). 5..S0xC3+ 6.bxc3 b6!? However, in the flexible French Defence we can always make changes! Here is the deviation, For the main move 6...c5, see Parts Il and IIL 7.94! Leonid Kritz: The only ambitious continua- sion in this variation. All other attempts bring him no advantage (..) Black has at least equa- lised; he may perhaps even bea itl better. Let's check if this is true: A) 7:h4 G6 8.2xa6 8.243 c5 9.5 h6 10.a4 Bxd3 11.Wrd3 Obes 12.823 0-0 13.013 We7 14.0-0 a5 15.Bfe1 16.8cl Bac8é x aw as as Aas AW A RO £ analysis diagram (Grandmaster Rabel Vann: one ofthe worl greatest exper ofthe French Defence snd of closed Winsmer ioc, with the desired position for Black in this variation, Levchenkov-Moskalenko, Lubniewice it 1994, 8./Dxa6 9.hS 9.h3 Wa7 10.0F4 0-0-0 11.@hS Hhgs 12.8h3 Obs 13.24 Dbeo 14.611 a5 %4-% Inarkiev-Potkin, Goa Wch-jr 2002. 9.uh6 10.1 g4 Hg8 11.We2 Obs 12.283 Dbes 13.4 WA7 14.0h4 4-1 Spassky-Petrosian, Tilburg 1981; B) ad S26 88x06 Dias 9a5 Wes (9..b5!? 10.823 c5t=*) 10.843 c5! 11. De? 0-0 12.0-0= Hossain-Rocha, Calva ol 2004; C) 7.MbS+ c6 8.43 (in case of 8.2247! the white bishop is too passive; 8..9a6F Loskutov-Moskalenko, Mos- cow 1995) 8...a6 9,.0h3 c§ 10.fxa6xa 11.0-0 BeR! 12,047 exd4t 13.exd4 Sib4F Romanishin-Vaganian, Minsk ch-URS 1979; D) 7.0£3 Ba6 8.Sxa6 Dxa6 9.0-0 Wd7 10.a4 Abs 10...c5!? Kritz: ‘Noth- ing is achieved by 11.aS?! @bc6 1axb6 cxb6¥ White has only im. proved Black's position; Black now has a distant passed pawn and the open e-file’ 11.823 Dbe6 and ...Aas-Aes, Markidis-Moskalenko, Iraklion 1997; or 11.843 Dbc6= Naer-Schukin, St Pe- tersburg 2000; B) 7.De2 fa6 8.OFt Oxfl 9.bxfi Dg 10.BhS Bys (10...0-017 11.hs 500) 11.h4 Qd7 12.g3 £6 "%4-% Khalif- man-L.B.Hansen, Groningen 1989; F) 7.Db31? Qg6!? (preventing BA-DhS) Bat a6 9.8xa6 Axa’ 10.0 Oxft 11fxfe bs (11..Wh4!?) 12.Weet Hg 13.h4 Deo 14.h5 @aS 15.3h3 shd7! 16.98F1 1-1 Spassky-Vaganian, Baden 1980. 7.296 Probably the best defence. A) Castling with 7. here, since after 8.2g5!— it is hard to recommend anything for Black: White is chreatening 9.Sf6!; B) Now the alternative 7.052! is significantly weaker: B.QbS+!? c6 9.2d3 hS 10.Wh3 Wd7 11.94 e7 12.Be2 Ba6 13.43, Kurajica- Vaganian, Skopje 1976; 6 C) However, the defence with the king, 7.8812 Iy playable, T haves used this method many tinies xaawe x on A maa | | ad | Aw \A & & wan| [m9 @ waan| ‘analysis diagram The position is close to equal, but with the king on £8, Black does not have too many active counterplans: 8.083! The most flexible square for the knight in combination with Wg4. 8.0f3 is not dangerous: 8..h6 9.a¢ a6 10.243 Bxd3 11.cxd3 Dd7 12,0-0 c5 13.033 Hc8 14.a5 Hg8 15.axb6 axb6 16.dxc5 bxcS= Dominguez Perez-Moskalenko, Sant Pedro rapid 2001; nor is 8.h4 a6 9.fixa6 Dxa6 10.HS h6 11De2 cS 12.0-0 He8s* Hernandez Guerrero- Moskalenko, Granada 2001, 8...8a6 9.Bxa6 Axa6 10.04 ‘analysis diagram And here the best continuation is 10.051? 10..2g62! 11.OhSt, Santo Roman-Bauer, Chambery ch-FRA 1994, T1OWS DE! 12.Wed We 13.g De714.00 xd 1S.cxd4 Wet 16.Wd2 Hest and Black is OK, as in Hllernandez-Nogueiras, Santa Clara ch CUB 2005. Bhat This is the main path for White if he is looking for a straightforward refutation oF Black's set-up. A) 8.2g57! Wa7 9.h4 ho 10.842 hs! and Black wins several important tempi in comparison to the main line, as in Fischer-Ivkov, Santiago 1959. B) 8.a4 Ba6 (8.0512) 9.$.xa6 Dxa6 1o.h4 hS 11,.We2 @b8 12.895 Wa7 (better is 12..WWc8!? with the idea 13..Wa6!) 13.a5 Dac6 14.axb6 cxbé 15.W13_ (Kamsky-Morovic Fernandez, Khanty-Mansiysk ol 2010). Here Black should regroup with 15...2ce7! 16.82 DFS 17.04 Bc8!=. 8..h5, The key moment for White. 9.893 Keitz: One of the important decisions re- quired in this variation is whether to post the queen on g3 or take it back to d1. In my opin ion, the queen is best placed on g3. The idea behind the alternative queen move 9,Wa1 is to attack the h5 pawn by Ded-g3. However, Black has sufficient ways to combat it: 9.17! A very im- portant improvement The immediate 9...a6 is probably worse: 10.2xa6 Dxa6 11.8g5! (the anti-Winawer bishop becomes quite powe=merful here) 11.7 (11,..f67 12. WEB SET 13.83! Caruana-pellin, Gibraltar 2007; 11...We8 12.462 cS S 13.0-0f) 12.Be24 53 games in Megabscase. White is better on the kingside! theme pawn on |S is weak and Black ius protSexblems cas- ting. 10.22 There are 380 3 two possi- ble moves with the king’ss" 's bishop: 10,d3 Ba6 11.Oxgo ig6 1 1 2.Dh3 cS 13.068 WHT 14.0h3 Oe rai dg ee 15.8 10 16.4 17.Loft ici 15.1g3 De7=RChowbity Ss Saptarshi- Moskalenko, Andorra 1006; 3; 10.fe2 Bab 1Oehs Why 12 BerS2e2 Was 13.842 Bxht 1gpht S Axh4ae,10..We6 11.0d2 £26 120)g3 xf Bsaxft Od7 13..Wedd 2 Hskgl Set 14.0)zhS 0- aA 4 aw af & i a oA | SAR RAR) ip wee] 15.Dxg7 Oxh4 16.Dh5 16.295? D5! 16...Wed+ 17.degi DS@ and ...c7-c5!; CK IEW fo! T62xf5 fs 17.g3 (17-2xfo? Rafe 18.95 Bape 19.Q.xf6 Oxh4—+) 17..5 Black had very good compensation for the pawn in Karjakin-Grischuk, Odessa rapid 2008. 9.26! The only move in view of 9...Wd722 10.843, White attacks the knight on g6 and thus wins a pawn, Wernbacher Sla Marjanovic, Feffernitz 2001 10.82 According to Kritz, this is the strongest continuation for White. After the natural exchange 10.Sxa6 xa6 Black gets a level game: analysis diagram A) 11,03 — the knight is not very ef- fective on {3. The original idea was to 58 Dorling the kulyht vla e2.10 33 fn order to atuick the BS pawi He Equivalent It Hd? Lat Wee 13.0\g5 Sie7 L4aS Wet 15233 cStet Naiditsch= Rodshtein, Dresden Ech 2007. 12.0-0 Wa7 13.24 Ze8 14.2a3 sfBil and Black has nothing to fear, because the white pieces are not cooperating well: analysis diagram 1SZg5 dogs 16.6 De7! 17.Wd3 cA! 18.3 AES 19.S.c1 £61F ‘closed game’, Skrobek- Moskalenko, Swidnica 1997; B) 11Wd3 DbB 12.gs 12.4371 Deo 13.24 Wa7 14.095 Das 15.g3 Hes 16.242 c5!% Prasad-Lputian, Port Erin 2003. 12...We8!? 12..WA71? 13.De2 5! ~ only four games. 13.0e2 Wa6 14.WES 14.0-021 Wad3 15,cxd3 Dd7 = and ...f7-f6. 14.05! 14...d77" 15.0-0 f6 16.exf6 gxfo 17-14! Oxf 18.2xt4 0-0-0 19.241 Shirov-Kristjansson, Izmir 2004. 15.0-0 26 |x e &) le 2 ak | Wak ak ae! BAS D2) |= 2 = jA Wee] | S&S ORAS) be eRe | analysis diagramAnd. Black gets full counterplay 16.0fdi Wet (6,.Be8!?, 17.2d2 ‘nge7!2 18.Mad1 Sf 19.g3 Dxg3 20.fxg3 He8! 21.th2 He7F Korneev- Rivas Pastor, Benasque 2005) ©) 11.Ge21? cS 11... Wa7=1? 1244 @xf4 13.Rxf4 FBI? 14 ad Se 15.WE3 Dc 16.8g5 Here Velikhanli-Moskalenko, Halkida 1996. 12g 12.064 Oxf4 13.0xf¢ O18 14.Bd1 cxd¢ 15.cxd4 Ee8 16.8d2 ets Bedny-Potkin, S¢ Petersburg 2001, 12..WeBe Activating the queen as soon as possible. Alterna- tively, 12...Wd71? 13.0-0 b8 is inter- esting, but not the only move; 14,64 ®c6 15.f5 exfS0> Hvorostinin- Moskalenko, Yalta 1996, 13.0-0 cxd4 14,cxd4 Wxe2! and we are back in an ‘open game’ x é a aa | ak ka Ee aA & As & : @ Woaka 8° ‘analysis diagram 15.863 Wes 16.Wxet dxet 17.0c3 D7! 18.Axe4 0-0= and Black is at least not worse: 19.f4 @d5 20.f5 exfS 2IHxfS Bac8 22.Hafl Het! 23.246 Exd¢¥ 24.Exf7? Hxf7 25.0xf7 Edit! 26.8272 DxeS 27 Bxa? Des 28.63 3! 0-1 Retinsky-Moskalenko, Alushta 1995 10.8 In order to defend £8. |A) With 10...c5!? there are no games available. B) 10.2Eh72 The rook is quite pas sively placed on h7. 11.ags Wd7 12.W13 Was 13.0g3 Qxfl 14cbxf1 5? 2 14..Wxcd 15. DxbS Wc6 16.g44. 15.2651! analysis diagram ‘A spectacular refutation of Black's ‘sar- cophagus play’ is: 15..Wet+ 16.2g1 exfS 17 Wxfs 2d7 18.06 6 19.Hel— Shirov-Atalik, Plovdiv Ech-tt 2003; ©) A plausible aktemative may be 10..8a71? ‘analysis diagram which is tactically correct in view of Vlad 11OF Oxft 12Gxfe dts 13.Bxa6 Zxa6= leads to equality, 8 games; 11.13%! is offered by Kritz as 2 novelty, but in the variation 11...Wa4! 12.0g3 Sxfl 13.dxf1 5! (@ coun- ter-novelty — Moskalenko) 14.@xhS Wet+ 15.og! BxhS! (the keyexchange sacrifice) 16.Wxhs Wac3 17-Bad WxdtF Black is better. 11.06 12.04 Bxfl 13.4xg6 Sxg2! 14f)ch8 Qxhi 15.Wxg7 0-0-0 16.2xf7 He8 17.2h6 Redz Black has good compensation for the pawn (krivz) 11.a4 Qc61? ‘Also worth considering is 11... 2 pee foe id " & se Coe he ‘The ight clearly stongerthan the Game 12: lack to move. ‘Game 12: Howto mprom Black’ ook; Game fier mone 26 postion?GAMH 11 ~Classical development: 7.51f3 (4124 games=53.6%) and 7.243? (219 games=47.3%) L Kiril Georgiev @ Artur Jussupow tas Palmas 1993 (7) 1.04 06 2.44 d5 3.2¢3 2b4 4.05 We are in the first position where Black yeis to choose his system in the Winawer. rag vy" @ az “Aas Cae De a2 a ie SBAS BAR A SWeene 4.0.07 This order is also common in main lines However, the most flexible approach is 4.05 5.03 @xc34+ 6.bxc3. This is an- other key moment, Here, for instance, Black can use the Old Winawer weapon 6..We7!?, This manoeuvre with the black queen is ‘multi-geometric’, since it protects the seventh rank against 7Migs with 7..f5 (see The Flexible French, Game 75). Here, the main line is 7..®0eT (see Chapter 6, The Poisoned Pawn). And after the most conventional move 7.2/3 Black can use the strategic set-up with 7...b6!? ~see Game 13. 5.a3 Jixc3+ 6.bxc3 65 7/03 This natural move allows Black to suc- cessfully employ a strategic set-up with 1b7-b6. The well-known options 7.24, 7.h4 and 7.We4 are considered to be more dynamic and aggressive. To de- ‘velop the bishop first with 7.243 is a less valid idea. Black can win a tempo, (Grandmaster Artur Jussupow bas sored a ombe f memorable tries with he Postonal ‘sarcophagus system 67-06 gunethe Sob-Winwer sey move 07 we mghc call the King Are for instance 7..We7 (or 7...W. 8.42 c#!? 9.62 Wat — the Qu Blues line) 8.3 b6!? 9.0-0 &a6=. EaoWe = aa waka 7..b6!? Here is the positional solution: B) aims to exchange the light-sque bishops. This is grandmaster A\ Jussupow’s main weapon in this 1 However, Black has several ‘universal ternatives which are also very helASokoloy Jussupow. Riga m- 13-1986 and Nunn-Hertneck, Munich 1991, but it is too risky and unclear if Black is go- ing to take the pawn on c2, 11.43 shg7 12.013 Ba6 13.dxc5 Sixd3 14.cxd3 bxc5 15.0-0 247 16.51 Hb8 17.242 Hb6 18.Wh4 Doz 4-% Nunn-PNikolic, Skelleftea 1989; C) 8.h4 This advance is much more dangerous and effective on move 7, be- fore @f3, see Games 13-15. 8.ua6 9,.Gxa6 Dxa6 10.h5 h6 11.Wd3 AS 12.dxeS brcS 13.c4 Zbe6 14.0-0 0-0= Benjamin-Gulko, Saint john 1988; © rice: 8.Rb1?! Ba6! 8..We7 9.Ab5+ d7 10,8d3 Bad= Ljubojevic-Vaganian, Rotterdam 1989. IdxcS afl! 10.cxb6 axb6 10...xg2?. ILSbxfl Da7e with nice positional com- pensation for the pawn. By the way, such @ pawn sac would be a good idea in similar structures ofany Winawwer line. 8..2d7 9.243 We are in the key position of this strate- gic set-up. The main idea here is to block the queenside, using the wonder fal ‘French’ bishop and the c-pawn. In case of 9.a4 the most solid set-up for Black was showed by Mark Dvoretsky: 9...8xb5 10.axbS Dd7 11.0-0 0-0 12.We2 We7= Glimbrant-Dvoretsky, Barbera 1996. foi bere » » > & oe ie Eo he Be Cy Cot Cod ob pec 9..dk047t However, this move order may be mis: taken. If Black is going to block the post tion, then the best chance is to close the ‘sarcophagus’ immediately with 9...c41 This is an important strategic decision, avoiding the lines with 10.dxcS!?. This order is more popular recently ~ it was also reloaded by Jussupow. 10.2f117 ‘ad! leads to the desired position, with lots of typical games xa Ue x) a Baha a a a& 2a & AB Oo A AAR EB GWwee og analysis diagram 11.g3 11.h4 @be6 12.hS h6 13.g3 &d7 (13..Wd7! 14.84 0-0-0= Gavrikov- Chernin, Jurmala 1983) 14.&h3 Wg8 15.0-0 Wh7= with similar ideas to the main game, 11..h6!? 11...2bc6!? 12.2 Wd7 13.0-0 0-0-0 14.h4 £5 15.exf6 gxfo 16.Hel Hde8 17.8h3 Df 18.8f Bhg8z Anand-S.lalic, London 1987. 12.83 12.h¢ ded7!? 13.8h3 Wes 14.0-0 Wh7 15.Ba2 a6 16.h5 Qc7 17.84 BafB 18,Wd2 gs Khruschiov-Arslanov, Moscow 2009. 12.847! The King Artur! 13.0-0 We8 14.2e1 dc7 15.g2 Dd7 16.F4 6 17.De3 5 18.2g2 bS= Black was afraid of the threat @xc4, but after this move the bishop cannot go back home. 19h3 £5 20.exf6 Dafo 21.We2 saz 22.Bel DS 230A HeB %-% Jenni- Jussupow, Germany Bundesliga 2002/03, 10.h4Now this. is more off a waitin Alea aurattacking idea, WEAPON: 10.dxc5! is @ danger- ous eapon: ry ja ab le ere & {a awe “| analysis diagram WhbxeS TLDg5! @ (11.00 cA! 12.02 Frbege2) 11.K6 12MHS 6 (12..0-02 15.90h7 WaS 14.0-0!+) 13.Wh4 ct (13..WaSC) 14.0247! Wa5? (14.470) 156+ dogs 16Wxe6+ eg7 17.Nhfo+ Wyg8 18.2xg61) 15.242 Bfs 16.2464 sed? 17.RbI— with a winning position, mainly «luc to the poor position of the black king, in Vucok-Vavra, Czech tt 1994 10.61? To prevent gS definitively 11.h5 4! Finally, Black chooses the blocking method. Another model game by Jussupow went 11..abc6 12.h4 (12.0-0 412; 12.3 Wer?) 12.4 13.@e2 Wd712 (The key move by Artur’s king) 14.203 Wye (14.0151) 15.Wd2 Wh? 16H the? 17.Bf4 Bafa 18.0h4 81? 19.gt b7 20.803 e812 21.2h3 g5! 22.bxg6 fxgs 23.0£3 g5!t and Black was better in A.Sokolov- Jussupow, Riga m-1 1986 analysis diagram GF THCK 24 9g57 WyF vinng piece. 12.202 Sometimes a game may finish without any action, For instance, in Shirov Jussupow, Moscow ol 1994, 12.f1 hd7!? 13.93 We8 14.06 Wh7 15.Bcl Dbe6 16.g2 a5 17.Dh2 bs 18.8? FS 19.0-0 @ife7= after the development of both armies had been completed, there was no way t0 make progress without ‘moving the pawns. Therefore, a draw was agreed later, on move 28. 12.8871? A fashionable set-up, with the idea to ac- tivate the queen immediately by means of ..Wg8-Wh7. But itis not forced. WEAPON: Black can sintply pre- pare queenside castling by 12...£be612. Lalo like the idea of manoeuv- ring with ...2.a6-@e7-0b5, because there are more countering. possibilities. 13.24 Wa7 14.Wa2 0-0-0- ete., see fora nice ex- ample ofthis line Came13\xa w ja wah [a 4 & | a A fh | [A & Baie | AUG BAY] [x owe 3) 13.04 Similar is 13.0-0 Wg8 14.g3 Wh7 15.Ha2 Qa6 16.0h4 Qe7 17.Bg4 Hale 18.Gd2 Bc (18.2517) 19.Eb2 skb7= Dolmatov-LBHansen, Polanica Zdroj 1993, A recent game between high-rated play- ers hardly changed the value of the posi- ion: 13.08 We8 14.042 (preparing g2-g4, but this plan also fails) 14.,.Wh7 15a? Da6!? 16.g4 Qc7 17.2h3 Hal 18.Be3 eB 19.023 De6 20.063 Bhgs 21cbd2 bb7 22.Wh1 Abs! Bologan-Vitiugox, Sochi t 2010. analysis diagram Black's position is really wonderful: his minor pieces dominate the queenside and the artillery is well prepared for breaks with the f/g-pawns. 13..W98 14.294 White can play 14.2e3 Wh7 15.Hcl, but there is no real difference. 14..Wh7 15.2a2 1 believe that this strange position is equal. However, at some moment, one player may be able to unbalance the game, using a pawn break, as we have al- ready seen in previous lines. 15.0261? On c7 this knight will be most effective and flexible. 16.5h3 c7 17.éf1 ZafB 18.b91 g5!? 19.043 19.hxg6 fixg6 20.083 We 19..¢6 20/0h2 51? 21.exf6O Bxf6 22.Be3 Bhf 23.4371 Probably White's first mistake. 23.e2=; 23.23 he8 24.094 Be Byeing the pawn on h5 24,242 ‘Trying to improve the passive bishop. 24../@8! 25.23? ‘The second bad move 25..Wxh5! 26.094 E15 Preparing an exchange sacrifice. After simply 26...10647!? Black is better.Wt2 WIZ foes | Bae! 28dxes Wet 97..Wg6! hw rook does not matter, but also after 17, Blot? 28.“ g4 B67! Black is better. 20. xt5 ext 1m this kind of positions the knight is clearly stronger than the rook (see for nore material on the properties of pieces my book Revolutionize Your Chess) 29.He2 ‘if6 30.Wet /ihS 31.2a1 fig3 32.0e5 Wd6!l 33./h1 Sixht 34hxh1 2xe5 35.dxe5 Web —+ 36.2¢3 Wxe5 37.Wd2 Hes 38.212 14 39Hd1 bd6 40.Het WIS 41.xe8 Gxe8 42.244 Gad 43.We1 &d7! 44.ub1 HS! 45.4 &c6 46.Wbt o4 ATAxgd hxg4 48.Wet a4 White resigned. ‘Summary of the line 7.2£3: The defensive system with 7...b6 is flexible enough, it is not so forced and it is good {or positional players. On the other hand, Black can use the universal weapons A-B-C (the moves 7..Wa5!, 7..0c6 and 7...2d7!?) in the fight against all White's sub-Winawer lines, The study of this game will be useful for the understanding of the entire chapter. GAME 12 ~The ‘Anti-dynamic’ 7.a4 (1286 games=54.4%) Of course this move cannot be the best option for White, but the concept behind a3-a¢ is easy to understand: White wants to bring his bishop to the a3-f8 diagonal and makes sure that Black does not fix the queenside with ...Wa5-Wat (Queen Blues) or ...d7-Sa4 (Sarcophagus). It certainly prevents all of Black's strategic counter set-ups, including Jussupow’s plan with 7...b6. However, many ideas here are similar to those in the line with 7.f3. At some point in the opening, the second player should choose between a closed centre with c5-c# (the main Botvinnik/Uhimann set-up), or more dynamic positions with semi-open structures. For a better understanding of this system — and indeed of the whole Winawer system — I recommend the reader to first enjoy the full game by ‘French magister’ ‘Wolfgang Uhlmann, and only then return to the study of al the options given in the notes. Until the move 9.23, I haven't used the original move order from that game because I wanted to show the intermediate possibilities in the entire line,OlLaszlo Hazai @ Wolfgang Uhlmann Halle 1981 (4) 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.2c3 Ab4 4.e5 cS. 5.23 &xc3+ 6.bxc3 De7 7.04 Preventing the set-ups with ..b6-£a6, Sd7-G4 and ..Wa5-Was, and try- ing to activate the queen’s bishop via SOA BAB HH RWHODE) 7..a5l This is a major defensive move with multiple ideas. This option is also ana- lysed in John Watson's Play the French (3rd edition). Now the strategic set-up with 7..b6 is less interesting: 8.Qb5+!2 d7 (8..0f8%! 9.h311 is advantageous for White as well, with the idea @f4-Ah5, for example) 9.243 and White has tra ditionally been thought to have some advantage. Starting with the natural move 7...be6 is similar to Uhlmann’s set-up, but with this move Black misses some important intermediate ideas (see below) 8.202 This move is quite forced for White ifhe islooking for an advantage WEAPON: After 8.2, trying to stick to the idea S03, 8..b6! just leads back to the model strategic set-up. Wat son also suggested 8../Dbc6 90/3 Sd7 10.Se2 BB! — see also Weapon C given in the previous game. 9.254 TRICK: bad Sa 10S? ext Hacxbh fl 12. bus Sexy; IF 9.263 a6 10.dxa6 Wrabe?, as orig- inally played in Pelitov-Uhlmann, Szombathely 1966. 9unkhd7 10.843 analysis diagram The key position ofthis line 10..0be6 10...0Lxa4!? — no games TLOf3 £6 11 h6!2; 1L.cxd4?; 11...Bc8!, 12.0-0 12.exf6!? gxié 13.0-000, 12..fxe5 13.dxe5 0-0 14.Bel h6 15.h4 Had8 and Black has the better chances, Borkowski-Drasko, Polanica Zdroj 1988. 8..Dbe6 WEAPON: An important, classi- cal strategicalternative is analysis diagram Black uses the important factor time: the white queen's bishop cannot go imme- diately to a3. 9.Wg4 Otherwise BlackCan tack and win the a pawn, for in stance: 9Fih322 0.0 1O.ske2 Srd7!2 110.0 Sib6a® Gipslis-Spassky, Riga Uh URS 1958; oF 9.063 d7!? 10.62 ‘abos# Tolush-Botvinnik, Moscow CI URS 1945, 9..0-01 This was the inh of the New Winawer! 10.862 Wotah3 ft Lexis Bxf6z; 10.h4 (ast, 10..Dbe6 11.68 £61 Playing for the centre; 11...b5 is unclear. 12.0-0 Vexfo Hxf6z2, 12.fxeS 13.Dxe5 MsaeeS Dgozt. 13..c0xeS 14dxes kd7 15.2g5 Dts 16.Wh3 We7 17.Hfel Wres 18.Gxc4 We7 19.243 eS!f was favourable for Black in Robatsch-Uhlmann, Moscow ol 1956. 813 This position is still new for us ~ in this hook, T mean. But play is very similar (0 the A-B-Clines given in the first game. WEAPON: 9We4 This move is always interesting, coen though White has already spent several important lempi_in the opening: 9..0-0 10.243 (10.28 517 ILWhS Wh6z=) 10.651? (10,417 1 e2 f6%2) TLexfo (1.3 of 12.862 65%) 11..Bxf6 12.WhS 2/5 13.08 (13.47 cA!) 13..c4 14xf5 (14.202? @d6"F) 14...Exf5 and Black has at least equal chances. Kae & wa” MAbS aa n Ww kad, Al "8 fo waa RAB iB Wee ug 9.807 An automatic move. Many times this po- sition arises by transposition. 9...c4 was originally played in Smyslov-Botvinnik, Moscow ch-URS 1944, But here Black cannot use the manoeuvre ...4d7-Cb6. After the correct 10.g3!2# there is no ef- fective counterplay for Black. So later, in 1945, Botvinnik corrected this. lapse (see 8...c4? above). WEAPON: But here Black can continue in New-Winawer fash- ion with 9..0-0!?. With this move you can avoid having to study many lines: [xo a Ree aa waka hk jw 2a Jan B fe A A | AS BAB BR Week analysis diagram 10,8243 6! 11. Dh (11.0-0 cf is an inter- esting transposition for Black) 11..c42® was played in Aucvinen-Karttunen, Kuopio 1990, but also interesting are 11...Wc7!? and 11.2512 10.205 ‘The most popular move. However, itis really difficult to understand why. Natu- ral development with 10.0e2!? is the second option for White: analysis diagramA) WEAPON: Tor Kortelnoi’s dyiumic break 10..fo!? L recom ‘mend the reader to study Watson's analysis in ‘Play the French’ (2003) and recently fea- tured on ‘ChessPublishing’. This is without any doubt an interesting option, but things are highly unclear after 11.c4!? We7 Iexd5 @xd5 13.ch Dde7 Mexjo gxfé 15.dxc5 0-0-0 and it is difficult to evaluate this position, which occurred for the first time in Timman-Kortchnoi, Leeuwarden ohNED 1976. analysis diagram Black has a nice pawn structure and his pieces are solidly placed, but all com- puter modules give an advantage for White (perhaps for the extra pawn). OF course, in human play nobody is safe here! Maybe the black side is even easier to play, for instance, 16.8c3?! (16.a5!? 361700) 16...e5 17. Wa6 Of5 18. Wxc7+ sbxc7# was a favourable endgame for Kortchnoi, which was eventually re- flected in the result rm B)_ WEAPON: The new. Winawwer; 10..0-0! This is a per- {fectly normal move in chess, however its not always useful in the Winawwer system! 110-0 ‘We7!? A queen is faster than a bishop! (see my chapter on piece properties in ‘Revalu- tionize Your Chess’) analysis diagram 12.Bel h6 12..b6!7 13.843 h6 14.Bxhor! (2 14.Wel ct 15.2 fotze Byrne-Kortchnoi, Nice ol 1974) 14.geh6 15.Wa2 og7 16.84 Ogee was in Black’s favour in Kurajica-Diez del Corral, L’'Hospitalet de Llobre 1973. 13.dc1 Finally revealing the opening idea of a3-a4, but Black is already well prepared: 13..b6! Reinforcing the queenside structure, 14h 14.233 2ase, ye CE Ate 14,043. Black has ‘gained a tempo compared tothe theory position. 14...f612 15.243 15.exf6 Bufo 16.003 Das=. 1SufxeS 16.0xe5 DxeS 17.dxe5 c41=® Cunningham-Botterill, Cardiffch-WIS 1980. ©) Here the strategic concept 10...0412 isalso good and solid C1) 1.Dgs h6 12.0h3 0-01; < 12...0-0-013.f4? Uhlmann; C2) 11.0-0 Castling is White's most common choice here. 11...f6!? (11...0-0-0; 11..0-0) 12.exf gxfé and Black's position is strong enough. The main line continues: 13.0h4 0-0-0 14.0h5 Bhg8 15.3 (15.Hel Dg6!?) 15..05 (15...0g6!7 16.213 eSe) 16.f4 41224 M.Becker-Ublmann, Halle 1982; C3) With 11.4h4 there are only two classical games, but their ideas are help- ful in the preparation for the next game:a AQQAK lt We 8 analysis diagram 11.f6! 12.hS freS 13.h6 gxho 14 xe5 “axes 15.dxe5 0-0-0 16.2xh6 Nd 16..Dg6" 17.2957) Wrc3+ INsVEl Bdf8 19.8f6 Exfo! 20.exf6 IGF Fischer-Padevsky, Varna ol 1962. 17.5¢4 Ogo 18.ef1 Who 19.e1 xe5 20.8e3 Wed6 Black had an extra joan and a etter position in Garcia Muetinez-Uhlmann, Havana 1964 10..cA!? \ceording to Uhlmann this isthe logical reply tothe bishop's trip tob8. A) WEAPON: Of course, there are some alternatives where Black loss not close the contre: 10.,a6!? 11.02 11.@xc6 @xc6 12.0.0 h6 13.Wel cf 14. Wa3 We7= Suctin-Misiano, Biel 1997. 11.612 Here | prefer this most dynamic at- tenipt advocated by Kortchnoi and Watson. 11..c4!2 #8 the Botvinnik/Uhtmann move 12.04 We7 13.cxd5 Dxd5 14.04 Dde7 15.exf6 gxf6 x & x aoa analysis diagram This 15 the critical positions of this tine Lo.dxeS tn case of 16.9 ex 17.0xd “xd Black seems OK, Safarli-Ganguly, Paks 2009. 16...0-0-0 17.2¢3 After 17.0-0 eS the black pawn on a6 makes a favourable difference for Black, in comparison to the line 10.8e? £6. 17.05 18.Wd6 £5 18.2517 19.Wxc7+ wxc7# Zhang Zhong- Berkes, Calvia ol 2004. 19.Whxe7+ 19.Wxf6 Ehfs 20.Wh6 “go 21.0-0 D4, 19...89xc7 20.Kc1 Dgo 21.g3 {811 and Black achieved a very prom- {sing position in Short-Pelletier, Leon Ech-tt 2001; B) Wrong line: 10...We7 has the same idea as in the line with 10.82, Le. pre- paring ..b7-b6, but White has some pressure afier 11.0-0 0-0 12.Hel!? 12.cl b6 13.a3 Dase Black is problem-free here, Nunn-Jussupow, Belgrade 1991. 12b6 13.dxc5 bxcS 14,263 c4 15.@eSt Zhang Zhong- Lputian, Beer-Sheva Weh-tt 2005. 11.et 11.Qc1! (no games) 11,..Ab8 (11..2xeS 12.Oxe5 @xb5) 12.8074 Oxdi 11.0-0 h6 12.Hel a6 13.2xc6 Bxe6 and %-"4, Anand-Oll, Rome 1990. 11...f6! The main resource, introducing Black's set-up. 7912.ext6 After 12.0-0 fxeS 13.dxe5 (13.2g5!? g6!) 13...0-0 Black's position cannot be worse at least 12..gx6 13.0-0 Hg8! From now on the white king will not have a comfortable life. 14.2e1 7! A quite revolutionary move for the 1980's! Since the bishop is locked out on 5, there is mo danger along the light squares anymore, Therefore, the king can protect the e6-pawn in this unconventional ‘way. At the same time, it allows the con- nection of the rooks and Black can get ready to double them along the g-file — Ubimann, 15.841 Preparing the manoeuvre Sf 15..0151 xo ek rie a» a BAS “BAS a Ww ne Without wasting time playing ...a7-a6, Black prepares a massive attack on the Kingside. The result of the opening can be summarized as not favourable for White. 16.2f4 WS! 17.h3 Hg6! 18.Wad Curiously, White hasn't got any clear counterplay here ~ he is the passive side! 18..h4! An optimistic advance, preventing g2-g3 and preparing an exchange sacri- fice which is typical in closed structures, like in the previous game by Jussupow. Afier 18,.ag8 19.g300 and it is not easy to make progress 19,0h2 Hag 20.094 Black to move! 20..xg4! Here is the point. This subtle strategic exchange sacrifice will have long-term ef- Jfects. The queen will be transferred via d8 to g8 in order to help in the attack. The A-pazon threatens to advance at the right time, aiming to create some penetration squares. White does not have any counterplay since his rooks and bishop pair lack any targets in the black camp — Uhlmann, 21.hxg4 Bxg4 22.¢h2 Wel Black improves his position, using the great skills of the ‘Blues Queen’. Now play is much easier forthe black side 23.430 Hg6 24.Wot Wg8! Finally Black has enough activated pieces and pawns to start the attack. 25.Wd2 293+ 26.2xg3 Bxg3—‘Au extremely dangerous position for White. His major pieces are out of play nul cannot make use of their properties 27.xc6! ‘The bishop is also useless on bS, so the Ihestcefence is systematic simplification. 27..bxc6 Keeping the bishop on the diagonal AY 13. 27,..8x06 28. Wale 28.5e2h3!29.2b1! White is stil in time to escape 20..h2 This pawn advance might be too hur- vied, but in the game the idea worked TRICK: 29.” a0 byt (G0.Rb8 65!) 30.8xf3 31.8072? pls 82.M0h2 B2BxfT h2—+) 32..hxg2_ and Biuck iszinming, 30.Wh6 Hxf3+ 31.0127 A decisive mistake, Not 31.gxf32? Wl#, but 31.Sel!, a defence that was difficult to find. After 31...Wg3+ (31.-Bxc3? 32.Waxh21) 32.éd2 would have led to a draw after a number of forced moves. Summary 7.24: 31..W96l! This quiet intermediate move is full of nom and can be completely overlooked — Uhimann. 32.Wxg6+ dxg6 33.he20 Exc3t 34bd2 2931 35.h1 c3+ 36.¢1 Had! This move finally yields a decisive advan- tage. The mass of black paws cannot be stopped any longer. My bishop is also ative and kicking ~ Uhlmann. 37.Bxh2 Exd4 38Zf3 eS! 39.2xc3 Exad 40.g3+ Sg4! 41.0c3 ed 42.Eh8 Hat+ 43.2 Lat 44.93 fs! 45.08 Rd1 46.Dxc6 e3 47.18 Sed! 4B.Loxt6+ a5 49.2617 cog4! 50.Dt4+ soh3!51.2h4+ hg2 52.0hf4 Md2 0-4 Afier losing the dynamic advantage (White uses one tempo to improve his position, but not for the attack), Black has enough useful plans, Please check my analysis again and you will discover new ideas in the comments to the first two games. However, we must remember that Uhlmann’s main set-up with S-c# and £7-6 stil agrees with Botvinnik’s original ideas! Thope the study of this chapter will be useful for meeting the flank attack in the neat.Chapter 5 - The Sharp Flank Attack 7.h4 GAMES 13-15 ~7.h4 (1083 games=58.6%; the best statistics for White!) After losing two important games in the Winawer sys- tem (one of them against 7.4, Short-Kortchnoi, Wijk aan Zee 1987), decided to change and play the Classi- cal system with 3.2c3 46 ~ Viktor Kortchnoi Working on this system, I found an interesting resource for Kortchnoi in that memorable game —see the Weapon 9...cxd4 in Game 14. By the way, the second important game lost by Kortchnoi was probably in the Armenian Variation 5.23 faa —see the next chapter. Now we have to deal with a much more dy- ‘namic move than the two previous ones ~ 7.h4 is a typical modern, aggressive resource in the Winawer system. Vitor Korth xaowe & aa mead & & & &A& EH QWeoane Curt Hansen in ChessBase Magazine (CBM): If one does not know the opening theory of this Hine this move may at firs sight be a surprise, However itis in fact quite logical. White has «space advantage om the king-side and furthermore black has exchanged his main defender of 97 ~ the blacksquared bishop. White's intention is now to weaken the black squares further ‘with hd-h5-h6 or put g7 under pressure with hd-h5 and Bh3-Biyg3 John Watson on ChessPublishing: This advance has always produced tactical and dou- ble-edged play and retained an appeal for those who like to mix it up directly. Kasparov, Morozevich and Short (very often!) have played it, as well as ambitious players such as Fedorov and Ljubojevic. # White goes right after the dark squares, intending hS-h6. © EvenifBlack plays..h6, hiskingside will be more vulnerable to attack,© By delaying 9), White reserves the possibility of We, and his king’s rook can jump isto ation a or I. © The downside is that Black gains time for development and attack upon White's centre, so the frst player will often sacrifice thed-paum to keep things going. her's plenty of life lft in the variations with h2-hd. Keep in Mind (author's note about 7.h4) «© ‘This creative option has become popular recently. It allows White to avoid the highly theoretical lines following 7.Wg4 We7 or 7...0-0. White first increases his resources on the kingside. Therefore, when facing the h?-h¢ variation, Black's ‘opening moves and ideas should be determined by new considerations! «In the following three games (13-15), my purpose will be to open the search in three lines: 7..Wc7!? (Game 13), 7...2c6 (Game 14) and 7...Wa5! (Game 15) & Workshop Middlegame Themes ‘Game 15: Rhcktomor came 15: Blick move GAME 13 — Classical defence with the queen: 7...We7 (288 games=47%) This ultra-short queen move is in accordance with a solid defensive set-up, but it is always less dynamic than the long move ... Wa Black temporarily prevents Wdl-Wes (8.Wg4? cxd4!), and prepares the fundamen- tal ‘sarcophagus’ scheme ..b6-.2a6.Ljubomir Ljubojevic Nigel Short terdam 1989 (1) 26 2.d4 d5 3.2¢3 ab4 ixe3+ 6.bxc3 De7 a on ChessPublishing: If 6..\We7 automaticaly avoids 7.44 and 7.04 > of 7..cxil4! ~ 'm not so sure!, VM) ak cxdd B.cxdd We34 9.9.42 Wd i Wes+ 11. 2) 7..0xd4 B.cxd4 9.002 Waid 10.08 Wed 11.83 2.53, in both cases with good com- 5 5 onfor the serif’ pt zaswe” 8 kao Abas le wank & A a) w OA | & AA) |p_awesas| rove may look strange — why isn’t developing pieces? The idea of sgelshor often played he double edged I. When he iced ith Hae he bays sate casieal alta shor 7 Wo? 2. fs to gain space on the kingside this isthe: area where White is stronger (thanks to the eS pawn), and this is where he normally should play. 7..Wer!? This option is very good for solid French players, Straightaway 7..b6?! is premature: 8.h5 h6 9, Wg4! [xaaWe” le ak x ah f aad A | & ow 8 & | BAW HAW BG Soar nays cagram Black's position is too passive and he scores badly here, for instance, after the typical Winawer defence 9.68 Black cannot allow the position to be opened (see also Chapter 13, line 7.Wg4 18) 10.23 (a nice miniature followed after 10.241? We7 11.2h3? 226 12.863! bys 13.WE4 Deco 14.0b5!1 Bh7 15,De2 aS? 16.2e8! 1-0 Nepomni- achtchi-Shimanov, St Petersburg 2009) 10...8a6 11.8xa6 Dxa6 12.0-02 @b8? 13.dxeS! bxeS 14.8b1 Dd7 15.c4! and White had a dangerous ini- tiative in Morozevich-Shipox, Moscow Superblitz 2006. But if 9...0f5 10.843 0-0 11,Wh3! White will atack with gas 8.afs ‘This quiet response leads us back to old lassical lines. Let's check two modern options (am WEAPON A: 8.20371 This ft too ambitious here. Black has ‘many nice counterplay ideas:analysis diagram 8.06 8...2be6!? also scores nicely for ack: 9hS h6 10.84 DES 11. WEE (x4 (11..f6!? Steinbacher-Short, Ger- ‘many Bundesliga 1990/91) 12.94 @fe7 Vexdt 4717 (13...£612) 14.002 fot Isexfs Wait 16.8xF4 — gxfet 17.0-0-022 (17.3 €5!2) 17..e5! 0-1 Delaney-Dgebuadze, Roux 2009. 9.h5 h6 10.Wg+ 10.0837! Ba6 11.2xa6 5)xa6 12.2h4 He8t Sulskis-Dizdarevic, Novi Sad Ech-tt 2009. 10..%0#5! 10...4g81? isthe safest defence: 11.242 (11.843 oxd4!¥ SaulinJanturin, Mos- cow 1999) 1]..26 12.Bxa6 Dxa6 and chances are equal, Tischbierek-Cas per, Stralsund ch-DDR 1988. 11.042 EF TRCK: 1.803? cade T2.Bags Wares! 11.846 12.8xa6 Dxa6 13.We2 Db8 14.g¢ De7 with a strategic plus for Black, Vocaturo-Sedina, Antalya 2009. (om WEAPON B: 8.524212 kao x aw Aaaa Aad & a jaw Ag AAD BR Weer) araysis agram Recently a popular move, Bucb612 9.b5 1h 10.Weg4 2£51 Whice scores well after the passive 10.088 11.8h3!?2 226 12.Bf3: =4:1. 11.843 0-01 One more step towards the New Winawer. Now af- ter 12.83 (12.f4 £612) the best plan is 12...cxd4 13.cxd4 a6! with the idea 14.fixfS exfS 15.WixfS Sc81F and Black is somewhat better. WEAPON C: (tactics) after the at- tacking screw 8.45 Black has two ‘main possibilities: 8...cxd4 Rusteman’s sharp line is interesting and highly unclear. For the solid option 8..6!? 9.46 b6, see the main game. 9.cxd4 We3+ 10.8d2 Wrda 11.093 Weds 12.262 0/5! analysis diagram By transposition this is also a possible sub-line in Game 15. 13.f1 b6! 14.2b5+ 2d7 15.843 Wy4 16.h6 gxh6 17.2xh6 17 Sxf5? WafSF Naer Rustemov, Moscow 1995. 17..Dc6 17..Bad!?, 18.0g5 He8 19.8.6 Bg8 In 4 complex position Black's chances are slightly beter, Aseev-Rustemov, St Pe- tersburg 1994, 8..b6 9.5 (Faw WEAPON: 9.8.55+ (we already know this resource for White: it avoids ...8.06) 9... d7 10.8.d3 Qad!? LHS exd4!? (T1..c4= is the main blockading idea, seen in the first game of this chapter and also below) 12.cxdd (12.9bf12! as in Shirov-Casper, Germany Bundesliga 199495, ix suspicious) 12...Mfe3+ 13,cud2 Wexd3! LU.cxd3 SxdTF and then ..A7-H6!, 9.H6 Having built his fortress, Black has reached 2 balanced position. White should play his final attacking card. 10.04 pies WEAPON: Again, 10.2654 Bd? 11.8d3 (11.R0e2 Bat 12.dxc5 bxc5 13.Bh4 c&¥ Rowson-Psakhis, Port Erin 1999) 11..c# 12.Be2 (12.0f1 Mad=)12...B04-, xa a @ Be analysis diagram The following ‘sarcophagus’ set-up is a nice alternative to Jussupow's ...sed7- Wg8-Wh7: 13.Db4 Dbc6 14.0-0 0-0-0 15.2g¢ Wa7 16.2h3 Bags 17.Had gS! 18.hxge —fxgo— Hoolt-Kononenko, Germany Bundes- liga (Women) 2009/10 10.8 11.2554 A slightly annoying check, @xab= 11 i2xbS 12,axb5 {xa @ & aw aaa 11.sxa6 Chances are equal. 12.047 12uced4!? 13.cxdt We3+ 14.842 Wests Firat-SaMartinovic, Rijeka Ech 2010. 13.Wa3 0-0 14.2426 14...Bfc8!? 15.0-0 exd4 L6.cxd4 Wet 17. Wc dete? 15.24 fxe5 16.2xe5 “xeS 17.0xe5 25 183 cxd4 19.0xd4 This is the last key moment. 19..Exe5H? Forcing a draw, making use of some tac- tics against White's exposed king 20.dxe5 WxeS+ 21.412 2f5 22.Hhet Wa6 23.4eg1 We5+ 24.¢h2 14. ohi Dg3+ 25.coh2 Wao= 24..Wd6+ 25.291 Yomary 7.h4 We7: Defending with this classical scheme, you will never lose ME 14~7...2be6 (424 games=34.6% really bad statistics —_be careful!) Voxaturo’s dynamic set-up versus Uhlmann’s universal system: &.h5 WaS 9.042 kd7?1 10.h6! gxho Alter many successes, it turned out that Ublmann’s universal set-up with ...4c6-WaS- 5id7 and ...0-0-0 doesn’t work perfectly against ‘7.h4!. This old line was revolutionized for the white side: «Young Italian talent Daniele Vocaturo came up with a dynamic idea in the above position: ULEbI, which was later taken up by Morozevich. © Also, grandmaster Neil McDonald's knight manoeuvre 11.@e2!? 0-0-0 12.4icl! turns: outto be trustworthy, + Even with the natural old move 11.063 ‘White is playing for the initiative. The biggest problem in this line is Black's dam- aged pawn structure on the kingside. In many lines, Uhlmann’s main resource was to recurn ‘ung alan ale Daniel Vea with the knight ....e7~2g8, preparing ...{7-£6, but in modern chess this is probably not enough. Black Options After 7...@c6 8.h5 Black has some intermediate options instead of the old 8.24774, and he has at least three weapons on the key move (i.e. move 9). For instance, after 8...WaS 9.2d2, itis not too late to transpose to the Black Queen Blues variation with 9...Waa! So, focus on your favourite line, after enjoying the next brilliant game!O Daniele Yocaturo W Tiger Hillarp Persson Reykjavik 2009 (3) For many years Italy hosted lots of good chess tournaments, but somehow that did not translate into having strong players. Things have begun to change — now the Italian team has a very strong leader in Fabiano Caruana and a group of very talented young players. One of them played this brilliant game re- cently, 1.24 €6 2.d4 d5 3.2¢3 bd 4.5 c5 5.a3 xc3+ 6.bxc3 e7 7.h4 Abc6 Black also accumulates his resources, combining a bit of development and a kind of a stand-by mode, just before his opponent's next move. However, I have the impression that time is running out for the white side. Bhs Advancing the attacking pawn is a main idea for White in this line. WEAPON: If now 82/3, Black hhas many strong lines at his dis- posal. After 8..Wa5! 9.242, for instance, 9...d7!? would be a fine order to reach Uhlmann’s universal set-up, and the other {00 options: 9.. exd4!? and the ‘Queen Blues’ move 9..Wa#!?, are also analysed be- low. B.uf612 is also suggested by Watson as an unusual solution: 9-hS fxeS 10.h6 X 2We x aa @ Aa aa & aaa & AA a Ey && H Swee analysis diagram 10...g6!2 10...gxh6 was seen in Jenni- Caruana, Brno 2006, 11.2xe5!?20. 11.dxe5 0-0 with a creative game, where I prefer Black. 8..Wat I'S never too late to use the queen's properties against a flank attack. Let's check some alternatives: ‘A) TRICK: 8,.cxd4? Too late! Curi- ously, it was played in 16 games, even bby guys like Toanchuk and Shulman, 9116! (only one gamel! Everybody takes on d au- tomatically) 9..g6 (9..dxc3 10.hxg7 Bg ULExh7t;9..gxh6 .cxd dt) 10.cxdt! with 4 substantial advantage. Of course not 10.4482 as in Speckner-Hertneck, Germany 11991 B) WEAPON: 8...H6!?_ (this natural blockading move is often played, but Iwill not try to improve this ine) 9.We4 (for 9.23 Wa5 10.802 Wad see the next game) 9..Of5! 10.843 analysis diagram10...0-012 Remember that Black's Mnystde casting is revolutionary in this vanation and can be named the New Winawer. As already pointed out in the Jwevious game, the defence 10.. Kusten-MeDonald, Hastings 1987/88. MikxfS 11.063 Was 128d? Ware PKuijpers-Milnes, Guernsey 2002. HuexfS 12.Wg3 Ph8 13.2e2 Hes 11.,.Wa5! 14.0-0 bét; 13.06". 14,0-0 bse! Zontakh-Paulic, Belgrade 1993. Bid2 Forced. * & aa Baas a AeA i be © >> bp oe BA S2ag) re) ‘« 9.07 Hansen (CBM): With this move black ques- tions not so much the white setup on the Kingside but whether the weakening of the dark squares is worth the use of three tempi since black wil place his king on the queenside anyzony. However itis worth mentioning that the text move wus played by the French-spe- cialist Wolfgang Uhimann as early as 1969, and has been played by the German grand: raster several times since then. Here I would like to offer three addi- tional options for black players to be well prepared against ‘panacea’ moves likes h2-h4} WEAPON A: 9.exil# This con- tinuuation isin full agreement with the rule: central action 2. lank attack. Howo- ver, in most lines it fs unclear woho is better prepared foran open game. This line is highly recommended for tactical players! 10.cxdd Wad Attacking ds. Here are some examples of how play can develop: AL) White could sacrifice a pawn 11,46 Wade leads to less defined posi- tions. 11...gxh6? 12.03; 11...@xd4 was played in a tense game BSav- chenko-Shulman, Khanty-Mansiysk 2009: 12.hxg7 Bg8 13.2317 Bec6? 14.2xh7 Wxc2 15.Wd3!+, also com- mented by John Watson on ChessPublishing. 12.0£3 Wes+ 13.002 gxh6!? This is a balanced line. 13...Dxe5 14.03! £6! is highly un- clear, as in Miton-Shabalov, Stratton Mountain 1999. 14..th4 Wg6 15.g4 £512 Kasperck-WSchmidt, Zakopane tt 2000. A2) 11.03 was first played by Garry Kasparov. 11../dxd4 12.43 leads to a tactically important position in this line, also reached by transposition from the Queen Blues variation and commented on in The Flexible French, Game 67 jz a eg] Ah AAMAS a | a& OB wv a a .2 2 Ag A a We sis cagram 61 12...Dec6 13.61 Axf3 ixf3 with good compensation forthe pawn, Kasparov-Anand, nares 1992, LBAFL 13.skbs!? advooe, 13..4xf3 14.Waf3 b6l= Black's score is fantastic in this line: 0-5. See all con- tinuations in the recent suecess game Nakamura-Shulman in the last chapter of this book. 3) Defending the d4 pawn with 11,¢3 Wad + 12.2xd1 h6! is correctly considered to be equal, Van Riemsdijk- Vilela, Cienfuegos B 1991 AS) 11,£c317b6 ERICK: 1.67! 12.MbIs Waas? 13.B3I. 12.h6! gxh6 13.Wd3 a5! 13...f52! 14.Wbs: Webs 15.xbs 2a7 16.2xc6! Sxc6 17.g4#, Wegener BSchmidt, Germany Bundesliga 1992/93, 14.Wa2 £51 14...d267! 15.8xa6 Bxaé 16.De2t, Zhang Pengxiang-Naumkin, Cappelle la Grande 2005. 15.BbI 15./3 Bg8! is about equal. 15..Dexd4 16.ded1 CBDR! analysis lagram . 2 TRICK: 16...d7!¥* (the iden missed bby Kortchmoi and probably one of the reasons why he changed from the Winawer to the Classical! Previous practice saw 16...¢8 17Exb6 Bd7 18.hxd4 Writ 19.Wexdd Dxdé 20Hxh6 with an edge for White, Short-Kortelmoi, Wijk aan Zee 1987) 17.94 Dacdl! 18 Wxe2O (18.gxf5?? Dxa3+) 18,.Wrxg4+ 19.262 We2 20.0 Wpls 90 21.Ret Bld with great compensation (and fate patons!) for te pee: WEAPON B: It is still possible to. stop the advance of the while A-pawon with 9,,h6!2. This is a good choice {for positional players, with similar ideas as ‘after 8... analysis diagram 10.Ai/g4 There are two different options. Afier 10.2£3 Wa4!? we have one of the starting positions of the ‘Queen Blues’ Tine ~ see next game; 10...847? would lead to the ‘universal’ set-up. The same goes for 10.2h4 Wa4!? which leads to the ‘blues’ line. And in this case 10...847 introduces the ‘universal’ set-up, Morozevich-Pelletier, Biel 2003 10...exd4 10.05! 11.243 0-0! no games yet in the New Winawer. 10...247 leads to a ‘poisoned gambit’ 11.Wxg7 0-0-000, Lexds Was 12.¢3 Bigs 13.Wf4 be 14.0h3 Ba6= is fine for Black, as in Rogers-Farago, Wijk aan Zee B 1987 tier WEAPON C: Finally, instead of capturing on d, Black can play the most dynamic ‘blues’ line 9..Wad!?. If _you open my book ‘The Flexible French’ on pages 242-244, you will find this possibility fully commented on in Game 68, Nothing has changed since then:‘analysis diagram 10.n6 10.f3 h6!? avoids Kasparov's yambit. An important line is 10.Wb! a6! 1 1.@f3, Erturan-Bakalarz, Warsaw Fh 2005, and now: 11...cxd4! L2.Hh4 ole, 10..gxh6 11.063 exd4!= ‘From now on the game be- comes very dynamic — like Chinese ping-pong’, as I wrote in The Flexible Trench. Analysis diagram L2cxd4 Oudt 13.843 Qd7 14.2b4 Ddc6 14...df5!7. 15.Hh4? Dg! 16.Sixg6 hxgé 17.242 Wa6 18.295 He8 19.0.6 Bg8 19.512, 20.0xh6 Das 2.Dgs Wet 22.2? bs 23.0h7 WAH, Volokitin-Zhang Pengxiang, Figen tt 2006. Now back to the main problem of the universal move 9...247 10.n6! gxh6 A big decision fora French player. Black's pawn structure on the kingside is completely ruined, and the game has not yet begun, This must have been Uhlmann’s original idea. 11.b1! ‘Vocaturo has used this dynamic move in four games against different opponents, with a 4-0 result, So I decided to dedi- cate some time to analysing this option more deeply. WEAPON: The revolutionary in- vention according to Neil McDor- ald is the original manoewore 11.221? 0-0-0 12.Q)cl! and the ball is in Black's court — 1 mean, Black has more problems to find out how tocontinwe. (FP WEAPON: The old move is 1.2. analysis diagram This position is interesting White has achieved something on the kingside but Black keeps good chances of counterplay. 11...0-0-0! Some important games havebeen played here by Uhlmann. Basically, he has a superior sense in such positions compared to his opponents, and lots of creative ideas. Grandmaster Lputian’s novelty 11...2g8, which was also a fa ‘mous idea of Uhlmann, can be met 3 la Vocaturo by 12.8b11?. However, in the following game White played very ag- gressively, trying to punish Black for his opening strategy: 12.c¢ We7 13.cxd5 exds 14.dxcS (14.0312: 14.2f412) 14...0-0-0 15.82 and the situation was unclear, Short-Lputian, Taiyuan 2004. A) 12.1 allows 12..c4! 13.Bxh6 @gBi? 14.Hhi f6s2, Wegencr-Malek, Germany Bundesliga B 2003/04; B) 12.2432! As we have already seen in this chapter, in the sub-Winawer lines this is not a very useful place for the light-squared bishop: 12,.c4! Winning an important tempo! 13.e2 2g8!? Uhlmann’s main resource and patent. 14.c0f1 f612%, Tischbierek-Uhlmann, Baden-Baden B 1992; ©) 12.Dxh6! is the best line for White: 12...20dg8 12...2g8!? 13.24 £6 14.We2!? slightly favours White, Klovans-Lipok, Schwarzach 2005. 13.g3 analysis diagram After some quite natural opening moves, White is already slightly better on both flanks, so after the ‘bluesy’ move 13...Wad TRICK: 13.0512 14.20 We? 15.Rxf7 exddor, 14,811? a6? He has never played the blues! 14..c4! was the best option: 15.4g5 Bg7 with a still playable poste tion for Black. 15.Wb6! c4 16.0b1¢ White has the initiative, Fedorov Shulman, Moscow 1995. Summary of Uhlmann’s old set-upt Objectively, after 10.6! Black’s position is worse in many lines. The main game with 11. Eb1! confirms this. So it ts much better for Black to enter the “Queen Blues’ variation before 7...d7%1 and ..0-0-0 11..0-0-0 White has dominated in all 7 games played with 11.2b1 GT A TRICK: 11. Had 12.203 Wat 13.Wel! (intending 14.203) 13,..0.d8 14.803 Web 15.2931, B) The queen retreat 11...We7 seems abit passive see the next game analysis diagram 12.03 0-0-0 12..Dg8 was seen in Couso-J.Akesson, Stockholm ch-SWE B 2007. Now at least 13.dxc5!? DxeS 14.Dxe5 Wxes+ 15.We2 gives White an advantage, thanks to the pair of bish- ops. 13.2xh6t cxd4? Ldexdd OFS 15.0g5: Vocaturo-Stromboli, Bratto ch-ITA jr 2006©) The blocking idea H1..c42 must be a worse option: 12.21xb7 0-0-0 13.8! Wras 14.2b2+, Vocaturo-Di Paolo, Arvier t 2010. 12.565 12..80xa3 This leads to catastrophe for Tiger. Prob- ably a better option is 12..Wa4, which was previously played in Moro- sevich-Lputian. However, White has more possibilities on the following moves. The game went 13.1! @aS TRICK: 13,..Dxd4 Idexdd Sxb5 15MxbS Wadd picking up some extra pawns and a rook for the bishop pair. 16.2e2! Walt 17.Gelt... but the imidalegame rules still proail here! 14.xcS+ kbs analysis diagram ‘The key moment after the opening. TRICK: 15.4 Wrxc2!_ 16.2xa5 cb 17 WG Soa8 18.65 Orde; WEAPON: 15.2xh612 this line could also be critical 15.0 16.295 Hde8 and here, for example 17 Saf? seems to give White better chances; 15.2h3 6 16.0F3 (fim WEAPON: The _ immediate 16.2051? e400 17.24 is possi- bly a better move order than the one in the game, 16...8a8 Now 16,..2F51700 was proba- bly the best defence, in view of 17.947 Bags! 17.8b5 cs 17.2512. 18.0b4 @xa3 19.Dxad! Transposing to a classical endgame which is always favourable for White 19..2ixb1 20.Za1 Dxd2 21.shxd2t From here on we can enjoy Moro's great technique: 21..Hdf8 22.843 hes 23.g3 hS 24.42 h4 25.Bh1 hxg3 26.2xg3 Zh8 27.Ohs Dg8 28.Hg1 £5 19.g7 Sac8 30.Df4 Dh6 31.04 dxed 32.Axct dB 33.c3 gt 34.he2 Hhes 35.0h3 Hd7 36.Bxd7 Sxd7 37.Hxh7 DS 38.8b3 cB 39.13 a5 40.figs 1-0 Morozevich-Lputian, Sochi t 2007. 13.2xc5 a6 14.Wb1 bo7 Black is about to trap the enemy rook with 66, but the fight is only just starting. 15.cAlb6 16.cxd5!! ‘The key answer. 16..bxc5 Forced: 16...xd§ 17.21h3 17.46+ doe8 18.0h3!+A fine example of all the pluses of the h2-h4 advance: White is a rook down, but the enemy king is weak and one piece can be regained right away. Black’s extra rook isn't in play yet, so despite some of his pieces still siting in their original positions, White is winning! 18..Wa4 19.063 I ike this move too, but 19.2c3!-+ was an even easier solution 19.4205 19...c4 20,3! WS 21.Wal+. 20.dxe8 Hdg8 21.041+— White's pawns mass in the centre is very impressive! 21..0de7 22.2621 Simply keeping in mind the develop- ment rule. However, White had a pleas- ant choice between this move and 22.dxe7 +— or 22.Wb2+~. 22..WxcA 23.2¢3 Wxe5 24.06 Wxe5 25.dxe7 xe7 All four white pawns, which looked so menacing a few moves ago, are gone ~ but they did not perish in vain as White now has a checkmate in 10! 26.bB+ Wxb8 27.2xab+ be7 2B2a5+ heb 29,Wc2+ dS 30.Wd3+ dveS 31.0¢3+ 615 32.0064 95 33.W93+ bhS 34.2e2+ Dos 35.Wxoa# 1-0 ‘An amazing game. Summary 7.h4 bc6 and the resulting set-ups: Choosing the right defence is a hard task here. The positions that arise in Uhlmann’s set-up (...2td7 and .. .0-0-0) are mainly double-edged, but White has recently im- proved his attacking ideas and is winning more games. Undoubtedly, the most con- trollable (and most comfortable) play can be found in the “Black Queen Blues’ lines. ‘We will also be able to check this argument in the next game, where after Was- ‘Wat Black has two options: closing the position with the blockading moves ..h7-h6 and ....2-c4, or winning the d4 pawn witha sharp open game.GAME 15 -7...Wa5! (233 games=45.5%) ‘(Queen Blues vs. Sharp Flank Attack [xaa @ ] jaa Baad lw wads | & |a 8 | & BRA BE SWeear Aq tis conclude this Part, le’ play in pure blues style with WGM Monica Socko. Keep in Mind Many lines in this game have been analysed in The Flexible French, so it is advisable to use both books alongside each other here. In view of the many transpositions, it is very interesting to study this variation in direct connection with one of the "Black (queen Blues’ lines, See also Part II, Chapter 1 1 ofthis book. O Kateryna Lahno Please note: if he now plays the immedi- Monika Socko ate 6.WaS 70d? Wad, against the Baku 2007 (8) flank attack 8.h4 Black even has a few al- 1.04 €6 2.04 d5 3.2¢3 b4 4.e5 c5 _ ternatives to ..e7. For instance, the re 5.23 xc3+ 6.bxc3 De7 sponse 8...2)c6!? ~ see Game 68 in The Flexible French, and one of the French games in my other book Revolutionize Your Chess, Chapter 2. 7.h4 Was! Black's ultra-dynamic move in the main Winawer. adda a fennel =In comparison with the previous game (7..be6), here Black has two (and a half) more possibilities. 8..Waat? WEAPON: 8..0-0!2N. Welcome tothe new Winawer! WEAPON: 8..cxd4 lransposes to Rustemov's line, which is also sgsiven in Game 13 and is still interesting, so 1 will repeat the analysis here: 9.cxd4 Wad 10K5 (1003 61?) 10.Wadd 1.0/3 Weds 12.Ge2 Df5! 13.cef1 b6! 14.254 Md7 15.843 Wet 1616 gxh6 17.B:xh6 (17.Sixfs? Waf5, Naer-Rustomov, Mos- cow 1995) 17..23c6 (17.f804!?) 18.295 He8 19.576 HB and in this complex posit- ‘on I consider Black's chances somewhat better, Ascev-Rustemov, St Petersburg 194 hs A logical move after the advance h2-h¢. fits WEAPON: After 9223 wwe have again a slightly different position compared to the previous game. rer x aan a analysis diagram 9..£be6 Once more attacking d4. An alternative is the blocking option 9...c41? here, which was not possible in the previous game: 10.h5 h6= 11. h¢ @be6 12.83 Ad7 13.Hg3 Bgs 14.Wel 0-0-0 15.Bb1 Ha’ 16.Wb2 D6 17.f4 {6'F, Suarez Prendes-Recuero Guerra, Ortigneira 2004. 10.h5 GF TRICK: On 10MM, 10.001? now amis a gout iden (Wed is the usual move), for if ULWhs We 12x83 Das 13.Hb1 cf 14.04 Gide Sadeukasov- Holt, Chicago 2009, 10...h61? 10...cxd4 1 1.cxd4 leads to the previous game ~ Kasparov's line. 1LWb1 1LEbI c4t 12.Wel 6 13.Re2 Rd7 14.2h3 0-0- Kamble, Nagpur 2008. 11..¢4: analysis diagram One of the popular opening positions in this line, 12.g3 (12.g¢ Sd7 13.0h4 0-0-0 14.Wb2 Bags 15.&h3 g6 16bxg6 fxg6 17.0-0-0 gS 182g? Shes! 19.f¢ Qg6F Yurtaev-PNikolic, Hlista of 1998) 12...98d7 13.@h3 0-0-0 14.0-0 Haf8 15.Dh4 g5! The Black Jet vs. h2-h4. The black army is ready to counterattack. See The Flexible French, commented Game 67, Sadvakasov- Pogorelov, Moscow 2002 9..n6!?With this typical block Black stabilizes the pawn structure ane! still keeps three Meas in mind: ...63¢6, ...b7-b6, or 4 c4, You can find some more dy: responses in the previous game te three options given on move 9. 10.zh4l? Hecently the most popular attacking hod (7A WEAPON: An important line is 10.8 4? TRICK: The set-up I proposed in "The Flexible French’, Game 68, was 10,..6 6 11.843 and now 11..0-07!, is too dangerous: T2Uf4 c4? 13.94! De7. Here | found 14.95! (14.Q62 ole Sutovsky- Psakhis, Internet blitz 2006) 14...cxd3 1 gxh6 2/5 16.hexg7 org? 17.23 10,..99f8! This defence by the king is the best option. This position also can arise from the Eingorn Variation (7.Wes fs #h4 Wa5), see Game 21. 11.0h3 Abe6 Threatening ...2ixeS, ..cxd4 and ...Wxe2 (11c422N). 12. analysis diagram Psakhis in ChessBase Magazine 107: The future of this variation depends upon the evaluation of this position, Let's have a look 12.847 12...c4!? is an unexplored op- tion. Or, why not take the pawn with 12..Wxe2?? 13.043 Wat 14.863 Das 1S.dxcS (15.0g6? @f5!) 15...Whxfs lotaft Gd7 17.0 Bek 18.263 S015! and such endgamesare_never dangerous for Black. 13.b1 13.43? cH! 14.296 eB 15.563 Qd8F was 0-1 in Pena Gomez-Moskalenko, Ca'n Picafort 2008 ~ see the annotated game in Revolutionize Your Chess, Chapter 2. Or 13.dxe5!? Weft 14.Sxf4 E800 which was also 0-1 in Macieja-BSocko, Poznan ch-POL 2005. 13...b6!? 14.0f3 @e8 15.dxeS Wxf4 16.Exf4 bxcS 17.0f3 g5! 18.2g4 18.hxg6 Dxg6e winning the pawn on eS. 18..0f5 18...c4! 19.2422 fo-+ threatening White's rook by ...8xhS, and soon 0-1 in Zeziulkin- BSocko, Warsaw rapid 2003, 10..c4! Black closes the game. The same line ap- pears after 10..be61? 11.263 ¢4. x wes ‘analysis diagram Now we check: 12.2 g4 For 12.21¢+ see the main game, 12...lg8! The most flexible defence of the g7-pawn. 12.051? is possible too: 13.2f¢ (13.h¢ Oxhd 14.2xht Oe7 15.864 a7 16.Ha2 Bf8= Russian_Vodka- CapNemo, —playchess.com 2006) 13.847 14.g4 Dfe7 15.Oh4 EP 16.2a2 0-0-0 17.WE3 Be8= Bobo77- CapNemo, playchess.com 2009. 13.g3 Qd7 14.0f4 0-0-0! 15.0xf7 2e8 16.04 QxhS 17.0h3 G47 18.0h4 2g6 19.042 Hef¥ and Black obtained a clear positional advantage in Fontaine- Psakhis, Andorra 1998,WEAPON: An interesting open game arises after 10.25 U1.Egd cxdd TRexdd 061? 13.243 B06 14.8.5? (14.04 Wrdl4 15.xdtoo with « complex ending) 14..exf5 15.Exg7 Wada, Vitiugoo-Lysyj, Serpukhoo 2008 11.54 Abe6 12.4f3 2d7 fz e. & (ka OMAR | ak & Ce Oe be The critical moment. Compared to Black’s other set-ups this position is quite stable, but creativity is still possible. 13.94 Allowing Black to comfortably castle queenside (FM WEAPON: 13.241? (also ana- lysed in ‘The Elexible French’, Games 66 and 68) 13.5! (an improve- iment on the premature 13...g5 14.hxg6 frg6 15.2600 Stripunsky-Gavriushin, Moscow 1995, 13.248 is also unclear after 14.21a2 0-0-0 15.Wg4 fo!2, Becerra Rivero- Sevillano, Los Angeles 2003) 14.0 xfS exf5 analysis diagram This gives equal chances, ay in Khalifinan Shulman, Khanty Mansiysk 2005. (FARP* WEAPON: In the next round Khalifman tried 13.203 2/8 14.sod2 0-0-0 (14.,f61?) 15.0h4 WS 16.25 exfB= 17.94? figs (now 17.,f6!t ‘was the best option) 18.Exg4 with a compli- ented game, Khalifman-Shulman, Khanty- ‘Mansiysk 2005. 13..95 Shooting the ‘black jet’ immediately. WEAPON: By many transposi- tions, we have reached a recent game of mine. I prefer 13..3f812, preparing queenside catling first. |x ex | [be Saad | | 2 aobe” By | aA 4] Wok BA] A A aan | | oa A S| B Wee | nosis dog 14.83 0.0-0= 15.95? (this white jet is too aggressive here, since Black is better prepared for action) 15..kxg5 16.@xg5 OpSI¥ 17.BaxfB exf 18,46 f6! (18..gxh6 19°DH7 Egst) 19.exf6 (19.hxg7 fag 20.9x/8W ByfB—+; 19.Bh4 frg5 20.xg5 gxhé 21ixd8 DxdsF) 19..gxh6 20.Dh3 Hy and Black is nearly winning, Canal Oliveras-Moskalenko, Barbera del Valles 2008. 14.hxg6 fxg6 15.216 0-0-0 15...g5!8® was a more precise move with guaranteed counterplay 16.95! hxg5 17.xg5 ht The critical moment.Bhl+ 21se2 Bad 22.sexd1 Wh5 | ba =* a 23.94! b6! still with complications Ane 19..2xe6 20.2xe6 Dxd4-tll—+ AA ® Harsh punishment. re me Ae 8 a |B Wook | nxe6 Wok the ‘French’ pawn on e6 will cost a OB young star Kateryna Lahno dearly & Ix vl71 gs 19.WE3c0, HS 18..0dh8 19.427? The decisive mistake, due to wrong cal- 21.cxd4 Wd7! culation, White was probably afraid of — The black queen is ready to sing. the tactics after 19.0c5! Exfl+1 22.06 Wod+ 23.53 Of 24.014 Ghd (19... Wb5e0; 19..Wasco) 20.dexfi 25.he3 Bxft! ot Summary h2-h4: Despite all the positive analysis for Black presented in this chapter, if one day I face the Winawer with the white pieces I will doubtlessly go on the attack with 7.h4! Conclusion Chapters 4 and 5 ~The Sub-Winawer «By playing 6...We7 Black can try to avoid the lines 7.a4 and 7.h4, but this is not at all necessary as we have seen, because in the Winawer system following a solid idea is more important than winning or losing tempi ‘+ Nowadays, the Sub-Winawer lines are not as popular as 7.14, but they remain an important part of the system. I hope that after studying these chapters you will be better able to find your way in their labyrinths.Chapters 6, 7 and 8 - The Old Main Winawer: Black Deviations versus ¥/g4 7Nldy4 remains the main move, when Black can choose between 7...Wec7, 7..0-0, 7...cxd4 (1.88 and 7...0£5 in this part) and some other (!) line ~ Alexander Baburin in ChussToday. Putting up the Barricades ‘on | Undoubtedly, the most dangerous resource for White is massive pressure on the kingside, al- ways starting with 7.Wg4 Black, however, can choose his defence after this typical attack with the queen. In this chapter we shall deal with variations that used to be very popular, but which are less frequently played nowadays. Directions ~ 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.23 2b4 4.05 5 Black's deviations in the main Winawer are A) The Armenian Variation — 5.a3 a5 (Games 16and 17) B) The Knight System ~ 5.3 @xc3+! 6.bxc3 eos (1929-1984) Hed ata om De7 7. Wes OI512 (Games 18 and 19). behind he bared, ©) The weapon 7. We4 g6 (Game 18) D) The Bingorn Variation —7.Wg4 &f8!? (Games 20-22) A. workshop —Middlegame themes Te Re |[Raa © Bil ex a wea a waka | ka Om Aba a W) & Ob ak a e 8aR @o/|) Rak wi : a 2 2 a Ak A weraa |la A Ae AU RAA|| SACSAAR| SAB B a we onile en a] in a ee ee ae eeeas pare SL.Wha? name 19Chapter 6 - The Armenian Variation GAMES 16 and 17 — 1.e4 ¢6 2.d4.d5 3.23 Qb4 4.e5 c5 5.23 BaS (2726 games=46.3%) The foundations for the variation with 5....2a5 were laid in the Soviet Union in the 1940s and "50s, when especially a few games by Mikhail Botvinnik drew attention towards it, including three games from his World Championship match against Smyslov in 1954 (+1=1-1) Later on, the bishop move became an Armenian specialty, when Rafiel Vaganian and Smbat I putian obtained some excellent results with it. In 2000 it was Alexander Khalifman who employed the variation at the highest level and he achieved good results with 5...8a5, including a draw against Garry Kasparov. Difficult Times ~ the opinion of Alexander Nikitin in his Survey in Yearbook 74 seems to me that the Armenian Variation is experiencing a recurrent crisis, wohen there are more questions facing Black than answers to them. It s hard to give advice to those who are coming to the end oftheir chess careers ~all the same they will not listen, and i is too late for them to relearn, But to young players I would recommend that they memorise the main varia- tions that give White an opening advantage and smderstand their sublleties, but that with Black they should study and employ other schemes that are more active and are strategically less risky Keep in Mind While avoiding the exchange of his Winawer bishop for the knight on c3, Black creates direct threats against the centre (...cxd4). The white pawn wedge is stil frag- ile, and such a conflict complicates matters very soon and forces White to adopt extraordinary decisions!GAMR 16 ~ 6.b4 exd4 7.5151? skc7 8.F41 (952 games=58.3%), also 6.2421? (285 games=60%t) and 6.dxc5?! (81 games=58.6% a bad move, but good results) ‘The Positional Line IC White does not opt for Wg4 either on move 6 or on move 7, then the main line leads to the diagram above. White has a slight positional advantage, which can most probably be neutralized by correct play on Black's part: see the variation 8....247!, However, the solid 6.9421? could be another weapon for White ~ one which does not require lots of preparation. OKetevan Arakhamia Grant The starting point of the Armenian vari- MI Michael Tscharotschkin ation, from which we set out to invest Gibraltar 2010 (1) gate the most important alternatives 1.e4 @6 2.d4 d5 3.0c3 2b4 4.e5 cS Normally Black captures on c3 5a3.ia5 6a! ‘This advanced has been played in almost 2000 games. fs 8) WEAPON: The second most popular is another ‘posi tional’ move: 6.2421? KaaWe ax aa ee (2 & A a KAS [WOM Ker Arhania Grants ply zo ty gain gst te Actes Variation ‘analysis diagram th good resus (5-1, only ono drt).With similar ideas as inthe semi-Winawer (with 5.82), but the inclusion of 5.a3 SaS favours White. 6.26 6...£Ix6? was our main defence against &d2 in Chapter § (Game 8), but here there would follow 7.dxcS+ and the Armenian bishop on aS is way too far removed from the action. White's chances are also better after 6...cxd4 7S Ge? (or 7Kxd2+? 8.Wed? De6 9.f4+ Sax-Kortchnoi, Lugano 1986) 8.64 Qe7 (8.6 9.Wesit) 9.3. AL) TRICK: 7.8g4, Kasparov's old line, is not dangerous nowadays: Tuc geT! 7...af9?! 8.dxc5! Dxe5 9.Weat Kasparov-Khalifman, Linares 2000. 8.dxc5 8.Weeg7? gs 9.Wfé cxad 10.005 Sxd2+ 11 Sexd2 DF. 8..0-01 x 2 Ew | aa maba aos & AbA A & A&B &&S a S2HE) ‘analysis diagram ‘And Black gets active play, thanks to his development advantage: 9.f4 If 9.063 go 10.Whs dt 11.Be4 Wasie, Jerozkij-VAlexeev, Minsk 2000. Sun OKC3! 9.4412 10.004 Sxd2+ 11.Oxd2 bole Spraggett-Tscharotsch- kin, Gibraltar 2007, 10.8xc3 b6! L.exbé Wxb61, Henris-Vandevoort, Belgium ch 1992; A2) 7.05! The most logical and best continuation. 7..0xd2+ 7...cxd4 8.oxa5 Wxast 9b+ Whe 10.f4t 8.Wxd2 Dxd4 Here White has two plans: 1° sWevar aa aaa a Dead a & ASW AAA z SAK analysis diagram One is the obvious 9.Mixd4 cxd4 10.Wrd4 Qe7 11.463 0-0 12.843 and White is traditionally slightly better, as in ASokolov-Vaganian, Minsk Candi- dates m-2 1986 (1-0, 65 moves); the second is the slightly more long-term oriented 9.24641? s#f8 10.0-0-0f with nice attacking chances. B) A worse idea is the sub-line 6.dxc52t, By capturing on ¢5 White de- stroys his own centre. 6.4.2:xc3+! De- spite the loss of a tempo Black has excel- Tent targets in White's broken pawn structure. 7.bxe3 We7 8.f3 d7 9.4b5 With this pin White tries to re tain his material advantage and to com- pensate for his bad pawn structure. 9.c4 Ber 10.cxdS exdS 11.843 Dxcs 12.0-0 0-0= Felgaer-Valerga, San Luis ch-ARG 2006. 9.37 10.0-0 0-0 11.fxd7 Gxd7 12.003 OFS 13.004 6! This is how Black can take the initia tive, Macieja-Atalik, Kallithea tt 2003,Woxd4 Wis dhlicul w find a reasonable alterna: five White gels a strong initiative after cabot?! 7.8)b5 b3+ (7..bxa34? 8.c3 Ai7 9.Migt g6 10.9xa34 Sarenac- Onio}te, Belgrade 2008; 7..2c6? is also quite bad: Baxb4 Qxb4+ 9.03 Be7 10.31 and Black’s extra pawn is not Helpful, Chirila-Volovici, Tusnad 2005) 8.Rd2!7 (B.c3178) B_-bxe? ¥ Wac2 and White has excellent com- pensation, Scharer-Gahler, Zurich 2009, Bibs evs check the best of the latest exam- ples in the main ‘positional line’ 1) For? We#!? see the next game; B) TRICK: 7x05?! dxc3 8: Wet W g6:5 Messnertputon, Cappella Grande 1991; ECL TRCK: 7H! eis 0 « puszling line: 7..c7 84263 De6 SNS De? 10.895 B47 11 Bixc6 Oxc6!? (N1...Qxc6=) 12.8xd8 Dxdd 13.0xc7 uf8+ 14. gxf We8. 7 kasWe AE wah abe “ok eauwan B & Ale RAR B QWHoOs! This Armenian ‘Snake bishop’ (...d0b4- a5-c7) now defends the dé-square and atthe same time attacks the pawn on eS. Bfat The immediate capture of the Armenian bishop 8.2xc7+?! im fact reduces the possibilities for White: 8...Wxc7 9.f4 fore 1. Pe Nor does 8.1132! Sic6a® give White any advantage, because the pawn on e5 is not well enough defended now. Now Black has several possibilities 8..a5 Black does not choose the best continua- tion. The German chess coach Michael Tscharotschkin is a great supporter of the Armenian line. In two recent games he played this advance against strong players, but failed (mA) WEAPON: A AA BR SWHoas| ana gram This is clearly the strongest set-up for Black. “The French bishop has to help his Armenian brother! Al) 9.@£3 allows some simplifica- tions, 9...,AxbS! being the main idea of the previous move: 10.2xb5+ @c6 11.0-0 @e7 12.643 &b6= From here, best for Black is to continue with .aJ-a6, ‘h7-h6 and later ...0-0, but not the immediate ...f5, because of xfs! ‘A2) 9.Wg4!? 600 Benjamin- Djurhuus, Thessaloniki ol 1988; A3) 9.2xc7+!2 Wac7 10.03 Sad! The second step after the early ...£d7, 11,843 De? This move and 11....c6!? are both perfect. The alternative 11,..Wee3+ leads to a slightly better end- ing for White: 12.842 Wrxd3 (this is another, though weaker, idea behind therapid development of the french bishop) 13.cxd3 &xd! 14.s6xd 1. analysis dlagram Kritz (ChessBase Magazine 132): It is very important not to let the knight out on to 6. This means that White should play bé-bS at some moment. Anyway, White must play this position very accurately in order to achieve an advantage. 12.2b2 Dbe6 13.0-0 13,Wer Whe 14.1 a6!= and ...2b5.1 analysis diagram The black queen protects the pawn on 4 and prepares simplifications with RDS. The game is equal: 14.%h1 &bS Yee Voitsekhovsky-Gorovykh, Sochi 2 2008. It is important to note that normal de- veloping moves lead to an advantage for White in this variation. For instance: B) 8.c6 9.0£3 @b8?! Retreating the Armenian bishop does not make much sense, 10,543 a5 Lbxas Sige? 12,0-0 and White should be beter in this position, Kalegin-Bashkov, Minsk B 1993; ©) Or 8.7 9.83 9.013 Dbeo 10.43 a6 11.Dxc7+ Wrxe7 12.862 with a very sound advantage for White, as in Arakhamia Grant-Rouleau, Phila- delphia 2004. 9..D€ 10.063 @d7 11.2xc7+! Now the best option is trad- ing xf, 11..Wxe7 12.2b2 De6 12.03 13. Wert. 13.2xf5 exfs 14.0-0 0-0 15.S.xd4 White keeps some advantage, thanks to his better bishop and his superior pawn structure, Arakhamia Grant-Sigurjonsson, Reykja- vik 2008. 9.2421 What follows is a beautiful example of how to play this variation as White. In this game Arakhamia once again found the best set-up against the Armenian twist 9..0e7 Or, 9.206 10.Df3 Oge7 11.Oxc7+! Wxc7 12.5 Dds 13.Axdat, Areschenko-Tscharotschkin, Gibraltar 2007. 10.048 05 11.803 7 11..0-0 12.xf5 (12.0-012%) 12...exfS#, A.Minasian-Lputian, Phila: delphia 1994. 12.2xe7+!Mretting rid of the Armenian bishop — fi 19.We4+—) 19.WH5 c2+ 20.8h1!! Wee? tually exchanging 90x without the 21/5! exf1We 22.Exf1 with a winning al- weak Winawer e-pawns tack (or mate in 8 according tothe engine), 12..Wxe7 13.b51 17.Bfet Wcking Black's piece play on the There is no reason to hurry in this posi aside. tion: 17.exf6!? gxf6 18.03%, e3 14.2xe3 dxe3 15.0-0 We5 17..0-0 18.Wxe3 UcB 19.Ad4 We7 20.uh1 2e8 21.Wh3! 296 22.041 |zax lee] a0 Ww ba Sak & A White has achieved a stable advantage, The French bishop is sad without his based on the activity of her pieces (and Armenian brother. pawns) 22..,xg4 23.Wxg4 Axd3 24.cxd3 HeB 16.5 2545+— Dd7 26.Dxe6 wh8 27.04 TRICK: 16..0.02? 17.8xh7+! xh? HacB 28.014 Db6 29.Og6+! hxgs 18.0g5+ — bg8_—(18..g6 30.xg6 1-0 Summary of the ‘positional lines’: White is not risking much with 6.24212, or 6.b4 and 7.b5, and can sometimes count oma slight advantage. However, there is great danger of a draw and therefore ambitious players prefer 6/7. W4!? —see the next game. GAME 17 ~7.Wg4! (511 games=54.1%). The Anti-Armenian weapon 6.Wg4!? (228 games=48% bad results, but I found it to be dangerous) Ambitious Line ‘The Winawer ‘Armenian Variation’ is thought to be in theoretical trouble, but there are still some new ideas in the crazy main line — Watson on ChessPublishing. 7 Wg4! isa sharper continuation than 7.@b5 and recently it has become more pop- ular at the highest level. White captures the black pawns on the kingside, allowing Black to get in return a certain advantage in development and the possibility of seizing the initiative.DAndrey Volokitin im Smbat Lputian Calvi ol 2004 (9) The Armenian ‘Francophile’ grandmas ter Smbat Lputian successfully used the Armenian set-up right until the begin ning of the 2000s. However, in 2004 he lost two important games in this ‘ambi- tious line’ and then abandoned the vari ation, Right now, he is looking for a new way, combining the Modern Winawer and the Classical variation (3...2)f6). 1.4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.23 &b4 4.05 c5 5.03 sia 6.b4 firs WEAPON: 6.Wiga!? I have left aside this option on move 6 for the second game. This is my surprising ‘anti-Ar- menian’ zoeapon. Bs > > he analysis diagram 6.7 7dxcS 7.b42! exbt 8.b5?? b3+ 9.c3 FSF is bad, Timman. ‘Vaganian, Horgen 1995. A) TRICK: 7..d4? 8.Wxg7!! (a laptop novelty!) 8.18 9. Waxh7 dxc3 10.b4 (the key. White switches to attacking mode) 10...e7 11/0f8 aS (11...0\d7 12.QISL4—; 11...Dbo6 12.Of44) 12.02! D7 13.0g5 0x05 14.0.0!->; B) 7..8xe34! The only valid move. Bbxc3 Was 8..Hg6!7 9.413 a7 10.h4!? hS 11. Wd4# Pietrow-Barsoy, Utrecht 1999; 8...0-0 9.8d3 @d7 ‘Tae Armenian Trancoplile grandmaster mbt Lpaten. 10.f3 £5 11exf6t King-Lputian, Dortmund 1988. 9.242 g6 10.063 10.b412 bS 11.We5 @d7 12.04 Short- Iputian, Manila izt 1990, 10.47 Ihct We7 12cxd5 0-0 13.46! 13.Wad41? exdS 14.Wxd5i Shirov- Atalik, Jahorina tt 2003, 13..cHxeS 14Wes Dgxes 15x05 Wxes 16.Wxes DxeS was played in Dominguez Perez-Lputian, Bled ol 2002, and now after 17.34 White has a pleasant endgame. 6...cxd4 7.Wg4! (RaaWe ad ‘ea aba } a jt ad & & owe) A & eRe BAe |B @ ©2aE The dynamic move in the Winawer. How should Black try to survive this speculative attack? That is not clear...thut the arising positions are very com plicated, and at any rate itis a difficult lask lor both sides to find their way over the board! 7.17 WEAPON: 7...88f8 This defence twas severely criticized by Leonid Kriz in ‘ChessBase Magazine’ 133: ‘White Ins good advantage because the black king sun no longer castle and the dark squares in the black camp hace been weakened However, some important games (and cof course, my laptop) are not in full agrvement with the German grandmas- ter Let's check: 82b5! White can try to achieve an advantage with this move; or with 8.Wads &b6 9.WE De7 10.063 thg6 11.Wg3 Qc6 12.22 Dd4te* Del Rio Angelis-Duncanson, Gibraltar 2005. ‘Rut never with 8.bxa52! dxc3 9.24 Dc6 10.9a3+ Dge7 11.03 healt Gaponenko-Mirzoev, San Sebastian 2009. 8...8b6! Finally the Armenian bishop becomes a useful piece. 8...£2¢7? oWadatt Krite, 9.03 De6 10.862 S\ge7 White is happy after the immedi- ate 10..£62 11.Dbxdt OxeS 12.xeS fxeS 13.@xe6+ Sxe6 14.Wxee WHE 15.Waf6+ Dxf6, Firman-Lputian, Sochi tt 2005, and now 16.0-0-0!+, 11,843 Dge 12. g3 Up until this point we have followed the game Doring-Vanek, Czechia 2008. Now, after the French break 12.16! the position is still full of life! B.bxa5! WEAPON: Another possible sub-line is 8.Db512. White fights Jor the initiatie, giving all his centre pazons: 07 9.87 ig8 10.Wxh7 (Rese x | vey aaw & oa s & BA AAR Hf SOAR analysis diagram eS However, Black's defence appears to hold after 10..a61, 10...xeS leads to a crazy variation after the rook sacrifice 11.0£3 Bhs 12.Wd3 Of617 13.0% Dge 14ic7 + FB 15.893 €5 16.2xa8 Deb 17. Wbs!. Black dominates with the cen- tre pawns, but White is a rook up (1-0 in 46 moves), NezhmetdinovAramanovich, Tilisi 1949. 11.0xc7+ Wac7 12.22 This move order was recommended by Nikitin as the best, but there does not seem to be much difference: 12.8b2 Wrest 13.02 Wi!? (for 13...e7!? see below) 14.Wd3 e5! 15.f4 ts 16.Wd2 Whs+! 17.g3 Wh7= Cabrilo Vaganian, Manila izt 1990. 12.WxeS 13.Wa3 Wer! 14.64 Does 14.151? 15.Oxd4 Qed 16.Wxdt Wrc200 Degerman-Karlsson, Lindesberg ch-SWE 1993; or 14...£612 15.Whxd4 e5z Orlov- Kruppa, St Petersburg 2000. 15.Sb2 15ixd4 Dxd4 16.Wxd4 Wrxe2 with equal chances, Kan-Botvinnik, Moscow training game 1953. 15...2f5! 16.0-0-0analysis diagram TRICK: 16..4€3! (novelty! < 16.847 17. Bel He8 18.9261 De? 19.xds Dds 20x04 Wrft 21.93%, Nunn-Kinsman, London 1993) 17.e1 (17.Bd2 Bd7s2) 17..xe2!! 18. WHI? (18.Wxe2 d3z2) 18... xe1 19. Wxg8+ sha7! 20.ed2 Qe7 21.Wh7 d3! 22.04 rg?! 23.hixg2 Wrfde 24.dexd3 WR 25.88 Waxb2 and the engine evaluation is 8..dxe3 TRICK:8...H 1052? 9. Wad t+— 9.Wxgi Reewe x ab & & & & BAB B28 Sean 10..@be6 ‘Thisis by far the most played move. A) White gets an advantage after the immediate 10...WxaS 11.0£3 < 11. Does 12.03 Od7 13.Dg5 Begs 14.fxgS 0-0-0 15.Wxf7 ©f500 Martin Gonzalez-Comas Fabrego, Spain 1993. 11..Dbe6 11..We7 I2h4!? Dbes 13.fag5! 247 14.9611. 12.0g5! Only this way! 12.Bb1 We7 13.04 247 is unclear, 12K 12.4005 13.4 ft H4.fxe5 fags 15.ske312T5 also 19. S+ and grandmaster Volokitin gives the rad- ical symbols (!, +—) here. 13.2e21N 13.F4 was played in a few games, when my proposal is 13..b612*, 13.2xeS 13...We7 14.f4st; 13...8477? 140x671, 14,0-0! For his pawn White will enjoy a dangerous initiative; B) 10...We7 is not a good move ei- ther. After 11.f4! Dbe6 12.23 xaS 12.47 13.26! b6 14.g3 0-0-0 15.Wa3+, Galkin-Cacho Reigadas, Rot- terdam 1998. 13.0g5! HxgS 14.fxgs Wrest 15.8f2 and White has already an almost winning position; C) WEAPON: But Botvinnik’s defence 10...247!? is interesting and full of resources, as usual: x aWe x saan wy A as Xk Au ARAB BS a8 analysis diagram 11S We7! (11.9821 12.8HA3. WeaS 13.441 Smysloo-Botoinnik, Moscow Weh m-9 1954; 11..Wxa5?! 12441) 12.84 (12,8051? 06 13.Sxd7+ Bxd7 140-0 dale PRoth-Whiteley, Groningen Ech-jr 1966/67) 12..@f8! 13.9.05+ (13.8h5 Gkd700) 13..ed7 14.S7+ Wad? 15 Wd3 Hyd! 1643 Ofg6 17.3 Debs Ragozin- Bolvinnik, Moscow m 1951 11.0831 The push 11.f4 is best against 10...We7. Here White is behind in piece develop- ment: 11..cWxaS The aS pawn must beBinninated. 11.4342! is worse because Wh) fil st Wha 15.2 y5 PB 14,3 Auld 15,004, 12.03 Bd7 13.2951? 1400.0 14.Wa3 4500, 13..0-0-0 Nadiad 21681 e aa a \w ja & |B & Bo analysis diagram IHluck has good counterplay. A fine exann- pie is 15.2xd8 Wrd8 16,Wh3 Dcds!? 1/.Wxe3+ &b8 18.23 Whe 19.243 Hes 20.4 = Abs! 21.8b177 (1Qxf50=) 21.Axc24! 22.Bxc2 Bcd 23.042 We3+! 24.ced1 We3 0-1, Van der Weide-Werle, Groningen 2001 11..We7 What else?! Now 11...WxaS leads to a position which was already under dis- Cowssion in the line with 10... Wras, Re- member: 12.0g5! Hf8 13.e2! etc 12.214! This move is obvious here. 12.£b5?! Gd7 13.0-0 OxeS! 14.2 xe5 Wres (5.Bxd7+ wxd7= is fine for Black, Chandler-Vaganian, Naestved 1985. ge «| £aW aay) aa AA | Ae mam | ABM AAA a SQ eu 12.847 This is good enough. 12...Wxa82, the original idea, capturing on a5 with loss ‘of tempo, leads to problems since the bishop is not worse on f4 than on cl 13.21b1! On the other hand, with the eS pawn defended, White can comfortably develop a very dangerous initiative. This idea of Lputian’s works more or less af- ter 13.0 g5 BFBO (13...2xeS? loses on the spot: 14.h4! dé 15.Me4 weds 16.Ed1+~ Rijnaarts-Kurstjens, Nether- lands tt 2009/10) 14.843 Oba 13...8472 13...Wxa3 is a more prind- pled continuation: 14.0g5! @xeS (14..Bf8 15.8b5!1) 15.xe5 Bogs 16.Sfork. 140g Dxes 14..Bf8 15-d3+ with the threats Wg7 and Oh7, 15.b4! We7 16.5h3!+, Fressinet-Lputian, Petrosian Memorial Internet 2004 13.26! A very annoying move! At least it serves to weaken the future position of the black king. 13.43% is an inferior op- tion: 13..0-0-0 14.893 (14.26 £5, see below) 14...WxaS! 15.0-0 @fSt= 16.xf5 exfS 17.Wxf7 Ba’ 18.Wh7 fa! 19.2xf4 Sf51, Grischuk-Vaganian, Calvia ol 2004 ae 13...0-0-0!7 Although this reply has become quite popular, its value remains suspicious.The altermative 13.db6 looks logical and. However, White achieves a clear ac vantage in many lines: 14.2g3 0-0-0 15.243 BhB! Black must play energeti cally, Defending the £7 pawn is a wrong idea — White cannot take it anyway. 15...Qg6 was played in Psakhis Bingorn, Minsk ch-URS 1987, but I found 16,Wh5!? dubs 17.WgS @ge7 18.4, 16,Wg7! White's only hope for an advantage. After 16,Wxf7?! Hafs 17 Wg7 Bhg8 18.Wh6 (18.Wh7 Zhe leads to a draw by repetition) 18...Hxf3! (a standard exchange sacrifice) 19.gxf3 Dds 20.WE (20.F4 DefS@) 20..Def5 21.Bdi Wes 22.8xf5 DxfS Black has excellent compensation, Sutovsky-Berry, England tt 2005/06. 16..Hdg8 16..d¢ 17.Wg5!?, 17,WH6t The queen is very well placed on £6. U7emite8 17.04 18.e4+. 18.0-0 wo. 2 RE] js W ms Jae ae ad | & a2 42 | & BAB x Ab ‘analysis diagram White keeps his extra pawn and enjoys a positional advantage. Black does have open files on the kingside, but he cannot draw any specific benefit from them, be cause the bishop on g3 blunts the effee- tiveness of the black rooks: 18. Eth5!? A new resource: Black wants to play ...2£5 or ..Hig¢ in order to put the white queen in danger. For that reason the saf- est thing for White is simply to retreat. 19MWEAL DES Also afer 19..Dg6 20.Bxg6 (20.We3!? DgxeS 21.Be2+) 20... Arp 11.Wed Ga 22.61d4 White is clearly better, 20Soxf51 White must hang on to the dark-squared bishop. Dixf 21.We3 & a& & analysis diagram The bishop on g3 neutralizes the pres- sure of the black rooks on the kingside. ‘The extra pawn and the weakness of the 3 pawn guarantee White a pleasant game: 21...Bxf3 22. Wxf3 D4 23.Wa3 WeS 24.24! Mgt 25.fbI! Black's sit- uation is very difficult, Stellwagen- Bartel, Germany Bundesliga 2006/07 (1-0in 61 moves), 1.axb7+! This b/a/b-pawn plays quite an impor- tant role in the game. TRICK: 14.843 f5! 15.exf6 (this an- swer gives Black enough counterplay, 1S.axb7+!? may be a more critical tine) 15..Waft 16.fre7 HdeB 17.8g6 De5 (17..B81? 18.8208 Bxg2!) analysis diagram“An amazing variation! 19.Rxt7+ Sc7! 2iestinn! Webs 2d] Hype! 22sbxf2 Wipe with perpetual check, Dolmatov- S leunon, Kazan #1 1995. 14.048 OF course not 14..9oxb7 15.Eb1+ Ba8 16.46 @cB 17.d3! Bhs (17...2xg? IKskg3 and the rook is tapped) Ia Wg7 (4..Wxb7? is also bad, as seen in Wryson-Wagener, Leon Ech-tt 2001 15.Wd3 (15.95!) 15...Wb2 16.81 Maybe White has some problems with huis development, but the Black monarch Istoo weak. Therefore, 1-0 in 33 moves 15.wa3! Here the white queen plays the blues! (ic. Tong moves). On 15,2d37!, 15,0512 was sil strong. 15.094 This looks like the best option, but there are lots of paths to explore: A) Gaining the eS pawn with 15.,.g62! is not enough: 16.833 DexeS 17.Oxe5 Dues 18.Wdd £6 19.Ebit —— Matulovic-Osmanagic, Sarajevo 1965; B) After 15..d4 16.Se2 Black holds the opening... with the help of his much higher-rated opponent. 16.21b1!; 16.2931? would be another strong op- tion: 16...f5 17.Bb1! ~ including this move is interesting in all lines 16..xg? 17. g3!¢ ‘Trapping the rook in an amazing game, Amonatov-Gorovykh, Moscow 2010. See the full comments by John ‘Watson on ChessPublishing: The com: puter is still crazy about White's position, but there’s more to the position than meets the eye. My personal eye sees that White is better. 16.93! ‘A Bianchetto versus the Armenian! In fact itis one more only move for White in the crazy line with 7.Wg4. The natu- ral 16.d.g32 is much worse due to the annoying check 16..He4+! 17.2¢2 (17.sed1 is unnatural; 17...0a5!?=2) 17.5 and Black got good compensa: tion in a recent game Flkin-Cioara, Rijeka Ech 2010, 16.296 Also the best move for Black. From now on the variation is forced. & & Awe: jae a av a ta & x 1 Se A & g eo (2 e 17. xe3 Oxt4 18.h3tA great idea, casting doubt over Black's plan, 18.gxf42 Bxf4t, 18../2xh3 18...2)g24!2 was one more amazing idea: 19.Gxg2 Bot 20.Wd2 Axes 21,244! and it seems that White is quite lucky also inthis line. 19.5xh3! 19,8xh3? Hes 20.Wh2 Ddsit xe5 After this option, despite numerous ex- changes, White maintains an edge. A) 19d 20.We5 Dxe5 21,Wxc7 +! (21.Wxe5? Hea +! 22.Wxes We3+ with a draw) 21..sbxc7 12.Ste2! Dxf3+ 23.903; B) 19.8la¢ 20.02 d¢ 21.WeS Bas 22MWd6+ Ruch-Bamsley, ICCF Email 2000; C) 19..Hes+ 20.%e2 e874 2LMb1 Bxes 22.Wxc7+ exc7 23.2xe5 HxeS 24. b8W+! 1-0 Pletanck Kohout, corr 1998, 20.Wxc7+ xc7 21.Dxe5 Hed+ 22.442 Bxe5 23.2031 The source of Black's problems is the rook on e5! Now White obtains a win- ‘ning position almost by force. 23.095 23...dexb7 24.f4+—, 23.4 24.Bb1 Hb8 25.8h7 Ses 26.8 g60+—. 24.5h71208 Mier 24.208 25.Ebi¢ White retains: the b? pawn and threatens Ext?! 24...exb7 25.2x17 25.5etl A wonderful resource! 25.05 25...8Bxb7 26.Hh8+— 26.f4l ext 26..Bxg3 27.fxe5!2 b8_(27...sexb7 28.c6+-) 28.Hh8 dixb7 29.2b5+— 27.2h8! fxg3 28.226! g2 28...c6 29. He7 +! 29.hxe8 198 29...g1W 30.Bxgi+—. 30.Exd8 Exd8 31.2g1+— 26.Bxe6+—; 25...8b8 Aw White's positional and material advan- tage is decisive. 31..0g8 32.ce2 &b6 33.203 bxb7 34,213 &b6 35.2xg2 Hxg2 36x92 wad 37013 wad 38de3 dxad 39.did4 bd 40.dxd5 1-0In my opinion, the 7We4 variation isa very solid choice against the black setup with 5. S08 un gions Black some major problems. 1 can coen be speculated that it is responsible for "sata becoming far less popular; atthe same time the variation is quite a straight line one, 4. Black hus practically no alternatives which offer any prospect ~ Leonid Kritz (ChessBase Magazine 133), However, the German grandmaster mostly investigated only what he considers to be the optimal continuation for White. Keep in Mind Just like a knight in a comer of the board is poorly placed according to the classical rules, so is the Armenian bishop on a5! Conclusion on the Armenian Variation (5.a3 2a5) «© Timmes are still hard for this line ~ and it’s too risky to play on the highest level. So it should be recommended chiefly as a surprise weapon, ‘© Any black player who desires to avoid the exchange of the bishop for the knight ‘would be well advised co play ‘Barricade’ lines like ..b7-b6 and ...f28. Or even to employ the Classical System with 3.€c3 61? (this is, by the way, part of Kortchnoi's main repertoire). Both lines can be found in The Flexible French.Chapter 7 - The Knight System Leg €6 2.44 d5 3.2c3 @b4 4.e5 c5 5.23 Rxc3+ 6.bxc3 De7 7.Wies ‘We have arrived at the unavoidable part of this book where we will have to face the attack 7,Wg4 in the main Winawer for the first me. kane AAU Rane ‘© The white queen attacks the kingside and the key weak point on g7. «From here on, Black's defence can be either very concrete (7...2f5), flexible (7-928), natural (7...0-0), or else indirect or dynamic, as in the case of the ‘poi- soned pawn’ lines (7...Wc7) GAMES 18 and 19 —7.Wg4 “£512 (285 games=39% be careful!) This isan interesting sideline which has always intrigued me ever since someone used it re- peatedly to beat me concincingly on Playchess.com a few years ago. 1 oas surprised that there is no known refutation of this move and itis easy for White to go wrong very quickly inthis line ~ Goh Wei Ming on ChessPublisking. Actually, this curious variation originated in the era of Botvinnik, Petrosian, Kortchnoi and Uhlmann, and quite surprisingly it ends with the young Swiss ‘grandmaster Yannick Pelletier (after his game in 2005). Most of the modern experts in the French have used the defence 7...f5 only on a few occasions.Why is this old main idea in the Winawer so much less popular today? In this chap ter we will ry to find the right answers to the arising problems. Keep in Mind «In the Knight System Black defends g7 tactically with the key moves Ins, diverting the white queen # However, a sharp advance such as own kingside. «In this battle of barricades Black balances static and dynamic chess! “af and h7-hS is double-edged and can weaken your GAME 18 ~7...f5 8.3243 h5 9.Wh3 (72 games=6 1.8%). A barricading weapor 7.Wga =29% only!) ‘The Old Weapon ‘Mer Petrosian lost against Tal with 7... (Moscow ch-URS 1957), later I decided to play this line against him. I noticed that Tal always repeated the same variation since it was work- ing tellin practice, without any farther checking or deep analysis, So I prepared an improve- tment for our new game in 1958 — Viktor Kortchnoi. hal lv. Viktor Kartel, Vivor ad something ofan Todan sgn’ vet THis et ogi and pryehologia skis mach hose ofthe egendary Shelock Holmes. 1.e4 €6 2.d4 d5 3.c3 b4 4.05 5 5.a3 2ixc3+ 6.bxc3 De7 7.Wed AFBI? An old weapon of many famous “Francophiles’. The black knight defends Ci Mikhail Tal Viktor Kortchnoi Riga ch-URS 1958 (9) Here is this game between the two giants: the dynamic Mikhail Tal (22 years old) vs. the quite ‘static’ Viktor Kortchnoi (here 27 years old) the kingside from the barricades. WEAPON: Another defence by the knight, 7..@g6, was one of several ‘barricade’ methods & ta Petrosian. 1 don’t know if itis playable, but a clear refuta-tion is yet to be founul: 8141? Nt 23 Was!? (unfortunately the ida 9.06? is not playable because of 10.9.43!) 10.2.42 6 11.Bd3 Bee? T2dxe5! (12.448 ct!) 12.2 65IN (S$ 12..Wxe5 13.08% was seen in Liberzon-Petrosian, Moscow 1964) 13.265! e965 This could be the new key position of this Tine. Black s til very solid here. 8.ad3 Attacking the defending knight is a must, WEAPON: 8.2f3!? would be an interesting option for attacking players, since it avoids the irading of the queens, 8..W a5 1 think that the best contin- uation is 8.5! 9.4, which leads to some of the main lines in the next game, However, here Black does not have the option .. Wh. 9.S.d2 04 10.9511 analysis diagram 10.847 10...0-02 would not be good either: 11.g4 De7 12.0g5 h6 13,0632? Wat 14.Bel S715. 11gt Oe7 1g fag6 13.841-+ and White should be happy with this position, Karjakin- Arizmendi Martinez, Biel 2003. 8..h51 The key to the black defence. White would have a strong attack after 8...0-07 9.895 WaS 10De2 wh8 11.0-0 Dé 12.Wh3! c# 13.8xf5 exfS 14.0F4 Leb 15. Biel Wie? 16.Wh4 Bfe8 17. Be3!+— Klovans-Grants, Riga ch-LAT 1965 9h Looking for an immediate refutation, ‘The main idea of this manoeuvre hides some tricks: 9..Wh4?? 10.8xf5, win- ning the knight. White also threatens to advance g2-g4. However, Black has enough time at his disposal to guarantee satisfactory counterplay. ‘The most popular move here is 9.WE#?, ‘which will be analysed in the next game. Black is doing fine after 9.Wd1. I would recommend the following set-up. 9..0xds (9.26!) 10.8xf5 ext ILexd4 b6s? and now, for instance, 12.@e? 2a6 13.0-0 cb 14.Bel Bxe?! 15.xe2 0-0 with equal chances. 9..cxd4 Here is the famous Kortchnoi adage: take material (ie. pawns) at any cost Another possibility would be to increase the pressure on di: 9...2c61? 10.Stxf5 10.g4?! Qh4 or 10...2ife7 is good for Black. 10,.exf5 11.Wg3tx swe aa aa a | ahha a & AA w & AASB im 8 © OS analysis diagram 11..WaS Remember Uhlmann’s uni versal dynamic plan: preparing queen- sie castling. However, the most solid continuation would be 11...sef8!? and then .hS-h4, and if 12.8g5 WaSe 12.412 Be6 13.0-0 0-0-00 Black is ready to launch a pawn jet with ...b4, pS. W4dxcS ha! 15.We3 g5 16.64 gxf 17.Bxfs Bdgs 18.0b1 2h7 19.Dd4 Khg7 20.8f2 f 21.Wxfs Waxc3— and Black is the one who at- tacks, as in. Teschner-Uhlmann, Wage- nningen 1957, 10.043 And this is the dynamic Mikhail Tal in action, A) 10.exd4 @ixd4! (Kortchnoi); B) The best option for White might be to simplify the position by 10.Sxf5!? exfS 11.We3!? BABI 12exd4 Deb 13.e2 ha! 14,WE3 h3 15.23, x ow @ & ah OAR ay ana BY & (WA a Anas & ao 2 analysis diagram and this position 15...b612; ©) The advance 10.g¢ is still a bad idea: 10..e7 Including 10..Wa5!? is interesting, eg. 11.Qe2 e700 Sidorov-Furman, Gorky 1950, L1.exd4 We7 12.2 Dbe6 13.0-0 &d7 14.gxh5 0-0-0!=2 with typically barri- caded play in Dubinin-Petrosian, Gorky 1950 10..We7! Here is the surprise prepared by Kortchnoi! This move order is correct for Black. A) However, 10..dxe312 also looks good, for instance 11.g42! De7 12.gxh5 We7 13.We3 071 i fine for Black; B) In the previous victorious game by Tal the line chosen was 10...23¢6, but in that historic game nerves played an im- portant role and there were lots of tacti cal lapses: 11.g4 I 1.cxd4!?. 11..<2fe7 is balanced, eg ‘analysis diagram IdgxhS Afier 12.cxd4 Black's queenside castling will strengthen the barricades and safeguard his king 12...We7 (or 12...Was+2=, Mitkov- Rozentalis, Schellenberg 1991) 13.842 Qd7 14.Hb1 0-0-0 15.gxh5 fete Dorawa-Uhlmann, Schkopau ch-DDR 1958. 12.We7 12...Was”2. 13.S64 13.cxd4? Dxdd!, 13.0 Dg6 13..dx0312. 14Wgs Dxft 14..Dgnes!?. 15.Wexktdxc315..xh52) locxd4t. 16.Weg5 (16.2gi 6!) 16..1e7 17.Wag7 WEB 17...ExhStF. 18,Wgs Wh6 19.Egto0 Wrg5?! 19..Wsh? 20.Wi6t. 20.xgs GA7 21.0627 21.h6It. 21.0807 22.9e3 HafB 23.Hagl Bes 24.044 £522 24..f6=. 25.Dxc6+! Bxc6? 26.sbd4+ reaching a winning endgame at last, Tal-Petrosian, Moscow ch-URS 1957, Statistic note: objectively speaking, Petrosian was not very lucky in the 7.45 variation. He lost 1°/-% against Tal and 1-0 to Leonid Stein (see next game), and only won one single game. 11.Bb1 dxc3! xa2 & aay aa a Pawns are the soul of chess — keep them safe! 12.94? Back then this advance, reinforced by Tal’s hypnotic eyes, used to scare many Francophiles, But not a great psycholo- gist like Viktor Kortchnoi. 12.27 13.gxh5 Dbo6 (WEAPON: The computer likes 13,0612 14.Wg4 D475. 14.084 If 14.Wg3 BxhS 15.Wxg7? OxeS 16Ogs Dxd3+ 17.cxd3 Dyer — Kortchnoi. 14..2961 This puzzling position is similar to that of Tal-Petrosian, but here Black has gained an important tempo with the in clusion of the moves 11Eb 1 dxe3. 15.293 DgxeSF Kae aw an im very em OB A Fa °OaRY BAT AB Ho ® @2 Black has won the opening battle, How- ever, the sharp struggle continues. 16.xe5 White incorrectly restricts his own possibili- ties, The critical continuation coas to move the king without exchanging knights. 16.58f1 — Korichnoi. However, even after the best move 16.1 Black's position is much better: 16...8d7 (also. 16...f6!2 17.BbS &d7 18.8xc6 Wxc6 19.2xe5 41%) 17.205 (17 Bel!? £60 18.2 g6+ ed8it) 17..WaS! 18.Dxe5 @xeS 19.8xe5 @xb5+ 20.sbel Was!—+. 16..2)x05 17.841 17 sd122 @xd3! 178.471 18.4 This move, made with the aim of acticating his queen, is a serious mistake, which should have led to a difficult position for White ~ Kortchnoi. 18.Be1 f6 19.2 g6+ £817.18..167 Overlooking — White's counterplay possibilities, The dynamic solution was IM.G3I—#; the static option was 1H. S2c6F. 10..ixe5! Wxe5 This leads to a dynamic balance. Maybe Wack should have tried 19...fe5!? 20,dg6+ SAB 21. Whs+ — shgs VMxb7!—(22.Me772 S++) 11 eB? 20.nxb7 bs! 21.0xbe+ Wxb8 22.Wa4l 22g? g5! 22..418 23.291 Now White has obtained dangerous ‘compensation for the pawn. So, 23.981 The only defence, but a sufficient one. Black returns the last of his extra pawns, but his king finds safe refuge at ¢7 —Kortchnoi. ¥ e | k eae | ka ae ws me | & sae Ao AB Sh ee | 24.hxg6 24.14? is a mistake: 24..WE4! 25.hxgs Wrg4 26.Exgt eS! 27.Bb4 BxhS 28.Rbs+ we7 29.Hb7 bd6 30.gxfs et F ~ Kortchnoi/Moskalenko, 24,8897 25.h4 a5 A useful prophylactic move, preventing the possible intrusion of the white queen into Black's position via b4. Now Black must be constantly om the watch to safeguard his po- sition against penetration by the white queen ~ Kortchnoi. 26.0g3 Woi+ 27.92 Wb7 285 4+ 29.0041 29.13 is more complicated: 29...Was (29..e5 30.8f5=) 30.Hh3! e5 31.265 Sixf5 32. Waf5 d3! 33.cxd3 2 34.BhI= 29..%c8= 29.45 30.95! with a draw afer 30...Wxet+ 31,@h2 Bc6 32.We7+ sh6=, 29..WbS 30.2h3 Wes, given by both Tal and Kortchnoi, is wrong in view of 31.Wags fxgS 32.11, pre- paring the decisive manoeuvre EbI 30.0xc8 Wxe6+ 31.bg1 Wd5 32.04 Wes Here young Misha surprisingly played: 33.h6+?? A mysterious mistake, probably due to time trouble, which loses on the spot 33.480 We 33..2xh6 34.Wxh6+ cexh6 35.97 Wxg3! ot By no means faultless, but a very sharp _game, and also interesting from the theoreti- cal point of view—Kortchnoi,The history of the old Knight System continues. Much later, in 1983 in the Soviet Championship in Moscow, Petrosian again chose 7.9115 against Tal (!), but the lat ter chose the main line with 9. Ws instead of his old weapon 9.Wh3. Let's look at all the ideas in the next modern game. GAME 19 ~9.Wf4 (127 games=63.7%) [A New Francophile! Swiss grandmaster Yannick Pelletier is a French specialist and 1've noticed that he has scored well with slightly off-beat variations, Here we analyse his four games with 7...@f5!? in the Winawer, where he scored a 1-3 result with black (without losses) against strong grandmasters CINigel Short W Yannick Pelletier Zurich 2001 (3) 1.4 e6 2.44 d5 3.23 &b4 4.05 De7 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxe3 c5 7.We4 ESI? 8.243 hs! Goh Wei Ming: This move, misplacing White's Queen at the expense of weakening Black's Kingside is the cornerstone of Black’s concept. Due to Black’s early pressure on d4, White's replys forced. sweat? This move might be the answer to our question why 7...0F5 has never been a popular theoretical line at grandmaster level. 9..We7! This typical Winawer manoeuvre is cur- rently Black's main hope in the Knight System. Black is not playing for a draw (asin the lines given below), and his su- perior pawn structure will compensate for White's advantage of the bishop pair. One of the original ideas of the Knight System was an early queen exchange, but unfortunately it fails nowadays: A) 9uutxd42! 10.cxd4 10.2xf5 ext Iexd4 Dc6 12,02 hate Karaklajic- Foguelman, Belgrade 1962. 10...WWh4 analysis diagram Now the critica line is 11.Wxh4t7, After 11.13 Black gets a nice endgame: 11Wett 12.83 Qe6 13.3 Ad? 14h3 Be8 15.82 Da5 16.g4 De7 17.862 cas and Black managed to win this desired position in 45 moves, Bogoljubow-Flohr, Nottingham 1936. 11.@xh4 12.0g5! and now, after 12. Aagr+ (if 12.05 13.De2! Deb 14.3 @a5 15.Df4 De7 16.%e2t White is playing for a win without any risk, Yanofsky-Uhlmann, Stockholm izt 1962)TAMUAT 13.sbd 2), 13.66 14.0xf6 gxfé 15kxfé HB 16.Sg7! Hg8 17.Lest White achieves a clear advantage. on B) WEAPON: Only the direct move 9..WHA!? can be a drawing ‘weapon: kate x aa a a a oh eRe > €r oe & & Ee 8 O analysis diagram FY a & 3) BI) TRICK: Now 10M xhd is not . 2 critical, since Black takes profit of the advantage of not having played ..crd4: 10,.Dxhd 1LSg5! Bf! (the alternative 11...2)xg2+?! is still bad and leads to an ad- vantage for White after the same line: 12.6 fl 60 DBexfo gxfo 14.Sxf6 fs 15.97! Hy8 16.251) 12dxc5 (it is im- portant to note that 12.2 doesn't work because of 12...De7! 13.0f4 Obebt=* and now White cannot play c2-c3) 12.47 13.Bxf5 exf5 140-00 DxcS 15.Hxd5 De62 ge ge = ka ‘ask a HAaks \& af AAK ® OF analysis diagram ‘With he spport of old rancopies, young grandmaster Peltier invesgted the Knight System and shied greaesaceses witht Black was a pawn down and behind on devel- opment, but his pawn structure was far supe- rior to White's. Thus, Black would have no problems once he managed to actioute his rooks. Goh Wei Ming on ChessPublishing, writing about the game Radulski Drozdovsky, Troms6 2009. B2) 10.2e2!? The continuation pre- ferred by Khalifiman in Opening for White According to Anand Volume 7, threatening to win a pawn. However, Black's barri- cades are strong and they hold in many Tines, 10...Wxfa There is nothing better. 11.@xf4 2e7! This might be the best square for the knight. After 11..h4!? Khalifman analysed 12.2e2 exd4 1B.cxd4 g6 14.0-0 OFS 15.2b2 D6 16.Rfa1 and even though this must be slightly better for White, it is certainly going to be tough to convert this posi tion into a win. 12.21? 12.dxc5 Doc6e. 12.uh4 13.DhS This position was the older Petrosian’s hope vs. the mature Tal, in 1983. And this time Petrosian defended the barricades more stubbornly:13.8812 13..h7 14.g41200, 14.295 exds 14. Dbc61? 15.Bd1 DS 16.94! Exh5!@ — back to the workshop! 15.cxd4 b6! 16,0-0-0 226 17.0xa6 Daa6é 18.g4= and drawn in 28 moves, Tal-Petrosian, Moscow ch-URS 1983. 10.262 The most flexible development of the knight. However, Pelletier found an ap- propriate reply. A) Uhlmann writes twice in his book: The reply 7...25 has not been credited, and he gives the following game Svidler~ Pelletier as an example, something which generally only diminishes the reputation of the Knight System. How: ever, I could not find a clear advantage for White here and I even found some improvements. Let's see: 10.dxc5 “a6! 1L.&xf5 is a quite forced exchange if White wants to get some advantage. 11...exf5 12.2e2 @ixe5 13.0-0 eae & aaw oak aacaal wy a AMORAB £2 ue analysis diagram ln ay opinion this position is equal Both armies have weaknesses: 13.40-0 13...b61% 13,2061, 14.0g3 Be8 14..Ded!?; 14...b4!?, 15.863 15 xhS Wres =. 15..2e6 16.Waxf5 h4 17.DhS = WEAPON: Here Black has a tacti- cal defence with 17...2.d4"?, poss- bly with the inclusion of 17.3152 Instead, 17..Wxc3? was a mistake 18.HadI!f Svidler-Pelletier, Biel 2001 After 18.Wg5 Ze2+ 19.2h1 Wares 20.Waxhs Wes 21.W/g5 Wes the positi- onisequal: B) Black is fine in the gambit line 10.043 cxd4! 11.0-0 dxc3 12.2xf5 exf5 13.Wg5, played in Volokitin Pelletier, ACP blitz 2004. qaa & § jeaw bk acawa a kh 84 & BAB |B 2 8% | lyst aaa Here the best defence was 13..<8f8!= keeping a healthy structure with {7-g7; ©) Also after the solid 10.242 @c6 11,23 Dce7 12.0h4 Axhs 13.Wxhs 41 Black balances the game: > El} bere » » a Png pepe D> De 4 ¥ & AAB i & Te analysis diagramV4.se2 G65 15.Wh3 2a7 15..We7!s 1 Wa! 16.g4 Sie7 17.gehS 0-0-0 In Syslor J. Franz, Warsaw tt 1959, This knight step is a simple and strong option. Black loses a tempo, but threat- ccs to win the bishop on d3 by means of «5-ct, which is the disadvantage of White's 2e2. Wdxes forced move, 11.007 12.893, A provocative idea by Short. Four years later, the young Magnus Carlsen, visiting Switzerland, tried to improve White's play, but he was not very successful: 120-012 WxeS 12...2xc5!?. 13.Wat 13.b517 Wxf4 14.8xf4 a6 15.a4 d8!=, 13...Wc7 14.8.63 e5! ‘analysis diagram A curious position: the two black knights and the centre pawns are more useful than White's two bishops and his tripled c-pawns. 15.2g3! 0-0! 16.Wh4 @xcS 17.AxhS Dxd3 18.Wes Dg6 19.cxd3 Weed (19...We7!2% was a good try for a win) 20.44) exd’= 21.Bact Wb2 22.2b1 We3 23.Hbcl 4-1 Carlsen-Pelletier, Bie! 2005, 12..xe Black accepts the consequences. How- ever, 12...€xc5!? was an option. WEAPON: And of course the sharp variation 12...h4!? 13,Wag7 By 14.87 xe500 also fully deservesattention. 13.04 re aan 13..h4! This is a very helpful pawn in this system. White is better after 13...Wf62! 14.295 Wes 15.f41 14.94 Whs After Black has forced the queen ex- change the position is balanced. How- ever, we will reach the famous ‘French endgame’ with the Winawer pawn structure, which usually favours Black. 15.80xhS 15.Wxg7?! 17 Bxh6 e5I 15..21xh5 16.246 Se5 Bes 16.Whe Wxhe (iors WEAPON: Here the best solution zoas the break 16..b6!rae rary yy | a ga , 8a x | A jA we | | A DRAB | @ 3) analysis diagram Z.cxb6 (17.865 bxe5) 17..0xb6 180-0 G06 with a very promising endgame for Black. 17x05 White cannot avoid the exchange of one of his wonderful bishops. For example, 17.Qd¢ Dxd3+ 18.cxd3_— DLS (18...8947!2) 19.0b5 @xd6 20.Dxd6+ the: 17..2xe5 18.94 95 18...H1g5!? 19.3 e5=. 19.82 2d7 20.2d4 16 21.ab1 0-0-0 22.h3 The position is still equal. 22..2€87! The wrong direction. mm WEAPON: 22..Bet! aves a cre ative ‘workshop’ idea: 23.204 dxed 24.8c1 DdS® with great compensa- tion for the exchange. 23,.5b2 23.Bhf1"2, 23..!\¢61 24,.2hb1 “a8 2B.td1 de? 26.tb4 .c6127.ib5 RbBi= I will give the rest of this complex end- game with brief comments: 28{3 b6 29.cxb6+ axb6 30.xc6 Dxc6 31.0xc6 dexc6 32.c0d2 15 33.04 {434.0577 34.045, 34..b5F 35.6 Ba8 36.Rxb5 Exaé 37.2b8 He3 38.511 Ha3! 39.298 dé 40.2xg5 Zaxc3 41.25 Uxt3 42.2xf3 xf3.43.dxh4 52+ 44.501 oa a KAR & A x & 44...2g2 4+4...05! should also win easily. 45.be1 ke5 46.03 tes 47.0h6 05 48.2e6 Lg3 49,012 Uxh3 50.96 Bt3+ S1.die2 Exc3 52.96 He2+ 53.ced1 Hg? 54.016 td3 55.ce1 wed 56.0t1 13 57.515 e4 58.5xd5 Exg6 on Itwasa nice ‘French year’ for grandmas- ter Pelletier, who scored some important points with the Knight System against very strong opponentsBummary of 9.Wte: Wath the dynamic dlefenee 9...We7! andl the ‘passive’ drawing weapon 9...Wh4!? are playable for Black Conclusion on 7...265 In our moxtern chess times, the defensive old Knight System is another possibility to surprise your opponent and save some studying time. However, a set-up with moves like ...O\f5 and ...h7-h5 creates quite a lot of weaknesses on the black kingside, and it Isrisky from a strategic point of view. Basically, Black’s position is slightly passive Speaking in all honesty, during my study [ could not find any refutation of this system, but the arising positions are somewhat dry and with few attractive possibili- tics... this might be the reason why this variation hardly appears in modern high- level gamesChapter 8 - The Eingorn Variation GAMES 20-22: 1.e4 e6 2.04 d5 3.3 Rb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 Axc3+ 6.bxc3 He7 7M gs so81? (745 games=50.3% —a positive score!) 44ow @ KE jaa Babe & & A &A& BG #258) ‘« Witha bad king position, the position cannot be equal! Viktor Kortchnot «Risky, but an interesting move that became very popular in the end of te 80's. It is still not clear how White can get a real advantage, and Black could be satisfied with his results in practical games — Lev Psakhis (in ChessBase Magazine 73) «In many games, after 7..0-0 Black gets checkmated very soon. And not everybody likes the gambit ine after 7..We? — Viktor Moskalenko «White won alot of the early games against this move, but as time passed, it has been looking like one of Black’s safest options — John Watson Grandmaster Eingorn in Yearbook 27 (1992): # The move 7...%f8 in the main line ofthe French Winazwer is more oF less a successful attempt to avoid well-known theoretical paths # After 8.08 Black usually solves his problem by playing 8..WaS 9.242 Wad. The move 8.W8d1 prevents such counterplay, but only a the cost of time, + In my opinion, the consistent move for White is 8.04, after which 8..06 requires acctrate defend- ing on Black's part. Because of this, 8..\c7 9.Byf3.xd4 should be prefered «Finally, the attempt at a straightforward attack with 8.44, followed by Hh3-Bg3, does not seem to0 dangerous for Black. The numberof games in which ‘my move'7.. Sf has been played so fr is rather limited, so all pos- sibilities need further practical tests Senioned Urainan grandmaster Yer Engorn (1956), an exponent of sother genention of experts in the gemine French, Foralong time now bi ieregula’ king move (78) has ben part of oficial opening eon‘Practical Tests # Nowarlays, 7.08 is the third most popular option against 7.Wg¢ in Black's rep. entoire, There are lots of interesting high-level games with this typical and para~ sloxical king move, » With 7...29f8, Black is playing a slow positional system compared to other main Winawer lines. ‘« According to the common idea of economy in defence, the king alone is used to defend the g7 weakness, Black can exploit this economical solution for a qqueenside counterattack, usually along the e-file ‘© During the opening stage Black cannot open the game too much, because his king’s placement is not yet secure and his rooks lack connection. ‘In order to make the defence 7...2£8 more flexible, Black has to use some well- known ideas from different Winawer set-ups: there are many possible alternatives and transpositions, Main Recommendations ‘« The best reaction against the move 8.a¢ is the ‘geometric manoeuvre’ 8...'Wc7! (Game 20). + After the rare and modern continuation 8.8.42, Black has to choose a standard positional plan with &...b6 or firs 8...We?, © Weapons vs. 8.242: 8...We8!? and 8....8d71? (see Game 22) + Buc in case of 8.h4, 8.4f3 and Sd3 and 8.Wd1, the set-up with ...b7-b6 and 126 is too slow. So the "Blues motif” 8...WaS followed by ... Wa becomes an at- tractive option again (Game 21) In the following three games (20-22), we will see how Eingorn’s system works in ‘modern times, ensuring that this terrific ‘mysterious’ king move remains of interest. GAME 20 — Using Well-known Concepts: 8.a4 (136 games=53.7%) This game illustrates the most important options with 8..We7! and 8...b62!. Al- though Black emerges out of the opening in good shape, there are several points where think he could have gained some advantage. For those who previously studied well Chapter 4 with 7.a4... ‘now understanding and capturing the best ideas will be easierC Alexander Areschenko Mi Yury Drozdovsky Evpatoria tejr 2001 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.2:c3 Gb4 4.65 c5 5.a3 2xc3+ 6.bxc3 De7 7.Wg4 L181? The darkest French move! White has to ‘try and demonstrate (not in words, but with deeds) that the opponent's voluntary rejec: tion of castling has a substantial significance ~Eingorn. Baal? A quite logical and popular continna- tion, preparing to meet 8..WaS by 9.242. Also, with the black king on £8, the move a3 can work more effectively than in Chapter 9. 8..We7! Eas a Sd ee ‘analysis diagram Clearly, this short geometrical queen move is the most dynamic and appropri- ate practical option here. A) WEAPON: However, why not first 8..cxd4!?N 9.cxd4 and “The salyoung grande: Yury Drondwthy (26) was puplof both Bingornand the author This maybe one of the rezone ey he plas the French Deence sects today 7 BB chi fourste now 9,.\We?, with an sonexplored position? ‘The discussion is opened in this book! B) Problem number one for Fingorn (®) was that he always had to defend this line in the old fashion with 8...b6?!. But this does not work in modern times. (kane & & re waka a a | was |as Bw | ‘ & a &a& i 2 Boar analysis diagram Here is an example how White can get an advantage: 9.21f3! a6 There are two old Bingorn games with 9..h6 10.03 We7 11.843 (nobody found the idea 11GbS!+) 11.826 12.0-0 and Black's position was too passive, so 1-0 in 39 moves in Arnason-Eingorn, Reykjavik 1989, with along game that ended in aDebrecen Wow in Hellers Hingorn, Hh 1992, 102bS! 2xbS 10...n6 Walxchtt. Haxbs: xa a analysis diagram Due to the & being on £8, White retains 4 solid initiative, The main threat is et U1cxd4?) 12.Wxd4 (12.2412) 12,id7 13.03 thg8 14.ctt DFS 1s. WEs We7 16.0-0 dxc4 17. Wet He8 I.g4! Dh6 19.MA1 £5 20.exf6 Dx V1 MWxe6+ D7 22.Gd6 1-0 Ares- ‘thenko-Kristjansson, Figen tt 2006. Summary of 8...b62: This slow plan was Kingorn’s main weapon for many years, and therefore the main reason why he twice wrote that “White's 8.a4 is the more consistent continuation’. See his conclusion at the end of this chapter. aaa qao0 @ F aay MARA aa = & & w & a A BAB Hf Gog Another key moment 9..0xdd Black plays this move almost automati cally, Remember ~ the standard 9..b6? is too late: 10.243 a6 11.0.0 exd4? 12.2xd4! &xd3 13.cxd3 Dbe6 14.8.a3 gs 15.Oxe6lt, —_Frolyanov- Drozdovsky, Differdange 2008. WEAPON: An interesting solu- tion to the whole 8.24 problem could be the transposition to the previous chapter by 9..15!?, using motifs from the Knight System! 10.Wf4 cxd4 11.Wxda YSN with excellent counterplay for Black, forinstance: PEK 12.Whss sbg8 13.043 Deb 44 Dede; B) 12.8034 segs 13.Wes Waxes 14.Qxc5 b6 15.8d6 Dc6s* and chances in the arising endgame are equal 10.Wxd4 Forced 10..be6 Now the idea 10...0f517 is less attractive (without ...h7-h5), but still good enough to equalize: 11.6a3+ dg8 12.Wes Wxes 13.Axc5 b6! 14.846 De6=. 11.We5t This is the only way for White to fight for an advantage. However, it leads to a very unclear position! 11,We3 2S! 12.WE Dee7s2 12...h6!?, preparing g/-g5. 13.We2 Dg6! Winning an ex tra pawn, 14.262 Dxe5 15.Dxe5 WreS 16.034 Seg8 17.0-0 £247! and Black'sposition is strong enough, Aresct BSocko, Warsaw Ech 2005. 11.161? Black tries to get rid of the eS pawn. WEAPON: The alternative is to continue closed combat with 11.471? 12.8431? (S 12.805 Be8ls* Hedman- Sengupta, Paleohora 2009) 12...66!? 13,Waé (13.We3 Qa5!7=2) 13..Wxd6 Heexd6 g6 15.0-0 f6 with a complex end- game. 12ext6!? Opening up the game is a logical con- cept against the s on f8, but it will also improve Black's central pawn formation White has used two blocking ideas versus the Socko family: A) 12.86 Wast? 13.Wa3- 13.Waxas @xaS=. 13... f7= —_ Jakubowski- BSocko, Czestochowa 1998: B) 12.2051? [xa @ jaaW @ wal ake | | 2Wad | {A 2 | ee | | oA eS BABI (a 2 ® = 3) analysis diagram 12.8f7 An improvement could be 12..48e5!N when White will have to show his cards, 13.0-0 a6 13...fxe5!? Lahno-MSocko, Heraklio 2007. 14.2xc6 Wxe6!? <14...Axc6 15.exf6 gxf616.ct!T A.Muzychuk-BSocko, Warsaw rapid 2009. 15.Wd4 £47 16.2b1 bS 17.He1 Wes 18.Wd2 Zack 19.axbS axbS 20.2b3 g6 with equal- ity, Belov-B Socko, Hastings 2004/05. Black won four games from this posi- tion (4-4%). Therefore, White has to prove something here. 13.8e2 A) 13.8h6+ seems premature 13.817 14.043 €5! 15.h4 Was! 16.Wa3 Bg (16..0g617F) 17.202 gs 18. Oa4!t and 0-1 in 37 moves, Rodriguez Talavera-Zlotnik, Ceuta 1992; TRICK: B) 13.04 Sof? Ma.cxd5 Dxd5 15.2d3 %% (19), Zaragatski- Drozdoosky, Peniscola jr 2002. analysis diagramHere Black missed some interesting tae ties: 15..h6! 16.Wes Ba6r? (16...icbs should be a safer option: 17,Whc7+ toxeT 18.et RA7!z2) 17.Wxa6 Debs 1e.Wet Wied 19.8xcd Dxc2+ 2W.shd2 @xa. According to the engine the position is equal, but in practice Ick has a material advantage. 13..05 The most active option, but with the king in the middle it looks too risky. In- weresting is 13...%g8 and then ...sbg7- hs. Or simplifying with 13..Wast? 14We3 B17 (14.0522) 15.0-0 OFS loWd2 eS 17.283 Hy8 18.Babi=, which was tried in M.Muzychuk- Socko, Warsaw rapid 2008. Here the Irest move was the simple 18.18! 14.0h4! Black must be careful in such positions. 14.006? ‘A better idea was to improve the king: 14.97! 15.We3 (15.0-0 Bg8t) 15... 16.Wh6+ &g8 17.0-0 Of 18.Dxf5 Sexf5 and now the game is bal- anced. Summary: 15.0-0 1 would be very nervous about Black's kking position, but young players are op- timists! 15..06 15. Hig8 16.f4 et 17.15! 247 18.0h6+ He8 19.a5t, Nijboer-PNikolic, Wijk aan Zee 2005 16.We3 Dg6-0 ‘The rest of this complicated game is full of inexplicable errors. 17.083 17 Whe+". 17.817? 17. g70 18,215 h5 19.246 Wg? 20.2b5 Ace7 21.295 298 22.04! \6e7 23.202 a6 24.a5 axb5 25.axb6 Eb8 26.cxb5 Wo6 27.2b4? IWb7+— 27.897 28,3 h4 29.123? 29.f4e. 29..h3 30.93 Bxb6 31.Ka7 d4 32.W13 3h733.0e4?? &he—+ And White soon resigned, just after the time-control (40). Afier 8.24 Wc7!, in the main line Black can balance the game. However, keep your eye on new possibilities that arise with the use of the old Knight System set-up: 9..h5!2and 10...04512GAME 21 — Kasparov's Weapon: 8.h4 (143 games=51%), 8.063 (141 games 3.3%), 8.5243 (102 games Afier these moves the game can transpose to ‘Queen Blue: response 8. WaS! It is a true pleasure to present the following great game to you. GM Nikolic is one of the main authorities of the 7...92f8 line, but in this game it was severely tested, Garry Kasparov Mi Predrag Nikolic Hongen 1994 (7) 1.04 06 2.44 d5 3.2¢3 b4 405 c5 5.a3 ixc3+ 6.bxc3 De7 7.Wa4 wf8 aasl SSaR Al |x & Nikolic’s specialty. He has played this ‘move against the strongest opponents, with reasonable results, ana This immediate attack is also Kasparov's main weapon in the Winawer, and he hhas made it dangerous for Black. How- ever, we have already experienced this sort of atack in Chapter 5, Games 13, 14 and, mainly, 15. For your convenience, here I offer three other important continuations in three mini-games 1) 8.2f3 This natural move may be not the best for White. 8..Wa5! Once again using Black's most important mo- tif in the Winawer system. As I already explained in the previous game, 8...b6? fs too slow: 9.a4! Ba6 10.2b5!T etc 9.842 Was (Grandmaster Pedrg Nikolic played 75 gine thesrongest opponents, with ree analysis diagram Compared to the Queen Blues line with 6..WaS 7.242 Wad 8.We4, there the move 8.2/8 was met by 9.Wdl, but this is not possible here. 10.Ea2!? Recent and also earlier prac tice has seen four other moves. for White:AY 10.3) cA! 1 ster Wredoe witha 1 § result in Blacks favour; Wy 10.ke2 be 11Zigs he 12.Whs yo! and Black stands better, %-'4 in Nominguez Perez-Nogueiras, Las Tunas th CUB 2001; C) Also 10.Hcl @be6 11.Re2 b6 17.0 0 826 13.2xa6 Wrab 14.Dg5 hé 14 Wh @id8 16.dxc5 bxc5 was fine for Wack in Naiditsch-Drozdovsky, Odessa rapid 2009; 1) Finally, 10.c4!? was played in Wiklan-Drozdovsky, Alushta tt 2001 10, We? M1.dxcS @bc6 12.se? and now afier 12...h6! and then ...We4 Black will be OK, 10... ‘analysis diagram This is the desired position for Black {and so it would have been for Eingorn im his early games). Only after the queen is activated is this plan helpful. Black has a small but static-strategic advantage, therefore White is the one who should now consider his future actions: 1143 11.WE4!? he 12dxc5 Watt 13.Sxf4 bxcS= TEmnst-Eingorn, Tallinn 1989, 11..,d0a6 12.0-0 Sxd3 13.cxd3 cA 14.05 ho 15.WhS g6 16.Whs Da7 17. duct Wac4F Black is better in the strategic battle, Balashov-Eingorn, Minsk 1983. 2) 8.ad3 analysis diagram This pseudo-active bishop placement is quite wrong in many sub-Winawer lines. I have also criticized, and strategi- cally refuted, White’s move £43 in the Advance Variation, in The Flexible French. Such arguments confirm my ‘anti-or- thodox theory’ that the bishop on c8 is the most powerful piece in the French! 8...Wast 9.2d2 Wad 9..c4!? 10.8¢2 Wat — no games. 10.c4 Trying to open up the game. For 10.Wd! b6!? see the next line below; 10.841?! b6!; 10.242 67. 10,.dxe4 11dxcS Qd7 12.8622! White does not worry too much about the pawns. 2 12.Wrxct Wac4 13.0xc4 &c6= and ...2d7. 12...806! and Black won in 31 moves, [Polgar-PNikolic, Hilversum tt 1993. Later, in 1997 in a game between the same players, White opted for 8.4421? ~see next game. 3) 8.WaL 2a2u F oa a & & analysis diagramThis looks like a quite modest retreat But White is interested in reverting 10 sub-Winawer lines now that the black king cannot castle either side. This move is slightly comparable with Kasparov's ‘unusual plan in the main game. 8,..Was!? Probably the best option on move 8 in all the lines of the second game in our chapter. In contrast with the first game, here 8...Wc7? makes little sense, since after 9.f3# there are at the moment no attractive set-ups for Black But the ‘slow’ 8...b6!? is now playable: 9.43 Ba6 (or %.h6!? 10.24 B26 11.Bxa6 @Dxa6 12.0-0 sg8!, Kasim- dzhanov-Ivanchuk, Tripoli Wch 2004) 10.8xa6 @xa6 11.0-0 cxdé 12.cxd4 Hc8e, Rogers-Chernin, London 1989. 9d? analysis diagram This is an interesting position. 9..Wa4!? In the ‘Queen Blues’ line, Black usually plays ...b7-b6 instead of ..@e?, but this does not change the general evaluation. qrims WEAPON: However, Black can take advantage of the differences and play 9...cxd4!? 10.cxd4 Wade (this is also a nice touck) 11.23 b6! and Black ‘was happy in Ziatdinov-Levitt, Dublin 1991 10.2£3 10.WbI a6!? (10...c4=) 11.3 Wxb3 12.exb3 Dbes 13.063 (13.dxc5 DxeSe*) 13.025 14.1 CH 10.06 10.0412, HLRA3 Or HLdxcS bxc$ 12b1 ska6e*, The ad vance [Lect leads to Michielsen- Moskalenko, Banyoles 2006, analysed in The Flexible French and in the Forum Sec- tion of Yearbook 93, 11uia6 12.dxe5 bxcS 13.0-0 Qd7 14.Bel > 14.0b1 hé!, BSavchenko-Shipov, Moscow blitz 2006. 14..1b8! 15.Eb1 Zb6 16.263 h6! 17.242 Sxd3 18.cxd3 Wad 19.Hexd1 £5 and White had to work hard to save the endgame, Beliavsky-PNikolic, Tilburg 1993. Back to our main game, 8..We7!? Finally, both queen moves are useful here. So the analysis of this old game will enlarge your knowledge of Black's options against 8.h4. For 8...WaS! 9.Sd2 Was please check again Game 15 in Chapter 10, where we have studied deeply the attacking option 10.2h3. analysis diagram Here are two other moves: A) 10S h6! 11.841? b6 12013 Ba6 13.Bxa6 Dxa6 14.WEt Be8t with a dramatic 0,5-6,5 score in Black's favour; B) 10.Wd1 be6 with pressure on d+ (10...b67 11hS h6 12.083 Svidler-BSocko, playchess.com 2004), 113 exd4 11.412 125 h6= would lead to blocked granite strucmies, ends Gade 13.243 Frec6 Hi bol. 14h if3+ 15,3 Sines 16.Wg3 f61 Black has gained two extra pawns, however the position is still tomplicated, Neelotpal-BSocko, Mos- cow 2004 owas Tis me Kasparov's plan looks quite curi- fous, Afier the aggressive moves Wed and h2-h4, White just plays a provoca. tive move which can never be called an attacking move! Suill, objectively speaking: what else could White do? A) 9.la2 defends the c-pawn but does nothing to support the march of the h-pawn: 9..2be6 10.h5 h6 11.8h321 WaS! 12.41 12.842 cadt 13.cxd4 Wase 12..cxd¢ 13.cxd4 Wat 14.063 6 15.WE Bast analysis diagram Biack has a nice positional advantage, while White's king isn’t brilliantly placed — Wat- son, writing about the recent game Macieja-B Socko, Warsaw 2009; B) The idea 9.42 is better on the 8th move (see next game), since here Black has the following options: ¥ it) RICK start? 0.8as?! cxd4 Mexd4 @xe5!, winning mate- rial, Preybylski-Bartel, Warsaw 2009; B2) 9..cxd4! 10.cxd4 Wxc2 ‘analysis diagram This position is also unclear: 11.Be1 11.Bh3 @be6 12.043 Wat 13.D£3 b6 14M h6 15.4 Sa6F Gordon- Kononenko, Kiev ch-UKR jr 1998. 11.We4+ 11... Wad!?, 12.Wxed daet 13.02 &d7 13...Abc6!?, 14.8c7 #6 15.Gb4 DA7F 16.45 exdS 17.04 eB! 18.2b5 ds 19.206 Hes 20.Hxc8+ Dxc8 and after all these tac tical tricks Black is standing better, Lopez Colon-Adla, Zaragoza 1994 9..0xd4 Black agrees to enter a risky line, hunt- ing for pawns. The following complica- tions are dangerous, especially when you play against someone rated over 2800. A) WEAPON: 9...847!? would be a nice, calmer alternative: 10.842 (10.04 cxdat; 10.%f3 Sad! 11.202 Durie Sande Edreira-Adla, La Coruna 1995) 10,..04!? ta * & aay Mims a Se oS eo om @ foc loc oa analysis diagramRemember the ‘sarcophagus’! 11d3 Ssbe6 1243 e412 13.502 he8! 14.5 h6= (Illescas) 15.h4 bd7 16.4 Hag8! (preparing the typical jet move) 17.2.g4 g5!#, Leko-Illescas Cor- doba, Ubeda 1997; B) WEAPON: With time and age. Nikolic restyled his play: 9.061? Rae & 2 a W Babe + 4 bad a A & & | & aA [2 BWeOoae analysis dlagram Similarly to the line with 8.16d1, this plan should work also here: 10.2f3 Sia6 11Sxa6 Dumb 12.45 h6= 13.Wa3 DVS (13..cxd4!? 1d.cxdé He8!=2) 14.0-0 Dbe6 15.04 BoB 16 cxd4 T.cxdd dS! 18.82 We3! 19.Wxc3 Hxc3¥ with a strategically better endgame, N.Djukic-PNikolic, Dresden ol 2008. 10.cxd4 We3+ 11.202 Wade 12.013 Wed 13.2620 1994, White won 2-0, but 1 disagree with the result of one of the games! 13..b61 Black needs to exchange one of the bish- cops immediately. In the later blitz ver- sion the inaccurate 13..Abe6? was played. After 14,hS! White had a dan- gerous long-term initiative: 14,.AxeS 14.6? 15.Bh4!, 15.h6! gxh6 16.2xh6+ gs ‘analysis diagram From this point onwards, Kasparov's moves are either ! or! 17.Eb1 Q7g6 18.Hb+ Oxf3+ 19.gxf3 Wes 20.64 We3+ 2.bFl £5 22.Hb3 Who 23.c4 (23.Bhh3!? b6 24.Hbc3—) 23...b6 24cxd5 Bb7 25.Hd3 Bes 26.Bg! b5 27.dxe6 Bxe6 28.Ed8+ 17 29.8d7+ He7 30.Exb7 — terrific! 1-0 Kasparov-PNikolic, Paris rapid 1994. 14.0-0 a6 15.c4l all of This position was the main challenge in the Kasparov-Nikolic rapid match in Of course Kasparov does not want sim plifications. The critical moment hasweek: White is going to atiack with ytlring he has, Wark needs to develop in order to sur- vive U5. dlxc4? 16,.0g5!-9; 11). Sixc4? leads to a fantastic variation: Wwkxct dxct 17.5 Was (1/..WdS 18S; 17... co IW.dtb4 Dd7) 18.Whs Wyo! 19.8003 fh 20.Seb4+ HyB_21.Dxe6! Dcb100 and currently there are no holes in the black forcress! 16.198! No more words, but deeds. Black has to lake more pawns. Which one would you prefer to eat? 16..Wxe5 The alternative was 16...Wxh4!? W7exdS @xe2 18.Wxe2 Ad4!? (18..exd5e0) 19.Wd3 @xd5 with a complex position, 17.0e1 Wiss From here on the game gets out of con- trol. However, one of the two players may still have been following their own analysis. I wouldn't know who - would you? 18.2h5 g6 18...Rxc4? 19.2xf7 g6 20.xh8 gxhS 21,095! Wrxh8 22.Bxe6— 19.0xd5 19.g4!7 Bc80. 19..exd5 19..fxd5!? 20.8g4 (20.He1 e500) 20..BeS 21Dxe6+! free 22.885 Dxget 23.Rxf6 Dgxf 24.Exe600 with unbalanced material (Ws. 29.2) 20.294 hé Another provocative move. 20...2c8! was safer, in view of what happened in the game. If 20.48? 21.Dxf7!!—. 21.2e6+! aa faa owe |e te wa] & | | @ wae rn owr 2 | Quite amazing! But there are many de- fensive resources, so Black is still alive, 21..fxe6 21...sog8 22.2c7+. 22.Exe6 W17 23.Wad 23.2icl!? was an attacking option sug- gested by Kasparov. 23.2041 23...S¢b7 24.201 —. 23..LcB 24.Hxc6 Mixes 25.Wast 24.tixc6 24.Bael bs! 24..2xc6 25.Wxc6 He8 26.247!The climax of this tense struggle Nobody could breathe easily here, 26.2970 The dynamic defence 26...148 fails to 27.806! BbS! 28.Wc3 44 29.WD3 Wie 30.Hel 2d7 (30.8 31.Wg3!t) 31,n5!- and White is much better. 27.8.03+ h7 28.n5! ZhtB T understand this move: Black wants to secure his king as soon as possible. Not 28..gxhS 29.0654! Wxfs 30,.We7+ eg6 31.Wg7 mate; but 28..2e7!? 29.2xh8 (29.8b4 Hhe8) 29...exh8 30 hxg6 WE4= would hold the game. 29hxg6+ Wrxg6 30.ixe8 Wxe8 31.Wd6 17 32.2441 With the opposite coloured bishops, keeps some pressure onthe Here is the classical resource: trying to lift the rook via c3-g3. 33..0e471 This move was not necessary, but I sup- pose that Nikolic was in time trouble. With 33..2e6= Black could save this position. 34.2e5 2947 35.0c3! X96 36.Wd8!+ B98 37.Wh4 37..0g5? Black is tired from a prolonged defence, that’s why his rook goes crazy. 38,4 Bh5? 39.Wd8 10 Summary of the lines 8.h4, 8.3, 8.2.43 and 8.Wadl: © Black can apply the ‘Blues’ set-up with &...1Wa5 in all cases. # Against 8.h4 the defence 8..1Wc7 is OK. But in the opening phase you should never open up the game voluntarily with black ~ especially not if the great Garry K provokes you! GAME 22 ~ A Strong Prophylactic Move: 8..2d2 (121 gam« modern weapon!) 5% —a dangerous Seventeen years later Bingorn wrote in Yearbook 90 (2009) One of the best replies is considered tobe the prophylactic 8.8482, which is directed against the standard manoewore ..Wd8-a5-a4 and at the same time does not allow the complications which are possible afer 8.04 We7 9.0f3.cxdd.a SLOAE In fact, the modern 8.52421? is not an aggressive approach, but it does render some of IMlack’s standard methods less effective! As many recent games and alternatives show, White keeps an advantage or a long-term initiative in the most challenging lines: see Yawn Hunting — Positional Play’ (8...b6) and "The Amendment’ (8...¥c7), ‘Two Weapons (on the ChessPublishing Forum, Icame across two original ideas against 8,242; A) The ‘Patzer Move’ ~ the triangular queen manoeuvre 8...We8!? (and ...Wa¢!) 18) The ‘Symmetrical Response'~ the puzzling 8.0.47"? with the idea ..a4!? ‘The possible consequences of both operations deserve careful study. OGata Kamsky oo I Vasily Ivanchuk Dresden ol 2008 (11) Hingorn’s amendment to Ivanchuk’s move: the novelty 11...Wxc5!? from this last-round Olympiad game in Dresden 2008 may prove to be very opportune for Black in this variation, 1.04 e6 2.44 d5 3.2\c3 b4 4.e5 c5 5.08 2xc3+ 6.bxc3 He7 7.Wa4 &18 In the last game of this Part we show an interesting but risky idea a.aid2i? >> a a re & aa > ] : aly banchuk a a lo was This was the modem move in the 1990s. la a w 8..We7 RR AAA John Watson: No one seems to know | whether this is better or worse than 8.06, or BR @SOE uwhetherit’san even trade-ofWe will give the answer below in our summary. A) WEAPON: 8...We8!? with the idea to go to a4 with another triangular manoewore wae we | aa maha a ae] aad Aw AB | A@ AAR 2 aE ‘analysis diagram Al) 9idxeS @d7 10.063 OxcSe# and Black is going to play ... Ded or .. Wat, oreven ..dad7-bS. White's natural moves here may all transpose to lines from the previous game: A2) 9.4 Was; 3) 9.263 Was; 4) 9.243 Wad; AS) 9.Wal Wad etc A6) TRICK: 9.04 Q47! 10.05 (1O.dxe5 h5!7%%; 10.B617! Brad ILExb7 Abcét) 10...Sad (10...8051) LW Qb5= and Black exchanges the bishops, S.Nilsson-Hedman, Stockholm ch-SWE B 2007; qisrs B) WEAPON! 8.2471? might be even more flexible, as a4 is also.a {fine square for the French bishop: 9.04 (9.h4 Lad!? 1045 H6 11.Bcl cl!?, setting up a Blockade across the entire board) 9..Dbe6 (9..H51? 10.NHf4 Og6 11.We3 ch and the po sition is fr from clear!) 10.23 We7? Here Black can mix Uhlmann's universal set-up with motifs of the Knight System. Only few games have been played with this idea. x er aawnaaaa aa |. gad Ao A OW ey Ag BAB im S28 analysis diagram T.Qd3 cA! 12.862 51? (building up a blockade. The most common plan in this ‘king system’ is 12..6!? 13.0-0 Seg8 etc., with a quite balanced game, Colovie- S.Petrov, Struga tt 2009) 13§Wh3 deeB 140.0 ®f5!= (the kingside is frozen!) 15.01 Dee7 16.864 Deo 1793 fol? 1B.exfb gap 19.UfI Dd6! and Black won on move 37, Gypser-Thieme Garman, Ger- many tt 2007/08; C) Positional play: 8..b61? This plan vwas considered ‘almost obligatory’ by Eingor in Yearbook 90: Black simply has no other plan. By contrast, inthe diagram po sition White has several active possibilities. analysis diagram Cl) Worthy of considering is 9:h4 with the possible continuation 9...2a6 10.h5! h6CI 11.Sxa6! < 11 Ae2 Dbes 12.Hb3 cxdd 13.cxd¢ DS 14.203 ‘We5!= Karjakin-Efimenko, Kramatorsk 2001. 11.xaé 12.2e2 He8Ww oeXe a mah \ma a a aad & & w A A ABDAA z..hUe & ‘anatsis diagram This position has occurred twice: 13,W322 exd4 Or 13...b8!?, improv- ing the knight: 14.94 Wd7 15.g5 hxgs 16.8xg5 PS 17.h690 Dworakowska- Kononenko, Varna Ech 2002. L4.cxd4 We8 15.41? Bxc2? 16.23 We8 17.Wa3 Bb2 18.d1! Chandler-Pert, london 2000; C2) 9.dxe5 Trying to open up the po- sition for his bishops. 9..bxeS 9, DATIVE, 10 analysis diagram After this blocking move both light squared bishops are temporarily out of the game. 11.d4 Dbe6 12.xc6 Dxc6 13.We3 Wh6o and -% (25), Stefansson-Ivanchuk, Leon Ech-tt 2001; 3) The advance 9.241? is still an op- tion, with the idea 9.26 10.2b5!? WC8IN. This move enables Black to im- prove the b-knight with ...be6, before exchanging ...2xbS. analysis diagram 11@e2 11.0631. 11.6 12.0-0 Qxb5! 13.axbS aS, securing the c4-square for the knight. Now the chances are equal, Golubev-Drozdovsky, ‘Odessa rapid 2005; C4) 9.231? A familiar plan: f4-h5. 9nnSta6 10,L8xa6 Dxa6 11. ‘analysis diagram A quite typical position after 8...b6. White keeps slightly better chances due to the poor position of Black's king on £8: 12.D€4 12.8951? Psakhis. 12..0xd4 13.exd4 @fS 13,..Excloo, 14.c31, Hracek-Kristjansson, Selfoss 2002; D) Indeed the variation 8...Was?! 9d! is now not very attractive for Black: 9.be6 10.03 Wb6 11dxe5 WaeS 12.431 and White controls the game, Short-PNikolic, London rapid 1994; ) Pawn hunting with 8...Wb62. 1 don’t have much faith in this option,analysis diagram S.dxcS! We7 9..Wh2 10,Wal @d7 11.OF3 Dxes 12.c4!t VOrlov-Kar- peshov, Blista ch-RUS 1994. 10,463 @d7 11,@e21? ZneS 12.0405 Waes 13.0-0 hs 14,.Wf3 Wet 15,Wd31?2 Ac6 16.Bfel h4 17-h3 f6 18.Zabi+, Kamsky-Ljubojevic, Monaco blind 1995; F) Pawn hunting with 8.Abe62?! is hardly playable in the Eingorn system: 9213 Wo6 10.dxc5! Wb? 11.2cl Wxa3 12,843 Wxe5 13.0-0f with a long-term initiative in Spassky-Legky, France tt 2002 9.243 The most popular response in view of the threat (o the 2 pawn (see the line 9.2 cxd4 10.cxd4 Wc? in the previ- ous game). White has also tried 9.21c1!? Was 10.h4 (10.dxc5!2) 10... Was 1LbS h6 12.8h3 (12.Wd1!? Psakhis) 12...c400 and it is not so clear how White can punish Black's pawn hunting, ‘J Polgar-PNikolic, Linares 1997, naa @ | aaw aaa wad | Aw A AS | A@ AAK Boo © As) 9..b6 What cle? Pawn hunting: 9uc4!? Re member: with the king on 18 blocking structures are also feasible 10.2¢2 10.81 &47 11.43 Ba4oo Korneev- Kristjansson, Reykjavik 2002. 10...Wb6 11,23 11.0h3!? Wb? 12.Ee1 Wraden, 11.2 12.Hel h6 13.h4 Wra3 14.85 Wh2 15.14 aStco in Cao Sang- Kristjansson, Ohrid Ech 2001 10.448 ‘My impression about this opening is that White has decent chances to gain a small ad- ‘antage in various ways between moves 10 and 13... John Watson. ies WEAPON: A strong alternative for Whiteis 10.213!? kao 6e & W Make ; & a a | a ow & Ag a) { AS AAR mS) we El analysis diagram After 2f4-h5, if Black plays ..g7-g6, the dark squares on the kingside will be very weak: A) Black can fix the central pawn structure with 10,.cxd421, but opening the c-file afier ..We7 will also be prob- lematic: exd4 a6 12.064 2xd3 13.cxd3 Dbe6 13...Wa7 14.Dh5 Heys and Black had lots of problems in Short-Levitt, Torquay ch-GBR 1998, for instance: 15.2b4!. 14,0512 14.Wxe6? Daxd4. 14..D£5 was played recently in Kargin-BSocko, Rijeka Ech 2010, and now after 15.Bic1!? White has a danger- ous initiative;PR) 10..,Ra6 11.041? Bxd3 12.cxd3 fobes The defence 12..Fig6 also fa- vaured! White in the following model aitacking game: 13.0h5 Deb 14.0-0 ted 15.3. Wa7 16.h4!? Wad? (16,0522) 17.fel cb 18.15! Dgxes (9WH4 Gxd3 20. Wa6+ eg8 21. Brest fae 22.Wxe6+ FB 23.h6+— was Ick PNikolic, Bastia rapid 2001. And eee WrxeS=; 13,0-0 Be8 14.Hack! 14.dxe5!? Nyysti-Ostenstad, Rethymnon tt 2003. 14.ch6 ‘analysis diagram The key moment in the game Cheparinov-Dizdarevie, Novi Sad Ech-tt 2009, White should look into 15.@hS! (15.aeh1? was played in the game, which continued 15...@a5! 16.2e3 c#1z#) with the following ideas: 15..g6 15..0g6 16.f4! (enforcing f4-5) 16..2ce7 17.WESIE; 15..DE5 leaves Black looking for a way to reorganize after 16.dxc5!? bxc5 17.f4 a5 18.Wdl ct 19.4 De7 20.d4t, which looks better for White. 16.0f6 @g8 16...a5!? may be Black's best defence, aiming for ...c5-c4!. 17-h4!t and White dominates the game. 10.66 10,,.cxd4 is a revent improvement, but ay | already commented, after Black has played ...We7 this is a less reasonable ‘option: analysis diagram ILexd4 226 12.0-0 With 12.2b41? there are (wo games: 12...8xd3 13.cxd3 D6 14.846 Wa7 15.0-0 woes 16.04 ho 17.WEt Qg6 18.Wg4 (18.Wes &h7 19.Qd2 Bhc80 H_Rudolf-B.Socko, Polanica Zdro} 2000) 18..¢h7 19.h4 Bhc8 20.h5 Dge7e with mutual chances, Szelag-BSocko, Glogow tt TS 2001 13.cxd3_ Abc6 Grandmas Baron Secko. one ofthe best Francopiileso he moder genersion and fs greatchampion of. 4814.2ifel Wd7 15,2a2 h6 16.2ac? gs 17ch4 Dc 18,WhS Sif5! and Black was OK jin Boros-BSocko, Austria w 2009/10. analysis diagram THICK, White toes his queen after 19.g4?? 6. 11.dxc5!? A logical option: after developing with 3, White is interested in playing in the centre. 110-0 @xd31exd3 a7 (12..c4200) 13.a¢ 6 14.051, ASokolov-Crut, StChely d’ Aubrac 2004 oe 11..Wxe5!? A novelty by Ivanchuk: after this move there are no weaknesses in Black’s pawn structure, Therefore White has to attack! L..cbxeS used to be the main move, but White can open up the game with 12,.xa6. White should also be able to maintain a small edge with 12.0-0 Bxd3 ed} 7, Grigoriants Pakhomioy, St Petersburg 2009, and now the best order is: H4Zabl he 15.4, 12.,.2ma6 13,041 analysis diagram A typical advance in this type of posi- tion, The precarious situation of Black's king and the temporary disconnection of his forces give White the advantage. 13..2g6 13..We6 14.cxdS_ exd5 15.0-01 with an advantage for White, Timman-PNikolic, Pula 1997; or 13...0b8 14.cxdS DxdS 15.Wet Web 16.1 2d7 17.0-0 Bek 18.ct DSb6 19.Wd3+ with maximum pressure, in Aveskulov-Drozdovsky, Lvov ch-UKR jr 2003.14.0-0hS TRICK: 14...0\xe5?! 15.2xe5 Wee5 1exd5t. 15.Wg5 and White may stand much better, Sigfusson-Ostenstad, Rethymnon 12003. 12.0-0 2xd3 13.cxd3 Sbe6 x ® & a maba aaa Was Ww: AO z > Aa beWs the same story: strategically the posi hon would be very good for Black if not for one static disadvantage: the king on 14 So: ‘14.04it hS 15.Wg5 Of5 16.21! Asolid concept TRICK: 16.fi.c1 isa trick suggested by B Eingorn which has worked. pretty ‘In practice: 16,.¥xc3? loses immediately (2 1o..seg8 17.03 Wa5 and then Bn6-g6!?00) to 17.S8a3+ Dee? In Byel+— Wra3 19.0h4 eB 20x95 fayf 2.Be7 and 1-0 in R. Bagiroo- agit, Moscow 2008. 16.098 172b5 We7 18.Wi4! Wd7 19.Dab1 Zc8 20.3 ee - a & We have reached the climax of this high-level game. Kamsky has already done a good job on Ivanchuk'’s set-up. 20..h67! Activating the h8 rook is an attractive idea, but it fails tactically. White will open up the position on the other side. 20,..Wd8"? is an improvement suggested by Eingorn, but it does not change the general assessment of the position: 21.Becl!? andif 21...0h6 then 22.c4t. 21.25! ‘The punishment starts. Summary of 8,421: 21..bxa5 THK point of the combination is 21...2.xa5 22. Wad!, winning mate- rial with @ double threat: 22...Wc6 (22... g62? 23.305) 23.8xh6 Dxh6 24. Berd. 22.lWa4 Hg6 23.xa5! Nc7 24.2abs We8 25.2f4 A puzzling, paradoxical position: de. spite the fact that all Black's pieces and pawns are perfectly placed, his army suf- fers from total zugzwang! 25.ehB 26.th2 g8 27th1 whB 28.05 wg8 29.44 29.040, 29..Wd7 30.Wb5 We8 31.Bat &h7 32HaG+- Dee? 33/Ag5+ Bxg5 34,0x95 Hxc5 35.dxc5 Dg6 36.c6 Oxe5 37.Wb7 Od6 38.Wxc8 Axc8 39.9.63 g6 40.07 10 » In answer to Watson's question which of Black's options is better, 8..We7 or 8...b6 is better: after analysing both main moves, to me it is obvious that Whitehas more atacking possibilities in the line with 8..We7 followed by 9...6, Therefore the immediate 8...b6 isa preferable set-up. As kingorn already wrote in ‘Yearbook 90: the development of White's initiative by h2-h4-h5 or @g1-I3-f4-hS also ree quiresan expenditure oftime. + To ambitious players, and true fans of the variation with 7...02f8, I recommend trying to manipulate with two weapons: 8...We8 and 8.2047. Conclusion by Eingorn in Yearbook 90: «Although the move 7...58)8 after 7.Wg4 is obviously not to everybody's taste, Winawer players still have some room here for further investigation. «© Looking at it from White's point of view, the variation 8.&42 poses certain opening prob- lems for Black but (just as in my old 1993 Survey) I am stil of the opinion that 8.24 is the ‘more consistent continuation. General Conclusion on 7...t Po he ve re a a Waa A a & a2 Soh oe & S & aS ® 8 analysis diagram I1dxcS WreS 12.842 aS 13.0-0 Det 14.1 2A7 15.Hel Hack 16.h4 wher? 17.h5 ho 18.Wh4 Bly 19.24 b6F and Black is well prepared for the counterattack, Tatai-Del Rio Angelis, Bratto 2003 B) WEAPON: 10.843 Prepar- ing g2-g4 against the Stonewall structure. 10..Wb6!? with the same aim as in the previous line: 11.203 (11.Bg1? cxd 12g4 We7!? 13.gxf5 DxeSF Meszaros Mamedyarov, Peniscola jr 2002; I.dxc5 Wrxc5 12,24? De6F) 1..c8! analysis diagram 12.Be2 Wo2 13.842 (13.0-0 Wre2 14.42 £4127 Melero Morales-Gonzalez Menendez, Oviedo rapid 2003) 13..Wb6 14.2hb1 WaSe* Black has achieved good prospects against two closed-in bishops and a weak king, Kil- patrick-Dgebuadze, Blackpool 2008.10..2xf6 11.295 The critical move, judging by its popu- larity fis WEAPON: 11. HHRS is elo an i= portant line: 11..h6! 12.0-0 12.De5 res (or 12..041? 13.02 Hs 14 Dxc6 @xc6 15.Wg6 WaSle*) 13.dxe5 BY 14.0.0 cha Vitolins-Zlotnik, Naberechnie Chelni 1988. 12..c4 (12...8d7!2, Watson) 13.02 Wa5!? 14.002 Ga7 15.405 S08 16.We4 OS 17. 2ixc6 bxc617% and the white paren struc- ture has more weaknesses 11.05! ‘The Polonaise begins! This isa great idea employed in 1958 by the legendary Lajos Portisch, which received complete justification later in practice: 157 games=64%. The main alternative 11.2721 is a far less attractive line 12.Bxe7 Bxe7 13.Whst. x aa a a a 12.937! This ‘natural’ retreat allows a famous ex- change sacrifice. Some other possible tactics are A) 12.@xh7+?! xh7 13.Wh5+ gs 14.xf6 gxf6 1S.dxe5 WEB! 16.0-0-0 (Hibner-Kindermann, Munich 1990). Here Black is better after 16..WE7)2%; 16...freS was played in the game, but is less clear after 17.Bxa5t; B) Probably the best line is 12.Wh4 eA! 13.xf6 gxfo 14.Wxf6 exd3 The option 14,.WAW iy interesting but less clear: 15,.WxI8+ WxtB Lo.dxe5 ext 17.gxf300 Quilter-Berry, Edinburgh 2002. 15.cxd3 cxd4 16.2xd4 Sixdé 17.WWxd4 and this position is consid- ered equal since Psakhis-Dokhoian, Klaipeda 1988 12..2Xxf3! This has been played in 66 games already! 13.gxf3 041 (ee (@ Black stands much better 14.xh7+ A) 14.8.6 WIRE; B) 140x072 Wxe7 15.2 exdé 16.88f1 &f5—+ Abramovic-Dokhoian, Belgrade 1988, C) After 14.8e2 the best reaction is 14...WaS! (14..exd4!? 15.8f6 WE8E — 12 games) 15.242 @f5i-~+ 16.Wes exdt I7.cxd¢ c3 18.@e3 Ofxd4! 19.&xd4 Dxd4 and now: analysis diagramA) On 20.Wes Wes? is cnough, — White has very litle atacking resources Wheslarezyk S.Berger, Germany Bundes- so Black is winning thanks to his mate- liga B 2006/07; val advantage. 1) 20..xe2+ — 2.ed1 Wad 18.5 exd4 19.411 247 20.b1 bE 1). Wad5+ @e6!—+ is winning accord- 21.exd4 He8 tug to Rybka 4; 21... WE712 22.Het BB+ () 20.Hg! g6 21.Wes Wes 22.We8+ 22.Eet Exet+ 23bxe1 WIT 24.c3 Wik 23.WxfR+ GxfB 24dhd1 AIS efB 25.205 xe5 26.dxe5 d4 27.094 JsEicl He8—+ and White is close to dxe3 28.Wd8+ 28! wing in total zugewang, PRoth- Kindermann, Vienna 1996. 14..soxh7 15.291 WidxeS GfS (15...WaSi2) 16g Was (16...W18!2) 17.842 g6 18.h4 aa. 15..Wf8! 16.Wh4+ shg8 17.216 O15 2a) ‘ ‘The game is over. 29.5e4 We6 30.ed1 b5 31.02 Wd7 31..,Wa6!; 31... 9812 wy 32.Wxd7 Sixd7 33.x03 we7 34.G4 Re8 35.4 Se6 36.591 bd5 37Hd1+ & he5 38.0d8 Océ 39.0f8 g6 40.016 a5 a 41.Exg6 b4+ 42.axb4+ axb4+ 43.602 63+ O71 Summary of 8.3: Portisch’s counterplan 8...”cé in combination with 9...f5 is strong enough. If White ‘opens the game with 10.exf6, the ‘Polonaise’ structure arises. Black may fight for the inisiative using his advantage in development. So instead, White has to move the queen, but this is not in good harmony with the knights placement on £3. Now, in the closed game that ensues after 10.Wg3 or 10,Wh3, 10...1Wb6!?s a most dynamic reaction for Black. See for a continuation on the dynamic ‘Polonaise’ structure and alternative pawn advances Games 25 (the main line 8..£5 9.exf6) and 26. GAMES 24-26 - 8.243! (2176 games=57%:a very dangerous set-up) Directions ‘The following three model games will feature the modern and theoretically more important move 8.2243This dynamic set-up puts pressure on the main defect of Black's position~ his king Atleast it allows White to keep many attractive alternatives in store: © Queen: Wh5-h4-h3-g3-d1 # Dark-squared bishop: Sag5-h6-d2-23 # Pawn: also the main anti-Warsaw resource h2-h4! # Knight: a flexible development: e2-f3-h3 From now on, time will never be on Black's side! Stull, the real point is that Black has a number of sounder resources versus 8.243, # Game 24: two possible moves by the b8 knight: 8...c6 or 8.47 # Game 25: the pawn advances 8...£5 or 8..c$ # Game 26: the queen sortie 8...Wa5 GAME 24~The German Light-Squared Orchestra: and 8...247 (77 games=35.7%) This interesting game is mainly about grandmaster Hertneck’s favourite set-up 8..2c6 9.WhS Dgé 10.f3 We7. However, there are a great number of intermedi- ate ideas for the defence and the attack featured in the analysis. The typical light-squared pawn structures are fundamental study material here. 2)e6 (910 games=43.3%) CiEtienne Bacrot ‘The idew isto se two new squares. However, Bartosz Socko on e6 the knight is more naturally place. Dresden ol 2008 (6) 9.EE3 £5 1.e4 e6 2.44 d5 3.c3 Sb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 Axc3+ 6.bxc3 De7 7.W94 0-0 Eg 2) w Ee Tye never played this move, ou of respect : for general rules. But Imight be wrong, |e aa bb ada? a White is trying to seize the initiative at an early stage. 8..be6!? In contrast to the previous game, after this move White has new possibilities WEAPON: Another possible set-up for the b8 knight is 8.47. analysis diagramA) TRICK: (exfo? Gf (the first fey square for the knight) We 4! 1.i4e2 yt Semina-Dittmar, Dortmund 1; 1h) 10.Wh312 White is going to break ‘open the kingside with g?-g4. KL) Now to the second square 10,..b6 11.2igi With the obvious idea x2 g4. However, 11.0-01? is also possi bie, playing 4 la Kindermann: 11...c¢ 12.802 at 13.242 and then Shi, Bgl and g2-g4. 1.wed 11...We7 12.Rd2 Det 13.94 Qxd2 14.sbxd2 and White's pieces are more active, |Polgar- Sinkovies, Hungary 1990, 12.62 Wes 12.@ad 13.g4 £4 (13..fxg4oo (Wat- son) 142g5th6 15.263 Wee 16.5 and White's attack was too strong, Wogarasi-EPortisch, Zalakaros 1991 13.2.g5! A quite useful manoeuvre, which provokes weaknesses in Black's structure, 13.h6 14.063 Wg6 15.0h4 Wh7 16.94 £4 17.95! bxgS 18.2ixg5 Wxc2 19.242 Wes 20.0-0-01! Xa ke a awa a a a& & aawa w A&A RaA A ea analysis diagram 20..Wxe2 21.Bdgi Hf7 22.6 22.Wg2! may be even stronger. 22.xg6 23.Hxg6 Wxf2 24.H6g2+ was played in Huerga Leache-Mirzoey, Elgoibar 2009. B2) An important alternative is 10...WaS, but White's initiative looks dangerous: 11.442 Qb6 Or 11...c# a In ur imes, the reach top pliyer i Brot sa dangerous an Fancophle man dor The nots oh billan ame fence some mare scalps from hisenecton, 12.e2 @b6 13.0-0 (remember, this is Kindermann’s set-up for White) 13..Wad 14.32 We8 15.0h1 h6 16.2g1 Ws 17.g4+ Kindermann LB Hansen, Munich 1989. 12.841? analysis diagram . B21) TRICK: 12.86 does not work: 13.5 ft 14.2.0f4 Wre3+ 15.he2 c# 16.802! cxd3+ 17.cxd3t Gallagher-Farago, Hastings 1989/90; B22) 12De6 13.g¢ Act L4.gxfS Dd? 15.chxd2 exfS 16.Bhgi> cxd4 17.Bxg7+!!+— Pimp! 17...dexg7 18.2ig1+ winning in al lines, Nijboer- Dittmar, Leeuwarden 1994)9.Whs!? ‘The most popular continuation, with at- tacking intentions. Remember: 9.23?! 3! A) WEAPON: White can offer @ liquidation into an endgame, play- ing 9.Wh4?? and now: Al) The tactical defence 9..f52 is suspect: 10.exf6 OFS 11.674 Vi Bxf512 Mex? 11. Bxt712 12.Wxd8 Wxd8 13.dxcS! The key idea. Now: 13.08 14.£1e2 £e6 15.1b1 Ta7 16.412 ef 17.265 hS 18.02 Zc7 19.8.x06 bxc6 20.ée3 and White stands much beter, Areschenko-Sanchez Jimenez, Santa Cruz de Tenerife 2006; gs 10,Wxds = Exds analysis diagram The key move in this line, the bishop prevents ...£7-£6. 11..Bf8 12.03 c4! The immediate break 12...£67! (Watson 2003) Is worse: 13.exf6 gxfo 14.86 Be8 Mitkov- Gongora Montes, Merida 2002. Here of course, after 15.dxc5! eS 16.02% White has a pawn and two bishops. 13.@e2 £6! Afier 13...h6?! 14.2c1 £6 15.exf6 Bxf6 16.24 &d7 17.0-0 Of 18.2414 Black has no counterchances, Sutovsky-Psakhis, Israel t¢ 2003. 14.exf6 gxf6 15.2h6 27 16,0-0-0 was played in Sutovsky-Drasko, St Vincent 2002. Now the best plan for hoth Black and White is to push their flank pawns 16.bS! 17.b4 aSz# with an interesting endgame ahead. B) WEAPON: White can start an uncompromising attack, ignor ing Black's counterplay in the centre: 9.5295! I realy like this move. The result (97 games=67%) is fantastic for white-playing matadors! Here is an update on Istoan Almasi’s big Survey in Yearbook 84: 9... 12.03 Axe? 12...Bef5!? was worth considering ac- cording to Psakhis. After 13.2f6!2-+ the position is complex and needs a lot of analysis, 13.chxe2 Dg6 Again 13...ct is no good: 14.2xh7+ dxh7 15.2x07 Bxe7 16.Bg3+— wins. 14h DxeS 15. g3—> Ea ke] aa aha \ s a \W kaw BA & 822 wo & a analysis diagram I'm sorry, but Black's position looks very dangerous here. 15..2x43? This loses on the spot. But after the counter-sacrifice 15...0g4 16.Wexg4 e5 17.Gf5 White is also better 16.8.6! Df4+ 16.26 17.lxg6 fxg6 18.Bxh7! and checkmate. 17.sed2! The thematic motif of ignoring material con- siderations. Of course not 17.Wxf4? eS followed by 18..Wa6+! and 19...Waf6. 17.06 18.hxg6 fxg6 18...bxg6 19.ZahI and mate, 19.xh7! The final point — Black's stronghold is ripped apart. 1-0 Bologan-Vaganian, Figen tt 2006. Let's go back to the main game: 9.96 ‘This is practically the only defence (507 games=40%).‘Grandmaster Viorel Bologan, another ata borin the reach and be aventor of dan serous new sep afer 9.295) A) More speculative play ensues after 9.085 (28 games=38%) 10.063 V0.g4 Wh4!2. 10.66 10..c#!2 11x65 exfS 12.fg5 WaS 13.sbd2 &d7o0 Biumer-Maly, Hamburg jr 1989. 11g 26 11.412, 12.8h3 Dg7 analysis diagram I think Black would prefer to have a bishop on g7 instead ofa knight 13AWh6! 13.0017, 13.28 ‘with unclear play’ according to (K&D). How- ever, after the natural 14h4! fxeS 15.2g5 We7 16.h5~> the position looks miserable for Black: B) TRICK: 9.462? is a very bad move. In 1989 a cruel punishment soos finn: 10Séxh6! evo HLWxh SYS 12skayef5 100-0 analysis diagram White's attack is thematic and unstoppable 13.,f8 (13..D¢7 14.803 ft 15.8g3+! Deo 16.202 fxg 17.hxg3+—) 14.43 Be? 15DgS BS 16.94! Bed (16...096 17 Hat3!) 17.Bhet Wes 18.06 go 19.843 3 20.Bxf3 (6 21.8H3 A total knockout! 1-0, L Szabo-Sinkooics, Bad Orb 1989 10.23 In this basic position the German grand- masters suggested a more sophisticated move order. 10..Wo7!? which is long considered safely equal for Black (K&D), Rainer Knaak (CBM): Von Herineck hiermitin die Praxiseingefirt WEAPON: The alternative 10..3c€7 isa quite fresh new de- fence:(German grandmaster Geld Herneck A) The pawn attack 11.h4 can lead to Warsaw structures, but then the white knight would be better placed on 2: UL WaS 12.842 c& 13.Sxg6 fxge L4Wg4 Wad 15.sbd1 h6 16.85 Wea!= BSavchenko-E Levin, Sochi tt 2010; B) Buc I chink White has the initiative after 11.dxc81?. A logical move, ying to open up the position for his two bish- ops. Maub6 11..WaS 12.842 Wre5 13.0-0 247 14.Bab1 We7 15.Rbst Jordi Fluvia-Vilar Lopez, Banyoles 2007 12.612 12.cxb6 axb6 13.0.0 2a6 14.2d2¢ Oll-Wilken, The Hague 1993. 12..We7 13.0-0 £52 13...Wxc6 14.He] Wxe3 15.242 We700, Lexis gxfs was played in a few important games, ‘analysis diagram Hore 1 have found an improvement 1S.\hst Not 15.c4 dre Lo.sexcd Wxe6 17.2b3 Bh8!00 _Volokitin- Pelletier, Merida 2005. 15..f8 15...WeS 16.Whot, 16.8h6 Bf? 17.63 and White is clearly better. 11.3! We have 10 take a closer look at this modern approach. White is threavening 12.2gs. A) TRICK: The immediate 1Og5 NG 12.Dsf7 Wap? 13.Wags Wage (not 13.Waf2+?? 14.cedl+—) 14.296 cxds 15.cxd4 xd4= looks fine for Black, Novosadova-Dgebuadze, Teplice 2010 B) With the modest 11.0-07! White loses his attacking potential (Zh!) and cannot play for the initiative on either side of the board Robe Eee aaW ada | aA Ab A bo ek OW | * | 8 Aaone | Au RAR na Ee 1usc4! 12.02 12.Sxg6 feg6 13.Wes WaS? 14.842 Bd7=. 12..f6! 13.exf6 Eafe 14.g3 247 15.203 ZafBt TRICK: 16.895? was played in the © srisina game Polar Hernek, Co- logue TV 1991, but after 16...2¢8! 17.Wed SIE Black is almost winning. 11.cA!? A quite provocative blockading move Black aims to fix the pawn structure. WEAPON: Here is an example of ‘a more open game: 11..2ce7 and now:AD TRICK: Tale b6lxt 13.06 Wre6 140-0 Ga6!? 15.Rx06 65 16,Sxb5 Waxb5= Peli-Sitoa, corr 2006; B) 12h4 f5 12...80d7 13.Wgs £5 14.Wh3t f42 15.0424 Nataf-Pelletier, Cap d'Agde B 2002. 13.8d2 13.0-012. 13.6 13..ch 14.021? f6 15.Wed! fxeS. 16.h5t Gongora Reyes-Fernandez Romero, Santa Clara B 2005. 14.42 g5 This leads to a dangerous complications; 14,.Wy4r?, 14...6eg5 15.hxg5 analysis diagram ve never liked to play such positions on the black side, And I hope you don't et ther. 15..cxd4? Black could survive with 15..2igh4O 16.9xf5 DxfS 17.Wxh7+ @A7 18.g4 cxd4! 19.gxf5 WreS+ 20.ed1 WefS=. 16.Wxh7+ £7 17.cxd4! DxeS 17...2h8?? 18. Wxge+! thxgé 19.Exh8t. 18.2e2 Ac6 19.2h5+ e7 20.g4! Dexd4 21.gxt5 Wes+2 this loses on the spot; 21.sed8O, 22sefl bd 22...Dxf5 23.Hel+-. 23.f6 DES 24.0e1 Was 25.ab4 A terrifying game! 1-0 Volokitin-Barsov, Turin ol 2006. 12.2xg61 Accepting the structural consequences. A) WEAPON: White retains his bishop pair with 12,.8¢2!? but there is very little experience with this move (7 games) ‘analysis diagram Al) After the immediate 12... in Munguntuul-Mikrtchian, Nalchik 2010, the new move 13.0-0! was played, with the idea 13...fxe5?! 14.g51; AZ) 12...Wa5t is the best move order. ALI) Afier 13.842? Df! Black had an obvious advantage in Dolzhikova- Goncharov, Kiev 2006; A22) 13.shd22 is also wrong: 13...f6!t; A23) 13.Ha2! is the only correct re- sponse, and now: A23a) TRICK: 13... Wxc3+?? 14.2424+— winning the queen; ALB) 2 13.847 14.0-0 £61222 with equal chances. Still Black has to be care- ful, since White's bishops should mean something GE PLTRICK: Again, the inmtiote 12035? is only a ‘pseudo-attack’: 12..W6 13.Dxf7 cxd3 1h @xh6+ gxh6 15, Wxg6+ We7F with an extra piece for Black. 12...£x96 13.94 [Ria Be] aaw aa) | aA aA A le a aa ow lA B 2a | #Ae RAK is & #8This type of pawn structure is charac teristic for the Warsaw Variation. If you Juke it, you will have to prepare an at tractive counterplan and of course you niust be ready to face the following White attack: the advance of the h-g- nd f-pawns. 13.8071? Although the position is static, I prefer this move (82 games=33.4%), keeping the queen on c7 for the moment and first making another useful move. The most popular defence starts with 13...WA7 (128 games=38%), but I feel that only White can play for a win here. 14.2)g5! This knight is the key attacking piece. Strategically speaking, White is going to develop an initiative on the Kingside whereas Black’s French bishop on €8 remains out of action, analysis dlagram A) TRICK: 14. .Wf52! 15.We2! The WD pein is to win te black queen with (g2-gt. 15.208 16.94 WY8 17d h6 18.03 WS 19.5 gxh5 20.95! Van Delfi-Monsma, Dieren 2010, B) 14..We8 15.h4! Ler’s follow the typical play in this variation: 15..ch6 Or 15..e7 16.We2? DES 17.g41? (a quite natural option, White doesn't care about his bishop) 17...xe3 18,.Wxe3 h6 19.9b3 We7 20.93 Bd7 21.f4 eB 22.sha2 dS 23.65! gxfs 24.g5 and White dominates, with strong positional pressure, Nijboer- Harikrishna, Wijk aan Zee B 2001 16.2h3! 247 17.We2 Preparing to push the pawns, ‘An interesting attacking set-up is 17. Be7 (17..8h7" 18.hSt Macieja-Nguyen, Warsaw rapid 2008) 18.hS g5 19.0h3 252! and now WEAPON: 19.7! should be Black’ best defence: 20,612! W SI 20.842 bS 21.64 gaft 22.Dxf4 and White stands better, Banikas- AGrigorian, Internet 2009. 17ubS 18.9425 19.N5 gxh5 wae a a Ee ££ a & & DR er a & a x 4 Wa | 8 os ‘analysis diagram ‘The future ofthis variation depends upon the correct evaluation of this position, Psakhis ‘wrote in 2003 (CBM-97) 20.g5! A standard breakthrough in this structure, with which White has scored O%-1%s, WouhagsS 2LDxgs g6 and BI) Afier the old hit 22.0-0-0 We7! 23.Bdg! Wrxa3+ 24.bd2 4? (24...2f50) 25.De4oo) an improvement was found by Psakhis in the same year: 25.@e4!— Bacrot-Vaisser, Aix les Bains ch-FRA 2003; B2) WEAPON: White can try other moves: 22.0h3 UfS 23. gl!? with good attacking possibili- ties;B3) 22.WELI? A new idea, wo activate the queen first. Now: (qtr B31) WEAPON: Black can try 22..0De7 23.2 Bf500 Sulypa- Apicella, Bois Colombes 2004; B32) 22.ub4 23.2 De7o0 Zeberski-WSchmidt, Legnica 2006; B33) 22.065 23.Wg2 De7 24.be2 24.0312 may be more precise 24..@h8 24...b41?2, 25.0f3 WET 26.0h4t The situation is critical for Black, Karjakin-Papa, Biel 2003. 14.hat 55 x e: kawo ga PAeASA | aAK | -a8 (WA a B 8a | BAM WA les een We are in the main position of this line. Sometimes Black can sacrifice the ex change and block the position in order to play for a draw. 15.DgII? Feacnik (CBM 128): In the classical varia- tion of the French Defence White does not have a viable alternative to the attempt at a kingside attack, The knight retreats to g1 in order to start the manoewore toa more prom ising spot. Due to the closed character of the position the loss of time does not play an im portant role. (ffow= A) WEAPON: 15.151? A logi- cal advance and still the most pop- ular method (46 games=71.7%), which was analysed from a very optimistic Black-ori- ‘ented perspective in Watson's 2003 book. However, White's chances are better in the 200 main lines after 15,..gh5 16.0xh5, |x * aawe aa aa aAAN S aa ow a a BH oa && gz @ analysis diagram Now Black can choose between: Al) Simplifications with 16...2xh5 17.Wxhs e817 18.Wh3 DAB! 19.095 h6 20.Axe6 WaS!? 21.2xh6 Axes 22Wxes+ S67 23.Wh3! 23.We42? Watson 2003. 23..gxh6 24.4 Wb6 25.0-0-0 analysis diagram ‘The French-bishop is worse here than the e- and f-pawns, but the game is still complex, Michiels-Britiner, Differdange 2007; A2) Or complications after 16...BafB 17.Bh3 17.45!? is an even trickier line: 17..WaS 18.2 Bf 19.Wh3 6D (19...Exf2? 20.03 Kovchan- A\Nilsson, Copenhagen 2010) 20.Bxh6!?. OF course, this is not the only option here, but after 20...gxh6 21.Weh6—+ (Bromberger-Yeke, St Vin- cent tt 2005) at a deep computer level, Black’s only defence begins withWI ORRIN. 17.08 17... Was Wd? ket 19.Bho! with the idea 1¥ sky 20.Dxgo!>. 18.25 Was Wud? Bags 20.Wags 2g6 ALEHhU The key idea: 21..Was 22.0425 23.Dhal! analysis diagram | am afraid this position is difficult for Ilack, The queen on af is busy block- ing a3-a4, but White is going to ad- vance his f-g pawns. Originally played i TEmst-Rylander, Umea ch-SWE 2003. B) WEAPON: 15,52! is an- other aggressive plan (18 games=47.2%), but with this move order the knight is not very helpful on g5. Black has enough time to strengthen his fortress adequately: 15...Laf8.and now: BI) TRICK: 16.5? WaS! 17.$.a2 Ws 13.0 gr and BF comes, Karjakin-Psakhis, ACP blitz 2008; B2) 16.We2 ho 17.4h3 bS 18.3 aSe* and Black has counterplay Kasimdzhanov-Caruana, _Vlissingen 2007. 15..2af8 1f15...Wb6 16.Wa1!?. And if 15...2e8 16.Qe2 We7 17.24! he 18.1 th7 19.Wh3t and g?-gt, Malisauskas-Goh Wei Ming, Turin ol 2006 16.2 1 think Black should hold this position with precise play. 16..1e7 Here is an example of a possible block with an exchange sacrifice: 16...b5 17.2g3 WaS 18.%d2 e8!? (see the workshop) 19.£3 (19.Dxf5!2_gxfs 20.W{4z and everything depends on the evaluation of this position) 19...e7 20.85 26 21.63 %-' Landa- Timman, Netherlands tt 2005/06. 17.g3 17.2)f41? would be an alternative plan. 17.,Wa5!? 18.ded2 h5!? 18...2xf242! is a wrong idea: 19.Oxf2 Hxi2+ 20.He2 DS 21afl Bxfl 2L.Exfl Wxa3 23.WgSt Bacrot- Apicella, Belfort 2004. 19.83 ESt7! Preparing to set up a block with ...2¢5. S 19.26 20.De2 (20.Dxf5!? exis 21.845!) 20..We7 21.g4c0 Landa- Apicella, aris ch-city 2004. 20.De2 Df5 21.20521.877 Flacnik: Socko has not mastered his defensive tasks well. It seems that the original knight 26.WixhS 2147 27.Wh7+ 47 28.2h6! Hacnik: The excunge sacrifice decides: mat fers om the spot; the white pieces are ap- ‘move to 6 would solve all the problems. 21...2Dh6! 22.Axh6 gxh6 23.f4 sh7 24Ehgl BMS 25.g4 hxgt 26.Wxgt Le8 and it seems that White cannot make progress on the kingside. 22.44 O45 23.94 hxgd? Ftacnik: The second mistake will be painful {Jor Black. Opening the files it front of one’s ‘own king does not make for a clever plan 23..Qe7 24.fxe7 Hxe7 25.gxh5 gxh5 26.Hhg! was till unclear. 24,Wxg4 Se8 25.n5 gxh5? Fracnik: The last inaccuracy probably does not really spoil things, since White has al- ready managed to gain a lot in the attack 25...Bd7 26.hxg6 Sixgé 27.Hagi! &h7 28.Wh5 g6 29.8:f6 Bg7 30. Wes +— roaching with the speed of light. a 28..xh6 29.2xh6 Bg8 30.45! Ftacnik: Black's defenders on light squares are unable to help at all. 30... f8 31.Fxe6 Black resigned. Summary: Afier 8.243 @c6 (or 8.247), Black spends another tempo to develop the b8 knight and his position is solid enough. However, the two main problems for Black are still to be solved: the weak kingside and a lack of real counterplay, since there is no clear plan for Black in the blocked "Warsaw" structures (i.e, with black pawns on g7-g6-h7 and c4). Therefore, White can choose between a dynamic or a static attacking approach on the kingside: ‘A) In general, I agree with Hertneck and K&D’s theoretical conclusion that 8.26 9.Whs Age 9.£3 We7!? is the safest line in the Warsaw Variation. ‘These positions may be defendable even against top players. However, one has to be careful using any static defensive set-up against the French-killers! B) Finally, the sharp intermediate option 9..2g5!? is a dangerous attacking ap- proach, After the forced moves 9...Wa5 10.4e2, I suggest 10...2g6 as the saf- est defence, which again can lead to static Warsaw structures. This line will be further investigated in Game 26, the Rustemoy Variation,(72 games=28.5%) AME 25 ~ Trying to Stay Alive: 8...f5 (860 games= 4.5%) and 8..c42 Kaow xe] With the early advance of the f-pawn (similarly to the Dutch Stonewall), Black wants to solve his problems on the kingside and to find some counterplay in the centre, 8...{5 1s also Kindermann’s main resource in the Warsaw Variation, which by the way will be easier to study after you have survived the previous game! After the common response 8.exf6, the dynamic ‘Polonaise’ structure arises O Farrukh Amonatov M Nikolay Zhadanov ‘Moscow checity 2010 (1) In the following recent game, the youn: gest player (who was also 300 ELO points behind his opponent: 2318 vs. 2626) showed the best play for the black side 1.04 6 2.d4 d5 3.2c3 bd 4.05 cS 5.a3 Qxc3+ 6.bxc3 De7 7.Wgd 0-0 8.2035! This Dutch-like ‘Stonewall’ pawn ad- vance is undoubtedly the most dynamic reaction to White's aggressive set-up. (om WEAPON: Bact EaoW He cao Babe a A ‘analysis diagram Afier this blocking Black’s position is quite passive and statistics are very bad (72=28.5%). However, some immortal games have been seen with it. Enjoy: 2 TECK 9.222 nals fora sow game (34. games=63.2%): 9..0bc6 1044?! There is no time to advance the h-pacon, 10,.f61 T1ft Was 12.042 pst 13.52? A typical ‘simul’ move, losing im- mediately. 13..freS 14,fce5 @e3! 0-1 Short-Abela, Ajlat simul 2003. B) 9.2h6! is the dynamic option (33 games=75.8%). 92g 10.086 figs 11.fe3t analysis diagramWe already know this Warsaw structure from the previous game, but here White hhas several extra tempi since he has not moved the 2gl 11.26 Or 11..We8 12.h4 h6 13.h5 g5 14.0h3 WE 15.F4 gxft 16.Oxfat Mortensen-Dely, Hungary 1988. 12.h4! We8 13.h5 gxhS 14.xh5 2e7 15.083 HfS 16.Hh2 16.0h3!? 16...Wg6 17.Wh4 Zic6 18.0-0-0 247 19.5dhi h x é aad a | aa We aan ) as wy j& A aH | | 8 AaB (a ee} analysis gram White has a strong initiative on the Kingside, but now he continues inaccu- rately: 20.0h3?? Missing a strong. counter, Correct was the prophylactic move 20.%b1! and only then 2h3, preparing an attack with g2-g4. 20..0xf3!1 See the workshop. 21.2xf3 21.gxf3 @b4! etc, amounts to the same, Timmer- Apicella, Paris 1988. 21..0b4! and eat next, with mate in 7, 0-1 Mortensen-Karlsson, Esbjerg 1988. S.ext6 In this move order this is an almost au- tomatic response (796 games=55.6%), which leads to dynamic ‘Polonaise’ structures (remember the first game of the chapter). There are also two ‘static’ alternatives with the queen: 9,Wh3 and 9.Wg3, but Black can do the same as in the first game of the chapter by playing 9.466 LOL Whol (see the two weapon in the content ine 10) 9..Exf6 fraaw aa am bs \_& az {as | A wel & && | Ae BAA {f_ 2 @ On) ‘The first key position of this line. 10.295! (677 games=56.4%) (fits WEAPON: An important alterna tive is 10MWhS!? (100 sgames=52%). Now: ‘A) 10...g62! does not work out satis- factorily, since it weakens the dark squares. After the precise move 11.Whe! ‘White has a clear initiative, for instance 11.07 12.@f3 WaS 13.0-0! c4 14.@e5!1, Atkinson-Sequera Paolini, Mamaia Weh-jr 1991; B) According to many sources the best defenceis 10..h6!, e.g EBL? TRICK The move 13.2! tas heen played twice: 11..c4! (11...20be6 12.095 Wf 13.08 cf 14.296 Waste Short-Kindermanmn, Garmisch Partenkirchen rapid 1994) 12.S¢2 (12.81? was seen in Grabert-Kindermann, Dortmund 1993) 12..e5! 13.Wxe5 WaS 14.842 Dbc6 15, Wh Sst; B2) By transposition, 11.03 Dbe6 repeats our sub-line from the first game of this chapter (after 11.Wh5), where Black is traditionally OK; B3) 1L.g4t Now there are two possi- ble lines for Black: 11...2be6!2 Maybe safer is 11..c4!? 12.g5 g6 13.Wdl HfB= Knaak (CBM 20). 12.g5t go)x1 2W oe aa a m aXxaa aa Aw & A AS & & B Hf © OF analysis diagram And now: 31) After 13.¥#hh4 Black can fight for the initiative with 13,65! 14.Wh3 EB 1S.gxh6 e5!= Ascev-Viadimiroy, Leningrad 1989; 832) 13.Wxh6 HA70 14.2x96 Bg7 15,8443 e512 15..c4 leads to a draw by repetition: 16.fe2 Bh7 17.Wfs Bt7= cle, 16.dxe5 DxeS and Black had great compensation for the two pawns in Da- vid-Kindermann, Frankfurt rapid 1998 10..217 Without White's knight on £3 this move works perfectly well. WEAPON: 10..05 Portsch’s re- source is less effective here, but let's give ita try: TLWhd 04 12.2.f6 gxf analysis diagram Here White has tested three options: A) 13x66 exd3 14.Wg5+ hs 15.Wi6é+ dig8 YM Bacrot-Ponomariox, Biel 2004; 1) 13. G5 14 Wg + ea Rode gue Lopez-Gallardo Garcia, Spain w 1994; C) 13.2021? Waste < 13.65 14.Wh3! Rodriguez Guerrero-Serna Lara, Albacete 2005. 14.Wg3+ &hs 15.Bd1 Dbe6 16.Wd6! Wxe3+ 17.sbfloo The viability of the entire sub-line with 10..e5 depends on the evaluation of this position, Karjakin-Del Rio Angelis, Dos Hermanas 2004. 11.Whs!? The most ambitious continuation for White (416 games=60%). ag TRICK: The move 11.4 149 _games=49,3%) allows some tricks: 11..h6! 12.S0x07 Bxe7 13.08 €5! 14.dxe5 ExeS+ 15.ed2 Wahd 16.0xh4 Dc6 and this endgame is considered to be equal (Ady McDonald, Scotland ch 1988). 11.96! Clearly the safest defence. WEAPON: Now after 11...h6?! Aagaard's following attacking line seems to be critical: 12/3! Qbe6 (12.,Jag5? 13.Wh7s bf8 1488+ go 1S.GH7+ 13.8H741? (13.296 BfB 14.0-0 We7 15..xe7 Wxe7 16.Bfe1 W/o 17.Had1 a7= Palac-lotti, Reggio Emilia 2002/03) 13.9exh7 (13.68 14.8x07+17 Wee? 150-04) 14.Waf7 hixgS 15.Dxg5+! (< 15hd gt 16.Wh5r Lys 17-Dg5= es Lopez Martinez-Fernandez Romero, Ayamonte 2006) 15...8h6 16.0-0-0! &5 V7.dxe5 @xe5 18.Bhel>x ow aa awa i e aaa la & Ae BAB San analysis iagram 18...7g6 19.f4 WEL] 19...9\c42? 20.Hxd5+— Wb6 21.Me6! winning, Aagaard-Brynell, Copenhagen 2006, 20.Wxf6 gxf6 21.fxe5 figs 21...dexg5 22exf6 Sexf6 23.Exd5S+. 22.e6! De7 23.04! d4 24.31 and the arising end- game is still very dangerous for Black. 12.Wd1! ‘The best square for the queen's retreat. (Fm WEAPON: There is no time for 12.Wha Wa5! in contrast with the line TOWNS 96? 11.Wha! Bf? 12.93 ‘Wa5 13.0-0!. As White cannot castle here, Black has a dynamic advantage: 13.042 13.002?! Dbe6 M.dsc5 o5! 158 Wrest Bierwisch-Uhimann, Bad Liebenzell Weh-sen 1996.13.04 14.262 Rad oe Ah aK a aoa ie a ad wy ak ABSAAR (2 wag sanieuegan 14...2f5! 14...Db06 15,41? e512 1o.dreS?! (16.03!) 16..d4!t Ninov- Dochev, Pazardeik ch-BUL 1991. 15.8 g5 Deb 16.03 16347! Dd6 1743 Be7! 184 SF, 16..8d7 17.94 Ord6 18,h4?! This flank attack comes too late: 13. We3 Bafs 19.495 Be? 20.54 h6 21.403 Detet Novak-Varini, Portoroz 1997, 18...2e4 19.We3 e5! 19...Hafa?! 20.452, (a Sel i e Ba eeoweas a aj (@ ki AAA AK [A A wa ABSA ie analysis diagram This typical ‘Polonaise’ break was an improvement on the old game Ljubojevic-Kortchnoi, Linares 1985. 20.hS exd4!? 21.Axd4 gS! Blocking the kingside; 21..He8 22.hxg6 hxg6 23.Bh600 TEmst-LBHansen, Oster- sund zt 1992. 22.63 Dg3 23.xc6 2xc6! and Black is the only side attack- ing here, 12..@be6 This old, natural move is perfectly cor- rect. rim WEAPON: However, Black can also use Kindermann’s and Wat- son's frwourite queen move 12..WH analysis diagramThis move order (the most precise in the nary wonderful Winawer lines!) allows Mack some additional options 13,Wa2 As you will see, 13.842 Dbc6 14 )13 simply leads to the main game. A) For the usual 13..0be6 14.263 see the analysis below. 8) I found a new weapon in the game Stojanovski-Potkin, Oropesa det Mar jr 1999: 13.ucxd4!? L4.cxd4 Wrd2+ 15.8xd2 Dbe6 16.0f3 and now not 16...47 as in that game, but instead our ‘workshop’ idea V6... Exf3!=; C) Kindermann analyses 13...c4, but as the following recent game shows White stands beter: 14.0¢2 fs 15.BF4 Dc6 16.93! 2d7 17.063 Bale 18.Des DxeS 19.Sxe5t Was 20.h4!t Brkic-BKovacevic, Bihac tt 2010; D) 13..0ec6!? A new and paradoxical ‘dea, writes Watson. 14.23 247! OF course, Black insists upon enforcing .e6-e5, but he does not use this con- ceptalone: Cl) If 15.h¢ ©5 16.0xe5 Danes U7dxeS DxeS 18.5 Dxd3+ 19.cxd3 SfS= Bracker-Baldauf, Germany t-je 2006; C2) 15..4e2, preventing 5, can be met by 15..cxd4!? 16.cxd4 Wad2+ 17 sbxd2 e5=2) €3) 15.0-0 | WORKSHOP: 15...Hxf3!? An amazing, typi- cally French idea. On 15...cxd4?! 16.@xd4!# is an accurate response which was missed in the rapid game Leko-Ivanchuk, Monaco 2002. 16.gxf3 cadé 17.cxd4 Wxd2 18.2xd2 Dxd¢ 19.chg2 Des 20.4 “xd3 21.cxd3 With a balanced, typically French end- game, for instance: xa ev aa a | aoa : he : mm & & RAR: o 2 Age gS EE analysis diagram 21..KdT (21...b6!2) 22.83 Bed 23.8e5 E(B 24.ab1 Océ 25.Efel Qxfa+ 26.xf4 Exft 27 Bxeo Bates, By the way, the immediate advance 12..e5% is dubious: 13.dxeS Abe6 14.8.6 We7 15.f4!+ — Baklan- Orzechowski, Wroclaw 2010 13.013 Zt owe a We have arrived at the next important stage of the variation with 8..f5. Here Black has three main ideas. The modern ‘Kindermann’ set-up be- gins with 13...Wa5l? ims A) WEAPON: The most pop lar alternative isthe old plan with 13..Wf8, but I think White can keep some pressure: 14.0-(14.W2? Hxf3! would be a ‘good addition to our workshop) 14.4 15.0e2H6 16.0¢1!?analysis diagram A logical continuation. White is prepar ing the set-up a4-@a3, reserving the di- agonal {8-23 for his bishop, but not only this. White's main weapon is a combina~ tion of Zb1 and a4-a5! Let's see: Al) 16.08g7 174212 17.0417 95 18.h3!? Dg6 19.Dh2!t was played in the recent game Khusnutdinov-Praveen Kumar, Mumbai 2010 17..8h7 17...g5 can be effectively met by 18.h4!. 18.a4! £47 19.Kb11 Now 19.83 is prema- ture. The best set-up for Black is 19...g5 20.846 DFS 21.2605 Wyse? with the threats 21...g4 or 21..2h4. Therefore, Y%%s in Sutovsky-Kindermann, Bad Homburg 1997. 19...b6 20.a5!1 This is currently the main moder resource against Black's set-up with 13..WF8 and h7-h6; A2) 16..8h7 This is a new try. 17.a4! Vacating the a3-{8 diagonal for the bishop. 17..847 18.Sa3 For the idea 18.Bb1!, see below. 18..Wb8 Black doesn't like the sight of the white bishop on dé. 19.Wd2 2f5 20.Bab1 b6 21.a511 Although the position is more or less balanced, it looks as if White has the easier play. Shirov-Timman, Wijk aan Zee 2003; A3) 16.847 17.24! Wg7 18.Eb1!? b6 19.aSt occurred in the game Sawatzki-Baumler, Verden 2007; 16...g5 17.3 Wg7 18.0h2 Dg6 19.8h5 Sd7 20.1 b6 2h4!t Vehi ach Serrano Bousada, Palma de Mallorca ch FSP 2009 glee 3) WEAPON: The immediate 13,.cf seems to beeven lessattractive. x a Saxwe aah bb & a asd A a AWEKAB Ho 3e@ anaiysis diagram This is mainly due to Black's dark-square problems: 14.@e2 947 15.h4!? Was 16.Wd2 D5 17.QeS (17.512) 17..e0xe5 18.dxe5 d4 19.861 dxe3 20.4 and Black's position looks very dangerous, Komarov-Naumkin, Porto San Giorgio 1996, 14.82 This is White's main option (28 games=64.5%) PM IBICK: After 40-071 oA 15.202 Wrxc3 16.82 Wh2 Black keepsan extra pawn; B) WEAPON: A positional ap- proach is 14.¥#d2!?. Keke aa \w x & AAA jf anata ciagram Bl) Unfortunately, after the “Kindermann block’ 14...e4 I have not eal aria aoa g | > ee Comm >teen able to find an easy path to equality lor Black: 15.3862 O15 16.6.5! (16.0 0% Gid6!) 16... 17.0xc6 Inc [8.REET cS 19.ReS (19.94! hs 20.0-01) 19..cxd4 20.0xd4 Wrd2+ 21 $axd24 . Despite the fact that players Signed the draw afier a few more moves, the endgame is still better for White, 1'irnst-Giddins, Gausdal 1995, The same happens after: B2) 14.847 15.h4! BFS 16.H5S cxds I7hxgs hxg6 18.WE!? (18.cxd4z) 18...g7 19.Wh2!— PSmimnov-Potkin, Kavan ch-RUS jr 2001, and: B3) 14.6512 15.%e5! Axes l6.dxeS &d7 17.Mb1 Sco 18.0-0 ct 19.8xf5 Bxf5 20.0.6 Wra3 21.Wd+ Wis 22.ff Lopez — Martinez- Kononenko, Balaguer 2007 B4) However, a possible solution may be to play the endgame after 14..0xd4 15.cxd4 Wad2+ 16.thxd2_ 16..xd? Bxf3!2 — WORKSHOP. 16.265 17.03 DA6* and Black has some light-square counterplay, whereas without the queens the attack with h2-h4 does not seem dangerous. ABBAAA a 14.04 The blockade is the correct method after White's retreating moves Wal and d2 (24 gammes~50%), A) WEAPON: Kindermann’s/ Watson's dynamic alternative is 14..We7I2 (57 gumes=43? oe preparing, analysis lagram Let's update this line: Al) Watson concentrated on the solid line 15.0-017 eS and now: AL1) 16.2g5 Zf8 17.c4 exd4! Watson awards the inferior option 17...exd4 with a ‘Y. It was already played in the game Hracek-Kindermann, Bad Hom burg 1997. But here White missed the simple 18.We2!?t. 18.cxdS @xdS 19.8.4 De7 20,We2 h6z* Cheparinov. Del Rio Angelis, Dos Hermanas 2004; AI2) 16.dxe5!? DxeS 17.2021? 17.AxeS WreS 18.04 651? 19.Hel Wie 20.WE3 Qxd3 21.Wefo Bx 2.cxd3 OfS= Luw-Kindermann, Ger- many tt 1997. 17.8d7 18.Bel 2¢6 18..He8 19.Rg5!1, 19.2xe5 Wes 20.Sg4 W46 and it all depends upon the evaluation of this position, Georgiadis-Kanakaris, Katakolo 2009. x & aa AEE a Wa aa & A & S&S AAA ‘f we © ‘analysis diagramForexample: 21 261? A2) 1S.dxe5 This variation is quite forced, 15.ue5 16.2g5!? 16.de2 Sige? 170-0 Bxf3 18.8xf3 e& 19.24 QfSe Atlas-Kindermann, Austria tt 2005/06. 16.58 17.c4! eM! 18.cxd5! 18.262 Wes! 19.F4 exf3!? 20.0xf3 Hxf3te EBerg- Rodshtein, Stockholm 2005/06 18...exd3. 19.46 Wd7 20.dxe7 Wxe7+ 21.0e3 E51? (Kindermann) 2h4t < 22F3 dxc2! 23.Wre? ‘2e6z2 Korneev-Pogoreloy, Villa Salou 2008, 22.uh6 23.0£3 HAS!? 23...206 (Watson 2003) 24.Wxd3!2 Baa 25.We3 Od5? 26.0-0-0+ Vehi Bach-Marzolo, Dresden Ech 2007 24.cxd3 2g42 analysis diagram Until here everything was more or less forced. Now the game can continue with: 25,Wb3 25.Wat!? Oxf3 26.gxf300 Hall-Bokar, corr 2006. 25...dixf3 26.gxf3 Wi7 27.Hg) Eads? 28.0b1 28.F412, 28,..0e5 29.1g3 B8d7 30.8f1 PSmirnov-Diachkov, Sochi tt 2005. De- spite White's two extra pawns the posi- tion is close to equal. But in a practical game I would prefer White. rime 8) WEAPON: The ‘recently’ dis covered gambit move 14.051? de serves grea attention: & a aa & AQ D 42 & wy && a analysis diagram 15Aixe5 Dxe5 16.dxe5 ch 17.202 Deb 18,0-0 This leads to a balanced game. But af- fer 18,4 Wes 19.83 2 20Wcl d4@ Black's initiative looks dangerous, 18...0.xe5 19.Be1 SfS= with a draw in 48 moves, Litvinenko-Siewert, ICCF 2007, 15.2e2 O15! ‘An important manoeuvre in this line {and always with this pawn structure): the knight is going to e4 via d6. Lea & wa | |e as) Lal » A& a D> DS be es on Roe wo \& : 2 a we. 16.0-0 After White's castling the position is bal: anced. WEAPON: Naturally, the critical line is 16.h4!2. White has two bishops and he can try to exploit the weak- ened dark squares. on the kingside: 16.7461? 16...d7 is less clear: 17.45 Ees!? 18.2)g5, Siewert-Thieme Garman, Ludwigshafen 2007, and now 18...4g7CI. 17.Dg5 1745 Ded! 18.hxg6 hxg6 19.9ef1 ©5152, 17..21g7 A good weapon for Black inthis line muy be 17.25? 18.04 ZR, 144521 A supersaggressive option. White i ready fr a two-piece sacrifice, but this com ination is tactically flawed. 18.0-0!? was profrable. 18.462 19.hxg6 19.03. 5% 19..oxg5 20.3 cxd3! analysis diagram The refutation of a sacrifice is to accept iw 2AWhs bf 22.Wxgs ded 23.0h8+2 > 23.0612 Hysll 248s Exhs 25.Wah8+ a7 26.g7 De7F and Black seems to be OK. 23...80d7 24.0h7 De8 25.Wh6 He7!F TEmst-Giddins, Gausdal AC 1994. Now Black is almost winning 16.0071 There is no hurry: S 16...346 17.Bel Gd7 18.Dg5! He7 19.94 Hae 20.h4! eS? 21.8xd7 Bxd7 22:hSt Hubner. Hammes, Altenkirchen ch-GER 2001 17Het White can try the advance f2-f4 after 17 gs Be7 18.4 208. lars WEAPON: Here 18.5! gives Black more counterchances: 6 and. 6. 19.a4 h6 20.2h3 and this position is bal- anced, Kukk-Myers, cr Weh-22 2007. 17_.De8! 18.22F1 WEAPON: The idea 2-fs was used in another correspondence game: 18.2)g5 Hyfe7 19,54 Wad?! ‘Stove Gideon of Brith Chose -Magezine ands 100% Francophle, ho played three Warsw games seh 8. 5 dala Swesoh grandmaster Thomas rm Sth he succes est of 1-2. ‘Also here I prefer the plan with 19..051232 The direct 19...d6!?= was played in the computer game Spaghetti Chess-Tatar, playchess.com 2008, 20.¥Wel h6 21.63 Bh7 22.45% and White has achieved something, [.Biicker-Myers, cr Weh-22 2007. 18../0d6= koe wa 2 ROS aah a we a s an & & 2a. && BAA & WEROS The conclusion after the opening is that Black has more space and is well central- ized, so his prospects are good. 19.e519.n4 BF (19.,.BefB!2) 20.81 BeR= 19..." \xe5 20.0xe5 20.dxe5? Hes F, 20..e4 20.2650 21,3 Dxd2 22.Wxd2 EFS 23.203 BIE 23...Hef8!2=, 24,93 Wb6 25.4 Wb2 26.tee1 fad 27Eab1 Wxc2 28.Wxc2 xc? (29.5xb7 E47 30.b5 Id7 31.ah3 &f7 32.012 Hd6 33.te3 Rab 34.cd2 O15 35.9471 2e4 36.al g5It 4 ea |= = a & A woe 37.fxg5 sbg6 38.0f1 Bf 39.h4 Zt2+ A0.she3 213+ 41.ced2 Bf2+ - b a AA a A a & al 41 Egat 42.203 B02 43.014 Now Black even obtains the better chances. eth Summary of the 8.243 f5 variation: This line remains playable for Warsaw fans, On move 14, Black has an important choice between the solid but static blockading move 14...4 or Kindermann’s dy- namic option of 14... Wc7 and ...e6-€5. GAME 26 —Rustemov Revisited: 8.2.43 WaS (213 games=46% best score against 8.243) Ever since it was taken up by Alexander Rustemoy in 1997, 8...WWa5 has been re- garded as the sharpest and most critical line In his 2004 review on the Franzésisch Winawer John Watson wrote: The most recent try championed by Rustemoo, is unresolved but holding up according to K6D. They suggest that moves previously considered weak might not be, eg., 9.2e2 exd4!?, and find several new roves in the maint 92e2 Obc6 and 9,Sd2 @bc6 lines. Keep inMind In order to establish the theoretical evaluation of the variation I have to add an im- portant note: in the main line after 9.d2 Zicé6 10.3, the only valid continuation isthe ‘Stonewall’ resource 0...f5, 1 1 exf6! Eixfé (see first diagram next page)Now please compare both diagrams, White to move: which position do you prefer 1s Black? We have the same picture with the dynamic ‘Polonaise’ structures, but with a different placement of Black's queen (a5-d8) and White's bishop (42-c!). The second diagram is from Portisch’s first game of this chapter (Game 23): here against L1.WhS, Black has the reply 11...h6! In contrast, in the first diagram after 12.WhS!, now 12...h6? loses to simple tactics: 13. We8+ HB 14.Sh7+. So, again the only valid defence is 12...2f5, but as recent games and analysis show, White has a number of attacking ideas where Black's position remains dangerous. 1 think that this difference (Wa5 instead of Wad8) is one of the main defects and problems of Rusterov’s provocative ine. CO Leinier Dominguez Perez Alexey Barsov Calva ol 2004 (6) 1.64 6 2.04 d5 3.2¢3 bd 4.5 c5 5.a3 Oxc3+ 6.bxc3 “e7 7.Wa4 0-0 8.23 Was ‘asian grandmaster AlsanderResiemor swat the re sensor ofthe sharp Pro- rocaive queen sorte Was. Web thor- ‘hl reve bis variation for ths book, This line became very popular mostly thanks to the efforts of Russian GM Al- using this queen sortie, However, the exander Rustemoy, who managed to black king will miss his queen soon! The win many good and instructive games main continuation is doubtlessly9.2da1 White does not hurry with the attack (197 games=55.7%) (fies) WEAPON: A forced line is 9262 (31 games= 46.8%). This aggressive approach initially yielded White some quick wins, but recently the antidote twas found. Ww ha A Re AUDaRAA |R_ 2 @ analysis diagram Al) If we include the moves 9..Abc6% 10.2g5! this leads to Bologan’s weapon in Game 24, which is very dangerous for Black. But develop- ing the knight to 47; 9.471? isa solid defence: 10.2h6!? 10.2xh7+21 Sxh7 TLWh4+ g8 12.Wxe7 cxdse® Cadman-Shulman, Chicago 2003; 10.42 £51752; 10:h42! £51; 10.0-0 £5! 10...2g6 11,8217 11.h4!?00; 11 .&xg6? Balinov-Farago, Seefeld 2003, now of course: 11...hxg6OF. 11...Wa4!? Threatening 12...0xe5. analysis diagram 12.Wg5 with an unclear position, This variation may be Black's ant drawing weapon in the main line A2) 9ucxd4l? is the most principled response, Now: ALI) 10.842 is not very logical: 10..dxe3 11.8xc3 We7 12h47 > 12.0-0 @bcé 13.WhSo Macieja- Vysochin, Warsaw 2010, 12../be6 13.Bh3 DFS 13..AxeS!2. 14,.WE dd 15.2b4 Dubs 15...Rd8!7. 16.axb4 Ra7 17.94 De7 18.Wxd4 Bfas 19.Wes Zg6z and Black has better perspectives in this open position, Gabrielsen-Djurhuus, Asker ch-NOR 2000; ‘A22) 10.26 is interesting but maybe a bit premature: 10..2g6 11-h4!? 11Bd2 QxeS!2. MawDe6 H..gxb6!? 12.hS0o, 12.84g70 shxg7 13.h5 DxeS 14.Wrdd Woe 14.898! 15.hxg6 Dxgeoo. 1S.hxgé Wadd 16.Exh7+ BF 17.cxds Dxd3+ 18.cxd3 Sxg6 19.h3 2477 and Black at least is not worse, Cabrera-F.Berg, Petra 2007; A23) 10.g5 is the main attacking continuation. 10../0g6 11.4 The key position of the line: Black has to use this tempo properly ‘analysis diagram 11.0d7! A strong defensive idea first applied by Rustemov, which practically neutralized the sharp line with 9.4e2Now itis repeated every now and then A a 11.5162! would transpose 10 analysis in Game 24 A231) The only alternative to the cap- huire on g6, 12ch4, can hardly be recom- mended: ‘the line spells trouble for White only’, predicted K&D. 12...f5! ADB 1a) 13.Wh321 6! (13...2677 14.hSco l'Ami-Seifert, Budva jr 2003) 14.H5 @gxe5! 15.fxe5 hxgs 16.16 goF: A231b) 13.exf6? Dxfot and after Weg3-h3, ..06-¢5!; A23c) 13.Wg3 Bez Rohe a,’ wy a a & && A & analysis diagram As practice and analysis show, Black stands very well here (1-3): 14.5 gh 14.272, 15.h6 15.14? cS 16.8e7 dxc3# Short-Shulman, Ohrid Ech 2001. Psakhis writes (CBM 84): ‘Results of opening are really sad for White — he lost (sacrifice?) two pawns and hasn't any compensation for material deficit? 15..g6 15..2c5!?, 16.0-0 dxc3 17.Efb1 a6 17.5177. 18.Wh4 Wes + 19.%h2 bS 20.248 &b7 21.8a5 d4> (Y%,32) Areschenko-Seifert, Germany Bundesliga 2008/09; A232) 12.9xg6!? Normally with this exchange White is ‘silently’ offering a draw. ‘A232a) TRICK: A. gross mistake B vcoutabe 12. rxg62? analysis diagram 1341+ f5? (13..Te8, suggested by Goh Wei Ming, also loses: 14.45 86 15.hurg6 frgé 16.26! (the bishop enters with decisive ef- fect! Also, 16.06) 16..‘8f? 17.2xg7+=) T4.Wh3 D5 15.45 gxh5 16Wxh5 Ded 17.67 Bd7 18.8 g6 (18.9,f61) 18.8465 19.28h7 Bf? 20.846 1-0 Shabalov-Rustemov, Bad Wiessee 1999; ‘A232b) 12.ufeg6 The only move. 13.Wre6+ B70) 13..eh8? 14.We7 14.We8+ The simplest way. White is not better after 14.0-0 D6 (14...dxc3!? 15Md6 DcS 16.WxdS Booz Friedel Shulman, St Louis ch-USA_ 2009) 15.We8+ HE 16.We7 dxc3 17.8f6 %-% Svidler-Grischuk, Nalchik 2009. 14.0180 14.187 15.e64— wins 15.We6+ 47 and the entire line (9.e2) ends in a draw by perpetual check, %-’ ‘Wach-Kindermann, Austria t 2000/01 © » reick. The tricky 9.2. naa ke | x aias analysis diagramis allractive but incorrect: 9..Wae3+ 10.Sd2 (10.see2 G5! 11.842 Lxdds 12.Oxd4 WxdtF; 10.d1 Waal LL Bsh7s dexh7 12WaS+ bg 13.0g5 Wrdss 14.802 Wedl—+) 10..Wrxal+ Ui.she2 Wh2! (not 11..Wxh1? 12.8xh7+ which should be a draw) 12.ScI (the defen- sive nuance is 12.S2:xh7+ Soxh? 13.Wh5+ ches 14.095 Wxe2—+) 12...Wa2—+ 13.sed1 (13WhS Dg6 Breustedt-Gotz, Leipaig ch-DDR 1959) 13...0f5 and Black Keeps an extra rook, L.Gulieo-A.Guseinov, Azerbejian ch 1999, 9.0be6 ims 4) WEAPON: After the immed ate ‘Stonewall’ advance 9..f5 only White has new possibilities: 1.exf6! Raf 1L.8YN5I? Or, to continue the line 11.231? 282! (11..£Dbe6 leads to the main game) 1c! Zhukova-Dolzhikova, Odessa ch-UKR 2006, 11.250) analysis dlagram 12.dxc5! 12.94! c4 is in Black's favour. 12...g6! A provocative move, but also the best defence. 12...Dd7? 13.g¢ g6 14.Wh3! Qe7 15.063 Waes 16.Dg5!t was an excellent resource in Sakaev- Rustemov, St Petersburg 1997. 13.W/g5 13,Wh31200 similarly to Sakaev’s plan: gt-03-Og5. 13...0d7* and now: AI) TRICK: 14.23 e5 15.04 Wade with the iden 16.cxd5?? h6 ‘winning the queen; Ad) V4.dixt8? Bets 15.We7 Wrest 16.Wae6#2? BIZ and White is simply Jost, Fiipenko-Kosikov, Smolensk 1991; EDIRC: The Bay 9. Mas? is obviously doubtful here: 10.Wh5! 960 (on 10..A6 11.S.xh6!— wins in the attack) 1.Of3+ cf 12.Dg5 6 13.Qxf7l4— Sarie-Ivekovic, Bjelolasica eh-CRO jr 2008. O-2f3! White is ready for @xh7-+ WEAPON: 10MWhS!? This line has now lost its sting; however, it is necessary for Black toshow great care. analysis diagram A) The defence 10,..4g6?! is similar to Hertneck’s line from Game 24, but the black queen is not on c7, so after 11.2f3 4 White can take advantage of the difference by playing 12.2gst 12.fixgo!? fxg6 13.We4 leads to ‘War saw’ structures, see also Game 24. 12.6 13.0xf7!. xo ae aa Dh mk ash wah a& & BQ | AR BAA & & a analysis diagramHore bv an Interesting analysis: 13.44) 14,08 14axhe exd3 15.0 9g6 HS LoWdl dyed 17.Wredt, 14.0xh6+1 gxh6 15.Wg4+ Gh8 16.2/1! 16.0-017. 16..s8h7 17.g3 gb 18.WhS—+ White oblains three pawns and a strong attack fora piece; 8) 10...h61? and now: Bl) 11.2F3 c& 12.802 £6 13.exf6 Hxfé 14.2e5 Black's chances are better alter 14.g4 Qg6 15.g5 Aft 16.Wes SIF, 14..2xe5 15.Wxes co 16.We3 Wad 17.Ea2 247 18.0-0 Hafe with equal chances, Pedzich-Rustemov, Swidnica 1999; B2) IdxeS 6! I2cxb6 a6 13.We2 Bxd3 14cexd3 axb6 15.013 Wes 160-0 Hxa3= Shaposhnikov- Rustemoy, St Petersburg 1998; B3)_11.g4 An attempt to launch an at- tack, but as the game shows, Black has nothing to fear here. i B31) TRICK: 11...cxd4 12.cxd4 Wat 13.63 @xda! 14.8:xh6! seems to lead to.a forced draw after 14..gxh6 15.Wxh6 D6 16.Lxg6 fag; Ee THK: Mtl 1245? 96! The key point being 13.Wxh6 Rabz; B33) M1uc4!? 12.202 £6 13.exf6 13.f42! 27 14.463 Mews. 13,..Hxf6 ‘The dynamic ‘Polonaise’ structure. roe e 4a aa a ak 8 woe wy ad & AaB ARQA Al a we 8 noble cago 14.g5! g6t 15.Whe Black has great com pensation for the pawn in case of 15Wixhor! BE7 16.Wh4 65 17.Wh3 €5! 18.dxe5 DxeSt. 15.5! Black cor- rectly avoids the line 15...hxg5 16.Wxgs 0S 17. Wg3 eS 18h4i—». 16.WFt eS! 17dxeS Ze6 18.gxh6 18.013 5! 19.d4 Be7ist. 18..axeS with huge and unclear complications, Karjakin- Barsov, Hastings 2002/03. By the way, here 19.h317 deserved attention, 10.65 The ‘Stonewall’ move is the only defence now. 10... g62! has never been played at grandmaster level, but after 11.a#! it ‘must be a worse version of the Warsaw structures that occurred in Game 24 11.exf6! Until now, this line was always crucial (107 games=55.6%) (Cm WEAPON: 1.88312 Playing with the ‘Stonewall’ structure is much less popular but also possible: 11..Wad A) Now the best. continuation for White is 12dxc5! Dgo 13.Wg3 Wet 14.0-0 Wag3 15.hxg3 DgeeS 16.0xe5 Dues 17.264 Dxd3 18.cxd3 White hasa slight and stable plus, but ata tech. nical level it is difficult to win such an endgame, Eraschenkov-Goh Wei Ming, playchess.com 2005 ‘The other options lead to unclear conse- quences:B) 12h of 13.dke2 Wied origi nally played in Velimirovic-Drasko, Niksic tt 1996; ) White can also play 12.41 247 13.g420 Ginzburg-Robledo, Buenos Aires 1992; D) Or even 12.0-0 cxd4 13.cxd¢ Dxd4 14.Ab4 Dxf3+ 15.Wxt3 700 Wirig-Apicella, Bois Colombes 2003. 11..5x16 We are again in the dynamic ‘Polonaise’ structures: which means that time is the prevalent factor here. So: 12.Whs! xa @ aa & hs aay lw kao wl aR . & hao Ag AAA fo: From now on Black has to wage a tough defence against the ferocious attack on the kingside. 12.2015 Virtually forced. 12...967! 13.Wg5 BAT I4h4— Geo. Timoshenko-WSchmidt, Koszalin 1999. TRIER AS alenty mentioned bre the game, 12..h6? loses to 13.We8+ 3e14.8N7+ 13.941? ‘The sharpest approach, but not the only way for White. A) WEAPON: 13.dxc5! This is possibly the safest move order for White, before playing 32-g4. 13..Wxc5 13.06? 14@xeS!4 Reinaldo Castineira- Romon Poves, Zaragoza 2001. 14.0-0! Only cone game has been played with this line. 14.94?! would be too hurried: 14..2K6 5.96 yO! Ho. Wh 35 17. Wd Lay 1. Wp of 19 We3 Wxe3+ 20,103 exd3 21.gxh6 dxc2 22.8d2 BSF Korneco-Rodriguen Guerrero, Seville 2002. 14...Ad7? This natu> ral developing move leads to a clear advan tage for White, but after each other move Black will simply be the passive side. 15.944 analysis diagram Itishard to find a good defence for Black. After 1S.0h6 (15..Bg6 16.2g5!) 16.g5! (16-05?) 16.96 (16.085 17.Bh4!) 17,83, 17.2133 is a forced sacrifice, but not strong enough for our workshop: 18,Waf3 47 19.We3:t and Black has no serious compensation for the exchange, K Szabo-Galyas, Budapest 2003: B) WEAPON: On the other hand, Black should also worry a bit about the advance 13.041 analysis diagram1 3.cad 13..WAB hay been suggested by Almasi ay a more or less playable al- ternative, but White is clearly better af- ter I4dxcS! dxct 15.Axctt Qfdd (15..cd4? 16.0-0-0!4 V.Rajlich- Galyas, Budapest 2001) 16.0-0-01? foxf3 17.c3! Dfd4 18.xd4 Ded 19.WeSt, 14.g4t LtexdS is not enough for an advantage, thanks to Rustemov's precise anti set-up: 14, Dexd4 15.0g5 h6 16.He4 Bf 17.0-0 b6! 18.4c3 We8! 19.Wre8 Exes 20.4 2d7= and drawn in 34 moves, ASokolov-Rustemoy, Germany Bundesliga 2002/03. 14...dxc4 15.e4 exd4O 16.gxf5 Axc2+ 17.6f1! 3! 17..xal? 18.fc3 eS 19.Dg5+— 18.xc3 Wres!? 18..Wet+ 19.cbg? ‘Wxc3 20, Baclt. 19.Axf6 &d7 ‘analysis diagram Here the best idea for White is 20.g1! 20.Wxh7+?! Luther-Szelag, Cappelle la Grande 2006; Almasi gave the forced line 20.4g5, but he made a mistake in the evaluation of the final position, since the arising endgame is at least not better for White: 20..Wxh1+ 21.de2 &b5+ 22.42 Bd8+O 23.hxd8 Wa5+ 2asocl! WxfSO 25.WF3 (25.8a2 Wt is a draw by perpetual check) 25..xal 26.WxA5 exf5 27.62 h6 28.03 17% Black has three pawns for a piece, and excellent counterchances) 20.854 Diy? HR 21.gxts Whit) 22Hadl Bo 23.keg3+— and White is winning 13.04 x & a aa a & a & a The game scenario is clear now. How- exer, itis not so easy to assess this posi- tion correctly 14.9xf5 14.Ber? Dd6 15.De5 Des! 16x06 bxcé 17.63 @xd2 18.bxd2 Sit Videki-Farago, Hungary tt 1999/00. 14..0xd3 15.2.g1!.2d7 RCH: 1.22? lcs om the spot due toa funny combination: 16.We8-+ D8 17.Bxg?+! dxg7 18.Rh6+ doxhé 19.Waf8+, forcing mate in 8 moves. 16.951? A very aggressive plan. The alternative is 16.c¢ We7! 17.8h6 Be8 18,Wh4 Exho: 19.Wxh6 dxct 20.cxd3 which is considered unclear (Sax-Goloschapoy, Montecatini Terme 1999) 16_.2f7 17.161 17 cxd3? exfS¥ Vehi Bach-Garcia Marti- rez, Barbera del Valles 2003 17..Wd8 Finally the ‘Rustemoy queen’ returns. Black has to find only moves ll the time! TRICK: 17...dxe22? 18.Wh6 g6 19.Hxg6+ hxg6 20.Wxg6+ fs 2186+ 1-0 Krivoborodov-fiittner, Schuoiibiscl Grind 2008. 18.De5 Dxe5 19.dxe5 dxc2x Woe Aa & KAA ad aa w AB ag ALB (a 6 x A critical position, since itis the end of a series of more or less forced moves Black has a small material advantage, but White retains many interesting tactical opportunities on the kingside. 20.2317 White is preparing a killing set-up with bd2-Bd4¢-We3 and ht-h5-f4-65. No- body realy knows what to do with black 20.18 Here are some alternatives A) 20.08 21.ced2 (21.2441?) 21.d4! 22.Bixd4 Bob 23.fg7+ gs 24.Wxd8+ Hxd8 25.coxc2* Zhigalko- Llobel Cortell, Izmir tt 2004; B) 20..WA8 21.8d4 Be8 22.842 Bc723.Wgst Bobras-Vysochin, Bad Wiessee 2004; ©) 20.7 21 ted? 25 27.24 Wet 23.We3 b6 24.Hacl— ready for fA-h4, VOnischuk-Leniart, Sibenik jr 2007; D) 20..WaS 21.844 Bes 22.Whet (22.88d212, see game) 22...96 23.We3—> ‘analysis diagram It is not clear how Black can avold hg hS! 23.4 242 (24.4!) 24..S8e8 25.h4 Hie7 26.5 Dxda+ 27.Wxd4 Ket 28.Wd3 WeS 29.0g2 Bf 30.hxge Bxf+ 31. Bef Waitt 32.We2 Svensson-Gdanski, Sweden tt 2005/06. Died? Starting with the mentioned set-up. 21..WaS Two more games for the WORKSHOP: A) 21d 22.804! dhs 23.h6 WE 24.f4t a5 25.N5 (25.65!) 25..b5 26.5 ‘We8 27, Weo4! Heo 28. g3!? We8? 29.6 26 30.fig6 hxgs 31.Wrxg6 Hee? 32.2h1 Bh7 33.We7+! Hoxg7 34.hxg7+ Sg8 35.Exh7 xh7 36.7 1-0 Krivoborodov- Heinz, Bad Wiessee 2009; B) 21..ha4 22.8d4! Bet 23.We3 seh8 24.2 p4 WS 25.h4! b6 26.5 Bb3 27.f4 Had 28.65! winning, Geo. ‘Timoshenko-Farago, Nagykanizsa 2003 22,2d41 BoA 23.We3! White is ready to push the pawns £4-£5 and ha-bs. 23..26871 ‘A) 23...W51? is suggested by Psakhis (CBM 104) as the best chance: 24.£41? (24he112) 24..Wb2 25.Bacl Waal 26.f500; B) TRICK: 23..c1W4!? trying to W pen up thet king, ray be the best chance for an escape: 24.igxclBord 25.2861! 62! (25. Lhau?? 20,Who go MB yyor hry 28.Byt+—) 26.she2 Hxa3 DAB Wand 264 (28.8071?) IH. Wid 29.863 We2 30.8x07% even thnsgh Black managed to survive in a quite lust endgame, Fogarasi-Kristjansson, Bua- pes 2005 ‘24f4t Dominguez plays very aggressively, hoping, At this is the precisest way to punish Black or 24..01W4O; 24..Ha4? 25.15 Sd7 26.Bgt!— 25.hc11b6? 25..Wa6 26.Wh3 (26.doxc2?) 26..dg8 27.65 exfS 28. WafS Bd7 29, WEST. 26.15! White brings more pawns into attack, mak- ing Black's survival impossible — Psakhis, 26.284 Black is too late with his counterplay, hisopening strategy —Psakhis (CBM 104). 27.£xg7+ eg8 28.Wh6! 1-0 24,887 The threat of 29.Wxh7 + wins. Summary 8.243 Was: Alier the provocative queen sortie, Black does not have much time to create real counterplay on the queenside. In the main line, with the simple moves f3 and Wh5, White immediately starts a tremendous attack on the kingside, but the main question is: how dangerous is it? In my opinion, the answer lies in the hands of the white players. Conclusion Warsaw Variation - 7.8 g4 0-0 Play this variation with white or black; it is essential to know how to use pawn struc- tures such as the ‘Polonaise’, the ‘Stonewall’ and the ‘Warsaw’. The key set-ups for the pieces are simple enough for both sides. From a theoretical point of view, afier the best move for White, 8.43, the three most important defensive systems remain playable: 8..c6, 8...£5 and 8...Wa5 However, Kindermann’s favourite resource 8...£5 (Game 25 ~a solid weapon against players of any level), offers Black the best chances to control and balance the game. Strategically speaking, after kingside castling the black king is still not safe, and sometimes Black lacks resources to get attractive counterplay. ‘To be honest, sometimes the arising Warsaw positions are quite boring for my aggressive style... In fact Ido not understand why so many strong grandmasters con- tinue using this variation all through their lives. Fortunately, there are still dynamic and static structures in the Winawer!Chapter 10 - The Poisoned Pawn versus 7.Wg4 A ChessPublishing fan: Don't choose the Winazver Poisoned Paton. That one needs alot of reparation or you will get crushed. In comparison with other variations of the ‘Winawer, the game is rather forced here, To be successful with the Poisoned Pawn Variation, chess professionals must use their analytical skills and playing skills well, while chess fans need the computer's module and a lot of adre alin in their blood! Black has to keep a highly dynamic spiritual hythm in this line, and he must be a superb bal- ancing artist, rather like Vincent Cassel as The Night Fox with his Laser Dance in the museum scene in the movie Ocean's Twelve. A Skeleton of the Poisoned Pawn Repertoire Led €6 2d4 d5 3.03 Qb4 4e5 5 5.3 YncensCuselw TheNighrFoxinthemone Gixc3+ 6.bxc3 De7 7.W et Eaawe aa @AkA a We have the great pleasure to present to you the extremely popular Poisoned Pawn Variation (PPV), which traditionally starts after Black's moves 7...We7 and/or 7...0xdd? ‘There is no doubt that this is one of the sharper continuations in the Winawer system. White captures two pawns (g7-h7) on the kingside, allowing Black to get in return a certain advance in development and the possibility to seize the initiative on any part of the board. A similar concept was analysed in one of the Armenian lines, but here Black has not lost a tempo with .. a5. Studying the latest theory in this variation I have tried to create a ‘skeleton reper- toire’ for Black.Have updated a lot of material front the following recent sources: © John Watson and Goh Wei Ming (ChessPublishing com), Knut Neven (ChessBaseMagazine 129) «Nikita Vitingov, (French Defence, 2010). Directions (Games 27-30) ‘© Game 27 analyses the possibilities for both sides between moves 7-12 # In Games 28-30 we take an in-depth look at White's options in the main PPV on moves 13-15: 7.7 /exd4 8.Wxg7 Bg8 9.Wxh7 cxd4/Wc7 10.%e2 Abc 11.£4 a7 12.We3 dxc3 © Game 28-13.xc3 © Game 29 ~ 13. Wxc3 « Game 30 — 13.1, and five other white options on move 13, without (or postponing) the recapture on 3 Keep in Mind The difficulty of studying such a variation is that after each move the transpositions are multiplying, which, on the other hand, offers great flexibility for the player, who can choose his lines. ‘The difficulty of playing such lines is that both opponents may go wrong almost immediately! GAME 27 — Dance or Song: The Move Order on Moves 7-12 The following game features the wildest lines in the Poisoned Pawn Variation. It is not only a theoretically important game, but it also illustrates some must-know con- cepts and as you will see italso provides plenty of entertainment! + After 7.Wg4, the main PPV line begins with 7..cxd41? rather than 7..We7, since the latter allows 8.£.d3!?. We will check if this is really dangerous for Black (see diagram next page).rane 2) AAW Bada | AAs aw) la aa | A" BAA BG & An| | © After 7...cxd4 White can try to avold the transposition 8, Wxg7 gs 9.Wxh7 We7 by various means, for example with 8.cxd or 8.8.43. Still, if White plays some- thing other than 8,Whxg7, I think Black should welcome this. Sometimes it can lead to favourable lines from the previous chapters, Black’s 10th move options after 10.22. First ofall we will look atthe early 10...dxc3, which has become so popular lately: an original set-up by David Bronstein: 11...,247, preparing ...f5-a6!?; «the early move 12...5; © and mainly, the ambitious advance 12...d4!2. This resource is important for the whole PPV; «© alsoa recent and somewhat surprising move for White: the early 12.“2xc3. And many others ~ all this in just one model game! Keepin Mind The different orders on moves 10-12 can either lead to or avoid many Poisoned Pawn lines. For example, by playing first 10...dxc3 11.4 @d7 and then 12.Wd3 ‘®be6 Black can avoid White's early deviation 12.@xc3. But now he obviously can- not continue with the main line 10...dxc3 11.f4 Dbe6 (instead of 11.247), and now 12. We3 441?O Sergey Karjakin Gata Kamsky Nalehik 2009 (7) Apparently Kamsky had prepared the Poisoned Pawn for his match with Tiopalov in February 2009. However, the ulgarian super-grandmaster preferred tw avoid a theoretical discussion in this sharp variation (I guess it hadn't yet teen plugged into Blue Gene!). But now we get a chance to see what exactly Kamsky’s team had been working on. 1.e4 e6 2.44 d5 3.¢3 Abs 4.05 c5 5.a3 2xc3+ 6.bxc3 Again we have reached the most para~ doxical and hardest-to-understand posi tion in chess. The radical Bobby Fischer once said: Evidently, White must be won in the main Winawer system ~ with the strong L-bishop vs. knight and weak black kingside but still do not know how to se that ad nantage properly! FG Yoga Sergey Kain Pon Ga xy 2009 en 207th teen an crn Sy Ses Sr.moanpeaterteopema pe ranted eye ang pmaee 6. There are only about 450 games with this move; however, according to many professional sources, this is the best way to play the Poisoned Pawn! I don’t really believe in it, the normal and most popu lar move order must be absolutely valid: 7..cWe7! (3060 games!) xae x aaw aaah aad & wy & A & R&S E 2 SSOE analysis diagram 8.843 This is White's intention, with a simple idea: to gain a developing tempo after d3-@e2 (8.Wxg7 is the main line and will transpose to the game) Here I offer three lines for Black which yield at least equality A) 8.uc412 9.2 DES 10.h3 D6 11.2f Qd7 12MhS 0-0-0 13.0-0 Bhs 14.We Was 15.Wd2 Hama Amonatov-Gabrielian, Moscow 2010. Black will follow up with 16...f6!; B) 8..be6!? 9,Wxg7 Eg 10.Wxh7 If 10.Wi6 cxd4 11.03 Qg61?7 12.cxd4 Dxdd 13.Dxdd We3+ 14.02 WaddFngsner-Nystrdm, Sweden wt 1993/94 1O.exd4 11.4ie2 Sie Or U1..Wxe5!? 12.864 Wf6= Konings-De Groot, Utrecht 1999. 12.cxd4 Zixd3+ 13,Wad3 xg? 14.2g3 e51 Silingardi- Astengo, Corsico 1992; (firs ©) WEAPON: &..cxd 9.02 dxc3! ge TK: 2 ae is tectaty ot 50 good: 10.cxd4 h5 1.Whd YS 12H x5): 10.Wxg7 gs haw Bawa analysis diagram 11.Wxh7 TRICK: T1.Wh6 Wxe5! 12.9f4 (12.8xh7?! xg? 13.0/4 Wg? 14.2\g3 Wrxh6! 15.2xh6 e5F) 12. Wh8!? 13.Gxh7 Bgl (or 13..Hxg2!?) Sevillano-Watson, San Francisco 1995, ThacxeS 12.96 WES 13.4 xg? 14.cbf1 14.893? eS! 15.bf1 Bxg3 16.Axg3 Dbe6!. 14.098 15.295 analysis diagram 192 Now the correct continuation is 15..cWWh81 16.Wah8 Hxh8 17..6f6 BgB 1BHS 18.2xc3 4722. 18.0473 witha balanced endgame. B.Wxg7! This is the principled and most spirited answer. Deviations do not offer much: A) WEAPON: 8.243 Wa5t 922 (faa jaa wok s |A Ag |_ SAP Ow Be@e os onohs clagam 9..2\g61? (!) Bronstein, (?!) Vitiugov, Keep in Mind: 9...0-0! leads to sublines of the Warsaw Variation which are not dangerous for Black, see Game 26 in Chapter 9 10.h4 10.242 dxc3 11.xc3 We? (11...0-0!2) 12.£400 is complex, Al Modiahki-Grischuk, Sochi 2008. 10...0c6 11.hS Dexes 12.Wixd4s Axd3+ 13.cxd3 eS! 14.We3 dé! 15.Wg3 De7 16.Wxg7 gs 17.86 dxc3 18.0-0 ‘We7F Tal-Bronstein, Kiev ch-URS 1964; om) WEAPON: 8.cxd4?! We7! 3] wehbe i | analysis diagramHere Black has been fighting for the ini hhative since the Gimes of Ragozin: Hotvinnik, Moscow 1935: BI) 9.Bd2 (50 games=36%). This pawn sacrifice is quite suspicious 9.Wxe2 1003 10.Weg7 Bes L1.Wh6 Dbc6 12.4e2 “xd! 13.Dxd4 Wh2% Zufic-AGrigorian, Rijeka Ech 2010; 10.Hct Weds 11.Wxes dxes \Lée2 B47 13.0g3 Gc6F. 10...0-0 11.2e2 DbeGF According to Watson: White never had a chance in this game, Golubev-Andreev, Odessa 2008. But White's life is not sweet in other lines either: B2) Against the obscure king move 9.ed1 (25 games=54%) the most re- cent counter-idea is 9185! 9...6512; 9...0-08 from Spassky-Kortchnol, Bel- grade m-12 1977, to Sbirov-Zhukova, Gibraltar 2006. 10.8 b6 11.2b5+ Dbe6!? Or 11...8d7 12.443 Dee 13.We3 Deset BSavchenko-Kamsky, Baku 2009. 12,063 aS 13.Eb1 2267 B Savchenko-Shulman, Khanty-Mansiysk 2009; 83) Finally, the anti-positional approach with the rook: 9.2a2 (30 games=40%) leads to serious problems to held the dé pawn: 9...2f51 10.3 De6 ga e@ & aaw aaa ACs ada | a Ww Ke Bas | BOAe AAR [| @ wa 8 ena dagran Now the threat is ..exd4!, 11.843 11.942? Wb6!F Hijartarson-PNikolic, Reykjavik 1991; 11Rb27) Was 12.03 bot, wid the idea Sta or. eu7, reich is very pleasant for Black (Watson on ChessPublishing). W1.dhS! 12.Wg5 Dexds 13.Dxd4 We3+ 14.202 Wadd 15.0-0 Wg4 was slightly better for Black in Vogt-Kosten, Austria tt 2004/05, Summary of White's Deviations on move 8: [tis surprising that well-known theoreticians such as grandmasters Golubey, BSavchenko, Amonatov and even super-grandmaster Shirov end up in such bad positions after just a few opening moves with white! zx aa 8.2198 9.Wxh7 We7! ‘The counterattack begins ~ it is easy to spot the threats ..Wxc3+ and .. WreS+. 9...Wa52! is not playable in view of 1O.RbI! Wxc3+ 11.042 Wer 12.6 Alexander-Botvinnik, ENG-URS radio 1946, 10.262Defending €3 is logleal ~ of course the price isthat the sdf is closed in, (Fm WEAPON: As on move 8, 1OsSdi2t (246 games=50%) is a return to an old idea that almost nobody uses today. The last important games were: 10,.488c3 10...2d7!? was Uhlmann’s option. MAP Dbe6 12.0g5 Dxe5! Afier 12.248?! 13,4 White should be better, Short-Neelotpal, Dhaka 1999. After the text, in the coming middlegame Black has scored ‘well in practice, because White's dark squares and king remain even more vulnerable con- pared to the modern 10.2e2 lines. 13,f4 fol 13..Exg5l? 14 figs Q5g6 15.8.2 252 Matulovic-Tatai, Venice 1969. 14.fxe5 fg 15.WhS+ dB 16.S2295 Wes! analysis diagram ‘And now if 17.Wh4 or 17.84 (17.432! allows Black to coordinate his position with 17...s8c7 and ...247, Sisniega-Agdestein, Taxco izt 1985), Black has to be prepared for the ex change sacrifice 17mEixgs! (or 17...&447 18.843 Bxg5!), a good idea for the ‘workshop: 18.Waxg5 247 19.843 che7 20.WE4 d42 Pareja Perez-Matamoros Franco, Ceuta B 1993 10..Abo6 ‘The most natural move order. A) 10..Wxe5? would not be in the spirit of the line, Indeed, itis a grave er ror: LLexdd We7 12.0f4+; 194 fre WEAPON: 1audeBI? ‘Mostly this just amu fo trans position, but it cam also leu to the follcing Tine: 11, f41 24712 (84 games= za o@ kX Aawoaa ad a a & & BS 62 4 ‘analysis diagram A relatively obscure variation: Black is going to develop the queen's knight to a6 instead of c6. The idea was originally played by Bronstein in 1964. Now: GBD RICK: 12.4! ws sug gested by GM Neil McDonald; B2) Or 12Ad4 a6 13.Wd3 Dbc6 14.Waxc3 HeBe; B3) 12.Wd3 FS (once more, 12...2be6 leads to the main PPV positi- on). The c3 pawn cannot be defended. 13.2b1 There are lots of alternatives here: 13.xc3 Bc6!?; 13.g4 Hxgs 14.0h3 Bg6 15.8xf5 exfS 16.23 Hewat; 13.0931? Dxg3 14.hxgs Deo 15.Wxc3 He8 16.243 Whew, 13.926! x ex kawoua a” a aha & & av AQAA HQ #8 #8 analysis diagramThis is the point: Black threatens to play SheSeh WeEgt 14.Waed Wack 15 ime3 eS Mad 14.51? looks good: 15.Wxc3 0-0-0. 15.g4 cS 16.Wd1?- White missed Black's very sirong reply. 16.Waxc3 is natural: 16..44!? 17 Gxds Oxds 18.Wxds Bxc? 19.Hb5 6, 16..Wd8!t and Black's pieces are ready for the attack (..Wh4+), Sangma-Bhat, New Delhi 2009. 11441 dxc3!? Again, this early move gives Black new possibilities ~ but White too. The usual 11...&€7 transposes to the main line |X Bek 4aW 42 ab ad & & e Aa AK ES eo 8 12.43 Another key moment in the opening phase, for the entire Poisoned Pawn sys- tem. White should not omit this standard re- treat in these lines, since the queen might find herself stranded hopelessly on the ingside after Black plays... 0-0-Oand ...f5 Knut Neven. A) 12,xc3!2 Hf 28) ‘analysis diagram AL) The ‘principled’ reply 12..ixe5? favours White: 13.2b5 Wb8 14.J2e2!t (1445 Whxe5+, Guimard-Frydman, Buenos Aires 1941, is tactically bal- anced) with a big advantage that applies above all to the difference in develop- ment: 14..05g6 14..26 15.0-0!7t; 14,.Die4 15.0-0c; 14..Dg4 15.0-07. - 150-0 247 16.243!? 16.HbIt was ‘TKosintseva-Hou Yifan, Nalchik 2010. 16.86 17.S2xg61 17.4417 17.Exg6 On 17...fg6 18.24! threatens 19.83 18.f51 OxfS 19.SF4 Kokarev-Turutin, Voronezh 2010; A2) The standard way to cover the bS-square is 12...a6!? It appears to be a good alternative, 13.8b2!2. 13.Wd3 Ra7 14.81 or 14.2e2 transposes to the main lines. See next Game 28. 13...847 13...Wb6!? is a novelty. 14,0-0-0 0-0-0 analysis ciagram Black seems to be OK, thanks to the cen- tralization of his whole army. 15.Wh4 15,Wd3 Da5 16.23 e&b8® Shirov- Dvirnyy, Italia tt 2010. 1 16.b1 eB 17.WAR Base Thavandiran-Dvirnyy, Chotowa Wch-jr 2010, and Magem Badals-Stellwagen, Khanty-Mansiysk ol 2010; A3) 12.0d4!2 Black does not take the pawn back, preferring piece activ- ity, The vulnerable position of White's king may promise him good compen-sation, 13.621? is probably the best move to continue, 13.Wd3 allows Black to activate his second knight 13...QefSs#; 13.05% Dxb5 (13...Wxe2?) 14.xb5+ — Bd7 15.Bxd7-+ dexd7=2 with at least equal- ity. 13.8247 For 13...0dP51? see below 14...0f5!. An idea for the future is 13,..Wb6!? 14.0-0-0 Dd fs1@, 140-0-0 x ex caWeaa a ad aA ia a A “ened agi analysis diagram White simply completes his develop- ment and attacks the d# knight. 14...Wb6 Transposing into a recent game, and also to an older one. In- stead, Black can try 14...adf5!2, tem- porarily closing in the white queen on the kingside. It is also suggested by John Watson: ..is unclear and apparently balanced, Black's superior pawn structure and positional advantages compensating for the extra pawn and bishop pair, eg. 15.25 Wb6 16.24 0-0-0 17.Wh3 seps@. 15,.Wd3!? 15.Dxd5 Ob3+! 16.cxb3_ exd5s#; 15.2e¢ Dd3+=. 15.Ddf5 16.05 16.He4!?. 16...e8! An improvement. It makes more sense to occupy the c-file with the rook rather than castle queenside. Black keeps the king in the closed cen tre, where it is quite safe. (16.,.0-0-07! 17.334 Nijboer-Wirschell, Antwerp 1996) & & As & Ft analysis diagram 17.g3.17.Wh3 (1) Watson; 17.244?! is met by 17...a4! and 17.8442 by 17..WWa5!. 17 a6! Itis necessary to at- tack the annoying knight. After the inac- curate 17..Be#? White could have got an advantage by playing 18.0d4! but against Sutovsky, Poikovsky 2010, Karjakin played 18.21d6+? instead, with a quite irrational position after 18...Dxd6 19.exd6 DFS! 18,0d4 Bat 19.842 Ect Keeping the initiative. 20.2xf5 xfs 21.WE3 Boz e a a awk a aha & & & wa RAR GO A & “O° analysis diagram ‘The position is still sharp. However, @ strong centre, extremely active pieces and some of White’s weaknesses prom: ise Black long-term compensation for the ‘poisoned pawn’ B) 12.h4. It is quite popular now to move the h-pawn, but this new game is important in neutralizing White's plan! Black plays quite precisely: 12...d7Grandmaster El Surry. Kamsky’s3ee- ‘ond swell ene a singer sheet chs good ler dancer 13.hS 0-0-0 14.Wad3 FS 15.Whc3 dé 16.Wa3 Dee7 17.b6 Bat 18.h7 Bhs 19.Ba2 2c6 20.8b2 Vallejo Pons-Arizmendi Martinez, El Sauzal ch-ESP 2010. Now for our main idea in this model game: 12.0412 (138 games=44.2%) This is a very en- ergetic advance, which can also trans- pose to Game 30 after the inclusion of the moves 13.b1 d7. After 12.4.8d7 the main position of the PPV arises, see Games 28-30. 1 but it delays the development of the queenside: 13,Wxe3! 13.g1 W6!200 Luther-Pert, Liverpool 2006. 13..d4 14.We3 b6 15.0gl! 2b7 16.g4 Dh4 17.Rg3!+ Vitiugov-Pert, Dresden Ech 2007 13.93 A logical reply to Black's action. Thus White starts a standard knight manoeuvre to the desired square: 2452! could be an interesting idea, A) WEAPON: White cam imme diately push the famous passed pan: 13,h4!2. This advance is popular lately, thanks to the victory of young Spanish star Salgado Lopez against heavyweight (2725) Russian GM Alexeeo in an important team game, xo aay a ROD-A Hf $8 8 anatyais diagram Al) 13.1847?! is too slow ~ Black has caught on well. 14.hS! 0-0-0 15.h6! kbs 15.268 16h7 Bh8 (Navara Petrik, Hustopece rapid 2010) 17.g422%. 16h7 Bh8 17.Eb1! cB 18.g4! and White held the initiative un- til the end of the game, Salgado Lopez~ Alexeev, Novi Sad Ech-tt 2009; A2) The best counterplan is 13..b6t ‘With the idea to save at least several tempi’, as rightly commented by Vitiugov in 2010, 14.4)xd42! Critical is 14.5! Bb7 15.h6 0-0-0 16.h7 Hh8oo swith a complicated game. TRICK: 14.03 Gb7 (14.0612) 15.Bet 0-00 1606+ bs af? BS dd 15.Wxdd O65 16.2b5+ SA7 17.Mxd7+ Wxd7 18.2xd7+ sxd7= with a strategically better end- game for Black (@ vs &), Bologan- Kamsky, Reggio Emilia 2009/10; (m= B) WEAPON: More common is 13.2 \xd4l?,pe a nS wae analysis diagram Another critical attempt in this sharp positi- on. 13..2xd4 14.Wxda S47! and now: Bl) 15.8b1 may again lead to a sub-line of Game 30: 15../D£5 16.Wf2 We6!? The more ambitious set-up 16....8c6 was analysed by Goh Wei Ming and John Watson on Chess- Publishing — in great detail, with many attractive and forced lines. After 17.Hgitco Black can try many moves, but I very much like 17...Wd7 18.63 (18.043!) 18...0-0-02 as in AMuzychuk-Zhukova, Sochi tt 2009. 17.b4 The key point is 17.2g1 Wet+ 18.We2 Wd4=. 17...Wds 18.0g1 18.WE Wxf3 19.gxf3 Bc6e Singer-Liepold, Kaufbeuren 1998 18...2c6= Matanovic-Rolland, Le Havre 1966 and Mamedyarov-Alexeev, Ohrid te 2009; B2) TRICK: 15.803?! Of 16.85 We6!=* Moreno Carnero-Matamoros Franco, Suances 1997; B3) 15.g1!2 This move, recom- mended by Khalifiman, thematically pre- pares g2-g4 and a future Bg3. 15../2f5! ‘An interesting idea. 15...Ih8!2 was re- cently played by an expert of the PPV: 16h3 Of5 17.WE2 Sco! 18.4 Dh 19.2g3 WaSe* Ortiz Suarez-Nogueiras, Havana 2010. 16,820 We6!? with the following set-up: ..Wa5 and ....2c6 (af- ter 16...£¢6 17.g4 White is happy) GBP TRICK 17 ti st direct try for an adoantage 17. Weds 18.We2 Wa5!? A novelty ~ the game is balanced after 19.5242 We5 20.82 Didd! 21. e401 0-0-0223 eb 2; B32) 17.2431? WaS and now: ‘analysis diagram B321) 18.e3! A novelty by young grandmaster Ray Robson. A number of moves have been tried here but this ap- pears to be best: 18..éxe3 19,Wxe3 Bixg? 20.2xg2 Wag? 21.004 Wh? ge e wa fk a an Sain A a © 8 sw ( =O analysis diagram 22.0-0-01 Goh Wei Ming: The position might Took easy but Black actually had to tread very carefully to escape unscathed. 22.KC6! This could be the saving move — suggested by Vitiugov (2010). TRICK: —22...Hd8? — (Robson- Shankland, Milwaukee ch-USA jr 2009) 23.4! Weft 24.cbbI threaten- ing BiaLiskbt 23.kxco+ bxco, 23,.exed 24. Waxes WR with an equal rook end- ing. alier 25,Wxb7 Wb6+ 26,Wab6 axb6 27.9ha2 Had= a x Af eA p=4 analysis diagram It may end up in a theoretically drawn endgame of white a- and -pawns vs. black e-pawn, or even double e-pawns. B322) 18.2xf5 exfS — 19.Le3 0-0-0! is OK for Black, Spitz-Debray, Evry 2005; 18.3 Qd+ (18...265!?) 19.EAl Bc 20.8603 D+ 21.2 Was Semina-Ludwig, Germany Bundesliga B 2000/01; B323) 18.2b1 is most commonly played. This may also transpose to the HbI lines mentioned in line BI 18.,.c6 19.b3 0-0-0 20.Eixc3 bs@ and Black has enough counterplay for the two-pawn deficit, Zivkovic- Kutwzovic, Sibenikt 2008; B324) 18.a¢.Ac6 [x eo. aa a gk Waa | A A sac 8 | A WA] analysis diagram 19.Ha31? A recent tournament novelty 19.411 0-0-0 20.g42! Sd4t Talla-Cech, Pardubice jr 1991. 19..ifh8 19...0-0-012 20.Hxc3 800, 20.h3 Was 21.0xf5 exfS 22.Was Bas 23.Wxe3 WdS® Svetushkin-Grover, Kavala 2010 13.047 The key moment for this line, White has two options. Keepin Mind: Importantly, this position can arise from the main line of the Poisoned Pawn Variation, after 13.g3 d4!. See the notes to move 13 in the last model game ofthe chapter. 14.2e2 White delays Des, preferring to castle first (fom WEAPON: Surprisingly, against the natural 14.2¢8!? the score is 15 games=53.3% in Black's favour! Al- though objectively the game is fairly bal- anced, 14..0-0-Oand now: & B TRICK: Here 15 may ata transpose to some EbI lines, see Game 30. 15..2xe5! A fine thematic piece sacrifice by GM Eingorn. Black obiains a powerful initiative and a strong pawn centre: 16fee5 WaeS 17 We? Bc6 18.0g3 Was (18,.Wxe2+!? would be my two cents worth).a wWoa RQ oo ‘analysis diagram & | Fi iO D> oe White's position looks dangerous and difficult to play, but the computer still assesses it as balanced, Oll-Eingorn, Odessa ch-URS 1989; B) 15.0d6+ &b8 16.Eb1 b6! An ob- vious improvement on 16...8c8?! 17.Axf? Hdfs 18.d6 DFS 19.axf5 Mxf5 20.g34 and White's position is sta ble, Schramm-Liepold, Firth 1999. Now: Bl) 17.5 Wb7 18.46 draws; B2) 17.Axf7 Dd 18.2d6 18.251? Bxgs! 19.fegs Re8!Z. 18.05 19.2 ix65 ‘Exf50° Black should be fine in this posi tion, Now the natural 20.g3 allows 20..DxeS! 2fxeS Bc6 22.Agl Les! 23. Waxed HxeS 24 We? with an interesting inter nbalance ~Goh Wei Ming; 33). 17.g32 White does not have much time to stabilize his kingside and de- velop an attack on the opposite side. 17.4.5! Exchanging the annoying 46 knight. 18.2xf5 exf5 19.2g2 Be6t {@ & =F] aw analysis diagram 20.a47? Now White loses the fight for the light squares, 20.0.0 Siabt 20 ru a2t 21.Hal ibs 22.WefS keé 23.Wes S2d5 and Black wins as he likey (Reinhart-Carpentier, France tt 2009). 14..0-0-0 Later, GM Shulman, another second of Kamsky, changed the order, playing 14...WIb6 first. Perhaps he wanted to avoid White's useful move 15.Hb1. (see that game below) gg TRCK: The imide 14.295 ase ‘gives fine counterplay: 15.204? (15.Dxf5 exf 16.83 was safer in Matanovic-lokov, — Beverwijk 1963) 15...Bxg2 16.93 Hg6t Vokler-Eingorn, Cuxhaven 1993. 15.0-0 ex x aa naa ab & a & |A aw | AB BA ln 2 ope The key position after the opening phase. Its very complex and both sides have their advantages, which more or less balance out the game. 15..8b6 15.0651? 16.@xf5 exf5co Borgen: Celorio, Chicago 1973 16.04 d5 Gata Kamsky was evidently in a fighting mood. He sacrifices the £7 pawn. Unfor- tunately, later on he loses the rhythm. 16...€ab8!? 17.2d6+ In an even more recent game from the US Championships, White offered theexchange of queens with 17.85 but Wack obtained healthy counterplay any way: 17uWxbS 18.2xb5 sbe7 18. Srce7!2 19.Dd6+ Lb B 20.2xd7 Bxd7 21.Oxf7 D2. 19.Eb1 a6 20.243 bS= 20..8g7!2. 21.0427 Sveb4! and Black is already winning, khachiyan-Shulman, St Louis ch-USA 2009. 17..