Chess Stars

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

Kill KID 1
First edition - April 2009

Cover design by Kalojan Nachev

Copyright © 2009 by Semko Semkov

Printed in Bulgaria
ISBN: 978-954878270-8
 Kill KID 1
A White Repertoire with the Four Pawns Attack

Semko Semkov

Chess Stars
www.chess-stars.com
 Bibliography
This book offers a new approach to the Four Pawns Attack and it is based on
my own analysis. It practically does not overlap with any previous work on
this subject. I did check up a number of sources, but I could not "buy" any-
thing from them so I decided to not include most of them in the list.

Books
Opening for White According to Kramnik, vol. 1a and 1b, by Alexander
Khalifman, Chess Stars 2007
Understanding the King's Indian, by Mikhail Golubev, Gambit 2006

Periodicals
Chess Informant 1-101

Internet resources
Chess Today
Internet Chess Club (chessclub.com)
Playchess.com
ChessPublishing.com forum
Databases:
The Week In Chess (chesscenter.com)
10 Days (Chessmix.com)
 Contents

Introduction .......................................................................................... 6
About the Structure of This Book......................................................... 8

Modern Benoni Pawn Structures

Part 1 1 d4 lLlf6 2 c4 g6 3 lLlc3 ~g7 4 e4 d6 5 f4 c5 6 d5 0-0
7 lLlf3 e6 8 ~e2 exd5 9 cxd5, Lines without 9 ... E:e8 ................ 9
Part 2 7 lLlf3 e6 8 ~e2 exd5 9 cxd5 E:e8 ............................................ 47

King's Indian Defence and Volga Pawn Structures

Part 3 5 f4 c5 6 d5 0-0 7 lLlf3 Rare Lines without 7... e6 ................. 72
Part 4 5 f4 0-0 6 lLlf3 Lines without 6 ... c5 ........................................81

Modern Defence and Other Rare Move Orders

Part 5 1 d4 g6 2 e4 ~g7 3 c4 ............................................................. 97
Part 6 1 d4 g6 2 e4 ~g7 3 c4 d6 4 lLlc3 lLld7 5 lLlf3 .......................... 113
Part 7 1 d4 lLlf6 2 c4 d6 3 lLlc3 Lines without ...g6 .......................... 124

Index of Variations ............................................................................ 137

5
 Introduction
Warning! Do not kill any kid around,
I only refer to the King's Indian De-
fence! That one, I have been trying
to kill for more than 20 years.
This book is based mostly
on my own original analysis of
the Four Pawns Attack (FPA).
It does not offer just minor im-
provements here and there in some
irrelevant variations. I devised new
plans in all the major systems and I
propose a detailed analysis of all the
arising branches I could think of.
I quit active chess long ago so
I have no reason to withhold any
novelty I came upon over all those
years. On the contrary, I have al-
ways wanted to share my numerous
discoveries. I feel that current theo-
ry of the FPA is totally messed up if
not entirely wrong. However, I had
a gaping hole in the main Modern
Benoni line and it took me many
years to strike upon a decent idea.
I hope it will cause considerable
headache to Black players.
I have always been unhappy with
the Classical variation against the
KID. It accumulated such an enor-
mous amount of theory that it is im-
practical to keep in pace with it even
6
for a professional player. Even big-
ger problem is the character of po-
sitions that arise. You probably re-
member Radjabov's show in the
Wijk aan Zee 2007 super tourna-
ment, where he won all his three
black KID games against heavily
prepared top rated players. There
is something basically wrong - to
give the second players such attack-
ing chances as in the Classical vari-
ation.
I understand that in the KID
White sacrifices time in exchange
for space. But that space can also be
used in reverse - to repel the ene-
my pieces and slice through Black in
the centre. Such a strategy has ob-
vious pluses. White is the aggressor
so he limits the opponent's choice to
a very narrow survival path. Instead
of following a well tested attacking
scheme, as it happens in most of
the Classical variation games, Black
must defend with only moves. The
"only" drawback is that Black had
a rock solid equaliser in the main
line:
1 d4 l2Jf6 2 c4 g6 3 l2Jc3 ~g7 4
e4 d6 5 f4 c5 6 d5 0-0 7 l2Jf3 e6 8
~e2 exd5 9 cxd5 Ele8 10 e5 dxe5 11
fxe5l2Jg4

White used to play here 12 ig5
when 12 ...~b6! should lead at least
to a draw.
My proposition is:
12 e6! fxe613 d6!
This variation has been played
before, but I link it with ideas that
aim for sound positional compensa-
tion instead of depending on long,
forcing variations. You will find
about 30 pages of original analysis
as well as a critical survey of the cur-
rent theory.
Beside this variation, most the-
oretical books recommend to Black
the line:
1 d4lLlf6 2 c4 g6 3lLlc3 ig7 4 e4
d6 5 f4 c5 6 d5 0-0 7 lLlf3 e6 8 ie2
exd5 9 cxd5 ig4 10 0-0 lLlbd7
Introduction
The current state of theory is fa-
vourable to Black, but I believe that
my approach will change that. Ano-
ther 30 pages of new analysis show
that White very often should check-
mate the opponent with a direct at-
tack. The lead in is 11 h3! ixf3 12
ixf3 followed by g4. A major fine
point of my plan is that White does
not play gel nor a4 at all.
In Part 4 I reach the authentic
KID waters where Black refrains
from ... cS in favour of 6... lLla6 or
other continuations. I am sure that
White is clearly better after 6 ... lLla6
7id3!
The best part of having the FPA
in one's repertoire is that Black will
often try to outsmart you with tricky
move orders and second grade sys-
tems which commonly delay ... lLlf6
or ... g6.
I wantto supply a complete reper-
toire based on the FPA so in Parts
5-7 I examine all the deviations of
Black from the common KID move
order.
I do not deal, however, with 1 d4
d6. In my opinion, the best answer
is 2 e4! which could lead to the Pirc.
Chess Stars has published a whole
400-pages-thick book on that sub-
ject - An Opening for White Ac-
cording to Anand, volume 4.
I am not contemplating a Kill
KID 2. I hope that the readers them-
selves will write it with their games
if they like my ideas. But Chess Stars
will keep open this option. Perhaps
someone is working on, say, the
Saemish?!
Semko Semkov
April 2009
7
 About the structure of this book
I follow the Chess Stars trademark
structure, introduced by "The Safest
Sicilian".
Each system is examined in a
separate part which contains three
chapters: "Quick Repertoire"; "Step
by Step"; "Complete Games".
You start with the "Quick Re-
pertoire". You'll find there all the
vital information that you need to
start playing the variation. These
chapters contain more explanation
and try to pinpoint the essence of
the numerous variations, analysed
branch by branch in the "Step by
Step" chapters. Knowledge of the
key lines presented in "Quick Re-
pertoire" should be sufficient to
make you well prepared for any live
tournament.
Finally, the "Complete Games"
sections give practical examples
and sometimes cover backup lines
of the main repertoire. The focus of
the commentaries is on the critical
moments of the game and on typi-
cal plans of both sides.
I suggest that you read all three
chapters even if you are a titled
player. Or you may initially skip the
details and use the "Step by Step"
in postmortem analysis or during
online games. "Quick Repertoire" is
not just a summary of "Step by Step"
chapters. I often use it to explain ver-
bally the main ideas of the variation
or the reason I prefer it to other lines.
This information is omitted later as I
prefer to avoid repetition.
I suppose that players above Elo
1800 will benefit most of this book.
Part 1
d6 S f4 cS 6 dS 0-0 7 llJf3 e6 8
i.e2 exdS 9 cxdS
QUICK REPERTOIRE
The first thing a Four Pawns attack-
er must learn is how to cope with
the position you see on the above di-
agram. You may have read in many
books that KID style play with 5 ... 0-0
6 CLlf3 CLla6 is "very interesting" and
modern, but the truth is quite dif-
ferent. White players feel happy in
the pure King's Indian structure as
they enjoy a typical for this opening
space advantage, without running
the risk of being crushed under a
kingside assault. Even convention-
al wisdom, which is programmed
in most engines, acknowledges this
fact. Computers give albeit little,
but still positive for White scores
in the KID structures, while the Mo-
dern Benoni branch with 9 .. .l'\e8! is
negatively rated. Most protagonists
of the FPA gave it up because of that
forced variation which seems to lead
to a draw as White's limit.
I propose a completely new
approach as you shall see in
the next part.
I should add here that White
cannot avoid transition to the Mo-
1 d4 CLlf6 2 c4 g6 3 llJc3 i.g7 4 e4
dern Benoni. It would have been
nice to have a backup variation as
5 f4 0-0 6 CLlf3 c5 7 dxc5 ~a5 8 i.d3
~xc5 9 ~e2 which hides a lot of ve-
nom. However, the neat move or-
der with 5 ... c5! 6 dxc5 ~a5 7 i.d3
offers Black the excellent resource
7... CLlfd7! I'm not sure White can
even equalise, e.g. 8 i.d2 CLlxc5 9 i.c2
CLlc6 10 CLld5 ~d8.
Now I'm going to deal with less
testing in my opinion systems,
which are however highly praised in
chess literature. Thus they are very
often met in practice.
A. 9 ••. bS?! 10 eS dxeS 11
fxeS llJg4 12 i.gS ~b6 13 0-0
c4+ 14 ~h1
9
Part 1

White is clearly better here. Go- 11 'lMfc2! a6 12 a4 'lMfc7 (Or

lubev advocates 14 ...b4, but after 12 .. l=l:b8 13 i>h1!) 13 tild2!
15 ltJe4ltJd7 he misses 16 e6 fxe6 17 Vegh's only note about this move
hc4±. Alternatives are: is: "13 ltJd2 was possibly better."
a) 14 ... ltJd7 15 e6 fxe6 16 dxe6 Well, it certainly is!
ltJdf6 17 e7 l=l:e8 18 a4! ib7 19 axbS 13... gb8 14 @h1
vtJc7 20 vtJd4±;
b) 14... ltJxeS1SltJxeS heS16 d6!
This move ensures a clear edge.
16... ltJd717 i.e7 i.b718if3M319
vtJxf3 hd6 20 M8 l=l:xf8 21 vtJdS±.
White went on to win in Dittmar-
Kaposztas, Kecskemet 1990.

B.9 ... tilbd7

This is a very solid move which
eliminates all the sharpest lines after
9 ... l=l:e8 or9 ...ig4. On the other hand,
Black accepts to playa cramped po-
sition. His only active plan is linked
with the temporary pawn sac c5-c4
which would empty the cS-square
for the d7-knight. The whole varia-
tion has been developed mostly by
Hungarian players and Endre Vegh
even suggests it as a main repertoire
against the FPA in his "Starting Out:
Modern Benoni" book (2004).
White's main task should be to
anticipate ... c4 and set up e4-eS. It
is essential to remember the correct
move order:
100-0 ge8
Black's light-squared bishop is
stranded on c8. Passive continua-
tions would be grim for him because
we will put a knight on c4. There-
fore in practice he chooses:
14... c4 15 e5 dxe5 16 tilxc4
b5 17 axb5 axb5 18 d6 'lMfc6
White had a clear advantage in
the game Gershon-Manor, Israel
2002.
c. 9 ....ig4 10 0-0 tilbd7

Some books decorate 9 ... ig4

with an exclamation mark. That
reflects the current state of theory
which is favourable to Black. I like it

10
 5 f4 c5 6 d5 0-0 7 ttJf3 e6 8 .te2 exd5 9 cxd5

very much for White since it offers
me a chance to launch a "blitzkrieg"
on the kingside. Black will need an
utmost precision in order to survive
during the next 15 moves.
11 h3!
A crucial decision. It practically
commits White with further pawn
advances on that wing. 11 h3 has
gradually disappeared after the key
game Kouatly-Kindermann, Trna-
va, 1987 which introduced the novel-
ty 11 h3 .txf3 12 .txf3 E1e8 13 g4 h6!
14 h4? h5!! 15 g5 ttJg4! with a satis-
factory game. Then White players
began to dodge this line in favour of
11 E1el (not too successfully!).
I think that White's Icing's
rook belongs to f1!
11 ....bt3 12.bt3
case the fl-rook supports the attack
down the f-file.
I practically never play E1fel even
later in the game. In my treatment
of this system the main action hap-
pens along the f- or h-file.
Now let's get acquainted with
several key lines which should help
us find our way amongst various
move orders:
1. 12 ... ttJe8 13 g4!? (13 .te3!)
13 ... ltJc7 14 g5 b5 15 h4 b4 16 ttJe2
ttJb5 17 h5 c4 18 hxg6 hxg6?

This is a typical position with an

open h-file. Black is probably lost
here. He should not be able to sur-
vive the attack along the h-file, com-
bined with the coup of grace f4-f5:
19 IDg2 ~b6 20 f5!± .td4 21 ~el
Now let me explain my ap- gxf5 22 ~h4±.
proach.
1. My general plan is to attack 2. 12 ... a6 13 g4 h6 14 h4 ttJh715
on the kingside with the g-and h- g5 hxg516 hxg5 b5
pawns. After h2-h4-h5xg6 White
will need his rook either on hI, (if
Black recaptures by hxg6) or on f1.
I want to put on e1 the queen's
rook.
2. The reserve plan of White is
to keep the g-pawn on g4 in order
to enable f4-f5 (after the prelimi-
nary sacrifice e4-e5 d6xe5). In that

11
Part 1

The same structure as in the

previous example, but the knight
is on h7. It impedes f4-fS owing to
the hit on g5, but renders Black's
counterplay on the opposite wing
sterile. We should be concentrating
forces on the kingside because we
have nothing to fear from the left:
17 ~g2 ~e8 18 ~hl ~c8 (18 ... c4
19 ~e3) 19 ~el ttJhf8
The correct capturing by the f-
pawn gives White the better pawn
formation. It should be smashing
in an endgame, but with queens on,
Black can hope to take over the ini-
tiative by some piece sac. Here is a
typical tactical trick: 19 ~g2?! ttJc5
20 ~c2 ttJd3 21 ~xc4 ttJxf4+! 22
ttJxf4 ~xg5+ 23 ~hl ~xf4~.
White must complete his de-
White has the better prospects. velopment which explains the text
He attacks with prevailing forces. move. The arising position is very
Black cannot survive with a pas- sharp and I advise you to study care-
sive stand, so he will sooner or lat- fully the "Step by Step" chapter. I'll
er have to push .. .f6. In that case he give here only my main line:
will at least get some pressure on 19 ... ttJc5 20 ~e3!? ~c7 21 ~c2
e4 so White can anticipate it with c3 22 ~bdl ~ae8 23 bxc3 ttJxc3 24
20 ~f2;!;; (although 20 ~h4 should ttJxc3 hc3 25 e5! dxe5 26 d6 ~c8
be good, too) 20 .. .f6 21 gxf6 ttJxf6 27 ~d5+ ~h8 28 ~f3
22 ~c2, bolstering the centre and
eyeing g6. White's bishop pair has
great potential.
See the "Complete Games" chap-
ter, Game 1 Kouatly-Al Modi-
ahki, Doha 1993,2 W. Arencib-
ia-B. Gonzalez, Cuba 1993 and 3
Vaisser-Kindermann, Biel1991
to learn more about this structure.

3. 12 ... ttJe8 13 g4!? (13 ~e3!) White's bishop pair is terrorising

13 ... ttJc7 14 g5 b5 15 h4 b4 16 ttJe2 the opponent's king. For instance,
ttJb5 17 h5 c418 hxg6 fxg6! 19 ~bl!? 28 ... exf4? loses to 29 ~xc3+!!'

12
 S f4 cS 6 dS 0-0 7 ct'lf3 e6 8 .ie2 exdS 9 cxdS

4. 12 ... ct'le8 13 .ie3! ct'lc7 14 '!Wd2
:§:b8 IS .ie2!
start with e4-eS, another time g4-
gS first is more precise. The prob-
lem is that we should seriously con-
sider piece counter-sacrifices from
Black, or sneaky retreats of the f6-
knight, when we risk to find our-
selves over-extended. Here are two
negative examples:

6. 12 ... :§:e813 g4 h6! 14 gS?! hxgS

ISeS

This move clears the f-file to

the fl-rook and relocates the light-
squared bishop to a more active po-
sition. Its idea is best seen after IS ...
bS 16 eS! dxeS 17 fS a6 18 d6 ct'le8
19 a4 with tangible pressure. Ano-
ther nice line is IS ...:§:e8 16 eS dxeS
17 fS e4 18 d6 ct'la6 19 fxg6 hxg6 20
:§:xf7!+-. The only thing Black must NOT
do is to comply with our plan by tak-
5. 12 ... :§:e8 13 g4 h6! 14 '!Wc2! ing IS ... dxeS? Instead, he can an-
'!WaS?! IS eS! dxeS 16.gS! hxgS 17 swer IS ... ct'lxeS! or IS ... ct'lh7 16 e6
fxgS ct'lh7 18 ct'le4;!; gxf4! with an excellent game.
The moral of this example is that
firstly White should finish develop-
ment by .ie3, :§:ael. Then both gS
and eS become dangerous options.

7. 12 ...:§:e813 g4 h6! 14 ~hl?! (14

'!Wc2!) 14 ... :§:c8 (14 ...bS!) IS eS dxeS
16.gS ct'lh7

Look carefully at this position!

Black is doomed to a stale position.
This pawn structure is crucial for
my treatment of the .ig4-variation.
I discovered it IS years ago, but only
recently found the correct paths to
achieving it. Sometimes White can

13
Part 1

Black's queen is watching the always meet ... c4 with .ie3.

g5-square and that restricts our at- 13 ... Wfa514 Wfd2 ~fe8 15 ~d4
tack:
17 f5! ttJxg5 18 fxg6 fxg6 19 ~g4
ttJf6! (19 ... ttJh7 20 Wfc2 ttJhf8 21 ttJe4
h5 22 ~g5 Wfb6 23 ~e2 c4 24 ~adl~)
20 hg5 hxg5 21 d6 ~b8 22 ttJd5=.
White does have the initiative,
and the opposite coloured bish-
op attack is unpleasant, but Black
should be able to hold on. Notice
that had Black's queen left d8 be-
fore, this breakthrough would have Black's early ... c4 gave us an ide-
been very strong. al square for our commonly unem-
Now we reach the best move or- ployed dark-squared bishop. This is
der for White: the only case when we do not need
to advance our kingside pawns, be-
8. 12 ... ~e8 13 g4 h6! 14 Wfc2! a6 cause Black cannot impede the cen-
15 ~e3 b5 16 ~ael ~c8 17 h4! tral breakthrough e4-e5:
15 ... ~ad8 16 @hl (16 Wff2!?)
16 ... ttJc5 17 e5 ttJfd7 18 e6 fxe6
19 hg7 @xg7 20 dxe6 ttJxe6 21
hb7:t.

Now I can summarize:

In the following diagram after 12
M3 Black is at a crucial juncture.

Now it is ripe time for a clash on

the kingside.
17... h5 does not work so well as
before since 18 g5 ttJg4 19 hg4 hxg4
20 e5! dxe5 21 f5 e4 22 fxg6 fxg6 23
ttJxe4:t is good for White.
The counterattack 17... b418 ttJdl
c4 is not effective either. After 19 g5
Black has no decent retreat with the a) He can try to restrict our pawn
knight. storm by putting pressure on e4 with
12 ... ~e8 (12 ... c4 13 ~e3 gives White
9. 12 ... c4 13 ~e3 an easy game - see key line 9.) 13 g4
As a rule in this system, we h6! In that case we should complete

14
 5 f4 c5 6 d5 0-0 7 tLlf3 e6 S .te2 exd5 9 cxd5

development by 14 ~c2!, .te3, fi:ael, In line C3 I also examine 13 g4, and

preparing h4!, see key line S. only then 13 ... tLleS 14 g5 tLlc7!. My
analysis suggests that Black would
b) He can anticipate our attack get probably sufficient counterplay
by 12 ... tLleS. after 15 h4 tLlb5, so we must make
Then it is out turn to make a him pay dearly for the right to in-
choice. We can immediately proceed stall a knight on b5:
with the ultra-sharp 13 g4!? tLlc7 14 15 a4!
g5, key lines 1-3. It might earn easy
points, but also gives Black more
counterchances. I prefer the more
restrained 13 .te3! tLlc7 14 ~d2 fi:bS
15 .te2!, intending to meet nearly
everything by 16.e5 dxe5 17 f5! with
a great game - see key line 4.

c) Black also has a rare, but tricky

move order: 12 ... a6. Perhaps best
now is 13 .te3 b5 14 g4 or 13 ... fi:eS 15 ... b5 16 h4 bxa4 17 fi:xa4 tLlb5
14 ~c2 b5 15 fi:ael fi:cS 16 g4 h6 as in IS ~d3. Black has three weak pawns
line Cl of the "Step by Step" chapter. on the queenside to worry about.

15
 Part 1
d6 5 f4 cS 6 dS 0-0 7 lL)f3 e6 8
i.e2 exdS 9 cxdS
STEP BY STEP
In this part we shall consider:
A. 9 ... b5?!
B.9 ... tLlbd7
C.9 ....tg4
The most critical move 9 ... !i:e8
is the subject of the next part of the
book.
Minor alternatives are:
a) 9 ... a6 10 0-0 b5 11 e5 dxe5
(1l ... tLle812 .te3 tLld713 a4;!;) 12 fxe5
tLlg4 13 d6!
There is no reason to shift the
black queen to a better square with
13 .tg5 ~b6.
13 ... tLlxe5 14 ~d5 tLlxf3+ (or
14 ... tLlec6 15 ~xc5 .tb7 16 a4;!;) 15
M3 .td4+ 16 i>h1 !i:a7 17 .tg5 ~a5
18 .te7 .te619 ~g5 !i:e8 20 !i:ael±.
16
1 d4 lL)f6 2 c4 g6 3 lL)c3 i.g7 4 e4
b) 9 ... tLla6. This rare line is un-
derestimated by theory, but it is not
bad at all. White cannot punish this
development by an early e4-e5 so
he should probably switch to cen-
tral plans: 10 0-0 (10 e5? tLld7 11 e6
fxe6 12 dxe6 tLlb6) 1O ... tLlc7
11 !i:el.
11 e5 tLld7! is roughly equal (11 ...
dxe5? 12 d6 e4 13 dxc7 ~xd114 !i:xd1
exf3 15 M3 .tg4 16 f5! is clearly in
White's favour) 12 exd6 tLle8 13 f5
tLlxd6 14 fxg6 hxg6 15 .tg5 ~b6!
(practice has only seen 15 ....tf6 16
~d2 tLle5 17 M6 ~xf6 18 !i:ael;!;) 16
~d2 tLlf6=.
11 h3 does not work due to
11...tLlh5 12 .tc4 b5! 13 tLlxb5 tLlxb5
 5 f4 c5 6 d5 0-0 7 ctJf3 e6 8 i.e2 exd5 9 cxd5

14 hb5l'!b815 i.c4l'!b4! (15 ... hb2 130-0 c4+ 14 <it>h1

16 hb2 l'!xb2 17llNc1llNb6 18 ctJd2±)
with compensation.
11 ...i.g4 (11 ...b5 12 e5) 12 h3
hf3 13 hf3 ctJd7! (13 ... l'!b8 14 e5±)
14 i.e3 l'!b8 15 a4. White's game is
somewhat easier due to his better
centre.

A. 9 ••. bS?! 10 eS dxeS

Bulgarian grandmaster Bobot-
sov introduced in 1959 the move
1O ... ctJfd7, but later White disco- Al. 14 ... ctJd7
vered the simple 11 hb5 dxe5 12 A2.14 ... ttJxe5
0-0 i.a6 (or 12 ...i.b7 13 l'!el exf4 14 Alternatives:
hf4 ctJf6 15 d6 ctJc6 16 l'!cl±) 13 a4 Golubev advocates 14 ...b4, but
with a considerable advantage. after 15 ctJe4 ttJd7, he does not con-
11 fxeS lLJg4 sider 16 e6 fxe6 17 hc4±, for in-
11 ... ctJfd7 is bad since Black can- stance, 17...i.a6 18 ha6 llNxa6 19
not develop normally after 12 i.f4, llNb3 l'!ae8 20 d6±.
e.g. 12 ...b4 13 ctJe4±. Even better is 14 ... ctJf2+ 15 l'!xf2 llNxf2 16 ttJxb5
12 e6 ctJe5 13 i.f4 ctJxf3+ 14 hf3±. is reputed to be in White's favour.
12 i.gS \19b6 Let us analyse it a little further:
12 .. .f6 13 exf6 hf6 offers White 16 ...i.g4 and now 17 e6!?± is proba-
a juicy choice. Virtually every active bly best, while 17 ctJc7 is more force-
continuation gives him a huge ad- ful: 17... hf3 18 hf3 llNxb2 19 i.f4
vantage. My computer likes 14 d6±. ctJd7 20 l'!bl llNxa2 21 e6±.
Humans prefer 14 llNd2 hg5 15
~xg5 llNxg5 16 ctJxg5 with a difficult
ending for Black owing to the tre- A1.14 ... ttJd715 e6fxe616 dxe6
mendous strength of the d5-pawn: ttJdf6 17 e7 E:e8
16 ... ctJe3 17 @d2 ctJxg2 18 l'!afl a619
3xf8+ @xf8 20 l'!fl + i.f5 21 i.d3 ctJh4
22 i.e4 h6 (22 ... ctJd7loses a piece to
23 l'!f4) 23 d6 l'!a7 24 ctJe6+ @f7 25
.'Dxc5 ctJd7 26 b4±.
Finally, 14 hf6 llNxf6 15 llNd2 b4
16 ctJe4 llNe7 17 ttJfg5 fits best in the
true spirit of the FPA. Black should
be crushed after something like 17...
h618 d6llNe519 i.c4+ @g7 200-0-0
hxg5 21 i.d5±.

17
Part 1
18 a4!
This is more precise than 181Wd4
h6 191Wxb6 axb6 20 lLlxbS ~xe7 21
hc4+~h722.ih4;l;gS23.ig3which
is also better for White though.
18 ....ib7 19 axb5 Vf!c7 20 Vf!d4±
White is more active and he even
has a material advantage.
A2. 14 ... lLlxe5 15 ~xe5 .ixe5
16 d6!
I think that only this move en-
sures a clear advantage. The fine
point is to compel the enemy knight
to go to d7. Practice has only seen
16 .ie7 ~e8 17 d6, when Black has
17... lLlc6! 18 lLldS1WcSl9 b4 (19 lLlf6+
ixf6 20 hf6 .ifS+) 19 ...1Wd4 and
White can win the exchange by 20
1Wxd4 lLlxd4 21 ~ael lLlxe2 22 ~xe2
.ig7 23 lLlc7 .id7 24 h3, but Black's
bishop pair is a fearsome force.
16 ... ~d7
Black can give up material by
16 ....ie6 17 .if3 lLld7 18 has ~xa8
191Wf3 ~e8 20 ~adl± or 16 ....ib717
d7. In all the cases he should not ob-
tain adequate compensation.
17 .ie7
It would be interesting to insert
18
17 a4!?
17 ....ib7 18 .if3 .ixf3 19 Vf!xf3
.ixd6 20 .ixf8 ~xf8 21 Vf!d5±
White went on to win in Dittmar-
Kaposztas, Kecskemet 1990.
B. 9 ••• ~bd7
This is a very solid move which
eliminates all the sharpest lines af-
ter 9 ... ~e8 or 9 ....ig4. On the oth-
er hand, Black accepts to play a
cramped position. His only active
plan is linked with the temporary
pawn sacrifice cS-c4. I first faced
this move in Semkov-Perenyi, Saint
John 1988 and failed to respond in
the best way.
10 0-0 ~e8
11 Vf!c2!
So far so good. White should keep
open the option of pushing eS. Ac-
cording to Megabase, my move was
a novelty back then. I still think it is
the only way to aspire to the advan-
tage. The frequently played 11 lLld2
c4 (1l ... a6 12 a4 c4 13 ~hl lLlcS 14
eS dxeSlS fxeS ~xeSl6 lLlxc4 ~e817
.igS .ifS 18 d6;l;) is roughly equal:
a) 12 ~hl lLlcS 13 eS dxeS 14 fxeS
~xeS IS lLlxc4
 S f4 cS 6 dS 0-0 7 ttJf3 e6 8 i.e2 exdS 9 cxdS
1S .. .2'l:e8!
The rook will be doomed to per-
ish on fS, although White must be
precise. Tregubov-Vuilleumier, Cli-
chy 2008 saw further 1S ... E1fS16 i.f4
!LJfe4 (16 ... gS 17 i.eS) 17 ttJxe4 ttJxe4
18 ttJe3 hb2, when instead of grab-
bing the rook by 19 ttJxfS hfS 20
2:b1 ~f6!=, White had 19 E1b1! ttJc3
(19 ... ~f6 20 ttJg4) 20 ~c2 ttJxb1 21
!LJxfS hfS 22 ~xb2±.
16 i.gS h6 17 M6
I do not believe that White could
be better without his dark-squared
bishop, but 17 i.h4 ttJce4 18 ttJxe4
2:xe4 is not inspiring either.
17 ... M6 18 ttJbS (In Tregubov-
Gruenfeld, Bastia 2004, Black
equalised after 18 d6 by 18 ...hc3!?
19 bxc3 i.fS) 18 ... a6 19 ttJbd6 E1f8
20 ~c2 Black cannot avoid the sac-
rifice on fl, but it is not that terri-
ble. 20 ...i.g7! 21 ttJxfl E1xfl 22 E1xfl
~xf7 23 E1f1 + i.fS 24 ttJe3 ~b6! 2S
g4 ~xb2=.
b) 12 eS dxeS 13 ttJxc4 ttJb6 14
fxeS ttJfxdS 1S ttJd6 ttJxc3 16 bxc3
gf8!=, Minescu-Marin, Baile Tus-
nad 200S.
11 ... a6
Commonly Black prefers to in-
elude 1l ... a6 12 a4 since the bS-
square could be useful to White in
some variations: 1l ... c412 hc4 ttJcS
13 eS i.fS (13 ... dxeS 14 fxeS ttJg4 1S
e6±) 14 ~d1 dxeS 1S fxeS ttJg4
16 e6!?
16 i.f4 ~b6 (16 ... ttJxeS 17 ttJxeS
heS 18 heS E1xeS 19 ~d4) 17 ~d4
ttJxeS 18 ttJxeS heS 19 heS E1xeS
20 E1adU ttJd7 21 E1f4 is also pleas-
ant for White.
16 ... fxe6 17 h3 ttJeS 18 i.bS!
ttJxf3+ 19 E1xf3 E1f8 20 i.e3 ~b6 21
E1cl±. Here g4 is a nasty threat.
12a4~c7
Preparing ... c4 which is vital
for Black's development. 12 .. E1b8
seems mundane as ... bS is impos-
sible. However White must be cau-
tious. The correct response is 13
Wh1! Note that 13 eS?! dxeS 14 fxeS
walks into 14 ... ttJxeS! 1S ttJxeS E1xeS
16 i.f4 i.fS 17 ~b3 ttJe4+. 13 E1e1 also
allows tactical tricks - 13 ... bS!? 14
axbS axbS 1S hbS ttJxdS! 16 exdS
E1xe1 + 17 ttJxe1 hc3 18 bxc3 E1xbS
19 c4 E1aSoo. Finally, 13 as justifies
Black's last move: 13 ...bS 14 axb6
~xb6 1S ttJd2 ~c7 16 ttJc4 E1b4+t.
13 ttJd2!
It is essential to impede ... c4. In
19
Part 1
the source game I made one pro-
phylactic move too many and Pere-
nyi took over the initiative after 13
Whl? c4 14lLld2 lLlcS.
13••• Etb8 14 c;t>h1
Now this move is already good.
Black is at a juncture. He should
find some employment of his light-
squared bishop which is strand-
ed on cB. The problem, however, is
that passive continuations risk to
aggravate Black's situation:
14...b6 15 lLlc4 (calm develop-
mentas 15 1:!el is also good) IS ...bSI6
axbS axbS17lLlaS b41BlLlbS ~b619
lLlc4 ~xbS 20 lLlxd6 b3 21 ~dl ~b4
22lLlxeBlLlxeB 23 eSt or 14 ... lLlfB 15
as. Therefore in practice Black com-
monly speeds up play by:
14•.. c415 e5 dxe5 16 tOxc4
b5 17 axb5 axb5 18 d6 ~c6
20
White has a clear advantage.
The game Gershon-Manor, Israel
2002 went on 19lLlxeSlLlxeS 20 fxeS
1:!xeS 21 i.f4 i.fS 22 ~dl1:!cS 23 i.f3t.
Perhaps 19 lLlaS!? ~a6 (19 ... ~xd6
20 lLlxbS ~b6 21 lLlc6±) 20 b4t is
even better.
c. 9 ...J.g4 10 0-0 tObd7
a) 1O ... 1:!eB transposes to the
main line after 11 h3. Instead, 11 eS
i.xf3 12 i.xf3 dxeS 13 fxeS 1:!xeS 14
d6 lLlc6 15 i.f4 1:!eB 16 lLlbS 1:!fB is
rather unclear although White has
considerable compensation for the
pawn.
b) 1O ...i.xf3?! is imprecise, to say
the least. This move is based on the
assumption that White cherishes
his knight so much, that he would
play lLlgS to avoid its exchange. My
treatment of White's "hand" howev-
er envisages a kingside pawn storm
with gS and h2-h4-hS. In that case
the early exchange on f3 presents us
with an extra tempo, saved on h3.
c) 1O ... a6 is a rare move which
has many drawbacks and no plus-
es. White can continue with his gen-
eral plan or force play by 11 eS dxeS
 S f4 cS 6 dS 0-0 7 tLlf3 e6 8 ~e2 exdS 9 cxdS
(11...tLle8 12 e6 fxe6 13 tLlgS±) 12
fxeS tLlfd7 13 e6 fxe6 (the computer
suggestion 14 ~e3!? may be even
stronger) 14 dxe6 he61S tLlgS ~e8
16 tLlxe6 ~xe6 17 ~f3 ~d4+ 18 cj;Jh1
tLlf6 19 hbn.
11 h3!?
Here is the first important mo-
ment. This move has gradually dis-
appeared after the model game
Kouatly-Kindermann, Trnava, 1987
which introduced the cunning idea
11 h3 hf3 12 hf3 Ele8 13 g4 h6 14
h4 hS! lS gS tLlg4! with a satisfactory
game. White players began to dodge
this line in favour of 11 Elel.
Perhaps you should be following
how the favourite setup of Jobava
develops. He retreats the e2-bishop
to f1 in order to take on f3 by queen,
then completes development by
ie3-f2, and watches his time for
slicing through the centre with e4-
eS, for example: 11 Ele1 Ele8 12 ~f1
~c813 h3 hf314 ~xf3 a61S a4 c4
16 ~e3 tLlcS
17 ~f2 tLlb3 18 Elad1 tLld7 19 cj;Jh1
~aS 20 eS dxeS 21 d6t, Jobava-
~ebolsina, Benidorm 2007.
Now let me explain the essence
of my approach.
My general plan is to attack on
the kingside with the g-and h-pawns
or by the pawn sacrifice e4-eS, fol-
lowed up by f4-fS.
I practically never play Elfe1 even
later in the game. In my treatment
of this system the main action hap-
pens along the f- or h-file.
11 ...ixf3 12 ixf3
Cl. 12 ... Ele8
C2. 12 ... tLle8
C3.12 ... a6
C4.12 ... Elb8
CS.12 ... c4
C1.12 .. J'!e8
This move considerably restricts
White's kingside pawn storm. It di-
rectly threatens with ...bS. For in-
stance, if White tried some "finesse"
as 13 cj;Jh1, then 13 ...bS! would take
over the initiative. Note that 13 ...
a6?! 14 g4 h6 lS ~c2 c4 16 eS! dxeS
17 gS or 13 ... c4?! 14 ~e3 bS lS a3
as 16 Ele1 Elb8 17 ~d4 b4 18 tLla4;!;;
would be rather pleasant for White.
We shall discuss such positions lat-
er in the main line.
1394 h6!
21
Part 1
Black has no decent retreat for
the f6-knight, so the prophylaxis is
indispensable. Engines also pro-
pose the absurd redeployment
13 ... tLlb6?! 14 g5tLlfd7, when we can
go on 15 h4 c4 16 .ie3 l"1c8 17.id4!
(17 h5 is persistent, but it misses
the goal: 17... tLlc5 18 hxg6 hxg6 19
f5 hc3 20 fxg6 fxg6 21 bxc3l"1c7 22
.ig4l"1xe4 23 ~f3oo) 17... tLlc518 hg7
It>xg7 19 ~d4+ It>g8 (19 .. .f6 20 .ig4
tLlbd7 21l"1ael±) 20 h5tLlbd7 21 h6 f6
22 .ig4 l"1c7 23 l"1ael±.
The text also sets up a curious
positional trap: 14 h4 h5!!.
Now 15 gxh5? tLlxh5 16 hh5
~xh4+ is disastrous, so the source
game Kouatly-Kindermann, Trna-
va 1987, went on 15 g5tLlg416 hg4
hxg417l"1el c418 .ie3 hc319 bxc3
l"1xe4=. This game has been accepted
22
as a safe equaliser and it convincing-
ly discouraged White players from
the pawn storm idea. They switched
attention to the centre and the cur-
rently most topical line is 1ll"1e1, re-
fraining from h3. I have always felt
however, that White should not re-
nounce this plan, but rather im-
prove his implementation.
My first thought was to save 14
h4 in favour of 14 g5!? hxg515 e5
In blitz this idea is extreme-
ly effective as Black automatical-
ly answers 15 ... dxe5? and gets into
a murky position after 16 fxg5 tLlh7
17 tLle4, for instance, 17.. .f5 18 gxf6
tLldxf6 19 d6 or 17... c4 18 .ie3. We
shall meet often this pawn struc-
ture. Remember that it is very
pleasant for White!
However, Black can intercept
the initiative by counter-sacrific-
ing a piece: 15 ... tLlxe5 16 fxe5 l"1xe5
or even better, 15 ... tLlh7! 16 e6 gxf4
17 exd7 ~xd7. Such a scenario is to-
tally unacceptable to me, so I decid-
ed to postpone g5 for a while.
The first candidate for an im-
provement was 14 It>hl. The rea-
son behind this move is clear: It is
always good to leave the danger-
ous diagonal gl-a7 and free the gl-
 S f4 cS 6 dS 0-0 7 lLlf3 e6 8 ie2 exdS 9 cxdS
square for a rook. At the same time,
we can ignore nearly any Black ac-
tivity on the queenside as 14 ... a6,
14 .. J~c8 or c4. To spare you irrele-
vant details, I shall say that White
obtains a promising initiative in
those cases, but 14 ... bS! proved to
be a too hard test. Then lS gS hxgS
16 eSlLlh717 e6 gxf418 exf7+! 'it>xf7
19 hf4 is already in White's favour
as Black has not the vital check from
d4 to free g7 for his king. However,
the other piece counter-sac remains
good: 16 eS lLlxeS! 17 fxeS ~xeS.
Perhaps White should have
started with lS eS, I asked myself.
But it does not work either, due to
lS ... dxeS 16 gS lLlh7+.
I'll not bore you any more with
my futile investigation of earlier de-
viations which aimed to revive my
idea. The summary is: to make it
work, White needs to enable a third
possible breakthrough, namely f4-
fS! This goal is best served by:
14 Wc2!
14 ... a6
Alternatives are:
a) 14 ...bS1SlLlxbS c416 'it>h1! lLlcS
17 eS! dxeS 18 fxeS ~xeS 19 if4
White's bishop pair dominates
in the centre and should ensure
some edge, for example, 19 ... lLlxdS
(19 ... ~xdS 20 lLlc7) 20 heS heS
21 ~ad1lLld3 22 ~xd3 cxd3 23 '&xd3
lLlc7 24 '&e2 lLlxbS 2S '&xeS '&d3 26
'it>gl ~f8 27 idS '&d4+ 28 '&xd4±.
b) 14 ... '&aS?! It is really over-op-
timistic to expose the castling posi-
tion to danger at this moment. We
should not miss the chance: lS eS!
dxeS 16 gS lLlh7 and now we see the
main reason behind White's 14th
move: 17 fS! with a dreadful attack.
Instead, 16 ... hxgS 17 fxgS lLlh7 18
lLle4;!; would lead to my favourite
pawn structure.
c) 14 ... c41S ie3 bS
16 ~ae1!
This move completes the mobili-
sation of White's forces and enables
all kinds of breakthroughs on the
23
Part 1

kingside. Of course, the less com-

mitting redeployment 16 .tf2 a6 17
4:Je2 is also possible: 17... 4:Jb6 (Or
17... g5 18 fxg5 hxg5 19 4:Jg3 4:Je5 20
.te3:t; 17... 'Wc7 18 a4 b4 19 e5 dxe5
20 d6) 18 4:Jd4 4:Jfd7 with a tangled
position.
16 ... a6
16 ...b4 17 4:Jb5 4:Jb6 18 .tf2:t will
leave Black over-extended on the 24 E1xf7! 4:Jxh4 25 E1efl! 4:Jf3+ 26
queenside. E11xf3 gxf3 27 E1xf3! 'Wxd5 28 4:Jf6+
17h4! hf6 29 gxf6+-.
It turns out that we did not com- I must confess that these lines
pletely discard this idea. It only conclusively won me for the 14 'Wc2!
needed a better framing - good de- manoeuvre.
velopment and ... a queen on c2!
17... h518 g5 4:Jg419 hg4 hxg4 15.ie3
It is still early for 15 h4 h5 16 g5
4:Jg4 17 e5 dxe5 18 f5 e4!.
15 ... b5 16 l'!ae1 l'!c8
16 ... b4 17 4:Jdl E1c8 transposes to
the main line.
17 h4!

Now we realise another thema-

tic thrust:
20 e5!± dxe5 21 f5
Black's position is aboutto crum-
ble down.
2l...4:Jf8 22 fxg6 4:Jxg6 meets
23 Ei:xf7! 4:Jxh4 24 Ei:eflEi:e7 25 E1xe7
'Wxe7 26 'We4 E1d8 27 'Wxg4 4:Jg6 28
4:Je4 iWd7 29 'Wh5±, while 21...e4 22 Now it is ripe time for a clash on
4:Jxe4 4:Je5 23 fxg6 4:Jxg6 (23 ... fxg6 the kingside.
24 4:Jf6+ hf6 25 gxf6 ~f7 26 h5 17 ... b4
'Wd6 27 .td4 4:Jf3+ 28 ~hl ~f8 29 White is on top after 17... h518 g5
.tc5 iWxc5 30 'Wxg6 'Wa7 31 E1e7 E1xe7 4:Jg419 .txg4 hxg4 20 e5! dxe5 21 f5
32 fxe7+ 'Wxe7 33 iWxg4+-) is not e4 22 fxg6 fxg6 23 4:Jxe4:t.
too different: Black can also stay passively

24
 5 f4 c5 6 d5 0-0 7 tLlf3 e6 8
with something like 17... tLlh7 18 g5
~d4, but White's space advantage
on the kingside provides good con-
ditions for building up an attack af-
ter 19 tLldl.
18 tLld1 c4
For 17... iWa5 18 b3 see game 5
Semkov-The Cookie Lover, 3
min. Playchess.com 21.12.2008.
The knight is closer to the
kings ide from d1, so 18 ... h5 is hard-
ly advisable: 19 g5 tLlg4 20 hg4
hxg4 21 tLlf2 iWe7.
I have also analysed 21...g3 22
tLlh1 iWa5 23 tLlxg3 iWxa2
24 e5!
Rybka insists on 24 l"1a1 iWxb2
25 iWxb2 hb2 26 l"1xa6 claiming
a White's advantage after 26 ... c4
27 l"1xd6 l"1c7 28 h5 gxh5 29 tLlf5 b3
(29 ... l"1xe4 30 l"1c6 l"1b7 31 @f2±) 30
~g2 l"1xe4 31 l"1c6) 31 l"1b6 l"1xe4 32
3b8±. "She" (in most Slavic langua-
ges rybka means fish, but it is also
a slang for chick) may be right, but
I am an adept of the "human" ap-
proach. So we go for a mate:
24 ... iWxd5
Or 24 ... dxe5 25 f5 e4 26 f6 ~f8
27h5 tLle5 (27 ... gxh5 28 g6) 28 hxg6
tLlxg6 29 iWh2 iWxd5 (29 ... ~d6 30
~e2 exd5 9 cxd5
~f4+-) 30 @g2+-.
25 l"1d1 b3 26 iWe2 iWb7 27 h5 d5
28 iWf3 tLlb6 29 hxg6 fxg6 30 f5 and
White's pawn avalanche finally got
to the enemy king.
Let us return to the more rea-
sonable 21...iWe7. We should conti-
nuewith:
22 ~d2 ~d4 23 @g2 hf2 24 l"1xf2
as 25 l"1fe2t. Black is pretty helpless
against the powerful pawn centre.
White can even walk the king to g4
before proceeding further with the
attack.
1995tLlhS
To 19 ... tLlh7 we can open the
black castling position with 20 gxh6
hh621h5~.
20 ~xhS gxhS
The attack is running by itself,
for example: 21 f5 hxg5 22 hxg5 b3
23 axb3 cxb3 24 iWg2 l"1c4 25 ~f2
~d4 26 hd4 l"1xd4 27 f6 tLlf8 28 iWf3
l"1e5 29 iWxh5 tLlh7 30 l"1f5;!;.
C2.12 ... tLle8
A modern and challenging plan.
Black is going to manoeuvre his
knight to d4 via e8-c7-b5.
25
Part 1
This can be achieved by repel-
ling the c3-knight from c3 with the
help of b7-b5-b4, or by the modest
a7-a6, tLlc7-b5. Black's counterplay
is clear, fast and straightforward.
I think that White is helpless to
hold his queenside against the ene-
my's pawn majority and prevailing
forces. So he should discard mun-
dane development and focus on an
active plan of his own rather than
play on restriction.
I explored two plausible courses
of action:
C2a. 13 g4!? and C2b. 13 .te3!
The first one is extremely sharp.
It features a lot offorceful variations.
You can use it to "examine" your op-
ponent. There is a fair chance that
you win without making a move of
your own. However, there is too lit-
tle strategy in this approach and too
much is on stake on every turn. If
you like to play "All-in", this line of-
fers a lot of fun. It looks especially
eligible against a higher rated oppo-
nent since his better understanding
will be of lesser use.
The second line is completely
different. White prepares the break-
26
through e4-e5, to be followed up by
f4-f5. It is fairly safe as White does
not expose his king too much and he
enjoys a firm control of the centre.
C2a.13 g4!?
White's next moves will be g4-
g5, h3-h4-h5xg6. 13 ...h6 would not
stop g5 in view of 14 mg2 :1'1b8 15 h4!
and the pawn is immune. (15 ... ~xh4
16 g5)
13 ••• tlJc7 14 g5 b5
Or 14 ... c415 .te3 b516 ~d2 tLlb6
17a3±.
13 ... a6 is considered in line C3a.
15h4
15 ... b4
Black can also try 15 .. .f5 16 exf5
gxf5. (16 ... :1'1xf5 17 .tg4 :1'1f8 18 h5
.td4+ 19 mg2 tLlb6 20 hxg6 hxg6
21 f5 b4 22 f6 bxc3 23 ~d3 ~e8 24
bxc3± .txf6 25 gxf6 or 17... ~f8 18
~c2 tLlb6 19 i.xf5 gxf5 20 a4 b4 21
tLlb5±) White obtains an initiative
by attacking the weak f5-pawn and
threatening to open the g-file: 17 h5
.td4+ 18 mhl tLlb6 19 tLle2 .th8 20
:1'1g1 ~d7 (20 ... ~e7 21 :1'1bl :1'1ae8 22
b3t) 21 :1'1bl :1'1ae8 22 b3 :1'1f7 23 g6
:1'1fe7 24 ~d3 c4 25 bxc4 bxc4 26 ~c2
 5 f4 c5 6 d5 0-0 7 ltJf3 e6 8 ~e2 exd5 9 cxd5

.'Llcxd5 27ltJg3 Ei:f8 28 hd5+ ltJxd5
29 ~xc4 ~e6 30 ~d2ltJb6 31 gxh7+
:t>xh7 32 ~d3 ~f6 33 Ei:belt.
16 tlJe2 tlJb5 17 h5 c4
It is important to push quick-
ly c4-c3 to get real counterplay.
17... ltJd4 18 ltJxd4 hd4+ 19 \t>g2
only helps White in his plan.
17... ~b6 also loses an impor-
tant tempo: 18 hxg6 fxg6 (18 ... hxg6
19 \t>g2) 19 ~g4 c4+ 20 \t>g2 ltJc5 21
1e3 Ei:ae8 (21...hb2? 22 ~e6+ \t>h8
23 Ei:bl +-) 22 ~e6+ \t>h8 (22 .. J"1xe6
23 dxe6 ~c6 24 ~d5 ~xd5 25 exd5
:z:Jd3 (25 ... hb2 26 hc5 dxc5 27
~ae1±) ) 23 Ei:h1±.
18 hxg6 fxg6!
This is the only move, but in blitz
the vast majority of players opt for
18 ... hxg6?!. It allows White to get
decisive attack along the h-file: 19
~g2 ~b6 20 f5!±
to a forced draw. Only most precise
play retains the initiative:
19 Ei:b1!?
Alternatives:
a) 19 \t>g2?! ltJc5 20 ~c2 ltJd3 21
~xc4ltJxf4+ 22ltJxf4 ~xg5+ 23 \t>hl
Ei:xf4--+;
b) 19 ~c2 c3 20 bxc3 ltJxc3 21
ltJxc3oo;
c) 19 ~e3 hb2 20 Ei:bl c3 21 ~g4
ttJc5, see 19 ~g4;
d) 19 ~g4!? ltJc5 20 ~e3!?
Unfortunately, 20 f5? stumbles
into 20 ...hb2! 21 hb2 ~xg5.
Much more entertaining is 20
~c2 c3 21 bxc3ltJxc3 22ltJxc3 hc3
23 Ei:bl ~e7 24 ~d2oo Ei:ae8 25 Ei:bel
h6!? (obtaining counterplay) 26
hc3bxc3

20 ... gxf5 21 exf5 f6 22 g6 Ei:fe8 23

~h1±;
20 ...~d4 21 ~el gxf5 22 ~h4±;
20 ... ~e5 21 ~el c3 22 Ei:hl+-.
After the correct capturing, Black
has more chances to maintain the
balance. Although White's pawn
formation hides great potential,
his exposed king allows various de- 27 e5! hxg5 28 ~xg6+ ~g7 29
structive sacrifices that often lead ~xd6 gxf4 30 Ei:f2 c2 31 ~xc5 (or

27
Part 1
31 gg2 gxe5 32 .ie6+ ~h8 33 gel
gg5=) 31...gc8 32 \!!!fd6 c1\!!!f 33 \!!!fe6+
gO 34 gxc1 gxel + 35 gn gxf1 + 36
~xf1 \!!!fh7 37 .if3=.
20 ...hb2!
Black would be lost if he let the
white bishop to reach e6: 20 ... ltJd3
21.ie6+ ~h8 22 b3 \!!!fc7 (22 ...ha1
23 bxc4) 23 gb1 gae8 (23 ... ltJb2 24
gxb2 hb2 25 ~c2 1J.g7 26 \!!!fxc4±)
24 f5 .ie5 25 ~g2 gxf5 26 exf5 ltJa3
27 gc1 ltJxc1 28 hel cxb3 29 axb3
\!!!fc2 30 ~xc2 ltJxc2 31 f6 ltJd4 32
ltJxd4 hd4 33 1J.f4+- or 20 ... ltJxe4
21 ie6+ ~h8 22 \!!!fc2 ltJc5 23 \!!!fxc4
gb8 24ltJd4 ltJxd4 25 hd4 ~c7 26
gacl.
21 gb1 c3 (21...ltJc3?! 22 ltJxc3
hc3 23 ie6+ ltJxe6 24 dxe6 h6 25
f5 hxg5 26 ~g4!--t) 22 hc5 dxc5 23
\!!!fb3
This extremely unbalanced po-
sition is rather dangerous for Black,
but he should escape after:
23 ... ltJd6!
The attack on e4 forces play.
23 ... \!!!fb6 24 ~g2 a5 is very risky: 25
ie6+ ~h8 26 ~b2 a4 27 \!!!fc2 b3 28
gxb3 axb3 29 axb3 ~a6 30 gf2oo.
I suspect that White is better here.
At least, his game is easier because
he is the more active side, for ex-
28
ample: 30 ... gfb8 31 f5 ~d6 32 fxg6
\!!!fe5 33 gf3 ltJd4 34 ltJxd4 cxd4 35
gh3 gb7 36 iO gxf7 37 gxf7 ~xg5+
38 gg3 \!!!fe5 39 \!!!fe2± ~f4 40 \!!!ff2
~xe4+ 41 ~f3 \!!!fxf3+ 42 ~xf3+­
c2 43 ggl gf8 44 ~e4 gxf7 45 ~xd4
gc7 46 gel ~g7 47 d6.
24 ie6+ ~h8 25 gxb2 ltJxe4
26 ltJxc3 bxc3 27 ge2 gxf4 28 gxf4
\!!!fxg5+ 29 gg4 \!!!fel+ 30 ~h2 ltJd2=
with perpetual check.
19 ... ltJc5
19 ... \!!!fa5 deprives Black's king of
adequate defence: 20 ig4 ltJc5 21
ie3ltJd3 22 .ie6+ ~h8 23 ~g2! (23
f5 gxf5 24 exf5 ltJc7 25 ltJf4 ltJxf4 26
gxf4 ltJxe6 27 fxe6 gxf4 28 hf4=)
23 ... ltJc7 24 ltJd4 ltJxe6 (24 ...~xa2
25 f5) 25 ltJxe6 ltJxb2 26 \!!!fe2 ltJd3
27f5 gxf5 28 ghl--t. The h-file turns
to be fateful again.
19 ... c3 20 bxc3 ltJxc3 21 ltJxc3
bxc3 22 ie3 ~a5 23 \!!!fe2 leads to
a position where the mobility of
White's central pawns causes Black
a lot of trouble. The main threat is
ig4 and f5, but e5, followed up by f5
is also an option.
20 1J.e3!?
20 ~c2 is not in the spirit of the
 S f4 cS 6 dS 0-0 7 ctJf3 e6 8 ie2 exdS 9 cxdS
variation. It does win the c4-pawn,
but hands the initiative to the oppo-
nent. It could also lead to a forced
draw: 20 ... ctJd4 (20 ... c3? 21 bxc3
ctJxc3 22 ~xb4±) 21 ctJxd4 hd4+
22 li>g2 ~c8 23 ig4 (23 Wxc4 ctJe6)
23 ... ~e8 (23 ... ~c7 24 Wxc4) 24 ~el
ctJd3 (24 ... c3 2S bxc3 hc3 26 ~e3
2:c7 27 ib2 hb2 28 Wxb2 as 29
~d4;!;) 2S ~dl ~xe4 26 ~xd3 cxd3 27
~xd3 We8 28 hc8 Wxc8 29 Wxe4
~g4+=. Alternatives are risky for
White: 21 Wxc4 ctJxf3+ 22 ~xf3 ~c8
23 ie3 Wd7 24 ~bf1 (or 24 hcS
2:xcS 2S Wd3 ~fc8 26 fS ieS 27 ~f2
gxfS 28 exfS Wf7co) 24 ... Wg4+ 2S
ctJg3co.
20 •. .'II~·c7 21 Wc2 c3 22 ~bd1
gae8
22 ... cxb2 23 eS ctJc3 24 ctJxc3
bxc3 2S Wxc3 ctJe6 26 Wd2! is un-
pleasant for Black. He must give up
a piece without sufficient compen-
sation: 26 ... ctJxgS 27 fxgS heS 28
id4 hd4+ 29 Wxd4 Wb6 30 Wxb6
axb6 31 ~bl ~xa2 32 ie2;!;.
23 bxc3 tLlxc3 24 tLlxc3 hc3
Or 24 ...bxc3 2S eS WaS 26 ig4
dxeS 27 fS Wb4 28 ih3 gxfS 29 ixfS
e430Wh2;!;.
25 e5! dxe5 26 d6 'Wc8 27
i.d5+ li>h8 28 ~f3
White's bishop pair is terroris-
ing the opponent's king. The nicest
variation here is 28 ... exf4? 29
Wxc3+!!' More reasonable alterna-
tives are:
a) 28 ... Wg4+ 29 Wg2 Wxg2+ 30
li>xg2 ttJd7 31 ha7 ~xf4 32 a4±;
b) 28 ... ~fS 29 ~h3 hS 30 d7 ttJxd7
(30 ... Wxd7 loses to 31 ie4 ~xgS+
32 li>h2+-) 31 ~xhS+ gxhS 32 WxfS
exf4 33 'Wxf4t;
c) 28 ... ttJe6 29 fxeS ctJd4 30
~xf8+ ~xf8 31 Wg2 with an initia-
tive, for example, 31...ttJfS 32 ib7
We6 33 ha7 heS 34 dn.
C2b. 13 .ie3! tLlc714 'Wd2 ~b8
14 ...bS is obviously premature
due to IS eS, but Black has two other
reasonable options:
a) 14 ... a6 IS i,e2!
We are all set now for e4-eS.
IS .. .fS
The only way to impede White's
plan. IS ...bS is rather difficult.
(1S ... We7 16 eS ctJe8 17 e6± ttJb6 18
fS gxfS 19 ~xfS fxe6 20 ~xf8+ li>xf8
21 i,gS) 16 eS dxeS 17 fS. Next we
push d6 with total domination.
16 exfS gxfS
The pawn structure has changed
29
Part 1

significantly and we should ad- i.d5 ~xd5 28 ~xf6 ~e6 29 ~g5 ~xf6
just our plans accordingly. Now the 30 ~xf6 @h7=.
centre is fixed and we must define 15 ...b5 16 e5 'tJb6 17 ~ad1. Black
other objectives to pursue. I would has pushed b5, but it has stricken at
list them in the following order: thin air.
1. To restrict Black's play on the 17... 'tJc418 ~f2 'tJxe3 19 ~xe3
queenside;
2. To activate the e3-bishop via
f2 and eventually h4;
3. To put the f1-rook on the e-
file. (Well, this is an exception to
the rule!)
4. To bind the enemy queen with
the defence of the f5-pawn. Ex-
changes of rooks do not help Black
as that pawn will become more vul-
nerable. White's threat is 20 'tJe4±, so
We can begin with 17 a4, when 19 ... dxe5 seems the only move, but
the computer suggests 17...b5 18 then 20 f5! e4 21 'tJxe4 puts White
axb5 i.xc3 19 bxc3 axb5. Then we on top.
follow up with number 2 of our to-
do list: 20 i.f2 'tJb6 21 ~ab1 ~d7 22 15ie2! b5
.ih4 h6 23 ~fe1 ~fe8 24 i.h5 ~e4 25 Alternatives are: 15... a6 16 a4 b5
~xe4 fxe4 26 f5±. 17 axb5 axb5 18 e5 dxe5 19 f5± or
15... ~e8 16 e5 dxe5 17 f5 e4 18 d6
b) 14 ... ~e8!? 15 g4! 'tJa619 fxg6 hxg6 20 ~xf7!+-.
Black has discouraged our plan-
ned manoeuvre i.e2 and we must
urgently revive our positional aim
- to cramp the opponent by e4-e5,
f4-f5.
It may seem that White can in-
sert first 15 ~ad1 ~b8 and only then
play 16 g4 b5 17 e5. That would be
true if Black had to answer 17... 'tJ b6
18 ~f2 'tJc419 'tJe4 'tJxe3 20 ~xe3±,
but he can capture on e5: 17... dxe5!
18 f5 b4 (18 ... e4 19 'tJxe4 'tJe5 20 16 e5! dxe5 17 f5 a6 18 d6
~f2±) 19 'tJe4 'tJb5 20 fxg6 hxg6 21 18 'tJe4 c4 19 b3 is also interest-
d6 'tJd4 22 'tJg5 'tJf6 23 'tJxi7 ~d7 ing.
and Black is holding, e.g. 24 i.xd4 18 ... 'tJe8 19 a4
cxd4 25 g5 ~xf7 26 gxf6 i.xf6 27 White has tangible pressure.

30
 5 f4 c5 6 d5 0-0 7 tLlf3 e6 8 ie2 exd5 9 cxd5
C3.12 ... a6
Perhaps White's best an-
swer now is 13 ie3!? and play
will most probably transpose to
another main line. For instance:
13 ... E1e8 14 Vf1c2 b5 15 E1ael E1c8 16
g4 h6 - see line Cl, or 13 ... b5 14 g4,
when the move ... a6 might prove to
be useless. Next I will analyse po-
sitions of independent significance
where Black executes the manoeu-
vre ... tLlf6-e8-c7-b5.
13 9 4
C3a. 13 ... tLle8; C3b. 13 ... h6
C3a.13 ... lbe8
Intending tLlc7-b5-d4.
14 g5lbc7
Game 7 Semkov-Z.Ilic, Saint
John 1988, saw 14 ...b5. This is ra-
ther inconsistent as Black could
have prepared this advance by tLle8-
c7 or ... E1b8, saving a tempo on a6. I
could have answered with the the-
matic 15 h4, following the model of
line C2a, (15 h4 c4 16 ie3 Vf1c7 17
h5 ltJc5 18 Wc2 ltJd3 19 hxg6 hxg6
20 ie2 Wd7 21 f5-+) but I decided to
take the maximum of the concrete
move order by 15 ltJe2!?, discoura-
ging 15 ... c4 in view of 16 tLld4. You
can see the game in the "Complete
Games" chapter.
The game Bagaturov-Grigorian,
Belgorod 1989 went on with 14...
f5 15 exf5 gxf5, when simplest is 16
a4±.
15 a4!
It looks imperative to slow down
the enemy counterplay with ... tLlb5.
15 ig4ltJ b5 16 e5 tLlxc3 17 bxc3 dxe5
18 f5 e4 19 f6 tLlxf6! allowed Black
in game 4 Nogueiras-Velimi-
rovic, Reggio Emilia 1986, to ba-
lance the game.
I have fiddled for many days with
15 h4 tLlb516 tLle2 (16 id2, as in Adi-
anto-Hulak, Jakarta 1986, cannot
be serious, nor could be 16 Vf1d3 c4!)
16 ... tLld417 tLlxd4 cxd4 18 h5 E1e8 19
hxg6 hxg6 (19 ... fxg6 20 f5) 20 ~g2
The open c-file gives Black just
enough counterplay to maintain the
balance:
20 ...Vf1c7 (or 20 .. .f6 21 ig4
tLlc5 22 f5! We7 23 E1el±) 21 f5 ie5
(21...E1ac8 22 f6 Wc2+ 23 E1f2±) 22
id2 Vf1c4 23 fxg6 fxg6 24 ig4 ltJc5
25 Vf1f3 E1f8 26 Vf1h3 Vf1c2 27 ie6+
ltJxe6 28 Wxe6+ ~g7=. I could not
find an improvement on this vari-
ation.
31
Part 1
15 ...b5
16h4
Aiming for h4-hSxg6. Perhaps
16 @g2!? is slightly more precise,
because it cuts off some side varia-
tions. Anyway, play is similar to the
main line: 16 .. bxa4 17 l:'lxa4 ctJbS 18
~d3 ctJb6 19 l:'la2 c4 20 ~c2 ctJd4 21
~f2 ctJxf3 22 ~xf3 l:'le8 23 ~e3;l;.
16 ... bxa4
A typical Modern Benoni ap-
proach. Black revives the idea with
ctJc7-bS-d4. The alternatives do
not create immediate threats so
they offer White a free hand on the
kingside:
a) 16 ... c417 ~e3 b418 ttJa2 as 19
l:'lc1 ~xb2 20 l:'lxc4 ctJa6 21l:'lc6 ctJdb8
22 l:'lc2 ~g7 23 ctJc1 ~d7 24l:'lh2;
b) 16 ...b417 ttJe2 ~e718 @g2 (18
hSl:'lae8 19 @g2 f6 20 hxg6 hxg6 21
gxf6 M6 22 ctJg3;l;) 18 .. .f6 19 gxf6
hf6 20 eS ctJxeS (20 ... hh4 21l:'lh1)
21 fxeS ~xeS 22 ~gS;l;.
17 gxa4
It is tempting to try 17 hS ctJbS
18 hxg6.
Then 18 ... fxg6?! 19 ctJxa4! (Black
was threatening with 19 ... a3.)
19 ... ttJd4 20 ~g4 ~e7 21 l:'la3 l:'la7
22 l:'lh3± would be advantageous to
32
White. Note that 19 ctJxbS axbS 20
~g4 c4 21 ~e6+ @h8 22 ~e3 hb2
23l:'lb1 (23 @g2 hS) 23 ... ~g7 24 @g2
ctJcS 25 hcS dxcS 26 l:'lxbS l:'lxf4 27
l:'lxf4 a3 28 ~g4 a2 29 l:'lfl a1~ 30
l:'lxa1 hal 31 ~f4 is probably level.
Black should recapture by 18 ...
hxg6! 19 ctJxa4 l:'le8 20 @g2 ctJd4
with initiative.
17.. )ilb5 18 ~d3
This way of meeting ... ctJ bS would
have been impossible without the
inclusion of 15 a4 and 16 17 l:'lxa4 -
now Black has not 18 ... c4.
By the way, I'm not too sure the
text is the best move. 18 ctJe2!? might
be stronger, to avoid the simplifica-
tion I mention after the next dia-
gram. Anyway, Black has to prove
first that he is OK in my main line,
before starting to worry about this
one.
18 ••• tLlb6 19 ga2
19 l:'la1!? is also worth conside-
ration.
19 ... c4
Or 19 ... ~d7 20 @g2 ctJd4 21 ~d1
fS 22 gxf6 hf6 23 hS;l;.
20 ~c2
White's king looks a bit ex-
posed, but the superb pawn centre
 S f4 cS 6 dS 0-0 7 tLJf3 e6 8 i.e2 exdS 9 cxdS
keeps the enemy pieces at bay. No-
tice that his game is rather easy as
he only should doubt about which
pawn to push first - hS or fS, while
Black's choice is more difficult. For
instance, if he trades his knight for
the f3-bishop, he will reduce the
number of our attacking pieces,
but will leave without counterplay:
20 ... tLJd4 21 Wf2 tLJxf3+ 22 Wxf3l=l:e8
23 i.e3. Besides the kingside, Black
has to think about three pawn weak-
nesses as well - 23 ... tLJd7 24 l=l:a4
gb8 2S l=l:xa6 l=l:xb2 26 tLJd1 l=l:b4 27
gxd6 if8 28 l=l:a6 tLJcS 29 fS l=l:b7 30
fxg6 hxg6 31l=l:f6;!;.
In case of20 .. .fS 21ie3, 21...tLJd4
(21...fxe4 22 ig4±) is already late
due to 22 ixd4 ixd4+ 23 ~g2;!;.
20 ••. l=l:e8 21 tLJe2 YlYc8 22 ~g2
Everything is ready for further
expansion by hS. The computer of-
fers as best 22 ... aS 23 hS YlYcS 24
hxg6 hxg6 2S l=l:h1 a4 to organise
counterplay, but then 26 fS ieS 27
gh6! ig7 28 l=l:h3 (28 fxg6 ixh6 29
gxf7+ ~xf7 30 ihS+ ~e7 31 ixe8
hgS 32 ixgS+ ~xe8 33 Wd2;!;)
28 ... tLJd7 29 f6± is close to winning.
C3b. 13".h6 14 h4 tLJh7
The idea ofline Cl14 ...hS?! here
only serves to lose a pawn without
compensation after lS gS (lS gxhS?
tLJxhS 16 ixhS YlYxh4!) lS ... tLJg4 16
ixg4 hxg4 17 YlYxg4 id4+ 18 ~g2
We7, when we can go forward with-
out lingering:
19 fSl=l:fe8 20 f6 tLJeS 21 We2 YlYd7
22 hS ixc3 23 bxc3 WbS 24 c4 YlYxc4
2S Wxc4 tLJxc4 26 hxg6 l=l:xe4 27 g7
tLJeS 28 if4±.
15 g5 bxg5 16 bxg5 b517 ~g2
l=l:e818l=l:h1l=l:c8 (18 ... c419 ie3) 19
YlYe1 tLJhfS
White has the better prospects.
He is attacking with superior forces
on the kingside, while the enemy
counterplay on the opposite wing
is rather unimpressive without the
second knight. Black cannot sur-
vive with a passive stand, so he will
sooner or later have to push .. .f6. In
that case he will at least get some
pressure on e4 so White can prepare
to meet it with 20 ~f2;!; (although
20 Wh4 should be good, too) 20 ...
f6 21 gxf6 tLJxf6 22 Wc2, bolstering
the centre and eyeing g6. White's bi-
shop pair has great potential.
See game 1 KouatIy-Al Mo-
diahki, Doha 1993, 2 W. Arenci-
33
Part 1
bia-B. Gonzalez, Cuba 1993 and
game 3 Vaisser-Kindermann,
Biel1991 about this structure.
C4.12 .. J~~b8 13 g4 h6
Only this move is of indepen-
dent significance. 13 ...bS 14 gS ct:Je8
transposes to line C2.
14 h4 tLle8 15 g5 h5
We know from line C2 that an
open h-file gives White a crush-
ing attack. Now the situation has
changed and White must alter his
plan accordingly.
The new target is g6!
So White's aim should be to
push eS, followed up by fS. That be-
comes good when Black cannot im-
mediately blockade the dS-pawn
by... ct:Je8-d6. Thus we should conti-
nue developing, waiting for the op-
ponent to shift his knight from e8:
16 Wl'c2 b5 17 .te3 tLlc7
Or 17...b4 18 ct:Je2 ct:Jc719 eS :1'l:e8
20 i,f2 dxeS 21 fS e4 22 he4 hb2
23 fxg6±.
18 e5 dxe5 19 f5
White achieved his objective and
he is clearly on top.
34
C5. 12 ... c4 13 .te3
With his last move Black dis-
couraged 13 g4, because both his
knights would find perfect stands
after 13 ... ct:JcS 14 gS ct:Jfd7. This ad-
vance has its obvious drawbacks
though. Black abandons its impor-
tant outpost on d4. Furthermore,
the d4-square becomes the fulcrum
of White's play. For instance, i,e3-
d4 would support the breakthrough
e4-eS, while ct:Jc3-e2-d4 could also
become an option.
As a rule in this system, we
always meet ... c4 with i,e3.
13 ... WI'a5
13 ... :1'l:e8 can be answered by
14 ~d2 as in the main line, but
the greedy comp prefers to snatch
a pawn: 14 ~a4!?, when neither
14 ... ct:Jxe41S ct:Jxe4 fS16 ~xc4 fxe417
i,g4, nor 14 ... :1'l:c8 lS ~xa7 bS 16 a3
ct:JcS 17 hcS± should satisfy Black.
Only 14 ... ~c8 saves the pawn, but
then lS :1'l:ac1 a6 16 ~b4 ~c7 17 a4
:1'l:ac8 18 :1'l:fe1 sees White dominat-
ing on both wings. The plan with
g4 is also possible, as you can see
from the commentaries of game
8 Blokh-Morozevich, Moscow
1992.
 S f4 cS 6 dS 0-0 7 ttJf3 e6 S .ie2 exdS 9 cxdS
14~d2
This move looks the most har-
monious to me, although 14 '!!ie2,
hitting c4, is probably sufficient for
obtaining some advantage:
14 .. J'lacS (14 ...bS stumbles into
IS a4 b416 ttJbS) IS Elael (IS g4 offers
Black the initiative after IS ... ttJcS! 16
gS ttJfd717'!!ixc4 ElfeS.)
White's plan is to wait for ttJcS
and push eS. Then he can go further
on with e6 or take on d6 in order to
make a passer on the d-file. Mean-
while he has plenty of useful moves
as ~hl, '!!if2, .id4 or .ig4. Black
should devise a plan of redeploy-
ment of his pieces, since the pawn
advance IS ... bS would only make a
weakness and isolate Black's queen
from the centre. White will answer
16 a3, bolstering the c3-knight.
a) IS ... ttJb6. I would not even
consider this passive move, but
the engines suggest it for a second
best line. White has many attractive
continuations, for instance, 16 ~hl
ttJfd7 17 .ig4 ElcdS IS hd7 Elxd7 19
fSt with serious initiative.
b) IS ... ElfeSI6 ~hl (16'!!if2 elimi-
nates to a roughly equal endgame:
16 ... ttJcSI7 hcS'!!ixcSIS '!!ixcS ElxcS
19 eS dxeS 20 fxeS ttJd7 21 ttJe4 Elc7
22 e6 fxe6 23 ttJd6 EldS 24 dxe6 ttJeS
2S e7 Elxe7 26 .idS+ ~hS 27 ttJf7+
Elxf7 2S i1.xf7 bS with full compen-
sation for the exchange, e.g. 29 Ele2
ttJd3 30 .ieS b4 31 Ele7 .ih6 32 Elff7
~gS 33 .ibS ttJxb2 34 Elxh7 .ifS 3S
Eld7) 16 ... ttJcS 17 eS dxeS IS fxeS
ElxeS 19 '!!ixc4 EleeS.
White has a slight edge here
thanks to his bishop pair and a
strong passed pawn in the centre.
Perhaps he should not force play,
but I was curious about the end-
gamefollowing20b4!?'!!ia621'!!ixa6
lIJxa6 22 lIJbS lIJxb4 23 ttJd6 ttJc2 24
lIJxcS ttJxel 2S Elxel ElxcS 26 ha7t.
It turned out that Black's defence is
not easy: 26 ... ElaS 27 .ie3 Elxa2 2S
d6± ttJd7 29 hb7 Elc2 30 .if4.
c) IS ... ttJcS
The first choice of the engines.
However, I suspect that it is the
worst one. 16 eS! ttJfd7 (16 ... dxeS
17 fxeS lIJfd7 IS e6±) 17 e6 ttJb6 IS
fS! (I make such moves in the FPA
automatically.) IS ... ElceS. (1S ... fxe6
19 fxg6 hxg6 20 dxe6±) My prac-
tice has convinced me that when
White's dark-squared bishop has an
access to the kingside in such posi-
tions, there is always some destruc-
tive tactical blow at hand:
3S
Part 1
19 i.hS!! fxe6 20 fxg6+-.
Now let's return to 14 'l!;Yd2:
14 .. JUe8 1S .id4
36
1S ... :aad8
Black has not an active plan of
his own so he puts his rook in an op-
position to the d2-queen. 1S ... llJcS
16 eS is clearly in White's favour:
16 ... llJfd717 exd6llJd318 ,txg7l!?xg7
19 ie2±.
16 <;t>h1 (16 'l!;Yf2!?) 16 ... c!l)cS 17
eS c!l)fd718 e6 fxe619 .ixg7 <;t>xg7
20 dxe6 c!l)xe6 21 .ixb7t
Black's king is definitely under-
protected.
 Part 1 1 d4 c!iJf6 2 c4 g6 3 c!iJc3 J.g7 4 e4
d6 5 f4 cS 6 dS 0-0 7 c!iJf3 e6 8
J.e2 exdS 9 cxdS

COMPLETE GAMES

1. Kouatly - AI Modiahki with 18 ~c2 c4 19 .te3 !'!c8 20 .tg4

Doha 1993 !'!c7 (or 20 .. c!iJhf8 21 e5) 21 e5! dxe5
1 d4 c!iJf6 2 c4 g6 3 c!iJc3 J.g7 4 22f5
e4 d6 5 f4 c5 6 d5 0-0 7 c!iJf3 e6
8 J.e2 exd5 9 cxd5 J.g4 10 0-0
c!iJbd711 ge1 ge812 h3 i.xf313
i.xf3 a6 14 g4 h6 15 h4 b5 16 g5
hxg5 17 hxg5 c!iJh7

This possibility is yet another

18 <!>g2
Kouatly chooses the plan with
!'!hl. It is very efficient when White
had not lost a tempo on !'!el. In
the current situation I would think
about the other thematic plan -
with the pawn sac e4-e5 and attack
on g6. This idea works when White
is fully mobilised, so he can start
argument against playing !'!el - the
rook has nothing to do on el, but it
can return to fl: 22 ... c!iJxg5 23 fxg6
c!iJc5 24 ~d2 c!iJge4 25 c!iJxe4ltJxe4 26
~g2ltJd6 27 gxf7+!'!xf7 28 .te6 !'!xe6
29 dxe6 !'!f6 30 !'!fl±.
18 ... c!iJb6
This setup does not offer serious
counterplay. I think that only 18 ...
c4 19 .te3 !'!c8 leaves some chances.
Then White should persist with his
plan by 20 !'!hl ltJc5 (or 20 ...b4 21
ltJe2 ltJc5 22 ltJd4 ltJxe4 23 ltJe6t)

37
Part 1
21 a3 ttJd3 22 Wd2, because 20 Wd2
ttJcS 21 ixcS?! ElxcS is hardly good.
Black will open the kingside with
.. .f6 at an opportunity.
19 gh1 ga7 20 ttJe2llJc4
Perhaps Black discovered that
20 ... Elae7 21 Wc2 ttJc4 22 Elbl would
leave him without any threats.
21 gb1 Wi'aS 22 a3 b4?!
It is understandable that Black is
trying to organise some counterplay,
but his knight on h7 is too far from
the queens ide and White easi-
ly overtakes the initiative on that
wing. Black obviously did not ex-
pect the abrupt turn of events and
got into a lost endgame:
23 Wi'd3! Wi'bS 24 gd1! llJaS 2S
Wi'xbS axbS 26 axb4 cxb4 27 .te3
gaa8 28 b3 gac8 29 .tb6 llJb7 30
gbc1
The game is practically over.
29 ... llJf8 31 .tg4 gxc1 32 gxc1
gxe4 33 gc7llJcS 34 .txcS dxcS 3S
<;t>f3 ge8 36 gxcS gb8 37 @e4 fS+
38 gxf6.txf6 39 llJd4 ge8+ 40 llJe6
.tc341 gxbS llJxe6 42 .txe6+ @f8
43 @f3 @e7 44 gb7+ <;t>d6 4S <;t>e4
.td2 46 gd7+ <;t>cS 47 gc7+ <;t>d6 48
gc2 .tc3 49 gg2 1-0
2. W. Arencibia - B. Gonzalez
Cuba 1993
1 d4 llJf6 2 c4 cS 3 dS e6 4
llJc3 exdS S cxdS d6 6 e4 g6 7 f4
.tg7 8 llJf3 0-0 9 .te2 .tg4 10 0-0
llJbd7 11 h3 .txf3 12 .txf3 ge8 13
g4 h6 14 h4?! llJh7?! 1S gS hxgS
16 hxgS
White achieved the same pawn
structure as in the previous game,
38
but having saved Elel. That puts his
opponent into a difficult situation.
He correctly assumes that staying
passively on the kingside will be
too risky and attempts to loosen the
grip by:
16 ... f6
Notice that sooner or later Black
should play this move anyway, for
instance: 16 ... a6 17 ~g2 bS 18 Elhl
c419 WeI ttJhf8 20 Wh4 f6, but it is
too late due to 21 fS fxgS 22 ixgS
.tf6 23 fxg6.
17 gxf6± Wi'xf6
17... ttJhxf6 is well met by 18 We2
intending Wg2.
18 .te3 ge7 19 @g2 bS
19 ... Elae8 would not stop 20 eS
dxeS 21 d6 Ele6 22 i.dS+-. Now
White wins a piece.
20 eSllJxeS 21llJe4 Wi'h4 22 gh1
llJc4 23 .tc1 1-0
3. Vaisser - Kindermann
Biel1991
1 d4 llJf6 2 c4 g6 3 llJc3 ig7 4
e4 d6 S f4 0-0 6 llJf3 cS 7 dS e6
8 .te2 exdS 9 cxdS .tg4 10 0-0
llJbd711 ge1 ge8 12 h3 .txf3 13
ixf3 Wi'aS14.te3 gac81S g4 h616
 5 f4 c5 6 d5 0-0 7 ct:Jf3 e6 8 ie2 exd5 9 cxd5
h4 b5 17 g5 hxg5 18 hxg5 ttJh7
In comparison to the previous
examples, here Black adopted a
more aggressive setup. He brought
his queen onto the queenside and
he is about to overrun the opponent
by ... b4, ... c5-c4-c3. However, it is
White's turn and Vaisser employs
the proven and very efficient break-
through in the centre:
19 .ig4 ~cd8 20 e5! dxe5 21 f5
e4! 22 fxg6 fxg6 23 .ie6+ ~xe6?
Black panics and commits a de-
cisive mistake. Commonly these po-
sitions with a white bishop on e6
are lost indeed, but here the oppo-
sition of the d8-rook with the white
queen perhaps can help Black save
the day. The critical moment comes
after 23 ... \tJh8 24 iWg4ct:Jdf8:
I did not find a win for White:
a) 25 ixc5 ct:Jxe6 26 dxe6 b4 27
ct:Jxe41"ld5 281"lac1 hb2 291"lc4 b3 30
iWe2 iWxa2 31ct:Jd61"lxg5+! (31...1"lxc5
321"lxc5 id4+ 33 \tJh1 iWxe2 341"lxe2
hc5 35 ct:Jxe8 ct:Jxg5 36 ct:Jc7 +-) 32
\tJfl 1"lf8+ 33 ct:Jf7+ 1"lxf7+ 34 exf7
1"lf5+ 35 \tJg1 ie5=;
b) 25 ct:Jxe4 ct:Jxe6 26 dxe6 hb2
27 1"lad1 1"lxd1 28 1"lxd1 iWxa2 29 e7
1"lxe7 30 hc5 1"le8 31 ct:Jd6 1"lf8 32
ct:Jxb51"lb8 33 iWe2 \tJg8 341"ld2 iWa1+
351"ld1=.
These variations illustrate once
again that White's rook is misplaced
on el.
24 dxe6 ttJe5 25 e7 ~e8 26 'lWd5+
tJih8 27 tJig2 ~xe7 28 ~h1 ~f7 29
~af1 ~xf1 30 ~xf1 1-0
4. Nogueiras - Velimirovic
Reggio Emilia, 1986
1 d4 c5 2 d5 g6 3 e4 .ig7 4 c4
d6 5 ttJc3 ttJf6 6 f4 0-0 7 lLlf3 e6
8 .ie2 exd5 9 cxd5 .ig4 10 0-0
lLlbd7 11 h3.ixf3 12 .ixf3 a6 13
g4 lLle8 14 g5 lLlc7
In the "Step by Step" chapter I
recommend 15 a4, while I also con-
sider 15 h4. Nogueiras, however,
39
Part 1
chose the thematic pawn sacrifice:
1S .ig4?! llJbS 16 eS llJxc3 17
bxc3 dxeS 18 fS
In such tactical, highly unbal-
anced positions, Velimirovich is in
his element. He is sure to prevent
the blockade on e4, even at the cost
of a piece:
18 ... e4! 19 f6llJxf6 20 gxf6 .ixf6
21 .ih6
21 ... ~d6!?
I remember that this move has
made a strong impression on all
the commentators. It reminds me a
good bluff in poker - everybody took
Velimirovic's word and rejected 22
.bf8 Elxf8 23 1Wd21Lg7 24 ~g2 fS 2S
1Le2 bSoo. This position is extremely
tangled indeed, but it may be slight-
ly favourable for White. The simple
21...1Lg7! 22 .bg7 ~xg7 23 d6!? fS
24 1WdS 1Wh4+ would have under-
lined the weakness of White's king.
After the text, the tension quick-
ly recedes to simplification and a
drawish endgame:
22 Elxf6 ~xf6 23 ~d2 l'!ad8 24
l'!d1 l'!fe8 2S d6 e3 26 .ixe3 l'!xd6
27 ~xd6 ~xd6 28 l'!xd6 l'!xe3 29
l'!b6 l'!xc3 30 l'!xb7 l'!c1+ 31 'it>f2
l'!c2+ 32 Ii:?g3 l'!xa2 33 l'!c7 %-%
40
This game is a milestone in the
theory of the 9 ...1Lg4 variation. It
shows what a powerful weapon
could be a black knight on d4. More
importantly, we see that even with
an extra rook White could not claim
an advantage. The moral is that
White should aim at the first place
to restrict the enemy counterplay
and not to win material. In this
variation activity is very often
more valuable than material.
S. Semkov - The Cookie Lover
3 min. Playchess.com 21.12.2008
1 d4 llJf6 2 c4 g6 3 llJc3 .ig7 4
e4 d6 S f4 0-0 6 llJf3 cS 7 dS e6 8
.ie2 exdS 9 cxdS .ig41 00-0 llJbd7
11 h3 .ixf3 12 .ixf3 l'!e8 13 g4 h6
14 Wfc2 a6 1S .ie3 bS 16l'!ae1 b4
This move order, and especially
Black's next attack, is not best. It al-
lows White to skip h4 and switch to
the plan with e4-eS. That becomes
possible because the black queen
released its control on gS.
17 llJd1 ~aS 18 b3 l'!ac8
19 h4
Black's 17th move enabled the
breakthrough 19 eS dxeS 20 gS hxgS
 5 f4 c5 6 d5 0-0 7 lLlf3 e6 8 i.e2 exd5 9 cxd5
(20 ... lLlh7 21 f5~) 21 fxg5 lLlh7 22
lLlf2 lLlb6 23 d6± lLlf8 24 lLle4. How-
ever the text is also good and it leads
to a critical position which White
could not avoid had Black started
with 16 .. J:k8
19 ... lLlb6
19 ... c4!? 20 bxc4 Vfic7 opens
files so it deserves attention. Still,
White's attack is very strong and
easy to conduct, for instance: 21 g5
hxg5 22 hxg5 lLlh5 23 Vfih2 Vfixc4 24
lLlf2 i.c3 25 i.e2!± Vfic7 26 l"i:el Wg7
27 f5 l"i:h8 28 lLlg4 lLle5 29 lLlh6. The
text is however more consistent.
20 g5 hxg5 21 hxg5 lLlfd7 22 e5
dxe5 23 f5 e4
The following combination took
me only 7 seconds (it was a 3" blitz
game!) - Black's king is so exposed
that I did not need long calcula-
tions.
24 fxg6! exf3 25 gxf7+ <i>xf7 26
§'h7!! lLle5
It turns out that things are not
that simple and I have to part with
more material, but the rest is still
enough for winning!
27 ~f4! f2+! 28 ~xf2 lLlf3+ 29
~xf3 ~xe1+ 30 Ii?f2+-
I like very much this position.
It shows well the essence of
White's play in this variation. We
should aim to destroy the pawn
shield of the enemy king, then tac-
tics will work to our benefit.
30 ... ~xa2+ 31 Ii?xe1 ~e8+ 32
~e3+ <i>e7 33 ~xg7+ <i>d8 34 g6
~d7 35 ~f7 ~xb3 36 g7 lLle5 37
~xe8+ <i>xe8 38 g8~+ <i>d7 39 ~e6+
<i>c7 40 ~xe5+ <i>b6 41 ~d6+ <i>b5
42 ~d7+ Ii?c4 43 ~g4+ <i>b5 44 ~d2
~c4 45 ~xc4+ <i>xc4 46 d6 1-0
6. Roepert - Marin
Budapest, 1988
1 d4 ~f6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 d6 4 ~c3
g6 5 e4 i.g7 6 f4 0-0 7 lLlf3 e6 8
~e2 exd5 9 cxd5 ~g4 10 0-0 ~ bd7
11 h3 ~xf312 ~xf3 ~e8 13 ~c2?!
White had to insert 13 g4 h6
since now Black can save ...h6 thus
avoiding weaknesses.
13 ... c414 g4 ~c5 15 g5 ~fd7
Black has reached the maximum
in this variation. He accommodat-
ed both his knights on perfect posi-
tions in the centre and gained space
on the queenside. On the next move
he will even push ... b5 without hav-
ing to prepare it with ... a6. It is all
41
Part 1
the more curious to see that even in
these ideal circumstances Black's
game is not that easy. Thanks to
his space advantage, White retains
powerful threats.
16 lLld1 b5 17 lLlf2 h6?!
Marin had an excellent feeling
of the KID, as I had the chance to
experience myself, (on the receiv-
ing end) but this move is dubious to
me since it unnecessarily opens the
h-file and weakens g6. White would
push h5 anyway, so why give him
tempi?! Interestingly, Rybka also
likes it.
18 h4 hxg5 19 hxg5 gc8 20
i,e3
20 ... f6?!
Perhaps something like 20 ... ltJd3
21ltJxd3 cxd3 22 ~xd3 ltJc5 would
have been more reasonable. I sup-
pose, Marin overestimated his po-
sition. He obviously thought that
it was time to get down to business
and launch a crushing counterat-
tack. His 17th move and now 20 ...
f6 confirm that. At the same time,
White still has superior forces on
the kingside! He should remem-
ber, that retreating to defence in
this position is fateful. Instead, 21
42
e5! would have faced Black with a
hard choice. For instance, 21...fxe5
22 ~xg6 exf4 23 lLlg4 ltJe5 24 ltJxe5
dxe5 25 hc5 ~xc5 26 b4 cxb3 27
axb3 ~d7 28 ~xa7 ~xa7 29 ~xe8+
.tf8 30 Wg2± would be rather un-
pleasant to him. Perhaps 20 .. .f5
would be the lesser evil, but very
few players would go for it after an
attempt to open up play on the pre-
vious move.
21 lLlh3?
This is awful. Never play like
this! It is better to sacrifice this
knight rather than putting it aside,
even temporary. Now Black's ap-
proach triumphs.
21 ... lLld3 22 gxf6 lLlxf6 23 lLlg5
lLlxd5 24 exd5 gxe3 25 \!;Vh2 \!;Vf6
26 i,g4 \!;Vd4 27 gf2 gee8 28 i,e6+
g3xe6 0-1
7. Semkov - Z. llie
Saint John, 1988
1 d4 lLlf6 2 e4 e5 3 d5 g6 4
lLle3 i,g7 5 e4 d6 6 f4 0-0 7 lLlf3
e6 8 i,e2 exd5 9 exd5 i,g4 10 0-0
lLlbd7 11 h3 i,xf3 12 i,xf3 a6 13 g4
lLle8 14 g5 b5
15 lLle2
 5 f4 c5 6 d5 0-0 7 CDf3 e6 8 ~e2 exd5 9 cxd5
I still like this idea. My course
of thinking was roughly the follow-
ing: Black wants to play ... c4. Of
course I will meet it with ~e3, but
then he will have .. J'k8 or 'Wic7 (15
h4 c4 16 ~e3 Wic717 h5 CDc5 18 'Wic2
CDd3 19 hxg6 hxg6 20 ~e2 'Wid7 21 f5
is worth attention though). In that
case he will benefit from the delay
of ... CDc7. I hate to let a black knight
to d3, so the only way to discour-
age ... c4 must be CDe2. Then 15 ... c4
16 CDd4 CDc5 17 ~e3 CDd3 18 'Wid2;!:;
will be a pleasant trade off since the
d4-square in combination with the
pawn centre should ensure an edge.
If Black renounces the plan with
... c4, White will proceed with his
kingside attack by pushing the h-
pawn. The e2 knight will turn handy
on that wing. Perhaps Ilic had the
same feeling as he decided to attack
my centre by 15 .. .f5?!
I can add now that 15 ... CDc7 was
probably the best try. White re-
sponds with 16 'Wic2, defending b2
and preparing to develop the bishop
on e3 or d2. The computer suggests
16 ...b4 17 h4 CDb5 18 h5 CDa3 19 Wid1
ge8, but 20 hxg6 hxg6 21 f5! gxf5
22 CDg3! (22 exf5 hb2 23 hb2
'Wixg5+ 24 ~f2 'Wie3+ 25 ~g3 'Wig5+
26 ~f2 is only a perpetual) 22 ..fxe4
(22 .. .f4 23 ~h5 CDc4 24 'Wie2±) 23
he4 CDf8 24 'Wig4 'Wie7 25 ~f4 hb2
26 gael± should be convincing.
15 ... f5?! 16 exf5 gxf5
Black allows my bishop to e6.
My practice shows that Black rarely
survives that. He should have cap-
tured by pawn: 16 ... gxf5 I like then
17 gb1!? (17 'Wic2 CDb6 or 17 h4 CDc7
18 h5 CD b6 19 h6 ~h8 are not too
clear) 17... CDb6 18 b3. This is not
to trade the dark-squared bishops
from b2, but to restricts the black
knight. White needs that bishop to
cover the invasion squares on the
e-file: 18 ... CDc7 19 ~e3 Wie7 20 'Wid2
'Wif7 21 gbd1 gae8 22 CDg3 CDbxd5 23
~f2 with an initiative.
17 i.g4 gf8 18 ~h1?!
18 ~e6+ ~h8 19 h4--+ CDc7 20 h5
was very strong.
18 ... CDC7 19 .id2!?
If Black accepts the gift on b2,
my bishop pair will terrorise the ene-
my knights from the both edges of
the board. The variation 19 ... hb2
20~a5gb8 21~e6+ ~h8 22 gb1~g7
23 f5 gxf5 24 CDf4--+ looks dreadful,
so Ilic declined the sac:
43
Part 1
19 ... b4! 20 ~b3 i>hS 21 ~ad1
as
A critical moment. Black should
have tried 21...ttJb6 22 ~c1 \We8 23
h4 as although White's initiative
would still be tangible. Now the h-
file turns to be the decisive factor in
the game.
22 ic1 :!'!a7 23 h4 ttJb6 24 h5
gxh5 25 ixh5 ~d7 26 i>g2 a4 27
~f3 ttJc4 2S :!'!h1 i>gS 29 ig4 ~e7
30 ~d3+- ixb2 31 ~xc4 ihS 32
ttJg3 :!'!eS 33 liJf5 ~e4+ 34 ~xe4
~xe4 35liJxd6 :!'!d4 36 liJcS :!'!b7 37
d6 1-0
S. Blokh - Morozevich
Moscow, 1992
1 d4 liJf6 2 c4 g6 3 liJc3 ig7 4
e4 d6 5 f4 0-0 6 liJf3 c5 7 d5 e6
S ie2 exd5 9 cxd5 ig4 10 0-0
liJbd7 11 h3 ixf3 12 ixf3 c4 13
ie3 :!'!eS 14 g4
I also consider 14 \Wa4 in the
"Step by Step" chapter.
14 ... h6 15 h4
More solid is 15 \Wc2 b5 16 :!'!ae1
transposing to "Step by Step" line
Cl. The text is double-edged as it al-
lows 15 ...h516 g5 ttJg417 hg4 hxg4.
44
This position is a better version for
White of the famous game Kouat-
ly-Kindermann, but the same stra-
tegic ideas still work: 18 \Wxg4 hc3
19 bxc3 :!'!xe4 20 ~d4 \We7 21 \Wh3
(or 21 h5 ttJe5 22 \Wg2 :!'!xd4 23 fxe5
:!'!d3 24 hxg6 \Wxe5=) 21...:!'!e8 22 h5
ttJe5 23 hxg6 ttJxg6oo. Such course of
events does not comply with my ap-
proach to the variation. Instead, I
would rather sacrifice material:
18 e5!? dxe5 19 f5 gxf5 20 :!'!xf5
e4 21 \Wxg4 ttJe5 22 :!'!xe5!! :!'!xe5
(22 ... he5 23 ttJxe4~) 23 h5
You should be getting used to
such positions if you have read the
previous pages. The dynamic fac-
tors favour White. Main threat now
is 24 h6. Black cannot buy off him-
self with 23 ... :!'!xd5 24 ttJxd5 \Wxd5
since 25 :!'!d1 \Wc6 26 g6± continues
the attack. 23 ... \Wc8 removes the hit
from d5 and also favours White: 24
\Wg2 :!'!e7 25 :!'!fl--+. Perhaps best is
23 ... :!'!e7 24 h6! (24 ttJxe4? stumbles
into 24 ... \Wd7! (24 .. hb2 25 :!,!b1~)
25 \Wg2 \wf5 26 ttJf6+ ~h8 27 ~d4
\Wd3+) 24 ... ~e5 25 ttJxe4. I would al-
ways take White in such positions.
Morozhevich chose the much
more passive:
 5 f4 c5 6 d5 0-0 7 tLlf3 e6 8 ie2 exd5 9 cxd5
1S ... tLlh7 16 gS hxgS 17 hxgS
~aS
18.id4?
I cannot understand how a FPA
player can even think about trading
queens at this moment! He should
have followed up with 18 cj;>g2! tLlc5
when 19 id4 hd4 20 vtIxd4 would
already be good. Black still would be
able to swap queens by 20 ... tLld3 21
ie2 vtIc5, but White would have all
the files and diagonals already open
to his favour: 22 vtIxc5 tLlxc5 23 hc4
tLlxe4 24 ib5 'ge7 25 'gael tLlxc3 26
2:xe7 tLlxb5 27 'gxb7 tLld4 28 'gcl±.
18 ....ixd4+ 19 ~xd4 ~eS 20
E:ad1 a6 21 .ig4 tLlhf8 22 'gfe1 bS
23 @g2 ~xd4 24 'gxd4 tLleS
The Modern Benoni endgame
is commonly easier for Black since
he has a clear plan to expand on
the queenside while White's break-
through e5 is seldom efficient. On
his next move Morozhevich al-
lows White to trade his bishop for
a knight, which was hardly a good
idea. (25 .. J'l:b8!? instead)
2S @f3 tLlfd7 26 .ixd7 lDxd7 27
eS?!
Now Black definitely takes the
upper hand and confidently con-
verts his initiative into a full point.
27 ... dxeS 28 'gde4@g7! 29 fxeS
lDeS 30 'g4e3 'gh8 31 lDe4 lDd3 32
'gxd3 'gh3+ 33 lDg3 exd3 34 'gd1
'ge8 3S 'gxd3 'gxeS 36 d6 'gxgS 0-1
9. Banikas - Pigusov
Komotini,1993
1 d4 lDf6 2 e4 eS 3 dS e6 4 lDe3
exdS 5 exd5 d6 6 e4 g6 7 f4 .ig7 8
lDf3 0-0 9 .ie2 .ig4 10 0-0 lDbd7
11 h3 .ixf3 12 .ixf3 a6 13 a4 'ge8
14 g4 lDf8 15 g5 lD6d7 16 .ie3 'ge8
17 @g2 ~a5 18 We2 e4 19 .ig4
'ged8
I do not like a4 in general as it
spends a tempo and weakens the
b3 and b4-squares. Still, White is
45
Part 1

harmoniously developed and now 22 axbS ~xbS 23 1:!a4;!;.

he must choose an active plan. The 22 Wxe4 gbS 23 ge1 tDe5 24
thematic 20 eSlooks strong enough. e5!
Then 20 ... 1t1cS would be an obvious
mistake due to 21 ,bcS ~xcS 221t1e4
~xdS 23 1:!adl± so Black must ac-
cept the sacrifice: 20 ... dxeS 21 fSt.
I would not like to be in his shoes
though. Instead, White opts for the
awful move:
20 tDd1?
A really awful move! I'm sure
White calculated some very deep
variations to even start pondering
it, but he apparently missed some-
thing. The whole idea to eat a pawn 24 ... tDxa4 25 exd6 tDb6 26
instead of staking on activity is fun- Wxb4 Wa2 27 WaS tDa4 2S d7 gedS
damentally wrong in the FPA. Here 29 geS f5 30 gxdS gxdS 31 WxdS
it does not even work. It is a mis- Wxd5+ 32 .if3 Wxd2+ 33 gf2 Wxd7
tery to me why Black did not an- 34 .id5+ ~hS 35 Wxd7 tDxd7 36
swer 20 ... 1t1cS! 211t1f2 (21 if3 ltlb3) .ie6 tDdb6 37 ge2 .ifS 3S J.xa4
21...~b4 22 as tDfd7 with excellent tDxa4 39 geS ~gS 40 gaS tDe5 41
counterplay. ~f3 ~f7 42 tDf2 .te7 43 ga7 ~fS
20 ... b5? 21 .td2! b4 44 h4 ~f7 45 b4 tDe6 46 tDd3 tDd4+
It seems that Black missed 21 47 ~e3 tDe2+ 4S ~d2 tDd4 49 gxa6
id2 and panicked. Perhaps 21...~b6 ~eS 50 ~e3 tDb5+ 51 ~e4 tDe7 52
would have been more stubborn: ga7 1-0

46
 Part 2
d6 5 f4 cS 6 dS 0-0 7 tiJf3 e6 8
ie2 exdS 9 cxdS ~e8
QUICK REPERTOIRE
This variation is the critical test of
the FPA. Anyone who advocates the
system for White must propose a de-
cent alternative to the known draw-
ing variations after 10 eS dxeS 11
fxeS lLlg4 12 igS IWb6! 13 0-0 lLlxeS.
Unfortunately, I have not seen so far
anything sensible neither in prac-
tice, nor in print. The ideas with
long castling are worthless, while
Jobava's 12 e6! fxe6 13 igS!? may
be interesting, but I fail to grasp
completely White's intention. You
can find a survey of White's prob-
lems in the well known lines in the
"Step by Step" chapter.
This whole part is based solely on
my original analysis, so do not won-
der about the absence of references
to other games.
The reason to write this book
is that I want to propose a new ap-
proach to this variation.
It has at least several advan-
tages:
1. It is unexplored;
2. It has a very sound positional
foundation so White is not exces-
1 d4 tiJf6 2 c4 g6 3 tiJc3ilg7 4 e4
sively dependent on long forcing
variations. In all cases he can count
on certain compensation for the
sacrificed pawn.
3. I have extensively checked
my analysis with last versions of
popular engines so Black's attempt
to find the best defence by simply
switching on the computer should
not bring an easy success. The se-
cond players will have to navigate in
a maze of false trails because the aris-
ing positions are strategically very
unbalanced and the engines com-
monly fail to evaluate them correct-
ly, at least at some reasonable depth
of 16-20 half-moves. I should add
that most of the variations are not
forceful and both sides have plenty
of other possibilities. I chose as main
lines either the most logical continu-
ations, or the preferred choice of the
engines which served me as an op-
ponent during my analysis.
4. I have tested my ideas in blitz
and I must say that commonly Black
totally fails to cope with his defen-
sive task.
47
Part 2

So we go on with: d6-pawn and allows White to win

10 eS dxeS 11 fxeS tDg4 12 material.
e6! fxe6 13 d6! The c8-bishop cannot be easily
brought into play. If it goes to c6,
then e6 becomes vulnerable.

Key lines:
1. 13 .. :~b6 14 etJg5! etJh6 15 0-0
etJc6 (or 15 ... etJf5 16 Elxf5!!) 16 etJge4
etJf5 17 ig5 etJcd4 18 ~a4

I'll try to explain the most im-

portant features of this structure
firstly in words, then in concrete
examples.
Black's kings ide is weakened. If
we trade dark-squared bishops, the
f6 and h6 squares would be very Black covered solidly his kingside
sensitive. In some lines we can even but suddenly the d6-pawn is about
sacrifice the exchange in order to to leap forward. It can be sacrificed
kill the g7-bishop. to eliminate the g7-bishop:
My practical advice: if you 18 ... etJc6 19 etJf6+! ixf6 20 ixf6
are unsure what to play, look for etJxd6 21 ~h4l"1f8 22 ih5!!±
ideas which would help you trade The threat of taking on g6 is im-
the bishops. possible to deflect.
This strategy could be extended
to the king's knights, too. The rea- 2. 13 ... ~b6 14 etJg5! etJe5 15 0-0
son for that is simple - the d6 pawn etJbd716 a4!
significantly cramps Black and im-
pedes the relocation of his queenside
pieces to the other wing.
White's space advantage ensures
greater mobility to his pieces so he
can easily change the direction of
his attack. For instance, etJc3-b5-c7
is a major threat. Sometimes White
also hits c5, or transfers the queen
to h4 via a4.
In many cases exchange of This pawn move threatens with
queens enhances the power of the etJb5, but more importantly, it en-

48
 S f4 cS 6 dS 0-0 7 ltJf3 e6 8 ~e2 exdS 9 cxdS ~e8
abIes the rook lift ~al-a3-h3. So
Black answers 16 ... c4+ 17 @hl ~c6
(planning ... b6) 18 ~d4 (hoping to
reach h4) 18 ... h6 19 ttJge4 b6
20 ttJf6+! ttJxf6 21 ~xeS ttJh5 22
~bS±. Note that White does not ob-
ject to enter an endgame due to his
very active pieces.
3. 13 ... ttJeS 14 0-0 ttJbc6 IS
CLlxeS
Simple and consistent. We aim
to trade dark-squared bishops.
IS ... heS 16 ~f4 hf4 17 ~xf4 eS
18 ~f2 ttJd4 19 ~a4
The d6-pawn makes the diffe-
rence in this position:
19 ...~fS 20 ~bS ttJxbS 21 ttJxbS or
19 ... ~e6 20 ~c4 @h8 21 he6 l"1xe6
22 ttJe4 leave White with the initi-
ative.
4. 13 ... ttJc6 14 a-a! ttJd4 15 ttJe4
White will be fighting for the f6-
square with ~gS. Now IS ...b6? lo-
ses immediately to 16 ~g5 ~d7 17
ttJxd4 hd4+ 18 ~xd4!+-, 15 ... ttJf6?
is bad owing to 16 ~gS±. More re-
silient are:
a) 15 ... l"1f8 16 ~gS ~b6 17 ttJfd2!
with good control over the critical
dark squares;
b) 15...h616 ttJxd4! hd4+ 17@hl
The subsequent tactical inter-
change is in White's favour:
17... ttJxh218 l"1f4!± gS19 l"1f2 hf2
20 ttJxf2 l"1f8 21 ~d3!
5. 13 ... ~d714 0-0 ~b615 ~el
Whenever Black decides to win
the d6-pawn by ... ~b6, we should
aim to transfer our queen to h4. We
have seen in key line 1 the manoeu-
vre ~a4. Here we shall consider
49
Part 2
another route for the queen.
IS ... CDc6 16 'lWh4 CDceS 17 CDxeS
CDxeS 18 CDe4
We see White's strategy in its
purest form - the aim is to conquer
the dark squares. Black is unable to
prevent that: 18 ... 'lWb4 19 .tgS'lWxb2
20 .tf6 l"If8 21 l"Iael! or 18 ... l"If8 19
.th6 'lWxb2 20 hg7 ~xg7 21 'lWe7+
~g8 22 CDgS with initiative.
6. 13 ....td714 0-0 .tc6 IS CDgS!
This move is good only here and
in the case of key line 1. White must
play concretely or he risks to lose
the initiative.
IS ... CDeS 16 .te3 b6
Recommendation of the ECO,
vol. A, 4th edition. Black keeps his
knight on b8 in order to meet 17
CDbS by 17... CDa6.
17'IWd2
ECO only mentions 17 CDge4?!.
SO
17 CDbS!? also deserves considera-
tion.
17... CDbd7
Black protected everything, but
his position is passive. We should
seek targets on the queenside
18 CDbS h6 19 CDh3 CDg4 20 .tf4
gS
Or 20 ... hbS 21 hbSt.
21 CDxgS! hxgS 22 hgS CDgf6 23
'lWf4.
White maintains pressure on the
kingside.
Let me summarize now:
Black has a vast choice in the po-
sition after White's 13 d6. It is not
easy to say which is his best option.
In any case White preserves suffi-
cient positional compensation for
the pawn even in an endgame. He
can complete development and find
a target depending on the enemy's
play. It would be nice to put the
queen on h4 via el or a4, but CDbS
and a piece attack on the queenside
are not that impossible, too.
It is important to remember that
our advantage consists in the great-
er mobility of our pieces. We do not
need immediate tactical achieve-
ments since our pawn on d6 is awk-
ward enough to the opponent. Note
the two cases when we must make
an exception to this rule and play
CDgS! early - in key lines 1 and 6.
I perfectly realise how complex
this variation is. It needs many
more days of analysis and fresh con-
tribution from other players. But I
am sure that Black will have a hard
time when facing this variation un-
prepared.
 Part 2
d6 5 f4 cS 6 dS 0-0 7 liJf3 e6 8
ie2 exdS 9 cxdS 1'!e8
STEP BY STEP
10eS
White has no real alternatives to
this breakthrough. I think it is the
only way to fight for an advantage.
I must confess that I sinned more
than once in blitz with the incorrect
sac 10 O-O? tLlxe4 11 tLlxe4 E1xe4 12
1d3 E1e8 13 f5, but it counts only on
the cheapo 13 ... tLld7 (13 ...ixf5+) 14
tLlg5 tLle5 15 tLlxf7 tLlxf7 16 fxg6 tLle5
17 ~h5 hxg6 18ixg6 tLlxg6 19 ~xg6
1''lf8?? 20 1h6+-. Instead, 19 ... E1e7
20 1d2 ~e8+ or 19 ... E1e5+ repel the
attack.
10 tLld2 is much more solid, but
nowadays it is considered innoc-
uous. Perhaps simplest is to deve-
lop the knight to a6 - 1Q ... tLla6 11
0-0 tLlc7 12 a4 b6 13 E1e11a6 14 E1a3
ixe2 15 E1xe2=, Spassky-Marin,
France, 1991.
10... dxeS
I was surprised to discover that
the seemingly stupid 1Q ... tLlfd7 is
not that bad at all.
The only certain thing now is
that 11 e6? fxe612 dxe6 tLlf6+ leaves
White over-extended.
1 d4 liJf6 2 c4 g6 3 liJc3 .ig7 4 e4
The allegedly best 11 exd6?!
achieves the same result after 11 ...
a612 a4 (120-0 b5+) 12 ... tLlf613 0-0
~xd6! (A Chess Base source men-
tions only 13 ...1g414 ~b3 b6 15 h3
ixf316ixf3 ~xd6171d2±) 14 tLle5
~d8! 15 1f3 tLlbd7 16 E1e1 tLlxe5 17
fxe5 tLld718 e6 tLle5. Now White has
to take on f7 and think about main-
taining the balance, e.g. 19 exf7+
tLlxf7 20 E1xe8+ ~xe8 211f41d4+
22 cJrh1 tLle5 23 d6 tLlxf3 24 ~xf3
1d7 25 ~xb7 E1b8 26 ~d5+ ~f7 27
~xf7+ cJrxf7 28 E1e1=. My attempts
to improve on this variation proved
in vain.
Eventually I understood that
Black's tender point in the diagram
51
Part 2
position is t7 and we should attack
it by:
11 O-O! dxeS 12 ttJe4!
12 fxeS ttJxeS 13 if4+ would
transpose to a popular position
where White has not sufficient com-
pensation in my opinion.
The first thing I considered here
was:
a) 12 ... exf4 13 ttJd6 Ele7 14 ixf4
ttJb6 (14 ... ixb2 IS igS±) IS ttJgS.
White has full compensation and
making a couple of natural moves
suffices to convince the engines:
lS ... if616 ttJge4 id4+ 17 ~h1 fS
18 ttJc3 ttJa6 19 ttJdbSt. Black's king
is rather vulnerable.
lS ... id4+ 16 ~h1 f6 17 ttJxc8
'.Wxc8 18 ttJf3 Ele4 (Alternatively,
18 ...ie3 19 d6 Ele6 20 ixe3 Elxe3
21 ~d2 Ele6 22 ttJgS Elxe2 23 ~xe2
fxgS 24 '.We7 ttJc6 2S ~t7+ ~h8 26
Elae1 ttJd7 27 ~e6 ttJd4 28 ~dS ttJfS
29 ElxfS gxfS 30 '.WxfS±; 18 ... ixb219
Elb1 ic3 20 d6 Ele8 21 Elxb6 axb6 22
ibS± and the threat of 23 ~b3+ re-
gains some material.) 19 ih6 (It is
also tempting to eat the important
dark-squared bishop by 19 ttJxd4
Elxd4 20 ~b3 ~g7 21 Elad1 ttJ8d7 22
ie3 Elxd1 23 Elxd1~) 19 ... ttJ8d7 20
id3 EleS 21 ttJxd4 cxd4 22 Elc1 ~d8
S2
23 if4 ElxdS 24 ie4t.
Then I checked up the purely
computer move:
b) 12 ... Elf8. The trick is that 13
fxeS ttJxeS 14 igS ~b6 IS ie7 would
face lS ... ttJbd7! with unclear play.
Other continuations give White
some initiative:
lS ... ttJxf3+ 16 Elxf3 ~xb2 17
ttJf6+±; lS ... ~xb2!? 16 ttJf6+ (16
ttJfgS!?) 16 ... ixf6 17 ixf6 ttJbd7 18
Elb1 (18 ttJxeS ttJxeS19 Elb1 ~d4+ 20
~xd4 cxd4 21 ixeS Ele8 22 ixd4
Elxe2 23 Elfe1 Elxe1 + 24 Elxe1 id7
2S Ele7 Eld8 26 ~f2t. This end-
game should be a draw, of course.)
18 ... ~a3 19 Elb3 ttJxf3+ 20 Elbxf3
~xa2 21 ie7 ttJeS 22 Ele3 ttJc4 23
ixc4 ~xc4 24 ixf8 ~xf8 2S Elef3 fS
26 Ele1oo. Anyway, my impression
was that Black's defence was too of-
ten based on checks along the gl-a7
diagonal, so I focused on:
13 ~h1!? exf4 14 ixf4 ttJf6
(14 ... ixb2 IS igS~) IS ttJxf6+ ixf6
16 Elc1~ ttJd7 17 ~d2 ~b6 18 b3 Ele8
19 ic4t
It is not obvious how Black can
disentangle his pieces. His immedi-
ate concern should be how to com-
plete development. The only rea-
sonable move in that direction is
 5 f4 c5 6 d5 0-0 7 lLlf3 e6 8 .ie2 exd5 9 cxd5 !%e8
19 ... lLlf8, (since 19 ... lLleS? loses to
20 WTe3) when 20 .igS .ig7 21 WTf2
admonishes about the weakness
of t7, e.g. 21.. ..id7 22 lLleS! EixeS 23
~xt7+ mh8 24 .if6 .ixf6 2S Eixf6
~d8 26 d6±.
As a whole, my proposition of 11
O-O! dxeS 12 lLle4! leads to a strong
White's initiative without excessive
risk.
I should also mention 10 ... lLlg4
11 h3 lLlh6. Now best seems the re-
strained development by 12 0-0 (or
12lLle4 first) 12 ... lLlfS (or 12 ... dxeS13
fxeSlLlfS 14lLle4lLld71S e6) 13 lLle4
dxeS 14 fxeSlLld71S e6 fxe616 dxe6
with an edge, for instance, 16 ... lLlb6
17 .ibS .ixe618 .ixe8;!; WTxe819lLlxcS
idS 20 Eie1 or 16 ... lLleS 17 WTxd8
~xd8 18 lLlxeS .ixeS 19 e7.id4+ 20
ilh2 Eie8 21.igS±.
11 fxeS lLlg4
11...lLlfd7 is already dubious be-
cause White's pawn arrives at e7: 12
e6 fxe6 13 dxe6lLlb6 14WTxd8 Eixd8
IS lLlbSlLla6 16 e7 Eie8 17 .igS h6 18
.'2ld6 .id719lLlxe8 Eixe8 20 .ie3 Eixe7
21 mf2 lLla4 22 Eiad1±.
12 e6!
It took me too many years to
ripen for this move. The next pages
are irrelevant to the proposed reper-
toire, but they might be of interest
to Black players who can face the
widespread 12 .ig5.
When I started playing the FPA
more than 20 years ago, I believed
firmly in this move. I had a lot of
original analyses and it brought
me many memorable victories over
strong opponents. However, two
ideas completely destroyed my fa-
vourite repertoire. They remain
milestones in the theory of the FPA
as White has not found anything to
revive the variation:
Neurohr-Schlosser, St. Ingbert
1988: 12 ...WTb6 13 0-0 lLlxeS 14 d6
lLlxf3+ IS .ixf3 WTxb2 16 lLldS .id4+
17 mh1 WTxal 18 WTxal .ixal19 Eixa1
EieS!! and Black is somewhat better;
Semkov-Marin, Berga, 1990
14lLlxeS .ixeS1S .ic4WTxb2 16 d6
Eif8! 17.ixt7+ mg7!+.
White has many other op-
tions, of course, but they all
lead to a forced draw as best.
For many years I could not un-
derstand how White players still
persisted with playing this line
while it was obviously dead. I my-
self switched to dxcS early in the
opening. Then Golubev presented
me with his very interesting book
Understanding the King's Indian,
Gambit 2006, where I was really
stunned to read that 12 .igS WTb6 13
WTd2, intending long castling, was
rather dangerous to Black!! (Some
research on this subject pointed out
S3
Part 2

to a 200S Chess Base opening sur- .ic4 (or IS d6 .ie616 ~hl c417 ttJe4
vey by Konikowski.) And off I went, ttJd7+) IS ...'lWb4 16 'lWb3 .ifS 17 d6
myoId love coming back at full 'lWxb3 18 axb3 .ixd6 19 ttJdS is not
bloom. I started playing blitz games a playable option either. Only in
to test Golubev's recommendation, the most optimistic frame of mind
but soon discovered that most of my I would assess it as roughly equal.
opponents answered 12 .igS with Anyway, we cannot speak about any
12 ... 'lWaS. White's advantage.
I was not going to give up easi-
ly and began looking for new ways.
Obviously 12 ...'lWaS takes the sting
of the whole idea with d6 and ttJdS.
However, White obtains other
options, as 13 e6! (Formally, this is
not a novelty as it had already been
played in the game Hartmann-Er-
wes, Germany 1994, but White con-
nected it with a wrong idea - 13 ...
Now the hint about castling fxe614 O-O?!) 13 ...fxe614 d6 (14 h3
queenside does not help since the ttJf6!)
enemy queen is much more dan-
gerous than it was from b6, and it
does not block the advance of the
b7-pawn. On the other hand, the
b2 pawn is not hanging, so 13 0-0
should be in favourable circum-
stances compared to the 12 ... 'lWb6
line. Detailed analysis did not
confirm my hopes though. After
13 ... ttJxeS White usually chooses
14 d6, but then 14 ... ttJbc6! (I'd be The more I analysed this posi-
glad to take Konikowski's word that tion, the more I liked it for White.
"White has the better prospects" af- I shall explain the fine points
ter 14 d6, but my own inner voice of this pawn structure later in this
tells me just the opposite.) IS ttJdS chapter. White's play is linked with
c4! turned to be extremely unpleas- the vulnerable dark squares in
ant, e.g. 16 ttJf6+ .ixf6 17.ixf6 ttJg4. Black's camp and the hanging state
(By the way, Konikowski does not of the g4-knight. Of course, the d6-
consider 14... ttJbc6 at all. I suspect pawn is also lying in ambush only
that it is not the only good option of two squares away from queening.
Black though.) Perhaps Black should activate his
The alternative 14 ttJxeS .ixeS IS queen by:

S4
 5 f4 c5 6 d5 0-0 7 l2lf3 e6 8 ie2 exd5 9 cxd5 l"l:e8
14 ... c4
Alternatives are 14 ... id7 15 0-0
c4 16Wd2 CLJc6 (16 ... l"l:f8 17 @h1CLJc6
18 h3 CLJge5 19 ~h6 Ei:ac8 20 Ei:ae1
Ei:f5 21CLJxe5 Ei:xf1+ 22 Ei:xf1Wxe5 23
hg7 @xg7 24 hc4 CLJa5 25 ~d3t)
17 CLJe4! Wxd2 (17 ... Wf5 18 Wc2) 18
CLJfxd2 regaining the pawn with a
plus; 14 ... CLJd7 15 O-O! (15 h3 CLJge5
160-0 CLJxf3+ 17 l"l:xf3 c418Wd2CLJe5
19 l"l:f4 ~d7 20 l"l:afl l"l:f8) 15 ... c4 16
@h1 CLJb6 17 We1 ~d7 (17 ... Wb4 18
CLJd2±) 18 Wh4± CLJe5 19 CLJe4.
15Wd2 CLJc6
The seemingly dumb 15 ... CLJd7
might be better. Then 16 hc4CLJde5
17 CLJxe5 Wxe5+ 18 ~e2 l"l:f8! 19 d7
hd7 20 Wxd7 CLJe3 is rather risky
for White, so he should better de-
velop and play all over the board: 16
0-0 Wc5+ 17 @h1 b5 18 h3CLJge5 19
a4 bxa4 20 l"l:xa4 ~b7 21CLJxe5 CLJxe5
22d7t.
16 0-0 ~d7
17CLJe4!
A very important resource which
exploits the placement of Black's
knight on g4. That's why moves
like 17 h3 should be made only by
concrete reasons. In our case Black
would have welcomed it as 17 ... CLJge5
18 CLJxe5CLJxe5 19 ~e7 Wc5+ 20 @h1
~c6 is satisfactory for him. 17 @h1
is more consistent, but the forced
play 17... CLJge518CLJxe5CLJxe519 ~h6
hh6 20 Wxh6 ~c6 21 We3 b6 22 b4
cxb3 23 axb3 Wc5 24 Wxc5 bxc5 25
Ei:a5 CLJf7 (25 ... CLJd7 26 Ei:a6 ~b7 27
Ei:aa1 Ei:f8 28 ~c4) 26 CLJb5 Ei:ed8 27
CLJc7 Ei:ab8 28 Ei:xa7 CLJxd6 29 CLJxe6
Ei:e8 30 ~c4 @h8 31 h4CLJxc4 32 Ei:ff7=
leads only to a draw. The text allows
White to conquer the f6-square:
17... Wd5
Alternatively: 17... Wb6+ 18 @h1
Wxb2 19 Ei:ab1 Wxd2 20 CLJfxd2±;
17... Wxd2 18 CLJfxd2±; 17... Wf5 18
Wc2 Ei:f8 (Or 18 ... Wa519 Wxc4 Wb6+
20 @h1CLJe3 21 he3 Wxe3 22 CLJc5)
19 @h1 retaining a lot ofthreats.
18 Wf4 Wf5 (18 ... CLJd419CLJxd4±)
19CLJfd2 Wxf4 20 Ei:xf4CLJe3 21CLJf6+
hf6 22 Ei:xf6t.
I was happy with my find 13 e6! to
12 ... Wa5 and was getting more con-
fident about the whole system, when
trouble came, as usual, from the main
line with 12 ... Wb6. Of course 13 Wd2
looked quite fresh, but gradually
I began to realise that White's
play had not a stable back-
ground and only counted on
some tactical tricks. Look at the
position after 13 ... CLJxe5 14 0-0-0:
55
Part 2
Black has tried here probably a
dozen of moves but somehow White
managed to generate threats. The
whole question is who would be
faster. Black will put his bishop on
fS and White's king will be in a criti-
cal situation, if it had not been for
the resource g2-g4 which repels the
dangerous attacker. However, Black
has 14 .. .lt:lxf3! and White's design
is completely destroyed. Then 15
gxf3 .tfS (lS ....txc3? 16 W1xc3 Elxe2
17 Elhel±) 16 Elhe1 ttJd7=t or 15 .txf3
ttJd7 16 d6 ttJeS 17 ttJdS ttJd3+! 18
~b1 W1xd6 19 W1xd3 .tfS+' are rather
grim for him.
I attempted to get around this
obstacle by changing the move or-
der: 14 ttJxeS instead of castling, but
14 ....txeS 15 0-0-0 turned out to be
not much better since Black had:
lS ....txc3 (It is another question
that lS ... ttJd7 may be even better for
Black: 16 Elhe1 .td4 17 ttJbS ttJeS 18
ttJxd4 cxd4 19 W1xd4 .tfS=t or 16 d6
ttJf6 17 Elhe1 .txc3) 16 W1xc3 Elxe2 17
Elhe1 (17 .th6 f6) 17....tg4 18 .th6
f6 19 Elxe2 (19 d6 W1xb2+ 20 W1xb2
Elxb2 21 Ele8+=) 19 ....txe2 20 W1h3
(20 W1e3 ~f7+) 20 ... W1d6 21 W1c8+
~f7 22 Ele1 gS 23 Elxe2 W1f4+ with
perpetual. Of course, this forced
56
draw is sufficient, albeit not exclu-
sive, argument against 13 W1d2.
I was already ripe for the thought
of burying once again the FPA, but
at that point it dawned on me that
White could try a completely dif-
ferent, purely strategic approach.
This brings us back to my proposed
repertoire:
12...fxe6 13 d6
Apparently I'm not alone to think
that White's position hides some
venom as two strong grandmasters
have recently tested the new move
order 13 .tgS!?, and, notice, in very
important team tournaments - the
Olympiad and the Russian cham-
pionship! Jobava-Bologan, Turin
2006, saw further 13 ... ttJf6 14 d6
h6 15 .txf6 W1xf6 16 ttJbS .td717 ttJc7
ttJc618 ttJxa8t. White came also bet-
ter in Tarasova-Lomineishvili, EICC
Plovdiv 2008, after 13 ....tf614 .txf6
ttJxf6 15 d6 ttJdS 16 ttJxd5 exd5 17
W1xd5+ .te618 ~xc5 ttJd719 ~d4t.
The critical line 13 ... ~b6 14 ~d2
appeared in 1. Popov-Inarkiev, Da-
gomys 2008, when 14... c4 15 0-0-0
exd5 16 Elhe1 ttJc6 17 .txc4 .tf5 18
.txd5+ ~h8 19 ttJh4 was very tan-
 5 f4 c5 6 d5 0-0 7 ttJf3 e6 8 ~e2 exd5 9 cxd5 l:l:e8
gled, but probably slightly better for
White. I have no idea though what
White had in mind against the com-
puter's suggestion 14... hc31S bxc3
exdS. Perhaps we will learn the an-
swer in future.
In the diagram position I ana-
lysed:
A.13 ... ~b6
B. 13 ... tiJeS
C.13 ... tiJc6
D.13 ... ~d7
A.13 ••• ~b6
I start with this move, because it
is absolutely critical for my idea. It
bans 14 0-0 due to 14 ... c4+, and dis-
courages the thematic development
of the c1-bishop to gS since the b2-
pawn is hanging. White has not too
much of a choice. At first I pondered
over 14 ~a4 tiJf6 IS 0-0
It seems that White's attack is
running very smoothly on the dark
squares:
lS ... tiJbd7 16 ~h4 ~xd6 17 ~h6
hh6 (17 ... ~e7 18 tiJgS hh6 19
~xh6 ~g7 20 ~h3~) 18 ~xh6 tiJg4
(Or 18 ... ~e7 19 tiJgS E1f8 20 gad1±
tiJeS 21 tiJce4) 19 ~gS tiJgeS 20 gad1
~e7 21 ~e3 tiJf7 (21...tiJxf3+ 22 E1xf3
with the following options: 22 ...b6
23 tiJe4; 22 ... E1f8 23 ttJdS; 22 ... tiJf6
23 E1dfl tiJdS 24 ~f2±) 22 tiJe4 E1f8
23 tiJfgS tiJxgS 24 tiJxgS tiJf6 2S ~c4.
All the white pieces come into play
to ensure a stable advantage after
2S ... a6 26 E1de1 bS 27 he6+ he6
28 ~xe6+ ~xe6 29 tiJxe6 E1f7 30
tiJxcSt. Black's problems sprang
from the weakness of the e6-pawn.
Therefore the knight should go not
to d7, but to c6:
lS ... ~xd6! 16 ttJe4 (Now 16 ~h4
tiJc6 17 ~h6 hh6 18 ~xh6 l:l:f8 19
tiJgS ~e7 is much less effective for
White in comparison with the pre-
vious variation.) 16 ... ~e7 17 ~gS
~d7 18 ~b3 ~c6 19 tiJxf6+ hf6 20
~c4 and Black has various ways to
level the game as 20 ... tiJa6 (but not
20 ...~xgS?! 21 E1ae1!) 21 hf6 ~xf6
22 gad1 tiJc7 23 tiJd4 ~eS 24 tiJxc6
bxc6 2S gfel~ or 20 ... bS 21 hf6
~xf6 22 hbS a6 23 ~c4 tiJd7.
Remains:
14lDg5!
14... lDh6
The knight is heading for fS from
where it covers the f-file, attacks d6
S7
Part 2

and does not bar the g7-bishop.

However, 14 ... ltJeS IS 0-0 ltJbd7
also looks possible.
IS ... ltJbc6 does not control the
f6-square so we should be able
to rapidly destroy the enemy's
castling position, for instance: 16
'lWelltJd4 (16 ... 'lWb417 a3) 17 'lWh4 hS
(17 ... ltJxe2+ 18 ltJxe2 hS 19 ltJe4±)
18 i.xhS! ltJfS 19 'lWh3 gxhS 20 'lWxhS 18 ... exdS 19 'lWxdS+ i>h8 20
~d7 21 'lWh7+ i>f8 22 ltJce4+-. :1'&h3+-;
Then only 16 a4! poses signifi- b) 16 ... c4+ 17 i>hl 'lWc6 18 'lWd4
cant problems to Black. h6 19ltJge4 b6

Instead, 16 'lWeI c4+ 17 i>hl 'lWxd6 20 ltJf6+! ltJxf6 21 'lWxeS ltJhS 22

18 'lWh4 h6 19ltJge4 'lWe7 or 16ltJge4 'lWbSt.
c4+ 17 i>hl 'lWc618 'lWeI bS or 16 ~e3
'lWxb2 17ltJbS :1'&f8 18 :1'&xf8+ ltJxf8 are 150-0
insufficient for obtaining an advan-
tage.
The pawn move is threatening
with ltJbS, but more importantly, it
enables the rook lift :1'&al-a3-h3 with
a devastating effect:
a) 16 ... a617 :1'&a3 :1'&b8 (17 ... c4+ 18
i>hlltJcS 19 ~e3 'lWc6 20 hc5 'lWxcS
21ltJce4 'lWdS 22 'lWbl bS 23 ~f3ltJxf3
24 :1'&axf3 ~b7 2S :1'&f7 :1'&f8 26 :1'&xf8+
:1'&xf8 27 :1'&xf8+ i>xf8 28 'lWfl + 'lWfS 29
ltJxe6++-) 18 ltJd5!
White's pieces are incredibly ac- We should build our play on the
tive. Whatever idea I tried, every- better coordination and space advan-
thing worked perfectly! tage. Every attempt to grab quickly

S8
 5 f4 c5 6 d5 0-0 7 ltJf3 e6 8 ~e2 exd5 9 cxd5 E:e8

material usually ends up favourably 16 ... lLlf7 fails to 17 d7 .b:d7 18

to Black: 15 lLlb5? E:d816 ~f4 lLlc617
lLlc7 'lWxb2 18 Elbl 'lWc3+ 19 ~d2 'lWd4
20 lLlxa8 'lWxd6 21 lLle4 'lWb8t.
In the diagram position, main
branches are:
AI. IS ... lLlc6
A2. IS ... lLlfS
'lWxd7 ~d4+ 19 @hl E:e7 20 Elxf7! and
White emerges with a better ending
after 20 ... @xf7 21 'lWd6 lLleS 22 ~gS
Eld7 23 'lWxb6 axb6 24 lLlf6 Elc7 2S
lLlxh7 @g7 26 lLlf6±.
17 ~gS lLlcd4 18 \!l!fa4

A1. 1s ... lLlc6 16 lLlge4!

Initially I let myself being en-
ticed by the beautiful variation:
a) 16 lLla4 'lWb4 17 @hl lLlfS 18 d7
.b:d7 19 'lWxd7 'lWxa4? 20 lLlxe6 ~f6
(20 ... 'lWb4 21 ~gS lLleS 22 'lWdS @h8
23 lLlxg7 @xg7 24 g4±; 20 ... @h8 21
~gS .b:b2 22 Elael ~c3 23 ~d3 'lWxa2 Black covered solidly his kingside
24 .b:fS gxfS 2S E:e3±) 21 ~gS .b:gS and I was unable to find anything
22 ElxfS Ele7 23 'lWdS lLlb4 24 Elafl!!+- decisive on that wing. Fortunately,
~h6 2S'lWd2!, but19 ... Elad8!! quickly we have another valuable resource
sobered me down: 20 'lWf7+ @h8 21 - the d6-pawn.
lLlxcS Ele7 22 'lWxe7 (22 lLlcxe6 Eldd7 18 ... lLlc6
23 a3 'lWaS 24 ElxfS 'lWxfS 2S 'lWxfS This retreat does not look natu-
gxfS 26 g4 lLld4 27 ~c4 h6 28 lLlxg7 ral, but it is the first line of Rybka.
Ele1+ 29 @g2 hxgS+) 22 ... lLlcxe7 23 "She" thinks that White has noth-
lLlf7+ @g8 24 lLlxd8 'lWh4! 2S ~f4 ing better but return to dI. Alterna-
lLldS 26 g3 'lWxd8 27 lLlxe6 'lWb6 28 tive is 18 ... 'lWc6 19 'lWxc6 lLlxc6 20 g4
lLlxg7 lLlxf4 29 lLlxfS lLlxe2 30 lLle7+ lLlfd4 21 lLlxcS lLleS 22 ~dU.
@g7 31 lLldS 'lWe6 32 lLlf4 lLlxf4 33 19lLlf6+! ~xf6 20 i.xf6lLlxd6 21
Elxf4 'lWe2=. This is a dead draw. \!l!fh4 ~f8
b) 16 lLlce4 does not achieve the
goal either owing to 16 ... lLld417 ~c4
lLlhfS 18 l"lxfS lLlxfS 19 d7 .b:d7 20
'lWxd7 Ele7+.
In this system, when you
are uncertain how to continue,
point your pieces at the king-
side dark squares. Such a strate-
gy works here, too:
16 ... lLlfS

S9
Part 2
Black's position was difficult.
For instance, 21...ltJd4 22 .ieS Wd8
23 Wf4 ltJ6fS loses a piece to 24 g4
ltJxe2+ 2S ltJxe2 b6 26 ltJc3 .ib7 27
gxfS±.
22.ih5!
An exquisite move. Black still
can put up some resistance, but the
result of the opening battle is al-
ready clear. The threat of taking on
g6 is impossible to deflect: 22 ... Wb4
(22 ... ltJf7 23 Wg3±) 23 WgS ltJfS
(23 ... ltJf7 24 Wg3±) 24 ~f4 Wxb2
2S ~b1 Wd2 26 hg6 We3+ (26 ...
h6 27 .if7+ @xf7 28 WhS+ @xf6 29
ltJe4++-) 27 @h1 h6 28 Wg4ltJeS 29
heS WxeS 30 hfS+ @h8 31 Wg6
exfS 32 Wxh6+ @g8 33 ltJdS±.
A2.15 ... ltJf5
16 :gxf5!!
I have not analysed any other
continuations since this hit proved
to be good enough. Rybka and Fritz
11 at depth 1S still do not see it all.
Later I discovered that Deep Ju-
nior 10 comported more humanly.
It picked up this sacrifice in a flash
and correctly evaluated it in White's
60
favour ever since the first second.
But, amazingly, going deeper, the
engine rejected this option!
16... gxf5 17 .ib5
Ensuring an access to hS and re-
moving a defender of the crucial e6-
square.
17... :gf8
White's attack is also very strong
following 17....id7 18 Whs Wxd6
(18 ... hbS 19 Wxh7+ @f8 20 Wg6
@g8 21 ltJxe6 c4+ 22 @h1 Wd4 23
.ih6+-) 19 Wxh7+ @f8 20 ltJf3 .ic6
(20 ... We7 21ltJeS Wf6 22 ltJg6+ @f7
23 .ie2±; 20 ...hbS 21.ih6 hh6 22
Wxh6+ @g8 23 ltJxbS Wf8 24 Wg6+
@h8 2S ltJgS ~e7 26 ltJxe6+-) 21
.ih6 hh6 22 Wxh6+ @g8 23 Wg6+
@h8 24 ~e1, for instance, 24 ... WfS
2S ltJgS Wg7 26 WhS+ @g8 27 .ic4
ltJd7 28 he6+ ~xe6 29 ~xe6 tLlf6 30
Wh4t.
18.ic4
Black's queenside pieces are un-
able to rescue its king on time:
A2a.18 ...h6;A2b.18 ... @h8;A2c.
18 ....id4+
A2a. 18 ... h6 19 he6+ he6
20 ltJxe6 .id4+ 21 @hl Wxd6
 5 f4 c5 6 d5 0-0 7 lLlf3 e6 8 ~e2 exd5 9 cxd5 Eie8
22 ti'b3!
22 lLlxf8 ~xf8 23 ~h5 lLlc6 24
hh6 ti'f7 25 ~h4 ~g6 26 E1f1 is un-
clear. White's knights are dreadful
attackers and should be "traded" for
rooks only with concrete benefits.
We have no urgent reasons to start
regaining the sacrificed material.
22 •. JU7 23 .tf4 ~b6 24 tOb5
tOc6 25 .tc7 ~a6 26 tOd6± tOe5
27 h3 tOc4 28 tOxt7 ti'xe6 29
tOxh6+
We have already levelled the ma-
terial while our attack is still going
on.
A2b. 18 ••• <i>h819 ~h5 h6
20 tOb5!
Again, this hit is better than
grabbing back material by 20 ltJxe6
.be6 21 hh6 .bc4 22 .bg7+ <i>xg7
23 ~g5+=.
20 •••.td7
Or 20 ... a6 21 ltJc7 ~b4 22 ~f4
~xc4 23 ~e5; 20 ... ltJc6 21i.f4.
21.tf4 tOc6 22 tOt7+ gxt7 23
YfJxt7 tOa5 24 ti'xd7 tOxc4 25 gfl
e5 26 .txh6 .txh6 27 ti'e6 .te3+
28 <i>hl gfS 29 gf3+-.
A2c. 18 •••.td4+ 19 <i>hl ti'xd6
20 YfJh5 YfJe7 21 .lf4 ti'g7 22
tOb5!
22ltJxe6 .be6 23 .be6+ <i>h8 24
i.h6 ~e5 25 M8 YfJxe6 26ltJb5ltJa6
27 ltJxd4 cxd4 28 i.a3~ should only
be enough for a draw.
22 •••ti'g6 23 ti'xg6+ hxg6 24
tOc7b5
25hb5
The alternative 25 ltJgxe6 bxc4
26 tOxf8 <i>xf8 27 E1c1ltJa6 28 ltJxa8
seems to allow Black to equalise:
28 ... ltJb4 29 Eixc4 ltJd3 30 i.d6+
<i>f7 31 h4ltJxb2 32 Eic2 i.b7 33 .bc5
(33 ltJc7 i.e4 34 .bc5 .bc2 35 .bd4
ltJc4 36 .ba7 i.b1=) 33 ....bc5 34
Eixc5 .ba8 35 Eia5 i.c6 36 E1a6 i.e8
61
Part 2
37 <j;>h2±. The small plus is for the
opposite coloured bishops attack,
but it does not mean White has real
chances to win.
25 ... e5 26 ~e1!!
A very nice tactical blow which
underlines that White's attack is
not yet exhausted. The bishop is
immune in view of 26 ... exf4? 27
l'!:e7 ig7 28 ct:Je8± setting up a mat-
ing net.
26 .. .lljd7 27 ic4+ ci>h8 28
lLlxa8 exf4 29 ~e7 lLlf6 3 0 ~xa7
id7 31 lLlc7 ixb2 32 h4 ic6 33
lLlce6 ~a8 34 ~c7t
I have the feeling that White can
improve somehow on this varia-
tion.
B.13... lDeS
This move aims to prevent igS,
followed up by ~d2 and possible
long castling.
140-0
14••• lDbc6
Black can win the d6-pawn by
14 ... ct:Jxf3+ 15 bf3 id4+ (IS ... ct:Jc6
16 bc6 bxc617 ct:Je4±) 16 <j;>hl ~xd6,
but the lack of his dark-squared
bishop should cost him dearly: 17
62
ct:JbS ~d7 (17 ... ~b618 ct:Jxd4 cxd419
ih6 ct:Jd7 20 ~d2±) 18 ct:Jxd4 cxd4
(18 ... ~xd4 19 ~e2 ct:Jc6 20 ie3 ~eS
21 ~f2 ct:Jd4 loses to 22ic6) 19~d3~
ct:Jc6 20 ie4 ~g7 21 igS eS 22 if6
~f7 23 ~g3 id7 24 h4~. Probably,
any reasonable plan for attack on
the kingside should work, too.
1SlDxeS
Simple and consistent. We aim
to trade dark-squared bishops. 15
ct:Je4 ct:Jxf3+ would misplace our
bishop as from f3 it blocks the f-file,
16 ixf3 l'!:f8 17 igS ~b6.
1S••• ixeS
IS ... ct:JxeS does not look good. I
analysed in response 16 ie3 b6 17
ct:JbS l'!:f8 18 ~b3 l'!:xf1+ 19 l'!:xfll'!:b8
20 ct:Jc7 ~xd6 21 ct:Je8±.
16 if4 .ixf4
Or 16 ... id4+ 17 <j;>hll'!:f8 (17 ... eS?
18 ih6) 18 ~d2 id7 19 ih6 l'!:fS 20
ig4 leaves Black very passive, e.g.
l'!:xfl + 21 l'!:xfl ct:JeS 22 ~f4 ~e8 23
ct:Je4. By the text Black wins tempi
for development and a strong out-
post on d4 for the knight. However,
the structural defects on the kingside
make his defence difficult as the
dark-squares are gaping holes.
17 gxf4 eS 18 gf2 lDd4 19
~a4
 5 f4 cS 6 dS 0-0 7 lLlf3 e6 8 ie2 exdS 9 cxdS l%e8

Suddenly the d6-pawn becomes C1.14... Eif8

the focus of the battle. Look at the C2. 14... lLlf6
following variation: C3. 14... lLld4
19 ...ifS 20 ib5 lLlxb5 21 lLlxb5 C4.14 ... i.d7
Wld7 22 Wlc4+ i.e6 23 Wle2 l%f8 14... e5? hardly deserves atten-
(23 ...i.g4 24 ~f1 b6 25lLlc7 ~xd6 26 tion due to 15 lLlg5 lLlh6 16 ~dS+
lLlxa8 ~a8 27 h3±) 24 Eiafl Eixf2 25 ci!lh8 17 Eifl±.
~f2 Eid8 26 Eif6! White triumphs
on the dark squares: 26 ...ha2 27
lLlc3 i.fl 28 ~xe5 b6 29 lLld5 hd5 C1.14 .. JU8
30 ~xd5+ ci!lg7 31 Eie6 Eie8 32 ~e5+ An attempt to anticipate White's
ci!lfl 33 Wlf6+ ci!lg8 34 Eie7 ~e7 35 play on the f-file. The problem with
dxe7± ~e8 36 h4 Wlfl 37 Wle5 ~e8 38 this move is that Black's queen be-
~e6+ ci!lg7 39 g4 hS 40 g5. This vari- comes very passive after:
ation perfectly illustrates White's 15 J.g5 Wld7
positional goal. 15 ... ~b6? is bad duw to 16 lLla4
19•••J.e6 20 J.c4 ~h8 21 ~a5 17 Eicl±.
be6 l::!xe6 22lLle4 Wlh4 23 l::!e1 16 tDe4 b6
l::!xd6 24 g3 Wlg4 25 Wlc4 l::!b6
26 Wlf1iii
Black's defence remains diffi-
cult, for instance, 26 .. .'~c8 27 lLlg5
lLle6 28lLlfl+ ci!lg8 29 Eixe5±.

c. 13••• tDc614 0-0

The thematic 14 i.g5 is not pre-
cise due to 14 ... ~b6 and White must
put his queen on d2 which might
prove not too useful: 15 ~d2 lLld4
17 tDfd2! tDge5 18 l::!xf8+ ~xf8
16 lLlxd4 cxd4 17 hg4 dxc3 18 bxc3
19 J.b5 .ib7 20 Wlb3iii
i.e5't.
Despite Black's effort, the f-file
and the f6-square will be in White's
control. The b3-queen is rather mo-
bile along the third rank all the way
to h3.

C2. 14... tDf6 15 .1g5 h6

This move solves the problem
with the awkward pin, but produ-
ces a fatal weakness on g6.

63
Part 2

C3a. 15 ... b6? 16 .tg5 ~d7 17

tiJxd4hd4+

16.lxf6
16 .th4 loses a tempo: 16 ... gS 17
.tf2 b6oo. 18 ~xd4!!+- exd4 19 hg4
16 ....lxf6 17 Wfd3 @g7 18 ~ad1 ~a4 20 b3 .
.ld7 19 Wfe4 ~f8 20 .ld3 .le8 21 A funny position. I have won al-
.lc4;t ready a couple of games like that, so
Black cannot defend everything: keep it in mind.
21.. ..td7 22 lLlbS or 21...lLld4 22 lLleS
with heavy pressure. C3b. 15 .•. tLlf6? 16 .tg5± tLlxe4
17 hd8 ~xd8 18 ~el tLlxd6 19
~dl± W.Arencibia-Peredun, To-
C3. 14 ... lLld4 ronto 2003.
This move looks Black's most
natural reaction. I often face it in C3e. 15 ••. tLlf5? 16 .tg5 ~b6
blitz games. 17 d7 e4+ 18 @hl hd7 19 ~xd7
15 lLle4 h6 20 he4±, Berkovich-Shahal,
Beersheba 1991.

C3d. 15 ... ~f8 16 .tg5 ~b6

Reviving the plan with .tgS.

C3a.1S ...b6?; C3b.1S ... lLlf6?; C3c.
lS ... lLlfS?; C3d. lS ... E1f8; C3e. lS ... h6

64
 5 f4 c5 6 d5 0-0 7 lOf3 e6 8 ie2 exd5 9 cxd5 ~e8
17 tLlfd2!
I could not find a tangible ad-
vantage after 17 ttJxd4 ixd4+ 18
~h1 gxf1+ 19 ~xf1 ~c6 (19 ... ~xb2
20 gel ttJe5 21 gb1 ~xa2 22 ih6
id7 23 gxb7+-) 20 if3 (20 ixg4
~xe4 21 ~f3 ~e5 22 ~e7 ~d7 23 gel
~f5 24 b3 gb8 25 ~e2 b5 26 ~g4=)
20 ... ~xe4 21 he4 ttJf2+ 22 ~xf2
hf2
I have devoted a lot of time to
this endgame. White wins the ex-
change with hb7, followed by d7.
The question is, is that enough for an
edge. My final judgment is that the
position should be drawish. So we
better switch to a slower positional
treatment. Our goal for the next few
moves will be not to win immediate-
ly, but to enforce domination in the
centre.
17••• gxf1+
Alternative is 17... ttJe5 18 Elxf8+
~xf819 ~fl + ttJi7 20 ttJc4 with strong
pressure, for instance, 20 ... ~c6 21
~f3 ~b5 22 a4± ttJxf3+ 23 ~h1! ~d7
24 ~xf3+-.
18 ~xf1 tLle5 19 .tf6 tLld7 20
h.g7 rtixg7 21 J.d3 tLlf5
21...~xb2 loses to 22 lOc4 ~b4
23 gb1 ~a4 24 ~f4+-.
22 tLlc4 ~d8 23 tLlc3!
23 ~f3 gb8 24 a4 b6 25 gfl ~a6
26 ~f4 offers good compensation,
but the text is linked with the clear
positional idea to kill the fS-knight.
Then White's knights and the d6-
pawn will rule over the board.
23".a6
24 i.xf5! gxf5 25 gel ~f6 26
~f2b5
Or 26 ... ~d4 27 gxe6 ~xc4 28
~xf5+-.
27 tLla5
Black's queenside is not less vul-
nerable, for instance, 27...h6 28
rtih1 ~g6 29 ~f3 gb8 30 ~c6 rtih8
31 ~c7±.
27".tLle5 28 tLlb3 c4 29 tLlc5
rtif7 30 a3 tLld3 31 tLlxd3 cxd3 32
gd1 J.d7 33 gxd3±.
C3e.15".h6
The previous variations showed
that Black suffers when White's
bishop reaches g5. Therefore, the
text is a logical and testing attempt.
Its big drawback though is the weak-
ening of the g6-square.
16 tLlxd4! hd4+ 17 rtih1
It seems that Black is lost, be he
still has a nice counterblow:
65
Part 2
17••• ~xh2 18 ~f4!;!; g5 19 ~f2
.hf2 20 ~xf2 ~f8 21 VUd3!
This ends the tactical inter-
change in White's favour. 21lLle4 b6
22 ~d3 ~d7 23 @xh2 is bad in view
of 23 ...i.b7 24 i.e3 E1ad8 2S E1d1 ~h7
26 lLlc3 ~xd3 27 hd3 i.dS't.
21. •• ~xf2 22 VUg6+ @f8 23
~xh6+ @g8 24 VUg6+ @h8 25
i.d2±.
D.13 ... .id7
At first I thought that the some-
what slow regrouping of Black
should give White a chance for op-
posite attacks and analysed 14 i.gS
~b61S ~d2 i.c6? 16 h3lLleS17lLlxeS
heS180-0-0!
Incredibly, Black might be be-
yond salvation here! He seems
helpless against h4-hS, for instance,
66
18 ... lLld7 19 h4! hg2 20 E1hg1 i.h3
(Or 20 ... i.dS 21 hS ~xd6 22 hxg6
hxg6 23 i.h6 @h8 24 ~e3+- in-
tending 24 ~h3) 21 hS i.fS 22 hxg6
hxg6 23 i.h6 ~b4 (23 ... i.d4 24
E1xg6+ hg6 2S ~gS @h7 26 E1h1 +-)
24 i.d3 ~d4 2S E1xg6+ hg6 26 ~g2
i.g7 27 ~xg6lLlf8 28 ~gS+-.
However, ls ... lLlc6! puts to the
test the whole White concept. Af-
ter many fruitless attempts, I had
to give up. I must say I was rath-
er disappointed. I had to return to
the positional treatment with short
castling:
140-0
White achieves good results
with 14 lLlgS, but Rybka's first line
14 ... lLlh6 is rather unpleasant. Then
1S 0-0 lLlfS16i.d3 h6? fails to 17 hiS
gxfS 18 ~hS!! hxgS 19 hgS ~b6 20
i.h6 c4+ 21 @h1 ~d4 22 hg7 @xg7
23 ~gS+ @f8 24 E1f3~, but 16 ... ~f6!
repels the attack. You can also see
game 10 Vasilchenko-Kovalev,
Katowice 1990.
D1.14 ... ~b6
D2.14 ...i.c6
14 ... lLlc6 hardly deserves de-
tailed examination in view of 1S
i.gS! (I fail to conceive the reason
 5 f4 cS 6 dS 0-0 7 lDf3 e6 8 .ie2 exdS 9 cxdS ~e8
behind 15 i>hl ~f8 16 .ig5 ~a5 17
.id2oo, EI Gindy-Atabayev, AI Ain
31.12.2008) 15 ... ~b6 1614 ttJa4.
01. 14 ...Wb6
Computer's suggestion. Black
is eager to win more material - the
exchange or the d6-pawn. The flip-
side is that he leaves his king at the
mercy of our pieces. Perhaps White
has various good options, but I was
satisfied with the first and most
straightforward variation I tried:
15 We1 ttJc6
Our attack runs smoothly after
15 ... ~xd6 16 ~h4 ttJe5 (16 ... h5 17 h3
ttJe518 ttJe4 ttJxf3+ 19 ~xf3 ~d4+ 20
~e3 ~xb2 211"1afl±) 17 ttJe4 ttJxf3+ 18
1"1xf3 ~e519 ~g5 ~c6 20 ttJf6+ hf6
21 M6 ~xe2 22 ~h6 1"1e7 23 he7
lDd7 24 1"1f2±. This variation clearly
shows that Black's active 14th move
is rather dubious.
16 Wh4 ltJce5 17 ltJxe5 ltJxe5
1SltJe4
Our strategy is simple - we aim
to remove the g7-bishop.
1S ... 1"1fS
Black can discourage 18 ~h6 by
18 ... ~b4. Then we can reroute our
bishop to f6: 19 ~g5 ~xb2 20 ~f6
1"1f8211"1ael!
21 hg7 i>xg7 22 ~e7+ i>g8
would transpose to the main line.
21...~d4+ 22 i>hl1"1ae8 23 1"1f4!
h6 24 ~g3!
24 hg7 1"1xf4 25 ~xh6 ttJf7 26
~xf4 i>xg7 271"1fl1"1f8 28 ttJxc5 ~xf4
29 1"1xf4 e5 30 1"1£1 ~f5 31 g4 1"1c8 32
gxf5 1"1xc5 33 d7 gxf5 34 1"1xf5 ttJd8
35 1"1g5+ i>f8 36 ~f3 also favours
White, but the text is much more
entertaining.
24 ...~c6
24 ... 1"1f7 25 1"1dl Wb2 261"1f2! cuts
the black queen off from e5, win-
ning material: 26 ... 1"1ef8 27 ~f3 ~xf2
28 ~xf2 hf6 29 ttJxc5±.
25 ~f3 g5
An amazing position where all
the pieces on the board seem to be
cross-pinned. White wins now with
the cold-blooded 26 h4 ttJxf3 27
hxg5.
19 .ih6 Wxb2 20 .ixg7 i>xg7 21
We7+ i>gS 22 ltJg5
The endgame after 22 ttJf6+ 1"1xf6
23 Wxf6 ~xe2 24 1"1ael ltJf3+ is un-
clear. As a rule in this system, an
extra exchange does not guaran-
tee White an advantage even in the
endgame. It is better to have an at-
tack.
67
Part 2
22 ...Wid4+ 23 @h1 Wih4 24
~xf8+ ~xf8 25 ~f1 ~e8 26 Wif6 h6
27 liJh7 Wixf6 28 liJxf6+ @g7 29
liJxe8+ .ixe8 30 ~c1 b6
This version of the endgame is
better for White since his rook is
very active. Play can continue with
31 ~c3liJt7 32 ~d3 .ib5 33 l"i:e3liJxd6
34l"i:xe6 (34 hb5liJxb5 35l"i:xe6 mt7
36 l"i:c6liJd4 37l"i:c7+ me6 38l"i:xa7t)
34 ... he2 35 l"i:xd6 .ic4 36 a3 mt7 37
mgl±.
02. 14 ....ic6
Black plays very solidly. After
ttJb8-d7 the critical f6-square will
be well defended, the e4-square
will also be under control, all the
threats connected with advancing
the d-pawn will evaporate. The only
drawback of this approach is that
Black is too passive and e6 becomes
vulnerable. White's main resource
is ttJb5, threatening with ttJc7.
15 liJg5
I rejected 15 .ig5 '\Wb6 16 '\Wd2
due to 16 ... h6! (16 ... ttJd7 was un-
clear in Kantorik-Likavsky, Ostrava
2005: 17l"i:ael c4+ 18 mhl '\Wc519 h3
liJge5 20 .ie3 '\Wa5 21 ttJd4l"i:ac8oo) 17
68
.ie7 c4+ 18 mhl ttJe3
18 ... liJf2+ 19 l"i:xf2 '\Wxf2 20 l"i:fl
is promising for White: 20 ... '\Wc5
21 ttJh4 g5 22 ttJg6 (22 .ih5 gxh4 23
.it7+ mh7 24 he8 h3 25 '\Wc2+ mh8
26 hc6 ttJxc6 27 .if6=) 22 ....id7
(22 ... liJd7 23 .ig4 '\Wd4 24 he6+
mh7 25 '\Wc2 '\Wd3 26 '\Wf2+-) 23 .if6
(23 ttJf8 l"i:xf8 24 hf8 liJc6 25 hg7
mxg7 26 '\Wc2 '\We3 27 hc4 l"i:f8't)
23 ... ttJc6 24 h4~. After the text how-
ever, White has nothing better than
the drawish variation:
19 l"i:fel ttJd7 20 ttJdl ttJf5 21 hc4
ttJc5 22 he6+ ttJxe6 23l"i:xe6.ixf3 24
gxf3 l"i:xe7 25 l"i:xe7 ttJxe7 26 dxe7=.
15 ... liJe5
Again, it is wrong to grab the ex-
change: 15 ....id4+ 16 mhl ttJf2+ 17
l"i:xf2 hf2 18 '\Wfl h6 19 'lWxf2 hxg5
20 '\Wg3 with attack.
16.ie3
16 ... b6
Recommendation of the ECO,
vol. A, 4th edition. Black keeps his
knight on b8 in order to meet 17 ttJb5
by 17... ttJa6. This is an arguable con-
cept, since after 18 .if4 White has
an obvious initiative, for instance:
18 ... c4 (Or 18 ... h6 19 '\Wbl ttJb4 20
ttJh3 '\Wd7 21 he5 he5 22 '\Wxg6+
 5 f4 cS 6 dS 0-0 7 ttJf3 e6 S Jie2 exdS 9 cxdS geS
V9g7 23 V9xg7+ hg7 24 ttJc7 hb2
2SEiab1 Jid4+ 26 <j;;>h1 ttJd5 27 ttJxaS
gxaS 2S ttJf4 ttJxf4 29 Eixf4 EidS 30
gbflt) 19 ttJd4 V9xd6 20 hc4 ttJcS 21
Eic1 h6 22 he5 heS 23 ttJxc6 hxg5
24 V9xd6 (24 ttJxe5 V9xe5) 24 .. "bd6
25 b4 ttJb7 26 Eicdlt. Still, I will exa-
mine as a main line another varia-
tion, which also provides full com-
pensation for the pawn.
Let us examine now 16 ... ttJbd717
lLlb5 (17 Vge1 is another interesting
option) 17... h6 1S lLlh3 hb5
1S ... ttJg4 19 hg4 hb5 20 i.e2
he2 21 V9xe2 leaves Black with se-
veral weaknesses, e.g. 21...gS 22
lLlf2 EifS 23 h4t.
19 hb5 V9b6 20 V9a4 gadS 21
lLlf4 gS 22 lLlh5 i.hS 23 gadl. White's
game is easier as his pieces are more
active.
17~d2
I suppose that this calm deve-
lopment might be most unpleasant
to Black. Beside 17 lLlb5!?, which I
mentioned in the previous para-
graph, we should also have in mind
17 Eic1 lLlbd7 1S lLlbS h6 19 lLlxe6
Eixe6 20 V9b3 lLlfS 21 gxfS+ V9xfS 22
V9xe6+ V9f7 or 17 a4 lLlbd71S lLlbS h6
19 lLlxe6Eixe6 20 V9b3 lLlfS 21 EixfS+
V9xfS 22 V9xe6+ <j;;>h7 23 gflEieS, but
it seems that Black is holding there.
By the way, ECO only mentions 17
lLlge4?!.
17 ... ltJbd7
Black protected everything, but
his position is passive. We should
seek targets on the queenside
18ltJb5 hS 19 ltJh3ltJg4 20 .if4
g5
Or 20 ... hb5 21 hbS;!:;.
21 ltJxg5! hxg5 22 .ixg5 ltJgfS
23 ~f4.
White maintains pressure on the
kingside.
69
 Part 2 1 d4 tDf6 2 c4 g6 3 tDc3 ig7 4 e4
d6 5 f4 cS 6 dS 0-0 7 liJf3 e6 8
ie2 exdS 9 cxdS 13e8

COMPLETE GAMES

It was very difficult to find a game This manoeuvre is quite popu-

to comment for this chapter. The
variation with 12 e6 is too rare and
at least one of the sides plays rath-
er badly in the unexplored positions
that arise. Finally I chose one game.
White commits a common mistake
in the opening and quickly gets into
trouble, but then recovers to even
get the upper hand. The game is rich
of typical tactical motifs.
10. Vasilchenko - Kovalev
Katowice 1990
1 d4 tDfS 2 c4 gS 3 tDc3 ig7 4
e4 dS 5f4 0-0 S tDf3 c5 7 d5 eS 8ie2
exd5 9 cxd513e8 10 e5 dxe5 11 fxe5
tDg412 eS fxeS 13 dS tDcS 14 tDg5
lar, but it is often a mistake. Correct
is 14 0-0.
14... tDhS!
The same retreat is also ex-
tremely unpleasant to 13 ...i.d7 14
ttJg5. The knight is heading for f5
from where it covers the critical f-
file while threatening (and usually
capturing!) the d6-pawn.
150-0 tDf51S tDge4 hS!
White's play on the kingside is
over. His last hope is now linked
with the weak e6-pawn:
17 tDb513f8 18 tDc713b8 19 ic4

19 ... tDcd4
Now White is back in the game

70
 5 f4 c5 6 d5 0-0 7 lLlf3 e6 8 ie2 exd5 9 cxd5 ~e8
again. Had he found the cunning
prophylactic move 19 ... ~h7!, White
would have been much worse, for
instance, 20 he6 (or 20 if4 hb2)
20 ....id4+ 21 ~h1 lLlxd6 22 lDxd6
~xd6-+. Note that the immediate
19 ....id4+ would be unclear after 20
~h1lDxd6 21lDxd6 ~xd6 22 lDb5.
20 lDxe5 fJxd6 21 lD5xe6 .ixe6
Black still could obtain a small
edge with 21...~b4! 22lDxg7+ ~xc4
23 lDxf5 .ixf5 24 b3 lDe2+ 25 ~h1
~g4 26 lDd5 .ie4 27 lDe3 ~h5 28
E:xf8+ E:xf8 29 .ia3 lDg3+ 30 ~gl
~e2 31 ~xe2 lDxe2+ 32 ~h1 E:f2=t.
22 lDxe6 fJe6
22 ... lDxe6! was imperative: 23
~xd6lDxd6 24 he6+ ~h7 25 E:d1=.
23lDxg7+!
A good decision. White's game is
already preferable due to his bishop
pair. 23 lDxf8+ ~xc4 24 lDxg6 was
risky and Black would have at least
equality: 24 ... lDe2+ 25 ~h1 lDfg3+
26 hxg3lDxg3+ 27 ~gl.id4+ 28 E:f2
lDe2+ 29 ~h1.ixf2=.
23 ... ~xg7 24 id3 lDh4 25 fJg4
gxf1 + 26 ixf1 lD hf5
Alternatively: 26 ... ~c5 27 hh6+
~xh6 28 ~xh4+ ~g7 29 ~h1lDf5 30
~f4±. Now the same hit 27 hh6+!
was winning, but White makes a
few mistakes:
27 id2? ge8 28 ge1?
This exchange is positionally
bad because having the bishop pair,
White should aim to keep a rook,
too. The combination of E:+li vs.
E:+lDlD in an open position is much
stronger than mere l i vs. lDlD, es-
pecially with queens on board.
Moreover, the text loses a pawn in
three after 28 ... ~b6 29 ~h1 E:xe130
he1 ~xb2.
28 ... gxe1? 29 .ixe1 fJe6
Now 29 ... ~b6 would be met by
30.ic3.
30 .if2 fJe5 31 fJd1 h5 32 fJe1
fJf4 33 id3 h4 34 .ixf5?!
White loses nerve and bails out
to a draw by parting with one of his
bishops. 34 ~c3 ~h6 35 .ift!: kept
things under control although the
enemy knights are a real nuisance.
34 ... lDxf5 35 fJe3+ ~h7 36
.ixa7 fJa4 37 if2 fJxa2 38 fJe5
fJb1+ 39 ie1 b5 40 h3 fJd3 41
ie3 fJd1+ 42 ~h2 fJd6 43 fJxd6
lDxd6 44 .if6 lDf5 45 ~g1 ~h6 46
~f2 g5 47 ~f3 ~g6 48 ie5 rJ/f7
49 .ie3 lDd6 50 ib4 lDf5 51 ~e4
~e6 52 .ie1lDd6+ 53 ~d4lDf5+ 54
~e5 lDe3 55 .id2 lDxg2 56 ixg5
~f5 57 idS lDf4 58 rJ/xb5 lDxh3 59
ixh4 lDf4 60 rJ/e4 ~e6 61 b4 rJ/d7
62 ig3 lDe6 63 rJ/b5 %-%
71
 Part 3
d6 S f4 cS 6 dS 0-0 7 ltJf3
Rare Lines
QUICK REPERTOIRE
In practice I often observe attempts
from Black to deviate from the main
lines. Instead of taking a pawn and
struggling in a cramped position
which requires good home prepa-
ration, many Black players prefer
to part with a pawn, but take over
the initiative with a Volga stile ap-
proach. At least, they think so. In
fact, however, Black does remain
a pawn down, but he has no trace
of an initiative either. White takes
what he can and returns to his main
plan of building a kingside attack:
7 ... bS?!
7... ttJa6 is seldom seen. After 8
.td3 play transposes to lines from
the next part, while 7... a6 8.td3!?
bS requires more attention:
72
1 d4 ltJf6 2 c4 g6 3 ltJc3 .tg7 4 e4
9 eS (The engines prefer White
after 9 cxbS axbS 10 ttJxbS .ta6 11
ttJc3 ~aS 12 0-0 ttJbd7.)
9 ... dxeSlO fxeS ttJg411 ~e2 ttJd7
Game 11 Rodriguez Vargas-
Uhlmann, Dresden 2004, saw
11 ...b4 12 ttJa4 ~c7 13 .tf4 ttJd7 14
0-0 ttJgxeS 15 ~hl.tb716l"i:ael with
strong initiative.
12 .tf4 ~c7 13 O-O! ttJdxeS 14
~hl. White has full compensation
for the pawn.
8 cxbS a6 9 a4
Black has two major plans now.
He can play on elimination of the
centre or seek typical Volga coun-
terplay on the queenside. 9 ... ~aS?
10 .td2 ~b4 11 ~c2± hardly needs
any attention.
 1 d4 C2Jf6 2 c4 g6 3 C2Jc3 i,g7 4 e4 d6 5 f4 c5 6 d5 0-0 7 C2Jf3
The central plan with 9 ... e6 has a
bad reputation due to 10 i,e2 axb511
.bb5 exd5 12 e5, but I have doubts
about that. In my opinion, simplest
is 10 dxe6 .be6 11 e5 dxe5 12 1Wxd8
~xd8
13 C2Jxe5!? C2Jd514 C2Jxd5 .bd515
mf2 C2Jd7 16 C2Jxd7 ~xd7 17 bxa6 c4
18 i,e2, Stocek-Babula, Plzen 2000.
White is a pawn up and his king is
closer to the centre.
9 ... axb5 10 hb5 .ta6
Black has not time for slower
plans since White is too active in
the centre, e.g. 10 ... C2Ja6 11 e5!? C2Jd7
120-0.
11 i.d2 hb5 12 axb5 ~xa1
13 1l!fxa1 1l!fb6
13 ... C2Jbd714 0-0 C2Jb6 151Wa2, Di-
loudi-Zawadzka, Ag.Pelagia 2004.
140-0 lLlbd7
151l!fe1!
This is a key idea! White's play
is on the kingside and he should not
distract himself from his main ob-
jective. This move has been intro-
duced in the game Lautier-Shirov,
Belgrade 1997 and it is unanimous-
ly approved as best. Play might con-
tinue with 15 ...1Wb7161Wh4! C2Jb6 17
f5 gxf518 C2Jg5 ~a819 ~xf5 ~a1+ 20
mf2 with attack.
73
 Part 3
d6 5 f4 cS 6 dS 0-0 7 ltJf3
Rare Lines
STEP BY STEP
A. 7... a6
B. 7... bS
7... tLla6 is a rare move. After 8
i.d3 play transposes to lines from
the next part.
A.7 ... a6
This move is seldom seen in prac-
tice and it is completely unexplored.
I'm afraid that if I were to analyse it
in detail, the book could have tak-
en another year to be completed.
The whole problem is that it is not
easy to weigh the pros and cons of
the insertion of 7... a6 8 a4 in re-
gard to the main lines. Most adepts
at the FPA would say that it can be
only in White's favour, but I'm not
that sure. In some lines Black would
be happy to have the bS-square co-
vered. I suppose that White should
seriously consider to refrain from
the automatic 8 a4. Or he can link it
with the fresh idea of 9 i.d3!?:
8 a4e6
Black has not full compensation
for the pawn after 8 ... eS 9 fxeS tLlg4
10 exd6. For instance: lO .. .fS 11 i.d3
(or 11 exfS hfS 12 i.d3! :1l:e8+ 13
74
1 d4 ltJf6 2 c4 g6 3 ltJc3 .1g7 4 e4
tLle2 hd3 14 'lWxd3 'lWxd6 IS a-a;!:;)
11 ... 'lWxd6
Golubev's suggestion 11...hc3+
12 bxc3 fxe4 13 he4 :1l:e8 stum-
bles into Rybka's 14 a-a!! :1l:xe4 IS
h3 tLlf6 (IS ... 'lWxd6 16 hxg4 hg4 17
'lWb3 tLld7 18 tLlgS±) 16 tLlgS :1l:e8 17
'lWf3 h6 18 'lWxf6±.
12 exfS±, Lautier-Shchekachev,
Bad Zwesten 1999.
9 i.d3!?
9 i.e2 exdS 10 cxdS (10 exdS
is completely dull, for instance,
1O ... :1l:e8 11 0-0 i.fS 12 i.d3 hd3!
13 'lWxd3 tLlbd7) 1O ... i.g4 should be
nice for White who can follow the
same strategy as described in Part
1. The critical test is 1O ... :1l:e8! with
unknown position.
9 ... exdS 10 cxdS :1l:e8 11 0-0
 1 d4ltJf6 2 c4 g6 3 ltJc3 ii.g7 4 e4 d6 S f4 cS 6 dS 0-0 7 ltJf3
This is a complex double-edged
position where White's strong centre
should ensure him good chances.
Instead, I will examine another
interesting plan:
8 Ad3!? bS
geS
Personally I would not even
think about offering the initiative to
the opponent by grabbing a pawn: 9
cxbS axbS 10 ltJxbS ii.a6 llltJc3 '!NaS
120-0 ltJbd7. The engines, however,
prefer White here.
9 ... dxeS 10 fxeS ltJg4 11
~e2ltJd7
An interesting position arises af-
ter 11...b4 12 ltJa4 '!Nc7 13 ii.f4 ltJd7
14 0-0 ltJgxeS IS whl ii.b7 16 ~ael
f6. Black is tied down and cannot
defend against a direct attack, for
instance, 17 h4! '!Nd6 18 hS--+. See
game 11 Rodriguez Vargas-Uhl-
mann, Dresden 2004.
12 Af4 ~c7 13 O-O!
see next diagram
This capturing leaves the king's
knight on an active position. In-
stead, 13 ... ltJgxeS was clearly better
for White in Kortschnoj-Gheorghiu,
Vienna 1986: 14 ~aelltJxf3+ IS ~xf3
'!Nb6 16 '!Nxe7±, or Yrjola-Sigurjons-
son, Reykjavik 1986: 14 whU.
13... liJdxeS 14 ~h1
Maintaining the pin. 14 ~ael!?
ltJxf3+ IS ~xf3! also gives White an
initiative.
14•.• b41SliJb1!
White's position is so good, that
he can indulge in improving the
placement of his only unemployed
piece. Alternatives IS ltJa4 f6, IS
ltJdl f6 16 h3ltJh6 17ltJf2oo or ISltJe4
'!Na716 ltJxeS ltJxeS 17ltJxcSltJxc4 18
ii.xc4 '!NxcS 19 ~ac1 ii.d7 20 d6 exd6
21'!Ndl= are not convincing.
1S...f6
Perhaps IS ... '!Nd6 16 ltJbd2 '!Nf6,
which breaks the pin, would give
more chances, although the end-
game after 17 ltJxeS ltJxeS 18 ltJe4
'!Nb6 19 ltJxcS ii.g4 20 '!Nf2 ~ac8 21
~ael ltJxc4 22 ii.xc4 '!Nxcs 23 '!NxcS
~xcS 24 b3 ii.f6 2S h3 ii.fS 26 d6± is
unpleasant for Black.
16 liJbd2 liJh6 17 gae1 Ag4
18 h3 bf3 19 liJxf3 liJhf7 20
liJxeS liJxeS 21 h4
Black will be submitted to an op-
posite coloured bishops attack.
7S
Part 3
White can even keep his dark-
squared bishop when his great
space advantage should provide a
lasting pressure.
B.7 ••• bS?!
This clumsy attempt to play in
Volga style leads to a clear advan-
tage for White. He keeps all his op-
tions for a kingside attack open while
nurturing an extra pawn "as a com-
pensation".
8 cxbS a6 9 a4
Bl. 9 ... e6
B2.9 ... axbS
Minor alternatives are:
a) 9 .. :t;WaS? 10 .id2 ~b4 11 ~c2±
11 ....id7
Black can easily lose his queen:
11 ... axbS 12 hbS .ia6 13 eS+- dxeS
76
14 fxeS lDg4 15 lDdl! hbS 16 hb4
cxb4 17 ~e4 .id7 18 h3; 11 ... c4 12
eS! .if5 13 lDa2 ~cS 14 ~xc4 lDxdS
15 ~xcS±.
12 eS .if5 13 .id3 hd3 14 ~xd3
c4 15 ~bl± A.Schmidt-Benischek,
Bayern 1999.
b) 9 ....ib7
Black's bishop is not too useful
on this diagonal. That gives White
a wide choice. He can develop the
bishop on e2, d3 or c4, for instance:
10 .ie2 e6 11 dxe6 fxe6 12 eS lDdS 13
lDxd5 exdS14 0-0 dxe51S fxeS;!;; 10
.ic4 axbS 11 hbS lDa6 12 0-0 lDb4
13 ~e2 .ia6 14 .id2 ~b6. Howev-
er, 10 bxa6lDxa611.ic4;!; looks sim-
plest. See game 12 Vaisser-Brito
Garcia, Las Palmas 1993.
81. 9 ... e6 10 dxe6
You may read in many sources
that 10 .ie2 axbS 11 hbS exdS 12 eS
is in White's favour, but I do not be-
lieve it. Black should be fine after
12 ... lDe8 13 lDxdS .ib7 14 .ic4 lDc6
15 .ie3 dxeS16 hcSlDd600 17lDe7+
lDxe718 ~xd6 ~xd619 hd6 exf4oo.
The text is more natural.
10 ....ixe6 11 e5 dxe5 12 VMxd8
~xd8
 1 d4 ttJf6 2 c4 g6 3 ttJc3 ~g7 4 e4 d6 5 f4 cS 6 dS 0-0 7 ttJf3
13 ttJxe5
13 fxeS ttJg4 14 ~gS l"leS unne-
cessaryly returns the extra pawn.
13 ... llJd514llJxd5 .ixd515 i>f2
llJd7 16 llJxd7 1:'!xd7 17 bxa6 c4 18
.ie2
White is a pawn up and his king
is closer to the centre. The game
Stocek-Babula, PI zen 2000 saw fur-
ther:
18 ....ie6 19 as .id4+ 20 .ie3
.ixb2 21 1:'!ab1 .id4 22 1:'!b7 .ixe3+
23 i>xe3±.
B2. 9 ... axb5 10 .ixb5 .ia6
1O ... ttJa6 is too sluggish. White
can respond with 11 0-0 or the more
aggressive 11 eS!? ttJe8 (11...ttJd7 12
0-0 dxeS 13 fxeS ttJxeS regains the
pawn, with a gloom position for
Black though: 14 ttJxeS heS IS
~h6 ~g7 16 hg7 <;t>xg7 17 Wf3±) 12
0-0 ttJb4 13 We2 ttJc714 ~c4 ~b71S
l"ldl l"la7 16 ~e3 WaS 17 Wd2± with
a healthy extra pawn, Banikas-Kar-
ner, Menorca 1996.
11 .id2 .ixb5 12 axb5
The only explanation of why
Black would want to play this posi-
tion is that he hopes to lure White
into the tempting, but drawing vari-
ation 12 ... l"lxaI13 Wxal Wb6 14 0-0
ttJbd7 IS Wa6?! l"lbS 16 l"lal ttJeS 17
Wxb6 ttJxb61Sl"la7 hc3! 19 hc3 fS
20 l"lxe7 fxe4= .
However, in the Volga gambit
White commonly wins on the king-
side or in the centre. This position
is no exception and the first player
should always keep that in mind.
12 ... 1:'!xa1
Or 12 ... ttJbd7 13 0-0 ttJb6 14
We2±.
13 Wixa 1 Wib6
Practical experience has also
seen 13 ... ttJbd7 14 0-0 ttJb6 15 Wa2
Wc7 16 l"lal c4 (16 ... l"laS 17 Wbl) 17
h3 WcS+ IS <;t>h2 ttJhS 19 Wbl ~h6
20 Wgl Wxgl+ 21 <;t>xgl hf4, Dilou-
di-Zawadzka, Aghia Pelagia 2004,
22l"la7!±.
140-0 llJbd7 15 Wie1!
Very consistent! The queen goes
toh4,orsupportse4-eS.lnthesource
game Lautier-Shirov, Belgrade 1997
Black answered IS ...Wb7, when in-
stead of 16 eS Lautier suggests 16
Wh4! with a better game, e.g. 16 ...
e6? 17 dxe6 fxe61S ttJgSl"leSl9 eS+-
or 16 ... ttJb6 17 fS gxfS IS ttJgS l"laS 19
l"lxfS l"lal + 20 <;t>f2 with attack.
77
 Part 3 1 d4 lDf6 2 c4 g6 3 lDc3 .ig7 4 e4
d6 5 f4 cS 6 dS 0-0 7 lDf3
Rare Lines

COMPLETE GAMES

11. Rodriguez Vargas - Uhlmann sition: 14 ... l2JdxeSI5 Eiaell2Jxf3+ 16

EU-chT Seniors Dresden 2004
1 d4 lDf6 2 c4 g6 3 lDc3 .ig7 4
e4 d6 5 f4 c5 6 d5 0-0 7 lDf3 a6 8
.id3 b5 9 e5 dxe5 10 fxe5 lDg4 11
.if4 lDd7 12 ~e2 b4 13 lDa4 ~c7
140-0
~xf3±.
15 ~h1 .ib716 ~ae1 f617 .ic2
~ae8
Black correctly seeks counter-
play with ... e6. Passive defence as
17... Eiac8 would face 18 h4! and it
would be very difficult to neutralise
White's attack.
18 .ixe5lDxe5 19lDxe5 fxe5 20
~e3 ~xf1+ 21 ~xf1 ~c8 22 .id1

14... lDgxe5
Black wins a pawn indeed, but
White's heavy pieces are much
more active. The only problem is
how to break the enemy's defensive Black's position is difficult. He
line. One target is cS. We'll need to has no counterplay at all, no matter
fix another one on the kingside with with rooks on the board or without
h4-hS. them. His strongest piece is tied
Capturing by the other knight down to defend c5, both bishops
does not affect the character of po- are unemployed.
78
 1 d4 lDf6 2 c4 g6 3 lDc3 .ig7 4 e4 d6 5 f4 c5 6 d5 0-0 7 lDf3
22 .. JU8 23 gxf8+ .lxf8 24
Wxc5
Perhaps White should have
changed the light-squared bishops
first: 24 .ig4 .ic8 25 .ixc8 Wlxc8 26
Wlxe5 wt7 27 g3 .ig7 28 Wle6+ Wlxe6
29 dxe6+ Wxe6 30 lDxc5+ wd6 31
lDxa6 .ixb2 32 lDxb4 e5 33 c5+ We6
34 Wg2, since the move played in the
game allows Black to get opposite-
coloured bishops.
24 ...Wd6?
24 ...Wlxc5 25 lDxc5 .ic8 would
have given fair drawing chances in
view of the threat e7-e6.
25 Wxd6?
White was obviously afraid to
let the opponent activate his queen.
Still, 25 .ig4 Wlf6 26 .ie6+ wh8 27
Wlgl would have given White a clear
advantage, while now he would be
even on the defensive.
25 ... exd6 26 .lg4 clJf7
26 ... e4 was better: 27.ie6+ Wg7
28 Wgl wf6 29lDb6=.
27 clJg1 e4 28 clJf2 clJf6 29 lDb6
.ih6 30 id7
White tries a last trick. Now he is
threatening with 30 .ic6, but Black
is on guard and the game peacefully
steers to a draw.
30 ... a5 31 c5 dxc5 32 .lc6 .la6
33lDd7+ clJe7 34 tilxc5 e3+ 35 clJe1
.lc4 36 b3 .lxd5 37 .lxd5 clJd6 38
tilb7+ Wxd5 39 tilxa5 clJd4 40 clJe2
Wc3 41 tilc4 clJc2 42 tilxe3+ clJb2
43 tild5 clJxa2 44 tilxb4+ clJxb3 45
tild5 clJc4 46 tilf6 clJd4 47 clJf3 .lc1
48 tilxh7 clJe5 49 tilf8 clJf6 50 clJe4
.la3 51 lDd7+ We6 52 tile5 .ld6 53
tilf3 clJf6 54 g4 clJe6 55 h3 .lg3 56
tild4+ Wf6 %-%
12. Vaisser - Brito Garcia
Las Palmas 1993
1 d4 tilf6 2 c4 g6 3 tilc3 .lg7 4
e4 d6 5 f4 0-0 6 tilf3 c5 7 d5 b5 8
cxb5 a6 9 a4 .lb7 10 bxa6 tilxa6 11
.lc4 til b4 12 0-0
Black has sacrificed a pawn, but
his setup is mostly defensive. For
now, he has discouraged e4-e5.
To build up some counterplay, he
must remove the blockade on the
c4-square. In the game he tried to
achieve that by lDf6-d7-b6. Alter-
native was 12 ....ia6 13 .ixa6 !%xa6
14 Wle2 Wlc8 15 whl !%a8 16 lDb5
lDd7. We see that Black has not pro-
gressed much while White is fully
prepared to display activity on the
kingside. Bach-Urban, Hamburg
1999 saw 17 f5!? lDb618 .ig5 Wlb719
fxg6 hxg6, when White could have
underlined his advantage by 20 a5
lDc8 21 lDc3 Wla6 22 Wld2 Wld3 23
\Wcl±, intending .ih6.
12 ... tild7 13 .ld2 tilb6
Black is impatient to shift the
bishop from c4, but probably he
should have activated his queen
first: 13 ...Wla5 14 !%a3 lDb6 15 b3 (15
.ib5.ia6ii5).
79
Part 3

14 b3 .ibS!. Then 14.. .fS7 would face IS

ltJgS .icS 16 as, so Black will have to
play 14 ....ia6 IS i.xa6 l"lxa6 16 ~e2
~aS 17 b3 l"lbS IS l"lac1, when IS ...
c4 loses material to 19 ltJbS. In the
game Black enters a similar posi-
tion with a tempo down.
14 ....ia6? 15.ixa6 ~xa616 Wie2
~a8 17 ~ac1 Wid7 18 ltJb5

White completed his develop-

ment and seemed to have restricted
any Black counterplay. As a rule, he
is clearly better in such structures.
The concrete position, however,
hides an excellent counterchance:
14 ... f5! It is not clear how White
should react then. The trick is that
15 e5 would stumble into 15 ... e6!!
16 dxe6 ltJxc4 17 bxc4 i.xf3 IS ~xf3 18 ... ~fc8
dxe5 19 ltJd5 e4 t. 15 ltJgS .icS is not After this move Black is lost, but
an option either. So White should lS ... ltJa619 fS is rather grim, too.
probably choose IS ~e2 fxe4 16 19 .ixb4 cxb4 20 Wie3 Wid8 21
~xe4 ltJxc4 17 bxc4 .icS with dou- ltJfd4 .ixd4 22 ltJxd4 ltJd7 23 ltJc6
ble-edged play. This brings us back Wie8 24 e5 ltJc5 25 exd6 exd6 26
to White's 14th move. Apparently ltJe7+ ~g7 27 f5 f6 28 fxg6 hxg6 29
the light-squared bishop is impor- ~xf6 ~xf6 30 ~f1+ Wg7 31 Wid4+
tant and should be preserved by 14 ~h7 32 Wih4+ Wg7 33 Wif6+ 1-0

SO
 Part 4 1 d4 ltJf6 2 c4 g6 3 ltJc3 .ig7 4 e4
d6 5 f4 0-0 6 ltJf3
Lines without 6 ... cS

QUICK REPERTOIRE

Until now we have only dealt with 1. 6 ... CtJbd7 7 eS CtJe8

Modern Benoni or Volga lines, where
Black attacks the centre by ... c7-cS.
In this part we finally reach the au-
thentic KID waters.
White players should be glad to
face plans with ... eS. I feel that they
are strategically dubious as they
lead to positions with serious spa-
tial advantage and a mobile cen-
tre for White. It is no chance that
Black plays 6 ... CtJa6 only once in 8 h4 cS 9 hS cxd4 10 lMrxd4 CtJc7
11 hxg6 fxg6 12 .ie3 CtJe6 13 lMrdS
five games. At the same time, he
CtJb6 14lMre4 .id71S O-O-Ot.
scores decently and some authors
fervently advocate it. I suppose that
2. 6.•• CtJc6 7 eS!
the main reason for that is because
White happens to underestimate it
and has not clear notion what the
correct move order is.

Let us examine first lines with-

out 6 ... CtJa6.
The general rule is: if Black delays
too much ... e7-eS or deprives his f6-
knight of his best retreat square, d7,
we thrust eS ourselves and launch a Black's last move is a provoca-
direct kingside attack: tion. Do not fall for it by pushing

81
Part 4

7 dS. Our general plan is to strike

on the right wing so we have to win
space there and not on the other
side.
7... ttlg4 8 !e2 f6 9 eM with an
overwhelming space advantage.

3. 6... eS?! 7 dxeS! dxeS 8 ~xd8

l'!xd8 9 ttlxeS
Black has not enough compen-
sation:
9... ttla610 i.e3 l'!e811 !e2 ttlxe4
12 ttlxe4 f6 13 ttlxf6+;!;.
4.6 ...i.g4
A consistent move. Black wants
to contest the central dark squares.
However, he defines too early his
plans so we can adjust our own ac-
tions accordingly:
7ie2
Against 6... ttla6 we will develop
the bishop on d3, but now we have
to ensure protection of d4. 7 ie3
pursues the same goal and it is also
a good option: 7... ttlfd7 8 h3 .txf3 9
~xf3
7... ttlfd7
Again, we meet 7... ttlbd7by 8 eS
ttle89 0-0.
8 i.e3 eS (8 ... ttlc6 9 eS) 9 fxeS
dxeS 10 dS hi3 11 hi3 i.h6
12 if2!
This bishop is important to
White as it supports the attack on
the queenside. Now Black is help-
less to stop it: 12 ... aS 13 0-0 ttla6 14
a3 ~e71S l'!bl b6 16 b4±, Moskalen-
ko-Ermenkov, Wijk aan Zee 1992.
These examples shed some light
on the popularity of:
6 ••• c!Lla6
Black keeps all his options open.
He waits for us to define our plans.
Then he can choose to attack by ei-
ther ... cS or ... eS. I recommend:
7 id31
In practice Black chooses here
7... eS or 7...ig4, but White keeps an
advantage due to his terrific centre.
5. 7... eS 8 fxeS dxeS 9 dS
White has a clear plan for ex-
panding on the queenside with a3,
b3, l'!bl, b4, cS, while the opponent

82

cannot claim the same about his
kingside pawn majority.
Black would be overrun if he al-
lowed c4-c5 so his first task should
be to prevent it. Only then he can
think about counterplay with ...f7-
fS, but in most cases this thrust only
would leave e5 hanging. Naturally,
Black should not be able to build an
attack on the wing when the centre
is so mobile. The other big plus of
White is the ability to quickly relo-
cate his queen from one part of the
board to the other with the manoeu-
vres ~dl-el-h4 or ~dl-a4-a3.
9 ... c51O 0-0 tt'le8 11 a3 tt'ld6 12
tt'lb5!?
White is on top. He succeeds in
removing all the blocking pieces -
the d6-knight and the c5-pawn, e.g.
12 ... tt'lxb5 13 cxb5 tt'lc714 .tg5 f6 15
.te3 b6 16 b4±.
5 f4 0-0 6 tt'lf3 Lines without 6 ... c5
6. 7... e5 8 fxe5 dxe5 9 d5 tt'lc51O
.tc2 as 11 0-0 tt'le8 12 i.g5 f6 13 i.e3
We can also leave the bishop on
the h4-d8 diagonal, but this is more
efficient when Black's knight is on
f6. In that case the pin is very awk-
ward and we should maintain it.
In the diagram position both
sides have not much of a choice:
13 ...b6 14 a3 tt'ld6 15 tt'ld2 f5 16
~e2 tt'ld7 17 b4 tt'lf6 18 c5 bxc5 19
bxc5;!;, Kahn-G. Pinter, Budapest
2000.
7. 7... e5 8 fxe5 dxe5 9 d5 c6 cxd5
11 cxd5 tt'le8
Black prevented c4-c5 indeed,
but he lost a tempo on ... c6 and
opened the c-file. The diagonal a3-
f8 is also very weak and we should
aim to put a bishop on c5.
White obtains the better game
83
Part 4
with simple developing moves.
12 ie3lLld6 13 ~a4!t
I have tested this novelty several
times in blitz. The queen is head-
ing for a3 from where it will pres-
surise d6.
8. 7... ig4 8 ie3lLld7
Pay special attention to this di-
agram as White's best move here is
far from obvious:
9 ie2!!
What is this, an admission of
an earlier mistake?! Of course not.
We have a tremendous centre and
should we succeed in protecting it
until we consolidate, we would en-
joy a lasting edge. The text is aimed
against 9 0-0 e5 10 fxe5 c5 with
some chances for equalisation.
Note that popular 9 h3? is a mis-
take.
9 ... c5 10 d5 hf3 11 hf3 ~a5 12
id2 ~b4 13 ie2t, Kahn-Rajlich,
Budapest 2000. Black's pieces will
soon be repelled back.
9. 7... ig4 8 ie3 c5 9 d5 e6 10 h3
exd5 11 cxd5 hf3 12 ~xf3
84
This position is rather topical as
it is recommended for Black by both
Golubev and Galagher.
12 ... lLlb4 13 ibl ~e8
I have also analysed 13 ... lLld7!?
14 0-0 ~a5 15 e5! dxe5 16 f5lLlf6 17
ie4 ~ad818 ~adl ~d619 a3lLla6 20
g4±.
14 a3
White has a clear advantage, see
game 13 Banikas-Delithanasis,
Kavala 1997. Golubev's suggestion
14 ... lLlfxd5 15 exd5 id4 fails to the
simple 16 lLle4 he3 17 ~xe3 lLlxd5
18 ~f3 f5 19 O-O±.
Conclusion:
The plans without 6 ... c5 are
much less challenging. They of-
fer White a great mobile centre. It
is important to remember that we
meet 6... lLlbd7 or 6 ... lLlc6 by 7 e5!
and 6... lLla6 by 7 .td3. In the latter
case critical are key lines 8 and 9.
It is essential to avoid block-
ade on the central dark squares and
keep our pawn chain flexible. I be-
lieve that everybody would like to
play the FPA if he knew that Black
would avoid transiting to the Mo-
dern Benoni.
 Part 4
d6 5 f4 0-0 6 ~f3
Lines without 6 ... cS
STEP BY STEP
6 ... ~a6
This is the most fashionable alter-
native to 6 ... cS. The earliest exam-
ple I see in the database is Danner-
Hurtado, Thessaloniki 1984, but
in this game Black did not actually
show any new plan as he met 7 .id3
by 7... cS 8 dS CiJc7 with a passive po-
sition. The game which busted the
interest towards the knight move
was Arkhipov-Belov, Moscow 1987.
The Russian master played 7....ig4
8 0-0 eS 9 fxeS and here he triggered
the mine of his homework prepara-
tion: 9 ... CiJd7! 10 .ie3 cS
A picturesque position. Gradually
the surprise effect has faded away
and later many first players took
1 d4 ~f6 2 c4g63 ~c3.tg74e4
courage to test Black's idea more
thoroughly. White may be even
slightly better after 11 dS, but the
structure is too static to my taste.
I prefer to avoid it. Before focusing
on Belov's plan, let me examine the
alternatives:
a) 6 ... eS?! 7 dxeS dxeS 8 ~xd8
l"1xd8 9 CiJxeS
Black has not enough compen-
sation:
9 ... CiJa6 10 .ie3 l"1e8 (or 1O ....ie6
11 .ie2 CiJb4 12 l"1cl CiJd7, Metge-
Rogers, Auckland 1992, 13 CiJxd7±)
11 .ie2 CiJxe4 12 CiJxe4 f6 13 CiJxf6+
hf6. Now simplest is 14 0-0 heS
IS fxeS l"1xeS 16 .ih6 .ifS 17 .if3 c6
18l"1adU.
b) 6 ... a6
This is a bad version of 6 ... cS
7 dS a6, since White can answer 7
.id3, when 7... cS is no longer pos-
sible due to the simple 8 dxcS dxcS
9 eS CiJfd7 (9 ... CiJhS 10 0-0 CiJc6 11
.ie4) 10 0-0 CiJb6 11.ie3±. So Black
should switch to the idea with
7....ig4 8 .ie3 CiJfd7, but obviously
... a6 does not help him much.
8S
Part 4
9h3
This is my favourite treatment
of such positions. I prefer to force
the exchange in order to be able to
meet ... e5 by dxe5 followed up by f5.
The alternative 9 ~e2 allows 9 ... c5
(9 ... ~h6 10 0-0 e5 11 dxe5 dxe5 12
tt::lxe5 tt::lxe5 13 hg4 'lWxd114 hdl
tt::lxc4 15 ~cU) 10 d5 b5 which would
justify Black's 6 ... a6.
9 ... hf3 10 'lWxf3 tt::lc6 11 'lWf2 e5
12 dxe5 dxe513 f5 tt::ld4
Rybka likes to sacrifice the ex-
change so it contemplates 13 ... tt::lc5
14 hc5 'lWxd3, but White has a cu-
rious way to activate the hI-rook:
15 hf8 (15 Eldl 'lWxc4 16 hi8 Elxf8
17 'lWe2 'lWc5 18 Eld5 'lWe719 0-0 tt::ld4
20 'lWc4 c6 21 'lWc5 'lWc7 22 'lWd6 'lWc8
23 f6 hf6 24 'lWxf6 cxd5 25 tt::lxd5
tt::lc6=) 15 ... Elxf816 'lWe2 'lWg3+ 17 mfl
tt::ld4 18 Wff2 'lWd3+ 19 mgl ~h6 20
Eldl 'lWxc4 21 h4 b5 22 Elh3t.
14 a-a-a!?
86
White's game is much easier.
He will be advancing his kingside
pawns while Black has not clear
counterplay. His knight on d4 is
mostly decorative and can be easi-
ly exchanged. As a rule, White is bet-
ter. The game Avshalumov-Loginov,
Budapest 1990 continued 14...b5 15
g4 c6 16 g5 f6 17 h4 tt::lc5 18 ~c2±.
c) 6 ... tt::lbd7
Black wants to push 7 ... e5, but
his last move deprived the f6-knight
of good retreat squares. I propose
to take advantage of that and stake
even more space in the centre:
7 e5 tt::le8
8h4
8 c5!?, which restricts Black's
counterplay, is much safer and en-
sures some edge: 8 ... dxc5 (or 8 ... c6
9 ~e3 b6 10 cxd6 exd6 11 ~d3 ~b7
12 a-at) 9 dxc5 c6 10 ~e3 tt::lc7 11
~c4t. The extreme passivity of the
enemy forces, however, suggests
sharper means.
8 ... c5 9 h5 cxd4 10 'lWxd4 tt::lc7 11
hxg6 fxg6 12 ~e3 tt::le6 13 Wfd5 tt::lb6
14 'lWe4 ~d715 a-a-at.
d) 6 ... tt::lc6
This move is really ugly. His only
"value" is that it offers White too
many options and the most obvious

one, 7 d5, is probably worst. I like:
7 e5 lLlg4 8 ie2 f6 9 e6:t with
an overwhelming space advantage,
but 7 ie2 e5 8 dxe5 dxe5 9 '@'xd8
~xd81O fxe5lLlg411 ig5 ~d712lLld5
lLlgxe5 13 O-O-O:t is also rather at-
tractive, despite the simplification.
e) 6 ...ig4
A consistent move. White trades
his bishop in order to free room for
the rest of his pieces. He stakes on
dark-square strategy, hoping to ex-
ploit the weakness of d4. I shall exa-
mine two good plans for White:
el) 7 ie3 lLlfd7 8 h3 ixf3 9 '@'xf3
9 ... c5
We already know from line c that
9 ... lLlc6 10 0-0-0 e5 11 dxe5 dxe5
12 f5 lLld4 13 '@'f2:t is in White's fa-
vour, for instance, 13 ... c6 14 g4 '@'a5
15 g5 ~fd8 16 h4 lLlc5 17 'it>bl b5 18
cxb5 cxb5 19 ig2 lLla4 20 f6 if8
21 lLld5+-, Glek-Damljanovic, Bel-
grade 1988.
10 d5 '@'b6
Alternatively, 1O ... lLla6 11 ie2
'@'b6 (11 ... lLlb4 12 ~c1) 12 id2 lLlb4
13idU.
11 '@'f2
11 O-O-O?! hc3 12 bxc3 '@'a5 13
'it>b2 b5 14 h4 occurred in the crazy
game Gretarsson-Forster, Bermuda
5 f4 0-0 6 lLlf3 Lines without 6 ... c5
1999, which went 14 ... lLlb6 15 id2
lLl8d7 16 'it>al ~fb8 17 h5 lLlxc4 18
hxg6 fxg6 19 '@'h3 lLlf8 20 f5oo. The
text is more solid and allows White
to consolidate. It is good for him as
his spatial advantage would be wor-
king in his favour in the long run.
11 ... '@'b4
Or 11 ... lLla6 12 '@'d2 e6 13 dxe6
fxe6 14 ie2:t.
12 '@'c2:t. Everything is protect-
ed now and Black's pieces on the
queenside will soon be repelled.
e2) 7 ie2lLlfd7
We meet 7... lLlbd7 by 8 e5lLle8 9
0-0 (9 h3 hf3 10 hf3 ~b8 11 0-0
c512 dxc5 dxe513 ie3 ih6f±) 9 ... c5
10 dxc5 dxe5 l1lLlxe5 he2 12 '@'xe2
lLlxe5 13 fxe5 '@'d4+ 14 ie3 '@'xe5 15
'@'f3:twith tangible pressure.
8ie3
8 ... e5
If Black delays too long this
move, we can deprive him of it at
all: 8 ... lLlc6 9 e5 dxe5 10 fxe5 f6 11
e6lLlb6 12 d5±.
8 ... c5 definitely does not fit well
with Black's setup: 9 d5 '@'a51Oid2
hf3 11 ixf3 lLla6 12 a3 lLlc7 13 0-0
'@'a6 14 ie2 id4+ 15 'kt>hl ~ae8 16
b4:t, Pesorda-Singer, Graz 1998.
9 fxe5 dxe5 10 d5 hf3 11 ixf3
87
Part 4
~h6. Black got a chance to activate
his dark-squared bishop, but at
a price - he lost the battle for the
centre. White should avoid the pro-
posed trade, because even on f2 his
bishop would be obviously more
useful than the black one.
12 ~f2! as 13 0-0 lLla6 14 a3 fie7
15 ~b1 b6 16 b4±, Moskalenko-Er-
menkov, Wijk aan Zee 1992.
Now it is time to deal with the
main subject of this part - 6 ... lLla6.
I prefer to meet it by:
7id3
I first met this variation in 1989.
When Hebden put his knight to a6,
I recalled the game of Belov and de-
cided to radically cut across Black's
idea: 7 eS?! lLld7
I wanted to launch an attack
by h4, but the immediate 8 h4 cS
9 dS dxeS 10 hS did not look too
convincing to me. Golubev sug-
gests 1O ... fiaS and White will hard-
ly prove sufficient compensation.
So after having banned ... e7-eS, I
chose to impede c7-cS, too!
8 cS?! dxcS 9 dSlLldb810 h4?! c6
1~ hSlLlb412 hxg6 hxg6
13 e6 fxe6 14lLleS, when it is im-
possible to say what is happening
88
without a computer, Semkov-Heb-
den, Villeneuve Tolosane 1989, In-
formator 47/712.
My idea looked so natural and
the game, albeit drawn, was so wild
and entertaining, that unexpect-
edly I found a surprising number
of followers. Eventually it turned
outthat 9... lLlb6! as in Videki-Galla-
gher, Kecskemet 1990, is in Black's
favour. Have in mind though that
the idea of both eS followed up by
cS could be rather effective, as we
saw in line c: 6... lLlbd7?! 7 eS lLle8
8 cS!?
After 7 ~d3, Black is at a junc-
ture.
In practice he chooses:
A. 7... eS
B. 7...~g4
7... cS is also seen, but it has no
theoretical significance. After 8 dS
Black can transpose to line B by 8 ...
~g4. Alternatives are 8 ... e6 9 0-0
exdS 10 cxdS ~g4 11 h3 hf3 12 fixf3
lLlb4 13 ~bU or 8 ... lLlc7 9 0-0 a6 10
eS lLlfe8, when simplest is 11 h3 bS
12 b3t with an overwhelming space
advantage.
 5 f4 0-0 6 tDf3 Lines without 6 ... c5

A. 7 ••• e5 8 fxe5 dxe5 9 d5 The easiest way to kill the block-

er. If Black attempts now 12 ...f5 13
i.g5 '!Wd7 14 tDxd6 W1xd6, White will
use the absence of the a6-knight
from the kingside with 15 '!WeI! f4
(15 ...h616 W1h4) 16 W1h4 gt717 g3! to
crush the opponent on the allegedly
"his" wing: 17... fxg3 18 hxg3 i.d719
i.h6±. Inkiov-Belkhodja, Evry 2005
saw instead:
12 ... tLlxb5 13 cxb5 tLlc7
Here simplest would have been
14 i.g5 f6 15 i.e3 b6 16 b4± with a
Black tries to prevent c4-c5 by: lasting advantage.
A1.9 ... c5
A2.9 ... tDc5
A3.9 ... c6 A2. 9 ... tLlc5 10 .tc2 a5 11 0-0
tLle8

A1.9 ... c5
Now Black's pieces are pas-
sive and the only question is would
White break through the blockade,
or not.
10 0-0 tLle8 11 a3
White can also start with 11 i.g5 f6
12 i.h4 tDac7?! 13 a3 tDd6 14 b4 b6
15 bxc5 bxc5. One of my blitz games
went on with 16 tDxe5! '!We817 tDc6 f5
18 i.g3 (18 i.e7+-) 18 .. .f4 19 gxf4±,
Semi (2681)-Falstaf (2767) 3m + Is Black aims to put his pieces on
Playchess.com, 2008. dark squares and thrust f5. Ifhe de-
11 ... tLld612 tLlb5!? lays the knight retreat, the pin on g5
would be awkward, as in the game
Zimmerman-Salai, Presov 1997:
11 ...W1e7 12 @h1 i.d7 13 i.g5 h6 14
i.h4 ga6 15 b3 g5 16 i.f2 i.g4 17 i.g1
tDh5 18 a3 tDd719 tDb5 c5 20 d6±.
In the diagram position White
should decide where to develop his
bishop - on the h4-d8 diagonal,
or on e3. I think that the latter op-
tion is more natural, but it would be
89
Part 4
good to provoke .. .f6 first:
12 ~g5 f6 13 ~e3
The game Ostenstad-Carlsen,
Trondheim 2004 saw 13 ~h4 'Wffe7
14 'Wffe2 ~d7 IS b3 lLld6 16 a3 lLla6,
when White should have shifted his
knight to d3 via el. (17 lLle1!?) In-
stead, he chose 17 ~h1 ~h8 18lLlbS,
but after 18... 'Wffe8 it turned out
that 19lLlxd6 cxd6 20 'Wffd2 could be
countered by 20 ...bS~.
13... b614 a3lLld615lLld2 f516
~e2 lLld7 17 b4 lLlf6 18 c5 bxc5
19 bxc5
Both sides have completed their
plans and White appears to be on
top. For instance, 19 ... ~a6 20 ~d3
hd3 21 'Wffxd3 fxe4 22 'Wffe2 lLlfS 23
~gS e3 24 lLlde4 'Wffc8 2S he3;!; re-
gains the pawn with an edge. In
the game Kahn-G.Pinter, Budapest
2000 Black opted for:
19 ... lLldxe4 20 lLldxe4 fxe4
Now 21 ~b3;!; ~h8 22 ~gS would
have underlined White's edge.
A3.9 ... c6
Knaak puts an exclamation mark
to this move in his 200S survey. It
is hardly any better than the other
90
options though. White obtains the
better game with simple developing
moves.
100-0
The attempt to pin the f6-knight
by 10 ~gS fails to 1O ... h6! 11 ~h4
'Wffb6! 12 'Wffe2 lLlcS.
10 ... cxd5 11 cxd5 lLle8
Black prevented c4-cS indeed,
but he lost a tempo on ... c6 and
opened the c-file. The diagonal a3-
f8 is also very weak and we should
aim to put a bishop on cS.
11 ... 'Wffb6+ 12 ~h1lLlg4 would not
have helped Black as 13 'Wffe2lLlcS14
~c4 ~d7 IS ~gS fS 16 exfS± opens
play in White's favour.
12 ~e3 lLld6
12 ... 'Wffe7 is similar: 13 ~xa6 bxa6
14 'Wffa4 lLld6 IS lLld2!±, Banikas-
Gurcan, Yerevan 2000.
13 ~a4!
I have tested this novelty several
times in blitz. The queen is heading
for a3 from where it will pressurise
d6. 13 1':\c1 ~d7 14 'Wffe2 lLlc7 IS ~cS
lLlce8 16 lLlbS hbS 17 hbS;!; is also
better for him.
13 ... ~d7
13 .. .fS only serves to weaken
Black's centre: 14 1':\ac1 ~d7 IS 'Wffa3

fxe4 16 tLlxe4 tLlf5 17 .if2 tLld4 18
tLlfg5±.
14 ~a3 ~b8 15 i.xa6 bxa6 16
i.c5 llJb5 17 llJxb5 i.xb5 18 ~f2
~d8 19 llJg5 ~d7 20 i.e7!
This move fixes White's advan-
tage. 20 1Wh3 h6 21 tLlxV1Wc8 221We6
1Wxc5 23 tLlxe5+ ~h8 24 a4 .ixe5 25
1Wxe5+ ~h7oo is pretty unclear.
20 ... ~b6 21 d6±.
B. 7 ...i.g4 8 i.e3
8 0-0 llJd7 9 .ie3 e5 10 fxe5 c5
should not be completely discarded
as an option. I think that White has
a pleasant game after both:
11 dxc5!? dxc512 .ie2 tLlc7, Peev-
Spasov, Tsarevo 2001, 131Wa4! .ixf3
14 gxf3 tLlxe5 15 f4 lLlc6 16 .ixc5
.id4+ 17.ixd4 tLlxd4 18 E:f2± or
11 d5 tLlxe5 12 .ie2 tLlxf3+ 13
.ixf3 .id7 14 1Wd2 1We7 15 .ig5 1We5
16 .if4, Golubev gives here 16 ...1We7?
as in his blitz game Vaisser-Golu-
bev 2004, but it stumbles into 17
e5! .ixe5 18 .ixe51Wxe5 19 E:ael1Wg7
20 lLle4±. Of course Black must play
16 ... 1Wd4+ 17E:f2 .ie5 18 .ixe51Wxe5
and he can hold the position, but
this structure is known to be very
passive for Black.
5 f4 0-0 6 tLlf3 Lines without 6 ... c5
Bl. 8 ... e5
B2.8 ... tLld7
B3.8 ... c5
81. 8... e5?! fxe5 dxe5 10 d5~
This structure is better for White
as a rule. The bishop on g4 makes
Black's task even more difficult:
10 ... c6
1O ... lLlh5 is anti-positional, since
Black needs this knight for attack
and should not try to trade it for the
d3-bishop. White has a serious ad-
vantage after 11 cS! (or 11 0-0 lLlf412
cS!) 11...lLlf4 12 0-0.
11 0-0 cxd5 12 cxd5 llJe8,
(12 ... tLlhS 13 1Wa4±) 13 ~a4±, see
game 14 Stocek-Folk, Ceska Tre-
bova 2007.
82. 8... llJd7 9 i.e2!
91
Part 4
I remember that I analysed this
move back in the 1980ies when Be-
lov's plan with 6 ... tLla6 had just ap-
peared. It is aimed against 9 0-0 eS
10 fxeS cS. It is true that White had
just developed this piece on the pre-
vious move, but who can claim that
the black knight stands better on d7
instead of f6!
Note that 9 h3? (Knaak) 9 ....b:f3
10 ~xf3 cS! 11 dS is bad due to
11...tLlh4 12 ib1 ~aS (12 ...bS, Dor-
fanis-Spasov, Kavala 2001 is un-
clear) 13 0-0 tLlb6 and White loses
material: 14 ~e2 ~a61S a3 tLlxc416
axb4 ~xa117~xc4 ~xb2+, Chytilek-
Babula, Czechia 1999.
9 ... c5
9 ... ixf31O .b:f3 eS is commonly
faced with 11 dxeS dxeS 12 fS;!; while
9 ... eSlO fxeS dxeS11 dSleads to ano-
ther pawn structure which is even
more pleasant: 11... ixf3 (Or 11.. .fS
12 tLlgS f4 13 ixg4 fxe3 14 ie6+ ~ h8
1S tLlf7+±) 12 .b:f3 ih613 if2! fS14
O-O±, Jianu-Economescu, Bucha-
rest 2008.
10 d5 .ixf3 11 .ixf3 ~a5 12 .id2
~b4 13 .ie21;
It looks like Black obtained some
counterplay, but it is only tempo-
92
rary. His pieces will soon be repelled
back. In the game Kahn-Rajlich,
Budapest 2000, Black attempted to
complicate things by 13 ... ~xb2 14
1'!b1 ~a3, but 1S eS± came extreme-
ly unpleasant.
83. S... c5
Recommended by both Golubev
and Galagher.
9 d5 e6 10 h3 exd5 11 cxd5
.ixf3 12 ~xf3
12 ... llJb4
12 ... 1'!e8 13 0-0 tLlb4 is hardly
any better due to the tempo 14 ibS!
1'!e7 1S eS dxeS 16 ixcS;!;.
13.ib1 1'!eS
I have also analysed 13 ... tLld7!?
14 0-0 ~aS 1S eS!
This thematic thrust is very good
here. 1S a3 misses the opportuni-
ty and Black takes over the initia-
tive after 1S ... 1'!ae8 16 ~f2 tLla6 17 eS
dxeS 18 fS e4 19 tLlxe4 ~b6CX) 20 d6
~xb2.
1S ... dxeS 16 fS tLlf6 17 ie4 1'!ad8
181'!ad11'!d6 19 a3 tLla6 20 g4±
Remember this position! It illus-
trates White's main strategical goal
in the Modem Benoni structure.
 5 f4 0-0 6 tDf3 Lines without 6 ... c5

tDxd5 17 ~xd5 !'1xe3+ 18 @d2;!;:) but

instead of the passive 16 tDdl, White
has the simple 16 tDe4 he3 17 ~xe3
tDxd5 18 ~f3 f5 19 O-O±.
15 0-0 ll)d7 16 eS!

Black might continue further

with 20 ... !'1fd8 (20 ... c4 21 g5 tDh5 22
f6 ~h8 23 ~g4 tDc5 24 ~c2±) 21 fxg6
fxg6 22 ~e2 @h8 23 ~g2. The threat
of ~g5 is very awkward for Black.
14 a3 WaS
Golubev advocates here as an im- White has a clear advantage, see
provement "the bizarre" 14 ... tDfxd5 game 13 Banikas-Delithanasis,
15 exd5 ~d4, (or 15 ... hc3+ 16 bxc3 Kavala 1997.

93
 Part 4 1 d4 ttlf6 2 c4 g6 3 ttlc3 J.g7 4 e4
d6 5 f4 0-0 6 ttlf3
Lines without 6 ••• cS

COMPLETE GAMES

13. Banikas - Delithanasis 15 ... ttld7

Kavala 1997
1 c4 g6 2 ttlc3 J.g7 3 d4 d6 4 e4
ttlf6 5 f4 0-0 6 ttlf3ttla6 7 J.d3 J.g4 8
J.e3 c5 9 d5 e6 10 h3 exd5 11 cxd5
J.xf3 12 ~xf3ttlb4 13 J.b1 ~e8
This is one of the most testing
line against White's setup. The text
move is a double-edged decision
since it weakens the f-file and es-
pecially the V-square. 13 ... liJd7!? is
more restrained, but it allows White
to castle and follow up with his main
plan: 14 0-0 ~aS1S eS!
14 a3 ~a5
14 ... liJfxdS fails to 1S exdS .td4
16liJe4±.
150-0
White is fully developed now
and he is aiming to open the f-file.
Another good idea is the blockading
pawn sacrifice eS, followed up by fS.
Even the prophylaxis Wh1, aimed
againsttactical tricks along the g1-a7
diagonal, would be very unpleasant.
Black has no adequate counterplay.
For instance, the thematic 1S ... c4 16
fS! liJd3 only loses a pawn after 17
bd3 cxd3 18 fxg6 fxg6 19 .td4l'!e7
20 ~xd3±. Black decides to discour-
age fS, but then the other central
breakthrough gains in strength:
16 e5! c4
16 ... dxeS 17 fS is thematic ... and
awful for Black:

94

17... e4 18 ixe4 ttJd3 19 fxg6 fxg6
20 ~f7+ It>h8 21 ~xd7 ttJxb2 22 :1l:ael
ttJd3 23 :1l:c2 :1l:ad8 24 ~xb7 :1l:b8 25
~d7 :1l:bd8 26 ~g4 ixc3 27 ~h4+­
or 17... ttJf6 18 ie4 ttJa6 19 fxg6 fxg6
20 d6+-.
17 e6
White has an overwhelming ad-
vantage in the centre so he only
needs to open up play.
17.. .fxe6 18 dxe6 lLlf6
Or 18 ... :1l:xe6 19 f5.
19 Wlxb7 lLlbd5
Black is beyond salvation, for
19 ... :1l:ab8 loses just another pawn
after 20 ~f7+ It>h8 21 ~xa7±.
20 .id4 Wlc7 21 Wlxc7 lLlxc7 22
.ia2
The best move order was 22 f5
gxf5 23 :1l:xf5 :1l:xe6 24 ia2+-.
22 ... lLlxe6
The point is that 22 ... d5 fails to
23 f5+-.
23 .ixc4 @h8
Black's last chance to put up
some resistance was 23 ... d5! 24 ixf6
dxc4± with "only" one pawn down.
24 .ixe6 ~xe6 25 ~ae1 ~xe1 26
~xe1 lLlg8 27 ~d1 ~b8 28 .ixg7+
@xg7 29 ~xd6 ~xb2 30 ~d7+ @f6
31 g4 ~b3 32 lLle4+ @e6 33 lLlc5+
1-0
14. Stocek - Folk
Ceska Trebova 11.08.2007
1 d4 lLlf6 2 c4 g6 3 lLlc3 .ig7 4 e4
d6 5 f4 0-0 6 lLlf3 lLla6 7 .id3 .ig4 8
.ie3 e5 9 fxe5 dxe5 10 d5 c6 11 0-0
cxd512 cxd5 lLle8 13 Wla4 Wld614
.ixa6 bxa6
5 f4 0-0 6 ttJf3 Lines without 6 ... c5
Such positions with doubled a-
pawns arise often in this variation.
As a rule, White is much better be-
cause he has two excellent squares
for his minor pieces - c5 and c4.
Right now he could underline that
by 15 b4 E1c8 16 ~a3 f5 17 ic5 ~f6
18 E1ael!± - there is no reason to
"give" the bishop for the rook as it
will hardly run away. This is a re-
cent game, databases are abundant
with practical examples, and I re-
ally cannot understand what Black
wanted to achieve when choosing
this variation.
15 ~ac1 ~b8 16 b3
White demonstrates that Black
has no play along the b-file, but 16
ttJd2± would have been fine, too.
16 ... lLlc7
A grim alternative is 16 ... ixf3 17
:1l:xf3 E1c8 18 b4 f5 19 ic5 E1xc5 20
bxc5 ~xc5+ 21 It>hl ttJd6 22 ~c6±.
17 lLld2 .id7 18 lLlc4
The opening is over and White
directly simplifies to a winning end-
game.
18 ....ixa419 lLlxd6 .id7 20 .ixa7
~a8 21 .ib6 lLlb5 22 lLlcxb5 axb5 23
~c7 ~a6 24 .ic5 .ig4 25 ~f2 1-0
95
BLACK DEVIATIONS FROM THE MAIN MOVE ORDER
The best part of having the FPA in
one's repertoire is that Black will of-
ten try to outsmart you with tricky
move orders and second grade sys-
tems which commonly delay ... ttlf6
or ... g6.
They are called "Modern",
but perhaps "Dubious" would
have been a more appropriate
name.
I do not claim that White can re-
fute them. I only assert that these
offbeat systems are less challeng-
ing and offer White a much wid-
er choice of good plans. As a rule,
White can pick between solid de-
velopment that should ensure him
a slight edge, and more testing and
sharper, though doubled-edged
variations.
I will propose a repertoire based
on my own preferences, but unlike
the first part of the book, here the
variations are seldom forceful and
on many occasions White will have
other worthy continuations. So if
you already have your own favour-
ite systems against the Modern De-
fence, I do not see any reason for
you to renounce them. Any cen-
tre-oriented natural development
should give White a pleasant game.
The paramount difference be-
tween the various offbeat Black's
setups is the position of the dark-
squared bishop. It can go to g7 or
e7. The latter option is rather pas-
96
sive and its popularity has faded
away. I deal with it in Part 7. The
fianchetto with an early ... ttlc6 is
subject of Part 5, while Part 6 con-
siders the Classical King's Indian
with ... ttld7. I think that White can-
not, and should not, avoid this spe-
cific type of the KID since it hides
no venom. White should obtain a
stable advantage in the opening
without risking the dreadful KID
attacks from the most topical lines
with ... ttlc6.
There are a number of other cu-
rious systems for Black, but I can-
not encompass all of them. For in-
stance, 1 d4 d6 is best met with 2
e4!, followed by ttlc3. Chess Stars
has published a whole 400-pages
-thick book on these lines - An
Opening for White According to
Anand, volume 4. I'd like to add
that many players (and I myself)
love the fianchetto system against
the KID, but they refrain from try-
ing it often because of the possibili-
ty of Black switching to Gruenfeld
setups. This is not a problem after
1 d4 d6 which allows 2 ttlf3 followed
up by g3. This move order also en-
ables interesting setups without
ttlc3. They are of independent sig-
nificance and Black is usually less
prepared to face them adequately.
In the next parts I will only fo-
cus on setups where White plays c4
and an early ttlc3.
 PartS
QUICK REPERTOIRE
In these systems Black tries to
attack early the d4-square, thus pre-
venting White from building a broad
pawn centre. He can achieve that by
putting his knight on c6 immediate-
ly, or after the preliminary 3 ... d6.
1. 3... lDc6 4lDf3! e5 (4 ... d6 5 d5
lDe5 6 lDxe5) 5 dxe5 lDxe5 6 lDc3 d6
7 ~e3!?
We have the better centre and
good prospects of opening files on
the kingside. Our own king will be
safe on the other wing:
7... lDe7 8 lDxe5 he5 9 'l&d2 0-0
10 0-0-0 ~e6 11 h4 f5 12 ~g5 f4 13
h5±, Piasetski-Lacasta Palacios,
Sants 2006;
1 d4 g6 2 e4 ~g7 3 c4
7... lDxf3+ 8 gxf3! lDf6 (or 8 ... lDe7
9 'l&d2 0-0 10 0-0-0 lDc6 11 h4---+) 9
\&d2 with attack.
2. 3 ... d6 4 lDc3 lDc6 (4 ... lDd7 5
lDf3 is subject of the next part.) 5
d5! (5 ~e3 lDf6! would face us with
the main KID lines) 5... lDd4 6 ~e3
c5 (or 6 ... e5 7lDge2t) 7lDge2
White is slightly better due to his
space advantage and good prospects
on the kingside. Black's attempt to
complicate things by 7... ~g4 8 f3
hf3? 9 gxf3 lDxf3+ 10 It>f2 lDe5 is
easily refuted by 11 'l&a4+. 7... lDxe2
8 he2 lDf6 9 0-0 0-0 allows him
to trade one minor piece and com-
plete development, but his future is
97
PartS
not bright at all. We can expand on
the kingside by f4, and then, g4-gS
orf4-fS. In that case it would be bet-
ter for us to keep the centre closed.
Black's problem in that structure is
the lack of counterplay. 10 f4 e6?!
was bad for him in Vaisser-Tur-
ner, rapid Athens, 1997: 11 dxe6
he6 (11 ...fxe6 12 eS±) 12 fS±. Stay-
ing passively is also not too attrac-
tive, as it can be seen in game 15
Vaisser-Barlov, Las Palmas 1995
which went on 10 f4 lLle8 11 fS !eS
12 ~d2 lLlf6 13 !h6 ~e8 14 g4.
Remains:
7... ~b6 8lLla4 ~aS+ 9 !d2
Lately Black has been experi-
encing problems here after both
9 ... ~d8 10 !c3 eS 11 dxe6lLlxe6 12
hg7 lLlxg7 13 ~d2 lLlf6 14 f3 !e6
1S lLlf4 ~e7 16 O-O-O±, Gelfand-Az-
maiparashvili, Dortmund 1990, and
9... ~a6 10 lLlxd4 hd4 l1lLlc3. See
98
game 16 Belov-Bologan, Plovdiv
2008 and 17 Zs.Polgar-Todor-
cevic, Pamplona 1990.
In these two examples Black at-
tacked the centre by his knight. He
might also use his e-pawn, but the
resulting endgame is rather un-
pleasant for him:
3. 3 ... d6 4lLlc3 eS S dxeS!? (This
move is the main reason for most
players to avoid 4 ... eS.) S... dxeS 6
~xd8+ \!fxd8 7 f4 lLlc6 8 lLlf3
White achieves a lasting pull
here with simple moves. He attacks
the centre and tries to fix a target,
commonly on the queenside.
8 ...!e6 9 fxeSlLlxeS1 0 !f4lLlxf3 +
(1O ... lLlxc4 l1lLlbSlLlxb2 12 ~c1t) 11
gxf3 c6 12 0-0-0+ \!fe8 13 \!fc2 lLlf6
14 b3 ~d8. This position arose in
Donner-Ivkov, Wijk aan Zee 1972.
White is clearly better.
 PartS
STEP BY STEP
It is a matter of taste whether to
play 3 ttJc3 or 3 e4. The downside
of 3 e4 is that it allows 3 ... ttJc6. As
we shall see, this variation hard-
ly equalises though. Now let us exa-
mine the move order with:
3 ttJc3!?
Now 3 ... ttJc6 does not make
much sense as White has the pleas-
ant choice between 4 d5 ttJe5 5 e4
d6 6 ie2 ttJf6 7 f4 ttJed7 8 ttJf3 0-0 9
0-0 c6 10 ie3 cxd5 11 cxd5 ttJg4 12
id4 ixd4+ 13 ~xd4 ~b614 WTxb6;t,
Mista-Knaak, Zinnowitz 1969 and 4
ttJf3 d6 5 e4 ig4 6 ie3 ttJf6 (6 ...ixf3
7 gxf3;t) 71e2 with an edge. The only
reasonable deviation from my main
line is 3 ... c5 4 d5 ixc3+ 5 bxc3 f5.
1 d4 g6 2 e4 ig7 3 c4
I can only say that it is not so
easy to checkmate Black here as it
seems at first glance:
a) 6 e4 fxe4 7 f3!? e5;
b) 6 ~a4 ttJf6 7 g3 0-0 8 ig2 d6
9 ttJh3 ttJa6 10 0-0 ttJc7 11 ~b3;t,
Delchev-Seret, St. Affrique 2002;
c) 6 h4!? ttJf6 (6 ... d6 led to a
miniature in Karpov-William, Par-
sippany 1998: 7h5 ~a5 8 id2 gxh5
9 ttJh3 ttJf6 10 ttJf4 ttJbd7 11 e3 ttJe5
12 ttJxh5 ttJxh513 WTxh5+ ttJg614 f4
wd8 15 i.d3 id7 16 g4 ie8 17 WTxf5
ttJe518 fxe5 ,ig6 19 ~xg61-0) 7 h5
l:!g8!? (7... ttJxh5 lets in 8 e4 WTa5 9
exf5 ~xc3+ 10 id2 ~g7 11 id3±,
Borchgrevink-Hersvik, Hamburg
1999) 8 hxg6 hxg6
99
PartS
White has not shown a clear
path to advantage, for instance, 9
1!h'a4 1!h'b6 10 ct:Jf3 ct:Je4 11 ct:Jg5 1!h'f6
12 ct:Jxe4 fxe4131!h'c2 d614 l"1b1 <;t>d8
15 i.e3 <;t>c7oo, Sakaev-Reinderman,
Cappelle la Grande, 1995.
I suppose that White should be
better after 5 .. .f5, but this variation
needs more testing.
3 ... d6
Alternatively:
a) 3 ... ct:Jc6 is ten times less popu-
lar than the text, but it deserves at-
tention. You should resist the temp-
tation to push 4 d5 since the line
4 ... ct:Jd45 ct:Je2 c5 6 ct:Jxd4 cxd4 gives
Black counterplay: 7 i.d3 d6 8 0-0
ct:Jf6 9 ct:Jd2 0-0 10 b4 as 11 bxa5
1!h'xa5 12 ct:Jb31!h'b6oo.
I prefer 4 ct:Jf3.
Now 4 ... d6 5 d5 ct:Je5 6 ct:Jxe5
he5 should be pleasant to White
due to his impressive pawn centre
and the clumsy stand of the e5-bi-
shop. The game B.Kovacevic-Bilis-
kov, Zadar 2007 went on 7 i.d3 ct:Jf6
8 0-0 0-0 9 ct:Jd2 ct:Jh5 10 l"1e1 c6 11
h3 e6 12 ct:Jf3;!:;.
4 ... e5 is more interesting: 5 dxe5
ct:Jxe56 ct:Jc3 d6 7 i.e3!?
The fine point is to wait for Black
to define the position of his king's
100
knight. For instance, after 7... ct:Je7
we take on e5 and castle long: 8
ct:Jxe5 he5 91!h'd2 0-0 10 0-0-0 i.e6
11 h4 f5 12 i.g5 f4 13 h5± as in Pia-
setski-Lacasta Palacios, Sants 2006.
If Black himself captures on f3, we
open a file against his king:
7... ct:Jxf3+
8gxf3! ct:Jf6(or8 ... ct:Je791!h'd2 0-0
10 0-0-0 ct:Jc611 h4---+) 91!h'd2. This is
more natural than 91!h'c2, intending
to play l"1g1 and thrust f4-f5 which
also deserves attention though.
9 ... 0-0 10 0-0-0 i.e6 11 h4 as
12 i.e2t. It is clear that White stays
better all over the board.
b) 3 ... c6 4 ct:Jc3 d5 5 cxd5 cxd5 is
seldom seen. Of course, White can
play 6 e5 with a stable space ad-
vantage, but I like 6 ct:Jxd5 e6 7 ct:Jc3
hd4. In this symmetrical pawn
structure White is way ahead in de-
velopment. He can use it by 8 1!h'a4
or 8 i.b5+ ct:Jc6 9 ct:Jge2 i.f6 10 0-0
1!h'xd111 l"1xd1 i.d712 f4 i.e713 i.e3±,
Bareev-Seoev, Tallinn 1988.
c) 3 ... c5 4 d5 e6 is an original
treatment of Modern Benoni ideas.
The fine point is that Black might
develop his knight on e7 instead of

the common f6-square. We should
not insist on our repertoire with f4,
since the peculiarity of the position
gives Black extra options, e.g.: 5 f4
exd5 6 cxd5 d6 7 4:Jf3 4:Je7 S i.d3 0-0
9 0-0 Wb6!? 10 st>h1 i,xb2 11 i,xb2
Wxb2 with unclear consequences:
12 4:Jbd2 Wf613 e5 Wxf414 4:Je4 4:Jf5
15 4:Jf6+ st>h816 ~5 i,xf5. It is bet-
ter to wait and see where the gS-
knight will go.
5 4:Jc3 exd5 6 cxd5
In general, I do not like sym-
metry, so I would not recommend
6 exd5 d6 7 i.d3 4:Je7 8 4:Jf3 0-0 9
0-0.
6 ... d67f4
The "normal" move here is 7
i.d3, but I do not see any reason to
abandon the f4-plan.
7... 4:Je7 S h4!?
You will notice that I advocate
this advance in all the variations
where Black puts his knight on e7.
His plan of pushing .. .f5 is not to be
underestimated. At least, then the
e7-knight will not be so awkward.
The text cuts across Black's inten-
tion.
S ... h5
This may weaken the kingside,
but allowing White to open the h-
1 d4 g6 2 c4 i.g7 3 e4
file would be a mistake: S ... O-O 9 h5
:ge8 (9 .. .f5 10 e5 dxe5 11 i.c4±) 10
i.e2 gxh5 (1O .. .f5 11 e5; 1O ... 4:Jd7 11
hxg6 4:Jxg6 12 f5 4:Jge5 13 i.h6 i.f6 14
Wd2±) 11 f5±. White's attack is run-
ning by itself in these examples.
9 i.e2
I toyed for a while with the seem-
ingly attractive idea 9 4:Jf3 4:Jd71O g4
hxg4 11 4:Jg5 4:Jf6 12 e5 dxe5 13 fxe5
4:Jfxd5 14 i.c4 i.e6 15 4:Jxe6 fxe6 16
Wxg4 Wb617 i.b5+ st>dS 18 i.g5 st>c7
190-0-0, but Black is holding after
19 ... :gafS (or 19 ... :gad8 20 4:Jxd5+
4:Jxd5 21 i,xdS+ :gxdS 22 Wxg6
i,xe5 23 a4 WaS 24 Wxe6 i,xb2+ 25
st>xb2 Wc3+=) 20 i,xe7 i.h6+ 21 i.g5
4:Jxc3 22 bxc3 i,xg5+ 23 hxg5 :gxh1
24 :gxh1 Wxb5 25 Wxe6 :gfl + 26 :gxfl
Wxfl+=.
9 ... 4:Jd7 10 4:Jh3 4:Jf6 114:Jf2
The hole on g4 is well covered
and White can go on with his main
strategic idea of breaking through
with e4-e5: 11 ... 0-0 12 0-0 a6 13 a4
Wc7 14 :gel :gbS 15 i.f3 b5 16 axb5
axb5 17 e5. White has the initiative,
e.g. 17... 4:Jg4 IS i,xg4 i,xg419 4:Jxg4
hxg4 20 :ga6 :gfdS 21 4:Je4 4:Jf5 22
:gc6 Wa7 23 Wxg4 dxe5 24 h5---+.
4~c3
101
PartS

4 ... lLlc6 his pieces for attack on both wings.

The other major option 4 ... ttJd7 Black's queenside is left without de-
5 ttJf3 is subject of the next part. fence and that could be underlined
I do not think that 4 ... e5 deserves by 15 ~g2!t ~e716 ~g5 h617 ~e3 b6
much of attention. White can try to 18 e5 ~f5+ 19 ~b2 ttJd7 20 f4 f6 21
steer the game into the main line by hc6 with an edge.
5 ttJge2 when Black might deviate The possibility of 5 dxe5!? is the
not too successfully with 5 ... ttJe7 6 main reason for most players to
~e3 (6 dxe5 dxe5 7 ~xd8+ \t>xd8 8 avoid 4 ... e5.
~g5 f6 9 0-0-0+ ttJd7 10 ~e3 c6 11
h4 h5 12 g3t) 6 ... 0-0 7 h4 f5 8 dxe5
dxe5 9 ~g5 ~e81O h5t.
The most testing continuation
however is 5 dxe5!? dxe5 6 ~xd8+
\t>xd8 7 f4 ttJc6 8 ttJf3

5 d5!
Perhaps the exclamation mark
will surprise some readers. White
often uses 5 ~e3 or 5 ttJge2. These
8 ... ~e6 moves may not be any worse than
Or 8 ... ttJd4 9 \t>f2! ttJxf3 10 gxf3 the text, but they have a major draw-
~e6 11 ~e3 ttJe7 12 Efd1 + ~c8 13 back - they allow the opponent to
ttJd5 Efe8 14 Efg1 (14 ttJxe7+ Efxe7 15 throw us outside of our repertoire.
f5 gxf5 16 Efg1 ~f8 17 ~h3 fxe4 18 Suppose we choose:
he6+ Efxe619 E!:g8 E!:e8 20 fxe4 b6 5~e3
21 E!:h8±) 14 .. .f5 15 ~h3 b6 16 b3±, The overwhelming majority of
Halkias-Krum Georgiev, Athens games see then 5 ... e5?! 6 ttJge2
1998.
9 fxe5 ttJxe5 10 ~f4 ttJxf3+
(1O ... ttJxc411 ttJb5 ttJxb2 12 E!:c1t) 11
gxf3 c6 12 0-0-0+ ~e8 13 ~c2 ttJf6
14 b3 E!:d8. This position arose in
Donner-Ivkov, Wijk aan Zee 1972.
White is clearly better. He has a mo-
bile pawn centre, connected rooks
and he is able to quickly relocate

102

In my opinion, White is already
better. It is late for 6 ... ttJf6 in view
of 7 d5 ttJe7 8 f3 0-0 9 g4 and Black
is cramped in the back two lines:
9... ttJe8 10 h4 f5 11 g5;!; (11 gxf5±)
11.. .f4 12 ~f2, Balashov-Potapov,
Vladimir 2008. That is why he com-
monly chooses:
a) 6... ttJh6 7 f3 f5 8 d5 ttJe7 9\Wd2
ttJf7 (or 9 .. .f4 10 ~f2 g5 11 c5) 10
0-0-0 with a clear plan for collect-
ing something on the queenside. I
have pleasant memories in this po-
sition from a tournament where I
achieved my second GM norm. My
opponent was one of the most de-
voted KID adepts GM Krum Geor-
giev. The game did not last long:
1O .. .f4
In the past years Black has not
come up with a reasonable plan. For
example, the game Malakhatko-Si-
mutowe, Panevezys 2008 saw in-
stead 10 ... a6 11 @bl ~d7 12 c5 0-0
13 ttJc1 dxc514 hc5 b615 ~a3 ttJd6
16 ~d3 and White went on to win.
11 ~f2 g512 h3 (12 c5±) 12 ...h513
@bl ttJg6 14 c5
White's spatial advantage makes
his attack much more efficient.
14... g4 15 hxg4 hxg4 16 gxh8+
hh8 17 lDb5!± a6 18 \WaS @d7 19
c6++-, Semkov-Kr.Georgiev, Plov-
1 d4 g6 2 c4 ~g7 3 e4
div 1988.
b) 6... exd4 7 ttJxd4 ttJge7
8h4!
Beware the trap 8 ~e2 0-0 9 0-0
f5 10 exf5 hd4! 11 hd4 ttJxf5=. I
first witnessed it in the game Tal-
Azmaiparashvili, Albena 1984. I
also played in that tournament and
watched the postmortem analysis.
Then I decided that White cannot
aspire to the advantage by castling
short. I'll repeat here something I
had already said before:
When Black develops his
knight on e7 in the Modern
Defence, White should always
contemplate h4 as the most
testing answer.
8 .. .f5
Black fairs a little better after
8 ...h5, if the tiny 31% can be called
better at all: 9 \Wd2 ttJe5 (or 9 ... 0-0
10 0-0-0 ttJxd4 11 hd4 hd4 12
\Wxd4 ttJc6 13 \We3 ~e6 14 ~e2 ttJe5
15 c5±, Stangl-B. Schneider, Germa-
ny 1989) 10 0-0-0 a6 11 @bl ~d712
ttJf3 \Wc8, Norris-McNab, Glasgow
2000, when 13 c5± would have fixed
White's edge.
9h5 gf8
From the top players only Mame-
dyarov tries to defend this varia-
tions lately. In his previous game he
103
 Part 5
chose 9 ...fxe41O hxg6 hxg611 Ei:xh8+
hh8 12 CLlxe4 d5 (12,..CLlf5 13 ~g5
~d714 CLlxf5 ~xf5 15 ~e2 ~e6 16 0-
O-Ot) 13 CLlxc6 bxc6 14 ~d4 ~g4 15
~xg4 hd4 16 cxd5 hb2 (16,..cxd5
17 CLld6+ ~xd6 18 ~xd4t) 17 Ei:dl (17
Ei:bl!? Ei:b8 18 dxc6±) 17,..cxd5 18
~b5+ mf8 19 ~e6 with strong initi-
ative, Kramnik-Mamedyarov, Mos-
cow 2007. Undoubtedly Anand ex-
pected this opening and he came
well prepared 3 days later, even for
a blitz game!
10 hxg6 hxg611 Ei:h7 Ei:t7
12 Ei:xg7!! Ei:xg7 13 ~g5~ ~d7 14
CLlxc6 (or 14 ~d2 CLlxd415 ~xd4 CLlc6
16 ~e3 ~e6 17 O-O-O~) 14,..CLlxc6
15 CLld5 and White went on to win,
Anand-Mamedyarov, Moscow 2007.
c) 6,..f5 7 exf5 gxf5 (7,..hf5 8
d5 CLlce7 9 CLlg3 CLlf6 10 ~e2 0-0 11
0-0 c5 12 ~d2 ~d7 13 f3 Ei:ae8 14
a3 a6, Csom-Sax, Budapest 1977
is positionally grim for Black fol-
lowing 15 b4 b6 16 CLlge4t) 8 dxe5
dxe5 9 ~xd8+ CLlxd8 10 f4 CLle6 11
0-0-0 CLlf6 12 h3 ~h6 13 g3t, B.
Kovacevic-Jurkovic, Nova Gorica
2002. White's pieces are clearly bet-
ter coordinated.
Then why I do not recommend
5 ~e3 for our repertoire?! Because
Black can answer 5 •.. CLlf6!
104
This is not a problem if you like
the Saemisch with ... CLlc6 or the
main line Classical with 6 ~e2 0-0
7 CLlf3 CLlg4, but I assume that you
read my book to find a way to avoid
the big theory.
Of course White can play 7 d5
CLle5 8 h3, but I'm not sure I like
this.
The same reasoning applies
to 5 CLlge2. Black should answer
5,..CLlf6! when the Saemisch would
be White's best choice.
Now let us return to the main
line.
5 ..• tL'ld4 6 i.e3
6 .•. c5
6,..e5 plugs the diagonal to the
KID's bishop on g7 so it is obvious-
ly bad. White follows up with:
7 CLlge2 CLlxe2
The piece sac 7,..~g4 hf3? 9
gxf3 CLlxf3+ 10 mf2 ~f6 is purely
speculative. White easily neutral-
ised the attack in Volkov-Montero
Martinez, Dos Hermanas 2004 af-
ter 11 CLlg3 CLld4+ 12 mg2 h5 13 h4
~h6 14 hd4 exd4 15 CLlb5 ~e3 16
CLlxc7+ md7 17 CLlxa8 ~f2+ 18 mh3
~f419 ~b3+-.

7 ... cS 8 dxc6 CLlxc6 9 CLlbS i.f8 10
iWd2;!; also looks awful for Black.
8 i.xe2
White is clearly better due to his
spatial advantage and the inevita-
ble breakthrough c4-cS with pres-
sure on the queenside. Even the ex-
change of the bad bishop does not
help Black much after 8 ... i.h6 9
iWd2 he3 10 iWxe3 CLlf6 11 cS±. The
other attempt to make use of the
rare move order, 8 .. .fS 9 exfS gxfS
10 i.hS+ @f8 11 f4±, also favours
White. Perhaps the lesser evil is
8 ... CLle79 cS fS, but then the simple
10 f3± underlined White's edge in
Polugaevsky-Gojak, Sarajevo 1964.
7c!lJge2
A. 7 ... CLlxe2
B. 7... iWb6
7 ... i.g4 8 f3 i.xf3? 9 gxf3 CLlxf3+
10 @f2 CLleS is easily refuted by 11
iWa4+, but 11 CLlf4 CLlf612 h3±, should
also be good enough, Brodsky-Mi-
hajlovskij, St. Petersburg 2006.
A. 7 ... c!lJxe2 8 .b:e2 c!lJf6
I suppose that should Black yield
so much space, he should also take
more strategic risks by parting with
1 d4 g6 2 c4 i.g7 3 e4
his dark-squared bishop. At least he
would achieve some structural bene-
fits and eliminate White's potential-
ly most dangerous piece:
8 ... hc3+ 9 bxc3 \WaS 10 iWc2
CLlf6 (10 .. .fS opens up play in favour
of Whites bishop pair. White was
clearly better in the game Timman-
Hennig, Breda 2001 after 11 f3 CLlf6
12 0-0 i.d7 13 i.h6 0-0-0 14 exfS
hfS 15 iWd2±.) 11 0-0 i.d7 12 a4
0-0-0 13 Eifb1 @b8, Lazarev-Horn,
Biel 1994. While White's advan-
tage is beyond doubt, he will have
to work hard to press it home.
An alternative is 8 .. .fS?! 9 exfS
hfS 10 i.d3 iWd7 11 O-O;!;.
90-00-0
White has a stable spatial advan-
tage. Obviously he should expand
on the kingside by f4, and then, g4-
gS or f4-fS. In that case he should
like to keep the centre closed so va-
riations like 10 eS CLld711 exd6 exd6
are not too consistent.
Black will hardly generate effi-
cient counterplay. He might try
to open a file himself by ... e6, but
White will take on e6 and the d6-
pawn would become a nice target.
In that case Black misses his queen's
105
Part 5
knight, which is very important in
such structures, for instance, 10 f4
e6?! 11 dxe6 he6 (11 ... fxe6 12 e5±)
12 f5 ic8, Vaisser-Turner, rapid
Athens, 1997, 13 fxg6 fxg6 14 e5!±.
If Black trades his knight, he
would also land into a murky posi-
tion: 10 'Wd2 LtJg4 11 hg4 hg4 12
ih6 a6 13 hg7 cJ1xg7 14 'Wf4 id7
15 e5±, Cs.Horvath-Strozewski,
Velden 1995.
Now I will examine White's most
straightforward plan:
10 f4 LtJe8
In the game Kozhuharov-Kukov,
Sunny Beach 2007, Black tried to
anticipate f4-f5 by 1O ... LtJd7 11 'Wd2
f5?! and was much worse following
12 exf5 gxf5 13 E1ael±.
11 f5 ie5 12 §'d2 LtJf6 13
.ih6 ~e8 14 g4
See game 15 Vaisser-Barlov,
Las Palmas 1995 in the "Complete
Games" chapter.
B. 7 ...§'b6 8 LtJa4 §'a5+ 9 .id2
106
9 •••§'a6
Alternatively:
a) 9 ... 'Wd8 10 ic3 (10 LtJxd4 cxd4
11 c5 only gives Black counterplay in
the centre, for example, 11 ... id7 12
E1c1 E1c8 13 b4 LtJf6 14 f3 0-0 15 id3
e6, Lazarev-Abolianin, Belgium
1995) 1O ... e5 11 dxe6 LtJxe6 12 hg7
LtJxg7 13 'Wd2 LtJf6 14 f3 ie6 15 LtJf4
'We716 O-O-O±, Gelfand-Azmaipara-
shvili, Dortmund 1990.
b) 9 ... 'Wc7 10 ic3 e5 (As in oth-
er similar positions, 1O ... ig4 11 f3
ixf3 12 gxf3 LtJxf3+ 13 cJ1f2 LtJe5 is
not satisfactory for Black. I faced it
in the game Semkov-Gratseas, Her-
aklio 1993 and went on to win after
14 LtJg3 LtJh6 15 ie2±. Rybka claims
that 14 ih3± is even better.
10 LtJxd4 .ixd4 11 LtJc3 §'b6
12 ~b1
White has the better prospects.
See game 16 Belov-Bologan,
Plovdiv 2008 and 17 Zs.Polgar-
Todorcevic, Pamplona 1990.
 Part 5
COMPLETE GAMES
15. Vaisser-Barlov
Las Palmas 1995
1 d4 d6 2 e4 g6 3 c4 .ig7 4ltJc3
ltJc6 5 d5 ltJd4 6 .ie3 c5 7 ltJge2
ltJxe2 8 .ixe2 ltJf6 9 0-0 0-0 10 f4
ltJe8
11 f5!
I chose to comment this game
because it illustrates one of the
most fundamental plans in the FPA.
Inexperienced FPA players might
think that White should try to pre-
pare e5, but this advance is essential
in the Modern Benoni pawn struc-
ture where Black has not an e-pawn.
In the current situation, it is correct
to gain more space on the kingside
1 d4 g6 2 e4 i.g7 3 c4
by f5. Thus White limits the im-
pact of the black light-squared bi-
shop, opens the route to his own
one to h6, and enables an attack on
h7 by ~e1-h4 and the rook lift Elf3-
h3. Black is practically deprived of
counterplay. White can eventually
use his g-pawn to repel the knight
from f6. Barlov decides to rede-
ploys his pieces by putting the bish-
op before the knight.
In the game Kozhuharov-Ku-
kov, Sunny Beach 2007 Black chose
1O ... ttJd7. Then 11 f5 should also be
good, but White counted on the fact
that the opponent cannot continue
developing and preferred the use-
ful move 11 ~d2. Black answered
with 11...f5?! and was much worse
following 12 exf5 gxf5 13 Elael±.
All the examples show Black
struggling without any counter-
play. However, the attempt to un-
dermine White's centre is not too
helpful either: 1O ... e6?! 11 dxe6
he6 12 f5! (again this move!)
12 ... i.c8, Vaisser-Turner, rapid
Athens, 1997, when simplest would
have been 13 fxg6 fxg6 14 e5!±.
107
PartS

11 ... ie512 ~d2 do. The rest is more or less clear:

White could have forced Black's 21 ... bxc4 22 ixc4 ~b6 23 liJe2
knight to take a passive stand on g7 ie5 24 ic3 geb8 25 b3 ~d8 26
by 12 .th6liJg713 g4, but Vaisser ap- ixe5+ dxe5 27 ~h4 ie8 28 fxg6
parently prefers to see it on f6. fxg6 29 ~h3
12 ... liJf6 13 ih6 ge8 14 g4 'itlh8
Black's position is already very
dubious. (But my computer still
likes it!) His king looks defence-
less and it is unclear how to protect
it. Queenside counterplay is not ef-
fective. For instance, 14 ... a6 15 .tf4
.td4+ 16 @hl WfaS 17 Wfel bS 18 gS
hc319 bxc3liJxe4 20 fxg6 hxg6 21
.td3.
15 'itlh1 id7
29 ... h5 30 gxh6 ~d6 31 h7 liJf6
32 ~h6 id7 33 ~g3 liJg4 34 ~h4
~f6 35 ~xg4 ixg4 36 ~xg4 ~f8 37
1'!g 1 'itlxh 7 1-0

16. VI.Belov-Bologan
Plovdiv 22.04.2008
1 d4 g6 2 e4 ig7 3 c4 d6 4 liJc3
liJc6 5 d5 liJd4 6 ie3 c5 7 liJge2
~b6 8 liJa4 ~a5+ 9 id2 ~a6 10
The computer overestimates the liJxd4 ixd4 11 liJc3 ~b6 12 1'!b1
threat on e4. Indeed, Black can win
that pawn with IS ... WfaSI6 .tf4 hc3
17 bxc3liJxe4, but after 18 Wfc2 gxfS
19 gxfS liJf6 20 l"Iael.td7 21.td3 bS
22 .tgS± all the open files work in
White's favour.
16 if4 id4 17 g5 liJg8 18 id3
~a5 19 gf3 a6 20 ~e1 b5 21 id2
Black is already lost. My impres-
sion from the very persistent and
straightforward play of Vaisser is
that he had won a fair number of Simple and good. In the next com-
blitz games in this structure and mented game White chose 12 Wfb3?!.
had a very clear notion of what to 12 ... liJf6 13 id3 liJd7
108

13 ... 0-0 gives White more op-
tions: 14 ttJe2 ttJd7 IS ttJxd4 (IS f4;);)
IS ... cxd4 16 0-0 ttJeS 17 ~h6 l"&d8 18
h3;);. White's pawn structure is more
flexible.
140-00-015 ttJe2 ~g716 ~c3
e5 17 dxe6 fxe6 18 ~xg7 @xg7
19 VNd2
The diagram position is criti-
cal for this variation. In my opin-
ion, White would have much better
chances after 19 f4! eS 20 fS±. His
main advantage is not the stranded
d6-pawn, but the weak black king.
His attack would be stronger with a
pawn on fS. In the game White al-
lowed 19 ... eS, obviously counting
on his pressure on d6. It is possi-
ble though that with a stubborn de-
fence Black might be able to hold
on. On many occasions later White
was rather hesitant and avoided
critical decisions. No wonder he did
not beat a player like Bologan.
19 ... e5 20 ttJc3
Here was the second chance for
White to use his better development
with 20 f4 exf4 (20 ... ttJf6 21 fS ~d7
22 ttJg3±) 21 ttJxf4 ttJeS (21...ttJf6 22
ttJdS 1lNd8 23 b4±) 22 ttJhS+!? gxhS
23 1lNgS+ ttJg6 24 l"&xf8 rJtxf8 2S eS
1 d4 g6 2 c4 ~g7 3 e4
dxeS (2S ... rJtg7? 26 hg6 hxg6 27
1lNf6+ rJth7 28 1lNf7+ rJth6 29 1lNf8+
rJth7 30 l"&f1) 26 l"&f1 + rJte8 27 1lNxhS
1lNd6 28 hg6+ 1lNxg6 291lNxeS+ ~e6
30 1lNxcs rJtd7. White has full com-
pensation for the piece and he can
force a draw whenever he wants.
A computer should be able to hold
Black's position though.
20 ... ttJf6 21 .ie2
Again 21 f4 would have posed
tactical problems to Black: 21...
exf4 22 l"&xf4 ~e6 23 l"&h4. Now the
natural 23 ...1lNc7 would face 24 eS!
dxeS 2S hg6! hxg6 261lNh6+ rJtf7 27
1lNh7+ ttJxh7 28 l"&xh7+ rJtg8 29 l"&xc7
b6 30 b3 with a stable advantage,
but 23 ... rJtg8! should neutralise
White's initiative.
21 ....ie6 22 ~fd1 ~ad8 23 VNe3
~d7 24 h3 VNd8 25 ~d2 VNe7 26
l"&bd1 b6 27 b3 ~fd8 28 ~d3 ttJg8!
29.ig4
Black has devised an excellent
manoeuvre: ttJf6-g8-h6-f7 from
where the knight would not only
defend d6, but it would be trying to
continue his route to d4 via gS-e6.
I think that White should have re-
grouped, too: 29 1lNc1 ttJh6 30 l"&1d2
ttJf7 311lNd11lNh4. Now 32 ttJbS1lNxe4
109
Part 5
33 i.f3 iMfh4 34 i.c6 i.fS 35 i.xd7
i.xd3 36 fi:xd3 fi:xd7 37 ttJxd6 ttJxd6
38 fi:xd6 fi:xd6 39 iMfxd6 would be
close to a draw, 32 fi:g3 ttJgS 33 i.g4
hS 34 i.xe6 ttJxe6 would be fine for
Black, but 32 i.g4 i.xg4 33 hxg4 ttJh6
34 fi:g3 iMfgS 35 ttJbS ttJf7 36 fi:gd3
iMfe7 would be similar to the game
with some extra tempi for White.
He can try then to open files on the
queens ide with 37 a4 h6 38 as. Be-
lov however shows that he is con-
tent with the half point:
29 ...i.xg4 30 hxg4 ttJh6 31 fle2
flh4 32 ~g3 flg5 33 ttJd5 ~g8 34
~f3 ~f8 35 ~xf8 ~xf8 36 g3 %-%
17. Zsuzsa Polgar-Todorcevic
Pamplona, 1990
1d4g62c4i.g73~c3d64e4
~c65d5~d46i.e3c5 7 ~ge2f1b6
8 ~a4 fla5+ 9 i.d2 fla6 10 ~xd4
i.xd4 11 ~c3 flb6 12 flb3?!
It is a positional mistake to trade
queens here. White's space advan-
tage can be exploited to build a
kingside attack or maintain tension
in the centre. Perhaps Todorcevic
wanted to keep more pieces on the
board, hoping to outplay his young
opponent by tactical means.
12".fld8 13 i.d3 i.g7 14 0-0 ~f6
110
15 ~ae1
It is not sure that this rook be-
longs to el. In some cases White can
need it on d1, in others, as in the
game Vaisser-Barlov, she may be
able to win even without its help. In
short, 15 f4 deserved attention, e.g.
1S,..ttJg4 16 eSt.
15,..0-016 f4 e6
We had seen that Black has not
good chances to survive with a pas-
sive stand in the centre. In case of
16,..ttJd717 ~h1 White should adopt
the plan of Vaisser and shift the
queen and a rook to the kingside,
for instance, 17,..a6 18 iMfd1 fi:b8 19
fi:e3 iMfc7 20 iMfe1 bS 21 b3.
17 dxe6
In general, this exchange is cor-
rect. However White has a better
option, based on his lead in devel-
opment. She should have opened
the centre by 17 eS! dxeS (17,..ttJe8
18 i.e3 b6 19 i.e4±) 18 fxeS ttJg4 19
i.f4 f6 (19,..fS 20 h3 ttJh6 21 i.c2±)
20 ttJe4 ttJxeS 21 ttJxf6+ with a clear
edge.
17 ... fxe6 18 fld1
White's main advantage in this
structure is that she has a mobile
centre that could move forward at

any moment. Black should be ready
to meet not only the obvious threat
e4-eS, but f4-fS as well. The latter
is usually more dangerous since
it weakens Black's castling posi-
tion and may lead to a crushing at-
tack. However, if Black gets enough
time to complete his development
and consolidate, it would be diffi-
cult to break his defence. Therefore
White should play concretely in or-
der to convert his dynamic advan-
tage, while Black must aim to antici-
pate the opponent's threats. Now
18 .. .tLld7 looks best against eS or
fS, but White has additional resour-
ces. I like 19 ~g4 ~e7 20 h4! ~f7 21
~h3, threatening hS, e.g. 21...b6 22
eS dxeS 23 hS. This idea is easy to
find if we are aware that our goal
should be the black king and not
the d6-pawn!
18 ... a6 19 .ie3 b6
This move misses the hit 20 eS!,
but I do not know what to suggest
instead: 19 ... lLld7 20 .ic2lLlb8 21 eS±
and 19 ... eS 20 fS are grim enough.
20 ~U2?!
It looks like Zsusza overesti-
mates her positional advantage and
hopes to convert it by simply dou-
bling on the d-file. It was a fine mo-
ment for 20 eS! which would have
faced Black with a difficult choice
between 20 ... lLle8 21 .ic2 ~e7 22
lLle4 dxeS 23 fxeS .txeS 24 ~xf8+
~xf8 2S ~fl ~e7 26 .igS ~c7 27
~f3± and 20 ... dxeS 21 fxeS lLld7
22 .ie4 ~a7 23 ~d6 lLlxeS 24 ~xf8+
~xf8 2S ~xb6 ~f7 26 .txcS lLlxc4 27
.ixf8lLlxb6 28 .txgn. In both exam-
ples White would transform his dy-
1 d4 g6 2 c4 .ig7 3 e4
namic advantage into more stable
achievements.
20 ....ib7
This move is not precise.
20 ... ~e7! would have allowed Black
to finally consolidate. Then 21 fS ( or
21.ic2 ~b8 22 ~d2lLle8) 21...lLld7! 22
fxe6 ~xe6 23 eS .ib7 24 exd6 would
not favour White due to 24 ... lLleS 2S
.ic2 ~ad8 26 ~xf8+ ~xf8 27 c;t>hllLlf3
with a counterattack.
21 gd2?!
This is a conceptual mistake.
White's rook was better on the f-
file! 21 fS!, threatening with 22 eS,
was consistent and good. 22 ... lLld7
22 fxe6 ~xf2 23 .ixf2 lLlf8 24 lLldS
lLlxe6 would not equalise in view
of the weak f6-square: 2S ~g4 .ic8
(2S ... lLld4 26 .ih4±) 26 .ih4 gS 27 eS
dxeS (27 ... gxh4 28 lLlf6+) 28 ~hS
h6 29 .ig3±.
21 ...V!1c7 22 .ic2?!
Time and again Zsuzsa misses
22 fS! ~f7 (22 ... gxfS 23 exfS dS 24
~f2±) 23 fxg6 hxg6 24 .ic2±.
22 ... gad8 23 f5
Played at the most inappropriate
moment! Now Black had the coun-
terthrust 24 ... dS 2S cxdS (2S fxe6
d4 26 e7! ~xe7 27 .txd4 ~f7oo) 2S ...
111
 PartS
exdS 26 i.b3 c4 27 i.c2 EJ:de8 with
double-edged play.
23 ... gxf5?! 24 exf5 exf5 25
.ixf5 i>h8
White still has some advantage
and now she should take some mea-
sures against the counterplay with
...bS. Perhaps simplest would be 26
a4;!;, while 26 i.e6 bS 27 cxbS axbS
28 tLlxbS 1M'c6 29 a4 dS 30 i.gS;!; is
more testing. However she was in
time trouble and allowed the oppo-
nent to alter the pawn structure in
his favour:
26 gf1?! b5 27 tLld5 tLlxd5 28
cxd5 V!Je7 (28 ... i.c8!) 29 ge2 f;lfh4
112
The rest of the game is quite cha-
otic. White plugged the d-file and fi-
nally turned her attention to Black's
king. After mutual mistakes Black
lost the tactical clash and the game.
30 if2 V!Jc4 31 .ie6 f;lfxa2 32
gfe1 V!Ja5 33 .ih4 gde8 34 .ig3 c4
35 ge4 gf6 36 gh4 gef8 37 h3 gg6?
(37 ...1M'c7) 38 f;lfc2 gh6 39 gg4 f;lfc7
40 i>h2 ghf6 41 f;lfd2 as 42 gee4
.ia6 43 V!Je3 b4
44 .if5 (44 EJ:xg7!) 44 ... g6f7 45
ge6 f;lfa7 46 f;lfe4 .ic8 47 .ixd6
gxf5? (47... he6 48 dxe61M'b6=) 48
V!Jxf5! gxf5 49 ge8+ gf8 50 .ixf8
ie5+ 51 i>h1 1-0
 Part 6
liJd7SliJf3
QUICK REPERTOIRE
In this part I consider the Classical
KID with ... ttJd7. We have no reason
to avoid it since it is the most pas-
sive variant of the KID and White's
game is clearly better. Black also
has a limited choice. Sometimes he
puts his knight on e7, In all such po-
sitions I like plans with h2-h4: 5 ...
e6 6 .te2 ttJe7. h6 8 .te3 fS 9 exfS
ttJxfS 10 g4!± or S... eS 6 .te2 ttJe7 7
h4 h6 8 .te3 fS 9 dxeS ttJxeS 10 ttJxeS
heS 11 \Mfd2±.
S ... eS 6 ie2 ttJgf6 7 ie3 0-0
80-0
Black has two main plans here:
He either opens the centre by tak-
ing on d4 and following up with ... c6
and ... dS, or he tries to close it and
1 d4 g6 2 e4 ig7 3 c4 d6 4 liJc3
push .. .fS. They lead to totally dif-
ferent structures.
1. 8 ... exd4 9 ttJxd4 Eie8 10 f3 c6
11 \Mfd2
l1 ... dS
If Black misses the moment for
this breakthrough, White answers
12 ttJc2, protecting the e3-bishop.
Then his grip on the centre assures
him oflasting pressure.
12 cxdS! (Do not allow the ex-
change sac on e3!) 12 ... cxdS 13
ttJdbS ttJb6 14 a4!?
The threat of as forces play.
Black has nothing better but to look
for salvation in the endgame with
an extra exchange for White:
113
Part 6

14 ... dxe4 IS ~xdB gxdB 16 3. B... h6 (threatening with

lLlc7±. 9 ... lLlg4 followed up by ... fS) 9 dxeS!
dxeSlO ~c1 ~h711 gdl geB12 cS c6
2. B... c6 9 dS cS 10 lLlel lLleB 11 13lLld2 ~e7
lLld3
11 g4 also gives White somewhat
better chances, but play is more
double-edged.
l1 .. .fS 12 exfS gxfS 13 f4 e4 14
lLlf2 hc3 IS bxc3 lLldf6

White has successfully rede-

ployed his pieces. Now he can de-
fend the cS-pawn with 14 b4± or of-
fer Black the option of sacrificing
the exchange with 14 lLlc4 lLlxcS IS
lLld6±. Note that had Black weak-
I think that White is clearly bet- ened his queenside with B... aS, this
ter because the opponent cannot plan would have been even more ef-
prevent g4 and lacks any counter- ficient.
play. The best setup of White's pie-
ces is probably: 4. B...geB 9 dS lLlg4 10 i.gS f6 11
16 ~el!i.d717h3lLlg71BlLldl ~aS i.d2
19 i.f2;!;, Obodchuk-Korobov, Mos-
cow 2007. White can activate the
f2-bishop from h4, the knight will
support g4 from e3. White should
not be in a hurry with this break-
through though. He can patiently
improve the position of his rooks
first. See the commented game 18
Tisdall-Sutovsky, Gausdal 1995
which illustrates White's plan.
It is possible to adopt a passive
Black also tries to maintain the stand on the kingside with 11 i.h4
tension with moves like B... aS, B... hS 12 lLld2 lLlh6 13 f3;!;. However I
h6. In these cases White opens the prefer the method of example 2. We
d-file and expands on the queenside will take on fS and wedge our pawn
with cS: 01} f4. Then we can stage c4-cS or hit

114
 1 d4 g6 2 e4 tg7 3 c4 d6 4 lLlc3 lLld7 5 lLlf3
the black pawn centre:
11...f5 (Or 11 ... lLlh612 ~c2 lLli713
b4) 12 exf5 gxf5 13 lLlg5 lLldf6 14 h3
lLlh6 15 f4 ~e7 16 ~c2 @hS 17 !l:ael
a6, Einarsson-McNab, Reykjavik
1993.
White can shatter Black's de-
fence by sacrificing a piece: IS fxe5!
dxe5 19 td3 e4 20 lLlcxe4!! fxe4 21
lLlxe4 lLlxe4 22 !l:xe4±.
Finally we shall examine the
only case when White should main-
tain the tension:
5. S ... lLlg4 9 tg5 f6 10 td2 lLlh6
The plan from example 3 11 dxe5
dxe5 12 b4 c6 13 c5 is possible here,
too, but since Black is not threaten-
ing anything, we can make a couple
of useful moves before defining our
plans:
11 ~c2 c6 12 !l:adl ~e7 13 b4 lLli7
14 tc1 !l:eS 15 !l:fel lLlfS
We have a free hand on the left
side of the board. Our main task
now is to open the centre. That is
typically achieved by the break-
through c5:
16 b5 tg4 17 bxc6 bxc6 IS c5!
dxc519 d5±.
We can conclude that White
achieves some advantage in this
version of the KID with simple
natural moves. We have nothing
obligatory for memorising except
for the moves in example 1. It seems
that Black has been running short
of new ideas lately.
115
 Part 6
ttJd7 5 ttJf3
STEP BY STEP
S ... eS
Sometimes Black tries to per-
plex the opponent by S... e6 6 ~e2
CfJe7. When I see a knight on e7, I
always thrust 7 h4 to provoke weak-
nesses. After 7...h6 8 ~e3 fS 9 exfS
CfJxfS 10 g4! (10 Wic2 CfJf6 11 CfJd2
slows down White's development
and gives Black fair counterchan-
ces, e.g. 11 ... 0-0 12 g4 CfJxe3 13 fxe3
eS 14 Wixg6 exd4 1S exd4 Wie8 16
Wixe8 ~xe8 17 gS CfJhS with compen-
sation, Skalik-Markowski, Suwalki
1999) 1O ... CfJxe3 11 fxe3±. Black is
cramped and the g6-pawn is very
sensitive.
6 .ie2 ttJgf6
We meet 6 ... CfJe7by7h4 as usual:
116
1 d4 g6 2 e4 .ig7 3 c4 d6 4 ttJc3
Now 7... h6 8 ~e3 fS 9 dxeS CfJxeS
10 CfJxeS heS11 Wid2 clearly favours
White, as in Garcia Vicente-Timon
Piote, St. Feliu 1994: 11 ... fxe4 12
hh6 CfJfS 13 ~gS e3 14 he3 CfJxe3
1S Wixe3±, so he chooses 7... exd4
8 CfJxd4 CfJc6, but then 9 ~gS is ex-
tremely awkward to meet. 9 ... CfJf6
(9 ... ~f6 10 CfJdS±) 10 CfJxc6 bxc6
stumbled into 11 eS! dxeS 12 Wixd8+
~xd8 13 0-0-0+ ~e7 14 ~f3±, Ru-
sev-Popchev, Plovdiv 2006. Pop-
chev has been playing this rare
variation for decades, but even he
proves unable to show any decent
idea against White's natural play.
7 .ie3 0-0 8 0-0
 1 d4 g6 2 e4 .tg7 3 c4 d6 4 tLlc3 tLld7 5 tLlf3
This position is rather unpleas-
ant for Black so I'm not surprised
that he is trying nearly all possible
moves. I will examine 6 of them:
A. S ... exd4
B. S... a5
C. S ... h6
D. S ... tLlg4
E. S .. JleS
F. S ... c6
You can find much more details
on that variation in the Chess Stars
book "Opening for White According
to Kramnik", volume Ib by Khalif-
man. My favourite treatment is simi-
lar, except for a few lines which I at-
tempted to fix.
A. 8 ... exd4 9 tLlxd4 ge8 10
f3 c611 §'d2
This pawn structure is grim for
Black if he misses the chance to
open the centre, so the most popu-
lar continuation is:
11 ... d5
Alternatively:
a) 11 .. :~e7 12 tLlc2 (protecting
the e3-bishop) 12 ... tLle513 E1adl.te6
14 b3 E1adS 15 .tg5;l;, De Souza Haro-
Vescovi, Registro 1997;
b) 11 ... tLle5 12 E1adl
This is a natural setup of the
white rooks, but 12 E1fdl, intend-
ing to retreat the e2-bishop to fl,
also favours White: 12 ... a613 tLlc2!?
(The game Lautier-Shchekachev,
Dordrecht 2001 saw 13 .tfl Wie7 14
tLlb3 .te6, when instead of 15 c5?!,
15 Wixd6 Wixd6 16 E1xd6 .tfS 17 E1ddl
hc4 IS tLla5 hf119 ~xfl E1abS 20
.ta7 would have been slightly better
for White.) 13 ....te6 14 Wixd6 Wixd6
15 E1xd6 .tfS 16 E1d4±.
12 ...Wie713 tLlc2 .te6 14 b3 E1adS
15 .tg5;l;. White consolidated and re-
tained his grip.
12 cxd5
Khalifman considers 12 exd5
cxd5 13 tLldb5 a614 tLld6, but the ex-
change sacrifice 14 ... E1xe3! 15 Wixe3
.tfS 16 c5 tLlxc5 17 Wixc5 hd6 IS
Wid4 Wic7 would give Black signifi-
cant compensation. It is better to
keep the e-file closed.
12... cxd5 13 ltJdb5 ltJb6 14
a4!?
14 E1adl a6 15 tLla3 .td7, Watana-
be-Diaz Hollemaert, Sao Paulo
200S, 16 .td4t also looks attractive,
but the text is more forceful, since
14 ... a6 would fail to 15 a5.
14... dxe4 15 §'xd8 E1xd8 16
ltJc7 exf3
Or 16 .. JlbS 17 a5 tLlbd51S ha7±.
17 i.xf3 ltJc4 18 i.g5
IS .tc5 might be insufficient for
winning after IS ....te619 tLlxaS E1xaS
20 hb7 E1bS 21 .ta6 tLlxb2 22 ha7
E1aS 23 .td4 E1xa6 24 E1fbl tLleS 25
hg7 tLlxa4 26 tLlxa4 ~xg7 27 tLlc5;l;.
18...i.f5 19 ltJxa8 gxa8 20
i.xb7 gb8 21 ltJd5 ltJxd5 22
i.xd5±.
117
Part 6

B. 8 .•• aS 9 dxeS! the main line.

White's plan of opening the d- 11 ~d1 ~e8 12 cS c6 13
file is quite good in most branches of lLld21Mfe7
the ttJd7-variation, but it is especial-
ly efficient when Black's queenside
is weakened.
9 ... dxeS 10 1Mfc2 c6 11 lLla4
V!!e7 12 cS lLle8 13 ~ad1 lLlc7
14 .ic4 lLle6 15 a3±

White discouraged the kingside

This position of the recent game
Ivanisevic-Vajda, Herceg Novi 2008
hardly needs any comment. White
will double his rooks on the d-file
and will look around to collect ma-
terial.
attack and made good use of the
weakness on h6 to achieve a clear
advantage. Now he can defend the
cS-pawn with 14 b4± or offer Black
the option of sacrificing the ex-
change with 14 ttJc4 ttJxcS 15 ttJd6±.
D. 8 .•• lLlg4 9 .igS f6 10 .id2
lLlh6

C.8 ... h6
This seemingly insipid move is
actually very aggressive. Black is
threatening with 9 ... ttJg4 followed
up by .. .fS. It is time to open the cen-
tre:
9 dxeSdxeS
Khalifman-Yurtaev, Novosi-
birsk 1989 saw 9... ttJg4 10 exd6
ttJxe3, when best would have been White is faced with the dilemma:
11 dxc7±, according to Khalifman. to maintain the tension in the cen-
10 1Mfc1 'it>h7 tre or fix the pawn structure with
1O ... ttJg411 i.d2 hS12 h3 ttJgf613 11 dxeS dxeS 12 b4 c6 13 cS. I defi-
i.e3 c614 cS V!1e71S b4;l; is similar to nitely prefer White's game here,

118
 1 d4 g6 2 e4 ig7 3 c4 d6 4 lLlc3 lLld7 5 IDf3

but Black has no weaknesses on the

queenside and he is able to cover
all the invasion squares along the
d-file. The game Banikas-Damlja-
novic, Panormo 1998 saw further
13 ...'.We7 14 '.Wb3+ lLlfl IS ~adl ~e8
16 ie3lLlf8 17lLld2 ie618lLlc4 ~ad8
19 '.Wa3 ~xd120 ~xdl a6 21 '.WaS ~d8
22 ~xd8 '.Wxd8 23 '.Wxd8t. Perhaps
we should take into account that the
manoeuvre lLlf6-g4-h6-fl is passive
and Black has no threats. Thus we
can make a couple of useful moves 11 id2
like: The retreat to h4 looks safer as
11 YNc2 c6 12 ~ad1 YNe7 it restricts Black's attack and leaves
13 b4 CiJf7 14 ic1 ~e8 15 ~fe1 the bishop on the kings ide for de-
CiJf8 fence: 11 ih4 hS 12 lLld2 lLlh6 13
f3t. However I prefer another ap-
proach. Instead of embracing a de-
fensive setup on the right wing, we
will counterattack there by f4.
11 ... CiJh6
The alternative is 11...fS 12 exfS
gxfS 13 IDgS IDdf6 14 h3 IDh6 IS f4
'.We716 '.Wc2 l!ih817 ~ael a6, Einars-
son-McNab, Reykjavik 1993.

We have a free hand on the left

side of the board. Our main task
now is to open the centre. That is
typically achieved by the break-
through cS:
16 b5 ig417 bxc6 bxc618
c5! dxc5 19 d5±.
White is fully mobilised and he
can switch to fifth gear by sacrific-
E. 8 ••• ~e8 ing a piece: 18 fxeS! dxeS 19 id3 e4
Now Black is seriously threat- 20 lLlcxe4!! fxe4 21 IDxe4 lLlxe4 22
ening to take on d4, so we should ~xe4 '.WcS+ C22 ... '.Wd7 23 ~h4+-) 23
play: ie3 '.Wxe3+ 24 ~xe3 ~xe3 2S ixh7
9 d5 CiJg4 10 ig5 f6 id726ig6±.
119
Part 6

12 YlYc2 ltJg411 i.g5 f612 i.d2ltJh613 'lWc2 a6

It is always good to develop pie- 14 a4 f5 15 ltJg5 ltJc5 16 i.c4 'lWe7 17
ces, but 12 b4 is also possible. Af- b4ltJxe418ltJcxe4 fxe419ltJe6 he6
ter 12 ... a5 13 a3 f5 14 ltJg5 ltJf6 15 c5 20 dxe6 offered White rich play in
fxe416 cxd6 cxd617ltJcxe4ltJxe418 the centre in the game Krasenkow-
ltJxe4 i.f5, Evdokimov-Gorovykh, Arbakov, Moscow 1989.
St. Petersburg 2007, White had 19 10 tDe1 tDe8
i.g5! Wb6 20 bxa5l'!xa5 21 i.e3 Wd8
22 ltJg3 with a huge advantage.
12.•• tDf7
Black cannot prevent b4 any-
way: 12 ... a5 13 a3 ltJf8 14 b4 We7 15
l'!acl g5 16 c5 axb4 17 axb4 ltJg6 18
ltJb5 g4 19 ltJell'!d8 20 i.e3 ltJf4 21
cxd6 cxd6 22 i.b6 l'!f8 23 ltJc7 l'!a4
24ltJd3ltJxe2+ 25 Wxe2 f5, Zakhar-
stov-Yanvarjov, Korolev 2000, 26
Wc2t.
13b4 11 tDd3
White is way ahead with his play. 11 g4 (Khalifman's recommen-
In the game Harestad-Mikh.Ivanov, dation) is more topical. It also gives
Gausdal 1997, Black bluffed here White somewhat better chances.
with 13 ...f5, when White should have Main answers are:
taken the gift: 14 exf5 gxf5 15 Wxf5±, a) 11... @h812 @hl f5 13 gxf5 gxf5
e.g. 15 ... e4 16 ltJg5 ltJf6 17 Wf4 ltJxg5 14 exf5, transposing to line c;
18 Wxg5. b) 11 ... i.f6 12 Wd2 ltJg7 13 @hl
i.e7 14 l'!gl @h8 15 ltJd3t, Farago-
Karatorossian, Budapest 2004.
F. 8 ••• c6 9 d5 c) 11 ... f512 exf5 gxf513 gxf5ltJb6
White has completed develop- 14ltJf3 i.xf5 15ltJg5
ment. The next stage of his plan is
an expansion on the queenside so
he should first define the situation
in the centre.
9 ... c5
This unexpected turn of events
forces White to reconsider his plans.
Now he will have minimal chances
for a quick queenside attack, while
the opponent is only two moves
away from taking over the initiative 15 ... We7
by .. .f5. Instead, 9 ... cxd5 10 cxd5 15 ... ltJf6 is premature as White

120
 1 d4 g6 2 e4 ig7 3 c4 d6 4 'i:lc3 'i:ld7 S 'i:lf3
can repel the b6-knight with 16 a4!?
Wfe717 as 'i:lbd718 a6 b619 'i:lbS l"lfc8
20 f4 (20 whl±) 20 ... l"le8 (20 ... e4)
21 l"la3 'i:lf8 22 fxeS+-, Wells-Aresh-
chenko, Coventry 200S.
16 Whl 'i:lf6 17 l"lgl wh8 18 Wfd2
l"lg8
In the game Kramnik-Knaak,
Dortmund 1992, Black attempted
to occupy the f4-square by 18 ... ig6
19 l"lafl 'i:lhS, but he was much worse
after 20 'i:le6±.
19 l"lg3 ih6 20 l"lagl l"laf8 21 a4
(or 21 a3 'i:lbd7 22 b4 b6) 21...'i:lbd7
22 as a6 23 h4 'i:le4 24 'i:lcxe4 ixe4+
2S f3 ifS 26 b4;!;, Paragua-Lin Chen
Singapore 2007.
White may be somewhat better
in these examples, but his kings ide
is weaken and play is double-edged
as a whole. That's why I prefer the
text since it is linked with a clear
straightforward plan where Black is
doomed to passivity.
11 ...fs12 exfs
This is more precise than 12 f4
fxe413 'i:lxe4 Wfe7!=, Semkov-Radu-
lov, Bul ch. 1992.
12... gxfs 13 f4 e4 14 lLlf2
~xc3
This bishop is useless as it is di-
rected to the left wing where nothing
is going to happen. On the contrary,
White's knight is hitting e4 and it is
a potentially dangerous piece. After
14 ... 'i:ldf6 IS whl a6 16 a4 b6 17 l"lgl
l"la7 18 g4 wh8 19 gS White had a
comfortable edge in Loncar-Bonet-
ti, Genova 1999.
15 bxc3 'i:ldf6
This is the critical position for
White's plan with 11 'i:ld3.
It is clearly better for White be-
cause Black is the passive side and
he cannot generate any counterplay
against the imminent g4. The only
question is which is the best setup
of White's pieces. In the first known
to me game, Cafure-Panno, Buenos
Aires 1965, White was too impatient
to execute the thematic thrust g4
and was worse after 16 whl 'i:lg7 17
g4? fxg418 'i:lxg4 'i:lfS 19 l"lgl wh8't.
Then in Filip-Langeweg, Amster-
dam 1965, White showed the best
plan. He retreated the e3-bishop
to f2 and shifted the f2-knight to
e3 via dl. The only flaw of his re-
deployment was that GM FIlip put
his queen to d2. In our stem game
Obodchuk-Korobov, Moscow 2007,
White put it on el from where it helps
in activating the f2-bishop from h4.
See also the commented game 18
Tisdall-Sutovsky, Gausdal 1995
which illustrates how White can
prepare and achieve g4 with natu-
ral, though not best, moves.
16 ~e1! ~d7 17 h3 lLlg7 18
lLld1 ~as 19 ~f2;t. Here Black at-
tempted to get some counterplay by
the pawn sacrifice 19 ... e3, but 20
ih4!? 'i:le4 21 l"lf3! 'i:lhS 22 g3± com-
pletely disillusioned him.
121
 Part 6
liJd7 5 liJf3
COMPLETE GAMES
18. Tisdall-Sutovsky
Gausdal 1995
1 d4 lLlf6 2 c4 d6 3 lLlc3 g6 4 e4
~g7 5 lLlf3 0-0 6 ~e2 lLlbd7 7 0-0
e5 8 ~e3 c6 9 d5 c5 10 lLle1 lLle8
11 lLld3
11 g4 is fashionable, but I prefer
a more clear plan.
11 .. .f5 12 exf5 gxf5 13 f4 e4 14
lLlf2 ~xc3 15 bxc3 lLldf6
16 h3
Of course White's only active
plan is linked with g2-g4-g5 so the
text cannot be bad. However, the
game Obodchuk-Korobov, Moscow
2007, showed a better implementa-
122
1 d4 g6 2 e4 ~g7 3 c4 d6 4 liJc3
tion of that idea: 16 'lWeI! .id7 17 h3
lLlg718 't:Jd1'IWa5 19 .if2;J; intending
to activate the dark-squared bishop
fromh4.
16 ... ~h8 17 ~h2 ~g8 18 g3!
Preventing any tactics. In the
game Belunek-Sergeev, Czechia
2003 White played the reckless 18
8:g1, but Black missed his chance:
18 ... 't:Jg4+! 19 hg4 (18 ... hxg410ses
to 19 .. 'lWh4++) 19 ... fxg4 20 't:Jxe4
'lWe7 21 8:e1 't:Jf6 22 't:Jg5 'lWg7 with
serious counterplay.
18 ...'IlWe7 19 ~g1 'IlWg7 20 ~g2
'IlWh6 21 ~g1 tLlg7 22 'IlWd2
White could have already played
22 g4, but 22 ... 'lWh4 23 g5 't:Jfh5 24
'lWd2 't:Jg3 25 .id1 't:J7h5 would allow
Black to find active places for his
knights. Tisdall wisely mobilises
his second rook.
22 ...'IlWg6 23 <j;>h1 'IlWh6 24 ~ag1
~d7 25 ~h2
There was no need for this pro-
phylaxis. 25 g4 was possible right
away as 25 ... fxg4? loses material to
26 f5 'lWh5 27 't:Jxg4 't:Jxg4 28 hg4
'lWf! 29 8:fl 't:Jxf5 30 8:xf5 hf5 31
 1 d4 g6 2 e4 .ig7 3 c4 d6 4 4:Jc3 tLd7 5 ~f3
8:f2±. The defence from the previ-
ous comment 25 ... iWh4 26 g5 4:Jfh5
also does not work in view of 278:h2
8:af8 (27 ... 4:Jg3+ 28 8:xg3 iWxg3 29
h4) 28 4:Jg4. Remains 25 ... iWg6 26
g5 4:Jfh5 27 4:Jg4! as in the game, but
with important extra tempi.
25 .. .'!Wg6 26 g4 a6 27 g5 tDfh5
28 tDg4! b5 29 ~hg2 bxc4
30.ixc4?
White achieved everything he
was aiming for, but suddenly he
commits a terrible positional mis-
take. After 30 4:Jh6 8:gb8 31 hc4
.ib5 32 .if1 (32 .ib3 as 33 c4 a4 34
cxb5 axb3 35 axb3 8:xb5 36 iWc3 is
not too clear) 32 ....ixf133 8:xf1 8:b7
34 c4 White would have been clear-
ly better. He needs only to shift his
bishop on the main diagonal to fi-
nish the combat. Black would be
unable to oppose that, e.g. 34... a5
35 iWc3 a4 36 <j;Jh2 a3 37 .id2 gb2 38
.icl±. Now Black's knights become
very active, ensuring an edge.
30 ... fxg4 31 hxg4 .ixg4 32
~xg4 tDf5 33 .ie2
33 ... tDf6! 34 ~4g2 tDxe3 35 'lWxe3
tDxd5 36 'lWd2 'lWf5 37 .ig4 'lWf7 38
c4 tDxf4 39 ~f2 e3 40 'lWxe3 ~af8
41 ~gf1 'lWb7+ 42 c.!?g1 ~xg5 43
~xf4 ~fg8 44 c.!?h2 ~xg4 45 ~xg4
~xg4 46 ~f8+ c.!?g7 47 ~g8+ c.!?xg8
48 'lWe6+ c.!?f8 49 'lWxg4 'lWb2+ 50
c.!?h3 'lWc3+ 51 c.!?h2 'lWe5+ 52 c.!?h3
c.!?e7 53 'lWh4+ c.!?e6 54 'lWh6+ 'lWf6 55
'lWe3+ c.!?d7 56 'lWb3 c.!?c7 57 a4 'lWf1 +
58 c.!?h4 'lWe1 + 59 c.!?g5 'lWg1 + 60 c.!?f6
'lWg6+ 61 c.!?e7 'lWg7+ 62 c.!?e8 'lWg8+
63 c.!?e7 'lWb8 64 'lWd3 'lWd8+ 65 c.!?f7
'lWd7+ 66 c.!?f8 'lWxa4 67 'lWxh7+ 'lWd7
68 'lWd3 a5 69 'lWb3 a4 70 'lWc3 c.!?b6
71 'lWd3 c.!?a6 72 'lWc2 a3 73 'lWa2
'lWc8+ 0-1
123
 Part 7
QUICK REPERTOIRE
In this part I examine positions
where Black refrains from g6. That
allows him to complete quickly de-
velopment, but restricts his coun-
terplay.
1. 3 ....if5 4 g3!
It is not easy to achieve e4 with-
out significant concessions which
would justify Black's play, e.g. 4 f3
e5 5 e4 exd4 6 ~xd4 .ie6.
4 ... e5 (4 ... tiJe4 5 ~d3) 5 tiJf3
tiJbd7 6 .ig2 c6 7 0-0 h6
Practice has seen Black strug-
gling after 7....ie7 8 tiJh4 .ig4 9 h3
exd4 10 hxg4 dxc3 11 g5 tiJh5 12
tiJf5±, Christiansen-Shirazi, New
York 1989.
124
1 d4 &LJf6 2 c4 d6 3 &LJc3
8 d5!
White has more space and he is
ahead in development. The game
Uhlmann-Gheorghiu, Sofia 1967
went on 8 ... cxd5 9 tiJh4 .ie4 10
tiJxd5 hg2 11 @xg2 tiJxd5 12 ~xd5
~c7 13 E1d1 tiJb6 14 ~b5+ ~c6+ 15
~xc6+ bxc6 16 b3 E1d8 17 .ib2 tiJd7
18 f4t with lasting pressure.
2. 3 ... e5 4 dxe5
4 tiJf3 is also in White's favour,
but why not punish the opponent
by dooming him to a difficult de-
fence with only two possible re-
sults!
4 ... dxe5 5 ~xd8+ Wxd8 6 tiJf3
tiJfd';i' 8 g4!

A typically human move. It is
connected with a clear plan of open-
ing a file and fixing targets on the
kingside.
7... c6 8 b3 (preparing to meet
8 ...!b4 by 9 !b2) 8. ..f6 9 g5 as 10
h4 ttJc5 11 h5 ttJ ba6
Now simplest would have been
12 !e3 mc7 13 h6 !f5 14 !h3±,
starting to collect Black's kingside
pawns.
About 25 years ago Black achi-
eved some success with the follow-
ing passive setup:
3 ••. c6 4 e4 e5 5 ~f3 ~bd7 6
.ie2 Ae7 7 0-0
His play was not a revelation, of
course, but as simple as it looked, it
was not easy to pinpoint the draw-
backs of Black's strategy.
1 d4 ttJf6 2 c4 d6 3 -tc3
Strong players like Malaniuk
proved that without a well premedi-
tated plan White was gradually los-
ing his initiative and that gave the
better player fair chances to win.
The icing on the cake was the trif-
ling learning overhead - Black fol-
lows his scheme, develops pieces
and castles no matter White might
play. This most attractive feature is,
however, Black's biggest problem.
Once White got used to this setup,
it turned out that Black has little to
oppose to best play from the oppo-
nent. White learned to seize space
in the centre by d5 and immediate-
ly attack on the queenside with b4
anda4:
3. 7... 0-0 (7... a6!? 8 ttJh4! g6 9
!h6) 8 !e3 a6 9 d5! cxd5 10 cxd5
b511 ttJd2
125
Part 7

White aims to play b4, followed The gaping hole on c6 totally

up by a4. This plan is based on the binds Black down.
zwischenzug 11 ... lLlb6 12 a4 b4 13
a5!±. Instead, 12 ...bxa4 13 lLlxa4 At the end, let us examine an
lLlxa4 14 E1xa4 i.d7 15 E1a3 is hardly even more passive setup:
an improvement since the a3-rook 4. 7... 0-0 8 i.e3 E1e8 9 d5 c5
will go to the c-file with a total domi-
nation of White.
In fact, Black can impede a4, but
look at what cost:
11..:~c7 12 E1c1 Wfb8 13 b4 lLlb6
14lLlb3 i.d715lLla5 E1c816 Wfd2 i.d8
17f3

White must open the b-file:

10 E1b1 lLlf8 11 b4 b6 12 bxc5 bxc5
13 lLld2 lLlg6 14 g3;!;. Play through
game 19 Sakaev-Vukic, Saint
Vincent 2005 for clarifying the fur-
ther plans of both sides.

126
 Part 7
STEP BY STEP
Sometimes Black players use this
move order to sidestep variations
with g3 without CLlc3.
3 CLlf3 is outside the scope of our
repertoire. Anyway, it has no seri-
ous advantages over 3 CLlc3.
After the text main branches, be-
side 3 ... g6, are:
A. 3 ... .ifS
B. 3 ... eS
C.3 ... c6
A.3 ....if5
4g3!
I have tried many times 4 f3 eS
1 d4 tiJf6 2 c4 d6 3 tiJc3
S e4 exd4 6 Wfxd4 .ie6 7 b3, only
to convince myself that Black ob-
tains sufficient counterplay on the
dark squares. Another known vari-
ation is 4 e4 he4 S CLlxe4 CLlxe4 6
Wff3 dS=.
4 ... e5
4 ... CLle4Ioses the battle for e4 to-
gether with the bishop pair after S
Wfd3 dS 6 cxdS CLlxc3 7 WfxfS CLlxdS 8
a3 CLlc6 9 CLlf3 g6 10 Wfd3 .ig711.ig2
CLlb6 12 0-0 0-0 13 ~dl±, Khenkin-
Scalcione, Saint Vincent 2002.
5 tiJf3 tiJbd7
Or S... CLlc6 6 .ig2t CLle4?! 7 0-0
CLlxc3 8 bxc3 .ie4 9 Wfa4±.
6 .ig2 c6 7 0-0
7 CLlh4 exd4 8 Wfxd4t is also good.
Note that 8 CLlxfS?! dxc3 9 b3 Wfc7
10 0-0 g6 11 CLle3 .ig7 12 .ia3 CLlcS 13
b4 CLle614 ~c1 CLld71S bS cS+ turned
well for Black in D. Gurevich - Ghe-
orghiu, New York 1986.
7 ... h6
Practice has seen Black strug-
gling after 7....ie7 8 CLlh4:
8 ....ig4 9 h3 exd4 10 hxg4 dxc3
11 gS CLlhS 12 CLlfS± Christiansen-
127
Part 7
Shirazi, New York 1989 or 8 ... ~g6
9 dSl"1c81O dxc6 bxc611 b4ltJb612
~b3. White has some pressure. The
game Koneru-Krasenkow, Wijk aan
Zee 2008 saw further 12 ... dS when
best would have been 13 l"1d1! ltJxc4
14 bS.
8 d5!
White was slightly better follow-
ing 8ltJh4 ~h7 9 e4 ~e71O ~e3 0-0
11 ltJfS hfS 12 exfS exd4 13 hd4
~aS 14 ~c2;!;, Ligterink-Miles, Lon-
don 1981, but the text is better as it
gains space in the centre.
The game Uhlmann-Gheorghiu,
Sofia 1967 went on 8 ... cxdS 9 ltJh4
~e4 10 ltJxdS hg2 11 'tt>xg2 ltJxdS
12 ~xdS ~c7 13 l"1d1ltJb6 14 ~bS+
~c6+ 1S ~xc6+ bxc6 16 b3 l"1d8 17
~b2 ltJd7 18 f4;!; with lasting pres-
sure.
B. 3 ... e5 4 dxe5
We saw in the previous part that
White obtains a lasting initiative by
trading queens in this pawn struc-
ture. White also often plays 4 ltJf3.
Then 4 ... exd4 SltJxd4 ~e7 6 e4 0-0 7
~e2 l"1e8 is rather passive, while 4 ...
e4 S ltJd2 ~fS 6 g3 c6 7 ~g2 dS 8 0-0
128
~e7 (Or 8 ...hS 9 cxdS cxdS10 f3 exf3
l1ltJxf3±, Khismatullin-M.Nikolov,
Oropesa del Mar 2000) 9 cxdS cxdS
10 f3 destroys the black centre: 10 ...
exf3 l1ltJxf3 ltJc6 12 ~b3;!;.
4 ... dxe5 5 VMxd8+ @xd8 6
lDf3 lDfd7
The eS-pawn needs protection
so Black has to play sooner or lat-
er .. .f6. He can try another setup
though: 6 ... ltJbd7 7 l"1g1! c6 (7... h6
8 g4 e4 9 gS exf3 10 gxf6 ltJxf6 11
exf3 c6 12 ~e3 ~e6 13 0-0-0+ 'tt>c7
14 ~f4+ 'tt>c8 1S ltJe4;!;, Rowson-
M.Ivanov, Verona 2006.) 8 g4 ltJe8
9 ~e3 f6 10 0-0-0 'tt>c7 11 gS ltJd6
12 gxf6 gxf6 13 b3 ltJfS 14 ~d2 as
1S ltJe4;!; G.Grigorov-Rusev, Sunny
Beach 2004. Play is similar to the
main line.
894 !
The computer does not include
this move between his first 4 choi-
ces, but human practice is strongly
in its favour. The advance of the g-
pawn marks the beginning of a clear
plan - to push gS, eventually open
the g-file. Then White's rook will be
constantly threatening to invade g7,
while the split pawn formation will
be easier to attack, especially the f6-

pawn (by liJe4).
7 g3 f6 8 ig2 c6 9 0-0 rJlc710 ie3
as 11l"1adU is comfortable for play-
ing, but White lacks targets here.
7 ... c68 b3
This is the modern treatment.
White avoids doubled pawns in the
case of 8 ie3 ib4 9 0-0-0 ixc3 10
bxc3 rJle7. However, I thrust the in-
tuition of possibly the finest posi-
tional player ever, Smyslov, who
was clearly better after 11 gs liJa6
12 ih3liJb613 ixc8l"1hxc814liJxeS
cs 15 l"1hg1!±, Smyslov-Lombardy,
Monte Carlo 1969.
8 ...f6
8 ... ib4 is well met by 9 ib2 as
10 0-0-0 f6 11 gs liJa6 12 gxf6 gxf6
13 liJe4 rJle7 14 l"1gl±, Rowson-San-
chez Guirado, Palma de Mallorca
2008.
9 g5 as 10 h4 liJc5 11 h5
liJba6
We have been following the
game Epishin-Llorente Zaro, Bena-
sque 2007. White has realised his
plan and he needs only a couple of
precise moves to fix his advantage.
Now simplest would have been 12
ie3 rJlc7 13 h6 if5 14 ih3±, starting
to collect Black's kingside pawns.
1 d4 ltJf6 2 c4 d6 3 ltJc3
C.3 ... c6
Black commonly prefers this
move order in order to sidestep
White's plans with long castle as in
the line 3 ... liJbd7 4 igs es sliJf3 ie7
6 e3 0-0 7 ~c2 c6 8 0-0-0. It is argu-
able that the bishop is better placed
on gs though. For instance, Black
can use it to gain tempi for his de-
velopment by 4 ... h6 5 ih4 gs 6 ig3
liJhs.
4 e4 e5 5 liJf3 liJbd7 6 .ie2
.ie7 7 0-0
7 ... 0-0
7... a6!? is seldom seen, but it
hides some venom. This move al-
lows Black to escape from the main
line since White's bishop is not on
e3 yet and his standard answer to
... a6 - 8 ds, does not work. (8 ds
cxds 9 cxds bs 10 b4 liJb6 11 ie3
id7 and a4 is impossible) White can
underline the drawback of delaying
castling only by 8 liJh4! g6 9 ih6.
Then 9 ... ~b6 would face White with
a choice: He can either win a pawn,
risking to find it impossible to con-
vert it after 10 dxes liJxeS 11 ig7
l"1g8 12 i.xf6 i.xf6 13 ~xd6 ~d8 14
~xd8+ ixd8 15 liJf3 liJxf3+ 16 ixf3
ie6, or sacrifice one with 10 liJf3!
129
Part 7
'Wxb211 'Wd3!? (Khalifman suggests
11 ttJa4 'Wa3 12 c5 exd4 13 .ic1 'Wb4
14 a3 'Wa5 15 cxd6 hd6 16 'Wxd4~)
11 ... 'Wb6 12 flab1 'Wa5 13 flfd1 exd4
14 ttJxd4 ttJe5 15 'Wd2t. In any case
White has ample compensation.
7... 'Wc7 S .ie3 ttJfS is an ambi-
tious plan to concentrate all minor
pieces on the kingside and organise
an attack. Our common antidote is
to gain space in the centre by 9 d5
Now Black cannot prevent us
from opening files by 9 ... c5 due to
10 :gb1 ttJg6 11 b4 b6 12 bxc5 bxc5 13
'Wa4+ .id714 'Wa6 0-0 15 flb7.icS16
flxc7 ha6 17 flbU with a pleasant
initiative, so he continues his main
idea: 9 ... ttJg6 10 ttJel h5 11 ttJd3 ttJg4
12 .id2 f5. Here we should open the
centre by 13 dxc6 (or 13 c5!? dxc5
14 dxc6t - Khalifman) 13 ... bxc6
14 'Wa4. Black is hardly happy to
have his pawn on h5. For instance,
14 ... fxe4 15 ttJxe4 0-0 16 h3 ttJf6 17
ttJxf6+ hf6 IS .ia5± and he has two
pawns hanging.
Si.e3
S fle1 and S 'Wc2 are at least as
popular as the text, but these moves
are linked with maintaining tension
in the centre. I prefer a clear plan
130
which is easy to follow. White com-
pletes development and gains space
by d5. Then he attacks the queenside
using the power of the bishop pair
on e2-e3. This plan has proved to be
the most effective in practice.
S ... a6
Alternatively:
a) S ... ttJg4 9 .id2 does not change
considerably the situation. For in-
stance:
9 ... 'Wb6
Or 9 ... a6 10 d5; 9 ... ttJgf6 10 d5
a5 11 'Wc2 ttJeS 12 a3 g6 13 b4 f5 14
dxc6 bxc6 15 exf5 gxf5 16 b5±, Ba-
nas-Slovineanu, Panormo 200l.
10h3
Black's threat on b2 could be
also neutralised with 10 a3 exd4 (or
10 ... ttJgf6 11 c5 'Wc7 12 cxd6 hd6
13 flc1 exd4 14 ttJb5 'WbS 15 ttJxd6
'Wxd6 16 .ib4 c5 17 e5±) 11 ttJa4 'Wc7
12 ttJxd4t. This variation has been
proposed by Khalifman. The text
opens the centre and changes the
pawn structure in White's favour:
1O ... ttJgf611 c5 'Wc712 cxd6 hd6
13 .ig5 exd4
Black cannot wait any longer as
13 ... fleS 14 d5 would leave his eS-
"rook without prospects: 14 ... h6 15

i.h4 i.b4 16 dxc6 bxc6 17 tiJd2 i.e7
IS Elcl. White has a pleasant game
due to his better pawn formation,
e.g.: IS ... tiJc5 19 b4 tiJe6 20 b5:t or
IS ... ElbS 19 tiJc4 tiJc5 20 i.g3 i.fS 21
'lMfc2:t.
14'1Mfxd4 EleS 15 Eladl i.c516'1Mfd2
tiJxe4 17 tiJxe4 Elxe4 IS i.d3 EleS 19
Elfel±. It turns out that White is not
obliged to defend the central pawn.
b) S... EleS 9 d5 c5
This is a very dull and passive
setup for Black who will be staying
cramped for ever. In a tournament
such a strategy does not seem at-
tractive, but in blitz the active side
can run out of time while trying to
figure out how to break through.
White must open the b-file and he
can start with either 10 Elbl or 10
tiJel. I prefer the rook move only
because it keeps open the option
for the f3-knight to go to d2. Khalif-
man gives another reason - to avoid
10 tiJel tiJb6, which is irrelevant in
my opinion. In that case the knight
on b6 is obviously out of place and
White obtains a comfortable edge by
simple natural means: 11 Elbl h6 12
b4 cxb413 Elxb4 tiJbd714 tiJd3 b615
'lMfa4 tiJc5 16 tiJxc5:t, D.Kosic-Vukic,
Neum 200S. Let us return to 10 Elbl
tiJfS 11 b4 b6 12 bxc5 bxc5 13 tiJd2
1 d4 tiJf6 2 c4 d6 3 -tc3
tiJg6 14 g3:t. This is yet another typi-
cal position. See game 19 Sakaev-
Vukic, Saint Vincent 2005.
9d5!
Now that Black has weakened
his wing, we can close the centre.
9 ... cxd5 10 cxd5 b5
1Q... tiJg4 11 i.d2 b5 gives White
an extra option - 12 tiJel tiJgf6 13
tiJc2:t, as noted by Khalifman. How-
ever, I do not see any reason to re-
nounce our main plan with b4, fol-
lowed up by a4: 12 b4! tiJb6 13 a4
bxa4 14 tiJxa4 f5 15 exf5 hf5 16
tiJc3. The a6-pawn is doomed, for
example, 16 ... 'lMfcS (Or 16 ... mhS
17 Ela5 i.f6 IS h3 tiJxf2 19 Elxf2 e4,
Gavrikov-Hickl, Switzerland 2006,
20 tiJh2! i.d4 21 i.el 'lMff6 22 'lMfb3
hh3 23 tiJdl±) 17'1Mfb3 mhS IS Ela5
i.dS (IS ... e4 19 tiJd4 i.f6 20 tiJe6
EleS, Ionov-Sturua, Ohrid 2001, 21
Elcl+-) 19 tiJg5! tiJd7 20 Ela3 hg5 21
hg5'1MfeS 22'1Mfc4'1Mfh5 23 h3±.
11 ttJd2
In this position Black has tried
unsuccessfully many moves which
proves that his game is rather
bad. He cannot effectively prevent
White's two major plans:
131
Part 7
1. To fix the b5-pawn by b4 and
then attack it by a4 or:
2. To instal a knight on c6 via the
route d2-b3-a5-c6.
C1. 11 ... tt)xe4 12 tt)cxe4 f5 13
a4 bxa4 14 \!!Vxa4 fxe4 15 tt)xe4
tt)f6 16 tt)xf6+ i.xf6 17 \!!Vc6 ~b8
18 i.xa6~
18 ...\!!Ve7
18 ... e4 does not give counterplay
du to 19 bc8 :B:xc8 20 ~a4 ~e7 21
i.d4±.
19 b4±.
White is clearly better, Farago-
B.Stein, Dortmund 1986.
C2. 11 ... b4 12 tt)a4 tt)xe4 13
tt)xe4 f5
132
This is a variant of the previous
line. The pawn on b4 becomes a tar-
get:
14 \!!Vb3
14 f3 fxe4 15 fxe4 :B:xf1 + 16 ~xf1
is also somewhat better for White:
16 ... i.g5 17 bg5 ~xg5 18 ~cl± or
16 ... a5 17 :B:el i.g5 18 bg5 ~xg5 19
:B:c6 i.b7 20 ~c1 ~xel+ 21 :B:xel :B:c8
22 :B:xc8+ bc8 23 i.g4;l;.
14.. .fxe4 15 \!!Vxb4 ~b8 16 \!!Vxe4
tt)f6 17 \!!Vc4 i.d7 18 tt)c3 ~xb2 19
\!!Vxa6±.
C3.11 ...i.b712 b4 tt)b613 a4±.
Play is similar to the next lines.
C4. 11 ... tt)e8 12 b4! i.g5 13
i.xg5 \!!Vxg5 14 a4 bxa4
15 tt)c4
White can also keep more pieces
on the board by 15 ttJf3 ~e716 ~xa4
f5 (16 ... :B:b8 17 i.d3 ttJb6 18 ~c2 ttJc7
19 :B:fcl±) 17 exf5 :B:xf518 ttJd2 :B:f419
g3 :B:f8 20 ttJde4;l;.
15 ... ~b8 16 \!!Vxa4 tt)b6 17 tt)xb6
~xb6 18 ~fc1 f5 19 tt)d1 ~b8 20
exf5 i.xf5 21 tt)e3~ i.g6 22 ~c4
~f4~

This occured in the game Stohl-
A.Jones, Moscow 1994. Now sim-
plest would have been 23 g3±,
threatening to win the rook by h4.
C5.11 ... 'lWc7121'!c1 'lWb813 b4
ltJb6 14 ltJb3 .id7 15 ltJa5 1'!c8 16
'lWd2 .id8 17 f3
In this line Black prevented
a4, but let our knight to a5. Now
17... lLlc4 would lose a pawn to 18
hc4 bxc4 19 lLldl .ib5 20 1'!f2±, so
in the game Antic-Aronian, Yerevan
2000 Black followed up with:
17 ... h6 18 ltJb1 1'!a7 19 1'!xc8
'lWxc8
Here 20 lLlc6± would have been
clearly better for White.
1 d4lLlf6 2 c4 d6 3 -':..c3
C6. 11...ltJb6 12 a4 bxa4
Our whole strategy is based on
the variation 12 ...b4 13 a5!±. As a
result, Black is unable to keep the
queenside closed and the week a6-
pawn is a constant source of con-
cern.
13 ltJxa4 ltJxa4 14 1'!xa4 .id7
Or 14 ... a5 15 b4 .id716 b5±.
15 1'!a3
15 ... a5
After 15 ....ib5 we can restrict
Black's play on the kings ide by 16 f3
lLlh517 g3± when 17....ig5 would fail
to 18 f4+-.
16 'lWc2 a4 17 ltJc4 1'!b8 18 1'!c1
The a3-rook will also go to the
c-file with a total domination of
White.
133
 Part 7
QUICK REPERTOIRE
19. Sakaev-Vukic
Saint Vincent 20.09.2005
1 d4 c!l)f6 2 c4 d6 3 c!l)f3 c!l)bd7
4 c!l)c3 c6 5 e4 e5 6 .ie2 ie7 7 0-0
0-0 8 ie3 ~e8 9 d5 c5
10 ~b1
I do not understand grandmas-
ters like Vikic who voluntarily ac-
cept to defend such positions. Three
years after the current game he be-
came victim of yet another mod-
el realisation of White's queenside
plan with b4:
Kosic-Vukic
Neum 10.06.2008
10 ttJe1 ttJb611 :1'!b1 h612 b4 cxb4
13 :1'!xb4 ttJbd7 14 ttJd3 b6 15 ~a4'
134
1 d4 c!l)f6 2 c4 d6 3 c!l)c3
ttJc5 16 ttJxc5 bxc5 17 :1'!b3 .id7 18
~a6 .ic8 19 ~a3 a6 20 :1'!tb1 :1'!a7 21
.id2±
Black has managed to trade one
minor piece in comparison to the
commented game, but he is no less
cramped: 21. .. ~c7 22 :1'!b6 .ib7 23
.id1 :1'!ea8 24 .ia4 ttJd7 25 :1'!6b3 <;t>h7
26 ~b2 :1'!b8 27 ttJd1 .ig5 28 .ixg5
hxg5 29 .ixd7 ~xd7 30 ttJe3 g6 31
h3 <;t>g7 32 :1'!b6 f6 33 ttJg4 and White
eventually won on the kingside. My
conclusion is that the whole struc-
ture is bad for Black.
10 ... c!l)f811 b4 b612 bxc5 bxc5
13 c!l)d2 c!l)g6 14 g3 ih3 15 ~e1
Wd7 16 f3 ~eb8
 1 d4 lLIf6 2 c4 d6 3 '::'c3

22 .id3 lLIe7 23 f4 f6 24 f5 ~c8 25

1:!b1 ~c7 26 .id2 ~a6 27 a3 ~c7
28 cj;>g2 a6 29 cj;>f3 ~e8 30 g4 cj;>f7
31 h3 h6 32 cj;>e2

17~a4
Sakaev is conducting this game
as if he wanted to present me with
a classical example for my book.
White is not attacking anything un- 32 ... ~b6?
til the very last moment, when he is An obvious concession as the
already obviously winning. There white knight finally gets the chance
is nothing to calculate, every de- to reach the decisive outpost on c6.
cision is based on long-term consi- Let us consider the more precise de-
derations. Computers prefer here 17 fence 32 ... lLIc7. Then the computer
i.f1 Ml18 lLIxf1, assuming that the suggests 33 ~a5, but it would be a se-
white light-squared bishop is "bad". rious mistake. As cramped as Black
Sakaev has another opinion on that looks, without rooks he has all the
subject. White has spatial advan- chances to survive. Instead, White
tage, so he should keep as many should aim to open another file and
minor pieces as possible. Converse- to use his more active rook. He can
ly, it would be good to trade queens, make progress by the breakthrough
since this piece defends the weak g4-g5, or by sacrificing a piece on cS.
d6- and a7-pawns. Most inexpe- He can try two interesting setups.
rienced players are afraid to swap 1) 33 ~d1lL1e8 34 ~c2lL1e7 35 h4
queens fearing that it would be dif- lLIc8 36 i.e2 lLIc7 37 E:hl!
ficult to win later. Sakaev however
knows exactly what he is doing: he
exchanges one pair of rooks to avoid
counterplay along the b-file, and ex-
pands on the kingside to gain even
more space. While Black will be try-
ing to cover all the invasion squares
on the b-file, he would probably miss
a breakthrough on the other wing.
17 ...~xa418lL1xa4 i.d719lL1c3
.id8 20 1:!xb8 1:!xb8 21 lLIb3 lLIe8
135
Part 7

Now 37... ltJa8 would stumble lyon alert and a tiny mistake could
into 38 g5! fxg5 39 hxg5 hg5 40 turn to be decisive. After his mis-
hg5 hxg5 41 l'!h8 'it>f6 42 ltJa5± (42 take, he is lost:
i.h5 g4) 42 ...g6 43ltJc6 l'!b7 44 l'!g8 33 ltJa5! fi.e7 34 ltJe6 ~e8 35 a4
gxf5 45 i.h5+-, but 37... 'it>g8! saves <i>f8 36 a5 ltJa8 37 ltJa4
the day as 38 ltJa5 ltJa8 39 ltJc6
does not work in view of 39 ... hc6
40 dxc6 ltJa7. White can attempt a
piece sac on c5: 38 l'!gl 'it>f8 39 i.e3
ltJe8 40 ltJxc5 dxc5 41 hc5+ i.e7 42
he7 + ltJxe7 43 c5 l'!c8 44 c6 ltJxc6
45 dxc6 hc6=. We see that some-
how Black is holding here, main-
ly because White's king is not well
placed on the c-file in the last varia-
tion. So, we should consider:
2) 33 i.c2ltJe7 34 'it>d3ltJc8 35 h4
ltJe8 36 l'!hl 'it>g8 37 i.e3 ltJc7, when Total domination!
38 ltJxc5 dxc5 39 hc5 'it>f7 40 i.e3;!; 37 ...fi.xe6 38 dxe6 <i>e7 39 ~b7
is already quite appealing. gb8 40 tiJe3 <i>d8 41 tiJd5 <i>e8 42
Black's defence is not trivial in tiJe7+ <i>d8 43 tiJd5 <i>e8 44 .ie2 .id8
these lines. He must be constant- 45 .ia4 .ie7 46 <i>f3 .id8 47 <i>g3 1-0

136
137
 Index of Variations

Modern Benoni Pawn Structures

Part 1 1 d4 tLlf6 2 c4 g6 3 tLlc3 il.g7 4 e4 d6 5 f4 c5 6 d5 0-0 7 tLlf3 e6
8 il.e2 exd5 9 cxd5 (9 ... a6, 9 ... tLla6) .......................................................... 16
9 ... b5?! (9 ... a6, 9 ... tLla6) ............................................................................ .17
10 e5 dxe5 11 fxe5 tLlg4 12 il.g5 ~b6 13 0-0 c4+ 14 ~hl tLld7 ........ 17
14... tLlxe5 ...... 18
9 ... tLlbd7 .................................................................................................... 18
9 ...il.g4 10 0-0 tLlbd7 ................................................................................. 20
11 h3!? hf3 12 hf3 !%e8 ........................................ 21
12 ... tLle8 ........................................ 25
13 g4!? ............................ 26
13 il.e3 ............................. 29
12 ... a6 13 g4 .................................. 31
13 ... tLle8 ............... 31
13 ... h6 .................. 33
12 ... !%b8 ......................................... 34
12 ... c4 ............................................ 34

Part 2 7 tLlf3 e6 8 il.e2 exd5 9 cxd5!%e8 10 e5 dxe5 (10 ... tLlfd7) ............ 51
11 fxe5 tLlg412 e6! (12 il.g5) ....................................................................... 53
12 ... fxe613 d6 (13i1.g5) ...................................................... 56
13 ... ~b6 ......................................................... 57
14 tLlg5 tLlh6 15 0-0 tLlc6 .................. 59
15 ... tLlf5 .................. 60
13 .... tLle5 ........................................................ 62
13 ... tLlc614 0-0 !%f8 ....................................... 63
14... tLlf6 ........................................ 63
14 ... tLld4 ....................................... 64
13 ...il.d7 (14 il.g5, 14 tLlg5) .............................. 66
14 0-0 ~b6 ...................................... 67
14 ... il.c6 ....................................... 67
King's Indian Defence and Volga Pawn Structures
Part 3 5 f4 c5 6 d5 0-0 7 tLlf3 Rare Lines without 7 ... e6 ........................ 74
7... a6 .......................................................................................................... 74
7... b5?! ....................................................................................................... 76
8 cxb5 a6 9 a4 e6 (9 ... ~a5?!, 9 ... il.b7) .......................................... 76
9 ... axb5 ...................................................................... 77

138
Part 4 S f4 0-0 6lLlf3 ............................................................................. 8S
6 ... eS?!, 6 ... a6 ............................................................. 8S
6 ... lLlbd7, 6 ... lLlc6 ....................................................... 86
6 ....ig4 ....................................................................... 87
6 ... lLla6 7 .id3 .............................................................88
7 ... eS 8 fxeS dxeS 9 dS ............................. 89
9 ... cS ....................... 89
9 ... lLlcS .................... 89
9 ... c6 ....................... 90
7 ...ig4 ..................................................... 91

Modern Defence and Other Rare Move Orders

Part 5 1 d4 g6 2 e4 .ig7 3 c4 (3 lLlc3) ..................................................... 99
3 ... d6 (3 ... lLlc6, 3 ... c6, 3 ... cS) .................................................................. 100
4lLlc3lLlc6 (4... eS) S dS (S .ie3) ................................................... 102
S... lLld4 6.ie3 c5 (6 ... eS) ......................... 104
7 lLlge2 lLlxe2 ................. lOS
7... V9b6 ................... 106

Part 6 1 d4 g6 2 e4 .ig7 3 c4 d6 4lLlc3lLld7 SlLlf3 ............................... 116

S...eS (S ...e6) 6.ie2 lLlgf6 (6 ...lLle7) 7.ie3 0-0 8 0-0 ............................... 116
8 ... exd4 .................... 117
8 ... aS ........................ 118
8 ...h6 ........................ 118
8 ... lLlg4 ..................... 118
8 .. J:1e8 ...................... 119
8 ... c6 ....................... 120

Part 7 1 d4 lLlf6 2 c4 d6 3 lLlc3 Lines without ...g6 ............................. 127

3 ....ifS ...................................................................................................... 127
3 ... eS ........................................................................................................ 128
3 ... c6 ........................................................................................................ 129
4 e4 eS SlLlf3lLlbd7 6 .ie2 ie7 7 0-0 0-0 8 ie3 a6 9 dS cxdS
10 cxdS bSlllLld2 .................................................................................... 131
11... lLlxe4 ......................................................................... 132
11...b4 .............................................................................. 132
11 ...ib7 ........................................................................... 132
11... lLle8 ........................................................................... 132
11. ..V9c7 ........................................................................... 133

139
 Other CHESS STARS Books
Repertoire books:
Opening for White According to Kramnik l.Nf3 by A. Khalifman
Volume 1a: Old Indian, rare lines in the Classical Variation, 2006
Volume 1b: The Classical Variation, 2006
Volume 2: Anti-Nimzo-Indian, Anti-QID, English, Knight Tango, 2008
Volume 3-5: second editions coming in 2009-2010

Opening for White According to Anand l.e4 by A. Khalifman

Volume1: Petroff, Ruy Lopez without 3 ... a6
Volume2: Ruy Lopez with 3 ... a6
Volume3: Caro-Kann, 1...c6, 2 ... g6
Volume4: 1...d6, 1...g6 and others
VolumeS: Alekhine's Defence, 1...b6 and other rare lines
Volume 6: The French Defence 3.Nc3 dxe4, 3 ... Nf6, 2006
Volume 7: The French Defence 3.Nc3 Bb4, 2006
Volume 8: The Sicilian, Paulsen-Kan and rare lines, 2006
Volume 9: The Sicilian, Paulsen-Taimanov and other lines, 2007
Volume 10: The Sicilian, Sveshnikov, 2007
Volume 11: The Dragon, 2009
Opening for Black According to Karpov by Khalifman

Current theory and practice series:

Challenging the Sicilian with 2.a3! by Bezgodov, 2004
An Expert's Guide to the 7.Bc4 Gruenfeld by Sakaev, 2006
The Sharpest Sicilian by Kiril Georgiev and At. Kolev, 2007
The Safest Sicilian by Delchev and Semkov, 2nd rev.ed. 2008
The Queen's Gambit Accepted by Sakaev and Semkov, 3rd. rev. ed., 2008
The Easiest Sicilian by Kolev and Nedev, 2008
The Petrosian System Against the QID by Beliavsky and Mikhalchishin, 2008

Games collections
My One Hundred Best Games by Alexey Dreev, 2007
Bogoljubow. The Fate of a Chess Player by S. Soloviov, 2004
Super Tournaments 2003, 456 pages + colour photos
Super Tournaments 2002, 556 pages + colour photos
Shirov's 100 Wins by Soloviov 316 p., interviews, biography, colour pho-
tos, 2003
Leko's 100 Wins by Soloviov 340 pages, biography, colour photos, 2003

More details at www.chess-stars.~om

140