Clles � ·s

eva n
Technical Editor: IM Sergei Soloviov

Translation by: GM Evgeny Ermenkov

Cover design by: Kalojan Nachev

Copyright ©Alexei Kornev 2013

Printed in Bulgaria by "Chess Stars" Ltd. - Sofia

ISBN13 : 978 954 8782 95-1
 Alexei Kornev

A Practical White Repertoire

with l.d4 and 2.c4

Volume 2: The King's Fianchetto Defences

Chess Stars
 Bibliography

Books

The Safest Grunfeld A Complete Repertoire for black by Delchev and

Agrest, Chess Stars 2011
The Modern Philidor Defence by Barsky, Chess Stars 2010
The King's Indian A Complete Black Repertoire by Bologan, Chess
Stars 2009
Opening for White According to Anand l.e4, val. 4 by Khalifman, Chess
Stars 2005
Playing l.d4. The Indian Defences by Schandorff, Quality Chess 2012
A Strategic Chess Opening Repertoire for White by Watson, Gambit 2012
The Grunfeld Defense volume two by Avrukh, Quality Chess 2011
l.d4 volume 2 by Avrukh, Quality Chess 2011
Revolution in the 70's by Kasparov, Everyman Chess 2007
King's Indian Defense: Averbakh variation by Petursson, Cadogan 1996
King's Indian Defence by Geller, Moscow 1980

Electronic/Periodicals

64-Chess Review (Moscow)

Chess Informant
New in chess Yearbook
Correspondence Database 2013
Mega Database 2013

4
Contents

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Part 1. The Gruenfeld Defence

l.d4 tt:lf6 2 .c4 g6 3.tt:lc3 dS 4.cd tt:Jxd5 5.e4 tt:Jxc3 6.bc .ig7 7.tt:lf3

1 7 . . . 0-0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2 7... c5 8 ..ie3 tt:lc6; 8 ... 0-0; 8 ...�g4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3 7 . . . c5 8 . .ie3 �a5 9.�d2 w/o 9 . . . 0-0 . 35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4 7 . . . c5 8.�e3 �aS 9.�d2 0-0 . 53 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Part 2. The King's Indian Defence

l.d4 tt:lf6 2.c4 g6 3.tt:lc3 .ig7 4.e4

5 4 . . . 0-0 . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 76. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6 4 . . . d6 5 . .ie2 tt:Jc6; 5 . . . c5; 5 . . . e5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

7 4 . . . d6 5 . .ie2 0-0 6 . .ig5 tt:lc6; 6 . . . c6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
8 4 . . . d6 5 . .ie2 0-0 6 . .ig5 tt:Jbd7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
9 4 . . . d6 5 . .ie2 0-0 6 . .ig5 tt:la6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
10 4 ... d6 5 ..ie2 0-0 6 . .ig5 h6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 3
11 4 ... d6 5 ..ie2 0-0 6 . .ig5 cS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

Part 3. The Modern Defence

l.d4 g6 2 .c4

12 2 ... d6; 2 ....ig7 3.e4 w/o 3 ... d6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160

13 2 ... .ig7 3.e4 d6 4.tt:lc3 eS; 4 ... tt:Jc6; 4 ... tt:ld7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

Part 4. The Pirc-Ufimtsev Defence

l.d4 d6 2.e4 tt:Jf6 3.tt:lc3 g6 4 . .ie3

14 4 . . . a6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15 4 . . . .ig7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 206. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .

16 4 ... c6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231

5
 Part 5. Black avoids the Pirc-Ufimtsev Defence
l.d4 d6 2 .e4 l2Jf6 3.l2Jc3

17 The Modem Philidor. 3 ... e5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243

18 The Lion Defence. 3 . . . l2Jbd7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
19 The Czech Defence. 3 . . . c6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265

Index of Variations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284

6
PREFACE

The first volume has been published not so long ago and I would like
to present to the readers the second volume of out three-volume work,
devoted to the building of a practical repertoire for White after the
move l.d2-d4.

In the first volume, we have analysed the openings for White af­
ter Black's classical response - l.. .d7-d5. In the second volume, we
deal with systems for Black connected with fianchettoing of his dark­
squared bishop. These openings are very complicated and as a rule,
there arises after them a complex multi-pieces middle game in which
White must know thoroughly numerous typical resources.

In this book, we pay most attention to the Gruenfeld Defence (part

1) and to the King's Indian Defence (part 2). In the process of choosing
systems against these opening, the author has emphasized on the prin­
ciple of reliability. Against the Gruenfeld Defence, we analyse the Mod­
ern Exchange variation with i.e3 and �d2 , in which there often arises
a transfer into an endgame, slightly preferable for White. Against the
King's Indian Defence, our main opening weapon is the Averbakh sys­
tem, which has been thoroughly analysed. Black can hardly begin there
any active actions on the kingside.

It is also worth mentioning that is reply to the move l . . .d6 (parts

3 and 4 of the book), we analyse 2 .e4, therefore this book will be use­
ful also to the readers who like beginning their games with the move
l.e2-e4.

In our third and last volume, which will be published at the begin­
ning of the year 2014, we will analyse thoroughly the Budapest Gambit,
the Benko Gambit, the Benoni Defence, the Dutch Defence and some
rarely played lines for Black on moves 1 and 2 as well as one of the most
popular defences for him against White's move one with his queen's
pawn - the Nimzowitsch Defence.

The author wishes to express his deepest gratitude to Margarita

Schepetkova and Ekaterina Smirnova for their invaluable help in the
creation of this book.

Alexei Kornev

7
 Part l
The Gruenfeld Defence
l.d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 d5
After this move there arises
the Gruenfeld Defence. It was in­
troduced to the tournament prac­
tice by the Austrian grandmaster
E.Gruenfeld back in the year
192 2 .
I t was a revolutionary opening
at the time. Instead of occupying
the centre with his pawns, Black
presents it completely to his op­
ponent. Still, after a while, it
turned out that White's task was
not simple at all. Yes, he can oc­
cupy the centre with his pawns
without any problem, but then
Black's pieces exert powerful
pressure against it (ig7, cS, lt:Jc6
and eventually !g4). A single im­
precision by White may lead not
only to the loss of the opening ad­
vantage, but Black may seize the
8
initiative altogether.
The Gruenfeld Defence was in­
cluded in the repertoire of many
world champions. M.M.Botvinnik
contributed greatly to the devel­
opment of its theory and he not
only played it in the most impor­
tant games, including the match­
es for the world championship,
but in 1979 he, together with Y.
Estrin, wrote a book devoted to
this opening.
We must also mention
that the Gruenfeld Defence was
played by R.Fischer and G.Kaspa­
rov. The contribution of Kasparov
should be particularly empha­
sized, because he played it for
many years and not only in tour­
nament games, but also in his nu­
merous match-games against A.
Karpov.
Presently, during the comput­
er era in chess, the Gruenfeld De­
fence has become a part of the
opening repertoire of many play­
ers and this is not surprising at
all. The centre is usually opened
and the game is almost forced, so
all this can be analysed extensive­
ly and very precisely by comput­
ers.
 Among the contemporary
grandmasters we should mention
P.Svidler who was champion of
Russia many times and used this
opening during his entire chess
career as well as M.Carlsen. It is
also worth noting that in the last
world championship match be­
tween V.Anand and B.Gelfand,
the last one chose the Gruenfeld
Defence as his main opening
weapon against l.d4 and Anand
was so unsuccessful in this
opening with White that at the
end of the match he began to play
l.e4.
As a main opening weapon for
White, we will analyse a line in
which after the exchange on dS,
White at first occupies the centre
with e2-e4 and then fortifies his
d4-pawn with the moves lt:\f3 and
ie3 .
In the first and second chap­
ters, we will analyse variations,
which are not so popular in the
contemporary tournament prac­
tice.
The third chapter will be de­
voted to the variation with 8 . . .
1M/aS, which is considered to be the
best for Black by the modern the­
ory. In this chapter we will see all
the responses for him with the ex­
ception of 9 . . . 0-0. This move will
be analysed in Chapter 4.
9
Chapter 1 l.d4 lL!f6 2.c4 g6 3.lL!c3 d5 4.cxd5
This is the most logical move
for White. He exchanges on dS
and forces the enemy knight to
occupy this square in order to at­
tack it with the move e2-e4, occu­
pying the centre with his pawns.
4 ••• c!Llxd5 5.e4 c!Llxc3
Naturally, it is better for Black
to exchange the knight; other­
wise, he will lose a tempo to re­
treat is away from the centre. .
Still, sometimes h e plays 5 . . .
tt:lb6? ! too. The best for White
would be to play immediately
6.h3 ! This move prepares tt:lf3 and
prevents .ig4. 6 . . . .ig7 7.tt:lf3 0-0
8 . .ie3 c6 (It is not preferable for
Black to advance his flank pawns:
8 ... a5 9 ..ie2 a4 10.0-0 a3 ll.bxa3
10
E:xa3 12.'?t/c1 E:aS 13.E:d1 c6 14 . .ih6
.ixh6 15.\WxhM and in the game
T.Petrosian - Smyslov, Gagra
1953, White maintained a slight
edge due to his powerful pawn­
centre. After the trade of the dark­
squared bishops, he will have
chances of attacking on the king­
side. The potential weakness of
the a2-pawn cannot be sufficient
compensation for Black.) 9 . .ie2
.ie6. Black is preparing the ex­
change of the light-squared bish­
ops. 10.0-0 .ic4 ll.E:cl tt:l8d7
12.a4 aS 13.b3 he2 14.\Wxe2 e6
15.E:fd1 E:c8 16.-igS 1We8 17.e5±
and in the game A.Petrosian -
Taimanov, Tallinn 1980, White
obtained a great advantage. Black
is practically helpless against the
manoeuvre tt:lc3-e4-d6. These two
examples are quite sufficient to
understand the main defect of the
move 5 . . . tt:lb6, since after it Black
is incapable of exerting pressure
against his opponent's pawns on
d4 and e4. White completes ef­
fortlessly his development and
maintains an advantage in the
middle game thanks to his power­
ful pawn-centre.
 2.c4 g6 3. lD c3 d5 4.cd ltJxd5 5.e4 ltJxc3 6.bc i.g7 7. ltJ.f3 0 - 0 B. i.e2
6.bxc3 .ig7 7.0,£3
This natural move (What can
be more natural than developing
the knight to f3 in the opening . . . ?)
did not become so popular imme­
diately. It remained in the shadow
of the plan with .ic4, ltJe2, be­
cause it was considered that it was
not good for White to allow the
pin of his knight after .ig4. Later
however, it became clear that the
pin was not so dangerous for
White after all and the move 7.
ltJf3 began to be played more and
more often in tournaments and
became popular.
7 ... 0-0?!
This natural move is definitely
imprecise, because it enables
White to obtain an advantage ef­
fortlessly.
The strongest move for Black
- 7... c5! will be analysed in Chap­
ters 2-4.
It is also worth mentioning the
possibility 7 . . . b6? ! White should
not be afraid of it, because it is not
in the spirit of the main idea of
the Gruenfeld Defence. Black
must exert pressure against
White's pawn on d4 as quickly as
possible. 8 . .ib5 + . This resource is
well familiar from some other
openings. White forces the move
c7-c6, so that Black's bishop on b7
does not exert pressure against
the e4-pawn. 8 . . . c6 9 . .ic4 0-0
10.0-0 .ia6 ll.ha6 ltJxa6 12 .'1Wa4
'1Wc8 13 . .ig5 ;1;. White has a slight
edge thanks to his pawn-domi­
nance in the centre. In addition,
Black's pieces are a bit cramped.
He obviously lacks space. Later,
in the game Kasparov - Pribyl,
Skara 1980, White obtained a
very promising position with a
pawn-sacrifice. 13 . . . '1Wb7 14J''!:fe1
e6 15.E:ab1 cS 16.d5 ! hc3 17. l"i:e d1
exd5 18.exd5 ig7 19.d6 !� Despite
the missing pawn, White had very
powerful initiative. G.Kasparov
demonstrated in this game one of
the main ideas in this variation.
White should ignore the possible
material sacrifices and advance
his d-pawn as quickly as possible
in order to squeeze the enemy
pieces.
8 . .ie 2 !
11
Chapter 1
This is the point. White ex­
ploits Black's imprecision and
completes immediately the devel­
opment of his kingside.
Later, the readers will see that
in response to 7 . . . c5, we will ana­
lyse 8.�e3. Now, after 7 . . . 0-0,
White does not need this move at
the moment.
8 . . . c5
Black's main idea is to create
pressure against his opponent's
centre.
He plays only seldom 8 .. .lt:lc6
9.0-0 b6 (following 9 . . . e5 10.d5
liJe7 ll.ia3±, White has more
space and his bishop exerts pow­
erful pressure on the a3-f8 diago­
nal, Leon Oquendo - Calzadilla
de Ia Cruz, Camaguey 2010) 10.
�e3 eS. Undermining the centre
with the e-pawn is not so effective
for Black as the same with the c­
pawn. ll.:Bc1 Wfe7 12.Wfa4 �b7
13.:Bfd1 h6 (He cannot win a
pawn, because after 13 . . . exd4 14.
cxd4 Wfxe4?, White has the re­
source 15. liJg5 Wfe7 16.:Bxc6± and
in the middle game his two
minor pieces are stronger than
Black's rook and pawn.) 14.d5
liJd8 15. Wfb4 Wff6 16.a4 �c8, J.
Graf - Marinkovic, Germany
1991, 17.c4t - There has arisen a
position of the King's Indian type
and it is more favourable for
White, since he has a clear-cut
plan for queenside actions: a4-a5
or c4-c5.
12
As a rule, there do not arise
original positions following 8 . . . b6
9.0-0 ib7 (9 . . . liJc6 10.ie3 - see
8 . . . liJc6; 9 . . . c5 lO .i.gS - see varia­
tion B) 10.Wfd3
About 10 . . . c5 ll.i.gS - see var­
iation B.
10 . . .Wfd7 1l.�g5 liJc6 12.Wfe3 -
see 10 . . . liJc6.
Following 10 ... liJd7 ll.i.gS
:Be8, Bravo - Le Quang, Istanbul
2012, White can maintain a slight
edge after the typical pawn-ad­
vance for similar positions - 12.
eS! ?t. Now, Black's bishop on g7
and his knight on d7 are severely
restricted in their movements. It
is worth mentioning this resource
works only when Black's knight
has been developed to d7; other­
wise, with a knight on b8, Black
will play liJc6-a5 and the weaken­
ing of the light squares may be
unpleasant for White.
10 . . . liJc6 ll.igS Wfd7 12 .Wfe3
:Bfe8, Kreiman - Ehlvest, New
York 2003. Here, White obtains a
slight but stable advantage after
13.:Bad1 liJa5 14.h4t - he is domi­
nant in the centre and can devel­
op his initiative on the kingside
with i.h6 and hS.
 2.c4 g6 3. lt:J c3 dS 4.cd lt:JxdS 5.e4 lt:Jxc3 6.bc i.g7 7. lt:Jj3 0 - 0 8. i.e2
9.0-0
Black has two main replies in
this position: A) 9 cxd4 and B)
•••
9 b6.
.••
About 9 ... 4Jc6 10.i.e3, or 9 . . .
.ig4 10 . .ie3 - see Chapter 2 , vari­
ation B.
9 . . . \WaS. This move seems
much stronger before White has
castled. Here, he can simply con­
tinue with lO.i.gS ! ? , for example:
10 . . . cxd4 ll.cxd4 i.g4, Sorm -
Nepomniachtchi, Biel 2007 and
now, he can simply capture a
pawn: 12 .he7!? ges 13.i.h4 gxe4
14.\Wb1 ges 15.\Wxb7 4Jd7 16.\Wbs;�;
- The activity of Black's pieces
does not compensate adequately
his material deficit.
His position is solid but very
passive after 9 . . . \Wc7 - Black has
no weaknesses, but he does not
exert pressure against his oppo­
nent's centre and cannot equalise.
10 .i.e3 gds ll.dS ! ? 4Jd7 (It would
be extremely risky for him to opt
for ll . . . .bc3 12.gc1 i.b4 13.\Wb3
\WaS 14.4Je5±, Black has won a
pawn indeed, but his position is
very difficult because his bishop is
misplaced on b4 and he lags in
development.) 12 .\Wc2 b6 13.gac1
4Jf6, Timman - Roos, Amsterdam
1978, 14.h3 ! ?;!; White has the ad­
vantage thanks to his dominance
in the centre.
A) 9 ••• cxd4
This move leads to a difficult
position for Black. He continues
with the standard plan for the
Gruenfeld Defence - pressure
against the d4-pawn. Here, it does
not work well however. The point
is that after White has castled
kingside, he can sacrifice the ex­
change on a1 in many variations
with the move d4-d5 and regains
it easily, while Black's knight on
c6 will be forced to occupy a very
bad position at the edge of the
board.
10.cxd4 lbc6
About 10 . . .ig4 ll.i.e3 4Jc6
12 .d5 - see 10 . . . 4Jc6
10 . . . b6 ll.igS .ib7 12 .\Wd3 -
see variation B.
ll.ie3 i.g4 12.d5 !
13
Chapter 1
This is the main idea in this
variation for White. Now, Black
has a choice: Al) 12 hf3 or•••
A2) 12 ••• ltle5.
12 ... tt:la5. The retreat of the
knight to the edge of the board
leads to a difficult position for
Black. 13.:1k1 b6. This move weak­
ens the c6-square and White's
knight is immediately headed
there. 14.tt:ld4 !xe2 15.\l;lfxe2 \l;lfd7
16.\l;l!bS l:!fd8 17.tt:lc6 tt:lxc6 18.
dxc6± His prospects are clearly
preferable thank to the powerful
passed c6-pawn, Van Wely - Ari­
el, New York 1994.
The move 12 ... ixa1, as a rule,
transposes to variation Al, since
later Black captures hf3 anyway.
Otherwise, if White's knight re­
mains on the board, Black may
have great difficulties, for exam­
ple: 13.\l;lfxa1 tt:laS 14 . .ih6 f6 15.
M8 \l;lfxf8 16.tt:ld4 ! ? This is the
point. White's knight will go to
the weakened e6-square, very
close to the enemy monarch. 16 . . .
!xe2 17.tt:lxe2 l:!c8, D e Boer - Den
Boer, Dieren 1989, 18.tt:ld4!±, fol­
lowed by tt:le6 and White's attack­
ing tandem {queen and knight)
seems very threatening.
Al) 12 •••hf3
This is a natural move, but is
not the best for Black, because he
will have problems with his knight
on c6.
13.hf3
14
13 ••• ltla5
After this, Black will have great
difficulties, because his knight is
terribly misplaced on aS.
It is not preferable for him to
opt for 13 . . . tt:le5. The point is that
Black will fail to preserve his
knight in the centre. 14 . .ie2 l:!c8
(It would be too risky for him to
choose 14 .. .f5 - White has the
two-bishop advantage and open­
ing of the position would be in his
favour. 15.f4 tt:lg4 16.!xg4 ixa1
17.exf5 ! Black's position begins to
crumble. 17 . . . gxf5 18.MS l:!xfS
19.\l;lfg4+ .ig7 2 0 .\l;lfxfS± - He has
no compensation for the pawn
and his king is vulnerable. Xu Jun
- Razmyslov, Seville 2003.) 15.
\l;lfa4 b6 16.l:!acl± White maintains
an overwhelming advantage,
since he has an excellent centre
and two bishops, while Black's
knight will be ousted from the
centre at any moment with the
move f2-f4, Malaniuk - Bednar­
ska, Poznan 2012.
It is evidently bad for Black to
try 13 . . . ixa1 in view of 14.\l;lfxa1
 2.c4 g6 3. lt:J c3 d5 4.cd lt:Jxd5 5.e4 lt:Jxc3 6.bc :llg7 7. lt:Jf.3 0 - 0 B.:ll e2

lt:JaS 1S . .ih6 f6 16.ig4 ! This is the

best for White. He is not in a hur­
ry to regain the exchange and re­
lies on the power of his bishops.
16 . . . '?;l/d6 (It is not preferable for
Black to choose 16 . . . lt:Jc4 17 . .ie6+
i>hS 18.l:!bl± White's pieces are
tremendously active and Black's
defence is very difficult. Later, in
the game Khalifman - Roos, Vil­
nius 199S, Black failed to cope
with the intricacies of the defence 14 b6 15.�a4 '?;lid6 16.g3±
•••

and made immediately a decisive It is also good for White to play

blunder. 18 . . . '?;l/c7? 19 . .hf8 l:!xf8 16 . .ig4 ! ?±, taking control over the
20.'?;l/c3+- and the pin on the c­ c8-square and maintaining a
file is decisive.) 17.:lle 6+ i>hS 18. great advantage, since he not only
f4 ! Once again White does not dominates in the centre and has
capture on f8, considering quite two powerful bishops, but Black's
deservedly that his bishop on h6 knight on aS is terribly misplaced.
is not weaker than Black's rook in
this position. White's main task is
to advance f4 and eS as quickly as
possible, trying to checkmate the
enemy king on the a1-h8 diago­
nal. 18 . . . l:!fc8 19.eS '?;lieS+ 20.i>h1
'?;l/c3 21.'?;l/xc3 l:!xc3 22 .d6. Black
has traded the queens indeed, but
this is small consolation for him,
because White's central pawns,
with the support of his bishops,
will promote irrevocably. 22 . . .
lt:Jc6 23.dxe7 l:!e3 24.-ifS fxeS 2S. In this position, which is very
fS ! gxfS 26 . .bfS+-, he has a win­ difficult for Black, he made a mis­
ning position, because Black will take in the game Yermolinsky -
have to give up his knight for the Kreiman, Philadelphia 1996 16 •••

enemy e7-pawn, Kolanek - Buj­ e6? and this enabled White to

dak, Internet 2011. sacrifice exquisitely a pawn with
17.e5 ! and to obtain a decisive
14.l:!cl advantage following 17 '?;l/xe5 •• •
.

This move deserves great at­ 18.dxe6 l:!ad8 19.ext7+ l:!xt7

tention. White deprives the ene­ 20.l:!fdl l:!xdl+ 21.'?;l/xdl l:!f8
my knight of the c4-square. 22.i>g2 i>h8 23.'?;l/d7+- The

1S
Chapter 1
material is equal indeed, but
Black's position is hopeless, be­
cause White's powerful bishops
control the entire board, while
Black's pawns on a7 and b6 are
very weak and his king and the
knight on aS do not take part in
the fight at all (White's rook on c1
deprives Black's knight of the c4-
square).
A2) 12 .•• li)e5
This move is no doubt more
reliable, since Black succeeds in
trading advantageously the
knights. White still preserves a
slight edge thanks to his domi­
nance in the centre, but must
work very hard in order to obtain
a real advantage, since there are
just a few pieces left on the board
as a result of the numerous ex­
changes.
13.li)xe5 .ixe2 14.ti'xe2
.ixeS ts.gadl
With this move White not only
protects his dS-pawn in case of
the pawn-advance e4-eS, but also
prepares the inclusion of his rook
into the attack (!'i:d1-d3-h3).
16
Meanwhile, it is also possible
for him to play 1S.!'i:acl ! ?;!;, or even
1S.!'i:ab1 ! ?;!; and he preserves an
edge in both cases.
15 . . . ti'a5
This is an active move. Black's
queen attacks the enemy pawn on
a2 and eventually (after ti'a4) will
exert pressure against the e4-pawn.
He has tried many other pos­
sibilities in this position, but they
do not promise him equality.
1S . . . ig7 16.id4 hd4 17.E:xd4
ti'b6 18.!'i:d3 E:fd8 19.!'i:b3 ti'c7 20.
ti'e3 e6 21.dxe6 fxe6 22 .h4--+
White has an edge in the arising
endgame with major pieces, since
Black's king is obviously weaker,
R.Bagirov - Najer, Cappelle la
Grande 2000.
Following 1S . . . ti'd7, White ad­
vances with tempo f4 and eS and
obtains an advantage. 16.f4 (It is
also interesting for him to try
16.ih6 ! ? !g7 17.hg7 <;!{xg7 18.
eSt and his advantage is doubt­
less thanks to his mobile pawn-
 2.c4 g6 3.liJc3 d5 4.cd liJxdS 5.e4 liJxc3 6.bc �g7 7. liJ.f3 0 - 0 8. �e2

centre.) 16 . . . .ig7 17.e5t Yermolin­ This development of the bish­

sky - Nestorovic, San Benedetto op is more active than on e3, be­
1989. cause the bishop on gS will exert
pressure against the e7-square
16 .ig5 �a3 17.g3 gac8 18.
• and White's queen might need the
gel gfd8 19.�g2 f6 20 .ih6 • e3-square.
�a4 21.h4 Y:Yd7 22.gfdl gxcl
23 .ixcl gcs 24.h5t White still
• 10 ••• .ib7
maintains a slight edge, because it
will be difficult for Black to neu­ About 10 . . . cxd4 ll.cxd4 i.b7
tralise his opponent's pressure on 12.Y:Yd3 -see 10 . . . i.b7.
the kingside, Bjuhr - Lohmann,
Email 2008. 10 ...h6 11.�4 cxd4 12.cxd4 �b7
13.W/d3 �d7 14.:aad1 - see 10 ....ib7.
B) 9 b6 •••

ll.�d3

This move is very typical for

numerous variations of the Gru­
enfeld Defence. Black's main idea
is to attack the e4-pawn and to
force White to protect it with W/d3.
After this, Black will play .ia6 and
exchange the light-squared bish­
ops. This trade is in his favour,
because he has less space and
must strive for exchanges. Still,
this would not equalise for him,
because his pieces do not exert
sufficient pressure against
White's centre.
lO .igS
• square, because his queenside
u . . . cxd4
Besides this move, Black has
also tried in practice ll . . . h6. Still,
this move has the defect that it
weakens his king's shelter and
that was proved in the game Ata­
kisi - Anilkumar, Email 2001:
12 . .ih4 W/d7 13.:aad1 e6 14.W/b1
W/a4 1S.:afe1 :ac8 16 ..ib5 W/a5 17.d5
W/xc3 18.dxe6 fxe6 19.e5± Black
can hardly parry the attack of
White's forces against the g6-

17
Chapter 1
pieces have not been developed yet.
He cannot equalise with 11 . . .
Wd7 either. Following 12.'?9e3
cxd4 13.cxd4 lt:Jc6 14J�ad1 E:fc8
15.ihM, White obtains a slight
but stable advantage, S.lvanov -
Nepomniachtchi, Moscow 2005.
He has a powerful pawn-centre
and despite the fact that Black has
no pawn-weaknesses in his camp,
he is faced with a long passive de­
fence without chances of creating
counterplay.
11 . . . ia6. He wishes to facili­
tate his defence by trading the
bishops. 12 .'?9e3 .be2 13.'?9xe2
Wc7 (13 . . . cxd4 14.cxd4 - see 11 . . .
cxd4 12.cxd4 ia6) 14.'?9e3 e 6 15.
ihM and under the cover of his
pawn-centre, White plans to be­
gin an attack against the enemy
monarch, Gonzalez Garcia - Jerez
Perez, Sabadell 2010.
12.cxd4 h6
Black fails to equalise with
12 . . . '?9d7 13.E:ad1 e6 14.'?9e3 lt:Jc6
(14 . . . '?9a4 15.E:d2;!;) 15.ih6 We7
16.h4;!; White has protected relia­
bly his centre and will begin ac­
tive actions on the kingside, V.
Ivanov - Baikov, Moscow 1992.
It is also possible for Black to
choose here 12 . . . '?9d6 13.We3 lt:Jc6
14.E:fd1 lt:Jb4 15.E:ac1 E:ac8 16.if4
Wd7 17.ic4 e6 18 .ih6 f6 19 . .bg7
\!;>xg7 20 .h4;t. We see here the
usual situation fEWhite has a
18
strong centre and possibilities for
active actions on the kingside,
Sakhabeev - Mik, Email 2006.
Following 12 . . . ia6 13.We3
ixe2 14.'?9xe2 E:e8 (14 . . . lt:Jc6 15.
E:ad1 W/d7 16.d5 lt:Ja5 17.e5 e6
18.d6±, White obtains a great ad­
vantage, since his powerful d6-
pawn, supported by the pawn on
e5, cramps considerably Black's
position, Komev - Vastrukhin, Vo­
ronezh 2012) 15.E:ac1 (It is also
good for White to try here 15.
E:ad1! ?;!; and Black cannot play 15 ...
lt:Jc6? ! , since after 16.d5±, White's
advantage would increase.) 15 . . .
lt:Jd7, Browne - Van Riemsdijk,
Santiago de Chile 1981. Here, the
simplest decision for White would
be 16.E:c4;!; and this move not only
prepares the doubling of the rooks,
but also protects the d4-pawn.
After 12 . . . lt:Jc6 13.E:ad1 Wfd7
14.d5 lt:Je5 15.lt:Jxe5 .be5 16.f4;!;,
White will advance e4-e5 without
any problems, ending up with a
slight edge, Gladyszev - Szabo,
Gyongyos 1995.
13 . .ih4 Wfd7 14.:gadU
 2.c4 g6 3. lt:J c3 dS 4.cd lt:Jxd.S 5.e4 lt:Jxc3 6.bc :fig7 7. lt:Jf.3 0 - 0 8. i.e2

In this variation, White's

queen rook often goes to d1, not
only to prepare d4-d5, but also
running away from the strike of
the enemy bishop on g7. In gen­
eral, one of the main ideas for
White in this variation is to re­
move as quickly as possible his
pieces and pawns away from the
a1-h8 diagonal, so that Black's ac­
tive bishop on g7 "shoots" in vac­
uum.

14 ... e6 15.�e3 This move is obviously strong­

We are already familiar with
this placement of White's queen.
15 ... �a4
This is an active move for
Black. He is trying to organise
counterplay against White's weak
pawn on a2 .
Black cannot equalise with
15 . . . lt:Jc6 16.ib5;!;, because he can
get rid of the pin of his knight only
by playing a6 and bS, but this
would lead to the weakening of
the cS-square, Vercammen -
Rivest, Email 2002.
er than 17.id1? ! , as it was played
in the game Gelfand - Tseshko­
vsky, Ulcinj 1997. White does not
need to attack the enemy queen
on a4, since it is misplaced there.
17 . . . a6 18.i.e7
He transfers his knight to the
b4-square and there it will be
much more active than on h4.
18 . . . gfe8 19.i.b4i
White has a slight advantage,
because he has a powerful pawn­
centre and after the transfer of his
bishop from h4 to b4, the place­
ment of Black's queen on a4 may
become precarious.

Conclusion
We have just analysed the variation with 7 . . . 0-0 in the Gruenfeld
Defence. As a rule, White obtains an advantage effortlessly. It looks
like the most dangerous plan for Black is to play b7-b6 and to develop
his bishop on b7. White counters this with �d3, i.gS, gad1, combining
active actions in the centre and on the queenside.

19
Chapter 2 l.d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 d5 4.cxd5
�xd5 5.e4 �xc3 6.bxc3 .ig7 7.�f3 c5
We have already mentioned
this is Black's most precise move.
8 .ie3
• We will devote to the analysis
This is one of the most popular
moves for White in this position.
He fortifies the key d4-pawn for
the Gruenfeld Defence and pre­
pares to evacuate his rook away
from the al-h8 diagonal. This
move became popular after Kar­
pov's game against Kasparov in
their match for the world champi­
onship in the year 1990, as well
as after Kramnik's win against
Kasparov in their match for the
world championship in London in
the year 2000 ro.zzy . V.Kramnik
plays this variation quite success­
fully until today.
We have to mention that the
20
move 8.ie2? ! is not so good here,
since after 8 . . . tLlc6 9.ie3 ig4?,
Black obtains a very good game
creating pressure against the d4-
square.
White plays often 8.:Bbl ! ? , but
this move has two essential draw­
backs :
- in many variations he will
have to sacrifice his a2-pawn,
- the theory of numerous vari­
ations goes deep into the middle
game.
of Black's main line 8 \!faS our
•••
next two chapters. Now, we will
deal with some other not so popu­
lar moves for him: A) 8 �c6, ••.
B) 8 0-0 and C) 8 .ig4.
••• •••
About 8 . . . cxd4 9.cxd4 �aS+
10.�d2 - see Chapter 3, variation
A.
A) 8 ••• �c6? !
This move is considered to be
somewhat premature, because af­
ter
9.gcl!
Black is incapable of counter­
ing the move d4-d5.
 2.c4 g6 3. lt:Jc3 d5 4.cd tt:Jxd5 5.e4 lt:Jxc3 6.bc i.g7 7. lt:Jf3 c5 B. i.e3
9 ... cxd4
He cannot equalise with 9 . . .
�aS, since following 10 .d5, Black
is forced to continue with 10 . . .
lt:JeS (It i s bad for him to opt for
10 . . . .bc3+? ll.l:!xc3 �xc3+ 12.
id2 �f6 13.dxc6 �xc6 14.�c2±
and in the arising position White's
two minor pieces are obviously
stronger than Black's rook and
two pawns. The point is that in
the middle game he can hardly
promote his pawns, while the
danger of being checkmated on
the weakened dark squares is
quite real.) ll.lt:JxeS heS 12 .�d2
0-0 13.f4 ig7 14.c4 �xd2 + . This
is the best for Black - to transfer
the game into a slightly inferior
endgame. (It is worse for him to
choose 14 . . . �a3, because Black's
queen is misplaced there. 15.e5
�f5 16.l:!c3 �a5 17.l:!b3 �c7 18.i.d3
hd3 19.l:!xd3 l:!fd8 2 0 . 0-0± Ko­
tanjian - Tutisani, Tbilisi 2010.
White has completed his develop­
ment and is ready to advance his
pawn-mass in the centre at any
moment. Black's defence will be
very difficult.) 15.'i!?xd2 b6 16.
�e2:t White's pawn-centre is very
powerful and Black will have to
defend long and hard despite the
fact that he has no weaknesses in
his camp, Grischuk - Ganguly,
Dresden 2008.
10.cxd4
10 . . . 0-0
It would be too dangerous for
Black to opt for 10 . . . �a5+? ! , be­
cause after ll.i.d2! �xa2 12 .d5,
White has very powerful initiative
for the sacrificed pawn. For exam­
ple: 12 . . . lt:Je5 13.lt:Jxe5 heS 14.
.ibS+ .id7 15.�g4! e6. Black is
forced to weaken his position in
this way and comply with the fact
that his king will remain stranded
in the centre for long (He will be
checkmated following 15 . . . hbS??
16.l:!c8+ l:!xc8 17.�xc8#; 15 . . .
l:!d8?? 16.�xd7! ) 16.hd7+ 'i!?xd7
17.�g5 f6 18.�h6 l:!he8 19.0-0
l:!ac8 20 .�xh7+ l:!e7 21.�xg6+­
Black's position is hopeles�. He is
not only a pawn down, but his
king is very weak. He cannot save
the day with 21.. .�xd2, since after
21
Chapter 2

22.dxe6+ , Black either loses his

rook on c8, or his queen due to
the pin.

ll.d5 �e5
This is a logical move, because
Black's knight is better placed in
the centre than at the edge of the
board.

Following ll . . . tt:laS? ! 12 .i.e2 e6

13.d6 ! , White maintains a great gains time to organise counter­
advantage (It is also good for him play on the queenside by attack­
to choose 13. 0-0 ! ? exdS 14.exdS ing the enemy bishop with his
i.fS 1S.�d2± and the powerful pawns.
pawn on dS and the misplaced
black knight on aS provide White It may be interesting for White
with a considerable advantage, to try 13.f4 ! ? , forcing his oppo­
Hort - Safarli, Hoogeveen 2008.) nent to clarify the situation with
13 . . . eS. Later in the game Miles - his bishop. After every possible
Rodriguez, Riga 1979, White ob­ retreat of the bishop, White main­
tained a great advantage with an tains a slight edge.
energetic play. 14J'k7 i.e6 1S.
tt:lgS± Now, Black has nothing
better than to allow the exchange
on e6 after which his pawn-struc­
ture will be hopelessly compro­
mised. 1S . . . 1"k8 16.tt:lxe6 fxe6 17.
Ei:xc8 �xeS 18.0-0 tt:lc6 19.d7 �c7
20.i.g4+- Black will fail to hold
his e6-pawn, so his position is
hopeless. White will have not only
an extra pawn, but a powerful 13 . . . .id6 ! ? 14.i.e2!;t; It is best
passed pawn on d7. for him to go immediately with
the bishop to e2, because the in­
12.�xe5 he5 clusion of the moves i.c4 and bS is
(diagram) much rather in favour of Black, as
13 .ic4
• it was demonstrated in the game
With this move White pre­ Cerniauskas - Roberts, Email
vents his opponent's pawn-ad­ 2012: 14 . .ic4 bS? 1S.i.e2 �aS+
vance e7-e6. Still, this bishop­ 16.'it>f2 i.d7 17.�d2 �xd2 18 ..ixd2
move has the drawback that Black f6 19.i.e3 Ei:ac8 20 .'it>f3 a6 21.i.d3

22
 2.c4 g6 3. ltJ c3 dS 4.cd ltJxdS 5.e4 ltJxc3 6.bc ig7 7. ltJ.f3 c5 B . .ie3
e6 - White's passed pawn has
been reliably blocked by Black's
bishop, so White does not have
any advantage in this endgame.
After 13 . . ..ic7, Black's bishop
prevents the appearance of his
queen on the aS-square. There­
fore, White can develop his bish­
op to c4, without being afraid of
14 . . . bS. 14 . .ic4 .ib6 (Black cannot
equalise with 14 . . . bS 1S.i.xbS i.xf4
16.i.xf4 W/aS+ 17.�f2 W/xbS 18.
W/d4t and in this position with
bishops of opposite colours White
has powerful initiative, because
the dark squares in the vicinity of
Black's king are vulnerable.) 1S.
'!Mfb3 i.xe3 16.W/xe3t White has a
slight advantage thanks to the
dominance of his pawns in the
centre.
13 . . . .ig7. This is the most natu­
ral retreat of Black's bishop, but
even then White obtains an edge
effortlessly. 14 . .ic4 (Here, it
seems anti-positional for Black to
advance bS, because this would
lead to the weakening of the cS­
square.) 14 . . . bS (14 . . . b6 1S.O-Ot
Sambuev - Zhang, Montreal
2010; 14 . . . .id7 1S.O-O a6 16.W/b3
bS 17 . .id3 �c8 18.W/a3 �xc1 19.
�xcl aS 20 .W/cS± Khenkin - Fer­
nandez Fernandez, Tromsoe
2009) 1S . .ie2 a6 16.0-0 .ib7 17.
if3;!; Black has problems creating
counterplay, since his bishop on
b7 is restricted by his own pawn
on dS and its colleague will share
the same destiny after White ad­
vances eS. The pawn on eS will
restrict its mobility considerably.
13 b5 14 .ib3 a5 15.0-0
••• •
a4 16 .ic2
•
Black has advanced his queen­
side pawns by attacking White's
bishop, Presently, it is rather un­
clear whether this is good or bad
for him. Now, Black must play
very energetically.
16 • . • e6 17.f4 ic7
It is evidently worse for Black
to choose 17 . . . .ig7? ! , since follow­
ing 18.-icS �e8 19.d6 eS 20.fS .id7
21.'1MfdS �f8 22 .id3±, White's
powerful passed d6-pawn and the
vulnerability of Black's bS-pawn
provide White with an edge, Miles
- Gligoric, Bled 1979.
18 .ic5 .ib6 19.�9'd4 .ixc5!
•
This is stronger than 19 . . .
�a6? ! , because after 20 ..id3± Kor­
chnoi - Miles, Vienna 1979,
Black's rook on a6 is misplaced.
20.'fbc5 exd5 21.ex�5 .ib7
22.d6 t The powerful passed
pawn on d6 provides White with a
slight edge. Still, we have to admit
23
Chapter 2
this advantage is not so great and
the move 8 . . . lDc6 is obviously
stronger than its reputation.
B) 8 ••• 0-0
This move, just like castling
for Black on move seven, is con­
sidered by theory as not so pre­
cise, because his slowing down
the pressure against the key d4-
square enables White to complete
without any problems the devel­
opment of his kingside pieces.
9 .ie2
. erful bishops and will oust the en­
9 b6
•••
After this move there arise po­
sitions similar to the variation
with 7 . . . 0-0, except that White's
bishop has already been devel­
oped on e3. This is, no doubt, in
favour of Black, since the bishop
would have been more active on
the gS-square. Despite this, Black
cannot equalise, because he does
not exert sufficient pressure
against White's centre.
It seems a bit passive for Black
to continue with 9 . . . lDd7, because
24
after 10.0-0 'ffc7 ll.'ffd 2 lDf6 12.
.id3 �d8 13.h3;!;, Black can hardly
create any pressure against his
opponent's centre, Walker -
Grams, Detroit 1994.
Following 9 ... ig4 10.0-0 'ffc7
(about 10 . . . cxd4 ll.cxd4 lDc6 12.
dS - see Chapter 1. variation A),
the simplest way for White to ob­
tain an advantage is the line: 11.
h3 ixf3 12 . .ixf3 �d8 13.'1Wa4 lDc6
14.d5 lLJeS 15 ..ie2;!;. He has occu­
pied the centre and has two pow­
emy knight from its active posi­
tion with the move f2-f4, Lautier
- Van Wely, Dordrecht 2001.
Besides this, Black has tried in
practice 9 ... lDc6. This is not a good
move however, because he fails to
exert pressure against his oppo­
nent's centre and his knight will be
attacked by White with d4-d5.
10.0-0
About 10 . . . cxd4 ll.cxd4 .ig4
12 .d5 - see variation A, Chapter
1.
10 . . . 'ffc7 ll.�c1 �d8 12 .d5 b6
13.lDd2 lDa5 14.c4;!; White has bet­
ter prospects in the middle game,
 2.c4 g6 3Jijc3 d5 4.cd 0.xd5 5.e4 0.xc3 6.bc .ig7 7. 0.j3 c5 8 . .ie3
since he has more space, A.Graf
- Braun, Deizisau 2001.
10 . . . .ig4 ll.dS hf3 (ll ... liJaS.
This retreat of the knight to the
edge of the board cannot be good
for Black at all. 12 .hcS .ixc3
13.l':k1 .ig7 14.'1Wd2 b6 1S . .ia3±
White is dominant in the centre
and Black's knight is horribly
misplaced. It is also bad for him
to opt for ll . . . liJeS 12 .hcS 0.xf3+
13 . .ixf3 .ixf3 14.�xf3 �c8 1S.
.ixa7± and Black's compensation
for the pawn is insufficient, Do­
britsa - Chester, IECG 2002.)
12 . .ixf3 0.eS (but not 12 . . . 0.aS 13 .
.ixcS .ixc3 14 .�cl± and again
Black's knight is not placed well at
the edge of the board and White
has the two-bishop advantage,
Nielsen - Jessen, Copenhagen
2002) 13 . .ie2 0.d7 14.�b1 b6 1S.
�c2 �c7 16.f4 .ih6 17.�bdl± He
has two powerful bishops and ex­
tra space, while Black's pieces are
cramped, M.Carlsen - Hammer,
Oslo 2009.
It may be interesting for him
but still insufficient for equality to
try here: 9 . . . cxd4 10.cxd4 �aS+
(10 . . . 0.c6 11.0-0 .ig4 12 .dS - see
Chapter 1, variation A)
Now, White has a pleasant
choice. He can maintain an edge
in two different ways.
He can interpose against the
check with his bishop. ll . .id2 ! ?
�a3 (Naturally, Black cannot
equalise by retreating his queen
to its initial position. ll . . . �d8 12.
�cl .ig4 13.dS e6 14 . .ib4 �e8 1S.
0-0 exdS 16.exdS aS 17 ..ia3 0.a6
18.h3;1; White has a slight edge. He
has a powerful passed pawn on dS
and more active pieces, while
Black's knight on a6 is obviously
misplaced, R.Sherbakov - Vakhi­
dov, Raipur 2002) 12.0-0 .ig4
(Following 12 . . .b6, Eljanov -
Zubov, Dnipropetrovsk 2000, the
simplest reaction for White would
be 13.�b1 .ia6 14 . .ibS .ixbS 1S.
�xbS;!; and Black can hardly cre­
ate any pressure against White's
centre, because his knight cannot
go to the c6-square.) 13.�bl.
White will have to play this move,
since he wishes to advance d4-dS.
Now, there will be an exchange of
the a2-pawn for Black's b7-pawn.
13 . . . �xa2 14.dS 0.d7 1S.�xb7 �fc8
16 . .ie3;1; Cramling - Caruana, Vil­
lafranca 2010. White maintains a
slight advantage, since Black's
pawn on a7 is much rather a lia­
bility than strength, despite its
being a passed pawn. Meanwhile,
White's rook on b7 is very active
and Black may have problems
with the protection of his e7-pawn
in numerous variations.
White can interpose with his
knight too - 11.0.d2 ! ? , but this
move is played seldom in practice
2S
Chapter 2
in comparison to 11 . .id2 . He has
an edge after it as well. White's
main idea is to win a tempo, after
castling, by attacking the enemy
queen with his knight - lLlc4. 11 . . .
Ei:d8 12.0-0 e 6 13.Ei:cU I n this po­
sition, White has a slight edge.
13 . . . lLlc6 14.lLlc4 Wfc7 15.e5. This
move is forced. Now, you can see
the drawback of lLld2 : the control
over the d4-square is diminished.
On the other hand, White's
knight, with the support of the
pawn on eS is headed for the d6-
outpost. 15 . . . Wfe7 16.lLld6 Ei:xd6.
This is an interesting exchange­
sacrifice, but still insufficient for
equality. 17.exd6 W!xd6 18.Wfa4
lLlxd4 19.Wfe8+ Wff8 2 0 .Wfxf8+
'tt>xf8 2l..ig4 fS 22 . .id1 hS 23.f4
Ei:b8 24.Ei:f2 eS 2S.Ei:d2 .ie6 26.fxe5
lLlc6 27 . .if4 a6 28.Ei:bl± Galanov ­
Craciunescu, Email 2011. In this
position Black has a pawn for the
exchange and White's eS-pawn is
weak. Still, the position should be
evaluated in his favour, because
his rooks will remain very active
in this open position.
It seems very risky for Black to
try to win a pawn with 9 . . . Wfa5
10.0-0
26
10 ... W!xc3. If Black has to suf­
fer, then he wishes to be subjected
to this at least for a pawn. 11.Ei:cl
Wfa3 12.Ei:xc5 W!xa2 (It is obviously
weaker for him to choose 12 . . .
lLla6? ! , which after 13.Ei:c2 lLlb4
14 . .ic1 WfaS 1S . .id2 Wfb6 16.Ei:b2,
led to the loss of a knight in the
game Jussupow - Sax, Vrbas
1980.) 13 . .ic4. White has very
powerful initiative for the sacri­
ficed pawn and Black must be
very careful not to lose his queen,
which is seriously endangered in­
side White's camp. 13 .. .'�a3. This
is the only move. (It is obviously
weaker for Black to play 13 . . .
Wfb2?, i n view of 14.lLlg5 ! and on
top of all the problems for him, he
must worry about the protection
of his t7-pawn. 14 . . . e6 15.lLlxt7
'tt>xt7 16.Ei:xc8 Ei:xc8 17 . .ixe6 'tt> xe6
18.Wfg4+ 'tt> t7 19.Wfxc8+-; 14 . . .
lLla6 15.Ei:b5 Wfc3 16.Wfe2 Wfa3 17.
.ic1 ! ? Wfd6 18.Wfa2 e6 19.d5 lLlc7
20 . .ia3 WfeS 21.lLlxt7! ; 17.Wff3 e6
18.e5 Wfe7 19.Wfh3 h6 20.lLle4±
Black has succeeded in the evacu­
ation his queen from the enemy
camp and has protected reliably
his e7-pawn, having preserved his
extra pawn, but his kingside is
terribly weakened. It is quite un­
clear what he must do with his
h6-pawn, because the move h6-
h5 will compromise hopelessly
the dark squares and White's at­
tack will become decisive after
.igS and lLlf6.) 14 . .icl. White be­
gins a chase after the enemy
queen. 14 . . . Wfb4 1S . .id2 Wfa3 (It is
obviously worse for Black to
 2.c4 g6 3. 4Jc3 d5 4.cd 4Jxd5 5.e4 4Jxc3 6.bc i.g7 7. 4Jj3 c5 B. i.e3
choose here 15 . . . 1M/b6?, since fol­
lowing 16.i.a5, his queen will not
go back to d8 and will need to go
to the f6-square under the attack
of White's pieces and pawns. 16 . . .
�f6 17.e5 �f5 18.e6+-) 16.E1e1
i.g4
This position is in favour of
White but he must play accurate­
ly. He is only slightly better
following 17.E1e3 �b2 18.E1d3 (Or
18 . .ic3 1M/b6 19.E1b5 �d8 20.E1xb7
4Jc6;!; and although he has re­
gained the sacrificed pawn, Black
has solved the problem with
his queen on a2 and his pieces
exert rather unpleasant pressure
against the d4-pawn.) 18 . . . �b6
19.E1b3 1M/d6 20.E1xb7 4Jc6 21.E1d5
�e6 2 2 .e5 �f5;t White has re­
gained the sacrificed pawn, but
Black's queen has surprisingly
found a very good square on f5.
White maintains a slight edge but
the position remains very compli­
cated.
17.�b1! This not so obvious
move is evidently stronger than
E1e3. It enables White to obtain a
great advantage. 17 . . . hd4 (It is
bad for Black to try 17. . . 4Ja6?, be­
cause of 18.E1e3 �a4 19 . .ib5± and
he loses his queen.) 18.E1d5 hf3
(18 . . . i.g7 19. �xb7±) 19.E1xd4. The
arising complications end up in
favour of White, for example: 19 . . .
�c5 20. �d3 i.g4 21.E1d5 �c7
22 . .ih6. This is the point. Now,
Black must give up the exchange.
22 . . . 4Jc6 23.�c3 e5 24 . .ixf8 E1xf8
25 . .ib5 i.e6 26.E1c5± - He has for
the moment two pawns for the ex­
change, but his position is very
difficult. Black will lose one of his
pawns and will have only miracu­
lous chances for a draw.
Meanwhile, Black's situation
will not be any easier even if he
refrains from capturing the c3-
pawn:
10 . . . 4Jc6 11.�b3 ! ? This is the
simplest for White. Now, his
pawn on c3 is reliably protected.
ll . . . cxd4 12.cxd4 .ig4 13.E1ad1
�b4 14.h3 i.xf3 15 . .ixf3 E1fc8 16.
�xb4 4Jxb4 17.e5;!;. White is clear­
ly better in this endgame thanks
to his two powerful bishops, Kar­
pov - Ljubojevic, Montreal 1979 ;
10 . . . E1d8 11.�b3 cxd4 12.cxd4±
- He has protected . reliably his
pawn on d4 and his advantage is
doubtless due to his dominance in
27
Chapter 2
the centre, E.Atalik - Fritzsche,
Ottawa 2007;
It seems rather passive for
Black to opt for 10 . . . ltld7 11.�b3
e6 12 .a4 �c7 13.a5±. White has a
wonderful centre and initiative on
the queenside, Shimanov - Rakh­
manov, Irkutsk 2010.
10.0-0
10 ••• .tb7
10 . . . cxd4 ll.cxd4 e6 (ll . . . i.b7
12 .�d3 - see 10 . . . ib7) 12 .!g5
�d6 13.�d2 .ib7 14.�e3 1!c8 15 .
.ih6 .ih8 16.1!adU White has ac­
complished the standard set-up
for similar positions and has
seized completely the initiative,
Fedorowicz - Henley, New York
1981.
ll.�d3 cxd4
Following ll . . . e6, White's best
reaction would be 12 .1!ad1 ! (It is
also possible for him to try 12.
1!fd1 ltld7 13.a4;!; San Segundo
Carrillo - Ponomariov, San Se-
bastian 2009.) 12 . . . cxd4 13.cxd4
28
ltlc6 (Or 13 . . . �d6, Hort - Hueb­
ner, Hamburg 1979, 14.ltld2 ! ?
ltlc6 15.e5 �e7 16.ltlc4;!;, followed
by ltld6 and White's prospects are
preferable thanks to the powerful
placement of his knight.) 14 . .ig5.
He has lost a tempo indeed, but
White realises the best set-up of
his pieces in this variation: i.g5,
�e3, 1!ad1, followed either by d4-
d5, or by h2-h4-h5. 14 . . . �d6 15.
�e3 1!fe8 16.h4 1!ac8 17.h5;!;.
White won later quite convinc­
ingly this position in the game,
Gligoric - Popovic, Yugoslavia
1979.
12.cxd4
12 . • • ltlc6
About 12 . . . e6 13.1!ad1 - see
ll . . . e6.
It is possible for Black to
choose here 12 . . . �d7 13.1!ac1 e6
(after 13 . . . i.a6 14.�d2 he2 15.
�xe2 e6, Arencibia Rodriguez -
Matamoros Franco, Bayamo
1989, White can maintain a slight
but stable edge by simply dou-
 2.c4 g6 3. 4J c3 d5 4.cd ltJxdS 5.e4 4Jxc3 6.bc ig7 7. ltJfJ cS 8. ie3
bling his rooks on the c-file: 16.
l'!c4 4Jc6 17.l'!fcU) 14.l'!fd1 4Jc6 15.
�bS l'!fd8 16.ig5 f6. He preserves
his advantage after the energetic
move 17.if4 ! (It is not so clear af­
ter 17.ie3, because following the
variation 17 . . . 4Ja5 18.�d3 l'!ac8
19.h4 l'!xcl 2 0.l'!xcl l'!c8 21.l'!xc8,
the opponents agreed to a draw in
the game Babula - Ftacnik, Czech
Republic 2011. It is true that
White can hardly seize the initia­
tive after the exchange of the
rooks. In addition, Black can cre­
ate a passed pawn on the queen­
side in the endgame.) 17 . . . tt'la5
18.�xd7 l'!xd7 19.d5 exdS 2 0.ib5
l'!f7 21.exd5;!; White maintains the
initiative in this endgame, be­
cause his dS-pawn is very power­
ful being supported by his bish­
ops.
13.gadl gcs
13 . . . e6 14.ig5 - see ll . . . e6.
14.d5 4Jb4
This is an active move. Black
wishes to penetrate with his
knight to the c2-square. Still,
White can neutralise his oppo-
nent's temporary activity with
precise play, maintaining a slight
edge. For example : 15.�bl .!bc2
16 .tf4 �d7 17.gcl .!bd4 18.
•
.!bxd4 .ixd4 19.�b4 gxcl 20.
gxcl ic5 21.�b3;!; White has
parried his opponent's activity
and can look optimistically in the
future. He has a stable advantage
thanks to his more active minor
pieces (Black's bishop on b7 is re­
stricted by White's pawn on dS.).
C) 8 ••• .tg4
This is an active move. Black
does not lose time for castling and
exerts immediate pressure against
White's centre. Now however,
contrary to the variation with 8 . . .
4Jc6, Black i s not i n a hurry t o de­
velop his knight to c6 ; otherwise,
it will come under attack after d4-
d5. We must also mention that we
will analyse later other variations
with the development of Black's
bishop on g4, but with the inclu­
sion of the moves �aS and �d2 .
Here, we will analyse only varia­
tions which lead to original posi­
tions.
29
Chapter 2
9J�cl
White cannot continue the
game without this move. His plan
includes the move d4-d5, so he
must protect his c3-pawn.
Now, Black has a choice. He
may capture on d4 - Cl) 9 .••
cxd4, or include beforehand the
trade on f3 - C2) 9 .bf3.
•••
About 9 . . . 0-0 10 .d5 �aS 11.
�d2 - see variation C in Chapter
4.
Following 9 . . . �a5, White has a
very powerful argument at his
disposal - 10.�b3 ! (this is strong­
er than the routine move 10.�d2).
10 . . . cxd4 (It may be interesting
for Black to try, but still insuffi­
cient for equality 10 . . . .b:f3 11.
�xb7 0-0 12 .�xa8, for example:
12 . . . cxd4 13.�d5 �xdS 14.exd5
hdS 15.hd4± and Black does
not have sufficient compensation
for the exchange in this endgame,
or 12 .. J:!d8 13.�b7 cxd4 14.�b4
�xb4 15.cxb4 .ixe4 16 . .ig5t and
despite the fact that it is an end­
game, the position is very compli-
30
cated. White should be better, at
least because of his material ad­
vantage.) 11.lLlxd4. Black has
problems with the protection of
his queenside pawns. He can pro­
tect the pawn on b7, but his a7-
pawn may become a cause for
worries. 11 . . . �c7 (11 . . . .ic8 12.
�bS+ �xbS 13.tt:lxb5 tt:la6 14.
tt:lxa7± The vulnerability of the
pawns on a2 and c3 is not suffi­
cient to compensate Black's lost
pawn, Khalifman - A.Evdokimov,
Taganrog 2011.) 12.tt:lb5 �d8 13.
i.c4 0-0 14.tt:lxa7 �c7 15. 0-0±
His compensation for the pawn is
not good enough, Khairullin -
Svidler, Dagomys 2010.
Cl) 9 • • • cxd4
The idea of this exchange is to
open the game a bit more.
10.cxd4 0-0
About lO ... .ix£3 11.gxf3 - see
variation C2.
ll . .ie2
Now, Black has a choice be­
tween three possibilities: Cla)
 2.c4 g6 3. lbc3 dS 4.cd ltJxdS 5.e4 lbxc3 6.bc ig7 7. lbj3 cS B. i.e3

ll ... ltJc6, Clb) ll ... e6 and Clc)

ll .. :tva5.

Cla) ll . . . ltJ c6
We have already analysed a
similar position (see variation A
in Chapter 1), but with the differ­
ence that here, instead of 0-0
White has played �cl. This is in
favour of Black indeed, but is not
sufficient for equality.
12.d5 h:f3
13.h:f3
After this move, he has an in­
teresting possibility to complicate
the fight with a piece-sacrifice.
This is the point. Now, White
is practically forced to accept the
knight-sacrifice if he wishes to
fight for the opening advantage.
16.f4! Vxe4 (16 . . . ltJd7 17.�c4±)
17.fxe5 Vxg2 18J�gU In the
ansmg complicated position,
White maintains a slight advan­
tage, because his bishop is strong­
er than Black's pawns. Naturally,
he must play very carefully, since
with his king in the centre a single
imprecision might have very
grave consequences for him.
Clb) ll ... e6

If White wishes to avoid tacti­

cal complications, he can choose
13.gxf3 ! ? ltJeS 14.f4 ltJd7 1S.�b3
�c8 16.0-0;!; and despite the fact
that his castling position has been
weakened a bit, White has an
edge, since he has two bishops
and a powerful pawn-centre, Hra­
cek - Uaneza Vega, Warsaw 2009.

13 ltJe5 14.i.e2 �aS+ 15.

••• Before playing ltJc6, Black is
�d2 ti'a4 preparing to exchange the pawns.

31
Chapter 2

12.0-0 lilc6 13.d5 exdS 14. 15.d6

exdS If White is afraid for the future
of his d-pawn, he can play simply
15.h3 ! ? .bf3 16.hf3;t;, preserving
a slight but stable edge thanks to his
bishop-pair and his passed d-pawn.
15 lilc6 16.h3 .id7 17.'ti'b3
•••

gbs 18.gfdU White's d6-pawn,

supported by his pieces, is very
powerful. Black will have great
problems neutralising his oppo­
nent's pressure, Knaak - Heinig,
Plauen 1980.

14 .•. lile7 C1c) ll ti'a5+

•••

He attacks immediately the

enemy dS-pawn.

14 . . . .bf3. This move looks

very dubious, because it presents
White with the two-bishop advan­
tage. The game Petursson -
Shamkovich, Lone Pine 1980 is a
very instructive example of the
dangers that Black might face:
15 ..bf3 lLleS 16 . .ie2 b6 17.d6 '!Wh4
18.1Mfd5 :!! adS 19.:!!c7+-, White's
position is already winning, be­ After this move there arises an
cause Black can hardly protect his endgame.
queenside pawns. 12.'ti'd2 'exd2 + 13.lilxd2
.ixe2 14.<i!?xe2
14 ... lLle5. One of the doubtless
pluses of this move is that Black
succeeds in exchanging two cou­
ples of minor pieces and this fa­
cilitates his defence. Still, after
15.lLlxe5 .be2 16.'1Wxe2 .beS 17.
'!Wb5;t;, White preserves a slight
edge, because his pieces are more
active and his passed dS-pawn is
very powerful, despite the numer­
ous exchanges of pieces.

32
 2.c4 g6 3. lt:J c3 d5 4.cd lt:Jxd5 5.e4 lt:J xc3 6.bc ig7 7. lt:Jj3 c5 8. ie3

14 .lila6
•• game mostly due to the misplaced
black knight on a6, Khenkin -
It is bad for Black to opt for Macieja, Lubniewice 1998.
14 ... e6, since it lets the enemy
rook to penetrate to the penulti- C2) 9 ••• .txf3
mate rank, 15.!!:c7;!; Plachetka -
Sax, Skara 1980.

Black cannot equalise with

14 .. .f5, because after 15.f3 e6
16.E:c7 lt:Jc6, Andrianov - Gulko,
Moscow 1981, White could have
created great problems for his op­
ponent with the line: 17.E:b1!
lt:Jxd4+ 18 . .hd4 .hd4 19.E:bxb7;!;
and thanks to his absolute domi­
nance of the penultimate rank,
the evaluation of the position in
favour of White is doubtless.
It is possible for Black to choose
here 14 . . . lt:Jc6 15.d5 lt:Jb4. He pre­
vents the penetration of the ene­
my rook to the penultimate rank
(15 ... lt:Ja5, Hebden - Dunworth, Bir­
mingham 2001, 16.E:c7± - The aris­
ing endgame is tremendously dif­
ficult for Black.). 16.a3 lt:Ja6 17.E:c4;J;
ts.gc4
With this trade Black weakens
a bit White's kingside pawn­
structure.
10.gxf3 cxd4
About 10 . . . 0-0 ll.ds �aS 12.
�d2 - see Chapter 4, variation C.
ll.cxd4 0-0 12.d5 !
This i s a very strong move.
White realises one of the main
ideas of this variation - removes
his last pawn from the a1-h8 di­
agonal. Now, Black's bishop is at­
tacking nothing.
12 .l!�d7 13 .ih3 �h8
• • •

15.lt:Jb3 ! ? E:ac8 16.a3 e6 17.lt:Ja5

b6 18.ltJcM - White has a stable ad­
vantage in this endgame, because
Black's knight on a6 is misplaced
and White's knight has occupied
the weakened c6-square, P.Niel­
sen - Karjakin, Panormo 2002.

15 gfc8 16.ga4;!; - Despite

•••

the numerous exchanges, White

preserves a slight edge in the end-

33
Chapter 2

14.0-0 ! ?

This move i s more reliable

than 14.f4 fS lS.eS gS� Later in
the game Caruana - Areshchen­
ko, Olginka 2011, White managed
to score a full point, but he had to
sacrifice the exchange on g7, which
might not be to everybody's liking.

with weakening the castling posi­

Or 15 . . . lt:Jf6 16.11Nc2;!;, preserv­
ing a slight edge. With his last
move, White has not only protect­
ed his e4-pawn, but has prepared
the penetration of his queen to
the c7-square as well.
tion of White's king. Therefore, it
is advantageous for him to trade
the queens even if he loses two­
bishop advantage in the process
of doing this.
19 11Nxcl 20.hg7+ Wxg7
•••

21.:Sxcl;!; and in the arising end­

16.:Sxc8 11Nxc8 17 .id4 :Sg8 • game White maintains a slight
18 .ig2 11Nc7
• edge, despite the fact that Black
(diagram) has some counterplay on the dark
19.11Nc1! squares. The point is that the pen­
This is an important move. etration of White's rook to the c7-
Black's counterplay is connected square is unavoidable.

Conclusion
We have just analysed some rarely played variations of the Gruen­
feld Defence. As a rule, White obtains an advantage effortlessly. His
main task is to remove as quickly as possible his pieces away from the
al-h8 diagonal, after which Black's bishop on g7 becomes harmless. In
addition, he has problems with the development of his knight on b8,
since after lt:Jc6, White can attack it advantageously with the move d4-
d5.

34
Chapter 3 l.d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 d5 4.cxd5
�xd5 5.e4 �xc3 6.bxc3 .ig7 7.�£3 c5
8 . .ie3 VaS
This is Black's main response
in this position. As a rule, there
arise endgames after it with a
slight advantage for White mostly
thanks to his pawn-centre. This
move has been played by G.Kas­
parov and nowadays it is used al­
most by the entire chess elite:
L.Aronian, A.Morozevich, A.Gri­
schuk, P.Svidler, P.Leko, F.Caru­
ana and many others.
9J9d2
This is White's most natural
move. He is not afraid of the pos­
sible exchange of queens.
Still, sometimes he plays 9 .
.id2 ! ? After this White avoids the
early trade of the queens, but it is
understandable that playing 8 .
.ie3 and then, retreating immedi­
ately with the bishop to d2, losing
a tempo, may not be to every­
body's liking.
Following 9 .'1Wd2 , besides
9 . . . 0-0, a move which will be ana­
lysed in our next chapter, Black
has a choice: to enter an endgame
after A) 9 cxd4, or to conceal
• • .
for the moment his further plans
with the move B) 9 .lbc6.
••
He plays sometimes 9 . . .b6
lO .l'kl .ia6. Black wishes to trade
the bishops and to facilitate with
this his defence. This plan has a
definite drawback however. White
completes effortlessly his devel­
opment and after this Black can
hardly exert pressure against
White's centre. ll..ixa6 tt:lxa6 12.
0-0 0-0, Weissenbeck - Dvoirys,
Oberwart 2003 and after the sim­
ple move 13.d5;!;, he would have
maintained the advantage, be­
cause his pawns dominate in the
centre, while Black's knight on a6
is misplaced.
V.Korchnoi has tried a very
original plan in this positi<;m. Af­
ter 9 . . . tt:ld7, Black transfers his
knight on the route d7-b6-a4 with
the idea to exert pressure against
35
Chapter 3
the vulnerable enemy pawn on c3.
Still, following 10.id3 0-0 11.
0-0 tt:lb6 12.E:ab1 tt:la4 13.E:fcU,
White would have preserved
better prospects. He has protect­
ed reliably the weakness on c3
and now, the deployment of
Black's knight on a4 is not advan­
tageous at all, because it is placed
at the edge of the board after all,
Rivas Pastor - Korchnoi, Linares
1985.
It seems rather dubious for
him to choose 9 . . . i.g4? ! , as it was
showed in the famous game
Kramnik - Kasparov, London
(m/2) 2000. 10.E:b1 !
White emphasizes the defects
of Black's early bishop-sortie -
White is threatening to capture
on b7 and to follow this with E:b5
winning the enemy c5-pawn. 10 . . .
a 6 (The endgame i s very difficult
for Black after 10 . . . .ixf3 11.gxf3
cxd4 12.cxd4 '\Wxd2+ 13.'it>xd2 tt:lc6
14.d5± White's two bishops are
very powerful force, Rivas Pastor
- K.Georgiev, Plovdiv 1984.) 11.
E:xb7 ixf3 (11 ... tt:lc6 12 .ic4 .ix£3
13.gxf3 - see 1l.. . .bf3) 12.gxf3
tt:lc6 13.ic4 cxd4. This is Black's
36
most resilient defence. (He ob­
tained a very bad position in the
game Kramnik - Kasparov:
13 . . . 0-0 14.0-0 cxd4 15.cxd4
ixd4 16.id5 ic3 17.'\Wcl tt:ld4 18.
ixd4 ixd4 19.E:xe7± Black has no
compensation for the pawn. His
situation would not be any easier
after an exchange of the queens :
16 . . . '\Wxd2 17.i.xd2 E:fc8, Yermo­
linsky - Azmaiparashvili, Hyder­
abad 2002, White could have ob­
tained an advantage with the line:
18.'it>g2 e6 19.ib3�) 14.cxd4
'\Wxd2+ 15.'it>xd2 tt:lxd4 16.i.xd4
ixd4 17.'it>e2� He has an obvious
edge in this endgame, because
Black is practically helpless
against the penetration of White's
rooks to the penultimate rank and
the pressure of White's bishop
against the f7-square. 17 . . . e6 18.
E:d1 i.e5 19.E:dd7 0-0 2 0.f4 ! This
is an important tactical resource.
Now, White advances f5 and
Black will fail to hold the f7-
square. 20 . . . ih8 (It is not prefer­
able for him to defend with 20 . . .
i.xf4, i n view of 2l.i.xe6± and
White's bishop is untouchable
due to the checkmate.) 2l.f5 ! gxf5
2 2 .exf5 E:ac8 23.ib3± He main­
tains a great advantage, Slugin -
Danin, Lipetsk 2006.
Black tried to rehabilitate this
variation with the move 10 . . . tt:ld7
in the game Giri - Nijboer, Eind­
hoven 2010. Here, White has to
capture the pawn - 11.E:xb7!?, for
example: 11 . . . E:b8 12.E:xb8+ tt:lxb8
13.ic4 ix£3 14.gxf3 0-0 15. 0-0
cxd4 16.cxd4 '\Wxd2 17.i.xd2 i.xd4
 4.cd l:iJxdS 5.e4 l:iJxc3 6.bc ig7 7. l:iJ.f3 c5 B. ie3 'f!a5 9. 'f!d2 cd 1 0 .cd
18.ib5;!; and despite the fact that
Black has succeeded in regaining
his pawn, the game has entered
an endgame which is in White's
favour, because his bishops are
evidently more powerful than
Black's minor pieces. In order to
understand this, it would be suf­
ficient to compare the bishop on
bS with Black's knight on b8.
A) 9 ••• cxd4
After this move there arises
immediately on the board a quite
typical endgame for this opening
variation. As in the majority of the
endgames of the similar type,
White has a slight edge, because
thanks to his pawn-centre his
pieces can occupy more active po­
sitions than Black's pieces. In ad­
dition, White's rooks can exert
rather unpleasant pressure on the
c-file. In this variation Black must
be constantly on the alert about
the possible penetration of
White's rook to the c7-square.
Black has his pluses as well. At
first, he has no pawn-weaknesses.
Secondly, he can organise pres­
sure against White's pawn on d4
and his bishop on g7 will play an
important role in this process.
10.cxd4 ti'xd2+ ll.�xd2
As a rule, White captures on
d2 with his king, since in the end­
game, contrary to the other stages
of the chess game, the king feels
quite comfortable in the centre of
the board. Naturally, White must
be very careful about the possibil­
ity of Black exploiting the juxta­
position of his rook and White's
king on the d-file.
11 ••• 0-0
About ll ... l:iJc6 12.gb1 - see
variation 83.
12.gbl
This is an important move.
White takes under control the b4-
square, so that after Black's knight
comes to c6 and White's pawn on
dS ousts it from there, Black's
knight is deprived of the b4-
square.
t2 ••• gds
About 12 . . . 1:iJc6 13.id3 - see
variation 83.
37
Chapter 3

Black has also tried in practice

the move 12 . . . b6 with the idea to
trade the light-squared bishops
and thus to facilitate his defence.
This cannot equalise for him how­
ever, since it takes too much time.
For example: 13 . .id3 .ia6 (The
move 13 . . ..tb7 has been tested in
the game Rashkovsky - Certek,
Pila 1992 . Following 14J!hc1 lLlc6
15.d5 lLlaS 16.l'!c7±, Black failed to
defend against the penetration of 15.e5
the enemy rook to the penulti­ With this move White solves
mate rank.) 14.l'!hc1 .b:d3 15. 'ihd3 radically the problem with the
lLla6 16.l'!c4;!; White has a slight protection of his d4-pawn and
edge in this endgame. This is not prepares .te4. Naturally, he must
only due to his pawn-centre, but consider the weakening of the dS­
also thanks to the fact that his square as well.
king is very active, while Black's
knight on a6 is horribly mis­ He can fight for the advantage
placed. In addition, he can hardly in another way too - 15.l'!c4 ! ? ,
neutralise the pressure of White's protecting the d4-pawn and pre­
rooks on the c-file. Later, in the paring doubling of his rooks on
game Gruenberg - Trettin, Ger­ the c-file. 15 . . . .id7 (or 15 . . . lLla5
many 1991, there followed: 16 . . . 16.l'!cn Epishin - Santos, Oviedo
l'!fd8 17.'it>e2 l'!d7 18.l'!bc1 ifS?? This 1991) 16.We2;!; and Black will have
is a terrible blunder. As it often to fight long and hard for a draw
happens, Black fails to cope with without any chances of organising
the difficulties of defending an in­ counterplay.
ferior position and makes a deci­
sive mistake. 19.l'!a4 lLlb8 20 .l'!c8.
This penetration of the rook wins
for White. 20 ... 'it>g7 21.l'!ac4 bS 22.
!!4c5 and Black cannot get rid of
this pin without material losses.

13 . .id3 e6

About 13 . . . lLlc6 14.d5 - see

variation B3.

15 . . h6!
.

38
 4.cd liJxd5 5.e4 liJxc3 6.bc :ig7 7. liJ.f3 c5 8 . :i e3 Wfa5 9. Wfd2 cd J O .cd
This is the best for Black since
he must take the gS-square under
control.
After 15 .. .f6, White can obtain
powerful initiative with a pawn­
sacrifice - 16.'it>e2 ! ? fxeS 17.dxe5
liJxeS 18.liJxe5 .b:eS 19.:ie4. Black
has an extra pawn indeed, but he
must fight laboriously for a draw,
because his e6-pawn is weak and
his queenside pieces are not de­
veloped. 19 . . . :Bb8 20.:Bc5 i.d6 21.
:BaS a6 22 .i.b6 :Bd7 23 .h4 :ic7 24.
'it>e3 .b:b6+ 25.:Bxb6� Kozul - Po­
lajzer, Ptuj 1989. The activity of
White's pieces compensate with
an interest his minimal material
deficit. Black's defence is very dif­
ficult. His only chance is to give
back the extra pawn at some mo­
ment in order to develop his bish­
op on c8 and after that to defend
in the endgame having an inferior
pawn-structure.
Black cannot equalise with
15 . . .fS, because after 16.h4 h6
17.'it>e2 i.f8 18.g3 liJb4 19.i.c4 b6,
White's knight on d3 is restricted
in its movements by his own
pawns, but he can transfer it ad­
vantageously to the d3-square.
20.liJe1! liJdS 21.liJd3 i.b7 22.a4;!;
- He has solved the problem with
his knight and despite the fact
that Black's knight is also perfect­
ly placed on dS, White's position
is preferable due to the chronic
weakness of Black's e6-pawn,
Damljanovic - Kozul, Belgrade
1989.
16.a4
White failed to obtain an ad­
vantage in the game Gelfand - Ivan­
chuk, Astrakhan 2010: 16.'it>e1
i.f8 17.i.e4 liJb4 18 ..id2 liJd5 19.a4
b6 2 0.a5 .ib7 21.axb6 axb6 22 .
.b:dS .b:dS 23.:Bxb6 .ixf3 24.gxf3
:Bxd4 25.f4 :Bdd8 26 . .ie3 :Bab8.
The game ended in a draw after
the almost complete annihilation
of the material on the board.
16 .lbe7 17.:ie4 tbd5 18.a5
••
White's only chance of obtain­
ing an advantage in this variation
is to impede Black's pawn-ad­
vance b7-b6.
18 .if8 19.:ixd5 l!!xd5 20.
•••
l!! c7 b6
This pawn-sacrifice is forced.
21.axb6 axb6 22.l!!xb6;!;
White has an extra pawn in the
endgame and despite the fact that
Black has two powerful bishops
(His light-squared bishop is par­
ticularly strong, since it has no
opponent.), White can torment
his opponent for long .in this end­
game, Perikov - Nenciulescu,
Email 2010.
39
Chapter 3

B) 9 .lbc6
•• games played after this, but White
failed to create problems for his
opponent in the opening. In fact,
in some games Black even tried to
complicate the game trying for
more than just a draw in the end­
game.

After to.gbl Black has a

choice between the following pos-
sibilities: Bl) 10 . . . b6, 82)
10 ... 0-0, 83) 10 . . . cxd4 and
84) 10 ... a6.
to.gbt!
This is the only move with
which White preserves hopes of Bl) 10 . . . b6
obtaining an edge. The point is This move is seldom played
that after the exchange on d4, it is but is very interesting. Black de­
essential for White to control the fends his cS-pawn and prepares
b4-square in the endgame. the development of his light­
squared bishop to b7, or to a6.
After 10.E1cl, Black equalises ll . .ib5
as it was showed in the game White exploits the defect of
Kramnik - Kasparov, Astana the move b6 - some weakening of
2001. 10 . . . cxd4 ll.cxd4 \Wxd2+ the a4-e8 diagonal.
12.<;!{xd2 0-0 13.d5 E1d8 14.'i!lel.
This is the point! If White's rook
had remained on bl, he could
have played here id3, without be­
ing afraid of the move lt:lb4. Now,
due to the threat e7-e6, he must
waste a tempo to retreat his king
and thus loses his opening advan­
tage. There followed later 14 . . .
lt:laS 15.ig5 id7 16.id3 E1dc8
17.'i!le2 e6 18.E1xc8+ E1xc8 19.E1cl
E1xcl 20 . .bcl exdS 2l.exd5 bS 2 2 .
if4 lt:lc4 23 . .bc4 bxc4 24.ie5 if8 ll . . . .ib7! ?
25.ltld2 ibS 26.ltle4 fS 27.lt:\c3 This i s a n active move.
id7 28.'i!fe3 ic5+ 29.id4 ib4
30.ie5 and the opponents agreed It is also possible for Black to
to a draw. There were many other choose here ll . . . id7. Now, his

40
4.cd ttJxd5 5.e4 ttJxc3 6.bc i.g7 7. ttJ.f3 c5 B. ie3 Vff a5 9. Vff d2 ttJ c6 1 0 . 'l!bl
bishop will go neither to b7, nor to
a6. On the other hand he covers
reliably the a4-e8 diagonal. 12 .d5
This seems to be a bad move at
first sight, because Black can cap­
ture on c3, but after a thorough
analysis it becomes clear that
White should not be afraid of this.
12 . . . ttJe5 (Following 12 . . . .bc3,
there arises a position with a non­
standard material ratio. 13.dxc6
0-0 14.cxd7 .bd2 + 15 . .bd2 Vffx a2
16.0-0;!; White's three minor
pieces are stronger than Black's
queen and two pawns, because
White's passed d7-pawn is very
powerful, Schmitzer - Farmer,
Email 2003.) 13 . .bd7+ ttJxd7 14.
'l!cl 0-0 15.0-0 'l!ad8 16.i.g5.
This bishop-manoeuvre is typical
for this variation. White attacks
the e7-pawn and creates prob­
lems for his opponent. 16 . . . 'l!fe8
(The move 16 . . .f6 has the draw­
back that it weakens Black's cas­
tling position and restricts the
bishop on g7. 17.i.f4 'l!fe8 18.'l!fdU
White's position is preferable,
Khenkin - Nijboer, Haarlem
2000.) 17.'l!fd1 ttJf6 18.'l!e1 ttJd7
19.e5 f6 2 0 .exf6 exf6 21.if4;t -
The passed pawn on dS may turn
out to be very powerful, while
Black's king is vulnerable, Khen­
kin - Mikhalevski, lsrael 2009.
12.0-0
Naturally, White would lose
the game after 12 .d5??, due to
12 . . . .bc3 13.dxc6 ia6 ! - +
12 . . . 0-0
After 12 . . . cxd4, White has the
resource 13.tiJxd4 ! ? and Black has
problems, since his queen on aS is
misplaced. 13 . . . 'l!c8 14.'l!b4 ixd4
15.Vffxd4! ± It is very difficult for
him to maintain the material bal­
ance, because after the straight­
forward move 15 . . . 0-0, White
will follow with 16 . .bc6 and Black
will be forced to give up the ex­
change, since it would be bad for
him to play 16 . . . .bc6, due to 17.
ih6 eS 18.Vffd 6+- with an una­
voidable checkmate.
13.Vffb 2!
·
This is a very strong move.
White avoids the trade of queens,
since the placement of Black's
41
Chapter 3
queen on aS may turn out to be
unfavourable.
13 ••• a6 14 .ie2 bS 15.lUcU
• he5;!; and his bishop and two
White's position is preferable,
since Black can hardly counter
White's powerful pawn-centre.
82) 10 ••• 0-0
After this move, Black is prac­
tically forced to give up his queen.
In the pre-computer era, this sac­
rifice was considered to lead to a
complicated double edged fight.
Nowadays, White manages to cre­
ate great problems for his oppo­
nent, forcing him to fight labori­
ously for a draw.
11.l�� b5 cxd4
This move is forced; other­
wise, Black simply ends up a pawn
down. For example: 11 . . . '?9c7 12.
!!:xeS b6 13.E:g5. White has a solid
extra pawn indeed, but must play
very accurately, since he lags in
development and his rook on gS
may be endangered. After 13 . . .
.tb7, Schaefer - Gnassisch, Glad­
bach 1992, the best line for him
42
would be: 14 . .if4 ! ? '?9c8 15 . .id3 eS
16.tt:lxe5 tt:lxeS 17.E:xe5 .ixeS 18.
central pawns are stronger than
Black's rook.
12.lha5 dxe3 13. ti'xe3
tDxaS 14.tDd4 .id7 15.e5
White has centralised his
knight with his last move and has
restricted the scope of action of
Black's bishop on g7.
15 ••• gfc8
It is understandable that
Black's hopes of creating counter­
play are mostly connected with an
attack against White's weak pawn
on c3.
Following 15 . . . tt:lc6 16.f4 tt:lxd4
17.cxd4, White has got rid of his
liability on c3 and now must only
complete his development in or­
der to begin the realisation of his
material advantage. 17 . . .E:fc8 18 .
.te2 E:c2 19 . .td1 E:c7 20.0-0 e6
21..if3 .if8 22 .E:bl± Black has no
compensation for his material
deficit and his only chance of sur­
vival is connected with building a
fortress. This is not very likely,
4.cd 4Jxd5 5.e4 4Jxc3 6.bc fi.g7 7. 4Jj3 c5 B. ie3 '?!! aS 9. "fid2 4J c6 1 0 . '8 bl
however . . . , A.Volkov - Gataullin,
Email 2008.
16.f4
White fortifies his key eS­
pawn and frees the f2-square for
his king.
16 ••• e6
It is interesting but hardly cor­
rect for Black to try 16 . . . '8c5 17.
4Je6 '8xe5 18.fxe5 .ixe6 19.i.e2
4Jc6 2 0 .i.f3 4Jxe5 21..ixb7±.
White lags a bit in development
and his pawns on a2 and c3 are
weak, but unfortunately for Black,
his two minor pieces and a pawn
are not sufficient to compensate
the missing queen, J.Nielsen -
Borge, Denmark 1998.
16 . . .'8c7. This is a natural
move. Black prepares the dou­
bling of his rooks on the c-file in
order to attack the weak enemy
pawn on c3. 17 . .ib5 ! With this
move White succeeds in exchang­
ing advantageously the bishops.
17. . . 4Jc6 18 . .ixc6 .ixc6 19.4Jxc6
'8xc6 2 0.�e2 . The position has
been simplified and it has become
evident that Black's initiative has
evaporated after the trade of two
pairs of minor pieces. 20 . . . b6
(The evaluation of the position re­
mains the same after 20 .. .f6, due
to 21.'8d1 fxeS 22.'8d7± Atalik -
Howell, Ottawa 2007.) 21.'8d1
'8ac8 22.'8d3± Now, White's pawn
in c3 is reliably protected and
Black is doomed to a long and la­
borious defence, Akobian - How-
ell, Wijk aan Zee 2010.
17.h4!
This resource, together with
the already analysed trade of the
bishops after i.bS, must be re­
membered very well by the play­
ers who use this variation with
White. He begins an attack on the
h-file. Naturally, this will hardly
lead to a checkmate, but the ac­
tive play on the h-file will be very
helpful for him in order to break
Black's defence. In addition,
White's rook may protect the c3-
pawn from the h3-square.
17 J:�c7 18.h5 '8ac8 19.'8h3
••
4Jc4
Or 19 . . .if8 20.�f2±
20.hc4 '8xc4 21.ti'f3 '88c7
22.ti'g3
White is preparing to transfer
his queen to the h4-square.
22 b5 23.Wh4 ie8 24.a3
• • .
'8c8 25.g4
His g-pawn joins into the at­
tack. Later in the game Matush­
kina - Bocheva, Email . 2010,
White managed gradually to
break Black's defence and scored
a full point.
43
Chapter 3
2S .id7 26.ti'e7 g4c7 27.
•••
<.!?e2 aS 28.hxg6 hxg6 29.<.!?d2
.if8 30.ti'h4 .ig7 31.ti'h7+ <.!?f8
32.gd3 ges 33. �h2 gc4 34.
c!bf3 .ic6 3S.c!bgS .idS 36.c!bh7+
<.!?e7 37.f5 <.!?d7 38.fxe6+ fxe6
39.c!bf6+ .ixf6 40.exf6 1-0
B3) 10 ••• cxd4
After this move, there arises
an endgame on the board. Here, it
is essential for both opponents to
know its theory, but it is even
more important for them to be ex­
perts of playing endgames in gen­
eral.
ll.cxd4
ll �xd2 +
•••
This is Black's most natural
and often played move.
It is very interesting for him to
try 11 . . . 0-0 ! ? After this, White's
simplest line would be : 12 .\1;lfxa5
lt:\xaS 13.i.d3, for example 13 . . .
i.g4 ! ? This i s a n active move. (It is
weaker for Black to opt for 13 . . . b6
14.<.!?e2 i.d7 15J:!hcl l�Uc8 16.i.a6
l:!xcl 17.l:!xc1 <.!?f8 18.d5± and in
this position it is worth noticing
44
the placement of White's bishop
on a6, which deprives Black of the
possibility l:!c8, so White is com­
pletely dominant on the c-file,
Ibragimov - Isoev, Azov 1991.)
14.<.!?e2;t and he maintains a slight
edge although Black's counter­
play, connected with exerting
pressure against White's centre,
should not be underestimated.
12.<.!?xd2 0-0 13 .id3 ! ?
•
This i s White's most precise
move.
He does not need to present
his opponent with the additional
possibility, arising following 13.
dS lt:\ aSoo Khenkin - Sutovsky,
Kaskady 2002. In this complicat­
ed and double-edged position,
White's advantage, if it really ex­
ists, is unlikely to be proved.
t3 • • • gds
Black increases his pressure
against White's centre.
About 13 . . . e6 14.l:!hc1 l:!d8 15.
eS - see variation A.
13 .. .fS. This way of undermin­
ing White's centre is encountered
once in a while in this variation of
the Gruenfeld Defence and we
will see it many more times in the
future. 14.exf5 gxfS 15.d5 .!DeS 16.
lt:\xeS .beS 17.l:!heU White's posi­
tion is preferable thanks to his su­
perior pawn-structure and better
developed pieces, Spoelman -
Goormachtigh, Netherlands 2010.
4.cd l:i:Jxd5 5.e4 1:i:Jxc3 6.bc fi.g7 7. 1:i:Jj3 c5 8. i.e3 vtia5 9. vtid2 1:i:J c6 1 0 . '£bl
14.d5
This move is forced but is not
bad at all.
14 . . . �a5
It is a bit unusual to place vol­
untarily the knight at the edge of
the board, but here, this is a good
move for Black.
Following 14 . . . 1:i:JeS, White ob­
tains an advantage effortlessly.
lS.I:i:JxeS i.xeS 16.f4 i.g7 17.i.c5 (or
17.'£hcl ! ?t - preparing the pene­
tration of the rook to c7, Avrukh
- Ben Artzi, Eilat 2012) 17 . . . 'k!?f8
18.'£hcl fS 19.'k!?e3. This is one of
the typical features of this end­
game. White's king is much more
active here than its counterpart
and can take part in the actions at
any moment. 19 . . . b6 20.ia3 fxe4
21.i.xe4 i.fS 22J:'k7 i.f6 23.d6. Af­
ter this energetic breakthrough
his advantage increases. 23 . . . exd6
24 . .bf5 gxfS 2S.'£bS '£ac8 26.
i.xd6+ 'k!?g8 27.'£xfS± and White
has excellent prospects to realise
his extra pawn in the endgame,
Khenkin - Wuerdinger, Bad Wi­
essee 2002.
15.'k!?e2
His king avoids the unpleasant
x-ray with the enemy rook on the
d-file.
15 . . . b6
There arises an interesting
tactical fight after lS .. .fS. White's
prospects are preferable in all the
variations, because his pieces are
better mobilised. 16.'£hcl b6 (Or
16 . . . fxe4? ! 17 ..ixe4 i.fS 18.i.xfS
gxfS 19.'£bS b6 2 0 .'£c7± and
Black's pawns on e7 and fS are
very weak, while White's rook has
penetrated to the penultimate
rank and Black's knight on aS is
horribly misplaced, Nitsche -
Groth, corr. 2002.). 17.1:i:JgS fxe4
18 . .ixe4 i.a6+ 19.'k!?el '£ac8 20.
l:i:Je6 '£d7 21.'£xc8+ .ixc8, Vidit -
Bernard, Paris 2010. Now, White
can maintain a slight edge follow­
ing 22.'£cl .ib7 23 . .if3t and
Black's knight is not placed well
on aS and capturing for him on dS
is impossible, because White will
counter 23 . . . .ixdS? with 24.fi.g4±
16.�d4
4S
Chapter 3
His knight takes the weak c6-
square under control.
16 ••• f5
After 16 . . . e6 17.tt:Jc6 tt:Jxc6 18.
dxc6 �xd3 19.\t>xd3, Black's com­
pensation for the exchange is in­
sufficient. 19 . . . .!a6+ 20.\t>c2 �c8
and here, White's best line would
be: 21.�bcl ! (It is weaker for him
to opt for 21.�hc1 i.c4 2 2 . \t>d2
�xc6 23.\t>e1 bS 24 . .!xa7 f5 25.�c2
�a6? and thanks to his two pow­
erful bishops Black created coun­
terplay in the game Sakaev -
Hoffmann, Groningen 1991.) 21...
i.c4 22.�hdl± White maintains a
great advantage, because Black
cannot capture the pawn on a2,
since White's pieces will become
tremendously active in that case.
For example: 22 . . . .ba2 23.�d7
�xc6+ 24.\t>d3 �xc1 25.�d8+ i.f8
26 . .bc1 \t>g7 27.ib2+ f6 28.
h£6+- and the endgame is com­
pletely hopeless for Black.
17.f3
This is a reliable move. White's
first priority is to take care about
the safety of his pawn-centre.
46
It is also possible for him to
continue with 17.tt:Jc6 tt:lxc6 18.
dxc6. Now, there arise varia­
tions with the already familiar
exchange-sacrifice on the d3-
square : 18 . . . �xd3 19.\t>xd3 ia6+
20.\t>c2 �c8 21.�bc1 ibS 22.\t>b3
fxe4 23.c7 ieS 24.�hd1 id3
25.g3;!; and despite the activity of
Black's bishops, White has excel­
lent chances of realising his mate­
rial advantage, Sutkalenko - Lah­
denmaeki, Lechenicher Schach­
Server 2010.
17 fxe4 18.fxe4 .ig4+ 19.
•••
1!/£2 gf8+ 20.\t>g3 .id7 21.lLlf3
e6 22.d6 .ic6 23 .ig5 lLlb7•
24.ghel lLlcS 25 .ic2 gf7 26.
•
gbdU White has a powerful
passed pawn on d6, moreover
that Black's e6-pawn is very weak,
so in the game Hudak - Reeky,
Email 2010, White scored a con­
vincing victory.
B4) 10 ••• a6
Black parries radically the
threat �bS, but weakens the b6-
square.
n.gcl
After having provoked the
weakening of the b6-square,
White's rook protects the pawn
on c3. Now, Black must be con­
stantly on the alert about the po­
sitional threat d4-d5.
(diagram)
In this position he has the
choice between the following pos-
sibilities: B4a) ll . . . f5, B4b)
ll ... .ig4 and B4c) ll . . . cxd4.
4.cd liJxdS 5.e4 liJxc3 6.bc fi.g7 7. liJj3 c5 8. ie3 Y!! aS 9. 1lff d2 liJ c6 1 0 J�!.bl
11 . . . 0-0 12 .d5 E:d8 13.i.e2 e6
14.0-0 exdS 1S.exd5 liJe7 16.c4
1Jffxd2 17.liJxd2;!; Karpov - Galli,
Bastia 1998. The majority of the
endgames of this type, as a rule,
are close to equality, but in this
situation White has an edge. The
point is that Black's pawn is
not on a7, but on a6. The moment
he plays b7-b6, White will man­
age to exert pressure against that
pawn.
B4a) ll •.. f5
Having undermined White's
centre with the move c7-c5, Black
inflicts a strike against it from the
other side of the board.
12.e5
This move is seemingly illogi­
cal (White presents his opponent
with the control over the dS­
square.), but is one of the typical
resources for him in this varia­
tion. Its idea is to restrict maxi­
mally Black's bishop on g7. This
"good" bishop will be restricted
by White's pawn on eS and will
have problems entering the ac­
tions.
12 ••• f4
Black sacrifices a pawn for ini­
tiative.
It is possible for him to opt for
12 . . . b5, occupying space on the
queenside, 13.ie2 ib7 (after
13 . . . 0-0 14.0-0 E:d8 15.a4 i.e6
16.axb5 axb5 17.'1Wb2;!;, White suc­
ceeds in keeping the enemy bish­
op on g7 inside the cage of pawns
on eS, d4 and c3, Fridman - Kra­
senkow, Jurmala 2012) 14.0-0
cxd4 1S.liJxd4 liJxd4 (following
15 . . . liJxe5 16.liJe6 if6 17.1i.d4�,
thanks to the powerful position of
the knight on e6, which prevents
Black from castling, White has
more than sufficient compensa­
tion for the sacrificed pawn) 16.
ixd4 0-0 17.id1 idS 18.ib3
ixb3 19.axb3;!; White's bishop on
d4, supported by the pawn on c3,
is obviously more active than its
counterpart on g7, so the position
is clearly in favour of White, Ry­
chagov - Nikolenko, Moscow
2010.
13 .ixf4 ig4 14.ie2 gds
•
15.liJg5
47
Chapter 3
White does not insist on keep­
ing the extra material and tries to
deploy his knight on the weak­
ened e6-square. 15 .ixe2 16.
•••
1rxe2 �US 17 .td2 cxd4 18.tt:le6
• terplay, Bosman - Ni Hua, Plov­
d3 19.�e3;!; - Now, despite Black's
powerful passed pawn on d3,
White wins the exchange, since
three of Black's pieces are under
the attack of White's knight and
cannot run away simultaneously,
Salem - Daulyte, Dubai 2011.
B4b) u . . . .tg4
This seemingly active move
(Black increases his pressure
against White's centre.) has a def­
inite drawback. With his previous
move White has protected his
pawn on c3, so he can occupy ad­
ditional space in the centre.
12.d5
12 ... �M8
Black intends to undermine
White's centre with the move e6.
Black can also compromise his
opponent's pawn-structure, but
must part with his powerful bish­
op in order to do that. 12 . . . .ixf3
48
13.gxf3 0-0-0 14.i.d3 (After the
careless move 14.f4, Black can un­
dermine White's centre with the
move 14 . . . e6? and organise coun­
div 2010.) 14 . . . tt:le5 15.i.e2 f5 16.f4
tt:lg4 17.i.xg4 fxg4 18.c4 �c7 19.h3
gxh3 2 0J'!xh3;!; White's pawn­
mass in the centre looks very im­
pressive and Black is incapable of
exploiting the placement of White's
king in the centre, Mengual Bolo
- Perez Marco, Email 2009.
13 .te2 0-0 14.0-0 .txf3
•
Black can also try to under­
mine immediately his opponent's
centre without the preliminary
exchange. 14 . . . e6 15.!g5. White's
is attacking the enemy rook on d8
and frees the way of his queen to
the f4-square. 15 .. J'!d7 (following
15 . . .£6 16.i.f4;!;, White preserves
an edge, because after Black has
played f7-f6, his bishop on g7 has
turned immediately from active
into very passive, Standaer -
Nogga, Email 2009) 16.�f4 ! Now,
there arise tactical complications,
which turn out to be in favour of
White. 16 . . . .txf3 17.dxc6 .ixe2 18.
cxd7 f6 19.�d6 fxgS 20 .�xe6+ gf7
21.e5. This is the key idea of this
variation. White's e-pawn is com­
ing to the assistance of his d7-
pawn. Black can hardly hold this
position. 21.. .i.b5 (His situation is
horrible after 21.. . .txf1 2 2 .�d5
�dB 23.e6 ge7 24.�xf1 i.f6 25.c4
�g7 26.gb1+-. He has kept his
extra piece and has blocked tern-
4.cd !iJxd5 5.e4 !iJxc3 6.bc ig7 7. 0,j3 c5 8. i.e3 VIi aS 9. Vfid2 !iJ c6 1 0 . 'gbJ

porarily White's central passed

pawns, but Black is incapable of
countering the penetration of his
opponent's rook inside his camp.)
22 .Vfid5 hd7 23.e6 .be6 24.Vfixe6
.bc3 25.f4 i.d4+ 26.'tt>h 1 Vfid8
27.fxg5± Black's position is diffi­
cult and White's rook is more
powerful than Black's bishop and
pawn in this open position.

15.hf3 e6 ter this strong move, Black is

faced with a rather unpleasant
choice. 19 :Se8 (but not 19 .. .f6
•••

20.i.f4±; 19 . . . 'gxd5 2 0 . .bd8 'gxd2

21..b:a5 'gxe2 2 2 .i.b6± and in the
endgame White has all the chanc­
es of realising his material advan­
tage) 20.:Selt White has seized
completely the initiative and his
bishops begin to be very active in
this open position, while Black
can hardly manage to block the
enemy dS-pawn.
16 .ie2 !
•

This i s a very accurate move. B4c) ll . . . cxd4

White removes prudently his This is Black's most popular
bishop away from the possible move. He enters an endgame hop­
strike CiJeS. ing later to equalise a slightly in­
ferior position.
After the routine response 16. 12.cxd4 ti'xd2+ 13.'tt>xd2
'gfd1, Black obtains a very good
position following 16 . . . exd5 17.
exdS CiJeS? Ding - Li, Olongapo
City 2010.

16 ••• :Sd7 17.:SfdU

(diagram)
White's position is preferable
thanks to his two powerful bish­
ops and the passed d-pawn. 17 •••

exd5 18.exd5 :Sfd8 1 9 .ig5! Af-

•

49
Chapter 3
13 ... e6
This is a precise and reliable
move. Black is trying to build a
solid defensive line.
It is also possible for Black to
play 13 . . .f5 - a counter strike
which we are already familiar
with. 14.e5 !
With this move White begins a
plan to restrict the enemy bishop
on g7. 14 . . . i.e6 (A quite typical for
this variation exchange-sacrifice
was tried in the game Sakaev -
Smikovski, Novokuznetsk 2008:
14 . . . h6 15.i.c4 ttla5 16.id5 e6 17.
1'!xc8+ ! 1'!xc8 18.he6 1'!c6 19.i.d5±
White's bishop and his two cen­
tral pawns are stronger than
Black's rook and b7-pawn.) 15.
i.c4 hc4 16.1'!xc4 0-0 (16 . . . 1'!d8
17.'it>e2 e6 18.1'!b1 1'!d7, Prasad -
Ganguly, Nagpur 2008. Here,
White has a very powerful argu­
ment at his disposal - 19.ttlg5 ! ?,
attacking immediately Black's
Achilles heel - his weak e6-pawn.
19 . . . 'it>e7 20.i.cl ! White's bishop is
transferred to the a3-square
where it will be much more active.
20 . . . ttlxd4+ 21.1'!xd4 1'!xd4 2 2 .
1'!xb7+ 1'!d7 23.ia3+ lt>e8 24.1'!b8+
50
1'!d8 25.1'!b6± - He has more than
sufficient compensation for the
exchange. Black's a6 and e6-
pawns are very weak and what is
even more important - his king is
seriously endangered in the cen­
tre of the board despite the fact
that it is an endgame.) 17.'it>e2
17. . . e6 18.1'!b1 1'!f7. Here,
White's best chance of obtaining
an advantage is the move 19.
ttlg5 ! ? (following 19.g3 1'!d7 20.
1'!b6 h6 21.h4 1'!c8 2 2 .ttlel 1'!cd8
23.ttld3 tt:Jxd4+ 24.1'!xd4 1'!xd4 25.
hd4 1'!xd4 26.1'!xe6;J;, he again
maintains an edge, but there is
still plenty of material left on the
board and in actions on both
flanks Black's bishop may turn
out to be stronger than White's
knight, Kuljasevic - Safarli, Par­
dubice 2010) 19 . . . 1'!e7 20.h4;J;, fol­
lowed by the subsequent transfer
of the knight to f4 via the h3-
square. White maintains unpleas­
ant pressure.
The evaluation of the position
remains more or less the same
after 17 . . . h6 18.1'!bU. Later, in
the game Z.Schneider - Neubau­
er, Oberpullendorf 2002, Black
played carelessly - 18 . . . e6? and
4.cd 0.xd5 5.e4 0.xc3 6.bc :ig7 7. 0.j3 c5 B. fie3 Wia5 9. Wld2 0.c6 1 0 . 'i'J.bl
this enabled White to continue
with a simple winning combina­
tion: 19.'i'J.xb7 0.a5 20.'i'J.xg7+ 'it>xg7
2l.'Sc7+ 'it>h8 22 .id2 +-
17 . . . 'i'J.ad8 18.'i'J.bl 'iJ.dS (Follow­
ing 18 . . . 'i'J.d7 19.g3 e6 20.'iJ.bM,
White has again a slight edge, Ol­
szewski - Kanarek, Warsaw 2011.
His pieces are active and Black
must be constantly on the alert
about the possible exchange-sac­
rifice on c6 - which is one of the
main resources for White in this
position.) 19.a4 'Sfd8 20 .g3 h6
21.h4t He has the initiative in this
endgame. 21.. .0.a5 22.'i'J.c7 'i'J.Sd7
23.'i'J.c5 'iJ.dS 24.'i'J.xd5 'iJ.xdS 2S.'i'J.b6
'it>t7 26.:id2 if8 27.ic3 e6 28.
0.el! ± White redeploys his knight
to a more active position. 28 . . . i.e7
29.0.c2 idS 30.ha5. Having im­
proved maximally the placement
of his pieces, White finally trades
his bishop for the enemy knight
on aS and wins the b7-pawn.
Black's position crumbles. 30 . . .
'fJ.xaS 31.'i'J.xb7+ 'it>e8 32.'i'J.b4 'iJ.dS
33.'i'J.c4 'i'J.d7 34.'i'J.c6 'it>t7 35.'i'J.xa6
'i'J.b7 36.a5 'i'J.b2 37.'it>d3 'i'J.a2 38.
'i'J.a7+ 1-0 Giri - Sutovsky, Wijk
aan Zee 2010.
Besides this, he has also tested
in practice 13 . . . 0-0 14.d5
Now, it is bad for him to opt
for 14 . . . 'i'J.d8, due to lS.'it>el 0.b4
(15 . . . 0.a5?? 16.:ib6+-) 16.id2 ! ,
Brunner - Marzolo, Metz 2010,
16 . . . a5 17.a3 0.a6 18.ixa5± and
Black's compensation for the
pawn is insufficient. Still, even af­
ter 14 . . . 0.e5, White develops ef­
fortlessly his initiative in the end­
game. 15.0.xe5 !xeS 16.f4 ib8
17.e5 'i'J.d8 18.i.d3 if5 19.i.xf5 gxfS
20.'it>e2t - He has a better pawn­
structure, while Black's bishop on
b8 is very passive restricted by
White's pawn on eS, Akobian -
Khachiyan, Wheeling 2010.
14.i.d3
This is a reliable move. White
is not in a hurry to force the issue.
He has also tried in practice
the riskier line: 14.d5 exdS 15.
exdS. Still, after Black's solid re­
ply 15 . . . 0.e5 16.0.xe5 ixeS 17.g3
:ifS 18.ig2 'it>d7= , White can
hardly fight for the advantage, be­
cause his passed pawn has been
reliably blocked and the exchange
of the rooks on the c-file will elim-
51
Chapter 3

inate the conflict in this position,

Ftacnik - Jansa, Bratislava 1983.
14 ••• 0-0
About 14 ... .id7 15.!k4 0-0 -
see 14 . . . 0-0.
15.gc4 .id7
Black cannot equalise if he
tries to organise counterplay with
15 . . .f5 16.g3 .id7 17J1hc1 E:fc8 18.
dS exdS 19.exd5;!;. White's pros­
pects are preferable thanks to his
powerful passed dS-pawn, Khen­ square in order to fix the enemy
kin - Seel, Bad Wiessee 2003. h7-pawn.
The character of the fight re­ 16 gfc8 17.h5 .!lJa5 18.
•••

mains the same following 15 . . . E:d8
16.h4 (16.E:b1 ! ?;!;) 16 . . . .id7 17.h5;!;
Epishin - Polovodin, Podolsk
1992 .
(diagram)
16.h4!?
The endgame i s slightly better
for White, but it would not be easy
for him to break Black's defence.
With his last move White plans to
advance his pawn up to the h6-
gxc8+ gxc8 19.h6 .ih8 20.gc1
gxc1 21. c.!?xcl .!lJc6 22. i>d2 .if6
23.i>c3;!; White's king is more ac­
tive and he will play for a win lat­
er, combining his threat to break
with his king towards Black's
queenside pawns with the pawn­
advance in the centre d4-d5, as
well as with an attack against
Black's h7-pawn, Epishin - Fer­
nandez Aguado, Logrono 1991.

Conclusion
We have just analysed variations of the Gruenfeld Defence in which
Black develops his queen to aS. In these lines, as a rule, there arises a
slightly better endgame for White, because his pieces occupy more ac­
tive positions thanks to his wonderful pawn-centre. Black will need to
work hard to neutralise his opponent's pressure on the c-file and to
prevent the penetration to the c7-square. If he tries to undermine his
opponent's centre with the move f7-f5, then White has the unpleasant
plan with the move e4-e5, after which Black's bishop on g7 becomes
severely restricted in its movements and White seizes completely the
initiative on the queenside. With a black bishop remaining on g7, White
will have an extra piece in his queenside actions.

52
Chapter 4 l.d4 ttJf6 2.c4 g6 3.ttJc3 d5 4.cxd5
ttJxd5 5.e4 ttJxc3 6.bxc3 .ig7 7.ttJf3 c5
8 .ie3 Vas 9.Vd2 0-0
•

cxd4 and finally the move which

is considered to be the best in this
variation - F) lO gds. •••

About 10 . . . lt:Jc6 ll.d5 lt:Je5 (11 . . .

gds - see lO . . . gds) 12.lt:Jxe5 .ixeS
13.f4 - see Chapter 2, 8 . . . lt:Jc6, 9 . . .
�as.

A) 10 ••• b6
This move was considered to This move is only seldom
be imprecise for many years and played in the tournament prac­
was not in the focus of the con­ tice. White obtains effortlessly an
temporary theory. In the 21st cen­ opening advantage.
tury however, new ideas were
found for Black and they led to a
very complicated and double­
edged game. Therefore, this vari­
ation became a frequent guest in
the tournament practice even at
the super top level. It was tested
in the games of L. Aronian, A.
Grischuk, P. Leko, P. Svidler, V.
Topalov and many other grand­
masters.

to.gcl n.Ah6
Black has a great choice of This is a typical reso�rce in
moves in this position: this variation. White wishes to
A) 10 b6, B) 10 c!bd7, C)
••• ••• trade the enemy bishop in order
10 Ag4, D) 10 e6, E) 10
• • • ••• ••• to weaken the shelter of the ene-

53
Chapter 4

my king. By playing like this, he is

not planning so much to attack,
but is trying to force his opponent
to exchange on d4, which would
lead to the trade of queens and a
transfer to an endgame advanta­
geous for White.

It may be interesting for him

to choose the move ll.h4 ! ? , which
has not been analysed thoroughly
yet. It has been tried by I.Sokolov.
Later, Black did not defend in the
best possible way and White
scored a quick victory following
ll . . . l'!e8?! 12 .h5 i.a6 13.hxg6 hxg6
14.i.h6 i.h8 1S.i.xa6 ltlxa6 16.d5
1Wa4 17.1Wf4 1Wc4 18.ltle5 1-0 I. So­
kolov - Berghagen, Sweden 2001.
Ivan Sokolov's idea requires fur­
ther practical tests.
ll . . • cxd4
This exchange is forced.
After 11.. .l'!d8, White can play
12 .h4! and will force his opponent
to trade pawns in the centre any­
way. Still, contrary to the majority
of similar positions, after the
exchange, White is not obliged
to enter an endgame but can play
for an attack. 12 . . . cxd4 13.i.xg7
�xg7 14.h5± with a very powerful
attack, Daly - Isaev, Moscow
1994. We have to mention the fact
that Black's rook on d8 is not pro­
tected, so he cannot exchange on
c3.
There has arisen a typical end­
game for the Gruenfeld Defence
with a slight edge for White due
to his dominance in the centre.
Later, in the game Yermolinsky ­
Khachiyan, Las Vegas 2004,
Black made a grave positional
blunder 15 .. Jic8? and after 16.
gxc8 hc8 17.gcl i.a6 18.gc7±
White's rook penetrated to the c7-
square. In addition, Black's knight
on b8 has not been developed yet.
18 . . . �f8 19.e5 hd3 2o.gc8+
�g7 21.�xd3+-, White has a de­
cisive advantage in this endgame,
because Black cannot get rid of
the pin of his knight on b8 with­
out material losses.
B) 10 ••• �d7

12.hg7 �xg7 13.cxd4

tfxd2+ 14.�xd2 i.b7 15.i.d3;!;

54
4.cd 11Jxd5 5.e4 11Jxc3 6.bc fi.g7 7. 11Jj3 c5 8 . fi. e3 Wfa5 9. Wf d2 0 - 0 1 0 . '£cl
Jan Nepomniachtchi liked to
play this move.
ll . .id3
This is a natural developing
move for White. He not only pre­
pares to castle kingside, but also
protects prudently his central e4-
pawn, because Black can attack it
later (11Jf6, or fi.b7 after b7-b5).
n ... e5
This is Black's best move.
It seems premature for him to
begin active actions on the queen­
side with ll . . . b5 12.0-0 c4. This
move is strategically risky. Black
occupies space on the queenside
indeed, but reduces his pressure
against White's centre. 13.ic2
fi.b7 14.'£b1 11Jb6 15.h4 ! This is the
beginning of an attack against the
enemy king. 15 . . . '£ad8 16.h5 '£fe8
17.'£fcl fi.c6 18.fi.h6± White has
powerful initiative on the king­
side and a wonderful pawn-cen­
tre, which can hardly be attacked
by Black, Santos Etxepare -
Sanchez Carol, Email 2010.
11 ... 11Jb6. After this move
White preserves an edge. 12 .�6
i.d7 (or 12 . . . '£d8 13 . .ixg7 \t>xg7 14.
d5;!;, followed by 0-0 and White's
prospects are preferable thanks to
his dominance in the centre, Ba­
nikas - Rowson, Tallinn 1997)
13.d5 .ib5 14 . .ixg7 \t>xg7 15.c4 (15.
h4 ! ?;!;) 15 ... Wfxd2+ 16.\t>xd2 .ia6
17.h4;!; White has extra space (his
pawns have occupied the centre),
while Black's minor pieces are
very passive, Bosiocic - Vorobiov,
Trieste 2012.
11 . . . 11Jf6. With this move Black
attacks the enemy e4-pawn and
prepares c5-c4. We have already
mentioned before that the pawn­
advance c5-c4 is not dangerous
for White. 12.0-0 c4 (after 12 . . . e6
13.Wie2;!;, his beautiful pawn-cen­
tre provides him with an advan­
tage, Bronstein - Tukmakov,
Wijk aan Zee 1992) 13.ib1 b5 14 .
.ih6 .ib7 15.'£feU and again
White's pawn-centre guarantees
his edge, Rodrigues - Mundstock,
Brazil 1993.
12.d5
This is the only way for him to
fight for the opening advantage.
Following 12 .h4 cxd4 13.cxd4
Wfxd2+ 14.\t>xd2, White maintains
a slight edge in the endgame, but
Black can rely on equalising grad­
ually with an accurate defence, as
it was shown in the game Aronian
- Nepomniachtchi, Khanty-Man­
siysk 2010: 14 . . . exd4 15 ..ixd4 '£d8
16.\t>e3 11Jf6 17 . .ixf6 .ix£6 18.i.c4
55
Chapter 4
h6 19 . .ib3 :!'!d7 2 0.g4 :!'!e7 2 1.g5
i.g7 2Vt:ld4 ixd4+ 23.r;!;>xd4 ie6
24 . .be6 :!'!xe6 25.gxh6 :!'!d8+ 26.
r;!;>e3 :!! d eS 27.f3 r;!;>h7= and the op­
ponents agreed soon to a draw.
12 . . .b5
Black is preparing active ac­
tions on the queenside.
He can also try something on
the kingside as well. 12 .. .f5 13.ig5
c4 (after 13 .. .tbf6 14 ..bf6 .bf6
15.0-0;!;, White's extra space and
his passed dS-pawn are more im­
portant than Black's two-bishop
advantage, Pavlovic - Sedlak,
Valjevo 2011) 14.ixc4 fxe4 15.d6+
r;!;>h8 16.lt:Jh4. This move is forced.
Now, the position becomes very
complicated. White has a power­
ful and far-advanced pawn on d6,
but his knight on h4 is misplaced.
16 ... i.f6 17.Wle3 ! (threatening 18.
lt:Jxg6) 17 ... .bg5 18.Wlxg5 :!'!f6 19.
0-0 WlcS 20 . .ib3 b6 21.lt:Jxg6+ !
He solves radically the problem
with his bad knight. White organ­
izes a powerful attack for the sac­
rificed knight. 21.. .:!'!xg6 22 .Wld8+
r;!;>g7 23.:!'!cd1 :!'!b8 (23 . . . :!'!f6? 24.
56
.idS :!'!b8 25.Wle7+-; 23 ... lt:Jf6? 24.
Wle7+ r;!;>h6 25.Wlf8+ r;t>gs 26.i.f7)
24.Wle7+ r;!;>h6 25.:!'!fe1 lt:Jf6 26.
WlfB+ r;!;>hS 27.:!'!e3 :!'!b7 28 ..if7 :!'!xf7
29.Wlxf7t In this complicated po­
sition White has a rook and a
pawn for Black's two minor piec­
es. White's position is preferable,
since he has a very strong pawn
on d6, while Black's king is obvi­
ously endangered on the hS­
square.
13.0-0 c4 14 . .ic2 �a3
tSJ!bl gbs
16.�cl
Black's queen is perfectly
placed on a3, so White should
better exchange it immediately.
16 . . . �xc1 17.gfxcl aS
The game has entered a com­
plicated endgame in which each
side has its chances.
18.a4
White undermines immedi­
ately Black's queenside pawns.
It is possible that White's most
reliable move is 18.lt:Jd2 ! ? , for ex­
ample: 18 . . . .ia6 19 . .idU and he is
4. cd ltJxd5 5.e4 ltJxc3 6.bc :ig7 7. ltJj3 c5 8. :ie3 Vff a5 9. Wid2 0 - 0 l O .'ikl
p reparing to transfer his bishop
to e2, followed by undermining
Black's pawn on c4 with the move
a2 -a4.
18 ••• b4
19 .ldl! ?
•
White will redeploy his bishop
to e2.
It would be too risky for him to
present Black with two connected
passed pawns. 19.cxb4 axb4 20.
idl c3 21.:ie2 fS+t Pashikian -
Nepomniachtchi, Moscow 2010.
Black has a very good position.
His queenside pawns are very
dangerous and his task is much
easier than White's game.
19 . • • b3 20.lbd2 .la6 21 .le2;!;
• ltJf6 14.Vfic2 WiaS+ 15.:id2 W:fc7
Black has a protected passed
pawn on b3, but his c4-pawn is
very weak, so the position should
be evaluated in favour of White.
C) 10 ••• .lg4
This active move leads to a
complicated fight in which White's
prospects are better, since his
dominance in the centre is a more
important factor than his slightly
compromised pawn-structure (af­
ter the possibility - .ixf3).
ll.d5
White occupies space. This is
the reason he has played :1kl, so
that his pawn on c3 is protected.
ll . . . .txf3
This is Black's basic and most
logical move. He compromises his
opponent's pawn-structure.
About ll .. J:!d8 12.ltJg5 - see
variation F.
ll . . . ltJd7. This move leads to a
clearly inferior position for Black.
12 .c4 W:fb6 (After 12 . . . W:fa3 13 . .le2
16. 0-0;!;, White has completed his
development and now Black will
have a hard time fighting against
his opponent's centre, Davidavi­
cius - Boreika, Email 2005. Fol­
lowing 12 . . . W:la4, White can. avoid
the doubling of his pawns with
13.ltJg5 h6 14.h3 ihS 15.g4 hxgS,
Kotanjian - Kviriashvili, Tbilisi
57
Chapter 4
2009, 16.i.xg5;!;, he regains his
bishop and preserves his posi­
tional advantage.) 13.ie2 �b4 14.
h3 i.xf3 15 . .ixf3 a6 16.ie2 �xd2+
17.'it>xd2t In this endgame, natu­
rally Black has some counterplay
on the dark squares, but White's
prospects are preferable thanks to
his superior pawn-structure and
the two-bishop advantage, Cebalo
- Tseshkovsky, Banja Luka 1981.
It would be too risky for Black
to opt for ll . . . lLla6, since he not
only loses a tempo, but removes
his knight to the edge of the board.
The best way for White to empha­
size the drawbacks of this move is
12.h4 ! ? , beginning an attack on
the kingside. 12 . . . f5 13.exf5 ixfS
14.h5 :!':ladS, Kramnik - Svidler,
Moscow 2009, 15.ih6 ! ?± and af­
ter the trade of the dark-squared
bishops, White's kingside attack
becomes very powerful.
12.gxf3 lLld7
Black cannot equalise with
12 . . . c4. Following 13.h4 h5 14.ih6
Elc8 15.ixg7 'it>xg7 16.f4 lLld7 17.
Elg1 �b6 18.f5t, White obtained a
better position in the game Khen­
kin - Schandorff, Helsingor 2011.
It is worth paying attention to
White's previous actions. At first,
he provoked the move hS, weak­
ening the g6-square and then be­
gan an attack against it with the
pawn-advance f3-f4-f5. After the
exchange on g6, White's f2-pawn
may join into the attack (f4-f5).
58
13.c4 �c7
There arises an inferior end­
game for Black in which he has no
counterplay at all after 13 . . . �xd2+
14.'it>xd2 fS 15.exf5 gxfS 16.f4 lLlf6
17.id3t, his pawns on fS and e7
are very weak, Kuljasevic - Ashi­
ku, Trieste 2012.
14.f4
White is fighting for the key
square in this position - eS. The
subsequent play of both adversar­
ies is focused on this square.
14 ••• e5
Black corrects his opponent's
pawn-structure indeed, but cre­
ates some counterplay.
15.fxe5 lilxe5 16.i.e2
This is the key position of this
variation.
(diagram)
16 ••• lild7
16 . . . �e7. Black's position is
difficult after this move. 17.f4 lLld7
18.if3 gS. This pawn-sacrifice is
forced, since the control over the
eS-square is vital for Black. 19.
4.cd 0.xd.S 5.e4 0.xc3 6.bc fi.g7 7. 0.j3 c5 8. ie3 V!faS 9. Wid2 0 - 0 J O . 'i'!.cl
fxgS 0.e5 20 . .ie2 fS 21.d6! After
this strong move there arises an
endgame which is better for White
(Things are not so clear after 21.
exfS 'SxfS+!. Black has counterplay
due to the unsafe enemy monarch
in the centre of the board, Khen­
kin - Romanishin, Ohrid 2001.).
21.. .V!fe6 2 2 .V!fd5. This is the es­
sence of White's previous move.
After the trade of queens, Black is
incapable of exploiting the pre­
carious placement of White's king
in the centre of the board. 22 . . .
V!fxdS 23.exd5 'Sae8 24.\t>d2 b6
25.'Scf1 'Sd8 26.h4 'Sxd6 27.h5± ­
He has a great advantage in this
endgame with two powerful bish­
ops and a strong passed pawn on
dS, while Black's pawns on fS and
h7 are vulnerable.
17.f4 gae8 18.e5 g5. This is a
timely undermining move. 19.
0-0 White must sacrifice a pawn
if he wishes to fight for the open­
ing advantage. 19 gxf4 20.
•••
ix£4 ttJxe5 21 .tg4 ti'b6 22.
• The character of the fight re­
.tf5� - He has more than suffi­
cient compensation for the sacri­
ficed pawn, Romanov - Shulman,
Email 2010. White has two pow­
erful bishops and a passed dS­
pawn. Black's king shelter has
been weakened and he must be on
the alert about White's possible
attack on the g-file, or against the
h7-square.
D) 10 ... e6
This is a passive move. Black
prevents d4-d5, but loses time in
the process. As a rule, in this vari­
ation, there arises an endgame
which is better for White in which
Black can hardly organise any
counterplay.
n . .th6
This is an already familiar re­
source. White wishes to advance
h2-h4, threatening an attack
against the enemy king, in order
to force Black to exchange on d4.
ll ... tlJc6
This is his most natural move.
mains more or less the same fol­
lowing ll . . . 'Sd8 12 .h4 cxd4 13.
.ixg7 \t>xg7 14.cxd4 0.c6 1S,ti'xa5
59
Chapter 4

lt:lxaS 16.�d2 .id7 (after 16 . . . h5,

Grischuk - Mamedyarov, Mos­
cow 2009, 17 . .id3, White main­
tains a slight but stable edge in
the endgame) 17.id3 E:ac8 18.g4
h6 19.�e3 ia4 2 0.g5 hS 21.lt:le5
lt:lc6 22 .lt:lxc6 E:xc6 23.E:xc6 hc6
24.E:cl �f8 25.f4;!; and White pre­
serves a slight advantage in the
endgame, because Black's king­
side pawns, placed on light
squares, may turn into good tar­ 15 . . . h6 16 ..id3 E:d8 17.�e3 .id7
gets for White's bishop, Najer - 18.E:b1 lt:la5 19.lt:le5 E:ac8. Later, in
Rakhmanov, Irkutsk 2010. the game Sherbakov - S.Ivanov,
USSR 1991, White accomplished
It is not preferable for Black the standard plan for similar po­
to opt for ll . . . cxd4 12 .hg7 �xg7 sitions, by advancing his king­
13.cxd4 lt:lc6 (13 .. .'�xd2 14.�xd2 side pawns with the idea to fix
lt:lc6 15.h4 E:d8 16.�e3 - see 11 . . . the enemy pawns on light
lt:lc6) 14.E:c5 �xd2+ 15.�xd2. squares: 20 .f4 ie8 2l.E:hc1 a6 2 2 .
There has arisen again on the g4 ! b S 23.g5 ! hxgS 24.hxg5;!; - the
board an already familiar end­ endgame is very difficult for
game. Later, in the game Jako­ Black.
venko - Rakhmanov, Dagomys
2010, there followed: 15 . . . a6 16. 16.c.!le3 .id7 17.gbl
id3 .id7 17.E:hc1 (17.E:b1! ?;!;) 17 . . .
E:fd8 18.�e3 ie8 19.E:b1 E:d7 2 0 . It is also good for White to play
E:b6;!;. White's rooks have occu­ immediately 17.h5;!;, preparing
pied active positions, while Black eventual actions on the h-file,
has no counterplay and is Yermolinsky - Benjamin, Phila­
forced to adhere to a passive de­ delphia 1992.
fence.

12.h4 cxd4 13 .ixg7 �xg7

•

14.cxd4 �xd2+ Following 17 . . . b6 18.iaM,

Black will have problems fighting
About 14 ... E:d8 15.'�xa5 - see for the c-file, since the c8-square
ll . . . E:d8. is controlled by White's bishop,
Koepcke - Henao, Los Angeles
15.c.!lxd2 1991.
(diagram)
15 J!d8
• • 18.J.d3 lt:le7 19.h5;t;

60
4.cd tjj xd5 5.e4 tjj xc3 6.bc :ig7 7. tjjj3 c5 8. :ie3 Wia5 9. Wid2 0 - 0 l O . 'i!cl

rule, enters a typical "Gruenfeld

Defence' endgame.

This position was reached in

the World Championship match
in the game Karpov - Kasparov,
Lyon/New York 1990. Thanks to ll.cxd4 Wixd2+ 12.lilxd2
his pawn-centre, White can com­ Here, contrary to some other
bine threats both on the queen­ situations, White can capture on
side and on the kingside, while d2 not with his king but with his
Black must only defend passively. knight, since his d4-pawn is pro­
19 f6 20.hxg6 hxg6 21.gh2
••• tected. The idea behind this cap­
b6 22.g4 e5 23.dxe5 .ixg4 24. turing is to transfer the knight to
exf6+ �xf6 25.lild4± White's b3 in order to protect his d4-
kingside activity has brought pawn. The placement of the
some results. There has appeared knight on b3 has the plus that af­
a weak pawn on g6 in Black's ter f7-f5, White will be able to de­
camp. His position is difficult. fend his central e4-pawn with the
Kasparov exploited some impre­ move f2-f3.
cise moves by White and man­
aged to save the draw, but this
variation became a very rare guest
in the contemporary tournament
practice and quite deservedly so.
There will not be so many players
willing to obtain right after the
opening an endgame without any
active prospects and to lead a pas­
sive defence to the end of the
game.

12 •.. e6
E) 10 ••• cxd4 This move is solid but some-
After this move, the game, as a what passive.

61
Chapter 4
About 12 . . . tt:\c6 13.tt:\b3 gds
(13 .. .fS 14.f3 - see 12 .. .fS; 13 . . . e6
14.ibS - see 12 . . . e6) 14.dS - see
12 . . . gd8.
Following 12 ... b6 13.ie2 tt:\a6
14.0-0 i.b7 1S.gc4;!;, Black's knight
is horribly misplaced at the edge
ofthe board, Kovacs - Apro, Hun­
gary 2003.
12 ...f5. This undermining move
is not dangerous for White's cen­
tre due to the possibility 13.f3, for
example: 13 . . . fxe4 14.fxe4 tt:\c6
1S.tt:lb3 id7 (Black's situation is
even worse after 1S . . .c.!<>h8 16.i.bS
aS 17.a4 tt:\a7 18.i.e2± and in the
endgame White has a stable ad­
vantage thanks to his superior
pawn-structure and more harmo­
niously developed pieces, Khen­
kin - Hort, Bad Homburg 2007.)
16.i.c4+ cJ;>hs 17.gfa
12 . . . gds. The idea of this move
is to exert pressure against
White's d4-pawn. 13.tt:\b3 tt:\c6
(13 . . . e6 14.!gS - see 12 . . . e6) 14.dS
This is the right move ! Now,
Black's knight does not have a
good square to retreat to.
62
It may be interesting, but still
insufficient for Black to equalise
with 14 . . . tt:leS 1S.ie2 fS 16.£3 fxe4
17.fxe4 e6, Schmied - Fuhrmann,
Wuerzburg 1994, 18.igS ! ? gfs
19.d6;!; - he has great problems
fighting against White's passed
pawn.
14 . . . tt:\b4. This move is seem­
ingly active, but after 1S.id2 ! ,
Black's knight i s suddenly endan­
gered. 1S . . . tt:\a6. He cannot equal­
ise with this move, because he has
lost too much time for manoeu­
vres with his knight. (1S . . . aS 16.a3
a4 17.tt:laS ! tt:\a6 18.tt:\c4;!; Black
has solved the problems with his
knight indeed, but his pawn on a4
is misplaced and his pawn-major­
ity on the queenside has been de­
evaluated. He must fight for a
draw in an inferior endgame. It is
also good for White to choose
here 18.gc2;!;, preventing Black's
counterplay, connected with the
move ib2 and maintaining a
slight edge.) 16.i.gS i.f8 17.i.bS h6
18.i.h4 gS 19.ig3 e6 2 0.ixa6
bxa6 2 l.i.c7 gd7 22.dxe6 fxe6
23.f3 ib4+ 24.cJ;>f2;!; Black's two­
bishop advantage cannot com­
pensate the numerous weakness­
es of his pawn-structure, S.Atalik
- Laciner, Marmaris 2006.
13.tt:lb3
White has accomplished the
planned transfer of his knight to
the b3-square.
(diagram)
13 ••• l!!t d8
This is a reliable move for
4. cd 11Jxd5 5.e4 11Jxc3 6.bc �g7 7. 11Jj3 c5 8. �e3 Wia5 9. ffd2 0 - 0 J O . 'l!cl
Black. He increases the pressure
against White's d4-pawn and con­
ceals for the moment his further
plans.
13 . . . a5. The advance of Black's
rook-pawn cannot cause any
trouble for White. 14.�b5 �d7 15.
ixd7 11Jxd7 16.'8c7 11Jf6 17.f3 b5 18.
'it>e2;!; Anikaev - Tseshkovsky,
Severodonetsk 1982. White's cen­
tral pawns restrict considerably
Black's minor pieces. In addition,
White dominates on the c-file. All
this leads to the evaluation that
Black is faced with a difficult fight
for a draw in this endgame.
The natural move 13 . . . 11Jc6 has
the drawback that White can at­
tack immediately this knight with
his bishop. 14.�b5 '8d8. Black ig­
nores the possible weakening of
his pawn-structure and begins ac­
tive actions (it is just bad for him
to opt for 14 . . . �d7, in view of
15.11Jc5 ie8 16.e5;!; Schachinger ­
Andersen, Triesen 2010). 15.ixc6
bxc6 16.0-0 �a6 17.:1l:fd1 �e2
18.'8d2 �b5 19.11Jc5 .if8 2 0.�g5
ixc5 21.'8xc5 '8d7 2 2 .if6;!; - There
have remained bishops of oppo­
site colours on the board, but
Black's position is difficult, since
his c6-pawn is weak and the dark
squares on his kingside are terri­
bly weakened, Olesen - Marti­
novsky, Chicago 1993.
The endgame is slightly pref­
erable for White following 13 . . . b6
14.f3 .ia6 15 . .ie2 (15.'it>f2 ! ?;!;) 15 . . .
'8d8 16.'it>f2 'it>f8 17.h4 ixe2 18.
'it>xe2;!; Gajewski - Greenfeld, Za­
greb 2011.
14 .ig5
•
With this move White pro­
vokes the pawn-advance f7-f6, af­
ter which the scope of action of
the bishop on g7 is reduced. The
loss of time for this bishop-ma­
noeuvre for White is not impor­
tant, since Black is incapable of
exploiting this.
14 f6 15 .ie3
... •
15 .lbc6
• •
Black cannot equalise with
15 . . .f5. He contributes to the ac­
tivity of his bishop on g7 indeed,
63
Chapter 4

but weakens his pawn-structure. .id7 22.d5 exd5 23.hd5:t

16.exf5 gxfS 17.i.g5 l'l:£8 18.i.b5:t White's pieces are much more ac­
Kobalia - Najer, Sochi 2 0 05. tive than their counterparts,
Grischuk - Kamsky, Mainz 2010.
Black obtains a solid, but a bit
passive position, if he transfers
his bishop to another diagonal. F) 10 ... l3d8
15 . . . i.f8 16.i.c4 lt:lc6 17. 0-0 i.d7 This move is considered to be
18.f4:t - His pieces can hardly at­ Black's main response at the mo­
tack White's powerful pawn-cen­ ment. After it, there arise very
tre, Galanov - Schwenck, Email complicated positions in which
2010. White must know very well the
concrete variations and for exam­
16.i.b5 �b4 ple, in the main line he will have
to sacrifice his queen.
The position is inferior for ll.d5
Black following 16 . . . i.f8, because He occupies space.
after 17.i.xc6 bxc6 18.f3, his c6-
pawn is weak and he will have to
part sooner or later with his two­
bishop advantage, because he will
have to give his bishop on f8 for
the enemy knight on cS. 18 . . . i.b7
19.'i!lf2 aS 20.lt:lc5 i.xcS 21.l'!xc5
@f7 22 .l'!b1 l'!d7 23.a4± Black's
pawns on aS and c6 are weak and
his bishop on b7 is very passive, P.
Nielsen - Ruck, Panormo 2002.

Now, we will analyse thor­

oughly the moves: Fl) ll . . . �c6
and F2) ll . . . e6.

It would be too dangerous for

Black to try here ll . . .fS, Tunik -
Ovchinnikov, Kazan 2013, be­
cause after 12 .i.c4!±, the weaken­
ing of the a2-g8 diagonal will hurt
him badly.

17.a3 a6 18 . .ic4 �c6 19. Black should better refrain

0-0 .if8 20.a4 g;,g7 21.lUdl from ll . . . b6, since this move may

64
4.cd liJxdS 5.e4 liJxc3 6.bc :!g7 7. liJ.f3 c5 8. !e3 WfaS 9. Wf d2 0 - 0 1 0 . '8cl
j ust turn out to be a loss of a tem­
po. 12 .:!h6 :!h8 13.h4 liJd7 14.h5
liJf6 15.hxg6 hxg6 16.id3;!; White's
centre is solid enough, he has
op ened the h-file and can begin
an attack against Black's mon­
arch, Orsag - Korschner, Czech
Republic 2011.
The endgame is worse for
Black and he has no active coun­
terplay after ll . . . liJd7 12 .c4 Wfxd2+
13.mxd2 b6 14.!d3;!; Hillarp Pers­
son - Jensson, Reykjavik 1997.
White should not be afraid of
ll. . . :!g4, because he can avoid the
exchange of this knight with the
move 12 .liJg5, for example: 12 . . . h6
13.h3 id7 14.liJf3;!; Khenkin -
Lutz, Recklinghausen 2001. Black
has lost time on moves with his
bishop and now, he can hardly at­
tack effectively his opponent's
centre.
Fl) ll ••• liJc6
This move is played by such
great experts of the Gruenfeld De­
fence as P.Svidler and A.Timo­
feev.
12.h4!?
This i s White's most princi­
pled and energetic move. He does
not lose time and prepares an im­
mediate attack against the enemy
king.
He cannot obtain an edge with
12 .:!e2 e6 13.:!g5 f6 14.ie3 exdS
15.exd5 liJe7 16.c4 Wfxd2+ 17.liJxd2
b6 18.g4 fSoo Bacrot - Timofeev,
Moscow 2010. There has arisen a
complicated endgame with mutu­
al chances. Black has good coun­
terplay on the dark squares and
must only transfer his knight on
e7 to d6, via the c8-square.
12 ••• e6
Following 12 . . . h5 13.:!e2 ig4
14.ig5;!;, White has a slight but
stable advantage thanks to the
weakening of the gS-square, Zaja
- Cvitkovic, Hum na Sutli 2012.
13.h5 exd5 14.hxg6
14 fxg6
•••
This capture seems quite reli­
able. Now, Black is not threatened
65
Chapter 4
to be checkmated on the h-file,
but he will lose his dS-pawn due
to the weakening of the a2-g8 di­
agonal.
14 . . . hxg6. Capturing with the
h7-pawn would lead to the open­
ing of the h-file and Black would
have problems parrying White's
attack. 15.�h6. The position is
very complicated with mutual
chances. White must play the
strongest moves; otherwise, he
may not only lose his advantage,
but may even lose quickly. (For
example in the game Zakhartsov
- Kurnosov, Irkutsk 2010, it took
only two moves for him to turn
his slightly better position into a
hopeless one : 15.exd5?! ig4 16.
tt:JgS?? Now, with a series of ex­
quisite tactical strikes, Black ob­
tained a winning position. 16 . . .
:!'!xdS ! 17.'�xd5 ixc3+ 18.:!'!xc3
�xc3+ 19.�d2 :!'!d8 !-+ and his
queen is untouchable due to the
checkmate.)
15 . . . ih8 16.ig5± After this
move, Black's position becomes
nearly hopeless. White's bishop is
removed with tempo from the h-
66
file and Black is helpless against
the sacrifice on h8. His most re­
silient defence is to give up the
exchange. In the game Kozul -
Brkic, Zagreb 2012, he played
16 . . . :!'!d6 and after 17.:!'!xh8+ �xh8
18. �f4+-, White's attack was vic­
torious.
Following 15 . . . :!'!e8, White ob­
tains a great advantage with a
rather non-obvious manoeuvre
with his knight to the h7-square.
16.hg7 :!'!xe4+ 17.�e2 �xg7 18.
tt:JgS ! His knight goes in the vicin­
ity of the enemy king. 18 . . . :!'!eS
19.tt:Jh7! ! Now, Black's position
crumbles. 19 . . . �d8 20 .�h6+ �g8
2l.f4 :!'!e8 22.�f2 +- and White's
attack on the h-file is impossible
for Black to parry.
15.exd5 �e6 16.�c4! ?
This move i s stronger than
16.c4 ifSoo Giri - Svidler, Gu­
ingamp 2010.
16 ... ll:le7 17.�h6 .ixd5
It is not preferable for Black to
choose 17 . . .if6 due to 18.�e2±
18 . .ixd5+ :!'!xd5 19."f!re3
4.cd CiJxdS 5.e4 CiJxc3 6.bc :Jlg7 7. CiJ.f3 c5 8. :fle3 WiaS 9. Wid2 0 - 0 J O . 'Bcl
He has regained his d5-pawn
indeed, but this is small consola-
tion for Black since his king is very
weak. Later, he will have great
problems to parry the threats
against his king and to maintain
the material equality at the same
time. 19 fM8 20.ti'e6+ �h8 21.
•••
.bg7+ �xg7 22.c4 !td6
!txh7+ �xh7 24J«f7+ �h6
�e2 !te6+ 26.Wixe6 lL!c6
'f«e3+ �g7 28. W!xc5;t; White has
an extra pawn. His queenside
pawns on a2 and c4 are weak, but
there is just a few material left on
the board and he has all the
chances of realising his slight ma­
terial advantage.
F2) u ... e6
This is Black's basic reply. He
undermines White's centre.
12 .ig5
•
This is the only move for White
to fight for an advantage in the
opening.
Following 12.c4? ! , it is only
Black who can play for a win, as it
was shown in the game Tunik -
Timofeev, St Petersburg 2002: 12 ...
W!xd2+ 13.CiJxd2 b6 14 . .ie2 CiJa6 15.
0-0 CiJb4 16.a3 CiJa2 17.'8c2 CiJc3+.
His knight is perfectly placed on
c3 (It is worth remembering the
long purposeful manoeuvre CiJb6-
a6-b4-a2-c3 . . . ) and the arising
position should be evaluated
much rather in favour of Black.
23.
25.
27.
12 ••• f6
This is his most popular move.
Black ousts with tempo the enemy
bishop. Still, this leads to some
weakening of Black's king shelter
and to the closing of the long di­
agonal for his dark-squared bish­
op on g7.
It deserves attention for him
to try 12 . . . '8d6 !?, as it was played
67
Chapter 4
in the game Khenkin - Grischuk,
Istanbul 2012. 13.if4 E:d8. Now
White, if he wishes to avoid the
repetition of moves after 14.ig5,
must continue with 14.ie2 exdS
15.exd5 bS 16.ig5 ! ? (It would not
be so energetic for him to enter an
endgame with 16.c4, because in
the game Khenkin - Sevdimaliev,
Baku 2012, White failed to prove
the advantages of his position.).
Now, no matter how Black reacts,
White maintains a slight initia­
tive, for example: 16 . . . E:e8 17. 0-0
tt:\d7 18.d6 ib7 19J�fe1 E:e4 20.
ien. He has seized completely
the initiative. His passed d6-pawn
squeezes the enemy pieces, while
Black's rook is awkwardly placed
on e4. If he tries to capture the
pawn on a2 with 20 . . . E:a4, then he
may pay dearly, since with the
move 21.tt:\g5±, White will exert
powerful pressure against the f7-
square.
12 . . . E:e8. This move has a seri­
ous drawback. Now, Black's rook
is incapable of fighting against
White's passed d-pawn. 13.d6. Of
course - this is the right move !
Now, Black has a great choice
68
of possibilities, but neither of
them promises him an easy game.
Following 13 . . . b5, White can
play the energetic move 14.h4 be­
ginning an attack on the kingside.
14 . . .ib7 15.id3 tt:\d7 16.h5;!; - His
kingside activity is likely to create
great problems for Black, Pashi­
kian - Vachier Lagrave, Moscow
2010.
It seems too passive for Black
to opt for 13 . . . tt:\d7. After 14.h4 hS
15.ih6 ih8 16.ie2;!;, his position
is without good prospects. He is
cramped by the enemy d6-pawn
and White's game is much easier,
Rombaldoni - Avrukh, Alghero
2011.
13 ... id7. Black blocks reliably
the enemy d6-pawn. 14.ih6 if6.
He is trying to preserve his dark­
squared bishop, since without it
the dark-squares in his position
would be defenceless. (Following
14 . . . '1Mld8 15.h4±, Black's position
becomes very difficult as it hap­
pened in the game Anand - Leko,
Miskolc 2009. He will not be
checkmated, but his dark squares
will be an easy prey for White.
15 .. .f6 16.e5 ic6 17.h5 gS 18.ixg7
c.!txg7 19.exf6+ 'IM!xf6 2 0 .h6+ c.!ih8
21.'1Mlxg5 E:f8 2 2 .'1Mlxf6+ E:xf6 23.
tt:\e5+- and White has an extra
pawn and a better position.) 15.
h4. Once again, he is preparing
the typical opening of the h-file
for this variation. White is not
afraid that his king will remain in
the centre of the board, since
Black can hardly exploit this with
his undeveloped queenside piec-
4.cd CiJxd5 5.e4 CiJxc3 6.bc �g7 7. CiJj3 c5 8. �e3 �aS 9. �d2 0 - 0 J O . 'Scl
es. 15 . . . ic6 16.h5 CiJd7 17.CiJgS c4.
He is forced to sacrifice a pawn in
order to neutralise White's king­
side initiative. Later, in the game
Palo - Ivanchuk, Skanderborg
2003, there followed: 18 . .bc4
'Sad8 19.'Sh3 �eS 20.�e2 ixe4 21.
CiJ xe4 �xe4 22.\t>fU and White
had two powerful bishops, while
Black had to parry the enemy
threats in the centre (against the
d6-pawn) and on the h-file.
13 .te3
• the enemy bishop to its initial po­
13 ... ltlc6
As a rule, there arises transpo­
sition of moves following 13 . . .
exdS 14.exd5. I n the game Kram­
nik - Howell, London 2010, Black
chose the rather extravagant
move 14 . . . CiJa6? ! , placing his
knight at the edge of the board (It
was still not too late for him to opt
instead for 14 . . . CiJc6 1S.�d3 c4 16.
hc4 �e6 and there would have
arisen by transposition the varia­
tion with 13 . . . CiJc6.). 1S.�e2 ie6
16.c4. Now, an endgame advanta­
geous for White is reached. 16 . . .
�xd2+ 17.CiJxd2. H e captures with
his knight in order to transfer it
later to the e4-square, where it
would be perfectly placed in the
centre of the board. 17 . . . �d7 18.
CiJe4 b6 19.h4 ifS 2 0 .CiJc3 CiJb4
21.\t>d2. Despite all Black's tricks,
his position remains very diffi­
cult. He can improve somehow
the placement of his knight on a6,
but the deployment of his bishops
is definitely unsatisfactory. 21...
CiJc6 22 .h5 \t>f7 23.g4. White ousts
sition. 23 . . . ic8 24.hxg6+ hxg6
2S.CiJe4± White's position is clear­
ly better thanks to his powerful
dS-pawn and the superiorly
placed minor pieces in this end­
game.
He should not be afraid of the
possibility 13 . . . �a4. White main­
tains a slight but stable advantage
with quite simple moves. 14.c4
CiJa6 15.�e2 exdS 16.exd5 b6 17.
id1 �a3 18.'Sc3 �aS 19. 0-0;!;.
Black's minor pieces are mis­
placed. His knight remains at the
edge of the board and the dark­
squared bishop is restricted by his
own pawn on f6, Kosic - Gupta,
Kavala 2 011.
14 .td3
•
White develops his bishop
with tempo.
Now, Black's knight is hang­
ing. It is understandable that he
cannot capture twice on dS, since
he will lose his rook because of
the pin.
69
Chapter 4

14 . . . exd5 If he refrains from the sacri­

Black plays sometimes 14 . . . b6
with the idea to trade the light­
squared bishops. 15.0-0 ia6 16.
ie2 :Bd7 17.:Bfd1 :Be8 18.'1Wc2 exdS
19 . .ixa6 �xa6 20.exd5 0,e7 2l.c4
0,f5 2 2 .if4;!; White has a powerful
protected passed pawn in the cen­
tre, while Black's kingside is con­
siderably weakened by the pawn­
advance f7-f6, Dolgov - Tisch­
bierek, Email 2011.
15.exd5 c4
This is an important tactical nu­
ance. Black sacrifices temporarily
a pawn with the idea to entice the
enemy bishop to the c4-square, so
that White cannot support his dS­
pawn with the move c3-c4.
fice, there arises an approximate­
ly equal position. 17. 0-0 hdS 18.
hdS+ �xdS 19.�c2 if8 20.:Bfd1
�f7 2l.�a4 :Bac8 22 .h3 :Bxd1+ 23.
:Bxd1 b6 24.c4= Kornev - Sakaev,
Taganrog 2011. The chances are
balanced. Black's king is a bit
weakened by the move f7-f6 and
his queenside pawns are placed
on squares with the same colour
as his bishop. This is all compen­
sated by the vulnerability of
White's isolated c4-pawn.
17... �e7 18.dxe6
White must sacrifice; otherwise,
he would simply lose his dS-pawn.

16 ..ixc4 .ie6
Now, White must make a posi­
tional sacrifice of his queen in or­
der to fight for the opening ad­
vantage.
(diagram)

This is the last preparation for

the sacrifice.

70
4.cd liJxdS 5.e4 liJxc3 6.bc :!g7 7. liJj3 c5 8. fi.e3 �aS 9. �d2 0 - 0 l O . 'Bcl
19 Jbc3
••
This is Black's most popular
move.
It may be also interesting for
h im to try here 19 . . . liJfS ! ? , as it
was played in the game Yazgeldi­
ev - Tleptsok, Email 2012. At
first, Black wishes to exchange the
powerful enemy bishop. 20 .'8d3
liJxe3 21.'8xe3 �c7 22 ..ib3 'i!ih8
23.0-0 .if8 24.'8d3 '8d8. Unfortu­
nately White cannot avoid the
trade of a couple of rooks and this
is, no doubt, in Black's favour.
Still, even after this, White can
continue to play for a win without
any risk mostly thanks to his
strong e6-pawn. 2S.'Bfd1 'Bxd3 26.
E:xd3 .id6 27.g3 ! ? (This is strong­
er than what was played in the
above mentioned game - 27.liJd2
.icS 28.E:dS .id6 and despite all
his efforts, White has failed to
prove any advantage.). He has an
edge in the arising position. Black
is doomed to a long and laborious
defence, while White can gradu­
ally improve his position. His main
task is to eliminate the enemy
blockade of the e6-pawn. 27 . . . bS
28.liJd4. White's knight is trying
to go to the c6-square. 28 . . . a6 29 .
.idS 'i!ig7 30.liJc6 hS 3l.E:e3 .ie7 32.
liJxe7 �xe7 33.c4 bxc4 34 . .ixc4 aS
3S.h4;!; The position has been sim­
plified, but remains difficult for
Black. He must watch very care­
fully about the possibility of White's
rook coming to the d7-square.
Then, his e6-pawn will advance
and Black will have to resign.
20.ib3 �cl+
He must play very carefully.
The check from another square
would be a mistake. 20 . . . �a1+ ? !
2l..id1 liJfS 2 2 . 0-0 �c3 23.ib3
'i!ih8 24.'8d7 E:e8 2S . .id2± and due
to Black's imprecise move 20,
White has succeeded in bringing
his king to safety and seizing com­
pletely the initiative, Lupulescu -
Bukavshin, Aix-les-Bains 2011.
Black's position is tremendously
difficult. All his pieces must be on
the alert about his opponent's
pawn on e6 and he is helpless
against White's piece-activity.
21.'8dl �c3+ 22.'i!ie2
Unfortunately this move is
forced. In order to play for a win,
White has forfeited his castling
rights and left his king in the cen­
tre of the board .
22 ••• a5
If he coordinates his pieces
and ensures the safety of his king,
White's advantage would be
doubtless. Therefore, Black must
organise queenside counterplay
as quickly as possible.
·
It is with the same purpose (to
create counterplay) that he may
71
Chapter 4
try the interesting move 22 . . . �b4.
Now, White's only chance of fight­
ing for the advantage is 23J!d4 !
This is the move which justifies
White's queen-sacrifice. He must
coordinate immediately his rooks
(The game Pashikian - Cornette,
Aix-les-Bains 2011 ended in a
draw after a repetition of moves
following: 23J'!d3 aS 24J�cl a4 2S.
:1'k4 �bs 26.:1'kS �b4 27.:tk4 �bs
28J'!cS �b4= ). There might fol­
low 23 . . . �bS+ 24 . .ic4 �a4 2S.
ghdl ges (After 2S . . .fs 26.gd8+
.if8 27..ib3 �bS+ 28.\t>el �aS+ 29.
gsd2 �bs 3o .gcu, White man­
ages to stabilise the position and
may hope to maintain an advan­
tage in the future fight. His main
task would be to evacuate his king
away from the centre after which
his pieces may assist the pawn on
e6. Black's position will become
very difficult after that.) 26.gld3.
White's king rook has entered the
actions and Black is forced to de­
fend passively. This variation is
very difficult to analyse even with
a computer. At first it likes Black's
situation, but the more it grabs
the intricacies of the position, the
more it likes White's prospects.
See an exemplary variation 26 .. .fS
27.gds i>f8 28 . .ib3 �a6 29.g8d7
h6 30.h4 lt:Jc6 31.hS gS 32 . .icS+
lt:Je7 33.lt:Jd4 .ixd4 34 . .ixd4 f4 3S.
.icS �c6 36.g3dS �xe6+ 37.'it>d3+­
Black has failed to save the game
by a perpetual check and White's
king is perfectly placed in the cen­
tre of the board. The pin of the
knight on e7 is decisive.
72
23.gd7
In this variation, it is useful for
White to force the opponent to
protect the knight on e7 as quickly
as possible.
23 ••• a4
Black is trying to organise
counterplay. Unfortunately, his
attempts are doomed to fail.
White regains his queen and
maintains a clear advantage in the
endgame.
24 ti'b2 +
•••
I t i s possible that Black's most
resilient defence may be the move
24 . . . �b4, although even then, af­
ter the almost forced line : 2S . .ic4
gcs 26.lt:ld2 .if8 27 . .id4 fS 2s.gb1
�xbl 29.lt:Jxbl gxc4 30.lt:Jc3 gc6
31.gxb7 gxe6+ 32.\t>fl lt:Jc6 33.
.ie3t, there arises on the board an
endgame which is better for
White, because Black's a-pawn is
weak and his king is cut off on the
penultimate rank.
2s.gc2 ti'bl 26.c!ild2 axb3
27.c!ilxbl bxc2 28.c!ilc3 c!ilf5 29.
.id2
4.cd ti.JxdS 5.e4 ti.Jxc3 6.bc fi.g7 7. ti.Jj3 c5 B. i e3 WiaS 9. Wid2 0 - 0 l O . 'i!.cl

It is understandable that
Black's c2-pawn is harmless. Af­
ter the exchange of the pawns on
e6 and b7, White's outside passed
pawn on a2 will turn into power­
ful force.
29 ••• ges
It is even worse for Black to
opt for 29 . . . h5, because after 30.
\!fd3 bS 3l.e7 'i!.e8 32.ti.Jd5 wt7
33.Wxc2±, White has a great ad­
vantage in this endgame having 30.gxb7
preserved his e-pawn. Black's at­ This move is obviously strong­
tempt to regain it in the game er that what was played in the
Leko - Topalov, Porto Carras game Potkin - Svidler, Moscow
2011 only speeded up his demise 2010, 30.Wd3? ! and after 30 . . . b6,
- his pieces came under a deadly Black managed to save a draw.
pin. 33 . . . 'i!.c8+ 34.ti.Jc7 ti.Jxe7 35. 30 .l!Jd4+
•• 3U�d3 ti.Jxe6
ib4 if8 36.Wb3 'i!.b8 37.ti.Jd5 we6 32.Wxc2±
38.'i!.d6+ WeS. Black managed to The tactical complications,
get rid of the pin with a heroic started with the queen-sacrifice,
march of his king to the centre of have ended up in an endgame
the board, but there was no mira­ with an extra pawn for White. De­
cle destined to happen. After the spite the possible technical diffi­
move 39.f4+, his resistance lasted culties, he has all the chances of
only a few more moves. realising it.

Conclusion
We have just completed the analysis of the variation with 9 . . . 0-0.
As a rule, if Black refrains from 10 . . .'i!.d8, he is forced to defend pas­
sively the slightly worst endgame arising after cxd4 and the trade of the
queens.
The character of the fight is entirely different following 10 ... 'i!.d8. In
this line there arise very sharp positions in which if White wishes to
fight for the opening advantage - he must enter a position with a
queen-sacrifice. He has only a rook and a bishop for the queen in this
endgame, but his powerful pawn on e6 provides him with good chances
of maintaining an advantage after a correct play. Naturally, he must
have studied thoroughly the theoretical material, because to find the
right way over the board in all the intricacies of the numerous possible
variations is tremendously difficult.

73
 Part 2
The King's Indian Defence
l.d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 i.g7
After this move, there arises
on the board the King's Indian
Defence (Naturally, with the ex­
ception of the cases when White
does not play e2-e4 and Black ad­
vances d7-d5. Then, there arise
variations from the Gruenfeld De­
fence, which we have already ana­
lysed.).
Now, contrary to the Gruen­
feld Defence, Black does not mind
White building up his centre the
way he pleases. He is trying to de­
velop quickly his kingside pieces
and to attack his enemy castling
position with his pawns (f7-f5-f4,
g6-g5, h7-h5 and g5-g4). This
plan has ended up with numerous
crushing attacks for Black. We
have to mention that at the dawn
74
of the development of this open­
ing, the chess world was very
sceptical towards it, since it was
rather unusual for these times.
The critical moment, after which
the King's Indian Defence began
to be considered as a quite correct
opening, was the Candidates tour­
nament in the year 1953, about
which D.Bronstein wrote his re­
markable book. We must also
mention that I.Boleslavsky and E.
Geller contributed greatly to the
development of the theory of this
opening and it was because of them
that the King's Indian Defence be­
came very fashionable. It was quite
deservedly that M.Botvinnik said
once "We did not understand, the
way we needed, the King's Indian
set-ups before E.Geller".
Years later, the World Cham­
pions number eleven and thirteen
- R.Fischer and G.Kasparov con­
tributed greatly to the develop­
ment of this opening. Nowadays,
it is played sometimes by H .Na­
kamura, T.Radjabov and A.Gri­
schuk, but it has lost its populari­
ty at the top level. The point is
that Black has no real chances of
equ alising in it and White can ob­
tain an advantage in several ways.
It is however another story in the
tournaments of one level below -
the Swiss system events. What is
very specific in these tournaments
is that the players who are striv­
ing to occupy a top place in the fi­
nal standings must play for a win
irrelevant of the colour of the piec­
es. You can encounter the King's
Indian Defence there quite often.
We will analyse as our main
weapon against this defence the
Averbakh system - 4.e4 d6 5 . .ie2
0-0 6.ig5, in which White's ad­
vantage may not be so great, as
for example in the Classical sys­
tem, but he is relatively safe from
being checkmated in the middle
game. We will devote to this open­
ing seven of our chapters - from 5
to 11.
In the fifth and the sixth chap­
ter, we will deal with some seldom
played lines for Black in which he
avoids the natural move for this
opening d7-d6 (Chapter 5) and
later schemes in which he plays
d7-d6 indeed, but postpones cas­
tling (Chapter 6).
Our chapter seven will be de­
voted to some not so principled
responses for Black among which
the most dangerous for White is
the move - 6 . . . c6.
Black's plans, connected with
6 . . . tt:ibd7, will be dealt with in
chapter eight.
In chapter nine, we will ana­
lyse the most popular move in the
contemporary tournament prac­
tice - 6 . . . tt:ia6, while the moves
6 . . . h6 and 6 . . . c5 will be analysed
in chapters ten and eleven ac­
cordingly.
75
Chapter S l.d4 ltlf6 2.c4 g6 3.ltlc3 .ig7

ingly threatening. In fact, after 5 . . .

4.e4
This is a natural move. White
should occupy the centre with his
pawns if Black does not mind.
4 ... 0-0
As a rule, this move transposes
to the main line, if Black plays 5 . . .
d7-d6 later. Now, we will analyse
variations in which he avoids
playing this move.
About 4 . . . d6 - see Chapters
6-11.
5 .ie2
• ll:\e4 i.f5 ll.ll:\g3 i.e6 12.ll:\f3 Yfic7
With this move White allows
his opponent to reconsider and
after 5 . . . d6 6 . .ig5, to transpose to
the Averbakh system, which we
will analyse later.
The move 5.e5 is only seem-
ll:\e8, White's achievements are
only temporary. His impressive
pawn-centre is much rather a lia­
bility and Black will undermine it
with the moves d6 and c5, forcing
his opponent to solve very diffi­
cult problems. The classical ex­
ample of a perfect play for Black
can be the game Letelier - Fis­
cher, Leipzig 1960 : 6.f4 d6 7.i.e3
c5
8.dxc5 ll:\c6 9.cxd6 exd6 10.
13.\&b1 dxe5 14.f5 e4 15.fxe6 exf3
16.gxf3 f5 17.f4 ll:\f6 18.i.e2 E!:fe8
19.'>t>f2 E!:xe6 20 .E!:e1 E!:ae8 21.i.f3.
There follows a spectacular com­
bination, which has been quoted
in almost all textbooks on tactics.
21...E!:xe3 22.E!:xe3 E!:xe3 ! 23. 'it>xe3

76
 l.d4 {jjj6 2.c4 g 6 3. {jj c3 :1;.g7 4.e4 0 - 0 5. ie2
1;Wxf4+ ! ! Black wins, since his
queen is untouchable because of
the checkmate.
s . . c6
. with a loss of a tempo.
We have already mentioned
that here we will analyse varia­
tions in which Black does not play
d7-d6.
Following S ... cS 6.d5, he
should better transpose to the
main lines with the move 6 . . . d6
and we will analyse them in chap­
ter eight, since after 6 . . . e6? !
(about 6 . . . e5 7 . .ie3 d6 8.h4 - see
Chapter 6, variation B), White
can already occupy the centre
with 7.e5 {jj e 8 S.{jj f3 d6 9.0-0
{jj a 6 lO . .igSt Uhlmann - Keene,
Hastings 1976. He maintains a
considerable advantage, his mi­
nor pieces are very active, while
their black counterparts are terri­
bly passive. White's centre, con­
trary to the game of Bobby Fis­
cher, which we have analysed at
the beginning of the chapter, is
very powerful.
6.e5!
After Black has played c6,
White can already occupy the cen­
tre, since Black's undermining
move cS will have to be played
6 ••• lile8 7.f4! ?
This is an interesting move.
White is fortifying his centre in
anticipation of the move d7-d6
and wishes to protect his eS-pawn
as reliably as possible.
7 d6
•••
Black accomplishes the main
idea of the variation chosen by
him.
Following 7 . . . d5, he abandons
the idea of undermining his oppo­
nent's centre and ends up in a
passive position. 8.cxd5 cxdS 9.
{jj f3 {jj c 6 10.0-0 {jj c7 ll. .ie3 id7
12Jk1 E:c8 13.1l;Vd2 a6 14.h3 bS
15.b3 E:e8 16.id3 eM There has
arisen a position of a French type,
except that Black's dark-squared
bishop has been fianchettoed.
This difference is in favour of
White, because he can try to ex­
ploit the weakening of Black's
77
Chapter S
kingside. 17.lild1 ! White's knight
is transferred to the g4-square
and the vulnerability of the f6 and
h6-squares in Black's camp may
hurt him later. 17 . . ..if8 18.lilf2
.ib4 19.1!;!lb2 ie7 2 0 .lilg4± Black's
king is seriously endangered, Bars
- Barr, Email 2011.
There do not arise original po­
sitions after 7 .. .f6 8.lilf3:t, since
Black will have to play d7-d6
sooner or later, Yakovich - Sav­
chenko, St Petersburg 2011.
8 ... dxe5
Black has some other possibil­
ities besides this move.
It seems principled for him to
try 8 . . . c5, despite the loss of a
tempo. Now, White must react
very precisely in order to preserve
his pawn-centre. 9.dxc5 lilc6 10.
0-0 .ig4, Van Wely - Heberla,
Warsaw 2005. Black has sacri­
ficed a pawn but seized the initia­
tive. Now, White's best move is
11.cxd6 ! , for example : 11 . . . exd6
78
12 . .ie3 dxe5 13.i.c5 exf4 14.i.xf8
i>xf8 15.1!;!lxd8 :Bxd8 16.:BadU In
the arising endgame Black has a
pawn for the exchange and initia­
tive on the dark squares. Still,
White's prospects are preferable,
because the position is quite open.
The power of his rooks should be
a telling factor.
The endgame is better for
White following 8 . . .f6 9.i.e3 dxe5
10.dxe5 1!;!lxd1 + 11.:Bxd1 fxe5
12.lilxe5:t Korotylev - Koeller,
Passau 1995. Now, Black can ex­
change on e5, or refrain from that.
He maintains an advantage in
both cases. In the first line he will
have the two-bishop advantage,
while in the second variation, his
pawn-structure will be preferable
(Black's e7-pawn is very weak.).
After 8 ... .ig4, White should
better preserve the knight, since
contrary to his light-squared
bishop, it can protect the pawns
on d4 and e5. 9.lilg5! i.xe2 10.
1!;!lxe2 lilc7 (Following 10 ... h6 11.
lilf3:t, the pawns on e5 and d4 are
safe, so White has an edge thanks
to his dominance in the centre,
Vaisser - Bernardino, New York
1998.) 11 . .ie3 lild7 12 .:Bd1 ! :t This is
a very solid move, which leads to a
slight but stable advantage for
White. Black can hardly create
any active counterplay and is
forced to defend passively. It is
also possible for White to choose
the sharper line: 12.0-0- 0 ! ? lilb6
13.h4-+ - he begins an attack on
 l.d4 tiJj6 2.c4 g6 3. tiJ c3 ll..g 7 4.e4 0 - 0 5. 11..e2

th e kingside and Black will have 10.c5 ! ?

great problems parrying it,
Moskalenko - Gutman, play­
chess.com 2006.
9.fxe5 i.g4
He increases the pressure
against White's centre.
In the game Drozdovskij -
Gutman, Dresden 2007, Black tried
9 . . . c5 lO.dS ig4 ll.if4 .txf3 12.
.bf3 tiJd7 13.�e2 f6 14.e6 tiJeS 15.
0-0;!;. White's pawn-wedge c4, dS,
e6 looks very impressive and Black
is faced with a difficult defence.
This i s a prophylactic move.
White wishes to prevent for good
Black's possibility to advance c6-
c5.
Following 10.0-0 c5 11.dxc5
tiJc6+!, there arises a very compli­
cated position in which Black has
good compensation for the sacri­
ficed pawn thanks to the vulnera­
bility of White's pawns on eS and
cS, Bock - Gutman, Kleve 1999.
10 ... b6 ll.cxb6 axb6 12.
0-0;!; Chuchelov - Gutman,
Wiesbaden 1991. In order to de­
fend against the possible under­
mining move c6-c5, White has
weakened the dS-square; never­
theless, he maintains a slight
edge. He dominates in the centre
and after Black exchanges his
bishop on f3, White's two bishops
will be obviously stronger than
any two minor pieces left for
Black.

Conclusion
We have just analysed Black's seldom played moves in the King's
Indian Defence, with which he avoids playing the natural move 4 . . . d6.
White must obtain an advantage effortlessly, by advancing e4-e5 at the
right moment, but he needs to play accurately. He should not forget the
game Letelier - Fischer, Leipzig 1960 and must have in mind that after
imprecise moves his beautiful centre may turn quickly into ruins.

79
Chapter 6 l.d4 lilf6 2.c4 g6 3.ll:lc3 J.g7 4.e4 d6
5 .Ae2 ! ?
• 13.lZlc4 h6 14.f3 f4 15.i.a3 lZJg6
One of the peculiarities of the
Averbakh system is that White is
not in a hurry to develop his king's
knight.
It is possible that from the
point of view of absolute strength
of the move, White should prefer
5.lLJf3, followed by 5 . . . 0-0 6.i.e2
eS 7.0-0 and there arises on the
board the basic position of the
Classical system. Still, from the
point of view of the practical chess
player, the Classical system is
hardly the best choice, since the
adherents to the King's Indian
Defence for Black enjoy the pos­
sibility to be able to attack the en­
emy king. He has many possibili-
80
ties to do this in the Classical sys­
tem. I can provide you with nu­
merous examples in which the
players with White have failed to
parry Black's attacks and have
lost their games. I will give you
just one example, but the player,
losing with White, was the pre­
sent World Champion himself ­
V.Anand. 7 . . . tZlc6 8.d5 tZle7 9.b4
lLJeB lO.cS fS ll.tZld2 lZJf6 12.a4 gS
16.b5 dxcS 17 . .bc5 E1f7 18.a5 hS
19.b6 g4. It is possible that the
evaluation of the position is in fa­
vour of White, but Black attacks
on the kingside and this is much
more dangerous than White's at­
tack on the opposite side of the
board. The moment he makes a
mistake, this may set the game on
the verge of disaster. Black played
more precisely than his opponent
in the subsequent struggle and
reached a winning position. 20.
lZlbS cxb6 2l.axb6 g3 2 2 .@hl i.f8
23.d6 a6 24.lZJc7 E1b8 25.lZJa5 @h8
26.ic4 E1g7 27.tZle6 he6 28 . .ixe6
gxh2 29.tZlc4 '?9e8 30 .id5 h4 31.
E1f2 h3 32.gxh3 E1c8 33.E1a5 lZJh4-+
and Black's offensive became de-
 l.d4 liJf6 2.c4 g6 3. tiJc3 fi.g7 4.e4 d6 5. 1J.e2

cisive, Anand - Nakamura, Lon­ It is just bad for Black to

don 2011. choose 5 . . . !iJfd7, since he can ad­
vance c5 or e5 even without the
retreat of his knight from the f6-
square. 6.!iJf3 c5 7.0-0 (7.d5 ! ?
0 - 0 8.0-0 !iJf6 9.h3 e 6 10.dxe6
fxe6 11.e5 dxe5 12.!iJxe5;!; White's
position is preferable due to the
vulnerability of Black's pawn on
e6, Averbakh - Byrne, New York
1954) 7 . . . !iJc6 8.d5 !iJd4 9.!iJxd4
.bd4 10.fi.h6;t Yrjola - Westeri­
nen, Gjovik 1985. White main­
tains a considerable advantage.
Now, we will analyse A) 5 ••• He has more space, while Black
c!L!c6, B) 5 c 5 and C ) 5
••• ••• e5. has problems castling. White has
a very simple plan for his further
Black's most popular move actions : c;!;>h1, f2-f4, followed by
5 . . . 0-0 will be dealt with in Chap­ the preparation of the pawn­
ters 7-11. breaks e4-e5 or f4-f5.

About 5 ... a6 6.1J..g5 0-0 7.�d2

- see Chapter 7. A) 5 . . . c!Llc6 6.d5

5 . . . !iJa6 6.ig5 0-0 7.f4 - see

Chapter 9.

5 . . . c6 6.ig5 !iJbd7 (6 . . . 0-0 7.

�d2 or 6 . . . a6 7.�d2 0-0 8.�d1 -
see Chapter 7, variation B) 7.�d2
0-0 8.!iJf3 - see Chapter 8, varia­
tion B.

As a rule, there d o not arise

original positions following 5 . . .
!iJbd7 6./i.g5 (It may b e also inter..;
esting for White to try 6.f4 ! ? 0-0
7 .!iJf3;t) 6 ... 0-0 7.�d2 and after When White's knight is still on
transposition, there arise situa­ g1, it would be very bad for . Black
tions which will be analysed in to play 6 . . . !iJe5, because White
Chapter 8. can oust it immediately from the

81
Chapter 6
centre with 7.f4 ttJed7 (7 . . . ttJeg4
8.e5 dxeS 9.h3±) 8.ltJf3 0-0 (8 . . .
ltJcS 9.e5 ttJfe4 10.ttJxe4 ttJxe4 11.
�d4 fS 12. 0-0;t - He dominates
in the centre and Black's knight
will be forced to retreat from there
after the move id3, Dlugolecki -
Leroy, Email 2008.) 9.0-0 ttJcS
10.e5;t White's position is prefer­
able, because his pawns on dS and
eS are very strong, Chernyshov -
Chuprov, Voronezh 2002. 10 . . .
ttJe8? Black's pieces were cramped
anyway, so he had to find a more
active placement for his knight.
Now, White's advantage increas­
es. 11.ie3 ttJd7 12 .e6 fxe6 13.dxe6
ttJdf6 14.ttJg5 c6 1S.id3± Black's
position is very difficult. White's
e6-pawn impedes the coordina­
tion of Black's pieces and if White
manages to advance f4-f5, then
Black's position will become
hopeless, since he will be helpless
to counter White's offensive
against his king.
7.f4 0-0 8.ltJf3 c6 (8 . . . ttJbd7
9.0-0 - see 6 . . . ttJeS) 9.�e3 ttJa6
10.0-0
10 •.• �g4 ll.�d4 ih6 12.h3
82
c5 13.h.xg4 cxd4 14.ttJxd4 �g7
15.�d2 �d7 16.l3adH Raetsky ­
Podzielny, Schwaebisch Gmuend
2001. It may seem that Black's
counterplay on the dark squares
is good compensation for his sac­
rificed pawn, but this is not true
at all. White has an easy plan to
improve his position. He must re­
move his king from the g1-a7 di­
agonal and after that he can begin
an attack on the h-file. The game
followed with 16 .. .!k8 17.g5 �b6
18.g3 ltJc5 19.'it>g2 a6 20.1!hl± and
White not only had an extra pawn
and a space advantage, but also
excellent attacking prospects on
the h-file.
B) 5 ••• c5 6.d5
6 • . • e5
This is the only move which
leads to original positions.
About 6 . . . 0-0 7.ig5, or 6 . . .
ttJbd7 7.ig5 0 - 0 8.�d2 - see
Chapter 11.
6 ... ttJa6 7.ig5 0-0 8.f4 - see
Chapter 9.
6 . . . e6 7.ig5 0-0 8.�d2 - see
Chapter 11, variation D.
 l.d4 CiJf6 2.c4 g6 3. CiJ c3 ig7 4.e4 d6 5. ie2
Following 6 . . . b5 7.cxb5 a6
(7 . . . 0-0 8.ig5 - see Chapter 11,
variation B), there arises a ver­
sion of the Benko Gambit which is
favourable for White and we will
deal with it in our volume 3.
7.ie3
It is also possible for White to
play here 7.ig5 h6 8.id2 a6 9.h4.
We will encounter this move
still numerous time while study­
ing the Averbakh system. Now,
Black is faced with a rather un­
pleasant choice. He may allow h4-
h5, or play h6-h5 himself. In the
first case, he will have no counter­
play on the kingside (As a rule, in
order not to lose his h6-pawn, af­
ter h4-h5, Black will have to reply
with g6-g5 and after White ad­
vances g2-g4, the move f7-f5 will
become impossible.), while in the
second case (as it happened in the
above mentioned game), the gS­
square is seriously weakened and
White's knight will head there im­
mediately. 9 . . . h5 lO.CiJf3 CiJbd7 11.
g3 :B:b8 12.�c2 CiJf8 13.CiJg5 CiJg4
14.f3 CiJh6 15.a4 b6 16.a5 f6 17.CiJh3
bxaS 18.CiJdl id7 19 ..ba5 �c8 2 0 .
CiJhf2 CiJ h 7 21.CiJd3 fS 22 .b4± Ghe­
orghiu - Brood, Mar del Plata
1971. Black has finally managed to
advance f7-f5, but has lost too
much time preparing it. After
White has advanced b2-b4, his
queenside initiative has become
very powerful.
7 ••• 0-0
The character of the fight re­
mains more or less the same fol­
lowing 7 . . . a6 8.:B:bl CiJbd7 9.h4 hS
lO.CiJh3 CiJf8, Chiburdanidze -
H.Koneru, Krasnoturinsk 2005,
11.CiJg5± White's advantage is
doubtless. He has much more
space and a clear-cut plan, con­
nected with the pawn-advance
b2-b4. Black's possible kingside
counterplay is rather difficult to
organise.
Following 7 . . . CiJa6 8.g4 hS 9.g5
CiJh7 10.h4 CiJc7 11.a3 b6 12 .�d2
id7 13.CiJf3 0-0 14.:B:gU, Black's
attempt to create counterplay on
the kingside with f7-f5 leads to
the weakening of the g6-pawn af­
ter capturing en passant, there-
83
Chapter 6
fore White's position is prefera­
ble, Gretarsson - Rashkovsky,
Reykjavik 1994.
8.h4
We are already familiar with
this plan of a pawn-offensive on
the kingside. Here however, con­
trary to some other variations,
this is not aggression but prophy­
lactic. Now, you can see the ad­
vantages of White's postpone­
ment of the development of the
knight on gl. It does not cover the
diagonal of the bishop on e2,
which controls the important g4
and hS-squares.
8 . . . a6
After 8 . . . b5, there arises a fa­
vourable version for White of the
Benko Gambit, since Black's bish­
op is restricted by his own eS­
pawn. There might follow: 9.cxb5
a6 10.a4 �a5 1l.�d2 axb5 12 ..ixb5
ia6 13.tt:lge2 .ixbS 14.tt:lxb5 �b6,
Ruckschloss - Kaniansky, Slova­
kia 1999, 15.tt:lec3± His compen­
sation for the pawn is insufficient,
84
because White's knight on bS and
his pawn on a4, supported by the
knight on c3, parry reliably Black's
counterplay on the a and b-files.
9.g4 tt:lbd7 10.h5 gb8 11.a4±
He has no counterplay at all
and cannot advance f7-f5 and af­
ter White's last move, Black can­
not push b7-b5 either. Now,
White can improve calmly his po­
sition, preparing gradually a deci­
sive pawn-break on one of the
flanks. Later, in the game Sakaev
- Bachin, Krasnoyarsk 2003,
there followed: ll . . . �aS 12.f3 tt:le8
13.�d3 f6 14.h6 .ih8 15.tt:lge2 gf7
16.id2 tt:lf8 17.tt:lg3 �d8 18.a5 b6
19. axb6 �xb6 20 .ga2 gfb7 2 1.ic2
�d8 2 2 .b3 tt:lc7 23.tt:lce2 �e7 24.
'>t>f2 tt:le8 25.tt:lcl. Black's position
is difficult (He has no space, has a
weakness on a6 and his bishop on
h8 has no moves.). He had to ad­
here to passive tactics and could
have resisted for long. Still, as it
often happens in similar posi­
tions, Black failed to solve his de­
fensive problems and after 25 . . .
fS? 26.exf5+-, his position be­
came hopeless.
 l.d4 liJf6 2.c4 g6 3. liJ c3 ilg7 4.e4 d6 5. 1le2
C) 5 . . . e5
After this move, there arises
an endgame which is clearly bet­
ter for White.
6.dxe5 dxe5 7. 'ilrxd8+ mxd8
8.f4
The main fight in similar end­
games is centred on the d4 and
e5-squares. As a rule, Black's
knight is trying to reach the d4-
square and with his last move
White attacks its base in anticipa­
tion of this.
8 ••• c!Llbd7
About 8 . . . c6 9.liJf3 liJbd7 10.
0-0 - see 8 . . . liJbd7.
It seems rather dubious for
Black to try 8 . . . liJfd7. He lags in
development anyway and with his
last move he impedes the devel­
opment of his bishop on c8. 9.liJf3
c6 10.0-0 me8 11.f5 f6 12 .ie3±
Black's position is cramped and
he lags considerably in develop­
ment, Bertok - Udovcic, Novi Sad
1955.
Following 8 ...ie6, White main­
tains a slight edge, as it happened
in the game Polugaevsky - Stein,
Tbilisi 1966: 9.liJf3 liJc6 10.0-0
exf4 ll. .bf4 liJd7 12 .:1!ad1 mc8 13.
liJd5 liJce5 14.liJd4 c6 15.liJe7+
mc7 16.liJef5 hf5 17.exf5:t He has
the two-bishop advantage and af­
ter White's pawn on e4 went to
the f5-square, Black's counterplay
on the dark squares became
harmless for White.
9 ... c6
It seems too risky for Black to
choose 9 . . . exf4, because after
10.hf4, White's minor pieces are
very active. 10 . . . c6 11.0-0 We7,
Cvetkovic - Mirkovic, Belgrade
1980. Here, he could have in­
creased his advantage with 12 .e5!
liJg4 13.ig5+ We8 14.e6 ! fxe6 15.
liJe4± and despite the extra pawn,
Black's position is not to be en­
vied. The game is opened and the
majority of his pieces are not de­
veloped and are absolutely unpre-
85
Chapter 6

pared for the fight. it White i s not afraid o f the ex­

10.0-0 me8 ll.g3 ! ?
change on f4, since he will recap­
ture with the pawn and will not
give access to the e5-square for
Black's pieces. The weakening of
the light squares is not a problem,
because White's king will protect
them.
ll h6 12. mg2;!; In order to
••. -

complete the development of his

This is a very solid move. After
queenside pieces Black must play
lt:\d7, but before that he will have
to exchange on f4, which after
gxf4 will lead to dominance of
White in the centre, Sadler - Api­
cella, Cappelle la Grande 1992.

Conclusion
We have just analysed some seldom played moves for Black in the
King's Indian Defence. As a rule, White obtains easily an advantage
after them and this is not surprising, because even the beginners know
how dangerous it is to ignore castling. In the majority of the variations,
analysed in this chapter, Black can castle in a period of a few moves,
after which there will arise transposition to situations analysed by us in
Chapters from 7 to 11. If he does not do that he will be faced with a dif­
ficult defence.

86
Chapter 7 l.d4 ltlf6 2.c4 g6 3.ltlc3 .ig7 4.e4 d6
5 . .ie2 0-0
This is Black's most natural
and popular move. He completes
the development of his kingside.
6.ig5
After this move, there arises
the Averbakh system on the
board. It was named after the So­
viet grandmaster Yury Averbakh,
who made considerable contribu­
tion to the development of its the­
ory. It is also worth mentioning
the endeavours of L.Polugajevsky,
who played regularly this system
during a certain period of his
chess career. I believe that this
variation has been shadowed by
the Classical system rather non­
deservedly. Among the contem­
porary grandmasters its most ar­
dent and regular exponents are
A.Alexandrov and Y.Yakovich.
After 6 . .ig5, Black has a great
choice of possibilities. We will de­
vote to its main lines our next four
chapters, while in this chapter we
will deal only with the moves A)
6 ... �c6 and B) 6 . . . c6.
It does not work for Black to
play 6 . . . e5?, because of 7.dxe5
dxeS 8.'<Mfxd8 E:xd8 9.�d5 �bd7
lO.E:dl! E:f8 ll.lLlxc7 E:b8 12 .f3+­
and Black has no compensation
for the pawn at all.
It is also bad for him to opt for
6 . .'%lfe8, due to 7.e5 dxeS 8.dxe5
.
lLlfd7 9.lLldS .ixeS (Or 9 . . . lLlxe5,
Saric - R.Schmidt, Budva 2009.
Before winning the exchange, it
would be useful for White to oust
the enemy knight away from the
centre with the move 10.f4!±, fol­
lowed by .ie7 or lLlc7.) 10 . .ixe7±
Black has no compensation for
the exchange, Shaidullina -
Schepetkova, Vladimir 200�.
The centre has not been closed
yet, so it seems rather dubious for
87
Chapter 7
Black to choose 6 . . . a5, since after
7.'tlld 2 tt'la6, White has at his dis­
posal the energetic line: 8.f4 Wfe8
9.e5 tt'ld7 10.tt'lf3± and his pawn­
centre is very powerful, while
Black's minor pieces remain pas­
sive, Meins - Podzielny, Bad
Zwischenahn 2002.
6 . . . a6 7.Wfd2 c5 (About 7 . . .
tt'lbd7 8.tt'lf3 - see Chapter 8 ; 7 . . .
c6 8.E!d1 - see variation B, 7 . . . tt'lc6
8.d5 tt'la7 9.a4± White has much
more space, while Black's knight
is terribly misplaced on the a7-
square, Esquivias Gomez - Rial
Rodriguez, San Sebastian 2009.)
8.tt'lf3 ! (The move 8.d5 enables
Black to obtain good counterplay
after 8 . . . b5 ! ??) 8 . . . cxd4 (Follow-
ing 8 . . . i.g4 9.d5 b5, there arise
positions in the spirit of the Ben­
ko Gambit. 10.cxb5 axb5 ll.hb5
Wfa5 12.0-0 i.xf3 13.gxf3 tt'la6,
Olsen - Mortensen, Copenhagen
2004. Now, White had to contin­
ue with 14.a3 ! ? , depriving the en­
emy knight of the b4-square. 14 . . .
Wfd8 15.ic6 E!b8 16.E!abl± Black is
not only a pawn down, but his
light squares have been weakened
due to the exchange of his bishop
88
on f3. He can hardly exploit the
weakening of his opponent's cas­
tling position, while White has a
clear-cut plan for active actions
on the queenside. He must pre­
pare b2-b4.) 9.tt'lxd4. There has
arisen a position, which is more
typical for the Maroczy system of
the Sicilian Defence. Later, in the
game Grigoryan - Zherebukh,
Athens 2012, there followed: 9 . . .
tt'lc6 10.tt'lc2 tt'ld7 ll.tt'le3 tt'lc5 12.
tt'led5 tt'le6 13.ih4 tt'led4 14.0-0 f5
15.f4 fxe4 16.tt'lxe4 b5 17.E!aeU
and in the arising complicated po­
sition, Black could hardly neutral­
ise White's piece pressure against
the e7-square.
A) 6 ••• tt'lc6 7.d5
Naturally, Black cannot equal­
ise by retreating his knight to its
initial position - 7 . . . tt'lb8, since
after 8.tt'lf3 c6 9.0-0 ig4 10.tt'ld2
he2 ll.Wfxe2 cxd5 12.cxd5 tt'lfd7
13.E!ac1 tt'la6, Kaidanov - Zlot­
nikov, New York 1992, White
 l.d4 li:Jf6 2.c4 g6 3. li:Jc3 :ig7 4.e4 d6 5. :ie2 0 - 0 6. :ig5 li:J c6 7.d5
maintains an edge with 14.:ie3;!;,
attacking the enemy a7-pawn and
impeding the move !k8 for Black.
White's plans include later a2-a3
and b2-b4, emphasizing the mis­
placement of Black's knight on a6.
The other possible retreat of
his knight seems also rather dubi­
ous 7 . . . li:Jb4 8.li:Jf3, for example:
8 ... c5 9.h3 li:Jd7 10.a3 li:Ja6 11.1M/d2;!;
The game Moskalenko - Hui­
dobro, Andorra 1991 continued
with 11 .. J!e8 12.0-0 1Mfb6 13J!ab1
li:JeS 14.li:Jxe5 :ixeS 1S.f4 :id4+
16.�h1 fS? ! 17.:id3± H. White
maintains a considerable advan­
tage. He has used the time, which
Black has lost on manoeuvres
with his queen's knight (li:Jc6-b4-
a6), in order to organise active
actions in the centre and on the
kingside. Now, White begins a
direct attack against Black's mon­
arch (his purpose is to force his
opponent to exchange on e4
and to advance f4-f5), while
Black's pieces and particularly his
knight on a6 are obviously mis­
placed.
8 ... h6
8 . . . li:Jxf3+ 9.:ixf3
9 . . . li:Jd7 10.0-0 c6 11.1Mfd2 !!e8
12.!'1ac1 aS 13.b3 cxdS (13 . . .1M/c7
14.!'1fd1 li:JcS 1S.:ie3;!; Alterman -
Nikolaidis, Karditsa 1996) 14.
li:JxdS li:JcS 15.!'1feU Black is active
on the dark squares, but this can­
not compensate White's space ad­
vantage, Kaidanov - Karklins,
Chicago 1994.
9 ... h6 10.:ie3 e6 (10 ... e5 11.
0-0 �h7 12 .c5 li:Jg8 13.!'1cl± - His
queenside initiative is evidently
faster than Black's counterplay on
the opposite side of the board,
Milov - Reich, playchess.com
2004.) 11.0-0 !!e8 12 .!'1c1 exdS
13.cxd5;!; Korchnoi - Kasparov,
Madrid 1988. He will have prob-
89
Chapter ?
lems protecting his backward c7-
pawn. If he advances it ( c6 or cS),
then after the trade on c6, Black
will have not one, but two weak­
nesses on c6 and d6.
The endgame would be worse
for him following 9 . . . c6 10.dxc6
bxc6 11.e5 dxe5 12 .�xd8 E:xd8 13 .
.bc6 E:b8 14.b3t White's pawn­
majority on the queenside seems
quite threatening, while Black's
pawns are almost harmless due to
the doubled pawns on the e-file,
Lputian - Ermenkov, East Berlin
1982.
9.if4
White can fight for the advan­
tage in another way as well - 9.
.te3 ! ? . This move has been tested
by one of the renowned experts in
the Averbakh system - Y.Yako­
vich. Later, in the game Yakovich
- Korotylev, Kazan 2005, there
followed: 9 . . . lt:Jfg4 10 . .td2 c6 11.
lt:JxeS lt:JxeS 12. 0-0 cxdS 13.exd5 ! ?
This i s a n active move. White
wishes to exert pressure on the e­
file (it is also good for him to try
here 13.cxd5t). 13 . . . .tf5 14 . .te3
90
E:c8 15.id4 gS 16.b3 a6 17.�d2t
Black has succeeded in keeping
his knight on the eS-square, but
has weakened considerably his
kingside pawns.
9 ... .!Llxf3+ 10.ixf3 e5 11.
�e3
ll ... h5 !
This is his only possibility to
fight for equality in the opening.
Black wishes to trade the dark­
squared bishops.
It is worse for him to opt for
the passive move ll . . . lt:Je8, in view
of 12 .h4, for example: 12 .. .f5 13.h5
f4 14 . .td2 gxhS 1S ..txh5 �gS 16 .
.tf3 lt:Jf6 17.�e2 �g6 18.0-0-0 hS
19.\t>blt Christiansen - Mestel,
London 1982. There has arisen a
position typical for the complicat­
ed King's Indian middle game.
White's prospects are preferable.
He can prepare an offensive on
the queenside with the help of b4,
cS and subsequent pressure on
the c-file, while Black's counter­
play on the kingside will be abso­
lutely ineffective after White cas­
tles queenside.
 l.d4 liJf6 2.c4 g6 3. CiJ c3 i.g7 4.e4 d6 5. ie2 0 - 0 6. :/ig5 c6 7. Wfd2

12 .ig5
•

This is the only move !

After the passive reaction
12 .h3 CiJh7 13.Wid2 i.f6 14.0-0-0
igS+t Savchenko - Sakaev, St Pe­
tersburg 1992, Black realised his
plan and following the trade of
the dark-squared bishops his
prospects were not worse at all.
12 ti'e8 13.0-0 tLlh7 14
. • • •

.ie3 f5 15.exf5 i.xf5 16 .ie4 ! ;!;

•

with a6, bS.), but cannot guaran­

tee equality for him, because
White completes effortlessly his
development and preserves his
powerful pawn-centre.
7.ti'd2
White plays this move almost
always in the Averbakh system.
Its main purpose is to prevent the
move h7-h6, preserving the bish­
op on gS on its active position.

He has failed t o exchange the

dark-squared bishops. In addi­
tion, White has managed to estab­
lish complete control over the key
e4-square. Now, Black's bishop
on g7 will be restricted by his own
pawn on eS. White's chances are
preferable since his bishop on e3
is obviously more active than its
black counterpart.

B) 6 . . . c6
(diagram)
This is not Black's main re­
sponse in this system. It is a flexi­
ble move (He preserves the pos­
sibility to play in the centre - e7-
e5, as well as on the queenside
7 ... a6
7 . . . CiJa6 8.f4 - see Chapter 9.
7 ... CiJbd7 8.CiJf3 - see Chapter 8.
7 .. .'�a5 8.CiJf3 ig4 9.0-0 CiJbd7
10 .a3 hf3 ll.ix£3;!; White has

91
Chapter ?
two powerful bishops and a space
advantage, Forintos - Ljubicic,
Split 2001.
As a rule, there do not arise
original positions after 7 . . . e5,
since following 8.lbf3 lba6 (8 . . .
lbbd7 9.0-0 - see 6 . . . lbbd7) 9.
0-0, Black's best would be to con­
tinue with 9 . . . exd4, transposing
to the variation 6 . . . lbbd7 (about
10.lbxd4 lbcS 1l.�f4 - see the
next chapter) .
It is bad for Black to play 9 . . .
�e8, since after 10.d5 lbc5 11 . .ixf6
.ixf6 12 .b4 lba6 13.dxc6±, White
opens advantageously the posi­
tion in the centre and Black will
have great problems with the pro­
tection of his pawn on d6, Sisatto
- Novik, Jyvaskyla 2006.
He cannot equalise with the
line: 9 . . . ig4 10J:!ad1 �c7 ll.d5;!;
Bosboom - Nijboer, Wijk aan Zee
1989. White has extra space and
excellent prospects for actions on
the queenside. Black can hardly
organise any meaningful counter­
play on the other side of the
board.
92
This is a solid prophylactic
move. White not only protects ad­
ditionally his d4-pawn, but im­
pedes Black's pawn advance e7-
e5.
8 . . .b5 9.a3
Naturally, White should not
allow b5-b4.
9 ...bxc4
After 9 . . . lbbd7? ! , White ob­
tains an advantage following the
recommendation of GM Peturs­
son: 10.e5 lbe8 ll.exd6 lbxd6 12 .
cS±
Black cannot equalise with the
rather extravagant move 9 . . . E:a7,
at least because of 10.lbf3;!;, fol­
lowed by castling kingside.
He obtained a very bad posi­
tion after the move 9 . . . �c7 in the
game Petursson - Antonsen, Co­
penhagen 1996. 10.lbf3 eS ll.dS
bxc4 12.dxc6± Black's queenside
activity has only led to the ap­
pearance of new weaknesses in
his camp (the pawns on c4 and
d6).
 l.d4 0,f6 2.c4 g6 3. 0, c3 fi.g7 4.e4 d6 5. 1i.e2 0 - 0 6. 1i.g5 c6 7. Wid2

10.hc4 0,xe4
Black wishes to simplify his
defence by exchanging pieces, but
ends up with a weak pawn on c6
in his camp.

10 . . . a5 11.0,f3 ig4 12.Wlf4 ixf3

13.Wixf3 0,bd7 14.Wie2 Wlc7 15.
0-0t White has managed to com­
plete his development, preserving
his two-bishop advantage and his
powerlul pawn-centre. Black is
forced to only defend, Schandorff
- Hoi, Denmark 1989.
11.0,xe4 d5 12 .i.d3 dxe4
• tains a slight edge thanks to his
13.he4
(diagram)
13 ••• .i.e6
It would be interesting for him
14.c!lJf3 idS 15.hd5 cxd5
16J�cl
He has got rid of the annoying
weakness on c6, but White main­
dominance over the c-file. Later,
in the game Jarmula - Fraczek,
Poronin 2012, there followed
16 ge8 17.0-0 c!lJd7 18.gc6
•••

to try 13 . . . E:a7 and after 14.0,e2 ti'b8 19 .i.f4 ti'b3. Here, with the
•

.ig4 15.f3 ie6, Luft - Voekler,
Germany 2001, the only way for
White to fight for the opening ad­
vantage would be the move 16.
h4 ! , for example: 16 ...id5 17.h5
E:e8 18.hxg6 hxg6 19.<.!lf2t and his
attack on the h-file may create
great problems for Black.
move 20.gfcU, White could have
established complete control over
the c-file and would have main­
tained a slight but stable advan­
tage. The vulnerability of his d4-
pawn is immaterial, since Black's
pieces are incapable of creating
active counterplay.

Conclusion
We have just finished our analysis of some seldom played lines for
Black in the King's Indian Defence. As a rule, White obtains effortless­
ly an advantage in the opening after them and this is not surprising.
The main problems for him in this chapter may arise after the move 6 . . .
c6. I n this case, h e should not forget t o play the move E:d1, i n order to
impede Black's possibility to try the pawn-break - e7-e5. After this, he
should counter Black's queenside activity (a6, bS) with the move a3
and ends up with a stable advantage. Black's counterplay, connected
with the exchange on c4 and the temporary piece-sacrifice on e4, fol­
lowed by d6-d5, cannot equalise for him, since it leads to the appear­
ance of a weak pawn on c6 in his camp.

93
Chapter S l.d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 .ig7 4.e4 d6
5 . .ie2 0-0 6 . .ig5 �bd7
This move is not so popular as
the main lines for Black: 6 . . . tt:la6,
6 ... h6 and 6 ... c5. The main reason
is that after 6 . . . tt:lbd7, Black can
hardly exert any pressure against
his opponent's centre. After he
advances e7-e5, White will simply
reply with f3 and Black will have
nothing better than to exchange
at some moment on d4, after
which the pawn-structure in the
centre will be favourable for
White (pawns c4 and e4 against a
pawn on d6). Still, this move is
played frequently in the contem­
porary tournament practice. Even
G.Kasparov has played like this
several times and at the end of the
90ies of the past century P .Svidler
tried often that move.
94
7.ti'd2
We will deal in details now
with A) 7 e5 and B) 7 c6.
••• •••
About 7 . . . c5 8.d5 - see Chap­
ter 11.
It is not good for Black to play
7 .. J!e8. The point is that in the
Averbakh system White has abso­
lutely no intention to trade the
bishops (ih6 ), since his bishop
on gS is more active than the
bishop on g7. 8.f3 ! ? White pro­
tects reliably his e4-pawn. 8 . . . c5
9.d5 a6 10.a4 tt:lf8 ll.id3. He is
freeing the e2-square for his
knight. ll . . . e6 12.tt:lge2 Wffc7 13.
0-0 eS 14.a5 id7 15.tt:la4 ixa4
 l.d4 0.f6 2.c4 g6 3. 0.c3 i.g7 4.e4 d6 5. ie2 0 - 0 6. i.g5 0. bd7 7. �d2
1 6.ID:a4 l'!eb8 17.b3 0.e8 18.0.c3
0,d7 19.1'%a3 if8 20.0.a4 f6 21.i.e3
i,g7 2 2 .b4± Black has no counter­
play at all and is helpless to coun­
ter White's queenside operations,
V. Milov - Wetscherek, Oberwart
19 93.
It is interesting for Black to
try 7 . . . a6 8.0.f3 l'!b8 - he is pre­
p aring b7-bS, but tries to do that
without the move c7-c6 (Follow­
ing 8 . . . cS 9.0-0 cxd4 10.0.xd4
CiJcS ll.f3 0.e6 12 .ie3 0.xd4 13.
.ixd4 ie6, there arises a position
from the Maroczy system of the
Sicilian Defence, but with an ex­
tra tempo for White, because
Black has lost too much time on
manoeuvres with his queen's
knight. There might follow 14.1'%fc1
�as 1S.l'!ab1 l'!fc8 16.b3 0.d7 17.
ie3 1'%ab8 18 .b4 �d8 19.0.dS ixdS
20.exdS:t White has two powerful
bishops and good prospects on
the queenside as well as on the e­
file, Yakovich - Rocha, Dresden
2007.) 9.0-0 bS 10.1'!fe1!? This is
the simplest move. 10 . . . b4 ll.CiJdS
e6 12.0.xf6+ ixf6 13.h4 ! ? ixgS
14.hxgS:t White has a powerful
centre and extra space, while the
dark squares are rather weak in
Black's camp.
A) 7 e5
. • •
After this move, there often
arises transposition to the varia­
tion with 7 . . . c6. There appear
original positions only if Black re­
frains from c7-c6.
8.0.f3 ! ?
Naturally, White does not wish
to advance d4-dS, but waits for
his opponent to exchange on d4.
8 ••• tye8
It seems premature for Black
to opt for 8 . . . exd4, since following
9.0.xd4 CiJcS 10.f3 h6 ll.ie3 l'!e8
12.0-0:t, White has protected re­
liably his e4-pawn and thanks to
his pawn-centre and extra space,
his play in the middle game will
be much easier, Rajkovic - Vu­
ckovic, Nis 1996.
He will counter 8 ... l'!e8 with
9.dS ! ? and this move emphasizes
perfectly the drawbacks of 8 . . .
l'!e8. Black's plan i s connected
with f7-fS, so he will have to go
back with his rook to f8 sooner or
later, so this will lead to the loss of
two tempi for him. 9 . . . 0.cS 10 .�c2
aS 11.0.d2 h6, Bilunov - Karasev,
Leningrad 1971, 12 .ie3:t White's
prospects seem preferable in the
oncoming complicated King 's In­
dian middle game.
9.0-0!
9S
Chapter S
This interesting move is con­
nected with a pawn-sacrifice for
which White obtains good com­
pensation.
9 ••• exd4 lO.tiJxd4
lO .tiJxe4
••
This is Black's most principled
move.
His position is worse following
10 . . . tt:\c5 ll.f3 tt:\e6 12 .ie3 tt:\xd4
13.hd4 c6 14J:!ad1 Wie7 15.ie3
l'!d8 16 . .ig5;t Kaidanov - Lamou­
reux, Torey 1991. There has arisen
a situation in which Black can
hardly create any counterplay.
White has more space, moreover
that later Black may have prob­
lems with the protection of his
d6-pawn.
ll.tt:\xe4 Wixe4 12.liJb5 Wic6
13 .if3 'ffxc4
• l'!xb7± and he does not have suffi­
He can play here 13 . . . Wib6, re­
fraining from capturing on c4, but
after 14 . .ie3 cS 15.Wixd6 .ixb2
(Black's position is horrible fol­
lowing 15 . . . Wixd6 16.tt:\xd6 l'!b8 17.
l'!ad1± Kaidanov - Torman, Dear-
96
born 1992.) 16.1'!ae1 .ieS 17.Wid5
a6 18 . .ih6 Wif6 19 . .ixf8 'it>xf8 20.
tt:\a3;t, he has some compensation
for the exchange indeed, but it is
insufficient to maintain the equal­
ity.
14.a4
Black can hardly defend
against his opponent's numerous
threats despite his two extra
pawns.
14 ••• c6
After 14 . . . tt:\c5 15.1'!fc1 Wid3 16.
Wixd3 tt:\xd3 17.1'!xcn, White re­
gains one of the pawns. His
threats are very dangerous de­
spite the trade of queens. For ex­
ample, Black cannot capture on
b2 : 17. . . .ixb2? ! , because of 18.1'!d1
tt:\eS 19 ..ie7 tt:\xf3+ 20.gxf3 i.eS
2 l..ixf8 'it>xf8 22.1'!dc1 ih3 23.
cient compensation for the ex­
change.
15.tt:\xd6!
This move is stronger than
15 . .ie2 Wib3oo Tukmakov - Mes­
tel, Las Palmas 1982.
 l.d4 tiJf6 2.c4 g6 3.tiJc3 :!g7 4.e4 d6 5. 1J.e2 0 - 0 6. ig5 tiJ bd7 7. � d2
15 . . . �e6 16J�adl!
White has more than sufficient
compensation for the sacrificed
pawn. There might follow 16 •••
l0e5 17.ie2 c 5 (17 . . .f6 18 .ih4
l'!d8 19.f4 tiJf7 2 0.i.c4 l'!xd6 21.
ixe6 l'!xd2 2 2 .ixf7+ <j{xf7 23.
l'!xd2 if8 24.if2;!; Black has a
pawn and two bishops, but this is
not enough to compensate the ex­
change.) 18J�fel J.d7 19.�c2 h6
20 .Ah4 b6 21 .Ac4 �g4 22.ge4
• •
J.f5 23.l0xf5 �xf5 24.gds� -
He has an extra pawn indeed, but
his defence is very difficult, be­
cause White's pieces are tremen­
dously active.
B) 7 c6 8.l0f3
•••
8 ••• e5
About 8 . . . �c7 9.0-0 eS 10.
l'!ad1 - see 8 . . . eS.
8 . . . �aS 9.0-0 a6 10.a3 l'!e8
ll.b4 �c7 12.l'!acU White has
gained time for his queenside
pawn-offensive by attacking the
enemy queen, Babula - Markin,
Pardubice 2009.
Besides this move, Black can
try to prepare b7-bS. 8 . . . a6 9.0-0
bS 10.a3 bxc4 (Or 10 ... i.b7 11.
l'!ad1 �b8 12 .ih6 l'!e8 13.l'!feU
and in the forthcoming middle
game White's play is much sim­
pler, since he dominates in the
centre, Milov - Irzhanov, Moscow
1994. Following lO . . . eS ll.l'!ad1
i.b7 12.l'!fe1 l'!e8 13.dxeS dxeS 14.
b4;!;, he maintains a slight edge,
because his pieces are better pre­
pared for the fight for the d-file,
while Black cannot exploit the
vulnerability of the d4-square,
since his knight can hardly go
there, Milov - M.Gurevich, Haifa
199S.) ll.ixc4 tiJb6 (After ll . . . dS,
there arise positions which are
similar to those we have analysed
in the previous chapter in varia­
tion B. 12 .i.d3 dxe4 13.tiJxe4 �b6
14.l'!acl aS 1S.l'!feU Black's weak­
ness on c6 is more important than
White's on d4, Volzhin - Matikoz­
ian, Yerevan 1996.) 12 .ie2 ie6
13.l'!fe1 �b8 14.l'!ac1 l'!c8 . 1S.h3
l'!a7 16.i.d3 aS 17.ih6;!; White
dominates in the centre and can
begin active operations on the
97
Chapter S
kingside, Budnikov - Podzielny,
Vienna 1991.
It is interesting for Black, but
still insufficient for equality to try
8 . . . d5. After 9.exd5 cxd5 10.0-0,
there arises a position, which
looks like the one in the Panov at­
tack in the Caro-Kann Defence.
White should not be afraid of
10 . . . lt:lb6, because of ll.c5 lt:le4 12.
Wcl lt:lxc3 13.Wxc3;t Black has no
counterplay, while White's plan is
quite clear - to advance his
queenside pawns.
Following 10 ... a6 ll.lt:leS dxc4
12 .hc4 Wc7, White can opt for an
interesting pawn-sacrifice - 13.
ib3 ! ? (It is also good for him to
try 13.'\Wf4 h6 14.hh6 hh6 15.
Wxh6 lt:lxeS 16.dxe5 Wxc4 17.exf6
exf6 18J:HeU Black must watch
constantly for the possibility of
White transferring his rook to the
h-file. Still, it would be difficult to
say whether he can achieve any­
thing meaningful later, since
there are just a few pieces left
on the board.) 13 . . . lt:lxe5 14.dxe5
WxeS 15J'!fe1 Wd6. This position
was reached in the game Gelfand
- Svidler, Groningen 1996. Here,
98
White had simply to trade the
queens and following 16.Wxd6
exd6 17.:gadU, he would have re­
gained the sacrificed pawn, pre­
serving a slight edge. For exam­
ple: 17 . . . h6 (17 . . . :gd8? 18.lt:ld5+-)
18 .i.e3 :ge8 19.:gxd6 .ie6 20.he6
:gxe6 21.:gxe6 fxe6 2 2 .:gdu and
the vulnerability of the e6-pawn
would be a telling factor in the
endgame.
After 10 . . . lt:le4 ll.lt:lxe4 dxe4
12.lt:le1, there arises a position in
which White's pawn-majority on
the queenside provides him with
a slight advantage. 12 . . .f6 (12 . . .
lt:lf6 13.lt:lc2 b 6 14.:gad1 ib7 15.d5
Wd6 16.lt:ld4;t - His advantage is
doubtless due to the doubled
black pawns on the e-file, Uhl­
mann - Gross, Leipzig 1982 .) 13.
i.e3 eS 14.:gd1 exd4 15.hd4 We7
16.lt:lc2 fS 17.hg7 Wxg7 18.lt:ld4;t
Portisch - Nunn, Linares 1988.
There might follow 18 ... We5 19.
lt:lbS lt:lf6 20.Wd4 Wxd4 2l.:gxd4
�g7 22 .c5;t and White's game is
much easier in the arising end­
game.
After 10 . . . dxc4 ll.hc4, we
have on the board a typical posi­
tion with an isolated pawn.
White's piece activity compen­
sates with an interest this mini­
mal positional defect. ll . . . a6 (11 . . .
lt:lb6 12 .ib3 lt:lbdS 13.:gfe1 ie6 14.
ih6 lt:lxc3 15.bxc3 idS 16.hg7
�xg7 17.lt:le5 b5 18.:ge3 :gc8 19.
:gaelt White has powerful initia­
tive, Rashkovsky - Kupreichik,
Vilnius 1980) 12.:gfe1 bS 13.i.b3
ib7 14.:gad1 :gc8 (14 . . . lt:lb6 15.d5 ! ;
 J.d4 liJf6 2.c4 g6 3. tiJc3 :Ag7 4.e4 d6 5. ie2 0 - 0 6. ig5 tiJ bd7 7. Wid2
he should not be afraid of 14 . . .
,ixf3 15.gxf3 ges 16.a4;!; White's
two powerful bishops compensate
fully the defects of his pawn­
structure) 1S.Wie2 b4 16.tiJa4 WiaS
1 7.tiJe5;!; and in the arising posi­
tion, White has an edge thanks to
his more active pieces, moreover
that Black's queenside pawn­
structure has been compromised,
N.Gaprindashvili - Watson, Brus­
sels 1987.
9.0-0
9 . . . exd4
Black cannot continue the
game without this move, so he
should better exchange immedi­
ately.
About 9 . . . Wic7 10.gad1 ges
ll.dS - see 9 . . . ges.
After 9 . . . Wie7, White's simplest
reaction would be lO.dS;!; and
Black can hardly organise coun­
terplay on the kingside, because
in order for him to advance f7-f5,
he should remove his knight from
f6 and before that he should run
away with his queen from the pin,
Wright - Krstic, Brisbane 2006.
After 9 . . . Wib6, White should
not be in a hurry to push immedi­
ately d4-d5. It is better for him to
wait until Black plays ges. 10.
gad1 ges U.ds cxdS 12.cxd5.
Now, if Black wishes his rook to
support the pawn-advance f7-f5,
it must go back to f8. All this is too
slow and White's queenside initi­
ative (on the c-file) develops
much faster. 12 . . . tiJcS 13.Wic2 id7
14.liJd2 geeS 1S.Wib1 h6 16.:Ae3
Wid8 17.gc1 tiJg4 18.ixg4 ixg4
19.liJc4 if8 20.b4 tiJa6 21.tiJaS
Wie7 22 .a3 b6 23.tiJc6± White's
achievements on the queenside
are quite evident (the knight on
c6), while Black's counterplay is
too slow, Polugaevsky - Gufeld,
Moscow 1969.
After 9 ... ges, White's best re­
action again would be - lO.gadl.
He can counter 10 . . . Wie7 with
the move U.dS, for example 11 . . .
cS. The centre has been closed
and the fight is focused on the
flanks. 12.tiJe1 (12.h3 ! ? a6 13.tiJh2
Wif8 14.a3 'it>h8 15.b4tWhite has
99
Chapter S
begun a queenside offensive,
while Black's kingside counter­
play is nowhere in sight yet, Stahl­
berg - Pilnik, Beverwijk 19S6.)
12 ... '?9f8 13.lt:Jd3 h6 14 ..ie3 lt:Jb6
1S.b3 lt:Jg4 16 ..b:g4 .b:g4 17J!:de1
a6 18.f4. White breaks through on
the kingside. We have to pay at­
tention that he accomplished that
only when Black did not have the
possibility to exploit the weakness
of the eS-square. 18 . . . exf4 19.!'!:xf4
�d7 20.!'\ffl± A.Petrosian - Zapa­
ta, Belgrade 1984. He has no
counterplay, while White has
more space and a clear-cut plan
for actions connected with the
pawn-break e4-eS. In the game
Black did not withstand the pres­
sure of the fight and chose the
move 20 . . . �d4? weakening irrev­
ocably his position. There fol­
lowed 21..b:d4 cxd4 22 .lt:Jd1 lt:Jc8
23.lt:J lf2 '?9g7 24.'?9f4 gS 2S.'?:l/g3 aS
26.eS+-. There are too many
weaknesses in Black's camp and it
will be in ruins after White breaks
through with e4-eS.
Following 10 . . .'?9c7, White can
close advantageously the position
in the centre. ll.dS cxdS 12.cxdS
lt:JcS 13.!'!:c1 aS. After this seem­
ingly obvious move, the bS-square
is seriously weakened in Black's
position. 14.'?9c2 �d7 1S.lt:JbS hbS
16.hbS !'!:ec8 17.lt:Jd2t Polugaevs­
ky - Gligoric, Havana 1967. The
vulnerability of the bS-square has
led to Black being forced to give
up his light-squared bishop. This
is a very important piece for him
in the King's Indian Defence,
100
since his central pawns are placed
on dark squares. After its ex­
change, the vulnerability of the
light squares becomes quite no­
ticeable. Later, Polugaevsky real­
ised his positional advantage.
10.tijxd4
10 ••• .!Llc5
This move is connected with a
tactical trap.
After 10 . . . !'!:e8, Black ends up
in a passive position. ll.!'!:ad1 lt:JcS
(ll . . . '<Mfb6 12.f3 lt:JcS 13.i>h1 lt:Jfd7.
Here, in the game Uhlmann - Mar­
tinovic, Sarajevo 1981, White in­
flicted a very elegant tactical strike.
14.lt:JdbS !± cxbS?? 1S.lt:JdS+-) 12.
f3 aS 13.lt:Jc2 '?9b6 14.�e3 a4 1S.
!'!:b1 '?9c7 16.!'\fdlt White has par­
ried his opponent's initiative with
an accurate play and now can be­
gin the siege of Black's weak d6-
pawn forcing him to defend, A.
Onischuk - Theissen, Dortmund
1992 .
11.'?9f4
This is the only move.
 l.d4 0.f6 2.c4 g6 3JiJ c3 �g7 4.e4 d6 s. �e2 0 - 0 6. �g5 0. bd7 7. V!id2
The careless reply ll.f3? can
b e countered by Black with a tac­
tical strike: 11 . . . 0.fxe4 ! 12.0.xe4
0.xe4 13.fxe4 .bd4-+ and he wins
a pawn without any compensa­
tion for White, Adamski - Geller,
Lugano 1968.
11 1He7
•••
About ll .. J:!e8 12.�f3 Wie7 13.
j:!ad1 - see ll ... Wie7.
12.j:!adl
12 ••• 1He5
Capturing the central pawn
leads to a very difficult position
for Black 12 . . . 0.cxe4? ! 13.0.xe4
V!ixe4 14.V!ixd6. Naturally, it is ad­
vantageous for him to exchange
his weak d6-pawn for his oppo­
nent's e4-pawn, but White's piec­
es become very active. 14 . . . 0.d7
15.�f3 V!ieS 16.�f4 V!ixd6 17.hd6
j:!e8 18.0.xc6± - He regains the
pawn and preserves all the pluses
of his position.
White should not be afraid of
12 . . . j:!e8, because after 13.�f3, he
parries gradually Black's initia-
tive and ends up in a better posi­
tion. 13 . . . a5 (13 . . . Wie5 14.V!icU) 14.
j:!feU White maintains a slight but
stable advantage. He must watch
carefully however, for Black's
possible tactical tricks. 14 . . . a4 15.
h3 V!ieS 16.Vfic1 V!ie7 17.V!if4 0.cd7
18.Vfid2 V!if8 19.0.c2 h6 20.�e3;!; ­
His pawn on d6 is very weak, Pe­
tursson - Kasparov, Reykjavik
1988. After Kasparov's impreci­
sion 20 . . . 0.h7? ! , White could have
increased his advantage with the
move 21.�f4 ! ±
13.f3
Now, his pawn on e4 is safe.
13 .l!�e6
• •
Black wishes to facilitate the
defence of his cramped position
by trading the knights.
White preserves an edge fol­
lowing 13 . . . 0.fd7 14.V!ih4 f6, S.
Savchenko - Neverov, Zhitomir
1986, 15.�f4 ! Wie7 16.b4 0.a6 17.
bS 0.ab8 18.�g3± Black's d6-
pawn is vulnerable and he has
problems with his develop­
ment.
101
Chapter S
After 13 . . .'\Wxf4, there arises an
endgame advantageous for White.
14.hf4 lLle8 15.ie3 aS 16.lLlb3 (it
is also good for him to opt for
16J�d2 ! ?;!;) 16 . . . lLlxb3 17.axb3 fS
18.c5 ! ;!; With his last move White
has freed the c4-square for his
bishop and has seized completely
the initiative.
14.�xe6 he6
ts.wht
This is a prophylactic move.
Now, White is not afraid of the
checks of Black's queen.
It is also very good for White
to continue with 15.'\We3 ! ? W/a5
(Maybe Black's best option here
would be to enter an inferior end­
game with 15 . . . W/c5 ! ? 16.lLla4
W/xe3+ 17.he3;!;, although even
then his d6-pawn remains very
weak.) 16J'!xd6 lLld7 17.!!b1 ! ±
Black i s a pawn down and h e can
hardly create any meaningful
counterplay on the queenside.
For example, he loses after 17 . . .
lLlb6, due to 18.c5 lLla4 19.b4+-
15 . . . !!fe8
102
16Jfh4!
This is White's most accurate
move.
It would be premature for him
to choose 16.!!xd6 lLld7 17.W/xe5
he5 18.!!d2 lLlb6?, and the activ­
ity of Black's pieces enabled him
to draw in the game Grischuk -
Svidler, Sochi 2005.
Still, White can try here - 16.
Wfcl ! ?;!;
16 ... �d7 17.f4
This is the idea of his previous
move. White is not trying to win
material and wishes to organise
an attack against the enemy king.
17 . . . ti'c5
It is bad for Black to play 17 . . .
WfaS, because of 18.f5 ! gxf5 19.ih6
ixh6 20.W/xh6 f4 21.!!xf4± White
has a strong attack in a position
with material equality.
18.ie7 (18.f5? ixc4) 18 . . .
hc3 19.bxc3 hc4 20.hd6
ti'bS
 J.d4 ilJf6 2.c4 g6 3. tiJc3 ilg7 4.e4 d6 5. 1i.e2 0 - 0 6. 1i.g5 tiJ bd7 7. Wfd2

addition, White has weaknesses

on a2 and c3. This is all an illusion
however, because following 22.
eSt White's initiative is very pow­
erful. Black can hardly cope with
his opponent's numerous threats
(f4-f5; :Bf3-h3 ; ie7-f6, Wfh6).
22 b5 (Black loses after 22 . . .
•••

Wfxa2? 23.f5 ! ttJxeS 24.f6+-, as

well as in the variation 22 . . . Wfxc3?
23.f5 ttJxeS 24.Wff6 Wfe3 25.fxg6
21 .ixc4 (It seems also good
• ilJxg6 26.Wfxf7+ 'it>h8 27.ib4+­
for him to include the move 21. and he has no defence against
a4 ! ? , since Black cannot capture :Bd7.) 23.Wfg5 (with the idea f4-
the pawn 2l.. .Wfxa4?, in view of f5) 23 Wfe2 24.ie7 h6 25. W/h4
•••

22.:Bd4 bS 23.ixc4 bxc4 24.f5+-) tiJb6 26.if6 'it>h7 27.h3 �d5

21 Wfxc4. It looks like Black is
••• 28.f5 S:ac8 29.e6± - with a very
not threatened by anything. In dangerous attack for White.

Conclusion
We have just analysed the variation with 6 . . . ttJbd7. White obtains
effortlessly an advantage in the opening exploiting the basic drawback
of Black's sixth move. His knight on d7 does not exert any pressure
against White's centre. This leads to the fact that Black will have to
exchange on d4 sooner or later and there will arise a position with a
long lasting positional advantage for White. He will dominate in the
centre and will have the possibility to exert pressure against Black's
weak d6-pawn. We will have to mention that a similar type of position
arises in the variation of the King's Indian Defence in which White fi­
anchettoes his bishop on g2 and Black plays tiJbd7. There, as a rule, he
is doomed to a passive defence after White parries all his opponent's
tactical tricks.

103
Chapter 9 l.d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 i.g7 4.e4 d6
5.i.e2 0-0 6.i.g5 �a6
This move is more flexible
than the one we have analysed in
our previous chapter - 6 . . . lt:lbd7.
Black prepares the typical pawn­
advance e7-e5 for the King's Indi­
an Defence and also the knight on
a6 will not stand in the way of the
development of his bishop on c8.
If White, in answer to e7-e5, re­
plies with d4-d5, then Black's
knight on a6 will have the possi­
bility to go to the cS-outpost, ex­
erting pressure against the e4-
pawn.
Following 6 . . . lt:la6, as a rule,
there arise very complicated posi­
tions with plenty of tactical possi­
bilities, so it is not surprising that
it was tested by such masters of
104
combinational play as G.Kaspa­
rov, V.Topalov, A.Grischuk, T.
Radjabov, P.Svidler, B.Gelfand,
J.Polgar and many others.
7.f4!?
With this move White wishes
to emphasize the drawbacks of
Black's sixth move. Now, there
arise positions similar to the Four
Pawns Attack, except that Black's
knight is on a6 and White's bish­
op is on gS. I believe this inclusion
is in favour of White, since he had
made a developing move, while
the placement of Black's knight
on a6 may turn out to be disad­
vantageous. The move 7.f4 be­
came popular after V.Potkin's win
against A.Grischuk in the year
2011.
After 7.V9d2, naturally Black
advances 7 . . . e5 and as a rule,
there arise positions, which are
more typical for the Saemisch sys­
tem. For example: 8.d5 V9e8 9.
idl id7 10.lt:lge2 lt:lcS ll.ic2 aS
12.f3 hSoo and both sides have
their pluses, Grischuk - Rad­
jabov, Biel 2007.
 l.d4 0.f6 2.c4 g6 3. 0.c3 :ig7 4.e4 d6 5. ie2 0 - 0 6. ig5 0.a6 7:f4

from there will support the pawn­

break e4-e5.) 13.e5± - The defects
of the placement of Black's knight
on a6 have become quite obvious.
In fact, White has an extra piece
in the fight for the centre, Ser­
gienko - Cherniaev, Tula 1998.

A) 7 ti'e8
•••

With this move Black prepares

Now, Black has two main lines the pawn-advance e7-e5, after
at his disposal: A) 7 ti'e8 and
••• which White will be forced to
B) 7 c6.
.•• push dS and Black's knight, at the
edge of the board on a6, will gain
It seems rather dubious for access to the cS-square.
him to opt for 7 . . . c5? ! . Following This plan is not so good if
8.d5, there arise positions in Black includes the preliminary
which Black's knight is better move 7 . . . h6, because after 8.:ih4
placed on d7 in order to prevent WeB, White has a powerful addi­
White's possible central pawn­ tional possibility - 9.e5 ! Later, in
break e4-e5. It is understandable the game R.Bagirov - Mareck,
that from the a6-square it can go Batumi 2002, there followed 9 . . .
only to c7, from where it cannot 0.h7 10.0.f3 f6 11.0-0 c S 12.exd6
control at all the eS-square. The exd6 13.0.b5± The vulnerability of
pawn-advance b7-b5, which the the d6-pawn will be a cause of
knight on c7 can support, is abso­ permanent worries for Black.
lutely harmless for White, be­
cause he can parry it with the
move a2-a4, or eventually with
a4-a5. 8 . . . Wa5 (After 8 . . . We8 9.
0.f3 e6 10.e5 ! ?t ; 10 . .bf6 .ixf6 11.
eS dxeS 12 .fxe5 :ig7 13.d6;t;,
White's powerful d6-pawn is a
more important factor in this po­
sition than Black's bishop-pair.)
9.ti'd2 e6 10.0.f3 exdS 11.cxd5 E:e8
12. 0-0 :ig4 (The move 12 . . . c4
weakens the d4-square. 13.�h1
bS 14.0.d4± Black's position is 8.e5 ! ?
very difficult. White's knight on Now, this move i s not a s effec­
d4 will go to the c6-square and tive as after the inclusion of the

105
Chapter 9
moves h6 and i.h4, because White's
bishop on g5 may come under at­
tack in some variations with the
move f7-f6; nevertheless, it leads
again to an advantage for White.
8 ... .!Dd7 9 . .!Df3 c5
Black must be in a hurry to at­
tack his opponent's centre as
quickly as possible; otherwise, his
position will be horribly cramped.
10.0-0 cxd4 11 . .!Dd5 dxe5
White maintains a stable ad­
vantage following ll .. .f6 12.exf6
tt:Jxf6 13 . .bf6 ixf6 14.lt:Jxf6+ gxf6
15.lt:Jxd4;t - he has a superior
pawn-structure: two pawn-is­
lands against three, moreover
that Black's king is vulnerable,
Yakovich - Trygstad, Bergen
2000.
12 . .he7
12 ... exf4
This move has been played in
the game Meins - Reh, Baunatal
2001 and it is the best for Black.
His position is terrible after
12 .. .f6, Herraiz Hidalgo - Paredes
106
Sanchez, Madrid 2005, since White
has the energetic resource 13.
fxe5! , for example: 13 ...gf7 (Black's
situation becomes even worse
following 13 . . . fxe5 14.c5 ! White
sacrifices a pawn and brings his
bishop into the attack. 14 . . . tt:Jdxc5
15 ..bf8 \1;lfxf8 16.ic4 <;!;>hS 17.lt:Jg5
if5 18.lt:Jb6 axb6 19.lt:Jf7+ <;!;>gS
20.lt:Jxe5+ <;!;>hS 21.gxf5 gxf5 2 2 .
lt:Jf7+ <;!;>gS 23 .\1;l/h5+- and i n order
to save his king, Black must part
with his queen.) 14.exf6 tt:Jxf6 15 .
.b£6 .ixf6 16.tt:Jxf6+ gxf6 17.
\1;l/xd4± - he has succeeded in sav­
ing the exchange, but this is a
small consolation for him, since
he has no compensation for the
sacrificed pawn.
13 . .!Dxd4 .!Db6
14 . .!Df6 + !
White should not go after ma­
terial, because after 14.ixf8 \1;lfxf8
15.gxf4 tt:Jxd5 16.cxd5oo, despite
the extra exchange, his play will
be much more difficult, since the
dark squares in his camp are con­
siderably weakened.
 l.d4 0,f6 2.c4 g6 3. 0, c3 !g7 4.e4 d6 S. ie2 0 - 0 6. ig5 0,a6 7/4
14 hf6 15.hf6 'ti'e3+ 16.
•.•
g{2 lDc5 17.lbc2 'ti'e8 18.gxf4;t
- He has regained the sacrificed
pawn and his advantage is doubt­
less, due to his two powerful bish­
ops. Black must be on a perma­
nent alert how not to be check­
mated on the compromised dark
squares.
B) 7 c6 •••
With this patient move Black
prepares the evacuation of his
knight from the a6-square. It is
going to c7 from where it not only
supports the pawn-breaks b7-b5
and d7-d5, but can also go to e6 at
an opportune moment, exerting
pressure against White's centre
(the d4-square) and attacking
rather unpleasantly the bishop in
gS.
8.'ti'd2
(diagram)
8 ••• lbc7
This is the main response for
Black.
8 . . . b5. This is an interesting
pawn-sacrifice, but insufficient
for equality. 9.cxb5 (But not 9.e5,
since after 9 ... b4�. there arise
complications on the board and
they are much rather in favour of
Black, since his pieces are better
mobilised, Moskalenko - Nadyr­
hanov, Alushta 1994.) 9 . . . cxb5
10.hb5 gbs 1l.ic4;t Black has
some compensation for the pawn,
but it is still insufficient to main­
tain the equality. White does not
have pawn-weaknesses in his po­
sition and he needs just two more
moves to complete his develop­
ment.
Black cannot equalise with 8 . . .
gbs, with the idea to sacrifice a
pawn in another fashion - 9.0,f3
bS 10.hf6 exf6 (Or 10 . . .hf6 11.
cxbS cxb5 12.0,xb5;t and Black has
two powerful bishops, but White
is still better thanks to his extra
pawn and domination in the cen­
tre.) ll.cxbS cxbS 12.0,xb5;t
It may be very interesting for
Black to try 8 . . . d5 ! ? Now, White is
107
Chapter 9
forced to capture the pawn and
after 9.i.xf6 exf6 10.exd5 cxdS
11.lt:Jxd5, there arises a very com­
plicated position in which he
must play very precisely.
He has an extra pawn indeed,
but lags in development and Black
has two very powerful bishops.
His dark-squared bishop is par­
ticularly strong, since it has no
opponent. ll . . . E:e8 (after ll . . . bS
12.lt:Je3 bxc4 13.if3 E:b8 14.lt:Je2;!;,
White is close to the completion
of his development and Black's
c4-pawn is not dangerous at all)
12.lt:Jf3 ie6 13.lt:Je3 Vlie7 (He can
also try here 13 . . . VJid6. There may
arise the following developments:
14.g3 ih3 15.'i!lf2 E:ad8 16.E:he1
lt:JcS 17.id3;!;. Black's pieces are
tremendously active, but White's
prospects are preferable. Black
has doubled pawns on the f-file,
so White has in the centre and on
the queenside not one but two ex­
tra pawns.) 14.0-0 id7 (The
move 14 . . . .b:c4 leads to multiple
exchanges and a transfer into a
slightly better endgame for White.
15.hc4 VJixe3+ 16.VJixe3 E:xe3 17.
E:fe1 E:xe1 + 18.!\xeU Black has re­
gained his pawn indeed, but the
108
endgame is better for White
thanks to his superior pawn­
structure.) 15.'i!lf2 ic6 16.E:ae1
This is the key position for the
variation with 8 . . . d5. Now, Black
has a choice. He can push 16 . . .f5
and White's best reaction against
this would be 17.g3;!;, preserving a
slight edge. (Following 17.lt:Je5,
Black has at his disposal a forced
variation leading to a draw: 17 . . .
E:ad8 18.'i!lg1 heS 19.fxe5 VJixeS
20.lt:lc2 VJif6 21.id3 E:xe1 22.E:xe1
E:xd4 ! 23.lt:Jxd4 VJixd4+ 24.'it>h1
lt:JcS 25.E:d1 lt:Jxd3 26.VJixd3 VJixb2
27.VJid8+ 'it>g7 28.Vlid4+ VJixd4 29.
E:xd4 'it>f6=)
Or 16 . . . E:ad8 and later in the
game V.Potkin - Grischuk, Khan­
ty-Mansiysk 2011, there followed:
17.d5 lt:JcS 18.id3 VJic7 19.g3;!;
There has arisen a very compli­
cated position in which the play is
rather difficult for both sides.
White must be very careful about
his opponent's tactical possibili­
ties. If he succeeds in parrying
them and simplifies the position
by exchanging pieces, then his
two extra pawns on the queen­
side should gradually settle the
issue.
 l.d4 tiJf6 2.c4 g6 3. tiJc3 :ig7 4.e4 d6 S. :ie2 0 - 0 6. :ig5 tiJa6 7.f4
9.�f3
Naturally, you cannot see of­
ten the bishop here at the begin­
ning of the game, since God has
created the f3-square for the
knight, but now, this move is
necessary, because White must
protect very carefully his e4-
square.
9 ••• c!iJe6
Besides this move, Black has
an interesting pawn-sacrifice here
- 9 . . . d5 10.cxd5 cxdS 11.e5 4Je4
12.4Jxe4 dxe4 13 . .be4. White has
an extra pawn, but his play is not
easy at all, since he lags in devel­
opment. 13 .. .£6 (following 13 . . .
4Je6, White should better give
back the pawn immediately, be­
ing happy with a slight edge in the
endgame thanks to his better
pawn-structure after 14.:ih4 �xd4
15.�xd4 4Jxd4 16.�d1 4Je6 17.4Je2
g5 18.fxg5 .be5 19.b3 tiJcS 20.:if3
:ifS 21. 0-0;!;) 14 . .ih4 fxeS (In the
game Hernandez Carmenates -
Libiszewski, Montcada 2011, Black
tried some active actions on the
kingside, but they backfired fol­
lowing 14 . . . g5? ! , which after 15.
fxgS fxeS 16.4Jf3 exd4 17. 0-0±,
led to a position with a consider­
able advantage for White. Black's
pawn-majority in the centre is im­
material, because his pawns are
easily blocked, while the vulnera­
bility of his castling position
provides White with excellent
attacking prospects.) 1S.fxe5 .beS
16.4Jf3 :if4 17.�d3 �d6 18.0-0
.ie6 19.�aeU - His pieces are
very harmoniously deployed and
Black's e7-pawn is much weaker
than White's d4-pawn.
Black's plan to advance the
undermining move f7-f5 is not
dangerous for White, since it is
too slow and also weakens Black's
position. 9 . . . 4Jd7 10.4Jge2 fS 11.
exfS gxfS 12.0-0. There may fol­
low 12 . . . 4Jf6 13.d5 eS 14.fxe5 dxeS
15.4Jg3 cxdS 16.4Jxd5 :ie6, Miton
- B.Socko, Germany 2011. Here,
White could have increased his
advantage with the move 17.�ae1!
Black will have problems with the
protection of his e and f-pawns.
For example: 17 . . .£4 18.4Jh5 :ixdS
19.cxd5 �d6 20.4Jxg7 c;!;>xg7 21.
�xeS ! After this exchange-sacri­
fice Black's position crumbles.
2l.. .�xe5 22 .:ixf4 �fS 23 . .bc7±
White has two pawns for the ex­
change, a couple of powerful bish­
ops and a dangerous passed d­
pawn, while Black's king has
practically no pawn-shelter.
10.�h4
109
Chapter 9
Unfortunately for White, he
must lose a tempo for the retreat
of his bishop.
10 ••• c5
Black succeeds in creating
counterplay in the centre.
ll.dxc5 �xeS 12.!3:dl
There has arisen a position
similar in its pawn-structure to
the Maroczy system in the Sicilian
Defence. Now, it all depends on
whether White will manage to
complete his development. If he
does, then he will have a great ad­
vantage in the forthcoming mid­
dle game; otherwise, Black may
seize the initiative.
12 ••• �e6
White's c4-pawn is Black's
main target for attack.
13.b3 aS
Now, he switches to attacking
the b3-pawn.
Black only loses time with the
move 13 .. .'�a5, because he cannot
break his opponent's position
with piece-sorties. Later, in the
game Hammer - Bejtovic, Go-
110
thenburg 2011, there followed:
14.lt:Jge2 a6 15.0-0 \t>h8 16.lt:Jd4
!!ac8. White has completed his
development and after the central
pawn-break 17.e5± seized com­
pletely the initiative.
14.�ge2
14 a4
•••
The obviously bad move 14 . . .
�c7? ! was played i n the game
Ivanchuk - Radjabov, Medias
2011. Black not only loses a tem­
po, but his queen is misplaced on
the c7-square, because in many
variations, after the preliminary
exchange .ixf6, it will come under
attack with lt:Jd5. The game con­
tinued with 15.0-0 a4 16.f5 ! This
is a positional pawn-sacrifice with
the idea to deflect Black's bishop
from the protection of the d5-
square. 16 . . . gxf5 17.exf5 hf5 18.
�6 exf6 (It would be a disaster
for Black to opt for 18 . . . .bf6?,
since following 19.lt:Jd5 �c8 2 0 .
lt:Jxf6+ exf6 21.b4 lt:J e 6 2 2 .lt:Jc3+-,
he has temporarily an extra pawn
indeed, but his position is al most
 l.d4 l!:Jf6 2.c4 g6 3. l!:Jc3 i.g7 4.e4 d6 5. 1i.e2 0 - 0 6. i.g5 l!:Ja6 7.f4
hopeless, because he cannot de­
fend all the numerous pawn­
weaknesses in his camp.) 19.b4
lf:Je6 20.lf:Jb5 119b6+ 21.'it>hl± Al­
most all Black's pawns are terribly
weak.
15.b4! ?
This i s an interesting move.
White weakens his c4-pawn, but
deprives his opponent of the pos­
sible counterplay against the
pawn on b3.
Following 15.l!:Jd4, White can
hardly hold on to his b3-pawn.
For example: 15 . . . axb3 16.axb3
119a5 17. 0-0 119b6 18.119f2 tt:Jxb3 19.
l!:Jxe6 119xf2 + 20Jl:xf2 fxe6 21.e5
dxeS 22 .fxe5 lf:Je8 23 . .ig3� and al­
though he has the initiative in
this endgame, which compen­
sates fully his minimal material
deficit, but White can hardly rely
on anything more than a draw;
because there remains just too lit­
tle material on the board, Levin -
Wiersma, Netherlands 2011.
15 . . . l0cd7
The retreat of the knight to the
edge of the board 15 . . . lf:Ja6? ! is ob­
viously weaker due to 16.a3 ! and
Black cannot play 16 . . . hc4 in
view of 17.e5± and White's bishop
on f3 becomes tremendously ac­
tive.
16.1rd3 ! ?
This simple move, protecting
the pawn, seems to me to be more
promising to White in his fight for
the opening advantage than the
pawn-sacrifice after 16.c5, for ex­
ample: 16 . . . dxc5 17.bxc5 (It is also
interesting for Black to try 17.b5 ! ?
and after 1 7. . . 119c7 18.e5 l!:JxeS 19.
fxeS E:fd8 20.119g5 E:xd1+ 21.'it>xd1
h6 22 .119e3 l!:Jg4 23.ixg4 hg4
24 . .ig3, there arises a very com­
plicated position. White has a
knight for two pawns, but his king
is vulnerable and Black's pieces
are rather active.) 17 . . . tt:Jxc5 18.e5
lf:Jfd7 (It is weaker for him to con­
tinue with 18 . . . 119xd2 +, because of
19 J!:xd2 lf:Jfd7 20 . .ixe7 E:fe8 21.
.id6i. White has regained his
pawn and maintains a slight edge
thanks to his more actively de­
ployed minor pieces.) 19.0-0� ­
No doubt, he has compensation
for the sacrificed pawn, since his
pieces are active, but it is unclear
whether he can achieve anything
meaningful.
16 . . . 119b6
16 . . . 119c7 17.lf:Jd5 .ixd5 18.cxd5i
White has extra space, a bishop­
pair and only needs to castle in
order to complete his develop-
111
Chapter 9

ment. There may arise the follow­

ing variation: 18 ... E1fc8 19.E1cl '1Wb6
2 0.E1bl '1Wc7 21.0-0 '1Wc4 22 .'1Wxc4
E1xc4 23.E1fcl E1ac8 24.iel lLlb6 25.
E1xc4 lLlxc4 26.E1cl lLle8 27 . .ig4
E1c7 28.id7 ib2 29.E1xc4 E1xc4
30.ixe8 ia3 31.ixa4 ixb4 32.
ixb4 E1xb4 33 . .ib3 E1xe4 34.'it>f2;!;
- In this endgame, White's two
minor pieces are stronger than
Black's rook and pawns.
Black's position is horrible af­
17.a3 lUeS 18.lbd5 hd5 ter 2l.. .E1aa8?! 2 2 .'it>d2±
19.cxd5 \Wa6 Following 21.. .lLle8 2 2 .lLld4;!;,
he has not achieved anything real
The inclusion of the moves and will have to begin to defend
19 . . . h5 20 .h3;!; does not change passively in a few moves.
the evaluation of the position. 22.)3cl )3xcl + 23.tLlxcl;!;
White has traded a pair of rooks
20.\Wxa6 )3xa6 21 .if2
• and succeeded in decreasing his
(diagram) opponent's initiative. Now, if
White has an advantage in the Black fails to organise pressure
arising endgame, because he can against the pawns on a3 or e4,
parry easily Black's temporary ac­ White will coordinate his pieces
tivity. and Black's position will become
21 ••• )3c4 very difficult, since he has less
He wishes to create counter­ space and his queenside pawns
play against White's e4-pawn. are seriously weakened.

Conclusion
We have just completed our analysis of the variation with 6 . . . lLla6. It
is quite deservedly one of the most popular responses for Black in the
Averbakh system in the contemporary tournament practice. He is try­
ing to obtain a sharp and complicated position and is ready to sacrifice
pawns in his fight for the initiative. Still, after a precise play, White has
chances of obtaining an advantage after the opening. As a rule, in this
variation he acquires some long term pluses - a space advantage and a
powerful pawn-centre. His main task is to overcome the temporary lag
in development. After he completes it successfully, Black will be forced
to begin defending.

112
Chapter 10 l.d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 J.g7 4.e4 d6
5 .ie2 0-0 6.J.g5 h6
•
This move is one of the most
popular responses for Black
against the Averbakh system,
chosen by White. Black ousts im­
mediately his opponent's bishop
from its active position. Still, this
move has a serious drawback -
Black's pawn on h6 is not suffi­
ciently protected. In the majority
of the variations White can win a
tempo by attacking it with the
move 1Wd2 .
7 . .ie3
This is the right decision. In
the Averbakh system, contrary for
example to the Petrosian system,
White's bishop retreats as a rule
to this square.
Now, Black can choose be­
tween numerous possibilities. As
main lines, we will analyse three
moves : A) 7. . .ltlbd7, B) 7 . . . e5,
C) 7 . . c5.
.
Before that however, we will
deal with some not so popular
lines.
White should not be afraid of
the rather slow move 7 . . . a6. After
8.\Wd2 'kt>h7 9.h3 lL:\c6 lO.lLlf3 eS
ll.dS lL:\e7, he can follow with the
standard resource 12 .g4 ! imped­
ing Black's kingside counterplay
and developing effortlessly his
initiative on the other side of the
board. Later, in the game Kovacs
- Mesaros, Trencianske Teplice
2005, there followed 12 . . . lL:\fg8
13.0-0-0 .id7 14.c5 lL:\c8 15.'kt>bl±.
White's initiative is very power­
ful. Black is incapable of counter­
ing White's actions on the c-file
and his kingside counterplay is
obviously too slow.
It seems rather dubious for
Black to try here 7 . . . b6. In g�ner­
al, in the King's Indian Defence,
Black fianchettoes his light­
squared bishop only very seldom,
113
Chapter 1 0
since it can hardly find a better
place for actions than the c8-h3
diagonal. 8.h3 ll'lfd7 (8 . . ..tb7 9.
�c2;!;) 9.�d2 'it>h7 10.g4 eS ll.ds
aS 12 .h4. This is the beginning of
a standard plan for similar posi­
tions. White advances his pawn to
the hS-square, forcing his oppo­
nent to play g6-gS and after that
Black will have no counterplay
whatsoever and will remain in the
role of a spectator to the rest of
the game. White will prepare pa­
tiently a breakthrough on the
queenside. You can see a very
good example on this subject -
the game Panno - Camara, Sao
Paulo 1972 . 12 . . . ll'lcS 13.hS gS 14.
ll'lh3 ll'lbd7 1S.f3 .tf6 16.0-0 ie7
17.ll'lf2 ll'lb7 18J!fb1 ll'ldcS 19.b3
id7 20.id1 !!e8 21.a3 if8 22 .b4
ll'la6 23 ..ta4± After the trade of
the light-squared bishops, Black's
position became even worse due
to the catastrophic vulnerability
of his light squares. The game
continued until move 69 and end­
ed in a victory for White, but there
was never a real struggle. It looked
like the fight between two wres­
tlers in which one of them is on
top and is trying to break his op­
ponent's neck. The only problem
is whether the neck will withstand
the pressure or not.
Black's position is obviously
inferior after 7 . . . c6 8.�d2 'it>h7
9.h3, for example : 9 . . . a6, as it was
played by V. Ragozin against the
author of this system. He did not
manage to reap any dividends at
114
all. 10.ll'lf3 dS ll.id3 dxe4 12.
ll'lxe4 ll'lxe4 13.he4;!; White's po­
sition is clearly preferable and his
pieces are much more active,
Averbakh - Ragozin, Leningrad
19S6.
Now, just like in the majority
of similar variations, Black can­
not equalise with the move 7 . . .
ll'lc6, because h e provokes some
weakening of White's centre after
the move 8.dS indeed, but Black
loses too much time on moves
with his knight. 8 . . . ll'leS (It is not
preferable for him to retreat with
his knight to its initial position -
8 . . . ll'lb8, since after 9.�d2 'it>h7
10 .h3 aS ll.ll'lf3 eS, in the game
Polovodin - Stotika, Leningrad
1983, White could have begun im­
mediately active actions on the
queenside with the move: 12.cS ! ±
and Black would have great prob­
lems to neutralise White's activity
on the c-file.) 9.h3 c6 10.ll'lf3
ll'lxf3+ ll.hf3 cxdS 12.cxdS;!; Le­
rner - Gufeld, Ivano-Frankovsk
1982 . He has a slight edge thanks
to having extra space. After Gufeld
played 12 . . . bS? ! , there appeared a
gaping weakness on the c6-square
in his position and White's knight
was headed there immediately
along the route c3-e2-d4-c6. 13.
0-0 id7 14.�d2 'it>h7 1S.ll'le2 �b8
16.!'1ac1 �b7 17.ll'ld4±
7 . . . ll'la6. Now, contrary to the
previous chapter, this move is not
so good, because White wins a
tempo by attacking the h6-pawn
 l.d4 ll:Jf6 2.c4 g6 3. ll:Jc3 �g7 4.e4 d6 5. :ie2 0 - 0 6. :ig5 h6 7. :ie3
with the move 8.�d2 , for example
8 . . . �h7. Here, his simplest reac­
tion would be 9.f3 ! ?, after which
there arises a favourable version
for White of the Saemisch sys­
tem.
It is not so good for Black to
play 9 . . . e5, since following lO.dS,
his counterplay can only be con­
nected with the pawn-advance f7-
f5, but White is already very well
prepared to counter it with his
ninth move. Later, in the game
Gurieli - Grabics, Komotini 1993,
there followed 10 ... ll:Jg8 ll.h4 fS
12 .h5 f4 13.hxg6+ �xg6 14.if2±.
Black's kingside activity has back­
fired, because his king is vulnera­
ble, as well as his h6-pawn. After
castling queenside, White can
combine active actions on the
kingside (g2-g3) with queenside
activity ( c4-c5).
9 ... c5 10 .d5 ll:Jc7 ll.g4 ll:Jg8 12.
h4 eS 13.0-0-0;!; Sapi - Havasi,
Hungary 1992 . He has much more
space and in actions on both sides
of the board, has excellent possi­
bilities to transfer his pieces to the
different flanks. It was Napoleon
who used to say "War - this is
communications ! " .
A) 7 ••• ll:Jbd7
This move was popular at the
beginning of the 90ies of the past
century mostly thanks to the ef­
forts of grandmasters Z.Lanka.
A.Shirov and V.Bologan. Black's
main idea is to prepare the pawn­
advance c7-c5 and to sacrifice a
pawn with the move b7-b5, after
which there arise positions which
resemble the Benko Gambit.
Nowadays, this move is played
only seldom, because White has
found rather convincing ways of
neutralising his opponent's initia­
tive. He can obtain in this varia­
tion a slight but stable advantage.
8.�d2 c5
It is better for Black to play
this move immediately, without
losing time for the protection of
his h6-pawn. The rather slow re­
action - 8 . . . �h7 would enable
White to play the actively-pro­
phylactic move 9.h4 ! , obtaining a
clearly better position . .
(diagram)
Now, Black will have a very
115
Chapter 1 0
difficult position, without any
chances of creating active coun­
terplay after 9 . . . eS? ! lO .hS gS 11.
dS tt:lcS (11 . . . tt:le8 12 .g4 �f6 13.tt:lf3
fi..e 7 14.tt:lh2 cS 1S.O-O tt:lc7 16.E:fb1
tt:lb8 17.a3 b6 18 .b4 tt:lba6 19.f3 f6
2 0 .tt:lf1 E:t7 21.tt:lg3 �f8 22 .�d1
�d7 23.�a4 .ba4 24.tt:lxa4± Po­
lugaevsky - Noerby, Lugano
1968. Black has no counterplay at
all and must only wait for his de­
mise. Later, White combined
threats on the queenside with ex­
ploiting the vulnerability of the
fS-square and scored a full point
after SO moves.) 12.f3 g4 (It does
not look better for Black to adhere
only to a passive defence with the
move 12 . . . aS, because after 13.�d1
tt:lg8 14.�c2 'it>h8 1S.g4 �f6 16.
tt:lge2 �e7 17.tt:lg3 f6 18. 0-0±,
White can deprive completely his
opponent of chances of organis­
ing any counterplay on the king­
side. Later, after a difficult fight,
he won the game by combining
the threat of a breakthrough on
the queenside with exploiting the
weakness of the fS-square, Ra­
etsky - Pletanek, Pardubice 1992.)
13.b4 tt:la6 14.tt:lbS E:g8 1S.tt:lxa7±
After Black has lost his a7-pawn,
his queenside position crumbles
116
and his kingside counterplay is
nowhere in sight, Aleksandrov -
Bastian, Germany 1998.
It may be possible that Black's
best decision here might be 9 . . . cS,
but following 10.E:d1 ! ? '!WaS 11.hS
gS 12.tt:lf3 cxd4 13.tt:lxd4t, there
arises a position which is more
typical for the Maroczy system of
the Sicilian Defence, except that
as a result of the pawn-advance
g6-gS, Black has a weakness on
the fS-square in his position. This
is, no doubt, in favour of White.
9.d5
9 ••• 'it>h7
Now, Black will have to play
this move; otherwise, after 9 . . .
'!WaS, White can make a surprising
exchange of his central pawn for
the enemy rook pawn and obtain
good attacking prospects. The
analysis shows that if both sides
play correctly, White's achieve­
ments are not so great, but his
play is much easier in a practical
game. 10 . .bh6 hl6 11.'1Wxh6
tt:lxe4 12 .E:c1 tt:ldf6 (It is bad for
 J.d4 lt:Jf6 2.c4 g6 3. lt:Jc3 !g7 4.e4 d6 S. ie2 0 - 0 6. ig5 h6 7. i.e3
Black to play here 12 . . . e6?, be­
cause he eliminates the risk to be
checkmated indeed, but loses a
pawn and has no compensation
for it. 13.dxe6 lt:Jdf6 14.exf7+ E:xf7
15.lt:Jf3 i.fS 16.0-0± Oral - Rasik,
Czech Republik 1995.) 13.h4 1Mfb4
(Black loses immediately follow­
ing 13 . . . lt:Jxc3? 14.bxc3 lt:Je4 15.h5
g5 16.f3 lt:Jxc3 17.1M/xg5+- and af­
ter White's queen comes back to
d2, Black loses surprisingly his
knight on c3, Petursson - De­
mire}, Katerini 1993. His position
is not to envied too after 13 . . . i.f5
14.h5 g5 15.f3 lt:Jxc3 16.1Mfxg5+
<;!;>h8 17.E:xc3± White is much bet­
ter not only because he has an ex­
tra pawn, but also due to the ab­
sence of a pawn-shelter in front of
Black's monarch.)
14.if3 lt:Jxc3 (14 . . . i.f5, Horvath
- Hassan, Cairo 1997, 15.lt:Jge2
1Mfxb2 16.h5 ! g5 17. 0-0 g4 18.he4
lt:Jxe4 19.lt:Jxe4 ixe4 2 0 .lt:Jc3±)
15.bxc3 1Mfxc4 16. h5 g5 ! 17.1Mfxg5+
<;!;>h7 18.E:h4 1Mfxa2 19.lt:Je2 E:g8
20.1Mff4;!; It is easier for White to
play the arising position, since he
has a clear-cut plan for further ac­
tions. He will attack the enemy
king with his pawns on the king-
side (h6, g4-g5). His king has not
castled yet, but will have an excel­
lent safe haven on the fl-square.
White's advantage is doubtless
in this variation, but it may be
even stronger for him to play
the energetic move 14.h5 ! , begin­
ning an immediate offensive
against Black's king. 14 . . . g5 15.
E:c2 if5 16. lt:Jh3 lt:Jh7 17.i.d3 lt:Jg3.
White should not be afraid of this
tactical strike. 18.lt:Jxg5 lt:Jf6 (18 . . .
i.xd3? 19.E:h3 lt:Jxg5 20.E:xg3 f6
21.f4 ixc2 22 .fxg5 <;!{f7 23.gxf6
<;!;>e8 24.fxe7+-). Now, you can
see a series of computer moves :
19.lt:Jge4 ! lt:Jgxe4 20.0-0 ! ! This is
very beautiful. White has sacri­
ficed a piece with his previous
move and now, he simply castles.
20 . . . lt:Jg3 21.1Mff4 <;!;>h8 (21...lt:Jxf1
22 .hf5+-) 2 2 .ixf5 lt:Jxf5 23.1Mfxf5
1Mfxc4 24.!'\el± Black has succeed­
ed in avoiding being checkmated
indeed, but this is just small con­
solation for him, because not only
his king is endangered, but he has
no satisfactory defence against
the threat E:xe7.
10.h3
117
Chapter 1 0
White cannot continue the
game without this move. He must
prevent the manoeuvre of the en­
emy knight - llJg4-e5.
10 b5
•••
Besides this pawn-sacrifice
Black has tried in practice the
passive move 10 . . . a6, but after
ll.a4 ! WfaS 12.�a2t, White neu­
tralises completely Black's queen­
side counterplay (The threats
against the c4-pawn are parried
easily: 12 . . . Wfb4 13.lDf3 lDb6 14.
Wfd3±).
It is also possible for Black to
opt for 10 . . . Wfa5 ll.lDf3 a6 (It is
understandable that following
ll . . .bS? ! , White can simply cap­
ture the pawn with his knight 12.
lDxbS± and Black will have no
compensation for it whatsoever,
Papadopoulou - Czaeczine, Chal­
kidiki 2003.) 12. 0-0 bS 13.a3 ! ?
This prophylactic i s necessary
against b5-b4. 13 . . . bxc4 14 ..bc4
iDeS 15.�ab1 �b8 16.�fclt Bareev
- Wahls, Germany 1992. Black's
queenside counterplay has been
parried. In addition, White plans
to seize the initiative there with
the move b2-b4.
ll.cxb5 a6
The move ll . . . WfaS was tried in
the game Jussupow - Shirov,
Moscow 1992. Following 12.�c1
a6, Jussupow continued with a
counter sacrifice of a pawn 13.b6 ! ?
118
(You can see this idea very often
in this variation.). 13 . . . lDxb6 14.
Wfc2 e6 15.id2 �b8 16.b3t Black's
queenside counter attack has
reached its dead end and he is in­
capable of exploiting White's lag
in development, because the
queen on aS is terribly misplaced.
Later in the game A. Shirov made
a blunder 16 . . . exd5?? and that led
to the loss of his queen after 17.
lDb1+-
12.ltlf3 �aS 13.b6 ! ?
We are already familiar with
this pawn-sacrifice. Just like in
the famous variation of the Benko
Gambit (l.d4 lDf6 2.c4 cS 3.d5 bS
4.cxb5 a6 5.b6), its idea is to di­
minish Black's active possibilities
on the queenside. He does not
need the pawn on a6 in numerous
variations, because it closes the a­
file for his rook as well as the f1-a6
diagonal for his bishop.
13 llJxb6 14.0-0 lDa4 15.
•••
J.d3 lL!xc3
The developments are very in­
teresting after 15 . . . c4 16.lDxa4
 l.d4 0.j6 2.c4 g6 3. 0. c3 fig7 4.e4 d6 5. 1i.e2 0 - 0 6. 1i.g5 h6 7. iJ.e3
\Wxa4 (In the endgame, arising af­
ter 16 . . . \Wxd2 17.0.xd2 cxd3 18.
:§:acH, White's prospects are pref­
erable, because Black's pawn on
d3 is much rather a liability than
strength.) 17.b3 ! cxb3 18.axb3
\Wd7 19.:§:a4;l; White has much
more space in the middle game
and can play not only against the
weak black pawn on a6, but can
also try to exploit the weakness of
the c6-square (0.f3-d4-c6) .
16.bxc3 .id7
This move seems to me to be
more precise than what was
played in the game Alterman -
Shirov, Elista 1998 - 17.c4, after
which the line: 17 . . . \Wxd2 18 . .b:d2
.ia4 19J'!ab1 :§:fb8 20.:§:xb8 :§:xb8
21.:§:b1 :§:xb1+ 22 .1i.xb1 0.d7= , led
to complete exhaustion of the po­
sition and after numerous ex­
changes the opponents agreed to
a draw.
17 ,gab8 18.c4 \Wxd2 19.
••
hd2 .ia4
Following 19 ...e5 20J3bli, there
arises an endgame of a King's In­
dian type which is in favour of
White since he has more space.
20.e5;!;
After this pawn-break, White
seizes the initiative in the centre.
There may appear a weakness in
Black's camp - the pawn on e7,
after the exchange on eS, or the
d6-pawn, after the removal of the
knight from f6 and the move
21.if4.
B) 7 ... e5
This move is chosen by many
adherents to the King's Indian
Defence for whom it is inconceiv­
able without the pawn-advance
e7-e5. After White's bishop has
abandoned the h4-d8 diagonal,
Black should not be afraid of los­
ing a pawn, due to the pin of his
knight. The move was the favour­
ite of S.Gligoric and Y.Balashov.
In the variations, which we will
analyse, you will see games by
such outstanding King's Indian
experts like G.Kasparov, B.Gel-
119
Chapter 1 0
fand, I. Smirin and many others.
Nowadays, this move can be en­
countered at grandmaster level
too, but it has lost its popularity.
The point is that it is very difficult
for Black to organise active ac­
tions on the kingside (as a rule be­
cause of the White's already men­
tioned prophylactic move h4-h5
and eventually g2-g4), while his
opponent's hands are free for ac­
tions on the opposite side of the
board.
8.d5
White closes the centre and
occupies space.
8 ••• c!bbd7
It seems bad for Black to
choose 8 . . . @h7 9.h4 4:\g8 10 .h5
gxhS 1Ul:xh5± and his kingside
has been seriously weakened, Ba­
reev - Chow, Kitchener 2006.
He should better avoid 8 ... 4Jh7
as well. Following 9.'1&d2 hS 10.h4
4Jd7 11.0-0-0 4:\cS 12.4:\h3 .id7
13.f3 a6 14.g4� White does not
even need to prepare his standard
120
offensive on the queenside, be­
cause his attack against Black's
king shelter is very powerful, Sis­
niega - Zapata, Havana 1980.
8 ... 4:\e8 9.'1&d2 @h7 10.g4 fS
11.gxf5 gxfS 12.exf5 .ix£5 13.id3.
The trade of the light-squared
bishops is obviously in favour of
White. 13 . . . \&d7 14.c!bge2 .ixd3
15.\&xd3+ 'l&fS 16.4:\e4± Smolen -
Nagy, Banska Stiavnica 2012.
White has complete control over
the e4-outpost. His knight occu­
pies a perfect position in the cen­
tre of the board, while Black's
bishop is severely restricted by his
own eS-pawn.
The drawback of the move 8 . . .
aS, preparing the manoeuvre
4:\a6-c5, is that it does not prevent
at all White's plan, connected
with h4-h5 and g2-g4. 9.h4 hS
(9 . . . 4:\a6 10.h5 gS 11.g4 4:\cS 12.f3
4:\e8 13.4:\h3 .if6 14.4:\f2± Sunye
Neto - Toth, Fortaleza 1989.
There has arisen one of the stand­
ard positions in which Black is
doomed to a passive defence.
White's plan is quite simple. He
will prepare active actions on the
queenside (b3, a3, b4) and even­
tually the trade of the light­
squared bishops with .ie2-d1-a4.)
10.4:\h3 c6 11.4:\gS cxdS 12.cxd5;l;
Kuzmin - Efimenko, Simferopol
2003. White's advantage is doubt­
less, because his knight on gS im­
pedes considerably Black's coun­
terplay, while on the queenside
White has a clear-cut plan for the
 l.d4 liJf6 2.c4 g6 3. liJc3 �g7 4.e4 d6 5. i.e2 0 - 0 6. �g5 h6 7. �e3
improvement of his position with
E:cl and liJbS. You can see the con­
sequences of the weakening of the
bS-square by Black's move 8 . . . a5.
8 . . . liJa6. This move is more
precise than 8 . . . a5. Black's knight
is headed for the cS-square and he
will decide later whether to play
a7-a5, or not. 9.h4 hS (about 9 . . .
liJcS 10.\Wc2 - see 8 . . . liJbd7 9.h4
liJcS 10 .'1Wc2) 10.f3 c6 (lO . . . liJh7 11.
g4 liJf6 12.liJh3 c6 13.liJf2 i.d7 14.
'!Wd2;!; After this move, preparing
castling queenside, White main­
tains an edge. The consequences
are not so clear if he chooses
14.\Wb3 liJcS 15.\Wa3t, since White's
queen is very passive on the a3-
square, Aleksandrov - Smirin,
Batumi 1999.) 11.\Wd2 cxdS 12.
cxdS �d7 13.liJh3 liJcS 14.liJf2 E:c8
15.E:c1 \WaS 16.0-0 liJh7 17.liJbS
'!Wxd2 18.i.xd2 i.xbS 19.i.xb5 a6
20.i.e2;!; Bykhovsky - Dolmatov,
Dortmund 1992. The arising end­
game (just like almost all the end­
games in the King's Indian De­
fence) is in favour of White. He
has more space, the two-bishop
advantage and what is most im­
portant, after the exchange of the
queens, Black's possible kingside
counterplay loses its momentum
considerably.
As a rule, his position remains
passive after 8 . . . c5 9.g4, for exam­
ple: 9 . . . b5. This attempt to create
counterplay with the help of a
pawn-sacrifice cannot provide
Black with good prospects, be-
cause here, contrary to the Benko
Gambit, his fianchettoed bishop
is restricted by his own pawn on
eS (following 9 . . . liJe8 10 .\Wd2 'it>h7
11.h4 liJa6 12.0-0-0;!;, Black's piec­
es evidently lack space, Alster -
Hofman, Bratislava 1959). 10.
cxbS a6 ll.bxa6 \Wa5
12.f3 liJxa6 13.\Wd2 E:b8 14.h4
hS 15.g5 liJd7 16.liJh3 E:b4 17.liJf2
f6 18.gxf6 i.xf6 19.a3! (19.E:c1
\Wd8?, Black has succeeded in or­
ganising counterplay against the
enemy f4-pawn, Vitiugov - In­
arkiev, Moscow 2007) 19 . . . E:b8
2 0.E:a2 '!Wd8 21.liJbS E:b6 22.liJa7±
White's knight has reached the
a7-square and quite purposefully
at that. It can go to c6 from there,
or capture Black's powerful light­
squared bishop. White's pawn on
h4 is untouchable. After 22 . . .
i.xh4? ! , h e obtains a decisive ad­
vantage with the line: 23.liJxc8
i.x£2 + 24.i.xf2 \Wxc8 25.\Wh6 E:f6
26.E:g1 liJf8 27.b4+- White's two
powerful bishops control almost
the entire board. Black is incapa­
ble of exploiting the placement of
his opponent's king is the centre,
while White is not only attacking
on the kingside, but is threatening
121
Chapter 1 0
to advance his connected passed
pawns with b4-bS, a3-a4-aS.
It may be interesting for Black
to try the move 8 . . . c6, although it
is insufficient for equality. This is
a standard position of this type
(for example in some variations of
the Saemisch system) and Black's
attempts to organise active ac­
tions on the queenside are not so
effective, because White can ex­
ploit the weaknesses on his oppo­
nent's kingside (h7-h6) with the
move 9.h4 ! ?
The position i s rather passive
for Black after 9 . . . cxdS 10.cxdS.
His is faced with an unpleasant
choice to either allow h4-hS, or to
weaken the gS-square after h6-
hS. 10 . . . lt::J bd7 (It is possible that
the least of evils for Black may be
to continue with 10 . . . hS 11.f3 lt::J a 6
12.lt::J h3 �d7 13.lt::J f2 'it>h7 14.g4
�aS 1S.gS lt::J g 8 16.a3;!; A.Petrosian
- Morozevich, Moscow 1992, but
even then White is better, because
he can play with the idea to re­
strict the enemy knight on a6 with
(b2-b4), followed by exerting
pressure on the c-file. Black's
counterplay on the f-file is not
122
dangerous for White, because
Black cannot attack effectively the
f3-pawn.) ll.hS gS. Now, White
can obtain an advantage, choos­
ing between lines suggested by
some of the great masters of posi­
tional play. 12.f3. This move was
the favourite of T.Petrosian. (It is
as least as good for White to try
12 .g4, preferred by V.Hort. Later,
White exploited the fact that his
opponent had no counterplay and
organized pressure on the c-file
and transferred his knight to g3 in
order to make use of the weaken­
ing of the fS-square. 12 . . . lt::J cS 13.f3
aS 14.a4 lt::J e 8 1S.ic4 �f6 16.lt::J h3
lt::J c7 17. 0-0 id7 18.�e2 l'l:fc8 19.
lt::J f2 .if8 20.:Ei fc1 ie7 2l.'it>g2 lt::J 7a6
22 .b3 idS 23.lt::J h 1 ib6 24.lt::J g3±
Black is doomed to a long and
passive defence, Hort - Vogt, Po­
lanica Zdroj 1977.) 12 . . . a6 13.g4
bS 14.a4 b4 1S.lt::J b 1 aS 16.lt::J d 2 lt::J cS
17.hc5 ! This is a non-standard
exchange and as a rule it is bad for
White due to the weakening of the
dark squares. Here however,
Black cannot exploit this, because
his minor pieces are very passive.
17 . . . dxcS 18.ibS ib7 19.lt::J e 2 lt::J e 8
20 . .he8 l'l:xe8 2l.lt::J c4± T.Petro­
sian - Schweber, Stockholm 1962.
The position is closed and White's
knights have excellent outposts
on c4 and fS, so they are more
powerful than Black's bishops.
It is possible that his best
chance is the active move 9 . . . bS. It
does not equalise either, but
promises Black active prospects.
10.cxbS cxdS (Following 10 . . .
 l.d4 liJf6 2.c4 g6 3.li:J c3 i.g7 4.e4 d6 5. :ie2 0 - 0 6. :ig5 h6 7. :ie3
cxbS, the play becomes much
calmer. White still maintains an
edge thanks to the vulnerability of
the c6-square in Black's camp. Af­
ter White completes his develop­
ment he can transfer his knight
there along the route c3-a2-b4-
c6, as for example that happened
in the game Meduna - Barczay,
Trnava 198 2 : ll.a3 h5 12 .liJh3 :ig4
13.liJg5 .b:e2 14.�xe2 a6 15.f3
liJbd7 16.liJa2 ! E:c8 17.liJb4 liJb8
18.0-0;!;;) ll.liJxdS ! This is the only
move with which White can fight
for the advantage (after ll.exdS,
in the game Zaichik - Zaitsev,
Moscow 1988, Black obtained
good compensation after the
move ll . . . a6�, due to his oppo­
nent's lag in development.) 11 . . .
:ib7 ( l l. . . liJxe4 12.h5 ! g S 13.:if3 fS
14.:ixe4 fxe4 15.E:cl± White's
knight on dS is very powerful,
while Black's bishop on g7 is se­
verely restricted by his own pawns
on h6, gS, eS, d6.) 12.liJxf6+ �xf6
13.:if3 liJd7 (following 13 . . . d5 14.
exdS e4 15 ..b:e4 �xb2 16.E:b1
�xa2 17.h5 gS 18.liJe2;!;; , there
arises a very complicated position
in which the activity of Black's
pieces (E:e8, liJd7-f6) is not suffi­
cient to compensate the sacrificed
pawn.) 14.E:cU His compensation
is not good enough. Black's posi­
tion is inferior and if White man­
ages to play liJe2-c3, establishing
complete control over the dS­
square, Black's position would be­
come nearly hopeless.
9.h4
The readers may have already
noticed this is White's basic plan
in similar positions.
9 .c!L!c5 10.ti'c2
• •
10 . . . c6
Black is trying to organise
counterplay on the queenside.
Following 10 . . . a5, as a rule it
all comes to transposition of
moves. ll.hS gS (It is bad for Black
to play ll . . . liJxhS, since after 12.
.b:hS gxhS 13.E:xh5 �f6 14.f3 b6
15.g4±, his position becomes very
difficult in view of the vulnerabil­
ity of his h6-pawn, Alburt - Pla­
chetka, Decin 1977.) 12.f3 c6 13.g4
- see 10 . . . c6 ll.hS gS.
Black cannot equalise with
10 . . . liJg4. He obtains the two­
bishop advantage indeed, but los­
es too much time and has no
chances of creating active coun­
terplay. ll . .b:g4 .b:g4 12 .h5 gS (It
is too risky for Black to accept the
pawn-sacrifice 12 . . . .b:h5 13.f3 fS
14.0-0-0 f4 15.:ixc5 dxcS 16.
liJge2 . His bishop on hS is horri-
123
Chapter 1 0
bly isolated and his attempt to
free it with the move 16 . . . 1Mfe8, af­
ter 17.'it>b1 gS 18.lLlbS 1Mff7, pro­
vides White with the chance to
follow with a very promising ex­
change-sacrifice : 19.E!:xhS ! '<MfxhS
2 0 .lLlxc7 E!:ac8 21.lLle6� - his
knight on e6 is not weaker than
any of Black's rooks and his bish­
op is restricted considerably by
his own pawns.) 13.f3 id7 14.
l2Jge2 ! ? This is a very interesting
move. White is not afraid of the
pawn-break f7-fS, because after it
he will obtain the excellent e4-
square for his knight (It is also
very good for him to choose the
quite reliable move 14.g4 ! ?�
Shishkin - Frolov, Kiev 1997.).
14 . . .fS 1S.ixcS dxcS 16.exfS ixfS
17.lLle4� Black's two-bishop ad­
vantage is absolutely immaterial,
because his bishop on g7 is com­
pletely passive. White's knights
are dominant on the e4-outpost
and this provides him with supe­
rior prospects.
It may be interesting for Black
to try the move 10 . . . lLlhS, which is
still insufficient for equality. After
ll.ixhS gxhS 12.lLlge2 fS 13.ixcS
dxcS 14.0-0-0! ?�, Black's bish­
ops are not so active to compen­
sate completely the defects of his
pawn-structure.
White maintains a stable ad­
vantage after 10 . . . hS. Later, in the
game Polugaevsky - Donner, Am­
sterdam 1970, there followed: 11.
f3 c6 12 .b4 lLla6 13.a3 cxdS 14.
124
cxdS id7 1S.lLlh3 1Mfb8 16.lLlf2�.
This is a typical move of a great
master. Lev Polugaevsky refrains
from the routine transfer of his
knight to the gS-square and wish­
es to deploy it on the aS-square
along the route h3-f2-d3-cl-b3-
aS ! 16 . . . bS 17.lLld3 lLlc7 18.0-0
1Mfb7 19.lLlcl! E!:ac8 20.1Mfd2 lLla8 21.
lLlb3 lLlb6 22.lLlaS 1Mfb8 23.E!:fcl±
Black's position is strategically
very difficult in view of the vul­
nerability of his pawn on bS and
the c6-square.
ll.h5
ll . . . cxd5
He does not determine his
plans yet, considering his pawn­
structure on the kingside.
It seems very risky for Black to
opt for ll . . . gS, since at first White
will neutralise his opponent's
possible kingside counterplay
with the moves 12.f3 and 13.g4
and then will occupy the key­
squares on the queenside. 12.f3 aS
13 .g4 id7 14.lLlh3 a4 1S.lLlf2 '<MfaS
(Black cannot facilitate his de-
 l.d4 4:Jf6 2.c4 g6 3. 4:J c3 fi.g7 4.e4 d6 5. fi.e2 0 - 0 6. fi.g5 h6 7. fi.e3
fence by exchanging 1S . . . cxdS 16.
cxdS. In addition, White has the
possibility to accomplish the ad­
vantageous trade of the light­
squared bishops with the move
fibS. 16 . . . !i:c8 17.'<M/d2 4:Je8 18.!i:c1
4:Jc7 19.0-0 4:J7a6 20.fi.bS± Ham­
pel - Lassen, corr. 1991) 16.'<M/d2
!i:fc8 17.!i:c1 a3 18 .b3 cxdS 19.4:JxdS
4:JxdS 20.1WxaS !i:xaS 21.exdS
4:Jxb3. Black has lost the strategi­
cal battle and is forced to enter
tactical complications in order to
make life difficult for his oppo­
nent. In the game Lugovoi - Van
Wely, Antwerp 199S, White
agreed to a draw, but he did not
need to. Following 2 2 .!i:b1! (He
should not capture the knight
22.axb3, because after 22 . . . a2?,
Black has good counterplay
thanks to his powerful pawn on
a2.) 22 . . . 4:Jd4 (22 . . . 4:JcS 23.fi.xcS
!':axeS 24.0Je4± White's edge is
doubtless due to the dominating
placement of his knight in the
centre.) 23.!i:xb7 ia4 24.0Je4± -
The knight on e4 provides White
with a clear advantage.
12.cxd5
12 ... ti'a5
There arise very passive posi­
tions for Black following 12 . . . gS
13.f3 aS. His last pawn-move
leads to a serious weakening of
the bS-square. (13 . . . g4 14.b4 0Ja6
15.a3 fi.d7 16.id3 !i:c8 17.0Jge2;!;
Yakovich - Chigvintsev, Tomsk
1997. Black's knight on f6 is mis­
placed and his counterplay on the
kingside is nowhere in sight. After
the g-file is opened, White is
much more likely to exploit it.)
14.fi.b5 ! This is the right move.
14 . . . fi.d7 15.fi.xc5 ! We have already
seen a similar exchange in T.Pet­
rosian's games. 15 . . . dxc5 16.4:Jge2
'<Mfe8 17.'<M/a4 fi.xbS 18.4:Jxb5 '<M/d7
19.4:Jg3 !i:fd8 2 0 .4:Jf5 fi.f8 21.4:Jc3
'<M/xa4 2 2 .4:Jxa4± White's knight on
fS is very powerful and almost all
Black's pawns are placed on the
same colour of squares as his
bishop, Bellmann - Gwozdz,
ICCF 2000.
Besides this move, Black has
also tried in practice 12 . . . id7
13.hxg6 fxg6 14.b4. It is essential
for White to oust the enemy
knight to the edge of the board as
quickly as possible. (14.fi.xh6? !
Gobbling material cannot be good
for him at all. After 14 . . . fi.xh6 15.
!i:xh6 c;!?g7iii , Black has sufficient
compensation for the pawn. He
can obtain good play on the h-file,
as well as on the c-file an.d the
dark squares have been weakened
considerably in White's camp af­
ter the trade of the dark-squared
125
Chapter 1 0
bishops.) 14 . . . ltla6 15.a3 h5 16.f3
16 . . . ltlc7 (The move 16 . . . ltlh7
enables White to play 17.ltlb5 ! and
Black must part with his powerful
light-squared bishop in order not
to lose one of his pawns. 17 . . . hb5
18.hb5 .tf6 19.ltlh3 .th4+ 2 0 .
W e 2 ltlc7 21..td3 ltl e 8 22J'!acU
Bareev - Gelfand, Biel 1993.
White's king has remained in the
centre indeed, but Black cannot
exploit this circumstance, while
White has extra space, two pow­
erful bishops and the possibility
to organise active actions on the
c-file. All these are serious posi­
tional trumps.) 17.Wfd2 ltlh7 (17 . . .
�e8 18.a4 Wfe7 19.ltlh3 ltlh7 2 0 .
0 - 0 - 0 hh3 2U!xh3± Levin -
Degraeve, Groningen 1996. White
can exploit his space advantage
preparing active operations on
the queenside. Meanwhile, Black's
prospects on the kingside are
rather questionable.) 18.0-0-0
.if6 19.ltlh3 .ixh3 20J!xh3 .tgS 21.
.ixgS ltlxgS 22.:t!hhl. He has man­
aged to exchange advantageously
the dark-squared bishops, but
this has not facilitated Black's sit­
uation. He is incapable of coun­
tering effectively White's stand-
126
ard plan, connected with g3 and
f4. 22 ... Wff6 23J�df1 Wg7 24.g3
E:h8 25.f4± - His kingside initia­
tive is very powerful, S.Ivanov -
A.Kuzmin, Balaguer 1997.
13.J.d2 J.d7
It seems too slow for Black to
opt for 13 . . . �b4 14.f3 Wfb6, Legky
- David, Montpellier 1997. He
has managed to weaken the g1-a7
diagonal indeed, but has lost too
much time on moves with his
queen. 15.b4 ! ? ltla6 16.ltla4 Wfd4
17.:t!c1 ltlxb4 18.�b1 ltld3+ 19.
hd3 Wfxa4 20.hxg6 fxg6 2 1.ltle2
Wfd7 (21.. .h5?? 2 2 . .ib5+-) 22 .
.ixh6 .ixh6 23.:t!xh6 �g7 24.:t!h2:;l;
Black is practically incapable of
countering the threat of the pen­
etration of White's major pieces
on the c-file. If Black transfers his
knight to the cS-square, then
White will simply double his
rooks on the h-file and Black's
king will be seriously endangered.
t4.hxg6 fxg6 ts.gbt
Black's pieces have become ac-
 l.d4 l:iJf6 2.c4 g6 3. 1:iJ c3 i.g7 4.e4 d6 5. i.e2 0 - 0 6. i.g5 h6 7. i.e3
tive and White's imminent task is
to neutralise this activity.
15 .•. 'i;Yb6 16.i.e3 aS
16 . . . 'i;Yc7, Buhmann - Watzka,
Austria 2002, 17.f3 ! ? l:iJh5 18.i.b5 !
It is essential for White to trade
the bishops. The seemingly dan­
gerous penetration of Black's
knight to the g3-square is in
fact harmless. 18 . . . 1:iJg3 (Follow­
ing 18 . . . 1:iJf4 19.hd7 l:iJxd7 20 .g3
l:iJh5 2l.@f2 l."&f7 22 .@g2±, White
will gradually oust his opponent's
active pieces and will maintain his
positional advantage. I would like
to emphasize the following detail.
Here, contrary to the standard
King's Indian positions, Black
does not have an f-pawn (you can
see the consequences of the move
h4-h5 and the trade on g6). This
fact is no doubt in favour of White.
Black cannot attack in any way
White's kingside.) 19.2'!h2 .ixb5
2 0 .1:iJxb5 '&a5+ 21.1:iJc3 '&b4 2 2 .
l:iJge2;t White will oust (or ex­
change) Black's pieces from their
active positions and will force him
to begin defending.
17.1:iJh3 a4
The character of the fight re­
mains more or less the same after
17 . . . 2"&ac8 18.'&d2 l."&f7, Bellmann -
Yeremenko, Email 2001, 19.f3;t
18.0-0 'i;Yb4
The exchange 18 . . ..ixh3 is in
favour of White, since Black can-
not exploit the weakening of
White's kingside. Meanwhile, the
vulnerability of the light squares
in Black's camp may become a
telling factor in the future. 19.
gxh3±
19.f3 .!bh5 20 . .!bf2 .!bg3 21.
gfc1 tLlxe2+ 22J!!fx e2 b6 23.
gc2:t
This position was reached in
the game Mesquita - Benlloch
Guirau, Email 2009. It is closed,
so Black's two-bishop advantage
is not important at all. It is essen­
tial whether White will manage to
develop his initiative on the
queenside. The game followed
with: 23 h5 24.i.d2 'i;Ya5 25.
•••
'&e3 '&a6 26 .!bcd1 'i;Yb7 27.b4
•
axb3 28.axb3 ga3 29.i.cl
gaa8 30 .!bb2 b5. The game was
•
played on the Internet and natu­
rally, the players used computer
programs. Still, White continues
now with an exchange-sacrifice
which is quite typical for T.Petro­
sian's treatment of similar ·p osi­
tions. 31.gxc5! dxc5 32.tLlbd3+±
After White captures on c5, he
127
Chapter 1 0
will have only a pawn for the ex­
change, but his pieces are perfect­
ly coordinated and Black's rooks
are not active, because the posi­
tion is closed. In addition, he will
have problems protecting his
weak pawns on b5 and e5. Later in
the game, White combined his
threats against his opponent's
weak pawns and gradually im­
proved his position, so at the end
Black failed to hold on to his e5-
pawn. 32 ti'c7 33.lbxc5 ti'd6
•••
34.ib2 lUeS 35.l1kl mh7 36.
ti'el ic8 37J.Ve2 ti'b6 38J!c2
l:!a7 39.b4 mg8 40.ti'd3 mh7
41.icl if8 42.ti'c3 ti'f6 43.
c!bcd3 ig7 44.ib2 ti'a6 45.ti'c6
%Yxc6 46.l:!xc6 g5 47.ixe5± Af­
ter the fall of Black's central pawn,
the outcome of the game became
crystal clear. He was completely
incapable of preventing the pro­
motion of his opponent's e and d­
pawns. The game ended quickly
in a victory for White.
C) 7 c5
•••
This interesting move is con­
nected with a pawn-sacrifice and
128
is very popular in the contempo­
rary tournament practice. It has
been used by V.Ivanchuk, E.Inar­
kiev, A.Khalifman, V. Bologan and
some other strong grandmasters.
The last one, by the way, analysed
it extensively in his book devoted
to the King's Indian Defence. If
we rely on the database, the move
was played for the first time by
young R.Fischer in his game
against Y.Averbakh back in the
year 1958.
Now, contrary to the move 6 . . .
c5, which will b e dealt with i n our
next chapter, it is not so good for
White to close the centre with the
move 8.d5, because his bishop on
e3 is not so active as on the f4-
square, where it usually retreats
to in the variation 6 . . . c5 7.d5 h6.
When Black undermines his op­
ponent's centre with e7-e6,
White's bishop does not exert
pressure against the d6-pawn.
Therefore, we have chosen as the
main line for White against
Black's move seven -
8.dxc5
White can hardly obtain an
edge following 8.d5 e6 9.ti'd2
exd5 10.exd5 mh7 11.h3 :ge8. Now,
you can see another drawback of
the placement of his bishop on e3 :
it does not pin the enemy knight
on f6. As a rule, in the majority of
the positions with a space advan­
tage, the side which possesses it
(White in this case . . . ) should
avoid exchanging pieces. There-
 l.d4 !iJf6 2.c4 g6 3JiJc3 �g7 4.e4 d6 5. �e2 0 - 0 6. �g5 h6 7. �e3
fore, he should not allow the move
4Je4. Still, in order to do that, he
must make a second move with
one and the same piece, so he can
hardly obtain any advantage.
12 .�d3 b5 13.4Jxb5 4Je4 14.he4
E:xe4 15.E:cl a6 16.4Jc3 E:xc4=
Ponomariov - Grischuk, Beijing
2011. In the arising position,
Black's prospects are not inferior
at all, since he has two powerful
bishops, while White can hardly
exploit the vulnerability of Black's
d6-pawn, or to attack his oppo­
nent's too active rook on c4.
Black's game is much easier in
this position.
There arise interesting com­
plications after the move 8.e5.
There is plenty of theory amassed
in this variation and the game en­
ters practically by force an end­
game, in which White has an ex­
tra pawn. Unfortunately, he can­
not claim any advantage, because
Black's pieces remain tremen­
dously active. For example: 8 . . .
dxe5 9.dxe5 '!Nxdl+ 10.E:xd1 4Jg4
ll.hc5 4Jxe5 12.4Jd5 4Jbc6 13.f4
4Jg4 14.h3 4Jf6 15.�f3 �f5 16.g4
�c2 17.E:d2 4Je4 18.he7 4Jxd2
19.mxd2 �b1 2 0 .hf8 mxf8ii5 - his
two powerful bishops are excel­
lent compensation for the mini­
mal material deficit, Maslak - In­
arkiev, Moscow 2008.
s . . :eras
This is Black's only move.
It is obviously bad for him to
try the pawn-sacrifice 8 . . . dxc5,
because after 9.'!Nxd8 E:xd8 10.
ixc5 4Jc6 ll.!iJf3 b6 12 .�a3t, his
compensation for it is insuffi­
cient, Y.Yakovich - Blees, Ostend
1993. You should not make a par­
allel between this variation and
the similar one in the Saemisch
system, because now White has a
knight on f3 and not a pawn like
there. This is evidently in his fa­
vour, because he has no problems
with the development of his king­
side pieces.
9.J.d2
Now, White must retreat his
bishop in order to parry the threat
against his e4-pawn.
9 .. tbc5
.
After this move, there arises a
pawn-structure analogous to the
Maroczy system of the Sicilian
Defence.
The pawn-structure remains
symmetrical after 9 . . . dxc5, but
then White can occupy. additional
space with the move 10 .e5.
129
Chapter 1 0
Now, Black must choose where
to retreat his knight.
Following 10 . . . tt:le8 ll.f4 tt:lc6
12.tt:lf3 i.fS, Tarjan - Szabo, Mari­
bor 1978, White's best response
would be 13.tt:lh4, for example:
13 ... i.e6 14.tt:la4 1!f!c7 1S.tt:lxc5;!; -
naturally, he is a bit back in devel­
opment and his knight on h4 does
not beautify his position, but he
still has an extra pawn and his
prospects are preferable.
One of the defects of the other
retreat of Black's knight - 10 . . .
tt:lfd7 i s the fact that it impedes
there the development of his bish­
op on c8. Later, in the game Alter­
man - Reinderman, Leeuwarden
1994, there followed: ll.f4 tt:lc6
12.tt:lf3 f6 13.tt:lh4 �h7 14.e6 tt:ldb8
1S.f5± White's kingside initiative
is quite real and this is very dan­
gerous for Black, because his
queenside pieces have not been
developed yet.
10 . . . tt:lh7 ll.f4 tt:lc6 12.tt:lf3 i.fS
(12 . . . 1!f!d8 13.0-0 tt:ld4 14.i.e3
tt:lxe2+ 15.1!f!xe2 i.fS 16.E!:fd1 1!f!c8
17.a3 b6 18.b4;!; Rashkovsky -
Temirbaev, Kujbyshev 1986.
Black's two-bishop advantage is
absolutely immaterial, because
his knight on h7 and the bishop
130
on g7 are very passive. Therefore,
he can hardly neutralise White's
queenside activity, since he has in
fact two minor pieces less on this
side of the board.) 13.0-0 E!:ad8,
Sagalchik - Kovalev, USSR 1987.
Now, it deserves attention for
White to try 14.tt:lh4 ! ?
1 4 . . . i.c8 1S.tt:ld5 'IM/a6 16.i.c3 e6
17.1!f!c2;!;. Naturally, Black cannot
win a piece here, because in the
variation 17 . . . exd5 18.cxd5, both
his queen and knight will be hang­
ing. Therefore, White's advantage
is doubtless, since all his minor
pieces are much more active.
Black cannot equalise with
14 . . . E!:d7, because his initiative is
only temporary. Neither his bish­
op on g7, nor his knight on h7 can
support it. White can simply trade
his opponent's active pieces main­
taining his advantage. 1S.tt:lxf5
gxfS 16.1!f!e1 tt:ld4 17.i.d1 1!f!d8 18.
E!:f2 e6 19.i.a4 E!:e7 20.E!:d1 f6 21.
tt:lbS fxeS 22 .fxe5 tt:lxbS 23.i.xb5
1!ffb 8 24.i.f4;!; - Now, Black's
knight can take part in the actions
(via the gS-square) indeed, but
White's advantage is doubtless.
He is completely dominant on the
d-file and has an excellent outpost
 l.d4 liJf6 2.c4 g6 3. liJc3 �g7 4.e4 d6 5. .ie2 0 - 0 6 . .ig5 h6 7. .ie3
on d6 for his rook. It is also worth
mentioning what is very typical
for almost all positions in the var­
iation with 9 . . . dxc5. White's
pawns are very well placed on eS
and f4. They control almost all the
squares for Black's bishop on g7
and the knight on h7.
lO.c!LJf3
10 . . . .ig4
This is an active move. Black is
not reluctant to trade his bishop
for the enemy knight, since this
will increase his pressure on the
dark squares.
Black did not play well in the
game Tukmakov - Visser, Gron­
ingen 199 0 : 10 . . . �e6 ll . .ie3 1Mla5
12.liJd2 c!LJc6 13.0-0 !!fc8 14.f4
liJh7 15.liJb3 1!9d8 16.f5 �d7 17.c5±
White has seized the initiative on
both sides of the board.
White should better counter
10 . . . liJc6 with the prophylactic
move ll.h3, preventing the devel­
opment of Black's bishop to the
g4-square. There might follow
11. ..liJd4 12.liJxd4 1!9xd4 13.1!9c2
�e6 14. 0-0 1Mic5 15 . .ie3 1Mia5 16.
!!acl� Uhlmann - Gligoric, Am­
sterdam 1971. White has succeed­
ed in neutralising the temporary
activity of his opponent's pieces
and thanks to his advantageous
position in the centre (pawns on
c4 and e4 against a pawn on d6)
maintains some edge. Black's po­
sition is solid enough but very
passive.
11.0-0
ll . . h£3
.
If Black plans to trade his
bishop for the enemy knight, he
should better do that immediate­
ly.
Following ll . . . liJc6, White can
offer his relatively passive bishop
on e2 to be exchanged instead of
the knight on f3 . 12 . .ie3 1!9a5 13.
liJd2 .be2 14.1!9xe2 !!fc8 15.!!fc1
(diagram)
There arises a similar position
(with a pawn-structur� like in the
Maroczy system, except that with­
out light squared bishops) in the
131
Chapter 1 0
following variation of the Sicilian
Defence l.e4 cS V Zlf3 d6 3.ibS
id7 4.ixd7 'Wxd7 S.c4. S. Rublev­
sky is considered to be a master of
playing these positions and quite
deservedly so. I recommend to
the readers to study thoroughly
his games in this variation.
1S . . . 'WhS 16.f3 lL\d7 17.E:ab1 aS
18.lL\a4 ieS 19.lLlf1 gS 20.E:d1 'Wg6
21.lLlg3 e6. Now, the best for
White is to play 2 2 .tZlc3;!;, main­
taining a slight edge, since he has
more space and good prospects to
attack the weak enemy d6-pawn.
Black has been very active on the
kingside, but has created pawn­
weaknesses there and this may
backfire. (It is obviously prema­
ture for White to opt for 22 .cS, be­
cause after 22 . . . dS, he is not well
prepared for opening of the game
in the centre and Black equalises,
Horvath - Vishnu, Presolana 2011).
1S . . . lLld7 16.E:ab1 c;t>h7 17.f4
lLlcS 18.c;t>h1 lLla4 19.lLld1 lLlb6 20.
a3 lL\d7 21.lLlc3 a6 22 .tZlb3 'Wd8
23.E:c2;!;. White has neutralised
the activity of his opponent's piec­
es and due to his extra space his
prospects in the middle game
seem preferable, Milov - Shche­
kachev, Amsterdam 2000.
132
12.hf3 c!bc6 13.ie2
13 .. .'tire5
The move 13 . . . 'WaS has been
tested in the game Petursson -
Markzon, Linares 1994. Here,
White's best reaction would be
14.lL\dS, after which there arise
advantageous complications for
him. 14 . . . 'WcS (14 . . . 'Wd8 1S.lL\xf6+
ixf6 16.ixh6 ixb2 17.E:b1 ig7
18 . .hg7 c;t>xg7 19.E:xb7;!; - The vul­
nerability of White's pawns on a2
and c4 and Black counterplay on
the dark squares are not sufficient
to compensate White's extra pawn.)
1S.E:e1 lL\xe4 16.ie3 'WaS 17.if3
lLlcS (17 . . .fS 18.ixe4 fxe4 19.'Wg4;!;
- He regains his pawn and pre­
served an edge thanks to his supe­
rior pawn-structure. In addition,
Black's king shelter is somewhat
weakened.) 18.b4 lL\xb4 19 . .id2 .
He has temporarily two extra
pawns, but getting rid of the pin
of the knight for him is not easy at
all. 19 . . . lLlcd3 20.E:xe7 'WcS (It is
bad for Black to play 20 . . . .ha1,
because after 21.'Wxa1 'Wxa2 2 2 .
lL\f6+ c;t>hS 23.'Wxa2 c!bxa2 24.
 J.d4 &iJf6 2.c4 g6 3 . liJ c3 il.g7 4.e4 d6 5. 1le2 0 - 0 6. il.g5 h6 7. il.e3

.bh6±, White regains the ex­

change and maintains a great ad­
vantage thanks to the powerful
placement of his rook on the pe­
nultimate rank.) 21.il.e3 �xc4 2 2 .
Eic7 �h4 23.Eib1 &iJxdS 24.hd5
&iJcS 25.g3 �f6 26.Eib4;!;. Black has
two extra pawn indeed, but
White's position is preferable, be­
cause his rooks and bishops are
very active. He can exchange on
cS at any moment and follow that This position was reached in
with Eibb7, so Black will be inca­ the game Yakovich - Inarkiev,
pable of protecting his pawn on f7 Novokuznetsk 2008.
and White will restore the mate­ V.Bologan evaluated it in his
rial balance. book as quite acceptable for
Black.
14.£3 g5? ! This evaluations seems to me
I d o not like this move since it to be too optimistic. White has
compromises completely the light good chances of obtaining an ad­
squares in Black's camp. vantage.
The game followed with 20.g3
It is possible that his best line ggs 21.ti'g2 gaf8 22.ti'h3 f5 23.
may be: 14 . . . �c5+ 1S.'it>h1 Eifc8 16. ext'S ti'xf5 24.ti'xf5 gxf5 25 •

Eic1 &iJd7 17.f4 a6 18.a3 �d4 19. .ic2 gas 26 .ie4 lt!c5 27 .ib1
• •

Eif3;!;, although even then Black's
counterplay is not dangerous for
White. He will gradually oust the
enemy queen from its active posi­
tion in the centre and will force
Black to defend passively.
15 . .ie3 lt!h5 16.ti'd2 lt!f4 17.
.idl lt!e6 18.Eicl 'it>h8 19.'it>h1
ti'a5
gf8 28.b3 lt!d7. Here, the sim­
plest solution for White would be
the move 29.lt!d5± and the hor­
rible misplacement of Black's
rook on the aS-square makes his
position very difficult. We have
seen in this game that Black's
counterplay, begun with the move
14 . . . g5, has not led to anything
good for him.

Conclusion
We have just completed our analysis of the variation with 6 . . . h6 7.
il.e3. Black has three main possibilities and after each one of them · there
arise very original positions. Still, White maintains an advantage in all
the variations.

133
Chapter 1 0

After the plan of Z.Lanka and A.Shirov - 7. . . lL!bd7, 8 . . . c5, followed

by the pawn-sacrifice b7-b5, White should better not go after material
gains, but following cxbS a6, he should give back the extra pawn with
the move b5-b6. After this, Black can hardly create any dangerous ini­
tiative on the queenside and White will maintain a slight but stable
edge thanks to his space advantage.
Following 7 . . . e5 8.d5, White's main idea is to advance h2-h4. After
that, if Black plays h6-h5, then White transfers his knight to gS and
begins active actions on the queenside. If Black does not react to the
move h2-h4, then White plays h4-h5 himself, forcing g6-g5 and then
neutralises completely Black's counterplay on the kingside with the
moves g2-g4 and f2-f3. There arises a very unpleasant situation for
Black in which he has no counterplay at all. White can exploit his space
advantage and regroup his forces, beginning an offensive on the queen­
side: a3, b4 and eventually id3-c2-a4, forcing the favourable exchange
of the light-squared bishops. Black is faced with a long and passive de­
fence.
After 7 . . . c5, there arise, as a rule, positions in the spirit of the Ma­
roczy system of the Sicilian Defence. White's game is quite free and he
has all the chances of obtaining an advantage in the middle game. The
only thing he needs is to watch carefully and to play accurately, during
the transition from the opening into the middle game, in order to neu­
tralise the activity of Black's pieces.

134
Chapter 11 l.d4 ti)f6 2.c4 g6 3.ti)c3 ig7 4.e4 d6
5.J.e2 0-0 6.ig5 c5

positions typical for the Benoni

Defence, but with his e-pawn.
There arise positions in which
Black has no counterplay at all.
Subsequently, he began to rely on
the move 7 . . . h6, ousting in ad­
vance the enemy bishop from its
active position. We will have a
look at all this one by one.

7.d5
This is one of the oldest moves
for Black and it was played even
during the first half of the 20th
century. What can be more logical
than this move? If Black cannot
play e7-e5, then it looks like he
should inflict a strike against
White's centre on the other side of
the board. This line was played by
G.Kasparov. Nowadays, V.Topa­
lov, A.Grischuk, T.Radjabov and
many others try it in the tourna­
ment practice. After this natural move, Black
At first, Black based his hopes has a choice between numerous
on undermining his opponent's possibilities. At first, we will ana­
pawn-centre with the move e7-e6 lyse the not so popular move A)
(after d4-d5). Later however, it 7. . . a6. Later, we will deal . with
became clear that after the ex­ the pawn-sacrifice in the spirit of
change on d5, White did not cap­ the Benko Gambit B) 7 ... b5 and
ture with his c-pawn, leading to at the end we will analyse Black's

135
Chapter 11

most popular responses : C) 7 •••

h 6 and D ) 7 e6.
•••

About 7 ... 4Ja6 8.f4 - see 6 . . .

4Ja6, Chapter 1 0 .

I t seems rather passive for

Black to choose 7 . . . E!e8. In the
game Uhlmann - Kolnsberg, Bad
Wildbad 1997, there followed: 8. hS. 9.g4 4Je8 10 .h4 fS ll.hS±
4Jf3 ig4 9.0-0 4Jbd7 10 .1!Md2 a6 Black's king is vulnerable, Zai­
ll.a4 E!b8 12 .h3 .b£3 13.h:f3 ltJeS chko - Chuprov, Ufa 1999.
14.ie2 1!Mc7 15.E!aeU White has 8 ... e6 9.4Jf3 exdS 10.exd5 ig4
two powerful bishops and a space (10 . . . E!e8 11.0-0 - see 8 . . . E!e8)
advantage. In addition, his plan 11.0-0;!; - There arises a typical
for further actions is quite clear. position with a space advantage
He will advance f2-f4, followed by for White. For example in the var­
a preparation of a breakthrough iation 7 . . . a6, we analyse a similar
in the centre with e4-e5. situation, but with the inclusion
of the moves a7-a6 and a2-a4.
After 7 . . . 1!Mb6 8.1!Md2 e6 9.4Jf3 8 . . . E!e8 9.4Jf3 e6 10.0-0 exdS
exdS, White can simplify the posi­ ll.exdS
tion advantageously with the line:
10 .h:f6 ! ? h:f6 ll.ltJxdS 1!Md8 12.
4Jxf6+ 1!Mxf6 13.0-0-0 E!d8, Ka­
lashian - Voitsekhovsky, Moscow
2008, 14.e5;!; and as a result of the
pin on the d-file, Black is incapa­
ble of saving his d6-pawn.

Everybody, who plays the

Averbakh system, should remem­
ber that after 7 . . . 1!Ma5, White has
an only good move - 8.id2 ! (fol­
lowing the natural move 8.1!Md2 ,
Black obtains good counterplay
with 8 . . . a6 9.a4 bS?).
(diagram)
After 8 . . . e5, White can contin­
ue with the already familiar king­
side offensive, obtaining an excel­
lent position: g2-g4 and h2-h4-
We will encounter similar po­
sitions with a space advantage for
White numerous more times in
this chapter.
Retreating the queen to its ini­
tial position does not look good
for Black at all - 11 . . . 1!Md8 after
12 .h3 4Ja6 13.id3 4Jc7, S.Atalik -
Velimirovic, Vrnjacka Banja 1992,
14.1!Mb3 b6 15.E!fe1 E!xe1+ 16.E!xe1

136
 l.d4 l:iJf6 2.c4 g6 3. 1:iJ c3 ig7 4.e4 d6 5. i.e2 0 - 0 6. 1lg5 c5 7.d5
'<Wd7 17.i.f4;t, his pieces have no
space for manoeuvring.
It is possible for him to opt for
1l.. .'<Wb6 12 .h3 a6 (It is weaker for
Black to try here 12 . . . '1Ja6 13.id3
id7, Sasikiran - Pavlovic, Cap­
pelle Ia Grande 2006, 14.a3± and
his knight on a6 is misplaced.)
13 . .id3 '1Jbd7 14.'<Wc2 l:iJeS. Black
lacks space and the exchange of
pieces is in his favour (it would be
too passive for him to choose 14 . . .
'1Jf8?! 15.a4±, his knight o n f8 is
obviously not so mobile as White's
knight on f3, Forintos - Velimi­
rovic, Bath 1973). 15.'1Jxe5 E:xeS
16.i.f4 E:e8 17.E:ae1;!; The trade of
the knights has facilitated a bit
Black's defence indeed, but he is
still too far from equality. He
lacks space and the vulnerability
of his d6-pawn may become a tell­
ing factor in the future.
The move 11.. .i.g4 was tested
in the game Petursson - Veli­
mirovic, Novi Sad 1990 and M.
Petursson demonstrated an ex­
emplary play for White in similar
positions. 12 .h3 hf3 13.hf3
'1Jbd7 14.'<Wc2 a6 15.E:ae1 E:xe1
(1S . . . b5? 16.'1Jxb5) 16.E:xe1 E:e8
17.E:xe8+ '1Jxe8. There will soon
arise the classical endgame for
the Averbakh system in which
White will have extra space and
the two-bishop advantage. Black
is faced with a difficult defence
without any good prospects. 18.b3
Wd8 19.id1 We7 2 0.'<We4 'kt>f8 21.
'<Wxe7+ 'kt>xe7 2 2 .g4 '1Jef6 23.'kt>g2
'1Jg8 24.ic2 '1Jgf6 25.f4;t White is
following the standard plan in
this position. He will occupy space
by a pawn-offensive. Black's piec­
es will be even more cramped.
25 . . . '1Je8 26.id3 '1Jc7 27.'1Je4 id4
28.'1Jg3 '1Je8 29.a4 i.b2 30 .h4±
White is preparing h4-h5, in or­
der to create a weak pawn for his
opponent on h7. Later, he realised
convincingly his positional ad­
vantage.
After 7 . . . '1Jbd7 8.Wd2 , there
arise positions similar to varia­
tion A in our previous chapter,
except that Black has ousted the
enemy bishop from the gS-square
with the move h6.
This circumstance is in favour
of White, because his bishop is
more active on gS than on the e3-
square.
Now, Black cannot transpose
to the variations with h6, because
after 8 . . . '<Wa5 9.'1Jf3 h6, White will
follow with 10 .hh6 hh6 11.
'<Wxh6 '1Jxe4, Gelfand - Schlosser,
Adelaide 1988 and here, he can
obtain a great advantage with the
energetic line: 12.0-0! '1Jxc3 13.
i.d3 ! '1Je2+ (Black should better
part with his extra piece immedi­
ately, because his attempt to keep
137
Chapter 11
it would lead to him being check­
mated after 13 . . . tt:la4? 14.tt:lg5 tt:lf6
15.�g6 fxg6 16.\Wxg6+ �h8 17.
E!:fe1 \Wd8 18.E!:e4+-) 14.�e2± As
a rule, the exchange of Black's
rook-pawn for the enemy central
pawn should be advantageous for
him, but here, we have an excep­
tional case. The castling position
of Black's king has been seriously
weakened due to the absence of
his h7-pawn. Meanwhile, White's
rooks are perfectly prepared to
exert powerful pressure against
the e7-pawn on the semi-open e­
file.
It seems rather passive for
Black to opt for 8 . . . a6 9.tt:lf3 E!:b8
10.a4, so now, he cannot push b7-
b5 and is forced to adhere to a
waiting tactics, for example: 10 . . .
b 6 ( 1 0 . . . E!:e8 11.0-0 e 6 12.E!:fe1
exdS 13.exd5 b6 14.id3;!; and
Black's pieces evidently lack
space, Dimitrov - Janev, Plovdiv
2009.) 11.0-0 ib7 12.E!:ad1 E!:e8
13.h3 Vflc7 14.E!:feU and once again
his pieces are cramped, Golovanj
- V. Onischuk, Alushta 2007.
8 . . . b5 9.cxb5 a6. There has
arisen a favourable version for
White of the Benko Gambit. 10.
tt:lf3 axbS (Following lO . . . VflaS 11.
0-0 axbS 12 .�b5 ia6 13.�a6
E!:xa6 14.h3 E!:b8 15.E!:ab1 tt:lb6 16.
E!:fcl tt:la4 17.e5 ! dxeS 18.tt:lxe5±,
White has not only parried Black's
pressure on the queenside, but
has accomplished the thematic
pawn-advance e4-e5, after which
he can exert pressure against the
enemy e7-pawn, Heinig - Pregl,
138
Seefeld 2007.) 11.�b5 ia6 12.
�a6 E!:xa6 13.0-0 \Wb6, Kustar -
Nevednichy, Miercurea Ciuc
1999, 14.h3 ! ? This move is not
only a leeway for the king, but
also prophylactic against tt:lf6-g4-
e5. 14 . . . E!:b8 15.E!:ab1 E!:aa8 16.
E!:feU, followed by e4-e5 and
Black's compensation for the sac­
rificed pawn is insufficient.
A) 7 a6•..
This move prepares counter­
play on the queenside with b7-b5
and as a rule transposes to varia­
tion D, since Black will have to
play e7-e6 sooner or later and ex­
change on dS. Now, we will ana­
lyse only variations which lead to
original positions.
8.a4
This move is played automati­
cally in the Averbakh system. It
deprives Black of his standard
queenside counterplay.
8 .'efa5
••
It is interesting, but still insuf­
ficient for equality for Black to try
 l.d4 li:Jf6 2.c4 g6 3. li:Jc3 i.g7 4.e4 d6 S. i.e2 0 - 0 6. i.g5 c5 7.d5
the line: 8 . . . h6 9.i.e3 e6 10.liJf3
exdS. Here, we have an exception.
Contrary to the majority of the
positions arising in the Averbakh
system, now White must capture
with his c-pawn, if he wishes to
fight for the advantage. The point
is that Black has already ousted
his opponent's bishop from its ac­
tive position on gS and if White
captures with his e-pawn, Black
can simplify advantageously the
position with the moves E:e8 and
liJe4. ll.cxdS i.g4 12 .liJd2 .be2
13.�xe2 E:e8 14.0-0 liJbd7. There
has arisen a favourable position
for White of the Modern Benoni
in which Black will have great
problems to organise counter­
play. 1S.h3 liJhS 16.aS E:b8 17.E:a4
liJeS 18.�h2 �e7 19.g3 liJd7 20.
�g2 �h7 21.�d1 �g8 22 .�c2
E:bc8 23.E:e1 �h7 24.f4 �d8 2S.
liJf3± White has protected reliably
his e4-pawn and has cramped his
opponent's position on both sides
of the board, Topalov - Radjabov,
Bilbao 2008.
As a rule, the combination of
the moves cS and eS is not so good
for Black, because he ends up in a
very passive position. Here again,
after 8 . . . eS 9.g4!i, he can create
counterplay neither on the queen­
side, nor on the kingside.
8 ... e6 9.�d2 �aS (Following
9 . . . exdS lO.exdS E:e8 11.liJf3 ig4
12.0-0 liJbd7 13.h3 hf3 14 . .bf3,
there arise positions from varia-
tion D.). 10.E:a3. This is impor­
tant prophylactic. Now, White's
rook is protected and Black can­
not advance b7-bS, since White
will capture with his a-pawn. 10 . . .
exdS ll.exdS E:e8 12.liJf3 i.g4 13.
0-0 liJbd7 14.E:b3 �c7 1S.h3 .bf3
16.i.xf3 E:e7 17.E:a3 �as 18.E:b3
�c7 19.aS E:ae8 20.E:a3i Movszi­
szian - Sieg, Germany 1992 . The
doubling of Black's rooks on the
e-file is not a cause of worries for
White, because Black has no
square for penetration. Mean­
while, White's space advantage is
an important factor in this posi­
tion. Black's active moves will
soon end and he will be forced to
defend passively.
9.J.d2
9 . e6
..
The drawbacks of the move 9 . . .
eS? ! have been illustrated i n an
exemplary fashion by the author
of the system back in the fiftjes of
the past century - 10.g4 liJe8
11.h4 fS 12 .hS f4 13.gS
139
Chapter 11
This is an important move.
White is preparing the advanta­
geous exchange in the King's In­
dian Defence of the light-squared
bishops after which the light
squares in Black's camp will be
like an open wound.
From the point of view of the
understanding of the similar posi­
tions, the game Averbakh -
Spassky, Leningrad 1956 is very
instructive. In it Black played 13 . . .
�dS . After the moves 1 4 . .ig4 !iJc7
15 . .ixcS �xeS 16.!iJf3±, White's
positional pluses (a space advan­
tage, possibilities for actions on
the h-file and the vulnerability of
the light squares in Black's camp)
are so great that the future World
Champion B.Spassky sacrificed
surprisingly a knight in order to
change radically the character of
the fight - 16 . . . !iJc6 ! . Naturally,
this piece-sacrifice was absolutely
incorrect, but its psychological ef­
fect was so great that later he even
managed to draw the game.
13 . . J�f7 14 ..ig4 �dS 15 . .ixcS
�xeS 16.!iJf3 .ifS 17/.t>e2 1!g7 1S.
1!h4± Averbakh - Panno, Buenos
Aires 1954. Black's position is
strategically hopeless. White only
needs to treble his major pieces
140
on the h-file and accomplish the
decisive break in Black's camp.
Later, there followed: 1S . . . !iJd7
19.hxg6 hxg6 20.'�h1 .ie7 21.
1!hS+ 'tt>f7 2 2 .�h6 !iJfS 23.1!h1
1!bS. Here, White made a decisive
bishop-sacrifice - 24 . .ixf4 ! Black
cannot capture it in view of 24 . . .
exf4 25.1!h4, s o the game soon
ended in a victory for White.
lO.tlJf3 exd5 ll.exd5
This is the right move ! Natu­
rally, White does not capture with
his c-pawn, because in that case
Black would organise counterplay
against the enemy e4-pawn.
ll • . . ig4
Following 11...�c7, White dem­
onstrated a perfect example of "suf­
focating" Black's position in the
game Stewart - Caamano, Email
2007. 12.0-0 !iJbd7 13.h3 !iJeS 14.
�cl !iJe5 15 . .ih6 .if5 16 . .ixg7 'tt>xg7
17.1!e1 f6 1S.b3 'tt>g S 19.!iJd2 !iJg7
20.f4 !iJd3 2l..ixd3 .ixd3 22.g4±
After this important prophylactic
move, Black's knight cannot go to
d4 via the f5-square. His position
is already beyond salvation, since
 l.d4 lDf6 2.c4 g6 3. lDc3 ig7 4.e4 d6 5. .ie2 0 - 0 6. ig5 c5 7.d5
his bishop cannot be saved and
will perish on the d3-square.
There followed 22 .. J�ae8 23.l"iJf3
fS 24J�xe8 !!xeS 25.�d2 ie4 26.
lOgS hS 27.!!e1+- and White soon
won the game, since Black loses a
pawn after the exchange on e4.
12.0-0 'f!tlc7
About 12 . . . l"iJbd7 13.h3 ixf3 14.
i.x£3 �c7 15.�c2 - see 12 . . . �c7.
13.h3
This move is also quite typical
for the Averbakh system. White is
not afraid of the exchange on f3,
because Black facilitates his de­
fence a bit for a while (He has less
space and the exchanges should
be favourable for him.), but as a
result White obtains a couple of
bishops which will be obviously
stronger than Black's knights
which have no stable squares in
the oncoming fight. Naturally, the
eS-square cannot be a reliable
outpost for Black's knight, since
White can oust it at any moment
with the move f2-f4.
13 ... hf3 14.hf3 l"iJbd7
15.'f!tlc2
1S ••• l"iJe8
15 . . . !!fe8 16.!!ael. In general,
White does not mind the trade of
the rooks in this pawn-structure.
He wishes to enter an endgame in
which his two-bishop advantage
would be a nearly decisive factor.
16 . . . !!xe1 (Following 16 . . . l"iJe5, GM
L.Portisch demonstrated an ex­
cellent play for White. He simply
exchanged all the rooks, in order
to deprive his opponent of any
counterplay, and began a pawn­
offensive on the kingside. 17 . .ie2
!!e7 18.f4 l"iJed7 19 ..if3 !!ae8 20.
!!xe7 !!xe7 21.!!e1 !!xe1+ 22 .ixe1
�b6 23.id2 lOeB 24.g4 h6 2S.'j,Jg2
id4 26.b3 �d8 27.l"iJe2;!; Portisch
- Skembris, Tilburg 1994.) 17.
!!xe1 !!e8 18.!!xe8+ . White is again
ready to trade the rooks. 18 . . .
l"iJxe8 19.ie2 �d8 20 .g3 id4 2 1 .
�g2 l"iJg7 2 2 .l"iJe4 �e7 23 .ic1 l"iJf6
24.l"iJxf6+. The knights can also be
exchanged. Now, White can dem­
onstrate a "pure" case of a two­
bishop advantage. 24 . . .�xf6 25.
id3 �e7 26.�e2 �d7 27. b3 lOeB
28.id2;!; Averbakh - Boleslavsky,
Gagra 1953. Later, he managed to
realise his positional pluses - ex­
tra space and the two-bishop
advantage. We must also mention
that not only Y.Averbakh was
an excellent theoretician, but he
was the author of a multi-vol­
ume work about the endgames.
This should be an instructive
example for the contemporary
young players who devote most of
their time only on studying open-
141
Chapter 11
ing theory, completely ignoring the
other stages of the game of chess.
16.gael .ie5
The character of the fight re­
mains more or less the same after
16 . . . ltJeS, because Black's knight
fails to remain on this square any­
way. 17.ie2 fS 18.f4;!; Horvath -
Rohl Montes, Budapest 1996.
17.ie2 c!Dg7 18.g4 f5 19.f4
.id4+ 20.'i!?g2 c!Df6 21.if3 gae8
22.g5 c!Dtb5 23.ti'b3;!; Black's
pieces are horribly cramped and
the only exception is his knight on
hS ! , Kaidanov - Fang, Philadel­
phia 1998.
B) 7... b5
142
After this move, there arise po­
sitions which are more typical for
the Benko Gambit. Its version is
much more favourable for White,
because he has already advanced
e2-e4, having avoided the trade of
his light-squared bishops, which
usually happens in the Benko
Gambit. The only minimal defect
of his position is the placement of
his bishop on gS. After the ap­
pearance of Black's queen on aS,
White will have to lose a tempo to
retreat his bishop to the d2-
square.
8.cxb5 a6 9.a4!
This i s White's best move in
this position. Now, after the ex­
change on bS, White can capture
axbS and Black will not have the
typical possibility in the Benko
Gambit for actions on the a and b­
fi.les .
9 ... ti'a5
This is Black's basic response.
It would be premature for him
to opt for 9 . . . axb5, since following
10.axb5 ! , there arises a position
which is quite favourable for
White. 10 . . J�xa1 11.�xa1 ltJbd7 12.
ltJf3 ib7 (Or 12 ... ltJe8 13.0-0 ltJb6
14.�a5 ltJf6 1S.ltJd2± and he not
only has an extra pawn, but his
position is more active, Beliavsky
- Petrovic, Nova Gorica 2000. It
would be also good for White to
choose 14.�a7! ?± and Black has
no compensation for the pawn.)
13.0-0 �c7 14.c!Dd2 �a8 15.�dU
Black has established control over
 l.d4 tiJf6 2.c4 g6 3.tiJ c3 i.g7 4.e4 d6 5. i.e2 0 - 0 6. :Ji.g5 c5 7.d5

the a-file indeed, but this is small

consolation for him, because he
has no square for penetration on
it. Still, despite the absence of a
pawn, he could have still offered
tough resistance. In the game
Palatnik - Gast, Boston 2001,
Black played too actively: 15 . . .
e6? ! and after 16.dxe6 fxe6 17.
i.f4!±, this led to a very difficult
position for him, since besides the
lack of a pawn, he had a weakness If Black continues simply to
on d6. develop his pieces, then he risks
to end quickly in a very bad posi­
After 9 ... h6, the simplest reac­ tion, as it happened, for example,
tion for White would be 10 .i.f4 ! ?;!; in the game Kasparov - Spassky,
(He does not need to study the Tilburg 1981: 10 . . . tiJbd7 ll.E:a3
numerous variations, arising after i.b7 12.tiJf3 axbS 13.hb5 Wc7 14.
10 .i.d2 e6, if he can avoid that.). 0-0± White has completed his
Now, following 10 . . .'�a5 ll.i.d2 ! , development and Black has no
as well a s after 1 0 . . . g5 ll.i.e3 WaS compensation for the pawn at all.
(It is bad for Black to choose 11 . . .
e 6 12.dxe6 he6 13.e5±) 12 .i.d2;!;, There arises a much more in­
there arise positions, which we teresting position following 10 . . .
will analyse later, with the excep­ axbS ll.hbS.
tion that Black has already played
either h6, or h6 and gS. This cir­
cumstance is much rather in fa­
vour of White, because later, the
weakening of Black's king shelter
might become a telling factor.

10 .td2
.

The loss of a tempo for the re­

treat of the bishop does not wors­
en White's position at all. White should not be afraid of
(diagram) ll . . . Wb4, because of 12.f3 tiJfd7
10 . . • Wb4 13.W/cU and he has protected reli­
This is Black's main reply. He ably his pawns on e2 and b2 and
is trying to organise active actions after the completion of his devel­
(his queen exerts pressure against opment (tiJge2, 0-0), he can be­
the enemy e4-pawn). gin the realisation of his material

143
Chapter 11
advantage, Gonzales - E.Ragozin,
Philadelphia 1993.
The move ll ... .ta6 is more in­
teresting, since it is more typical
for the positions in the Benko
Gambit. 12.E!:a3 tt:lbd7 (12 . . . c4 13.
tt:lf3 tt:lfd7 14.0-0 tt:lc5 15.�e2 tt:ld3
16.E:bl± Black has no compensa­
tion for the pawn. His active
knight on d3 can be easily ex­
changed after tt:le1, Portisch - Bu­
kal, Reggio Emilia 1992.) 13.tt:lf3
hbS 14.tt:lxb5 �a6 15.�c2 E:fc8
16. 0-0;!; A.Petrosian - Vitolinsh,
Podolsk 1990. White has entered
an advantageous version for him
of the Benko Gambit. His knight
on bS, supported by the pawn on
a4, prevents the development of
Black's initiative on the queen­
side. Later, his plan is quite sim­
ple: i.c3, tt:ld2-c4 and eventually
e4-e5. Still, it would be better for
Black to adhere to a passive tac­
tics, because after the seemingly
active move 16 . . . c4? ! , White's
knight will be headed immediate­
ly for the weakened c6-square.
17.tt:lfd4±
Besides 1l.. .i.a6, it may be also
interesting for Black to try 11 . . .
tt:la6. Even then however, White's
prospects are preferable. 12.tt:lf3
tt:lb4 13.0-0 .ta6 14.i.g5 h6 15.i.h4
hbS 16.axb5 �c7 17.�d2 E:xa1 (It
is possible that Black's best
chance here is 17 . . . g5, but after
18.i.g3 E!:xa1 19.E!:xa1 tt:lhS 2 0 .
tt:J e a , the temporary activity of
his pieces does not compensate
the missing pawn, McCraw -
Popovic, Email 1999.) 18.E!:xa1
144
E:b8. Here, White's simplest reac­
tion would be - 19.hf'6 ! , because
Black cannot capture on f6 with
his bishop due to the loss of the
pawn on h6 (it is also possible for
White to play here 19.h3;!; Jus­
supow - Vogt, Altensteig 1993).
19 ... exf6 2 0.h3;!;. He has an extra
pawn, despite its being doubled.
After Black was forced to capture
to capture on f6 with his pawn, his
dark-squared bishop has ceased
to exert pressure against White's
queenside.
ll.f3
This move is not aesthetic, but
is reliable.
ll ... tt:lfd7
It would be too risky for Black
to choose ll . . . c4? ! , because of
12.a5 ! and Black's queen has no
squares to retreat to. 12 . . . �xb2 (It
is not preferable for him to choose
12 . . . tt:lbd7 13.b6± and White's a­
pawn, has turned from a weak­
ness into a powerful protected
passed pawn. Or 12 . . . axb5 13.tt:la4
�b3 14.�xb3 cxb3 15.ixb5± and
 l.d4 0,f6 2.c4 g6 3. 0,c3 il..g 7 4.e4 d6 5. i.e2 0 - 0 6. il..g5 c5 7.d5
White ends up with a solid extra
pawn in the endgame.) 13J!b1
\Wa3 14.b6± Black has regained his
pawn indeed, but White maintains
a great advantage thanks to his
mighty passed b6-pawn and the
vulnerability of Black's c4-pawn,
Alatortsev - Savon, Yalta 1962 .
I t deserves attention for Black
to try the paradoxical move 11 . . .
W/aS ! ? He has lost two tempi, but
has provoked the move f2-f3. Af­
ter 12J�a3;!;, White's chances are
preferable here as well, but still
there is a lot of fight left in this po­
sition.
12.'l:Yc2 c4
13 .!Ddl
• and enter a very favourable end­
It seems very good for him to
opt for 13.a5 ! ? axbS 14.0,a4 W/b3
15.W/xb3 cxb3 16.i.xb5;!; and there
has arisen a position analysed in
our notes to the move ll . . . c4, with
the difference that Black's knight
is on d7 and not on the f6-square.
This is, no doubt, in favour of
Black (his knight covers the b6-
square against the penetration of
White's knight there), but White
still has an extra pawn and his
chances in the endgame are pref­
erable.
13 ••• \Wc5 14.\Wxc4 ti'xc4
Following 14 . . . axb5, White
lags in development, but he still
has two extra pawns, so his posi­
tion is better. 15.W/xb5 W/a7 16.W/b3;!;
15.hc4 .!Db6 16.!e2 ax:b5
17.a5!?
This i s the simplest move for
White. He does not go after mate­
rial gains, but wishes to simplify
the position by exchanging pieces
game with only minor pieces on
the board.
The consequences of the line:
17.hb5 i.d'Too are not so clear,
Spacek - Pilar, Czech Republic
2000.
There may arise the following
variation: 17 c!Dc4 18.!c3 hc3+
•••
145
Chapter 11
19.�xc3 gxa5 20.gxa5 �xa5
21.b4 �c4 22.hc4 bxc4 23.
�ge2 �a6 24.b5 �c5 25.�d2
�b3+ 26.�e3 f5 27.g3 e5 28.
dxe6 he6 29.�d4± White has
given his extra pawn back, but has
simplified the position by ex­
changing and has neutralised in
the process the pressure of Black's
pieces. In the endgame, White
maintains a great advantage, be­
cause his king is very active. If it
comes to assist the advance of the
passed pawn on bS, Black will be
in a great trouble.
C) 7 h6
•••
This is a very energetic move.
Black ousts the enemy bishop
from its active position on the gS­
square. He is not afraid of the fact
that after the retreat of the bishop
to f4, the undermining of White's
centre with the move e7-e6 would
involve the sacrifice on the pawn
on d6. The move 7 . . . h6 has been
played by such masters of dynam­
ic play like Gary Kasparov, Alex­
ander Khalifman and many other
grandmasters.
146
8.J.f4
This is the right square !
8 ... e6
This is the basic move for
Black in this variation. He is fight­
ing for the initiative ignoring the
possible material sacrifices.
About 8 ... e5 9.dxe6 - see 8 ...
e6.
8 ... b5 9.cxb5 a6 10.a4 - see 7 ...
bS.
8 . . . a6. Black is preparing b7-
b5. Still, after 9.'&d2 , White im­
proves the placement of his
queen, making use of the circum­
stance that his opponent's pawn
on h6 is not protected. (It conse­
quences are very unclear if White
tries the standard prophylactic in
this variation - 9.a4, since follow­
ing 9 . . . e6oo, there arise position
from the main variation, which
we will analyse in the main line,
except that with the inclusion of
the moves a6 and a4. This inclu­
sion is much rather in favour of
Black, because later, the weaken-
 l.d4 4:Jj6 2.c4 g6 3. 4:J c3 :!g7 4.e4 d6 S. i.e2 0 - 0 6. i.g5 c5 7.d5
ing of White's b4-square may
tell.) 9 . . . <;!;>h7 (The pawn-sacrifice
in the spirit of the Benko Gambit
9 . . . b5 would not equalise for
Black. lO.cxbS axbS ll.i.xbS '!WaS
12 .i.d3 gS 13.i.g3 i.a6 14.4:Jge2
4:Jbd7 15.i.xa6 E:xa6 16.h4 '\Wb4
17.hxg5 hxgS 18.f3;!; White not
only has an extra pawn on the
queenside, but also good pros­
pects on the kingside. Black's
pawn on gS, as well as the fS­
square are very weak and White's
knight can go there later on the
route c3-dl-e3-f5, Horvath - Pol­
zin, Austria 2006.) 10.4:Jf3 bS 11.
cxbS axbS 12 .i.xb5 '?;l/b6 13.i.e2
'\Wb4 14.e5 4:Jh5 15.i.e3 (It is weak­
er for White to try 15.i.g3?! Uhl­
mann - E.Geller, Palma de Mal­
lorca 1970, because in that case
Black can exchange his knight,
placed at the edge of the board,
for White's powerful dark­
squared bishop.) lS . . . dxeS. Black
has regained his pawn indeed, but
cannot equalise due to his numer­
ous pawn-weaknesses. 16.a3 '!Wb7
17. 0-0 E:d8 18.4:Jel 4:Ja6 19.4:Jd3
4:Jf6 20 .4:Jxe5 ie6 21.4:Jc6 E:xdS
22.4:Jxd5 4:Jxd5 23.4:Ja5 '\Wxb2 24.
i.xh6 4:Jac7 25.4:Jc4 '\Wxd2 26.i.xd2
hal 27.E:xaU. White has the two­
bishop advantage and a powerful
passed a-pawn.
Following 8 . . . '\WaS, White
should better retreat his bishop in
the standard fashion - 9.i.d2, for
example: 9 . . . e6 (9 . . . a6 10.a4 4:Jbd7
11.4:Jf3. Now, he should not be
afraid of 11 . . . 4:Jg4, because the
dominance on the eS-square can­
not bring anything real to Black,
because White can always oust
the enemy knight from there with
the move f2-f4. Later, in the game
V.Milov - Stovring, Genova 2003,
there followed 12.0-0 '!Wd8 13.'\Wcl
hS 14.i.g5 4:Jde5 15.4:Jxe5 i.xeS
16.h3 4:Jf6 17.i.d3;!; and White not
only has a space advantage, but a
clear-cut plan for further actions:
f2-f4 followed by the preparation
of e4-e5, or f4-f5.) 10.4:Jf3 exdS
ll.exdS i.g4 (After ll . . .i.fS, Black
fails to accomplish the favourable
trade of the knights (4:Je4), be­
cause of 12.4:Jh4 i.d7 13.0-0 '!Wd8
14.4:Jf3;t; There arises a standard
position for this variation, with a
slight edge for White, since he has
more space.) 12 .h3 i.xf3 13.i.xf3
E:e8+ 14.i.e2 '!Wd8 15.0-0 4:Jbd7
16.'1Wc2 4:Jh7 17.E:fel fS 18.i.fU
Black's pieces cannot hold the eS­
square due to White's resource f2-
f4, while the weakening of the e6-
square may tell (E:e6 !), Vilchen­
kov - Sumkin, USSR 1979.
It seems a bit passive for Black
to play 8 . . . 4:Jbd7. After 9.4:Jf3 a6
(It is again harmless for White if
Black continues with 9 . . . 4:Jg4, be­
cause the possession of the eS­
outpost cannot bring anything to
him. Later, in the game Volzhin ­
Velikhanli, Abu Dhabi 2001, there
followed: 10.0-0 4:Jge5 11.4:Jel
4:Jb6 12 .b3 e6 13.E:cl exd5 14.4:Jxd5
4:Jxd5 15.'?;1/xdS '\We7 16.4:Jc2 i.e6
17.'1Wd2 <;!;>h7 18.i.g3 fS 19.exf5
i.xfS 20.4:Je3;!; and White's knight
147
Chapter 11
was headed for the d5-square. His
prospects in the oncoming fight
are preferable. His king is safer,
because it is protected by three
pawns, while its black counter­
part is protected by only two. In
addition, White can begin an at­
tack on the kingside with f2-f4-
f5.) 10.0-0 :B:b8 ll.a4 tt:Je8 12 .:B:e1
tt:Je5 13.tt:Jxe5 dxe5 14.ie3 Vflc7
15.a5 tt:Jd6 16.Vfid2 Wh7 17.f3 f5
18.:B:ebl± Black can hardly coun­
ter his opponent's queenside of­
fensive (b2-b4 and after the ex­
change of the c5-pawn - c4-c5),
because his kingside counterplay
is obviously too slow, Alburt -
Meyer, Philadelphia 1989.
White should not be afraid of
8 . . . :B:e8 9.Vfid2 Wh7 10.lLlf3 e6 11.
dxe6 :B:xe6 (following ll ... ixe6
12 .i.xd6 tt:Jc6 13.0-0 ig4 14.Vflf4
tt:Jh5 15.Vflxg4 Vflxd6 16.:B:fdU,
Black's compensation for the
pawn is insufficient) 12 .e5. After
this pawn-sacrifice, White seizes
completely the initiative. 12 . . . lLlh5
13.ie3 i.xe5 14.tt:Jxe5 :B:xe5 15.0-0
(it may be also interesting for him
to try 15.0-0-0 ! i) 15 . . . tt:Jg7 16.
i.xh6 tt:Jc6 17.if4± White has re­
gained the sacrificed pawn and
his prospects in the oncoming
fight are clearly preferable. He
has two powerful bishops and an
excellent outpost on d5 for his
knight, while Black's d6-pawn is
very weak, Farago - Rigo, Buda­
pest 1978.
9 .dxe6 .ixe6
148
10J�d2
White refrains from capturing
on d6, because after that it would
be very difficult for him to obtain
an advantage in the opening.
There is plenty of theory amassed
in this variation and as a rule, it
all ends in total simplification of
the position and a draw.
10 .. :�b6
This is Black's most popular
reply. He organises counterplay
against the enemy pawn on b2
and protects indirectly his own
pawn in h6.
After 10 ... Wh7, White can al­
ready capture on d6 - ll.ixd6,
because the inclusion of the
moves Vfid2 and Wh7 is obviously
in his favour. ll . . . :B:e8 12 .e5 tt:Jfd7
13.f4 f6 14.h4 fxe5 15.h5± and
White's attack in the game De
Giorgis - Jelen, Email 1997 led to
a quick victory for him.
Following 10 . . . Vfia5, White
should better continue with the
modest move ll.tt:Jf3i, because af­
ter ll.i.xh6 ixh6 12 .Vfixh6 tt:Jxe4
 l.d4 liJf6 2.c4 g6 3. liJ c3 i.g7 4.e4 d6 5. i.e2 0 - 0 6. ig5 c5 7.d5
13.:Bc1 liJc6 14.h4 liJd4oo, there
arises a very complicated position
in which Black's prospects are not
inferior at all.
After 10 . . . liJc6 however, it is
already very good for White to
play ll . .bh6, since following 11 . . .
ix:h6 12.1Wxh6 liJd4 13.:Bd1 liJxe2
14.liJgxe2 .bc4 15.h4 !± his king­
side initiative is very powerful.
ll.li)£3
White is trying to develop his
pieces as quickly as possible.
After ll.ix:h6, he can hardly
obtain an edge. ll . . . hh6 12 .1Wxh6
1Wxb2 13.:Bc1 liJc6 14.h4 liJb4oo
Black's counterplay is quite real.
It is rather unclear whether White
has anything better than the move
15.1Wd2 with a transfer to an ap­
proximately equal endgame.
ll ••• liJc6
About 11 . . . \t>h7 12. 0-0 liJc6
13.liJd5 - see ll . . . liJc6.
12.0-0
There has arisen a very com-
plicated situation in which both
sides have their positional pluses.
Still, White's game is much sim­
pler, because the vulnerability of
Black's pawn on d6 and the d5-
square is more important than his
counterplay on the dark squares.
12 . . . \t>h7
This is a quiet move.
It is possible that Black's best
chance here may be the active
move 12 . . . liJd4, but it still leads to
a position in which White's pros­
pects are preferable. 13.liJxd4
cxd4 14.liJd5 hd5 15.exd5 liJe4
(following 15 . . . g5 16.�g3 liJe4 17.
'!Wc2 liJxg3 18.hxg3;t;, Black's king
is very weak and he must be very
careful not to come under attack
in the middle game, Fellner -
Walter, Germany 1994) 16.1Wc2. It
may look like Black's initiative
compensates the pawn-defects in
his position. This is not true how­
ever. White can oust his oppo­
nent's knight from its active posi­
tion, while the vulnerability of the
pawns on d4 and d6 will be a per­
manent negative factor for Black
in the future. 16 . . . :Bfe8 17.�d3
liJcS 18.id2 aS 19.b3 \t>h7 (19 . . .
:Be7 20.:Bfe1 :Bae8 2l.:Bxe7 :Bxe7
22 .:Be1 :Bxe1 + 23.ix:eU Houpt -
Rubio Dobias, chessfriend.com
2004. The position has been sim­
plified considerably. White is
clearly better. After an exchange
on d3, Black's position will be
worse because his pawns on d4
and d6 are placed on colours of
149
Chapter 11
the same square as his bishop,
while if he refrains from the ex­
change, White will preserve his
two-bishop advantage after the
retreat of Black's bishop from the
d3-square.) 2 0 J'!:fe1 i.f6 2l.g3 i.g7
2 2 .<i>g2 �c7 23J'!ad1 b6 24.ic1 a4
25.ifU Aleksandrov - Shulman,
Ohrid 2001. It is worth noticing
how skilfully A.Alexandrov avoid­
ed the exchange of his bishops,
placing them on the c1 and f1-
squares. In the oncoming fight,
White can break his opponent's
position with h2-h4 and b3-b4,
maintaining long lasting initiative
both in the middle game and in
the endgame.
13.lDd5 hd5
After 13 .. .'1Wd8, Muse - Hjar­
tarson, Germany 1989, White
should better continue with 14.
�c2t, maintaining an edge thanks
to his better pawn-structure (fol­
lowing 14 . . . ixd5 - to his two­
bishop advantage).
14.exd5
After the exchange on dS,
White has a stable advantage due
150
to his two powerful bishops and
extra space.
14 ... lDe5
After 14 . . . lDe7 15.h3 !!ae8
16.!!ab1 lLlc8 17.id3 l2Jd7 18.a3
lLleS 19.lLlxe5 dxeS 2 0.i.e3 �c7
2l.b4 cxb4 22.axb4 fS 23.f4±,
Black has no counterplay on the
kingside at all. White can simply
advance his pawns - c4-c5, d5-
d6, Aleksandrov - Kotenko, Mos­
cow 2008.
Black cannot equalise with
14 . . . l2Jd4 15.l2Jxd4 cxd4 16.id3
l2Jd7 17.b4 fS 18.h4 lLlf6 19.f3
!!ae8, Dolinski - Trusewicz, Po­
land 1991, 20 .!!ae1!t This is a pre­
cise move. Now, Black's counter­
play on the e-file has been parried
and White's positional pluses
should gradually tell.
15.tDxe5 dxe5 16 .ie3
•
There has arisen a position,
which resembles the Najdorf vari­
ation in the Sicilian Defence.
White's positional pluses (two
bishops and the possibility for ac-
 l.d4 l:jjf6 2.c4 g6 3. 1:jj c3 1lg7 4.e4 d6 5. 1le2 0 - 0 6. 1lg5 c5 7.d5
tive actions on the queenside with
b2-b4, or in the centre with d5-
d6) are much more important
than Black's kingside counter­
play.
16 ••• c!be4 17.%Yc2
It is also possible for White to
choose here 17.%Yd3 ! ? l:jj d 6 18.
�abU, preparing b2-b4.
17 f5 18.gabl a5 19.a3 %Yc7
•••
20.b4!? axb4 21.axb4 b6 22.
bxc5 c!bxc5 23.g3;!; His prospects
are much better. White can
choose between exerting pressure
against the enemy b6-pawn (�b5,
�fb1), or organise a pawn-ad­
vance in the centre - d5-d6, after
�dl. Naturally, Black's kingside
counterplay should not be under­
estimated.
D) 7 e6 •••
This move can be considered
as Black's classical response
against the Averbakh system. It
was used often during the 50ies of
the past century by such out­
standing King's Indian experts
like M.Najdorf, S.Gligoric, I.Bo-
leslavsky, M.Tal etc. Still White
soon found very good arguments
against the system chosen by
Black. It is not so much that White
obtains a great advantage, but the
arising positions are very un­
pleasant for Black. This discour­
ages the fans of the King's Indian
Defence, because they usually
strive for complicated, double
edged fight. Here, he will be
forced to adhere to long and labo­
rious defence in the endgame
without any counter chances.
Therefore, this variation has
gradually lost its popularity alto­
gether.
8.%Yd2
It is essential for White not to
allow the move h7-h6, because
the pin of the knight on f6 in this
variation may be very unpleasant
for Black.
8 . . . exd5
If he postpones this exchange
with the move 8 .. .'�a5, Black can­
not expect anything positive for
him, for example: 9.1:jjf3 a6 10. 0-0
b5, Moskalenko - Grigore, Sitges
2005 and here, White can simply
capture the pawn : ll.dxe6 ! 1lxe6
12.%Yxd6± and Black does not have
sufficient compensation for it.
9.exd5
Here, contrary to the Modern
Benoni, in the Averbakh system
White captures with his e-pawn.
Now, Black has no counterplay
151
Chapter 11
against the pawn on e4 and he
ends up in a solid but cramped
position.
9 ••• ges
This is his most popular re­
sponse.
9 . . . lt:Ja6. This is not the best
idea for Black. His knight has
nothing to do on a6, or on the c7-
square, because White can easily
parry Black's queenside counter­
play. 10.lt:Jf3 lt:Jc7 (lO . . . ges 11.0-0
- see 9 ... ge8) 11.0-0 a6 (1l.. . .if5
12 .h3 '1Wc8 13.'1Wf4 lt:Jce8 14.gfe1 a6
15 . .ifl± - He can hardly find good
squares for his minor pieces, be­
cause Black obviously lacks space,
Gelfand - J.Polgar, Almaty 2008)
12 .a4 gbs 13.'1Wf4 lt:Jce8 14.a5;!; Va­
ganian - Velimirovic, Budapest
1973. His position is cramped. In
order to neutralise White's pin on
the h4-d8 diagonal, Black is
forced to place his other knight on
e8 and this does not beautify his
position at all.
Sometimes he begins with the
line: 9 . . . a6 10.lt:Jf3 ges (10 . . .!g4
152
11.0-0 ges 12.a4 lt:Jbd7 13.h3 .ix£3
14.!xf3 - see 9 . . . ges. After the
move 10 . . . '1Wc7, a perfect example
of how to play this position with
White can be the game Polugaevs­
ky - Shaw, Siegen 1970 : 11.0-0
!g4 12 .h3 ix£3 13 . .ixf3 lt:Jbd7 14.
a4 b6 15 ..id1 �h8 16.ic2 lt:Jg8 17.
gael;!; He has more space and two
bishops, while Black has no coun­
terplay. Later, Polugaevsky ex­
changed all the heavy pieces and
the knights and realised easily his
advantage proving the power of
his two bishops.) 11.0-0
About 11 ... !g4 12 .h3 !xf3 13.
.ixf3 lt:Jbd7 14.a4 - see 9 ... ges.
After 11 . . . lt:Jbd7 12.gfe1 lt:Je5
13.lt:Jxe5 gxe5 14.!d3 gxe1+ 15.
gxe1 '.Wf8 16.'1Wf4 lt:Jh5 17.'\Wh4;!;,
White has more space, his pieces
are very active and Black must
worry about the vulnerability of
his d6-pawn, I.Grischuk - Chir­
kov, Evpatoria 2006.
It seems awkward for Black to
transfer his queen to the f8-
square: 11 . . . '\We7 12 .h3 '1Wf8 13.i.d3
h6 14 . .if4 g5 15.ih2 g4 16.hxg4
lt:Jxg4, Raetsky - Demeter, Kato­
wice 1993, 17 ..if4± - His activity
on the kingside has only led to the
 l.d4 CiJj6 2.c4 g6 3. CiJ c3 i.g7 4.e4 d6 5. i.e2 0 - 0 6. i.g5 c5 7.d5
appearance of additional pawn­
weaknesses in his camp.
ll . . .i.fS 12.0.h4 \WeB 13.0.xf5
(It is possibly even stronger for
White to choose 13.E!ae1! 0.e4 14.
0.xe4 he4 1S.idl± and Black's
bishop on e4 is obviously mis­
placed.) 13 ... \Wx:fS 14.E!ae1 0.bd7 15.
id3 \Wg4 16.h3 \Wd4, Polugaevsky
- Roos, Le Havre 1966, 17.b3 CiJeS
1B .ib1 E!abB 19.a4;!; Black's pieces
are seemingly very active, but he
cannot achieve anything real. Af­
ter White simplifies the position
by exchanging pieces, he will obtain
the typical endgame in this varia­
tion with a slight edge for him.
There arise interesting tactical
complications after the move 9 . . .
\Wb6. During the BOies o f the
past century L.Yurtaev found an
interesting possibility for Black,
connected with a piece-sacrifice
for several pawns. It would be
very difficult for White to find
the right way over the board
without concrete knowledge of
the variations. 10.0.f3 ifS 11.0.h4
0.e4 12.0.xe4 he4 13.f3
13 . . . \Wxb2 14.E!cl \Wxd2+ (The
endgame is worse for Black fol-
lowing 14 . . . i.f5 15.0.xf5 gxfS 16.
\Wxb2 hb2 17.E!b1 ic3+ 1B.'i!ld1
E!eB 19.E!xb7 0.a6 20.a3 E!abB 21.
E!xbB CiJxbB 2 2 .id3 0.d7 23.'i!lc2
i.d4 24.E!b1± White has two pow­
erful bishops, while Black's fS­
pawn is very weak, Carlsen - Van
Wely, Wijk aan Zee 2013, as well
as after 14 . . . h6 15.hh6 \Wxd2+
16.hd2 if6 17.g3 hh4 1B.gxh4
ifS 19.if4 E!dB 20.h5. Black's po­
sition is very unpleasant. His d6-
pawn is weak, while White's dark­
squared bishop has no opponent
and is very powerful. In the game
Bekker Jensen - Nordenbaek,
Denmark 2000, Black decided to
capture a pawn, just to suffer for
something real: 20 . . . gxh5? ! , but
had soon to regret his decision,
because White's pieces became
very active. The game did not last
long: 21.E!g1 + 'i!lh7 22.E!g5 ig6 23.
'i!ld2 0.a6 24.E!cg1 E!d7 2S.i.d3 E!gB
26.h4 0.b4 27.ib1 0.a6 2B. E!xhS+
and Black resigned, since he would
have to suffer huge material loss­
es.) 1S.'i!lxd2 hdS (15 . . . -tfS 16.
CiJxfS gxf5 17.E!bl b6 1B.i.d3± White
will regain the pawn on fS and will
have a great advantage in the end­
game thanks to his two powerful
bishops and a superior pawn­
structure, Kachiani-Gersinska -
Berezina, Istanbul 2000.) 16.cxd5
E!eB. This is the essence of L.Yur­
taev's idea. Black obtains two
pawns for the piece and White's
knight on h4 is misplaced. It looks
like Black has compens�tion.' Still,
it soon became clear that White
could activate his rook 17.E!bl and
153
Chapter 11
Black's hopes to obtain compen­
sation were doomed to fail. 17 . . .
ttld7 1 8 . .ib5 :B:e5 1 9 . .b:d7 :B:xg5
20.1'!xb7 :B:xd5+ 21.'it>c2 c4 2 2 .f4±
White's knight enters the actions
and Black has no compensation
for the piece, Lputian - Yurtaev,
Volgograd 1985.
13 ... h6. This is an interesting
move, but is not so popular. 14.
hh6 .ixh6 15.�xh6 �xb2 16.0-0
ic2 17.1'!acl :B:e8 (17. . . ia4 18.f4
�g7 19.�g5;!; Black's king shelter
has been weakened due to the ab­
sence of his h-pawn, so White's
attack may become very powerful,
Boehm - Hartung, Email 2002)
18.�d2 �f6, Dolinski - Niewiad­
omski, ICCF 2007, 19.g3 ! ? This is
the only way for White to fight
for the advantage. 19 . . . ia4 20 .f4;!;
His prospects in the middle game
will be preferable, because his
king is much safer (3 pawns
against 2 for Black's king). After
the exchange of the queens (for
example after �f6-e7-e3), White
can exploit the vulnerability of his
enemy d6-pawn, after ttlh4-f3-g5,
if3 and ttle4.
10.ltlf3
154
10 ... .ig4
About 10 . . . a6 ll.a4 ig4 12.
0-0 ttlbd7 13.h3 ixf3 14.hf3 -
see 10 . . . ig4.
10 . . .if5 11.0-0 �b6 12.1'!ae1 -
see 10 . . . �b6.
10 . . . �b6 11.0-0 if5 (1l.. .ig4
12 .h3 - see 10 . . . ig4) 12.1'!ae1
ttlbd7 (Unfortunately for Black,
he cannot accomplish the favour­
able trade of the knights, because
after 12 . . . ttle4? ! 13.ttlxe4 ixe4 14.
id3, he must comply with an ir­
revocable weakening of his pawn­
structure in order to save his bish­
op: 14 .. .f5 15.ixe4 fxe4 16.if4
ttld7 17.ttlg5±) 13.ttlh4
13 . . . ttle4 14. ttlxe4 ixe4 15.f3.
The knights have been exchanged
but Black has difficulties, because
of the unfavourable position of
his bishop in the centre of the
board. 15 . . . .id4+ (after 15 . . . h6
16.hh6 .ixh6 17.�xh6 .ic2 18.
�cl±, Black has no compensation
for the pawn, Spacek - Gross,
Prague 1992.) 16.\t>h1 f6, Genta ­
Izquierdo, Montevideo 1992, 17 .
.if4!± Black can choose between
 l.d4 liJf6 2.c4 g6 3. liJ c3 i.g7 4.e4 d6 5. .ie2 0 - 0 6. i.g5 c5 7.d5
sacrificing his bishop for the
pawns on d5 and b2, or retreating
it to the f5-square, which after
liJxf5 would lead to a horrible
weakening of his pawn-structure.
In both cases White's great ad­
vantage is doubtless.
It is possible for Black to
choose the plan with the exchange
of the knights although it would
not equalise for him either. 10 . . .
liJbd7 11.0-0 liJe5 (He lacks space,
so he should not avoid the ex­
change of pieces. Following 11 . . .
a 6 12.E!:fe1 b 6 13.'?;1/f4:t, White's
pieces are obviously more active,
Farago - Teufl, Austria 1999.)
12.liJxe5 E!:xe5 13.id3 E!:e8 14.E!:feU
Black's position is solid but very
passive and he can hardly organ­
ise any active actions, Nikolaidis
- Shavtvaladze, Korinthos 2002.
It seems rather dubious for
him to transfer his queen to f8
with the idea to advance his king­
side pawns. 10 .. .'!We7 11.0-0 �f8 12.
h3 liJa6 13.i.d3 id7 14.a3 h6 15.
i.f4 liJh5 16.ih2 f5 17.liJb5 ixb5
18.cxb5 liJc7 19.E!:ae1 a6 20.b6 liJb5
21.E!:e6 E!:xe6 22 .dxe6 liJd4 23.liJxd4
ixd4 24.E!:e1 E!:e8, Bareev - Dy­
achkov, Azov 1996 and after 25.
g4 ! +-, Black's position crumbles.
In the game Bareev - I.Soko­
lov, Biel 1993, Black accomplished
an unfavourable manoeuvre with
his knight and it turned out to be
just a loss of time for him. 10 . . .
liJa6 11.0-0 �b6 (following 11 . . .
liJc7 12 .h3 �e7 13.E!:ae1 �f8 14.
i.d3:t, his pieces are terribly
cramped, Raetsky - Slizhevsky, So­
chi 2006) 12.id3 id7 13.h3 liJb4 14.
i.b1 h5 15.a3 liJa6 16.id3± White's
extra space guarantees a great ad­
vantage for him since Black has
no squares to deploy his pieces.
11.0-0 liJbd7
11 . . . a6 12.a4 liJbd7 13.h3 hf3
14.ixf3 - see 14 . . . liJbd7.
11 . . . �b6 12 .h3 ix£3 13.ixf3
liJbd7 14.�c2 - see 11.. .liJbd7.
12.h3 hf3 13.hf3
There has arisen a typical po­
sition for this variation. White has
extra space and two bishops and
Black has no counterplay. It is be­
cause of these prospectless posi­
tions that Black ceased to be in­
terested in this variation.
13 . . . a6
He cannot equalise with 13 . . .
h 5 14.E!:ae1 �b6 1 5 . .id1 a6, . Tre­
velyan - Glek, Clichy 1995 and
here, White's simplest reaction
would be - 16.ib3:t and despite
155
Chapter 11
all the tricks, Black has failed to
complicate the game and to or­
ganise counterplay.
13 . . . �b6 14.'�c2 a6 (After 14 . . .
h6 15.i.d2 a 6 16.b3 :Be7 17.:Bae1
:Bae8 18.:Bxe7 :Bxe7 19.id1 W/d8
20.a4t, Black did not manage to
hold the position in the game
Langeweg - Najdorf, Wijk aan
Zee 1971. The character of the
game remains more or less the
same following 14 . . . l!th8 15.id2
a6 16.:Baelt and later, White trad­
ed the major pieces and realised
his advantage in an endgame with
only minor pieces, S.Atalik - Pap,
Vrnjacka Banja 2012.) 15.id2. In
similar position, White often re­
treats his bishop to d2 and from
there it supports the advance of
his queenside pawns with a4-a5
and b4. 15 . . . :Be7 16.:Baelt Polu­
gaevsky - Gligoric, Skopje 1968.
Later, Black was reluctant to ad­
here to a passive defence and sac­
rificed a pawn. His compensation
for it was insufficient and he lost
the game.
14.a4
156
14 . . . �e7
Black is clearly worse after
14 . . . W/c7 15.�c2 h5 16 . .id2 tt:lh7
17.:Bae1 i.d4 18.id1 tt:Jdf8 19.�d3
tt:Jd7 2 0.'1Wg3 l!th8 2l.b3 tt:ldf6
22 .ic2 :Bxe1 23.:Bxe1 :Be8 24.
:Bxe8+ tt:Jxe8 25.tt:le2t - he has no
counterplay and White can play
for a win without any risk, trying
to exploit his two-bishop advan­
tage and extra space, Brandberg
Soeder - Bennborn, ICCF 2007.
Black's activity is only tempo­
rary after 14 . . . tt:le5, because later,
White will oust the enemy knight
away from the centre. 15.ie2 �aS
16.'1Wc2 h6 17.i.d2 W/c7 18.f4 tt:Jed7
19.:Baelt and once again he main­
tains the standard advantage for
this variation, Gulko - Radjabov,
Wijk aan Zee 2001.
Following 14 . . . W/a5, S.Atalik
demonstrated a good example of
how to play this position with
White.
At first, he deprived his oppo­
nent of any counterplay by trad­
ing the major pieces and then, in
the endgame with minor pieces,
 l.d4 liJf6 2.c4 g6 3. liJc3 i.g7 4.e4 d6 5. .ie2 0 - 0 6. i.g5 c5 7.d5
he began advancing his pawns on
the flanks in order to acquire
more space. 15.Wfc2 h6 16.i.d2
Wfc7 17.!1ae1 !1xe1 18.!1xe1 �e8 19.
i.d1 �xe1+ 20 ..ixe1 Wfd8 21.WI'e2
\t>f8 22 .g3 Wfe7 23.Wfxe7+ \t>xe7
24.a5 liJe5 25.i.e2 liJe8 26.f4 liJd7
27.\t>g2 i.d4 28.\t>f3 f5 29.i.d3
liJg7 30.b3 h5 31.liJe2 i.f6 32 .ic2
\t>f7 33.i.d2i Atalik - Kilicaslan,
Ankara 2008. This is the end­
game White should strive for in
this variation. Black does not have
any counterplay, while White can
manoeuvre for long preparing
breaks both on the queenside (b3-
b4 ), as well as on the kingside (g3-
g4). Even if Black can hold this
position, then in a practical game
this is a very difficult task indeed.
15.S:ael Wff8 16.il.dl
16 h6
•••
It does not seem logical for
Black to opt for 16 . . . !1xe1, because
in this variation, White is trying
to trade the heavy pieces himself.
Following 17.!1xe1 !1e8 18.!1xe8
Wfxe8 19 . .ic2 liJb6 20 .b3 liJbd7 21.
.if4 fffe 7 22 .WI'e2 \t>f8 23.Wfxe7+
\t>xe7 24.a5i,
There has arisen again a very
favourable endgame for White,
Polugaevsky - Uhlmann, Amster­
dam 1970. Later, L.Polugaevsky
realised his advantage. This was
one of the first games which
showed the great difficulties Black
had to suffer in similar endgames.
Our book is devoted to the
opening however, so we will not
analyse thoroughly the endgame.
The readers who would like to en­
large their knowledge and under­
stating of similar situations, I can
recommend the wonderful book
of M.Shereshevsky "Endgame
Strategy" : in which he has ana­
lysed several examples on this
subject.
17 .tf4 liJh7 18.ic2 .!DeS
•
19.b3 f5 20.ig3 Wff6 21.liJe2
.!bf8 22.f4i Black's knight on e5
has been ousted from the centre
and he will have to defend for
long a cramped and passive . Posi­
tion, Jussupow - Zapata, Saint
John 1988.
157
Chapter 11

Conclusion
We have just completed the analysis of the variation with 6 . . . c5 in
the Averbakh system of the King's Indian Defence.
Black has many different possibilities in it, but only the ousting of
the enemy bishop from its active position with the move 7 . . . h6 provides
him with some chances of obtaining an acceptable game. Still, in this
variation White maintains an edge due to the vulnerability of the ene­
my pawn on d6. After the move 7 . . . b5, there arise variations of the Ben­
ko Gambit which are unfavourable for Black. White has already ad­
vanced e2-e4 and contrary to the variations of the Benko Gambit, he
will not lose his castling rights after i.a6-fl.
Following 7 . . . e6, there arises a standard position with a space ad­
vantage for White, who has a clear-cut plan for further actions. He
needs to exchange the major pieces and transfer the game into an end­
game with minor pieces in which he will have excellent winning chanc­
es thanks to his extra space and two powerful bishops. His plan to play
for a win is connected with occupying space with his queenside pawns
(a4-a5), followed by a preparation of breaks - either with b3-b4, or
with g2-g4.

158
 Part 3
The Modern Defence
l.d4 g6
In the third part of volume 2,
we will analyse the move l g6. It
•••
has been played even back in the
h
19 t century, but in the contem­
porary theory it has been named
the Modern Defence and quite de­
servedly so. The point is that at
first it did not lead to original po­
sitions and usually transposed to
the King's Indian Defence. It was
during the 60ies of the past cen­
tury when the move l.. .g6 was
played sometimes by M.Botvinnik
and a bit later by L.Ljuboevic and
they began to use plans connected
with pressure against White's
centre (the d4-square) with ig7,
tLlc6, or if White protects his d4-
pawn with the move tLlf3, then
ig4. Black wishes to exploit the
delay of development of his knight
on g8, since in that case the diago-
nal for his dark-squared bishop is
opened and if White closes the
position in the centre, Black can
play f7-f5 immediately and not af­
ter the preliminary retreat of his
knight from the f6-square as it
happens in the King's Indian De­
fence.
In Chapter 13, we will analyse
the basic position of this varia­
tion, which arises after l.d4 g6
2.c4 .ig7 3.e4 d6 4.tLlc3. There,
we will pay most attention to
Black's three main responses :
4 e5, 4 lLlc6 and 4 lLld7.
•• ••• •••
In Chapter 12 we will deal
with the different possibilities for
Black to avoid the main lines on
moves 2 and 3.
I would like to mention that
White should not be in a hurry to
develop his knight to the f3-
square, because then Black can
transpose to the King's Indian
Defence, having avoided the
Averbakh system.
In the contemporary tourna­
ment practice this move is played
by numerous strong grandmas­
ters (indeed, mostly in games
with a shorter time-control) : Sh.
Mamedyarov, H.Nakamura, P.
Svidler, A.Morozevich . . .
159
Chapter 12 l.d4 g6 2.c4
Now, contrary to the move 1 . . .
d 6 , Black i s not threatening to ad­
vance e7-e5, so White can make
this quite natural move for the
closed openings.
Now, Black has a choice. His
main line 2 .ig7 will be analysed
•••
in variation B), but before that we
will deal with A) 2 d6.•••
About 2 . . . ltlf6 3.tLlc3 - see
parts 1 and 2.
2 ... c6 3.e4 dS 4.e5 ig7 S.ltlc3
- see variation Bl.
2 ... c5 3.d5 .ig7 (3 ... ltlf6 4.ltlc3
.ig7 S.e4 d6 6.ie2 0-0 7 . .ig5 -
see Chapter 11) 4.e4 - see varia­
tion B2.
160
A) 2 ••• d6
Black wishes to advance e7-e5
as quickly as possible.
It seems bad for him to try to
transpose to the Dutch Defence
with 2 . . .f5? ! , because of 3.h4 ! --t
We will analyse this variation in
our volume 3 in the chapters de­
voted to the Dutch Defence.
3.e4
White continues to occupy the
centre with his pawn s .
3 ••• e5
This interesting move leads to
a complicated positional fight.
About 3 . . . ig7 4 . tLl c3 - see
Chapter 13.
3 ... ltlf6 4.ltlc3 .ig7 S . .ie2 - see
Chapters 6-11.
(diagram)
Now, contrary to the positions
which we will analyse in the next
chapter (with the inclusion of the
moves tLlc3 and .ig7), it is not so
good for White to enter an end­
game after the exchange on eS,

because Black's bishop on f8 can
go to more active positions (than
on g7) - to cS or b4.
Here, he has a choice - to open
the position with Al) 4 exd4, •••
or to try a move, which is more
typical for similar set-ups A2)
4 ••• c!Dd7.
About 4 . . .ig7 S.dxeS - see
Chapter 13, variation A.
4 .. .tbc6 S.dS lbce7 (S . . . lbd4 6.
ie3 ig7 7.lbge2 - see Chapter 13,
variation 82) 6.g4 ig7 7.ie3 -
see Chapter 13, variation 81.
Al) 4 ••• exd4 5.Vxd4
Black cannot exploit now his
opponent's early queen-sortie due
to the vulnerability of the a1-h8
diagonal.
s ••• .!Df6 6 .tgs
•
(diagram)
6 ••• c!Dbd7
This move is forced and Black
cannot win a tempo attacking
White's queen with the move
lbc6.
l.d4 g6 2.c4 d6 3.e4 eS 4. lb c3
The routine move 6 . . . ig7? los­
es immediately after 7.e5 Ve7 (7 . . .
dxeS 8.'�xd8+ 'it>xd8 9.lbd5 lbbd7
10.0-0-0+- and Black suffers
huge material losses) 8.lbd5 dxeS
9.Vh4 lbxdS 10 .he7 lbxe7, Ste­
fansson - C.Hansen, Moscow
1989, ll.id3+- and Black's two
minor pieces and a pawn are obvi­
ously insufficient to compensate
the missing queen.
7.f4
White has created the threat
e4-e5.
7 h6
•••
The inclusion of this move is
useful.
8 .th4
•
8 . . . .tg7
161
Chapter 12

It is also possible for Black to White can begin decisive actions.

try 8 . . . c5, in order to get rid of the 12 .e6 lt:Jdf6, Alburt - D.Gurevich,
unpleasant pin. At first, he weak­ Newark 1995, 13.\We5 ! This is a
ens his pawn-structure and after good example of centralization !
9.,�M3, he sacrifices a pawn in the 13 . . . \Wb6 14.lt:Jf3 0-0 15.ext7+
spirit of the Najdorf variation of Ei:xt7 16.�d3 g5 17.�g3± Black's
the Sicilian Defence. 9 . . . g5. Black castling position is horribly weak­
will soon regain the sacrificed ened and White's pieces have oc­
pawn, but the weaknesses in his cupied much more active posi­
position will remain for long. tions.
10 .fxg5 lt:Jg4 (following 10 . . . lt:Je5 9.lilf3 0-0 10.0-0-0
11.Wid2 tt:Jh7 12.lt:Jf3 tt:Jxg5, White
can simplify advantageously the
position with 13.lt:Jxe5 dxe5 14.
W!xd8+ 'tt>xd8 15.0-0-0+ 'tt> c7 16.
ig3 ig7 17.EM5± and Black loses
one of his pawns, Bente - Sulskis,
Warsaw 2005) ll.lt:Jf3 tt:Jde5 12.
Wld2 ie7 13.0-0-0 ie6 14.lt:Jb5
hxg5 15.�g3 f6 16.b3 tt:Jt7 17.�e2
Wlb6 18.h3 tt:Jge5 19.lt:Jxe5 dxe5,
Hort - Hickl, Bad Neuenahr 1991.
Now, White must exploit one of
the main drawbacks of the move 10 Yfe8 ll.e5 dxe5 12.fxe5
•••

8 . . . c5 and transfer his knight to c!Llh7 13.i.g3 c!Llg5 14.c!Llxg5 hxg5

the d5-outpost: 20 .lt:Jc3 ! W!a5 21. 15.gel ti'e7 16.h4-+ followed by
Wfe3 lt:Jd6 2 2 .�g4 !± - Here, no h4-h5.
matter whether Black exchanges White develops powerful initi­
on g4, or retreats with his bishop ative on the h-fi.le and Black will
to t7, the vulnerability of the light fail to exploit the vulnerability of
squares in his camp will be hurt­ the e5-pawn.
ing him. The point is that White's
knight can always go to d5, while A2) 4 ••• c!Lld7
Black's knight can hardly occupy This move, no doubt, leads to
the d4-square, because White's much more interesting positions
pawns on c4 and e4 are covering than 4 . . . exd4.
its way towards that key outpost. 5.d5
White is occupying space.
It would be too slow for Black (diagram)
to try 8 . . . c6? ! , because after 9.0- After the closing of the centre
0-0 ie7 10.e5 dxe5 ll.fxe5 lt:Jh7, the fight is focused on the flanks.
his forces are discoordinated and 5 ••• i.g7

162

About S . . . lt:lgf6 - see volume 3
- l.d4 lt:lf6 2 .c4 d6 3.lt:lc3 lt:lbd7
4.e4 es s.ds g6.
There arises an interesting
fight, but still in favour of White,
after S . . . aS 6.i.d3 hS, Speelman -
McNab, London 1992 (6 . . . .ig7
7 . .ie3 - see S . . . .ig7 6 . .ie3 aS) 7.
.ic2 i.h6 8.lt:lf3 �cl 9.�xc1 lt:lc5
10.0-0t, followed by b3, a3, seiz­
ing the initiative on the queen­
side.
About S . . . .ih6 6 . .ixh6 lt:lxh6
7.�d2 - see S . . .i.g7 6 . .ie3 i.h6
7.i.h6 lt:lh6 8.�d2 (Naturally, the
number of the moves will be with
one more, because White has lost
a tempo for i.e3 and Black for
.ig7.).
6 .ie3
• tions on the queenside are much
He is planning to castle queen­
side, moreover that White's bish­
op will be very useful in the prep­
aration of c4-cS.
(diagram)
6 ••• c!lJe7
After this move, Black pre­
serves the possibility to advance
l.d4 g6 2.c4 d6 3.e4 eS 4. lt:l c3
f7-fS, but his knight will not be so
active on e7 as on the f6-square.
Following 6 . . . lt:lgf6 7.f3, there
arises a position which will be an­
alysed in the next volume, with
the move-order - l.d4 c!lJf6 2 .c4
d6 3.lt:lc3 lt:lbd7 4.e4 eS S.dS g6 6.
i.e3 i.g7 7.f3 .
In this position, the principled
plans for Black include the trade
of his "bad" dark-squared bishop.
6 . . . hS 7.�d2 .ih6 (7 . . . aS 8.i.d3
lt:lcS 9.i.c2 i.d7 10.lt:lge2 i.h6 11.
0-0 �e3 12 .�xe3 lt:lf6 13.f3 'it>f8
14.b3 'it>g7 1S.a3 lt:la6 16.!i:fb1 �b8
17.b4;!; Kraidman - Suttles, Sko­
pje 1972 . There has arisen a typi­
cal position for this variation in
which White's space advantage
and the possibilities for active ac­
more important positional factors
than the fact that he has a "bad"
light-squared bishop, moreover
that he can always get rid of it
with i.a4.) 8 . .ixh6 lt:lxh6 9 . 0...,. 0 -0
aS 10 .i.d3 lt:lcS 11 . .ic2 .id7 12.f3
'it>f8 13.lt:lge2 'i!lg7 14.'it>bl;!; Olafs­
son - Haik, Thessaloniki 1988.
163
Chapter 12
White's extra space guarantees
for him a slight edge. In the mid­
dle game, he can organise active
actions on the kingside after h3
(depriving Black's knight of the
g4-square) and f4, while follow­
ing the trade of the queens, on the
queenside as well with b3, a3 and
b4.
6 . . .�h6 7.ixh6 ltJxh6 8.W/d2
ltJg4 (The character of the posi­
tion would not change much after
8 . . . ltJg8 9.�d3 ltJgf6 10.ltJge2:l; and
there arises the same position as
after 8 . . . ttJg4, except that instead
of h3, White had played the more
useful move - ltJge2, Bachtiar -
Ciocaltea, Wijk aan Zee 1974.)
9.h3 ltJgf6 10 .�d3 hS 1l.�c2 h4
12.0-0-0 ltJhS 13.ltJge2:l;. White
not only has more space, but leads
in development too, so he must
strive to open the position as
quickly as possible, for example to
play g2-g4 and after the exchange
on g3 to double his rooks on the
f-file, Bykhovsky - Neiman, Tel
Aviv 2002.
6 . . . ltJh6. The plan with the
transfer of the knight to f7 seems
to be too slow for Black. 7.h3 f6
8.W/d2 ltJf7 9.�d3 ltJcS 10.�c2 aS
ll.ltJge2 �d7 12.0-0-0 a4. It is
possible that he had to refrain
from this important pawn-ad­
vance, but even then, White's
prospects would have been pref­
erable. 13.�b1 W/b8 14.ltJb5 0-0
15.ltJec3± - He only needs now to
choose the right moment to ex-
164
change on c5 and to win the ene­
my a4-pawn, Sakaev - Chigvint­
sev, Smolensk 2000.
Following 6 . . .a5, there arise
positions which are more typical
for the Saemisch system of the
King's Indian Defence and in a
very favourable version for White.
7.�d3 ltJcS 8.�c2 ltJf6 9.f3 0-0
10.ltJge2 �d7 11.W/d2 h5 12. 0-0-0
ltJh7 13.�b1 b6 14.g3 fS 15.exf5
gxfS. Now, he must prepare the
pawn-break g3-g4 with 16.h3 ! ,
followed by E!dg1 and g4, after
which the position is opened and
almost all White's pieces join in
the attack against the enemy king
(He maintains an edge too follow­
ing 16.f4 ltJf6:l;, but Black has
some counterplay due to the vul­
nerability of the e4 and g4-
squares Spraggett - Lacroix,
Montreal 1978.).
7.g4
This is a standard strategical
resource for White, which here is
justified tactically as well.
7. . . 0-0

It does not seem logical for
Black to choose 7 . . . lLlf6, because
then, he will be able to advance
f7-f5 only after the retreat of his
knight. 8 . .te2 0-0 (Following 8 . . .
h S 9.g5 lLlh7 lO.lLlf3 0 - 0 11.'1Wd2
.td7 12. 0-0-0±, White has obvi­
ously much more space and the
pawn-advance f7-f5 and captur­
ing en passant will lead to the
weakening of the g6-pawn for
Black, Finegold - Calton, East­
pointe 1994.) 9.h4 lLle8, Gruen­
berg - Uhlmann, Leipzig 1973,
lO.hS± White has seized com­
pletely the initiative on the king­
side.
After the premature operation
7 .. .f5 8.gxf5 gxfS 9.'1Wh5+, Black
will have to play 9 . . . mf8 (since af­
ter 9 . . . lLlg6 10.exf5 '!Wh4 ll.'!WgS
.tf6 12.'1Wg3±, he will hardly man­
age to regain his sacrificed pawn,
Huebner - Mohr, Germany 1990)
10.lLlh3 ! White's knight is headed
immediately for the gS-square
and from there it will control
the super-important e4 and e6-
squares. 10 . . . lLlf6 ll.'!We2 lLlxe4 12.
lLlxe4 fxe4 13.lLlg5;!; Black's extra
pawn on e4 is absolutely immate­
rial, because White can regain it
the moment he pleases. The
placement of Black's monarch
however, seems to be precarious,
since there are still too many piec­
es left on the board.
8.£3 f5 9.g5
This move deprives Black's
knight of the f6-square.
l.d4 g6 2.c4 i.g7 3.e4
9 ••• a5
After 9 . . . c6 10 .h4 cxdS ll.cxdS,
in the game Velimirovic - Todor­
cevic, Bjelovar 1979, Black decid­
ed to sacrifice a pawn - 1l.. .b5.
White refrained in vain from the
move 12 . .txb5;!;, because in that
case, Black's compensation would
have been insufficient.
10.h4 .!Llc5 ll.'!Wd2 .td7 12 •
0-0-0 .!Llc8 13.h5-+ followed by
'!Wh2 and actions on the h-file, La­
hner - Nehybka, Brno 2004. If
Black decides at some moment to
play f5-f4, then White will simply
exchange on cS and follow that
with .ih3, achieving the favoura­
ble trade of the light-squared
bishops and preserving all the
pluses of his position.
B) 2 .tg7 3.e4
•••
(diagram)
Now, Black has a great choice
of possibilities. His most popular
move is 3 d6 and we will. ana­
•••
lyse it in our next chapter. Here,
we will deal with: Bl) 3 c6, B2) •••
3 c5 and B3) 3 .!Llc6.
.•• •••
165
Chapter 12

transfer his bishop to its initial

c8-square. ll . . . e5, Petrosian -
Spassky, Moscow 1966. Here,
White had to begin active actions
on the queenside with 12.tt:ld2 f5
13.f3 f4 14.i.f2 g5 15.b4 a5 16.a3±,
followed by c4-c5. His queenside
initiative develops much faster
than Black's counterplay on the
opposite side of the board.

About 3 . . . tt:Jf6 4.tt:lc3 - see part

2. Bl) 3 ••• c6
Black plays this move only
I t i s just bad for Black t o play very seldom. He wishes to ad­
3 . . . e5, because after 4.dxe5 .ixe5 vance d7-d5.
5.tt:lf3, he must lose a tempo for 4.c!Oc3 d5
the retreat of his bishop. 5 . . . .ig7
6.tt:lc3 tt:Je7 7.h4 ! ? h6 8.if4 d6 About 4 . . . d6 5.i.e2 - see Chap­
9.c5 ! t Yurtaev - Dzhumaev, ter 13, 4 . . . c6.
Tashkent 2007. This is an ener­
getic and strong move. Black is
faced with difficult problems,
since following 9 . . . dxc5 10.�xd8+
'it>xd8 11.0-0-0+ .id7 12.tt:lb5
tt:J a6 13.tt:le5 ixe5 14 ..ixe5 E!:e8 15 .
.if4 h5 16 . .ic4±, White has more
than sufficient compensation for
the pawn. He has two powerful
bishop and Black's pieces are dis­
coordinated. On top of this, his
king is endangered, despite the
fact that it is an endgame. 5.e5 ! ?
I t i s worse for White to play
Black would not equalise if he e4-e5 after a preliminary ex­
fianchettoes his second bishop: change on d5, because then
3 . . . b6 4.tt:lc3 .ib7 5.tt:lf3 d6 6.i.e2 Black's knight will gain access to
tt:ld7 7. 0-0 e6 8.i.e3 tt:Je7 9.�c2 the c6-square.
h6 10.E!:ad1 0-0 ll.d5 ! This is the
point! Now, Black's bishop on b7 There arises transposition to
will be restricted by White's pawn the Panov attack of the Caro­
and the best that Black can do is Kann Defence following 5.exd5

166

cxd5 6.cxd5 (It would be too risky
for White to accept the pawn-sac­
rifice after 6.'Llxd5, since in the
variation 6 . . . e6 7.Vf/e2 'Llc6�, he
will have problems to protect his
pawn on d4 and his queen on e2
would impede the development of
his kingside pieces.) 6 . . . 'Llf6.
5 . • • .!L!h6
Black prepares to castle and
to create counterplay against
White's centre with the move t7-
f6.
The position is difficult for
Black following 5 . . . dxc4 6 . .bc4
'Llh6 7.h3 'Llf5 8.'Llf3 b5 9 . .ib3 h5,
Hart - Cardoso, Las Palmas 1975,
10. 0-0± - he can hardly exploit
the weakness of White's d4-pawn.
The pawn-advance has only led to
the weakening of Black's c6-pawn
and the c5-square and White's
knight can go there along the
route 'Llc3-e4-c5.
Black cannot equalise with 5 . . .
.ie6. After 6.cxd5 hd5 7.'Llge2
'Llh6, the best for White is 8.'Llf4 ! ?
(although even after 8.'Llxd5 Vf/xd5
9.'Llc3 Vf/d7 10 . .ic4;t, his two bish­
ops and the more actively devel­
oped pieces compensate with an
interest the vulnerability of
White's d4-pawn, Olafsson - Car­
doso, Las Palmas 1975) 8 . . . 0-0
9 ..id3 e6 10. 0-0± Black's pieces
are cramped and his knight on h6
is misplaced, moreover that the
dark squares are very weak in his
camp.
l.d4 g6 2.c4 .ig7 3.e4
6.h3
With this move White pre­
pares the development of his
knight on f3 preventing the pos­
sibility .ig4. Black's position is
cramped and the exchanges of
pieces are in his favour.
6 • . . 0-0 7 .!L!f3 f6
.
This move must be played im­
mediately.
It would be too slow for Black
to choose 7 . . . i>h8. After 8 . .ie2
dxc4 9.hc4 'Lld7 10.0-0 lt:Jb6 11.
�b3 f6 12.�f4 'Lld5 13.lt:Jxd5 cxd5
14.exf6 exf6 15.Vf/d2 lt:Jf5 16J'Uel±,
he will have problems with the
development of his bishop on c8
and his other bishop is severely
restricted by his own pawn on f6,
Wojtaszek - Kuzmicz, Warsaw
2008.
8.exf6 exf6 9.�e2
9 .ie6 10.�b3 �d7 11.0-0
• . •
dxc4
This is the best for Black. The
exchanges do not equal�se for him
completely, but facilitate his de­
fence for sure.
167
Chapter 12
Following ll .. .lt:lf7 12 J�e1 tt:ld6
13.c5 tt:lfS 14.�f4 gS 15.�h2±,
White has occupied space on the
queenside and Black's kingside
activity is much rather in favour
of White, because the pawn-ad­
vances have only weakened
Black's king shelter, Short -
Spassky, Zuerich 2001.
12 . .ixc4 .ixc4 13.ti'xc4+
'fi!f7, Pinter - Okhotnik, Hungary
1999, 14.d5 ! ?;t White's pieces are
much better prepared for the
opening of the centre and the
move f7-f6 has not only restricted
the mobility of Black's bishop on
g7, but has also weakened the
shelter of his king.
B2) 3 ... c5
This move is in the spirit of
the Indian Defence. Now, White's
main task is to transpose, if pos­
sible, to the Averbakh system of
the King's Indian Defence.
4.d5 d6
After 4 . . . b5 S.cxbS, there arise
positions from the Benko Gambit
(in a very good version for White),
168
which will be analysed in our vol­
ume 3. In the majority of the cases
White can transpose to favoura­
ble variations of the King's Indian
Defence, for example: 5 . . . d6 6.
tt:lc3 tt:lf6 7.�e2 0-0 S.igS.
5.c!lJc3
s ... es
This is an attempt to keep the
position closed.
Besides this, Black has a great
choice of possibilities.
About 5 . . . tt:lf6 6.ie2 0-0 7.
igS - see the Averbakh system
(Chapter 11).
Following 5 ... tt:la6, the best for
White is to simply transpose to a
favourable variation of the King's
Indian Defence after 6.ie2 tt:lf6
7.ig5 0-0 8.f4 - see Chapter 9.
5 . . . e6 6.�e2 . Once again White
is trying to transpose to the Aver­
bakh system. 6 . . . exd5 7.exd5 tt:le7.
After this move, there arise origi­
nal positions (following 7 . . . tt:lf6,
White achieves what he wants af-

ter 8.ig5 0-0 9.Wfd2 - see Chap­
ter 11, variation D) 8.tt:lf3 ig4
9.0-0 0-0 10.if4 tt:lfS ll.h3 .ixf3
12 . .ixf3 . He has the two-bishop
advantage and extra space. Later,
in the game Iljushin - Moroze­
vich, Krasnoyarsk 2003, there fol­
lowed: 12 . . . tt:Jd7 13.i.e4 tt:leS 14.
i.xfS gxfS 15.b3 a6 16.!k1 tt:lg6
17.id2 f4 18.Wfh5;!; and White
maintained a stable advantage
thanks to his superior pawn­
structure.
It seems a bit dubious for
Black to try the move S . . . .ixc3+ .
Naturally, the trade o f the bishop
for the knight with the idea to
compromise White's pawn-struc­
ture is well familiar. But here,
contrary to the Nimzowitch De­
fence, the dark squares on Black's
kingside have been weakened and
this may become a telling factor in
the future. 6.bxc3
About 6 . . . tt:lf6 7.id3 WfaS 8.
Wfb3 - see 6 . . . Wfa5.
6 . . . e5 7.i.d3 WfaS 8.Wfb3. Now,
Black should better refrain from
active actions and try to complete
his development as quickly as
possible. He will preserve then a
l.d4 g6 2.c4 i.g7 3.e4
slightly inferior, but still defensi­
ble position. His attempt to con­
tinue in an active fashion with 8 . . .
fS? ! Duppel - V.Georgiev, Ger­
many 2001, could have led to a
very difficult position for him fol­
lowing 9.exf5 ! White has two
bishops, so he should strive to
open the game. 9 . . .gxf5 10.tt:lh3
tt:Jf6 11.0-0 h6 12 .Wfc2 . Now, Black
is forced to play 12 . . . e4, after
which White's knight gains access
to the wonderful f4-square. 13.
.ie2 tt:lbd7 14.tt:lf4 tt:le5 15.tt:lh5! Af­
ter this move Black's monarch
will not be able to castle and will
remain for long in the centre of
the board. 15 . . . tt:Jxh5 16 . .ixh5+
'k!;>d8 17.i.f4± White's two bishops
are powerful force. It is under­
standable that without having
completed his development and
with a king stranded in the centre,
Black should not be greedy to win
material. After 17 . . . tt:Jxc4? 18.Wfb3
tt:leS (18 . . . b5 19.a4+-) 19 ..ixe5
dxeS 20 .d6+-, despite the extra
pawn, Black's position seems to
be completely hopeless. He is in­
capable of parrying White's
threats Wff7, or WfdS and WfeS.
6 . . . Wfa5 7.Wfb3 tt:lf6 (It seems
too dangerous for Black to opt for
7 . . .f5? ! 8.exf5 .ixfS 9.tt:le2 tt:la6 10.
tt:lg3 i.d7 ll.id3 0-0-0 12.0-0
tt:Jc7 13.E:e1 Wfa6 14.E:bl± and his
e7-pawn is weak, while White's
pieces are very active, Yermolin­
sky - Tate, Chicago 2008.) 8.id3
tt:Jbd7 9.tt:lf3 0-0 10.0-0;!; White
has doubled pawns indeed, but
his two bishops (particularly the
169
Chapter 12
dark-squared bishop, which has
no opponent and is very power­
ful) make us evaluate the position
in his favour, Zeller - Kekelidze,
Germany 1997.
6.h4!?
This i s a n already familiar idea
in the King's Indian Defence.
Now, Black must either play hS,
which would weaken the gS­
square, or allow h4-h5, but after
g6-g5 and g2-g4, he would not be
able to advance f7-f5.
6 ... tl:lf6
6 . . . h5 7.'Llf3. White's knight is
headed for the gS-square. 7 . . . 'Llf6
8.tt:lg5 'Llh7 9.'Llxh7 Ei:xh7 10.�e2;!;
Karpov - Kober, Germany (simul)
2004. Black has managed to get
rid of the enemy knight on gS, but
has lost plenty of time doing this.
White has extra space and after
castling queenside will have the
possibility to attack on the queen­
side (a2-a3, b2-b4), as well as on
the kingside (g2-g3, f2-f4). Black
is doomed to a long and passive
defence.
170
7.J.e2 h6
Following 7 . . . h5, White ob­
tains an advantage after 8.�g5
'Llbd7 9.'1Wd2 a6 10.f3 'Llf8. His
bishop on e2 and the pawn on f3
deprive his knight on g1 from its
usual squares for development.
Therefore, White transfers it to
f2 , via the h3-square, and from
there it can support the kingside
pawn-break (g2-g4). ll.'Llh3 'Ll8h7
12 .�e3 �d7 13.'Llf2;!; Dorfman -
Spielmann, Gonfreville 2006. The
threat g2-g4 is very unpleasant
for Black. If he decides to advance
b7-b5, White should better re­
frain from active actions on the
kingside and begin the realisation
of his extra pawn.
8.h5 g5 9.g4
Now, f7-f5 has become impos­
sible for Black and he will have to
defend passively to the end of the
game.
9 . . . tl:la6 10.a3 tl:lc7 ll.b4 b6
12.f3 tl:lh7 13.gb1 0-0 14.J.e3
J.d7 15.tl:lh3 ti'c8 16.tl:lf2 ti'a6
17.gb3 gfbs 18.0-0 ti'cs 19.
 l.d4 g6 2.c4 .ig7 3.e4

'led2 i.f6 20.gfbl i.d8 21.'leb2

ltla6 22.ltld3 ltlf8 23.ltlb5± and
in the game S.Atalik - Schorr,
Boston 2001, White succeeded in
realising his great advantage.

B3) 3 ••• ltlc6

This is an active move. Black is
trying to create immediate coun­
terplay against the enemy d4-
pawn.
Now, White must play very
precisely.
4.ltlf3
This move seems more prom­
ising than the retreat of the knight
to its initial position.
S . . . lt:Jb8. The pawn-advance
d4-d5 has forced Black to lose two
tempi on moves with his knight.
6.ie2 lt:Jf6 (After 6 . . . e5, the sim­
plest reaction for White would be
7.dxe6 .ixe6 8.0-0 lt:Jc6 9.lt:Jc3
lt:Jf6 10 ..if4 0-0 ll.'lec2 :Be8 12.
:Bad1 id7 13.:Bfe1 h6 14.h3t and
the extra space guarantees his ad­
vantage, Solozhenkin - Tusa,
Helsinki 2002.) 7.lt:Jc3 0-0 8.0-0

This is the rare case when in

this variation White must play
lt:Jf3 so early in the game. The rea­
son is that Black has not played
d7-d6 yet and cannot play .ig4.
We will analyse now: B3a)
4 d6 and B3b) 4 e5.
••• •••

B3a) 4 ••• d6 5.d5 Following 8 . . .e5, White main­

Otherwise, Black would have tains a stable edge with 9.dxe6 ! ?
pinned the enemy knight on his .ixe6 10.lt:Jd4, for example: . 1 0 . . .
next move with .ig4. lt:Jc6 ( 1 0 . . . .id7 1l . .ie3 . :Be8 12.f3
(diagram) lt:Jc6 13.'\Wd2 lt:JhS, Rozum - Fedo­
5 ••• ltle5 seev, St Petersburg 2010, 14.

171
Chapter 12
ltlc2 ! ?;!;, he avoids the trade of
pieces and preserves an opening
advantage, because Black's posi­
tion is cramped) ll.i.e3 ltld7,
Gleizerov - Rossi, Padova 1999.
Here, after the simple move 12.
f4 ! ?;!;, White would have seized
the initiative.
8 . . . ltlbd7 9.i.e3 ltlcS 10 .�c2 aS
ll.!!ad1 ltlg4 12 .i.d4 f6 13.h3 ltleS
14.ltlxe5 fxeS 15.i.e3 i.d7 16.i.g4±
Black's bishop on g7 is severely
restricted by his own pawn on eS.
White has much more space and
his minor pieces are more active
than their black counterparts,
Gritsak - G.Kuzmin, Swidnica
1999.
8 ... i.g4 9.i.e3 ltlbd7 10 .h3 i.x£3
ll.i.xf3 c6 12.�b3 Vfic7 13J%acU
White has a slight but stable ad­
vantage thanks to his extra space
and two powerful bishops, Jansa
- Nikolic, Vrnjacka Banja 1978.
Following 8 . . . ltla6 9.i.e3 i.d7
10.!!c1 !!e8 ll.a3 e6, Kiriakov -
Nisipeanu, Santo Domingo 2003,
White can open advantageously
the position in the centre with the
line : 12.e5 ! ? dxeS 13.ltlxe5 exdS
14.ltlxd7 d4 15.�xd4 ltlxd7 16.
�d2;!; - his two bishops are pow­
erful force in this open position.
8 . . . c6 9.h3 ! It is useful to re­
strict with this move the enemy
bishop on c8. 9 . . . a6 (9 . . . ltlbd7 10.
i.e3 ltle8 ll.!!c1 a6 12.dxc6 bxc6
13.c5 dxcS 14.i.xc5 ltlc7, Yegiazar-
172
ian - Kalantarian, Yerevan 1995 .
White maintains a stable advan­
tage thanks to his superior pawn­
structure. He only needs to play
precisely, for example: 15.i.e3 ! ?
ltlbS 16.ltla4± and the pawn o n c6
will remain a cause of permanent
worries for Black.) 10.i.e3 bS 11.
cxbS
Now, it seems rather dubious
for him to opt for ll . . . axbS 12.
dxc6 b4 (following 12 . . . ltlxc6 13.
i.xbS±, Black has no compen­
sation for the sacrificed pawn,
Mokriy - Bezgodov, Minsk 2007.)
13.ltld5 ltlxc6 14.i.b6 Vfid7 15.
i.bS !± He can hardly get rid of the
pin of his knight without material
losses. In the game Moranda -
Bartnicki, Gorzow Wielkopolski
2008, Black reacted rather care­
lessly 15 . . . i.b7? and this enabled
White to inflict a tactical strike -
16.ltle5 ! ltlxeS 17.ltlxf6+ i.xf6 18.
i.xd7+-, Black's compensation
for the queen is obviously insuffi­
cient.
It is possible that instead of
creating counterplay, Black had
to continue with the solid move
1l. .. cxb5, but even then after 12.
Vfib3;!;, White would have main-
 l.d4 g6 2.c4 .ig7 3.e4

tained his space advantage, the Or lO . . . eS ll . .igS h6 12 . .ie3 b6

possibility to exploit the weakness 13.1Mfd2 'it>h7 14.b4;!;, followed by
on c6 ( ltlf3-d4-c6) and to play c4-c5 and queenside initiative for
against the vulnerable enemy bS­ White, S.lvanov - A.Eliseev, St
pawn - a2-a4. Petersburg 2013.

6.�xe5 .txe5 ll . .ig5 exd5 12.cxd5

Following 6 . . . dxe5, Black's It is also good for White to

pawn-structure will be compro­ choose here 12.exd5 ! ?;!; - the pin
mised. 7.ltlc3 ltlf6 8.ie2 0-0 9. of the knight is very unpleasant
ie3 e6 10.0-0 exdS ll.cxdS. He for Black and he can get rid of it
has got rid of his doubled pawn, only by compromising his king's
but after the opening of the c-file, shelter with h6 and gS.
Black's weak c7-pawn will be at­
tacked by White. 1l.. .ltle8 12.!k1
ltld6 13.Wfd2 id7 14J��c 2 fS 15.f3;t,
followed by the doubling of the
rooks, Gause} - Kraidman, Gaus­
dal 1994. White has a clear-cut
plan for his further actions - this
is exerting pressure on the semi­
open c-file.

12 h6 13 .ie3 c6 14.dxc6
••• •

bxc6 15.Wfd2 'it>h7 16.lUdl Wfe7

17J3acU White has an easy game
against Black's weak c6 and d6-
pawns, Gelfand - Svidler, Astana
2012.

B3b) 4 ... e5
He does not lose time for the
7 .id3 .ig7 8.0-0 �f6 9.�c3
• move d6 and advances e7-e5.
0-0 10.h3 5 .ig5! ?
•

It is useful for White to take (diagram)

the g4-square under control in or­ The purpose of this move is to
der to deprive Black of the possi­ provoke f7-f6, after which Black's
bility to play ltlf6-g4-e5. pressure against the d4-pawn will
10 ••• e6 be decreased considerably.

173
Chapter 12
5 f6
...
S . . . .if6. The bishop is mis­
placed here and the best that
Black can do is to exchange it for
White's bishop on the d4-square.
6.ie3 exd4 7.ltlxd4 ltlxd4 8 . .ixd4
d6 9.ltlc3t Kutzner - Lorenz, Ber­
lin 2012. White has occupied
more space and in order to com­
plete his development Black will
need to exchange on d4, after
which his position will be
prospectless.
It is possible for him to opt for
S . . . ltlge7 6.dxe5 ltlxeS 7.ltlxe5
.ixeS 8.ltlc3 h6. Unfortunately for
Black, he cannot continue the
game without this move. (It is bad
for him to choose 8 . . . c6? ! , since
this weakens the d6-square and
White's queen is immediately
headed there. 9.f4 ig7 10.'1Wd6 h6
ll.if6 h£6 12.\Wx£6 0-0, V.Ge­
orgiev - Appel, Germany 2001,
13.\Wd6± Black's position is
cramped and he can hardly com­
plete the development of his
queenside pieces.) 9.ie3 d6 10.
'!Wd2 ig7 ll.!!d1 ie6 12 .ie2 a6
174
13.0-0t Danner - Tabernig,
Austria 2001. White has more
space (pawns on c4 and e4 against
a black pawn on d6) and has com­
pleted the development of his
pieces. In addition, due to the
placement of his pawn on h6,
Black cannot castle kingside with­
out weakening it even further (hS
or gS).
6 .Ae3 d6
•
Black is trying to obtain a com­
plicated position with his last
move.
It is also possible for him to
opt for 6 . . . exd4 7.ltlxd4 d6 (Slow­
ing down the advance of the d­
pawn cannot be good for Black at
all, for example: 7 . . . ltlge7 8.ltlc3
0-0 9.c5 ! ? b6 10.h4 ! This is an
energetic and strong move -
White begins an attack. 10 . . . ltlxd4
ll.Wxd4 bxc5 12.\Wxc5 d6 13.\Wc4+
�h8 14.h5± - He has excellent at­
tacking prospects in a position
with material equality, Lesiege -
Cazelais, Montreal 2003.) 8.ltlc3
ltlge7. Now, White can enter a
slightly better endgame with a
temporary pawn-sacrifice. 9.c5
dxcS 10.ltlxc6 ltlxc6 11.\Wxd8+
ltlxd8 12 .hc5t White has re­
gained his pawn and has the ini­
tiative in this endgame. He can
complete quickly the develop­
ment of his pieces with 0-0-0
and .ic4. Black must still prepare
castling queenside and solve the
problem with his bishop on g7
which is restricted by his own
pawn on f6.

White should better not be in a
hurry with his standard queen­
side play 7.d5 ti:Jce7 8.c5, because
Black will trade advantageously
the dark-squared bishops with
8 . . . .th6 ! 9.'1Wc1 he3 10.\Wxe3 fS
11.cxd6 cxd6 12 .-tbS+ , and can
avoid the favourable for White ex­
change of the light-squared bish­
ops with the move 12 . . . c.!if8. The
position is closed and the loss of
Black's castling rights is not so
important. 13.ti:Jc3 fxe4 14.\Wxe4
ti:Jf6 15.\We3 c.!ig7 16.!!d1 h6 17. 0-0
a6, Gligoric - Keene, Teeside
1972 . The opponents agreed to a
draw in this double-edged posi­
tion.
l.d4 g6 2.c4 .tg7 3.e4
7 .lL!h6
••
Black's f6-pawn has deprived
his knight of the natural square
for development, so he wishes to
transfer it to the f7-square.
About 7 . . . exd4 8.ti:Jxd4 ti:Jge7
9.c5 - see 6 . . . exd4.
It is bad for Black to opt for 7 . . .
fS, since following 8.exf5 ixfS
9.d5 ti:Jce7, White maintains a
considerable advantage by ex­
changing at first the light-squared
bishops and then transferring his
knight to the weakened e6-square.
10 . .td3 ti:Jf6 ll . .txfS ti:JxfS 12.ti:Jg5±
Anreiter - Chouraqui, Email
2009.
It is not good for Black to
continue with 7 . . . .tg4, because af­
ter 8.d5 ti:Jce7 9.c5 .th6, White
should not exchange on h6, be­
cause this will only help Black to
develop his kingside pieces. It is
much stronger for White to
choose the energetic line: 10.\Wb3 !
he3 ll.fxe3± and Black will have
problems with the protection of
his queenside pawns. White is
threatening to complete quickly
his development: .tbS, 0-0 and
depending on circumstances to
begin active actions on the c and
f-files.
It seems purposeful for Black
to try 7 . . . .th6. He exchanges fa­
vourably the bishops, . but lags
considerably in development.
8.\Wd2 he3
175
Chapter 12
9.1Mlxe3 (It may be interesting
for White to opt for 9.fxe3 ! ?;!; Do­
lenc - Malakhatko, Latschach
2012, he ends up voluntarily with
doubled pawns, but has good
prospects on the f-file and the
pawn on e3 covers reliably the
dark squares in his camp.) 9 . . . ig4
10.d5 lt:Jce7 (or 10 . . . lt:Jb4, Cram­
ling - Rustemov, Germany 2011
and after 1UkU, Black's knight
on b4 will only help White to or­
ganise his queenside offensive:
a3, b4, c5 and eventually �a6)
11.lt:Jd2. He is preparing f2-f4.
This move is possible, since after
the exchange on f4, Black's knight
will hardly come to the e5-square.
11 . . . c5 12.f4 �f8 (The charac­
ter of the fight remains more or
less the same after 12 . . . b6, Lerner
- Zilberman, Azov 1991, 13.�d3±,
followed by doubling of the rooks
176
on the f-file.) 13.ie2 he2 14.
lt:Jxe2 �g7, Epishin - Zaichik,
New York 1990. Now, White had
simply to double his rooks : 15.
0-0 !k8 16.E!:f2 lt:Jh6 17.h3 E!:f8
18.E!:afl±. Black has no counter­
play. He cannot exchange on f4,
because this will lead to the pene­
tration of White's knight to the
e6-square. He can improve his
position combining his kingside
actions with the preparation of a
breakthrough on the opposite
side of the board: a3, b4.
11 . . . id7 12 .ie2 h5, Grigorov -
Azmaiparashvili, Kallithea 2009
(Black loses a pawn without suffi­
cient compensation following
12 . . .f5 13.f4 lt:lf6 14.fxe5 dxe5 15.
exf5 lt:Jxf5 16.1Mlxe5± Banikas - Az­
maiparashvili, Beijing 2008.) 13.
0-0 lt:Jh6 14.f4 lt:Jf7 15.fxe5. This is
the point. 15 . . . fxe5. Black cannot
capture on e5 with his knight
since he loses his f6-pawn. 16.c5±,
followed by lt:Jc4 and the doubling
of the rooks on the f-file. Black's
defence will be very difficult.
8.dxe5! ?
This i s a very practical deci­
sion. White is happy with a slight
edge, depriving his opponent of
any active counterplay on the
kingside.
(diagram)
8 . . . dxe5
8 . . . lt:Jxe5 9.lt:Jxe5 fxe5 10.�e2
�e6 11.c5 ! White is eyeing the
weakness of Black's d6-pawn. 11 . . .
lt:Jf7 12 .ig4. W e have already

mentioned numerous times in
this book that the trade of the
light-squared bishops in positions
of the King's Indian type is almost
always in favour of White. 12 . . .
.bg4 13.�xg4 0-0, Riegler -
Mehlhorn, Saarbruecken 2009,
14.0-0t He has remained with a
"good" bishop and prospects to
attack the vulnerable enemy d6-
pawn. In addition, after the ex­
change on d6, White's knight will
gain permanent access to the
wonderful dS-outpost.
Following 8 . . . fxe5, Black will
have problems creating counter­
play on the f-file. 9.h3 tt'lf7 10.�d2
(It is also possible for White to try
here 10.c5, beginning an attack
against the enemy d6-pawn.) 10 . . .
�e6 1l.�e2 �d7 12.tt'ld5t Korch­
noi - Avrukh, Beersheba 1997.
Black's knight on f7 and his bish­
op on g7 are very passive. White
has much more space and his
knight on dS is very powerful in
the centre of the board, moreover
that he has a clear-cut plan for
further actions: 0-0, l'!fd1, l'!ac1
followed by advancing his queen-
l.d4 g6 2.c4 !g7 3.e4
side pawns with b2-b4 and c4-c5.
9.�xd8+ �xd8
The careless move 9 . . . tt'lxd8
leads to the loss of a pawn for
Black after 10.tt'ld5 tt'le6 ll . .bh6±
Friberg - Norberg, Sweden 2007.
10.0-0-0+ .id7 ll.h3
It is essential to deprive Black's
knight of the g4-square.
ll • . • c!LJf7
In the variation ll . . . 'it>c8 12 .c5
�e6 13.tt'ld5 tt'lf7 14.�c4t, followed
by the advance of White's queen­
side pawns, he exerts rather un­
pleasant pressure in this end­
game. His centralised knight on
d5 is very powerful and Black can
hardly connect his rooks, Dziuba
- Berger, Deizisau 2009.
12.c5
White frees the c4-square for
his bishop.
12 �c8 13 .ic4 c!LJcd8 14.
••• •
b4 .ie6 15.c!lJd2 c6 16. �c2 .ixc4
177
Chapter 12

17.loxc4;!; - his position is much vance his a and b-pawns, or pre­

easier to play, Roiz - Hauchard, pare the penetration of his rook to
Biel 2010. Later, White can ad- d7 and the knight to d6.

Conclusion
We have just completed our analysis of Black's attempts to avoid
entering the Modern Defence on his moves 2 and 3. White obtains an
advantage in all the variations, but his play is not so simple at all. There
are many intricacies in these positions and there may arise transposi­
tions to numerous other openings.
In general, we have to mention that is is not advantageous for White
to develop early his knight to the f3-square, because this will enable
Black to exert pressure against the d4-square with the move ig4, or to
transpose to the King's Indian Defence, avoiding the Averbakh system.
The only exception is the move 3 . . . 'Llc6, because in this variation White
plays 4.'Llf3, but after 4 . . . d6, he must advance immediately S.dS, with­
out waiting for Black to pin his knight with the move S . . . ig4.

178
Chapter 13 l.d4 g6 2.c4 ig7 3.e4 d6
In this chapter we will analyse
this elastic move with which Black
preserves many possibilities.
There arise various, some even
rather unusual positions after it -
between complicated King's Indi­
an middle games up to various
endgames.
4.�c3
After this natural move (White
is again not in a hurry to develop
his knight to f3.), we will analyse
three basic moves for Black: A)
4 . . . e5, B) 4 . . . �c6 and C) 4 . . .
�d7, but before that we will deal
with some other possibilities for
him.
After 4 . . . tt'lf6 S.ie2 , there aris­
es the King's Indian Defence.
About 4 . . . c5 S.dS - see Chap­
ter 12, variation 82.
4 . . .f5. Without the move e7-e5,
played beforehand, this pawn-ad­
vance does not seem good for
Black. S.exfS i.x£5 6.tt'lf3 (This
move is more reliable than the
pawn-sacrifice 6 . .id3, although
even then, White obtains a better
game following 6 . . . .hd4 7.-hfS
.hc3+ 8.bxc3 gxfS 9.'\WhS+ '>!<d7
10.'\WxfS+ e6 11.'\WbS+ tt:Jc6 12.c5;!;.
Black is incapable of exploiting
the defects of his opponent's
pawn-structure, due to the unsafe
placement of his king in the cen­
tre of the board, Koglbauer -
Tacke, Email 2008.) 6 . . . tt:Jh6 (6 . . .
tt:Jf6 7 . .id3 .ig4. H e avoids the
trade of the bishops, since it is in
favour of White. 8 . .ie2 '1Wd7 9.0-0
tt:Jc6 10 . .ie3 0-0 ll.h3 .hf3 12.
i.x£3 eS, Birnboim - Gruenfeld,
Tel Aviv 1988, 13 . .hc6 '1Wxc6 14.
dxeS dxeS 15.'1Wb3± White's ad­
vantage is doubtless thanks to his
superior pawn-structure.) 7.id3
0-0 8 . .ixh6! This preliminary ex­
change is very important, because
if White had traded the bishops
179
Chapter 13
immediately, Black's knight on fS
would have exerted rather un­
pleasant pressure against White's
d4-pawn. 8 . . . .hh6 9 . .hf5 E:xfS
10.0-0 'Lld7 1l.Ei:el± Now, you can
see the results of the premature
pawn-advance f7-f5 - Black's
king is vulnerable, his e7-pawn is
backward and if White's knight
comes to the e6-square, Black's
position would turn into strategi­
cally hopeless.
4 . . . c6. This is a flexible move
and White's best reaction against
it would be S.ie2
Now, after S . . . 'Llf6 6.ig5, there
arises the Averbakh system of the
King's Indian Defence and not
under the best version for Black.
After s . . . a6 6.ig5 ! ? 'Llf6 7.�d2
0-0 8.Ei:d1, we have again the
King's Indian Defence on the
board.
S . . . eS 6.'Llf3 ig4 (6 . . . 'Lld7 7.d5
- see S . . . 'Lld7; the endgame is
worse for Black following 6 . . . '2Je7
7.dxe5 dxeS 8.�xd8+ 'it>xd8 9.i.e3
'Lla6 10.0-0-0+ 'it>e8 11.c5 'Llc7
12.'Lld2 i.e6 13.'Llc4± - he is faced
with a rather unpleasant choice.
He must either present his oppo-
180
nent with the two-bishop advan­
tage, or allow the enemy knight to
occupy the d6-outpost, Gulko -
Blatny, Hawaii 1998.) 7.d5 'Lle7
(7 ... c5 8.0-0 .hf3 9.ixf3 'Lle7
10.a3 0-0 1l.b4 'Lld7 12.Ei:bU. In
the arising complicated King's In­
dian middle game White has good
prospects of developing initiative
on the queenside, while it would
be very difficult for Black to create
counterplay on the opposite side
of the board, because he has al­
ready exchanged his light-squared
bishop, Bojkov - Svetushkin,
France 2005.) 8.0-0 i.xf3 9.i.xf3
0-0, Leniart - Sieciechowicz, Os­
troda 2011 lO.igS h6 11.ie3±.
White has extra space and two
powerful bishops.
s . . . �b6. Black wishes to or­
ganise counterplay against the
enemy pawn on d4 with this early
queen-sortie. 6.'Llf3 i.g4 7.'Lla4
White must place his knight at the
edge of the board in order to oust
the enemy queen from its active
position. 7 . . . �a5+ (7 . . . �c7 8.ie3
- see 7 . . . �a5) 8.id2 �c7 9.ie3
'Lld7 10.0-0 'Llgf6 (10 . . . 'Llb6 11.
Ei:cl 'Llf6 12 .h3 .hf3 13.ixf3± and
White has again extra space and a
strong bishop-pair, Hernandez
Onna - Martinez Duany, Havana
2008.) 11.'Llc3 0-0 12.'Lld2 eS
(12 . . . .he2 13.�xe2 eS 14.d5± He
has accomplished the favourable
trade of the light-squared bishops
and has occupied more space,
Krizsany - Gueting, Lippstadt
1999) 13.d5 he2 14.�xe2. After
the exchange of the light-squared

bishops Black will have problems
organising counterplay on the
kingside. 14 . . . 'it>h8 15J'Ud1 c5 16.
a3 a6 17.b4 �ac8 18.�abU Graf ­
Manolache, Germany 2008. White
has more space and his bishop is
much more active than its coun­
terpart. He has the initiative on
the queenside and Black is forced
to defend passively.
After S . . . tt:ld7 6.tt:lf3 eS (Black
can also transpose to the King's
Indian Defence with 6 . . .tt:Jgf6 7.
�gS 0-0 8.�d2 .) 7.d5 ! ?
Following 7 . . . �c7 8.�e3 tt:Jgf6
9.tt:ld2 0-0 10.0-0;!;, there arises
a favourable version for White of
the King's Indian Defence. He has
managed to play �e3 and tt:ld2 ,
while Black can reply neither with
tt:Jg4, nor with tt:lhS.
The position remains very in­
teresting and advantageous for
White after 7 . . . �e7 8.�e3, for ex­
ample: 8 . . . tt:Jgf6 9.tt:ld2 c5 10.0-0
0-0 11.<±>h1 ! ? . This is an interest­
ing plan. White is preparing g2-
g4, in order to neutralise Black's
possible kingside counterplay.
ll . . . <±>h8 12 .g4 tt:lg8 13.�gU White
is ready to counter the pawn-ad-
l.d4 g6 2.c4 i.g7 3.e4 d6 4. tt:\ c3
vance f7-f5 (He will simply ex­
change twice on fS and will gain
control over the excellent e4-
square for his knight.) and can
patiently prepare an offensive on
the queenside, Schlosser - Mov­
sesian, Baden-Baden 1996.
7 ... c5 8.g4 ! ? The idea of this
move is to impede f7-f5 for Black.
8 . . . h5 9.g5 a6 10.a3 tt:le7 11.b4 b6
12.ie3 0-0 13.�g1;!; S.Atalik -
N.Gaprindashvili, Tallinn 1998.
He has no counterplay and must
wait to see what will happen with
White's queenside initiative.
Black's attempt to organise coun­
terplay - f7-f5, after exfS would
lead only to the weakening of the
g6-pawn and the e6-square.
White can exploit this with his
knight along the route tt:lf3-g5-e6.
A) 4 ... e5
This move has been often
played by A.Morozevich and
Sh.Mamedyarov. Now, White's
simplest decision would be the
exchange of the queens and the
transfer to a slightly better end­
game.
181
Chapter 13

S.dxeS! ? dxeS 6.fbd8+ The position remains very pas­

�xd8
In the arising endgame the
main fight will be focused on the
d4 and eS-squares. Black will de­
velop his knight along the route
tt:lb8-c6-d4. White will try to un­
dermine its base with the moves
f4 and tt:lf3.
7.f4
He must begin this process
immediately, because after
Black's knight comes to the d4-
square, White will be incapable of
undermining it.
sive for him after the super-relia­
ble move 8 .. .£6. Following 9.fxe5
tt:JxeS 10.tt:lxe5 fxeS ll.igS+ if6
12.0-0-0+ id7 13 .ie3 c6, Ro­
manishin - Dvoretzky, Leningrad
1974, White should better contin­
ue with 14 . .ie2 ! ? , for example :
14 . . . �c7 1S.E!hfU - his rooks have
occupied active positions on the
open d and f-files. Black lags in
development and what is most
important - his knight on g8 will
hardly ever come to the d4-
square.
9 .te2
•

Now, Black has a choice be­

tween the passive tactics Al) 7 ••• 9 ••• f6
c!bd7, A2) 7 .te6, o r the more
•••

active treatment - A3) 7 c!bc6.

••• 9 . . . �e8 10.0-0

About 7 ... c6 8.tt:lf3 tt:Jd7 9 ..ie2

- see 7 . . . tt:ld7.

Al) 7 c!bd7
•••

This move has a definite draw­

back. Now, Black's bishop on c8
with have problems entering the
actions.
8.c!bf3 c6 10 . . .f6 1l.g3. Now, White is not

182
 l.d4 g6 2.c4 ig7 3.e4 d6 4. l2J c3

afraid of the exchange on f4, be­ Black's knight o n the f7-square.

cause he will simply recapture ll ••• ttlxe5 12.ttlxe5 fxe5
with his g3-pawn. ll . . . l2Jh6 12.
Wg2 l2Jf7 13.ie3 if8 (13 . . . i.h6,
Rogers - Krasenkow, Birming­
ham 2006, 14J:!adU White has
slightly more space and Black
must still manage to develop his
queenside pieces.) 14.E:ad1 icS
1S.i.c1 We7 16.a3 aS 17.l2Ja4 id6
18.ie3;!; White's position is much
easier to play and Black's defence
is not easy at all, for example after
18 . . . l2Jd8?, as it was played in the
game Lund - Andreasen, Balle­ 13.ie3 �e8 14.gadl gf8
rup 2009, White could have ob­ 15.gfeU White has a superior de­
tained a decisive advantage im­ velopment, while Black's knight is
mediately with the line: 19.fxe5 still too far from the key-square in
tDxeS 20.E:xd6 Wxd6 2l.E:d1+ We7 this position - d4, Tal - Kagan,
2 2 .l2Jb6 E:b8 23 .ic5+ We6 24. Tel Aviv 1990.
id6+-
10 ... l2Je7 ll.i.d2 exf4 12.i.xf4
lDcS, Tal - Klaric, Sochi 1977, 13. A2) 7 ie6 •••

ie3 l2Je6 (It would be too risky for

Black to accept the pawn-sacrifice
- 13 . . . ixc3? ! 14.bxc3 l2Jxe4 15.
i.d3 fS 16.1"!:ael±, since after i.d4,
White regains the material and
Black's king, deprived of its cas­
tling rights, will be an easy prey
for White's rooks in the centre,
despite the fact that it is already
an endgame.) 14.E:aeU. If Black
had the possibility to castle, his
chances would not nave been
worse at all due to the vulnerabil­ This is a rather vulnerable
ity of White's e4-pawn. Now, as it placement for Black's bishop.
is the case, Black can hardly con­ 8.ttlf3 ttld7
nect his rooks.
10.0-0 ttlh6 ll.fxe5 About 8 . . . l2Jc6 9.i.e3. - see 7 . . .
It is essential to exchange l2Jc6.
there before the appearance of 9.ttlg5!?

183
Chapter 13
Naturally, after an exchange
on e6, White will not only obtain
the two-bishop advantage, but
will attack Black's weak pawn.
9 .•• h6
9 .. .lt:le7 10.g3 ! ? The bishop
cannot run away from the e6-
square, so White does not need to
be in a hurry to exchange it. 10 . . .
h 6 11.tt'lxe6+ fxe6 12 .ih3± - He
has two powerful bishops, while
Black must worry about his weak
e6-pawn, AI Khaja - Jasim, Abu
Dhabi 2002.
Besides the move in the text,
he has tried in practice 9 . . . tt'lh6
10 .ie2 c6 11.0-0 ctle7 12 .h3 exf4
(after 12 . . .f6 13 .tt'lxe6 c!lxe6 14.f5;!;,
White has extra space and the
two-bishop advantage, while
Black can hardly exploit the weak­
ening of the d4-square, Strating
- Hartoch, Haarlem 2005.) 13.
hf4 tt'leS 14J'!ad1 f6 1S.ixe5 fxeS
16.tt'lxe6 c!lxe6 17.tt'la4. There are
bishops of opposite colours pre­
sent on the board, but it is very
difficult for Black to neutralise the
184
activity of White's pieces. With
his last move he has prepared c4-
c5, in order to develop his bishop
to an active position - c4. 17 . . . .tf8
18.c5 ctle7 19.ic4 gds 20.g4 gxd1
21.gxdl± and Black's position is
very difficult due to the unfavour­
able placement of his knight at
the edge of the board, Piket -
Azmaiparashvili, Montecatini
Terme 2000.
10.f5! ?
This i s a tactical decision for
White, but he could have played
simpler - 10.tt'lxe6+ fxe6 ll.g3;!;
C.Hansen - Seul, Germany 2001.
10 . . . hxg5 11.fxe6 fxe6
12.hg5+ .if6
13.ie3
Naturally, he should preserve
his two-bishop advantage.
Later, in the game Buss - Bell­
ini, Switzerland 2009 there fol­
lowed 13 . . . ih4+ 14.<!>d2 .!Lle7
15 .ie2 .!Llc6 16.gaf1 <!>e7 17.g3
•
if6 18.h4 .!Lld4 19 . .idl gbd8
20.<!>cH Black's knight is power­
ful on d4, but White's positional
pluses - two bishops and the pos-

sibility to create a passed pawn on
the h-file make us evaluate the
position in his favour.
A3) 7 .•• �c6 8.�f3
8 . . . h6 9.�e3 exf4 10.0-0-0+
�d7 11.�4 g5 12 .�g3 tt:lge7 13.
tt:ld5;!; - Despite the vulnerability
of the e4-pawn, White's prospects
are preferable due to the powerful
placement of his knight in the
centre of the board and the unsafe
position of Black's monarch,
Petursson - Ivkov, New York
1988.
8 . . .f6. This is a solid, but pas­
sive move and we are already fa­
miliar with it with a placement of
Black's knight on the d7-square.
9.�e3 �e6 10.E:d1+ 'it>c8 ll.�e2
tt:lh6 12 .fxe5 tt:lxe5 13.tt:lxe5 fxe5
14. 0-0;!;. White has a superior de­
velopment and Black is incapable
of exploiting the vulnerability of
the d4-square, Vaganian - Mes­
tel, Skara 1980.
l.d4 g6 2.c4 i.g7 3.e4 d6 4. lt:\ c3
After 8 . . . ie6 9.�e3 tt:lf6, it is
essential for White to play 10 .g3.
Now, after an exchange on f4, he
will be able to recapture with his
pawn and will not have an isolat­
ed pawn on e4. 10 . . . h6 11.0-0-0+
'it>c8 12 .h3;!; - He has covered reli­
ably the weak d4-square and his
position is preferable thanks to
his better developed pieces, An­
driuschenko - Banet, Email 2007.
Black's attempt to increase the
pressure against the d4-square
with the move 8 . . . �g4 does not
provide him with equality, be­
cause he lags in development. 9.
fxe5 tt:lxe5 (9 . . . ixf3 10.gxf3 he5,
Tarjan - Matulovic, Novi Sad
1975, 11.�e3;!; and White has the
two-bishop advantage) 10 . .ie2
tt:lxf3+ ll.gxf3 ie6 12 .�g5+ i.f6
13.0-0-0+ 'it>c8 14.h4! ? (14.�e3
hc3 15.bxc3;!;. White's queenside
pawns are a bit weak indeed, but
he has two powerful bishops and
maintains the advantage, moreo­
ver that Black lags in develop­
ment, S.Atalik - Skembris, Kar­
ditsa 1996.) 14 . . . h5 15.f4 �e7 16.
tt:ld5 hd5 17.he7 tt:lxe7 18.cxd5;!;
White's pawns have occupied the
centre and his bishop is more pow­
erful than Black's knight, which is
in a very passive position.
9.'it>f2
This move is very typical for
this variation. Now White is not
afraid of the possible double at­
tack by Black's knight and is wait­
ing for the exchange on f3.
185
Chapter 13
9 . . . c!Oxf3
9 . . . exf4 10.hf4. Black cannot
exploit the vulnerability of his op­
ponent's e4-pawn, because he
lags in development. 10 . . . tLle6 11.
i.g3 i.d7 (following ll ... tLlh6 12.
.id3 .ixc3 13.bxc3 f6 14J'!heH,
White has two powerful bishops,
while Black is behind in develop­
ment, so all this compensates
with an interest the defects of
White's pawn-structure, Peturs­
son - Nikolaidis, Athens 1993) 12.
E:d1 'it>c8 13 . .id3 tLle7 14.tLld5 E:e8
15.e5t, White's pieces are obvi­
ously more active than their black
counterparts. Later in the game
Sadler - Ehlvest, Groningen 1997,
Black failed to cope with the in­
tricacies of the defence and after
15 . . . tLlc5? ! , White could have in­
creased his advantage with a
rather simple tactical strike - 16.
tLlxc7! 'it>xc7 17.e6+ 'it>d8 18.exd7
tLlxd7 19 . .ie4± - The position
has been opened and White's
bishops have turned into power­
ful force.
10.gxf3
186
10 . . . c6
The endgame is slightly pref­
erable for White following 10 . . .
.ie6 ll.i.e3, for example: ll . . . tLle7
(Black's defence would not be
easier if he tries to compromise
his opponent's pawn-structure
with ll . . . exf4 12 .E:d1+ 'it>c8 13.
.b:f4 .b:c3 14.bxc3 tLle7 15.i.g5
tLlc6 16 ..if6t - White's queenside
pawns are weak indeed, but his
position is still preferable, be­
cause he has two powerful bish­
ops, while the dark squares in
Black's camp are very weak, Es­
tremera Panos - Sutovsky, Pula
1997.) 12.E:d1+ 'it>c8 13.tLld5 E:e8,
Halkias - K.Georgiev, Athens
1998. Here, White could have ob­
tained a very promising position
with a pawn-sacrifice: 14.tLlxe7+
E:xe7 15.f5. There might follow:
15 . . . gxf5 16.E:g1 .if8 17 . .ih3 fxe4
18.E:g8 E:e8 19 . .ixe6+ fxe6 20.
fxe4t and he has more than suffi­
cient compensation for his mini­
mal material deficit. His rook is
very active, while Black's pawns
are weak and his rook on a8 has
not entered the actions yet.
U.h4!?
Black has not coordinated his
pieces and White wishes to break
his position on the kingside.
ll ... h5
After ll . . . exf4 12 . .ixf4 tLlf6
13.E:d1+ 'it>e8 14 . .id6t, Black will
have problems to complete his
development, while White has a

very simple plan to improve his
position: f4, e5 and lbe4, Bercys
- Wojtkiewicz, San Diego 2004.
12 .ie3 .ie6 13.gdl + rtlc7
•
14 .ic5 exf4 15 .id6+ rtlc8
• •
This position was reached in
the game Kiriakov - Tiller, West
Bromwich 2005. White has a very
promising pawn-sacrifice here:
16.lbe2 ! ? i.xb2 17.e5! He cuts
of the possible retreats of Black's
bishop. t7 c5 ts.gbl Ad4+ •••
19.lbxd4 cxd4 20 .id3 .id7 21.
e6! i.xe6 22 .ie4± After the fall•
of his b7-pawn, Black's position
will be nearly hopeless. This vari­
ation is a very instructive example
of the power of the two bishops in
the endgame.
B) 4 • • • lbc6
Black increases the pressure
against the enemy d4-pawn.
5 .ie3
• 7.f4 lbed7 8.lbf3 0-0 9 ..ie2 e6
(diagram)
5 ••• e5
This is a logical continuation
of his opening strategy.
l.d4 g6 2.c4 i.g7 3.e4 d6 4JiJc3 lb c6 S. i.e3 eS 6.d5
5 . . . lbh6. The transfer of this
knight to the f7-square seems to
be too slow. 6.f3 f6 7.i.d3 e5 8.
lbge2 0-0 9.d5 lbe7 10.1Wd2 lbf7
ll.g4 c5 12.lbg3 a6 13.h4 .id7
14.h5± Shipov - Beglerovic, Dos
Hermanas 2003. White's king­
side attack may turn out to be
very powerful. If Black plays g6-
g5, then White will begin a queen­
side offensive and Black will have
no counterplay at all.
He cannot equalise with 5 . . .
• lbf6, because after 6.d5, Black los­
es too much time on moves with
his knight. 6 . . . lbe5 (Naturally, he
cannot equalise even if he retreats
his knight to its initial position.
Following 6 . . . lbb8 7.h3 0-0 8.lbf3
c6 9 . .id3 e6 10.0-0 !i:e8 ll.'!Wd2t,
White has clearly better prospects
in the oncoming middle game
thanks to his superior develop­
ment and a space advantage, Bo­
nin - Fink, Philadelphia 2006.)
10.dxe6 fxe6 ll.lbg5 \We7 12.0-0
b6 13 . .if3 E:b8 14.\Wd2 i.b7 15.
E:ae1 h6 16.lbh3t. White has extra
space and Black's king shelter has
187
Chapter 13
been compromised, Tal - Chris­
tiansen, Wijk aan Zee 1982.
6.d5
Now, Black has a choice -
where to retreat his knight? We
will analyse: Bl) 6 .c!L!d4 and
• •
B2) 6 ••• c!Llce7.
Bl) 6 ••• c!Lld4
The retreat of the knight to the
centre of the board cannot be
good for Black, since White forces
its exchange.
7.c!Llge2 c!Llxe2
Unfortunately for Black, he
cannot hold his knight in the cen­
tre of the board, because after 7 . . .
cS, White will follow with 8.dxc6
c!Llxc6 9.lLlb5 and Black will have
great problems with the protec­
tion of his d6-pawn. For example:
9 ... i.f8 10 .Vtla4 i.e6 1U!d1 a6 12.
lLlxd6+ ixd6 13.c5± and White
will regain his bishop with his
next move and Black will have to
play the rest of the game being a
pawn down.
The inclusion of the move 7 . . .
188
i.g4 is not very sensible for Black,
because after 8.f3, he will have to
exchange the knights sooner or
later. 8 . . . lLlxe2 (It is bad for Black
to opt for 8 . . . ixf3?, due to 9.Vtla4+
i>f8 10.gxf3 lLlxf3+ ll.i>dl± and
his pieces will not manage to at­
tack White's king, while in the
middle game, his extra piece is
obviously stronger than Black's
two pawns, Agrest - Sulava, Biel
1997.) 9.ixe2 id7 10.c5;!;. White's
queenside initiative develops
much faster than Black's counter­
play on the opposite side of the
board, Timoscenko - Rakhim­
berdiyev, Rijeka 2011.
8.i.xe2
8 .. f5
.
It seems rather slow for Black
to opt for 8 . . . hS, because after
9.Vtfd2 ih6 10.0-0 ixe3 ll.Vtfxe3
gS 12.c5±, Black has accomplishes
the favourable trade of the dark­
squared bishops, but lags consid­
erably in development, Miles -
Welling, Isle of Man 1995.
It is just bad for him to choose
 l.d4 g6 2.c4 �g7 3.e4 d6 4.tiJ c3 t:iJ c6 5. :ie3 e5 6.d.S
8 . . . CiJf6. He has waited for so long
to develop his knight and now, he
places it in front of his f7-pawn.
9.c5 0-0 10.cxd6 cxd6 11.0-0
CiJe8 12 .'1Wb3 fS
13.exf5 gxfS 14.f4. The ex­
change on fS, followed by f4, is
one of the standard resources for
White in positions of the King's
Indian type and is aimed at the re­
striction of Black's kingside coun­
terplay. 14 . . . �h8 15.E:ad1 E:g8 16.
�h1 CiJf6 17.fxe5 dxeS 18.d6±
White's d6-pawn is very powerful
and his pieces are perfectly coor­
dinated, which cannot be said
about their black counterparts,
Quinteros - Kotov, London 1977.
8 . . . CiJe7. This attempt by Black
to advance f7-f5 under more fa­
vourable circumstances does not
work. 9.g4 ! ?
This move i s the beginning of
a standard plan of preventing
Black's kingside counterplay. 9 . . .
b 6 (After 9 . . .f5 10.f3 f4 11.:if2 hS
12 .g5 h4 13.c5±, White has an
easy game on the c-file, while
Black's kingside counterplay is
nowhere in sight, Mellado Trivino
- Garcia Castro, Burgos 2003;
following 9 ... 0-0 10.h4 fS 11.f3
:id7, Kuthan - Todor, Austria
2011, 12 .h5 f4 13 ..if2 gS 14.c5±,
White has again succeeded in de­
priving his opponent of his coun­
terplay on the kingside, so the rest
of the game Black will have to ad­
here to a long and laborious de­
fence without any prospects of
creating active counterplay.)
10.h4 h6 11.h5 gS 12 .b4 aS 13.a3
0-0 14.f3 �h7 1S . .id3 CiJg8 16.
0-0± Black must remain very
passive and only wait for his op­
ponent to prepare c4-c5 and be­
gin active actions on the queen­
side, Bologan - Sanduleac, Ki­
shinev 2012.
8 . . . :ih6. Black gets rid of his
"bad" bishop with this move, but
falls behind in development even
more. 9.'1Wd2 ixe3 10.'1Wxe3 CiJf6
11.0-0-0 '1We7 12 .g3 id7 13.f4t
White has seized completely the
initiative. He has more space and
only needs to double his rooks on
the f-file, Petursson - Barlov,
Oviedo 1993.
9.exf5
Now, Black is faced with a
rather unpleasant choice. No
189
Chapter 13
matter how he recaptures - his
position will remain worse.
9 • . • .ixf5
This move has a serious draw­
back. Black reduces his control
over the key e4-square.
9 . . . gxf5 10.£4 e4 (It would be
too risky for him to allow the
opening of the position, being so
far behind in development, for ex­
ample: 10 . . . tt:Je7 11.fxe5 dxeS 12.
i.gS �d7 13.c5 0-0 14.�b3 �h8
15.0-0-0± White's pieces are
much more active. Later, he ad­
vanced d5-d6 and won the game,
Korchnoi - Bohm, Leeuwarden
1977.) ll.ihS+ . It would be useful
for him to keep the enemy king in
the centre of the board. 11 . . . �f8
12.0-0 tt:lf6 13.c5 i.d7 14. cxd6
cxd6 15.ie2;!; White has a very
simple plan for further actions :
1Mib3, l:!c1 followed by operations
on the c-file, while Black must
worry seriously about the safety
of his king, Chernin - Klinger,
Austria 2008.
10.g4
190
White begins a pawn-offensive
and Black will have great prob­
lems finding a safe haven for his
king.
10 ••• �d7 ll.h4 'We7
After ll . . . i.h6 12 .�d2 he3
13.�xe3 �f6, Nakamura - Shev­
elev, Reno 2002, 14.0-0-0±,
Black falls behind considerably in
development, while in the varia­
tion ll . . . tt:lh6 12 .h5± White seizes
the initiative completely.
12.c5!
After this energetic move,
Black's defence will be very diffi­
cult, for example:
12 ••• dxc5
He loses a pawn without any
compensation after 12 . . . tt:lf6 13.g5
tt:lh5 14.ixh5 gxh5 15.�xh5±
13.c!Llb5! 'Wd8 14.d6! hb5
15.hb5+ c6 16.�c4 c!Llf6 17.g5
c!Lld5 18.hd5 cxd5 19.%\'xdS
'Wd7 20.0-0-0±
White has regained the sacri­
ficed pawn and has a powerful
passed pawn on d6. Black's king is
 l.d4 g6 2.c4 ig7 3.e4 d6 4. ttJc3 ttJc6 5. ie3 e5 6.d5
stranded in the centre of the
board and is an excellent target
for White's pieces.
B2) 6 ••• lt:Jce7 7.g4!?
White wishes to impede the
thematic pawn-advance for Black
- f7-f5.
7 f5
. • .
Unfortunately for him, there is
no other way to organise counter­
play.
After 7 . . . c5 8.id3 4Jf6 (Black
lags in development and it would
be too risky for him to sacrifice a
pawn, because following 8 .. .f5 9.
gxfS gxfS 10.\!;lfhS+ i>f8 ll.exfS
4Jf6 12.1.Wf3±, he can hardly regain
it, Joseph - Earley, Email 1996.)
9.f3 0-0 10.4Jge2 4Je8 11.\!;lfd2 fS
12.gxf5 gxfS, Kormos - Tajti,
Hungary 2008, 13.0-0-0 f4 14.
if2 ih3 15J1hgU White has more
space and excellent prospects on
the queenside (a3, b4).
It would be too passive for
Black to play 7 . . . 4Jf6, since after
8.ie2 0-0 9.h4 4Je8, Gruenberg
- Uhlmann, Leipzig 1973 (9 . . . c6
10.h5 cxdS ll.cxdS \!;lfaS 12.f3 id7
13.\!;lfd2 !Uc8 14.hxg6 fxg6 15.4Jh3
a6 16.4Jg5± - his queenside coun­
terplay has reached its dead end
and he is forced to defend pas­
sively, Konak - Chudy, Slovakia
2007) 10.h5 ! ± White has accom­
plished his standard plan of pre­
venting his opponent's kingside
counterplay and Black is doomed
to a long and laborious defence.
8.gxf5 gxf5 9.\!;lfhS+
9 ••• lt:Jg6
He sacrifices a pawn and will
have to lose plenty of time to re­
gain it in the future.
9 .. .'�f8. Black cannot equalise
if he refrains from castling. 10.
ih3. This is one of the positive
moment concerning White's
move seven. Now, Black can
hardly avoid the trade of the light­
squared bishops. 10 . . . 4Jf6 11.'<Mlf3
f4 (It is also possible for hfm to
continue with 11 . . . 4Jg6 and after
12.0-0-0 fxe4 13.\!;lfe2 a6 14 . .ixc8
191
Chapter 13
'?9xc8 15.'?9c2 b5 16.lt:Jge2 bxc4
17.lt:Jxe4 �b8 18.lt:Jxf6 .bf6 19.
'?9xc4;!;, White's bishop is obvious­
ly more active than its black coun­
terpart, which is restricted by his
own pawn on e5.) 12 .i.d2
This position was tested in two
games of L.Portisch. In one of
them Black played 12 . . . c6, which
after 13.tt:lge2 hh3 14.'?9xh3 '?9d7
15.'?9xd7 tt:Jxd7 16.tt:lcU, led to an
endgame in which White had a
space advantage and a "good"
bishop against a "bad" bishop for
Black, Portisch - Minic, Ljublja­
na/Portoroz 1973 ; while in the
other game Black continued with
- 12 . . . h5, which did not change
much the character of the posi­
tion. 13.hc8 '?9xc8 14.0-0-0
ih6 15.'?9d3 �g8 16.lt:Jf3;!; White
again had a space advantage and
a more active bishop, moreover
that Black's king was seriously en­
dangered in the middle game,
L.Portisch - Rey, Amsterdam
1967.
12 . . . a6 13.i.xc8 '?9xc8 14.'?9d3
�g8 15.tt:lf3 i.h6 16.0-0-0;!; Li­
berzon - Czerniak, Netanya 1975.
There has arisen almost the same
position as in the game Portisch
192
- Rey, Amsterdam 1967, except
that instead of the move h5, Black
had played a6. This circumstance
cannot influence the evaluation of
the position at all.
10.exf5 f:Yh4 ll.f:Yf3 tt:l6e7
Following ll . . . tt:lf4 12 .tt:lh3
hf5 13.lt:Jxf4 exf4 14.'?9xf4 '?9xf4
15.hf4 hc3+ (or 15 . . . tt:Je7, Psa­
khis - Ranola, Balaguer 1998,
16.0-0- 0 ! ?;!; and Black's com­
pensation for the pawn is insuffi­
cient) 16.bxc3 lt:Jf6 17.f3 0-0 18.
�g1+ ig6 19.i.h6 �fe8+ 2 0 .'tt>f2±
White has an extra pawn and two
powerful bishops and the weak­
ening of his queenside pawn­
structure can only be small conso­
lation for Black, Canibal - Guen­
ther, Email 2005.
12Jbb5 ! ?
I t i s always useful to deprive
the opponent's king of its castling
rights.
12 . . . �d8 13.ti'g2 !
White frees the square for his
knight with tempo and from there
it will go to g5 and eventually to
the e6-square.

13 .ih6 14.�£3 ti'f6 15.
•••
�g5! �xf5 16.h4 �ge7 17 .id3;t;
Acevedo Villalba - Bjazevic,
Email 2007. White's pieces are
more active and Black's king is
stranded in the centre of the
board. There followed: 17 .id7
18.0-0-0 �c8 19. ti'£3 �b8
20.�b1 .ig7 21.�c3 ! h6 22.
�ce4 �f8 23.�e6. Finally
White's knight has reached this
key square. 23 �c8 24.c5 ! Af­
•••
ter this move Black's position
crumbles. 24 .ixe6 25.dxe6
•••
�xe6 26.cxd6 cxd6 27.l!!hg1
.if6 28 .if1 1-0. Black is helpless
• weakness of the h6-pawn, Black
against the threat .th3, after
which he cannot avoid the mate­
rial losses.
C) 4 ••• �d7
Black prepares the pawn-ad­
vance e7-e5, avoiding the possi­
bility of entering an inferior end­
game.
5 .ig5! ?
• 17.id1 �c7. This position was
This move impedes e7-e5.
5 ••• f6
l.d4 g6 2.c4 .tg7 3.e4 d6 4. 0. c3
After this move Black will ad­
• vance e7-e5 of course, but the
weakening f7-f6 will tell in the fu­
ture.
Besides this move, he has tried
••• in practice some other possibilities:
There arises transposition to
the King's Indian Defence after
5 . . . 0.gf6 6.ie2, as well as follow­
ing s . . . c6 6.0.f3 0.gf6 7 . .te2 0-0
8.�d2 .
After S . . . cS 6.d5 h6, due to the
will have problems castling (It
seems preferable for him to trans­
pose to the King's Indian Defence
with 6 . . . 0.gf6 7 . .te2.). 7.id2 0.gf6
S.�cl e6 9 . .te2 exdS 10.exd5 0.b6
11.0.f3 ig4 12 .b3 ix£3 13.ixf3
�e7+ 14.�£1. It is not dangerous
for White to lose his castling
rights, since he is better devel­
oped and the position is closed.
14 . . . 0.bd7 15.�c2 0-0 16.E!e1 0.e5
reached in the game Chernin -
Norwood, Marseille 1990. It re­
sembles a bit the Averbakh sys­
tem with 6 . . . c5 and 7 . . . e6, but
here, White also has the two-bish­
op advantage and extra space. The
plan for his further actions is also
identical. He should advance his
kingside pawn in order to cramp
his opponent's position even
more. 18.f4 ! 0.ed7 19.g4 ! E!ae8 2 0 .
E!xe8 E!xe8 21.h4 0.f8 2 2 .g5 . hxgS
23.hxg5 0.6h7 24.�g2± Black's
pieces are terribly cramped.
193
Chapter 13
S . . . h6 6.�e3 eS (He cannot
equalise with the original attempt
6 . . . e6 7.g3 b6 8.�g2 �b7 9.ltlge2
ltle7 10.0-0 0-0 11.\!!l/d 2 mh7 12.
f4;t. Black lacks space and after
the careless response 12 . . . dS? !
13.cxdS exdS 14.eS± White's ad­
vantage increases. He has good
prospects for a pawn-offensive on
the kingside and Black's bishop
on b7 has lost its mobility with the
appearance of his pawn on dS,
Aleksandrov - Golovin, Voronezh
2011.) 7.dS ltle7 (Following 7 . . .
ltlgf6 8.f3 o - o 9.\!!l/d 2 mh7 10.
0-0-0 ltlhS 11.�d3 ltlcS 12 .�c2 aS
13.ltlge2;!;, there arises a typical
King's Indian middle game in
which White has extra space and
Black can hardly organise any ac­
tive actions. 13 .. .fS?! This move is
just bad for Black. 14.exfS .ixfS
1S.ltlg3 hc2 16.\!!l/xc2 \!!l/h4 17.ltlxhS
\!!l/xhS 18.hc5 dxcS 19.ltle4± White's
knight is placed in the centre of
the board and is obviously strong­
er than Black's bishop on g7, re­
stricted by his own pawn on eS,
Petursson - Frois, Dubai 1986.
This is a good example of "a good
knight" against "a bad bishop".)
8.�d3 0-0 9.\!!l/d 2 hS 10.ltlge2 ltlcS
11.�c2 fS, Ionescu - Rakic, Berlin
1988. Here, White had to enter
positions typical for the Saemisch
system with the move - 12.f3 and
there might follow 12 .. .f4 13.�f2
gS 14.0-0-0 ltlg6 1S.mb1 g4 16.
ltlcl b6 17.ltld3 aS 18.ltlxcS bxcS
19.�a4;!;, then �c6, ltlbS, :Bc1-c3-
a3 and Black will have problems
protecting his aS-pawn.
194
6 ..ie3 e5 7.c!Llf3
With a black pawn on the f6-
square, White does not need to be
in a hurry to advance d4-dS.
7 ••• c!Llh6
Following 7 . . . ltle7, White ob­
tains an advantage with 8.dxeS
fxeS (Black did not play well in
the game Kirillov - Saigin, Riga
1961: 8 . . . dxeS 9.cS ! White intends
to develop his bishop to c4. 9 . . . h6
10 .�c4 fS ll.exfS ltlxfS and here,
he could have won immediately
with the line : 12.\!!l/dS ! Vffe 7 13.
c6+-) 9.ltlgS ltlf6 lO.cS. White's
bishop is developed again to an
active position. 10 . . . h6 ll.cxd6
cxd6 12.ltlf3 0-0 13.�c4+ mh8
14.0-0;!; and he has an easy play
against Black's weak d6-pawn.
8.c5!?
This i s a very promising pawn­
sacrifice. White is trying to exploit
the disharmony in Black's posi­
tion and the vulnerability of the
a2-g8 diagonal.
8 . . . exd4
This is the best defence for
Black.

After 8 . . . dxc5 9.dxe5 c6 (Black
loses immediately following 9 . . .
fxeS? 10 . .ig5 ! ttlf6 11.�xd8+ �xd8
1 2 .l:!d1+ �e8 13.tt:lb5+- and he
suffers material losses. The end­
game is very difficult for him after
9 . . . tt:lxe5 ? ! 10.ttlxe5 fxe5 11.�xd8+
�xd8 12.0-0-0+ id7 13 . .ic4
�c8 14J�d3 tt:lg4 15.hc5± - he
has great problems with his de­
fence, despite the exchange of the
queens, because White's pieces
are tremendously active.) 10.exf6
�xf6 ll.!c4 tt:leS 12.ttlxe5 �xeS
13.�d2 tt:lf7 14.f4± White's pawns
are advancing threateningly.
After 8 . . . tt:lg4 9.cxd6 tt:lxe3
10 .fxe3 cxd6 11.ic4±, the material
is equal, but Black can hardly
manage to castle.
9.c!Llxd4 c!Llxc5 10.b4 c!Lle6
The retreat to the edge of the
board is worse for Black 10 . . . ttla6,
because after ll . .ibS+ �f8 12.
ha6 bxa6 13.ttld5 tt:lg4 14.:1kl±,
White regains his pawn and the
endangered position of Black's
monarch will become the decisive
factor.
l.d4 g6 2.c4 :ig7 3.e4 d6 4. ttl c3
ll .ib5+ !
•
This is an important check af­
ter which Black loses his castling
rights.
u . . . mn
It is worse for him to choose
ll . . . c6 12 .ttlxc6 bxc6 13 . .bc6+
.id7 14.�xd6 �e7 15.�xe7+ �xe7
16.ttld5+ �d6 17 . .ba8 �xa8 18.0-
0-0± White's rook and two pawns
are stronger than his opponent's
two minor pieces, since Black's
forces are discoordinated and his
king is endangered.
Following ll . . . �f8 12 .ic4
tt:lxd4 13.hd4 c6 14.0-0, White's
compensation is more than suffi­
cient for his minimal material
deficit.
12 .ic4 ges 13. �f3 f5
•
After 13 . . . �f8 14.tt:lxe6+ �xe6
(but not 14 . . . he6 15.he6 �xe6
16 . .ixh6 .ixh6 17.�h3+- and
Black loses a piece) 15.!xe6 he6
16.0-0±, Black's compensation
for the exchange is insufficient.
195
Chapter 13

14.0-0 i>g8 15 .!lJxe6 .txe6

• rificed pawn and maintains better
16 .lxe6+ gxe6 17 .txh6 .txh6
• • prospects. Black's king is vulner­
18.exf5 g{6 19Jbb7 gxf5 20. able and this might be an impor­
.!lJd5;!; White has regained the sac- tant factor in the oncoming fight.

Conclusion
We have just completed our analysis of the variations, beginning
with the move 3 . . . d6 in the Modern Defence. In all the lines, White
maintains a certain advantage. He only needs to know well the theory
in order to find his way in the intricacies of the different variations.
This chapter should help the readers to accomplish this task.

196
 Parts 4 and 5
l.d4 d6
In the last two parts of this
book, we will analyse openings
which arise much more often af­
ter l.e4.
The reason for this is that fol­
lowing l.d4 d6, White must play
2.e4 if he wishes to fight for the
opening advantage and if Black
transfers to the King's Indian De­
fence, to be able to continue with
the variations which we have ana­
lysed in out previous volumes.
Otherwise, for example after
2 .c4, Black would obtain a good
game by playing 2 . . . e5, while after
2.lt:lf3 tt:Jf6 3.c4 g6, there arises the
King's Indian Defence, but with a
white knight on f3.
2 .c!bf6 3.tLlc3
••
Here, Black has a great choice
between different systems for
development and after the most
popular move for him in this posi­
tion 3 g6, there arises the Pirc
- •••
Defence-Ufimtsev on the board.
We devote to this possibility the
fourth part of our book.
Black's attempts to avoid the
Pirc-Ufimtsev Defence will be
dealt with in part 5.
This book is intended mostly
to suit the fans of the closed open­
ings ; nevertheless, the chapters
12 to 17 will be very helpful as
well to the players w.ho like to
begin their games with the move
l.e4.
197
 Part 4

The Pirc-Ufimtsev Defence

l.d4 d6 2.e4 �f6 3.�c3 g6

A.Ufimtsev, but the attitude to­

This part of the book will be
devoted to the Pirc-Ufimtsev De­
fence.
This opening has been named
after the Yugoslavian grandmas­
ter V.Pirc, although the Soviet
master A.Ufimtsev has contribut­
ed greatly to its development as
well. In fact, in some opening
monographs you can see its name
as "The Pirc-Ufimtsev Defence".
It has long gone from the section
of the incorrect openings into one
of the most fashionable opening
systems. It has been tested even
at the top level, including in the
World Championship matches.
Naturally, the initial moves of this
opening have been tried in chess
games even before V.Pirc and
wards this system was neglectful.
When V.Harousek played this
opening and lost the game quick­
ly, W.Steinitz commented "If
you try such an awkward opening,
small wonder that you lose the
game.". Nowadays, it is a quite
different situation. The Pirc­
Ufimtsev Defence is used by nu­
merous strong grandmasters :
V.Kramnik, V.Ivanchuk, Sh.Ma­
medyarov, A.Grischuk, A. Moro­
zevich etc. As a rule, Black is not
striving to equalise right after the
opening, but to obtain a compli­
cated and not so well analysed po­
sition, even if it may be a little
worse, but with chances of seizing
the initiative.
4.i.e3

198
 This move is considered to be
one of the most dangerous for
Black and quite deservedly so.
White is preparing his standard
attack: 1Mfd2 , 0-0-0, f3, .ih6, h4
etc. Meanwhile, he does not un­
cover his plans and depending on
Black's replies, White can occupy
the centre - f2-f4 (as a rule after
the preliminary move h2-h3).
The move 4 ..ie3 has been tried
and still is( ! ) by numerous players
and I would like to mention
among them E.Sveshnikov and
M.Adams, who have contributed
greatly with their games to the de­
velopment of the theory of this
variation for White.
It seems less flexible for him to
play 4.f3, since White reveals his
plans a bit too early.
4.f4 ! ? This is also a very good
move - he occupies the centre. To
the players who would like to
study this move, I would like to
recommend volume 4 of the se­
ries "Opening for White Accord­
ing to Anand" under the edition of
A.Halifman.
In Chapter 14 we will analyse
the move 4 . . . a6, which is the fa­
vourite line of V.Kramnik. The
basic arguments for Black - 4 . . .
.ig7 and 4 . . .c 6 will b e dealt with in
Chapters 15 and 16.
It is worth mentioning that de­
spite the fact that as a rule White
obtains effortlessly an advantage
in the opening, but there arise
very complicated and not so well
analysed positions. Contrary to
many other openings, Black has a
great choice of possibilities.
Therefore, White should study
this opening very seriously.
199
Chapter 14 l.d4 d6 2.e4 �f6 3.�c3 g6 4.Ae3
4 ... a6
V.Kramnik likes to play this
move and this is in a way a mark
of quality. Black is preparing b7-
b5, but contrary to the move 4 . . .
c6, after the development to the
b7-square, his bishop will not be
restricted by his own pawn and
will exert pressure against White's
centre.
Black's main replies 4 . . . .ig7
and 4 . . . c6 will be analysed in the
following chapters.
There do not arise original po­
sitions after 4 . . . l2Jg4, since follow­
ing S . .igS h6 6 . .ih4 .ig7 7.�d2, a
variation is reached, which will be
analysed in the next chapter after
the move-order - 4 . . .i.g7 S.�d2
l2Jg4.
200
It seems rather dubious for
Black to choose 4 . . . e5 S.dxeS l2Jg4
(It would be a disaster for him to
continue with S . . . dxeS?! 6.�xd8+
<.!lxd8 7.l2Jf3 l2Jg4 8 . .ig5+ f6 9.h3
fxgS 10.hxg4 i.e6 1l.l2Jxg5± and
Black did not have any compensa­
tion for the pawn, Bannik - Levin,
Kiev 1964.) 6 . .if4 l2Jxe5 (The end­
game is worse for Black following
6 . . . dxe5 7.�xd8+ <.!lxd8 8 . .ig3
l2Jd7 9 . .ic4 f6 10.h3 l2Jh6 11.f4 .id6
12.l2Jge2 l2Jb6 13 . .ib3;!;, White has
powerful initiative. He only needs
to castle and deploy his rooks on
the d and f-files and Black will
hardly complete the development
of his pieces. His king is in the
centre of the board and is seri­
ously endangered despite the
trade of the queens, A.Sokolov -
Milovanovic, Ulcinj 1998.) 7.�d2 .
 l.d4 d6 2.e4 0.f6 3. !i:J c3 g6 4 . .ie3 a6 5.h3
White is preparing to castle
queenside and to exchange the
dark-squared bishops (i.e3-h6),
after which he will begin an attack
on the kingside. Black can hardly
create any counterplay, since the
advance of his queenside pawns
will not lead to an attack, but to
the appearance of new weakness-
es in his camp. 7 . . . i.g7 (He cannot
equalise with 7 . . . i.e6 8.0-0-0
0.bd7 9.h4 h5 10.!i:Jh3;!; - White
will transfer hos knight to the g5-
square after which he will trade it
for Black's bishop. The position is
quite open and White's two-bish­
op advantage will become a tell­
ing factor, Kislik - Nagy, Buda­
pest 2011.) 8.i.h6 i.xh6 9.�xh6
0.g4 10.�d2 0-0 11.0-0-0 !i:Jc6
12.f3 !i:Jf6 13. g4--+ This is the be­
ginning of the attack. Black will
have great problems to organise
counterplay and his kingside will
be seriously endangered. Later, in
the game Tkachiev - Gagunash­
vili, Saint Vincent 2005, there fol­
lowed: 13 . . . i.e6 14.0.ge2 !i:Je5 15.
0.d4 �e7 16. g5 !i:Jh5 17.f4 0.c4
18.�f2 !i:Jb6 19.i.e2 !i:Jg7 20 .h4±
Black's fianchettoed knight does
not beautify his position and he
will hardly parry White's threats
- f4-f5 or h4-h5.
It would be too passive for
Black to try 4 . . . 0.bd7 5.f4. It would
be senseless for White to castle
queenside, because the break­
through in the centre e4-e5, with
a black knight on the d7-square,
seems simpler and more effective.
5 . . . c6 (The continuation of the
roaming of Black's knight - 5 . . .
!i:Jb6 leads to very bad conse­
quences for him after 6.0.f3 i.g7
7 . .id3 0.g4 8 . .ig1 d5 9 .e5 f6 10.
�e2 0-0 11.h3 !i:Jh6 12 .g4± Hueb­
ner - Pfleger, Germany 1986.
Black lacks space and his pieces
have occupied passive positions.
In addition, he has no counter­
play, since advancing c7-c5 seems
to be practically impossible for
him. In the meantime, White can
prepare patiently an offensive
against Black's monarch.) 6.e5
!i:Jd5 7.0.xd5 cxd5 8.0.f3 e6 9.i.d3;!;
Mas - J.Garcia, Subic Bay 2009.
White has more space, better de­
veloped pieces and can exploit the
vulnerability of the dark squares
in Black's camp (the consequence
of the moves g6 and e6, which as a
rule do not combine well togeth­
er).
5.h3 ! ?
This i s a "symmetrical" move.
Indeed, if Black can afford a move
with his rook pawn, White can do
the same, can he not? He has tak­
en under control the important
g4-square with his last move.
Now, he can follow with a pawn-
201
Chapter 14
offensive on the kingside with the
help of f2-f4, as well as with g2-
g4. In addition, Black cannot play
now b7-b5 due to some tactical
reasons.
5 . . . 1g7
This is the most reliable move
for him. He wishes at first to com­
plete the development of his piec­
es and castle.
There arises a passive but solid
position for Black after S . . . lt:\bd7
6.lt:\f3 eS 7 . .ic4 .ig7 8.dxe5 dxeS
9.a4 0-0 10.0-0. White's posi­
tion is easier to play and his mi­
nor pieces are more active. 10 . . .
W!e7 ( 1 0 . . .b 6 ll.Wid3 ! ? i.b7 12.E:fd1
W!e7 13.lt:\d5 lt:\xdS 14 . .b:d5 .b:dS
1S.W!xd5 lt:\f6 16.Wic6 W!b4 17.
lt:\d2 ! ;!; - He has a "good" bishop
against Black's "bad" bishop,
which is severely restricted by his
own eS-pawn and the pawns on
b6 and c7, placed on dark squares,
may turn into targets for attack in
the endgame.) ll.Wid3 lt:\c5 12.lt:\d5
W!d6 (The evaluation of the posi­
tion remains the same after 12 . . .
lt:\xdS 13.W!xd5 lt:\ e 6 14.E:fdU -
202
White's position is preferable, be­
cause his pieces are more active,
while Black must still think about
the completion of the develop­
ment of his queenside pieces.)
13.lt:\xf6+ bf6 14.W!xd6 cxd6 15.
bcS dxc5 16.E:fdU White's pieces
have occupied the open d-file and
the important a2-g8 diagonal.
Black has difficulties with the de­
velopment of his bishop on c8 and
his defence will be long and hard.
After s . . . bs, White has the pos­
sibility to inflict a very unpleasant
strike for his opponent in the cen­
tre with the move - 6.e5 ! Now,
the h1-a8 diagonal is opened and
Black fails to develop his bishop
on b7. 6 . . . lt:\fd7 (The retreat of the
knight at the edge of the board to
the hS-square - 6 . . . lt:\h5, seems
very dubious, since after 7.W!f3
E:a7 8.d5 E:b7, in the game Lech­
tynsky - Schou Moldt, Teplice
2012, White could have reached a
winning position after 9.e6! fxe6
10.dxe6 lt:\f6 ll.g4+- and the
threat g4-g5, would have forced
Black to part with his knight. It is
possible for him to try a line,
which is however insufficient to
equalise: 6 . . . b4 7.W!f3 E:a7 8.lt:\a4;!;
and his queenside pawns are vul­
nerable and the a7-square is
hardly the best for Black's rook.)
7.W!f3. The rook on a8 will be a
cause of permanent worries for
him. 7 . . . c6 (7 . . . lt:\b6 8.a4 b4 9.
lt:\e4±; 8 ... bxa4 9 . .id3 .ig7 10.
lt:\xa4;!; Markovic - Bogdanovski,
Nis 1994) 8.exd6 exd6 9 . .id3 lt:\f6
 l.d4 d6 2.e4 ti:Jj6 3. ti:J c3 g6 4. !e3 a6 5.h3
10.i.g5 1i.e7 11.�h6;!; White is
ahead of his opponent in develop­
ment and Black's queenside
pawn-structure is very brittle.
6.f4!
This is the best move for
White.
He obtains a slight edge after
the enlarged fianchetto of his
bishop with 6.g4, for example: 6 . . .
b S 7.e5 ti:Jfd7 8.!g2 c 6 9.exd6
exd6 10.ti:Jge2 ti:Jb6 ll.b3 0-0 12.
a3 ! ? aS 13.0-0 a4 14.'1Wd2 �e8 15.
i.gS Wic7 16.!f4;!;. In fact, Black
should not complain, because he
obtains what he wishes in the Pirc
Defence. His position is slightly
worse, but very complicated and
he can try later to seize the initia­
tive.
6 . . . 0-0
Now, once again White can
counter 6 . . . b5 with 7.e5 ti:Jfd7
8.Wif3 and Black must solve the
problem with his rook on a8.
(diagram)
8 . . . �a7 (8 . . . c6. This move is
too slow. 9.�d3 Wic7 10.ti:Jge2 i.b7
ll.h4 ! White exploits his lead
in development and begins an of­
fensive. ll . . . ti:Jb6 12 .h5 ti:J8d7 13.
hxg6 hxg6 14.�xh8+ hh8 15.e6 !±
Black's position crumbles, Hra­
cek - Konopka, Pardubice 1998.
The position is a bit worse but
still defensible for him after 8 . . .
ti:Jb6 9.�d3 b 4 10.ti:Ja4 ti:J 8d7 ll.a3
bxa3 12.�xa3 0-0 13.ti:Je2;!;) 9.�d3
b4 10.ti:Je4 �b7 ll.Wif2 �a8 12.
ti:Jf3;t Goloshchapov - Murshed,
Dhaka 2003. The centralisation
of White's pieces is very impres­
sive, while Black lacks space.
Still, White's achievement are
far from being decisive. In the
game, Black did not cope with
his defensive problems and made
a mistake 12 .. .f5? 13.exf6 exf6 14.
fS±. It is understandable that he
cannot play now 14 . . . gxf5? due
to 15.ti:Jg3+- and White's posi­
tional advantage becomes deci­
sive, because after the capture
with the knight on fS, Black's
bishop on g7 becomes a "big
pawn".
(diagram)
White develops his pieces and
prepares e4-e5.
203
Chapter 14
He maintains an advantage
even after the not so trivial move
7.'?9f3 ! ?, preparing castling queen­
side. 7 . . . e5 (Following 7 . . . c6,
Black obtains a solid but some­
what cramped position, for exam­
ple: 8.id3 bS 9.tt:lge2 b4 10.tt:la4
tt:Jbd7 11.0-0 ib7 12.a3 aS 13.c3;!;.
White is clearly better. He has ex­
tra space, a powerful pawn-cen­
tre, while Black's b4-pawn pro­
vides White with a target for an
offensive on the queenside.) 8.
0-0-0 exd4 (8 . . . exf4 9 . .txf4 tt:lhS,
Postny - Klenburg, Port Erin
2005. Here, he had to play 10.
ih2 ! and after 10 . . . tt:lc6 ll.g4 tt:lf6
12.tt:lge2;!;, White would have good
prospects on the f-file and a pow­
erful pawn-centre, which could
not be attacked easily by Black.)
9.hd4 tt:lc6 10.i.f2 id7 11.ih4
'?9c8 12 .g4 bS 13.g5 tt:lhS 14.tt:ld5;t
- It would be sufficient to evalu­
ate the position correctly if we
compare the power of the knights
on dS and hS.
7 b5
...
Naturally, Black has played
a7-a6 in order to advance b7-b5.
204
The most solid move 7 ... e6
leads to a very passive position for
him. 8.id3 tt:Jc6 9.0-0 bS 10.e5
tt:ldS ll.tt:lxdS exdS 12.'?9d2;t In the
game Djingarova - T.Vasilevich,
Vrnjacka Banja 2005 Black de­
cided to get rid of the pawn on eS,
which cramped his position con­
siderably, but following 12 . . .
dxeS?! 13.fxe5 f6 14.exf6 hf6 15.
c3 ie6, White had the possibility
16.a4 bxa4 17.l:!xa4± and sudden­
ly, Black's pawn-weaknesses on
the other side of the board would
become a telling factor.
7 . . . tt:lh5 This attempt by Black
to exploit the weakness of his op­
ponent's g3-square cannot equal­
ise. 8.id3 (It is also possible for
White to try the rather extrava­
gant move 8.'it>f2 ! ?;!;, using his
king to defend the g3-square. This
resource cannot be seen so often
in practice at the beginning of the
game, Zimmermann - Lubisch,
Pinneberg 2006. I believe that
Stenitz would have liked that
move, since he considered the
king to be "a very powerful
piece".) 8 . . . tt:lg3 9.l:!g1 fS 10.exf5
tt:lxfS (Now, just like in the King's
Indian Defence, Black should not
trade the light-squared bishops,
because after 10 . . . -txfS 1l..if2
hd3 12.'?9xd3 tt:lhS 13.'?9c4±, the
vulnerability of the light squares
in his camp can be noticed even
by a naked eye.) ll ..if2 e6 12 .g4
tt:Je7 13.'?9d2;!; White has parried
his opponent's knight-sorties and
now, after castling queenside, can
 l.d4 d6 2.e4 ttJf6 3. ttJ c3 g6 4. ie3 a6 5.h3

begin a pawn-offensive against variation - Michael Adams in his

Black's castling position, or attack
the weak enemy e6-pawn with
ttJgS and l:!el.
8.e5 ttJfd7 9.id3 ttJb6 10.
�e2 ttJ8d7 11.0-0-0;!;
game against Zhukova, Caleta
2012.
White's pieces are perfectly
mobilised and ready for the fight,
while Black's pieces are a sorry
sight. They are very passive and
he obviously lacks space. There
followed: ll ... e6 12.h4! White
begins an attack on the kingside
and Black will have great prob­
lems parrying it. 12 ib7 13.h5
•••

b4 14.(jj e4± He has decided to

trade his bishop for the enemy
knight, in order to facilitate his
defence, but this cannot help
much. White's attack is develop­
ing effortlessly. 14 he4 15.
•••

he4 d5 16.id3 c5 17.hxg6

This position arose in one of hxg6 18.g4 l:!e8 19.�h2 cxd4
the games of a great expert in this 20.hd4 �c7 21.f5+-

Conclusion
We have just completed our analysis of the variation with 4 . . . a6 in
the Pirc Defence. It has been used once in a while even by Kramnik (but
indeed, mainly in games with a shorter time-control, or in games where
he had to win necessarily with Black). In general, White obtains rather
easily a considerable advantage. Black's main problem is that having
played a7-a6, he has great problems following this with b7-b5, because
White has the powerful tactical resource - e4-e5 with the move �f3
coming next and Black fails to develop his bishop to the b7-square. If
he is not in a hurry to play b7-b5, then White simply completes his de­
velopment and his advantage is doubtless thanks to his powerful pawn­
centre.

205
Chapter 15 l.d4 d6 2.e4 ll:)f6 3.li:)c3 g6 4.ie3 ig7
This move has been played nu­
merous times and by grandmas­
ters like V.lvanchuk, A.Beliavsky,
V.Topalov, P.Nikolic, A.Khalif­
man and many others. It seems
quite natural, does it not? It looks
like if Black has played g7-g6, he
should follow with �g7.
Still, things are not so simple
at all. The point is that after
5.�d2
White has a clear-cut plan for
his further actions, connected
with the exchange of the dark­
squared bishops after .ih6, fol­
lowed by castling queenside. After
that, there often arise positions
with opposite sides castling and
pawn-offensives on the different
flanks. White's prospects are pref-
206
erable, since he has more space
and in many variations he can
oust the enemy knight on f6 (pro­
tecting the h7-pawn) with the
move e4-e5, organizing a crush­
ing attack against the enemy king
This is the difference between this
variation of the Pirc Defence and
the similar types of positions,
with opposite sides castling, aris­
ing in the Dragon variation of the
Sicilian Defence. White does not
have there a pawn on d4 (it has
been exchanged there for Black's
c-pawn). It is due to this reason
that many players, who like this
position for Black in the Pirc De­
fence, postpone the development
of the bishop on g7 and prefer the
move 4 . . . c6 - we will analyse this
variation in our next chapter. we
Now, Black has numerous
possibilities. We will deal with:
A) 5 a6, B) 5 .loc6, C) 5
••• •• ••.
c!Og4, D) 5 0-0 and E) 5 c6.
••• •••
We will begin however, with
the analysis of some less popular
lines for him.
I do not believe that the idea of
P.Nikolic may find many follow-
 l.d4 d6 2.e4 liJf6 3. liJc3 g6 4. ie3 ig7 5. Wd2
ers - 5 . . . d5, Van der Wiel - Ni­
kolic, Tilburg 1988. White's sim­
plest reaction would be 6.e5 ! ?
liJe4 7.liJxe4 dxe4 8.0-0-0;!; and
the weakness on e4 will be the
cause of permanent worries for
Black in the future.
The endgame is clearly worse
for him after 5 . . . e5 6.dxe5 dxeS 7.
Wxd8+ Wxd8 and now 8.0-0-0+
liJbd7 9.h3 c6 10.liJf3 We7 11.a4
liJe8 12 .ic4;t; Yevseev - Astashov,
St Petersburg 2 005. White has
a superior development, while
Black has problems with the de­
velopment of his queenside piec­
es. If his knight retreats from the
d7-square, White will have the
rather unpleasant check - icS.
5 . . . liJbd7 6.ih6 ixh6 7.Wxh6
About 7 . . . c6 8.0-0-0 - see
variation E, 7 . . . liJbd7.
7 . . . e5 8.liJf3 c6 9.dxe5 liJxeS
(There arises transposition to var-
iation E following 9 . . . dxe5 10.ic4
We7 11.liJg5 - see 5 . . . c6 6.ih6 ih6
7.Wh6 eS. Black preserves the
pawn-symmetry in the centre and
this is his most reliable defensive
line.) 10.liJd4. His position is a bit
cramped and White avoids pru­
dently the trade of the knights.
10 . . . ie6 11.0-0-0 We7 12.\Wd2
0-0-0 13.f4 liJc4 14.Wf2 lt:Jg4 15.
Wg3 liJge3 16.hc4 liJxc4 17.b3.
White deprives the enemy pieces
of the important c4-square. 17 . . .
liJb6 18.Ei:heU - H e has much
more space and his pieces are
harmoniously deployed, which
cannot be said for Black's pieces
at all. In addition, the vulnerabil­
ity of his d6-pawn may become a
telling factor in the future, Yevs­
eev - Sarakauskas, St Petersburg
2005.
7 ... c5 8.liJf3 cxd4 9.liJxd4 WaS
(9 . . . a6. This move looks too slow.
10 .ic4 e6 11.0-0-0 liJeS 12 .ib3±
Solodovnichenko Narancic,
Banja Luka 2007. White has a
clear advantage. He has a better
development and is ready to be­
gin active actions after f2-f4,
while Black's monarch is stranded
in the centre. You can see the con­
sequences of the trade on h6 -
White's queen impedes Black's
castling. We will encounter this
motif numerous more times.) 10.
0-0-0 a6 11.WbU White has a
superior development and his
play in the middle game will be
much easier, moreover that Black
will have problems with his cas­
tling, Kharchenko - Andriasian,
St Petersburg 2012.
A) 5 ... a6
He prepares the move b7-b5,
but in anticipation of the attacks
207
Chapter 15
after the opposite sides castling,
Black had better do that with the
move c7-c6 (variation E), since
now, he will not have the possibil­
ity to develop his queen to an ac­
tive position (after '!WaS).
6.i.h6
6 ... 0-0
It is possible that Black should
have postponed his castling king­
side. 6 . . . .bh6 7.'1Wxh6 l!Jbd7 (It is
obviously premature for him to
choose 7 . . . bS, because following
8.eS b4 9.l!Jce2 l!JdS 10.'1Wg7 E:f8
ll.l!Jf3±, Black's position is evi­
dently worse, due to his lag in de­
velopment and he has problems
defending against the threat
l!Jf3-gS-h7, Chandler - Jansa,
Germany 1988. After 7 . . . eS 8.l!Jf3
exd4 9.l!Jxd4, it is not clear why
Black has lost a tempo for the
move a7-a6. 9 . . . l!Jc6 10.l!Jxc6 bxc6
ll.i.c4 '!We7 12. 0-0-0 i.e6 13.
.be6 fxe6 14.eS ! dxeS, Yudasin -
Benegas, Ponferrada 1992, 1S.
E:hel± White will regain effort­
lessly his pawn and after that
208
Black will have no compensation
for the numerous pawn-weak­
nesses in his position.) 8.l!Jf3 cS
9.0-0-0 cxd4 10.E:xd4 '!WaS 11.
i.c4 l!JeS 12.l!JxeS '!WxeS 13.E:hdU
White's pieces are perfectly mobi­
lised, while Black's king still re­
mains in the centre of the board,
Lupynin - Enescu, Email 2008.
7.0-0-0 b5 8.f3
8 . . .b4
8 ... l!Jc6. Now, there arises a
position, which resembles the
Saemisch system of the King's In­
dian Defence, except that White's
pawn is not on c4, but on c2 . This
circumstance is in his favour, be­
cause he has an extra tempo for
the organisation of his attack (In a
position with attacks on the dif­
ferent sides of the board, this may
turn out to be very important.). It
is quite deservedly stated that
"the chess game is a tragedy of a
tempo . . . ". In addition, the pawn
on c2 protects the king better than
the pawn on c4, which is much
rather a target for the organisa-
 l.d4 d6 2.e4 CiJf6 3. CiJ c3 g6 4. i.e3 ig7 5. '?!! d2
tion of Black's counterplay. 9 .h4
In the game Badano - Kern,
Arco 2011 Black played passively
and was deservedly punished very
quickly: 9 . . . e6? ! 10.hg7 'it>xg7 11.
hS CiJxhS? He did not have to open
the h-file. 12 .g4 CiJf6 13.'?!!h 6+
'it>h8. Here, the fastest way for
White to win the game was the
move - 14.e5+-.
Black loses valuable time with
the move 9 . . . CiJh5? ! , because
White can easily parry the threat
of the penetration of the enemy
knight to the g3-square. 10.CiJge2
eS 11.g4± - His attack is very
powerful, Nijboer - Bjornsson,
Reykjavik 1998.
9 . . . e5 lO.dS CiJd4 (following
10 . . . CiJe7 11.g4±, White's attack
develops much faster) 11.CiJce2 . It
is understandable that he must
get rid of the centralised enemy
knight as quickly as possible. 11 . . .
c S ( 1 1 . . . CiJxe2+ 12.CiJxe2 E:b8 13.
hs� and after the opening of the
h-file, White's attack will become
quite threatening, while Black's
counterplay on the other side of
the board is nowhere is sight,
Tangatarov - Smagin, Dagomys
2009) 12 .h5 b4 13.hg7 'it>xg7 14.
g4. White's attack is very power­
ful. 14 . . . i.d7 15.CiJxd4 cxd4 16.CiJe2
E:c8 17.CiJg3 '?!laS 18.'it>b1 E:c7 19.
CiJfS+ ixfS 2 0 .gxf5 W!a4 21..id3
E:g8 22.E:dg1 'it>f8 23.'?!!g5+-, his
bishop has cemented quite suc­
cessfully the queenside, while
Black's position on the kingside
will be in ruins under the pressure
of White's pieces and pawns,
Preussner - Serov, Email 2007.
It is rather dubious for Black
to choose 8 . . . CiJbd7, because after
9 . .ixg7 'it>xg7, White has the re­
source lO.eS CiJg8, followed by 11.
h4� Robak - Choroszej , Kolo­
brzeg 2007. His attack is very
dangerous, for example : 11 . . . CiJb6
12 .h5 dxeS 13.'?!!e3 exd4 14.E:xd4
'?!feB 15.E:dh4 CiJf6 16.hxg6 fxg6 17.
g4 'it>g8 18.i.d3 W!f7 19.E:h6 CiJbdS
20 .CiJxd5 CiJxdS 21.'?!!e 1 '?!!e 6 2 2 .
W!h4+- and Black i s incapable of
protecting his h7-pawn and his
kingside position crumbles like a
house built of cards.
9.CiJce2 c5 10 .ixg7 �xg7
•
·
ll.dxc5 'ti'a5
This interesting pawn-sacri­
fice enables Black to complkate
209
Chapter 15
the fight. Now, White must react
very precisely.
12.cxd6 l:!d8
He should not be afraid of the
move 12 . . . 'Wxa2, because follow­
ing 13.'Wxb4±, Black has no com­
pensation for the sacrificed mate­
rial.
13.e5
White exchanges a central
pawn for a flank pawn, but Black's
queen is deflected from the a2-
square in the process.
13 ••• 'Wxe5 14.Wxb4 tbc6
This position was reached in
the game Salzmann - Wyder,
Email 2009. Here, White's sim­
plest decision would be to trade
the queens: 15.Wc3! ? l:!xd6 16.
Wxe5 l:!xd1+ 17.c;t>xd1 ttJxeS 18.
tbc3;!: and he remains with an ex­
tra pawn. He lags considerably in
development indeed, but Black
can hardly exploit this, because
White does not have any pawn­
weaknesses in his position.
B) s ... tbc6
This is an interesting idea.
Black wishes to inflict a strike
210
against White's centre with the
move e7-e5 and thus to deflect
him from the oncoming flank at­
tack.
6.f3
This moves is forced. White
must defend against the threat -
6 . . .ti:lg4.
6 ... e5
This is Black's most logical re­
action.
As a rule, there arises transpo­
sition following 6 . . . 0-0 7.0-0-0
e5 8.tbge2 .
Black can try to impede
White's kingside pawn-offensive
with the move 6 . . . h5 !?, but it has
not been well analysed yet. Still,
after 7.0-0-0 a6 8.'Jibl b5 9.
l2Jge2 0-0 10.h3;!:, White's pros­
pects are preferable, because the
move h7-h5 has led to a weaken­
ing of Black's castling position.
Following 6 . . . a6, there arise
positions similar to variation A,
or often transposition of moves.
7.0-0-0
 l.d4 d6 2.e4 ltJf6 3. ltJ c3 g6 4. i.. e3 i..g 7 5. 'ff d2
About 7 . . . h5 8.lt>b1 - see 6 . . .
hS.
7 . . . e6 8.g4 bS, Short - Kavalek,
Dubai 1986. Here, White could
have maintained a stable advan­
tage by forcing at first Black's
knight to occupy the hS-square
with 9.g5 ! ? ltJhS and then forcing
its exchange: 10.ltJce2 ! i.b7 11.
ltJg3 ttJxg3 12.hxg3;!; As a result,
the h-file has been opened advan­
tageously for White and having in
mind that he dominates in the
centre, so it becomes evident that
his prospects in the oncoming
fight are clearly preferable.
There arise interesting devel­
opments, but clearly in favour of
White after 7 . . . 0-0 8.i.h6. There
may follow: 8 . . . e5 (8 . . . b5 9.h4 -
see variation A) 9.i.xg7 lt>xg7 10.
ltJge2 b5 11.lt>b1 b4 12.ltJdS aS, Ju­
rcik - Prikryl, Olomouc 2008,
13.h4 hS 14.dxe5 ltJxeS 1S.ltJef4
i.b7 16.ltJe3 Wie7 17.ib5 c6 18.
i.a4;!; White has neutralised
Black's queenside initiative with
the help of the manoeuvre i.fl-b5-
a4 and is ready to begin active ac­
tions on the opposite side of the
board with 'f!d2-f2-g3-g5.
About 7 . . . b5 8.i.h6 0-0 9.h4
- see variation A; 8 . . . i.xh6. One
of the drawbacks of this move is
that now, Black will have prob­
lems to castle kingside, while if he
castles queenside, the conse­
quences of its weakening with the
move b7-b5 may turn out to be
very bad for him. 9.'f!xh6 e6, Jan­
sa - Tibensky, Sumperk 1984 (Af­
ter 9 . . . e5 10.ltJge2;!;, White's piec­
es are better prepared for the
opening of the game in the centre
and he should not be afraid of the
move b5-b4, since he will have the
resource ltJc3-d5, Johannsen -
Czech, Obertsdorf 2002.) 10.a3 ! ?
This move deprives Black of the
possibility b5-b4 just in case. 10 . . .
Wie7 11.lt>b1 i.b7 12 .h4. White's
plan includes the move 'ffe 3, but
he does not wish to retreat his
queen yet, since it prevents
Black's castling. 12 . . . 0-0-0 13.
'ffe 3. White must protect at first
his d4-pawn in order to develop
his bishop on d3. 13 . . . 1t>b8 14.i.d3
E:he8 15.ltJge2;!; - He is dominant
in the centre and has more space,
while Black's king is not so safe on
the weakened queenside.
7.ltJge2
211
Chapter 15
Naturally, it is not good for
White to close the centre, since it
would be better for him to have a
pawn on c4 in order to be able to
develop his initiative on the
queenside with the move c4-cS.
7 ••• 0-0
The pawn-sacrifice 7 ... dS is
not quite correct, because follow­
ing 8.dxeS ltlxeS 9.ltlxdS ltlxdS
(after 9 . . . ltlc4, White has the re­
source 10.1Mfc3 !±) 10.1MfxdS±, Black's
compensation is insufficient.
After 7 . . . a6, White can block
the centre advantageously with
the move - 8.dS. There might fol­
low: 8 . . . ltle7 9.0-0-0. Black's po­
sition is very difficult, since he
can hardly parry his opponent's
threats on the kingside: g4, h4-hS
etc. His attempt to organise coun­
terplay on the queenside with 9 . . .
b S , Gazik - Irsai, Slovakia 2001,
leads only to the appearance of
additional pawn-weaknesses on
this side of the board. 10.a3 ! ? 0-0
ll.g4 E!:b8 12.'it>b1 aS 13.ltla2±
Black's pawns on aS and bS are
excellent targets for White's piec­
es.
7 ... exd4 8.ltlxd4. Black can
hardly continue the game without
castling and his attempt to play in
an original fashion only increases
as a rule White's opening advan­
tage. 8 . . . i.d7 (8 . . . 0-0 9.0-0-0,
or 8 ... ltlxd4 9 ..bd4 0-0 10.0-0-0
- see 7 ... 0-0) 9.0-0-0 a6 10.g4
1Mfe7, Mueller - Neumann, ICCF
212
1989. Here, White's simplest re­
action would be ll.h4± and
Black's position is very passive.
He does not have enough space
for the manoeuvres of his pieces
and castling kingside would be
rather dubious, since White's at­
tack will be very powerful in this
case.
8.0-0-0
8 ... exd4
The breakthrough in the cen­
tre would not work for Black 8 . . .
d S 9.dxeS ltlxeS 10.ltlf4 c 6 11.
exdS± - his compensation for the
pawn is evidently insufficient,
Spasov - Benjamin, Moscow
1994.
The move 8 . . .i.d7 was tested
in one of the games of Anthony
Miles. 9.'it>b1 1Mfb8. This is the be­
ginning of a too original plan. 10.
g4 bS ll.i.h6 i.xh6 12 .1MfxhM
White has obtained an advantage
with quite simple moves and after
Black's mistake 12 . . . ltlxd4? 13.gS
ltle8 14.ltlxd4 exd4 1S.ltldS+-, his
 l.d4 d6 2.e4 l!Jf6 3. l!J c3 g6 4. ie3 �g7 5. Wfd2
position became indefensible,
since following 15 . . . ffd8, White
will play 16.h4 and Black will be
helpless against the opening of
the h-file, Lane - Miles, Le Tou­
quet 1991.
The race in the flank attacks
after 8 . . . a6 is obviously in favour
of White, because his pawns are
much faster than their counter­
parts. 9.g4 bS lO.dS l!Je7 11.l!Jg3
l!Je8 12 .h4± Manik - Tratar, Pula
2003.
9 .lbxd4
••
The idea of this exchange is
that Black prepares the develop­
ment of his bishop on e6.
About 9 ... �e6 10 .g4 t!Jxd4 11.
.ixd4 - see 9 ... t!Jd4.
Black has tried in practice
some other moves as well.
It is bad for him to opt for 9 . . .
�d7 10.g4 a 6 11.h4 b S 12 .h5± and
once again we can see that Black
is much slower while attacking on
different sides on the board. This
is quite typical for this variation,
Batsanin - Evelev, Moscow 1996.
He cannot equalise following
9 . . . l!Je5 10.h4 hS 1l.ig5;!; This pin
of the knight is very unpleasant
for Black, for example he loses
immediately after 11 . . . ffe8? due
to 12.l!Jdb5 ! ffd7 13 . .ixf6 .ixf6 14.
t!JdS �g7 (He cannot save his pawn
with: 14 . . . �d8 1S.t!Jbxc7 .ixc7??
16.l!Jf6+-) 1S.t!Jdxc7+- Frander
- Kormos, Hungary 2011.
The rather slow move 9 ... a6
enables White to begin an imme­
diate attack with 10.h4 t!JeS 11.
igS ! ? , threatening once again hS.
Now, it is bad for Black to choose
11 . . . b5? ! and his queenside coun­
terplay is evidently immaterial,
Coleman - Michaud, Cappelle Ia
Grande 1995 (It is preferable for
him to continue here with 11 . . . h5,
complying with the weakening of
the gS-square, but still preventing
h4-h5, although even then White
maintains better chances after
12 .�e2;!;) 12.h5 ! ± and his attack is
very powerful.
It is interesting for Black to try
a pawn-sacrifice in the spirit of
the Dragon variation of the Sicil­
ian Defence. It is still insufficient
for equality, though . . . - 9 . . . d5
lO.exdS t!JxdS 1l.�g5 ffd7, M.
Gurevich - Zaichik, Lvov l987.
Now, White should simply cap­
ture the pawn with 12.l!Jxc6 bxc6
213
Chapter 15
13.tt:lxd5 cxd5 14.'119 xd5;t;; and Black
does not have sufficient compen­
sation for the material loss. Here,
contrary to the Dragon variation,
his pawn is not on e7, but on c7.
This is in favour of White, since
Black's rooks cannot attack the
enemy king on the c-file and the
vulnerability of the c7-pawn
might become a telling factor lat­
er.
It would be too passive for
Black to choose 9 . . J!e8, since the
pressure of his pieces against the
e4-pawn is harmless for White.
10.g4
10 . . . a6 ll.'>t>b1 tt:lxd4 12 ..bd4
ie6 13.g5 tt:lhS 14 ..bg7 tt:lxg7 15.
f4± White's attack is developing
effortlessly: ie2, h2-h4-h5 with
the decisive opening of the h-file,
Mainka - Stertenbrink, Germany
1990.
10 ... tt:le5 1l.g5 tt:lhS 12.f4 tt:lg4
13 . .igl± Black's knight is terribly
misplaced on the g4-square and
White's threat h2-h3 is very un­
pleasant, Iotov - Andersen, Email
2004.
Following 10 ... .id7 ll.h4 tt:leS
12 ..ie2 h5 13.gxh5 tt:lxhS, Navara
214
- Kallio, Leon 2001, White could
have obtained a great advantage
with the move 14.:1!hgl±, since
Black cannot capture the pawn
14 . . . W/xh4? in view of 15.f4 tt:lc6
16J�h1+- and White not only re­
gains his pawn but organises a de­
cisive attack against the enemy
king on the g and h-files.
Black cannot facilitate his de­
fence by exchanging the knights:
10 . . . tt:lxd4 ll ..bd4 cS (following
ll . . . ie6, White manages to trade
advantageously the dark-squared
bishops: 12 .g5 tt:lhS 13 . .ixg7 tt:lxg7
14.h4 W/e7 15.f4± and then ie2
and h2-h4-h5, M.Rodin - Meis­
ter, Podolsk 1992) 12 . .if2 ! ? Here,
the bishop is better placed than
on the e3-square, since there it
comes under a very unpleasant x­
ray with Black's rook. 12 . . .'<Mla5
13.W/xd6 tt:ld7 14.W/d3± - His com­
pensation for the pawn is insuffi­
cient.
10 .ixd4 .ie6 11.g4
•
ll ... c5
Black opens the way of his
queen to the aS-square.
 l.d4 d6 2.e4 tiJf6 3. tiJ c3 g6 4. :!i.. e3 :!i..g 7 5. Wff d2
Now, once again after the pas­
sive move ll . . . a6, White exchang­
es the dark-squared bishops and
begins an attack which would
be very difficult for Black to par­
ry. 12 .g5 tiJ h5 13 . .ixg7 tiJxg7 (His
situation would be even worse af­
ter 13 . . . 1!ixg7 - Black's knight at
the edge of the board will be an
excellent target for attack by
White's pieces. 14.i.e2 f6 15.f4
fxg5 16 . .ixh5 gxh5, Boguslavsky ­
Vajda, France 2 007. Here, he had
to follow with 17J'!hg1 ! +-, begin­
ning a decisive attack.) 14.h4 Wffe 7
15.f4± Fercec - Jurkovic, Zagreb
2010.
Black's position would not be
any better after ll . . . tiJd7 12 . .ixg7
l!ixg7 13.h4 h6 14.i.e2 f6 15.f4±
White's four attacking pawns,
supported by his pieces, seem
very threatening for Black's king,
Trujillo - Anic, Mesa 1992.
He cannot equalise even after
the more prudent approach 11 .. .
c6 12.Wb1 ! ? , for example: 12 .. .
Wff a5 (following 12 . . . b5 13.g5 tiJe8
14.h4 b4 15.tiJe2± White's pawn­
offensive develops much faster,
Okrugin, - Korensky, Tula 2004)
13.g5 tiJh5 14 . .ixg7 l!ixg7 15.f4;t
The vulnerability of Black's d6-
pawn and his misplaced knight at
the edge of the board guarantee
an advantage for White, Turov -
Hoi, Copenhagen 2002.
12 . .ie3 ¥5a5 13 . .ih6
White should better trade
Black's fianchettoed bishop, since
its pressure on the long diagonal
may become very dangerous.
13 ... hh6
13 . . . b5? This move loses ma­
terial for Black. 14 . .ixg7 l!ixg7 15.
tiJxb5 ¥5xa2 (15 ... Wffxd2 + 16.
�xd2+-) 16.Wffc3. This pin of
the knight is decisive. 16 . . . h6
17.h4 �h8 18.�g1 d5 19.g5 1-0 Lu­
tzenberger - Epinoux, Email
2001.
Black loses immediately fol­
lowing 13 . . . .ixa2?? 14 . .ixg7 l!ixg7
15.tiJxa2 Wffxa2 16.Wffc3+- and he
cannot avoid the loss of a piece,
because of the pin, Yurtaev - Be­
liavsky, Frunze 1979.
Black's position remains very
difficult after 13 . . . �fd8 14 . .ixg7
l!ixg7 15.h4 h5 (Naturally, it would
be senseless for him to capture
the a2-pawn 15 . . . .ixa2, Najer -
Mamedyarov, Khanty-Man�iysk
2013, because after . 16.h5+-,
White's attack is decisive.) 16.
gxh5 tiJxh5 17.�gl±, followed by
215
Chapter 15

joining of White's f-pawn into the

attack against the g6-square, Yur­
taev - Gulko, Frunze 1985.

14.ti'xh6 b5
Black must be in a hurry; oth­
erwise, White will simply open
the h-file and will checkmate.
Now, Black wishes to sacrifice a
pawn and create counterplay on
the b-file.
18 .ba2
•••

It would be too irresponsible

for him to opt for 14 . . . .ixa2? !
15.h4, for example: 1 5 . . . �e6 16.h5
Wic7 (He loses immediately fol­
lowing 16 . . J!:fe8 17.i.b5 :1'!:e7 18.
WigS 1-0 Noseda - Koegler, ICCF
1996.) 17.lt:Jb5 Wie7 18.lt:Jxd6 lt:Jd7
19.f4 hg4 20 .i.c4 \t>h8 21.lt:Jxf7+
:1'!:xf7 22 . .bf'7 gxh5, Hennigan -
Westerinen, Gausdal 1995, 23.
:1'!:xd7! hd7 24.Wixh5 Wixe4 25.
Wih6 :1'!:g8 26.Wif6+ :1'!:g7 27.:1'!:d1+-
15 .bb5 gabS 16. ti'f4
• :1'!:xb8 :1'!:xb8 24.:1'!:xe6+-
White concentrates his forces
on the d6-square.
16 ••• lt:Je8
The tactical complications af­
ter 16 . . . d5 do not promise any­
thing good for Black. 17.Wixf6 d4
18.a4 :1'!:b6, Schreiber - Toscano,
ICCF 1996. Here, White's sim­
plest decision would be to enter
an endgame with extra material
19.Wie5 ! dxc3 20.Wixc3 Wixc3 21.
bxc3±.
17 .be8 gfxe8 ts.gxd6
• tjubinsk 1985, 25.h5 ! + -
Black cannot achieve much
with the sacrifice - 18 . . . :1'!:xb2 19.
\t>xb2 :1'!:b8+ 20.\t>cl Wixc3, Arse­
niev - Mishuchkov, Ivanovo
1982, because after 2 1.:1'!:d3 !±,
White has excellent chances of re­
alising his extra exchange.
19.ti'f6 J.e6 20.ghdl Wial+
2t.c�d2 ti'a5
21.. .Wixb2? 22 .:1'!:b1 Wia3 23.
22.\t>e3±
White's king has not only
abandoned the queenside, which
has been destroyed by Black's
pieces, but is ready to take part in
the attack - \t>e3-f4-g5-h6 !
22 .•• c4
Black loses immediately after
22 . . . :1'!:xb2? 23.:1'!:xe6+- Korneev -
Garcia Castro, Pontevedra 2003.
23.h4 �b2 24. \!Jf4 gb6,
Tseshkovsky - Vorotnikov, Ak­

216
 l.d4 d6 2.e4 t'iJf6 3. t'iJc3 g6 4. :ie3 :ig7 5. 'f!d2
C) 5 ••• l0g4
This manoeuvre of the knight
(followed by h7-h6 and g6-g5),
with the idea to attack the bishop
on e3, is not so well justified as in
some variations of the King's In­
dian Defence.
The point is that the position is
more opened and it would be eas­
ier for White to exploit the mis­
placement of Black's knight on g4
and the vulnerability of his entire
kingside.
6.:ig5
6 ... h6
Black continue the chase after
the enemy bishop.
It is worse for him to play with
the same idea 6 . . .f6, since with
this move he covers the diagonal
of his bishop. 7.:ih4 eS 8.t'iJf3 ih6
(after 8 . . . 0-0 9.dxe5 t'iJxeS 10.
t'iJxeS dxeS ll.'f!xd8 E:xd8 12.t'iJd5
t'iJc6 13.t'iJxc7 E:b8 14.c3±, Black
has no compensation for the pawn
in this endgame) 9.'f!d1 exd4 10.
t'iJxd4 t'iJeS ll.:ie2 t'iJbc6, Makka -
Sklavounos, Nikea 2002. Here,
White maintains a great advan­
tage after the energetic line: 12.
t'iJdS 0-0 13.t'iJb5± and his attack
against Black's pawns on c7 and
f6 is crowned with success.
The endgame is worse for
Black following 6 . . . c5 7.dxc5 dxcS
8.f3, for example: 8 . . . 'f!xd2+ 9.
ixd2 t'iJf6 lO.lt:lbS t'iJa6 11.0-0-0
0-0 12 .ie3 ie6 13.a3 E:fc8 14.
t'iJe2 t'iJc7 15.t'iJxc7 E:xc7 16.t'iJf4
:ih6, Timoscenko - Efimov, Pula
1997. Now, White has to get rid of
the unpleasant pin with the move
17.\t>b1!? and he will be threaten­
ing t'iJxe6 and can play :ic1 at any
moment. 17 . . . E:d7 18.:ie2 ix£4
19.ixf4t - His two-bishop advan­
tage is a quite meaningful factor
in this endgame.
7.:ih4
(diagram)
7 c6
•••
Besides this move, preparing
b7-b5, Black can try numerous
other moves, but this does not
mean that they are good. In· fact,
in all the variations, he remains
too far from equality.
217
Chapter 15
7 . . . lLlf6 Naturally, this retreat
of the knight cannot provide Black
with an acceptable game. 8.f4
This is White's most energetic re­
source to exploit Black's rather
slow play. The idea is to advance
e4-e5 as quickly as possible. 8 . . .
b 6 9.0-0-0 .ib7 10 .e5 dxeS 11.
fxeS lLldS 12.lLlf3 0-0 13 . .ic4;!;
White's pieces have occupied ac­
tive positions, while Black's bish­
op on g7 is severely restricted by
his own pawn on eS, Short - Be­
liavsky, Groningen 1997.
7 . . . lLlc6. This is a logical idea.
Black exploits the absence of the
bishop on e3 and increases his
pressure against the enemy d4-
pawn. 8.h3 lLlf6 9.lLlf3. This move
is forced (The line: 9.f4 e5 10.dxe5
can be countered by Black with
the elegant tactical strike 10 . . .
lLlxe4 ! ? and his prospects would
not be worse at all, Leventic -
Oreskovic, Osijek 2012.) 9 . . . 0-0
lO .dS lLleS ll.lLlxeS dxeS, Perez
Garcia - Herman, Seville 2000.
Here, White should have pre­
pared castling kingside and after
12 . .ie2 a6 13.0-0 '!Wd6 14J!adU,
218
his prospects would be preferable
thanks to his superior pawn­
structure.
7 . . . lLld7. Black is preparing c7-
c5. 8 . .ie2 lLlgf6 9.f4 cS 10 .d5 0-0
ll.lLlf3. White is perfectly ready to
advance e4-e5 and Black tried a
pawn-sacrifice in several games
in order to deflect his opponent
from his planned offensive in the
centre. ll . . . bS 12 ..ixb5 E:b8 13.
0-0 a6 (13 ... '\WaS 14.e5± White
not only has an extra pawn, but
also dominates in the centre,
Kharlov - Kaiszauri, Stockholm
1992) 14 . .ixd7 lLlxd7 15.E:abU
Black's bishop-pair does not com­
pensate completely White's extra
pawn, Yemelin - Lugovoi, Haf­
narfjordur 1998.
Following 7 ... 0-0 8.0-0-0,
Black's best response would be
8 . . . lLlc6 (The move 8 . . . lLla6, after
9.h3 lLlf6 10.f4 cS ll.lLlf3 cxd4 12.
lLlxd4±, leads to a favourable posi­
tion for White, since Black's knight
is misplaced on the a6-square and
White is well prepared to push e4-
e5, T. Kosintseva - Annaberdiev,
Moscow 2005.) 9.lLlf3, Adams -
Beliavsky, Tilburg 1992.
 l.d4 d6 2.e4 l!Jf6 3. l!Jc3 g6 4. ie3 ig7 5. Wld2
Here, Beliavsky continued a
bit too actively - 9 . . .f5 (He had
better play more prudently, for
example : 9 . . . a6 ! ?t and Black's po­
sition would have been worse, but
still playable.) and after 10.exf5
h£5 ll.h3 l!Jf6 12 .d5 l!Jb4 13.
l!Jd4±, White was clearly better,
because the e6-square was horri­
bly weak in Black's camp.
7 . . . g5 8.�g3
It is obviously bad for Black to
choose here 8 . . . h5? ! in view of
9.h4± and his kingside will be in
ruins, Gazis - Utasi, Nikea 1985.
His attempt to exert pressure
against the d4-square backfires
after 8 . . . l!Jc6 and 9.f3 l!Jf6 10.
0-0-0 l!Jh5 ll.�f2±. White has
not only protected reliably his d4-
pawn, but has avoided the trade
of the dark-squared bishops, Ar­
delean - Csala, Hungary 2010.
Now, in order to exploit the weak­
ening of Black's kingside pawn­
structure, he only needs to ad­
vance h2-h4.
Following 8 . . .f5, there is a
good example of an excellent play
by White and it is the game Na­
vara - Rahman, Mallorca 2004,
in which he exchanged at first the
light-squared bishops and then
transferred his knight to the e6-
outpost: 9.exf5 ! h£5 10.�d3 Wld7
ll.l!Jge2 l!Jc6 12.f3 l!Jf6 13.d5 l!Jb4
14.hf5 \&xf5 15.0-0-0 c6 16.l!Jd4
Wld7 17.l!Je6± White has realised
completely his plan with the
transfer of his knight and Black is
in a serious trouble.
8 . . . e5 9.l!Jge2 exd4 (9 . . . h5.
This move only leads to a further
weakening of Black's kingside.
10.h4 ih6 ll.hxg5 .bg5 12.f4 exf4
13.hf4 hf4 14.l!Jxf4± White
must castle queenside here
and develop his bishop to c4
and Black will have great prob­
lems with his undeveloped piec­
es and his king, stranded in the
centre, as well as with the protec­
tion of his pawns on h5 and f7,
Cheparinov - Shirazi, Golden
Sands 2012.) 10.l!Jxd4 l!Jc6 11.
l!Jxc6 bxc6 12 .h4 E:b8 13.0-0-0
�e6 14.f3 l!Je5 15.hxg5 hxg5 16.
E:xh8+ hh8, Kosov - Ni, Orsha
2008, 17.�f2t White has a supe­
rior pawn-structure and his king
is much safer than its counter­
part. All this provides him with a
slight edge, although Black's
counterplay should not be under
estimated.
8.f4
(diagram)
8 .. b5
.
8 . . . g5. This is an interesting
pawn-sacrifice, but still insuffi­
cient for equality. 9.fxg5 hxg5 10.
2 19
Chapter 15
.ixgS '!Wb6 11.ltlf3 lt:ld7 12 .�c4;!;
Sariego - Sisniega, Linares 1992 .
Black does not have sufficient
compensation for the pawn and
cannot restore the material bal­
ance, because after 12 . . . '\Wxb2?!
13.E:b1 '!Wa3, White can inflict a
tactical strike - 14 . .ixe7!±, ending
up in a clearly better position,
since his bishop is untouchable:
14 . . . 'it>xe7? 15.E:b3 '!WaS 16.lt:ld5+
cxdS 17.'\WxaS dxc4 18.E:c3+-,
Black's three minor pieces are in­
sufficient to compensate the ene­
my queen, because his forces are
not well coordinated.
It would be useless for Black to
try 8 . . . '1Wb6, in view of 9.0-0-0
lt:ld7 10.ltlf3± and his position re­
mains very difficult due to his lag
in development and the mis­
placed knight on g4, Drenchev ­
Mishkovski, Sofia 2003.
Following 8 ... lt:lf6 9.0-0-0
0-0 10 .i.d3 bS ll.e5;!;, White's
prospects are preferable, since his
play in the centre develops much
faster than Black's queenside
counterplay.
220
9.c!LlfJ b4
9 . . . 0-0 10.id3 lt:ld7 ll.h3
lt:lgf6 12.e5 b4 13.ltle2;!; White's
position looks preferable thanks
to his dominance in the centre.
Later, in the game Vorobiov - Ko­
rotylev, Pardubice 2001, Black
decided to sacrifice rather dubi­
ously a pawn and as a result of
this his position worsened consid­
erably. 13 . . . lt:ld5 14.exd6 lt:l7f6 15.
dxe7 Wlxe7 16.lt:le5± White has not
only an extra pawn but his cen­
tralised knight is very powerful.
lO.c!Lldl Wlb6
This position was reached in
the game E.Sveshnikov - Beliav­
sky, Minsk 1979. White could have
begun advantageous actions in
the centre even prior to the com­
pletion of his development with
the move ll.e5! Black has prob­
lems with his knight on g4. 11 •••
dxe5 12.fxe5 h5. White inflicts a
strike now on the other side of the
board. 13.a3 ! b3 14.cxb3 ti'xb3
ts.gcl .Ae6 16 .Ad3 .Ah6 17.
•
.Ag5± Black has a very difficult
 l.d4 d6 2.e4 li:Jf6 3. li:J c3 g6 4. 1i.e3 1g7 5. 'ff d2
position. His c6-pawn is weak and
White's pieces are much better
developed.
D) 5 ••• 0-0
This is a very risky move.
Black's king castles right under
the attack. When I look at this
move, I remember the words of
M.Servantes : "Bravery on the
verge of foolhardy is much closer
to madness than to tenacity".
6.0-0-0
6 • . • c6
White's plan is quite clear. He
will attack on the kingside, so
Black must organise counterplay
on the queenside as quickly as
possible.
About 6 . . . li:Jc6 7.f3 eS 8.li:Jge2
- see variation B.
6 . . . li:Jbd7 7.i.h6 eS (It is bad for
Black to opt for 7 . . . c6, because in
a position with attacks on both
sides of the board, White will be
evidently faster. 8.h4 'ff a S, Novak
- Mandie, Porec 2010, 9 . .hg7
<.!txg7 10.h5-. Black's position is
very difficult, because he loses im­
mediately following 10 ... li:Jxh5?,
due to ll.g4 li:Jhf6 12.'ffh 6+ <.!lg8
13.g5 li:JhS 14.i.e2 +- and his king
will be soon checkmated.) 8 . .hg7
<.!txg7 9.f4 Vffe 7 10.li:Jf3;!; White
dominates in the centre and can
deploy his pieces to very active
positions, Tarasov - Afanasiev,
Moscow 2012.
Black ends up in a bad posi­
tion after 6 . . . li:Jg4 7.i.g5 cS 8.dxc5
'ff aS 9.li:Jh3 dxcS 10 . .he7 �e8
ll.'ffd 8! White simplifies the
game with a temporary queen­
sacrifice and transfers into an
endgame with an extra pawn, for
which Black does not have suffi­
cient compensation. ll . . . �xd8
(He should better give up a pawn,
since his attempt to organise
counterplay with ll . . . i.h6+ 12.
<.!tb1 �xd8 13.�xd8+ <.!lg7, leads af­
ter 14.�xc8 li:Jc6 15.�xa8 li:Jxe7 16.
�e2±, to a position in which
White's two rooks and a pawn are
obviously stronger than Black's
queen.) 12.�xd8+ '!Wxd8 13.hd8±
Yudasin - Azmaiparashvili, Kuj­
byshev 1986.
7. .ih6
(diagram)
7 b5
•••
7 . . . hh6 8.'ffxh6 bS (or 8 . . .
li:Jg4 9.'1Wh4 e S 10.'1Wg3 fS n. ic4+
<.!th8 12 .h3 WigS+ 13.<.!tb1 f4 14.
'fff3 li:Jf6, Spiridonov - Weggen,
221
Chapter 15
IECG 2000 and here White main­
tains an advantage following 15.
�e2± and then lLlf3, because
Black cannot capture the pawn,
since he loses his queen: 15 . . .
�xg2?? 16.lLlf3 exd4 17.1!h2+-)
9.e5. This pawn-break leads by
force to a better endgame for
White. 9 . . . dxe5 lO.dxeS l2:Jg4 11.
1!xd8 l2:Jxh6 12.1!xf8+ 'it>xf8 13.h3
lLJd7 14.lLlf3 lLlc5, Eckert - Sutton,
ICCF 2005, 15.lLld4 ib7 16.g4
1!d8 17.lLlce2;!;, Black's pieces (the
knight on h6 and the bishop on
b7) are evidently misplaced.
7 . . . �a5 8.f3
About 8 . . . b5 9.'it>b1 - see 7 . . .
bS.
Following 8 . . .hh6 9.�xh6
�hS 10.�d2 'it>g7 11.g4;!;, White
222
has succeeded in avoiding th e
trade of the queens and is ready to
begin his standard pawn-offen­
sive on the kingside, Zapata -
Rosch, Panama 2011.
The central pawn-break 8 ... e5
does not promise equality for
Black. 9 . .bg7 'it>xg7 10 .g4 l2:Jbd7
11.h4 hS 12 .g5 lLJe8 13.f4 exf4 14.
�xf4 bS 15.'it>b1 b4 16.lLlce2 lLlb6,
Del Pozo - Martinez Vicente, San
Javier 1995. Now, White's most
precise move is 17.lLlc1 ! ?± and his
knight protects reliably his king
and he can develop effortlessly his
kingside initiative.
After 8 . . . l2:Jbd7 9.h4 bS, White's
attack develops faster and he can
even sacrifice his a2-pawn. 10 .h5
b4 11.lLlb1 �xa2 12.hxg6 fxg6 13.
.bg7 'it>xg7 14.'11;lih6+ 'it>g8 15.lLlh3±
- His knight is headed for the gS­
square and despite the extra pawn
Black's position is very difficult,
Lane - Reilly, Melbourne 1999.
8.f3
8 . . . ti'a5
About 8 . . . b4 9.lLJce2 �aS 10.
'it>b1 - see 8 . . . �a5.
 l.d4 d6 2.e4 liJf6 3. liJ c3 g6 4. ie3 iJ.g7 5. �d2
Following 8 . . . aS 9.h4, White's
attack is faster, for example: 9 . . .
a 4 (after 9 . . .b 4 10.liJa4±, Black's
pawn-onslaught reaches its dead
end; it would be too slow for him
to opt for 9 . . . l:!e8 10.hg7 'it>xg7
11.hS± Reitinger - Spacek, Svetla
nad Sazavou 199S) 10 .hS b4 11.
liJb1 b3 12.axb3 axb3 13.hxg6 fxg6
(Black loses immediately after
13 . . . bxc2 14.gxh7+ 'it>h8 1S.iJ.xg7+
'it>xg7 16.h8�+ l:!xh8 17.�gS+ 1-0
Spanton - Csoma, Email 2 009.)
14.1J.c4+ dS 1S . .bb3± and White
not only has a powerful attack,
but an extra pawn as well, Tal­
macsi - Amann, Email 2002.
It seems too risky for Black to
choose 8 . . . .bh6, since following
9.�xh6, White's queen is placed
too close to Black's monarch. 9 .. .
b4 10.liJce2 �as 11.'it>b1 cS (11 . . .
iJ.e6 12.liJc1 l:!c8 13.h4 �d8 14.
liJge2 �f8 1S.�d2 aS 16.liJf4± He
has managed to oust White's
queen, but this is just small con­
solation for Black, since after
White advances h4-hS, the cas­
tling position of Black's king will
come under the attack of White's
pieces, Efimov - Sarno, Reggio
Emilia 1998.) 12 .h4 liJc6 13.hS±
and once again, in attacks on both
sides of the board, White is much
ahead of his opponent, Aldama
Degurnay - Felecan, ICC 2010.
9.'it>bl b4 10.li:Jce2
(diagram)
10 ••• i.e6
Black has no time to prepare
the undermining of White's cen­
tre, because after 10 . . . liJbd7 11.h4
cS 12 .hS c4 13.hxg6 fxg6 14 ..bg7
'it>xg7, Matikozian - Minasian,
Yerevan 1999, he can obtain a de­
cisive advantage with 1S.�h6+
'it>g8 16.liJf4 iJ.a6 17.liJgh3 +-, fol­
lowed by liJgS and Black is incapa­
ble of holding his h7-pawn and
the f7-square.
ll.liJcl.
White's knight protects relia­
bly again the a2-pawn and Black's
attack has been parried.
ll ••• lL!bd7
11 . . . �b6. This is an attempt to
bring the a7-pawn into the attack,
but this takes too much time. 12.
h4 aS 13.hS± and White's attack is
evidently faster, Adams - Robin­
son, Ebbw Vale 1998.
12.h4 lL!b6
The character of the fight re­
mains more or less the same fol­
lowing 12 . . . l:!fb8 13 . .bg7 'it>xg7
14.hS± Black's position is very dif­
ficult, Gelis - Skripchenko, Le
Port Marly 2009.
13 .ixg7 <llxg7 14.h5± white's
•
attack is running smoothly, while
Black's queenside counterplay is
223
Chapter 15
parried by White's knight on c1,
which not only protects the key
a2-square, but can eventually (for
example after lt:lb6-a4-c3) cover
the b-file as well (lt:lb3).
E) s . . . c6
This is a very popular move for
Black. He relies, quite deservedly,
that his king may be better placed
in the centre than on the kingside.
�
With his last move he prepares a
queen-sort · to the aS-square as
well as the wn-advance b7-b5.
6 .ih6 .ixh6
• helpless against the threats lt:ldS
This is the most logical move.
In this variation Black's king is
better placed in the centre of the
board than on the kingside where
it may come under the attack of
White's pieces.
6 . . . 0-0 7.0-0-0 - see varia­
tion D.
7.ti'xh6
(diagram)
7 ti'a5
•••
Black is trying to exploit the
defencelessness of White's e4-
pawn.
224
7 ... ti'b6. Although in this vari­
ation White castles more often on
the kingside, but it seems useless
for Black to lose a tempo in order
to force the opponent to castle
queenside. 8.0-0-0 ti'aS (Open­
ing of the game in the centre with
8 . . . c5 seems very risky for Black
having in mind his lag in develop­
ment. 9 . .ib5+ .id7, Kralova -
Drljevic, Plovdiv 2010. Now,
White can begin a decisive attack
with 10.e5! cxd4 ll.exf6 dxc3 12.
Vfig7 !US 13.fxe7 'it>xe7 14.ltle2 ! !
cxb2+ 15.'it>b1 .bb5 16.lt:lc3+- and
despite his extra piece, Black is
and E:hel.) 9 . .ie2 .ie6 10.a3 lt:lbd7
ll.ltlf3 0-0-0 12.ltlg5;!;, followed
by an exchange on e6 and White
will have not only a space advan­
tage, but a superior pawn-struc­
ture as well.
7 . . . lt:lbd7. This move seems to
be too slow. 8.0-0-0 VfiaS (It may
be interesting for Black to try 8 . . .
e S , but White's simplest reaction
is 9.f3 ! ?, protecting reliably the
pawn on e4. 9 . . . 'ffe 7 10.h4 lt:lb6,
Shadrina - Podshibikhin, Kstovo
 l.d4 d6 2.e4 tiJj6 3. tiJ c3 g6 4. i.e3 i.g7 5. Wff d2
2011. Here, he could have ob­
tained an advantage with the sur­
prising inclusion of the a-pawn
into the actions : ll.a4 ! ? !e6 12.a5
exd4 - Black loses after 12 . . .
t'iJbd7? 13.d5 ! - 13.E:xd4 t'iJbd7 14.
t'iJge2 0-0-0 15.Wffe 3 t'iJe5 16.t'iJf4;!;
and he has less space and his d6-
pawn is very weak.) 9.t'iJf3
9 . . . t'iJb6 lO.eS dxeS ll.dxeS
t'iJfdS 12.t'iJxd5 t'iJxdS (It is bad for
Black to opt for 12 . . . cxd5?, in view
of 13.Wffg 7 E:f8, Sherzer - Kaka­
geldyev, Biel 1993 and White wins
the exchange after 14.t'iJg5+-) 13.
!c4 !e6 14 . .ib3 0-0-0 15.t'iJd4
Wffc7 16.E:heU He has more space
and can compromise Black's
pawn-structure at any moment
after t'iJe6.
Following 9 ... Wffh 5, White
should better avoid the exchange
of the queens 10.Wffd 2;!; - he has a
powerful centre and a superior
development, Madl - Lorcher,
Budapest 1990.
It would be a mistake for Black
to choose 9 . . . e5? ! due to 10.!c4 ! ±
and i t becomes inconceivable why
Black has played Wff aS in the first
place, since with a pawn on eS, his
queen is better placed on e7.
It seems too precarious for
him to opt for 9 . . . b5, since White
can counter that with 10.e5.
Opening of the centre is advanta­
geous for him, because he is bet­
ter developed and Black's king is
stranded in the centre. lO . . . dxeS
ll.dxeS t'iJg4, A.Muzychuk - Zhor­
zholiani, Tbilisi 2009, 12.Wffg7! ?
E:f8 13.e6 ! This i s a very instruc­
tive example of an attack against
"a non-castled king". 13 . . . t'iJdf6
14.t'iJd4 i.b7 15.t'iJdxb5 fxe6 (Black
loses immediately after 15 . . . t'iJxf2?
due to 16.!c4 ! fxe6 17.E:he1 t'iJxd1
18.t'iJd6 + ! 'i!id7 19.E:xd1+-) 16.
t'iJd6+ exd6 17.Wffxb7, White's
prospects are obviously prefera­
ble. It is possible that Black's best
chance may be to trade the queens
with 17 . . . Wffb 6, but this will lose
the d6-pawn for him.
After 7 . . . e5, the position re­
sembles the open games. 8.dxe5
dxeS 9.t'iJf3 Wffe 7 10 .!c4
10 . . . t'iJbd7 (10 . . . b5 ll.i.b3 .ie6
12.t'iJg5 .ixb3 13.axb3 t'iJbd7 14.
0-0 t'iJg8 15.Wffg7 Wfff6 16.Wffxf6
t'iJgxf6 17.E:a6;!; - In the endgame,
Black has weak pawns on a7 and
c6, Salgado Lopez - Pancevski,
225
Chapter 15

Plovdiv 2012.) 11.lLlg5 gf8 12.tLlxh7

lLlxh7 13.W/xh7. White has man­
aged to win a pawn and Black's at­
tempt to regain it is connected
with a risky queen-sortie, while his
other pieces are not developed.
13 . . .W/g5 14.h4 W/xg2 (following
14 . . .W/f4 15.W/g7 We7 16 . .ie2 W/f6
17.W/xf6+ lLlxf6 18.Wd2±, there
arises an endgame with an extra 18.W/d4:t White has evacuated his
pawn for White, Fedorchuk - Zo­ king away from the queenside to
zulia, Tarragona 2006) 15.0-0-0 the centre of the board and Black's
bS 16 . .ib3 aS 17.h5 gxhS (Black is compensation for the sacrificed
lost after 17 ... a4? 18 . .ixf7+ ! gxf7 pawn is insufficient.) 13.gxd2 a6
19.hxg6 ! +-, White's passed pawn 14.gxd5:t - He does not have
will promote unavoidably.) 18. enough for the missing pawn.
W/xhS± Black has succeeded in re­ Naturally, White should play very
storing the material balance in­ carefully later, since he lags in de­
deed, but his position remains velopment as a result of going af­
very difficult due to his lag in de­ ter material.
velopment. His attempt to cap­
ture the enemy bishop with 18 . . . .
8 .td3
a4? loses by force: 1 9 . .ixf7+ ! gxf7
20.gxd7! hd7 21.W/xe5+-

!r
! e move 7 ... b5 leads after
8.e5 to the opening of the position
in the centre and White is much
better prepared for that. 8 . . . dxe5
(It would be too risky for Black to
continue with 8 . . . b4 9.lLlce2 tLldS
10.lLlf3 lLla6 ll.lLlg3 lLlac7 12 .W/g7
gf8 13.W/xh7± White has an extra
pawn and a good position.) 9.
dxeS tLldS 10.0-0-0 Now, contrary to the majority
(diagram) of the variations, which we have
10 . . . W/a5. This is an interesting analysed in this chapter, White
attempt to complicate the game plans to castle kingside and not
by sacrificing a pawn. ll.lLlxdS queenside.
cxdS 12 .W/d2 W/xd2+ (12 .. .'�xa2 8 ... c5
13 . .ixb5+ Wf8 14.W/xd5 W/a1+ 15. Black wishes to organise coun­
Wd2 W/a5+ 16. We2 W/b6 17.c4 Wg7 terplay on the dark squares.

226
 l.d4 d6 2.e4 !i:Jf6 3. !i:J c3 g6 4 . .ie3 .ig7 5. Wid2
8 . . . Wib6. He lags in develop­
ment, so this attempt to win a
pawn looks very dubious. 9.!i:Jge2
Wixb2? ! (It is possible that Black
had better play here 9 . . . !i:Jbd7
10.0-0, although even then,
White maintains an edge.) 10.
0-0 Wia3 (Black loses immedi­
ately following 10 ... b5? ll.a3+­
and his queen is doomed to re­
main on b2.) 11.f4± White has de­
veloped all his pieces, while only
Black's queen, knight and king
are in the centre. His extra pawn
is absolutely immaterial and he
is practically helpless against
White's central pawn-break - e4-
e5.
8 ... !i:Ja6. Black wishes to ex­
change the enemy bishop on d3.
9.!i:Jge2 !i:Jb4 10.0-0
10 . . . Wih5 (It seems too original
for him to try 10 . . . !i:Jxd3 ll.cxd3
.id7 12 .h3 E:g8, Santo Roman -
Granda Zuniga, Las Palmas 1991.
White could have seized the initi­
ative on the queenside with the
move 13.b4 ! , for example: 13 . . .
Wic7 14.f4±, o r 1 3 . . . Wixb4 14.e5
dxeS 15.dxe5 !i:JhS 16.Wixh7 E:f8
17.E:ab1 WiaS 18.E:xb7 WixeS 19.
Wih6± - his pieces are very active,
while Black's rooks are not con­
nected yet and his king, stranded
in the centre, does not beautify
his position either.) ll.Wid2 !i:Jxd3
12.cxd3. This is better for White
than capturing with the queen,
because he fortifies his e4-pawn
(against the possibility d6-d5).
12 . . . 0-0 13.f4 Wih6 14.h3 dS (After
14 . . . .ie6, White obtains a slight
edge by transferring his knight to
the e3-square. 15.!i:Jdl ! ? aS 16.
!i:Je3;J;, followed by E:f3, E:afl (or
!i:Jg3 and Wif2) and the prepara­
tion of the pawn-advance f4-f5.
He has a clear-cut plan for his fur­
ther actions, which cannot be said
for Black at all. He cannot equal­
ise with 14 . . . e5, because after 15.
E:ad1 exf4 16.!i:Jxf4 Wig7 17.E:f3,
Adams - McNab, Blackpool 1990,
White maintains an advantage
thanks to his dominance in the
centre and the possibility for ac­
tive operations on the semi-open
f-file. After Black weakened care­
lessly his castling position with
the line: 17 . . . g5? ! 18.E:g3 h6 19.E:f1
'it>h8 20.e5 dxeS 21.dxe5 !i:Jh7
22 .d4±, White's advantage be­
came almost decisive.) 15.Wie3
dxe4 16.dxe4 b6, Van der Wiel -
Ftacnik, Haninge 1989, 17.E:acU
- He has a powerful centre, while
Black's c6-pawn may turn out to
be very weak, moreover that his
queen is obviously misplaced on
h6.
8 ... b5. This attempt to create
counterplay with the help of the
227
Chapter 15
b-pawn leads only to the appear­
ance of additional pawn-weak­
nesses in Black's camp. 9.ltlf3 b4
10.ltle2
10 . . .b3+ 11.c3 ia6 12 . .ba6
lt:lxa6 13.e5 lt:ld5 14. 0-0 bxa2 15.
lt:lcl± Mirzoev - Movsziszian, La
Pobla de Lillet 2007. Naturally,
White will capture easily the
pawn on a2 and Black will remain
with weaknesses on a7 and h7
(�g7!).
10 . . .i.a6 11.ixa6 lt:lxa6 12.e5±
- After the retreat of the knight,
Black may have problems with
�
the {r ction of his kingside
pawns (following �g7 or lt:lg5),
Castro - Barata, Vila Real 2005.
10 ... lt:lbd7 11.0-0 e5 12.a3± -
The weaknesses on Black's queen­
side are becoming a telling factor,
Kupreichik - Sznapik, Zenica
1985.
10 ... i.g4 11.lt:lg5 ixe2 12 .ixe2
lt:lbd7, Vesselovsky - Korotylev,
Moscow 1994, 13.0-0± - He can
hardly find a safe haven for his
king.
8 . . . lt:lbd7. This is a very flexible
move with which Black conceals
his plans for the moment. 9.lt:lf3
228
About 9 . . .b5 10.0-0 b4 11.ltle2
- see 8 . . . b5.
9 . . . e5. Black solves radically
the problem with White's central
pawn-break e4-e5. 10.dxe5 dxe5
11.0-0 �c5 12.a4, Hodgson -
Fyfe, Aberdeen 1996, 12 . . . a5 The
knight on c3 is restricted in its
mobility by Black's pawn on c6, so
White must find a more active po­
sition for it. He can achieve this
with the move 13.ltlb1 ! ;t and the
knight will be transferred to c4 via
the d2-square.
After 9 . . . c5, there arise posi­
tions, which are more typical for
the Sicilian Defence. 10.0-0-0
cxd4 11.lt:lxd4;t White has already
completed his development, while
Black's king is still stranded in the
centre of the board. 11 . . . lt:lg4 (It
would be more reliable for him to
choose 11 . . . a6 !?, although even
then White preserves an edge.)
12.�h4 lt:ldf6 13.i.b5+ mf8 14.h3
and Black's position is very diffi­
cult, Ayas Fernandez - Cuijpers,
Sitges 1999. For example, the re­
treat of the knight 14 . . . lt:le5, after
15.�h6+ 'it>g8 16.f4 lt:led7 17.
:Bhe1+-, leads to a position in
which despite the material equal­
ity, Black can simply resign.
 l.d4 d6 2.e4 tDf6 3. tDc3 g6 4. i.e3 1Lg7 5. Wff d2
Following 9 . . . Wffh 5, Black wish­
es to trade the queens, but White
should better avoid this, since he
will have good attacking chances
against the enemy king in the
middle game. 10.Wffd 2
10 . . . c5 11.i.e2 cxd4 12.tDxd4
Wffc5 13.f4 tDb6 14.0-0-0;!; and in
the game Arzumanian - Zakha­
revich, Tula 2002, White ad­
vanced after a while e4-e5 and
scored a full point.
10 . . . 0-0 11.tDe2. He is trans­
ferring his knight to g3 is order to
exploit the misplacement of the
enemy queen. 11 . . . e5 12.tDg3 Wffg4
13.0-0 Ei:e8 14.:1'1fe1 'it>g7 15.h3
Wfff4, Lerner - Kantsler, Haifa
2008, 16.dxe5 dxe5 17.Wffc3;!; -
The weakness on e5 will cause
great problems for Black (White
can out the enemy queen away
from the protection of the e5-
pawn at any moment with the
move tDe2.).
10 ... Wff a 5. Naturally, the retreat
of the queen cannot equalise for
Black. 11.0-0 0-0 (following 11 . . .
Wffc7 12.Wffh 6±, h e cannot castle
kingside, Nelson - McFarland,
Newcastle on Tyne 1995) 12.tDd5
Wffd 8 13.tDxf6+ exf6. Black is
forced to comply with the dou­
bling of his pawns (It would be
just bad for him to opt for 13 . . .
tDxf6? ! , because of 14.e5±, fol­
lowed by Wffh 6 with a powerful at­
tack.) 14.:1'i:ae1 Ei:e8 15.h3;!; White
has a superior pawn-structure
and is dominant in the centre,
Alvarez - Henriquez Garcia, Mesa
1992.
9.d5
White is occupying space.
9 . . . tDbd7 10)ijf3
10 . . b5
.
It is understandable that Black
wishes to create counterplay, but
it is well known that "pawns can­
not go back". Later, his pawn­
weaknesses may tell.
In the main variations, he has
nothing to brag about, so maybe
the least of evils for Black may
be 10 . . . c4 ! ? , although even then
after 11.i.xc4 Wffc5 12 .i.d3 Wffxf2 +
13.'it>xf2 tDg4+ 14.'it>g3 tDxh6 15.
Ei:heU, White has better pr.ospects
in the endgame mostly thanks to
the misplacement of the enemy
229
Chapter 15

knight at the edge of the board,

Van Kampen - Cuijpers, Nether­
lands 2012.

11.0-0 c4 12 .ie2 b4 13.�dl

•

ti'cS
13 . . . �xe4 14 . .ixc4± - Opening
of the e-file is obviously in favour
of White with Black's king in the
centre of the board.
14.�g5 !
White not only defends his e4-
pawn, but eyes Black's main
weakness in this position - the
pawn on h7!
14 ••• �e5 15.�e3 aS 16.a3
White is opening a second
front.
16 gbs 17.axb4 gxb4 18.
•••
ga2 ti'b6 19.gfal l:!xb2 20.gxa5
gbl + 21 .ifl gxal 22.gxal .ia6
• of the board becomes the decisive
23.h3 �d7
(diagram)
In the game Pert - McNab,
England 20110White overlooked
the possibilitY to obtain a great
advantage. Black's pieces can
hardly hold the defence on the
queenside. This enables White to
win a pawn on the other side of
the board and in order to do this,
he only needs to trade the knights.
24.�f3 ! �xf3+ (After 24 . . . lt:Jxe4
25.lt:Jxe5+ dxeS 26.'Wg7±, the po­
sition is opened and the misplace­
ment of Black's king in the centre
factor.) 25.gxf3 ggs 26.�g4±
After the exchange of the knight
Black loses his h7-pawn and if we
have in mind that White's king is
much safer, Black's situation be­
comes critical.

Conclusion
We have just finished the analysis of variations of the Pirc Defence
with the move 4 . . . i.g7. As a rule, White obtains effortlessly an advan­
tage exploiting the too early development of Black's dark-squared bish­
op. After 5.'Wd2, Black can castle kingside and after that there arise
complicated positions with mutual attacks on the different sides of the
board. White's prospects in that case are clearly preferable. He follows
with 0-0-0, f3, h4, i.h6, hS and organises a powerful attack on the h­
file. Meanwhile, Black's attack on the queenside often reaches its dead
end, since White can easily protect his main weakness on this side of
the board - the pawn on a2 (�bl and lt:Jcl). If Black decides to leave his
king in the centre, then after ih6 and the trade of the bishops, in many
variations the vulnerability of his h7-pawn becomes a telling factor.

230
Chapter 16 l.d4 d6 2.e4 !L!f6 3.!L!c3 g6 4 . .ie3 c6
With this move Black prepares
b7-b5, which may be useful if
White castles queenside. Mean­
while, he postpones the develop­
ment of his king's bishop, which
deprives White of his standard
plan, connected with '1Wd2 and
ih6, since exchanging the still
not developed bishop would seem
a bit strange.
The move 4 . . . c6 is rather pop­
ular among the fans of the Pirc
Defence. It has been played by P.
Svidler, Sh.Mamedyarov, V.Ivan­
chuk, Z.Azmaiparashvili, M.Gu­
revich, A.Beliavsky and some oth­
er grandmasters.
5.h3
This is a very flexible system
of development and about its
strength you can judge by the fact
that it has been used by the World
Champions G.Kasparov and V.
Anand. The idea of this move is at
first to prevent the pawn-advance
b7-b5. White takes under control
the g4-square and prepares e4-e5.
Meanwhile, his last move will be
useful if he advances f2-f4 and g2-
g4.
Black has two main responses
now: A) 5 . .�g7 and B) 5 ..
. .
�bd7, but before that we will an­
alyse some less popular moves.
It is rather dubious for Black
to play S . . . eS? ! , because after that
he enters a very difficult end­
game. 6.dxe5 dxeS 7.'\Wxd8+ 'it>xd8
231
Chapter 16
8.lt:Jf3 i.d6 9.0-0-0 <tle7 10.i.c4
ie6 ll.ixe6 fxe6 12J�d3± - His
doubled e-pawns are very weak
and his bishop is "bad", since it is
restricted by his own e5-pawn,
Hracek - Nyback, Plovdiv 2003.
5 . . .'�b6. The idea of this move
is to impede White's castling
queenside, but he can continue
perfectly without it, while the de­
fects of Black's early queen's de­
velopment will be long-lasting.
6.a3. Now, capturing on b2 is im­
possible. 6 . . . ig7 7.lt:Jf3 0-0. Black
can hardly continue the game
without castling (7 . . . lt:Jbd7 8.id3
W!c7 9.0-0 0-0 10 .a4 - see 7 . . .
0-0). 8.i.d3 lt:Jbd7 9 . 0 - 0 W!c7 1 0 .
a4
10 . . . b6. He should not allow
the move a4-a5 (Following 10 . . . e5
11.a5:t, White occupies space on
the queenside and his position is
more pleasant, moreover that in
numerous variations the vulnera­
bility of the d6-pawn will be hurt­
ing Black, Kindermann - Schloss­
er, Vienna 1996.) 11.Wid2 .tb7 (11 . . .
e 5 12.dxe5 lt:Jxe5 13.ie2 ib7 14.
�fd1 �adS 15.i.g5:t White has
more space and can play against
232
the weakness on d6, as well as on
the queenside after a4-a5.) 12.
�fe1 e5 (after 12 . . . �ad8, White can
begin immediate active actions on
the queenside with the move 13.
a5 !:t Kamsky - Tkachiev, Moscow
2008) 13.a5 ! ?:t He has the initia­
tive and it is bad for Black to cap­
ture the pawn 13 . . . bxa5? ! , since
White will regain it easily and
Black will end up with weak a and
c-pawns, for example: 14.dxe5
dxe5 15.�a3 �fd8 16.�ea1 if8 17.
�xa5±
5 . . . W!a5. This development of
the queen cannot equalise for
Black either. 6.id3 lt:Jbd7 7.lt:Jf3 e5
8.0-0 i.g7 9.W!d2 0-0 10 .a4
10 . . . �e8 (It is also possible for
him to choose 10 . . . exd4 ll.lt:Jxd4
�e8 12. lt:Jb3 W!c7 13.�ad1 a6, Leko
- Kamsky, Moscow 2007. Here,
White should have continued
with 14.a5 ! , without being afraid
of 14 . . . c5 due to 15.i.c4:t and the
vulnerability of the d6-pawn and
the d5-square is much more im­
portant than the weakness of
White's e4-pawn. Naturally, it
would not work for Black to play
15 . . . lt:Jxe4?, because of 16.i.xf7+
 l.d4 d6 2.e4 Ci:Jf6 3. Ci:J c3 g6 4. i.e3 c6 5.h3
'kt>xf7 17.�d5+ 'tt>f8 18.Ci:Jxe4+-)
l U�fdl exd4. After this exchange
the d-file is opened and the weak­
ness on d6 may become impor­
tant later (But even in the varia­
tion ll . . . �c7 12.dxe5 dxeS 13.a5
Ci:Jf8 14.Ci:Ja4 Ci:JhS lS.Ci:JcS Ci:Je6 16.
�c3 Ci:Jhf4 17.i.fU, White's pros­
pects are preferable, since Black
can hardly fight for the only open
d-file due to his weakness on a7.
He cannot play a7-a6, because
this will lead to an irrevocable
weakening of the b6-square.)
12 .hd4 Ci:JeS 13.ie2 ie6 14.Ci:Jg5;!;
White has extra space (the e4-
pawn against the d6-pawn) and
after the trade on e6 he will obtain
the two-bishop advantage, Ortega
- Van Rijn, Arco 2003.
It would be premature for
Black to choose S . . . bS? ! in view of
6.e5! and now, Black ends up in a
very difficult position in all the
variations.
6 . . . b4 7.exf6 bxc3 8.fxe7 �xe7
9.bxc3 i.h6 10.�e2 ia6, Goodger
- Fegan, Sunningdale 2007, 11.
�f3 he3 12 .�xe3 �xe3+ 13.fxe3
ixf1 14.'kt>xfl± White's pawn­
structure is a bit disrupted, but he
still has good chances of realising
his extra pawn.
6 . . . Ci:Jfd7 7.exd6 exd6 (follow-
ing 7 . . . b4 8.dxe7 �xe7 9.Ci:Ja4±,
Black has no compensation for
the pawn whatsoever) 8.d5 ! a6
(or 8 . . . b4 9.�d4 ! ± and he had the
sad choice between playing with­
out a pawn, or without the ex­
change) 9.a4± - Now, Black can
feel sorry for having made the
move b7-b5, which has led to the
irrevocable weakening of his
queenside pawn-structure, Ankit
- Mallick, India 2011.
6 ... dxe5. The transfer into an
endgame cannot solve the prob­
lems for Black. 7.dxe5 �xd1+ 8.
:gxd1 Ci:Jfd7 (It would not work for
him to play 8 . . . b4 9.exf6 bxc3, be­
cause of 10.i.d4 ! ± and Black loses
a pawn without any compensa­
tion, Sveshnikov - Smyslov, Til­
burg 1992.) 9.id4 e6 (He loses
immediately following 9 . . . a6? 10.
e6 Ci:Jf6 ll.i.b6 Ci:JdS 12.:gxd5 ! cxdS
13.Ci:Jxd5+- and Black cannot
avoid the material losses, A.Iva­
nov - Weeramantry, Philadelphia
2003) 10.g3 aS ll.i.g2± White's
pressure on the long diagonal is
very unpleasant for his opponent,
moreover that he is threatening
the manoeuvre Ci:Jc3-e4-d6, Chai­
ka - Eremeev, Simferopol 1997.
A) 5 i.g7 6.f4
•••
The arising position on the
board resembles very much the
variation with 4.f4, in which Black
has made the not so useful move
233
Chapter 16
c7-c6. Accordingly, his further
plans are connected not with c5,
but with advancing b5 and e5.
6 ... 0-0
Black makes a useful move,
concealing his future plans for the
moment.
About 6 . . . tt:Jbd7 7.e5 - see 5 . . .
tt:lbd7.
6 . . . tt:lh5. This move with the
knight to the edge of the board
looks dubious, since White can
protect easily the weak g3-square.
7.tt:lge2 (7.'?tlf3 ! ?;t;) 7 . . . e5 8.dxe5
dxe5 9.'?tlxd8+ l!lxd8 10.0-0-0+
l!lc7 ll.g4± The queens have been
exchanged and his lead in devel­
opment provides him with a con­
siderable advantage, A.Sokolov -
Chabanon, Torey 1991.
After 6 ... b5, White should re­
act with an immediate strike in
the centre. 7.e5 tt:Jfd7 (The end­
game is very difficult for Black in
the variation 7 . . . dxe5 8.dxe5
'?tlxd1+ 9J�xd1 tt:Jh5 10.tt:lge2 g5 11.
g3± and not only Black's queen-
234
side pawns have been weakened
(the consequences of the move
b7-b5), but also his knight is mis­
placed at the edge of the board,
Jansa - Pfleger, Germany 1989.)
8.tt:lf3 tt:lb6 (8 ... 0-0 9.i.d3 - see
6 ... 0-0) 9.i.d3 b4 10.tt:le4;!; White's
pieces and pawns have occupied
the centre of the board, David -
Delemarre, Vlissingen 2000.
6 . . . '?tlb6. This attempt to cause
disharmony in White's camp by
attacking the b2-pawn cannot
equalise for Black either. 7.'?tfc1
7 . . . 0-0 (It seems anti-posi­
tional for him to opt for 7 . . . tt:lh5
8.tt:lge2 f5 9.e5 0-0 10J'!g1 g5
ll.g3 tt:la6 12 .i.g2 c5, Z.Hracek -
Marin, Krynica 1998 and here,
the simplest way for White to em­
phasize his edge is 13.dxc5 tt:Jxc5
14.tt:ld5 '?tld8 15.i.xc5 dxc5 16.
'?tle3±, after which Black's knight
is a sorry sight at the edge of the
board. Following 7 . . . '?tla5, there
arises a position which will be an­
alysed later, except that White's
queen is placed on cl. There may
follow 8.i.d3 e5, Cornette - Sed­
lak, Subotica 2005 and here,
White preserves a slight edge af-
 l.d4 d6 2.e4 liJf6 3. liJc3 g6 4. �e3 c6 5.h3
ter 9.fxeS dxeS 10.dxeS 'WxeS 11.
ltJf3 'We7 12 .'Wd2 ltJbd7 13.0-0-0:t
- the activity of his pieces com­
pensates with an interest the
slight weakness of his isolated
pawn on e4.) 8.i.d3 ltJa6 9.a3.
Naturally, White should not let
the enemy knight to the b4-
square. 9 . . . cS 10.ltJf3 cxd4 11 . .bd4
ltJcS 12 .eS ltJfd7 13.i.c4 'Wc6 (13 . . .
'Wd8 14.'We3 ltJb6 1S.i.a2 ltJ e 6 16.
.bb6 'Wxb6 17.'Wxb6 axb6 18.ltJdS
�e8 19.ltJxb6± Black's compensa­
tion for the pawn was insufficient
in the game, Arakhamia-Grant -
I.Marin, Eforie Nord 2009.) 14 .
.idS 'Wa6 1S.'We3 dxeS 16.fxeS
ltJe6, Skrobek - Nyvlt, Email
2007, 17.0-0-0 ! ?:t White's pieces
have occupied very active posi­
tions.
6 . . . 'WaS 7.�d3
It is just bad for Black to play
here 7 . . . bS - the combination of
the moves 'WaS and bS seems
much more sensible if White had
castled queenside. Now, after 8.
ltJf3 i.b7, Gjuran - Klenburg, Par­
dubice 2008, 9.a3 ! ± Black's
queen on aS only impedes the
development of his queenside
initiative (aS and b4). If he ad­
vances bS-b4 (without a7-aS),
then after the exchange of the
pawns, he will have a weak isolat­
ed pawn on a7.
7 . . . ltJbd7 8.ltJf3 eS (Following
8 . . . cS 9.0-0 cxd4 10 . .bd4, there
arises a position which is more
typical for the Sicilian Defence.
10 ... 0-0 ll.i.c4!? ltJb6 12.i.b3 ltJhS
13 . .bg7 ltJxg7 14.'Wd4:t) 9.0-0
0-0 10.a3 ltJhS 1l.dxeS dxeS 12 .fS
bS 13.'We1 ! ? White's queen may
support eventually his attack
from the h4-square. 13 . . . 'Wc7 14.
�dU, followed by 'Wh4. If Black
plays ltJf4, then White can easily
exchange his opponent's active
knight with the move ltJe2.
7 ... eS 8.ltJf3 exd4 (8 ... ltJbd7
9.0-0 - see 7 . . . ltJbd7. It is bad for
Black to opt for 8 . . . exf4, since this
would lead to the opening of the
f-file, advantageous for White.
Later, in the game Losev -
Gubanov, St Petersburg 1994,
there followed: 9 . .bf4 dS lO.eS
ltJhS ll . .id2 'Wb6 12 .g4 ltJg3 13.�g1
ltJe4 14 . .be4 dxe4 1S.ltJxe4 0-0
16.ic3± and Black had no com­
pensation for the sacrificed
pawn.) 9 . .ixd4 0-0 10.'Wd2 ltJbd7
11.0-0 ltJcS. Here, White can seize
the initiative on the kingside with
12.fS ! ? ltJxd3 13.cxd3:t - his pros­
pects are preferable, because Black
cannot capture the fS-pawn in
view of the loss of the piece in
the variation 13 . . . gxfS?! 14.exfS
.bfS?? 1S.ltJh4+-
7.ltJf3
23S
Chapter 16
7 b5
• . •
About 7 ... \Wb6 8J�b1 tt:lbd7 9.
\Wd2 \Wc7 10.id3 eS 11.0-0 - see
s ... tt:lbd7 6.f4 '1Wb6.
7 . . . \WaS 8.id3 tt:la6 (8 . . . tt:lbd7
- see 5 . . . tt:lbd7) 9.0-0 id7, Castro
Rojas - Bermudez Barrera, Bogo­
ta 2006, 10.a3 !±, restricting the
knight on a6. White has a power­
ful pawn-centre, while Black's mi­
nor pieces have occupied very
passive positions.
7 ... c5? ! He ignores the loss of
the tempo ... 8.dxc5 \WaS 9.i.d3 dS
10.e5 tt:le4 ll.ixe4 dxe4 12.ttld2±
Black is not only a pawn down,
but has problems with the protec­
tion of his e4-pawn, Jansa -Pein,
Metz 1984.
7 . . . tt:la6 8.ixa6 bxa6 9.0-0
E:b8 10.b3;t - He has the two­
bishop advantage indeed, but his
position is worse, since his pawn­
structure has been compromised,
while White is dominant in the
centre, Erenburg - Zubov, Nakh­
chivan 2003.
236
After 7 ... tt:lbd7, White obtains
an advantage with the move 8.e5.
It seems rather dubious for
Black to retreat his knight to the
edge of the board, since after 8 . . .
tt:le8, i n the game Shaked - Beim,
Schwarzach 1997, White began a
very promising attack against
Black's monarch with 9.h4! ?±, as
well as following 8 . . . tt:lh5 9.ttle2
ih8 (after 9 ... c5? ! 10.g4± Black's
compensation for the piece was
insufficient in the game Short -
M.Gurevich, Wijk aan Zee 1990)
10.g4 tt:lg7 ll.i.g2;t White domi­
nates in the centre, while Black's
bishop on h8 and his knight on g7
are awkwardly placed, Jansa -
Hoi, Gausdal 1991.
The retreat of the knight in the
centre does not solve all Black's
problems either. 8 . . . tt:ld5 9.tt:lxd5
cxdS 10 . .td3 \Wb6 11.\Wc1 dxeS 12.
fxeS f6 13.exf6 tt:lxf6 14.0-0 i.fS
15.ixf5 gxfS 16.ttle5 \We6, Spivak
- Czerwonski, Germany 2003,
17.i.f4;t White has a slight edge
thanks to his possession of the
important eS-outpost.
It is possible that Black's best
solution is the preliminary ex­
change - 8 . . . dxe5, although even
 l.d4 d6 2.e4 liJf6 3. liJ c3 g6 4 . .ie3 c6 5.h3
then after 9.dxe5 liJdS 10.liJxdS
cxdS 11.�d2 (11.�xd5? liJxeS ! )
ll . . . liJb6, Donchenko - Gavrilov,
Moscow 1995, White maintains a
slight edge, restricting the enemy
knight with the move 12 .b3:t
8.e5
8 .tl]fd7
••
He obtains an advantage even
after the other retreats of Black's
knight, for example: 8 . . . liJe8 9.
id3 liJd7 10.0-0 ib7, Sveshnikov
- Ciglic, Ljubljana 1994, 11.�el.
White transfers his queen to the
h4-square. ll . . . liJc7 12.�h4 and
dangerous clouds are hanging
over Black's king.
8 . . . liJdS 9.liJxd5 cxdS 10.c3 a6
ll . .id3 liJc6 12. 0-0:t White has
extra space. Later, in the game
Lukesova - Hansen, Email 2010,
Black made a mistake by playing
12 . . . e6 and White increased his
advantage by transferring his
bishop to the f6-square. 13.if2
dxeS 14.fxe5 b4 1S . .ih4 �b6 16.
if6±
9.J.d3 �b6 10.0-0 b4 11.
�e2 a5 12.a3;!; - He has much
more space and a powerful pawn­
centre, while Black's queenside
activity has led only to the weak­
ening of his b4-pawn, Sveshnikov
- Kraschl, Finkenstein 1994.
B) 5 ••• �bd7
He postpones the develop­
ment of the bishop on f8, trying to
advance as quickly as possible e7-
e5 or b7-b5.
6.f4
6 b5
•••
Black relies on a counter at­
tack on the flank.
6 . . . �b6. This move is not dan­
gerous for White, since he is pre­
paring to castle kingside and can
simply play 7.:gbl. There might
follow: 7 . . . e5 8.�d2 �c7 9.liJf3
.ig7 10.id3 0-0 11.0-0 bS 12.a3
a6 13.dxe5 dxeS 14.f5:t and White
begins his kingside attack. 14 . . . c5
15.fxg6 hxg6. After this exchange,
not only the f-file is opened for
White's rook, but what is even
237
Chapter 16
more unpleasant for Black -
White's knight will hardly be
ousted from the gS-square (Black
does not have the move h7-h6).
16.'!Wf2 c4 17 ..ie2 .ib7 18.tt:lg5 !!fe8
19.'!Wh4± White's attack is devel­
oping effortlessly, Erenburg -
Zlotnikov, Parsippany 2007.
6 .. .'!Wa5 7.id3 cS. This ex­
change of the c-pawn for the e­
pawn seems very dubious, since
Black falls down considerably in
development in the process (7 . . . e5
8.'1Wf3 .ig7 9.tt:lge2 - see 6 . . . e5).
8.tt:lge2 c4 9.hc4 tt:lxe4 10.0-0
tt:ldf6 (10 ... tt:lxc3 ll.tt:lxc3 tt:lf6 12.
'!Wf3 a6, Solodovnichenko - Movs­
ziszian, Milan 2008, 13.!!ae1 .ig7
14.g4 0-0 15.f5± Black is helpless
against his opponent's increasing
initiative on the kingside.) 11.
.ib5+ .id7 12 .hd7+ 'it>xd7 13.
tt:lxe4 tt:lxe4 14.c4 ! ? White wishes
to exploit the fact that Black's
king is stranded in the centre by
opening the position (He obtains
only a slight edge after the more
prudent line: 14.'1Wd3 fS 15.c4 :li.g7
16.!!fc1 !!hc8 17.tt:lc3 tt:lxc3 18.
!!xc3;!;, followed by White's pawn­
offensive on the queenside,
Sveshnikov - Beliavsky, Bled
2001.) 14 . . . !!c8 15.c5t Black's king
is endangered.
The move 6 . . . :li.g7 does not
combine well together with the
previous move. If Black wished to
develop his bishop on g7, then he
had to do that immediately, with­
out losing time for the move
238
tt:lbd7. 7.e5 tt:ldS 8.tt:lxd5 cxdS 9.
c3. The bishop on g7 is severely
restricted in its movement by
White's pawn on eS. 9 . . . 0-0 (9 . . .
dxeS 10.dxe5 '!WaS ll.tt:lf3 0 - 0 12.
.ie2 tt:lb6, Palekha - Kornev, Ser­
pukhov 2003 and here, White
could have entered a better end­
game with 13.'1Wd4 .ie6 14.'!Wc5
'!WxcS 15.hc5;!;, he has more space
and Black's bishop on g7 is very
passive.) 10 .tt:lf3 dxeS 1Lfxe5 e6
12 .:li.d3 fS 13.'11;lid 2 tt:lb6 14.h4± Tu­
rov - Tripoteau, playchess.com
2005. White has a clear advan­
tage. He is threatening to organ­
ise a dangerous attack with .ih6
and h4-h5. If Black plays h7-h5
himself, then his pawn-majority
on the kingside will be devalued
and after b2-b3 and c3-c4, White
will begin an offensive in the cen­
tre and on the queenside, where
he will have in fact an extra pawn.
It may be interesting for Black
to try 6 . . . e5 and White should
better counter it with 7.'11;lif3 ! ? ,
preparing castling queenside. In
addition, his queen on f3 will sup­
port effectively his pawn-on­
slaught on the kingside with f4-f5
and g2-g4.
 l.d4 d6 2.e4 liJf6 3. liJc3 g6 4 . .ie3 c6 5.h3
After 7 . . . ig7, White accom­
plishes a plan which is standard
in similar positions. He exchang­
es on eS and follows this with fS
and g4. 8.dxeS dxeS 9.fS \l;lfaS 10.
g4 bS ll . .id3 b4 12.liJd1 liJcS 13.
liJe2 gxfS 14.gxfS liJxd3+ 1S.cxd3
.ia6. The activity of Black's pieces
is only temporary, while his
pawn-weaknesses are a perma­
nent factor. 16.liJc1 MB 17.liJf2 E:g8
18.liJb3 \l;lfbS 19.0-0-0 0-0-0 2 0 .
'it>bU White has a n easy game on
the e-file and Black's king is rath­
er unsafe, E.Sveshnikov - Kom­
ljenovic, Torey 1991.
After 7 ... \l;lfaS 8 ..id3 .ig7 9.
liJge2 0-0 10.0-0 exd4 (Follow­
ing 10 . . . bS ll.a3, there may arise
sharp complications on the board.
ll . . . exd4 12.liJxd4 .ib7 13.eS dxeS
14.liJxc6 \l;lfc7 1S.liJe7+ 'it>h8 16.
liJxbS \l;lfb8 17.liJc6 \l;lfc8 18.liJcxa7
\l;lrb8 19.liJc6 \l;lfc8oo White has won
a couple of pawns indeed, but his
cavalry on the queenside is iso­
lated from the actions and it is un­
clear whether he has anything
more than a repetition of moves
After lO . . . bS, White's best reac­
tion is 11.dxeS. One of the advan­
tages of this move is that Black is
deprived of the possibility to ex­
change on d4. ll . . . dxeS 12.a3t,
followed by f4-fS, White's king­
side attack seems more danger­
ous than Black's queenside coun­
terplay.) ll.liJxd4 dS 12 .eS liJe8 13.
Wif2 (but not 13.e6? ! fxe6 14.liJxe6
liJeS ! + Sveshnikov - Rukavina,
Pula 1990) 13 . . . \l;lrdS 14.liJf3 liJc7
1S.E:aeU White has good pros-
pects on the kingside and his piec­
es have occupied active positions,
but naturally Black's counterplay,
connected with b6 and cS, should
not be underestimated.
7.a3
This prophylactic is necessary.
7 ••• liJb6
About 7 . . . a6 8.liJf3 liJb6 9 . .id3
- see 7 . . . liJb6.
Black cannot equalise with the
plan connected with advancing
rapidly aS and b4. 7 . . . .ib7 8.liJf3
aS 9 . .id3 b4 10.liJe2 .ig7 ll.c4
bxc3 12.liJxc3 0-0 13 .0-0t White
has a powerful pawn-centre and
good attacking prospects on the
kingside (\l;lrd1-e1-h4, fS, .ih6,
liJgS), Cruzado Duenas - Bel­
legotti, Email 2006.
The move 7 . . . eS was tested in
the game Fressinet - M.Marin,
Andorra 2004. After 8.liJf3 Wle7
9.fxeS dxeS 10.dS±, it t.urned out
suddenly that White is attacking
on the queenside. Black has great
239
Chapter 16
problems with the protection of
his weak pawn on b5.
8 . . . .ig7
8 . . . a6 9 . .id3 ig7 (It seems an­
ti-positional for Black to follow
the plan with advancing c6-c5,
because he falls back considerably
in development. 9 . . . e6 10.0-0 c5
11.dxc5 dxc5 12 .'!M/e1 i.e7 13.\M/f2
\M/c7 14.f5± - His premature activ­
ity on the queenside has led only
to difficulties with the protection
of the pawn on c5 and a lag in de­
velopment.) 10.0-0 \M/c7 11.'?Ne1
lt'lfd7 12.e5± White has a powerful
pawn-centre, while Black lags
greatly in development and has a
problem with the safety of his
king, because if he castles king­
side, he will come under the at­
tack of White's pieces, Bauer -
Uhoda, Metz 2005.
9 . .id3 0-0
About 9 ... lt'lc4 10.icl 0-0
11.0-0 - see 10 ... lt'lc4.
10.0-0
240
10 . . . .ib7
Following 10 . . . lt'lc4, White
should better retreat with his
bishop 11.ic1 and after 11 . . . a5,
Maze - Movsziszian, Calvia 2005,
begin active operations in the
centre: 12.e5 ! ? dxe5 13.fxe5 lt'ld5
14.lt'lxd5 \M/xd5 15.a4. He under­
mines the base under the enemy
knight. 15 . . . b4 16.'?Ne2 i.e6 17.c3
bxc3 18.bxc3 h6 19.ie4 \M/d7 20.
lt'le1! After the transfer of the
knight to c5, White's prospects
will be obviously preferable.
Following 10 . . . a5, White
should continue with 11.1Mfc1, pro­
tecting prudently his b2-pawn
and preparing f5 and i.h6. 11 . . .
lt'lc4 ( 1 1 . . . i.d7 12 .f5 ! �) 12.i.f2 a4
13.b3 lt'lb6 14.'?Nd2� Black's knight
has been ousted from the c4-
square and White has an advan­
tage thanks to his mighty pawn­
centre.
11.\Mlel a5 12.ti'h4
It is also interesting for him to
try 12.f5 ! ?�
 l.d4 d6 2.e4 'D/6 3. 'D c3 g6 4. !e3 c6 5.h3

12 b4 13.axb4 axb4 14.

••• It would not be so accurate for
�baS haS 15.'De2 !Oa4 16 .icl • him to opt for 17.e5, Karjakin -
c5 Ehlvest, Panormos 2002, because
after 17 . . . !xf3 ! 18J:!xf3 'DdS;!; and
the exchange of the knight on f3,
White's attack will not be so
strong.

17 gxf5 1S.!Og3 !
•••

All his pieces participate i n the

attack and there may follow:

1S .ixe4 19.!0xe4 !Oxe4

•••

20.!0g5 !Oxg5 21 .ixg5 .ixd4+

•

22.�hl f6 23 .ixf5 gf7 24 .ih6

• •

17.f5! ? .ie5 25 .ie6 ti'eS 26.gal !Ob6

•

After this move, White's rook 27.ti'h5 f5 2s.ga6 Black will ei­
and his dark-squared bishop join ther get checkmated, or lose plen­
in the attack. ty of material.

Conclusion
We have just analysed the variation with 4 . . . c6 in the Pirc Defence.
After S.h3, White obtains an advantage in the opening, because Black
cannot play S . . . bS due to 6.e5 ! and his pawn-offensive on the queenside
leads only to the appearance of weaknesses in his camp. After Black's
other possibilities, White completes effortlessly the development of his
kingside and under the cover of his powerful pawn-centre begins an
attack against the enemy king with \Wel-h4, fS, �h6 and 'DgS.

241
 Part S

Black avoids the Pirc-Ufimtsev Defence

l.d4 d6 2.e4 �f6 3.�c3

with which Black avoids entering

the Pirc Defence - (3 ... g6).
In Chapter 17 we will deal with
3 e5, with 3 �bd7 in Chapter
••• •••

18 and with 3 c6 in Chapter 19.

•••

After all these moves White

In the final part of our second
volume we will analyse the moves
should not have problems to ob­
tain an advantage in the opening,
but he must play precisely, since
there arises often a transfer into
an endgame and a single inaccu-
rate move may provide Black with
the possibility to equalise.

242
Chapter 17 l.d4 d6 2.e4 lt)f6 3.li} c3 e5
Surprisingly for many people,
this move became very popular at
the beginning of the 21st century.
Numerous grandmasters have be­
gun to use it: A.Morozevich, T.
Radjabov, P.Eljanov, S.Movsesian
etc. Even M.Carlsen played sev­
eral times like this. Vladimir Bar­
sky wrote a book devoted to this
variation. The main idea behind
the move 3 . . . e5 for Black is to try
to enter the Philidor Defence
avoiding several variations which
are advantageous for White.
4.dxe5! ?
I have chosen a s the main
weapon for White against 3 . . . eS
this move which does not seem to
be so ambitious. He trades imme­
diately the queens and enters an
endgame in which he is fighting
for the opening advantage thanks
to his lead in development.
Some readers may ask them­
selves: "Is it not simpler and bet­
ter just to play 4.lt:Jf3?" and there
will arise a position resembling
the closed openings. White's
pawns have occupied the centre
and his knights are placed on c3
and f3, just like in the majority of
the variations of the King's Indian
Defence. This similarity is mis­
leading, however. The difference
is in the placement of White's c­
pawn. It is not on c4, like in the
closed openings, but on its initial
square and does not participate in
the fight for the centre. His knight
on c3 must protect the e4-pawn
and cannot be removed easily
from c3, so White's prospects to
advance c2-c4 in the middle game
are just minimal. There might fol­
low: 4 . . . lt:Jbd7 S . .ic4 .ie7 6.0-0
0-0 7.a4 a6 8.a5 h6 9.!!el exd4
10.lt:Jxd4 lt:JeS ll . .ifl cS 12.lt:Jb3
.ie6oo and in the game Caruana -
M.Carlsen, Biel 2011, there arose
a complicated position with mu-
243
Chapter 17

tual chances in which each side tion. At first, we will deal with
had its pluses. Black's pieces are some not so popular moves A)
more active, while White has a 6 .id6 and B) 6 .ie7 and after
••• •••

better pawn-structure. Later, he this we will analyse his two most

might try to exploit the vulnera­ fashionable and strongest respons­
bility of his opponent's d6-pawn. es: C) 6 c6 and D) 6 .ie6.
••• •••

4 ••• dxe5 5.fexd8+ l!?xd8 6. There do not arise original po­

.ig5 sitions after 6 . . . h6, since follow­
ing 7.0-0-0+ �d6 S.h£6 - we
reach a position from variation A,
as well as after 6 . . . tt:\bd7, because
following 7.0-0-0 c6 (7 . . . �e7 8.
�h4 - see variation B; 7 . . . �d6
8.lt:lf3 - see variation A) 8.lt:lf3,
there arises transposition to vari­
ation C.

A) 6 .id6
•••

This is not the best move for

This is the most natural move. Black. Now, White's game is easy
White not only develops his bish­ and he obtains an edge effortless­
op to an active position, but pre­ ly. He only needs to play tt:\b5 at
pares castling queenside, winning the right moment and to exchange
a tempo for development, since on d6. White will not only obtain
his rook will give a check to the the two-bishop advantage in the
enemy king (The fact that the dB­ process, but will provoke a weak­
square is not the best for Black's ening of Black's pawn-structure.
monarch is one of the pluses of 7.0-0-0
the early trade of the queens.). This is the best.
Naturally, all this is very good for
White, but we should not forget
that there are no pawn weakness­
es in Black's camp and if he suc­
ceeds in completing his develop­
ment, White's advantage may
evaporate. Therefore, he must
play very precisely and energeti­
cally in this variation.
Black has a great choice of
possibilities in the arising posi-

244
 l.d4 d6 2.e4 liJj6 3. liJc3 e5 4.de de 5. 'ffxdB <tlxdB 6. ig5
7 .tL'lbd7
••
Black wishes to eliminate as
quickly as possible the main de­
fect of his position - his lag in de­
velopment.
It is obviously bad for him to
choose 7 . . . .ie6?! due to 8.f4 <tle8
(The other possible retreat of his
king would not change anything:
8 . . . <tlc8 9.f5 .id7 10 ..ixf6 gxf6 11.
liJd5± and Black is incapable of
saving his f6-pawn, V.Ivanov -
Gorin, Moscow 1998.) 9.f5 .id7
10 . .ixf6 gxf6 11.liJd5± S. Ivanov -
Sassi, Oulu 2004, he loses a pawn
without any compensation. In
general, the ousting of Black's
bishop from the e6-square, with
the help of the pawn-advance f4-
f5, followed by liJd5 (naturally,
White should exchange at first on
f6) and the win of the f6-pawn is
one of the standard ideas for him
in this variation and we will en­
counter it still numerous times in
our analysis.
It seems rather dubious for
Black to play 7 . . . h6. He lags in de­
velopment anyway and losing an­
other tempo for a flank move with
his rook pawn seems unreasona­
ble. 8 . .ixf6+ gxf6 9.liJb5. White
deprives his opponent of his two­
bishop advantage and Black is
now left to worry about his pawn
weaknesses. 9 . . . <tle7 10.liJe2 a6 11.
liJxd6 cxd6 12.liJc3 .ie6 13.g3 liJd7
14.f4 ! ;!; White creates with this
move the threat f4-f5 (fighting for
the d5-square ! ) . He has seized
completely the initiative in this
endgame and can improve pa­
tiently his position (doubling the
rooks on the d-file), while Black
must adhere only to passive strat­
egy. Meanwhile, we should not
forget that White has a superior
pawn-structure. It also seems very
good for him to try the straight­
forward line: 14.liJd5+ .ixd5 15.
Ei:xd5 liJc5 16 ..ig2;!; - and he has a
slight but stable edge in the end­
game. Black's d6-pawn is weak as
well as his d5 and f5-squares, Col­
lins - Trevelyan, Gothenburg 2005.
It would be too slow for him to
choose 7 . . . a6 - Black parries the
threat liJb5 indeed, but falls back
in development even more. 8.liJf3
liJbd7 9 . .ixf6+. Now, he must
comply with the weakening of his
kingside pawn-structure in order
not to lose a pawn. 9 . . . gxf6 10.
liJd5 Ei:g8 11.liJh4 Ei:g4 12.liJf5 Ei:xe4
13.f3 Ei:a4 14.<tlbl± Sethuraman ­
Neelotpal, Mumbai 2011. Black
has managed to win a pawn with a
brave sortie of his rook, but this is
just a small consolation for him,
since his queenside pieces are not
developed and his rook on a4 is
seriously endangered. Mean­
while, White's knights on d5 and
f5 have occupied dominating po­
sitions and all this means that
Black's position is tremendously
difficult.
8)L'lf3 c!>e8
He removes prudently his king
away from the pin of the enemy
245
Chapter 17
bishop and the x-ray of his rook
on dl.
About 8 ... a6 9 . .ixf6 - see 7 . . .
a6.
9)ilb5
This is the most natural and
logical move for White. Black's
bishop on d6 attracts White's
knight like a magnet.
It is interesting for him to try
the move 9.�b5 ! ? , but it cannot
guarantee an advantage for
White. Now, Black must reply
with the accurate move 9 . . . a6.
(The careless reply 9 ... @f8? might
cost Black a pawn. After 10 . .ixd7
tt:Jxd7 1l.lt:Jb5 f6 12 . .ie3 @e7 13.
1'!xd6 cxd6 14.tt:Jc7 b6 15.tt:Jxa8,
naturally, White's knight will not
run away from the aS-square, but
while Black will be busy with its
capturing, White will win a pawn,
for which Black will have no com­
pensation at all. 15 . . . @d8 16.tt:Jd2
.ib7 17.tt:Jc4 .ixa8 18.tt:Jxd6 @c7
19.lt:Jb5± Jobava - Shanava, Tbi­
lisi 2012.) 10 . .ixd7+ tt:Jxd7 11.
�e3oo Burreh - Schulz, Bad
Sooden 2004. White leads in de-
246
velopment indeed, but this is not
much, since he can hardly find
any target for attack in Black's po­
sition. In addition, we should not
forget that he has two bishops.
9 ••• @e7
Black cannot play 9 . . . tt:Jxe4? in
view of the simple tactical strike
10 .1'!xd6+-, and he loses material.
The character of the fight re­
mains more or less the same after
9 . . . a6, since in the variation 10.
tt:Jxd6+ cxd6, White's position is
preferable due to his two-bishop
advantage and the vulnerability of
Black's d6-pawn. 11.lt:Jd2 h6 12.
�e3 b5 13.f3 tt:Jc5 14.tt:Jb1 @e7 15.
tt:Jc3 �e6 16.g4 tt:Jfd7 17.h4 f6 18.
1'!h2;!; A.Timofeev - L.Hansen,
Skanderborg 2005. White has
transferred successfully his knight
from f3 to c3 and from there it can
go to the d5-square at any mo­
ment. Now, he is preparing the
doubling of his rooks on the d-file
in order to attack decisively the
enemy d6-pawn. Black's defence
will be difficult.
10.tt:Jd2
This is a standard transfer of
White's knight in this variation.
From the d2-square it can go to
c4, in order to attack the enemy
d6-pawn, as well as to follow the
route d2-b1-c3, going after the
d5-outpost.
10 ••• h6 ll .th4 lilb6
•
Following ll . . . a6 12.tt:Jxd6
cxd6 13.f3;!;, White has a stable
 l.d4 d6 2.e4 0.f6 3. 0.c3 e5 4.de de 5. Wixd8 �xd8 6. �g5
advantage thanks to his bishop­
pair and the weakness of Black's
d6-pawn, Berescu - Badea, Ama­
ra 2007.
12.f3 .ie6 13 .tf2 �fd7 14.
• pawn-structure.
b3 ghc8 15.�xd6 cxd6 16.�b2
�c5 17.�bl!
White's knight is not allowed
to go to the c4-square by Black's
pieces, so it goes along another
route, which is longer, but not less
effective, and its destination is the
d5-square !
17 f5 18.exf5 .txf5 19.c4
•••
This position was reached in
the game Dvoirys - Spasov, Biel
1993. Black must capture White's
knight in order to preserve chanc­
es of resisting. 19 -txbl! (After
•••
what was played in the game -
19 . . . g5? ! 2 0 .0.c3±, White's posi­
tional advantage became almost
decisive. Black was incapable of
protecting the numerous weak­
nesses in his position.) 20.�xbU
White's two bishops are evidently
stronger than Black's knights and
he has a weakness on d6; never­
theless he can still offer a tough
resistance.
B) 6 • • • .te7
This move is reliable, but
somewhat passive. Black wishes
to avoid the weakening of his
7.0-0-0+
7 ... �bd7
It may be also interesting for
him to try the "super-solid" move
7 . . . �e8 and after 8.0.f3 0.bd7
(The move 8 . . . ig4 was tested in
the game Sudakova - Sharovato­
va, Rybinsk 1999. White had to
counter it with the active response
9.0.b5 ! ? and there might follow:
9 . . . 0.a6 10 .ic4 0.d7 ll.ie3;!;. In
the oncoming fight, Black will
have problems to ensure the safe­
ty of his king and to coordinate
his rooks. It would be worse for
him to choose instead 10 . . . 0.xe4? ! ,
because the opening of files in the
centre will be in favour of White,
since he is better developed, so
Black will fail to hold on to his ex­
tra pawn. 11.he7 �xe7 12.!!he1 f5
13.0.c3 hf3 14.0.d5+ �d7 15. gxf3
0.d6 16.ixa6 bxa6 17.!!xe5 !!ae8
18.f4± White's doubled pawns on
247
Chapter 17
the f-file look much better than
their black counterparts on the a­
file.) 9 . .ih4 a6 10 . .ic4 .id6, Zakha­
rov - Pribyl, Dresden 2008. Fol­
lowing ll.a3 ! ? b5 12 . .ia2 .ib7 13.
tt:ld2 'it>f8 14.f3�, Black must lose
time in order to evacuate his king
to the g7-square and to connect
his rooks, while White is perfectly
prepared to exploit his opponent's
queenside weaknesses (the conse­
quence of the move b7-b5) with
tt:ld2-b3-a5.
He has also tried in practice
7 . . . tt:lfd7 - Black wishes to trade
the dark-squared bishops, which
should facilitate somehow his de­
fence. 8 . .ie3. Naturally, White
avoids this. 8 . . . c6 9.f4. He is try­
ing to occupy space with his
pawns on the kingside. 9 . . . 'it>c7
10.tt:lf3 f6 ll . .ic4 .id6 12.f5
White maintains a slight edge.
He has extra space and can gradu­
ally advance his kingside pawns,
while Black must still complete
the development of his queenside
pieces.
12 . . . tt:lb6 13 . .ie2 id7, Mellado
- Mundet, Banyoles 2002, 14.
tt:lel ! ? White is transferring his
248
knight to d3, taking under control
the c5-square. 14 ....ie8 15.b3 tt:l8d7
16.tt:ld3. Now, Black will not have
the possibility to trade the bish­
ops on c5. 16 . . . i.a3+ 17.'it>ba, fol­
lowed by a pawn-offensive for
White on the kingside.
It seems interesting for Black
to opt for 12 . . ..ic5 ! ? - he manages
to exchange advantageously the
bishops. He trades White's "good"
bishop for his "bad" bishop (its
mobility is severely restricted by
the pawn on e5). 13.i.xc5 tt:lxc5
14.a4 aS 15.g4 h6 16.h4�
White has an advantage in this
endgame, because his bishop on
c4 is very active and Black's seem­
ingly "good" bishop is cramped
considerably by the pawn on f5.
After a2-a4, White prevents the
further advance of his opponent's
queenside pawns, while Black is
incapable of countering White's
pawn-break (g4-g5) on the other
side of the board.
(diagram)
8.i.h4! ?
White i s transferring his bish­
op to the g3-square in order to at­
tack his opponent's pawn on e5.
 l.d4 d6 2.e4 0,f6 3. 0,c3 eS 4.de de 5. 'ff!xdB �xdB 6. !g5
He wishes to provoke the move
!d6, after which he plans to at­
tack the bishop with the move
0,b5.
The careless move 8.0,f3 ena­
bles Black after 8 . . . 0,g4, to force
a favourable exchange of the
dark-squared bishops and since
the temporary activity of White's
pieces will be gradually neu­
tralised, Black will have great
chances of equalising. 9.he7+
�xe7 10.0,d5+ �d8 11.0,g5 0,h6
12 .0,e3 �e7 13.0,d5+ �d8= Khen­
kin - Spiess, Germany 1999. Nat­
urally, White's knights are de­
ployed very actively, but it is not
so clear what can he really achieve.
Black has a very simple defensive
plan. He wishes to oust White's
active cavalry with the moves c6,
�e7 and f6, equalising complete­
ly.
8 ••• 0,e8 9 .ig3 .id6
•
(diagram)
10.0,b5 ! ?
The move 10.0,d5 would not
bring any particular dividends for
White. 10 . . . c6 11.0,e3 f6 12.0,f5
ic7 13.0,e2 g6 14.0,e3 �e7 15.0,c3
0,b6 16 . .id3 .ie6 17.h4 0,g7 18 .
.ih2 0,h5 19.g3 .id6 20.E:de1,
draw, Miladinovic - Damljanovic,
Herceg Novi 2008. Black has
reached a completely equal posi­
tion and White must already think
about how not to become worse,
since his bishop on h2 is obvious­
ly misplaced.
10 ••• f6 U.0,xd6 0,xd6 12.£3
After Black has played f7-f6,
his bishop has nothing to do on
the g3-square and White trans­
fers it to a more active position.
12 �e7 13.0,e2 0,c5 14.
•••
ttlc3 c6 15 .if2;t •
It is a well known fact that the
power of the two bishops is best
demonstrated in an open posi­
tion, but they guarantee White an
edge even now. Later, Black will
be faced with the rather unpleas­
ant task to defend a slightly infe­
rior endgame.
C) 6 c6
This is one of the most popular
. . •
moves for Black together with 6 . . .
�e6, H e defends reliably against
249
Chapter 17
the possible sortie of White's
knight to bS and plans later to oc­
cupy space on the queenside with
the move b7-b5.
7.0-0-0+
This is a very natural move. It
is really very difficult not to castle
with a check!
7 .. .rJlc7. This retreat of the king
has a considerable defect - now it
cannot protect the t7-pawn. 8.lt:Jf3
id6 9.ic4 ie6. Black's pawns are
doubled after this move (It is pos­
sible that Black should better
comply with the solid defensive
move 9 . . . l:!f8, although even then
after 10.a3t, White, thanks to the
more active placement of his mi­
nor pieces and Black's lag in de­
velopment, maintains a stable ad­
vantage.). 10 . .he6 fxe6 ll.ih4 !
We are already familiar with this
transfer of the bishop to g3, with
the idea to exert pressure against
the enemy eS-pawn. ll . . . lt:Jbd7 12.
ig3 h6 13.l:!d2± and Black has a
very difficult position, Schandorff
- Nordqvist, Stockholm 1996.
250
With his last move, White has
prepared the doubling of his
rooks on the d-file after which
Black, in order to preserve his
bishop on the d6-square, must re­
treat with his knight to a passive
position on e8; otherwise, he will
lose his eS-pawn.
7 .. .'it>e8. This retreat of the
king seems more reliable, because
the t7-pawn will be reliably pro­
tected. 8.lt:Jf3 ig4 ! ? Black exploits
the fact that White's knight is
pinned and the eS-pawn is un­
touchable and develops his bish­
op to an active position (8 . . . lt:Jbd7
9.ih4 - see 7 . . . lt:Jbd7). 9.ie2
lt:Jbd7 10 .h3 .hf3 ll . .ixf3 icS 12.
ih4 ie7, Scerbo - V.Georgiev,
Cutro 2003, 13.ig3t White has a
slight edge thanks to his bishop­
pair, moreover that Black has
some problems with the protec­
tion of his eS-pawn.
8 . . . Wc7 9.ic4 ib4 10.l:!he1
hc3 ll.bxc3 l:!f8 12.a4t This is an
important move. White does not
allow his opponent to advance b7-
b5. All his pieces are in action and
his bishops have occupied very
active positions, while Black has
not completed his development
yet. Therefore, despite the weak­
ening of his queenside pawn­
structure, White's position is
preferable.
9 . .ih4
 l.d4 d6 2.e4 ltJf6 3. ltJ c3 e5 4.de de 5. V!ixd8 W xd8 6 . /igS
Once again his bishop is trans­
ferred to g3 in order to exert pres­
sure against the enemy eS-pawn.
9 . . . .ib4
9 . . . /icS 10.ic4 ib6. Black's
bishop is in a hurry to occupy the
c7-square, in order to protect reli­
ably the eS-pawn and after that
Black obtains a reliable but pas­
sive position. 11.�d2 . White plans
to double his rooks. ll . . . fi.c7 12.
�hd1 We7 13.a3 h6 14.b4. He oc­
cupies space on the queenside.
14 . . . �e8 15.ltJe1 ! This is an impor­
tant manoeuvre of White's knight.
After Black has defended reliably
the eS-pawn, White's knight has
nothing to do on f3, so it is headed
for the cS-square. 15 . . . ltJb6 16.fi.b3
gS 17 . .ig3 ltJhS 18.ltJd3 f6 19.ltJcS
�d8 20.�xd8 ixd8 21.f3 aS 2 2 .
if2 axb4 23.axb4;!; - The knight is
very powerful on cS, while Black's
bishop on c8 is squeezed with the
protection of the pawn on b7,
Malakhov - Damljanovic, Kal­
lithea 2002.
10 .ic4 .ia5
• enemy eS-pawn is not sufficiently
It seems rather dubious for
Black to choose 10 . . . ixc3, since
he would fail to exploit the defects
of his opponent's pawn-structure
due to his considerable lag in de­
velopment. ll.bxc3 bS 12 .fi.b3 cS,
Videnova - Bednikova, Dupnitsa
2010 (Black loses after 12 . . . ltJxe4?,
since following 13.ltJxe5+-, he
cannot capture the knight in view
of the checkmate and he is help­
less against the threats ltJf7 and
�he1) 13.c4 ! ± White gets rid of his
doubled pawns and obtains a bet­
ter position. Black's king is mis­
placed in the centre of the board,
despite the fact that it is an end­
game and the move 13 . . . b4? loses
immediately, since following 14.
ia4 ! , White's bishop enters the
actions with a decisive effect. 14 . . .
We7 1S.fi.c6 �b8 16.ixd7 ixd7
17.ltJxe5 ie8 18.f3+-, Black is not
only a pawn down, but has a seri­
ous weakness on cS which White
can attack effectively with the
moves ltJd3 and if2 .
ll.a3 h6
It is possibly more reliable
for Black to try 1 1 . . .ic7, al­
though even then following 12.
ltJe1 ! ? We7 13.ltJd3 �e8 14.f3 ltJf8,
Jurkovic - Jovanovic, Sibenik
2005, 1S.if2i, White maintains a
slight edge, because his pieces
have occupied much more active
positions.
(diagram)
12 .ixf6!
.
•
He exploits the fact . that the
251
Chapter 17
protected and Black cannot cap­
ture on f6 with his knight, so
White provokes a weakening of
the enemy pawn-structure.
12 .•• gxf6 13.li)e2
White's knights are headed for
the fS-outpost.
13 ... b5 14.ia2 .ic7 15.li)h4
li)b6 16.li)g3 ie6 17.ib3 h5
tS.c!l)gf5 ggs t9.gd3 gds 20.
gg3
Black's position in the game
Khenkin - Bellini, Bratto 2004 is
difficult. He is faced with the un­
pleasant choice - to either give up
to his opponent the g-file, or to
exchange on g3, which will lead to
the opening of the h-file, after
which Black's pawn on hS will be
252
attacked by White's rook on hl.
There followed: 20 . . ,gxg3 21.
hxg3 �f8 22.li)e3. White is re­
grouping his knights. Naturally,
his knight on h4 belongs to the fS­
square. 22 . . . li)c8 23.li)hf5±-
After this move, Black is incapa­
ble of holding on too his hS-pawn
and White has excellent chances
of realising his material advan­
tage.
D) 6 . . . ie6
This is the most logical move
for Black. He develops his bishop
to an active position and prevents
the appearance of White's bishop
on c4, freeing the c8-square for
his king in the process.
7.g3 ! ?
Grandmaster I.Khenkin likes
to play this move. White is pre­
paring f2-f4 and wishes to be able
to recapture on f4 with a pawn, if
necessary, in order not to lose
control over the eS-square.
Black has two basic moves in
this position: Dl) 7. . . ib4 and
02) 7. . . �c8 .
 l.d4 d6 2.e4 ltJf6 3. ltJ c3 e5 4.de de 5. Wfxd8 c.!lxd8 6. :1J..g5 ie6 7.g3
Following 7 . . . i.e7 8.f4 h6 9.
i.h4, he can sacrifice a pawn in
the spirit of some of the variations
of the Sicilian Defence, but White
can still maintain the advantage
after a precise play. 9 . . . g5 10.fxg5
ltJh7 ll.gxh6 i.xh4 12.gxh4 ltJf6
13.i.h3. The trade of the bishops
is in favour of White, since Black's
bishop is much more active. 13 . . .
ixh3 14.ltJxh3 1'!xh6 15.ltJg5 c.!le7
16.1'!f1 (It is also good for White to
continue with 16.ltJf3 ! ? ltJbd7 17.
:B:gU and although his pawns on
the h-file are doubled, but one of
them is extra! ) 16 . . . c6 17.1'!f5 ltJbd7
18.ltJf3;t White's rook and knight
squeeze Black's pieces with the
protection of his e5-pawn, while
White has an extra pawn despite
its being doubled, Khenkin -
Belkhodja, Amsterdam 2005.
It does not seem logical for
Black to opt for 7 . . . h6. White of­
ten exchanges himself on f6 and
here Black loses a tempo, falling
back in development, in order to
force this trade. 8.ixf6+ gxf6 9.f4
ic5 (The position is difficult for
him in the variation 9 . . . ib4 10.
0-0-0+ c.!le7 ll.f5 ixc3 12 .fxe6
id4 13.exf7 ixg1 14.1'!xg1 c.!lxf7,
Chuprov - Kodinets, chessassis­
tantclub.com 2004. Here, White
could have obtained a great ad­
vantage by transferring his rook
to the d-file. 15.1'!g2 ! c.!le7 16.
1'!gd2± Black's defence is very dif­
ficult, because he cannot com­
plete the development of his
queenside pieces, because his
knight must protect the d7-
square against the penetration of
White's rook.) 10.0-0-0+ c.!lc8
(Black loses a pawn after 10 . . . c.!le8
11.f5 ic8 12.4Jd5± Khenkin - El­
lenbroek, Almemlo 2006.) ll.fS
id7 12.ltJd5 ic6 13.ltJxf6± - His
compensation for the pawn is in­
sufficient.
After 7 . . . ltJbd7, Black's bishop
on e6 cannot retreat anywhere
and White can exploit this with
the energetic move 8.f4. (It is
worse for him to play the routine
move 8.0-0-0, because after that
Black's bishop can retreat with
tempo, attacking White's rook on
dl. Later, in the game V.Belov ­
Yudin, Moscow 2009, there fol­
lowed 8 . . . c.!lc8 9.f4 ig4 10.1'!d3
and in this complicated and dou­
ble-edged position the opponents
agreed to a draw.) 8 . . . h6 (8 . . . i.b4?
9.f5+-) 9.ixf6+ ltJxf6 10.0-0-0+
c.!lc8 ll.ltJf3 exf4 (in the game Prie
- Alawieh, Fouesnant 1997, Black
chose the active reply ll . . . ib4,
but following 12.f5 i.d7 13.ltJxe5
ixc3 14.bxc3 1'!e8 15.ltJxd7 ltJxd7,
White had the powerful tactical
resource 16.f6 ! and as a result of
16 . . . ltJxf6 17.i.h3+ c.!lb8 18.e5±, he
seized completely the initiative)
12.gxf4 g6, Santo-Roman - Cha­
banon, Nantes 1993, 13.ltJd4 ! ;t
Black lags i n development and
fails to preserve his two-bishop
advantage without considerable
positional concessions. ·
253
Chapter 17
Dl) 7 .ib4 8.0-0-0+
•••
Naturally, White removes his
king from the pin with tempo.
8 • . . lbbd7
Black ends up in a very passive
position in the variation 8 . . . 'it>e8
9 . .bf6 gxf6 10.ttld5 .bdS. Unfor­
tunately for him he must part
with his powerful light-squared
bishop; otherwise, he loses a
pawn 1U!xd5 c6 12 .!!d1 tt::l d7 13.
ih3 tt::l b 6 14.tt::l f3;!; Rendle - Mah,
England 2012. White's knight
goes to fS and there it will be per­
fectly placed. The doubled f­
pawns are a permanent defect of
Black's position and he must de­
fend for long a rather unpleasant
endgame.
8 . . . 'it>c8 9.hf6. White is pre­
paring to occupy the dS-square
with his knight. 9 . . . gxf6 10.tt::l d 5
hdS (Black's reluctance to ex­
change on dS leads to a worse po­
sition for him. 10 . . . ic5 11.tt::l xf6
.ixf2 12 .ih3 tt::l c6 13 . .be6+ fxe6
14.tt::l h3 ie3+ 15.'it>b1 b6, Khenkin
- Koscielski, Bad Wiessee 2000,
254
16.!!d3 ! ih6 17.c3± - The arising
endgame is difficult for Black,
since he has no compensation for
his compromised pawn-struc­
ture.) 11.exd5 (It is also interest­
ing for White to play here simply
11.!!xd5 ! ? c6 12 . .ih3+ 'it>c7 13.
!!d3;!; and Black's doubled f-pawns
do not beautify his position.) 11 . . .
i.cS, Khenkin - Urban, Koszalin
1998, 12 .ih3 + ! tt::l d7 13.tt::l e 2 'it>d8
(It seems rather dubious for him
to try now 13 . . . .ixf2 ? ! , because af­
ter 14.!!hf1 i.e3+ 15.'it>b1 'it>d8 16.
tt::l c3 hS 17.i.xd7 'it>xd7 18.tt::l e 4±,
White regains his pawn preserv­
ing all the pluses of his position.)
14.tt::l c3 hS 15.tt::l e4;!; and in the
arising situation, White main­
tains a stable advantage.
9.f4 .ixc3
This was the idea of Black's
move 7. He has compromised
White's queenside pawn-struc­
ture.
10.bxc3 'it>e8
But not 10 . . . h6? 11 . .ixf6+ gxf6
12.f5 ha2 13.'it>b2 +- and Black's
bishop was trapped in the game
Zaragatski - Zeldin, playchess.
com 2008.
ll.f5 .ixa2
It is bad for him to choose 11 . . .
tt::l x e4, since after 12 .fxe6 fxe6 13.
ie3 tt::l xc3 14.!!e1 tt::l x a2 + 15.'it>b2
tt::l b4 16.tt::l f3± White's minor piec­
es are evidently stronger than
Black's pawns in this endgame,
 l.d4 d6 2.e4 ltJf6 3Ji:Jc3 e5 4.de de 5. WixdB <ll xdB 6. ig5 .ie6 7.g3

Khenkin - V.Orlov, Almemlo

2006.

Now, White cannot obtain an

edge with 11.0-0, because of 11 . . .
.ih3 and Black has good counter­
12 .ixf6 ltJxf6 13. <llb 2 ttlxe4
• play on the weakened light
14.ttlh3 c6 15.c4 f6 16.l:!el squares in his opponent's camp.
h:c4 17.hc4 ttld6 18 .ld3;!; • It is stronger for White to play
White's bishop is more powerful 11 . .ixf6 ! ? gxf6 12. 0-0-0;!; In the
than Black's three pawns. arising position, White's superior
pawn-structure is a more impor­
tant factor than Black's two-bish­
D2) 7 ••• <ll c8 op advantage. In addition, he
must lose time in order to com­
plete his development and to
bring his queen's rook into the ac­
tions.

9 . . . h6, Kornev - Shabanov,

Moscow 2007, 10 . .ixf6 gxf6 11.
ltJf3 ltJc6 12.a3 .ixc3+ 13.bxc3;!;
The vulnerability of Black's pawns
on the f-file is a more important
factor than the weakness of
White's pawns on the opposite
He evacuates prudently his side of the board.
king away from the pin.
8.{4 .lb4 9 .ld3 • It deserves a very serious at­
(diagram) tention for Black to consider here
9 . . . ttle8 the move 9 . . ltJc6 ! ? . Later, in the
.

game Kayser - Markoja, Email

9 . . . ltJa6. His knight is headed 2011, there followed lO.fS .ixc3+
for the cS-square. lO.ltJge2 ltJcS. 11.bxc3 .id7 12.ttlf3 ltJe8 13.g4 f6

255
Chapter 17

14 . .ie3 l2Jd6 15.c4 b6 16.g5;!; and

White's extra space and the pos­
sibility for active actions on the
kingside not only compensate the
vulnerability of his queenside
pawns, but also provide him with
a slight edge.
10.fxe5
He has won a pawn, but keep­
ing it will not be an easy task for
him.
10 h6 ll . .if4 g5 12 .ie3
.•• • slight advantage after 14.0-0-0
c!LJd7 13.c!lJf3 if'S ig7 15.c!lJd5 c!LJxe5 16.c!LJe7+
(diagram) �d7 17.c!LJf5 hf5 (17 . . . l2Jxf3??
Black is transferring his bish­ 18 . .ib5+-) 18.c!LJxe5+ ixe5 19.
op to g7 in order to increase his exf5;!; and again, just like in many
pressure against the enemy eS­ variations which we have ana­
pawn, !.Popov - Khairullin, Ulan lysed in this chapter, White's two
Ude 2009. powerful bishops provide him
Now, White can maintain a with a slight edge.

Conclusion
We have just completed our analysis of the variation with 3 . . . e5 4.
dxeS. There arises after it an endgame which is slightly better for White
and he maintains the initiative thanks to his superior development.
Depending on Black's responses, White can fight for the advantage in
two different ways.
Following 6 . . . c6, he develops his bishop to c4, his knight on f3 and
castles queenside. Later, he squeezes his opponent with the protection
of the pawn on eS with the help of placing his bishop on the g3-square.
Subsequently, White doubles his rooks on the d-file and transfers his
knight along the route f3-el-d3-c5 and if Black protects his pawn on eS
with the move f7-f6, then White transfers his bishop on f2 (after f2-f3).
All this guarantees for him a slight but long lasting advantage in the
endgame.
In response to 6 . . . .ie6, White prepares the pawn-advance f2-f4 with
the move g2-g3 and forces again his opponent to adhere to a passive
defence. In general, it is much easier for White to play this endgame.

256
Chapter 18 l.d4 d6 2.e4 �f6 3.�c3 �bd7
It is easily understandable that
with his last move Black prepares
the pawn-advance e7-e5, avoiding
the exchange on eS with a transfer
into an endgame, which we have
just analysed in our previous
chapter.
As a rule, the move 3 . . . ltlbd7 is
usually chosen by chess players in
a fighting spirit, who strive for
complicated positions with many
pieces on the board, irrelevant of
the colour of pieces they play
with. A.Morozevich, D.Khisma­
tullin and some other grandmas­
ters play like this. White cannot
enter now a slightly better end­
game, but has some other promis­
ing possibilities.
4.f4
This move is simple and
strong! H .Pillsbury played like
this back in the year 1902.
White is preparing e4-e5 and
wishes to exploit the basic draw­
back of Black's third move - the
absence of the d7-square for the
retreat of his knight on f6.
4 .. e5
.
This is a logical move. Black
has played 3 . . . ltlbd7 in order to
advance e7-e5.
His other possibilities are not
only inconsistent, but are just du­
bious.
For example: 4 . . . g6? ! S.eS lLlhS
6.�e2 ltlg7 7.ltlf3± Black has wast­
ed too many tempi for the com­
pletely useless fianchettoing of
his knight. White has a powerful
pawn-centre and a lead in devel­
opment.
Or 4 . . . c5? ! S.eS ! cxd4 6.11tfxd4
ltlg4 (It is not preferable for Black
to opt for 6 . . . dxe5 7.fxe5±, be­
cause now the g4-square is con­
trolled by White's qQeen · and
Black's knight will be forced to
retreat to its initial position.) 7.
257
Chapter 18
exd6 exd6 8 . .id2 ! White plans to
castle queenside. Now, Black will
be faced with a rather unpleasant
choice. He must either come un­
der attack in the middle game, or
exchange the queens and enter an
inferior endgame due to the vul­
nerability of his d6-pawn. 8 . . .
lbgf6 9.0-0-0 .ie7 10 .g4 1M/b6
(His position will be difficult too
following 10 . . . 0-0 ll.gS lbe8 12.
lbdS±) ll.lbf3 1M/xd4 12.lbxd4
lbxg4 13.lbd5 .idS 14.:B:e1 + 'kt>f8 15.
lbbS±. White maintains a great
and possibly even decisive advan­
tage. Naturally, he will regain eas­
ily his sacrificed pawn after which
Black will hardly manage to neu­
tralise the activity of his oppo­
nent's pieces and complete his
development without material
losses.
After 4 . . . c6? ! S.eS lbdS 6.lbxd5
cxdS 7 . .id3 e6 8.lbf3 .ie7 (Follow­
ing the exchange 8 . . . dxe5, the f­
file is opened for White's rook
and the c1-h6 diagonal for his
bishop. 9.fxe5 .ie7 10.0-0 fS 11.
exf6 lbxf6 12 .lbe5 0-0 13.c3 .id6
14 . .ig5 Wfc7 15.1Mle2± - His pieces
have occupied very active posi­
tions and can begin an attack
against Black's king at any mo­
ment, moreover that he must
worry about the vulnerability of
the pawn on e6, Kasimdzhanov -
Schubert, Mainz 2010.) 9.0-0 g6
10.1Mfe2t White has extra space,
while Black lags in development,
A.Muzychuk - Akobian, Wijk aan
Zee 2010.
258
5.c!bf3
White increases his pressure
against the eS-square and forces
his opponent to give up the cen­
tre.
s . . . exd4
This is the best move for Black,
since after his alternatives his po­
sition becomes very bad.
It seems anti-positional for
him to continue with 5 . . . 1M/e7, be­
cause Black's queen will hamper
there the development of his
kingside pieces. 6.fxe5 dxeS
7.lbb5 ! ? Now, the game is opened
and this is in favour of White be­
cause he is better developed. 7 . . .
lbb6 B.lbxeS lbxe4 9 . .id3 lbf6 1 0 .
0 - 0 c6 1l.lbc3 .ie6 12.l2le2 0-0-0
13.lbf4± - after the exchange on
e6, White's bishop will turn into
very powerful force. Naturally,
Black cannot play 13 . . . :B:xd4? due
to 14.lbxc6 ! + -
I t i s also very bad for him to
choose 5 . . .exf4 6 ..ixf4± White has
a powerful pawn-centre, a lead in
development and in the future he

can organise active actions on the
f-fi.le after i.c4 and 0-0.
Following 5 ... i.e7, White can
simply capture on eS. 6.dxe5 dxeS
7.fxe5 lt:lg4 8 . .if4± Now, the pawn
on eS is reliably protected and
Black must only hope that he can
create some counterplay connect­
ed with the penetration of his
knight to the f2-square. This
knight-sortie however, is doomed
to fail in view of his lag in devel­
opment. 8 . . . ic5 9.'1Wd2 lt:lf2 (9 . . .
.if2 + 10.�e2 i.b6 ll.h3 lt:lh6? 1 2 .
igS+-) 10.E:g1 (10.-igS ! ? ; 10.e6 ! ?
fxe6 1l.i.g5) 10 . . . lt:lg4, Malbran -
Tempone, Buenos Aires 1997
(Black's position is very bad after
10 . . . c6 ll.i.e2 lt:lg4 12.E:fl±, White
not only has an extra pawn but his
development is superior.). Here,
he could have sacrificed the ex­
change beginning a decisive on­
slaught. 11.0-0-0 ! hg1 12.lt:lxgl.
There may follow: 12 . . . 0-0 13.h3
lt:lh6 14.lt:ld5 i>h8 15.hh6 gxh6
16.'1Wxh6 E:g8 17.lt:lf6 E:g7 18.
'!Wd2 +-, Black has avoided being
checkmated on h7, but he has
paid a too dear price for that.
Now, he loses his knight because
of the pin and White ends up with
a decisive material advantage.
The other possibility for Black
to sacrifice his e5-pawn does not
promise him an easy life either.
5 . . . c6 6.dxe5 dxeS 7.fxe5 lt:lg4 8.
e6! White gives back his extra
pawn just at the right moment
and seizes completely the initia-
l.d4 d6 2.e4 ltlf6 3. ltl c3 ltl bd7 4/4
tive. 8 . . . fxe6 9.lt:lg5 lt:ldeS (9 . . . h5
10.ie2±) 10.'1Wxd8+ i>xd8 ll.h3
lt:lf6 (The character of the position
remains more or less the same if
Black retreats his knight to the
edge of the board ll . . . lt:lh6, fol­
lowing 12.i.f4 lt:lg6 13.0-0-0+
\t>e8 14.i.g3± - he has a weakness
on e6 and lags in development,
Hoefer - Van Laar, Email 2003)
12.if4 lt:lg6 13.0-0-0+ i>e8 14.
.ic7± Black is faced with a difficult
defence in the endgame, since he
can hardly coordinate his pieces
and the weakness on e6 is hurting
him, Lomonosovas - Barsciaus­
kas, Panevezys 2008.
6.tbd4
This is stronger than capturing
with the knight. White intends to
castle queenside and preserves
the threat e4-e5.
6 ••• c6
This is the main response for
Black. He takes the dS-square un­
der control and prepares · the
move '!Wb6, just in case, fn order to
try to trade the queens and to di-
259
Chapter 18
minish his opponent's attacking
potential. He also has the active
possibility to advance d6-d5, fol­
lowed by �cs.
It is bad for Black to play 6 . . .
g6? ! , due to 7.e5 ! dxeS 8.fxe5 �cS
9.¥tl'a4 tLlhS, Kulicov - Novitzkij ,
St Petersburg 1999. Now, White
can begin a decisive offensive
with the line: 10.g4! tLlg7 11.�g5
�e7 12 .he7 ¥tl'xe7 13.tLldS '?tfcS 14.
0-0-0 0-0 1S.b4 ¥tl'f2 16.¥tl'b3 c6
17.tLle7+ 'it>h8 18.tLlxc8+- and
Black ends up a piece down.
He should better avoid 6 . . . �e7,
because of 7.e5 dxeS (or 7 . . . c5 8.
¥tl'd2 dxeS 9.fxe5 tLlg4 10.¥tl'f4± and
Black's knight on g4 will be a
cause of permanent worries for
him, Zidu - Kuchta, Czech Re­
public 2000) 8.fxe5 �cS 9.¥tl'c4
'?tfe7 10.¥tl'e2 tLlg4 ll.lLldS �f2 + 12.
¥tl'xf2 tLlxf2 13.tLlxe7 tLlxh1 14.
tLldS+-, Black's knight will not
run away from the h1-square and
White's two minor pieces will be
obviously stronger than Black's
rook, Martin Gonzalez - Ortega
Ruiz, Linares 1998.
6 ... tLlcS. This is a possibility af­
ter which Black does not equalise
indeed, but reaches a fighting po­
sition. 7.�e3 �e7 (It is not good
for him to choose 7 . . . g6 - he is be­
hind in development anyway and
cannot afford to lose time for fian­
chettoing the bishop. 8.0-0-0
ig7 9.e5 tLlg4 lO.�gl± Black has
great difficulties with the protec-
260
tion of his d6-pawn. Later, in the
game Yakovich - Johansson,
Stockholm 1996, there followed:
10 . . . tLlh6 11.¥tl'b4 ! aS 12 .¥tl'a3 tLle6
13.exd6+- and Black had no com­
pensation for the pawn.) 8.0-0-0
0-0 9.e5 tLlfd7 (It is worse for him
to play 9 . . . tLlg4, because after
10 .�g1 �e6 ll.h3 tLlh6 12 .g4±,
White's pieces exert powerful
pressure in the centre and Black's
knight on h6 is horribly mis­
placed, German - De Freitas, For­
taleza 1951.) 10.'it>b1 ! ?t White ex­
erts rather unpleasant pressure
against the d6-square, has extra
space and can deploy easily his
pieces to more active positions.
The idea of the prophylactic move
12.'it>b1 for White is to avoid some
tricks along the c1-h6 diagonal in
the heat of the fight.
7 .ie3
.
7 d5
. . .
Black wishes to develop his
bishop on f8 to an active position.
He fails to equalise after the
more prudent line: 7 . . . ¥tl'b6 8.

0-0-0 1Wxd4 (following 8 . . . ie7
9.1Wd2 '<Mfc7 10.id3 0-0 llJ''!:h eU,
White has more space (a pawn on
e4 against a pawn on d6) and can
prepare patiently a breakthrough
in the centre - e4-eS) 9.hd4 ie7
lO.eS dxeS lUxeS lLJhS 12 .lLJe4
0-0 13.lLJd6;!; Meszaros - Belk­
hodja, Agneaux 1999. He is better
in this endgame thanks to his
powerful knight on d6. Black will
have problems completing his de­
velopment, since he cannot ex­
change on d6 (White will obtain a
very powerful passed pawn if this
happens.), so if he wishes to de­
velop his bishop on c8, he must
not only remove his knight from
the d7-square, but also take care
about the protection of his b7-
pawn.
It would be too precarious for
Black to try 7 . . . 1i.e7 8.0-0-0 0-0,
because after 9.eS, his knight will
have to go to the rather unfavour­
able h6-square. 9 . . . lLJg4 (The re­
treat to the edge of the board does
not look any better 9 . . . lLJe8 10.
�bl '<MfaS ll.id3 dS 12.fS--+ Eren­
burg - Stanley, Oak Brook 2007.
White's pawn-tandem eS and fS
seems quite threatening. He is
planning to follow with fS-f6,
opening the way of his bishop to
the h7-square and beginning a
crushing attack. It is understand­
able that Black';s undeveloped
queenside pieces are incapable of
assisting in the defence of his
king.) lO.igl dxeS (lO . . . dS ll.h3
lLJh 6 12.g4± and once again the
l.d4 d6 2.e4 lLJf6 3. lLJ c3 lLJ bd7 4/4
knight on h6 does not beautify
Black's position, Sitnikov - Eren­
burg, Kolontaevo 1997) ll.fxeS
lLJb6 (after ll . . . lLJgxeS 12.lLJxeS if6
13.1We4 ixeS 14.:gxd7 ixd7 lS.
'<MixeS :ges 16.1Wg3±, White's two
minor pieces are stronger than
Black's rook and pawns) 12.'<Mfe4
1We8 13.h3 lLJh6 14.g4 fS 1S.exf6
ixf6 16.id3 1Wxe4 17.lLJxe4± Gro­
szpeter - Mikac, Austria 199S. He
has succeeded in trading queens
and now his king is not endan­
gered, but White is better in this
endgame. His minor pieces have
occupied very active positions
and are well coordinated. On the
contrary, Black's cavalry is roam­
ing on different sides of the board.
8.e5!?
This i s a reliable move. White
is striving to obtain a slight but
stable advantage.
He does not need to win a
pawn and enter the tactical com­
plications in the variation S.exdS
icS 9.1Wd3 1We7oo
8 ... �g4
Black's knight retreats with
tempo.
261
Chapter 18
He has also tried in practice
8 . . . .ic5 9.1Mfd2 .be3 10.1Mfxe3 4Jg4
(It is not so good for Black to opt
for 10 . . . 1Mfe7, since he will fail to
preserve his knight on the f6-
square anyway. 11.0-0-0 4:\cS,
Saltaev - Janoszka, Germany
2013. Now, White must simply
advance his kingside pawns:
12.h3 ! ? 0-0 13.g4± and Black's
defence is very difficult, moreover
that he has no active counterplay
at all.) 11.1Mfd2 "1Wb6 12.0-0-0 "!We3
13.h3 �xd2+ 14.Ei:xd2 4Je3 1S . .id3
4:\cS 16.l'l:el. The queens have been
traded, but White maintains the
initiative in this endgame. His
pieces are better mobilised and he
has a clear-cut plan for the occu­
pation of additional space on the
kingside with the moves g4, fS etc.
16 ... 4Jxd3+ (16 ... 4:\fS 17.g4 4Je7 18.
fS 0-0, Tiviakov - Khismatullin,
St Petersburg 2012. Here, White
could have played 19.b4 ! ? 4Jxd3+
2 0 .cxd3;!; and he would have oc­
cupied space on the kingside and
preserved the possibility to or­
ganise gradually a breakthrough
on the opposite side of the board
with a2-a4, b4-b5.) 17.cxd3 4Jf5 18.
g4 4Je7 19.f5 �d7 (19 ... h5 20. 4:\gS
hxg4 2l.hxg4 Ei:h4 22.l'l:g2± Hav­
ing advanced his pawns, White
has not only occupied additional
space on the kingside, but has re­
stricted considerably Black's bish­
op on c8. He will have problems
to complete the development of
his pieces even in the endgame
and his defence will be very diffi­
cult, Zaja - Kosanski, Velika Gori-
262
ca 2006.) 2 0.f6;!; - Black's king is
stranded in the centre and White
is beginning active actions. Black
will need to find plenty of very ac­
curate move in the oncoming
fight; otherwise, White's initiative
may become decisive, Palac -
Mrdja, Porto San Giorgio 2002.
9 .igl
•
9 ••• .ic5
The endgame is inferior for
Black following 9 . . . 1Mfb6 10.�xb6
axb6 ll.h3 4Jh6 12.4Je2 �b4+ 13.
c3 �e7 14.g4;!; and once again it is
easy to notice that Black's knight
on h6 is obviously misplaced.
Following 9 . . . 4Jh6 10.0-0-0
4:\fS (It is also possible for Black to
try 10 . . . 4:\cS 1l.�d2 ie7 12.'it>bU;
or 10 ... "\Wa5 1l.a3t and in both cas-
es White maintains a slight ad­
vantage, since Black's knight is
misplaced at the edge of the
board.) 11.1Mfd2 �b4 12.a3 iaS,
Dos Santos - Felgaer, Buenos Ai­
res 2008. Now, after the simple
move 13. 'it>b1 ! ?±, White's pros-

pects are evidently preferable, be­
cause Black's queenside counter­
play (b7-b5-b4), is evidently not
so effective as White's actions
with g4, fS etc.
10.Wd2 .ixgl lU�xgl Wb6
12.0-0-0
It is also good for him to con­
tinue with 12.lL:la4 ! ? We3+ 13.
�xe3 lLJxe3 14.�d3 lL:Jb6 (14 ... b5
15.lL:Jc3 lL:Jb6 16.a3t Dreev - Kvei­
nys, Vienna 1996) 15.lL:Jc5t. The
arising position resembles an
endgame in the French Defence,
except that Black's pawn is on c6
and not on e6. This difference is
much rather in favour of White,
because now, Black cannot organ­
ise counterplay on the c-file, while
White can simply advance his
kingside pawns. Black's bishop on
c8, just like in the French De­
fence, is not so active as his oppo­
nent's bishop on d3, because it is
severely restricted by his own
pawns on b7, c6 and dS. When
White advances g4 and fS, Black's
bishop will have only one remain­
ing d7-square.
l.d4 d6 2.e4 lLJf6 3. lLJ c3 lLJ bd7 4/4
12 . . . .!l:\c5
There arises an already famil­
iar endgame with an advantage
for White following 12 . . . �e3 13.h3
�xd2+ 14.'t!lxd2 lL:Jh6 15.g4t
Black lags in development and
it would be too risky for him to
win a pawn with the line : 12 . . .
lL:Jxh2, because after 13.lL:Jd4 lL:Jg4
(Following 13 ... lL:Jxf1 14.E!dxf1:;; Pa­
lac - Schmidt Schaeffer, Munich
1992, White's initiative compen­
sates his minimal material deficit
with an interest. Black lags in de­
velopment, his king is stranded in
the centre and castling kingside
would be very risky for him, be­
cause in that case White will or­
ganise a powerful attack against
the enemy king with the move f5-
f6.) 14.�e2 lL:JcS 15�£3 hS, Niehaus
- Schmidt Schaeffer, Berlin 2006.
Here, with the move 16.E!h1 !±,
White could have created great
problems for his opponent. His
initiative is very powerful and
Black's extra pawn is absolutely
immaterial, moreover that he lags
considerably in development.
13 . .!l:\d4 .!l:\e6 14.h3
263
Chapter 18

14 .tbxd4
••
White has a better endgame
after 14 . . . '?9xd4, for example: 15.
'?9xd4 lLlxd4 16J'!xd4 lLle3 17.id3.
Now, he should not be afraid of
17 . . . c5, because of 18.ib5+ <;!{f8
Vienna 2012. White must play
here 15.hxg4 after which his po­
sition is preferable. Now, it seems
tremendously risky for Black to
try to win the exchange with the
move 15 tbb3+ ?! (It is possibly
•••

19J!:d2 .ie6 20 . .id3 !i:d8 21.lLlb5
d4 2 2 .lLld6;t - his knight on d6 is
very powerful, while Black's
strong knight on e3 is not stable,
since White can undermine its
base with the move c2-c3.
better for him to opt for 15 . . . ixg4
16.'?9xd4 ixd1 17.'?9xb6 axb6 18.
<;!;>xdU, but even then, White's two
minor pieces are stronger than
Black's rook and pawn.) 16.axb3
'?9xgl 17.tbxd5 0-0 18.tbe7+
<;!;>h8 19.f5. White has a very
powerful attack for the exchange.
19 '?9h2 20.'?9d6 '?9f4+ 2t.<;!;>bt
.••

ges 22.ic4 '?9xg4 23.'?9d3 ! ?

This position was reached in
the game Kochetkova - Moser,
Black has great problems to parry
White's threats (.if7 and f6, fol­
lowed by !i:h1). It would not be so
clear if he chooses 23.hf7, be­
cause after 23 . . . hf5 24.ixe8
!!:xeS 25.'?9d8 ig6 26.lLlxg6+ '?9xg6
27.'?9d7 <;!;>g8 28.'?9xb7 !!:xeS;!; Black
preserves some chances of saving
the game in an endgame with ma­
jor pieces.

Conclusion
Black's main idea in the variation with 3 . . . lLlbd7 is to avoid the
slightly inferior endgame, arising after 3 . . . e5 4.dxe5. Following 4.f4,
White creates serious problems for Black. He must either play a worse
middle game (often with a "bad" knight on h6) or enter a very difficult
endgame in which White has a much more active bishop ( d3 against a
black bishop on c8) and a quite clear plan for active actions - advanc­
ing his kingside pawns - g4, fS. Naturally, it cannot be asserted that the
endgame is winning for White, but no doubt his game is much more
pleasant, while Black is forced to adhere for a long time only to a pas­
sive defence without any practical chances of seizing the initiative.

264
Chapter 19 l.d4 d6 2.e4 �f6 3.�c3 c6
This move is relatively seldom
played in the contemporary tour­
nament practice. It is considered
that Black can hardly obtain an
acceptable position with it. In­
deed, he does not fight for the
centre so actively and his pieces
do not enter the actions so quick­
ly. On the other hand, it has been
played by strong grandmasters
like Sh.Mamedyarov, V.Bologan,
Z.Azmaiparashvili etc. At the be­
ginning of his chess career M.
Adams played often like this. All
this emphasizes that although the
move 3 . . . c6 seems somewhat
slow, White's task to obtain an ad­
vantage might not be so easy.
The main idea of Black's move
three is to open the way of his
queen to the aS-square in order
for it to support the possibility e7-
e5. In addition, he might play at
some moment b7-b5, or g7-g6.
After the last move, there may
arise a position which would be
more typical for the Pirc Defence.
4.f4
This is White's most popular
and strongest move - he is pre­
paring e4-e5. Indeed, if Black is
reluctant to play e7-e5, then why
not play with White e4-e5, occu­
pying even more space?
Now, Black has a great choice
of possibilities. We will deal with
five moves for Black as. his main
replies: A) 4 . . . d5, B) 4 .. b5, C)
4 .. Jfb6, D) 4 . g6, E) 4 . . . tfa5.
. .
265
Chapter 19
At first however, we will ana­
lyse some not so popular possi­
bilities.
About 4 . . . lLibd7 S.es - see
Chapter 18.
It is obviously dubious for
Black to choose 4 . . . e5? ! , although
this move has been tested by
grandmasters as well. It leads to a
difficult position for him, since
sacrificing a pawn on eS is easy,
but regaining it proves to be very
difficult. S.dxeS dxeS 6.'\M/xd8+
'it>xd8 7.fxe5 lLig4 8.lLif3 lLid7 (Fol­
lowing 8 . . . .ic5 9.h3 lLie3 10 . .id3±
Ivanisevic - Markovic, Kraguje­
vac 2012, the g2-pawn is untouch­
able, because if Black captures it,
his knight will not run away from
the g2-square: 10 . . . lLixg2 + ?? 11.
'it>f1 lLie3+ 12.'it>e2 lLig2 13J:!h2 +­
and he loses his knight. So, Black
cannot restore the material bal­
ance and White will play the rest
of the game with an extra pawn,
despite its being doubled. He has
all the chances of realising it.) 9.
.if4 .icS 10 .h3 lLie3 ll.'it>d2 lLixfl+
12.:!!hxf1 h6 13.:!! a dl± Asauskas ­
Jankauskas, Vilnius 2000. White
is ahead in development and his
rooks are very well placed on the
d- and f-files. His e-pawns are iso­
lated and doubled, but we should
not forget that one of them is extra.
Black cannot facilitate his de­
fence with the move 4 . . . .ig4, be­
cause after S . .ie2 .ixe2 6.\Mfxe2,
due to his lag in development he
cannot prevent the pawn-advance
266
e4-e5. 6 ... e6 (The situation be­
comes even worse for Black fol­
lowing 6 . . . \Mfb6. He is behind in
development anyway, so going
after the enemy pawn on d4 is
bound to end in a disaster. 7.e5
dxeS 8.fxe5 lLidS 9.lLie4 \Mfxd4 10.
lLif3 \M!b4+ 1l.c3 '<Mfb6 12.c4 lLic7 13.
.ie3 '<MfaS+ 14 ..id2 \Mfa6 15.lLifg5+-,
White's attack has become crush­
ing, since Black's lag in develop­
ment is so great that he cannot
parry White's threats: lLid6 and
the simple move 0-0, after which
his f7-pawn will be defenceless,
Dabija - Gurgui, Email 2011.)
7.lLif3 .ie7 8.e5 lLifd7, Szymaniak
- Klatt, Essen 2003, 9.exd6 hd6
10.f5 \Mfe7 ll.fxe6 \Mfxe6 12.\Mfxe6+
fxe6 13.lLie4± White has a clear
advantage thanks to the vulnera­
bility of his opponent's e6-pawn.
4 . . . \Mfc7 S.lLif3 .ig4 (Black is in
a very bad position following 5 . . .
lLibd7 6.e5 lLidS 7.lLixd5 cxdS 8.
.id3 e6 9.0-0 .ie7 10.c3 b6, Tka­
chiev - Bajramovic, Neum 2000,
ll.lLigS ! .ixgS 12.exd6 ! \Mfxd6 13.
fxgS± - He lags considerably in
development, while White has
two powerful bishops and exerts
pressure against the f7-pawn.) 6.
h3 .ixf3 7.\Mfxf3
(diagram)
It is bad for Black to play 7 . . .
lLibd7? ! , i n view of 8.e5± and his
knight will be forced to retreat to
its initial position, Sylvan - M.
Hansen, Copenhagen 1993.
It is not preferable for him to
opt for 7... e6?! 8 ..ie3 .ie7 9.0-0-0

0-0 10 .�d3 tLlbd7 ll.g4±. White's
pawns are dominant in the centre
and now, he begins an offensive
on the kingside.
Following 7 . . . e5, Black can
only dream about equalising. 8.
�e3 tLlbd7 9.g4 ! ? White begins
immediately a pawn onslaught on
the kingside without delay. 9 . . . g6
10.0-0-0 �g7, D.Fridman - Ho­
kamp, Netherlands 2007, 11.
dxeS ! dxeS 12 .f5. It is understand­
able that Black cannot leave his
king in the centre, but after cas­
tling kingside he will be soon
checkmated. It would not be easi­
er for him to defend the position
after 12 . . . 0-0-0 13.g5 tLle8 14.
ha7+-, White has an extra pawn
and a better position.
A) 4 . . d5
.
It is amazing but this move,
which in fact loses two tempi for
Black (one to advance dS in two
moves and another to retreat the
knight after e4-e5), has been test­
ed in practice many times and
even a very strong grandmaster
like M.Krasenkow has played it. It
turns out that it is not so easy for
White to obtain an advantage, be­
cau se the position is closed and
l.d4 d6 2.e4 lL\f6 3. tLlc3 c6 4f4
the loss of time is not so impor­
tant. Later, Black can organise
counterplay on the fS and g4-
squares.
5.e5
White occupies space with
tempo.
5 .lbg8
•.
Black is going to build a defen­
sive line on the kingside which
will not be easy to break - hS, g6,
tLlh6, taking under control the key
squares g4 and fS. Naturally,
White will obtain an edge (the
loss of two tempi in the opening
cannot go unpunished), but
breaking Black's position will not
be an easy task at all.
If Black retreats his knight to
the centre of the board - 5 . . . tLle4,
then after 6.tLlxe4 dxe4, he may have
problems with the protection of his
pawn on e4. 7.tLle2 fS. This is the
only move; otherwise, he will lose
the pawn on e4. 8.c4 e6 9.tLlc3 tLla6
10.�e3 tLlc7 11.'Mib3 !i.e7 12 J:!dl±
Klovans - A.Ivanov, Beltsy 1977.
White's advantage is doubtless,
since Black can hardly parry the
267
Chapter 19
threat of the central pawn-break
d4-d5. In addition, he has prob­
lems with castling, because fol­
lowing 12 . . . 0-0?, White's pawn­
break 13.d5 ! + - will be crushing.
S . . . lLlg4. Black's position be­
comes horribly cramped after this
move. 6.�d3 lLlh6 7.lLlf3 e6, San­
tos - Galego, Portugal 2003 (It
may be possible that Black's best
practical chance may be to try to
build a barricade with 7 .. .f5 8.lLlgS
e6 9.ie3 ! ? lLlf7 10.lLlxf7 �xf7 11.
�f3 cS 12.0-0-0 cxd4 13.hd4
lLlc6 14.�f2 �aS 15.�bl± There
arises a position of a French type,
but with a misplaced black king
on the f7-square. White's advan­
tage is doubtless, but Black can
offer some resistance.) 8.�e3 �e7
9.�e2 0-0 10.h3 lLlf5 1l.�f2±, fol­
lowed by g2-g4 and White's king­
side attack develops effortlessly.
6 .id3 g6 7.lLlf3 h5 8.0-0
• 12
lLlh6
9.ti'el!?
This is an interesting idea.
White wishes to put a wedge in­
side Black's camp with the move.
268
9 ••• .if5 lO .ixfS c!Llxf5 ll.e6!
•
This is the only move; other­
wise, Black will play e7-e6 and his
position will become a hard nut to
crack.
ll ••• f6
This position was reached in
the game Bareiss - Mueller, Ger­
many 2001.
12.c!Llh4
White must exchange the pow­
erful enemy knight on fS.
••• c!Llxh4 13.ti'xh4 f5
He should better counter the
move 13 . . . �d6 with the energetic
response 14.f5 ! gxfS 15.l:!el. Now,
White regains his pawn with the
manoeuvre lLlc3-e2-g3-f5, for ex­
ample : 15 . . . lLla6 16.a3 �c7 17.lLle2
0-0-0 18.lLlg3 ih6 19.hh6 l:!xh6
20.lLlxf5;!; and his knight on fS oc­
cupies a dominant position and
the pawn on e6 cramps Black's
position considerably.
14.ti'g3 gb6
White's knight on c3 is doing
nothing (it is severely restricted
by Black's pawns on dS and c6)
and he should better transfer it to
the f3-square and from there it

can go to eS or gS.
15.ltl bl!? .ig7 16.c3 ltla6 17 .
llJd2 c5 18.llJf3;!; White has more
space and Black's rook is terribly
misplaced on the h6-square.
B) 4 b5•••
He wishes to seize the initia­
tive on the queenside.
5.e5!?
The best way t o counter a flank
attack is a strike in the centre, this
is well known and White is doing
exactly this with his last move.
s . . . b4
The exchange in the centre S . . .
dxeS i s i n favour of White, be­
cause following 6.fxeS, his bishop
on c1 will not be restricted by the
pawn on f4.
l.d4 d6 2.e4 ttJf6 3. ttJ c3 c6 4.f4
The exchange of strikes, begun
with the move 6 . . . b4, leads to a
better position for White. 7.exf6
bxc3 8.fxg7 .bg7 9.bxc3 eS, Rup­
precht - Schunk, Germany 2008,
10.ttJf3 ! He must try to develop
his pieces as quickly as possible.
10 . . . e4 n.ttJd2 0-0 12 .ie2 �as
13.ttJb3 ! White is not running af­
ter winning material, but wishes
to have active pieces and to seize
the initiative. 13 . . . �xc3+ . Other­
wise, Black would simply remain
a pawn down. 14 . .id2 �b2 1S.ib4
E:e8 16.E:b1 �xa2. Now, he has al­
ready an extra pawn, but his
queen will not run away from the
a2-square. 17. 0-0 ie6 18.�d2 aS
19.E:a1 axb4 20.E:xa2 E:xa2 21.ttJc5
.idS 22.E:bl± Black's compensa­
tion for the queen is insufficient.
His b4-pawn is very weak and he
is likely to lose it soon and after
that White will prepare the pawn­
advance c2-c4. Black's defence
will be very difficult.
6 . . . ttJd5 7.ttJf3 g6 8 . .id3 .ig7
9.0-0 0-0 (He will have great
problems after 9 . . . ttJxc3 10.bxc3
0-0 11.�e1 ttJa6 12 .�h4� White's
attack is very powerful, Barquero
Pinar - Sanchez Camino, Barce­
lona 2006; ll.a4 ! ? bxa4 12 .�el±)
10.ttJxdS �xdS 11.�e1 f6 12.�h4
fxe5 13 . .ie4 �d7, Ehlvest - Kaka­
geldyev, Ivano-Frankovsk 1982.
Here, White could have forced ad­
vantageous simplifications with
14 . .ih6 ! �g4 1S.�xg4 .bg4 16 .
.bg7 @xg7 17.ttJxeS .E:xf1+ 18.
E:xfl± and in the endgame Black
will have pawn-weaknesses on c6
269
Chapter 19
and e7, which together with his
undeveloped pieces provide
White with excellent winning
chances.
6.exf6 bxc3 7.fxg7 .hg7 8.
bxc3 e5
Following 8 . . . lt:Jd7 9.id3 �aS
lO.i.d2±, Black has no compensa­
tion for the pawn, Esserman -
Ginsburg, Mesa 2009.
9.dxe5!
White should continue only
this way.
After 9.fxeS �h4+ ! , in order
for him to fight for the advantage,
he must sacrifice a rook. 10.g3
�e4+ ll.�e2 �xhl l2.exd6+ i.e6
13.lt:Jf3 lt:Jd7 14.'it>f2 lt:Jf6 1S.h3
lt:JdSoo. There has arisen a very
complicated position, difficult to
evaluate and White is a rook down
in it, but Black's queen is strand­
ed on the hl-square. It is quite
evident that White should better
avoid it, since he can maintain an
advantage by playing much sim­
pler.
270
9 .'f«a5 10 .id3 dxe5
• • •
It seems very risky for Black to
opt for 10 . . . �xc3 +, because after
ll.i.d2 �cS 12.lt:Jf3 dxeS 13.�e2
i.e6 14.lt:JgSt, White will have
powerful initiative and Black can
hardly find a safe haven for his
monarch.
ll.<!lje2 0-0 12.0-0;!; White's
prospects are preferable and this
is not only because of his extra
doubled pawn, but due to the fact
that the castling position of
Black's king has been seriously
compromised (his g-pawn is
missing).
C) 4 ••• �b6
This is not the best move for
him. Developing the queen so ear­
ly in the opening is wrong as a
rule. If Black wishes to make a
move with his queen, he should
better try the aS-square - see var­
iation E.
5.e5

This is White's simplest re­
sponse against Black's move
four.
5 • . • ltld5
About 5 . . . ig4 6.ie2 .b:e2 7.
\Wxe2 - see 4 . . . ig4.
The exchange 5 . . . dxe5, just
like in many variations that we
have analysed, is in favour of
White, because following 6.fxe5,
he obtains the open f-file for his
rook as well as the cl-h6 diagonal
for his bishop on cl. 6 . . . ltJd5 7.
ltJxd5 cxd5 8.id3 ltJc6 9.c3 g6 10.
\1;lff3 ie6 11.ltJe2 ig7 12.ltJf4 0-0,
Prokhorov - Mischuk, Illichevsk
2008. White can begin an offen­
sive against the enemy king under
the cover of his powerful pawn­
centre. 13.h4�, Black will have
problems parrying this attack,
since he will have difficulties to
bring his pieces to the protection
of his king due to his lack of
space.
6.ltlxd5 cxd5 7 .id3•
White impedes the develop­
ment of the enemy bishop on c8 .
l.d4 d6 2.e4 ltJf6 3. ltJ c3 c6 4/4
Black can insist on developing
the bishop - 7 . . . g6 8.c3 if5 9.
hf5 gxf5, but after 10.\1;l/h5 e6 11.
ltJf3 ltJc6 12.ltJg5 ltJd8 13.g4, White
can exploit the circumstance that
the enemy king is stranded in the
centre and begin a decisive offen­
sive. 13 . . . ie7 14.gxf5 exf5 15.ltJxf7
ltJxf7 16.e6± He regains his piece
and Black has no compensation
for the numerous pawn-weak­
nesses in his position, Wells -
Rashkovsky, London 1990. It is
possible that he should prefer the
more modest approach - 8 . . . ig7,
but even then after 9.\1;lff3 (I can
recommend to the readers who
enjoy playing endgames to try the
transfer to a better endgame with
9.\Wb3 ! ? \1;lfxb3 10.axb3;t) 9 . . . ie6
10.ltJe2 ltJd7 11.f5 ! ? , White begins
active actions, while Black's king
still remains in the centre. 11 . . .
.b:f5 (but not 11 . . . gxf5, i n view
of 12.exd6 ! \Wxd6 13.ltJg3± and
White regains his pawn preserv­
ing all the pluses of hi� position)
12 . .b:f5 gxf5 13.e6 fxe6 14.\WhS+
\!;>d8 (14 . . . 1!1f8? 15.ltJf4+-) 15.\Wf7
271
Chapter 19
i.f6 16.�xe6;t. Black has an extra
pawn indeed, but this should not
create an illusion. White will re­
gain it with his next move and
Black will hardly manage to main­
tain the material balance and
evacuate his king away from the
centre.
8.c3 g6 9.§'f3
White provokes the move
9 ••. e6
Now, Black cannot castle king­
side due to the vulnerability of the
dark squares on his kingside and
his monarch will have a hard time
on the other side of the board as
well.
10.ti'f2 .!.d7 ll.<!Llf3 0-0-0
12 .!.e3 c.!?b8 13.0-0 gcs 14.a4
•
c!ba5
15.exd6! This is a very non­
standard decision. White wishes
to deploy his knight in the centre
of the board in order to control
the c4-square before the begin­
ning of the pawn-offensive against
Black's king. 15 hd6 16.c!be5
•••
.!.e8 17.b4 c!bc6, Tazbir - Pa­
kleza, Warsaw 2011, 18.c4! After
272
this pawn-sacrifice, White's at­
tack is developing very rapidly
and effortlessly. l8 hb4 19.a5
•••
tfc7 20.gfbl .!.e7 21.c5 c.!?a8
22.gb3-+ gbs 23.c!bxc6 hc6
24.f5!± Now, Black will be forced
to give up the exchange without
obtaining any compensation for
it, since after 24 gbc8? 25 .!.f4
••• •
�d8 26.a6+-, White's attack is
victorious.
D) 4 g6
•••
After this move there arises a
version of the Pirc Defence which
is not so good for Black, because
in the variations of this opening in
which White advances f2-f4,
Black's main idea to create coun­
terplay is connected with under­
mining White's pawn-centre with
c7-c5 (either immediately, or fol­
lowing the preliminary move
lLla6 ). With a black pawn on c6
however, this will be done with a
loss of a tempo.
5.lLlf3 .!.g7
This is the most natural move
for Black.

After s . . . .ig4 6 . .id3 Wfb6 ( 6 . . .
fi.g7 7.h3 - see s .. ..ig7), White should
play energetically: 7.e5 ! ll:JdS, Ma­
tijevic - Skrcevski, Struga 2011.
Now, he maintains a slight edge
with 8.exd6 ll:Jxc3 9.bxc3 e6 10.
ia3 Wfa5 11 . .ib4 Wfd8 12.0-0 hd6
13 . .ixd6 Wfxd6 14.Wfb1 Wfc7 15.ltle5
.if5 16.hf5 gxf5 17.ll:Jc4 b6 18.Wfe1
ll:Jd7 19.Wfh4;!;, since Black can
hardly find a reliable shelter for
his king. His pawn-structure has
been compromised both on the
queenside and on the kingside.
The active pawn-move on the
queenside - S . . . bS cannot equal­
ise for Black. 6.id3 b4 7.ltle2 dS
8.e5 ltlh5 9.0-0 e6 10.a3 cS, Steel
- Adly, Maputo 2011. Here, White
had to play 11.b3 ! , ensuring his
bishop against the threat c5-c4,
for example : 11 . . . ll:Jc6 12 . .ie3;!;. In
the arising position of the
"French" type, White has more
space and if the position is opened
in the centre, his pieces will be
much better prepared for this
(Black's knight is horribly mis­
placed at the edge of the board.).
6.�d3
l.d4 d6 2.e4 lt\f6 3. lt\ c3 c6 4.f4
6 . . 0-0
.
About 6 ... ll:Ja6 7.0-0 0-0 8.e5
- see 6 . . . 0-0.
Following 6 . . .b5 and 7.e5 dxeS
8.fxe5 ll:JdS 9.ltlxd5 WfxdS 10.0-0
0-0 11.Wfe1, there arises transpo­
sition to the variation with 4 . . . b5 .
It would be too passive for
Black to play 6 . . . tt:Jbd7, because he
fails to advance e7-e5 anyway. 7.
eS ll:JdS 8.ltlxd5 cxdS 9.0-0 0-0
10.c3 Wfb6 11.Wfel. White accom­
plishes the standard transfer of
his queen to the h4-square. 11 . . . e6
12 .�h1 :B:e8 13.Wfh4± - He is per­
fectly prepared for an attack
against the enemy king, Kotsur -
Anarkulov, Tashkent 2012.
In the variation 6 . . . .ig4 7.h3
.ixf3 8.Wfxf3 Wfb6 (8 . . . 0-0 9.0-0
- see 6 ... 0-0), White parries eas­
ily his opponent's pressure
against the d4-pawn. 9.ltle2 ltlbd7
10.0-0 0-0 11.a4 aS 12 .ie3 Wfc7
13.c3 e6 14.g4t Khenkin - Cher­
nyshov, Dagomys 2009. He has
fortified reliably his centre and
prepares a pawn-offensive on the
kingside. Black is faced with a dif­
ficult defence, since his pieces ob­
viously lack space.
It seems premature for Black
to try 6 . . . Wfb6, because after 7.e5
dxeS 8.fxe5 ll:JdS 9 . .id2 0-0 (9 . . .
Wfxb2? 10.ltlxd5 cxdS 11.:B:b1 Wfxa2
12.Wfc1 +-) 10.0-0 i.g4 11.ll:Ja4,
his queen fill be forced to return
ingloriously to its initial position.
11 ... Wfd8 12 .WfeU White has more
273
Chapter 19
space and good attacking pros­
pects against the enemy king:
\Wh4, ih6, lt:JgS etc. but it looks
like Black can still defend this po­
sition. Following 12 . . . b5? ! 13.
lt:JcS±, as it was played in the game
Kleiser - Kreutz, Email 2011, on
top of all Black's problems, he
added a weakness on cS and
White's knight, which was idle at
the edge of the board managed to
enter the actions.
7.0-0
7 .tg4
•••
His main plan in this position
is to exert pressure against
White's d4-pawn.
The move 7 . . . lt:Ja6 was tested
in the game Khenkin - Zahariev,
Iraklion 1992. There followed
8.e5 lt:JdS 9.lt:Jxd5 cxdS 10.c3 lt:Jc7
11.1Wc2 (11.ie3 ! ?;!;) 11 . . . dxe5 12.
fxeS f5 13.exf6 exf6 14.if4;!; Black's
dS-pawn was very weak and his
bishop on g7 was restricted by his
own pawn on eS. He cannot ad­
vance f6-f5, because that would
lead to a horrible weakening of
274
the eS-square, so he will have to
work hard to find a good place­
ment of his bishop on g7.
After 7 . . . lt:Jbd7 8.e5;!;, Black
ends up in a very passive position,
because White's eS-pawn cramps
considerably his opponent's piec­
es. He has a very straightforward
plan - to transfer the queen to h4
and to begin an attack against
Black's king. There may follow:
8 . . . lt:Je8 (8 . . . lt:Jd5 9.lt:Jxd5 cxdS 10.
c3 - see 6 . . . lt:Jbd7; 8 . . . dxe5 9.fxe5
lt:JdS 10.lt:Jxd5 cxdS 11.1We1 1Wb6
12 .c3 f6 13.exf6 exf6, Bragin -
Mamoshin, Gagarin 2009, 14.
if4;!; - Black's bishop on g7 is
passive and the pawn-advance f6-
f5 will weaken catastrophically
the eS-square.) 9.1We1 lt:Jc7, Ku­
porosov - Mozes, Budapest 1991
and once again, White obtains a
great advantage after the transfer
of his queen to an attacking posi­
tion - 10.\Wh4±
After 7 . . . b5 8.e5 lt:Je8 9.1We1 a6
10 .\Wh4, he has placed his queen
on h4 and is perfectly prepared
for a direct attack against Black's
monarch.
Following 7 . . . \Wb6 8.'kt>h1 ig4,
White should better reply with
the prophylactic move 9 .a3 ! ?, tak­
ing the b4-square under control.
Now, Black cannot exchange on
f3 and capture with his queen on
d4, because after ie3 the queen
has no square to retreat to. 9 . . .
lt:Jbd7 ( 9 . . . lt:Jfd7 10 .e5 c S 11.lt:Jd5

'!Wd8 12.exd6 exd6 13.lbe3 .b:f3
14.'1Wxf3 lbc6 15.dxc5 dxcS 16.ic4
�h8 17.c3;!; White has the two­
bishop advantage, Filipenko -
Gavrikov, Severodonetsk 1982.
You have to pay attention to his
last move - 17.c3, after which
Black's knight on c6 and his bish­
op on g7 are severely restricted in
their movements.) 10.h3 .b:f3
11.'?;Vxf3 eS 12.dxe5 dxeS 13.f5 '?;Vc7
14.g4--+ A.Muzychuk - Vardi, Eilat
2012, White has a very powerful
attack on the kingside and can
play gS, followed by f6 at an op­
portune moment, sending Black's
bishop into exile on the h8-
square. So, White will have prac­
tically an extra piece.
8.h3 hf3 9.'?;Vxf3
Now, he has at least the two­
bishop advantage.
9 ... ti'b6
It would be too slow for Black
to play 9 . . . lbbd7, since after lO .eS
lOeB ll.ie3±, Black fails to organ­
ise counterplay against the enemy
l.d4 d6 2.e4 lbf6 3. lb c3 c6 4/4
d4-pawn. White has more space,
a powerful pawn-centre and two
strong bishops, Pourkashiyan -
Hemmatizadeh, Teheran 2008.
10.lbe2 ctlfd7
Black increases the pressure
against the d4-pawn.
Besides his last move, he can
attack the d4-square with his c- or
e-pawns, for example : 10 . . . e5
ll.c3 lbbd7 12 .�hU and it is not
clear how Black can increase his
pressure against the centre, Janik
- Kaminski, Pszczyna 2007.
Or 10 ... c5 ll.eS ! ? (after ll.c3
cxd4 12.cxd4 lbc6fZ Black can cre­
ate good counterplay against
White's pawn-centre, Cabrilo -
Titov, Vrnjacka Banja 1992) 11 . . .
lbfd7 12 .ie3 - see 10 . . . lbfd7.
ll.ie3
ll ••• c5
It is understandable that it is
not good for Black to capture on
b2, since following 12 J:iab1, White
not only regains his pawn, but ac-
275
Chapter 19
tivates noticeably his rook. The
a2-pawn is untouchable - 12 . . .
�xa2? 13J''!: a 1 �e6 14.f5+-
12.e5!
This is the right move ! It is es­
sential for White to neutralise the
pressure of Black's fianchettoed
bishop.
12 ... ttlc6
Following 12 . . . cxd4 13.ttlxd4
lDcS 14.ttlb3 ttlbd7 15.c3 �c7 16.
lDxcS ttlxcS 17.exd6 �xd6 18 . .ic2
E:ac8 19.f5 �a6 20.E:f2 , White's
two bishops are powerful force in
this open position. In order to
parry his initiative, Black, in the
game Barnsley - Grafen, Email
2008, decided to sacrifice a pawn,
but after 20 . . . ttld3 21..ixd3 �xd3
22 . .ixa7 �xf3 23.E:xf3 E:fd8 24.
.ie3±, White succeeded in realis­
ing his material advantage in the
endgame.
13.c3 ! ?
H e maintains a slight edge fol­
lowing 13.dxc5 ttlxcS, Vitolinsh -
276
Skulener, Moscow 1981, 14.c3 !
The best defence for Black is 14 . . .
�xb2, after which there arises al­
most by force a slightly better
endgame for White. 15.-ixcS dxcS
16.E:fb1 �d2 17.E:d1 �b2 18.E:ab1
�xa2 19.E:xb7 E:ac8 20 . .ie4 �a4
21.E:dd7 e6 22 . .ixc6 �xc6 23.
�xc6 E:xc6 24.E:xa7 gS 25.g3;!; His
rooks have been doubled on the
penultimate rank, but there is just
a few material left on the board,
so Black has some chances for a
draw.
13 ... cxd4 14.ttlxd4!?
White must capture with the
knight, because in the variation
14.cxd4 dxeS 15.fxe5, Black can
already capture the pawn 15 . . .
�xb2+!. There arises a very com­
plicated position. He has an extra
pawn and can even sacrifice his
knight on eS obtaining three
pawns for it and very actively de­
ployed pieces.
14 . . . ttlxd4
Naturally, it is bad for Black to
 l.d4 d6 2.e4 liJf6 3. liJ c3 c6 4.f4

opt for 14 . . .'�xb2? 15.liJb5+- and ble his opponent's pawns after the
his queen is doomed on the b2- exchange on c3 .
square.

There arise interesting com­

plications following 14 . . . dxe5 15.
liJe6 W/xb2 (15 ... liJd4 16.cxd4 e4
17 . .he4 W/xe6 18 .f5 ! \Wb6 19.E:adl
E:ab8 20.�c2 ! E:bd8 21.�b3tWhite
has managed to transfer his bish­
op to a very powerful position and
from there it exerts pressure
against the f7-square, while the
weakness of the isolated pawn on
d4 is not felt at all.) 16.liJxf8 E:xf8 Still, White can play
17.E:abU and due to the open 5.e5!?
character of the position, White's His main task i s t o seize the
rook is more powerful than initiative as quickly as possible.
Black's minor piece and his two It is also possible for White to
pawns. choose 5.id3 e5 6.liJf3;!;

15.cxd4 W/xb2 16.gfbl �c3

17 .!e4 liJb6 18.hb7 gabS 19.
•

gel

It deserves attention for White

to try 19.if2 ! ? W/xf3 20 . .hf3;!; and
thanks to his two powerful bish­
ops in the endgame his prospects
are preferable.

19 ... �b2 20 .!£2;!; - Now, his

•

two bishops are obviously strong­ 5 . . . liJe4

er than Black's bishop and knight,
moreover that White's e5-pawn
restricts considerably Black's
bishop.
E) 4 ... �a5
This is Black's most popular
move in this position. Now, after
5.e5 , he can play 5 . . . liJe4 and dou-
This is Black's most natural
and strongest move. His knight
not only attacks on c3, but also
takes the d2-square under con­
trol, impeding the development of
White's bishop.
The inclusion of the moves 5 . . .
dxe5 6.fxe5 i s i n favour o f White

277
Chapter 19
6 . . . tt:\e4 (6 . . . tt:\d5 7 . .id2 .if5 8 . .ic4
\1;'/d8 9.\1;'/f3 e6 10. 0-0-0;!; Cicak ­
Dinh Due Trong, Turin 2006. The
exchange of the f-pawn for the
central d-pawn was obviously ad­
vantageous for White. Meanwhile
he is ahead of Black in develop­
ment and can begin a pawn-offen­
sive on the kingside (g4, h4).) 7.
tt:\f3 .ig4 8 . .ie2 tt:\xc3 9.\1;'/d2 tt:\d7
10.bxc3 e6 11.0-0t Black lags in
development and will have to ex­
change sooner or later on f3, after
which White's two-bishop advan­
tage and his active possibilities
on the semi-open f-file (eventual­
ly on the b-file as well), compen­
sate with an interest the compro­
mised pawn-structure on his
queenside.
5 . . . tt:\d5. This move does not
seem logical, because after 6 . .id2,
White gets rid of the pin.
About 6 . . .dxe5 7.fxe5 - see 5 . . .
dxe5.
6 . . . tt:\xc3 7 . .ixc3 Wd5 8.tt:lf3
We4+ 9 . .ie2 .if5. Running after
the c-pawn seems very risky for
Black's pieces. He lags considera­
bly in development (The situation
would be even worse for Black fol-
278
lowing 9 . . . Wxf4 10. 0-0� - White
has completed his development,
while only Black's queen is in ac­
tion, so his position seems to be
beyond salvation.). 10.0-0 Wxc2
11.We1� and despite the loss of a
pawn, White's prospects are obvi­
ously preferable due to his great
lead in development, Goldin -
Young, Minneapolis 2005.
He should not be afraid of the
double-attack - 6 . . . Wb6, since it
will be suicidal for Black to cap­
ture on b2 being so much behind
in development. 7.tt:lf3 .ig4 (7 . . .
\1;lfxb2?? 8.tt:\xd5 cxd5 9.E!:b1 Wa3,
Izeta Txabarri - Rausis, Bordeaux
1990, 10.E!:b3 \1;lfxa2 11.Wc1+- and
Black's queen gets trapped) 8.
exd6 tt:\xc3 9 . .ixc3 e6 10.h3 .ixf3
11.Wxf3 .ixd6 12 .f5t White is fol­
lowing the classical principle
"You should strive to open the po­
sition if you have the two-bishop
advantage.", Liberzon - Hodg­
son, Palma de Mallorca 1989.
6.J.d3
White must get rid of his op­
ponent's centralised knight as
soon as possible.

6 .tbxc3
• .
The alternatives are clearly
worse for Black.
6 .. .f5 7.exf6 4Jxf6 (following
7 . . . 4Jxc3, White has at his dispos­
al a powerful intermediate move
- 8.f7+ ! '.t>xf7 9.�d2;t - and Black
loses his castling rights) 8.id2
tiJa6 9.a3;!; The e6 and f7-squares
are terribly weak in Black's camp,
Szieberth - Francsics, Budapest
1996.
6 ... d5 7.ixe4 dxe4 8.id2 �b6
9.4Jge2 . Now, he must defend
very precisely in order to save his
e4-pawn. 9 . . . if5 (In the game
Glek - Scekic, Rethymnon 2003,
Black solved radically the prob­
lem with his e4-pawn - he simply
sacrificed it: 9 .. .f5 10.exf6 exf6
ll.tiJxe4;t, but it was understand­
able that his compensation was
insufficient.) 10.tiJg3 e6 ll.ic1 ! ?
After this paradoxical retreat of
the bishop both White's pawns
(b2 and d4) are protected. There
may follow this exemplary varia­
tion: ll . . . ib4 12.0-0 hc3 13.
bxc3 tiJd7 14.�e1 0-0 15.4Jxe4 c5
16.4Jd6 cxd4 17.cxd4 �xd4+ 18.
ie3 �a4 19.c4 b6 20.:B:d1 ig6 21.
�e2 and then 22 .g4t and al­
though Black has preserved the
material balance, but this is just a
small consolation for him, be­
cause White's pawn-offensive,
with the support of the knight on
d6, seems very dangerous.
l.d4 d6 2.e4 tiJf6 3. tiJ c3 c6 4.f4
White will regain his knight on
the next move.
Black must make up his mind
now about his future plans and
his main replies are El) 7. . . d5
and E2) 7 c5.
•••
Following 7 . . . dxe5, White
maintains a slight edge after 8.
fxe5 cS (8 . . .g6 9.4Jf3 ifS 10.�xc3
�xc3+ ll.bxc3 ixd3 12.cxd3 ig7
13.0-0 tiJa6 14.a4 b6 15. ia3;!;
Black's bishop is restricted by the
pawn on eS, while White's bishop
exerts powerful pressure on the
a3-f8 diagonal.) 9.bxc3 tiJc6 10.
tiJf3 cxd4 ll.cxd4 �xd2+ 12 .ixd2
e6 13.0-0;!; - He is much better
developed and Black will hardly
parry the threat of the break­
through in the centre: c2-c4 and
d4-d5, Ahmad - Amjad, Bagdad
2010.
After 7 . . .g6, White's best reac­
tion would be 8.4Jf3 ! (following
8.bxc3 dxeS 9.fxe5, Black can pro­
voke complications with 9 . . . ih6
10.�xh6 �xc3+ n.'.t>e2 �xa 1 12.
tiJf3� and it is possible that White
is better even then, but playing
279
Chapter 19
this position over the board would
be too complicated, Finkel - Ora­
tovsky, Israel 1994) 8 . . . ig7 (8 . . .
ih6 9.0-0 dxeS 10.lLlxe5 lL\d7
ll.lLlc4 Wic7 12.Wixc3 lLlf6 13.Wie1
lLldS 14.£5 i.g7 15.c3;!; White has
succeeded in advancing the the­
matic move f4-f5 and seized the
initiative, so Black must defend
passively in a slightly worse posi­
tion.) 9.0-0 0-0 10 .bxc3 (It is
also good for White to transfer
into an endgame with 10.Wixc3 ! ?
Wixc3 11.bxc3 lLla6 12 .i.a3;!; and his
bishop exerts powerful pressure
against Black's position.) 10 . . . lL\a6
ll.Wie1 cS 12 .id2 Wia4 13.Wih4;!;
Novak - Dziadykiewcz, Trinec
1998. Now, White's queen has oc­
cupied the standard attacking
placement for this variation. He is
threatening f4-f5, ih6 followed
by lLlgS with a crushing attack.
After 7 . . . e6 8.bxc3 cS (there
arises transposition of moves with
8 . . . d5 9.lLlf3 cS) 9.lLlf3, Black
should better take the e4-square
under control by playing 9 . . . d5 (in
the variation 9 . . . dxe5 10.dxe5 ! ?
lL\c6 ll.lLlgSt, White's knight is
headed for the e4-outpost and his
initiative becomes very danger­
ous).
280
10.c4. This transfer into an
endgame is typical for this line
and we will encounter it numer­
ous times. 10 . . . Wixd2+ ll.i.xd2
dxc4 12 .i.xc4 a6 13.c3 ! ? (This
move is more precise than 13.a4
cxd4 14.lL\xd4= and White has no
chances of obtaining an advan­
tage in the endgame in view of the
vulnerability of his a and c­
pawns., AI Sayed - Akobian, Gi­
braltar 2009.) 13 . . . lLlc6 14. 0-0 bS
1S.id3 ib7 16.a4;!; - He is better
developed and can exerts pres­
sure against Black's position on
the queenside, as well as on the
kingside with f4-f5.
El) 7 d5 8.lLle2
•••
Now, White can capture on c3
with his knight is some variations.
8 ... e6
Black cannot equalise with 8 . . .
cS. One of the defects o f this move
is that White can capture on c3
with his knight, avoiding the dis­
rupting of his pawn-structure. 9.
lL\xc3 e6. The arising position re-

sembles the French Defence. 10.
dxc5 (10.ltJbS ! ?;t;) 10 . . . �xc5 (10 ...
.ixcS? ! ll.ttJbS �b6 12 .b4 �e7 13.
�b2 ttJc6 14.a3 aS 1S.lLld6+ hd6
16.exd6 f6 17.b5 ttJd8 18.�d4
�xd6 19.�e3 ttJf7 2 0 . 0-0 �d7 21.
�cS �c7, Ivakhinova - Petrova,
Taganrog 2011 and here, White
overlooked the possibility 2 2 .
c4 !±, after which the position
would have been opened in his fa­
vour.) ll.a3 �d7 12 .b4 �b6 13.�b2
ttJc6 14.ltJa4 �c7 15.0-0;!; Nepom­
niachtchi - A.Ivanov, Dagomys
2010. Black cannot find a safe
shelter for his king, because if he
castles queenside, White will
open the c-file with the move c2-
c4, while if Black castles kingside,
White will organise a crushing at­
tack after f4-f5.
9.bxc3
The arising position is of a
"French" type, except that White
has doubled pawns on the c-file.
9 ••• c5
9 . . . �a4. This is not the best
move for Black. 10.0-0 g6, Nem-
l.d4 d6 2.e4 ltJf6 3. ltJ c3 c6 4.f4
cova - Michna, Dresden 2007.
Here, White could have obtained
a great advantage with the line:
ll.c4 ! dxc4 12.lLlc3± Black's extra
pawn is of no importance. White's
knight will go via e4 to d6 or f6
and his attack will be crushing.
After 9 . . .ie7, White can try a
very promising pawn-sacrifice -
10.f5 ! ? (It is also possible for him
to choose the more prudent line:
10.c4 �xd2+ ll . .ixd2;!;, maintain­
ing a slight edge in the endgame.)
10 . . . exf5 11.0-0 g6 12 .�h6 �f8 13.
�h4 �e7 14.�g5 hgS 15.�xg5� ­
After the exchange of the bishops,
White has an excellent play on the
dark squares and Black's extra
pawn is absolutely immaterial.
10.c4
Now, there arises an endgame.
10 ... �xd2+ ll . .txd2 ttJc6
12. cxd5 exd5 13.c3;!;
White has a cleat-cut plan in
this endgame, connected with the
preparation of the pawn-advance
f4-f5. Later, in the game Sutovsky
- Altounian, ICC 2002, there fol­
lowed 13 .tg4 14J'�bl 0-0-0
•••
281
Chapter 19
15 .le3. Black made a mistake
• the weak pawn on d6. 12 ... exd6
here 15 cxd4 (He had better
•••
follow with 15 . . . c4 16 . .ic2;!;, main­
taining a slightly worse but still
defensible position.) 16.tLlxd4±
and it turned out that White's
pieces are much better prepared
than their counterparts for the
opening of the position in the cen­
tre.
E2) 7 c5 8.bxc3
•••
8 ••• d5
8 . . . cxd4 9.cxd4 �xd2+ 10.
ixd2. In the endgame White's
prospects are preferable, since his
pawns on d4 and eS cramp con­
siderably Black's pieces. 10 . . . tLlc6
(10 . . . dxe5 ll.fxeS tLlc6 12 .c3 f6
13.tLlf3 ig4 14.0-0 0-0-0, Man­
ik - Rumpl, Austria 2003, White
had to take care here of the safety
of his eS-pawn with the move 15.
.lf4 ! preserving the advantage.)
ll.dS tLlb8, Balogh - Beim, Aus­
tria 2005, 12.exd6 ! He parts with
his pawn-centre, but obtains good
prospects on the e-file and against
282
13.tLlf3 .ie7 14.0-0 t2Ja6 (Follow­
ing 14 . . . 0-0 15 . .lb4 ! , Black will
have great problems with the pro­
tection of his d6-pawn. 15 . . . t2Ja6
16.ixa6 bxa6 17.!Uel±) 15.:Bael;!;
In the endgame Black will hardly
complete his development due to
the pin along the e-file.
9.tLlf3 c4
He blocks the queenside, be­
cause it will be more difficult for
White to exploit his lead in devel­
opment in a closed position.
It seems too risky for Black to
choose 9 . . . ig4, since White can
open advantageously the position
with the line : 10.c4 ! , for example:
10 . . . �xd2 + ll.tLlxd2 dxc4 12 . .ie4
t2Jc6 13.d5 t2Jd4 (The retreat of
Black's knight to the edge of the
board is clearly worse. 13 . . . t2Ja5
14 . .ib2 bS 15.a3 0-0-0 16 . .ic3
t2Jb7 17.h3 .id7 18.:Bb1 .ie8 19.0-0
hS 20.tLlf3 aS 21.f5 b4 2 2 .axb4
cxb4 23 . .id4 <t/c7 24.tLlg5± This is
a very picturesque position! Black
has an extra pawn, but his pieces
are practically stalemated ! You
should pay attention to the bishop
on f8, which does not have a sin­
gle move and all this after 23
moves have been played since the
beginning of the game ! ) 14.t2Jxc4;!;
White has a powerful pawn-cen­
tre, while Black's centralised
knight will not remain there for
long, because White will soon
oust it from there with the move
c2-c3 .
 l.d4 d6 2.e4 lt:lf6 3. lt:l c3 c6 4.f4

It would be also interesting for

Black to try here 9 . . . tt:lc6, keeping
the possibility to develop his bish­
op on g4. 10.0-0 .ig4 (10 . . . e6 11.
a4 c4 12 ..ie2 .id7 13.'\WeU White
has a space advantage and the
possibility to organise active ac­
tions on the kingside with the
move f4-f5. All this more than
compensates his compromised
queenside pawn-structure.) 11.
E:b1 .ixf3 12.E:xf3 c4 (12 ... 0-0-0, After the routine reaction
Prusikin - Weiss, Montecatini 11.0-0 Wfa4?, he cannot find an
Terme 1997, 13.E:b5 Wfxa2 14.E:xc5 effective placement of his bishop.
e6 15.E:b5;!;; Black's position will
be terrible after 14 . . . a6? ! due to ll .if5 12.0-0 e6 13.h3 h5
•••

the cramping pawn-sacrifice 15. 14.log5 h4 15 . .ia3

e6 !±) 13.ie2 Wfxa2 14.E:xb7 Wfa6
15.E:b1 e6 16.f5± White has more
space and very actively deployed
pieces, Orozco Lopez - Arribas
Robaina, Guayaquil 2011.
The exchange of the dark­
squared bishops is in favour of
White, since almost all Black's
pawns are on light squares.
15 .b:a3 16.:!:�xa3 .!bd7 17.
• • .

gb 1 gbs, Kanmazalp - Sirin,

10 .ie2 g6
• Konya 2011. Black's bishop is
(diagram) much more active than its coun­
ll.a4!? terpart, so White should better
R.Fischer played like this in exchange it. 18 .ig4!;!; - He has
•

similar positions in the French much more space and has an eas­
Defence. White prepares the de­ ier game on both sides of the
velopment of his bishop on a3 . board.

Conclusion
As a rule, in the variation with 3 . . . c6 White obtains effortlessly an
opening advantage. After 4.f4, Black has two main responses : 4 . . . g6
and 4 . . . '\WaS. In the first case, there arise favourable for White positions
from the Pirc Defence, since Black has played the move c7-c6, which is
not so necessary in this opening. Still, White must react very carefully
and defend reliably his d4-square.
In the second line (after 4 ... '\WaS), the position usually transfers into
an endgame which is slightly better for White, or there arise situations
of a "French" type, in which White maintains an edge thanks to his
superior development and extra space.

283
Index of Variations

Part 1. The Gruenfeld Defence

1.d4 .!Df6 2.c4 g6 3 .!Dc3 d5 • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 8

Chapter 1 1.d4 .!Df6 2.c4 g6 3 .!Dc3 d5 4.cd .!Dxd5 5.e4 •

5 . . . .!Db6 . . . . . . . . . 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5 ... tt:Jxc3 6.bc ig7 7.tt:Jf3 0-0 8.ie2 tt:Jc6; 8 ... b6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

A) 8.ie2 c5 9. 0-0 cd . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
B) 8.ie2 c5 9. 0-0 b6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Chapter 2 1.d4 .!Df6 2.c4 g6 3 .!Dc3 d5 4.cd .!Dxd5 5.e4 .!Dxc3 be •

J.g7 7 .!Df3 c5 8.J.e3

•

A) 8 . . . tt:Jc6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
B) 8 ... 0-0 . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C) 8 ... ig4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Chapter 3 1.d4 .!Df6 2.c4 g6 3 . .!Dc3 d5 4.cd .!Dxd5 5.e4 .!Dxc3 be

J.g7 7 .!Df3 c5 8.J.e3 %Ya5 9.%Yd2
•

9 . . . b6; 9 . . . tt:Jd7; 9 . . .ig4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

A) 9 . . . cd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

B) 9 ... tt:Jc6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Chapter 4 1.d4 .!Df6 2.c4 g6 3 .!Dc3 d5 4.cd .!Dxd5 5.e4 .!Dxc3 be •

J.g7 7 .!Df3 c5 8 .ie3 %Ya5 9.%Yd2 0-0 10.gc1

• •

A) 10 . . . b6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
B) 10 . . . tt:Jd7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
C) 10 . . .ig4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
D) 10 ... e6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
E) 10 cd . . . . . . . . . . . .
... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
F) 10 ... E:d8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Part 2. The King's Indian Defence

1.d4 .!Df6 2.c4 g6 3 .!Dc3 .ig7 • • • • • • . • • • • • • • . . • • • • • • • • • • • • • 74

Chapter 5 1.d4 .!Df6 2.c4 g6 3 .!Dc3 J.g7 4.e4 0-0 5.i.e2 •

5 . . . c5; 5 . . . c6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

284
 Index of Variations

Chapter 6 l.d4 .!Llf6 2.c4 g6 3 .!Llc3 .ig7 4.e4 d6 S .ie2 • •

various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
A) 5 . . . lt:Jc6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
B) 5 . . . c5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
C) 5 ... e5 . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 85 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chapter 7 l.d4 .!Llf6 2.c4 g6 3 .!Llc3 .ig7 4.e4 d6 S.ie2 0-0 6 .ig5 • •

various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
A) 6 . . . lt:Jc6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
B) 6 . . . c6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Chapter 8 l.d4 lt:Jf6 2.c4 g6 3 .!Llc3 .ig7 4.e4 d6 S.ie2 0-0 6.ig5 •

.!L!bd7 7.lM2
various . . . . . . . . . 94 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A) 7 . . . e5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
B) 7 ... c6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Chapter 9 l.d4 .!Llf6 2.c4 g6 3 .!Llc3 .ig7 4.e4 d6 S.ie2 0-0 6 .ig5 • •

.!Lla6 7.f4
7 . . . e5; 7 . . . c5 . . . . . . 104
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A) 7 . . . Wfe8 . . . . . . . . . . 105
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

B) 7 ... c6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

Chapter 10 l.d4 .!Llf6 2.c4 g6 3 .!Llc3 ig7 4.e4 d6 S .ie2 0-0 6.ig5 • •

h6 7 .ie3
•

various . . . . . . . . . . 113
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A) 7 . . . lt:Jbd7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
B) 7 ... e5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
C) 7 . . . c5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

Chapter 11 l.d4 .!Llf6 2.c4 g6 3 .!Llc3 ig7 4.e4 d6 S.ie2 0-0 6.1g5 •

cS 7.d5
various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .... . .
. 136 . . . . . . .

A) 7 . . . a6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
B) 7 b5 . .
... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . � . 142
C) 7 ... h6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
D) 7 . . . e6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

285
Index of Variations

Part 3. The Modern Defence

l.d4 g6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

Chapter 12 1.d4 g6 2.c4

A) 2 . . . d6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
B) 2 . . ..tg7 3.e4 various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
B1) 3.e4 c6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
B2) 3.e4 c5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
B3) 3.e4 lt:Jc6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171

Chapter 13 1.d4 g6 2.c4 1i..g7 3.e4 d6 4.lL!c3

various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A) 4 . . . e5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
B) 4 . . . lL!c6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
C) 4 ... lt:Jd7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193

Part 4. The Pirc-Ufimtsev Defence

l.d4 d6 2.e4 lLlf6 3.�c3 g6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198

Chapter 14 1.d4 d6 2.e4 lL!f6 3.lLlc3 g6 4.1i..e 3

various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
4 . . . a6 S.h3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201

Chapter 15 1.d4 d6 2.e4 lL!f6 3.lL!c3 g6 4.1i..e 3 1i..g7 5.Wd2

various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
A) S . . . a6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
B) S . . . lt:Jc6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
c) s . lt:lg4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
. .

D) 5 . . . 0-0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
E) S . . . c6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224

Chapter 16 1.d4 d6 2.e4 lL!f6 3.lL!c3 g6 4.1i..e3 c6 5.h3

various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
A) s i.g7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
...

B) s lt:lbd7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
...

286
 Index of Variations

Part 4. Black avoids the Pirc-Ufimtsev Defence

1.d4 d6 2.e4 lilf6 3.lilc3 • . . . . . . • . . . . • . . . • . • . • . . • • . . • . . . • . . . • 242

Chapter 17 1.d4 d6 2.e4 lilf6 3.ltlc3 e5 4.de de 5.'�xd8+ �xd8

6.Ag5
A) 6 . . . .id6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
B) 6 ... .ie7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
C) 6 . . . c6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
D) 6 . . . .ie6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252

Chapter 18 l.d4 d6 2.e4 lilf6 3 . .!Llc3 lilbd7 4.f4

various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4 . . . e5 5.lilf3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258

Chapter 19 1.d4 d6 2.e4 lilf6 3.lilc3 c6 4.f4

various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
A) 4 . . . d5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
B) 4 . . . b5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
C) 4 . . .�b6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270
D) 4 . . . g6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272
E) 4 . . . �a5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277

287