New Weapons in The King S Indian Milos Pavlovic 2016 PDF

Contents
Preface
Key to Symbols used
Author’s Preface
PART I – The Sämisch variation

(1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0)
Chapter 1 – 6.Bg5
Chapter 2 – 6.Be3 Nbd7!? 7.Bd3
Chapter 3 – 6.Be3 Nbd7!? 7.Qd2 c5
Chapter 4 – 6.Be3 Nbd7!? 7.Nh3 c6
Chapter 5 – 7.Nge2 c5 8.d5 Ne5 9.Ng3 h5 10.Be2 h4 11.Nf1 e6
PART II – Classical systems with h3
(1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6)
Chapter 6 – 5.h3 0-0 6.Be3 e5 7.d5 Na6
Chapter 7 – The Makagonov variation (5.Nf3 0-0 6.h3 e5 7.d5 Nh5)
PART III – Classical systems with Be2
(1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6)
Chapter 8 – Early aggressive ideas
Chapter 9 – The exchange variation (5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 e5 7.dxe5)
Chapter 10 – The Petrosian variation (5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 e5 7.d5 Na6)
Chapter 11 – The Gligoric variation (5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 e5 7.Be3 exd4 8.Nxd4 Re8 9.f3 c6 10.Bf2 d5 11.exd5 cxd5
12.0-0 Nc6 13.c5)
Chapter 12 – Main classical variation (5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 e5 7.0-0 exd4 8.Nxd4 Re8 9.f3) with 9...c6 10.Kh1 Nbd7
Chapter 13 – Main classical variation (5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 e5 7.0-0 exd4 8.Nxd4 Re8 9.f3) with 9...Nc6 10.Be3 Nh5
PART IV – Systems with Nge2
(1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6)
Chapter 14 – 5.Bd3 0-0 6.Nge2 Nbd7 7.0-0 a6
Chapter 15 – 5.Nge2 0-0 6.Ng3 Nbd7 7.Be2 h5
PART V – The Averbakh variation
(1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Be2 0-0 6.Bg5 c5)
Chapter 16 – 7.dxc5
Chapter 17 – 7.d5 a6 8.Qd2 b5 9.cxb5 Qa5
Chapter 18 – 7.d5 a6 8.a4 h6
PART VI – The Four Pawns Attack
(1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f4 c5)
Chapter 20 – 6.d5 0-0 7.Nf3 e6
PART VII – The Fianchetto variation
(1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nf3 Bg7 4.g3 c5 5.Bg2 cxd4 6.Nxd4 0-0 7.Nc3 d6 8.0-0 Nc6)
Chapter 21 – 9.Nc2 & 9. –
Chapter 22 – 9.Nxc6 bxc6 10.Bxc6 Rb8
Swipe left for next chapter

New Weapons in the King’s Indian
By
Milos Pavlovic
Thinkers Publishing 2016
www.thinkerspublishing.com
First edition 2016 by Thinkers Publishing

Copyright © 2016 Milos Pavlovic
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any
form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written
permission from the publisher. All sales or enquiries should be directed to Thinkers Publishers, 9000 Gent, Belgium.
Email: info@thinkerspublishing.com
Website: www.thinkerspublishing.com
Managing Editor: Romain Edouard

Assistant Editor: Gunter Deleyn
Software: Hub van de Laar
Proofreading: Daniël Vanheirzeele
Graphic Artist: Philippe Tonnard
Cover Design: Iwan Kerkhof
Production: BESTinGraphics
ISBN: 9789492510020
D/2016/13730/7
Key to Symbols used
! a good move
? a weak move
!! an excellent move
?? a blunder
!? an interesting move
?! a dubious move
™ only move
= equality
∞ unclear position
© with compensation for the sacrificed material
² White stands slightly better
³ Black stands slightly better
± White has a serious advantage
µ Black has a serious advantage
+– White has a decisive advantage
–+ Black has a decisive advantage
‚ with an attack
ƒ with an initiative
„ with counterplay
… with the idea of
¹ better is
‹ worse is
N novelty
+ check
# mate
Preface
King’s Indian was and still is one of my favourite openings that I used for many years in my chess career. Many books
were written on the subject but I wanted to attempt not to copy what existed, aiming at a more personal angle and
presenting some authentic material that is not known or was never popular for the wrong reasons.
Many great players in the past played the King’s Indian and gave it a modern look, to name some: Fischer, Bronstein,
Boleslavsky, Gligoric, Kasparov, Nunn are some famous names that popularized this opening. Nowadays Radjabov and
Nakamura are known for using it regularly on the top level.
The pure understanding of the KI does not come easy. Nothing is of a forced nature and there are a lot of strategical
goals that are needed to fully understand. ‘Dynamics’ in closed positions are an ever returning key aspect, this is
essential to understand for anyone who wants to play this opening properly.
In this book I tried to make it comfortable to the readers, enabling them to adapt fast to what I present. After all, if you
want to play for a win with Black, lots of pieces on the board present an ultimate tool for your desired result! That is
also the most difficult issue to realize when an opening of this kind should occur and when not: what are the strongest
points of the position and which ones are less dramatic.
This book contains the most important lines against the most common White’s set-ups. While there are also some
transpositions to the lines of the Benoni, for instance in the ‘Four Pawns Attack’ because I’m convinced that ‘...c5’ is
then the best reaction. Also, for instance the line given against the ‘Fianchetto set-up’ is not completely independent, in
a sense that it is a purely King’s Indian type of line the readers will receive, but it represents the important and unique
aspect that can arise from different move orders, a kind of an universal line.
I think the lines should be called by the names of players responsible for their development, in case of the ‘Nf3-h3’ line
I think it should be called the ‘Makagonov-line’, developed by the famous Russian theoretician.
The King’s Indian offers a variety of possibilities in terms of how the game can be conducted. What I mean is that the
‘...e5 and ...c5’ reactions are possible and not only that but in the lines with ‘...e5’ I tried to focus when it was possible
to combine that with ‘...exd4’ ideas, ideas that for some reasons remained a bit underrated in the past.
For me at least to make a combination of closed and semi-closed positions was an interesting choice. That’s why I
didn’t want to write about the ‘...Na6, ...Nc6 or ...Nbd7’ lines where the centre could be closed at any move or
moment. Presenting something different and new kind of material was my goal with this book. I hope you will enjoy
the King’s Indian even more!
Milos Pavlovic
May 2016
PART I – The Sämisch variation
Short survey:
In this variation named after its inventor the famous German Grandmaster Friedrich Sämisch, White has the intention to
play his queen’s Bishop to e3 as soon as possible, without being disturbed by ...Ng4. It will enable him, in certain
cases, to build up an attack on the kingside. Black mostly counter attacks on the other wing. In many games Black will
try to steer the game into a Benoni structure.
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0
Part & Chapters guide:

Chapter 1 – 6.Bg5
A) 8.d5
B) 8.Nge2 Qa5 9.0-0-0
C) 8.Nge2 Qa5 9.Rd1 a6
10.Nc1
10.dxc5
D) 8.Nge2 Qa5 9.d5 a6 10.Nc1
10...b5
10...Ne5
E) 8.Nge2 Qa5 9.Nc1
A) 8.Be2
B) 8.Qd2 e5 9.d5 cxd5 10.cxd5 a6 11.Nf2 Nh5 12.Nd3 f5
13. –
13.0-0-0
A) 12.f4
B) 12.Nd2
Chapter 1 – 6.Bg5
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0 6.Bg5
Position after: 6.Bg5
This used to be a very popular line in the past but it simply faded away. Black created different methods to obtain
sufficient counter play. As a reaction White started to look for different move orders to reach a kind of Sämisch-Benoni
type of positions.
6...c5 7.d5 h6 8.Be3 e6 9.Qd2 exd5 10.cxd5 Re8
It is important to mention that this is the best move order. If 10...Nbd7 White gets the important option for the more
harmonious development starting with 11.Nh3!
11.Nge2
After 11.Bxh6 Nxe4 12.Nxe4 Qh4+ 13.g3 Qxh6 14.Qxh6 Bxh6 15.Ne2 Rd8 Black is fine.
11...Nbd7
Position after: 11...Nbd7
12.Nc1
It is important to notice how White completes his development from here on. White’s centre is stable for the moment
but his Knight on e2 has to look for greener pastures. Meaning where ever the Knight goes, and there are three possible
ways, it will determine White’s future plans.
A) 12.Ng3 h5 13.Be2 a6 14.a4 h4! In my opinion you need to drive away the Knight as soon as possible. By doing so
Black gains time for faster development. 15.Nf1 Nh7
Position after: 15...Nh7

A1) 16.Qc1 f5 17.Nd2 Bd4 18.Nc4 Nb6 19.0-0 Nxc4 20.Bxc4 Qf6 21.Qd2 Bxe3+ 22.Qxe3 f4 23.Qd2 Bd7 24.Ne2
b5 25.Bd3 g5 26.b4 Nf8∞ This position is very unclear. Black has his trumps like a possible outpost for his Knight
on e5. On the other hand White has play on the queenside. ½-½ (75) Wang Yue (2495) – Shchekachev, A (2551)
Bad Zwesten 2003
A2) 16.Bf2 f5 17.Ne3 f4 18.Nc4
Position after: 18.Nc4
A2.1) 18...Qf6 19.g3 (19.e5!? Nxe5 20.Ne4±) 19...Bh6 20.gxh4 Ne5 21.Nxe5 Qxe5 22.Rg1 Kf7 23.Rb1 Bg7
24.Bd3 Bd7 25.Ne2 Bh6 26.b4± ½-½ (37) Ponomariov, R (2714) – Gelfand, B (2743) Beijing (blitz) 2014
A2.2) 18...Ne5! 19.Qxf4 h3 20.Qg3 (20.gxh3 Nxc4 21.Bxc4 Rf8 22.Qg3 Ng5 23.Be2 Rxf3!
Position after: 23...Rxf3!
A fantastic tactical idea! 24.Bxf3 Be5 Black has the initiative.) 20...Nxc4 21.Bxc4 g5 22.gxh3 (22.0-0 Be5 23.f4
Bxf4 24.Qf3 Rf8ƒ) 22...Be5 23.Qg2 Qa5 24.0-0 Qb4 In this very sharp position Black has strong counter play
attacking both the Bishop on c4 and the b2-pawn.
B) 12.Nd1!? This is an interesting idea. This Knight aims for f2 and the other one to c3. 12...b5!? An introduction of a
gambit... 13.Ng3 h5 14.Bxb5 Rb8 15.Be2 h4 16.Nf1
Position after: 16.Nf1
B1) 16...Ne5 17.Rb1 (17.h3 Qb6 18.Rc1 Ba6 19.b3 Bxe2 20.Qxe2 Qb4+ 21.Kf2 Nh5©) 17...h3! (17...Nh7 18.h3 f5
19.Nh2 Nf6 20.Nf2 fxe4 21.fxe4 Rb4 22.Bg5 Rd4 23.Qc2 Nf7 24.Bxf6 Bxf6 25.0-0 Ne5 Black has compensation
½-½ (25) Solozhenkin, E (2515) – Marin, M (2515) Sitges 1993) 18.gxh3 Bxh3 19.Rg1 Bg4! 20.Rg3 Bxf3 21.Bxf3
Nxf3+ 22.Rxf3 Nxe4 23.Qc2 Qa5+ 24.Nd2 Nxd2 25.Qxd2 Qxa2 26.Rc1 Bd4 27.Kf2 Rxe3! 28.Rxe3 Qxd5
Position after: 28...Qxd5
A fantastic position! Black of course enjoys excellent compensation.

B2) 16...h3!? 17.gxh3 Ne5 18.Ng3 Bxh3 19.Rg1 Nh7 20.Rb1 Bd7 21.b3 Qh4©
C) The direct attempt 12.Bxh6 doesn’t bring anything after 12...Nxe4 13.Nxe4 Qh4+ 14.g3 Qxh6 15.Qxh6 Bxh6
16.Nxd6 Rd8 17.Bh3 Nb6 18.Nxc8 Nxc8 19.Bxc8 Raxc8 20.Rd1 Rd7 21.Nc3 Rcd8 22.a4 b6 23.f4 Bg7 24.Kd2
Bxc3+ 25.Kxc3 Rxd5=
12...a6 13.a4 Nxe4!?

Position after: 13...Nxe4!?
What a move! This is a recent discovery. Apart from this Black has other decent tries like 13...Ne5 or 13...Nh7, leading
to good positions for Black.
13...Nh7 14.Be2 Ne5 15.0-0 h5 16.N1a2 f5 17.Kh1 Nf6 18.exf5 (18.Rae1 fxe4 19.fxe4 Rf8 20.Bg5 Qc7 21.Nc1 Bg4
22.Bxg4 Nfxg4 23.h3 Nf6 24.Nd3 Nxd3 25.Qxd3 Nd7³ 1-0 (70) Iskusnyh, S (2425) – Zakharevich, I (2425) Azov
1995) 18...Bxf5 19.Rfe1 Rc8 20.Rac1 Nf7 21.b3 Rc7! 22.Bc4 Rce7∞ ½-½ (57) Rajkovic, D (2495) – Gschnitzer, O
(2460) Germany 1991
14.Nxe4
14.fxe4 Bxc3 15.bxc3 Qh4+ 16.Bf2 (16.Kd1 Nf6 17.Be2 Qxe4 18.Rf1 Ng4 19.Bf4 Qxg2 20.Kc2 h5 21.Kb2 Nxh2
Once again Black obtains strong pressure for the sacrificed piece.) 16...Qxe4+ 17.Qe2 (17.Kd1 Nb6! with a strong
attack.) 17...Nf6 18.Qxe4 Nxe4 19.Be2 Nxc3 20.Ra3 Nxe2 21.Nxe2 b5! 22.Kd2 b4 23.Rg3 Bb7 24.Nf4 Re5 25.Re1
Rae8 Black has easy play.
14...Qe7 15.Bd3
15.Ne2 f5 16.Nxd6 Qxd6 17.Bxh6 Be5 18.0-0-0 b5 19.a5 c4 20.Bf4 Bb7 21.Kb1 Rac8 Black has a very strong attack
for only a pawn. 0-1 (27) Soza de la Carrera, J (2454) – Hoyos Millan, L (2475) corr. 2007
15...f5 16.0-0 fxe4 17.Bxe4
Position after: 17.Bxe4
17...Nf6
Also possible is the slow 17...Kh7 18.Qc2 Qf7 19.Ne2 Nf6 20.Nc3 Bd7 and Black is fine.
18.Bxh6 Nxe4 19.fxe4 Bxh6 20.Qxh6 Qxe4 21.Ne2 Bf5 22.Ng3 Qd4+ 23.Kh1 Bd3 24.Rad1 Rf8
Position after: 24...Rf8
Black is great in this sharp position. Probably White should force a draw with:
25.Nf5 Rxf5 26.Rxf5 gxf5 27.Qg6+ Kh8= (Draw by perpetual.)

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0 6.Be3 Nbd7 7.Bd3
Position after: 7.Bd3
One might question this move but actually this is the natural way for White to develop when possible. Usually in the
Sämisch Black puts pressure on the d4 pawn and such move would not be possible but here it is. But even so Black gets
counter play.
7...c5 8.Nge2 cxd4 9.Nxd4 e6

Position after: 9...e6
Recently Marin opted for a different strategy:

9...Ne5 10.Be2 b6 11.0-0 Bb7 12.Qd2 Rc8 13.b3 a6 14.Rac1 e6 15.Rfd1 Re8 16.Bf1 d5 17.exd5 (17.f4 Neg4 18.e5
dxc4 19.exf6 Qxf6 20.Nce2 e5©) 17...exd5 18.Nxd5 Nxd5 19.cxd5 Rxc1 20.Qxc1 Qxd5 0-1 (53) Danielsson, R (2011)
– Marin, M (2597) Reykjavik 2016 Black equalised, while 21.Nf5? would fail to 21...Nxf3+!–+
10.0-0 d5! 11.exd5 exd5
Position after: 11...exd5

This is already fine for Black. We can compare this with some other parts of this book (the classical variations where we
opted for ...exd4) where I analysed some similar type of positions and this one is definitely easier for Black to deal
with.
12.Re1
Alternatives are possible of course but none helped White in obtaining some pressure:
A) 12.Qd2 Ne5 13.c5 Nxd3 14.Qxd3 Nd7 15.Ndb5 d4 16.Bxd4 Nxc5 17.Qc4 Bxd4+ 18.Nxd4 b6 19.Rfd1 (19.b4
Ba6 20.b5 Bb7 21.Nc6 Qd3 22.Qxd3 Nxd3 23.Rfd1 Nc5 24.a4= ½-½ (24) Antonov, N – Magalhães, L corr. 2014)
19...Ba6 20.Ndb5 Qf6= 1-0 (65) Knaak, R (2465) – Kaminski, U (2345) Zittau 1989
B) 12.cxd5 Nb6 13.Bg5 Nbxd5 14.Nce2 h6 15.Bc1 Qb6 16.Qb3 Qxb3 17.Nxb3 Rd8³
C) 12.Ndb5 a6 13.Nd6 Ne5! (13...Ng4? 14.fxg4 d4 15.Bxg6+– ½-½ (40) Eperjesi, L (2395) – Hazai, L (2455)
Budapest 1978) 14.c5 Be6! 15.Be2 (15.Nxb7 Qb8 16.Nd6 Qxb2³) 15...Nc6 16.Na4 Rb8 17.Qd2 d4 18.Bf2 b5µ
D) 12.Nde2 Nb6 13.c5 Nc4 14.Bxc4 dxc4 15.Qa4 Qe8 16.Qxe8 Rxe8 17.Kf2 Bf5∞ ½-½ (30) Stoering, V – Wolter,
K Muenster 1989
E) 12.Bf2 Now Black has two interesting options:
Position after: 12.Bf2
E1) 12...dxc4 13.Bxc4 Ne5 14.Bb3

E1.1) 14...Bd7 15.Ndb5 Bxb5 16.Nxb5 Nd3! (16...Qa5 17.Nd6 Qa6 18.Bg3² 1-0 (64) Gunina, V (2295) –
Severiukhina, Z (2199) St Petersburg 2008) 17.Bd4 Nh5 18.Qxd3 Nf4 19.Qe4 Bxd4+ 20.Kh1 Qg5 21.g3 Qxb5
22.Qxd4 Ne6=
E1.2) 14...a6 15.Re1 Re8 16.Bh4 Qb6 17.Bf2 Qa5 18.h3 Bd7 19.f4 Nc6„ ½-½ (31) Cruz Lopez Claret, C (2275) –
Sorin, A (2405) San Sebastian 1991
E2) 12...Ne5! 13.c5 Nfd7 14.Be2 (14.Nde2 Nxd3 15.Qxd3 d4 16.Bxd4 Nxc5 with transposition to 12.Qd2 line.)
14...Nxc5 15.Ndb5 b6 16.Nxd5 Bf5 17.Nd4 Bd3 18.Bxd3 Qxd5³ A famous game which basically puts this White
idea out of business. 0-1 (36) Psakhis, L (2575) – Kasparov, G (2800) Murcia 1990
12...Ne5
The 12...dxc4 alternative is less precise: 13.Bxc4 Nb6 14.Bb3 Nfd5 15.Nxd5 Nxd5 16.Bf2²
13.c5 Nfd7
Position after: 13...Nfd7
14.Nc2!?
14.Bf1 Nxc5 15.Ndb5 Ne6 16.Nxd5 Nc6 17.Qd2 Ncd4 18.Nbc3 Bd7=
14...Nxd3 15.Qxd3 Ne5 16.Qe2
A) 16.Qf1 Bf5³
B) 16.Qxd5 Nd3 17.Re2 Nxb2„
16...Bf5 17.Rad1 Bxc2 18.Qxc2 d4!

Position after: 18...d4!
19.Qa4
19.Bxd4?! Nxf3+³
19...Nc6 20.Ne4
20.Bf4 Re8 21.Rxe8+ Qxe8 22.Ne4 Rd8=
20...Qd5 21.Bf4 Rfd8 22.b4 d3„
And the Black central strategy was a success.

A) 8.d5
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0 6.Be3 Nbd7 7.Qd2 c5 8.d5
Position after: 8.d5
One of the critical lines against the Nbd7 system. Black is now deprived from any early ...e6 reactions, we need to find
our counter play in another way.
8...a6
In my opinion the best is to head for a Benkö type of play. Another move that was favoured and played by John Nunn is
9...Ne5 at once.
9.Nh3
The main idea in this particular set-up is to play 0-0-0 at some point and then launch a classical attack with ‘h4’. For
that reason, ‘a4’ moves are out of the question. Black would reply with 9...Ne5 which resembles the line when Black
would have played 8...Ne5 instead of ...a6. But if here a4 was played then White wouldn’t be able to consider those 0-
0-0 ideas.
A) 9.Bh6 Bxh6 10.Qxh6 Qa5
A1) 11.0-0-0 Ne5 12.Kb1 b5µ
A2) 11.Qd2 Rb8 12.g4 b5 13.g5 (13.h4 Ne5 14.cxb5 axb5 15.h5 b4 16.Nd1 c4µ 0-1 (62) Makarczyk, K – Engels, L
Bad Saarow 1937) 13...Ne8 14.f4 bxc4 15.Bxc4 Qb4 16.b3 Nb6 17.Rb1 e6 18.Nge2 Nc7 19.e5 Ncxd5µ 0-1 (44)
Desnos, A – Blot, J (2130) Montlucon 1997
A3) 11.g4 b5 12.h4 bxc4 13.h5 Rb8 14.Qd2 (14.0-0-0 Ne5µ) 14...Ne5 15.Rh2 Bd7 16.Rb1 Rb4µ 0-1 (34) Gabriel, J
(2147) – Raykhman, A (2300) Boeblingen 2009
B) 9.Nge2 Qa5 transposes to the main line of this system.
9...b5 10.cxb5 Qa5
Position after: 10...Qa5
We already had similar positions with a Knight on c1, and now we have a Knight on h3. So let’s see what is going on
now...
11.Nf2 Nb6 12.Be2
White has some options here but none of them seem problematic to Black:
A) 12.bxa6 Bxa6 13.Bxa6 Qxa6 14.b3 Rfb8 15.Bh6 Bh8 16.Rc1 Nfd7 17.h4 c4 18.h5 cxb3 19.hxg6 fxg6 20.axb3
Nc5³ 0-1 (39) Hochgraefe, M (2300) – Kempinski, R (2520) Hamburg 1998
B) 12.Nfd1 axb5 13.Nxb5 Qxd2+ 14.Bxd2 Bd7 15.Nbc3 Rfb8 (15...e6!? 16.dxe6 Bxe6 17.Be2 d5 18.exd5 Nfxd5
19.Nxd5 Nxd5 20.0-0 Rfd8© ½-½ (25) Hoffman, A (2454) – Spasov, V (2542) Lorca 2004) 16.Rc1 Na4 17.Nxa4
Rxa4 18.Nc3 Ra7 19.b3 Ne8 20.Rc2 Nc7 21.Bd3 Rba8 22.a4 Rb8 23.Bc4 Bc8 24.Ke2 Ba6 25.Bxa6 Rxa6 26.Rb1
Rab6 27.Rcb2 R6b7©
C) 12.a4 axb5 13.Bxb5
Position after: 13.Bxb5
C1) 13...Bd7 14.Ra3 Bxb5 15.axb5 Qb4 16.Nd3 Qc4! (16...Rxa3 17.Nxb4+– 1-0 (41) Kowzan, P (2165) – Gumula,
D (2153) Wysowa 2003) 17.b3 Rxa3 18.bxc4 Nxc4 19.Qc1 Nxe3 20.Ke2 Nc4ƒ
C2) 13...Ba6 14.Bxa6 (14.0-0 Bxb5 15.axb5 Qxa1 16.Rxa1 Rxa1+ 17.Ncd1 Nc4–+ 0-1 (26) Krstic, R (2208) –
Mozetic, D (2471) Leskovac 2002) 14...Qxa6 15.b3 Nfd7 16.a5 Rfb8 17.Ra3 Nc8 18.Nd3 Na7 19.Ne2 Nb5 20.Ra2
Nc3! 21.Nxc3 Rxb3 22.Rc2 Qxa5 23.e5 Nxe5 24.Nxe5 Bxe5 25.Nd1 Qb5‚
D) 12.Bg5 axb5 13.Bxb5 Nfxd5!? 14.exd5 Bxc3 15.Qxc3 Qxb5 16.Bh6 f6 17.Bxf8 Kxf8© 0-1 (53) Martinez, D
(2283) – Nedev, T (2487) Barbera del Valles 2000
12...axb5
A possible alternative is 12...Nfd7!?

Position after: 12...Nfd7!?
Now White has a few ideas:

A) 13.Nfd1 Ne5 14.b3 axb5 15.Bxb5 Ba6 16.Be2 Bxe2 17.Qxe2 Nec4 18.bxc4 Bxc3+ 19.Nxc3 Qxc3+ 20.Kf2
Nxc4µ 0-1 (52) Zainea, M (2240) – Istratescu, A (2535) Olanesti 1996
B) 13.bxa6 Bxa6 14.Bxa6 Rxa6 15.Qc2 Nc4 16.Bd2 Rb8 17.b3 Nxd2–+ 0-1 (31) Plazuelo Pascual, J (2093) – Aguera
Naredo, J (2362) La Roda 2014
C) 13.a4 Ne5 14.Ncd1 axb5 15.Bxb5 Nec4 16.Qxa5 Rxa5 17.Ra2 Ba6 18.Bxa6 Rxa6 19.b3 Na5 20.Ra3 Rb8 21.Bd2
c4„ ½-½ (34) Zamfirescu, B (2190) – Istrate, B (2325) Eforie Nord 1997
D) 13.Bh6 Bxh6 14.Qxh6 axb5 (14...Na4 15.Qd2 axb5 16.Nxb5 Nxb2 17.Qxa5 Rxa5 18.Kd2 Ba6 19.Rhb1 ½-½ (19)
Rausis, I (2484) – Svirjov, I (2450) Alushta 2004) 15.Bxb5 Ba6 16.Bxa6 Qxa6 17.h4!? (17.Qd2 Nc4 18.Qe2 Rfb8
19.Nfd1 Nxb2!µ 0-1 (29) Gibson, C (2013) – Shaw, M (1902) England 2013) 17...Na4 18.h5 (18.Nxa4 Qxa4 19.h5
Qb4+ 20.Qd2 Rfb8∞) 18...Nxc3 19.bxc3 Qc4 20.Nd1 Nf6 21.hxg6 fxg6 22.a3 Rfb8„
13.Nxb5 Bd7
Position after: 13...Bd7
14.Qxa5
14.Nc3 Rfb8 15.Nfd1 Na4! (15...Ne8 16.b3² 1-0 (48) Galopoulos, N (2354) – Koroglou, V (2031) Kavala 2013)
16.Nxa4 Qxd2+ 17.Bxd2 Bxa4 18.Bc3 Nd7 19.Kd2 Bb3 20.Bxg7 Kxg7 21.Nc3 Bxa2!³
14...Rxa5 15.Nc3 Rb8 16.Nfd1 Ba4!?N
Position after: 16...Ba4!?N
To provoke a3. Why? In Benkö positions Black often provokes an early move with the a- or b-pawn to generate counter
play on the white squares.
16...Ne8 17.b3² 1-0 (42) Hesham, A (2399) – Buti, R (2166) Tyres 2015
17.a3
17.Bd2 Bb3 18.Ne3 Nfd7©
17...Bb3 18.Bc1 Nfd7©
B) 8.Nge2 Qa5 9.0-0-0
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0 6.Be3 Nbd7 7.Qd2 c5 8.Nge2 Qa5
9.0-0-0
This line is not dangerous for Black as he has no problems creating counter play with...
9...b5! 10.cxb5
Not the only move.

A) 10.Nxb5 Qxa2 11.Nec3 Qa5 12.Nd5 (12.Bd3 a6 13.Na3 Rb8 14.Kc2 Qb6 0-1 (14) Kurki, Timo (FIN) (2183) –
Rahunen, Hannu (FIN) (2028) Internet 1992) 12...Qxd2+! (12...Nxd5?! No need for such a move as Black has a far
simpler and more efficient option. 13.Qxa5 Nxe3 14.Rd2 a6 15.d5 Rb8² ½-½ (19) Wiedenkeller, M (2435) –
Hartman, C (2310) Norrkoeping 1988) 13.Rxd2 Nxd5 14.cxd5 a6 15.Nc3 cxd4 16.Bxd4 Bh6–+
B) 10.Kb1
Position after: 10. Kb1
B1) 10...bxc4 11.Nd5 Nxd5!? This famous motive has been introduced by Tal in a similar position! 12.Qxa5 Nxe3
13.Rd2 Rb8 14.Qc3 Nxf1 15.Rxf1 Ba6 16.Ka1 Rb6 17.Rb1 Rfb8 18.Qa3 cxd4 19.Nxd4 Nc5© 0-1 (31) Eklund, J
(2120) – Jonsson, H (2395) Sweden 1998
B2) 10...b4 11.Nd5 Nxd5 12.exd5 Ba6 13.Nf4 cxd4 14.Bxd4 Bxd4 15.Qxd4 b3! (15...Qc5 16.Qe4 b3 17.axb3 Rab8
18.Nd3∞ 1-0 (28) Wikstrom, P – Jansson, A Lindesberg 1993) 16.a3 (16.axb3 Rfb8 17.Qc3 Qxc3 18.bxc3 g5
19.Nh3 Rxb3+ 20.Kc2 Rab8µ) 16...Rfc8 17.h4 Qc5 18.h5 Qxd4 19.Rxd4 Ne5 20.Be2 Bxc4µ
B3) 10...Nb6 11.Nxb5 Qxd2 12.Bxd2 Nxc4 13.dxc5 Nxb2 14.Kxb2 Nxe4+ 15.Nec3 Nf2 16.Bc4 dxc5 17.Be3
Nxh1µ 0-1 (23) Pastana, R (1930) – Supi, L (2355) Maringa 2014
10...a6 11.dxc5
A) 11.Nf4?! cxd4 12.Qxd4 axb5 13.Nfd5 Nxd5 14.Qxd5 Bxc3 15.bxc3 Qxc3+ 16.Kb1 Ra4 0-1 (16) Gebhardt, U
(2265) – Sixtensson, M corr. 1990
B) 11.Ng3 axb5 12.Bxb5 Ba6 13.Bxa6 Rxa6 14.Qd3 Rc8 15.Kb1 Rb6 16.Nge2 Rcb8 17.Rd2 Qa3µ 0-1 (25) Debnar, I
– Zuberec, M corr. 1995
Position after: 11.dxc5
11...Nxc5
Also possible is:

A) 11...axb5
A1) 12.b3 dxc5 (12...Nxc5! 13.Bxc5 dxc5 14.e5 b4 15.Na4 Nd7 16.f4 Nb6–+) 13.Kb1 Bb7µ 0-1 (41) Nielsen, B –
Andersen, P corr. 1983
A2) 12.cxd6 Bb7!? 13.a3 Rfc8 14.dxe7 b4 15.axb4 (15.Kb1 bxa3 16.Na2 Qe5 17.Qb4 Nxe4! 18.Rxd7 Nc5–+ 0-1
(22) Kotyurgin, I (2097) – Bjazevic, P corr. 2006) 15...Qa1+ 16.Kc2 Qa4+=
B) Or: 11...dxc5 12.Ng3 axb5 13.Bxb5 Ba6 14.Bxa6 Rxa6 15.a3 Ne5 16.Bf4 Nc4 17.Qd3 Nxa3 18.bxa3 Nh5
19.Nxh5 Bxc3 20.Kc2 Bh8‚
12.e5 axb5!?N
Position after: 12...axb5!?N
12...Ne8 13.Bxc5 dxc5 14.Qd5 Nc7 15.Qxc5 axb5 16.Nd4 b4 17.Qxa5 Rxa5 18.Nc6 Rc5 19.Nxb4 Rxe5 20.Kb1² ½-½
(51) Riiga, U – Gustafsson, L corr. 1991
13.exf6 Bxf6 14.Bxc5 dxc5 15.Ne4 b4 16.Nxf6+
16.N2g3 Bg7 17.Bc4 Be6 18.Bxe6 fxe6 Black has a strong attack and excellent compensation.
16...exf6 17.b3 c4
Position after: 17...c4

18.bxc4
18.Nd4 c3 19.Qc2 Rd8 20.Bc4 Qa7!–+
18...Bf5 19.g4 Rfd8 20.Nd4 Qa3+ 21.Qb2 Qe3+ 22.Qd2 Qa3+=
C) 8.Nge2 Qa5 9.Rd1 a6

10.Nc1
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0 6.Be3 Nbd7 7.Qd2 c5 8.Nge2 Qa5 9.Rd1
Position after: 9.Rd1
A very important line. White decides to wait and doesn’t close the centre. At least not yet. And in the meantime
depriving Black from any early ‘...cxd4’ options because the Knight is still on e2.
9...a6
The most logical though I speculated a bit on an interesting side line which seems promising too. Let’s take a closer
look...
9...b6!? The apparent disadvantage of this move is that the Queen can get isolated, or even worse caught up in the centre
somewhere... 10.Nc1 Heading towards the black Queen. (10.d5 Ne5 11.b3 b5! 12.cxb5 a6 13.Ng3 axb5 14.Bxb5
Nfg4! Black has nice play.) 10...cxd4 11.Bxd4
Position after: 11.Bxd4
A) 11...Bb7 12.Be2 Nc5 13.0-0 (13.g4!? Ne6 14.Nb3 Qb4 15.Be3 Nd7 16.Nd5 Qxd2+ 17.Rxd2 Rfe8 ½-½ (29)
Vertes, A (2351) – Hofer, R (2422) corr. 2006 The position is about equal.) 13...Rfe8 14.a3 Ne6 15.Nb3 Qh5 16.Be3
Qh4 17.Rf2 Nd7 18.g3 Qh3 19.Bf1 Qh5 20.Nd5 Rac8 with a tense game. Black is playing with his Queen on the
edge of the board. Reminds me in a way of the famous old game Larsen – Fischer (1971).
B) 11...Ba6 12.Nb3 Qb4 13.Na1! Qa5 14.Nc2 Rac8 15.b3²
C) 11...Nc5!? 12.a3!? (12.Nb3 Nxb3 13.axb3 Bb7 14.Be2 Nd7 15.Bxg7 Kxg7 16.Qd4+ Kg8 17.Kf2 Qb4 Black has
counter play.; 12.Be2 Bb7 transposes to 11...Bb7.) 12...Ne6 13.Nb3 Qh5 14.Be3 Ba6 15.h4 Rac8 16.g4 Nxg4
17.fxg4 Qxg4 18.Nd5 Rfe8 There are obvious similarities with the Sicilian Dragon! Food for thought.
10.Nc1
Alternatives are possible from which 10.dxc5 is the most important (see next subchapter).
After 10.Nd5 Nxd5!! 11.Qxa5 Nxe3 a nice game was played in 2003: 12.dxc5 Nxd1 13.Kxd1 Nxc5 14.Qd2 Bd7
15.Nc3 Bc6 16.Bd3 b5 17.Ke2 e6 18.b4 Nxd3 19.Kxd3 bxc4+ 20.Kxc4 Rfc8 21.Kb3 a5 22.b5 a4+ 23.Kb4 d5
24.exd5 Bxd5 25.b6 Bf8+ 26.Kb5 0-1 (26) Vila Gazquez, J (2246) – Avrukh, B (2557) Andorra 2003
10...cxd4
Position after: 10...cxd4
Of course! This is an important idea which Black uses frequently in this line.
11.Bxd4 Ne5 12.Nb3
12.Be2 Be6 13.b3 Nc6 14.Be3 Ng4 15.Bb6 Qxb6 16.fxg4 Bd4µ ½-½ (57) Morgenstern, P (2069) – Schultz, A (2185)
Germany 2004
12...Qc7
Position after: 12...Qc7
Probably best.
12...Qb4 13.Qc2 (13.c5 Be6 14.Nd5 Nxd5 15.exd5 Qxd2+ 16.Rxd2 Bd7 17.Be2 Rac8 18.f4 Ng4 19.c6 bxc6 20.Bxa6
Rb8 21.Bxg7 Kxg7 22.dxc6 Bxc6³) 13...Nc6 14.Be3 Nd7
Position after: 14...Nd7
A) 15.Bd2 Qb6 16.Nd5 Qd8 17.Be3 (17.Bg5 a5 18.a4 b6 19.Be3 Nc5 20.Nc1 f5! 21.Be2 fxe4 22.0-0 exf3µ 0-1 (36)
Moser, G (2350) – Kindermann, S (2565) Austria 1999) 17...a5 18.a4 b6 19.Be2 Nc5 20.Nd4 Nxd4 21.Bxd4 Bxd4
22.Rxd4 Bb7! (22...f5 23.e5 dxe5 24.Nf6+ exf6 25.Rxd8 Rxd8 26.0-0∞ 1-0 (40) Abolianin, A (2406) – Ahn, M
(2294) Geel 2002) 23.0-0 e5 24.Rd2 Bxd5 25.Rxd5 Qe7 26.Rfd1 Rad8³
B) 15.a3!? Bxc3+ 16.Kf2 Qa4 17.Qxc3 Nde5 18.Bh6 Re8 19.Be2 f6 20.Nd2 Be6 21.Ra1 b5 (21...Nd8 22.Be3 Rc8
23.Rhc1 Qd7 24.Qb4 Ndc6 25.Qb6² ½-½ (44) Lastin, A (2643) – Ozolin, M (2398) Voronezh 2010) 22.b4 bxc4
23.Nxc4 Nxc4 24.Bxc4 Nd8 25.Rhc1 Bxc4 26.Qxc4+ Nf7 27.Be3 Qb5 28.Kg1²
13.Rc1
Again waiting for a while. The direct attempt... 13.Nd5 Nxd5 14.cxd5 gives even less.
Position after: 14.cxd5
Black has two reasonable possibilities:

A) 14...e6
A1) 15.Rc1 Qe7 16.dxe6 Bxe6 17.Be2 Rfd8 18.0-0 d5 19.Qf4 Qd6∞ ½-½ (32) Nadj, C (2171) – Kiefhaber, H
(2260) Germany 2010
A2) 15.Qc3 Qxc3+ 16.Bxc3 exd5 17.Rxd5 Rd8
A2.1) 18.f4 Be6 19.Rd2 (19.fxe5 Bxd5 20.exd5 dxe5 21.Na5 Rxd5 22.Nxb7 Rc8ƒ) 19...Nd7 20.Bxg7 Kxg7
21.Rxd6 Bxb3 22.axb3 Nc5 23.Rxd8 Rxd8 24.Bc4 Nxe4µ 0-1 (41) Lopez Neiger, M – Thompson, B corr. 2013
A2.2) 18.Be2 Be6 19.Rd1 Black is fine here, for example: ½-½ (19) Bobotsov, M – Darga, K Sarajevo 1962
19...Nc6 20.Bxg7 Kxg7=
A3) 15.Be2 exd5 16.exd5 Bf5 17.Rc1 Qe7 18.0-0 Rac8 19.f4 Nd7 20.Bf3 Rxc1 21.Rxc1 Nf6=.
B) 14...f5 15.Rc1 (15.exf5 Bxf5 16.Be2 Rac8 17.0-0 Qd7 18.Bc3 Qa4 19.Ra1 Nc4 20.Bxc4 Bxc3 21.bxc3 Qxc4∞;
15.Qc3 Qxc3+ 16.Bxc3 fxe4 17.fxe4 Rf4 18.Nd2 Bd7 19.g3 Rff8µ) 15...Qd8 16.exf5 Bxf5 17.Be2 a5 18.Bc3 a4
19.Nd4 Qb6 20.Qe3 Bd7 21.0-0 a3! 22.b3 Rac8 23.Ba1 Rxc1 (23...Bf6∞ 0-1 (53) Lieb, H (2275) – Vogt, L (2495)
Germany 1994) 24.Rxc1 Rc8 25.Rxc8+ Bxc8= With equal chances.
13...Be6 14.Nd5
Only now when the Bishop comes to e6, White plays his Knight to d5.
14...Qd8
Position after: 14...Qd8
15.Bb6
The best move.

15.Be2 b5!
A) 16.Bb6 Qd7 17.Bf2 Rab8 18.cxb5 Bxd5 19.exd5 Rxb5!? 20.Bxb5 Qxb5 21.Rc3 Rb8 22.Nc1 Nc4 23.Qe2 Rc8!
24.b3 (24.0-0 Nxd5 25.Rb3 Qc6 26.Nd3 a5 27.Rc1 a4 28.Ra3 Bh6 29.Rc2 Qe8µ) 24...Qa5–+
B) 16.Na5 bxc4 17.Bxe5 Bxd5 18.Bc3 Bxe4 19.fxe4 Nxe4 20.Nc6 Qc7 21.Qd5 Nxc3 22.bxc3 e6 23.Qf3 d5 24.Nb4
Qb6µ
15...Qd7 16.Be2 Bxd5 17.cxd5 Rfc8 18.0-0 Qa4

Although White has the bishop pair, things are not clear. The black Queen is active and so are all of his other pieces.
Moreover, the pawn on a2 feels a bit vulnerable.
19.Qa5
19.Na5 Rxc1 20.Rxc1 Qxa2 21.Rc7 Ned7 22.Be3 b5 23.Nc6 e6∞
19...Qxa5 20.Bxa5
20.Nxa5 Bh6! Important! 21.Rc3 Rxc3 22.bxc3 Rc8 23.Bd4 (23.c4 Nfd7 24.Bf2 b6µ) 23...b6!? 24.Bxe5 Be3+ 25.Kh1
bxa5 26.Bxa6 Rb8 27.Bxf6 exf6 28.a4 Rb3 29.c4 Rb2=
20...Bh6
20...Ned7!? is also a safe continuation: 21.Bd2 Ne8 22.Rxc8 Rxc8 23.Rc1 Rxc1+ 24.Bxc1 Nc7 25.Na5 b5 26.Nc6 Kf8
27.b3 Bc3 28.Kf1 Ke8 29.Bd3 Nc5 30.Bc2 e6=
21.Bd2 Bxd2 22.Nxd2 Kf8
Also here 22...g5 23.g3 Kg7 24.Kf2 h5 25.Ke3 Rab8 26.Kd4 Ng6! Black is hoping for ...h4 with counter play.
23.Nb3
Position after: 23.Nb3
23...g5!?
A good strategy for Black to adopt, if possible.

In the original game, Black didn’t experience any significant problems either after 23...e6 24.f4 Ned7 25.dxe6 fxe6
26.e5 Rxc1 27.Rxc1 dxe5 28.fxe5 Nd5= ½-½ (41) Popov, V (2563) – Rodshtein, M (2623) Biel 2009
24.Na5 h5 25.b3 Rab8
Black wants to push ....h4
26.g3 g4!„
10.dxc5
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0 6.Be3 Nbd7 7.Qd2 c5 8.Nge2 Qa5 9.Rd1 a6 10.dxc5
An important idea.
10...Nxc5
Recapturing with the Knight is in the spirit of this line as Black wants to develop his pieces to active squares. In my
opinion the best play is demonstrated in the following line.
11.Nf4!?
A rather new move which is critical for the assessment of 10...Nxc5.

11.Nd4 Bd7 12.Be2 Rfc8 13.0-0 Na4! 14.Nxa4 Qxd2 15.Rxd2 Bxa4 16.Rc1 h5 17.Bf1 Kh7∞ 1-0 (40) Edouard, R
(2646) – Saric, I (2638) Biel SUI 2012
Position after: 11.Nf4!?
11...Be6
Probably best as other moves fail to equalise...

A) 11...Bd7 At first I thought this move runs into 12.e5! with a big advantage, but... (12.Nfd5 Nxd5 13.Nxd5 Qxd2+
14.Rxd2 Rae8 15.Be2 Bc6 With a Maroczy type of position. Chances are equal in this case. With ...e6 or simply ...a5
coming, Black has a decent endgame.) 12...dxe5 13.Nfd5 Na4 14.Nxe7+ (14.Nxf6+ exf6 15.Qxd7 Nxb2µ) 14...Kh8
15.Ncd5 Qxd2+ 16.Rxd2 Nxd5 17.Nxd5 Bc6 18.b3 Bxd5 19.cxd5 Nc3 20.d6 Rfd8 21.d7 Bf8 22.Kf2! (22.Bc4 Nb5
23.Ke2 Nd6 24.Rhd1 Rxd7 25.Bc5 Rad8 26.Bxf7 Rxf7 27.Bxd6 Bxd6 28.Rxd6 Rc8 29.Rd8+ Rxd8 30.Rxd8+ Kg7
31.Rd6 Rc7 32.Kd3 Kf7 Black should hold this endgame.; 22.Bg5 Bb4 23.Bxd8 Rxd8© This is not an obvious
solution but Black has compensation here.) 22...Bb4 23.g3!? While it seems that White preserves some pressure.
B) 11...Na4 12.Ncd5! (12.Nfd5 Nxc3 13.Nxe7+ Kh8 14.bxc3 Re8 15.Nxc8 Raxc8 16.Bd4 Nd7 17.Rb1 Ne5 18.Rb4
Re7! 19.Be2 Nc6 20.Bb6 Qe5 21.Rb3 f5 22.Bd3 fxe4 23.Bxe4 Na5 24.Bxa5 Qxa5 25.0-0 Qc5+ 26.Kh1 Qxc4
27.Rg1 b5=) 12...Qxd2+ 13.Rxd2 e5 14.Nxf6+ Bxf6 15.Nd5 Bd8²
12.a3!?
A sneaky poisonous move. Black has to be vigilant in order to keep the play balanced.
12.Be2 b5 13.cxb5 axb5 14.Bxc5 dxc5 15.Nxe6 fxe6 16.Nxb5 Qxa2 17.0-0 Nh5 18.f4 Qxb2 19.Qxb2 Bxb2 20.Nc7
Ra4 21.Nxe6 Bd4+ and this is about equal due to the reduced nature of the position.
12...Ncd7 13.Be2 Rac8 14.Nxe6 fxe6

Position after: 14...fxe6
15.f4!
A new and highly challenging idea for Black. Other moves are critical too:
A) 15.0-0 Ne8!? 16.Rc1 (16.c5 Bxc3 17.bxc3 Nxc5 Black is a pawn up and his Knights defend both the weak e6- and
b7-pawns.) 16...Ne5 17.b3!? (17.c5 dxc5 18.f4 Nc6 19.e5 Rd8 20.Qc2 Nd4 21.Qe4 Bh6 22.g3 Ng7 23.Qxb7 Ngf5
24.Bf2 Nxe2+ 25.Nxe2 Rb8 26.Qd7 Rxb2 (27.Qxe6+ Kg7 28.Rfe1 Qxa3„ ½-½ (50) Jarabinsky, M (2108) –
Hoeven, J (2148) corr. 2010) 17...Qxa3 18.f4 Nc6 19.Bg4 Nc7 Black is fine as the direct attempt 20.Nd5 exd5
21.cxd5 Rb8 22.dxc6 bxc6 23.Rxc6 Rxb3 is OK for Black.
B) 15.c5 dxc5 16.f4 Rfd8 17.Qc2 c4 18.0-0 Nf8 And it seems that Black can neutralise the White bishop pair. The
idea is that after 19.Rxd8 Rxd8! 20.Bxc4 Ng4–+
Position after: 20...Ng4–+
Black wins because of the deadly threats on the g1-a7 diagonal.
15...b5
Now one other possible line is:

15...Bh6?! 16.g4! and White is better. (While 16.0-0 e5 was the idea and probably fine for Black.)
16.c5!?
Position after: 16.c5!?
Now we are entering a highly complex line which is rarely seen, and resulting from such a normal line the surprise is
even bigger.
16...Nxc5
16...dxc5 17.e5 b4 18.exf6 Nxf6 19.Nb1 Rfd8 20.Qc1 Rxd1+ 21.Bxd1 bxa3+ (21...Nd5 22.Bd2) 22.Bd2 axb2 23.Qxb2
Qb5
Position after: 23...Qb5
24.Qa2 c4 25.0-0 Nd5 26.Be2 Qc6 27.Na3 c3 28.Bc1 Bd4+ 29.Kh1 Be3 30.Bf3 Bxc1 31.Rxc1 Kf7 Somehow I have
the feeling Black didn’t entirely equalise.
17.b4 Qxa3 18.bxc5 Ng4 19.Bd4
The alternative is also attractive.

19.Bxg4 Bxc3 20.Bxe6+ Rf7 21.Bxc8 Bxd2+ 22.Bxd2 Rf6 23.c6 Qd3 24.Kf2 Qd4+ 25.Kf3 d5!
26.c7 Qxe4+ 27.Kg3 Qd3+ 28.Kh4 Qc2 29.Rc1 Qxd2 30.Bg4 Qxf4 31.c8=Q+ Kg7 is a draw according to the engines!
19...Bxd4 20.Qxd4 e5!
Position after: 20...e5!
The position is unclear. Let’s see some examples how the game could possibly continue.
21.Qd3
A) 21.Qd5+ Kg7 22.Bxg4 Rxc5 23.Qd2 Rxc3 24.0-0 Qc5+ 25.Kh1 Rxf4 26.Rxf4 exf4 27.Qxf4 Qe3 Black is OK
here.
B) 21.Qd2 Nf6 22.fxe5 dxe5 23.c6 Rxc6 24.Nd5 Nxe4 25.Qb4 Qxb4+ 26.Nxb4 Rc3 and again this appears OK for
Black. He has ample compensation for the sacrificed piece.
21...Rxc5 22.Nd5 Qa5+ 23.Qd2 Qxd2+ 24.Rxd2 Nf6 25.Nxe7+ Kg7 26.Bf3 exf4 27.Nd5 Nxd5 28.Rxd5 Rc1+
29.Bd1 b4 30.Rxd6 Rb8 31.Kd2 Ra1
Position after: 31...Ra1
It seems that Black is getting enough counter play here. However always easier said than done!
32.Rd7+ Kh8 33.e5 b3 34.e6 b2 35.Bc2 Rxh1 36.e7 b1=Q 37.Bxb1 Rhxb1 38.Rd8+ Kg7 39.e8=Q R1b2+
Position after: 39...R1b2+
39...R1b2+ 40.Ke1 Rb1+ 41.Kf2 R1b2+ 42.Kf3 fails to: 42...R8b3+ 43.Kg4?! Rxg2+ and Black even wins.
A fantastic draw! Black only gives checks on the b-file.
D) 8.Nge2 Qa5 9.d5 a6 10.Nc1

10...b5
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0 6.Be3 Nbd7
This was my favorite line against the Sämisch. It was John Nunn and Garry Kasparov who popularised this variation.
Previously it was not well considered because it allows the Nh3 type of development which was considered to be a big
concession from Black. But after some time it became clear that this was not really the case.
7.Qd2
Position after: 7.Qd2
The Sämisch is a very solid system. White strongly supports his centre pawns in particularly the e4-pawn. But on the
downside he deprives his g1-Knight the comfortable f3-square. That is the main problem with the Sämisch in general:
White loses time repositioning his Knights.
7...c5 8.Nge2 Qa5 9.d5
Black always has to consider this important option of closing the centre. Black needs to act quickly on the queenside.
9...a6
Position after: 9...a6
10.Nc1
Other moves do not give White chances for an advantage.

A) 10.Ng3 b5 11.cxb5 Nb6 12.a4 Ne8 13.Bh6 Bxh6 14.Qxh6 Qb4 15.Qc1 axb5 16.Bxb5 Nc7 17.Bc6 Rb8 18.0-0
Ba6 19.Re1 Nc4 20.Rb1 Nxb2∞ 0-1 (34) Carow, A (1968) – Zude, E (2395) Nuernberg 2012
B) 10.Bh6 b5 (10...Bxh6!? 11.Qxh6 b5„) 11.Bxg7 Kxg7 12.Ng3 (12.Nc1 b4 13.N3e2 Ne5 14.b3 Qb6 15.Nd3
Nxd3+ 16.Qxd3 a5 17.Rb1 e6 18.g4 h6 19.h4 Rh8∞ 0-1 (31) Hartendauer, F – Buchheister, B Kiel 2001) 12...bxc4
13.Bxc4 Nb6 14.Bb3 (14.Be2 Bd7 15.a4 Rfb8 16.0-0 Qb4„) 14...Bd7 15.0-0 Qb4 16.Kh1 a5 17.Qf2 a4 18.Bd1
Nc4³ ½-½ (69) Don, A – Borodaikevich, R Kiev 2005
C) 10.Nf4 Rb8 11.h4 h5 12.Nh3 b5 13.cxb5 axb5 14.Nf2 Ne5 15.Be2 b4 16.Ncd1 Ba6³ 0-1 (41) Laurentius, L –
Pleci, I Warsaw 1935
10...b5 11.cxb5
Position after: 11.cxb5
11...axb5
The alternative is a somewhat speculative.

11...Ne5 12.a4 e6 13.dxe6 Bxe6 14.Qxd6
A) 14...Rfd8 15.Qxe5! (15.Qxc5 Nfd7 16.Qd6 Nxf3+ 17.gxf3 Bxc3+∞ ½-½ (30) Djukic, S (2203) – Antic, D (2513)
Neos Marmaras 2012) 15...Ng4 16.Qxg7+ Kxg7 17.fxg4+–
B) And now: 14...Nxf3+! 15.gxf3 Nxe4 16.fxe4 Bxc3+ 17.Bd2 (17.bxc3 Qxc3+ 18.Kf2 Qxa1∞) 17...Bb4∞
12.Bxb5
Not dangerous is:

12.Nxb5 Qxd2+! (12...Qb6 13.a4 Ba6 14.Rb1 Rfc8 15.Be2 Ne8 16.Na2 Nc7 17.Nac3 Bxb5 18.axb5² 0-1 (54)
Bratchenko, A (2355) – Arkhipov, S (2520) Maikop 1998) 13.Bxd2 Ne8 14.Bc3 f5 15.Bxg7 Kxg7 16.Nc3 fxe4
17.fxe4 Nc7 18.Be2 Rb8 19.b3 e6 20.dxe6 Nxe6 21.Rf1 Nf6 22.Bd3 Bb7©
12...Ba6 13.Bxa6
Another option has been tried.

13.Nb3 Qb6 14.a4 Bxb5 15.Nxb5 Rfb8!N (15...Rxa4 16.Rxa4 Qxb5 17.Ra3 Ne5 18.Na5± 1-0 (32) Rogers, I (2550) –
Fuller, M (2285) Melbourne 1992) 16.0-0 Ne8 17.Ra3 Qa6 18.Rb1 Nb6©
13...Qxa6
Position after: 13...Qxa6
We entered a Benkö position and it is always important to evaluate if in the given position this gambit provides enough
play or it doesn’t.
14.Nd3
A) 14.Rb1 Rfb8! (14...Nb6 15.b3 Nfd7 16.N1e2 c4 17.0-0 Rfc8 18.Nd4 Nb8 19.Rfc1 Qa5 20.b4 Qa6 21.a4 Qb7
22.a5 1-0 (22) Campos Moreno, J (2484) – El Jawich, A (2105) Khanty – Mansiysk 2010) 15.b3 Ne8 16.N1e2 Nc7
17.0-0 Nb5 18.Nxb5 Rxb5 19.Nc1 c4 20.Bd4 Qa5 21.Qd1 Bxd4+ 22.Qxd4 cxb3 23.axb3 Rb4 24.Qd2 Qb6+ 25.Kh1
Nc5 26.Qe3 Rb8 27.Rf2 Rb5 28.Rfb2 Na4 29.Qxb6 R5xb6 30.Rc2 Nc5 31.g4 Rb5=
B) 14.Bh6 Bxh6 15.Qxh6 Ne5 16.Qd2 Nh5
B1) 17.b3 f5 18.exf5 (18.f4 Ng4 19.exf5 c4!„) 18...Rxf5©
B2) 17.Qe2 Nf4 18.Qxa6 Rxa6 19.0-0 Nc4 20.Nd1 f5 21.g3 Nh3+ 22.Kg2 Nd2 23.Re1 Ng5 24.exf5 Ngxf3
25.Rxe7 Rxf5 26.Nc3 Ne5© 0-1 (43) Czerwonski, A (2414) – Blehm, P (2494) Plock 2000
14...Nb6!?N
Position after: 14...Nb6!?N
A new idea to my best of knowledge.

The other option is:
14...Rfb8 15.0-0 Nb6!? (15...Rb7 16.Rac1 Ne8 17.Rc2 Nc7 18.b3 Nb5 19.Nxb5 Qxb5 20.Rfc1 Ra3² ½-½ (57)
Timman, J (2623) – Sandstrom, L (2360) Sweden 2002; 15...c4 16.Nf2 Ne8 17.f4 Qa5 18.Rfc1 Nc7 19.Qe2 Nb5
20.Nfd1 Nxc3 21.bxc3² 0-1 (67) Ciobanu, C (2163) – Lolici, I (1932) Mamaia 2015) 16.b3 Qa5 17.Rac1 Nfd7 18.Nb2
Bxc3 19.Rxc3 Qxa2³
15.Qc2
The alternative is highly tactical and most interesting as well.

15.b3 Nfxd5!
Position after: 15...Nfxd5
16.exd5 Qa5 17.Rc1 Bxc3 18.Rxc3 (18.Qxc3 Qxc3+ 19.Rxc3 Nxd5 20.Bd2 Nxc3 21.Bxc3 Rxa2 22.Rg1 Ra3 23.Nc1 f6
24.Kd2 e5µ) 18...Nxd5 19.b4 Qxa2 (Also possible is: 19...cxb4 20.Rb3 Nxe3 21.Qxe3 Qxa2 22.Rb2 Qa1+ 23.Qc1
Rfc8 24.Qb1 Rc3 25.Ke2 Qa4 26.Rxb4 Qc2+ 27.Qxc2 Rxc2+ 28.Ke3 Rxg2= Although a piece down Black has 3
pawns and a solid position.) 20.Rc2 (20.Rc1 Nxe3 21.Qxe3 Qxg2 22.Rg1 Qxh2 23.bxc5 dxc5‚) 20...Qb1+ 21.Rc1
Qb3 22.Bh6 Ra2 23.Qd1 Qa3 24.0-0 Nc3 25.Rxc3 Qxc3 26.Bxf8 Kxf8 27.Qb1 (27.bxc5 Rd2µ) 27...Rd2 28.Nf2 Rb2
29.Qa1 Qxb4³ This is a very long and complicated line which seems to give Black the dynamics we wants.
15...Rfb8 16.0-0 Nfd7 17.Rfb1
17.b3 Qa5 18.Rac1 Qxc3 19.Qxc3 Bxc3 20.Rxc3 Rxa2³
17...Na4
Position after: 17...Na4
18.Nxa4 Qxa4 19.b3 Qa5 20.Nb2 Qc3 21.Qe2 Rb7©
10...Ne5
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0 6.Be3 Nbd7 7.Qd2 c5 8.Nge2 Qa5 9.d5 a6 10.Nc1 Ne5
Position after: 10...Ne5
This is another way of playing this line.

11.Be2
Not the only move. White has a few other ideas as well.
A) 11.h3 Nh5 12.Bf2 f5 13.Be2 fxe4 14.Nxe4 Qxd2+ 15.Kxd2 Bf5µ 0-1 (25) Kiss, T (1927) – Nemeth, M (2094)
Hungary 2010
B) 11.Nd1 Qxd2+ 12.Kxd2 Nfd7 13.Kc2 Nb6 14.Kb3 f5³ 0-1 (34) Werner, A (2125) – Claus, T (2069) Germany
2009
C) 11.a3 Rb8 White cannot prevent ...b5. (11...Nh5 12.Be2 f5 13.exf5 gxf5 14.Bh6 f4 15.Bxg7 Nxg7∞ ½-½ (23)
Aydogdu, A (1829) – Islek, A (1669) Izmir 2002) 12.Bh6 Bxh6 13.Qxh6 b5 14.Nb3 Qb6 15.cxb5 axb5 16.Qd2 Bd7³
1-0 (24) Nazarov, P (2230) – Chernov, M Novokuznetsk 2001
D) 11.a4
Position after: 11.a4
D1) 11...Qb4!? 12.a5 (12.N1a2 Qb3 13.a5 Nxc4 14.Bxc4 Qxc4 15.Qc2 Nxd5 16.exd5 Bf5 17.Qd2 Rfb8 18.Kf2 b6
19.Nc1 bxa5© ½-½ (25) Schreiner, T (2041) – Braeuer, F (1908) Willingen 2008) 12...Bd7 13.Na4 b5 14.Qxb4
cxb4 15.Nb6 Nxc4 16.Bxc4 bxc4 17.Nxa8 Rxa8 18.Na2 Rb8 (18...b3 19.Nc3 Be8 20.Kd2 Rb8 21.Rhc1² ½-½ (46)
Gupta, A (2551) – Akshat, K (2305) Nagpur 2008) 19.Bd4 Rb5 20.0-0 Nxe4 21.Bxg7 Nd2 22.Bh6 Nxf1 23.Rxf1
f6∞ 24.Bd2?! c3 25.bxc3 Rxd5µ
D2) 11...e6 12.Ra3 exd5 13.cxd5 Nh5 14.Be2 f5 15.exf5 gxf5 16.Bh6 Bxh6 17.Qxh6 Nf6 18.0-0 c4 19.Kh1 Bd7
20.f4 Ng6 21.Nd1 Qd2µ 0-1 (25) Ivanov, V (2385) – Petkevich, J (2445) Moscow 1994
E) 11.f4 Neg4 12.Bg1 Nh5 13.Be2 b5 14.cxb5 axb5 15.Nd3 c4 16.Bxg4 Bxg4 17.Nf2 b4 18.Ne2 c3 19.bxc3 Bxe2
20.cxb4 Qa3 0-1 (20) Fonrobert, G – Everard, M Sao Bernardo 1968
F) 11.Nb3 Qb4 12.Nb1 Qxd2+ 13.Kxd2 Bd7 14.Nc3 b5 15.Na5 Rfb8³ 0-1 (35) Dubois, R – Jaudran, J corr. 1959
11...b5!
It is usually a good idea to play ...b5 when White already lost a tempo moving his light squared Bishop, and not
capturing on b5 directly from f1.
12.cxb5 axb5 13.Nxb5
13.Nb3 Qb6 14.Nxb5 Ra4 15.Na3 Ba6 16.Rc1 Rb8 17.0-0 Bxe2 18.Qxe2 Qa6 19.Qxa6 Rxa6© 0-1 (64) Okcular, A –
Banikas, H (2300) Varna 1994
13...Bd7
14.Qxa5 Rxa5 15.Nc3 Rb8 16.Rb1 e6 17.Bd2 exd5 18.Nxd5 Ra7 19.Nxf6+ Bxf6 20.0-0 Nc6
Position after: 20...Nc6
Black is fine. 0-1 (33) Osborne, M (2263) – Bates, R (2376) Ascot 2013
E) 8.Nge2 Qa5 9.Nc1
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0 6.Be3 Nbd7 7.Qd2 c5 8.Nge2 Qa5 9.Nc1
9...cxd4
Now we get to some kind of Maroczy structure where the game depends on the speed of Black’s counter play.
10.Bxd4 a6
Going for some kind of the Hedgehog. The other idea is to follow the footsteps of the Maroczy set-up.
A) 10...Nc5!?
Position after: 10...Nc5!?
A1) 11.Be2 Be6 12.0-0 Na4! 13.Nb3 Qb4 14.Nxa4 Qxa4 15.Nc1 Rac8 16.b3 Qa3 17.Qe3 Nd7 18.Bxg7 Kxg7
19.Nd3 Ne5 20.f4 Nxd3 21.Qxd3 f6= ½-½ (29) Sanga, A – Mendieta Aibar, P corr. 2009
A2) 11.a3
A2.1) 11...Ne6 12.Nb3 Qd8 13.Be3 b6 14.Be2 Nd7 15.0-0 Ba6!? 16.a4 Ne5 (16...Bb7 17.Nd4 Ndc5 18.Nxe6
fxe6 19.Qc2 a5 20.Nb5 Bc6 21.Rfd1 Kh8 22.Bg5 Qd7 23.Bh4 Rac8 24.Bf2 Qb7 25.Nd4 Bd7∞ ½-½ (37)
Ghitescu, T – Najdorf, M Leipzig 1960) 17.Nb5 Nc6 18.Rfc1 Nc5∞
Position after: 18...Nc5∞

We got a typical Maroczy position with all pieces on the board. ½-½ (18) Nemes, B (2488) – Szucs, C Internet
1998
A2.2) 11...Qc7 12.Be2 Be6 13.b4 Ncd7 14.Nd5 Bxd5 15.cxd5 Rfc8 16.0-0 Qc2 17.Ra2 Qxd2 18.Rxd2 Nh5³ 0-1
(39) Simko, L (1748) – Szell, L (2165) Eger 2009
A3) Probably best is not allowing Black some easy development with... 11.Rb1 and b4 is in the air. 11...Ne6 12.Be3
Bd7 13.Be2 Rfc8 14.0-0 Qd8 15.Rd1 (Another interesting continuation is 15.b4!? taking space on the queenside
while Black can’t regroup easily. 15...Nf8 16.Nb3 Be6 17.Nd5 N8d7 18.Rbc1 White has more space with easier
play but still Black is solid.) 15...Nc5 16.b3 a6 17.Nd3 Nxd3 18.Bxd3 Bc6 19.Ne2∞ Black is fine 0-1 (68)
Steinbacher, C (2158) – Mader, M (2185) Germany 2010
B) 10...Qd8!? 11.Be2 b6 12.0-0 Bb7 13.Nb3 Rc8 14.Rac1 Re8 15.Be3 Qc7 16.Nd4 Qb8 17.b3 a6 0-1 (31) Popiol, M
(1898) – Barski, R (2261) Dobczyce 2014. Black now has an improved version of the Hedgehog with some extra
tempi and of course this will help him in creating counter play.
C) 10...Ne5!?
Position after: 10...Ne5!?
An interesting move in the spirit of the position suggested by Romain Edouard. 11.Nb3 (11.Be2 Be6∞)
C1) 11...Qb4? 12.Nb5? (12.Qd1!+– White wins a Queen!) 12...Qxd2+ 13.Nxd2 Nc6∞ 0-1 (47) Bognar, C (2320) –
Michalek, J (2323) Budapest 2000
C2) 11...Qc7!? 12.Rc1 (12.Nb5 Qb8 13.Rc1 a6 14.Na3 Nc6 15.Be3 Be6 16.Be2 Nd7 17.0-0 Rc8 Again with some
interesting play.; 12.Nd5 Nxd5 13.cxd5 e6 14.Rc1 Qd8„) 12...b6 13.Nd5 Qd8 14.Be2 Bb7 15.0-0 Rc8 and again
we arrived at a Hedgehog position.
11.Nb3
11.Be2 Qd8 12.0-0 b6 will transpose to 10...Qd8.
11...Qd8 12.Be2 b6 13.0-0

Position after: 13.0-0
13.Rd1 Bb7 14.0-0 Rc8 15.Kh1 Re8 with next ...Qc7-b8, we again will obtain a Hedgehog position.
13...Re8 14.Rfd1 Bf8 15.Nd5 Nh5 16.Be3 e6 17.Nc3 Qc7 18.Rac1 Bb7 19.Qe1 Rac8 20.Qf2 Ba8 21.Rd2 Qb8
½-½ (30) Ree, H (2500) – Andersson, U (2545) Wijk aan Zee 1978 with unclear play.
A) 8.Be2
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0 6.Be3 Nbd7 7.Nh3 c6
8.Be2
An elastic approach. For now, White plays without an early Qd2 to be prepared for a fast ‘0-0’ or even something
different...
8...e5 9.d5 cxd5 10.cxd5 Nh5 11.g4 Nc5!
11...Qh4+? 12.Bf2! Qxh3 13.Bf1+–

Position after: 13.Bf1+–
A nice trick!
12.0-0 a5 13.Kh1
13.Kg2 Nf6 14.Rc1 h5 15.Nf2 b6∞
13...Bf6!?
The alternative is also worth a look:

13...Nf6 14.Nf2 Bd7 15.Bb5 a4 16.Nd3 Qa5 17.Nxc5 Bxb5 18.Nxb5 Qxb5 19.Nd3 Rac8= 0-1 (37) Postny, E (2360) –
Avrukh, B (2609) Israel 1999
14.Qd2 b6!?
Position after: 14...b6!?
14...Bd7 15.Rac1 b6!? (15...Rc8 16.Rg1 Ng7 17.Nf2 Bh4 18.Nd3 Nxd3 19.Bxd3 f6 20.Nb5² ½-½ (44) Pankratov, V
(2561) – Kozlowicz, A (2494) corr. 2002) 16.Nb5 Qe7 17.Na3 Bh4 18.Nc4 Rfb8∞
15.Rab1 Ng7 16.b3 Bh4 17.Rg1 h5 18.a3 Bd7 19.b4 axb4 20.axb4 Na4 21.Nb5 Qf6∞
B) 8.Qd2 e5 9.d5 cxd5 10.cxd5 a6 11.Nf2 Nh5 12.Nd3 f5

13. --
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0 6.Be3 Nbd7 7.Nh3
Position after: 7.Nh3
This is the line that was thought to give Black rough times. However, the Knight is jumping around a lot and Black
should be fine.
7...c6 8.Qd2 e5 9.d5 cxd5 10.cxd5 a6
Position after: 10... a6
11.Nf2
White can try to be aggressive with: 11.g4 b5 12.Nf2 Nc5 13.b4 Na4 14.Nxa4 bxa4
A) 15.Rc1 Ne8 16.Rc6 f5 17.Qc2 fxg4 18.fxg4 Bf6!? (18...Bb7 19.Rc3∞ 0-1 (39) Wang, X (2177) – Gurcan, S (2238)
Moscow 2006) 19.Be2 Bh4 20.0-0 Bd7 21.Rxa6 Bxf2+ 22.Rxf2 Rxf2 23.Bxf2 Rxa6 24.Bxa6 Bxg4∞
B) 15.Be2 Ne8 16.0-0 f5 17.gxf5 gxf5 18.exf5 Bxf5 19.Kh1∞ 0-1 (44) Kraidman, Y (2470) – Gligoric, S (2585)
Manila 1974
11...Nh5 12.Nd3 f5
Position after: 12...f5
13.Be2
A) 13.Bg5 Qe8 14.g4 fxg4 15.fxg4 Nf4 16.0-0-0 Qf7 17.Be2 h6 18.Bh4 Nb6 19.Nxf4 exf4 20.Rdf1 Nd7³ 0-1 (41)
Trtanj, T – Goletiani, R Szeged 1994
B) 13.exf5 gxf5 14.Be2 Ndf6 15.0-0 Going for safer play if such things really exists in the King’s Indian. In any case
in my opinion Black is doing fine here. 15...Qe8 (15...f4!? 16.Bf2 Bf5 17.Rac1 Rc8 18.Nb4 Bh6 19.a4 Kh8 20.Bd3
Bd7 21.Rfd1 Rg8 22.Kh1 Rg5 23.Qe2 Bf8 24.Nc2 Be7∞) 16.Rac1 (16.Bh6 Qg6 17.Bxg7 Nxg7 18.f4 e4 19.Nb4 Bd7
20.Qd4∞; 16.a4 Kh8 17.a5 Rg8 18.Rfe1 Qg6 19.Bf1 Bd7 20.Nf2 Rac8∞ 0-1 (37) Dieks, R (2305) – Sigurjonsson, G
(2475) Wijk aan Zee 1975) 16...Bd7
17.f4 Ne4 18.Qd1 Nhf6 19.Nf2 Nxc3 20.bxc3∞ Kh8 21.Kh1 Rg8 22.c4 Qg6 23.g3 Rae8∞
13...Qh4+!?
Position after: 13...Qh4+!?
This is a clever idea to draw the Bishop away from the c1-h6 diagonal.
A) 13...Ndf6
A1) 14.0-0 f4 (14...Bd7!? 15.Rab1 f4 16.Bf2 g5„) 15.Bf2 g5 16.h3 Bd7 17.b4 Kh8 18.Nb2 Ng3 19.Rfc1 g4!‚ 0-1
(28) Gevondian, A (1936) – Ulko, J (2476) Moscow 2011
A2) 14.exf5 gxf5 transposes to the note above 13.exf5 gxf5 14.Be2.
B) 13...fxe4 14.fxe4 Qh4+! 15.Bf2 Qe7 16.Bxh5 gxh5 17.0-0-0 Qf6 18.Kb1 Qg6 19.Bh4 Nf6 20.Bxf6 Bxf6 21.Rdf1
Bd7∞ ½-½ (49) Psakhis, L (2575) – Kasparov, G (2800) Murcia 1990
14.Bf2
14.g3 Nxg3 15.Bf2 f4µ
14...Qe7 15.exf5
15.Be3?! Ndf6 16.Bg5 Bd7 17.0-0-0 a5 18.g4 fxg4 19.fxg4 Nf4 20.Nxf4 exf4 21.Qxf4 b5ƒ 0-1 (35) Laine, H – Maki,
V (2415) Helsinki 1990
15...gxf5 16.0-0 Ndf6 17.Rac1
17.Be3 Bd7 18.Rac1 Rac8 19.Bd1 Kh8 20.Kh1 f4 21.Bb6 Qe8 22.Re1 Ng3+!? 23.Kg1 Nf5∞
17...Bd7 18.a4 Rac8 19.a5 Kh8 20.Be3 Rg8 21.Kh1 Qf7
Position after: 21...Qf7
13.0-0-0
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0 6.Be3 Nbd7 7.Nh3 c6 8.Qd2 e5
9.d5 cxd5 10.cxd5 a6 11.Nf2 Nh5 12.Nd3 f5 13.0-0-0
Position after: 13.0-0-0
This is a key idea for White. But in my opinion the Knight’s pirouette was time consuming and I am convinced that
Black will get decent play.
13...Ndf6
Another way of handling this line is:

13...Nb6
A) 14.Nb4 Bd7 15.Kb1 Rc8
Position after: 15...Rc8
A1) 16.Rc1 Nf6 17.b3 fxe4 18.fxe4 Ng4 19.Bg5 Bf6 20.Bxf6 Qxf6³ ½-½ (26) Bulava, P (2043) – Misiuga, A
(2237) Karvina 2002
A2) 16.Nc2 Nf6 17.h3 fxe4 18.fxe4 Na4! (18...Nc4 19.Bxc4 Rxc4∞ 0-1 (25) Mateo, R (2425) – Dolmatov, S (2600)
Linares 2000) 19.Nxa4 Bxa4 20.Bd3 Nh5³
A3) 16.Qf2 Na4! By exchanging this Knight, Black gets more pressure on the e4-pawn. 17.Nxa4 Bxa4 18.b3 Bd7
(18...fxe4! 19.bxa4 exf3 20.gxf3 Qa5 21.Nd3 e4 22.Nb2 Qb4‚) 19.Bb6 Qe8 20.Qd2 fxe4 21.fxe4 Bb5 22.Nd3
Nf6³ ½-½ (31) Szabo, L – Petrosian, T Amsterdam 1956
B) 14.b3 It is interesting to restrict the Knight on b6 but it weakens the white King. 14...fxe4
B1) 15.fxe4 a5 16.a4 Nd7 17.Kb2 b6 18.Rc1 Nc5! (18...Rb8 19.g3 Nc5 20.Be2 Bd7 21.Nf2² ½-½ (24) Gonzalez
Barcina, F (2106) – Torrijos Alhambra, J (2124) corr. 2011) 19.g3 Nf6 20.Nf2 Ra7 21.Be2 Raf7 Black gets good
play.
B2) 15.Nxe4!? Probably best here. 15...Nxd5 16.Bg5 Qc7+ 17.Ndc5 Be6 18.Bc4 dxc5 19.Bxd5 Bxd5 20.Qxd5+
Kh8 21.Kb1 Rac8 22.Nd6 Rb8 23.Qe6© 1-0 (57) Gonzalez Barcina, F – Ribes Colom, J corr. 2012
Position after: 13...Ndf6
14.Be2
White has a few other options here.

A) 14.Kb1 Bd7 15.Qe1 (15.Rc1 Rc8 16.Be2 Qa5 17.Rhg1 fxe4 18.fxe4 Ng4 19.Bxg4 Bxg4 20.Rgf1 Nf6 21.h3 Bd7
22.g4 Bb5∞ 0-1 (72) Lerner, K (2530) – Yurtaev, L (2455) Tashkent 1986) 15...Rc8 16.Nf2 b5! 17.Bd3 b4 18.Ne2 a5
19.Rc1 Rb8 20.h3 fxe4 21.Nxe4 Nxe4 22.Bxe4 a4 23.Qd2 a3 24.b3 Bb5∞ 0-1 (52) Guerrero, A – Saldano Dayer, H
Banfield 2011
B) 14.exf5 gxf5 15.Kb1 Bd7 16.Ka1 Qa5 17.Nc1 b5 18.Nb3 Qd8 19.Bh6 Rf7 20.Bxg7 Rxg7 21.g3 b4 22.Ne2 a5ƒ 1-
0 (73) Lembak, J (2310) – Monus, Z (2135) Nyiregyhaza 1996
14...Bd7
Also interesting is: 14...Qe8 15.Kb1 Bd7 16.Rhg1 b5 17.Rc1 a5 18.exf5 gxf5 19.g4 fxg4 20.fxg4 Nf4! 21.Nxf4 exf4
22.Bxf4 Ne4µ 0-1 (29) Witkowski, S (2365) – Kuligowski, A (2310) Warsaw 1978
15.Kb1
15.exf5 gxf5 16.f4 Nxf4 17.Nxf4 exf4 18.Bxf4 Ne4 19.Nxe4 fxe4 20.Be3 Ba4 21.b3 Bb5³ 0-1 (60) Rodriguez Landa,
M – Seminara, J Buenos Aires 1992
15...Rc8 16.Rhg1
16.exf5 gxf5 17.g4 fxg4 18.fxg4 Nf4 19.Nxf4 exf4 20.Bd4 Qe8 21.Rhe1 Ne4³ 0-1 (26) Tortosa, H – Seminara, J
Buenos Aires 1991
16...Qe7 17.g3
Position after: 17.g3
17...fxe4!N
17...Qe8 18.Rc1 Qd8 19.Qd1 fxe4 20.fxe4 Rxc3?! 21.Rxc3 Nxe4± ½-½ (60) Romanko, M (2359) – Rozum, I (2533) St
Petersburg 2013
18.fxe4 Ng4 19.Bxg4 Bxg4∞

A) 12.f4
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0 6.Be3 Nbd7 7.Nge2 c5 8.d5
This transposes to the Benoni and also to another system against the Sämisch which is 6...c5 7.Nge2 Nc6 8.d5 Ne5.
For that reason, it is important to investigate this line.
8...Ne5 9.Ng3
Position after: 9.Ng3
Definitively a critical attempt and the main idea.

9.Nc1 e6 10.Be2 exd5 11.cxd5 a6 12.a4 Ne8
A) 13.f4 Ng4 (13...Nd7 14.0-0 Rb8∞) 14.Bxg4 Qh4+ 15.Bf2 Qxg4 16.Qxg4 Bxg4 17.f5 Bxc3+ 18.bxc3 Nf6 19.h3
Bh5 20.g4 Bxg4 21.hxg4 Rae8 22.Ne2 Rxe4 23.g5 Nxd5„
B) 13.0-0 f5 14.f4 Nf7 15.e5 dxe5 16.Bxc5 Ned6 17.Nd3 (17.fxe5 Nxe5 18.Nb3 Re8 19.a5 Nec4 20.Bxc4 Nxc4
21.Rf4 Ne3„) 17...Re8 18.Qb3 exf4 19.Nxf4 Be5 20.Ne6 Qh4 21.g3 Bxg3 22.hxg3 Qxg3+ 23.Kh1 Qh3+=
9...h5
Position after: 9...h5

I somehow prefer this line over 9...e6 because it is much more direct and requires highly accurate play from both sides.
Also it is a bit a-typical. To keep a game balanced both players need a profound knowledge of what is going on, and
that is the reason why I cover this system.
10.Be2 h4 11.Nf1 e6 12.f4
The most popular and until recently it was considered to be the strongest reply, but Grischuk introduced a fascinating
piece sacrifice.
12...Nxc4!? 13.Bxc4 b5!
Position after: 13...b5!
The astonishing starting position of this new piece sac idea! Nothing is completely forced which makes this line even
more demanding. I will try to present all possible ideas played until now with my comments and suggestions. I am
convinced we will see more about this in the near future.
14.Bxb5
Probably the critical continuation. There are some other moves which have been played.
A) 14.Bb3 b4 15.Ne2 exd5 16.Bxd5 Rb8 17.e5 ½-½ (17) Sabaev, S – Booij, R corr. 2015 The players agreed a draw
but the game could have continued with 17...Nxd5 18.Qxd5 h3 19.Rg1 hxg2 20.Qxg2 dxe5 21.fxe5 Re8©
B) 14.Nxb5 exd5 15.e5 dxe5 16.fxe5 Bg4 17.Qd2 dxc4 18.Qxd8 Rfxd8 19.exf6 Bxf6 20.Rc1 Rab8 21.Rxc4 Rd1+
22.Kf2 Rxb5∞ With a highly complicated position ½-½ (55) Sarkar, J (2425) – Guthrie, D (2195) London 2013
14...exd5 15.e5
The alternative 15.exd5 is also very important. 15...Rb8

Position after: 15...Rb8
A) 16.Rb1 Qe7 17.Qd2 h3 (17...Ne4!? 18.Nxe4 Qxe4 19.Bd3 Qxd5 20.b3 Re8 21.Kf2 Bb7 22.Rg1 h3‚) 18.Bd3 Re8
19.Rg1 Ng4–+ 0-1 (43) Hrescak, I (2057) – Newrkla, K (2153) Zillertal 2015
B) 16.Rc1
Position after: 16.Rc1
B1) 16...h3 17.g3 Bg4 18.Qd3 a6 19.Bc6 Rxb2 20.Nd2 Bf5 21.Qxa6 Ng4 22.Nd1 Qe7µ 0-1 (36) Scharf, N –
Sarakenidis, N corr. 2015
B2) 16...a6 17.Be2 Rxb2 18.Rc2 Rxc2 19.Qxc2 Re8 20.h3 Qa5 21.Bd2 Qb4 22.Kd1 Bf5 23.Bd3 Qd4 24.Bxf5 gxf5
25.Qxf5 Ne4 26.Nxe4 Rxe4© 27.Qc8+ Kh7 28.Qf5+ Kg8 29.Qc8+ Kh7 30.Qf5+ Kg8 ½-½ (30) Baramidze, D
(2599) – Naiditsch, A (2715) Baden Baden 2014
B3) 16...Ng4 17.Be2 Nxe3 18.Nxe3 Re8 19.Nc4 Bd4 20.Kd2 Qf6 21.g3 Bf5 22.Bg4 Be3+ 23.Nxe3 Qd4+–+ 0-1
(34) Bergez, L (2327) – Congiu, M (2259) Montpellier 2015
C) 16.Qe2 Bg4 17.Qd2 h3!?
Position after: 17...h3!?
(17...Bf5 transposes to 16.Qd2.) 18.Rg1 (18.gxh3 Bf3 19.Rg1 Ne4 20.Nxe4 Bxe4 21.a4 a6 22.Ng3 Qh4 23.Ke2 axb5
24.Nxe4 bxa4 25.Ra2 Qh5+ƒ) 18...Rxb5 19.Nxb5 Ne4 20.Qd3 Qa5+ 21.Nd2 Re8 22.b4!? Qxb4 23.Rb1 Qa5 24.Qa3
Bc3 25.Qxa5 Bxa5 26.gxh3 Nxd2 27.hxg4 Rxe3+ 28.Kf2 Rf3+ 29.Ke2 Rxf4©
D) 16.Bd2 Bg4 17.Qa4 a6 18.Qxa6 h3 19.gxh3 Bf3 20.Rg1 Nxd5 21.Nxd5 Bxd5 22.Ne3 Ra8 23.Nxd5 Rxa6 24.Bxa6
Qe8+ 25.Ne3 d5³ 0-1 (68) Parligras, M (2565) – Kurnosov, I (2657) Abu Dhabi 2013
E) 16.Qd2 Bf5!? (16...Qe7 17.Bd3 c4 18.Bxc4 Ne4 19.Nxe4 Qxe4 20.Bb3+– ½-½ (33) Secheres, A (2179) – Banzea,
A (2143) Calimanesti – Caciulata 2015) 17.a4 (17.0-0-0 Ne4 18.Nxe4 Bxe4µ) 17...Ne4 18.Nxe4 Bxe4 19.Ra2 a6
20.Bxa6 h3 21.Ng3 Bb1µ
15...dxe5
Position after: 15...dxe5
Again not the only move, other ideas also deserve some credit.
A) 15...d4 16.exf6 Bxf6
Position after: 16...Bxf6
A1) 17.Bd2 Rb8 (17...dxc3 18.Bxc3 Bxc3+ 19.bxc3 Qa5 20.Be2 Qxc3+ 21.Nd2 Re8 22.0-0 Qd4+ 23.Kh1 h3
24.Bf3 Rb8 25.Nb3 Qxf4 26.Bd5 hxg2+ 27.Bxg2 Qe5∞) 18.Bc6 (18.Be2 dxc3 19.Bxc3 Re8 20.Qd2 d5µ) 18...dxc3
19.Bxc3 Bxc3+ 20.bxc3 Qc7 21.Bf3 Re8+ 22.Kf2 Rb2+ 23.Kg1 h3ƒ
A2) 17.Nd5
Position after: 17.Nd5
A2.1) 17...h3!? 18.g3 (18.gxh3 Bh4+ 19.Ng3 Qa5+ 20.Qd2 Qxb5–+) 18...dxe3 19.Nfxe3 Bd4 20.Bc6 Rb8
21.Rb1± is also critical.
A2.2) 17...dxe3 18.Nfxe3 Bd4 19.Bc6! An important move for the assessment. (19.0-0 Rb8 20.Bc6 Rxb2∞; 19.Nc2
Qa5+ 20.Qd2 Qxb5 21.Nxd4 cxd4 22.Nf6+ Kh8 23.Qxd4 Qc5 24.Qxc5 dxc5= ½-½ (41) Vidit, S (2617) – Perez
Ponsa, F (2558) Cappelle la Grande 2015) 19...Rb8 20.Rb1±
B) 15...Bg4!? 16.Be2 (16.exf6 Bxd1 17.fxg7 Kxg7 18.Rxd1 d4 19.Rxd4 cxd4 20.Bxd4+ f6µ 1-0 (54) Martinovic, S
(2526) – Kessler, L (2378) Zadar 2015) 16...Bxe2 17.Nxe2 dxe5 18.Bxc5 Re8 (18...exf4 19.Bxf8 Qxf8 20.Nd2 Ng4
21.0-0) 19.Nd2 Rc8 20.Bf2 Ng4 21.0-0 e4 22.Nb3 Bxb2 23.Rb1 Nxf2 24.Rxf2 Bf6 25.Rf1 Rc4 26.Nd2 Rc7 27.f5 g5
28.Nb3 ½-½ (28) Babushkin, I – Scheiba, M corr. 2015
16.fxe5 Bg4
Position after: 16...Bg4
16...h3 17.exf6 hxg2 18.Rg1 gxf1=Q+ 19.Rxf1 Bxf6 20.Rxf6 Qxf6 21.Qxd5 Bf5 22.0-0-0 Rad8 23.Qf3 Rxd1+ 24.Qxd1
Rd8 25.Qg1 Qe6 26.Qg5² 1-0 (52) Belanoff, S – Giuliani, C corr. 2014
17.Be2
A) 17.exf6 is another possibility. 17...Bxd1 18.fxg7 Kxg7 19.Bxc5
Position after: 19.Bxc5
A1) 19...h3!? 20.Rxd1 hxg2 21.Rg1 gxf1=Q+ 22.Kxf1 Qh4 23.Rg2 Rfd8 24.Rd4 Qh5 25.Rf4 d4 (25...Rab8 26.Bd4+
Kg8 27.h4 Rxb5 28.Rg5 Rxb2 29.Rxh5 gxh5 30.Rf5² ½-½ (41) Esipenko, A (2286) – Smirnov, P (2626) Samara
2014) 26.Bxd4+ Rxd4 27.Rxd4 Rb8 With a highly complicated game. Actually this is the game where this piece
sacrifice was first seen on high level. ½-½ (41) Svidler, P (2747) – Grischuk, A (2764) London 2013
A2) 19...Bh5!? 20.Bd4+ Kh6 21.Ne3 f5 22.0-0 Rb8 23.Be2 Bxe2!
Position after: 23...Bxe2!
(23...f4 24.Ng4+ Bxg4 25.Bxg4∞ ½-½ (25) Biedermann, T – Stalmach, K corr. 2015) 24.Nxe2 Re8 25.Rad1 Rb4
26.a3 Rxd4 27.Nxf5+ gxf5 28.Nxd4 Qb6 29.Rxf5 Qxb2=
B) 17.Qc1!? Nd7 18.h3 Nxe5 19.hxg4 d4 20.Be2 Re8
Position after: 20...Re8
With yet another highly complex position similar to those already given.
C) 17.Qa4 d4 18.exf6 Bxf6 19.Bd2 h3! 20.gxh3 Bf3 21.Rg1 dxc3 22.bxc3 a6
What a mess! Engines are happy with Black’s chances here. I don’t know but I am sure that the great Mikhail Tal
would have enjoyed this a immensely!
17...Bxe2 18.Qxe2 Nd7 19.Nxd5
19.Bf4 d4 20.Ne4 Nxe5 21.Nfd2 d3 22.Qe3 Ng4 23.Qh3 f5 24.0-0 Qd4+ 25.Kh1 Rae8 26.Bd6 Rxe4 27.Bxf8 Rf4
28.Rxf4 Qxf4 29.Bxc5 Qxd2 30.Qxh4 Qc2© ½-½ (34) Ress, J – Plas, R corr. 2015
19...Nxe5 20.Rd1
20...Re8
20...c4 21.Bc5 Nd3+ 22.Rxd3 cxd3 23.Qxd3 Re8+ 24.Nfe3±
21.Bxc5
21.Kf2 Nc6!? 22.Qd2 Rb8 23.b3 Nd4ƒ
21...Qa5+ 22.b4 Nd3+ 23.Rxd3 Rxe2+ 24.Kxe2 Qxa2+ 25.Nd2 Re8+ 26.Ne3 Be5 27.Kf2 Bf4 28.Rc1 Bxh2 29.Rc4
Bg3+ 30.Kg1 g5
With balanced play ahead. ½-½ (51) Grego, L – Ronneland, D corr. 2015
B) 12.Nd2
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0 6.Be3 Nbd7 7.Nge2 c5 8.d5 Ne5 9.Ng3 h5 10.Be2 h4 11.Nf1 e6
12.Nd2
This is the more positional approach of this line, and we enter again some kind of Benoni structure.
12.Bg5 exd5 13.cxd5 (13.Nxd5 h3 14.g3 Be6 15.Nfe3 Nxd5µ) 13...h3 14.gxh3 (14.g3 b5„) 14...b5 15.Nxb5 Rb8 16.f4
Qa5+ 17.Qd2 Rxb5 18.Qxa5 Rxa5 19.fxe5 Nxe4 20.Be7 Re8 21.exd6 Bxb2–+ 0-1 (43) Sasikiran, K (2639) –
Mamedov, R (2657) Berlin (blitz) 2015
12...exd5
An interesting wild game was played just recently: 12...h3!? 13.g3 b5!? 14.Nxb5 Rb8 15.dxe6 Bxe6 16.Rb1 Qa5
17.Nc3 Bxc4 18.Nxc4 Nxc4 19.Bxc4 d5 20.e5? dxc4 21.exf6 Rxb2! 22.Bd2 Re8+ 23.Ne4 Qxd2+! 24.Qxd2 Rxb1+∞
½-½ (41) Edouard, R (2639) – Tabatabaei, M (2481) A bit speculative but interesting game that is surely worth of
interest for the readers of this book.
13.cxd5 h3
The interesting thing about this line is that the h-pawn advances that far at an early stage of the game. This demands
great accuracy from Black otherwise his pawn will become an easy target and get eventually lost in the endgame.
14.g3 a6 15.a4 Bd7 16.0-0
The alternative is an important positional idea that White often uses against Benoni structures.
16.a5 b5 17.axb6 Qxb6
Position after: 17...Qxb6

I now will give a few typical continuations. 18.Ra2 (18.Qc2 Bb5 19.0-0 Bxe2 20.Nxe2 Rfb8 21.Rab1 Qb5 22.Nf4
Qd7∞) 18...Qb4 19.0-0 (19.Qb3 a5 20.Qc2 Rfb8 21.Kf2 Ne8 22.g4 Nc7 23.Rg1 Nb5∞ ½-½ (35) Rawlings, A – Poetz,
F corr. 2014) 19...Bb5 20.Qc2 (20.g4 Rfb8 21.g5 Nfd7 22.Qc2 Nb6 23.Nxb5 axb5 24.Rxa8 Rxa8 25.b3 Ned7µ 0-1
(33) Spassov, L (2332) – Nedev, T (2505) Plovdiv 2014) 20...Bxe2 (20...Nfd7 21.Kh1 Nc4 22.Nxc4 Bxc4 23.Ra4 Bb3
24.Rxb4 Bxc2 25.Rb7 Ne5³ 0-1 (41) Lara Ruiz, J – Marrero Rodriguez, A corr. 2013; 20...Rfb8 21.Nxb5 axb5 22.Rfa1
Rxa2 23.Rxa2 Nfd7 24.Kf2 Nb6 25.b3 Ned7∞ ½-½ (44) Palsson, J – Borstnik, A corr. 2014) 21.Nxe2 Rfb8 22.Nf4
Bh6 23.Re1 Qb5 24.b3 a5 25.Raa1 Bxf4 26.Bxf4 Nfd7 27.Re3 f6 28.Ra4 Kg7∞ ½-½ (61) Cade, S – Voigt, D corr.
2014
16...b5!
Black must play active this is surely the correct and best idea.
17.axb5
A) White can decline the pawn sacrifice with 17.Qc2

A1) 17...c4 18.Nd1 (18.Kh1 Qe7 19.Bg5 Qe8 20.Be3 b4 21.Nd1 Rc8 22.Bf4 b3 23.Qc1 Nh5 24.Bxe5 Bxe5 25.f4
Bd4 26.Bxh5 gxh5 27.f5 Qe7∞ 0-1 (41) Talpak, T – Efendiyev, E corr. 2013) 18...Qe7
A1.1) 19.Bg5 Rfc8 20.axb5 Bxb5!? (20...axb5 21.Nf2 Qe8∞) 21.Nb1 Qb7 22.Nbc3 Nfd7! 23.Be3 Nc5 24.Nf2
Bd7∞ 0-1 (42) Weilguni, D – Hatzl, S corr. 2014
A1.2) 19.Bd4 Nxd5!? 20.f4 Nb4 21.Qc3 Nbc6 22.fxe5 dxe5 23.Be3 Nd4 24.Rf2 Be6© 0-1 (30) Isigkeit, H (2371)
– Eckhardt, T (2460) corr. 2011
A2) 17...bxa4 18.Nxa4 Bb5 19.Nc3 Qd7!? (19...Bxe2 20.Nxe2 Qd7 21.Bf4 Nh5 22.Bxe5 Bxe5 23.Nc4± ½-½ (56)
Wang Puchen (2455) – Sean, W (2364) Budapest 2014) 20.Ra5 Bxe2 21.Nxe2 Ne8 22.Bf4 Nc7 23.Bxe5 Bxe5
24.Nc4 Rae8 25.Nxe5 Rxe5 26.Nf4 Rb8 27.Rf2 Ree8∞
B) 17.b3 Rb8 18.Ra2 Qc8 19.Rc2 Ne8 20.axb5 axb5 21.b4 c4 22.Ndb1 f5 23.f4 Nd3 24.Bxd3 cxd3 25.Qxd3 Qc4
26.Qxc4 bxc4∞
17...axb5
Position after: 17...axb5
18.Nxb5
Another way of capturing the pawn is 18.Rxa8 Qxa8 19.Bxb5 (19.Nxb5 Bxb5 20.Bxb5 Rb8 21.Be2 Rxb2 22.f4 Qa3
23.Bf2 Rxd2!–+ 0-1 (24) Ringoir, T (2506) – Cheparinov, I (2682) Dubai (rapid) 2014) 19...Bxb5 20.Nxb5 Now Black
has a few choices.
Position after: 20.Nxb5

A) 20...Rb8 21.Nxd6
A1) 21...Qa6 22.N6c4 Nxc4 23.Qe2 Rxb2 24.Qxc4 Qa5 25.Rd1 Nd7 26.f4 Bc3 (26...Bd4 27.Bxd4 Rxd2 28.Ra1
Qb6 29.Bc3 Rg2+ 30.Kh1∞ ½-½ (51) Nakar, E (2479) – Konguvel, P (2337) Pardubice 2015) 27.Nf3 Rg2+ 28.Kh1
Qb4 29.Qxb4 cxb4 30.e5 b3„
A2) 21...Rxb2!? 22.Bf4 Qa2 23.Qe2 Nfd7 24.Rd1 Rc2ƒ 0-1 (30) Andersson, K – Ronneland, D corr. 2014
B) 20...Qa6
B1) 21.Na3 Rb8! 22.Bf4 Nfd7! (22...Nd3 23.Nac4 Nxf4 24.gxf4 Nh5 25.f5 Nf4 26.fxg6 fxg6 27.b3∞ 0-1 (31)
Muha, M (2105) – Uuriintuya, U (1875) Gyor 2014) 23.Bxe5 Nxe5 24.f4 Rxb2 25.fxe5 Qxa3µ
B2) 21.Nc3 Rb8 22.Qc2 Nfd7 23.Rb1 (23.b3 c4! 24.bxc4 Nxc4 25.Qd3 Nde5 26.Qe2 Rb2 27.Kh1 Rc2µ) 23...Nc4
24.Qd3 Nde5ƒ 0-1 (32) Gupta, A (2591) – Kurnosov, I (2649) Nakhchivan 2013
18...Qb6
Again not the only choice...

18...Bxb5!? 19.Bxb5 Qb6 20.Qe2 (20.Be2 Qxb2 21.Rb1 Qa2∞ ½-½ (48) Loeffler, W – Koehl, R corr. 2015) 20...Rxa1
21.Rxa1 Rb8 22.Bd3 Nfd7 23.Rb1 Nxd3 24.Qxd3 Bd4!? 25.Nc4 Bxe3+ 26.Qxe3 Qa6 27.Qc1 Ne5 28.Nxe5 dxe5
29.Qxc5= ½-½ (29) Ferre Perez, A – Lecha Gonzalez, J corr. 2014. The game may continue like this: 29...Rxb2
30.Rxb2 Qa1+ 31.Rb1 Qxb1+ 32.Kf2 Qa2+ 33.Ke1 Qxh2 34.Qf2 Qh1+ 35.Qf1 Qh2 36.Qf2= Draw by repetition of
moves.
19.Rxa8
19.Nc3 Qxb2 20.Qc1 Qb6 21.Qc2 Rfb8 22.Rxa8 Rxa8 23.Rb1 Qa5∞
19...Rxa8 20.Na3 Qxb2 21.Nac4 Nxc4 22.Nxc4 Qa2!?
Position after: 22...Qa2!?
22...Qb8 23.Qc2 Ba4!? (23...Ne8 24.Rb1 Ra1 25.Rxa1 Bxa1² 1-0 (42) Salem, A (2489) – Al Modiahki, M (2564)
Dubai 2011) 24.Qd3 Bb5 25.Rb1 Qe8 26.Bf1 Bxc4 27.Qxc4 Nd7 28.Bxh3 Ne5 29.Qe2 Ra3 30.Kh1 Qa4©
23.Qd2
23.Nxd6 Rb8! 24.Nc4 Bb5 25.Nd2 Nd7 26.f4 Bxe2 27.Qxe2 Rb2 28.e5 Qxd5∞
23...Qa6 24.Rc1
24.Rb1 Bb5 25.Qc1 Nd7³ 0-1 (38) Napalkov, V – Efendiyev, E corr. 2013.
24...Bb5 25.Bf1 Nd7 26.f4 Rb8 27.Qd1 Re8 28.Bf2
28.Bd3 Qa2µ 0-1 (44) Rawlings, A – Ronneland, D corr. 2014
28...Rxe4 29.Qc2 Re7µ
And Black is better. 0-1 (77) Perez Fernandez, J – Mercadal Benejam, J corr. 2013
PART II – Classical systems with h3
Short survey:
Further in the text I refer to this variation as the ‘Makagonov line’ developed by the famous Russian theoretician. The
idea is actually to reply ‘e5 with d5’ and to launch ‘g4’ shortly afterwards. Having a Knight on f3 helps White because
his Rook can join the attack on g1, in case the position would open up. Also ‘h3’ is often a useful little move because
White wants to have his Bishop on e3 followed by Nd2 or in some more aggressive plans combined with Qd2. As in
the Sämisch, the move ...Ng4 is avoided.
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6
Part & Chapters guide

Chapter 6 – 5.h3 0-0 6.Be3 e5 7.d5 Na6
A) 8.g4
B) 8.Bd3 Nd7
9.a3
9.g4
A) 7.dxe5 alternative
B) 8.Be3 Na6
9.Nd2
9.a3
9.Be3
C) 8.Nh2
D) 8.g3 Na6
9. --
9.Be3
Chapter 6 - 5.h3 0-0 6.Be3 e5 7.d5 Na6
A) 8.g4
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.h3 0-0 6.Be3 e5
For the general concept I decided to head for a real King’s Indian set-up. And it is clear that e5 is the most common
approach by King’s Indian players. In the meantime l want to demonstrate the resemblance with the Nf3-h3 line. This
with the intention to point out the similarities and differences between those lines.
7.d5
And the main difference with the Nf3- h3 line is the flexibility of white’s Knight on g1. While keeping the option of
moving to e2 as well, White wants to have a firm grip on the position with Bd3 followed by g4.
7...Na6 8.g4
This idea is not common, but is potentially poisonous. I was confronted with this move in an important last round game
at the Biel 0pen against the strong Swiss GM Milov.
8...Nc5 9.Bg2 a5 10.Nge2
The alternative is:

10.Qd2 Nfd7 11.0-0-0 f5 12.f3 Nb6 13.b3 a4 14.Kb2 Bd7 15.Nge2 fxe4 16.fxe4 axb3 17.axb3 Ba4 18.Bxc5 dxc5∞ ½-
½ (52) Balashov, Y (2440) – Ozolin, M (2381) Izhevsk 2011
10...Nfd7
This manoeuvre has the intention to put pressure on c4 while keeping ...f5 in store.
10...h5 11.Qd2!? (11.g5 Nfd7 12.0-0 Nb6 13.b3 Bd7 14.Qc2 f6 15.gxf6 Qxf6 16.Nb5 Rac8 17.Qd2 a4∞ ½-½ (21)
Hiltunen, R (2469) – Winkler, T (2604) corr. 2008) 11...hxg4 12.Ng3 c6 13.0-0-0 cxd5
A) 14.cxd5 gxh3! (14...a4 15.hxg4 Nxg4 16.Bxc5 dxc5 17.f3 Bf6 18.Kb1 Bg5 19.Qe2 Ne3 20.Rdg1∞ ½-½ (46)
Zablotsky, S (2500) – Fedorov, A (2611) Voronezh 2007) 15.Bxh3 Bxh3 16.Rxh3 Nfxe4! 17.Ncxe4 Nxe4 18.Nxe4
Qc8+–+
B) 14.exd5! a4 15.hxg4©
11.Ng3
11.Qd2 Nb6 12.b3 a4 13.Rb1 axb3 14.axb3 Bd7 15.0-0 Ra3 16.Qc2 f5 17.b4 Nca4 18.Nb5 Bxb5 19.cxb5 fxg4 20.hxg4
Qd7„
11...Nb6
11...a4!? 12.Qd2 Nb6 13.Bf1 Bf6! (13...f5 14.gxf5 gxf5 15.exf5 Qh4 16.Rg1± 1-0 (31) Lajthajm, B (2384) – Petrovic,
V (2327) Vrsac 2000) 14.g5 Be7 15.Be2 f6 16.h4 fxg5 17.hxg5 Rf4!? 18.Bxf4 exf4 19.Qxf4 Bxg5 20.Qf3 Qe7©
12.Bf1
After 12.Qe2 Bf6! was my idea and 13.0-0-0 Bg5 14.Kb1 Bxe3 15.fxe3 Qh4∞
12...Bf6 13.h4!?
Position after: 13.h4!?
A very interesting pawn sacrifice, but Black can cope with such attempts.
13.Qd2 Bh4 14.0-0-0 Bd7∞
13...Bxh4! 14.Qd2 Bxg3 15.fxg3 f6 16.Be2 Rf7 17.0-0-0 Nba4! 18.Nxa4 Nxa4 19.Rh2 Bd7 20.Rf1 Qe7 21.Bh6!?
Nc5 22.Qe3 Kh8 23.Rhf2 Rg8 24.g5 f5µ
Position after: 24...f5µ
½-½ (41) Milov, V (2645) – Pavlovic, M (2471) Biel 2005

B) 8.Bd3 Nd7
9.a3
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.h3 0-0 6.Be3 e5 7.d5 Na6 8.Bd3 Nd7
9.a3
An important position. By playing b4 White wants to restrict Black’s Knights from entering the game. The alternatives
don’t present any problems for Black:
A) 9.Nf3 f5 10.0-0 f4 11.Bd2 Nac5 12.Bc2 (12.Be2 Nf6! 13.Qc2 Nfxe4 14.Nxe4 Nxe4µ 15.Qxe4? Bf5–+) 12...a5
A1) 13.b3 g5 14.Rc1 (14.Qe2 h5 15.a3 g4 16.hxg4 hxg4 17.Nh2 Nf6‚) 14...h5 15.Ne1 Nf6 16.a3 g4 17.hxg4 hxg4
18.b4 Ncd7‚
A2) 13.a3 g5 14.b4 axb4 15.axb4 Rxa1 16.Qxa1 Na6 17.Na4 h5 18.Nh2 g4!‚
B) 9.Nge2 f5 10.exf5 gxf5 11.f4 exf4 12.Bxf4 Ne5 13.0-0 Nc5 14.Bxe5 dxe5 15.Bc2 a5∞ 0-1 (32) Raznikov, D
(2488) – Smirin, I (2663) Acre 2013
9...f5 10.b4
Position after: 10.b4
10.exf5 gxf5 11.Qh5 e4ƒ
10...c5!?
This is the kind of move I like because Black is trying to close the queenside before taking action on the kingside.
10...Nf6
A) 11.Nf3 c5 12.Rb1 ½-½ (12) Khenkin, I (2655) – Efimenko, Z (2670) Subotica 2008. Obviously the draw was
prematurely agreed and this doesn’t tell us much about the position. In my opinion Black is fine after lets say 12...b6
followed by ...Qe7, ...Bd7 waiting to see if ...fxe4 or ...f4 will be played.
B) 11.Nge2
B1) 11...c6 12.f3 Nh5 13.c5 cxd5 (13...Nf4 14.0-0± 1-0 (23) Eljanov, P (2665) – Markus, R (2585) Teslic 2006)
14.Nxd5 fxe4 15.Bxe4 Nf4 16.0-0ƒ
B2) 11...c5! 12.dxc6 (12.Rb1 f4 13.Bd2 Bd7∞) 12...bxc6 13.f3 Nc7 14.0-0 Nh5 15.exf5 gxf5 16.Qd2 Ne6 17.Bc2
Rf7 18.Rfd1 Bf8∞
11.Rb1
11.dxc6 bxc6 12.Nf3 Nc7 13.0-0 f4 14.Bd2 Qe7 15.c5 dxc5 16.Bc4+ Kh8 17.Na4 Nb6!„
11...Nf6 12.Nf3 Nh5∞
9.g4
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.h3 0-0 6.Be3 e5 7.d5 Na6 8.Bd3 Nd7 9.g4
9...Ndc5
9...Nb4 10.Bb1 a5 11.Nf3 Nb6 12.Qe2 c6 13.Rg1 cxd5 14.cxd5 Bd7 15.a3 Na6 16.Nb5 Be8!? (16...Na4?! 17.Nxd6
N6c5 18.Bc2 Qf6 19.Nc4 Bb5² 0-1 (39) Aleksandrov, A (2604) – Iskandarov, M (2305) Nakhchivan AZE 2012)
17.Bc2 Rc8∞
10.Bb1
Position after: 10.Bb1

We can consider this as the main line of the early h3/Be3 set-up. By retreating the Bishop to b1 White anticipates the
potential ...Nb4. On the other hand, it refrains from any normal development. Let’s see how the game can continue...
10.Bc2 f5 11.exf5 (11.a3 fxe4 Will transpose to the 10.Bb1 line where it will be analysed.) 11...gxf5
Position after: 11...gxf5
A) 12.Qd2 Nb4 13.0-0-0 Nxc2 14.Qxc2 e4 15.Bxc5 dxc5 16.Nge2 fxg4 17.hxg4 Qg5+ 18.Kb1 Bxg4 19.Rdg1 Rae8
20.Nd1 h5 21.Nec3 Qf4 22.Ne3 Bf3 23.Rh3∞ with a highly unclear position. ½-½ (48) Pankiewicz, T – Daanen, A
corr. 2013
B) 12.Bxf5 Bxf5 13.gxf5 Rxf5 14.Qc2 Qf6 15.0-0-0 Bh6µ 0-1 (23) Rodriguez Melian, J (2141) – Cabrera Trujillo, J
(2392) Las Palmas 2011
C) 12.a3 e4 13.Qd2 f4!?
Position after: 13...f4!?
This is a rather important improvement. (13...Qe7 14.0-0-0 Bd7 15.Nge2 Rae8 16.Ng3± White is really better as he is
putting serious pressure on the black position. 1-0 (36) Chakov, P (2370) – Bochev, K (2270) Teteven 1991) 14.Bxf4
Nd3+ (14...Bxc3!? 15.bxc3 Bd7 16.0-0-0 Ba4 17.Be3 Qe8 18.Bd4 Nb3+ 19.Bxb3 Bxb3 20.Re1 Bxc4 21.Ne2 e3!
22.Qxe3 Qxe3+ 23.Bxe3 Bxd5³) 15.Bxd3 exd3 16.Be3 Nc5 17.Bxc5 dxc5 18.Qxd3 (18.0-0-0 Qh4 19.Qxd3 Bxg4
20.hxg4 Qxh1 21.Nh3 Qf3µ) 18...Qh4 19.Nf3 (19.Qg3 Qxg3 20.fxg3 b6 21.Nge2 Ba6 22.b3 Rae8µ) 19...Qf6
20.Nd2 Qxf2+ 21.Kd1 Bd7 22.Nce4 (22.Kc2 Be8∞) 22...Ba4+ 23.b3 Qd4 24.Qxd4 Bxd4 25.Rb1 Be8 26.Kc2 Bg6
27.Rbf1 a5© Black obtained good compensation due to the bishop pair.
10...f5 11.a3
That might be the critical idea. Because of Black’s lead in development White doesn’t want to open up the position. He
first attacks the black Knights. The same position can also arise from the move order 10.Bc2 f5 11.a3.
An important alternative is: 11.exf5 gxf5
A) 12.Qd2 e4 13.Nge2
Position after: 13.Nge2
A1) 13...Nd3+?! 14.Bxd3 exd3 15.Qxd3 Nb4 16.Qd2 fxg4 17.hxg4 Bxg4 18.0-0-0 Qe8 19.a3 (19.Bd4?!∞ 0-1 (29)
Iljin, A (2529) – Loskutov, O (2397) Moscow 2007) 19...Na6 20.Rdg1+–
A2) 13...Qe7 14.Rg1 (14.Ng3 Nb4 15.gxf5 Bxf5 16.Nxf5 Rxf5 17.Bxc5 dxc5ƒ) 14...fxg4 15.hxg4 Bd7 16.Ng3
(16.Nf4 Nb4 17.Bxc5 dxc5µ) 16...Bxg4 17.Ngxe4 h5 18.Ng3 Rf4‚
B) 12.Nge2 Qh4 13.a3 e4 14.gxf5 Bxf5 15.Nd4 Bg6 16.Bc2 Nd3+ 17.Bxd3 Bxd4 18.Bxd4 exd3µ 0-1 (32)
Avshalumov, A (2420) – Kupreichik, V (2445) Blagoveshchensk 1988
C) Recently I had a chance to test some ideas in a tournament game... 12.gxf5 Bxf5 During the game this appeared
very logical to me. (12...e4 13.Nge2 Bxf5 14.Ng3 Qh4 15.Nxf5 Rxf5 16.Qg4 Qxg4 17.hxg4 Rf7 18.Ke2 Re8∞ ½-½
(32) Potapov, A (2317) – Chuprov, D (2573) Belgorod 2008) 13.Bxf5 Rxf5 14.Qg4 Qf6 15.0-0-0 Kh8! 16.Kb1 h5!?
17.Qg2 Bh6 18.Bxh6 Rg8 19.Qf1 Rxf2–+ 0-1 (31) Strelnikov, S (2349) – Pavlovic, M (2494) Moscow 2016
11...fxe4
I will also provide an alternative though speculative idea. But I find it amusing and worth a place in this book.
11...fxg4!? Computers praise this idea and actually it is the start of a piece sacrifice which is even more entertaining!
12.hxg4 (12.b4 Qh4 13.bxc5 Bh6 14.Qe2 g3 15.Nd1 Nxc5µ) 12...Bf6! 13.b4 (13.Nh3 Bh4 14.b4 Nd7 15.Bc2 Nf6
16.Rg1 c5 17.Rb1 Bd7∞) 13...Bg5! 14.bxc5 (14.Bxg5 Qxg5 15.bxc5 Bxg4 16.Nge2 Bxe2 17.Qxe2 Nxc5 18.Bc2 Qg2
19.Rf1 Rf3©) 14...Bxe3 15.fxe3 Nxc5 16.Ra2 Qg5 17.Rg2 Qxe3+ 18.Nge2 Rf7 19.Qd2 Qf3 20.Rhg1 Bd7 21.Kd1
Raf8 22.Bc2 Qh3 23.Kc1 Rf1+ 24.Kb2 a6©
12.Bxe4
An important alternative is:

A) 12.b4 Nd3+ 13.Bxd3 exd3 14.Ne4 Blocking the e4-square. 14...c6! 15.Qxd3 Nc7 16.dxc6 d5 17.Bg5 Qe8 18.cxd5
bxc6 19.d6 Ba6 20.Qd2 (20.Qb3+ Qe6 21.Qxe6+ Nxe6 22.Be3 Bd3„) 20...Ne6 21.Rc1 Nxg5 22.d7 Qe7 23.Nxg5
Rad8 24.Qa2+ Kh8 25.Ne6 Rxd7 26.Nxf8 Qxf8 27.Rd1 Rxd1+ 28.Kxd1 e4 29.Qd2 Qf6„ Black is having excellent
play because of the insecure white King being placed in an open position, and this combined with his bishop pair.
B) 12.Nxe4?! Nxe4 13.Bxe4 Nc5 14.Bc2 e4µ
12...Nxe4 13.Nxe4
Now White only needs to bring over the other Knight to g3 or c3 with total control. But the King’s Indian is full of
interesting dynamic potential.
13...Nc5!
Position after: 13...Nc5!
An important resource. Black must find a way to break White’s control of the centre even at the cost of a pawn.
14.Nxc5 dxc5 15.Bxc5
15.Ne2 Qe7 (15...b6 16.Ng3 e4 17.Qc2 Qf6 18.0-0-0 Re8 19.Kb1 Bd7 20.Bc1 Qf3 21.Rde1 Bd4 22.Be3² 0-1 (36)
Grishchenko, S (2475) – Shimanov, A (2550) Olginka 2011) 16.Ng3 e4 17.Qc2 Bd7 18.0-0-0 Rae8 19.Kb1 b6 20.Rde1
Rf3 21.Bc1 Qh4∞
15...Rf7!
Position after: 15...Rf7!
This is an important key for the variation!

15...Rf4
A) 16.b3 Qh4 (16...e4 17.Be3 Rf7 18.Ne2 Qh4 19.Nd4 c5 20.dxc6 bxc6 21.b4 a5µ 0-1 (29) Todorovic, G (2398) –
Efimenko, Z (2689) Vrnjacka Banja 2010) 17.Nf3 (17.Be3? Bxg4µ) 17...Qf6 18.Ng1 Qh4=
B) 16.Qb3 b5 17.cxb5 Bb7 18.0-0-0 Rd4 19.Bxd4 exd4 20.d6+ (20.f3 Bxd5 21.Qd3 Qg5+ 22.Kb1 Re8² ½-½ (39)
Harika, D (2524) – Ju, W (2519) Ningbo 2011) 20...Kh8 21.Nf3 Qxd6 22.Rhe1±
16.Ne2
White has some other possibilities but Black is fine in all cases.
A) 16.Qe2 b5 17.0-0-0 bxc4 18.Qxc4 Rf4 19.Qc2 (19.Qe2 a5 20.Kb1 Ba6 21.Qe3 Rb8‚) 19...Ba6µ
B) 16.Qb3 c6! 17.dxc6 (17.0-0-0 cxd5 18.Rxd5 Qc7©) 17...Qc7! 18.Qb5 bxc6 19.Qa4 e4© Black has more than
enough compensation.
16...Qh4 17.Ng3
A) 17.Qd3 e4! 18.Qxe4 Bf5 19.Qe3 Bh6 20.Qg3 Qxg3 21.Nxg3 Bd3³
B) 17.Qc2 Bh6!‚
17...Bh6 18.Qb3
18.Qd3 Bd7© Again Black is having full compensation.
18...b6 19.Be3 Rf3©
Black has clear pressure for the pawn.

Position after: 19...Rf3©
A) 7.dxe5 alternative
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.h3 e5 7.dxe5
White can always opt for such ideas but they don’t bring him any advantage. Such simplifications only help Black. Of
course, the main idea of the move 6.h3 is to push d5 and not entering such exchanges.
7...dxe5 8.Qxd8 Rxd8 9.Bg5 Na6
I wanted to present a similar line as against 7.d5. Of course Black has some other reasonable alternatives here.
10.Nd5 Rd6 11.Bxf6 Bxf6

For the moment White is active and has the momentum on his side. But soon it will appear that even with the most
consequent moves he won’t make any progress. On the contrary, in some cases the advantage can swift to Black if
White remains passive.
12.b4
We arrive at an interesting endgame. White has also other moves to consider.

A) 12.0-0-0 Nc5 13.Nxf6+ Rxf6 transposes to 12.Nxf6+ Rxf6 13.0-0-0 Nc5.
B) 12.Nxf6+ Rxf6
Position after: 12...Rxf6
B1) 13.Rd1 Nc5 14.Rd8+ (14.Nxe5 Nxe4 15.Rd8+ Kg7 16.Nf3 Rb6 17.Bd3 Nc5 18.b3 Bxh3!³) 14...Kg7 15.Rd5
(15.Nd2 a5 16.Be2 Ne6 17.Rd5 Nf4–+ 0-1 (26) Couspeyre, T – Ermolaev, M corr. 2013) 15...Nxe4 16.Rxe5 Re6
17.Be2 Rxe5 18.Nxe5 Bf5³
B2) 13.Nxe5 Re6 14.Ng4 Rxe4+ 15.Ne3 Nb4 16.Kd2 Rf4 17.Kc3 a5 18.f3 Be6 19.a3 c6 20.Be2 Na6 21.Rhe1 Nc5
22.Rad1 h5 23.g3 Rf6 24.h4 Re8³ 0-1 (119) Ram, S (2303) – Sethuraman, S (2553) Kolkata 2012
B3) 13.0-0-0 Nc5 14.Rd8+ (14.Bd3 b6 15.Rd2 Bb7 16.Nxe5 Re6 17.Ng4 Nxd3+ 18.Rxd3 Bxe4 19.Rd7 Bxg2³ 0-1
(65) Pintonello, G – Markus, R corr. 2013) 14...Kg7 15.Nxe5 Nxe4 16.Be2 Re6 17.Nd3 Nxf2 18.Rf1 Nxd3+
19.Bxd3 Rd6 20.Rxd6 cxd6 21.Be4 Be6 22.b3 Rb8³
C) 12.Rc1 b6 13.b4 Bd8 14.c5 bxc5 15.bxc5 Re6 and we reached an endgame where Black seems to have equal
chances. I will analyse a couple of options for White to show how the game might continue. 16.c6 There are some
other possibilities but none give White anything. (16.Ne3 c6 17.Bc4 Ba5+ 18.Ke2 Re7 19.Ng4 Kg7 20.Nfxe5 Bxg4+
21.hxg4 Rxe5 22.Bxa6 Rxe4+=; 16.Bd3 c6 17.Ne3 Ba5+ 18.Ke2 Kg7 19.Nc4 Bc7 20.Nd6!? Nxc5 21.Rxc5 Bxd6
22.Rxc6 Rb8 23.Rd1 Bd7=) 16...Rb8 17.h4 (17.Bc4 Kg7 18.0-0 f6 19.Bb3 Rd6 20.Rfd1 Be6 Black has good play ½-
½ (33) Baranowski, T – Deghose, M corr. 2010) 17...Nb4 18.Nxb4 Rxb4 19.Bc4 Re8 20.0-0 Bg4 Black is fine 0-1
(58) Can, E (2519) – Cheparinov, I (2682) Albena 2014
12...c6 13.Nxf6+ Rxf6 14.a3 c5! 15.b5 Nc7
This is the critical position for the overall assessment of this particular line. To my mind Black is fine.
16.Be2
For a better understanding of this endgame I am giving a number of extra moves. It is important to understand this
practical play as we reached an endgame directly out of the opening.
A) 16.a4 Re6 17.0-0-0 b6 18.Kb2 Kg7 19.Ng1 Re8 20.Ne2 Ne6 21.Nc3 Bb7∞
B) 16.Bd3 Re6 17.Kd2 f6 18.Kc3 Rd6 19.Ne1 a6 20.a4 Ne6 ½-½ (68) Ovetchkin, R (2529) – Najer, E (2633)
Yekaterinburg 2013 and Black is fine.
C) 16.Rd1 Re6 17.h4 (17.Rd8+ Kg7 18.Kd2 Re7 19.Kc3 Ne6 20.Rd5 f6 21.Bd3 b6 22.g3 Bb7 23.Rd6 Nd4 24.Nd2
Nf5 25.exf5 Bxh1 26.f3 Bxf3 0-1 (26) Bely, M – Buturin, V Ukraine 1986) 17...f6 18.h5 g5 19.Nh2 Re7 20.Be2 Rd7
21.Rxd7 Bxd7 22.0-0 Ne6 Again we see the same motif which Black uses in this endgame to secure him equal and
sometimes even better chances. ½-½ (26) Trani, F (2015) – Staf, G (2103) corr. 2006
D) 16.Nxe5 Re6 17.f4 f6 18.Nf3 Rxe4+ 19.Kf2 Re7 20.g4 a6 21.b6∞ ½-½ (21) Szabo, V (2262) – Gesicki, J (2198)
corr. 2007
16...Re6
17.h4
There are other moves that lead to similar positions. I picked some examples providing you the opportunity to get
familiarized with this line.
A) 17.0-0-0 Re8 18.Rd6 (18.Rhe1 f6 19.Rd6 Kf7 20.Nd2 Ke7 21.Rd3 Ne6 22.g3 h5!³ 0-1 (42) Skembris, S (2560) –
Van Wely, L (2560) Skei 1993; 18.a4 f6 19.a5 Be6 20.Rd2 Kf8 21.Rhd1 Ke7 22.Ne1 Red8 23.Nc2 Rxd2 24.Rxd2
Rd8= ½-½ (35) Larsen, B (2560) – Hellers, F (2490) Esbjerg 1988) 18...Ne6 19.Rhd1 b6 20.Kb2 Kf8 21.R1d2 Nd4
22.Nxd4 exd4³ 0-1 (54) Veiga Rodriguez, P – Ribes Colom, J corr. 2013
B) 17.0-0 Re8 18.Rfd1 Ne6 19.Rd6 f6 20.a4 Kf7 21.a5 Ke7 22.Rd5 Nf4! 0-1 (43) Sogorin, V – Kinchant, K (2292)
corr. 2011 Black is fine.
C) 17.a4 Re7 18.h4 Ne6 19.a5 f6 20.Kd2 Bd7 21.g3 Rd8 22.Kc3 Rde8 23.Kd2 Kf7=
D) 17.Rd1 f6 18.Nh2 a6 19.a4 axb5 20.axb5 Re8 21.Nf1 Ne6 22.Ne3 Kg7 23.Nd5 Ra2 24.Bd3 Nf4 25.Bf1 Rd8³
17...f6
Black has an easier game. For example:
18.Rd1 h5 19.Nd2 Rd6 20.Nb3 Rxd1+ 21.Kxd1 Ne6 22.Kc2 Kf7 23.a4 a6 24.Ra1 Ke7³
B) 8.Be3 Na6
9.Nd2
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.h3 e5 7.d5 Nh5 8.Be3 Na6 9.Nd2
A few years ago this idea enjoyed some popularity but it seems Black is doing fine. With this move, White temporarily
prevents ...f5 as after exf5 gxf5 the Knight on h5 would be hanging.
9...Qe8
Now Black threatens ...f5 again and White has to react.
10.Nb3
That is White’s point: c5 comes next no matter what.

10.Be2 Nf4 11.0-0 Nxe2+ (11...f5 12.exf5 Nxe2+ 13.Qxe2 gxf5∞) 12.Qxe2 f5 13.f3 c5 14.a3 Qe7 15.b4 b6∞
10...f5 11.c5 f4 12.Bd2 Nxc5 13.Nxc5 dxc5
Position after: 13...dxc5
14.b4
The critical idea for the assessment of this gambit.

A) 14.Qb3 Qd8 15.Be2 Nf6 16.0-0-0 a6 17.d6+ Kh8 18.d7 Nxd7 19.h4 c6 20.h5 g5 21.h6 Bf6 22.Be1 Qe7µ
B) 14.Bb5 Qf7 15.Na4 a6 16.Be2 b6 17.0-0 Bd7 18.Nc3 Nf6µ
C) 14.Be2 Nf6 15.b4 (15.Qb3 a6 16.a4 b6 17.0-0 Kh8 and Black is fine.) 15...cxb4! 16.Nb5 Rf7 17.Qc2 (17.Rc1 Qd8
18.d6 cxd6 19.Bxb4 Be6 20.Nxd6 was played in a correspondence game but after 20...Bf8! 21.0-0 Rd7 Black would
have won a piece.)
Position after: 17.Qc2
C1) 17...Qd8 18.Bxb4 a6 19.Na3 Nxe4! (19...Ne8 20.0-0 f3 21.Bxf3 Rxf3 22.gxf3 Bxh3µ 0-1 (31) Aeoooia I –
Eadiia E Corr 1995) 20.Qxe4 f3 21.gxf3 Rf4 22.Qb1 e4 23.fxe4 Qh4 24.Bc5 Rxe4µ
C2) 17...f3! 18.gxf3 Nxd5!? 19.exd5 e4 (19...Bf5 20.Qc1 e4 21.f4 Rd8 22.Bxb4 Bxa1 23.Qxa1 e3µ) 20.fxe4 Bxa1
21.d6 Be6 22.Nxc7 Rc8 23.Bxb4 Bd4 24.f4 Bb6 25.f5 Bxc7 26.fxe6 Qxe6 27.Bc4 Bxd6µ
14...f3!
Position after: 14...f3!

A strong move.
15.gxf3
A) White can also ignore Black’s idea with 15.bxc5 fxg2 16.Bxg2 Nf4 17.Bf1 Kh8 18.Be3 c6 19.Qd2 Bd7 20.Rb1
cxd5!N (20...Rb8 21.d6 Be6 was unclear and complex in the game 1-0 (61) Bagirov, V (2475) Odendahl, R Dieren
1990.) 21.exd5 Rd8 22.Qb2 Bf5 23.Rd1 Nxd5 24.Nxd5 Be4–+
B) 15.g4 Ng3! 16.Bb5 (16.fxg3 f2+ 17.Ke2 cxb4–+) 16...c6 17.dxc6 bxc6 18.Bc4+ Be6 19.Qb3 Nxh1 20.Bxe6+
Kh8–+ 0-1 (33) Wirius, S (2235) – Sinowjew, J (2260) Austria 1991
15...cxb4 16.Nb5 Qd8 17.Qb3 Kh8 18.Bxb4
Position after: 18.Bxb4
18...a6!?
A typical human reaction which looks fine to me.

18...Rf6 19.Qa3 Rf7 20.d6 cxd6 (20...c6!? 21.Nc7 Rb8 22.0-0-0 Bd7 23.Bc4 Rf6 24.Kb1∞) 21.Bc4 d5 22.Bxd5 Rd7
23.0-0-0 Nf4 24.Bc4 h6 with a highly complicated game ahead of us. 0-1 (64) Tritt, M – Alves, L (2414) corr. 2001
19.Bxf8 Bxf8 20.Nc3 Qf6 21.Ne2 a5 22.a3 Bc5 23.Ng3 Nf4 24.Ne2 Nh5 25.Ng3 Nf4 26.Ne2
Black is fine. ½-½ (26) Wang Yue (2749) – Ding Liren (2565) China 2010
9.a3
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.h3 e5 7.d5 Nh5 8.Be3 Na6 9.a3
This small move has been introduced rather recently and shows one more idea of White. Obviously it is directed against
the Knight on a6 as we already observed in many other occasions.
9...f5 10.b4
Obviously best.
A) 10.Rc1 Nf6
Position after: 10...Nf6

A1) 11.Bd3 Nc5! Black is fine. (11...f4 12.Bd2 Nc5 13.Bc2 a5 14.b4∞ 0-1 (18) Lario Cortes, J – Puertas
Covarrubias, F corr. 2015)
A2) 11.b4 c5! 12.Qb3 (12.bxc5 Nxc5 13.exf5 gxf5 14.Nxe5 Re8µ 0-1 (74) Rabascall, J – Doornbos, Y (2230)
Parthenay 1992) 12...b6 13.Bd3 Nh5 with very complicated play.
B) 10.exf5 gxf5
B1) 11.Ng5 Nf6 12.g3 Qe7 13.Be2 e4!? (13...Nc5 14.Qc2 e4 15.h4 Ng4 16.Bxc5 dxc5 17.Bxg4 fxg4 18.0-0 Bxc3
19.bxc3 Bf5 20.Rae1² ½-½ (36) Schuster, G – Urlau, T corr. 2010) 14.h4 Ng4 15.Bxg4 Bxc3+ 16.bxc3 fxg4
17.Qb1 Re8 18.0-0 b6 19.Bd4 h6 20.Ne6 Bxe6 21.dxe6 Qxe6µ
B2) 11.g4 fxg4 12.Nd2 Qh4 13.Nde4 Nf4 14.Qb3 b6 15.Qc2 Nc5 16.Ng3 gxh3–+ 0-1 (24) Comas Fabrego, L
(2325) – Paneque, P (2300) Adelaide 1988
B3) 11.Be2 f4 12.Bd2 Bf5 13.Nh2 Nf6 14.b4 c6 15.dxc6 bxc6 16.0-0 Nc7 17.Rc1 Ne6 18.Re1∞ ½-½ (42)
Hicdonmez, H (2310) – Toenisson, P (2342) corr. 2011
10...Kh8!?
Position after: 10...Kh8!?
Anticipating potential dangers on the a2-g8 diagonal.
11.Rc1
11.c5 dxc5 12.Bxa6 cxb4 13.axb4 bxa6 14.0-0 fxe4 15.Nxe4 Nf4 16.Bc5 Rf7 17.d6 Bb7 18.Re1 Rd7 19.Ra2 cxd6
20.Nxd6 Bd5 21.Rxa6 e4„
11...c5!
This was the intended reply and we already observed a similar reaction in the h3-Be3 line. I’d like to get a bit personal
now and talk about a tournament I once played in Russia (at that time still the Soviet Union). There I had the
opportunity to speak with Bronstein about, of course, the King’s Indian. He told me that especially Bobby Fischer was
very fond of going ...c5 to close the queenside. Bronstein shared his opinion. I think this example is a fine illustration of
what Bobby meant.
12.dxc6
12.Rb1 Bd7 13.Be2 (13.Qc1 b6 14.Bd3 Qe7 15.0-0 f4 16.Bd2 g5 17.Qc2 g4 18.hxg4 Bxg4 19.Be2 Rg8 20.Qd3 Bh6
21.Rfd1 Rg7 22.Kf1 Bd7 23.Nb5 Rag8‚ ½-½ (41) Myers, D – Blanco Gramajo, C corr. 2013) 13...Nf4 14.0-0 Nxe2+
15.Qxe2 f4 16.Bc1 b6 17.Rb3 g5 18.Nh2 Qe8 19.Rd1 h5‚ ½-½ (43) Jean, P – Sobirey, M corr. 2015
12...bxc6
Position after: 12...bxc6
You can rarely see White giving up the entire centre in the opening but here he does. Now, of course we arrive at some
quite complicated positions.
13.exf5
A) 13.Qa4 Bb7 14.Be2 Nc7 15.0-0 fxe4 16.Nxe4 Nf4 17.Rfe1 c5 18.Qc2 Nce6ƒ 0-1 (35) Costa, J (2405) – Nemet, I
(2450) Chiasso 1991
B) 13.Be2 This is sharp play. Black controls the centre, but White is hoping to undermine this and the Knight on a6 is
temporarily awkwardly placed. 13...Nf6!? 14.0-0 (14.exf5 gxf5 transposes to the 13.exf5 line.) 14...fxe4 15.Ng5 Bf5
16.g4 Nc7!? 17.gxf5 gxf5 with a highly complicated game.
13...gxf5 14.Be2
14.Nxe5?! Qe8 15.Nxc6 f4–+ 0-1 (39) Todorovic, G (2384) – Georgiev, K (2430) Stara Pazova 2009
14...Nf6 15.Qa4
Position after: 15.Qa4
15.0-0 Nc7 16.Qc2 Nfe8 17.Rfd1 (17.Rcd1 e4 18.Nd4 f4 19.Nxc6 Qh4 20.Qxe4 Bxc3 21.Bf3 Bxh3∞ 0-1 (65) Pérez
Fernández, J (2404) – Benlloch Guirau, A (2472) corr. 2009) 17...Ne6 18.Bf1 (18.a4 Rb8 19.Rb1 Rb7! 20.Bf1 f4
21.Bc1 Nd4„ ½-½ (49) Dessaules, P (2376) – Terreaux, G (2391) corr. 2012) 18...Bb7 19.Rb1 c5 20.Ne1 f4 21.Bc1
Nd4 22.Qd2 Rb8³ 0-1 (44) Mihai, P – Zieba, Z corr. 2013
15...Qe8
15...Nc7 16.Qxc6 e4 17.0-0 (17.Nd4 Nfe8 18.Rd1 Bd7 19.Qb7 Bc8=) 17...Nfe8 18.Bg5 Bd7! 19.Qb7 Bf6 20.Bxf6+
Nxf6 21.Rfd1 (21.Nd2 Nfe8 and ...Bc8 – ...Bd7 is coming with a draw by repetition.) 21...exf3 22.Bxf3 Nfe8 23.Re1
Bc8 24.Qc6 Rb8 25.Qa4 Bb7 26.Bxb7 Rxb7³ 0-1 (50) Williams, R – Sutton, A corr. 2013
16.0-0 f4 17.Bd2 Nc7
17...Rg8 18.Kh1 Bh6 19.Rce1 e4 20.Rg1 Qd7 21.Nh2 Nc7 22.Qd1 d5 23.cxd5 cxd5∞ ½-½ (37) Andersen, J (2184) –
Bukin, A corr. 2012
18.Rce1 a5 19.Qc2 axb4 20.axb4 Rg8ƒ

Position after: 20...Rg8ƒ
0-1 (32) Sage, F – Giannetto, S corr. 2014

9.Be3
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.h3 e5 7.d5 Nh5 8.Nh2 Na6 9.Be3
Position after: 9.Be3
9...Qe8
This is the old main line in which Black sacrifices a pawn to take initiative. Nothing changed much as Black still gets
fine chances.
10.Be2 f5 11.exf5
Other possible ideas are:

A) 11.Bxh5 gxh5 12.g4 hxg4 13.hxg4 f4 14.Bd2 c6 15.Qe2 cxd5 16.Nxd5! (16.cxd5?! Bd7 17.0-0-0 Nc5 18.Kb1 a5
19.f3 b5 20.Qg2 b4µ 0-1 (45) Grigoryan, A (2537) – Piorun, K (2445) Warsaw 2008) 16...Be6 17.f3 Bxd5 18.cxd5
Rc8 19.Bc3 Bf6 20.Nf1 Bd8 21.Nd2 b5 22.Nb3 Bb6 23.Rh6 Qd7 24.Kf1 Rc7 25.a3 Rfc8 26.Kg2 Nc5 27.Nxc5
Bxc5 28.Rah1 Bxa3∞
B) 11.0-0 Nf6
B1) 12.a3 f4 13.Bd2 c5 14.dxc6 bxc6 15.b4 Nc7 16.Be1 Ne6! (16...Qe7 17.b5 cxb5 18.Nxb5 Nxb5 19.cxb5 Bb7
20.f3 Rfd8 21.Bb4 Qf7 22.Rc1 d5∞ 1-0 (37) Grunberg, M (2340) – Dumitrescu, D (2370) Romania 1994) 17.Qxd6
Nd4 18.Nf3 Nxe2+ 19.Nxe2 Nxe4³
B2) 12.exf5 gxf5 13.f4 exf4 14.Bxf4 Nc5 15.Nb5 Qe7 16.Nd4 Nfe4 17.Nhf3 Bd7 18.Re1 a5 19.Bf1 Kh8 20.Rc1
Qf6 21.Rc2 Rg8„ 0-1 (33) Grunberg, S (2355) – Nevednichy, V (2480) Romania 1994
11...Nf4!
Position after: 11...Nf4!
Black’s main idea which was discovered a long time ago. Since then the Nf3-h3 line was not considered dangerous for
Black. Until recently some new ideas popped up.
12.0-0
Taking a pawn is an obvious option so:

12.Bxf4 exf4 13.fxg6 Qxg6 14.Kf1 Nc5 Now White has a couple of ideas but Black always obtains descent
compensation.
A) 15.Rc1 Bf5
A1) 16.h4 Bxc3 17.Rxc3 (17.bxc3 Qf6 18.Nf3 Rae8 19.Nd4 Be4 20.Kg1 Kh8 21.Rh3 Rg8 22.Bf3 Bd3ƒ) 17...Ne4
18.Rf3 Qf6!µ
A2) 16.Nf3
A2.1) 16...Bd3 17.b3 Rae8 18.Bxd3 Qxd3+ 19.Ne2 Re4 20.Qxd3 Nxd3 21.Rc2 a6 22.Rd2 Nc5 23.h4 b5 24.Rc2 h6
25.Nd2 Re7 with some compensation for the sacrificed pawn.
A2.2) 16...Qf6 17.b4 Ne4 18.Nb5 Qb2 19.Nxc7 Nc3 20.Qd2 Qxd2 21.Nxd2 Nxa2 22.Rd1 Nxb4 23.Nxa8 Rxa8©
0-1 (60) Vogler, T (2270) – Mandel, A (2360) Germany 1990
A2.3) 16...Bf6 17.Kg1 Kh8 18.Kh2 Rg8 19.Rg1 Qh6 20.Bf1 Rg7ƒ 0-1 (29) Chernin, A (2600) – Polgar, J (2540)
New Delhi 1990
B) 15.Kg1 Bxh3 16.Ng4 Bxg4 17.Bxg4 Nd3 18.Bh5 Qf5 19.Qe2 Bxc3 20.bxc3 Ne5∞
C) 15.Qd2 Bf5 16.Nf3 Ne4 17.Nxe4 Bxe4 18.Re1 Rae8 19.b3 Bxf3 20.gxf3 Kh8 Black is fine.
D) 15.Nf3 Kh8 16.Rc1 a5 17.Qd2 Bd7 18.Kg1 Rg8 19.Rh2 (19.Ne1 Rae8 20.Bf3 a4 21.Kh2 Re7 22.Rd1 Bf5© ½-½
(57) Celedon, I (2070) – Surender, A (1942) corr. 1999) 19...Rae8 20.h4 Bf6 21.Kf1 a4 22.Qxf4
D1) 22...a3 23.h5 Qf5 24.Qxf5 Bxf5 25.bxa3 Nd3 26.Bxd3 Bxd3+ 27.Kg1 Rg4!? (27...Bxc4 28.Rh3 c6 29.Nd2² 0-1
(77) Yegiazarian, A (2460) – Sale, S (2445) Ljubljana 1995) 28.Rh3 Reg8 29.Ne1 Bxc4©
D2) 22...Bg4!N 23.h5 Qg7 24.h6 Qg6 25.Qd2 a3 26.bxa3 Bxf3 27.Bxf3 Qd3+ 28.Qxd3 Nxd3 29.Ne4 Rxe4
30.Bxe4 Nxc1µ
12...Bxf5 13.Re1 Qf7
14.a3
White managed to stabilize his position and is hoping to find other squares for his Knight on a6.
A) 14.Nf1 Bxh3 15.gxh3 Nxh3+ 16.Kg2 Nxf2 17.Qb1 e4 18.Ng3 Qd7 19.Bxf2 Rxf2+ 20.Kxf2 Qh3 21.Qxe4
A1) In an old game Garry Kasparov played 21...Nc5 but after 22.Qe7 Be5 23.Rg1 Rf8+ 24.Ke1 Bxg3+ ½-½ (39)
Hansen, C (2570) – Kasparov, G (2800) Svendborg 1990 White could have played 25.Rxg3! Qxg3+ 26.Kd2
followed by Qe3 with a nice advantage.
A2) 21...Rf8+ 22.Kg1 Bd4+ 23.Qxd4 Qxg3+=
B) 14.Bg4 Rae8!? (≤ 14...Nb4 15.Bxf4 exf4 16.Ne4² 0-1 (55) Nikcevic, N (2395) – Kolev, A (2510) St Cugat 1993)
15.Bxf5 (15.Nf1 Bxg4 16.hxg4 e4³) 15...gxf5 16.Bxf4 exf4 17.Qd2 Be5 18.Nf3 Kh8 19.Kh1 Rg8 20.Rg1 Nc5
21.Rae1 a5∞
14...Nc5 15.Bxc5 dxc5 16.Bf3
16.Nf1 Bxh3! 17.gxh3 Nxh3+ 18.Kg2 Nxf2–+
16...Nd3!?
16...e4 17.Nxe4 Bxb2 18.Rb1 Qg7 19.Qd2² ½-½ (70) Ibragimov, I (2455) – Kruppa, Y (2480) Kherson 1991
17.Re2 e4 18.Bxe4 Nxb2 19.Qb3 Nd3 20.Rf1 Nf4 21.Re3 Bd4 22.Rf3 Bd7∞
Position after: 22...Bd7∞
With a complicated game ahead of us.
C) 8.Nh2
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.h3 e5 7.d5 Nh5 8.Nh2
Position after: 8.Nh2
This a well known set-up from ancient times. Despite the fact that White has managed to find new ideas Black was able
to find sufficient counter play.
8...Na6 9.g3 Nc5
10.b4
A) 10.Ng4 Kh8 11.Ne3 Qe8 12.Be2 Nf6 13.Bf3 Ng8 14.g4 f5 15.gxf5 gxf5 16.Bh5 Qe7 17.Nxf5 Bxf5 18.exf5 e4ƒ
0-1 (23) Neumeier, K (2260) – Schreiner, P (2439) Pinkafeld 2015
B) 10.Be3 a5 11.h4
B1) 11...Qe7 12.Be2 Nf6 13.Bf3 Nfd7 14.g4 f5 15.g5 Nxe4 16.Bxe4 fxe4 17.Nxe4 Nc5 18.Nxc5 dxc5 19.Ng4 Rf4
20.Nf6+ Bxf6 21.gxf6 Qxf6 22.Bxf4 Qxf4! (22...exf4 23.Qe2 Bd7 24.0-0-0² 1-0 (44) Aronian, L (2784) –
Fressinet, L (2702) Berlin (blitz) 2015) 23.Qe2 Bg4 24.Qe3 Qxc4 25.Rc1 Qb4+ 26.Rc3 Rf8©
B2) 11...c6! 12.Be2 Nf6 13.Bf3 cxd5 14.cxd5 Bd7∞
10...Nd7
11.Rb1
Some other ideas are listed below:

A) 11.Be2 a5 12.b5 (12.bxa5 Nhf6 13.Bg5 Nc5 14.Ng4 Rxa5 15.Bf3 h5 16.Ne3 Ra3 17.Rc1 Qe8³) 12...f5 13.Bxh5
gxh5 14.Qxh5 Nf6 15.Qe2 Nxe4 16.Nxe4 fxe4 17.Ng4 Qe8 18.Bh6 Bxh6 19.Nxh6+ Kh8 20.Ng4 Bxg4 21.Qxg4 e3
22.0-0 Qe7 23.fxe3 Rg8 24.Qf3 Raf8 25.Qg2 Qg5= ½-½ (31) Jakovenko, D (2748) – Amin, B (2636) Baku 2015
B) 11.Bd2 a5 12.a3 f5 13.Bg2 Nb6 14.exf5 Bxf5 15.c5 Nc4 16.Ne4 Nxd2 17.Qxd2 axb4 18.Qxb4 Nf6µ 0-1 (67)
Pashikian, A (2618) – Nedev, T (2492) Plovdiv 2012
C) 11.Ng4 a5 12.bxa5 Nc5 13.Nh6+ Kh8 14.Bg2 Nf4 15.gxf4 exf4 16.Bb2 Bxh6 17.Na4+ Bg7 18.Bxg7+ Kxg7
19.Nxc5 dxc5 20.0-0 Qf6µ
D) 11.Bg2 a5 12.b5 f5 13.0-0 f4 After blocking the queenside Black can continue with his usual attack on the
kingside.
11...a5 12.a3 axb4
12...f5 13.Bg2 Nhf6 14.exf5 gxf5 15.0-0 e4 16.Bf4 Nb6 17.Qb3 Nh5 18.Bd2 a4 19.Qa2 Nd7 20.Ne2 Ne5∞ 0-1 (38)
Klauner, T – Sikorsky, H corr. 2013
13.axb4 f5
13...Nhf6 is also possible, e.g. 14.Ng4 h5 15.Nxf6+ Qxf6 16.h4 Qe7 17.Be2 f5 18.exf5 e4 19.Nb5 Ne5µ
Position after: 19...Ne5µ
0-1 (29) Morchiashvili, B (2327) – Fier, A (2579) Ureki 2014
14.exf5
14.Bg2 Nf4!? I played this speculative move on a kind of a gut feeling. Though I spended much time for this move,
after the game I couldn’t find a real refutation. (14...Ndf6 15.0-0 Nxe4 16.Nxe4 fxe4„) 15.gxf4 exf4 16.Ne2 fxe4
17.Nxf4 Bc3+ 18.Kf1 Ne5 19.Ng4 Qh4 20.Rb3 (20.Bxe4™ 20...Ra3 21.Kg2 Ra2 22.Qb3 Re2–+) 20...Ra2 21.Be3
Rxf4 0-1 (21) Milanovic, S (2419) – Pavlovic, M (2496) Kragujevac 2013
14...e4 15.Nb5 Ne5 16.g4 Qh4 17.Qc2

17...Rxf5!!
17...Bxf5 18.gxf5 Rxf5 19.Be3 Raf8 20.Ng4 Ng3!© ½-½ (35) Aronian, L (2784) – Mamedov, R (2657) Berlin (rapid)
2015
18.gxf5 Nd3+ 19.Bxd3 exd3 20.Qxd3 Bxf5 21.Qe2 Bxb1µ
D) 8.g3 Na6
9. --
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.h3 e5 7.d5 Nh5 8.g3 Na6
9.Be2
The bottom line of the discoveries is that White can ignore ...f5 by simply taking it and then head for a fast 0-0-0
angling very sharp play. The exf5 strategy is an old theme in the King’s Indian, of course Black is also aware of such
positional ideas.
A) Another interesting idea is 9.Bg2 f5 10.exf5 (10.0-0 f4 11.g4 Nf6 12.g5 Nh5 13.a3 h6 14.gxh6 Bxh6 15.b4 Nf6
16.Bb2 b6 17.Qe2 Rf7 ½-½ (36) Laliga, O – Fonteneau, B corr. 2015 Black is fine.) 10...gxf5 11.Ng5 Qe8!? Black’s
insistence on keeping the Knight on h5 maintains the tension. 12.Ne6 (12.0-0 e4„) 12...Bxe6 13.dxe6 e4 14.e7
Bxc3+ 15.bxc3 Rf6 16.g4 (16.Bg5 Re6 17.Qd5 Nc5 18.Qxf5 Nd3+ 19.Kf1 Ng7 20.Qg4 Qg6 21.Be3 Nf5 22.Ke2
Nxe3 23.Qxg6+ hxg6 24.Kxe3 Rxe7³ 0-1 (78) Semcesen, D (2437) – Berg, E (2553) Sunne 2015) 16...Ng7 17.Bg5
Re6!? This position can be reached with a different move order. (17...Rg6 18.h4 Nc5 19.Qd5+ Qf7 20.gxf5 Nxf5
21.Bh3 Ng7 22.Be3 c6 23.Qxf7+ Kxf7 24.Bxc5 dxc5 25.0-0-0 Re8∞ ½-½ (76) Raznikov, D (2354) – Bakunts, R
(2086) Batumi 2010) 18.gxf5 Nxf5 19.Qd5 (19.h4 Nc5 20.Bh3 Qf7 21.Qd5 Re5!µ) 19...Qg6 20.h4 c6 21.Qa5 Re8
22.0-0-0 h6 23.Bf4 Kh7 24.Bh3 Nc5∞
B) 9.Nh2 would transpose to 8.Nh2.
9...f5 10.exf5 gxf5

11.Bg5
A) 11.Ng5 Nf6 Now White can continue this line with 12.g4 (12.Be3 would transpose to the next subchapter.)
12...Qe7!? 13.Rg1 c6 14.Qc2 (14.gxf5 Bxf5 15.Bg4 Nxg4 16.hxg4 Bg6 17.Nge4 Nb4 18.a3 cxd5 19.cxd5 Na6
20.Be3 b6 21.b4 Rac8 22.Rc1 Nc7∞) 14...Nb4!? (14...e4 15.gxf5 Bxf5 16.Be3 Rac8 17.Ne6 Bxe6 18.dxe6 Qxe6
19.0-0-0 Kh8 20.Qd2© 0-1 (40) Nalbandian, T (2490) – Manik, M (2395) Pardubice 1996) 15.Qa4 a5 16.a3 Na6
17.Qc2 cxd5 18.cxd5 f4 19.Bd3 e4 20.Ngxe4 Nxe4 21.Nxe4 Nc5 22.f3 Bd7‚
B) 11.Nh4 Nf4!? 12.gxf4 Qxh4 13.fxe5 Bxe5 14.Rg1+ Kh8 15.Bg5 Qxh3 16.Qd2 Nc5! (16...f4 17.0-0-0 Bf5
18.Bxf4 Bg6 19.Bxe5+ dxe5 20.Rg3± 1-0 (26) Matinian, N (2478) – Gladyszev, O (2426) Elets 2014) 17.0-0-0 f4!?
18.f3 (18.Rh1 Qf5 19.Rh5 f3 20.Bf1 Rg8–+) 18...a5 19.Nb5 a4 20.Rh1 Qf5 21.Bh4 Rg8 22.Bf2 Rg2 23.Bxc5 dxc5
24.Rdg1 a3 25.bxa3 Rxg1+ 26.Rxg1 Bf6 27.Bd3 Qe5 28.Bxh7 Bh3∞
11...Qe8 12.Nh4 Nf6 13.Qc2

This is one of the possibilities. White presses on f5 and also pushing g4 is an idea. Black however has a strong centre
and has well developed pieces.
13...Nb4
Black has a serious alternative option here:

13...e4 14.Qd2 (14.0-0-0 Nd7 15.g4 Ndc5 16.Qd2 Nb4 17.Kb1 Qe5 18.a3 a5 19.Bh6 f4 20.Bxg7 Qxg7 21.Rhg1 Qe5
With a highly complicated game ahead of us.) 14...Nd7 15.0-0 Ne5 16.Nb5 Bd7 17.Rac1 (17.Nd4 Nc5„) 17...Nxc4
18.Bxc4 Bxb5 19.b4 Bxc4 20.Rxc4 Qf7 21.f3 (21.g4!? fxg4 22.hxg4 Rae8 23.Nf5 Qg6 24.Nh4 Qf7= With a possible
repetition of moves.) 21...e3 22.Bxe3 Rae8 23.Ng2 (23.b5 Nc5 24.Bxc5 dxc5 25.Rxc5 Qf6 26.Rc4 f4!„) 23...c6
24.Nf4 Nc7„ 0-1 (43) Anton Guijarro, D (2634) – Sasikiran, K (2639) Berlin (rapid) 2015
14.Qd2
14.Qb3 a5 15.0-0-0 (15.a3 Na6 16.Qc2 transposes to the main line.) 15...Nd7 16.Nb5 Nc5 17.Qa3 Qf7 18.Bd2 Bd7
19.Be3 f4 20.Bxc5 dxc5³ 0-1 (27) Slavin, A (2397) – Sethuraman, S (2613) St Petersburg 2014
14...a5 15.a3 Na6 16.Qc2 e4!? 17.0-0-0 Nd7 18.g4
18.Kb1!? Ndc5 19.Nb5 a4 20.Be3 Nb3 21.Ng2 Bd7 22.Nf4 Kh8 A highly complicated rich position, typical for this
King’s Indian and which is not easy to assess.
18...Nb4!N
Position after: 18...Nb4!N
Only like this we must react to White’s idea. Some kind of Sicilian with opposite castling is now on the board. The
faster one is, gets the upper hand.
18...Ndc5 19.Nxf5 Bxf5 20.gxf5 Rxf5 21.Rhg1 Kh8 22.Be3± 1-0 (35) Slavin, A (2397) – Semenova, I (2220) St
Petersburg 2014
19.axb4
19.Qd2 Nc5 20.Kb1 f4 21.Bxf4 Bxc3 22.bxc3 e3 23.Qxe3 Qe4+ 24.Qxe4 Nxe4 25.cxb4 Rxf4 26.f3 Nc3+ 27.Kb2
axb4 28.axb4 Nxd1+ 29.Rxd1 Bd7³
19...axb4 20.Nb5
The other move doesn’t help:

20.Nb1 Ra2 21.Nxf5 Rxb2 22.Qxb2 Bxb2+ 23.Kxb2 Qe5+ 24.Kc2 Nc5µ
20...fxg4!
Position after: 20...fxg4!
All kinds of threats are in the air!
21.Nxc7
Other possibilities are:

A) 21.Bxg4 Ra1+ 22.Kd2 Rxf2+ 23.Be2 Rxe2+ 24.Kxe2 Qh5+–+
B) 21.hxg4 Nc5 22.Nxc7 Qe5 23.Nxa8 Qxg5+ 24.Kb1 Rxf2–+
21...Qe5‚
Black is having a huge initiative.

9.Be3
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.h3 e5 7.d5 Nh5
8.g3 Na6 9.Be3 f5
Another idea recently played by Fressinet is actually a transposition to an older line coming from a different move
order. Because it was only recently played I decided to give it a fresh look...
9...Nc5 10.Nd2 a5 11.Be2 Nf6 12.g4 Ne8 13.h4 The main attempt but not the only one... (13.Qc2 b6 14.0-0-0 Bf6
15.h4 Bxh4 16.Nf3 Be7 17.Bh6 Bxg4 18.Bxf8 Bxf8 19.Nh2 Bd7 0-1 (68) Potkin, V (2605) – Kraus, O (2190)
Jerusalem 2015 And Black has nice compensation.) 13...f5 14.g5 f4 15.Bxc5 dxc5 16.Bg4 Nd6 17.Bxc8 Qxc8 18.Qf3
a4 19.Qh3
Position after: 19.Qh3
To be honest the Knight on d6 is a nice piece but Black lacks some serious counter play, meaning it’s slightly in White’s
favour. 19...Qe8 20.h5 Rb8
A) 21.hxg6!? Qxg6 (21...hxg6 22.Qh7+ Kf7 23.Rh6+–) 22.0-0-0 (22.a3!? b5 23.cxb5 Nxb5 24.Nxa4 Nd4 25.0-0-0
Rb5 26.Qd3 Rfb8 27.Qc4 Kh8 28.Rdg1 the position looks active for Black, however we feel it is not particularly
promising.) 22...a3! 23.b3 f3!? 24.Rdg1 Rf4 25.Rg3 Rbf8„
B) 21.Rc1 c6 22.Rc2 Qe7 23.hxg6 hxg6 24.Nxa4! with better chances for White. (Instead: 24.Qh7+ Kf7 25.Qh3 Rh8
26.Qg2 Rxh1+ 27.Qxh1 Qxg5 was played in 0-1 (68) Wang Yue (2718) – Fressinet, L (2700) Huai’an (blitz) 2016)
10.exf5 gxf5 11.Ng5
The main idea for White tried by Tomashevsky and others.

11.Nxe5 Nxg3 12.fxg3 Bxe5 13.Qf3 Nc5 14.0-0-0 Qf6 15.Bf4 Bd7 16.Bxe5 dxe5 17.Be2 a5 18.Qe3 b6 19.Rdf1 a4
20.Bd1 f4∞ 0-1 (33) Tisdall, J (2420) – Hansen, T (2439) Oslo 2011
11...Nf6
12.Qd2
Many alternatives are possible however. This line is still rather unexplored.
A) 12.f4?! Re8 13.Kf2 Nc5 14.Bg2 e4! (14...h6 15.Bxc5 hxg5 16.fxg5 dxc5 17.gxf6 Qxf6³ 1-0 (48) Livaja, B (2086)
– Kryakvin, D (2488) Internet (blitz) 2006) 15.Bf1 h6 16.Ne6 Nxe6 17.dxe6 Bxe6µ
B) 12.Be2 Nc5 13.b4 Na6 14.Qb3 Kh8 15.Rd1 (15.f4?! exf4 16.Bxf4 h6 17.Ne6 Bxe6 18.dxe6 Ne4 19.Nd5 Qe8
20.e7 Rf7 21.0-0 c6 22.Ne3 Bxa1 23.Rxa1 Qxe7–+ 0-1 (26) Grover, S (2516) – Ding, L (2695) Athens 2012)
15...Qe7 16.c5 f4∞
C) 12.Qc2 Qe7 13.0-0-0
Position after: 13.0-0-0
C1) 13...c5 14.a3 Nc7 15.g4 e4 (15...h6 16.Nf3 Nfe8 17.gxf5 Bxf5 18.Qd2 e4 19.Nh2²) 16.gxf5 Bxf5 17.Rg1 Kh8
18.Qd2 Rad8 19.Be2 a6 20.Bg4 Bxg4 21.hxg4 b5 22.Rh1 bxc4∞ 1-0 (44) Piorun, K (2532) – Szelag, M (2456)
Rostock 2015
C2) 13...Nb4 14.Qb3 a5 15.a3 Na6 16.c5 Kh8 17.cxd6 cxd6 18.Kb1 b6 19.Bc4 Rb8!? (19...f4 20.gxf4 exf4
21.Bd4± ½-½ (51) Goganov, A (2597) – Belyakov, B (2511) Khanty – Mansiysk 2015) 20.Ne6 b5 21.Nxb5 Bxe6
22.dxe6 Nc7 23.a4 d5 24.Be2 Nxe6 25.Rhe1∞
C3) 13...c6!?N 14.g4 cxd5 15.cxd5 f4 16.Bd2 Nc5 17.Kb1 Bd7 18.Bd3 h6 19.Nh7 Rfc8 20.Nxf6+ Bxf6 21.Rde1
b5! 22.Bxb5 Bxb5 23.Nxb5 e4ƒ
12...Nc5 13.0-0-0 h6 14.Nf3 Nfe4 15.Nxe4 Nxe4 16.Qc2 b5!?N

Position after: 16...b5!?N
This is very important! I tried to speed up Black’s counter play and came up with this gambit idea.
16...Qf6 17.Nd2 Nc5 18.g4 fxg4 19.Bxc5 dxc5 20.Ne4 Qf4+ 21.Kb1 Qxe4 22.Qxe4 Bf5 23.Bd3 Bxe4 24.Bxe4 Rf4³
½-½ (33) Peralta, F (2564) – Bailet, P (2502) Barcelona 2015
17.Nh4
17.cxb5 a6 18.Kb1 (18.b6 cxb6 19.Kb1 Bd7 20.Nd2 Nc5„) 18...axb5 19.Bxb5 Bd7 20.Bc4 Qf6 21.Rhg1!?
Anticipating Black’s idea... (21.Rhe1?! Rfb8 22.Bb3 f4 23.gxf4 Bf5 24.Rd3 Rxb3 25.axb3 Nxf2 26.Bxf2 e4 27.Bd4
exd3 28.Qd2 Qf7 29.Rg1 Qxd5 30.Rxg7+ Kf8µ) 21...Rfb8 22.Bb3 Kh8 23.Kc1 Nc5 24.Bxc5 dxc5³
17...bxc4 18.Bxc4 Qf6 19.Kb1 a5∞
With unclear interesting play ahead.

PART III – Classical systems with Be2
Short survey:
The most comprehensive lines arrive when obviously White develops in the most natural way. We can obtain various
types of pawn structures arising from this starting position and that is the reason why this variation became that most
popular. After Blacks replies with ‘...e5’, White has many options as f.i. ‘d5’, ‘dxe5’, ‘0-0’ or ‘Be3’, to name some... all
leading to interesting positions and various types of pawn structures. Simply put: both sides want to finish their
development and focus on their strategic middle game plans. This is a crucial difference with the other lines except for
the ‘fianchetto’ line..
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6

A) 5.Be2 0-0 6.h4
B) 5.Be2 0-0 6.g4
A) 8.Nd2
B) 8.Bg5
Chapter 11 – The Gligoric variation (5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 e5 7.Be3 exd4 8.Nxd4 Re8 9.f3 c6 10.Bf2 d5 11.exd5 cxd5
12.0-0 Nc6 13.c5)
A) 10.0-0 alternative
B) 13...Bf8
C) 13...Nh5 14.Qd2 Be5 15.g3 Ng7
Chapter 12 – Main classical variation (5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 e5 7.0-0 exd4 8.Nxd4 Re8 9.f3) with 9...c6 10.Kh1 Nbd7
A) 11. -- sidelines
B) 11.Be3
C) 11.Bf4
D) 11.Bg5
Chapter 13 – Main classical variation (5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 e5 7.0-0 exd4 8.Nxd4 Re8 9.f3) with 9...Nc6 10.Be3 Nh5
A) 10. -- alternatives, 11.Nxc6
B) 11.f4
C) 11.Qd2 Nf4
D) 11.Nc2
A) 5.Be2 0-0 6.h4
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Be2 0-0 6.h4
Position after: 6.h4
This became a rather popular line lately. Especially because it might confuse the issue. Topalov played h4 as early as on
move 3! Of course that kind of ideas can’t really challenge an entire opening but it serves a practical purpose and can
catch an unprepared opponent by surprise.
6...c5 7.d5 b5
In my opinion this is the best reaction. Going for a “Benko” type of game in were h4 is often useless.
8.cxb5 a6
9.bxa6
There are other possibilities from which only 9.a4 deserves some serious attention.
A) 9.h5 axb5 10.hxg6 fxg6 11.Bd3 (11.Bxb5 Qa5µ) 11...c4 12.Bb1 b4 13.Nce2 Ng4 14.Nf3 Qb6 15.0-0 Nd7µ 0-1
(20) Tuvshintugs, B – Dworakowska, J (2120) Bratislava 1993
B) 9.b6 Qxb6 10.Nf3 Nbd7 11.Nd2 Qc7 12.h5 Nb6 13.a4 e6 14.a5 Nbxd5!?
Position after: 14...Nbxd5!
15.exd5 exd5 16.Bf3 (16.0-0 Bb7 17.hxg6 hxg6 18.Re1 Rfe8 19.Ra3 d4 20.Ncb1 d5©) 16...Re8+ 17.Kf1 Bb7 18.hxg6
hxg6 19.Ra3 Rab8 20.Ne2 Bc6 21.Nb1 Rb4 22.Qc2 Ne4 23.Bxe4 Rbxe4 24.Nbc3 R4e6µ 0-1 (32) Ratkovic, M
(2364) – Indjic, A (2553) Vrbas 2015
C) 9.a4 axb5 10.Bxb5 Ba6 11.Bd2 Now Black has two interesting paths.
Position after: 11.Bd2
C1) 11...Qc8!? 12.Nge2 Qg4 13.Ng3 Bxb5 14.axb5 Rxa1 15.Qxa1 Nbd7 16.Qd1 Qxd1+ (Another idea might be
16...Rb8 17.Qxg4 Nxg4 18.Nge2 Ra8 19.0-0 Nge5 20.Bg5 f6 21.Be3 Nc4 22.Bc1 Kf7 23.h5 f5 24.exf5 gxf5
25.Rd1 Be5 26.h6 Nf6„) 17.Kxd1 Ra8 18.Kc2 Ne8 19.Nge2 Nc7 20.Rb1 Rb8 21.Ra1 Nxb5 22.Nxb5 Rxb5
23.Ra8+ Rb8 24.Rxb8+ Nxb8=
C2) 11...Bxb5 12.axb5 Rxa1 13.Qxa1 Nbd7
C2.1) 14.Nge2 Nb6!? (14...Qc7 15.0-0 Ng4 16.b3 Nb6 17.Qb2 c4 18.Qc2 cxb3 19.Qxb3 Qc5„) 15.0-0 Qd7
16.Qa6 Rb8 17.Rb1 Ng4 18.b3 (18.b4 cxb4 19.Rxb4 Qc7„) 18...Ne5 19.f3 f5„
C2.2) 14.Nf3 Qc7 15.0-0 Ng4 (15...Rb8 16.Qa4 Qb7 17.Ra1 Ne8 18.Bg5 Ne5 19.Qa7 Nxf3+ 20.gxf3 Kf8 21.Ra3
Nc7 22.Qa4 Qc8 23.Kg2 Bxc3 24.bxc3 Ra8 25.Qb3 Rxa3 26.Qxa3 Nxb5 27.Qb2 Qd7 28.Be3 f6 29.c4 Nc7=)
16.Qa2 Rb8 17.Qc4 Qa5 18.Rc1 Nge5 19.Nxe5 Nxe5 20.Qe2 c4 21.Be3 Bf6 22.Bg5 Nd3 23.Rb1 Bxc3 24.bxc3
f6 25.Be3 Rxb5 26.Rxb5 Qxb5=
9...Qa5 10.Bd2 Bxa6

Position after: 10...Bxa6
11.h5
White is obviously trying to justify his early h4... Other moves are also possible.
A) 11.Nf3 Bxe2!? (11...Qb4!? 12.Ng5 Qxb2 13.Rb1 Qa3 14.Rb3 Qa5 15.Nb5 Qa4 16.Nc3 Bxe2 17.Qxe2 Qa6
18.Nf3 Nh5 19.g3 Nd7 20.Rb2 Nb6µ) 12.Qxe2 Qa6 13.Qxa6 Nxa6 14.Ke2 Rfb8 15.b3 Nb4 16.Rhc1 Nxe4
17.Nxe4 Nxa2µ
B) 11.Bxa6 Nxa6 12.Nge2 Nb4 13.0-0 Qa6 14.a3 Nd3 15.b3 Rfb8 16.a4 Ng4© 0-1 (17) Ilic, M – Arandjelovic, A
(2066) Paracin 2012
C) 11.Rb1 Nbd7 12.Bxa6 Qxa6 13.Nge2 c4 14.0-0 Nc5 15.f3 Nd3 16.Be3 Rfb8 17.Qd2 Nd7 18.Nd4 Bf6 19.h5
Qb6!? 20.Nc6 Bxc3 21.Qxd3 cxd3 22.Bxb6 Rxb6 23.bxc3 Rxa2=
D) 11.a4 Nbd7 12.Rb1 Ne5 13.Nb5 Qb6 14.Qc2 c4 15.Nf3 Bxb5 16.axb5 Nfg4 17.0-0 Qxb5 Black is fine.
11...Nbd7
It is probably best just to ignore White’s intentions. The alternative is tempting but most likely White will sac an
exchange leading to interesting positions.
11...Bxe2!? 12.Ngxe2!? (12.Ncxe2 Qb6 13.h6 Bh8 14.Nc3 Qxb2 15.Rb1 Qa3 16.Nge2 Nbd7 17.0-0 Rfb8³) 12...Nxh5
13.Rxh5 gxh5 14.Ng3 Nd7 15.Qxh5 Rfb8 16.Nf5 Ne5 17.Qg5 Ng6 18.Ne2 Qd8 19.Nxg7 Kxg7 20.Bc3+ f6 21.Ng3
Kg8 22.Qh5©
12.hxg6 hxg6
Position after: 12...hxg6

13.Bxa6
Jobava also played like this and he came up with a different move.
A) 13.Kf1 Rfb8 14.b3 (14.Rb1 Ng4„)
A1) 14...Ne5 15.Nf3 Nxf3! (15...Nfg4 16.Nxe5 Bxe5 17.Na4 Bxe2+ 18.Qxe2 Qa6 19.Rc1∞ 1-0 (60) Jobava, B
(2734) – Atalik, S (2603) Burgas BUL 2012) 16.gxf3 Nh5 17.Na4 Bxe2+ 18.Qxe2 Nf4 19.Bxa5 Nxe2 20.Rd1
Rxa5 21.Kxe2 c4 22.Rb1 Rab5 23.Rhc1 cxb3 24.axb3 Rxb3 25.Rxb3 Rxb3 26.Rc8+ Kh7 27.Rc7 Bf6 Drawish.
A2) 14...Bxe2+ 15.Ngxe2 c4 16.bxc4 Rc8 17.Rh3 Rxc4 18.f3 Qa6 19.Kg1 Nc5©
B) 13.Nf3
B1) 13...Qb4 14.Bxa6 Rxa6 15.Qc2 Ng4 16.Rh4 Nde5 17.Nxe5 Nxe5 18.a3 Qxb2!µ (18...Qc4 19.Rh3 Rb8
20.Rc1∞ 1-0 (40) Nestorovic, D (2422) – Popovic, D (2540) Subotica 2014)
B2) 13...Rfb8 14.b3 Bxe2 15.Nxe2 Qa3 16.Rh4 Ne8³
13...Qxa6 14.Nge2 Rfb8 15.Rb1 Rb4!

Position after: 15...Rb4!
16.a3 Rb7 17.0-0 Rab8 18.Qc2 Ne5 19.f3 Qd3
Another logical and good idea is:

19...Nfd7 20.a4 Nc4 21.Bc1 Rb3 22.Rd1 Qa5ƒ
20.Rfc1
Position after: 20.Rfc1

20...Rb3!
Thematic and completely in the spirit of the Benko. At least if Black doesn’t want to try the unusual 20...Nxf3+ which
probably gives him a strong attack.
A) 20...Qxc2 21.Rxc2 Nc4 22.a4 Rb4∞ (22...Nxb2 23.a5 Nd3= 1-0 (60) Jobava, B (2727) – Radjabov, T (2734) Wijk
aan Zee 2015)
B) 20...Nxf3+!? 21.gxf3 Qxf3 The silicon monsters are happy assessing the position more than +1, in Black’s favour.
But to me this feels irrelevant as Black has a better and more human option providing him good play.
21.Qxd3 Nxd3 22.Rc2 Nd7³
B) 5.Be2 0-0 6.g4
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Be2 0-0 6.g4
Another early attack. Rarely seen and rather wild. Also, in my opinion less solid compared to 6.h4. But only the day
before writing these pages of the book I saw a game from the recent US Championship 2016 Akobian – Kamsky and
decided to include this line.
6...a6
An elastic approach. Sooner or later Black is heading for ...b5.
7.g5 Nfd7 8.h4
That is White’s idea.
8...b5
Position after: 8...b5
And of course this is the reaction.
9.h5!?
A new idea. White doesn’t waste time. This position is so rare that one can say this is new. I found only one earlier
played old game.
9.cxb5 axb5 10.Bxb5 c5 11.Be3 Ba6 12.Bxa6 Nxa6 13.Nge2 cxd4 14.Nxd4 Ne5 15.Qe2 Nc5 16.Rd1 Rb8 17.0-0 Qd7
0-1 (40) Georgiou, A – Arduman, C (2380) Ankara 1995 Black got nice play. White is a pawn up but has weaknesses
everywhere.
9...Nc6! 10.Nf3
White cannot allow the black Knight an easy landing on the d4-square.
10.d5 Nd4„
10...e5
Another possibility might be:

10...b4 11.Nd5 Bb7 12.Ne3 e5 13.d5 Nd4 14.Nc2 c5 with a complicated game ahead.
11.d5 Nd4 12.Be3

12...b4
Also understandable that Black wants to chase the white Knight from the centre. An alternative is to open the b-file with
12...bxc4 13.Bxc4 (13.Nxd4 exd4 14.Bxd4 Qxg5³ And now the direct 15.Bxg7 fails to 15...Kxg7 16.h6+ Kg8 17.Qd4
Ne5µ) 13...Nb6 14.Be2 Nxe2 15.Qxe2 Bg4 16.h6 Bh8 17.Rh4 With the idea to sacrifice an exchange after Bh5.
Perhaps not at once, but at some more convenient moment. 17...Qc8 18.Bxb6 cxb6 19.Qe3 Bxf3 20.Qxf3 f6 Black is
fine.
13.Na4 f5
Some alternatives come into consideration.

A) 13...Nc5 14.Nxc5 dxc5 15.Nh4 Qd6 16.Kf1 c6 with complicated play.
B) 13...Qe8 14.Nh4 Nb8 15.b3 Bd7 16.Nb2 a5 17.Nd3 Na6 Again Black has enough counter play.
14.hxg6 hxg6 15.Nh4!

Position after: 15.Nh4!
15...f4
15...Nxe2 16.Qxe2 f4 17.Bd2± Remarkable. It is rare to see both Knights enjoying strong positions on the edge of the
board!
16.Bxd4 Qxg5 17.Bc5
The next move was also very much possible:

17.Bg4!? exd4 18.Be6+ Rf7 19.Bxf7+ Kxf7 20.Nf3 Qe7 21.Qd3! Nf6 22.Kf1 Bd7 23.Re1 Ng4 24.b3 Rh8 25.Rxh8
Bxh8 Black has compensation here.
17...Nxc5 18.Nxc5 dxc5 19.Nf3 Qe7 20.Rg1 Rf6 21.Rg5 Rd6

Position after: 21...Rd6
Black is not worse. ½-½ (50) Akobian – Kamsky US Championship 2016

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 e5 7.dxe5
The favourite of Ulf Andersson. The obvious idea is for White to enter an endgame trying to profit from some small
details in order to get some advantage. Although it doesn’t suit everybody’s style, the line itself deserves attention in a
book like this. I will try to present a simple solution for Black. In other words, we will play along with White’s game of
simplifications and will see where it will take us...
7...dxe5 8.Qxd8 Rxd8 9.Bg5
9.Nd5 might have some independent significance, but I will try to keep it as simple as possible. 9...Nxd5 10.cxd5 c6
11.Bc4 cxd5 12.Bxd5 Nc6 13.Bg5 Re8 which transposes to the main line.
9...Re8 10.Nd5 Nxd5 11.cxd5 c6
The old main line and considered best for a long time.
12.Bc4 cxd5 13.Bxd5 Nc6

Straightforward.
14.0-0-0
The most active approach.

A) 14.Bxc6 bxc6 15.0-0 Be6 transposes to 14.0-0.
B) 14.Ke2 Bg4 15.Bxc6 bxc6

B1) 16.Rhc1 Rab8 17.b3 Rb4 18.Kf1 Rxe4 19.Rxc6 Bd7! (19...Rb4 20.Nd2 Bf5 21.Rac1 Bd3+ 22.Kg1 With a
complicated endgame ½-½ (87) Weiler, W – Buscher, M Germany 1991) 20.Rc7 Bb5+ 21.Kg1 Re2! and Black got
the upper hand.
B2) 16.h3 Be6 17.Rhc1 Reb8!?N Playing similar as in the main line. And I think it is even better here because the
King on e2 is less secure. 18.b3 a5 19.Be7 (19.Rxc6 a4 20.bxa4 Rxa4 21.Nd2 Rxa2 22.Rxa2 Bxa2= Black is fine.)
19...a4 20.b4 Rb7 21.Bd6 Rd8 22.Rxc6 Bd7 23.Rc7 Bb5+ 24.Ke1 Rxc7 25.Bxc7 Rc8 26.Bb6 Bd3 27.Nd2 Rc2©
Black has good counter play for the sacrificed pawn.
C) 14.0-0 Be6
Position after: 14...Be6
C1) 15.Bxe6 Rxe6 16.Rfd1 Nd4 17.Nxd4 exd4 18.f3 transposes to the 15.Rfd1 line.
C2) 15.Rfd1 Nd4 16.Nxd4 exd4 17.Bxe6 Rxe6 18.f3 Ra6!? (Also possible is: 18...Rc8 19.Rac1 Rec6 20.Rxc6 Rxc6
21.Rc1 Rxc1+ 22.Bxc1 d3 23.Kf1 d2 24.Bxd2 Bxb2 Black easily equalised ½-½ (24) Huzman, A (2500) – Smirin, I
(2480) Norilsk 1987) 19.Rd2 Rc8 20.Kf1 Rc5 21.Bf4 h5 Black has equal chances here.
C3) 15.Bxc6 bxc6 16.Rfc1 Reb8 17.b3 a5!
Position after: 17...a5!
A clear cut strategy. The bishop pair plays a big role. 18.Rxc6 a4 19.bxa4 Rxa4 20.Nd2
C3.1) 20...Rxa2 21.Rxa2 Bxa2 22.h3 (22.Rc1 Be6 23.Nf1 Rc8 24.Rxc8+ Bxc8 25.f3 f6 26.Bd2 Bf8= ½-½ (31)
Chatalbashev, B (2553) – Spasov, V (2553) Pleven 2015) 22...Be6 23.Be3 Rc8 24.Rxc8+ Bxc8 25.g4 h5 26.f3
hxg4 27.hxg4 f5= ½-½ (34) Nikolov, M (2559) – Spasov, V (2538) Pleven 2016
C3.2) 20...Rb2 A new idea, although I don’t see any particular problem with the previously played games in this
variation. 21.a3 h6 22.Be3 Bf8 23.f3 Bxa3 24.Rb1 Rxb1+ 25.Nxb1 Be7= ½-½ (42) Steingrimsson, H (2574) –
Nisipeanu, L (2669) Gjakova 2016
14...Nd4 15.Nxd4 exd4 16.Kb1 Be6

17.Bxb7
It is always important to consider grabbing a pawn. And here it is critical indeed.

17.Bxe6 Rxe6 18.f3 f5 19.exf5 gxf5 20.Rd2 Rae8 21.Rc1 Re1! 22.Rxe1 Rxe1+ 23.Kc2 Kf7 24.Rd1 Re2+ 25.Rd2 Re1
Again Black achieved an easy game. ½-½ (26) Strikovic, A (2504) – Paunovic, D (2495) Sanxenxo 2013
17...Rab8 18.Ba6
Trying to stay a pawn up. Another idea didn’t give White anything.
18.Bd5 Bxd5 19.exd5 Rb5 20.Rhe1 Reb8 21.Bc1 Rxd5 22.Rd3 Rd7 23.Re2 h5 24.b3 Rc8= Black reached equal chances
½-½ (27) Olafsson, H (2445) – Lombardy, W (2505) New York 1984
18...f5
19.e5
A) 19.f3 fxe4 20.fxe4 Bg4 21.Bf4 Rb6!? (21...Rb4 22.Bd2 Rb6 23.Bc4+ Kh8 24.Rde1 d3 25.b3 Be2 In spite of being a
pawn down Black is active in this endgame and is not worse. 1-0 (54) Garbar A.V. – Stetsun A. Internet 1998)
22.Bc4+ Kh8 23.Rde1 (23.Rd2 Rxe4=) 23...d3 24.b3 Be2 25.Bd5 Bd4©
B) 19.exf5 Bxf5+ 20.Bd3 Re2!
Position after: 20...Re2!

21.Bc1 Rf8 22.g3 Rxf2 23.h4 Bxd3+ 24.Rxd3 R8f3 Black is fine.
19...Bxe5!N
Position after: 19...Bxe5!N
19...Rb6 20.Bd3 Bxe5 21.Rhe1 Bg7 22.Rc1² 1-0 (42) Olafsson, H (2575) – Wessman, R (2505) New York 1990
20.Rhe1 Bd5 21.Rxe5
21.f3 Bxh2 22.Rxe8+ Rxe8 23.Rxd4 Re1+ 24.Kc2 Be6 25.b3 Ra1 26.Kb2 Re1 And again Black has good counter play.
21...Rxe5 22.Bf4 Rbe8 23.Bxe5 Rxe5 24.g3
24.f3 Bxa2+ 25.Kxa2 Ra5+ 26.Kb3 Rxa6 27.Rxd4 Ra1= This is a simple draw.
24...Bxa2+!
Position after: 24...Bxa2+!
25.Kxa2 Ra5+ 26.Kb3 Rxa6 27.Rxd4 Ra1 28.Kc4 a5=

A) 8.Nd2
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 e5 7.d5
“The Petrosian” is really one of the most important themes that White can use against the King’s Indian. For that reason,
it must be included in this book. White enjoys more space and although it may look naive to close the centre so early,
actually this is not the case. Many theoretical lines were developed with the 7...a5 move which is considered the best
for Black. But especially for this book I decided to take another road with a slightly different approach.
7...Na6
A similar strategy like in the h3-Nf3 or Be3 lines. Of course each of these have their own differences and ideas.
8.Nd2
This is considered correct because Black is now deprived of the natural c5-square for his Knight, due to the obvious
9.b4. On the other hand, White’s development is slowed down so this balances the equation, as mathematicians like to
state.
8...c6!?
There are some other ideas and all of them are still in the development phase, leaving nothing conclusive at the moment.
A) 8...h5 9.a3 c5
A1) 10.Nf3 Nh7 11.h4 Nc7 (11...f5 12.exf5 Bxf5 13.Nd2 Nf6 14.Nf1 Qd7 15.Ng3± 1-0 (79) Williams, S (2426) –
Hebden, M (2490) Coventry 2015) 12.Bd2 Bd7 13.b4 b6 14.g3 Ne8 15.Kf1 f5 16.Ng5 f4 17.Nxh7 Kxh7∞ 0-1 (30)
Cummings, D (2360) – Hebden, M (2530) England 1996
A2) 10.Rb1 h4 11.b4 Bh6 12.Nf3 Bxc1 13.Qxc1 Bg4! 14.Qg5 Bxf3 15.Bxf3 Qe7 16.Qxh4 Nxd5 17.Qxe7 Nxe7
18.0-0 b6 19.Rfd1 Rfd8 20.Bg4 Nc7 21.bxc5 dxc5 22.Bd7 Kf8= 0-1 (49) Ivanov, M (2450) – Hebden, M (2550)
Cappelle la Grande 1995
A3) 10.Nf1 Nh7 11.h4 Nc7 12.g4 hxg4 13.Bxg4 f5 14.Be2 f4 15.Bg4 Nf6 16.Bxc8 Rxc8 17.Qf3 Qe8 18.Nd2 b5
19.Rg1 a6 20.Qg2 Kh7∞ 0-1 (70) Hillarp Persson, T (2552) – Hebden, M (2496) Oslo 2015
B) 8...Bd7!?
Position after: 8...Bd7!?
B1) 9.h4 c6 10.h5 Rc8 11.hxg6 (11.g4 cxd5 12.cxd5 Nc5 13.f3 b5 14.Nxb5 Bxb5 15.Bxb5 Qa5 16.a4 a6 17.Be2
Qb4 18.Kf1 Bh6!?©; 11.Nb3 cxd5 12.cxd5 Rxc3!? 13.bxc3 Nxe4 14.c4 Nc3 15.Qd2 e4 16.Bb2 e3 17.fxe3 Ne4
18.Qc1 Bxb2 19.Qxb2 Qg5ƒ)
B1.1) 11...fxg6!? 12.Nb3 cxd5 13.exd5 (13.cxd5 Rxc3 14.bxc3 Nxe4³) 13...h5 14.Be3 Bf5∞
B1.2) 11...hxg6 12.Nb3 cxd5 13.exd5!?
B1.2a) 13...b6 14.Bg5 Re8 15.Qd2!ƒ (15.Ne4 Bf5 16.Nbd2 Bxe4 17.Nxe4 Nc5 18.Nxc5 bxc5„ 0-1 (29) Boor,
C (2298) – Fishbein, A (2489) Las Vegas 2015)
B1.2b) 13...Ne8 14.Be3 f5 15.f3 b6 16.Qd2 Qe7∞
B2) 9.Rb1 c5 10.0-0 Ne8 (Or 10...Kh8!?∞ similar to the main idea.) 11.a3 f5 12.exf5 (12.Qc2 Nf6 13.b3 Bh6
14.Re1 Bf4 15.Bd3 Ng4 16.Nf3 Bxc1 17.Rexc1 f4∞ ½-½ (34) Nierobisz, J (2317) – Bohak, J (2216) corr. 2005)
12...gxf5 13.f4 e4 14.Kh1 Nac7 15.Qc2 Nf6 16.b4 b6 17.bxc5 bxc5 18.Nd1 Rb8∞ ½-½ (18) Illescas Cordoba, M
(2600) – Svidler, P (2690) Madrid 1998
9.Rb1 Bd7 10.0-0 c5 11.a3

We reached a closed version of the King’s Indian. The mutual plans seem obvious but not more than that. Actually
finding the correct moves on a board with so many pieces and pawns left, is not easy. It requires deep understanding.
11...Ne8
The main move.

I also like 11...Kh8!?N 12.b4 Ng8 13.Nb5 (13.Nf3 Bh6 14.Bb2!? Qe7∞) 13...Qe7 14.Rb3 Nh6 15.Bb2 f5 16.exf5 gxf5
with unclear play.
12.Nf3!?
12.b4 f5 (12...b6 13.bxc5 Nxc5 14.Nb3 Na4 15.Qe1 Nf6 16.Bd3 Nh5 17.Nxa4 Bxa4 18.Qb4 Qd7 19.Re1 Rac8 20.Bc2
Bxb3 21.Rxb3 f5 22.a4 Nf6∞ ½-½ (70) Ponkratov, P (2584) – Kokarev, D (2635) Moscow 2013)
A) 13.bxc5 Nxc5 14.Nb3 Na4 (14...b6 15.Nxc5 dxc5 16.exf5 gxf5 17.Qd2 Nd6 18.Rd1 f4!? 19.Bd3 Rf6∞ 0-1 (46)
Fiala, J (2425) – Travnik, P (2145) corr. 2000) 15.Nxa4 Bxa4 16.exf5 gxf5 17.Qe1 b6 18.Qb4 Bd7 19.Bb2 f4∞ 0-1
(48) Nikcevic, N (2525) – Damljanovic, B (2540) Niksic 1997
B) 13.Nb3 b6 14.bxc5 dxc5 15.Bb2 Nd6∞ ½-½ (15) Antic, D (2518) – Kovacevic, A (2513) Novi Sad 2000
12...f5!?
Well if Black can play this without the previous ...h6 then he should! Most often every tempo counts.
12...h6 13.g3 Nf6 14.Nh4 Bh3 15.Re1 Qd7 16.Bf1 g5 17.Ng2 was better for White in: 1-0 (31) Hillarp Persson, T
(2546) – Bates, R (2370) London 2012
13.Ng5 Nac7 14.exf5 gxf5 15.g3 Nf6 16.b4 b6 17.bxc5 bxc5 18.Bd2 Qe7 19.Qc2 Rab8∞
Position after: 19...Rab8∞

B) 8.Bg5
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 e5 7.d5 Na6 8.Bg5
This is a direct and more critical reply. Also more in the style of the Petrosian.
8...h6 9.Bh4 g5 10.Bg3 Nh5
This is the traditional way of handling this line. I discovered some new ideas and therefore decided to give it a fresh
treatment. Apart from this move, we also have 10...Nxe4!? which has been played recently by GM Gawain Jones and
that is interesting as well. But for this book’s purpose I sticked to 10...Nh5.
11.h4
This is considered to be the critical approach and against the 7...Nbd7 line as well. Comparing those two is rather
important for the understanding of our general concept.
11.Nd2 Nf4 12.0-0 f5 13.exf5 Nxe2+! 14.Qxe2 Bxf5 15.Nde4 Qe8
Position after: 15...Qe8
A) 16.Rae1 Qg6 17.f3 h5 18.h3 b6 19.Bf2 g4 20.h4 Nc5 21.Kh2 gxf3 22.gxf3 Bd7 23.Nxc5 bxc5 24.Rg1 Qf6 25.Ne4
Qxf3³ 0-1 (56) Ivanov, I (2405) – Domogaev, S (2357) Tula 2006
B) 16.Rfe1 Qg6 17.Qd2 Rf7 18.h3 Bf8 19.c5 dxc5 20.Bxe5 Re8 21.Ng3 Bd3 22.a3 Rfe7 23.f4 c4 24.Nce4 Rf7µ 0-1
(35) Lev, R (2455) – Smirin, I (2555) Ramat Gan 1992
C) 16.f3 Qg6 17.h3 h5 18.Nf2 Nc5 19.Rad1 a5 20.Bh2 g4! 21.fxg4 hxg4 22.hxg4 Bd7© 0-1 (32) Ivanov, I (2472) –
Smirin, I (2677) Los Angeles (blitz) 2000
11...Nf4!?
Position after: 11...Nf4!?
In my opinion this is the most important move. It is very sharp and requires precise play from both sides.
11...g4 12.Nd2 Nxg3 13.fxg3 h5 14.0-0 Bh6 We encounter similar positions as in the 7...Nbd7 line with the obvious
difference being the position of the Knight, bringing both advantages and disadvantages... 15.Bd3 c6!? 16.Kh2
(16.Nb3 Be3+ 17.Kh2 Bf4!–+ 0-1 (48) Ashwath, R (2042) – Ju, E (2197) Chalkidiki 2003) 16...Nc7 17.Qe2 c5
18.Nd1 Ne8 19.Ne3 Bd7 20.Rf2 Qe7 21.Raf1 a6 22.a3 Rb8 23.Nf5 Bxf5 24.Rxf5 Ng7 25.Bc2 b5„
12.hxg5 hxg5
Position after: 12...hxg5
White opened the h-file but Black on the other hand obtained a strong outpost on f4 and ...f5 is coming fast.
13.Kf1!?
Two other moves are also important.

A) 13.Bf1 f5 14.Nd2 Nc5 15.Qc2 c6 16.0-0-0 cxd5 17.cxd5 fxe4 18.Ndxe4 Nxe4 19.Qxe4 Bf5 20.Qb4 a5 21.Qa4
Rc8 22.Qb3 Qc7 23.f3 Qc5 24.Rd2 e4 25.fxe4 Bxe4–+ 0-1 (30) Akvist, H – Westman, J Malmo 1966
B) 13.Qc2 This is the main line against ... Nbd7, White can opt for the same idea. But there are important
differences... 13...f5 14.Bxf4 exf4 15.0-0-0 Nc5 16.Rh5 fxe4 17.Nxg5
Position after: 17.Nxg5
B1) Now originally played is: 17...Bf5

B1.1) 18.Ne6 Qf6!N (18...Nxe6 19.dxe6ƒ ½-½ (27) Mecking, H – Byrne, R Sousse 1967) 19.Nxf8 Rxf8 20.Qd2
e3 21.fxe3 fxe3 22.Qxe3 Bg6 23.Rdh1 Re8 24.Qg5 Rxe2 25.Rh8+ Bxh8 26.Rxh8+ Qxh8 27.Qxg6+ Kf8=
B1.2) 18.Ngxe4!? Bg6 19.Rh3 Qe7 20.f3 Rae8 21.Bd3 Nxd3+ 22.Qxd3 Bxc3 23.Qxc3 Bxe4 24.fxe4 Qe5 25.Re1
Qxc3+ 26.Rxc3 Rf7 27.Rf3 Rg7 28.Rxf4 Rxg2² While we cannot be happy defending such an ending, still it is not
a lost cause.
B2) 17...Qe8!?N A new idea. 18.Rdh1 (18.Ncxe4 Bf5 19.Bf3 Qg6 20.Rdh1 Rfe8µ) 18...Bf5 19.Ne6 Bxe6 20.dxe6
Qxe6 21.f3 Rf5 22.fxe4 (22.Rxf5 Qxf5 23.Nxe4 Qe5 24.Nxc5 dxc5 Black is OK. Strong pressure on b2 combined
with the open e- and d-files.; 22.Nxe4 Rxh5 23.Rxh5 Re8 24.Bd3 c6 25.Kb1 Qg6 26.Rh2 Re5 Black is having
descent counter play.) 22...Rxh5 23.Rxh5 Qg6 24.Bf3 Re8„ Black enjoys good play. In this and all the other lines
given above, the opposite coloured Bishops help Black because his Bishop on g7 is really strong as it combines
defensive and attacking skills.
Position after: 13.Kf1!?
13...Nc5!?
A whole new idea as far as I know.

13...f5 14.Bxf4 exf4 15.Nd4
That is the reason why the Queen remained on d1, to have this move as antidote against a potential ...f5. 15...f3!? My
idea trying to improve some old games: (15...Bxd4 16.Qxd4 Qf6 17.Qxf6 Rxf6 18.Rh5 Rg6 19.Bd3 fxe4 20.Nxe4 Bf5
21.Nf6+ Kg7 22.Bxf5 Rxf6 23.Bc2²; 15...Qf6 16.Nxf5 Bxf5 17.exf5 Nc5 18.Bh5 Qxf5 19.Bg4 Qg6 20.Na4± 1-0
(39) Khenkin, I (2445) – Yurtaev, L (2505) Podolsk 1989)
A) 16.Bxf3 g4 17.Be2 fxe4 18.Nxe4 (18.Ne6 Bxe6 19.dxe6 Qf6 20.Nxe4 Qxe6 21.Bd3 Nc5 22.Nxc5 Rxf2+ 23.Kg1
dxc5=) 18...Qe7 19.Qd3 Nb4 20.Qe3 Bd7 21.a3 Rae8 22.axb4 Qxe4 23.Qxe4 Rxe4 24.Ne6 Bxe6 25.dxe6 Bd4 26.f3
Rxe6 27.c5 d5 28.Rh4 gxf3 29.gxf3 Bxb2 30.Rxa7 Rfe8=
B) 16.gxf3! A strong move. 16...fxe4 17.Nxe4 Nc5 18.Nxc5 dxc5 19.Ne6 Bxe6 20.dxe6 Re8 21.Qc2 Rxe6 22.f4ƒ
14.b4
14.Qc2 f5 15.Bxf4 exf4 16.Nd2 g4„
14...Nd7! 15.Rc1
15.Qc2 Nxe2!? 16.Kxe2 (16.Qxe2 a5 17.b5 f5 18.exf5 Nc5 19.Qe3 Rxf5 20.Nd2 Rf4! 21.Nde4 Nxe4 22.Nxe4 Bf5„)
16...a5 17.a3 axb4 18.axb4 Rxa1 19.Rxa1 f5 20.exf5 Nb6 21.Nd2 Bxf5 22.Nce4 Qe8 23.f3 g4„
15...a5 16.a3 axb4 17.axb4 Re8!

Position after: 17...Re8!
An unusual idea in this line but it seems entirely justified.
18.Qc2 c5 19.dxc6 bxc6 20.Qd2 Nf8 21.Rd1 Nxe2 22.Nxe2 Be6 23.Qd3 Ng6„
Black has excellent chances.

Chapter 11 – The Gligoric variation (5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 e5 7.Be3 exd4 8.Nxd4
Re8 9.f3 c6 10.Bf2 d5 11.exd5 cxd5 12.0-0 Nc6 13.c5)
A) 10.0-0 alternative
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 e5 7.Be3
The Gligoric line is a very important system to prevent the Mar Del Plata set-up, that starts after 7.0-0 Nc6. The idea is
that after 7...Nc6 8.d5 Ne7 9.Nd2! White gets an improved version of the Mar Del Plata, thanks to the dark squared
Bishop already being developed to e3. Of course Black is not that naive and has other resources to handle this line. I
decided to head for the principled 7...exd4 which will take us to very interesting semi-closed positions and a more
positional style of play for which some accurate knowledge about isolated pawns and other themes are required.
7...exd4 8.Nxd4 Re8 9.f3 c6 10.0-0

This is an old line that was considered best for many decades until Black discovered a nice antidote. Still the line
resurfaced recently due to some new developments. An important line for us is the transposition: 7.0-0 exd4 8.Nxd4
Re8 9.f3 c6 10.Be3. Let’s see...
10...d5 11.cxd5 Nxd5 12.Nxd5 cxd5
13.Qb3
13.Rc1 a5!? At first sight this move is difficult to understand. But actually by moving his pawns forward, Black will
keep the ...Nc6! option. Surprisingly this strong idea was introduced by Kramnik who rarely plays the King’s Indian
with Black! This demonstrates a deep understanding of the position by the ex-World Champion.
Position after: 13...a5!?
A) 14.Qb3 a4! 15.Qxd5 Qxd5 16.exd5 a3 17.b3 Nc6! 18.Nc2 Rxe3 19.Nxe3 Nb4 20.Rc4 Nxa2 21.Ra4 Rxa4 22.bxa4
Bd4 23.Kf2 Nb4 24.Rc1 a2–+ 0-1 (27) Gustafsson, J (2629) – Kramnik, V (2799) Dortmund GER 2012
B) 14.Kh1 a4 15.Qd2 Nc6! 16.Nxc6 bxc6 17.Rxc6 dxe4 18.Rd6 Qa5 19.fxe4 Qxd2 20.Rxd2 Be6= ½-½ (50) Mons, L
(2339) – Stellwagen, D (2622) Forchheim 2012
C) 14.a4 Nc6! 15.Nxc6 bxc6 16.Rxc6 dxe4! (16...Bb7 17.Rb6 Rb8 18.Qb3 Bc6 19.Rxb8 Qxb8 20.Bb5 Bxb5 21.axb5
dxe4 22.fxe4² 1-0 (28) Sadilek, P (2248) – Ganaus, H (2331) Austria 2012) 17.fxe4 Qxd1 18.Rxd1 Bxb2=
D) 14.Qa4 dxe4 15.Rcd1 exf3 16.Rxf3 Qe7 17.Bc4 Rf8 18.Bf2 Nd7³
E) 14.Bb5 Bd7!„
F) 14.Rc5 dxe4
F1) 15.fxe4 Na6 16.Rd5 Qe7 17.Bg5 Qb4 18.Bb5 Rf8 19.a3 Qxb2 20.Be7 Nc7 21.Bxf8 Bg4 22.Qd3 Rxf8∞
(22...Bxd4+ 23.Rxd4 Nxb5 24.Rd8+– 1-0 (57) Kanter, E (2408) – Navalgund, N (2219) Dubai 2013)
F2) 15.Bc4 Bxd4 16.Qxd4 Qxd4 17.Bxd4 Nc6 18.fxe4 Be6 19.Bf6 Bxc4 20.Rxc4 Re6 21.Rf4 Rae8= ½-½ (38) Xu
Jun (2510) – Cheparinov, I (2672) Caleta 2014
13...Nc6
The usual choice but GM Mamedov recently tried to use Kramnik’s idea by pushing the a-pawn:
13...a5 14.Bb5 Bd7 15.a4 (15.Qxd5 Bxd4!–+; 15.Rad1 a4 16.Qxd5 Ra5 17.b4 Bxd4 18.bxa5 Bxe3+ 19.Kh1 Qc7
20.Bxd7 Rd8 21.Qd6 Qxd7 22.Qxd7 Rxd7 23.Rd5 Kg7 24.Rb1 Rc7 should be OK for Black.) 15...Nc6 16.Qxd5 Nxd4
17.Qxd7 Qxd7 18.Bxd7 Red8 19.Bh3 Nc2 20.Bb6 Nxa1 21.Bxd8 Bd4+ 22.Kh1 Rxd8 23.Rxa1 Bxb2 24.Rb1 Rd2 ½-½
(48) Fridman, D (2627) – Mamedov, R (2653) Reykjavik 2015 Black is more than fine.
14.Rad1 Nxd4 15.Bxd4 Bxd4+ 16.Rxd4 Qf6!
Position after: 16...Qf6!
This is the key idea that basically discouraged the white players away from this line, as it should lead to a draw.
17.Rd2
The other line is also known to bring nothing.

17.Qxd5 Be6 18.e5 Bxd5 19.exf6 Rxe2 20.Rxd5 Rxb2 21.Rfd1 h6 22.h4 Rb6 23.Rd6 Rc8 24.g4 g5 25.Rxb6 axb6
26.hxg5 hxg5 27.Rb1 Kh7 28.Rxb6 Rc1+ 29.Kf2=
17...Qf4
18.Qc3!
There are other moves implying the winning of a pawn. We always must reckon with this important issue.
A) 18.Rdd1?! Be6 19.exd5 Bxd5 20.Qc2 Bxa2µ 0-1 (39) Protopopova, A (2102) – Martynov, P (2369) St Petersburg
2015
B) 18.Rc2 Be6!
Position after: 18...Be6!

B1) 19.exd5? Bf5!–+ (19...Qd4+ 20.Kh1 Bxd5³ 0-1 (43) Pushkov, N (2404) – Esipenko, A (2120) Sochi 2012)
B2) 19.Qxb7 Qe3+ 20.Kh1 Rab8 21.Qa6 dxe4 22.fxe4 Qxe4³ 0-1 (37) Antova, G (2189) – Obolentseva, A (2084)
Porec 2015
C) 18.Rfd1 dxe4 19.fxe4 Be6 20.Qxb7 Qe3+ 21.Kh1 Bxa2 22.Bf3 Be6 23.Qa6 Rab8 24.Qa3 Rb3 25.Qd6 Qg5
26.Qd4 a5 27.Rc1 Rb4 28.Qd6 Rxb2 29.Rcd1 Rxd2 30.Rxd2 Qe3 31.h3 Bxh3 0-1 (31) Wahrenberg, R – Lampe, D
(2295) Hamburg 1997
D) 18.Qxd5 After 18...Qe3+!
Position after: 18...Qe3+!
The white Rook is diverted to the passive f2-square which in my opinion, gives Black good play. 19.Rf2 Be6 20.Qd3
(Another idea is : 20.Qd4 Qxd4 21.Rxd4 Bxa2 22.Rd7 Rab8 23.Bb5 Re5 24.Bf1 Bb3 25.Rc7 a5 26.Rd2 b5 27.Rd4 g5
28.g3 b4 29.Bc4 Bxc4 30.Rcxc4 Rb6 31.b3 Kg7= ½-½ (34) Yevseev, D (2554) – Kotronias, V (2626) Reggio Emilia
2005) 20...Qb6 21.b3 (21.Qb5 Qe3 22.Qd3 Qb6 23.Qb5 Qe3 24.Rd3 Qc1+ 25.Rf1 Qc4 26.a4 Qxb5 27.axb5 Bc4
28.Rd2 Bxe2 29.Rxe2 Re5= ½-½ (29) Gustafsson, J (2606) – Kotronias, V (2614) Kemer 2007) 21...Red8 22.Qc2 Rxd2
23.Qxd2 a5 and it seems that Black is OK in all cases. 24.f4 (24.Bc4 Bxc4 25.bxc4 Rd8 26.Qe2 Qc5 27.g3 Rd4³;
24.Bd1 Rd8 25.Qc1 a4 26.bxa4 Bxa2 27.g3 Be6„) 24...Rd8 25.Bd3 (25.Qe1 a4 26.bxa4 Qe3 27.f5 Bc4 28.Qf1
Bxa2©) 25...Qd4 26.f5 Bxb3 27.f6 Qxd3 28.Qh6 Qd1+ 29.Rf1 Qd4+ 30.Rf2 Qd1+=
18...Be6
When analysing this line, I first considered it would be easy but then I realised that some old games were a bit
underrated. So I imagined I had to be more careful about this line.
18...dxe4!? 19.fxe4!
Position after: 19.fxe4!
That would be my improvement over an old game. (19.Rd4 Qg5 20.Bc4 Be6 21.Bxe6 Rxe6 22.Rxe4 Rxe4 23.fxe4 Qe7³
0-1 (64) Epishin, V (2620) – Fishbein, A (2465) New York 1991) 19...Qxe4 20.Bb5 Rf8 21.Re2 Qd5 22.Bc4!? White
enjoys a lot of compensation and pressure here. Black has a difficult task ahead. (22.Rxf7 Rxf7 23.Re8+ Rf8 24.Bc4
Rxe8 25.Bxd5+ Be6 26.Qe5 Bxd5 27.Qxd5+ Kh8 28.Qxb7 a5 29.h3 h5=) 22...Qd8 23.Re3!? (23.Qf6 Qxf6 24.Rxf6
Kg7 25.Rf4 Be6=) 23...b5 24.Bb3 (24.Bxb5 Be6 25.Bc4 Bxc4 26.Qxc4 Qb6=) 24...Rb8 25.h4 Bg4 26.Rf4 h5 27.Qc5
Rc8 28.Qe7 Bf5∞
19.g3 Qd6
19...Qh6 20.e5 d4 21.Rxd4 Rac8 22.Qd2 Qf8 (22...Qxd2 23.Rxd2 Red8 24.Rxd8+ Rxd8 25.Rd1 Rxd1+ 26.Bxd1 Bxa2
27.Kf2² f6 28.Ke3! Kf7 29.Kd4 Ke6 30.exf6²) 23.f4² 1-0 (58) Rombaldoni, A (2539) – Kozul, Z (2617) Reykjavik
2015
20.Qd4 Qe7 21.Bb5 Red8 22.e5
Position after: 22.e5
At first sight this position seems balanced and probably it is. Still some precision is mandatory!
22...Rac8 23.Rfd1
23.Bd3 Qc5=
23...Qc5 24.Ba4 Qxd4+ 25.Rxd4 Kg7 26.Bb3 f6 27.f4 Rc5 28.Kf2 a5 29.Ke3 Bf7=
B) 13...Bf8
14.Kh1
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 e5 7.Be3 exd4 8.Nxd4 Re8 9.f3 c6 10.Bf2
This is the main line, White tries to get an advantage.
10...d5 11.exd5 cxd5 12.0-0 Nc6 13.c5 Bf8
Position after: 13...Bf8
We first examine this ultra modern approach which appeared only recently. Black is putting pressure on the c5-pawn
and by doing so, he is trying to get a Nxc6-...bxc6 structure. Those are all positionally basic tabias and we will see that
White also has his trumps.
14.Kh1
White has other options too.

A) 14.Nxc6 bxc6 15.b4 Nh5 16.g3 Ng7 17.Re1 Ne6 18.Qd2 Bd7 19.Rad1 Qf6 20.Kg2 a5 21.Na4 Ng5 22.h4 Rxe2!
23.hxg5 Rxd2 24.gxf6 Rxf2+ 25.Kxf2 axb4 0-1 (49) Goriatchkin, J (2300) – Nezad, H (2422) Caleta 2016 Black is
much better.
B) 14.Nb3 a6 15.Na4 Nh5 16.Qd2 Qf6 17.Rfe1 Be6 18.Bf1 Rad8 with an unclear position.
14...Bd7
15.Qd2
There are a variety of ideas for White.

A) 15.Re1 Rc8 16.Nb3 d4 17.Nb5 (17.Nxd4 Bxc5 18.Ne6 Bxe6 19.Bxc5 Qa5 20.Bf2 a6 21.Bf1 Red8= ½-½ (39)
Sandström, L (2232) – Johansson, B (2290) corr. 2011) 17...Be6 18.N5xd4 Nxd4 19.Qxd4 Bxb3 20.axb3 Bxc5
21.Qxd8= ½-½ (21) Gajic, S – Hoehne, V corr. 2013
B) 15.Rc1 Rc8 16.Ndb5 Bf5 17.Na4 d4 18.Nxd4 Nxd4 19.Bxd4 Rxe2 20.Bxf6 Qxd1 21.Rfxd1 Bc2³ ½-½ (56) Van
Wely, L (2654) – Cheparinov, I (2682) Dubai UAE 2014
C) 15.a3 Nh5 16.Qd2 Nxd4 17.Bxd4 Bc6!? (17...Qh4 18.Bf2 Qf4 19.Rfd1 Bc6 20.Bf1 Rad8 21.Nb5 a6 22.Nd4 Bd7
23.Qxf4 Nxf4 24.g3 Nh3 25.Bxh3 Bxh3³ ½-½ (35) Sjugirov, S (2635) – Svidler, P (2749) Moscow 2012) 18.Rad1
Now Black has two interesting continuations. (18.f4 Ng7 19.Bg4 h5 20.Bf3 Nf5 21.Be5 d4³; 18.b4 Qh4 19.Bf2 Qf4
20.Rfd1 Bg7 21.Bd4 Qxd2 22.Rxd2 Nf4 23.Bf1 a6 24.Rad1 h5 25.Bxg7 Kxg7 26.g3 Re3ƒ)
Position after: 18.Rad1
C1) 18...Ng7 19.Bf2 Nf5 20.Bd3 Bh6 21.f4 d4 (21...Ng7 is also possible.) 22.Bxf5 dxc3 23.Qxc3 Qc7 24.Bd3 Bg7
25.Bd4 Bxd4 26.Qxd4 Rad8 27.Qf2 Rd5!© ½-½ (54) Volkov, S (2593) – Ju Wenjun (2521) Dubai 2013
C2) 18...Qh4 19.Bf2 Qf4 20.Qc2 (20.g3 Qxd2 21.Rxd2 Bh6 22.Rdd1 Rad8 23.Kg1 Ng7 24.b4 a6∞ ½-½ (32)
Keitsch, U – Doroshenko, A corr. 2014) 20...Qg5 21.Rfe1 Rad8 (21...Nf4 22.Bf1 a6 23.Ne2 Rxe2 24.Rxe2 Nxe2
25.Bxe2 Bg7∞ ½-½ (27) Wukits, R – Moza, M corr. 2014) 22.b4 Nf4 23.Bf1 Rxe1 24.Bxe1 d4 25.Ne4 Qf5 26.Bg3
Nd5!?N (26...Bg7 27.b5 Bd5 28.Qd2 Ne6 29.Nd6 Qh5 30.Qa5 Be5 31.Bxe5 Qxe5 32.Re1 Qg5∞ 1-0 (57) Zhao
Xue (2549) – Melamed, T (2356) Istanbul 2012) 27.Rxd4 Ne3 28.Qd3 Rxd4 29.Qxd4 Nxf1 30.Nf6+ Kg7=
D) 15.Rb1
Position after: 15.Rb1
D1) 15...a5 16.a3 Nh5
D1.1) 17.Qd2 Nxd4! (17...a4 18.f4 Nf6 19.Rbd1 Qc8 20.f5 Bxf5 21.Nxf5 Qxf5 22.Bh4 Ne4 23.Qe1 Qe5
24.Rxd5ƒ 0-1 (49) Kovacs, A – Hoehne, V corr. 2014) 18.Bxd4 Bc6 19.b4 axb4 20.axb4 Qh4 21.Bf2 Qf4µ
D1.2) 17.Bb5!? Rc8 18.Nxd5 (18.Nde2 d4 19.Na4 Bf5 20.Ra1 d3 21.Nec3 Nf4 22.g4 Be6 23.Bg3 Qd4∞ 1-0 (40)
Dale, A (2228) – Wiersma, E (2320) Wijk aan Zee 2014) 18...Nxd4 19.Bxd7 Qxd7 20.Nb6 Qf5 21.Nxc8 Ne2
22.Nd6 Nhg3+ 23.Bxg3 Nxg3+ 24.hxg3 Qh5+ 25.Kg1 Qxc5+ 26.Rf2 Bxd6 27.f4 Qb6 28.b4 axb4 29.axb4
Bxb4©
D2) 15...Nh5 16.Qd2 (16.g3 Nxd4 17.Bxd4 Bc6 18.b4 b6 19.Rf2 bxc5 20.bxc5 Ng7 21.Bb5 Rc8 22.Rd2 Ne6
23.Bg1 d4 24.Ne4 Bxb5 25.Rxb5 a6„ ½-½ (30) Ilken, Z – Schulz, G corr. 2014) 16...Nxd4 17.Bxd4 Bc6 18.b4
Qh4 19.Bf2 Qf4 20.Rfd1 Bg7 21.Bd4 Bxd4 22.Qxd4 Re3 23.Rbc1 Ba4!? 24.Rd2 Qh6 25.Kg1 Ng7 26.g3 Bc6
27.b5 Ne6 28.Qh4 Qxh4 29.gxh4 d4!„ ½-½ (35) Angelov, R (2291) – Kurtenkov, A corr. 2011
15...Rc8
Black is putting extra pressure on the c5-pawn. The next alternative backfired.
15...Nh5 16.Rad1 Nxd4 17.Bxd4 Rc8 18.f4 Qh4 19.Bxh5 Qxh5 20.f5ƒ 1-0 (22) Volkov, S (2589) – Valles, M (2390)
Beirut 2015
16.Nxc6
Critical.
A) 16.Nc2 d4! (16...Be6 17.Bb5 a6 18.Bxc6 bxc6 19.Na4 Nd7 20.Rac1 Bg7 21.Nd4² ½-½ (38) Guramishvili, S
(2395) – Lomineishvili, M (2366) Anaklia GEO 2012) 17.Nxd4 (17.Bxd4 Nxd4 18.Qxd4 Bxc5³) 17...Bxc5 is equal
and was just played in the game ½-½ (38) Inarkiev, E (2732) – Radjabov, T (2722) Monzon ESP 2016.
B) 16.Nb3 d4! 17.Bxd4 Nxd4 18.Qxd4 Be6 19.c6 bxc6 20.Qxa7 Nd5ƒ
16...bxc6 17.Rfe1
Position after: 17.Rfe1
17.b4 a5 18.a3 Rb8 19.Na4 axb4 20.axb4 Bf5 21.Nb6 Nd7 22.Ra6 Nxb6 23.Rxb6 Rxb6 24.cxb6 d4!= ½-½ (32)
Gustafsson, J (2611) – Vouldis, A (2539) Aghia Pelagia 2004
17...Nh5
The alternative is also interesting.

17...Rb8!? 18.Bd3 Qa5 19.a3 Rxe1+ 20.Rxe1 Ne8 21.Qc1 Qd8 22.b4 a5 23.Qf4 (23.Bg3 axb4 24.Bxb8 Qxb8 25.Na4
Qa7 26.Nb6 bxa3 27.Nxd7 Qxd7 28.Qxa3 Ng7©) 23...Ng7 24.b5 Ne6 25.Rxe6!? Bxe6 26.b6 Qc8 27.Ba6 Qxa6
28.Qxb8 Qf1+ 29.Bg1 Bh3!= ½-½ (51) Contos, V – Neagu, L corr. 2012
18.Ba6!? Rxe1+ 19.Rxe1 Rb8 20.Ne2 Be7!?

Position after: 20...Be7!?
Black must find good counter play on the dark squares, otherwise he will remain somewhat passive.
20...Qf6 21.Bd4 Qh4 22.g3 Bh6 23.Qc3² 1-0 (37) Volkov, S (2589) – L’Ami, A (2371) Malatya 2015
21.b4 Bg5 22.Qc3 Bf6
22...Bh4 is not precise as after 23.g3 Bf6 24.Bd4 Bxd4 25.Nxd4 the move g3 happens to be very useful: 25...Ng7 26.a4
Qf6 27.f4 Re8 28.Rxe8+ Bxe8 29.Qe3²
23.Bd4
23.Nd4 Ng7 24.a4 Ne6 25.g3 h5 26.Kg2 h4 27.Qd2 Bg5 28.f4 Bf6∞
23...Bxd4 24.Nxd4 Qf6 25.a4 Nf4 26.Qd2 Ne6 27.Nxe6 Bxe6 28.b5 Bd7=
Position after: 28...Bd7=
Black has enough play to equalise.

14.Bb5
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 e5 7.Be3 exd4 8.Nxd4 Re8 9.f3 c6 10.Bf2 d5 11.exd5 cxd5
12.0-0 Nc6 13.c5 Bf8 14.Bb5
Putting pressure on c6 is the positional idea. Although earlier considered as critical, nowadays it has been neutralized.
But it remains an important idea.
14...Bd7 15.Bxc6
Instead of exchanging Knights on c6, White changes his white Bishop for that Knight, maintaining his own strong
Knight on d4. The down side: it provides Black the bishop pair. Of course there are alternatives.
A) 15.Nde2 a6 16.Ba4 Qa5 17.b4 Nxb4 18.Bxd7 Nxd7 19.a3 Nc6 20.Qxd5 Nxc5 0-1 (20) Kretchetov, A (2306) –
Ortiz, E (2272) Anaheim 2012
B) 15.Nb3
B1) 15...Ne5 16.Bxd7 Qxd7

B1.1) 17.Qd4 Bg7 (17...Qc6 18.Rad1 Nc4 19.Nxd5 Nxd5 20.Qxd5 Nxb2 21.Qxc6 bxc6 22.Rd2 Bg7 23.Rd6 a5©
½-½ (31) Petrov, M – Sikorsky, R corr. 2015) 18.Rad1 Nc4 19.Nxd5 Qxd5 20.Qxd5 Nxd5 21.Rxd5 Bxb2 22.Rd7
b6 23.Re1 Rxe1+ 24.Bxe1 bxc5 25.Nxc5 Nb6 26.Rd3= Vazquez Igarza, R (2572) – Nakamura, H (2787) Gibraltar
2016
B1.2) 17.Bh4 d4 18.Bxf6 dxc3 19.Qxd7 Nxd7 20.Bxc3 Nxc5= ½-½ (20) Volkov, S (2633) – Horvath, J (2531)
Civitanova Marche 2012
B2) 15...a6 16.Ba4 Ne5 (16...Re5!? 17.Qd2 Rh5 18.Rad1 Bh6 19.Be3 Qc7 20.g3 Bxe3+ 21.Qxe3 Re8 22.Qf2 Bh3
23.Rfe1 Rxe1+ 24.Rxe1 Ne5„ 1-0 (32) Gavrilov, A (2486) – Sychev, K (2258) Moscow 2011) 17.Bxd7 Qxd7
18.Qd4 Bg7 19.Rad1 Nc6 20.Qd2 Rad8 21.Nd4 Bf8 ½-½ (21) Dedina, M – Stepaniec, L corr. 2014
15...bxc6 16.b4
We arrived at a typical position for this line or even for other lines like 13...Nh5. White successfully blocked the d-pawn
and has strong outposts for his Knights. On the other hand Black obtained good development and the bishop pair. But
first Black has to find a better square for his f6-Knight.
16...a5
Other ideas have been used as well, for example:

16...Nh5 17.Qd2 (17.Rb1 Qg5 18.Nce2 a5 19.a3 axb4 20.axb4 Ra2 21.Qc1 Qf6 22.Rb2 Bh6 23.Qb1 Ra3 24.Rb3 Raa8
25.Qc2∞ 1-0 (52) Hobusch, A (2034) – Zelbel, P (2246) Willingen 2008) 17...Qf6 18.g3 Ng7 19.Rfe1 (19.Kg2 Nf5
20.Nxf5 Qxf5 21.g4 Qf6 22.Bd4 Bh6 23.f4 Qh4 24.h3 a5 25.bxa5 Rxa5„ 0-1 (30) Panjwani, R (2409) – Zhou, Y
(2469) Purley 2013) 19...Ne6 20.f4 Bg7 21.Nce2 Nxd4 22.Nxd4 Re4„ ½-½ (25) Draganic, V (2328) – Djukic, N
(2543) Pljevlja 2015
17.a3
17...Nh5
Also possible is:

17...axb4 18.axb4 Rxa1 19.Qxa1 Nh5 20.Re1 Rxe1+ 21.Qxe1 Nf4 22.Qd2 Qf6 23.Nce2
A) 23...Nxe2+ 24.Nxe2 Qa1+ 25.Qe1 Qa2! (25...Qa3 26.Bd4 Qd3 27.Kf2 Bc8 28.Qc3² 1-0 (51) Iotov, V (2553) –
Illescas Cordoba, M (2618) Tromso 2014) 26.Bd4 Bh6 27.Nc3 Qd2=
B) 23...Bh6! 24.Nxf4 (24.Be3 Nxe2+ 25.Nxe2 Bxe3+ 26.Qxe3 Qb2³) 24...Bxf4 25.Be3 Be5„
18.Qd2 Qf6 19.Nce2 Ng7

Position after: 19...Ng7
Now we realize that Black’s plan involves fighting over the d4 square and simultaneously exchanging the active pieces
of White.
20.Rae1
20.Rfc1 Ne6 21.Rab1∞ ½-½ (21) Wukits, R – Ulasevich, S corr. 2014
20...axb4
As a matter of taste, I am more inclined to keep a Rook on an active file rather then using it attacking a pawn on b4.
But after 20...Rab8 21.Nc1 axb4 22.axb4 Ra8 23.Rxe8 Rxe8 24.Ncb3 Ne6 25.Nxe6 fxe6 26.f4 e5 27.fxe5 Qxe5 28.Nd4
Bg7 29.Re1 Qb8 30.Rxe8+ Qxe8= Black didn’t face any particular problems. ½-½ (46) Postny, E (2651) – Van
Kampen, R (2638) Tromso 2014
21.axb4 Ne6 22.Nxe6 Rxe6 23.Bd4 Qh4 24.g3 Bh6!„

Position after: 24...Bh6!„
Black has great counter play.
C) 13...Nh5 14.Qd2 Be5 15.g3 Ng7

16.Rfe1
12.0-0 Nc6 13.c5 Nh5
For many decades this was considered the main line of the ‘...exd4’ idea. It remained that way and appears Black has
very good chances to obtain more than just an interesting position.
14.Qd2 Be5 15.g3 Ng7
As we already discussed in a previous line this is about the pressure on d4.
16.Rfe1
Position after: 16.Rfe1
This has never been considered dangerous for Black, but it is used occasionally.
16...Ne6 17.Nxe6
17.Ndb5 Ng5 18.Qxd5 Nh3+ 19.Kg2 Nxf2 20.Kxf2 a6 21.f4 axb5!? (21...Qxd5 22.Nxd5 Bxb2 23.Rab1± ½-½ (77)
Lev, R (2390) – Burgess, G (2335) London 1990) 22.Qxd8 Rxd8 23.fxe5 Rd2 24.b3 b4 25.Ne4 Rdxa2µ
17...Bxe6 18.f4
18.Bb5 is also possible: 18...Bg7!? (18...Qf6 19.f4 Bxc3 20.bxc3 Bf5 21.Qxd5 Qxc3 22.Qb3 Qf6∞ 0-1 (32) Smolen, J
(2327) – Skoberne, J (2440) Szeged 2007) 19.Bxc6 bxc6 20.Ne2 (20.Bd4 Bxd4+ 21.Qxd4 a5 22.Na4 Ra7! 23.Nb6
Rae7 24.Qf6 Bh3 25.Rxe7 Rxe7³) 20...Qf6 (20...a5 21.Bd4 Bd7 22.Bxg7 Kxg7 23.Nd4 a4 24.Qc3 Kg8 with
aproximate equality.) 21.Nd4 Bh3 22.g4 h6 23.b4 a6∞
18...Bxc3 19.bxc3
19.Qxc3 d4 20.Qa3 Qd7 21.Rad1 a5 22.Bb5 Bf5³ 0-1 (27) Hunger, H – Bochev, K corr. 2014
19...Bf5
20.Rad1
Again here White has some options but none of them are promising.
A) 20.Qb2 Qd7 21.Bf3 Be4 22.Bxe4 Rxe4 23.Rad1 Qe7 24.Kf1 Rd8 25.Qb3 Na5 26.Qb1 Nc4 27.Kg2 Re8 28.Rxe4
dxe4 29.Qb4 e3 30.Qxc4 exf2 31.Kxf2 Qe3+ 32.Kg2 Qe2+ 33.Qxe2 Rxe2+ 34.Kh3 Rxa2 35.Rb1 Rc2 36.Rxb7 Rxc3
37.Rxa7 ½-½ (37) El Debs, F (2512) – Jatoba de Oliveira Reis, P (2387) Joao Pessoa 2015
B) 20.Bd3 Be4 21.Rab1 (21.Qc2 Qe7 22.Rad1 Rad8∞) 21...Re7 22.Rb5 Rc8 23.Reb1 Bxd3 24.Qxd3 Rcc7 25.R5b2
Rcd7 26.Re2 Rxe2 27.Qxe2 d4 ½-½ (27) Ufimtsev, A – Zelinsky, Y corr. 1991
C) 20.c4 dxc4 21.Qxd8 Raxd8 22.Bxc4 Re4 23.Rxe4 ½-½ (23) Fressinet, L (2664) – Todorov, T (2507) France 2009
20...Be4
The alternative 20...Qa5 21.c4 Qxd2 22.Rxd2 dxc4 23.Bxc4 Rxe1+ 24.Bxe1 is OK too. ½-½ (24) Kantsler, B (2495) –
Avrukh, B (2520) Tel Aviv 1997 24...Rd8=
21.c4 dxc4
21...d4 22.Bxd4 Nxd4 23.Qxd4 Qa5 24.Bf1 Bc6 25.Rxe8+ (25.Qf2 Rxe1 26.Rxe1 Rd8 27.f5 Rd2 28.Re2 Rxe2 29.Qxe2
Qxc5+ 30.Qf2 ½-½ (30) Portisch, L – Barczay, L Budapest 1970) 25...Rxe8 26.Qf2 Qc3 27.f5 gxf5 28.Qxf5 Qe3+
29.Qf2 Qxf2+ 30.Kxf2 Re5= 1-0 (70) Volkov, S (2614) – Kalegin, E (2467) St Petersburg 2011
22.Qb2 Bd3 23.Qxb7 Qd5

24.Bf1!
24.Bg4 Rxe1+ (24...Red8 25.Qb2 Nd4 26.Re5 Nf3+ 27.Bxf3 Qxf3 28.Rde1 Rab8∞ ½-½ (79) Volkov, S (2614) –
Kovalev, V (2452) St Petersburg 2011) 25.Rxe1 Rb8 26.Qd7 Be4³
24...Reb8 25.Qc7 Nd4 26.Bg2 Nf3+ 27.Bxf3 Qxf3 28.Qe5 Qh5! 29.Qxh5 gxh5=
We reached an equal endgame.

16.Bb5
12.0-0 Nc6 13.c5 Nh5 14.Qd2 Be5 15.g3 Ng7 16.Bb5
Of course White can use the same idea as in the ...Bf8 line.
16...Bd7 17.Bxc6
The main idea for White. Again there are some other moves as well but they don’t represent a serious test to Black.
A) 17.Rfe1 Nxd4 18.Bxd4 Bxd4+ 19.Qxd4 Bxb5 20.Nxb5
Position after: 20.Nxb5
Black wants to achieve following: exchanging pieces as much as possible and heading for a Knight versus Knight
ending. In that case the d5-pawn is of equal importance as the c5-pawn and the black Knight on f5 or e6 will be a
good piece which compensates the possible d6 outpost. 20...Rxe1+ 21.Rxe1 Ne6 Some similar ideas occured in the
next games. (21...Qa5 22.Nc3 Ne6 23.Qxd5 Qxc5+ 24.Qxc5 Nxc5 25.Re7 Rc8 ½-½ (25) Prohaszka, P (2511) –
Skoberne, J (2471) Rogaska Slatina 2009) 22.Qc3 Also here: (22.Qf2 Qa5 23.Nc3 Qxc5= ½-½ (23) Nickoloff, B
(2420) – Lesiege, A (2375) Canada 1992) 22...d4 23.Qc4 Qf6 24.Qd5 Rd8 25.Nd6 d3ƒ ½-½ (52) Scalcione, M
(2276) – Manca, F (2424) Palermo 2007
B) 17.Rfd1 Nxd4 18.Bxd4 Bxd4+ 19.Qxd4 Bxb5 20.Nxb5 Re2!? Tactical precison. (20...Nf5 21.Qf2 Qa5 22.Nc3 d4
23.Ne4∞ 1-0 (36) Bhat, V (2536) – Gonzalez Perez, A (2403) Collado Villalba 2010) 21.Nc3 Ne6 22.Qxd5 Qxd5
23.Rxd5 Rxb2³
C) 17.Rad1 Nxd4 18.Bxd4 Bxd4+ 19.Qxd4 Bxb5 20.Nxb5 Nf5 21.Qxd5 Qxd5 22.Rxd5 Ne3³ 0-1 (25) Rojicek, V
(2426) – Nguyen Dinh Phong (2192) Kouty and Desnou 2010
D) Retreating the Knight will allow d4 as we noticed in following examples. 17.Nde2 d4! 18.Ne4 Nf5 19.Rad1 Bg7
20.Bxc6 Bxc6 21.Nxd4 transposes to 17.Nb3.
E) 17.Nb3 d4 18.Ne4 Nf5 19.Rad1 Bg7 20.Bxc6 Bxc6 21.Nxd4 Bxd4= ½-½ (21) Dilleigh, S (2147) – Snape, I
(2219) Hinckley Island 2008
17...bxc6
18.b4
18.Rfe1 Qa5 (18...Nf5 19.Nxf5 Bxf5 20.Bd4 Qc7 21.Bxe5 Rxe5 22.Rxe5 Qxe5 23.Re1 Qf6 24.Ne2 Re8 25.Rc1 h5
26.Nd4 h4„ 0-1 (44) Sasikiran, K (2525) – Konguvel, P (2436) Nagpur 1999) 19.Nb3
A) 19...Qc7 20.f4 Bf6 21.Bd4 Bxd4+ 22.Nxd4 Rab8 (22...a5 23.Na4) 23.b4 Ne6 24.Rac1∞ 1-0 (44) Arnold, M (2482)
– Lee, A (2256) Freemont 2012
B) 19...Qa6!? 20.f4 Bf6 21.Bd4 Bxd4+ 22.Nxd4 Qc4!„
18...Rb8!
Position after: 18...Rb8!
19.a3
Or:
A) 19.b5 cxb5 20.Nxd5 Be6 21.Nb4 Rc8 22.Rad1 Bxd4 23.Qxd4 Qxd4 24.Bxd4 a5–+
B) 19.Rfe1 Rxb4 20.Nxd5 Rc4!µ
19...Nf5 20.Nce2
20.Rfe1 Qf6 21.Nce2 Re7∞
20...Nxd4 21.Bxd4 Qf6 22.Kg2 Re7 23.Rfe1 Rbe8∞
With balanced play, sounds like the correct evaluation.

16.Rfd1
12.0-0 Nc6 13.c5 Nh5 14.Qd2 Be5 15.g3 Ng7 16.Rfd1
This was considered to be the critical line against the entire 7...exd4 set-up. But now it seems that Black managed to
generate counter play.
16...Bf5!?
Position after: 16...Bf5!?
With the idea to control the e4-square, and later on we will see why.
17.Ndb5
Other moves are also critical:

A) 17.Rac1 Bxd4 18.Bxd4 Ne6 19.Bf2 d4 20.Nb5 Qd5 21.g4 Bxg4 22.fxg4 Ng5 23.Rc3 Qe5 24.Nxd4 Nxd4
25.Bxd4 Qxe2 26.Qxe2 Rxe2 27.Re3 Rc2 28.Bc3 Ne6= ½-½ (45) Szabo, D – Kunz, H corr. 2014
B) 17.Bb5 As usual this is an important motif. Only this time Black has an extra option.
B1) 17...Bd7 18.Nb3 Be6!? (18...Ne7 19.Bxd7 Qxd7 20.Nxd5² 1-0 (38) Wang Yue (2697) – Vovk, A (2551)
Hastings 2012) 19.Rac1 Nf5 20.Nxd5 Bxd5 21.Qxd5 Qf6=
B2) 17...Bxd4!? 18.Bxd4 Ne6 19.Ne2 Nexd4 20.Nxd4 Nxd4 21.Qxd4 Bd7 22.Bf1 Bc6 23.b4 Qd7=
C) 17.g4 Although White has this possibility we know that pawns can’t move backwards, as Steinitz stated! Always
be careful playing such moves. 17...Be6 White now has two options.
C1) 18.f4 Bxd4 19.Bxd4 Qe7 (19...Nxd4 20.Qxd4 Rc8 21.b4 b6 22.cxb6 axb6 23.Rac1 h5 24.h3 hxg4 25.hxg4
Qh4= Black got descent play due to the exposed white King. ½-½ (25) De Blois Figueredo, A (2399) – Hiltunen, R
(2377) ICCF 2012 26.Qf2 Qf6 27.Nxd5 Bxd5 28.Rxc8 Rxc8 29.Rxd5 Rc2©) 20.Bf3 Nxd4 21.Qxd4 Rac8 22.Qf2
(22.b4 b6 23.cxb6 axb6∞) 22...Rxc5 23.Rd4 Rc4 And Black is fine. Now we can see that 17.g4 is helping Black. ½-
½ (40) Avotins, M (2446) – Kolek, P (2393) corr. 2011
C2) 18.Ndb5 f5!? The alternative is also good. It didn’t bring White anything and a repetition of moves can be
expected. (18...a6 19.Nd6 Bxd6 20.cxd6 Qxd6 21.Ne4 Qe7 22.Bc5 Qh4 23.Bf2 Qe7 24.Bc5 ½-½ (24) Vazquez
Igarza, R (2571) – Vovk, A (2567) La Massana 2013) 19.f4 Bxc3 20.bxc3 fxg4 21.Nd6 Rf8 22.Rab1 Rb8 23.Rxb7
Rxb7 24.Nxb7 Qf6 25.Nd6 Nh5∞ With a complicated game.
D) 17.Nxf5 Nxf5„
17...d4!
No Ne4 now!
18.Nxd4
18.Ne4 Bxe4 19.fxe4 Ne6µ
18...Bxd4 19.Bxd4 Bc2!
Position after: 19...Bc2!

A key tactical idea.
20.Bf6
20.Qxc2 Nxd4 21.Qa4 Nxe2+ 22.Nxe2 Qg5 23.Nd4 Qxc5³ ½-½ (34) Kovalyov, A (2636) – Van Kampen, R (2636)
Montreal 2014
20...Qxf6 21.Qxc2 Nd4 22.Ne4 Qe5 23.Qc4 Nge6 24.Re1 b5 25.cxb6 Rac8 26.Qb4 Ng5ƒ
Position after: 26...Ng5ƒ
Black has sufficient counter play.

Chapter 12 – Main classical variation (5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 e5 7.0-0 exd4
8.Nxd4 Re8 9.f3) with 9...c6 10.Kh1 Nbd7
A) 11. -- sidelines
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 e5 7.0-0
For over decades this line is for certain White’s most popular choice. Usually 7...Nc6 or 7...Nbd7 or even the modern
7...Na6 are the main lines in many King’s Indian books, and this is not without a reason. They are the most popular but
also the most demanding lines in terms of ideas, either strategical or tactical. Needless to say that all those lines have
been extensively analysed from White and Black’s perspective by the best players in the world, today as well as in the
past. Probably the Big Four: Boleslavsky, Bronstein, Gligoric and Fischer, joined later by Kasparov and Nunn, were
very keen KI’s devotees and they indeed developed many interesting ideas. In many tournaments they employed the KI
with great success. However in this book my aim is to focus on lines that are not topical, but from time to time climed
on the stage. I find them rather interesting and especially it is challenging to make these creative lines work.
7...exd4 8.Nxd4 Re8 9.f3

Position after: 9.f3
This is going to be the main topic and I divided them in two parts: 9...Nc6 and 9...c6.
9...c6
This is the old line and it never gained a lot of followers. Still from time to time it enjoyed some burst in popularity.
10.Kh1
Moving the King away from the g1-a7 diagonal is the main idea. Anticipating a potential break in the centre. The main
point of this useful waiting move is that in case of 10...d5 11.cxd5 cxd5 White would play 12.Bg5! as in the famous old
game Tal – Spassky Montreal 1979.
The alternative 10.Nc2 Na6 is known to bring nothing to White. 11.Be3 d5!
12.cxd5 cxd5 13.Bb5 (13.exd5 Nb4 14.Nxb4 Rxe3 15.Nc2 Re8 16.Kh1 a6 17.Qd2 Qd6 18.Rad1 b5 19.Bd3 Bb7©)
13...Bd7 14.Bxd7 Qxd7 15.exd5 Nc7 16.d6 Nb5 17.Nxb5 Qxb5 18.a4 Qd7 19.Qd2 Re6 20.Rfd1 Bf8 21.Bc5 Rd8
22.Nd4 Re5 23.Bxa7 Bxd6 24.Bb6 Bc5! 25.Bxc5 Rxc5 26.Ra3 Rd5 27.Rd3 Qxa4³ ½-½ (30) Marconi, R (2073) –
Shields, G (2294) corr. 2012
10...Nbd7
10...d5?! 11.cxd5 cxd5 12.Bg5! dxe4 13.fxe4 Nbd7 14.Ndb5± 1-0 (32) Tal, M (2615) – Spassky, B (2640) Montreal
1979
11.Rb1
Position after: 11.Rb1
This line appeared after 11.Bg5 Qb6 gained a big boast, and it was even claimed that White couldn’t achieve much in
that line, so alternatives were needed.
11.Nc2 Qe7!? 12.Bg5 h6 13.Be3 (13.Bh4 Nc5 14.Ne3 a5 15.Qc2 g5 16.Bf2 Nh5 17.Rfe1 Be5 18.Bd3 Qf6 19.Nf5
Nxd3 20.Qxd3 Nf4 21.Qc2 Be6 22.Ne3 h5„ 0-1 (50) Wirig, A (2510) – Vaisser, A (2536) Caen 2011) 13...Nh5!?
(13...Nb6 14.Qd2² 1-0 (49) Furman, S – Nezhmetdinov, R Kiev 1957) 14.Qd2 Qh4 (14...Be5 15.f4 Bxc3 16.Qxc3
Ndf6) 15.Bf2 Qg5 16.Rfd1 (16.Qxd6 Bxc3 17.bxc3 Nf4µ) 16...Be5 17.Bf1 Qxd2 18.Rxd2 Ng7 19.Be3 Kh7 20.Rad1
Nc5 21.Bd4 Bf4 22.Be3 Be5=
11...d5!?
Position after: 11...d5!?
Consequent play.
12.exd5
12.cxd5 cxd5
A) 13.Ndb5 Nf8!? (13...Nb6 14.Bf4 Re7 15.exd5 Nfxd5 16.Nxd5 Nxd5 17.Nc7 Rd7 18.Nxd5 Rxd5 19.Qb3 Bf5= ½-
½ (40) Rao, V (2420) – Schoonmaker, N Philadelphia 1993) 14.Bf4 (14.Bg5 a6 15.Na3 d4 16.Nd5 Be6„) 14...Ne6
15.Be5 d4 16.Bxf6 Bxf6 17.Nd5 Bg7 18.Rc1 Rf8 19.f4 a6 20.Nbc7 Nxc7 21.Nxc7 Rb8 22.e5 Bf5 23.Bf3 Rc8
24.Nd5 Rxc1 25.Qxc1 f6 26.exf6 Bxf6 27.Nxf6+ (27.Qc4 Be6=) 27...Qxf6 28.Bxb7 Qd6©
B) 13.Bg5 dxe4 (13...h6 14.Bh4 Nb6 15.Qb3 dxe4 16.Rbd1 e3 17.Bb5 Bd7 18.Rfe1 Qe7 19.Bxd7 Nbxd7 20.Ndb5)
14.fxe4 h6 (14...Qa5?! 15.Ndb5± 1-0 (58) Van der Stricht, G (2295) – Rechner, K (2050) Gent 1996) 15.Bh4
(15.Bxf6 Nxf6 16.Bc4 Bg4 17.Qb3 Qxd4 18.Bxf7+ Kh7 19.Bxe8 Rxe8 black is fine) 15...Nc5 16.Ndb5 g5 17.Qxd8
Rxd8 18.Nc7 Rb8 19.Bf2 b6 20.e5 Nfe4 21.Bxc5 Nxc5 22.N7d5 Kf8=
12...cxd5 13.Ndb5
Position after: 13.Ndb5
13...a6!?
13...dxc4 14.Bf4 Nh5 15.Bc7 Qf6 16.Nd6± 0-1 (40) Schlinkert, K (2136) – Bakhmatov, E (2340) Berlin 2008
14.Nd6 Re6 15.Nxc8 d4! 16.Qxd4 Ne4 17.Qd3 Nxc3 18.bxc3 Rxc8
Position after: 18...Rxc8
Though a pawn down Black has obvious compensation thanks to his harmonious development. Also white’s pawns on
the c-file are vulnerable and the Bishop on e2 is rather passive.
19.f4 Nc5 20.Qxd8+
A) 20.Qc2 Qe7 21.Bg4 f5 22.Bf3 Ne4 23.Qb3 Nf2+! 24.Kg1 Qc5=

B) 20.Qf3 Qe7 21.Bd1 Re1 22.Bd2 Rxf1+ 23.Qxf1 Rd8©
20...Rxd8 21.Bf3 Rd7 22.Bd5 Re2 23.Ba3 Ne4 24.Bxb7 Nxc3 25.Rb3 Rxa2=
B) 11.Be3
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 e5 7.0-0 exd4 8.Nxd4 Re8 9.f3 c6 10.Kh1 Nbd7 11.Be3
11...a6
This is important for the assessment of this line.

It seems that 11...d5 is not an equaliser: 12.cxd5 Nxd5
Position after: 12...Nxd5
A) 13.exd5 Rxe3 14.dxc6 Nf8!? (14...Nb6 15.Nc2 Qxd1 16.Rfxd1 Re8 17.Bb5±) 15.Nc2 Qxd1 16.Rfxd1 (16.cxb7
Bxb7 17.Rfxd1 Re7 18.Bf1 Rb8 19.Rab1 h5©) 16...Re7 17.Nd4 bxc6 18.Nxc6 Rb7 19.Rab1 Bxc3 20.bxc3 Rc7
21.Rd6 Be6! 22.a3 (22.Rb2 Rac8 23.Bb5 Rb7 24.Rb1 Kg7 25.a4 Rbc7 26.Rbd1 a6 27.Bxa6 Rxc6 28.Bxc8 Rxc8 29.a5
Rxc3 30.Ra1 Rc7 31.a6 Ra7=) 22...Bf5 23.Rbd1 Re8 24.Bf1 Re3 25.Rc1 Bd7 26.Nb8 Bf5=
B) 13.Nxd5!? cxd5 14.Nb5
This is critical for the assessment of 11...d5.

B1) 14...dxe4 15.Nd6 Rf8 (15...Re7?! 16.fxe4 Qa5 17.Rc1 Qd8 18.Nxf7 Rxf7 19.Bc4 Kh8 20.Rxf7 Qe8 21.Bd4
Ne5 22.Bxe5 Bxe5 23.Qd5 Bg7 24.Rcf1 Bg4 25.Rxg7 Kxg7 26.Rf7+ Kh6 27.Qd2+ g5 28.Qd6+ 1-0 (28) De
Verdier, M (2300) – Schutz, I (2218) Sweden 2009) 16.Nxf7! Rxf7 17.Bc4 Qe8 18.Bxf7+ Qxf7 19.fxe4 Qe8
(19...Qe6 20.Bd4 b6 21.Bxg7 Kxg7 22.Rc1 Ba6 23.Rc7 Rd8 24.Qd4+±) 20.Qd5+ Kh8 21.Rac1 Nb6 22.Qd2 Be6
23.Bd4 (23.Rc7 Qb5∞) 23...Qe7 24.b3 Rc8 25.Bxg7+ Kxg7 26.Qa5 Rxc1 27.Rxc1 Nd7 28.Qxa7 Qb4 29.Qe3ƒ
Black has a playable position but it is obvious that White has the initiative.
B2) 14...Nb6 This move equalised in the following game, but I am not sure of its merit. The b6 square is rarely a
good one for the Knight in the King’s Indian. 15.Rc1!? (15.Bd4 Bxd4 16.Qxd4 a6 17.Nc3 dxe4 18.Qxd8 ½-½ (18)
Bruno, F (2436) – Bove, A (2302) Amantea 2014) 15...Bxb2 16.Rc2 Be5 17.f4 Bb8 18.e5 Bf5 19.Rd2 Be6 20.a4©
12.Nc2
12.Qd2?! d5 13.cxd5 cxd5 14.Bg5 dxe4 15.fxe4 Nc5 16.Bc4 Be6³
12...Ne5 13.f4 Neg4 14.Bg1 h5 15.Bf3 Be6 16.Qd3!?
Position after: 16.Qd3!?
16.b3 Qa5 17.Qe1 Bf5 18.Nd4 (18.h3 Qd8! 19.hxg4 hxg4³) 18...Qd8! 19.Rd1 Bxe4 20.Nxe4 Nxe4 21.Bxe4 d5
22.Qb4 dxe4 23.Nf5 Qf6 24.Nxg7 Qxg7 25.h3 Nh6 26.Rfe1 Nf5µ 0-1 (48) Oliveira, M-Rook, D corr. 2014
16...Qe7
16...b5 This is considered best but I am not fully convinced. I analysed another option that is more interesting.
A) 17.cxb5 axb5 18.Rfd1 d5 19.Qf1!? (19.e5 Nd7 20.Nd4 Ngxe5 21.fxe5 Nxe5 22.Qc2 Bd7 23.a3 c5 24.Bxd5ƒ ½-½
(40) Galje, H – Cumming, D corr. 2014) 19...Qb8!? (19...Qc7 20.e5 Nd7 21.Nb4 Bf8 22.Nxc6 Qxc6 23.Nxd5± ½-½
(60) Mende, I – Cumming, D corr. 2014) 20.e5 b4 21.Ne2 (21.exf6 bxc3 22.fxg7 cxb2 23.Rab1 Bf5 24.Rd2 Qxf4
25.Rd4 Qe5 26.Rxb2 c5µ) 21...Nd7 22.Ned4 Ndxe5 23.fxe5 Nxe5 24.Be2 Bd7 25.Nb3² This is rather difficult to
assess but I guess White should obtain somewhat the better chances.
B) 17.Rfd1 Bh6 18.cxb5
B1) 18...Bxf4 19.Qf1! Be5 20.bxc6 Bxc3 21.bxc3 Ne5 22.Bd4± (22.Qf2 Rc8∞ 1-0 (61) Malin, D – Garau, B corr.
2014)
B2) 18...axb5 19.Qxd6 Qxd6 20.Rxd6 Bxf4 21.Rxc6 Be5 22.h3 Bxc3 23.Rxc3 Ne5 24.Bd4 Nxf3 25.gxf3 Nd7 26.h4
Rxa2 27.Rxa2 Bxa2 28.b3 Ra8 29.Nb4 Though we entered an advanced endgame sequence, Black needs to defend a
very difficult position.
17.h3 Nd7! 18.b3
A) 18.hxg4?! hxg4 19.Be2 Bxc4!∞

B) 18.Rad1 Rad8 19.Qxd6 (19.Nd4 Nde5„) 19...Qh4! 20.Qb4 Bf8©
18...Rad8 19.Rad1
19.Bd4 Nde5∞
19...Nc5 20.Qd2 f5∞
Again with a highly complex game.
C) 11.Bf4
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 e5 7.0-0 exd4 8.Nxd4 Re8 9.f3 c6 10.Kh1 Nbd7 11.Bf4
This move is now considered dangerous as White demonstrated some interesting ways in handling this line...
11...Nh5 12.Bxd6
White can also choose to decline the pawn sacrifice.

12.Be3 Now Black has at least two interesting recently played moves at his disposal. 12...f5 (12...Nc5 13.Qd2 Qh4
14.Bf2 Qe7 15.Rfd1 Be5 16.Bf1 a5 17.g3 a4 18.Rac1 Ng7 19.Re1 Nge6 20.Rcd1 a3 21.b3 Nxd4 22.Bxd4 Ne6 23.Ne2
Nxd4 24.Nxd4 h5„ ½-½ (46) Stigar, P (2213) – Hansen, T (2470) Norway 2015) 13.Qd2 f4 14.Bf2 Be5 15.Rad1
Ng3+!N (In fact 15...a5 was played by GM Dlugy but the proposed move is stronger.) 16.Bxg3 fxg3 17.f4 Qh4 18.Nf3
Qxf4 19.Nxe5 Qxd2 20.Rxd2 Nxe5 21.hxg3 Be6³
12...Qf6
13.Nb3
13.Nc2 This is another way of handling the pawn sac but in my opinion 13.Nb3 is the best idea. 13...Nf4
A) 14.Bxf4 Qxf4 15.g3 Qh6 16.Qc1 Qxc1 17.Raxc1 f5 18.Rfe1 (18.Rce1 Nc5 19.Nd1 a5 20.Kg2 fxe4 21.fxe4 Be6µ
0-1 (37) Flear, G (2460) – Matveeva, S (2310) Oakham 1988) 18...Nc5 19.exf5 Bxf5 20.Bf1 Bxc3 21.bxc3 Rxe1
22.Nxe1 Rd8 23.g4 Be6³ ½-½ (111) Aupov, D (2349) – Kokarev, D (2469) Kazan 2001
B) 14.Rf2 Ne5 15.Bf1 Nfd3 16.Bxd3 Qxd6 17.Be2 Qc5 18.Qf1 Be6 19.f4 Nxc4∞ ½-½ (23) Rohrmueller, U (2229) –
Schmidt, P (2385) Bayern 2004
C) 14.Rb1 Ne5 15.c5 Be6 16.Ne3 b5 17.a3 a5 18.Rf2 Qg5 19.Bf1 b4 20.Na4 Nh3© 0-1 (40) Trmal, J (2286) –
Michalek, J (2320) Czechia 2009
D) 14.c5 Nxc5 15.e5 (15.Bxc5 Qg5 16.g3 Nxe2 17.Be3 Nxc3 18.bxc3 Qe7³ 0-1 (41) Premnath, R (2260) – Kokarev,
D (2612) Mumbai 2010)
Position after: 15.e5
D1) 15...Qg5 16.g3 Bh3 17.Bxc5 Rad8 (17...Qxe5 18.gxf4 Qxc5 19.Ne4 Qf5 20.Rf2 Qxf4; 17...Nxe2 18.Qxe2
Bxf1 19.Rxf1 Qxe5 20.Qf2 Qf5 21.Ne4 b6 22.Bd4 Rad8∞) 18.Ne4 Qf5 19.Nd4 Bg2+ 20.Kg1 Nxe2+ 21.Kxg2
Nxd4 22.Bxd4 (22.Nd6 Rxd6µ 0-1 (28) Karolyi, T (2450) – Watson, W (2500) Kecskemet 1988) 22...Rxe5 23.Bxe5
Rxd1 24.Raxd1 Bxe5∞
D2) 15...Rxe5!?N An interesting alternative giving Black some nice play and an extra pawn. 16.Bxe5 Qxe5 17.Qd8+
Bf8 18.Qd2 Bf5 19.Rfe1 Qc7 20.Red1 (20.Rad1 Ncd3 21.Bxd3 Nxd3 22.Rf1 Nxb2µ) 20...Bg7 21.Bf1 Re8 22.Ne1
h5 23.g3 Nfe6 24.Rac1 a5©
13...Nf4 14.c5 a5
15.Bxf4
15.a4 Ne5
A) 16.g3 Nxe2 17.Qxe2 Bh3 18.Rf2 Be6 19.Nd2 Nd7 20.f4 Qd4 21.Nf3 Qb4 22.e5 Nxc5 (22...f6 23.Re1 g5?
24.Qe3+– 1-0 (35) Petran, P (2410) – Borge, N (2340) Gyor 1990) 23.Ng5 Bf8„
B) 16.Qc2 Be6 17.Nd4 Bf8 18.Nxe6 Qxe6 19.Rfd1 (In case of the other rook move: 19.Rad1 Rad8 20.g3 Nxe2
21.Qxe2 Bxd6 22.cxd6 f6 23.f4 Nc4 24.e5 Nxd6 25.Rxd6 Rxd6 26.exd6 Qxe2 27.Nxe2 Rxe2 28.Rd1 Re8 29.g4 Kf7
30.f5 gxf5 31.gxf5 Rd8 32.b3 Ke8=) 19...Rad8 20.Bf1 Bxd6 21.cxd6 g5 22.g3 Nfg6 23.Qf2 Rxd6 24.Be2 Rxd1+
25.Rxd1 Qb3 26.Qe3 Qxb2 27.Rb1 Qa3 28.Rxb7 h6∞ Black is OK. ½-½ (54) Biel, I – Johansen, A corr. 2014
15...Qxf4 16.Na4
Position after: 16.Na4
At first I was thinking that Black has difficulties in finding counter play but after some time I discovered some new
ideas to handle this position.
16...Qc7
Probably correct play as the alternative doesn’t really help.

16...Qb8
A) 17.Qc2 b5 18.cxb6 Nxb6 19.Nbc5 (19.Qxc6! Re6µ) 19...Nxa4 20.Nxa4 Be5 21.g3 Bh3 22.Rg1 Qa7 with
compensation for the pawn.
B) 17.Nd2! b5 18.cxb6 Nxb6 19.Nxb6 Qxb6 20.Nc4 Qb4 21.a3 Qe7 22.Qc2 Be6 23.Rae1 Qc5 24.b3 (24.f4 Rad8
25.f5ƒ) 24...Rad8 25.f4±
17.Qc2
Although White has a few sensible choices here this is probably best.
A) 17.Rc1 Be5!?N Taking advantage of the opportunity to seize control of this important diagonal. 18.g3 b5 19.cxb6
Nxb6 20.Bb5 (20.Nxb6 Qxb6©; 20.Nbc5 Bh3 21.Rg1 Rad8 22.Qc2 Nxa4 23.Nxa4 Qa7 24.Bf1 Be6 25.Re1 Rd4
26.b3 Red8 27.Rg2 Bd6!∞) 20...Rd8 21.Rxc6 (21.Qe2 Nxa4 22.Bxa4 Ba6µ; 21.Qc2? cxb5–+) 21...Rxd1 22.Rxd1
Qa7 23.Nxb6 Bh3∞
B) 17.Nd2 Be5! 18.g3 (18.Bc4 Nf6 19.g3 Bh3 20.Rg1 Rad8! This is a key difference between ...Qc7 and ...Qb8 on
move 16. 21.Qe2 Nh5©) 18...Rd8 19.f4 Bd4 20.Rc1 b5 21.cxb6 Nxb6 22.Nxb6 Qxb6 23.Nc4 Qc7 24.Qc2 c5 25.Bf3
a4 26.e5 Rb8 27.Qxa4 Bxb2 28.Rc2 Bh3 29.Re1 Bd4©
17...b5
17...Be5 simply doesn’t work now due to: 18.Bc4! which is an excellent reaction and gives Black a hard time to obtain
sufficient compensation. 18...Bxh2 19.f4 Bg3 20.Qc3 Bh4 21.Nd2ƒ
18.cxb6 Nxb6
Position after: 18...Nxb6
Now White has various possibilities but the black Bishop pair and the open files for the Rooks give Black enough play
in reaching an equal game.
19.Bb5
A) 19.Nbc5 Nxa4 20.Nxa4 Be5 21.g3 Bh3 22.Rg1 Rad8! 23.Bc4 Qa7 24.Qe2 Rd7 25.Rad1 Red8 26.Bb3 Rxd1
27.Rxd1 Rxd1+ 28.Bxd1 Qd4©
B) 19.Nxb6 Qxb6 20.Rab1 Be6 21.Bc4 Bxc4 22.Qxc4 Red8 23.Rfc1 a4 24.Nc5 Rd4 25.Qe2 Rad8ƒ
19...Be6 20.Rac1
20.Qxc6 Qxc6 21.Bxc6 Nxa4 22.Bxa4 Rec8 23.Rac1 (23.Rab1 Rc4 24.Bb5 Rb4 25.Bc6 Rc8 26.Bd5 Bxd5 27.exd5 Rb5
28.d6 a4 29.d7 Rd8 30.Nd2 Rxd7 31.Nc4 Rb4 32.b3 axb3 33.axb3 Rd3=) 23...Bxb2=
20...Rab8!?
Position after: 20...Rab8!?
Now some interesting complications are arising, but it seems that Black can neutralize them all.
20...Qb8 21.Nxb6 Qxb6 22.Ba4! poses some problems.
21.Qxc6
21.Qf2!? Nxa4 22.Bxa4 Qd6! 23.Qc5 (23.f4 Qb4 24.Bxc6 Rec8 25.e5 Bf8©) 23...Red8 24.Rc2 Bxb3 25.Bxb3 Qxc5
26.Rxc5 a4 27.Bxa4 Rxb2 28.Rxc6 Rdd2 29.Rc8+ Bf8 30.Rg1 Rxa2 31.Bb3 Rab2 32.Bd5 Rdc2 33.Rxc2 Rxc2 34.Ra1
Ba3=
21...Qxc6 22.Bxc6 Nxa4 23.Bxa4 Bxb2
23...Red8!? is also possible. Black should reach a 3 versus 4 ending.
24.Bxe8 Bxc1 25.Rxc1
25.Bxf7+ Bxf7 26.Rxc1 (26.Nxc1 Rb1 27.Kg1 Bc4!©) 26...a4 27.Nd4 Bxa2©
25...Bxb3 26.axb3 Rxe8 27.Rc5
27.g4 Rb8 28.Rc3 Rb5 29.h4 f5„
27...Rb8 28.Rxa5 Rxb3 29.h4 h5
Black should hold an easy draw.
D) 11.Bg5
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 e5 7.0-0 exd4 8.Nxd4 Re8 9.f3 c6 10.Kh1 Nbd7 11.Bg5
The main line of a system which for many decades has been considered best for White.
11...Qb6
I must mention that this move was frequently played and extensively analysed by my fellow country man Mozetic. He
introduced many important novelties in this line.
12.Nb3
12.Na4 Qa5 13.Bd2 Qc7 14.Be1 Nh5!? (14...a6 15.Rc1 c5 16.Nc2 Ne5 17.Nc3 Bd7 18.Qd2 Rad8 19.Bh4 Bc6 20.Rfd1
b5?!± 0-1 (37) Ruzele, D (2495) – Siepelt, H (2360) Berlin 1994)
12...a5
13.Qd2
Some alternatives are also of importance, and enjoyed a brief popularity for a while:
A) Taking a pawn is possible but gives nothing to White: 13.Qxd6 a4 14.c5 Qb4 15.Qd4 Qxd4 16.Nxd4 Nxc5 Black
is fine.
B) 13.Rb1 a4 14.Na1 Nh5!?
Position after: 14...Nh5!?

15.Bd2 (Taking the pawn is not dangerous for Black. 15.Qxd6 a3 16.Qd2 axb2 17.Rxb2 Qa5 18.Rc1 Be5 19.Bf1 Qc7
20.g3 Nc5 21.Be3 Rd8 22.Qe1 Nd3 23.Bxd3 Rxd3 24.Nb3 Qd7 25.Rd2 Rxd2 26.Bxd2 Qh3© Black has nice counter
play.) 15...Nc5 16.Be3 Qc7 17.Qd2 Be5 18.Nc2 Qe7 19.Bg5 f6 20.Be3 f5 21.Bd4 Bf4 22.Be3 Be5= ½-½ (22)
Hefka, V (2525) – Rusyanovsky, O (2516) corr. 1999
C) 13.Na4 Qb4 14.Nc1
C1) The alternative is connected with a queen sacrifice. But I have to admit it is not my cup of tea: 14...Nc5 15.Nd3
Qxa4 16.b3 Nxb3 17.axb3 Qxa1 18.Qxa1 Nxe4 19.Qc1 Nxg5 20.Qxg5 Rxe2 21.Qd8+ Bf8 22.Nf2 It is possible
that Black can survive here but I wouldn’t deny White having some winning chances.
C2) 14...d5 15.Nd3
C2.1) 15...Qe7 16.cxd5 cxd5 17.Nf2!?
This new idea is a serious test for Black. (17.e5 Nxe5 18.Nb6 Rb8 19.Nxd5 Qd8 20.N3f4 Nc6 21.Rc1 h6
22.Nxf6+ Bxf6 23.Qxd8 Bxd8= ½-½ (28) Olafsson, H (2547) – Baklan, V (2619) Reykjavik 2012) 17...h6 18.Bh4
dxe4 (18...Qf8 19.exd5 Nxd5 20.Qxd5 Rxe2 21.Ne4 g5 22.Be1! White is clearly better.) 19.Nxe4 Qf8 20.Nec3
White has easy play.
C2.2) 15...Qf8!?
This is a possible improvement. 16.cxd5 cxd5
C2.2a) 17.e5 Nxe5 18.Nb6 Nxd3 19.Bxd3 (19.Nxa8 Nxb2 20.Qd2 Nc4 21.Bxc4 dxc4 22.Nc7 Re5 23.Bxf6
Bxf6 24.Rae1 b5 25.Rxe5 Bxe5 26.Nxb5 Qc5 27.Nc3 Bf5 28.Rc1 Bd3©) 19...Ra7 20.Rc1 Be6 21.Be3 Qb4
22.Bc5 Qf4 With a strange position that is not easy to asses.
C2.2b) 17.Bxf6 Bxf6 18.exd5 b5 19.Nc3 Bxc3 20.bxc3 Nf6 21.Nf2 Qc5„ 22.Qd3 (22.a4 bxa4 23.c4 Bd7
24.Ra2!? Rab8 25.Qa1 Rb6„) 22...Bf5 23.Qxb5 Qxc3 24.Rac1 Qd2 25.Bc4 Rec8„
13...a4 14.Be3 Qd8 15.Nd4 Nc5 16.Rfd1 Nfd7

Position after: 16...Nfd7
This is the real start of the line. Black is preparing ...Be5 from where the Bishop would control the board.
17.Bf1
The alternative is very important as it leaves White the option to put a Bishop on f3 at an appropriate moment...
17.Rab1 Now Black has two reasonable choices:
A) 17...Qa5!? This move has been played in correspondence games only and might even have my preference. White
has a few options now. 18.b3 (18.Nc2 Be5 19.Bd4 Ne6 20.Bxe5 dxe5 21.b4 axb3 22.axb3 Qc7 23.b4 Rd8 24.Qe3
Ndf8 25.c5 Nf4 26.Bf1 Be6 27.Rxd8 Rxd8= ½-½ (47) Killer, O – Watson, R corr. 2012) 18...axb3 19.axb3 Qb4
20.Qc2 Nf8 21.Bf1 Nfe6 22.Nde2 Ra3 23.Nb5 Rxb3 24.Rxb3 Qxb3 25.Qxb3 Nxb3 26.Nxd6 Rd8 27.Bb6 Rd7 28.f4
Nbc5 29.e5 Bf8 (29...Ne4 30.Ng3 Nxd6 31.exd6 Bd4 32.f5 Bxb6 33.fxe6 fxe6 34.Ne4 Kg7 35.c5² ½-½ (45)
Murlasits, M – Kreutz, J corr. 2014) 30.Nc3 Bxd6 31.exd6 Kg7 32.g3 f5 33.Kg2 Kf6 34.Kf2=
B) 17...Be5
B1) To get some understanding of this line please examine the following example: 18.b4 axb3 19.axb3 Qh4 20.f4
Bg7 21.Bf3 Nf6 22.Bf2 (22.Qc2 Bg4³) 22...Qh6 23.Re1 Ng4 24.Bxg4 Bxg4 25.b4 Nd7 0-1 (39) Ligterink, G
(2435) – Mozetic, D (2580) Tilburg 1993 Black has the initiative.
B2) 18.f4!? Today this is considered a critical attempt as it gains a tempo. 18...Bg7 19.Bf3
B2.1) 19...Qe7 20.Re1 (20.Nde2 f5 21.Qxd6 fxe4 22.Qxe7 Rxe7 23.Bg4 Nd3∞; 20.Bg1 h5 21.h3 Nb6 22.b4 axb3
23.axb3 Bg4!?„) 20...Qf8 21.b4 axb3 22.axb3 Ra3 23.b4 Nb6?! 24.bxc5 Nxc4 25.Qd3 Nxe3 26.Qxe3 dxc5
27.Nde2± ½-½ (50) Fier, A (2571) – Bologan, V (2693) Moscow 2011
B2.2) 19...Qa5!? 20.Nde2
Position after: 20.Nde2
B2.2a) 20...Qb4 21.a3 (21.Qxd6 Qxc4 22.e5 Bf8 23.Qd2²) 21...Qxc4 22.Qxd6 Bf8 23.Qd2 Nb3 24.Qe1 Bg7
25.e5 Nxe5 26.fxe5 Bf5 27.Bf4 Bxe5 28.Bxe5 Rxe5µ
B2.2b) 20...Nf6 21.Ng3 Be6 22.Bxc5 (22.Qxd6 Bf8 23.Qd2 Red8 24.Qe2 Qb4 25.e5 Bxc4 26.Qc2 Nd5
27.Nxd5 Bxd5 28.Bxd5 Rxd5 29.a3 Qb3 30.Qxb3 axb3 31.Rxd5 cxd5³) 22...Qxc5 23.Qxd6 Qxd6 24.Rxd6
Bxc4 25.e5 Nd5 26.Nxd5 Bxa2!„
17...Be5 18.Rab1 Qa5
Of course transpositions to the 17.Rab1 line are possible.
19.Nc2!?
That is a typical idea, but others are also relevant.

A) 19.Qc2 Qb4 20.Ncb5 Qa5 21.Nc3 Qb4 22.Nce2 Nf8 23.Qc1 Nfe6 24.Nc2 Qa5 25.Ng3 Nf8 26.Nd4 Qc7 27.b4
axb3 28.axb3 Nfe6∞ A complicated position typical for the King’s Indian structure. ½-½ (42) Khalifman, A (2610) –
Kokarev, D (2603) Dagomys 2009
B) 19.g3 h5 20.Bf4 Qd8 21.b4 axb3 22.axb3 Qe7 23.Bg5 Bf6 24.Bxf6 Qxf6 25.Kg2 Ne5 26.b4 Ne6 27.Be2 Nxd4
28.Qxd4 g5 29.Qe3 Kg7 30.Kh1 Ra3∞ And again Black was able to get counter play. ½-½ (54) Heide, E – Gullotto,
V corr. 2014
C) 19.b4 axb3 20.axb3 Qb4 21.Qc1 Qa3 22.Qc2 Qb4 23.Nce2 Na6!? (23...Ne6 24.Nxe6 Rxe6 25.Nf4² ½-½ (42)
Dimitrov, T – Stoyanoff, L corr. 2013) 24.Ra1 Qb6 25.Nf5 c5 26.Nh6+ Kg7 27.Nc3 Nf6 28.Bg5 Nb4 29.Qd2 Rxa1
30.Rxa1 Nc6„
D) 19.Bf2 Nf8 20.b4 axb3 21.axb3 Qb4 22.Be1 Nfe6 23.Nc2 Qb6 24.b4 (24.Bf2?! Bxc3 25.Qxc3 Nxe4³ 1-0 (62)
Bosiocic, M (2573) – Cvitan, O (2501) Split 2011) 24...Na4 25.Nxa4 Rxa4 26.Bf2 Qc7=
19...Nf8!
Position after: 19...Nf8!
With among others the ...f5 idea!
20.Bd4 Nfe6 21.Bxe5
In case White decides to avoid exchanging the Bishops on the e5-square:

21.Bf2 Ng7! 22.Bd4 Qc7 23.b4 axb3 24.axb3 Nce6 25.Bxe5 (25.Bf2 f5!„) 25...dxe5 26.b4 Rd8 27.Qf2 Rxd1 28.Rxd1
Nf8 29.c5 Be6 30.Rd6 b5=
21...dxe5 22.b4 axb3 23.axb3 Rd8 24.Qe3 Rxd1 25.Nxd1 Qd8 26.b4 Nd4 27.Nxd4 exd4 28.Qd2 Ne6 29.c5 b6„
Position after: 29...b6„
Black has counter play before White’s Knight can arrive at the desired c4-square.
Chapter 13 – Main classical variation (5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 e5 7.0-0 exd4
8.Nxd4 Re8 9.f3) with 9...Nc6 10.Be3 Nh5
A) 10. -- alternatives, 11.Nxc6
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 e5 7.0-0 exd4 8.Nxd4 Re8 9.f3 Nc6
The Russian grandmaster Glek was responsible for the development of this line. Later, some other GM’s picked it up
and made it more than playable.
10.Be3
A) The other way of handling is to exchange on c6 with 10.Nxc6 bxc6 11.Bg5 h6 12.Bh4
Position after: 12.Bh4
A1) 12...c5
A1.1) 13.Rb1 a5 14.Re1 Bd7 15.Bf1 g5 16.Bf2 Nh7 17.Nd5 Be6 18.Qd2 Nf8 19.Re3 Ng6∞ 0-1 (50) Gyorkos, L
(2428) – Dombai, I (2226) Hungary 2003
A1.2) 13.Qd2 Nxe4! 14.Bxd8 Nxd2 15.Rfd1 Rxd8µ 0-1 (30) Schmidt, T (1995) – Kistella, R (2280) Duesseldorf
1995
A1.3) 13.Re1 Bd7 14.Bf1 Rb8∞ ½-½ (14) Kozakov, M (2445) – Kobylkin, E (2466) Alushta 2004
A1.4) 13.f4!? Qd7 14.e5 dxe5 15.fxe5 Qxd1 16.Raxd1 Ng4 17.Bf3 Rb8 18.Bc6 Rf8 19.Be7ƒ
A2) 12...g5 13.Bf2 c5 14.Qc2 Rb8 15.Rad1 Nd7 16.Rfe1 Bb7 17.b3 Bc6 18.Bf1 Qf6!? (18...Be5 19.Ne2 a5 20.Ng3
a4 21.Nf5 Qf6 22.Rb1 axb3 23.axb3 Nf8 24.Red1 Ne6∞ 0-1 (66) Lieb, H (2286) – Dyballa, M (2371) Germany
2001) 19.Nb5 Rb7 20.Re3 Qb2∞
B) In case of 10.Nc2 best is 10...Nh5 which can transpose after 11.Be3 to the main line analysed here. Alternatively
11.g4 brings nothing after 11...Be5! (11...Nf6!? is also possible.) 12.gxh5 Bxh2+ followed by ...Qh4 and Black
secures the draw.
10...Nh5 11.Nxc6 bxc6 12.Qd2 c5!?

Position after: 12...c5!?
In some other books Shirov is named as the author of this continuation. The principle idea is to stabilise the centre and
by doing so Black secures control without worries of a potential ‘c5’ move by White.
13.Rad1
A) 13.Rfd1 Bb7 14.Rab1 (14.Bf1 Qe7 15.Re1 Be5 16.Rac1 Rab8 17.b3∞ ½-½ (71) Zambor, N (2439) – Sokolov, V
(2454) corr. 2008) 14...a5 15.b3 (15.Bd3 Be5 16.Bc2 Bc6 17.Bg5 Qb8 18.Bd3 Nf6 19.Qe1 Qa7 20.Kh1 Rab8
21.Nb5 Qb6 22.Bf1 Nd7=) 15...Bc6 16.Nd5 Bb7= ½-½ (16) Belak, J (2055) – Hlinka, V (2180) corr. 1998
B) 13.g4 Nf6 14.Bg5 Bb7 15.Qf4 Re5!∞
13...Bb7
Position after: 13...Bb7
14.Nd5
Pushing away the Knight from h5, and gaining space in the meantime, is another approach.
14.g4 Nf6 15.Bg5 Qc8 16.Kg2 Rb8 17.h3 Nd7 18.b3 a5 19.Rfe1 Ra8 20.Rb1 Bd4 21.a3 c6 22.Bd3 Nf8 23.Ne2 Bh8
24.Bf4 Rd8 25.Be3 Qc7 26.Nf4 Qe7 27.Rg1 Nd7∞ With yet again another highly complicated position.
14...a5 15.b3 Nf6 16.Bg5 Re5 17.Nc3

17...Qc8
Other moves are possible as well:

A) 17...Qd7 18.Kh1 Bc6 19.Rfe1 a4„
B) 17...Qb8 18.Kh1 Qa7 19.Rb1 Rb8 20.a3 Bc6 21.Rfd1 Ree8 22.Nb5 Qb7 23.Nc3 Qc8 24.Bd3 Nd7 25.a4 Ra8∞ As
we see both sides are trying to relocate their pieces to better squares. While both have it difficult to make a
breakthrough which of course is not easy without a pawn break. ½-½ (32) Sciarretta, R – Nichols, S corr. 2011
18.Rb1
18.Rfe1 Re8 19.Bd3 Nd7 20.Rb1 Ne5∞ ½-½ (45) Susla, V – Szczepanski, Z corr. 2013
18...Nd7 19.Bh6
19.Nd5 Qb8 20.Be3 Re8 21.Kh1 Nb6 22.Nc3 Qd8 23.Rfd1 Be5 24.Nb5 Bc6∞ ½-½ (45) Moya Quintero, M –
Panyushkin, B corr. 2014
19...Bxh6 20.Qxh6 Qf8 21.Qd2 Re7=
Position after: 21...Re7=
In the Nxc6 lines we often encounter this kind of positions.
B) 11.f4
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 e5 7.0-0 exd4 8.Nxd4 Re8 9.f3 Nc6 10.Be3 Nh5 11.f4
This is a thematic and good reaction. Black needs to be careful how he handles this position.
11...Nf6 12.Bf3 Ng4
My preferred move although the alternative is fine as well.

12...Bg4
A) 13.Bxg4 Nxg4 14.Qxg4 Nxd4 15.f5 Nxf5 16.Bg5 Bd4+ 17.Kh1 Ne3 18.Qh4 (18.Bxe3 Bxe3 19.Qh3 Bd4
20.Rxf7 Kxf7 21.Qxh7+ Ke6 22.Rf1 Rf8 23.Qh3+ Ke5 24.Qg3+ Ke6=) 18...f6 19.Bxf6 (19.Rxf6 Bxf6 20.Bxf6 Qd7
21.Bd4 Ng4 22.Nd5 Rxe4µ) 19...Bxf6µ ½-½ (21) Ivanisevic, I (2540) – Balogh, T (2390) Zagan 1997
B) 13.Nxc6 Bxf3 14.Qxf3 bxc6
White has a couple of ideas here:

B1) 15.Bf2 Qc8 16.Rad1 (16.Rae1 Qg4 17.Bg3 Qxf3 18.Rxf3 Re6 19.f5 Ree8 20.e5 dxe5 21.Rxe5 Ng4³ 0-1 (71)
Chernuschevich, A (2380) – Blehm, P (2395) Poznan 1996; 16.h3 Qe6 17.Rfe1 Qxc4³ 0-1 (34) Nikolaevsky, Y
(2405) – Golubev, M (2525) Kiev 1995)
B1.1) 16...Qe6 17.Rfe1 Qxc4 18.e5 dxe5 19.fxe5 Nd5 20.Nxd5 cxd5 21.Rc1 Qxa2 22.Rxc7 Rf8 23.Bd4 Qa5
(23...a6?! 24.Rf1ƒ 1-0 (30) Tratar, M (2420) – Vombek, D (2300) Grize 1996) 24.Rec1 Qa4 25.Qf2 a5∞
B1.2) 16...Qg4!?„ Such moves should not be neglected if given the opportunity.
B2) 15.Rae1 Qc8!
Position after: 15...Qc8!
B2.1) 16.e5 dxe5 17.Qxc6 Ng4 18.f5!? (18.Nd5 exf4 19.Bc5 Ne5 20.Qxc7 Nd3!? 21.Rxe8+ Qxe8 22.Bxa7
Qe4„) 18...e4 19.Nd5 Nxe3 20.Nxe3 Bxb2 21.Ng4 Bg7=
B2.2) 16.Bd4 Now Black has two interesting options:
B2.2a) 16...Qe6 17.b3 c5 White now uses a typical idea in this kind of structure leading to complex play. 18.f5
(18.Bxf6 Qxf6 19.Nd5 Qd8 20.e5 c6 21.Nf6+ Bxf6 22.exf6 Rxe1 23.Rxe1 Qxf6 24.Qxc6 Qd4+ 25.Kh1 Rf8=)
18...gxf5 19.Bxf6 Bxf6 20.Qg3+ Kh8 21.Nd5 Rg8 22.exf5 Bd4+ 23.Kh1 Qh6 24.Qf4 Rg5 (24...Qxf4 25.Rxf4
Rge8 26.Rfe4 Rxe4 27.Rxe4 c6 28.Ne7 d5 29.cxd5 cxd5 30.Nxd5 Rd8© ½-½ (31) Greenfeld, A (2560) – Svidler,
P (2630) Haifa 1996) 25.Nxc7 Rag8 26.Nd5 Be5 27.Rxe5 dxe5 28.Qxe5+ Qg7 29.Qxg7+ Kxg7„
B2.2b) 16...Qg4 17.Qd3 (17.Qf2 Qe6 18.b3 c5 19.f5 Qd7 20.Bxf6 Bxf6 21.Nd5 Be5 22.Qd2 Qd8 23.f6 Re6
24.Kh1 c6 25.Ne7+ Rxe7 26.fxe7 Qxe7© ½-½ (43) Malmstroem, J (1746) – Bronislavas, K (2299) corr. 2008)
17...a5 18.h3 Qe6 19.Re2 Nd7 20.Bxg7 Kxg7=
13.Bxg4 Bxg4
Position after: 13...Bxg4
14.Nxc6
14.Qd2 Na5 15.Qd3 f5!? 16.Nxf5 gxf5 17.Qd5+ Kh8 18.Qxa5 c5!? (18...fxe4 19.h3 Be6 20.Qa4 Bf5 21.Qc2 Re6∞ 0-
1 (28) Ariel, D – Shaked, T (2370) Philadelphia 1994) 19.Qa3 (19.Qxd8 Raxd8=) 19...fxe4 20.Rf2 (20.f5 Rf8 21.Nxe4
Bxf5 22.Ng3 Bg6 23.Rxf8+ Qxf8 24.Rf1 Qe7 25.Rf3 Qe5„) 20...Be6 21.Qb3 b5 22.Nxb5 a6 23.Nc3 Rb8 24.Qa4 Rb4
25.Qxa6 Bxc4 26.Qa3 Rb6∞
14...Qd7 15.Qd3 Bxc3!

Position after: 15...Bxc3!
16.Nd4
A) 16.bxc3 Qxc6µ
B) 16.Qxc3 Qxc6 17.Bd4 (17.f5?! Rxe4 18.Bh6 Qc5+ 19.Kh1 Qe5 and Black defends easily.; 17.e5!? Be2 18.Rf2
dxe5 19.fxe5 Bxc4 20.Bg5 Be6 21.Qg3 Qe4 22.Bf6 h6 and while White has compensation, Black is not without
counter play. The extra pawn might get important in the long run.) 17...Rxe4 18.Bh8 f6 19.Qxf6 Qd7 20.Rae1 Rae8
21.Rxe4 Rxe4 22.h3 Be2 23.Rf2 Bxc4 24.f5 g5!?³ 0-1 (31) Hamitevici, V (2440) – Gu Xiaobing (2209) Hastings
2012
16...Bxb2 17.Rab1 c5 18.Rxb2 cxd4 19.Bxd4 Qc6 20.Re1 Rac8
Position after: 20...Rac8
21.h3
21.Bxa7 Bf5! (21...Qxc4 22.Qb1 d5 23.h3 Bd7 24.Rxb7 Bc6 25.Rb4 Qa6 26.Bd4 dxe4 27.Qb2² ½-½ (45) Kratz, H –
Joppich, U corr. 1998) 22.Rbe2 Bg4 23.Rd2 Bf5 24.Qxd6 Rxe4 25.Rxe4 Qxe4=
21...Qxc4!
21...Be6 22.Qg3 Qxc4 23.Rd2∞ 1-0 (35) Lobron, E (2575) – Glek, I (2590) Germany 1995
22.Qxc4
22.Qd2 Bf5 23.Rb4 Qc2 24.Qxc2 Rxc2 25.Rxb7 d5 26.e5 Rxa2=
22...Rxc4 23.Bxa7 Bf5=
C) 11.Qd2 Nf4
12. --
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 e5 7.0-0 exd4 8.Nxd4 Re8 9.f3 Nc6 10.Be3 Nh5 11.Qd2 Nf4
This is a key idea of Black, intending to simplify the position.
12.Nxc6
A) 12.Rf2 Nxe2+ 13.Rxe2 Ne5 14.b3 c6 15.Rd1 (15.Rc1 a6 16.Ree1 b5 17.cxb5 axb5 18.f4 b4 19.Na4 Ng4 20.Nxc6
Qh4 21.g3 Qh5 22.h4 Bd7 23.Bd4 Bxc6 24.Rxc6 Rxe4! 25.Rxe4 Qd5 26.Qd3 Qxc6 27.Bxg7 d5 28.Re2 Kxg7„ 0-1
(51) Shabaev, V – Kratochvil, V corr. 2014) 15...a6 16.Qe1 Qa5 17.Na4 Qxe1+!? (17...Qc7 18.Nc2 c5 19.Nc3 Be6
20.Bf4 b5 21.cxb5 Qa5 22.Nd5 axb5 23.Qxa5= ½-½ (23) Serrano Salvador, E – Aguilar Gomez, P (2248) corr. 2008)
18.Rexe1 b5 19.Nb6 Rb8 20.Nxc8 Rexc8„
B) 12.Bxf4 Nxd4 13.Bd1!? With this move White is trying to avoid some massive exchanges... 13...Be6 14.Ba4 Rf8
15.Bg5 f6 16.Bh4 c5 17.Ne2 It is understandable that Fedoseev avoids computer moves like 17.b3 after which the
Bishop on a4 would be cut off. 17...Bxc4 18.Nxd4 cxd4 19.Rfd1 d3 ½-½ (19) Fedoseev, V (2664) – Kovalev, V
(2560) Moscow 2016 Black has no problems in this position.
12...Nxe2+ 13.Nxe2 bxc6 14.Bd4 Bxd4+ 15.Nxd4 c5

Again we have ‘Knight versus Bishop’ with a slightly different structure. But still Black should be OK. Such structures
are also known from the Ruy Lopez.
16.Ne2
Other knight moves are possible.

A) 16.Nb5 Ba6 (16...Rb8 17.b3 a6 18.Nc3 Bb7 19.Rfe1 Qf6 20.Nd5 Bxd5 21.exd5 Kf8=) 17.Na3 Bb7 18.b3 a6
19.Rad1 Qh4 20.Nc2 a5 21.a4 Kg7 22.Ne3 h5 23.Rfe1 Re5 24.Qc1 Re6 25.Re2 Qf6=
B) 16.Nc2 Now I will analyse both Bishop’s moves. With the Bishop on b7 White will have more difficulties to
continue with ‘f4’ ideas, on the other hand with his Bishop on e6 Black can play ...f5 himself.
B1) 16...Bb7 17.Ne3 h5 18.Rad1 (18.a3 Playing on the queen side didn’t bring White anything in 18...a5 19.b4 axb4
20.axb4 Qg5 21.Rxa8 Rxa8 22.Re1 Ra3 23.bxc5 Qxc5 24.Kh1 Qe5 25.Rc1 Black is fine here ½-½ (27) Li Wenliang
(2425) – Peng Xiaomin (2490) Beijing 1996) 18...a5 (Or 18...Qg5 19.Qc3 Qe5 20.Qa5 Re7 21.Rfe1 h4∞ 0-1 (34)
Hoegerl, F – Irmer, F Internet 2008) 19.h3 Bc6 Black is solid. White has to try something else... 20.g4 hxg4 21.hxg4
Qf6 22.Rf2 a4 23.Rdf1 Rab8 24.Rg2 Rb4 25.g5 Qd4 26.Rff2= Again we reach an equilibrium. Indeed, the g4 – idea
is interesting but Black has enough resources. ½-½ (26) Sakaev, K (2535) – Belov, I (2430) Cappelle la Grande
1995
B2) 16...Be6 17.Ne3 Qf6 18.Rac1 Qe5 Preventing f4. 19.Qc3 Qxc3 20.Rxc3 a5 21.Rd1 Reb8 22.Rd2 Rb4 23.Kf2
Rab8= Without Queens the position is dead equal. ½-½ (71) Weiss, C (2290) – Baumegger, S (2265) Austria 1996
16...Be6!?
The idea of this move is to play concrete chess. The alternative is also ok.
16...Bd7 17.Nc3 Bc6 White heads for a fast f4 and his next moves are in that spirit:
Change 17...Bc6
A) 18.Rfe1 Qf6 19.Rad1 Rab8 20.Re3 Other moves don’t offer much either. (20.Re2 Rb4 21.Qd3 Qe6 22.b3 a5
23.Rde1 Rd8 24.Nd5 Bxd5! 25.exd5 Qf6 26.Re7 a4! Active play is always important. 27.Rxc7 axb3 28.axb3 Rdb8
29.Rb1 Qe5© ½-½ (48) Kornev, A (2525) – Yarysh, G (2251) Vladimir 2009) 20...a5 21.Qe2 Qg5 22.Re1 f5! 23.exf5
Rxe3 24.Qxe3 Qxf5 25.b3 Re8 26.Qd2 Rxe1+ 27.Qxe1 Kf7 28.Qe3= ½-½ (101) Arizmendi Martinez, J (2544) –
Espinosa Aranda, A (2385) Linares 2014
B) 18.Rae1 Qf6 19.Rf2 Rab8 20.Nd1 Rb4 21.b3 a5 22.Nb2 a4 23.Nd3 Rb6 24.b4 cxb4 25.Nxb4 Ba8∞ ½-½ (58)
Adla, D (2445) – Becerra Rivero, J (2495) Madrid 1997
C) 18.b3 Rb8 19.Qc2 Qh4 20.Rad1 Re5 21.Qf2 Qf6 (21...Qxf2+ This was also playable for Black.) 22.Rd3 Rbe8
23.Qd2 Qe7 24.Nd5 Bxd5! 25.Rxd5 Rxd5 26.Qxd5 a5= ½-½ (31) Lenic, L (2639) – Bachmann, A (2603) Rhodes
2015
17.b3 a5!
Position after: 17...a5!
Black’s counter play arrives. He challenges White on the queenside by opening the a-file.
18.Nc3
Preventing ...a4 is possible but it creates an obvious target:

18.a4 Rb8 19.Rab1 Rb4 20.Rb2 Qf6 21.Qc3? Qxc3 22.Nxc3 Bxc4 0-1 (22) Los, A – Wunnink, M (2198) Haarlem 1999
18...a4 19.e5!?
A classical reaction. Play on the wings must be answered with a reaction in the centre. An important rule in chess.
A) 19.Nb5 Bd7 20.Nc3 Bc6 21.Nd5 Bxd5! 22.Qxd5 Qf6 23.bxa4 Rxa4 24.Qc6 Rea8µ ½-½ (36) Knezevic, V (2000)
– Djokic, N (2198) Pozarevac 2014
B) 19.f4 This gives nothing because Black has following: 19...axb3 20.axb3 Rxa1 21.Rxa1 Bd7! 22.Re1 Bc6= Black
managed to exchange one Rook helping him immensely ½-½ (32) Chernushich, L – Panyushkin, B corr. 2007
19...axb3
19...dxe5 is also fine: 20.Qxd8 Rexd8 21.Nxa4 Bxc4 22.Rfc1 Bb5 23.Nxc5 Ra3 24.Ne4 c6= 1-0 (62) Sambuev, B
(2482) – Davies, A (2187) Ottawa 2007
20.axb3 dxe5 21.Qxd8 Rexd8 22.Ne4 Bf5 23.Nxc5 h5 24.Rfe1 f6 25.h4 Kf7=
Position after: 25...Kf7=
Black is doing fine in this endgame. His Bishop is placed on a good diagonal and he enjoys a correct pawn structure.
12.Rfd1
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 e5 7.0-0 exd4 8.Nxd4 Re8 9.f3 Nc6 10.Be3 Nh5 11.Qd2 Nf4
12.Rfd1
Position after: 12.Rfd1
This was considered the best and most solid option for White. But it seems that Black’s chances are much better than
previously thought, which also surprised me as author of this book. I will comment upon this later in this line.
12...Nxd4 13.Bxd4 Bxd4+ 14.Qxd4 Nxe2+ 15.Nxe2 b6 16.Nc3 Bb7
Such positions were considered to be rather passive and therefor inferior. After analysing it appears that such structures
offer (when played in a correct way as we will see) good chances to equalise. When the white Knight arrives on d5 then
...Bxd5 is the only option and the c-file will be strongly under White’s control. But a well timed ...f5 allows Black to
open up the position becoming active along the e-file. This helps Black to survive the pressure on c7.
17.Nd5
This must be played.

17.Rac1 Qg5 18.Rc2 Re7 19.b4!? a5 (19...Rae8 20.c5!? dxc5 21.bxc5 Re5 22.Nb5 bxc5 23.Qd2 Qe7 24.Na3©) 20.a3
axb4 21.axb4 Bc6=
17...Bxd5 18.cxd5 Qg5 19.Rac1 Re7

In this starting position White has many choices, and as I said before I honestly thought that White had a plus here. But
this is not the case, leaving Black ok. Also ...f5 is a serious idea that White can’t prevent and this helps Black to get
enough counter play along the e-file.
20.Qd2
This is the basic idea. White pushes Black’s Queen away from a good square.
A) 20.Rc3 f5 21.exf5 Qxf5
Position after: 21...Qxf5
Black is planning ...Rae8 or even ...Raf8-f7 defending his only weak pawn while activating both his Rooks.
A1) 22.h4 Rf8! 23.Rdc1 Rff7 24.Kh2 a5 25.R1c2 Qh5 26.Kh3 Qf5+ 27.Kg3 Qh5 28.Kf2 Qf5 29.g4 Re4= ½-½ (55)
Kovacs, G (2505) – Martinovic, S (2395) Szombathely 2008
A2) 22.Rdc1 Rae8 23.h4 Re1+ 24.Rxe1 Rxe1+ 25.Kf2 Re7 26.Re3 Rxe3 27.Kxe3 Qc2 28.g4 c5 29.dxc6 Qxc6
30.Qf6 Qc5+ 31.Kf4 Qc1+ 32.Kg3 ½-½ (32) Shapiro, D (2293) – Bonin, J (2407) Philadelphia 2000
A3) 22.h3 Rf8! 23.b4 Qg5 24.Qg4 Qe5 25.Rc4 Qe3+ 26.Kh2 Qe2 27.Rdc1 Qxa2 28.Rxc7 Rxc7 29.Rxc7 Qxd5
30.Rxa7 Qe5+ 31.Qg3 Rf4 ½-½ (31) Topalov, V (2780) – Mamedyarov, S (2760) Nice (rapid) 2008
B) 20.Rc4 f5 21.Qd2 Qxd2 22.Rxd2 fxe4 23.fxe4 Rf8 24.Rdc2 Rff7 25.b4 b5 26.Rd4 Rf4 27.a3 Kg7³ 0-1 (33)
Martirosov, V (2247) – Bonin, J (2325) Internet 2011
C) 20.g3 Rae8 21.Qd2 Qh5 22.g4 Qe5 23.Kh1 h5 24.Rg1 Qf6 (24...hxg4 25.Rxg4 Kg7 26.Rg5 Qf6 27.Kg2 Rh8
28.b3 Kg8 29.Rc2 Kf8! 30.h3 Ke8 31.Rc4 Kd8 32.Ra4 a5=) 25.Rc3 hxg4 26.Rxg4 Kg7 27.Rf4 Qe5 28.Rh4 Rh8
29.Rxh8 Kxh8 30.Qh6+ Kg8 31.Rc2 Qd4 32.Qc1 f5=
20...Qh5
Other moves can be playable as well. Those will have similar structural ideas. But there might be some tactical nuances.
20...Qe5 21.Rc4!? (21.Qc3 Qg5 22.Rf1 Rf8 23.f4 Qh4 24.g3 Qg4 25.Rfe1 Rfe8 26.Qd3 h5∞)
Position after: 21.Rc4!?
A) 21...f5
A1) 22.f4 Qf6 23.Qd4 (23.exf5 Qxf5 24.Rdc1 Qf7=) 23...Qxd4+ 24.Rdxd4 fxe4 (24...Rd8?! 25.Kf2 fxe4 26.Rxe4
Rxe4 27.Rxe4 Kf7 28.Kf3 b5 29.Re3 a5 30.Rc3 Rc8 31.Rc6² 1-0 (60) Zenzera, A (2400) – Zeynalli, M (2166)
Moscow 2013; 24...Rae8 25.e5 dxe5 26.fxe5 b5 27.Rc5 Rxe5 28.Rxc7 Re1+ 29.Kf2 R8e2+ 30.Kf3 g5 31.Rd3 Re4
32.h3 Rf1+ 33.Kg3 Re2 34.d6 Rff2=) 25.Rxe4 Rae8 26.Rxe7 Rxe7=
A2) 22.Rdc1 fxe4 23.Rxe4 Qf6 24.Qf4 Qxf4 25.Rxf4 Rae8! (25...a5 26.Rfc4 Ra7 27.Kf2 a4 28.Re4 Rf7 29.Rec4
Kf8= 1-0 (53) Gelashvili, T (2616) – Becerra Rivero, J (2557) Orlando 2011) 26.Rfc4 Re1+ 27.Rxe1 Rxe1+ 28.Kf2
Rd1 29.Rxc7 Rxd5 30.Ke3 Rb5 31.b3 Ra5 32.a4 b5=
A3) 22.exf5 Qxf5
A3.1) 23.Qc2 Qxc2 (23...Qf7 24.Re4 ½-½ (25) Vitiugov, N (2573) – Khairullin, I (2533) Cheboksary 2006)
24.Rxc2 Rf8 25.Rdc1 Rff7 26.b4 Kf8 27.Kf2 Ke8 28.Re2 Kd8 29.Rxe7 Rxe7 30.Rc4 Re5 31.Rd4∞ 1-0 (60) Shaw,
P (2162) – De Coverly, R (2080) Sheffield 2011
A3.2) 23.Rf4 Qh5 24.Qd4 Rae8 25.Qf6 a5 26.h4 Qe5 27.Qxe5 Rxe5= ½-½ (52) Pashikian, A (2642) – Martinovic,
S (2504) Aix – les – Bains 2011
A3.3) 23.Rdc1 Qf7 24.Rf4 Qg7! With the usual play. (24...Qe8 25.Kf2 Qb5 26.a4 Qa6 27.Rfc4 Rae8 28.Kg3 Qb7
29.h4 Qb8² ½-½ (49) Helmer, J (2242) – Vaassen, J (2188) corr. 2006)
B) 21...b5!? This interesting move chases the Rook away from the fourth rank where it controls the e4-square.
Position after: 21...b5!?
B1) 22.Rc6 f5 23.exf5 Qxf5 24.Rdc1 Qf7
The defence on the seventh rank is the major idea for Black as has been demonstrated in many games.
B1.1) 25.Qd4 Rae8 26.R1c2 a5 27.h4 a4 28.Kh2 Rf8 29.Kg3 h6 30.Kf2 Qf4= ½-½ (57) Lenderman, A (2548) –
Zhou Weiqi (2616) Ningbo 2013
B1.2) 25.Re1 Rxe1+ 26.Qxe1 Re8 27.Qc3 Re7= ½-½ (33) Svane, R (2371) – Zwahr, P (2303) Korbach 2012
B1.3) 25.h3 Rae8 26.b3 Re2 27.Qg5 R2e7 28.a4 bxa4 29.bxa4 a5 30.Qd2 Re2 31.Qd4 Re1+ 32.Rxe1 Rxe1+
33.Kh2 Re5= ½-½ (35) Fages, J (2207) – Krakovsky, P (2253) Lechenicher SchachServer 2009
B1.4) 25.Qd3 Rae8 26.Qxb5 Qf4 27.R6c2 Re1+ 28.Rxe1 Rxe1+ 29.Kf2 Qe3+= ½-½ (33) Noe, C (2378) –
Yankelevich, L (2340) Magdeburg 2014
B2) 22.Rb4 Rb8 23.a4 a6 24.Rc1 f5 25.a5 Rbe8 26.Rc6 Qf6 27.Qf4 g5!ƒ 0-1 (34) Sammalvuo, T (2428) – Sepp, O
(2427) Finland 2015
B3) 22.Rc2 f5 23.exf5 Qxf5 24.Rdc1 (24.Qd3 Re1+ 25.Kf2 Rxd1 26.Qxd1 Re8 27.Rxc7 Qf6!= ½-½ (33) Kozul, Z
(2616) – Mamedov, R (2634) Istanbul 2012) 24...Qf7 with similar play.
Position after: 20...Qh5
21.g4
White tries to stop ...f5 with tempo.

A) 21.Re1 Rae8 22.Rc4 f5 23.Qc3 fxe4 24.fxe4 Qh4 25.g3 Qg5 26.Rxc7 Rxc7 27.Qxc7 Qd2 28.Qc3 Qxc3 29.bxc3
Kf7 30.Kf2 Rc8 31.Re3 Kf6 32.Kf3 Ke5= Thanks to his active play, Black has no problems in holding this rook
endgame. ½-½ (47) Potapov, E – Zielinski, S corr. 2011
B) 21.Qf4 Other similar ideas are: 21...f5!
(This is an improvement over 21...Rf8?! 22.Qf6!ƒ 1-0 (54) Guthrie, D (2198) – De Coverly, R (2029) London 2015)
22.exf5 Qxf5 23.Qxf5 gxf5 24.Rd2 Rf8 25.Rdc2 Rff7 26.b4 f4 27.Kf2 a5 28.bxa5 bxa5 29.g4 h5 30.h3 Re5 31.Rxc7
Rxc7 32.Rxc7 Rxd5 33.Ke2 Re5+ 34.Kd2 Rd5+ 35.Kc3 Rd1=
C) 21.Rc4 f5
C1) 22.Rdc1 fxe4 23.fxe4 (23.Rxe4 Rxe4 24.fxe4 Rc8 25.h3 Qe5 26.Rc4 b5„ 0-1 (53) Strayer, G (2309) – Becerra
Rivero, J (2558) Dos Hermanas (blitz) 2004) 23...Rc8 24.h3 Qe5 25.b4 (25.a4 a6=) 25...b5„
C2) 22.e5!? The sharpest move. 22...b5 23.Rc3 Rxe5 24.Rxc7 Rae8 25.Qd4 Qh6 26.Rxa7 Re2 27.Rd7 Rc2 28.f4 g5
29.Kh1 g4 30.Qd3 Qh4 31.Rd8 Rxd8 32.Qxc2 g3 33.h3 Qxf4 34.Qe2 Qe5 35.Qxb5 Rc8∞
21...Qh4 22.Kh1
Position after: 22.Kh1
22...h5
22...Rf8 23.Rg1 h5! Most people consider ’...f5’ Black’s main idea in the King’s Indian. This is correct but often it can
be ...h5 as well! Here this little move creates some serious counter play and helps Black immensely. 24.Rc3 hxg4
25.Rxg4 Qh5! (25...Qh3 26.Rg3 Qf1+ 27.Rg1 Qh3 28.Rg3 Qf1+ 29.Rg1 Qh3 30.Qg5!?ƒ 1-0 (52) Jakovenko, D (2711)
– Volokitin, A (2684) Foros 2008) 26.Kg2 and only now 26...f5 and Black has initiative.
23.g5 Rf8 24.Rg1 f5 25.gxf6 Rxf6 26.Qh6 Rg7 27.Rg3 Qf4 28.Qxf4 Rxf4 29.Kg2 Kh7 30.Kf2 Rgf7=
½-½ (54) Grabliauskas, V (2442) – Nacu, M corr. 2002
D) 11.Nc2
11...Be5
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 e5 7.0-0 exd4 8.Nxd4 Re8 9.f3 Nc6 10.Be3 Nh5 11.Nc2!
Position after: 11.Nc2!
This move is considered to be the refutation of the entire line. While I was writing this book it even crossed my mind
about abandoning this idea for Black. But one evening I came up with a new solution and I am very proud to share this
with you. This solution is 11...f5 which we will only examine in the next subchapter, as the alternative 11...Be5 is NOT
completely out of question.
11...Be5
During the Aeroflot open I spotted an interesting game between Bluebaum and Rakhmanov. The position was exactly
the same except Black’s light squared Bishop was on d7, and Black played 11...Be5 successfully. As that Bishop will
generally develop elsewhere than on d7, I believed it should make very little difference and decided to give it a try here
anyway.
12.Nd5!
Definitely considered best.

12.g3 f5∞
12...Ne7!?
An old idea of Svidler which caught my attention.
13.Bg5
13.f4 Nxd5 14.exd5 Bxb2 15.Rb1 Bg7 16.Bxh5 Bf5 17.Bf2 gxh5 18.Rxb7 Bg4 19.Qd2 Re2 20.Qd3 Qc8 21.Rb3 Qf5
½-½ (33) Epishin, V (2620) – Svidler, P (2650) St Petersburg 1996 with an unclear position.
13...f6 14.Be3 Nxd5

Position after: 14...Nxd5
15.Qxd5+
15.cxd5!? This is also possible. 15...f5 16.f4 Bxb2 17.Rb1 Bg7 (17...Bf6 18.Bxh5 gxh5 19.e5!? dxe5 20.Qxh5 White
has the initiative.) 18.exf5 Bxf5 19.Bd3 Nf6 20.Bxf5 gxf5 21.Rxb7 Qc8 22.Rb3² Although White may have some
initiative, the position is close to equal.
15...Be6
Now we have the same position, no matter that the Bishop was previously on d7 in the Bluebaum – Rakhmanov game.
16.Qd2 f5 17.f4
17.Bg5 Qd7 18.Nd4 Bf7 19.Rae1 f4∞
17...Bxb2!?
Following in the footsteps of the Rakhmanov game.

17...Bg7 18.Bxh5 gxh5 19.Bd4 Qd7 20.Rf3 fxe4 21.Rg3 Re7 22.Ne3ƒ 1-0 (31) Bacrot, E (2722) – Guseinov, G (2621)
Shamkir 2014
18.Rab1 Bg7 19.Bxh5 gxh5 20.Bd4 b6 21.Rb3 h4 22.Bxg7

Position after: 22.Bxg7
Probably more critical than 22.Ne3 that was played in Bluebaum – Rakhmanov, as after 22...Bxd4 23.Qxd4 c5 24.Qd2
Qf6! Black was not doing that bad at all.
22...Kxg7 23.exf5 Bf7!?
23...Bxf5 24.Ne3 Qf6 25.Nd5±
24.Ne3
Or: 24.g4 Re4 25.Ne3 Qf6 26.Rd3 Kf8 27.g5 Qg7 with an unusual and difficult position to evaluate.
24...Qf6 25.Ng4 Qxf5 26.Qd4+ Kg6 27.Rb5 c5 28.Qxd6+ Kg7 29.Ne5 Be6
And again a highly complicated position has arisen.

11...f5
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 e5 7.0-0 exd4 8.Nxd4 Re8 9.f3 Nc6 10.Be3 Nh5 11.Nc2 f5!
12.Qd2 Be6 13.Rad1

Not so many games were played with this line but White’s intentions are more or less obvious.
A) 13.g4 fxg4 14.fxg4 Nf6 15.Bg5 Ne5 16.Nd4 Bxg4 17.Nd5 Nxe4–+
B) 13.Rae1 Qd7 14.Bg5 (14.Nd5 Qf7 15.g4 Nf6∞) 14...Ne5 15.b3 Nf7 16.f4 Nf6 17.exf5 Bxf5 18.Bf3 c6 19.Nd4
Bg4 20.Bh4 Bxf3 21.Nxf3 Rxe1 22.Rxe1 Re8= ½-½ (25) Djaja, D – Trajkovic, M Beograd 1952
C) 13.exf5 Bxf5 14.Bd3 Bxd3 15.Qxd3 Ne5 16.Qd2 c6 17.b3 Qa5 18.Nd4 Nf7 19.Rad1 a6 20.Bf2 Nf4! (20...Bh6?!
21.Qc2 Bg7 22.Nde2² 1-0 (45) Ehlvest, J (2535) – Berend, E (2370) Berlin (rapid) 2015) 21.Qxf4 (21.Rfe1 Rxe1+
22.Bxe1 c5 23.Nde2 Nxe2+ 24.Nxe2 Qxd2 25.Rxd2 b5=) 21...Qxc3 22.Rfe1 Re5„ 23.Ne6? Re8!µ
D) 13.Bg5 Qd7 14.Nd5 Qf7!? (14...Rf8 15.exf5 Bxf5 16.Nce3 Be6 17.f4 Nd4 18.f5ƒ 1-0 (55) Mareco, S (2585) –
Peredun, A (2257) Durban 2014) 15.g4 Nf6 16.Kh1 Kh8 17.Rae1 Ng8∞
13...Qe7 14.Nd5 Qf7 15.g4!?
Position after: 15.g4!?
This is thematic with a Rook on f1 and the black Queen on f7.

15.b3 Kh8 16.Bd3 Rf8 17.exf5 gxf5∞
15...Nf6 16.Rf2
We are following a correspondence game. The intention of this move is to defend the second rank, eventually followed
by Rg2, quickly occupying the g-file after gxf5.
A) 16.b3 Kh8 17.Rde1 Rf8 18.exf5 gxf5 19.Nxf6 Qxf6 20.g5 Qf7 21.f4 d5 22.Nd4 Nxd4 23.Bxd4 dxc4 24.Bh5
Qxh5 25.Rxe6 Rae8 26.Bxg7+ Kxg7 27.Qd4+ Kg8 28.Qxc4 Rxe6 29.Qxe6+ Qf7=
B) 16.gxf5 gxf5 17.Kh1 Kh8 18.Rf2 Ne5 19.Rg1 Ng6∞
C) After the direct 16.exf5 gxf5 17.g5 Nxd5 18.cxd5 f4!„ Black gets counter play. (18...Bxd5 19.Qxd5 Qxd5
20.Rxd5 f4 21.Rb5 fxe3 22.Rxb7² 1-0 (74) Li Chao2 (2681) – Farid, F (2326) Jakarta 2012) 19.dxe6 (19.Bxf4 Bxd5
20.b3 Bc3 21.Qxc3 Rxe2 22.Qd3 Rae8 23.Qxd5 Rxc2 24.Qxf7+ Kxf7 25.Rf2 Ree2 26.Rxe2 Rxe2∞) 19...Qxe6
20.Bxf4 Qxe2 21.b3 Qb5„
16...Ne5!?
Possibly an improvement.
Alternatively: 16...Rac8 17.exf5 gxf5 18.g5 Nd7 As the Bishop on e2 is now defended the ...Nxd5 idea is gone. 19.b3!
A nice quiet positional move. (19.b4 Ne7! 20.f4 Bxd5 21.cxd5 Nb6 22.Bb5 Red8 23.Bxb6 cxb6∞) 19...Nce5 20.h4
Nc5 21.Nd4 Bxd5 22.cxd5 f4 23.Bxf4 Rf8 24.Be3± 1-0 (46) Vrana, L – Kubasky, A corr. 2013
17.exf5 gxf5 18.Nxf6+
The alternative 18.g5 leads to a very sharp position. 18...Nxd5 (18...Nh5 19.f4 Ng4 20.Bxg4 fxg4 21.f5 Bxd5 22.Qxd5
Qxd5 23.cxd5 Be5 24.Rd3²) 19.cxd5 Bd7 20.f4 Ng4 21.Bxg4 fxg4 22.f5 Be5 23.f6 g3 24.hxg3 Bxg3 25.Rf3 Be5
26.Qg2 Kh8 27.Kf2 Rg8 28.Nd4 Rae8 29.Rh1 c5 30.Nf5 Bxf5 31.Rxf5 Bxb2 32.Qg4 Rg6∞
18...Qxf6 19.g5 Qf7 20.b3
When analysing this position for a long time I failed to find a good plan for Black, as ...f4 is not possible and neither
...c6. While White wants to go both f4 or Nb4-d5.
20...Bd7!
Position after: 20...Bd7!
That is the key! Opening the e-file while switching the Bishop to a potentially better diagonal.
21.c5
21.Nb4 c5! 22.Nd5 Bc6 This makes the difference as we now enter a highly interesting position. 23.Nf6+!? (23.f4 Ng6
24.Bf3 Nh4 25.Bh1 Re6 26.Rff1 Rae8 27.Bf2 Qh5∞) 23...Bxf6 24.gxf6 Kh8 25.Qxd6 Re6 26.Qxc5 Rg8+ 27.Kf1 Qg6
28.Ke1 Rge8 29.Kf1 (29.Kd2?! Qxf6µ) 29...Rg8= With a likely repetition of moves.
21...Bc6 22.cxd6 Rad8 23.Bc5
23.f4 Rxd6 24.Qc1 Ng4 25.Bc4 Bd5„
23...cxd6 24.Be3 d5!

Completely changing the character of the position. Now White’s pieces are somewhat inactive helping Black to generate
counter play.
25.Nd4
25.Bd4 f4∞
25...Ng6 26.f4 Re4
26...Nh4!? 27.Re1 Re4 28.Bf3 Nxf3+ 29.Rxf3 Rde8³
27.Bf3 Bxd4 28.Bxd4 Nxf4 29.Kh1 Qe6 30.Qc3 Ng6„

Position after: 30...Ng6„
PART IV – Systems with Nge2
Short survey:
Those systems are actually often used against a Benoni setup. However we will see that Black is not forced to play
‘...c5’ all the time. There are many other ideas, including the main ‘...e5’ move, that is most typical for the King’s
Indian. By placing let’s say the Knight from e2 to g3, White again is looking for a quick h4. If Black reacts with ‘...h5’
then the Knight will be transferred via f1 to d2 in order to give Black more problems playing the ‘...f5’ thematic break.
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6

A) 7. -- alternatives & 8. --
B) 8.f3 c5
C) 8.f3 c6
A) 8. --
B) 8.h4
C) 8.0-0
A) 7. -- alternatives & 8. --
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Bd3 0-0 6.Nge2
Position after: 6.Nge2
This system imitating a kind of Benoni reply to the King’s Indian is interesting as well. Black has many replies but I
opted for some rarely played options and not the most popular ones but in my opinion resulting in some interesting
positions.
6...Nbd7 7.0-0
A) 7.Ng3 c5 8.d5 e6 9.0-0 exd5 10.exd5 (10.cxd5 transposes to Benoni.) 10...Ne8 11.Bd2 (11.f4 Bxc3! 12.bxc3 f5
13.Bd2 Ng7 14.Nh1 Nf6 Black is fine. 1-0 (87) Zeller, F (2350) – Reeh, O (2450) Germany 1995) 11...Ne5 (11...f5
12.f4 Bd4+ 13.Kh1 Ndf6) 12.Be2 f5 13.Qc1
A1) 13...Nc7 Black wants to push ...b5 in a Benko spirit! 14.a4!? Na6 (14...a5?! 15.Ra3! b6?! 16.Re1² 1-0 (53)
Aleksandrov, A (2635) – Zhou Jianchao (2473) Dubai 2005) 15.Ra3 Nb4 16.Nd1 Bd7∞
A2) 13...Nf7 14.f4 Bd7∞
B) 7.f3 c5 8.Be3 cxd4 9.Nxd4 e6! 10.0-0 d5 transposes to a Sämisch line that we already studied (part I, chapter 2).
7...a6!? 8.h3
8.Ng3!? h5!? 9.h3 e5 10.d5 h4 11.Nge2 Nh5„
8...c5 9.Be3 b6!

This is a good and solid waiting move as 10.d5 is met by 10...Ne5 obtaining the bishop pair. Black gets enough time
and quietly prepares ...cxd4 and ...Bb7.
10.a4 cxd4 11.Nxd4 Bb7
12.b4
12.a5 Nc5 13.axb6 Qxb6 14.Qb1 Rfc8 15.Bc2 Qd8 16.Rd1 Ncd7 17.Bd3 e6 18.Nb3 a5 19.Bf1 a4 20.Nd4 Nc5∞ 0-1
(46) Sokolov, I (2689) – Bologan, V (2661) Poikovsky 2006
12...Rc8 13.Nf3 a5 14.Rb1 axb4 15.Rxb4 Nc5 16.Qb1 Nfd7 17.Nd5 Bc6 18.Nxb6 Nxb6 19.Rxb6 Nxa4³
1-0 (37) Sokolov, I (2655) – McShane, L (2620) London 2009
B) 7.0-0 a6 8.f3 c5
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Bd3 0-0 6.Nge2 Nbd7 7.0-0 a6!? 8.f3
This is the main move for White, and I will split the material in two subchapters because Black has two interesting
possibilities:
8...c5
For 8...c6 see the next subchapter.
9.Be3 e6
With a different move order we can reach a similar position:

9...b6 10.Qd2 Bb7 11.Rac1 cxd4 12.Nxd4 e6 13.Rfd1 Re8 14.Bf1 Rc8 15.Nb3 Bf8 16.Qf2 Qc7 17.Nd2 Qb8 18.Kh1
Bc6 19.Nb3 Be7 20.Nd4 Bb7 21.Nc2 Bd8 22.Bf4 Ne5 23.Qd4 Nxc4 ½-½ (23) Gligoric, S (2565) – Kavalek, L (2545)
Tilburg 1977
10.Qd2 b6
11.Rfd1
We are heading for a Hedgehog position. This is perhaps not to everyone’s taste, but here it creates good play.
11.Rad1 Qc7 12.dxc5 bxc5 13.b3 (13.Bc2 Ne5 14.b3 Ne8 15.h3 Bb7 16.a3 Rd8 17.Bh6 Nc6 18.Bxg7 Nxg7 19.Rb1
Rb8 20.Rfd1 Rfd8 21.Qe3 ½-½ (21) Carow, J (2401) – Neef, M (2321) Hannover 2013) 13...Ne8 14.Bh6 Bxh6
15.Qxh6 Ne5 16.Bb1 Bb7 17.Qg5 f6 18.Qg3 Nc6 19.f4 f5 20.exf5 exf5 21.Rfe1 Ne7 22.Qh4 Ng7 23.Ng3 Rae8
24.Nf1 Kh8 25.Qf2 Ng8 26.Ne3 Nf6= ½-½ (33) Zeihser, M (2431) – Trofimov, V (2404) corr. 2011
11...Bb7 12.Rac1
12.Bc2 cxd4 13.Bxd4 Rc8 14.b3 Re8 15.Rac1 Qe7 16.Bb1 Rcd8 17.Qe3 Qf8 18.Qf2 Bh6 19.Rc2 d5 20.e5 Nh5 21.cxd5
exd5 22.f4 f6 23.exf6 Nhxf6∞ 0-1 (74) Jobava, B (2264) – Spasov, V (2581) Kocaeli 2002
12...Qc7 13.Kh1 Rac8!?N

Position after: 13...Rac8!?N
13...Rfe8 14.Bc2!? (14.a3 Rac8 15.b4 cxd4 16.Nxd4 Qb8∞) 14...cxd4 15.Nxd4 Rac8 16.Ba4 Red8 17.Bxd7 Nxd7
18.Bg5 Re8 19.Nde2 Bf8 20.b3 Qb8 21.Bh6 Be7 22.Bg5 Bf8= (22...f6!? 23.Be3² 0-1 (41) Visier Segovia, F (2355) –
Andersson, U (2565) Montilla 1977)
14.b3 cxd4 15.Nxd4 Rfe8 16.Bf1 Qb8∞
Position after: 16...Qb8∞
C) 7.0-0 a6 8.f3 c6
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Bd3 0-0 6.Nge2 Nbd7 7.0-0 a6 8.f3 c6!?
Position after: 8...c6!?
9.Be3
In case of 9.a4 Black goes 9...e5 and after 10.d5 a5 Black has a good grip on the queenside. That is why it is not
advisable for White to stop ...b5.
9...b5 10.b3
Not the only idea:

A) 10.cxb5 axb5 11.b4 Nb6
Position after: 11...Nb6
12.a4 bxa4 13.Nxa4 Ba6 14.Nb2 Bxd3 15.Qxd3 Qc7
A1) 16.Ra5 Nbd7 17.Rfa1 Qb7 18.Nc4 (18.Qc3 Rfb8=) 18...d5 19.Nd2 e5=
A2) 16.Qb3 Qb7 17.Ra5 Nbd7 18.Rfa1 Rfb8 19.Rxa8 Rxa8 20.Rxa8+ Qxa8 21.Qa4 Qb7 22.Nc4 d5 (22...Nb8
23.Nc3= 0-1 (42) Gebhardt, U (2155) – Chorfi, K corr. 1996) 23.Na5 Qa6„
A3) 16.Rfc1 Qb7 17.Nc4 Rxa1 18.Rxa1 Nxc4 19.Qxc4 Rb8 20.Rc1 h5= ½-½ (58) Wygle, S – Byrne, R (2470)
Philadelphia 1991
B) 10.Qd2 Black has some choices and all are interesting:
B1) 10...bxc4 11.Bxc4 d5 12.Bb3 dxe4 13.fxe4 (13.Nxe4 a5 14.Rac1 a4 15.Nxf6+ Bxf6 16.Bc2 Nb6 17.Be4 Be6!
18.Bxc6 Rc8³ 0-1 (30) Nordstrom, F (2199) – Gurevich, M (2635) Gibraltar 2007) 13...Ng4 14.Bg5 (14.e5 Nxe3
15.Qxe3 e6 16.Rad1 a5 17.Na4 Ba6 18.Rf2 Qb8∞) 14...h6 15.Bh4 Nc5 16.Bc2 (16.h3 Nxb3 17.axb3 Ne5 18.Qe3
Nd7 19.e5 Nb6 20.Qf3 Qc7∞; 16.Bc4 Be6 17.b3 Bxc4 18.bxc4 Ne6 19.Rad1 c5!N 20.d5 Nd4³) 16...Ne6 17.Rad1
c5 18.d5 (18.Nd5 g5 19.Bg3 cxd4³) 18...Nd4 19.Bd3 Nxe2+ 20.Nxe2 c4–+ ½-½ (53) Kalesis, N (2260) – Grivas, E
(2425) Liosia 1991
B2) 10...e5 11.d5 bxc4 12.Bxc4 Nb6 13.Bb3 cxd5
B2.1) 14.Nxd5 Nfxd5 15.exd5 a5 16.a4 Bd7 17.Nc3 Qb8 18.Qf2 Ra6 (18...Rc8!? 19.Bxb6 Ra6 20.Bxa5 Qxb3
21.Ra3 Qc4 22.b4 e4!„ 0-1 (37) Nouveau, L – Romanelli, G corr. 2012) 19.Rfc1 (19.Nb5? Nxa4!µ 0-1 (40)
Watzke, B – Kaminski, U (2390) Dresden 1996) 19...f5 20.Nb5 f4 21.Bxb6 Rxb6 22.Rc6 Rb7 23.Bc4 Kh8∞
B2.2) 14.exd5 Bb7 (14...a5 15.a4 Ba6 16.Nb5 Qb8 17.Nec3 Rc8 18.Rac1 Nbd7∞) 15.Rac1 a5 16.a4 Rc8 17.Qd3
Nbd7 18.Nb5 Nc5 19.Bxc5 Rxc5 20.Rxc5 Qb6 21.Qe3 dxc5 22.Nec3 e4! 23.Bc4 exf3 24.Qxf3 Nd7 25.b3 Qd8
26.Kh1 Be5∞
10...Re8!?
A quite mysterious move, Black doesn’t reveal if he is going for ...e6 or ...e5. Indeed, ...e6 is a flexible move that serves
the purpose to gain space for the Queen and connecting the Rooks.
10...Bb7 11.Qd2 (11.Rc1 e6 is similar except the move Qd2 is more useful, and it is too natural not to be played.)
11...e6!? (11...e5 12.d5 b4 13.Na4 c5 14.g4 Ne8 15.Ng3 Bf6! 16.Rf2 Bh4 17.Rg2 f6 18.Kf1 Bg5 19.Ke2 Ng7∞ ½-½
(64) Vidic, M (2020) – Srebrnic, V (2201) Trieste 2010) 12.Rad1 Re8 13.Ng3 Rc8 14.Rfe1 e5 15.d5 b4 16.Na4 c5
17.Ra1 h5 18.Nh1 Nh7 19.a3 a5 20.Ra2 Rf8 21.Nf2 f5 22.exf5 gxf5 23.Bh6 Qf6∞ ½-½ (23) Gligoric, S (2575) –
Kavalek, L (2555) Manila 1975
11.Qd2 e6 12.Rad1 Qe7!?

Position after: 12...Qe7!?
The position is flexible so Black continues in the same spirit.
13.Bg5
A) 13.Bc2 Bb7 14.Nf4 bxc4 15.bxc4 e5 16.dxe5 Nxe5 17.Bb3 Rad8 18.Na4 c5 19.Nb6 Bc6 20.Nfd5 Nxd5 21.Nxd5
Qb7∞
B) 13.g4 Bb7 14.Bc2 bxc4 15.g5 Nh5 16.bxc4 Rab8 17.Kh1 Red8 18.Na4 d5 19.cxd5 cxd5 20.Nec3 Bc6 21.e5 Rdc8
22.Rb1 Qd8³
13...Qf8 14.Kh1 bxc4 15.Bxc4 Bb7 16.Rfe1 d5 17.Bd3 c5 18.exd5 Nxd5 19.Nxd5 Bxd5=
Position after: 19...Bxd5=
½-½ (20) Hort, V (2590) – Planinec, A (2525) Madrid 1973. It is nice to see how Black solved all his opening problems
in this game. It seemed somehow a refreshing way to me.
A) 8. -- alternatives
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nge2 0-0 6.Ng3
First of all it is important to give this variation credit to the Hungarian grandmaster Gyozo Forintosh. His maverick
approach popularized this system a lot. Recently it has been played by our World Champion Carlsen, we cannot ignore
this set-up and it has to be considered very seriously. The essential idea is to combine the early Knight move to g3 with
potential transpositions to some good versions of the Sämisch. Because of the position of the Knight on g3, the h4-
pawn push often comes handy. Black has many possibilities like ...e5 or ...c5. But I decided to focus on a more elastic
approach...
6...Nbd7 7.Be2 h5
This is the starting point of the line which I decided to offer my readers. As White intends h4, Black can go for ...h5
himself! It is all about the Knight on g3. White has plenty of choices here. Not a big surprise because nothing has been
determined yet.
8.f4!?
A sharp reaction.
A) 8.Qc2 a6 9.f4!? Simon Williams is renown for his attacking style... (9.Bg5 Nh7 10.Be3 e5 11.d5 Bf6 12.0-0-0 a5
13.Na4!? Bg5 14.Nf1 Nb8!?
Position after: 14...Nb8!?
With the idea of ...Bd7 followed by ...Na6 forcing White to give up his control of the c5-square.) 9...h4 10.Nf1 c5
11.d5 b5!
12.Ne3 b4 13.Ncd1 e6 14.0-0 exd5 15.cxd5 Re8 16.Nf2 a5∞ 0-1 (56) Williams, S (2507) – Svidler, P (2723) Bunratty
2009
B) 8.Be3 e5 9.d5 a5 10.a3 Nc5 11.h4 Ng4 12.Bxg4 Bxg4 13.f3 Bd7 14.Bg5 Bf6 15.Bxf6 Qxf6 16.Rb1 a4 17.Qd2
Kh7 18.Qg5 Qg7 19.0-0 Rae8 20.Rbd1 f6 21.Qd2 Qe7 ½-½ (27) Nabaty, T (2566) – Smirin, I (2659) Skopje 2013
Black is fine.
C) 8.Bg5 Nh7 9.Be3 e5 10.d5
C1) 10...Bf6 11.Qd2 a5 12.Bd3 Bg5 13.0-0 Nc5 14.Bc2 Bd7 15.f3 Bxe3+ 16.Qxe3 Qg5 17.Qxg5 Nxg5 18.b3 h4 0-
1 (41) Moseng, G (2068) – Bekker Jensen, S (2419) Oslo 2013 Black is fine in this endgame as he controls the dark
squares and enjoys a harmonious development.
C2) 10...h4 11.Nf1 f5 12.f3 Ndf6
C2.1) The aggressive approach 13.g4 was not good after 13...fxg4 14.fxg4 Ne8 15.Qd2 Bf6!
Position after: 15...Bf6!
We encountered this motive before with the Knight on g3. 16.0-0-0 Bg5 17.h3 Bd7 18.Nh2 Bxe3 19.Qxe3 Qg5
20.Kd2 Qxe3+ 21.Kxe3 Ng5³ 0-1 (42) Lebel, P (2074) – El Jawich, A (2170) Beirut 2013
C2.2) 13.Nd2 Nh5 14.Qb3 Nf4 15.Bf1 Qg5 16.Kd1 Qh5 17.Kc2 h3 18.gxh3 Ng5 19.Re1 Nxf3 20.Nxf3 Qxf3³ 0-
1 (32) Remlinger, L (2302) – Shen, A (2334) Los Angeles 2013
8...h4 9.Nf1 e5 10.fxe5 dxe5 11.d5
11...h3!?N
11...Nh7 was played: 12.g4!? Bf6!? (In the game itself Black reacted badly: 12...c6 13.h3 Re8?! 14.Be3 g5 15.Nd2
Ndf8 16.Nf3 Bf6 17.Qb3 Ng6 18.0-0-0± 1-0 (22) Bologan, V (2654) – Al Sayed, M (2520) Doha 2015) 13.h3 Bg5
14.Bd2 c5!? One of the possible ideas. 15.Qc2 Ndf6 16.0-0-0 Ne8! 17.Kb1 Nd6∞
12.g3 Nc5 13.Bf3 a5 14.Be3 Qe7 15.Qe2 Bd7 16.Nd2 a4∞

With a complicated game ahead of us.
B) 8.h4
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nge2 0-0 6.Ng3 Nbd7 7.Be2 h5 8.h4!? a6
Still playing the waiting game. While ...e5 and ...c5 are options.
9.Bg5
A) 9.a3?! c5 (9...c6 10.Bg5 Nh7 11.Be3 b5 12.d5 bxc4 13.dxc6 Ne5 14.Nd5 Nxc6 15.Bb6 Qd7 16.Bxc4 Ne5 17.Bb3
e6³ 0-1 (27) Pechac, J (2182) – Musaev, R (2300) Pardubice 2013) 10.d5 b5 11.cxb5 axb5 12.Bxb5 Ba6 13.Bxa6
Rxa6 14.0-0 Qb6 15.Qc2 Rb8 with some typical compensation.
B) 9.f4 c5 10.e5 Nh7 11.d5 dxe5 12.f5 e4 13.Ncxe4 b5 14.Qc2 bxc4 15.Bg5 Nxg5 16.hxg5 Rb8µ 0-1 (31) Hurme, H
(2260) – Yrjola, J (2362) Finland 2010
C) 9.Be3
C1) 9...c6 10.Qd2 b5 11.a3 Bb7 12.f4 bxc4! (12...e5 13.dxe5! dxe5 14.f5 White’s pieces have better squares.)
13.Bxc4 d5 14.Ba2 e6 Black is fine as the g4-square is available and he holds a strong centre.
C2) 9...c5 10.d5 b5 11.cxb5 axb5 12.Bxb5 Ba6 13.Bxa6 Rxa6 14.0-0 Qb6 15.Qc2 Rb8 16.Rab1 Ng4 17.Bd2 Bd4
(17...Qb4 18.Nge2 Nde5 19.b3 Rba8 20.f3 Nf6 21.Na4 Qb5 22.Nec3 Qd3 23.Qxd3 Nxd3© ½-½ (53) Garcia
Galeote, L (2090) – Roeder, M (2466) Madrid 2001) 18.Nge2 Nde5 19.b3 Qa7
Black has strong counter play. And now... 20.a4? would be bad due to... 20...Bxf2+ 21.Rxf2 c4µ
9...c5
10.d5
10.dxc5 Nxc5 11.0-0 a5 12.Qd2 Bd7 13.Bh6 Bc6 14.Bxg7 Kxg7 15.Qe3 e5 16.f4 Ne6 17.f5 Nf4„ 1-0 (39) Wohlfart,
P (2215) – Maeurer, C (2260) Germany 2006
10...b5
In a true Benko spirit!
11.cxb5
11.b3 Nh7 12.Bd2 b4 13.Na4 Bxa1 14.Qxa1 e5µ White just doesn’t have enough for the sacrificed exchange. 0-1 (59)
Rapport, R (2693) – Ding Liren (2714) Biel 2013
11...Ne5 12.Qd2 axb5 13.Bxb5 Ba6 14.0-0 Qa5
15.a4 Bxb5
15...Nc4 16.Qc2!? (16.Bxc4 Bxc4 17.Rfe1 Rfb8© 0-1 (65) Trajber, C (2095) – Csvila, G (2214) Hungary 2012)
16...Rfb8 17.b3 Ne5 18.Bd2 Ne8 19.Nge2 Nc7 20.Bxa6 Qxa6©
16.Nxb5 Qxd2 17.Bxd2 Rfb8 18.Bc3 Nfd7 19.b3 Bf6 20.f4 Nd3 21.Bxf6 Nxf6©
Position after: 21...Nxf6©
C) 8.0-0
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nge2 0-0 6.Ng3 Nbd7 7.Be2 h5 8.0-0 e5 9.d5 h4 10.Nh1 Nh7
11.f3
This resembles the Sämisch but Black achieved more than usual.
11.Be3
A) 11...f5 12.exf5 gxf5 13.f4
A1) 13...Qe7 14.Qd2 Nc5 15.Nf2 Ne4? 16.Nfxe4 fxe4 17.fxe5! (17.Rae1² 0-1 (37) Van Den Bersselaar, J (2197) –
Zozulia, A (2340) Tromsoe 2010) 17...Qxe5 18.Rxf8+ Nxf8 19.Rf1±
A2) 13...exf4 14.Bxf4 Ne5 15.Nf2 Qf6 16.Qd2 Bd7 17.Rae1 Ng6 18.Nh3 Nxf4 19.Nxf4 Qd4+ 20.Qxd4 Bxd4+
21.Kh1 Rae8 22.Nb5 Bb6 23.Ne6 Bxe6 24.dxe6 Re7„
B) 11...Bf6!? 12.Qd2 Bg5 13.Bxg5 Qxg5 14.Qxg5 Nxg5 15.Nb5 a6! Black is fine.
11...Ndf6
Position after: 11...Ndf6
Also possible is: 11...f5 12.Nf2 Ndf6 13.exf5 gxf5 14.f4 a6 15.Be3 Qe8 16.a4 Kh8 17.a5 Rg8 18.Kh1 Bd7 19.Rc1 Qg6
with a highly complicated game ahead of us. Black obtained a nice King’s Indian. ½-½ (19) Faghirnavaz, A (2284) –
Hosseinzadeh, N (2205) Tabriz 2013
12.Nf2
Recently there was an interesting game between two very experienced King’s Indian players: 12.f4 exf4 13.Bxf4 Nd7
14.Nf2 Ne5 15.Qd2 Qe7 16.Nb5 a6 17.Nd4 Bd7 18.Rac1 c5 19.dxc6 bxc6 20.Rfd1 Rfd8 21.Nb3 Be8 22.Na5 c5 23.a3
Rab8 24.b4 Bf6„ ½-½ (35) Bologan, V (2732) – Bacrot, E (2713) Biel SUI 2012
12...Nh5 13.Nd3 Ng3!

Position after: 13...Ng3!
A nice idea which reminds us the common motive to leave a piece “en prise” in the King’s Indian.
14.Re1
Of course 14.hxg3? hxg3 followed by ...Qh4 is lost for White.
14...f5 15.Qd2 fxe4 16.Nxe4 Nxe4 17.fxe4 Rf7 18.Rf1 Rxf1+ 19.Bxf1 b6 20.Nf2 Bf6 21.Qh6 Qe8 22.Be2 Qf7 23.Bg4
Qg7=
(30) ½-½ Emelyanov, M – Cavajda, I corr. 2014

PART V – The Averbakh variation
Short survey:
One of the major systems against the King’s Indian, it resembles the Säemisch, in a way that White still keeps an option
to play ‘h4’ early when Black heads for ‘...e5’ and the position gets closed after ‘d5’. It is a sharp line if White can
follow up with ‘Qd2 and h4’. Of course Black has his resources as we will study. Another aspect of this move order is
to secure the retreat of the Bishop from g5 to e3 after Black tries to insert ‘...h6’
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Be2 0-0 6.Bg5 c5

B) 10.a4
C) 10.bxa6
Chapter 18 – 7.d5 a6 8.a4 h6
A) 9.Be3 e6
10.Nf3
10.Qd2
B) 9.Bf4 e6
10.Nf3
10.dxe6
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Be2 0-0 6.Bg5
For a period the Averbakh was considered a possible refutation of the King’s Indian. The aggressive approach combined
with strict positional ideas made Black think twice how to react. It is a mixture of the Saëmish, Petrosian and the Nf3-
h3 lines, all of them packed into one line. The Averbakh definitely is something Black should handle with the outmost
care. Players like Polugaevsky, Uhlmann, Alburt, (...) were quite keen on playing the Averbakh against the King’s
Indian defence.
6...c5 7.dxc5
This move was popular for a while as White simply wants to enter a kind of Maroczy bind. But it is not really a standard
Maroczy!
7...Qa5 8.Bd2 Qxc5 9.Nf3 Nc6 10.0-0 Bg4 11.Be3 Qa5

12.a3
A) 12.Nd2 Bxe2 13.Qxe2 Rfc8 14.a3 Qh5!? 15.f3 Nd7 16.Rac1 Nc5∞
B) 12.Rc1 Rfc8 13.b3 a6 14.a4 Nd7 15.Nd4 Bxe2 16.Ndxe2 Qd8 17.f3 Nc5 18.Rb1 e6∞
12...Rfc8 13.b4 Qd8 14.Qb3 Qf8!
Position after: 14...Qf8!

An excellent positional idea intending ...Bh6, exchanging the dark squared Bishops and in the meantime eliminating the
Knight for a Bishop. The strategy is clear: play on the dark squares and that explains the previous moves of Black.
15.h3
A) 15.Rad1 Bh6 16.h3 Bxf3 17.Bxh6 Qxh6 18.Bxf3 Qf4 19.Rfe1 Ne5 20.Be2 Nxe4 21.Nxe4 Qxe4 22.c5 Qf4 23.g3
Qf6 24.cxd6 exd6 25.Qd5 Rab8= ½-½ (36) Sorin, A (2501) – Cativelli, G (2264) Buenos Aires 1999
B) 15.Rfd1 Bh6 16.Nd5 Nxd5 17.exd5 Ne5 18.Bxh6 ½-½ (18) Bilsel, S – Herzog, K corr. 2013, I will give you a few
more moves to show how the game might have continued... 18...Qxh6 19.Rd4 a5 20.Rad1 axb4 21.axb4 Bxf3 22.Bxf3
b6 23.Be2 Rc7∞
15...Bxf3 16.Bxf3
Position after: 16.Bxf3
16...a5!?N
That’s a new idea. I also analysed some older moves but somehow I was not really satisfied with them.
A) 16...Nd7
A1) 17.Rfd1 Nce5 18.Be2 Nxc4 19.Bxc4 Ne5 20.Bxf7+ (20.Rd4? Nxc4 21.Rxc4 Rxc4 22.Qxc4 Rc8µ) 20...Qxf7
21.Qxf7+ Kxf7 22.Ne2= ½-½ (22) Schmidt, W (2485) – Sznapik, A (2460) Trnava 1984
A2) 17.Rac1 Bd4!? (17...Nd4 18.Bxd4 Bxd4 19.Bg4ƒ; 17...Bh6 18.Bxh6 Qxh6 19.Bg4ƒ ½-½ (52) De Carlos
Arregui, I (2373) – Lachmann, H (2557) corr. 2000) 18.Na4 Nb6 19.Bg4 Rc7 20.Bd2 (20.Nxb6 axb6 21.Rfd1
Qg7„) 20...Nxa4 21.Qxa4 a5 22.Qb3 axb4 23.axb4 b6„
A3) 17.Rad1 The best move. 17...Nde5! (17...Nce5 18.Be2 Nxc4 19.Bxc4 Ne5 20.Rd4!²; 17...Bf6?! 18.Nd5² 0-1
(58) Krueger, E (2262) – Winiwarter, F (2235) Dresden 2000; 17...a5 18.Be2! axb4 19.axb4 Bxc3!? 20.Qxc3 Nf6
21.b5 Ne5 22.f4 Ned7 23.e5 Ne4 24.Qe1ƒ) 18.Be2 Nxc4 19.Bxc4 Bxc3 20.Qxc3 Ne5 21.Bxf7+ (21.f4 Nxc4µ)
21...Qxf7 I am not sure if Black can entirely equalise here. Having the pawn push ‘f4’ available, it could turn into
White’s favour. 22.Qa1!? a5 23.b5 Nc4 24.Bh6 Rc5 25.a4 Rh5 26.Bc1 Rc8 27.Qd4 Rhc5 28.f4 Qf6 29.Qf2²
B) Really interesting as well is: 16...Bh6!? 17.Nd5 Bxe3 18.Nxf6+ exf6 19.Qxe3 Ne5 20.Be2 Nxc4= ½-½ (33) Jelic,
G (2238) – Arsovic, G (2451) Belgrade 2003
17.Rad1 axb4 18.axb4 Bh6!
Position after: 18...Bh6!
This is a key idea and typical for all kind of Maroczy structures.
19.Bxh6 Qxh6 20.Nd5 Nxd5 21.exd5 Ne5 22.Be2 Qf4 23.g3 Qf6 24.f4 Nd7∞
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Be2 0-0 6.Bg5 c5 7.d5 a6 8.Qd2
It is important to know what happens when White doesn’t play a4, simply allowing ...b5. Let’s see where this will take
us...
8...b5 9.cxb5 Qa5
First we will examine two side variations for White, the main moves being 10.a4 and 10.bxa6.
10.b6
10.f3
A) 10...Bd7!? A bit unusual but playable. 11.bxa6 Nxa6 12.Rb1 Rfb8 13.a3 Ne8! (13...Nc7 14.Bd3 Ra7 15.Be3 Rab7
16.Nge2 e6 17.0-0 exd5 18.b4 Qa7 19.exd5 Ncxd5 20.Nxd5 Nxd5 21.Bf2 Nf6= 0-1 (51) Lukasevicius, P (2203) –
Kabachev, A (2293) corr. 2007) 14.Rc1 Qb6 15.Rc2 Qa5 16.Rc1 Qb6=
B) 10...Nbd7 11.Nh3 (11.a4 axb5!? 12.Bxb5 Ba6 13.Nge2 Bxb5 14.Nxb5 Qxb5 15.axb5 Rxa1+ 16.Nc1 Rb8 17.0-0
Rxb5 18.Nd3 Ra2 19.Rb1 Ne8 20.Qc2 Ne5©) 11...axb5!
Position after: 11...axb5!
12.Nxb5 (12.Bxb5 Nxe4! 13.fxe4 Bxc3 14.Qxc3 Qxb5 15.Bh6 Ne5 16.Bxf8 Bxh3 17.gxh3 Ra4 18.Kf2 Rxe4µ)
12...Nb6 13.Nf2 Bd7 14.Qxa5 Rxa5 15.Nc3 Na4 16.Nfd1 Nxc3 17.Nxc3 Rb8 18.Bc1 Ne8©
10...Nbd7
One of the two possible satisfying replies.

10...Qxb6 11.Nf3 Bg4 12.0-0 (12.e5 Bxf3 13.Bxf3 dxe5 14.d6 Ra7 15.dxe7 Re8 16.Nd5 Nxd5 17.Bxd5 Bf6 18.Bxf6
Qxf6 19.Rc1 Qxe7 20.Qa5 Nd7 21.0-0 Rb8³ 0-1 (45) Amura, C (2355) – Kasparov, G (2780) Buenos Aires 1992)
12...Nbd7 13.Rab1 Rfb8 14.Qc2 Ne8!? (14...Qd8 15.Nd2 Bxe2 16.Nxe2 a5 17.Nc4 Nb6 18.Ne3 a4 19.Nc3 Nfd7∞
½-½ (97) Kalashian, D (2418) – Bakunc, R (2200) Yerevan 2012) 15.h3 Bxf3 16.Bxf3 Qd8 17.Be2 Nc7∞
11.Nf3
A) 11.b7 Bxb7 12.f3 e6 13.dxe6 fxe6 14.Nh3 d5 15.0-0 Qc7∞ 0-1 (39) Ross, D (2318) – Nataf, I (2549) Montreal
2003
B) 11.h4 h5 12.f3 Nxb6 13.g4 hxg4 14.Bxf6 Bxf6 15.fxg4 Na4µ 0-1 (24) Caldara, S (1797) – Scharrer, P (2225)
Trento 2008
11...Nxb6 12.0-0
12...Na4
12...Bg4 13.Qc2 Rab8 14.Bd2 Bxf3 15.gxf3 Nbd7 16.b3 Nh5∞ 0-1 (41) Quiroga, F (2331) – Flores, D (2548) Buenos
Aires 2008
13.Qc2 Bd7 14.Nd2 Bb5 15.Rae1 h6 16.Nb3 Qb6 17.Bc1 Nd7∞
½-½ (26) Onischuk, A (2495) – Glek, I (2535) Cuxhaven 1993
B) 10.a4
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Be2 0-0 6.Bg5 c5 7.d5 a6 8.Qd2 b5 9.cxb5 Qa5 10.a4
10...axb5
Another interesting possibility is 10...Nbd7 11.f3 Nb6 12.Qc2! (12.bxa6 Bxa6 13.Nb5 Bxb5 14.Qxa5 Rxa5 15.Bxb5
Rfa8 16.Bc6 Rb8 17.Nh3 Nc4 18.0-0 h6 19.Bc1 Ne8 20.Nf2 Nc7³ 0-1 (69) Varley, P (2258) – Pavlovic, M (2541)
Caerleon 2007) 12...axb5 13.Bxb5 Ba6 14.Bxa6 Qxa6 15.Nge2 Now we reached some typical play we already know
from the main lines. However I prefer the main move.
11.Bxb5 Ba6
Position after: 11...Ba6
12.f3
A) 12.Bxa6 Nxa6 13.Nf3 (13.Nge2 Qb4 14.f3 Rfb8 15.Nb5 h6 16.Be3 Nd7 17.Nec3 Nb6 18.Qc2 Qc4µ ½-½ (37)
Szymanska, M (2186) – Cherednichenko, S (2255) Ustron 2006) 13...Qb4 14.0-0 Rfb8 15.Qd3 (15.Rab1 Nxe4
16.Nxe4 Qxe4 17.b3 Nb4³; 15.e5 dxe5 16.Rab1 e4 17.Ne5 Qd4 18.Qf4 Nb4 19.Bxf6 Bxf6 20.Nd7 Rd8 21.Nxf6+
exf6 22.Qxe4 Qxe4 23.Nxe4 Rxa4= ½-½ (39) Varley, P – Guevara, F corr. 2012) 15...c4 16.Qe2 Nd7!N (16...Nc5
17.e5!N Ne8 18.Bxe7 Qxb2 19.Qxb2 Rxb2 20.Nb5²) 17.Bxe7 Qxb2 18.Qxb2 Rxb2 19.Nb5 Nac5 20.Nxd6 c3„
B) 12.Ra3 Qb4 13.Nge2 Bxb5 14.axb5 Rxa3 15.bxa3 Qxa3 16.0-0 Nbd7 17.Rb1 Nb6 18.Qc2 Ra8³ 0-1 (47)
Gubernatorova, L (2210) – Zangiev, P (2270) Krasnodar 1997
12...Bxb5
The introduction to a queen sac.

12...Qb4
A) 13.Rb1 Bxb5 14.axb5 Nbd7 15.Nge2 Nb6 16.0-0 Nc4 17.Qc2 h6 18.Bf4 (18.Bc1 Rfb8 19.Kh1 Ne8³ 0-1 (27)
Meister, J (2460) – Brankov, K (2315) Elenite 1993) 18...Rfb8 (18...Ne8 19.Nc1 Nb6 20.Nd3 Qd4+ 21.Kh1 Nc7
22.Ne2∞ 1-0 (40) Sergienko, S (2387) – Kotsur, P (2511) St Petersburg 1999) 19.Nc1 Nd7 20.Nd3 (20.N1a2 Qa5
21.Qe2 Ncb6 22.Rfc1 Na4 23.Bd2 Nxc3 24.Nxc3 Qb4∞) 20...Qa5©
B) 13.Bxa6 Nxa6!? 14.Nge2 Rfb8 15.Rb1 c4 16.0-0 Nc5 17.Nd4 Nb3 18.Nxb3 Qxb3 19.Kh1 Rb7©
13.Nxb5 Qxb5!
Position after: 13...Qxb5!
This is a common motive. But here it is even better because White is not developed, giving Black even the opportunity
to play for an advantage!
14.axb5 Rxa1+ 15.Kf2 Nbd7 16.Qc2
16.g3
A) 16...Rb8 17.Kg2 h6! (17...Ne5 18.Qe2 c4 19.Nh3 Ra2 20.Nf2 Rxb5© ½-½ (82) Tsvetkov, I (2285) – Georgiev, K
(2595) Bulgaria 1988) 18.Be3 Rxb5 19.Ne2 Ra2 20.Rb1 Ne5³
B) 16...Rb1! 17.Kg2 Nxe4 18.fxe4 Rxb2 19.Qxb2 Bxb2 20.Bxe7 Re8 21.Bxd6 Rxe4³
16...Rb8 17.Bc1 Rxb5
17...Ne8 18.Ne2 Nc7 19.b4 Nxb5 20.bxc5 Nd4 21.Nxd4 Bxd4+ 22.Kg3 Nxc5 23.Rd1 Bg7©
18.Ne2
Position after: 18.Ne2
18...Rb8!
18...Rb4 19.Rd1 c4!? 20.Nd4 (20.Bd2? Rxb2!–+ 0-1 (32) Schneider, S – Berry, N Szombathely 1993) 20...Ne5 21.Kg1
Ne8 22.f4 Nd3 23.Nc6 Rb7 24.Rf1 Nxc1 25.Rxc1 Ra2 26.Qxc4 Rbxb2 27.Qf1 Nf6=
19.Rd1 Ne8 20.Nc3 Ra7 21.Bg5 Ne5 22.Rb1 Nc4 23.Nd1 Rb4©
C) 10.bxa6
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Be2 0-0 6.Bg5 c5 7.d5 a6 8.Qd2 b5 9.cxb5 Qa5 10.bxa6 Nbd7
11.f3
A) 11.Nf3 Bxa6 12.0-0 (12.Bxa6 Qxa6 13.Qe2 Rfb8 14.Rb1 Ng4 15.Bd2 Nge5 16.Nxe5 Nxe5 17.Qxa6 Rxa6 18.b3
Nd7 19.0-0 Bxc3 20.Bxc3 Rxa2³ 0-1 (37) Turlej, L (2111) – Markiewicz, J (2316) Ustron 2004) 12...Nxe4! 13.Nxe4
Qxd2 14.Nfxd2 Bxe2 15.Rfe1 Bd3 16.Bxe7 Rfb8 17.Rad1 Rxb2 18.Nxd6 Raxa2! (18...Bc3 19.Bg5 Rbxa2ƒ ½-½ (34)
Bareev, E (2643) – Radjabov, T (2729) Odessa 2007) 19.N2e4 Bxe4 20.Nxe4 Bd4–+
B) 11.Rb1 Nb6 12.f3 (12.Nf3 Bxa6 13.Bxa6 Qxa6 14.b3 Rfb8©) 12...Bxa6 (12...Na4 13.Nxa4 Qxa4 14.b3 Qa3
15.Rc1 Bxa6 16.Rc2 c4 17.Bxc4 Bxc4 18.bxc4 Rfc8 19.Nh3 Ra4 20.0-0 Raxc4 21.Rxc4 Rxc4 22.Rb1² 0-1 (53) Moor,
O (2323) – Vogt, L (2403) Switzerland 2015) 13.Bxa6 Rxa6 14.b3 (14.Nge2 Na4 15.0-0 Rb8 16.Rfc1 Nxc3 17.Nxc3
Ra7 18.b3 Ne8 19.a4 Nc7 20.Qd3 Rab7 21.Ne2 Qa6 22.Qc2 Ne8©) 14...h6 15.Be3 Nxe4! 16.Nxe4 Nxd5 17.Qxa5
Rxa5 18.Bd2 Rxa2 19.g4 Rb8 20.Ne2 Ra3 21.Kf2 Raxb3 22.Rxb3 Rxb3©
11...Nb6!?
11...Bxa6 12.Bxa6 Qxa6 13.Nge2 Ne5 14.0-0 Nc4 15.Qc1 (15.Qc2 h6 16.Bc1 Rfb8 17.Rd1 Nd7 18.Rb1 Rb7©)
15...Rfb8 16.b3 Na3 17.Qd2 Nd7 18.Rac1 c4³ ½-½ (27) Varley, P (2215) – Pleasants, A (2078) Cardiff 2014
12.Nh3
12.Nb5 Rxa6 13.Nc3 Ra7 14.Rc1 e6 15.dxe6 Bxe6 16.Nh3 Bxh3 17.gxh3 d5ƒ
12...Bxa6 13.0-0 Rfb8 14.Bxa6 Rxa6 15.Qe2

Position after: 15.Qe2
15...Na4
15...Nfd7!? 16.a4 (16.Bxe7 Na4 17.Nxa4 Qa4 18.b3 Qa3 19.Bg5 Bxa1 20.Rxa1 Rxb3–+) 16...Bxc3 17.bxc3 f6 18.Bh6
Nxa4∞
16.Nxa4 Qxa4 17.b3 Qa5 18.Bd2 Qb6 19.Bc3 c4+ 20.Kh1 cxb3 21.Bd4!? Rxa2 22.Qxa2 Qxd4©
Chapter 18 – 7.d5 a6 8.a4 h6
A) 9.Be3 e6
10.Nf3
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Be2 0-0 6.Bg5 c5 7.d5 a6 8.a4
8...h6
The entire 6...c5 system and especially with a6-a4 included, were not considered as good for Black in the past. The
reason is simple, after an eventual e6 and exd5, White captures back with the e4 pawn. Such structures were not
considered good and the famous Grandmaster W. Uhlmann developed lots of ideas for White. However we surely have
to mention L.Polugaevsky as well who used the line with success! Myself, I used this move in one of my important
encounters while playing in Switzerland against GM V. Milov, who was as a well known Averbakh player.
I had to invent something descent and managed just that. The game will be seen in the last subchapter of this one.
9.Be3
A somewhat older approach but still an interesting one. With the ...a6 and a4 moves played, the structure changed
somewhat. Mainly, Black is deprived of the ...Na6 option.
9...e6 10.Nf3!?
Another way to transpose to a Benoni goes: 10.h3 exd5 11.exd5 Re8 12.Nf3 Bf5 13.Nd2 Ne4 14.Ndxe4 Bxe4 15.0-0
Nd7 16.Re1 Qh4!? (16...Bf5 17.g4 Be4 18.Ra3 Qh4 19.Bf1 f5∞ 1-0 (42) Polugaevsky, L – Szabo, L Budapest 1967)
17.Bf1 h5 18.Qd2 Bf5 19.a5 Rab8∞
10...exd5 11.cxd5 Bg4 12.Nd2 Bxe2 13.Qxe2 Re8 14.0-0 Nbd7
This is a transposition to a Benoni where Black has the extra move ...h6. If this is good or bad remains the question and
it is difficult to make any final conclusions at this stage. Anyway this line in the Benoni without ...h6 is not considered
dangerous for Black. But it requires some good understanding to handle it.
15.h3
Of course not the only move. White has a lot of flexible ideas leading to a similar type of play:
A) 15.Kh1 Nh5!? (15...Rc8 16.a5 Nh7 17.Nc4 Qe7 18.Rae1 Ne5 19.Nb6 Rcd8 20.f4 Nd7 21.Nc4² 1-0 (26) Volkov,
S (2623) – Bejtovic, J (2402) Stockholm 2014) 16.g4 (16.a5 Qh4 17.g4 Be5!µ) 16...Nhf6 17.f3 Nh7∞
B) 15.f4 Rb8 16.a5 b5 17.axb6 Rxb6 18.Nc4 Nxe4! 19.Nxb6 Nxb6 20.Qf3 Nxc3 21.bxc3 Bxc3 22.Rad1 Qf6³ 0-1
(35) Cavalcanti, F (2290) – Matsuura, E (2478) Fortaleza 2013
C) 15.a5 Ne5 (15...Qe7 16.g3 Ne5 17.h3 Nh7 18.f4 Nd7 19.Rfe1 Bxc3!? 20.bxc3 Ndf6 21.Qg2 Nxe4 22.Bxc5 dxc5
23.Rxe4 Qd7 24.c4 Qc7 25.Qe2 Nf6 26.Re5 b6 27.axb6 Qxb6 28.Ra2 a5∞ ½-½ (48) Borisovs, L – Novak, V corr.
2014) 16.h3 Nh5 17.g4 Nf6 18.Kg2 b5 19.axb6 Qxb6 20.Ra2 a5 21.Rfa1 g5 22.f4 gxf4 23.Bxf4 Nfd7 24.Nd1 Ng6∞
½-½ (59) Silin, V (2303) – Dulany, L (2334) corr. 2012
D) 15.f3 Ne5 16.a5 Rc8 17.Kh1 Qe7!? is unclear. (Cautious play is needed, because after 17...Nh5?! 18.g4!? Nf6
19.g5 hxg5 20.Bxg5 Qc7 21.Bxf6 Bxf6 22.f4± Black’s entertaining play may definitely backfire. 1-0 (37) Simal
Moreira, L – Coltro, J corr. 2015)
15...Nh5 16.a5 Rb8
17.Ra4
17.Rfe1 Qh4 18.g4 Nhf6 19.Kg2 Nh7 20.Bf4 Qe7 21.Bg3 Nhf8 22.Nc4 Ne5 23.Ne3 Ned7 24.f3 Be5 25.Bxe5 Qxe5∞
½-½ (36) Halliwell, T – Krzyzanowski, A corr. 2014
17...Ne5 18.Kh2 Qe7 19.g3 Nd7 20.Kg2 Kh7 21.Qd1 Kg8 22.Qc2 Rbc8∞
½-½ (73) Topalov, V (2777) – Radjabov, T (2744) Bilbao 2008

10.Qd2
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Be2 0-0 6.Bg5 c5 7.d5 a6 8.a4 h6 9.Be3 e6 10.Qd2
10...exd5 11.exd5 Kh7 12.h3 Re8 13.Bd3!?
An idea that is bringing interesting play.

13.Nf3 Bf5 14.0-0 Ne4! 15.Nxe4 Bxe4 16.Ra3 (16.a5 Nd7 17.Ra2 Qf6 18.b4 Rac8 19.Rc1 Qe7 20.Ne1 cxb4 21.Qxb4
Nc5∞ 0-1 (47) Novoa, F (2017) – Gimenez, S (2260) Buenos Aires 2012) 16...Bxf3 17.Bxf3 Nd7 18.b4 (18.Qc2 Qh4
19.Rb3 Rab8 20.Bg4 Ne5 21.g3 Qe7 22.Be2 Qd7!µ ½-½ (43) Bertok, M – Uhlmann, W Zagreb 1970) 18...Qc7 19.Rb1
Rec8 20.Be2 b6 21.Rab3 Rab8= 1-0 (35) Kaufman, R (2286) – Sapozhnikov, R (2252) Toronto 2010
Position after: 13.Bd3!?
13...Nbd7!?
13...Nh5!? 14.Nge2 (14.Nf3 Nf4=) 14...Nd7 15.Bc2 (15.f4 Bxc3 16.bxc3 Qh4+ 17.Kd1 Ng7 18.Kc2 f5 Black has
better play.) 15...Ne5 16.b3 Qe7 17.Kf1 Bd7 18.Re1 f5³ 0-1 (30) Mohr, K (2235) – Zelkind, E (2410) Chicago 1984
14.Nf3 Ne5 15.Nxe5 Rxe5 16.0-0 Nh5
We have a ‘Benoni type’ of position (the Nf3-h3 line) when White plays exd5 instead of cxd5. But here Black has some
extra tempi which makes his position much more flexible.
17.Ne2!
The best option.

A) 17.Be2 Qh4„
B) 17.Rae1 Qh4 18.f4 Rxe3 19.Rxe3 Bd4 20.Ne2 (20.Kh2 Bxe3 21.Qxe3 Nf6 22.Kh1 Kg7 23.f5 Bxf5 24.Bxf5
gxf5=) 20...Bxe3+ 21.Qxe3 Ng7 22.Qf2 Qe7 23.Re1 Qf8 24.Ng3 f5 25.Nf1 Qf6=
17...Qe7!?
Black has to be careful. Each move has to be precise.

17...f5 18.Nf4! Nxf4 (18...Nf6 19.Qc2²) 19.Bxf4 Re7 20.Rae1 b6 21.Qc2 Raa7² 1-0 (49) Zavodny, Z – Felix, V Brno
1971
18.Rfe1!
A) 18.Rae1 Bd7 19.g4 (19.Nf4 Nxf4 20.Bxf4 Rxe1 21.Rxe1 Qf6 22.a5 Re8 23.Rxe8 Bxe8 24.b3 h5 25.Bg3 Qe7=)
19...Qh4 20.gxh5 Bxh3 21.Ng3 Rae8 22.hxg6+ fxg6 23.Qc2 Rxe3=
B) 18.g4 Bxg4 19.hxg4 Qh4 20.f3 Rxe3 21.Qxe3 Bd4=
18...f5!
18...Bd7 19.g4!±
19.Nf4 Nf6 20.Qc2 Bd7 21.Bd2 Re8 22.Bc3
22.Ne2 Ne4 23.f4 Nxd2 24.fxe5 Qg5 25.Kh1 Rxe5∞

22...Rxe1+ 23.Rxe1 Qf7 24.Rxe8 Nxe8=
Position after: 24...Nxe8=
For instance:
25.g4 Bxc3 26.Qxc3 Kg8 27.gxf5 Bxf5 28.Bxf5 Qxf5 29.Ne6 Qb1+ 30.Kg2 Qe4+ 31.Qf3 Qxf3+ 32.Kxf3 b6=
B) 9.Bf4 e6
10.Nf3
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Be2 0-0 6.Bg5 c5 7.d5 a6 8.a4 h6 9.Bf4 e6 10.Nf3
For the critical 10.dxe6 see the next subchapter.
10...exd5 11.cxd5
11.exd5 Re8 12.0-0 Ne4 13.Nxe4 Rxe4

A) 14.Bc1 Bg4! (14...a5 15.Ra3 Na6∞ ½-½ (25) Lombard, A (2340) – Forster, R (2438) Switzerland 2010) 15.Qc2
Bxf3 16.Bxf3 Re7 17.Bd2 Nd7 and Black is fine.
B) 14.Be3 Bg4! (14...Qf6!? 15.Rb1 a5 16.Bd3 Re8 17.Qc1 Bg4 18.Nd2 Bf5 19.Bxf5 Qxf5 20.Nf3 g5 21.h4 f6
22.Qc3 Nd7² ½-½ (43) Yakovich, Y (2592) – Gofshtein, L (2507) Fuerth 1999) 15.Nd2 Bxe2 16.Qxe2 Re7 17.Nf3
Nd7 18.Qd2 Qf8 19.a5 Rae8=
11...g5!?
Position after: 11...g5!?
An interesting additional option due to the extra ...h6 move. Moreover, it seems logical and in the spirit of the Benoni
set-up.
11...Bg4 12.0-0
We reached a similar Benoni position but with an extra tempo ...h6. Black now has two choices resulting in two
different kind of positions. But I believe in both cases the extra move ...h6 is a plus for Black. 12...Bxf3 (12...Re8
13.Nd2 Bxe2 14.Qxe2 Nh5 15.Be3 Nd7„) 13.Bxf3 Qe7 14.a5 (14.Qd2 g5 15.Bg3 Nbd7 16.h3 Ne5 17.Be2 Ng6
18.Rfe1 Rfe8 19.a5 Rab8∞) 14...Nbd7∞ 1-0 (88) Franic, M (2390) – Freitag, M (2285) Vienna 1996
12.Be3
A) 12.Bc1 would transpose to a typical Benoni where Black is a few tempi up: 12...Re8 13.Nd2 Nbd7 14.a5 (14.0-0 In
fact, we now have again, a Benoni with Black having ...h6 – ...g5 extra, which can’t be bad in this position. 14...b6
15.f4 gxf4 16.Rxf4 Ne5 17.Kh1 Ra7 18.Qe1 Nfg4!? 19.Nc4 f5 20.exf5 h5„ ½-½ (32) Romanov, E – Ciklabakkal, M
corr. 2013) 14...Ne5 15.0-0 Qe7∞ 0-1 (98) Lukasevicius, P – Balta, M corr. 2014 Compared to the normal Benoni,
Black has a few tempi more. This should give him more than adequate play.
B) 12.Bg3 Nh5 13.Nd2 Nxg3 14.hxg3 transposes direct to the Benoni 14...f5 (14...Nd7 15.Nc4 Qe7 16.a5 Rb8
17.Qc2 Re8 18.0-0 Bd4!? 19.Qd2 Qf6 20.Bd3 Ne5 21.Nxe5 Qxe5 22.Kh1 b5„ 0-1 (38) Hoi, C (2425) – Arnason, J
(2445) Randers 1982) 15.exf5 Bxf5 16.0-0 Nd7 17.Nc4 Ne5 18.Ne3 (18.Nxe5 Bxe5 19.Bd3 Qd7 20.Bxf5 Qxf5)
18...Bh7 19.g4 Qd7 20.g3 Rae8³ ½-½ (47) Peev, P (2440) – Suba, M (2430) Pernik 1978
12...Ng4
13.Bc1
13.Bd2 Nxf2!
Position after: 13...Nxf2!
14.Kxf2 g4 15.Re1 gxf3 16.Bxf3 Qh4+ (16...Nd7 17.Kg1 Ne5∞) 17.Kg1 Nd7 18.a5 Ne5 19.g3 Qh3 20.Bf4 Ng4
21.Bxg4 Bxg4 22.Qd2 Rfe8„ 1-0 (40) Pech, J – Krammer, W corr. 2010
13...f5 14.exf5
14.0-0 f4 15.g3 Nd7∞
14...Bxf5 15.0-0 Nd7 16.Nxg5 Nxf2 17.Rxf2 hxg5 18.Be3 Qe8!

Position after: 18...Qe8!
19.Qd2 Qg6!? 20.Bxg5 Rae8 21.Kh1 Bd4 22.Rff1 Bxc3 23.bxc3 Rxe2 24.Qxe2 Qxg5 25.Rf3 Ne5 26.Rg3 Bg4
27.Qe1 Kh8∞
10.dxe6
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Be2 0-0 6.Bg5 c5 7.d5 a6 8.a4 h6 9.Bf4 e6 10.dxe6 Bxe6
Position after: 10...Bxe6
11.Bxd6
A logical move, but not a big problem for Black.

11.Qd2 This move was popularised by many. White doesn’t take the pawn but first puts pressure on the h6-pawn.
11...Nc6!
Position after: 11...Nc6!
That is the way to play! Ignoring both threats and gaining precious time for the development. 12.Bxh6 Nd4 13.Bxg7
Kxg7
Position after: 13...Kxg7
Now we see one of the reasons why the insertion of ...a6 was important: the ...Nb3 threat. 14.Rd1 Now we have two
interesting lines:
A) 14...b5!?
A1) 15.cxb5 Bb3 16.Rc1 Re8 17.Nf3 Nxe4 18.Nxe4 Rxe4 19.Nxd4 Rxd4 20.Qc3 (20.Qe3 Qa5+µ ½-½ (32) Jorczik,
J (2382) – Polzin, R (2500) Germany 2008) 20...Bxa4 21.bxa6 Qe8 22.b3 Bb5 23.Rc2 Rxa6³
A2) 15.axb5 axb5 16.cxb5 Bb3 17.Rc1 Re8 18.Nf3 Nxe4 19.Nxe4 Nxe2 20.Qxe2 Bd5 21.0-0 Bxe4 22.b4! (22.b3
Qf6!³) 22...Bb7 23.Qb2+ Kg8 24.bxc5 Bxf3 25.gxf3 Qg5+ 26.Kh1 dxc5©
B) 14...Re8 In my game I used this move and it is OK to employ both.
B1) 15.f3 Nh5 16.Kf2 Qh4+ 17.Ke3 Ng3 18.hxg3 Qxh1µ 0-1 (35) Zaiatz, E (2398) – Dembo, Y (2402) Chisinau
2005
B2) 15.h4 b5! Again!
16.f3 bxc4 17.h5 Rb8 18.g4 Nd7 19.f4 Nf6 20.g5 Nxe4!–+ 0-1 (32) Milov, V (2635) – Pavlovic, M (2535) Biel
1998
B3) 15.Nf3 Nxe2 16.Qxe2 Nxe4 17.Nxe4 Bf5 18.Nfd2 Bxe4 19.Nxe4 Qh4! (19...f5 20.0-0 Rxe4 21.Qd3 Qe7
22.Qxd6 Qxd6 23.Rxd6 Rxc4 24.Rd7+ Kh6 25.Rxb7 Rxa4= ½-½ (43) Raetsky, A (2440) – Antic, D (2495) Zurich
1998) 20.0-0 Qxe4 21.Qxe4 Rxe4 22.Rxd6 Rxc4³
B4) 15.Bd3 b5 16.cxb5 Bb3 17.Rc1 d5 18.bxa6
B4.1) 18...dxe4 19.Bb5 Re5 20.Nge2 Qd6 21.Nxd4!? (21.Ng3 Rd8© 0-1 (32) Kachiani Gersinska, K (2439) –
Thiede, L (2416) Germany 2003) 21...cxd4 22.Ne2 d3 23.0-0 Ng4 24.Rc6!±
B4.2) 18...Nxe4! 19.Nxe4 dxe4 20.Bb5 e3 21.fxe3 Qh4+ 22.Kf1 Nxb5 23.axb5 Bc4+ 24.Ne2 Bxb5³
11...Re8
12.Bxc5
We also have to consider the possible capture of another pawn.

A) 12.e5 Ng4 13.Nf3 (13.Bxg4 Bxg4 14.Qxg4 Qxd6 15.f4 Qd4 16.Rd1 Qxc4„ 0-1 (33) Hall, R (1969) – Kiseleva, S
Benidorm 2009) 13...Nc6 14.0-0 Ngxe5 15.Nxe5 Nxe5 16.Nd5 Rc8 17.Qd2 Nc6 18.Rae1 Nd4µ 0-1 (38) Szabo, L –
Spassky, B Budapest 1959
B) 12.Nf3 White has an other important option: 12...Nc6 13.0-0 Qb6
14.a5!? (14.e5 Nd7 15.Qd2 Ndxe5 16.Nd5 Bxd5 17.Bxe5 Nxe5 18.cxd5 Rad8³) 14...Nxa5 15.Na4 Qd8 16.Nxc5
(16.e5 Ne4 17.Nxc5 Nxc5 18.Bxc5 Qxd1 19.Raxd1 Bxc4=) 16...Bxc4 17.Bxc4 (17.e5 Bxe2 18.Qxe2 Qxd6 19.Rxa5
Qb6 20.b4 Nd5³) 17...Nxc4 18.e5 Nxd6 19.Qxd6 Ng4 20.Qxd8 Rexd8 21.e6 Rd5 22.exf7+ Kxf7 23.Nxb7 Bxb2=
12...Qa5!?
Not the only way to continue the game:

12...Qc8!? 13.Be3 Bxc4 14.Rc1 Qe6 15.Bxc4 Qxc4 16.f3 Nc6 17.Nh3 Na5 18.Qe2 Rac8 19.Nf2 Qb3 20.0-0 Nc4
21.Rb1 Red8 22.Rfd1 Nxe3 23.Rxd8+ Rxd8 24.Qxe3 Qc2©
13.b4 Qc7
14.Rc1
A) 14.Qd6 Qxd6 15.Bxd6 Nxe4–+

B) 14.Bd6 Qc6 15.b5 (15.e5 Bxc4! 16.Nf3 Ne4 17.Nxe4 Qxe4 18.Rc1 Bxe2 19.Qxe2 Qxe2+ 20.Kxe2 Nc6=)
15...axb5 16.e5 Nfd7 17.f4 bxa4∞
14...Nc6!?
Though White is two pawns up, Black has a huge lead in development, providing him sufficient counter play.
15.Nf3
15.f3 Rad8 16.Nd5 Qe5 17.Kf1 (17.Nh3 Nxd5 18.cxd5 Bxd5 19.exd5 Rxd5 20.Qc2 Rxc5 21.bxc5 Nd4 22.Qe4 Nxe2
23.Qxe5 Rxe5³) 17...b5 18.axb5 axb5 19.Bb6 Rd7 20.cxb5 Nxb4ƒ
15...Rad8 16.Qb3 Na5 17.Qa2 b6

18.Bd4
18.Bxb6 Qxb6 19.bxa5 Qxa5 20.0-0 Nd7 21.Nd5 Nc5 22.Nd2 Qxa4 23.Qxa4 Nxa4 24.Rc2 Nc5 25.Ra2 Nxe4
26.Nxe4 Bxd5 27.cxd5 Rxe4 28.Bxa6 Ra8=
18...Nc6 19.Bxf6 Bxf6 20.Qb1 Bxc3+ 21.Rxc3 Nd4 22.Nxd4 Rxd4 23.0-0 Bxc4
Position after: 23...Bxc4
24.b5
24.Bxc4 Rxc4 25.Rxc4 Qxc4 26.f3 Qc3 27.Rd1 Qa3 28.h4 h5 29.b5 Qxa4 30.bxa6 Qxa6 31.Rd6 Qc4!=
24...axb5 25.axb5 Rexe4³

PART VI – The Four Pawns Attack
Short survey:
In general one of the most entertaining lines. It was very popular and still has its regular followers. We are just entering
some very concrete lines: White takes all the space and tries to get an early initiative with a direct assault in the centre. I
simply loved this line when I was a youngster. Of course by using such a strategy White burns many bridges and Black
must exploit these with moves like ‘...b5’ or building pressure down the e-file (after ...c5-d5-...e6 followed by ...exd5
etc...).
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f4 c5

Chapter 20 – 6.d5 0-0 7.Nf3 e6
A) 8.dxe6
B) 8.Be2 exd5 9.e5?!
C) 8.Be2 exd5 9.cxd5 Nbd7 10.e5
D) 8.Be2 exd5 9.cxd5 Nbd7 10.0-0 Re8
11.Qc2
11.Nd2
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f4

A dangerous system that always had its followers. Even though Black can confront it with good defensive systems, still
White can be able to pull rabbit out of his hat. It is clear that the resulting positions are very sharp and tactically
demanding. Also in several lines there are a lot of transpositions to the Benoni like the line I preferred to include in this
book (...c5). Of course Black can also play in “King’s Indian style” preparing to play ...e5, for example.
5...c5
This move order allows a specific defensive reply in case White wants to go for dxc5 ideas. Although it is still perfectly
playable for White of course.
6.dxc5?! Qa5 7.Bd3 Nfd7!

Position after: 7...Nfd7!
This is the subtlety.
8.Bd2 Nxc5 9.Bc2 Nc6 10.Nd5
Not the only move.

10.Nf3 Bg4
A) 11.Nd5 Qd8 12.Bc3 Bxc3+ 13.Nxc3 e5! 14.0-0 exf4 15.Qd2 Ne6 16.Ba4 0-0 17.Bxc6 bxc6 18.Rad1 Qb6+
19.Kh1 Rad8µ 0-1 (27) Flear, G (2455) – Damaso, R (2438) Ciudad Real 2004
B) 11.Rb1 0-0 12.0-0 Qa6 13.b4 Qxc4 14.bxc5 Qxc5+ 15.Kh1 Bxc3µ 0-1 (30) Marcolino, A (2122) – Orsini, A
(2181) Buenos Aires 2003
C) 11.0-0 Ne6 12.Kh1 Ned4 13.Nb5 Qb6 14.Nbxd4 Bxd4 15.Rb1 Bg7 16.h3 Bxf3 (16...Be6 17.Bd3² ½-½ (83)
Jianu, V (2545) – Vojinovic, J (2278) Skopje 2011) 17.Qxf3 0-0= Black equalised.
10...Qd8
11.b4
Alternatives don’t offer much if any:

11.Bc3 Bxc3+ 12.Nxc3 0-0 13.Qd2 (13.Nge2 Qb6 14.b3 Nb4 15.Nd5 Nxd5 16.exd5 Re8 17.Qd2 Bg4 18.b4 Nd7
19.Ba4 e5µ; 13.f5 Qb6 14.Nge2 Qxb2 15.0-0 Nb4 16.Bb3 b6³; 13.Nf3 f5!? 14.0-0 Qb6 15.Nd5 Qxb2 16.exf5 Bxf5
17.Bxf5 Rxf5 18.g4 Rff8µ 0-1 (23) Welti, M (1915) – Wallner, J (2333) corr. 2006) 13...Qb6!? 14.b3 (14.0-0-0 Nb4!
15.Bb1 Be6 16.b3 a5 17.f5 a4µ) 14...Nb4 15.Nd5 Nxd5 16.cxd5 f5µ
11...Nd7
12.Nf3
White doesn’t want to lose time and sacrifices the Rook on a1, but in my opinion Black has nice options guaranteeing
him good play.
12.Rb1
A) 12...0-0 13.Ne2 (13.Bc3 Bxc3+ 14.Nxc3 Nb6 15.Qd3 a5 16.a3 axb4 17.axb4 e5 18.f5 gxf5 19.exf5 Qh4+
20.Qg3+ Qxg3+ 21.hxg3 Nd4µ ½-½ (38) Lopez de Turiso, J (2115) – Paredes Sanchez, J (2052) Madrid 2002)
13...a5 14.b5 Nb4 15.Bxb4 (15.Bc3 Nf6 16.Nxf6+ Bxf6 17.Bb3 a4 18.Bxa4 Nxa2 19.Bxf6 exf6 20.Bb3 Re8 21.Qd4
Bg4 22.Ng3 Qa5+³) 15...axb4 16.Nxb4 Nf6 17.Qd2 Qc7 18.Bd3 Qc5 19.Nd5 Nxd5 20.cxd5 Ra3 21.Rc1 Qa7
22.Rc2 Bd7 23.Rf1 Rc8 24.Rxc8+ Bxc8 25.Bc4 Re3µ 0-1 (34) Mões Joaquim, C (1879) – Booij, R (2379) corr. 2012
B) 12...a5!? 13.a3 (13.b5 Nb4! 14.a4 Nxc2+ 15.Qxc2 e6 16.Ne3 b6 17.Nh3 Bb7 18.Nf2 0-0 19.0-0 Nc5³) 13...axb4
14.axb4 Nb6 15.Nxb6 Qxb6 16.f5 0-0 17.Ne2 Ne5 18.c5 dxc5 19.Nf4 c4µ 0-1 (42) Kiriakopoulos, A (2126) –
Markidis, K (2295) Korinthos 1999
12...e6
13.Ne3
13.Bc3 Bxc3+ 14.Nxc3 Nxb4 15.Nb5 0-0 16.0-0 Qb6+ 17.Rf2 a6 18.Nxd6 Nxc2 19.Nxc8 Raxc8 20.Qxc2 Nf6µ
13...a5 14.b5 Nb4 15.Rb1 Nc5 16.0-0 b6 17.f5 Nxc2 18.Qxc2 Bb7 19.fxe6 fxe6 20.Ng5 Bd4 21.Nf7 Bxe4 22.Qd1
Qe7 23.Nxh8 Bxb1 24.Qxb1 Bxh8µ
0-1 (62) Solinski, R (2457) – Mego, I (2307) corr. 2010

Chapter 20 – 6.d5 0-0 7.Nf3 e6
A) 8.dxe6
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f4 c5 6.d5 0-0 7.Nf3 e6
8.dxe6
A well-known idea and played many times in the past although it is not popular anymore. But still it is a line that Black
has to reckon with.
8...fxe6 9.Bd3 Nc6 10.0-0 b6

Black has a few other choices but this one has the obvious idea to have a configuration with the Bishop on b7 and the
Queen on e7 which seems a very solid set up. Though this structure is a bit irregular and obviously White has more
space. But d4 is under Black’s control and his position is elastic. The White plan is simple: Ng5 followed by e5 and so
on... But easier said than done.
11.Ng5
A) 11.Qe1 Qe7 12.Kh1 (12.Qh4 Nh5 13.f5 Bd4+ 14.Kh1 Qxh4 15.Nxh4 Ne5 16.Be2 Bxc3 17.bxc3 Ng7„ ½-½ (39)
Topchy, G (2278) – Bucciardini, G (2419) corr. 1999) 12...Nh5 13.Ng5
A1) 13...Bxc3!? An unusual but interesting reply: 14.bxc3 (14.Qxc3 e5 15.f5 Nd4 16.Bd2 Bb7 17.Rae1 h6 18.Nh3
Qg7 19.g4 gxf5! 20.gxh5 fxe4–+) 14...e5 15.f5 Nf4 16.Bxf4 exf4 17.Qh4 Ne5 18.Bc2ƒ 0-1 (29) Chatalbashev, B
(2550) – Filipek, J (2395) Cappelle la Grande 1998
A2) 13...Bb7! 14.Bd2 Nb4 15.Bb1 Rae8 16.a3 Nc6 17.Bd3 Nd4„
B) 11.Kh1 Nd4 12.Ng5 a6 13.Be3 Ra7 14.a3 Re7 15.e5 dxe5 16.fxe5 Nd7 17.Nge4 Ref7 18.Rxf7 Rxf7 19.Ng5 Re7
20.Nxh7 Nxe5 21.Ng5 Bb7³ ½-½ (80) Soffer, R (2489) – Mittelman, G (2384) Israel 2011
C) 11.Bd2 Bb7 12.Qe1 (12.Ng5 Qe7 13.f5 Ne5 14.Qc2 exf5 15.exf5 Nxd3 16.Qxd3 Ng4 17.Rae1 Bd4+ 18.Kh1
Qd7 19.Ne6 Nf2+ 20.Rxf2 Bxf2µ 0-1 (24) Prasse, U – Zesch, L (2103) Leutersdorf 2000) 12...Qe7 13.Rd1 Rad8
14.Kh1 Nh5 15.Ng5 Nd4 16.g4? Nf6 17.Qh4 h6 18.Nh3 Nxe4 0-1 (18) Kraus, Y (2102) – Gruenfeld, Y (2449)
Jerusalem 2014
11...Qe7
Position after: 11...Qe7
12.Qe1
Other ideas:
A) 12.Bd2 Bd7 13.a3 Rad8 14.Rb1 Bc8 15.Qe1 Ng4 16.Nf3 Nd4 17.h3 Nxf3+ 18.Rxf3 Nf6 19.Rd1 Bb7 20.Rf2
Nh5„ ½-½ (53) Raessler, A (2113) – Hildebrand, G (2188) corr. 2009
B) 12.Kh1 Bb7 13.Be3 Rad8 14.Qe2 Nd4 15.Qd2 Kh8 16.Rae1 Ng4 17.Bg1 Bh6!? (17...e5 18.Nd5 Bxd5 19.exd5 h6
20.Nh3ƒ ½-½ (68) Jodorcovsky, P (2195) – Vazquez, G (2004) Asuncion 2010) 18.Qd1 Bxg5 19.Qxg4 Bh6 20.Bb1
Rf7∞
12...Bd7
12...Nh5 13.Be2 Nd4 14.Bxh5 gxh5 15.Rf2 Ba6 16.b3 b5 17.cxb5 Nxb5 18.Bb2 h6 19.Nh3 Bd4 20.Qe2 Nxc3
21.Qxa6 Qg7 22.Qd3 Nxe4 23.Bxd4 Qxd4 24.Qxd4 cxd4³ ½-½ (65) Vecek, M – Fritsche, F corr. 2013
13.Bd2 Nh5 14.g4 Nb4 15.Bb1 h6
16.Nh3
16.gxh5 hxg5 17.hxg6 gxf4µ
16...Bd4+ 17.Kg2 Ng7 18.a3 Na6 19.Bd3∞
This is really complicated. White has options like e5 and f5 but Black at the moment is ready for these. Neither side
wanted to jump into the water and so a draw was agreed. ½-½ (19) Parligras, M (2542) – Kotronias, V (2612)
Thessaloniki 2007
B) 8.Be2 exd5 9.e5?!
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f4 c5 6.d5 0-0 7.Nf3 e6 8.Be2
8...exd5 9.e5?!
This intermediate move was popular for a while in the eighties until Black discovered strong counter play. Since then
this line simply vanished from tournament practice.
9...Ne4!
Position after: 9...Ne4!
A key idea!
10.cxd5
10.Nxd5 Nc6 11.0-0 dxe5 12.fxe5 Nxe5 13.Bf4 Nc6 14.Bc7 (14.Nc7 Rb8 15.Nb5 Bf5!µ) 14...Qd7
A) 15.Bd3 Nf6 16.Ne5 Nxe5 17.Rxf6 Ng4 18.Rf3 b6–+ (18...Ne5 19.Rf6 Ng4 20.Rf3 Ne5 ½-½ (20) Friesen, B
(2139) – Zozulia, A (2314) Vlissingen 2005)
B) 15.Rb1 Nb4 16.Be5 Bxe5 17.Nxe5 Qe6 18.Nf3 Nxd5 19.Qxd5 Qxd5 20.cxd5 Bf5µ 0-1 (71) Javorsky, J (2320) –
Valak, A (2439) corr. 2010
10...Nxc3 11.bxc3 Nd7
12.e6
12.0-0 dxe5 13.fxe5 Nxe5 14.Be3 (14.Bf4 Nxf3+ 15.Rxf3 Bg4 16.Re3 Bxe2 17.Qxe2 Qxd5 18.Rd1 Qf5–+ 0-1 (62)
Laengl, J – Lutzenberger, R (2300) Schussenried 1992)
14...Nxf3+ 15.Bxf3 Qd6 16.Qd2 Be5 17.h3 b6 18.Bh6 Re8µ 0-1 (39) Li Zunian (2270) – Gheorghiu, F (2520) Dubai
1986
12...fxe6 13.dxe6 Nb6 14.0-0 Bxe6 15.Ng5 Bd5 16.Rb1 Bxc3

Position after: 16...Bxc3
17.Kh1
17.Bb2 Be5!? 18.Qd2 Bxb2 19.Rxb2 c4 20.Bg4 Bc6 21.Rc2 Qf6 22.Be6+ Kg7 23.Bxc4 Rae8µ 0-1 (48) Rain, R –
Zuchowski Filho, E corr. 2002
17...Bd4 18.a4 Qe7 19.a5 Nc4!
19...Rae8 20.Bf3 Bxf3 21.Qxf3 h6 (21...Nd7 22.Rxb7± 0-1 (51) Barsov, A (2525) – Ye Jiangchuan (2681) Moscow
2001) 22.axb6 hxg5 23.bxa7 b5 24.Rxb5 Qxa7µ
20.Bf3 Bxf3 21.Qxf3 Nxa5 22.Qd5+ Kh8–+
C) 8.Be2 exd5 9.cxd5 Nbd7 10.e5
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f4 c5 6.d5 0-0 7.Nf3 e6 8.Be2 exd5 9.cxd5 Nbd7
With the intention to transpose to a well-known Benoni line which was debated a lot in the past. At the end White
couldn’t find any advantage.
10.e5
This was considered as the refutation to the black set-up, but in the early nineties the idea that we will see was already
known to me. Black is ready to sac a piece!
10...dxe5 11.fxe5 Ng4

12.Bg5
I think this must be the best choice, as we can see that direct play is counterproductive.
12.e6 Nde5 13.Ng5 (Black had a few quick wins after... 13.exf7+ Rxf7 14.0-0 Nxf3+ 15.Rxf3 Bd4+ with ...Nxh2
coming next. 0-1 (15) Engelen, J (2018) – Grafl, F (2351) Brest 2002) 13...fxe6! That is the key move Black is relying
on. 14.Bxg4 Nxg4 15.Qxg4 exd5
Position after: 15...exd5
OK, White is a piece up. But look at the beautiful strong centre and the open e-file. This and the tremendous Bishops
give Black a strong initiative. 16.Qh4 (16.Qg3 h6 17.Nf3 d4 18.Ne4 Qd5 19.Ned2 Re8+ 20.Kd1 c4 21.Ne1 Bf5–+)
16...h6 17.Nf3 g5 18.Qg3 d4 19.Nb1 Qe8+
Position after: 19...Qe8+
20.Kd2 (20.Kd1 c4 21.Qd6 d3 22.Qd5+ Kh7 23.Re1 Qa4+ 24.b3 cxb3–+ 0-1 (37) Pljasunov, A – Khismatullin, D St
Petersburg 1998) 20...c4 21.Na3 c3+–+ 0-1 (24) Kantorik, M (2364) – Villwock, M (2170) Litomysl 2006
12...f6!?N
This is another move which leads to typical positions in the Four Pawns Attack, and it is not bad at all. With this move I
only want to suggest something new.
12...Qb6 13.0-0 Ndxe5 14.Nxe5 Nxe5 15.Be7 (15.Qd2 c4+ 16.Kh1 Bf5 17.d6 Bd3 18.Be7 Rfe8 19.Nd5 Qc5µ)
15...Re8 16.d6 Qxb2 (Or maybe 16...c4+ first.) 17.Nd5 Bf5 and Black should be doing very good although the position
is double-edged.
13.exf6 Bxf6
14.d6!?
A) 14.Bxf6 Ndxf6 15.Qd2 Qd6 16.0-0 Bf5 17.h3 Ne5 18.Nxe5 Qxe5 19.Bc4 a6 20.a4 Kh8 21.Rae1 Qd4+ 22.Qxd4
cxd4 23.Ne2 d3 24.Ng3 d2 25.Rd1 Bc2 26.Rxd2 Bxa4 Black is fine.
B) 14.Qd2 Nde5 15.Bxf6 Nxf3+ 16.Bxf3 Re8+ 17.Ne2 Qxf6 18.0-0 Ne3 19.Rfe1 Bg4 20.Bxg4 Nxg4 21.Nc3 Qd6
22.g3 Nf6=
14...Bxg5 15.Qd5+ Kg7 16.Nxg5 Nde5 17.Nge4 Qh4+ 18.g3 Qh6 19.Bxg4 Nxg4 20.Qxc5 Qe3+ 21.Qxe3 Nxe3
Position after: 21...Nxe3
Black is fine. For example:
22.Ke2 Nc4 23.Rhf1 Bf5 24.b3 Ne5 25.Rf4 Rad8 26.Rc1 Nf7 27.Rd1 Rfe8 28.Kf2 Re6 29.g4 Bxe4 30.Nxe4 Nxd6=
D) 8.Be2 exd5 9.cxd5 Nbd7 10.0-0 Re8

11.Qc2
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f4 c5 6.d5 0-0 7.Nf3 e6 8.Be2 exd5 9.cxd5 Nbd7 10.0-0 Re8
11.Qc2
This is a positional important move as White tries to defend the pawn without moving another piece twice.
11...a6 12.a4 c4!?
A typical and interesting pawn sacrifice. On the other hand, it is not well known.
12...Qc7 13.Nd2 Rb8 transposes to a well-known line in this system.
13.Bxc4 Nc5!?
Position after: 13...Nc5!?
14.e5
14.Bd3 Bg4 15.Bd2 Rc8 16.Rae1 Bxf3 17.Rxf3 Ng4 18.g3 Qb6 19.Kg2 Nxd3 20.Qxd3 Qxb2µ
14...Bf5
Now White has a choice of queen moves and all of them are interesting:
15.Qd1
A) 15.Qe2 Nfd7 16.Nd4 (16.Ng5

16...Nb6 17.e6 fxe6 18.dxe6 Nxc4 19.Qxc4 Nxe6 20.Qb3 Qd7 21.Be3 h6 22.Nf3 Qf7∞) 16...dxe5 17.Nxf5 gxf5
18.fxe5 Nxe5 19.Rxf5 Qb6µ
B) 15.Qf2 Nfd7 16.e6 fxe6 17.dxe6 Bxe6 18.Bxe6+ Nxe6 19.Be3 Rc8 20.Rad1 Nf6 21.h3 Qd7 22.Rfe1 Qc6=
15...dxe5 16.fxe5 Ng4 17.e6!
Position after: 17.e6!
Of course this has to be played in this line. Other possible ideas are:
A) 17.Nd4 Bxe5 18.Nxf5 gxf5 19.g3 Qb6ƒ
B) 17.d6 Nxe5 18.Nxe5 Bxe5 19.Bf4 Bxf4 20.Rxf4 Rc8„
17...fxe6 18.h3 Nf6
18...Ne5 19.Nxe5 Bxe5 20.Bf4 Bg7 21.Rc1∞
19.Be3 Rc8
20.Rc1
A) 20.d6 Rc6 21.Qe2 Nce4 22.Nxe4 Nxe4µ

B) 20.dxe6 Qxd1 21.e7+ Ne6 22.Bxe6+ Bxe6 23.Raxd1 Rxe7³
20...Nce4 21.Nxe4 Nxe4 22.Qb3 Nd6! 23.Bg5 Qa5 24.Bd2 Qd8=
11.Nd2
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f4 c5 6.d5 0-0 7.Nf3 e6 8.Be2 exd5 9.cxd5 Nbd7 10.0-0 Re8 11.Nd2
The main line which leads to a well-known Benoni position. For a while this line was heavily debated and even today
there is undiscovered territory. Although White played twice with the same piece it makes good sense. White is using
the c4-square for further pressure. This is a well-known strategy in the Benoni.
11...c4!
This is well known and it was firmly made out that this is OK for Black. Still things are not so simple and good
knowledge of this line is essential. The white central pawns are always dangerous for Black at any moment.
12.Kh1
We give a few other ideas:

A) 12.Bxc4 Nc5 13.Bb5 Re7 14.Qf3 Bg4 15.Qg3 Ncxe4 16.Ndxe4 Nxe4 17.Nxe4 Rxe4 18.Bd3 Qb6+ 19.Kh1 Be2
20.Bxe4 Bxf1 21.Be3 Qb5µ Black is better.
B) 12.a4 Nc5 13.Bf3 b6 14.e5 dxe5 15.fxe5 Rxe5 16.Nxc4 Re8 White has some choices which lead to highly complex
positions:
B1) 17.d6 Be6 18.Be2 Nfe4 19.Nb5 Rf8 20.Bf4 (20.Qc2 a6 21.Nc7 Bd4+µ 0-1 (57) Buettner, F – Lais, T corr.
1994) 20...g5 21.Be3 a6 22.Nba3 Rb8 23.Bd4 Bxd4+ 24.Qxd4 f5 25.Rad1 Qf6„ Black got counter play.
B2) 17.Bg5 h6 18.Bxf6 Qxf6 19.d6 Rb8 20.Bd5 (Or: 20.Bc6 Qd4+ 21.Kh1 Rd8 22.Qxd4 Bxd4 23.Nd5 Nd3
24.Ne7+ Kg7 25.Bd5 f6 26.Nc6 Bb7 27.Rad1 Bxc6 28.Rxd3 Bxd5 29.Rxd4 Bf7³) 20...Bf5 21.g4 Qd4+ 22.Qxd4
Bxd4+ 23.Kh1 Be6 24.Bxe6 Rxe6 25.Nb5 Bf6 26.Nxa7 (In case of: 26.Rfe1 a6 27.Nc7 Rxe1+ 28.Rxe1 Rd8
29.Re8+ Rxe8 30.Nxe8 Bd8=) 26...Kg7 27.Ra3 Nd7 28.h3 Re4 29.b3 Re2 30.Nc6 Rbe8© Due to his active play
Black has compensation.
12...Nc5
13.e5
The best move and critical.

13.Bf3 b5 14.Nxb5 (14.e5 dxe5 15.fxe5 Rxe5 16.Nxb5 Nd3 17.Nxc4 Re1! 18.Qxd3 Bf5 19.Rxe1 Bxd3 20.Nbd6 Bxc4
21.Nxc4 Rc8³ 0-1 (48) Loeffler, W – Mueller, G corr. 1994) 14...Nfxe4 15.Nxc4 Rb8
A) 16.Nxa7? Ba6–+
B) 16.Nd4 Qh4 17.Kg1 Ba6 18.Be2 Rb4 19.Nf3 Qe7!–+ (19...Qh5?! 20.Nfe5∞ 0-1 (36) Weber, R – Hartmann, G
Berlin 1972)
C) 16.a4 a6 17.Na7 Qh4 18.Kg1 Rb4 19.Ne3 Bd7 20.Nc6 Bxb2 21.Nxb4 Bxa1µ
13...dxe5 14.fxe5
The alternative 14.Nxc4 enjoyed some popularity in the past. 14...e4 15.Be3 Nd3 16.Bxd3 exd3 17.Qxd3 b5!? 18.Nxb5
Qxd5!? (18...Ba6 19.a4 Nxd5 20.Bxa7 Re7?! 21.Bc5+– 1-0 (42) Dlugy, M (2485) – Suba, M (2465) Tunis 1985)
19.Qxd5 Nxd5 20.Bxa7 (20.Bg1 Ba6 21.a4 Re4 22.Ncd6 Rxf4 23.Rxf4 Nxf4 24.Bxa7 Bxb2 25.Re1 Bxb5 26.Nxb5
Nd5=) 20...Ba6 21.a4 (21.Ncd6 Red8 22.Bg1 Bxb2 23.Rab1 Bg7=) 21...Rxa7 22.Nxa7 Bxc4 23.Rfe1 Ra8 24.Rac1 Bb3
25.Rc8+ Rxc8 26.Nxc8 Bxa4 Black is fine.
14...Rxe5 15.Nxc4 Re8 16.Bg5 Nce4!? 17.Nxe4 Rxe4
Position after: 17...Rxe4
A rare idea. In this position after ...h6 the white Bishop can’t escape via the h4-square. White has a couple of options:
18.Qd3
Not the only choice:

A) 18.d6 h6 19.Bxf6 Bxf6 20.Qd3 (20.Qc2 Rh4 21.g3 Rd4 22.Rad1 Rxd1 23.Rxd1 Be6 24.Qe4 Qd7 25.Qf4 Bg7
26.b3 Re8∞) 20...Bf5 21.Rad1 Qe8 22.Bf3 Rf4 23.Qb3 Be6„
B) 18.Qc2 Bf5 19.Bxf6 Bxf6 20.Bd3 Rh4 21.Bxf5 Qc7 22.g4 gxf5 23.Rxf5 Rxg4 24.Rxf6 Qxc4=
18...Re8 19.Bf3
Again White has another possibility:

19.d6 Bf5 20.Rxf5 (20.Qd1 h6 21.Bxf6 Bxf6 22.Bd3 b5 23.Bxf5 bxc4 24.Bc2 Re6 25.d7 Kg7 26.Qd5 Rb8 27.Rad1
Qc7 28.Ba4 Re5 29.Qd2 Ra5„) 20...gxf5 21.Rf1 h6 22.Bxf6 Qxf6 23.Bf3 Rad8 24.Bxb7 Qd4„
19...h6
I think this main move to be the best, but others are also possible:
19...Bf5 20.Qb3 Qd7
A) 21.d6 Rac8 22.Ne3 Rc5 23.Qa3 b6 24.b4 Rb5 25.Rad1 Bc2 26.Nxc2 Rxg5„
B) 21.Ne3 Ne4 22.Nxf5 Nxg5 23.Nxg7 Kxg7 24.Rad1 Rad8 25.d6 Nxf3 26.Rxf3 Re6 27.Qc3+ (27.Rfd3 Qc6³)
27...Kg8 28.Rfd3 Qc6 29.Qxc6 bxc6 30.b4 f5=
C) 21.Bxf6 Bxf6 22.Ne3! Bxb2 23.Rad1 Be5 24.Nxf5 gxf5 25.Be2© This is the critical position for the assessment of
19...Bf5. I think White has easier play.
20.Bxf6 Bxf6 21.Be4 Bg7

22.d6 Rb8 23.Bd5 Be6 24.Qf3
24.a4 doesn’t bring anything either. 24...Qd7 25.Rae1 b6 26.b3 Bf5 27.Rxe8+ Rxe8 28.Qf3 Rc8 29.h3 h5= The two
Bishops are important for the creation of counter play.
24...Qd7 25.a4 Rbc8 26.Rac1 Rc5 27.Bxe6 Rxe6 28.Qd3 Rc8 29.b3 Rce8=
Black controls the e-file while the pawn on d6, although far advanced, is effectively stopped. We consider the position
as being equal.
PART VII – The Fianchetto variation
Short survey:
Completely the opposite plan that we witnessed in the Four Pawns Attack. This belongs to the most solid systems for
White and not only against the King’s Indian. The game is positional packed with lots of manoeuvring and slow build
ups. The Pawn structure remains flexible for both sides. Great knowledge is required to handle these positions. In this
book I analysed the ‘...c5’ line trying to resurrect an old and bit forgotten pawn sac. The idea is to develop in a natural
way and trying to halt the positional gains White often achieves.
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nf3 Bg7 4.g3 c5 5.Bg2 cxd4 6.Nxd4 0-0 7.Nc3 Nc6 8.0-0 d6

Chapter 21 – 9.Nc2 & 9. -- alternatives
B) 11.Qa4
C) 11.Bg2 Qa5 12.Nb5
D) 11.Bg2 Qa5 12. --
Chapter 21 – 9.Nc2 & 9.-- alternatives
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nf3 Bg7 4.g3 c5

5.Bg2
5.d5 will transpose to the Benoni if Black goes ...e6 and that will be the subject of our next book in this series. Black can
also go ...b5 and transpose to the Benkö gambit.
5...cxd4
If one wonders when to play ...cxd4: there is no difference, except for instance in the English Four Knights 1.c4 c5
2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.g3 g6 5.Bg2 Bg7 6.d4 now Black takes, because the Knight is on c6, otherwise after d5-Na5
we would transpose to the well known ‘Yugoslav’ line which we are not examining in our book.
6.Nxd4 0-0 7.Nc3 Nc6
7...Qc7 is a fashionable alternative, which we will not investigate here.
8.0-0 d6
I was always interested in this line but for this book I got the opportunity to study it seriously. I am particularly attracted
by the universal nature of this line. It can arrive from various lines and different move orders. This pawn sacrifice has
been neglected for many years although it has been mentioned in every book that deals with the fianchetto lines. I
decided for the first time, at least to my knowledge, to make it a topical line in a book. Of course we may not forget that
Black can reach this line from many different move orders.
9.Nc2
In this subchapter I will present the options where White doesn’t take the pawn. In my opinion this is not the best
choice. The reason is simply to avoid many forced lines. Also reasoning that White has more space and slowly can start
to develop into the middlegame. But that’s easier said than done:
A) 9.b3 Nxd4 10.Qxd4 d5! This is a well known equaliser: 11.cxd5 Nxd5 12.Qxd5 Bxc3 13.Bh6 Qxd5 14.Bxd5 Rd8
15.Rad1 Bh3 16.Bg2 Bxg2 17.Kxg2 f6 18.Be3 (18.Rxd8+ Rxd8 19.Rc1 Be5 20.Be3 Kf7 21.f4 Bb8= ½-½ (27)
Sarapu, O – Green, E Dunedin 1975) 18...Kf7 19.f3 Ke6 20.Kf2 h5= ½-½ (38) Rise, H – Wibe, T corr. 1991
B) 9.e3 Bg4 10.Qd2 Qd7 11.b3 Bh3 12.Bb2 Bxg2 13.Kxg2 d5!? 14.Nxc6 bxc6 15.Rfd1 (15.Rad1 Rfd8 16.Qe2 Rac8
17.Na4 Qd6 18.Bd4 Qb8 19.f3 e5„) 15...Rfd8 16.cxd5 cxd5 17.Rac1 Rac8 (17...e5 18.Qd3 Rab8 19.Na4 Ne4 20.h4
Rbc8∞) 18.Na4 Rxc1 19.Rxc1 Ne4=
9...Be6
Attacking a pawn on c4 but also preparing ...Qd7 and ...Bh3. By doing so Black wants to eliminate the strong Bishop on
g2 and connect his Rooks.
10.b3
Alternatives are also possible :

A) 10.Nd5 Qd7 11.Bg5 Ng4 12.Rb1 h6 13.Bd2 (13.Bc1 Nge5 14.b3 Bh3 15.Bb2 Rfd8 16.Qd2 Bxg2 17.Kxg2 e6
18.Nde3 Ne7 19.f4 Qc6+ 20.Kg1 Nd7 21.Bxg7 Kxg7 22.Rbd1 Nf6 Black is fine ½-½ (31) Linhart, W (2175) –
Muehlbauer, A (2066) Bayern 2003) 13...Nge5 14.b3 Bh3 Now some ideas were tried but none succesfull: 15.f4
(15.Qc1 Kh7 16.Re1 Bxg2 17.Kxg2 f5 18.f4 Ng4 19.Nce3 Nxe3+ 20.Nxe3 e5 21.Nd5 exf4 22.Bxf4 g5 23.Be3
Rae8³ 0-1 (31) Alburt, L (2450) – Rashkovsky, N (2430) Baku 1972; 15.Bc3 Bxg2 16.Kxg2 e6 17.Nf4 a6 18.Nd3
b5∞ ½-½ (46) Pitam, E (2330) – Yudasina, I (2120) Ramat Aviv 1998) 15...Bxg2 16.Kxg2 Ng4 17.e4 f5 18.Qe2 e6
19.Nc3 e5 20.Qd3 exf4 21.gxf4 Ne7∞ ½-½ (43) Wilfling, H (2128) – Kaspret, G (2230) St Veit 2002
B) 10.Ne3 Qd7 11.Re1 Rac8 12.Bd2 Nd4 13.Ncd5 Nf5 14.Qb3 Nxe3 15.Nxe3 Rc7 16.Rac1 Rfc8 17.Nd5 Nxd5
18.cxd5 Bg4 19.f3 Bf5 20.e4 Bh3= Black is fine 0-1 (57) Osnos, V – Geller, E Leningrad 1963
10...Qd7 11.Bb2 Bh3 12.Ne3 Bxg2 13.Kxg2 Rfd8

Position after: 13...Rfd8
It may come as a suprise but this position is in terms of structure very similar to 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.Bb5+ Bd7 4.Bxd7
Qxd7 5.c4 for instance if d4 is followed... In both cases Black is using the e6/d6 pawns to control the important centre.
14.Qd2
14.Qc2 e6 15.Rad1 a6 16.Rd2 b5! 17.Rfd1 bxc4 18.Rxd6 cxb3=
14...e6! 15.Rfd1 d5! 16.cxd5 exd5 17.Ncxd5 Nxd5 18.Nxd5 Qxd5+ 19.Qxd5 Rxd5 20.Rxd5 Bxb2 21.Rad1 Kf8
½-½ (31) Kasparov, G (2825) – Kramnik, V (2790) Frankfurt 1998 and Black was fine.
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nf3 Bg7 4.g3 c5 5.Bg2 cxd4 6.Nxd4 0-0 7.Nc3 Nc6 8.0-0 d6 9.Nxc6 bxc6 10.Bxc6 Rb8
11.Bf3
Played by Tkachiev once and for that reason I took it very seriously.
A) 11.Nb5 Bh3 12.Bg2 Bxg2 13.Kxg2 Qc8 14.Na3!? (14.Qd3 Nd7 15.f4 Nb6 16.Rb1 Qxc4 17.Qxc4 Nxc4 18.Nxa7
Rb6µ 0-1 (40) Karlsson, L (2200) – Helmertz, P (2235) Lund 1974) 14...Qc6+ 15.Kg1 (15.f3 Ng4 16.Kh1 Rxb2
17.Bxb2 Bxb2³) 15...d5 16.cxd5 Nxd5 17.e4 Nc7 18.Qe2 Ne6 19.Rb1 Nd4 20.Qd3 Rfd8 21.b3 h5©
B) 11.Qc2 Bf5 12.e4 (12.Qa4 a5! will transpose to the 11.Qa4 line.) 12...Bh3
Position after: 12...Bh3
B1) 13.Rd1 Ng4! (13...Qc8 14.Nd5 Nxd5 15.exd5 Qg4 16.Re1 Bxb2 17.Bxb2 Rxb2 18.Qe4 Qh5 19.Re3 Rfb8
20.Bb5 a6 21.Qd4 Re2 22.Ba4 Rbb2 23.Bd1 Qf3 0-1 (23) Gluszko, T (2202) – Weichhold, P (2015) Wroclaw 2008)
14.Bb5 Bxc3 15.bxc3 f5ƒ
B2) 13.Re1 Ng4
B2.1) 14.Bf4 Bd4! (14...g5?!∞ 0-1 (32) Lachat, M (1675) – Vrhovnik, D (2114) Kamena Vourla 2012) 15.Nd1
Qa5–+
B2.2) 14.Be3 Ne5 15.Ba4 Nf3+ 16.Kh1 Nxe1 17.Rxe1 Qa5–+ ½-½ (22) Urena Casacuberta, L (2006) – Rius Riu,
G (1859) Santa Eulalia de Roncana 2015
11...Bh3
A logical move but not the only one.

11...Nd7 12.Qd2 Ne5 13.b3 Qa5! (13...Nxf3+ 14.exf3 Bb7 15.Qe3 Qa5 16.Bb2 1-0 (16) Strodans, D – Krauze, A corr.
2005)
A) 14.Bb2 Nxc4 15.bxc4 Rxb2 16.Qxb2 Bxc3 17.Qb5 Qxb5 18.cxb5 Bxa1 19.Rxa1 Bd7 20.a4 (20.Rc1 Bxb5 21.Rc7
e6 22.Rxa7 Rc8 23.a4 Rc1+ 24.Kg2 Bc4 25.a5 d5 26.g4 Ra1=) 20...Rc8 21.Rb1 Rc5!=
B) 14.Nd5 Qd8 15.Nc3 (15.Ba3 Nxf3+ 16.exf3 Bxa1 17.Rxa1 Bb7!∞) 15...Qa5=
12.Re1
12.Bg2 Bxg2 13.Kxg2 Qc7 (13...Qa5 14.Qa4 Qxa4 15.Nxa4 Ne4 16.Rb1 Rfc8 17.Be3 Rxc4 18.Nc3 f5 19.Bxa7 Ra8
20.Be3 Bxc3 21.bxc3 Rxa2 22.Rb8+ Kf7µ ½-½ (30) Danielian, O – Andrienko, A Alma – Ata 1991) 14.Qd3 Rfc8
15.b3 d5³
12...Ng4
12...Nd7!? is worth considering. It can transpose to the text, except that it doesn’t allow the Bxg4 option.
13.Qc2
13.Bxg4 Bxg4 14.Qc2 Qa5 15.Bd2 Rfc8 16.b3 d5 17.Na4 Qa6 18.Rac1 dxc4 19.bxc4 Bd7 20.Nc3 Qxc4 21.Qe4 Qxe4
22.Nxe4 Bc6 23.Rc4 Bd5 24.Ra4 0-1 (24) Damir – Mallahi, A (2300) Teheran 1997
13...Ne5 14.b3 Bf5 15.Qd2 Be6!

Position after: 15...Be6!
15...Qa5?! 16.Nd5 Qd8 17.Ba3! (17.Bg2? Nxc4µ 1-0 (43) Schoebel, W (2260) – Michalczak, T (2265) Hessen 1998)
17...Nxf3+ 18.exf3 Bxa1 19.Nxe7+ Kg7 20.Nxf5+ gxf5 21.Rxa1+–
16.Bd5
16.Bb2 Bxc4 17.Bg2 Be6 18.Nd1 Rc8 19.Ne3 Qb6 20.Rec1 Bf6=
16...Bxd5 17.cxd5 Qa5 18.Na4 Rb4 19.Rb1 Rfb8 20.Rd1 Qa6©

Position after: 20...Qa6©
Black obtains nice compensation. For example:
21.Ba3 Re4 22.Nc3 Rd4 23.Qxd4 Nf3+ 24.exf3 Bxd4 25.Rxd4 Qxa3 26.Ra4 Qc5 27.Rc4 Qa3=
B) 11.Qa4
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nf3 Bg7 4.g3 c5 5.Bg2 cxd4 6.Nxd4 0-0 7.Nc3 Nc6 8.0-0 d6 9.Nxc6 bxc6 10.Bxc6 Rb8 11.Qa4
a5!?
Position after: 11...a5!?
Although I like this move, it is seldom played.
12.Bb5
Rather unusual but after all White is a pawn up. Of course there are alternatives:
A) 12.a3 Nd7 13.Nb5 Ne5 (13...Nc5!? 14.Qd1 Be6 15.Bd5 Bh3 16.Bg2 Bxg2 17.Kxg2 d5 18.Be3 dxc4 19.Qxd8
Rfxd8 20.Na7 Nb3³ 0-1 (62) Vlach, K (2171) – Rosko, L (2345) Ostrava 2010) 14.Bd5 e6 15.Bg2 Bd7 16.Bf4 Nxc4
17.Qxc4 Bxb5 18.Qe4 Bxb2 19.Ra2 Bg7µ 1-0 (74) Wichmann, N (1781) – Ringwelski, M (2023) Germany 2007
B) 12.Nb5 Bd7!?N (12...Bh3 13.Rd1 Qb6 14.Bf3 Ng4 15.Bxg4 Bxg4 16.Be3 Qc6 17.Rd2 Rfc8 18.Qxa5 Qxc4
19.Na7 Ra8 20.f3 Bd7 21.Rad1 Qc7 22.Bb6 Qb7 23.Rd3 Rc4µ 0-1 (37) Diermair, A (2454) – Ragger, M (2682) Graz
2016) 13.Bxd7 (13.Bf3 d5 14.Bf4 dxc4³) 13...Qxd7 14.Qxa5 Rfc8 15.Qa4 (15.Na3 Ng4 16.Qd2 Rc5 17.h3 Ne5
18.Kh2 Rbc8 19.Rb1 Nxc4 20.Nxc4 Rxc4 21.Qd3 Rc2 22.a3 Qe6 23.Be3 Bxb2 24.a4 R8c3µ) 15...Qh3 16.f3 Nd7
17.Qd1 Rxc4 18.a4 Qe6 19.Ra3 Rbc8 20.Be3 Bxb2µ
C) White tried recently something else : 12.Bg2 Rb4 13.Qa3 Rxc4 14.Bd2 Be6 15.Rac1 Qb6 16.b3 Rcc8 17.e3 Qa6
18.Ne4 Nxe4 19.Bxe4 Bh3
20.Rfe1
C1) 20...d5 21.Bf3 e6 22.Qxa5 (22.Be2 Qb7 23.Bf1 Rxc1 24.Rxc1 Bxf1 25.Rxf1 Ra8 26.Bxa5 h5 27.b4 h4„ 0-1
(30) Johansen, D (2388) – Melkumyan, H (2653) Canberra 2016) 22...Qd3 23.Be2 Qe4 24.f3 Qe5 25.Rxc8 Rxc8
26.Kf2 Qb2 27.Qa6 Rb8 and Black has ample compensation.
C2) 20...Rxc1 21.Rxc1 Ra8! 22.Qa4 Bb2 23.Re1 Ra7=
12...Bh3
13.Rd1
13.Re1 Qb6 14.e3 (14.Nd1 Ng4 15.Qa3 Qb7 16.Qf3 Qxf3 17.exf3 Ne5 18.Re3 d5 19.Bd2 d4 20.Ra3 Rfc8 21.Bf4
Rc5©) 14...Rfc8 15.Qa3 (15.Re2 Qc5 16.Rd2 Qf5 17.f4 Ne4µ) 15...Be6 16.b3 Qb7µ
13...Qb6
14.Be3
A) 14.Qc2 Ng4 15.e4 Bxc3 16.bxc3 f5! 17.exf5 Rxf5 18.Rd2 Rbf8–+
B) 14.Rd3 Ng4 15.Nd1 Rbc8 16.Ne3 Nxe3 17.Bxe3 Qb7 18.f3 Bxb2 19.Rb1 Be5∞
C) 14.e3 Qb7 15.Bc6 (15.e4 Nxe4 16.Nd5 e6 17.Bc6 Qa7µ) 15...Qa7 16.b3 Bg4 17.Re1 Ne4 18.Nb5 Qc5 19.Bxe4
Bxa1 20.Bd2 Bd7!³
14...Qb7 15.f3
15.Bc6 Qa6 16.f3 Rxb2 17.Rab1 Ng4 18.fxg4 Bxc3 19.Rxb2 Bxb2 20.Qb5 Qc8 21.Bd7 Qa8 22.Bc6 Qc8=
15...Ng4
16.Bf2 Nxf2 17.Kxf2 Qa7+
17...Qb6+ 18.e3 e6 19.Qa3 d5 20.Na4 (20.Rac1 dxc4 21.Bxc4 Qxb2+ 22.Qxb2 Rxb2+=) 20...Qa7 21.Rac1 h5 22.b3
Rfc8©
18.e3 g5!? 19.Qc2 f5!
20.f4
20.Rd5 f4 21.gxf4 gxf4 22.Qe4 fxe3+ 23.Qxe3 Rxf3+! 24.Kxf3 Rf8+ 25.Ke2 Bg4+ 26.Kd3 Rf3³
20...e5 21.Nd5 Bg4 22.Rg1 exf4 23.gxf4 gxf4 24.Nxf4 Be5„
C) 11.Bg2 Qa5 12.Nb5
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nf3 Bg7 4.g3 c5 5.Bg2 cxd4 6.Nxd4 0-0 7.Nc3 Nc6 8.0-0 d6 9.Nxc6 bxc6 10.Bxc6 Rb8 11.Bg2
Qa5 12.Nb5
This used to be considered as the main line of this system. But recently the tables turned and it seems that Black found a
viable antidote and enough compensation for the sacrificed pawn. We will now investigate...
12...Bb7 13.Bxb7 Rxb7 14.Bd2 Qa6 15.Bc3

Position after: 15.Bc3
The best choice by far and critical. Other moves bring nothing:
15.a4 Ne4 16.Qc2 Nxd2 17.Qxd2 Qc6 18.Rfc1 a6 19.Nd4 Qb6 20.e3 Qxb2= 0-1 (54) Chetverik, M (2260) – Sergeev,
V (2452) Prague 2016
15...Rc8
Not the only move but probably the best one.

But 15...d5 is worth considering as well. 16.Bxf6 Bxf6 17.Qxd5 Rbb8!? A possible improvement over an old game:
(17...Bxb2 18.Rab1 Bf6 19.Rb3 Rbb8 20.Ra3 Qb6 21.Rxa7± ½-½ (46) Vaulin, A (2520) – Sermek, D (2465)
Kecskemet 1992)
Position after: 17...Rbb8!
A) 18.Qe4 Bxb2 19.Rab1 Bf6 20.Rb3 Qxa2 21.Ra3 Qd2 22.Rxa7 Rfd8 23.Rc7 Kg7 24.e3 Qa5 Despite of being a
pawn down Black enjoys good counter play in such a sense that the chances to equalise are much higher than White’s
chances to convert his extra pawn.
B) 18.a3 Qb6 19.Rab1 a6 20.Nc3 Bxc3 21.c5 (21.bxc3 Qxb1 22.Rxb1 Rxb1+ 23.Kg2 e6 24.Qc6 Rbb8 25.Qxa6 Ra8
Black can hold.) 21...Qb3 22.Qxb3 Rxb3 23.bxc3 Rxa3 24.Rb7 Rc8 25.Rxe7 Rxc5 26.Rb1 Raxc3 27.Rbb7 Rf5= Again
Black is OK. The worst case scenario being 4 against 3 pawns in a rook endgame and that is well known as being a
draw.
C) 18.e3 Bxb2 19.Rab1 Bf6 20.a3 Rbc8 21.Rb4 Rfd8 22.Qe4 Qa5 23.Rfb1 Rd7 24.Qc2 Qd8 25.c5 Rd2 Again Black
obtained enough counter play.
16.b3
As an alternative 16.a4 has been tested but it didn’t bring anything. 16...Rxc4 17.b3 Rc8 18.Rc1 Ne4
A) 19.Bb4 Nc5 20.Bxc5 (20.Ba3? Rxb5! 21.b4 Nxa4 22.Rxc8+ Qxc8 23.Qxa4 Rh5 24.Qxa7 Bd4!–+ 0-1 (28) Vaulin,
A (2550) – Volzhin, A (2425) Budapest 1994) 20...dxc5 21.Qd3 (21.Rc4 Qb6 22.Qd5 a6 23.Nc3 e6 24.Qd3 Rd8³ 0-1
(41) Flanker – Hun Internet 2003) 21...Qe6 22.Qf3 Qb6 23.b4 c4 24.Rfd1 a6 25.Na3 Rbc7∞ ½-½ (28) Busch, K
(2385) – Wegner, H (2370) Germany 1993
B) 19.Bxg7 Rxc1 ½-½ (19) Jussupow, A (2640) – Wahls, M (2540) Baden-Baden 1992 20.Qxc1 Kxg7 21.Qc4 Nf6
22.Rc1 Qb6 23.Rc3 Rb8=
16...d5
Position after: 16...d5
17.Bxf6
17.a4 dxc4 18.bxc4 Rd7 19.Qb3 Qe6! (19...Ng4 20.Bxg7 Kxg7 21.Rad1 Rxd1 22.Rxd1 Qf6 23.Qf3 Rxc4 24.Qxf6+
Kxf6 25.Nxa7 Rxa4 26.Nb5 Rc4 27.h3 Ne5 28.Nd4 Nc6 29.Nxc6 Rxc6 30.h4 ½-½ (30) Kholmov, R – Haag, E Pecs
1964) 20.Rad1 (20.Bxf6 Bxf6 21.Rac1 a6 22.Na3 Qxe2µ) 20...Rxd1 21.Rxd1 Qxe2 22.Re1 Qf3„
17...Bxf6 18.Qxd5 Bxa1 19.Rxa1 Rbb8
Position after: 19...Rbb8

White has two pawns for the exchange, leaving him theoretically ok. On the other hand the d-file is open, the black
Rooks will become active and it is not clear how White can start pushing his pawns.
20.Qe5
Another idea is:

20.Qe4 The two extra pawns are not advanced yet, giving Black the time to become active. 20...Qf6 21.Rd1 I will give
here two possible ways for Black to react:
A) 21...a6 22.Nd4 Rb6 And now: 23.Kg2 (23.f4 Rd6 24.e3 Rdd8 25.Kg2 a5 26.g4 a4 27.Rd2 Qb6 28.h4 e6 29.g5 Qa5
30.Rd1 Re8 31.Kf3 Qc5 32.Qe5 Qa3∞) 23...Rd6 24.Rd3 Kg7 25.Nf3 Rcd8 26.c5 Rxd3 27.exd3 Qf5! 28.Qxf5 gxf5
29.d4 Kf6 30.Kf1 Ke6 31.Ke2 Kd5 32.Kd3 f6 (32...f4) 33.Ng1! a5 34.Ne2 Rb8 35.Nf4+ Kc6 36.Kc4 Rb4+ Black
is OK.
B) 21...Rd8 22.Rd3!? (22.Rxd8+ Rxd8 23.Nxa7 Rd2 24.Nc6 Qb2 25.Nxe7+ Kf8 26.Nd5 Rxe2 27.Qf4 Qxa2 28.Qd6+
½-½ (28) Nikolov, N – Angelov, R (2292) corr. 2009) 22...Qa1+ 23.Kg2 Rxd3 24.exd3 Qxa2 25.Qxe7 Qxb3 26.Nd6
Rf8 27.Ne8 Qb2 28.h4 f5 29.Qe6+ Kh8 30.c5 f4 31.Qe7 Kg8 32.Qe6+ Kh8 33.Qe7 Kg8 34.Qe6+ Kh8=
20...Qa5!
Position after: 20...Qa5!
21.Qxe7 Re8 22.Qf6
Also possible is: 22.Qd6 Rbd8! (22...a6 also was not bad. 23.Nd4 Qd2 24.e3 Qb2 25.Rd1 Qxa2 26.Nc6 Rb7 Black is
fine 0-1 (48) Velickovic, Z (2280) – Sermek, D (2440) Bled 1991) 23.Qf6 Rxe2 24.Nxa7 Re6µ
22...Rxe2
Position after: 22...Rxe2
23.Nd6
Now if the white Knight could reach d5 White would have the advantage but Black is ready for that as well:
23.Nc3 Re6 24.Qd4 Rxb3 (24...Qf5 25.Kg2 Rbe8 26.Rd1 Re1 27.Rd3 h5 28.Nd5 R8e6 29.Re3 R1xe3 30.Nxe3 Qe4+
31.Qxe4 Rxe4 32.Kf3 f5 33.b4 Kf7 34.a4 Ke6 ½-½ (67) Zhigalko, A (2585) – Melkumyan, H (2647) Warsaw 2014
Black can hold this easily) 25.axb3 (25.Nd5 Rb7 26.Nf6+ Kg7 27.Nh5+ Kf8 28.Qg7+ Ke7 29.Nf4 Re1+ 30.Kg2
Rxa1„ 31.Nd5+ Kd7 32.Qxa1 Qc5 33.Qc3 Qd6∞) 25...Qxa1+ 26.Kg2 Qb2=
23...Rf8 24.b4
24...Qb6
24...Qxb4 25.Nf5 gxf5=
25.c5 Qxb4 26.Nf5=
½-½ (137) Erdos, V (2621) – Navara, D (2718) Bol 2014

26.Nf5 Re1+ 27.Kg2! Qe4+ 28.Kh3 gxf5 29.Qg5+ Kh8 30.Qf6+=
D) 11.Bg2 Qa5 12. --
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nf3 Bg7 4.g3 c5 5.Bg2 cxd4 6.Nxd4 0-0 7.Nc3 Nc6 8.0-0 d6 9.Nxc6 bxc6 10.Bxc6 Rb8 11.Bg2
Qa5
12.Qc2
Instead of the much analysed 12.Nb5 and nearly was considered as the refutation, White has some alternatives that I am
presenting here. From them 12.Qc2 being the major idea.
A) 12.Qa4 Qxa4 13.Nxa4 Bd7 14.Nc3 Ng4 15.Nd5 Bxb2 16.Rb1 Bxc1 17.Rfxc1 (17.Nxe7+ Kg7 18.Rfxc1 Rxb1
19.Rxb1 Re8 20.h3 Rxe7 21.hxg4 Rxe2³) 17...e6!? 18.Nc3 Rxb1 19.Rxb1 Rc8 20.Ne4 Rxc4 21.Nxd6 Rc7 22.f4
(22.h3 Nf6 23.Rb7 Rxb7 24.Nxb7 Kf8=) 22...Kf8=
B) 12.Qe1 Qa6 13.b3 Rxb3 14.axb3 Qxa1 15.Qd2 (15.e4 Re8 16.Qd2 Qa5 17.Nb5 Qb6 18.e5!? dxe5 19.Qa2 a6
20.Be3 Qd8 21.Na7 e4∞) 15...Qa6 16.Bb2 Bb7! (16...Qb6 17.Nb5!² 1-0 (60) Melkumyan, H (2630) – Teske, H
(2508) Teplice 2014) 17.Ra1 Qb6 18.Ra3 (18.c5 dxc5 19.Na4 Qb5 20.Bxb7 Qxb7 21.Nxc5 Qb6=) 18...Rb8 19.Bxb7
Qxb7 20.f3 Nd7=
C) 12.Qd3
12...Bf5 13.e4 (13.Qd2 transposes to 12.Qc2 Bf5 13.Qd2.) 13...Be6 14.Nd5 (14.b3 Nxe4 15.Bxe4 Qxc3 16.Qxc3
Bxc3 17.Rb1 a5= 1-0 (41) Gupta, M (2270) – Trauth, M (2185) Rogaska Slatina 2011 Black is fine. The position is
almost identical to the Gagunashvili – Melkumian game (main line with 15.Bxe4).)
C1) 14...Bxd5 15.exd5! (15.cxd5 Nd7 16.Bd2 Qb5 17.Qxb5 Rxb5 18.Bc3 Bxc3 19.bxc3 Rfb8 20.a4 Rb3 21.Rfc1
Nc5³ 0-1 (31) Karp, M (1995) – Wirig, A (1865) Luxembourg 1999) 15...Nd7 16.Bd2 Qc7 17.Bc3 Ne5 18.Qe4
Qxc4 19.Qxc4 Nxc4 20.Bxg7 Kxg7 21.b3²
C2) 14...Nxd5!N 15.exd5 (15.cxd5 Bd7 16.Rd1 Bxb2³) 15...Bf5 16.Qe2 transposes into 12.Qc2 followed by
14.Nd5.
D) 12.Qd2!?
Position after: 12.Qd2!?
A new idea. While finishing this book I was watching the Najdorf Memorial event live on the internet and spotted the
interesting game Efimenko – Melkumian. Efimenko launched an interesting idea and was obviously well prepared.
12...Be6 13.b3 Rxb3 14.axb3 Qxa1 15.Nb5 a6 16.Na7 Nd7 17.Nc6 Re8 18.Qc2 Qc3 19.Qxc3 Bxc3 20.Bg5 Kf8
21.Rc1
Position after: 21.Rc1

D1) Melkumian played now the bad though logical move 21...Bg7. In my opinion it was essential to exchange some
pieces regardless of the pawn structure which is irrelevant here. 21...Bg7 22.b4 Nb6 23.Na5² Efimenko –
Melkumian, Najdorf Memorial Warszaw 2016. White preserves a slight edge in this endgame. I guess the next move
should be 23...d5 to enclose the strong Bishop on g2.
D2) 21...Bf6!? 22.Bxf6 exf6 It seems that although White is better, Black maintains good drawing chances... 23.b4
(23.Rd1 Nc5 24.b4 Na4 25.Rc1 Nb6 transposes to the note on 23.b4) 23...Nb6 24.c5 (24.Na5 Nxc4! 25.Rxc4 Bxc4
26.Nxc4 Rb8 27.Bd5 f5 28.f3 Rxb4 29.Kf2 a5³) 24...dxc5 25.bxc5 Nd5 26.Bxd5 (Another way to try to squeeze
something out of nothing is... 26.Ra1 Nc7 27.Rb1 Bd5 28.Nd4 f5 29.Bxd5 Nxd5=; 26.Nd4 Rc8=) 26...Bxd5
27.Nb4 Be6 28.Nxa6 Bc8 29.Nb4 Rxe2 30.Nd5 Re6 31.c6 Rd6 32.Nb6 Be6= Nobody can really improve from here
so a draw is the obvious result.
12...Bf5
13.e4
13.Qd2 Rfe8!? Anticipating Nd5. 14.b3 (14.Re1 Nd7!„) 14...Rxb3 15.axb3 Qxa1 16.Nb5 a6 17.Nd4 Ne4 18.Bxe4
Qxd4 19.Bxf5 Qxd2 20.Bxd2 gxf5 21.b4 Rb8 22.Rc1 (22.c5 dxc5 23.bxc5 Kf8 24.Rd1 Rc8 25.Rc1 e6 26.c6 Be5
27.Bb4+ Ke8=) 22...Kf8 23.Kg2 Ke8 24.Rc2 Kd7 25.Ra2 Rc8=
13...Be6
14.b3
The main continuation. But alternatives are rather important as well, as it was played recently by some experts handling
Black. And this time against each other! Let’s see...
A) 14.Bd2 Forcing matters... 14...Bxc4 15.Nd5 Qa6
A1) 16.Nxe7+ Kh8 17.e5 (17.Rfe1 Ng8!∞) 17...dxe5 18.Rfc1 Bd3 19.Qc7 Rxb2 20.Bc3 Rxa2 21.Bxe5 Rxa1
22.Rxa1 Qe6 23.Rxa7 Ne4= 0-1 (27) Gottschlich, C (2160) – Szieberth, A (2325) Budapest 1996
A2) 16.Nc7 Qc6 17.e5 Qxc7 18.exf6 Bxf6 19.b3 Rfc8 20.bxc4 Bxa1 21.Rxa1 Qxc4 22.Qd1 (22.Qxc4 Rxc4 23.Bf3
Rb2 24.Bc1 Rxa2?! 25.Rxa2 Rxc1+ 26.Kg2 Rc7 27.Ra6 Kg7 ½-½ (100) Melkumyan, 22...Rb2 (22...Qc2 23.Qe1
Rb2 24.Be3) 23.Bg5 Qc2 24.Qe1 Rcb8! (24...e6 25.Be4∞) 25.Bf1 Qf5 26.Qe3 Rb1 27.Rxb1 Rxb1„ 28.Kg2?
Qd5+–+
B) 14.Nd5 is logical but not that strong... 14...Nxd5 15.exd5 Bf5
B1) 16.Be4 Bh3 17.Rd1 f5 18.Bf3 f4 19.g4 Be5! (19...g5 20.Qe2!± 1-0 (40) Hangweyrer, R (2205) – Todor, R
(2120) Vienna 1996) 20.Qe2 Qa6 21.Rd2 Rfc8 22.Rc2 Rb4 23.Bd2 Rbxc4 24.b3 Rxc2 25.Qxa6 Bxa1∞
B2) 16.Qe2
B2.1) 16...Rfe8 17.g4 Bd7 (17...Bc8 18.Rd1 Ba6 19.Qc2 Qc7 20.Bf1 ½-½ (20) Zaragatski, I (2488) – Bracker, F
(2389) Hamburg 2014 20...Rec8³) 18.Rd1 Qa6 19.h3 e6 20.Qd2 Qxc4 21.dxe6 Qxe6 22.a4 Qe5„
B2.2) 16...Rfc8! 17.g4 (17.a4 Qb4 18.Qxe7 Re8 19.Qxa7 Bd3 20.Qc7 Bxb2 21.Bxb2 Bxf1 22.Rxf1 Rbc8 23.Qd7
Qxb2 24.Qxd6 Rxc4³) 17...Bd7 18.h3 Qc7 19.Re1 e6 Black is fine.
14...Nxe4
Position after: 14...Nxe4
15.Nxe4
15.Bxe4 Qxc3 16.Rb1 Qxc2 17.Bxc2 a5 18.Bg5 Rb7 19.Be4 Rc7 20.Bd2 a4 21.Rfc1 axb3 22.axb3 Rb8∞ ½-½ (49)
Gagunashvili, M (2539) – Melkumyan, H (2632) Reykjavik 2015
15...Bxa1 16.Bg5 Bf5 17.Bxe7 Rfe8 18.Bxd6 Rbd8
Position after: 18...Rbd8
Again White sacrifices the exchange to pick up some pawns.

19.b4
19.Rxa1 doesn’t give anything after 19...Rxd6 20.Qc3 Qxc3 21.Nxc3 Rde6 22.Bd5 Re1+ 23.Rxe1 Rxe1+ 24.Kg2 Rc1
25.Nb5 Bb1 26.Nxa7 Bxa2 27.Nc6 Bxb3³ ½-½ (47) Grachev, B (2680) – Khalifman, A (2651) Tyumen RUS 2012
19...Qa3 20.Bc7
20.Rxa1 Bxe4 21.Bxe4 Rxd6 22.Rb1 Ra6 23.b5 Rae6 24.Rb3 Qc5∞ 0-1 (46) Jacquier, L (1861) – Stánitz, A (2180) corr.
2008
20...Rc8 21.Rxa1 Bxe4 22.Bxe4
Position after: 22.Bxe4
22...Rxc7!N
22...Qxb4?! 23.Rb1 Qe7 24.Bc6 Rf8 25.Ba5 Rxc6 26.Bb4± 1-0 (82) Donchenko, A (2577) – Melkumyan, H (2622)
Douglas 2015
23.Rb1 Rce7 24.Rb3 Qa6 25.Bd5
A) 25.Bf3 Re1+ 26.Kg2 Qf6„

B) 25.b5 Qf6 26.Bf3 Re1+ 27.Kg2 Qa1 28.Kh3 Rg1µ
25...Re2 26.Qc3 Rxa2 27.Qf3 Ra1+ 28.Kg2 Re7 29.Re3 Qd6 30.c5 Qa6!=
Position after: 30...Qa6!=
E.g. 30...Qa6 31.h4 Qf1+ 32.Kh2 Qg1+ 33.Kh3 Qf1+=

New Weapons in The King S Indian Milos Pavlovic 2016 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

New Weapons in The King S Indian Milos Pavlovic 2016 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Contents

PART I – The Sämisch variation

Swipe left for next chapter

Thinkers Publishing 2016

First edition 2016 by Thinkers Publishing

Managing Editor: Romain Edouard

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0

Part & Chapters guide:

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0 6.Bg5

Position after: 6.Bg5

6...c5 7.d5 h6 8.Be3 e6 9.Qd2 exd5 10.cxd5 Re8

Position after: 15...Nh7

Position after: 18.Nc4

Position after: 16.Nf1

A fantastic position! Black of course enjoys excellent compensation.

12...a6 13.a4 Nxe4!?

15...f5 16.0-0 fxe4 17.Bxe4

Position after: 17.Bxe4

25.Nf5 Rxf5 26.Rxf5 gxf5 27.Qg6+ Kh8= (Draw by perpetual.)

Position after: 7.Bd3

7...c5 8.Nge2 cxd4 9.Nxd4 e6

Recently Marin opted for a different strategy:

10.0-0 d5! 11.exd5 exd5

Position after: 11...exd5

Position after: 12.Bf2

E1) 12...dxc4 13.Bxc4 Ne5 14.Bb3

Position after: 13...Nfd7

14...Nxd3 15.Qxd3 Ne5 16.Qe2

16...Bf5 17.Rad1 Bxc2 18.Qxc2 d4!

20.Bf4 Re8 21.Rxe8+ Qxe8 22.Ne4 Rd8=

20...Qd5 21.Bf4 Rfd8 22.b4 d3„

And the Black central strategy was a success.

Position after: 8.d5

9...b5 10.cxb5 Qa5

Position after: 10...Qa5

11.Nf2 Nb6 12.Be2

A possible alternative is 12...Nfd7!?

Now White has a few ideas:

14...Rxa5 15.Nc3 Rb8 16.Nfd1 Ba4!?N

Position after: 16...Ba4!?N

17.Bd2 Bb3 18.Ne3 Nfd7©

17...Bb3 18.Bc1 Nfd7©

B) 8.Nge2 Qa5 9.0-0-0

Position after: 8...Qa5

Not the only move.

Also possible is:

13.exf6 Bxf6 14.Bxc5 dxc5 15.Ne4 b4 16.Nxf6+

Position after: 17...c4

18.Nd4 c3 19.Qc2 Rd8 20.Bc4 Qa7!–+

18...Bf5 19.g4 Rfd8 20.Nd4 Qa3+ 21.Qb2 Qe3+ 22.Qd2 Qa3+=

C) 8.Nge2 Qa5 9.Rd1 a6

Position after: 9.Rd1

11.Bxd4 Ne5 12.Nb3

Position after: 14...Nd7

Black has two reasonable possibilities:

The best move.

15...Qd7 16.Be2 Bxd5 17.cxd5 Rfc8 18.0-0 Qa4

19.Na5 Rxc1 20.Rxc1 Qxa2 21.Rc7 Ned7 22.Be3 b5 23.Nc6 e6∞

21.Bd2 Bxd2 22.Nxd2 Kf8

A good strategy for Black to adopt, if possible.

24.Na5 h5 25.b3 Rab8

Black wants to push ....h4

A rather new move which is critical for the assessment of 10...Nxc5.